Skip to main content Accessibility help

A methodological approach to identify cheap and accurate indicators for biodiversity assessment: application to grazing management and two grassland bird species

  • M. Tichit (a1) (a2), A. Barbottin (a1) (a2) and D. Makowski (a3) (a4)


In response to environmental threats, numerous indicators have been developed to assess the impact of livestock farming systems on the environment. Some of them, notably those based on management practices have been reported to have low accuracy. This paper reports the results of a study aimed at assessing whether accuracy can be increased at a reasonable cost by mixing individual indicators into models. We focused on proxy indicators representing an alternative to the direct impact measurement on two grassland bird species, the lapwing Vanellus vanellus and the redshank Tringa totanus. Models were developed using stepwise selection procedures or Bayesian model averaging (BMA). Sensitivity, specificity, and probability of correctly ranking fields (area under the curve, AUC) were estimated for each individual indicator or model from observational data measured on 252 grazed plots during 2 years. The cost of implementation of each model was computed as a function of the number and types of input variables. Among all management indicators, 50% had an AUC lower than or equal to 0.50 and thus were not better than a random decision. Independently of the statistical procedure, models combining management indicators were always more accurate than individual indicators for lapwings only. In redshanks, models based either on BMA or some selection procedures were non-informative. Higher accuracy could be reached, for both species, with model mixing management and habitat indicators. However, this increase in accuracy was also associated with an increase in model cost. Models derived by BMA were more expensive and slightly less accurate than those derived with selection procedures. Analysing trade-offs between accuracy and cost of indicators opens promising application perspectives as time consuming and expensive indicators are likely to be of low practical utility.


Corresponding author


Hide All
Akaike, H 1974. A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716722.
Barbottin, A, Makowski, D, Le Bail, M, Jeuffroy, MH, Bouchard, C, Barrier, C 2008. Comparison of models and indicators for categorizing soft wheat fields according to their grain protein contents. European Journal of Agronomy 29, 175183.
Bockstaller, C, Guichard, L, Makowski, D, Aveline, A, Girardin, P, Plantureux, S 2008. Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28, 139149.
Donald, PF, Green, RE, Heath, MF 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 268, 2529.
Donald, PF, Sanderson, FJ, Burfield, IJ, van Bommel, FPJ 2006. Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 116, 189196.
Dumont, B, Meuret, M, Boissy, A, Petit, M 2001. Le pâturage vu par l’animal: mécanismes comportementaux et applications en élevage. Fourrages 166, 213238.
Durant, D, Tichit, M, Fritz, H, Kernéïs, E 2008a. Field occupancy by breeding lapwings Vanellus vanellus and redshanks Tringa totanus in agricultural wet grasslands. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 128, 146150.
Durant, D, Tichit, M, Kerneis, E, Fritz, H 2008b. Management of agricultural grasslands for breeding waders: integrating ecological and livestock system perspectives – a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 17, 22752295.
Flint, VE 1998. Waders as indicators of biological diversity. International Wader Studies 10, 23.
Grafen, A, Hails, R 2004. Modern statistics for the life sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Halberg, N, van der Werf, HMG, Basset-Mens, C, Dalgaard, R, de Boer, IJM 2005. Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livestock Production Science 96, 3350.
Henkens, P, Van Keulen, H 2001. Mineral policy in the Netherlands and nitrate policy within the European Community. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 49, 117134.
Hughes, G, McRoberts, N, Burnett, FJ 1999. Decision-making and diagnosis in disease management. Plant Pathology 48, 147153.
Langeveld, JWA, Verhagen, A, Neeteson, JJ, Van Keulen, H, Conijn, JG, Schils, RLM, Oenema, J 2007. Evaluating farm performance using agri-environmental indicators: recent experiences for nitrogen management in the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management 82, 363376.
Makowski, D, Taverne, M, Bolomier, J, Ducarne, M 2005. Comparison of risk indicators for sclerotinia control in oilseed rape. Crop Protection 24, 527531.
Makowski, D, Tichit, M, Guichard, L, Van Keulen, H, Beaudoin, N 2009. Measuring the accuracy of agro-environmental indicators. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (Suppl. 2), S139S146.
Manel, S, Williams, HC, Ormerod, SJ 2001. Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 921931.
McPherson, JM, Jetz, W, Rogers, D 2004. The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 811823.
Milsom, TP, Langton, SD, Parkin, WK, Peel, S, Bishop, JD, Hart, JD, Moore, NP 2000. Habitat models of bird species’ distribution: an aid to the management of coastal grazing marshes. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 706727.
Murtaugh, PA 1996. The statistical evaluation of ecological indicators. Ecological Applications 6, 132139.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2003. OECD environmental indicators – development, measurement and use – Reference paper. OECD Environment Directorate, Environmental Performance and Information Division, Paris, France.
Primot, S, Valantin-Morison, M, Makowski, D 2006. Predicting the risk of weed infestation in winter oilseed rape crops. Weed Research (Oxford) 46, 2233.
Prost, L, Makowski, D, Jeuffroy, MH 2008. Comparison of stepwise selection and Bayesian model averaging for yield gap analysis. Ecological Modelling 219, 6676.
Raftery, AE, Zheng, Y 2003. Discussion: Performance of Bayesian Model Averaging. Journal of the American Statistical Association 98, 931937.
Schwarz, G 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6, 461464.
Sing, T, Sander, O, Beerenwinkel, N, Lengauer, T 2005. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 21, 39403941.
Swets, JA 1988. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240, 12851293.
Thomassen, MA, de Boer, IJM 2005. Evaluation of indicators to assess the environmental impact of dairy production systems. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 111, 185199.
Tichit, M, Renault, O, Potter, T 2005. Grazing regime as a tool to assess positive side effects of livestock farming systems on wading birds. Livestock Production Science 96, 109117.
Van der Werf, HMG, Petit, J 2002. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 93, 131145.
Viallefont, V, Raftery, AE, Richardson, S 2001. Variable selection and Bayesian model averaging in case-control studies. Statistics in Medicine 20, 32153230.
Wallach, D 2006. Evaluating crop models. In Working with dynamic crop models (ed. D Wallach, D Makowski and JW Jones), pp. 1153. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Whittingham, MJ, Stephens, PA, Bradburry, RB, Freckleton, RP 2006. Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 11821189.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

A methodological approach to identify cheap and accurate indicators for biodiversity assessment: application to grazing management and two grassland bird species

  • M. Tichit (a1) (a2), A. Barbottin (a1) (a2) and D. Makowski (a3) (a4)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.