Trade-Off between Energy Wood and Grain Production in Temperate Alley-Cropping Systems: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Derivation of Land Equivalent Ratio
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Sites
2.2. Plot Design and Yield Assessment
2.3. Empirically-Determined Land Equivalent Ratio
2.4. Calibration and Validation of the Yield-SAFE Model (Yield Estimator for Long-Term Design of Silvoarable AgroForestry in Europe)
2.5. Yield-SAFE Simulations of Tree and Crop Yields and Land Equivalent Ratio
3. Results
3.1. Yield Assessment
3.2. Empirically-Determined Land Equivalent Ratio
3.3. Validation of the Yield-SAFE Model
3.4. Yield-SAFE Simulations of Tree and Crop Yields and Land Equivalent Ratio
3.5. Optimum Ratios of Tree Area to Crop Area
4. Discussion
4.1. Yield Assessment
4.2. Empirically Determined Land Equivalent Ratio
4.3. Yield-SAFE Simulations of Tree and Crop Yields and Land Equivalent Ratio
4.4. Optimum Ratios of Tree Area to Crop Area
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Symbol | Description | Unit | Location | Value | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tree Parameters | |||||
Initial Conditions | |||||
nShoots0 | Initial number of shoots per tree | tree−1 | Wendhausen | 1.256 | Own data |
Neu Sacro | 1.086 | ||||
Bt0 | Initial tree biomass | g tree−1 | Wendhausen | 40 | [52] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
LAt0 | Initial tree leaf area | m2 tree−1 | Wendhausen | 0 | [29,31,52] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
Parameters | |||||
εt | Radiation use efficiency | g MJ−1 | Wendhausen | 1.1100 | Own data |
Neu Sacro | 0.9912 | ||||
kt | Light extinction coefficient | Wendhausen | 0.8 | [29,31] | |
Neu Sacro | |||||
tt | The number of days after bud-burst at which the leaf area has reached 63.2% of its maximum leaf area LAssmax | d | Wendhausen | 10 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
LAssmax | Maximum leaf area for a single shoot | m2 | Wendhausen | 0.04 | [52] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
nShootsmax | Maximum number of shoots per tree | tree−1 | Wendhausen | 10,000 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
Kmain | Relative attrition rate of tree biomass | d−1 | Wendhausen | 10−4 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
γt | Transpiration coefficient of the trees | m3 kg−1 | Wendhausen | 0.2 | [52] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
(pFcrit)t | Critical pF value | log (cm) | Wendhausen | 4.0 | [31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
(pFpwp)t | pF value at permanent wilting point | log (cm) | Wendhausen | 4.2 | [31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
Tree Phenology | |||||
DOYbudburst, DOYleaffall | Day of year for bud-burst and leaf fall | DOY | Wendhausen | 105, 300 | [52] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
Management Parameters | |||||
ρt | Planting density | trees ha−1 | Wendhausen | 10,000 | [23] |
Neu Sacro | 8700 | [21] |
Symbol | Description | Unit | Crop | Location | Value | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crop Parameters | ||||||
Initial Conditions | ||||||
Bc0 | Initial crop biomass | g m−2 | All | All | 10 | [29] |
LAc0 | Initial crop leaf area | m2 m−2 | All | All | 0.1 | [29] |
Pleaves | Partitioning factor to leaves | All | All | 0.8 | [29] | |
Parameters | ||||||
εc | Radiation use efficiency | g MJ−1 | ww | NS | 1.690 | Own data |
wb | NS | 1.033 | ||||
wr | WH | 1.017 | ||||
ww | WH | 0.907 | ||||
kc | Light extinction coefficient | All | All | 0.7 | [29] | |
(pFcrit)c | Critical pF value | log (cm) | wb | All | 2.9 | [29,52] |
ww, wr | 3.2 | |||||
(pFpwp)c | pF value at permanent wilting point | log (cm) | All | All | 4.2 | [29] |
SLA | Specific leaf area | m2 g−1 | ww, wb | NS | 0.005 | [52] |
wr | WH | 0.020 | ||||
ww | WH | 0.005 | ||||
T0 | Base temperature | °C | All | All | 5 | [29] |
Tsum emerge | Heat sum at emergence | °Cd | All | All | 57 | [29] |
79 | ||||||
Tsum RB | Heat sum when partitioning to leaves starts to decrease | °Cd | All | All | 456 | [29] |
500 | ||||||
Tsum RE | Heat sum when partitioning to leaves ceases | °Cd | All | All | 464 | [29] |
1300 | ||||||
Tsum harvest | Heat sum at harvest | °Cd | All | All | 1312 | [29] |
2000 | ||||||
Management Parameters | ||||||
DOYsow | Day of sowing | DOY | ww | NS | −65 | [47] |
wb | NS | −60 | [29] | |||
wr | WH | −116 | [29] | |||
ww | WH | −95 | [20] | |||
DOYharvest | Day of harvest | DOY | ww, wb | NS | 245 | [20] |
wr | WH | 225 | [29] | |||
ww | WH | 300 | [29] |
Symbol | Description | Unit | Crop | Location | Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Soil Parameters | |||||
Initial Conditions | |||||
θ0 | Initial volumetric water content | m3 m−3 | Wendhausen | 0.552 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
Parameters | |||||
δeva | Potential evaporation per unit energy | mm MJ−1 | Wendhausen | 0.15 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
D | Depth of the soil compartment | mm | Wendhausen | 900 | [23] |
Neu Sacro | 1400 | [21] | |||
α | Van Genuchten parameter | Wendhausen | 0.0083 | [36] | |
Neu Sacro | 0.0383 | ||||
nsoil | Van Genuchten parameter | Wendhausen | 1.2539 | [36] | |
Neu Sacro | 1.3774 | ||||
δ | Parameter affecting the drainage rate below root zone | Wendhausen | 0.07 | [36] | |
Neu Sacro | |||||
PWP | Permanent wilting point | log (cm) | Wendhausen | 4.2 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
(pFcrit)E | Critical pF value for evaporation | log (cm) | Wendhausen | 2.3 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
pFFC | Water tension at field capacity | log (cm) | Wendhausen | 2.3 | [29,31] |
Neu Sacro | |||||
Ks | Soil hydraulic conductivity at saturation | mm d−1 | Wendhausen | 24.8 | [36] |
Neu Sacro | 60.0 | ||||
θs | Saturated volumetric water content | m3 m−3 | Wendhausen | 0.520 | [36] |
Neu Sacro | 0.403 | ||||
θr | Residual volumetric water content | m3 m−3 | Wendhausen | 0.010 | [36] |
Neu Sacro | 0.025 |
Wendhausen | Neu Sacro | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yield Per Cropped Area | Yield Per ACS (Yi) | Relative Yields (Yi/Y100) | LER (Equation (2)) | Gross Energy Yield (GJ ha−1) | Yield Per Cropped Area | Yield Per ACS (Yi) | Relative Yields (Yi/Y100) | LER (Equation (2)) | Gross Energy Yield (GJ ha−1) | ||||||||||
(Mg DM ha−1 yr−1) | (Mg DM ha−1 yr−1) | ||||||||||||||||||
Plant | Area (%) | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | ||
Tree | 0 | 1 | 1 | 220 | 1 | 1 | 151 | ||||||||||||
Crop | 100 | 3.7 | 7.2 | 3.7 | 7.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
Tree | 20 | 10.6 | 13.5 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 244 | 14.0 | 12.9 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 264 |
Crop | 80 | 3.2 | 6.4 | 2.6 | 5.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 6.1 | 5.8 | 4.9 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 | ||||||
Tree | 25 | 10.5 | 13.4 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 232 | 14.4 | 13.1 | 3.6 | 3.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 250 |
Crop | 75 | 2.5 | 5.6 | 1.9 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 5.3 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 0.9 | ||||||
Tree | 40 | 10.4 | 13.3 | 4.2 | 5.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 235 | 14.8 | 13.5 | 5.9 | 5.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 270 |
Crop | 60 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | ||||||
Tree | 50 | 10.3 | 13.1 | 5.2 | 6.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 248 | 14.9 | 13.5 | 7.5 | 6.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 298 |
Crop | 50 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.3 | ||||||
Tree | 60 | 10.3 | 13.0 | 6.2 | 7.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 274 | 14.9 | 13.6 | 8.9 | 8.2 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 334 |
Crop | 40 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | ||||||
Tree | 75 | 10.2 | 12.9 | 7.7 | 9.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 324 | 14.9 | 13.6 | 11.2 | 10.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 401 |
Crop | 25 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
Tree | 80 | 10.2 | 12.8 | 8.2 | 10.2 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 342 | 14.9 | 13.5 | 11.9 | 10.8 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 423 |
Crop | 20 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
Tree | 100 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 | 348 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1 | 1 | 333 |
Crop | 0 |
References
- Wesche, K.; Krause, B.; Culmsee, H.; Leuschner, C. Fifty years of change in Central European grassland vegetation: Large losses in species richness and animal-pollinated plants. Biol. Conser. 2012, 150, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, S.; Wesche, K.; Krause, B.; Leuschner, C. Dramatic impoverishment of arable plant communities since the 1950s/60s—A large scale analysis across geological substrate groups. Divers. Distrib. 2013, 19, 1175–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsiafouli, M.A.; Thébault, E.; Sgardelis, S.P.; Ruiter, P.C.; van der Putten, W.H.; Birkhofer, K.; Hemerik, L.; de Vries, F.T.; Bardgett, R.D.; Brady, M.V.; et al. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 973–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zscheischler, J.; Gaasch, N.; Butler Manning, D.; Weith, T. Land Use Competition Related to Woody Biomass Production on Arable Land in Germany. In Land Use Competition. Human-Environment Interactions; Niewohner, J., Bruns, A., Hostert, P., Krueger, T., Nielsen, J.Ø., Haberl, H., Lauk, C., Lutz, J., Müller, D., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 193–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landis, D.A. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2017, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Birkhofer, K.; Andersson, G.K.S.; Bengtsson, J.; Bommarco, R.; Dänhardt, J.; Ekbom, B.; Ekroos, J.; Hahn, T.; Hedlund, K.; Jönsson, A.M.; et al. Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape complexity gradient. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 218, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morhart, C.D.; Douglas, G.C.; Dupraz, C.; Graves, A.R.; Nahm, M.; Paris, P.; Sauter, U.H.; Sheppard, J.; Spiecker, H. Alley coppice—A new system with ancient roots. Ann. For. Sci. 2014, 71, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veste, M.; Böhm, C. Agrarholz—Schnellwachsende Bäume in der Landwirtschaft; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, C.; Weber, M.; Knoke, T. Agroforestry versus farm mosaic systems—Comparing land-use efficiency, economic returns and risks under climate change effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 587–588, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Stefano, A.; Jacobson, M.G. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: A meta-analysis. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verchot, L.V.; Van Noordwijk, M.; 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. 2007, 12, 901–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoeneberger, M.; Bentrup, G.; de Gooijer, H.; Soolanayakanahally, R.; Sauer, T.; Brandle, J.; Zhou, X.; Current, D. Branching out: Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2012, 67, 128A–136A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsonkova, P.; Böhm, C.; Quinkenstein, A.; Freese, D. Ecological benefits provided by alley cropping systems for production of woody biomass in the temperate region: A review. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 85, 133–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsonkova, P.; Mirck, J.; Böhm, C.; Fütz, B. Addressing farmer-perceptions and legal constraints to promote agroforestry in Germany. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 1091–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graves, A.R.; Burgess, P.J.; Liagre, F.; Pisanelli, A.; Paris, P.; Moreno, G.; Bellido, M.; Mayus, M.; Postma, M.; Schindler, B.; et al. Farmer Perceptions of Silvoarable Systems in Seven European Countries. In Agroforestry in Europe; Rigueiro-Rodróguez, A., McAdam, J., Mosquera-Losada, M.R., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media B.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2009; Volume 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rois-Díaz, M.; Lovric, N.; Ferreiro-Domínguez, M.N.; Mosquera-Losada, M.R.; den Herder, M.; Graves, A.; Palma, J.H.N.; Paulo, J.A.; Pisanelli, A.; Smith, J.; et al. Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: Evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 811–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Böhm, C. Erarbeitung Einer Kontrollfähigen Definition für Agroforstschläge. Eine Initiative der Innovationsgruppe AUFWERTEN in Zusammenarbeit Mit der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Agroforst Deutschland. 2017. Available online: http://agroforst-info.de/rechtliche-und-politische-rahmenbedingungen (accessed on 3 August 2018).
- Mead, R.; Willey, R.W. The concept of a ‘Land Equivalent Ratio’ and advantages in yields from intercropping. Exp. Agric. 1980, 16, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swieter, A.; Langhof, M.; Lamerre, J.; Greef, J.M. Long-term yields of oilseed rape and winter wheat in a short rotation alley cropping agroforestry system. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanzler, M.; Böhm, C. Nachhaltige Erzeugung von Energieholz in Agroforstsystemen (AgroForstEnergie II): Teilvorhaben 2: Bodenschutz, Bodenfruchtbarkeit, Wasserhaushalt und Mikroklima Schlußbericht. In Fachgebiet für Bodenschutz und Rekultivierung; Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg: Cottbus, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lamerre, J.; Schwarz, K.U.; Langhof, M.; von Wühlisch, G.; Greef, J.M. Productivity of poplar short rotation coppice in an alley-cropping agroforestry system. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 933–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamerre, J.; Langhof, M.; Sevke-Masur, K.; Schwarz, K.U.; von Wühlisch, G.; Swieter, A.; Greef, J.M.; Dauber, J.; Hirschberg, F.; Joormann, I.; et al. Nachhaltige Erzeugung von Energieholz in Agroforstsystemen: Teilprojekt 3: Standort Niedersachsen, Strukturvielfalt und Biodiversität. Schlußbericht. In Institut für Pflanzenbau und Bodenkunde; Julius Kühn-Institut Bundesforschungsinstitut für Kulturpflanzen (JKI): Braunschweig, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hytönen, J.; Lumme, I.; Törmälä, T. Comparison of Methods for Estimating Willow Biomass. Biomass 1987, 14, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langton, S. Avoiding edge effects in agroforestry experiments; the use of neighbourbalanced designs and guard areas. Agrofor. Syst. 1990, 12, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veste, M.; Malaga Linares, R.A.; Seserman, D.M.; Schmitt, D.; Wachendorf, M.; Küppers, M. Annual Leaf Carbon Fluxes, Light Interception, and Stand Structure of Poplars and Black Locusts in an Alley-Cropping System, Lower Lusatia, Germany. In Proceedings of the 4th European Agroforestry Conference: Agroforestry as Sustainable Land Use, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 28–30 May 2018; pp. 488–492. [Google Scholar]
- Kaltschmitt, M.; Hartmann, H.; Hofbauer, H. Energie aus Biomasse: Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Werf, W.; Keesman, K.; Burgess, P.J.; Graves, A.R.; Pilbeam, D.; Incoll, L.D.; Metselaar, K.; Mayus, M.; Stappers, R.; van Keulen, H.; et al. Yield-SAFE: A parameter-sparse, process-based dynamic model for predicting resource capture, growth, and production in agroforestry systems. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 29, 419–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Graves, A.R.; Burgess, P.J.; Palma, J.; Keesman, K.J.; van der Werf, W.; Dupraz, C.; van Keulen, H.; Herzog, F.; Mayus, M. Implementation and calibration of the parameter-sparse Yield-SAFE model to predict production and land equivalent ratio in mixed tree and crop systems under two contrasting production situations in Europe. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221, 1744–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palma, J.H.N.; Graves, A.R.; Crous-Duran, J.; Upson, M.; Paulo, J.A.; Oliveira, T.S.; Silvestre Garcia de Jalón, S.; Burgess, P.J. Yield-SAFE Model Improvements; Milestone Report 29 (6.4) for EU FP7 Research Project: AGFORWARD 613520; Sine Nomine: Lisboa, Portugal, 2016; p. 30. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/12337 (accessed on 20 March 2019).
- Keesman, K.J.; Graves, A.; van der Werf, W.; Burgess, P.; Palma, J.; Dupraz, C.; van Keulen, H. A system identification approach for developing and parameterising an agroforestry system model under constrained availability of data. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2011, 26, 1540–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgess, P.J.; Graves, A.; Metselaar, K.; Stappers, R.; Keesman, K.; Palma, J.; Mayus, M.; van der Werf, W. Description of Plot-SAFE Version 0.3, Unpublished Document; Cranfield University: Bedfordshire, UK, 2004; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- Burgess, P.; Graves, A.; Palma, J.; Herzog, F.; Keesman, K.; van der Werf, W. EU SAFE Project Deliverable 6.4: Parametrization of the Yield-SAFE Model and Its Use to Determine Yields at the Landscape Test. Sites; Cranfield University-Institute of Water and Environment: Bedfordshire, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Palma, J.H.N.; Graves, A.R.; Bunce, R.G.H.; Burgess, P.J.; de Filippi, R.; Keesman, K.J.; van Keulen, H.; Liagre, F.; Mayus, M.; Reisner, Y.; et al. Modeling environmental benefits of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 119, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palma, J.H.N.; Paulo, J.A.; Tome, M. Carbon sequestration of modern Quercus suber L. silvoarable agroforestry systems in Portugal: A YieldSAFE-based estimation. Agrofor. Syst. 2014, 88, 791–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wösten, J.H.M.; Lilly, A.; Nemes, A.; Le Bas, C. Development and use of a database of hydraulic properties of European soils. Geoderma 1999, 90, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ojeda, J.J.; Volenec, J.J.; Brouder, S.M.; Caviglia, O.P.; Agnusdei, M.G. Evaluation of Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM) as yield predictor of Panicum virgatum and Miscanthus x giganteus in several US environments. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 796–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, M.; Nunes, T.; Heuer, C.; Marshall, J.; Sanchez, J.; Thornton, R.; Reiczigel, J.; Robison-Cox, J.; Sebastiani, P.; Solymos, P.; et al. epiR: Tools for the Analysis of Epidemiological Data, R Package Version 1.0-2. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epiR (accessed on 20 June 2019).
- Mitchell, C.P.; Stevens, E.A.; Watters, M.P. Short rotation forestry—Operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 121, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aylott, M.J.; Casella, E.; Tubby, I.; Street, N.R.; Smith, P.; Taylor, G. Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. New Phytol. 2008, 178, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calfapietra, C.; Gielen, B.; Karnosky, D.; Ceulemans, R.; Mugnozza, G.S. Response and potential of agroforestry crops under global change. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1095–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bemmann, A.; Feger, K.H.; Gerold, D.; Große, W.; Hartmann, K.U.; Petzold, R.; Röhle, H.; Schweinle, J.; Steinke, C. Kurzumtriebsplantagen auf landwirtschaftlichen Flächen in der Region Großenhain im Freistaat Sachsen. Forstarchiv 2007, 78, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
- Döhler, H. Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft, 13th ed.; Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. KTBL: Darmstadt, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Seserman, D.M.; Pohle, I.; Veste, M.; Freese, D. Simulating Climate Change Impacts on Hybrid-Poplar and Black Locust Short Rotation Coppices. Forests 2018, 9, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohle, I.; Koch, H.; Conradt, T.; Gädeke, A.; Grünewald, U. Potential impacts of climate change and regional anthropogenic activities in Central European mesoscale catchments. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2015, 60, 912–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerstengarbe, F.W.; Badeck, F.; Hattermann, F.; Krysanova, V.; Lahmer, W.; Lasch, P.; Stock, M.; Suckow, F.; Wechsung, F.; Werner, P.C. Studie zur klimatischen Entwicklung im Land Brandenburg bis 2055 und deren Auswirkungen auf den Wasserhaushalt, die Forst- und Landwirtschaft sowie die Ableitung erster Perspektiven. Potsdam. Inst. Clim. Impact Res. 2003, 83, 96. [Google Scholar]
- Kanzler, M.; Böhm, C.; Mirck, J.; Schmitt, D.; Veste, M. Microclimate effects on evaporation and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield within a temperate agroforestry system. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruckhaus, A.; Buchner, W. Hecken in der Agrarlandschaft: Auswirkungen auf Feldfruchtertrag und ökologische Kenngrößen. Ber. Über Landwirtsch. 1995, 73, 435–465. [Google Scholar]
- Dupraz, C.; Blitz-Frayret, C.; Lecomte, I.; Molto, Q.; Reyes, F.; Gosme, M. Influence of latitude on the light availability for intercrops in an agroforestry alley-cropping system. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 1019–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terreaux, J.P.; Chavet, M. An intertemporal approach of Land Equivalent Ratio for agroforestry plots. Lameta DT 2004, 15, 18. [Google Scholar]
- Palma, J.H.N.; Oliveira, T.; Crous-Duran, J.; Graves, A.R.; Garcia de Jalon, S.; Upson, M.; Giannitsopoulos, M.; Burgess, P.J.; Paulo, J.A.; Tomé, M.; et al. Modelled Agroforestry Outputs at Field and Farm Scale to Support Biophysical and Environmental Assessments; Deliverable 6.17 (6.2) for EU FP7 Research Project: AGFORWARD project 613520; Sine Nomine: Lisboa, Portugal, 2017; p. 162. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/14799 (accessed on 20 March 2019).
- Crous-Duran, J.; Graves, A.R.; Paulo, J.A.; Mirck, J.; Oliveira, T.S.; Kay, S.; García de Jalón, S.; Palma, J.H.N. Modelling tree density effects on provisioning ecosystem services in Europe. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Experimental Site | Wendhausen | Neu Sacro |
---|---|---|
Latitude; Longitude | 52°19′54′′ N; 10°37′52′′ E | 51°46′54′′ N; 14°37′18′′ E |
Altitude | 85 m a.s.l. | 67 m a.s.l. |
Year of planting | Winter season 2007/2008 [22] | Winter season 2010/2011 [21] |
Year of first harvest | Winter season 2013/2014 [22] | Winter season 2014/2015 [21] |
Year of second harvest | Winter season 2017/2018 | Winter season 2017/2018 |
Soil characteristics | ||
Soil type | Pelosol [22] | Pseudogleysol [21] |
Soil texture | Silty clay [22] | Loamy sand [21] |
Meteorological conditions | ||
Mean annual temperature (°C) | 9.8 a | 9.6 b |
Average annual precipitation (mm) | 616 a | 568 b |
Monoculture system | ||
Tree species | Poplar (Populus nigra L. × P. maximowicii Henry, clone “Max I”) | |
Tree rotation cycle | 3-year [22] | 4-year (1st rotation) [21] 3-year (2nd rotation) |
Tree row orientation | North-South | North-South |
Area trees (m2) | 70 × 70 [22,23] | 11 × 25 |
Tree spacing (m) | 2 × 0.5 [22] | 1.3 × 0.9 [21] |
Tree planting density (ha−1) | 10,000 [22] | 8700 [21] |
Crop species | Winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.); Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) | Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.); Winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) |
Area cropped (ha) | 3 [20] | 30 [21] |
Alley-cropping system | ||
Tree species | Poplar (Populus nigra L. × P. maximowicii Henry, clone “Max I”), with cultivated cropped alleys | |
Tree rotation cycle | 6-year | 4-year (1st rotation) 3-year (2nd rotation) |
Tree row orientation | North-South | North-South |
Area tree strips (m2) * | 10 × 225 [20] | 10 × 660 [21] |
Tree spacing (m) | 2 × 0.5 [20,22] | 2.6 × 0.4 |
Tree planting density (ha−1) | 10,000 [20,22] | 9800 |
Crop species | Winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.); Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) | Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.); Winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) |
Area cropped alleys (m2) | 48 × 225 [20] | 48 × 660 [21] |
Location | Wendhausen | Neu Sacro | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species | WR | WW | Poplar | WW | WB | Poplar | ||||
Year | 2016 | 2017 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016/2017 | 2017/2018 | ||
Alley-cropping-plots | Dry matter yield (Mg DM ha−1 a−1) | AP1 | 3.1 | 6.0 | 10.3 | 12.9 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 13.8 | 12.8 |
AP2 | 2.9 | 5.7 | 10.7 | 12.6 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 13.4 | 12.6 | ||
AP3 | 2.7 | 6.8 | 10.9 | 14.0 | 6.3 | 6.0 | 13.9 | 12.5 | ||
AP4 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 10.3 | 12.9 | 6.4 | 4.6 | 14.6 | 13.0 | ||
Average AP | 2.9 | 6.1 | 10.5 | 13.1 | 6.3 | 5.0 | 13.9 | 12.8 | ||
Energy (GJ ha−1) | 619 | 689 | ||||||||
CV AP (%) | 7 – | 8 – | 3 – | 5 – | 3 – | 13 – | 4 – | 2 – | ||
Monoculture-plots | Dry matter yield (Mg DM ha−1 a−1) | M1 | 3.5 | 7.0 | 4.2 | 3.2 | ||||
M2 | 3.9 | 6.8 | 4.2 | 3.5 | ||||||
M3 | 3.9 | 7.6 | 5.5 | 3.7 | ||||||
M4 | 3.5 | 7.4 | 6.3 | 4.5 | ||||||
Average MP | 3.7 | 7.2 | 9.4 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 9.0 | ||||
Energy (GJ ha−1) | 221 | 348 | 151 | 333 | ||||||
CV MP (%) | 6 | 5 | 20 | 16 | ||||||
CV AP vs. MP (%) | 14* | 10* | 6* | 18* | 17 – | 21* | 23* | 19* |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Seserman, D.-M.; Freese, D.; Swieter, A.; Langhof, M.; Veste, M. Trade-Off between Energy Wood and Grain Production in Temperate Alley-Cropping Systems: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Derivation of Land Equivalent Ratio. Agriculture 2019, 9, 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9070147
Seserman D-M, Freese D, Swieter A, Langhof M, Veste M. Trade-Off between Energy Wood and Grain Production in Temperate Alley-Cropping Systems: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Derivation of Land Equivalent Ratio. Agriculture. 2019; 9(7):147. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9070147
Chicago/Turabian StyleSeserman, Diana-Maria, Dirk Freese, Anita Swieter, Maren Langhof, and Maik Veste. 2019. "Trade-Off between Energy Wood and Grain Production in Temperate Alley-Cropping Systems: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Derivation of Land Equivalent Ratio" Agriculture 9, no. 7: 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9070147