## 3 Results
### Dynamics of Forest Cover  
The table below (Table 9) shows in detail the dynamics of forest cover over different periods. The areas of forest cover after telling, documented in the cartographic material, were used. Forest areas of the administrative units were calculated as percentages, and the differences between them were also calculated. It can be seen that, depending on the forest management policy in different countries, the dynamics of the forest cover areas changed quite significantly and there was no expansion/diminishing observed uniformly. It is also possible to single out an urbanized territory--the City of Jurbarkas--where the dynamics of the forest cover were affected by factors other than those affecting nonurbanized territories. Forest areas diminished very significantly in nine out of twelve ederships from the 2 nd half of the 19 th century to the 1 st half of the 20 th century. The difference in forest areas is as follows: \(-23.1\)--\(-47.3\)%. The area of the total forest cover in elderships decreased by \(24.3\)% on average. Juodaiciai eldership stands out due to the changes in its forest cover  
Figure 15: Forest cadastral data map of Jurbarkas District. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Half of the**} \\
**Elderships** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**19 th Century–**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**19 th Century–**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**19 th Century–**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 th Century–**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 th Century–**} \\
**1 st Half of the** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2 nd Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Half of the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1 st Half of the**} \\
**20 th Century** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 th Century**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 th Century**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**21 st Century**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**20 th Century**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**21 st Century**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**21 st Century**} \\ \hline Erzvilkas & \(-41.3\) & \(-35.6\) & \(-33.8\) & \(5.7\) & \(7.5\) & \(1.8\) \\ Girdziai & \(-35.5\) & \(-33.9\) & \(-36.5\) & \(1.6\) & \(-1\) & \(-2.6\) \\ Juodaiciai & \(-46\) & \(-32.2\) & \(-32.3\) & \(13.8\) & \(13.7\) & \(-0.1\) \\ Jurbarkai & \(-14.9\) & \(-9.6\) & \(-10.0\) & \(5.3\) & \(4.9\) & \(-0.4\) \\ Jurbarkas city & \(4.3\) & \(8.8\) & \(7.3\) & \(4.5\) & \(3\) & \(-1.5\) \\ Raudone & \(-35.2\) & \(-27.7\) & \(-29.1\) & \(7.5\) & \(6.1\) & \(-1.4\) \\ Seredzius & \(-27.3\) & \(-12.9\) & \(-10.8\) & \(14.4\) & \(16.5\) & \(2.1\) \\ Skirsnemune & \(-28.8\) & \(-27.3\) & \(-31.9\) & \(1.5\) & \(-3.1\) & \(-4.6\) \\ Smalininkai & \(8.2\) & \(19.3\) & \(25\) & \(11.1\) & \(16.8\) & \(5.7\) \\ Simkaiciai & \(-42.7\) & \(-38.2\) & \(-39.6\) & \(4.5\) & \(3.1\) & \(-1.4\) \\ Veliuona & \(-36\) & \(-28.7\) & \(-28.4\) & \(7.3\) & \(7.6\) & \(0.3\) \\ Viesvile & \(3.1\) & \(8.9\) & \(0.2\) & \(5.8\) & \(-2.9\) & \(-8.7\) \\ Jurbarkas Distr. & \(-27.9\) & \(-21.7\) & \(-22.7\) & \(6.2\) & \(5.2\) & \(-1.0\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: The forest cover change as a percentage of the area of the elderships. where only 3.8% of the territory's forest coverage remains from 51.1% in the period from the 19 th century to the 1 st half of the 20 th century. Forest areas of three municipalities (Viesvile, Smalininkai, Jurbarkas City, Lithuania) avoided destruction processes and there was even a slight increase--from 3.1% to 8.2%. Abandoned areas appeared in the City of Jurbarkas as a result of the impact of World War I. Thanks to the abandoned areas, the forest spread on its own.