Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76

Orchards as traces of traditional agricultural landscape in Slovakia

Jana Špulerová a,*, Veronika Piscová b, Katarína Gerhátová b, Andrej Ba9ca b,Henrik Kalivoda a, Róbert Kanka a

a Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefánikova 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakiab Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Branch Nitra, Akademická 2, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:Received 17 February 2014Received in revised form 21 August 2014Accepted 23 August 2014Available online 7 September 2014

Keywords:OrchardsBiodiversityTraditional agricultural landscape

A B S T R A C T

Orchards are typical landscape features with a long history in traditional agricultural landscapemanagement. They are situated from lowlands to mountains, mostly in upland areas, where naturalconditions are favorable for fruit tree cultivation. Traditional orchard landscape that represents one classof traditional agricultural landscape (TAL) in Slovakia is created by mosaics of arable-land, grasslands andorchards and provides evidence of former small-scale farming in Slovakia. They are areas withirreplaceable ecological, landscape-aesthetic, social, cultural, historical and production values, and it isimperative that they are preserved for future generations as a memorial of the past. The aim of thisresearch is to investigate distribution of traditional orchard landscapes in Slovakia and to evaluate theircurrent state, the threats they face and their importance in biodiversity conservation and protection intraditionally cultivated farmland. Biodiversity assessment showed that forms of anthropogenic relief(balks) are islands of increased plant species richness with a mixture of species from surroundinggrasslands, arable fields and orchards. Although traditional orchard landscapes are decreasing and theirplots are threatened by abandonment or intensification, almost half are still regularly managed. Parts ofabandoned traditional orchard landscape plots have already been changed to recreational landscapeovergrown with shrubs and trees. Nevertheless, in order to preserve traditional orchardlandscape structure and their scenery for future generations, we must institute new instruments topreserve traditional orchard landscape and its biodiversity.

ã 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsev ier .com/locate /agee

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic landscape deforestation with gradual transfor-mation into an agricultural landscape has left its traces. Orchards,however, have a long tradition in Slovakia. They are part of thetraditional agricultural landscape (TAL); mostly forming mosaicsinterspersed with other land use forms including the permanentgrassland and arable fields adjoining dispersed settlements. Theyreflect own history of agricultural landscape, specific to eachregion. Archaeological findings demonstrate that apple, pear,peach and plum trees have been cultivated since 4–5 thousandyears B.C. For example, a pear tree and a peach stone found inDanube lowland (Šárovce village, Palárikovo village) have beendated into 6th century B.C. Development of fruit and vine-growing

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +421 220920341.E-mail addresses: jana.spulerova@savba.sk (J. Špulerová),

veronika.piscova@savba.sk (V. Piscová), katarina.gerhatova@savba.sk(K. Gerhátová), andrej.baca@savba.sk (A. Ba9ca), Henrik.Kalivoda@savba.sk(H. Kalivoda), robert.kanka@savba.sk (R. Kanka).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.08.0210167-8809/ã 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

in south-eastern Slovakia below the Tren9cín region was influencedby Roman legionaries from the 1st to the 4th century. Thesesoldiers cultivated fruit trees and grapevines to supplement theirdaily diet (Komžík, 2007).

Orchards are significant landscape elements, creating andchanging the landscape character and thus improving its beautyand adding to its interest (Komžík, 2009). Based on TALclassification in Slovakia (Špulerová et al., 2011), traditionalorchard landscape is regarded as TAL with arable-land, grasslandsand orchards. Orchards are also present in other classes, such asTAL with dispersed settlement, or TAL with vineyards. Traditionalorchard landscapes promote high biodiversity in rural agricul-tural landscapes (Horak et al., 2013) and are considered tobe species-rich High Nature Value Farming Systems in Europe(Bailey et al., 2010). The combination of land use and plots sizeprovides information on land use and farming methods in givenareas. The configuration of the surrounding landscape,e.g., landscape heterogeneity, habitat fragmentation, and con-nectivity, acts as a species filter that defines the regional speciespool and controls seed flow (Gaujour et al., 2012). Although theimportance of orchard meadows as fodder has decreased, their

68 J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76

importance for biodiversity conservation in an intensive agricul-tural landscape is increasing (Žarnovi9can, 2012). They influenceon fauna dynamics and in some cases may provide importanthabitat for threatened species as well a refuge for arthropods,coleopterans and birds which otherwise cannot occur in modern,intensified agricultural landscapes (Herzog, 1998; Luck et al.,2014). Since flowering plant species on woody vegetation inhedgerows and orchards provided food for insects, they played amajor role in biodiversity conservation and agro-ecosystemfunctions (Barbosa and Benrey, 1998; Minarro and Prida, 2013)and form one of the crucial levels in the trophic pyramid andpollination service (Klein et al., 2012). Coleopterans provideimportant ecosystem services as biocontrol agents in contribut-ing to the regulation of key agricultural pests (Honek et al., 2014).Orchards significance as important habitats for birds is univer-sally acknowledged, and some endangered species recognizedthroughout Europe nested in orchards (Myczko et al., 2013;Vogrin, 2011). Orchards managed in traditional way remainirreplaceable areas, with ecological, landscape-aesthetic, produc-tion, social, cultural and historical importance (Bo9cek et al., 2008;Chen and Wu, 2011). Similar to other TAL classes, traditionalorchard landscapes maintain the cultural heritage of agriculturalland and therefore must be preserved for future generations as amemorial of the past (Štefunková and Dobrovodská, 2009).

Although traditional orchard landscapes have been preservedas only small remnants, mapping results illustrate their presentand past significance. Because of their heterogeneous structureeven in a relatively small area, traditional orchard landscapes arecomplex patches, which spatial patterns impacts ecologicalprocesses (Steffan-Dewenter et al., 2002). The aim of this researchis to identify distribution of traditional orchard landscapes inSlovakia and to evaluate their current state and structure, threatsthey face and their importance in biodiversity conservation andprotection in traditionally cultivated farmland.

2. Methodology

Our research centers on mosaics with traditionally managedorchard plots, unmodified during the socialist period in the secondhalf of the last century. The field mapping was performed inaccordance with methods approved for the nationwide TALinventory within the whole territory of Slovakia (Dobrovodskáet al., 2010). All together 3013 TAL plots were initially identified in1 km2 grid network on aerial photographs. The followingcharacteristics of TAL were recorded from aerial images: (1)management intensity, (2) the presence of land use elements, (3)the abundance of woody vegetation, (4) land parcel shape, (5) reliefconfiguration of individual parcels and (6) visible forms ofanthropogenic relief. Simple random statistical sampling wasused to select 20% of the sites located in the grid network for thenatural-settlement nodal regions of Slovakia (Miklós, 2002),characteristics of which were verified in the field.

To study present land use, the following degrees of manage-ment intensity were determined from aerial photos: Managedareas; (1) more than 70% of regularly managed mosaics; (2)30–70% of occasionally or regularly managed but partly abandonedmosaics and (3) less than 30% of managed plots containing mostlyabandoned mosaics overgrown by shrubs and trees.

To study landscape pattern and its impact on biodiversityfollowing characteristic were analyzed:

– land parcel shape: (1) narrow fields – where two parallel sides ofthe plots are at least twice as long as the remaining two sides, (2)rectangular – where plot sides are not markedly longer thanother sides, and (3) plots with different shape to the previoustwo categories.

– relief configuration indicating field boundary directions: (1)along contour lines, where field boundaries run parallel tocontour lines, (2) along the fall line, where field boundariesfollow slope direction, and (3) mixed configurations.

– woody vegetation – shrubs, trees and small woodland comple-ment TAL mosaic in the following three forms: (1) solitary trees,(2) linear vegetation and (3) small woodland.

– additionally, in order to track biodiversity forms of anthropo-genic relief (balks) were studied in greater detail, includingrecords on their structural characteristic, plant speciescomposition and threats to traditional orchard landscapesmaintenance. Eight variables collected in the field reflect thestructure of forms of anthropogenic relief: type of bound(Ruži9cková et al., 1999), skeleton content, width, height,continuity of bounds, presence of land use elements, woodyvegetation on bounds and continuity of wood cover. The habitatswere described on the basis of species with the highestfrequency, the extent of cover and protected and threatenedspecies. The species’ nomenclature followed Marhold andHindák (1998). The vegetation provides habitat for fauna,therefore butterflies survey was conducted on selected habitatsof traditional orchard landscape.

Distribution of traditional orchard landscape was expressed byarea within the natural-settlement nodal regions of Slovakia(Miklós, 2002), the average plot area and percentage categories ofindividual characteristics. The interrelation between structuralcharacteristic of traditional orchard landscape plots and variablesof bounds were analyzed using statistical tests. The mode, as thevalue that appears most often in a set of data, was counted for eachvariable of traditional orchard landscape plots and for variable ofbounds releves. Because of the nominal – categorical data forparameters the Cramer’s V tests (Liebetrau, 1983) was used forcalculation of correlation between particular variables. Thecalculation was performed using Monte Carlo test 9999 iterationson 99% confidence interval.

3. Results

3.1. Distribution and land use of traditional orchard landscapes

Aerial photo interpretation and field survey established thattraditional orchard landscapes cover 1883.44 ha of the SlovakRepublic. These are remnants of traditional extensive farmingunaffected by collectivization and accompanying dynamic landexploitation over the past 50 years. Collectivisation of agriculturelasted in Slovakia from 1955 to 1989 and was linked with hedgesremoval and transformation of mosaic of arable fields andsemi-natural meadows to intensively utilized large-block fields(Bezák and Petrovi9c, 2006). Traditional orchard landscape plots areparticularly prevalent in lowland to mountain areas, and especiallyin the upland areas following regions: Považský (Tren9ciansko-Žilinský), Dolnozemplínsky, Gemersko-Novohradský, Šarišský, andPohronský (Table 1). Major fruit-growing centers were also locatedin the Považie, Horná Nitra and Gemer regions in the 18th century;as described by Matej Bel’s 1739 hand-written testimony “De rerustica Hungarorum”, deposited in the Budapest Széchényi Library.

Traditional orchard landscapes are classified in five types basedon the presence and dominance of land-use elements; as inŠpulerová et al. (2011):

A.) Traditional orchard landscape with dominant arable land(Fig. 1a),

B.) Traditional orchard landscape with dominant grasslands(Fig. 1b),

C.) Traditional orchard landscape with dominant orchards (Fig.1c),

Table 1Distribution of traditional orchard landscapes in Slovakia (area in ha).

Region Area of traditional orchard landscape types (ha) Number of plots Average area (ha) Mode

A B C D E Total

Považský (Tren9ciansko-Žilinský) 11.5 419.2 151.2 216.9 40.6 839.4 132 6.4 BGemersko-Novohradský 5.1 31.3 126.6 95.3 31.9 290.2 48 6 CPohronský 0 109.7 0 8.6 0 118.3 11 10.8 BDolnozemplínsky 79 0 0 4.2 26.7 109.9 6 18.3 AŠarišský 0 12.7 66.4 7.6 14.6 101.3 13 7.8 CTrnavský 5.4 36.1 8.9 4.9 2.1 57.4 12 4.8 BZáhorský 1.4 30.8 9.3 15.5 0 57 12 4.8 BHornozemplínsky 4.2 0 0 44.8 3.1 52.1 7 7.4 DPonitriansky 3.3 28.7 0 0 12.1 44.1 5 8.8 BKošický 0 0 19.2 24.3 0 43.5 4 10.9 DTur9ciansko-Liptovsko-Oravský 0 29.6 0 0 9.2 38.8 4 9.7 BSpišský 0 18.8 0 19.2 0 38 2 19 DDolnohronsko-Dolnoipe�lský (Hontský) 0 0 8.4 0 0 8.4 1 8.4 CTotal area 190.89 721.11 389.94 441.19 140.31 1,798.4 257 7 B

Traditional orchard landscape type: (A) traditional orchard landscape with dominant arable land; (B) traditional orchard landscape with dominant grasslands; (C) traditionalorchard landscape with dominant orchards; (D) traditional orchard landscape with arable land, grasslands and orchards; (E) traditional orchards.

J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76 69

D.) Traditional orchard landscape with arable land, grasslands andorchards – none of the land use form is dominant (Fig. 1d),

E.) Traditional orchards – created by mosaic of dominant orchards.

The highest occurrence and at the same time the highest areawas recorded for traditional orchard landscape with dominantgrasslands (B) and traditional orchard landscape with dominantorchards (C). This indicates the decreasing trend in arable fieldmanagement and conversion to grassland. The average plot arearanges from 4.75 ha in the Záhorský region to 18.98 ha in theSpišský region.

3.2. Management, trend and threats of traditional orchard landscapes

The general scene in the investigated landscape is a mosaic ofgrassland, orchards, woody vegetation and arable fields. Here,45.76% of traditional orchard landscape plots are still regularlymanaged (Table 2). These are situated close to settlements anddispersed settlements, where fields are mostly managed by elderlyresidents who still live there and preserve their traditions and wayof life. The characteristic land use elements in traditional orchardlandscape are orchards, and these significantly influence landscapescenery. Although individual orchard fruit tree composition wasspecific for a given period and region, some have altered over time.For instance, natural conditions in the Považský region areprerequisite for the special and extraordinary taste of Prunus sp.dominant in almost all orchards in that district, and cultivatedthere from ancient times (Hanušin et al., 2008). Other regions havea predominance of Malus domestica trees, with less frequent Pyruscommunis, Juglans nigra and Cerasus sp. trees. Other trees includingMespilus amelanchier, Cydonia oblonga, Morus alba, Prunus domes-tica syriaca and Castanea sativa are relatively rare. The mosaic oftraditional orchard landscape often consists of grassland andarable fields. Grassland management is associated with sheep, goatand cattle breeding which is still maintained in some areas, but ona much smaller scale than in the past (Galvanek et al., 2012). Thearable land is used for growing potatoes and root vegetablesincluding carrots, parsley, parsnips and beets, together withcabbage, beans, corn, tomatoes, peppers and sunflowers.

A total of 34.01% of the plots are occasionally or regularlymanaged mosaics. This landscape is largely managed by“weekend-cottagers” who now nurture orchard traditionsby preserving orchards and processing fruit, while the grasslandsare maintained for aestheticism.

The 292.37 ha mostly abandoned mosaics comprise 15.52% ofthe traditional orchard landscape area. These are overgrown by

shrubs due to inhabitant emigration and a declining interest infarming. Younger people who inherited local properties haveoften lost interest in traditional land management and migratedto cities or other localities for work opportunities(Petrovi9c, 2006).

Abandonment of traditional farming remains the most signifi-cant threat to maintenance of traditional orchard landscapes(Fig 2). This threatens 70.25% of traditional orchard landscapes,and it is closely connected with succession and gradual overgrowthby shrubs and trees. This was observed in all traditional orchardlandscape types, but especially in traditional orchard landscapewith dominant grasslands (B).

Other factors threatening preservation of traditional farminginclude (1) tourism which affects 5.79% of the traditional orchardlandscapes, especially in traditional orchard landscape witharable land, grasslands and orchards (D) and (2) house construc-tion threatens 4.96% of the area especially in traditional orchardlandscape with dominant grasslands (B). The impact of afforesta-tion on the traditional orchard landscape was only slight;affecting 0.83% of the area. Remaining threats include foragedamage from wild game, land ploughing and arable landintensification. Damage caused by game was recorded on youngfruit trees as well as on crops, especially in traditional orchardlandscape with dominant arable land. Intensification occurredmainly in traditional orchard landscape with dominant grass-lands. This is often related to newly introduced varieties, sincenon-native fruit trees are now often preferred in orchards, forexample Persica vulgaris variety “Wiener Blut”, Ficus carica variety“Panachée”, P. communis variety “Garden Gem”, M. domesticavariety “Autento”, M. domestica variety “Delbardivine”, P. domesticavariety “Goldust Conrod”. Although intensification is currentlyquite an insignificant threat, traditional orchard landscapefragmentation and remnants surrounded by intensively utilizedagricultural land were caused by agricultural intensification in thelast century when most traditional landscapes were destroyed(Krná9cová et al., 2013; Mojses and Petrovi9c, 2013). A detailedaccount of intensification is not included herein, as its treatmentexceeds the scope of this work.

As previously mentioned, agricultural land use changes arecurrently closely related to employment opportunities in the homeregion or the necessity to travel for work or to move to larger townswithin Slovakia, or even abroad e.g., to England, Ireland, Germanyetc. These have ultimately led to a decline in traditionalmanagement (Izakovi9cová and Moyzeová, 2008). The decline indomestic livestock breeding is also due to preferential land usechanges during the past decades (Kopecka et al., 2012).

Fig. 1. Delineation of traditional orchard landscape types on aerial photo (aerial photography and digital orthophoto ã Eurosense, s.r.o., Slovakia, 2002, ã Geodis Slovakia2002).(A) Traditional orchard landscape with dominant arable land (Husák cadastre, Dolnozemplínsky region); (B) traditional orchard landscape with dominant grasslands(Podolíne cadastre, Severospišský region); (C) traditional orchard landscape with dominant orchards (Ve�lké Rovné, Považský region); (D) traditional orchard landscape witharable land, grasslands and orchards (Mikušovce, Považský region).

70 J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76

3.3. Woody vegetation

Shrubs, trees and small woodland complement the traditionalorchard landscape mosaic as hedgerows, windbreaks, riparianvegetation, linear vegetation, planted hedges, infiltration zones,abandoned areas overgrown by bushes and trees and groups orsolitary trees and shrubs. The cover of shrubs and trees intraditional orchard landscape averages 18.07%. The following fivecategories of cover and woody vegetation percentages have beenidentified (Table 2): (1) the rare occurrence of woody vegetation,where its cover is under 10%; (2) the subdominant occurrence of allforms of woody vegetation, where the cover of all forms rangesbetween 10 and 50%; (3) the dominant occurrence of solitary treesand shrubs where their cover exceeds 50% of non-forest woodyvegetation, and other forms may also be present; (4) the dominantoccurrence of linear vegetation, where their cover exceeds 50% ofnon-forest woody vegetation, with other forms sometimespresent, and (5) the dominant occurrence of small woodland,where cover is more than 50% of non-forest woody vegetation,with the possible presence of other forms.

Category one above, with shrub and tree cover up to 10%occurred most frequently in all traditional orchard landscapetypes. Linear vegetation was the most frequent type withintraditional orchard landscape with dominant grasslands, whiletraditional orchard landscape with dominant orchards recorded

the largest area with dominant small woodland. This phenomenonmay be related to abandonment of orchards and rapid progressivesuccession to small woodlands. An error in aerial photographinterpretation is possible here because of the difficulty indistinguishing between orchards and small woodlands. The mostcommon shrubs encountered were P. spinosa, Sambucus nigra,Corylus avellana, Acer campestre, Acer pseudoplatanus, Viburnumopulus, and the most frequent tree species were Tilia platyphyllos,Quercus petraea, Carpinus betulus, A. pseudoplatanus and Fraxinusexcelsior.

3.4. Land parcel shape and its relief configuration

Land parcel shapes have evolved over time based on thehistorical, cultural, social, economic, morphological and physicalconditions prevailing in individual countries (Palanques and Calvo,2011). In Slovakia, this shape followed Tripartitum Hungarian lawfrom 1514 in respecting equitable division of land among alleligible heirs. This initiated a long phase of land fragmentation andownership, resulting in the present small-shaped parcel mosaics(Dobrovodská, 2006). Current plots are of narrow, rectangular orirregular shape (Table 2). Land parcel shape and relief configura-tion have composed prevailing narrow fields along the contour linein traditional orchard landscape with dominant grasslands (B). Thefield boundaries of rectangular and irregularly shaped plots either

Table 2The characteristics of traditional orchard landscapes (the percentage of the individual variable categories and mode).

Traditional orchard landscape type A B C D E Average

Management intensity (%) 1 54.1 34.7 49.7 52.1 60.6 50.22 11.1 49.8 35.3 39.5 26.7 32.53 34.9 15.6 15.1 8.4 12.7 17.3Mode 1 2 1 1 1 1

Presence of woody vegetation category (%) 1 83.7 15.4 48.9 34.2 62.8 492 0 18.7 32.9 40.3 24.6 23.33 0 14.8 0 0 0 34 11.8 49 0.00 20.9 8.6 18,15 4.5 2.2 18.2 4.7 4 6.7Mode 1 4 1 1 1 1

Land parcel shape (%) N 18.8 61.2 39.9 20.1 6 29.2R 0 8.9 7.6 18 23 11.5O 1.7 6.1 28.2 2.1 61.8 20N,R 0 9.3 5.4 21.3 0 7.2N,O 34.9 8.5 5 21.6 9.3 15.9R,O 0 2.4 3.4 0 0 1.2N,R,O 44.6 3.7 10.6 17.1 0 15.2Mode UP UP UP UP I UP

Relief configuration of parcels (%) 1 77.1 82.9 46.6 41.2 43.9 58.32 12.8 4 6.1 14.3 31.6 13.83 10.2 13.2 47.3 44.6 24.5 28Mode 1 1 1 1 1 1

Traditional orchard landscape type: (A) traditional orchard landscape with dominant arable land; (B) traditional orchard landscape with dominant grasslands; (C) traditionalorchard landscape with dominant orchards; (D) traditional orchard landscape with arable land, grasslands and orchards; (E) traditional orchards. Management intensity (%):(1) more than 70% of regularly managed mosaics; (2) 30–70% of occasionally or regularly managed but partly abandoned mosaics and (3) less than 30% of managed plots.Presence of woody vegetation category (%): (1) the rare occurrence of woody vegetation; (2) the sub-dominant occurrence of all forms of woody vegetation; (3) the dominantoccurrence of solitary trees and shrubs; (4) the dominant occurrence of linear vegetation; (5) the dominant occurrence of small woodland. Land parcel shape (%): N, narrowfields; R, rectangular; O, other and its combination; Relief configuration of parcels (%): (1) along the contour line, (2) along the fall line, (3) mixed.

J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76 71

follow slope direction or they are mixed, and a combination ofdifferent shapes is characteristic for traditional orchard landscapewith dominant arable land (A). Other than narrow or rectangularshape most often appears in traditional orchards type (E).

Lines of fruit trees were often planted along contour lines inarable land to reduce erosion. Forms of anthropogenic relief (balks)form an integral part of traditional orchard landscape, and theseresult from improve soil relief quality, ploughing, parcel cultivationand stone removal. Forms of anthropogenic relief include terraceslopes, step balks and stone banks or heaps (Fig. 3). Terrace slopeswere created during long-term cultivation of arable fields on steepslopes, and this resulted in balks of parallel plateaus and grassyslopes. Step balks were created by ploughing field boundaries,without horizontal relief of arable plots. Stone banks or heaps were

Fig. 2. Threats to traditional orchard landscape types (%).(A) Traditional orchard landscape with dominant arable land; (B) traditional orchard lanorchards; (D) traditional orchard landscape with arable land, grasslands and orchards;

formed by stone removal during annual ploughing and placementin one field area or along its edge. Table 3 shows variables recordedin the field for all balks, including the mode as statistical value. Themost spread type of bound are step balks, of muddy content, from1 to 3 m wide and high, continuous, with continuous wood cover.They appeared most often in traditional orchard landscape withdominant grassland (B) and with dominant linear woodyvegetation.

3.5. Statistical analyses of variables

Correlations between particular variables of bounds weretested by using the Cramer’s V test (Table 4). The strong level ofassociation was shown between type of bounds and their skeleton

dscape with dominant grasslands; (C) traditional orchard landscape with dominant (E) traditional orchards.

Fig. 3. Forms of anthropogenic relief: (a) Step balks with lines of cherry trees alongthe contour line in Detva (Detva region, 2010, author: Špulerová), (b) terraces slopesalong the contour line in Lednica (Považský region, 2012, author: Piscová), (c) stonebank overgrown by shrubs in Môl9ca (Pohronský region, 2010, author: Špulerová).

72 J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76

content, width and continuity of bounds, (2) width and skeletoncontent and dominance of bound within plots, and (3) skeletoncontent and category of woody vegetation on bounds. Othercorrelations between variables fluctuate from weak to moderatelystrong level of associations.

The Cramer’s V test was used also for testing overall correlationbetween structural characteristic of traditional orchards landscapeplots (Table 5). Extremely good relationship was shown between

land parcel shape and traditional orchard landscape type and regionand presence of bounds in correlation with landscape type andcategory of woody vegetation. Surprisingly, management intensityshowed strong correlation only with category of woody vegetationand region, and very weak correlation with other variables.

3.6. Biodiversity on forms of anthropogenic relief

Forms of anthropogenic relief can be considered islands ofbiodiversity in managed agricultural landscapes. Since balk vegeta-tioninnarrowplots upto 3 misalwaysstrongly influencedbyspeciesfrom surrounding grasslands, arable fields and orchards, it is difficultto classify this vegetation into common phytosociological units. Onterrace slopes, woody plants registered the highest cumulative coverin all records through the frequency of Rosa canina and Swidasanguinea shrub species. We found other shrubs and trees onapproximately a third of terrace slope localities, in differentvegetation layers. With regard to orchard species, (1) P. domesticaprovided the largest cover of all these, especially in traditionalorchard landscape with dominant orchards (C). (2) J. regiawas foundon a quarter of mapped plots, (3) M. domestica and P. communis wereonly on 14% of terrace slopes, and (4) Prunus and Malus recordedmore than 5% cover, but this was on less than half of the localities.The herb layer of this form of anthropogenic relief consisted mainlyof grasses as Dactylis glomerata, Arrhenatherum elatius, Agrostiscapillaris and herbs as Achillea millefolium, Galium mollugo, Veronicachamaedrys, Heracleum sphondylium, Vicia cracca and Fragaria vesca.The nitrophilous Urtica dioica was found on more than half thelocalities due to increased nitrogen input from the surrounds. Thisspecies often supplied up to 50% of total cover close to arable fieldsand dominant grasslands; with the percentage increasing signifi-cantly in traditional orchard landscapes dominated by arablefields (A).

Similar to the situation on terrace slopes, woody vegetation onstep balks was evenly distributed across all categories. The treelayer cover exceeded half the plot area only in 12% of localities andother categories provided an even cover distribution of 5–50%. Inaddition to being the most frequent shrubs on terrace slopes, theA. campestre, Crataegus monogyna and Prunus spinosa woodyspecies were also recorded on step balks. Here, the latter speciesprovided the second largest cumulative cover, and Rubus genusplants were also noted. Only P. domestica had higher average coverthan P. spinosa; in the interval of 5–50%. This percentage is a higherthan that recorded for terrace slopes, and it was noted on almosthalf of the step balks. When considering other orchard trees,M. domestica occurred slightly more frequently here than onterrace slopes; featuring in 21% of localities. The herb layer wasmostly composed of the same typical meadow and pasture speciesas on previous form of anthropogenic relief, although hereA. capillaris and H. sphondylium were not ranked as top species.In addition to U. dioica, the step balks had a large presence of thenitrophilous Chaerophyllum aromaticum herb.

The tree and shrub layer cover on stone banks was slightly over50% in only two diverse localities. Meanwhile, herb layer coverexceeded 50% in only one locality; and there it was 100%. Thefollowing woody species were recorded in more than half thestudied localities; A. campestre, C. avellana, R. canina, C. monogyna,Ligustrum vulgare, F. excelsior and S. sanguinea, with the first threespecies providing the highest cumulative cover. The followingmost frequent and abundant species in the herb layer occurred inmeadows and pastures: G. mollugo, A. millefolium, F. vesca,V. chamaedrys and A. elatius, together with the nitrophilousGeranium robertianum. Stone heaps had a greater amount ofvegetation cover; with continuous shrub and tree woodyvegetation accounting for 50% and over. Species turnover inindividual localities was higher in heaps than in banks, as only the

Table 3Characteristic of the forms of anthropogenic relief (number of occurrence and mode).

Variable Category

1 2 3 4 5 Mode

Type of bound 29 66 8 5 1 2Skeleton content 78 19 7 5 1Width 31 61 15 2 2Height 15 35 53 6 3Continuity of bounds 85 17 4 3 1Continuity of wood cover 37 32 34 6 1Type of traditional orchard landscape based on land use elements 7 68 9 23 2 2Category of woody vegetation on bounds 11 22 16 57 3 4

Type of bound: (1) terrace slopes, (2) step balks, (3) stone banks, (4) heaps and (5) slope mounds and heaps on terraces. Skeleton content: (1) muddy; (2) muddy-rocky; (3)loamificated rocky and (4) rocky. Width: (1) <1 m; (2) 1.1–3 m; (3) >3 m. Height: (1) <0.5 m; (2) 0.5–1 m; (3) 1–3 m; (4) >3 m. Continuity of bounds: (1) continuous;(2) interrupted – interruptions are shorter than fragments of bound. (3) disconnected – interruptions are longer than fragments of bound. Continuity of wood cover: (1)continuous – interruption width is less than one multiple of the vegetation height. (2) Interrupted – interruption width is 2–4 multiples of the vegetation height.(3) Disconnected – interruption width is more than five multiples of the vegetation height. Type of traditional orchard landscape based on land use elements: (1) traditionalorchard landscape with dominant arable land; (2) traditional orchard landscape with dominant grasslands; (3) traditional orchard landscape with dominant orchards; (4)traditional orchard landscape with arable land, grasslands and orchards; (5) traditional orchards. Category of woody vegetation on bounds: (1) the rare occurrence of woodyvegetation; (2) the subdominant occurrence of all forms of woody vegetation; (3) the dominant occurrence of solitary trees and shrubs; (4) the dominant occurrence of linearvegetation, and (5) the dominant occurrence of small woodland.

J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76 73

two Acer platanoides and C. avellana woody species and thenitrophilous G. robertianum covered the majority of localities. Inaddition to the latter two species, the woody species A. campestre,A. pseudoplatanus, Fagus sylvatica, F. excelsior, S. sanguinea and thegrass Brachypodium pinnatum covered in excess of 50% of the heap.

Table 4The Cramer’s V test of correlations between particular variables of forms of anthropog

Ske leton

content Width Height

Continu ity

of boun ds

Continu ity

of woo d

cover

Type of

bound 0.30 8 0.32 2 0.22 2 0.30 5 0.21 4

Ske leton

content 0.32 3 0.10 3 0.27 7 0.25 3

Width 0.25 2 0.20 7 0.21 5 0

Height 0.17 9 0.10 9 0

Continu ity

of boun ds 0.19 8 0

Continu ity

of woo d

cover 0

TOL type

TOL type – Type of traditional orchard landsca pe based on land use elements; WV

Level of association: 0 to 0.15 – no relationship or very wea k, 0.15 to 0.20 – wea

0.30 to 0.35 – strong.

Extensively used plots which are now abandoned were suitablerefuges for many rare, endangered and protected plant species,including: Aquilegia vulgaris, Cephalanthera longifolia, Dactylorhizafuchsii, Epipactis sp., Gymnadenia conopsea, Lilium martagon, Listeraovata, Melampyrum barbatum and Platanthera bifolia.

enic relief.

TOL

type WV

0.21 0.25 2

0.21 0.35

.16 1 0.21 9

.23 5 0.20 2

.15 1 0.18

.12 5 0.25 9

0.22 7

– Category of woo dy vegetation on bounds .

k; 0.20 to 0.25 – moderate; 0.25 to 0.30 – moderately strong;

Table 5The Cramer’s V test of correlations between particular variables of traditional orchard landscapes.

LP_N LP_R LP_O FAR

TOL

type WV Region MI

RC 0.248 0.225 0.32 0.279 0.187 0.243 0.392 0.087

LP_N 0.333 0.331 0.125 0.484 0.225 0.431 0.065

LP_R 0.172 0.177 0.188 0.158 0.341 0.094

LP_O 0.13 0.243 0.243 0.496 0.144

FAR 0.443 0.45 0.317 0.106

TOL type 0.279 0.359 0.195

WV 0.317 0.326

Region 0.342

RC – Reli ef configu ration of parcels; LP_N – Land parcel s hape – narr ow fields; LP_R – Land parcel shape – rec tangular; LP_O – Land parcel

of other shape; FAR – Forms of anthropogenic relief; TOL type – Type of traditional orchard landscape based on land use elements; WV –

Catego ry of woody vegetation on bounds; Region – Natural-settlement nodal regions of Slovakia (Miklós, 2002 ); MI – Management intensity.

Level of association: 0 to 0.15 – no relationship or very wea k, 0.15 to 0.20 – wea k; 0.20 to 0.25 - mod erate; 0.25 to 0.30 – moderately strong;

0.30 to 0.35 – strong; 0.35 to 0.40 – very strong; 0.40 to 0.50 – extremely strong.

74 J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76

The old orchards and surrounding meadows are importantrefuge for many butterflies and moths species in the agriculturallandscape and are characterized by high biodiversity and high ratioof endangered and protected species (Van Swaay et al., 2006). Theyare characteristic habitats for one of Europe’s most endangeredbutterfly species – Colias myrmidone. This species was relativelyabundant and widespread in the past, currently is known only froma few localities in whole Europe. Colias myrmidone occurs intraditional orchard landscape in the Biele Karpaty Mts. andPovažský Inovec Mts. (Považský region). These populations are alsothe most stable in Central Europe. Conservation and protection ofold orchards is needed for this species survival. Orchards are alsoimportant habitats for other endangered butterflies and moths’species – ecological specialists, e.g., Melitaea trivia, Glaucopsychealexis or Saturnia pyri, observed in the studied areas. Semi-naturaland abandoned vegetation patches host few butterfly habitatspecialists, acting mainly as stepping stones and/or corridors thatare very important for the increasing of agricultural landscapediversity. Micro-distribution patterns of species should be animportant issue in the management of agricultural landscapes atthe farm scale (Scalercio et al., 2007).

4. Discussion

Landscape adaptation to anthropogenic influences from theYoung Palaeolithic era to today is termed landscape archetype(Hreško et al., 2010). Orchards archetypes have historically beenconserved in localities inappropriate for more intensive utiliza-tion; especially as small patches in foothill areas surrounded byintensively utilized agricultural land. This extremely valuable partof European cultural landscape is becoming increasingly rare.

Types of traditional orchard landscape, determined by theirspatial arrangement and the size of their combined land useelements, provide information on their current use. The presenceof particular elements is associated with traditional landuse handed down through the generations, and these are specificto individual regions not only in Slovakia, but around the world. InSlovakia, it was approved by testing structural variables oftraditional orchard landscape plots, as region variable showedextremely good relationship with the land parcel shape and goodrelationship with other structural variables.

Although traditional orchard landscapes are threatened andtheir area is decreasing, more than half are still regularlymanaged. The most threaten are types: traditional orchardlandscape with dominant arable land (A), and traditional orchardlandscape with dominant grasslands (B). The major threat here isloss of interest in managing arable land and its subsequentconversion to grassland. The similar trend is observed in Slovakvineyards, where 41% of traditional vineyards lack suitablemanagement (Lieskovský et al., 2013).

Previously connected with traditional farming, orchards arecontinually being replaced by new, often, inappropriate land useforms. This agricultural intensification with land cover conversionfrom arable land and orchards to grasslands, marshes andwoodlands is also current in neighbouring Hungary (Varga et al.,2013). This has homogenised vegetation structure over largedistances, thereby decoupling fundamental ecological patterns ofbird and animal species richness (Karp et al., 2012).

The study of biodiversity responses to land use in traditionalfruit orchards has shown that although they are artificial patches,traditional orchard landscape help maintain biodiversity in ruralagricultural landscapes. They also benefit habitats in the

J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76 75

surrounding environment, significantly increasing species richness(Horak et al., 2013). The overall biodiversity is increased alsoby presence of the forms of anthropogenic relief and otherextensively utilized plots. The herb layer of terrace slopes and stepbalks consisted mainly of species typical for meadows andpastures. On the other hand it was evident that orchard specieswere absent on heaps and banks, because these do not provideappropriate habitats and it proved impractical to accumulatestones under cultivated fruit trees. Study of bee diversity inapple orchards and old fields in Canada proved that old unalteredfields significantly increased species richness up to 50% comparedto that in the intensively managed orchards. In contrast, orchardswith intermediate levels of adjacent natural or semi-naturalhabitats exhibited affinities to either extreme, depending on themeasuring methods of species richness used (Sheffield et al., 2013).

Abandonment changes often occur on lands managed by“weekend cottagers”, where orchard maintenance continues butarable land disappears and original grassland is of a more aestheticnature. Abandonment has some positive impact on biodiversity(Špulerová, 2008). On the other hand, abandoned plots rapidlyovergrown by shrubs are subject to subsequent succession;resulting in a greater number of wild animals damaging cultivatedcrops and existing farmers increasingly losing interest in farming(Šatalová, 2011). From a different perspective, traditional orchardlandscape decreases are obvious in increased housing construc-tion. Similar trends have occurred in other parts of Europe; as inItaly during 1990–2006 when olive groves, orchards and forestsurfaces were replaced by low-density built-up areas andinfrastructure (Salvati and Sabbi, 2011).

The nationwide TAL inventory enlightened by Špulerová et al.(2011), and the interpretation of field survey results for types oftraditional orchard landscape, was the first steps in betterunderstanding and precise description of the current status oftraditional orchard landscape in Slovakia. It is now imperative todevelopmethodstoforestall thecurrenttrends intraditional orchardlandscape abandonment negatively affecting its biodiversity. Thispresentsa challenge for both policy makers and individual farmers topreserve traditional orchard landscape for future generations.Support for orchard management is now included in the currentrural development programe, with measures to ensure integratedproduction and organic farming. Productive orchards are decreasing,so investment is currently aimed at extending productive orchardareas. Assessment of orchard meadow profitability measuresintroduced in the Austrian agri-environmental programe indicatesthat these are effective in maintaining orchard financial returns.However, their measures are insufficient to ensure that all existingsites are profitable, and theyalso lack encouragement for developingnew sites (Schoenhart et al., 2011). When traditional management isunprofitable and unsustainable, retaining large scale biodiversitybenefits requires institution of specific land management practicescertain to benefit biodiversity in organic and traditionally-managedsystems. Integrated management systems would most likelyachievethis end (MacLeod et al., 2012). International stakeholder responsesto Europe’s mountain landscape scenarios proved that stakeholdersare united in advocating a production-oriented, multifunctional andenvironmentally-friendly agriculture which maintains both land-scapes and biodiversity (Soliva et al., 2008). However, stakeholders’desired future development and their perceptions of agriculturallandscape values varied according to different pressures in theindividual studied areas (Baránková et al., 2011).

5. Conclusion

Traditional orchard landscape habitats manage biodiversity onvarious scales, creating dynamic landscape mosaics of fields,gardens, orchards, pastures and ecosystem patches. Traditional

orchard landscape has always been managed by farmers andprivate owners. Private land ownership in Slovakia ceased duringsocialist collectivization, and decline in current inhabitantinterest is increasing land abandonment. The highest rates ofabandonment in Central and Eastern Europe occurred between1990 and 2000 (Munteanu et al., 2014). Terrace slopes, step balksand stone banks are the only remnants of forms of anthropogenicrelief and agricultural mosaics reminiscent of formersmall-farming in Slovakia. Old orchard management methodsdocument historical traditional use. This is related not only toproduction purposes but also to preserving cultural heritage.Landscape conservation for future generations and limitation ofcurrent recreational landscape overgrown by shrubs and treesrequires farmer motivation and provision of traditional orchardlandscape sustainable management.

Agricultural biodiversity and associated traditional knowledgeare essential to provide ecosystem services for these landscapesand surrounding countryside, but their roles are largely overlookedby researchers and policy makers (Mijatovic et al., 2013).Biodiversity performs key ecological services and when correctlytemporally and spatially applied, it ensures an agro-ecosystemcapable of maintaining soil fertility, crop protection and produc-tivity (Altieri, 1999). Therefore, the best way to encourage societyto protect their agricultural ecosystem is to develop adequateecosystem service assessment and to highlight the attendant theirbenefits for society.

Acknowledgements

The contribution was prepared within the project Diversity ofagricultural landscape and its ecosystem services. Grant No.2/0158/14 from the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republicand the Slovak Academy of Sciences. We would like to expressthank you to Raymond Marshall for English correction.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.08.021.

References

Altieri, M.A., 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric.Ecosyst. Environ. 74, 19–31.

Bailey, D., Schmidt-Entling, M.H., Eberhart, P., Herrmann, J.D., Hofer, G., Kormann, U.,Herzog, F., 2010. Effects of habitat amount and isolation on biodiversity infragmented traditional orchard landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 47 (5), 1003–1013.

Barbosa, P., Benrey, B., 1998. The influence of plants on insect parasitoids:implications for conservation biological control. In: Barbosa, P. (Ed.),Conservation Biological Control. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 55–82.

Baránková, Z., Dobrovodská, M., Štefunková, D., Babicová, D., Moyzeová, M.,Petrovi9c, F., 2011. Participation of local people on identifying the landscapevalues and future development in historical agricultural landscapes. Ekol.Bratislava 30 (2), 216–228.

Bezák, P., Petrovi9c, F., 2006. Agriculture, landscape, biodiversity: scenarios andstakeholder perceptions in the Poloniny National Park (NE Slovakia). Ekol.Bratislava 25 (1), 82–93.

Bo9cek, S., Tesa�rová, J., Možíšková, H., Droppová, H., 2008. Ovocné d�reviny v krajin�e,Sborník p�rednášek a seminárních prací. Host�etín.

Chen, J., Wu, D., 2011. Service value assessment of orchard ecosystem: A case ofPutian City of Fujian. Yingyong Shengtai Xuebao. J. Appl. Ecol. 22,2399–2404.

Dobrovodská, M., 2006. The development of relations between man and landscapein a historical mountain agricultural landscape of Slovakia. Ekologia Bratislava25, 38–48.

Dobrovodská, M., Špulerová, J., Štefunková, D., Halabuk, A., 2010. Research andmaintainance of biodiversity in historical structures in the agriculturallandscape of Slovakia. In: Baran9coková, M., Kraj9cí, J., Kollár, J., Bel9cáková, I.(Eds.), Landscape Ecology-Methods, Applications and Interdisciplinary Ap-proach. ILE SAS, Bratislava, pp. 131–140.

Galvanek, D., Becker, T., Dengler, J., 2012. Biodiversity syntaxonomy andmanagement – editorial to the 7th dry grassland special feature (with abibliometrical evaluation of the series). Tuexenia 32, 233–243.

76 J. Špulerová et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 199 (2015) 67–76

Gaujour, E., Amiaud, B., Mignolet, C., Plantureux, S., 2012. Factors and processesaffecting plant biodiversity in permanent grasslands: a review. Agron.Sustainable Dev. 32, 133–160.

Hanušin, J., Huba, M., Hudek V., Ira V., Minarovi9c M., Podoba, J., Podolák, P., Spišiak,P., Tvrdo�n M., 2008. Monograph of the Cultural–Historical Social Topography ofthe Microregion of the White Carpathians, Bratislava.

Herzog, F., 1998. Streuobst: a traditional agroforestry system as a model foragroforestry development in temperate Europe. Agrofor. Sys. 42, 61–80.

Honek, A., Martinkova, Z., Kindlmann, P., Ameixa, O., Dixon, A.F.G., 2014. Long-termtrends in the composition of aphidophagous coccinellid communities in CentralEurope. Insect Conserv. Divers. 7, 55–63.

Horak, J., Peltanova, A., Podavkova, A., Safarova, L., Bogusch, P., Romportl, D., Zasadil,P., 2013. Biodiversity responses to land use in traditional fruit orchards of a ruralagricultural landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 178, 71–77.

Hreško, J., Kanásová, D., Petrovi9c, F., 2010. Landscape archetypes as the elements ofSlovak historical landscape structure. Ekol. Bratislava 29 (2), 158–173.

Karp, D.S., Rominger, A.J., Ranganathan, J., Ehrlich, P.R., Daily, G.C., 2012. Intensiveagriculture erodes beta-diversity at large scales. Ecol. Lett. 15 (9), 963–970.

Izakovi9cová, Z., Moyzeová, M., 2008. Environmental evaluation of the impact ofhuman activities in the landscape. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi24 (2/2), 154–158.

Klein, A.M., Brittain, C., Hendrix, S.D., Thorp, R., Williams, N., Kremen, C., 2012. Wildpollination services to California almond rely on semi-natural habitat. J. Appl.Ecol. 49, 723–732.

Komžík, M., 2007. History of Fruit-growing in Považský Region Tren9cín–horná Nitra.Cited on: http://www.kohaplant.sk/2007030132-historia-ovocinarstva-regionu-trencin-horna-nitra.html.

Komžík, M., 2009. Landscape Value of Fruit Wood Pulps. Cited on: http://www.garten.cz/a/sk/5201-krajinotvorny-vyznam-ovocnych-drevin/.html.

Kopecka, M., Vatseva, R., Feranec, J., Otahel', J., Stoimenov, A., Novacek, J., Dimitrov,V., 2012. Selected changes of arable land in Slovakia and Bulgaria during theperiod 1990–2006. Moravian Geog. Rep. 20 (1), 43–54.

Krná9cová, Z., Hreško, J., Kanka, R., Boltižiar, M., 2013. The evaluation of ecologicalfactors affecting environmental functions of the soils in area of traditionalagrarian structures. Ekol. Bratislava 32 (2), 248–261.

Liebetrau, A.M., 1983. Measures of association. Quantitative Applications in theSocial Sciences Series, vol. 32. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 15–16.

Lieskovský, J., Kanka, R., Bezák, P., Štefunková, D., Petrovi9c, F., Dobrovodská, M., 2013.Driving forces behind vineyard abandonment in Slovakia following the move toa market-oriented economy. Land Use Policy 32, 356–365.

Luck, G.W., Spooner, P.G., Watson, D.M., Watson, S.J., Saunders, M.E., 2014.Interactions between almond plantations and native ecosystems: lessonslearned from north-western Victoria. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 15 (1), 4–15.

MacLeod, C.J., Blackwell, G., Benge, J., 2012. Reduced pesticide toxicity and increasedwoody vegetation cover account for enhanced native bird densities in organicorchards. J. Appl. Ecol. 49 (3), 652–660.

Marhold, K., Hindák, F. (Eds.), 1998. Checklist of Non-vascular and Vascular Plants ofSlovakia. VEDA, Bratislava 687 pp.

Mijatovic, D., Van Oudenhoven, F., Eyzaguirre, P., Hodgkin, T., 2013. The role ofagricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to climate change: towardsan analytical framework. Int. J. Agri. Sustain. 11 (2), 95–107.

Miklós, L., 2002. Natural-settlement nodal regions, Atlas of landscape of the SR. 1sted. Ministry of the Environment SR, Banská Bystrica Slovak EnvironmentalAgency, Bratislava pp. 206–207.

Minarro, M., Prida, E., 2013. Hedgerows surrounding organic apple orchards innorth-west Spain: potential to conserve beneficial insects. Agri. Forest Entomol.15 (4), 382–390.

Mojses, M., Petrovi9c, F., 2013. Land use changes of historical structures in theagricultural landscape at the local level – Hri�nová case study. Ekol. Bratislava 32(1), 1–12.

Munteanu, C., Kuemmerle, T., Boltiziar, M., Butsic, V., Gimmi, U., Halada, L., Kaim, D.,Kiraly, G., Konkoly-Gyuro, E., Kozak, J., Lieskovsky, J., Mojses, M., Mueller, D.,Ostafin, K., Ostapowicz, K., Shandra, O., Stych, P., Walker, S., Radeloff, V.C., 2014.Forest and agricultural land change in the Carpathian region-A meta-analysis oflong-term patterns and drivers of change. Land Use Policy 38,685–697.

Myczko, L., Rosin, Z.M., Skorka, P., Wylegala, P., Tobolka, M., Fliszkiewicz, M., Mizera,T., Tryjanowski, P., 2013. Effects of management intensity and orchard featureson bird communities in winter. Ecol. Res. 28 (3), 503–512.

Palanques, M.L., Calvo, M., 2011. Cadastre and colonial policies: a world heritage ofcultures. Proceedings of the Empowerment of Local Authorities: SpatialInformation and Spatial Planning Tools FIG Workshop, Paris Available at:https://sites.google.com/site/figcom3/proceedings-1).

Petrovi9c, F., 2006. The changes of the landscape with dispersed settlement. Ekol.Bratislava 25 (1), 65–89.

Ruži9cková, H., Dobrovodská, M., Valachovi9c, M., 1999. Landscape-ecologicalevaluation of vegetation in relation to the forms of anthropogenic relief inthe cadastre of Liptovská Tepli9cka village the Nízke Tatry Mts. Ekol. Bratislava 18(4), 381–400.

Salvati, L., Sabbi, A., 2011. Exploring long-term land cover changes in an urban regionof southern Europe. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 18 (4), 273–282.

Scalercio, S., Iannotta, N., Pietro Brandmayr, P., 2007. The role of semi-natural andabandoned vegetation patches in sustaining lepidopteran diversity in anorganic olive orchard. Bull. Insectol. 60 (1), 13–22.

Schoenhart, M., Schauppenlehner, T., Schmid, E., Muhar, A., 2011. Analysing themaintenance and establishment of orchard meadows at farm and landscapelevels applying a spatially explicit integrated modelling approach. J. Environ.Plann. Manag. 54 (1), 115–143.

Sheffield, C., Kevan, P.G., Pindar, A., Packer, L., 2013. Bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea)diversity within apple orchards and old fields in the Annapolis Valley, NovaScotia, Canada. Can. Entomol. 145 (1), 94–114.

Soliva, R., Ronningen, K., Bella, I., Bezák, P., Cooper, T., Flo Bjorn, E., Marty, P., Potter,C., 2008. Envisioning upland futures: stakeholder responses to scenarios forEurope’s mountain landscapes. J. Rural Stud. 24 (1), 56–71.

Šatalová, B., 2011. Assessment of historical structures of agricultural landscape inthe region of Považie. In: Dobrovodská, M., Špulerová, J., Štefunková, D. (Eds.),Research and Management of the Historical Agricultural Landscape:Proceedings from International Conference Vini9cné. ILE SAS, Bratislava, pp.149–156.

Špulerová, J., 2008. Succession changes in extensively used agricultural land. Ekol.Bratislava 27 (1), 54–64.

Špulerová, J., Dobrovodská, M., Lieskovský, J., Ba9ca, A., Halabuk, A., Kohút, F., Mojses,M., Kenderessy, P., Piscová, V., Baran9cok, P., Gerhártová, K., Kraj9ci, J., Boltižiar, M.,2011. Inventory and classification of historical structures of the agriculturallandscape in Slovakia. Ekol. Bratislava 30 (2), 157–170.

Štefunková, D., Dobrovodská, M., 2009. Preserved European cultural heritage inagrarian landscape of Slovakia. Tájökológiai Lapok 7 (2), 283–290.

Steffan-Dewenter, I., Munzenberg, U., Burger, C., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T., 2002.Scale-dependent effects of landscape structure on three pollinator guilds.Ecology 83, 1421–1432.

Van Swaay, Ch., Warren, M., Loïs, G., 2006. Biotope use and trends of Europeanbutterflies. J. Insect Conserv. 10 (3), 305–306.

Varga, K., Devai, G., Tothmeresz, B., 2013. Land use history of a floodplain area duringthe last 200 years in the Upper-Tisza region, Hungary. Reg. Environ. Change 13(5), 1109–1118.

Vogrin, M., 2011. Overlooked traditional orchards: their importance for breedingbirds. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Biologia 1, 3–9.

Žarnovi9can, H., 2012. Manažment sadových lúk myjavsko-bielokarpatských kopanícv minulosti a v sú9casnosti. Životné prostredie 46 (5), 271–275.