Biological operability, a new concept based on ergonomics to assess the pertinence of ecosystem services optimization practices

Abstract How easily can we obtain optimal trade-offs between conflicting ecosystem services (ES)? We studied this question by crossing metrics of optimality and robustness in a model simulating sheep/cattle mixed-grazing (mixed-grazing is grazing by more than one species). We hypothesized that mixed-grazing processes (complementary use of vegetation and parasitism reduction) would improve ES bundles by increasing meat production with limited additional environmental costs. We assessed bundle optimality with a production possibility frontier and robustness through a management density approach (bundles can be obtained by one or several management decisions). We modeled two provisioning and two regulating ESs and confirmed that mixed-grazing can potentially improve the monetary value of bundles. Optimal bundles were the most robust, because of the shape of the biological function driving animal growth, according to the sheep/cattle ratio. This function is hump-shaped with a plateau that buffers small ratio deviations. It makes bundles optimal or quasi-optimal over a wide range of management decisions, which eases their optimization. For this reason, based on the principles of ergonomics and the definition of the adjective operable (‘capable of being put into use, operation, or practice’), we considered mixed-grazing a ‘Biologically Operable’ practice.

[1]  V. Dakos,et al.  Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services , 2012 .

[2]  Martin Volk,et al.  Optimization-based trade-off analysis of biodiesel crop production for managing an agricultural catchment , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[3]  D. Sauvant,et al.  Mixed grazing systems of sheep and cattle to improve liveweight gain: a quantitative review , 2013, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[4]  D. Zelený,et al.  Estimation of herbaceous biomass from species composition and cover , 2012 .

[5]  David O'Hare,et al.  Cognitive failure analysis for aircraft accident investigation , 1994 .

[6]  F Accatino,et al.  Robustness and management adaptability in tropical rangelands: a viability-based assessment under the non-equilibrium paradigm. , 2014, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[7]  M. Jouven,et al.  A model predicting the seasonal dynamics of intake and production for suckler cows and their calves fed indoors or at pasture , 2008 .

[8]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? , 2017 .

[9]  P. Loiseau,et al.  Gestion des écosystèmes pâturés en situations extensives : apports de l'écologie fonctionnelle et perspectives de recherches appliquées en moyenne montagne humide , 1998 .

[10]  Christopher L. Lant,et al.  The evolution and empirical estimation of ecological-economic production possibilities frontiers , 2013 .

[11]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Relationships Between Ecosystem Services: Comparing Methods for Assessing Tradeoffs and Synergies , 2018, Ecological Economics.

[12]  H. Wehrden,et al.  Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward , 2014 .

[14]  J. Doyle,et al.  Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity , 2002, Science.

[15]  P. Carrère,et al.  Plant–herbivore interactions affect the initial direction of community changes in an ecosystem manipulation experiment , 2011 .

[16]  G. R. Foster,et al.  RUSLE: Revised universal soil loss equation , 1991 .

[17]  J. Stelling,et al.  Robustness of Cellular Functions , 2004, Cell.

[18]  T. Beringer,et al.  Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change , 2018, Nature.

[19]  Montague W. Demment,et al.  A Nutritional Explanation for Body-Size Patterns of Ruminant and Nonruminant Herbivores , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[20]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Z. Ouyang,et al.  Mapping Ecosystem Service Bundles to Detect Distinct Types of Multifunctionality within the Diverse Landscape of the Yangtze River Basin, China , 2018 .

[22]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe , 2012 .

[23]  Tommy Dalgaard,et al.  Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape , 2014 .

[24]  Rodolphe Sabatier,et al.  Grazing in an Uncertain Environment: Modeling the Trade‐Off between Production and Robustness , 2015 .

[25]  David G. Groves,et al.  A General, Analytic Method for Generating Robust Strategies and Narrative Scenarios , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[26]  H. Olff,et al.  Impact of herbivores on nitrogen cycling: contrasting effects of small and large species , 2003, Oecologia.

[27]  J. Ryschawy,et al.  Review: Associations among goods, impacts and ecosystem services provided by livestock farming , 2018, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[28]  M. Altieri.  Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for world agriculture , 1989 .

[29]  Helen M. Regan,et al.  ROBUST DECISION‐MAKING UNDER SEVERE UNCERTAINTY FOR CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT , 2005 .

[30]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's Long Shadow , 2006 .

[31]  S. Lautenbach,et al.  A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services , 2014, bioRxiv.

[32]  John Long.  Cognitive Ergonomics – Past, Present, Future: 10 Lessons Learned (10 Lessons Remaining) , 2000 .

[33]  Z. Azizi,et al.  Canopy cover or remotely sensed vegetation index, explanatory variables of above-ground biomass in an arid rangeland, Iran , 2018, Journal of Arid Land.

[34]  Rodolphe Sabatier,et al.  A robustness-based viewpoint on the production-ecology trade-off in agroecosystems , 2018, Agricultural Systems.

[35]  L. Olea,et al.  Diet quality and intake during the grazing season in beef cows on permanent pastures. , 2006 .

[36]  Claudia Sattler,et al.  Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success? , 2013 .

[37]  M. Plummer,et al.  Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services , 2009 .

[38]  Catharina J.E. Schulp,et al.  Mapping and modelling trade-offs and synergies between grazing intensity and ecosystem services in rangelands using global-scale datasets and models , 2014 .

[39]  Alain Peeters,et al.  An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals , 2011 .

[40]  J. Moorby,et al.  Mixed Grazing Systems Benefit both Upland Biodiversity and Livestock Production , 2014, PloS one.

[41]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories , 2006 .

[42]  M. Tichit,et al.  Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century , 2012, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[43]  Katrin Meusburger,et al.  Monthly RUSLE soil erosion risk of Swiss grasslands , 2019, Journal of Maps.

[44]  G. Kröel-Dulay,et al.  Comparing the accuracy of three non-destructive methods in estimating aboveground plant biomass , 2017 .

[45]  Michael Robertson,et al.  Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices , 2014 .

[46]  A. J. Rook,et al.  Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems. 2. Diet selection , 2007 .

[47]  Pete Smith,et al.  Competition for Land-Based Ecosystem Services: Trade-Offs and Synergies , 2016 .

[48]  M. Benoît,et al.  Analyse et déterminants de l’évolution des performances d’élevages bovins et ovins allaitants en zones défavorisées de 1990 à 2012 , 2014 .

[49]  F. DeClerck,et al.  Quantifying model uncertainty to improve watershed-level ecosystem service quantification: a global sensitivity analysis of the RUSLE , 2017 .