Some error occured while loading the Quick View. Please close the Quick View and try reloading the page.
The call for downsizing livestock production to reduce negative environmental impacts will result in a further reduction in (permanent) grasslands in NW-Europe. This might hamper the provision of important ecosystem services (ES) by grasslands. In this study, ecosystem services of different types of grasslands are compared to arable land. It is shown that, particularly permanent grasslands score better than arable land on important ES’s, such as: soil quality, water regulation, GHG-emissions, water quality and biodiversity. On the contrary, food production is higher from one hectare of arable land than from one hectare of grassland. In such a comparison, land use types are considered as ‘permanent/stable’ situations. However, large temporal effects in greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching are likely when grasslands are converted to arable land. It is essential that temporal and interconnected agro- and socio-economic effects of interventions are taken into account if changes in food systems are envisaged.
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Ecosystem services and grasslands
- 3 Comparing arable and grassland ecosystem services:permanent, temporary and semi-natural grasslands
- 4 Comparing ecosystem services: food production
- 5 Comparing ecosystem services: soil quality
- 6 Comparing ecosystem services: water consumptionand regulation
- 7 Comparing ecosystem services: carbon dioxide (CO2)and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions
- 8 Comparing ecosystem services: ammonia
- 9 Comparing ecosystem services: water quality
- 10 Comparing ecosystem services: biodiversity
- 11 Discussion: land use changes
- 12 Conclusion and future trends
- 13 Where to look for further information
- 14 References