Copyright © 2015 AGFORWARD
European Union’s Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613520 The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission
The potential role of
Agroforestry in tackling Food
Security and Bioenergy
Dirk Freese, Christian Böhm, Jaconette Mirck, Ansgar
Quinkenstein, Penka Tsonkova, Michael Kanzler and
Tatjana MedinskiDepartment of Soil Protection and Recultivation, Brandenburg
University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, 03046 Cottbus,
Germany
*www.tu-cottbus.de/multiland
Presentation Workshop Moscow, March 3, 2016
Outline
What is Agroforestry
Examples silvoarable agroforestry Europe
Agroforestry and climate change
Soil erosion and water quality
Carbon Sequestration
Yield comparison
CAP in Europe
Wakelyns Agroforestry, Suffolk, UK, by
Permaculture Association
Define Agroforestry
In the FP7 funded project AGFORWARD agroforestry is defined as the
deliberate integration of woody vegetation, crops and/or livestock on the
same area of land to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic
interactions. Trees can be inside parcels or on the boundaries (hedges).
Holm oak Montado, South Portugal, by
João Palma
Define Agroforestry
Interactions in Agroforestry Systems
Silvoarable Agroforestry in Europe
Unique heritage of
traditional agroforestry
systems with high
nature and cultural
value
High potential for
innovative modern
agroforestry systemsSilvoarable system: Cork oak (Quercus subur) and cereals in
Portugal by João Palma.
Silvoarable Agroforestry in Europe
Silvoarable system: Alley cropping system consisting of hedgerows with poplar (Populus nigra x P.
maximowiczii) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and winter weed (Triticum aestivum) within the alleys
close to Forst, Germany (source Freese, 2014).
Experimental Field in Forst/ Lusatia
Berlin
Cottbus
Quelle Luftbild: Google Maps, 2013
Experimental Field in Forst/ Lusatia
Quelle Luftbild: Google Maps, 2013
• 40 ha, planted 2010, (2011) (North)
• 30 ha planted in 2014 (South)
• Trees: Black locust and Poplar
• North-South-Direction
• Crop alleys: 24, 48, 96 (North) or 72
144m (South)
• Crops: maize, potato, sugar beet,
wheat
• Soil: Gley-Vega and Pseudo Gley-
Vega
• Humus content 1.9%
• Groundwater 0.8-2.3 m below
surface
Experimental Field in Forst/ Lusatia
Agroforestry and Wind (Erosion)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
width of crop alleys
0
2
4
6
8
10
win
d v
elo
city
(m/s
)
mean
Min-Max
Reference field
without trees
96 m 48 m 24 m
Width of crop alleys
1,6 1,3
0,9 0,7
mean
Min-Max
≥ 3.6 m/s = erosive wind speed* 41% 89% 96%
* Related to study site
Ø 100% 15% 46% 55%
96 m 48 m 24 m 4,5 m
Mean values from January to December 2014 in Forst/L.
Seapage and ground water monitoring
Groundwaterl
evel
measurment
Suction cup
for seapage
water
Agroforestry and Ground Water Quality
ReferenzackerAgroforst-Ackerstreifen 96 m
34
5poplar
black locust0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Nitra
te (m
g/l)
mean Min-Max
Reference field
without trees
Center of a 96 m
wide crop alley
Drinking water threshold value
139
228
1,9 7
4,5 m
10 m
Mean values of NO3- concentration in groundwater in Forst/L. from January to September
2014
Conclusions Wind and Ground- and Surface Water Quality
Wind
- Significant decrease of wind speed
- Optimum width of crop alleys under actual tree management = 70 m
- Decrease of evapotranspiration leading to higher available water
- Positive impact on crop yield expected
Water
- NO3-concentration in groundwater (0.8 – 2m level) is much lower under
tree strips compared to crop alleys.
- P is not affected (not shown)
But: leaching rate and groundwater movement has to be quantified
Agroforestry and Carbon Sequestration
CO2
photosynthesis
microbial
decompositionsoil OC
root OC
root
respiration
roots
exudates
aboveground
biomass OC CO2
plant
respiration
organic
matter
dead
roots
litter microbial
respiration
Organic carbon cycle
Amount of 250-2000 µm soil aggregates (%)
a
b
20 30 40 50
3
10
30
60
SRC
Crop
Allendorf
a
b
a
a
b
b
20 30 40 50
3
10
30
60
So
il d
ep
th (c
m)
Dornburg
1 2 3
3
10
30
60
So
il d
ep
th (c
m)
Forst
SRC: 1/1roots/shoots
20 30 40 50
3
10
30
60
Forst
(Mg ha-1
in 1 cm soil layer)
OC stock at 250-2000 µm soil aggregates
ab
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
3
10
30
60
SRC
Crop
Allendorf
a
b
a
a
b
b
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
3
10
30
60
So
il d
ep
th (c
m)
Dornburg
1 2 3
3
10
30
60
So
il d
ep
th (c
m)
Forst
SRC: 1/1roots/shoots
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
3
10
30
60
Forst
Carbon stocks
and soil
aggregates
Accumulation of
labile C fractions
in the topsoil
Macro-aggregate
formation
OC inclusion
within soil
aggregates, which
may preserve it
from
decomposition
and enhance C
sequestration
Changes in carbon functional groups during litter decomposition
Black locust Poplar
Mass
(m
g g
-1 l
itte
r)
Decomposition days
0
100
200
300
0 100 200 300
O-Alkyl-C
Alkyl-C
Carboxyl-C
0
20
40
60
0 100 200 300
Aryl-C
Phenol-C
Methoxyl-C
0
100
200
300
0 100 200 300
0
20
40
60
0 100 200 300
Poplar and black
locust litter
showed some
differences in
chemical
composition and
decomposition
rates
More of easily
decomposable
carbohydrates
(O-Alkyl-C) in
poplar litter: but
decomposition
restricted by low
N content and
high C:N ratio
Relationships between soil moisture and CO2 flux
a
a
a
a
b
b
a a
a
c
bb
0
8
16
24
32
Mar May July Aug Sep Oct Nov
%
Soil MoistureBlack Locust
Poplar
Crop
When the
conditions are
not restricted by
low temperature
or low
photosynthetic
activity, moisture
may enhance
soil respirationC
O2 f
lux
(µ
mo
l m
-2 s
-1)
Moisture (%)
0
3
6
9
0 5 10 15 20
y = 1.61e0.0653x
r = 0.55 (p < 0.01)
Conclusions C-Sequestration
Fast litter production and rapid decomposition in poplar and black locust
hedgerows result in accumulation of labile OC fractions in the topsoil layer
Greater macro-aggregates formation in tree hedgerows related to “zero tillage”
may promote long-term OC storage, as C occluded within aggregates has lower
exposure to microbial decomposition and longer residence time
A greater C loss with soil respiration from trees hedgerows in summer may be
compensated by a greater C assimilation and storage in woody biomass, and lower
respiration in autumn compared to the tilled crop strips
OutlookPathway and accumulation of litter-originated C compounds in soils
(experiment under controlled conditions, evaluation of long-term changes
in labile C fractions, microbial respiration, leaching, accumulation of stable
C fractions)
Agroforestry and Yield Comparison
Forst/L.
Accurate harvest (220 plots) of wheat in 2014, Forst/L.
Agroforestry and Yield Comparison Wheat
3 15 27 39 51 63 75 87
distance to tree stripes [m]
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
yie
ld o
f wh
ea
t (dt/h
a (8
6%
DM
))
mean standard error
59% 75% 92% 77%
Wind speed related to open field (March – July 2014)
83% 100% 100%
Global radiation related to open field (March– July 2014)
Mean values of wheat yield on 96 m- crop alley [n = 8] in 2014, Forst/L.
Agroforestry and Yield Comparison Model YieldSafe and Parameter
Daily Climate:
Radiation [W/m2];
Temperature [°C];
Precipitation [mm].
Agricultural Management
Biophysical Initialization:
Initial Biomass;
Initial Leaf Area;
Initial Soil Water Content;
Soil Texture
Agroforestry and Yield Comparison Tree biomass
Tree biomass modeling by YIELDSAFE – Harvest in 2014/15 in Forst/L.
Soil water availability
- Yield of trees (woody biomass) with
10 t DM/ ha*year
- Yield of trees does not compete
economically with wheat
Yield comparison and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
• Biophysical results from YieldSAFE suggested that AF systems could be more productive then growing
trees and crops separately (LER>1)
• Systems at 113 trees per ha provided greater LERs than for the 50 trees per hectare system
a) 113 trees per hectare b) 50 trees per hectare
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Relative crop yield
Re
lati
ve
tre
e y
ield
France
Spain
Netherlands
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Relative crop yield
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1. Predicted land equivalent
ratio in France, Spain and the Netherlands.
a) 113 trees per hectare b) 50 trees per hectare
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Relative crop yield
Re
lati
ve
tre
e y
ield
Poplar Cherry
Oak Pine
Walnut
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Relative crop yield
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..2. Predicted land equivalent
ratios for poplar, cherry walnut, oak and pine.
Graves et al. 2007 Ecological Engineering 434-449
Conclusions Yield Comparison
• YieldSAFE model predict the tree woody biomass on field
scale
• Climate, soil and tree parameters easy to handle
• But, nutrient availability (N,P) has to be involved for crop
modelling
• Biophysical results from YieldSAFE suggested that AF
systems could be more productive then growing trees and
crops separately (LER>1)
Agroforestry in CAP in EU
EURAF (European Agroforestry Federation) accomplished
introduction of incentives for agroforestry establishment in CAP.
1st Pillar:
Restrictive definition agroforestry; only tree alignments considered
Groves, hedges, riparian vegetation, silvopastoral systems and grazed
orchards left out.
Max 50 trees/ha set by Member States
2nd Pillar:
Measure 222 doesn’t recognize the diversity of agroforestry,
only for establishment new systems
EURAF – Lobby in Brussel
EURAF Request New CAP 2014-2020
Pillar 1 • Inclusion AF in Ecological Focus
Area
• Increase trees per ha (up to 250)
• AF listed in Ecological Focus Area
• Other measures such as landscape features
(hedges, lines of trees, isolated trees etc.),
buffer strips and short rotation coppice.
• Increase trees per ha up to 100
Pillar 2 • Inclusion definition of agroforestry
• Extension public support up to 5
years for establishment
• Deletion link between agroforestry
and extensive agriculture
• Inclusion definition of agroforestry (Regulation
(EU) 1305/2013, Article 23)
• Maintenance cost up to 5 years for
establishment
• All agricultural systems: organic, extensive,
conventional
Steps forward may remain unnoted if Member States do not seize
these opportunities offered by the EU legislator!
Lobbying at European and national level required!
Einflußsphäre der Baumbestände auf die
landwirtschaftliche Fläche Agroforestry in CAP – Cause low uptake
Agroforestry in CAP – Cause low uptake
• Short rotation coppice plantation
• 15 ha X 0.3 (Weighting factor) =
4.5 ha
• 4.5 ha of 100ha = 4.5 %
Resulting in:
4.5 % of 100ha
approved Greening
• Agroforestry system
• 5 % tree density on 100ha = 5 ha
• Weighting factor 1 (in CAP)
• but complex approach by
Agroforestry
Resulting in:
100% wanted Greening
Improve Greening measurements in Germany
Presumption: total area of arable land = 100ha
Conclusion
• From a biophysical perspective, silvoarable systems provided a means of
increasing crop and tree output in comparison with growing trees and
crops on separate land.
• From a purely financial perspective, silvoarable systems can be more
profitable than the status quo arable systems in many cases. Best results
appear to be achieved with high value trees or short rotation trees.
• However, trees provide a range of ecosystem services and can reduce the
externalities of production.
• These “non-market benefits” can be of great value to society. The
value of these is being investigated on the AGFORWARD project.
European Union’s Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613520
Thank you for your attention!
www.agforward.eu
www.agforestry.eu
www.tu-cottbus.de/multiland