IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i9p930-d628546.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shelterbelts Planted on Cultivated Fields Are Not Solutions for the Recovery of Former Forest-Related Herbaceous Vegetation

Author

Listed:
  • Nóra Szigeti

    (Institute of Advanced Studies, 9730 Kőszeg, Hungary)

  • Imre Berki

    (Institute of Environmental and Earth Sciences, University of Sopron, 9400 Sopron, Hungary)

  • Andrea Vityi

    (Institute of Environmental and Earth Sciences, University of Sopron, 9400 Sopron, Hungary)

  • Leonid Rasran

    (Institute of Botany, Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Establishing shelterbelts for field protection is one of the rediscovered agroforestry practices in Europe and Hungary. Several studies have focused on the effects of these plantations on agricultural production. Prior scholarship reveals that shelterbelts enhance the diversity of bird and insect communities but generally fail to consider herbaceous cover. Our study aimed to describe the herbaceous vegetation in shelterbelts of different origins, tree species composition, and land management. We investigated surveys in four agricultural landscapes of North West Hungary, where the intensity of the landscape transformation is different. The diversity and species composition of the herbaceous vegetation were analyzed, including plant sociology and forest affinity. Our results highlight the importance of landscape history in herbaceous flora. Shelterbelts planted on cultivated without an immediate connection to former woody vegetation soil are not appropriate for the appearance of forest-related herbaceous species, regardless of tree species composition or the extent of the shelterbelt. On the contrary, the remnants of former woody vegetation are refuges for those herbaceous species that are very slow at colonizing new plantations. These findings expose that protecting existing woody areas is an essential task of agricultural land management.

Suggested Citation

  • Nóra Szigeti & Imre Berki & Andrea Vityi & Leonid Rasran, 2021. "Shelterbelts Planted on Cultivated Fields Are Not Solutions for the Recovery of Former Forest-Related Herbaceous Vegetation," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:930-:d:628546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/930/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/930/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ranjith P. Udawatta & Lalith Rankoth & Shibu Jose, 2019. "Agroforestry and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    2. Jezeer, Rosalien E. & Santos, Maria J. & Verweij, Pita A. & Boot, René G.A. & Clough, Yann, 2019. "Benefits for multiple ecosystem services in Peruvian coffee agroforestry systems without reducing yield," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sikstus Gusli & Sri Sumeni & Riyami Sabodin & Ikram Hadi Muqfi & Mustakim Nur & Kurniatun Hairiah & Daniel Useng & Meine van Noordwijk, 2020. "Soil Organic Matter, Mitigation of and Adaptation to Climate Change in Cocoa–Based Agroforestry Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, September.
    2. De Leijster, V. & Santos, M.J. & Wassen, M.W. & Camargo García, J.C. & Llorca Fernandez, I. & Verkuil, L. & Scheper, A. & Steenhuis, M. & Verweij, P.A., 2021. "Ecosystem services trajectories in coffee agroforestry in Colombia over 40 years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    3. Alice Fitch & Rebecca L. Rowe & Niall P. McNamara & Cahyo Prayogo & Rizky Maulana Ishaq & Rizki Dwi Prasetyo & Zak Mitchell & Simon Oakley & Laurence Jones, 2022. "The Coffee Compromise: Is Agricultural Expansion into Tree Plantations a Sustainable Option?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Beatrice Nöldeke & Etti Winter & Yves Laumonier & Trifosa Simamora, 2021. "Simulating Agroforestry Adoption in Rural Indonesia: The Potential of Trees on Farms for Livelihoods and Environment," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-31, April.
    5. Staton, Tom & Breeze, Tom D. & Walters, Richard J. & Smith, Jo & Girling, Robbie D., 2022. "Productivity, biodiversity trade-offs, and farm income in an agroforestry versus an arable system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Tohiran, Kamil Azmi & Nobilly, Frisco & Zulkifli, Raja & Yahya, Muhammad Syafiq & Norhisham, Ahmad Razi & Rasyidi, Md Zainal & Azhar, Badrul, 2023. "Multi-species rotational grazing of small ruminants regenerates undergrowth vegetation while controlling weeds in the oil palm silvopastoral system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    7. Noémie Hotelier-Rous & Geneviève Laroche & Ève Durocher & David Rivest & Alain Olivier & Fabien Liagre & Alain Cogliastro, 2020. "Temperate Agroforestry Development: The Case of Québec and of France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-23, September.
    8. Ureta, J. Carl & Motallebi, Marzieh & Vassalos, Michael & Seagle, Steven & Baldwin, Robert, 2022. "Estimating residents' WTP for ecosystem services improvement in a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    9. Heidenreich, Anja & Grovermann, Christian & Kadzere, Irene & Egyir, Irene S. & Muriuki, Anne & Bandanaa, Joseph & Clottey, Joseph & Ndungu, John & Blockeel, Johan & Muller, Adrian & Stolze, Matthias &, 2022. "Sustainable intensification pathways in Sub-Saharan Africa: Assessing eco-efficiency of smallholder perennial cash crop production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    10. Ntawuruhunga, Donatien & Ngowi, Edwin Estomii & Mangi, Halima Omari & Salanga, Raymond John & Shikuku, Kelvin Mashisia, 2023. "Climate-smart agroforestry systems and practices: A systematic review of what works, what doesn't work, and why," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:930-:d:628546. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.