Sustainable grazing in subarctic environments with regard to vegetation and soil processes

1

Erla Olsen (editor), Anna Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir, Sølvi Wehn, Anna Maria Fosaa, Gunnar Bjarnason, Lis Mortensen, Bjørn Patursson, Björn Þorsteinsson, William Simonsen, Jóannes Patursson, Rólvur Djurhuus, Jóannes Dalsgarð, Kjartan Hoydal

Sustainable grazing in subarctic environments with regard to vegetation and soil processes

Tórshavn, 2014

2

Project funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Arctic Co-‐operation and Gramar Research Editor: Erla Olsen, Gramar Research and the University of the Faroe Islands © The authors and Gramar Research Gramar Research P.O.Box 134 FO-‐110 Tórshavn Faroe Islands Tel. +298599005 Fax + 298318001 email: [email protected]

3

Summary Sheep grazing has a long tradition in the three Nordic countries Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands, and the grazing has made visible changes to the landscape, by changing the vegetation to open grassland, and probably also to eroded areas, which can be seen both in Faroe Islands and in Iceland. In Norway grazing also prevent open grassland to become forested. In all three countries change in fodder quality as well as loss of biodiversity due to grazing is an issue. The grazing management differs for the three countries, as do the regulations and guidelines. During the 20th century, the number of sheep in Iceland increased considerably up to around 900,000 sheep in the 1970s, which caused considerable erosion. In Iceland the number has now been downregulated to 450,000 sheep. The sheep number in the Faroes is estimated to around 70,000 and has been so for centuries with unchanged regulations. In Norway the sheep number had a steadily yearly increase until year 2000. However, a decrease has been observed recently as some farmers have abandoned sheep farming. The current number of winter feed sheep in Norway is approx. 1,000,000. In this report the conclusions from a workshop on grazing management will be presented, together with recommendations on how to improve the grazing management with the help of research, education, cooperation and guidelines. Grazing pressures in the three Nordic countries are in some areas (the Faroe Islands) too high and in others too low (Norway). The main conclusion from the workshop was that the grazing pressure must be adjusted, to benefit both the landscape, the meat quality and also to implement international conventions ratified by the countries, such as biodiversity, sustainable development, and limitation of greenhouse gases emissions. Grazing has an impact on the vegetational plant composition, and in particular it is the grasses that proliferate in areas with considerable grazing. Some grass species have a greater nutritional value than others, and often a greater grazing pressure has the impact that the nutritional value of the affected grasses declines. The sheep become both healthier and their meat tastier (Thórhallsdóttir, this vol.), if the sheep have access to herbs also, but with too high grazing pressure a decline in the biodiversity of herbs is often observed. On the other side, if grazing pressure is to low, vegetation of high fodder quality might be replaced by vegetation of low fodder quality (as observed in Norway were encroachment of shrubs and tree species have occurred in herb and grass-‐species rich vegetation). Grazing affects not only animals and plants above ground, but has an equally impact belowground, and if the grazing pressure is so large, that the plant shoot is kept constantly small, then the plant roots decline on a comparable scale, increasing the risk of erosion. In addition the mineralisation processes are hampered due to an increase of recalcitrant compounds that degrade slowly. Therefore an area with overgrazing often is less fertile than an area with a moderate grazing pressure.

4

In other places they have found that grazing also has a large impact on insects and other invertebrates in the soil and soil surface. Overgrazing decreases abundance and biodiversity of both invertebrates and birds (in particular moorland and heather birds), however too low grazing pressures by sheep might decrease insect larva accessibility for small insectivorous birds (Loe et al. 2007). In this report different types of useful indicators are identified, both plants, fungi and insects, and how these are affected by grazing, in combination with other changes in the environment such as climate change affecting both plants and those animals, that depend upon them. These indicators are based on studies from Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands on vegetation, grazing and erosion.

5

The participants at the workshop (in alphabetic order, some are missing on the picture): Anna Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir, Landbúnaðarháskóli Islands (The Agricultural

University of Iceland) Anna Maria Fosaa, Náttúrugripasavnið, Søvn Landsins (Natural History Museum,

Faroese Natural Heritage) Bjørn Patursson, director at Búnaðarstovan (The Agricultural Centre) Björn Þorsteinsson, Landbúnaðarháskóli Islands (The Agricultural University of

Iceland) Dorthea Joensen, Búnaðarstovan (The Agricultural Centre) Erla Olsen, Gramar Gransking & Fróðskaparsetur Føroya (Gramar Research &

University of the Faroe Islands) Gunnar Bjarnason, Búnaðargrunnurin (Faroese Agricultural Funding Institute) Jóannes Dalsgarð, consultant, former director at Jarðarráðið (Faroese

Agricultural Counsil) Jóannes Patursson, Kirkjubøgarður, independent farmer John Dalsgarð, Gramar Gransking & Mentamálaráðið (Gramar Research &

Ministry of Education, Research and Culture) Kjartan Hoydal, consultant, former secretary at NEAFC, former secretary at

NORA, former head of the Faroese Fishery Ministry Lis Mortensen, Jarðfeingi (Faroese Earth and Energy Directorate) Rólvur Djurhuus, Research leader at Búnaðarstovan (The Agricultural Centre) Sølvi Wehn, Bioforsk (Norwegian Institute for agricultural and environmental

research) William Simonsen, Náttúrugripasavnið, Søvn Landsins (Natural History Museum,

Faroese Natural Heritage)

6

Content Three countries and three grazing regimes – a comparative study 8 Conclusions on how the get a sustainable grazing management – in particular in the Faroe Islands 16 ABSTRACTS Anna Maria Fosaa: Vegetation and flora in the Faroe Islands under changing climate and land use 20 Erla Olsen: Plant roots and soil fungi – the ubiquitous response 26 Lis Mortensen and Gunnar Bjarnason: At læse landskabet – bæredygtig græsning / Reading the landscape – sustainable grazing 31 Anna Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir: Grazing: an ecological process 33 Sølvi Wehn: The impact of grazing and climate change on vegetation 37 Erla Olsen: Grazing, plant roots and the impact on soil fungi and nutrients 39 Bjørn Patursson: Hvordan kan fåreavlere motiveres til at nedsætte græsningstrykket / Suggestions how to motivate sheep farmers to decrease the grazing pressure 43 Lis Mortensen: Erosion på Færøerne / Faroese erosion mapping 44 Björn Þorsteinsson: Long-‐term monitoring of vegetation succession after exclusion in an Icelandic birch forest 46 William Simonsen: Sheep grazing and the ecological structure of carabid (Carabidae) assemblages in the Faroe Islands 49

7

Jóannes Patursson: From continous grazing to rotational multispecies grazing 51 Rólvur Djurhuus: Effect of gray lag goose on grass production 56 Jóannes Dalsgarð: Den historiske udvikling til det gældende fårebesætningstal, dets oprindelse og justeringer gennem tiderne / The historical origin of the present number of sheep in the Faroe Islands and adjustments the last centuries 59 Kjartan Hoydal: Experiences from the fishery industries – are there any similarities between agriculture and fishing? 63 Gunnar Bjarnason: Jorderosion og fåregræsning i udmarkerne, og et estimat af, om et mindre græsningstryk med færre får af samme race kan levere samme mængde kød / Soil erosion and sheep grazing, and can fewer sheep of the same race produce the same volumen of meat as produced today in the outfield 69 References 72

8

Three countries and three grazing regimes – a comparative study Of the three participating countries, the Faroe Islands are the area with the highest overall grazing pressure, with more than 50 ewes on each km2, or more than double of what the Norwegians keep on their grazing areas (Table 1). On the other hand in the Faroe Islands sheep have access to most of the land, apart from people’s private gardens. Some towns and villages have exempted their infields from being used as winter pasture. Sheep are kept outdoors the whole year, and hence the pastures and outfields are grazed the whole year. This is possible, since due to the relative warm winters there is some growth during the winter (Djurhuus, this vol.). This continous grazing in the Faroe Islands has been the system the last 1000 years, with few changes or adaptations, and approx. the same stock of sheep the last couple of centuries (Dalsgarð, this vol.). Compared with Norway and Iceland, the number of sheep in the Faroe Islands is indeed great. However, as more or less the whole terrestrial area is used for the sheep, the number of sheep per km2 are probably not directly comparable. Iceland has been through a period of severe overgrazing, and they solved the problem by introducing a quota system in 1983, where the farmers were forced to cut down on the number of sheep (Thórhallsdóttir et al. in Austrheim et al., 2008b). Both in Iceland and in the Faroe Islands the overgrazing has taken its toll, with erosion and diminished biodiversity. In Norway the problem is rather different, as they try to protect biodiversity and red-‐listed species in the few remaining open semi-‐natural habitats below the forest line. Both due to changed grazing patterns with less grazing pressure than previously and due to climate change, the forest lines are moving upslope (Wehn, this vol.). In Iceland and in Norway there are regulations against winter grazing. In Norway it is due to animal welfare, that range grazing is only allowed during the snow-‐free period (Wehn, this vol.). It is possible to apply for dispensation so particular breeds, including Old Norwegian Short Tail Landrace (Gammelnorsk spæl) are allowed to graze out in the field during the winter in the coastal areas (Wehn, presentation). In the Faroe Islands there are no requirements of shelter for the animals, and the animal welfare depends as a whole on the attitude of the owner/s (Bjarnason, presentation). In all three countries the main domestic outfield grazing herbivore is sheep. However, there are considerable numbers of other herbivores also, some domestic animals as horses, cattle and tame geese, but also other wild animals such as hares, grey lag geese, deer and moose (Table 1).

9

Table 1. Number sheep breeding stock per km2, showing the density of sheep being lowest in Norway, and greatest in the Faroe Islands.

Norway Iceland Faroe Islands

Size of country 385,852 km2 103,000 km2 1,396 km2 Number sheep 1,040,000 * 455,600* 73,000* Sheep/ km2 whole country 2.7 sheep 4.4 sheep 52.3 sheep Sheep/km2 grazing area < 25 sheep n.a. n.a.

Other herbivores

Hares Geese Horses Cattle Goats Roe deer Red deer Moose Musk ox Reindeer

Geese Horses Cattle

Hares Geese Horses Cattle

* From Wehn, presentation, this workshop – Statistisk centralbyrå

*) From Thorhallsdóttir, presentation, this workshop

*) From Bjarnason – this vol. with an estimated addition of 3,000 sheep in the lowland pastures, probably the estimate is too low.

The impact of grazing on vegetation According to Thórhallsdóttir et al. in Austrheim et al. (2008b) there are surprisingly few published studies available on the effect of sheep grazing on plants and vegetation in Iceland, one reason for this is that the effects of sheep grazing are so extensive that it is difficult to find unaffected areas to use as an ungrazed reference. This applies probably to an even greater extent to the Faroe Islands, since there in Iceland have been done several experiments with controlled grazing pressure (Austrheim et al., 2008b), but the only grazing related experiments in the Faroe Islands are with some small enclosures with no grazing (Fosaa & Olsen, 2007), and no large scale studies have been performed. In Norway several vegetation studies have been done, in addition to a large scale experiment (shown in Table 2). Table 2. Large-‐scale experimental enclosures with different grazing pressure are done in Norway and Iceland, but not in the Faroe Islands. Norway Iceland Faroe Islands Established 2001 1987, 1975-‐1987, 2015??? Completed 2005 still ongoing ?? 2005 Size 2.7 km2 Grazing treatments

3 treatments: No grazing, Low (25 sheep/km2), High (80 sheep/km2)

3 treatments: Light moderate intense grazing

Reference (Austrheim et al., 2008a) (Gudmundsson and Arnalds, 1976 -‐ 1980), (Magnússon and Magnússon, 1992)

10

However, from both small scale and large scale studies in all three countries there are some vegetation studies that show the impact of grazing on different plant species. It is worth noticing, that most of these studies use enclosures, and analyse either the change with time, or compare the area inside the enclosure with the area outside the enclosure (e.g. Thorsteinsson & Thórhallsdóttir, this vol.; Fosaa & Olsen, 2007; Fosaa in prep 1.) or the significant results are obtained from non-‐grazed enclosures against heavily grazed enclosures (Austrheim et al., 2008a). Some examples from a few studies on the response of individual plants species to grazing are shown in Table 3 – with some additional examples from Scotland and an expert panel from UK, where experts were asked to categorize their estimate of the likelihood for that some plant species would suffer or proliferate in a grazed environment. There seems to be a tendency towards that sedges and rushes proliferate from the grazing, while grasses, especially in the Faroe Islands, seem to be so hard grazed, that most grass species would increase in frequency with less grazing. The grass species that seems to tolerate the great grazing pressure are the fescue grasses (Festuca sp.) together with the mat-‐grass (Nardus stricta) – the fescue that increased in frequency by grazing was grazed by geese, not sheep (Table 3, Djurhuus, this vol.). Table 3. The vegetation response when grazing ceases. Plant species with significant response with regard to change of frequency. Norway1,7,8 Iceland2,8 Faroe

Islands3,6 Scotland4 UK

Ekspert panel5

Agrostis canina2,3 sp. No response

Increase Agrostis capillaris2,3 Increase 3.3 Calluna vulgaris2 Decrease 1.4 Carex bigelowii1 Decrease Carex panicea3 Decrease Carex pilulifera4 Decrease Carex vaginata1 Increase Deschampsia cespitosa1,3, 7

Increase Increase

Deschampsia flexuosa2,8

Increase Increase 2.0

Euphrasia frigida1 Increase Euphrasia officinalis agg.3

Decrease

Festuca rubra2,3,4,5 No response Decrease Decrease 2.8 Festuca vivipara2,5 Decrease 2.7 Festuca sp.6 Increase Juncus trifidus2 Decrease Kobresia myosuorides2

Decrease

Luzula multiflora2,4 Decrease Decrease Nardus stricta3,4,5,8 Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.4 Phleum alpinum1 (Decrease) Poa alpina1 Decrease

11

Poligonum viviparum2,3

Decrease Decrease

Potentilla erecta3,4,5 Increase Increase 2.2 Salix glauca1 Increase Salix herbacea9 Decrease Scirpus cespitosus2 Increase Selaginella selaginoides2

Decrease

Thymus arcticus/praecox2

Decrease 2.0

Trisetum spicatum2 Decrease Vaccinium uliginosum1,2

Increase Increase

UK Expert panel: The number indicates the categories experts have given plant species after “if this plant is grazed in a given two-‐month period, how does the regrowth during April to November compare with the growth of an ungrazed individual? Categories were as follows: 1-‐Regrowth considerably less than ungrazed, 2-‐Regrowth somewhat less than ungrazed, 3-‐Regrowth same as ungrazed, 4-‐Regrowth more than ungrazed. – It is worth noticing, that a grazing period of two months is rather shorter than the grazing period in Norway, Iceland and Faroe Islands. Some results shown may not stem directly from change of grazing pressure, but other derived factors, such as change of light or soil nutrients, may contribute to the significant change. Notes: 1) (Austrheim et al., 2008a) 2) Thorsteinsson and Thorhallsdóttir (this volume) 3) (Fosaa & Olsen, 2007) 4) (Hulme, Pakeman, Torvell, Fisher, & Gordon, 1999) 5) (Pollock, Legg, Holland, & Theobald, 2007) 6) Djurhuus, this vol. 7) (Rosef, Langerud, & Norderhaug, 2007) 8) (Austrheim et al., 2008b) 9) Fosaa, in prep. Nutrient poor grass and withered grass Overgrazing leads to infertile fields, with negative feedback loop, where the plant tissues are low in nutrients, leading to slow mineralization, few available nutrients and low primary production. A plant that fits to this description is Nardus stricta, which according to Massey, Ennos, and Hartley (2007) has a very low growth rate, is low in nitrogen concentration but high in phenolic compounds. Nardus stricta is one of the plants that are used as an indicator of overgrazing. In the Faroe Islands it is not only in the sward that Nardus stricta as well as other grasses of low nutritional value is found, they are also found as withered loose bits of grass on the sward, where the sheep have spat them (Mortensen, this vol.). These loose bits of grass are not only from Nardus stricta, but are also from other grasses, including Deschampsia cespitosa (Gunnar Bjarnason, personal observation) and Festuca vivipara (Erla Olsen, personal observation). This might indicate, that even grazing tolerant grasses are suffering – probably to the extent that they are not able to produce fertile seeds. Farmers in the Faroe Islands observe two types of grazing fields: i) overgrazed areas, which need a resting period so the plants can recover, and ii) undergrazed

12

areas, which are dominated by withered grass. The sheep avoid the undergrazed areas, increasing the pressure on the other areas, and one solution to this would be to use a fulltime shepherd to lead the sheep to the pastures. Another method is using fences to provide areas for rotational grazing, so all areas are grazed at suitable intervals, and get the required resting period for recovery (Patursson, J., this vol.). The standing stock of withered grass can delay the growth of new grass in the spring, but with less grazing pressure after a few years the fields become more fertile, and there are enough nutrients in the plant tissue to speed up the mineralization process (Bjarnason et al., 2007). The withered grass do also have an impact on the soil below, as it functions as insolation and keeps the soil cold also during the summer, seriously hampering the recirculation (Thórhallsdóttir, this vol.). Also other species than plants are affected, for example carabids and other invertebrates as well as the birds that are feeding on these invertebrates (Simonsen, this vol.). Production and economic importance Although products from sheep might have an economic importance for some households, the value for the national household might be neglectable, as the annual outcome per inhabitant in the three countries is between 7 and 35 kg lamb meat (Table 4). The Faroese total catch of fish in 2012 was 360,473 tons1, so the total production of meat from lambs is less than 0.5% of the Faroese fish catch. The Icelandic fish catch from 2012 was 1,448,548 tons2, and hence the total Icelandic lamb meat production is less than 1% of the Icelandic fish catch. The Norwegian fish catch in 2012 was 2,139,952 tons3, so here the production of meat from lamb accounted for less than 2% of the Norwegian fish catch. Thus for all three countries, the importance of sheep farming is not of a major national economic importance, compared with the fishery industry.

1 http://www.hagstova.fo/en 2 http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1214&src=https://rannsokn.hagstofa.is/pxen/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SJA02 http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1214&src=https://rannsokn.hagstofa.is/pxen/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SJA09005%26ti=Catch+of+Icelandic+vessels+from+all+fishing+areas+1945%2D2012%26path=../Database/sjavarutvegur/af3Fisk/%26lang=1%26units=Tonnes 3 https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selectout/pivot.asp?checked=true

13

Table 4. The litter size, carcass size, the annual number of slaughtered lambs, and an estimate of kg lamb meat for each inhabitant in the three countries. In addition the total production of lamb meat is compared with the total fish catch. NWS = Norwegian White Sheep. Spæl is larger than “gammelnorsk spæl”. Litter size (From Austrheim et al., 2008b) Norway Iceland Faroe Islands 1 year old ewes: 1.5 1 year old ewes: 1.0-‐1.2 0.7-‐0.8 2 year and older: 2.0 2 year and older: 1.8 Slaughter weight (From Austrheim et al., 2008b) and fish catch Norway Iceland Faroe Islands Lamb carcass size NWS: 19.2 kg

Spæl: 17,8 kg 15,5 kg 12,5 kg

Total annual weight of slaugher (lambs only)

37,031 tons 11,299 tons 840 tons

Slaughter per capita

7 kg 35 kg 17 kg

Total fish catch (2012)

2,139,952 tons4 1,448,548 tons5 360,473 tons6

Percent lamb meat of total fish catch

1.73% 0.78% 0.23%

In all three countries the governments use huge resources for management of the fishery, but obviously similar efforts is not used in managing sheep farming. While sustainable fishery has become increasingly important, in some places, in particular in the Faroe Islands, the “tragedy of the commons” is still unfolding, with sparse vegetation, low biodiversity and elevated risk for landslides, as well as animal welfare is compromised. In Norway the opposite trend is observed; to low grazing intensities of domestic animals in outfields have caused loss of landscape diversity as open biodiversity rich vegetation is encroached by tall shrubs and trees (Wehn, this vol.). This is rather surprising, and could be avoided with suitable regulations and recommendations. Methods used to regulate the fishery could be applied, as the mechanisms in many cases are the same, for example we get the highest production and diversity at intermediate grazing (Thórhallsdóttir, this vol.) and in the fishery the same formula is used to find the gross value of the catch, which also is greatest at the intermediate value (Hoydal, this vol.). Other similarities are as well, for example the phenomena “the tragedy of the commons”, but also the lack of interest for the diversity of the microbial drivers of the ecosystems. One big difference between sheep farming and fishery is that in the fishery they go

4 https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selectout/pivot.asp?checked=true 5 http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1214&src=https://rannsokn.hagstofa.is/pxen/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SJA09005%26ti=Catch+of+Icelandic+vessels+from+all+fishing+areas+1945%2D2012%26path=../Database/sjavarutvegur/af3Fisk/%26lang=1%26units=Tonnes 6 http://www.hagstova.fo/en

14

for the spawning stock, which in the case of sheep farming would be the mother sheep (Hoydal, this vol.). Legislation and recommendations Here the main focus will be on the sheep management in the Faroes seen in the light of the management in Iceland and Norway. “In general terms it can be stated, with some confidence, that sheep and goat production systems in Northern Europe are in good harmony with natural conditions in each locality and thus fulfill most criteria of sustainable development in agriculture. The main exceptions would be found in areas where grazing intensity is very high or where soil erosion is associated with overstocking.” (Dýrmundsson, 2006) Norway do not have considerable problems by overgrazing, and Iceland has improved their management by compulsive quotas systems, but the Faroe Islands are lagging behind with regard to sustainability, economical outcome, biodiversity, animal welfare as well as security in terms of landslides triggered by overgrazing, and are probably one of the exceptions mentioned in the quote above from Dýrmundsson (2006). The Faroese problem seems to be, that people don’t notice the erosion or sparse vegetation cover. Changes happens so slowly that people tend to think that it has always been like it is today (Mortensen, this vol.).

15

Legislation Norway Iceland Faroe Islands Number of sheep on common land

The farmer is allowed to graze as many animals as he/she can provide with feed during winter1

Commons have their own laws and regulations and the date for the start of the grazing season is usually decided by the board of the Commons2

The farmes have to agree on the number of sheep (both increase and decrease)5

Neighbours Any farmer grazing livestock is responsible for keeping his animals away from areas where they aren’t allowed to graze1

Farmers can be fined if they violate the regulations2

It is up to the farmes to decide how many sheep there should be in each outfield, as long as they manage to keep them within their own area3

Male animals It is not allowed to keep male animals born before 15 April on pastures where they may come into contact with animals owned by an other farmer1

No particular regulation

No particular regulation

Diseases Animals with contagious diseases can not be put on communal pastures1

Highly regulated – the country is divided into sections and animals can´t be transferred between sections

Preventive: Sheep can not be transferred from one island to another without permit from authorities4

Animal welfare The owner has a duty to ensure that sick or injured animals get care, and that all animals are collected from the pastures before onset of winter1

New animal welfare legislation – owners must gather their animals from the mountains (commons) before a certain date

The owner has duty to treat sick and injured animals4 (if he is aware of it), but there are no requirements for winter shelter

Predation A farmer can apply for the right to kill predators that are in the process of attacking her/his animals6

Main predator the arctic fox which is hunted to diminish sheep casualties

Not applicable (apart from ravens, which are not protected)

Monitoring Free-‐ranging animals must be monitored once a week. In areas with high risks of predators, injury or diseases, more often7

No regulation No regulation

1) Austrheim, Asheim, et al. (2008b, pp. 62-‐63) 2) Thórhallsdótir et al. in Austrheim et al. (2008b, pp. 30-‐32) 3) Bjarnason et al. in Austrheim et al. (2008b, p. 16) 4) Løgtingslóg nr. 16 frá 23. februar 2001 um djórasjúkur, sum broytt við løgtinglóg nr. 18 frá 8. mai 2008 (law passed by the Løgting) 5) Dalsgarð this vol. 6) Forskrift om forvaltning av rovvilt; FOR-‐2005-‐03-‐18-‐242 7) Forskrift om velferd for småfe; FOR-‐2005-‐02-‐18-‐160

16

Conclusions on how to get a sustainable grazing management – in particular in the Faroe Islands

• A change in attitude is needed, and this could be achieved with education, in cooperation with the schools, and working with sustainability as a whole – also as part of life long learning.

• Political regulations are needed, because without regulations it is necessary for all farmers to agree on decreasing the grazing pressure, and that is not going to happen (the game teory).

• Political regulations are necessary to prevent erosion and to implement international conventions, such as biodiversity and sustainability.

• More research is needed, as there are few data to work upon. In particular the Faroe Islands are lagging behind.

• There is interest for continuing the cooperation on research of sustainable sheep grazing.

1. Research needed

• Political regulations are often based on scientific research, where the scientist are expected to provide a reasonable well-‐founded answer, so the politicans can take the most rationale decisions. For this the scientist need data, both long-‐term and large-‐scale, as can be seen from the fishery management.

• There are possibilities for establishing the needed large-‐scale experiments, if funding is obtained for the fences and fundamental things.

• Huge amounts of data are available from aerial photos taken regulary the last 50-‐60 years – it is possible to analyse for changes in the vegetation and change of land-‐use, as well as analyse the risk for landslides. This has been done in Norway and Iceland, but only to a limited extent in the Faroe Islands.

• Seed production and germination with regard to grazing is not analysed in the Faroe Islands. Experiments in Iceland have shown, that seed-‐banks in eroded areas might enhance the regrowth rate of eroded areas.

• The impact of grazing on invertebrates and birds are not well researched through the area.

17

2. Recommendations for political action • The overgrazing in the Faroe Islands is documented, but still both farmers

and the politicans are reluctant to act upon it. • Tourist industry might be affected if no action is taken, as most tourist are

interested in a living nature, birds rather than deserts. • It is always a good thing to have data, however, the scientists tend to

always want more data, and if recommendations and regulations should wait until the scientists are satisfied, then there would be few regulations. Instead it is necessary to accept, that regulations have to be adjusted regulary, according to changes in climate, environment, and as new knowledge evolves.

• Regulations on quotas for grazing animals, quality tests of the field, providing an estimate of the carrying capasity for the areas

• Registration of eroded areas, of areas with sparse vegetation, and of grazing patterns

• Improved animal welfare 3. Recommendations for other actions

• Establishment of a long-‐term internordic project on grazing, with participants from Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Norway

• Promote masterprojects with subjects on grazing issues • Use citizens science project to trigger an attitude change – suitable for

both children and adults • Follow the experiment with rotational grazing • As most of the needed experiments don’t fit into the traditional funding

system, with a typical time-‐limit of three years, it is necessary to split the long-‐term experiments into suitable parts, that can be funded, and then find other funding for establishment of these needed long-‐term and larg-‐scale experiments

19

Abstracts

20

Vegetation and flora in the Faroe Islands under changing climate and land use Anna Maria Fosaa Natural History Museum, Faroese Natural Heritage

Environmental changes during time On a large timescale the Faroe Islands have experienced a fluctuating climate. After the last iceage the climate was arctic, indicated by arctic species such as Betula nana, which is extinct today. There have also, more recently, been fluctuations between dryer climate and wet oceanic climate as it is today, indicated by the appearance of Juniperus communis which is rare today, partly due to climate. There have been significant anthropogenic changes also, of which grazing is one, but also for example usage of juniper for fuel. Impacts on the nature Today, after more than 1000 years of sheep grazing, the natural vegetation is only found in inaccessible places. However, more recently other anthropogenic changes include fertilisation and drainage for agricultural use as well drainage for hydropower. Climate change has provided opportunities for new and invasive species, in particular at the lowland, while high altitude plants might disappear. Current knowledge on the status of the Faroese flora In the Faroese flora there are 330 species of vascular plants, subspecies not included. Of these 74% are wild, 22% introduced and 4% are of unknown origin. It has been possible to evaluate 74 of these 330 species according to the international critera for red-‐lists, and of these 2 species are extinct, 17 critically endangered, 4 threatened, 29 vulnerable, and 21 species are data deficient. Most of the red-‐listed plant species are found in the lowland, where the anthropogenic impacts are highest. The most important habitats regarding red-‐listed species are wetland and mires and lakes, covering respectively 1.3% and 0.9% of the land area. In both cases the most important impacts are drainage, either in connection with agriculture or hydropower. The lakes are also sensitive to fertilisation from agriculture. Ongoing projects Climate change: The tolerance for change in temperature is 1-‐2°C, and in particular the lowland species and high altitude species are vulnerable, as new and invasive species pose a threat for the local biodiversity. Examples of such

! S"!

(Q)O-)(!&$)!%'B4-4*!F411$14*X!,N'-)U'4B!M'-'$14BX!,N'-)U'4B!Y)B$&)>'$#4B!&*,!"-M;/B'--$!B)--'*P!!E&$#'#F!'#!M)##/M1')#!K'1;!;I2&)N)K/&!/TN-)'1$1')#!+?/(&&!).!&%_1!ST"T0[!RP/!&,A/-*-*I!&$)&(!M/.9!V&O-*I!P)(.!P)$)!(.4,-),_!'*)!/V!.9)!&$)&(!9&,!M))*!,$&-*),!(-*O)!"cdh1!P9-%)!.9)!/.9)$!&$)&!P&(!4*,$&-*),!&.!.9)!.-E)!/V!.9)!)`&E-*&.-/*_!R9)!P&.)$!-*!.9)!$-<)$(!-*!.9)!,$&-*),!&$)&!-(!O/%%)O.),!-*!(4M.)$$)&*)&*!.4**)%(!%)&,-*I!-*./!&!%&$I)!P&.)$!$)()</-$1!M4.!-*!O/**)O.-/*!P-.9!.9-(!P/$i!.$)*O9)(!P)$)!,/*)!E/(.%L!V/$!.9)!M)*)V-.!/V!.9)!V&$E)$(_!?/4$!E&-*!.LQ)(!/V!Q%&*.!O/EE4*-.-)(!P)$)!V/4*,1!/V!P9-O9!.P/!,-VV)$),!O/*(-,)$&M%)!M).P))*!.9)!,$&-*),!&*,!.9)!4*,$&-*),!&$)&(_!>-$)(!&*,!M%&*i),!E-$)!P)$)!)g4&%%L!,-(.$-M4.),!-*!M/.9!.LQ)(!/V!&$)&(1!M4.!&$)&(!O%&((-V-),!&(!9)&.9!&*,!$&O/E-.$-4E!9)&.!,-VV)$),1!P-.9!E/$)!9)&.9!-*!.9)!,$&-*),!&$)&(1!&*,!E/$)!$&O/E-.$-4E!9)&.9!-*!.9)!4*,$&-*),!&$)&(!+R&M%)!"0_!R9)!,$&-*),!E-$)(!9&<)!9-I9)$!*4EM)$!/V!Q%&*.!(Q)O-)(!&(!P)%%!&(!9-I9)$!V$)g4)*OL!/V!P//,L!(Q)O-)(!-*,-O&.-*I!.9&.!-.!-(!,$L-*I!+?-I_!"0_!!! >-$)! @%&*i).!E-$)! K)&.9! G&O/E-.$-4E!

9)&.9!H$&-*),! "dw! Saw! USw! "hw!\*,$&-*),! "cw! SSw! "dw! U"w!/%67,!89!R9)!,-(.$-M4.-/*!/V!Q%&*.!O/EE4*-.-)(!-*!.9)!,$&-*),!&*,!4*,$&-*),!&$)&P!!

>@B9!89!R9)!V$)g4)*O-)(!/V!V/4$!V4*O.-/*&%!.LQ)(!P-.9!(-I*-V-O&*.!,-VV)$)*O)!-*!$)(Q/*()!./!,$&-*&I)_!3[!3$&E-*/-,(1!B[!B-O9)*(1!:[!:),I)(!&*,!=[!=//,L!(Q)O-)(_!!!3&$O'#F!/TN/&'B/#1+!]*!L)&$!STTT!.P/!(-.)(!P)$)!)(.&M%-(9),1!/*)!%/P%&*,!(-.)1!&.!hT!E!&_(_%1!&*,!/*)!&%Q-*)!(-.)!&.!lTT!E!&_(_%_!?)*O)(!P)$)!$&-(),1!O$)&.-*I!)*O%/(4$)(!ST!E!`!"T!E1!&*,!&V.)$!V-<)!L)&$(!.9)!<)I).&.-/*!9)-I9.!&*,!<)I).&.-/*!O/<)$!P)$)!E)&(4$),1!&*,!&!(-I*-V-O&*.!-*O$)&()!-*!M/.9!9)-I9.!&*,!O/<)$!P)$)!V/4*,!-*(-,)!.9)!)*O%/(4$)(!P-.9!*/!(9))Q!I$&N-*I!++?/(&&!k!'%()*1!STTh01!?-I_!S0_!

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

G L S W

Freq

uenc

ies

Functional types

Drained Undrained

! SS!

!

!!>@B9!5_!n)I).&.-/*!9)-I9.!-*!OE!+&M/<)0!&*,!.9)!Q)$O)*.!/V!.9)!&$)&!O/<)$),!P-.9!<)I).&.-/*!+M)%/P0!&$)!I$)&.)$!-*(-,)!.9)!)*O%/(4$)!.9&*!/4.(-,)!.9)!V)*O)!&V.)$!V-<)!L)&$(!/V!)*O%/(4$)_!+?/(&&!&*,!'%()*1!STTh0_!!!R9)!(&E)!(-.)(!&.!.9)!&%Q-*)!(-.)!&$)!4(),!V/$!&!P&$E-*I!)`Q)$-E)*.!&OO/$,-*I!./!.9)!]*.)$*&.-/*&%!R4*,$&!#`Q)$-E)*.&%!+]R#}0!Q$/./O/%_!]*!STT"!P)$)!"T!9)`&I/*(!/V!Q)$Q%)`!+/Q)*!./Q!O9&EM)$(1!'RX0!,-(.$-M4.),!-*(-,)!.9)!)*O%/(4$)(!&.!.9)!9-I9!&%.-.4,)!(-.)_!:-*O)!.9)*!.9)$)!9&(!M))*!&*!/*I/-*I!%/II-*I!/V!.)EQ)$&.4$)1!&*,!.9)!<)I).&.-/*!9&(!M))*!(.4,-),!$)I4%&$%L1!&*,!P-%%!(/!-*!.9)!V4.4$)!&(!P)%%1!&(!.9-(!-(!&!%/*IZ.)$E!(.4,L_!!R9)!<)I).&.-/*!O9&*I)(!9&<)!(-*O)!STT"!M))*!E)&(4$),!V/4$!.-E)(1!-*!STTe1!STTd!&*,!ST""1!&*,!-*,-O&.)1!.9&.!P&$E-*I!-*!I)*)$&%!-*O$)&()(!%)&V!%)*I.9!P-.9!aTw1!P9-%)!I$&N-*I!,)O$)&()(!%)&V!%)*I.9!/V!I$&E-*-/-,(!&*,!@)-IF)#4B!>'>'N$&4B!P-.9!aTw!&*,!<$-'T!;/&U$M/$!P-.9!"Tw_!@4.!/V!.9)!V/4$!V4*O.-/*&%!.LQ)(!+I$&E-*/-,(1!9)$M(1!P//,L!&*,!M$L/Q9L.)(0!-*.)$Z&**4&%!<&$-&.-/*(!-*!.9)!V$)g4)*O-)(!P)$)!())*_!@4.!.9)!I$&E-*/-,!.)*,!./!-*O$)&()!,4$-*I!.9)!P9/%)!Q)$-/,!-*!&%%!.$))!i-*,!/V!Q%/.(!&*,!9)$M(!+@)-IF)#4B!>'>'N$&4B0!,/!*/.!(9/P!&*L!(L(.)E&.-O!.$)*,1!.9)!P//,L!(Q)O-)(!<$-'T!;/&U$M/$!,)O$)&(),!(-I*-V-O&*.!V$/E!STT"!./!ST""1!P9-%)!.9)!V$)g4)*OL!/V!M$L/Q9L.)(!!-*O$)&()!-*!.9)!.P/!i-*,!/V!)`Q)$-E)*.!+?/(&&!-*!Q$)Q0_!!

Vegetation height

0

5

10

15

20

25

600 m a.s.l. 70 m a.s.l.

cm

GrazedEnclosure

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

600 m a.s.l. 70 m a.s.l.

%

Vegetation cover

Grazed Enclosure

23

The phenology of Silene acaulis has been studied from 2001-‐2011 at the same site, and with regard to warming the response is that the first buds become visible and the first flower open earlier in the OTC than both in the enclosure and outside the fence. The first petal drop is however earlier both in the OTC and in the grazed plots compared with the enclosure, and the number of days from first bud is visible to the first petal drop is 4-‐6 days shorter in the grazed plots (Fig. 3). Finally the number of seeds per capsule is considerable lower in the grazed Silene acaulis compared with ungrazed Silene acaulis, indicating that the grazed plants do not have same capacity as the ungrazed to produce seeds (Fig. 4) (Fosaa et al., 2012; Oberbauer et al., 2013); (Fosaa in prep. 1).

Fig. 3. The influence of experimental warming on flowering phenology of Silene acaulis. Ctrl (encl): No grazing, no warming; Ctr(graz): Grazing, no warming; OTC: No grazing, warming.

24

Fig. 4. Number of seeds per capsule (left axis) and capsule length in mm (right axis. Abbr. – see Fig. 3. Overall findings

• The abundance of graminoids and bryophytes increased both by warming and by grazing exclosure.

• The abundance of herbs (Polygonum viviparum) were not affected and woody species (Salix herbacea) decreased both by warming and by grazing exclosure.

• Leaf length in Pologonum viviparum, Salix herbacea and grasses was greatest in warmed and shortest in grazed plots.

25

Overall conclusions Sheep grazing:

• Smaller and vulnerable plants • Reduced vegetation cover • More vulnerable to avalances • Shorter flowering phenology and poorer seed production • Loss of biodiversity

Climate change:

• Greener (taller plants / higher vegetation cover) • Earlier flowering, richer seed production • Easier for new and invasive species to adapt • Loss of mountain biodiversity

Drainage:

• Disappearance of mires • Loss of mire species

26

Plant roots and soil fungi Erla Olsen, Gramar Research and the University of the Faroe Islands The Faroese view of Nature is rather focused on – the Nature has no right of its own, but rather of what it can provide of food, or of her food production capacity. This traditional view of Nature was also evident in a study from 2004, examining the attitude of the inhabitants of the Faroes towards nature and environment administration, where they found, that the Faroese do have a complex view on Nature. One the one hand do they consider nature as a useful utility, on the other hand they think that the nature is vulnerable and needs protection (Rørbo, 2004). Nature as a utility is mostly used for sheep pasture, as much as possible, and ewen the most inaccessable places are used. In this way it is possible to accommodate 70,000 ewes on a land that account for 1,300 km2, from sea level up to 870 m altitude. These ewes get on average one lamb each, so from May to October the sheep population in the Faroes is around 140,000 sheep, grazing mostly in the outfield, as the infields are reserved for grass production for wintherfodder to the cattle. During winther, the sheep (70,000 ewes) are allowed to graze the infields if possible, as well as the outfields. Most of these sheeps do not have access to sheephouses during winther. Thus the Faroese ewes have 0.5 HA to feed on for them selves year-‐round and in addition their lambs during summer. This number is comparable to the number sheep that in Peak District in UK has been reported to create bare soils as well as extensive scars (Evans, 1997). The climate in the Faroes is considerable more severe than in Peak District, and hence we could expect that the impact in the Faroes of overgrazing are widespread just by considering the number of sheep. According to Evans (1997) the impact of overgrazing is measured with different scales dependent on who is doing the estimation. The farmers notice a decline in productivity, the ecologists notice a decline or disappearance of preferred plant or vegetations cover, while the conservationists are looking at exposure of bare soil and consequent erosion (Evans, 1997). All these issues are present in the Faroe Islands, though as the problem has been so longlasting, and the decline in productivity has been compensated partly by extra feeding, and by giving medicine, so there have not been high mortality which previously was the regulating factor. Faroes sheep populations had considerable fluctuations from year to year during several centuries. These fluctuations continued until the 1920ties, when medicine came into common use. At the same time road construction facilitated the sheep management, and it has become increasingly more common to provide extra sheep food during the winter, especially in outfields that are directly accessible by car (Austrheim et al., 2008b). This steady overgrazing has led to a unvoluntary selection towards unpalate, tough, nutrient poor and slow-growing grasses, such as Nardus stricta (Massey et al., 2007), and is also indicating a negative unfertile feed-back system, providing a system with

27

low nutrient availability, low leaf nutrient concentration, followed by low net primary production, low quality litter returning few nutrient back to the soil, so the mineralisation rate is low. This overgrazing has become an unintended issue in several projects working on belowground ecology, especially with roots, symbiotic fungi and nutrients exchange with regard to temperature and drainage. In a project using altitude as a mean of achieving temperature differences in nature 4 different mountain slopes were used, 2 facing northward and 2 facing southward. Two different plants were sampled, preferably intermingled into each other in the same lump of soil so that the plant roots had had access to the same nutrients and the soil fungi had had access to the same plant roots. Temperature differences were found both with regard to altitude and aspect, and in particular available phosphate was more abundant at southfacing slopes. The study found, that grass roots (Agrostis capillaris) had finer roots and more mycorrhizal structures at higher altitude than at low altitude, regardless of aspect, but there was a correlation with the amount of total nitrogen in the soils (the total nitrogen was measured two years previous to the sampling). Roots of Ranunculus acris had significant more mycorrhizal structures at southfacing slopes – one possible explanation was that as it was slightly warmer on southfacing slopes there were more available phosphate in the soil due to increased mineralisation, and therefore more benefits of the mycorrhizal symbiosis for the plant (Olsen, 2006). The AM fungal communities differed in the two plant species, although the plant roots had been growing tightly together in the same lump of soil. A total of 23 AM fungal types were found, of which 15 types were found in Agrostis capillaris, and 9 in Ranunculus acris. Some of the types were the same in the two plant species, and in particular two were abundant. One of thesi is found wordwide, and has also been called Glo3 (Olsen & Fitter, 2004). The fungal communities differed also with regard to altitude and aspect (Olsen, 2006). Another study used an site where hexagons made of plexiglas were placed inside a enclosure. The enclosure was part of a study to follow the recovery of erosion when sheep were excluded, and the hexagons were part of the International Tundra Experiment (ITEX), which is a field experiment with a global climate change aspect with more than 40 registered sites located circumpolar. Most of these sites have temperature manipulations such as plexiglas hexagons, that can increase the air temperature 2-3°C, and sometimes also increase the soil temperature, probably especially when the site is on a plain rather than a slope. The Faroese ITEX sites are on a slope, and as they are placed inside a fenced enclosure there are three treatments: grazing outside the fence, enclosure without grazing inside the fence, and then the open top chambers without grazing and with elevated temperature. The sites were samples several times during two summers (Olsen, 2006), and were also sampled in 2011. The response of Agrostis capillaris to grazing was a tendency to less abundance when grazed, finer roots when grazed and a greater root length colonisation (%RLC) (Fosaa & Olsen, 2007). The AM fungal types differed. In the first year (2002) the type Glo3, was only found outside the fence, or where grazing was. Inside the fence the diversity

28

of the fungal community in the roots was greatest, and only one AM fungal type was found in the roots from the hexagons, while another type was found both outside the hexagons and outside the fence. This raised the question whether one of the types was sensitive to elevated temperatures, and whether the type Glo3 is a grazing tolerant type? However, the samples from the next year, 2003, showed no such pattern. When comparing with temperature measurements there was indications that the most abundant Glomus types grew well at higher temperatures (Olsen, 2006). This finding is not contradicted by findings from other places, as for example Glo3 has been found in most studies worldwide, and is very similary to AM fungi that have been cultured at the University of York (Husband, Herre, & Young, 2002; Olsen & Fitter, 2004). Also the impact of draining has been examined during an environmental impact assessment in 2007, where one drained area, which had been drained for 30 years, was compared with an adjacent undrained area. Both areas are facing west. The impact on vegetation of drainage was that graminoids and sedges were less abundand in the drained area, and in return there were more woody species and lichens compared with the undrained area. As there was no assessment before the drainage 30 years ago it was not possible to determine that the difference was due to the drainage (Fosaa et al., 2010), see also Fosaa (this vol.). However, the grass roots – mostly Agrostis capillaris – were finer and the colonisation showed more arbuscules in roots from the drained area. At the same time the water soluble soil phosphate was also greater in the drained area, so although there were fewer graminoids, including Agrostis capillaris, in the drained area, so did the grasses grow finer roots probably in chase of the available phosphate.

Eiði-1 = drained Eiði-2 = undrained

Fine roots

Perc

ent f

ine

root

s

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Eiði-1 = drained Eiði-2 = undrained0

3

6

9

12

15 Phosphate

mg

phos

phat

e pe

r kg

dry

soil

! Sc!

! The biomass of mushrooms, and in particular vaxcaps, was considerably greater in the drained area. The biomass of roundhead mushrooms seemed to follow the same pattern as the number of ewes per “gyllin” (Fosaa, Olsen, & Simonsen, 2008). These factors indicated that drainage provided a less water-soaked soil, allowing fungal decomposition of organic material, so phosphate was made available, with both plant root and AM fungal response. Also, grazing might affect plant nutrient value, and consequent the fertilizing value of dung.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Eiði-1 = drained Eiði-2 = undrained

Arbuscules%

root

leng

th c

olon

ised

with

arb

uscu

les

!"#$%&"'()*%+,!-%./%0#12#34%3"5%67

!

!"#

!"$

!"%

!"&

'

'"#

'"$

'"%

'"&

#

()*)+',-,./0)12. ()*)+#,31./0)12.

(

30

Grazing and dung roundhead mushroom (bø-slipusoppur)

Veg3-4 Veg4-5

Veg9-10

Veg10-11

Veg11-12

Veg2-3

Veg1-2

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Sites

Fung

al D

M G

per

km

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

“Ew

es p

er “

gylli

n”

Eiði-1: Drained Eiði-2: Undrained

31

At læse landskabet – bæredygtig græsning Reading the landscape – sustainable grazing Lis Mortensen1 and Gunnar Bjarnason2 1) Jarðfeingi (Faroese Earth and Energy Directorate) 2) Búnaðargrunnurin (Faroese Agricultural Funding Institute) “At læse landskabet” er et nordisk projekt med medlemmer fra Finland, Færøerne, Grønland, Island, Norge og Sverige, som blev afsluttet i 2007. Materiale og erfaringer fra det nordiske område blev indsamlet og formidlet til dem som havde indflydelse på jorden, d.v.s. bønder og jordejere. Publikationen blev skrevet på dansk, som var arbejdssproget i gruppen, siden oversat til finsk, grønlandsk, færøsk og samisk. Ideen var at man ville nå til bønder og jordejere i de nordlige egne på deres eget sprog. Projektet var inspireret af det islandske projekt “At lesa landið”, som hermed blev sat i et større nordisk perspektiv. Med udgangspunkt i beskrivelser fra Island og den sydligste del af Grønland om græsning og hvordan det påvirker det fysiske landsskab, processerne, vegetasjonen og dyrelivet i den nordlige del af Finland, Sverige og Norge, samt Færøerne. Dette blev udgangspunktet for en række forelæsninger, særlig i landsbrugsområderne, som havde særlig fokus på bønder og jordejere. Man tog op så forskellige emner som forvitring, processer i landskabet som fører til erosjon, og hvordan vandet kan være en faktor som gør at erosjonen får tag i området, især der hvor jorden er udsat og bar, og hvor vegetationen er blevet sparsom. Et almindeligt fænomen i vegetasjonsfattige områder i de færøske fjelde er tø og frysning, hvor der opbygges iskrystaller lige under jordoverfladen. Dette er måske en af de faktorer som gør det svært for planter at etablere sig, når et område først er blevet vegetasjonsløst, for eksempel efter et jordskred. Disse forelæsninger afledte ofte gode diskutioner omkring hvilke funktioner jorden har, hjemsted for planter, dyr, svampe og bakterier, men også hjemsted for næringsstoffer, er et vigtigt vandreservoir og vandet bliver også renset. Det er vigtigt at skabe forståelse for, at landskabet ikke er et sted hvor vandet bare løber igennem, men at jordlagene forsinker vandet, at jorden kan fungere som vandresevoir, og at jordlaget beskytter vandet. En vigtig faktor for planterne i de nordiske fjeldlandskaber er årstiderne, og man kan se, at planterne i de laveste dele af landskabet har en sæson, som starter tidligere end højere oppe i fjeldene, og man kan forestille sig hvordan de græssende får kan følge foråret op igennem et landskab.

32

Hermed kan jordejere og bønder selv holde øje med områderne, følge dyrenes adfærd, og følge med hvordan planterne bliver græsset, og også følge med i forholdene for en plante som bliver bidt: bliver den bidt delvis ned, så kan den vokse op igen, men bliver den bidt helt ned til roden, så har den svært ved at komme sig. Derfor kan det være vanskeligt for planterne at holde sige i live, hvis fårene kommer for tidligt op i højtliggende områder, eller områder, som på anden vis er sårbare. En fyldig høj vegetasjon har en lige så stor biomasse under jorden, som vi ikke kan se, og i takt med at vegetationen bliver bidt, så indskrumper rodnettet også, og der kommer utætheder i vegetationen. Hvis man nu tænker os et mangfoldigt vegetationsområde, som begynder at blive græsset, så kan man se, at der kommer vegetationsændringer, planterne bliver bidt ned, og der kommer andre plantetyper. Når vegetationen virkelig er under pres, så kan man -‐ også i det færøske landskab -‐ se at det kan gå to veje, enten kommer der pletter med bar jord, der kan også forekomme en anden type, hvor vi får områder som tilsyneladende er vegetationsrige, men de er rige på græs-‐ og mosarter som er resistente overfor fåregræsning, og som fårene faktisk ikke har særlig stor glæde af, og som måske endda er giftige for dem. Når man taler om at læse landskabet er en indikator på overgræsning at fårene opfører sig på måder som ikke er naturlige for dem, for eksempel at de græsser i vådområder. Også har det betydning hvilken vej man kigger når man står ude. Når man kigger nedad, kan man typisk meget bedre se de eroderede områder, end når man kigger opad i det samme landskabet – da kan det endda se fuldstændig tilvokset ud. Så man skal være opmærksom på, at der er stor forskel på hvor skadet landskabet ser ud, alt efter i hvilken retning man kigger. En anden indikator på overgræsning løst vissent græs, eller græsdele, som ligger ovenpå græsset. Dette er ufordøjelige dele af græsset, som fårene spytter ud igen. Dette er en indikator om at fårene spiser en næringsfattig græsart. De lokale bønder og jordejere har mange ord for hvordan landskabet ser ud, og hvordan skred ser ud, og hvordan sneen opfører sig, men græs er græs. Der er ikke stor tradition for at se på hvad der er for arter der vokser. Projektet “At læse landskabet” har ført til, at det færøske landskab er blevet delvis vurderet. Man kan se at landskabet veksler mellem vegetasjonsløse, eller -‐fattige områder, og så mere grønne områder. Dog kan man sige, at projektet har været med til at rejse bevidstheden iblandt lokalbefolkningen om, at selv om der ser ud til at være et flot og fint landskab, kan der godt være, at hvis man går lidt højere op, så kan man se at der er de store sår i landskabet. Budskabet er, at sårene måske kan heles, og man skal prøve at overveje om det kan gøres med ændret brug af landskabet.

33

Grazing -‐ an ecological process Anna Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir Landbúnaðarháskóli Íslands (The Agricultural University of Iceland) In many countries, grazing and grazing management was, for a long time, controversial were agronomists and conservationists held different views. Back in the seventies and eighties grazing was often viewed as a highly negative disturbance, destroying individual plants and plant communities. In the last decade however, this view has been changing drastically and today grazing is viewed as an ecological process and a natural disturbance in most ecosystems. Today, large vertebrate herbivores, as well as plant-‐soil feedback interactions are considered important drivers of plant performance, plant community composition and vegetation dynamics in terrestrial ecosystems (Veen, de Vries, Bakker, van der Putten, & Olff, 2014). Grazing by livestock has become not only a mean for food production but also a mean for conservation. Grazing and plant performance The plant has biomass both above and below ground and both parts are consumed by different grazers and browsers. The effect of these on plant performance is highly variable and depends on several factors; i.e. the type of consumer, amount consumed and timing. Large vertebrate herbivores remove mostly aboveground biomass by grazing and browsing. Grasses are the main grazing plants. They appeared late in the history of evolution, evolved with grazers and are specially adapted to grazing. They have basal growth points that usually escape removal by grazing and basal buds that are activated by grazing. Activated tillering by grazing is the most important adaption of the grass plant as it produces more tillers and more forage if it is grazed than if it is ungrazed. The optimum grazing pressure for maximum tillering depends on plant species as well as time and amount of grazing. In general however, the total biomass produced is higher in grazed than in ungrazed grasslands. The old “rule of thumb” states that there is a linear relationship between the aboveground and the belowground biomass of the plant; that a grazed plant with little aboveground biomass has equally little roots below. This “rule of thumb” has been reconsidered in the last years and both total biomass production and biomass allocation to roots has been found to be higher grazed than ungrazed pastures. Studies indicate also that moderate grazing has a positive effect on the amount of nutrients in the soil, on soil biota and increase carbon sequestation in the soil. Grazing and plant communities Within the plant community, there is heavy competition both aboveground and belowground. A grazed plant between two ungrazed plants has a great disadvantage in the competition with those that are ungrazed and with continuous grazing the grazed plant will give up in the competition. Continuous, heavy grazing in a given pasture will therefore have a directional change on the

34

plant community towards less grazed plants, for example towards an unpalatable grass like Nardus stricta. This directional change is usually not as pronounced in grazing systems with more than one type of grazer and in natural systems with seasonal grazing. Grazing and vegetation dynamics Earlier, the Clemensian model of vegetation dynamics considered succession as a directional change of vegetation communities towards a predictable climax. In this model, one successional stage comes after another in the absence of disturbance. Disturbance, in the Clemensian model, is considered negative as it prevents natural development of the community towards climax. Today, the notion predictable development of communities and a stable climax has been abandoned, although these concepts are still often held in relation to grazing management. Today, successional processes have come to be seen as much less deterministic with alternate pathways and non-‐equilibrium stages and the importance of the “historical contingency or time lag” has become increasingly important. Here, previous land use and ecosystem disturbance has been shown alter successional stages over a much longer time scale than that at which the land use itself occurs. This has special relevance to grazing and grazing management, as grazing is a disturbance in plant community and a driver of community changes. In ecology, the intermediate disturbance hypothesis states that species diversity is maximized when disturbance is neither too little nor too frequent as at high disturbance few species can survive and at low disturbance a few dominants will overtake. As grazing is one of the main disturbances in many plant communities, highest diversity will therefore occur with intermediate grazing. For grasslands, the same goes for biomass production and maximal production will occur at intermediate levels of grazing (maximum tillering).

! ae!

!!!R9)$)!-(!&!O%)&$!$)()EM%&*O)!M).P))*!.9)!M-/,-<)$(-.LZ,-(.4$M&*O)!$)%&.-/*(9-Q!&*,!.9)!M-/,-<)$(-.LZ(4OO)((-/*!$)%&.-/*(9-Q_!!@-/,-<)$(-.L!-(!%/P!-*!.9)!)&$%-)(.!(.&I)(!/V!(4OO)((-/*u!Q$-E&$L!(4OO)((-/*!&*,!.9)!V-$(.!(.&I)(!/V!()O/*,&$L!(4OO)((-/*1!-*O$)&()(!P-.9!.-E)!&*,!$)&O9)(!&!O)$.&-*!E&`-E4E_!!?$/E!.9&.!E&`-E4E1!$).$/I$)((-/*!/OO4$(_!!G).$/I$)((-/*!-(!.9)!,)O%-*)!Q9&()!/V!(4OO)((-/*!-*!.9)!%/*IZ.)$E!&M()*O)!/V!,-(.4$M&*O)1!O9&$&O.)$-N),!ML1!&(!P)%%!&(!,)O%-*-*I!M-/,-<)$(-.L1!,)O$)&(-*I!%)<)%(!/V!Q%&*.!M-/E&((1!(/-%!V)$.-%-.L1!&*,!/V.)*!(/-%!Q)$E)&M-%-.L!+())!C)%.N)$!ST"T!&*,!=&%i)$!&*,!=&$,%)!ST"U!V/$!V4$.9)$!,-(O4((-/*0_!!=-.9!-*.)$E),-&.)!,-(.4$M&*O)pQ$)((4$)1!9-I9)(.!,-<)$(-.L!&*,!&%(/!9-I9)(.!Q$/,4O.-/*!-(!./!M)!)`Q)O.),_!K).)$/I)*)-.L1!O&4(),!ML!,-VV)$)*.!I$&N-*I!Q$)((4$)!-(!&%(/!-EQ/$.&*.!V/$!M-/,-<)$(-.L_!!2$)&(!P-.9!%/P!I$&N-*I!Q$)((4$)!&$)!-EQ/$.&*.!V/$!Q%&*.(!.9&.!&$)!*/.!./%)$&*.!V/$!I$&N-*I_!2$)&(!P-.9!9-I9!I$&N-*I!Q$)((4$)!&$)!)g4&%%L!-EQ/$.&*.1!O$)&.-*I!/Q)*-*I(p*-)O)(!V/$!Q%&*.(!.9&.!&$)!*/.!I//,!O/EQ).-./$(_!!!!F7%*+!3,7,2+@)*!%*=!B&%C@*B!A&,1,&,*2,3!3$&N-*I!(9))Q!&$)!<)$L!()%)O.-<)!&*,!.9)L!,/!9&<)!&!,-$)O.-/*&%!O9&*I)!/*!.9)!)O/(L(.)E!&(!.9)L!.)*,!./!I$&N)1!$)Q)&.),%L1!.9)!(&E)!Q%&*.(_!!R9)!,-$)O.-/*&%!O9&*I)!/OO4$(!)(Q)O-&%%L!-V!.9)-$!I$&N-*I!.&i)(!Q%&O)!.9)!P9/%)!L)&$!&$/4*,!&*,!.9)!Q%&*.!-(!*)<)$!I-<)*!.9)!.-E)!./!$)O/<)$_!�)&$!&$/4*,1!O/*.-*4/4(!I$&N-*I!P-%%!)<)*.4&%%L!.&i)!/4.!&%%!.9)!I//,!I$&N-*I!Q%&*.(_!K/P)<)$1!.9-(!-(!*/.!A4(.!.9&.!(-EQ%)!M)O&4()!<&$-/4(!-*,-<-,4&%(!9&<)!&!<&$-/4(!,-).!()%)O.-/*1!&*,!(/E)!-*,-<-,4&%(!&$)!I/-*I!./!()%)O.!&!Q&$.-O4%&$!Q%&*.!(Q)O-)(1!P9-%)!.9)!/.9)$(!&$)!()%)O.-*I!/.9)$!(Q)O-)(_!2%(/1!Q%&*.!Q$)V)$)*O)(!O9&*I)!V$/E!/*)!()&(/*!./!.9)!*)`._!!:/E)!-*,-<-,4&%!(9))Q!E-I9.1!V/$!)`&EQ%)1!M)!9-I9%L!()%)O.-<)!V/$!<$-'T!*N_!!

!"#$%&'

WƌŽĚ

ƵĐƟŽ

Ŷ

36

early in the season, and select forbs later in the season. This means, for example, that if willows are to be kept in a pasture, it is important to minimize spring grazing. To influence sward development and plant species composition in the sward, plant selection of the grazing animals must be known as well as the time of grazing. The quality of the products and the health of the animals Plants have very different chemical composition, depending on type; i.e. forbs vs. grasses), growth place; i.e. elevation, distance from ocean); phenological stage and stress; i.e. wind, frost, herbivory. Certain chemicals, i.e. antioxidants, unsaturated fatty acids, vitamins E and C are produced in larger amounts under elevated environmental stress like heat, frost and high UV. Therefore, plants growing in arctic and alpine areas have higher levels of these chemicals than plants growing in lowland areas. For the grazing animal, the chemical composition of the forage has not only effect on the health and performance of the grazing animal but also on the composition of the product. Forbs/dicots have more diverse chemical composition than grasses and these will often produce many different chemicals as defense mechanisms against grazing – secondary compounds, like different phenolics and alkaloids. These natural plant products can have the same function for animals as natural medicine for humans by modulating the immune system, combat parasites and modify digestibility of the forage (see Provenza and Villalba (2010) for discussion). The concentration of theses secondary compounds are low in grasses and therefore high diversity swards, with various dicots/forbs along with the grasses are important for the welfare of the grazing animal. However, heavy grazing pressure can graze out forbs/dicots as they are not as grazing tolerant as grasses. Therefore, intermediate grazing pressure is not only important for plant diversity but also for the welfare and performance of the grazing animal and the quality of the produce as products from grazing areas with high biodiversity are going to have different composition than products from areas where there is less biodiversity. In conclusion, keeping grazing at intermediate levels is important for plant diversity, plant-‐soil interactions, soil nutrients, soil biota, carbon sequestration, plant biomass, animal health and quality of the animal products. In Iceland and the Faroe Islands sheep husbandry is the backbone of both history and culture. The cultural landscape of Iceland and the Faroe Islands is the open landscape, created by sheep grazing. The majority of tourists traveling to Iceland now do so to see the open, living landscape that is not so common today. In Iceland, because of the volcanic nature of the soils, overgrazing can lead to erosion. Therefore, grazing management is important to keep intermediate grazing levels and high biodiversity in the open cultural landscape.

37

Sustainable grazing in alpine and subarctic environments – Discussion based on sheep livestock farming in Norway Sølvi Wehn Bioforsk (Norwegian Institute for agricultural and environmental research) One of the main threats to Norwegian biodiversity is the changed agricultural practices in the last 50-100 years (Kålås et al. 2010). Less extraction of fire wood and fodder by humans and their range grazing domestic animals have enabled establishment of shrub and tree species in earlier open grass and herb dominated areas. As 37% of the Norwegian area is forested, 47 % is alpine tundra and heaths (Moen 1999), degradation of the few remaining open semi-natural habitats below forest line is critically for the species adapted to these habitats. In total, land-use changes applies to all of 87 % of the threatened or near threatened species in the Norwegian red list (Kålås et al. 2010) and the semi-natural habitat types; semi-natural grassland, hay meadow, coastal heath and boreal heath are all listed in the Norwegian red list for ecosystems and habitat types (Norderhaug and Johansen 2011). As livestock composition grazing in outfield areas prior to 1960s was diverse (goat, sheep, cattle and in some few areas: semi domestic reindeer; when excluding the areas of Samiland), agricultural changes have resulted in a more homogenous livestock composition grazing in Norwegian outfields. Today, composition of livestock allowed to range graze consists mainly of sheep (Wehn et al. 2011). Prior to year 2000 the overall number of sheep showed a yearly increase since the 19th century, however, after 2000 some farmers have abandoned sheep farming resulting in a decrease (data provided by the Statistics Norway). Today the number of winter feed sheep in Norway is 1,031,890 (SSB 2014). Outfield grazing is mainly organized through sheep owner cooperations and the most common density of sheep in Norwegian outfields is less than 25 sheep per km2 (see link to homepage7 below). Due to animal welfare, range grazing by sheep is only allowed during the snow-free period in Norway (The ministry of Agriculture and Food 2005; see figure 2 in Johannesen et al. 2013). Some farmers get dispensation and are allowed range grazing in coastal heathland, if conditions do allow for this. However, these are few and in general sheep grazing affect vegetation only during the vegetation growth season. As composition and numbers of range grazing domestic animals have changed and decreased and less fire-wood has been extracted in remote areas, the diversity of semi-natural habitats in agricultural landscapes has declined (Wehn 2009; Wehn et al. 2012). Sheep grazing permit growth of shrub and tree species-seedlings, however, only at large sheep densities and only if the seedlings are below a certain size (Speed et al. 2011). The sheep densities most common in Norwegian outfields (see above), have no effect on establishment of scrub and forest in earlier heterogeneous agricultural landscapes (Wehn et al. 2011).

7 http://kilden.skogoglandskap.no/map/kilden/index.jsp

38

Since the land-use changes in the 1960s, forest lines have shifted upwards; the earlier open vegetation types in the low alpine zone have been invaded by shrub and tree-species (Wehn et al. 2012). During the last decades prior to 2000, few changes in growth season temperatures have been reported in Norwegian mountain regions. Grazing and other land-use have on the other side, changed a lot. Therefore, most of the upslope movement of forest lines can be attributed to agricultural changes. Even if few growth season temperature changes, overall climate has changed in Norway; especially since year 2000. However, not at uniform rates throughout regions (see http://www.senorge.no/?p=klima). By modelling effects of multiple environmental gradients on vegetation in Central Norway, it was found that the climate changes predicted, might influence fodder quality, also this at different rates among regions (Wehn et al. 2014). Sheep prefer herb and grass species (Mysterud 2000) and climatic gradients such as temperature, snow cover length and oceanicity influence richness and proportion of herb and grass species in alpine areas (Wehn et al. 2014); areas where sheep are grazing during summers in Norway. The areas rich in herb and grass species are mainly found in low-alpine and covered with snow during a relatively long period (lee-side and snow-bed vegetation types). According climate scenarios, more precipitation, higher temperatures and shorter periods of snow cover is predicted (see: http://www.senorge.no/?p=klima). The predicted future climate might result in a further upslope movement of forest and shrub species. Eventually, these species will outcompete grass and forb species and thus, decrease distribution of areas of high fodder quality (Wehn et al. 2014). To sum up: Changed agricultural practices have threatened biodiversity, as landscapes have become less heterogeneous and forest lines have expanded into the low alpine zone. The main domestic animal range grazing in Norway (when excluding Samiland) is sheep. Areas of high fodder quality for sheep include vegetation dominated by grass and forbs. Therefore, the agricultural changes (which include less outfield grazing) have not only threatened biodiversity, but also decreased overall fodder quality of Norwegian outfields. Further, the predicted future climate might show additive negative effect if not sheep as well as other low intensive land-use practices increases in Norway.

! ac!

/?,!2)$6@*,=!&,3A)*3,!)1!A7%*+!&))+3!%*=!$'2)&&?@C%7!3'$6@)*+3!+)!B&%C@*BX!=&%@*%B,!%*=!+,$A,&%+#&,!!K&7%!M73,*!"1!S!"[!3$&E&$!G)()&$O9!S[!?$85(i&Q&$().4$!?;$/L&!+R9)!\*-<)$(-.L!/V!.9)!?&$/)!](%&*,(0!!!K)$)!$)(4%.(!V$/E!&!*/$,-O!Q$/A)O.!V$/E!P-%%!M)!Q$)()*.),1!P9)$)!.9)!V/O4(!9&(!M))*!/*!$//.!&*,!V4*I&%!$)(Q/*)(!./!I$&N-*I1!,$&-*&I)!&*,!.)EQ)$&.4$)_!R9)!Q&$.-O-Q&.-*I!O/4*.$-)(!9&<)!M))*!?&$/)!](%&*,(1!]O)%&*,!&*,!W/$P&L_!!R9)!P/$i-*I!9LQ/.9)()(!P)$)!-0!Q%&*.(!.9&.!&$)!E/,)$&.)%L!I$&N),!9&<)!.9)!9-I9)(.!$//.!O/%/*-(&.-/*!&(!P)%%!&(!.9)!I$)&.)(.!V4*I&%!,-<)$(-.L1!&*,!--0!.9)!./%)$&*O)!/V!I$&N-*I!-(!,)Q)*,)*.!/*!O%-E&.)_!!!R9)!M&OiI$/4*,!V/$!.9)!$)()&$O9!().Z4Q!P)$)!(/E)!/M()$<&.-/*(1!g4)(.-/*(!&*,!-*,-O&.-/*(!.9&.!Q$)<-/4(!$)()&$O9!9&,!/Q)*),!4Q!V/$_!'*)!/V!.9)!-((4)(!P)$)!P9).9)$!Q%&*.!$//.(!,/!$)(Q/*,!./!I$&N-*I1!M)O&4()!-*!E/(.!O&()(!P-.9!(&EQ%)(!V$/E!.9)!?&$/)(!$//.(!V$/E!I$&N),!Q%&*.(!9&,!M))*!V-*)$!.9&*!V$/E!4*I$&N),!Q%&*.(_!2*/.9)$!/M()$<&.-/*!P&(!.9&.!P)!9&,!E)&(4$),!E/$)!P&.)$!(/%4M%)!Q9/(Q9&.)!-*!,$&-*),!Q%/.(!.9&*!-*!4*,$&-*),!m!M4.!&(!.9)!$)()&$O9!9&,!*/.!M))*!,)(-I*),!./!.)(.!V/$!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)!&.!.9&.!.-E)!.9-(!9&,!./!M)!.)(.),_!R9)!V-*,-*I(!V$/E!.9)!?&$/)(!P)$)!.9&.!I$&N),!$//.(!P)$)!E/$)!O/%/*-N),!ML!ELO/$$9-N&%!V4*I-!.9&*!4*I$&N),!+?/(&&!k!'%()*1!STTh01!&*,!&%(/!&!9-I9)$!V4*I&%!M-/,-<)$(-.L!P-.9-*!4*I$&N),!$//.(!P&(!/M()$<),!+'%()*1!STTl0!m!M4.!O/4%,!.9)()!Q$)<-/4(!$)(4%.(!M)!$)Q)&.),_!:4M(.$&.)!Q9/(Q9&.)!&*,!wGBX!&$)!/V.)*!*)I&.-<)%L!O/$$)%&.),1!&(!.9)!Q%&*.(!())E(!./!M)!&M%)!./!MLZQ&((!.9)!&$M4(O4%&$!ELO/$$9-N&%!(LEM-/*.(!-V!.9)$)!&$)!(4VV-O-)*.!*4.$-)*.(!V/$!.9)!Q%&*._!!

!>@B9!89!R9)!Q)$O)*.&I)!/V!Q%&*.!$//.(!V-*)$!.9&*!T1e!EE!&*,!.9)-$!$)(Q/*()!./!P&$E-*I_!\*9)&.),!Q%&*.(!I$)P!&.!"TZ"S|X1!P9-%)!9)&.),!Q%&*.(!I$)P!&.!"e|X_!R9)!$//.(!P)$)!(O&**),!&*,!.9)*!&*&%L(),!P-.9!(Q)O-&%-(),!(/V.P&$)!+=-*G9-N/0_!

he!

dT!

de!

cT!

ce!

"TT!

]O)%&*,! ?&$/)(!

Y!>@*,!&))+3!%*=!;%&$@*B!

\*9)&.),!

K)&.),!

! UT!

!/?,!&))+!&,3A)*3,!)1!,7,D%+,=!+,$A,&%+#&,!'*)!/V!.9)!)`Q)$-E)*.(!4(),!Q%&*.(!V$/E!]O)%&*,!&*,!.9)!?&$/)(1!&*,!9)%,!/*)!Q&$.!/V!.9)!Q%&*.(!&.!&EM-)*.!.)EQ)$&.4$)!+"TZ"S|X01!P9-%)!.9)!/.9)$!9&%V!P&(!9)%,!&.!"e|X_!R9)!$)(Q/*()!/V!.9)!$//.(!P)$)!E)&(4$),!-*!.)$E(!/V!$//.!%)*I.9!&*,!.9-Oi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g4)(.-/*!P9).9)$!Q%&*.!$//.(!,/!$)(Q/*,!./!I$&N-*I_!!!

>@B9!59!R9)!Q)$O)*.&I)!/V!Q%&*.!$//.(!V-*)$!.9&*!T1e!EE!P-.9!$)I&$,!./!/$-I-*!Z!O/4*.$L!&*,!P9).9)$!.9)L!O&E)!V$/E!I$&N),1!4*I$&N),!Q%/.(1!/$!.9)L!O&E)!V$/E!E/P),!Q%/.(_!R9)!E/P-*I!())E(!./!M)!&!E-%,)$!V/$E!/V!v(-E4%&.),!I$&N-*Iy1!&(!.9)()!$//.(!&$)!*/.!&(!O/&$()!&(!.9)!I$&N),_!!!].!.4$*),!/4.1!.9&.!.9)!$//.(!/V!.9)!?&$/)()!Q%&*.(!$)(Q/*,),!&(!)`Q)O.),!P-.9!$)I&$,!./!ELO/$$9-N&%!O/%/*-(&.-/*1!&(!I$&N),!Q%&*.(!9&,!I$)&.)$!$//.!O/%/*-(&.-/*!.9&*!4*I$&N),!Q%&*.(_!K/P)<)$1!.9-(!P&(!*/.!.9)!O&()!P-.9!.9)!(&EQ%)(!V$/E!]O)%&*,!&*,!W/$P&L1!P9)$)!.9)!O/%/*-(&.-/*!P&(!%)((!-*!I$&N),!$//.(!+?-I_!a0_!!'*)!/V!.9)!I/&%(!P)$)!./!%//i!&.!.9)!O/EM-*),!-EQ&O.!/V!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)1!,$&-*&I)!&*,!I$&N-*I_!R9)!V-$(.!&..)EQ.!4(),!&!<)$L!(-EQ%)!&QQ$/&O9!ML!P&.)$-*I!P-.9!a!,-VV)$)*.!P&.)$!&E/4*.(1!e!E%1!"T!E%!&*,!ST!E%!)<)$L!()O/*,!,&L_!R9)!&((4EQ.-/*!P&(1!.9&.!,$L)$!(/-%(!O/*.&-*!E/$)!P&.)$!(/%4M%)!Q9/(Q9&.)1!&*,!-.!E-I9.!M)!Q/((-M%)!./!E)&(4$)!Q9/(Q9&.)!-*!.9)!V%/P!.9$/4I9!P&.)$_!R9-(!P&(!*/.!.9)!O&()Ä!:/!.9)!(&E)!(&EQ%)(!P)$)!$)4(),!-*!&!*)P!.)(.1!P9)$)!.9)L!P)$)!Q4.!

he!

dT!

de!

cT!

ce!

"TT!

W/!I$&N-*I! 3$&N-*I! >/P-*I!

Y!>@*,!&))+3!%*=!B&%C@*B!

]O)%&*,!

?&$/)(!

W/$P&L!

! U"!

-*./!Q)$Q9/$&.),!Q%&(.-OZM&I(1!9&%V!P-.9!V)P!9/%)(1!&*,!.9)!/.9)$!9&%V!P-.9!E&*L!9/%)(_!R9-(!.-E)!.9)!&((4EQ.-./*!P&(!.9&.!,$L)$!(/-%(!+,$&-*),!.9$/4I9!E&*L!9/%)(0!P/4%,!O/*.&-*!E/$)!P&.)$!(/%4M%)!Q9/(Q9&.)_!!2V.)$!.9)!Q/.(!9&,!M))*!.9$/4I9!&!,-VV)$)*.!,$&-*&I)!.$)&.E)*.!.9)*!.9)$)!P&(!&!(-I*-V-O&*.!O9&*I)!-*!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)!O/*.)*.1!P-.9!E/$)!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)!-*!.9)!Q/.(!.9&.!$)O)-<),!.9)!%)&(.!&E/4*.!/V!P&.)$1!&*,!%)((!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)!-*!.9)!Q/.(!.9&.!$)O)-<),!E/(.!P&.)$!+?-I_!a0_!m!]*.)$)(.-*I%L!(/E)!V4*I-1!.9)!(/O&%%),!v,&$i!()Q.&.),!)*,/Q9L.)(y!+H:#0!9&,!&!O%)&$!$)(Q/*()!./!.9-(!P&.)$-*I!.$)&.E)*.1!&I&-*!P-.9!E/(.!O/%/*-N&.-/*!-*!.9)!,$-)(.!+%)((!P&.)$0!(/-%(!+?-I_!a0_!R9)()!V4*I-!9&<)!M))*!,)(O$-M),!-*!()<)$&%!(.4,-)(1!-*!Q&$.-O4%&$!-*!(.4,-)(!,)&%-*I!P-.9!&$O.-O!O/*,-.-/*(!+F4EQQ/*)*1!STT"u!:O9E-,.!).!&%_1!STTd0_!!

!>@B9!E9!R9)!O/*.)*.!/V!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)!-*!Q&$.(!Q)$!E-%%-/*!+QQE0!&*,!.9)!Q)$O)*.&%!$//.!%)*I.9!O/%/*-O&.-/*!/V!,&$i!()Q.&.)!)*,/Q9L.)(!+H:#0!P-.9!$)I&$,!./!P&.)$-*I_!!!@)V/$)!.9)()!Q/.(!P)*.!.9$/4I9!.9)!V-*&%!&*,!,)(.$4O.-<)!)`&E-*&.-/*1!&!.)(.!/V!9/P!O%-QQ-*I!&VV)O.),!(/-%1!$//.(!&*,!.9)!V4*I-_!R9)!Q%&*.(!P)$)!O4.!,/P*!./!aTw!$)(Q)O.-<)!lTw!/V!.9)!4*O4.!Q%&*.(_!R9)!$)(4%.!V$/E!.9-(!)`Q)$-E)*.!P&(!.9&.!-*!.9)!$//.(!/V!.9)!O%-QQ),!Q%&*.(!.9)$)!P)$)!E/$)!H:#!E)&(4$),!&(!wGBX1!&*,!.9)!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)!V$/E!.9)!O%-QQ),!Q%&*.(!P&(!I$)&.)$!.9&*!-*!.9&*!-*!(/-%!V$/E!4*O%-QQ),!Q%&*.(_!R9-(!-(!&(!)`Q)O.),1!.9)!Q%&*.(!9&<)!%/(.!.-((4)1!.9&.!.)L!.$L!./!$)I$/P1!&*,!V/$!.9&.!Q4$Q/()!.9)L!*)),!Q9/(Q9&.)_!=9).9)$!.9)!O%-QQ-*I!E&i)(!.9)!Q%&*.!$//.(!E/$)!%)&iL1!&*,!9)*O)!Q$/<-,)!.9)!V4*I-!P-.9!O&$M/9L,$&.)(!P-.9/4.!I&-*-*I!Q9/(Q9&.)!O&*!*/.!M)!O/*O%4,),!V$/E!.9-(!(.4,L1!M4.!V4*I-!m!-*O%4,-*I!(/E)!H:#!Z!&$)!i*/P*!./!M)!(.$/*I!O/EQ).-./$(!V/$!.9)!(/-%!Q9/(Q9&.)!&*,!(&Q$/.$/Q9-O!O&Q&M-%-.-)(1!E&i-*I!.9)E!&M%)!./!,-((/%<)!/$I&*-O!E&.)$-&%_!2>!V4*I-!&$)!*/.!i*/P*!./!O/*.&-*!O9)E-O&%(!/$!)*NLE)(!V/$!,)I$&,-*I!/$I&*-O!E&.)$-&%1!M4.!Q%&*.(!P-.9!&$M4(O4%&$!ELO/$$9-N&!&$)!V/4*,!./!V/$E!(LEM-/(-(!P-.9!M/.9!2>!V4*I-!&*,!H:#!+:E-.9!k!G)&,1!STTd0_!!!\(-*I!QL$/()g4)*O-*I1!UU!V4*I&%!(Q)O-)(!P)$)!-,)*.-V-),1!/V!P9-O9!/*%L!c!P)$)!I%/E&%)&*1!/$!.LQ)(!.9&.!V/$E!&$M4(O4%&$!ELO/$$9-N&_!R9)!E/(.!Q$/E-*)*.!/V!.9)!

T!"!S!a!U!e!l!h!d!c!

"T!

:/-%!C!+QQE0! H:#!+wGBX0!

")@7!A?)3A?%+,!%*=!Z"K!

e!E%!

"T!E%!

ST!E%!

42

glomalian was the socalled Glo3 – a type that is found to have a world-‐wide distribution, being not very spesific with regard to plant species, and is also found to be culturable (An et al., 2008; Helgason et al., 2002; Helgasonet al., 2007; Husband et al., 2002; Santos-‐Gonzalez et al., 2007). This was in particular true for the samples from Norway, which also had a more “traditional” colonisation with large arbuscules, while the Icelandic and Faroese samples when examined in the microscope showed a diverse exhibition of arbuscules, from coarse, sausagelike to very fine arbuscules. With regard to grazing then the preliminary results from the pyrosequencing showed that the ungrazed roots contained more fungal species, both with regard to glomalian species and other fungal species, and there are indications that the Glo3 type might be slightly vulnerable to grazing. To conclude, the responses of both plants and soil fungi differ from both site and country, but there are indications that the glomalian fungal type Glo3 is the most prominent glomalian fungi, and might respond to grazing. Also do soil phosphate content and %RLC of DSE seem to be correlated, together with drainage.

43

“Hvordan kan fåreavlere motiveres til at nedsætte græsningtrykket”

Suggestions how to motivate sheep farmers

to decrease the grazing pressure

Bjørn Patursson, Búnaðarstovan (The Agricultural Centre)

www.bst.fo Der hersker næppe tvivl om at beitetrykket af det traditionelle fårehold på Færøerne i mange tilfælde er for hårdt og til besvær for naturen. I det færøske fårehold græsser de “vinterfodrede” får ude i 365 dager om året. Dog er regelen, at i tidsrummet 25. oktober til 15. mai har fårene lov til at græsse eftergræsning på indmarken. Det er flere årsager til at græsningstrykket er øget i tidens løb samt at det er vanskeligt for hver enkelt fåreejer at ændre på græsningstrykket. Mit forslag bygger på rådgivning, motivation og holdningsændringer hos den enkelte fåreejer og beitebruger. Jeg forestiller mig at fagorganisationer, rådgivningcentre og myndigheder indenfor landbrug og deltidslandbrug i fællesskab kaster lys over emnet igennem medierne i en organiseret periode. Mit forslag bygger hovedsaglig på følgende hovedemner:

Holdningsændring Spørgsmål til eftertanke Bit og slit (“nød og næppe”) Læser du haugen Har din hauge det godt? Røkter du haugen, så røkter du dine får! Har haugen (beite) det godt, så har fårene det godt! Hvorfor giver du dine får forebyggende medecin? Kender du pjecen “at lesa landið”

Handlingsplan Hvis seminaret kommer til den konklusjon, at det er til nytte vil Búnaðarstovan tage initiativ til:

1. At søge økonomisk støtte til kampagnen 2. At producere materialet 3. Stå under som anbefaler og ansvarshavende for kampagnen

44

Erosion på Færøerne / Faroese erosion mapping -‐ overvejelser og forsøg på kortlægning / Lis Mortensen Jarðfeingi (Faroese Earth and Energy Directorate) Færøerne et et landskab med højt relief og eftersom de er udsat fra alle sider fra havet, er der mange aktive erosjonsprocesser i gang. Landskabet er varieret, med tempereret kystklima, men allerede når man kommer lidt op i landskabet kommer man ind i et arktisk klima, dog uden permafrost. Det stejle terræn kombineret med høj nedbør betyder at der er masser af aktive processer i gang. Oppe i højderne, hvor der er mange åbne, vegetatiónsfattige områder, ses effekten af hyppige frost-‐tø prosesser i landskabet mere og mere, og er disse en del af erosjonsprocesserne. Nogle af erosjonsprocesserne er helt naturlige, og landet bliver mindre og mindre. Der er dog også andre typer erosjon, som kan være udløst af påvirkning fra mennesker, og sum kan være voldsomt farlige. Et eksempel er et vældig stort skred i Klaksvík i år 2000, sådanne skred er ret almindelige, og er farlige når de sker i tæt bebyggede områder eller hvor der er traffikerede veje. At erosjon er almindelig på Færøerne ses i de mange stednavne, der har noget med “skrið” eller “lop” eller på anden måde fortæller at der er processer i gang. Undersøgelsen “Magnitude-‐frequency characteristics and preparatory factors for spatial debris-‐slide distribution in the northern Faroe Islands” (Dahl et al., 2013) har set på flybilleder og derefter ude i feltet undersøgt de skred som kunne ses fra flybillederne over en 50 års periode. Ud fra dette har man forsøgt at klassifisere de undersøgte skred, og har kigget på hvilke faktorer kan forklare hændelserne. Det undersøgte område omfatter næsten 160 km2 og 219 hændelser inde i området. Undersøgelsen viser, at ved jordskred som er større end 100 m2, ser det ud til at være nogle bestemte faktorer som forklarer jordskredene, grad af hældning, aspekt eller retning, højde eller altitude, hældningen på selve skredet, og endvidere er der forskel i antallet af store skred efter antallet af moderfår. Dette er nok første gang der er lavet et studie som desideret har taget tættheden af får (sheep density) ind i et studie af jorderosjonsprocesser på Færøerne. For nogle år siden blev der lavet en kortlægning af Færøerne ud fra detalierede satelitbilleder, hvor man kunne se ned til én gange én meter, og ud fra disse blev områderne delt op i fire grupper (Tabel 1).

45

Gruppe 1 vand, klippe og skygger 11% Gruppe 2 klippe, grus, er vegetasjonsløse eller vegetasjonsfattige 29% Gruppe 3 rigere fjeldvegetasjon, regulært fjeldgræs de fleste steder 56% Gruppe 4 de allerrigeste græsområder i indmarken 4% Tabel 1. Klassifikation af det færøske landskab efter satelitbilleder. Prosentdelen for hver kategori ses yderst til højre. Gruppe 2, som viser vegetasjonsfattige områder, dækker omkring en trediedel af Færøerne, og det område omkring Klaksvík, hvor det store skred skete i 2000, ligger for en stor del indenfor gruppe 2. Man skal ikke så langt op i fjeldet før erosjonsprosesser så som fryseprosesserne bliver aktive, især i områder hvor der ikke er nogen vegetasjon. Det som skaber disse prosesser er kontinuerligt frysning lige under jordlaget igennem hele vinteren. Årsagen til at disse fryseprosesser foregår kontinuerligt hele vinteren er fordi sneen blæser væk hele tiden, så snedækket bliver tyndt. Dette konserverer de vegetasjonsløse områder, hvis de først starte -‐ er den først startet, så er den vanskelig at få græs på igen. Når en vinterprosess er færdig ser disse fjeldområder ud om nogen med en løs hånd har drysset et eller andet løst over, og de er meget sårbare overfor erosjon. Der vil komme vand, vind og lidt is og materialet bliver båret væk. Findes sårbare områder i fjeldsiden, så kan et stort press på disse områder gøre det farligt for beboede områder og vejområder nedenunder, fordi fjeldsiden bliver ustabil, og jordskred kan blive udløst af for eksempel megen nedbør. Med henblik på erosjon og fremtidsudsigterne, så er det muligt at faren for erosjon øges, idet nogle af klimamodellernes fremskrivninger forudsiger at der vil komme en del mere nedbør på Færørne. Også er der en tydelig indikation at overgræsning øger erosjonen. Efterhånden som samfundsudviklingen fortsætter, so er vi nødt til at udnytte arealer højere oppe til bebyggelse, og dermed bliver øget erosjon farligere for os mennesker, og både beboelse og bilfærdsel bliver mere udsat.

46

Long-‐term monitoring of vegetation succession after grazing exclusion in an Icelandic birch forest Björn Thorsteinsson and Anna Guðrún Thorhallsdóttir Landbúnaðarháskóli Íslands (The Agricultural University of Iceland) A case study on long-‐term vegetation succession after grazing exclusion in an previously overgrazed Icelandic mountain birch forest in in Husafell, western Iceland was made by repeated vegetation analysis in 1981, 2002 and 2010. The birch forest in Husafell is visualized on old maps from 1668 and 1723. Also the church had documented interest in this area for forest products, as can be seen in historical documents from 1708 where it is stated that the forest was “good enough for coals, firewood and house rafts”. In earlier times the Husfell forest was denser than it is today, and it was especially during the nineteen and twentieth century the forest disappeared due to overgrazing. In the 18th century trees up to 6 m covered the hill side above the farm, but in the 19th century all the forest on the hill side was gone. This record is after the Askja eruption in 1783 that caused climatic depression that inhibited ecosystem productivity for a long time to come.. There is good documentation on the number of domestic animals on every farm in Iceland since 1708, and it is evident how big increase in sheep number became especially in the middle of the 20th century for all the farms in the study area including Husafell. This caused a serious overgrazing, and large parts of the forest disappeared, and the native Betula pubescence cover was seriously damaged. The sheep farming in the Husafell area was terminated and now it has become a tourist and recreation area. Around 1960 there as a strong degradation of the forest, and when the first farmer terminated sheep farming in 1964, his part of the forest was fenced out, providing a grazing exclusion, and when the other farmer terminated sheep farming in 1973, the whole forest was fenced of. This gave an enclosure with a fence between the two parts, which have 8 year time gap in their grazing exclusion history. The study area was located on the borderline between the two farms. The understory vegetation and birch cover and growth were studied in 1981, 2002, and 2010 using transects on both sides of the separating fence, measuring the frequency of understory vegetation and the height and cover of the birch trees. In 1964 the whole area was totally denuded of all birch as well as other trees. So what was measured was the vegetation change since the sheep exclusion.

47

In 1981 at the time of the first vegetation monitoring there was a distinct visible difference on both sides of the separating fence. In 2002 the difference was still visible, but both areas were covered with quite dense birch forest, and even more so in 2010. While the birch cover increased in a linear manner with time, it was not the case with the annual birch height increase, which probably was because of during warmer summers there was a stronger progress in height increase. Further to this, the more recent years the summers have been warmer than the earlier years of this study. The progression of vegetation change is complex. The succession causes some species to decrease or disappear, while other increase in frequency. However, species which increase in frequency are fewer than those that diminish or fade away, indicating a change towards lower biodiversity (Table 1). Table 1. Plant species in the understory which showed eithera decrease, an increase or no change in frequency.

Understory frequency Species showing significant decrease after grazing exclusion

Species showing significant increase after grazing exclusion

Species not showing any significant change after grazing exclusion

Calluna vulgaris Thymus arcticus* Festuca vivipara Rachomitrium sp. Anthoxantum odoratum Bistorta vivipara Trisetum spicatum* Selaginella selaginoides* Juncus trifidus Luzula multiflora Kobresia myosuorides*

Other mosses Vaccinium uliginosum Deschampsia flexuosa Empetrum nigrum Peltigera sp. Hylocomnium splendens

Equisetum variegatum Thalictrum alpinum Galium verum Galium normani Galium boreale Carex sp. Poa sp. Festuca rubra Taraxacum sp Equisetum pratense Agrostis sp.

* gone by 2010 *Other mosses include Rhytidadelphus squarrosus, Sanionia uncinata and other species in lesser amounts

It is worth noticing that the different plant species or species groups responded to grazing exclusion within different time frames, and while some species respond in relatively few years, others need several decades to show change (Table 2).

48

Table 2. The time frame for significant changes to emerge in the frequency for the plant species with a significant response. Plant species Time frame Thymus praecox Selaginella selaginoides Kobresia myosuroides

17 years

Rachomitrium sp. Trisetum spicatum

30 years

Festuca vivipara Peltigera sp. Bistorta vivipara Juncus trifidus Other mosses* Empetrum nigrum Festuca vivipara Calluna vulgaris

38 years

Luzula multiflora Vaccinium uliginosum Deschampsia flexuosa Anthoxantum odoratum

47 years

*Other mosses include Rhytidadelphus squarrosus, Sanionia uncinata and other species in lesser amounts When the succession goes on then other factors influence the system, e.g. warmer summers, and as birch grow up they influence the light quality in the understory and that in itself changes the life quality for the understory vegetation, and alter the competitive prerequisites for nutrients and water. To sum up, this case study with grazing exclusion showed that a previously open landscape regained close to full birch cover in fifty years. Of course this response would not have occurred if there were no seed production in the surrounding area or birch in the vegetative state in belowground flora. Birch growth in terms of increased height was significantly higher during the first decade of the 21th century compared to the earlier cooler periods. However increased birch cover progressed evenly between these periods. Understory vegetation species changed, some species decreased, other increased significantly, while some species remained unchanged in frequency. There was a significant difference in time frames for the different species, some appearing with significant changes already after 17 years while others took up to 50 years to show significant change. And finally, as the forest grows other factors than grazing exclusion become important in the vegetation succession. Acknowledgements These have contributed to the work: Hörður Kristinsson, Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson, Þorstein Björnsson, Pétur Björnsson, Ágúst H.Bjarnason, Norræna ráðherranefndin, Landbúnaðarráðuneytið, Umhverfisráðuneytið, Náttúrustofa vesturlands og Umhverfisstofnun.

49

Sheep grazing and the ecological structure of carabid (Carabidae) assemblages in the Faroe Islands Planned project. William Simonsen Cand. scient , Biology. ([email protected]) The aim is to assess how sheep grazing in the Faroese environment affects the taxonomic and ecological structure of carabid assemblages in the Faroe Islands In the Faroe Islands grazing pressure is often high resulting in soil degradation and vegetation that is both taxonomically and structurally less diverse (Nordisk Ministerråd 2007, Hannon et al., 2001). The taxonomic and structural diversity of vegetation plays a key role in determining the diversity of invertebrates, and this in turn impacts on foraging birds (Woodcock et al. 2007, Cole et al. 2012). Research on the impact of grazing pressure is required to assist in the development of grazing management prescriptions to ensure that the sensitive landscape, and associated biodiversity, of the Faroe Islands is protected. In this project carabid assemblages inside fences that have been free of grazing for a number of years will be investigate, and compared with carabid assemblages in areas outside the fences that also will be investigated. Why use carabids: they are sensitive to vegetation structure, humidity, soil conditions and on management practices such as more or less intensive agricultural land use that impact on these features (Rainio and Niemela, 2003). Carabids show considerable interspecific diversity in ecology, play a key role in ecosystems (e.g. as food for a range of bird species). Because of this carabids are much used as bioindicators. Each habitat type has certain species assemblages with generalist and specialist species. Thus individual carabid species or carabid-species assemblages can be used as bioindicators (Rainio and Niemela, 2003). Previous research has found that both the taxonomic and functional structure of carabid beetle (Carabidae) assemblages is sensitive to grazing management practices (Dennis et al. 1997, Luff and Rushton 1989, Cole et al. 2006). E.g. large, sedentary, long living carabids belonging to the genus Carabus, are adversely influenced by intensive agricultural practices (Tietze 1985, Rushton et al. 1989, Cole et al. 2002, Aviron et al. 2005). These larger species are more abundant in extensively grazed treatments than intensively grazed treatments (Cole et al. 2006). This project will consider both the ecological and taxonomic structure of carabid assemblages. Therefore a better understanding of the underlying factors driving carabid assemblages is gained, and this in turn enables a more accurate ability to predict subsequent implications to ecosystem functioning. Furthermore adopting an ecological approach helps to ensure that research findings are more easily compared across different geographical locations where species pools may differ

50

The following hypotheses are to be tested: A H0: There is no significant difference between the taxonomic

structure/diversity of carabid assemblages in grazed and ungrazed treatments.

H1: There is a significant difference between the taxonomic structure/diversity of carabid assemblages in grazed and ungrazed treatments.

B H0: There is no significant difference between the ecological structure of

ungrazed treatments and grazed treatments. H1: Grazed treatments favour species that are highly mobile, with short life

cycles and high reproductive capacity (i.e. r-selected species) while ungrazed treatments favour more sedentary species, with longer life cycles and low reproductive capacity (i.e. K-selected species).

C H0: There is no interaction between altitude and management (i.e. grazing

management impacts on the structure of carabid assemblages in the same way irrespective of altitude). (All altitudes investigated are below 200 meter a.s.l. But we find it important to investigate possible interaction of altitude)

H1: There is a significant interaction between altitude and management (i.e. the impact of grazing is greater at higher altitudes than at lower altitudes).

D H0: Conventional diversity indices and indices based on functional traits are

equally robust in detecting the impact of grazing management on carabid assemblages.

H1: Indices based on functional traits are more robust than conventional diversity indices based on taxonomy.

Focus will be on carabid ecological trait data predicted to be susceptible to habitat stability e.g. size, wing morphology and life-cycle duration, and traits predicted to be susceptible to vegetation structure (e.g. diel activity and overwintering strategy). Data on carabid ecological traits will be obtained from existing databases and literature searches (e.g. http://www.carabids.org, Cole et al, 2002, Ribera et al. 1999, Lindroth 1985 & 1986). Grazing pressure will be determined late June and early July. To determine grazing pressure, we use methods recommended by The Icelandic Institute of Natural History. The method uses regular measurements of vegetation height and inspection for visible signs of grazing. While the impact of grazing management on carabid beetles has not been investigated in the Faroe Islands, it has been widely investigated in Europe (Dennis et al. 1997, Grandchamp et al. 2005, Cole et al. 2006). Upland grazing manipulation experiments investigating carabid beetle have been conducted by Dr Lorna Cole, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC). This research found that analyses based on the ecological structure of carabid assemblages was more sensitive to analyses based on conventional diversity measurements (Cole et al. 2006). The project will show how usable the presented research methods are and how comparable results are to other geographic areas.

51

From continous grazing to rotational multispecies grazing Jóannes Patursson Kirkjubøgarður A presentation of a change in the management of sheep grazing at a large farm in the Faroe Islands. Present grazing management The sheep management at present is the traditional system, where all the outfields are open, and the sheep keep their own territorium. A few areas are fenced, mostly pastures in the infield.

Fig. 1. The open outfields at Kirkjubøgarður. Advantages with the tradtional management:

1. Cheap. Requires no investments. 2. The sheep knows its territorium. 3. Is a good system, when the tending is very good, and both sheep and sward are

continously checked.

Disadvantages with the traditonal management:

1. Difficult to separate the sheep according their production capacity. 2. Difficult to keep the sheep away from overgrazed areas. 3. Difficult to make the sheep graze undergrazed areas. 4. Difficult to make optimal use of the vegetation.

! eS!

/?,!%@$!)1!+?,!*,;!3'3+,$!R9)!I/&%!-(!./!I&-*!E/$)!Q$/,4O.(!V/$!)&O9!)P)1!M/.9!-*!.)$E(!/V!%&EM(!Q)$!)P)1!&*,!V/%%/P-*I!.9&.!E/$)!E)&.!Q$/,4O.-/*!V/$!)&O9!)P)_!!@L!-*O$)&(-*I!.9)!*4EM)$!/V!%&EM(!.9)$)!P-%%!M)!E/$)!I$&N-*I!&*-E&%(!,4$-*I!(4EE)$.-E)1!P9)*!.9)$)!-(!E/(.!I$/P.91!&*,!.9)!I$&((!-(!E/(.!$)(-(.&*.!./!I$&N-*I_!!?/$!.9-(!./!(4OO)),!-.!-(!*)O)((&$L!./!,-<-,)!.9)!(9))Q!&OO/$,-*I!./!Q$/,4O.-/*[!(-*I%)!%&EM1!.P/!%&EM(!&*,!E-I9.!M)!&%(/!.9$))!%&EM(_!R9-(!O&.)I/$-N-*I!)*(4$)(!.9&.!.9)!(9))Q!i&*!M)!.$)&.),!&OO/$,-*I!./!.9)!)`Q)O.),!Q$/,4O.-/*1!$&.9)$!.9&*!M)-*I!,)Q)*,)*.!/*!.9)!.)$$-./$-.&%!(9))Q_!!R9)!Q%&*!-(!.9&.!.9)!(9))Q!P-%%!4()!.9)!V-)%,(!&%%!L)&$1!&*,!.9&.!.9)!4(&I)!-(!O/*.$/%%),!ML!V)*O)(1!O$)&.-*I!4Q!./!"S!)*O%/(4$)(1!&%%/P-*I!,-VV)$)*.!Q&$.(!/V!.9)!/4.V-)%,!./!M)!4(),!&.!,-VV)$)*.!()&(/*(!/V!.9)!L)&$_!]*(.)&,!/V!9&<-*I!(9))Q!(9&..)$),!&%%!/<)$!.9)!/4.V-)%,!.9)!P9/%)!L)&$1!.9)!Q%&*!-(!.9&.!.9)!(9))Q!P-%%!I$&N)!/*)!)*O%/(4$)!V/$!eZh!,&L(1!&*,!.9)*!.9)L!P-%%!M)!E/<),!./!&*/.9)$!)*O%/(4$)1!.9-(!P/4%,!I-<)!.9)!<)I).&.-/*!&!$)O/<)$-*I!Q)$-/,!/V!UTZlT!,&L(_!!!2!(9))Q9/4()!-(!&<&-%&M%)!&.!.9)!V&$E1!P-.9!.9)!O&Q&O-.L!./!V)),!&QQ$/`_!SeT!(9))Q!-*,//$(_!!

!>@B9!59!R9)!Q%&**),!I$&N-*I!)*O%/(4$)(!-*!.9)!/4.V-)%,(!/V!J-$iA4M;I&$54$_!!@L!V)*O-*I!-.!-(!Q/((-M%)!./!)`O%4,)!.9)!(.))Q)(.!.)$$&-*1!P9-O9!-(!/V!-EQ/$.&*O)1!-V!O&..%)!&*,!9/$()(!&%(/!(9&%%!9&<)!&OO)((!./!.9)!/4.V-)%,(_!R9)!/4.V-)%,(!&$)!&%%!/*!%/P!&%.-.4,)_!R9)!/4.V-)%,(!P-%%!M)!()Q&$&.),!&OO/$,-*I!./!&%.-.4,)1!M)%/P!"TT!E!&_(_%_1!"TTZSTT!E!&_(_%_!&*,!V$/E!STTZaTT!E!&_(_%_!

53

Some areas are suitable for a range of grazing animals, while other areas are best suited for sheep. Why this system? First and foremost the main goal is to gain more profit from the sheep-‐farming. To achieve this it is necessary to gain more from the resources that the sheep depends on. The main challenges are two grazing-‐related issues: 1. Overgrazed fields. These areas need rest so the vegetation can grow and

reproduce. 2. Undergrazed fields. These areas are dominated by withered grass. Of course there are are other factors also, but the over-‐ and undergrazing are clearly the main problem. There are several solutions that could be tried. One possibility is to reverse to the ancient sheep-‐farming system, which requires a full-‐time sheepheard, and would slowly solve the problem with the undergrazed fields. In addition the number of adult sheep could be decreased to solve the problem with overgrazing. However, this is a short-‐term solution, because the animals tend to prefer some particular plant species, and therefore the issue with overgrazing will return after some years. One solution to both these issues is enclosures with a suitable rotation rate, so the overgrazed areas get a resting period and can resume growth, while the grazing pressure is controlled also in the undergrazed fields. Some fields are filled up with withered grass; to solve this cattle could be used to graze the withered grass, og hence rejuvenate and resume new growth. A rough estimation suggests that around 50% of the outfield is untoched the whole year, this means, that if the grazing by cattle could rejuvenate the growth, then the grazing area of the outfield would be twice as big. Also when overgrazed areas get a resting period the root growth increases, and the outfield becomes less vulnerable for drought and other weather phenomena. The resting period will strengthen the vegetation. An example of the rotational sheep management during the year In particular two seasons of the year are of huge importance for optimizing the productivity in sheep-‐farming: Late autumn (right before the mating seson) and then the lambing season. 20 October All lambs are taken from the fields, ready for slaughter. The ewes are kept on

the unfertile high altitude fields to “geld” (so they stop milking). One year old lambs are kept inside to get used to suplemental food.

10 November The slaugher is finished, and only ewes are left in the outfields. The female one-‐year lond lambs join the ewes, which now are transferred down to the lowest lying outfields and pasture, to fatten up before their estrous cyclus start.

20 November The sheep might need some supplementary feed as well as mineralstones etc. 1 December The breeder sheep are released. This system makes it possible to match ewes

with particular genes with a chosen breeder in a separate enclosure. 6 January The breeder sheep are taken home. All gates are open, and the sheep kan roam

the whole outfield.

54

10 February The sheep is scanned for number of foetuses. Ewes that migth have 3 foetuses are separated together with pregnant one-‐year-‐ewes and get supplemental fodder.

25 March Ewes pregnant with one lamb are kept at the highest altitude fields. All sheep get vaccination. Ewes with two foetuses are separated and get supplementary feed.

20 April Ewes pregnant with twins graze the infields or other suitable areas for lambing. Fat pastures (skoralendi) are protected from grazing.

10 May The lambing season at it’s peak. As the lamb follow the ewes they go to the fat pastures (skoralendi) with plenty of nutritious grass to trigger milk production. Ewes with one lamb get no supplemental fooder, but are transferred between different enclosures according to the resuming growth. Any good field is in use during the lambing. Ewes with one lamb manage to raise a good lamb regardless where in the outfields they are, and will do so in the future management system as well. Ewes with two lambs or more are transferred between the most fertile outfields, and in addition get supplemental fodder.

10 July Sheep shearing. The lambs manage with less milk. All the sheeps are held together within 1/12 of the total outfield, and each 5-‐7th day the whole herd is transferred to a new enclosure in the outfield, the number of days in each enclosure is dependent on strength of the growth.

25 August The low-‐lying outfield has had an resting period since mid July. Now all the male lambs are transferred to the low-‐lying outfield.

20 September All male lambs are slaughtered. Female lambs and ewes are allowed on the low-‐lying outfield.

10 October All slaughter is done. 20 October..... A new year begins :) Table 1. An example of a possible rotational grazing system during one year. Table 1 is an imagined sheep-‐farming year, using “rotational grazing”, but also other animals than sheep could have access to the fields, or "multispecies grazing". The main task of these animals is to graze the withered grass, and therefore it is important that these grazing animals not are ment for productions such as milk production. For this purpose young highland cattle are obvious, as they do not require high quality fodder, if they only get sufficient amounts. These animals could get allocated one part of the outfields, and by using removeable fences they could be moved once a week, so they get new areas to graze. – The following year then a new part of the outfield could be used. The Faroese horses would fit well together with the cattle, as their requirements to the fields are approx. the same, but they have different vegetational preferences. When the grasses have recovered the sheep can be allowed in. With this system it might be possible for large ungrazed areas to recover and become good and fertile feeding areas for cattle and sheep.

55

After some years it is expected that both the number of lambs per ewe and the slaughter weight per lamb has increased, and then it will be time to reconsider the number of ewes, and whether it might be possible to increase the number. It is quite certain that a system that takes care of the growth will contribute to both more growth and greater biodiversity. Further, with more growth more animals are needed to keep it rejuvenated and fertile. By using the animals and vegetation correctly the growth season can be prolonged considerably. This requires that the plants are grazed/delayed before they turn into the generative growth. When the plant have produced seeds and translocated the nutrients to the roots the nutritional value is delimited – on the other hand it is necessary that the plants reproduce regularly. Hence there are several traps that have to be taken into consideration, and it cant’t be statet accurately for how long the grazing and resting periods should last, as it depends on the plant species that are dominating the area. Further it is necessary to combine the grazing and resting period in a way that is in favour for preferred plant species. The starting point will be to use the rule of thumbs with rotational grazing: Graze 50% -‐ leave 50%. This has to be adapted to Faroese conditions.

56

Effect of gray lag goose on grass production Rólvur Djurhuus Búnaðarstovan (The Agricultural Centre) På Færøerne var grågås almindelig før i tiden, men i første halvdel af 1800-‐tallet blev den udryddet på grund af jagt. Man skød alle gæs man kunne se, også ikke-‐flyvedygtige unger. I løbet af 1980erne begyndte de så smått at komme tilbage, til glæde for alle, også bønder. Det blev betragtet meget positivt at få denne fugl tilbage. Bønderne kunne fortsætte som de altid havde gjort, de kunne få sine avgrøder, og nogle gæs var der ingen skade af. Men i 1990erne blev antallet af gæs meget stort, og store flokke kunne samles i et område, og det begyndte at blive en plage for dyrkerne, både når det gjalt græsproduksjon og andre afgrøder så som kartofler og grønsager. Dette medførte at landbrugsministeren fik henvendelser om at ændre jagtloven, så det skulle være tilladt at jagte grågåsen. Situationen er at den er totalt fredet på Færøerne. Alle var dog enige om det var nødvendigt at have nogle data for at kunne vedtage sådan en lovændring. Derfor har Búnaðarstovan gjort nogle forsøg, som startede i 2012, og skal vare i fem år, altså frá 2012-‐2016. Forsøget undersøger om grågås har nogen effekt på græsvæksten. Nogle felter er indhegnet, nogle felter er nysået eng, andre er et-‐års eng, og nogle er med gammel eng. Hegnet er høsnenet, og over feltene liger snore, så gæssene ikke kan komme ned. Kontrolfeltene ligger plaseret lige ved siden af, således at de får samme læ af hønsenettet som selve feltet. I september 2013 blev græsset slået både indenfor og udenfor hegnet ned til ca. fem centimeters højde. I løbet af vinteren har gæssene haft adgang til området udenfor hegnet og har klaret at bide det ned til ca. to cm. Inde i indhegningen var bevoksningen i mars 22 centimeter høj, en difference på 20 cm. Græsvækst om vinteren på Færøerne har ikke været målt, og planen fremover er at tage en måling hver måned for at dokumentere væksten. Det skal dog siges, at man kan se grønne spirer hele vinteren. I mai var væksten kommet i gang, og det ugræssede var blevet 37 centimeter høje (målt til bladspidsen, ikke blomsten), mens det udenfor var blevet 10 centimeter. Gæssene græsser jævnt, og nipper alle bladspidserne uden undtagelse af (Fig. 1).

! eh!

!>@B9!89!K;A,)*!Qq!I$o(().!-!OE!Qq!"Zq$(!)*I!E),!+M%q!%-*-)0!/I!4,)*!+$;,!%-*-)0!Iq()I$o(*-*I_!!!'E$q,).!)$!./.&%.!V$),).!V/$!Vq$1!/I!()%<!/E!,).!.)/$).-(i!i4**)!<o$)!9&$)!(/E!9&<,)!<o$).!Qq!(Q-%1!(q!)$!,)$!,)$!-*I)*!.<-<%!/E!&.!,).!)$!Iq(!(/E!9&$!I$o(().!/E$q,)._!!]!A4*-!V/$(<-**)$!Io(()*)!*/$E&%.!V$&!)*I)*1!/I!,)$!M%-<)$!i4*!*/I%)!Vq!,L$!.-%M&I)1!E)*!(q!i/EE)$!,)!E),!&%%)!(-*)!4*I)$!.-%M&I)!-!&4I4(.1!/I!,&!)$!,).!&.!(./$)!V%/ii)!(&E%)(!Qq!)*I)*)_!!\,ML..).!&V!I$o(!<&$!M).L,)%-I.!(.;$$)!9</$!Io(!-ii)!I$o((),)1!4,)*!9)*(L*!.-%!/E!,).!<&$!V;$(.)!V;$(.)!9;(.*-*I1!&*,)*!9;(.*-*I1!)%%)$!,).!,$)A),)!(-I!/E!).Zq$(!)*I!)%%)$!I&EE)%!)*I_!\,ML..).!V$&!,)!I$o((),)!/E$q,)$!<&$!E)%%)E!Sa!/I!aew!E-*,$)!)*,!V$&!,)!4I$o((),)!/E$q,)$_!#VV)i.)*!<&$!(.;$(.!Qq!Ç.Zq$(!)*I)*_!!

! !>),!I$o(*-*I! \,)*!I$o(*-*I! w!V/$(i)%!

Ü.Zq$(!)*I!

?;$(.)!9;(.! eedT!iI! dlaT!iI! aew!2*,)*!9;(.! UTSe!iI! ecl"!iI! aSw!R/.&%!9;(.! clTe!iI! "Uec"!iI! aUw!

3&EE)%!)*I! R/.&%!9;(.! l"aT!iI! hchT!iI! Saw!/%6,7!89!\,ML..)!&V!I$o(!-!ST"a1!Eq%.!-!iIp.;$(./V!Q)$!9)i.&$_!! !! !

58

Plantedistribution Gåsegræsning synes også at have effekt på sammensætningen af græsarterne, og er de foreløbige resultater sat op i Tabel 2.

Foreløbige resulater af ændringer i plantedistribution Planter som øges i frekvens i græssede felter

Planter som har nedgang i frekvens i græssede felter

Planter som har uændret frekvens

Ugræs (herbs?) Lolium perenne (Raigræs)

Festuca sp. (Svingel) Poa pratensis (Rap) Trifolium repens (Kløver)

Phleum pratense (Timothe)

Tabel 2. Græsser som øges i frekvens, har nedgang i frekvens eller har uændret frekvens når de bliver græsset af gæs. Prøver af græsset er sendt til analyse for foderværdi (antal foderenheder per kg/tørstof) og andre analyser, men er ikke færdige endnu.

59

Den historiske udvikling til det gældende fårebesætningstal, dets oprindelse og justeringer gennem tiderne The historical origin of the present number of sheep in the Faroe Islands and the adjustments the last centuries Jóannes Dalsgarð Consultant, former director at Jarðarráðið (Faroese Agricultural Counsil) Selv om tal ofte har været nævnt i forbindelse med får, så findes ikke noget eksakt om fastsættelse af besætningstal. For at få nogenlunde overblik over udviklingen kan man se på de lovbestemmelser som befaler haugeejerne at holde et besætningsniveau som ihvertfald ikke generer naboer. Det er tydeligt at man først og fremst tænkte på de retslige forhold og ikke græsningsproblemet. Fårene har haft en stor betydning for alle samfund i det nordlige område, og det erhelst ingen tvivl om at de første bosættere her har haft får med sig, og disse får har haft den største betydning for beboernes liv og vælfærd, som kan ses af flere ældre tekster (Debes, Landt). Fåretallet havde derfor en væsentlig betydning for bosætterne, fårene gav kød, mælk og uld. De første bosættere havde ingen problemer med at holde sine husdyr, incl. fårene, indenfor nogle fastsatte regler og rammer. De var egenrådende indenfor det område, som de kunne hævde var deres. Med flere tilflyttere blev kreaturenes græsningsarealer mere og mere begrænsede for de enkelte ejere. Utvivlsom har der været konfrontationer, men i fleste tilfælde kan man antage, at naboerne har opført sig rimeligt overfor hinanden og har aftalt, hvordan de daglige forhold skulle takles, og hvordan mulige tvistigheder kunne løses i fordragelighed. Aftaler var altid mundtlige, og de blev overleveret fra slægtled til slægtled, som om de var skriftlige love, som vi kender dem i vore dage. Også efter at lagtinget blev oprettet for godt tusind år siden, var situationen den samme. Lagmanden og de fleste bønder kendte de love, der var gældende. Disse love var grundlaget under de afgørelser, der blev taget på lagtinget. Som vi senere skal se, var de lovbestemmelser, der kommer senere, i høj grad påvirket af, hvad der antoges at være fornuftigt og rimeligt i gamle dage, da der ikke var noget nedskrevet. Med voksende befolkningstal og især flere ejere af græsningsarealer, vokser behovet for mere eksakte nedskrevne love. Den ældste skrift i lovgivningen er Seyðabrævið (Fårebrevet) fra 1298. Det er ikke uden grund, at lovsamlingen har fået navnet Seyðabrævið. Hovedsaglig drejer teksten sig om fårehold og især om forholdet mellem ejere og får og brug af dets græsningsareal. I indledning til Seyðabrævið står, at det er foranlediget af misnøje blandt beboerne om, at der ikke er tilstrækkelig gode lovbestemmelser på området.

60

I 1637 blev Seyðabrævið stadfæstet af kong Christian IV og i 1698 bliver forordning om får og kvæg samt dets græsning og varetægt på Færøerne sat i kraft, som indførte nogle nye bestemmelser om bl.a. vand og dræning af haugen, samt om ejendomsforhold til fårene i haugen. Det fremgår tydeligt af forordningerne, at man lægger stor vægt på fællesejet og forpligtelserne til at arbejde sammen om at forbedre haugen, og at det er ejerne selv, som udfører dette arbejde. Påbudet om grøftning/dræning i haugen har sin berettigelse i, at græsgangene forværres væsentligt på vandmættede arealer. Det er tydeligt at lovgiverne foretrækker fælleseje (feli) af fårene fremfor særeje (kenning), hvor hver ejer sine egne får i haugen med antal i forhold til hans del i haugen. I forordningen skal al særeje ophøre senest et år efter dens ikrafttræden. Det kan konstateres, at dette påbud ikke har været overholdt, selv om al lovgivning i høj grad stimulerer fælleseje. Stadigvæk i dag er som bekendt særeje ret udbredt mange steder på Færøerne. Årsagen til at man i lovgivningen har favoriseret fælleseje, er helst, at man er af den opfattelse, at særejet har tendens til at overbelaste græsgangene og på sigt bevirke et lavere udbytte. Alle lovbestemmelser og forordninger, helt fra Seyðabrævið til vore dage lægger stor vægt på, at der ikke skal være for mange får i haugen. Man observerer, at hvis man overskrider et bestemt antal, medfører det et mindre udbytte. Men det, som mangler, er at få fastslået, hvad er det for et tal, og der henvises hele tiden til det, som var i gamle dage, uden at dette bliver defineret. Hver enkelt hauge har sin egen forordning (skipan). Den dygtige haugeejer eller fårehyrde lægger stor vægt på, at græsningstrykket ikke bliver for stort, og den gode fårehyrde satte heller for få end for mange får ved om efteråret. I historisk sammenhæng blev der skelnet mellem gammel og ny forordning. Jens Christian Svabo omtaler i sine beretninger fra 1782, at det var almindelig erfaring, at man i gamle dage kunne have flere får end de enkelte hauger nu kan, og nævner forskellige grunde til skiftet fra gammel til ny forordning, bl.a. sneskred og fjeldskred. Andre er af den opfattelse, at skiftet kom efter uår, som forårsagede stor dødelighed blandt fårene (felli), for eksempel i 1615, hvor man skal have fået nye og større fåreraser, som krævede større græsningsarealer. Lukas Debes mener, at årsagen til, at haugen ikke kan føde så mange får i disse tider er, “at naturen foroldes og svækkes”. Uden helt at tage stilling til, hvad Lukas Debes mener med disse ord, fristes man til at antage, at han er inde på noget væsentligt, og det er at man gennem længere årrække har haft for mange får i haugerne, og dermed udpint græsgangene, hvilket har ført til mindre udbytte, først gradvis, men siden mere eksplosivt og har til slut ført til det, vi kalder felli: et uår, hvor stor del af besætningen dør på mangel af føde, også kombineret med strenge vintre, dog at fødemangelen var nok det væsentlige. Svabo har opgørelser over, hvor mange får der var i den gamle og den nye skipan. Han kommer til, at den gamle skipan var godt 96.000 får, og den nye

61

skipan godt 75.000 får. Tallet, som Svabo kommer til, afviger ikke ret meget fra de tal, som man nu i mange år har regnet som fast besætning. Taxationsprotokollen fra 1873 er et resultat af et omfattende registreringsarbejde over hele landet. Opgaven var at gøre en ny vurdering af, hvad den færøske jord kunne kaste af sig. Indmarken blev registreret og boniteret, muligheder for tørveskæring blev registreret, hvilke muligheder var der for fuglefangst, om der var drivtømmer af betydning, om bygden var registreret som hvalfangstplads o.s.v. Selvfølgelig blev udmarken, bygdens hauge, også vurderet, og fåreantal og forventet udbytte registreret. Efter bedste syn -‐ og da må man huske, at de har været i hver eneste bygd og kigget på hver eneste hauge, og hver eneste ejendom – og skøn kom man til, at der var en total besætning på 74.899 får, og at deraf slagtes 30.648. Disse tal, og senere tællinger, er grundlaget for, at man regner med, at der på Færøerne er ca. 70.000 får, der er tilknyttet en hauge og har fri græsning. Derudover er der nogle tusind får, der holdes på indmark. I 1866 kom i kraft en lov med regler for besætning af får og kvæg i haugen. I 1908 blev netsat en kommission med det formål at komme med forslag til ændringer i færøsk landbrugslovgivning. Kommissionen afleverede en fyldig betænkning den 25. mai 1911 med 16 lovudkast og bemærkninger. Iblandt lovudkastene er lov for Færøerne om Haugers Styrelse og Drift, og lov for Færøerne om Hegn og Markfred. Nogle af de love som var foreslået i kommissionsbetænkningen fra 1911 bliver sat i kraft i 1938, deriblandt de førnævnte. De to love er i det store og hele gældende i dag. Der har været enkelte ajourføringer og tilføjelser. Man skal lægge mærke til, at hvad der angår påbuddet om besætningsstørrelse og deraffølgende græsningstryk, er der sket en ændring i ordlyden i forhold til de ældre love. I de gamle love, var det pålagt haugens ejere at holde det antal får, som blant andet ikke belaster nabohaugen. Men med lovene fra 1938 er der nu pålagt haugestævnet at bestemme besætningens størrelse og fastsætte vedtægter om særeje af får i fælleshauger. Haugestævnet er den øverste myndighed i en fælleshauge, og kan sidestilles med en generalforsamling. I det tilfælde, hvor der er én ejer, har han selvfølgelig alene afgørelsesmyndigheden indenfor lovens rammer. Hvad er der så sket i nyere tid i spørgsmålet om fastsættelse af besætningens størrelse i haugene? Som jeg lige har fremført, er de intensjoner, som man kunne se i de ældre love, nu mere lagt ud til de enkelte haugeejere eller bestyrelser at tage beslutning om. Der er dog bestemmelser om, hvordan man skal agere, når man går ind på anden mark, anden mands ejendom. En af årsagerne til, at man har lagt hele afgørelsen af besætningsstørrelsen på haugestævnet, så det bliver en intern afgørelse, er muligvis grundet på, at flere og flere hauger bliver indhegnede, så det bliver faktisk ejernes egen sag at afgøre, hvor stor besætningen skal være. Også andre funktioner for haugers røkt og trivsel, så som grøftning af vandmættede arealer, er udelukkende haugestævnets ansvar.

62

Ud fra dette kan man sige, at den bestående fårebesætning har sin oprindelse i de gamle love. Stadigvæk i dag har bønder tendens til at holde sig til den overordnede regel, at man skal holde de får, som man har holdt fra gammel tid. Forudsætningen for dette er i loven, men man har hele tiden anbefalet at holde besætningsstørrelsen indenfor en grænse, der kunne give optimalt udbytte, og får man et godt udbytte, så har man også havt en god græsning. Der er mange bønder og haugeejere der har taget disse anbefalinger til sig og fået et større og kvalitetsmæssigt bedre resultat ved at skære ned på besætningen samtidig, som røkten af fårene har været bedre. Kildemateriale: L. Debes: Færoe & Færoa Reserata, København 1673 J. Landt: Forsøg til en Beskrivelse over Færøerne, København 1800 Seyðabrævið – Retterbod for Færøerne, 28. juni 1298 Konfirmation af Retterbod, 24. februar 1637 J. Chr. Svabo: Indberetninger fra en Reise i Færøe 1781-‐1782 Taxationsprotokol 1873 Lov om Ordningen af de til Haugevæsenet paa Færøerne hørende Forhold 23.

februar 1866 Den færøske Landbokommission 1911 Lov om Færøerne om Haugers Styrelse og Drift, 18. maj 1937 Lov om Færøerne om Hegn og Markfred, 18. mai 1837

63

Experiences from the fishery industries – are there any similarities between agriculture and fishing? Summary of a presentation at the seminar: Sustainable grazing in subarctic environments with regard to vegetation and soil processes Kjartan Hoydal Consultant, former secretary at NEAFC, former secretary at NORA, former head of the Faroese Fishery Ministry Sheep-farming og fisheries both produce food from animals and are important for food security in the communities. Both require clean and healthy ecosystems. Both affect the ecosystems and are affected by other users. Prominent by pollution and climate changes. They are, however, very different. Especially the food-webs are very different. On land short and simple, in the sea long and complicated. Very few fish species are herbivores. Grazing in the sea has been researched, but in the sea the level of nutrients is seen as the limiting factor for production. Two industries that exploit living resources, one the simple terrestrial food-webs, one the more complicated marine food-webs.

! lU!

Phytoplankton

Zooplankton Fig. 1b. The two first throphic levels in the sea.

>@B9!8%9!:-EQ%-V-),!E&$-*)!)O/(L(.)E!-*!.9)!@&$)*.(!:)&_!!R9)!9)$M-</$)(1!i$-%%!&*,!&EQ9-Q/,(!&.!.9)!M/../E!

65

How do we manage the exploitation of living resources "The management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment of continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development conserves (land,) water, plants and (animal) genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable" (FAO Council, 1988). All the above recognize that sustainability of activities that provide for human well-being depends on the maintenance of environmental functions which themselves, directly and indirectly, contribute to human welfare. This refers to the capacity of natural processes and their components to provide goods and services, which satisfy human needs. An ecosystems-based view of sustainable development focuses on maintenance of the stability and resilience of the ecosystem. Sustainable development recognizes the interdependencies of human economies with their environment, and highlights the need for scientific understanding of ecosystem functioning and change. Fisheries are very much a global concern and regulated by international conventions and instruments, especially the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (opened for signature 1982, entered into force 1994) and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, UNFSA, (opened for signature 1995, entered into force 2001), The UN General Assembly every year passes two resolutions, one on the Law of Sea and one specific on fisheries. Over the years regional Fisheries management organisations, RFMOs, have become more important with respect to implementing international agreements. Biodiversity, vulnerable marine ecosystems, VMEs, the ecosystem approach, responsible and sustainable fisheries are requirements. UNCLOS 1982 (entered into force 1994), the UN Fish Stock agreement 1995 (entered into force 2001). Environmental NGOs and certification systems also put pressures on the fisheries. States cooperating through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, RFMOs, establish fisheries management systems in the high seas supporting and compatible with systems in sea areas under national jurisdiction. These include agreeing on science based management measures and establishing monitoring, control and enforcement to make sure that measures are respected. Market regulation alone are not effective in fisheries. With scientifically based policies and limitations on capacity, introduction of competition on licences, fishing days/and or quotas will increase efficiency and profitability in fisheries. Effective market solutions must be based on the principle that stakeholders bear the full costs of their actions Managing fisheries – what is important Fishing communities harvest of the riches of the sea to create businesses that support economic and social benefits. The proceeds should be able to pay the vessel crews, the ship owners, the land based processing plants and sales organisations and the

66

services industry based thereupon and to fund basic welfare in the society (paying the resource rent). The management framework should be designed to limit the harvest to sustainable levels. Many fish resources are not limited to one jurisdiction. We have straddling and highly migratory stocks where countries have to cooperate managing the stocks.

Fig. 2a. Fisheries Jurisdictions in the North-East Atlantic.

Fig. 2b. The Faroese Fisheries Zone. FFZ.

67

Sustainability and the ecosystem approach are codified in the 1994, Faroese Act on Commercial Fishing. § 1. The Act encompasses all commercial exploitation of living resources in the

Faroese Fisheries Zone and exploitation by fishing vessels flying the flag of the Faroe Islands in waters outside the FFZ. Excepted are living resources in rivers and lakes and whales, seals, birds and reared fish.

§ 2. The living resources in the FFZ and the allocations the Government of the

Faroe Islands has acquired outside the FFZ are the property of the Faroese People. In the administration of this act the aim should be to conserve the resources and exploit them in a sustainable and rational way, both in biological and economic terms, and with due concern for the relationship between stocks of plants and animals in the Sea and their abundance, in order to secure the most optimal flow of benefits for the society, constant employment and income and possibilities for commercial activities all over the country.

§ 3. paragraph 2. Fishing rights allocated in accordance with this act do not

transfer property rights to the licensees. The fishing rights can be withdrawn without compensation.

The management tools in fisheries and sheep-farming are of course very different Assessment of fish stock cannot be built on direct observation, but are based on sampling at sea with expensive research vessel and sampling of catches at the quayside. The models of the population dynamics are not complicated, but the statistical handling of the sampling is demanding before estimates of stock status are reached at. Generally advice is based on assessments that focus on the biomass of the spawning stock. It should be noted that the traditional fisheries go after “the mother sheep”. A discussion on balanced fishing (harvesting all the ecosystem and all the age groups of fishes to the same extent) is not part of mainstream assessment and advice.

68

Fig. 3. Curves describing fisheries as business

Income and Total, Marginal and Average Cost Curves

The gross value of the catch is greatest at point B. At point A, the gross value of the catch is equal to operating costs at which profitability is zero. The maximum economic profitability (maximum net economic yield) is point C. From the economic point of view, this is the optimum catch level, but if other considerations are used (for example, maximizing total catch) the entry of new fishing units can be authorized, up to point B. Also, in the absence of a good policy for fisheries management, an equilibrium point can be reached where the value of the catch is equal to total costs (point A). In extreme cases the fishery can also stabilize at a more reduced level of catch (point D) where the value of the catch only serves to cover current costs (fuel costs, salaries, insurance, maintenance of vessels and fishing gear, etc.) and due to a lack of amortization and reinvestment, the fishery runs the risk of entering a process of gradual degradation.

Fishing rights are in the Act on Commercial Fishing defined as the property of the Faroese People. This means that it cannot be privatised. User rights limited in time can be allocated. Allocations were in 1994 given free of charge to the vessels that had fishing licences at the time. The public land (kongsjørðin) falls in the same category. The user rights in the fishery, originally allocated free, have been traded at very high prices. This has raised the question why the owners of the resources, the people, are not receiving any returns from this. The same can be said about the public land, if that or activities based on the land (eg milk quotas) are traded.

The ”tragedy of the commons” has been mentioned with regard to sheep-farming, when the outfield is held in common. This phenomena is also known from other industries based on living resources. The solution is to define user rights. There is a Nordic initiative called “Nordiska Bioekonomi-Initiativet” focuses on the primary sector, agriculture, forestry, fishery and the food and drink sector. It stresses the links of these with other industrial sectors. The initiative is a follow up on “Nidarosdeklarationen” adopted at the meeting of the Nordic Council of Ministers for fishery and aquaculture, agriculture, food and forestry 28 June 2012 in Trondheim.

69

Jorderosion og fåregræsning i udmarkerne, og et estimat af, om et mindre græsningstryk med færre får af same race kan levere samme mængde kød Soil erosion and sheep grazing, and can fewer sheep of the same race produce the same volumen of meat as produced today in the outfield Gunnar Bjarnason Búnaðargrunnurin (Faroese Agricultural Funding Institute) Siden landnam har der græsset får på Færøerne. Græsningen har uden tvivl været ret intensiv, idet uld var den primære produktion fra fårene. Problemet med ”land degradation” og jorderosion har derfor vist sig ikke lang tid efter landnam, idet optimeringen af uldproduktion medfører maksimering af antallet af voksne får, som klarer at overleve den dårligste græsningsperiode, i dette tilfælde vinteren.

Der er stor uvisse om antal græssende får så langt tilbage. Mere sikkert er, at de sidste 200-‐300 år har ca 70.000 får græsset overalt på Færøerne. I løbet af de sidste 100 år er uldproduktionen blevet helt uinteressant økonomiskt. Ulden har i dag ingen salgspris – kun kødet har interesse. Græsningstrykket skal være langt mindre, for at få en optimal kødproduktion. Men på grund af ejendomsforhold, driftsmåde, lovgrundlag og ikke mindst gammel sædvane er græsningstrykket kun mindsket få steder. Der er forhold, der taler for, at græsningstrykket i dag i mange tilfælde er øget, idet moderne hjælpemidler er blevet let tilgængelige, f. eks. medicin, vacciner, kraftfoder. Det har mindsket dødeligheden om vinteren og foråret og medført, at der læmmes flere lam end tidligere, og at fårene er blevet langt større og derfor mere fodertunge sammenlignet med før, selv med samme race. På figur 1 er det let at se, at der er problemer med jorderosion i udmarkerne. Arealet vist på figuren har formodentligt været dækket med over en meter jord til for ikke så mange år siden. Søjlen står ikke i dag – der er kun sand og grus tilbage. Det samme er nok sket mange steder på Færøerne, om end jordlaget ikke alle steder har været så dybt. Der findes også arealer, som ikke er skadet af jorderosion, særlig arealer dækket med tørvjord.

Vækstvilkårne er fra naturens hånd ikke gode – stejlt fjeldterræn, lidt sol, lav temperatur, megen regn og megen vind. Fåregræsningen er nok den faktor, sum har sat skub i jorderosionen, som den sidste erosionfremmende faktor.

70

Fig. 1. En 1,20 m høj jordsøjle, sum nu er forsvundet.

For at mindske problemet med jorderosion er det nødvendigt at mindske græssningen, og den mest nærliggende løsning er at mindske antallet af får. Kan det gøres uden at kødproduktionen falder og med samme fårerace? Hvor mange får kan dække det færøske behov for fårekød? I snit bliver der i dag slagtet 0,7 slagtefår per vinterfodret får i udmarkerne med en gennemsnitlig slagtevægt på 13,5 kg (egen vurdering p.g.a. manglende statistik). Med 70.000 udmarksfår giver det et slagt på 612,5 tons, se tabel 1.

Mine egne får, der går på gødede uopdyrkede indmarker sommerhalvåret og får kraftfodertilskud, og er inde en stor del af vinteren, har de sidste 10 år om efteråret haft mellem 1,7-‐1,8 levende lam per får, og lammene har i snit vejet mellem 14,5-‐15,5 kg slagtet. D.v.s. 26,25 kg slagt/indmarksfår. Hvis slagtet fra fårene i udmarken var 26,25 kg i gennemsnit, ville det være nok med 32.000 voksne får for at producere samme mængde kød, sum fårene i udmarkerne giver i dag. D.v.s., at man kunne redusere antallet ned til 46 % af det nuværende, se tabel 1.

Der har de sidste årene været importeret omkring 580 tons lammekød. D.v.s. at forbruget har været 1.400 tons.

For at kunne dække hele forbruget på Færøerne med hjemmeproduseret kød, hvor slagtet fra hvert får er 26,25 kg, er det tilstrækkeligt med 53.333 får, eller 76% af det antal får, som går i udmarkerne i dag, se tabel 1.

71

Ekstensivt brug

Nuværende situation Intensivt brug Produktion som nu

Intensivt brug Producere alt fårekød selv

Antal får i udmarken 70.000 får 32.000 får 53.333 får Antal lam per får 0,7 lam 1,75 lam 1,75 lam Middel vægt per lam 12,5 kg 15 kg 15 kg Kg slagt/får i udmarken

8,75 kg 26,25 kg 26,25 kg

Slagt fra får i udmarken

612,5 tons 840 tons 1400 tons

Slagt fra får i indmarken

225,3 tons ”0 tons” idet indmarken bliver brugt til udmarksfårene

Slagt i alt 840 tons 840 tons 1400 tons Import (2004) 580 tons 580 tons 0 tons Forbrug i alt 1400 tons 1400 tons 1400 tons Tabel 2. Estimeret slagt Udregninger om ekstensivt og intensivt fårehold. Konklusion For at få mindsket problemet med jorderosion, er der ikke nogen vej udenom at mindske græsningstrykket, enten ved at gøde udmarken eller ved at mindske antallet af får, og at fodre fårene under kontrollerede forhold hele vinteren. Det ser ud til, at med langt færre får end i dag, kan man producere samme mængde kød, som der bliver produceret i dag, og det kan gøres med samme fårerace selv uden et stort avlsarbejde. Ud over langt bedre og mere jævn kødproduktion, langt bedre dyrevælfærd og mindre jord-‐erosion, ville det færøske samfund med et sådant tiltag få en langt rigere natur i udmarken med mere vækst og et langt rigere fugleliv. For at nå dette mål, vil det være nødvendigt med store investeringer, og at gamle tradtioner og metoder bliver skrinlagt.

72

References An, G-H., Miyakawa, S., Kawahara, A., Osaki, M. and Ezawa, T. (2008). Community

structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with pioneer grass speciesMiscanthus sinensisin acid sulfate soils: Habitat segregation along pH gradients. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 54(4), 517-528. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2008.00267.x

Austrheim, G., Mysterud, A., Pedersen, B., Halvorsen, R., Hassel, K. and Evju, M. (2008a), Large scale experimental effects of three levels of sheep densities on an alpine ecosystem, Oikos, 117, 837-46.

Austrheim, G., Asheim, L-J., Bjarnason, G., Feilberg, J., Fosaa, A.M., Holand, _., Høegh, K., Jónsdóttir, I.S., Magnússon, B., Mortensen, L.E., Mysterud, A., Olsen, E., Skonhoft, A., Steinheim, G., and Thórhallsdóttir. A.G. (2008b), 'Sheep grazing in the North-Atlantic region - A long term perspective on management, resource economy and ecology', Rapport zoologisk serie (2008: Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet & Vitenskapsmuseet), 84.

Aviron, S., Burel, F., Baudry, J, & Schermann, N. (2005). Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 108(3), 205-217.

Bjarnason, G., Nieminen, M., Mortensen, L.E., Motzfeldt, K. G., Arnalds, Ó., Schanche, S., . . . Olofsson, J. (2007). At lesa landið / At læse landskabet Tema Nord (pp. 50).

Cole, L.J., Brocklehurst, S., Harrison, W., Robertson, D., & McCracken, D.I. (2012). Riparian field margins: their potential to enhance biodiversity in intensively managed grasslands. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 5, 86-94.

Cole, L.J., Pollock, M.L., Robertson, D., J.P., Holland, & McCracken, D.I. . (2006). Carabid assemblages in the Scottish uplands: the influence of sheep grazing on ecological structure. Entomologica Fennica, 17, 229-240.

Cole, Lorna J., McCracken, David I., Dennis, Peter, Downie, Iain S., Griffin, Anna L., Foster, Garth N., . . . Waterhouse, Tony. (2002). Relationships between agricultural management and ecological groups of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on Scottish farmland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93(1–3), 323-336. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00333-4

Dahl, M-P. J., Mortensen, L.E., Jensen, N.H. and Veihe, A. (2013) Magnitude-frequency characteristics and preparatory factors for spatial debris-slide distribution in the northern Faroe Islands. Geomorphology, 188, 3-11.

Debes, L. (1673). Færoe & Færoa Reserata, København Den færøske Landbokommission 1911 Dennis, P., Young, M.R., Howard, C.L., & Gordon, I.J. (1997). The response of

epigeal beetles (Col: Carabidae, Staphylinidae) to varied grazing regimes on upland Nardus stricta grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 433-443.

Dýrmundsson, Ó. R. (2006). Sustainability of sheep and goat production in North European countries—From the Arctic to the Alps. Small Ruminant Research, 62(3), 151-157. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.08.010

Evans, R. (1997). Soil erosion in the UK initiated by grazing animals. A need for at national survey. Applied Geography, 17(2), 127-141.

Fosaa, A. M. in prep. Grazing and warming experiment in the alpine vegetation in the Faroe Islands

73

Fosaa, A.M. and Olsen, E. (2007), 'The impact of grazing on mountain vegetation and the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiont', Fróðskaparrit, 55, 177-87.

Fosaa, A.M., Danielsen, O., & and Nyholm Debes, H.. (2012). The Influence of experimental warming on flowering phenology of Moss Campion, Silene acaulus. Fróðskaparrit, 59, 104-112.

Fosaa, A.M., Olsen, E., & Simonsen, W. (2008). Eiði-2. Environmental Impact Assessment (pp. 80). Tórshavn: Føroya Náttúrugripasavn.

Fosaa, A.M., Olsen, E., Simonsen, W., Gaard, M., & Hansen, H. (2010). Vegetation transition following drainage in a high-latitude hyper-oceanic ecosystem. Applied Vegetation Science, 13(2), 249-256. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2009.01066.x

Fosaa, A.M. in prep 1. The effect of sheep grazing on the flowering phenology of Silene acaulis.

Grandchamp, A-C., Bergamini, A., Stofer, S., Niemelä, J., Duelli, P., and Scheidegger, C. (2005). The influence of grassland management on ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera) inn Swiss montane meadows. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 110, 307-317.

Gudmundsson, O. and Arnalds, A. (1976-1980) Utilization and conservation of grassland. Progress reports 1975.1979. RALA Reports No. 2, 29, 37, 50, 63.

Hannon, G. E., Wastegård, S., Bradshaw, E., and Bradshaw, R. H.W. (2001). Human impact and landscape degradation on the Faroe Islands. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 101B(1-2), 129-139.

Helgason, T., Merryweather, J. W., Denison, J., Wilson, P., Young, J. Peter W., & Fitter, A. H. (2002). Selectivity and functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhizas of co-occuring fungi and plants from a temperate deciduous woodland. Journal of Ecology, 90, 371-384.

Helgason, T., Merryweather, Ja. W., Young, J. P. W., & Fitter, A.H. (2007). Specificity and resilience in the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi of a natural woodland community. Journal of Ecology, 95(4), 623-630. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01239.x

Hulme, P.D., Pakeman, R.J., Torvell, L., Fisher, J.M., & Gordon, I.J. (1999). The effects of controlled sheep grazing on the dynamics of upland Agrostis-Festuca grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 886-900.

Husband, R., Herre, E. A. , & Young, J. P. W. (2002). Temporal variation in the arbuscular mycorrhizal communities colonising seedlings in a tropical forest. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 42, 131-136.

Johannesen, A. B., Nielsen, A. & Skonhoft, A. (2013). Livestock management at northern latitudes. Ecological Economics, 93, 239-248.

Jumpponen, A. (2001). Dark septate endophytes - are they mycorrhizal? Mycorrhiza, 11(4), 207-211. doi: 10.1007/s005720100112

Kålås, J. A., Viken, Å., Henriksen, S., & Skjelseth, S. (2010). The 2010 Norwegian red list for species. Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, Trondheim.

Konfirmation af Retterbod, 24. februar 1637 Landt, J. (1800) Forsøg til en Beskrivelse over Færøerne, København Lindroth, C. H. (1985). The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark.

(Vol. 1). Lindroth, C. H. (1986). The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark.

(Vol. 2).

74

Loe, L.E., Mysterud, A., Stien, A., Steen, H., Evans, D.M. and Austrheim, G. (2007). Positive short-term effects of sheep grazing on the alpina avifauna. Biology Letters 3: 109-111.

Lov om Færøerne om Haugers Styrelse og Drift, 18. maj 1937 Lov om Færøerne om Hegn og Markfred, 18. mai 1837 Lov om Ordningen af de til Haugevæsenet paa Færøerne hørende Forhold 23. februar

1866 Luff, M.L., & Rushton, S.P. (1989). The ground beetle and spider fauna of managed

and unimproved upland pasture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 25, 195-205.

Magnússon, B. and Magnússon, S.H. (1992). Rannsóknir á gróðri og plöntuvali saujfjár í beitartilraun á Auðkúluheiði (Vegetation and plant preferences of sheep in a grazing trial on an alpine heathland range in northern Iceland. In Icelandic with English Summary). Rala Report 159, Agricultural Research Institute, Reykjavík, Iceland. 106 pp.

Massey, F. P., Ennos, A. Roland, & Hartley, Sue E. (2007). Grasses and the resource availability hypothesis: the importance of silica-based defences. Journal of Ecology, 95(3), 414-424. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01223.x

Moen, A. (1999). National Atlas of Norway: Vegetation. Norwegian Mapping Authority, Hønefoss.

Mysterud, A. (2000). Diet overlap among ruminants in Fennoscandia. Oecologia, 124(1), 130-137.

Norderhaug, A., & Johansen, L. (2011). Semi-natural sites and boreal heath. In Lindgaard, A., & Henriksen, S. Norwegian red list for ecosystems and habitat types 2011. pp. 87-92.

Oberbauer, S. F., Elmendorf, S. C., Troxler, T. G., Hollister, R. D., Rocha, A. V., Bret-Harte, M. S., . . . Welker, J. M. (2013). Phenological response of tundra plants to background climate variation tested using the International Tundra Experiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1624). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0481

Olsen, E., and Fitter, A. H. (2004). Habitat preferences of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi of the Faroes compared with other places. Fróðskaparrit, 52, 29-41.

Olsen, E. (2006). Temperature responses of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. [York]: [s.n.].

Peltzer, D.A., Wardle, D. A., Allison, V. J., Baisden, W. T., Bardgett, R. D., Chadwick, O. A., Condron, L. M., Parfitt, R. L., Porder, S., Richardson, S. J., Turner, B. L., Vitousek, P. M., Walker, J. and Walker, L. R. 2010. Understanding ecosystem retrogression. Ecological Monographs 80, 509–529.

Pollock, M. L., Legg, C. J., Holland, John P., & Theobald, Chris M. (2007). Assessment of Expert Opinion: Seasonal Sheep Preference and Plant Response to Grazing. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 60(2), 125-135. doi: 10.2111/06-032r2.1

Provenza, F.D. and Villalba, J.J. 2010. The role of natural plant products in modulating the immune system: An adaptable approach for combating disease in grazing animals. Small Ruminant Research 89(2-3),131-139.

Rainio, J., and Niemelä, J. (2003). Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12, 487-506.

Ribera, I., McCracken, D. I., Foster, G. N., Downie, I. S. , & Abernethy, V. J. (1999). Morphological diversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Scottish

75

agricultural land. Journal of Zoology, 247, 1-18. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb00188.x

Rørbo, K. (2004). Den færøske befolknings holdning til natur- og miljøforvaltning. Perspektiveret ved sammenlignende studie af nordisk naturforvaltning: Innlendismálaráðið / Føroya Náttúrugripasavn.

Rosef, L, Langerud, A, & Norderhaug, A. (2007). The dynamics of Deschampsia cespitosa in response to grazing. Nordic Journal of Botany, 24, 607-616.

Rushton, S.P., Luff, M.L., & Eyre, M.D. (1989). Effects of pasture improvement and management on the ground beetle and spider communities of upland grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26, 489-503.

Santos-Gonzalez, J. C., Finlay, R. D., & Tehler, A. (2007). Seasonal dynamics of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in roots in a seminatural grassland. Appl Environ Microbiol, 73(17), 5613-5623. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00262-07

Schmidt, S. K., Sobieniak-Wiseman, L. C., Kageyama, S. A., Halloy, S. R. P., & Schadt, C. W. (2008). Mycorrhizal and Dark-Septate Fungi in Plant Roots Above 4270 Meters Elevation in the Andes and Rocky Mountains. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 40(3), 576-583. doi: 10.1657/1523-0430(07-068)[schmidt]2.0.co;2

Seyðabrævið (1298). – Retterbod for Færøerne, 28. juni 1298 Smith, S. E., & Read, D. J. (2008). Mycorrhizal Symbiosis (pp. 800). Retrieved from

http://www.amazon.com/Mycorrhizal-Symbiosis-Sally-E-Smith-ebook/dp/B003X0BUNA/ref=tmm_kin_title_0 doi:10.1126/science.1208473

Speed, J. D., Austrheim, G., Hester, A. J., & Mysterud, A. (2011). Growth limitation of mountain birch caused by sheep browsing at the altitudinal treeline. Forest ecology and management, 261(7), 1344-1352.

SSB, Statistics Norway (2014). Cattle and sheep. No of heads as per 1 January. Svabo, J.C. Indberetninger fra en Reise i Færøe 1781-1782 Taxationsprotokol 1873 The ministry of Agriculture and Food (Landbruks- og matdepartementet). (2005).

Forskrift om velferd for småfe, FOR-2005-02-18-160. Tietze, F. (1985). Changes in the ecofaunistic structure of carabid taxocoenoses in

agricultural grassland ecosystems by intensified management. Zool. Jb. Syst., 112, 367-382.

Veen, G. F. (Ciska), de Vires, S., Bakker, E. S.,van der Putten, W. H. And Olff, H. 2014. Grazing induced changes in plant-soil feedback alter plant biomass allocation. Oikos 123:800-806

Walker, L. R. and Wardle, D. A. 2014. Plant succession as an integrator of contrasting ecological time scales. TREE. In press.

Wehn, S. (2009). A map-based method for exploring responses to different levels of grazing pressure at the landscape scale. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 129(1), 177-181.

Wehn, S., Lundemo, S. & Holten, J.I. (2014). Alpine vegetation along multiple environmental gradients and possible consequences of climate change. Alpine Botany; DOI: 10.1007/s00035-014-0136-9.

Wehn, S., Olsson, G., & Hanssen, S. (2012). Forest line changes after 1960 in a Norwegian mountain region–implications for the future. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 66(1), 2-10.

76

Wehn, S., Pedersen, B., & Hanssen, S. K. (2011). A comparison of influences of cattle, goat, sheep and reindeer on vegetation changes in mountain cultural landscapes in Norway. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(3), 177-187.

Woodcock, B. A., Potts, S. G., Westbury, D. B., Ramsey, A. J., Lambert, M., Harris, S.J., & Brown, V.K. (2007). The importance of sward architectural complexity in structuring predatory and phytophagous invertebrate assemblages. Ecological Entomology, 32, 302-311.

Sustainable grazing in subarctic environments with regard to vegetation and soil processes

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable grazing in subarctic environments with regard to vegetation and soil processes