MSc_Dissertation by Ajay Mayekar

Reimagining Agricultural Landscapes Designing environmental linkages to boost farmland sustainability in the lowland agricultural landscape of East Lothian, Scotland

Ajay Arvind Mayekar MSc Advanced Sustainable Design Dissertation The University of Edinburgh 23-08-2013

Abstract Scotland's rural landscape is a landscape of revolution rather than one of slow evolution. It is a landscape deliberately created mainly in the 18th and early 19th centuries (Caird, 1964) the forerunner of this revolution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Agriculture. Agriculture has shaped the terrain of East Lothian into what is one of the most productive terrains in Scotland. The countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unique landscape is a vivid mosaic of three chief layers viz. the farmlands, woodlands and the smaller waterscapes. In the past, farmland expansion and intensification in agriculture have resulted in increased profits and production but negatively impacted the woodlands and waterscapes. Woodlands, though fragmented, have displayed steady growth since the second half of the 20th century. However, waterscapes, in the form of small streams/ burns and wetlands, have borne the brunt of the economic reality. The dissertation looks at means of reimagining and remediating these troubled waterscapes by developing them as sustainable riparian linkages between fragmented woodland patches. For these sustainable linkages to successfully endure the test of time and space, environmental sustainability is not the only retort. In a highly productive setting like the East Lothian, economic sustainability too plays a crucial role. The design process focuses on biodiversity and socio-economic gains as the essential components of a terrain dominated by agriculture, and proposes a spatial and functional platform towards a multifunctional landscape.

Table of Contents

Abstract List of Figures 1) The Present Context …………………………………………………..….. 1 Speaks about the present day lowland agricultural landscape of the East Lothian County, Scotland 2) History of Agriculture ……………………………………………………. 7 How history shaped the Scottish agricultural landscape, especially the 18th and 19th centuries 3) Effects of Intensification ……………………………………………….… 11 Intensification in agriculture and its impacts on farmland ecosystem 4) Need for Remediation ……………………………………….…………… 16 What are the reasons that call for remediation of the agricultural landscape and what are the possible solutions 5) Designing Linkages …………………………………………………….… 19 Linkage design using biodiversity and production as key tools towards farmland sustainability and the basic principles of their design 6) The west Peffer Burn (Drem + Aberlady) ……………………………… 29 Designing sustainable riparian linkage in the West Peffer burn catchment of the Drem + Aberlady region 7) Wok cited …………………………………………………...…………….. 38

List of Figures Figure 1 – Map of Scotland ………………………………………………………….1 Figure 2 – Map of East Lothian ……………………………………………………...2 Figure 3 – Typical agricultural landscape of East Lothian …………………………..3 Figure 4 – Present state of burns (image) ……………………………………………4 Figure 5 – Wet woodland (image) …………………………………………………...5 Figure 6 – Plan – farmlands of Drem- Aberlady (East Lothian) …………………….6 Figure 7 – Fragmentation (Bennett, 2003. P. 14) …………………………………..11 Figure 8 – Section- Present state of farmland burns ………………………………..13 Figure 9 – Section- Present state of farmland wetlands …………………………….13 Figure 10 – Pumping water for irrigation (image) ………………………………….14 Figure 11 – Damming of burns (image) ……………………………………………14 Figure 12 – Set-asides around fields (image) ………………………………………15 Figure 13 – Eutrophication in burns (image) ………………………………………15 Figure 14 – Species movement within linkages (Bennett, 2003, p. Chapter 2) ……22 Figure 15 – Species movement within linkages (Bennett, 2003, p. Chapter 2) …….23 Figure 16 – Species movement within linkages (Bennett, 2003, p. Chapter 2) …….23 Figure 17 – Species movement within linkages (Bennett, 2003, p. Chapter 2) …….23 Figure 18 – Species movement within linkages (Bennett, 2003, p. Chapter 2) …….24 Figure 19 – Hard edge and soft edge condition …………………………………....24 Figure 20 – Section – Forest garden (Hart, 1996) ……………………………….....27 Figure 21- Plan- Showing study area of West Peffer Burn ………………………...30

Figure 22- Plan – Existing features on site …………………………………………31 Figure 23- Plan- Linkage design drawing …………………………………………..32 Figure 24- Section- Redesigned West Peffer Burn …………………………………34 Figure 25- Section – Redesigned small wetland ……………………………………35 Figure 26- Conclusion diagram …………………………………………………….36

The Present Context Standing on top of the North Berwick Law hill, one is enthralled by the sinuous mosaic of green and beige that is the picturesque lowland agricultural landscape of the East Lothian County. The vast fields of wheat and barley, separated by margins and occasional hedgerows, are intermittently dotted with tufts of isolated woodlands and farmsteads. What eludes the eye, however, is the agricultural waterscape. This waterscape is a widespread network of burns and small wetlands that snake their way through the farmlands playing a vital role in preserving the character of this unique landscape. In his book General view of the agriculture of East Lothian, Robert Somerville writes about the generous expanse of the waters of the county. He spoke that except for the summits of some of the ridges, it is everywhere well watered and drained. However, the irregularity of the terrain in most of the county prevents these waters from uniting in such a way as to form large rivers (Sommerville, 1813, pp. 14-15). Of the 750 km of flowing water in the Figure 1: Map of Scotland showing the location of the East Lothian County

county, the only sizable rivers are the Tyne and Esk flowing in the south and

west respectively. Wetlands and irrigation reservoirs cover about 6 km2 with Whiteadder Reservoir and Hopes Reservoir being the largest. However, a sizable percentage of water, in the form of narrow burns and small wetlands, form a part of the vast stretches of agricultural landscape. Many of these waterscapes are too small to be visible on any map. Over the past few decades, the economic significance of agriculture in most parts of Scotland has declined considerably. However, in East Lothian, high quality of arable

land has been a driving force in the steady evolution of agriculture, chiefly during the 20th century. The multifaceted landscape also supports and sustains biodiversity in numerous ways. Fragmented patches of woodlands and meadowlands are home to numerous species of indigenous and migratory biota. Most of these habitats are seminatural rather than natural hence the biodiversity they support is strongly influenced by human activity. For a clearer, farm level understanding of the lowland landscape we look at the West Peffer burn catchment of the Drem-Aberlady region in the North Berwick plain of the county. This region is slightly undulated and rises gradually as it moves southwards. Transport and communication links dissect the landscape in various places. The rich stretches of farmland combine with woodland patches, locally distinct villages, and a stunning coastline to form a characteristic landscape that creates the visual identity of the East Lothian plains.

Figure 2: Different zones of the East Lothian County showing the Lowland agricultural Landscape occupying a major portion of land. The Study area of the dissertation, Drem + Aberlady is highlighted in red

Agriculture: Seen through the lens of an ecologist, the vast stretches of crops growing here are the base of a food web that begins with the soil and water and ends with the evening meal. The county consist mainly of agricultural land in capability class-2. It allows for flexible cropping and a wide range of crops to be grown throughout the year. Another important feature of the class-2 land is the availability of water for irrigation purposes. The only drawback is the higher clay content in the soil which gives rise to wetness problems. This could be detrimental to crop production when precipitation levels are high. Yet, the limitations are always minor in their effect and land in this class is highly productive (Hay, et al., 2000, pp. 2530).Wheat, barley, oats, potatoes, peas, oilseeds and salad vegetables are widely grown in the region. Today, potato production in the lowlands has become a specialized business requiring large expensive equipment for the production, harvesting and storing of the crop. Farming is almost entirely mechanised and uses equipment like combined harvesters, balers, precision seeders, etc. is common practice.

Figure 3: Typical agricultural landscape of East Lothian showing Agricultural land, burn, and fragmented woodland patches (West Peffer Burn, Drem + Aberlady)

Waterscapes: Waterscapes in the region are mainly comprised of numerous narrow burns. Also dotting the landscape are several small irrigation reservoirs and isolated wetlands. These agricultural waterscapes play a vital role in sustaining farmland hydrology. Most of the burns in the upland join the larger rivers like the Tyne and Esk while the ones in the lowland plains meet the Forth estuary. As opposed to the larger streams and lochs that form a part of a much wider ecosystem, small waterscapes owing to their lesser scale exist more at a regional level. The average width of most burns rarely exceeds 3 meters, while their depths, depending on the topography, vary from 2 to 3 meters from field level. Burn and wetland banks in most places are steep and poorly vegetated. They are followed by 5 to 8 meter wide

uncultivated strips known as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;set asidesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; that extend to the crop margin. The obscured depth to width ratio of these waterscapes could be attributed to expansion of field boundaries in the past. Today, burns are merely thin strands, and the small Figure 4: A typical Burn section in the lowland agricultural landscape with seasonal scrub vegetation along banks (West Peffer Burn, Drem + Aberlady)

wetlands a speckle in the vast fabric of cultivated landscape. Even though their boundaries are poorly vegetated, some areas do allow for tree cover giving rise to sizable patches of fragmented woodlands.

Woodlands: Woodlands are significant contributors to the landscape character of the lowland area. The agricultural landscape has less than 10% of tree cover as much of East Lothian. Of this, old woodlands are rare and cover some of the steep hillsides where cultivation is not a feasible option. Agricultural woodland patches are formed mainly of remnant policy woodlands and 18th and 19th century estate gardens. These woodland patches have different scales and characteristics with an average patch size of 20,000 m2 (5 acres). They are scattered in a disorganized fashion along the farmland matrix. The scales and proximity of different woodland patches in different settings vary with factors like topography, soils, land use, ownership, etc. In spite of this, the overall physical character of the landscape throughout the county lowlands is much alike. Low population density in the farmlands has allowed many species to thrive here with woodland patches serving as the principal habitat. These patches can be categorised into two main types: wet woodlands and plantation woodland based primarily on the nature of the vegetation. Both of which are predominantly seminatural habitats (Lothian Council, 2008, pp. 30-35). Wet woodlands are generally characterised by thick groundcover or scrub vegetation due to proximity to small wetlands or burns. Trees like Willow, Alder and Birch are the chief inhabitants here. These are particularly valuable as they sustain species that

are found in both wetland and woodland habitats. It could be argued that such habitats evolved over small wetlands, which in the past were left fragmented as a result of field expansion. Coldhame Woods near Aberlady is a fine example of wet Figure 5: Wet woodlands are characterised by dense scrub vegetation due to the high ground water table. (Coldhame woods, Drem)

woodland.

Plantation woodlands were planted over poorer soils to provide shelter for livestock and timber for building, many of the woodland patches. Others were planted as a part of designed landscape of stately homes and policy woodlands (Lothian Council, 2008, pp. 30-35). The percentage of native and non-native trees in a specific patch varies from place to place. At times, a certain patch is dominated by a single species e.g. Larch or Spruce. Plantation woodlands, though semi-natural in character, are valuable in habitat for general woodland species Despite the changes in landscape management in the past, the overall visual diversity of the farmland landscapes that makes up the character of the lowlands has not diminished. It has helped the East Lothian County conserve its reputation as being one that is largely rural and unharmed by man. Yet, it is likely that there has been as significant increase in negative environmental effects arising from farming in the past few decades, even though environmental awareness and remediating actions have been implemented in most areas. The recent history of agriculture in East Lothian has been dominated by the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. Yet, some aspects of the landscape, such as the farm structure, change in farm hydrology, and alterations to the woodland habitat in the agricultural landscape can be traced back to the early 17th century.

Figure 6: Typical agricultural landscape of the East Lothian lowlands. Farming constitutes to 75% of the total land use of the county. Fragmented woodland patches and agricultural waterscapes are dispersed throught the terrain but their scales are much smaller.

History of Agriculture Can any part of Scotland fairly be labelled as an unharmed wilderness? As Jim Hunter would say, to do so is ‘to abuse both language and history’ and to commit the ‘wilderness fallacy’ (Warren, 2009, p. 5). The picturesque glens, lochs, mountains and forests that make the postcard image of Scotland have been altered by man’s presence for centuries. His decisions have been dominant in moulding the unique Scottish agricultural landscape of today. However, the most overwhelming changes were brought about in the 18th and 19th century and government decisions in the 20th century (Caird, 1964). Up to the 17th century, there is substantial but patchy evidence of farming practices in East Lothian. What is today one of the most progressive stretch of agricultural land in Europe was then the most ill managed and unproductive. Farming did not generate any profits as most of the County followed traditional pattern of subsistence agriculture as in other parts of Scotland. The character of the farmlands of the county in early seventeenth century is described by Samuel Smiles of Haddington. He writes: “In the interior there was little to be seen but bleak moor and quaking bogs…each farm consisted of ‘out-field,’ or unenclosed land, no better than moorland, from which the hardy black cattle could scarcely gather herbage enough in winter to keep them from starving. The ‘in-field’ was an enclosed patch of illcultivated ground, on which oats and ‘bear’, or barley, were grown; but the principal crop was weeds.” (Allan, 2001, p. 2) The farms were comprised of an infield, outfield and a stretch of common land or moorland. The infield was the part around the farmstead that received manure from the livestock and hence was the main cultivable area. However, it was kept under cultivation throughout the year which led to poor yield. The outfield was much larger in area than the infield and was alternated between cropping and pastures. The productivity of the outfield was much less than the infield as it received little or no manure. The moorland comprised of stretches of land between individual farms.

They were left uncultivated and used only for grazing. Subsistence farming continued to be a model feature of the Scottish rural landscape till the end of the seventeenth century. Around 1707, after its merger with England, Scotland was about to enter a phase of agricultural improvement that would change the face of the rural landscape beyond recognition (Hay, et al., 2000, pp. 11-14). This phase was the beginning of an agricultural revolution and the Lothians were to acquire centre stage owing to the high quality of arable land in the area and its proximity to the market town of Edinburgh (Muir, 1912, p. 60). The first half of the eighteenth century saw a steady growth in improvements as the efforts were limited to private estates in the Lothians. However, the county owes much to these individual entrepreneurs who spent unusually large amounts of capital to kick-start the revolution (Anon., 1863-65, p. 303). Later, the first agricultural society was formed at Ormiston in 1743. It was only in the second half of the eighteenth century, owing to the social, practical and technological innovations in the country, that the revolution gathered momentum and the agricultural landscape turned into a landscape of transition, a landscape that was focussed on generating profit rather than the one of mere subsistence. Growing populations in the new industrial towns and the ever increasing demand for food demanded a change in agricultural practices. Industrialisation went hand in hand with farming integrating technology with agriculture (Allan, 2001, p. 5). The farmers in the Lothians were on the forefront when it came to experimenting with technology. In his book Linlithgowshire, Thomas Scott Muir writes about the Lothian farmer: ‘‘The farmers of the Lothians have for long been celebrated for their skill and progressiveness…they are recognised as the foremost in Scotland, which means the world, for a readiness to introduce new methods, and to utilise the discoveries of experimental science’’ (Muir, 1912, p. 60). Technological advancements, availability of natural fertilizers, introduction of crop rotations, better seed quality, improved implements and soil drainage in agriculture resulted in higher yields (Hay, et al., 2000, pp. 11-14). Increased productivity led to the development of new machinery, new crops and new methods of land management throughout the nineteenth century. This was assisted greatly by the progress in transportation system. One of the most influential outcomes of the

agricultural revolution was the Lowland Clearance (1760-1830) where thousands of crofters and tenants were displaced from their holdings by the land owners to make way for full-time tenant farmers. This was the birth of a new breed of tenants with longer and protected leases who were aware of the profits their land could reap. Heathlands and meadowlands were replaced with farmlands to cater to the growing demand of crop production. The early agricultural improvements gave higher yields and returns to the tenant and owner, although they still relied heavily on human labour, particularly at harvest. However, as mechanisation developed, the need for labour declined. Eventually, Scotland, one of the least urbanised countries in 1700, had the second lowest rural population in Europe by 1850, and nearly the fastest recorded rise in urban population in the 19th century (Hay, et al., 2000, pp. 11-14). No other country in Europe experienced such sharp demographic changes in the eighteenth century. Expansion of farming activities during this period affected the waterscapes within and around the arable zones. Many small wetlands were drained and many left as small isolated patches. As burns were deepened for better drainage (Loudon, 1825, p. 627), some were straightened and incorporated into field patterns (ASH Consulting Group, 1998, pp. 23-25). The most striking change brought about in the Scottish waters is that most have been reordered. The waters of Scotland are some of the most managed on earth (Warren, 2009, p. 116). The truth about Scotland’s water is that the only thing that happens naturally is rain. As soon as that rain hits the ground, it behaves in quite different ways from what it once did (Making Scotland's Landscapes - Scotland's Water, 2011). Robert Somerville of Haddington wrote about good agricultural practices to increase productivity. He said: ‘‘Land can never exert its productive powers while it is drenched and chilled by stagnant water…it must be drawn off before the farmer can derive full benefit from his land, or deserve the character of an expert husbandman’’ (Sommerville, 1813, p. 171) Land drainage grants were introduced in 1940 and abolished in 1987. During this period, large areas of extensively managed and rough grasslands were drained, mostly for arable cropping (Boatman, et al., 2007).

The case with woodlands is different. The East of Scotland was already deforested by 1600 and woodlands occupied just about 4% of the country. However, in the 20th century, owing to various government policies, woodland patches of different scales started mushrooming throughout the country. This was mainly due to the growing demand for wood during the war. Yet, a large number of patches still survive and are protected by the Scottish forestry. Many of the smaller ones form a part of the agricultural landscape. Throughout the late 19th and the 20th century, the practice of mixed farming was replaced by more sophisticated mechanised farming. Until the 1970s, the agriculture policies were singularly focussed. The rationing endured during the post war period aimed for self-sufficiency in food production (Warren, 2009, p. 87). The drive for greater efficiency prompted farmers to release more cultivable land created through use of larger fields. Land was looked at as a manufacturing unit for food production. Field sizes had to be increased substantially to allow for large machinery to take over manual labour and was achieved by removing existing field boundaries and hedgerows (Boatman, et al., 2007) .The catalyst in the later stages being the use of diesel powered tractors and combined harvesters (Ghaffar & Robinson, 1997) Since 1972, Scottish agriculture has been dominated by the Common Agriculture Policy of the European Union (CAP). Today, Scottish agriculture is amongst the most efficient and also has the largest average farm size in all of Europe. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the effects of CAP, it is a known fact that the policy has had some negative effect on the Scottish environment. Due to reduced field boundaries, lessening crop diversity and the higher use of fertilizers and pesticides, the farm level landscape has witnessed a considerable loss of habitats (Scottish Environment, 2008) . The agricultural activities are largely dependent on EU subsidies. Farmers have to base their decision making on the European and Global markets as opposed to the local markets in the past (Warren, 2009, p. 107). The impact of physical and ecological factors has slowed down considerably while external economic factors have much greater effect and fluctuate widely in response to policy changes. Yet, all these human activities spanning over centuries have had a notable effect on farmland ecology in the East Lothian lowlands.

Effects of Intensification Agricultural landscape throughout the East Lothian suffers from a similar malady as described by Hester and Harrison in Environmental impacts of modern agriculture. They argue how agricultural intensification and changing trends in land management have tended to endorse a single main purpose to the exclusion of others. Overriding market or policy drivers have been the chief reasons for this kind of response. As a result, contemporary agricultural landscapes have become less varied in terms of the services they provide and the values they generate (Morris & Burgess, 2012). Landscape architect James Corner describes the contemporary landscape as the one that plays a double role. ‘‘On the one side, landscape provides the most visible expression and measure of environmental atrophy whereas, on the other side, it provides the ideal, arcadian image of a profoundly green, harmonious world, a world both lost and desired again’’ (Corner, 1999, p. 14). He speaks about the landscape being both victim and indicator, something that at present is abused by technological evils and seized by competing interests. The case of the agricultural landscape in the lowlands reflects this tension. Incessant changes in field regimes have altered the landscape morphology in both good and bad ways. The ever increasing crop production is contrasted by some of the environmental changes that have taken place, the most noticeable being the fragmentation of the natural landscape. In a typical example of fragmentation as described by Bennett, a landscape that is initially dominated by natural vegetation and waterscapes experiences human disturbance in the form of small clearings or inroads along edges. As time progresses, the number of clearings increases depending on the intensity of human activity. It reaches a point where natural vegetation and waterscapes become subdivided, and eventually fragmented as the disturbed land becomes the dominant feature of the landscape (Bennett, 2003, p. 28).

Figure 7: Bennett's theory of fragmentation in natural landscape

The lowlands have witnessed a similar transition as agricultural activities took over the woodlands and waterscapes to be the dominant feature. The value of features and processes in the fragments has become secondary. The ever increasing dominance of agriculture related activities has not only physically altered the lowland landscape but have also resulted into a partial loss of environmental amenity through alterations to field margins, hedgerows, woodland, meadowland and agricultural waterscapes that form an integral part of the farmland ecosystem (Ghaffar & Robinson, 1997). Here, agricultural waterscapes comprising of burns and small wetlands have been affected the most, expansion of field boundaries being the chief reason. As much as it has condensed the footprints of these waterscapes, it has also had a negative impact on water quality and biodiversity potential of these valuable ecosystems. Presently, farm boundaries extend right until the edge of these water bodies. Even though the concept of ‘set-asides’ (uncultivated strips of land between crop margin and field boundary) was introduced recently by the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, these buffer strips do little to aid the upkeep of these waterscapes. Most setasides are poorly vegetated strips of land and do little to stop the potential pollutants from agricultural runoffs (sediments, nutrients and pesticides) from entering the surface water. For instance, use of inorganic fertilizers, especially nitrogen fertilizers to boost productivity has always been a concern and has been implicated in substantial habitat loss (Fuller, 2000) Farmers need it to grow healthy crop. But not all of the fertilizer applied to the field is utilized by the crops. The excess nitrogen runs off contaminating the nearby water bodies. At times it may lead to localised ‘eutrophication’ (excessive richness of nutrients) leading to negative effect on water quality and long-range and cumulative transport to the marine ecosystem. These tactless strips of land produce minimum environmental or economic benefits which could be of great significance in the lowland landscape. Wright (1995) cited in (Dunn, et al., 2003) discusses the complicated ownership of water. Landowners are entitled to use water from a water body that flows through, or borders his/her land, for his/her own benefit. This is a common practice in East Lothian County. Prolonged dry spells during summer months result in crops

requiring irrigation. Diesel powered generators draw water from burns and wetlands for this purpose and spray water using sprinklers. In some places, burns are dammed to maintain healthy volumes of water for irrigational purposes. Dams act as manmade hurdles affecting the flow of water, materials and organism along their natural course.

Figure 8: Typical section of a burn displaying steep banks, poor scrub vegetation, setasides, and poorly managed edge vegetation (West Peffer Burn).

In recent decades, a sizable number of wetlands in Scotland have been re-established through restoration and relocation plans in response to regulatory and voluntary incentive programs. However, the lowland agricultural landscape has not seen much success. This could be a result of high value on arable land and its dependence on water for irrigation. Though a few small wetlands still survive in this region, irrigation reservoirs are a more common sight and provide substantial quantities of water for irrigation. However, many of these irrigation reservoirs were created over past wetlands and ponds, or by excavating burns. Their sheer depth, steep slopes and fluctuating water levels make it an inapt habitat for most species.

Figure 9: The state of small isolated wetlands is similar but are often surrounded by dense woodland patches. They are mainly used for irrigation purposes.

Overuse of surface water leads to change in flow regimes affecting the natural hydrological cycle and aquatic ecology. Surface water is pumped out mostly during the dry periods from May to August when water level in burns and wetlands is naturally low, exacerbating drought condition (Birnie, Figure 10: Surface water from burns being pumped to fields

et al., 2013) Woodland patches, as discussed earlier, have experienced tremendous improvement since the second half of the twentieth century. This could largely be accredited to the different grants and schemes implemented by the forestry commission to protect these distinct habitats. Due to negligible root and light competition owing to the smaller footprint of these patches, the trees are much more resilient than the ones in forest interiors (Forman, 1995, p. 50). Most woodland patches in the lowlands are semi-natural habitats and rarely exceed four acres in size. Figure 11: Damming of burns for irrigational purposes drastically affects the aquatic ecosystem and rstricts flow of materials and organism

They have been planted over less fertile patches of lands, private estates or in places where groundwater tables are high and agriculture is not a feasible option. Many

times, patches are in close proximity to burns and wetlands due to the high groundwater table (most woodland patches in the Drem- Aberlady region). These patches support myriad wildlife species, yet, they are not the most complete or favourable of habitats due to their small scale and disconnectedness in the vast farmland matrix.

Thus, the damage to agricultural waterscapes and fragmented nature of woodland patches in a vast farmland matrix have led to the landscape becoming somewhat desolate and disconnected. However, woodland patches, waterscapes and set-asides, though fragmented and poorly managed, can provide an ideal platform for implementing sustainable design strategies and pave the way towards a more resilient and multifunctional landscape.

Figure 12: Set-asides around a typical East Lothian Wheat field

Figure 13: Algal bloom due to nutrient rich runoffs from fields (eutrophication) into the agricultural waterscapes

Need for Remediation The presence of past provides a sense of completion, stability and permanence in contrast to the fast pace of contemporary life (Lowenthal, 1985, p. 62). When we look at the lowland agricultural landscape in East Lothian, all the three aspects described by Lowenthal are either missing or fragmented. Landscape remediation can be a stepping stone in addressing these key issues. Remediation, by stopping damage to the existing landscape, aims at restoring the landscape to a past state when it seamlessly blended with the surroundings. However, in the lowlands where the landscape character is governed by economic factors and crop production, remediation is not a linear process. Even though remnant natural habitats in the form of fragmented woodland patches, burns and small wetlands play a pivotal role in preserving farmland ecology, agriculture dominates the scene. The question to ask here though is: ‘Is it really worth remediating or rethinking a landscape of which every acre generates generous profits every year?’ Should ecological criteria supersede the economic one? There is no one correct answer to the question. A more transcendental approach in this context would be of Thoreau’s. In Walden (Thoreau, 1854), he quotes: ‘‘I would that our farmers when they cut down a forest felt some of the awe which the old Romans did when they came to thin, or let in the light to, a consecrated grove, that is, would believe that it is sacred to some god.’’ According to Thoreau, natural landscapes should be conserved as it is sacred and necessary to humanity. Nature is not something to be used irresponsibly. He hints that at some point in history, humans were aware of this, but we have since lost that feeling of connection. Every organism that occupies a certain landscape is entitled to its symbiotic use. Landscape should be designed in a way that benefits its inhabitants and the larger community (Jackson, 2008). Within a farmland ecosystem however, both the terms ‘inhabitants’ and ‘larger community’ are interconnected. The land, as it is owned and tended by man, makes him the inhabitant. Likewise, different species of plants and animals that inhabit the same space can also be called its inhabitants. A similar case can be made for the term ‘larger community’. Socio-economic research in agricultural ecosystem is as important as ecological research. In the same way as ecology is important in knowing ecosystem services

and their biophysical foundations, economics and other social sciences are needed to valuate and endorse them in a more realistic manner (Robertson & Swinton, 2005) Economists have tried to develop techniques to estimate the monetary value of environmental goods and services. However, it is almost impossible to separate out the complex and interrelated aspects of these non-market goods and services. In their essay, The Value of Wetlands, Mitsch and Gosselink talked about wetlands being valued not only for their abstruse ecological processes but for the goods and services they provide to humans. Value is determined by factors like human perception, location, population pressures and the extent of resource. On the other hand, they also discussed the danger of comparing ecosystems in a way that it is always possible to find a more profitable use for a piece of land if a short term economic analysis is carried out. They present an example of the agricultural landscapes of Midwestern USA, where wetland value estimates cannot compete with the economic benefits provided by corn and soybean (Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000) On the other hand, biodiversity is considered one of the main drivers of a sound ecosystem. ‘‘Within the context of sustainable development, biodiversity should be considered a resource of prime importance to the future of life, human well-being and economics’’ (Opdam & Steingröver, 2008, p. 70) Remnant natural habitats are a key to hosting biodiversity. Wetland and burn ecosystems have been known to be home to more plant and animal species than woodland habitats. In the book- Where Rivers are Born, Meyer spoke about how isolated wetlands, though not visible, are linked to burns and other wetlands through groundwater. Changes to these headwater systems may affect lochs, rivers and estuaries downstream. In spite of their small size they play a crucial role in providing vital ecosystem services, maintaining the hydrological balance, and supporting local species populations while also acting as connecting habitats between the larger natural environments. Landscape mosaics are defined by the landscape components of patches, corridors and surrounding matrix (Forman, 1995). If we compare these entities to the three layers of landscape in the lowland context, the farmland forms the matrix and is the single most dominant component of the landscape that overwhelms woodlands (patches) and waterscapes (corridors). Forman and Gordon also spoke about these

three components directly influencing the spatial modelling and flow in a landscape. The degree of interaction between these components determines the sustainable character of a landscape. In the end, it is not feasible to prioritize one aspect over the other. However, an effort can be made to maintain equilibrium between the existing forces on the landscape, be it strong or weak. Human profit should go hand in hand with environmental concerns and welfare of other species. Ultimately, the idea should be to understand the joint environmental and economic functions of biodiversity in the agricultural landscape. It is vital to determine its contribution to ecosystem goods and services together with its value for the farmers and society at large, and evaluate possibilities for the sustainable use and preservation of biodiversity across the agricultural landscape (Jackson, et al., 2007) (Morris & Burgess, 2012, p. 18) Discusses ‘multifunctionality’ in landscapes where any piece of land is capable of providing varied goods and services by supporting multiple activities within the same space. Such spaces have the ability to create more value for society and other species than single-functional land use while also offering long term sustainability. This dissertation focusses on biodiversity and socio-economic gains as essential functional components of a landscape dominated by agriculture, and proposes a spatial and functional platform for designing ecologically sustainable landscape patterns. ‘‘The ‘precautionary principle’ demands that where knowledge is limited, the prudent alternative is to retain existing natural linkages in case they are beneficial’’ Hobbs 1992 cited by (Caird, 1964, p. 63). Burns and small wetlands along with set-asides can act as sustainable riparian corridors or linkages between woodland patches and minimise fragmentation by offering continuity between the farmland landscape that otherwise has quite stark boundaries. They can help enhance ecological function by facilitating the flow of energy, materials and species populations, including humans, across the landscape mosaic while also providing opportunities for producing economic goods and recreation (Ndubisi, 2008). Thus, linkages can be used as drivers of long term sustainability in the lowland agricultural landscape of the East Lothian.

Designing Linkages This section of the dissertation primarily looks at developing a foundation for the design of riparian linkages that help connect fragmented woodland patches in the agricultural landscape of the East Lothian lowlands. These linkages explore ways of establishing a balance between the dominant agricultural landscape and remnant semi-natural habitats to create a more sustainable and multifunctional landscape. One of the earliest and most practical solutions to fragmented habitat conservation is the idea that fragments linked by a single or multiple corridors of similar type of habitat are likely to have superior conservation value than isolated fragments of similar size and features (Diamond, 1975). At the most basic level though, our knowledge with regards to the design, scale, location and management of these corridors is limited (Anderson & Jenkins, 2006, pp. 5-6). It is essential to derive a set of ecological guidelines to establish a platform that aids the process of sustainable linkage design. In this dissertation, the design process is structurally derived from Forman’s patch, corridor and matrix model of landscape (1995) but functionally related to Bennett’s concept of linkages (2003). In the book Land Mosaics, Forman states that any given point within a landscape is either a part of a patch, a corridor, or a background matrix. Patches are spatial units embedded in a matrix and may be connected by corridors (Forman, 1995). Within themselves, these landscape elements possess different physical characteristics. Corridors in the form of continuous, linear habitats play a vital role as conduits for the transfer and flow of species and materials through the environment while forming an integral part of the landscape and related processes (Milne, n.d.) . Forman describes corridors as elongated patches that connect other patches together. They could vary from wide to narrow, high to low connectivity, and meandering to straight. While Forman’s theory deals with the physical dynamics and interrelations between landscape elements, Bennett explores further on their internal dynamics. He stresses on the value of connectivity more than the merits of corridors. In a landscape modified by human impacts, land-use patterns that enhance connectivity for species, communities and ecological processes play an important role in remediation (Bennett, 2003, p. 9) He uses the term ‘Linkages’ or ‘Links’ for corridors as

connectivity can be improved by variability in habitat patterns much more efficiently than by continuous corridors of repetitious habitats. The first step towards jointly translating Forman’s and Bennett’s theories into a design process is to clearly define the key purposes and goals of linkages. As stated earlier, ecology alone cannot be the driving force in a landscape committed to profit and high production. Hence, the design should aim to devise sound and sustainable design principles to enhance connectivity in the fragmented landscape by maintaining a healthy equilibrium between ‘farmland biodiversity’ and ‘production’. By using biodiversity as the starting point, it should address dynamics of habitat patterns and species movement in fragmented landscapes in order to configure linkage development. As a number of woodland patches in the county are located around, or in close proximity to, the burns and small wetlands, the network of small agricultural waterscapes forms a basis of riparian linkage development connecting woodland patches. Bennett spoke about riparian linkages as structurally and floristically diverse from surrounding terrestrial habitats and provides a rich environment for numerous flora and fauna (Bennett, 2003, p. 104). Movement in linkages is not dependent on arrangement of strips or patches of favoured habitat, but on use of the whole mosaic. He argues that parts of a mosaic will be suitable for a particular species to live in, other parts may be unsuitable but do not inhibit movements, while some parts may be relatively inhospitable (Bennett, 2003, p. 50). Thus, the design process, rather than focussing on a species specific approach, aims to develop linkages that support a diverse range of species. Careful planning that allows for various production nodes within these linkages without undermining their biodiversity potential can supplement farm income and improve crop variety. Riparian linkages can deliver undeniable strategic significance in transforming a fragmented agricultural landscape into a more sustainable one. Scale and Time: Linkage design can be applied at a wide range of spatial scales ranging from regional to catchment to individual farm scale. Large natural vegetation patches and corridors are most beneficial and guide several ecological processes (Anderson & Jenkins, 2006, p. 6). On the other hand, Forman also states that small patches and corridors provide different benefits than large patches while still playing

an important role in species dispersal and re-colonization. However, they should be thought of as ‘’supplements to, but not replacements for, large patches’’ (Forman, 1995, p. 48). In essence, small patches and links could be looked at as stepping stones in creating a larger web of multifunctional landscapes over the course of time. In the lowland landscape, where patch size is comparatively small and varies between 0.5- 4 acres, a catchment level development comprising a group of farms is an ideal starting point. At this scale, widths of linkages play a vital role in determining their ecological potential. Designers should try and maximise on this front wherever the farmland matrix offers an opportunity. Linkages are entities that are dynamic in time. Time is a commanding factor in determining the success of a linkage in terms of its potential to accommodate different species. Species will adapt to a linkage habitat at different stages in its lifetime. Forman discusses about form and structure of habitats as something that is seen today but was actually formed way back in time by flows and movement in landscape. Flows and movement, in a sense, are interrelated with the structure of a habitat. They are the ones responsible for the habitat’s formation, but at some point in time are determined by the structure itself (Forman, 1995, pp. 5-6). Man’s presence too is an integral part of linkages and influences the way in which a linkage develops over time (Jongman & Pungetti, 2004, p. 4). The idea of production incorporated within linkage design allows a certain degree of human interaction within its structure which enhances its diversity and conservation. Biodiversity: Biodiversity in an agricultural landscape is formed of the innumerable species of plants, animals, and microorganisms. It exists at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels and contributes to the form, function, and ecological processes in a given agricultural landscape (Jarvis, et al., 2007). Diverse habitats in the form of designed riparian linkages can add to this biodiversity potential of the agriculture dominated landscapes of the lowlands. In short, these linkages can be defined as elements that provide continuous or near-continuous habitat links through hostile environments. Continuity can be in the form of physical movements of organisms in space and time or connectivity vital for different biological processes like pollination, seed dispersal, displacement of organic matter, etc. In case of the East

Lothian lowlands, riparian linkages allow for multiple mediums of connectivity as they are comprised of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. However, at a farm level scale, the degree of connectivity will be highly dependent on (i) the spacing between patch ecosystems, (ii) width of linkages and (iii) range of species behaviour. In his theory, Bennett identifies a ‘structural component’ and a ‘behavioural component’ as the two main components that influence the level of connectivity for species or ecological processes in a landscape. The structural component is determined by the physical characteristics of a linkage like continuity of a specific habitat, gaps or spacing within a linkage, and the total length or distance to be traversed. Habitat density, in addition to width and height of linkages, also plays a part in determining its habitat quality.

Figure 14: For some species that are highly adapted to the farmland habitat, linkages are not required for connectivity through varied habitats

Alternatively, Bennett describes the behavioural component as the way in which different species perceive a specific linkage. It is influenced by factors such as the different scales at which different species operate, their habitat necessities, degree of adaptability, tolerance to disturbed habitats, timings and stages of dispersal movements and response to predators and competitors (Bennett, 2003, pp. 49-61). In the ‘connectivity and wildlife conservation’ chapter he discusses the idea of how flow of species and materials in a fragmented landscape occurs in a variety of ways. Some organisms can effectively cross boundaries within a disturbed matrix and are not dependent on similar habitat patterns. They do not rely on habitat linkages as they are either tolerant or have adapted to human land use. However, there are few species which display this character. Alternatively, there are many species which are

sensitive to habitat change and display strong reliance on specialised habitats and linkages. Even here, different species display different movement patterns.

Figure 15: Species movement also largely depends on spacing between patches or within a linkage.

Figure 16: A linkage that provides continuous connection is preferred by most species. It is used differently by different species. Some species move short distances at a time (generally associated with foraging)

Figure 17: While some use it to traverse long distances across the farmland landscape

Figure 18: A linkage that provides continuous connection of favoured and diverse habitats works for most species

The sharpness of the edge condition between fragmented habitats and farmland matrix is the other important factor affecting biodiversity. They display a sharp contrast in terms of their structure and composition. The term ‘hard edge’ is used to describe such a condition where the stark contrast between two habitats affects species movements and dispersal, (Wiens et al., 1985) cited in (Bennett, 2003, p. 20). On the other hand, boundaries in a natural landscape are always soft edges.

Figure 19: (1) Natural forest boundaries always display a smooth transition between habitats. (2) Boundaries between woodlands and agricultural land with intensive land management are much stark; this is referred to as 'hard edge' by Wiens

The key advantages of riparian sustainable linkage design in the lowland agricultural landscape are: 1) Riparian linkages can positively assist different species in different ways. For instance, they permit physical movement or aid foraging patterns of certain species acting as ‘source’. On the other hand, they provide nesting sites or serve as stopover points for certain migratory species thus acting as sinks.

2) They increase the perimeter of habitat boundary in contact with the dominant agricultural landscape and reduce ‘hard edge’ effect thus providing protection from predators and disturbances arising from human activity. 3) Linkages with different structural and spatial zones allow for multiple native species of flora to re-establish themselves in the farmland ecosystem thus enhancing diversity in habitat pattern and animal species occupation. 4) The interface between aquatic and terrestrial habitat creates unique edge conditions that are preferred habitats for certain species. 5) Riparian linkages protect and conserve farm hydrology by acting as buffers limiting the flow of agricultural pollutants (nutrients, pesticides and particulate pollutants) into the agricultural waterscapes. This creates ideal aquatic habitats for many species. 6) They supply organic matter for food webs, maintain microclimatic conditions of waterscapes, improve water quality, aid carbon sequestration and stabilize their banks (Brinson & Verhoeven, 1999, p. 266). Production: ‘‘Breac à linne, slat à coille is fiadh à fìreach - mèirle às nach do ghabh gàidheal riamh nàire’’ (Old Gaelic saying) A fish from the river, a staff from the wood and a deer from the mountain – thefts no Gael was ever ashamed of. Historically, landscape was looked at as a source of livelihood. Each person was entitled to have his fair share of food and resources from nature. Resources that for our ancestors were common-place today seem exotic and alien. The question is, is it possible for biodiversity and production to coexist in a contemporary landscape? Bennett suggests that a successful linkage design should aim to achieve both goals without compromising conservation objectives (Bennett, 2003, p. 147). Though the prime function of linkage design is to enhance biodiversity, in a profit driven lowland landscape it may not be the only viable option towards farmland sustainability. Careful placement of productive zones that provide goods and services to supplement farm income can potentially boost economic as well as social sustainability. It also ensures a certain degree of human interaction that is paramount for linkage upkeep. Boundaries between farmlands and linkages should be physical

yet permeable in some places to allow for human activity without affecting its biodiversity potential. Alternating productive and protective zones also help make the linkage structure more diverse. One of the most effective ways to obtain broad support for production zones in riparian linkages is to integrate different land management strategies that deliver sustainable benefits. ‘Forest gardens’ could also be incorporated as a part of riparian linkages. Forest gardens have been a part of human culture for centuries. The Huastec Mayan Indians have been practicing a similar forest management strategy known as Te’lom. Te’lom are managed groves or forests which contain more than 300 different species of plants and is one of the most ancient agroforestry systems in the world still in existence (Robles-Diaz-de-Leon & Kangas, 1998). There are also the famed ‘home gardens’ of Indonesia which mimic the structure of the native forests but with useful plants in the canopy, understory, shrub and ground layers. Robert Hart, in his book Forest Gardening: Cultivating an Edible Landscape speaks about forest gardening as one of the most sustainable way towards a greener and more integrated future (Hart, 1996, p. 30). Essentially, a forest garden is a small imitation of a natural forest made entirely of edible or beneficial plant species, fungi and animals. It generates direct value to land owners with least amount of space and labour requirement. Based on his observations in natural forests and how they are distinctly divided into storeys, Hart evolved a basic forest garden concept (fig 20). 1) High canopy comprising of mature fruit producing trees 2) Vertical wines or creepers (berries) 3) A low layer of fruit and nut bearing trees 4) A shrub layer (fruits, currants and berries) 5) A herbaceous layer of perennial vegetation (roots, vegetables) 6) A ground cover layer of edible plants that spread horizontally (strawberries) Owing to its structure and diversity within a forest garden, it is much more than the sum of its plants. A forest garden will deliver much less output than an orchard but forms a working ecosystem that largely manages its own health and fertility. As such, it offers the possibility of meeting human needs in a far more sustainable way.

Figure 20: A tupical forest garden progression as described by Hart. All the layers possess different characteristics and provide different outputs from each other. However, it is one of the most sustainable insert within a linkage as it fosters habitat quality

It supplements agricultural production and gives access to subsistence goods, produces commercially valuable products and also supports biodiversity. With some local modifications in the lowland agricultural landscape, this system of forest management could be integrated as a production zone within the linkage system. Careful selection of productive- native plant species can seamlessly blend these landscape inserts within the riparian linkage system. Biomass production on the farm using natural or planted short-rotation woody crops in the riparian linkages of agricultural landscape is an idea gaining acceptance worldwide. Fast-growing species of trees for this purpose within linkages can add to its diversity. Nutrient runoffs from farmland activities act as a catalyst for plant growth required for biomass production. If targets are set at levels that can be reached in a fully sustainable way, it could also contribute to farm economy (Dalgaard & Christen, 2012) The aquatic ecosystem in the form of the burns and wetlands could also be utilized for production purposes. One of the most essential requirements for aquatic biodiversity is water availability, in terms of quality and quantity (Carballo, et al., 2008, p. 41). With the improvement in the quality of aquatic ecosystem, small scale,

sustainable fish farming can also be amalgamated as part of the productive linkage system. However, the quantity of water is the major concern in employing this strategy. As discussed earlier, irrigation from surface water in burns and wetlands is the major cause of fluctuating water levels. Presently used sprinkler systems could be replaced with a more efficient drip irrigation system. Use of groundwater should be promoted over surface water. Introduction of indigenous species in the aquatic ecosystem will further enhance biodiversity while also supplementing food production. Riparian linkages also protect and enhance burn and wetland environments for recreational and educational purposes. Carefully planned pathways connecting the productive patches of landscape within a linkage could also enhance social connectivity.

The West Peffer Burn (Drem + Aberlady) West Peffer burn is situated in the agricultural landscape of the lowlands of North Berwick Plain in the north-east part of the county. It flows from east to west for 9 kilometres before meeting the Aberlady Bay in the Firth of Forth. The terrain elevation of the catchment is 5 meters above the sea level with a gentle slope that accounts for the sluggish flow of the burn. Oak trunks and stag horns found within the river bed when it was deepened in the mid-19th century are evidence enough of the quality of habitat the region supported before agriculture took over (Gittings, 2013) The study area of the catchment selected to implement the linkage design is a 1.2 kilometre stretch in the Drem-Aberlady region. In most places, this stretch has an average width of 3-4 meters with steep banks that make it look much deeper than its average depth of 2-2.5 meters from farm level. A small wetland measuring 6000 m2 in area is also a part of the study area. The waterscape is surrounded by a mixed matrix of farmland (potato and wheat fields) and meadowland. The waterscapes with the presence of a few isolated woodland patches offer an ideal model of the typical lowland agricultural landscape and, in turn, for linkage design. Design Objectives 1) To augment farmland biodiversity by creating favourable habitats using ‘Riparian Linkages’ 2) Minimize gaps and enhance connectivity within linkages and the overall agricultural matrix 3) Incorporate ‘Protective’ and ‘Productive’ nodes within linkages wherever the terrain permits 4) Reduce hard edges 5) Improve connectivity of the wetland habitat with the burn ecosystem 6) Provide alternate links wherever possible

Figure 21: The Drem-Aberlady agricultural landscape showing the study area- A section of the West Peffer burn

Figure 22: Site for the linkage design exercise showing woodland patches with low connectivity and separated 670 meters apart

Figure 23: Design drawing showing different components and layers within the linkage (West Peffer Burn)

Design Features Woodland Patches: The study area of the West Peffer burn has two key woodland patches surrounded by a vast matrix of farmland and meadowland. One patch of 8000 m2 is located next to a thoroughfare road connecting Drem to Fenton Barns. The other with an area of 2850 m2 surrounds a small isolated wetland 6000 m2 in area. Both patches display dense woodland habitat and host a wide range of species (deer, water vole, sparrowhawk and kingfishers spotted on site). However, the patches are spaced 650 meters apart and display little or no connectivity. Thus limiting species movement which is chiefly terrestrial. Hard Matrix: The dominant farmland matrix that surrounds the waterscape forms the hard matrix and covers most of the area of the lowland landscape. It limits the species movement due to the absence of refuge areas and the frequent presence of human activity. However, it forms a part of foraging area for some of the species that have adapted to the farmland ecosystem. Soft Matrix: The soft matrix is formed of meadowland and heathland that sees minimal human activity but is limited in terms of species diversity. It aids seasonal foraging patterns and forms an ideal habitat for some of the farmland species (e.g. pheasants, rabbits, etc.). In close proximity to woodland patches, it acts like a soft edge aiding smooth transition between landscapes. Aquatic Linkage: Aquatic linkages in the study site include the 1.2 kilometre stretch of West Peffer burn and the adjacent small wetland. Due to the poor water quality, damming, and fluctuating water levels resulting from the farming activities, these valuable habitats are not utilized to their full potential. By implementing suitable farm level strategies such as switching to drip irrigation in place of sprinklers, efficient use of ground water for irrigation purposes, removal of dams, lessening bank angles, suitably connecting wetland to burn, and development of riparian linkages, the habitat quality of these aquatic ecosystems can be enriched considerably. The wetland can be linked with the burn that could further improve aquatic connectivity. Strategically placed pathways along waterscapes can potentially enhance social connectivity while also providing means of recreation.

Riparian Linkage: The riparian linkages are comprised of levels of tree cover of starting with a tall layer along the waterscapes followed by short trees and bushes. The linkage structure subsides gradually ultimately merging with the fields thus reducing any hard edges. Widths and heights of different layers within a linkage show consistent variation. The plant composition depends on the type of soils and water table of a particular area but will include chiefly native species. Apart from providing habitat and travel corridor for different species of plants and animals, they also protect the burn and wetland ecosystem. They also provide shade, shelter and food which are essential for the revival of the lowland agricultural waterscapes.

Figure 24: Typical West Peffer Burn section. (1) Parts were field structure does not allow for wider linkages are still wide enough for species to traverse. (2) A productive node showing a forest garden with different layers of vegetation

Protective Nodes: Wherever the field structure permits, protective nodes are designed within a linkage. They are a mere continuation of linkages but structurally and functionally intermediate to a patch and a linkage. Protective nodes are much undisturbed spaces as opposed to linkages and with their proximity to aquatic linkages, have an enormous habitat potential. Productive Nodes: The primary function of productive nodes is to supplement farm income. However, apart from its economic benefits through the production of commercially valuable harvests, it also provides subsistence goods and supports biodiversity. Productive nodes also act as transition spaces between linkages, dismembering them into sections and avoiding spatial monotony. They also help in the upkeep of the entire patch-linkage system.

Social Linkage: The social linkage is a strategically placed corridor that snakes around the linkage system adding a social and recreational dimension to the whole setting. They will attract people to the farmland making it less desolate and also act as extensions of the small towns dotting the lowland agricultural landscape. However, intersections with linkages should be kept to the minimum to avoid disturbances to habitat environment.

Figure 25: Section of the linkage across the wetland showing (1) Protective node with the social linkage alongside, and (2) Existing woodland patch habitat

Species Benefited: The riparian linkages with their diverse ecosystem will benefit a host of terrestrial, aerial and aquatic species. The aim should be to promote production to an extent that it does not hinder the habitat quality. Habitats should be identified and tended to in a way that they allow for maximum species occupation, especially the species that have seen a major decline in their populations. Plant species like orchids; flowering plants (bluebell, wild pansy); ferns, grasses (soft brome, flat sedge and round fruited rush) and; shrubs and climbers (juniper, betony) should be given importance. Birds such as waders (dunlin, lapwing and, redshank); farmland birds (grey partridge, tree sparrow); migrants (brambling, ring ouzel); and raptors (barn owl, peregrine falcon) will be greatly benefited from the diverse linkage habitats. The riparian connect will profit a great number of mammals like bats, water vole, red squirrel, badgers, and otters. Apart from these, numerous invertebrates (butterflies, beetles, bugs, and molluscs); amphibians (great crested); reptiles (common lizard, adder); fish (lamprey, three spined stickleback, and river trout); lichens; mosses and fungi could thrive within the linkage networks. These species are listed as the priority lowland species under the East Lothian biodiversity action plan (Lothian Council, 2008).

Conclusion Agricultural landscape could prove much less hostile to species development as opposed to other dominant landscapes like urban and industrial due to the low degree of disturbance from human activities. As discussed earlier, designing sustainable linkages in a fertile landscape like the lowlands of the East Lothian County is not a linear process. However, the concept of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;productive nodesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; combined with waterscapes could work well as a connecting factor between man and a multitude of farmland species. Even though the design process does not follow a species specific approach, it has the potential to provide diverse and valuable habitat conditions to a variety of farmland species. There are many similarities between a typical Scottish and a typical East Lothian agricultural landscape. The riparian linkage in the West Peffer burn region could valuable information related to the farmland ecology and can be used as a model to heighten farmland sustainability in the wider Scottish agricultural context.

Figure 26: The final structural component of a linkage is determined by the proportion of different elements that form a part of the design process

The design and functioning of linkages largely depends on space and time. It is also highly influenced by field and soil dynamics of a specific region. Yet there is no one correct way to design these sustainable corridors. Different elements in the design process e.g. riparian linkages, aquatic linkages, productive and protective nodes can be used in different ways to create various unique linkage features. In a contemporary landscape, it is difficult to move towards a stage as the old Gaelic saying describes. However, farm level linkage development is definitely one of the key steps towards achieving a multifunctional landscape, a landscape that heightens farmland sustainability.

Works Cited Allan, C., 2001. Agricultural Improvement s.l.:Prestoungrange University Press.

Dolphinstoun.

ed.

Anderson, A. B. & Jenkins, C. N., 2006. Applying Nature's Design - Corridors as strategy for Biodiversity Conservation. New York: Columbia University Press. Anon., 1863-65. A Bird's-Eye View of East Lothian. The Journal of Agriculture, Volume 11-24, pp. 299-303. ASH Consulting Group, 1998. The Lothians landscape character assessment, s.l.: Scottish Natural Heritage Review No 91 .. Baker, S., 2003. The Fourth Statistical Account of East Lothian. [Online] Available at: http://www.el4.org.uk/el4-cd/agricult.html [Accessed 07 2013]. Bennett, A. F., 2003. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. 2nd ed. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN. Birnie, R. et al., 2013. Review of Recent UK and European Research Regarding Reduction, Regulation and Control of the Environmental Impacts of Agriculture, s.l.: The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. Boatman, N. D., Parry, H. R., Bishop, J. D. & Cuthbertson, A. G., 2007. Impacts of Agricultural Change on Farmland Biodiversity in the UK, s.l.: The Royal Society of Chemistry, Brinson, M. M. & Verhoeven, J., 1999. Riparian Forests. In: M. L. Hunter Jr, ed. Maintaining Biodicersity in Forest Ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 266-267. Caird, J. B., 1964. The making of the Scottish rural landscape. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 80(2), pp. 72-80. Carballo, E., Eer, A. v., Schie, T. v. & Hilbrands, A., 2008. Small-scale freshwater fish farming. 3 ed. Wageningen, the Netherlands : s.n. Corner, J., 1999. Recovering Landscapes. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Dalgaard, T. & Christen, B., 2012. Buffers for biomass production in temperate European agriculture: A review and synthesis on function, ecosystem services and implementation. Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 55, pp. 53-56.

Diamond, J. M., 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological conservation, 7(2), pp. 129-146. Dunn, S. M., Stalham, M., Chalmers, N. & Crabtree, B., 2003. Adjusting irrigation abstraction to minimise the impact on stream flow in the East of Scotland. Journal of environmental management, 68(1), pp. 95-107. Forman, R. T. T., 1995. Land Mosaics- The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fuller, R. J., 2000. Relationships between recent changes in lowland British agriculture and farmland bird populations: an overview. Ecology and conservation of lowland farmland birds, pp. 5-16. Ghaffar, A. & Robinson, G. M., 1997. Restoring the Agricultural Landscape: the Impact of Government Policies in East Lothian, Scotland. Geoforum, 28(2), pp. 205217. Gittings, B., 2013. Peffer Available at: places.info/scotgaz/features/featurehistory2975.html [Accessed 08 2013].

Burn. [Online] http://www.scottish-

Hart, R., 1996. Forest Gardening - Cultivating an Edible Landscape. 2 ed. s.l.:Green Books. Hay, R. K. M., Russel, G. & Edwards, T., 2000. Crop Production in the East of Scotland. Edinburgh: SASA and The University of Edinburgh. Jackson, L. E., Pascual, U. & Hodgkin, T., 2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 121(3), pp. 196-197. Jackson, L. L., 2008. Who â&#x20AC;&#x153;designsâ&#x20AC;? the agricultural landscape?. Landscape journal, 27(1), pp. 23-40. Jarvis, D., Padoch, C. & Cooper, H., 2007. Managing Biodiversity in agricultural Ecosystems. New York: Columbia University Press. Jongman, R. & Pungetti, G., 2004. Ecological Networks and Greenways - Concept, design, Implementation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Lothian Council, E., 2008. East Lothian Biodiversity Action Plan, s.l.: smacpherson@eastlothian.gov.uk. Loudon, J. C., 1825. An Encyclopaedia of Agriculture. 2 ed. London: s.n.

Lowenthal, D., 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. Making Scotland's Landscape - Scotland's Water. 2011. [Film] Directed by Tim Niel. United Kingdom: BBC One. Making Scotland's Landscapes - Scotland's Water. 2011. [Film] Directed by Tim Niel. United Kingdom: BBC One. Milne, B. T., n.d. Landscape Mosaics: Patches, Corridors and Connectivity. [Online] Available at: http://sev.lternet.edu/~bmilne/bio576/instr/html/Patches-andCorridors.html [Accessed 07 2013]. Mitsch, W. J. & Gosselink, J. G., 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological economics, 35(1), pp. 25-33. Morris, J. & Burgess, P. J., 2012. Modern Agriculture and Implications for Land Use and Managemant. In: R. M. Harrison & R. E. Hester, eds. Environmental Impacts of Modern Agriculture. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 17-20. Muir, T., 1912. Linlithgowshire. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ndubisi, F., 2008. Sustainable Regionalism Evolutionary Framework and Prospects for Managing Metropolitan Landscapes. Landscape Journal, 27(1), pp. 51-68. Opdam, P. & SteingrĂśver, E., 2008. Designing Metropolitan Landscapes for Biodiversity Deriving Guidelines from Metapopulation Ecology. Landscape journal, 27(1), pp. 69-80. Robertson, G. P. & Swinton, S. M., 2005. Reconciling agricultural productivity and. Front Ecol Environ, 3(1), p. 38â&#x20AC;&#x201C;46. Robles-Diaz-de-Leon, L. F. & Kangas, P., 1998. Evaluation of potential gross income from non-timber products in a model riparian forest for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Agroforestry Systems, 44(2-3), pp. 215-219. Scottish Environment, L., 2008. Beyond the CAP - Towards a Sustainable Land Use Policy that works for Scotland, s.l.: Scottish Environment LINK. Sommerville, R., 1813. General View of the Agriculture of East Lothian. London: B. Mc Millan. Thoreau, H. D., 1854. Walden; Or, Life in the Woods. Dover Thrift Editions ed. Mineola: Dover Publications.

Warren, C., 2009. Managing Scotland's Environment. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.