Browsing by Author "Herzog, Felix"

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe
    (Elsevier, 2019-03-06) Sonja, Kay; Rega, Carlo; Moreno, Gerardo; den Herder, Michael; Palma, João H. N.; Borek, Robert; Crous-Duran, Josep; Freese, Dirk; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Jäger, Mareike; Lamersdorf, Norbert; Memedemin, Daniyar; Mosquera-Losada, Rosa; Pantera, Anastasia; Paracchini, Maria Luisa; Paris, Pierluigi; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Rolo, Victor; Rosati, Adolfo; Sandor, Mignon; Smith, Jo; Szerencsits, Erich; Varga, Anna; Viaud, Valérie; Wawer, Rafal; Burgess, Paul J.; Herzog, Felix
    Agroforestry, relative to conventional agriculture, contributes significantly to carbon sequestration, increases a range of regulating ecosystem services, and enhances biodiversity. Using a transdisciplinary approach, we combined scientific and technical knowledge to evaluate nine environmental pressures in terms of ecosystem services in European farmland and assessed the carbon storage potential of suitable agroforestry systems, proposed by regional experts. First, regions with potential environmental pressures were identified with respect to soil health (soil erosion by water and wind, low soil organic carbon), water quality (water pollution by nitrates, salinization by irrigation), areas affected by climate change (rising temperature), and by underprovision in biodiversity (pollination and pest control pressures, loss of soil biodiversity). The maps were overlaid to identify areas where several pressures accumulate. In total, 94.4% of farmlands suffer from at least one environmental pressure, pastures being less affected than arable lands. Regional hotspots were located in north-western France, Denmark, Central Spain, north and south-western Italy, Greece, and eastern Romania. The 10% of the area with the highest number of accumulated pressures were defined as Priority Areas, where the implementation of agroforestry could be particularly effective. In a second step, European agroforestry experts were asked to propose agroforestry practices suitable for the Priority Areas they were familiar with, and identified 64 different systems covering a wide range of practices. These ranged from hedgerows on field boundaries to fast growing coppices or scattered single tree systems. Third, for each proposed system, the carbon storage potential was assessed based on data from the literature and the results were scaled-up to the Priority Areas. As expected, given the wide range of agroforestry practices identified, the carbon sequestration potentials ranged between 0.09 and 7.29 t C ha−1 a−1. Implementing agroforestry on the Priority Areas could lead to a sequestration of 2.1 to 63.9 million t C a−1 (7.78 and 234.85 
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Agroforestry is paying off – Economic evaluation of ecosystem services in European landscapes with and without agroforestry systems
    (Elsevier, 2019-02-02) Kay, Sonja; Graves, Anil; Palma, João H. N.; Moreno, Gerardo; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Aviron, Stephanie; Chouvardas, Dimitrios; Crous-Duran, Josep; Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria; García de Jalón, Silvestre; Macicasan, Vlad; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Pantera, Anastasia; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Szerencsits, Erich; Torralba, Mario; Burgess, Paul; Herzog, Felix
    The study assessed the economic performance of marketable ecosystem services (ES) (biomass production) and non-marketable ecosystem services and dis-services (groundwater, nutrient loss, soil loss, carbon sequestration, pollination deficit) in 11 contrasting European landscapes dominated by agroforestry land use compared to business as usual agricultural practice. The productivity and profitability of the farming activities and the associated ES were quantified using environmental modelling and economic valuation. After accounting for labour and machinery costs the financial value of the outputs of Mediterranean agroforestry systems tended to be greater than the corresponding agricultural system; but in Atlantic and Continental regions the agricultural system tended to be more profitable. However, when economic values for the associated ES were included, the relative profitability of agroforestry increased. Agroforestry landscapes: (i) were associated to reduced externalities of pollution from nutrient and soil losses, and (ii) generated additional benefits from carbon capture and storage and thus generated an overall higher economic gain. Our findings underline how a market system that includes the values of broader ES would result in land use change favouring multifunctional agroforestry. Imposing penalties for dis-services or payments for services would reflect their real world prices and would make agroforestry a more financially profitable system.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cross-site analysis of perceived ecosystem service benefits in multifunctional landscapes
    (Elsevier, 2019-05-06) Fagerholm, Nora; Torralba, Mario; Moreno, Gerardo; Girardello, Marco; Herzog, Felix; Aviron, Stephanie; Burgess, Paul; Crous-Duran, Josep; Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria; Graves, Anil; Hartel, Tibor; Măcicăsan, Vlad; Kay, Sonja; Pantera, Anastasia; Varga, Anna; Plieninger, Tobias
    Rural development policies in many Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries promote sustainable landscape management with the intention of providing multiple ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it remains unclear which ES benefits are perceived in different landscapes and by different people. We present an assessment of ES benefits perceived and mapped by residents (n = 2,301) across 13 multifunctional (deep rural to peri-urban) landscapes in Europe. We identify the most intensively perceived ES benefits, their spatial patterns, and the respondent and landscape characteristics that determine ES benefit perception. We find outdoor recreation, aesthetic values and social interactions are the key ES benefits at local scales. Settlement areas are ES benefit hotspots but many benefits are also related to forests, waters and mosaic landscapes. We find some ES benefits (e.g. culture and heritage values) are spatially clustered, while many others (e.g. aesthetic values) are dispersed. ES benefit perception is linked to people’s relationship with and accessibility to a landscape. Our study discusses how a local perspective can contribute to the development of contextualized and socially acceptable policies for sustainable ES management. We also address conceptual confusion in ES framework and present argumentation regarding the links from services to benefits, and from benefits to different types of values.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    Data underpinning research article "Whole system valuation of arable, agroforestry and tree-only systems at three case study sites in Europe"
    (Cranfield University, 2020-07-06 08:25) Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Burgess, Paul; Crous Duran, Josep; Moreno, Gerardo; Herzog, Felix; HN Palma, Joao; Kay, Sonja; García de Jalón, Silvestre
    "Interactive Figures A1 and A2, along with their dataset. Figures D1 and D2 dataset"
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    EcoYield-SAFE: The biophysical model underpinning research article "Predicted yield and soil organic carbon changes in agroforestry, woodland, grassland and arable systems under climate change in a cool temperate Atlantic climate"
    (Cranfield University, 2025-03-04) Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Burgess, Paul J.; Graves, Anil R.; Olave, Rodrigo J.; Eden, Jonathan M.; Herzog, Felix
    This version of EcoYield-SAFE model was developed from the Yield-SAFE model developed on the EU SAFE project (Silvoarable Agroforestry for Europe). The original equations are described in a paper by van der Werf et al. (2007). EcoYield-SAFE was previously enhanced so that crop water use responds to the daily vapour pressure deficit that is dependent on the change of temperature and wind speed, promoted by the trees. Soil carbon has also been included in the EcoYield-SAFE model. This is based on the RothC model (Rothamsted soil carbon; Coleman and Jenkinson (2014)) and predicts soil carbon changes under different land uses and over time. These changes were undertaken during the EU AGFORWARD project (Grant number 613520). More recently, to determine the effect of climate change on tree and crop yields, EcoYield-SAFE v2 has been further developed to include the effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide on the radiation use efficiency of the trees, grass, and crops. These changes were undertaken during the EU AGROMIX project (Grant agreement 862993). More recently, to determine the effect of climate change on tree and crop yields, EcoYield-SAFE has been further developed to include the effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) on the radiation use efficiency of the trees, grass, and crops. These changes were undertaken during the EU AGROMIX project. A previous and simpler version of the model, named Yield-SAFE v2 is also available online (Burgess et al., 2023) in Cranfield University's CORD repository (https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/22344).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Farm-SAFE v3 - Comparing the financial benefits and costs of arable, forest, and agroforestry systems
    (Cranfield University, 2024-02-06 13:58) Graves, Anil; Burgess, Paul; Wiltshire, Katy; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Herzog, Felix; Palma, Joao
    Agroforestry systems integrate trees with livestock and/or arable crops on the same parcel of land. Compared to monoculture arable or grass systems, agroforestry systems can enhance soil conservation, carbon sequestration, species and habitat diversity, and provide additional sources of farm income. Farm-SAFE (Financial and Resource use Model for Simulating AgroForestry in Europe) is a spreadsheet-based bio-economic model which has been developed in Microsoft® Excel® to compare the financial benefits and costs of crop-only, tree-only, and agroforestry system over tree rotations of up to 60 years (Graves et al., 2024a). The results are presented in both graphical and tabular form in terms of a net present value and equivalent annual values. A description and user guide is also available (Graves et al., 2024b). Farm-SAFE requires input of tree and crop yields. One way to obtain crop and tree yields in tree-only, agroforestry, and crop-only systems is to use the Yield-SAFE model. Yield-SAFE is a spreadsheet-based biophysical model which has been developed to enable the prediction of the relationship between tree and crop yields over the rotation of the tree component. A copy of the Yield-SAFE model, together with a full description and user guide, is available here. The original Farm-SAFE model was developed with funding from the European Union through the Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe project (contract number QLK5-CT-2001-00560). The process of creating a default publicly available version of the model has been enabled through the BioForce project funded by the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J., Wiltshire, C., Giannitsopoulos, M., Herzog, F., Palma, J.H.N. (2024a). Farm-SAFE v3 model in Excel. Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK: Cranfield University. Graves, A.R., Burgess, P.J., Wiltshire, C., Giannitsopoulos, M., Herzog, F., Palma, J.H.N. (2024b). Description and User Guide for Farm-SAFE v3. January 2024. Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK: Cranfield University. 42 pp.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Landscape-scale modelling of agroforestry ecosystems services in Swiss orchards: a methodological approach
    (Springer, 2018-08-02) Kay, Sonja; Crous-Duran, Josep; García de Jalón, Silvestre; Graves, Anil; Palma, João H. N.; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Szerencsits, Erich; Weibel, Robert; Herzog, Felix
    Context Agroforestry systems in temperate Europe are known to provide both, provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it is poorly understood how these systems affect ES provision at a landscape scale in contrast to agricultural practises. Objectives This study aimed at developing a novel, spatially explicit model to assess and quantify bundles of provisioning and regulating ES provided by landscapes with and without agroforestry systems and to test the hypothesis that agroforestry landscapes provide higher amounts of regulating ES than landscapes dominated by monocropping. Methods Focussing on ES that are relevant for agroforestry and agricultural practices, we selected six provisioning and regulating ES—“biomass production”, “groundwater recharge”, “nutrient retention”, “soil preservation”, “carbon storage”, “habitat and gene pool protection”. Algorithms for quantifying these services were identified, tested, adapted, and applied in a traditional cherry orchard landscape in Switzerland, as a case study. Eight landscape test sites of 1 km × 1 km, four dominated by agroforestry and four dominated by agriculture, were mapped and used as baseline for the model. Results We found that the provisioning ES, namely the annual biomass yield, was higher in landscape test sites with agriculture, while the regulating ES were better represented in landscape test sites with agroforestry. The differences were found to be statistically significant for the indicators annual biomass yield, groundwater recharge rate, nitrate leaching, annual carbon sequestration, flowering resources, and share of semi-natural habitats. Conclusions This approach provides an example for spatially explicit quantification of provisioning and regulating ES and is suitable for comparing different land use scenarii at landscape scale.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Mixtures of forest and agroforestry alleviate trade-offs between ecosystem services in European rural landscapes
    (Elsevier, 2021-06-17) Rolo, Victor; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Torralba, Mario; Kay, Sonja; Fagerholm, Nora; Aviron, Stephanie; Burgess, Paul; Crous-Duran, Josep; Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria; Graves, Anil; Hartel, Tibor; Mantzanas, Konstantinos; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Palma, João H. N.; Sidiropoulou, Anna; Szerencsits, Erich; Viaud, Valérie; Herzog, Felix; Plieninger, Tobias; Moreno, Gerardo
    Rural Europe encompasses a variety of landscapes with differing levels of forest, agriculture, and agroforestry that can deliver multiple ecosystem services (ES). Whilst provisioning and regulating ES associated with individual land covers are comparatively well studied, less is known about the associated cultural ES. Only seldom are provisioning, regulating, and cultural ES investigated together to evaluate how they contribute to multifunctionality. In this study we combined biophysical and sociocultural approaches to assess how different landscapes (dominated by forest, agriculture or agroforestry) and landscape characteristics (i.e. remoteness and landscape diversity) drive spatial associations of ES (i.e. synergies, trade-offs and bundles). We analysed data of: i) seven provisioning and regulating ES (spatially modelled), and; ii) six cultural ES (derived from participatory mapping data) in 12 study sites across four different biogeographical regions of Europe. Our results showed highly differentiated ES profiles for landscapes associated to a specific land cover, with agroforestry generally providing higher cultural ES than forest and agriculture. We found a positive relationship between the proportion of forest in a landscape and provisioning and regulating ES, whilst agriculture showed negative relationships. We found four distinct bundles of ES. Three of them were directly related to a dominant land cover and the fourth to a mixture of forest and agroforestry that was associated with high social value. The latter bundle was related to zones close to urban areas and roads and medium to high landscape diversity. These findings suggest that agroforestry should be prioritised over other land covers in such areas as it delivers a suite of multiple ES, provided it is close to urban areas or roads. Our results also illustrate the importance and application of including people’s perception in the assessment of ES associations and highlight the relevance of developing integrated analyses of ES to inform landscape management decisions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Spatial similarities between European agroforestry systems and ecosystem services at the landscape scale
    (Springer, 2017-10-04) Kay, Sonja; Crous-Duran, Josep; Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria; García de Jalón, Silvestre; Graves, Anil; Moreno, Gerardo; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Palma, João H. N.; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Szerencsits, Erich; Weibel, Robert; Herzog, Felix
    Agroforestry systems are known to provide ecosystem services which differ in quantity and quality from conventional agricultural practices and could enhance rural landscapes. In this study we compared ecosystem services provision of agroforestry and non-agroforestry landscapes in case study regions from three European biogeographical regions: Mediterranean (montado and dehesa), Continental (orchards and wooded pasture) and Atlantic agroforestry systems (chestnut soutos and hedgerows systems). Seven ecosystem service indicators (two provisioning and five regulating services) were mapped, modelled and assessed. Clear variations in amount and provision of ecosystem services were found between different types of agroforestry systems. Nonetheless regulating ecosystems services were improved in all agroforestry landscapes, with reduced nitrate losses, higher carbon sequestration, reduced soil losses, higher functional biodiversity focussed on pollination and greater habitat diversity reflected in a high proportion of semi-natural habitats. The results for provisioning services were inconsistent. While the annual biomass yield and the groundwater recharge rate tended to be higher in agricultural landscapes without agroforestry systems, the total biomass stock was reduced. These broad relationships were observed within and across the case study regions regardless of the agroforestry type or biogeographical region. Overall our study underlines the positive influence of agroforestry systems on the supply of regulating services and their role to enhance landscape structure.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Whole system valuation of arable, agroforestry and tree-only systems at three case study sites in Europe
    (Elsevier, 2020-05-24) Giannitsopoulos, Michail L.; Graves, Anil R.; Burgess, Paul J.; Crous-Duran, Josep; Moreno, Gerardo; Herzog, Felix; Palma, João H. N.; Kay, Sonja; García de Jalón, Silvestre
    There is an increasing demand to study the long-term effects of land use from both local farm and wider societal and environmental perspectives. This study applied an approach to evaluate both the financial profitability of arable, agroforestry, and tree-only systems and the wider societal benefits over a period of 30-60 years. The biophysical inputs and yields from the three systems were modelled for three case study sites in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Switzerland, using a tree and crop simulation model called Yield-SAFE. A bio-economic model called Farm-SAFE was then used to compare the financial (EAVF) and economic (or societal) equivalent annual values (EAVE) by including monetary values for five environmental externalities: carbon dioxide emissions, carbon sequestration, soil erosion by water, and nitrogen and phosphorus balances. Across the three case studies, arable farming generated higher farm incomes than the agroforestry or tree-only systems, but the arable systems also created the greatest environmental costs. By comparison the agroforestry and tree-only systems generated lower CO2 emissions and sequestered more carbon. Applying monetary values to the environmental externalities meant that the EAVE of the agroforestry and tree-only systems were greater or similar to that for the arable system in the UK case study. In Spain, the slow predicted growth of the trees meant that, even after including the environmental externalities, the arable system created greater societal benefit than the agroforestry and tree-only systems. In Switzerland, including the environmental externalities increased the attraction of the tree-only system, but the high subsidies for arable and agroforestry systems meant that the EAVE for the agroforestry and arable systems were the most attractive from a farmer’s perspective. A breakeven analysis was used to determine the environmental externality values at which the agroforestry and tree-only systems produced the same societal return as the arable system in each case study. In the UK, a carbon price of ₠16 (t CO2)-1 allowed the EAVE of the agroforestry system to attain parity with the arable EAVE. In both the UK and Spain, an environmental nitrogen cost of ₠3-6 (kg N)-1 was sufficient for the EAVE of the agroforestry and tree-only systems to match those of arable farming. Because trees on farms provide ‘‘economies of multifunction’’ for environmental benefits, the breakeven values will be less if environmental benefits are considered together as packages. The described approach provides a method for governments and others to examine the cost effectiveness of new agri-environment measures