Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis

Agroforestry 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

Maximum likelihood representation of MIPAS profiles

In order to avoid problems connected with the content of a priori information in volume mixing ratio vertical profiles measured with the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS), a user-friendly representation of the data has been developed which will be made available in addition to the regular data product. In this representation, the data will be provided on a fixed pressure grid coarse enough to allow a virtually unconstrained retrieval. To avoid data interpolation, the grid is chosen to be a subset of the pressure grids used by the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative and the Data Initiative within the Stratosphere-troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate (SPARC) project as well as the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change climatologies and model calculations. For representation, the profiles have been transformed to boxcar base functions, which means that volume mixing ratios are constant within a layer. This representation is thought to be more adequate for comparison with model data. While this method is applicable also to vertical profiles of other species, the method is discussed using ozone as an example

AGFORWARD: achievments during the first two years

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Methane and nitrous oxide retrievals from MIPAS-ENVISAT

We present the strongly revised IMK/IAA MIPAS-ENVISAT CH4 and N2O data products for the MIPAS full resolution (versions V5H_CH4_21 and V5H_N2O_21) and for the reduced resolution period (versions V5R_CH4_224, V5R_CH4_225, V5R_N2O_224 and V5R_N2O_225). Differences to older retrieval versions which are known to have a high bias are discussed. The usage of the HITRAN 2008 spectroscopic dataset leads to lower values for both gases in the lower part of the profile. The improved correction of additive radiance offsets and handling of background radiance continua allows for aerosol contributions at altitudes in the upper stratosphere and above. These changes lead to more plausible values both in the radiance offset and in the profiles of the continuum absorption coefficients. They also increase the fraction of converged retrievals. Some minor changes were applied to the constraint of the inverse problem, causing small differences in the retrieved profiles, mostly due to the relaxation of off-diagonal regularisation matrix elements for the calculation of jointly retrieved absorption coefficient profiles. Spectral microwindows have been adjusted to avoid areas with saturated spectral signatures. Jointly retrieving profiles of water vapour and nitric acid serves to compensate spectroscopic inconsistencies. We discuss the averaging kernels of the products and their vertical resolution

Validation of revised methane and nitrous oxide profiles from MIPAS-ENVISAT

Improved versions of CH4 and N2O profiles derived at the Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research and Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (CSIC) from spectra measured by the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) have become available. For the MIPAS full resolution period (2002–2004) these are V5H_CH4_21 and V5H_N2O_21 and for the reduced resolution period (2005–2012) these are V5R_CH4_224, V5R_CH4_225, V5R_N2O_224 and V5R_N2O_225. Here, we compare CH4 profiles to those measured by the Fourier Transform Spectrometer on board of the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE-FTS), the HALogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) and the Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY) and to the Global Cooperative Air Sampling Network (GCASN) surface data. We find the MIPAS CH4 profiles below 25 km to be typically higher in the order of 0.1 ppmv for both measurement periods. N2O profiles are compared to those measured by ACE-FTS, the Microwave Limb Sounder on board of the Aura satellite (Aura-MLS) and the Sub-millimetre Radiometer on board of the Odin satellite (Odin-SMR) as well as to the Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species Group (HATS) surface data. The mixing ratios from the satellite instruments agree well for the full resolution period. For the reduced resolution period, MIPAS produces similar values as Odin-SMR, but higher values than ACE-FTS and HATS. Below 27 km, the MIPAS profiles show higher mixing ratios than Aura-MLS, and lower values between 27 and 41 km. Cross comparisons between the two MIPAS measurement periods show that they generally agree quite well, but, especially for CH4, the reduced resolution period seems to produce slightly higher mixing ratios than the full resolution data

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)

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

Modelling and simulating change in reforesting mountain landscapes using a social-ecological framework

Natural reforestation of European mountain landscapes raises major environmental and societal issues. With local stakeholders in the Pyrenees National Park area (France), we studied agricultural landscape colonisation by ash (Fraxinus excelsior) to enlighten its impacts on biodiversity and other landscape functions of importance for the valley socio-economics. The study comprised an integrated assessment of land-use and land-cover change (LUCC) since the 1950s, and a scenario analysis of alternative future policy. We combined knowledge and methods from landscape ecology, land change and agricultural sciences, and a set of coordinated field studies to capture interactions and feedback in the local landscape/land-use system. Our results elicited the hierarchically-nested relationships between social and ecological processes. Agricultural change played a preeminent role in the spatial and temporal patterns of LUCC. Landscape colonisation by ash at the parcel level of organisation was merely controlled by grassland management, and in fact depended on the farmer's land management at the whole-farm level. LUCC patterns at the landscape level depended to a great extent on interactions between farm household behaviours and the spatial arrangement of landholdings within the landscape mosaic. Our results stressed the need to represent the local SES function at a fine scale to adequately capture scenarios of change in landscape functions. These findings orientated our modelling choices in the building an agent-based model for LUCC simulation (SMASH - Spatialized Multi-Agent System of landscape colonization by ASH). We discuss our method and results with reference to topical issues in interdisciplinary research into the sustainability of multifunctional landscapes