# Strategies to advance the agroecological transition: Insights from a case study of sheep-crop integration in southwestern France

Fabien Stark, Romane Mettauer, Julie Ryschawy, Myriam Grillot, Cassagnes

Andrea, Imad Shaqura, Marc Moraine

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Fabien Stark, Romane Mettauer, Julie Ryschawy, Myriam Grillot, Cassagnes Andrea, et al.. Strategies to advance the agroecological transition: Insights from a case study of sheep-crop integration in southwestern France. Agricultural Systems, 2026, 231, pp.104514. 10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104514. hal-05288168

HAL Id: hal-05288168

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05288168v1

Submitted on 2 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Strategies to advance the agroecological transition: Insights from a case study of sheep-crop integration in southwestern France

F. Stark<sup>a,*</sup>, R. Mettauer<sup>b</sup>, J. Ryschawy<sup>c</sup>, M. Grillot<sup>c</sup>, A. Cassagnes<sup>d</sup>, I. Shaqura<sup>a</sup>, M. Moraine<sup>e</sup>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

## HIGHLIGHTS

* Crop-livestock integration (CLI) at the territory level was characterized and modeled.

* Impacts of climate change on forage productivity challenged the CLI studied.

* Diversity in forage resources and flock management were key to secure CLI.

* Combining participatory and modeling approaches enabled building collective knowledge.

* The approach supported the viability of CLI and can be applied elsewhere.

## GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

Crop-livestock integration

Mixed farming system

Vineyard

Rangeland

Diversity

Pastoralism

## ABSTRACT

**Context:** Mediterranean areas face multiple challenges, including biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and vulnerability to climate change. In southern France's Languedoc region, vineyard monoculture dominates, and livestock systems are rare. Agroecological transitions, especially crop-livestock integration, offer opportunities to diversify systems, recycle nutrients, enhance biodiversity, and reduce fire risks. However, such integration is difficult due to climatic constraints, land accessibility, and the current disconnection between crop and livestock systems.

**Objective:** This study aimed to explore how crop-livestock integration practices in the Minervois territory could be expanded to support agroecological transitions. It focused on identifying synergies that address forage needs for local flocks and create benefits for vineyard and cereal farmers.

**Methods:** As part of a larger participatory and locally grounded approach, we designed agroecological scenarios based on integration of sheep farming system with various crop and semi-natural areas. We assessed the potential to reintroduce livestock in an area where few systems have existed recently. The process identified both the biotechnical and coordination conditions required to sustain livestock with local forage throughout the year and to organize exchanges among stakeholders.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> SELMET, Univ Montpellier, INRAE, CIRAD, L'Institut Agro-Montpellier, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> ABSYS, Univ Montpellier, INRAE, CIRAD, L'Institut Agro-Montpellier, CIHEAM, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> AGIR, Univ Toulouse, INRAE, Castanet-Tolosan, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> BioCivam Aude, Trèbes, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> INNOVATION, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, L'Institut Agro Montpellier, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author at: SELMET, Univ Montpellier, INRAE, CIRAD, L'Institut Agro-Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
E-mail address: fabien.stark@inrae.fr (F. Stark).</footnote>
**Results and conclusions:** Except under dry conditions, a flock of 1200 ewes could be sustained year-round through a diversified landscape combining cereal crops, vineyard inter-rows, local rangelands, and transhumance (i.e., moving the flock from one territory to another to graze available forage resources). This diversity enhances agroecological performance through crop-livestock complementarities by exploiting synergies between animal and plant species, over time and space. The method used can be adapted to other territories, and stakeholder involvement is essential for developing understanding and implementing feasible scenarios

**Significance:** The results support future studies aiming to link forage availability with organizational strategies to identify grazing areas and develop concrete implementation plans.

# 1. Introduction

The negative impacts of the specialization and intensification of modern agricultural systems require urgent and massive transformation of these systems towards more agroecological systems (Revoyron et al., 2022). This transition is based in particular on reconnecting crop and livestock systems to (i) re-diversify cropping systems with temporary grassland and forage crops that help regulate pests, diseases and weeds (Moraine et al., 2014) and (ii) to improve the closing of nutrient cycles by recycling nitrogen, carbon, and phosphorus, and reducing losses (Billen et al., 2018). Crop and livestock systems are currently disconnected at farm and territory levels due to technical, economic, social and political pressures (Garrett et al., 2020), which has decreased the number of mixed crop-livestock farms in Europe (Schut et al., 2021).

Although crop-livestock integration is often considered at the farm level, it can also be developed at the territory level through collaborations between neighboring farms (Martin et al., 2016). The territory level is also that at which natural resources are managed and collective action is initiated (Catarino et al., 2021). This level is relevant for the design of agroecological systems because it can combine biodiversity conservation, spatial and temporal distribution of agricultural practices and ecosystem services (Duru et al., 2015; Kremen and Merenlender, 2018). Martin et al. (2020) identified the trade-offs involved in crop-livestock integration to ensure a “safe operating space” for temporary grassland in crop rotations, which combined a large percentage of land dedicated to human consumption, a low nitrogen supply and increased biological regulation and carbon sequestration. Such agricultural diversity and the biological complementarities between these diversities could be an excellent model of agroecological transition at the territory level and thus provide a high potential for biodiversity conservation (Barbaro et al., 2021). In agroecology, according to Wezel et al. (2016), a territory is “the projection on a given land of specific structures created by a human group, which includes the way to delimitating, managing and organizing the land in question.” More specifically, an agroecology territory is a place where a transition process towards sustainable agriculture and food systems is engaged (Wezel et al., 2016). Some encouraging initiatives for crop-livestock integration exist, but studies of them highlight the need for coordination among local stakeholders to initiate and stabilize the synergies between crop and livestock farmers (Asai et al., 2018; Moraine et al., 2020). These studies identified conditions required for successful local coordination, including spatial proximity of farms, a clear vision and shared governance of the exchanges between them and the existence of intermediate support structure to lead farmers’ groups and organize their exchanges (Moojen et al., 2024a, 2024b).

In Mediterranean areas, implementing agroecological transitions is challenging due to the strong impacts of climate change, which require locally developed adaptation strategies (Lin, 2011). Mediterranean regions experience relatively long and intense droughts, as well as a general decline in soil fertility due to intensive cultivation and simplified crop rotation on the one hand, and the abandonment of less fertile land, urbanization, and the decline of livestock farming on the other. In southern France, the Languedoc region is dominated by vineyard monoculture, along with a few cereal crops, mainly durum wheat.

There is a growing interest in recent attempts to change cropping

practices to reduce erosion, increase soil organic matter, increase the biological fertility of soils and reduce the use of fossil fuels. These strategies engage stakeholders in the development of agroecology (Altieri et al., 2024) and diversification, among which crop-livestock integration appears a promising option. Combining cover crops in vineyards (Garcia et al., 2018) with sheep grazing has interesting agroecological performances due to replacing mechanical tillage with grazing and reducing the workload of winegrowers (Niles et al., 2018; Brewer and Gaudin, 2020). Crop-livestock integration can also improve biodiversity at multiple levels, including soil microbial populations and the plant composition of vineyards through waste excretion by livestock, landscape patterns through crop diversification and semi-natural areas by removal of woody vegetation (Brewer et al., 2023; Fornoff et al., 2025; Puech et al., 2025). The territory can also benefit from these practices, since removing woody vegetation and maintaining herbaceous vegetation in semi-natural areas and scrubland is particularly crucial to mitigate fire risks under dry conditions (Lovreglio et al., 2014; Ruiz-Mirazo et al., 2012). Despite their many benefits, livestock systems remain uncommon in Languedoc because they require forage resources that are either too scarce (e.g., due to the hot and dry climate, vineyards in which herbicides are applied to bare soil) or too difficult to access (e. g., due to urban growth, areas inaccessible during the growing season). Some shepherds practice traditional transhumance (i.e., moving the flock from one territory to another to graze available forage resources), but they are rarely connected to crop or vineyard systems and depend mainly on rangeland resources (Lurette et al., 2020; Napoleone et al., 2021).

Given the potential but uncertain benefits of crop-livestock integration in Languedoc, this paper addressed the question in what ways can expanding crop-livestock integration in the Minervois territory support agroecological transitions, by creating synergies that address both forage needs for local flocks and advantages for vineyard and cereal farmers?

For this purpose, we characterized the existing diversification associated with crop-livestock integration practices in Minervois, a territory in the Languedoc region of France that produces mainly protected designation of origin wines, located between the intensive Languedoc plain and the semi-natural dry hills of the Causses. These diversification practices were used to develop scenarios of crop-livestock synergies at the territory level. In particular, we assessed co-designed scenarios developed to meet the requirements for forage resources of existing local flocks, the potential increase in flock size and associated agroecological opportunities for winegrowers and cereal farmers given the local climate, biophysical and socioeconomic constraints. We chose to analyze and compare scenarios based on the number of animals fed and the forage potential of the territory, using these as relative proxies to illustrate possible differences between scenarios.

This research was part of a larger participatory and deeply situated approach to engage local partners (i.e., agricultural advisors, leaders of farmers’ organizations, local development agents and farmers) in the design process (Moraine et al., 2024). Along with these stakeholders, we identified the biotechnical and organizational conditions required to develop crop-livestock synergies in the scenarios. We first explored the theoretical potential for crop-livestock integration in a territory in which (i) few livestock systems have existed for several decades, resulting in
the need to redevelop local knowledge and provide technical support to farmers, and (ii) climate and soil conditions challenge the quantity, quality and distribution of forage resources in the region. We then addressed operational aspects, and focused on the technical and organizational conditions required to sustain local livestock systems with

local forage resources throughout the year. These conditions require balancing forage resources (from farms or natural vegetation) and consumers (livestock farmers and their flocks), as well as fine-tuned coordination between farmers and other local stakeholders.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**Plain:**
Open landscape
(vineyards, cereals,
scrubland)

**Causse:**
Woody plants
encroaching on the
landscape

<caption>**Fig. 1.** (a) Map of the utilized agricultural areas in the Minervois territory in 2019 and associated types of forage resources for sheep flocks (sources CAP statements (IGN) and Oso (INRAE US ODR)) and (b) photograph of the Minervois landscape (© X. Poux).</caption>
## 2. Materials and methods

### 2.1. Minervois territory

The study was performed in the Minervois natural territory (center: 43°16'20"N; 2°31'16"E), which includes 13 communes in the Aude and Hérault departments. The landscape contrasts between the mainly winegrowing plains (elevation of 100–150 m) in the south and the Causses in the north (limestone plateaus, elevation of 900 m), which consists of moorland interspersed with vineyard plots (Fig. 1). The territory has a Mediterranean climate, with a mean monthly temperature ranging from 5 °C in January to 22 °C in July; relatively heavy rainfall in October, November and April (ca. 80–90 mm/month) and a dry period in June, July and August (ca. 40–50 mm/month). The soils are clay loams with little organic matter.

From 1988 to 2020, the number of farms in the territory decreased by 50 %, down to 756 farms, especially due to the abandonment of winegrowing with nearly 20 % of the vines that existed in 1970 uprooted and consequently an expansion of farms. This dynamic accelerated from 1980 to 2011 because farmers could receive payment under the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for uprooting unculminated vines (Arnal et al., 2013; Agreste, 2024).

Following the decrease in winegrowing in the 1980s, winegrowers turned to increasing wine quality, especially by developing organic farming (Arnal et al., 2013), with nearly 57 % of vineyards in the territory farmed organically in the 2020s. Through the initiative of a local cooperative of organic cereal farmers, 10 % of the cereal-growing area in the territory is land reclaimed from abandoned vineyards that is farmed organically (Agreste, 2024). To restore soil quality, cereal rotations included forage legumes (i.e., alfalfa and sainfoin) after the first few years of transition towards organic farming. Although they were not marketable since they were principally used to improve soil structure and fertility for the following crop, the forage legumes could also benefit local livestock farmers (i.e., via mowing) and transhumant shepherds (i. e., via grazing), depending on the desired complementarities.

Specialization and concentration of winegrowing farms were accompanied by the gradual abandonment of the traditional transhumanism of sheep. Transhumanism introduces livestock when forage resources are abundant and moves livestock to other territories when forage resources become limited to adapt livestock requirements to potential forage resources. Most national agricultural statistics are based on the location of the farm, but no data are available for transhumant livestock, which may be present in the territory only for a few months, to quantify flock sizes accurately (Agreste, 2022). In 2020, sheep meat farming in the territory was represented by flocks with nearly 2500 ewes on 13 farms, 5 of which were organic. Their meat was sold to regional traders or directly to consumers. Maintaining livestock in the territory is based on the local diversity of production systems (i.e., cereals, vines) and semi-natural areas (i.e., rangeland), motivated by the initiatives of progressive farmers and facilitated by local agricultural advisors. Diversifying crop rotations and organic farming practices, as well as preserving natural areas, are opportunities for maintaining or even reintroducing agropastoral livestock farming into this territory.

Transhumant livestock farmers and shepherds lead flocks to range-land, fallow land, crop fields and vineyards (Jouven et al., 2010). The traditional practice of grazing the inter-rows of vineyards has regained interest in recent years for farmers and shepherds (increasing winter forage resources) as well as for winegrowers (decreasing mechanization and inputs).

### 2.2. Territorial modeling

#### 2.2.1. Semi-structured interviews to characterize integrated crop-livestock systems

We performed 19 semi-structured interviews with 1 shepherd, 8 winegrowers and 10 cereal farmers from the territory to characterize

current farming systems and understand crop-livestock integration practices implemented in the territory. Sampling was based on diversity of farms to explore a wide range of farms structures and farming practices in the territory (Table 1).

The interviews were performed from 2020 to 2021, and each one lasted 1–3 h. They were organized around (i) a description of the farm, how it had been established and the objectives targeted; (ii) agricultural practices, with quantitative data for an average year and (iii) discussion of the perceived benefits and limitations of crop-livestock integration and their potential for development. All interviews were audio recorded with consent of the participants. Data from the interviews were used to model the territory by characterizing (qualitatively and quantitatively) the crop-livestock integration practices implemented as a function of the species and agricultural areas involved.

#### 2.2.2. Modeling current and future diversity in forage resources

We first described land use in the territory to calibrate existing crop-livestock integration practices, and estimated the forage resources that these practices could use (Fig. 1). We combined geographic information from 2019, derived from European Union CAP statements (Baiamonte et al., 2023) and the public land-use database OSO (Inglada et al., 2017) to describe the spatial distribution, areas and potential use of land (Table S1). Since CAP statements declare areas for which farmers receive subsidies to cultivate or maintain, crop-livestock integration practices were already applied to these areas. The OSO database, which is a land-use map based on satellite images, enabled us to classify additional areas that could be suitable for developing these practices. We removed the smallest areas from the OSO data, since they had already been declared in the CAP statements (i.e., cereal crops, fallow land, permanent grassland, temporary grassland, open moorland and scrubland); together (142 ha), they represented less than 1 % of the total area of the territory (17,652 ha).

We then classified land use and the agricultural environment into 10 types of forage resources based on their ecological and agronomic characteristics (i.e. plant strata, yields per season and agricultural use). Cultivated areas were divided into five classes: (i) vineyards, with undergrowth vegetation that can be grazed (10 % of the total vineyard area); (ii) forage crops, which are mowed; (iii) cereal crops, with stubble that can be grazed after harvest; (iv) temporary grassland, which is planted in rotation with cereals, and (v) fallow land, which can also be grazed. Semi-natural areas were divided into another five classes: (vi) permanent grassland (spontaneous herbaceous vegetation); (vii) open moorland (presence of low-growing woody vegetation); (viii) closed moorland (presence of low-growing woody vegetation and shrubs); (ix) woodland; and (x) scrubland (spontaneous herbaceous and low-growing

<caption>Table 1</caption>

Characteristics of the farming practices described during the 19 semi-structured interviews.

<table><thead><tr><td>Stakeholder</td><td>N</td><td>Size and area</td><td>Farming practices</td><td>Crop-livestock integration practices</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cereal farmers</td><td>10</td><td>5–252 ha</td><td>5-year organic cereal rotation (legume hay and grain, wheat, barley), no inorganic fertilization</td><td>cereal rotations on abandoned vineyards for grazing and as a forage resource</td></tr><tr><td>Winegrowers</td><td>8</td><td>15–160 ha</td><td>organic fertilization, mechanical weeding</td><td>grazing undergrowth vegetation in vineyards</td></tr><tr><td>Shepherd</td><td>1</td><td>1000 ewes grazing on rangeland</td><td>100 % grazing with lambing throughout the year</td><td>grazing undergrowth vegetation in vineyards, intercropped cereals and cereal stubble</td></tr></tbody></table>
woody vegetation) that can be cultivated to produce legume forage in organic cereal rotations (Table S2).

### 2.2.3. Model of seasonal supply

We used the 10 land-use classes for cultivated, grazing and rangeland areas and two other sources of information to estimate the supply of grazing biomass (hereafter, “potential forage resources”) in the territory. For cultivated areas, we estimated potential forage resources based on the agricultural practices implemented by the farmers interviewed and regional technical references (Agreste, 2024). For grazing and rangeland areas, we used the database of the “Rangeland Rummy” serious game, which supports adaptive management of rangeland-based livestock systems (Farrié et al., 2015). This database, developed by rangeland experts, estimates potential fodder resources as a function of the type of animal, grazing method, land use and season. We then calculated potential forage resources of each land-use class per 2-week period based on the vegetative stages of plants and physiological stages of livestock (Table S3). Vines are available for grazing in winter, forage legumes are produced and harvested in spring, and lambing and grape harvesting occur in autumn. For each 2-week period, we calculated potential forage resources of each land-use class as its area multiplied by its yield.

We also estimated forage from forage crops that could be mowed and stored, and therefore used at another time. However, we did not reallocate it to the herd, as this resource could be sold outside the territory. The objective was to evaluate the capacity of the territory to feed the herd through agroecological practices that exploit spatial and temporal complementarities, which is more typical of grazing pasture or rangeland than the use of distributed forages sourced from cultivated land (Barbieri et al., 2022). With regard to the possibility of carrying over forage, we modeled the fact that resources are available in a given season but are no longer available the following season, to account for the senescence of semi-natural resources such as pastoral resources. In fact, the impact of grazing from one season to the next (sorting practice by ruminants), was not taken into account in order to simplify the processes studied (Jouven et al., 2010).

### 2.2.4. Model of seasonal demand

We estimated the demand for grazing biomass as a function of forage resource requirements of sheep flock (including ewes, replacements and lambs). Because resource requirements of ewes vary by physiological stage (i.e. maintenance, gestation, lactation and lambing) (Farrié et al., 2015), we modeled the breeding calendar based on the practices of the interviewed livestock farmers who performed autumn lambing to estimate requirements for each 2-week period and season. We estimated the requirements for lambs over a 6-month period, after which they were sold, based on livestock practices described during the interviews. Requirements also depended on the breed and its productivity. Based on the interviews, we used a hardy breed as a reference, such as the Rouge du Roussillon, with a body weight of 65 kg (meat ewes) and a mean productivity of 1.25 lambs per year (Table S4). For each 2-week period, total forage resource requirements were calculated as the number of ewes multiplied by the forage requirements of 1 ewe and her cohort (0.25 or 0.50 renewal ewes +0 or 1.25 lambs, depending upon the period).

## 2.3. Design and simulation

### 2.3.1. Participative design of relevant scenarios

Based on recent trends and participants' knowledge, we developed several gradual scenarios focusing on three main areas: climate variability, better forage-resource management, and improved flock management (see Table 2). One scenario looked at the effects of climate change, showing that it is becoming harder for farmers to feed their flocks year-round due to decreasing and more variable forage resources. Other scenarios considered improving the use of forage resources by

<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Incremental scenarios in the experimental design for simulations based on the main hypothesis tested and selected parameters. (CAP: Common Agricultural Policy).

<table><thead><tr><th>Scenario</th><th>Description</th><th>Configuration</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S1: Baseline situation</td><td>Current farming practices and land use</td><td>Based on interviews and CAP statements</td></tr><tr><td>S2: Climate change - based on S1</td><td>Lower forage yields and shifting seasons</td><td>20 % less productivity than that in S1 and changes in the seasonal distribution of forage resources</td></tr><tr><td>S3: Resource adaptation - based on S2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>S3a: rangeland areas</td><td>Grazing of additional rangeland and fallow land</td><td>From 0 % in S1 to 25 % of fallow land and rangeland not declared in CAP statements</td></tr><tr><td>S3b: vineyards</td><td>Grazing of additional vineyard areas</td><td>From 8 % to 20 % of declared vineyard area</td></tr><tr><td>S3c: scrubland recultivation</td><td>Organic cereal rotation on scrubland and grazing of temporary grassland</td><td>From 0 % to 25 % of declared scrubland area</td></tr><tr><td>S3d: cereal stubble</td><td>Grazing of cereal stubble</td><td>From 0 % to 25 % of cereal area</td></tr><tr><td>S3e: all resource-adaptation scenarios</td><td>Combining S3a, S3b, S3c and S3d</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>S4: Livestock adaptation - based on S3e</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>S4a: breeding calendar</td><td>Starting the breeding calendar later to match vegetation growth better</td><td>Starting the breeding calendar 6 weeks later</td></tr><tr><td>S4b: transhumance</td><td>Moving the flock from (summer) and to (winter) the territory as a function of potential forage resources</td><td>Number of animals that cannot be fed in summer or that can be fed additionally in winter (compared to the rest of the year)</td></tr><tr><td>S4c: all flock-adaptation scenarios</td><td>Combining S4a and S4b</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

better integrating crops and livestock. For example, using abandoned farmland, organic farms, or semi-natural areas that are not currently grazed could help feed existing flocks. Additional scenarios focused on adjusting flock management, such as changing the lambing season or the number of animals depending on forage availability, to better match livestock needs with the seasonal availability of forage. Finally, we combined these different approaches to explore various solutions, highlighting the importance of using a range of strategies to address the challenges of diverse territories.

We chose to limit to the number of animals and the forage potential as relative proxy of potential overall outcomes. We did not take into account possible differences in zootechnical performance depending on the types of grazed resources, so the variation in terms of performances is directly linked to flock size fed. Finally, the scenario analysis proposed is relative, i.e., we compare the scenarios with each other (i.e., number of animals more or less than a given baseline), which does not require expanding the set of indicators to evaluate and compare them.

### 2.3.2. Specification and simulation of scenarios

The scenarios designed (Table 2) were then calibrated based on the land use and estimates of potential forage resources and livestock requirements (Table S5). The baseline situation (S1) assumed that all forage areas declared in the CAP statements were grazed by sheep flocks. In addition, 75 % of permanent grassland area and 50 % of temporary grassland area were assumed to be grazed by agropastoral flocks, with the rest being grazed by other types of livestock in the territory. In addition, based on the interviews, 10 % of vineyard area was assumed to be grazed.

The climate-change scenario (S2), based on S1, assumed a 20 % decrease in the annual forage resources in each area (Malek et al., 2018). We also modeled changes in growing seasons, with spring starting 2
weeks earlier (duration shortened by 14 days), summer starting 1 month earlier and ending 1 month later (i.e., 2 months longer), and thus autumn being shortened by 1 month and winter by 2 weeks (Farrié et al., 2015).

Five scenarios on the use of forage resources, based on S2, were calibrated to reflect changes in land use and the magnitude of crop-livestock integration practices implemented:

Scenario 3a (rangeland area) involved grazing fallow land and closed moorland, which had not been declared as used but contain potential forage resources. Since not all of these areas can be grazed (e.g., low accessibility or quality), only 25 % of them were assumed to be grazed in the simulations.

Scenario 3b (vineyards) involved increasing the percentage of vineyard area grazed from 10 % to 25 % of declared vineyards and grazing 10 % of undeclared vineyards, to reflect that not all vineyards can be grazed.

Scenario 3c (scrubland recultivation) involved recultivating scrubland in a 5-year organic cereal rotation, as observed in the surrounding region. A 2-year temporary forage legume was assumed to be planted in the rotation to improve the health and increase the fertilization of fields for future cereal production (e.g., wheat, oats). To capture effects of the temporary grassland in the rotation and the fact that not all scrubland can be recultivated, 10 % of scrubland was assumed to be recultivated.

Scenario 3d (cereal stubble) involved grazing cereal stubble, as observed in the surrounding region. This scenario assumed that 25 % of the cereal area could be grazed.

Scenario 3e (all resource) combined the previous four scenarios to consider effects of several changes in practices at the territory level.

Three scenarios on flock-management practices, based on S3e, were calibrated to optimize the use of potential forage resources each season:

Scenario 4a (breeding calendar) involved starting the breeding calendar 6 weeks later to adapt livestock requirements to peak in early winter, when potential forage resources are larger (i.e., late autumn).

Scenario 4b (transhumance) involved simulating two types of

transhumance based on livestock requirements each season: (i) summer transhumance, when flocks move from the territory to high-elevation grassland to reduce grazing pressure during the dry season, and (ii) inverse transhumance, when flocks move from other areas to the territory in winter to take advantage of excess forage resources, such as those in vineyards.

Scenario 4c (all flock) combined the previous two scenarios to consider their effects on potential forage resources and livestock requirements at the territory level.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Baseline situation (S1)

For the baseline situation, we assumed that 1872 ha of land was used to feed agropastoral livestock and that it produced 1281 t dry matter (DM) of forage per year. Based on livestock practices discussed during the interviews and assumptions about livestock requirements by physiological stage, a flock with 700 ewes could be fed throughout the year in the territory, but with high seasonal variability.

Potential forage resources varied greatly between seasons and were provided mainly by closed moorland and vineyards in winter, permanent and temporary grasslands in spring, woodland and closed moorland in summer and closed moorland and permanent grassland in autumn (Fig. 2). This distribution of forage resources and their combination during a given season is consistent with the physiological requirements of grazing sheep for energy, protein and fiber, provided in a differentiated manner by the diversity of herbaceous and woody forage resources in rangeland (Meuret and Provenza, 2015).

Potential forage resources decreased in summer, which occurs frequently in Mediterranean climates, and makes it more difficult for shepherds to access enough land and forage. This reduction increases pressure on certain types of land-use classes that become crucial during these key periods. Closed moorland and woodland do not produce the

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Predicted monthly distribution of potential forage resources (ton dry matter (DM)) in the baseline situation as a function of the type of forage resource (colored zones) and the forage requirements of a flock with 700 ewes managed with autumn lambing (dashed line).</figcaption></figure>
most forage resources, but they can provide them during dry periods and ensure that ewes are fed continually during these periods because they cover large areas (Jouven et al., 2010). When forage resources are abundant, shepherds adapt livestock feeding to their availability (e.g., sufficient, depending on the land use) and accessibility (e.g., agreements with field owners) (Meuret and Provenza, 2015). This can help to secure forage resources for later by prioritizing grazing in areas that may be less suitable later in the year (e.g., closed moorland in winter, permanent grassland in spring).

Concerning the requirements of ewes, autumn lambing was predicted to reduce livestock requirements in spring and summer, which are the most critical periods for potential forage resources. Nonetheless, the risk of a forage deficit peaked in autumn, when potential forage resources barely exceeded livestock requirements.

## 3.2. Climate change (S2)

In the climate-change scenario, the earlier spring, longer summer and shorter autumn greatly changed the potential forage resources during the year (Farrié et al., 2015).

For the same flock-management practices as in the baseline situation, livestock requirements exceeded potential forage resources for 4.5 months, from the start of summer to mid-autumn (Fig. 3). Because the seasons shifted, the breeding calendar was no longer adapted to the vegetation growth in the drier climate simulated. During the summer forage deficit, closed moorland and woodland contributed much less to livestock feeding. Consequently, maintaining agropastoral livestock farming with the same practices, forage resources and flock size in this scenario was much more difficult. To do so, farmers must implement adaptation strategies that address both potential forage resources and livestock requirements.

## 3.3. Adapting forage resources (S3)

Including the effects of climate change on potential forage resources

predicted in S2, none of the resource-adaptation scenarios was able to feed the flock throughout the year, even when combined with others, corresponding to the various S3 scenarios taken together (Fig. 4). Scenario 3a (grazing additional rangeland areas) compensated the most for the forage deficit throughout the year, particularly in summer. Scenario 3b (grazing additional vineyards) increased potential forage resources greatly in late autumn and winter, but additional forage resources were not required then. Scenario 3c (recultivating scrubland) partly compensated for the forage deficit in spring and late autumn, while scenario 3d (grazing stubble) had little influence, providing few additional forage resources in autumn.

Scenarios are related to climate-change (S2) and several resource-adaptation scenarios (shaded areas): S3a: grazing additional rangeland and fallow land (S3a), grazing additional vineyard areas (S3b), recultivating scrubland (S3c) and grazing cereal stubble (S3d). Black lines represent the forage requirements of a flock with 700 ewes, managed with either standard autumn lambing (S1, dashed line) or autumn lambing started 6 weeks later (S4a, solid line).

Although these scenarios were not able to meet livestock requirements for forage resources under drier conditions due to climate change, they did highlight benefits of combining different farming practices that reflected different ways to meet livestock requirements for forage resources depending on the season. Compared to the baseline situation, they provided shepherds with potential strategies to adapt to unexpected difficulties that can occur during grazing (e.g., inability to reach a certain area due to other activities, such as construction; risk of conflict with other activities in the territory).

When considering grazed areas, depending on the various scenarios, we can appreciate the benefits that livestock farming brings to both cultivated and semi-natural components of the territory (Fig. 5). By combining complementary pastoral lands, vineyards, reclaimed wastelands, and cereal crops, the total area benefiting from grazing can potentially be doubled. Among these, vineyards and pastoral areas stand to benefit the most in terms of the total surface available across the territory, while wastelands and cereal crops would also benefit, though

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Predicted monthly distribution of potential forage resources (ton dry matter (DM)) in the climate-change scenario as a function of the type of forage resource (colored areas) and the forage requirements of a sheep flock with 700 ewes managed with autumn lambing (dashed line).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Predicted monthly distribution of potential forage resources (ton dry matter (DM)) according to each scenario simulated.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Predicted agricultural area grazed by sheep flocks according to different scenarios and land use types.</figcaption></figure>

to a lesser extent. Finally, harvested and collected forages were not mobilized in these results to estimate an additional number of animals that could be fed and/or to cover seasonal deficits. Conserved forages indeed serve as a form of insurance in case of forage shortages.

Scenarios are related to climate-change (S2) and several resource-

adaptation scenarios: grazing additional rangeland and fallow land (S3a), grazing additional vineyard areas (S3b), recultivating scrubland (S3c) and grazing cereal stubble (S3d) and all resource-adaptation (S3e). Land use types are related to grazed areas according to scenario configurations: woods, grassland, moorland, cereal crops and vineyards.
### 3.4. Adapting livestock requirements (S4)

Starting the breeding calendar (and thus lambing) 6 weeks later (S4a) shifted peak livestock requirements from early autumn to mid- autumn, which reduced the forage deficit, especially in early autumn, but did not compensate completely for the summer deficit (Fig. 4). When practicing transhumance (S4b), as in previous scenarios, summer remained the season with the fewest forage resources (Fig. 6).

Combining different transhumance practices could benefit from the potential forage resources of areas with different soils and climates, such as introducing livestock in winter to benefit from rangeland resources available on the plains, or moving livestock to high-elevation grassland in summer. When combining all of the scenarios developed, simulations predicted that more than 1200 ewes could be fed throughout the year, with 600 ewes moving to high-elevation grassland in summer and 1200 additional ewes being grazed in winter (Fig. 6).

Seasons vary in terms of duration: winter (seven 2-week period), spring (six 2-week period), summer (seven 2-week period) and autumn (four 2-week period) for the initial situation (S1), climate-change scenario (S2), resource-adaptation scenario (S3e) and flock-adaptation scenario (S4c).

## 4. Discussion

### 4.1. From a case study to a standardized method

This research, part of a larger participatory and deeply situated approach, allowed us to engage with the local context and understand challenges that farmers and local stakeholders face. This process highlighted possible and feasible options involved in changing farming practices and how to organize them around crop-livestock integration. Stakeholders differed in their perceptions at each step of identifying forage resources, current farming practices and adaptation options depending on their activities in the territory and their perception of the need for agroecological transitions. Working at the territory level to model farming systems and the territory itself allowed us to integrate

this diversity of perceptions and strategies, while also trying to avoid being too specific or focused on individual situations (Descheemaeker et al., 2019). Thus, the challenges, assessment of the situation and simulated scenarios of this study could be used to design crop-livestock integration strategies in other similar territories, if discussed and adapted. Within the framework of the participatory research project that these works are part of, additional requests have emerged from other local stakeholders to conduct similar exercises and initiate a dialogue between shepherds, landowners, and local authorities.

We aimed to ensure the validity of the scenarios via the rigor and neutrality of the methods used. To this end, we attempted to avoid overestimating the potential of crop-livestock integration and to accurately identify potential risks, including the technical risk of inadequate forage resources and the social risk of generating tension in the event of conflicts. Overall, the participatory design of scenarios and the modeling process appears relevant to support transitions towards crop-livestock integration in territories, but it is not sufficient alone, since many other obstacles and uncertainties remain.

### 4.2. Diversity in production systems at the territory level is more than a theoretical ideal

The literature often states that diversity in agroecological landscapes (Altieri et al., 2024) and production systems is an ideal to aim for, but few studies have focused on the ability to diversify land use at the territory level and the benefits of doing so. In the Minervois territory, the diversity and functional complementarity that result from crop-livestock integration is both a reality and a subject of participatory design. Existing complementarities, such as those described in the scenarios, are an important basis on which to investigate the benefits and feasibility of crop-livestock integration practices. Predictions of the scenarios on the dynamics of forage resources and the integration of livestock at the territory level showed the importance of each type of forage resource, as well as their combination in space and time, for creating a continuum for livestock grazing. Shepherds' strategies in agropastoral systems involve adapting livestock requirements to the seasonality of forage resources to

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Predicted number of sheep flock that could be fed by potential forage resources by scenario and by season.</figcaption></figure>
limit manual distribution of forage and concentrates (Nozières-Petit et al., 2021). This type of adaptation was a common result in the literature, since the diversity and complementarity of types of forage resource depend on how agropastoral systems are managed to provide forage throughout the year depending on the vegetation dynamics in each type of forage resource (Jouven et al., 2010). In addition, crop-livestock integration is an opportunity for cereal farmers and wine-growers to diversify, such as by introducing forage crops into rotations and sowing adapted forage resources in vineyard inter-rows. We did not explore these practices much in the scenarios, but discussions with the stakeholders indicated that these practices are developing. Adapting the type of forage resource used for grazing is also a strong strategy to address the reduction in forage resources caused by climate change. The strategy that supports diversity in production systems could be strengthened by exploring diversification practices in livestock systems (e.g., rotational grazing with rustic bovine breeds to remove woody vegetation from fields that sheep cannot access) (Martin et al., 2020). Introducing additional resources provided by hedges and trees into agroforestry systems could also strengthen the quantity and quality of feed security when addressing a forage deficit in the territory (Mahieu et al., 2021; Papanastasis et al., 2006).

### 4.3. Agroecological assessment of benefits provided by crop-livestock integration

This study explored the potential to develop crop-livestock integration in the Minervois territory based on simulating potential feed resources for livestock systems. The scenarios assumed more area for grazing, including grassland, fallow land, moorland, woodland and vineyards. The scenarios also suggested recultivating scrubland in organic cropping systems with forage legumes and cereals. These practices could provide many direct or indirect benefits, but these benefits are usually not considered in discussions and negotiations on the role of livestock in the territory, mainly due to uncertainty about their magnitude. However, some practices have been described in other production contexts in which crop-livestock integration practices are used to restore a multifunctional landscape (de Faccio Carvalho et al., 2021), and these practices determine farmers' strategies and choices (Moojen et al., 2024a, 2024b). We recommend that future studies focus specifically on assessing agroenvironmental benefits of territorial crop-livestock integration to ensure that they contribute to agroecological transitions. Doing so would reduce the risks involved in local collaboration to create reliance between farms and rebound effects, especially related to nitrogen balances, which could have effects on soil and water quality (Godinot et al., 2024). Nonetheless, considering the strong constraints of dry areas, the risks should be small.

Among the ecosystem services that are expected due to integrating grazing livestock better in the territory, improved soil fertility and biodiversity have been observed at farm and territory levels (Brewer and Gaudin, 2020; Niles et al., 2018). Removing woody vegetation from scrubland and semi-natural areas is also a key service that livestock provide (Lovreglio et al., 2014), especially in areas at risk of wildfire, such as in the Minervois territory and the larger Mediterranean area (Ruiz-Mirazo et al., 2012), as well as in California (USA), where livestock has been involved in mitigating wildfire risks (Ryschawy et al., 2021). Quantifying these bundles of services could involve specific or collective bonus payments to encourage expansion of this practice (Garrett et al., 2020; Kuhfuss et al., 2016).

Economic and agronomic considerations are also important, since many farmers and other stakeholders in the territory are interested in finding ways to diversify and encourage resilience in production in the context of crisis in the wine sector and the decreasing attractiveness of farming. Diversifying crops and livestock at farm and territory levels would help stakeholders identify ways to increase resilience at both levels. However, the uncertainty and difficulty involved in assessing the benefits that crop-livestock integration can provide limit the economic

and political support of local stakeholders, which contributes to the obstacles that such projects can encounter (Garrett et al., 2020). Thus, these scenarios should be assessed by developing adequate methods, but assessing diversified and complex systems remains a methodological challenge, especially at the territory level (Magne et al., 2024).

### 4.4. Practical conditions of implementation

Knowing the extent to which the designed scenarios could be implemented in a given territory is difficult, since it depends on many factors that are more difficult to model, such as political changes, individual and collective commitments of key stakeholders, market conditions and production costs (Ryschawy et al., 2025). However, the approach used to design the scenarios in the present study aimed to maximize their importance, credibility and legitimacy, as suggested by Cash et al. (2003) and Prost et al. (2023). The scenarios provided concrete possibilities for crop-livestock integration practices from the perspective of potential forage resources and their spatial and temporal distribution. This approach is needed at the territory level, since livestock farmers who may not have an overall vision may compete with each other. In this case, understanding potential forage resources and their distribution is useful to avoid conflicts. For example, two livestock farmers may move their livestock through the same villages, even though they could organize their movements to optimize use of the potential forage resources of the landscape without competing.

The credibility of the scenarios for implementing crop-livestock integration practices should be nuanced, however, because they describe only potential forage resources and their distribution, not the actual availability of the fields that could be grazed in the territory (e.g., considering access to the fields via existing pathways, absence of dangerous infrastructure such as major roads or railways, ability to find water for livestock, agreements and conditions with land owners, availability of mountain pasture). In addition, we did not explicitly consider collective coordination, since we assumed that scenarios on the potential of crop-livestock integration were an initial step to support stakeholder coordination at the territory level that would be followed by appropriate methods such as collective co-design tools (Ryschawy et al., 2021). An economic perspective of the ability to sell agricultural products from farms participating in territorial integration would also be interesting, especially in quality-label or “green” markets such as those highlighted by Garrett et al. (2020). It was not included in this study but is included in the full process of the broader participatory research project. Thus, combined strategies could be explored to maintain livestock in areas where they have disappeared while considering local markets in which to sell the meat produced (Boulestreau et al., 2022).

## 5. Conclusion

This study explored the potential and challenges of crop-livestock integration in the Minervois territory in France as a strategy for agroecological transitions. Using seasonal territorial models, we predicted potential forage resources and livestock requirements throughout the year, considering climate variability and local agricultural practices. The results demonstrated that crop-livestock integration provides promising solutions by using a wide diversity of local forage resources. The scenarios simulated predicted that the diversity and complementarity of forage resources are crucial to ensure continuous feeding of livestock in agropastoral systems, especially during critical periods of the year. However, the climate-change scenario highlighted large deficits in forage resources, and not only in summer, which required strategies to adapt both potential forage resources and livestock requirements. Expanding forage resources, such as accessing fallow land or recultivating scrubland, was beneficial but insufficient to meet livestock requirements completely. Adapting flock-management practices, such as shifting the breeding calendar and implementing transhumance, showed great potential to align livestock requirements with potential
forage resources throughout the year. Combining these strategies could feed more sheep throughout the year while reducing pressure on forage resources during periods of scarcity, especially in the summer.

This study also highlighted the importance of diversity in production systems for agroecological transitions. Functional complementarity between crops and livestock, which already exists in the region, can be strengthened to improve the resilience of agricultural systems in the face of climate change and economic crises. An economic assessment of the impact of crop-livestock complementarities, as well as an evaluation of the ecosystem services provided, at both the production system and territorial scales, will need to be further developed in order to systematically appraise the expected benefits of these agroecological models. Practical implementation of the scenarios depends on many factors, including political conditions, stakeholder commitment and economic conditions. Participatory approaches and tools, such as serious games, can be useful for discussing and addressing logistical, organizational and commercial constraints associated with crop-livestock integration. Crop-livestock integration in the Minervois territory shows great potential for agroecological transition but requires fine-tuned coordination among local stakeholders and continuous adaptation to changing conditions. The ability to apply this method easily to other territories can serve as a model for other territories facing similar challenges, which highlights the importance of diversity and complementarity in production systems for sustainable agriculture.

However, the implementation of these complementarities on the ground and at a larger scale requires, and will require, careful consideration of socioeconomic barriers and enabling factors, as well as the issues faced by supply chains and other territorial stakeholders, in order to foster a genuine agroecological transition of these territories and their associated agricultural systems.

## Ethics approval

Not applicable.

## Consent to participate

All participants in the study were informed about the study's conditions and objectives and gave informed consent to participate in it. The data were anonymized once all interviews were completed.

## Consent to publication

The authors affirm that the farmers who participated in the study gave informed consent for publication of anonymized data.

## Funding

This study was supported by the LabEx AGRO 2011-LABX-002 (project no. 2123-039), integrated into the I-Site Muse coordinated by the Agropolis Fondation and the Daniel & Nina Carasso Foundation as part of the CO3 SagiTerres project.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**F. Stark:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Super-
vision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation,
Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. **R. Mettauer:**
Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Inves-
tigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **J. Ryschawy:**
Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Super-
vision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal anal-
ysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **M. Grillot:** Writing – original
draft, Validation, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal anal-
ysis. **A. Cassagnes:** Writing – original draft, Validation, Resources,
Project administration, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Data

curation, Conceptualization. **I. Shaqura:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. **M. Moraine:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Super-
vision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation,
Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re-
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
STARK Fabien reports financial support was provided by Agropolis
Foundation. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no
known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## Acknowledgements

We warmly thank the farmers and partners involved in the partici-
patory research project "SagiTerres" who contributed to this study.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104514.

## References

Agreste, 2022. Le pastoralisme en Occitanie. Draaf Occitanie 34. https://draaf.occitanie.agriculture.gouv.fr/le-pastoralisme-en-occitanie-agreste-dossier-no2-octobre-2022-a7562.html.

Agreste, 2024. Mémento de la statistique agricole d'Occitanie 2024. DRAAF Occitanie 40. https://draaf.occitanie.agriculture.gouv.fr/memento-de-la-statistique-agricolee-d-occitanie-2024-a8905.html.

Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., de Molina, M.G., Rojas, A.S., 2024. Landscape agroecology: methodologies and applications for the Design of Sustainable Agroecosystems. Land 13, 1746. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111746.

Arnal, C., Laurens, L., Soulard, C., 2013. Les mutations paysagères engendrées par l'arrachage viticole, un vecteur de mobilisation des acteurs territoriaux dans l'Hérault. Méditerranée 120, 49-58. https://doi.org/10.4000/mediterranee.6673.

Asai, M., Moraine, M., Ryschawy, J., de Wit, J., Hoshide, A.K., Martin, G., 2018. Critical factors for crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: a cross analysis of worldwide case studies. Land Use Pol. 73, 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.010.

Baiamonte, G., Voican, G., Loudjani, P., 2023. Getting the most of Land Parcel Identification Systems (LPIS) and GeoSpatial Aid Application (GSAA) datasets. European Commission, Ispra, JRC133145. https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/GUIDANCEANDTOOLSFORCAP/LPIS++land+parcel+identification+system++a.k.a.+identification+system+for+agricultural+parcels?preview=/86968605/99418384/JRC133145_lpisgsa_v05_finalb.pdf.

Barbaro, L., Assandri, G., Brambilla, M., Castagneyrol, B., Froidevaux, J., Giffard, B., Pithon, J., Puig-Montserrat, X., Tore, I., Calatayud, F., Gaüzère, P., Guenser, J., Macià-Valverde, F.-X., Mary, S., Raison, L., Sirami, C., Rusch, A., 2021. Organic management and landscape heterogeneity combine to sustain multifunctional bird communities in European vineyards. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 1261-1271. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13885.

Barbieri, P., Dumont, B., Benoit, M., Nesme, T., 2022. Opinion paper: livestock is at the heart of interacting levers to reduce feed-food competition in agroecological food systems. Animal 16, 100436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100436.

Billen, G., Le Noël, J., Garnier, J., 2018. Two contrasted future scenarios for the French agro-food system. Sci. Total Environ. 637-638, 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.043.

Boulestreau, Y., Peyras, C.-L., Casagrande, M., Navarrete, M., 2022. Tracking down coupled innovations supporting agroecological vegetable crop protection to foster sustainability transition of agrifood systems. Agr. Syst. 196, 103354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103354.

Brewer, K.M., Gaudin, A.C.M., 2020. Potential of crop-livestock integration to enhance carbon sequestration and agroecosystem functioning in semi-arid croplands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 149, 107936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107936.

Brewer, K.M., Munoz-Araya, M., Martinez, I., Marshall, K.N., Gaudin, A.C., 2023. Long-term integrated crop-livestock grazing stimulates soil ecosystem carbon flux, increasing subsoil carbon storage in California perennial agroecosystems. Geoderma 438, 116598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116598.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 8086-8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

Catarino, R., Therond, O., Berthomier, J., Miara, M., Mérot, E., Misslin, R., Vanhove, P., Villerd, J., Angevin, F., 2021. Fostering local crop-livestock integration via legume exchanges using an innovative integrated assessment and modelling approach based on the MAELIA platform. Agr. Syst. 189, 103066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103066.

de Faccio Carvalho, P.C., de Albuquerque Nunes, P.A., Pontes-Prates, A., Szymczak, L.S., de Souza Filho, W., Moojen, F.G., Lemaire, G., 2021. Reconnecting grazing livestock to crop landscapes: reversing specialization trends to restore landscape multifunctionality. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.750765.

Descheemaeker, K., Ronner, E., Ollenburger, M., Franke, A.C., Klapwijk, C.J., Falconnier, G.N., Wichern, J., Giller, K.E., 2019. Which options fit best? Operationalizing the socio-ecological niche concept. Exp. Agric. 55, 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447971600048X.

Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Magne, M.-A., Justes, E., Journet, E.-P., Aubertot, J.-N., Savary, S., Bergez, J.-E., Sarthou, J.P., 2015. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1259-1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1.

Farrié, B., Jouven, M., Launay, F., Moreau, J.-C., Moulin, C.-H., Piquet, M., Taverne, M., Thakérian, E., Thénard, V., Martin, G., 2015. Rangeland rummy – a board game to support adaptive management of rangeland-based livestock systems. J. Environ. Manage. 147, 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.08.018.

Fornoff, F., Mattenkloot, J., Thul, F., Buse, J., Klein, A.-M., Hörli, J., Schoof, N., 2025. Sheep grazing in vineyards benefits wild bees in vineyard embankments and sheep dung attracts dung beetles to vineyards. Basic Appl. Ecol. 84, 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2025.02.004.

Garcia, L., Celette, F., Gary, C., Ripoche, A., Valdés-Gómez, H., Metay, A., 2018. Management of service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: a review. Agr Ecosyst Environ 251, 158-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agce age.2017.09.030.

Garrett, R., Ryschawy, J., Bell, L., Cortner, O., Ferreira, J., Garik, A.V., Gil, J., Klerkx, L., Moraine, M., Peterson, C., dos Reis, J.C., Valentim, J., 2020. Drivers of decoupling and recoupling of crop and livestock systems at farm and territorial scales. Ecol. Soc. 25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11412-250124.

Godinot, O., Jouan, J., Nesme, T., Carof, M., 2024. Evidence of a rebound effect in agriculture: crop-livestock reconnection beyond the farm gate does not always lead to more sustainable nitrogen management. Agr. Syst. 221, 104137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104137.

Inglada, J., Vincent, A., Arias, M., Tardy, B., Morin, D., Rodes, I., 2017. Operational high resolution land cover map production at the country scale using satellite image time series. Remote Sens 9, 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9010095.

Jouven, M., Lapeyronie, P., Moulin, C.-H., Bocquier, F., 2010. Rangeland utilization in Mediterranean farming systems. Animal 4, 1746-1757. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731110000996.

Kremen, C., Merenlender, A.M., 2018. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaaau6020. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaau6020.

Kuhfuss, L., Préget, R., Thoyer, S., Hanley, N., 2016. Nudging farmers to enrol land into Agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 43, 609-636. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv031.

Lin, B.B., 2011. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. BioScience 61, 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4.

Lovreglio, R., Meddour-Sahar, O., Leone, V., 2014. Goat grazing as a wildfire prevention tool: a basic review. iForest 7, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1112-007.

Lurette, A., Stark, F., Lecomte, L., Lasseur, J., Moulin, C.-H., 2020. A model to explore which diversity is needed to design sustainable agricultural systems at the territorial level. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00634-3.

Magne, M.-A., Alaphilippe, A., Bérard, A., Cournut, S., Dumont, B., Gosme, M., Hedde, M., Morel, K., Mugnier, S., Parnaudeau, V., Nozières-Petit, M.-O., Paut, R., Puech, T., Robert, C., Ryschawy, J., Sabatier, R., Stark, F., Vialatte, A., Martin, G., 2024. Applying assessment methods to diversified farming systems: simple adjustment or complete overhaul? Agr. Syst. 217, 103945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103945.

Mahieu, S., Novak, S., Barre, P., Delagarde, R., Niderkorn, V., Gastal, F., Emile, J.-C., 2021. Diversity in the chemical composition and digestibility of leaves from fifty woody species in temperate areas. Agrofor. Syst. 95, 1295-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00662-2.

Malek, Z., Verburg, P.H., Geijzendorffer, R.I., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., 2018. Global change effects on land management in the Mediterranean region. Glob. Environ. Chang. 50, 238-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.007.

Martin, G., Moraine, M., Ryschawy, J., Magne, M.-A., Asai, M., Sarthou, J.-P., Duru, M., Therond, O., 2016. Crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0390-x.

Martin, G., Barth, K., Benoit, M., Brock, C., Destruel, M., Dumont, B., Grillot, M., Hübner, S., Magne, M.-A., Moerman, M., Mosnier, C., Parsons, D., Ronchi, B., Schanz, L., Steinmetz, L., Werne, S., Winckler, C., Primi, R., 2020. Potential of multi-species livestock farming to improve the sustainability of livestock farms: a review. Agr. Syst. 181, 102821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102821.

Meuret, M., Provenza, F., 2015. How French shepherds create meal sequences to stimulate intake and optimise use of forage diversity on rangeland. Anim. Prod. Sci. 55, 309-318. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14415.

Moojen, F.G., Grillot, M., de Faccio Carvalho, P.C., Ryschawy, J., 2024a. Farm advisors play a key role in integrating crop-livestock at the farm level: perceptions and experiences in Brazil and France. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 30, 683-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2023.2254308.

Moojen, F.G., Ryschawy, J., Wulfhorst, J.D., Archer, D.W., de Faccio Carvalho, P.C., Hendrickson, J.R., 2024b. Case study analysis of innovative producers toward sustainable integrated crop-livestock systems: trajectory, achievements, and thought process. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 44, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-024-00953-9.

Moraine, M., Duru, M., Nicholas, P., Leterme, P., Therond, O., 2014. Farming system design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe. Animal 8, 1204-1217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S17517311140001189.

Moraine, M., Ryschawy, J., Napoleone, M., Ramonteu, S., Choisis, J.-P., 2020. Complémentarités culture-élévage à l'échelle territoire: facteurs de déverrouillage et de pérennisation des projets collectifs. Innovations Agronomiques 80, 99-112. (10.15454/cjtq-tg24).

Moraine, M., Ryschawy, J., Grillot, M., Cassagnes, A., Stark, F., 2024. Collective action and participatory knowledge building for crop-livestock integration at territory level in Mediterranean areas. In: 15. IFSA Conference 2024 - Systemic Change for Sustainable Future, Jun 2024. Trapani, Italy (7p. (hal-04644941)).

Napoleone, M., Milène, C., Dufils, A., Jouven, M., Lasseur, J., Thavaud, P., 2021. Reuniting crop fanning and pastoral farming: are Mediterranean agricultural systems and regions returning to their roots or turning towards tomorrow? Fourrages 13.

Niles, M.T., Garrett, R.D., Walsh, D., 2018. Ecological and economic benefits of integrating sheep into viticulture production. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0478-y.

Nozières-Petit, M.-O., Launay, F., Etienne, L., 2021. Les grands traits de l'élévage pastoral aujourd'hui en France. Fourrages 3-11.

Papanastasis, V.P., Yiakoulaki, M.D., Decandia, M., Dini-Papanastasi, O., 2006. Potential of fodder trees and shrubs as animal feeds in the Mediterranean areas of Europe. Grassland Sci. Europe 11, 428-438.

Prost, L., Martin, G., Ballot, R., Benoit, M., Bergez, J.-E., Bockstaller, C., Cerf, M., Deytieux, V., Hossard, L., Jeuffroy, M.-H., Leclère, M., Le Bail, M., Le Gal, P.-Y., Loyce, C., Merot, A., Meynard, J.-M., Mignolet, C., Munier-Jolain, N., Novak, S., Parnaudeau, V., Poux, X., Sabatier, R., Salembier, C., Scopel, E., Simon, S., Tchamitchian, M., Toffolini, Q., van der Werf, H., 2023. Key research challenges to supporting farm transitions to agroecology in advanced economies. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43, 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00855-8.

Puech, T., Farruggia, A., Durant, D., Glinec, J.F., Novak, S., Signoret, F., Stark, F., Sterling, D., 2025. Use of atypical plant resources for cattle farming in Western Europe to drive agroecological transition. Agr. Syst. 226, 104329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104329.

Revoyron, E., Bail, M.L., Meynard, J.-M., Gunnarsson, A., Seghetti, M., Colombo, L., 2022. Diversity and drivers of crop diversification pathways of European farms. Agr. Syst. 201, 103439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103439.

Ruiz-Mirazo, J., Martínez-Fernández, J., Vega-García, C., 2012. Pastoral wildfires in the Mediterranean: understanding their linkages to land cover patterns in managed landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 98, 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.12.017.

Ryschawy, J., Tiffany, S., Gaudin, A., Niles, M.T., Garrett, R.D., 2021. Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: a case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California. Land Use Policy 109, 105680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105680.

Ryschawy, J., Grillot, M., Moraine, M., Stark, F., 2025. Reintegrating livestock in a specialised vineyard region. Unravelling actor perceptions in southern France, agronomy for sustainable development (in press).

Schut, A.G.T., Cooledge, E.C., Moraine, M., van de Ven, G.W.J., Jones, D.L., Chadwick, D. R., 2021. Reintegration of crop-livestock systems in Europe: an overview. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 8 (1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2020373.

Wezel, A., Brives, H., Casagrande, M., Clément, C., Dufour, A., Vandenbroucke, P., 2016. Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40, 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1115799.