Technologies

Alley cropping - Agroforestry [France]

agroforesterie intra parcellaire

technologies_5645 - France

Completeness: 88%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Pivain Yann

Chambre d’agriculture de Normandie

France

SLM specialist:

Galmel Michel

Ferme des Ruelles

France

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
European Interreg project FABulous Farmers
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) - United Kingdom
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Association des Chambres d’agriculture de l’Arc Atlantique (AC3A) - France

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The implementation of agroforestry in a cereal field can help aid biodiversity, that will in turn support natural pest control, improve the resilience to water and climate stress through improved infiltration, provide more shade and less wind-stress, and will improve soil health, among other benefits.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Agroforestry, that is the incorporation of trees into agriculture, is a traditional land management practice in Normandy using apple trees inter-grazed by cows on pasture. However, between 1960 and 2000, the restructuring of agricultural land, and technical and technological developments, have led to the disappearance of agroforestry in Normandy. Since the beginning of the 21 century, the integration of trees into the system has started to be reintroduced, not only in grassland systems, but also in crop fields.
The integration of trees into the system is effective for countering:
- Biological degradation: by enhancing biodiversity though improved refuge for insects and birds, providing food for them, breeding opportunities and connectivity corridors across the landscape. This leads to greater biological regulation of crop pests among other benefits.
- Climate related stress: both at the local level (decrease of wind speeds, reduction of evapotranspiration, shade for animals) and at the global level (carbon storage, substitution of fossil energies by renewable energy).
- Water degradation: through the qualitative and quantitative regulation of water at the watershed scale as a benefit of improved rainfall infiltration and less fertilizer lost in runoff.
- Soil erosion by water and chemical deterioration: through the conservation of soils with reduced runoff.
- Soil erosion by wind: through the protection of exposed areas.
and:
- Providing benefits through beautification of the living environment.
As part of the agroforestry SLM technology, trees are planted on grassed strips which are 24 to 30 m apart within the field of cereals. Trees are spaced 8 to 10 m within the strips. This configuration has been adapted to allow mechanized agriculture. The main tree species used are Quercus, Sorbus, Tilia, Prunus and Robinia. Land users, with some support from the local community, financed the re-introduction of agroforestry into Normandy. Soil was prepared using machinery (single line ploughing), mulch was applied and tree seedlings were protected against wild animals.
Despite these financial and management benefits. the SLM technology has not yet been taken up widely. Therefore, the aim is to promote better adoption of agroforestry practices by Normandy farmers. This is becoming more important as the use of external inputs (e.g. fertilizers and pesticides) is increasingly expensive for both farmers and society - and the introduction of agroforestry can both help reduce these costs with more natural pest control and less runoff of fertilisers from the fields.
The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

France

Region/ State/ Province:

Normandy

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

Nee

Comments:

(note map represents region of Normandy not precise location of technology due to protection of GDPR location data)

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2017

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through land users' innovation
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

Farmer innovation and interest has been linked to projects encouraging the uptake of functional agrobiodiversity measures; the project in this case is the EU Interreg Fabulous Farmers project.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
  • Agroforestry

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • cereals - barley
  • cereals - maize
  • Several species over the years, varies by farm
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Is intercropping practiced?

Nee

Is crop rotation practiced?

Ja

If yes, specify:

Primarily rotation of cereal crops on an annual basis.

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • No (Continue with question 3.4)
Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
  • Agroforestry

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • agroforestry
  • windbreak/ shelterbelt
  • integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
  • Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The agroforestry trees are planted on grassed strips of at least 2 m width, 24 to 36 m apart, in a 17 ha field of cereals.
The trees are spaced 8 to 10 m apart.
The configuration is adapted to mechanised agriculture.
The main species used: Quercus, Sorbus, Tilia, Prunus and Robinia. Any dead trees are replaced in the first 3 years.

Author:

Yann Pivain

Date:

01/11/2019

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

1 ha

If using a local area unit, indicate conversion factor to one hectare (e.g. 1 ha = 2.47 acres): 1 ha =:

1ha = 2.47 acres

other/ national currency (specify):

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

0.9

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

120

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Choice of the planting site, the design/layout and the species Spring
2. Soil preparation (clearing of land, harrowing) After harvest of crops
3. Application of mulch to planting strips After harvest of crops
4. Tree whips planted in plough slot (approx. 10cm deep), protection spirals fitted and area recovered with mulch From Nov to Jan

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Design & layout of planting days 0.5 120.0 60.0 100.0
Labour Surface preparation (clearing & harowing) days 0.1 120.0 12.0 100.0
Labour Mulch application days 0.2 120.0 24.0 100.0
Labour Planting days 0.5 120.0 60.0 100.0
Equipment Tractor with harow & Plough days 0.3 50.0 15.0 100.0
Plant material Tree whips piece/ha 30.0 3.0 90.0 20.0
Plant material Mulch piece/ha 30.0 2.0 60.0 20.0
Construction material Base spiral protection piece/ha 30.0 2.0 60.0 20.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 381.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 423.33
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Local community and grant funding

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Tree maintenance (pruning by hand as required) from Jun to Dec all year around
2. Grass strip mowing (using tractor) after crop harvest

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit Total costs per input % of costs borne by land users
Labour Tree pruning days 2.0 120.0 240.0 100.0
Labour Grass mowing days 1.0 120.0 120.0 100.0
Equipment Tractor & mower days 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 410.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 455.56

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Time necessary for maintenance.
Good training to do quality work.

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

650.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

No dry season or marked rainy season. Rain falls fairly regularily.

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Les Andelys

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Water quality refers to:

both ground and surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Ja

Regularity:

episodically

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • high
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Technology has supported the continued high biodiversity in the region, limiting any possible decline with changing farming practice.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • rich
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Nee

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Less land available for cropping

crop quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

No change seen

wood production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Wood produce now integrated

product diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Wood product added

land management

hindered
simplified
Comments/ specify:

Tree lines set for as much ease of mechanical use as possible, yet still does disrupt ease of crop management

Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Loss of crop area, yet some less inputs required (i.e. pesticide)

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Wood and cereal crop combined

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Tree maintenence takes longer than when working a single crop field

Socio-cultural impacts

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Improved skill set with learning & training in agroforestry

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Trees act as buffer strips for better quality water with less run-off

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Trees act as buffer strips for better quality water with less run-off

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Improved soil infiltration

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Improved soil infiltration and moisture capacity

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Trees act as buffer strips for better quality soil with less run-off erosion

soil accumulation

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Trees act as buffer strips for better quality soil with less run-off erosion for bette accumlation

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Stips of trees require less passes of tractor in field

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Trees can use deeper nutrient stores

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Increased carbon below ground with larger tree rooting systems

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Diversity of vegetation between tree grass strips

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Trees hold more above ground C

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

With trees and diversity of vegetation between tree grass strips

beneficial species

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Natural pest control through habitat for predators with trees

habitat diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

More space for habitat

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Natural pest control through habitat for predators with trees

Climate and disaster risk reduction

flood impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Increased infiltration reduces flood impacts

drought impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Improvements in soil moisture capacity

wind velocity

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Trees act as shelter belts for crops

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Less and cleaner water run off due to buffer strips

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Shelter belt reduces wind erosion

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

Shelter belt effect felt in neighbouring fields

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change
Season increase or decrease How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local windstorm well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave moderately
drought moderately
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood not well
flash flood not well
storm surge/ coastal flood not well
landslide not well
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases moderately
insect/ worm infestation moderately

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period not well
reduced growing period not well at all
sea level rise not well at all

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

negative

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • single cases/ experimental
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduced wind speeds and wind erosion.
Creation of reception areas for biodiversity.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Creation of climate zone "temperate" favorable to crops and / or animals.
Biodiversity increase leading to functional benefits of agricultural production.
Mixed landscape provides a positive social experience
Creation of training and and workshops to share implementation and production of artwork wood and / or energy wood.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Cost and maintenance time Engage interested local community to support
Possible financial instability of the subsidy payments with regards to hedges unknown
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Possible financial instability of the subsidy payments with regards to hedges Unknown

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

One farmer and compiler supporting planning and implementation

  • interviews with land users
  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Agroforesterie, des arbres et des cultures, Fabien Liagre / Christian Dupraz, éditions France Agricole, 2008 (ISBN 978-2-85557-150-8)

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

08/10/2019

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Agroforesterie, des arbres et des cultures, Fabien Liagre / Christian Dupraz, éditions France Agricole, 2008 (ISBN 978-2-85557-150-8)

Available from where? Costs?

Online / 45 €

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules