Quo vadis Patria Gaucha? Uruguayan pathways of land use change

Abstract

South American grasslands, socio-ecological systems used heavily for a long time, are currently experiencing dramatic land-use changes due to implementation of large-scale afforestation and agro-industrial cash crops. Applying the conceptual framework of “Multifunctional and sustainable productive landscapes” to Uruguay, we explored the impacts on rural ecosystems and communities based on a long-term monitoring network by assessing species richness of plant and terrestrial arthropods and socio-economic data from national census. We found that silvi- and agricultural industry established mainly at the expense of extensively grazed grasslands and local family farms with traditional techniques, accompanied by a deregulation of the rural labor market, depopulation and aging of rural society. Governmental nature protection efforts increase the native forest cover and establish nature protection areas focusing mainly on forests. We also discuss pathways of land-use change in recent decades and related discourses of local stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Accelerated land-use change is a major driver of global change, and affects a sustainable use of natural resources, reduces ecosystem resilience and biodiversity, erases traditional landscapes, and jeopardizes regional diversity, coherence and local identity (Middleton, 2013; Amici et al., 2015; Fuller et al., 2017). Due to their sensitivity to biological invasions, changing land-use and climate, grasslands, in particular, are expected to experience greater changes in biodiversity compared to other biomes (Sala et al., 2000; Suttie et al., 2005). Such mainly non-protected and low populated grasslands are also being reclaimed as one of the principal global land reserves suitable for high yield cultivation (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011).

The South American grasslands have a long history of human use. European colonialization shaped the originally pristine landscape, making grasslands essential areas of beef and grain production (Soriano, 1991; Caetano, 2010). For Uruguay, these grasslands are the “national landscape”, as they played a principal role in the nation building process at the beginning of twentieth century, and are represented by cultural goods such as the “gaucho” poems of Bartolomé Hidalgo (1788–1822), the plays of Javier de Viana (1868–1926) and the paintings of Juan Manuel Blanes (1830–1901; Vidart, 1967; Giaudrone, 2012, 2018; Figure 1).

Figure 1

Vast areas of the Pampas and Campos region (the “Patria Gaucha”, Figure 1) are currently being subjected to expanding afforestation, soybean cultivation and livestock intensification. Governmental policies, incentives and investors' expectations actively support and promote afforestation and soybean cultivation (Geary, 2001; Overbeck et al., 2007; Baldi and Paruelo, 2008; Uruguay, 2010; Redo et al., 2012). A representative example, Uruguay, has the highest afforestation rate in Latin America, with an increase from 2,500 ha yr-1 in the 1975–1988 period to 60,000 ha yr-1 in the 1990s (FAO, 2004). At the same time, soybean monocultures increased by over 200 percent, at the expense of natural grasslands and, at the same time, leading to an intensification of livestock production (Modernel et al., 2016). Sowed grasslands (“artificial pastures”), which have increased by over 600 percent in the last two decades, now cover a million hectares (MGAP, 2013). In addition, to increase farm productivity, previously natural grasslands have been fertilized and a high proportion of legumes and grasses have been introduced (so called “improved pastures”; Beretta et al., 2000). While an overall grassland intensification strategy is being used by local stakeholders to increase economic sustainability (Jaurena et al., 2021), extensive grassland conservation measures are lacking (Veldman et al., 2015), and only about one percent of the Uruguayan territory has a natural protection status (Elbers, 2011). Nowadays, however, nature conservation issues are receiving increasing public awareness, and a new network of protected areas is to be established across Uruguay (MVOTMA, 2017).

The conversion of unforested lands to forests is seen as a tool for sequestering anthropogenic carbon dioxide into plant biomass, potentially generating significant income for developing countries (de Koning et al., 2005). However, the effects of afforestation on regional soil organic carbon are being questioned as, for example, harvest cycles of plantations are very short and depend on the ecological context and forest management (Jackson et al., 2002; Don et al., 2009; Berthrong et al., 2012). Besides, transnational forestry industry and local small-scale forestry are planting mainly monocultures of non-native species, particularly of the genera Eucalyptus and Pinus. As these exotic forest plantations have the highest rates of profit and growth reported for this region (FAO, 2004; Cubbage et al., 2007), they are seen to promise good short time profit compared to native species (Cubbage et al., 2007; Uruguay, 2010).

While these forest plantations are being rapidly established, their effects on local ecosystems are controversial, as they are largely unknown. While trade-offs between economic and ecosystem services modeled for land-use changes in different Argentine eco-regions in the last 50 years (Carreño et al., 2012) find that the economic benefits of Pampa cultivation exceed the loss of ecological services, these are mainly technological profit maximization, and do not take into account the negative environmental impacts. The current afforestation in Uruguay has been hypothesized to lead to a depletion of ecosystem services and to a decreased resilience capacity of local ecosystems (Cespedes-Payret et al., 2009). Review studies from grasslands in Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil highlight the urgent need to develop management strategies for land-use change (Overbeck et al., 2007; Cespedes-Payret et al., 2009), and a review of ecosystem services provided by the Río de la Plata grasslands has revealed the general lack of studies on drivers of land use change (Modernel et al., 2016). Consequently, for land-use optimization approaches toward multifunctional, biodiversity friendly, sustainable and productive landscapes aiming to balance economic development, environmental protection, efficient resource use and social equity deeper understanding of land-use change in the long term is therefore crucial (Memmah et al., 2015).

The human shaped “cultural landscapes” harbor multi-layered imprints of numerous generations and past changes (Bloemers et al., 2010; Palang et al., 2011). Although today's changing landscapes are the interface of different approaches and diverse readings, the human dimension of land-use change has been largely overlooked. Contemporary landscape concepts reconnect geographical spaces to culture, identity and meaning, at the same time as enhancing awareness of local history and sharpen landscape's scholarly value (Cosgrove, 2004). Beyond the economic and ecological functioning of the landscapes, heritage conservation of traditional landscapes, aesthetics, scenery and the overall provisioning of the “cultural ecosystem services” must be key topics for sustainable planning and management for future landscapes (Antrop, 2005). Here, we aim to assess land-use change in Uruguay from this holistic point of view, including economic, environmental and social dimensions of the rural landscape. We apply the conceptual framework of “Multifunctional” and “Sustainable productive landscapes” to agriculturally and silviculturally modified grasslands in Uruguay, and explore the amount and impacts of land-use change on rural ecosystems and communities. We also discuss pathways of land-use change within the cultural landscape of Uruguay, and the underlying mechanisms and perceptions of land-use change by local stakeholders.

2. Materials and methods

In the first step, we applied the conceptual framework of “multifunctional” and “sustainable productive landscapes” (Wiggering et al., 2003; Holmes, 2006; Lovell and Johnston, 2009) to agriculturally and silviculturally modified grasslands in Uruguay, and defined different developmental scenarios that emphasize differently the environmental, economic and/or socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability (Figure 2). We identified relevant land-uses in Uruguay based on the general land use maps and literature (Alvarez et al., 2015), and assigned uses within the triangle of sustainability according to the landscape dimensions and to different developmental scenarios. We used normative scenarios (e.g. Fauré et al., 2017; Pastor et al., 2022) focusing on the economic, environmental or on the socio-cultural functions of the landscape, and the multifunctional scenario balancing between the three different dimensions. The main land-use types are natural (mostly gallery) forests, timber plantations, agroforestry, agriculture, artificial pastures, “improved pastures”, natural grasslands (“Campo natural”), water bodies and others.

Figure 2

In the second step, to enhance the capability to analyze the present, predict future impacts of land-use changes and significantly advance ecological forecasting, we developed a monitoring system of 163 plots at 44 monitoring sites across Uruguay, with three to five land-use types per site (Figure 3; for a detailed description of sampling design and methodology see Säumel and Ramírez, 2021, 2022; Ramírez and Säumel, 2022a,b). We registered plant species and soil arthropod diversity and regeneration of woody species during the spring-summer season in 2015 and 2016. In addition, we recorded the presence of species by plot to assess the impacts of land-use change on biodiversity using Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's pairwise multiple comparison with Bonferroni correction (Dinno and Dinno, 2017) with the software package R version 3.3.2 (R Core Team, 2016). The general plot size was 100 × 100 m for forests and timber plantations and 50 × 50 m for grasslands and crops.

Figure 3

We analyzed land-use change as a percentage of the total surface from 2000 to 2011 (i) for the polygon where the monitoring site was inserted and (ii) for the radius of 5 km around the monitoring site. Land uses were obtained from the General Census of Agriculture and Livestock for the years 2000 and 2011 (MGAP, 2013). The significance of land-use change calculated for the polygon of the monitoring site and for the 5km radius around each monitoring site, was tested using Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's pairwise multiple comparison with Bonferroni correction (Dinno and Dinno, 2017). Furthermore, each site with its area and 5km radius was subdivided in three levels based on the variation of “Campo natural” area from 2000 to 2015, as follow: low (% loss ≤ 5% or increasing), medium (% loss between 5 and 13%) and high (% loss > 13%), so evaluating the land use change at each level. We also assessed land-use change related socio-economic parameters (i.e. number of farms, farm size and land tenure, infrastructural access, use and type of technical support, age and educational formation of land owners, nationality of land owners, branch type of and used areas for primary, secondary and third income). We characterized residents of farms (i.e. gender, age, relation to owner and employment within the farm), employees of farms (i.e. gender, age, relation to owner and use of seasonal employees within the farm). To explore impacts on overall rurality, we analyzed the change of the number of houses and households, number of persons per household, structure of households, number, age, mobility, education, employment and unemployment of rural population based on the national population census (INE, 1996, 2004, 2011). To highlight the impacts between rural landscape and local urban centers, we analyzed population dynamics in provincial towns and villages (i.e. age, gender, mobility, and employment of dwellers).

In the next section, we discuss the observed changes in land use, plant and arthropod diversity, socio-economic and demographic parameters with regard to pathways of land use change and different developmental scenarios.

3. Results

We allocated the identified land-uses within the triangle of sustainability according to the economic, environmental and social dimensions of rural landscape and defined different developmental scenarios (Figure 4A). The scenario “Business as usual”, focusing predominantly on the current way of economic development, is related to exotic timber plantations, agro-industrial crops and livestock production mostly for the globalized market. “Uruguay natural” aims at (re-) conservation of natural and semi-natural ecosystems and resources, including expansion of nature conservation areas and overall protection of native forests and grasslands (“Wilderness”). “Uruguay Patria Gaucha” focuses on the socio-cultural dimension of landscape (cultural landscape). The terms “Patria”¹ and “Amenity” comprise various land-uses with cultural functions (e.g. sites of rural heritage and scenic beauty, recreation areas or parks), including strengthening local identity and visual quality. “Uruguay multifunctional” combines economic, environmental and social dimensions of the rural landscape, and consists of some established multifunctional land uses such as silvopastoral systems (combining trees, forage, and livestock), organic modes of agriculture or horticultural gardens (combining fruits and vegetables production, habitats for flora and fauna with amenity, beauty and areas for recreation) and those land uses proposed to make forestry more environmentally friendly, such as mixed forests (Pozo and Säumel, 2018). Finally, the term “TradINNOVAtions” comprises innovative land-uses developed by critically revising historical land-use concepts and techniques (see Cannarella and Piccioni, 2011).

Figure 4

The ongoing land-use change occurs with different intensities among all regions of Uruguay, mostly at the expense of extensively grazed and natural grasslands (the “Campo natural”). For the whole country, census data revealed two main tendencies: an increase in 60% of timber plantations from 660 to 1070 thousand ha, and an increase of 160% in grain production, from 600 to 1500 thousand ha from 2000 to 2011. However, both changes are modest relative to the proportion of changed land-use calculated as a proportion of the entire territory of Uruguay (176,215 km²; see Figure 5). Based on the census data (MGAP, 2013), the monitoring sites were categorized into sites of high, medium and low change of natural grasslands surface (Figures 5E, F, K, L). Despite the low change, agricultural land-uses increased significantly (Figures 5D, J). In contrast, the average area of timber plantations remained constant from 2000 to 2011 across all sites (Figures 5E, F, K, L). The surface of native forests increased by 13% in this period in sites of high land-use change dynamics (Figures 5F, L).

Figure 5

Species richness differed between land-uses (Figures 6A, C). Natural grasslands harbored a significantly higher number of plant species and terrestrial arthropods. Plant species richness was lowest in crops, improved and artificial pastures. Regeneration of native tree species was higher in native forests but also was registered in timber plantations (Figure 6B).

Figure 6

The number of inhabitants in rural areas decreased by a third, and the number of houses by 6%. Although the number of households was constant, the number of people per household decreased by a third. Rural households consisted mostly of couples, while the number of children, other family or non-family members decreased. The average age of inhabitants of rural areas increased from 34 to 37 years. Fewer people were born in rural places (-18%), and eight percent came from other parts of Uruguay during the last 5 years. The unemployment rate in the rural population increased by 8%. Farmers (15%) and non-qualified employees (22%) dominated. The educational level in the rural areas increased from having no or primary school education to higher levels of education (Table 1). Fewer children under 14 years and females were resident at farms (Table 2). The number of permanent employees at farms decreased by 27%, while the number of seasonal employees increased by 19%. The number of residents in provincial towns and villages increased by 18%, while gender proportion did not change (Table 1). The medium age increased slightly. The percentage of dwellers born in provincial towns and villages increased by 6%. The percentage of residents who moved to provincial towns and villages increased by 23%. The overall employment rate for residents in provincial towns and villages increased by 8% (Table 1).

The number of farms decreased by 20%, and the average farm size increased by 28% from 2000 to 2011 (Table 2). Farmers' access to electricity and roads increased, and the proportion of farms using external technical support, e.g. for harvest, sapling planting or veterinary assistant nearly doubled. Landowners' age and educational background increased (Table 2). The number of farms and the farm surface (ha) owned by natural persons from Uruguay, Argentina or Brazil decreased significantly, while the number of farms and the farm area not owned by a physical person increased (e.g. enterprises). Around 8 million hectares of land previously owned by Uruguayans changed to the category of “unknown nationality”, consisting mainly of associations and companies (e.g., Sociedad Anónima S.A.; Table 2). Agri- and silvicultural income of farms increased significantly at the expense of milk and meat production (Table 2). Livestock composition changes from farms with diverse types of animals to cattle farms (increase by 6%), whereas the number of farms with horses and sheep as income decreased by 15% for horses and by 43% for sheep (MGAP, 2013).

4. Discussion

Both intensification of land use by forestry or agroindustry and the abandonment of land can lead to loss of cultural landscapes, related land use techniques, local knowledge and ecosystem services. This biocultural erosion has been reported from many rural, marginalized and/or remote landscapes around the world (e.g. Plieninger et al., 2006 for Europe; Temudo et al., 2015 for Guinea-Bissau, Westafrica; Deb, 2022 for West Bengal, India). Here we highlight a similar process in the South American Campos grasslands, where policy supported land use change contradicts national discourses on the identity-forming cultural landscapes of the “Patria Gaucha”. Our data demonstrate that agroindustrial intensification in rural Uruguay occurs mainly at the expense of natural grasslands (Figures 5D–F, J–L). Intensification consists of extension of agro-industrial crops and timber plantations (Ramírez and Säumel, 2022a), increasing stocking rates, the implementation of artificial or improved pastures to foster grassland productivity and an increasing use of annual forage crops (Figure 4B). This process is expected to result in significant discharges of agrochemical pollutants into local freshwaters (Ramirez and Säumel, 2023) as well as in the gradual disappearance of natural grasslands (Modernel et al., 2016).

As natural grasslands are associated with higher species richness of plants and arthropods than more intensified land-uses or to native forests (Figures 6A, C), so provide crucial habitat services for the regional species pool, we provide evidence for the biodiversity loss. Surprisingly, this is rarely discussed in public and academic debates in Uruguay. Floristic studies on grasslands are often limited to a small number of plots on differently managed grasslands (Altesor et al., 1998, 2005; Lezama et al., 2013), and very few have addressed the ecological impacts of current grassland intensification in Uruguay (Weinert da Silva et al., 2015; Jaurena et al., 2016; Modernel et al., 2016). Though local studies of impacts on arthropods are lacking, studies from other temperate grasslands have demonstrated that land use intensification causes shifts in arthropod abundance, richness and composition (e.g. Heuss et al., 2019; Sohlström et al., 2022). The lack of information on diversity patterns of Uruguayan grasslands might, in turn, influence conservation planning. Despite their biome-shaping role, natural grasslands are largely underrepresented in the national system of protected areas (Figure 6D), although the need to maintain the functions and diversity of the “old growth grasslands” is recognized in academic debates in South America (Overbeck et al., 2015; Veldman et al., 2015). As there is strong evidence that temperate grasslands grazed by mixed livestock harbor higher species richness, the change in livestock composition from mixed pastures with horses, sheep and cattle to farms dominated by cattle (MGAP, 2013) is likely to impact on species composition of grasslands (e.g., Ritchie and Olff, 1999; Loucougaray et al., 2004; Dumont et al., 2012 for Europe). To include this in conservation management of grasslands, local studies on how changing the type of livestock shape grassland biodiversity are therefore needed.

Reduced land availability pressures farmers to livestock intensification (Figure 4B) with higher stocking rates, and increased grazing, mowing or fertilization regimes on remaining grasslands in the region (Jaurena et al., 2021). Visual impacts of land-use change from the extensively used “Campo natural” to intensified modes by agroindustry that maintain open landscapes appear to be limited. Family farmers in Uruguay (< 500ha,² Coneat 100) and other local stakeholders frequently stated visual impacts of timber plantations but not of also much- expanded soya bean monocultures. Moreover, in the perception of local stakeholders, the (irrigated) green agricultural fields are linked to economically prosperous land-use modes, compared to yellow-brown natural grasslands in dry summers. A controversial, much-debated study on stakeholders' perception of Uruguayan land-use change impacts on the provision of ecosystem services (Vihervaara et al., 2012) demonstrated 1) the need for mainstreaming of scientific knowledge on impacts as a basis for informed decision making and 2) the need for a strong involvement of the wide range of local actors to encourage discussion on local scenarios and developmental policies. Understanding human preferences for landscape is important both from a basic research perspective and from that of practical landscape and environmental management (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). From studies in environmental psychology, there is increasing evidence of a universal preference for moderate to high openness predicted by theories in the field and previous empirical research (Hägerhäll et al., 2018).

At the same time, afforestation impacts on local ecosystems are being debated in the public and in the scientific community (Cespedes-Payret et al., 2009; Vihervaara et al., 2012 and the reply by Paruelo, 2012), even though the average area of timber plantations remained constant between 2000 and 2011 (Figures 5E, F, K, L). This may be related to the impact of afforestation on scenic landscape, which remains widely understudied, though the potential use of “visual indicators” for research on landscape change has been recognized (Fry et al., 2009). In general, monocultural timber plantations differ largely from native forests and are laid out in a regular grid pattern for low-cost management and profit maximization. Thus, plantations popularly called “Green Deserts” are at odds with the character of the landscape character in all stages of growth and harvest (Bell, 2007). Although the scenic beauty of the agricultural landscape decreases with the increasing intensity of afforestation (Tahvanainen et al., 1996), forest design approaches optimized landscape integration of plantations and silviculture have become an accepted element of European landscapes (e.g. Tahvanainen et al., 1996; Karjalainen and Komulainen, 1998).

Besides afforestation schemes (e.g. selection of species, planting rate, design), European studies also demonstrate that people's perception of afforestation depends very much on local concepts of traditional landscape and on the time since forestry has been implemented in the local landscape (Kassioumis et al., 2004). As the native forest cover of Uruguay is < 5% of the territory, afforestation there occurs in historically mostly forest-less landscapes (Pozo and Säumel, 2018). In contrast to landscapes where forests are traditional landscape elements, the visual impact of afforestation is more pronounced in natural grasslands. Interestingly, though several narratives in Uruguay reported the legend of forest destruction by European colonizers over previous centuries, based on analysis of historical maps and reports from naturalist travelers, recent studies have raised questioned about these (Gautreau, 2010).

The area covered by native forests has expanded during the last decade across Uruguay (Figures 5E, F, K, L), demonstrating that measures of native forest protection, such as restrictions on logging and cutting native forests, are effective and mainstream. In addition, low grazing intensities in timber plantations foster the expansion of native tree species from adjacent native forests also in the plantation (Figure 4B; Pozo and Säumel, 2018). Awareness of forest protection needs is high among all stakeholders of rural Uruguay, and includes a large set of ecosystem services, soil and water protection, biodiversity and recreation (Normey, 2012). However, compared to the proportion of the Uruguayan territory covered by native forests, native forests are “overrepresented” in the currently established national system of preserved areas (Figure 6D). Native forests are influenced by neighboring land uses, highlighting the need for a holistic assessment of land use change at landscape level (Ramírez and Säumel, 2022b).

Our analysis of the socio-economic dimensions of land-use change demonstrates the main processes changing the face of Patria Gaucha. The reduced number of farms and the overall increase in farm size shows the concentration of land ownership in Uruguay. Small sized family farms are disappearing (Figure 4B), accompanied by a transnationalization³ of the land ownership, for example, the number and surface of farms owned by entities with unknown nationalities such as S.A (Table 2). Governmental policies and incentives are known to drive land-use change, and the socio-economic transformation of Uruguayan ruralities from production in family farms and local consumption toward transnational timber and agroindustrial production for the global market. The key laws that initiated this process are the Forestry Law in 1987, the changes in Rural Leases Law in 1991, the law that facilitates land tenure of non-natural persons (i.e. associations and companies) and the investment law, both in 1999 (Piñeiro, 2012a,b). Subcontracting and outsourcing of farm labor to service companies with newest technologies (e.g., GMO, pesticides, seeding/planting harvesting machines) has also increased substantially, resulting in a high deregulation of rural labor market (e.g., Carámbula, 2009; Carámbula et al., 2012), indicated by a visible decrease of permanent employees in farms, and a nearly 20% increase in the number of seasonal employees per year. This is driven by the depopulation of rural Uruguay and the demographic aging of the rural society (Table 2; Figure 4B).

Besides the pull effects of the capital Montevideo, people also move to provincial towns and villages. While the employment rate in those has increased mainly due to jobs in the tertiary sector (e.g. offices, service provider, trading business), there is no evidence in census data for the myth, often mentioned in public debates, of new jobs for rural areas due to agro- and silvicultural industry (Carámbula, 2009; Carámbula et al., 2012). Besides changes in farm size and ownership, the transition from traditional farm products of the “Patria Gaucha” (meat and milk) to agroindustrial products, leads to a loss of traditional land-use structures and techniques (Table 2), even though national touristic campaigns and the country brand “Uruguay Natural” are based on natural and cultural landscapes of Uruguay (MT, 2022; Uruguay, 2022). The acceptance of landscape changes by individuals is shaped by different discourses of rural development, cultural context, place meanings, variety of associations and childhood memories (Elands et al., 2004; Kaur et al., 2004; Adevi and Grahn, 2012; Ruskule et al., 2012; Anderson et al., 2013). The perception of such changes (i.e. afforestation, agroindustrial intensifications or abandonment of agricultural areas) frequently correlates with socio-economic context within studied areas: changes were perceived as more negative if the area tends to be depopulated and declining economically and, in contrast, as more positive in prosper and diversified rural areas (Elands et al., 2004; Kaur et al., 2004; Ruskule et al., 2012).

5. Conclusions

The current land-use change, from natural grasslands to intensified silvi- and agroindustrial production modes and land-use techniques, has taken place mainly at the expense of extensively grazed grasslands, and has been accompanied by the disappearance of local family farms with traditional techniques, and a deregulation of rural labor market, and depopulation and the aging of rural society. Consequently, land-use change mainly occurred without notice in “El Uruguay Profundo”⁴. Public debates have concentrated mainly on visual impacts of afforestation, not on the loss of natural grasslands, even though the latter constitutes the “national landscape” of Uruguay. Governmental nature protection efforts have achieved an increase of native forest cover and establishment of nature protection areas mainly on native forests, not on natural grasslands. Adaptive and participatory evaluation, planning and policies making modes provide valuable tools to confront uncertainties and dynamics in our changing world (Daily et al., 2009), and public mapping methods for valuation of cultural landscape services beyond academia, and for analysis of socio-cultural trade-offs on landscape perception (Brown, 2013). Our results highlight the potential of holistic readings of changing landscapes through integrating socio-cultural, economic and ecological data that needs to be explored in greater depth in future studies.

References

• 1

  AdeviA. A.GrahnP. (2012). Preferences for landscapes: a matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background?Landsc. Res.37, 27–49. 10.1080/01426397.2011.576884

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AltesorA.Di LandroE.MayH.EzcurraE. (1998). Long-term species change in a Uruguayan grassland. J. Veg. Sci., 9, 173–180. 10.2307/3237116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AltesorA.OesterheldM.LeoniE.LezamaF.RodríguezC. (2005). Effect of grazing on community structure and productivity of a Uruguayan grassland. Plant Ecol., 179, 83–91. 10.1007/s11258-004-5800-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AlvarezA.BlumA.GallegoF. (2015). Atlas de cobertura del suelo del Uruguay. Montevideo: DINOT and FAO. p. 52.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AmiciV.LandiS.FrascaroliF.RocchiniD.SantiE.ChiarucciA. (2015). Anthropogenic drivers of plant diversity: perspective on land use change in a dynamic cultural landscape. Biodivers. Conserv.24, 3185–3199. 10.1007/s10531-015-0949-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AndersonN. M.WilliamsK. J. H.FordR. M. (2013). Community perceptions of plantation forestry: the association between place meanings and social representations of a contentious rural land use. J. Environ. Psychol.34, 121–136. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AntropM. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan70, 21–34. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BaldiG.ParueloJ. (2008). Land-use and land cover dynamics in South American temperate grasslands. Ecol. Soc.13, 6. 10.5751/ES-02481-130206

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BellS. (2007). The landscape of afforestation: from controversy to acceptance. Halldorsson, G., Oddsdottir, E. S., Eggertsson, O. In: Effects of Afforestation on Ecosystems, Landscape and Rural Development. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. p. 47–56.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BerettaE.J.RissoD.F.MontossiF.PigurinaG. (2000). Campos in uruguay. in: Lemaire, C., Hodgson, J., Moraes, A., De P.C., Cavalho, C. Nabinger, C., editors. Grassland Ecophysiology and Grazing Ecology. Wallingford: CABI. p. 377–395.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BerthrongS. T.PiñeiroG.JobbágyE. G.JacksonR. B. (2012). Soil C and N changes with afforestation of grasslands across gradients of precipitation and plantation age. Ecol. Appl.22, 76–86. 10.1890/10-2210.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BloemersT.KarsH.van der ValkA.WijnenM. (2010). The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox: Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-historical Landscape and its European Dimension. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BrownG. (2013). The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst. Serv.5, 58–68. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  CaetanoG. (2010). Ciudadanía y nación en el Uruguay del Centenario (1910-1930). La forja de una cultura estatista. Iberoamericana10, 161–175. 10.18441/ibam.10.2010.39.161-175

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  CannarellaC.PiccioniV. (2011). Traditiovations: Creating innovation from the past and antique techniques for rural areas. Technovation. 31, 689–699. 10.1016/j.technovation.2011.07.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  CarámbulaD.CardeillacJ.MoreiraB.GalloA.JuncalA.PiñeiroD. (2012). Los límites de la ciudadanía: el caso de los trabajadores asalariados rurales. In: Riella, A., editor. El Uruguay desde la Sociología X. 10ª Reunión Anual de Investigadores del Departamento de Sociología. Montevideo: Departamento de Sociología. FCS. p. 351–370.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  CarámbulaM. (2009). Tiempos de ausencia. Movilidad espacial y precariedad laboral en los trabajadores rurales temporales: el caso de los Esquiladores de Villa Sara”. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales. Facultad de Agronomía. CSIC. Montevideo: Letra Eñe.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  CarreñoL.FrankF. C.ViglizzoE. F. (2012). Tradeoffs between economic and ecosystem services in Argentina during 50 years of land-use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.154, 68–77. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Cespedes-PayretC.PineiroG.AchkarM.GutierrezO.PanarioD. (2009). The irruption of new agro-industrial technologies in Uruguay and their environmental impacts on soil, water supply and biodiversity: a review. Int. J. Environ. Health3, 175–197. 10.1504/IJEnvH.2009.024877

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  CosgroveD. (2004). Landscape and Landschaft.Washington, DC: GHI Bulletin. p. 57–71.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  CubbageF.Mac DonaghP.Sawinski JúniorJ.RubilarR.DonosoP.FerreiraA.et al. (2007). Timber investment returns for selected plantations and native forests in South America and the Southern United States. New For.33, 237–255. 10.1007/s11056-006-9025-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  DailyG. C.PolaskyS.GoldsteinJ.KareivaP. M.MooneyH. A.PejcharL.et al. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ.7, 21–28. 10.1890/080025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  de KoningF.OlschewskiR.VeldkampE.BenítezP.López-UlloaM.SchlichterT.et al. (2005). The ecological and economic potential of carbon sequestration in forests: examples from South America. Ambio34, 224–229. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4315589

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  DebD. (2022). The Erosion of biodiversity and culture. Ecol. Econ. Soc. 5. 10.37773/ees.v5i1.487

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  DinnoA.DinnoM. A. (2017). Package ‘dunn.test? [online]. Available online at: https://cran.r-project.or/e/ackage/unn.tes/unn.test.pdf (accessed January 10, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  DonA.RebmannC.KolleO.Scherer-LorenzenM.SchulzeE.-D. (2009). Impact of afforestation-associated management changes on the carbon balance of grassland. Glob. Chang. Biol.15, 1990–2002. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01873.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  DumontB.RossignolN.LoucougarayG.CarrèreP.ChadoeufJ.FleuranceG.et al. (2012). When does grazing generate stable vegetation patterns in temperate pastures?Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.153, 50–56. 10.1016/j.agee.2012.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  ElandsB. H. M.O'LearyT. N.BoerwinkelH. W. J.Freerk WiersumK. (2004). Forests as a mirror of rural conditions; local views on the role of forests across Europe. For Policy Econ6, 469–482. 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  ElbersJ. (2011). Las Areas protegidas de América Latina: situación actual y perspectivas para el futuro - UNESCO Digital Library. Available online at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000234640 (accessed October 17, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  FAO (2004). Estudio de tendencias y perspectivas del sector forestal en América Latina. Roma: Informe Nacional Uruguay.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  FauréE.ArushanyanY.EkenerE.MiliutenkoS.FinnvedenG. (2017). Methods for assessing future scenarios from a sustainability perspective. Eur. J. Futures Res.5, 17. 10.1007/s40309-017-0121-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  FryG.TveitM. S.OdeÅ.VelardeM. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic.9, 933–947. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.11.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  FullerR. J.WilliamsonT.BarnesG.DolmanP. M. (2017). Human activities and biodiversity opportunities in pre-industrial cultural landscapes: relevance to conservation. J. Appl. Ecol.54, 459–469. 10.1111/1365-2664.12762

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  GautreauP. (2010). Rethinking the dynamics of woody vegetation in Uruguayan campos, 1800–2000. J. Hist. Geogr.36, 194–204. 10.1016/j.jhg.2009.06.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  GearyT. F. (2001). Afforestation in Uruguay: study of a changing landscape. J. For.99, 35–39. 10.1093/jof/99.7.35

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  GiaudroneC. (2012). Libro del Centenario del Urugay 1926, Available online at: http://www.1811-2011.edu.uy. (accessed August 9, 2018).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  GiaudroneC. (2018). Mitos y realidades de la inmigraci?n europea en el paisaje rural de la literatura uruguaya (1920-1950). Lat. Am. Lit. Rev. 45, 90, 2–11. 10.26824/lalr.72

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  HägerhällC. M.Ode SangÅ.EnglundJ.-E.AhlnerF.RybkaK.HuberJ.et al. (2018). Do humans really prefer semi-open natural landscapes? A cross-cultural reappraisal. Front. Psychol.9, 822. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00822

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  HeussL.Grev,éM. E.SchäferD.BuschV.FeldhaarH. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of land-use intensification on ant communities in temperate grasslands. Ecol. Evol.9, 4013–4024. 10.1002/ece3.5030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  HolmesJ. (2006). Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda. J. Rural Stud.22, 142–160. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.08.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  INE, 1996, INE, 2004, INE, 2011. Censos Poblacionales 1996, 2004, 2011 - Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas. Available online at: https://www.ine.gub.uy/ (accessed March 15, 2017).

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  JacksonR. B.BannerJ. L.JobbágyE. G.PockmanW. T.WallD. H. (2002). Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature418, 623–626. 10.1038/nature00910

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  JaurenaM.LezamaF.SalvoL.CardozoG.AyalaW.TerraJ.et al. (2016). The dilemma of improving native grasslands by overseeding legumes: production intensification or diversity conservation. Rangel. Ecol. Manag.69, 35–42. 10.1016/j.rama.2015.10.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  JaurenaM.DuranteM.DevincenziT.SavianJ. V.BenderskyD.MoojenF. G.et al. (2021). Native grasslands at the core: a new paradigm of intensification for the campos of Southern South America to increase economic and environmental sustainability. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.5. 10.3389/fsufs.2021.547834

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  KarjalainenE.KomulainenM. (1998). Field afforestation preferences: a case study in northeastern Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan.43, 79–90. 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00076-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  KassioumisK.PapageorgiouK.ChristodoulouA.th.BlioumisV.StamouN.KaramerisA. (2004). Rural development by afforestation in predominantly agricultural areas: issues and challenges from two areas in Greece. For. Policy Econ.6, 483–496. 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00079-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  KaurE.PalangH.SooväliH. (2004). Landscapes in change—opposing attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia. Landsc. Urban Plan.67, 109–120. 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00032-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LambinE. F.MeyfroidtP. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.108, 3465–3472. 10.1073/pnas.1100480108

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  LezamaF.BaezaS.AltesorA.CesaA.ChanetonE. J.ParueloJ. M. (2013). Variation of grazing- induced vegetation changes across a large-scale productivity gradient. J. Veg. Sci.25, 8–21. 10.1111/jvs.12053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LoucougarayG.BonisA.Bouzill,éJ.-B. (2004). Effects of grazing by horses and/or cattle on the diversity of coastal grasslands in western France. Biol. Conserv.116, 59–71. 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00177-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  LovellS. T.JohnstonD. M. (2009). Creating multifunctional landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape?Front. Ecol. Environ.7, 212–220. 10.1890/070178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  MA. (2022). Geoservicios. Available online at: https://www.ambiente.gub.uy/geoservicios/ (accessed June 10, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  MemmahM.-M.LescourretF.YaoX.LavigneC. (2015). Metaheuristics for agricultural land use optimization. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.35, 975–998. 10.1007/s13593-015-0303-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  MGAP. (2008). Resolución N° 527/008 del MGAP−29/07/2008- Definición de Productor Familiar. Available online at: https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/institucional/normativa/resolucion-n-527008-del-mgap-29072008-definicion-productor-familiar (accessed December 13, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  MGAP. (2013). Censo General Agropecuario 2000 and 2011. Available online at: https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/datos-y-estadisticas (accessed March 15, 2017).

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  MiddletonB. A. (2013). Rediscovering traditional vegetation management in preserves: trading experiences between cultures and continents. Biol. Conserv.158, 271–279. 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  ModernelP.RossingW. A. H.CorbeelsM.DogliottiS.PicassoV.TittonellP. (2016). Land use change and ecosystem service provision in Pampas and Campos grasslands of southern South America. Environ. Res. Lett.11, 113002. 10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  MT. (2022). Uruguay es. Available online at: https://uruguaynatural.com/index.php/uruguay-es (accessed September 15, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  MVOTMA (2017). Sistema National de Areas Protegidas de Uruguay. Available online at: http://www.mvotma.gub.uy/portal/snap (accessed August 10, 2018).

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  NormeyA. (2012). Native Forest Conservation Within the Framework of Forest Promotion Policy in Uruguay. p. 196. Available online at: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/5036/ (accessed October 17, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  OverbeckG. E.MüllerS. C.FidelisA.PfadenhauerJ.PillarV. D.BlancoC. C.et al. (2007). Brazil's neglected biome: The South Brazilian Campos. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst.9, 101–116. 10.1016/j.ppees.2007.07.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  OverbeckG. E.Vélez-MartinE.ScaranoF. R.LewinsohnT. M.FonsecaC. R.MeyerS. T.et al. (2015). Conservation in Brazil needs to include non-forest ecosystems. Divers. Distribut.21, 1455–1460. 10.1111/ddi.12380

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  PalangH.SpekT.StensekeM. (2011). Digging in the past: New conceptual models in landscape history and their relevance in peri-urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan.100, 344–346. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ParueloJ. M. (2012). Ecosystem services and tree plantations in Uruguay: a reply to Vihervaara et al. (2012). For Policy Econ.22, 85–88. 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  PastorA. V.NunesJ. P.CiampaliniR.BahriH.AnnabiM.ChikhaouiM.et al. (2022). ScenaLand: a simple methodology for developing land use and management scenarios. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change (2022) 27, 52. 10.1007/s11027-022-10024-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  PiñeiroD. (2012a). El caso de Uruguay. In: Dinámicas del mercado de la tierra en América Latina y el Caribe: Concentración y extranjerización. Roma: FAO.

  • Google Scholar

• 68

  PiñeiroD. (2012b). Land grabbing: concentration and “foreignisation” of land in Uruguay. Canadian Rev. Can. Etudes Dev.33, 471–489. 10.1080/02255189.2012.746216

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  PlieningerT.HöchtlF.SpekT. (2006). Traditional land-use and nature conservation in European rural landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy9, 317–321. 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.03.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  PozoP.SäumelI. (2018). How to bloom the green desert: eucalyptus plantations and native forests in uruguay beyond black and white perspectives. Forests9, 614. 10.3390/f9100614

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: https://www.Rproject.org

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  RamirezL.SäumelI. (2023). There is glory in prevention! Regional spatio-temporal agrochemical runoff into aquatic ecosystems and its potential mitigation using multifunctional buffers. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 45, 101283. 10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101283

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  RamírezL. R.SäumelI. (2022a). Native forest metacommunity structures in Uruguay shaped by novel land-use types in their surroundings. Ecol. Evol.12, e8700. 10.1002/ece3.8700

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  RamírezL. R.SäumelI. (2022b). Beyond the boundaries: Do spatio-temporal trajectories of land-use change and cross boundary effects shape the diversity of woody species in Uruguayan native forests?Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.323, 107646. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107646

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  RedoD. J.AideT. M.ClarkM. L.Andrade-NúñezM. J. (2012). Impacts of internal and external policies on land change in Uruguay, 2001–2009. Environ. Conserv.39, 122–131. 10.1017/S0376892911000658

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  RitchieM. E.OlffH. (1999). Herbivore diversity and plant dynamics: compensatory and additive effects. In: Olff, H., Brown, V. K., Drent, R. H., editors. Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators, the 38th Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Oxford: Blackwell Science. p. 175–204.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  RuskuleA.NikodemusO.KasparinskaZ.KasparinskisR.BrumelisG. (2012). Patterns of afforestation on abandoned agriculture land in Latvia. Agroforest Syst85, 215–231. 10.1007/s10457-012-9495-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  SalaO. E.Stuart ChapinF.III.ArmestoJ. J.BerlowE.BloomfieldJ.et al. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science.287, 1770–1774. 10.1126/science.287.5459.1770

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  SäumelI.RamírezL. R. (2021). Woody species diversity and land-use change legacy: dataset across Uruguay. Data Brief39, 107545. 10.1016/j.dib.2021.107545

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  SäumelI.RamírezL. R. (2022). Novel land uses shape meta-community structures in neighbouring native forests: dataset across Uruguay. Data Brief42, 108267. 10.1016/j.dib.2022.108267

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  SohlströmE. H.BroseU.van KlinkR.RallB. C.RosenbaumB.SchädlerM.et al. (2022). Future climate and land-use intensification modify arthropod community structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.327, 107830. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107830

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  SorianoA. (1991). Río de la Plata grasslands. In: Coupland, R. T., editor. Natural grasslands. Introduction and Western Hemisphere.Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 367–407.

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  SuttieJ. M.ReynoldsS. G.BatelloC. (2005). Grasslands of the World. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  TahvanainenL.TyrväinenL.NousiainenI. (1996). Effect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscape. Scand. J. For. Res.11, 397–405. 10.1080/02827589609382952

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  TedeschiM.VorobevaE.JauhiainenJ. S. (2022). Transnationalism: current debates and new perspectives. Geo Journal87, 603–619. 10.1007/s10708-020-10271-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  TemudoM. P.FigueiraR.AbrantesM. (2015). Landscapes of bio-cultural diversity: shifting cultivation in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa. Agroforest Syst.89, 175–191. 10.1007/s10457-014-9752-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  UruguayX. X. I. (2010). Investment and Export Promotion Agency. Forestry industry: investment opportunities in Uruguay. Montevideo: República Oriental del Uruguay. p. 1¬28.

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  UruguayX. X. I. (2022). Uruguay Natural Country Brand. Available online at: https://www.uruguayxxi.gub.uy/en/country-brand/ (accessed October 10, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  VeldmanJ. W.BuissonE.DuriganG.FernandesG. W.Le StradicS.MahyG.et al. (2015). Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. Front. Ecol. Environ.13, 154–162. 10.1890/140270

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Vidart (1967). El paisaje uruguayo. El medio biofísico y la respuesta cultural de su habitante.Montevideo: Alfa.

  • Google Scholar

• 91

  VihervaaraP.MarjokorpiA.KumpulaT.WallsM.KamppinenM. (2012). Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: a case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay. For Policy Econ.14, 58–68. 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Weinert da SilvaT.DottaG.FontanaC. S. (2015). Structure of avian assemblages in grasslands associated with cattle ranching and soybean agriculture in the Uruguayan savanna ecoregion of Brazil and Uruguay. Condor Orn. Appl.117, 53–63. 10.1650/CONDOR-14-85.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  WiggeringH.MüllerK.WernerA.HelmingK. (2003). The concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In: Helming, K., Wiggering H., editors. Sustainable Development of Multifunctional Landscapes.Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. p. 3–18.

  • Google Scholar