Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:53:56.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade-offs between pasture production and farmland bird conservation: exploration of options using a dynamic farm model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2014

R. Sabatier ,
F. Teillard ,
W. A. H. Rossing ,
L. Doyen  and
M. Tichit
R. Sabatier*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1048 SAD APT, F-75005 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 1048 SAD APT, F-75005 Paris, France
F. Teillard
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1048 SAD APT, F-75005 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 1048 SAD APT, F-75005 Paris, France
W. A. H. Rossing
Affiliation:
Farming Systems Ecology group, Wageningen Centre for Agro-ecology and Systems Analysis, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
L. Doyen
Affiliation:
CNRS, Gretha, University of Bordeaux, Avenue Léon Duguit, 33608 Pessac Cedex, France
M. Tichit
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1048 SAD APT, F-75005 Paris, France AgroParisTech, UMR 1048 SAD APT, F-75005 Paris, France
*
†E-mail: rodolphe.sabatier@agroparistech.fr
Get access

Abstract

In European grassland landscapes, grazing and mowing play a key role for the maintenance of high-quality habitats that host important bird populations. As grasslands are also key resources for cattle feeding, there is a need to develop management strategies that achieve the double objective of production and biodiversity conservation. The objective of this study was to use a modelling approach to generate recognisable patterns of bird dynamics in farms composed of different land use proportions, and to compare their production and ecological dimensions. We developed a dynamic model, which linked grassland management to bird population dynamics at the field and farm levels. The model was parameterised for two types of suckling farms corresponding to contrasting levels of grassland intensification and for two bird species of high conservation value. A viability algorithm was used to define and assess viable management strategies for production and ecological performance so as to draw the shape of the relationship between both types of performances for the two types of farms. Our results indicated that, at the farm level, there was a farming system effect with a negative and non-linear relationship linking performance. Improving bird population maintenance was less costly in extensive farms compared with intensive farms. At the field level, the model predicted the timing and intensity of land use, maximising either production or ecological performance. The results suggested that multi-objective grassland management would benefit from public policies that consider levels of organisation higher than the field level, such as the farm or the landscape.

Keywords

dynamic modellingviability theorygrazingmowingfarmland birdagroecology
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Supplement 5 , May 2015 , pp. 899 - 907
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrieu, N, Josien, E and Duru, M 2007. Relationships between diversity of grassland vegetation, field characteristics and land use management practices assessed at the farm level. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 120, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubin, J 1991. Viability theory – new directions. Birkhäuser, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
Baumgärtner, S and Quaas, MF 2009. Ecological-economic viability as a criterion of strong sustainability under uncertainty. Ecological Economics 68, 2008–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beintema, AJ and Muskens, GJDM 1987. Nesting success of birds breeding in Dutch agricultural grasslands. The Journal of Applied Ecology 24, 743–758. doi:10.2307/2403978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, TG, Vickery, JA and Wilson, JD 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brotons, L, Wolff, A, Paulus, G and Martin, JL 2005. Effect of adjacent agricultural habitat on the distribution of passerines in natural grasslands. Biological Conservation 124, 407–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, PF, Green, RE and Heath, MF 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, PF, Pisano, G, Rayment, MD and Pain, DJ 2002. The common agricultural policy, EU enlargement and the conservation of Europe’s farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 89, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyen, L and De Lara, M 2010. Stochastic viability and dynamic programming. Systems & Control Letters 59, 629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durant, D, Tichit, M, Kernéïs, E and Fritz, H 2008. Management of agricultural wet grasslands for breeding waders: integrating ecological and livestock system perspectives – a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 17, 2275–2295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, RE, Cornell, SJ, Scharlemann, J and Balmford, A 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307, 550–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groot, JCJ, Jellema, A and Rossing, WAH 2010. Designing a hedgerow network in a multifunctional agricultural landscape: balancing trade-offs among ecological quality, landscape character and implementation costs. European Journal of Agronomy 32, 112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havet, A, Pons, Y and Kerneis, E 2005. Evaluer les contraintes spatiales à l’utilisation des prairies et les marges de manœuvre des exploitations face à des demandes environnementales. Un Exemple d’OLAE En Vendee. Cahiers de la Multifonctionalité 5, 43–55.Google Scholar
Joseph, LN, Maloney, RF and Possingham, HP 2009. Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23, 328–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleijn, D and Sutherland, W 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 947–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleijn, D, Rundlöf, M, Scheper, J, Smith, HG and Tscharntke, T 2011. Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26, 474–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruk, M, Noordervliet, MAW and Ter Keurs, WJ 1996. Hatching dates of waders and mowing dates in intensively exploited grassland areas in different years. Biological Conservation 77, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labisky, RF 1957. Relation of hay harvesting to duck nesting under a refuge-permittee system. The Journal of Wildlife Management 21, 194–200. doi:10.2307/3797585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marini, L, Fontana, P, Battisti, A and Gaston, KJ 2009. Response of orthopteran diversity to abandonment of semi-natural meadows. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 132, 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, G, Hossard, L, Theau, JP, Therond, O, Josien, E, Cruz, P, Rellier, JP, Martin-Clouaire, R and Duru, M 2009. Characterizing potential flexibility in grassland use. Application to the French Aubrac Area. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, BJ, Helden, A, Anderson, A, Sheridan, H, Kinsella, A and Purvis, G 2010. Interactions between livestock systems and biodiversity in South-East Ireland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 139, 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottvall, R and Smith, HG 2006. Effects of an agri-environment scheme on wader populations of coastal meadows of southern Sweden. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 113, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantureux, S, Peeters, A and McCracken, D 2005. Biodiversity in intensive grasslands: effect of management, improvement and challenges. Agronomy Research 3, 153–164.Google Scholar
Sabatier, R, Doyen, L and Tichit, M 2010. Modelling trade-offs between livestock grazing and wader conservation in a grassland agroecosystem. Ecological Modelling 221, 1292–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, R, Doyen, L and Tichit, M 2014. Heterogeneity and the trade-off between ecological and productive functions of agro-landscapes: a model of cattle–bird interactions in a grassland agroecosystem. Agricultural Systems 126, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schekkerman, H, Teunissen, W and Oosterveld, E 2008. The effect of ‘mosaic management’ on the demography of black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa on farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1067–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scilab Consortium 2007. Scilab 4.2, http://www.scilab.org/ Google Scholar
Teillard, F, Allaire, G, Cahuzac, E, Léger, F, Maigné, E and Tichit, M 2012. A novel method for mapping agricultural intensity reveals its spatial aggregation: implications for conservation policies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 149, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichit, M, Hubert, B, Doyen, L and Genin, D 2004. A viability model to assess the sustainability of mixed herds under climatic uncertainty. Animal Research 53, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichit, M, Doyen, L, Lemel, JY, Renault, O and Durant, D 2007. A co-viability model of grazing and bird community management in farmland. Ecological Modelling 206, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandermeer, J and Perfecto, I 2005. The future of farming and conservation. Science 308, 1257–1258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Sabatier Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material S1

Download Sabatier Supplementary Material(File)
File 43.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Sabatier Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material S2

Download Sabatier Supplementary Material(File)
File 38.2 KB