Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-246sw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-12T15:09:21.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perception of livestock ecosystem services in grazing areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2018

G. Leroy ,
I. Hoffmann ,
T. From ,
S. J. Hiemstra  and
G. Gandini
G. Leroy*
Affiliation:
Animal Genetic Resources Branch, Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 00153, Rome, Italy
I. Hoffmann
Affiliation:
Animal Genetic Resources Branch, Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 00153, Rome, Italy
T. From
Affiliation:
Animal Genetic Resources Branch, Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 00153, Rome, Italy
S. J. Hiemstra
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN), Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
G. Gandini
Affiliation:
Department DIMEVET, University of Milan, Via Celoria 10, 20 133 Milan, Italy
*
†E-mail: Gregoire.Leroy@fao.org
Get access

Abstract

This study investigates how the ecosystem services (ES) linked to livestock grazing are perceived across countries. A total of 82 case studies collected from 42 countries via survey (53.7% cases from Europe and 46.3% from outside of Europe) have been analysed through a multivariate approach. In all, 18 non-provisioning ES were considered. Overall, the reported impacts of livestock grazing on the different ES were much more positive than negative. Notably, a large proportion of respondents reported either positive or very positive impacts for some cultural ES, namely cultural, historic and natural heritage (84%), knowledge systems and educational values (77%), landscape values (74%), and for some supporting and regulating ES, namely habitat provision (66%), nutrient cycling (65%), and bush encroachment/fire control (66%). Based on multiple regression analysis, geographic origin, stakeholder type and species category, as well as protection status of the grazing area, had significant effects on the perception of the impacts. Respondents reported those impacts as more positive in Europe, in protected areas and where several species were present in the grazing area. A significantly larger proportion of respondents reported recognition of ES provided by the grazing livestock population in European countries (40.9%) compared with non-European countries (23.7%). Based on the survey responses it appears that in non-European countries absence of formal recognition, especially by policy makers, is a major challenge for the continued provision of ES in grazing systems. In Europe, where such recognition is already often included in legislation, the long-term sustainability of related policies and incentives to provide such services is viewed as a major issue by the respondents.

Keywords

breedsustainabilitysurveymultivariate analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 12 , December 2018 , pp. 2627 - 2638
Copyright
© Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2018. 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bailey, DW, Kress, DD, Anderson, DC, Boss, DL and Miller, ET 2001. Relationship between terrain use and performance of beef cows grazing foothill rangeland. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1883–1891.Google Scholar
Becue-Bertaut, M and Pages, J 2008. Multiple factor analysis and clustering of a mixture of quantitative, categorical and frequency data. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 52, 3255–3268.Google Scholar
Bernués, A, Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Ripoll-Bosch, R and Alfnes, F 2014. Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PLos One 9, e102479.Google Scholar
Bernués, A, Ruiz, R, Olaizola, A, Villalba, D and Casasús, I 2011. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and trade-offs. Livestock Science 139, 44–57.Google Scholar
Bouwma, I, Schleyer, C, Primmer, E, Winkler, KJ, Berry, P, Young, J, Carmen, E, Spulerova, J, Bezak, E and Vadineanu, A 2017. Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosystem Services 29, 213–222.Google Scholar
Cardellino, R and Boyazoglu, J 2009. Research opportunities in the field of animal genetic resources. Livestock Science 120, 166–173.Google Scholar
Carnol, M, Baeten, L, Branquart, E, Grégoire, JC, Heughebaert, A, Muys, B, Ponette, Q and Verheyen, K 2014. Ecosystem services of mixed species forest stands and monocultures: comparing practitioners’ and scientists’ perceptions with formal scientific knowledge. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 87, 639–653.Google Scholar
Carvalho, PCF and Batello, C 2009. Access to land, livestock production and ecosystem conservation in the Brazilian Campos biome: the natural grasslands dilemma. Livestock Science 120, 158–162.Google Scholar
Celaya, R, Jáuregui, BM, Rosa García, R, Benavides, R, García, U and Osoro, K 2010. Changes in heathland vegetation under goat grazing: effects of breed and stocking rate. Applied Vegetation Science 13, 125–134.Google Scholar
Celaya, R, Martínez, A and Osoro, K 2007. Vegetation dynamics in Cantabrian heathlands associated with improved pasture areas under single or mixed grazing by sheep and goats. Small Ruminant Research 72, 165–177.Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Zhang, Q, Liu, W and Yu, Z 2017. Analyzing farmers’ perceptions of ecosystem services and PES schemes within agricultural landscapes in Mengyin county, China: transforming trade-offs into synergies. Sustainability 9, 1459.Google Scholar
D’Hour, PA, Hauwuy, A, Coulon, JB and Garel, JP 1994. Walking and dairy cattle performances. Annales de Zootechnie 43, 369–378.Google Scholar
D’Ottavio, P, Francioni, M, Trozzo, L, Sedić, E, Budimir, K, Avanzolini, P, Trombetta, MF, Porqueddu, C, Santilocchi, R and Toderi, M 2017. Trends and approaches in the analysis of ecosystem services provided by grazing systems: a review. Grass and Forage Science 73, 1–11.Google Scholar
Dumont, B, Rook, AJ, Coran, C and Röver, KU 2007. Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems. 2. Diet selection. Grass and Forage Science 62, 159–171.Google Scholar
FAO 2014. Ecosystem services provided by livestock species and breeds, with special consideration to the contributions of small-scale livestock keepers and pastoralist. Background Study Paper 66. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO 2015. The second report on the state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. In FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments (ed. BD Scherf and D Pilling), 562 p. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Fontana, V, Radtke, A, Walde, J, Tasser, E, Wilhalm, T, Zerbe, S and Tappeiner, U 2014. What plant traits tell us: Consequences of land-use change of a traditional agro-forest system on biodiversity and ecosystem service provision. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 186, 44–53.Google Scholar
Ford, H, Garbutt, A, Jones, DL and Jones, L 2012. Impacts of grazing abandonment on ecosystem service provision: coastal grassland as a model system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 162, 108–115.Google Scholar
Fraser, MD, Moorby, JM, Vale, JE and Evans, DM 2014. Mixed grazing systems benefit both upland biodiversity and livestock production. PLoS One 9, e89054.Google Scholar
Garrido, P, Elbakidze, M and Angelstam, P 2017a. Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 158, 96–104.Google Scholar
Garrido, P, Elbakidze, M, Angelstam, P, Plieninger, T, Pulido, F and Moreno, G 2017b. Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: a case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 60, 324–333.Google Scholar
Guimet, L, Giroud, H, Guet, C, Jardin, D, Peppin, M and Bornard, A 1969. Alimentation hivernale des vaches laitières en Montagne. Etude 44. CERAFER.INERM, Grenoble, France.Google Scholar
Haida, C, Rüdisser, J and Tappeiner, U 2016. Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts’ perceptions and research intensity. Regional Environmental Change 16, 1989–2004.Google Scholar
Harrison, PA, Vandewalle, M, Sykes, MT, Berry, PM, Bugter, R, de Bello, F, Feld, CK, Grandin, U, Harrigton, R, Haslett, JR, Jongman, RGH, Luck, GW, da Silva, PM, Moora, M, Settele, J, Sousa, JP and Zobel, M 2010. Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 2791–2821.Google Scholar
Hiernaux, P, Bielders, CL, Valentin, C, Bationo, A and Fernández-Rivera, S 1999. Effects of livestock grazing on physical and chemical properties of sandy soils in Sahelian rangelands. Journal of Arid Environments 41, 231–245.Google Scholar
IUCN 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Josse, J and Husson, F 2013. Handling missing values in exploratory multivariate data analysis methods. Journal de la Société Française de Statistique 153, 79–99.Google Scholar
Kompan, D, Klopčič, M and Martyniuk, E 2014. SUBSIBREED: overview and assessment of support measures for endangered livestock breeds: final project report. ERFP, Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Lamarque, P, Tappeiner, U, Turner, C, Steinbacher, M, Bardgett, RD, Szukics, U, Schermer, M and Lavorel, S 2011. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Regional Environmental Change 11, 791–804.Google Scholar
Lasanta, T, Gonzalez-Hidalgo, J, Vicente-Serrano, S and Sferia, E 2006. Using landscape ecology to evaluate an alternative management scenario in abandoned Mediterranean mountain areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 101–114.Google Scholar
Loucougaray, G, Bonis, A and Bouzille, JB 2004. Effects of grazing by horses and/or cattle on the diversity of coastal grasslands in western France. Biological Conservation 116, 59–71.Google Scholar
Marsoner, T, Vigl, LE, Manck, F, Jaritz, G, Tappeiner, U and Tasser, E 2017. Indigenous livestock breeds as indicators for cultural ecosystem services: a spatial analysis within the Alpine Space. Ecological Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.046.Google Scholar
Martín-López, B, Iniesta-Arandia, I, García-Llorente, M, Palomo, I, Casado-Arzuaga, I, Del AmoDG, … DG, … and González, JA 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7, e38970.Google Scholar
Metera, E, Sakowski, T, Słoniewski, K and Romanowicz, B 2010. Grazing as a tool to maintain biodiversity of grassland – a review. Animal Science Papers and Reports 28, 315–334.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nolte, S, Esselink, P, Smit, C and Bakker, JP 2014. Herbivore species and density affect vegetation-structure patchiness in salt marshes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 185, 41–47.Google Scholar
Oteros-Rozas, E, Martín-López, B, González, JA, Plieninger, T, López, CA and Montes, C 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Regional Environmental Change 14, 1269–1289.Google Scholar
Ovaska, U and Soini, K 2016. Native breeds as providers of ecosystem services: the stakeholders’ perspective.TRACE. Finnish Journal for Human-Animal Studies 2, 1.Google Scholar
Pastur, GM, Peri, PL, Lencinas, MV, García-Llorente, M and Martín-López, B 2016. Spatial patterns of cultural ecosystem services provision in Southern Patagonia. Landscape Ecology 31, 383–399.Google Scholar
Petz, K, Alkemade, R, Bakkenes, M, Schulp, CJ, van der Velde, M and Leemans, R 2014. Mapping and modelling trade-offs and synergies between grazing intensity and ecosystem services in rangelands using global-scale datasets and models. Global environmental change 29, 223–234.Google Scholar
Raymond, CM, Fazey, I, Reed, MS, Stringer, LC, Robinson, GM and Evely, AC 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 1766–1777.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Oteros-Rozas, E, Ripoll-Bosch, R, Tichit, M, Martín-López, B and Bernués, A 2014. Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal 8, 1361–1372.Google Scholar
Rook, AJ, Dumont, B, Isselstein, J, Osoro, K, WalliesDeVries, MF, Parente, G and Mills, J 2004. Matching type of livestock to desired biodiversity outcomes in pastures – a review. Biological Conservation 119, 137–150.Google Scholar
Rook, AJ, Petit, M, Isselstein, J, Osoro, K, Wallis DeVries, MF, Parente, G. and Mills, J 2004. Effects of livestock breed and stocking rate on sustainable grazing systems: 1. Project description and synthesis of results. Grassland Science in Europe 9, 572–574.Google Scholar
Sabatier, R, Durant, D, Hazard, L, Lauvie, A, Lécrivain, E, Magda, D, Martel, G, Roche, B, de Sainte Marie, C, Teillard, F and Tichit, M 2015. Towards biodiversity-based livestock systems: review of evidence and options for improvement. Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 10, 1–13.Google Scholar
Schieltz, JM and Rubenstein, DI 2016. Evidence based review: positive versus negative effects of livestock grazing on wildlife. What do we really know? Environmental Research Letters 11, 113003.Google Scholar
Schomers, S and Matzdorf, B 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 6, 16–30.Google Scholar
Swinton, SM, Lupi, F, Robertson, GP and Hamilton, SK 2007. Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64, 245–252.Google Scholar
Tóth, E, Deák, B, Valkó, O, Kelemen, A, Miglécz, T, Tóthmérész, B and Török, P 2016. Livestock type is more crucial than grazing intensity: traditional cattle and sheep grazing in short‐grass steppes. Land Degradation & Development 29, 231–239.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme 2012. The future we want: biodiversity and ecosystems – driving sustainable development. United Nations Development Programme Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020. UNDP, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Verrier, E and Bresson, LM 1995. La place des races bovines Abondance et Tarentaise dans une politique d’aménagement du territoire des Alpes du Nord. I – Conséquences de la régression de l’utilisation des zones d’altitude. Bulletin de l’Académie Vétérinaire de France 68, 173–180.Google Scholar
Wallis De Vries, MF, Parkinson, AE, Dulphy, JP, Sayer, M and Diana, E 2007. Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems. 4. Effects on animal diversity. Grass and Forage Science 62, 185–197.Google Scholar
Wilkes, A, Shicai, S and Yulu, H 2006. Improving service delivery in Yunnan, China. LEISA Magazine 22, 9–11.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Leroy et al. supplementary material

Leroy et al. supplementary material 1

Download Leroy et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 158.5 KB