Europe

Johann, Elisabeth; Agnoletti, Mauro; Bölöni, János; Erol, Seçil Yurdakul; Holl, Kate; Kusmin, J.; Latorre, Jesús García; Postigo, José Miguel Latorre; Molnár, Zsolt; Rochel, Xavier; Rotherham, Ian D.; Saratsi, Eirini; Smith, Mike; Tarang, Lembitu; Benthem, Mark van; Laar, Jim van

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2144-9_6

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…hydrological, geomorphological, vegetational features) [3,4,54]. The most striking exceptions are the successional stages of the swidden agricultural systems, as these agro-forestry systems were banned in Europe by the German-type forest administration during the 19 th and early 20 th centuries [56]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania)

Babai

Molnár

2013

J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTraditional habitat knowledge is an understudied part of traditional knowledge. Though the number of studies increased world-wide in the last decade, this knowledge is still rarely studied in Europe. We document the habitat vocabulary used by Csángó people, and determine features they used to name and describe these categories.Study area and methodsCsángó people live in Gyimes (Carpathians, Romania). The area is dominated by coniferous forests, hay meadows and pastures. Animal husbandry is the main source of living. Data on the knowledge of habitat preference of 135 salient wild plant species were collected (2908 records, 44 interviewees). Data collected indoors were counterchecked during outdoor interviews and participatory field work.ResultsCsángós used a rich and sophisticated vocabulary to name and describe habitat categories. They distinguished altogether at least 142–148 habitat types, and named them by 242 habitat terms. We argue that the method applied and the questions asked (‘what kind of place does species X like?’) helped the often implicit knowledge of habitats to be verbalized more efficiently than usual in an interview. Habitat names were highly lexicalized and most of them were widely shared. The main features were biotic or abiotic, like land-use, dominant plant species, vegetation structure, successional stage, disturbance, soil characteristics, hydrological, and geomorphological features. Csángós often used indicator species (28, mainly herbaceous taxa) in describing habitats of species. To prevent reduction in the quantity and/or quality of hay, unnecessary disturbance of grasslands was avoided by the Csángós. This could explain the high number of habitats (35) distinguished dominantly by the type and severity of disturbance. Based on the spatial scale and topological inclusiveness of habitat categories we distinguished macro-, meso-, and microhabitats.ConclusionsCsángó habitat categories were not organized into a single hierarchy, and the partitioning was multidimensional. Multidimensional description of habitats, made the nuanced characterization of plant species’ habitats possible by providing innumerable possibilities to combine the most salient habitat features. We conclude that multidimensionality of landscape partitioning and the number of dimensions applied in a landscape seem to depend on the number of key habitat gradients in the given landscape.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania)

Babai

Molnár

2013

J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forest grazing in this region was practised in accordance with strict communal rules for centuries. Hungary began to impose restrictions from the 18th century onwards, as the country engaged with the Enlightenment and undertook a German-style of forestry management [ 24 ]. Later, following the introduction of the strictest regulations, the practice of forest grazing was prohibited in 1961, and breaches were routinely punished [ 42 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prohibited, but still present: local and traditional knowledge about the practice and impact of forest grazing by domestic livestock in Hungary

Varga

Demeter

Ulicsni

et al. 2020

J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Forests have been grazed for millennia. Around the world, forest grazing by livestock became a controversial management practice, gradually restricted in many countries over the past 250 years. This was also the case in most Central and Eastern European countries, including Hungary, where forest grazing was a legally prohibited activity between 1961 and 2017. Until the 2010s, ecologists and nature conservationists considered it merely as a historical form of forest use. As a result, there is little contemporary scientific information available about the impact of forest grazing on vegetation and the traditional ecological knowledge associated with it. Our aim was to explore and summarize this type of knowledge held by herders in Hungary. Methods We interviewed 58 knowledgeable herders and participated in forest grazing activities in 43 study locations across the country. The results were analysed qualitatively. Results We revealed a living ecological knowledge tradition and practice of forest grazing in native and non-native forest stands. The impact of livestock grazing on native and non-native forests is not considerably different, in the view of the herders. For both forest types, the greatest impact of grazing was the suppression of the shrub layer, while grazing also increased the dominance and palatability (“tameness”) of the grasses. Livestock could cause significant damage to seedlings during forest grazing, but if done with care, grazing could also be an integral part of forestry management. Conclusions Sustainability of current forest grazing practices depends on the depth of local and traditional knowledge applied and herders’ stewardship. We stress the importance of collaborating with holders of local and traditional knowledge in order to gain a better understanding of the effects of livestock grazing on vegetation in temperate forests.

show abstract

3. The Historical, Environmental and Socio-Economic Context of Forests and Tree-Based Systems for Food Security and Nutrition

Parrotta¹,

Pryck²,

Obiri³

et al. 2015

Forests and Food

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forests and tree-based systems are an important component of rural landscapes, sustaining livelihoods and contributing to the food security and nutritional needs of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Historically, these systems developed under a wide variety of ecological conditions, and cultural and socio-economic contexts, as integrated approaches that combined management of forest and agricultural areas to provide primarily for the needs of producers and their local communities. Today they serve food and nutrition demands of growing global populations, both urban and rural. Population increase, globalisation, deforestation, land degradation, and ever-increasing demand and associated conflict for land (including forest) resources are placing pressure on these lands. Farmers have been encouraged to intensify food production on existing agricultural lands, by modifying some traditional practices (such as agroforestry) or abandoning others (such as shifting cultivation) that evolved over centuries to cope with biophysical constraints (e.g. limited soil fertility, climate variability) and changing socio-economic conditions. This chapter provides an overview of forests and tree-based systems and their role in enhancing food security and nutrition for rural communities and those served through the marketplace. The variability and viability of these management systems are considered within and across geographical regions and agro-ecological zones. Also discussed is the role of the social, cultural and economic contexts in which these systems exist, with a focus on three factors that affect the socio-economic organisation of forests and tree-based systems, namely: land and tree tenure and governance, human capital (including knowledge and labour) and financial capital (including credit). How these biophysical and socio-economic conditions and their complex interactions influence food security and nutrition outcomes, particularly for vulnerable segments of the population (i.e., the poor, women and children), are of particular concern.

show abstract

Europe

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania)

Multidimensionality and scale in a landscape ethnoecological partitioning of a mountainous landscape (Gyimes, Eastern Carpathians, Romania)

Prohibited, but still present: local and traditional knowledge about the practice and impact of forest grazing by domestic livestock in Hungary

3. The Historical, Environmental and Socio-Economic Context of Forests and Tree-Based Systems for Food Security and Nutrition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About