No abstract

The sustainability of agro-ecosystems depends on their ability to deliver an entire package of multiple ecosystem services, rather than provisioning services alone. New social and ecological dimensions of agricultural management must be explored in agricultural landscapes, to foster this ability. We propose a social–ecological framework for the service-based management of agro-ecosystems, specified through an explicit and symmetric representation of the ecosystem and the social system, and the dynamic links between them. It highlights how management practices, with their multiple effects, could drive the provision of multiple services. Based on this framework, we have identified the design of collective multiservice management as a key research issue. It requires innovations in stakeholder organizations and tools to foster synergy between ecosystem functioning and social dynamics, given the complexity and uncertainties of ecological systems

Transitioning toward more sustainable agricultural development paths requires extensive change and not simply marginal technical adjustments, as suggested by a strong conception of agroecology. To deal with transition, we believe that agroecology can be enriched by a deep analysis of sustainability transition frameworks and, conversely, that preexisting theories can be questioned in light of the specificities of agroecological transitions (AET). We first examine some of the main sustainability transition frameworks (resilience of social-ecological systems, institutional analysis and development of social-ecological systems, and socio-technical transition). We identify their ontologies to question their ability to be combined without deep adjustments. In a second step, we analyze how these frameworks have been used and questioned by researchers from the life sciences or social sciences in four AET studies. We find that each framework is relevant in its systemic and dynamic approach to change, but also that there are limits concerning the balance between the various dimensions. The scales and processes linked to AET must be taken into account, as well as the way to jointly consider ecological, socioeconomic, and technological aspects. Moreover, it is clear that problems in dealing with agency are common to these approaches, which influences the way to model change. More broadly, sustainability transition frameworks need to account better for ecological and technological materialities and processes, the importance of emergent organizations in singular situations, and learning processes and the diversity of knowledge dynamics. Doing so is challenging because it requires regrounding theories in empirical observations as well as questioning disciplinary frontiers and ontologies.

We analyze patterns of genetic microdifferentiation within a natural population of Lathyrus sylvestris, a perennial herb with both sexual reproduction and clonal growth. In a population from the northern foothills of the Pyrénées in southwestern France, a combined demographic and genetic investigation enabled the study not only of spatial genetic structure of the population, but also of the history of the population's spatial genetic structure over time. Excavation of all individuals allowed identification of clonemates. Age of each individual was determined by counting annual growth rings in the taproot, a method tested with individuals of known age planted in experimental gardens. Each individual was mapped, and genotypes of all individuals were determined using allozyme markers for a number of polymorphic loci. Distribution patterns and spatial genetic structure, both for all individuals and for different age classes, were analyzed using spatial autocorrelation statistics (Geary's Index, Moran's Index). Patterns of gene flow within the population were also studied using F‐statistics and tests for random associations of alleles. Because age, allele frequencies, and location were known for each individual, it was possible to study how spatial genetic structure changed over time. Results from all these diverse approaches are consistent with one another, and clearly show the following: (1) founder effects, with the study transect being first colonized by individuals at either end of the transect that were homozygous for different alleles at one marker locus; (2) a difference in spatial distribution of individuals originated from sexual reproduction (seedlings) and from clonal growth (connected individuals); (3) restricted gene flow, due to inbreeding among related, clumped individuals; and (4) increase in heterozygote deficit within the youngest cohort of individuals. The results indicate that genetic differentiation in time was much less marked than differentiation in space. Nevertheless, the results revealed that the studied population is experiencing demographic and genetic variation in time, suggesting that it is not at equilibrium. On the one hand, spatial structuring is becoming less marked due to the recombination of founder genotypes; on the other hand, as establishment of new individuals increases, a new spatial structure emerges due to mating between relatives.

ABSTRACT. In 2014, the Third International Conference on the resilience of social-ecological systems chose the theme "resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation." The conference aimed specifically at fostering an encounter between the experiences and thinking focused on the issue of resilience through a social and ecological system perspective, and the experiences focused on the issue of resilience through a development perspective. In this perspectives piece, we reflect on the outcomes of the meeting and document the differences and similarities between the two perspectives as discussed during the conference, and identify bridging questions designed to guide future interactions. After the conference, we read the documents (abstracts, PowerPoints) that were prepared and left in the conference database by the participants (about 600 contributions), and searched the web for associated items, such as videos, blogs, and tweets from the conference participants. All of these documents were assessed through one lens: what do they say about resilience and development? Once the perspectives were established, we examined different themes that were significantly addressed during the conference. Our analysis paves the way for new collective developments on a set of issues: (1) Who declares/assign/cares for the resilience of what, of whom? (2) What are the models of transformations and how do they combine the respective role of agency and structure? (3) What are the combinations of measurement and assessment processes? (4) At what scale should resilience be studied? Social transformations and scientific approaches are coconstructed. For the last decades, development has been conceived as a modernization process supported by scientific rationality and technical expertise. The definition of a new perspective on development goes with a negotiation on a new scientific approach. Resilience is presently at the center of this negotiation on a new science for development.

No abstract

The need to reconnect agriculture, environment, food, and health when addressing agrifood system transitions is widely acknowledged. However, most analytical frameworks, especially in the expanding literature about “system approaches”, rely on impact-based approaches and, thus, tend to overlook ecological processes as well as social ones. This article aims at demonstrating that a territorial approach to agrifood system transitions is more appropriate to tackle the reconnection between agriculture, food, environment, and health than the larger scales (global or national food systems) or the smaller ones (such as those of alternative food systems) usually addressed in the literature. Co-elaborated by a sociologist, an ecologist, and a nutritionist, this article is based on a focused analysis of the literature that has addressed agrifood system transitions in the food and health sciences and in the social sciences and on the reflexive analysis of two past projects dealing with such transitions. It shows that a territorial approach allows including in the analysis the diverse agrifood systems’ components as well the ecological and social processes that may create functionalities for improving agrifood systems’ sustainability. This territorial approach is based on systemic and processual thinking and on a transdisciplinary perspective combining an objectification stance and a pragmatist constructivist one. It should allow actors and researchers to build a shared understanding of the transition processes within their shared territorial agrifood system, despite possibly different and diverging views.

In European mountain areas, shrub encroachment resulting from farmland abandonment is most often managed by mechanical operations such as roller chopping or controlled burning, which have proved to be ineffective and unsustainable. Recent agroecological findings highlight the potential impact of grazing on long-term shrub dynamics. We thus explored the potential contribution of livestock farms to the management of shrub encroachment. We studied the diversity of livestock practices and strategies on the scale of a small mountain valley in France where a land-use management plan was initiated. We interviewed 33 livestock farmers with a comprehensive approach and analysed the data in partnership with local land-use managers. To categorise farming practices, we used an innovative constructivist method based on knowledge engineering techniques and tools such as repertory grids. Our results show that the diversity of land-use practices can be summed up by ten practices related to three management domains: (i) livestock management, that is, splitting herds into batches, leading animals to pasture and breeding choices; (ii) the feeding system, including indoor feeding during the year, the hierarchy between haymaking and grazing in spring and the system's forage autonomy; and (iii) farmland utilisation and maintenance, which comprises hillside use, spatial configuration of grazed areas, maintenance practices and technical choices to cut meadows. We also show that farmers combine these practices within six types of strategies: ensuring feeding security and simplifying labour (type A), maintaining farmland heritage (type B), taking advantage of hillsides (type C), focusing on animal care (type D), combining areas, periods and batches (type E), or selling on local markets (type F). This makes it possible to identify: (1) farmers' strategies that have the greatest impact on shrub encroachment; and (2) practices that may develop into more sustainable management of shrub encroachment. Our work is thus a first step in developing sustainable land-use management plans in rural areas threatened by shrub encroachment. In return, this deep understanding of farmers' strategies allowed us to address socially pertinent scientific issues related to the dynamics of grazed plant communities.agro-ecosystem management / livestock farming practices / grazing / modelling / shrub encroachment / typology