Search

Your search keyword '"den Herder M"' showing total 28 results
Start Over Author "den Herder M"

Refine your results

more »

more »
28 results on '"den Herder M"'

4. Agroforestry in the European common agricultural policy

Author

Mosquera-Losada, M. R., Santiago-Freijanes, J. J., Pisanelli, A., Rois-Díaz, M., Smith, J., den Herder, M., Moreno, G., Ferreiro-Domínguez, N., Malignier, N., Lamersdorf, N., Balaguer, F., Pantera, A., Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., Aldrey, J. A., González-Hernández, M. P., Fernández-Lorenzo, J. L., Romero-Franco, R., and Burgess, P. J.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Dynamic effects of insect herbivory and climate on tundra shrub growth:roles of browsing and ramet age

Author

Virtanen, R. (Risto), Clark, A. T. (Adam Thomas), den Herder, M. (Michael), and Roininen, H. (Heikki)

Subjects
EDM, climate change, plant–herbivore interactions, shrub, tundra, fungi, food and beverages, long‐term experiment
Abstract

1. To predict shrub responses under climate change in tundra, we need to understand how thermal conditions and herbivory contribute to growth. We hypothesise that shrub growth increases with thermal conditions and precipitation, but that this increase is counteracted by insect herbivory, and that these climate–insect herbivory relationships are modified by both browsing and plant age. 2. We use empirical dynamic modelling (EDM) to analyse a 20‐year time series on willow Salix phylicifolia shoot growth, growing degree days, summer precipitation and herbivory from an experiment at forest–tundra ecotone. The experiment includes manipulations of avian and mammal browsing (fences) and ramet age (pruning to rejuvenate willows). 3. Negative effects of insect herbivory on willow shoot growth were intensified during warmer years, whereas increasing precipitation led to reduced effects. Moreover, the effect of insect herbivores on shoot growth varied with ramet age and vertebrate browsing: younger ramets generally experienced less negative insect herbivore effects, whereas ptarmigan browsing was associated with more positive temperature effects on shoot growth, and reindeer browsing with more negative effects of insect herbivory and precipitation. 4. Synthesis. Our findings show that the negative effects of insect herbivory on shoot growth likely intensify under warmer thermal conditions, but that increasing precipitation can counteract these effects. Moreover, changes in thermal conditions, precipitation and vertebrate browsers all have predictable, albeit complex and nonlinear, effects on shrub growth, highlighting the importance of long‐term experimental data and flexible analytical methods such as EDM for characterising climate and community interactions in artic systems.

Published
2021

7. Location of studies and evidence of effects of herbivory on Arctic vegetation: a systematic map

Author

Soininen, E.M., Barrio, I.C., Bjørkås, R., Björnsdóttir, K., Ehrich, D., Hopping, K.A., Kaarlejärvi, E., Kolstad, A.L., Abdulmanova, S., Björk, R.G., Bueno, C.G., Eischeid, I., Finger-Higgens, R., Forbey, J.S., Gignac, C., Gilg, O., den Herder, M., Holm, H.S., Hwang, B.C., Jepsen, J.U., Kamenova, S., Kater, I., Koltz, A.M., Kristensen, J.A., Little, C.J., Macek, P., Mathisen, K.M., Metcalfe, Daniel B., Mosbacher, J.B., Mörsdorf, M., Park, T., Propster, J.R., Roberts, A.J., Serrano, E., Spiegel, M.P., Tamayo, M., Tuomi, M.W., Verma, M., Vuorinen, K.E.M., Väisänen, M., van der Wal, R., Wilcots, M.E., Yoccoz, N.G., Speed, J.D.M., Soininen, E.M., Barrio, I.C., Bjørkås, R., Björnsdóttir, K., Ehrich, D., Hopping, K.A., Kaarlejärvi, E., Kolstad, A.L., Abdulmanova, S., Björk, R.G., Bueno, C.G., Eischeid, I., Finger-Higgens, R., Forbey, J.S., Gignac, C., Gilg, O., den Herder, M., Holm, H.S., Hwang, B.C., Jepsen, J.U., Kamenova, S., Kater, I., Koltz, A.M., Kristensen, J.A., Little, C.J., Macek, P., Mathisen, K.M., Metcalfe, Daniel B., Mosbacher, J.B., Mörsdorf, M., Park, T., Propster, J.R., Roberts, A.J., Serrano, E., Spiegel, M.P., Tamayo, M., Tuomi, M.W., Verma, M., Vuorinen, K.E.M., Väisänen, M., van der Wal, R., Wilcots, M.E., Yoccoz, N.G., and Speed, J.D.M.

Abstract

Background: Herbivores modify the structure and function of tundra ecosystems. Understanding their impacts is necessary to assess the responses of these ecosystems to ongoing environmental changes. However, the effects of herbivores on plants and ecosystem structure and function vary across the Arctic. Strong spatial variation in herbivore effects implies that the results of individual studies on herbivory depend on local conditions, i.e., their ecological context. An important first step in assessing whether generalizable conclusions can be produced is to identify the existing studies and assess how well they cover the underlying environmental conditions across the Arctic. This systematic map aims to identify the ecological contexts in which herbivore impacts on vegetation have been studied in the Arctic. Specifically, the primary question of the systematic map was: “What evidence exists on the effects of herbivores on Arctic vegetation?”. Methods: We used a published systematic map protocol to identify studies addressing the effects of herbivores on Arctic vegetation. We conducted searches for relevant literature in online databases, search engines and specialist websites. Literature was screened to identify eligible studies, defined as reporting primary data on herbivore impacts on Arctic plants and plant communities. We extracted information on variables that describe the ecological context of the studies, from the studies themselves and from geospatial data. We synthesized the findings narratively and created a Shiny App where the coded data are searchable and variables can be visually explored. Review findings: We identified 309 relevant articles with 662 studies (representing different ecological contexts or datasets within the same article). These studies addressed vertebrate herbivory seven times more often than invertebrate herbivory. Geographically, the largest cluster of studies was in Northern Fennoscandia. Warmer and wetter parts of the Arctic had the, Errata: Soininen, E.M., Barrio, I.C., Bjørkås, R. et al. Correction to: Location of studies and evidence of effects of herbivory on Arctic vegetation: a systematic map. Environ Evid 2022;11:20. DOI: 10.1186/s13750-022-00265-z

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Location of studies and evidence of effects of herbivory on Arctic vegetation: a systematic map

Author

Soininen, E. M. (E. M.), Barrio, I. C. (I. C.), Bjørkås, R. (R.), Björnsdottir, K. (K.), Ehrich, D. (D.), Hopping, K. A. (K. A.), Kaarlejärvi, E. (E.), Kolstad, A. L. (A. L.), Abdulmanova, S. (S.), Björk, R. G. (R. G.), Bueno, C. G. (C. G.), Eischeid, I. (I), Finger-Higgens, R. (R.), Forbey, J. S. (J. S.), Gignac, C. (C.), Gilg, O. (O.), den Herder, M. (M.), Holm, H. S. (H. S.), Hwang, B. C. (B. C.), Jepsen, J. U. (J. U.), Kamenova, S. (S.), Kater, I. (I), Koltz, A. M. (A. M.), Kristensen, J. A. (J. A.), Little, C. J. (C. J.), Macek, P. (P.), Mathisen, K. M. (K. M.), Metcalfe, D. B. (D. B.), Mosbacher, J. B. (J. B.), Mörsdorf, M. (M.), Park, T. (T.), Propster, J. R. (J. R.), Roberts, A. J. (A. J.), Serrano, E. (E.), Spiegel, M. P. (M. P.), Tamayo, M. (M.), Tuomi, M. W. (M. W.), Verma, M. (M.), Vuorinen, K. E. (K. E. M.), Väisänen, M. (M.), Van der Wal, R. (R.), Wilcots, M. E. (M. E.), Yoccoz, N. G. (N. G.), Speed, J. D. (J. D. M.), Soininen, E. M. (E. M.), Barrio, I. C. (I. C.), Bjørkås, R. (R.), Björnsdottir, K. (K.), Ehrich, D. (D.), Hopping, K. A. (K. A.), Kaarlejärvi, E. (E.), Kolstad, A. L. (A. L.), Abdulmanova, S. (S.), Björk, R. G. (R. G.), Bueno, C. G. (C. G.), Eischeid, I. (I), Finger-Higgens, R. (R.), Forbey, J. S. (J. S.), Gignac, C. (C.), Gilg, O. (O.), den Herder, M. (M.), Holm, H. S. (H. S.), Hwang, B. C. (B. C.), Jepsen, J. U. (J. U.), Kamenova, S. (S.), Kater, I. (I), Koltz, A. M. (A. M.), Kristensen, J. A. (J. A.), Little, C. J. (C. J.), Macek, P. (P.), Mathisen, K. M. (K. M.), Metcalfe, D. B. (D. B.), Mosbacher, J. B. (J. B.), Mörsdorf, M. (M.), Park, T. (T.), Propster, J. R. (J. R.), Roberts, A. J. (A. J.), Serrano, E. (E.), Spiegel, M. P. (M. P.), Tamayo, M. (M.), Tuomi, M. W. (M. W.), Verma, M. (M.), Vuorinen, K. E. (K. E. M.), Väisänen, M. (M.), Van der Wal, R. (R.), Wilcots, M. E. (M. E.), Yoccoz, N. G. (N. G.), and Speed, J. D. (J. D. M.)

Abstract

Background: Herbivores modify the structure and function of tundra ecosystems. Understanding their impacts is necessary to assess the responses of these ecosystems to ongoing environmental changes. However, the effects of herbivores on plants and ecosystem structure and function vary across the Arctic. Strong spatial variation in herbivore effects implies that the results of individual studies on herbivory depend on local conditions, i.e., their ecological context. An important first step in assessing whether generalizable conclusions can be produced is to identify the existing studies and assess how well they cover the underlying environmental conditions across the Arctic. This systematic map aims to identify the ecological contexts in which herbivore impacts on vegetation have been studied in the Arctic. Specifically, the primary question of the systematic map was: ”What evidence exists on the effects of herbivores on Arctic vegetation?”. Methods: We used a published systematic map protocol to identify studies addressing the effects of herbivores on Arctic vegetation. We conducted searches for relevant literature in online databases, search engines and specialist websites. Literature was screened to identify eligible studies, defined as reporting primary data on herbivore impacts on Arctic plants and plant communities. We extracted information on variables that describe the ecological context of the studies, from the studies themselves and from geospatial data. We synthesized the findings narratively and created a Shiny App where the coded data are searchable and variables can be visually explored. Review findings We identified 309 relevant articles with 662 studies (representing different ecological contexts or datasets within the same article). These studies addressed vertebrate herbivory seven times more often than invertebrate herbivory. Geographically, the largest cluster of studies was in Northern Fennoscandia. Warmer and wetter parts of the Arctic

Published
2021

9. New agroforestry on European ecosystem service deficit farmland can compensate up to 43% of agricultural GHG emissions

Author

Herzog, F., Kay, S., Roces-Diaz, J., Crous-Durán, J., Giannitsopoulos, M., Graves, A., Den Herder, M., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, R., Pantera, A., Palma J., H., Paracchini, M.-L., Rega, C., Rolo, V., Rosati, A., and Smith J. Szerencsits, E.

Subjects
Carbon mitigation, European grassland, Greenhouse gas, Arable farmland
Abstract

Landscapes with a high share of agroforestry provide more regulating ecosystem services than landscapes dominated by conventional agriculture (Kay et al. 2018). Yet, which type of agroforestry to recommend depends on local and regional conditions and there may be regions where there is a higher need for agroforestry than others. We identified European farmlands where several ecosystem service (ES) deficits occur at the same time (soil erosion, low soil organic carbon and biodiversity, nitrate surplus, irrigation, low pest control and pollination potential). Almost ten percent of arable and grassland had more than five and four stacked deficits, respectively (Figure 1). In those areas, the introduction of agroforestry can help to reduce ES deficits. We propose 64 candidate agroforestry systems, which are locally adapted and attractive for farmers. They range from lines of trees around arable plots to relatively densely planted silvo-arable and silvo-pastoral systems. As an example for the reduction of ES deficits, we modelled the potential carbon sequestration of each candidate agroforestry system. The conversion of the 140,000 sqkm of priority farmland to agroforestry would sequester - depending mainly on the tree species and density - between 2 and 64 106 t of carbon per year in above and below ground biomass. This would correspond to up to 43 percent of the European greenhouse gas emissions attributed to the agricultural sector.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Agroforestry as an ally for the circular bioeconomy

Author

Rois Díaz, M., Den Herder, M., Amaral Paulo, J., Tomás, A., Villada, A., and Mosquera-Losada M., R.

Subjects
innovations, bioplastics, bio-fibres, sustainability
Abstract

The economic growth in the last decades has been running at the expense of our environment. Given that all products derived from fossil fuel can be obtained from biomass, agroforestry reveals itself as one of the best allies for the circular bioeconomy, which can be part of the solution to address some of the most eminent European and global challenges: climate change, biodiversity loss, increasing forest fires, the plastic ocean… Agroforestry is known for the diversification of products that can be obtained in an integrative way, providing a great variety of raw materials that may be later on transformed into bio-based products

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Agroforestry policy in Europe: current status and future prospects

Author

Mosquera-Losada M. R., Santiago-Freijanes J. J., Pantera A., Pisanelli A., Ferreiro-Domínguez N., Silva-Losada P., den Herder M., Rois Diaz M., Rodriguez-Rigueiro J., Arias-Martínez D., Villada A., and Rigueiro-Rodríguez A.

Subjects
silvopasture, forest farming, homegardens, silvoarable, policy
Abstract

Agroforestry is one of the most prominent tools to make easy the transition of European agricultural and forestry farms to more sustainable land use systems such as agroforestry. The extent of agroforestry in Europe is 19.5 million of hectares, of which 85% is allocated to silvopastoralism mainly associated to European Southern countries but also present in some Eastern countries. Silvopasture is associated to the improvement of livestock farming systems providing feed in a more sustainable way while increasing the multiple ouputs production from the same unit of land, therefore improving rural development. The current share of silvopastoralism in the EU is the 10% of the permanent grasslands which shows the huge potential that this land use has. The second most important agroforestry systems are the homegardens which represents the 8.3% of agroforestry lands and occupy around 8.65% of the land allocated to homegardens. Forest farming is not inventoried at all, while silvoarable only occupies almost half a million hectares and less than 1% of the arable land. Europe fosters agroforestry mostly through the Rural Development programs with more than 383 and 467 measures fostering agroforestry in one way or another in the previous CAP (2007-2013) and current CAP (2014-2020). Future measures should be fostered through the CAP Strategic plans developed at country level

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Dynamic effects of insect herbivory and climate on tundra shrub growth: roles of browsing and ramet age

Author

Virtanen, Risto, Clark, Adam Thomas, den Herder, M., Roininen, H., Virtanen, Risto, Clark, Adam Thomas, den Herder, M., and Roininen, H.

Abstract

To predict shrub responses under climate change in tundra, we need to understand how thermal conditions and herbivory contribute to growth. We hypothesise that shrub growth increases with thermal conditions and precipitation, but that this increase is counteracted by insect herbivory, and that these climate‐insect herbivory relationships are modified by both browsing and plant age. We use empirical dynamic modelling (EDM) to analyse a 20‐year time series on willow (Salix phylicifolia) shoot growth, growing degree days, summer precipitation and herbivory from an experiment at forest‐tundra ecotone. The experiment includes manipulations of avian and mammal browsing (fences) and ramet age (pruning to rejuvenate willows). Negative effects of insect herbivory on willow shoot growth were intensified during warmer years, whereas increasing precipitation led to reduced effects. Moreover, the effect of insect herbivores on shoot growth varied with ramet age and vertebrate browsing: younger ramets generally experienced less negative insect herbivore effects, whereas ptarmigan browsing was associated with more positive temperature effects on shoot growth, and reindeer browsing with more negative effects of insect herbivory and precipitation. Synthesis. Our findings show that the negative effects of insect herbivory on shoot growth likely intensify under warmer thermal conditions, but that increasing precipitation can counteract these effects. Moreover, changes in thermal conditions, precipitation and vertebrate browsers all have predictable, albeit complex and nonlinear, effects on shrub growth, highlighting the importance of long‐term experimental data and flexible analytical methods such as EDM for characterizing climate and community interactions in artic systems.

Published
2020

13. Location of studies and evidence of effects of herbivory on Arctic vegetation: a systematic map.

Author

Soininen, E. M., Barrio, I. C., Bjørkås, R., Björnsdóttir, K., Ehrich, D., Hopping, K. A., Kaarlejärvi, E., Kolstad, A. L., Abdulmanova, S., Björk, R. G., Bueno, C. G., Eischeid, I., Finger-Higgens, R., Forbey, J. S., Gignac, C., Gilg, O., den Herder, M., Holm, H. S., Hwang, B. C., and Jepsen, J. U.

Subjects
VEGETATION mapping, POPULATION density, PLANT anatomy, GEOSPATIAL data, SEARCH engines, ONLINE databases
Abstract

Background: Herbivores modify the structure and function of tundra ecosystems. Understanding their impacts is necessary to assess the responses of these ecosystems to ongoing environmental changes. However, the effects of herbivores on plants and ecosystem structure and function vary across the Arctic. Strong spatial variation in herbivore effects implies that the results of individual studies on herbivory depend on local conditions, i.e., their ecological context. An important first step in assessing whether generalizable conclusions can be produced is to identify the existing studies and assess how well they cover the underlying environmental conditions across the Arctic. This systematic map aims to identify the ecological contexts in which herbivore impacts on vegetation have been studied in the Arctic. Specifically, the primary question of the systematic map was: "What evidence exists on the effects of herbivores on Arctic vegetation?". Methods: We used a published systematic map protocol to identify studies addressing the effects of herbivores on Arctic vegetation. We conducted searches for relevant literature in online databases, search engines and specialist websites. Literature was screened to identify eligible studies, defined as reporting primary data on herbivore impacts on Arctic plants and plant communities. We extracted information on variables that describe the ecological context of the studies, from the studies themselves and from geospatial data. We synthesized the findings narratively and created a Shiny App where the coded data are searchable and variables can be visually explored. Review findings: We identified 309 relevant articles with 662 studies (representing different ecological contexts or datasets within the same article). These studies addressed vertebrate herbivory seven times more often than invertebrate herbivory. Geographically, the largest cluster of studies was in Northern Fennoscandia. Warmer and wetter parts of the Arctic had the largest representation, as did coastal areas and areas where the increase in temperature has been moderate. In contrast, studies spanned the full range of ecological context variables describing Arctic vertebrate herbivore diversity and human population density and impact. Conclusions: The current evidence base might not be sufficient to understand the effects of herbivores on Arctic vegetation throughout the region, as we identified clear biases in the distribution of herbivore studies in the Arctic and a limited evidence base on invertebrate herbivory. In particular, the overrepresentation of studies in areas with moderate increases in temperature prevents robust generalizations about the effects of herbivores under different climatic scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. CAP and agroforestry - Agroleśnictwo a WPR

Author

Mosquera-Losada M., Santiago-Freijanes J., Pisanelli A., Rois M., Smith J., den Herder M., Moreno G., Lamersdorf N., Ferreiro-Dominguez N., Balaguer F., Pantera A., Papanastis V., Rigueiro-Rodriguez A., Aldrey J.A., and Gonzalez-Hernandez MP.

Subjects
Pillar I, Pillar II Rural Development Programmes, Filar I WPR, Filar II WPR, program rozwoju obszarów wiejskich
Abstract

Agroleśnictwo jest zrównoważonym sposobem gospodarowania gruntami, który powinien być wspierany w ramach WPR. W obrębie I filara WPR, należy uwzględnić wsparcie do agroleśnictwa na gruntach ornych, pastwiskach trwałych i lasach w oparciu o plany zarządzania tymi gruntami, zarówno w perspektywie krótko- jak i długoterminowej. Filar II WPR powinien wspierać zakładanie oraz pielęgnację systemów rolno-leśnych zarówno na gruntach rolnych jak i leśnych. Należy zapewnić kwalifikowalność gruntów z zadrzewieniami do płatności bezpośrednich. Transformacja w kierunku agroleśnictwa powinna obejmować rozwój innowacji oraz dzielenie się wiedzą z wykorzystaniem usług doradztwa. - Agroforestry is a sustainable land use system that should be promoted by the CAP. Pillar I should support agroforestry on their 3 types of lands through the recognition of management plans at short and long term. Pillar II should support the establishment and maintenance of agroforestry in agricultural and forestry lands, and in the first case to ensure the land to remain eligible. Agroforestry transition should be promoted through the development of innovation and extension services.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. AGFORWARD Project Final Report

Author

Burgess, Paul, den Herder, M., Dupraz, C., Garnett, Kenisha, Giannitsopoulos, Michail, Graves, Anil, Hermansen, J. E., Kanzler, M., Liagre, F., Mirck, J., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, M. R., Palma, João H. N., Pantera, A., and Plieninger, T.

Subjects
Europe, Research, Land Use, Stakeholder, Agriculture, Forestry, Project, Agroforestry, Development, Co-ordination
Abstract

Executive summary: The AGFORWARD project (Grant Agreement N° 613520) had the overall goal to promote agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance sustainable rural development. It had four objectives (described below) which address 1) the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe, 2) identifying, developing and field-testing agroforestry innovations through participatory networks, 3) evaluating innovative designs and practices at field-, farm-, and landscape-scales, and promoting agroforestry in Europe through policy development and dissemination. Agroforestry is defined as the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. Context: European agroforestry has been estimated to cover 10.6 Mha (using a literature review) and 15.4 Mha using the pan-European LUCAS dataset (i.e. 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area). Livestock agroforestry (15.1 Mha) is, by far, the dominant type of agroforestry. The LUCAS analysis provides a uniform method to compare agroforestry areas between countries and over time. Identify, develop and field-test agroforestry innovations: 40 stakeholder groups (involving about 820 stakeholders across 13 European countries) developed and field-tested agroforestry innovations which have been reported in 40 “lesson learnt” reports, and in a user-friendly format in 46 “Agroforestry innovation leaflets”. The innovations for agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value included cheaper methods of tree protection and guidance for establishing legumes in wood pastures. Innovations for agroforestry with timber plantations, olive groves and apple orchards include the use of medicinal plants and reduction of mowing costs. Innovations for integrating trees on arable farms included assessments of yield benefits by providing wind protection. Innovations for livestock farms included using trees to enhance animal welfare, shade protection, and as a source of fodder. Peer-reviewed journal papers and conference presentations on these and other related topics were developed. Evaluation of agroforestry designs and practices at field- and landscape-scale: a range of publicly available field-scale analysis tools are available on the AGFORWARD website. These include the “CliPick” climate database, and web-applications of the Farm-SAFE and Hi-sAFe model. The results of field- and landscape-scale analysis, written up as peer-reviewed papers, highlight the benefits of agroforestry (relative to agriculture) for biodiversity enhancement and providing regulating ecosystem services, such as for climate and water regulation and purification. Policy development and dissemination: detailed reviews of existing policy and recommendations for future European agroforestry policy have been produced. The support provided is far wider than the single specified agroforestry measures. The recommendations included the collation of existing measures, and that agroforestry systems should not forfeit Pillar I payments. Opportunities for farmlevel and landscape-level measures were also identified. The project results can be found on the project website (www.agforward.eu), a Facebook account (www.facebook.com/AgforwardProject), a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/AGFORWARD_EU), and a quarterly electronic newsletter (http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/newsletters-1514.html). The number of national associations in Europe was extended to twelve, and a web-based training resource on agroforestry (http://train.agforward.eu/language/en/agforall/) created. AGFORWARD also supported the Third European Agroforestry Conference in Montpellier in 2016 attracting 287 delegates from 26 countries including many farmers. We also initiated another 21 national conferences or conference sessions on agroforestry, made about 240 oral presentations, 61 poster presentations, produced about 50 news articles, and supported about 87 workshop, training or field-visit activities (in addition to the stakeholder groups).

Published
2018

18. AFINET: agroforestry innovation thematic network

Author

Villada A., Verdonckt P., Ferreiro-Domínguez N., Rodríguez-Rigueiro F.J., Arias-Martínez D., Rois-Díaz M., den Herder M., Paris P., Pisanelli A., Reubens B., Nelissen V., Paulo J.A., Palma J.H.N., Vityi A., Szigeti N., Borek R., Galczynska M., Balaguer F., Smith J., Westaway S., Rigueiro-Rodríguez A., and Mosquera-Losada M.R.

Subjects
multi-actor approach, Knowledge transfer, silvoarable, silvopastoral
Abstract

AFINET is one of the seventeen thematic networks that the European Union has financed under the H2020 framework and it is supervised by the EIP-Agri in order to foster innovation in Europe. The main topic of AFINET is agroforestry a practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation with crops and/or animal systems and the promotion of this practice to foster climate changes. AFINET follows a multi-actor approach linked to the nine Regional Innovations Networks created to identify main challenges and develop main innovations about agroforestry. Main challenges were related to technical, economic, communication and policy issues.

Published
2018

20. AGFORWARD: achievments during the first two years

Author

Burgess, P.J., den Herder, M., Garnet, K., Graves, A.R., Hermansen, J., Liagre, F., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, M.R., Palma, J.H.N., Pantera, A., Plieninger, T., and Mirck, J.

Subjects
AGFORWARD, agroforestry
Abstract

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Published
2016

21. Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe

Author

Rois-Díaz, M., primary, Lovric, N., additional, Lovric, M., additional, Ferreiro-Domínguez, N., additional, Mosquera-Losada, M. R., additional, den Herder, M., additional, Graves, A., additional, Palma, J. H. N., additional, Paulo, J. A., additional, Pisanelli, A., additional, Smith, J., additional, Moreno, G., additional, García, S., additional, Varga, A., additional, Pantera, A., additional, Mirck, J., additional, and Burgess, P., additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. AGFORWARD Project Periodic Report: January to December 2014

Author

Burgess, P.J., Crous-Duran, J., den Herder, M., Dupraz, C., Fagerholm, N., Freese, D., Garnett, K., Graves, A.R., Hermansen, J.E., Liagre, F., Mirck, J., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, M.R., Palma, J.H.N., Pantera, A., Plieninger, T., and Upson, M.

Subjects
AGFORWARD, agroforestry
Abstract

Submitted by Margarida Galamba (galamba@isa.utl.pt) on 2015-09-09T15:24:37Z No. of bitstreams: 1 REP-CEF-3-AGFORWARD 613520 First Year Report 27 Feb 2015.pdf: 3329372 bytes, checksum: c2952e247a91e50d2f66c42d33b80387 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-09T15:24:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 REP-CEF-3-AGFORWARD 613520 First Year Report 27 Feb 2015.pdf: 3329372 bytes, checksum: c2952e247a91e50d2f66c42d33b80387 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-02

Published
2015

26. Herbivore diversity effects on Arctic tundra ecosystems: a systematic review.

Author

Barbero-Palacios L, Barrio IC, García Criado M, Kater I, Petit Bon M, Kolari THM, Bjørkås R, Trepel J, Lundgren E, Björnsdóttir K, Hwang BC, Bartra-Cabré L, Defourneaux M, Ramsay J, Lameris TK, Leffler AJ, Lock JG, Kuoppamaa MS, Kristensen JA, Bjorkman AD, Myers-Smith I, Lecomte N, Axmacher JC, Gilg O, Den Herder M, Pagneux EP, Skarin A, Sokolova N, Windirsch T, Wheeler HC, Serrano E, Virtanen T, Hik DS, Kaarlejärvi E, Speed JDM, and Soininen EM

Abstract

Background: Northern ecosystems are strongly influenced by herbivores that differ in their impacts on the ecosystem. Yet the role of herbivore diversity in shaping the structure and functioning of tundra ecosystems has been overlooked. With climate and land-use changes causing rapid shifts in Arctic species assemblages, a better understanding of the consequences of herbivore diversity changes for tundra ecosystem functioning is urgently needed. This systematic review synthesizes available evidence on the effects of herbivore diversity on different processes, functions, and properties of tundra ecosystems., Methods: Following a published protocol, our systematic review combined primary field studies retrieved from bibliographic databases, search engines and specialist websites that compared tundra ecosystem responses to different levels of vertebrate and invertebrate herbivore diversity. We used the number of functional groups of herbivores (i.e., functional group richness) as a measure of the diversity of the herbivore assemblage. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies using pre-defined eligibility criteria. We critically appraised the validity of the studies, tested the influence of different moderators, and conducted sensitivity analyses. Quantitative synthesis (i.e., calculation of effect sizes) was performed for ecosystem responses reported by at least five articles and meta-regressions including the effects of potential modifiers for those reported by at least 10 articles., Review Findings: The literature searches retrieved 5944 articles. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, 201 articles including 3713 studies (i.e., individual comparisons) were deemed relevant for the systematic review, with 2844 of these studies included in quantitative syntheses. The available evidence base on the effects of herbivore diversity on tundra ecosystems is concentrated around well-established research locations and focuses mainly on the impacts of vertebrate herbivores on vegetation. Overall, greater herbivore diversity led to increased abundance of feeding marks by herbivores and soil temperature, and to reduced total abundance of plants, graminoids, forbs, and litter, plant leaf size, plant height, and moss depth, but the effects of herbivore diversity were difficult to tease apart from those of excluding vertebrate herbivores. The effects of different functional groups of herbivores on graminoid and lichen abundance compensated each other, leading to no net effects when herbivore effects were combined. In turn, smaller herbivores and large-bodied herbivores only reduced plant height when occurring together but not when occurring separately. Greater herbivore diversity increased plant diversity in graminoid tundra but not in other habitat types., Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the importance of herbivore diversity in shaping the structure and function of Arctic ecosystems, with different functional groups of herbivores exerting additive or compensatory effects that can be modulated by environmental conditions. Still, many challenges remain to fully understand the complex impacts of herbivore diversity on tundra ecosystems. Future studies should explicitly address the role of herbivore diversity beyond presence-absence, targeting a broader range of ecosystem responses and explicitly including invertebrate herbivores. A better understanding of the role of herbivore diversity will enhance our ability to predict whether and where shifts in herbivore assemblages might mitigate or further amplify the impacts of environmental change on Arctic ecosystems., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

27. Is enhanced biodiversity protection conflicting with ambitious bioenergy targets in eastern Finland?

Author

den Herder M, Kurttila M, Leskinen P, Lindner M, Haatanen A, Sironen S, Salminen O, Juusti V, and Holma A

Subjects
Finland, Forests, Models, Theoretical, Recreation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Wood, Biodiversity, Biomass, Conservation of Natural Resources methods, Forestry methods
Abstract

The study describes how qualitative stakeholder feedback can be used in quantitative scenarios to simulate forest resource use under alternative management objectives. In earlier studies in the region of eastern Finland, stakeholders did not see a possible conflict between increased bioenergy use and nature conservation; this finding is contrary to the results of other studies. The aim of this study was to test with a quantitative modelling approach whether the stakeholder expectation holds and whether forest management in eastern Finland can simultaneously increase biomass utilization and biodiversity protection. Prior to this study, three alternative scenarios on forest resource use were created in a participatory stakeholder process, involving a broad range of stakeholders, with half of them being from research and education. In the current study, a large-scale forest resource planning model (MELA) and a sustainability impact assessment tool (ToSIA) were used to simulate the different alternative scenarios and present the results back to the stakeholders in order to evaluate them. The scenarios were evaluated by stakeholders using multi-criteria analysis. In a survey, the stakeholders indicated that biodiversity, employment, recreational value and greenhouse gas emissions were the most important indicators to them, whereas growing stock, amount of harvested roundwood, energy wood and protected forest area were considered less important. Of the created scenarios, the scenario combining bioenergy and biodiversity targets was the most preferred by the stakeholders as it performed well on those indicators that were identified by stakeholders as the most important. In this scenario, the area of protected forest and bioenergy production were increased simultaneously. With this study we offer a framework for evaluating different alternatives for future land use. The framework helps to identify key issues that are important to the stakeholders so that they can be taken into consideration in future land-use planning. In addition, the results confirm the stakeholder expectation that by protecting more forests while simultaneously increasing the mobilization of potentially available wood resources, both targets can be met without compromising too much other forest functions such as timber production and recreation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Stakeholder engagement in scenario development process - bioenergy production and biodiversity conservation in eastern Finland.

Author

Haatanen A, den Herder M, Leskinen P, Lindner M, Kurttila M, and Salminen O

Subjects
Finland, Forests, Policy Making, Surveys and Questionnaires, Wood, Biodiversity, Conservation of Natural Resources methods, Environment
Abstract

In this study participatory approaches were used to develop alternative forest resource management scenarios with particular respect to the effects on increased use of forest bioenergy and its effect on biodiversity in Eastern Finland. As technical planning tools, we utilized a forest management planning system (MELA) and the Tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment (ToSIA) to visualize the impacts of the scenarios. We organized a stakeholder workshop where group discussions were used as a participatory method to get the stakeholder preferences and insights concerning forest resource use in the year 2030. Feedback from the workshop was then complemented with a questionnaire. Based on the results of the workshop and a questionnaire we developed three alternative forest resource scenarios: (1) bioenergy 2030 - in which energy production is more centralized and efficient; (2) biodiversity 2030 - in which harvesting methods are more nature friendly and protected forests make up 10% of the total forest area; and (3) mixed bioenergy + biodiversity 2030 scenario - in which wood production, recreation and nature protection are assigned to the most suitable areas. The study showed that stakeholder engagement combined with the MELA and ToSIA tools can be a useful approach in scenario development., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results