A simple classification of French permanent
grasslands to evaluate their forage and
environmental services
R. Baumont1, A. Michaud1,2,3, E. Pottier2, S. Plantureux3
1 INRA,
UMR Herbivores, Clermont-Ferrand /Theix
2 Institut de l’Elevage, Paris
3 Université de Lorraine, INRA, UMR Agronomie
Environnement, Nancy
September 7, 2014
Permanent grasslands in France
Grasslands not reseeded for more than 5 years : a large variability
of types from SNG to more “intensive” grasslands
About 30% of agricultural land area : 10 M ha
The main forage resource for livestock :
- About 2/3 of area used for forage production
- 50 % of total forage biomass production
- 40 % of E and N used by ruminants
An important environmental resource :
- Biodiversity conservation
- Pollination
- Carbon storage
- Landscape…
.02
September, 7, 2014
…but grasslands area declined by 4 M ha
since 1970
A lack of scientific and technical knowledge on
forage and environmental services provided
by permanent grasslands
- Few and old reference data (nutritive value)
- Bad characterisation and utilisation of
variability
- Low interest of farmers in permanent
grasslands
 A national research and development
program (2008 – 2011) to characterise
French permanent grasslands for a better
utilisation in livestock farming systems
.03
September, 7, 2014
Classification of grasslands
Agronomists and ecologists classify permanent grasslands for
various purposes: describe, understand or predict.
In this program, the objective was to build a classification to
predict forage and environmental services
Forage Services
Environmental Services
Grass production
Species richness
Nutritive value
Entomophil species
Aptitude criteria
Based on the survey of a network
of permanent grasslands
over a large gradient of pedo-climatic
Vegetation characteristics
Botanical and functional composition
Pedo-climatic
conditions
conditions and management practices
Management
practices
.04
September, 7, 2014
The network of grasslands
78 farms with more than 50%
permanent grasslands (> 10 years) in
the forage production area
- Recording of practices
- Analyses of the role of grasslands in
the forage system
A database of 1500 plots:
Definition of 10 forage
services according the main
use, the quality of the forage
and the type of animals
190 selected for a survey
during 2 years
.05
September, 7, 2014
The survey and the measurements
 Botanical composition
- Botanical inventory in spring 2009
 A detailed recording of management practices
(cutting, grazing, fertilisation…)
 Grass samples in exclosures:
- 4 samples/year: beginning and late
spring, summer and autumn regrowths
- Biomass production, Functional
composition, Nutritive value
1520 samples 
.06
September, 7, 2014
A relatively low biodiversity
30%
25%
20%
eFLORAsys
CASDAR
Grassland Network
15%
10%
5%
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66-70
71-75
76-80
0%
 A mean species richness of 24 in the network, in contrast to 32 species for
the 4326 grasslands in the database eFLORAsys
 No protected species
 But this does not mean that grasslands of the network have a low
environmental value
.07
September, 7, 2014
The biomass production across the season
Biomass (T of DM /ha)
8
6
50%
4
80%
data
2
Median
0
P1
580 °C.days
P2
1180 °C.days
P3
7 weeks
P4
8 weeks
°C.days : sum of temperature from 1st February
P1: beginning of spring, P2: end of spring (accumulation)
P3: summer regrowth, P4: autumn regrowth
.08
September, 7, 2014
The nutritive value across the season
Predicted OM digestibility (%)
85
75
65
55
P1
P2
P3
P1: beginning of spring,
P2: end of spring (accumulation)
P3: summer regrowth,
P4: autumn regrowth
Crude protein content (g/kg DM)
P4
220
180
140
100
60
P1
P2
P3
P4
.09
September, 7, 2014
The grassland classification
 19 types based on botanical composition: presence and dominance of
species, functional types (types of grasses, legumes, forbs)
 An identification key organised in 5
levels
- Geography and altitude
- Soil and water regime
- Proportion of forbs and legumes
- Main use of the grassland
- Level of fertilisation
PSC
PO
PL
19 grassland types :
PA: Altitude (>600m) grasslands (5 types)
PSC: Semi-continental grasslands (6 types)
PO: Oceanic grasslands (5 types)
PL: Coastal grasslands (3 types)
PA
.010
The management practices:
fertilisation
Mineral + organic N
200
150
100
50
0
-50
Altitude
Semi-continental
Oceanic
Coastal
.011
The management practices:
Intensity
of
grazing
Number of days grazed (in days.LU/ha)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 PSC5 PSC6 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PL1 PL2 PL3
Altitude
Semi-continental
Oceanic
Coastal
.012
The vegetation of the types
Proportion of legumes in end of spring
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 PSC5 PSC6 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PL1
Altitude
Semi-continental
Oceanic
PL2
PL3
Coastal
.013
The vegetation of the types
Proportion of forbs in end of spring
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 PSC5 PSC6 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PL1 PL2 PL3
Altitude
Semi-continental
Oceanic
Coastal
.014
The vegetation of the types
Proportion of conservative grasses (functional type C)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 PSC5 PSC6 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PL1 PL2 PL3
Altitude
Semi-continental
Oceanic
Coastal
.015
The production of the types
Mean biomass production of 2009-2010 in T DM/ha/year
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 PSC5 PSC6 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PL1 PL2 PL3
Altitude
Semi-continental
Oceanic
Coastal
.016
The nutritive value of the types
Mean OM digestibility in 2009-2010
75
73
71
69
67
65
63
61
59
57
55
PA1
PA2
PA3
PA4
Altitude
PA5 PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 PSC5 PSC6 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5
Semi-continental
Oceanic
PL1
PL2
PL3
Coastal
.017
The biodiversity of the types
Species richness
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA5 PSC1 PSC2 PSC3 PSC4 PSC5 PSC6 PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PL1 PL2 PL3
Altitude
Semi-continental
Oceanic
Coastal
.018
Different types of grasslands
for different forage services
Production (t DM/ha)
6.0
PA1
PO5
4.0
PSC5
2.0
0.0
P1
1.10
P2
P3
= grassland
dominated
by
PSC5PO5
= Well
grassland
PA1
=fertilized
grassland
dominated
Poaby
trivialis
and
Holcus
dominated
by rye-grass
and
white
clover
Festuca
rubra
andlanatus
Agrostis
Suited for grazing all the year by animals
for spring requirements
cut for hay
withSuited
high nutritional
then for grazing
P4
Energy value in UFL (/ kg DM)
1.00
Suited for late grazing with low
stocking rate
0.90
0.80
0.70
P1
P2
P3
P4
.019
A tool that:
Conclusion
 Characterize and quantify the diversity of permanent grasslands
and of their forage and (some) environmental services
 Describes the intra-annual dynamic of permanent grasslands and
gives reference data for the management
Future prospects:
 Need to complete the evaluation of environmental services
(carbon storage…) and of forage services (links with milk and
meat quality, animal health…)
 Extension at an European level ?
.020
Thanks for your attention
To know more about this work:
 A book published by Institut de l’Elevage (in French)
Scientific papers :

MICHAUD A., PLANTUREUX S., AMIAUD B., CARRÈRE P., CRUZ P., DURU M., DURY B., FARRUGGIA A., FIORELLI J.L., KERNEIS E.,
BAUMONT R., 2012. Identification of the environmental factors which drive the botanical and functional
composition of permanent grasslands. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 150, 219-236.

MICHAUD A., ANDUEZA D., PICARD F., PLANTUREUX S., BAUMONT R., 2012. Seasonal dynamics of biomass production
and herbage quality of three grasslands with contrasting functional compositions. Grass and Forage Science, 67,
64-76.

ROSSIGNOL N. ,ANDUEZA D.,CARRÈRE P., CRUZ P., DURU M., FIORELLI J.-L., MICHAUD A.,PLANTUREUX S.,
POTTIER E., BAUMONT R., 2013 Assessing population maturity of three perennial grass species: Influence of
phenology and tiller demography along latitudinal and altitudinal gradients Grass and Forage Science,
DOI:10.1111/gfs.12067.

A. MICHAUD, S. PLANTUREUX, E. POTTIER AND R. BAUMONT, 2014. Links between functional composition,
biomass production and forage quality in permanent grasslands over a broad gradient of conditions The Journal
of Agricultural Science, doi:10.1017/S0021859614000653
.021
The elaboration of the classification
From the botanical composition in
the exclosures (2009 et 2010)
15 types of grasslands that
explain the forage services
From the botanical inventory
(exhaustive botanical composition in
2009)
12 types of grasslands that explain
environmental services
(biodiversity, pollination)
Final synthesis
19 grassland types
.022
September, 7, 2014