Action versus Result-Oriented Schemes in a Grassland Agroecosystem: A Dynamic Modelling Approach

Abstract

Effects of agri-environment schemes (AES) on biodiversity remain controversial. While most AES are action-oriented, result-oriented and habitat-oriented schemes have recently been proposed as a solution to improve AES efficiency. The objective of this study was to compare action-oriented, habitat-oriented and result-oriented schemes in terms of ecological and productive performance as well as in terms of management flexibility. We developed a dynamic modelling approach based on the viable control framework to carry out a long term assessment of the three schemes in a grassland agroecosystem. The model explicitly links grazed grassland dynamics to bird population dynamics. It is applied to lapwing conservation in wet grasslands in France. We ran the model to assess the three AES scenarios. The model revealed the grazing strategies respecting ecological and productive constraints specific to each scheme. Grazing strategies were assessed by both their ecological and productive performance. The viable control approach made it possible to obtain the whole set of viable grazing strategies and therefore to quantify the management flexibility of the grassland agroecosystem. Our results showed that habitat and result-oriented scenarios led to much higher ecological performance than the action-oriented one. Differences in both ecological and productive performance between the habitat and result-oriented scenarios were limited. Flexibility of the grassland agroecosystem in the result-oriented scenario was much higher than in that of habitat-oriented scenario. Our model confirms the higher flexibility as well as the better ecological and productive performance of result-oriented schemes. A larger use of result-oriented schemes in conservation may also allow farmers to adapt their management to local conditions and to climatic variations.

Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe

“…Tichit et al, 2007;Sabatier et al, 2012;Sabatier et al, 2013). These studies used a processbased modelling approach that provides a framework for assessing trade-offs on multiple scales (field, farm and landscape) in grassland-dominated landscapes, where livestock grazing may conflict with bird conservation.…”

“…In addition, because targeted schemes bear closely on local and small famers' interests, payments for ES should be promoted as rewards rather than subsidies (Sabatier et al, 2012). To do so, we must establish objective, easy-to-understand, measurable and responsive indicators to monitor the effects of compensation schemes on ES delivery and the well-being of farmers.…”

Predictive mapping of Meadow Pipit density using integrated remote sensing data and an atlas of vascular plants dataset

“…In this way, we were able to capture more detailed relationships between Meadow Pipit occurrence and environmental conditions on a large spatial scale (McPherson & Jetz 2007). Our models help to identify areas critical not only for Meadow Pipit populations but also for other endangered grassland species with similar habitat requirements, such as the Lapwing (Sabatier et al 2012) and the White stork (Kosicki 2010), the numbers of which have drastically decreased in recent years.…”

Robustness and management adaptability in tropical rangelands: a viability-based assessment under the non-equilibrium paradigm

“…Applied to the management of renewable resources, the viability constraints are generally defined to allow good levels of production in the long term while ensuring the preservation of the resource (see e.g. Tichit et al, 2004;Martinet and Doyen, 2007;Sabatier et al, 2012). The viability kernel is the set of initial states (a subset of the domain of constraints) for which there exists at least a sequence of controls maintaining the trajectory in the domain of constraints.…”