Alley cropping with nut trees in Alphen, the Netherlands (Afnan Suleiman/Eline Keuning)

Alley cropping with nut trees (Netherlands)

Alley cropping with nut trees

Description

An agroforestry system consisting of rows of walnut and hazelnut trees combined with grassland and flowers was applied in place of a former conventional monoculture system in Alphen, Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands.

This agroforestry technology is applied on an organic farm located in the province of Noord-Brabant, Netherlands. Owned by a local farmer, the farm covers a total of 7.8 hectares. In 2018, this land was allocated for the Farm Life project, transforming it into agroforestry system. The farm integrates natural and agricultural elements, creating a sustainable environment where trees (chestnuts), crops, and pasture co-exist.
The agroforestry system on this farm is utilized for multiple purposes, including chestnut tree cultivation, agriculture, horticulture, and pasture. This diverse planting strategy allows the farmer to mix crop production with tree cultivation, where each component supports soil health and ecological balance. Chestnut trees, for example, are grown alongside mainly grasses, introducing perennial elements to the farm and diversifying the landscape.
Agroforestry merges natural ecosystems with agriculture, creating a system where nature actively enhances farm productivity. It allows farmers to move beyond monoculture farming by incorporating trees and shrubs into crop systems, promoting biodiversity as an essential part of farming. For example, integrating chestnut trees into these systems improves soil health, reduces erosion (as these are mainly sandy soils), and strengthens the farm’s resilience to environmental stress. This approach also creates income from products like chestnuts, which supports sustainable food production—a primary motivation for the farmer.
This agroforestry system, while beneficial, faces challenges in implementation and scaling-up. For example, perennial food crops are not yet commonly integrated into modern agroforestry systems, which limits their full potential. Establishing a guide on cultivation practices and securing better funding would be key steps to upscaling agroforestry production and making it more accessible. Additionally, adequate resources and guidance on plant selection, tree management, and harvesting methods would make it easier for farmers to adopt and sustain these practices.
Specifically to this agroforestry, compared to traditional fruit trees like apples and pears, chestnut trees require less intensive management—reducing labor as they naturally drop fruit and need less pruning. They also enhance biodiversity and can be financially beneficial. As a perennial carbohydrate source, chestnuts offer a sustainable, low-maintenance crop option that aligns with modern food production goals. Additionally, they can help revitalize traditional orchard landscapes and accelerate returns from forest areas through nut production, contributing to long-term ecological and economic benefits.
While agroforestry offers many environmental benefits, land users face several challenges. Initial investments in tree planting, maintenance, and management can be costly, and limited access to financial support often discourages smallholder farmers from adopting these practices. Some farmers also find the high diversity of species in agroforestry systems to be complex and challenging for achieving consistent product yields. There are also limitations in technology suited for small-scale agroforestry, such as a shortage of plant materials (e.g., seedlings) and limited guidance on establishing and maintaining agroforestry systems. On the positive side, farmers appreciate agroforestry’s contributions to a sustainable environment. The increased organic matter and diversity, improve soil health and crop productivity, and build resilience against environmental stressors, which makes agroforestry an option for long-term land management.

Location

Location: Alphen, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 5.78657, 51.37759

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (0.078 km²)

In a permanently protected area?: No

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

Type of introduction
View of the plot where the tree rows were applied (Afnan Suleiman / Eline Keuning)
General view of the site where the technique is applied (Afnan Suleiman, Eline Keuning)

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: Yes - Agroforestry

  • Cropland
    • Tree and shrub cropping: tree nuts (brazil nuts, pistachio, walnuts, almonds, etc.)
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
    Is intercropping practiced? Yes
    Is crop rotation practiced? No
  • Grazing land
      Animal type: cattle - dairy
      Products and services: milk
    • Other - Specify: flowers
    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
    • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
    • biological degradation - Bh: loss of habitats, Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators
    • water degradation - Hq: decline of groundwater quality
    SLM group
    • agroforestry
    SLM measures
    • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover, V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
    • management measures - M1: Change of land use type

    Technical drawing

    Technical specifications
    The system consists of a flat area of around 7.8ha where nut tree alleys have been implemented. The separation between tree lines is about 50 meters, and the separation between trees is around 12 meters.
    Author: Afnan Suleiman and Eline Keuning
    This case study consists of 3 plots where agroforestry was implemented; in the first two plots, trees are combined with grasslands and flowers. The combined length of these two plots is 350 meters and the width is 140m. There is a double tree row covering the whole length of the plot, and a combination of trees and shrubs covering the width of the plot and of 60m in length. The area is surrounded by potato cropfields.

    The third plot consist on a triangular grass field, with a side length of 200m, with trees on the edges. This plot is approximately 1.6 km from the other two plots
    Author: Afnan Suleiman and Eline Keuning

    Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

    Calculation of inputs and costs
    • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 7.8 hectares)
    • Currency used for cost calculation: eur
    • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.9 eur
    • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 200 euro
    Most important factors affecting the costs
    n.a.
    Establishment activities
    n.a.
    Maintenance activities
    n.a.

    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
    Average annual rainfall in mm: 762.0
    Rainfall in the area is well distributed during the year, with eventual but often not severe drought periods during the summer
    Name of the meteorological station: Gemert-Bakel
    well distributed rainfall and relatiely mild temperatures, although mean minimum temperatures are below 6.5 degrees during 6 months per year
    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: both ground and surface water
    Is salinity a problem?
    • Yes
    • No

    Occurrence of flooding
    • Yes
    • No
    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
    drinking water quality
    decreased
    x
    increased


    slight decrease in leached nitrates

    expenses on agricultural inputs
    increased
    x
    decreased


    more machinery and labour needed

    farm income
    decreased
    x
    increased


    through diversification and added value of organic agriculture

    diversity of income sources
    decreased
    x
    increased


    above

    workload
    increased
    x
    decreased


    above

    Socio-cultural impacts
    food security/ self-sufficiency
    reduced
    x
    improved


    through diversification

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

    recreational opportunities
    reduced
    x
    improved


    slight increase in scenic appeal of the area

    community institutions
    weakened
    x
    strengthened


    fosters curiosity of surrounding land users

    SLM/ land degradation knowledge
    reduced
    x
    improved


    above

    Ecological impacts
    water quality
    decreased
    x
    increased


    decreased water run off (low anyway, it's a flat area)

    surface runoff
    increased
    x
    decreased


    slight increase, see above

    evaporation
    increased
    x
    decreased


    through tree shade

    soil moisture
    decreased
    x
    increased


    above

    soil cover
    reduced
    x
    improved

    soil compaction
    increased
    x
    reduced


    slight improvement, particularly around trees

    vegetation cover
    decreased
    x
    increased


    the area surrounding the trees see a small an increase in vegetation diversity

    biomass/ above ground C
    decreased
    x
    increased


    carbon stored in the trees

    plant diversity
    decreased
    x
    increased


    see above

    animal diversity
    decreased
    x
    increased


    slight increase, particularly birds

    habitat diversity
    decreased
    x
    increased

    pest/ disease control
    decreased
    x
    increased


    trees host predatory insects and birds, which help controlling pests

    drought impacts
    increased
    x
    decreased


    trees offer some protection

    impacts of cyclones, rain storms
    increased
    x
    decreased


    tree rows offer wind protection

    emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
    increased
    x
    decreased

    wind velocity
    increased
    x
    decreased


    above

    micro-climate
    worsened
    x
    improved


    above

    Off-site impacts
    groundwater/ river pollution
    increased
    x
    reduced


    improved water quality through reduced nitrate leaching, affecting affecting both groundwater and rivers

    impact of greenhouse gases
    increased
    x
    reduced


    trees sequesters some carbon in the form of organic matter

    Cost-benefit analysis

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

    Long-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
    seasonal temperature increase

    not well at all
    x
    very well
    Season: summer
    seasonal temperature increase

    not well at all
    x
    very well
    Season: winter
    seasonal rainfall decrease

    not well at all
    x
    very well
    Season: summer
    Climate-related extremes (disasters)
    general (river) flood

    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?
    • Yes
    • No
    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
    • diversify income through bio-economy products
    • adaptation to new environmental regulations
    • landscape and community opportunities
    Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
    • increased ecosystem carbon, carbon sequestration
    • re-establishment of biological cycles, decreased pests and increased system resilience
    • erosion reduction and need for less soil input, decreased nutrient runoff and increased underground water quality
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
    • implementation costs carbon sequestration can be capitalized by carbon markets
    • increased maintenance workload up-scaling would increase availability and affordability of mechanization options
    • land value decreased, as trees would need to be replanted somewhere else in case the land user would like to remove them policy changes
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
    • benefits are not seen in the short term financial mechanisms to bridge the gap between initial investment and long-term revenues, i.e. carbon markets
    • landscape changes from traditional land use might face resistance by some local inhabitants behavioral change, community involvement

    References

    Compiler
    • Carlos Gil Picon
    Editors
    Reviewer
    • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
    • William Critchley
    Date of documentation: Feb. 14, 2024
    Last update: Dec. 18, 2024
    Resource persons
    Full description in the WOCAT database
    Linked SLM data
    Documentation was faciliated by
    Institution Project
    Key references
    • LANDMARC Netherlands case study leaflets: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f7b27859c352b2444f4cbd9/t/6050de69f1fa6f34c837dfc8/1615912556101/Brochure+NL+Agroforestry_public+def.pdf
    Links to relevant information which is available online
    This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International