Mosaic Landscape Structures in Relation to the Land Use of Nitra District

Ekológia (Bratislava) Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 277–288, 2020 DOI:10.2478/eko-2020-0022

MOSAIC LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES IN RELATION TO THE LAND USE OF NITRA DISTRICT

GABRIEL BUGÁR, ZUZANA PUCHEROVÁ, KATARÍNA VESELOVSKÁ

Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovak Republic; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

Bugár G., Pucherová Z., Veselovská K.: Mosaic landscape structures in relation to the land use of Nitra district. Ekológia (Bratislava), Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 277–288, 2020.

Mosaic landscape structures with traditional forms of land use are currently the most important landscape features, especially from the point of landscape and cultural-historical perspective. Their typical features are the alternation of the areas of narrow-field fields, meadow vegetation and permanent cultures, especially vineyards and orchards. Their presence in the territory is mainly related to the rich vineyard and fruit-growing tradition. On the territory of the Nitra district, we record the most extensive mosaic landscape structures from the south to the north-eastern part. These are heterogeneous units, typical of the rotation of small-area land management, scattered by non-woody vegetation and habitat. In the mosaic landscape structures, we also find elements of the traditional settlement architecture of the houses ‘hajloch’. Significant landscape elements in the form of mosaic structures survive thanks to the rich viniculture tradition. In the long run, however, there are changes in their use: they are often the subject of inheritance, they are con- verted into holiday homes or they are used for the needs of an expanding residential development. The aim of our study is to point out the dynamic and changes that occurred in the mosaic landscape structures between the two-time horizons (the 50s of the 20th century and the present). For this purpose, we use geospatial analysis to evaluate their area representation, spatial characteristics in relation to the surrounding settlement structure and selected properties of relief forms. The analysis and evaluation of the spatial diversity of mosaic landscape structures as important landscape elements play a significant role in protecting the natural and cultural heritage values of the area from the aspect of species diversity and rich gene pool, visual perception of the landscape, preservation of ecological stability of landscape, landscape potential and overall landscape diversity.

Key words: agricultural landscape, land use, tradition, spatial characteristics, cultural heritage.

Introduction

The European landscape is predominantly a biocultural, multi-functional landscape. As such, it provides a crucial and effective space for integration of biological and cultural diversity for human wellbeing, including in the context of rural territories (Agnoletti, Rotherham, 2015). In a period of intensive economic development and societal interests, the country and its land use are dynamically changing (Falťan et al., 2018). Assessing

277 changes in the extent and management intensity of land use is crucial to understand the land-system dynamics and their environmental and social outcomes. Understanding the spatial patterns of changes in the extent and intensity of land use, and how these relate to each other, is important for understanding land-use change trajectories and the importance of impact of changes in the extent and management intensity of broad land use categories (Kuemmerle et al., 2016). The cultural diversity of the country makes a significant contribution to maintaining the diversity of conditions and forms of life on Earth. The significance of the link between cultural and natural phenomena is that at the same time, the link between history and ecological, landscape and aesthetic values of the territory, which contribute to the diversity of conditions and forms of life. It is a part of the natural and cultural heritage of Slovakia. If we want to understand the country and people today, we must know the land of the past. The historical and contemporary way of using the landscape – secondary landscape structure – tells us a lot about the economic and social situation of the local community, but also the whole society. Exploring the development of land use reflects the way in which the population is coping with the socio-political influences, respectively changes (Jančura, 1998). By expanding the areas of artificial ecosystems – agroecosystems to the detriment of natural ecosystems, a new anthropogenic phenomenon is emerging at the country level – the agricultural landscape (Demo et al., 1998). Traditional agricultural landscapes are defined as those landscapes that have a distinct and recognisable structure that reflects clear relationships between the composing elements and are of high significance for natural, cultural and/ or aesthetical values (Antrop, 1997). Most forms of traditional agriculture are specific, these forms are evolving in time in a particular habitat and culture, but many share common agro- ecological features (i.e., high number for plant and animal diversity, high structural diversity, exploitation of a full range of local climate, dependence on local resources and crop varie- ties, etc.) (Altieri, Toledo, 2005). Traditional systems and indigenous technologies existing throughout the world comprise a globally important ingenious agricultural heritage that reflects the value of the diversity of agricultural systems adapted to different environments and the vagaries of a changing physical and material environment from generation to generation (Altieri, Koohafkan, 2008). Assessing the changes in the extent and management intensity of land use is crucial to understand the land-system dynamics and their environmental and social outcomes (Kuemmerle et al., 2016). Agricultural systems were intensified substantially, especially during the 1960s–1980s, and Europe today has some of the most intensively managed croplands in the world (Mueller et al., 2012). The material part of the cultural heritage with a clear application in space can be defined as historical landscape structures. According to Huba et al. (1988), the historical landscape structures represent a specific, period-limited and spatially diminishing sub-type of landscape structures as a whole. The genesis of historical landscape structures (their emergence in the country and their dynamics) depends both on socio-economic and natural patterns. According to Jančura (1998), historical landscape structures form an integral part of every country. A specific element, which significantly contributes to the increase of biodiversity, landscape diversity and cultural diversity, are still the preserved areas of historical structures of agricultural landscape (Štefunková, Dobrovodská, 1998).

278 The aim of our study is to point out the dynamic and changes that occurred in the mosaic landscape structures between the two-time horizons (the 50s of the 20th century and the present). We use geospatial analyses to evaluate their area representation, spatial characteristics in relation to the surrounding settlement structure and selected properties of relief forms.

Material and methods

District Nitra is located in the western part of Slovakia (see location in the Fig. 1). It’s area is 870.71 km2. The greater part of the territory of the district is located in the Danubian Lowland (Podunajská pahorkatina), which is bordered by the Tribeč mountain range with the highest point of the Žibrica area (617 m above sea level) in the northern part. The lowest point is located in Vinodol (126 m above sea level). The surface in the lowland part of the district is flat along the river Nitra, elsewhere upland with valleys. The majority of the district’s territory belongs to the warm climate. The average annual temperature is 9.7 °C and the total annual rainfall is 580 mm. The biggest watercourse is the river Nitra with tributaries Radošinka (western part) and Zittau (eastern part). In the district of Nitra, Haplic Luvisols and Haplic Chernozems dominate. Fluvisols have developed along the river Nitra and its tributaries. In the Tribeč Mountains, Cambisols and Rendzic Leptosols were created. The upland part of the district is almost de- forested. The forests of the district are 10.15%. The administrative district is part of the Nitra self-governing region. Part of the district is 62 settlements, 2 have city status (Nitra and Vráble). The urbanization rate of the district is 58 and 42% of the population live in rural settlements. The fertility of the soils is high, the degree of ploughed land is

Fig. 1. Types of changes in mosaic landscape structures of Nitra district in two-time horizons 1949−2018.

279 T a b l e 1. Index of mosaic landscape structures evaluation and 6-digit code assignment.

Index of MLS Index categories evaluation NFW type 1 With rare occur- 2 With 3 With domi- 4 With domi- 5 With domi- rence of non-forest different nant solitary nant line NFW nant grouped woody vegetation forms of NFW (areal) NSFW NFW Small architecture 1 Yes 2 No Mosaic type Vineyards MLS Arable lands- Arable lands- grasslands- grasslands orchards MLS MLS 1 Mosaic 2 Mosaic 3 Mosaic 4 Mosaic 5 Mosaic 6 Mosaic Vin, A Vin, A, O Vin, A, Gr Vin, A, O, Gr A, O, Gr A, Gr

Parcel shape 1 Narrowband 2 Block 3 Other (square) Utilization rate 1 Regularly farmed 2 Occasionally used, resp. 3 Mostly abandoned MLS MLS partially abandoned MLS Parcel topographic 1 Mostly on the 2 Mostly down the slope 3 Mixed 4 Planar aspect contour line line

Notes: NFW – non-forest woody vegetation; A – arable land; O – orchards; Gr – grasslands; Urb – urbanised area; Vin – vineyards.

69.33%. A typical form of utilization of agricultural land, besides the dominant large-scale farming, is also a small- block form with small narrow fields, which are mainly part of agricultural mosaic structures. The aim of our study is to point out the dynamic and changes that occurred in the mosaic landscape structures between the two-time horizons (the 50s of the 20th century and the present). In the methodology steps, we used the evaluation of mosaic landscape structures from the publication by Špulerová et al. (2017). For our purpose, when evaluating the occurrence of mosaic landscape structures, we used 6 indicators, which we had structured according to the evaluated territory and characteristic features of mosaics in the area of interest: We evaluated the first occurrence of NFV in 5 categories: 1. NFV occurs only rarely, with a coverage of up to 10%; 2. the coverage of NFV is more than 10%, neither form of NFV (solitary, line, group – area) is dominant; 3. the coverage of NFV within the polygon is more than 10%, among the individual forms of NFV, the solitary NFV dominates; 4. NFV coverage within polygon is more than 10%, NFV line dominates among individual forms of NFV; 5. the coverage of NFV within the polygon is more than 10%, among the individual forms of NFV, the group (areal) NFV dominates; 2. the presence of small architecture elements was evaluated in 2 categories: 1. with occurrence and 2. no occurrence; 3. representation of the use patterns in mosaic landscape structures was evaluated in 6 categories according to the specific types of land: 1. vineyards (Vin) mosaic structures assessed in 4 categories and one category in the 2. arable(A)-grasslands (Gr) and 3. arable-grasslands (Gr) mosaic structures; 4. The shape of the parcels was evaluated in 3 products in the mosaic structures: 1. The more rectangular shapes of the parcels prevailed; 2. The more square shapes of the parcels predominated; and 3. The shape of the parcels in the geometry of the shape, for example, a polygon or triangle; 1. more than 70% of the land is cultivated, 2. the percentage of cultivated land in the polygon is 30−70%, 3. the over- growth of NFW, parcels less than 30%; 1. parcel boundaries run parallel or predominantly across contour lines, 2. parcel boundaries follow the relief slope line – bottom-up, 3. the boundaries of the parcels – one polygon plots also run along contour lines, even along a slope line, or have an oblique orientation to contour lines, respectively slope lines, 4. the plots of one polygon are within the plain fluvial plane (Table 1).

280 In time horizon 1948−2018, each mosaic landscape structure was assigned a six-digit code by category (Table 1). Each number of six-digit code means inclusion in the category under consideration, for example, code 111112 represents a mosaic structure with a unique occurrence of NFV, with the present agricultural structures and elements of small architecture, in which the vineyards and arable land dominated by the way of use, with narrow-band forms of parcels, which are regularly farmed and their orientation is largely downhill. The input analytical data was processed based on military aerial photographs from 1949 (Topographic Institute of Banská Bystrica) and current orthophotomaps (Orthophotomap © Geodis Slovakia, Ltd., Aerial Photography and Digital Orthophotomap © Eurosense, company), which were updated by field research in 2018. Using the Arc GIS 10.1 software, we created vectorized areas of individual mosaic structures for time horizons 1949 and 2018, followed by attributes (six-digit code). We used geoprocessing of vector data and spatial statistics. The resulting digital models were used in further analysis and synthesis and in evaluating of changes.

Results

In 1949, there were 122 mosaic landscape structures within the Nitra district with a total area of 2,999.90 ha. From the point of view of the number of mosaic landscape structures (8–9) within the territory of Nitra district in 1949, mainly the types of mosaics with codes: 125112, 214112, 215112 and 414112 dominated. The landscape structure is represented mainly by mosaic codes: 214112 (424.41 ha), 215112 (340.90 ha), 414112 (390.12 ha), 514112 (200.18 ha) and 515112 (267.74 ha) (Fig. 2). The largest area (934.99 ha) was in the mosaics in which various forms of NFV (solitary, line, group – area) were found, none of which was dominant and the NFV coverage was greater than 10%. In terms of number, mosaics dominated with a unique occurrence of NFV, that is, 10% (37 mosaics) and the least mosaic (7 mosaics) with more than 10% NFV coverage, with solitaires in particular. Such a type of NFV in the mosaic landscape structures in 1949 was the least represented (58.62 ha). In most of the mosaics, elements of small architecture (75 mosaics, 2,583.51 ha in area) were present, and in 47 mosaics, small elements of architecture (416.36 ha).

Fig. 2. Changes in a count of mosaic landscape structures types between two-time horizons 1949−2018.

281 T a b l e 2. Review of changes of mosaic landscape structures based on evaluation of 6 indicators between two-time horizons 1949−2018.

Fig. 3. Changes in the count of evaluated mosaic landscape structures based on 6 indicators in two-time horizons 1949−2018.

In the mosaic type in 1949, the most extensive use of land use was the largest mosaic 4 – Vin, A, Gr, O (1,525.58 ha) and mosaic 5 – A, O, Gr (1,181.65 ha). Such mosaics were also the most numerous (39 and 49 mosaics). The number of mosaics and simultaneously dominated the shape of the narrow-band parcels (102 mosaics, 2,692.58 ha). At least the number and area were mosaics with a different shape of parcels (8 mosaics, 36.97 ha). In

282 the historical landscape structure, all 122 mosaics (2,999.90 hectares) were regularly managed (more than 70% of the farmed land). Occasionally used, resp. partially abandoned and mostly abandoned mosaics did not occur in the district of Nitra in 1949. Most (92 mosaics) were farmed down the slope (2,331.98 hectares) and the least (6 mosaics) were cultivated on a contour line and on a plane (6 mosaics). The smallest area of mosaics (23.17 ha) was in the first case, that is, the orientation of the plots against the relief was predominantly contoured (Table 2, Fig. 3). In 2018, we were mapping 66 mosaic landscape structures within the Nitra district with a total area of 1,584.02 ha. In 2018, with the largest number of mosaics (10 and 12), two types of mosaic codes were represented in the district: 214112 (12) and 514112 (10). Among the three most extensive mosaic structures in the current landscape structure were the mosaic types with codes: 514112 (416.73 ha), 214112 (353.92 ha) and 114112 (178.38 ha). The largest area (627.48 ha) was in the mosaic landscape structures with dominant group (areal) NFV (the coverage was higher than 10%). The mosaic with predominant NFV coverage was also the most (22 mosaics). In 2018, compared to 1949, they did not encounter mosaics with the dominant solitary NFV. As in 1949, mosaics dominated by elements of small architecture (63 mosaics, 1,573.41 ha) dominated in 2018. Only in 3 mosaics were the elements of small architecture absent and the area of such mosaics was 10.61 ha. Among all land use types, the mosaic 4 –Vin, A, Gr, O was the largest (49 mosaics) and the largest one (1,454.07 ha). As in 1949, in 2018, the shape of the parasites dominated (58 mosaics, 1,492.26 ha). The square shape of parcel was characterized in 8 mosaics (91.75 ha). Unlike in 1949, however, there was no other form of parcels in mosaic landscape structures. In 2018, we mapped most of the regularly managed mosaics, and it was more than 70% of the farmed land (54 mosaics, 1,398.97 ha). Only in one mosaic were the parcels mostly abandoned (9.15 ha). In the orientation against the relief, mosaics predominantly dominated by the slope line (47 mosaics, 1,183.81 ha) domination, and there were no mosaics with planar relief (Table 2, Fig. 3). Between the years 1949 and 2018, significant changes occurred in the mosaic landscape structures (MLS) in the Nitra district. Their total number decreased by 56 and their area was also reduced by 1 415.88 ha. By comparing mosaic landscape structures within two evaluated time horizons, we can conclude that 8 mosaic landscape structures (225.38 ha) remained without changes in 2018 (compared to 1949). The new extension of the mosaic areas involved 100 MLS. We can observe the largest areas of mosaic expansion in 2018 compared to 1949 in the cadastral area of the following municipalities: Nitra, Nitrianske Hrnčiarovce, Štitáre, Žirany, Jelenec, Babindol, Vráble, Nová Ves nad Žitavou, Veľký Cetín (Fig. 1). There were internal changes in 64 mosaics of the largest area (1,065.86 ha) that manifested themselves in all the assessed indicators, that is, NFW type, small architecture, mosaic type, parcel shape, utilization rate and parcel topographic aspect. However, the most significant changes occurred in the evaluated area by replacing the mosaic landscape structures that existed in 1949. During historical development, all these changes took place within the area of 1,715.93 ha and involved 148 MLS (Table 3). At present time (2018), they have been replaced by other land uses. The most frequent changes in MLS were transitions to arable land (63 MLS, 684.78 ha), to arable land in combination with grasslands, NFW, urbanised area and open water (26 MLS, 396.08 ha), to urbanised area (21 MLS, 318.66 ha) and vineyards in combination (6

283 T a b l e 3. Types of change direction (replacements) in mosaic landscape structures in 2018.

Changes in MLS Count Min_Area Max_Area Mean_Area Sum_Area no changes 8 0.42 80.37 28.17 225.38 internal changes 64 0.23 73.85 16.65 1065.86 new extension 100 0.22 36.77 2.98 297.88 arable land 63 0.09 145.78 10.87 684.78

- arable land with combinations 26 0.26 66.78 12.71 396.08 forests 2 1.05 1.81 1.43 2.86 grasslands 1 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 non-forest woody vegetation 10 0.20 1.65 0.78 7.85 non-forest woody vegetation with combinations 14 0.42 13.06 3.26 52.13

ments) orchards with combinations 2 6.62 8.85 7.74 15.47 urbanised area 21 0.23 154.63 15.17 318.66 urbanised area with combinations 1 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 vineyards 2 1.19 8.28 4.74 9.47 Types of change direction (replace direction change of Types vineyards with combinations 6 5.22 90.90 33.79 223.70 all types of change direction 148 0.09 154.63 8.67 1715.93

MLS, 223.70 ha). On the contrary, only 1 MLS from the year 1949 was replaced by grasslands in 2018 (1.77 ha) and 2 MLS were replaced by forests (2.86 ha) (Table 3).

Discussion

The results of investigating historical development primarily consist of quantitative, statisti- cal information on land-use change in the form of mosaic structures (Pelorosso et al., 2009). Our analysis point to the changes in distribution and spatial arrangement of mosaic structures on the example of district Nitra. As reported by Dobrovodská and Štefunková (1996), these are mosaic structures of widely used arable land elements and permanent agricultural cultures (permanent grassland, vineyards and alpine orchards). If they are nowadays not used, they are characterized by a low degree of woody sequence. Their shape, structure, orientation, size, type of use, agrarian forms of assistance, their structure and other characteristics as well as regional or local differences are the result of interaction of natural conditions, geographical location and socio-economic development of the region. The results of our study talk about internal changes in 64 mosaics of the largest area (1,065.86 ha) that have been reflected in all assessed indicators: type NFW, small architecture, mosaic type, land shape, utilization rate and topographical aspect of the plot. However, the most significant change is the replacement of mosaic landscape structures by other land use on an area of 1715.93 ha with 148 MLS (Table 3). In particular, MLS changes to arable land (63 MLS, 684.78 ha), arable land combined with grassland, NFW, urbanized and open water (26 MLS, 396.08 ha), urbanized areas (21 MLS, 318.66 ha) and vineyards in combination 284 (6 MLS, 223.70 ha). According to Špulerová et al. (2017), the historical mosaic landscape structures with preserved appearance and functions are now characterized by the following attributes: 1. preserving the original landscape pattern; 2. the way of use has not changed during the collectivization of agriculture during the socialist period; 3. preserved agricultural forms; 4. preserved signs of using traditional agricultural technologies. Our results show that the collectivization of agriculture and new trends in urbanization of the area had a significant impact on the changes in MLS between 1948 and 2018. Like the authors Turner (1989) and Van der Zanden et al. (2016), in our study, we have defined landscape structure as the spatial composition and heterogeneity of the landscape, relating to spatial relationships as the size, shape and configuration of individual components. One of the features of the landscape is it’s development. By developing the country, we can point out internal changes that have occurred in the country, and at the same time, their drivers. Satellite remote sensing is used especially for these purposes. This is the most real- istic approach for assessing changes in large spatial scales. According to Allen et al. (2018), heterogeneous landscapes mainly represent challenges for accurate land cover classification and change. Another option is to use Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) digital detector model to evaluate landscape characteristics associated with visual sensory properties (Berkel et al., 2018). Field research plays an important role in mapping the landscape structure. Sub- sequent use of geoprocessing tools of vector data and spatial statistics can be considered a value-added method that provides a detailed look at changes in the distribution of mosaic structures and their driving forces. According to Tieskens et al. (2017), almost all rural areas in Europe have been shaped or changed by humans and can be considered cultural landscapes, many of which are considered to be valuable cultural heritage. The current dynamics of land management has brought the cultural landscape under enormous pressure to intensify agriculture or land abandon- ment. Changes in mosaic structures towards the natural landscape were recorded in our territory only in 1 MLS from the year 1949 replaced by grasslands in 2018 (1.77 ha) and 2 MLS replaced by forests (2.86 ha). Talking about protection of MLS and preserving them for future generations, we found out that the available studies do not consider bio-cultural diversity and MLS as protection goal. Agnoletti, Rotherham (2015) show that traditional land-related elements with historical value can be found in many regions of the world, including temperate, subtropical and tropical countries. In many cases, this aspect should be formally included in the protection instruments. In addition to the mapping of MLS at district level (Nitra), our study offers a detailed analysis of changes in their evolution over two-time horizons (1949−2018). It also points out the drivers of these changes in a historical context. According to Mojses, Petrovič (2013), for the purpose of nature and landscape conservation planning, it is necessary to know the evolution of land use changes in order to identify areas of economic exploitation. The landscape’s structure, it’s shape and location, provides specific characteristics that allow the characterization of any selected part of the country. The identification of the historical mosaic landscape structures was based on the interpretation of old black-and-white aerial photographs (1949). The weakness of this method is in its subjective manner to some extent. Due to the lack of additional historical information

285 sources, the delineation of MLS has been performed on the basis of its characteristic physi- ognomy only. The internal structure, that is, land use of individual patches within the MLS matrix, can be hardly classified (e.g., arable land versus grasslands). Nevertheless, the mosaic landscape structures must be taken as a whole with the traditional way of agricultural land management. They are important, both from the historical and ecological point of view. They represent ecologically important landscape elements with higher biodiversity than the sur- roundings of the homogeneous agricultural landscape of the Nitra district. On the contrary, the strength of additional information sources used in the present-state MLS mapping (e.g., cadastral geodatabase) improved the evaluation of the properties of mosaic structures. The field mapping also identified the share of abandoned and overgrown parcels in MLS, which may pose a certain risk for their preservation in the future.

Conclusion

The aim of our study was to point out the dynamic and changes that occurred in the mosaic landscape structures between the two-time horizons (the 50s of the 20th century and the present). In 1949 there were 122 mosaic landscape structures within the Nitra district with a total area of 2,999.90 ha. Types of mosaics with codes: 125112, 214112, 215112 and 414112 were dominated in 1949. In 2018, we recorded 66 mosaic landscape structures within the Nitra district with a total area of 1,584.02 ha. In 2018, two types of mosaic codes were represented in the district with the largest number of mosaics: 214112 (12) and 514112 (10). Between the years 1949 and 2018, significant changes occurred in the mosaic landscape structures (MLS) in Nitra district. Their total number decreased by 56 and their area was also reduced by 1,415.88 ha. We can conclude that 8 mosaic landscape structures (225.38 ha) remained without changes in 2018 (compared to 1949). Changes in distribution of mosaic structures have a significant impact not only on the landscape structure and the characteristic appearance of the landscape, but also contribute to changes in species diversity. According to Lindborg, Eriksson (2004), transformation of landscape is considered to be one of the main drivers behind species loss, regionally and globally. Theory and empirical studies suggest that landscape structure influences species diversity in many habitats. These effects may be manifested at different spatial scales depending on species response to landscape heterogeneity. However, it must be noted that changes in landscape are not restricted only to land use and structures (landscape elements), but they also apply to the landscape as a whole, and they influence landscape processes and functions (Palang et al., 2006). Historical landscape structures represent older time horizons, express the historical-time phenomenon, the presence of the previous (Jančura, Maliniak, 2004). The presence of historical structures of agricultural landscape, according to Štefunková, Dobrovodská (1997), influences the whole range of landscape features and their sustainable use. In the area of ecological and environmental properties, it is: diversity of land use and biodiversity, stability of the agricultural landscape ecosystem, optimal agricultural use of historical structures of agricultural landscape, gene pool of autochthonous vegetation and animal, gene pool of cultural crops, quality of natural resources, water retention in the country, development of recreation, information and economic resource. All these features can be understood as ecosystem services that provide so-

286 cieties with their ecosystems and their biodiversity through the agricultural landscape’s historical structures. Mosaic structures in the vicinity of urban areas are equally important. In addition to the wealth of previous generations, they provide significant ecological functions. However, they rarely have status of protection. Even according to Perez-Campaña, Valenzue- la-Montes (2017), the ecological value of some elements of the country is often overlooked when they are in countries with a strong impact on people, such as in suburban agricultural areas. These countries usually go beyond the defined categories of landscape protection and are therefore mapped as areas of little or no environmental concern in the context of extensive analysis (Pohle, Gerigue, 2018).

Acknowledgements

This study is the result of the projects implementation by the ‘Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and Slovak Academy of Sciences’ under the grants VEGA 1/0207/2017; VEGA 1/0706/20 and KEGA 032UKF-4/2018.

References

Agnoletti, M. & Rotherham I.D. (2015). Landscape and biocultural biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv., 24(13), 3155−3165. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-015-1003-8. Allen, H., Simonson, W., Parham, E., De Basto e Santos, E. & Hotham P. (2018). Satellite remote sensing of land cover change in a mixed agro-silvo-pastoral landscape in the Alentejo, Portugal. Int. J. Remote Sens., 39(14), 4663−4683. DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2018.1440095. Altieri, M.A. & Toledo V. M. (2005). Natural resource management among small scale farmers in semi-arid lands: building on traditional knowledge and agroecology. Annals of Arid Zone, 44, 365–385. Altieri, M.A. & Koohafkan P. (2008). Enduring farms: climate change, smallholders and traditional farming com- munities. Penang: Third World Network. Antrop, M. (1997). The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of Flanders Region. Landsc. Urban Plann., 38, 105−117. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00027-3. Berkel, D.B., Tabrizian, P., Dorning A.M., Smart, L., Newcomb, D., Mehaffey, M., Neale, A. & Meentemayer R.K. (2018). Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LIDAR. Ecosystem Services, 31, 326−335. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.022. Demo, M., Bielek, P., Džatko, M., Lacko-Bartošová, M., Juráni, B., Vilček, J. & Gaisbacher J. (1998). Arrangement and use of soil in agricultural land (in Slovak). Nitra: SPU, Bratislava: Výskumný ústav pôdnej úrodnosti. Dobrovodská, M. & Štefunková D. (1996). Historical agricultural forms of anthropogenic relief in oracle-meadow-pasture and vineyard land (in Slovak). Acta Environmentalica Universitatis Comenianae (Bratislava), 7, 85–91. Falťan, V., Oťahel, J., Gábor, M. & Ružek I. (2018). Methods of land cover research (in Slovak). Bratislava: UK. Huba, M., Čuchor, J., Flamík, J., Gojdič, I., Hrubec, I., Kapusta, M., Krajčovič, R., Križan, L., Kubáček, J., Lukáčová, D., Mlynka, L., Pauliniová, Z., Podoba, J., Procházka, K., Slivka, M., Šimkovic, P. & Urbánek J. (1988). Histori- cal landscape structures (in Slovak). In M. Huba (Ed.), Ochranca prírody (pp. 1−5). Bratislava: MV SZOPK. Jančura, P. (1998). Landscape structure and historical landscape structures in landscape planning (in Slovak). Životné prostredie, 32(5), 236−240. Jančura, P. & Maliniak P. (2004). Perspectives of teaching the subject “Historical Landscape Structures” (in Slo- vak). In P. Jančura (Ed.), Historické krajinné štruktúry vo vzťahu k vývoju poľnohospodárskeho využívania zeme (pp. 4−15). Banská Štiavnica: Katedra plánovania a tvorby krajiny FEE. Kuemmerle, T., Levers, Ch., Erb, K., Estel, S., Jepsen, M.R., Müller, D., Plutzar, CH., Stürck, J., Verkerk, J.P., Ver- burg, H.P. & Reenberg A. (2016). Hotspots of land-use change in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 11(6), 064020. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064020. Lindborg, R. & Eriksson O. (2004). Historical landscape connectivity affects present plantspecies diversity. Ecol - ogy, 85(7), 1840–1845. DOI: 10.1890/04-0367.

287 Mojses, M. & Petrovič F. (2013). Land use changes of historical structures in the agricultural landscape at the local level - Hriňová case study. Ekológia (Bratislava), 32(1), 1−12. DOI: 10.2478/eko-2013-0001. Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, N. & Foley J.A. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, 490(7419), 254−257. DOI: 10.1038/nature11420. Palang, H., Printsmann, A., Konkoly Gyuró, E., Urbanc, M., Skowronek, E. & Woloszyn W. (2006). The forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landsc. Ecol., 21(3), 347−357. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-004- 4313-x. Pelorosso, R., Leone, A. & Boccia L. (2009). Land cover and land use change in the Italian central Apennines: a com- parison of assessment methods. Applied Geography, 29, 35–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.07.003. Perez-Campaña, R. & Valenzuela-Montes L.M. (2017). Nodes of peri-urban agricultural landscape at local level: an interpretation of their contribution to the eco-structure. Journal of Environmental Planning and Managment, 63(3), 406−429. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1314252. Pohle, P. & Gerigue A. (2018). Traditional ecological knowledge and biodiversity managment in the Andes of south- ern Ecuador. Geographica Helvetica, 61(4), 275−285. DOI: 10.5194/gh-61-275-2006. Špulerová, J., Štefunková, D., Dobrovodská, M., Izakovičová, Z., Kenderessy, P., Vlachovičová, M., Lieskovský, J., Piscová, V., Petrovič, F., Kanka, R., Bača, A., Barančoková, M., Bezák, P., Bezáková, M., Boltižiar, M., Mojses, M., Dubcová, M., Gajdoš, P., Gerhátová, K., Izsóff, M., Kalivoda, H., Miklósová, V., Drábová, M., Šatalová, B., Krištín, A., Dankaninová, L., Kalivodová, E., Majzlan, O., Mihál, I., Stašiov, S., Šolomeková, T., Ambros, M., Baláž, I. & Halabuk A. (2017). Historical structures of the agricultural landscape of Slovakia (in Slovak). Bratis- lava: VEDA, vydavateľstvo SAV. Štefunková, D. & Dobrovodská M. (1997). Historical agricultural forms of land use - their role in sustainable development (in Slovak). Acta Environmentalistica Universitatis Comenianae (Bratislava), 8(Suppl.), 149−153. Štefunková, D. & Dobrovodská M. (1998). Cultural and historical resources of Slovakia and their importance for sustainable development (in Slovak). In Z. Izakovičová, M. Kozová & E. Pauditšová (Eds.), Implementácia trvalo udržateľného rozvoja (pp. 104−111). Bratislava: ÚKE SAV. Tieskens, T.F., Schulp, J.E.C, Levers, Ch., Lieskovský, J., Kuemmerle, T., Plieninger, T. & Verburg P.H. (2017). Char- acterizing European cultural landscapes: Accounting for structure, management intensity and value of agricultural and forest landscapes. Land Use Policy, 62, 29−39. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.001. Turner, M.G. (1989). Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 20, 171−197. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001131. Van der Zanden, E.H., Levers, C., Verburg, P.H. & Kuemmerle T. (2016). Representing composition, spatial structure and management intensity of European agricultural landscapes: a new typology. Landsc. Urban Plann., 150, 36−49. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.02.005.

288