Networks or consortia

Biogeochemical modelling is used to assess the impact of agricultural activities and climate on carbon and nutrient cycles in ecosystems, as well as associated services or disservices such as biomass production, carbon emissions/storage and nutrient retention.

Restoring landscapes and habitats through the lens of their utilities. Limits and alternatives. The ecosystem services frame is often used as a reference to justify public actions or policies, or to assess their outcomes. However, its utilitarian approach, like that of nature-based solutions, raises questions and has limits.

Freshwater, biodiversity hotspots and major supports of ecosystem services, are among the most threatened ecosystems on Earth.

Taking into consideration the environmental continuums, including the interface zones, to study and manage ecosystems is gradually gaining interest in both scientific and operational spheres. In this context, the role of the soil-water continuum in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services is increasingly questioned. However, this role is still very little studied, especially because of the compartmentalization of research by type of environment (e.g. soil vs surface water vs sediment) as well as of conceptual and methodological scientific limitations (including in terms of experimental set-ups that integrate terrestrial and aquatic compartments).

There are over 20,000 species of wild bees in the world and close to 1,000 in France. This great diversity of species, all differing in terms of morphology, mobility, phenology, nesting sites and more importantly floral preference, is essential for the pollination of a wide variety of wild and cultivated plants. The health of bee populations is threatened by many factors such as intensive agricultural practices and land management.

As a result of changes in farming practices, climate change and the increasing number of beekeepers and apiaries, tensions are emerging around floral resources, i.e. the nectar and pollen used by the bees. Long considered to be unlimited, these floral resources seem to be the object of a competition, both inter-specific between wild and domestic bees and intra-specific between domestic bees. This leads us to consider these floral resources as a common good to be managed collectively, involving not only beekeepers and biodiversity managers, but also the farmers who shape these landscapes and whose practices influence the availability of floral resources.

Our landscapes are continually being modified by changes in land use and management practices, leading to a redefinition of the relationship between biodiversity and management practices. However, the levers for action to conserve biodiversity are often conceived at a local scale (site or parcel) by looking for practices that better preserve local biodiversity. This local vision is not adapted to account for the dynamics of biotic and abiotic fluxes and the interactions between the elements of the landscape mosaic that are essential for ecosystem functioning. Despite recent conceptual advances in landscape ecology, the current challenge in terms of conservation is still to move from a "management" vision at the local scale to a "spatial planning" vision at the landscape scale.