Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

Is there a reliable correlation between hedgerow density and agricultural site conditions?
Jochen Kantelhardt , Elisabeth Osinski, Alois Heissenhuber
Chair of Agricultural Economics, Center of Life and Food Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Alte Akademie 14, 85350 Freising, Germany

Abstract The aim of this study was to determine whether the number of landscape elements and site conditions are reliably associated. As example, we considered the distribution of hedgerows on sites of varying agricultural quality. Experiments were carried out on two spatial levels: the rst as the natural unit, characterised as a region having nearly homogeneous site conditions; the second as the entire area of Baden-Wuerttemberg, comprising various natural units. The association between ecological and economic information was analysed statistically. We observed that a considerable correlation between agricultural site quality and hedgerow density (0.63) existed only on the spatial level of the natural unit, but here exclusively in the case of the less-favoured natural unit. In contrast, no such correlation was found on the spatial level of a federal state (Baden-Wuerttemberg). Although there is still a need for improving indicator deriving processes these results indicate that agri-environmental programmes concerning biotope protection would be best implemented on an administrative level, whose size and landscape homogeneity is comparable to that of the natural units. 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Agricultural site quality; Agri-environmental indicators; Hedgerow density; Subsidiary principle

1. Introduction The present cultural-heritage landscape is mainly shaped by agriculture, whereby most of the land in middle Europe is under agricultural use and therefore strongly inuenced by farming practices. Only a small percentage of the middle European land remains unused and has, consequently, a semi-natural character; this includes, e.g. landscape elements such as hedgerows and eld edges. However, such elements also depend on agricultural land use (i.e. if land adjacent hedgerows remains unused, the hedgerows would
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-8161-71-4046; fax: +49-8161-71-4426. E-mail address: kantelhardt@wzw.tum.de (J. Kantelhardt).

develop into a forest). Therefore, it can be said, on the whole, that agriculture plays a multifunctional role: it produces not only food, but also maintains landscapes and biotopes, and consequently contributes to biodiversity (Heissenhuber and Lippert, 2000; OECD, 2001). The role of agriculture in maintaining landscape elements is certainly not similar for every region. It depends on the respective site conditions, so that the general improvement of site conditions leads to more intensive land use (Fig. 1, Henrichsmeyer, 1977, p. 173). Consequently, a general decrease of landscape elements in favoured regions will result. In addition, nutrients and pesticides of intensive agriculture threaten still-existing landscape elements, whereas in marginal (or less-favoured) regions, the

0167-8809/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00110-5

518

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

Fig. 1. Economic aspect of biotope protection dependent upon agricultural site conditions.

density of landscape elements will be higher. Landscape elements are also threatened in the latter, since agricultural prots are generally low and land use may be given up at all. Approaches to protect landscape elements must be differentiated in respect to different existing threats. Thus, securing land use becomes important for regions used extensively, whereas for intensively used regions, it is necessary to reduce management intensity. The intensication of land use taking place in the last decades has caused a reduction of landscape elements, considered from an agricultural viewpoint, mainly in the more favourable regions (SRU, 1985). The goal of our study was therefore to determine the statistical association between landscape elements and site conditions, based on empirical data. The distribution of hedgerows in Baden-Wuerttemberg

is used as example (cf. Osinski, 2003). Hedgerows are known to decisively shape landscapes in southern Germany. Likewise, there are regions completely lacking hedgerows, irrespective of prevailing site conditions. In such regions, the presence of hedgerows was never important (i.e. avoiding erosion, collecting and removal of stones from arable land); this applies, e.g. to permanent grassland regions. Hedgerows are thus of high value for the agro-ecosystem. This applies not only to isolated hedgerows, which are important for different plant (see Schulze and Reif, 1984) and insect communities (Stechmann, 1984), but in particular to hedgerow complexes and networks (see Baudry et al., 2000), including hedgerows and adjacent grassland or farmland. Such complexes are also important habitats for wild birds (Heusinger, 1984) or other species types (see references in Baudry et al., 2000).

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

519

Fig. 2. Landscapes and selected natural units in Baden-Wuerttemberg.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. The study region Baden-Wuerttemberg and two examples of natural units The study region Baden-Wuerttemberg is one of the German federal states situated in the southwest of Germany. It is approximately 35,000 km2 in size (Fig. 2) and is subdivided into 1111 communities. Regarded from an agricultural viewpoint, Baden-Wuerttemberg shows a wide variance in site and production conditions. It can be divided into several, clearly distinguishable main landscapes (Fig. 2, cf. Osinski, 2003) and further subdivided into various natural units, characterized by a nearly homogenous land use. Natural units better suited for agricultural purposes are nowadays dominated by intensively used elds

(e.g. Rhine valley, Kraichgau). The less-favourable natural units, situated predominantly in mountainous areas (e.g. the Black Forest, the Swabian Jura), are used as grassland interspersed with arable land. In addition to examining the federal state BadenWuerttemberg, this study also focuses on two natural units, Kraichgau and the Swabian Jura. The natural unit Kraichgau is a highly productive area in the northwest of Baden-Wuerttemberg, approximately 1600 km2 in size and comprising 83 communities.1 The agricultural land in Kraichgau is composed primarily of loess soil having a high production
1 Because natural and administrative conditions do not coincide, some of the communities not belong completely to the natural unit.

520

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

Table 1 Database used for deriving indicators in Baden-Wuerttemberg Derived GIS map Area of hedgerowbiotope complexes Type of land use (agriculture, forest, etc.) Production potentiala community size Average eld size
a b

Resolution 1:25,000

Database Biotope mapping (Biotopkartierung) Baden-Wuerttemberg Satellite image classication Statistical database of Baden-Wuerttemberg Aerial photo classication 1993

Reference Landesanstalt fuer Umweltschutz 80er Jahre (Hoell and Breunig, 1995) Institut fuer Photogrammetrie und Fernerkundung, 1993b Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Wuerttemberg, 1991c Fichtner et al., 1994

30 m 30 m Community 1 km 1 km

Production potential: average value per community (German: Ertragsmesszahl, EMZ). Institut fuer Photogrammetrie und Fernerkundung, Universitaet Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe: Erstellung einer Landnutzungskarte des Landes Baden-Wuerttemberg. Abschlussbericht im Auftrag des MLR Baden-Wuerttemberg, unpublished. c Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Wuerttemberg, 1991. Struktur- und Regionaldatenbank.

potential. In order to avoid erosion, the land was shaped into terraces. Thus, the appearance of shrubs and bushes on the edges of the terraces occurred (compare to Kleyer, 1991). Due to land consolidation measurements, these landscape elements were drastically reduced and are now restricted to some parts of Kraichgau. The second natural unit, the middle part of the Swabian Jura (Fig. 2), is a less-favoured region located in the central-southern aspect of BadenWuerttemberg; its area is approximately 1100 km2 and comprises 43 communities.1 The Swabian Jura is characterised by soils originating from limestone, locally shallow and dry. In the past, stones which surfaced during ploughing were collected and relocated to the eld margins, whereupon hedgerows developed. Although land consolidation has removed some hedgerows, many still remain. 2.2. Methodology for deriving indicators Generally, indicators should quantify information and simplify complex phenomena (see Brouwer and Crabtree, 1999). Further, indicators should always be based on data readily available or that which can be easily obtained. In order to derive indicators that describe site conditions, as well as hedgerow density, it is also necessary to consider the corresponding spatial distribution. Therefore, a geographical information system (GIS) is applied. A GIS is a tool to produce maps for planning purposes, documentation and decision nding (Bill,

1996). Resulting maps and corresponding database are shown in Table 1. Maps were derived as follows: The area comprising the hedgerow complexes was derived from the biotope mapping data of Baden-Wuerttemberg, whereby the complexes consist of hedgerows and the agricultural area in between. A maximum inter-hedgerow-distance of 300 m was dened (Osinski, 2003). The predominant land use within the hedgerow complexes was analysed based on a satellite image classication (detailed description of methodology refers to Osinski, 2003). The site-specic production potential is based on the Ertragsmesszahl (EMZ). This index is used to classify the productivity of the German agricultural surface. The data is derived from a land-wide soil evaluation conducted in the year 1934 and corrected by some site-specic factors. The highest index value is 100, reecting the best soil in Germany (Bauer, 1993). For purposes of statistical analysis in this study, the average yield index was calculated per community. The average eld size was based on an aerial photo classication (Fichtner et al., 1994). For this analysis the entire area of Baden-Wuerttemberg was subdivided in 1 km2 grids and, for each grid, the average eld width was estimated (<50, 50100, 100200 and >200 m). In a second step the eld width was transformed to eld sizes, whereby the corresponding eld size classes were assumed to be <1, 12, 25 and >10 ha.

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527 Table 2 Selected ecological and economic indicators on community level in Baden-Wuerttemberg Indicator Hedgerow density Production potential Field size Agricultural site quality Description (or parameterisation) of indicators

521

Area of hedgerow complexes in the (community (ha)/community size (ha)) 100 Average production potential per community (calculated on basis of the entire agricultural land in the community) Average eld size per community (calculated on basis of the agricultural land belonging to biotope complexes) Indicator combining production potential and eld size per community (indicator derived with the help of a regression equation)

The indicators actually used in the study were derived by overlaying the different GIS maps (Table 2) and determining a common spatial resolution. Since the municipality was the lowest common data resolution, all other databases having different resolution such as square kilometre (average eld size) and irregular single polygons of various sizes (hedgerow complexes) were adapted to that resolution. Four indicators were used in the present study (Table 2) and dened as follows: The hedgerow density (by area percentage of hedgerow complexes per community) indicates the ecological quality of the landscapes under consideration. The agricultural site conditions are described using two indicators: eld size and production potential, both being of economic relevance for land use. Thus, it is apparent that eld size inuences machine costs, and that production potential determines prot level (compare to Wechselberger, 2000; Burgmaier et al., 1997). Attention should be directed to the fact that the indicator eld size exclusively refers to particular eld sizes included in the hedgerow complexes. The fourth indicator, agricultural site quality, which was subsequently developed in the study, combines ecological and economic information. 2.3. Testing the correlation between hedgerow density and site conditions The hypothesis that site conditions and hedgerow density are associated was tested with a bivariate correlation analysis using the Pearsons correlation coefcient. The test is run on the spatial level of Baden-Wuerttemberg, as well as on the level of the natural units (Table 3).

In the following step, an indicator combining economic and ecological information was developed and which was applied in a multiple linear regression analysis considering site conditions and hedgerow density. Field size and production potential were dened as independent variables. The dependent variable was hedgerow density. If the resulting R2 approached 1.00, then the site conditions could reliably describe the hedgerow density, and the regression equation could be used in the study region as an indicator for hedgerow density. The indicator was designated agricultural site quality. Furthermore, the extent to which the attributes of the natural units contributed in explaining the distribution of hedgerow density in Baden-Wuerttemberg was also studied. Here, the natural unit itself was introduced as independent variable (in addition to eld size and production potential) into the regression analysis by integrating the natural units into the regression equation as dummy variables, with the possible values 0 and 1.
Table 3 Statistical approaches for testing indicators Spatial level Correlation analysis Regression analysis Hedgerow density Field size Production potential Swabian Jura Kraichgau Hedgerow density Field size Production potential

Bundesland (Baden-Wuerttemberg) Dependent variable Hedgerow density Independent variables Field size Production potential

Natural Units (Swabian Jura, Kraichgau) Dependent variable Hedgerow density Independent variables Field size Production potential

522

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

Fig. 3. Scatter data plot of hedgerow density (per community) and average production potential (per community).

3. Results Fig. 3 is a scatter data plot of hedgerow density (on the basis of hedgerow complexes) and production potential. No clear association could be found between these two factors if hedgerow density was <10%. This nding could be explained by the observation that in many communities of Baden-Wuerttemberg, hedgerows are not important due to the lack of functional signicance (i.e. avoidance of erosion). These additional data points (Fig. 3) interfered with the correlation analysis. If hedgerow density exceeded 10%, a correlation appeared as within this area most of the communities are characterised by a low production potential. The communities belonging to the two natural units chosen as study region (the Swabian Jura and Kraichgau) are also shown here. As expected, the mean hedgerow density in the Swabian Jura communities was higher than those in Kraichgau. Considering these data (Fig. 3) it may be assumed that a correlation between hedgerow density and production potential in the Swabian Jura exists at best, and which is absent in Baden-Wuerttemberg and Kraichgau; this assumption was corroborated by statistical analysis (Table 4), namely, that hedgerow

density is associated with production potential with 0.63 (see Table 5). In contrast to that on the level of Baden-Wuerttemberg, the correlation between production potential and hedgerow density is weaker (0.11). In Kraichgau the correlation is not signicant at a 95% signicance level. The correlation between eld size and hedgerow density was with maximally 0.39 in the case of the Swabian Jura generally weaker than that between production potential and hedgerow density, or showed an inverse relationship: in both Kraichgau (0.31) and Baden-Wuerttemberg (0.21) with increasing eld size an increasing hedgerow density occurred.
Table 4 Correlation (signicance) between hedgerow density and production potential or eld size Region Correlation between hedgerow density and Production potentiala Baden-Wuerttemberg Swabian Jura Kraichgau 0.11 (0.00) 0.63 (0.00) 0.20 (0.08) Field size 0.21 (0.00) 0.39 (0.01) 0.31 (0.01)

a Based on Ertragsmesszahl, EMZ (production potential, see Section 2).

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527 Table 5 Regression equation for selected regions to explain hedgerow density Region Baden-Wuerttemberg (Case I)a Field size Production potential Baden-Wuerttemberg (Case II)b Swabian Jura Field size Production potential Kraichgau Middle Swabian Juraa Production potential Field size Kraichgaua Field size Independent variables Coefcients 4.76c 0.82 0.06 3.90c 11.82 0.69 0.05 1.67 60.74c 0.96 3.71 1.77c 0.97 0.18 0.000 R2 0.06

523

Signicance 0.000

0.51 0.09

0.000 0.005

Dependent variable (variable to explain): hedgerow density. a Possible independent variables (variables to enter): eld size, production potential. b Additional possible independent variables (variables to enter): natural unit Middle Swabian Jura, natural unit Kraichgau. c Constant.

The overall of regarding the association between hedgerow density and production potential are shown in Fig. 4. Hedgerows in the Swabian Jura are situated in places where the agricultural site conditions are less favoured, especially in the western part of the region (Fig. 4, upper panel). As expected, hedgerow density in Kraichgau is lower than that in the Swabian Jura, but no clear correlation to site conditions was present. Other factors not considered here might play important roles. By applying regression equations, we have conrmed the estimation of hedgerow density by factors of agricultural site conditions (Table 5). In the Baden-Wuerttemberg (Case I in Table 5) and Kraichgau regions, the site conditions indicators, eld size and production potential, could explain only 6 and 9% of the hedgerow density, respectively (compare R2 , Table 5). In contrast, over 50% of the hedgerow density was explained in the Middle Swabian Jura. As already indicated by the correlation analyses, the regions Baden-Wuerttemberg, Middle Swabian Jura and Kraichgau differed in respect to the coefcients of the regression equation. In the Middle Swabian Jura, there was a clear negative correlation between hedgerow density and agricultural site conditions. In contrast, within the more productive Kraichgau region, the hedgerow density increased with increasing eld

size and not decreased as it would have been perhaps expected. The independent variable, production potential, was excluded from the regression analysis due to lack of signicance. Further, in the entire area of Baden-Wuerttemberg, eld size and hedgerow density were inversely correlated. It can be stated that agricultural site qualities as an indicator for hedgerow density could only be conrmed in the natural unit Middle Swabian Jura. This nding supports the assumption that natural units themselves or their attributes play a signicant role in explaining hedgerow density. We could conrm this assumption by introducing the natural units themselves into the regression analysis (see Baden-Wuerttemberg, Case II in Table 5); both the Swabian Jura and Kraichgau regions become part of the solution. However, the Swabian Jura appears to be a more important factor in explaining hedgerow densities. Taken together, the solution (R2 ) increases from 6 to 18% by considering both natural units. Lastly, we studied the contribution of an additional variable, product of eld size and production potential, in explaining hedgerow densities. According to the assumption of a mutually increasing effect of eld size and production potential on hedgerow density, this last variable was included in

524

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

Fig. 4. Distribution of hedgerow biotopes in the natural units Middle Swabian Jura and Kraichgau (Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany).

the regression equation. However, no effects on the R2 were observed. The result of the regression is shown in Fig. 5. As example, the region showing the highest correlation between agricultural site quality and hedgerow densitythe Middle Swabian Jurawas chosen. It

becomes clear that in this natural unit, the actual hedgerow density could be thoroughly explained by both the eld size and production potential. Hence, the following truth arises: the higher the agricultural site quality within a given community, the lower the hedgerow density observed therein.

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

525

Fig. 5. Relation of hedgerow density and agricultural site quality in the natural unit Middle Swabian Jura.

4. Discussion The aim of the present study was to determine a reliable association between agricultural site conditions and density of hedgerow complexes, on the spatial level of a German federal state and two of its natural units. However, this could not be reached on all spatial levels using the indicators eld size and production potential. A clear correlation could be only found in the less-favoured natural unit Middle Swabian Jura. These results agree with those of Reif et al. (1982), who demonstrated that the highest rates of hedgerow densities occurred in Muschelkalk and Jurassic limestone landscapes in Bavaria, which are comparable to the Swabian Jura. On the level of the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, as well as within the favoured natural unit Kraichgau, only a weak correlation existed. Hedgerow density cannot be thus generally associated with agricultural site conditions. Nonetheless, as the positive contribution of the natural units themselves to the regression equation show, other factors appeared to be highly correlated with the natural units themselves and seem to be important. One such possible factor could

be the relief, as reported for the Muschelkalk and Keuper sandstone regions by Reif et al. (1982). However, historical aspects may have also a high impact. Our study further shows that in especially intensively used regions, only few hedges still exist. This might be an effect of the land consolidation process that begun in the 1950s (Reif et al., 1982), where nearly half of the hedgerows were removed from agricultural landscapes. Remaining landscapes containing hedgerow biotopes are dissimilar in site qualities. Consequently, efforts to protect remaining hedgerow biotopes by implementing a single programme over the entire area of Baden-Wuerttemberg are likely to fail. In the case of the Middle Swabian Jura, for example, the attainable agricultural income is low. Hence, land use is in danger of being abandoned. European policies should therefore aim to protect existing hedgerows, maintain agricultural land use and keep it extensive. Since there is a high and signicant correlation between hedgerow density and site conditions, the indicator agricultural site quality could be applied in this natural unit as a basis for an agri-environmental programme. Subsidies could

526

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527

be thus granted according to agricultural site conditions, with the goal of maintaining land use and consequently preserving hedgerows. This principle is practised in the eco-point programme, an agri-environmental programme in lower Austria (see Niederoesterreichische Agrarberichtsbehoerde, 1999). In contrast, no correlation between site quality conditions and hedgerow density was found in Kraichgau and, consequently, subsidies cannot be granted for agricultural site conditions. In this natural unit, agri-environmental programmes should rst aim to establishing additional hedgerows to avoid erosion. This study shows that the conservation of hedgerows cannot be solved on the level of the federal state Baden-Wuerttemberg. Furthermore, agri-environmental programmes require a framework on the federal state level, in order to secure targets such as bird protection and which can be only achieved on a largescale area. These programmes must be nonetheless formulated and rened to meet farmers needs at a lower level (see the concept of differentiated agrienvironmental policy, Heissenhuber, 1995). It would be thus necessary to transfer political and nancial competence to an appropriate administrative level, corresponding to the principle of subsidiary (compare to Ewers and Henrichsmeyer, 2000): each political task should be carried out at a level yielding optimum results. In general, in future studies the database should be improved. For example, the estimation of hedgerow density in this study is based on the area of entire hedgerow complexes including also farm land and small forests. It is to assume that the purely hedgerow area might correspond better with agricultural indicators. Furthermore, the data used are based on different spatial reference units, because it was necessary to adapt the data to the lowest resolution. In order to achieve a higher congruence of the different information sources, a more precise database is needed. In general, the inuence of the data type on the result that is, especially the indicatorhas still to be checked thoroughly. Taken together, we can state that the approach presented by this study is suitable in combining economic and ecological criteria, with regard to a more efcient landscape conservation. This approach corresponds to the request of the OECD (2000) to estimate costs incurred by farmers in landscape improvement

and maintenance. Our study further conrms the importance of natural units as a basis for studying landscape protection targets. Altogether, efforts to expand the approach presented here by integrating new indicators, such as topography and historical aspects, merit future attention with a focus on data quality.

Acknowledgements We hereby thank Prof. G. Kaule, of the Institute for Landscape Planning and Ecology, who gave permission to use the database of land use, eld sizes and biotopes and Dr. Ch. Lippert, of the Chair of Agricultural Economics, who gave valuable advises while writing this article. References
Baudry, J., Bunce, R.G.H., Burel, F., 2000. Hedgerows: an international perspective on their origin, function and management. J. Environ. Manage. 60, 722. Bauer, D., 1993. Landwirtschaftliche BetriebslehreProduktionsfaktoren. In: BLV Verlagsgesellschaft (Ed.), Die Landwirtschaft. Muenchen, pp. 465525. Bill, R., 1996. Grundlagen der Geo-Informationssysteme. Bd. 2: Analysen, Anwendungen und neue Entwicklungen. Wichmann, Heidelberg. Brouwer, F., Crabtree, B., 1999. Introduction. In: Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy. CAB International, pp. 111. Burgmaier, K., Gerner-Haug, I., Wieland, H.-P., 1997. Arbeits- und betriebswirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der Biotopvernetzung in einer Ackerlandschaftexemplarische Untersuchung in einem 135 ha-Betrieb im Kraichgau. Landinfo 4/97. Ewers, H.-J., Henrichsmeyer, W. (Eds.), 2000. Agrarumweltpolitik nach dem Subsidiaritaetsprinzip. Schriften zur Agrarforschung und Agrarpolitik, Analytika, vol. 1. Berlin. Fichtner, K., Osinski, E., Kick, U., 1994. Luftbild-Kartierung von Bewirtschaftungsstruktur und Gehelzausstattung in den lndlichen Gebieten Baden-Wrttembergs. Materialien des Instituts fr Landschaftsplanung und kologie der Universitt Stuttgart (unpublished). Heissenhuber, A., 1995. Betriebswirtschaftliche Aspekte der Honorierung von Umweltleistungen in der Landwirtschaft. In: Dachverband Agrarforschung (Ed.), Schriftenreihe agrarspectrum, vol. 24. pp. 123138. Heissenhuber, A., Lippert, C., 2000. Multifunktionalitaet und Wettbewerbsverzerrungen. Agrarwirtschaft 49 (7), 249252. Henrichsmeyer, W., 1977. Agrarwirtschaft Raeumliche Verteilung. In: Albers, W. et al. (Eds.), Handwoerterbuch der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, vol. 1. Stuttgart, pp. 169185. Heusinger, G., 1984. Untersuchungen zum Brutvogelbestand verschiedener Heckengebiete. In: Akademie fuer Naturschutz

J. Kantelhardt et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 517527 und Landschaftspege (Eds.), Die tieroekologische Bedeutung und Bewertung von Hecken, vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 99123. Hoell, N., Breunig, T., 1995. Biotopkartierung BadenWuerttemberg. Ergebnisse der landesweiten Erhebung 1981 1989, Beih. Veroeff. Naturschutz Landschaftspege BadenWuerttemberg 81. Karlsruhe. Kleyer, M., 1991. Die Vegetation linienfoermiger Kleinstrukturen in Beziehung zur landwirtschaftlichen Produktionsintensitaet. Diss. Botanicae 169, J. Cramer, Berlin, Stuttgart. Niederoesterreichische Agrarberichtsbehoerde, 1999. Das Regionalprogramm Oekopunkte. In: GD XI (Eds.), Umweltbewertungsverfahren fuer die Landwirtschaft. pp. 5972. OECD, 2000. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Methods and Results. Vol. 3, OECD, Paris. OECD, 2001. MultifunctionalityTowards an Analytical Frame work. OECD Publications, Paris. Osinski, E., 2003. Operationalisation of a landscape oriented indicator. In: Buechs, W. (Ed.), Biotic indicators for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98, 371386.

527

Reif, A., Schulze, E.-D., Zahner, K., 1982. Der Einuss des geologischen Untergrundes, der Hangneigung, der Feldgroesse und der Flurbereinigung auf die Heckendichte in Oberfranken. In: Akademie fuer Naturschutz und Landschaftspege (Eds.), Berichte, vol. 6. pp. 231253. Schulze, E.-D., Reif, A., 1984. Die Bewertung der nordbayerischen Hecken aus botanischer Sicht. In: Akademie fuer Naturschutz und Landschaftspege (Eds.), Die panzenoekologische Bedeutung und Bewertung von Hecken, vol. 3, No. 1. pp. 141 145. SRU (Rat der Sachverstaendigen fuer Umweltfragen), 1985. Umweltprobleme der Landwirtschaft. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart. Stechmann, D., 1984. Ergebnisse des Klopfproben-Programms. In: Akademie fuer Naturschutz und Landschaftspege (Eds.), Die tieroekologische Bedeutung und Bewertung von Hecken, vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 99123. Wechselberger P., 2000. Oekonomische und oekologische Beurteilung unterschiedlicher landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftungsmassnahmen und -systeme anhand ausgewaehlter Kriterien. FAM-Bericht 43, Shaker, Aachen.