Synthesis of Existing European Agroforestry Performance Project name AGFORWARD (613520) Work-package 7: Landscape Evaluation of Innovative Agroforestry Deliverable Deliverable 7.19 (7.1): Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance Date of report 13 November 2015 (updated 7 July 2016) Authors Tobias Plieninger, Nora Fagerholm, Mario Torralba, Gerardo Moreno, Tibor Hartel, Paul J. Burgess Contact [email protected] Approved Michael den Herder (18 November 2015) Contents 1 Context ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Description of three papers ..................................................................................................... 2 3 Paper 1: A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry ............................................................................................................. 5 4 Paper 2: Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis .................................................................................... 41 5 Paper 3: Wood-pastures of Europe: Geographic coverage, social-ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications ............................................................. 71 AGFORWARD (Grant Agreement N° 613520) is co-funded by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research & Innovation, within the 7th Framework Programme of RTD. The views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. 2 1 Context The AGFORWARD research project (January 2014-December 2017), funded by the European Commission, is promoting agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance sustainable rural development. The project has four objectives: 1. to understand the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe, 2. to identify, develop and field-test innovations (through participatory research) to improve the benefits and viability of agroforestry systems in Europe, 3. to evaluate innovative agroforestry designs and practices at a field-, farm- and landscape scale, and 4. to promote the wider adoption of appropriate agroforestry systems in Europe through policy development and dissemination. This report comprises Deliverable 7.19 in the project, which contributes to the first and third objectives as it improves our understanding of the context of European agroforestry and the effects of agroforestry on biodiversity, ecosystem services and farm profitability, using systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The deliverable has been produced in the form of three papers, which have all been published in highly-ranked scientific journals: Fagerholm, N., Torralba, M., Burgess, P.J., Plieninger, T. (2015). A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry. Ecological Indicators 62: 47-65 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.016 Torralba, M., Fagerholm, N., Burgess, P.J., Moreno, G., Plieninger, T. (2016). Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 230: 150-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002 Plieninger, T., Hartel, T., Martín-López, B., Beaufoy, G., Bergmeier, E., Kirby, K., Montero, M.J., Moreno, G., Oteros-Rozas, E., Van Uytvanck, J. (2015). Wood-pastures of Europe: Geographic coverage, social-ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biological Conservation 190: 70-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.014 2 Description of three papers Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal production systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions (Burgess et al., 2015). The diversity of practices behind the term agroforestry is vast and includes land uses such as silvoarable systems, forest farming, riparian buffer strips, improved fallow, multipurpose trees and silvopasture systems (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2009, den Herder et al. 2015). These agroforestry systems have played an important role in Europe in the past and many current traditional land-use systems involve agroforestry. Economic conditions and a drive to produce cheap food decreased the importance of these systems during the twentieth century, but in recent years agroforestry has regained attention in Europe as a means of maintaining food production and profitability whilst enhancing the environment. This multi-functional role has been captured in scientific and grey literature through the years in a continuous but unsystematic way, based on multiple different approaches and typically focused on single and specific practices, geographical ranges or ecosystem services (i.e. alley cropping in Tsonkova et al., 2012; silvopasture in Rivest et al., 2013; silvoarable systems in Eichhorn et al., 2006; Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 3 soil carbon sequestration in Lorenz and Lal, 2014; temperate climate agroforestry systems in Smith et al., 2013). Hence, this deliverable aims to provide a qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the existing knowledge on the outcomes of European agroforestry systems in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The outputs provide evidence of the social, economic and environmental benefits of both modern and traditional agroforestry at different scales and give insights on the form of land use management and institutional policies that encourage beneficial agroforestry. The outputs also highlight lines of research to address detected knowledge gaps. The first section within the deliverable has the aim of providing an overview of how agroforestry has been studied in Europe and of identifying potential knowledge gaps and biases in the ecosystem service research agenda within agroforestry. It is based on a systematic review of the scientific literature on ecosystem services and European agroforestry (Fagerholm et al., 2015). The results show how European research has focused on the agroforestry systems covering the largest areas (such as extensive wood pastures in the south of Europe and continental agricultural mosaic landscapes), using a monetary and biophysical approach and quantitative indicators, and typically focusing on no more than one or two services at a local or regional scale. Fagerholm et al (2015) suggest a need to diversify both the research approaches and the ecosystem services covered for a better understanding of European agroforestry. This paper also points to key actions which can contribute to making future agroforestry research more relevant for decision makers, such as enhancing stakeholder participation in mapping and valuing ecosystem services, introducing broader scales to ease the transfer of research outcomes to policy schemes, and to increase the use of emerging explicit mapping tools. One of the objectives in the AGFORWARD project is to upscale site-specific results such as described in Fagerholm et al (2015) to wider geographic regions in a statistically robust way. Hence Torralba et al (2016) presents a meta-analysis on the effects of agroforestry on ecosystem service provision and on biodiversity levels in comparison with other specialized land uses such as forestry or arable land. It applies the hypothesis that complementary resource use by different components in an agroforestry system increase resource capture (Carnell et al., 1996) to biodiversity and a wider range of ecosystems services. The results reveal an overall positive effect of agroforestry through increasing ecosystem service provision and biodiversity enhancement; indicating that relative to conventional agriculture or forestry, agroforestry can maintain productivity whilst increasing other ecosystem services. The third paper (Plieninger et al. 2015) focuses on wood pasture (the integration of grazing livestock with scattered trees), which is the dominant type of agroforestry across Europe (den Herder et al. 2015). Wood pastures are the most common traditional agroforestry systems in Europe and their existence contributes to the cultural heritage in many European rural landscapes. The review presents an in-depth estimation of the extent of European wood pastures and a qualitative revision of the cultural values and main threats associated with them, suggesting potential solutions in rural planning which could help to correctly allocate and address them in the European policies. Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 4 2.1 References for the initial section 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., Upson, M. (2015). AGFORWARD Project Periodic Report: January to December 2014. Cranfield University: AGFORWARD. 95 pp. http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/news-reader/id-27-february-2015.html Cannell, M.G.R., Van Noordwijk, M., Ong, C.K. (1996). The central agroforestry hypothesis: the trees must acquire resources that the crop would not otherwise acquire. Agrofor. Syst. 34, 27-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00129630 den Herder, M., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, M.R., Palma, J., Sidiropoulou, A., Santiago Freijanes, J.J., Crous-Duran, J., Paulo, J., Tomé, M., Pantera, A., Papanastasis, V., Mantzanas, K., Pachana, P., Burgess, P.J. (2016) Current extent and trends of agroforestry in the EU27. Deliverable 1.2 for EU FP7 Research Project: AGFORWARD 613520. 101 pp. Eichhorn, M.P., Paris, P., Herzog, F., Incoll, L.D., Liagre, F., Mantzanas, K., Mayus, M., Moreno, G., Papanastasis, V.P., Pilbeam, D.J., Pisanelli, A., Dupraz, C. (2006). Silvoarable systems in Europe - Past, present and future prospects. Agrofor. Syst. 67, 29-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457- 005-1111-7 Lorenz, K., Lal, R. (2014). Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 443–454. http://doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y Mosquera-Losada, M.R., McAdam, J.H., Romero-Franco, R., Santiago-Freijanes, J.J., Rigueiro- Rodríguez, A. (2009). Definitions and components of agroforestry practices in Europe. In: Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., McAdam, J., Mosquera-Losada, M.R. (eds.): Agroforestry in Europe Current Status and Future Prospects, 3-19. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Dordrecht. Rivest, D., Paquette, A., Moreno, G., Messier, C. (2013). A meta-analysis reveals mostly neutral influence of scattered trees on pasture yield along with some contrasted effects depending on functional groups and rainfall conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 165, 74-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.010 Smith, J., Pearce, B.D., Wolfe, M.S. (2013). Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: Is temperate agroforestry the answer? Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 28, 80-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000585 Tsonkova, P., Böhm, C., Quinkenstein, A., Freese, D. (2012). Ecological benefits provided by alley cropping systems for production of woody biomass in the temperate region: a review. Agrofor. Syst. 85, 133-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9494-8 Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 5 3 Paper 1: A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry This is a pre-print version of the following paper: Fagerholm, N., Torralba, M., Burgess, P.J., Plieninger, T. (2015). A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry. Ecological Indicators 62: 47-65 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.016 Abstract Agroforestry offers proven strategies as an environmentally benign and ecologically sustainable land management practice to promote ecosystem services. In this literature review, we systematically consider the agroforestry and ecosystem services literature with the aim to identify and catalogue the knowledge field and provide the first systematic synthesis of ecosystem services research in relation to European agroforestry. We reviewed 71 scientific publications from studies conducted in farmland and forest ecosystems with various types of agroforestry management. Each publication was systematically characterised and classified by agroforestry practice and research approach in order to provide an insight into the current research state in addressing ecosystem services (including methods, indicators, and approaches). Spatial distributions of the case study sites in Europe were also explored. In addition, typical clusters of similar research approaches were identified. The results show that ecosystem service assessment of European agroforestry is currently focused on the spatially extensive wood pastures in the Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Continental agricultural mosaic landscapes. A specific emphasis has been on regulating, supporting, and provisioning services, such as provision of habitat and biodiversity, food, climate regulation, fibre, and fuel, and the consideration of cultural services has been largely limited to aesthetic value. There is a bias to biophysical and monetary research approaches. The majority of the studies focus on quantitative methods and biophysical field measurements addressing the assessment of only one or two services. Monetary approaches have been applied in less than one fifth of the studies but form a distinctive group. Our results highlight gaps and biases in the ecosystem service research agenda within agroforestry based on which we conclude that research should aim to diversify from the biophysical and monetary approaches, towards a wider variety of approaches, especially socio-cultural, and a wider coverage of ecosystem services. Stronger consideration of stakeholder participation and introduction of spatially explicit mapping are also important key actions. We make suggestions to advance the promise of ecosystem services provision from European agroforestry in decision making including various actors, stakeholders and institutions, with strong links to policy processes, such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy and Common Agricultural Policy. Keywords: agroforestry management, decision making, environmental services, literature review, silvoarable, silvopastoral 3.1 Introduction The ecosystem services framework has become the most widely adopted integrated framework to study the relations between ecosystems and people. Conceptually it describes how biophysical systems provide a variety of important benefits to human well-being and ultimately it can guide decision-making towards halting or reversing ecosystem degradation (Daily, 1997; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; MA, 2005). For this reason the assessment of ecosystem services is important, as it creates the knowledge to understand the supply and demand of ecosystem services, to support Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 6 awareness raising, and to achieve priority on the political agenda, for example in the European Union (EU) (Cowling et al., 2008; Crossman et al., 2013; Maes et al., 2012). Assessments of ecosystem functions and their potential provision of services to people have been dominated by natural sciences and economics (Seppelt et al., 2011; Vihervaara et al., 2010). The common approaches to assessment have been identified as biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary (Cowling et al., 2008; de Groot et al., 2010) or alternatively as habitat, system and place-based approaches (Potschin & Haines-Young, 2013). A general tendency in ecosystem service assessments, depicted by the recent literature, is that the measurement of cultural services lags behind regulating, provisioning, and supporting services’ categories (Crossman et al., 2013; Martínez- Harms & Balvanera, 2012; Seppelt et al., 2011). The ecosystem services concept also offers a transformative lens for agroecosystems, the most common anthropogenic ecosystem on the planet (Swinton et al., 2006). While agricultural intensification and expansion are among the most important drivers of ecosystem services degradation (MA, 2005), several multifunctional land-use systems hold the promise to safeguard ecosystem services within commodity production (O’Farrell & Anderson, 2010; Tscharntke et al., 2005). Agroforestry, widely adopted in the world’s tropical and subtropical regions, is one of such land-use systems that provide multiple ecosystem services, combining the provision of agricultural and forestry products with non-commodity outputs, such as climate, water and soil regulation, and recreational, aesthetic and cultural heritage values (McAdam et al., 2009). The main trait of agroforestry is the deliberate combination of trees/shrubs with agricultural crops or livestock, with people playing a key management role (Mosquera-Losada et al., 2009). The principal forms of agroforestry in Europe include wood pastures, the use of hedgerows, windbreaks, and riparian buffer strips on farmland, intercropped and grazed orchards, grazed forests, forest farming, and more modern silvoarable and silvopastoral systems. Agroforestry has traditionally formed an important element of European landscapes, but many of these systems have disappeared due to economic and social changes (among others, land abandonment and agricultural intensification), and the remaining ones are highly vulnerable (Nerlich et al., 2013). An assessment of the current spatial extent of agroforestry by den Herder et al. (2015) shows that agroforestry is most widely practised in southern Europe, especially in Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy. Wood pastures cover an extensive area and are distributed around Europe from the Mediterranean oak tree systems to Boreal wood pastures (Plieninger et al., 2015). Most fruit tree systems are found in central and Mediterranean Europe, with mixed olive cultivation in the Mediterranean being the most area-extensive expression of this agroforestry type. Also the traditional temperate fruit orchards are prominent (Herzog, 1998). Currently, agroforestry in the European Union is practiced at least on an area of 25 million hectares, which is equivalent to about 5.7% of the territorial area and 14.2% of the utilized agricultural area (den Herder et al., 2015). Agroforestry has the potential to advance sustainable rural development in Europe (Primdahl, 2013). A key environmental benefit of agroforestry is the possibility to diversify agricultural landscapes with trees and to increase overall biodiversity (Mosquera-Losada et al., 2009; Nerlich et al., 2013). The key agricultural benefits include the opportunity to significantly increase land resource efficiency and productivity compared to the separation of agricultural and tree systems (Cannell et al., 1996; Graves et al., 2007), and to improve animal welfare. Jose et al. (2009) have raised awareness for the ecosystem services that are mediated by global agroforestry not only to farmers and landowners, but to society at large. The evidence supporting the promotion of agroforestry specifically in Europe has been reviewed by Smith et al. (2013) with the conclusion that temperate agroforestry balances both productivity and environmental protection through multiple ecosystem services. The challenge, however, lies in mainstreaming this land use practice. A meta-analysis on the role of scattered trees occurring throughout farmland matrix and their role as keystone structures maintaining ecosystem services by Rivest et al. (2013) also concluded that management options exist to conserve and restore trees but farmers need to be supported by relevant policies. In addition, Tsonkova et al. (2012) reviewed the ecosystem services provided by a specific type of temperate agroforestry, named Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 7 alley cropping systems, and identified benefits in terms of increased carbon sequestration, improved soil fertility, enhanced biodiversity and increased overall productivity on marginal lands. Other reviews regarding European agroforestry practises have been published, for example, by Eichhorn et al. (2006) where the focus was on listing and quantifying the existing systems of silvoarable agroforestry and to document the recent changes and by Nerlich et al. (2013) who characterized traditional agroforestry practices and their disappearance from farmland. These recent reviews do not, however, systematically consider the agroforestry and ecosystem services literature in Europe. The current review addresses this gap and produces a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of the knowledge field through mapping the conducted studies and applied research approaches for ecosystem services assessment around European agroforestry. The aim of this literature review is to identify and catalogue the knowledge field and provide the first systematic synthesis of ecosystem services research in relation to European agroforestry. The specific questions to address include: 1) What agroforestry systems and ecosystem services have been studied in Europe? 2) What approaches to ecosystem service assessment have been applied in research? 3) How are agroforestry systems, ecosystem services and research approaches interlinked? Based on the findings, the existing research gaps and biases are discussed. We then interpret our results from the perspective of the Daily et al. (2009) framework on “Ecosystem services in decision making” to derive recommendations on how to make research on ecosystem services from European agroforestry more relevant for land use policy and practice. 3.2 Material and methods We reviewed scientific publications from studies conducted in farmland or forest ecosystems in Europe with various types of agroforestry management. Our review followed established guidelines for systematic review and systematic mapping (Bates et al., 2007; Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013; Pullin & Knight, 2009, Pullin & Stewart, 2006) and was oriented along previous review exercises in the field of ecosystem services (Milcu et al., 2013; Nieto-Romero et al., 2014; Seppelt et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2013; Vihervaara et al., 2010). Evidence-based formalized systematic review frameworks were initially developed in the health sciences and have recently started to raise interest also within conservation and environmental management to guide research and policy-making (Bilotta et al., 2014; Pullin & Stewart, 2006). The advantages of such a formalized methodology for literature review stems from the rigour and objectivity in the process combined with the underlying philosophy of transparency and independence. The systematic review approach aims to build new knowledge from a rigorous analysis of existing research findings. Systematic mapping, the approach used in this review, has similarities with the systematic review but has a focus on gathering existing literature into a searchable database and provide a transparent evidence base (Bates et al., 2007). Electronic academic databases used in the search for relevant items comprised ISI Web of Science, Scopus, CAB Abstracts (Ovid), BIOSIS Citation Index, and Geobase (Ovid). Publication search combined three search strings in English with the following topics: (1) agroforestry and related definitions describing agroforestry systems, structures and practices, (2) ecosystem services and related definitions such as the equivalent of environmental services, and (3) Europe and specific countries. A scoping exercise was performed to pilot search terms and strings to iteratively revise the search terms, presented in detail in Appendix A. We covered a wide variety of terms applied for European agroforestry systems and practices and also aimed to include diverse search terms for ecosystem services. It is nevertheless likely that some relevant publications were not captured in this data search. The use of single ecosystem service types (e.g., nutrient cycling) as search words would have yielded an extensive amount of results but we were interested in those studies that were clearly linked to ecosystem services research. Hence, we covered only studies that defined themselves as ecosystem services research, in line with the literature researches applied by Martínez-Harms & Balvanera (2012), Nieto-Romero et al. (2014) and Seppelt et al. (2010). We did not include grey literature, as we aimed to review internationally published studies on agroforestry and multiple Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 8 ecosystem services. Titles and abstracts were stored in an Endnote database and duplicates removed. The searches were performed in August 2014 and resulted in a total of 286 references including journal articles, reports, books, book chapters, and conference papers. From these we manually selected those studies which (1) address one or more agroforestry practices within the European biogeographical regions and (2) provide assessment of biodiversity or one or more ecosystem services. Items were selected through a three step filtering process (Pullin & Stewart, 2006) during which, in the first instance, the inclusion criteria were applied on title. Secondly, items remaining were filtered by abstract (or introduction section or equivalent if an abstract was not available) and, further, by viewing remaining items at full text content. We applied the inclusion criteria conservatively at the different stages of the filtering process, especially title and abstract were in most cases read together, in order not to exclude any relevant publications. If a study and the results were covered in several publications, only one of them was included. To check for data quality and consistency of application of the inclusion criteria, another reviewer went independently through the first filters of title and abstract on a random subsample of 10% of references (Pullin & Stewart, 2006). A kappa value of 0.729 (p=0.000) was calculated, which indicates a substantial level of agreement between reviewers (Cohen, 1960: < 0.5). In addition, the review by Smith et al. (2013) was searched for relevant publications. Finally, 71 publications published in English, Spanish, German, and Swedish were considered in the analysis (Appendix B). To characterize the context of agroforestry and ecosystem service assessment literature, each publication was classified according to publication characteristics, study location and context, and characteristics of agroforestry practice studied (Figure 1). To classify agroforestry practices we developed a typology based on previously suggested categorisations (Mosquera-Losada et al., 2009; Nerlich et al., 2013) and our interpretation of the agroforestry practices appearing in the data, including wood pastures, woodlots and scattered farm trees, forest grazing, hedgerows, orchards, riparian buffer strips, and modern agroforestry systems (systems often based on traditional practices, modified by research and experience and well adapted to modern farming. e.g. modern tree-pig systems, cf. Nerlich et al., 2013). A spatial data layer was produced for study site locations. Data on biogeographical region (EEA, 2011) and land system archetype (Levers et al., submitted) were extracted to each site. Subsequently, to identify and classify the research approaches to ecosystem service assessment, each study was coded based on methods, ecosystem services under assessment, data sources, indicators, and analytical approaches. Classification of ecosystem services followed that of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005). Data extraction variables are presented in detail in Appendix C. All categories were pretested to guarantee repeatability and consistency. Characterization of the studied variables was approached through descriptive statistics. Cluster analysis was applied to identify typical clusters of studies approaching ecosystem services and their assessment in similar ways. To reach this goal seven key variables were specified after testing with various amounts of variables (Appendix C). Agglomerative hierarchical clustering with Ward’s method and squared Euclidian distance was applied for this purpose in SPSS22 (Everitt et al., 2011; Murtagh & Legendre, 2014; cf. Milcu et al., 2013). Clustering sorts the publications based on the specified key variables starting from n clusters (n=71 publications) and continues to sort these into clusters of sameness, following a bottom up logic, until one cluster remains. Ward’s clustering was selected as it is widely understood and readily interpretable. Four clusters were chosen as a meaningful interpretation balancing the inner homogeneousness of a cluster and the external heterogeneousness in relation to other clusters. Clusters were examined using descriptive statistics. Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 9 Figure 1. Objectives of the systematic mapping of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry with related analytical stages. 3.3 Results 3.3.1 Characteristics of agroforestry and ecosystem service assessment literature The 71 reviewed publications are peer-reviewed journal articles (83%) and book sections (17%) published between 1993 and 2014 (Figure 2B). More than 80% of the publications have appeared since 2007 (Figure 2B). The publications cover 151 study sites in a total of 12 European countries (Figure 2A and C). Most of the study sites are located in Spain (45%), the UK (15%) and France (14%) and mainly in the Mediterranean (44%), Atlantic (36%) and Continental (17%) biogeographical regions, the majority of them being patch (38%) and local (37%) scale studies rather than regional or national scale (25%) (Figure 2A and D). Two studies are performed at European scale (Reisner et al., 2007, Schulp et al., 2014) and two address modelled landscapes (Brownlow et al., 2005; Kaeser et al., 2011). The number of study sites per publication varies between 1 and 20 (mean 2.7, SD 4.1), with most studies (79%) focusing on 1-2 sites. In total, 21 different ecosystem services including biodiversity have been studied. The most common services assessed in the sample are provision of habitat and biodiversity, food, fiber, climate regulation and fuel (Figure 3). In general, provisioning, regulating and supporting services are equally addressed (with 29%, 27% and 27% share of all studied services respectively), with 17% share including an assessment of cultural services. Addressing more than one ecosystem service category in a study has become more prominent after the mid-2000s (Figure 2B, category mixed). Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu 10 Figure 2. Geographical distribution and the scale of the case study sites (n= 138, 13 sites missing due to lack of data) addressed in the 71 publications: (A) geographical distribution and scale of study areas, B) number of publications and ecosystem service category per year, (C) number of case study sites per country, and (D) distribution of case in the European biogeographical regions. Figure 3. Frequency of the different ecosystem services appearing in the 71 publications and their share (%) in ecosystem service categories. Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance www.agforward.eu