Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2019, 67(1), 111-119 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201967010111

Evaluation of Mountain Pastures Quality Forming the Landscape Archetype in Western Carpathians

Ján Novák1, Juraj Hreško2, Ľuboš Vadel3
1 Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Department of Grassland Ecosystems and Fodder Crops, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovak Republic
2 Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovak Republic
3 Administration of Protected Landscape Area Ponitrie, State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic, Samova ul. 3, 94901 Nitra, Slovak Republic

The research of pastures influenced by Carpathian sheep milk farming as a typical archetype was conducted in study areas of the mountain even subalpine landscape in the forest zone of the Western Carpathians in the Slovak Republic. We have chosen 28 areas that have been effected by mountain sheep farming since the period of the Wallachian colonization. The research works were under way from 1998 to 2016. The pastures of observation were from 615 to 1 421 meters above sea level (m a.s.l.) in the areas of 1 398 ha in total that was of various exposition and inclination, from flat surface to steep hillsides with 28° slope. The studied pastures ranged from the species-rich to species-poor, from Festuca-Agrostis grasslands through Nardo-Agrostion tenuis alliance to Nardion. The number of plant species (from 18 to 48, average 33 at 1 m2) shows a rather varied composition of grasslands. There were only two study sites with higher dominance of Festuca rubra (51 % and 64 %) recorded. The quality of grassland depends on the floristic composition (cover in %) and forage value of the particular species. Evaluation of the grassland quality (EGQ) reached the average value 57.5 in the scale from 0 to 100. Value varied from least valuable grasslands with 40.1 points in two study plots to valuable grasslands with 69.4 points. Relations between selected environmental factors were analysed by means of redundancy analysis (RDA). Among the significant factors of environment, the impact on data set variability was the strongest by altitude (18.1 %), then by total precipitation in the vegetation period (5.6 %) and grassland quality EGQ (5.2 %).

Keywords: grassland, pastures, evaluation of the grassland quality, landscape archetype

Received: June 28, 2018; Accepted: December 10, 2018; Published: February 28, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Novák, J., Hreško, J., & Vadel, Ľ. (2019). Evaluation of Mountain Pastures Quality Forming the Landscape Archetype in Western Carpathians. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(1), 111-119. doi: 10.11118/actaun201967010111
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BĂRBOS, M. I. 2006. Montane grasslands dominated by Agrostis capillaris and Festuca rubra in Maramureş country. I. Phytosociological analysis. Contribuţii Botanice, 41(2): 41-52.
    2. DE VRIES, D. M., HART, M. L. and KRUIJNE, A. A. 1942. Een waardeering van grasland op grond van de plantkundige samenstelling. Landbouwkundig tijdschrift : maandblad van het Nederlandsch Genootschap voor Landbouwwetenschap, 54(663): 245-265.
    3. ELLENBERG, H. 1952. Wiesen und Weiden und ihre standörtliche Bewertung. 2. Verlag Stuttgart z. Z. Ludwigsburg: Eugen Ulmer.
    4. HREŠKO, J., KANASOVÁ, D. and PETROVIČ, F. 2010. Landscape archetypes as the elements of slovak historical landscape structure. Ekológia, 29(2): 158-173. DOI: 10.4149/ekol_2010_02_158 Go to original source...
    5. HREŠKO, J., PETROVIČ, F. and MIŠOVIČOVÁ, R. 2015. Mountain landscape archetypes of the Western Carpathians (Slovakia). Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(13): 3269-3283. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-015-0969-6 Go to original source...
    6. HREŠKO, J. and PETLUŠ, P. (Eds.). 2015. Landscape archetypes catalog for Slovakia [in Slovak: Atlas archetypov krajiny Slovenska]. Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa.
    7. HRNČIAROVÁ, T. 2010. Landscape structures and their classification [in Slovak: Krajinné štruktúry a ich klasifikácia]. Životné prostredie/The Environment, 44(4): 174-181.
    8. HUBA, M. 2004. The historic structure of the country in the context of contemporary reality. [in Slovak: Historické štruktúry krajiny v kontexte súčasnej reality]. Životné prostredie/The Environment, 38(2): 86-89.
    9. IZAKOVIČOVÁ, Z. and MIKLÓS, L. 2016. Biodiversity protection of the forest ecosystems on the base of representative geoecosystems. In: Sustainable mountain regions: Challenges and perspectives in southeastern Europe. Cham: Springer, pp. 151-158. Go to original source...
    10. JANIŠOVÁ, M., UHLIAROVÁ, E. and RUŽIČKOVÁ, H. 2010. Expert system based classification of seminatural grasslands in submontane and montane regions of central Slovakia. Tuexenia, 30: 375-422.
    11. JURKO, A. 1990. Ecological and socio-economic evaluation of vegetation [in Slovak: Ekologické a socio-ekonomické hodnotenie vegetácie]. Bratislava: Príroda.
    12. KLAPP, E., BOEKER, P., KÖNIG, F. and STÄHLIN, A. 1953. Wertzahlen der Grünlandpflanzen. Das Grünland, 2(5): 38-42.
    13. KLIMENT, J. and VALACHOVIČ, M. (Eds.). 2007. Plant communities. 4. The alpine vegetation [in Slovak: Rastlinné spoločenstvá. 4. Vysokohorská vegetácia]. Bratislava: Veda.
    14. KRÁLOVIČOVÁ, A. and HERIANOVÁ, S. (Eds.). 2009. World of Carpathians. Guide to environmental education [in Slovak: Svet Karpát. Príručka k environmentálnej výchove]. Bratislava: Daphne - Institute of Applied Ecology.
    15. LEPŠ, J. and ŠMILAUER, P. 2003. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    16. MARHOLD, K. and HINDÁK, F. 1998. Checklist of vascular and nonvascular plants of Slovakia [in Slovak: Zoznam nižších a vyšších rastlín Slovenska]. Bratislava: Veda.
    17. MIČIAN, Ľ. 1977. General Pedogeography (university textbook) [in Slovak: Všeobecná pedogeografia (skriptá)]. Bratislava: Faculty of Science, Comenius University.
    18. NOVÁK, J. 2004. Evaluation of grassland quality. Ekológia, 23(2): 127-143.
    19. NOVÁK, J. 2008a. Restoring the Carpathian pasture [in Slovak: Obnova pasienkov na karpatských salašoch]. Nitra: NOI - ÚVTIP.
    20. NOVÁK, J. 2008b. Pastures, meadows and turfgrasses [in Slovak: Pasienky, lúky a trávniky]. 1st Edition. Prievidza: Patria I. spol. s. r. o.
    21. NOVÁK, J. 2009. Grassland after deforestation and reforestation [in Slovak: Trávne porasty po odlesnení a samozalesnení]. Brno: Tribun EU.
    22. NOVÁK, J. 2011. Trends in pasture farming. [in Slovak: Trendy v pasienkovom hospodárstve]. Životné prostredie/The Environment, 45(3): 158-161.
    23. NOVÁK, J., PODOLÁK, J., ZUSKINOVÁ, I. and MARGETÍN, M. 2013. In the footsteps of the Wallachians in the Carpathians [in Slovak: Po stopách valachov v Karpatoch]. Brno: Tribun EU.
    24. NOVÁK, J. 2015. Pastures, meadows and turfgrasses [in Slovak: Pasienky, lúky a trávniky]. 2nd Edition. [Online]. Bratislava: Ecoletra.com. Available at: http://www.ecoletra.com/pasienky-luky-travniky-2-doplnene-vydanie [Accessed: 2015, June 15].
    25. NOVÁK, J. 2018. Sheep milk farming in the Carpathians [in Slovak: Salašníctvo v Karpatoch]. Brno: Tribun EU.
    26. PAUDITŠOVÁ, E. and REHÁČKOVÁ, T. 2009. Archetypes cultural landscape. [in Slovak: Archetypy kultúrnej krajiny]. Acta Environmentalica Universitatis Comenianae, 17(2): 73-81.
    27. RATKOŠ, P. 1980. The issue of colonization on Valachian law in Slovakia. [in Slovak: Problematika kolonizácie na valaskom práve na území Slovenska]. Historické štúdie 24: 181-224.
    28. REGÁL, V. 1967. Ecological indicator values most widespread meadow plants in Czechoslovakia [in Czech: Ekologické ukazatele hodnot nejrozšírenĕjších louk v Československu]. Rostlinná výroba, 13(1): 77-88.
    29. STANOVÁ, V. and VALACHOVIČ, M. 2002. List of habitats in Slovakia [in Slovak: Katalóg biotopov Slovenska]. Bratislava: DAPHNE - Inštitút aplikovanej ekológie
    30. STÄHLIN, A. 1971. Gütezahlen von Pflanzarten in frischen Grundfutter. Das wirtschatseigene Futter, Sonderheft 5. Frankfurt (Main): DLG - Verlag.
    31. ŠOŠTARIČ-PISAČIČ, K. and KOVAČEVIČ, J. 1974. Evaluation of Quality and Total Value of Grassland and Leys by the "Complex Method" Zagreb: Editiones Speciales.
    32. TER BRAAK, C. J. F. and ŠMILAUER, P. 2002. CANOCO. Reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user's guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content