Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Dupraz C., Burgess P., Gavaland A., Graves A ...

254 Pages·2006·14.62 MB·English

Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources

Dupraz C., Burgess P., Gavaland A., Graves A., Herzog F., Incoll L.D., Jackson N.,
Keesman K., Lawson G., Lecomte I., Liagre F., Mantzanas K., Mayus M., Moreno G.,
Palma J., Papanastasis V., Paris P., Pilbeam D.J., Reisner Y., Van Noordwijk M.,
Vincent G., Werf Van der W.
The SAFE European Project
SILVOARABLE AGROFORESTRY FOR EUROPE

This final report is dedicated to Jacques Maffert. Jacques was one of the most
enthusiastic farmer and partner.
This tree (top, left) was his tree at the Pys farm near Lezat/Leze in Haute-
Garonne (France). He planted some superb new agroforestry plots on his farm in
2000 (top, right).
He died in a car crash in July 2001. He would have been a key SAFE partner.
Those who met Jacques will never forget him.
The SAFE European Project
SILVOARABLE AGROFORESTRY FOR EUROPE

Page
3
List of authors
Dupraz Christian, Lecomte Isabelle. INRA , UMR Systèmes de Culture Méditerranéens et Tropicaux, 2,
Place Viala, 34060 Montpellier, France.
Content
CONTENT 5
SUMMARY 9
INTRODUCTION 15
MATERIAL AND METHODS 17
WP1: The SAFE modelling platform 18
WP2: European silvoarable knowledge 18
WP3: European silvoarable experimental network 18
WP4: Modelling above-ground tree-crop interactions 19
WP5: Modelling below-ground tree-crop interactions 19
WP6: Production of an integrated model of tree-crop interactions 19
WP7: Economic modelling at the plot scale 20
WP8: Up-scaling to the farm and region scale 20
WP9: Developing European guidelines for policy implementation 21
RESULTS 22
WP1: A platform for modelling silvoarable systems 23
WP2: Extant silvoarable systems in Europe 25
The agroforestry publication database 25
The extant silvoarable systems in Europe database 25
Survey of farmers' reaction to modern silvoarable systems 27
WP3: European silvoarable experimental network 31
Providing field experimenters with a forum for exchanging know-how and expertise. 32
Managing field experiments in a sound and concerted way 32
Providing data from field experiments in a standardised format for model
parameterisation and testing. 34
Collecting data from the Experimental Sites 37
Reporting the results of silvoarable experiments 45
WP4: Modelling above-ground tree-crop interactions 59
Characterisation of tree and crop competition for light 59
The Hi-sAFe light competition module 72
Interactions between trees and crops through the modification of the microclimate 75
The tree growth module of the Hi-sAFe model 75
Summary - Page 5
WP5: Modelling below-ground tree-crop interactions 77
Field evidence calling for a new approach to below-ground competition modelling in
silvoarable systems 77
An innovative dynamic model of tree fine roots 80
An innovative water and nitrogen competition model between trees and crops 83
WP6: Production of integrated models of tree-crop interactions 85
The Hi-sAFe model 85
The Yield-sAFe model 92
WP7: Economic modelling at the plot scale 108
Review of existing financial models 108
Selection and development of a plot- and farm-scale economic model 109
Use of templates to identify and quantify inputs, outputs, costs and revenues for the
silvoarable system network systems, and existing arable and forestry enterprises for
different parts of Europe 114
Use of the model to identify the most profitable agroforestry systems for the network
sites and their sensitivity to changes in prices and grants 114
Use of the Yield-sAFe model to determine the optimum silvoarable system for high
potential locations 130
Use of an LER-based-generator model to determine the optimum silvoarable system for
high potential locations in France 150
WP8: Up-scaling to the farm and region scale 154
Assessing the environmental effects of agroforestry at the landscape scale 154
Defining target regions for silvoarable agroforestry for Europe 162
WP9: Developing European guidelines for policy implementation 171
Documenting the problems of farmers establishing new silvoarable plots in 5 European
countries. 171
Comparing eligibility of silvoarable systems for Government financial 172
Proposing changes in forestry and agroforestry policy based on scenario testing using
models. 174
Co-ordinating the establishment of silvoarable plots as a ‘social experiment’ by user
participants in 3 countries. 176
DISCUSSION 180
WP1: A platform for modelling silvoarable systems 181
WP2: Extant silvoarable systems in Europe 182
The extant silvoarable systems in Europe database 182
Survey of farmers' reaction to modern silvoarable systems 182
WP3: European silvoarable experimental network 188
WP4: Modelling above-ground tree-crop interactions 189
About the consistency of the above-ground modules in Hi-sAFe 189
The failure to provide a micro-climate module 190
Future Improvements and potential issues 191
WP5: Modelling below-ground tree-crop interactions 193
About the characterization of the root systems of trees in silvoarable fields 193
About novel approaches to modelling the dynamics of tree root systems in
heterogeneous soils 193
Summary - Page 6
About container experiments to validate the root voxel automata 194
About the novel approach to water and nitrogen competition introduced in Hi-sAFe
195
WP6: Integration of biophysical models of tree-crop systems 197
About the detailed Hi-sAFe model. 197
About the simple Yield-sAFe model. 197
WP7: Economic modelling at the plot scale 199
About the sensitivity analysis of the silvoarable systems 199
About the use of an LER-based-generator model to determine the optimum silvoarable
system for high potential locations in France 202
WP8: Up-scaling to the farm and region scale 210
About target regions for silvoarable systems 210
Critical remarks 210
About the up-scaling of the profitability assessment at the Land Test Sites across
Europe 21
WP9: Developing European guidelines for policy implementation 214
SAFE Proposal 1. The following definition of agroforestry is suggested by the SAFE
consortium and could be included in the new RDR regulation. 214
SAFE Proposal 2. The total area of the agroforestry parcel is eligible for the Single
Payment Scheme. 215
SAFE Proposal 3. Planting and maintenance costs of new agroforestry plantings should
be met within the new RDR, and improvement of existing agroforestry systems be
supported by agri-environment payments. 216
SAFE Proposal 4. Ensure that the EU Action Plan for Sustainable Forest Management
emphasises the need to very greatly increase the presence of scattered trees in farmed
landscapes (agroforestry) 216
CONCLUSIONS 218
WP1 recommendations 220
WP2 recommendations 220
WP3 recommendations 220
WP4 recommendations 221
WP5 recommendations 221
WP6 recommendations 221
WP7 recommendations 221
Use and improvement of the biophysical and economic model 221
Plot-scale economic analysis 221
General recommendation 222
EXPLOITATION AND DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS 224
POLICY RELATED BENEFITS 226
Contribution to EU policies 226
European dimension of the problem 226
Contributing to policy design or implementation 227
Summary - Page 7
Contribution to EU social objectives 229
Improving the quality of life in the Community: 229
Creating jobs in the Community 230
Supporting sustainable development, preserving and/or enhancing the environment 230
LITERATURE CITED 231
LIST OF THE SAFE PROJECT PUBLICATIONS 242
Papers published or accepted for publication 243
Papers submitted 245
Papers in preparation 246
Extension papers 247
In French 247
In English 249
In German 249
In Spanish 249
In Dutch 249
In Italian 249
In Portuguese 250
Internal reports 251
Posters 252
Communications to congresses 253

Summary - Page 8
Summary
The SAFE research project was sponsored by the European Union, and was coordinated by INRA
(France). More than 70 scientists from eight European countries participated in the project from
August 2001 to January 2005.
The SAFE project explored how trees could be maintained or re-introduced in agricultural systems of
Europe. In agroforestry systems, trees and crops (or pastures) are mixed purposefully. The most
prominent results are detailed below.
1. Many traditional European agroforestry systems disappeared
th
during the 20 century. Intensification, mechanisation and
land consolidation were the most important incentives for tree
removal from cultivated areas. Isolated trees, trees in hedges,
and low-density tree stands (such as traditional high-stem low
density orchards) were massively removed.
2. The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) was another reason for
the removal of trees from agricultural systems in Europe
during the last 30 years. Trees are not considered part of the cropping systems, and CAP
payments for crops or pastures are often reduced for parcels with scattered trees (including
boundary trees). This negative impact was not an objective of the CAP, but was the
consequence of regulations that do not take into account the positive impact of rural trees. In
the new member states, CAP regulations may induce the destruction of millions of trees in the
coming decade.
3. The loss of many traditional agroforestry systems in Europe has had unfortunate
consequences: loss of know-how by farmers, simplification and standardization of landscapes,
increased environmental problems such as soil erosion and water pollution, significant carbon
release, reduction of biodiversity, loss of habitat for natural enemies of crop pests, and the
loss of a source of alternative income for farmers.
Summary - Page 9
4. For the past four years, accurate monitoring of trees and crops
in various silvoarable systems has been performed in
experimental plots in France, England, Spain and Italy. The
impact of tree density, tree size and tree pruning schemes on
crops productivity was analysed, quantified and modelled.
5. The SAFE project has demonstrated that modern agroforestry
systems are compatible with present-day agricultural techniques.
Specific tree management schemes are necessary (such as tree
alignment and stem formative pruning). In modern agroforestry
systems, low final tree densities (30-100 trees/ha) allow crop
production to be maintained until tree harvest. The SAFE
project similarly has demonstrated that the average productivity
of silvoarable systems is higher than the combined productivity of separate tree and crop
systems. Productivity increases of up to 30% in biomass, and 60% in final products have been
observed.
6. Biophysical models have been constructed to simulate the dynamics of tree-crop systems in
various soil and climatic conditions. These models allow predictions of competition for light,
water and nitrogen between trees and crops. They also predict how many years the crops will
be profitable, and how fast the trees will grow. Finally model outcomes exemplify some very
favourable environmental impacts of tree-crop systems, such as a reduction in nitrogen
leaching or an increase in carbon sequestration. Management practices for silvoarable systems
can thus be evaluated through ‘virtual experiments’ on computers using these models.
7. A key result of the SAFE project is that tree-crop systems are able to capture more
resources from the environment than pure crop or pure tree systems: competition induces
adaptation, and adaptation results in facilitation, a process that explains why mixed plots are
significantly more productive than pure plots.
8. Using the SAFE models, optimum management schemes can be derived for tree stand densities,
tree spacing, tree row orientation, tree species choice, intercrop rotation choice, and specific
tree and crop management techniques, such as tree root
pruning.
9. Economic calculations show that agroforestry plots are
often as profitable as agricultural plots in no-grant
scenarios, and that they are often more profitable when
including high value timber trees (such as walnut or
Sorbus trees). Annual crops maintain the annual income
for the farmer, while managed low density tree stands
provide capital for the future.
10. However current policies totally prevent European farmers from adopting silvoarable
agroforestry: in most cases, farmers will loose the crop payments and are not eligible for any
subsidy to plant the trees. This is why at the moment agroforestry is artificially unattractive
for European farmers (with the exception of France who recently has adapted its regulations).
Summary - Page 10