Browsing by Author "Moreno, G."
Now showing 1 - 12 of 12
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access AGFORWARD Project Final Report(Cranfield University, 2018-02-28) Burgess, Paul; den Herder, M.; Dupraz, C.; Garnett, Kenisha; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Hermansen, J. E.; Kanzler, M.; Liagre, F.; Mirck, J.; Moreno, G.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; Palma, João H. N.; Pantera, A.; Plieninger, T.Executive summary: The AGFORWARD project (Grant Agreement N° 613520) had the overall goal to promote agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance sustainable rural development. It had four objectives (described below) which address 1) the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe, 2) identifying, developing and field-testing agroforestry innovations through participatory networks, 3) evaluating innovative designs and practices at field-, farm-, and landscape-scales, and promoting agroforestry in Europe through policy development and dissemination. Agroforestry is defined as the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. Context: European agroforestry has been estimated to cover 10.6 Mha (using a literature review) and 15.4 Mha using the pan-European LUCAS dataset (i.e. 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area). Livestock agroforestry (15.1 Mha) is, by far, the dominant type of agroforestry. The LUCAS analysis provides a uniform method to compare agroforestry areas between countries and over time. Identify, develop and field-test agroforestry innovations: 40 stakeholder groups (involving about 820 stakeholders across 13 European countries) developed and field-tested agroforestry innovations which have been reported in 40 “lesson learnt” reports, and in a user-friendly format in 46 “Agroforestry innovation leaflets”. The innovations for agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value included cheaper methods of tree protection and guidance for establishing legumes in wood pastures. Innovations for agroforestry with timber plantations, olive groves and apple orchards include the use of medicinal plants and reduction of mowing costs. Innovations for integrating trees on arable farms included assessments of yield benefits by providing wind protection. Innovations for livestock farms included using trees to enhance animal welfare, shade protection, and as a source of fodder. Peer-reviewed journal papers and conference presentations on these and other related topics were developed. Evaluation of agroforestry designs and practices at field- and landscape-scale: a range of publicly available field-scale analysis tools are available on the AGFORWARD website. These include the “CliPick” climate database, and web-applications of the Farm-SAFE and Hi-sAFe model. The results of field- and landscape-scale analysis, written up as peer-reviewed papers, highlight the benefits of agroforestry (relative to agriculture) for biodiversity enhancement and providing regulating ecosystem services, such as for climate and water regulation and purification. Policy development and dissemination: detailed reviews of existing policy and recommendations for future European agroforestry policy have been produced. The support provided is far wider than the single specified agroforestry measures. The recommendations included the collation of existing measures, and that agroforestry systems should not forfeit Pillar I payments. Opportunities for farmlevel and landscape-level measures were also identified. The project results can be found on the project website (www.agforward.eu), a Facebook account (www.facebook.com/AgforwardProject), a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/AGFORWARD_EU), and a quarterly electronic newsletter (http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/newsletters-1514.html). The number of national associations in Europe was extended to twelve, and a web-based training resource on agroforestry (http://train.agforward.eu/language/en/agforall/) created. AGFORWARD also supported the Third European Agroforestry Conference in Montpellier in 2016 attracting 287 delegates from 26 countries including many farmers. We also initiated another 21 national conferences or conference sessions on agroforestry, made about 240 oral presentations, 61 poster presentations, produced about 50 news articles, and supported about 87 workshop, training or field-visit activities (in addition to the stakeholder groups).Item Open Access AGFORWARD Third Periodic Report: July 2016 to December 2017(Cranfield University, 2018-03-01) Burgess, Paul; den Herder, M.; Dupraz, C.; Garnett, Kenisha; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Hermansen, J. E.; Kanzler, M.; Liagre, F.; Moreno, G.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; Palma, João H. N.; Pantera, A.; Plieninger, T.Project context The European Union has targets to improve the competitiveness of European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment and the quality of rural life. At the same time there is a need to improve our resilience to climate change and to enhance biodiversity. During the twentieth century, large productivity advances were made by managing agriculture and forestry as separate practices, but often at a high environmental cost. In order to address landscape-scale issues such as biodiversity and water quality, we argue that farmers and society will benefit from considering landuse as a continuum including both agriculture and trees, and that there are significant opportunities for European farmers and society to benefit from a closer integration of trees with agriculture. Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions.Item Open Access Agroforestry for high value tree systems in Europe(2018-01-06) Pantera, A.; Burgess, Paul J.; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Moreno, G.; López-Díaz, M. L.; Corroyer, N.; McAdam, Jim; Rosati, A.; Papadopoulos, A. M.; Graves, Anil; Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A.; Ferreiro-Domínguez, N.; Fernández-Lorenzo, J. L.; González-Hernández, M. P.; Papanastasis, Vasilios P.; Mantzanas, K.; van Lerberghe, Philippe; Malignier, N.Most farm-based agroforestry projects focus on the integration of trees on arable or livestock enterprises. This paper focuses on the integration of understorey crops and/or livestock within high value tree systems (e.g., apple orchards, olive groves, chestnut woodlands, and walnut plantations), and describes the components, structure, ecosystem services and economic value of ten case studies of this type of agroforestry across Europe. Although their ecological and socio-economic contexts vary, the systems share some common characteristics. The primary objective of the farmer is likely to remain the value of tree products like apples, olives, oranges, or nuts, or particularly high value timber. However there can still be production, environmental or economic benefits of integrating agricultural crops such as chickpeas and barley, or grazing an understorey grass crop with livestock. Three of the systems focused on the grazing of apple orchards with sheep in the UK and France. The introduction of sheep to apple orchards can minimise the need for mowing and provide an additional source of revenue. Throughout the Mediterranean, there is a need to improve the financial viability of olive groves. The case studies illustrate the possibility of intercropping traditional olive stands with chickpea in Greece, or the intercropping of wild asparagus in high density olive groves in Italy. Another system studied in Greece involves orange trees intercropped with chickpeas. Stands of chestnut trees in North-west Spain can provide feed for pigs when the fruit falls in November, and provide an excellent habitat for the commercial production of edible mushrooms. In Spain, in the production of high quality walnut trees using rotations of up to 50–60 years, there are options to establish a legume-based mixed pasture understorey and to introduce sheep to provide financial and environmental benefits.Item Open Access Agroforestry in the European common agricultural policy(Springer, 2018-06-26) Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Pisanelli, A.; Rois-Díaz, M.; Smith, J.; den Herder, M.; Moreno, G.; Ferreiro-Domínguez, N.; Malignier, N.; Lamersdorf, N.; Balaguer, F.; Pantera, A.; Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A.; Aldrey, J. A.; González-Hernández, M. P.; Fernández-Lorenzo, J. L.; Romero-Franco, R.; Burgess, Paul JohnAgroforestry is a sustainable land management system that should be more strongly promoted in Europe to ensure adequate ecosystem service provision in the old continent (Decision 529/2013) through the common agricultural policy (CAP). The promotion of the woody component in Europe can be appreciated in different sections of the CAP linked to Pillar I (direct payments and Greening) and Pillar II (rural development programs). However, agroforestry is not recognised as such in the CAP, with the exception of the Measure 8.2 of Pillar II. The lack of recognition of agroforestry practices within the different sections of the CAP reduces the impact of CAP activities by overlooking the optimum combinations that would maximise the productivity of land where agroforestry could be promoted, considering both the spatial and temporal scales.Item Open Access Agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value in Europe: provision of commercial goods and other ecosystem services(2017-09-30) Moreno, G.; Aviron, S.; Berg, S.; Crous-Duran, Josep; Franca, A.; García de Jalón, S.; Hartel, T.; Mirck, J.; Pantera, A.; Palma, João H. N.; Paulo, J. A.; Re, G. A.; Sanna, F.; Thenail, Claudine; Varga, Anna; Viaud, V.; Burgess, Paul J.Land use systems that integrate woody vegetation with livestock and/or crops and are recognised for their biodiversity and cultural importance can be termed high nature and cultural value (HNCV) agroforestry. In this review, based on the literature and stakeholder knowledge, we describe the structure, components and management practices of ten contrasting HNCV agroforestry systems distributed across five European bioclimatic regions. We also compile and categorize the ecosystem services provided by these agroforestry systems, following the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. HNCV agroforestry in Europe generally enhances biodiversity and regulating ecosystem services relative to conventional agriculture and forestry. These systems can reduce fire risk, compared to conventional forestry, and can increase carbon sequestration, moderate the microclimate, and reduce soil erosion and nutrient leaching compared to conventional agriculture. However, some of the evidence is location specific and a better geographical coverage is needed to generalize patterns at broader scales. Although some traditional practices and products have been abandoned, many of the studied systems continue to provide multiple woody and non-woody plant products and high-quality food from livestock and game. Some of the cultural value of these systems can also be captured through tourism and local events. However there remains a continual challenge for farmers, landowners and society to fully translate the positive social and environmental impacts of HNCV agroforestry into market prices for the products and services.Item Open Access Development and application of bio-economic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable, and forestry systems in three European countries.(Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam., 2007-04-01T00:00:00Z) Graves, Anil R.; Burgess, Paul J.; Palma, João H. N.; Herzog, F.; Moreno, G.; Bertomeu, M.; Dupraz, Christian; Liagre, F.; Keesman, Karel; van der Werf, Wopke; Koeffeman, de Nooy A.; van den Briel, J. P.Silvoarable agroforestry could promote use of trees on farms in Europe, but its likely effect on production, farm profitability, and environmental services is poorly understood. Hence, from 2001 to 2005, the Silvoarable Agroforestry for Europe project developed a systematic process to evaluate the biophysical and economic performance of arable, forestry, and silvoarable systems in Spain, France, and The Netherlands. A biophysical model called “Yield-SAFE” was developed to predict long-term yields for the different systems and local statistics and expert opinion were used to derive their revenue, costs, and pre- and post-2005 grant regimes. These data were then used in an economic model called “Farm-SAFE” to predict plot- and farm-scale profitability. Land equivalent ratios were greater than one, showing Yield-SAFE predicted that growing trees and crops in silvoarable systems was more productive than growing them separately. Pre-2005 grants in Spain and The Netherlands penalised silvoarable systems, but post-2005 grants were more equitable. In France, walnut and poplar silvoarable systems were consistently the most profitable system under both grant regimes. In Spain, holm oak and stone pine silvoarable systems were the least profitable system under pre-2005 grants, but only marginally less profitable than arable systems under post-2005 grants. In The Netherlands, low timber values and the opportunity cost of losing arable land for slurry manure application made silvoarable and forestry systems uncompetitive with arable systems under both grantItem Open Access Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis(Elsevier, 2016-08-16) Torralba, Mario; Fagerholm, Nora; Burgess, Paul J.; Moreno, G.; Plieninger, TobiasAgroforestry has been proposed as a sustainable agricultural system over conventional agriculture and forestry, conserving biodiversity and enhancing ecosystem service provision while not compromising productivity. However, the available evidence for the societal benefits of agroforestry is fragmented and does often not integrate diverse ecosystem services into the assessment. To upscale existing case-study insights to the European level, we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of agroforestry on ecosystem service provision and on biodiversity levels. From 53 publications we extracted a total of 365 comparisons that were selected for the meta-analysis. Results revealed an overall positive effect of agroforestry (effect size = 0.454, p < 0.01) over conventional agriculture and forestry. However, results were heterogeneous, with differences among the types of agroforestry practices and ecosystem services assessed. Erosion control, biodiversity, and soil fertility are enhanced by agroforestry while there is no clear effect on provisioning services. The effect of agroforestry on biomass production is negative. Comparisons between agroforestry types and reference land-uses showed that both silvopastoral and silvoarable systems increase ecosystem service provision and biodiversity, especially when compared with forestry land. Mediterranean tree plantation systems should be especially targeted as soil erosion could be highly reduced while soil fertility increased. We conclude that agroforestry can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem service provision relative to conventional agriculture and forestry in Europe and could be a strategically beneficial land use in rural planning if its inherent complexity is considered in policy measures.Item Open Access Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe(Springer, 2017-10-11) Rois-Díaz, M.; Lovric, N.; Lovric, M.; Ferreiro-Domínguez, N.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; den Herder, M.; Graves, Anil; Palma, João H. N.; Paulo, J. A.; Pisanelli, A.; Smith, J.; Moreno, G.; García, S.; Varga, Anna; Pantera, A.; Mirck, J.Potential benefits and costs of agroforestry practices have been analysed by experts, but few studies have captured farmers’ perspectives on why agroforestry might be adopted on a European scale. This study provides answers to this question, through an analysis of 183 farmer interviews in 14 case study systems in eight European countries. The study systems included high natural and cultural value agroforestry systems, silvoarable systems, high value tree systems, and silvopasture systems, as well as systems where no agroforestry practices were occurring. A mixed method approach combining quantitative and qualitative approaches was taken throughout the interviews. Narrative thematic data analysis was performed. Data collection proceeded until no new themes emerged. Within a given case study, i.e. the different systems in different European regions, this sampling was performed both for farmers who practice agroforestry and farmers who did not. Results point to a great diversity of agroforestry practices, although many of the farmers are not aware of the term or concept of agroforestry, despite implementing the practice in their own farms. While only a few farmers mentioned eligibility for direct payments in the CAP as the main reason to remove trees from their land, to avoid the reduction of the funded area, the tradition in the family or the region, learning from others, and increasing the diversification of products play the most important role in adopting or not agroforestry systems.Item Open Access Forage-SAFE: a model for assessing the impact of tree cover on wood pasture profitability(Elsevier, 2018-02-07) de Jalón, S. G.; Graves, Anil; Moreno, G.; Palma, João H. N.; Crous-Duran, Josep; Kay, S.; Burgess, Paul J.Whilst numerous studies have examined the environmental benefits of introducing additional trees within wood pasture systems few studies have assessed the impact on farm profitability. This paper describes a model, called Forage-SAFE, which has been developed to improve understanding of the management and economics of wood pastures. The model simulates the daily balance between food production and the livestock demand for food to estimate annual farm net margins. Parameters in Forage-SAFE such as tree cover density, carrying capacity, and type of livestock can be modified to analyse their interactions on profitability and to identify optimal managerial decisions against a range of criteria. A modelled dehesa wood pasture in South-western Spain was used as a case study to demonstrate the applicability of the model. The results for the modelled dehesa showed that for a carrying capacity of 0.44 livestock units per hectare the maximum net margin was achieved at a tree cover of around 53% with a mixture of Iberian pigs (28% of the livestock units) and ruminants (72%). The results also showed that the higher the carrying capacity the more profitable the tree cover was. This was accentuated as the proportion of Iberian pigs increased.Item Open Access Forage-SAFE: a tool to assess the management and economics of wood pasture systems(CEST, 2017-12-31) Garcia de Jalon, Silvestre; Graves, Anil; Moreno, G.; Palma, João H. N.; Crous-Duran, Josep; Oliveira, T.; Burgess, Paul J.The Forage-SAFE model has been developed to better understand the impact of trees on the profitability of wood pastures. It assesses the daily balance between the demand for and production of forage to estimate an annual farm net margin. The model allows the modification of selected biophysical and financial parameters related to the tree, pasture and livestock components (such as tree cover density, carrying capacity and livestock species) which can be optimised to maximise net farm income. A case study in a dehesa wood pasture in South-western Spain was used to show the applicability of the model. The case study results showed that net margin was maximised at around 27% tree cover for a carrying capacity of 0.4 livestock unit per hectare from which 61% were ruminants and 39% Iberian pigs. The analysis also showed that high carrying capacities were positively correlated with tree cover profitability. This was accentuated as the proportion of Iberian pigs increased.Item Open Access Modeling environmental benefits of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe.(Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam., 2007-03-01T00:00:00Z) Palma, João H. N.; Graves, Anil R.; Bunce, R. G. H.; Burgess, Paul J.; de Filippi, R.; Keesman, K. J.; van Keulen, Herman; Liagre, F.; Mayus, Martina; Moreno, G.; Reisner, Y.; Herzog, F.Increased adoption of silvoarable agroforestry (SAF) systems in Europe, by integrating trees and arable crops on the same land, could offer a range of environmental benefits compared with conventional agricultural systems. Soil erosion, nitrogen leaching, carbon sequestration and landscape biodiversity were chosen as indicators to assess a stratified random sample of 19 landscape test sites in the Mediterranean and Atlantic regions of Europe. At each site, the effect of introducing agroforestry was examined at plot-scale by simulating the growth of one of five tree species (hybrid walnut Juglans spp., wild cherry Prunus avium L., poplar Populus spp., holm oak Quercus ilex L. subsp. ilex and stone pine Pinus pinea L.) at two tree densities (50 and 113 trees ha−1) in combination with up to five crops (wheat Triticum spp., sunflower Helianthus annuus L., oilseed rape Brassica napus L., grain maize and silage maize Zea mays L.). At landscape-scale, the effect of introducing agroforestry on 10 or 50% of the agricultural area, on either the best or worst quality land, was examined. Across the 19 landscape test sites, SAF had a positive impact on the four indicators with the strongest effects when introduced on the best quality land. The computer simulations showed that SAF could significantly reduce erosion by up to 65% when combined with contouring practices at medium (>0.5 and <3 t ha−1 a−1) and high (>3 t ha−1 a−1) erosion sites. Nitrogen leaching could be reduced by up to 28% in areas where leaching is currently estimated high (>100 kg N h−1 a−1), but this was dependent on tree density. With agroforestry, predicted mean carbon sequestration through immobilization in trees, over a 60-year period, ranged from 0.1 to 3.0 t C h−1 a−1 (5–179 t C h−1) depending on tree species and location. Landscape biodiversity was increased by introducing SAF by an average factor of 2.6. The implications of this potential for environmental benefits at EuropeaItem Open Access Understanding agroforestry practices in Europe through landscape features policy promotion(Springer, 2018-02-17) Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Aldrey, J. A.; Moreno, G.; den Herder, M.; Burgess, Paul; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.Agroforestry understood as the combination of a woody component (forest tree, shrub, fruit tree) with an agricultural use of the understory is not clearly identified as such by the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Despite the protection and promotion of the woody component in different parts of the CAP political text, the identification of agroforestry is not clear, although it can be recognised in the description of some landscape features, such as isolated trees and different types of hedgerows. Moreover, it is important to identify the extent of such woody components promoted by the CAP in agricultural lands to validate the impact of current and future measures. This paper aims at the characterisation of the current extent of landscape features all over Europe by analysing the Rural Development Program (RDP) measures within the CAP 2007–2013 and 2014–2020 that promote said features in Europe to increase the ecosystem service delivery. Isolated trees and hedgerows are protected unsatisfactorily through the Cross-compliance and Greening of CAP Pillar I. In contrast, Agri-environment measures associated to Pillar II are used in most European countries to protect both isolated trees and hedgerows and to promote them as boundary elements. The promotion of hedgerows and isolated trees mainly related to silvoarable and silvopastoral agroforestry practices is aimed at the promotion of the ecosystem services (such as water protection and biodiversity) and improvement in resilience (such as adaptation to climate change) they provide; therefore, the agroforestry environment benefits are indeed recognised. Landscape features comprising woody perennials should be associated with agroforestry when present in arable and permanent grasslands.