Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T20:35:15.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From a conceptual framework to an operational approach for managing grassland functional diversity to obtain targeted ecosystem services: Case studies from French mountains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2013

M. Duru ,
C. Jouany ,
X. Le Roux ,
M.L. Navas  and
P. Cruz
M. Duru*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1248 AGIR, F-31320 Castanet-Tolosan, France. Université Toulouse, INPT, UMR AGIR, F-31029 Toulouse, France.
C. Jouany
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1248 AGIR, F-31320 Castanet-Tolosan, France. Université Toulouse, INPT, UMR AGIR, F-31029 Toulouse, France.
X. Le Roux
Affiliation:
INRA, CNRS, Université Lyon1, Microbial Ecology Centre, UMR 5557, USC 1364, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France.
M.L. Navas
Affiliation:
Montpellier Sup-Agro, UMR CEFE (5175), F-34293 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
P. Cruz
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1248 AGIR, F-31320 Castanet-Tolosan, France. Université Toulouse, INPT, UMR AGIR, F-31029 Toulouse, France.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research to understand and manage ecosystems to supply services has recently spurred a functional view of their biodiversity. In particular, approaches based on functional traits rather than species diversity are increasingly used to reflect interactions between organisms and their environment. These approaches bring a functional perspective to the study of community structure responses to disturbances and resources, and of their effects on ecosystem functioning and services. From an academic perspective, we propose a conceptual framework based on species functional traits to better infer how grassland management practices (fertilization, defoliation regime) along with abiotic factors influence plant, animal and microbial community composition and a range of services in grassland ecosystems. The core of the framework relies on combinations of plant functional traits and associated microbial features that specifically respond to environmental and management factors and influence ecosystem services. To overcome stakeholders’ difficulty in applying the concept of functional traits, we propose an operational approach implying the mapping of plant communities distributed into five plant functional types (PFTs). The approach was used for fields in grassland-based livestock farms from two French grassland networks. We evaluated its ability to predict a range of services including forage provision and non-market services according to environmental and management drivers. PFT-based plant community composition predicted forage services reasonably well but responded weakly to environmental gradients. To cope with the observed limitations of current predictive approaches, we suggest including soil microbial functional types and adaptive management rather than using a prescriptive scheme.

Keywords

cuttingfertility gradientgrass speciesgrazingplant functional typesoil food web
Type
Themed Content: Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 29 , Issue 3: Special Section: Themed Content: Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems , September 2014 , pp. 239 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Lemaire, G., Hodgson, J., and Chabbi, A. 2011. Introduction: Food security and environmental impacts—challenge for grassland sciences. In Lemaire, G., Hodgson, J. and Chabbi, A. (eds). Grassland Productivity and Ecosystem Services. CABI, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Wilkins, R.J. 2008. Eco-efficient approaches to land management: A case for increased integration of crop and animal production systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 363:517–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Knickel, K., Brunori, G., and Rand, S. 2009. Towards a better conceptual framework for innovation processes in agriculture and rural development: From linear models to systemic approaches. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15:37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Power, G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365:2959–2971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Webb, C.T., Hoeting, J.A., Ames, G.M., Pyne, M.I., and LeRoy Poff, N. 2010. A structured and dynamic framework to advance traits-based theory and prediction in ecology. Ecological Letters 13:267–283.Google Scholar
6Lavorel, S. and Garnier, E. 2002. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: Revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional Ecology 16:545–556.Google Scholar
7Salles, J.F., Poly, F., Schmid, B., and Le Roux, X. 2009. Community niche predicts the functioning of denitrifying bacterial assemblages. Ecology 90:3324–3332.Google Scholar
8Garnier, E. and Navas, M.L. 2012. A trait-based approach to comparative functional plant ecology: Concepts, methods and applications for agroecology. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32:365–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Díaz, S., Quétier, F., Cáceres, D.M., Trainor, S.F., Pérez-Harguindeguy, N., Bret-Harte, M.S., Finegan, B., Peña-Claros, M., and Poorter, L. 2011. Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature's benefits to society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:895–902.Google Scholar
10De Bello, F., Lavorel, S., Lavergne, S., Albert, C.H., Boulangeat, I., Mazel, F., and Thuiller, W. 2012. Hierarchical effects of environmental filters on the functional structure of plant communities: A case study in the French Alps. Ecography 36:393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Wardle, D., Bardgett, R.D., Klironomos, J.N., Setälä, H., Putten, W.H., and van der Wall, D.H. 2004. Despite the level of unpredictability and context dependency of aboveground biotic effects on soil biota, consistent patterns do emerge at broad levels of comparison, such as across ecosystems. Science 304:1629–1633.Google Scholar
12Kardol, P. and Wardle, D. 2010. How understanding aboveground–belowground linkages can assist restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:670–679.Google Scholar
13Orwin, K.H., Buckland, S.M., Johnson, D., Turner, B.L., Smart, S., Oakley, S., and Bardgett, R.D. 2010. Linkages of plant traits to soil properties and the functioning of temperate grassland. Journal of Ecology 98:1074–1083.Google Scholar
14Duru, M., Cruz, P., Jouany, C., and Theau, J.P. 2011. Combiner des recherches en agroécologie et des dispositifs participatifs pour construire des outils d’évaluation des prairies permanentes. Cahiers Agricultures 20:223–234.Google Scholar
15Barrios, E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics 4:269–285.Google Scholar
16Littlewood, N., Stewart, A.J., and Woodcock, B. 2012. Science into practice—how can fundamental science contribute to better management of grasslands for invertebrates? Insect Conservation and Diversity 5:1–8.Google Scholar
17Van Eekeren, N., Boer, H.D., Hanegraaf, M., Bokhorst, J., Nierop, D., Bloem, J., Schouten, T., Goede, R.D., and Brussaard, L. 2010. Soil biology and biochemistry ecosystem services in grassland associated with biotic and abiotic soil parameters. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42:1491–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Luck, G.W., Lavorel, S., Mcintyre, S., and Lumb, K. 2012. Improving the application of vertebrate trait-based frameworks to the study of ecosystem services. Journal of Animal Ecology 1:1–12.Google Scholar
19Lavorel, S., Storkey, J., Bardgett, R.D., De Bello, F., Berg, M.P., Le Roux, X., Moretti, M., Mulder, C., Diaz, S., Harrington, R., and Pakeman, R. 2013. A novel framework for linking functional diversity of plants with other trophic levels for the quantification of ecosystem services. Journal of Vegetation Science 24:942–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Wright, I.J., Reich, P.B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D.D., Baruch, Z., Bongers, F., Cavender-Bares, J., Chapin, T., Cornelissen, J.H., Diemer, M., Flexas, J., Garnier, E., Groom, P.K., Gulias, J., Hikosaka, K., Lamont, B.B., Lee, T., Lee, W., Lusk, C., Midgley, J.J., Navas, M.L., Niinemets, U., Oleksyn, J., Osada, N., Poorter, H., Poot, P., Prior, L., Pyankov, V.I., Roumet, C., Thomas, S.C., Tjoelker, M.G., Veneklaas, E.J., and Villar, R. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827.Google Scholar
21Freshet, G.T., Cornelissen, J.H.C., and Logtestijn, R.S. 2010. Evidence of the ‘plant economics spectrum’ in a subarctic flora. Journal of Ecology 98:362–373.Google Scholar
22Wilson, P.J., Thompson, K., and Hodgson, J.G. 1999. Specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content as alternative predictors of plant strategies. New Phytologist 143:155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Westoby, M. 1998. A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant and Soil 199:213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Violle, C., Garnier, E., Lecoeur, J., Roumet, C., Podeur, C., Blanchard, A., and Navas, M.L. 2009. Competition, traits and resource depletion in plant communities. Oecologia 160:747–755.Google Scholar
25Sun, S. and Frelich, L.E. 2011. Flowering phenology and height growth pattern are associated with maximum plant height, relative growth rate and stem tissue mass density in herbaceous grassland species. Journal of Ecology 99:991–1000.Google Scholar
26Reich, P.B., Buschena, C., Tjoelker, M.G., Wrage, K., Knops, J., Tilman, D., and Machado, J.L. 2003. Variation in growth rate and ecophysiology among 34 grassland and savanna species under contrasting N supply: A test of functional group differences. New Phytologist 157:617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Wahl, S. and Ryser, P. 2000. Root tissue structure is linked to ecological strategies of grasses. New Phytologist 148:459–471.Google Scholar
28Craine, J.M. and Lee, W. 2003. Covariation in leaf and root traits for native and non-native grasses along an altitudinal gradient in New Zealand. Oecologia 134:471–478.Google Scholar
29Tjoelker, M., Craine, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P.B., and Tilman, D. 2005. Linking leaf and root trait syndromes among 39 grassland and savannah species. New Phytologist 167:493–508.Google Scholar
30Kembel, S.W., De Kroon, H., Cahill, J.F., and Mommer, L. 2008. Improving the scale and precision of hypotheses to explain root foraging ability. Annals of Botany 101:1295–1301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Fort, F., Jouany, C., and Cruz, P. 2012. Root and leaf functional trait relations in Poaceae species: Implications of differing resource-acquisition strategies. Journal of Plant Ecology 2:1–9.Google Scholar
32Roumet, C., Urcelay, C., and Díaz, S. 2006. Suites of root traits differ between annual and perennial species growing in the field. New Phytologist 170:357–368.Google Scholar
33Eissenstat, D.M. 1992. Cost and benefits of constructing root of small diameter. Journal of Plant Nutrition 15:763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Ryser, P. 1998. Intra- and Interspecific variation in root lengths, root turnover and the underlying parameters. In Lambers, H., Poorter, H., and van Vuuren, M. (eds). Inherent Variation in Plant Growth Physiological Mechanisms and Ecological Consequences. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, NL. p. 441–465.Google Scholar
35Craine, J.M., Froehle, J., Tilman, D.G., Wedin, D.A., and Chapin, F.S. 2001. The relationships among root and leaf traits of 76 grassland species and relative abundance along fertility and disturbance gradient. Oikos 93:274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Birouste, M., Kazakou, E., Blanchard, A., and Roumet, C. 2012. Plant traits and decomposition: Are the relationships for roots comparable to those for leaves? Annals of Botany 109:463–472.Google Scholar
37Michalet, R., Brooker, R.W., Cavieres, L.A., Kikvidze, Z., Lortie, C.J., Pugnaire, F.I., Valiente-Banuet, A., and Callaway, R.M. 2006. Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities? Ecology Letters 9:767–773.Google Scholar
38Duru, M., Ansquer, P., Jouany, C., Theau, J.P., and Cruz, P. 2010. Suitability of grass leaf dry matter content for assessing the response of grasslands to land use and fertility. Annals of Botany 106:823–831.Google Scholar
39Duru, M., Theau, J.P., and Cruz, P. 2012. Functional diversity of species-rich managed grasslands in response to fertility, defoliation and temperature. Basic and Applied Ecology 13:20–31.Google Scholar
40Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., McIntyre, S., Garden, D., Williams, N., Dorrough, J., Berman, S., Quetier, F., Thebault, A., and Bonis, A. 2008. Assessing functional diversity in the field—methodology matters! Functional Ecology 22:134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Grime, J.P. 2006. Trait convergence and trait divergence in herbaceous plant communities: Mechanisms and consequences. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:255–260.Google Scholar
42De Bello, F., Lavorel, S., Díaz, S., Harrington, R., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Bardgett, R.D., Berg, M.P., Cipriotti, P., Feld, C.K., Hering, D., Martins Da Silva, P., Potts, S.G., Sandin, L., Sousa, J.P., Storkey, J., Wardle, D.A., and Harrison, P.A. 2010. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodiversity Conservation 19:2873–2893.Google Scholar
43Eisenhauer, N. 2011. Aboveground–belowground interactions as a source of complementarity effects in biodiversity experiments. Plant and Soil 351:1–22.Google Scholar
44Petchey, O.L. and Gaston, K.J. 2006. Functional diversity: Back to basics and looking forward. Ecology Letters 9:741–758.Google Scholar
45Gross, N., Suding, K.N., Lavorel, S., and Roumet, C. 2007. Complementarity as a mechanism of coexistence between functional groups of grasses. Journal of Ecology 95:1296–1305.Google Scholar
46Quétier, F., Lavorel, S., Thuiller, W., Davies, I. 2007. Plant trait based modelling assessment of ecosystem service to land use change. Ecological Applications 17:2377–2386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Ansquer, P., Duru, M., Theau, J.P., and Cruz, P. 2009. Functional traits as indicators of fodder production over a short time scale in species-rich grasslands. Annals of Botany 103:117–126.Google Scholar
48Duru, M., Cruz, P., and Theau, J.P. 2010. A simplified method for characterising agronomic services provided by species-rich grasslands. Crop and Pasture Science 61:420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Baumont, R., Delmas, B., Violleau, S., Zapata, J., Chabalier, C., Picard, F., Louault, F., Andueza, D., and Farruggia, A. 2009. The utilisation of grasses functional types and of the cumulated sum of temperatures to evaluate permanent grassland digestibility in PDO cheese farms of the Massif Central in France. Proceedings of the 15th Meeting, FAO-CIHEAM Mountain Pastures Network, Les Diablerets, Switzerland.Google Scholar
50Hinsinger, P., Bengough, A.G., Vetterlein, D., and Young, I.M. 2009. Rhizosphere: Biophysics, biogeochemistry and ecological relevance. Plant and Soil 321:117–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Patra, A.K., Abbadie, L., Clays, A., Degrange, V., Grayston, S., Guillaumaud, N., Loiseau, P., Louault, F., Mahmood, S., Nazaret, S., Philippot, L., Poly, F., Prosser, J.I., and Le Roux, X. 2006. Effects of management regime and plant species on the enzyme activity and genetic structure of N-fixing, denitrifying and nitrifying bacterial communities in grassland soils. Environmental Microbiology 8:1005–1016.Google Scholar
52Bremer, C., Braker, G., Matthies, D., Beierkuhnlein, C., and Conrad, R. 2009. Plant presence and species combination, but not diversity, influence denitrifier activity and the composition of nirK-type denitrifier communities in grassland soil. FEMS Microbial Ecology 70:377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53Lamb, E.G., Kennedy, N. and Siciliano, S.D. 2011. Effects of plant species richness and evenness on soil microbial community diversity and function. Plant and Soil 338:483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Le Roux, X., Schmid, B., Poly, F., Barnard, R.L., Niklaus, P.A., Guillaumaud, N., Habekost, M., Oelmann, Y., Philippot, L., Salles, J., Schloter, M., Steinbeiss, S. and Weigelt, A. 2013. Soil environmental conditions and buildup of microbial communities mediate the effect of grassland plant diversity on nitrifying and denitrifying enzyme activities. PLoS ONE, available at http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061069 (accessed August 30, 2013).Google Scholar
55Richardson, A.E., Lynch, J.P., Ryan, P.R., Delhaize, E., Smith, F.A., Smith, S.E., Harvey, P.R., Ryan, M.H., Veneklaas, E.J., Lambers, H., Oberson, A., Culvenor, R.A., and Simpson, R.J. 2011. Plant and microbial strategies to improve the phosphorus efficiency of agriculture. Plant and Soil 349:121–156.Google Scholar
56Ingham, R.E., Trofymow, J.A., Ingham, E.R., and Coleman, D.C. 1985. Interactions of bacteria, fungi and their nematode grazers—Effects on nutrient cycling and plant-growth. Ecological Monographs 55:119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57Attard, E., Poly, F., Laurent, F., Commeaux, C., Terada, A., Smets, B., Recous, S., and Le Roux, X. 2010. Shifts between nitrospira- and nitrobacter-like nitrite oxidizers underlie the response of soil nitrite oxidizing enzyme activity to changes in tillage practices. Environmental Microbiology 12:315–326.Google Scholar
58Fornara, D.A. and Tilman, D. 2009. Ecological mechanisms associated with the positive diversity forage production relationship in an N limited grassland. Ecology 90:408–418.Google Scholar
59Le Roux, X., Recous, S., and Attard, E. 2011. Soil microbial diversity in grasslands, and its importance for grassland functioning and services. In Lemaire, G. and Chabbi, A.. (eds). Grassland Productivity and Ecosystem Services. CABI International, Wallingford, UK. p. 158–165.Google Scholar
60Fustec, J., Lesuffleur, F., Mahieu, S., and Cliquet, J.B. 2010. Nitrogen rhizodeposition of legumes. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30:57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61Boudsocq, S., Lata, J.C., Raynaud, X., Loeuille, N., Mathieu, J., Blouin, M., Abbadie, L., and Barot, S. 2012. Plant preference for ammonium versus nitrate: a neglected determinant of ecosystem functioning? American Naturalist 180:60–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Verbruggen, E., Kiers, E.T., Bakelaar, P.N.C., Röling, W.F.M., and van der Heijden, M.G.A. 2012. Soil communities from organically and conventionally managed fields provide different agro-ecosystem services. Plant and Soil 350:43–55.Google Scholar
63Martinez-Viveros, O., Jorquera, M.A., Crowley, D.E., Gajardo, G., and Mora, M.L. 2010. Mechanisms and practical considerations involved in plant growth promotion by rhizobacteria. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 10:293–319.Google Scholar
64Comas, L.H., Goslee, S.C., Skinner, R.H., and Sanderson, M.A. 2011. Quantifying species trait-functioning relationships for ecosystem management. Applied Vegetation Science 14:583–585.Google Scholar
65Fortunel, C., Garnier, E., Joffre, R., Kazakou, E., Quested, H., Grigulis, K., Lavorel, S., Ansquer, P., Castro, H., Cruz, P., Dolezal, J., Eriksson, O., Freitas, H., Golodets, C., Jouany, C., Kigel, J., Kleyer, M., Lehsten, V., Lepš, J., Meier, T., Pakeman, R., Papadimitriou, M., Papanastasis, V.P., Quetier, F., Robson, N.M., Sternberg, M., Theau, J.P., Thebault, A., and Zarovali, M. 2009. Leaf traits capture the effects of land use changes and climate on litter decomposability of grasslands across Europe. Ecology 90:598–611.Google Scholar
66Harrison, K.A., Bol, R., and Bardgett, R. 2007. Preferences for different nitrogen forms by coexisting plant species and soil microbes. Ecology 89:989–999.Google Scholar
67Le Roux, X., Poly, F., Currey, P., Commeaux, C., Hai, B., Nicol, G.W., Prosser, J.I., Schloter, M., Attard, E., and Klumpp, K. 2008. Effects of aboveground grazing on coupling among nitrifier activity, abundance and community structure. ISME Journal 2:221–232.Google Scholar
68Graux, A.-I., Lardy, R., Bellocchi, G., and Soussana, J.F. 2012. Global warming potential of French grassland-based dairy livestock systems under climate change. Regional Environmental Change 12:751–763.Google Scholar
69Pontes, L.D.S., Maire, V., Louault, F., Soussana, J.F., and Carrère, P. 2012. Impacts of species interactions on grass community productivity under contrasting management regimes. Oecologia 168:761–771.Google Scholar
70De Deyn, G.B., Cornelissen, J.H.C., and Bardgett, R.D. 2008. Plant functional traits and soil carbon sequestration in contrasting biomes. Ecology Letters 11:516–531.Google Scholar
71Rodríguez, J.P., Beard, T.D., Bennett, E.M., Cumming, G.S., Cork, S.J., Agard, J., Dobson, A.P., and Peterson, G.D. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11:14 p.Google Scholar
72Volaire, F. 2008. Plant traits and functional types to characterise drought survival of pluri-specific perennial herbaceous swards in Mediterranean areas. European Journal of Agronomy 29:116–124.Google Scholar
73Suding, K.N., Lavorel, S., Chapin, F.S., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Díaz, S., Garnier, E., Goldberg, D., Hooper, D.U., Jackson, S.T., and Navas, M.-L. 2008. Scaling environmental change through the community-level: A trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Global Change Biology 14:1125–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., and Mitchell, R.B. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:8086–8091.Google Scholar
75Colasanti, R.L., Hunt, R., and Askew, A.P. 2001. A self-assembling model of resource dynamics and plant growth incorporating plant functional types. Functional Ecology 15:676–687.Google Scholar
76Cruz, P., Theau, J.P., Lecloux, E., Jouany, C., and Duru, M. 2010. Typologie fonctionnelle de graminées fourragères pérennes: Une classification multitraits. Fourrages 401:11–17.Google Scholar
77Ansquer, P., Duru, M., Theau, J.P., and Cruz, P. 2009. Convergence in plant traits between species within grassland communities simplifies their monitoring. Ecological Indicators 9:1020–1029.Google Scholar
78Gillison, A. 2002. A generic computer-assisted method for rapid vegetation classification and survey: Tropical and temperate case studies. Conservation Ecology 6(2): article 3 6: 3. Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art3 (accessed August 30, 2013).Google Scholar
79Duru, M., Jouany, C., Theau, J.P., Granger, S., and Cruz, P. 2013. Développer, maintenir et préserver le potentiel des prairies permanentes: outils et techniques. Fourrages 213:21–34.Google Scholar
80Cruz, P., Quadros, F.L.F., Theau, J.P., Frizzo, A., Jouany, C., Duru, M., and Carvalho, P.C. 2010. Leaf traits as functional descriptors of the intensity of continuous grazing in native grasslands in the south of Brazil. Rangeland, Ecology and Management 63:350–358.Google Scholar
81Ellenberg, H., Weber, H.E., Düll, R., Wirth, V., Werner, W., and Paulissen, D. 1992. Zeigerwerte von pflanzen in mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18:1–258.Google Scholar
82Schaffers, A.P. and Sykora, K.V. 2000. Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: A comparison with field measurements. Journal of Vegetation Science 11:225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83Duru, M., Cruz, P., Theau, J.P., and Jouany, C. 2010. Herb ‘type ©: Un nouvel outil pour évaluer les services de production fournis par les prairies permanentes. Productions Animales 23:319–332.Google Scholar
84Al Haj Khaled, R., Duru, M., Theau, J.P., Plantureux, S., and Cruz, P. 2005. Variation of leaf traits through seasons and N-availability levels and its consequences for ranking grassland species. Journal of Vegetation Science 16:391–398.Google Scholar
85Michaud, A., Plantureux, S., Amiaud, B., Carrère, P., Cruz, P., Duru, M., Dury, B., Farruggia, A., Fiorelli, J.L., Kerneis, E., and Baumont, R. 2011. Identification of the environmental factors which drive the botanical and functional composition of permanent grasslands. Journal of Agricultural Science 150:219–236.Google Scholar
86Eviner, V.T. and Hawkes, C.V. 2008. Embracing variability in the application of plant–soil interactions to the restoration of communities and ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 16:713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87Klumpp, K., Fontaine, S., Attard, E., Le Roux, X., Gleixner, G., and Soussana, J.F. 2009. Grazing triggers soil carbon loss by altering plant roots and their control on soil microbial community. Journal of Ecology 97:876–885.Google Scholar
88Moore, K.M. 2011. Global networks in local agriculture: A framework for negotiation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information 12:23–39.Google Scholar
89Grimm, V. and Railsback, S.F. 2012. Pattern-oriented modelling: A ‘multi-scope’ for predictive systems ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 367:298–310.Google Scholar
90Al Haj Khaled, R. 2005. L'évaluation des caractéristiques agronomiques d'espèces par leurs traits de vie comme étape préalable au diagnostic des communautés à flore complexe. PhD thesis, INPL, Nancy, France, 260 p.+ annexes.Google Scholar