NJF Report • Vol 7 • No 1 • Year 2011

Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists

NJF Seminar 436 Biodiversity in agriculture lessons learned and future directions Ulvik in Hardanger, Norway, 24-26 May 2011

2

Preface The NJF seminar no. 436, “Biodiversity in agriculture - lessons learned and future directions”, was held in Ulvik in Hardanger, Norway from May 24 to May 26 2011. The number of participants of the seminar was 24, from the following countries: Denmark (1), England (1), Estonia (3), Finland (5), Latvia (1), Lithuania (1), Norway (11) and Sweden (1). There were three invited key note speakers. Professor Henry Buller, from Exeter University in England, presented a paper with the title "Eat the view - how is it possible to use the socioeconomical value of biodiversity?”. Professor Urban Emanuelsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Sweden talked about “Trends of biodiversity in agriculture from a historical perspective”. And Dr. Ann Norderhaug, Bioforsk in Norway presented and discussed “Possible future strategies to stop the decrease of biodiversity in agriculture”. Altogether twelve oral papers and nine posters were presented. The scientific and organizing committee consisted of Terho Hyvönen, Finland, Valdo Kuusemets, Estonia, Lars Nesheim, Norway (chairman), Lisbeth Nielsen, Denmark, Håkan Tunón, Sweden and Livija Zarina, Latvia.

Kvithamar 20th October 2011

Lars Nesheim

Photo front page: Bolette Bele, Bioforsk

3

Contents Preface....................................................................................................3 Contents..................................................................................................4 Oral presentations: "Eat the view" - how is it possible to use the socioeconomical value of biodiversity?..............................................................................................5 Ecosystem service provision by establishing temporal habitats in agricultural environments............................................................................................9 Management of semi-natural grassland in Denmark – political instruments and possible improvements........................................................................11 Heritage plants in museum environment - Three museum gardens in south western Finland........................................................................................16 Cultural landscape and biodiversity at Sogn Folk Museum...............................20 Possible future strategies to stop the decrease of biodiversity in agriculture......23 Plants in the agricultural landscape: Relationships between plant diversity and distribution in relation to land use.........................................................27 Changes in landscape- and vegetation heterogenity of rural Norway................33 Phytocenological variation and effect of human activity on caraway (Carum Carvi L.) survival in natural habitats....................................39 Influence of landscape features to the diversity of pollinators..........................45 Population dynamics, landscape genetics and local distribution of Knautia arvensis in an agricultural landscape............................................46 Posters: Cereal landrace farmers in Finland and their motivation to on-farm conservation............................................................................51 Heritage plants in Historic gardens – case Jokioinen Manor Park, Finland.........56 Maintaining landscape diversity. Case study of Setomaa................................60 Crop diversification in the future cropping systems.......................................66 Red-listed plants in semi-natural landscapes................................................68 Effect of crop rotation on weed diversity on soddy-podzolic arable soil.............75 Management of grassland by Jersey male calves nursed by ex-milking cows.....76 A preliminary study of the species richness of leafmining flies (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in hay meadows in Telemark, South-Eastern Norway.................81 Regional exchanges and policy making for protecting and valorizing biodiversity in Europe. Nature tourism in Estonia, some examples of best practices..................................................................................................83

4

“Eat the view” – how is it possible to use the socioeconomical value of biodiversity? Henry Buller College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ. Phone 44 (0) 1392 263846, e-mail [email protected] The manuscript is copied from the following publication: Buller, H. (2011) Consuming Natural Value. In ‘Banking Biodiversity: Valuing or de-valuing Nature. Food Ethics 6 (2): 21-22. Agriculture’s relationship to ‘Nature’ has long been complicated. On the one hand, farming represents perhaps the most quintessential means by which Nature is given value through the harvesting of natural processes and natural matter for use, exchange and consumption. As such, in many regions, the farmed landscape has become central to the iconic representation of beneficial ‘Nature’ and naturality. Yet on the other hand, agriculture is also seen by many as being fundamentally antithetic to both ‘Nature’ and environment. Intensification and modernisation, coupled with the growing substitution of artificial processes and materials for their natural counterparts, has made contemporary agriculture “fundamentally anti-environment” in the recent words of the departing conservation Director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. One of the consequences of this polarisation has been to externalise ‘Nature’ and natural value from the process of agriculture. Nature (in the form of the natural environment, biodiversity, clean rivers and other cherished public goods) can thus be a ‘positive externality’ of agriculture, where agricultural management practices have actively created or sustained environmental benefits, or a ‘negative externality’ where farming activities have led to pollution, species loss and so on. In both cases, ‘Nature’ (or at least some culturally defined notion of it) has seemingly become ‘external’ to farming, a product or outcome – either positive or negative - of agricultural enterprise. Seeing ‘Nature’ as something external to farming, whether negative or positive, is problematic because it has generated not only separate policy communities and economic mechanisms but also distinct rationales (and arguably spaces) of intervention. Positive externalities are largely achieved through a combination of designation, incentivisation and non-intensification. Negative externalities are more commonly addressed through control, regulation and de-intensification. For both though, the generation of agricultural value for the producer and ultimately product value for the consumer, remains almost entirely distinct from the generation (and appreciation) of natural value (as a public or even non-human good). Recently, there have been a number of initiatives seeking to challenge or inverse this conventional understanding of natural value as a largely separate outcome of various agricultural practices and thereby advancing the idea of using natural value as an input into farm systems that effectively link natural quality to product quality and economic viability. 5

In a number of upland regions of France, such linkages are well established and understood. The biodiverse natural pastures of the Beaufort, Comté and Cantal regions, for example, are considered integral to the gustative and nutritional quality of the cheeses that bear the same names, not an externality resulting from their production. As a result, maintaining floristic and faunistic diversity and the open meadow landscape are as much to do with agricultural management as ‘nature’ management. Indeed the two become almost indistinguishable. In the UK, though far less extensive, there is a growing attentiveness to these relationships, particularly in areas of natural and semi-natural grassland. Traditionally ‘less favoured’ in terms of their capacity for more intensive production methods, such areas have become less and less valuable and useful to conventional farming. As a result, over the last forty years, a wide range of grazing habitats, have been ploughed up and converted to arable use, have been over-intensively grazed or have being withdrawn from farming altogether. At the same time, however, we have seen an increased interest in natural pasture as a major source of biological diversity, ecological richness and now carbon retention. There now exists a wide range of policies and mechanisms, established over the last fifteen or so years, at the European Union level as well as at the national and sub-national levels, to promote the protection and active management of grassland pasture. In a growing number of such areas, consumer interest in local food and the development of alternative food networks has promoted place-based food marketing where representational and semiotic strategies of rural landscape, heritage and lifestyle are deployed to create additional product value. What is often missing in such connectivities though, is the mobilisation of natural value (in ecological and nutritive terms) as a material input (or ‘internality’) to food production capable of yielding distinctive (and hence marketable) ecologically embedded qualities. Yet this too is now emerging.

Figure 1.

6

Recent research, undertaken under the UK Research Councils RELU Programme 1 investigated the growth of ecologically embedded food production systems, where the biodiversity of natural pasture is a critical input into distinctive animal feed regimes. Here the objectives were to assess the ecological impacts of the system as well as the nutritive and gustative characteristics of the food produced and evaluate their potential as viable mechanisms for more sustainable rural development and grassland protection (Figure 1). That interdisciplinary research, along with parallel work undertaken in France and elsewhere, demonstrated the potential for viable synergies to be created between the intrinsic value of species-rich natural pasture, upland management practices, meat quality, positive consumer choice and product value, particularly where specialist supply chains can be mobilised to secure market access. Individual natural grazing environments, such as salt marshes and heather moorland have been shown to contribute to distinctive and positive product qualities and tastes, notably in the case of sheep and lamb meat. Moreover, the growing use of unpasturised milk in artisanal cheese production in the UK is also often associated with recognition of the particular ecological and nutritive qualities of natural grasslands. Here there is potential certainly as well as growing consumer demand. But in an increasingly globalised agro-food sector, natural value must shout to be heard. The farm enterprises involved rarely operate within the conventional food chain but rather independently via direct sales, through farmers markets or via specialist outlets such as restaurants and delicatessens. These are short, individualistic food chains. For some, this is because their products don’t necessarily conform to the carcass weight or volume requirements of the major retailers. For others, there is an issue of seasonality, production rates being more constrained than within more intensive husbandry systems. Selling is often more of a challenge than producing. Such systems can benefit from collective responses, such as that of the Dartmoor Farmers’ Association, created in 2007 to produce and market meat products derived from the unique pasture ecology of Dartmoor. They also require different strategies of investment than more conventional models and there is an argument to suggest that support mechanisms would be better targeted at collective initial investment, start-up and conversion rather than simply annual individual payments for public goods. In the UK, we have also been notably slower than some of our neighbours to use labelling and certification schemes to link natural value with product value despite the evident variability of our agricultural ecologies. This is something we need to actively re-invent but it demands a collective effort on the part of producers. It also means acknowledging that place is more than just location. It is the point where ecologies and practices come together. There are clearly many opportunities for a closer integration of natural value into other components of food value. Indeed, the very concept of embodied ‘natural value’ within the food chain is expanding today to include not only such traditional parameters as the floristic and faunistic diversity of feed inputs but also ‘natural 1

Buller, H. (2008 ) ‘Eating Biodiversity: the links between quality food production and biodiversity protection’ RELU Programme Policy and Practice Note No 3. RELU, University of Newcastle.

7

behaviour’ amongst livestock and the natural seasonality of product availability. Yet, this re-emphasis upon the natural processes and materials of food production comes at a time when ‘naturality’ is itself seems less sure. Anthopogenically induced climate change threatens to challenge our inexorable sense of fixity in nature and its ‘naturalness’; in the repetitive vitality of natural growth and seasonal change, the indigenousness of wildlife, the seeming immutability of landforms or the weight of more-than-human time.

8

Ecosystem service provision by establishing temporal habitats in agricultural environments Erja Huusela-Veistola1, Eeva-Liisa Alanen2, Terho Hyvönen1 & Mikko Kuussaari2 1 MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland, 2Finnish Environment Institute, Natural Environment Centre, Ecosystem Change Unit , P.O. Box 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland. Phone +358 3 4188 2447, e-mail [email protected] Introduction Intensification of arable production by regional specialisation of farms, increase in farm size and adoption of monocultures has simplified the structure of agroecosystems. For agro-biodiversity, the decline in the area of semi-natural grasslands and field margins has been detrimental. These non-crop habitats are important landscape elements, offering food sources and hibernation sites, and providing key ecosystem services, such as pollination as well as biological control by natural enemies of crop pests. Arthropods and seeds are also an important food source for other trophic levels, particularly for farmland birds. In Finland, several measures for promoting biodiversity are included in the national agri-environment scheme (2007-2013). However, new cost-effective measures need to be developed in order to maintain and enhance biodiversity in intensively cultivated areas. One of the most promising approaches is to compensate the loss of semi-natural habitats by establishing temporal habitats such as rotational fallows, long-term set-asides, wildflower strips and open fieldforest ecotones. We experimentally studied the establishment and management of the abovementioned temporal habitats from the viewpoint of functional diversity. We focused on four important ecosystem services: biocontrol by natural enemies, production of seed and insect food for farmland birds as well as provision of resources for pollinators. The challenge of supporting different ecosystem services using the same establishment and management practices is highlighted. Material and Methods The data were collected from four large field experiments focusing on rotational fallows (2003-2006), long-term set-asides (2003-2008), wildflower strips (2007 onwards) and field-forest ecotones (2008 onwards). The experiments were conducted in Jokioinen, Southern Finland. Details of the field experiments and sampling methods of plant and arthropod data is reported elsewhere (HuuselaVeistola & Hyvönen 2006, Alanen et al. 2011, Hyvönen & Huusela-Veistola 2011, Kuussaari et al. 2011). Results and Discussion According to results of our field experiments the effectiveness of the Finnish agrienvironment scheme could be improved by increasing area of temporal habitats in agricultural landscape. However, the most beneficial management varies between ecosystem services.

9

Pollinator insects benefit from rotational fallows and long-term set-asides, especially if they are established using a suitable seed mixture (inc. nectar and pollen plants or less competitive grasses. (Alanen et al. 2011, Kuussaari et al. 2011). However, bumblebees and diurnal Lepidoptera respond differently to setaside succession (Alanen et al. 2011). According to preliminary results pollinator abundance and diversity can be enhanced by wildflower strips and open fieldforest ecotones (Alanen et al. unpublished data). Short-term rotational fallows, new set-asides and seed mixtures containing specific seed-bearing crops are best alternative to provide seed food for farmland birds (Hyvönen & Huusela-Veistola 2011). The age of set-aside and vegetation structure are more important than seed mixture or plant species richness in supporting insect food for birds, and therefore set asides of various ages are needed (Hyvönen & Huusela-Veistola 2011). Even a short-term fallow sown with a simple seed mixture can encourage populations of generalist predators (Huusela-Veistola & Hyvönen 2006), but longterm set-asides may be even better for natural enemies (Huusela-Veistola 2008). Because of the various species requirements numerous habitats are needed if biodiversity is to be increased or maintained. At the landscape level, the proportion and location of non-crop temporal habitats may be important factors for key ecosystem services. Therefore, temporal habitats, e.g. set-asides, of various ages and different vegetation structures should be included in the agricultural landscape to encourage optimum functional biodiversity References Alanen, E-L, Hyvönen, T, Lindgren, S., Härmä, O.& Kuussaari, M. 2011. Differential responses of bumblebees and diurnal Lepidoptera to vegetation succession in long-term set-aside J. Appl. Ecol. in press. Huusela-Veistola, E. & Hyvönen, T. 2006. Rotational fallows in support of functional biodiversity. In: Editors Walter A.H. Rossing, Lisa Eggenschweiler & Hans-Michael Poehling. Landscape Management for Functional Biodiversity. IOBC wprs Bulletin 29: 61-64. Huusela-Veistola, E. 2008. Long-term set-asides and functional biodiversity. In: Walter A.H. Rossing, Hans-Michael Poehling & Maarten van Helden (eds). Landscape Management for Functional Biodiversity. IOBC wprs Bulletin 34: 37-40. Hyvönen, T. & Huusela-Veistola, E. 2011. Impact of seed mixture and mowing on food abundance for farmland birds in set-asides. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.04.008 Kuussaari, M., Hyvönen, T.& Härmä, O. 2011. Pollinator insects benefit from rotational fallows. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.006

10

Management of semi-natural grassland in Denmark – political instruments and possible improvements A.L. Nielsen1, A.B. Hald1 & R. M. Buttenschøn2 1 Natlan, Agro Business Park, Niels Pedersens Allé 2, DK-8830 Tjele, 2Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C. Phone +45 51 78 08 18, e-mail [email protected] Abstract In Denmark the semi-natural grasslands are protected physically by the Nature Protection Law; some of these are also protected by EU Habitats and/or Birds Directives. In spite of the heavy protection, management to preserve nature qualities is not secure. Management is in most cases the farmer’s initiative, only, and many areas are abandoned. Farmers can apply for support from the stewardship schemes for grassland located in designated Natura 2000-areas and some protected grassland outside Natura 2000. This support is higher for management by grazing than by cutting, and in all cases use of fertilizer or pesticides is not allowed. The grasslands taken into management by farmers are mainly the easiest ones, and 84 % of the swards supported by these schemes are at the same time able to obtain aid per hectare from EU, i.e. contain “suitable” forage and cultural species. Management of grasslands has in recent years been uniform because of rules about cutting date and a low sward at the end of the season, to obtain a simple control of the farmers’ works by EU. Nature quality, however, is not the measure for subsidies. Different possibilities to improve this situation are discussed, e.g. a higher payment for high nature quality swards combined with specific aims for management at the different localities and less bureaucracy. Introduction The total area with semi natural grasslands in Denmark is 343,000 ha, 8 % of the total area. A new survey of the protected habitats indicates a decrease in area between 9,200 and 19,500 ha from 1995 to 2008 (1). Results from the yearly monitoring of habitat quality at selected sites show an increase in overgrown habitats and occurrence of invasive species (2). Recently National Environmental Research Institute has shown that more than 50 % has an insufficient management practice (3). A major problem is small areas and many owners. Different political instruments influence the state of semi-natural grasslands. Political instruments affecting management of semi-natural grassland in Denmark Different rules that affect the semi-natural grasslands: 1) Areas protected by the law of nature conservation; 2) The right to re-cultivate after 15 years; 3) Duty of notification in Nature 2000-areas; 4) Rules for permanent grassland in the EU support scheme; 5) Grassland stewardship schemes; 6) The obligations of clearing agricultural areas for woody plants. 1. The law of nature conservation The law of nature conservation, revised 1992, states that the condition of heath land and semi-natural grasslands should not be changed when the area is 2,500 11

m2 or bigger. It is allowed to continue agricultural practice as used before 1992, e.g. if 50 kg N has been used earlier this practice can continue. The protection status of the area is dependent of management. Areas that has not been ploughed in 7-10 years may be protected by the nature protection law (§3areas), whereas ordinary cultural grassland in rotation is not concerned. Many lowland areas becomes §3 if not ploughed. To keep the freedom of cultivation many farmers plough such fields with short intervals. As a consequences organic soils are ploughed, which is inappropriate from an environmental and a climatic point of view (leaching, CO2-emission). Many §3-swards are influenced by earlier intensive agricultural management and the swards varies much in nature quality. The protection status may change with time, and if the farmer wants to cultivate the area, a specific quality evaluation will be carried out. The §3-swards are not conserved as such. 2. The right of 15 years reestablishment The right of 15 years reestablishment, from 2004, count for grasslands which are not already a §3-area. Farmers, who want to keep the opportunity to grow annual crops can avoid §3-status by applying the municipality. This right has been especially relevant after the cessation of fallow in 2008, where many swards were ploughed, but some were saved by the 15 year rule. 3. Duty of notification in Nature 2000-areas In Natura 2000-areas, which cover 8.3 % of the Danish land area, changes in management have to be reported to the municipality. This counts for intensity of grazing or fertilization. If a reported change is refused, a financial compensation for the loss will be given. 4. Rules for permanent grassland in the EU support scheme Permanent grassland receiving aid per hectare includes both §3-areas and areas, which are reseeded and grown with grass in 5 years or more. Permanent grass includes therefore more than natural grassland. The areas are eligible and the aid per hectare has been 500 DKR per ha per year, but increases gradually, until same level as other agricultural areas in 2012, i.e. about 2,200 DKR. Permanent grasslands shall maintain a cover of grass and other forage species, maintained by grazing or mowing at least once every year to receive aid per hectare. Permanent grassland has to consist of at least 50% grassland species of good forage quality and is not allowed to be overgrown with wetland species (e.g. juncus, typha). Areas with more than 50% unwanted species are subtracted from the area that receive aid per hectare. Similarly for areas with trees and bushes, and if more than 50 single trees and bushes per hectare, no aid is given. Wet permanent grasslands can only receive aid, if they can be used agriculturally in a substantial part of the growing season (1 June – 31 August). 5. Stewardship schemes for specific grassland areas Management of grassland in designated Natura 2000-areas and some protected grassland outside Natura 2000 can be supported. The aim is to protect and improve nature- and biotope conditions at agricultural grasslands, to protect the water environment by reducing N and P leaching, and the amount of pesticides in agriculture. The requirements are no pesticides or fertilizer. The support is 1,400 12

DKR per hectare per year when grazing and 800 DKR when grazing/cutting. A small group, 850 ha, being assessed especially valuable and difficult to manage, rate 3,350 DKR. When grazing, the sward shall be in grazing management 1 June until 31 August. Tufts of grass established by grazing are accepted. Cutting is only allowed on a part of the sward as a natural part of management with grazing, or as trimming after grazing. When grazing /cutting the sward shall be subjected to this management from 21 June to 31 August. In both cases the sward shall appear with a dense and low sward at 31 August. Whatever the obligation, it is not allowed to cut from 1 May to 20 June and the support area should be at least 0.3 ha. Requirements: Commitments for a 5-year management period, submit a yearly request of payment, grazing and/or cutting, only few trees, no supplementary feeding, no fertilizer, no pesticides and no reseeding. When there are more applicants than money, then areas in Natura 2000 will have priority. Actually, the amount given is reduced substantially and it can be a problem to make farmers use the system. 6. The obligations of clearing agricultural areas for woody plants An administrative announcement from 2004 (4) required that all agricultural land shall be kept in good agricultural- and environmental conditions, and regulates clearing of semi-natural areas. All flat land should be maintained in a way that trees and bushes will be no more than five years old. This rule was changed in 2011. Now all permanent grassland has to be maintained by at least mowing once a year between 1 July and 15 September. Mowing can be exchanged with grazing, if the swards appear well managed in September (6). Weakness concerning protection or improvement of nature quality Support is not dependent on nature quality. The farmer can obtain 3,600 DKR (2,200 DKR as aid per hectare, and 1,400 DKR for grazing management) to manage trivial grasslands, areas dominated by cultural species and a low degree of nature quality. If the area appears with too much nature the farmer will be punished economically, and not only for the semi-natural grassland, but also for fields in rotation because of cross compliance. In 2010 many semi-natural grassland areas were rejected at control because of too many natural species. If the sward has a dominance of natural plant species the farmer can obtain 1,400 DKR, only, even though it is more costly to graze the high nature quality sward than trivial grassland. Rules and paperwork are complicated, the sites are often far away from the farm, it may be necessary to use special cattle breeds, and the growth of the animals are slower. In any case the farmer can only obtain subsidies if the sward appears with short and dense grass after the season, and often areas are trimmed just to make sure it is acceptable. This is no good for nature, which have to look like anything else than a golf course, and these requirements do not give incentives for management of nature. Small farmers can no longer obtain subsidies for male cattle, so if less than 10-12 suckler cows there will be no subsidies. In Denmark the average is 13 cows for suckler cow farms. It is voluntary to manage the nature. No one can blame the farmer, for cashing 3,600 DKR for trivial grassland with a low nature quality but 13

with a higher economical output. Yet the new rules for permanent grassland concerning clearing with at least a cut every year or grazing may turn out to be a huge problem for the farmers and they will have to find some way of use for the areas. A lot of money is used for subsidies, and the public would be happy to get more nature for this money. It will benefit tourism and the settlement outside the big cities. But at present an important part of our nature appear abandoned because of lack of incentives for management. EU and national subsidies do not aim for semi natural grasslands or high nature quality. Possible improvements of the political instruments A less complicated administration can make it easier for the farmer to manage semi-natural grasslands. A major problem is cross compliance concerning too many natural species and trees, seeing that it affect payment for fields in rotation. More focus on the actual management for a given area is needed instead of general rules. To have a strategy for nature quality improvement is a much more interesting way for the farmer compared to regulations without specific goals. The challenge is to follow up on the management strategies, and to find a way to document the farmer’s efforts in a simple way - an alternative to heavily grazed or newly trimmed at the end of August. More flexible rules for cutting dates is preferred to general rules, which make management very difficult – and also leads to a uniformity of all swards. And in reality some areas do better nature quality with an early cutting whereas others with a later cutting. Also the weather conditions – and not date - have to be considered to have good quality hay from grasslands. There is a need that the better nature quality areas are given better subsidies than others, and therefore it is a problem that Natura 2000-areas are having higher priority than other areas. More than half of the §3 areas are outside the Natura 2000 sites. Also the use of supplements may be acceptable in some situations as the nutrient balance in total may be negative where grazing is combined with cutting. If hay from species rich neighbouring fields is given as a supplement it may also be a good way to increase local grassland species. As an extra political instrument some innovative support can be used. For example, innovative support can be given to harvest of biomass – and nutrients - from the more productive swards. Also it can be support to the development of local products e.g. meat and cheese from cattle, sheep or goats managing nature quality. Overall there is a need of good instruments and economic resources to secure management of semi-natural grasslands. References: 1. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 816, 2011. Ændring af arealet af beskyttede naturtyper 1995-2008 – en stikprøveundersøgelse. 2. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 712, 2007. Naturtyper 2007. 3. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 815, 2011. Danmarks Biodiversitet. 4. Lov om drift af landbrugsjord, 2004.

14

5. Bekendtgørelse nr. 637, 2010. Jordressourcens anvendelse til dyrkning og natur. 6. Bekendtgørelse nr. 1698, 2010. Bekendtgørelse om god landbrugs- og miljømæssig stand (GLM).

15

Heritage plants in museum environment – Three museum gardens in south western Finland Maarit Heinonen1, Merja Hartikainen1, Kristiina Antonius1, Hilma Kinnanen2 & Sirkku Pihlman3 1 MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Biotechnology and Food Research/Genetic diversity, Myllytie 1, FIN-31600 Jokioinen. 2MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Horticulture, Toivonlinnantie 518, FIN-21500 Piikkiö. 3University of Turku, School of History, Culture and Art Studies, Museology, FI-20014 University of Turku Phone +358-40 195 9943, e-mail [email protected] Heritage plants Agrobiodiversity is a multifaceted term that includes all the components of biological diversity that are relevant to food and agriculture and that constitute agro-ecosystems. It is the outcome of the interactions among genetic resources, the environment and the management systems and practices used by farmers and gardeners. This interaction brings in many social, cultural and economic dimensions to sustainable use and preservation. There are plenty of studies on indigenous knowledge on local plant genetic resources and on in situ management on agrobiodiversity in biodiversity centres of the world. There is much less research done in Europe. However, in Europe we have our own local genetic resources for food and agriculture not only stored in gene banks but also on gardens and fields (cf. Veteläinen et al., 2008, 2009). Compared to ex situ preservation in gene banks, in situ preserving enables plant genetic resources to be visible in the society, and promotes innovations for sustainable use. Heritage plant (or heirloom plant) can be an old variety or a landrace which has been introduced and locally cultivated at least more than 50 years (e.g. Jordan, 2007, Routson et al., 2009). Several definitions to the concept of landrace have been suggested. According to one definition “a landrace (of a seed-propagated crop) is a variable population, which is identifiable and usually has a local name. It lacks “formal” crop improvement, it characterized by a specific adaptation to the environmental conditions of the area of cultivation (tolerant to the biotic and abiotic stresses of that area) and is closely associated with the uses, knowledge, habits, dialects, and celebrations of the people who developed and continue to grow it.” (Veteläinen et al., 2009.) This definition of a landrace underlines a specific and essential human context: a (local) landrace population has been evolved along with cultivation, and with selection done by a farmer / gardener. Furthermore, a landrace, and an old variety as well, is not only “pure” agricultural or horticultural input (seed or other propagation material) or output (harvest) but also carries cultural, traditional and other knowledge and know-how. This knowledge is for the most part private, unwritten indigenous knowledge.

16

Museum gardens Museums take care of, promote and interpret cultural heritage. Cultural heritage consists of things that are actually considered to be important for both the past time and the future. The biological heritage,, which relates to the interrelationship between culture and nature, has been more or less neglected in museum environment in Finland. However, in the gardens of the museums old cultivated plants still grow, originating from the time before the museums themselves. The Florence Charter 1982 obliges museums and societies to pay attention to historic gardens, small and large, in connection of museums or not, and contribute to training of experts on historic gardens and propagation and upkeep of the plant varieties belonging to these contexts. The recent popularity of gardening enhances the possibility of local museums to act as a platform for all interested in local garden history and keeping up plant genetic resources. Museums are interested in having local heritage plants in their small gardens, and presenting them in the museum context. However, all museums suffer from a shortage of resources, especially money. Therefore - or in spite of that - the power of museum gardens can be their ability to stimulate and enable voluntary activities of local people both in the museum and in the own private gardens. There is plenty of local knowledge that can be gathered by the museum in cooperation with local people and enthusiasts. In local museums maintained by local heritage associations, everything is based on activities of local people. The question is how their work could be supported by specialists of plant genetic resources. Instead, in professional museums, the question is how the museum manages to include the local people to work together with them, and how the museum garden ideology is disposed by the leadership of the museum. In every case, the long-term continuity of the garden maintaining is a problem. In the multidisciplinary project on-going in three museum gardens in the south western Finland, we combine these two approaches, on-garden preservation and museum context, to gather novel knowledge on how to value, document, interpret, demonstrate and maintain living heritage plants in museum environment. We are especially interested in social and cultural values and meanings anchored to national (or indigenous or local) agricultural plant genetic resources: how they can be identified, what contexts they stem from, and how this understanding of values and meanings can be translated to the use of demonstrating and preservation processes. We will present the pilot museum gardens with heritage plants of their speciality, and also discuss about ways to document and demonstrate biological heritage in museum environment. Documenting heritage plants Especially heritage plants reflect culture because of their links to history and locality. However, the local indigenous knowledge is typically scattered, nonorganized knowledge, which is rarely written down. This oral knowledge may only partly be transferred to next generations, if any at all. Furthermore, that 17

generation is vanishing, to whom heritage plants has been part of the every day life. The challenge is to develop a system for gathering this diverse knowledge, and to document it to information systems. In the three museum gardens, we gather knowledge related to specific heritage plants via diverse sources: old literature and photos (about horticultural plants and about the site), archive documents, and interviews of local informants and in some case also DNA-fingerprinting data (e.g. variety identification of fruit trees, cf. e.g. Routson et al., 2009). We gather knowledge for plant identification (genera, species, and also common and local names; morphological descriptions), and site (location); for estimation of the age of a single plant or a variety (cultivation history both on the site and in Finland in general). We also record cultivation methods and the use of the harvest. Additionally, we collate stories (happenings, memories) related to a particular heritage plant. All this data related to a single plant are compiled to an excel-based data base created for maintaining and demonstrating heritage plants in the museum garden. Maintaining heritage plants Many museums lack know-how for gardening. The personnel have training in humanistic sciences and there are not many gardeners recruited to museum gardens in Finland. Museum organization has aimed its activities on restoring and maintaining old buildings and artefacts and the gardens around the historic buildings in many cases do not reflect the same authenticity than the buildings. However museums with gardens can be good places to maintain heritage plants. Heritage plants that originate from the same era than the historical building supplement the authenticity of the site. Continuous maintenance of heritage plants is of great importance. Since the material is vegetal, the preservation of the heritage plant and the garden surrounding it, in good condition requires a long-term maintenance plan which differs from maintenance plans of historic buildings. In the pilot museum gardens we evaluate condition of a single heritage plant (e.g. old fruit trees). We also make plans for maintaining the garden as a whole, because it is the place were the heritage plant is situated. Demonstrating heritage plants Heritage plants are not commonly presented to visitors in museum gardens. In many cases, there is not much knowledge of the plants. For example, there is lack of knowledge of their cultivation history or variety names. In the pilot museum gardens we combine gathered knowledge (e.g. plant identification data to cultivation history) and utilize it in designing demonstration material for presenting heritage plants, their histories and their potential for present and future use. Demonstration material includes exhibitions, thematic and drama guidance, www-pages, brochures, maps, signs for individual plants or parts of the garden. 18

Heritage plants maintained and demonstrated in museum gardens enable to mediate information of plant genetic resources to visitors through different senses: touching, tasting and smelling and with visual perception. Information received from different angles and with concrete ways may help visitors to better understand the value of plant genetic resources. The abstract concept of agrobiodiversity can became more tangible to laypersons and they can make their own thoughts on agrobiodiversity. References The Florence Charter 1982 for Historic gardens http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/gardens_e.htm Jordan, J. A., 2007. The Heirloom Tomato as Cultural Object: Investigating Taste and Space. Sociologia Ruralis, 1, vol 47, pp. 20-41. Routson, K. J., Reilley, A. A., Henk, A. D. & Volk, G. M., 2009. Identification of Historic Apple Trees in the Southwestern United States and Implications for Conservation. HortScience 3, vol 44, pp. 589-594. Veteläinen, M., Hulden, M. & Pehu, T. (Eds.), 2008. State of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Finland. Second Finnish National Report. Publications of the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 5/2008. Veteläinen, M., V. Negri, V. & Maxted, N. (Eds), 2009. European landraces: onfarm conservation, management and use. Bioversity technic.

19

Cultural landscape and biodiversity at Sogn Folk Museum Marie Pettersson De Heibergske samlinger - Sogn Folkemuseum, Vestreim, 6856 Kaupanger. Phone: +4747450219, e-mail [email protected] For the last 25 years cultural landscapes have had increased focus in Norwegian museums, in particular in open-air museums. Construction of “fictional” landscapes around the historical buildings to present them in their original context has become increasingly common. Moreover, many museums have also inherited farms that may be visited on their original location. The focus on cultural landscape has increased the need for knowledge on how to preserve, alternatively, construct and moreover manage such areas. Constructing a cultural landscape De Heibergske Samlinger - Sogn Folkemuseum (DHS) in Sogn og Fjordane has a strong profile on cultural landscapes, and we have worked on these issues for more than 20 years. I will base a short description of the work at a museum on experience from DHS. The museum was first located in Amla, Kaupanger, inner Sogn. It was at the time a traditional open-air museum where the buildings were in focus and placed in a park. As the museum obtained more buildings, more space was needed, and the museum moved to the present location. At the time of moving a new way of thinking took place, and already in 1987 the planning of “a living historical farm” started. The idea was to create a connection between buildings and landscape. Constructing the cultural landscape should be made by using traditional methods of work, tools and equipment from the period the farm was supposed to expose. Domestic animals where important for an authentic farm, both to form the landscape, create activity and to preserve old breeds. In 1990 a plan for managing the landscape was written by Ingvild Austad at Sogn og Fjordane University college (HSF) in collaboration with the director of the museum, Olav Aaraas (Austad et al. 1990). The plan outlined recommendations for restoration and management, as well as establishing different landscape types typical for a historical farm. The plan was ambitious, and big efforts were made to carry it out. A museum farmer was employed in full-time work; moreover several persons were engaged to run a household in one of the farms. In season, they dressed up in traditional clothing, prepared food, ate and took care of the animals. They also performed other tasks at the farm. This was done seven days a week, and hence it became very costly. With a stiffer economic policy, the museum reduced the household and gave other tasks to some of the people. Arable land was reduced by 75% from 1990 to year 2000. Although the original plan is not followed in detail today, it still makes the basis for the management of the area and we do our best to stick to it.

20

From pinewood to meadows and pastures To construct a landscape has its challenges. First of all, a new museum may not be located where the ancestors would have preferred to establish their farm. Often, the best agriculture land has been occupied for a long time. In our case, the museum moved to an area mostly covered by pinewood, heathland, bogs and fens. It bore few marks from previous use, and the museum had to reclaim most of the land. For some crops, the period of growth is too short. Moreover, in some areas the high groundwater level makes a problem. In the start of the landscape construction, Ingvild Austad at HSF investigated the area to locate the best spots for establishing species-rich hay meadows with high biodiversity. The museum has now been working more than twenty years to construct the landscape, and the result is a landscape where meadows and pastures represent aesthetically and biologically valuable elements. Fields and gardens lay close to the farms/ houses. We also aim to present culture elements characteristic of time to buildings. In year 2010, connected with the International Year of Biodiversity, HSF in the lead of Knut Kai Berget did a survey of the species content of the museum area. The survey revealed high biodiversity. Especially one meadow, Haukåsengi, is of interest. In total 62 species was found in this meadow, including Gymnadena conopse and Briza media. In fact, the meadow is now identified as one of the most biologically rich meadows of Sogn og Fjordane The area is one of the few areas that had marks of earlier use. It used to belong to a crofter’s holding in the neighborhood, and was probably cleared in 1937. It was then mainly used as hayfield, but perhaps also used as arable land in periods (Austad et al. 1990). At the time the museum took over, the hayfield was becoming water-logged and encroached by shrubs. In the plan, the area was designated as a meadow with high biodiversity. The area was therefore drained, meaning that a large part of the area was excavated. The meadow was then seeded using grass from a species-rich, local meadow that matched the preferred vegetation. This donor-meadow was mown when the seeds were ripe (in late summer), and the grass was then transported fresh to the museum where it was spread over the meadow. The hay was left over winter at the site before taken away. The meadow has ever since been managed in a traditional way; mowing late summer and the hay has then been piled on fences to dry. Some years, domestic animals have also grazed after mowing. The result is now a species-rich meadow containing a rich variety of vulnerable grassland species. National museum network for culture landscape As the need for knowledge of cultural landscapes has expanded among museums, the need for sharing knowledge has become more distinct. In the light of a long history of work on the topic, and the close collaboration with HSF, DHS was asked to found a nationwide network for cultural landscape at museums. This was made 21

in collaboration with HSF, and the first meeting was held in 2004. The main focus has been to create a meeting-place for collaboration and development of knowledge among those interested in culture landscapes at museums. The network organizes an annual meeting in which we visit museums in different parts of Norway, and the network has also initiated several collaboration projects. Today, the network counts 38 formal members, but in reality almost 50 museums and institutions join in the network. Museums from all over the country are represented. Biodiversity at museums For museums, taking care of cultural landscapes is a many-faceted task. If you call the open-air museum an exhibition, the landscape is important scenery that gives a total effect. Moreover, a historically correct landscape gives the area a varied and interesting context. Taking care of and demonstrating traditional management are parts of the national museum policy, and also increases the value of the museum for the public. Through working with cultural landscapes as well as historical buildings, we can teach the public and make them interested in the topic. Hauge et al. (2005) also open up the discussion of a broader task for museums to take care of cultural landscapes. The opportunity of open air museums to manage cultural landscapes – in particular those with high biological diversity – by means of traditional management techniques is unique. References Austad, I. & Aaraas O. 1990. De Heibergske Samlinger – Sogn Folkemuseum Landskaps- og driftsplan for friluftsmuséet. Skrifter 1990:1 Sogn og Fjordane distriktshøgskule. Hauge L., Byrkjeland L., Austad I. & Engesæter Aa. 2005. Kulturlandskap og museum. N-nr 15/2005 Avdeling for Ingeniør- og Naturfag, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane.

22

Possible future strategies to stop the decrease of biodiversity in agriculture Ann Norderhaug, Bioforsk Midt-Norge, Kvithamar, N-7500 Stjørdal, Norway. Phone: +4790692976, e-mail: [email protected] Traditionally nature and biodiversity protection have been more or less the same as protection of wilderness, the virgin nature. The reason for this is that the modern nature conservation idea was shaped in North-America during the last part of the 20th century. The idea was spread to and accepted in Europe even if the European landscape has another history than the American. The European landscape has been much more influenced by man and the biodiversity is therefore to a large extent depending on semi-natural (“man influenced”) habitats. However, during the 21st century nature preservation (= “strictly” protection) slowly developed to nature conservation i.e. a broader concept including management (Emanuelsson & Johansson, 1987, Wramner & Nygård, 2010). The Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 was an important milestone. The goal of this convention is to maintain biodiversity, to use this resource in a sustainable way and to share and share alike the profit on gene resources. Furthermore it imposes liability on all sectors. Several different strategies to stop the decrease of biodiversity has been worked out in the Nordic as well as in other European countries and in Europe the maintenance of valuable man-made landscapes is seen as one of the key considerations of the multi-functionality of land use. Still a lot of challenges remain if we want to stop the decrease of biodiversity. Maintenance of biodiversity in valuable semi-natural habitats both within and outside nature reserves, presupposes management. Today we have generally good knowledge in the Nordic countries with regard to which the valuable seminatural habitats are, where they are situated and how they should be managed. We know for instance that it is important to have a good management plan with a clear goal both for restoration and management, and that you should not start to restore if you are not ready to follow up with management. We know that it is important to know the management history of the habitat and to identify important ecological factors and how the traditional agriculture influenced or created these factors (Norderhaug et al. 1999, Gustavsson et al., 2007). Still, “shortcuts” which may be crucial to several species, are often made when the traditional management of valuable habitats is “modernized” to be more cost effective. We know that cattle grazing generally is more beneficial to species richness than sheep and horses grazing, and that mowing for many grassland plants is a better management than grazing (Pykälä, 2007). Still, cattle are often not allowed to graze semi-natural grasslands and mowing is often replaced with grazing when old hay meadows are managed. We know that grazing is often not sufficient to stop the regrowth process since grazing in former times was supplemented by woodcutting etc. Still grazing is often not supplemented with clearing. Due to the considerable land use changes during the 21st century, valuable seminatural habitats are now mostly small and scattered. Small areas may be difficult 23

to maintain since they are influenced by the surroundings. Furthermore, maintenance of the biodiversity connected to semi-natural habitats presupposes differences in management regimes and grazing intensities to maintain different types of habitats which used to be parts of the rural landscape. Management rules causing similar management of most of the valuable areas result in homogenizing effects and loss of biodiversity. The need for varied management underline the need for more and larger areas i.e. for restoration of supplementing areas. Overgrown former valuable habitats may be successfully restored if the regrowth process has not gone too far, but if they are overgrown it may be a time consuming project and cultivated areas are very difficult to restore. Expansion of management areas by including the surroundings of valuable habitats may also create problems since such expansion often means that cultivated areas are included. Seed dispersal and nutrient transport (by the animals) from the cultivated to the semi-natural areas may cause decline in the quality of the valuable areas (Bokdam & Gleichman, 2000). The fragmentation of valuable habitats is also a landscape ecological and landscape genetic problem. If we want to stop the decrease of biodiversity, we therefore need holistic thinking and long-term planning. The SLOSS-discussion is for instance not concluded yet (cf. Lahti & Ranta, 1985)! We also need to know more of the effects of management regimes on biodiversity at both large scale and small scale since they may not be the same (Chaneton & Facelli, 1991). Furthermore the holistic thinking should also include the connections between the natural and cultural heritage. Areas with both biodiversity and cultural monuments may have higher experience value since they may explain and strengthen each other, thus making it easier for people to understand the history of the landscape and the conditions for the landscape values. There is in other words a need for more and better knowledge of how management regimes for valuable, semi-natural habitats should be further developed. There is also a need for cost effective monitoring and regular evaluation of the effects of management and management strategies on biodiversity on different scales. To avoid wrong management practices and secure well-defined and successful measures it is furthermore important to impart both existing and new knowledge to all management levels from the farmers to the national level as well as to Brussels. Knowledge should also be communicated to different sectors (cf. the Convention on Biological Diversity) to work against unfortunate decisions and activity with negative effects on biodiversity, and to the society to generate understanding of biodiversity and support for the maintenance work and agricultural strategies in this connection. Multifunctional agriculture is of fundamental importance for maintenance of biodiversity in agriculture. It is therefore important to secure sufficient economic support to biodiversity-friendly management. Today agricultural subsidies to such management are often lower than other subsidies (Pykälä, 2007) despite that several calculations have shown that costs due to loss of biodiversity are higher than the costs to maintain it (European communities 2008). In addition to economic support it is important to develop sustainable production systems i.e. systems which deliver cultural landscapes with public goods and 24

ecosystem services at the same time as they are satisfactory with regard to production and economy. Another support to biodiversity-friendly production may be to document that food has “additional value” that should be paid for i.e. that it is produced in a way which results also in other products as biodiversity and in addition perhaps in special product quality due to the biodiversity. Food with “additional value” is, however, often a challenge for the farmer since he often has to be both the producer, the product developer, responsible for the marketing and at the same time struggle with strong organizations of food chains etc. Branding may be a help to the farmer to document that the product has “additional value” and special food quality, to avoid unserious competitors and to cooperate with other farmers to get enough volume for the market. However, additional support for different kinds of marketing systems may still be of crucial importance. “Experience tourism” may also be a possibility for multifunctional farmers and for local development. Today the farmers are often not paid for the management of the landscape which for instance cruise ship companies make a profit on. Fair economic support for production of ecosystem services and public goods should be a matter of course to secure these values for the future. Furthermore, by learning how to use the biodiversity, the cultural heritage and the possibility to read the history in the landscape as well as “eat the view”, farmers and the local society can use the landscape qualities for local development based on experience unique for their area. Based on good knowledge and management also other secondary production and tertiary service systems may promote biodiversity as equine farming, bio-energy production, welfare services and environmental education. Semi-natural habitats and their biodiversity are important resources. They are insitu gene banks and sustainable ecosystems which in different ways may be of importance for the future. They offer considerable grazing resources and deliver ecosystem services as pollination. They represent cultural heritage, aesthetic values and experience possibilities and they contribute to the landscape identity and historical foundation. Maintenance of biodiversity in agriculture is an immense task. To succeed it is necessary with cooperation between agriculture, nature conservation and cultural heritage protection. Better knowledge of semi-natural ecosystems and effects of management etc. is also necessary if the management shall be successful. Good i.e. purposeful and sufficient economic support to biodiversity-friendly management and other types of support to multifunctional agriculture which maintains biodiversity, are also of crucial importance. Furthermore, cooperation on local, regional, national and Nordic level may help us to see, utilize and maintain these valuable resources. The future of biodiversity depends on what we do today, and perhaps even more on what we don’t do! References Bokdam, J. & Gleichman, J.M., 2000. Effects of grazing by free-ranging cattle on vegetation dynamics in a continental north-west European heathland. J. Appl. Ecol. 31, 415-431.

25

Chaneton, E.J. & Facelli, J.M. 1991. Disturbance effects on plant community diversity: spatial scales and dominance hierarchies. Vegetatio 93, 143-155. Emanuelsson, U. & Johansson, C. E. 1987. Biotoper i det nordiska kulturlandskapet. Naturvårdsverket rapport 3556, Sweden (In Swedish with Finnish abstract). European Communities, 2008. The economy of ecosystems & biodiversity. An interim report. Gustavsson, E., Lennartsson, T. & Emanuelsson, U. 2007. Land use more than 200 years ago explains current grassland plant diversity in a Swedish agricultural landscape. Biological conservation 138. Lahti, T. & Ranta, E. 1985. The SLOSS principle and conservation practice: an example. Oikos 44, 369-370. Norderhaug, A, Austad, I., Hauge, L. & Kvamme, M. (Eds.) 1999. Skjøtselsboka for kulturlandskap og gamle norske kulturmarker. Landbruksforlaget, Oslo, Norway (in Norwegian with English abstract). Pykälä, J. 2007. Maintaining plant species richness by cattle grazing: mesic seminatural grasslands as focal habitats. Thesis. Publications in Botany from the University of Helsinki, Finland No 36. Wramner, P. & Nygård, O. 2010. Från naturskydd till bevarande av biologisk mångfald. Utvecklingen av naturvårdsarbetet i Sverige med särskild inriktning på områdesskyddet. COMREC Studies in Environment and Development No. 2, 1-253 (in Swedish).

26

Plants in the agricultural landscape: Relationships between plant diversity and distribution in relation to land use Christian Pedersen, Grete Stokstad & Gunnar Engan Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute. PO Box 115, Raveien 9, NO-1431 Aas, Norway. Phone: +47 64 94 97 74, e-mail [email protected] Introduction As in many countries throughout Europe, there has been a polarisation within the agricultural landscape of Norway during the last decades. On the one hand there is an increasing trend of intensified use of favourable areas, while on the other hand there is an increase in the amount of land abandonment of extensively managed or marginal areas (Fjellstad & Dramstad 1999, Robinson & Sutherland 2002, Haines-Young et al. 2003). Among the main impact factors for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes are increased amount of built-up areas, intensification of agriculture and land abandonment. But different land use practices has been shown to have differential effects on biodiversity (Haines-Young 2009). Finding the relationships between land use practices and effects on biodiversity are fundamental to understand the links between people and their environment and development of sustainable agriculture. Biological diversity is one of four main themes in the Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes – the”3Q-programme” (Dramstad et al. 2002). 3Q provides an opportunity to connect the monitoring of species with monitoring of land use. By monitoring the abundance and distribution of species in different land types over time, it is possible to get an indication of changes in biodiversity in relation to different land use practices. Part of the 3Q-programme is to monitor changes in vascular plant species. A national network for monitoring the vascular plants in agricultural landscapes is an important tool for the detection of variation and trends in the development of our native flora, while giving us the opportunity to identify factors that affect species composition. Furthermore, a total of 661 species on the Norwegian Red List are assumed to be negatively affected by agriculture and changes in land use (Kålås et al. 2010). For exotic species, 96 out of the 217 species that have been evaluated for invasiveness are connected to the agricultural landscape (Gederaas et al. 2007). Hence, 3Q can provide us with the opportunity to implement measures to reverse negative trends for biodiversity related to current land use practices. Here we present results from the first inventory of plant biodiversity related to land types and land use, with emphasis on species belonging to the Norwegian Black list and Red list species. We also present data from changes in land use that have the potential to make an impact on the plant community composition of the Norwegian agricultural landscape. How the observed effects of land use change influence plant diversity over time will be revealed as the 3Q-programme progresses. Methods The 3Q-programme is based on the interpretation of aerial photographs of 1000 1x1 km squares located on land used for agriculture (Dramstad et al. 2002). The 27

sample squares have a distribution corresponding to the proportion of agricultural land in Norway. The monitoring of the 3Q squares is conducted according to a five year cycle. The surveillance programme has completed two aerial surveys so far. The first survey was conducted between 1999 and 2001, and the second between 2004 and 2006. In a randomised sub-sample of 96 3Q-squares, permanent vegetation plots, each of 8x8 m, were established. On average 6 plots were established in each 3Q square, for a total of 526 plots. Upon establishment, every species growing within the plots were recorded and each plot will be re-visited for repeated measurements at regular intervals of approximately 5-10 years. For practical reasons and due to resource limitations, the monitoring of vascular plant species was limited to certain land use types based on the following criteria; areas with high levels of biodiversity and areas strongly susceptible to change under the current Norwegian agricultural policy. In this context it was decided to focus on two land use types; pastures and unmanaged semi-natural grassland (USG). Pastures are defined as land used for regular grazing by livestock, while areas defined as USG are either arable land or pastures abandoned. 282 vegetation plots were established in pastures while 244 plots were established in USG. The first complete monitoring of all the vegetation plots was conducted between 2004 and 2008. Results / Discussion Species numbers A total of 483 species were recorded in the 526 permanent vegetation plots. Only 10 species were found in more than 50 % of the plots, while 415 species were found in less than 10% (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Proportion (%) of the registered species in the vegetation plots. On the vertical axis, the species found in the highest number of vegetation plots have the lowest number. In the plots located in pastures, a total of 370 species were recorded while the total species number was 425 in plots located in USG. The average species number in pastures was 25.2 species per plot, while the average species number 28

in USG was significantly higher with a mean of 28.7 species (Mann-Whitney U, p