CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 280Agroforestry and silvopastoral systemsAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies

Agroforestry—The Next Step in Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture

Open access
Wilson, Matthew, Lovell, Sarah·2016·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su8060574
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Agriculture faces the unprecedented task of feeding a world population of 9 billion people by 2050 while simultaneously avoiding harmful environmental and social effects. One effort to meet this challenge has been organic farming, with outcomes that are generally positive. However, a number of challenges remain. Organic yields lag behind those in conventional agriculture, and greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient leaching remain somewhat problematic. In this paper, we examine current organic and conventional agriculture systems and suggest that agroforestry, which is the intentional combination of trees and shrubs with crops or livestock, could be the next step in sustainable agriculture. By implementing systems that mimic nature’s functions, agroforestry has the potential to remain productive while supporting a range of ecosystem services. In this paper, we outline the common practices and products of agroforestry as well as beneficial environmental and social effects. We address barriers to agroforestry and explore potential options to alter policies and increase adoption by farmers. We conclude that agroforestry is one of the best land use strategies to contribute to food security while simultaneously limiting environmental degradation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su8060574

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Establishing financial mechanisms for compensating land users for SLM and improved delivery of ecosystem services, e.g., through payments for ecosystem services, could provide a much-needed incentive for increased investment into land restoration and rehabilitation.

    “Establishing financial mechanisms for compensating land users for SLM and improved delivery of ecosystem services, e.g., through payments for ecosystem services, could provide a much-needed incentive for increased investment into land restoration and rehabilitation (111, 127, 128).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [111]

    In “Challenges to Agroforestry Adoption” (page unavailable), the paper says that some agroforestry practices may need markets that compensate land users for ecosystem services to make financial sense. “Moving Forward—Policy and Research Needs” (page unavailable) also proposes credits for environmental services to encourage adoption. These passages support the proposed financial incentive, but they do not extend it to sustainable land management generally or explicitly link it to increased investment in land restoration and rehabilitation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Agroforestry may have higher costs of harvest, storage, and transport.

    “Agroforestry not only reduces risks (having at least partial production if one crop fails) but also delivers cash crops such as fruits and nuts; however, potentially higher costs of harvest, storage, and transport need to be considered (111).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [111]

    Section 5, “Challenges to Agroforestry Adoption” (page unavailable), says harvesting fruits and nuts can be logistically challenging and that larger plantings may need mechanization to be economically competitive. This supports considering harvest-related costs, but the paper does not state that storage or transport costs may be higher. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Agroforestry reduces risks by having at least partial production if one crop fails.

    “Agroforestry not only reduces risks (having at least partial production if one crop fails) but also delivers cash crops such as fruits and nuts; however, potentially higher costs of harvest, storage, and transport need to be considered (111).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [111]

  • Yields in agroforestry areas tend to be higher than yields obtained if crops and woody perennials were grown separately.

    “Yields in agroforestry areas also tend to be higher when compared to the yields obtained if crops and woody perennials were grown separately (111).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [111]

  • Agroforestry delivers cash crops such as fruits and nuts.

    “Agroforestry not only reduces risks (having at least partial production if one crop fails) but also delivers cash crops such as fruits and nuts; however, potentially higher costs of harvest, storage, and transport need to be considered (111).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [111]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 86

  1. Foley, J.A. Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet? Sci. Am. 2011, 305, 60-65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  2. Norris, K. Agriculture and biodiversity conservation: Opportunity knocks. Conserv. Lett. 2008, 1, 2-11. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Thomas, J.A.; Telfer, M.G.; Roy, D.B.; Preston, C.D.; Greenwood, J.J.D.; Asher, J.; Fox, R.; Clarke, R.T.; Lawton, J.H. Comparative Losses of British Butterflies, Birds, and Plants and the Global Extinction Crisis. Science 2004, 303, 1879-1881. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  4. Balázs, E., Galante, E., Lynch, J.M., Schepers, J.S., Toutant, J.-P., Werner, D., Werry, P.A.T.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 93-115.
  5. McIsaac, G.F.; David, M.B.; Gertner, G.Z.; Goolsby, D.A. Eutrophication: Nitrate flux in the Mississippi River. Nature 2001, 414, 166-167. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  6. Robertson, G.P.; Paul, E.A.; Harwood, R.R. Greenhouse Gases in Intensive Agriculture: Contributions of Individual Gases to the Radiative Forcing of the Atmosphere. Science 2000, 289, 1922-1925. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  7. Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  8. Bonny, S. Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops, Weeds, and Herbicides: Overview and Impact. Environ. Manag. 2015, 57, 31-48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  9. Di, H.J.; Cameron, K.C. Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: sources, factors and mitigating strategies. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2002, 64, 237-256. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Neider, R.; Benbi, D.K. Leaching Losses and Groundwater Pollution. In Carbon and Nitrogen in the Terrestrial Environment; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 219-233.
  11. Altieri, M.A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 19-31. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  12. Malézieux, E.; Crozat, Y.; Dupraz, C.; Laurans, M.; Makowski, D.; Ozier-Lafontaine, H.; Rapidel, B.; de Tourdonnet, S.; Valantin-Morison, M. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: Concepts, tools and models-A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 43-62.
  13. O'Boyle, E.J. Classical economics and the Great Irish Famine: A study in limits. Forum Soc. Econ. 2006, 35, 21-53. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Davis, A.S.; Hill, J.D.; Chase, C.A.; Johanns, A.M.; Liebman, M. Increasing Cropping System Diversity Balances Productivity, Profitability and Environmental Health. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e47149. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  15. Jacobsen, S.-E.; Sørensen, M.; Pedersen, S.M.; Weiner, J. Feeding the world: Genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 651-662. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Amundson, R.; Berhe, A.A.; Hopmans, J.W.; Olson, C.; Sztein, A.E.; Sparks, D.L. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 2015, 348, 1261071. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  17. Hertel, T.W. The challenges of sustainably feeding a growing planet. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 185-198. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Elser, J.; Bennett, E. Phosphorus cycle: A broken biogeochemical cycle. Nature 2011, 478, 29-31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  19. Cordell, D.; White, S. Peak Phosphorus: Clarifying the Key Issues of a Vigorous Debate about Long-Term Phosphorus Security. Sustainability 2011, 3, 2027-2049. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Frison, E.A.; Cherfas, J.; Hodgkin, T. Agricultural Biodiversity Is Essential for a Sustainable Improvement in Food and Nutrition Security. Sustainability 2011, 3, 238-253. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Beddington, J.; Asaduzzaman, M.; Clark, M.; (Eds.) Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change: Final report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. AGRIS: Rome, Italy, 2012.
  22. Verchot, L.V.; Noordwijk, M.V.; Kandji, S.; Tomich, T.; Ong, C.; Albrecht, A.; Mackensen, J.; Bantilan, C.; Anupama, K.V.; Palm, C. Climate change: Linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2007, 12, 901-918. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Muschler, R.G. Agroforestry: Essential for Sustainable and Climate-Smart Land Use? In Tropical Forestry Handbook; Springer: Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany, 2015.
  24. Brewbaker, J.L. Diseases of maize in the wet lowland tropics and the collapse of the Classic Maya civilization. Econ. Bot. 1979, 33, 101-118. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Wilkinson, T.J. Environmental Fluctuations, Agricultural Production and Collapse: A View from Bronze Age Upper Mesopotamia. In Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse; Dalfes, H.N., Kukla, G., Weiss, H., Eds.; NATO ASI Series; Springer: Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany, 1997; pp. 67-106.
  26. Nandwani, D., Ed.; Sustainable Development and Biodiversity; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1-35.
  27. McGee, J.A. Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production? Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 32, 255-263. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Maeder, P.; Fliessbach, A.; Dubois, D.; Gunst, L.; Fried, P.; Niggli, U. Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science 2002, 296, 1694-1697. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  29. Tuomisto, H.L.; Hodge, I.D.; Riordan, P.; Macdonald, D.W. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?-A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 112, 309-320. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  30. Hole, D.G.; Perkins, A.J.; Wilson, J.D.; Alexander, I.H.; Grice, P.V.; Evans, A.D. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 2005, 122, 113-130. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Mondelaers, K.; Aertsens, J.; van Huylenbroeck, G. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 1098-1119.
  32. Kirchmann, H.; Bergström, L.; Kätterer, T.; Andrén, O.; Andersson, R. Can Organic Crop Production Feed the World? In Organic Crop Production-Ambitions and Limitations; Kirchmann, H., Bergström, L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 39-72.
  33. Letter, D.W.; Seidel, R.; Liebhardt, W. The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 2003, 18, 146-154. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Pimentel, D.; Hepperly, P.; Hanson, J.; Douds, D.; Seidel, R. Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. BioScience 2005, 55, 573-582. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  35. Clark, S.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Sefeedpari, P. Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions during transition to organic and reduced-input practices: Student farm case study. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 88, 186-194. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Teasdale, J.R.; Coffman, C.B.; Mangum, R.W. Potential Long-Term Benefits of No-Tillage and Organic Cropping Systems for Grain Production and Soil Improvement. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1297-1305. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Reganold, J.P.; Elliott, L.F.; Unger, Y.L. Long-term effects of organic and conventional farming on soil erosion. Nature 1987, 330, 370-372. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Muller, A.; Aubert, C. The Potential of Organic Agriculture to Mitigate the Influence of Agriculture on Global Warming-A Review. In Organic Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures;
  39. Dimitri, C. Organic Agriculture: An Agrarian or Industrial Revolution? Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2010, 39, 384-395.
  40. Marriott, E.E.; Wander, M.M. Total and Labile Soil Organic Matter in Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 950-959. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Ismail, I.; Blevins, R.L.; Frye, W.W. Long-Term No-tillage Effects on Soil Properties and Continuous Corn Yields. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1994, 58, 193-198. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Zuber, S.M.; Villamil, M.B. Meta-analysis approach to assess effect of tillage on microbial biomass and enzyme activities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 97, 176-187. [CrossRef] · DOI
  43. Arnhold, S.; Lindner, S.; Lee, B.; Martin, E.; Kettering, J.; Nguyen, T.T.; Koellner, T.; Ok, Y.S.; Huwe, B. Conventional and organic farming: Soil erosion and conservation potential for row crop cultivation. Geoderma 2014, 219-220, 89-105. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Bos, J.F.F.P.; de Haan, J.; Sukkel, W.; Schils, R.L.M. Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional farming systems in The Netherlands. NJAS Wagening J. Life Sci. 2014, 68, 61-70. [CrossRef] · DOI
  45. Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229-232. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  46. Trewavas, A. Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 2001, 410, 409-410. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  47. Lovell, S.T.; DeSantis, S.; Nathan, C.A.; Olson, M.B.; Ernesto Méndez, V.; Kominami, H.C.; Erickson, D.L.; Morris, K.S.; Morris, W.B. Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 327-341. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Tilman, D. Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: The need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 5995-6000. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  49. Nair, P.K.R.; Garrity, D. Agroforestry-The Future of Global Land Use, Advances in Agroforestry; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 9.
  50. Winans, K.S.; Tardif, A.-S.; Lteif, A.E.; Whalen, J.K. Carbon sequestration potential and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid poplar, grain corn and hay cultivation in southern Quebec, Canada. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 421-433. [CrossRef] · DOI
  51. Dixon, R.K.; Winjum, J.K.; Andrasko, K.J.; Lee, J.J.; Schroeder, P.E. Integrated land-use systems: Assessment of promising agroforest and alternative land-use practices to enhance carbon conservation and sequestration. Clim. Change 1994, 27, 71-92. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Jordan, N.R.; Davis, A.S. Middle-way strategies for sustainable intensification of agriculture. BioScience 2015, 65, 513-519. [CrossRef] · DOI
  53. Baah-Acheamfour, M.; Carlyle, C.N.; Bork, E.W.; Chang, S.X. Trees increase soil carbon and its stability in three agroforestry systems in central Alberta, Canada. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 328, 131-139. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Caudill, S.A.; DeClerck, F.J.A.; Husband, T.P. Connecting sustainable agriculture and wildlife conservation: Does shade coffee provide habitat for mammals? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 199, 85-93. [CrossRef] · DOI
  55. Brandle, J.R.; Schoeneberger, M.M. Working Trees: Supporting Agriculture and Healthy Landscapes. J. Trop. For. Sci. 2014, 26, 305-308.
  56. Jha, S.; Bacon, C.M.; Philpott, S.M.; Rice, R.A.; Méndez, V.E.; Läderach, P. A Review of Ecosystem Services, Farmer Livelihoods, and Value Chains in Shade Coffee Agroecosystems. In Integrating Agriculture, Conservation and Ecotourism: Examples from the Field;
  57. Fagerholm, N.; Torralba, M.; Burgess, P.J.; Plieninger, T. A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 62, 47-65. [CrossRef] · DOI
  58. Campbell, G.E.; Lottes, G.J.; Dawson, J.O. Design and development of agroforestry systems for Illinois, USA: Silvicultural and economic considerations. Agrofor. Syst. 1991, 13, 203-224. [CrossRef] · DOI
  59. Cardinael, R.; Mao, Z.; Prieto, I.; Stokes, A.; Dupraz, C.; Kim, J.H.; Jourdan, C. Competition with winter crops induces deeper rooting of walnut trees in a Mediterranean alley cropping agroforestry system. Plant Soil 2015, 391, 219-235. [CrossRef] · DOI
  60. Dupraz, C.; Talbot, G.; Marrou, H.; Wery, J.; Roux, S.; Liagre, F.; Ferard, Y.; Nogier, A. To Mix or Not to Mix: Evidences for the Unexpected High Productivity of New Complex Agrivoltaic and Agroforestry Systems. 2011, pp. 202-203. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230675951_To_ mix_or_not_to_mix__evidences_for_the_unexpected_high_productivity_of_new_complex_agrivoltaic_ and_agroforestry_systems (accessed on 9 December 2015).
  61. Kallenbach, R.L.; Kerley, M.S.; Bishop-Hurley, G.J. Cumulative Forage Production, Forage Quality and Livestock Performance from an Annual Ryegrass and Cereal Rye Mixture in a Pine Walnut Silvopasture. Agrofor. Syst. 2006, 66, 43-53. [CrossRef] · DOI
  62. Buergler, A.L.; Fike, J.H.; Burger, J.A.; Feldhake, C.M.; McKenna, J.R.; Teutsch, C.D. Forage Nutritive Value in an Emulated Silvopasture. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 1265-1273. [CrossRef] · DOI
  63. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Buffer Strips. In Principles of Soil Conservation and Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 223-257.
  64. Skelton, P.; Josiah, S.J.; King, J.W.; Brandle, J.R.; Helmers, G.A.; Francis, C.A. Adoption of riparian forest buffers on private lands in Nebraska, USA. Small-Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy 2005, 4, 185-203.
  65. Kort, J. Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1988, 22, 165-190. [CrossRef] · DOI
  66. Mize, C.W.; Brandle, J.R.; Schoeneberger, M.M.; Bentrup, G. Ecological Development and function of Shelterbelts in Temperate North America. In Toward Agroforestry Design; Jose, S., Gordon, A.M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 27-54.
  67. Zheng, X.; Zhu, J.; Xing, Z. Assessment of the effects of shelterbelts on crop yields at the regional scale in Northeast China. Agric. Syst. 2016, 143, 49-60. [CrossRef] · DOI
  68. Nuberg, I.K. Effect of shelter on temperate crops: A review to define research for Australian conditions. Agrofor. Syst. 1998, 41, 3-34. [CrossRef] · DOI
  69. Valdivia, C.; Poulos, C. Factors affecting farm operators' interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agrofor. Syst. 2008, 75, 61-71. [CrossRef] · DOI
  70. Udawatta, R.P.; Jose, S. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Practices in Temperate North America. In Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems; Kumar, B.M., Nair, P.K.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 8, pp. 17-42.
  71. Udawatta, R.P.; Kremer, R.J.; Nelson, K.A.; Jose, S.; Bardhan, S. Soil Quality of a Mature Alley Cropping Agroforestry System in Temperate North America. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 2531-2551. [CrossRef] · DOI
  72. Rivest, D.; Lorente, M.; Olivier, A.; Messier, C. Soil biochemical properties and microbial resilience in agroforestry systems: Effects on wheat growth under controlled drought and flooding conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 463-464, 51-60. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  73. Udawatta, R.P.; Krstansky, J.J.; Henderson, G.S.; Garrett, H.E. Agroforestry practices, runoff, and nutrient loss: A paired watershed comparison. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 1214-1225. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  74. Jose, S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 76, 1-10. [CrossRef] · DOI
  75. Garrett, H.E.; McGraw, R.L.; Walter, W.D. Alley Cropping Practices. North Am. Agrofor. Integr. Sci. Pract. 2nd Ed. 2009, 133-162. [CrossRef] · DOI
  76. Udawatta, R.P.; Garrett, H.E.; Kallenbach, R.L. Agroforestry and grass buffer effects on water quality in grazed pastures. In Agroforestry Systems; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 79, pp. 81-87.
  77. Kim, D.-G.; Kirschbaum, M.U.F.; Beedy, T.L. Carbon sequestration and net emissions of CH 4 and N 2 O under agroforestry: Synthesizing available data and suggestions for future studies. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 226, 65-78. [CrossRef] · DOI
  78. Reddy, P.P. Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture. In Climate Resilient Agriculture for Ensuring Food Security; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 43-90.
  79. Jose, S.; Bardhan, S. Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration: An overview. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 86, 105-111. [CrossRef] · DOI
  80. Holzmueller, E.J.; Jose, S. Biomass production for biofuels using agroforestry: Potential for the North Central Region of the United States. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 85, 305-314. [CrossRef] · DOI
  81. Mead, R.; Willey, R.W. The Concept of a "Land Equivalent Ratio" and Advantages in Yields from Intercropping. Exp. Agric. 1980, 16, 217-228. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  82. Haile, S.; Palmer, M.; Otey, A. Potential of loblolly pine: Switchgrass alley cropping for provision of biofuel feedstock. Agrofor. Syst. 2016. [CrossRef] 100. · DOI
  83. Trozzo, K.E.; Munsell, J.F.; Chamberlain, J.L. Landowner interest in multifunctional agroforestry Riparian buffers. In Agroforestry Systems; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 88, pp. 619-629. 112. Sereke, F.; Dobricki, M.; Wilkes, J.; Kaeser, A.; Graves, A.R.; Szerencsits, E.; Herzog, F. Swiss farmers don't adopt agroforestry because they fear for their reputation. Agrofor. Syst. 2015. [CrossRef] 113. · DOI
  84. Nair, P.K.R., Garrity, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 247-283. 115. Valdivia, C.; Barbieri, C.; Gold, M.A. Between Forestry and Farming: Policy and Environmental Implications of the Barriers to Agroforestry Adoption. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2012, 60, 155-175. [CrossRef] 116. Current, D.A.; Brooks, K.N.; Ffolliott, P.F.; Keefe, M. Moving agroforestry into the mainstream. Agrofor. Syst. 2008, 75, 1-3. [CrossRef] 117. Quinn, C.E.; Quinn, J.E.; Halfacre, A.C. Digging Deeper: A Case Study of Farmer Conceptualization of Ecosystem Services in the American South. Environ. Manag. 2015, 56, 802-813. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 118. Chestnuts-Harvesting. Available online: http://msue.anr.msu.edu/topic/chestnuts/harvest_storage/ harvesting (accessed on 6 June 2016). 119. · DOI
  85. Grado, S.C.; Husak, A.L. Economic Analyses of a Sustainable Agroforestry System in the Southeastern United States. In Valuing Agroforestry Systems; Advances in Agroforestry; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 39-57. 120. Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K.; Klotthor-weinkauf, D.; Baumgart-getz, A. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the Literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 63, 300-311. [CrossRef] 121. Gold, M.A.; Godsey, L.D.; Josiah, S.J. Markets and marketing strategies for agroforestry specialty products in North America. In New Vistas in Agroforestry; · DOI
  86. Nair, P.K.R., Rao, M.R., Buck, L.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 371-382. 122. The Savanna Institute. What Is Savannah-Based Restoration Agriculture? Available online: http://www. savannainstitute.org/about (accessed on 9 December 2015). 123. Multifunctional Landscape Analysis and Design. Available online: http://multifunctionallandscape.com/ Home_Page.html (accessed on 29 April 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, M., & Lovell, S.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Lovell, Sarah
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2016-06-18
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
574
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su8060574
OpenAlex
W2420107937
Cited by
280
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
35.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agroforestry and silvopastoral systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › African Botany and Ecology Studies
Keywords
agroforestry, sustainable agriculture, organic farming, conventional farming, food security, ecosystem services, greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient leaching, barriers to adoption, agricultural policy, land use, tree-crop systems, livestock integration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review