Viticulture & biodiversité – chimère ou réalité ?
(sous-titres en français et anglais)
par Adrien Rusch
(chercheur en agroécologie à l’INRAe)
La multifonctionnalité des paysages agricoles influe directement sur les synergies entre agriculture, biodiversité et fonctionnement des écosystèmes – un sujet qui est au coeur de l’actualité du monde viticole.
Cette thématique est également au centre des recherches d’Adrien Rusch, qui ici nous plonge dans le vif du sujet : concilier préservation de la biodiversité et activités agricoles économiquement viables. Et surtout répond à la question fondamentale : la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques, sont-ils indispensables à la viticulture ?
Vignoble & Biodiversité #1 – La viticulture de demain commence aujourd’hui
12 & 13 mai 2022 – Avignon (Palais des Papes)
Ce cycle de conférences, trait d’union entre la science et le terrain, offre un véritable tour d’horizon des enjeux autour de la biodiversité, tout en dépassant largement aussi bien les limites cadastrales que le cadre stricte de la viticulture en générale. Conçu comme un dialogue ouvert, pluridisciplinaire et transversal qui s’adresse au monde viticole, le but est le partage des connaissances, la mise en valeur et la mise en commun de l’expérience pratique et scientifique, le décloisonnement des échanges et la création d’une dynamique vertueuse dans laquelle la biodiversité devient un but collectif et non pas une mission individuelle.
©VignobleBiodiversité
©VineyardsBiodiversity
#developpementdurable #viticulture #biodiversité #organique #biodynamique #viticulturebio #biodynamie #transmission #openscience #recherche #viticulturedurable #écosystème
Good morning everyone, it is my pleasure to be here, thank you for the invitation. So I’m going to talk to you about viticulture, biodiversity, a bit like everyone else in fact. And then we debate a title that is deliberately a bit provocative: is biodiversity a chimera or is it a reality? So I’ll try to give you first a bit of an overview of the role of biodiversity in wine-growing landscapes. Then, in a second step, to address the question of the impact of practices and of the landscapes, which may be a bit redundant with what Ilona said just before. So I’m going to quickly move on, as you all know that: we are currently experiencing an absolutely major environmental crisis involving the collapse of biodiversity on a global scale. A number of my colleagues speak of an entry into the sixth mass extinction. We have a species extinction rate that is absolutely unequalled in the history of life, which is profoundly worrying. Perhaps something equally worrying, mentioned by Ilona earlier, is the fact that, historically, this decline has been observed on a global scale for a long time, over fairly long periods of time. In recent years we have seen studies, including two more that have come out in the last two weeks, where we have observed this massive decline in diversity, in abundance or in biomass, of a whole lot of living organisms, on smaller scales, over shorter time frames, at regional levels, over ten or twenty years, which is a bit symptomatic of an acceleration of this process. So the causes are well known. It was mentioned this morning. It is customary to summarize them around these five major factors, one might say environmental: environmental pollution, the overexploitation of natural resources, the destruction of habitats, climate change and biological invasions. They are all responsible for this massive decline in biodiversity. And these five major causes have one thing in common: they are all obviously the fruit of human action, but they are not independent, they are sometimes even interdependent and interact in synergy, especially in terms of their impact on biodiversity. So, we could ask ourselves the question of why worry about the collapse of biodiversity? There are philosophical reasons, there are heritage and ethical reasons to be a bit worried about this collapse. But above all, there is a functional reason that concerns us directly as humans, because we exploit natural resources directly and the functioning of our societies is directly built on this exploitation. And so there are questions of sustainability, of the functioning of our societies, in fact, directly behind this issue of the collapse of biodiversity. And more than 30 years of ecological work have shown that biodiversity is the engine of ecosystem functioning, that is to say that the more biodiversity you have, whether genetic, specific or functional, the more ecosystems ensure the maintenance of a certain number of functions, such as pollination. This was mentioned this morning, but we can also mention the decomposition of organic matter in soils for example. So behind this question of collapse, there is the question of the sustainability of our societies and our agricultural production model, if we talk about agriculture in particular. Without biodiversity, no petrol. Without biodiversity, no Bordeaux wine city. Without biodiversity, no vines. Without biodiversity, no wine. In any case, I will try to talk a little bit about that in the rest of my presentation. So this first part is really going to be about the role of biodiversity in wine-growing landscapes. I have deliberately chosen examples that are a bit diverse, that is to say a bit outside my field of expertise, not primarily, but to try to illustrate the role of biodiversity in certain aspects that we do not necessarily always have in mind. In any case, when talking about viticulture to the general public, I imagine that you, as a winegrower, are obviously familiar with these questions. So the first element here is to clarify what we are talking about when we talk about biodiversity. I told you it’s the diversity of forms of living, genetic, specific or functional. But it is also a combination of scales. We can state that biological diversity is intraspecific diversity, that is to say the diversity of populations within the same species. It is the diversity of species that interact with each other to form communities. It is the diversity of communities that operate in ecosystems and it is also the diversity of ecosystems in landscapes. That’s what our first speaker mentioned this morning. And all of these ecosystems can form biomes on a global scale. So it’s really a question of scales interacting together. We always tend to talk about biodiversity under the prism of specific diversity, the number of butterfly species, the number of plant species, etc. But it is also intraspecific diversity, for example genetic diversity within the same population, that we see, for example, in this room if we all look at each other. And if we talk about vines, the first example – obviously again, which I imagine you know very well – is the diversity of grape varieties within viticulture. Obviously, yes, it’s a fairly classical example of diversity, but I think it’s important to remember it. It is a single species: vitis vinifera. There are a lot of very different characteristics in this species, but it is also biodiversity, and it is biodiversity that will allow us to respond to quite major environmental challenges. So, I picked up some of my colleagues research work, especially INRA in Montpellier and INRA in Avignon here, which characterized in particular the diversity of grape varieties or varieties that currently exist worldwide. They estimated that there are 6 to 10,000 varieties of Vitis Vinifera worldwide. This little graph, this little world map represents that diversity. But above all, what they have shown is that about 10% of this diversity is marketed, that is, varieties that are registered in catalogs, characterized according to certain criteria. And in fact, there is 1% of this diversity, about twelve varieties – which I am not going to list here, but in which we find Merlot for example, Cabernet Sauvignon or Chardonnay – which are largely dominant on a global scale since in a certain number of countries, especially the countries of the New World, they are largely dominant. This is what these colors represent, the graphic source. The darker the color, the more the grape diversity in these regions is dominated by these twelve varieties in question, which are called international here. And we can see that in the Old World, a great diversity of varieties or grape varieties is maintained, but that, overall, these twelve varieties dominate a third of the world’s vineyards area on a global scale. That’s quite colossal considered the diversity that exists on a global scale. Obviously, this diversity is explained by the history of propagation of viticulture, in particular to the New World. But that is not the point today. The interesting thing is that behind this diversity, there is a great deal of genotypic and phenotypic diversity. So it simply means a great diversity of character traits, which may for example be phenology, a different phenology, a different cold tolerance, drought tolerance. And this graph shows you, for example, in pink, the difference between these twelve international varieties. Furthermore, three other grape varieties are being studied on the Vassal Estate at INRAe in Montpellier, which are therefore differentiated in terms of their variance in maturity compared to a reference, which is Chasselas, here, expressed in weeks. The idea is not to go into the details of this graph, but you can see that there is a pretty variable distribution of maturity, date of maturity, between these different grape varieties. And that behind this genotypic and phenotypic variability, there are in fact major adaptive capacities to present environmental changes and those yet to come. In concrete terms, planting late-maturing varieties in a context of climate change for example, or earlier-maturing ones, etc. So in fact, behind this question, there is really the question of biodiversity and ultimately the maintenance of this capital, which is, I imagine, absolutely fundamental for winegrowers, since that is where we will find solutions for tomorrow’s viticulture. And our colleagues at INRAe and Avignon also had fun doing a modelling exercise on a global scale. They had fun representing the evolution of wine-growing areas worldwide in a +2° scenario, then in a +4° scenario. And they added a small constraint: in the wine-growing areas that are currently cultivated, they added the possibility or not for virtual winegrowers to change grape varieties from a set of eleven different grape varieties that differ in terms of phenology and maturity in particular. And it’s quite interesting. They showed that if grape varieties remain the same in current wine-growing areas and we are in a +4° scenario, there is a reduction of more than 80% in planted surfaces in these areas, on a global scale. That is what this graph represents. On the other hand, if we virtually allow winegrowers to choose a grape variety that is more adapted to the new environmental conditions, well, we greatly reduce this reduction of planted areas, since we go from around 90% to something around 60%, which is absolutely major in terms of grape varietation. And in a + 2 degree scenario, we have exactly the same image, one could say. So, again, this means that intraspecific diversity within vitis vinifera is absolutely essential in terms of adaptation to climate change. That was my first message on intraspecific biodiversity. And then there are other ways to characterize biodiversity. We talked about different species. Now I am going to talk about the biodiversity that is sometimes called associated biodiversity – that is, biodiversity that you cannot control if you’re a farmer, but that you exploit because this biodiversity provides services in agrosystems. I take the example of bats and try to show how this biodiversity can be an ally for viticulture and for winemakers. So with colleagues from the LPO, Yohan Charbonnier in particular, we measured the activity of bats in different viticultural landscapes in south-western France. We were interested in their impact on populations of budworms, a small lepidopteran that attacks vines, to try to see if there was a functional role for these organisms in viticultural landscapes. The first thing we’ve shown is that bat activity, as this graph shows, increases significantly – by a factor of three – when the butterfly, the famous grape vine moth, is present in wine-growing landscapes. So we have a response from bats in terms of numbers, in terms of activity and in terms of diversity as well. There are more bats in these landscapes. The question is: does this increase in activity translates into greater predation of these budworms and in a lower impact on the damage they can cause on the vine? To do this, we went to collect bat poo at the peak of budworm flight, in various lodges in south-west France, but also in Burgundy. And at the time of peak flight, it was shown that there were traces of this insect in about 70% of bat poos. This highlights the strong interaction that can exist between bats and these budworms. So there is a trophic interaction: bats eat budworms, it’s validated from a scientific point of view, you could say. And the next question is: is there an impact on the damage? To do this, we went to quantify in different landscapes where there was bat activity that was variable, the damage caused by grape leafworms to grapes, i.e. the number of perforations caused by budworm larvae. And we have shown that there was a negative correlation between the number of perforations caused by the butterfly and the insectivorous activity of bats, suggesting that the more bats you have, the less damage you have. And what is interesting is that other colleagues, especially in Chile, with slightly different approaches where they excluded all avifauna – that is, bats and birds – from vineyard plots with large nets like that, quite simply, they reached the same conclusions. That is to say, they excluded in one way all avifauna and bats and they left another part of the vineyard open on which bats could come to hunt. They measured the damage of a certain number of phytophagous insects that are somewhat similar to budworms, butterflies in particular, and they quantified this damage. They estimated that there was 7% more yield thanks to bats in the non-exclusion-of-bats modality. And what they translated then – I translated it into euros because it was expressed in dollars – but it represented something like €150 to €210 of gain per hectare per year, thanks to bats. So we can discuss the numbers. I see some who do not necessarily agree, but it is not so interesting to quantify these services economically. It just means that the service exists, and that it is potentially interesting for the winegrower. Then, these figures are also obviously very dependent on the economic context, the type of wine, etc. What I can also tell you is that later, similar work was carried out on birds, on bird communities, especially in California, where they showed that the establishment of nesting boxes in Californian vineyards also increased the predation of insect pests by a factor of 3 or 4, which was also relatively interesting for winegrowers. And the work that is being carried out on organisms that are a little less sexy than bats or birds, especially on spiders, also shows that there are very strong trophic interactions between these organisms and a whole bunch of pests, in particular on the Scaphoideus titanus, the golden flavescence leafhopper, and other insect pests, showing that these insects or spiders can provide a very fundamental service to winegrowers. So that’s for wildlife, one could say the specific diversity above ground. I’m not going to dive into too much detail about that, as I think you have a presentation scheduled on soil life. But I also couldn’t help but mention the fact that soil biodiversity, which can be represented by the diversity of microorganisms, the diversity of mesofauna, especially springtails, which are small organisms that break down organic matter and release nutrients for plants in particular, or macrofauna, which are organisms that are absolutely essential for a variety of functions and for soil structure. So it’s also important to consider that. It is a section that is often said to be poorly studied. There are more and more research projects around this. Obviously, there is a big question about the link between soil biodiversity and the concept of terroir. Furthermore, I think it was also interesting to mention another example, since many of you are winegrowers and therefore, you are exploiting biodiversity. In fact, without biodiversity, there are no yeasts and therefore no wine. Obviously there is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which allows alcoholic fermentation, the transformation of sugars into alcohol, which is quite important. And starting from there, there are colleagues, rather microbiologists, people who are involved in microbial ecology, who have asked themselves the question: does the biodiversity of microorganisms contribute to the concept of terroir on wine estates? And does this slightly understudied biodiversity therefore once again contributes to the typicity of wine, for example, to this kind of thing. So the results on this question are highly contrasted. There is no scientific consensus. But there are a few studies that show that there is a kind of biogeographic structuring of the communities of microorganisms on the grape berry, but also in the soil. There are two studies, including one in California, then one worldwide, that did this. On the left, it’s on the berry and then here, it’s on wine-growing soils. What they essentially showed was that the berry-scale communities of microorganisms were structured in space, which means that it’s not random. You don’t find the same microorganisms in the north of California as in the south. In fact, there is a biogeographic structure. We can discuss this later. We could confirm, but in fact it’s just normal, it’s a reaction to viticultural practices, to climates too, which are very different, which structure communities in similar ways. But these papers, this first paper in particular, really raised the question of the role of microorganisms in the concept of terroir. And behind that, there were lots of other papers. That paper tends to confirm that spatial structure is found in different viticultural soils, especially between different countries. Once climate is taken into account, there is really a distance effect or a spatial effect on the structure of these communities. Not all people necessarily agree. So we’ve had exchanges like that in the scientific literature. All this to say that there are also issues related to winemaking and to the cellar, since it is primarily microorganisms that are manipulated to produce and to vinify. As a result, exchanges have been shown to take place between the cellar and the vineyard, which are perhaps predominant in the spatial structuring of microorganisms. What I want to say is that the human impact is also, above all, important. But hey, it still raises the question of the role of biodiversity, which is a bit unknown, on the issue of terroir. Then I thought it was interesting to take up the OIV’s definition of what a terroir is. And while watching, I realized that – this was also mentioned quite this morning – that the concept of biodiversity is actually very present in this definition of terroir, because there are interactions between physical and biological environments. There is the concept of soil, landscape and biodiversity. So here – if we seek to answer this question – we have the relationship between viticulture and biodiversity. Is it a chimera or is it a reality? It’s more than a reality. Biodiversity is almost an integral part of viticulture. It may be quite obvious, but I think it is good to mention it. And then, a last example to finish afterwards on the role of biodiversity in wine-growing landscapes. I thought it would be interesting to take look at the economic situation, for both producers and consumers. There are a few economists worldwide who have been interested in evaluating consumers’ willingness to pay with regard to biodiversity in viticulture. I won’t give you the methodological details, but basically they have a label that attests to the preservation of biodiversity in their wine estates. They presented to a panel of consumers different wines, wines that are more or less expensive, more or less famous, etc. And they asked them to assess their willingness to pay with their own money in relation to these different wines. Quite interesting is that consumers, on average, are willing to pay significantly more if they are certified that the wine produced there preserves biodiversity. And that’s quite significant because there’s a 38 to 68 % willingness to pay more. So it’s pretty significant. Interesting is that behind this, we see a synergy emerging between the capacity of a winegrower to preserve biodiversity and the ability or possibility to promote his wine. That’s what we’re actually looking for in agroecology: to valorize these synergies. And here, we have a very good example around biodiversity and viticulture. I have finished with my first part on the role of biodiversity in viticultural landscapes and I wanted to address the effects of viticultural practices and landscapes – it was mentioned just before me by Ilona – but there are various examples that exist in the literature and it is always interesting to mention them. So the first thing we know well in the scientific literature and in the various works we have carried out in the laboratory, is that the diversification and extensive management of ground cover within plots is a very major element in viticulture to preserve biodiversity. I told you a bit earlier that there is a series of interlinked scales, so I’ll move forward little by little from the plot towards the landscape. This is a fundamental element because one, there is a very strong effect on biodiversity: we know that, on average, ground cover will increase by 50% the abundance and diversity of animal species that will be found in vineyard plots. It will promote the regulation of insect pests by 15 to 20%. It will contribute to carbon sequestration, limit soil erosion and better protect soils. And it will also contribute to soil fertility. There have been various meta-analyses on this issue, but they show that overall, there is not much change in yield in terms of quantity or quality in modalities where one would have compared slightly intensive ground cover management, or even no ground cover at all, to modalities where ground cover has been managed more extensively by diversifying cover, seeding it or limiting sickeling for example, or mowing. So this is the first message: it is of major importance to diversify the cover within the plots. Beyond that, there is a lot of work that has been carried out on the effect of viticultural practices on biodiversity and ecosystem services. And these studies reveal a number of trends that are not very surprising. I’m not going to focus on it too much, but overall, everything we’ve helped to highlight through our work is the major impact of plant protection products, the use of plant protection products, on multitrophic biodiversity, from springtails that break down organic matter in the soil to birds, and the absolutely major role of tillage. So there we have a few examples. We could discuss indicators, relationships, etc. But basically, the trends that emerge are that an increase in the use of plant protection products, whether synthetic or not, has a major negative effect on the abundance of spiders found on the ground or in vine foliage. Obviously, significant effects of the use of insecticides especially on wild pollinators. A strong impact of the quantity of copper found in the soil on decomposers, and in particular on springtails, which are found almost systematically in all wine-growing soils. And then an effect of tillage or ground cover management on organisms such as earthworms, for example, with very strong effects of interrow ground cover on earthworms. So, we could say, absolutely major effects of individually considered practices. And then the question arises – Ilona mentioned it this morning – the question of the effects of farming systems, i.e. production specifications. Often we come up with the question of organic farming because it’s easy, because we have specifications. We know more or less the choices we have or don’t have, what we are allowed to do. Therefore we can work on the impact of lever combinations on biodiversity through this question. And this is a question that we asked ourselves: what is the impact of a system called organic farming – which is a production specification and which defines a bit loosely, but which still defines a combination of potential practices – on biodiversity. So we did this on a lot of organisms. I’m not going to detail them all, but they range from ground beetles and earthworms to birds, plants, springtails, soil spiders, foliage spiders, etc. We looked, as this graph shows, at the impact of organic farming compared to a system that is non-organic, a system that we call conventional, along a landscape gradient – but that’s not very important. And finally, what this graph shows is when we have a positive impact from organic farming, or that we estimate being positive, and when we have a negative impact, or that we consider as negative. And we have uncertainty about these trends, as always, which represents the variability of the impacts of organic practices, in this case compared to the conventional, for all these groups. What we see is in fact obvious: we have – so this is the fully aggregated index – an overall positive impact of organic farming practices on multitrophic diversity. This means that, on average, we will favor species in abundance and diversity. On the other hand, when we look at different groups separately, we see that the results are contrasted. And that makes sense, because these are practices that are different. Organic farming will generally require slightly more tillage, which will impact certain organisms such as ground beetles or earthworms. Conversely, we will rather favor spiders, especially foliage spiders, but also beetles or birds. The conclusion of that is that there are winners and losers in organic farming. As is often the case in life, there are winners and losers. But on average, there are more positive effects on biodiversity, and therefore production specifications such as those for organic still provide information on the impact on biodiversity. We did the same on the functions provided by biodiversity. Obviously, we find answers that are equivalent, that is to say positive trends, but also a great deal of variability. Now I get to the landscape. It was also mentioned this morning by Ilona. But the question is when you zoom out again and change the scale, what are the levers the vintner has to promote biodiversity in vineyard landscapes? We talked about it, so I’m going to move on quickly. But the first element is maintaining semi-natural habitats. Semi-natural habitats in themselves don’t mean much: it means hedges, it means meadows, it means forests. We say that for two reasons: mainly because these habitats are refuge habitats for a whole lot of species. If we are interested in crop auxiliaries, mainly insects and spiders, it is estimated that nine out of ten species of these communities, for example, use semi-natural habitats during their life cycle, because they will find a hibernation site, alternative hosts, resources in nectar, resources in pollen. And therefore simply maintaining these habitats allows them to carry out their life cycle, and therefore maintain them in the landscape. And we find impacts like that, positive, all along the landscape gradient, with devices similar to what Ilona presented, for example, an increase in bird diversity that correlates with the diversity of landscapes, or an increase in the abundance and diversity of wild pollinators that goes with the increase in the proportions of semi-natural habitats in viticultural landscapes. So there’s a major impact on biodiversity. Another important element is that beyond quantity, i.e. the proportion of semi-natural habitats in a landscape, it is obviously the spatial arrangement. The configuration was mentioned this morning, relating to the so-called connectivity: species must be able to move and use resources in the different habitats, at landscape level. But it is also the quality of the habitats. Because a hedge doesn’t mean much. A meadow doesn’t mean much. If we take an intensive monospecific temporary meadow, the qualities in terms of capacity to preserve biodiversity are close to zero. On the other hand, an extensive 30-year-old meadow, with a great diversity of plants, will present quite significant interests in terms of biodiversity. So, there is this question of the quality of uncultivated habitats, just as there is the question of the quality of cultivated habitats. Broadly speaking, diversifying viticultural landscapes means, in particular, promoting the regulation of insect pests – this is very well shown in the literature – and it promotes a whole range of other ecosystem services. It also means limiting the negative impacts of climate change. So there have been two studies published in the last three weeks, on the interaction between climate change and diversification-simplification of landscapes. And it seems very clear that those that best buffer the negative impact of climate change on biodiversity are agricultural landscapes in which forests, hedges, and meadows have been maintained, for the same reasons that I mentioned just before. In the years to come, that will be a major part of the adaptation strategy for vintners. Then, a message that I also wanted to pass on is: we talked about practices, we talked about the landscape, but in fact: it’s almost systematic in all the studies that are conducted on these issues – that there is a very strong interaction between the two. But if you have local practices at the scale of a plot, or of a farming system, that are hyperintensive, you will never see the benefits of maintaining hedges, meadows and forests in the landscape. And it’s very well illustrated here by this graph. We measured the abundance of spiders in pairs of organic and non-organic vineyard plots, along the same landscape gradient, and we have contrasting responses from the impact of this landscape and of the maintenance of semi-natural habitats in organic and conventional farming systems. We observed that we are more successful in promoting the abundance of spiders in organic systems that are located in diversified landscapes, while systems conducted in conventional agriculture do not see the benefits of establishing or maintaining semi-natural habitats in the landscape. And so these interactions are major. This means that, as a winegrower, you have to think about your practices in relation to your landscape, and that thinking about practices without thinking about the landscape won’t lead to much, or may not lead to much. And in a more interesting way too: there are cumulative impacts of virtuous practices at the landscape level. Which means that organic farming, also a very good example, if you do organic farming within a 100% conventional viticulture landscape, you won’t always see the benefits, if any, of organic viticulture. On the other hand, when it comes to spiders, when you have clumps or clusters – a somewhat fashionable term – of organic farming in an area, you will see cumulative impacts on spider populations emerge. We’ll observe more of the organic impact because we maintained a lot of organic plots in the landscape. So that’s absolutely fundamental. This raises questions about the structuring of the plots, of the farm for a winegrower, but also of the interactions with neighbours. So this landscape matrix is not only about uncultivated habitats, it is also and above all cultivated habitats and especially viticulture. Then another message that I wanted to pass on to you in holographic form. Don’t pay too much attention, don’t get lost in the different colors. What I just wanted to highlight here is that, in fact, the levers are different depending on the species. These two histograms summarize the impact and the importance of impact of the different levers at local, practice and landscape level, for two types of organisms: wild pollinators and springtails. And without going into the details of the impacts, the signification of the impacts, the size of the impacts, what we see very clearly is that for wild pollinators, it is the impact of the landscape that largely dominates since we have almost two-thirds of the importance that is represented by the landscape, versus practices that represent nearly a third of the variability in predator abundance. Meaning, for these organisms, it is very important as they are dispersed and will seek plenty of resources in the landscape. On the other hand, for springtails, which are very small organisms that are much less dispersed and are present in the soil, we see that, quite logically, the local practices we have on a plot are dominant and, to a lesser extent, the landscape. What does that mean? This means that we will have contrasting effects from these different levers depending on the organism, and that the life traits of species, i.e. their ability to disperse and their ability to exploit resources in this or that environment, are absolutely fundamental if we try to understand the impact of these environmental changes on biodiversity. And finally, moving to the landscape scale allows an approach that integrates the impact on cultivated and non-cultivated habitats. And finally, I wanted to finish with this, on aspects of the synergy-antagonism relationship, one could say between the ability to preserve biodiversity and the ability to produce grapes. On a network of plots, we had fun measuring wine production. Here, it is a standardized yield in relation to the winegrower’s objective, it is not an absolute value. This is whether the winegrower has reached his yield target or not. And on the Y axis we have a multitrophic index that makes it possible to represent biodiversity across all these taxa. Similarly, unity is of little interest: the more it increases, the more taxa are retained. You can see that there is no obvious relationship between the two. We did that in organic and non-organic systems. There is no clear trend, which is quite logical given everything I’ve told you about the impact of practices over and above the effects of cultivation systems. But quite interesting is that when you look at this graph, you can see that there are two situations that emerge. There is a situation where there are obvious synergies between the capacity to produce wine and the ability to preserve biodiversity. Here, it’s all this bunch of points that are both organic and non-organic plots. And then there are situations of antagonism, where there are plots whose practices will really favour biodiversity, but which will be very little capable of producing wine, or at least they won’t have achieved their yield targets for a variety of reasons. And conversely, farming systems that will favour the achievement of yield objectives, but then you could say at the expense of biodiversity. So there are these three situations, that’s the first point. The second point is that these synergies are the result of a combination between local practices and landscapes. I cannot detail it, but what I said before is absolutely valid. That is to say, when you have more virtuous practices locally and if you have maintained a certain number of habitats in the landscape and you have diversified the landscapes, you are more likely to arrive in this area, i.e. to favour synergies. Whereas when we have rather deleterious practices or rather simplified landscapes, we are no longer able to favour antagonisms. And the last point, which was shown quite clearly, is that we have quantified the production costs for winegrowers of these different practices and the value added to their products. Parallelly, we have also shown that the practices that are the most respectful of biodiversity are also practices that have the lowest production costs. It could also be vintners who produce fewer grapes, but as a result, we end up with situations where the margin for the winegrower is quite similar. So we do not harm the economic profitability of farms with practices that are more virtuous from the point of view of biodiversity conservation. That’s the message to remember: it’s obviously not a chimera. The interaction between viticulture and biodiversity is reality. Biodiversity is at the service of viticulture and winemakers. It is also an asset for winegrowers, for the industry and for actors in wine-growing territories. I didn’t have time to talk about it. But when it comes to the aesthetic and cultural aspects of landscapes, it’s absolutely fundamental. And it’s a fragile asset that obviously has to be preserved, which is subject to severe pressure. But luckily, we have a certain number of levers to build agroecological systems,Some of them have been mentioned today. And we are particularly developing open innovation approaches with winemakers. We work directly with them to experiment with new systems, to try to find solutions adapted to varying local contexts. Thank you for your attention.