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