Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE) European Research contract QLK5-CT-2001-00560 Final progress report covering the period August 2004 to 31 January 2005 1.4 Poplar Cherry 1.2 Oak Pine d Walnut el 1.0 yi ee 0.8 r t ve 0.6 7 ti a Tree transpiration Rel 0.4 6 Crop transpiration Soil evaporation 0.2 5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -1y1.44 Relative crop yield da m m 3 2 1 0 01/01/2002 01/04/2002 30/06/2002 28/09/2002 27/12/2002 27/03/2003 25/06/2003 23/09/2003 1.0 d el yi0.8 p cro0.6 e v0.4 ati Rel0.2 0.0 0 10 20 30 Arable 156 trees/ha Silsoe Leeds SAFE PROJECT FINAL PROGRESS REPORT 1 Volume 3 : Contractor Reports, May 2005 Foreword This volume includes the contributions of the 10 Contractors of the SAFE project during the fourth year of the project. Most of the information is included here. For a rapid survey of the achievements of the SAF E consortium, please refer to Volume 1 (Synthesis) and Volume 2 (Work-Package reports). Service tree (Sorbus domestica L.) is a promising agroforestry tree that was however not considered during the SAFE project. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 CONTRACTOR 1: INRA – SYSTEM........................................................................................6 SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT ON THE WPS................................................................................6 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES...................................................................................................8 WP2: European Silvoarable knowledge..........................................................................................8 WP3 Silvoarable experimental network..........................................................................................9 WP4 Above-ground interactions...................................................................................................21 WP5 Below-ground interactions...................................................................................................22 WP6a Biophysical integrated plot model Hi-sAFe.......................................................................38 WP6b: Simple biophysical model Yield-sAFe...............................................................................44 WP7. Economics of silvoarable agroforestry................................................................................56 WP10. Project co-ordination........................................................................................................56 2 CONTRACTOR 1: INRA-AMAP.............................................................................................90 SCIENTIFIC TEAM...............................................................................................................................90 TIME SPENT ON THE DIFFERENT WORKPACKAGES.............................................................................91 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES.................................................................................................91 WP4. Above-ground interactions (0.6 person-months).................................................................91 WP6. Modelling (5.6 person-months)...........................................................................................91 DISSEMINATION.................................................................................................................................92 Participation in meetings and workshops.....................................................................................92 Scientific publications...................................................................................................................92 Utilisation de maquettes architecturales de Noyers hybrides pour Hi-sAFe. (in French)............92 References...................................................................................................................................105 3 CONTRACTOR 1: INRA – UAFP..........................................................................................106 SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT ON THE WPS............................................................................106 4 SUB-CONTRACTOR TO INRA :ICRAF..............................................................................130 5 SUB-CONTRACTOR TO INRA :CTL...................................................................................132 1 . Installation de sites expérimentaux :......................................................................................133 2 . Suivis et mesure de sites expérimentaux :..............................................................................133 6 CONTRACTOR 2: WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY............................................................135 SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT ON THE WPS............................................................................135 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES...............................................................................................135 SUB-CONTRACTOR FINIS E.V.: CONTRIBUTIONS TO WP9..............................................................136 SUB-CONTRACTOR GPG: CONTRIBUTION TO WP9.........................................................................137 7 CONTRACTOR 3: NERC - CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY................141 SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT ON THE WPS............................................................................141 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES...............................................................................................141 WP5 Below-ground interactions.................................................................................................141 SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 3 WP8 Scaling up to the farm and region......................................................................................142 WP9 European guidelines for agroforestry................................................................................142 Significant difficulties during the reporting period.....................................................................147 8 CONTRACTOR 4: UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS.....................................................................148 2. SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT ON THE WPS........................................................................148 1. Partner number, name and address of the participating organisation...................................148 3. Time spent on the different workpackages during year 4 (months)........................................148 4. CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES...........................................................................................149 4.1 WP1 Silvoarable modelling strategies..................................................................................149 4.2 WP2 European silvoarable knowledge.................................................................................149 4.3 WP3 Silvoarable experimental network................................................................................149 4.3.1. T3.1: Collect data from existing experiments as required by the modelling activity........150 4.3.2 At the SAFE experimental sites specific information needed to parameterise the biophysical model will be collected................................................................................................................153 4.3.3. Results and deliverables....................................................................................................153 4.3.4. Future work.......................................................................................................................153 5. OTHER WORK...............................................................................................................................154 6. SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTIES OR DELAYS EXPERIENCED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD...........154 7. DISSEMINATION...........................................................................................................................154 9 CONTRACTOR 5: CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY.................................................................155 SCIENTIFIC TEAM.............................................................................................................................155 TIME SPENT ON THE DIFFERENT WORK-PACKAGES.........................................................................155 CONTRIBUTION TO WORK-PACKAGES.............................................................................................155 WP6B. Minimal biophysical integrated model: Yield-sAFe........................................................155 WP7. Economic modelling at a plot-scale..................................................................................158 WP8. Scaling up to the farm and region....................................................................................158 References...................................................................................................................................159 10 SUB-CONTRACTOR TO CRAN : BEAM........................................................................160 11 CONTRACTOR 6: CNR-PORANO....................................................................................161 2. SCIENTIFIC TEAM.........................................................................................................................161 2.1. Principal Investigators.........................................................................................................161 3.TIME SPENT ON THE DIFFERENT WORKPACKAGES........................................................................162 4. CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES:..........................................................................................162 4.1. WP2: European Silvoarable Knowledge..............................................................................162 4.2. WP3. Silvoarable experimental network..............................................................................163 4.3. WP4 Above ground interactions...........................................................................................170 4.4. WP9 EU guidelines..............................................................................................................172 12 CONTRACTOR 7: UNIVERSITY OF EXTRAMADURA..............................................177 SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT ON THE WPS............................................................................177 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES...............................................................................................177 PERSON-MONTHS.....................................................................................................................178 WP2. EUROPEAN SILVOARABLE KNOWLEDGE................................................................................178 WP3. SILVOARABLE EXPERIMENT WORK........................................................................................178 WP4. Above-ground interactions................................................................................................179 WP5. Below-ground interactions................................................................................................179 WP8. Scaling-up to the farm and the region...............................................................................180 WP9. European guidelines for policy..........................................................................................180 SUB-CONTRACTED WORK TO FGN..................................................................................................181 EXPLOITATION AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES............................................................................181 LIST OF ANNEXES.............................................................................................................................181 SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 4 13 CONTRACTOR 8: FAL.......................................................................................................183 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES..............................................................................................183 WP1. Silvoarable modelling strategies (2.0 person-months)......................................................183 WP2. European silvoarable knowledge (2.0 person-months).....................................................183 WP6. Biophysical integrated plot modelling (1.0 person-month)...............................................183 WP7. Economic modelling at the plot scale (2.0 person-month)................................................184 WP8. Scaling-up to the farm and the region (48.0 person-months)............................................184 WP9. European guidelines for policy implementation (5.3 person-months)..............................184 FUTURE WORK.................................................................................................................................185 SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTIES OR DELAYS EXPERIENCED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD...............185 14 CONTRACTOR 9: APCA....................................................................................................186 SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT ON THE WPS............................................................................186 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES...............................................................................................186 WP2 European silvoarable knowledge (10 person-month).........................................................186 WP7 Economic modelling at the plot scale (9.0 person-months)................................................189 WP8 Scaling-up to the farm and the region (14.0 person-months).............................................203 WP9 European guidelines for policy implementation (8.4 person-months)...............................204 15 CONTRACTOR 10: UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI..............................................215 SCIENTIFIC TEAM AND TIME SPENT OF THE WPS.............................................................................215 CONTRIBUTION TO WORKPACKAGES...............................................................................................215 Workpackage 2: European silvoarable knowledge.....................................................................215 SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 5 INRA Report 1 Contractor 1: INRA – SYSTEM Name and address of the participating organisation (cid:13) Contractor 1: INRA – SYSTEM (FRANCE) INRA-SYSTEM, Systèmes de Culture Méditerranéens et Tropicaux, 2 Pl. Viala, 34060 Montpellier Cedex 1, France Scientific team and time spent on the WPs Principal investigators Name. Unit Tel Fax E-mail Dr. Dupraz Christian SYSTEM 33 4 99 61 23 39 33 4 67 52 21 16 [email protected] Lecomte Isabelle SYSTEM 33 4 99 61 25 52 33 4 67 52 21 16 [email protected] Dr. Dufour Lydie SYSTEM 33 4 67 61 75 71 33 4 67 61 55 12 [email protected] Mineau Jonathan CTL 33 4 99 61 25 52 33 4 67 52 21 16 [email protected] Mulia Rachmat SYSTEM 33 4 99 61 26 84 33 4 67 52 21 16 [email protected] Time spent on the different work packages during the final 6 months For the purpose of the project coordination, this table includes some time for Christian Dupraz and Isabelle Lecomte for the project coordination in February and March 2005, as allowed by the technical annex of the contract and approved by the project officer in Brussels. INRA Staff Name Unit WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 WP8 WP9 WP10 Total Dupraz Christian SYSTEM 0,5 1 3,1 1,75 0,2 3,5 10,05 Lecomte Isabelle SYSTEM 1 4 6 1 12 Mulia Rachmat SYSTEM 2 10 12 Dufour Lydie SYSTEM 2 1 1 4 Martina Mayus SYSTEM 0,7 1,5 0,2 0,6 5,5 0,2 0,3 9 Total INRA-SYSTEM 0 0,7 6 3,2 18,7 13,25 0,2 0 0,5 4,5 47,05 INRA-SYSTEM sub-contractors Jonathan Mineau CTL 4 4 Jean-Philippe Terreaux CHAV 6 6 Meine van Noordwijk ICRAF 0,5 0,5 Grégoire Vincent ICRAF 2 2 4 Betha Lusiana ICRAF 1,2 1,2 Degi Harga ICRAF 1,5 1,5 Total 0 0 4 2 3,2 2 6 0 0 0 17,2 Grand total 0 0,7 10 5,2 21,9 15,25 6,2 0 0,5 4,5 64,25 The final total of INRA-SYSTEM time allocation to the whole SAFE project is 120.5 person- month of INRA staff (compared to 105 indicated in the contract) and 43 person-months of sub-contractor staff (identical to the contract). SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 Wild cherry trees responded spectacularly to the The Swiss team leader Felix Herzog gifted the localized nitrogen experiment at INRA-SYSTEM. project coordinator Christian Dupraz with this Nitrogen was localized in only two voxels resulting in a superb book on extra-ordinary trees of the world parallelepiped rooting pattern. Walnut trees did not react at the Zurich final workshop of the SAFE project as strongly. A view of the split-root experiment with hybrid walnut trees that allowed to calibrate the The SAFE project 2005 greeting card was prepared by responsiveness of the tree root system to an INRA-SYSTEM as part of WP10 (coordination) activity heterogeneous environment A view of the chair of the SAFE final national Conference Measurements of poplar sap flow at the at Paris on January 26 2005. Vézénobres experimental plot in collaboration with From left to right : Michel Delacroix, President of the colleagues from CNRS in Toulouse (Etienne forest commission of APCA, Luc Guyau, President of Muller and Luc Lambs) APCA, Christian Dupraz, coordinator of the SAFE project and Fabien Liagre, SAFE WP2 leader SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 7 Contribution to work packages WP2: European Silvoarable knowledge While being contracted by INRA-System, Martina Mayus kept monitoring the Netherlands sub-contractors of WU. Here are some details of this activity during the last period of the contract. Supervision of the literature study of the MSc student Michel Postma: “Its’a all in the mix. - Agroforestry, a prospective land use system for the Netherlands”. The overall aim of this report is to explore the potential of agroforestry as an innovative and sustainable multiple land use system in the Netherlands. Agroforestry systems with prospects for the Netherlands, appropriate tree and crop species as well as required regulations and subsidies with respect to Agroforestry were identified. Four distinct agroforestry practices (Figure 2 and 3) are considered to be appropriate and innovative for The Netherlands, namely: 1. silvoarable agroforestry, comprising widely-spaced trees and/or shrubs associated with arable crops 2. silvopastoral agroforestry, a combination of trees, forage (pasture) and livestock 3. forest gardening, comprising multi-species and multi-storied dense plant associations, planted and/or managed in such way that they mimic the structure and the ecological processes of natural forests 4. forest farming, the cultivation of edible, medicinal or decorative specialty crops as under-storey in (semi)natural woodlands. Table 1. Windbreaks and riparian buffers are common practices in the Netherlands. SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 8 Table 2. Innovative silvoarable (left) and silvopastoral (right) agroforestry systems appropriative in particular for Dutch farmers. Table 3. Innovative agroforestry systems, i.e. forest farming (left) and forest gardening (right), appropriative in particular for Dutch foresters and hobby farmers, respectively. The literature study and the results of the earlier performed survey on farmers’ attitude towards agroforestry were synthesised by setting up agroforestry design scenarios for farmers, foresters and hobby farmers. For each type of land user several examples of prospective agroforestry designs and practices are suggested. It was concluded that agroforestry fits well into the current Dutch governmental policies aiming for extensification of agricultural land, leaving more room for nature and thus increasing biodiversity. However, two major constraints exists: 1) Agroforestry is not a recognised land status and no subsidies are currently available. 2) There is a lack of adequate research, demonstrations and information towards land users and policy makers. Most farmers and policy makers are not aware of the possibilities of agroforestry. The report was presented in a seminar at the WU department Plant Production, Wageningen (Safe website). WP3 Silvoarable experimental network The field activities of INRA-SYSTEM are concentrated on two different silvoarable systems not far from Montpellier, Southern France. At Restinclières walnut stands and at Vézénobres poplar plantations were combined with durum wheat during the last two SAFE-project years. The growing season of 2003 revealed two interesting results: First, the combination of walnut and the winter crop durum wheat is a good choice in terms of limiting competition. The Hybrid walnut tree is characterised by a late bud break in spring. By the time that the walnut SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 9 trees are full in leave, durum wheat is already far in its development. Overall, the influence of walnut on the winter crop was negligible. Secondly, at Vézénobres, different from what was expected for a Mediterranean region, the competition for light was playing a more dominant role than water competition. In 2004, the experiments were designed to explore the research findings of the prior season. In general the studies at Vézénobres were intensified compared to Restinclières. At both sides, experimental protocols and management actions were performed as similar as possible. Site Tree Year of Crop in 2003- Compared AF treatments plantation 2004 treatments (number of modalities) Restinclières Hybrid 1995 Durum wheat Forest control Tree-crop distance (2) walnut (Claudio variety) Crop control Tree line orientation (2) Agroforestry Vézénobres Poplars 1996 and Durum wheat Forest control Tree-crop distance (2) 1997 (Durango Crop control Tree-line orientation (2) variety) Agroforestry Tree canopy pruning (3) Table 4: Main features of the two experimental plots managed by INRA-SYSTEM Climate and environmental site characterisation at both INRA sites Climate and microclimate recording At both sites, INRA-SYSTEM meteorological stations record hourly data of air temperature, air humidity, photosynthetically active radiation and rainfall. Both stations are set up at a minimum distance of 30 m from the trees in the experimental agroforestry plots, in order to record the boundary climate outside the influence of the trees. For the following years, it is considered to move the stations further from the trees, as they grow higher. Soil humidity and water table The soil water content was measured with neutron probes during as well as outside the growing season at two weekly intervals. The water table level is needed to compute a correct water budget of the silvoarable system with the Hi-sAFe model. INRA-SYSTEM, therefore, equipped the plots at Restinclières (in 2002) and Vézénobres (in 2003) with piezometers. Soil fertility The arable crop has been well fertilised with nitrogen (about 180 kg N ha-1 year –1, ca. 450 kg ammonium nitrate/ha) during all years. Therefore, nitrogen should have been sufficient and competition for nitrogen should have been negligible. However, if cropping operations are not homogeneous within the agroforestry plot, tree impact on crop yield could be wrongly evaluated. We, therefore, measured the homogeneity of the nitrogen fertiliser application at both sites. Nitrogen fertiliser is spread with “rotatic” sprayers that usually need to be driven at precise distances to allow cross-fertilisation at the margin. In agroforestry, this is not possible, due to the fixed distance between tree rows. For the growing season 2002 -2003, the distribution of the nitrogen application was measured in Restinclières and at Vézénobres. We placed containers along transects and weighed the ammonium nitrate grains collected at the different locations. Each transect consisted of 5 containers, i.e. one placed on the tree row, and on each side of the tree row at distance of 2 m and in the centre of the alley (6.5 m and 8 m from the tree rows at Restinclières and Vézénobres, respectively). In Restinclières, for the growing season 2003 -2004, the first application of the nitrogen fertiliser was assumed to be homogeneous, since performed with a pendular sprayer. The others were performed with the usual machine. At Vézénobres the farmer used always a rotatic sprayer. Tree size and phenological development The impact of the trees on the intercrop depends on tree density, tree height and canopy size, tree leaf area density and on the overlapping growth period of trees and crops. The SAFE Final Progress Report – Volume 3 – May 2005 10