Search

There is an increasing demand to study the long-term effects of land use from both local farm and wider societal and environmental perspectives. This study applied an approach to evaluate both the financial profitability of arable, agroforestry, and tree-only systems and the wider societal benefits over a period of 30-60 years. The biophysical inputs and yields from the three systems were modelled for three case study sites in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Switzerland, using a tree and crop simulation model called Yield-SAFE. A bio-economic model called Farm-SAFE was then used to compare the financial (EAVF) and economic (or societal) equivalent annual values (EAVE) by including monetary values for five environmental externalities: carbon dioxide emissions, carbon sequestration, soil erosion by water, and nitrogen and phosphorus balances. Across the three case studies, arable farming generated higher farm incomes than the agroforestry or tree-only systems, but the arable systems also created the greatest environmental costs. By comparison the agroforestry and tree-only systems generated lower CO2 emissions and sequestered more carbon. Applying monetary values to the environmental externalities meant that the EAVE of the agroforestry and tree-only systems were greater or similar to that for the arable system in the UK case study. In Spain, the slow predicted growth of the trees meant that, even after including the environmental externalities, the arable system created greater societal benefit than the agroforestry and tree-only systems. In Switzerland, including the environmental externalities increased the attraction of the tree-only system, but the high subsidies for arable and agroforestry systems meant that the EAVE for the agroforestry and arable systems were the most attractive from a farmer’s perspective. A breakeven analysis was used to determine the environmental externality values at which the agroforestry and tree-only systems produced the same societal r

Agroforestry systems have been compared to agricultural and forestry alternatives, providing a land-use solution for additional environmental benefits while maintaining similar levels of productivity. However, there is scarce research assessing such patterns across a pan-European scale using a common methodology. This study aims to improve our understanding of the role of trees in three different regulating ecosystem services—(1) soil erosion, (2) nitrate leaching and (3) carbon sequestration—in traditional and innovative agroforestry systems in Europe through a consistent modeling approach. The systems’ assessment spans environmentally from the Mediterranean environmental region in Portugal to the Continental environmental region in Switzerland and Germany to the Atlantic environmental region in the United Kingdom. Modeled tree densities were compared in the different land-use alternatives, ranging from zero (agriculture with only crops or pasture) to forestry (only trees). The methodology included the use of a biophysical model (Yield-SAFE) where the quantification of the environmental benefits was integrated. Results show a consistent improvement of regulating ecosystem services can be expected when introducing trees in the farming landscapes in different environmental regions in Europe. For all the systems, the forestry alternatives presented the best results in terms of a decrease in soil erosion of 51% (±29), a decrease of nearly all the nitrate leaching (98% ± 1) and an increase in the carbon sequestration of up to 238 Mg C ha−1 (±140). However, these alternatives are limited in the variety of food, energy and/or materials provided. On the other hand, from an arable or pure-pasture alternative starting point, an increase in agroforestry tree density could also be associated with a decrease in soil erosion of up to 25% (±17), a decrease in nitrates leached of up to 52% (±34) and an increase in the carbon sequestered of 163 Mg C ha−1 (±128) while at the same ti

There is increased interest in the role of trees to reduce air pollution and thereby improve human health and well-being. This study determined the removal of air pollutants by dry deposition of trees across the Basque Country and estimated its annual economic value. A model that calculates the hourly dry deposition of NO2, O3, SO2, CO and PM10 on trees at a 1 km x 1 km resolution at a regional scale was developed. The calculated mean annual rates of removal of air pollution across various land uses were 12.9 kg O3 ha-1, 12.7 kg PM10 ha-1, 3.0 kg NO2 ha-1, 0.8 kg SO2 ha-1 and 0.2 kg CO ha-1. The results were then categorised according to land use in order to determine how much each land use category contributed to reducing air pollution and to determine to what extent trees provided pollution reduction benefits to society. Despite not being located in the areas of highest pollutions, coniferous forests, which cover 25% of the land, were calculated to absorb 21% of the air pollution. Compared to other land uses, coniferous forests were particularly effective in removing air pollution because of their high tree cover density and the duration of leaf life-span. The total economic value provided by the trees in reducing these pollutants in terms of health benefits was estimated to be 60 million yr-1 which represented around 0.09% of the Gross Domestic Product of the Basque Country in 2016. Whilst most health impacts from air pollution are in urban areas the results indicate that most air pollution is removed in rural areas. © 2019 Elsevier B.V.

There is increased interest in the role of trees to reduce air pollution and thereby improve human health and well-being. This study determined the removal of air pollutants by dry deposition of trees across the Basque Country and estimated its annual economic value. A model that calculates the hourly dry deposition of NO2, O3, SO2, CO and PM10 on trees at a 1 km x 1 km resolution at a regional scale was developed. The calculated mean annual rates of removal of air pollution across various land uses were 12.9 kg O3 ha-1, 12.7 kg PM10 ha-1, 3.0 kg NO2 ha-1, 0.8 kg SO2 ha-1 and 0.2 kg CO ha-1. The results were then categorised according to land use in order to determine how much each land use category contributed to reducing air pollution and to determine to what extent trees provided pollution reduction benefits to society. Despite not being located in the areas of highest pollutions, coniferous forests, which cover 25% of the land, were calculated to absorb 21% of the air pollution. Compared to other land uses, coniferous forests were particularly effective in removing air pollution because of their high tree cover density and the duration of leaf life-span. The total economic value provided by the trees in reducing these pollutants in terms of health benefits was estimated to be 60 million yr-1 which represented around 0.09% of the Gross Domestic Product of the Basque Country in 2016. Whilst most health impacts from air pollution are in urban areas the results indicate that most air pollution is removed in rural areas. © 2019 Elsevier B.V.

Agroforestry systems have been compared to agricultural and forestry alternatives, providing a land-use solution for additional environmental benefits while maintaining similar levels of productivity. However, there is scarce research assessing such patterns across a pan-European scale using a common methodology. This study aims to improve our understanding of the role of trees in three different regulating ecosystem services—(1) soil erosion, (2) nitrate leaching and (3) carbon sequestration—in traditional and innovative agroforestry systems in Europe through a consistent modeling approach. The systems’ assessment spans environmentally from the Mediterranean environmental region in Portugal to the Continental environmental region in Switzerland and Germany to the Atlantic environmental region in the United Kingdom. Modeled tree densities were compared in the different land-use alternatives, ranging from zero (agriculture with only crops or pasture) to forestry (only trees). The methodology included the use of a biophysical model (Yield-SAFE) where the quantification of the environmental benefits was integrated. Results show a consistent improvement of regulating ecosystem services can be expected when introducing trees in the farming landscapes in different environmental regions in Europe. For all the systems, the forestry alternatives presented the best results in terms of a decrease in soil erosion of 51% (±29), a decrease of nearly all the nitrate leaching (98% ± 1) and an increase in the carbon sequestration of up to 238 Mg C ha−1 (±140). However, these alternatives are limited in the variety of food, energy and/or materials provided. On the other hand, from an arable or pure-pasture alternative starting point, an increase in agroforestry tree density could also be associated with a decrease in soil erosion of up to 25% (±17), a decrease in nitrates leached of up to 52% (±34) and an increase in the carbon sequestered of 163 Mg C ha−1 (±128) while at the same ti

There is increased interest in the role of trees to reduce air pollution and thereby improve human health and well-being. This study determined the removal of air pollutants by dry deposition of trees across the Basque Country and estimated its annual economic value. A model that calculates the hourly dry deposition of NO2, O3, SO2, CO and PM10 on trees at a 1 km x 1 km resolution at a regional scale was developed. The calculated mean annual rates of removal of air pollution across various land uses were 12.9 kg O3 ha-1, 12.7 kg PM10 ha-1, 3.0 kg NO2 ha-1, 0.8 kg SO2 ha-1 and 0.2 kg CO ha-1. The results were then categorised according to land use in order to determine how much each land use category contributed to reducing air pollution and to determine to what extent trees provided pollution reduction benefits to society. Despite not being located in the areas of highest pollutions, coniferous forests, which cover 25% of the land, were calculated to absorb 21% of the air pollution. Compared to other land uses, coniferous forests were particularly effective in removing air pollution because of their high tree cover density and the duration of leaf life-span. The total economic value provided by the trees in reducing these pollutants in terms of health benefits was estimated to be 60 million yr-1 which represented around 0.09% of the Gross Domestic Product of the Basque Country in 2016. Whilst most health impacts from air pollution are in urban areas the results indicate that most air pollution is removed in rural areas. © 2019 Elsevier B.V.

Agroforestry systems have been compared to agricultural and forestry alternatives, providing a land-use solution for additional environmental benefits while maintaining similar levels of productivity. However, there is scarce research assessing such patterns across a pan-European scale using a common methodology. This study aims to improve our understanding of the role of trees in three different regulating ecosystem services—(1) soil erosion, (2) nitrate leaching and (3) carbon sequestration—in traditional and innovative agroforestry systems in Europe through a consistent modeling approach. The systems’ assessment spans environmentally from the Mediterranean environmental region in Portugal to the Continental environmental region in Switzerland and Germany to the Atlantic environmental region in the United Kingdom. Modeled tree densities were compared in the different land-use alternatives, ranging from zero (agriculture with only crops or pasture) to forestry (only trees). The methodology included the use of a biophysical model (Yield-SAFE) where the quantification of the environmental benefits was integrated. Results show a consistent improvement of regulating ecosystem services can be expected when introducing trees in the farming landscapes in different environmental regions in Europe. For all the systems, the forestry alternatives presented the best results in terms of a decrease in soil erosion of 51% (±29), a decrease of nearly all the nitrate leaching (98% ± 1) and an increase in the carbon sequestration of up to 238 Mg C ha−1 (±140). However, these alternatives are limited in the variety of food, energy and/or materials provided. On the other hand, from an arable or pure-pasture alternative starting point, an increase in agroforestry tree density could also be associated with a decrease in soil erosion of up to 25% (±17), a decrease in nitrates leached of up to 52% (±34) and an increase in the carbon sequestered of 163 Mg C ha−1 (±128) while at the same ti

Food security, climate change mitigation, and land use challenges are interlinked and need to be considered simultaneously. One possible solution is sustainable intensification, which is the practice of increasing food production per area of land whilst also reducing the environmental impacts associated with this. Agroforestry has been stated to be a practice that meets this definition. In this study, a new methodology is presented to assess the potential of different management options as sustainable intensification practices. The methodology is based on comparing the carbon emissions associated with the production of food and the carbon sequestered for that same activity for a particular quantity of food produced over a specific area and over a specific time. The resulting indicator, the carbon balance is the difference between the greenhouse gasses emitted (considered as negative values) and carbon sequestered (positive values) estimated in Mg CO 2eq per Mg of food produced on one hectare of land for one year. The carbon balance quantifies the global warming potential associated with sustainable intensification by integrating a process-based model with life cycle analysis and is able to estimate above-and below-ground biomass and soil carbon content. This methodology is tested in Portugal for wheat production under crop monoculture and agroforestry systems. The results show agroforestry to be a suitable practice for sustainable intensification compared to a crop monoculture as it just slightly decreased wheat yields whilst providing a positive carbon balance from year 50 onwards of approximately 1 Mg of CO 2eq sequestered per Mg of wheat produced. © SISEF.

Food security, climate change mitigation, and land use challenges are interlinked and need to be considered simultaneously. One possible solution is sustainable intensification, which is the practice of increasing food production per area of land whilst also reducing the environmental impacts associated with this. Agroforestry has been stated to be a practice that meets this definition. In this study, a new methodology is presented to assess the potential of different management options as sustainable intensification practices. The methodology is based on comparing the carbon emissions associated with the production of food and the carbon sequestered for that same activity for a particular quantity of food produced over a specific area and over a specific time. The resulting indicator, the carbon balance is the difference between the greenhouse gasses emitted (considered as negative values) and carbon sequestered (positive values) estimated in Mg CO 2eq per Mg of food produced on one hectare of land for one year. The carbon balance quantifies the global warming potential associated with sustainable intensification by integrating a process-based model with life cycle analysis and is able to estimate above-and below-ground biomass and soil carbon content. This methodology is tested in Portugal for wheat production under crop monoculture and agroforestry systems. The results show agroforestry to be a suitable practice for sustainable intensification compared to a crop monoculture as it just slightly decreased wheat yields whilst providing a positive carbon balance from year 50 onwards of approximately 1 Mg of CO 2eq sequestered per Mg of wheat produced. © SISEF.

Food security, climate change mitigation, and land use challenges are interlinked and need to be considered simultaneously. One possible solution is sustainable intensification, which is the practice of increasing food production per area of land whilst also reducing the environmental impacts associated with this. Agroforestry has been stated to be a practice that meets this definition. In this study, a new methodology is presented to assess the potential of different management options as sustainable intensification practices. The methodology is based on comparing the carbon emissions associated with the production of food and the carbon sequestered for that same activity for a particular quantity of food produced over a specific area and over a specific time. The resulting indicator, the carbon balance is the difference between the greenhouse gasses emitted (considered as negative values) and carbon sequestered (positive values) estimated in Mg CO 2eq per Mg of food produced on one hectare of land for one year. The carbon balance quantifies the global warming potential associated with sustainable intensification by integrating a process-based model with life cycle analysis and is able to estimate above-and below-ground biomass and soil carbon content. This methodology is tested in Portugal for wheat production under crop monoculture and agroforestry systems. The results show agroforestry to be a suitable practice for sustainable intensification compared to a crop monoculture as it just slightly decreased wheat yields whilst providing a positive carbon balance from year 50 onwards of approximately 1 Mg of CO 2eq sequestered per Mg of wheat produced. © SISEF.

Context: Agroforestry systems in temperate Europe are known to provide both, provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it is poorly understood how these systems affect ES provision at a landscape scale in contrast to agricultural practises. Objectives: This study aimed at developing a novel, spatially explicit model to assess and quantify bundles of provisioning and regulating ES provided by landscapes with and without agroforestry systems and to test the hypothesis that agroforestry landscapes provide higher amounts of regulating ES than landscapes dominated by monocropping. Methods: Focussing on ES that are relevant for agroforestry and agricultural practices, we selected six provisioning and regulating ES biomass production , groundwater recharge , nutrient retention , soil preservation , carbon storage , habitat and gene pool protection . Algorithms for quantifying these services were identified, tested, adapted, and applied in a traditional cherry orchard landscape in Switzerland, as a case study. Eight landscape test sites of 1 km × 1 km, four dominated by agroforestry and four dominated by agriculture, were mapped and used as baseline for the model. Results: We found that the provisioning ES, namely the annual biomass yield, was higher in landscape test sites with agriculture, while the regulating ES were better represented in landscape test sites with agroforestry. The differences were found to be statistically significant for the indicators annual biomass yield, groundwater recharge rate, nitrate leaching, annual carbon sequestration, flowering resources, and share of semi-natural habitats. Conclusions: This approach provides an example for spatially explicit quantification of provisioning and regulating ES and is suitable for comparing different land use scenarii at landscape scale. (c) 2018, Springer Nature B.V.

Agroforestry combines perennial woody elements (e.g. trees) with an agricultural understory (e.g. wheat, pasture) which can also potentially be used by a livestock component. In recent decades, modern agroforestry systems have been proposed at European level as land use alternatives for conventional agricultural systems. The potential range of benefits that modern agroforestry systems can provide includes farm product diversification (food and timber), soil and biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and the soil. Whilst typically these include benefits such as food and timber provision, potentially, there are benefits in the form of carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and in the soil. Quantifying the effect of agroforestry systems on soil carbon is important because it is one means by which atmospheric carbon can be sequestered in order to reduce global warming. However, experimental systems that can combine the different alternative features of agroforestry systems are difficult to implement and long-term. For this reason, models are needed to explore these alternatives, in order to determine what benefits different combinations of trees and understory might provide in agroforestry systems. This paper describes the integration of the widely used soil carbon model RothC, a model simulating soil organic carbon turnover, into Yield-SAFE, a parameter sparse model to estimate aboveground biomass in agroforestry systems. The improvement of the Yield-SAFE model focused on the estimation of input plant material into soil (i.e. leaf fall and root mortality) while maintaining the original aspiration for a simple conceptualization of agroforestry modeling, but allowing to feed inputs to a soil carbon module based on RothC. Validation simulations show that the combined model gives predictions consistent with observed data for both SOC dynamics and tree leaf fall. Two case study systems are examined: a cork oak system in South Portugal

Context: Agroforestry systems in temperate Europe are known to provide both, provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it is poorly understood how these systems affect ES provision at a landscape scale in contrast to agricultural practises. Objectives: This study aimed at developing a novel, spatially explicit model to assess and quantify bundles of provisioning and regulating ES provided by landscapes with and without agroforestry systems and to test the hypothesis that agroforestry landscapes provide higher amounts of regulating ES than landscapes dominated by monocropping. Methods: Focussing on ES that are relevant for agroforestry and agricultural practices, we selected six provisioning and regulating ES biomass production , groundwater recharge , nutrient retention , soil preservation , carbon storage , habitat and gene pool protection . Algorithms for quantifying these services were identified, tested, adapted, and applied in a traditional cherry orchard landscape in Switzerland, as a case study. Eight landscape test sites of 1 km × 1 km, four dominated by agroforestry and four dominated by agriculture, were mapped and used as baseline for the model. Results: We found that the provisioning ES, namely the annual biomass yield, was higher in landscape test sites with agriculture, while the regulating ES were better represented in landscape test sites with agroforestry. The differences were found to be statistically significant for the indicators annual biomass yield, groundwater recharge rate, nitrate leaching, annual carbon sequestration, flowering resources, and share of semi-natural habitats. Conclusions: This approach provides an example for spatially explicit quantification of provisioning and regulating ES and is suitable for comparing different land use scenarii at landscape scale. (c) 2018, Springer Nature B.V.

Agroforestry combines perennial woody elements (e.g. trees) with an agricultural understory (e.g. wheat, pasture) which can also potentially be used by a livestock component. In recent decades, modern agroforestry systems have been proposed at European level as land use alternatives for conventional agricultural systems. The potential range of benefits that modern agroforestry systems can provide includes farm product diversification (food and timber), soil and biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and the soil. Whilst typically these include benefits such as food and timber provision, potentially, there are benefits in the form of carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and in the soil. Quantifying the effect of agroforestry systems on soil carbon is important because it is one means by which atmospheric carbon can be sequestered in order to reduce global warming. However, experimental systems that can combine the different alternative features of agroforestry systems are difficult to implement and long-term. For this reason, models are needed to explore these alternatives, in order to determine what benefits different combinations of trees and understory might provide in agroforestry systems. This paper describes the integration of the widely used soil carbon model RothC, a model simulating soil organic carbon turnover, into Yield-SAFE, a parameter sparse model to estimate aboveground biomass in agroforestry systems. The improvement of the Yield-SAFE model focused on the estimation of input plant material into soil (i.e. leaf fall and root mortality) while maintaining the original aspiration for a simple conceptualization of agroforestry modeling, but allowing to feed inputs to a soil carbon module based on RothC. Validation simulations show that the combined model gives predictions consistent with observed data for both SOC dynamics and tree leaf fall. Two case study systems are examined: a cork oak system in South Portugal

Context: Agroforestry systems in temperate Europe are known to provide both, provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it is poorly understood how these systems affect ES provision at a landscape scale in contrast to agricultural practises. Objectives: This study aimed at developing a novel, spatially explicit model to assess and quantify bundles of provisioning and regulating ES provided by landscapes with and without agroforestry systems and to test the hypothesis that agroforestry landscapes provide higher amounts of regulating ES than landscapes dominated by monocropping. Methods: Focussing on ES that are relevant for agroforestry and agricultural practices, we selected six provisioning and regulating ES biomass production , groundwater recharge , nutrient retention , soil preservation , carbon storage , habitat and gene pool protection . Algorithms for quantifying these services were identified, tested, adapted, and applied in a traditional cherry orchard landscape in Switzerland, as a case study. Eight landscape test sites of 1 km × 1 km, four dominated by agroforestry and four dominated by agriculture, were mapped and used as baseline for the model. Results: We found that the provisioning ES, namely the annual biomass yield, was higher in landscape test sites with agriculture, while the regulating ES were better represented in landscape test sites with agroforestry. The differences were found to be statistically significant for the indicators annual biomass yield, groundwater recharge rate, nitrate leaching, annual carbon sequestration, flowering resources, and share of semi-natural habitats. Conclusions: This approach provides an example for spatially explicit quantification of provisioning and regulating ES and is suitable for comparing different land use scenarii at landscape scale. (c) 2018, Springer Nature B.V.

Agroforestry combines perennial woody elements (e.g. trees) with an agricultural understory (e.g. wheat, pasture) which can also potentially be used by a livestock component. In recent decades, modern agroforestry systems have been proposed at European level as land use alternatives for conventional agricultural systems. The potential range of benefits that modern agroforestry systems can provide includes farm product diversification (food and timber), soil and biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and the soil. Whilst typically these include benefits such as food and timber provision, potentially, there are benefits in the form of carbon sequestration, both in woody biomass and in the soil. Quantifying the effect of agroforestry systems on soil carbon is important because it is one means by which atmospheric carbon can be sequestered in order to reduce global warming. However, experimental systems that can combine the different alternative features of agroforestry systems are difficult to implement and long-term. For this reason, models are needed to explore these alternatives, in order to determine what benefits different combinations of trees and understory might provide in agroforestry systems. This paper describes the integration of the widely used soil carbon model RothC, a model simulating soil organic carbon turnover, into Yield-SAFE, a parameter sparse model to estimate aboveground biomass in agroforestry systems. The improvement of the Yield-SAFE model focused on the estimation of input plant material into soil (i.e. leaf fall and root mortality) while maintaining the original aspiration for a simple conceptualization of agroforestry modeling, but allowing to feed inputs to a soil carbon module based on RothC. Validation simulations show that the combined model gives predictions consistent with observed data for both SOC dynamics and tree leaf fall. Two case study systems are examined: a cork oak system in South Portugal

Recent studies projecting future climate change impacts on forests mainly consider either the effects of climate change on productivity or on disturbances. However, productivity and disturbances are intrinsically linked because 1) disturbances directly affect forest productivity (e.g. via a reduction in leaf area, growing stock or resource-use efficiency), and 2) disturbance susceptibility is often coupled to a certain development phase of the forest with productivity determining the time a forest is in this specific phase of susceptibility. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of forest productivity changes in different forest regions in Europe under climate change, and partition these changes into effects induced by climate change alone and by climate change and disturbances. We present projections of climate change impacts on forest productivity from state-of-the-art forest models that dynamically simulate forest productivity and the effects of the main European disturbance agents (fire, storm, insects), driven by the same climate scenario in seven forest case studies along a large climatic gradient throughout Europe. Our study shows that, in most cases, including disturbances in the simulations exaggerate ongoing productivity declines or cancel out productivity gains in response to climate change. In fewer cases, disturbances also increase productivity or buffer climate-change induced productivity losses, e.g. because low severity fires can alleviate resource competition and increase fertilization. Even though our results cannot simply be extrapolated to other types of forests and disturbances, we argue that it is necessary to interpret climate change-induced productivity and disturbance changes jointly to capture the full range of climate change impacts on forests and to plan adaptation measures.

InEurope, agroforestry systems have been used mainly in traditional agriculture toprovide a variety of agricultural and tree products. However, during the last three centuries, the agricultural landscape inEuropehas seen a steady reduction of agroforestry. The reduction has been greatest since 1950, as the introduction of land consolidation programmes and agricultural mechanisation encouraged the removal of hedges and isolated trees from agricultural land. However, as the environmental costs of intensive agriculture have become apparent, there has been an increasing interest in the promotion of ecologically sound practices. Novel silvoarable techniquescould potentially offer a range of environmental and economic benefits in comparison with conventional arable cropping.The EU project "Silvoarable Agroforestry forEurope" investigated the European context of modern silvoarable agroforestry. It aimed to reduce uncertainties concerning the productivity and profitability of silvoarable systems, and to suggest European policy guidelines for agroforestry implementation.Within this broad framework, an integrated assessment of the environmental and economic performance of SAF was undertaken with the objective of assisting decision-makers implement ecologically sound land management practices. This was done in four steps: (i) developing an environmental assessment platform, (ii) applying the platform to test sites across Europe, (iii) co-ordinating economic assessments to the same test sites, and(iv) joiningboth environmental and economic results into an integrated interpretation.Chapter 2 describes the environmental assessment methodology to evaluate SAF systems based on the adaptation of existing models and the development of specific algorithms to predict the environmental effects of SAF at a farm- and landscape-scale. Modeling is needed when experiments are costly or too time consuming as in the case of agroforestry, where we assumed an average rotation to last 60 years.Th