Bertrand Dumont

Few frameworks are currently available to assess the flows of ecosystem services (ESs) and disservices (EDSs) from and into livestock farming systems (LFSs). We estimated these flows using the Barn , a graphical tool designed to represent the integration of LFS into their surrounding landscapes. This tool uses bi-directional arrows to depict flows of multiple types of ES and EDS. Based on five contrasting lamb meat systems, we estimated that the flows of ES that support lamb meat production, such as the provision of forage and nitrogen fixation, were often associated with EDS, such as wolf predation or rodent outbreaks. These EDSs were particularly detrimental for the LFS that depended more on ES than on external inputs. We also observed that few operational indicators exist for quantifying EDS. The results show that deriving benefits from ecosystems implies interacting closely with the environment, which can generate disadvantages. This result also reveals a trade-off between ES and EDS, which has received little attention so far. This highlights the need to better assess and mitigate EDS, to prevent them from hindering the transition toward more sustainable practices that aim to reduce external inputs.

It is crucial that biodiversity conservation initiatives in agriculture take into account how farmers understand and value their relationships with nature. However, while highly relevant for pan‐European conservation work, insight into differences and commonalities in farmers' views across socio‐ecologically different European regions is still lacking. Therefore, we studied how farmers describe the relationship between how they farm and biodiversity in two contrasting regions: the Netherlands and the French Massif Central. In both regions, we included two specific study areas. We focused on dairy farming, as it is a key sector in terms of socio‐economic importance and biodiversity impact in both regions. In each area, we conducted 15 in‐depth interviews focusing on the impacts of the farm on biodiversity and vice versa, as well as on the relational importance of biodiversity to the farmer. We allowed farmers to use the term ‘biodiversity’ in their own words. We analysed our data using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I‐NFF), a recently proposed framework for analysing what people value positively and negatively about nature‐related matters. Six main narratives emerged, which we named ‘farming WITH biodiversity’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—valorising what is there’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—innovating for sustainability’, ‘farming FOR biodiversity’, ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of necessity’ and ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of conviction’. These narratives vary in how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity, and define problems and solutions. Although we encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, we also noted considerable differences. In the Dutch areas, we frequently encountered ‘FOR’, which strongly depicts biodiversity as an additional service that requires payment, and ‘SEPARATE—out of conviction’, which argues for production‐intensive systems. In the Massif Central areas, we virtually never encountered these narratives and instead more often encountered ‘WITH’, which depicts farming as naturally integrated with biodiversity. Moreover, the narratives had strong region‐specific details. We close by discussing how better insight into such differences and commonalities can help foster more understanding engagement with farmers on the topic of biodiversity. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Climate change will increase average temperatures and the frequency and intensity of summertime droughts; those shifts will in turn affect forage production in grassland-based livestock farms. Farmers will accordingly likely have to implement adaptation strategies to cope with the effects of climate change. We hypothesized that farmers' resilience strategies would depend on (i) their intention to adapt to climate change, which partly results from previous climate risk exposure, (ii) how they perceive the values and disvalues of multi-species permanent grasslands (PGs), and (iii) that both of the aforementioned factors would vary according to the geographical context of each farm. We carried out 15 semi-structured interviews with dairy cattle farmers in the French Massif Central; the farms were distributed along a range of climatic and topographic conditions. We used (i) the Model of Proactive Private Adaptation to Climate Change to analyze farmers' individual process of adaptation, (ii) the Integrated Nature Futures Framework to analyze farmers' perception of multi-species PGs, and (iii) text analysis to identify the farmers' adaptation strategies. Nine of the farmers felt that they were already adapted to climate change or that they had a plan in place to implement new adaptations in the future. We observed straightforward relationships between these farmers' perception of PGs and their choice of adaptation strategy; those relationships varied, however, with the geographical context of each farm. Farmers in the northern Massif Central and southern uplands highlighted the values of PGs and considered PGs to be central to their adaption strategies. Conversely, farmers in the southern lowlands mostly referred to the disvalues of PGs; they based their adaptation strategies on temporary grasslands and forage crops. Three of the farmers believed that climate change posed a significant risk, but they foresaw little room to maneuver. Despite acknowledging the values of PGs, those individuals did not intend to use PGs to adapt to climate change. The final three farmers did not intend to adapt to climate change; their reasoning stemmed from either a mindset of fatalism or their acknowledged desire to retire soon. Extreme events such as the summertime drought of 2003 and human factors such as intergenerational transmission of farm can accordingly facilitate or inhibit climate change-related adaptation. It is accordingly important to take into account both socio-psychological and environmental factors when analyzing how grassland-based farmers transition to more climate change-resilient systems.

Taking into account the perspectives of local stakeholders is essential for just and effective biodiversity conservation. Plural valuation, making visible the diverse values people hold in relation to nature, has emerged as a key approach towards better inclusion of stakeholders' perspectives. So far, plural valuation has mainly focused on positive values, leaving equally important negative values underexposed. To address this, a concrete proposal has been presented to also consider ‘disvalues’. However, accessible frameworks to help practitioners apply this concept are arguably still lacking. To address this gap, we here propose the ‘Integrated Nature Futures Framework’ (I‐NFF), where ‘integrated’ indicates joint consideration of positive and negative values. The I‐NFF draws on the popular Nature Futures Framework (NFF) to develop disvalue thinking in a more accessible form. The I‐NFF considers three perspectives (‘nature’, ‘society’ and ‘culture’), based on which something can be placed on a spectrum from positive (‘for nature’, ‘for society’ and ‘as culture’) to negative (‘against nature’, ‘against society’ and ‘in conflict with culture’), and can be represented as two mirrored triangles. Using empirical data, we illustrate various purposes for which the I‐NFF can be used: to inventory nature‐related topics ‘at play’ in a given context, to depict how people frame their overall relationship with nature or to depict how people frame specific issues. This demonstrates how the I‐NFF helps reveal value pluralism and trade‐offs, capture the reciprocity of human–nature relationships and identify where perspectives differ and share common ground. We close by discussing how the I‐NFF can enhance the inclusion of stakeholder voices in biodiversity conservation, which is indispensable for a more nature‐ and people‐positive future. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Temperate seminatural grasslands harbour unique biodiversity, support livestock farming through forage production, and deliver many essential ecosystem services (ESs) to human society; they are highly multifunctional. However, temperate grassland ecosystems are also among the most threatened ecosystems on earth due to land use and climate changes. Understanding how biodiversity, climate and land use intensification impact grassland multifunctionality through complex direct and indirect pathways is critical to better anticipate the future of these fragile ecosystems. Here, we evaluate how local plant species richness (SR) modulates the effect of land use intensification and climate on grassland multifunctionality (using six key ESs: biomass productivity and stability, forage quality, carbon storage, pollination and local plant rarity) in the French Massif Central, the largest grassland in Western Europe. We sampled 100 grasslands with contrasted fertilization rates and SR, over large elevational and latitudinal gradients related to variation in mean annual temperature (MAT), and drought severity (DS), two key climate change drivers predicted to increase in the future. Using a confirmatory path analysis, we found that SR was the main driver of multifunctionality. We also found significant SR × MAT and SR × fertilization interactions suggesting that warm climate and high fertilization rates alter the biodiversity–ecosystem multifunctionality relationships. Furthermore, increasing temperature and fertilization indirectly influenced multifunctionality by decreasing SR and consequent multifunctionality in warm lowland and highly fertilized grasslands compared to colder montane grasslands or less fertilized ones. DS only impacted some ES individually (e.g. forage quality). Synthesis and applications: We identified species richness (SR) as a pivotal factor mediating the effects of land use intensification and climate on multifunctionality through both direct and indirect pathways. Failing to account for changes in SR could thus bias any prediction of, or aggravate, the effects of land use intensification and climate change on ecosystem services delivery in temperate grassland ecosystems. Considering that SR, mean annual temperature and fertilization are major proxies of three main global change drivers (biodiversity loss, climate change and land use intensification) our study may help to better anticipate the effect of multiple interacting global change drivers on grassland ecosystems.

L’agroécologie stipule que la gestion de la diversité animale et végétale au sein des exploitations d’élevage renforce leur durabilité. Pour aller au-delà de ce principe théorique, nous analysons ici le fonctionnement et les performances d’exploitations de polyélevage, c’est-à-dire de fermes dans lesquelles sont élevées au moins deux espèces animales. Dans les systèmes herbagers, la complémentarité des modes de pâturage des ovins, des bovins et des chevaux permet de réduire le recours aux aliments concentrés, en particulier pour les ovins. La dilution des parasites digestifs en pâturage mixte profite aux petits ruminants et aux chevaux, et permet d’envisager de réduire la fréquence des traitements anthelminthiques. Un atelier monogastrique de petite taille permet de valoriser les co-produits (petit lait...) ; la transformation laitière, créatrice de valeur ajoutée, et les faibles volumes de viande commercialisés sont bien adaptés à la vente en circuits courts. L’organisation du travail entre toujours en ligne de compte dans la manière d’articuler différentes espèces au sein d’une même exploitation. Plutôt que de vouloir maximiser coûte que coûte la diversité au sein du système, il s’agit avant tout de rechercher une cohérence d’ensemble que les éleveurs puissent gérer. Nous discutons enfin des freins au déploiement des fermes de polyélevage, liés à un système socioéconomique construit pour bénéficier des économies d’échelle offertes par la spécialisation. Pour dépasser ces freins, nous proposons des leviers en amont (innover pour des équipements et infrastructures polyvalentes), à l’aval (réorganiser la logique de collecte), et autour des exploitations d’élevage (revisiter la formation et le conseil) qui doivent être pensés de manière couplée.

Diversification of grassland‐based systems is highly valued in agroecology, organic farming and other forms of regenerative agriculture. For lowlands, mountain and Mediterranean areas, we illustrate that diversification of grassland types, livestock species, products and farm labour allows coping with market, climatic and workforce‐related risks. However, diversification is not a one‐size‐fits‐all strategy and the type of diversification strategy should be adapted according to socio‐economic, structural, technical and pedoclimatic conditions of each farm. Farmers' technical skills and ability to re‐organise and monitor the system must be considered to avoid ineffectiveness of the diversified system. Moreover, it is essential to account for site‐specific conditions so that the ecological processes to be optimised can provide the expected benefits. Diversification occurs on different levels, from grassland management to the entire farm activity. There may be trade‐offs among these different levels impairing grassland ecosystem services. For instance, if diversification of farm activities dilutes the workforce, simplified grassland management can lead to the loss of vegetation communities of high ecological value. In contrast, case‐adapted diversification benefits from local opportunities, available resources and external supports to secure the system and favour sustainable resource management. Diversification thereby preserves grassland ecosystem services and enhances farm socio‐economic resilience to withstand perturbations.

We propose a set of indicators to evaluate how grazing by livestock and grassland management can help preserve biodiversity in the insect communities of grassland ecosystems. These indicators can be calculated for any grassland for which management and botanical composition are known, and they do not require advanced knowledge on conservation biology and entomology. Based on the scientific literature and expert interviews, each indicator combines pressure (i.e., 16 management classes) and state variables (i.e., sward botanical composition and several of the plant functional characteristics) to assess the effects on butterfly, bumblebee, and grasshopper abundance and species richness. Each indicator was based on a multicriteria decision tree with fuzzy partitioning to account for uncertainty in the threshold values between different alternatives. The output validation of indicators was performed by comparing decision tree output with standardized measurements from 10 surveys across France, Germany, Switzerland, Wales, and Italy. The prediction of grassland suitability for butterflies was more accurate for butterfly species richness (P < 0.05) than for butterfly abundance (P = 0.10), as even under standardized transect counts, recorders will observe disproportionately more individuals when it is sunny and warm. The sensitivity of the butterfly species richness indicator was then tested using an independent dataset of 395 French grasslands. There were significant differences in predicted species richness (χ²₁₅ = 121.16; P < 0.05) among the 16 management classes, and they were ranked consistently in spite of very parsimonious assumptions in the decision tree. The prediction of grassland suitability was good for bumblebee abundance (P < 0.05) and species richness (P < 0.01). This prediction was also successful for grasshopper abundance (P < 0.05) and species richness (P = 0.05), all outliers coming from a highly diverse grassland community located on shallow soil in the Italian survey. This set of indicators can thus provide a cost-effective evaluation of temperate grassland suitability as habitat for three insect taxa. These indicators have more relevance than general insect species richness, and their application does not require any entomological skill. The indicators can help stakeholders to make adequate decisions for insect conservation in grassland ecosystems, but do not have direct applicability to higher conservation value taxa or species.