Explore the vast range of titles available.

Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All data are publicly accessible without restriction at http://hdl.handle.net/10532/2473 and http://citarea.cita-aragon.es/citarea/ha​ndle/10532/2473 This is a public repository AgriOcean DSpace (AOD)1.2, which is a FAO-UNESCO version of the program DSpace 1.7.1 (JSPUI version).

It is crucial that biodiversity conservation initiatives in agriculture take into account how farmers understand and value their relationships with nature. However, while highly relevant for pan‐European conservation work, insight into differences and commonalities in farmers' views across socio‐ecologically different European regions is still lacking. Therefore, we studied how farmers describe the relationship between how they farm and biodiversity in two contrasting regions: the Netherlands and the French Massif Central. In both regions, we included two specific study areas. We focused on dairy farming, as it is a key sector in terms of socio‐economic importance and biodiversity impact in both regions. In each area, we conducted 15 in‐depth interviews focusing on the impacts of the farm on biodiversity and vice versa, as well as on the relational importance of biodiversity to the farmer. We allowed farmers to use the term ‘biodiversity’ in their own words. We analysed our data using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I‐NFF), a recently proposed framework for analysing what people value positively and negatively about nature‐related matters. Six main narratives emerged, which we named ‘farming WITH biodiversity’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—valorising what is there’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—innovating for sustainability’, ‘farming FOR biodiversity’, ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of necessity’ and ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of conviction’. These narratives vary in how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity, and define problems and solutions. Although we encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, we also noted considerable differences. In the Dutch areas, we frequently encountered ‘FOR’, which strongly depicts biodiversity as an additional service that requires payment, and ‘SEPARATE—out of conviction’, which argues for production‐intensive systems. In the Massif Central areas, we virtually never encountered these narratives and instead more often encountered ‘WITH’, which depicts farming as naturally integrated with biodiversity. Moreover, the narratives had strong region‐specific details. We close by discussing how better insight into such differences and commonalities can help foster more understanding engagement with farmers on the topic of biodiversity. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Carbon sequestration in grasslands has been proposed as an important means to offset greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant systems. To understand the potential and limitations of this strategy, we need to acknowledge that soil carbon sequestration is a time-limited benefit, and there are intrinsic differences between short- and long-lived greenhouse gases. Here, our analysis shows that one tonne of carbon sequestrated can offset radiative forcing of a continuous emission of 0.99 kg methane or 0.1 kg nitrous oxide per year over 100 years. About 135 gigatonnes of carbon is required to offset the continuous methane and nitrous oxide emissions from ruminant sector worldwide, nearly twice the current global carbon stock in managed grasslands. For various regions, grassland carbon stocks would need to increase by approximately 25% − 2,000%, indicating that solely relying on carbon sequestration in grasslands to offset warming effect of emissions from current ruminant systems is not feasible. While accounting for intrinsic differences between short- and long-lived greenhouse gases, solely relying on soil carbon sequestration in grasslands to offset warming effect of emissions from current ruminant systems is not feasible

Intensive agriculture for food and feed production is a key driver of global biodiversity loss. It is generally assumed that more extensive practices are needed to reconcile food production with biodiversity conservation. In a literature review across biomes and for seven taxa, we retrieved 35 alternative practices (e.g. no-tillage, cover crops, organic fertilizer) from 331 studies. We found that no single practice enhanced all taxonomic groups, but that overall less intensive agricultural practices are beneficial to biodiversity. Nevertheless, often practices had no effects observed and very rarely contrasting impacts on aboveground versus belowground taxa. Species responses to practices were mostly consistent across biomes, except for fertilization. We conclude that alternative practices generally enhance biodiversity, but there is also variation in impacts depending on taxonomic group or type of practice. This suggests that a careful selection of practices is needed to secure biodiversity across taxa in future food systems worldwide.

Increasing food demands are causing rapid transitions in farming systems, often involving intensified land and resource use. While transitioning has benefits regarding poverty alleviation and food outputs, it also causes environmental and social issues over time. This study aims to understand the transitions in farming systems in a region in Telangana, from 1997 to 2015, and their effect on livestock rearing and smallholder livelihoods. We also examine the impact of the transitions on lower caste groups and women in particular. We collected data using a combination of methods, i.e., a household survey, focus group discussions, and secondary data sources, to build a comprehensive picture of the transitions in the region. We found that subsistence mixed farming systems transitioned to market-orientated specialized systems over a short time span. As the transition process gained momentum, households either intensified their production or got marginalized. Technological interventions, development programs with integrated approaches, and market demand for certain agricultural produce triggered increased regional production but also led to the scarcity of water, land, and labor. The transitions marginalized some of the households, changed the role of livestock in farming, and have been inclusive of both lower caste groups and women in terms of increased ownership of large ruminants and access to technologies. However, for women specifically, further increase in workload in the context of farming is also found.

Traditional mixed livestock cereal- and pasture-based sheep farming systems in Europe are threatened by intensification and specialisation processes. However, the intensification process does not always yield improved economic results or efficiency. This study involved a group of farmers that raised an autochthonous sheep breed (Ojinegra de Teruel) in an unfavourable area of North-East Spain. This study aimed to typify the farms and elucidate the existing links between economic performance and certain sustainability indicators (i.e. productivity, self-sufficiency and diversification). Information was obtained through direct interviews with 30 farms (73% of the farmers belonging to the breeders association). Interviews were conducted in 2009 and involved 32 indicators regarding farm structure, management and economic performance. With a principal component analysis, three factors were obtained explaining 77.9% of the original variance. This factors were named as inputs/self-sufficiency, which included the use of on-farm feeds, the amount of variable costs per ewe and economic performance; productivity, which included lamb productivity and economic autonomy; and productive orientation, which included the degree of specialisation in production. A cluster analysis identified the following four groups of farms: high-input intensive system; low-input self-sufficient system; specialised livestock system; and diversified crops-livestock system. In conclusion, despite the large variability between and within groups, the following factors that explain the economic profitability of farms were identified: (i) high feed self-sufficiency and low variable costs enhance the economic performance (per labour unit) of the farms; (ii) animal productivity reduces subsidy dependence, but does not necessarily imply better economic performance; and (iii) diversity of production enhances farm flexibility, but is not related to economic performance.

Climate change will increase average temperatures and the frequency and intensity of summertime droughts; those shifts will in turn affect forage production in grassland-based livestock farms. Farmers will accordingly likely have to implement adaptation strategies to cope with the effects of climate change. We hypothesized that farmers' resilience strategies would depend on (i) their intention to adapt to climate change, which partly results from previous climate risk exposure, (ii) how they perceive the values and disvalues of multi-species permanent grasslands (PGs), and (iii) that both of the aforementioned factors would vary according to the geographical context of each farm. We carried out 15 semi-structured interviews with dairy cattle farmers in the French Massif Central; the farms were distributed along a range of climatic and topographic conditions. We used (i) the Model of Proactive Private Adaptation to Climate Change to analyze farmers' individual process of adaptation, (ii) the Integrated Nature Futures Framework to analyze farmers' perception of multi-species PGs, and (iii) text analysis to identify the farmers' adaptation strategies. Nine of the farmers felt that they were already adapted to climate change or that they had a plan in place to implement new adaptations in the future. We observed straightforward relationships between these farmers' perception of PGs and their choice of adaptation strategy; those relationships varied, however, with the geographical context of each farm. Farmers in the northern Massif Central and southern uplands highlighted the values of PGs and considered PGs to be central to their adaption strategies. Conversely, farmers in the southern lowlands mostly referred to the disvalues of PGs; they based their adaptation strategies on temporary grasslands and forage crops. Three of the farmers believed that climate change posed a significant risk, but they foresaw little room to maneuver. Despite acknowledging the values of PGs, those individuals did not intend to use PGs to adapt to climate change. The final three farmers did not intend to adapt to climate change; their reasoning stemmed from either a mindset of fatalism or their acknowledged desire to retire soon. Extreme events such as the summertime drought of 2003 and human factors such as intergenerational transmission of farm can accordingly facilitate or inhibit climate change-related adaptation. It is accordingly important to take into account both socio-psychological and environmental factors when analyzing how grassland-based farmers transition to more climate change-resilient systems.

Pastoralists face increasing competition for land with crop farmers and nature in and around the W Biosphere Reserve (WBR) in Benin. Our aim was to describe and analyse land use changes in order to understand their drivers, and to describe and analyse the viewpoints of relevant stakeholders in order to understand the competition for land. To this end, remote sensing data, regional statistics, and survey data were collected. We found that crop land expansion around the WBR was the direct driver of decrease of the grazing land area. Population growth and rising demand for food crops, and government support to the cotton sector were indirect drivers of grazing land reduction. Furthermore, competing claims on land among users arose from the complex interaction of crop expansion, presence of WBR and the way it is governed, the lack of support to pastoralists, and the increasing shift of pastoralists’ lifestyle into one of settled crop farmers. Pastoralism is under threat and its survival depends on the successful implementation of policies to support pastoralists and protect grazing lands.

The concept of ‘Ecosystem Services’ (ES) focuses on the linkages between ecosystems, including agroecosystems, and human well-being, referring to all the benefits, direct and indirect, that people obtain from ecosystems. In this paper, we review the application of the ES framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems, which allows (1) regulating, supporting and cultural ES to be integrated at the same level with provisioning ES, and (2) the multiple trade-offs and synergies that exist among ES to be considered. Research on livestock farming has focused mostly on provisioning ES (meat, milk and fibre production), despite the fact that provisioning ES strongly depends on regulating and supporting ES for their existence. We first present an inventory of the non-provisioning ES (regulating, supporting and cultural) provided by pasture-based livestock systems in Europe. Next, we review the trade-offs between provisioning and non-provisioning ES at multiple scales and present an overview of the methodologies for assessing biophysical trade-offs. Third, we present non-biophysical (economical and socio-cultural) methodologies and applications for ES valuation. We conclude with some recommendations for policy design.