Journal of
Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
Landscape
Studies
Hedgerow-defined medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic and
their conservation – a literature review
Kristina Molnárová
Department of Land Use and Improvement, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Abstract
This review focuses on hedgerow-defined medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic, called pluzinas. In medieval
Czech, the word pluzina meant the agricultural land belonging to one village - its crop fields, meadows, pastures and
roads. Today, the term describes the remnants of the original field patterns, which occur in some parts of the Czech
landscape as a system of hedgerows separating long, narrow, often S-shaped fields. Following a brief outline of the
historical circumstances in which medieval pluzinas were established and of their subsequent development, the review
focuses on the remnants of medieval pluzinas in present-day landscapes, their form and typology, as well as their
ecological and aesthetic values. After recapitulating the resources and methods used in pluzina research, the review is
concluded by an overview of the various aspects of pluzina conservation and by presenting some future research
directions. Hedged cultural landscapes all over the world are a unique natural and cultural heritage, as well as great
examples of sustainable agriculture. However, whereas in many countries (especially in Western Europe), their
disappearance and conservation have become a major matter of concern, Czech pluzinas have so far been on the fringe
of interest. This review is part of the effort to bring pluzinas into the spotlight by creating a multi-disciplinary platform
for further research on and conservation of these valuable landscape features.
Key words: Cultural landscape, Historical field pattern, Hedgerow, Pluzina, Czech Republic.
1. Introduction
In many European landscapes, historical field
patterns defined by hedgerows play a major role in
determining the character and structure of a
landscape. Whereas in the past the functions of
hedgerows were clear and were related to
production, e.g. boundaries, shelter and sources of
wood and other products, today they are highly
regarded for more subtle reasons, such as their
ecological and cultural values (e.g, Burel and
Baudry, 1995; Oreszczyn, 2000). However, the
loss of the past functions has led to a substantial
loss of hedgerows (Baudry et. al, 2000) and
subsequent environmental damage (Countryside
Council for Wales, 1997), as well as the loss of the
historical pattern, which disappears if not stabilized
by hedgerows.
* Corresponding autor; E-mail: kristina.molnarova@gmail.com
Available online at: www.centrumprokrajinu.cz/jls/
In the Czech Republic, hedgerow-defined field
patterns called pluzinas date back to the Middle
Ages. The term, which in medieval Czech meant
the agricultural land belonging to one village, i.e.
its crop fields, meadows, pastures and roads
(Gojda, 2000), now refers to the remnants of the
original pattern. This can be seen in some parts of
the Czech landscape as a system of hedgerows
separating long, narrow, often S-shaped fields.
(Fig. 1).
Whereas in Western Europe hedged cultural
landscapes, their disappearance and conservation
have become a major matter of concern, Czech
pluzinas have so far been on the fringe of interest.
The purpose of this paper is therefore to review
both the available Czech literature on pluzinas and
foreign research applicable to them, and to create a
27
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
Figure 1. A typical hedgerow-defined pluzina with long, narrow, S-shaped fields. photo: Markéta Poustková
multi-disciplinary platform for further research on
and conservation of this unique cultural and natural
heritage.
so-called Inner colonization started in the 6th
century and peaked in the 13th century, while the
Great (or Outer) colonization took place at the end
of the 13th century and in the 14th century (e.g.,
Gojda, 2000; Löw and Míchal, 2003).
2. The founding and historical development of
pluzinas
2.1 Inner Colonization
In the later Middle Ages (13th-15th century AD), a
wave of social, cultural and economic changes
advanced through Europe from the South and
South-West towards the North and North-East
(Sádlo et al., 2005) and laid the foundations of
Europe's current civilization, of our understanding
of culture and our settlement patterns (Gojda,
2000). Of course, these changes were clearly
reflected in the landscape. Sádlo et al. (2005) note
that this transition was so dramatic that it must
have been perceived as earthshaking even within a
lifetime. The area of farmed land increased
radically at the expense of forests, the form of
villages and their pluzinas changed and became
more organized – in short, humans “grasped” the
relative wilderness of prehistoric and early historic
times and adapted it to their needs, colonizing it.
In the area of the present-day Czech Republic,
two distinct phases of colonization took place. The
28
The inner colonization was carried out by the local
(Czech) inhabitants and took place in the so-called
Old Settlement Area, the lowlands where
settlement had been continuous since the Neolithic
period (e.g., Löw and Míchal, 2003). During this
phase, settlement in this area became denser and
the settlers also occupied the less advantageous
positions within it and on its edges (Löw and
Míchal, 2003, Sádlo et al., 2005). At this time, the
hill countries were not yet systematically
colonized, with the sparse exceptions of enclaves
around the monasteries, burgs and long-distance
trade routes. Nevertheless, this network of enclaves
opened the door for the Great colonization, both by
exploring the hitherto unpopulated areas and by
proving that it was possible to grow crops and
sustain communities in these less fertile areas
(Gojda, 2000; Löw and Míchal, 2003).
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
2.2 Great (Outer) colonization
In the relative peace and favourable social
conditions of the end of the 13th century and the
14th century, the population of central Europe grew
and the communities, until then largely isolated,
started to exchange people, ideas and goods
frequently. Thus, German colonists summoned by
Czech kings brought ideas and technologies which
contributed to the fundamental rebuilding of the
Old Settlement Area and colonized the hill
countries beyond it.
"If we define the cultural landscape as a dense
network of villages surrounded by pluzinas,
cultural landscape did not exist in early feudalism.
However, after the year 1300, colonization created
a regular network of settlements, approximately as
dense as today's, and it brought new types of
village plans and pluzinas." (Löw and Míchal,
2003) At this time, the total settled area reached
over 50% and the wilderness once for all lost its
dominance.
The feudal land owners did not manage the
settlement process themselves: the organization
was in the hands of hired specialists, so-called
locators, who designed the layout of the village,
measured out the hides of land and offered these to
potential colonists. As a reward, they received
either money, or they became the lifelong or even
hereditary head of the village and received the
largest hide, sometimes also a mill or smithy (Löw
and Míchal, 2003). New villages were founded
where there was enough space for a pluzina,
enough water for the village and favourable soil
conditions.
Outer colonization also brought the three-field
system (Lipský, 1999; Gojda, 2000; Löw and
Míchal, 2003; Sádlo et al. 2005 ), which gradually
became predominant in large parts of the Czech
lands. This field system significantly increased the
yield of a pluzina, albeit with a significantly higher
labour input. The pluzina was divided into three
parts of approximately the same size, which were
alternated for spring crops, winter crops and fallow
– here, all the village animals grazed together.
Where there was enough space, the pluzina
size stabilized as a circle with a radius of approx.
1.2 km – the longest distance that it was
worthwhile to walk. (Pluzinas of this size then
prevailed until tractors substituted the animaldrawn plough). Instead of expanding the pluzina,
farmers intensified production within it - at any
time, only 1/3 of the fields lay fallow. This
required more intensive ploughing, because shorter
fallow did not so effectively destroy the propagules
of weeds. The heavy ploughs that facilitated this
were difficult to turn, which gave rise to the typical
narrow elongated fields of medieval pluzinas. The
renewal of nutrients was not so efficient and the
production per hectare actually dropped. However,
this was amply compensated by the greater area
farmed each year. The smaller area of fallow also
meant there was less pasture for the animals – this
led to the establishment of permanent pastures and
meadows in wet areas, on steep slopes, forest
margins, etc.(Löw and Míchal, 2003).
The introduction of the three-field system in
the Old Settlement Area and the settlement of new,
hilly areas during this time gave rise to most of the
villages and pluzinas described in section 3 of this
review. After the great colonization, the lowlands
and plateaus of the Old Settlement Area were
covered by a network of villages, usually about 2.5
km apart, with sectional (or pseudo-sectional)
pluzinas. However, the wolds of large rivers were
deserted early in the colonization process, as largescale deforestation of their watersheds made their
flow unsteady and large floods threatened to
destroy villages. From then on, these wolds were
used as meadows, pastures or game areas.
In the newly-settled hilly areas, there were
croft or lineic pluzinas. In the typical pattern of
these areas, the wold of the watercourse was a
meadow, the valley slopes were forested and the
highland plateaus were arable. Settlements and
their local pluzinas were often located along
smaller watercourses without a distinct wold.
According to Sádlo et al (2005), during the
Middle Ages, the boundaries between plots of land
were not yet quite distinct – there were continua
between field and headland, headland and fallow,
fallow and pasture, pasture and clearing, clearing
and forest. At the same time, clear boundaries were
much desired, which resulted in clear field
patterns: the best boundary is a tree, a grassy field
margin, a large boulder, a hedgerow, a road, a
fence or a cross.
Toward the end of this period, soil erosion
peaked (Kuna et al., 2004) and created many
conspicuous ravines, many metres deep, which
have since been covered by forest and have been
impossible to farm. On the other hand, river wolds
29
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
were flattened by extensive soil accumulation. Last
but not least, this development facilitated a great
expansion of building, including the rise of
medieval towns and cities and the building of
numerous burgs.
The Hussite wars and the plague in the 15th
century set back the previous development.
Patterns fell apart, farmers left their villages and
the population of Bohemia decreased by about a
third during this time. The workforce was sparse
and land was again used more extensively,
sometimes even returning to a two-field system or
forest. However, in the 1570s, this trend was
reversed and the Czech lands once again began to
develop.
2.3 Post-medieval development of the Czech
landscape and pluzinas
The Renaissance period (approximately between
the years 1500 and 1620 in the Czech lands)
brought mainly an expansion of agricultural land
within the pattern started in the Middle Ages (Löw
and Míchal, 2003). The negative impact of forest
clearing on the ecological stability of the landscape
was balanced by a more diversified palette of
crops, and the establishment of many fish ponds
and artificial lakes (Lipský, 1999).
The Thirty Years' War (1620-1648) brought a
43% decrease in population (Löw and Míchal,
2003), the end of many villages and large-scale
abandonment of agricultural land and re-growth of
forests.
The baroque period (approx. 1650-1780)
managed to create and stabilize a more definite
"order" in the landscape than it had seen ever
before or, according to some authors (e.g., Sádlo et
al., 2005), ever since. In the areas colonized in the
Middle Ages, a division of agricultural land into
three categories was stabilized – areas always used
as crop land, areas always used as pastures and
areas where these two uses were alternated
according to current need. In all these three areas,
pluzinas were fully developed, according to their
origin and historical development (Löw and
Míchal, 2003). As the land use and land ownership
patterns stabilized (mainly in the Old Settlement
Area), field margins developed along field roads,
ditches and ownership boundaries. Besides the
larger field margins which had existed around field
30
sections since the Middle Ages, there now also
appeared smaller grassy field margins along the
long sides of the fields, gradually distinguished in
the terrain by ploughing and often still visible in
the countryside today. All these margins were used
for pasture and, as goats were abundant, there were
practically no shrubs in the landscape (Löw and
Míchal, 2003). As for scattered greenery, this was
sparse in the fields and it usually had sacral
significance. In the pastures, which were usually
situated in a more complicated terrain, trees were
more abundant and formed miniature park
landscapes.
To advertise Catholicism to the still
unpersuaded villagers, the church and catholic
landowners brought sacral architecture and
landscape architecture to the countryside – this
period gave rise to the traditional Czech
countryside with baroque churches, chapels,
crosses, alleys and solitary trees in places of
worship. However, the medieval foundations of the
landscape and its field patterns did not change
significantly.
In a widely accepted opinion, the neatly
manicured landscape of the Baroque and
Enlightenment (circa 1780-1814) periods "is
essentially a time-created and time-tested system of
a life in the countryside without the supplemental
energy of fossil fuels. In a nutshell, we can say that
on the given energetic level, the powers of man and
nature entered a sustainable equilibrium, with the
maximum profit for man. As to the visual aspect of
this landscape, it is no gross overstatement to say
that this landscape has until today remained a
symbol of useful beauty, the ideal and archetype of
our perception of positive aesthetic values in the
landscape" (Löw and Míchal, 2003).
In contrast, Sádlo et al (2005) argue that "to tie
ourselves up to the baroque state of the landscape
as to a golden age is a gross misunderstanding of
everything that has happened here in the past
millennia... The baroque period is not the lost
Arcadia; that cannot be found anywhere – or it can
be found wherever we want, but such an approach
can hardly be introduced into objective
assessments".
During the Industrial Revolution (1814-1914),
the four-field system was introduced, which
increased crop yields by at least 50% (Löw and
Míchal, 2003). Instead of using fallow, soil fertility
was renewed by including crops of the pea family
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
(Fabaceae). In the following years, respectively,
winter grains, potatoes or sugar beet, and spring
grains were sown. Some farm machines, such as
threshers, were invented, but these were largely
unavailable to the small farms which still prevailed
in most of Europe, and the farming and the field
patterns remained virtually unchanged in most of
the land (Löw and Míchal, 2003).
However, this period saw the beginning of a
dramatic change in people's attitudes toward
landscape. Before the introduction of fossil fuels,
they always promoted the value of the natural
conditions and the former activities in the
landscape and tried to increase this value;
afterwards, they fundamentally changed the
landscape's character and overlay, destroyed or
quite denied the previous activities of man in the
landscape (Čeliš, 1997).
The 20th century saw major changes in the use
of the Czech land and in its general form and
function, including, of course, the field patterns.
Löw and Míchal, 2003, note the following most
important events and turns during the 20th century
that led to the current state of the landscape. The
largest influence on landscape structure during the
so-called "First Republic" (1918-1934) was the
first land reform, during which large estates of the
nobility were confiscated and sold to small
farmers. After WWII, the continuity of agricultural
and demographic development in almost a third of
the agricultural land was broken by the expulsion
of almost 3 million German inhabitants. Shortly
after the war, the property of "collaborators with
German power" was confiscated. After February
1948, the first wave of collectivization begun; the
motto of the day was "one village – one co-op";
agricultural properties were confiscated, and
farmers were forced under pain of imprisonment to
join agricultural co-ops. Field margins were
ploughed, so that the farmers would no longer
recognize their former fields (Löw and Míchal,
2003). The second wave of collectivization
("several villages – one co-op") took place in the
1970s; the enormous state farms arising from this
wave took no heed of the landscape's previous
form and function. While in 1948 the average field
size was 0,23 ha, in 1980 it was 10-15 ha, and
many fields were as large as 200 ha. In the
communist land consolidation projects, a field size
under 100 ha had to be specially justified.
The changes that this period brought in land
use, and in the appearance and function of the
landscape, were enormous and are currently being
evaluated. The most conspicuous changes include
an enormous rise in field size and the
disappearance of scattered greenery, including the
field margins of medieval pluzinas, the largest
outburst of soil erosion since the last ice age (Löw
and Míchal, 2003) and a general degradation in the
level of landscape organization (Löw and Míchal,
2003, Sádlo et al, 2005).
Since the restoration of democracy in 1989,
new trends have been influencing the landscape. It
is difficult to evaluate these recent changes, but
some of them could pose a major threat to the
remaining pluzinas, including the restitution and
privatization of land, modern land consolidation
projects and urban sprawl.
3. Remnants of medieval pluzinas in presentday landscapes
By Gojda's (2000) definition, the pluzina of a
medieval village was the economically utilized part
of the landscape belonging to it, i.e. its fields,
meadows and pastures, interconnected by a system
of field roads.* Today, the word pluzina refers to
parts of a landscape where the field patterns of
medieval pluzinas have been preserved.
The pluzina of the lowlands and plateaus of
the Old Settlement Area was similar to the
medieval openfields of England (sensu Beresford
and St Joseph, 1958). Each farm had fields in each
of the village's blocs (or sections) of land, which
were defined according to soil quality and managed
within the three-field system. The long, narrow
fields of these pluzinas were mostly united into
*
Other authors offer different definitions of pluzina.
For example, Frolec and Vařeka (in Sklenička and
Pittnerova, 2005) describe pluzinas as “the economic
base of a village”, meaning only those parts of the land
that were privately owned by the villagers. Černý (1973)
defines pluzinas as “the sum of all fields and sections
belonging to a village”. However, for the purpose of this
review, I have decided to adopt Gojda's definition, as it
best corresponds with the landscape functions of
pluzinas.
31
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
large fields in the second half of the 20th century in
the Czech Republic - the former outlines of their
sections still largely influence the layout and
character of the landscape, but the original field
pattern has disappeared. Their original character
can still be seen in some parts of Poland (Gojda,
2000), and the Polish Strip Fields are one of the
megatypes of European landscapes according to
the Dobříš Assessment (European Environment
Agency, 1995).
In the later colonized hilly countryside, each
farmer had a hide of land adjoining his farm, which
he managed according to his own decisions. Unlike
the first type, these hides of land are often visible
in today's landscapes as long fields or pastures,
perpendicular to the axis of an elongated village
and partially or entirely enclosed by hedgerows
(Gojda, 2000).
In present-day terminology, these types of
pluzina are called pluzinas with, respectively,
unconsolidated or consolidated land holding.
Different authors (e.g., Láznička, 1946; Černý,
1973; Löw and Míchal, 2003; Moravec, 2005)
propose slightly different finer categorizations of
pluzinas. The following overview is a synthesis of
these approaches, mostly relying on the typology
of Löw and Míchal, 2003, which best agrees with
the author’s own field observations. The pictures
are adopted from Černý (1973). The conspicuous
long, narrow shape of the fields was introduced in
the later middle ages. It was due to the new, heavy
ploughs which ploughed the soil more deeply, but
were difficult to turn, so it was advantageous to
turn them as few times as possible. The S-shape of
the fields probably originated from the technology
of ploughing (Beresford and St Joseph, 1958).
It should also be noted that these types of
pluzinas are typically found in combinations with
the respective village plan types (Láznička, 1956).
The following is a very brief description of these
village plan types as found in the Czech Republic,
adapted from Löw and Míchal (2003). A more
detailed description can be found in various
publications on vernacular architecture, such as
Škabrada (1999).
Cluster-village – an irregular cluster of small
houses, typical for early medieval settlements. Like
a segmental pluzina, where it can be found today, it
is of later origin.
Green-village – houses gathered around a village
32
green, often as large as the squares of Gothic
towns. This type predominates in the Old
Settlement Area.
Street-village – one or two rows of houses around a
road, typical for Eastern Bohemia and Southern
Moravia. This type is often found on the edges of
broad river wolds.
Street-green-village – a combination of the
previous two types. The houses form a continuous
row at a certain distance from the road, forming an
elongated green.
Forest-hide-village – these are either circular in
shape, or they have no green and the houses
enclose a space which was originally an
unwalkable stream wold, which was later often
built up.
These types of village plans appear in the
following seven combinations, with their
respective pluzinas (Láznička, 1956):
1. Green-villages and street-green-villages with a
sectional or pseudo-sectional pluzina in the Old
Settlement Area
2. Forest-hide-villages with a croft pluzina in areas
colonized in the later middle ages
3. Street-villages with a sectional pluzina
(sometimes also a lineic pluzina) in the Old
Settlement Area
4. Cluster-villages with a pseudo-sectional or
segmental pluzina, formerly in the Old Settlement
Area, now in areas settled in modern times
6. Long street-villages with a croft of a segmental
pluzina, modern colonization in mountainous
regions
7. Solitary farmsteads with a segmental pluzina,
modern colonization in mountainous regions
3.1 Features of pluzinas found in the presentday landscape
Where the fields of a former medieval pluzina are
surrounded by hedgerows, the pluzina is a very
distinctive field pattern, having a major influence
on the appearance and function of the landscape.
Where it is not thus defined, it is very
inconspicuous – in the open landscape, usually
only the outlines of the former sections of such a
pluzina are preserved. In a forested landscape, a
detailed archaeological study can reveal the former
field margins. However, this review focuses on the
distinct
ecological, visual
and historical
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
Figure 2. The segmental pluzina was the prevailing type
in the early middle ages. However, it has not survived
from those times, and where it appears today it is of a
much younger (modern) origin in terrains where it was
not possible to establish the other pluzina types. It
consists of rectangular blocks of land around the village,
and a farmer would typically own several blocks in
different places in the pluzina (the land-holding was
unconsolidated).
Figure 3. The pseudo-sectional pluzina appeared where
an old segmental pluzina was secondarily adapted for
the three-field system and for a heavy plough during the
Great colonization. A farmer would have fields in each
section of the pluzina. This was the most typical kind of
pluzina in the Old Settlement Area.
Figure 4. The sectional pluzina appears mostly in the
Old Settlement Area, with villages founded during the
Great colonization. It is fully adopted for the three-field
system – the creation of the individual sections was
probably motivated by an effort to divide agricultural
land evenly among all the farmers (Navrátil, 1986), and
each farmer had fields in each section.
Figure 5. The lineic pluzina is a transitional type
between the sectional and croft pluzinas, between
unconsolidated and consolidated land holding. It
appears in the margins of the Old Settlement Area, in
environmental conditions less advantageous, but still
suitable, for agriculture (Löw and Míchal, 2003). The
strip fields cover the whole pluzina, but tend to
concentrate behind the farms. Land holding can be
unconsolidated, consolidated or partially consolidated
(Löw and Míchal, 2003; Moravec, 2005) and the pluzina
was sometimes, but not always, used for three-field
farming (Moravec, 2005).
33
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
Figure 6. The croft pluzina is typical for late medieval
(and sometimes post-medieval) colonization of hilly
areas. The land holding is consolidated, a farmer had all
his land in one hide, usually surrounded by hedgerows.
In this hide, the farmer would have, successively, garden
produce, orchard, crop fields, pastures and sometimes a
piece of forest (Gojda, M., personal communication,
2006). This pluzina is the type usually seen in the current
Czech landscape – both because of the hedgerows, which
have often survived till today (Gojda, 2000), and
because it appeared in marginal agricultural areas,
which were less susceptible to the recent dramatic
changes in landscape patterns.
significance of hedgerow-defined pluzinas.
The following is a list of the most important
pluzina-related terms, as listed by Černý (1973).
By definition, a hedgerow-defined pluzina consists
of an open space and the hedgerows (or, more
generally, the field margins) that enclose it. The
individual open space between field margins is
called a field (whether it is used for growing crops
or for other purposes) and is tens to hundreds
meters in length (Kuna et al., 2004). In sectional
and pseudo-sectional pluzinas, these fields are
associated into sections. Within the fields, there
was sometimes a ridge and furrow pattern, which is
now detectable only where the pluzina was reforested before the use of mechanized ploughing.
The entire area farmed by a family was called a
hide of land and was either consolidated in one
field, on unconsolidated, divided between smaller
fields in various sections of the pluzina. The noncrop parts of the pluzina were headlands (along the
short side of the fields) and field margins (between
fields, along the long side).
From the present-day point of view, the field
margins are the most prominent and interesting
parts of the pluzina remnants. To the best of my
knowledge, there are no published dendrological
surveys of hedgerows in the Czech Republic.
However, Černý (1973) lists some characteristics
of their earthworks and plan view. The earthworks
of field margins can be of three types: a mound, a
step or a terrace. Mounds (about 15 to 30 cm in
height and 2 to 3 metres in width) are usual in flat
terrain or in hilly terrain where the margin runs
downslope. Steps (1-1.5 metres in height and 1.5-3
metres in width) are found in slightly hilly terrain,
where the margin runs horizontally or diagonally.
These two types of margins separated the fields of
different land holders. Horizontal terraces (1-2.5
34
meters in height) were usual on steep slopes and
created narrow, approximately horizontal fields,
several of which were usually farmed by one
family.
In plan view, field margins are either straight
or slightly undulating, corresponding to the terrain.
Sharp turns are exceptional, as are angular turns.
On steep slopes, the field margins usually run
horizontally, while in flat areas and on gentle
slopes they often run diagonally or even down the
slope.
4. Hedgerows and hedgerow
landscape ecology
patterns in
Hedgerows are widely used to improve crop yields,
control livestock, ameliorate drainage and erosion,
provide wood products, and enhance aesthetic
values and a sense of place (Forman, 1995) They
are also important as plant and animal habitats and
conduits (Forman and Godron, 1986). This chapter
begins by defining the role of hedgerows in the
landscape as corridors, and, in some cases, as the
matrix, and goes on to explore their abovementioned functions.
4.1 Hedgerows as corridors or matrix in various
landscapes
As defined by Forman and Godron (1986),
corridors are narrow strips of land which differ
from the matrix on either side and which divide
and at the same time tie together nearly all
landscapes. The same authors further define three
basic types of corridor structure, independent of
origin, human use and type of landscape. Stream
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
corridors border water courses and vary in width
according to the size of the stream. Strip corridors
are wider bands, with a central interior
environment that contains an abundance of interior
organisms. Line corridors are narrow bands
essentially dominated throughout by edge species,
and are typically represented by hedgerows
(Forman and Godron, 1986, Forman, 1995).
According to Forman and Godron (1986),
landscape matrix is determined by three criteria –
the relative area of an element, its connectivity and
its control over the dynamics of a landscape. By
this definition, in some bocage landscapes where
the hedgerow network has a high level of
connectivity, the hedgerows can become the
landscape's matrix, although they generally cover
less than a tenth of the total area (Pollard et al,
1974). The hedgerows in such landscapes also tend
to control the landscape's dynamics – they act as
species sources and are ready to initiate the
dynamics leading the entire area toward a possible
former steady state or other condition (Forman and
Godron, 1986).
4.2 Hedgerow connectivity and networks, mesh
size
"Connectivity is a measure of how connected or
spatially continuous a corridor is, which may be
quantified simply by the number of breaks per unit
of length of the corridor. Since the presence or
absence of breaks in a corridor is considered the
most important factor in determining the
effectiveness of both the conduit and barrier
functions, connectivity is the primary measure of
corridor structure" (Merriam, 1984). Forman
(1995) observes that hedgerows are often
perforated with gaps and have low connectivity,
which can be due either to farmers leaving gaps to
move through with machinery, or, in multi-species
hedgerows, by different sensitivity of the species to
blow down or pests.
Hedgerows often form networks, almost all of
which include scattered or frequent woodlots.
Some of the important structural characteristics of
these networks are the types of hedgerow
intersections (X, T, L, an end or a connection with
woods), the presence and length of breaks and the
presence and distribution of mini-nodes. The
average distance between network lines, or the
average area of landscape elements enclosed by the
lines, are measurements of mesh size (Forman and
Godron, 1986).
Mesh size is considered particularly important
in relation to the grain size of a species (Levins,
1968), that is, the distance or area over which the
species carries out its functions. As the size of
fields increases, the more fine-grained species tend
to disappear from the landscape (Forman and
Godron, 1986).
4.3 Hedgerows and environmental qualities
There are many ways in which hedgerows affect
the surrounding landscape: they control physical,
chemical and biological fluxes, as well as being
cultural indicators (Baudry et. al., 2000).
For example, they affect the field
microclimate, control soil erosion (Burel and
Baudry, 1995), prevent uneven stream flow
through the year (Mérot, 1999) reduce pesticide
drift and fertilizer misplacement (Ucar and Hall,
2001; Marshall and Moonen, 2002) and serve as a
buffer against nitrates and for water protection
(Caubel-Forget and Grimaldi, 1999). Furthermore,
hedgerows conserve biodiversity by serving as a
habitat and a conduit for wildlife (Forman and
Godron, 1986; Burel and Baudry, 1995; Deckers et
al, 2005) and contribute to the visual and cultural
value of a landscape and to its diversity of field and
network patterns (Burel and Baudry, 1995).
Of course, the surrounding landscape also
affects hedgerow qualities and preservation or
disappearance (Forman and Godron, 1986, Deckers
et al, 2005).
4.4 Microenvironment within a hedgerow
Forman and Godron (1986) consider the following
specific conditions within hedgerows regarding
solar radiation, wind, water regime and soils: a
hedgerow has lower albedo than a field, and so
absorbs more heat energy. At the top of the
hedgerow, the wind velocity is higher than in the
surrounding fields, but at the bottom it is
considerably lower. Evaporation from the soil in a
hedgerow is lower than from that in a field, but
plant transpiration must be higher. The soil in
hedgerows typically has more organic matter than
35
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
field soils, and the presence of stones in hedgerows
provides suitable habitats for species such as
lichens or mice (Bates, 1937). Microenvironmental
conditions vary widely from top to bottom and
from one side to the other of a hedgerow. The top
of a hedgerow is subjected to greater
environmental extremes than the adjoining field,
but the inside bottom of a hedgerow is a
significantly more mesic microhabitat.
4.5 Impact of a hedgerow on the surrounding
environment
In many places, the main objective in maintaining
hedgerows is to modify the microclimate of the
field, especially the effects of wind (Forman and
Godron, 1986; Kristensen and Caspersen, 2000;
Baudry et al, 2000; Busck, 2003). Downwind of a
hedgerow, day temperature, soil and atmospheric
moisture increase, whereas wind speed,
evaporation and night temperatures are generally
lower than in open areas (Forman and Godron,
1986).
According to Forman and Godron (1986), the
wind speed is reduced as far as 28 times the
hedgerow height (28 h) downwind, evaporation is
reduced 16h downwind. This changes where the
distance between hedgerows is less than 28h (as in
the case of pluzina landscapes). Here, wind forced
up over the first hedgerow drops sharply in a
turbulent flow at a distance of about 6 to 8 h,
dramatically increasing both wind speed and
evaporation in this area. According to Burel and
Baudry (1995), the effect of a hedgerow on the
microclimate extends for 8-10 times the hedgerow
height.
Forman and Godron (1986) conclude that wind
speed and desiccation at ground level are extremely
variable, but on an average, wind velocity is lower
in a hedgerow landscape than in a landscape
without hedgerows. For example, a study carried
out in Denmark (Jensen, 1954) showed a 15%
lower wind speed in a hedgerow landscape than in
a comparable open field.
By capturing ground water and pumping it
vertically by evapotranspiration, hedgerows help
produce drier soil, less stream flooding and
(perhaps) locally moister air (Forman and Godron,
1986). Hedgerows are also important in the
regulation of stream flows (Mérot, 1999) A study
36
comparing two landscapes near each other in
Brittany (France) with and without hedgerow
networks (Forman and Godron, 1986) showed that
in winter the rainy season- streamflow was lower
in the hedgerow landscape, whereas in summer the
opposite effect was observed. The total annual
stream flow of the two watersheds was essentially
the same. In Brittany, many hedgerows are used for
water flow control (Baudry et al, 2000). At the
field level they stop or control fluxes, and at the
landscape level the sets of connected elements
control the flow by a succession of concentration
and channelling of water all over the watersheds
(Burel et al., 1995).
According to Forman and Godron (1986), if
we consider only short term crop production in a
farm, hedgerows do not have an unequivocally
positive or negative effect (Forman and Godron,
1986). "On the negative side, hedgerows decrease
the crop area, produce shade, shelter pests, and
compete with crop plants for soil moisture and
nutrients. Balanced against this is the pattern of
microclimate over the field discussed above.
Especially productive zones in the field may be
expected about 3 to 6 h downwind of a hedgerow,
and 2 to 6 h upwind of a second hedgerow.
Basically, the decision of the farmer (and society)
whether to have hedgerows by fields hinges largely
on the multiple functions of hedgerows (Forman
and Baudry, 1984). These include providing
wildlife, inhibiting potentially damaging wind
velocities, harbouring pests, harbouring potential
predators of pests, blocking farm machinery,
providing shade for livestock, marking property
boundaries, providing firewood, blocking drifting
snow, inhibiting erosion and nutrient runoff,
biological conservation, aesthetics, and more."
(Forman and Godron, 1986)
According to Forman (1995), "overall plant
productivity in a field is enhanced by the shelter of
[hedgerows], but the reasons are complex and the
exception noteworthy".
4.6 Impact of the surrounding environment on
hedgerows
There are many flows from fields to hedgerows,
including snow and soil particles, dust and
aerosols, herbicides and insecticides, fertilizers
which favour nitrophile plants at the expense of
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
other species and many field animals – in short, the
nature of hedgerows is heavily controlled by inputs
from adjacent fields (Forman and Godron, 1986).
Following a number of studies (Forman and
Godron, 1986), it appears that many species,
especially birds and mammals, move frequently
between woods and hedgerows.
Homes also have a profound effect on nearby
hedges. "Hedgerows are often maintained for
privacy, for protection against wind and snow, and
to cut fuel costs...the bird community may also be
distinct (Yahner, 1982). Such hedgerows are also
enriched by non native species from the home,
including house mice, cats and certain plantings"
(Willmot, 1980; Middleton and Merriam, 1983;
Forman and Godron, 1986).
4.7 Hedgerows as habitat, conduits and barriers
to plant and animal communities
A large proportion of the fauna in an agricultural
landscape is observed in hedgerows at some time
(Forman and Godron, 1986). According to Hooper
(1970), about 80% of woodland wildlife species
currently breed in hedgerows. Burel and Baudry
(1995) and Baudry (2000) attribute this to microhabitat diversity (such as trunks, stones and
ditches), complexity of the vertical vegetation
structure (number of layers, plant species present,
pruning regimes), and the diversity of host plants
that is characteristic of old hedgerows. About 500
to 600 vascular plant species are known to grow in
hedgerows in England. The vegetation is similar to
forest edges (Pollard et al., 1974).
Burel and Baudry (1995) and Forman and
Godron (1986) note that the fauna and flora is not
specific, but consists of a mixture of species
derived from other environments, mainly forest.
"For animals, hedgerows can be considered as:
a) a habitat for species that are restricted to it
b) a temporary refuge for those that feed or spend
part of their lives in adjacent fields
c) a complementary feeding area for many insects
that usually feed on crops and for which the
fecundity rate depends on nectar found on
hedgerow flowers
d) a reservoir for propagules“ (from Burel and
Baudry, 1995).
Forman
and
Goudron
(1986)
hedgerows are very important in landscapes with
few woods, because in such landscapes forest
animals may be essentially limited to hedgerows.
Hedgerows also influence the spatial distribution of
insects and other animals in adjacent fields, both
because they harbour species and because they
influence the field microclimate (Forman, 1995)
These animals are both crop pests (such as the crop
feeding insects mentioned in caption c) and their
predators. As an example, Forman (1995) presents
a hypothesis that hedgerow birds and other
predators... enhance agricultural productivity by
feeding on potential pest insects, thus preventing
population explosions, and concludes that if this
hypothesis is sustained, small fields surrounded by
hedgerows or large fields with woodlots, would
provide a "natural pest control" mechanism. He
also hypothesizes that agricultural production was
more stable and suffered fewer extensive pest
outbreaks in fine-grained, medieval French and
English
landscapes,
than
in
modern
"macroagricultural" landscapes – a hypothesis that
can also be extrapolated to the Czech pluzina.
Hedgerows are important as corridors for
species movement (Forman and Godron, 1986;
Burel, 1989; Forman, 1995) and for species
survival in agricultural landscapes (Burel and
Baudry, 1995). Forman (1995) notes several types
of movement along corridors – home range
movements, animal dispersal, migration and
wandering or nomadic movement. The movement
along the hedgerow is inhibited by narrows, gaps,
curvilinearity, patchiness, environmental gradients
and the length of the corridor. Corridor width is
considered important for movement (Forman,
1995), although many animals move along narrow
hedgerows, too (e.g., Pollard et al., 1974). The two
variables considered by Forman (1995) as
primarily controlling the conduit functions are
habitat connectivity and quality. Burel and Baudry
(1995) highlight the importance of hedgerows
bordering lanes where microclimate conditions are
similar to those of forest.
Hedgerows can also act as barriers to the
movement of some species, usually, but not
always, in a direction perpendicular to their
orientation. Forman and Godron (1986)
characterize them as semipermeable barriers or
filters in a landscape, permitting some objects to
pass through readily and inhibiting others.
note that
37
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
4.8 Addressing possible ecological disadvantages
of hedgerows
Most of the literature on hedgerows focuses on
their environmental and ecological advantages.
However, Forman (1995) notes the following
possible ecological disadvantages of hedgerows*:
(1) They act as a mortality sink, by drawing
animals to unfavourable conditions in a
corridor
(2) They increase the probability that pests,
diseases, exotic species and disturbances (e.g.,
fire) will spread to a patch.
Forman (1995) concludes that low quality
corridors can act as mortality sinks, but the local
population learns to avoid it. It remains a mortality
sink for young and dispersing animals, who have
not had the time to learn to avoid it. This pinpoints
the importance of high-quality corridors, which are
used for effective species movement between
patches.
To the second point, Forman (1995) presents a
variety of studies showing that these ecological
disadvantages of hedgerows are minor or nonexistent.
5. Aesthetic values of pluzinas
According to Vorel (1999), although people
perceive landscapes differently, there are certain
places which will bring aesthetic pleasure to most
people. The aesthetic value of a landscape is
mirrored in the senses of a viewer, who perceives
the shape of its individual elements, their
composition, colours, texture, smells, sounds,
moisture, cold or wind... these perceptions mirror
the so-called emotional values of a landscape and
evoke certain states of mind, such as tranquillity or
restlessness, surprise or wonder.
The content values of a landscape are
connected with the contemporary aesthetic norm of
every era. In our time, geographical area and
*
Forman uses the term „woody corridors“, but
following the definition of hedgerows for the purpose of
this work and for the purpose of pluzina study (chapter 2
of this review), I extrapolate these conclusions to
hedgerows.
38
culture, they arise from the ancient feeling of being
connected with the landscape (Paradise, Arcadia)
and the consciousness of a need to conserve the
landscape and its natural values.
These principles can be extrapolated into
several features of the landscape scene, which are
generally accepted aesthetic values. Vorel (1999)
lists the following values:
1/ evident presence of naturalistic landscape parts,
such as indented forest edges, meandering
watercourses bordered by trees and shrubs, water
planes framed by forest
2/ presence of valuable ecosystems in the
landscape (such as littoral vegetation around a lake,
or rocky slopes with grass and shrub plant
associations)
3/ naturalistic character of the dominant landscape
features and horizons, defining the space (rocky or
forested horizons, distinctive shape of a dominant
feature)
4/ natural environment with obvious influence of
traditional farming (typical field patterns,
vineyards)
5/ balance between relatively natural or naturalistic
features and farmland
6/ extensive use of scattered greenery in the
cultural landscape (woody field margins,
watercourse and linear vegetation, solitary trees)
7/ fine landscape structure
8/ harmony between the natural environment and
buildings within it
9/ harmony between the natural environment and
settlements within it
10/ harmony between the natural environment and
the dominant valuable architecture within it
In this list, features 3/ - 7/ are directly
connected with pluzinas (an indirect connection
can be found in almost all the features). According
to this methodology, pluzinas can be regarded as
exceptionally aesthetically valuable landscape
elements.
Landscape architecture defines and uses
certain principles of spatial layout of elements,
called harmonization principles. These include
symmetry, asymmetry, gradation, rhythm, contrast
and consistency of elements (Vorel, 1999). The
regularly spaced hedgerows of pluzinas are
particularly effective in providing rhythm and
contrast to the landscape. They also provide a
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
diversity of textures (Morisson, D., personal
communication, 2004) and a sense of mystery in
the landscape.
In terms of landscape scenery (Vorel, 1999),
hedgerows play a major role by defining and
enclosing spaces. According to Simonds (1961),
"Open spaces assume an architectural character
when they are enclosed in full or in part by a
structure or structural elements". Simonds (1961)
further notes that such a space is complete by itself,
but it is also an inseparable part of any adjacent
spaces and structures - together, the related spaces
and elements create a meaningful complex of
solids and voids. The voids and solids are equally
important and they define each other - without the
corresponding void, the solid has no meaning.
Similarly, Cullen (1961) notes that one of the
golden axioms of landscape architecture is that any
landscape is a sequence of spaces and should be
perceived and created as such. The space we are in
is a "here", any other space is a "there", and the
human mind is particularly adapted to perceive the
meaning of any here-there relationship - How is
"there" different from "here"? Is "there" worth
exploring? How does/could "there" affect "here"?
Would I be better off "there" than I am "here"?
Such thoughts, conscious or subconscious, are
some of the strongest sources of emotion that the
landscape evokes in us. Articulated "here-there"
relationships help define individual spaces and tie
them together into a whole, meaningful landscape
as opposed to a shattered anarchy of spaces neither
defined nor connected.
Cullen (1961) further concludes that enclosure
is a very important element of possessing and
surveying the landscape - it creates a "here" to be
occupied and viewed and determines its quality. It
can be complete, partial or suggested, transparent,
translucent or opaque, heavy or insubstantial. It can
create various special effects, such as prospects and
refuges, and of course it has practical implications
such as screening or windbreaking. In their variety,
the hedgerows of a pluzina can provide all these
effects, and thus greatly enrich the aesthetic quality
and interest of a landscape.
6. Resources and methods in pluzina research
6.1 Historical resources - cartographic, written
and photographic
Very few resources relevant to this study date back
to the times when pluzinas were founded. In 11th
century legal documents, there are some mentions
of land (terra), but it is rarely possible to deduce
information about the shape and size of fields
(Smetánka, 1991; Černý, 1992).
However, authors (e.g., Černý, 1992; Dohnal,
2003) agree that it is possible to use some modern
sources to extrapolate the medieval situation. There
are many proofs that pluzinas did not entirely
change during the centuries following their
establishment (Štěpánek, 1967). However, some
authors (e.g., Nováček, 2000) are sceptical about
this extrapolation. It is important to remember that
most conclusions gained by these retrospective
analyses are hypothetical (Gojda, 2000) and need
to be verified by archaeological methods.
The most reliable way to acquire information
about pluzinas from historical sources is by
studying old maps (cartographic resources),
complemented by information from written
resources. These resources can sometimes be
complemented by pictures, such as 16th century
pluzina drawings, which are, however, rare in
central Europe and provide only general
information about pluzina layout (Moravec, 2005).
Other complementary resources include landscape
paintings, drawings from old calendars and oral
tradition, especially local names. When studying
more recent changes, photographic resources,
especially aerial photographs, are very useful
(Gojda, 2000; Lipský, 2000; Sklenička, 2003).
Most authors (e.g., Gojda, 2000; Lipský, 2000;
Sklenička, 2003; Kuna et al., 2004) agree that
stable cadastre maps are the most valuable
cartographic resource in studying historical
landscapes on the pluzina scale.
Sklenička (2003) describes the stable cadastre
as an inventory of all land of the pre-Litavian parts
of the Hapsburg monarchy, established between
1825 and 1843 to serve as a basis for taxation. It
consists of maps on a 1:2880 scale (1 inch to 40
fathoms), an evaluation study (a description of the
village, its climate, land, water bodies and
watercourses, roads, etc.), a final study (statistical
data regarding the cadastre) and the stable cadastre
duplicate (an 1854-1856 revision containing data
on soil quality and yields).
For each plot, the following characteristics are
listed: section name, plot number, name and
address of the plot owner, plot land use, plot size,
39
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
soil quality, yields. The stable cadastre was
continuously updated for over a century after it was
made (Lipský, 2000). These changes were made in
red ink, so they can be used to evaluate landscape
changes, without the original situation being
obscured.
Lipský (2000) and Sklenička (2003) conclude
that the stable cadastre documents an important
milestone in the development of the Czech
landscape – the point when there was a historical
minimum of forest cover in many areas, the end of
the era of three-field farming and the beginning of
the era of large scale use of four-field farming,
which led to rapid intensification, a decrease in
pasture area, the introduction of new crops and the
rapid increase in yields that began in the 19th
century. Their importance in pluzina studies lies in
documenting the end of the era in which these
structures originated and developed.
Lipský (2000) further notes that the
information from these maps can sometimes be
complemented by Müller's map of the Czech lands
(18th century) and the military maps of the First
(1763-1787), Second (1836-1852) and Third
(1876-1880) military surveys, which sometimes
offer very interesting complementary information
on the changes in land use (forests, scattered
greenery, meadows, water bodies, etc.) but cannot
be systematically used in detail.
Apart from the studies of the stable cadastre,
Lipský (2000) and Sklenička (2003) list the
following written resources, made for taxation
purposes and listing land ownership: the First
Taxation Rule documents the state after the 30
Year's War, a period of deep economic crisis and
neglect of the cultural landscape. The Theresian
cadastre (from 1748) and the Josephian cadastre
(from 1785), on the other hand, document the
conjuncture of the "Czech baroque landscape".
These documents describe land owned by the
subjects much more accurately than the land of the
nobility. In the subjects' land, we can determine the
percentage of fields, pastures and approximately
also the meadows in each cadastre. Moravec
(2005) notes that some archive materials, such as
manor land inventories, land inventory books and
documents can also contain data relevant to pluzina
reconstruction.
Sklenička (2003) lists three types of
photographic resources – photographs taken from
the ground, aerial photographs and satellite
40
photographs. Of these, the first two types are
frequently used in pluzina studies. Photographs
taken from the ground are currently finding their
place in historical landscape studies, thanks to new
publications, exhibitions and other projects
(Skaloš, J., personal communication, 2007).
Orthogonal aerial photographs are one of the most
useful resources in pluzina studies. In the Czech
Republic, these have been systematically made
since 1936 for military purposes, and the Military
Topographic Institute in Dobruška has an archive
of approx. 800 000 negatives (Sklenička, 2003),
which are now available to the public. As was
shown in section 4 of this review, the 20th century,
and especially the second half of the century, had a
fundamental impact on the current form of
medieval pluzinas, which the aerial photographs
illustrate in a clear and unbiased way. Sklenička
(2003) observes that the photographs most relevant
to the development of the Czech landscape are
those from the 1950s, which describe the state of
the landscape prior to these changes. Diagonal
aerial photographs of pluzinas are also common
and have mostly an illustrative value.
6.2 Archaeological methods
The following section is a brief overview of
archaeological methods used in the study of
medieval pluzinas, both those stabilized in today's
landscape by hedgerows and those no longer
visible. Although this overview is principally
concerned with hedgerow-defined pluzinas, the
latter methods can also be of use in determining
their properties, such as their original extent, and in
confirming their authenticity.
In the Czech Republic, excavations have rarely
been used in the study of medieval pluzinas (Beneš
et al., 1999), but a number of non-destructive
archaeological methods are commonly employed.
Aerial surveys, made by aerial archaeology,
provide the overall picture of pluzinas (Štěpánek,
1967). They include visual surveys of the
landscape from a low-flying aircraft, as well as
analyses
and
interpretations
of
existing
photographic material (Kuna et al., 2004).
Apart from direct surveys of existing
hedgerow-defined field patterns and former field
patterns shown by strips of different trees within
forests (Kuna et. al., 2004), aerial archaeology
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
finds remnants of human activity using direct and
indirect indicators (Gojda, 2000; Kuna et al.,
2004). According to Gojda (2000), the direct
indicators are manifested either in the different
colour of the soil above features (soil marks), or as
shadow effects copying the relief in the morning or
evening sun (shadow marks). Indirect indicators
include vegetation marks, drought marks, snow
marks and moisture marks. Vegetation and drought
marks show underground objects by differences in
the vegetation growing over them – mostly, hollow
objects show in higher and more lush vegetation,
whereas built up objects show in shorter and drier
vegetation. The study of snow and moisture marks
utilizes the different physical properties of features
which cause snow or moisture to stay on them for a
longer or shorter time than on the surrounding
landscape. The two phenomena most widely
utilized in finding and studying pluzinas are
shadow and snow marks.
According to Kuna et al. (2004), the methods
of surface surveying that are most widely used in
pluzina research are visual prospection and
geodetic-topographic surveys. Visual prospection
involves a simple surface survey, without a
detailed geodetic survey. (Černý (1973) mentions
this method as "historic-geographic prospection").
According to Moravec (2005), the objective of
visual prospection is to find the remnants of
disappeared medieval villages and their pluzinas
and to recapitulate, supplement and give precision
to the knowledge of their historical development.
Štěpánek (1967) notes that a pre-requisite for
successful visual prospection is the researcher's
good knowledge of terrain features and experience
with the studies medieval pluzinas.
As Moravec (2005) recapitulates, geodetictopographic surveys involve a detailed geodetic
survey, and the results are more effectively used in
other archaeological methods. Such a survey often
continues and develops a previous visual survey.
However, the high costs limit it to areas with
especially well preserved remnants of settlements.
Another limitation on these surveys is the
chronology of the objects. Although this problem
could be solved by archaeological excavations,
these usually cannot be made on the required scale.
Despite these limitations, this method contributes
significantly to our knowledge of the general
settlement pattern and the layout of medieval
villages and pluzinas.
6.3 Natural science methods
Moravec (2005) concludes that in the study of
pluzinas, archaeology joins forces with the natural
sciences, especially palaeobotany and soil science.
Soil science methods (such as phosphate analysis)
are also important in pluzina research. They are
based on the observation that the longer a plot is
farmed, the more humus and phosphates there are
in the soil. A transect measuring these
characteristics across the cadastre can therefore
determine the relative periods for which the
individual parts of the pluzina have/had been used.
This relative dating can then be supplemented by a
surface artefact survey or by radiocarbon dating of
the humus in lower parts of the soil profile, which
are beyond the reach of ploughing (Štěpánek,
1967).
7. Aspects of pluzina conservation
As the previous sections of this review strove to
illustrate, pluzinas provide ecological, aesthetic,
cultural and agronomic benefits, as well as being a
unique historical heritage. To summarize along
with Ewald (2001), "[pluzinas] are very impressive
and important elements of traditional cultural
landscapes in regard to their genesis, their value as
habitats and their scenic beauty".
Unfortunately, the last six decades saw a major
decrease in these historical field patterns
(Sklenička et. al, unpublished) and today, they are
among
the most threatened agricultural
landscapes. This situation is similar to that of
hedgerow landscapes in western Europe (e.g.,
Burel and Baudry, 1995). However, unlike the
situation in western Europe (Jongman and Pungetti,
1999), Czech pluzinas are not as yet legally
protected and there is growing concern (e.g.,
Ewald, 2001; Sklenička and Pittnerova, 2005 ) for
their conservation.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no
literature concerning major historical field pattern
restoration. The only documented case of current
large-scale hedgerow restoration is hedgerow
planting in Denmark (Kristensen and Caspersen,
2002; Busck, 2003), but this does not follow any
historical pattern.
One of the possible reasons for such an
omission is that, being cultural landscapes,
41
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
pluzinas fall among many disciplines (such as
landscape planning and architecture, landscape
history,
landscape
archaeology,
landscape
ecology), and as such do not fall under the sole
jurisdiction of any one of them. Moreover, there
are different stakeholder perspectives on pluzinas,
all of them having an important role to play in
ensuring that pluzina conservation is efficient
(Brabec, E., personal communication, 2004) – that
of the experts, that of the farmers and local
communities, and that of the general public who
come to the area seeking recreation (e.g.,
Oreszczyn, 2000).
7.1 The experts' perspective
The role of experts in pluzina conservation is to
promote scientific knowledge (as scientists) and to
transfer it into practice, both by creating and
upholding legal means of protection (as
conservation authorities), and by implementing
these in the planning process (as planners and
designers).
As was mentioned earlier, pluzinas are not yet
legally protected in the Czech Republic. Sklenička
et al (unpublished) consider that this is due to the
lack of relevant studies evaluating pluzina
landscapes in the entire area of the Czech Republic.
Following such research, a pluzina database should
be created and a conception of medieval field
pattern conservation should be defined.
As to the legal aspects of pluzina conservation,
Sklenička et al. (unpublished) recommend that
there is no need to define an entirely new legal
category, as there are currently two appropriate
categories included in two Czech acts. The
Landscape Zone category of the Cultural Heritage
Act is used for protecting culturally and historically
valuable parts of the landscape, while the Natural
Park category of the Nature and Landscape
Preservation Act is usually used for landscape
character conservation, which includes aesthetic,
natural, cultural and historical qualities of the
landscape (Vorel et. al., 2006). Sklenička et al
(unpublished) further recommend that larger
integrated pluzina landscapes be protected within
the Natural Park category and the smaller
landscapes as Landscape Zones.
The landscape planning tool best capable of
conserving pluzinas, and also of destroying them,
42
is land consolidation. In cadastres with especially
well-preserved pluzinas, Sklenička and Pittnerova
(2005) recommend that the aspects of pluzina
conservation be established as a priority, because
of the very small area of well preserved pluzina
landscapes. They further conclude that the
development of these areas and the design of
measures in soil conservation, flood control, traffic
systems, ecological networks, afforestation, and
land use type changes should be subordinated to
this concept.
One of the most important problems in cultural
landscape conservation is to determine the extent in
which to conserve, both geographically and in
terms of the qualities that need to be conserved.
Feliü (1994) notes that "the sample selected must
be substantial enough to adequately represent the
totality of the cultural landscape that it illustrates"
and that "it is important that due attention be paid
to the full range of values represented in the
landscape, both cultural and natural". In other
words, cultural landscapes should be protected in
their integrity. It is, however, not always
straightforward to establish the basis for this
integrity. Where pluzinas are concerned, Sklenička
et al. (unpublished) recommend that the original
spatial features of the medieval pattern should be
preserved.
The
experts' perspective
in
pluzina
conservation is often considered to be by far the
most important. Especially in the Czech landscape,
where land ownership was discontinued for 50
years and most of the farmland is still farmed on
the basis of rental, not ownership, it is very
important to introduce legislation and subsidies to
facilitate pluzina conservation (Sklenička et al.,
unpublished).
However, it is to be hoped that the role of the
farmer will once again become dominant – after
all, experts are merely visitors to the landscape
(Löw and Míchal, 2003) and it is farmers who
create it, unlike the authorities, the planners, or the
general public (Hnitka, 1999).
7.2 The perspective of farmers and other
members of local communities
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no
study evaluating how farmers and other members
of the local communities perceive pluzinas.
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
However, a general picture can be gained from
similar research done in hedgerow landscapes in
France and England (Burel and Baudry, 1995;
Orezsczyn and Lane, 2000).
The results of a survey done in Brittany
(France) by Burel and Baudry (1995) show that
views on hedgerows varied significantly between
farmers and local non-farmers. Whereas nonfarmers perceived hedgerows as important for
nature and particularly birds and flowers, or for
their visual aspects, and would perceive their
disappearance as catastrophic for the landscape,
according to farmers, only hedgerows on property
limits should be maintained and where hedgerows
disappear, the loss is balanced by benefits in their
activities. However, when both farmers and nonfarmers were shown pictures of landscapes with
different hedgerow densities, the landscape with
fewest hedgerows (which, however, still had much
more tree cover than the collectively farmed fields
in large parts of the Czech Republic) was
intensively disliked both by farmers and nonfarmers. There is a threshold in landscape opening
beyond which no one would want to go, as part of
the desire to belong to a particular kind of
landscape.
In their survey of different stakeholder
perspectives on hedgerows in the English
landscape, Oreszczyn and Lane (2000) found that
views on the importance of hedgerows did not vary
greatly between the farmers, the public and the
experts. All these groups perceived them as part of
the English cultural landscape. They were not just a
means of conserving biodiversity in the
countryside but a part of England's history and
national identity.
However, different groups appreciated
different aspects of hedgerows. For the farmers and
the local public, the landscape importance of
hedgerows was connected to their contribution to a
sense of place and the aesthetic and ephemeral
aspects of hedgerows in the landscape, whereas
experts considered landscape importance to relate
to the framework of the landscape or the structure
of the hedgerow. Differences were particularly
apparent when both groups determined hedgerows
of particular significance – the experts tried to
identify ideal or "key" hedgerows, whereas for the
farmers and locals, the most significant hedgerows
would be their own garden hedgerows and those
close to their homes, hedgerows remembered from
childhood and associated with local events.
Orezsczyn concludes that if hedgerow conservation
policies are to be successful, it is necessary to take
into account these differences and to communicate
with farmers and local communities through
participation programs.
Hnitka (1999) concludes that to preserve the
character of cultural landscapes, it is above all
necessary to protect the farmer and to make it
possible for him or her to farm in the landscape's,
i.e. the farmer’s, best interest. The farmer needs to
have enough information about his land, he needs
to be able to evaluate this information, and the
economic and social conditions must be suitable
for. According to Hnitka, it is only when the
farmer's lack of skill or momentary economic
conditions threaten to hinder his long-term interest
or the public interest that the use of legal measures
is warranted.
7.3 The general public's perspective
Increasingly, recreation is becoming a major
function of rural landscapes and an important
source of the local inhabitants' income. This trend
is even stronger in marginal areas, where pluzinas
are most often found. Therefore, the qualities of
pluzinas perceived as important by tourists, by
owners of summer houses and by other people
coming to the countryside for recreation are
becoming important for pluzina conservation.
These qualities are listed in section 5, which
describes the aesthetic values of pluzinas.
However, one set of values is particularly
important for pluzina conservation, and therefore
merits mentioning once more: the content values,
which, in our time, geographical area and culture,
arise from the ancient feeling of connection with
the landscape and the consciousness of the need to
conserve the landscape and its natural values
(Vorel, 1999). People tend to perceive cultural
landscapes as beautiful if they understand their
meaning as naturalistic, sustainable, wildlifefriendly, etc. As most people in the Czech Republic
are not familiar even with the term pluzina, there is
a wide range of opportunities to promote
conservation by educating the public on this
subject.
43
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
8. Future research directions
To use a Czech metaphor, pluzinas are an
"unploughed field", meaning that very little
specific research has been done on them so far.
Therefore, there are numerous opportunities open
for studies in various fields of specialization. Some
of the topics that need to be covered to facilitate
pluzina conservation are listed below.
Baudry et al, 2000, propose that a review of
hedgerow landscapes outside the Atlantic fringe
would be of great interest. This is also true of
Czech pluzinas, where, currently, only a few more
or less randomly discovered pluzinas are known to
the experts. A survey of pluzinas throughout the
Czech Republic should be carried out, using the
methods of aerial archaeology. Such a survey
would provide a better understanding of these
valuable field patterns and facilitate the
conservation of the best preserved examples.
Following such a study, a database of pluzinas
should be created and a concept for their
conservation should be defined.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been
no study evaluating how farmers and other
members of the local communities perceive
pluzinas. As it is an established axiom of cultural
landscape conservation that it can only be effective
if its object has a meaning for the local
communities (e.g. Orezsczyn and Lane, 2000), this
research gap will need to be filled early in the
process of creating a pluzina conservation
methodology.
It would also be interesting to test the function
of pluzinas as corridors and as habitats for wildlife,
as the results presented in section 6 concern
slightly different hedgerow-defined landscapes.
Last but not least, the functions of pluzinas in
stabilizing the landscape should be explored,
including their impact on soil erosion and water
retention in the landscape.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by grant No.1R44058
from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech
Republic "Restoration of non-productive functions
of rural landscape in the process of land
consolidation" and by grant No. 41190/1312/3151
from the Faculty of Environmental Studies, Czech
University of Life Sciences "Conservation and
44
restoration of historical landscape patterns". The
author owes special thanks to Robin Healey for his
useful advice on English language presentation.
References
Barnes, G., Williamson, T. 2006. Hedgerow History, Ecology,
History and Landscape Character. Windgather Press,
Bollington, UK.
Barr, C.J., Gillespie, M.K. 2000. Estimating hedgerow length
and pattern characteristics in Great
Britain
using
Countryside Survey data. Journal of Environmental
Management, 60: 23-32.
Bates, C.G.1937. The vegetation of wayside and hedgerow.
Journal of Ecology, 25: 469-481.
Baudry, J., Bunce, R.G.H., Burel, F. 2000. Hedgerows: An
international perspective on their origin, function and
management. Journal of Environmental Management, 60: 722.
Baudry, J., Burel, F., Aviron, S., Martin, M., Ouin, A., Pain, G.,
Thenail, C. 2003. Temporal variability of connectivity in
agricultural landscapes: do farming activities help?
Landscape Ecology, 18: 303-314.
Beneš, J., Hrubý, P., Michálek, J., Parkman, M. 1999. Kamenná
hrazení na Hořejším Vrchu a Kokovci u Vlachova Březí,
příspěvek ke studiu agrární krajiny Šumavského podhůří.
Zlatá stezka, 6: 271-296.
Beresford, M.W., St Joseph, J.K.S. 1958. Medieval England, An
Aerial Survey. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Burel, F. 1989. Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles’
spatial patterns in Western
France. Landscape Ecology, 6:
161-194.
Burel, F., Baudry, J. 1995. Social, aesthetic and ecological
aspects of hedgerows in rural landscapes as a framework for
greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33: 327-340.
Buschck, A.G. 2003. Hedgerow planting analyzed as a social
system – interaction between farmers and other actors in
Denmark. Journal of Environmental Management, 68: 161171.
Caubel-Forget, V., Grimaldi, C. 1999. Fonctionnement hydrique
et géochemique du talus de ceinture
de
bas-fond:
conséquences sur le transfert et le devenir des nitrates. In:
Actes du Colloque Bois et Forets des Agriculteurs. Editions
Cemagref, Paris.
Countryside Council for Wales. 1997. Action for Wildlife.
Biodiversity Action Plans: The Challenge in Wales.
Countryside Council for Wales, UK.
Čeliš, J.K. 1997. Člověk a krajina, duchovní aspekty. Z Českého
ráje a Podkrkonoší, supplementum 3: 175-184.
Černý, E. 1973. Metodika průzkumu zaniklých středověkých
osad a plužin na Drahanské vrchovině.
Československá
společnost archeologická při ČSAV Praha, Czech Republic.
Černý, E. 1979. Zaniklé středověké osady a jejich plužiny.
Metodika historicko-geografického průzkumu v oblasti
Drahanské vrchoviny, Academia, Praha, Czech Republic.
Černý, E. 1992. Výsledky výzkumu zaniklých středověkých
osad a jejich plužin. Historicko-geografická studie regionu
Drahanské vrchoviny. Muzejní a vlastivědná společnost,
Brno, Czech Republic.
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
Deckers, B., Kerselaers, E., Gulinck, H., Muys, B., Hermy, M.
2005.Long-term spatio-temporal dynamics of a hedgerow
network landscape in Flanders, Belgium. Foundation for
Environmental Conservation, 32: 20-29.
de la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J.A., de Lucio, J.V. 2006.
Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial
pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean–climate
landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77: 393-407.
Dohnal, M. 2003. Historická kulturní krajina v novověku, vývoj
vsi a plužiny v Borovanech u Bechyně. Ústav archeologické
památkové péče středních Čech, Praha, Czech Republic.
European Environment Agency. 1995. Europe’s Environment:
The Dobříš Assessment, Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Ewald, K.C. 2001. The neglect of landscape aesthetics in
landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 54: 255-266.
Feliü, C.A. 1994. Cultural landscapes. Ekistics, 364/365: 68-70.
Forman, R.T.T., Baudry, J. 1984. Hedgerows and hedgerow
network in landscape ecology. Environmental Management,
8: 499-510.
Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, USA
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics, The ecology of landscapes
and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Gojda, M., 2000. Archeologie krajiny – vývoj archetypů
kulturní krajiny. Academia, Praha, Czech Republic.
Hendrych, J. 1999. Krajinný ráz a historická krajina. In: Vorel,
I., Sklenička, P. (eds.) Péče o krajinný ráz, cíle a metody.
Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha, ČR, pp 54-59.
Hnitka, P. 1999. Krajinný ráz – obraz či rázovitost krajiny? In:
Vorel, I., Sklenička, P. (eds.) Péče o krajinný ráz, cíle a
metody. Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha, ČR, pp 32-37.
Hooper, M.D. 1970. Hedges and birds. Birds, 3: 114-117.
Hunziker, M. 1995. The spontaneous reafforestation in
abandoned agricultural lands: perception
and
aesthetic
assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 31: 399-410.
Jančura, P. 2004. Význam historických krajinných štruktúr v
krajinnom obraze a tvorbe krajiny. In: Jančura, P. (ed.)
Historické krajinné štruktúry vo vzťahu k vývoji
poľnohospodárského využívania zeme. Partner, Banská
Štiavnica, Slovak Republic, pp 4-15.
Jensen, M.1954. Shelter Effect: Investigations into the
Aerodynamics of Shelter and its Effect on Climate and
Crops. Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jongman, R.H.G., Pungetti, G. 2004. Conclusions: into the
twenty-first century. In: Jongman, R.H.G., Pungetti, G.
(eds.), Ecological Networks and Greenways, Concept,
Design, Implementation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp 290-300.
Kristensen, S.P., Caspersen, O.H. 2002. Analysis of changes in
a shelterbelt network landscape in central Jutland, Denmark.
Journal of Environmental Management, 66: 171-183.
Kristensen, S.L., Thenail, C., Kristensen, S.P. 2004. Landscape
changes in agrarian landscapes in the 1990s: the interaction
between farmers and the farmed landscape. A case study
from Jutland, Denmark. Journal of Environmental
Management, 71: 231-244.
Kuna, M. et. al. 2004. Non-destructive archaeology. Academia,
Praha, Czech Republic.
Láznička,
Z.,
1956.
Typy
venkovského
osídlení
v Československu. Nakladatelství ČSAV, Brno, Czech
Republic.
Levins, R. 1968. Evolution in Changing Environments.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.
Lipský, Z. 1999. Krajinná ekologie pro studenty geografických
oborů. Karolinum, Praha, Czech Republic.
Lipský, Z. 2000. Sledování změn v kulturní krajině. Česká
zemědělská univerzita, Praha, Czech Republic.
Löw, J., Míchal, I., 2003. Krajinný ráz. Lesnická práce,
Kostelec nad Černými lesy, Czech Republic.
Marshall, E.J.P., Moonen, A.C. 2002. Field margins in Northern
Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 89: 5-21.
McCollin, D. 2000. Editorial: Hedgerow policy and protection –
changing paradigms and conservation ethics. Journal of
Environmental Management, 60: 4-7.
Mérot, P. 1999. The influence of hedgerow systems on the
hydrology of agricultural catchments in a temperate climate.
Agronomie, 19: 655-669.
Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental characteristic of
landscape pattern. In: Brandt, J., Agger, P. (eds.),
Proceedings of the First International Seminar on
Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and
Planning (Vol. 1). Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeoRuc,
Roskilde, Denmark, pp 5-15.
Middleton, J. D., Merriam, G. 1983. Distribution of woodland
species in farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 20: 625644.
Moravec, M. 2005. Archeologie středověké plužiny. Bakalářská
práce, Katedra archeologie Západočeské Univerzity, Plzeň,
Czech Republic.
Muir, R. 2004. Landscape Encyclopaedia: A Reference Guide to
the Historic Landscape. Windgather Press, Bollington, UK.
Navrátil, V. 1986. Uspořádání sídla a plužiny – pramen
k dějinám osídlení úzce vymezeného regionu, Historická
geografie, 25: 53-96.
Nováček, K., Vařeka, P. 2000. Archeologie středověké vesnice,
středověký vesnický dům, archeologie novověké vesnice.
http://www.kar.zcu.cz/texty/archeologie_stredoveke_vesnice
_htm.
Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A. 2000. The meaning of hedgerows in the
English landscape: Different stakeholder perspectives and
the implications for future hedgerow management. Journal of
Environmental Management, 60: 101-118.
Oreszczyn, S. 2000. A system approach to the research of
people’s relationships with English hedgerows. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 50: 107-117.
Petrů, J. 1999. K historickám a kulturním hodnotám v péči o
krajinu. In: Vorel, I., Sklenička, P. (eds.) Péče o krajinný ráz,
cíle a metody. Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha.
Pichancourt, J., Burel, F., Auger, P. 2006. Assessing the effect
of habitat fragmentation on population dynamics: An implicit
modelling approach. Ecological Modelling, 192: 543-556.
Plieninger, T., Höchtl, F., Spek, T. 2006. Traditional land-use
and nature conservation in European rural landscapes.
Environmental Science Policy, 9: 317-321.
Pollard, E., Hooper, M.D., Moore, N.W. 1974. Hedges. Collins,
London, UK.
Pregill, P., Volkman, N. 1999. Landscape in History. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, USA
Rao, M.R., Mafongoya, P.L., Kwesiga, F.R., Maghembe, J.A.
1999. Nutrient cycling in agroforestry systems of the semiarid tropics of Africa. Ann. Arid Zone, 38: 275-307.
Sádlo, J., Pokorný, P., Hájek, P., Dreslerová, D., Cílek, V. 2005.
Krajina a revoluce, významné přelomy ve vývoji kulturní
krajiny českých zemí. Malá skála, Praha, Czech Republic.
45
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
Schmucki, R., De Blois, S., Bouchard, A., Domon, G. 2002.
Spatial and temporal dynamics of hedgerows in three
agricultural landscapes of southern Quebec, Canada.
Environmental Management, 30: 651-664.
Simonds, J.O. 1961. Landscape Architecture, The shaping of
man's natural environment. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA
Sklenička, P. 2003. Základy krajinného plánování. Naděžda
Skleničková, Praha, ČR.
Sklenička, P., Pixova, K. 2004. Importance of spatial
heterogeneity to landscape planning and management.
Ekologia, 23: 320-329.
Sklenička, P., Pittnerová, B. 2005. Pozemkové úpravy v
územích s dochovanou středověkou plužinou. Pozemkové
úpravy, 51: 19-20.
Sklenička, P. 2006. Applying evaluation criteria for the land
consolidation effect to three contrasting study areas in the
Czech Republic. Land Use Policy, 23: 502-510.
Slámová, M. 2004. Cesty k historickým krajinným
štruktúrám.In: Jančura, P. (ed.), Historické krajinné štruktúry
vo vzťahu k vývoji poľnohospodárského využívania zeme.
Partner, Banská Štiavnica, Slovak Republic, pp111-115.
Smetánka, Z. 1991. Campus Iuxta Suadow et iuxta Colasoy et
iuxta Hriunatecz 9. K otázce systému obdělávání polí
v raném středověku). Studia Mediaevalia Pragensia 2: 105115.
Štěpánek, M. 1967. Plužina jako pramen dějin osídlení
(Příspěvky k dějinám osídlení 1). Československý časopis
historický, XV: 247-274.
TangYa, Zhang, Y.Z., Xie, J.S., Hui, S. 2003. Incorporation of
mulberry in contour hedgerows to increase overall benefits: a
case study from Ningnan County, Sichuan Province, China.
Agronomic Systems, 76: 775-785.
Thenail, C. 2002. Relationships between farm characteristics
and the variation of the density of hedgerows at the level of a
micro-region of bocage landscape. Study case in Brittany,
France. Agronomic Systems, 71: 207-230.
Ucar, T., Hall, F.R. 2001. Windbreaks as pesticide drift
mitigation strategy: a review. Pest Management Science, 57:
663-675.
Vorel, I. 1999. Prostorové vztahy a estetické hodnoty. In: Vorel,
I., Sklenička, P. (eds.), Péče o krajinný ráz, cíle a metody.
Vydavatelství ČVUT, Praha, ČR, pp 20-27.
Vorel, I., Bukáček, R., Matějka, P., Culek, M., Sklenicka, P.
2006. A Method for Assessing the Visual Impact on
Landscape Character of Proposed Construction, Activities or
Changes in Land Use. Centre for Landscape, Prague, Czech
Republic.
Watt, T.A., Buckley, G.P. (eds.). 1994. Hedgerow Management
and Nature Conservation. Wye College Press, Wye, UK.
Wilmot, H. 1980. Special reference to age of hedges in Church
Broughton Parish, Derbyshire. Journal of Ecology, 68: 269285.
Yahner, R.H. 1983. Avian use of vertical structures and
plantings in farmstead shelterbelts. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 46: 50-60.
46
K. Molnárová: Journal of Landscape Studies 1 (2008), 27 – 47
Apendix A: Overview of Czech and English terms specific to the Czech cultural landscape as used in this
dissertation. The terms for village types are adapted from Beresford and St Joseph (1958). As there is no parallel
to pluzinas in the English language literature, the terms describing these have been created by Sklenička et al.
(unpublished research).
Plužina
pluzina
-úseková
segmental pluzina
-nepravá traťová
pseudo-sectional pluzina
-traťová
sectional pluzina
-délková
lineic pluzina
-záhumenicová
croft pluzina
ves hromadná
cluster-village
-návesní
green-village
-ulicového (silničního) typu
street-village
-návesního ulicového typu
street-green-village
-lesní lánová
forest-hide-village
-rozptýlená
nebular village
zemědělská soustava
field system
-žárová
cyclic burning field system
-přílohová
two-field system
-trojpolní
three-field system
-střídavá (čtyřpolní)
four-field system
stará sídelní oblast
Old Settlement Area
lán
hide of land
lokace
location
lokátor
locator
trať (plužiny)
section (of a pluzina)
záhony
ridge and furrow
parcela
field
mezní pás
field margin
souvrať
headland
stabilní katastr
stable cadastre
berní rula
taxation rule
urbář panství
manor land inventory
pozemková kniha
land inventory book
pozemková listina
land inventory document
Tereziánský katastr
Theresian cadastre
Josefský katastr
Josephian cadastre
47