Pollen-based quantitative reconstructions of Holocene regional vegetation cover (plant-functional types and land-cover types) in Europe suitable for climate modelling

We present quantitative reconstructions of regional vegetation cover in north-western Europe, western Europe north of the Alps, and eastern Europe for five time windows in the Holocene around 6k, 3k, 0.5k, 0.2k, and 0.05k calendar years before present (bp)] at a 1 degrees x1 degrees spatial scale with the objective of producing vegetation descriptions suitable for climate modelling. The REVEALS model was applied on 636 pollen records from lakes and bogs to reconstruct the past cover of 25 plant taxa grouped into 10 plant-functional types and three land-cover types evergreen trees, summer-green (deciduous) trees, and open land]. The model corrects for some of the biases in pollen percentages by using pollen productivity estimates and fall speeds of pollen, and by applying simple but robust models of pollen dispersal and deposition. The emerging patterns of tree migration and deforestation between 6k bp and modern time in the REVEALS estimates agree with our general understanding of the vegetation history of Europe based on pollen percentages. However, the degree of anthropogenic deforestation (i.e. cover of cultivated and grazing land) at 3k, 0.5k, and 0.2k bp is significantly higher than deduced from pollen percentages. This is also the case at 6k in some parts of Europe, in particular Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, the relationship between summer-green and evergreen trees, and between individual tree taxa, differs significantly when expressed as pollen percentages or as REVEALS estimates of tree cover. For instance, when Pinus is dominant over Picea as pollen percentages, Picea is dominant over Pinus as REVEALS estimates. These differences play a major role in the reconstruction of European landscapes and for the study of land cover-climate interactions, biodiversity and human resources.

Are land sparing and land sharing real alternatives for European agricultural landscapes?

There is a lively debate on whether biodiversity conservation and agricultural production could be better reconciled by land sparing (strictly separating production fields and conservation areas) or by land sharing (combining both, agricultural production and biodiversity conservation on the same land). The debate originates from tropical countries, where agricultural land use continues to increase at the expense of natural ecosystems. But is it also relevant for Europe, where agriculture is withdrawing from marginal regions whilst farming of fertile lands continues to be intensified? Based on recent research on farmland biodiversity we conclude that the land sharing – land sparing dichotomy is too simplistic for Europe. Instead we differentiate between productive and marginal farmland. On productive farmland, semi-natural habitats are required to yield ecosystem services relevant for agriculture, to promote endangered farmland species which society wants to conserve even in intensively farmed regions, and to allow migration of non-farmland species through the agricultural matrix. On marginal farmland, high-nature value farming is a traditional way of land sharing, yielding high quality agricultural products and conserving specialized species. To conserve highly disturbance-sensitive species, there is a need for nature reserves. In conclusion, land sparing is not a viable olution for Europe in both productive and marginal farmland but because of different reasons in each type of farmland.

Introduction XXIX European Seminar in Ethnomusicology: Cultural Mapping and Musical Diversity

«Cultural mapping» has become a central keyword in the UNESCO strategy to protect world cultural and natural heritage. It can be described as a tool to increase the awareness of cultural diversity. As Crawhall (2009) pointed out, cultural mapping was initially considered to represent the «landscapes in two or three dimensions from the perspectives of indigenous and local peoples». It thus transforms the intangible cultural heritage to visible items by establishing profiles of cultures and communities, including music traditions. Cultural mapping is used as a resource for a variety of purposes as broad as peace building, adaptation to climate change, sustainability management, heritage debate and management, but can also become highly useful in the analysis of conflict points. Music plays a significant role in each of these aspects. This year’s symposium invites to highlight, yet also to critically reassess this topic from the following ethnomusicological perspectives: - The method of cultural mapping in ethnomusicology What approaches and research techniques have been used so far to establish musical maps in this context? What kinds of maps have been developed (and, for example, how far do these relate to indigenous mental maps that have only been transmitted orally)? How far do these modern approaches deviate from the earlier cultural mapping approaches of the cultural area approaches that were still evident with Alan P. Merriam and in Alan Lomax` Cantometrics? In how far are the methods of cultural mapping and of ethnomusicological fieldwork different and how can they benefit from each other? - Intangible cultural heritage and musical diversity As the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage pointed out in Article 12, each state signing the declaration «shall draw up, in a manner geared to its own situation, one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritage, present in its territory and monitor these.» This symposium calls for a critical re-assessment of the hitherto established UNESCO intangible cultural heritage lists. The idea is to highlight the sensitive nature and the effects of the various heritage representations. «Heritage» is understood here as a selection from a selection – a small subset of history that relates to a given group of people in a particular place, at a specific time (Dann and Seaton 2001:26). This can include presentations of case studies, yet also a critical re-analysis of the selection process, e.g. who was included – or even excluded (and why)? Who were the decision makers? How can the role of ethnomusicology be described here? Where are the (existent and possible) conflict points (politically, socially, legally, etc.)? What kinds of solution strategies are available to us? How is the issue of diversity – that has been so strongly emphasized in the UNESCO declarations – reflected in the approaches? How might diversity be represented in future approaches? How does the selection process affect musical canonization (and exclusion)? What is the role of archives in this process? - Cultural landscape and music As defined by the World Heritage Committee, cultural landscapes can be understood as a distinct geographical area representing the «combined work of nature and man» (http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/). This sub-topic calls for a more detailed – and general – exploration of the exact relation between nature/landscape (and definition of such) and music/sound. How exactly is landscape interrelated with music – and identified (and vice versa)? How is this interrelation being applied and exploited in a (inter-)national context?

Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes.

The conservation of large carnivores is a formidable challenge for biodiversity conservation. Using a data set on the past and current status of brown bears (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and wolverines (Gulo gulo) in European countries, we show that roughly one-third of mainland Europe hosts at least one large carnivore species, with stable or increasing abundance in most cases in 21st-century records. The reasons for this overall conservation success include protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and a variety of practices making coexistence between large carnivores and people possible. The European situation reveals that large carnivores and people can share the same landscape.