CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Sustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchSustainable Development and Environmental Policy

Indicators addressing agroecology in grassland-based farming systems. A review

Open access
Benedetti del Rio, Elena, Michaud, Audrey, Berton, Marco, Sturaro, Enrico·2025·Agronomy for Sustainable Development
DOI 10.1007/s13593-025-01028-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Agroecology is increasingly proposed in literature as a possible solution to mitigate the impact of anthropic agricultural activity on the environment, even though in Europe its potential is still not entirely clear. Many principles of agroecology have been put forward to bridge the gap between theory and real farming practices; however, its practical applicability remains complex. To quantify the potential of agroecology, it is necessary to find effective indicators, especially when assessing the management of grassland-based farming systems. Here, we reviewed the literature to take stock of the indicators used to characterize agroecology in grassland-based farming systems and at farm level, with the aim to evaluate how the different agroecological principles are addressed and to define multidisciplinary indicators to implement in real farming conditions. The two sets of principles used were addressed through a varying number of indicators, ranging from 7 to 33 and 7 to 58 indicators, respectively. The major findings of this review were the following: (i) principles of agroecology are useful to drive an assessment, particularly addressing different levels of analysis and sustainability dimensions; (ii) a single indicator can cover multiple principles and one principle can span multiple dimensions; (iii) economy and biodiversity categories are addressed through a limited number of indicators, while farming practices (including pasture management) and input categories offer multiple possibilities and lack consensus on the indicators used; (iv) animal health and socio-economic aspects are well targeted but underapplied in Europe. In order to assess the level of agroecology of a given grassland-based farming system, we propose indicators to be tested on-farm in order to understand their effectiveness and possible synergies at system level in real farming conditions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13593-025-01028-z

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A single indicator may be a proxy for different dimensions and management decisions interacting in a system.

    “Indeed, a single indicator may be a proxy for different dimensions and management decisions interacting in a system [11].”

    From Grassland-Based Farming Systems Targeting Agroecology: Which Indicators Should Be Used for On-Farm Assessment? (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Specific indicators for evaluating grassland-based farming systems in the frame of agroecology still show a gap in knowledge despite agroecology's relevance in the European context.

    “However, specific indicators for the evaluation of grassland-based farming systems in the frame of agroecology still show a gap in knowledge despite AE's relevance in the European context.”

    From Grassland-Based Farming Systems Targeting Agroecology: Which Indicators Should Be Used for On-Farm Assessment? (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Both quantitative and qualitative indicators are necessary and can be combined, and indicators from different dimensions can be merged (e.g., management criteria-qualitative and social with economic indicators-quantitative).

    “Regarding this issue, Benedetti del Rio et al. [11] explored the literature in order to propose indicators for on-farm testing, finding that both quantitative and qualitative indicators are necessary and can be combined, in addition to considering the possibility of merging indicators from different dimensions (e.g., merging management criteria-qualitative and social-with economic indicators-quant”

    From Grassland-Based Farming Systems Targeting Agroecology: Which Indicators Should Be Used for On-Farm Assessment? (2025) · cites this paper as [11]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Aguilar-Jiménez J, Aguilar Jiménez C, Guevara-Hernández F et al (2023) Classification and characterization of family cattle farming systems of the Frailesca Region of Chiapas, Mexico, considering the contribution of cattle raising to family income. Trop Subtrop Agroecosystems 26(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 56369/ tsaes. 4131 · DOI
  2. Altieri M (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agr Ecosyst Environ 74:19-31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0167- 8809(99) 00028-6 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Altieri M, Nicholls CI (2017) Agroecology: a brief account of its ori- gins and currents of thought in Latin America. Agroecol Sust Food 41:231-237. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21683 565. 2017. 12871 47 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Ameur F, Amichi H, Leauthaud C (2020) Agroecology in North Afri- can irrigated plains? Mapping promising practices and character- izing farmers' underlying logics. Reg Environ Change 20:133. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10113-020-01719-1 · DOI
  5. Anzai H, Wang L, Oishi K et al (2016) Estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus flows in livestock production in Dianchi Lake basin, China. Anim Sci J 87:37-45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ asj. 12390 · DOI
  6. Bassignana CF, Merante P, Belliére SR et al (2022) Assessment of agricultural biodiversity in organic livestock farms in Italy. Agron 12:607. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy12 030607 · DOI
  7. Beckmann M, Gerstner K, Akin-Fajiye M et al (2019) Conventional land-use intensification reduces species richness and increases production: A global meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 25:1941- 1956. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gcb. 14606 · DOI
  8. Benedetti del Rio E, Berton M, Amalfitano N et al (2024) Added value of products from endangered local sheep breeds in moun- tain areas. Animals 14:2855. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ani14 192855 · DOI
  9. Bengtsson J, Bullock JM, Egoh B et al (2019) Grasslands-more important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere 10:e02582. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ecs2. 2582 · DOI
  10. Berton M, Sturaro E, Schiavon S et al (2023) Management factors affecting the environmental impact of cereal-based dairy farms. Ital J Anim Sci 22:497-512. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 18280 51X. 2023. 22132 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bockstaller C, Feschet P, Angevin F (2015) Issues in evaluating sus- tainability of farming systems with indicators. OCL 22:D102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1051/ ocl/ 20140 52 · DOI
  12. Botreau R, Farruggia A, Martin B et al (2014) Towards an agroeco- logical assessment of dairy systems: proposal for a set of crite- ria suited to mountain farming. Animal 8:1349-1360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 40009 25 · DOI
  13. Casagrande M, Alletto L, Naudin C et al (2017) Enhancing planned and associated biodiversity in French farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev 37:57. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13593-017-0463-5 · DOI
  14. Chopin P, Mubaya CP, Descheemaeker K et al (2021) Avenues for improving farming sustainability assessment with upgraded tools, sustainability framing and indicators. A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 41:19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13593-021-00674-3 · DOI · Paper page
  15. de Olde EM, Moller H, Marchand F et al (2017) When experts disa- gree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sus- tainability of agriculture. Environ Dev Sustain 19:1327-1342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10668-016-9803-x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Dumont B, Fortun-Lamothe L, Jouven M et al (2013) Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 7:1028-1043. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 20024 18 · DOI
  17. Dumont B, González-García E, Thomas M et al (2014) Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century. Animal 8:1382-1393. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 40012 81 · DOI
  18. Dumont B, Groot JCJ, Tichit M (2018) Review: Make ruminants green again-how can sustainable intensification and agroecol- ogy converge for a better future? Animal 12:s210-s219. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 80013 50 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Dumont B, Puillet L, Martin G et al (2020) Incorporating diversity into animal production systems can increase their performance and strengthen their resilience. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:109. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2020. 00109 · DOI
  20. Duval JE, Blanchonnet A, Hostiou N (2021) How agroecological farming practices reshape cattle farmers' working conditions. Agroecol Sust Food 45:1480-1499. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21683 565. 2021. 19570 62 · DOI
  21. Franco-Crespo C, Andrade-Sánchez V, Baldeón-Báez S (2021) Iden- tification of sustainable food production models that contrib- ute to food sovereignty in the canton of Pillaro. Idesia (Arica) 39:125-134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4067/ S0718-34292 02100 03001 · DOI
  22. Galliot JN, Hulin S, Le Henaff PM et al (2020) Typologie multifonc- tionnelle des prairies du Massif central. Edition Sidam-AEOLE, Aubiere German RN, Thompson CE, Benton TG (2017) Relationships among multiple aspects of agriculture's environmental impact and pro- ductivity: a meta-analysis to guide sustainable agriculture. Biol Rev 92:716-738. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ brv. 12251 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Girard N, Duru M, Hazard L et al (2008) Categorising farming prac- tices to design sustainable land-use management in mountain areas. Agron Sustain Dev 28:333-343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1051/ agro: 20070 46 · DOI
  24. Hatt S, Artru S, Brédart D et al (2016) Towards sustainable food sys- tems: the concept of agroecology and how it questions current research practices. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 20:215-224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25518/ 1780-4507. 12997 · DOI
  25. Hercher-Pasteur J, Loiseau E, Sinfort C et al (2020) Energetic assess- ment of the agricultural production system. A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 40:29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ S13593-020-00627-2 · DOI
  26. Ickowicz A, Hubert B, Blanchard M et al (2022) Multifunctionality and diversity of livestock grazing systems for sustainable food systems throughout the world: Are there learning opportunities for Europe? Grass Forage Sci 77:282-294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gfs. 12588 · DOI
  27. Jakoby O, Quaas MF, Müller B et al (2014) How do individual farm- ers' objectives influence the evaluation of rangeland management strategies under a variable climate? J Appl Ecol 51:483-493. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1365-2664. 12216 · DOI
  28. Janker J, Mann S (2020) Understanding the social dimension of sus- tainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assess- ment tools. Environ Dev Sustain 22:1671-1691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10668-018-0282-0 · DOI
  29. Koczura M, Dumont B (2021) Accompagner la transition agroé- cologique des systèmes laitiers de montagne : quels outils d'évaluation prennent en compte la diversité intra-exploitation ? INRA Prod Anim 34:47-60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 20870/ produ ctions-anima les. 2021. 34.1. 4710 · DOI
  30. Lowe EB, Fochesatto A, Rissman AR (2023) Managed grazing and agroecological transformation in the Midwestern United States. Front Sustain Food Syst 7:1096230. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2023. 10962 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lu J, Ranjan P, Floress K et al (2022) A meta-analysis of agricultural conservation intentions, behaviors, and practices: insights from 35 years of quantitative literature in the United States. J Environ Manage 323:116240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvm an. 2022. 116240 · DOI
  32. Lucas V (2021) A "silent" agroecology: the significance of unrec- ognized sociotechnical changes made by French farmers. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 102:1-23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s41130-021-00140-4 · DOI
  33. Mena Y, Nahed J, Ruiz FA et al (2012) Evaluating mountain goat dairy systems for conversion to the organic model, using a multicriteria method. Animal 6:693-703. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 10019 0X · DOI
  34. Moscovici Joubran A, Pierce KM, Garvey N et al (2021) Invited review: a 2020 perspective on pasture-based dairy systems and products. J Dairy Sci 104:7364-7382. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3168/ jds. 2020-19776 · DOI
  35. Mottet A, de Haan C, Falcucci A et al (2017) Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob Food Sec 14:1-8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2017. 01. 001 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Norton L, Maskell L, McVittie A et al (2022) Learning from innova- tive practitioners: evidence for the sustainability and resilience of pasture fed livestock systems. Front Sustain Food Syst 6:1012691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2022. 10126 91 · DOI
  37. Pereira HM, Ferrier S, Walters M et al (2013) Essential Biodiversity Variables. Sci 339:277-278. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 12299 31 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Pérez-Neira D, Soler-Montiel M, Gutiérrez-Peña R et al (2018) Energy assessment of pastoral dairy goat husbandry from an agroeco- logical economics perspective. A case study in Andalusia (Spain). Sustain 10:2838. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 82838 · DOI
  39. Peyraud J, MacLeod M (2020) Future of EU livestock: how to con- tribute to a sustainable agricultural sector? Final report. Directo- rate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission): Brussels. https://data.europa.eu/doi/https:// doi. org/ 10. 2762/ 3440 · DOI
  40. Ramos-García M, Guzmán GI, de Molina MG (2022) Organic man- agement of cattle and pigs in Mediterranean systems: energy effi- ciency and ecosystem services. Agron Sustain Dev 42:111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13593-022-00842-z · DOI
  41. Raniolo S, Sturaro E, Ramanzin M (2022) Human choices, slope and vegetation productivity determine patterns of traditional alpine summer grazing. Ital J Anim Sci 21:1126-1139. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 18280 51X. 2022. 20974 · DOI
  42. Rojas-Downing MM, Nejadhashemi AP, Harrigan T et al (2017) Cli- mate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim Risk Manag 16:145-163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. crm. 2017. 02. 001 · DOI
  43. Ryschawy J, Dumont B, Therond O et al (2019) Review: An inte- grated graphical tool for analysing impacts and services provided by livestock farming. Animal 13:1760-1772. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 90003 51 · DOI
  44. Sirami C, Gross N, Baillod AB et al (2019) Increasing crop heteroge- neity enhances multitrophic diversity across agricultural regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:16442-16447. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 19064 19116 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Soulé E, Michonneau P, Michel N et al (2021) Environmental sus- tainability assessment in agricultural systems: a conceptual and methodological review. J Clean Prod 325:129291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2021. 129291 · DOI
  46. Soulé E, Charbonnier R, Schlosser L et al (2023) A new method to assess sustainability of agricultural systems by integrating ecosystem services and environmental impacts. J Clean Prod 415:137784. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2023. 137784 · DOI
  47. Therond O, Duru M, Roger-Estrade J et al (2017) A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13593-017-0429-7 · DOI
  48. Tittonell P (2020) Assessing resilience and adaptability in agroecologi- cal transitions. Agric Syst 184:102862. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102862 · DOI
  49. Tittonell P, Piñeiro G, Garibaldi LA et al (2020) Agroecology in large scale farming-a research agenda. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:584605. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2020. 584605 · DOI
  50. van der Linden A, de Olde EM, Mostert PF et al (2020) A review of European models to assess the sustainability performance of livestock production systems. Agr Syst 182:102842. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102842 · DOI
  51. Vellinga ThV, de Haan MHA, Schils RLM et al (2011) Implementa- tion of GHG mitigation on intensive dairy farms: farmers' prefer- ences and variation in cost effectiveness. Livest Sci 137:185-195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. livsci. 2010. 11. 005 · DOI
  52. Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T et al (2009) Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A Review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:503- 515. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1051/ agro/ 20090 04 · DOI
  53. Wezel A, David C (2020) Policies for agroecology in France: imple- mentation and impact in practice, research and education. J Sus- tainable Organic Agric Syst 70:66-76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3220/ LBF16 08660 604000 · DOI
  54. Wilkinson JM (2011) Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5:1014-1022. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1751 73111 10000 5X · DOI
  55. Yadav SK, Banerjee A, Jhariya MK, et al (2021) Agroecology towards environmental sustainability. In: Jhariya MK, Banerjee A, Meena RS, et al. (eds) Sustainable intensification for agroecosystem ser- vices and management. Springer, Singapore, pp 323-352. ISBN: 9789811632075
  56. Zahm F, Alonso Ugaglia A, Barbier J-M et al (2019) Évaluer la dura- bilité des exploitations agricoles. La méthode IDEA v4, un cadre conceptuel combinant dimensions et propriétés de la durabilité. Cah Agric 28:5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1051/ cagri/ 20190 04 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benedetti del Rio, E., Michaud, A., Berton, M., & Sturaro, E.
Affiliations
  • Université Clermont Auvergne (FR)
  • University of Padua (IT)
ORCID
Venue
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-06-24
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
33
ISSN
  • 1773-0155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1774-0746
DOI
10.1007/s13593-025-01028-z
OpenAlex
W4411576816
Cited by
4
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Agronomy for Sustainable Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (872328)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture and Rural Development Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Keywords
agroecology, agroecological indicators, pasture management, agroecological principles, sustainability assessment, biodiversity, animal health, socio-economic aspects, farming practices, agricultural inputs, on-farm assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review