top of page


Agroecological approach to farming systems rely on biodiversity-driven ecological functions to support agricultural production. Key ecological functions, perceived as ecosystem services, include soil fertility, natural pest control, and pollination. Agrobiodiversity (the biodiversity of agroecosystems) and associated functions are sensitive to local-field conditions and practices (e.g. soil management, pesticide and fertilizer applications). Local diversity also strongly depends on landscape context. The area and spatial configuration of semi-natural habitats (hedgerows, permanent grasslands), crop diversity and field size are important landscape characteristics that affect agrobiodiversity. These effects are intermingled and interacting, making it difficult to understand them fully and propose reliable recommendations. 

I have been working on these topics during my PhD and postdocs with a particular focus on landscape heterogeneity. 

Example of agroecological landscape approach analyses, including complex direct and indirect relations

Example of agroecological landscape approach analyses, including complex direct and indirect relations (adapted from Duflot et al. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107810

Selected publications: 


R. Duflot, M. San-Cristobal, E. Andrieu, J-P. Choisis, D. Esquerré, S. Ladet, A. Ouin, J. Rivers-Moore, D. Sheeren, C. Sirami, M. Fauvel, A. Vialatte (2022). Farming intensity indirectly reduces crop yield through biodiversity and regulating ecosystem services. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107810 

R. Duflot, H. Daniel, S. Aviron, A. Alignier, V. Beaujouan, F. Burel, A. Cochard, A. Ernoult, G. Pain, J.A. Pithon (2018). Adjacent woodlands rather than habitat connectivity influence grassland plant, carabid and bird assemblages in farmland landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation, doi: 10.1007/s10531-018-1517-y 


R.  Duflot, A. Ernoult, S. Aviron, L. Fahrig, F. Burel (2017). Relative effects of landscape composition and configuration on multi-habitat gamma diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.035 


R. Duflot, R. Georges, A. Ernoult, S. Aviron, F. Burel (2014). Landscape heterogeneity as an ecological filter of species traits. Acta Oecologica, doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2014.01.004 

The building of infrastructure (e.g. urbanization) and intensification of agriculture and forestry has led to the loss and fragmentation of habitats. Most landscapes consist of networks of remaining habitats, more or less connected or isolated from one another. Connectivity, that is the ability of the species to move through the landscape, is a key property of these habitat networks for biodiversity conservation. Green-blue infrastructure concept has been developed to enhance the conservation of functional habitat networks and their integration in landscape planning.


I have been working on how to combine different methods to accurately model habitat networks and efficiently identify the best location to protect or restore ecosystems in decision-making. 

Example of habitat network analyses and prioritization map supporting conservation planning

Example of habitat network analyses and prioritization map supporting conservation planning (Duflot et al. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2018.08.005

Selected publications: 

M. Kosma, A. Laita, R. Duflot (2023). No Net Loss of connectivity: conserving habitat networks in the context of urban expansion. Landscape and Urban Planningdoi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104847

L. Bergès, C. Avon, L. Bezombes, C. Clauzel, R. Duflot, J-C. Foltête, S. Gaucherand, X. Girardet, T. Spiegelberger (2020). Environmental mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity offsets revisited by habitat connectivity modelling. Journal of Environmental Management, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109950 

R. Duflot, C. Avon, P.K. Roche, L. Bergès (2018). Combining habitat suitability models and spatial graphs for more effective landscape conservation planning: An applied methodological framework and a species case study. Journal for Nature Conservation, doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2018.08.005 

connectivity of habitat network


Sustainable forest management


Harvesting of wood has increased human pressures on forest ecosystems. As a results, forests are getting more intensively managed over large areas with consequences on their habitat qualities. Forest structures that are important for biodiversity, such as deadwood and large old trees, are declining and forest species are increasingly threatened. Sustainable forest management strive to maintain or retore functional forest landscapes through adapted local management strategies and careful management planning at larger scales. Such land use planning aims at promoting multiple forest biodiversity aspects, as well as providing non-timber ecosystem services to human societies, for example, climate mitigation, water quality, or recreation. 

I have been working on the potential benefits of management diversification and landscape spatial planning for maintaining biodiversity in forested landscapes. 

Example of forest management scenario analyses, using forest simulations and indicator species

Example of forest management scenario analyses, using forest simulations and indicator species (Duflot et al. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10980-021-01375-8

Selected publications: 


M. Mönkkönen, T. Aakala, C. Blattert, D. Burgas, R. Duflot, K. Eyvindson, J. Kouki, T. Laaksonen & P. Punttila (2022). More wood but less biodiversity in forests in Finland: a historical evaluation. Memoranda Soc. Fauna Flora Fennica, link:

R. Duflot, L. Fahrig, M. Mönkkönen (2022). Management diversity begets biodiversity in production forest landscapes. Biological Conservation, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109514 


R. Duflot, K. Eyvindson, M. Mönkkönen (2022). Management diversification increases habitat availability for multiple biodiversity indicator species in production forests. Landscape Ecology, doi: 10.1007/s10980-021-01375-8 


K. Eyvindson, R. Duflot, M. Triviño, C. Blattert, M. Potterf, M. Mönkkönen (2021). High boreal forest multifunctionality requires continuous cover forestry as a dominant management. Land Use Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104918 

Landscapes are the place where human activities take place and are spatially organized. Land uses, their intensity, and their spatial distribution reflect complex interactions between ecological and social components. Indeed, human perceptions of and actions on landscapes affect and are influenced by ecological processes. In that sense, landscapes are shaped by human-nature relationship, often resulting from long historical trajectories. Therefore, landscapes host the conflicts and synergies between human and nonhuman nature, providing an operational level to achieve sustainable and resilient social-ecological systems. 

I have been working on sustainability issues at conceptual and practical levels, for instance, by linking social-ecological system to the landscape approach.

Example of a conceptualization of social-ecological landscape system, and its relation to

Example of a conceptualization of social-ecological landscape system, and its relation to Planetary-Well-being (Duflot et al. 2023, doi: 10.4324/9781003334002

Selected publications: 


R. Duflot, K.E. Keskinen, K. Eyvindson, K.J. Raatikainen (2023). A landscape approach to planetary well-being. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Planetary Well-being. (eds.) M. Elo, J. Hytönen, S. Karkulehto, T. Kortetmäki, J.S. Kotiaho, M. Puurtinen & M. Salo. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003334002

T. Kortetmäki, M. Puurtinen, M. Salo, R. Aro, S. Baumeister, R. Duflot, … , J.S. Kotiaho (2021). Planetary well-being. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00899-3  

R. Duflot, S. Baumeister, D. Burgas, K. Eyvindson, M. Triviño, C. Blattert, A. Kuparinen, M. Potterf (2021) Building up an ecologically sustainable and socially desirable post-COVID-19 future. Sustainability Science, doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-00940-z  

Social-ecological systems


bottom of page