journal of journal of landscape studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47 landscape studies … 1_pp 27-47… ·...

Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47

* Corresponding autor; E-mail: [email protected] 27 Available online at: www.centrumprokrajinu.cz/jls/

Journal of

Landscape

Studies

1. Introduction In many European landscapes, historical field patterns defined by hedgerows play a major role in determining the character and structure of a landscape. Whereas in the past the functions of hedgerows were clear and were related to production, e.g. boundaries, shelter and sources of wood and other products, today they are highly regarded for more subtle reasons, such as their ecological and cultural values (e.g, Burel and Baudry, 1995; Oreszczyn, 2000). However, the loss of the past functions has led to a substantial loss of hedgerows (Baudry et. al, 2000) and subsequent environmental damage (Countryside Council for Wales, 1997), as well as the loss of the historical pattern, which disappears if not stabilized by hedgerows.

In the Czech Republic, hedgerow-defined field

patterns called pluzinas date back to the Middle Ages. The term, which in medieval Czech meant the agricultural land belonging to one village, i.e. its crop fields, meadows, pastures and roads (Gojda, 2000), now refers to the remnants of the original pattern. This can be seen in some parts of the Czech landscape as a system of hedgerows separating long, narrow, often S-shaped fields. (Fig. 1).

Whereas in Western Europe hedged cultural landscapes, their disappearance and conservation have become a major matter of concern, Czech pluzinas have so far been on the fringe of interest. The purpose of this paper is therefore to review both the available Czech literature on pluzinas and foreign research applicable to them, and to create a

Hedgerow-defined medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic and their conservation – a literature review

Kristina Molnárová

Department of Land Use and Improvement, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Abstract This review focuses on hedgerow-defined medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic, called pluzinas. In medieval Czech, the word pluzina meant the agricultural land belonging to one village - its crop fields, meadows, pastures and roads. Today, the term describes the remnants of the original field patterns, which occur in some parts of the Czech landscape as a system of hedgerows separating long, narrow, often S-shaped fields. Following a brief outline of the historical circumstances in which medieval pluzinas were established and of their subsequent development, the review focuses on the remnants of medieval pluzinas in present-day landscapes, their form and typology, as well as their ecological and aesthetic values. After recapitulating the resources and methods used in pluzina research, the review is concluded by an overview of the various aspects of pluzina conservation and by presenting some future research directions. Hedged cultural landscapes all over the world are a unique natural and cultural heritage, as well as great examples of sustainable agriculture. However, whereas in many countries (especially in Western Europe), their disappearance and conservation have become a major matter of concern, Czech pluzinas have so far been on the fringe of interest. This review is part of the effort to bring pluzinas into the spotlight by creating a multi-disciplinary platform for further research on and conservation of these valuable landscape features.

Key words: Cultural landscape, Historical field pattern, Hedgerow, Pluzina, Czech Republic.

K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47

28

multi-disciplinary platform for further research on and conservation of this unique cultural and natural heritage. 2. The founding and historical development of pluzinas In the later Middle Ages (13th-15th century AD), a wave of social, cultural and economic changes advanced through Europe from the South and South-West towards the North and North-East (Sádlo et al., 2005) and laid the foundations of Europe's current civilization, of our understanding of culture and our settlement patterns (Gojda, 2000). Of course, these changes were clearly reflected in the landscape. Sádlo et al. (2005) note that this transition was so dramatic that it must have been perceived as earthshaking even within a lifetime. The area of farmed land increased radically at the expense of forests, the form of villages and their pluzinas changed and became more organized – in short, humans “grasped” the relative wilderness of prehistoric and early historic times and adapted it to their needs, colonizing it.

In the area of the present-day Czech Republic, two distinct phases of colonization took place. The

so-called Inner colonization started in the 6th century and peaked in the 13th century, while the Great (or Outer) colonization took place at the end of the 13th century and in the 14th century (e.g., Gojda, 2000; Löw and Míchal, 2003). 2.1 Inner Colonization The inner colonization was carried out by the local (Czech) inhabitants and took place in the so-called Old Settlement Area, the lowlands where settlement had been continuous since the Neolithic period (e.g., Löw and Míchal, 2003). During this phase, settlement in this area became denser and the settlers also occupied the less advantageous positions within it and on its edges (Löw and Míchal, 2003, Sádlo et al., 2005). At this time, the hill countries were not yet systematically colonized, with the sparse exceptions of enclaves around the monasteries, burgs and long-distance trade routes. Nevertheless, this network of enclaves opened the door for the Great colonization, both by exploring the hitherto unpopulated areas and by proving that it was possible to grow crops and sustain communities in these less fertile areas (Gojda, 2000; Löw and Míchal, 2003).

Figure 1. A typical hedgerow-defined pluzina with long, narrow, S-shaped fields. photo: Markéta Poustková


29

2.2 Great (Outer) colonization In the relative peace and favourable social conditions of the end of the 13th century and the 14th century, the population of central Europe grew and the communities, until then largely isolated, started to exchange people, ideas and goods frequently. Thus, German colonists summoned by Czech kings brought ideas and technologies which contributed to the fundamental rebuilding of the Old Settlement Area and colonized the hill countries beyond it.

"If we define the cultural landscape as a dense network of villages surrounded by pluzinas, cultural landscape did not exist in early feudalism. However, after the year 1300, colonization created a regular network of settlements, approximately as dense as today's, and it brought new types of village plans and pluzinas." (Löw and Míchal, 2003) At this time, the total settled area reached over 50% and the wilderness once for all lost its dominance.

The feudal land owners did not manage the settlement process themselves: the organization was in the hands of hired specialists, so-called locators, who designed the layout of the village, measured out the hides of land and offered these to potential colonists. As a reward, they received either money, or they became the lifelong or even hereditary head of the village and received the largest hide, sometimes also a mill or smithy (Löw and Míchal, 2003). New villages were founded where there was enough space for a pluzina, enough water for the village and favourable soil conditions.

Outer colonization also brought the three-field system (Lipský, 1999; Gojda, 2000; Löw and Míchal, 2003; Sádlo et al. 2005 ), which gradually became predominant in large parts of the Czech lands. This field system significantly increased the yield of a pluzina, albeit with a significantly higher labour input. The pluzina was divided into three parts of approximately the same size, which were alternated for spring crops, winter crops and fallow – here, all the village animals grazed together.

Where there was enough space, the pluzina size stabilized as a circle with a radius of approx. 1.2 km – the longest distance that it was worthwhile to walk. (Pluzinas of this size then prevailed until tractors substituted the animal-drawn plough). Instead of expanding the pluzina,

farmers intensified production within it - at any time, only 1/3 of the fields lay fallow. This required more intensive ploughing, because shorter fallow did not so effectively destroy the propagules of weeds. The heavy ploughs that facilitated this were difficult to turn, which gave rise to the typical narrow elongated fields of medieval pluzinas. The renewal of nutrients was not so efficient and the production per hectare actually dropped. However, this was amply compensated by the greater area farmed each year. The smaller area of fallow also meant there was less pasture for the animals – this led to the establishment of permanent pastures and meadows in wet areas, on steep slopes, forest margins, etc.(Löw and Míchal, 2003).

The introduction of the three-field system in the Old Settlement Area and the settlement of new, hilly areas during this time gave rise to most of the villages and pluzinas described in section 3 of this review. After the great colonization, the lowlands and plateaus of the Old Settlement Area were covered by a network of villages, usually about 2.5 km apart, with sectional (or pseudo-sectional) pluzinas. However, the wolds of large rivers were deserted early in the colonization process, as large-scale deforestation of their watersheds made their flow unsteady and large floods threatened to destroy villages. From then on, these wolds were used as meadows, pastures or game areas.

In the newly-settled hilly areas, there were croft or lineic pluzinas. In the typical pattern of these areas, the wold of the watercourse was a meadow, the valley slopes were forested and the highland plateaus were arable. Settlements and their local pluzinas were often located along smaller watercourses without a distinct wold.

According to Sádlo et al (2005), during the Middle Ages, the boundaries between plots of land were not yet quite distinct – there were continua between field and headland, headland and fallow, fallow and pasture, pasture and clearing, clearing and forest. At the same time, clear boundaries were much desired, which resulted in clear field patterns: the best boundary is a tree, a grassy field margin, a large boulder, a hedgerow, a road, a fence or a cross.

Toward the end of this period, soil erosion peaked (Kuna et al., 2004) and created many conspicuous ravines, many metres deep, which have since been covered by forest and have been impossible to farm. On the other hand, river wolds


30

were flattened by extensive soil accumulation. Last but not least, this development facilitated a great expansion of building, including the rise of medieval towns and cities and the building of numerous burgs.

The Hussite wars and the plague in the 15th century set back the previous development. Patterns fell apart, farmers left their villages and the population of Bohemia decreased by about a third during this time. The workforce was sparse and land was again used more extensively, sometimes even returning to a two-field system or forest. However, in the 1570s, this trend was reversed and the Czech lands once again began to develop. 2.3 Post-medieval development of the Czech landscape and pluzinas The Renaissance period (approximately between the years 1500 and 1620 in the Czech lands) brought mainly an expansion of agricultural land within the pattern started in the Middle Ages (Löw and Míchal, 2003). The negative impact of forest clearing on the ecological stability of the landscape was balanced by a more diversified palette of crops, and the establishment of many fish ponds and artificial lakes (Lipský, 1999).

The Thirty Years' War (1620-1648) brought a 43% decrease in population (Löw and Míchal, 2003), the end of many villages and large-scale abandonment of agricultural land and re-growth of forests.

The baroque period (approx. 1650-1780) managed to create and stabilize a more definite "order" in the landscape than it had seen ever before or, according to some authors (e.g., Sádlo et al., 2005), ever since. In the areas colonized in the Middle Ages, a division of agricultural land into three categories was stabilized – areas always used as crop land, areas always used as pastures and areas where these two uses were alternated according to current need. In all these three areas, pluzinas were fully developed, according to their origin and historical development (Löw and Míchal, 2003). As the land use and land ownership patterns stabilized (mainly in the Old Settlement Area), field margins developed along field roads, ditches and ownership boundaries. Besides the larger field margins which had existed around field

sections since the Middle Ages, there now also appeared smaller grassy field margins along the long sides of the fields, gradually distinguished in the terrain by ploughing and often still visible in the countryside today. All these margins were used for pasture and, as goats were abundant, there were practically no shrubs in the landscape (Löw and Míchal, 2003). As for scattered greenery, this was sparse in the fields and it usually had sacral significance. In the pastures, which were usually situated in a more complicated terrain, trees were more abundant and formed miniature park landscapes.

To advertise Catholicism to the still unpersuaded villagers, the church and catholic landowners brought sacral architecture and landscape architecture to the countryside – this period gave rise to the traditional Czech countryside with baroque churches, chapels, crosses, alleys and solitary trees in places of worship. However, the medieval foundations of the landscape and its field patterns did not change significantly.

In a widely accepted opinion, the neatly manicured landscape of the Baroque and Enlightenment (circa 1780-1814) periods "is essentially a time-created and time-tested system of a life in the countryside without the supplemental energy of fossil fuels. In a nutshell, we can say that on the given energetic level, the powers of man and nature entered a sustainable equilibrium, with the maximum profit for man. As to the visual aspect of this landscape, it is no gross overstatement to say that this landscape has until today remained a symbol of useful beauty, the ideal and archetype of our perception of positive aesthetic values in the landscape" (Löw and Míchal, 2003).

In contrast, Sádlo et al (2005) argue that "to tie ourselves up to the baroque state of the landscape as to a golden age is a gross misunderstanding of everything that has happened here in the past millennia... The baroque period is not the lost Arcadia; that cannot be found anywhere – or it can be found wherever we want, but such an approach can hardly be introduced into objective assessments".

During the Industrial Revolution (1814-1914), the four-field system was introduced, which increased crop yields by at least 50% (Löw and Míchal, 2003). Instead of using fallow, soil fertility was renewed by including crops of the pea family


31

(Fabaceae). In the following years, respectively, winter grains, potatoes or sugar beet, and spring grains were sown. Some farm machines, such as threshers, were invented, but these were largely unavailable to the small farms which still prevailed in most of Europe, and the farming and the field patterns remained virtually unchanged in most of the land (Löw and Míchal, 2003).

However, this period saw the beginning of a dramatic change in people's attitudes toward landscape. Before the introduction of fossil fuels, they always promoted the value of the natural conditions and the former activities in the landscape and tried to increase this value; afterwards, they fundamentally changed the landscape's character and overlay, destroyed or quite denied the previous activities of man in the landscape (Čeliš, 1997).

The 20th century saw major changes in the use of the Czech land and in its general form and function, including, of course, the field patterns. Löw and Míchal, 2003, note the following most important events and turns during the 20th century that led to the current state of the landscape. The largest influence on landscape structure during the so-called "First Republic" (1918-1934) was the first land reform, during which large estates of the nobility were confiscated and sold to small farmers. After WWII, the continuity of agricultural and demographic development in almost a third of the agricultural land was broken by the expulsion of almost 3 million German inhabitants. Shortly after the war, the property of "collaborators with German power" was confiscated. After February 1948, the first wave of collectivization begun; the motto of the day was "one village – one co-op"; agricultural properties were confiscated, and farmers were forced under pain of imprisonment to join agricultural co-ops. Field margins were ploughed, so that the farmers would no longer recognize their former fields (Löw and Míchal, 2003). The second wave of collectivization ("several villages – one co-op") took place in the 1970s; the enormous state farms arising from this wave took no heed of the landscape's previous form and function. While in 1948 the average field size was 0,23 ha, in 1980 it was 10-15 ha, and many fields were as large as 200 ha. In the communist land consolidation projects, a field size under 100 ha had to be specially justified.

The changes that this period brought in land use, and in the appearance and function of the landscape, were enormous and are currently being evaluated. The most conspicuous changes include an enormous rise in field size and the disappearance of scattered greenery, including the field margins of medieval pluzinas, the largest outburst of soil erosion since the last ice age (Löw and Míchal, 2003) and a general degradation in the level of landscape organization (Löw and Míchal, 2003, Sádlo et al, 2005).

Since the restoration of democracy in 1989, new trends have been influencing the landscape. It is difficult to evaluate these recent changes, but some of them could pose a major threat to the remaining pluzinas, including the restitution and privatization of land, modern land consolidation projects and urban sprawl. 3. Remnants of medieval pluzinas in present-day landscapes By Gojda's (2000) definition, the pluzina of a medieval village was the economically utilized part of the landscape belonging to it, i.e. its fields, meadows and pastures, interconnected by a system of field roads.* Today, the word pluzina refers to parts of a landscape where the field patterns of medieval pluzinas have been preserved.

The pluzina of the lowlands and plateaus of the Old Settlement Area was similar to the medieval openfields of England (sensu Beresford and St Joseph, 1958). Each farm had fields in each of the village's blocs (or sections) of land, which were defined according to soil quality and managed within the three-field system. The long, narrow fields of these pluzinas were mostly united into

* Other authors offer different definitions of pluzina. For example, Frolec and Vařeka (in Sklenička and Pittnerova, 2005) describe pluzinas as “the economic base of a village”, meaning only those parts of the land that were privately owned by the villagers. Černý (1973) defines pluzinas as “the sum of all fields and sections belonging to a village”. However, for the purpose of this review, I have decided to adopt Gojda's definition, as it best corresponds with the landscape functions of pluzinas.


32

large fields in the second half of the 20th century in the Czech Republic - the former outlines of their sections still largely influence the layout and character of the landscape, but the original field pattern has disappeared. Their original character can still be seen in some parts of Poland (Gojda, 2000), and the Polish Strip Fields are one of the megatypes of European landscapes according to the Dobříš Assessment (European Environment Agency, 1995).

In the later colonized hilly countryside, each farmer had a hide of land adjoining his farm, which he managed according to his own decisions. Unlike the first type, these hides of land are often visible in today's landscapes as long fields or pastures, perpendicular to the axis of an elongated village and partially or entirely enclosed by hedgerows (Gojda, 2000).

In present-day terminology, these types of pluzina are called pluzinas with, respectively, unconsolidated or consolidated land holding. Different authors (e.g., Láznička, 1946; Černý, 1973; Löw and Míchal, 2003; Moravec, 2005) propose slightly different finer categorizations of pluzinas. The following overview is a synthesis of these approaches, mostly relying on the typology of Löw and Míchal, 2003, which best agrees with the author’s own field observations. The pictures are adopted from Černý (1973). The conspicuous long, narrow shape of the fields was introduced in the later middle ages. It was due to the new, heavy ploughs which ploughed the soil more deeply, but were difficult to turn, so it was advantageous to turn them as few times as possible. The S-shape of the fields probably originated from the technology of ploughing (Beresford and St Joseph, 1958).

It should also be noted that these types of pluzinas are typically found in combinations with the respective village plan types (Láznička, 1956). The following is a very brief description of these village plan types as found in the Czech Republic, adapted from Löw and Míchal (2003). A more detailed description can be found in various publications on vernacular architecture, such as Škabrada (1999). Cluster-village – an irregular cluster of small houses, typical for early medieval settlements. Like a segmental pluzina, where it can be found today, it is of later origin. Green-village – houses gathered around a village

green, often as large as the squares of Gothic towns. This type predominates in the Old Settlement Area. Street-village – one or two rows of houses around a road, typical for Eastern Bohemia and Southern Moravia. This type is often found on the edges of broad river wolds. Street-green-village – a combination of the previous two types. The houses form a continuous row at a certain distance from the road, forming an elongated green. Forest-hide-village – these are either circular in shape, or they have no green and the houses enclose a space which was originally an unwalkable stream wold, which was later often built up.

These types of village plans appear in the following seven combinations, with their respective pluzinas (Láznička, 1956): 1. Green-villages and street-green-villages with a sectional or pseudo-sectional pluzina in the Old Settlement Area 2. Forest-hide-villages with a croft pluzina in areas colonized in the later middle ages 3. Street-villages with a sectional pluzina (sometimes also a lineic pluzina) in the Old Settlement Area 4. Cluster-villages with a pseudo-sectional or segmental pluzina, formerly in the Old Settlement Area, now in areas settled in modern times 6. Long street-villages with a croft of a segmental pluzina, modern colonization in mountainous regions 7. Solitary farmsteads with a segmental pluzina, modern colonization in mountainous regions 3.1 Features of pluzinas found in the present-day landscape Where the fields of a former medieval pluzina are surrounded by hedgerows, the pluzina is a very distinctive field pattern, having a major influence on the appearance and function of the landscape. Where it is not thus defined, it is very inconspicuous – in the open landscape, usually only the outlines of the former sections of such a pluzina are preserved. In a forested landscape, a detailed archaeological study can reveal the former field margins. However, this review focuses on the distinct ecological, visual and historical


33

Figure 2. The segmental pluzina was the prevailing type in the early middle ages. However, it has not survived from those times, and where it appears today it is of a much younger (modern) origin in terrains where it was not possible to establish the other pluzina types. It consists of rectangular blocks of land around the village, and a farmer would typically own several blocks in different places in the pluzina (the land-holding was unconsolidated). Figure 3. The pseudo-sectional pluzina appeared where an old segmental pluzina was secondarily adapted for the three-field system and for a heavy plough during the Great colonization. A farmer would have fields in each section of the pluzina. This was the most typical kind of pluzina in the Old Settlement Area. Figure 4. The sectional pluzina appears mostly in the Old Settlement Area, with villages founded during the Great colonization. It is fully adopted for the three-field system – the creation of the individual sections was probably motivated by an effort to divide agricultural land evenly among all the farmers (Navrátil, 1986), and each farmer had fields in each section. Figure 5. The lineic pluzina is a transitional type between the sectional and croft pluzinas, between unconsolidated and consolidated land holding. It appears in the margins of the Old Settlement Area, in environmental conditions less advantageous, but still suitable, for agriculture (Löw and Míchal, 2003). The strip fields cover the whole pluzina, but tend to concentrate behind the farms. Land holding can be unconsolidated, consolidated or partially consolidated (Löw and Míchal, 2003; Moravec, 2005) and the pluzina was sometimes, but not always, used for three-field farming (Moravec, 2005).


34

significance of hedgerow-defined pluzinas.

The following is a list of the most important pluzina-related terms, as listed by Černý (1973). By definition, a hedgerow-defined pluzina consists of an open space and the hedgerows (or, more generally, the field margins) that enclose it. The individual open space between field margins is called a field (whether it is used for growing crops or for other purposes) and is tens to hundreds meters in length (Kuna et al., 2004). In sectional and pseudo-sectional pluzinas, these fields are associated into sections. Within the fields, there was sometimes a ridge and furrow pattern, which is now detectable only where the pluzina was re-forested before the use of mechanized ploughing. The entire area farmed by a family was called a hide of land and was either consolidated in one field, on unconsolidated, divided between smaller fields in various sections of the pluzina. The non-crop parts of the pluzina were headlands (along the short side of the fields) and field margins (between fields, along the long side).

From the present-day point of view, the field margins are the most prominent and interesting parts of the pluzina remnants. To the best of my knowledge, there are no published dendrological surveys of hedgerows in the Czech Republic. However, Černý (1973) lists some characteristics of their earthworks and plan view. The earthworks of field margins can be of three types: a mound, a step or a terrace. Mounds (about 15 to 30 cm in height and 2 to 3 metres in width) are usual in flat terrain or in hilly terrain where the margin runs downslope. Steps (1-1.5 metres in height and 1.5-3 metres in width) are found in slightly hilly terrain, where the margin runs horizontally or diagonally. These two types of margins separated the fields of different land holders. Horizontal terraces (1-2.5

Figure 6. The croft pluzina is typical for late medieval (and sometimes post-medieval) colonization of hilly areas. The land holding is consolidated, a farmer had all his land in one hide, usually surrounded by hedgerows. In this hide, the farmer would have, successively, garden produce, orchard, crop fields, pastures and sometimes a piece of forest (Gojda, M., personal communication, 2006). This pluzina is the type usually seen in the current Czech landscape – both because of the hedgerows, which have often survived till today (Gojda, 2000), and because it appeared in marginal agricultural areas, which were less susceptible to the recent dramatic changes in landscape patterns.

meters in height) were usual on steep slopes and created narrow, approximately horizontal fields, several of which were usually farmed by one family.

In plan view, field margins are either straight or slightly undulating, corresponding to the terrain. Sharp turns are exceptional, as are angular turns. On steep slopes, the field margins usually run horizontally, while in flat areas and on gentle slopes they often run diagonally or even down the slope. 4. Hedgerows and hedgerow patterns in landscape ecology Hedgerows are widely used to improve crop yields, control livestock, ameliorate drainage and erosion, provide wood products, and enhance aesthetic values and a sense of place (Forman, 1995) They are also important as plant and animal habitats and conduits (Forman and Godron, 1986). This chapter begins by defining the role of hedgerows in the landscape as corridors, and, in some cases, as the matrix, and goes on to explore their above-mentioned functions. 4.1 Hedgerows as corridors or matrix in various landscapes As defined by Forman and Godron (1986), corridors are narrow strips of land which differ from the matrix on either side and which divide and at the same time tie together nearly all landscapes. The same authors further define three basic types of corridor structure, independent of origin, human use and type of landscape. Stream


35

corridors border water courses and vary in width according to the size of the stream. Strip corridors are wider bands, with a central interior environment that contains an abundance of interior organisms. Line corridors are narrow bands essentially dominated throughout by edge species, and are typically represented by hedgerows (Forman and Godron, 1986, Forman, 1995).

According to Forman and Godron (1986), landscape matrix is determined by three criteria – the relative area of an element, its connectivity and its control over the dynamics of a landscape. By this definition, in some bocage landscapes where the hedgerow network has a high level of connectivity, the hedgerows can become the landscape's matrix, although they generally cover less than a tenth of the total area (Pollard et al, 1974). The hedgerows in such landscapes also tend to control the landscape's dynamics – they act as species sources and are ready to initiate the dynamics leading the entire area toward a possible former steady state or other condition (Forman and Godron, 1986). 4.2 Hedgerow connectivity and networks, mesh size "Connectivity is a measure of how connected or spatially continuous a corridor is, which may be quantified simply by the number of breaks per unit of length of the corridor. Since the presence or absence of breaks in a corridor is considered the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of both the conduit and barrier functions, connectivity is the primary measure of corridor structure" (Merriam, 1984). Forman (1995) observes that hedgerows are often perforated with gaps and have low connectivity, which can be due either to farmers leaving gaps to move through with machinery, or, in multi-species hedgerows, by different sensitivity of the species to blow down or pests.

Hedgerows often form networks, almost all of which include scattered or frequent woodlots. Some of the important structural characteristics of these networks are the types of hedgerow intersections (X, T, L, an end or a connection with woods), the presence and length of breaks and the presence and distribution of mini-nodes. The average distance between network lines, or the

average area of landscape elements enclosed by the lines, are measurements of mesh size (Forman and Godron, 1986).

Mesh size is considered particularly important in relation to the grain size of a species (Levins, 1968), that is, the distance or area over which the species carries out its functions. As the size of fields increases, the more fine-grained species tend to disappear from the landscape (Forman and Godron, 1986). 4.3 Hedgerows and environmental qualities There are many ways in which hedgerows affect the surrounding landscape: they control physical, chemical and biological fluxes, as well as being cultural indicators (Baudry et. al., 2000).

For example, they affect the field microclimate, control soil erosion (Burel and Baudry, 1995), prevent uneven stream flow through the year (Mérot, 1999) reduce pesticide drift and fertilizer misplacement (Ucar and Hall, 2001; Marshall and Moonen, 2002) and serve as a buffer against nitrates and for water protection (Caubel-Forget and Grimaldi, 1999). Furthermore, hedgerows conserve biodiversity by serving as a habitat and a conduit for wildlife (Forman and Godron, 1986; Burel and Baudry, 1995; Deckers et al, 2005) and contribute to the visual and cultural value of a landscape and to its diversity of field and network patterns (Burel and Baudry, 1995).

Of course, the surrounding landscape also affects hedgerow qualities and preservation or disappearance (Forman and Godron, 1986, Deckers et al, 2005). 4.4 Microenvironment within a hedgerow Forman and Godron (1986) consider the following specific conditions within hedgerows regarding solar radiation, wind, water regime and soils: a hedgerow has lower albedo than a field, and so absorbs more heat energy. At the top of the hedgerow, the wind velocity is higher than in the surrounding fields, but at the bottom it is considerably lower. Evaporation from the soil in a hedgerow is lower than from that in a field, but plant transpiration must be higher. The soil in hedgerows typically has more organic matter than


36

field soils, and the presence of stones in hedgerows provides suitable habitats for species such as lichens or mice (Bates, 1937). Microenvironmental conditions vary widely from top to bottom and from one side to the other of a hedgerow. The top of a hedgerow is subjected to greater environmental extremes than the adjoining field, but the inside bottom of a hedgerow is a significantly more mesic microhabitat. 4.5 Impact of a hedgerow on the surrounding environment In many places, the main objective in maintaining hedgerows is to modify the microclimate of the field, especially the effects of wind (Forman and Godron, 1986; Kristensen and Caspersen, 2000; Baudry et al, 2000; Busck, 2003). Downwind of a hedgerow, day temperature, soil and atmospheric moisture increase, whereas wind speed, evaporation and night temperatures are generally lower than in open areas (Forman and Godron, 1986).

According to Forman and Godron (1986), the wind speed is reduced as far as 28 times the hedgerow height (28 h) downwind, evaporation is reduced 16h downwind. This changes where the distance between hedgerows is less than 28h (as in the case of pluzina landscapes). Here, wind forced up over the first hedgerow drops sharply in a turbulent flow at a distance of about 6 to 8 h, dramatically increasing both wind speed and evaporation in this area. According to Burel and Baudry (1995), the effect of a hedgerow on the microclimate extends for 8-10 times the hedgerow height.

Forman and Godron (1986) conclude that wind speed and desiccation at ground level are extremely variable, but on an average, wind velocity is lower in a hedgerow landscape than in a landscape without hedgerows. For example, a study carried out in Denmark (Jensen, 1954) showed a 15% lower wind speed in a hedgerow landscape than in a comparable open field.

By capturing ground water and pumping it vertically by evapotranspiration, hedgerows help produce drier soil, less stream flooding and (perhaps) locally moister air (Forman and Godron, 1986). Hedgerows are also important in the regulation of stream flows (Mérot, 1999) A study

comparing two landscapes near each other in Brittany (France) with and without hedgerow networks (Forman and Godron, 1986) showed that in winter the rainy season- streamflow was lower in the hedgerow landscape, whereas in summer the opposite effect was observed. The total annual stream flow of the two watersheds was essentially the same. In Brittany, many hedgerows are used for water flow control (Baudry et al, 2000). At the field level they stop or control fluxes, and at the landscape level the sets of connected elements control the flow by a succession of concentration and channelling of water all over the watersheds (Burel et al., 1995).

According to Forman and Godron (1986), if we consider only short term crop production in a farm, hedgerows do not have an unequivocally positive or negative effect (Forman and Godron, 1986). "On the negative side, hedgerows decrease the crop area, produce shade, shelter pests, and compete with crop plants for soil moisture and nutrients. Balanced against this is the pattern of microclimate over the field discussed above. Especially productive zones in the field may be expected about 3 to 6 h downwind of a hedgerow, and 2 to 6 h upwind of a second hedgerow. Basically, the decision of the farmer (and society) whether to have hedgerows by fields hinges largely on the multiple functions of hedgerows (Forman and Baudry, 1984). These include providing wildlife, inhibiting potentially damaging wind velocities, harbouring pests, harbouring potential predators of pests, blocking farm machinery, providing shade for livestock, marking property boundaries, providing firewood, blocking drifting snow, inhibiting erosion and nutrient runoff, biological conservation, aesthetics, and more." (Forman and Godron, 1986)

According to Forman (1995), "overall plant productivity in a field is enhanced by the shelter of [hedgerows], but the reasons are complex and the exception noteworthy". 4.6 Impact of the surrounding environment on hedgerows There are many flows from fields to hedgerows, including snow and soil particles, dust and aerosols, herbicides and insecticides, fertilizers which favour nitrophile plants at the expense of


37

other species and many field animals – in short, the nature of hedgerows is heavily controlled by inputs from adjacent fields (Forman and Godron, 1986). Following a number of studies (Forman and Godron, 1986), it appears that many species, especially birds and mammals, move frequently between woods and hedgerows.

Homes also have a profound effect on nearby hedges. "Hedgerows are often maintained for privacy, for protection against wind and snow, and to cut fuel costs...the bird community may also be distinct (Yahner, 1982). Such hedgerows are also enriched by non native species from the home, including house mice, cats and certain plantings" (Willmot, 1980; Middleton and Merriam, 1983; Forman and Godron, 1986).

4.7 Hedgerows as habitat, conduits and barriers to plant and animal communities

A large proportion of the fauna in an agricultural

landscape is observed in hedgerows at some time (Forman and Godron, 1986). According to Hooper (1970), about 80% of woodland wildlife species currently breed in hedgerows. Burel and Baudry (1995) and Baudry (2000) attribute this to micro-habitat diversity (such as trunks, stones and ditches), complexity of the vertical vegetation structure (number of layers, plant species present, pruning regimes), and the diversity of host plants that is characteristic of old hedgerows. About 500 to 600 vascular plant species are known to grow in hedgerows in England. The vegetation is similar to forest edges (Pollard et al., 1974).

Burel and Baudry (1995) and Forman and Godron (1986) note that the fauna and flora is not specific, but consists of a mixture of species derived from other environments, mainly forest. "For animals, hedgerows can be considered as: a) a habitat for species that are restricted to it b) a temporary refuge for those that feed or spend part of their lives in adjacent fields c) a complementary feeding area for many insects that usually feed on crops and for which the fecundity rate depends on nectar found on hedgerow flowers d) a reservoir for propagules“ (from Burel and Baudry, 1995).

Forman and Goudron (1986) note that

hedgerows are very important in landscapes with few woods, because in such landscapes forest animals may be essentially limited to hedgerows. Hedgerows also influence the spatial distribution of insects and other animals in adjacent fields, both because they harbour species and because they influence the field microclimate (Forman, 1995) These animals are both crop pests (such as the crop feeding insects mentioned in caption c) and their predators. As an example, Forman (1995) presents a hypothesis that hedgerow birds and other predators... enhance agricultural productivity by feeding on potential pest insects, thus preventing population explosions, and concludes that if this hypothesis is sustained, small fields surrounded by hedgerows or large fields with woodlots, would provide a "natural pest control" mechanism. He also hypothesizes that agricultural production was more stable and suffered fewer extensive pest outbreaks in fine-grained, medieval French and English landscapes, than in modern "macroagricultural" landscapes – a hypothesis that can also be extrapolated to the Czech pluzina.

Hedgerows are important as corridors for species movement (Forman and Godron, 1986; Burel, 1989; Forman, 1995) and for species survival in agricultural landscapes (Burel and Baudry, 1995). Forman (1995) notes several types of movement along corridors – home range movements, animal dispersal, migration and wandering or nomadic movement. The movement along the hedgerow is inhibited by narrows, gaps, curvilinearity, patchiness, environmental gradients and the length of the corridor. Corridor width is considered important for movement (Forman, 1995), although many animals move along narrow hedgerows, too (e.g., Pollard et al., 1974). The two variables considered by Forman (1995) as primarily controlling the conduit functions are habitat connectivity and quality. Burel and Baudry (1995) highlight the importance of hedgerows bordering lanes where microclimate conditions are similar to those of forest.

Hedgerows can also act as barriers to the movement of some species, usually, but not always, in a direction perpendicular to their orientation. Forman and Godron (1986) characterize them as semipermeable barriers or filters in a landscape, permitting some objects to pass through readily and inhibiting others.


38

4.8 Addressing possible ecological disadvantages of hedgerows Most of the literature on hedgerows focuses on their environmental and ecological advantages. However, Forman (1995) notes the following possible ecological disadvantages of hedgerows*: (1) They act as a mortality sink, by drawing

animals to unfavourable conditions in a corridor

(2) They increase the probability that pests, diseases, exotic species and disturbances (e.g., fire) will spread to a patch. Forman (1995) concludes that low quality

corridors can act as mortality sinks, but the local population learns to avoid it. It remains a mortality sink for young and dispersing animals, who have not had the time to learn to avoid it. This pinpoints the importance of high-quality corridors, which are used for effective species movement between patches.

To the second point, Forman (1995) presents a variety of studies showing that these ecological disadvantages of hedgerows are minor or non-existent. 5. Aesthetic values of pluzinas According to Vorel (1999), although people perceive landscapes differently, there are certain places which will bring aesthetic pleasure to most people. The aesthetic value of a landscape is mirrored in the senses of a viewer, who perceives the shape of its individual elements, their composition, colours, texture, smells, sounds, moisture, cold or wind... these perceptions mirror the so-called emotional values of a landscape and evoke certain states of mind, such as tranquillity or restlessness, surprise or wonder.

The content values of a landscape are connected with the contemporary aesthetic norm of every era. In our time, geographical area and

* Forman uses the term „woody corridors“, but following the definition of hedgerows for the purpose of this work and for the purpose of pluzina study (chapter 2 of this review), I extrapolate these conclusions to hedgerows.

culture, they arise from the ancient feeling of being connected with the landscape (Paradise, Arcadia) and the consciousness of a need to conserve the landscape and its natural values.

These principles can be extrapolated into several features of the landscape scene, which are generally accepted aesthetic values. Vorel (1999) lists the following values:

1/ evident presence of naturalistic landscape parts, such as indented forest edges, meandering watercourses bordered by trees and shrubs, water planes framed by forest 2/ presence of valuable ecosystems in the landscape (such as littoral vegetation around a lake, or rocky slopes with grass and shrub plant associations) 3/ naturalistic character of the dominant landscape features and horizons, defining the space (rocky or forested horizons, distinctive shape of a dominant feature) 4/ natural environment with obvious influence of traditional farming (typical field patterns, vineyards) 5/ balance between relatively natural or naturalistic features and farmland 6/ extensive use of scattered greenery in the cultural landscape (woody field margins, watercourse and linear vegetation, solitary trees) 7/ fine landscape structure 8/ harmony between the natural environment and buildings within it 9/ harmony between the natural environment and settlements within it 10/ harmony between the natural environment and the dominant valuable architecture within it

In this list, features 3/ - 7/ are directly connected with pluzinas (an indirect connection can be found in almost all the features). According to this methodology, pluzinas can be regarded as exceptionally aesthetically valuable landscape elements.

Landscape architecture defines and uses certain principles of spatial layout of elements, called harmonization principles. These include symmetry, asymmetry, gradation, rhythm, contrast and consistency of elements (Vorel, 1999). The regularly spaced hedgerows of pluzinas are particularly effective in providing rhythm and contrast to the landscape. They also provide a


39

diversity of textures (Morisson, D., personal communication, 2004) and a sense of mystery in the landscape.

In terms of landscape scenery (Vorel, 1999), hedgerows play a major role by defining and enclosing spaces. According to Simonds (1961), "Open spaces assume an architectural character when they are enclosed in full or in part by a structure or structural elements". Simonds (1961) further notes that such a space is complete by itself, but it is also an inseparable part of any adjacent spaces and structures - together, the related spaces and elements create a meaningful complex of solids and voids. The voids and solids are equally important and they define each other - without the corresponding void, the solid has no meaning.

Similarly, Cullen (1961) notes that one of the golden axioms of landscape architecture is that any landscape is a sequence of spaces and should be perceived and created as such. The space we are in is a "here", any other space is a "there", and the human mind is particularly adapted to perceive the meaning of any here-there relationship - How is "there" different from "here"? Is "there" worth exploring? How does/could "there" affect "here"? Would I be better off "there" than I am "here"? Such thoughts, conscious or subconscious, are some of the strongest sources of emotion that the landscape evokes in us. Articulated "here-there" relationships help define individual spaces and tie them together into a whole, meaningful landscape as opposed to a shattered anarchy of spaces neither defined nor connected.

Cullen (1961) further concludes that enclosure is a very important element of possessing and surveying the landscape - it creates a "here" to be occupied and viewed and determines its quality. It can be complete, partial or suggested, transparent, translucent or opaque, heavy or insubstantial. It can create various special effects, such as prospects and refuges, and of course it has practical implications such as screening or windbreaking. In their variety, the hedgerows of a pluzina can provide all these effects, and thus greatly enrich the aesthetic quality and interest of a landscape. 6. Resources and methods in pluzina research 6.1 Historical resources - cartographic, written and photographic

Very few resources relevant to this study date back to the times when pluzinas were founded. In 11th century legal documents, there are some mentions of land (terra), but it is rarely possible to deduce information about the shape and size of fields (Smetánka, 1991; Černý, 1992).

However, authors (e.g., Černý, 1992; Dohnal, 2003) agree that it is possible to use some modern sources to extrapolate the medieval situation. There are many proofs that pluzinas did not entirely change during the centuries following their establishment (Štěpánek, 1967). However, some authors (e.g., Nováček, 2000) are sceptical about this extrapolation. It is important to remember that most conclusions gained by these retrospective analyses are hypothetical (Gojda, 2000) and need to be verified by archaeological methods.

The most reliable way to acquire information about pluzinas from historical sources is by studying old maps (cartographic resources), complemented by information from written resources. These resources can sometimes be complemented by pictures, such as 16th century pluzina drawings, which are, however, rare in central Europe and provide only general information about pluzina layout (Moravec, 2005). Other complementary resources include landscape paintings, drawings from old calendars and oral tradition, especially local names. When studying more recent changes, photographic resources, especially aerial photographs, are very useful (Gojda, 2000; Lipský, 2000; Sklenička, 2003).

Most authors (e.g., Gojda, 2000; Lipský, 2000; Sklenička, 2003; Kuna et al., 2004) agree that stable cadastre maps are the most valuable cartographic resource in studying historical landscapes on the pluzina scale.

Sklenička (2003) describes the stable cadastre as an inventory of all land of the pre-Litavian parts of the Hapsburg monarchy, established between 1825 and 1843 to serve as a basis for taxation. It consists of maps on a 1:2880 scale (1 inch to 40 fathoms), an evaluation study (a description of the village, its climate, land, water bodies and watercourses, roads, etc.), a final study (statistical data regarding the cadastre) and the stable cadastre duplicate (an 1854-1856 revision containing data on soil quality and yields).

For each plot, the following characteristics are listed: section name, plot number, name and address of the plot owner, plot land use, plot size,


40

soil quality, yields. The stable cadastre was continuously updated for over a century after it was made (Lipský, 2000). These changes were made in red ink, so they can be used to evaluate landscape changes, without the original situation being obscured.

Lipský (2000) and Sklenička (2003) conclude that the stable cadastre documents an important milestone in the development of the Czech landscape – the point when there was a historical minimum of forest cover in many areas, the end of the era of three-field farming and the beginning of the era of large scale use of four-field farming, which led to rapid intensification, a decrease in pasture area, the introduction of new crops and the rapid increase in yields that began in the 19th century. Their importance in pluzina studies lies in documenting the end of the era in which these structures originated and developed.

Lipský (2000) further notes that the information from these maps can sometimes be complemented by Müller's map of the Czech lands (18th century) and the military maps of the First (1763-1787), Second (1836-1852) and Third (1876-1880) military surveys, which sometimes offer very interesting complementary information on the changes in land use (forests, scattered greenery, meadows, water bodies, etc.) but cannot be systematically used in detail.

Apart from the studies of the stable cadastre, Lipský (2000) and Sklenička (2003) list the following written resources, made for taxation purposes and listing land ownership: the First Taxation Rule documents the state after the 30 Year's War, a period of deep economic crisis and neglect of the cultural landscape. The Theresian cadastre (from 1748) and the Josephian cadastre (from 1785), on the other hand, document the conjuncture of the "Czech baroque landscape". These documents describe land owned by the subjects much more accurately than the land of the nobility. In the subjects' land, we can determine the percentage of fields, pastures and approximately also the meadows in each cadastre. Moravec (2005) notes that some archive materials, such as manor land inventories, land inventory books and documents can also contain data relevant to pluzina reconstruction.

Sklenička (2003) lists three types of photographic resources – photographs taken from the ground, aerial photographs and satellite

photographs. Of these, the first two types are frequently used in pluzina studies. Photographs taken from the ground are currently finding their place in historical landscape studies, thanks to new publications, exhibitions and other projects (Skaloš, J., personal communication, 2007). Orthogonal aerial photographs are one of the most useful resources in pluzina studies. In the Czech Republic, these have been systematically made since 1936 for military purposes, and the Military Topographic Institute in Dobruška has an archive of approx. 800 000 negatives (Sklenička, 2003), which are now available to the public. As was shown in section 4 of this review, the 20th century, and especially the second half of the century, had a fundamental impact on the current form of medieval pluzinas, which the aerial photographs illustrate in a clear and unbiased way. Sklenička (2003) observes that the photographs most relevant to the development of the Czech landscape are those from the 1950s, which describe the state of the landscape prior to these changes. Diagonal aerial photographs of pluzinas are also common and have mostly an illustrative value. 6.2 Archaeological methods The following section is a brief overview of archaeological methods used in the study of medieval pluzinas, both those stabilized in today's landscape by hedgerows and those no longer visible. Although this overview is principally concerned with hedgerow-defined pluzinas, the latter methods can also be of use in determining their properties, such as their original extent, and in confirming their authenticity.

In the Czech Republic, excavations have rarely been used in the study of medieval pluzinas (Beneš et al., 1999), but a number of non-destructive archaeological methods are commonly employed. Aerial surveys, made by aerial archaeology, provide the overall picture of pluzinas (Štěpánek, 1967). They include visual surveys of the landscape from a low-flying aircraft, as well as analyses and interpretations of existing photographic material (Kuna et al., 2004).

Apart from direct surveys of existing hedgerow-defined field patterns and former field patterns shown by strips of different trees within forests (Kuna et. al., 2004), aerial archaeology


41

finds remnants of human activity using direct and indirect indicators (Gojda, 2000; Kuna et al., 2004). According to Gojda (2000), the direct indicators are manifested either in the different colour of the soil above features (soil marks), or as shadow effects copying the relief in the morning or evening sun (shadow marks). Indirect indicators include vegetation marks, drought marks, snow marks and moisture marks. Vegetation and drought marks show underground objects by differences in the vegetation growing over them – mostly, hollow objects show in higher and more lush vegetation, whereas built up objects show in shorter and drier vegetation. The study of snow and moisture marks utilizes the different physical properties of features which cause snow or moisture to stay on them for a longer or shorter time than on the surrounding landscape. The two phenomena most widely utilized in finding and studying pluzinas are shadow and snow marks.

According to Kuna et al. (2004), the methods of surface surveying that are most widely used in pluzina research are visual prospection and geodetic-topographic surveys. Visual prospection involves a simple surface survey, without a detailed geodetic survey. (Černý (1973) mentions this method as "historic-geographic prospection"). According to Moravec (2005), the objective of visual prospection is to find the remnants of disappeared medieval villages and their pluzinas and to recapitulate, supplement and give precision to the knowledge of their historical development. Štěpánek (1967) notes that a pre-requisite for successful visual prospection is the researcher's good knowledge of terrain features and experience with the studies medieval pluzinas.

As Moravec (2005) recapitulates, geodetic-topographic surveys involve a detailed geodetic survey, and the results are more effectively used in other archaeological methods. Such a survey often continues and develops a previous visual survey. However, the high costs limit it to areas with especially well preserved remnants of settlements. Another limitation on these surveys is the chronology of the objects. Although this problem could be solved by archaeological excavations, these usually cannot be made on the required scale. Despite these limitations, this method contributes significantly to our knowledge of the general settlement pattern and the layout of medieval villages and pluzinas.

6.3 Natural science methods Moravec (2005) concludes that in the study of pluzinas, archaeology joins forces with the natural sciences, especially palaeobotany and soil science. Soil science methods (such as phosphate analysis) are also important in pluzina research. They are based on the observation that the longer a plot is farmed, the more humus and phosphates there are in the soil. A transect measuring these characteristics across the cadastre can therefore determine the relative periods for which the individual parts of the pluzina have/had been used. This relative dating can then be supplemented by a surface artefact survey or by radiocarbon dating of the humus in lower parts of the soil profile, which are beyond the reach of ploughing (Štěpánek, 1967). 7. Aspects of pluzina conservation As the previous sections of this review strove to illustrate, pluzinas provide ecological, aesthetic, cultural and agronomic benefits, as well as being a unique historical heritage. To summarize along with Ewald (2001), "[pluzinas] are very impressive and important elements of traditional cultural landscapes in regard to their genesis, their value as habitats and their scenic beauty".

Unfortunately, the last six decades saw a major decrease in these historical field patterns (Sklenička et. al, unpublished) and today, they are among the most threatened agricultural landscapes. This situation is similar to that of hedgerow landscapes in western Europe (e.g., Burel and Baudry, 1995). However, unlike the situation in western Europe (Jongman and Pungetti, 1999), Czech pluzinas are not as yet legally protected and there is growing concern (e.g., Ewald, 2001; Sklenička and Pittnerova, 2005 ) for their conservation.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no literature concerning major historical field pattern restoration. The only documented case of current large-scale hedgerow restoration is hedgerow planting in Denmark (Kristensen and Caspersen, 2002; Busck, 2003), but this does not follow any historical pattern.

One of the possible reasons for such an omission is that, being cultural landscapes,


42

pluzinas fall among many disciplines (such as landscape planning and architecture, landscape history, landscape archaeology, landscape ecology), and as such do not fall under the sole jurisdiction of any one of them. Moreover, there are different stakeholder perspectives on pluzinas, all of them having an important role to play in ensuring that pluzina conservation is efficient (Brabec, E., personal communication, 2004) – that of the experts, that of the farmers and local communities, and that of the general public who come to the area seeking recreation (e.g., Oreszczyn, 2000). 7.1 The experts' perspective The role of experts in pluzina conservation is to promote scientific knowledge (as scientists) and to transfer it into practice, both by creating and upholding legal means of protection (as conservation authorities), and by implementing these in the planning process (as planners and designers).

As was mentioned earlier, pluzinas are not yet legally protected in the Czech Republic. Sklenička et al (unpublished) consider that this is due to the lack of relevant studies evaluating pluzina landscapes in the entire area of the Czech Republic. Following such research, a pluzina database should be created and a conception of medieval field pattern conservation should be defined.

As to the legal aspects of pluzina conservation, Sklenička et al. (unpublished) recommend that there is no need to define an entirely new legal category, as there are currently two appropriate categories included in two Czech acts. The Landscape Zone category of the Cultural Heritage Act is used for protecting culturally and historically valuable parts of the landscape, while the Natural Park category of the Nature and Landscape Preservation Act is usually used for landscape character conservation, which includes aesthetic, natural, cultural and historical qualities of the landscape (Vorel et. al., 2006). Sklenička et al (unpublished) further recommend that larger integrated pluzina landscapes be protected within the Natural Park category and the smaller landscapes as Landscape Zones.

The landscape planning tool best capable of conserving pluzinas, and also of destroying them,

is land consolidation. In cadastres with especially well-preserved pluzinas, Sklenička and Pittnerova (2005) recommend that the aspects of pluzina conservation be established as a priority, because of the very small area of well preserved pluzina landscapes. They further conclude that the development of these areas and the design of measures in soil conservation, flood control, traffic systems, ecological networks, afforestation, and land use type changes should be subordinated to this concept.

One of the most important problems in cultural landscape conservation is to determine the extent in which to conserve, both geographically and in terms of the qualities that need to be conserved. Feliü (1994) notes that "the sample selected must be substantial enough to adequately represent the totality of the cultural landscape that it illustrates" and that "it is important that due attention be paid to the full range of values represented in the landscape, both cultural and natural". In other words, cultural landscapes should be protected in their integrity. It is, however, not always straightforward to establish the basis for this integrity. Where pluzinas are concerned, Sklenička et al. (unpublished) recommend that the original spatial features of the medieval pattern should be preserved.

The experts' perspective in pluzina conservation is often considered to be by far the most important. Especially in the Czech landscape, where land ownership was discontinued for 50 years and most of the farmland is still farmed on the basis of rental, not ownership, it is very important to introduce legislation and subsidies to facilitate pluzina conservation (Sklenička et al., unpublished).

However, it is to be hoped that the role of the farmer will once again become dominant – after all, experts are merely visitors to the landscape (Löw and Míchal, 2003) and it is farmers who create it, unlike the authorities, the planners, or the general public (Hnitka, 1999). 7.2 The perspective of farmers and other members of local communities To the best of my knowledge, there has been no study evaluating how farmers and other members of the local communities perceive pluzinas.


43

However, a general picture can be gained from similar research done in hedgerow landscapes in France and England (Burel and Baudry, 1995; Orezsczyn and Lane, 2000).

The results of a survey done in Brittany (France) by Burel and Baudry (1995) show that views on hedgerows varied significantly between farmers and local non-farmers. Whereas non-farmers perceived hedgerows as important for nature and particularly birds and flowers, or for their visual aspects, and would perceive their disappearance as catastrophic for the landscape, according to farmers, only hedgerows on property limits should be maintained and where hedgerows disappear, the loss is balanced by benefits in their activities. However, when both farmers and non-farmers were shown pictures of landscapes with different hedgerow densities, the landscape with fewest hedgerows (which, however, still had much more tree cover than the collectively farmed fields in large parts of the Czech Republic) was intensively disliked both by farmers and non-farmers. There is a threshold in landscape opening beyond which no one would want to go, as part of the desire to belong to a particular kind of landscape.

In their survey of different stakeholder perspectives on hedgerows in the English landscape, Oreszczyn and Lane (2000) found that views on the importance of hedgerows did not vary greatly between the farmers, the public and the experts. All these groups perceived them as part of the English cultural landscape. They were not just a means of conserving biodiversity in the countryside but a part of England's history and national identity.

However, different groups appreciated different aspects of hedgerows. For the farmers and the local public, the landscape importance of hedgerows was connected to their contribution to a sense of place and the aesthetic and ephemeral aspects of hedgerows in the landscape, whereas experts considered landscape importance to relate to the framework of the landscape or the structure of the hedgerow. Differences were particularly apparent when both groups determined hedgerows of particular significance – the experts tried to identify ideal or "key" hedgerows, whereas for the farmers and locals, the most significant hedgerows would be their own garden hedgerows and those

close to their homes, hedgerows remembered from childhood and associated with local events. Orezsczyn concludes that if hedgerow conservation policies are to be successful, it is necessary to take into account these differences and to communicate with farmers and local communities through participation programs.

Hnitka (1999) concludes that to preserve the character of cultural landscapes, it is above all necessary to protect the farmer and to make it possible for him or her to farm in the landscape's, i.e. the farmer’s, best interest. The farmer needs to have enough information about his land, he needs to be able to evaluate this information, and the economic and social conditions must be suitable for. According to Hnitka, it is only when the farmer's lack of skill or momentary economic conditions threaten to hinder his long-term interest or the public interest that the use of legal measures is warranted. 7.3 The general public's perspective Increasingly, recreation is becoming a major function of rural landscapes and an important source of the local inhabitants' income. This trend is even stronger in marginal areas, where pluzinas are most often found. Therefore, the qualities of pluzinas perceived as important by tourists, by owners of summer houses and by other people coming to the countryside for recreation are becoming important for pluzina conservation.

These qualities are listed in section 5, which describes the aesthetic values of pluzinas. However, one set of values is particularly important for pluzina conservation, and therefore merits mentioning once more: the content values, which, in our time, geographical area and culture, arise from the ancient feeling of connection with the landscape and the consciousness of the need to conserve the landscape and its natural values (Vorel, 1999). People tend to perceive cultural landscapes as beautiful if they understand their meaning as naturalistic, sustainable, wildlife-friendly, etc. As most people in the Czech Republic are not familiar even with the term pluzina, there is a wide range of opportunities to promote conservation by educating the public on this subject.


44

8. Future research directions To use a Czech metaphor, pluzinas are an "unploughed field", meaning that very little specific research has been done on them so far. Therefore, there are numerous opportunities open for studies in various fields of specialization. Some of the topics that need to be covered to facilitate pluzina conservation are listed below.

Baudry et al, 2000, propose that a review of hedgerow landscapes outside the Atlantic fringe would be of great interest. This is also true of Czech pluzinas, where, currently, only a few more or less randomly discovered pluzinas are known to the experts. A survey of pluzinas throughout the Czech Republic should be carried out, using the methods of aerial archaeology. Such a survey would provide a better understanding of these valuable field patterns and facilitate the conservation of the best preserved examples. Following such a study, a database of pluzinas should be created and a concept for their conservation should be defined.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no study evaluating how farmers and other members of the local communities perceive pluzinas. As it is an established axiom of cultural landscape conservation that it can only be effective if its object has a meaning for the local communities (e.g. Orezsczyn and Lane, 2000), this research gap will need to be filled early in the process of creating a pluzina conservation methodology.

It would also be interesting to test the function of pluzinas as corridors and as habitats for wildlife, as the results presented in section 6 concern slightly different hedgerow-defined landscapes. Last but not least, the functions of pluzinas in stabilizing the landscape should be explored, including their impact on soil erosion and water retention in the landscape. 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" and by grant No. 41190/1312/3151 from the Faculty of Environmental Studies, Czech University of Life Sciences "Conservation and

restoration of historical landscape patterns". The author owes special thanks to Robin Healey for his useful advice on English language presentation. References Barnes, G., Williamson, T. 2006. Hedgerow History, Ecology,

History and Landscape Character. Windgather Press, Bollington, UK.

Barr, C.J., Gillespie, M.K. 2000. Estimating hedgerow length and pattern characteristics in Great Britain using Countryside Survey data. Journal of Environmental Management, 60: 23-32.

Bates, C.G.1937. The vegetation of wayside and hedgerow. Journal of Ecology, 25: 469-481.

Baudry, J., Bunce, R.G.H., Burel, F. 2000. Hedgerows: An international perspective on their origin, function and management. Journal of Environmental Management, 60: 7-22.

Baudry, J., Burel, F., Aviron, S., Martin, M., Ouin, A., Pain, G., Thenail, C. 2003. Temporal variability of connectivity in agricultural landscapes: do farming activities help? Landscape Ecology, 18: 303-314.

Beneš, J., Hrubý, P., Michálek, J., Parkman, M. 1999. Kamenná hrazení na Hořejším Vrchu a Kokovci u Vlachova Březí, příspěvek ke studiu agrární krajiny Šumavského podhůří. Zlatá stezka, 6: 271-296.

Beresford, M.W., St Joseph, J.K.S. 1958. Medieval England, An Aerial Survey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Burel, F. 1989. Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles’ spatial patterns in Western France. Landscape Ecology, 6: 161-194.

Burel, F., Baudry, J. 1995. Social, aesthetic and ecological aspects of hedgerows in rural landscapes as a framework for greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33: 327-340.

Buschck, A.G. 2003. Hedgerow planting analyzed as a social system – interaction between farmers and other actors in Denmark. Journal of Environmental Management, 68: 161-171.

Caubel-Forget, V., Grimaldi, C. 1999. Fonctionnement hydrique et géochemique du talus de ceinture de bas-fond: conséquences sur le transfert et le devenir des nitrates. In: Actes du Colloque Bois et Forets des Agriculteurs. Editions Cemagref, Paris.

Countryside Council for Wales. 1997. Action for Wildlife. Biodiversity Action Plans: The Challenge in Wales. Countryside Council for Wales, UK.

Čeliš, J.K. 1997. Člověk a krajina, duchovní aspekty. Z Českého ráje a Podkrkonoší, supplementum 3: 175-184.

Černý, E. 1973. Metodika průzkumu zaniklých středověkých osad a plužin na Drahanské vrchovině. Československá společnost archeologická při ČSAV Praha, Czech Republic.

Černý, E. 1979. Zaniklé středověké osady a jejich plužiny. Metodika historicko-geografického průzkumu v oblasti Drahanské vrchoviny, Academia, Praha, Czech Republic.

Černý, E. 1992. Výsledky výzkumu zaniklých středověkých osad a jejich plužin. Historicko-geografická studie regionu Drahanské vrchoviny. Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost, Brno, Czech Republic.


45

Deckers, B., Kerselaers, E., Gulinck, H., Muys, B., Hermy, M. 2005.Long-term spatio-temporal dynamics of a hedgerow network landscape in Flanders, Belgium. Foundation for Environmental Conservation, 32: 20-29.

de la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J.A., de Lucio, J.V. 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean–climate landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77: 393-407.

Dohnal, M. 2003. Historická kulturní krajina v novověku, vývoj vsi a plužiny v Borovanech u Bechyně. Ústav archeologické památkové péče středních Čech, Praha, Czech Republic.

European Environment Agency. 1995. Europe’s Environment: The Dobříš Assessment, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.

Ewald, K.C. 2001. The neglect of landscape aesthetics in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54: 255-266.

Feliü, C.A. 1994. Cultural landscapes. Ekistics, 364/365: 68-70. Forman, R.T.T., Baudry, J. 1984. Hedgerows and hedgerow

network in landscape ecology. Environmental Management, 8: 499-510.

Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics, The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Gojda, M., 2000. Archeologie krajiny – vývoj archetypů kulturní krajiny. Academia, Praha, Czech Republic.

Hendrych, J. 1999. Krajinný ráz a historická krajina. In: Vorel, I., Sklenička, P. (eds.) Péče o krajinný ráz, cíle a metody. Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha, ČR, pp 54-59.

Hnitka, P. 1999. Krajinný ráz – obraz či rázovitost krajiny? In: Vorel, I., Sklenička, P. (eds.) Péče o krajinný ráz, cíle a metody. Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha, ČR, pp 32-37.

Hooper, M.D. 1970. Hedges and birds. Birds, 3: 114-117. Hunziker, M. 1995. The spontaneous reafforestation in

abandoned agricultural lands: perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31: 399-410.

Jančura, P. 2004. Význam historických krajinných štruktúr v krajinnom obraze a tvorbe krajiny. In: Jančura, P. (ed.) Historické krajinné štruktúry vo vzťahu k vývoji poľnohospodárského využívania zeme. Partner, Banská Štiavnica, Slovak Republic, pp 4-15.

Jensen, M.1954. Shelter Effect: Investigations into the Aerodynamics of Shelter and its Effect on Climate and Crops. Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jongman, R.H.G., Pungetti, G. 2004. Conclusions: into the twenty-first century. In: Jongman, R.H.G., Pungetti, G. (eds.), Ecological Networks and Greenways, Concept, Design, Implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 290-300.

Kristensen, S.P., Caspersen, O.H. 2002. Analysis of changes in a shelterbelt network landscape in central Jutland, Denmark. Journal of Environmental Management, 66: 171-183.

Kristensen, S.L., Thenail, C., Kristensen, S.P. 2004. Landscape changes in agrarian landscapes in the 1990s: the interaction between farmers and the farmed landscape. A case study from Jutland, Denmark. Journal of Environmental Management, 71: 231-244.

Kuna, M. et. al. 2004. Non-destructive archaeology. Academia, Praha, Czech Republic.

Láznička, Z., 1956. Typy venkovského osídlení v Československu. Nakladatelství ČSAV, Brno, Czech Republic.

Levins, R. 1968. Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.

Lipský, Z. 1999. Krajinná ekologie pro studenty geografických oborů. Karolinum, Praha, Czech Republic.

Lipský, Z. 2000. Sledování změn v kulturní krajině. Česká zemědělská univerzita, Praha, Czech Republic.

Löw, J., Míchal, I., 2003. Krajinný ráz. Lesnická práce, Kostelec nad Černými lesy, Czech Republic.

Marshall, E.J.P., Moonen, A.C. 2002. Field margins in Northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 89: 5-21.

McCollin, D. 2000. Editorial: Hedgerow policy and protection – changing paradigms and conservation ethics. Journal of Environmental Management, 60: 4-7.

Mérot, P. 1999. The influence of hedgerow systems on the hydrology of agricultural catchments in a temperate climate. Agronomie, 19: 655-669.

Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt, J., Agger, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning (Vol. 1). Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeoRuc, Roskilde, Denmark, pp 5-15.

Middleton, J. D., Merriam, G. 1983. Distribution of woodland species in farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 20: 625-644.

Moravec, M. 2005. Archeologie středověké plužiny. Bakalářská práce, Katedra archeologie Západočeské Univerzity, Plzeň, Czech Republic.

Muir, R. 2004. Landscape Encyclopaedia: A Reference Guide to the Historic Landscape. Windgather Press, Bollington, UK.

Navrátil, V. 1986. Uspořádání sídla a plužiny – pramen k dějinám osídlení úzce vymezeného regionu, Historická geografie, 25: 53-96.

Nováček, K., Vařeka, P. 2000. Archeologie středověké vesnice, středověký vesnický dům, archeologie novověké vesnice. http://www.kar.zcu.cz/texty/archeologie_stredoveke_vesnice_htm.

Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A. 2000. The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: Different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedgerow management. Journal of Environmental Management, 60: 101-118.

Oreszczyn, S. 2000. A system approach to the research of people’s relationships with English hedgerows. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50: 107-117.

Petrů, J. 1999. K historickám a kulturním hodnotám v péči o krajinu. In: Vorel, I., Sklenička, P. (eds.) Péče o krajinný ráz, cíle a metody. Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha.

Pichancourt, J., Burel, F., Auger, P. 2006. Assessing the effect of habitat fragmentation on population dynamics: An implicit modelling approach. Ecological Modelling, 192: 543-556.

Plieninger, T., Höchtl, F., Spek, T. 2006. Traditional land-use and nature conservation in European rural landscapes. Environmental Science Policy, 9: 317-321.

Pollard, E., Hooper, M.D., Moore, N.W. 1974. Hedges. Collins, London, UK.

Pregill, P., Volkman, N. 1999. Landscape in History. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA

Rao, M.R., Mafongoya, P.L., Kwesiga, F.R., Maghembe, J.A. 1999. Nutrient cycling in agroforestry systems of the semi-arid tropics of Africa. Ann. Arid Zone, 38: 275-307.

Sádlo, J., Pokorný, P., Hájek, P., Dreslerová, D., Cílek, V. 2005. Krajina a revoluce, významné přelomy ve vývoji kulturní krajiny českých zemí. Malá skála, Praha, Czech Republic.


46

Schmucki, R., De Blois, S., Bouchard, A., Domon, G. 2002. Spatial and temporal dynamics of hedgerows in three agricultural landscapes of southern Quebec, Canada. Environmental Management, 30: 651-664.

Simonds, J.O. 1961. Landscape Architecture, The shaping of man's natural environment. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA

Sklenička, P. 2003. Základy krajinného plánování. Naděžda Skleničková, Praha, ČR.

Sklenička, P., Pixova, K. 2004. Importance of spatial heterogeneity to landscape planning and management. Ekologia, 23: 320-329.

Sklenička, P., Pittnerová, B. 2005. Pozemkové úpravy v územích s dochovanou středověkou plužinou. Pozemkové úpravy, 51: 19-20.

Sklenička, 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.

Slámová, M. 2004. Cesty k historickým krajinným štruktúrám.In: Jančura, P. (ed.), Historické krajinné štruktúry vo vzťahu k vývoji poľnohospodárského využívania zeme. Partner, Banská Štiavnica, Slovak Republic, pp111-115.

Smetánka, Z. 1991. Campus Iuxta Suadow et iuxta Colasoy et iuxta Hriunatecz 9. K otázce systému obdělávání polí v raném středověku). Studia Mediaevalia Pragensia 2: 105-115.

Štěpánek, M. 1967. Plužina jako pramen dějin osídlení (Příspěvky k dějinám osídlení 1). Československý časopis historický, XV: 247-274.

TangYa, Zhang, Y.Z., Xie, J.S., Hui, S. 2003. Incorporation of mulberry in contour hedgerows to increase overall benefits: a case study from Ningnan County, Sichuan Province, China. Agronomic Systems, 76: 775-785.

Thenail, C. 2002. Relationships between farm characteristics and the variation of the density of hedgerows at the level of a micro-region of bocage landscape. Study case in Brittany, France. Agronomic Systems, 71: 207-230.

Ucar, T., Hall, F.R. 2001. Windbreaks as pesticide drift mitigation strategy: a review. Pest Management Science, 57: 663-675.

Vorel, I. 1999. Prostorové vztahy a estetické hodnoty. In: Vorel, I., Sklenička, P. (eds.), Péče o krajinný ráz, cíle a metody. Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha, ČR, pp 20-27.

Vorel, I., Bukáček, R., Matějka, P., Culek, M., Sklenicka, P. 2006. A Method for Assessing the Visual Impact on Landscape Character of Proposed Construction, Activities or Changes in Land Use. Centre for Landscape, Prague, Czech Republic.

Watt, T.A., Buckley, G.P. (eds.). 1994. Hedgerow Management and Nature Conservation. Wye College Press, Wye, UK.

Wilmot, H. 1980. Special reference to age of hedges in Church Broughton Parish, Derbyshire. Journal of Ecology, 68: 269-285.

Yahner, R.H. 1983. Avian use of vertical structures and plantings in farmstead shelterbelts. Journal of Wildlife Management, 46: 50-60.


47

Apendix A: Overview of Czech and English terms specific to the Czech cultural landscape as used in this dissertation. The terms for village types are adapted from Beresford and St Joseph (1958). As there is no parallel to pluzinas in the English language literature, the terms describing these have been created by Sklenička et al. (unpublished research).

Plužina pluzina

-úseková segmental pluzina

-nepravá traťová pseudo-sectional pluzina

-traťová sectional pluzina

-délková lineic pluzina

-záhumenicová croft pluzina

ves hromadná cluster-village

-návesní green-village

-ulicového (silničního) typu street-village

-návesního ulicového typu street-green-village

-lesní lánová forest-hide-village

-rozptýlená nebular village

zemědělská soustava field system

-žárová cyclic burning field system

-přílohová two-field system

-trojpolní three-field system

-střídavá (čtyřpolní) four-field system

stará sídelní oblast Old Settlement Area

lán hide of land

lokace location

lokátor locator

trať (plužiny) section (of a pluzina)

záhony ridge and furrow

parcela field

mezní pás field margin

souvrať headland

stabilní katastr stable cadastre

berní rula taxation rule

urbář panství manor land inventory

pozemková kniha land inventory book

pozemková listina land inventory document

Tereziánský katastr Theresian cadastre

Josefský katastr Josephian cadastre

journal of journal of landscape studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47 landscape studies … 1_pp 27-47… ·...

Documents