Judit Rubio-Delgado , Susanne Schnabel , J. Francisco Lavado-Contador , Ulrich Schmutz
{"title":"Small woody features in agricultural areas: Agroforestry systems of overlooked significance in Europe","authors":"Judit Rubio-Delgado , Susanne Schnabel , J. Francisco Lavado-Contador , Ulrich Schmutz","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>CONTEXT</h3><p>Small woody features (SWF), as field boundaries, hedgerows, or riparian buffers, are crucial for agricultural landscapes and, frequently, disregarded. In combination with agricultural land uses they are considered agroforestry systems (AF<sub>SWF</sub>), but their spatial distribution and detailed location of SWF types are insufficiently known in the EU as to support agricultural policies or enhance the development of farming practices for biodiversity conservation or productivity management.</p></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><p>In addressing this, the LUCAS 2015 dataset was analysed across EU member states to identify, characterise, and determine the extent and distribution of AF<sub>SWF</sub> classes and the variety of SWF types in agricultural lands. Additionally, a comparison between AF<sub>SWF</sub> and common agroforestry systems (AF<sub>C</sub>), such as silvopastoral, silvoarable, grazed or intercropped permanent crops, and kitchen gardens was conducted.</p></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><p>To achieve this, four categories of AF<sub>SWF</sub> were established based on the classes of land cover within agricultural areas where SWF are present: arable crops AF<sub>SWF</sub>, grazed grasslands AF<sub>SWF</sub>, ungrazed grasslands AF<sub>SWF</sub>, and permanent crops AF<sub>SWF</sub>. The typology and relevance of the AF<sub>SWF</sub> categories and the SWF types were analysed and mapped at country level and by biogeographical regions. The spatial distribution of AF<sub>SWF</sub> and the different types of SWF were analysed using density maps.</p></div><div><h3>RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS</h3><p>Results reveal that AF<sub>SWF</sub> cover 443,770 km<sup>2</sup> (10% of the EU-28 and 25% of the utilised agricultural area). This area encompasses arable crops (44%), ungrazed grasslands (24%), grazed grasslands (23%), and permanent crops (8%). The extent of AF<sub>SWF</sub> is 3.3 times larger than AF<sub>C</sub> (132,317 km<sup>2</sup>), being mainly concentrated in Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, and Germany, while AF<sub>C</sub> prevail in the Mediterranean. As regards to SWF types, both managed and unmanaged hedgerows were dominant in France, Great Britain, and Ireland. Heaths and shrubs in Spain and Germany. Grove and woodlands margins in Spain, while avenue trees were dominant in Germany. Single trees and conifer hedges, the less prevalent SWF types, were broadly distributed.</p></div><div><h3>SIGNIFICANCE</h3><p>This pioneering research addresses a knowledge gap, thoroughly documenting AF<sub>SWF</sub>, revealing both its types and spatial distribution. The findings highlight substantial disparities in AF<sub>SWF</sub> prevalence among member states of the EU. The study compares AF<sub>SWF</sub> with AF<sub>C</sub> in relevance and distribution, significantly contributing to better understanding agroforestry systems and offering baselines for future monitoring and management. Findings advocate for policy incentives and increased awareness among farmers to foster the understanding of the impacts of SWF on productivity and biodiversity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24001239/pdfft?md5=b55960d3e5fe354d3965be29ad4bf70c&pid=1-s2.0-S0308521X24001239-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24001239","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
CONTEXT
Small woody features (SWF), as field boundaries, hedgerows, or riparian buffers, are crucial for agricultural landscapes and, frequently, disregarded. In combination with agricultural land uses they are considered agroforestry systems (AFSWF), but their spatial distribution and detailed location of SWF types are insufficiently known in the EU as to support agricultural policies or enhance the development of farming practices for biodiversity conservation or productivity management.
OBJECTIVE
In addressing this, the LUCAS 2015 dataset was analysed across EU member states to identify, characterise, and determine the extent and distribution of AFSWF classes and the variety of SWF types in agricultural lands. Additionally, a comparison between AFSWF and common agroforestry systems (AFC), such as silvopastoral, silvoarable, grazed or intercropped permanent crops, and kitchen gardens was conducted.
METHODS
To achieve this, four categories of AFSWF were established based on the classes of land cover within agricultural areas where SWF are present: arable crops AFSWF, grazed grasslands AFSWF, ungrazed grasslands AFSWF, and permanent crops AFSWF. The typology and relevance of the AFSWF categories and the SWF types were analysed and mapped at country level and by biogeographical regions. The spatial distribution of AFSWF and the different types of SWF were analysed using density maps.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Results reveal that AFSWF cover 443,770 km2 (10% of the EU-28 and 25% of the utilised agricultural area). This area encompasses arable crops (44%), ungrazed grasslands (24%), grazed grasslands (23%), and permanent crops (8%). The extent of AFSWF is 3.3 times larger than AFC (132,317 km2), being mainly concentrated in Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, and Germany, while AFC prevail in the Mediterranean. As regards to SWF types, both managed and unmanaged hedgerows were dominant in France, Great Britain, and Ireland. Heaths and shrubs in Spain and Germany. Grove and woodlands margins in Spain, while avenue trees were dominant in Germany. Single trees and conifer hedges, the less prevalent SWF types, were broadly distributed.
SIGNIFICANCE
This pioneering research addresses a knowledge gap, thoroughly documenting AFSWF, revealing both its types and spatial distribution. The findings highlight substantial disparities in AFSWF prevalence among member states of the EU. The study compares AFSWF with AFC in relevance and distribution, significantly contributing to better understanding agroforestry systems and offering baselines for future monitoring and management. Findings advocate for policy incentives and increased awareness among farmers to foster the understanding of the impacts of SWF on productivity and biodiversity.
期刊介绍:
Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments.
The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas:
Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making;
The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment;
Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems;
Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.