Optimising conservation tillage systems for wheat and oilseed rape production.

The aims of the thesis are to determine the effect of different conservation tillage systems on the agronomic, environmental and economic performance of a wheat and oilseed rape rotation, and to understand the processes involved so that the systems can be improved. The field research examined five systems over three seasons (September 2013 to August 2016) in two fields (one clay and one clay loam) in Northamptonshire. The most disruptive tillage treatment was the Farm system comprising the use of a Sumo Trio when establishing oilseed rape, and the Sumo Trio and a Kuhn seed drill when establishing wheat. The least disruptive system was a Väderstad Seed Hawk or Rapid. The other three treatments were all one pass conservation tillage systems comprising a Claydon Hybrid Drill, a Mzuri Pro til 3, and a Sumo Deep Tillage Seeder (DTS). To understand the effect on draught and soil disturbance, specific components of the systems were tested under controlled conditions at Cranfield University’s soil bin facility. The shallow working Väderstad required the lowest draught and disturbed less soil than deep working treatments. A low aspect ratio (working depth/implement width) and rake angle reduced the draught. In the field immediately after tillage, the Farm system showed the greatest reduction in bulk density and penetration resistance at 0-50 mm and 150-200 mm, but this effect was not maintained during the season. The level of surface residue was lowest (15%) with the Farm system and greatest (75%) with the Väderstad. The shallow Väderstad led to the highest earthworm abundance in all years and both fields, proportions of water stable aggregates and microbial biomass carbon in third and first year respectively. In the clay field, blackgrass infestation doubled from 8.2% in 2013-14 to 16.0% in 2015-16; it was not a major problem in the clay loam field. Due to high variability, there was no significant effect (p>0.05) of tillage treatments on the yield of wheat and oilseed rape over the 3-year trial period in either field, except when delayed drilling of oilseed rape with the Sumo DTS in September 2015 which led to reduced yields. At a reduced significance level of p=0.15, higher yields observed for Väderstad and Mzuri in the clay soil were associated with higher levels of organic matter. The relative profitability of the five systems was primarily determined by the assumed yields and secondly by the cost of the systems. The predicted annual net margin for the five systems varied from £545 to £659 ha¯¹. The calculated cost of the five tillage systems (assuming working areas ranging from 370 to 1,100 ha) ranged from £11 to £31 ha¯¹ a¯¹, with the lowest cost achieved by the 6 m Claydon system. Assuming blackgrass weeds are not an issue, shallow low disturbance systems can result in low costs, improved soil biology and carbon storage, and sustainable high yields

Towards the coordinated and fit-for-purpose deployment of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) for flood risk management in England

Preparedness for flood emergency response is crucial for effective flood management. The need for advanced flood decision support tools that aid flood management has been recognized by several authors. This work examines the variability that currently exists across England with regard to the Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) data collection and processing strategy in flood emergency events. Expert elicitation was carried out using a tailored questionnaire about UAS deployment in three flood emergency scenarios. The survey highlighted that reduced equipment assembly time, a national network of appropriately qualified UAS pilots and the effective UAS deployment when on-site, can reduce the response time to flood emergency. For improved comparability and reduced bias in data collection and interpretation, clear guidelines on which data products are most beneficial for particular purposes, processing time required, platform and sensor selection may also be necessary. We consider that releasing a comprehensive documentation pack, which includes guidelines, standards and protocols that detail the methods, tools, technology, quantity and quality of data, to UAS pilots on a flood emergency call, will enhance the timely response

Modelling the yield and profitability of intercropped walnut systems in Croatia

In Croatia, farmers are showing increasing interest in establishing walnut orchards for nut production on arable land due to higher anticipated net margins. One way to address the lack of profitability in the initial years when nut yields are low may be to plant arable intercrops. The anticipated impacts of this practice were assessed using a biophysical simulation model (Yield-SAFE) to determine the growth and yield of crops and trees in arable, orchard, and silvoarable systems, and an economic farm model (Farm-SAFE) was used to assess their profitability. The walnut orchard and the intercropped orchard systems were simulated assuming tree densities of 170, 135, and 100 trees ha−1, to determine the profitability and break-even date of the systems. The biophysical simulation predicted a decline in arable intercrop yields over time in all tree density scenarios. However, analysis of productivity of intercropped systems showed that intercropping was more productive than separate arable and walnut production for all tree density scenarios. From financial aspect, the return from intercropping helped to offset some of the initial orchard establishment costs and the arable intercrop remained profitable until the sixth year after tree planting. The modelling predicted that a system with 170 trees ha−1 that included intercropping for the first 6 years provided the greatest cumulative net margin after 20 years. The financial benefit of intercropping over the first 6 years opposed to monoculture walnut fruit production appeared to be consistent across the three tree densities studied. These results suggest that silvoarable agroforestry is profitable approach to establishing walnut orchards

Modelling the Interactions of Soils, Climate, and Management for Grass Production in England and Wales

This study examines the effectiveness of a model called LINGRA-N-Plus to simulate the interaction of climate, soil and management on the green leaf and total dry matter yields of ryegrass in England and Wales. The LINGRA-N-Plus model includes modifications of the LINGRA-N model such as temperature- and moisture-dependent soil nitrogen mineralization and differential partitioning to leaves and stems with thermal time from the last harvest. The resulting model was calibrated against the green leaf and total grass yields from a harvest interval x nitrogen application experiment described by Wilman et al. (1976). When the LINGRA-N-Plus model was validated against total grass yields from nitrogen experiments at ten sites described by Morrison et al. (1980), its modelling efficiency improved greatly compared to the original LINGRA-N. High predicted yields, at zero nitrogen application, were related to soils with a high initial nitrogen content. The lowest predicted yields occurred at sites with low rainfall and shallow rooting depth; mitigating the effect of drought at such sites increased yields by up to 4 t ha−1. The results highlight the usefulness of grass models, such as LINGRA-N-Plus, to explore the combined effects of climate, soil, and management, like nitrogen application, and harvest intervals on grass productivity

Translating and applying a simulation model to enhance understanding of grassland management

Each new generation of grassland managers could benefit from an improved understanding of how modification of nitrogen application and harvest dates in response to different weather and soil conditions will affect grass yields and quality. The purpose of this study was to develop a freely available grass yield simulation model, validated for England and Wales, and to examine its strengths and weaknesses as a teaching tool for improving grass management. The model, called LINGRA-N-Plus, was implemented in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and iteratively evaluated by students and practitioners (farmers, consultants, and researchers) in a series of workshops across the UK over 2 years. The iterative feedback led to the addition of new algorithms, an improved user interface, and the development of a teaching guide. The students and practitioners identified the ease of use and the capacity to understand, visualize and evaluate how decisions, such as variation of cutting intervals, affect grass yields as strengths of the model. We propose that an effective teaching tool must achieve an appropriate balance between being sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the major relationships (e.g., the effect of nitrogen on grass yields) whilst not becoming so complex that the relationships become incomprehensible. We observed that improving the user-interface allowed us to extend the scope of the model without reducing the level of comprehension. The students appeared to be interested in the explanatory nature of the model whilst the practitioners were more interested in the application of a validated model to enhance their decision making

Quantifying regulating ecosystem services with increased tree densities on European farmland

Agroforestry systems have been compared to agricultural and forestry alternatives, providing a land-use solution for additional environmental benefits while maintaining similar levels of productivity. However, there is scarce research assessing such patterns across a pan-European scale using a common methodology. This study aims to improve our understanding of the role of trees in three different regulating ecosystem services—(1) soil erosion, (2) nitrate leaching and (3) carbon sequestration—in traditional and innovative agroforestry systems in Europe through a consistent modeling approach. The systems’ assessment spans environmentally from the Mediterranean environmental region in Portugal to the Continental environmental region in Switzerland and Germany to the Atlantic environmental region in the United Kingdom. Modeled tree densities were compared in the different land-use alternatives, ranging from zero (agriculture with only crops or pasture) to forestry (only trees). The methodology included the use of a biophysical model (Yield-SAFE) where the quantification of the environmental benefits was integrated. Results show a consistent improvement of regulating ecosystem services can be expected when introducing trees in the farming landscapes in different environmental regions in Europe. For all the systems, the forestry alternatives presented the best results in terms of a decrease in soil erosion of 51% (±29), a decrease of nearly all the nitrate leaching (98% ± 1) and an increase in the carbon sequestration of up to 238 Mg C ha−1 (±140). However, these alternatives are limited in the variety of food, energy and/or materials provided. On the other hand, from an arable or pure-pasture alternative starting point, an increase in agroforestry tree density could also be associated with a decrease in soil erosion of up to 25% (±17), a decrease in nitrates leached of up to 52% (±34) and an increase in the carbon sequestered of 163 Mg C ha−1 (±128) while at the same time ensuring the same levels of biomass growth and an increase in product diversificatio

AGFORWARD Third Periodic Report: July 2016 to December 2017

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.AGFORWARD (Grant Agreement N° 613520) is co-funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research & Innovation, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD. The views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commissio

AGFORWARD Project Final Report

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)

Whole system valuation of arable, agroforestry and tree-only systems at three case study sites in Europe

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 measure

Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe

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