Mölder a (2016). Small Forest Parcels, Management Diversity

Home , Bad Iburg, Bad Laer, Hilter, Private forest

Research Article ii FF o o r r e e s s t t doi: 10.3832/ifor1834-009 Biogeosciences and Forestry Vol. 9, pp. 518-528

IUFRO division 8.02 – Mendel University Brno (Czech Republic) 2015 “Coppice forests: past, present and future” Editors: Tomas Vrska, Renzo Motta, Alex Mosseler

Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice habitats: an 18th century political compromise in the Osnabrück region (NW Germany) and its long-lasting legacy

Andreas Mölder This study underlines the often under-estimated importance of forest ownership and land tenure in European forest biodiversity studies which are crucial for the management, structure, and tree species composition of woodland. In particular it is assumed that, in regions with both state-owned forests and smaller private forests, the latter contain more relict habitats shaped by historical woodland management practices. A government decree of 1721, a political compromise, was crucial to the present-day woodland ownership pattern and distribution of woodland habitats in the Osnabrück region (northwest Ger- many). It resulted in the privatization of woodlands held in common for centuries and created a huge number of small, private forest parcels in the 18th century. These developments are discussed in relation to Europe-wide pro- cesses in forest affairs. Mainly due to the low economic importance of these forest parcels, as well as the individualism of the forest owners, coppice structures providing valuable habitats have persisted until today. For instance, over-aged coppice stands provide important habitat conditions for saproxylic species and unique herbaceous layers. These valuable habitats must be protected while creating new coppice stands to eventually take their place in future decades. Management plans for Natura 2000 sites in the Osnabrück region should address this problem while reconciling any conflict of interests between private owners and nature conservation organizations. Researchers are encouraged to give more consideration to the important relationship between current woodland biodiversity and the history of forest ownership patterns.

Keywords: Biodiversity Conservation, Forest History, Forest Ownership, Forest Policy, Historical Ecology, Land Tenure, Nature Conservation, Silviculture

Introduction Bobiec 2012). Of particular interest are his- ment, which is frequently demanded by In Europe, the current distribution pat- torical woodland management practices conservationists, diminishes the relevant terns of woodland biotopes in the cultural such as coppicing, coppicing with stan- structures of culturally modified wood- landscape are the result of century-long dards and wood-pasture, which have resul- lands. Consequently, there is a conflict of human impact. Even woodland areas com- ted in woodland habitats that are nowa- interest in nature conservation (Lowenthal monly regarded as “ancient”, “virgin” or days highly valued by nature conservation 2005, Kopecky et al. 2013, Müllerová et al. “old-growth” forests feature a high density due to their rich biodiversity (Buckley 1992, 2015). of remnants of human settlement and acti- Groß & Konold 2010, Müllerová et al. 2015). On the regional scale, the structure of fo- vity (Dupouey et al. 2002, Rackham 2003, However, the cessation of forest manage- rest ownership and land tenure was frequently the main factor influencing the management, structure, and tree species Northwest German Forest Research Institute, Department A (Forest Growth), Section composition of woodland (Steen-Adams et Forest Conservation and Natural Forest Research, Grätzelstraße 2, D-37079 Göttingen (Ger- al. 2015, Rendenieks et al. 2015, Munteanu many) et al. 2016). However, the relationship between forest ownership patterns and @ Andreas Mölder ([email protected]) woodland biodiversity is an often underes- timated factor in European forest studies Received: Aug 31, 2015 - Accepted: Feb 22, 2016 (Lovett-Doust & Kuntz 2001, Schaich & Plie- ninger 2013, Bergès et al. 2013). Especially th Citation: Mölder A (2016). Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice from the late 18 century onwards, state- habitats: an 18th century political compromise in the Osnabrück region (NW Germany) and its run forest management and management long-lasting legacy. iForest 9: 518-528. – doi: 10.3832/ifor1834-009 [online 2016-03-17] by large land owners frequently led to highly effective, profit-oriented forest use Communicated by: Andrea Cutini (Fritzbøger 2004, Siiskonen 2007, Mölder et al. 2014). In contrast, the management in

r cellent dissertation on the decline and divi- t

s sion of the commons in the Osnabrück re- e

r gion from 1927. More recently, Hans-Joa- o chim Behr and Stefan Brakensiek published F relevant papers (Behr 1970, Brakensiek d n 1994, 2002). a In the Osnabrück branch of the Lower s e Saxony State Archive, documents from the c th

n 18 century forestry administration were e i obtained, in particular forest descriptions c

s and detailed forest maps (indicated by o “Rep” or “K” in Box S1 in the Supplemen- e g tary material). Forest maps have been geo- o i referenced and evaluated using QGIS 2.6 B (QGIS Development Team 2014). – t s Previous history: the management e r of common property resources o F i Rise and height of the Markgenossenschaften

Fig. 1 - The Osnabrück region. Woodland that has been continuously wooded since at Origins in the High Middle Ages least AD 1800 is considered as ancient. The ancient woodland data set was provided During the High Middle Ages, when the by the Lower Saxon Forest Planning Agency (NFP). Basic geodata: BKG (2012). population grew and natural resources became increasingly scarce in north-western smaller private or communal forests fre- tural woodlands would be dominated by Germany, institutional regulations of the quently kept historical practices up and deciduous tree species, especially Euro- usage of common land (Mark or Allmende was less intensive (Wiersum et al. 2005, pean beech (Fagus sylvatica) (Mölder in German) turned out to be inevitable. Siiskonen 2007, Von Lüpke et al. 2011). 2009). The present-day forest cover of the From the 12th century onwards, the forma- Throughout Europe, small private forests Osnabrück region is 20% (42 878 ha), and tion of so called Markgenossenschaften with a size up to 5 ha are very common the state forest area amounts to 6266 ha (cooperatives of the users of common (Schmithüsen & Hirsch 2010). It is assumed (Landkreis Osnabrück 2014, Mölder et al. land) was the usual solution (Middendorff that in regions with both state-owned 2015). 1927, Brakensiek 2002). Along with the es- forests and smaller private forests the lat- The landscape of the most southern part tablishment of the self-governing Mark- ter nowadays contain more relict species of the Osnabrück region is dominated by genossenschaften, a complex legal system bound to habitats shaped by less intensive the northwest-southeast oriented Teuto- developed, determining the usage rights of and historical woodland management prac- burg Forest hill range reaching an altitude the cooperative members and aimed at tices (Schaich & Plieninger 2013). of 331 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1). About 20 km north of preventing the depletion and devastation But which kind of political decisions in the the Teutoburg forest, beyond a varied cul- of the land. Local courts (Hölting or Mar- past led to the land tenure structures tural landscape and the city of Osnabrück, kengericht) were regularly held and visited which are obviously so important for biodi- the hill ranges of the Wiehengebirge (also by peasants and lords. The judges were lay versity patterns? Were there particular po- northwest-southeast oriented) reach an al- judges (Holzgraf or Holzrichter, literally litical events in the past that are still of titude of 211 m a.s.l. While the low-lying “wood judge”). These lay judges, as well as importance for current woodland manage- parts of the surrounding landscape have other persons who were granted privile- ment and habitat conditions? How were been widely cleared for agriculture and set- ged use of the common land (Erbexen), these decisions justified, and what was tlements, the hill ranges feature a long normally stemmed from the nobility. The their motivation and background? continuity of woodland cover (Herzog local courts examined infringements of To answer these questions, research was 1938, Mölder 2009). In the northern low- regulations and, since not all commoners conducted in the Osnabrück region, which lands of the Osnabrück region, ancient had the same specific rights, controlled the is part of the German federal state of Lo- woodlands are scattered and embedded graduated rights of usufruct. Offences wer Saxony. This region is a very suitable within an agricultural landscape. Many fo- were punished by fines (Klöntrup 1783, study area due to a wealth of historical and rest stands developed from 18th and 19th Stüve 1872, Middendorff 1927, Brakensiek ecological information and a mixture of century (conifer) afforestation of poor 2002). Several legal relationships existed smaller private and larger state-owned fo- quality sites (Herzog 1938, Hesmer & between the lords and the peasants, whe- rests. Schroeder 1963). reby the peasants were not personally free (Eigenbehörigkeit), but were provided with Study area and material Material: literature and historical secure land usage rights and had access to sources legal institutions (Klöntrup 1798). Study area: the Osnabrück region In order to obtain information on past The Osnabrück region is situated in the woodland conditions, forest management, From the Middle Ages until the middle of south-western part of the German federal historical developments, and political deci- the 16th century state of Lower Saxony and corresponds to sions, the relevant literature for the Osna- Until the early 16th century, each Mark- the administrative district Landkreis Osna- brück region was thoroughly reviewed. In genossenschaft was a closed economic sys- brück with an area of 2121 km² (Fig. 1). In addition to the works of the jurist, histo- tem and all goods derived from the Mark large parts, the Osnabrück region matches rian and politician Johann Carl Bertram remained with the commoners. The regula- the former Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück, Stüve (1798-1872 – Stüve 1853, 1872), those tions of the cooperative and the decisions which emerged in the Middle Ages and lost of the jurist Johann Aegidius Klöntrup of the periodic local courts were respected its autonomy when it became part of the (1755-1830 – Klöntrup 1783, 1798, 1799) ap- (Middendorff 1927, Brakensiek 2002). Most Electorate of Hanover in 1802 (Stüve 1853, peared to be of special importance. The of the open land in the Osnabrück region Behr 1970, Landkreis Osnabrück 2014). Na- same is true for Rudolf Middendorff’s ex- was pasture, that was often carefully ma-

519 iForest 9: 518-528 Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice habitats y

naged, e.g., by irrigation or the planting of (called Heuerlinge) developed, who rented 1650, the “perpetual capitulation” (Capitu- r t

trees for shadow (Stüve 1853, 1872, Mid- a small piece of land from the long-esta- latio Perpetua Osnabrugensis) was installed. s e

dendorff 1927, Varwig 1951). Intensive blished peasants and who were hired for Henceforth, the Prince-Bishopric of Osna- r wood-pasture seemed to be unusual, while agricultural work. Although they had no brück was alternately reigned by Catholic o F pannage was very important. Of all the official rights to use the common land, and Lutheran prince bishops. All Lutheran d types of common land, woodland was sub- their activities in the Mark were condoned prince bishops (strictly speaking, they were n a ject to the strictest regulations, most pro- (Klöntrup 1799, Middendorff 1927, Schlum- diocesean administrators) had to be de- s bably due to the importance of pannage. bohm 1992, Brakensiek 2002). scended from the House of Brunswick-Lü- e c

This implies that there were sufficient ma- At the same time, due to currency devalu- neburg. This “alternative succession” was n e ture oak (Quercus robur, Q. petraea) and ation, the fines imposed by the local courts kept until the Prince-Bishopric lost its auto- i c

beech trees in the woods. The cutting of became negligible and lost their regulative nomy in 1802 (Sautmann 2002, Steinert s wood for use as domestic timber or fire- power. The woodland was exploited 2003 – Tab. 1). o e wood was limited by the specific rights of through increasing wood utilization by the Although the Capitulatio Perpetua Osna- g o the commoners and Erbexen. The wood- commoners, Heuerlinge, landlords and brugensis included a paragraph on forest i B lands were further used for grass cutting even by state authorities. Wood theft also protection, conditions in the woodlands – and litter collection (Klöntrup 1783, Stüve occurred. Open land for pasture became worsened in the postwar period. As a con- t

1853, 1872, Middendorff 1927). scarce due to an increase in the arable land sequence of an economic upturn, the po- s e

However, after being relatively stable area and wood-pasture had to fill this gap. pulation grew further. This development r o

until the 1450’s, the population grew dur- However, despite recurring complaints of was welcomed by the state, since the tax F ing the late 15th and the 16th century. The woodland devastation in the 16th century, revenues increased and economic strength i descendants of the long-established pea- large irregular coppice-like woodland areas grew (Winkler 1959, Schlumbohm 1992). sants (i.e., peasants being commoners sin- still existed around 1600 (Stüve 1872, Mid- Although the woodlands were exposed to ce the establishment of the Markgenossen- dendorff 1927, Schroeder 1963). increasing overexploitation, the govern- schaften) were frequently allowed to During the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), ment took no regulatory action until 1671. found homesteads in the still extensive the Markgenossenschaften and municipali- In this year, the first Lutheran prince bi- common land. ties had to shoulder enormous financial shop, Ernest Augustus I (reign 1662-1698), and tangible burdens. In order to raise the presented the draft of a forest decree Decline and crisis of the necessary money, land from the Mark was (Klöntrup 1799, Middendorff 1927, Winkler Markgenossenschaften sold, as well as large amounts of wood 1959, Spannhoff 2011). from the forest. The woodlands were also This forest decree aimed at restoring the Decades of war and overexploitation plundered by soldiers (Stüve 1872, Midden- undermined Markgenossenschaften system. From the 1550’s onwards, armies mar- dorff 1927, Winkler 1959, Hesmer & Schroe- The prescriptions concerned the regulation ching through its territory placed economic der 1963, Behr 1970, Brakensiek 2002). of the local courts, the designation of and social burdens on the Prince-Bishopric boundaries, the protection of woodland, of Osnabrück. Bad harvests, famines and “Pax optima rerum” - etiam pro silva? afforestation, the enhancement of govern- plague outbreaks added to these pro- The Peace of Westphalia, a series of mental control, and the reduction of the blems, so that the economic conditions for peace treaties signed in Osnabrück and Erbexen’s rights. The area of application the Markgenossenschaften worsened (Stü- Münster, ended the Thirty Years’ War in were those Markgenossenschaften, where ve 1872, Middendorff 1927, Varwig 1951). 1648. In accordance with the provisions of the Prince Bishop held the Holzgraf posi- During this period the population was still the Peace Treaty of Osnabrück (Article XIII) tion. The enactment of this decree was ob- growing and a new class of small peasants and the rulings of the Diet of Nuremberg in served in the Marken of the Iburg district,

Tab. 1 - Prince-bishops of Osnabrück between 1625 and 1802 and major events in forest affairs.

Prince Bishop / Reign Confession Year Event Diocesean Administrator 1625-1661 Franz Wilhelm von Wartenberg Catholic 1648 Peace of Westphalia 1650 Commencement of the Capitulatio Perpetua Osnabrugensis 1662-1698 Ernest Augustus I Lutheran 1671 The draft of a forest decree is presented, the estates prevent its enactment 1697 The estates prevent the enactment of a forest decree 1698-1715 Charles Joseph of Lorraine Catholic 1699 The estates prevent the enactment of a forest decree 1716-1728 Ernest Augustus II Lutheran 1716 The estates prevent the enactment of a forest decree 1717 The estates present a report listing the reasons for woodland deterioration 1721 21 April: The division of the commons is proposed in a Landtag (diet) proposition 1721 14 July: Decree regarding the division of the commons 1728-1761 Clemens August of Bavaria Catholic - Conduction of several “open divisions” of common woodland 1764-1802 Frederick Augustus, Lutheran 1765 Justus Möser writes a pro memoria on the improvement of forestry Duke of York and Albany and forest registers 1766 Appointment of a central forest administrator (Oberförster) 1760’s Spruce and Scots pine are introduced 1777/1778 Description of the state-owned forests 1780’s The government begins to hand out seeds of spruce and pine to the peasants 1778 A premium is awarded for the first two Markgenossenschaften that decide to completely privatize their common land 1785 4 June: Decree on the procedure of the complete dissolution of the commons iForest 9: 518-528 520 Mölder A - iForest 9: 518-528 y

r but failed in most areas due to the opposi- Since he was not able to stop the decline princedom, in order to support this work of t

s tion of the estates (Klöntrup 1799, Midden- of both the Markgenossenschaften and common public interest, to present a sur- e

r dorff 1927, Spannhoff 2011). The estates their woodlands by administrative mea- vey report that describes the suitable o (Landstände) consisted of representatives sures, Ernest Augustus II looked for alter- implementation of this beneficial work ta- F from the nobility, the cathedral chapter, native solutions. The privatization of the king into account the local conditions d n and four cities (Renger 1968). In the year common woodlands appeared to be a fea- […]”. a 1697, Ernest Augustus I tried again to esta- sible approach (Middendorff 1927, Behr s e blish a forest decree. His successor, the 1970). During these years, the Markge- “Open divisions” of common woodland c

n Catholic prince bishop Charles Joseph of nossenschaften of Iburg and Laer in the However, the reports of the Holzgrafen e i Lorraine (reign 1698-1715) had a similar Iburg district already aspired to “open divi- were not positive. A systematic division of c

s intention in 1699. Both attempts failed, sions” (see below) of their common wood- the common woodlands appeared to be o again due to the opposition of the estates land (Middendorff 1927, Sautmann 2002). unrealistic, particularly due to the estates’ e g (Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970). Hence, in a Landtag (diet) proposition from opposition against any governmental force o i 21 April 1721, it is stated (Lodtmann 1819, (Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970). But, as Mid- B Division and privatization of the Middendorff 1927): “Since a division of the dendorff (1927) states, both the need for – commons prevents several hitherto com- changes in the invidious conditions and the t common woodland s monly noticed inconveniences and quar- “pressing wood shortage” led to “open di- e r The “Decree regarding the division of rels, particularly the worrying and almost visions” of the common woodlands. In the o

F the commons” from 1721 daily worsening wood shortage, His Royal case of an “open division”, the legal sys- i In 1716, the second Lutheran prince-bi- Highness has no doubt that Your faithful tem and the instructions of the Mark- shop Ernest Augustus II (1674-1728) failed estates will agree to, and bring together genossenschaften remained intact and only to establish a forest decree, too (Tab. 1). and establish whatever is appropriate to the forest stands (including wood harves- The estates objected to restrictions of the institute this intention.” The estates wel- ting, pannage, sod cutting, and litter ra- Erbexen’s rights and to any strengthening comed the idea of dividing the common king) were privatized. Wood-pasture remai- of the rights of the Holzgraf (Middendorff woodlands, but they demanded survey ned common, thus the peasants, Erbexen 1927, Behr 1970). In 1717, the estates pre- reports on this project from the Holzgrafen. and even the state were not allowed to sented a report that listed the reasons for Thereupon Ernest Augustus II issued a fence their new private forest property. woodland deterioration (Middendorff “Decree regarding the division of the com- Only one quarter of each parcel could be 1927): “[…] sod-cutting and mowing of mons and the projects, which the Holz- enclosed by a fence for four years to pro- heath and litter raking between the trees, grafen have to send concerning this mat- tect young tree plantings (Klöntrup 1799, which withdraws nutrition from the roots, ter” on 14 July 1721 (Lodtmann 1819, Mid- Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970, Sautmann changes the moisture conditions”, and dendorff 1927). This decree states that “We 2002). means that the cattle are forced to have, upon the advice of Our faithful es- Since there were no special instructions “browse any young trees that haven’t tates […], graciously resolved that the divi- for the division of the common woodlands already been cut”. The small peasants sion of the commons should be accompli- until 1785, the government determined the were also mentioned, who “take their fuel- shed in such a manner that nobody is dis- necessary instructions from case to case. wood per fas et nefas from the woods. The advantaged in his authorities and servi- Generally, the dividing process was as fol- Marken have deteriorated with an increase tudes which are connected to the common lows: the basic calculation unit off the in their number […]”. land. We command all Holzgrafen of Our dividing process was the Erbteil (literally “inherited share”), where 1 Erbteil corre- sponded to 1 Ware. The extent of a Ware expressed the extent of (usage) rights which each farmstead and the indwelling peasants had in a Markgenossenschaft. Nor- mally, the long-established farmsteads held 1 Ware (Vollerben) or 5/6 - 1/2 Ware (Halber- ben), while younger farmsteads owned 1/2 - 1/3 Ware (Erbkötter) or 1/3 - 1/4 Ware (Mark- kötter). The small peasants (Heuerlinge) held no Ware at all (Klöntrup 1798, 1799, Herzog 1938, Schlumbohm 1992). During the dividing process, the total woodland area of a Mark was divided by the total number of the full Erbteile in order to cal- culate the area equivalent of an Erbteil. To achieve equality of the privatized forest stands with regard to stand and site quality, the respective woodlands were classi- fied into good and bad parts and every commoner received both good and bad quality forest parcels (Fig. 2). How much woodland property every commoner got, was dependent on the extent of his Ware. The woodland parcels were frequently allo- cated by lot. In the Mark of Glane in the Fig. 2 - The Spannbrink area in the Teutoburg Forest. The woodlands of the Mark- Iburg district the lots were drawn by a child genossenschaft of Hilter have been divided in 1735. Please note the small-scale mix- (Klöntrup 1783, Middendorff 1927, Saut- ture of coniferous and broadleaved woodland in the private forests (see also Fig. S2 mann 2002). To pay the costs of the divi- in Supplementary Material). The map was provided by the Landesamt für Geoinforma- ding process, parts of the common land tion und Landesvermessung Niedersachsen (LGLN, © 2015), the historical information were sold. In the Marken of the southern was derived from K 73 Nr. 108 H (Box S1 in Supplementary material). Osnabrück region, where the Prince Bishop

521 iForest 9: 518-528 Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice habitats y

held the Holzgraf position, the state nor- cribed and marked with boundary stones sumption that the commoners themselves r t

mally received 12 Erbteile per woodland and ditches (Fig. 3). These measures, would recognize the need to privatize the s e

division. Since the government was able to together with the establishment of a pro- commons. Here, the good examples of suc- r select the future state forest areas without per forest administration in 1766, made it cessfully divided commons were regarded o F restrictions, either existing state forests possible to implement the principles of to be a facilitating factor (Klöntrup 1799, d were enlarged or the new property was modern forest management in the state Lodtmann 1819, Middendorff 1927). n a pooled along the borderlines of neighbo- forests (Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970, Vo- The government took several measures s ring Marken. In this way, large blocks of gelpohl 2014, Mölder et al. 2015, Rep 110 I to promote forest management in the new e c

state forest were created (Middendorff Nr. 334 – Box S1 in Supplementary Mate- private woodlands. Seeds of spruce and n e

1927, Herzog 1938, Behr 1970 – Fig. 2). rial). In the 1760’s, spruce (Picea abies) and pine were handed out free to the peasants i c

During the long reign (1728-1761) of the Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) were intro- and premiums were awarded for the lar- s

Catholic prince-bishop Clemens August of duced and in the following years increa- gest tree nurseries. Additionally, especially o e

Bavaria, forest affairs were widely neglec- singly cultivated (Herzog 1938, Hesmer & in the northern parts of the Osnabrück re- g o ted in the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück. Schroeder 1963). Surveys in 1777/1778 and gion where drifting sand was a problem, i B However, before 1778, 17 “open divisions” 1788-1790 showed that the condition of the the containment and afforestation of many – were conducted. Due to these woodland state-owned woodlands was not as bad as areas was supported (Hesmer & Schroeder t privatizations, the state-owned woodland feared. However, due to the “open divi- 1963, Behr 1970). s e area increased from ca. 470 ha to ca. 1275 sions” of the common woodland, most of Due to the political upheavals in the first r th o ha (Behr 1970, Rep 110 II Nr. 219 – Box S1 in the state forests were still used as wood- quarter of the 19 century, the process of F Supplemetary Material). pasture (Behr 1970, K 73 Nr. 108 H, K 73 Nr. dividing the commons lasted for decades, i 110 H, Rep 110 II Nr. 219 – see Box S1 in Sup- and after the last Markgenossenschaft was Complete divisions of common plementary Material). completely dissolved in 1873 the private woodlands and dissolution of the In order to promote the complete divi- woodlands in the Osnabrück region con- Markgenossenschaften sion and privatization of the commons, the sisted of countless small woodland parcels Under the reign (1764-1802) of the third government awarded a respectable pre- (Herzog 1938). However, the multitude of Lutheran Prince-Bishop Frederick Augus- mium in 1778 for the first two Markgenos- small peasants, who were once tolerated tus, Duke of York and Albany (1763-1827), senschaften that decided to completely pri- as co-users of the common land, were not forestry issues were again regarded as im- vatize their common land. To induce a divi- considered at all when the land was divi- portant by the government (Tab. 1). The sion, the Erbexen, the Holzgraf, and 2/3 of ded among the long-established commo- key personality behind this development the commoners had to agree, whereby the ners (Schlumbohm 1992, Sautmann 2002). was the lawyer and statesman Justus Mö- votes were weighted according to the ser (1720-1794). Möser had a strong, conci- Ware held by each commoner. Subse- Discussion liatory influence both on the estates and quently, a great number of divisions were the state administration under the custo- initiated. In order to facilitate the imple- A political compromise from 1721 with dial government of George III (1738-1820), mentation of these divisions, a decree on far-reaching consequences prince-elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the procedure of the complete dissolution According to the current state of re- King of Great Britain and Ireland. The latter of the commons was issued on 4 June search, it appears that the Markgenossen- led the government in the place of his 1785. The proportion of commoners who schaften managed the common land in a underage son Frederick Augustus (Renger had to agree was changed to a simple relatively sustainable manner until the 1968). Due to the initiative of Möser, the majority. The government refused to apply early modern period (Mantel 1968, Radkau state-owned woodlands were charted, des- coercive measures and acted on the as- 1983, Brakensiek 2002, Radkau 2011). The

Fig. 3 - Historical remains at the boundary between state-owned and private forests. (a) Boundary ditch and boundary bank in the Großer Freeden area, Teutoburg forest. Spruce-dominated private forest on the left hand site and a broad-leaved stand in the state- owned forest on the right hand site of the boundary. (b) Boundary stone from 1777 in the Spannbrink area, Teutoburg Forest. “F” stands for prince-bishop Frederick Augustus, Duke of York and Albany (1763-1827). All photos by the author. iForest 9: 518-528 522 Mölder A - iForest 9: 518-528 y

r Markgenossenschaften remained intact for abolishment of the Markgenossenschaften, where the reforming officials registered t

s hundreds of years due to functioning socio- the administration awarded premiums and continuous success was the population in- e

r political control mechanisms, which are renounced the collection of compensation crease (Brakensiek 1994). o now recognized as Ostrom’s design princi- payments for the state (Klöntrup 1799, The process of dividing the common F ples of stable local common pool resource Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970). This shows woodlands in the Osnabrück region inclu- d n management (Ostrom 1990, Van Gils et al. that the Markgenossenschaften as organi- ded the use of lots in land distribution. This a 2014). But at the latest after the Thirty zations were still of some importance in approach is very old and can be traced s th e Years’ War, the Markgenossenschaften the 18 century. In other northwest Ger- back to the Roman Republic, when sorti- c

n were no longer viable. A causal complex of man territories they had already lost their tion was used to allocate land equitably e i war, population growth, and ineffective character as self-governing co-operatives among the settlers in newly founded co- c th s regulations had resulted in a decline of the in the 16 century (Brakensiek 2002). For lonies (Campbell 1995). With regard to o traditional system of common land use. the old-established peasants private pro- commons worldwide, lottery has been e g The Markgenossenschaften faced an exis- perty appeared to be an instrument of po- shown to be a widely-used method for allo- o i tential crisis and the common woodlands wer against the growing number of land- cating common property rights to fishing B suffered from increasing over-utilization less peasants (Heuerlinge), and they increa- berth, pastoral commons, and common – (Stüve 1872, Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970, singly supported the complete abolish- timber resources within relatively closed t s Brakensiek 2002). After several unsuccess- ment of the Markgenossenschaften (Bra- communities (Ostrom 1990, Boyce 1994). e r ful attempts were made to establish gene- kensiek 1994, Radkau 2011). The division of The allotment of land to European settlers o th th

F ral forest decrees, woodland privatization the commons had taken a vital share of the in North America in the 18 and 19 century i seemed to be the only reasonable solution agrarian resources away from the Heuer- was also frequently determined by lottery to ensure future wood supply. The 1721 linge. Together with a decrease of the pro- (Price 1995). decision to privatize the common wood- toindustrial linen production in the middle When land reforms started in the Prince- land can be seen as a consequence of an of the 19th century, this resulted in an exis- Bishopric of Osnabrück in 1721, the main intellectual current that later became tential crisis for the underprivileged Heuer- official justification for the division and pri- known as “agrarian individualism” (Von linge class. Riots and emigration to America vatization of the common woodlands was Dücker 1870, Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970, were some of the consequences (Schlum- “an increasing shortage of wood”. Al- Brakensiek 1994). bohm 1992, Sautmann 2002). though there is no question that, in gene- In retrospect, the reign of Ernest Augus- ral, the Markgenossenschaften were in crisis tus II was often appreciated as beneficial Regional developments embedded in a in the 18th century, and that the woodlands for both the state and the population (Bär larger context were exposed to increasing over-utiliza- 1904, Sautmann 2002). Ernest Augustus II As the analysis clearly showed, a stronger tion, it is doubtful that an alarming “wood was, however, an absolute ruler in the Ba- commitment to forestry issues is linked to shortage” really occurred in the Prince- roque Age, and his attempts to obtain the reign of Lutheran prince-bishops from Bishopric of Osnabrück. One argument woodland properties through his rights as the ducal House of Brunswick-Lüneburg. In against an actual “wood shortage” are offi- Holzgraf or Erbexe can also be seen as a the Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg (col- cial woodland descriptions for the Iburg means to establish, increase and safeguard loquially Electorate of Hanover) forestry district from the 1770’s, which not only his territorial sovereignty (Brakensiek 2002, had a high priority, mainly due to its impor- include the original state forests, but also Fritzbøger 2004). Unlike other sovereigns tance for mining (Kremser 1990). As a re- those forest stands that became state of the period though, he did not rule unop- sult of the personal interconnections with property after the division of the common posed. The estates held strong political po- the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück, forestry woodlands. These descriptions stated that sitions and were able to prevent the issues were also promoted in this territory. “the forest stock is quite good in the grea- prince-bishop from abolishing their privi- In contrast, the Catholic prince-bishops had ter part of these woodlands”, although leges, e.g., as Holzrichter or Erbexe (Renger no interest in forestry issues, apart from there were also forests in poor condition in 1968). As a consequence, the decree from hunting, a great passion of the splendor-lo- the vicinity of roads or settlements, or on 1721, which formed the legal base for the ving prince-bishop Clemens August of Ba- nutrient-poor sites (Herzog 1938, Rep 110 II division and privatization of the common varia (Hocker 1997). Nr. 219 – Box S1 in Supplementary Mate- woodlands, appears to be a compromise There is evidently a connection between rial). The various historical sources are ra- between the prince-bishop, the estates, the division of the common woodlands, ther inconsistent on this topic. This corre- and even the long-established commoners. which were initiated in the Prince-Bishopric sponds with the findings of Radkau (1983, Since the estates argued against govern- of Osnabrück earlier than in the neighbo- 2011) and Warde (2006), who stated that mental force for the division of the com- ring territories (Riepenhausen 1986, Brak- Europe-wide complaints of wood shorta- mon woodland, the division of the wood- ensiek 1994), and the Personal Union bet- ges were more often a political instrument land had to be requested by the commo- ween the Electorate of Hanover and the than reality. Another argument is that al- ners, the Holzgraf and the Erbexen (Mid- Kingdom of Great Britain (1714-1837). ready in the 15th century coal was being dendorff 1927). Prince-bishop Ernest Augustus II was the mined in the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück One very problematic result of this com- youngest brother of George I (1660-1727), and mining was strongly promoted during promise between the prince-bishop and King of Great Britain and Ireland and Elec- the reign of Ernest Augustus II (Grebing the estates was the “open division” of tor of Hanover, and it can be assumed that 2001). Hence, an alternative to wood as a common woodland. Klöntrup (1799) stated the idea of dividing the commons (“enclo- fuel was available quite early, which can be that this ineffective method of dividing sure movement”) came from London to assumed to have reduced the pressure on common woodlands should be forbidden. Osnabrück and Hanover (Middendorff woodland. Due to the interdiction of long-term enclo- 1927). As Brakensiek (1994) states, Central sure young trees were still browsed by cat- European bureaucracies in the 18th century The long-lasting implications of tle, and even motivated forest parcel own- attached great hopes to the partition of common woodland privatization and ers had problems ensuring the regenera- common lands, since they regarded Eng- parceling tion of their forest stands (Klöntrup 1799, land and the success of the British “agricul- Middendorff 1927, Behr 1970, Rep 110 II Nr. tural revolution” (Overton 1996) as a mo- Implications for forest management 219 – see Box S1 in Supplementary Mate- del. The land reforms were expected to In the private forests, the division of the rial). lead to an increase in the population, the common woodlands created a difficult In order to promote the complete divi- expansion of land under cultivation, and a situation for forest managers. The division sion of the commons, and therewith the real estate market. However, the only area procedure was aimed at satisfying the dif-

523 iForest 9: 518-528 Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice habitats y

ferent demands of the commoners but dis- r

Fig. 5 - t

regarded the requirements of future forest s

Share of e

management (Burckhardt 1867, Von Düc- r coppice ker 1870, Middendorff 1927, Herzog 1938). o F In contrast to the situation for arable land, woodland in the total d a land consolidation was not conducted in n

woodland a the private woodlands, so that the extre- area in the s me parcelling of the private forests has e Osnabrück c

persisted until the present time (Fig. 2). As n

region in e in other regions, this parcelling resulted in i

1927. Data c a very high diversity of management ap- s proaches, management intensities, and for the five o former e tree species (Von Lüpke et al. 2011, Schaich g

administra- o & Plieninger 2013, Rendenieks et al. 2015 – i

tive dis- B Fig. 4, Fig. S1 and Fig. S2 in Supplementary

tricts – Material). t

While the conifer proportion in the priva- (Kreise) s according e te woodlands was already increasing in the r th to Hesmer o

19 century, especially on acidic and nutri- F ent-poor sites, up to 30 % of the woodland (1937). i area remained active coppice stands until the middle of the 20th century (Hesmer 1937 – Fig. 5). The rotation cycle was ca. 30 years in the beech-dominated coppice stands and fuelwood was an essential resource. After WW II, the interest of many forest owners in their coppice stands de-

Fig. 4 - Management approaches and intensities in the Osnabrück region. (a) Unmanaged and overaged private beech coppice stand, Spannbrink area (Teutoburg Forest). (b) Recent harvesting activities in an old private beech coppice stand, Spannbrink area (Teutoburg Forest). (c) Small scale clear-cut in a private forest with replanted spruces, Kleiner Berg area (Teutoburg Forest). (d) Pri- vate former coppice stand that has been developed towards a high-forest structure by the promotion of only one sprout per cop - pice stool, Kellenberg area (Wiehengebirge). Photos a-c by the author, photo d by Volker Tiemeyer. iForest 9: 518-528 524 Mölder A - iForest 9: 518-528 y

r creased due to low-priced fossil fuels. Ma- forest owners has hindered such attempts xylic beetles (Fuller & Warren 1993, Lassau- t

s ny coppice stands were transformed to until today. ce et al. 2012). Some parts of the Teutoburg e

r conifer stands in this period (Ig Teuto 2012, Forest south of Osnabrück are mentioned o Tiemeyer et al. 2012 – Fig. S1 in Supplemen- Implications for nature conservation by Speight (1989) as being of “potential in- F tary Material. These developments are si- Due to the variety of small scale manage- ternational importance” due to their sapro- d n milar to those in other parts of Europe ment approaches and intensities, ranging xylic invertebrate fauna. Ludger Schmidt a (Fuller & Warren 1993, Müllerová et al. from unmanaged and overaged coppice (personal communication) recently found s e 2015, Lassauce et al. 2012). However, many stands to spruce stands with small clear- the “Urwald relict species” Aeletes atoma- c

n old coppice stands have persisted until the cuts, a diverse habitat mosaic has develo- rius (Müller et al. 2005), a specialized sa-

e st i 21 century. The management intensities ped in the private woodlands of the Os- proxylic beetle, in this area. However, the c

s range from regularly harvested stands to nabrück region (Burrichter 1953, Ellerbrock occurrence of very specialized saproxylic o stands that have remained unused for se- 1980, Pott 1981, Tiemeyer et al. 2012 – Fig. beetles in currently over-aged coppices is e g veral decades. Some coppices have been 4, Fig. S1 and Fig. S2 in Supplementary dependent on long-time ecological conti- o i developed towards a high-forest structure Material). This habitat pattern is in contrast nuity in the vicinity of the stands (Mölder B by the promotion of only one sprout per to the larger forest units in the state fo- et al. 2014). – coppice stool (Fig. 4, Fig. S1 in Supplemen- rests, which are treated according to well- The beech-dominated coppice woodlands t s tary Material). The cultivation of valuable defined management plans (Mölder et al. in the Osnabrück region often show a typi- e r broadleaved tree species such as wild cher- 2015). In keeping with the environmental cal, diverse herbaceous vegetation, parti- o

F ry (Prunus avium), sycamore (Acer pseudo- heterogeneity hypothesis (Huston 1994), cularly on sites in the Teutoburg forest i platanus), and Norway maple (Acer pla- these differences between both forest with limestone- and loess clay-derived soils. tanoides) was also facilitated (Ellerbrock ownership types can be expected to result While recently harvested stands are char- 1980, Tiemeyer et al. 2012). Currently, the in a higher biodiversity in the private acterized by a species-rich mixture of fo- interest of the private forest owners in forests than in the state-owned forests rest plants and light-demanding species, their stands is increasing again, due to high (Schaich & Plieninger 2013, Rendenieks et the herbaceous vegetation of old coppice wood prices and initiatives that promote al. 2015). Further studies are needed to stands is different from that of beech high the use of wood as a renewable energy confirm this assumption for the Osnabrück forest stands in the vicinity (Burrichter source. Not only conifer stands, but also region. In the state forests, conservation 1953, Ellerbrock 1980, Pott 1981, Pollmann old, long unused coppice stands are being measures should preserve and develop the 2000, Mölder & Schmidt 2006). Floristic harvested again, the latter mainly for do- typical diversity of semi-natural deciduous elements of oak-hornbeam forests (Stella- mestic firewood (Schniederbernd 2010, Ig woodlands in larger spatial units. This is, rio-Carpinetum) frequently occur in the Teuto 2012, Tiemeyer et al. 2012). for instance, done in the strict forest na- coppice stands, in particular semi-shade Hence, the preservation of coppice ture reserve “Großer Freeden”, which was plants such as Stellaria holostea, Vinca mi- woodlands in the private forests of the established in 1972 and currently covers an nor, Primula elatior, and Rumex sanguineus. Osnabrück region can be regarded as a area of 41 ha in the Teutoburg Forest (Möl- The occurrence of these species can be consequence of the division of the com- der et al. 2009 – Fig. S1 and Fig. S2 in Sup- linked to wet soil conditions and compac- mon woodland in the 18th century. The plementary Material). In the parcelled pri- tion resulting from coppice management, state forest, in contrast, was increasingly vate woodlands, however, nature conser- which regularly exposes the soils to redu- managed as high forest from that period vation measures should focus on the cha- ced transpiration and increased precipita- on (Herzog 1938, Behr 1970). racteristic habitats shaped by the small- tion (Pott 1981). Some coppice stands can At present time, the private forest own- holder’s (traditional) woodland manage- be assigned to the rare sedge beech fo- ers in the Osnabrück region are organized ment practices. Tiemeyer et al. (2012) pre- rests community (Carici-Fagetum), the cha- into Forest Protection Associations (Wald- sent a constructive conservation approach racteristic plants of this plant community schutzgenossenschaften), which can sell lar- that focuses on the protection of valuable are Cephalanthera damasonium, Viola hirta, ger amounts of wood. They are advised by structures and supports voluntary arrange- Primula veris, and Neottia nidus-avis (Poll- foresters employed by the Chamber of ments with the forest owners. This ap- mann 2000). Agriculture (Landwirtschaftskammer). The proach was implemented in the Kellenberg At the present time, most of the coppice administration and coordination of the area in the eastern parts of the Wiehenge- stools in the over-aged coppices have lost numerous forest owners and the planning birge (Fig. 4, Fig. S1 in Supplementary Ma- their ability to resprout and regional tech- of harvesting operations and wood trans- terial), where the forest owners show a niques for creating new coppice stools portation is a complex task (Viergutz 2011). willingness to contribute stands or objects have not been applied for decades. Hence, Some forest owners are not aware that (e.g., veteran trees, cavity trees, and without counteractive measures, the uni- they own a forest parcel or have no com- coarse woody debris) to a voluntary con- que coppice habitats will be replaced by mercial interest in their piece of woodland. servation network. high forests in the coming decades (Eller- The latter benefit from cultural ecosystem One very valuable habitat type in the pri- brock 1980, Pott 1981, Pollmann 2000, Ig services such as recreation and aesthetic vate woodlands of the Osnabrück region Teuto 2012, Tiemeyer et al. 2012). Since con- experience, rather than from the cutting of are the old beech-dominated coppice siderable areas of the coppice woodlands wood (Plieninger et al. 2015). As a conse- stands (Fig. 4, Fig. S1 in Supplementary Ma- in the Osnabrück region are part of the quence, the felling volume is relatively low terial), which are frequently mixed with Natura 2000 network, the relevant mana- (Viergutz 2011). With regard to the federal hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), oaks, wild gement plans must address this problem state of Lower Saxony in total, the mean cherry, and maples (Burrichter 1953, Poll- (Mairota et al. 2015). Due to the currently annual harvest rate in small private forests mann 2000, Ig Teuto 2012). The often large increasing demand for fuelwood, the reac- (<20 hectares) is only 3.4 m³ per hectare, coppice stools can be older than 100 years tivation of coppice management for fuel- while in larger forest enterprises (>20 and are therefore regarded as indicators of wood production can be a possible solu- hectares) between 5.7 m³ and 7.0 m³ are habitat continuity (Pott 1981). Together tion (see above), if the characteristic habi- being harvested per hectare per year (ML with dead sprouts, they provide large tat features of the coppice woodlands are Niedersachsen 2014). Already Burckhardt amounts of coarse woody debris or micro- preserved (Groß & Konold 2010, Müllerová (1867) and Von Dücker (1870) recommen- habitats such as rot-holes (Fuller & Warren et al. 2015). However, changed social and ded the re-establishment of forest owner 1993, Tiemeyer et al. 2012, Lassauce et al. environmental circumstances can compli- cooperatives to foster a more coordinated 2012). For these reasons, over-mature cop- cate such attempts, as experiments on the and economic forest management. How- pices are frequently populated by specia- reactivation of coppice management in the ever, the (once favoured) individualism of lized bryophytes, fungi, slugs, and sapro- vicinity of the Osnabrück region demon-

525 iForest 9: 518-528 Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice habitats y

strate (Schniederbernd 2010). Currently, Leipzig, Germany, pp. 399-402. Fuller RJ, Warren MS (1993). Coppiced wood- r

nd t

there are conflicts between nature conser- Behr H-J (1970). Forst und Jagd im Osnabrücker lands: their management for wildlife (2 edn). s

Raum vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peter- e vation organizations and private forest r owners. As a result of nature conservation [Forestry and hunting in the Osnabrück region borough, UK, pp. 29. o F constraints, the forest owners feel limited from the 18th century until today]. Osnabrü- Grebing H (2001). Kohlenbergbau im Feld d in their freedom of decision (NABU 2012, cker Mitteilungen 77: 125-161. “Hilterberg” bei Bad Iburg im Teutoburger n a Habben 2014). Bergès L, Avon C, Verheyen K, Dupouey J-L Wald [Coal mining in the “Hilterberg“ coal field s

(2013). Landownership is an unexplored deter- near Bad Iburg, Teutoburg Forest]. Iburger e c

Conclusion minant of forest understory plant composition Hefte 3: 1-40. n e

The governmental decree of 1721, which in Northern France. Forest Ecology and Mana- Groß P, Konold W (2010). Mittelwald als Agro- i c

was a political compromise, is directly gement 306: 281-291. - doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.20 forstsystem zwischen geordneter Nachhaltig- s responsible for the present-day woodland 13.06.064 keit und Gestaltungsvielfalt – Eine historische o e ownership pattern and the distribution of BKG (2012). Digitales Landbedeckungsmodell für Studie [The “Mittelwald” – an agroforestry sys- g o woodland habitats in the Osnabrück re- Deutschland: DLM-DE [Digital land cover model tem between rigid sustainability and creative i B gion. The decree ruled that woodlands for Germany: DLM-DE]. Bundesamt für Kar- options. A historical study]. Allgemeine Forst- – which were owned in common for centu- tographie und Geodäsie, Frankfurt am Main, und Jagdzeitung 181: 64–71. t ries should be privatized fairly. As a result, Germany, pp. 16. Habben R (2014). FFH: Waldbauern fordern s e a huge number of small private forest Bobiec A (2012). Bialowieza Primeval Forest as a bessere Entschädigung [Natura 2000: Forest r th o parcels were created in the 18 century. remnant of culturally modified ancient forest. owners demand better compensation]. Neue F i Such developments are in keeping with European Journal of Forest Research 131: 1269- Osnabrücker Zeitung, 24 May 2014, pp. 23. Europe-wide forest history. Mainly due to 1285. - doi: 10.1007/s10342-012-0597-6 Herzog F (1938). Das Osnabrücker Land im 18. the low economic importance of the forest Boyce JR (1994). Allocation of goods by lottery. und 19. Jahrhundert - Eine kulturgeographische parcels and the individualism of the forest Economic Inquiry 32: 457-476. - doi: 10.1111/j.14 Untersuchung [The Osnabrück region in the owners, coppice structures have survived 65-7295.1994.tb01343.x 18th and 19th century. A cultural-geographical until today. Consequently, a compromise Brakensiek S (1994). Agrarian individualism in study]. Verlag Gerhard Stalling, Oldenburg i. O., made nearly 300 years ago has resulted in north-western Germany, 1770-1870. German Germany, pp. 171. the conservation of valuable coppice habi- History 12: 137-179. - doi: 10.1093/gh/12.2.137 Hesmer H (1937). Die heutige Bewaldung tats worthy of protection, although it has Brakensiek S (2002). The management of com- Deutschlands [The current forest cover of Ger- also created some difficulties for modern mon land in north-western Germany. In: “The many]. Paul Parey, Berlin, Germany, pp. 52. forest managers. However, these stands management of common land in northwest Hesmer H, Schroeder F-G (1963). Waldzusam- are now over-aged and appropriate conser- Europe, c. 1500-1850” (De Moor M, Shaw-Taylor mensetzung und Waldbehandlung im Nieder- vation management strategies are needed. L, Warde P eds). Brepols Publishers, Turnhout, sächsischen Tiefland westlich der Weser und in This research supports the assumption UK, pp. 225-245. der Münsterschen Tieflandsbucht bis zum Ende that small private forests support a larger Buckley GP (1992). Ecology and management of des 18. Jahrhunderts [Woodland composition variety of habitats than larger forest mana- coppice woodlands. Springer Science and Busi- and management in the western lowlands of gement units and details the historical ness Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. Lower Saxony and in the Westphalian bight background leading to this difference. It 336. until the end of the 18th century]. Decheniana, underlines the importance of forest owner- Burckhardt H (1867). Die “Theilforsten” und ihre Beiheft 11: 1-304. ship and land tenure in shaping forest de- Zusammenlegung zu Wirthschaftsverbänden in Hocker R (1997). Beginn, Höhepunkt und Ende velopment and woodland habitats. Future den Fürstenthümern Osnabrück und Hilde- der kurfürstlichen Jagd im Rheinland und West- researchers are encouraged to give more sheim, mit Rücksicht auf das Waldschutzgesetz falen [Beginning, culmination and end of consideration to the important relationship vom 6. Juli 1875 [The “fragment forests” and princely hunting in Rhineland and Westphalia]. between current woodland biodiversity their consolidation into management associa- Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft 43: 105-115. - and the history of forest ownership pat- tions in the Princedoms of Osnabrück and Hil- doi: 10.1007/BF02241419 terns. desheim (…)]. Aus dem Walde - Mittheilungen Huston MA (1994). Biological diversity: the co- in zwanglosen Heften 7: 100-162. existence of species. Cambridge University Acknowledgements Burrichter E (1953). Die Wälder des Meßtisch- Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 681. This manuscript is based on a presenta- blattes Iburg, Teutoburger Wald. Eine pflanzen- Ig Teuto (2012). Naturführer Teutoburger Wald - tion at the conference “Coppice forests: soziologische, ökologische und forstkundliche Pflanzen, Tiere, Fossilien [Field guide to the past, present and future” held 9-11 April Studie [The woodlands of the map sheed Teutoburg Forest - plants, animals, fossils]. 2015 in Brno, Czech Republic. The author “Iburg“, Teutoburg Forest. A study on phytoso- Schriftenreihe der Interessengemeinschaft Teu- would like to thank the conference partici- ciology, ecology and forestry]. Abhandlungen toburger Wald e.V. 2: 1-304. pants for their valuable comments that aus dem Westfälischen Museum für Naturkun- Klöntrup JA (1783). Von den Gutsherrn und helped to improve the manuscript. I am de 15: 1-91. Erbexen in Rücksicht auf das Markenrecht [On grateful to Robert Larkin for language po- Campbell JB (1995). Sharing out land: two pas- the lords and the Erbexen under consideration lishing and to Volker Tiemeyer (Foundation sages in the Corpus agrimensorum romano- of the legal system of the Marken]. Johann Wil- for Ornithology and Nature Conservation, rum. The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 45: helm Kißling, Osnabrück, Germany, pp. 114. SON) for providing photos of the wood- 540-546. - doi: 10.1017/S0009838800043603 Klöntrup JA (1798). Alphabetisches Handbuch lands in the Kellenberg area. The author is Dupouey JL, Dambrine E, Laffite JD, Moares C der besonderen Rechte und Gewohnheiten des also indebted to two anonymous reviewers (2002). Irreversible impact of past land use on Hochstifts Osnabrück mit Rücksicht auf die for suggestions that have greatly improved forest soils and biodiversity. Ecology 83: 2978- benachbarten westfälischen Provinzen. I. Band the paper. 2984. - doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2978: [Alphabetical handbook of the special rights IIOPLU]2.0.CO;2 and customs of the Prince-Bishopric of Osna- References Ellerbrock W (1980). Zur Pflanzen- und Tierwelt brück under consideration of the neighboring Bär M (1904). Ernst August II., Bischof von des Kleinen Berges [Flora and fauna of the Westphalian provinces. Volume I]. Karl und Osnabrück, Herzog von Braunschweig-Lüne- Kleiner Berg area]. Suderberger Hefte 4: 81-97. Compagnie, Osnabrück, Germany, pp. 354. burg [Ernest Augustus II, Bishop of Osnabrück, Fritzbøger B (2004). “A windfall for the magna- Klöntrup JA (1799). Alphabetisches Handbuch Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg]. In: “Allgemeine tes” - The development of woodland owner- der besonderen Rechte und Gewohnheiten des Deutsche Biographie, Band 48“ (Historische ship in Denmark c. 1150-1830. University Press Hochstifts Osnabrück mit Rücksicht auf die Commission bei der königl. Akademie der Wis- of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark, pp. benachbarten westfälischen Provinzen. II. Band senschaften ed.). Duncker and Humblot, 432. [Alphabetical handbook of the special rights iForest 9: 518-528 526 Mölder A - iForest 9: 518-528 y

r and customs of the Prince-Bishopric of sches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirt- system services in landscape management and t

s Osnabrück under consideration of the neigh- schaft und Verbraucherschutz, Hannover, Ger- planning. Current Opinion in Environmental e boring Westphalian provinces. Volume II]. Karl many, pp. 55. Sustainability 14: 28-33. - doi: 10.1016/j.cosust. r o und Compagnie, Osnabrück, Germany, pp. 366. Mölder A (2009). Eine hochmittelalterliche 2015.02.006 F Kopecky M, Hédl R, Szabó P (2013). Non-random Bischofsvita als wertvolle Quelle zur Wald- und Pollmann W (2000). Die Buchenwaldgesell- d

n extinctions dominate plant community chan- Vegetationsgeschichte - Die “Vita Bennonis” schaften im nordwestlichen Weserbergland a ges in abandoned coppices. Journal of Applied des Norbert von Iburg [A high medieval bi- [The beech forest communities of the north- s e Ecology 50: 79-87. - doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12010 shop’s vita as a valuable source on vegetation west Weserbergland]. Siedlung und Landschaft c

n Kremser W (1990). Niedersächsische Forst- and forest history - Norbert von Iburg’s “Vita in Westfalen 29: 1-131. e i geschichte: Eine integrierte Kulturgeschichte Bennonis”]. Forstarchiv 80: 203-207. - doi: 10.44 Pott R (1981). Der Einfluß der Niederholz- c

s des nordwestdeutschen Forstwesens [Forest 32/0300-4112-80-203 wirtschaft auf die Physiognomie und die floris- o history of Lower Saxony (…)]. Selbstverlag Mölder A, Schmidt W (2006). Flora und Vegeta- tisch-soziologische Struktur von Kalkbuchen- e

g Heimatbund Rotenburg, Rotenburg, Germany, tion im Naturwald “Großer Freeden”, Teuto- wäldern [The influence of coppicing on the o i pp. 965. burger Wald [Flora and vegetation of the strict physiognomy and phytosociological structure B

Landkreis Osnabrück (2014). Landkreis kompakt forest reserve “Großer Freeden”, Teutoburg of calcareous beechwoods]. Tuexenia 1: 233- – 2014 - Daten, Fakten, Informationen [The Os- Forest]. Natur und Heimat 66: 33–48. 242. t s nabrück region in short - data, facts, informa- Mölder A, Meyer P, Steffens R, Parth A, Schmidt Price ET (1995). Dividing the land: early American e r tion]. Landkreis Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Ger- W (2009). 33 Jahre nach dem letzten Hieb - Zur beginnings of our private property mosaic. Uni- o

F many, pp. 24. Entwicklung der Bestandesstruktur im Natur- versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, pp. 432. i Lassauce A, Anselle P, Lieutier F, Bouget C wald “Großer Freeden” (Teutoburger Wald) [33 QGIS Development Team (2014). QGIS Geo- (2012). Coppice-with-standards with an overma- years after the last felling: On the development graphic Information System. Open Source ture coppice component enhance saproxylic of stand structure in the strict forest reserve Geospatial Foundation Project, web site. [on- beetle biodiversity: a case study in French de- “Großer Freeden” (Teutoburg Forest, Germa- line] URL: http://qgis.osgeo.org ciduous forests. Forest Ecology and Manage- ny)]. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 180: Rackham O (2003). Ancient woodland: its his- ment 266: 273-285. - doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011. 195-205. tory, vegetation and uses in England. New ed. 11.016 Mölder A, Gürlich S, Engel F (2014). Die Verbrei- Castlepoint Press, Dalbeattie, UK, pp. 624. Lodtmann JFA (1819). Codex constitutionum tung von gefährdeten Holz bewohnenden Radkau J (1983). Holzverknappung und Krisen- Osnabrugensium oder Sammlung von Verord- Käfern in Schleswig-Holstein unter dem Einfluss bewußtsein im 18. Jahrhundert [Wood short- nungen, gemeinen Bescheiden, Rescripten und von Forstgeschichte und Besitzstruktur [The age and crisis consciousness in the 18th cen- anderen erläuterenden Verfügungen, welche distribution of endangered saproxylic beetles tury]. Geschichte und Gesellschaft 9: 513-543. das Hochstift Osnabrück betreffen [Codex con- in Schleswig- Holstein (Northern Germany) as Radkau J (2011). Wood: a history. Polity Press, stitutionum Osnabrugensium or collection of influenced by forest history and land tenure]. Cambridge, UK, pp. 352. decrees (…) which are related to the Prince- Forstarchiv 85: 84-101. - doi: 10.4432/0300-4112- Rendenieks Z, Nikodemus O, Brumelis G (2015). Bishopric of Osnabrück]. Kißling, Osnabrück, 85-84 The implications of stand composition, age and Germany, pp. 860. Mölder A, Aegerter U, Städing R (2015). 250 spatial patterns of forest regions with different Lovett-Doust J, Kuntz K (2001). Land ownership Jahre zentrale Forstverwaltung im Osnabrü- ownership type for management optimisation and other landscape-level effects on biodiver- cker Land [250 years of centralized forest admi- in northern Latvia. Forest Ecology and Manage- sity in southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment nistration in the Osnabrück region]. Heimat- ment 335: 216-224. - doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014. Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Landscape Ecology jahrbuch Osnabrücker Land 2016: 250-255. 10.001 16: 743-755. - doi: 10.1023/A:1014416900653 Müller J, Buler H, Bense U, Brustel H, Flechtner G Renger R (1968). Landesherr und Landstände im Lowenthal D (2005). Natural and cultural her- (2005). Urwald relict species - Saproxylic bee- Hochstift Osnabrück in der Mitte des 18. itage. International Journal of Heritage Studies tles indicating structural qualities and habitat Jahrhunderts [Sovereign and estates in the 11: 81-92. - doi: 10.1080/13527250500037088 tradition. Waldökologie online 2: 106-113. Price-Bishopric of Osnabrück in the middle of Mairota P, Suchomel C, Conedera M, Verheyen Müllerová J, Hédl R, Szabó P (2015). Coppice the 18th century]. Veröffentlichungen des Max- K, Heinsoo K, Buckley P (2015). Integrating fo- abandonment and its implications for species Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 19: 1-156. rest management into conservation objectives: diversity in forest vegetation. Forest Ecology Riepenhausen H (1986). Die bäuerliche Siedlung coppice management and forest habitats in and Management 343: 88-100. - doi: 10.1016/j. des Ravensberger Landes bis 1770 (Nachdruck Natura 2000 and Emerald network sites. In: foreco.2015.02.003 der 1. Auflage von 1938) [Rural settlement in “Coppice Forests: Past, Present and Future - Munteanu C, Nita MD, Abrudan IV, Radeloff VC the Ravensberg region until 1770 (2nd edn). Conference Information, Program and Book of (2016). Historical forest management in Roma- Selbstverlag von der Geographischen Kommis- Abstracts” (Vild O ed). Mendel University, nia is imposing strong legacies on contempo- sion für Westfalen, Münster, Germany, pp. 172. Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 67. rary forests and their management. Forest Eco- Sautmann R (2002). Ländliche Alltagsgeschichte Mantel K (1968). Die Anfänge der Waldpflege logy and Management 361: 179-193. - doi: 10.101 und lokale Geschichtsvermittlung: Die Bad Laer und Forstkultur im Mittelalter unter der Ein- 6/j.foreco.2015.11.023 Geschichte in der Neuzeit [Rural everyday his- wirkung der lokalen Waldordnung in Deutsch- NABU (2012). Offener Brief zum FFH-Gebiet tory and the local mediation of history: the his- land [The beginnings of forest management in “Kleiner Berg” [Open letter regarding the Na- tory of Bad Laer in the modern era]. Disserta- the Middle Ages under the influence of local tura 2000 area “Kleiner Berg“]. Natur- tion, University of Oldenburg (Oldb.), Germany, forest organization in Germany]. Forstwissen- schutzbund Osnabrück e.V., Osnabrück, Germa- pp. 476. schaftliches Centralblatt 87: 75-100. - doi: 10.100 ny, pp. 2. Schaich H, Plieninger T (2013). Land ownership 7/BF02735854 Ostrom E (1990). Governing the commons: the drives stand structure and carbon storage of Middendorff R (1927). Der Verfall und die evolution of institutions for collective action. deciduous temperate forests. Forest Ecology Aufteilung der gemeinen Marken im Fürsten- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and Management 305: 146-157. - doi: 10.1016/j. tum Osnabrück bis zur napoleonischen Zeit [On pp. 298. foreco.2013.05.013 the decline and division of the commons in the Overton M (1996). Agricultural revolution in Eng- Schlumbohm J (1992). From peasant society to Princedom of Osnabrück until the Napoleonic land: the transformation of the agrarian eco- class society: some aspects of family and class times]. Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte nomy, 1500-1850. Cambridge University Press, in a northwest German protoindustrial parish, und Landeskunde von Osnabrück 49: 1-157. Cambridge, UK, pp. 274. 17th-19th centuries. Journal of Family History ML Niedersachsen (2014). Der Wald in Nieder- Plieninger T, Bieling C, Fagerholm N, Byg A, Har- 17: 183-199. - doi: 10.1177/036319909201700205 sachsen - Ergebnisse der Bundeswaldinventur 3 tel T, Hurley P, López-Santiago CA, Nagabhatla Schmithüsen F, Hirsch F (2010). Private forest [Woodland in Lower Saxony - Results of the N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, Van Der Horst ownership in Europe. Geneva Timber and Fo- third national forest inventory]. Niedersächsi- D, Huntsinger L (2015). The role of cultural eco- rest Study Papers 26: 1-110.

527 iForest 9: 518-528 Small forest parcels, management diversity and valuable coppice habitats y

Schniederbernd M (2010). Niederwaldnutzung Kißling’schen Druckerei, Osnabrück, Germany, D, Ammer C, Schulze E-D (2011). Bestandesvor- r t

im westlichen Teutoburger Wald - Zwischen- pp. 481. rat, Baumartenvielfalt und Struktur kleinparzel- s

bericht zur vegetationskundlichen Erfolgskon- Stüve C (1872). Die Geschichte des Hochstifts lierter Privatwälder im Hainich [Growing stock, e r

trolle [Coppicing in the western Teutoburg For- Osnabrück - Aus den Urkunden bearbeitet. diversity of tree species and structure of o F est (…)]. Bericht im Auftrag der Interessenge- Zweiter Theil. Von 1508 bis 1623 [The history of stripped private-owned forests in the Hainich d

meinschaft Teutoburger Wald e.V. (Ig Teuto), the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück (…), 1508- region, Thuringia, Germany]. Forstarchiv 82: n a Lengerich, Germany, pp. 16. 1623]. Friedrich Frommann, Jena, Germany, pp. 203-215. - doi: 10.4432/0300-4112-82-203 s

Schroeder F-G (1963). Der Waldzustand im Teu- 880. Von Dücker N (1870). Die forstlichen Verhältnisse e c

toburger Wald bei Halle (Westf.) im 16 Jahr- Tiemeyer V, Raude N, Drews F (2012). Erfassung des Wiehen-Gebirges und Vorschläge zur Ver- n e

hundert [The forest condition in the Teutoburg und Akquise schützenswerter Bereiche und besserung derselben [The forestal conditions i

th c

Forest near Halle (Westf.) in the 16 century]. Einzelobjekte im Kellenberg (Landkreis Osna- of the Wiehengebirge and recommendations s

Natur und Heimat 23: 9-15. brück) - ein Beitrag zum Naturschutz im Wirt- for their improvement]. Zeitschrift für das o e

Siiskonen H (2007). The conflict between tradi- schaftswald [Registration and acquisition of Forst- und Jagdwesen 2: 110-127. g

th o tional and scientific forest management in 20 valuable areas and single objects in the Kellen- Warde P (2006). Fear of wood shortage and the i B

century Finland. Forest Ecology and Manage- berg (Osnabrück region)]. Osnabrücker natur- reality of the woodland in Europe, c. 1450-1850. – ment 249: 125-133. - doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007. wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen 38: 125-151. Historical Workshop Journal 62: 28-57. - doi: t

03.018 Van Gils H, Siegl G, Mark Bennett R (2014). The 10.1093/hwj/dbl009 s e

Spannhoff C (2011). 1609-2009: 400 Jahre Grenze living commons of West Tyrol, Austria: lessons Wiersum KF, Elands BHM, Hoogstra MA (2005). r o

zwischen Ostenfelde und Lienen [1609-2009: for land policy and land administration. Land Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: F i The border between Ostenfelde and Lienen Use Policy 38: 16-25. - doi: 10.1016/j.landuse characteristics and future potential. Small-scale becomes 400 years old]. Books on Demand, pol.2013.10.011 Forestry 4: 1-19. - doi: 10.1007/s11842-005-0001-1 Norderstedt, Germany, pp. 72. Varwig G (1951). Elfhundert Jahre Geschichte der Winkler K (1959). Landwirtschaft und Agrarver- Speight MCD (1989). Saproxylic invertebrates Erpener Mark - 951 bis 1951 [1100 years of his- fassung im Fürstentum Osnabrück nach dem and their conservation. Nature and Environ- tory in the Mark of Erpen - 951 until 1951]. H. Dreißigjährigen Kriege - Eine wirtschafts- ment Series 42: 1-81. Beucke and Söhne, Dissen T. W., Germany, pp. geschichtliche Untersuchung staatlicher Ein- Steen-Adams MM, Langston N, Adams MDO, 276. griffe in die Agrarwirtschaft [Agriculture and Mladenoff DJ (2015). Historical framework to Viergutz M (2011). Instrumente zur Information agrarian constitution in the Princedom of Os- explain long-term coupled human and natural und Motivation von Kleinprivatwaldbesitzern nabrück after the Thirty Years’ War (…)]. Gus- system feedbacks: application to a multiple- zur Umsetzung von Pflege- und Nutzungsmaß- tav Fischer, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 159. ownership forest landscape in the northern nahmen in ihrem Wald: deskriptive Explora- Great Lakes region, USA. Ecology and Society tionsstudien zu Möglichkeiten der Holzmobi- Supplementary Material 20: 28. - doi: 10.5751/ES-06930-200128 lisierung [Instruments for the information and Steinert MA (2003). Die alternative Sukzession motivation of private forest owners for dispo- Box S1 - Documents from the Osnabrück im Hochstift Osnabrück. Bischofswechsel und sing them to use and maintain their forests]. branch of the Lower Saxony State Archive. das Herrschaftsrecht des Hauses Braun- Dissertation, Albert-Ludwig University Freiburg schweig-Lüneburg in Osnabrück 1648-1802 [The (Breisgau), Germany, pp. 219. Fig. S1 - Management approaches and “alternative succession” in the Prince-Bishopric Vogelpohl J (2014). Grenzsteine erzählen Iburger intensities in the Osnabrück Region. of Osnabrück (…) 1648-1802]. Osnabrücker Geschichte(n). Eine Dokumentation histori- Geschichtsquellen und Forschungen 47: 1-283. scher Grenzsteine in Bad Iburg [(…) A docu- Fig. S2 - Structural diversity in the Teuto- Stüve C (1853). Die Geschichte des Hochstifts mentation of ancient boundary stones in Bad burg Forest. Osnabrück bis zum Jahre 1508 - Aus den Urkun- Iburg)]. Verein für Orts- und Heimatkunde Bad den bearbeitet [The history of the Prince-Bish- Iburg e. V., Bad Iburg, Germany, pp. 279. Link: [email protected] opric of Osnabrück until 1508 (…)]. Verlag der Von Lüpke N, Hardtke A, Lück M, Hessenmöller

iForest 9: 518-528 528