The response of farmland bird communities to agricultural intensity as influenced by its spatial aggregation.

The shape of the relationship between biodiversity and agricultural intensity determines the range of intensities that should be targeted by conservation policies to obtain the greatest environmental benefits. Although preliminary evidence of this relationship exists, the influence of the spatial arrangement of intensity on biodiversity remains untested. We conducted a nationwide study linking agricultural intensity and its spatial arrangement to a farmland bird community of 22 species. Intensity was described with a continuous indicator based on Input Cost per hectare, which was relevant for both livestock and crop production. We used the French Breeding Bird Survey to compute several descriptors of the farmland bird community along the intensity gradient and tested for the significance of an interaction effect between intensity and its spatial aggregation on these descriptors. We found that the bird community was comprised of both winner and loser species with regard to intensity. The community composition descriptors (trophic level, specialisation, and specialisation for grassland indices) displayed non-linear relationships to intensity, with steeper slopes in the lower intensity range. We found a significant interaction effect between intensity and its spatial aggregation on the grassland specialisation index of the bird community; the effect of agricultural intensity was strengthened by its spatial aggregation. We suggest that an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of conservation policies exists by targeting measures in areas where intensity is moderate to low and aggregated. The effect of the aggregation of agricultural intensity on biodiversity should be considered in other scales and taxa when developing optimal policy targeting and intensity allocation strategies.

Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture.

Two scientific communities with broad interest in sustainable agriculture independently focus on multifunctional agriculture or ecosystem services. These communities have limited interaction and exchange, and each group faces research challenges according to independently operating paradigms. This paper presents a comparative review of published research in multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services. The motivation for this work is to improve communication, integrate experimental approaches, and propose areas of consensus and dialog for the two communities. This extensive analysis of publication trends, ideologies, and approaches enables formulation of four main conclusions. First, the two communities are closely related through their use of the term "function." However, multifunctional agriculture considers functions as agricultural activity outputs and prefers farm-centred approaches, whereas ecosystem services considers ecosystem functions in the provision of services and prefers service-centred approaches. Second, research approaches to common questions in these two communities share some similarities, and there would be great value in integrating these approaches. Third, the two communities have potential for dialog regarding the bundle of ecosystem services and the spectrum of multifunctional agriculture, or regarding land sharing and land sparing. Fourth, we propose an integrated conceptual framework that distinguishes six groups of ecosystem services and disservices in the agricultural landscape, and combines the concepts of multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services. This integrated framework improves applications of multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services for operational use. Future research should examine if the framework can be readily adapted for modelling specific problems in agricultural management.

Action versus result-oriented schemes in a grassland agroecosystem: a dynamic modelling approach.

Effects of agri-environment schemes (AES) on biodiversity remain controversial. While most AES are action-oriented, result-oriented and habitat-oriented schemes have recently been proposed as a solution to improve AES efficiency. The objective of this study was to compare action-oriented, habitat-oriented and result-oriented schemes in terms of ecological and productive performance as well as in terms of management flexibility. We developed a dynamic modelling approach based on the viable control framework to carry out a long term assessment of the three schemes in a grassland agroecosystem. The model explicitly links grazed grassland dynamics to bird population dynamics. It is applied to lapwing conservation in wet grasslands in France. We ran the model to assess the three AES scenarios. The model revealed the grazing strategies respecting ecological and productive constraints specific to each scheme. Grazing strategies were assessed by both their ecological and productive performance. The viable control approach made it possible to obtain the whole set of viable grazing strategies and therefore to quantify the management flexibility of the grassland agroecosystem. Our results showed that habitat and result-oriented scenarios led to much higher ecological performance than the action-oriented one. Differences in both ecological and productive performance between the habitat and result-oriented scenarios were limited. Flexibility of the grassland agroecosystem in the result-oriented scenario was much higher than in that of habitat-oriented scenario. Our model confirms the higher flexibility as well as the better ecological and productive performance of result-oriented schemes. A larger use of result-oriented schemes in conservation may also allow farmers to adapt their management to local conditions and to climatic variations.

Measuring the accuracy of agro-environmental indicators.

Numerous agro-environmental indicators have been developed by agronomists and ecologists during the last 20 years to assess the environmental impact of farmers' practices, and to monitor effects of agro-environmental policies. The objectives of this paper were (i) to measure the accuracy of a wide range of agro-environmental indicators from experimental data and (ii) to discuss the value of different information typically used by these indicators, i.e. information on farmers' practices, and on plant and soil characteristics. Four series of indicators were considered in this paper: indicators of habitat quality for grassland bird species, indicators of risk of disease in oilseed rape crops, indicators of risk of pollution by nitrogen fertilizer, and indicators of weed infestation. Several datasets were used to measure their accuracy in cultivated plots and in grasslands. The sensitivity, specificity, and probability of correctly ranking plots were estimated for each indicator. Our results showed that the indicators had widely varying levels of accuracy. Some show very poor performance and had no discriminatory ability. Other indicators were informative and performed better than random decisions. Among the tested indicators, the best ones were those using information on plant characteristics such as grass height, fraction of diseased flowers, or crop yield. The statistical method applied in this paper could support researchers, farm advisers, and decision makers in comparing various indicators.

On the contribution of modelling to multifunctional agriculture: learning from comparisons.

In this paper a set of criteria is proposed for the evaluation of the potential contribution of modelling tools to strengthening the multifunctionality of agriculture. The four main areas of evaluation are (1) policy relevance, (2) the temporal resolution and scope, (3) the degree to which spatial and socio-institutional scales and heterogeneity are addressed and (4) the level of integration in the assessment of scientific dimensions and of the multiple functions of agriculture. The evaluative criteria are applied to the portfolio of modelling approaches developed and applied in a joint project of the French research institute INRA and the Dutch Wageningen University & Research Centre. The CLUE-S model focuses on prediction of changes in multifunctional land-use at regional scale, given a set of predetermined scenarios or policy variants, e.g. for ex-ante policy assessment and initiation of discussions on regional development. The two other modelling approaches are complementary and aim to address multifunctional farming activities. The Landscape IMAGES framework generates a range of static images of possible but sometimes distant futures for multifunctional farming activities in a small region or landscape. It supports the exploration of trade-offs between financial returns from agriculture, landscape quality, nature conservation and restoration, and environmental quality. Co-Viability Analysis generates trajectories of states and farming decisions fulfilling a given set of ecological and productive constraints representing a desired and sustainable future. The three modelling approaches differ in their policy relevance, in the ways that spatial and socio-institutional scales are addressed and in their degree of explicitation of interaction between the various functions of agriculture, but jointly cover most of the desired capabilities for assessment of multifunctionality. Caveats were particularly identified in the integration of the socio-institutional dimension and the related heterogeneity. Although the model portfolio did not completely satisfy the demands of the set of evaluative criteria, it is concluded that, due to their complementarities, in combination the three models could significantly contribute to further development and strengthening of multifunctionality.