Experiences from a winter school on landscape agronomy: Stakes, difficulties, perspectives

International audienceIn the latest fifteen years, agronomic research has shown a growing interest for studies which link farm or field scale to landscape scale. Thus, agronomy is called to renew its research questions and methodologies, and as well its educational programmes. In this context, some French and Italian researchers interested in these topics, coming from different scientific fields but sharing interests on landscape scale issues in research and higher education, decided to join their efforts around a common one-week educational programme on Landscape Agronomy for undergraduate and PhD students. Their aim has been to develop a new form of knowledge transfer and application on Landscape Agronomy approaches to students of SSSA-Pisa (IT) and of the PhD School of ABIES-AgroParisTech-Paris (FR). The educational programme consisted of three phases : 1) some theoretical contributions supported by presentations on : issues regarding agriculture and farming practices at landscape level, main approaches on environmental functions of agriculture, changes in farmers practices driven by environmental questions,spatial organization of agricultural activities, role of farming in ecological dynamics, identification of complementarities among agro-environmental functions, environmental impacts of cropping systems,biodiversity influence on agro-ecosystem functions and vice-versa ; 2) two case-studies: a macro level one(at landscape scale) to analyse the role of agriculture on landscape dynamics, and a micro level one (at farm scale) to analyse farming practices and their environmental impacts ; 3) a final evaluation of the educational programme based on : contents of oral presentations on fieldwork results, global evaluation of the educational programme contents by all the participants, each individual ex-post analysis of fieldwork results. The evaluation of the students and teachers underlines benefits, requests and perspectives for education in landscape agronomy. Furthermore, this experience stimulated a collective conceptual and methodological debate that confirmed the necessity to favour and organise experience exchanges on researching and learning in landscape agronomy

Landscape agroecology: from patterns to resilience

Resilience, as the capacity to deal with change and continue to develop, relates to ecological dynamics and governance questions associated to specific resource systems (agroecosystems, fisheries, forests, rangelands, marine and freshwater ecosystems), and to global issues such as biodiversity conservation, urban growth, economic development, human security and well- being. Human societies are an integral part of the biosphere and sustainable social development depends on the continuous generation of essential ecosystem services. Thus ecosystems change is often considered as one factor decreasing social and ecological resilience. over the past century we have entered a new era where human activities have emerged as a main force shaping the biosphere from local to global scales, as reflected by climate change, vulnerability in the economic system, large losses of biodiversity, and irreversible changes in ecosystems

Gestion de la biodiversité en milieu céréalier intensif : importance des prairies aux échelles locales et régionales

Des solutions efficaces pour intégrer le développement agricole et la conservation de la biodiversité à l'échelle du paysage restent à identifier. Nous présentons une étude de cas dans une plaine céréalière française exploitée de façon intensive, où la réintroduction des prairies a été proposé d'abord pour des fins de conservation afin de protéger l'outarde canepetière, une espèce d'oiseau très menacée. Les prairies ont été mises en place grâce à l’outil « Mesures Agri-environnementales (MAE) », à titre expérimental. L’efficacité des MAE sur les outardes a été totale. Leur mise en oeuvre a révélé d'autres effets bénéfiques sur pratiquement toutes les composantes du réseau trophique dans ces agroécosystèmes, en particulier au niveau du paysage. En effet, dans les systèmes céréaliers intensifs, les habitats pérennes telles que les prairies sont radicalement différentes de cultures annuelles en termes de niveau et de fréquence des perturbations (labour, semis, pulvérisation, etc.). Nos résultats montrent que les prairies, en particulier la luzerne, sont le support de nombreux services écosystémiques. Cependant, actuellement, les prairies sont peu utilisées par les agriculteurs qui privilégient les cultures de céréales pour des raisons économiques (y compris les subventions de la PAC). Nous soulevons la question de savoir si la répartition des cultures à l'échelle du paysage (par exemple l’introduction de prairies) peut être modifiée sans financement public, afin d'en augmenter la proportion. En d'autres termes, comment surmonter la réticence des producteurs de céréales pour produire des cultures fourragères

Landscape Agroecology and ecosystem services

Landscape Agroecology and ecosystem service

Aider à la gestion des services de régulation naturelle des bioagresseurs : enjeux de connaissances et de prise en compte des agriculteurs : une approche bibliographique

Comment construire des connaissances pour aider les agriculteurs à mieux mobiliser les services de régulation naturelle des bioagresseurs? Nous avons réalisé une revue de la littérature scientifique pour examiner si et comment les connaissances produites pouvaient aider à la réalisation d'un diagnostic de ces services. Nous avons considéré pour cela que ces connaissances devaient porter sur les relations entre i) la problématique de la régulation naturelle des bioagresseurs, ii) les facteurs affectant cette problématique (e.g., pratiques agricoles, environnement paysager), et iii) les ressources des agriculteurs impactées par la régulation biologique (e.g., productions) et/ou permettant de maîtriser les facteurs affectant cette régulation (e.g., ressources en connaissance, travail, équipements). Nous avons aussi examiné si les dynamiques temporelles de ces relations étaient étudiées (Duru, Therond et al, 2015). 1. Nous avons réalisé une requête large dans le Web Of Science des études portant sur le contrôle, y compris chimique et/ou mécanique, des bioagresseurs (15334 articles). 2. Ayant peu de mots clés précis pour identifier les dimensions d'un diagnostic dans ces études, nous avons construit et mobilisé des dictionnaires de mots clés dans une analyse lexicale de notices avec l'outil CorText. Un sous-corpus de 6024 articles a été obtenu après extraction d'études hors-sujet. Nous avons identifié 9 thématiques diversement combinées dans les études, les plus fréquentes étant: "gestion des bioagresseurs", "gestion des adventices", "systèmes de cultures", "modélisation et prise de décision", "acteurs et système d'exploitation" et "agroécosystème et paysage". 3. Afin d'identifier les connaissances utiles pour un diagnostic à partir de ces thématiques, nous avons échantillonné des études selon leurs profils et les avons analysées à partir d'une grille de lecture ad hoc. Nous présentons les résultats pour une sélection de 31 études les plus pertinentes a priori. Leurs notices mentionnent la régulation naturelle des bioagresseurs et combinent 3-5 thématiques dont au moins "acteurs et systèmes d'exploitation": notre hypothèse est qu'elles prennent en compte explicitement les acteurs et leurs ressources. Ces études sont effectivement les plus riches. Cependant la plupart n'étudient aucune dynamique temporelle. Nous avons distingué 3 groupes. Le premier groupe (15 articles) met l'accent sur l'élucidation de l'influence relative des facteurs "pratiques" et "paysage" sur le phénomène de régulation; les ressources des agriculteurs sont contextuelles (ex: comparaison agriculture biologique vs. agriculture conventionnelle). Le deuxième groupe (6 articles) met l'accent sur l'impact de la régulation biologique et/ou des nouvelles pratiques et aménagements paysagers sur les ressources des agriculteurs (e.g., coûts/bénéfices économiques) à l'échelle de la parcelle. Le dernier groupe (10 articles) est le plus intégrateur des composantes du diagnostic; on y trouve le plus d'études engagée dans l'accompagnement des agriculteurs, notamment l'apprentissage collectif (Bell et al, 2016; Robertson et al, 2014)

Agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value in Europe: provision of commercial goods and other ecosystem services

Land use systems that integrate woody vegetation with livestock and/or crops and are recognised for their biodiversity and cultural importance can be termed high nature and cultural value (HNCV) agroforestry. In this review, based on the literature and stakeholder knowledge, we describe the structure, components and management practices of ten contrasting HNCV agroforestry systems distributed across five European bioclimatic regions. We also compile and categorize the ecosystem services provided by these agroforestry systems, following the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. HNCV agroforestry in Europe generally enhances biodiversity and regulating ecosystem services relative to conventional agriculture and forestry. These systems can reduce fire risk, compared to conventional forestry, and can increase carbon sequestration, moderate the microclimate, and reduce soil erosion and nutrient leaching compared to conventional agriculture. However, some of the evidence is location specific and a better geographical coverage is needed to generalize patterns at broader scales. Although some traditional practices and products have been abandoned, many of the studied systems continue to provide multiple woody and non-woody plant products and high-quality food from livestock and game. Some of the cultural value of these systems can also be captured through tourism and local events. However there remains a continual challenge for farmers, landowners and society to fully translate the positive social and environmental impacts of HNCV agroforestry into market prices for the products and services

An integrative multi‐scale approach to regional agriculture to support the assessment and benefit of pest‐regulation services delivered by biodiversity

Ecology is first of all a scientific discipline, with its body of theories and methods, and a constant renewal of its main specific fields and principles. In that regard, Ecology is not different from the other scientific disciplines and produces an increasing number of outstanding publications on both fundamental and applied grounds. Ecology can produce highly theoretical works, which is essential, but Ecology can be -and even moremust be an applied science. Currently, practical applications of Ecology for the benefits of our societies have become more numerous and increasingly urgent. ‘Interactions’, sensu lato, are at the very heart of Ecology which makes it by definition THE science of Biodiversity. Beyond the knowledge of how Life has appeared and developed, Ecology can provide the basis for the preservation of Biodiversity and ensure its management is relevant and efficient into the future. By being more integrative and global, Ecology could establish itself as the cornerstone of sustainable development. In this beginning of the 21st century, the influence of Ecology will inevitably grow and play a key role for Planet Earth and human well-being. Sfécologie2016, an International Conference on ecological sciences would not have taken place without 2 years of hard work from the staff of my Institute (IMBE). That is thus with a real pleasure that we welcome you today in Marseille. (Thierry TATONI IMBE Director

Farmer surveys in Europe suggest that specialized, intensive farms were more likely to perceive negative impacts from COVID-19.

It has been shown that the COVID-19 pandemic affected some agricultural systems more than others, and even within geographic regions, not all farms were affected to the same extent. To build resilience of agricultural systems to future shocks, it is key to understand which farms were affected and why. In this study, we examined farmers' perceived robustness to COVID-19, a key resilience capacity. We conducted standardized farmer interviews (n = 257) in 15 case study areas across Europe, covering a large range of socio-ecological contexts and farm types. Interviews targeted perceived livelihood impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on productivity, sales, price, labor availability, and supply chains in 2020, as well as farm(er) characteristics and farm management. Our study corroborates earlier evidence that most farms were not or only slightly affected by the first wave(s) of the pandemic in 2020, and that impacts varied widely by study region. However, a significant minority of farmers across Europe reported that the pandemic was "the worst crisis in a lifetime" (3%) or "the worst crisis in a decade" (7%). Statistical analysis showed that more specialized and intensive farms were more likely to have perceived negative impacts. From a societal perspective, this suggests that highly specialized, intensive farms face higher vulnerability to shocks that affect regional to global supply chains. Supporting farmers in the diversification of their production systems while decreasing dependence on service suppliers and supply chain actors may increase their robustness to future disruptions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-022-00820-5

Agricultural land-use change and ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) colonization in Pyrenean landscapes: an interdisciplinary case study

 ONLINE FIRSTInternational audienceChanges in agricultural land use are responsible for significant modifications in mountain landscapes. This study is part of an interdisciplinary research on the processes and consequences of spontaneous afforestation of Pyrenean landscapes by ash, and the possibilities for its management. We address the relationships between vegetation dynamics and land-use change from the combination of an agricultural study of change in farm management and an ecological study of grassland colonization by ash. In the framework of a village case study, we characterized parcels management and land-use histories, and analyzed the dynamics of the composition of grassland vegetation communities. From a joint analysis of the results obtained in each discipline, we discuss the limitations and comple-mentarities of the two approaches for the interdisciplinary assessment of the afforestation process