Agroforestry system composed of soybean and poplar trees (Nicola Dal Ferro)

Agroforestry system (Italy)

Sistema agroforestale su terreni agricoli

Description

Silvo-arable systems for production of annual crops on tree plots

Agroforestry systems (AS) are the mixed cultivation of annual crops and trees in a single field. Historically, agroforestry has been used as a land management system that allowed the integration and diversification of productivity while maintaining the ecosystem biodiversity and diversifying farm landscape. Over the last fifty years the number of trees in agroecosystems in Italy was reduced of 75% due to the advent of intensive cropping systems and mechanisation, with significant changes to agriculture and landscape. In recent years, re-introduction of silvo-arable systems in the Veneto region have been supported as an agri-environmental measure of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) to improve sustainable land management.

Purpose of the Technology: Tree and crop production in the same area are compatible and combine environmental and economic benefits. As a result, ASs have been proposed to the farmers with the aim of reducing environmental impacts and energy inputs as well as improving biodiversity and agricultural landscape.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Agroforestry systems are adjusted to the needs of modern and sustainable agriculture and farmers who adopt this technology take advantage of higher ecosystem biodiversity, incomes and labour diversification, lower energy inputs and reinforcement of natural pest control. The systems are managed with low tree intensity (50-100 trees/ha) and large planting systems (up to 14 m in the row and 40 m inter-row) in order to simplify mechanisation of field practices, depending on machinery and cultivated crops.

Natural / human environment: Adopting agroforestry systems achieves several environmental benefits that have been widely demonstrated worldwide: regulation of nutrient cycling and adsorption of nonpoint source pollution (phytoremediation) thanks to the effect of deep rooting systems; reduction of soil surface erosion and sedimentation in rivers and lakes, improvement of micro-climate conditions, soil and ecosystem biodiversity. Reforestation of agroecosystems was recommended by Kyoto Protocol to mitigate global warming. Finally, agrisilviculture systems improve socio-cultural aspects as they contribute to differentiate and enrich the agricultural landscape.

Location

Location: Veneto region, Italy, Italy

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. 1-10 km2)

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
Agroforestry system composed of maize and poplar trees (Nicola Dal Ferro)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Ja - Agroforestry

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - maize, legumes and pulses - soya, wheat, oak
    • Tree and shrub cropping: tree nuts (brazil nuts, pistachio, walnuts, almonds, etc.)
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
  • Forest/ woodlandsTree types: Grevillea robusta, Populus species
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • biological degradation - Bh: loss of habitats
  • water degradation - Hp: decline of surface water quality
SLM group
  • agroforestry
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
SLM measures
  • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Euro €
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.8 Euro €
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 21.00
Most important factors affecting the costs
The establishment of SLT is the most determinate factor affecting the costs, particularly soil preparation and mulching.
Establishment activities
  1. System planning (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Tillage and soil preparation (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Tree planting and fertilisation (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Mulching (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Euro €) Total costs per input (Euro €) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
System planning ha 1.0 102.0 102.0
Tillage and soil preparation ha 1.0 102.0 102.0
Tree planting and fertilisation ha 1.0 127.0 127.0
Mulching ha 1.0 1220.0 1220.0
Equipment
Tillage and soil preparation ha 1.0 254.0 254.0
Plant material
Seedlings ha 1.0 175.0 175.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizer ha 1.0 21.0 21.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 2'001.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 2'501.25
Maintenance activities
  1. Pruning, replanting, additional irrigation, weed control (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Crop management (Timing/ frequency: None)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Euro €) Total costs per input (Euro €) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Pruning, replanting, additional irrigation, weed control ha 1.0 250.0 250.0
Crop management ha 1.0 850.0 850.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1'100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 1'375.0

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Thermal climate class: temperate
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

poor
x
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
x
increased

wood production
decreased
x
increased

product diversity
decreased
x
increased

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
x
decreased

diversity of income sources
decreased
x
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
health situation
worsened
x
improved

cultural opportunities (eg spiritual, aesthetic, others)
reduced
x
improved

recreational opportunities
reduced
x
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
x
improved

Improved livelihoods and human well-being
decreased
x
increased


The technology is recognized by the EU CAP as a system of high ecological and social value due to increased biodiversity, improved rural landscape and environmental quality. However, the technology has been little adopted in Veneto region due to scarce technical expertise and very few fundings, resulting in a limited improvement of livelihoods and human well-being.

Ecological impacts
water quality
decreased
x
increased

surface runoff
increased
x
decreased

soil cover
reduced
x
improved

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
x
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
x
increased

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
x
increased

plant diversity
decreased
x
increased

habitat diversity
decreased
x
increased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
x
decreased

Off-site impacts
groundwater/ river pollution
increased
x
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity (by soil, vegetation, wetlands)
reduced
x
improved

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
x
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
drought

not well at all
x
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • improves water and soil quality

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? spread over larger territories and integration with other sustainable land practices (e.g. conservation agriculture, cover crops etc.)
  • enhances agro-ecosystem biodiversity

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? improve connecting corridors between habitats
  • income generation and diversification opportunity

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? stimulation of alternative markets
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Increases difficulties in handling machinery Improvement of technical knowledge and planning
  • Increases establishment costs Increase funding for implementation
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • excessive shading for crop production lower tree density and enlarge inter-row; improve system design
  • high investment and income reduction in the short-term economic support
  • low efficacy due to short-term cycles of the technology and replacement with traditional cropping systems improve the effectiveness of subsidies to keep the technology in the log-term

References

Compiler
  • Nicola Dal Ferro
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Okt. 23, 2014
Last update: Sept. 4, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Agroforestazione - Produrre con gli alberi per un'agricoltura differente, Veneto Agricoltura, 2011.:
  • Programma di sviluppo rurale per il veneto 2007-2013, Regione Veneto, 2007. Dipartimento Agricoltura e Sviluppo Rurale.:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International