Presentation by Mario Torralba, PhD student, University of Copenhagen - at the young researchers meeting on multifunctional landscapes, Gothenburg June 7-8, 2016.

1. Ecosystem service assessment in European
silvopastoral systems
Mario Torralba e-mail: mtv@ign.ku.dk, tel.: +45 353 36782
PhD student. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management
Landscape Architecture & Planning
Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity
and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis
Landscape Architecture and Planning

2. Silvopastoral systems: : combination of trees with forage and animal
production. Comprises woodland grazing and open forest trees
Picture source: AGFORWARD Flickr
INTRODUCTION

3. • Long history of land use
• Result of a human gradual re-organization of the landscape
• Important part od European-cultural-natural heritage
• Deliver a wide variety of products, services and values
• HNV systems
Picture source: AGFORWARD Flickr
INTRODUCTION

4. Second half XX Century. Change in the demand from European landscapes:
- Biased through production.
- Rural migration.
- Mechanization
- Simplification of agricultural processes
- Direct profitability from silvopastoral systems is usually low.
- Not recognized in nature conservation policies.
Agroforestry systems
INTENSIFICATION
ABANDONMENT
Homogenization of landscapes
INTRODUCTION
Landscape Architecture and Planning

5. INTRODUCTION
Current Social demand has
changed
New oportunities for
silvopastoral systems
Provisioning Ecosystem Services
Supporting Ecosystem Services
Regulating Ecosystem Services
Cultural Ecosystem Services
Landscape Architecture and Planning

6. MEASURE ES PROVISION Main hypothesis:
- Silvopastoral systems deliver more ES than
equivalent tree-less systems.
- ES provision will be different in different regions
with different social demands, bioclimatic
conditions and land-use history.
1
Comparisson of Silvopastoral vs. tree less pastures & abandonded silvopastoral systems
DETECT ES ASSOCIATIONS
IDENTIFY BUNDLES AND
TRADEOFFS
Main hypothesis:
- ES associations will be different in different
regions with different social demands,
bioclimatic conditions and land-use history.
2
- Comparisson ofSilvopastoral vs. tree less pastures & abandonded silvopastoral systems
- Comparisson between different study areas
EXPLORE POTENTIAL DRIVERS
Main hypothesis:
- Intensity in the management, local backgrounds
and bioclimatic conditions (T and prec) are the
main drivers.
3 - Comparisson between different study areas
Methodology framework

7. http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/home-redirect.html
AGFORWARD: AGroFORestry that Will Advance Rural Development
Grant 613520 from the European Commission (Project 398 AGFORWARD,
7th Framework Program)

8. Landscape Architecture and Planning
Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or
shrubs) with crop and/or animal production systems to benefit from the resulting
ecological and economic interactions
Silvopastoral systemsSilvoarable systems

9. Central hypothesis of agroforestry: integration of trees within agricultural systems
results in a more efficient acquisition of resources, such as solar radiation, water and
nutrients, that the agricultural system would otherwise not acquire (Cannell et al. 1996).
Graves et al., 2007 Ecological Engineering 29: 434-449
Landscape Architecture and Planning

10. Research questions:
1. Does European agroforestry enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services
relative to specialised agriculture or forestry?
2. Which species groups and which categories of ecosystem services are most
supported by agroforestry?
3. What differences arise between different kinds of agroforestry (i.e.
silvoarable systems, silvopastoral agroforestry)?
Landscape Architecture and Planning

11. Landscape Architecture and Planning
Review Protocol
Data search
Data extraction
Data analysis
Material and methods
Inclusion criteria
Publications which:
- Compare agroforestry systems
with farmland/forestry.
- European country
- Quantitative ecosystem service
assessment based on primary
data
Hedge’s g for biodiversity
g = (µAF- µC)/s
Response ratios for
ecosystem services
lr = ln(µAF) - ln(µC).
53 Publications
365 Comparissons

12. Effect size (95% CI)
Provisioning
Biodiversity
All Groups
Supporting/R
egulating
Results
Landscape Architecture and Planning

13. Landscape Architecture and Planning

14. Landscape Architecture and Planning

15. Mediterranean vineyards
Mediterranean olive
Landscape Architecture and Planning

16. Chestnut plantation
Intercropped walnut plantation
Intercropped chestnut plantation
Walnut plantation
Landscape Architecture and Planning

17. Importance of the scale
French bocage Streubost
French pré-verger
Spanish dehesa
Landscape Architecture and Planning

18. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION