Optimising ecosystem services provided by grassland systems 4/Session IV - Estuary... · The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature Daily, G.C. (Ed.)

Federal Department of Economic Affairs,

Education and Research EAER

Agroscope

www.agroscope.ch I good food, healthy environment

June 20th 2018, EGF 2018, Cork, Ireland

Optimising ecosystem services provided by grassland systems

Huguenin-Elie O., Delaby L., Le Clec’h S., Moreno G.M., Teixeira R.F.M. and Schneider M.K.

2 Optimising ecosystem services provided by grassland systems | EGF 2018

Huguenin-Elie et al.

Acknowledgments

Luc Delaby, INRA, France

Solen Le Clec’h, ETHZ, Switzerland

Gerardo M. Moreno, Uni of Extremadura, Spain

Ricardo F.M. Teixeira, Uni de Lisboa, Portugal

Manuel K. Schneider, Agroscope, Switzerland



Ecosystem services (ESS): a broadly used concept

Two milestones followed by

an explosion:

1997:

Costanza et al. The value of the world’s

ecosystem services and natural

capital. Nature

Daily, G.C. (Ed.) Nature's services. Societal

dependence on natural

ecosystems

2005: Millennium ecosystem

assessment (MEA)

Castro & Arnauld de Sartre, 2014

Nu

mb

er

of

pu

blic

atio

ns

Production of scientific articles related to

ecosystem services (as of 25.03.2013)



Carbon storage in soil Regulation of nutrient cycles

Agricultural yield Biodiversity conservation



Overview of the presentation

Optimising ecosystem services (ESS) at the field scale

Management intensity as a main driver

Improvement measures based on plant traits and the

structure of the vegetation

Considering the farm and the landscape scale

Within agriculturally used grasslands

Not cropping grassland systems

Not abandoned managed systems



Contribution of the ecosystems to human well-being

CICES V4.3 (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2013)

«Ecosystem services retain a

connection to the underlying

ecosystem functions, processes

and structures that generate them.»

«Ecosystem goods and benefits

are things that people create or

derive from final ecosystem

services»

► co-production involving the

ecosystem + agricultural inputs (Palomo et al., 2016)

Crude protein yield of grass-

clover mixtures (kg N ha-1)

Data from Nyfeler et al., 2011

Total

From the

ecosystem



1. Optimising ESS at the field scale



1.2 Management intensity as main driver



Management intensity modifies the plant community and increases biomass yield

Huguenin-Elie et al., 2017; Data from surveys and experiments

0 4 8 12 16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 50 100 150

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4

Grass Clover Mixture

N Fertilisation

1-2 Cuts 5-6

Walter Dietl

Annual yield (t DM ha-1)

Walter Dietl



Management intensity decreases the value of grassland for biodiversity conservation

Number of mechanical operations

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Num

ber

of

pla

nt

specie

s

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BioBio FP7, Case study Switzerland



Yet another optimal management intensity for carbon storage in soil

Management intensity at the field scale

Go

od

s a

nd

se

rvic

es

Agricultural yield

C storage in soil

Biodiversity conservation

Keynote presentation on C sequestration by K. Klumpp & D.A. Fornara

Soussana and Lemaire, 2014; Ward et al., 2016; Dumont et al., 2016

Still large uncertainties on the size of the effect



1.3 Improvement measures based on plant traits and vegetation structure



Complementarities among species enhance yield at all levels of intensity

Data from Weigelt et al., 2009 Data from Nyfeler et al., 2009

12 4 8 16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 50 100 150

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 4

Grass

Clover

Grass-CloverAnnu

al yie

ld (

t D

M h

a-1

)

2 N Fertilisation

1-2 Cuts 5-6 Number of plant species

Low intensity High intensity

1

2

1 2

Effect of management

intensity

Effect of plant species richness



Complementarities among species promote high yield at high digestibility

In many cases, an increase in

biomass yield is at the

expense of forage digestibility (e.g. Pontes et al., 2007).

This is not the case when the

yield is improved by optimizing

the legume proportion.

Suter et al., in preparation;

Sturludóttir et al., 2014

Yield

Legume proportion (%)

Digestibility

% m

axim

al yie

ld r

esp.

dig

estibili

ty



Diversifying vegetation structure for biodiversity conservation

Uncut refuges on 10–20% of the meadow

area (for low management intensities)

Meadows with refuge compared to

Control meadows

Plant- and leafhoppers (Hemiptera) 0

Wild bees and bumblebees +

Orthopterans +

Mole- and Volehills 0

Butterflies +

Moths 0

Spiders 0

Parasitoid wasps 0

Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) +

Ground beetles +

Rove beetles (Staphylinidae) 0 Humbert et al., 2012; Buri et al., 2016;

Bruppacher et al., 2016; Meyer et al., 2017

J.-Y. Humbert, Uni Bern



Diversifying vegetation structure for biodiversity conservation

Presence of trees

Moreno et al., 2016

Number of species

(estimated total on 40 field)

Open

pastures

Wood

Pastures

Plants 253 ±6 289 ±8

Bees 25 ±3 26 ±3

Spiders 65 ±6 75 ±8

Earthworms 8 ±1 11 ±1



Wooded pastures and C storage in soil

2 m 5 m 15 m

a

ab

b

A A A

So

il ca

rbo

n c

on

ten

t (g

C k

g-1

)

Soil depth

(cm) Howlett et al., 2011

Fornara et al., 2017, Temperate climate: Not more total SOC, but more in

resilient C pools with trees.



Combining rooting depths to improve nutrient capture

Shallow roots

(SR)

Deep roots

(DR)

Non N-Fixing

(NNF)

Lolium perenne

(Lp)

Cichorium intybus

(Ci)

N-Fixing

(NF)

Trifolium repens

(Tr)

Trifolium pratense

(Tp)

Mixture effect between shallow and

deep rooting species on N capture

Husse et al., 2017

p < 0.001

+ 12 % for NF species

+ 17 % for NNF species



Summary for the field scale

Antagonisms among ESS along the management intensity gradient.

Various improvement measures using plant traits exists at the field

scale. Some promote several ESS.

Specific improvement

measures



Summary for the field scale

Antagonisms among ESS along the management intensity gradient.

Various improvement measures using plant traits exists at the

field scale. Some promote several ESS.

None of them seems to alleviate the antagonisms among ESS

that exists along the management intensity gradient.

Specific improvement

measures for:

Forage production

Biodiversity

C storage



2. Considering the farm and landscape scale



Considering the diversity in grassland types for biodiversity conservation

Bottom Slopes

Intensive 31 ±0.9 40 ±2.1

Extensive 40 ±2.5 46 ±1.7

Plant species richness at the field scale

Plant species richness at the farm scale

100%

intensive bottom

100%

extensive slopes

25% of each

grassland type

Model farms

with 20 fields

110 ±8.6 175 ±5.3 169 ±9.3

Bottom Slopes

Int. Ext.

Int. Ext.

MultiSward FP7



Looking for trade-offs between production and biodiversity at the farm scale

Gradient of

management

intensity

Same dry

matter yield

100% intermediate intensity

100% mediocre forage

(5.2 MJ NEL/kg DM in cut

forage*)

75% intensive & 25% extensive

90% good forage (5.8 NEL or

more*) for the dairy cows

10% poor forage (4.5 NEL*) for

the rearing calf** and dry cows.

Can be efficiently used by farms

with on-farm dairy replacement

(and 25% yearly replacement

rate)

Farm

*Swiss Feed Database **Sejrsen and Purup, 1997



Mapping ESS

Le Clec’h et al., 2017 Biodiversity (index)

Remote sensing data

Maps of ESS

Vegetation C stock (Mg ha-1)

Sampling points

• Measurements of ESS indicators

• Remote sensing data

Identification of main

drivers

Classes of land cover



Casal et al. Under review at JAS

• Catchment dominated

by intensive mix farming

• 12 years simulation,

mean 3 last years

Effect of the location of unfertilized cut grasslands on nutrient capture (nitrates)

BMP 1) Sources Interception

Cut 0N grassland (% area) 0 15 15

N inputs (kg ha-1) 192 164 172

N excess (kg ha-1) 84 59 61

N-NO3 concentration (mg l-1) 13.3 12.7 11.1

1) BMP: Best Management Practices



The relationship between two ESS depends on the location

Li et al., 2017

ESS1: Primary production

ESS2: Soil conservation

Synergy**

Synergy*

Synergy

No relationship

Antagonism

Antagonism*

Antagonism**

Relationship ESS1–ESS2



Summary for the farm and landscape scale

The farm scale offers possibilities to alleviate the antagonisms

among ESS that exists along the management intensity gradient

at the field scale.

Accurately mapping ESS is crucial for developing approaches to

optimise multiple ESS. But this is challenging because it would

need to account for:

► the effects of the diversity in grassland types

► the location of the grassland in the landscape

► the relationships among ESS

► the effect of the location on the relationships among ESS



Vision

To optimise multiple ESS, we could (or should):

combine specific measures at the field scale with farm or

landscape approaches,

further develop approaches based on plant traits, as well as

tools allowing considering the landscape scale,

promote a variety of grassland types and optimise their spatial

location considering the surrounding nonfarm habitats.

Intensity at the farm scale

Goods a

nd s

erv

ices

High Nature Value

nonfarm habitats

Str

ea

m



Thank you for your attention

Olivier Huguenin-Elie [email protected]

Agroscope good food, healthy environment

www.agroscope.admin.ch



Combining rooting depths to improve nutrient capture

Shallow

roots (SR)

Deep

roots (DR)

Non N-

Fixing

(NNF)

Lolium

perenne

(Lp)

Cichorium

intybus

(Ci)

N-

Fixing

(NF)

Trifolium

repens

(Tr)

Trifolium

pratense

(Tp)

Mixture effect between

shallow and deep rooting

species (SR x DR)

Husse et al., 2017

p < 0.001

+ 17 % for NNF species

+ 12 % for NF species

Shift in vertical niche

Community type

Sp. SR DR SR+DR p

Lp 43 33 <0.01

Tr 45 33 <0.05

Ci 45 57 =0.05

Tp 53 65 =0.07

15N 30cm / (3+30cm) in %

SR x DR effect on annual N yield



Synergies with appropriate restoration of degraded grasslands

SBP:

Sown Biodiverse

Pastures

DG:

Degraded

Grasslands

Teixeira, 2010; Teixeira et al., 2011

Effects of sowing biodiverse

pastures rich in legumes:

Yield

SBP > DG

C sequestration

SBP > DG

Insects

• Species richness: SBP = DG

• Abundance: SBP > DG

Documents

Optimising ecosystem services provided by grassland systems 4/Session IV - Estuary... · The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature Daily, G.C. (Ed.)