3_Poesen.indd 293Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.64.4.3 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 2015 (4) 293–299. Introduction The total number of research articles on soil erosion in the Euro-Mediterranean region amounts to ca. 7,000 papers whereas ca. 15,000 papers on soil conservation in this re- gion have been produced (Web of Science, 2015). An overview of soil erosion processes, their controlling factors, consequences, pre- vention and control in Europe was produced by Boardman, J. and Poesen, J. in 2006. Con- sequently, one may ask the question: do we still need more soil erosion research that produces even more papers? The answer is clearly “yes” and in the following sections some arguments will be provided, aft er de- fi ning some important terms and concepts. Soil erosion is a geomorphic process that detaches and removes soil material (mineral particles and associated organic matt er) from its primary location by natural erosive agents or through human or animal activity. Natural erosive agents include water (ice), wind, and gravity. Human activity refers to soil tillage, land leveling, crop harvesting, road and building construction whereas animal activ- ity comprise trampling and soil removal by burrowing animals. Soils are a natural resource that play a vi- tal role in daily life given that they perform several important functions, i.e. general ca- pabilities that are crucial for various agri- cultural, environmental, nature protection, landscape architecture and urban applica- tions. Scientists group these in six key soil functions (Blum, W.E.H. 1993): 1) Food, fi ber and other biomass produc- tion; Soil erosion hazard and mitigation in the Euro-Mediterranean region: do we need more research? Jean POESEN1 Abstract Soil erosion represents a geomorphological and geological hazard that may cause property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Erosion of our soils not only lowers the quality of soils on site, resulting in a drastic reduction of their ecosystem functions that play a vital role in daily life, but causes also signifi cant sediment-related problems off site. To curb soil erosion problems, a range of soil conservation techniques and strategies are applied. So far, ca. 7,000 papers on soil erosion and ca. 15,000 papers on soil conservation in the Euro-Mediterranean region have been published (Web of Science, 2015). One might therefore conclude that we now know almost everything about the various soil erosion processes, their factors and consequences as well as their control so that litt le new knowledge can still be added to the vast amount of available information. We refute this conclusion by pointing to some major research gaps that need to be addressed if we want to use our soils in the Anthropocene in a more sustainable way and improve environmental conditions worldwide. More specifi cally the following research needs are addressed: 1) improved understanding of soil erosion processes and their interactions, 2) scaling up soil erosion processes and rates in space and time, 3) innovative techniques and strategies to prevent or reduce erosion rates. Keywords: soil erosion processes, anthropogenic soil erosion, upscaling, soil conservation 1 Division of Geography and Tourism, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium. E-mail: jean.poesen@ees.kuleuven.be Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299.294 2) Environmental interaction such as water fi ltering, carbon storage and transformation of substances; 3) Biological habitat and gene pool; 4) Source of raw materials; 5) Physical and cultural heritage and 6) Platform for human-made structures such as buildings and roads. Soil quality refl ects how well a soil per- forms these functions (Tóth, G. et al. 2007). The 68th United Nations General Assembly has declared 2015 the International Year of Soils in order 1) to raise awareness of and improve teaching on the importance of soils for food security and essential ecosystem functions and 2) to stimulate sustainable soil management (soil conservation) (htt p://www. fao.org/soils-2015/about/en/). In many parts of the world, soil erosion lowers soil quality, resulting in for instance environmental degradation and poverty. Soil erosion thus represents a geomorphological and geological hazard that may cause prop- erty damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environ- mental damage (UNISDR 2009). Erosion not only affects the quality of soils on site, resulting in a drastic reduc- tion of their ecosystem functions that play a vital role in daily life, but causes also sig- nifi cant sediment-related problems off site (e.g. surface water pollution, fl ooding, river morphology changes, reservoir siltation and coastal development). This explains the rela- tively large number of soil erosion studies conducted so far. However, given the large body of litera- ture on this subject, one might conclude that we now know almost everything about the various soil erosion processes, their factors, consequences and their control so that litt le new knowledge can still be added to the vast body of information that has been collected so far. I will refute this conclusion by pointing to some major research gaps that need to be addressed if we want to use our soils in a sustainable way and improve environmental conditions worldwide. Need for improved understanding of soil erosion processes and their interactions Water erosion Assessing the impacts of climatic and land use changes on rates of soil erosion by water has been and is still the objective of many research projects. During the last 50 yrs, most research dealing with soil erosion by water has mainly focused on sheet (interrill) and rill erosion processes operating at the (run- off ) plot scale. This is seen in (1) the numerous fi eld experiments where runoff plots have been installed in order to assess soil loss rates due to sheet and rill erosion under various climatic conditions or land use practices (e.g. for the Euro- Mediterranean zone (see Maetens, W. et al. 2012a) and (2) the use of both empirical and process- based fi eld-scale and catchment-scale soil erosion models, addressing mainly sheet and rill erosion, for assessing soil erosion induced by environmental change or for establish- ing soil erosion risk maps at various scales (Poesen, J. et al. 2003). However, in many landscapes under dif- ferent climatic conditions and with diff erent land use types, one can observe the pres- ence and dynamics of various gully types, i.e. ephemeral gullies, permanent or classical gullies and bank gullies (e.g. for Hungary, see Kertész, Á. and Jakab, G. 2011). Field-based evidence suggests that sheet and rill erosion as measured on runoff plots are therefore not always realistic indicators of total catchment erosion nor do they indicate satisfactorily the redistribution of eroded soil within a fi eld. It is through (ephemeral) gully erosion that a large fraction of soil eroded within a fi eld or catchment is redistributed and delivered to water courses. Over the last decade, signifi cant progress has been made in the understanding of the mechanisms and factors controlling gully erosion in a range of environmental condi- tions. However, we are still far from being capable to predict soil loss rates by gully ero- 295Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299. sion. We also know very litt le about condi- tions and factors governing gully infi lling. Yet we know that many gullies worldwide have undergone cut and fi ll cycles. In gen- eral, we understand quite well the conditions that lead to gully channel incision, but what caused gully infi lling by natural processes? Subsurface erosion leading to the devel- opment of pipes, tunnels (piping, tunneling) and possibly to (discontinuous) gully chan- nels has been observed in a wide range of environments where it may cause very sig- nifi cant soil loss rates (Verachtert, E. et al. 2011). Yet we still do not fully understand all mechanisms involved nor are we capable to predict soil losses by subsurface erosion rates (Verachtert, E. et al. 2013). Anthropogenic soil erosion Most research eff orts dealing with soil loss caused by environmental change have hitherto mainly focused on natural erosion processes, i.e. water and wind erosion, mass movements (landsliding). Much less att en- tion has been given to anthropogenic soil erosion processes that during the last cen- tury have become more important and even dominant in a number of environments. Tillage erosion, caused by soil translocation during tillage operations, is a soil degrada- tion process that cannot be neglected in most cropland areas located on rolling or steep to- pography in all continents when assessing overall soil erosion rates (e.g. Govers, G. et al. 1994; Poesen, J. et al. 1997). Likewise, lev- eling of badlands (e.g. in the Mediterranean; Photo 1.) to prepare cropland or grassland in- duces very high erosion rates (Poesen, J.W.A. and Hooke, J.M. 1997). Harvesting certain crop types, particularly root and tuber crops, may also induce signifi - cant soil losses leading to soil quality losses and signifi cant off site eff ects (Poesen, J. et al. 2001; Ruysschaert, G. et al. 2007). By far the largest erosion rates occur during soil excava- tions for constructing for example buildings and roads or during military activities (e.g. Certini, G. et al. 2013). Particularly “bombtur- bation” (Hupy, J. and Schaetzl, R. 2006) and digging of trenches in soils of confl ict zones causes signifi cant erosion rates, far more im- portant than for instance splash erosion rates. A recent study calculated the following mean soil loss rates (during 4 years) in the vicinity of the World War 1 frontline in West Belgium: i.e. 615 ton/ha due to bomb craters in a 1,262 km² aff ected area, 279 ton/ha due to trench digging in a 697 km² area and 114 ton/ha due to mine craters in a 109 km² area (Hermans, L. 2015). Integrating these soil losses over a total area of 1,262 km² that was severely af- fected by the war resulted in a mean soil loss of 780 ton/ha/4years. Very few studies have att empted to quantify soil loss rates by such processes. It has become obvious that soil erosion in the Anthropocene mainly occurs as a consequence of not only natural erosion processes but by a combination of natural and human-induced soil erosion processes and in an increasing number of case stud- ies mainly due to anthropogenic soil erosion processes. The latt er are rarely considered in environmental impact studies. Most studies investigating soil erosion-re- lated topics in a particular study area, dealt with only one particular erosion process. However, in the real world often several processes causing soil loss are at play and usually they interact with each other result- ing in a reinforcement or compensation in terms of soil loss. For instance, concentrated fl ow erosion and tillage erosion (and depo- sition) are two processes that oft en operate simultaneously on cropland and that rein- force each other (Poesen, J. et al. 2011). Other examples are land leveling interacting with gullying and shallow landsliding (Borselli, L. et al. 2006), landsliding interacting with piping erosion (Verachtert, E. et al. 2013), or the interaction between gullying, landsliding and sediment export by rivers (De Vente, J. et al. 2006; Vanmaercke, M. et al. 2012) . In or- der to make more realistic assessments of soil loss rates and sediment yield at catchment scale, more research att ention should go to these interacting erosion processes. Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299.296 Apart from these interactions, more re- search is also needed about how erosion processes interact with other earth surface processes. For instance, how does gully ero- sion aff ect hydrological processes such as groundwater seepage (exfiltration) or re- charge (Poesen, J. et al. 2003)? How does soil erosion aff ect geochemical processes such as organic carbon storage and depletion (Van Hemelryck, H. et al. 2011)? To what extent is catchment sediment yield controlled by seis- mic activity (Vanmaercke, M. et al. 2014b)? There is a clear need for an improved under- standing of interactions amongst diff erent erosion processes as well as between these processes and other earth surface processes. Scaling up soil erosion processes and rates in space and time: need for improved models and data mining Many fi eld studies of soil erosion are limited by the size of the study area and the period over which the observations have been made. As to water-related erosion processes the emphasis has been on the runoff plot scale (0.001–0.01 ha; Maetens, W. et al. 2012a) or relatively large catchments (10–100,000 ha; Vanmaercke, M. et al. 2011). Relatively few studies have investigated entire hillslopes or relatively small catchments (0.01–10 ha). To scale up fi eld measurements to larger areas and to longer periods, several procedures are followed, typically involving the use of erosion models. A whole range of models are available: from data-based to physics- or process-based, from simple to complex ones that need many input data (De Vente, J. et al. 2013). Building these models has aided to bett er understand signifi cant factors that control erosion processes and rates. Howev- er, all of them have limitations. For instance, most water erosion models only predict soil loss by sheet and rill erosion, not by gully erosion or piping erosion. Almost all erosion models do not incorpo- rate anthropogenic soil erosion processes such as tillage erosion or soil loss due to crop har- vesting, nor do they account for the interac- tions between these processes. Catchment sed- iment yield has been shown to both increase Photo 1. Land leveling of former badlands to create cropland has induced very large soil losses and soil profi le truncation (Central Spain, April 2012) 297Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299. and decrease with drainage area. The lack of simple relationships demonstrates complex and scale-dependent process domination throughout a catchment and emphasizes our uncertainty and poor conceptual basis for pre- dicting plot to catchment-scale erosion rates and sediment yields. Changing process domi- nation and process complexity occurring with increasing spatial unit is not represented in most models which are typically formulated on empirical observations made on smaller spatial units, despite the recognition of the role of scale in controlling dominant erosion processes (De Vente, J. et al. 2013). In order to support model calibration and validation, large-scale data collection and analysis (data mining) of published data on soil erosion rates and controlling factors is now increasingly needed, because of the data availability from many case-studies (oft en published in the grey literature), but also be- cause scientists lose their data at a rapid rate. The availability of research data typically declines rapidly with article age, as shown recently in ecology (Vines, T. et al. 2014). The same certainly holds for soil erosion and sediment yield data. Hence there is an ur- gent need to compile and analyze such valu- able metadata before they are lost for future generations. First att empts in this research direction have been recently published: e.g. erosion plot data in Europe (Maetens, W. et al. 2012b); catchment sediment yield data in Europe (Vanmaercke, M. et al. 2011); topo- graphic thresholds for gully headcut develop- ment (Torri, D. and Poesen, J. 2014). Innovative techniques and strategies to prevent erosion or reduce erosion rates Overall, there has been much more research focus on rates and factors of particular soil erosion processes than on new techniques and strategies to avoid or to control these process- es. Moreover, the relative effi ciency of these techniques (as compared to conventional land use practices) has been poorly documented. What can be learned from failures and suc- cesses of soil erosion control programs? Criti- cal evaluations of past soil and water conser- vation programs are crucial as the past is the key to the future. Analysis of large datasets (case-studies) is one way to solve this issue (e.g. Maetens, W. et al. 2012a). Innovation in erosion control research is rather limited compared to innovation in ero- sion process research (Poesen, J. et al. 2003). For instance, we still control gully erosion with techniques (e.g. grassed waterways, check dams) that were already in use ca. 80 years ago (Bennett, H. 1939). Application of these techniques is not always feasible. Therefore more eff orts should be made to further develop or to improve erosion con- trol techniques. Control of soil losses in erosion hot spots (e.g. gully heads and channels, river banks, landslide scars, construction sites, rural set- tlements in third world countries) remains a big challenge. Traditionally, hard engineering structures (e.g. check dams, gabions, reten- tion walls, anchors or retention ponds) have been installed in such spots as they provide an immediate solution for (gully) channel and slope stability and for reducing sedi- ment production. However, these interven- tions may not necessarily be sustainable in the long run. Alternatively soft engineering structures, making use of live vegetation (i.e. plant species that have optimal above- and below-ground biomass characteristics; De Baets, S. et al. 2009; Reubens, B. et al. 2009), brush layers or fascines made from live plant cutt ings can be used to control erosion rates, but these take longer to fully stabilize soils. More research is needed to combine hard and soft engineering approaches in a bal- anced way that helps ecological restora- tion of erosion hot spots and that provides a broad spectrum of ecosystem services (Stokes, A. et al. 2014). Along these lines, a bett er understanding of root properties of indigenous plant species and their potential to control soil erosion by incisive processes, such as concentrated fl ow erosion or shallow landsliding, is much needed (Vannoppen, W. et al. 2015). Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299.298 A major factor in the implementation of soil erosion control and soil conservation techniques is the social-economic situation (e.g. poverty, level of development, status of forest transition, subsidies, …) in a given tar- get area (e.g. see Garcia-Ruiz, J.M. et al. 2013 for the Mediterranean). What are the optimal pathways to implement soil conservation measures and to reduce soil erosion rates: a top-down or a bott om-up approach? If the latt er is more eff ective, how can we stimulate such an approach? These questions require a bett er understanding of human (society) – environment interactions. Conclusions Despite the vast number of research papers on soil erosion and soil conservation in the Euro- Mediterranean region published so far, there are still several major challenges for soil ero- sion researchers which have been discussed above . If future research focuses on these re- search gaps, we will not only bett er understand processes and their interactions operating at a range of spatial and temporal scales, their rates as well as their on-site and off -site im- pacts (which is academically spoken reward- ing), but we will also be in a bett er position to select the most appropriate and eff ective soil erosion control techniques and strategies which are badly needed for a sustainable use of our soils in the Anthropocene. Acknowledgement: I acknowledge the support of the EUGEO 2015 organizers and of Zoltán Kovács in par- ticular which made my participation in this congress possible. Thanks also go to the many researchers and colleagues for sharing their research experiences with me during stimulating discussions and all sponsors that funded my research projects. REFERENCES Bennett, H. 1939. Soil Conservation. New York, McGraw-Hill, 993 p. Blum, W.E.H. 1993. Soil Protection Concept of the Council of Europe and Integrated Soil Research. In Soil and Environment. Vol 1. Eds.: Eij sackers, H.J.P. and Hamers, T. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 37–47. Boardman, J. and Poesen, J. 2006. Soil Erosion in Europe. Chichester, Wiley, 855 p. Borselli, L., Torri, D., Øygarden, L., De Alba, S., Martınez-Casasnovas, J., Bazzoffi, P. and Jakab, G. 2006. Land Levelling. Chapter 6.2. In Soil Erosion in Europe. Eds.: Boardman, J. and Poesen, J. Chichester, Wiley, 643–658. Certini, G., Scalenghe, R. and Woods, W. 2013. The impact of warfare on the soil environment. Earth- Science Reviews 127. 1–15. De Baets, S., Poesen, J., Reubens, B., Muys, B., De Baerdemaeker, J. and Meersmans, J. 2009. Methodological framework to select plant species for controlling rill and gully erosion: application to a Mediterranean ecosystem. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 34. 1374–1392. De Vente, J., Poesen, J. Verstraeten, G., Govers, G., Vanmaercke, M., Van Rompaey, A., Arabkhedri, M. and Boix-Fayos, C. 2013. Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield at regional scales: Where do we stand? Earth-Science Reviews 127. 16–29. De Vente, J., Poesen, J., Bazoffi, P., Van Rompaey, A. and Verstraeten, G. 2006. Predicting catchment sediment yield in Mediterranean environments: the importance of sediment sources and connectivity in Italian drainage basins. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31. 1017–1034. Garcia-Ruiz, J.M., Nadal-Romero, E., Lana-Renault, N. and Begueria, S. 2013. Erosion in Mediterranean landscapes: changes and future challenges. Geomorphology 198. 20–36. Govers, G., Vandaele, K., Desmet, P., Poesen, J. and Bunte, K. 1994. The role of tillage in soil redistribu- tion on hillslopes. European Journal of Soil Science 45. (4): 469–478. Hermans, L. 2015. Bodemverliezen veroorzaakt door bomkraters en loopgraven tijdens WO I in West- Vlaanderen. Unpublished thesis. Leuven, Division of Geography, Catholic University of Leuven, 51 p. Hupy, J. and Schaetzl, R. 2006. Introducing “bomb- turbation,” a singular type of soil disturbance and mixing. Soil Science 171. (11): 823–836. Kertész, Á. and Jakab, G. 2011. Gully erosion in Hungary, review and case study. In 2nd International Geography Symposium – Mediterranean Environment 2010. Eds.: Efe, R. and Ozturk, M. Book Series: Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 19. 693–701. Maetens, W., Poesen, J. and Vanmaercke, M. 2012a. How eff ective are soil conservation techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss in Europe and the Mediterranean? Earth-Science Reviews 115. 21–31. Maetens, W., Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Jankauskas, B., Jankauskien, G. and Ionita, I. 2012b. Eff ects of land use on annual runoff and soil loss in Europe 299Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299. and the Mediterranean: A meta-analysis of plot data. Progress in Physical Geography 36. 599–653. Poesen, J., Nachtergaele, J., Verstraeten, G. and Valentin, C. 2003. Gully erosion and environmental change: importance and research needs. Catena 50. (2–4): 91–133. Poesen, J., Torri, D. and Vanwalleghem, T. 2011. Gully Erosion: Procedures to Adopt When modelling Soil Erosion in Landscapes Aff ected by Gullying. In Handbook of Erosion Modelling. Eds.: Morgan, R.P.C. and Nearing, M.A. Chichester, Blackwell Publishing. Chapter 19: 360–386. + Plates 16, 17, 18 and 19. Poesen, J., van Wesemael, B., Govers, G., Martinez- Fernandez, J., Desmet, P., Vandaele, K., Quine, T. and Degraer, G. 1997. Patt erns of rock fragment cover generated by tillage erosion. Geomorphology 18. (3–4): 183–197. Poesen, J., Verstraeten, G., Soenens, R. and Seynaeve, L. 2001. Soil losses due to harvesting of chicory roots and sugar beet: an underrated geomorphic process? Catena 43. (1): 35–47. Poesen, J.W.A. and Hooke, J.M. 1997. Erosion, fl ood- ing and channel management in mediterranean en- vironments of Southern Europe. Progress in Physical Geography 21. (2): 157–199. Reubens, B., Poesen, J., Nyssen, J., Leduc, Y., Abraha, A.Z., Tewoldeberhan, S., Bauer, H., Kindeya, G., Deckers, J. and Muys, B. 2009. Establishment and management of woody seedlings in gullies in a semi-arid environment (Tigray, Ethiopia). Plant and Soil 324. 131–156. Ruysschaert, G., Poesen, J., Verstraeten, G. and Govers, G. 2007. Soil loss due to harvesting of vari- ous crop types in contrasting agro-ecological envi- ronments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 120. 153–165. Stokes, A., Douglas, G., Fourcaud, T., Giadrossich, F., Gillies, C., Hubble, T., Kim, J., Loades, K., Mao, Z., McIvor, I., Mickovski, S., Mitchell, S., Osman, N., Phillips, C., Poesen, J., Polster, D., Preti, F., Raymond, P., Rey, F., Schwarz, M. and Walker, L. 2014. Ecological mitigation of hill slope instability: ten key issues facing researchers and practitioners. Marschner review. Plant and Soil 377. 1–23. Torri, D. and Poesen, J. 2014. A review of topographic threshold conditions for gully head development in diff erent environments. Earth-Science Reviews 130. 73–85. Tóth, G., Stolbovoy, V. and Montanarella, L. 2007. Soil Quality and Sustainability Evaluation – An integrated approach to support soil-related policies of the European Union. EUR 22721 EN. Luxembourg, Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities, 40 p. UNISDR 2009. Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Offi ce for Disaster Risk Reduction. htt p://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology Van Hemelryck, H., Govers, G. and Van Oost, K. 2011. Evaluating the impact of soil redistribu- tion on the in situ mineralization of soil organic carbon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36. (4): 427–438. Vanmaercke, M., Kettner, A., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Poesen, J., Mamaliga, A., Verstraeten, G., Radoane, M., Obreja, F., Upton, P., Syvitski, J. and Govers, G. 2014a. Moderate seismic activity aff ects contemporary sediment yields. Progress in Physical Geography 38. (2): 145–172. Vanmaercke, M., Maetens, W., Poesen, J., Jankauskas, B., Jankauskiene, G. Verstraeten, G. and de Vente, J. 2012. A comparison of measured catchment sedi- ment yields with measured and predicted hill slope erosion rates in Europe. Journal of Soils and Sediments 12. (4): 586–602. Vanmaercke, M., Obreja, F. and Poesen, J. 2014b. Seismic controls on contemporary sediment export in the Siret river catchment, Romania. Geomorphology 216. 247–262. Vanmaercke, M., Poesen, J., Verstraeten, G., de Vente, J. and Ocakoglu, F. 2011. Sediment yield in Europe: Spatial patt erns and scale dependency. Geomorphology 130. 142–161. Vannoppen, W., Vanmaercke, M., De Baets, S. and Poesen, J. 2015. A review of the mechanical eff ects of plant roots on concentrated fl ow erosion rates. Earth-Science Reviews 150. 666–678. Verachtert, E., Maetens, W., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Poesen, J. and Deckers, J. 2011. Soil loss due to piping erosion. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36. 1715–1725. Verachtert, E., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Martínez- Murillo, J.F., Nadal-Romero, E., Poesen, J., Devoldere, S., Wij nants, N. and Deckers, S. 2013. Impact of soil characteristics and land use on pipe erosion in a temperate humid climate: Field studies in Belgium. Geomorphology 192. 1–14. Verachtert, E., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Poesen, J. and Deckers, J. 2013. Spatial interaction between collapsed pipes and landslides in hilly regions with loess-derived soils. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 38. 826–835. Vines, T., Albert, A., Andrew, R., Debarre, F., Bock, D., Franklin, M., Gilbert, K., Moore, J., Renaut, S. and Rennison, D. 2014. The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age. Current Biology 24. (1): 94–97. Web of Science, 2015. All Databases, accessed on June, 21, 2015, htt p://thomsonreuters.com/thomson-re- uters-web-of-science/ Poesen, J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 64 (2015) (4) 293–299.300 Changing Ethnic Patt erns of the Carpatho–Pannonian Area from the Late 15th until the Early 21st Century Edited by: Károly KOCSIS and Patrik TÁTRAI Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences Budapest, 2015 ----------------------------------- Price: EUR 12.00 Order: Geographical Institute RCAES HAS Library H-1112 Budapest, Budaörsi út 45. This is the third, revised and enlarged edition of the Changing Ethnic Patt erns of the Carpatho–Pannonian Area. The work is georeferenced and comes with a CD-appendix. The collection of maps visually presents the ethnic structure of the ethnically, religiously and culturally unique and diverse Carpathian Basin and its neighbourhood, the Carpatho–Pan- nonian area. The volume – in Hungarian and English – consists of three structural parts. On the main map, pie charts depict the ethnic structure of the sett lements in proportion to the population based on the latest census data. In the supplementary maps, changes in the ethnic structure can be seen at ten points in time (in 1495, 1784, 1880, 1910, 1930, 1941, 1960, 1990, 2001 and 2011). The third part of the work is the accompanying text, which outlines ethnic trends in the past fi ve hundred years in the studied area. This volume presents the Carpatho–Pannonian area as a whole. Thus, the reader can browse the ethnic data of some thirty thousand sett lements in various maps. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) /HUN >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice