1. ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL
INTERACTIONS ON PRODUCTIVITY
OF A SILVOPASTORAL SYSTEM WITH
PINUS CONTORTA DOUG. EX. LOUD.
IN THE AYSEN REGION OF CHILE.
Dr. Alvaro Sotomayor1,
1
Forest Engineer, M.Sc., Dr., INFOR Bio Bio Region, Chile, e.mail: asotomay@infor.cl
www.infor.cl; www.agroforesteria.cl

2. CHILE, A COUNTRY OF CONTRASTS
N
Concepción
S

3. GENERAL INFORMATION OF AYSEN REGION, IN THE
PATAGONIA OF CHILE: RESEARCH AREA
It is located
between 43°38´
and 49°16´ of
South latitude
and from 71°06´
of west
longitude to the
Pacific Ocean
• Pp (mm): 900 -1.300 mm/year
•T° medium min: July de -0.7 ºC (peaks
about -17 ºC),
• T° annual average: 8.7 ºC. ( 306 days
grades, base 10°C)
•T° medium max: in January 18.7 ºC.
• Winds: average 40 km/hr in springsummer (peaks of 80-100 km/hr
Coyhaique

4. GENERAL OBJETIVE
• “To study the effect of trees of Pinus
contorta plantation, under silvopastoral
management, in the productivity of the
pasture and livestock, and in changing
climatic variables in their environment.”

5. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Name of
Treatments
T1.
Traditional
silvopastoral
system, with natural
pasture, improved
by fertilization.
T2.
Strips
silvopastoral
Systems,
with
natural
pasture,
improved
by
fertilization.
Descriptions of
Treatments
Pasture covered by
357
trees
ha-1,
distributed
homogeneously,
pruned to 3,2 m.
Pasture covered by
400 trees ha-1, in
strips of tree lines of
plantations, 21 m
apart each other,
pruned to 3,2 m
Area
of
pasture
T3.
Livestock
without trees
system, with natural
pasture improved
by fertilization.
Average distance
of climate stations
to nearest tree(m).
2,5
10,5
Without trees

6. May, 2004
T1.Traditional
Silvopastoral:
400 trees/ha,
pruned to 3,2 m.
Stat. Design: 3
plots of 1.000 m2
T2. Strip
Silvopastoral:
400 trees/ha,
pruned to 3,2 m.
Stat. Design: 3
plots of 1.000 m2
T3.Livestock
treatment,
without trees in
the pasture
Modification of forest plantation
May, 2010

7. RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION

8. RESULTS
 FOREST PARAMETERS
 PASTURE PRODUCTION
 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
 MICROCLIMATE
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARAMETERS FOREST,
MICROCLIMETE AND PRODUCTION OF PASTURE AND
LIVESTOCK

9. Results: FOREST PARAMETERS
Table 2. Results from 2004 to 2008 of total height (m), diameter at breast height (DBH), canopy
cover (%) and basal area (BA) in silvopastoral treatments.
T1.Traditional Silvopastoral
T2. Strip Silvopastoral
Year
DBH
BA
H C.cover DBH
BA
H C.cover
(cm)
(m² haˉ¹) (m)
(%) (cm) (m² haˉ¹) (m)
(%)
2004
12,9
4,8
6,0
14,5 13,0
5,4
5,6
24,2
2005
14,2
5,8
6,4
14,1
6,4
6,1
2006
16,0
7,3
6,8
21,7 15,6
8,3
6,5
27,1
2007
17,8
9,1
7,2
31,1 17,1
9,9
7,0
28,9
2008
19,1
10,3
7,6
32,2 18,0
11,0
7,5
30,7
*: Different letters indicate significant differences (p<= 0.05)

10. Results: Pasture Production
Table 3. Pasture Production, 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 season (kg DM ha-1).
Pasture production per season (kg MS ha-1)*
Treatment
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007 2007-2008
T1.Traditional Silvopastoral
1485,7a
6109,7a
4153,2b
4330,9b
T2. Strip Silvopastoral
2684,9a
7181,6a
6394,5a
5359,7a
3832,0b
3874,1b
3513,6b
T3: Livestock management
2452,1a
* Different letters indicate significant differences (p<= 0.05)

11. Livestock Production from 2004 to 2008
Table 4. Animal productivity per effective hectare of meadow by treatment, 2004-2005 to 2007-2008
seasons, San Gabriel property, Coyhaique, Chile.
Live weight gain per effectively ha of pasture and season
Treatment
Total production
(kg ha-1)*
2004 a 2008
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007 2007-2008
(kg ha-1)
T1.Trad. Silvopastoral
113,8a
238,6a
305,8a
158,9a
817,0
T2. Strip Silvopastoral
110,2a
255,7a
317,8a
172,3a
855,9
T3. Livestock management
95,8a
227,9a
348,4a
144,4a
816,5
* Different letters indicate significant differences (p <= 0.05)

12. CLIMATE PARAMETERS
• WIND
Figure 1.
Average wind speed,
January 2007 to June
2008, per treatment.

13. CLIMATE PARAMETERS
WIND: Average Maximum Wind Speed km/hr:
 WITH PEAKS MORE
THAN 80 KM/HR

14. CLIMATE PARAMETERS

15. TEMPERATURE – RELATIVE HUMIDITY-PRECIPITATION
Average Temperature
T ºC
Relative Humidity per treatment (HR%)
86,0
14,0
13,0
12,0
81,0
11,0
10,0
9,0
76,0
8,0
7,0
71,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
66,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
61,0
Oct-07
Nov-07
Dec-07
T3.Livestock
Jan-08
Feb-08
T1.Sil.Tradit
Mar-08
Apr-08
May-08
Month-year
T2.Sil.Strip
Feb07
Mar07
Apr07
May07
Jun- Jul-07 Ago07
07
T3.Livestock
Figure 5. Average monthly temperature, years 2007-2008, per treatment.
mm
Jan07
Jun-08
Sep07
Oct07
T1.Sil.Tradit
Precipitation per Treatment Month-Year
64,0
54,0
44,0
34,0
24,0
14,0
4,0
Feb07
Mar- Apr- May- Jun07
07
07
07
Jul07
Ago- Sep07
07
T3.Livestock
Feb08
Mar08
Apr08
May08
Jun- Month08 year
T2.Sil.Strip
Figure 6. Average relative humidity per month, years 2007-2008, per treatment.
74,0
Jan07
Nov- Dec-07 Jan07
08
Oct07
Nov07
T1.Sil.Tradit
Dec- Jan07
08
Feb08
T2.Sil.Strip
Mar- Apr- May- Jun08
08
08
08
Month-year
Figure 7. Average precipitation per month, January 2007 to June 2008, per treatment.

16. ANALYSIS: RELASHIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY
PARAMETERS OF THE SYSTEM AND CLIMATE.
 ¿WHAT IS THE KEY
FACTOR TO MANAGE FOR
ANIMAL PRODUCTION IN THE
PATAGONIAN
REGION
OF
CHILE?
Crown cover of trees-Wind
Crown cover- Dry matter (DM) 
Traditional Treatment
Strip Treatment
6531,42
3446,08
5033,25
a
h
/
M
D
8029,60
4720,05
a
h
/
M
D
5994,02
2172,11
898,15
11,97
3535,08
18,05
24,13
30,21
36,28
C.cover (%)
Regression T1.Traditional Silvopastoral
Variable
R²
kg DM ha-1
0,88
2036,90
23,57
25,65
27,73
29,80
C.cover (%)
Regression T2. Strip Silvopastoral
Variable
R²
kg DM ha-1
0,69
Figure 9. Lineal regression C.cover (%) - DM (kg DM ha-1), silvopastoral
treatments, seasons 2004 a 2008.
31,88
 IT APPEARS
THAT
MANAGING
CROWN
COVER
OF
TREES
TO
REDUCE
WIND SPEED

17. ANALYSIS: RELASHIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRODUCTIVITY PARAMETERS AND CLIMATE
Livestock Production -Wind
Regression Wind - Animal Prod., Season 2007-2008
180,10
168,55
l
a
m
i
n
A
d
o
r
P
157,00
145,45
133,90
1,49
3,75
6,00
8,25
10,51
Wind
Regression wind-animal prod.
Variable
Animal prod. kg ha-1
R²
0,86
-1
Figure 10: Regression average wind velocity (km hr ) - animal production
-1
(kg liveweight ha ), season 2007-2008.

18. ANALYSIS: RELASHIONSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE VARIABLE
BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY PARAMETERS*CLIMATE*DM
Animal production model, using 
Amimal Prod = f (C.cover*wind) and; f (C.cover*wind*DM) interactions:
Table 9. Statisticians regression of animal production, depending on C.cover*wind.
Variable
R²
Animal Prod. (kg live weight ha-1)
0,92
Table 10. Statisticians regression of animal production, depending on C.cover * Wind * MS.
Variable
R²
Animal Prod. (kg live weight ha-1)
0,96
 THIS MEANS FOR PRODUCERS,  IF THEY MAINTAIN A
GOOD QUALITY PASTURE, THE FACTOR THAT IT IS
INFLUENCING LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION IS WIND, THAT
CAN MANAGE WITH TREES IN SILVOPASTORAL DESIGN

19. CONCLUSIONS
•
It can be concluded that the trees ordered in silvopastoral treatments
modified some climatic parameters of the environment. For the purposes
of this study, and related to two important aspects to this study,
production of the pasture and livestock, the parameter most affected by
trees was the wind.
• Silvopastoral treatments substantially reduced the average wind speed in
relation to the control treatment (livestock), with a lower wind speed of
more than 200%. Regarding Wind chill, values were between 22 and 26%
higher for silvopastoral strips and traditional treatment,
• Silvopastoral treatments led to greater pasture production in the four
seasons of production evaluated in relation to traditional livestock
management system for that region, which is to have areas of pasture
unprotected by trees. The factor that mostly influences the increase in
productivity of pasture was the effect of the crown of trees that reduced
wind speed by 200%.
• Animal production was also associated with the interaction of wind and
tree crown cover.
• It is possible to recommend to livestock producers of the Aysen Region of
Chile, using trees in silvopastoral system in order to increase production
as well as to improve animal welfare.

20. THANKS
•
Dr. Alvaro Sotomayor1
asotomay@infor.cl
www.infor.cl; www.agroforesteria.cl