Browsing by Author "Moreno, Gerardo"
Now showing 1 - 13 of 13
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open 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, FelixAgroforestry, 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 234.85Item Open 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; Garcia de Jalon, Silvestre; Macicasan, Vlad; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Pantera, Anastasia; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Szerencsits, Erich; Torralba, Mario; Burgess, Paul; Herzog, FelixThe 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.Item Open Access Challenges and innovations for improving the sustainability of European agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value: a stakeholder perspective(Springer, 2020-06-04) Rolo, Victor; Hartel, Tibor; Aviron, Stephanie; Berg, Staffan; Crous-Duran, Josep; Franca, Antonello; Mirck, Jaconette; Nunes Palma, Joao Henrique; Pantera, Anastasia; Paulo, Joana Amaral; Pulido, Fernando Javier; Seddaiu, Giovanna; Thenail, Claudine; Varga, Anna; Viaud, Valerie; Burgess, Paul John; Moreno, GerardoTraditional forms of agroforestry are often recognized as exemplar systems that successfully integrate food production, biodiversity conservation and high cultural values. However many traditional agroforestry systems in Europe are in decline or are threatened and the perspectives of local stakeholders on the production, management, socio-economic, and environmental dimensions of such systems are not fully understood. To fill this gap, we present results of participatory research performed with ten stakeholder groups (SG) across Europe to search for solutions to improve the economic and ecological sustainability of High Nature and Cultural Value agroforestry systems (HNCV agroforestry). Stakeholders included both users and beneficiaries of the HNCV agroforestry. First, SGs held open discussions (227 participants) to identify major challenges for the long-term sustainability of HNCV agroforestry. Challenges were classified into production, management, socio-economic and the environment categories. Second, they responded to structured questionnaires (120 respondents) that explored the positive and negative perceptions of 45 possible attributes of HNCV agroforestry. Third, innovative solutions were identified by individual and group discussions to address the four categories of challenge. Challenges were mostly identified for the management and socio-economic categories, but several challenges concerning production and environment were also pinpointed. Besides, solutions matched poorly with the challenges identified, and, while challenges were at some extent common across countries, solutions to address them were more case-specific. The successful implementation of these solutions requires an in-depth understanding of the diversity of socio-cultural and natural contexts of the HNCV agroforestry systems and building bottom-up proposals and collective actions based on this understanding. The sustainability of HNCV agroforestry would be benefited by providing farmers and managers with a financial advantage from the high nature and cultural value of these systems.Item Open Access Creating agroforestry innovation and best practice leaflets(European Agroforestry Federation and the University of Santiago de Compostela, 2018-05-30) Burgess, Paul; Moreno, Gerardo; Pantera, Anastasia; Kanzler, Michael; Hermansen, John; van Lerberghe, Philippe; Balaguer, Fabien; Girardin, Nicolas; Rosati, Adolfo; Graves, Anil; Watté, Jeroen; Mosquera-Losada, Rosa; Waldie, Kevin; Pagella, Tim; Liagre, FabienA key output of the EU FP7 project AGFORWARD was a series of 46 agroforestry innovation and 10 agroforestry best practice leaflets for European farmers and other stakeholders. This paper describes the process of over 80 people working together to create the leaflets and the overall result.Item Open 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, TobiasRural 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.Item Open Access Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union(Elsevier, 2017-03-20) den Herder, Michael; Moreno, Gerardo; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Palma, João H. N.; Sidiropoulou, Anna; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Crous-Duran, Josep; Paulo, Joana A.; Tomé, Margarida; Pantera, Anastasia; Papanastasis, Vasilios P.; Mantzanas, Kostas; Pachana, Przemko; Papadopoulos, Andreas; Plieninger, Tobias; Burgess, Paul J.An accurate and objective estimate on the extent of agroforestry in Europe is critical for the development of supporting policies. For this reason, a more harmonised and uniform Pan-European estimate is needed. The aim of this study was to quantify and map the distribution of agroforestry in the European Union. We classified agroforestry into three main types of agroforestry systems: arable agroforestry, livestock agroforestry and high value tree agroforestry. These three classes are partly overlapping as high value tree agroforestry can be part of either arable or livestock agroforestry. Agroforestry areas were mapped using LUCAS Land Use and Land Cover data (Eurostat, 2015). By identifying certain combinations of primary and secondary land cover and/or land management it was possible to identify agroforestry points and stratify them in the three different systems. According to our estimate using the LUCAS database the total area under agroforestry in the EU 27 is about 15.4 million ha which is equivalent to about 3.6% of the territorial area and 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area. Of our three studied systems, livestock agroforestry covers about 15.1 million ha which is by far the largest area. High value tree agroforestry and arable agroforestry cover 1.1 and 0.3 million ha respectively. Spain (5.6 million ha), France (1.6 million ha), Greece (1.6 million ha), Italy (1.4 million ha), Portugal (1.2 million ha), Romania (0.9 million ha) and Bulgaria (0.9 million ha) have the largest absolute area of agroforestry. However the extent of agroforestry, expressed as a proportion of the utilised agricultural area (UAA), is greatest in countries like Cyprus (40% of UAA), Portugal (32% of UAA) and Greece (31% of UAA). A cluster analysis revealed that a high abundance of agroforestry areas can be found in the south-west quadrat of the Iberian Peninsula, the south of France, Sardinia, south and central Italy, central and north-east Greece, south and central Bulgaria, and central Romania. Since the data were collected and analysed in a uniform manner it is now possible to make comparisons between countries and identify regions in Europe where agroforestry is already widely practiced and areas where there are opportunities for practicing agroforestry on a larger area and introducing novel practices. In addition, with this method it is possible to make more precise estimates on the extent of agroforestry in Europe and changes over time. Because agroforestry covers a considerable part of the agricultural land in the EU, it is crucial that it gets a more prominent and clearer place in EU statistical reporting in order to provide decision makers with more reliable information on the extent and nature of agroforestry. Reliable information, in turn, should help to guide policy development and implementation, and the evaluation of the impact of agricultural and other policies on agroforestry.Item Open 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; Garcia De Jalon, Silvestre"Interactive Figures A1 and A2, along with their dataset. Figures D1 and D2 dataset"Item Open Access Dry deposition of air pollutants on trees at regional scale: a case study in the Basque Country(Elsevier Masson, 2019-07-19) García de Jalón, Silvestre; Burgess, Paul; Curiel Yuste, Jorge; Moreno, Gerardo; Graves, Anil; Palma, João H. N.; Crous-Duran, Josep; Kay, Sonja; Chiabai, AlineThere is increased interest in the role of trees to reduce air pollution and thereby improve human health and well-being. This study determined the removal of air pollutants by dry deposition of trees across the Basque Country and estimated its annual economic value. A model that calculates the hourly dry deposition of NO2, O3, SO2, CO and PM10 on trees at a 1 km x 1 km resolution at a regional scale was developed. The calculated mean annual rates of removal of air pollution across various land uses were 12.9 kg O3 ha−1, 12.7 kg PM10 ha−1, 3.0 kg NO2 ha−1, 0.8 kg SO2 ha−1 and 0.2 kg CO ha−1. The results were then categorised according to land use in order to determine how much each land use category contributed to reducing air pollution and to determine to what extent trees provided pollution reduction benefits to society. Despite not being located in the areas of highest pollutions, coniferous forests, which cover 25% of the land, were calculated to absorb 21% of the air pollution. Compared to other land uses, coniferous forests were particularly effective in removing air pollution because of their high tree cover density and the duration of leaf life-span. The total economic value provided by the trees in reducing these pollutants in terms of health benefits was estimated to be €60 million yr−1 which represented around 0.09% of the Gross Domestic Product of the Basque Country in 2016. Whilst most health impacts from air pollution are in urban areas the results indicate that most air pollution is removed in rural areas.Item Open Access How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders(Springer, 2017-08-24) Garcia de Jalon, Silvestre; Burgess, Paul J.; Graves, Anil; Moreno, Gerardo; McAdam, Jim; Pottier, Eric; Novak, Sandra; Bondesan, Valerio; Mosquera-Losada, Rosa; Crous-Duran, Josep; Palma, João H. N.; Paulo, Joana A.; Oliveira, Tania S.; Cirou, Eric; Hannachi, Yousri; Pantera, Anastasia; Wartelle, Regis; Kay, Sonja; Malignier, Nina; van Lerberghe, Philippe; Tsonkova, Penka; Mirck, Jaconette; Rois, Mercedes; Kongsted, Anne Grete; Thenail, Claudine; Luske, Boki; Berg, Staffan; Gosme, Marie; Vityi, AndreaWhilst the benefits of agroforestry are widely recognised in tropical latitudes few studies have assessed how agroforestry is perceived in temperate latitudes. This study evaluates how stakeholders and key actors including farmers, landowners, agricultural advisors, researchers and environmentalists perceive the implementation and expansion of agroforestry in Europe. Meetings were held with 30 stakeholder groups covering different agroforestry systems in 2014 in eleven EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In total 344 valid responses were received to a questionnaire where stakeholders were asked to rank the positive and negative aspects of implementing agroforestry in their region. Improved biodiversity and wildlife habitats, animal health and welfare, and landscape aesthetics were seen as the main positive aspects of agroforestry. By contrast, increased labour, complexity of work, management costs and administrative burden were seen as the most important negative aspects. Overall, improving the environmental value of agriculture was seen as the main benefit of agroforestry, whilst management and socio-economic issues were seen as the greatest barriers. The great variability in the opportunities and barriers of the systems suggests enhanced adoption of agroforestry across Europe will be most likely to occur with specific initiatives for each type of system.Item Open Access Integrating belowground carbon dynamics into Yield-SAFE, a parameter sparse agroforestry model(Springer, 2017-09-16) Palma, João H. N.; Crous-Duran, Josep; Graves, Anil; García de Jalón, Silvestre; Upson, Matthew; Oliveira, Tania S.; Paulo, Joana A.; Ferreiro-Domínguez, N.; Moreno, Gerardo; Burgess, PaulAgroforestry combines perennial woody elements (e.g. trees) with an agricultural understory (e.g. wheat, pasture) which can also potentially be used by a livestock component. In recent decades, modern agroforestry systems have been proposed at European level as land use alternatives for conventional agricultural systems. The potential range of benefits that modern agroforestry systems can provide includes farm product diversification (food and timber), soil and biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and the soil. Whilst typically these include benefits such as food and timber provision, potentially, there are benefits in the form of carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and in the soil. Quantifying the effect of agroforestry systems on soil carbon is important because it is one means by which atmospheric carbon can be sequestered in order to reduce global warming. However, experimental systems that can combine the different alternative features of agroforestry systems are difficult to implement and long-term. For this reason, models are needed to explore these alternatives, in order to determine what benefits different combinations of trees and understory might provide in agroforestry systems. This paper describes the integration of the widely used soil carbon model RothC, a model simulating soil organic carbon turnover, into Yield-SAFE, a parameter sparse model to estimate aboveground biomass in agroforestry systems. The improvement of the Yield-SAFE model focused on the estimation of input plant material into soil (i.e. leaf fall and root mortality) while maintaining the original aspiration for a simple conceptualization of agroforestry modeling, but allowing to feed inputs to a soil carbon module based on RothC. Validation simulations show that the combined model gives predictions consistent with observed data for both SOC dynamics and tree leaf fall. Two case study systems are examined: a cork oak system in South Portugal and a poplar system in the UK, in current and future climate.Item Open 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, GerardoRural 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.Item Open 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, FelixAgroforestry 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.Item Open 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; Garcíade Jalóne, SilvestreThere 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