Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:06:23.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Past intensification trajectories of livestock led to mixed social and environmental services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2019

J. P. Domingues Open the ORCID record for J. P. Domingues [Opens in a new window] ,
A. H. Gameiro ,
T. Bonaudo ,
B. Gabrielle  and
M. Tichit
J. P. Domingues*
Affiliation:
UMR SADAPT, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris 75005, France Departmento de Nutrição e Produção Animal, FMVZ, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga 13.635-900, Brazil
A. H. Gameiro
Affiliation:
Departmento de Nutrição e Produção Animal, FMVZ, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga 13.635-900, Brazil
T. Bonaudo
Affiliation:
UMR SADAPT, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris 75005, France
B. Gabrielle
Affiliation:
UMR ECOSYS, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Thiverval-Grignon 78850, France
M. Tichit
Affiliation:
UMR SADAPT, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris 75005, France
*
†E-mail: domi.joaopedro@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Recent studies highlighted the multiple positive and negative contributions of livestock to society. Livestock production, through its direct and indirect impacts on land use, is an important driver of services provision. Although a few studies provide an account on the multiple services in different livestock systems, there is still an important knowledge gap on the drivers that contribute to the differentiation of services provisioning across areas. We investigated the hypothesis that the current level of services has derived from past intensification trajectories of livestock. The objective of this study was to understand the influences of past changes in livestock, land-use and socio-economic variables on the current provision of social, environmental and cultural services by the livestock sector in France. We combined a long-term country-wide database on livestock intensification between 1938 and 2010 and a database on services provisioning in 2010. We used a set of multivariate methods to simultaneously analyse the changes in livestock intensification from 1938 to 2010 and the current level of services provisioning. Our analysis focused on a set of 60 French departments where livestock play a significant economic role in agricultural production. Our study revealed that the provision of services was spatially structured and based on three groups of departments, characterised by different rates of change in intensification variables. In the first group, ‘Intensive livestock areas’, the high level of employment in the livestock sector was mainly associated with high rates of change in monogastric stocking rates (+1045%) and milk productivity (+451%). In the second group, ‘Extensive livestock areas’, the high levels of environmental and cultural services were mainly associated with moderate rates of change in herbivores stocking rate (+95%) and the stability of grassland area (+13%). In the third group, ‘Transition areas’, the low provision of all services was associated with the decline in livestock due to crop expansion. This study provides knowledge to understand how past changes determined the current contribution of livestock areas in providing differentiated bundles of services, which might help steer the development of the current livestock sector towards more sustainable trajectories.

Keywords

livestock intensificationservice provisioninglong-term trajectoriesdrivers of changespatial differentiation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , March 2020 , pp. 598 - 608
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Andersen, E, Baldock, D, Bennet, H, Beaufoy, G, Bignal, E, Brouwer, F, Elbersen, B, Eiden, G, Godeschalk, F, Jones, G, Mccracken, D, Nieuwenhuizen, W, van Eupen, M, Hennekens, S and Zervas, G 2003. Developing a high nature value farming area indicator. Retrieved on 19 October 2017 from https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/3918Google Scholar
Azpiroz, AB, Isacch, JP, Dias, RA, Di Giacomo, AS, Fontana, CS and Palarea, CM 2012. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds in southeastern South America: a review. Journal of Field Ornithology 83, 217–246.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommarco, R, Kleijn, D and Potts, SG 2013. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28, 230–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caro, TM and O’Doherty, G 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13, 805–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerezo, A, Conde, MC and Poggio, SL 2011. Pasture area and landscape heterogeneity are key determinants of bird diversity in intensively managed farmland. Biodiversity and Conservation 20, 2649–2667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFries, RS, Foley, JA and Asner, GP 2004. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolédec, S and Chessel, D 1994. Coinertia analysis: an alternative method for studying species-environment relationships. Freshwater Biology 31, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domingues, JP, Ryschawy, J, Bonaudo, T, Gabrielle, B and Tichit, M 2018. Unravelling the physical, technological and economic factors driving the intensification trajectories of livestock systems. Animal 12, 1652–1661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dray, S, Chessel, D and Thioulouse, J 2003. Co-inertia analysis and the linking of ecological data tables. Ecology 84, 3078–3089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, Ryschawy, J, Duru, M, Benoit, M, Chatellier, V, Delaby, L, Donnars, C, Dupraz, P, Lemauviel-Lavenant, S, Méda, B, Vollet, D and Sabatier, R 2018. Review: associations among goods, impacts and ecosystem services provided by livestock farming. Animal 13, 1773–1784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EEA/UNEP, 2004. High nature value farmland. Characteristics, trends and policy challenges. Retrieved on 18 April 2018 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2004_1Google Scholar
Gambino, M 2015. Les mutations des systèmes productifs français: le modèle breton, à revisiter. France: les mutations des systèmes productifs. Retrieved on 31 October 2016 from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01151135/documentGoogle Scholar
Henle, K, Alard, D, Clitherow, J, Cobb, P, Firbank, L, Kull, T, Mccracken, D, Moritz, RFAA, Niemela, J, Rebane, M, Wascher, D, Watt, A, Young, J, Niemelä, J, Rebane, M, Wascher, D, Watt, A and Young, J 2008. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe: a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 124, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero, M, Thornton, PK, Gerber, P and Reid, RS 2009. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooda, PSS, Edwards, ACC, Anderson, HAA and Miller, A 2000. A review of water quality concerns in livestock farming areas. Science of the Total Environment 250, 143–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lang, A, Dupraz, P, Tregaro, Y, Rosner, PM and Perrot, C 2014. Les emplois directs et indirects liés à l’élevage français. Retrieved on 24 October 2017 from http://www.journees3r.fr/IMG/pdf/Texte__6_Economie_A-Lang-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Leroy, G, Hoffmann, I, From, T, Hiemstra, SJ and Gandini, G 2018. Perception of livestock ecosystem services in grazing areas. Animal 12, 2627–2638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Modernel, P, Rossing, WAH, Corbeels, M, Dogliotti, S, Picasso, V and Tittonell, P 2016. Land use change and ecosystem service provision in Pampas and Campos grasslands of southern South America. Environmental Research Letters 11, 113002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrier-Cornet, P, 1986. Le Massif Jurassien. Les paradoxes de la croissance en montagne; éleveurs et marchands solidaires dans un système de rente. Cahiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales INRA 2, 61–121.Google Scholar
Peyraud, JL, Taboada, M and Delaby, L 2014. Integrated crop and livestock systems in Western Europe and South America: a review. European Journal of Agronomy 57, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plieninger, T, Dijks, S, Oteros-Rozas, E and Bieling, C 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, AG 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365, 2959–2971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raudsepp-Hearne, C, Peterson, GD and Bennett, EM 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 5242–5247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved on 18 June 2015 from http://www.r-project.org/.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryschawy, J, Disenhaus, C, Bertrand, S, Allaire, G, Aznar, O, Plantureux, S, Josien, E, Guinot, C, Lasseur, J, Perrot, C, Tchakerian, E, Aubert, C and Tichit, M 2017. Assessing multiple goods and services derived from livestock farming on a nation-wide gradient. Animal 11, 1861–1872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teillard, F, Doyen, L, Dross, C, Jiguet, F and Tichit, M 2017. Optimal allocations of agricultural intensity reveal win-no loss solutions for food production and biodiversity. Regional Environmental Change 17, 1397–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teillard, F, Jiguet, F and Tichit, M 2015. The response of farmland bird communities to agricultural intensity as influenced by its spatial aggregation. PLoS ONE 10, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tichit, M, Kerne, E, Durant, D and Kernéïs, E 2005. The role of grazing in creating suitable sward structures for breeding waders in agricultural landscapes. Livestock Production Science 96, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werling, BP, Dickson, TL, Isaacs, R, Gaines, H, Gratton, C, Gross, KL, Liere, H, Malmstrom, CM, Meehan, TD, Ruan, L, Robertson, BA, Robertson, GP, Schmidt, TM, Schrotenboer, AC, Teal, TK, Wilson, JK and Landis, DA 2014. Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 1652–1657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Domingues et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Domingues et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.2 MB