Adobe bricks can help identify historic weed flora – a case study from south-western Hungary

References

• Albrecht H. 2003. Suitability of arable weeds as indicator organisms to evaluate species conservation effects of management in agricultural ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 98:201–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balogh L, Dancza I, Király G. 2004. Actual list of neophytes in Hungary and their classification according to their success. In: Mihály B, Botta-Dukát Z, editors. Biological invasions in Hungary. Invasive plants. Budapest: TermészetBÚVÁR Alapítvány Kiadó; p. 61–92.
   Google Scholar
• Bojňanský V, Fargašová A. 2007. Atlas of seeds and fruits of Central and East-European flora. The Carpathian Mountains region. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bomanowska A. 2010. Threat to arable weeds in Poland in the light of national and regional Red Lists. Plant Breeding and Seed Science. 61:55–74.
   Google Scholar
• Boudreau EH. 1971. Making the adobe brick. 1st ed. Berkeley (CA): Fifth Street Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brun C. 2009. Biodiversity changes in highly anthropogenic environments (cultivated and ruderal) since the Neolithic in eastern France. The Holocene. 19:861–871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carruthers WJ. 1991. Plant remains recovered from daub from a 16th century manor house - Althrey Hall, near Wrexham, Clwyd, UK. Circaea. 8:55–59.
   Google Scholar
• Celesti-Grapow L, Alessandrini A, Arrigoni PV, Banfi E, Bernardo L, Bovio M, Brundu G, Cagiotti MR, Camarda I, Carli E, et al. 2009. Inventory of the non‐native flora of Italy. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology. 143:386–430.
   Google Scholar
• Chytrý M. 2001. Biotopy silně ovlivněné nebo vytvořené člověkem [Habitats heavily modified or created by man]. In: Chytrý M, Kučera T, Kočí M, editors. Katalog Biotopů České Republiky. Prague: Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR; p. 231–233.
   Google Scholar
• Conti F, Manzi A, Pedrotti F. 1997. Liste Rosse Regionali delle Piante d’Italia [Regional Red Lists of plants of Italy]. Camerino: Societá Botanica Italiana.
   Google Scholar
• Csicsely Á. 2002. Szemelvények a vályog- és földépítés történetéből [Extracts from the history of adobe and earth buildings]. Építés- és Építészettudomány. 30:273–287.
   Google Scholar
• Dancza I, Novák R, Karamán J, Szentey L. 2011. Az Ötödik Országos Gyomfelvételezés Magyarország szántóföldjein [The Fifth Nationwide Weed Survey on the arable fields of Hungary]. Budapest: Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium.
   Google Scholar
• Dancza I, Szentey L. 2007. Útmutató az Ötödik Országos Szántóföldi Gyomfelvételezéshez [A guide to the Fifth Nationwide Weed Survey]. Budapest: Mezőgazdasági Szakigazgatási Hivatal Központ, Növény- Talaj- és Agrárkörnyezet-védelmi Igazgatóság.
   Google Scholar
• de Moulins D. 2007. The weeds from the thatch roofs of medieval cottages from the south of England. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 16:385–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dostatny DF. 2004. Preservation of weeds diversity in protected areas. Bulletin of Botanical Gardens. 13:79–83.
   Google Scholar
• Dövényi Z, editor. 2010. Magyarország kistájainak katasztere [Inventory of microregions in Hungary]. Budapest: MTA FKI.
   Google Scholar
• Eliáš jun. P, Eliáš sen. P, Baranec T. 2005. The new red list of Slovak endangered weeds. In: Eliáš jun. P, editor. Threatened weedy plant species. Book of proceedings from the international conference. Nitra: Slovak University of Agriculture; p. 23–28.
   Google Scholar
• Eliáš sen. P. 2005. Current stage of endangered weed species in Slovakia and the ways of their protection. In: Eliáš jun. P, editor. Threatened weedy plant species. Book of proceedings from the international conference. Nitra: Slovak University of Agriculture; p. 23–28.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst M, Jacomet S. 2006. The value of the archaeobotanical analysis of desiccated plant remains from old buildings: methodological aspects and interpretation of crop weed assemblages. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 15:45–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feráková V, Maglocký Š, Marhold K. 2001. Červený zoznam papraďorastov a semenných rastlín Slovenska [Red list of plants and animals of Slovakia]. In: Baláž D, Marhold K, Urban P, editors. Červený zoznam rastlín a živočíchov Slovenska. Suppl. 20. Banská Bystrica: Ochrana prírody; p. 44–76.
   Google Scholar
• Fried G, Norton LR, Reboud X. 2008. Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 128:68–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez SL, Ghermandi L. 2012. Comparison of methods to estimate soil seed banks: the role of seed size and mass. Community Ecology. 13:238–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyulai F. 2001. Archaeobotanika. A kultúrnövények története a Kárpát-medencében a régészeti-növénytani vizsgálatok alapján [Archaeobotany. The history of cultivated plants in the Carpathian Basin based on archaeobotanical examinations]. Budapest: Jószöveg Műhely Kiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. 2001. PAST version 1.39: paleoontological statistical software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica. 4:9.
   Google Scholar
• Hendry GW. 1931. The adobe brick as a historical source. Agricultural History. 5:110–127.
   Google Scholar
• Hendry GW, Bellue MK. 1936. An approach to Southwestern agricultural history through adobe brick analysis. In: Anonymous, editor. Symposium on prehistoric agriculture. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Bulletin; p. 65–72.
   Google Scholar
• Hendry GW, Kelly MP. 1925. The plant content of adobe bricks. California Historical Society Quarterly. 4:361–373.
   Google Scholar
• Henn T, Jacomet S, Nagy DU, Pál RW. 2015. Desiccated diaspores from building materials: methodological aspects of processing mudbrick for archaeobotanical studies and first results of a study of earth buildings in southwest Hungary. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 24:427–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henn T, Pál R. 2010. A szántóföldi gyomnövényzet összetételének változása Baranya megyében az utóbbi négy évtized során [Changes in the composition of arable weed flora in the last four decades in Baranya County]. Magyar Gyomkutatás és Technológia. 11:19–30.
   Google Scholar
• Hennekens SM, Schaminée JHJ. 2001. TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. Journal of Vegetation Science. 12:589–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilbig W. 1982. Preservation of agrestal weeds. In: Holzner W, Numata M, editors. Biology and ecology of weeds. The Hague: Springer Netherlands; p. 57–59.
   Google Scholar
• Holzner W. 1978. Weed species and weed communities. Vegetatio. 38:13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Horváth F, Dobolyi ZK, Morschhauser T, Lőkös L, Karas L, Rédei T. 1995. FLÓRA adatbázis 1.2. Taxon-lista és attribútum-állomány [Flora database 1.2, List of taxa and attributes]. Vácrátót: Flóra Munkacsoport, MTA ÖBKI és MTM Növénytára.
   Google Scholar
• Hulina N. 2005. List of threatened weeds in the continental part of Croatia and their possible conservation. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus. 70:37–42.
   Google Scholar
• Jedicke E. 1997. Die Roten Listen: gefährdete Planzen, Tiere, Pflanzengesellschaften und Biotope in Bund und Ländern. Ulmer: Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Jones G. 1987. A statistical approach to the archaeological identification of crop processing. Journal of Archaeological Science. 14:311–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keve A, Kaszab Z, Zzák Z. 1953. A fürj gazdasági jelentősége [The economic importance of the quail]. Annales Musei Naturalis Hungarici. 4:197–209.
   Google Scholar
• Király G. 2007. Vörös Lista. A magyarországi edényes flóra veszélyeztetett fajai [Red list of the vascular flora of Hungary]. Sopron: Saját kiadás.
   Google Scholar
• Király G, editor. 2009. New Hungarian Herbal. The vascular plants of Hungary. Identification key. Jósvafő: Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság.
   Google Scholar
• Király G, Pinke G, Pál R, Csiky J. 2005. Red list of Vascular Plants of Hungary and its surrounding with respect of threatened segetal weed species. In: Eliáš jun. P, editor. Threatened weedy plant species. Book of proceedings from the international conference. Nitra: Slovak University of Agriculture; p. 18–22.
   Google Scholar
• Király G, Virók V, Molnár VA, editors. 2011. New Hungarian Herbal. The vascular plants of Hungary. Illustrations. Jósvafő: Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság.
   Google Scholar
• Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P, Concepción ED, Clough Y, Díaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, et al. 2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 276:903–909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleijn D, van der Voort LAC. 1997. Conservation headlands for rare arable weeds: the effects of fertilizer application and light penetration on plant growth. Biological Conservation. 81:57–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolářová M, Tyšer L, Soukup J. 2013. Impact of site conditions and farming practices on the occurrence of rare and endangered weeds on arable land in the Czech Republic. Weed Research. 53:489–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopač J 2002. Uradni list: Pravilnik o uvrstitvi ogroženih rastlinskih in živalskih vrst v rdeči seznam [Official Journal of the Rules on the classification of endangered plant and animal species in the Red List]. Ministry for Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, Slovenia. [Internet]. [ cited 2013 Oct 26] Available from: http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=38615
   Google Scholar
• Lohmann J 1987. Paläo-Ethnobotanische Untersuchungen an Baumaterial von Bauernhäusern des 16.-18. Jh. in der Oberpfalz [ Diploma thesis]. Göttingen: University of Göttingen.
   Google Scholar
• Lososová Z, Chytrý M, Cimalová S, Kropáč Z, Otýpková Z, Pyšek P, Tichý L. 2004. Weed vegetation of arable land in Central Europe: gradients of diversity and species composition. Journal of Vegetation Science. 15:415–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lososová Z, Chytrý M, Cimalová Š, Otýpková Z, Pyšek P, Tichý L. 2006. Classification of weed vegetation of arable land in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Folia Geobotanica. 41:259–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malone CR. 1967. A rapid method for enumeration of viable seeds in soil. Weeds. 15:381–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall EJP, Brown VK, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW, Squire GR, Ward LK. 2003. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Research. 43:77–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Máthé I. 1943. A búza magyarországi gyomnövényeinek származása [The origin of weed species of wheat]. Mezőgazdasági Kutatások. 16:95–99.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer S, Wesche K, Krause B, Leuschner C. 2013. Dramatic losses of specialist arable plants in Central Germany since the 1950s/60s – a cross-regional analysis. Diversity and Distributions. 19:1175–1187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirek Z, Zarzycki K, Wojewoda W, Szeląg Z. 2006. Red List of plants and fungi in Poland. Kraków: W. Szafer Institute of Botany and Polish Academy of Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Moser DM, Gygax A, Bäumler B, Wyler N, Palese R. 2002. Rote Liste der gefährdeten Arten der Schweiz. Farn- und Blütenpflanzen. Bern: Hrsg. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Niklfeld H, Schratt-Ehrendorfer L. 1999. Rote Liste gefährdeter Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Pteridophyta und Spermatophyta) Österreichs. In Niklfeld H, editor. Rote Listen gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs. 2. Aufl. Vienna: Grüne Reihe des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt Jugend und Familie; p. 33–151.
   Google Scholar
• Nikolić T, Topić J. 2005. Crvena knjiga vaskularne flore Hrvatske. Zagreb: Ministarstvo kulture, Državni zavod za zaštitu prirode, Republika Hrvatska.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson SG. 1997. Forests in temperate-boreal transition: natural and man-made features. Ecological Bulletins. 46:61–71.
   Google Scholar
• Novák R, Dancza I, Szentey L, Karamán J. 2009. Magyarország szántóföldjeinek gyomnövényzete. Ötödik Országos Szántóföldi Gyomfelvételezés (2007–2008) [The arable weed flora of Hungary. Fifth Nationwide Weed Survey (2007–2008)]. Budapest: FVM.
   Google Scholar
• O’Rourke MK. 1983. Pollen from adobe brick. Journal of Ethnobiology. 3:39–48.
   Google Scholar
• Pál R. 2002. Gyomflorisztikai ritkaságok a Mecseki flórajárás területéről [Weed floristical rarities from the Mecsek Flora Region]. Kitaibelia. 7:225–230.
   Google Scholar
• Pál R. 2004. Invasive plants threaten segetal weed vegetation of South Hungary. Weed Technology. 18:1314–1318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pál R. 2005. Endangered weed species in Hungarian vineyards. In: Eliáš jun. P, editor. Threatened weedy plant species. Book of proceedings from the international conference. Nitra: Slovak University of Agriculture; p. 38–42.
   Google Scholar
• Pál R, Henn T, Nyulasi J. 2010. Adatok a Dél-Dunántúl gyomflórájának ismeretéhez [Data to the Weed Flora of Southern Transdanubia]. Dunántúli Dolgozatok. 12:97–135.
   Google Scholar
• Pál R, Pinke G. 2007. Adatok a Drávamenti-síkság flórájához különös tekintetekkel a gyomnövényekre [New data to the flora of Dráva Plain with special regard to the weeds]. Kitaibelia. 12:80–87.
   Google Scholar
• Paušič I, Škornik S, Culiberg M, Kaligarič M. 2010. Weed diversity in cottage building material used in the 19th century: past and present of the plant occurence. Polish Journal of Ecology. 58:577–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinke G. 1999. Veszélyeztetett szegetális gyomnövények és fenntartásuk lehetőségei európai tapasztalatok alapján [Endangered arable weed species and possibilities of their conservation in Europe]. Kitaibelia. 4:95–110.
   Google Scholar
• Pinke G, Karácsony P, Czúcz B, Botta-Dukát Z. 2011. Environmental and land-use variables determining the abundance of Ambrosia artemisiifolia in arable fields in Hungary. Preslia. 83:219–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinke G, Király G, Barina Z, Mesterházy A, Balogh L, Csiky J, Schmotzer A, Molnár AV, Pál RW. 2011. Assessment of endangered synanthropic plants of Hungary with special attention to arable weeds. Plant Biosystems. 145:426–435.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinke G, Pál R. 2005. Gyomnövényeink eredete, termőhelye és védelme [Origin, habitat and protection of our weeds]. 1st ed. Pécs: Alexandra Kiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Pinke G, Pál R. 2009. Floristic composition and conservation value of the stubble-field weed community, dominated by Stachys annua in western Hungary. Biologia. 64:279–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinke G, Pál R, Botta-Dukát Z, Chytrý M. 2009. Weed vegetation and its conservation value in three management systems of Hungarian winter cereals on base-rich soils. Weed Research. 49:544–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Procházka F. 2000. Černý a červený seznam cévnatých rostlin České republiky (stav v roce 2000) [Black and red list of vascular plants of the Czech Republic - 2000]. Příroda, Praha. 18:1–166.
   Google Scholar
• Purger D. 2008. Adatok a Baranyai-dombság flórájához [Data to the flora of Baranya Hills (S Hungary)]. Kitaibelia. 8:17–28.
   Google Scholar
• Pyšek P, Chocholoušková Z, Pyšek A, Jarošík V, Chytrý M, Tichý L. 2004. Trends in species diversity and composition of urban vegetation over three decades. Journal of Vegetation Science. 15:781–788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyšek P, Sádlo J, Mandák B. 2002. Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic. Preslia, Praha. 74:97–186.
   Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Rabinowitz D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. In: Synge H, editor. The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. New York: Wiley; p. 205–217.
   Google Scholar
• Radics L. 1998. Gyommaghatározó [Identification key to weed seeds]. Budapest: Mezőgazda Kiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Rösch M, Fischer E. 1999. Unter Putz und Pflasterstein. Bau- forschung und Mittelalterarchäologie in Reutlingen. Reutlingen: Heimatmuseum.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan P. 2011. Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: perspectives from the silica skeleton artifactual remains at Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 30:292–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schermann S. 1967. Magismeret I-II [Seeds I-II]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Schnittler M, Köppel C, Rennwald E, Hirneisen N 2001. European national Red Lists of threatened vascular plants. 21st meeting of Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats; 2001 Nov 26–30, Strasbourg. Project report and description of the corresponding data base.
   Google Scholar
• Simon T. 2000. A magyarországi edényes flóra határozója. Harasztok - Virágos növények [Field guide to the vascular flora of Hungary]. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Soó R. 1964-1980. Synopsis systematico-geobotanica florae vegetationisque Hungariae I-VI. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Stoate C, Boatman N, Borralho R, Carvalho CR, De Snoo GR, Eden P. 2001. Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. Journal of Environmental Management. 63:337–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storkey J, Meyer S, Still KS, Leuschner C. 2012. The impact of agricultural intensification and land-use change on the European arable flora. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 279:1421–1429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe OL, Kay QON. 2000. Changes in the arable flora of central southern England since the 1960s. Biological Conservation. 93:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terpó A, Zajac M, Zajac A. 1999. Provisional list of Hungarian archaeophytes. Thaiszia. 9:41–47.
   Google Scholar
• Tóth Á. 1988. A III. Országos Szántóföldi Gyomfelvételezés főbb eredményei [Main results of the 3rd Nationwide Weed Survey]. Növényvédelem. 24:414.
   Google Scholar
• Tóth Á, Molnár J, Török T, Fekete A. 1989. Előzetes tájékoztató a III. Országos Szántóföldi Gyomfelvételezés fontosabb eredményeiről [Indicative of the most important results of the 3rd Nationwide Weed Survey]. Növényvédelem. 25:374–377.
   Google Scholar
• Tóth IZ. 2013. Botanikai adatok Tolnából, Baranyából [Botanical data from Tolna and Baranya County]. Kitaibelia. 18:161–168.
   Google Scholar
• Ujvárosi M. 1973a. Gyomirtás [Weed control]. Budapest: Mezőgazdasági Könyvkiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Ujvárosi M. 1973b. Gyomnövények [Weed species]. Budapest: Mezőgazdasági Könyvkiadó.
   Google Scholar
• Ujvárosi M. 1975. A Második Országos Gyomfelvételezés a szántóföldeken I-VI [The Second Nationwide Weed Survey on arable fields I-VI.]. Budapest: MÉM.
   Google Scholar
• Van Calster H, Vandenberghe R, Ruysen M, Verheyen K, Hermy M, Decocq G. 2008. Unexpectedly high 20th century floristic losses in a rural landscape in northern France. Journal of Ecology. 96:927–936.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willcox G, Stordeur D. 2012. Large-scale cereal processing before domestication during the tenth millennium cal BC in northern Syria. Antiquity. 86:99–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zając M, Zając A, Tokarska-Guzik B. 2009. Extinct and endangered archaeophytes and the dynamics of their diversity in Poland. Biodiversity: Research and Conservation. 13:17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Zohary D, Hopf M, Weiss E. 2012. Domestication of plants in the old world: the origin and spread of domesticated plants in southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. 4th ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar