Meanwhile not only nutrient-poor pastures and meadows (Fig. 11) are critically
endangered but also mesic meadows with moderate fertilization (Fig. 1), for example
low and medium altitude hay meadows with Arrhenatherum elatius (cf. Janssen
et al. 2016; Code E2.2). The animal and meat production in Central Europe is so
intensive that the industrial agriculture has to pay for grassland that can be used as
recipient for their liquid manure. In some cases, for example in Lower Saxony, this
material has to be carried hundreds of kilometers because the landscapes are
saturated with urine and bullshit in its original meaning.
The main threats are always the same: industrial agriculture, reduction and
elimination of landscape structures, fertilization, use of pesticides in the arable
land affecting also other habitat types in the neighbourhood.
7.3.2 Biodiversity Between Untouched Nature and Human Use
Most grassland habitats and landscapes in Europe are a product of humans who
destroyed most of the virgin forests long time ago and changed the structure almost
everywhere until today. Only the highest mountain zones and a few wetland areas
are still relatively unviolated. Industrial agriculture and forestry today are extremely
productive. A crop failure nowadays is comparable with a bumper crop no more than
a couple of decades ago (cf. FAO for crop yields; http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
#data/QC).
Would it be a good idea to protect landscapes from human influence? The answer
is yes and no, and depends on the primary nature conservation goal. If the goal is
wilderness and reduction of human influence then national parks might be the right
decision. If the goal is species conservation and zero species loss (CBD) then
grasslands in Europe are extremely important and most of them must be maintained
by grazing or mowing. Ruprecht (2012) has described how steppe-like grasslands in
Central Europe decreased by management cessation. Interestingly, Smelansky and
Tishkov (2012) discussed not only overgrazing as main reason for the degradation of
the Eurasian steppes of Russia but also undergrazing. They showed that
undergrazing can lead to decreasing species diversity also in the Eurasian belt of
natural grasslands.
Without use the succession of grassland in Europe normally would lead to scrub
and afterwards to woodland and forest. Indeed many grasslands were not only
converted to cropland but overgrown by forest or replaced by tree plantations in
marginal agricultural regions. Often low productive grassland habitats in the second
half of the twentieth century were covered with Christmas trees (such as Picea abies,
Abies alba, A. nordmanniana).
Thus, humans in Europe are responsible for the survival of the biodiversity in
both natural and semi-natural habitat types. As a consequence no influence and
wilderness and no species loss should be arranged in different landscapes, regions
and nature protection categories (Janssen et al. 2016).
Farmers in the European Union today can protect species-rich grassland if they
are paid for it. Otherwise they are outcompeted. In a few cases farmers use the
Development and Future of Grassland Ecosystems: Do We Need a Paradigm Shift?
351
endangered but also mesic meadows with moderate fertilization (Fig. 1), for example
low and medium altitude hay meadows with Arrhenatherum elatius (cf. Janssen
et al. 2016; Code E2.2). The animal and meat production in Central Europe is so
intensive that the industrial agriculture has to pay for grassland that can be used as
recipient for their liquid manure. In some cases, for example in Lower Saxony, this
material has to be carried hundreds of kilometers because the landscapes are
saturated with urine and bullshit in its original meaning.
The main threats are always the same: industrial agriculture, reduction and
elimination of landscape structures, fertilization, use of pesticides in the arable
land affecting also other habitat types in the neighbourhood.
7.3.2 Biodiversity Between Untouched Nature and Human Use
Most grassland habitats and landscapes in Europe are a product of humans who
destroyed most of the virgin forests long time ago and changed the structure almost
everywhere until today. Only the highest mountain zones and a few wetland areas
are still relatively unviolated. Industrial agriculture and forestry today are extremely
productive. A crop failure nowadays is comparable with a bumper crop no more than
a couple of decades ago (cf. FAO for crop yields; http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
#data/QC).
Would it be a good idea to protect landscapes from human influence? The answer
is yes and no, and depends on the primary nature conservation goal. If the goal is
wilderness and reduction of human influence then national parks might be the right
decision. If the goal is species conservation and zero species loss (CBD) then
grasslands in Europe are extremely important and most of them must be maintained
by grazing or mowing. Ruprecht (2012) has described how steppe-like grasslands in
Central Europe decreased by management cessation. Interestingly, Smelansky and
Tishkov (2012) discussed not only overgrazing as main reason for the degradation of
the Eurasian steppes of Russia but also undergrazing. They showed that
undergrazing can lead to decreasing species diversity also in the Eurasian belt of
natural grasslands.
Without use the succession of grassland in Europe normally would lead to scrub
and afterwards to woodland and forest. Indeed many grasslands were not only
converted to cropland but overgrown by forest or replaced by tree plantations in
marginal agricultural regions. Often low productive grassland habitats in the second
half of the twentieth century were covered with Christmas trees (such as Picea abies,
Abies alba, A. nordmanniana).
Thus, humans in Europe are responsible for the survival of the biodiversity in
both natural and semi-natural habitat types. As a consequence no influence and
wilderness and no species loss should be arranged in different landscapes, regions
and nature protection categories (Janssen et al. 2016).
Farmers in the European Union today can protect species-rich grassland if they
are paid for it. Otherwise they are outcompeted. In a few cases farmers use the
Development and Future of Grassland Ecosystems: Do We Need a Paradigm Shift?
351