4.3 Article

Contrasting local and regional Holocene histories of Abies alba in the Czech Republic in relation to human impact: Evidence from forestry, pollen and anthracological data

期刊

HOLOCENE
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 431-444

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0959683610385721

关键词

Abies alba; charcoal analysis; forest management; human impact; Medieval; pollen analysis

资金

  1. Czech Ministry of the Environment [MSM 6293359101]
  2. Czech Academy of Sciences [IAAX 00020701]
  3. Czech Ministry of Education [MSM0021620828]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After the last glaciation, around 4000 bc, silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) spread to the area that is now the Czech Republic. This spread was not restricted to high mountains, but also took place across both highland and lowland landscapes. Historical forestry records from around AD 1500 mention a massive expansion of Abies alba, favoured by forest pasturing, litter raking and selective tree cutting. According to the current interpretation of these historical records, this expansion in Czech forests was extensive and lasted until AD 1800. On the other hand, pollen data coming mostly from the Alps consider silver fir as a species that is extremely sensitive to human impact. In this paper, we compare historical forestry reports with pollen and charcoal data from the Czech Republic. Both pollen and charcoal records show that Abies alba reached its maximum during the Bronze (2200-800/750 BC) and Iron Ages (800/750 BC-AD 0). While charcoal records indicate that silver fir wood was important also during the High Medieval, pollen data show that the High Medieval and Modern times were periods of a general decline in Abies. Our data suggest that the expansion of silver fir documented by historical records was not general but rather fragmented, probably according to actual form and the intensity of human impact, as well as environmental conditions. These historical records have contributed much evidence regarding the wider ecological tolerance of Abies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据