Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-lpzrl Total loading time: 0.244 Render date: 2021-05-09T05:37:07.539Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: Is temperate agroforestry the answer?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2012

Jo Smith
Affiliation:
The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, Berkshire RG20 0HR, UK
Bruce D. Pearce
Affiliation:
The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, Berkshire RG20 0HR, UK
Martin S. Wolfe
Affiliation:
The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, Berkshire RG20 0HR, UK
Corresponding

Abstract

Meeting the needs for a growing world population calls for multifunctional land use, which can meet the multiple demands of food and fuel production, environmental and biodiversity protection, and has the capacity for adaptation or resilience to climate change. Agroforestry, a land-use system that integrates trees and shrubs with crops and/or livestock production, has been identified by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) as a ‘win–win’ approach that balances the production of commodities (food, feed, fuel, fiber, etc.) with non-commodity outputs such as environmental protection and cultural and landscape amenities. Evidence is now coming to light that supports the promotion of agroforestry in temperate developed countries as a sustainable alternative to the highly industrialized agricultural model with its associated negative environmental externalities. This paper reviews this evidence within the ‘ecosystem services’ framework to evaluate agroforestry as part of a multifunctional working landscape in temperate regions. Establishing trees on agricultural land can help to mitigate many of the negative impacts of agriculture, for example by regulating soil, water and air quality, supporting biodiversity, reducing inputs by natural regulation of pests and more efficient nutrient cycling, and by modifying local and global climates. The challenge now lies in promoting the adoption of agroforestry as a mainstream land use through research, dissemination of information and policy changes.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1FAO. 2009. How to feed the world in 2050. Food and Agriculture Organisation. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf (accessed January 16, 2012).Google Scholar
2Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington.Google Scholar
3Cannell, M.G.R., Van Noordwijk, M., and Ong, C.K. 1996. The central agroforestry hypothesis: The trees must acquire resources that the crop would not otherwise acquire. Agroforestry Systems 34:2731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Jose, S. 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems 76:110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5IAASTD. 2008. Executive summary of the synthesis report. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Available at Web site http://www.agassessment.org/docs/IAASTD_EXEC_SUMMARY_JAN_2008.pdf (accessed January 16, 2012).Google Scholar
6Bene, J.G., Beall, H.W., and Côté, A. 1977. Trees, Food and People – Land Management in the Tropics. IDRC, Ottawa.Google Scholar
7Young, A. 1997. Agroforestry for Soil Management. 2nd ed.CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
8Lundgren, B. 1982. Introduction (Editorial). Agroforestry Systems 1:36.Google Scholar
9Leakey, R.R.B. 1996. Definition of agroforestry revisited. Agroforestry Today (ICRAF) 8(1):57.Google Scholar
10Nair, P.K.R. 1985. Classification of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 3:97128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Sinclair, F.L., Eason, W.R., and Hooker, J. 2000. Understanding and management of interactions. In Hislop, A.M. and Claridge, J. (eds). Bulletin 122. Agroforestry in the UK. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
12Jose, S., Gillespie, A.R., and Pallardy, S.G. 2004. Interspecific interactions in temperate agroforestry. Agro-forestry Systems 61:237255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Dixon, R.K., Winjum, J.K., Andrasko, K.J., Lee, J.J., and Schroeder, P. 1994. Integrated land-use systems: Assessment of promising agroforest and alternative land-use practices to enhance carbon conservation and sequestration. Climate Change 27:7192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Mead, D.J. 1995. The role of agroforestry in industrialised nations: The southern hemisphere perspective with special emphasis on Australia and New Zealand. Agroforestry Systems 31:143156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Young, A. 1997. Agroforestry, soil management a and sustainability. In Young, A. (ed.). Agroforestry for Soil Management. CAB International, Wallingford. p. 122.Google Scholar
16Tamang, B., Andreu, M.G., and Rockwood, D.L. 2010. Microclimate patterns on the leeside of single-row tree windbreaks during different weather conditions in Florida farms: Implications for improved crop production. Agroforestry Systems 79(1):111122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Williams, P.A., Gordon, A.M., Garrett, H.E., and Buck, L. 1997. Agroforestry inNorth Americaand its role in farming systems. In Gordon, A.M. and Newman, S.M. (eds). Temperate Agroforestry Systems. CAB International, Wallingford. p. 984.Google Scholar
18Bharati, L., Lee, K.H., Isenhart, T.M., and Schultz, R.C. 2002. Soil–water infiltration under crops, pasture and established riparian buffer in Midwest USA. Agroforestry Systems 56:249257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Seobi, T., Udawatta, R.P., Anderson, S.H., and Gantzer, C.J. 2005. Influence of grass and agroforestry buffer strips on soil hydraulic properties for an albaqualf. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69:893901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Gea-Izquierdo, G., Montero, G., and Canellas, I. 2009. Changes in limiting resources determine spatio-temporal variability in tree–grass interactions. Agroforestry Systems 76:375387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Mead, D.J. and Willey, R.W. 1980. The concept of a ‘land equivalent ratio’ and advantages in yields from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16:217228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Dupraz, C. and Newman, S.M. 1997. Temperate Agro-forestry: The European Way. In Gordon, A.M. and Newman, S.M. (eds). Temperate Agroforestry Systems. CAB International, Wallingford. p. 181236.Google Scholar
23Benjamin, T.J., Hoover, W.L., Seifert, J.R., and Gillespie, A.R. 2000. Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the midwestern USA 4. The economic return of ecological knowledge. Agroforestry Systems 48:7993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Brownlow, M.J.C. 1994. The Characteristics and Viability of Land-Use Systems Which Integrate Pig or Poultry Production with Forestry in the UK. Department of Agriculture. University of Reading, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
25Brownlow, M.J.C., Dorward, P.T., and Carruthers, S.P. 2005. Integrating natural woodland with pig production in the United Kingdom: An investigation of potential performance and interactions. Agroforestry Systems 64:251263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Núnez, E., Gonzalez-Hernandez, M.P., McAdam, J., and Mosquera-Losada, M.R. 2008. Agroforestry Systems in Europe: Productive, Ecological and Social Perspectives. In Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. et al. (eds). Agroforestry in Europe: Current Status and Future Prospects. Springer, Belfast. p. 4365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Yates, C., Dorward, P., Hemery, G., and Cook, P. 2007. The economic viability and potential of a novel poultry agroforestry system. Agroforestry Systems 69:1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Benavides, R., Douglas, G.B., and Osoro, K. 2009. Silvopastoralism in New Zealand: Review of effects of evergreen and deciduous trees on pasture dynamics. Agroforestry Systems 76:327350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Tyndall, J. and Colletti, J. 2007. Mitigating swine odour with strategically designed shelterbelt systems: A review. Agroforestry Systems 69:4565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Jones, C., Lawton, J.H., and Shachak, M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Jones, C., Lawton, J.H., and Shachak, M. 1997. Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical ecosystem engineers. Ecology 78(7):19461957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Bird, P.R. 1998. Tree windbreaks and shelter benefits to pasture in temperate grazing systems. Agroforestry Systems 41:3554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Brandle, J.R., Hodges, L., and Zhou, X.H. 2004. Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems. Agroforestry Systems 61:6578.Google Scholar
34Moreno, G., Obrador, J.J., Garcia, E., Cubera, E., Montero, M.J., Pulido, F., and Dupraz, C. 2007. Driving competitive and facilitative interactions in oak dehesas through management practices. Agroforestry Systems 70:2540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Wang, Q. and Shogren, J.F. 1992. Characteristics of the crop–Pawlonia system in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 39:145152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Norton, R.L. 1988. Windbreaks: Benefits to orchards and vineyard crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 22:205213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Chirko, C.P., Gold, M.A., Nguyen, P.V., and Jiang, J.P. 1996. Influence of direction and distance from trees on wheat yield and photosynthetic photon flux density (Qp) in a Paulownia and wheat intercropping system. Forest Ecology and Management 83:171180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Reynolds, P.E., Simpson, J.A., Thevathasan, N.V., and Gordon, A.M. 2007. Effects of tree competition on corn and soybean photosynthesis, growth, and yield in a temperate tree-based agroforestry intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Ecological Engineering 29:362371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Joffre, R. and Rambal, S. 1993. How tree cover influences the water balance of Mediterranean rangelands. Ecology 74(2):570582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Jose, S. and Gillespie, A.R. 1998. Allelopathy in black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) alley cropping. II. Effects of juglone on hydroponically grown corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) growth and physiology. Plant and Soil 203:199205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Mitlohner, F.M., Morrow, J.L., Dailey, J.W., Wilson, S.C., Galyean, M.L., Miller, M.F., and McGlone, J.J. 2001. Shade and water misting effects on behaviour, physiology, performance and carcass traits of heat-stressed feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79:23272335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Karki, U. and Goodman, M.S. 2009. Cattle distribution and behaviour in southern-pine silvopasture versus open-pasture. Agroforestry Systems 78(2):159168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Dawkins, M.S., Cook, P.A., Whittingham, M.J., Mansell, K.A., and Harper, A.E. 2003. What makes free-range broiler chickens range? In situ measurement of habitat preferences. Animal Behaviour 66:151160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Stolba, A. and Woodgush, D.G.M. 1989. The behaviour of pigs in a semi-natural environment. Animal Production 48(2):419425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Waller, P.J., Bernes, G., Thamsborg, S.M., Sukura, A., Richter, S.H., Ingebrigsten, K., and Höglund, J. 2001. Plants as de-worming agents of livestock in the Nordic countries: Historical perspective, popular beliefs and prospects for the future. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 42:3144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Schroeder, P. 1994. Carbon storage benefits of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 27:8997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Albrecht, A. and Kandji, S.T. 2003. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99(1–3):1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:16231627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49Montagnini, F. and Nair, P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 61:281295.Google Scholar
50Peichl, M., Thevathasan, N.V., Gordon, A.M., Huss, J., and Abohassan, R.A. 2006. Carbon sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based intercropping systems, southern Ontario, Canada Agroforestry Systems. 66:243257.Google Scholar
51Schoeneberger, M.M. 2009. Agroforestry: Working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems 75:2737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52Dixon, R.K. 1995. Agroforestry systems: Sources or sinks of greenhouse gases? Agroforestry Systems 31:99116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M., and Nair, V.D. 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 172(1):1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Volk, T.A., Abrahamson, L.P., Nowak, C.A., Smart, L.B., Tharakan, P.J., and White, E.H. 2006. The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass and Bioenergy 30:715727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Hall, D.O. and House, J.I. 1994. Trees and biomass energy: Carbon storage and/or fossil fuel substitution. Biomass and Bioenergy 6(1/2):1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56Rowe, R.L., Street, N.R., and Taylor, G. 2009. Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployments of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13(1):271290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57Mutuo, P., Cadisch, G., Albrecht, A., Palm, C.A., and Verchot, L. 2005. Potential of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils in the tropics. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 71:4354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58Braban, C., Famulari, D., Twigg, M., Robertson, A., Quinn, A., Theobold, M., Nemitz, E., Dragosits, U., Bealey, W., Dore, T., and Sutton, M. 2009. Potential for ammonia abatement using agroforestry. In New Futures for Farm Woodlands. Farm Woodland Forum Annual Meeting 2009: National Forest Youth Hostel, Derbyshire. p. 23.Google Scholar
59Thevathasan, N.V. and Gordon, A.M. 2004. Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the North temperate region: Experiences from southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry Systems 61:257268.Google Scholar
60Dougherty, M.C., Thevathasan, N.V., Gordon, A.M., Lee, H., and Kort, J. 2009. Nitrate and Escherichia coli NAR analysis in tile drain effluent from a mixed tree intercrop and monocrop system. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131:7784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61Udawatta, R.P., Krstansky, J.J., Henderson, G.S., and Garrett, H.E. 2002. Agroforestry practices, runoff, and nutrient loss: A paired watershed comparison. Journal of Environmental Quality 31:12141225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Lee, K.H., Isenhart, T.M., and Schultz, R.C. 2003. Sediment and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian buffer. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 58:18.Google Scholar
63Anderson, S.H., Udawatta, R.P., Seobi, T., and Garrett, H.E. 2009. Soil water content and infiltration in agroforestry buffer strips. Agroforestry Systems 75:516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64Udawatta, R.P., Garrett, H.E., and Kallenbach, R.L. 2010. Agroforestry and grass buffer effects on water quality in grazed pastures. Agroforestry Systems 79(1):8187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65Dosskey, M.G. 2001. Toward quantifying water pollution abatement in response to installing buffers on crop land. Environmental Management 28(5):577598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66Borin, M., Passoni, M., Thiene, M., and Tempesta, T. 2009. Multiple benefits of buffer strips in farming areas. European Journal of Agronomy.Google Scholar
67Chu, B., Goyne, K.W., Anderson, S.H., Lin, C.-H., and Udawatta, R.P. 2010. Veterinary antibiotic sorption to agroforestry buffer, grass buffer and cropland soils. Agroforestry Systems 79(1):6780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68Bari, M.A. and Schofield, N.J. 1991. Effects of agroforestry-pasture associations on groundwater level and salinity. Agroforestry Systems 16:1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69Aronsson, P. and Perttu, K. 2001. Willow vegetation filters for wastewater treatment and soil remediation combined with biomass production. Forest Chronicle 77:293299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70Rockwood, D.L., Naidu, C.V., Carter, D.R., Rahmani, M., Spriggs, T.A., Lin, C., Alker, G.R., Isebrands, J.G., and Segrest, S.A. 2004. Short-rotation woody crops and phytoremediation: Opportunities for agroforestry? Agroforestry Systems 61:5163.Google Scholar
71Mirck, J., Isebrands, J.G., Verwijst, T., and Ledin, S. 2005. Development of short-rotation willow coppice systems for environmental purposes in Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy 28(2):219228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72Wilkinson, A.G. 1999. Poplars and willows for soil erosion control in New Zealand. Biomass and Bioenergy 16:263274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73Blaschke, P.M., Trustrum, N.A., and DeRose, R.C. 1992. Ecosystem processes and sustainable land use in New Zealand steeplands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 41:153178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74Stamps, W.T. and Linit, M.J. 1998. Plant diversity and arthropod communities: Implications for temperate agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 39:7389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76Schmidt, M. and Tscharntke, T. 2005. The role of perennial habitats for Central European farmland spiders. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105(1–2):235242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77Dix, M.E., Johnson, R.J., Harrell, M.O., Case, R.M., Wright, R.J., Hodges, L., Brandle, J.R., Schoeneberger, M.M., Sunderman, N.J., Fitzmaurice, R.L., Young, L.J., and Hubbard, K.G. 1995. Influences of trees on abundance of natural enemies of insect pests: A review. Agroforestry Systems 29:303311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78Best, L.B., Whitmore, R.C., and Booth, G.M. 1990. Use of cornfields by birds during the breeding season: The importance of edge habitat. American Midland Naturalist 123:8499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79Peacock, L. and Herrick, S. 2000. Responses of the willow beetle Phratora vulgatissima to genetically and spatially diverse Salix spp. plantations. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:821831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
80Williams, P.A., Koblents, H., and Gordon, A.M. 1995. Bird use of an intercropped maize and old fields in southernOntario. In Proceedings of the Fourth North American Agroforestry Conference 1995, Boise, ID, USA. p. 158162.Google Scholar
81Naeem, M., Compton, S.G., Phillips, D.S., and Incoll, L.D. 1994. Factors influencing aphids and their parasitoids in a silvoarable agroforestry system. Agroforestry Forum 5(2):2023.Google Scholar
82Peng, R.K., Incoll, L.D., Sutton, S.L., Wright, C., and Chadwick, A. 1993. Diversity of airborne arthropods in a silvoarable agroforestry system. Journal of Applied Ecology 30:551562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83Phillips, D.S., Griffiths, J., Naeem, M., Compton, S.G., and Incoll, L.D. 1994. Responses of crop pests and their natural enemies to an agroforestry envronment. Agroforestry Forum 5(2):1420.Google Scholar
84Stamps, W.T., McGraw, R.L., Godsey, L., and Woods, T.L. 2009. The ecology and economics of insect pest management in nut tree alley cropping systems in the Midwestern United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131:48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85Corbett, A. and Rosenheim, J.A. 1996. Impact of a natural enemy overwintering refuge and its interaction with the surrounding landscape. Ecological Entomology 21(2):155164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86Murphy, B.C., Rosenheim, J.A., and Granett, J. 1996. Habitat diversification for improving biological control: Abundance of Anagrus epos (Hymenoptera: Myrmaridae) in grape vineyards. Environmental Entomology 25(2):495504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87Fürher, E. and Fischer, P. 1991. Towards integrated control of Cephalcia abietis, a defoliator of Norway Spruce in central Europe. Forest Ecology and Management 39:8795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88Griffiths, J., Phillips, D.S., Compton, S.G., Wright, C., and Incoll, L.D. 1998. Responses of slug numbers and slug damage to crops in a silvoarable agroforestry landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:252260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
89Manning, A.D., Gibbons, P., and Lindenmayer, D.B. 2009. Scattered trees: A complementary strategy for facilitating adaptive responses to climate change in modified landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology 46:915919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
90Bhagwat, S.A., Willis, K.J., Birks, H.J.B., and Whittaker, R.J. 2008. Agroforestry: A refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(5):261267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91McNeely, J.A. and Schroth, G. 2006. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation—traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:549554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92Harvey, C.A. and Gonzalez-Villalobos, J.A. 2007. Agroforestry systems conserve species-rich but modified assemblages of tropical birds and bats. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:22572292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93Bernier-Leduc, M., Vanasse, A., Olivier, A., Bussières, D., and Maisonneuve, C. 2009. Avian fauna in windbreaks integrating shrubs that produce non-timber forest products. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131:1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94Puckett, H.L., Brandle, J.R., Johnson, R.J., and Blankenship, E.E. 2009. Avian foraging patterns in crop field edges adjacent to woody habitat. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131:915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
95Berges, S.A., Moore, L.A.S., Isenhart, T.M., and Schultz, R.C. 2010. Bird species diversity in riparian buffers, row crop fields, and grazed pastures within agriculturally dominated watersheds. Agroforestry Systems 79(1):97110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96Gelling, M., Macdonald, D.W., and Mathews, F. 2007. Are hedgerows the route to increased farmland small mammal density? Use of hedgerows in British pastoral habitats. Landscape Ecology 22:10191032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., and Wright, A. 2009. Nature's Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
98McAdam, J., Burgess, P.J., Graves, A.R., Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., and Mosquera-Losada, M.R. 2008. Classifications and functions of agroforestry systems in Europe. In Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. et al. (eds). Agroforestry in Europe: Current Status and Future Prospects. Springer, Belfast. p. 2142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
99Ispikoudis, I. and Sioliou, K.M. 2005. Cultural aspects of silvopastoral systems, In Mosquera-Losada, M.R., McAdam, J., and Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. (eds). Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Land Management: Proceedings of an International Congress on Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Management held in Lugo, Spain 2004. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. p. 319323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
100Garrity, D.P. 2004. Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millenium Development Goals. Agroforestry Systems 61:517.Google Scholar
101Mercer, D.E. and Miller, R.P. 1998. Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: Progress, prospects, priorities. Agroforestry Systems 38:177193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
102Yobterik, A.C., Timmer, V.R., and Gordon, A.M. 1994. Screening agroforestry tree mulches for corn growth: A combined soil test, pot trial and plant analysis approach. Agroforestry Systems 25:153166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103Mungai, N.W., Motavalli, P.P., Kremer, R.J., and Nelson, K.A. 2005. Spatial variation of soil enzyme activities and microbial functional diversity in temperate alley cropping systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils 42:129136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
104Udawatta, R.P., Kremer, R.J., Adamson, B.W., and Anderson, S.H. 2008. Variations in soil aggregate stability and enzyme activities in a temperate agroforestry practice. Applied Soil Ecology 39:153160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
105Lacombe, S., Bradley, R.L., Hamel, C., and Beaulieu, C. 2009. Do tree-based intercropping systems increase the diversity and stability of soil microbial communities? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131:2531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
106Seiter, S., Ingham, E.R., and William, R.D. 1999. Dynamics of soil fungal and bacterial biomass in a temperate climate alley cropping system. Applied Soil Ecology 12(2):139147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
107Lee, K.H. and Jose, S. 2003. Soil respiration and microbial biomass in a pecan-cotton alley cropping system in Southern USA. Agroforestry Systems 58:4554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
108Hijri, I., Sykorova, Z., Oehl, F., Ineichen, K., Mader, P., Wiemken, A., and Redecker, D. 2006. Communities of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in arable soils are not necessarily low in diversity. Molecular Ecology 15:22772289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
109Rillig, M.C., Wright, S.F., and Eviner, V.T. 2002. The role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and glomalin in soil aggregation: Comparing effects of five plant species. Plant and Soil 238:325333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
110Schädler, M., Brandl, R., and Kempel, A. 2010. ‘Afterlife’ effects of mycorrhisation on the decomposition of plant residues. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42:521523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
111Chifflot, V., Rivest, D., Olivier, A., Cogliastro, A., and Khasa, D. 2009. Molecular analysis of arbuscular mycorrhizal community structure and spores distribution in tree-based intercropping and forest systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 131:3239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
112Park, J., Newman, S.M., and Cousins, S.H. 1994. The effects of poplar (P.trichocarpa×deltoides) on soil biological properties in a silvoarable system. Agroforestry Systems 25:111118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
113Price, G.W. and Gordon, A.M. 1999. Spatial and temporal distribution of earthworms in a temperate intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry Systems 44:141149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
114Porter, J., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L., and Wratten, S. 2009. The value of producing food, energy and ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. Ambio 38(4):186193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
115Cooper, T., Hart, K., and Baldock, D. 2009. The provision of Public Goods through Agriculture in the European Union. Report prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development Contract no. 30-CE-0233091/00-28. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.Google Scholar
116Oelbermann, M., Voroney, R.P., and Gordon, A.M. 2004. Carbon sequestration in tropical and temperate agroforestry systems: A review with examples from Costa Rica and southern Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104:359377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
117Smith, J., Pearce, B., and Wolfe, M.S. 2012. A European perspective for developing modern multifunctional agroforestry systems for sustainable intensification. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: Is temperate agroforestry the answer?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: Is temperate agroforestry the answer?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: Is temperate agroforestry the answer?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *