See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227309053

Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview

Article  in  Agroforestry Systems · May 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7

CITATIONS READS

1,097 13,554

1 author:

Shibu Jose
University of Missouri
235 PUBLICATIONS   7,091 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD Dissertation, University of Florida View project

Temperate Agroforestry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shibu Jose on 12 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10
DOI 10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7

Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental

benefits: an overview
Shibu Jose

Published online: 7 April 2009

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Agroforestry systems are believed to Introduction

provide a number of ecosystem services; however,
until recently evidence in the agroforestry literature The claims of products and services provided by
supporting these perceived benefits has been lacking. agroforestry practices are many. However, the agro-
This special issue brings together a series of papers forestry literature lacked evidence for many of these
from around the globe to address recent findings on claims until recently. The last decade has seen an
the ecosystem services and environmental benefits increase in scientific data that substantiate some of
provided by agroforestry. As prelude to the special these claims. Increasingly agroforestry is viewed as
issue, this paper examines four major ecosystem providing ecosystem services, environmental benefits,
services and environmental benefits of agroforestry: and economic commodities as part of a multifunc-
(1) carbon sequestration, (2) biodiversity conserva- tional working landscape. The multifunctional role of
tion, (3) soil enrichment and (4) air and water quality. agro ecosystems has also been emphasized by both the
Past and present evidence clearly indicates that Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and the
agroforestry, as part of a multifunctional working International Assessment of Agricultural Science and
landscape, can be a viable land-use option that, in Technology for Development (2008). There is also a
addition to alleviating poverty, offers a number of great deal of interest in providing financial benefits to
ecosystem services and environmental benefits. This landowners and farmers for land-use practices that
realization should help promote agroforestry and its maintain environmental services of value to the wider
role as an integral part of a multifunctional working society (FAO State of Food and Agriculture Report
landscape the world over. 2007).
Attempts have been made to quantify environ-
Keywords Biodiversity conservation
mental benefits of agroforestry; however, compre-
Carbon sequestration
Clean air
Clean water
hensive reviews or synthesis have been rare. The
Multifunctional working landscape
available reviews have focused mostly on a single
Soil enrichment ecosystem service. For example, Schroth et al. (2004)
put together the first comprehensive synthesis of the
role of agroforestry systems in conserving biodiver-
S. Jose (&) sity in tropical landscapes with examples from many
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University different countries. Schroth and Sinclair (2003)
of Florida, 351 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Gainesville,
FL 32611, USA addressed soil fertility enhancement by agroforestry
e-mail: [email protected] practices. Montagnini (2006) focused on carbon

123
2 Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10

sequestration potential of agroforestry systems using I will classify the major ecosystem services of
various case studies from around the globe. The agroforestry into four categories (carbon sequestra-
objective of this special issue is to bring together a tion, soil enrichment, biodiversity conservation and
collection of original research articles that deal with air and water quality) and briefly discuss each one in
a number of ecosystem services and environmen- the following sections. Overall, the discussion below
tal benefits from agroforestry practices the world cuts across the four major categories of ecosystem
over. services (provisioning, regulating, cultural and sup-
porting) identified by the Millennium Ecosystem
Major ecosystem services and environmental Assessment (2005).
benefits
Agroforestry for carbon sequestration
The integration of trees, agricultural crops, and/or
animals into an agroforestry system has the potential Carbon sequestration involves the removal and
to enhance soil fertility, reduce erosion, improve storage of carbon from the atmosphere in carbon
water quality, enhance biodiversity, increase aesthet- sinks (such as oceans, vegetation, or soils) through
ics, and sequester carbon (Garrett and McGraw 2000; physical or biological processes. The incorporation of
Garrity 2004; Williams-Guillén et al. 2008; Nair et al. trees or shrubs in agroforestry systems can increase
2009). It has been well recognized that these services the amount of carbon sequestered compared to a
and benefits provided by agroforestry practices occur monoculture field of crop plants or pasture (Sharrow
over a range of spatial and temporal scales (Izac and Ismail 2004; Kirby and Potvin 2007). In addition
2003; Table 1). Many of these environmental exter- to the significant amount of carbon stored in above-
nalities derived at the farm scale or landscape scale ground biomass, agroforestry systems can also store
are enjoyed by society at larger regional or global carbon belowground. Carbon sequestered in agrofor-
scales. Although recent interest in the clean devel- estry systems could be sold in carbon credit markets
opment mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol where such opportunities exist. The largest amount
offers promise for economic returns for carbon and most permanent form of carbon may be seques-
sequestration benefits of agroforestry systems, soci- tered by increasing the rotation age of trees and/or
ety’s willingness to pay for other ecosystem services shrubs and by manufacturing durable products from
is yet to be fully explored. them upon harvesting.

Table 1 Spatial scales of various ecosystems services provided by agroforestry systems (modified from Izac 2003 and Kremen
2005)

Ecosystem Services Spatial Scale

Farm/Local Landscape/Regional Global

Net Primary Production

Pest Control
Pollination/Seed Dispersal
Soil Enrichment
Soil Stabilization/Erosion Control
Clean Water
Flood Mitigation
Clean Air
Carbon Sequestration
Biodiversity
Aesthetics/Cultural

123
Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10 3

The potential of agroforestry systems to sequester There are four papers included in the special issue
carbon varies depending upon the type of the system, that address carbon sequestration potential of agro-
species composition, age of component species, forestry systems. The extent of carbon sequestration,
geographic location, environmental factors, and man- especially in soils, in agroforestry systems of West
agement practices. A large number of studies have African Sahel was investigated by Takimoto et al. by
appeared in recent years that report carbon sequestra- comparing two traditional parkland systems, two
tion potential of agroforestry systems from the world improved agroforestry systems (live fence and fodder
over. The inherent variability in the estimates and lack bank), and abandoned land. The authors concluded
of uniform methodologies have made comparisons that improved agroforestry practices such as live
difficult. In a recent review, Nair et al. (2009) showed fence and fodder bank sequestered more carbon than
that the carbon sequestration potential of the vegeta- traditional parklands. Gupta et al. examined soil
tion component (above and belowground) varied from organic carbon and aggregation under a poplar-based
0.29 Mg ha-1 yr-1 in a fodder bank agroforestry agroforestry system in northwest India. The soil
system of West African Sahel to 15.21 Mg ha-1 yr-1 organic carbon concentration and pools were higher
in mixed species stands of Puerto Rico. Soil carbon in soils under agroforestry and increased with tree
estimates ranged from 1.25 Mg ha-1 in a Canadian age. Kaonga et al. quantified tree and soil carbon
alley cropping system to 173 Mg ha-1 in an Atlantic stocks and their response to different tree species and
Coast silvopastoral system in Costa Rica. These soil clay contents in 2, 4, and 10 year old improved
authors concluded that, in general, agroforests on fallows in eastern Zambia and concluded that carbon
arid, semiarid, and degraded sites had a lower carbon stored in trees and soil of improved fallows could be
sequestration potential than those on fertile humid increased by planting selected tree species on soils
sites; and temperate agroforestry systems had rela- with high clay content. Saha et al. examined how tree
tively lower rates compared to tropical systems. density and plant-stand characteristics of south Indian
Attempts have also been made to quantify the homegardens affected soil carbon sequestration.
global carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry Their results showed that the potential to sequester
systems. For example, Dixon (1995) estimated a total soil carbon increased with species richness and tree
of 585–1,215 million ha of land in Africa, Asia and the density. All of these case studies further add to the
Americas under agroforestry and a global potential to growing body of literature that indicates agroforestry
sequester 1.1–2.2 Pg of carbon (vegetation and soil) systems have the potential to sequester greater
over 50 years. Nair et al. (2009) estimated a land area amounts of above and belowground carbon compared
of 1,023 million ha under agroforestry worldwide. to traditional farming systems.
Using the median carbon sequestration potential used
by Dixon (94 Mg ha-1), the land area of 1,023 million Agroforestry for soil enrichment
ha represents a carbon sequestration potential of
1.9 Pg of carbon over 50 years. Considering the large The role of agroforestry in enhancing and maintain-
extent of degraded croplands and pasturelands and the ing long-term soil productivity and sustainability has
potential to improve them using agroforestry, there is been well documented. The incorporation of trees
enormous potential to sequester additional carbon in and crops that are able to biologically fix nitrogen is
such systems. According to an estimate by IPCC fairly common in tropical agroforestry systems. Non
(2000), improving current management practices (e.g. N-fixing trees can also enhance soil physical, chem-
better management of trees on croplands) in existing ical and biological properties by adding significant
agroforestry practices could sequester an additional amount of above and belowground organic matter
12,000 Mg C y-1 by 2010 and 17,000 Mg C y-1 by and releasing and recycling nutrients in agroforestry
2040. Additionally, 630 million ha of unproductive systems. A large body of literature, comprised of both
croplands and grasslands could be converted to original research and synthesis articles, has described
agroforestry, representing a carbon sequestration the effects of agroforestry on soils in the tropics (e.g.
potential of 391,000 Mg C y-1 by 2010 and 586,000 Nair and Latt 1997; Young 1997; Buck et al. 1998;
Mg C y-1 by 2040. Schroth and Sinclair 2003). Similar accounts are

123
4 Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10

relatively few in the temperate literature; however, et al. suggested that arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM)
the role of woody perennials, both N-fixing and non- inoculation may enhance the growth and phosphorus
fixing, in improving the soil chemical, physical and uptake of intercrops under tree shade in agroforestry
biological properties has become the subject of systems and made recommendations for tree canopy
investigations in the last decade (Jose et al. 2004). management to increase the efficiency of AM inoc-
For example, Seiter et al. (1995) demonstrated the ulants. Mendez et al. compared how management
use of N-fixing red alder (Alnus rubra) in a maize approaches affected shade tree diversity, soil proper-
alleycropping system in Oregon. The authors ties, and provisioning and carbon sequestration
observed, using an 15N injection technique, that ecosystem services in three shade coffee cooperatives
32–58% of the total N in maize was obtained from N in El Salvador. While higher tree richness generally
fixed by red alder and that nitrogen transfer increased increased soil pH, CEC, Ca, and Mg, higher tree
with decreasing distance between the trees and crops. densities lowered N, K, and organic matter in the
Lee and Jose (2003) demonstrated that alley cropping shade coffee agroforestry systems. Overall, the
systems involving pecan and cotton (Gossypium distinct management approaches used by the cooper-
hirsuitum) in the southern United States had higher atives differentially affected soil nutrient content and
soil organic matter and microbial biomass com- properties. The authors suggested that working with
pared to monoculture cotton. Using high-resolution farmer cooperatives, rather than with individual
x-ray computed tomography, Udawatta et al. (2008a) farms, might facilitate improved ecosystem services
examined the role of agroforestry buffers in improv- at the landscape scale. They also emphasized the
ing soil porosity in the Midwest Region of the United importance of understanding the complex social and
States. They observed that average pore paths for ecological context in which tropical shade coffee
grass and agroforestry buffer strip soils were three agroecosystems exist. An improved understanding of
and five times greater, respectively, than for soils this context would help policy makers and farmers in
under maize-soybean rotation. In a companion study, their efforts to develop shade coffee landscapes and
Udawatta et al. (2008b) further showed improved soil institutional systems that adequately manage and
aggregates stability, soil carbon, soil nitrogen, and conserve a variety of ecosystem services. This lesson
soil enzyme activity in soils under agroforestry may well apply to agroforestry system management
buffers compared to row crops. the world over.
There are four papers in the special issue that deal
with soil properties and processes as influenced by Agroforestry for biodiversity conservation
agroforestry management practices. Guo et al. exam-
ined the effects of crop residues on crop performance Ecosystems and species important in sustaining
and soil N2O and CO2 fluxes under monocropping human life and the health of our planet are disap-
and intercropping systems on a loamy clay soil in pearing at an alarming rate. Consequently, the need
subtropical China. While leguminous crop residues for immediate action to design effective strategies to
and N-fixing hedge rows improved soil quality and conserve biodiversity is receiving considerable atten-
crop productivity, they also resulted in increased soil tion worldwide. Scientists and policy makers are
N2O and CO2 emissions in the agroforestry systems. becoming increasingly aware of the role agroforestry
The impact of the shade tree Erythrina poeppigiana plays in conserving biological diversity in both
on soil characteristics was evaluated in conventional tropical and temperate regions of the world. The
and organic coffee farms in Costa Rica by Payan mechanisms by which agroforestry systems contrib-
et al. They observed higher soil carbon and nitrogen ute to biodiversity have been examined by various
concentrations near the base of trees compared to 2 m authors (e.g. Schroth et al. 2004; McNeely 2004;
away from the base in conventional systems, indi- Harvey et al. 2006). In general, agroforestry plays
cating the importance of shade trees in maintaining five major roles in conserving biodiversity: (1)
and enhancing soil organic matter. However, this agroforestry provides habitat for species that can
trend was not observed in organic coffee systems, tolerate a certain level of disturbance; (2) agrofor-
perhaps due to the addition of organic amendments estry helps preserve germplasm of sensitive species;
uniformly on the soil surface in such systems. Shukla (3) agroforestry helps reduce the rates of conversion

123
Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10 5

of natural habitat by providing a more productive, include timber, fruit, and native forest species also
sustainable alternative to traditional agricultural sys- contribute to biodiversity conservation by providing
tems that may involve clearing natural habitats; (4) habitat for avian, mammalian, and other species,
agroforestry provides connectivity by creating corri- enhancing landscape connectivity, and reducing edge
dors between habitat remnants which may support effects between forest and agricultural land (see a
the integrity of these remnants and the conservation special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation,
of area-sensitive floral and faunal species; and (5) Volume 16 Number 8 published in 2007 for a series
agroforestry helps conserve biological diversity by of papers on the topic). For example, Harvey and
providing other ecosystem services such as erosion González Villalobos (2007) characterized bat and
control and water recharge, thereby preventing the bird assemblages occurring in forests, two types of
degradation and loss of surrounding habitat. Design- agroforestry systems (cacao and banana) and plantain
ing and managing an agroforestry system with monocultures in the indigenous reserves of Talam-
conservation goals would require working within anca, Costa Rica. Agroforestry systems had bat
the overall landscape context and adopting less assemblages that were as (or more) species-rich,
intensive cultural practices to achieve the maximum abundant, and diverse as forests, contained the same
benefits (Table 2). basic suite of dominant species, but also contained
The important role that agroforestry plays in the more nectarivorous bats than forests. Agroforestry
battle to conserve global biodiversity has been systems also harbored bird assemblages that were as
illustrated by various studies in the recent past. abundant, species-rich, and diverse as forests. How-
Shade coffee is an agroforestry system that shows ever, the species composition of these assemblages
great promise to enhance biodiversity compared to was highly modified with fewer forest-dependent
traditional agricultural practices (Perfecto et al. 1996; species, more non-forest species and different dom-
Moguel and Toledo 1999). Similarly, multistrata inant species. These authors concluded that the
cacao (Theobroma cacao) agroforestry systems that diverse cacao and banana agroforestry systems

Table 2 Desirable characteristics of agroforestry systems for biodiversity conservation (after Harvey et al. 2007)
Type of activity Variable Desirable characteristics

Design of agroforestry Species composition Diverse species composition, mixture of early, mid and late successional
system species, preferably native species
Tree/Shrub density Higher tree/shrub density (and greater areas) leads to greater biodiversity
Type of agroforestry system Any system as long as it is floristically and structurally diverse
Duration of agroforestry Long rotation is desirable to provide stability
system
Management of Management regime Minimal management is preferable
agroforestry system Management strategies should maximize habitat heterogeneity and
availability of diverse resources for wildlife
Soil management Minimal
Harvesting of products Minimal harvesting or harvesting that emulates natural disturbance regimes
Fire management Fire regimes should follow natural fire regimes to the extent possible
Management of snags and Maintain snags and coarse woody debris as habitat for certain species
coarse woody debris
Spatial configuration Location within broader Position the agroforestry practices strategically to enhance landscape
landscape connectivity, by functionally linking habitat fragments
Position adjacent to protected areas, riparian corridors and remnant native
habitat, to buffer these areas from agricultural impacts
Types of land Degraded sites, where revegetation through agroforestry will have a
beneficial impact on biodiversity

123
6 Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10

contributed to conservation efforts by serving as clover (Trifolium repens) and orchardgrass with three
habitats to large numbers of bird and bat species, different tree species in Indiana, Gillespie et al. (1995)
including species of known conservation concern. observed that the riparian strips had higher bird density
Other agroforestry systems have also been studied and diversity than maize monoculture. In Sweden,
for their conservation values, especially in the tropics. Söderström et al. (2001) reported that increasing the
Homegarden agroforests, both from the neo tropics proportion of pasture area covered by shrubs and
and old-world tropics, are well known for their high trees had a positive effect on the species richness of
floristic diversity. Many ecologists consider such birds. This was partially attributed to an increase in
systems structurally and functionally the closest the abundance and diversity of insects and other
mimics of natural forests (e.g. Ewel 1999). In a invertebrates.
review, Kumar and Nair (2004) reported species The literature on the role of agroforestry in
richness of tropical homegardens varying from 27 (Sri conserving biodiversity is growing rapidly. There
Lanka) to 602 (West Java). In various parts of the are eight papers included in this special issue that
world where land clearing for agriculture has deci- cover a wide variety of topics related to biodiversity
mated forest cover, homegardens and similar conservation. Moco et al. compared the distribution of
agroforestry systems serve as refugia of species meso and macrofaunal communities in soil and litter
diversity. For example, in Bangladesh where natural under cacao agroforestry systems and in a natural
forest cover is less than 10% of the total geographic forest in the southern Bahia state of Brazil. Higher
area, homegardens, which are maintained by at least plant diversity in agroforestry and forest systems
20 millions households, represent one possible strat- provided diverse microhabitats and heterogeneous
egy for biodiversity conservation (Kabir and Webb litter, contributing to greater biological diversity in the
2009). In an extensive survey of floristic and structural soil. These authors concluded that these agroforestry
diversity of 402 homegardens from six regions across systems had beneficial effects on the soil and litter
southwestern Bangladesh, Kabir and Webb (2009) faunal communities, and such cacao agroforestry
reported 419 species (59% native), including six could be considered as a conservation strategy for
species of conservation concern. soil fauna. The trade-off between increased biodiver-
Variations in tree–crop combinations and spatial sity of shade coffee systems and increased fungal
arrangements in agroforestry have been shown to diseases of coffee plants in Jamaica was the subject of
affect insect population density and species diversity. investigation by Johnson et al. According to their
Studies with pecan (Carya illinoensis) in the United findings, vegetation complexity might attract benefi-
States, for example, have looked at the influence of cial insect-eating birds that could reduce insect
ground cover types on arthropod densities in agro- damage, but complexity was also associated with
forestry systems (Bugg et al. 1991; Smith et al. 1996; greater prevalence of fungal leaf symptoms. Diaz–
Stamps and Linit 1997). Bugg et al. (1991) observed Forestier et al. investigated the nectar volume and
that cover crops (e.g. annual legumes and grasses) secretion dynamics in the soapbark tree (Quillaja
sustained lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) saponaria) and the entomofauna associated with its
and other arthropods. Brandle et al. (2004) reported flowers, as a tool for the implementation of sustain-
greater density and diversity of insect populations in able apicultural management plans. They reported 42
windbreaks. They attributed this to the heterogeneity different species of insects visiting the flowers during
of the edges that provided varied microhabitats for the study. The main insect orders represented were:
life-cycle activities and a variety of hosts, prey, Hymenoptera and Coleoptera (34%), Diptera and
pollen, and nectar sources. Lepidoptera (12%) and Hemiptera (5%). Hoehn et al.
Agroforestry practices also provide improved wild- examined population dynamics of the wasp, Rhynch-
life habitat by increasing structural and compositional ium haemorrhoidale, and its natural enemies in
plant diversity on the landscape. Windbreak and relation to season, climate and varying shade tree
riparian buffers offer the only woody habitat for composition in cacao agroforestry systems in Indo-
wildlife in many agriculture dominated landscapes nesia. High wasp densities in the wet season were
(Johnson and Beck 1988). In a comparison of maize associated with high diversity of the parasitoid
(Zea mays) monoculture to riparian buffer plantings of species. Wasp densities also increased with decreased

123
Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10 7

shading due to more favorable climatic conditions and Schroth (2006), the interrelationship between forest
higher densities of their major prey, the cacao pest ecosystems, agroforestry and biodiversity can be
Agathodes caliginosalis. These authors further dis- made more dynamic through adaptive management
cussed about the possibility of managing for wasp strategies that incorporate results from research and
populations as a biological control of the cacao pest. monitoring in order to feed information back into the
Incorporation of native species in agroforestry management system. Active participation by local
systems often depends on the indigenous knowledge landowners and communities is also critical in this
of local landowners and communities. Langenberger context.
et al. evaluated the utilization of plant resources by
Philippine lowland farmers in order to identify native Agroforestry for improved air and water quality
species suitable for integration into agroforestry
systems. The farmers reported using 122 plant species Agroforestry practices such as windbreaks and shel-
for 77 purposes; however, only a few species could be terbelts are touted as having numerous benefits. These
recommended for adoption due to the lack of well- benefits include effectively protecting buildings and
developed markets for most species. Brodt et al. roadways from drifting snow, savings in livestock
examined why landowners and farmers in California production—by reducing wind chills, protecting crops,
were not adopting biodiversity enhancing farm edge providing wildlife habitat, removing atmospheric
features like hedgerows and windbreaks, despite their carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, reducing wind
perceived benefits. These authors identified several velocity and thereby limiting wind erosion and partic-
social, economic, and agronomic incentives as well as ulate matter in the air, reducing noise pollution, and
constraints in their study. Constraints included high mitigating odor from concentrated livestock opera-
costs, fear of harboring weeds and rodents, and lack of tions, among others. In recent years, interest in using
certainty about ecosystems benefits. Government shelterbelts as a potential approach to dealing with
cost-share programs and more scientific information livestock odor has received considerable attention
on ecosystem benefits could help increase adoption of (Tyndall and Colletti 2007). The majority of odor-
hedgerows and windbreaks by farmers. The opportu- causing chemicals and compounds are carried on
nity for hunting along in-field shelterbelts and on aerosols (particulates). Vegetative buffers can filter
adjacent lands in Iowa was the focus of the paper by airstreams of particulates by removing dust, gas, and
Grala et al. Using focus groups of landowners, these microbial constituents. In their detailed review on this
authors concluded that the vast majority of respon- topic with particular reference to swine odor, Tyndall
dents (95%) allowed some hunting on their lands. and Colletti (2007) suggested that when planted in
However, only 55% of respondents indicated that the strategic designs, shelterbelts could effectively miti-
potential existed for developing a fee hunting market gate odor in a socio-economically responsible way.
associated with in-field shelterbelts. Intangible fea- Agroforestry practices are also a proven strategy to
tures of hunting, such as recreation and better land provide clean water. In conventional agricultural
stewardship, were ranked higher than tangible benefits systems, less than half of the applied N and phospho-
such as additional income. Although reforestation rous fertilizer is taken up by crops. Consequently,
with native species is often the key to restoring excess fertilizer is washed away from agricultural
biodiversity, conservation professionals find it diffi- fields via surface runoff or leached into the subsurface
cult to encourage landowners to use native species in water supply, thereby contaminating water sources
restoration projects. The study by Garen et al. eval- and decreasing water quality (Cassman 1999). For
uated the experiences of farmers participating in a example, agricultural surface runoff can result in
native species reforestation initiative in rural Panama excess sediment, nutrient, and pesticide delivery to
to identify lessons learned that can guide on-going or receiving water bodies and is a major contributor to
future tree planting efforts. They concluded that eutrophication in the Gulf of Mexico. Agroforestry
farmers’ interests and perceptions when planning, systems such as riparian buffers have been proposed
implementing, and evaluating reforestation initiatives as a means to combat non-point source pollution from
were critical to ensuring the success of such projects. agricultural fields. Riparian buffers help clean runoff
As suggested by McNeely (2004) and McNeely and water by reducing the velocity of runoff, thereby

123
8 Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10

promoting infiltration, sediment deposition, and nutri- a swine odor mitigation technology. They concluded
ent retention. Buffers also reduce nutrient movement that both with and without cost share programs such as
into ground water by taking up the excess nutrients. the environmental quality incentive program (EQIP),
Several studies have shown that agroforestry vegeta- total costs were below expenditures for other known
tive buffers reduce nonpoint source pollution from odor management strategies. In the last paper, McIvor
row crop agriculture (e.g. Udawatta et al. 2002; Lee et al. examined the coarse root growth patterns of
et al. 2003; Anderson et al. 2009). For example, Lee poplar trees (Populus deltoides 9 nigra) on erodible
et al. (2003) documented increased nutrient removal silvopastoral hill slopes in New Zealand. Mechanical
efficiency when trees were incorporated into a riparian reinforcement by poplar root systems is important in
buffer strip placed on the border of agronomic field stabilizing the slopes, particularly when the roots are
plots in Iowa. The authors reported that a switchgrass anchored into the fragipan or underlying rock. Despite
(Panicum virgatum) and woody stem buffer removed their beneficial effects, the authors observed that
20% more nutrients compared to a switchgrass only shallower soil depth and the consequent reduced
buffer. availability of soil water were likely limiting root
Trees with deep rooting systems in agroforestry development and growth of the poplar trees.
systems can also improve ground water quality by
serving as a ‘‘safety net’’ whereby excess nutrients that
Conclusions
have been leached below the rooting zone of agro-
nomic crops are taken up by tree roots. These nutrients
There has been a recent accumulation of evidence
are then recycled back into the system through root
that supports the ecosystem services and environ-
turnover and litterfall, increasing the nutrient use
mental benefits claims of agroforestry systems and
efficiency of the system (van Noordwijk et al. 1996;
practices in both the tropical and temperate regions.
Allen et al. 2004). Trees also have a longer growing
In the past, the paucity of hard evidence has hindered
season than most agronomic crops, which increases
the progress of agroforestry and its acceptance by
nutrient use and use efficiency in an agroforestry
practitioners, farmers and policy makers. However,
system by capturing nutrients before and after the
the solid scientific foundation that has been laid, over
cropping season. A few studies have reported the
the past decade in particular, cannot be overlooked.
safety net role of tree roots in both the tropical (van
In an era of environmental consciousness and eco-
Noordwijk et al. 1996) and temperate regions (Allen
logical sustainability, the role of agroforestry as an
et al. 2004; Nair and Graetz 2004; Nair et al. 2007). For
environmentally benign and ecologically sustainable
example, in a pecan–cotton alley cropping system in
alternative to traditional farming that also offers a
northwest Florida, Allen et al. (2004) reported a 72%
number of ecosystem services needs to be fully
reduction in nitrate-N at a depth of 0.9 m compared to
explored. In addition to poverty alleviation, agrofor-
a monoculture cotton. In a silvopastoral system in
estry also offers proven strategies for carbon
Florida, USA, Nair et al. (2007) monitored soil
sequestration, soil enrichment, biodiversity conserva-
phosphorus concentrations in pastures with and with-
tion, and air and water quality improvement for not
out 20 year-old slash (Pinus elliottii) pine trees and
only the landowners or farmers, but for society at
concluded that silvopastoral associations enhanced
large. This realization should help promote agrofor-
soil nutrient retention and reduced nutrient transport in
estry and its role as an integral part of multifunctional
surface and subsurface water. Overall, the current
working landscapes the world over.
evidence suggests that agroforestry systems could play
a substantial role in mitigating water quality issues Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincere thanks
arising from intensive agricultural practices. to Drs. Michael Jenkins and Michael Banister for their comments
One of the papers in the special issue by Tyndall and suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript.
et al. addresses the swine odor mitigation potential of Financial support provided by the J. William Fulbright Foreign
Scholarship Board and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural
shelterbelts mentioned in the earlier discussion. In this Affairs, United States Department of State through a Fulbright
study, the authors conducted a farm-level financial Scholar Grant during the preparation of this manuscript is also
feasibility analysis to examine the use of shelterbelts as gratefully acknowledged.

123
Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10 9

References (eds) Trees crops and soil fertility: concepts and research
methods. CABI, Wallingford, UK, p 464
Allen S, Jose S, Nair PKR, Brecke BJ, Nkedi-Kizza P, Ramsey Johnson RJ, Beck MM (1988) Influences of shelterbelts on
CL (2004) Safety net role of tree roots: experimental wildlife management and biology. Agric Ecosyst Environ
evidence from an alley cropping system. For Ecol Manage 22(23):301–335
192:395–407 Jose S, Gillespie AR, Pallardy SG (2004) Interspecific interac-
Anderson SH, Udawatta RP, Seobi T, Garrett HE (2009) Soil tions in temperate agroforestry. Agrofor Syst 61:237–255
water content and infiltration in agroforestry buffer strips. Kabir EM, Webb EL (2009) Can homegardens conserve bio-
Agrofor Syst 75:5–16 diversity in Bangladesh? Biotropica 40:95–103
Brandle JR, Hodges L, Zhou X (2004) Windbreaks in sus- Kirby KR, Potvin C (2007) Variation in carbon storage among
tainable agriculture. Agrofor Syst 61:65–78 tree species: implications for the management of a small-
Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandez ECM (1998) Agroforestry in scale carbon sink project. For Ecol Manage 246:208–221
sustainable agricultural systems (advances in agroecology). Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 416 need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479
Bugg RL, Sarrantonio M, Dutcher JD, Phatak SC (1991) Kumar BM, Nair PKR (2004) Tropical homegardens: a time-
Understory cover crops in pecan orchards: possible man- tested example of sustainable agroforestry. Advances in
agement systems. Am J Alt Agric 6:50–62 agroforestry, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht
Cassman KG (1999) Ecological intensification of cereal pro- Lee KH, Jose S (2003) Soil respiration and microbial biomass
duction systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision in a pecan–cotton alley cropping system in southern USA.
agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5952–5959 Agrofor Syst 58:45–54
Dixon RK (1995) Agroforestry system: sources or sinks of Lee KH, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (2003) Sediment and
greenhouse gases? Agrofor Syst 31:99–116 nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian
Ewel JJ (1999) Natural systems as models for the design of buffer. J Soil Water Conserv 58:1–8
suitable systems of land use. Agrofor Syst 45:1–21 McNeely JA (2004) Nature vs nurture: managing relationships
FAO State of Food and Agriculture Report (2007) FAO Eco- between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity.
nomic and Social Development Department, Corporate Agrofor Syst 61:155–165
Document Repository. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ McNeely JA, Schroth G (2006) Agroforestry and biodiversity
a1200e/a1200e00.htm Accessed on March 27, 2009 conservation–traditional practices, present dynamics and
Garrett HE, McGraw RL (2000) Alley cropping practices. In: lessons for the future. Biodivers Conserv 15:549–554
Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds) North American Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and
agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. ASA, human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resour-
Madison, pp 149–188 ces Institute, Washington, DC
Garrity DP (2004) Agroforestry and the achievement of the Moguel P, Toledo VM (1999) Biodiversity conservation in tra-
millennium development goals. Agrofor Syst 61:5–17 ditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conserv Biol 13:11–21
Gillespie AR, Miller BK, Johnson KD (1995) Effects of ground Montagnini F (2006) Environmental services of agroforestry
cover on tree survival and growth in filter strips of the systems. Food Products Press, USA 126
Cornbelt Region of the midwestern US. Agric Ecosyst Nair VD, Graetz DA (2004) Agroforestry as an approach to
Environ 53:263–270 minimizing nutrient loss from heavily fertilized soils: the
Harvey CA, González Villalobos JA (2007) Agroforestry sys- Florida experience. Agrofor Syst 61:269–279
tems conserve species-rich but modified assemblages of Nair PKR, Latt CR (eds) (1997) Directions in tropical agro-
tropical birds and bats. Biodivers Conserv 16:2257–2292 forestry research. Agrofor Syst 38: 1–249
Harvey CA, Gonzales JG, Somarriba E (2006) Dung beetle and Nair VD, Nair PKR, Kalmbacher RS, Ezenwa IV (2007)
terrestrial mammal diversity in forest, indigenous agro- Reducing nutrient loss from farms through silvopastoral
forestry systems and plantain monocultures in Talamanca, practices in coarse-textured soils of Florida, USA. Ecol
Costa Rica. Biodivers Conserv 15:555–585 Eng 29:192–199
Harvey CA, Schroth G, Zerbock O (2007) Designing agro- Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy
forestry systems to mitigate climate change, conserve for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23
biodiversity and sustain rural livelihoods. http://web.catie. Perfecto I, Rice R, Greenberg R, van der Voorst ME (1996)
ac.cr/cd_multiestrata/Poster/session2/Designing_agrofores Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity.
try.pdf Accessed on March 26, 2009 BioScience 46:598–608
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Tech- Schroth G, Sinclair F (2003) Trees crops and soil fertility: con-
nology for Development (2008) Executive summary of cepts and research methods. CABI, Wallingford, UK, p 464
the synthesis report. http://www.agassessment.org/docs/ Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C,
SR_Exec_Sum_280508_English.htm. Accessed on March Vasconcelos H, Izac AN (2004) Agroforestry and biodi-
27, 2009 versity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press
IPCC (2000) Land use, land-use change, and forestry. A spe- Seiter S, Ingham ER, William RD, Hibbs DE (1995) Increase in
cial report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, soil microbial biomass and transfer of nitrogen from alder
Cambridge, p 375 to sweet corn in an alley cropping system. In: Ehrenreich
Izac AMN (2003) Economic aspects of soil fertility manage- JH, Ehrenreich DL, Lee HW (eds) Growing a sustainable
ment and agroforestry practices. In: Schroth G, Sinclair F future. University of Idaho, Boise, ID, pp 56–158

123
10 Agroforest Syst (2009) 76:1–10

Sharrow SH, Ismail S (2004) Carbon and nitrogen storage in Udawatta RP, Gantzer CJ, Anderson SH, Garrett HE (2008a)
agroforests, tree plantations, and pastures in western Agroforestry and grass buffer effects on pore character-
Oregon, USA. Agroforest Syst 60:123–130 istics measured by high-resolution X-ray computed
Smith MW, Arnold DC, Eikenbary RD, Rice NR, Shiferaw A, tomography. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:295–304
Cheary BS, Carroll BL (1996) Influence of ground cover Udawatta RP, Kremer RJ, Adamson BW, Anderson SH
on beneficial arthropods in pecan. Biol Cont 6:164–176 (2008b) Variations in soil aggregate stability and enzyme
Söderström B, Svensson B, Vessby K, Glimskär A (2001) Plants, activities in a temperate agroforestry practice. Appl Soil
insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local Ecol 39:153–160
habitat and landscape factors. Biodiv Cons 10:1839–1863 van Noordwijk M, Lawson G, Soumaré A, Groot JJR, Hairiah
Stamps WT, Linit MJ (1997) Plant diversity and arthropod K (1996) Root distribution of trees and crops: competition
communities: implications for temperate agroforestry. and/or complementarity. In: Ong CK, Huxley P (eds)
Agroforest Syst 39:73–89 Tree–Crop interactions: a physiological approach. CAB
Tyndall J, Colletti J (2007) Mitigating swine odor with stra- International, Wallingford, UK, pp 319–364
tegically designed shelterbelt systems: a review. Agrofor Williams-Guillén K, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2008) Bats limit
Syst 69:45–65 insects in a tropical agroforestry system. Science 320:70
Udawatta RP, Krstansky JJ, Henderson GS, Garrett HE (2002) Young A (1997) Agroforestry for soil management. 2nd edn.
Agroforestry practices, runoff, and nutrient loss: a paired CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. p 320
watershed comparison. J Environ Qual 31:1214–1225

123

View publication stats