• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Post Medieval land use and vegetation change in upland Ribblesdale, Yorkshire Dales, UK [Helen Shaw]
 

Post Medieval land use and vegetation change in upland Ribblesdale, Yorkshire Dales, UK [Helen Shaw]

on

  • 713 views

Post Medieval land use and vegetation change in upland Ribblesdale, Yorkshire Dales, UK. Presented by Helen Shaw at the "Perth II: Global Change and the World's Mountains" conference in Perth, ...

Post Medieval land use and vegetation change in upland Ribblesdale, Yorkshire Dales, UK. Presented by Helen Shaw at the "Perth II: Global Change and the World's Mountains" conference in Perth, Scotland in September 2010.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
713
Views on SlideShare
713
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Post Medieval land use and vegetation change in upland Ribblesdale, Yorkshire Dales, UK [Helen Shaw] Post Medieval land use and vegetation change in upland Ribblesdale, Yorkshire Dales, UK [Helen Shaw] Presentation Transcript

    • Post Medieval land use and vegetation change in upland Ribblesdale, Yorkshire Dales, UK. Helen Shaw and Ian Whyte Lancaster Environment Centre Lancaster University
    • Research Rationale “Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history” (MEA, 2005). Very little if any land in Europe is natural. “Traditional agricultural knowledge commonly promotes sustainable production systems” (MEA 2005 Mountain Systems p683) CBD use traditional knowledge where “relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”MEA 2005: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspxArticle 8(j): Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practiceshttp://www.cbd.int/traditional/
    • Two major caveats Generalised view at global scale. (Need to scale down to the local or regional environment to understand relevance) Ecology and traditional management are both driven by processes with adaptation strategies as change occurs. (We need to understand impacts and dynamics at a local scale). … and a question! How much do we really know about the impact of traditional management on biodiversity – is it sustainable?
    • Research Use palaeoecology and landscape history to determine vegetation change and likely drivers of that change  Examining post-medieval landscape change in upland England  Aims driven by  lack of long-term data in ecology for conservation management  lack of data on impacts of traditional management  need to understand ecological dynamics
    • Palaeoecology/Palynology method Pollen residue Send to Peat Core lab for 14C dating Data output and interpretation
    • Source area, pollen-vegetation and depth- time relationships Local Regional Local TIMEQuantity of apollen type as apercentage oftotal pollencounted Peat/Sediment Core Small hollows provide proxies for local vegetationJacobson & Bradshaw 1981. Quat. Res., 16, 80-96.
    • Several local scale sites can illustrate variance in landscape through space and time.
    • English uplands: Cultural landscapes What is traditional management?Is traditional management relevant to sustaining biodiversity?
    • Case study area: Ribblesdale100 km British National Grid Squares Ribblesdale Area Map Ribblehead catchment area between the mountains of Ingleborough (724m) and Pen y Ghent (694m) Ingleborough National Nature Reserve
    • Wife Parkcore
    • Pollen-vegetation relationship Grasses (P= 0.001) Sedges (P=0.001) 50.0 100.0 45.0 90.0 80.0 40.0 70.0 35.0Grass pollen % NAP Sedge % pollen nap 60.0 30.0 50.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Sedges vegetation % cover Grass % vegetation cover Herbs (P=0.015) Heaths (P=0.2(ns) P=0.001 (2 outliers removed)) 45.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 Heaths percentage NAP 35.0 Herb pollen % nap 30.0 30.0 25.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Herb vegetation % cover Heaths % vegetation cover to 50m
    • Wife Park Age-depth Model 14C dates at 20cm and 40cm and SCP curve rise in 1950’s peak c. 1979 Wife Park age-depth model depth (cm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2000 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron] 600BP SUERC-27859 : 230±30BP Wife Park SCP curve 68.2% probability Radiocarbon determination 1640AD (35.8%) 1670AD 400BP 1780AD (26.0%) 1800AD 1940AD ( 6.4%) 1960AD SCPs (as a percentage of pollen) 95.4% probability 1900 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 200BP 1630AD (44.7%) 1690AD 1730AD (39.5%) 1810AD 1930AD (11.3%) 1960AD 5 0BP -200BP 10 1800 Depth (cm) 15 20 1400CalAD 1600CalAD 1800CalAD 2000CalAD Calibrated date 1700Years cal.AD 25 30 1600 35 1500 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron] 900BP SUERC-27860 : 700±30BP 68.2% probability Radiocarbon determination 800BP 1270AD (61.7%) 1300AD 1370AD ( 6.5%) 1380AD 700BP 95.4% probability 1400 600BP 1260AD (76.3%) 1310AD 1350AD (19.1%) 1390AD 500BP 400BP 1300 1100CalAD 1200CalAD 1300CalAD 1400CalAD 1500CalAD 1200 Calibrated date
    • Wife Park summary pollen data Percentage of total land pollen 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1408 1451 1495 1538 1582 1625 1669 1712 1756 1799 1830 1883 1937 1961 1977 1982 1988 1995 2001 2007 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 ConiferousDepth (cm)/Time years AD 8-9 trees 10-10.5 Broadleaved 12-12.5 trees Shrubs 14-14.5 16-16.5 Heaths 18-18.5 20-20.5 Herbs 22-22.5 24-24.5 Wild grasses 26-26.5 28-28.5 Grass pollen annulus >8μm 30-30.5 Sedges 32-32.5 34-34.5 36-36.5 38-38.5
    • Wife Park summary pollen data (nap) Percentage of total non arboreal pollen 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1408 1451 1495 1538 1582 1625 1669 1712 1756 1799 1830 1883 1937 1961 1977 1982 1988 1995 2001 2007 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7Depth (cm)/Time years AD Heaths 8-9 10-10.5 12-12.5 Herbs 14-14.5 16-16.5 18-18.5 Wild grasses 20-20.5 22-22.5 24-24.5 Grass pollen 26-26.5 annulus >8μm 28-28.5 30-30.5 Sedges 32-32.5 34-34.5 36-36.5 38-38.5
    • Wife Park possible management impacts in pollen data Percentage of total land pollen Fluctuations in and loss of CAP sedge abundance –Depth (cm)/Time years AD influence of drainage? Decline in timber trees reported in Manor of Newby records from end of 17th Century after a period of poor commons management Enclosure began (stinted pastures) - sheep and cattle End of Monastic period (sheep ranching and stud farms)
    • Conclusions 1 No period of stasis in management Large shifts in biodiversity/structural diversity occurred prior to 50 years ago. Shrub land and woodland was part of the pre-enclosed landscape and was part of the traditional resource now lost – adaptation. Wetlands or wet grasslands have been lost since 1900s. Amelioration of prior drainage schemes may need to be implemented on the slopes as well as the mountain tops. We should not assume that traditional is sustainable – just adaptable – to limits!
    • Conclusions 2 Need to improve understanding of the variation of traditional management through time and the consequent impacts on ecosystems. Traditional managers can have valuable knowledge – but it can be time limited! For example – most of the farmers in the uplands of the UK today have had training in the agricultural colleges of the 1960’s and 1970’s when land improvement and drainage schemes were the norm.
    • h.e.shaw@lancaster.ac.uk i.whyte@lancaster.ac.uk Acknowledgements: Research funded by the Leverhulme Trust Conference attendance supported by UKRC Travel Bursary schemeThanks to farmers, land owners, Natural England, Yorkshire DalesNational Park Authority and Yorkshire Dales Wildlife Trust for land access. POLLANDCAL and LANDCLIM networks