Search Results

Research and Technology Transfer Needs for the Next Millennium EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Association for Temperate Agroforestry Columbia, Missouri Fall 2000 Funding for this project was provided by the USDA National Agroforestry Center TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction      Agriculture needs agroforestry      Forestry needs agroforestry      Agroforestry is relevant to many issues      Overarching needs      Agroforestry provides benefits in many settings Alley Cropping Forest Farming Riparian Forest Buffers Silvopasture Windbreaks INTRODUCTION It has happened slowly but surely. Over the last two or three decades dramatic adjustments to farmland management and ownership have changed the face of the American "farmscape." o­ne alarming change is that a significant portion of prime farmland and ranchland is being lost to development (e.g., converted to home sites, factories, roads, and shopping centers). In the U.S. an estimated fifty acres of farmland is now lost every hour of every day to development pressures. Similarly, forest cover in the U.S. has started to decline after remaining essentially constant since the 1920s. As the U.S. population continues to increase by three million each year, forestry and agriculture will both face the problem of meeting an increasing demand for goods, as well as for an expanding array of services, such as clean water, recreation, and wildlife habitat. More importantly, society will have to meet its needs with a fixed or shrinking land base. Agriculture and forestry share many goals and over the centuries they have provided the strategic foundation for our country. Together they comprise more than 75 percent of the land use in the U.S. Too often there is a tendency to treat agriculture and forestry separately when addressing natural resource concerns. Yet, a high proportion of the watersheds and landscapes in this country are an interwoven mosaic of both uses. Rural communities often depend o­n both agriculture and forestry to remain economically viable. Solutions are needed that build from a comprehensive, all-lands approach. Otherwise, it is like trying to make a patchwork quilt without bothering to sew the pieces together -- everything comes unraveled. Technology can provide some productivity gains as improved crops become available through biotechnology and genetic engineering, but the heavy reliance o­n fertilizers and pesticides already is manifesting its own not-too-subtle impact o­n the environment. Likewise, consumers and producers are engaged in a lively debate o­n food safety and environmental issues related to the production and consumption of genetically modified crops. In the future, agriculture may be able to produce sufficient food to meet the world's demand but production costs will rise and so too will the cost of food and the potential for negative impacts to the environment. Ultimately the challenge will be to find ways to sustain the provision of goods and services that society derives from forests and agriculture in ways "...that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Agriculture Needs Agroforestry When the USDA National Commission o­n Small Farms Report was issued in January 1998, it listed several recommendations o­n agroforestry and concluded that .... "USDA extension, conservation, and forestry services should make greater efforts to promote and support agroforestry as part of an economic and ecological strategy for a healthy agriculture." Today, many farmers and ranchers are struggling to make a livelihood o­n small acreage farms. They often have limited financial means and are seeking ways to maximize their income per acre, while keeping their requirement for purchased inputs low. Production systems need to become more diverse. New crops and new production methods need to be embraced. Cost-effective alternatives that can meet environmental goals and increase profits need to be available to producers. A more diversified agricultural sector means producers will need to select from a broad portfolio of management practices; practices that include science-based agroforestry technologies. Most agroforestry practices are designed to be readily integrated into existing farm operations. In many instances, the adoption of o­ne or several agroforestry practices can be the difference between profitability and economic loss. Forestry Needs Agroforestry The U.S. made a commitment to sustainable forest management when it signed the Santiago Declaration in 1995. However, there are places in the U.S. that are already experiencing difficulty meeting society's expectations for some forest derived benefits. For example, in many areas land use fragmentation patterns across the landscape have resulted in the reduction of many plant and animal species that rely o­n forest habitat. In other regions there are projections of inadequate wood supply. Insufficient water quality and aquatic habitat are issues that now affect most regions. If society's needs and aspirations for forest derived goods, services, and amenities truly are to be met, we must find ways of augmenting traditional forestry by gleaning some portion of these benefits from agricultural lands. For example: • Windbreaks can provide corridors across agricultural lands to connect forest fragments and increase wildlife benefits, while protecting soils, crops, and livestock, conserving energy, and producing commercially valuable products. • Riparian forest buffers o­n farms and ranches can protect surface waters from sediments, nutrients, and contaminants, while enhancing aquatic habitats, producing marketable products, and sequestering carbon. • Fast-growing hybrid poplar trees grown o­n farmlands can treat agricultural waste and provide income for farmers, while helping to meet the demand for wood fiber and energy. • Farm woodlots can be used to grow specialty products such as ginseng or mushrooms under a modified forest canopy, thereby encouraging timber stand improvement practices. • Grazing/timber systems allow farmers to generate an annual income from grazing livestock under thinned forest stands while producing high quality sawlogs. A comprehensive approach is needed to increase the investment in developing and implementing agroforestry practices in the U.S. This needs to occur through an expansion of existing state and federal agency programs, an increased use of landowner assistance programs and by explicitly including agroforestry in competitive research grant and extension programs. Agroforestry is Relevant to Many Issues With more than eighty percent of Americans now living in urban or suburban environments, it has become increasingly important that the public understand that much of what it values is derived from agriculture and forestry. People need to understand that clean water does not just happen; that the food and fiber they consume and the wastes they generate have associated consequences and responsibilities. There is no shortage of issues that agroforestry can help resolve. Although many resource professionals and landowners don't yet understand the full benefits of adding agroforestry practices to their land management portfolio, many are beginning to investigate the possibilities. Most farmers, ranchers, and communities cannot afford to plant trees or shrubs simply because it's the right thing to do. It's hard to be virtuous when you're in a daily struggle to make ends meet. But o­nce a landowner in an area implements an agroforestry practice that successfully solves a problem, agroforestry often begins to "sell itself' to his or her neighbors. Agroforestry practices are grouped into five categories: 1) alley cropping, 2) forest farming, 3) silvopasture, 4) riparian buffers, and 5) windbreaks. This document describes agroforestry practices within each of these categories and lists associated high priority research questions and technology transfer needs. Overarching Needs There are some common needs that apply to all agroforestry practices. More regional workshops and field demonstration projects can help illustrate both the logistics and the economics of an agroforestry practice to resource conservation professionals and landowners. The generation of educational materials, such as videos and "how-to" manuals, that provide specific guidance o­n how to design, install, and manage agroforestry practices, along with innovative extension/outreach programs, will facilitate more local adoption. The networking and integration among resource agencies at the national, state, and local levels needs to increase. Since agroforestry is a hybridization of agriculture and forestry conservation and production technologies, landowners need to be able to evaluate the economic performance of an agroforestry practice against traditional forestry and agricultural cropping alternatives. In most instances there remains a need to better characterize the economic cost for establishment and maintenance of an agroforestry practice and its economic return. This must include considerations of financial risk and operational complexity. Region-specific economic analyses are needed that present information in ways that natural resource professionals and landowners can understand. In many areas landowners are seeking advice o­n how to form cooperatives to harvest and market new products. Agroforestry practices have been shown to provide benefits in many settings: •  Carbon Storage : Sequesters large amounts of carbon in trees and shrubs across a large landbase. •  Pest Management : Provides habitat for beneficial insects and birds. Presents a physical barrier that interrupts pest cycles. •  Soil Conservation : Reduces loss of soil organic matter, nutrients, and soil particles. •  Streams and Lakes:  Protects water quality by intercepting sediments and agricultural chemicals. Reduces streambank erosion and improves aquatic habitat. •  Water Conservation:  Reduces evaporation and plant transpiration, beneficially distributes snowmelt, and protects riparian zones from agricultural runoff. •  Wildlife Habitat:  Provides food, cover, nesting sites, and travel lanes. •  Economic Benefit:  Provides income from trees and their products, while allowing for annual income from crop and livestock production. Improves crop yield and quality. •  Livestock:  Protects livestock from harsh climate, improves animal health, and lowers feed costs. Provides annual income from grazing/timber systems. Moderates noise and odor from animal operations. •  Aesthetics:  Provides plant diversity, wildlife habitat, and recreational corridors. •  Energy Conservation:  Reduces energy costs associated with farm operations. ALLEY CROPPING Two incomes in the space of o­ne ... Making a living from year to year off an annual crop is fraught with uncertainty. Success depends o­n weather conditions and favorable markets at harvest. Alley cropping systems provide a way to lower risk by diversifying production. In alley cropping an agricultural crop is grown simultaneously with a long-term tree crop to provide annual income while the tree crop matures. Traditionally, fine quality hardwoods such as walnut, pecan, and oak have been preferred species, as they can be managed to produce high-value lumber or veneer logs. More recently, fast-growing hybrid poplar trees are being grown for sawtimber in 15-20 year rotations. When nut-bearing trees are used, they can provide an intermediate product for sale. In addition to improving annual cash flow, these systems also protect annual crops from wind, reduce soil erosion, and provide wildlife habitat. Most row, grain, and forage crops, as well as specialty crops, such as catnip or St. John's Wort, have been shown to grow well in an alley cropping system. Research Questions The level of investment in research o­n alley cropping must increase. More information is needed to provide the scientific basis for designing practices that can meet an expanding set of landowner and societal objectives. AFTA has identified the following high priority research questions: What crop rotation systems and tree and shrub species are compatible in various regions of the country? What is the combined yield of different tree, shrub, and crop combinations, especially conventional crops? What are the optimal row spacings for different tree, shrub, and crop combinations? How can weeds be controlled, particularly at the interface between tree rows and crops? Which insects and diseases are significant problems and can beneficial insects be used in an integrated pest management system? Technology Transfer Needs The level of investment in technology transfer o­n alley cropping must increase. Increased technology transfer efforts should focus o­n packaging completed, but scattered, research results to facilitate their use by resource professionals and landowners. AFTA has identified the following high priority information needs: Region-specific technical information that provides suitability ratings for tree and shrub species and compatible crops. Operational guidelines for managing trees, shrubs, and crops in various alley cropping arrangements. Guidelines for tree establishment by region. Information o­n cost-share programs for establishment and maintenance. Educational information o­n marketing strategies and how to establish cooperatives. Information o­n different manual and machine-assisted pruning methods. Regional economic data o­n common tree, shrub, and crop combinations. Farmer-friendly financial analysis models that compare the costs and benefits of various alley cropping practices over time. Information o­n the availability of plant material. FOREST FARMING Made in the shade ... Many farmers who own woodlots are finding they can make money in the shade. Many high-value specialty crops are now being cultivated under the protection of a forest canopy that has been modified to provide the appropriate microclimate and light conditions. Meanwhile, the timber stand improvement activities that are carried out to develop the appropriate understory conditions, like thinning less desirable stems and pruning lower branches o­n the eventual "crop" trees, can result in the production of clean, knot-free wood of higher value as a long-term economic strategy. Shade tolerant crops such as ginseng, goldenseal, shiitake mushrooms, and decorative ferns are being grown and sold for medicinal, culinary, or ornamental uses. Research Questions The level of investment in research o­n forest farming must increase. More information is needed to provide the scientific basis for designing efficient production practices. AFTA has identified the following high priority research questions: What stocking levels are appropriate for various tree species to regulate understory shade and microclimate for the production of floral greens, mushrooms, ginseng, and other specialty crops? Which non-timber forest products have the economic potential to be grown under a forest canopy, and what are their growth requirements? What are the start-up and operating costs for producing various understory crops? How compatible are existing forest/woodlot management strategies with the production of understory crops? What are the effects of shade levels o­n valued-properties of understory crops, for example the concentration of chemically active compounds? Will different genotypes of understory crop species provide production gains? How can woody plants that produce specialty forest products be integrated into other agroforestry practices, like windbreaks and riparian forest buffers? How do the economics of forest farming compare to those of traditional forestry? What are the characteristics of current and evolving markets for the major specialty forest products? Technology Transfer Needs The level of investment in technology transfer o­n forest farming must increase. Increased technology transfer efforts should be focused o­n packaging completed, but scattered, research results to facilitate their use by resource professionals and landowners. AFTA has identified the following high priority information needs: Information o­n region-specific marketing opportunities for understory species at both wholesale and retail levels. Information o­n buyer standards and specifications for understory crops. Region-specific production enterprise budgets for common understory crops. Understory cropping practices that are compatible with various forest management practices, such as timber stand improvement or shelterwood cuts. Handbook o­n the production, marketing, and sale of specialty forest products with specific information o­n species and improved cultivars. Information o­n sources of agroforestry plant materials, such as fodder-producing tree varieties, shade-tolerant fruit species, medicinal plants, decorative flowers, bioremediators, and handcrafts. Financial analysis models of costs and returns to landowners from various forest farming practices. RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS Water matters ... Many of the waters in the United States are polluted to the extent that they can no longer be safely used to supply drinking water, for swimming and other recreation opportunities, or to provide edible fish. Much of the loss of water quality has been shown to be a result of non-point source pollution from agricultural activities. Practices like cropping and grazing often occur up to the edges of streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. The result is a loss of aquatic habitat and high levels of sediment and chemical inputs which lower water quality. Forested riparian buffer practices consisting of grasses, shrubs, and trees have been shown to be an effective strategy for improving water quality by intercepting sediments, filtering excess nutrients, and degrading pesticides. They also can stabilize streambanks, protect floodplains, enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and provide landowners with harvestable products. Research Questions The level of investment in research o­n riparian forest buffers must increase. More information is needed to provide the scientific basis for designing buffers that can meet an expanding set of landowner and societal objectives. AFTA has identified the following high priority research questions: What are the above- and below-ground carbon dynamics of riparian buffers? How do buffer design criteria, such as width, age, vegetation type, and management, influence their ability to process different contaminants, such as sediments, nutrients, and pesticides? How do landscape parameters, such as site characteristics, land uses, hydrology, and topography, influence riparian buffer functions related to water quality, bank stabilization, and flood protection? What management is needed to maintain the intended buffer functions over time? How can information at the plot/field/farm level be scaled to the watershed level? What are the establishment and maintenance costs associated with various buffer designs over time? How does the effectiveness of riparian buffers vary with season and different levels of contaminant loading? What is the potential of various riparian forest buffers to provide wildlife habitat? What tree and shrub species can be incorporated into riparian forest buffers to produce income-generating specialty forest products? Technology Transfer Needs The level of investment in technology transfer o­n riparian forest buffers must increase. Increased technology transfer efforts should be focused o­n packaging completed, but scattered, research results to facilitate their use by resource professionals and landowners. AFTA has identified the following high priority information needs: Management guidelines for riparian forest buffers that allow for the economic usage or harvest of trees that are not adjacent to the water. An expanded USDA Conservation Reserve Program that provides cost-share and land rental payments that include streambank bioengineering and constructed wetlands. Educational materials o­n how to design riparian forest buffers that simultaneously meet conservation objectives along with providing opportunities for commodity production practices. Computer simulation models that operate at the regional level to gauge the effectiveness of different buffer designs and placements. Tools to identify and predict pollutant pathways in landscapes to identify the most efficient design and placement of riparian buffers in the landscape. Decision support tools to help determine o­n-farm financial performance of riparian forest buffers. Listing and sources for tree, shrub, and understory species and cultivars with potential economic value. SILVOPASTURE Trees grow old but so do farmers ... Many farmers who own conifer woodlots simply wait for the trees to grow bigger and then take whatever price they can get for a o­nce in a lifetime harvest. Unfortunately, the price often is low due to the lack of timber stand improvement activity throughout the rotation. Thinning less desirable stems and pruning lower branches o­n the eventual "crop" trees could have resulted in the production of clear, knot-free wood of higher value. Fortunately, agroforestry silvopasture practices are conducive to promoting forest management, while generating forage production in the understory that is suitable for livestock grazing. Recent research has shown that many cool- and warm-season grasses and legumes yield high levels of quality forage when grown under as much as fifty percent shade. This knowledge is being used to design integrated timber/grazing practices in conifer stands that allow high value sawlogs to be grown as a long-term product, while o­n the same acre, an annual income can be generated from grazing livestock. Silvopasture field studies have shown that the "crop" trees continue to grow well, while the level of forage production is similar to that of an open pasture. Although it takes longer, it is also possible to establish tree seedlings in an open pasture or crop field. Trees must be protected from grass competition and animal grazing until they reach adequate size. In the meantime, the trees displace very little land from grazing or crop production during the initial years of establishment. Research has also begun to evaluate the potential for silvopasture with hardwood species. Research Questions The level of investment in research o­n silvopasture practices must increase. More information is needed to provide the scientific basis for designing silvopasture practices that can meet an expanding set of landowner and societal objectives. AFTA has identified the following high priority research questions: What are the effects of wide spacing, pruning, and fertilization o­n the production and quality of wood and forage? What is the efficiency of multi-row and multi-species tree planting vs. single-row and single-species plantings for converting open areas to silvopastures? How do the tree and forage components interact to compete for light, water, and nutrients? Can supplemental products be produced in silvopastures, such as pine straw? How compatible are other conifer cover types, such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir to silvopasture management? How compatible is silvopasture with hardwood tree species? What are the yield and quality of cool- and warm-season forages as affected by various management regimes under tree shade? What are the forage preferences of cattle, goats, and sheep in a silvopasture practice, and what is their compatibility with the trees? How do cultural practices such as mowing, herbicide, and cultivation affect the establishment and early growth of tree seedlings planted into existing pasture? Can other commercially viable specialty products be produced in silvopasture systems to enhance biological and economic diversity? Technology Transfer Needs The level of investment in technology transfer o­n silvopasture must increase. Increased technology transfer efforts should be focused o­n packaging completed, but scattered, research results to facilitate their use by resource professionals and landowners. AFTA has identified the following high priority information needs: Region-specific production and economic budgets for silvopastoral enterprises. Guidelines for converting coniferous farm woodlots into silvopastures. Guidelines for converting alley cropping enterprises into silvopasture. Information o­n equipment, markets, and economics of o­n-farm timber processing. Information o­n compatible combinations of tree and forage species. Cost-effective methods of protecting newly planted tree seedlings from livestock damage. Economic analysis models that are operational at the regional scale (e.g. Agroforestry Estate Model). Information o­n silvopasture benefits for livestock. Information o­n benefits/problems of various types of livestock and tree combinations. WINDBREAKS Wind happens  .... In the summer, hot dry winds deplete water resources by increasing surface evaporation and elevating plant transpiration rates. Exposed soil can become subject to wind erosion and unprotected crops can be stressed. Odors associated with livestock can be transported long distances, as can spray drift from the application of agricultural chemicals and dust from farming operations. In the winter, the chilling effects of wind and drifting snow often cause hardships to farm families and their livestock, as well as to rural communities. The concept behind windbreaks is not new. They are also referred to as "shelterbelts" and have been used extensively in the United States since the "dust bowl" era of the 1930s and now comprise about 1.5 million acres. A windbreak's major function is to reduce wind speed. Therefore, a windbreak can be defined as any barrier that reduces troublesome winds by creating a wind shadow to the leeward (downwind) side. An agroforestry windbreak is o­ne that utilizes single or multiple rows of trees and/or shrubs that are integrated into agricultural systems. What is new is the expanding array of issues windbreaks are being asked to address. While an extensive body of knowledge and technical guidelines has been developed, past efforts have been concentrated o­n the use of field windbreaks to prevent soil erosion, protect crops from drying winds, and deflect blowing snow. Today, windbreaks are being used for a wide variety of purposes. Research Questions The level of investment in research o­n agroforestry windbreaks must increase. More information is needed to provide the scientific basis for designing windbreaks that can meet an expanding set of landowner and societal objectives. AFTA has identified the following high priority research questions: How does porosity relate to the effectiveness of windbreaks for achieving various landowner objectives and how can porosity be conveniently measured. How can older, deteriorated field and farmstead windbreaks be renovated in a cost-effective manner? How can woody species that produce specialty forest products be incorporated into windbreaks to increase economic returns to landowners? What are the benefits of windbreak protection for a large array of crops? What is the economic value of reduced soil erosion? How do windbreaks affect crop water-use, to include irrigation efficiency and snow management? Which design and management options provide the best direct economic return to the landowner? What are the benefits of various windbreak designs used for livestock and how effective are they in mitigating odors and reducing dust? Can short-rotation woody crops be effectively designed into windbreaks to generate additional income while providing crop and livestock protection? How effective are fast growing tree species, such as hybrid poplar, at treating irrigation wastewater and wastes from animal feeding operations o­n-farm? What is the potential of windbreaks to store carbon above- and below-ground at the field level and nationally? Technology Transfer Needs The level of investment in technology transfer o­n agroforestry windbreaks must increase. Increased technology transfer efforts should be focused o­n packaging completed, but scattered, research results to facilitate their use by resource professionals and landowners. AFTA has identified the following high priority information needs: Economic fact sheets using existing data for crop production in association with windbreak practices. Economic data o­n the influence of windbreaks o­n feed requirements, mortality rates, and animal health for animal feeding operations. Windbreak designs that maximize plant species diversity to reduce the negative impact of insects, diseases, and weed infestations o­n windbreaks. Educational materials to promote proper windbreak management and renovation by the public. Learning materials to better educate natural resource professionals and university agricultural science and forestry students o­n windbreak technologies. Informational tools about windbreak practices that optimize the production of marketable specialty forest products to increase income for small farms. Management and economic guidelines for harvesting timber or non-timber products while maintaining windbreak functions.

Please help us keep this website as up-to-date and complete as possible by suggesting information that should be added, updated or deleted if it is no longer accurate. Please tell us about any new developments relevant to temperate agroforestry in North America, e.g., research projects, educational and training opportunities, meetings and field days, new publications  and useful websites.   We're Looking for Information - You Can Help Here are the types of information about temperate agroforestry we're looking for to keep our website up to date. Your ideas and suggestions are much appreciated, and will help us to better inform the agroforestry community in North America. Print and Internet 1.  New in Print : New published reports, bulletins, journal articles, etc. related to agroforestry in general or particular practices. Please send copies, press releases or web page links. 2.  New o­n the Web : Links to pages relevant to agroforestry o­n any website. 3.  Current research : Citations of current scientific journal articles; please add a brief annotation. News Items 1.  Meetings calendar : Announcements and calls for papers for conferences, training courses, field days, etc. related to agroforestry, sustainable agriculture, private forestry, etc. 2.  Job announcements  for full or part-time, graduate student or internship positions. Database Updates 1.  People & Activities database : Agroforestry-related activities that you or colleagues are involved with in your organization, o­n a farm or as a private business. Includes teaching, research, demonstration trials, training, businesses, etc. conducted anywhere in the US or Canada. Please fill out and submit the o­nline form at  [link] 2.  Bibliography database : Citations of new or recent journal articles, book chapters and monographs related to temperate agroforestry and associated fields. Fill out and submit the o­nline form at [link] Newsletter Articles Temperate Agroforester : We welcome submissions to the AFTA newsletter, published both o­nline and in print. This includes feature articles o­n agroforestry research, education, practice and policy, plus book reviews and opinion, from 250-2500 words. Photographs are very welcome (see below). Newsletter deadlines are the 15th of March, June, September and December .

Edited by Miles L. Merwin Association for Temperate Agroforestry 1997 H.E. "Gene" Garrett, President School of Natural Resources University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary II. Background, Purpose and Acknowledgements III. Agroforestry Concepts and Practices     Key Characteristics of Agroforestry Systems     Current Status of Agroforestry Systems     Agroforestry and Farm Management Planning     Practices Which Are Not Agroforestry IV. Issues, Needs and Recommendations     Applicability of Agroforestry     Sustainability Issues     Landowner Adoption     Needs, Opportunities and Recommendations V. Summaries of Regional Assessments     Northeast     South     Midwest     Northern Great Plains     Southern Great Plains     Intermountain     Pacific Northwest     Southwest     Pacific Islands Literature Cited & Notes I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AFTA defines agroforestry as an intensive land management system that optimizes the benefits from the biological interactions created when trees and/or shrubs are deliberately combined with crops and/or livestock. There are five basic types of agroforestry practices today in the US: windbreaks, alley cropping, silvopasture, riparian buffers and forest farming. Within each agro- forestry practice, there is a continuum of options available to landowners depending o­n their own goals (e.g., whether to maximize the production of interplanted crops, animal forage, or trees). Landowner Adoption Farmers, ranchers, and foresters may not recognize particular practices as "agroforestry" even though they make use of them (e.g., field windbreaks to protect crops). Agroforestry is a set of practices integrated into larger land use systems. It is not a product or commodity. As a part of integrated land use management systems, agroforestry is relevant to the sustainable production of a wide variety of agricultural commodities, as well as the production of high-value specialty products. Economic gain is the primary motivating factor in the adoption of agroforestry in the US. The decision whether or not to adopt an agroforestry practice depends o­n the decision maker's perception of how that practice compares with alternative land use options. To be acceptable, agroforestry practices must offer (1) at least as much income potential, without significantly greater risk, compared to other market-driven land uses, or (2) better prospects for solving a particular conservation problem compared to other practices that do not involve tree planting. While economics are often paramount in the decision to adopt o­ne land use practice over another, social and aesthetic considerations may also be important to the landowner. The relative weighting of economic, social and other factors will vary among landowners depending o­n the size of the farming or forestry enterprise, the level of production intensity, proximity to markets, and whether it is a full or part-time activity. Research and Development To advance agroforestry in the US, research is needed both o­n basic, process-level questions and o­n applied management techniques that are appropriate for commercial farm or forest operations. While basic research may, for example, investigate the long-term biological interactions between the components of an agroforestry practice, applied research should seek to maximize the tangible short and intermediate term benefits. Agroforestry practices should be tailored to readily integrate into existing farming or forestry enterprises, minimize the displacement of existing crops, use equipment and technical skills that are readily available, and allow some harvesting of products within conservation agroforestry practices (e.g., hardwood timber from riparian buffer strips). There is the potential to expand the participation of state, community and junior colleges, through their agriculture and forestry programs, in agroforestry research. The greatest research need is to develop farm-level analyses of the potential economic costs, benefits, and risks associated with agroforestry practices. This information is a vital prerequisite to the objective comparison of both production-and conservation-driven agroforestry practices with alternative land use options. Furthermore, attention should be given to evaluations of future price trends in regional, national and international markets for commodities that can be produced using agroforestry (e.g., hardwood lumber or high-value, wind-sensitive crops). Research o­n tree-crop-animal-environment interactions should be pursued to provide a scientific basis for optimizing agroforestry designs. Information and Technology Development Technical information must be developed locally or regionally for application within that region. Information which is too general or which is based o­n studies conducted in dissimilar regions or climate zones is not likely to convince landowners to adopt agroforestry practices, or provide relevant skills and knowledge to ensure their success. o­n-farm demonstrations and field days are key to the understanding and appreciation of agroforestry practices by landowners. Education and training in agroforestry are needed both for natural resource professionals and college students. In addition to the traditional model for the transfer of technology from researcher to extension agent to practitioner, landowners should have greater involvement in all phases of this process. With the assistance of research and extension personnel, local groups of landowners may analyze their own needs for agroforestry development, conduct o­n-farm experiments under real-life conditions, and then choose the practices most appropriate for their individual properties. Rather than accusing landowners of causing environmental degradation, they should be approached from a "win-win" perspective. Emphasis should be placed o­n participatory decision-making including landowner advisory groups. Research and information development should focus o­n agroforestry practices that afford economic opportunities, increase production efficiency, and provide cost-effective and pro-active solutions to conservation problems. Public Policy Public policy at the national and state levels impacts private land use decisions, including the adoption and use of agroforestry. Whether intentional or not, federal or state regulations may discourage landowners from adopting agroforestry practices for fear of loss of agricultural transfer payments, or government-imposed restrictions o­n their farming or forestry operation. Likewise, forest practice laws and regulations in some states may prohibit animal grazing. Government regulations which negatively impact agroforestry should be reviewed. Agroforestry can be a useful tool in developing voluntary and flexible approaches that enable landowners to comply with environmental quality guidelines. Federal and, where available, state cost-share funding is perhaps the most important incentive for the adoption of farm conservation practices, including protective forms of agroforestry. It is vital to maintain and if possible expand the availability of public cost-share funding for conservation agroforestry practices. Financial incentives should be combined with flexible guidelines for the management of conservation practices by landowners. For example, riparian buffer strips can protect surface waterways by filtering sediment, chemicals and nutrients from cropland runoff, but most of their benefits will accrue downstream of the landowner who pays for their establishment. Allowing periodic harvest by coppicing trees (e.g., poplar) in riparian buffers not o­nly provides a return to the landowner, but also is necessary for maintaining the optimal filtration capacity of the buffer. Conclusions The future advancement of agroforestry in the US must proceed at the state, regional and national levels. The principal focus of activity should be at the state or regional level where agroforestry groups (e.g., the Minnesota Agroforestry Coalition) help to coordinate research and outreach activities among universities, government agencies, private groups, and practitioners. At the national level, groups such as AFTA can help increase communication among researchers, extension advisors and regional agroforestry groups. Federal programs such as the National Agroforestry Center should continue to support research, disseminate information to resource professionals, and import overseas agroforestry techniques which may be adaptable to the US. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This national report seeks to build upon two previous documents o­n temperate agroforestry in the US published by the Association for Temperate Agroforestry (AFTA). In February 1994, AFTA published the report of a committee assembled to assess the potential for agroforestry in the US as part of the Resource Conservation Act appraisal for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service1. The document defined five temperate agroforestry practices, examined the potential acreage for agroforestry in the US, discussed the ecological and economic benefits of agroforestry, described federal support available for agroforestry, and made recommendations o­n how to advance agroforestry o­n a national level. Later that year, AFTA published the report of a workshop held in Nebraska City, Nebraska2. That report made specific recommendations related to public policy, interagency cooperation, establishment of a national agroforestry center, and funding needs for research and development. This national report by AFTA is a synthesis of nine regional assessments of the status of agroforestry that were prepared for the USDA National Agroforestry Center (see Figure 1). The authors of each regional assessment compiled the following information: (1) description (general climate, soils and land capability); (2) environmental problems which agroforestry may help mitigate; (3) sustainability concerns; (4) status of agroforestry practices; (5) needs and opportunities for agroforestry; and (6) specific recommendations o­n actions to advance agroforestry. The regional reports were prepared by agency or academic authors and are based o­n literature reviews, personal observations, and in some cases, opinion surveys of resource professionals and practitioners. Some of the assessments were presented at the Agroforestry and Sustainable Systems Symposium held in 19943. The definition of agroforestry, a summary of the key components that distinguish agroforestry from other farm tree planting practices, and an overview of the five main types of temperate agroforestry practices and their current status in the US appear in Section III. The findings of the regional assessment authors were then consolidated in a national overview of issues, needs and recommendations related to agroforestry (Section IV). The purpose of the synthesis is (1) to identify common problems and needs across regions, and (2) to help prioritize efforts at the national and regional levels to address the needs for agroforestry research, development and technical information. The major findings from the agroforestry assessments are summarized by region in Section V. All of the authors identified socioeconomic as well as environmental factors affecting future sustainability; these are combined in the "Sustainability Issues" section. The authors discussed the current status of agroforestry practices as implemented in their region. They also cited other uses of trees o­n farms which are not complete agroforestry practices; these are not included in the regional summaries. Factors affecting landowner willingness to adopt agroforestry practices were mentioned by most authors and are reported in the regional summaries. Identified needs, opportunities and recommendations are divided into five general categories to facilitate comparisons among regions: (1) research and development, (2) economics and marketing, (3) policy and funding, (4) education and training, and (5) information and technology development. AFTA wishes to express its gratitude to the National Agroforestry Center for providing editorial and production assistance, and to the following reviewers who provided valuable comments during the preparation of this report: H.E. ‘Gene' Garrett, Bill Rietveld, Bruce Wight, Michael Gold, Joe Colletti, Catalino Blanche, Louise Buck, Deborah Hill, and Peter Williams. AFTA also wishes to acknowledge the outstanding work of the regional assessment authors in preparing comprehensive and insightful reviews of the status of agroforestry, and for reviewing the summaries of their assessments prepared for this report. Copies of the complete text of the regional assessments may be obtained from the USDA National Agroforestry Center (East Campus-UNL, Lincoln, NE 68583-0822). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. AGROFORESTRY CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES Agroforestry is an intensive land management system that optimizes the benefits from the biological interactions created when trees and/or shrubs are deliberately combined with crops and/ or animals4. The benefits created by agroforestry practices are both economic and environmental. Agroforestry can increase farm profitability in several ways: (1) the total output per unit area of tree/ crop/livestock combinations is greater than any single component alone, (2) crops and livestock protected from the damaging effects of wind are more productive, and (3) new products add to the financial diversity and flexibility of the farming enterprise. Agroforestry helps to conserve and protect natural resources by, for example, mitigating non-point source pollution, controlling soil erosion, and creating wildlife habitat. The benefits of agroforestry add up to a substantial improvement of the economic and resource sustainability of agriculture. Key Traits of Agroforestry Practices Agroforestry practices are intentional combinations of trees with crops and/or livestock which involve intensive management of the interactions between the components as an integrated agro- ecosystem. These four key characteristics - intentional, intensive, interactive and integrated - are the essence of agroforestry and are what distinguish it from other farming or forestry practices. To be called agroforestry, a land use practice must satisfy all of the following four criteria: Intentional : Combinations of trees, crops and/or animals are intentionally designed and managed as a whole unit, rather than as individual elements which may occur in close proximity but are controlled separately. Intensive : Agroforestry practices are intensively managed to maintain their productive and protective functions, and often involve annual operations such as cultivation, fertilization and irrigation. Interactive : Agroforestry management seeks to actively manipulate the biological and physical interactions between the tree, crop and animal components. The goal is to enhance the production of more than o­ne harvestable component at a time, while also providing conservation benefits such as non-point source water pollution control or wildlife habitat. Integrated : The tree, crop and/or animal components are structurally and functionally combined into a single, integrated management unit. Integration may be horizontal or vertical, and above- or below-ground. Such integration utilizes more of the productive capacity of the land and helps to balance economic production with resource conservation. Current Status of Agroforestry Practices A wide range of agroforestry combinations may be grouped into five basic types of practices: (1) alley cropping, (2) windbreaks, (3) riparian buffer strips, (4) silvopasture, and (5) forest farming. The characteristics of each practice and their current status of development in the US are discussed below. Alley Cropping : This practice combines trees, planted in single or grouped rows, with agricultural or horticultural crops which are cultivated in the wide alleys between the tree rows. High-value hardwoods such as oak, walnut, and ash are typically grown in alley cropping combinations. Annual crops (e.g., row crops, forages and vegetables) cultivated between rows of nut or fruit trees (e.g., black walnut) provide extra income before the trees come into bearing and early in the long-term timber rotation. Depending o­n tree spacing, Christmas tree plantations may be interplanted with annual crops. Alternatively, short rotation woody crops or Christmas trees may be interplanted within plantations of longer-rotation timber trees. Alley cropping or intercropping of tree plantations and orchards is common o­nly in the Pacific Islands, but is also practiced in the Midwest and somewhat in the Southwest, South and Northeast. Windbreaks : Windbreaks are planted and managed as part of a crop or livestock operation to enhance crop production, protect livestock, and control soil erosion. Field windbreaks are used to protect a variety of wind-sensitive row, tree and vine crops, to control wind erosion, and to provide other benefits such as improved bee pollination of crops and wildlife habitat. Feedlot windbreaks help reduce animal mortality, feed and water consumption, and odor. Windbreaks can function as living snow fences to help with water management by dispersing snow more evenly across cropland. A special type of multi-row windbreak ("timberbelt") is managed both to protect crops or livestock o­n a continuous basis, and to produce timber or biomass. Windbreaks are most prominent in the Great Plains, although they are used in every part of the country. The Northeast is the o­nly region where windbreaks are generally declining in importance. Feedlot windbreaks are particularly important in the Great Plains, Northwest, and Intermountain regions. Riparian Buffer Strips : Riparian buffers consist of strips of perennial vegetation (tree/ shrub/grass) planted between cropland or pastures and streams, lakes, wetlands, ponds, or drainage ditches. They are managed to reduce runoff and non-point source pollution from agricultural activities o­n adjacent lands by trapping sediment, filtering excess nutrients, and degrading pesticides. They can also stabilize streambanks, protect floodplains, enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat, improve landscape appearance, provide harvestable products, and function as a windbreak in some situations. Interest in riparian buffer strips (also known as filter strips, riparian forest buffers and vegetative buffer strips) is growing in all areas of the US, particularly the Northeast, Midwest and Northwest. However, not all riparian areas currently without woody vegetation are actually in need of tree and shrub planting (e.g., in the Northern Great Plains). Silvopasture : This practice combines trees with forage (pasture or hay) and livestock production. The overstory tree component provides shade and wind shelter, thereby protecting livestock from temperature stresses. In plantations of softwood or hardwood trees managed for timber or Christmas trees, grazing provides a source of income during the early years of the rotation. Some nut (e.g., black walnut) and fruit orchards may also be grazed to produce income before the trees begin bearing. Silvopasture is different from traditional forest or range management because it is intentionally created and intensively managed. Silvopasture is important in the South and is also found in the Midwest. In the Northeast, some woodlots and orchards incorporate rotational grazing with dairy sheep or fallow deer. Forest Farming : This practice utilizes a forested area for producing specialty crops which are sold for medicinal, ornamental or culinary uses. Shade tolerant crops such as ginseng, decorative ferns or shiitake mushrooms are intensively cultivated under a forest cover that has been modified to provide the correct level of shade. Suitable understory crops are those that grow naturally under forest conditions, or are adaptable to the edaphic and microclimatic conditions of the site. Forest farming can provide annual/regular income either before, or as an alternative to, harvesting the trees for wood products. Forest farming is rapidly gaining interest and economic importance in all regions of the US, except the Great Plains and Intermountain. Tropical Agroforestry Practices in the US Two traditional, tropical agroforestry practices are unique, within the US and its territories, to the Pacific Islands. Shifting cultivation, or swidden, has been practiced since the earliest island settlers and can be sustainable provided the fallow period is sufficiently long. Multilayer forest gardens are another common tropical agroforestry practice in the Pacific. They combine a permanent overstory of tall trees, a lower canopy of fruit and multipurpose trees, and an understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants to produce a variety of products for subsistence and sale. Agroforestry and Farm Management The implementation of agroforestry allows landowners much flexibility to design land management practices that satisfy their individual objectives and planning horizons. Emphasis may be placed either o­n production or conservation goals, although agroforestry practices combine elements of both. Because agroforestry practices are a continuum between agriculture and forestry, landowners can manage them to maximize the production of interplanted crops, animal forage or trees. Agroforestry may be used o­nly during a limited time period as part of farm or forestry management (e.g., to generate income from grazing during the early years of a long-rotation tree plantation), or as a long-term sustainable farming system. Farm management (or whole farm) planning is an important first step to incorporating agroforestry practices in a farming or forestry enterprise. Agroforestry involves managing trees o­n a long-term basis (e.g., for timber or windbreaks); therefore they need to be planted in the right place the first time. Farm management planning usually entails several phases, including (1) setting business and personal goals, (2) evaluation of the farm's existing natural features, improvements, crops produced, and financial condition, (3) identification of additional or alternative farm enterprises, and (4) determination of priorities for implementation. The planning process helps to identify which agroforestry practices have the greatest potential economic and conservation benefit for a particular property, and where they can be implemented to complement, rather than compete with, other farming practices. Practices Which Are Not Agroforestry A variety of other practices currently used in the US may appear to be agroforestry, but do not meet all four of the basic criteria for agroforestry practices. Either they are not deliberately planned and intensively managed, or they do not involve integrated combinations of trees, crops and/or animals whose interactions are consciously manipulated and enhanced. In no way does such a distinction imply that these practices are less viable than agroforestry; it is o­nly intended to more clearly delineate the functional boundaries of agroforestry in the US. Some examples of practices which are not agroforestry are listed below. Forest and Orchard Grazing : Livestock grazing of native forests and plantations is practiced in all regions of the US. However, it is often opportunistic, rather than part of a deliberate, intensive effort to produce both animals and trees (e.g., when cattle or sheep are used simply to clear brush before trees are planted). In open rangeland, trees may be incidental to, and not an active part of, livestock management. Fruit orchards may also be grazed intermittently for weed control, but unless combined livestock and fruit production is intended, this practice is not agroforestry. Farmstead Windbreaks : Windbreak buildings improve living conditions of rural dwellers by reducing heating costs, dust, and noise. In areas with harsh winters, trees are planted specifically to protect rural roads from blowing snow and thereby reduce snow removal costs. However, they are not considered agroforestry since, unlike field or feedlot windbreaks, they are not an integrated part of agricultural production. Special Forest Products : Gathering of naturally-occurring special forest products from forestland is increasing in many areas of the US. Special forest products include, for example, wild medicinal plants, craft materials, floral greens, and wild mushrooms. In contrast, forest farming involves the planting and intensive cultivation of specialty understory crops in a manipulated forest environment. Farm Woodlots : Farm woodlots are planted or native stands of trees managed for a variety of wood (e.g., fuelwood, timber, posts, and poles) and non-wood (e.g., honey) products. Fast-growing hardwoods have been established in large, single species plantations which are intensively managed for pulpwood or biomass fuel. However, when these practices do not actively incorporate crop or livestock production, they are not considered agroforestry. Table 1. Characteristics of temperate agroforestry practices that have current or potential importance in the US* Agroforestry Practice Practitioner's Goals Design and Management Criteria Time Horizon Regional importance Field Windbreaks Farmer: increased income from better crop yield & quality; soil erosion control minimize crop displacement, maximize area of wind protection, fast-growing trees, seasonality of problem winds, reduce tree competition with crop for water & nutrients multi-year all (less so NE) Livestock Windbreaks Rancher: increased production & reduced mortality of livestock minimize width, maximize amount of wind reduction, fast-growing trees, seasonality of problem winds, control impact of animals o­n tree growth & survival multi-year NW, NGP, SGP Silvopasture :  tree emphasis Forest Landowner: extra/early income from livestock production; weed control close-spacing of trees, maximize tree growth, tree protection needed, thinning & pruning of trees for wood quality, forest management to promote understory forage, control impact of animals o­n tree growth & survival early in tree rotation PI, SGP, MW, S Silvopasture :  animal emphasis Rancher: increase animal production with shade, shelter and fodder from trees, extra income from timber maintain pasture & fodder tree growth, thinning & pruning of trees for pasture growth, fodder yield & palatability, wide spacing of tree rows, manage shading & root competition that reduces pasture growth annual & multi-year PI, SGP, MW, S Alley Cropping :  tree emphasis Forest Landowner: extra/early income from interplanted crops; weed control close tree spacing, intercropping o­nly during early years, reduce competition of crops with trees for water & nutrients early in tree rotation PI, SW, MW, S, NE Alley Cropping :  crop emphasis Farmer: extra income from long-term timber crop wide spacing of tree rows, maintain crops longer in rotation, tree thinning & pruning to increase crop growth & wood quality annual & multi-year PI, SW, MW, S, NE Riparian Buffers Farmer: reduce NPS pollution and sediment (compliance); fee hunting from game species minimum displacement of crops, minimum width for buffering effectiveness, crop &/or tree harvesting within buffer, cost of fencing to exclude livestock, loss of grazing land multi-year NGP, SW, NW, MW, NE Forest Farming Forest Landowner: extra/early income from cultivated understory crops thinning or clearing of trees to enhance understory crop cultivation; intensive management annual & multi-year PI, SW, NW, MW, S, NE *Regional abbreviations: IM-Intermountain, MW-Midwest, NE-Northeast, NGP-Northern Great Plains, NW-Northwest, PI-Pacific Islands, S -South, SGP-Southern Great Plains, SW-Southwest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. ISSUES, NEEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Applicability of Agroforestry Based o­n the environmental diversity reflected in the regional assessments, it is clear that o­ne or more agroforestry practices can be implemented anywhere within the continental US and its Pacific island territories. Climate, soils, and land capability do not pose absolute restrictions o­n tree and shrub planting. Within each region, locally adapted species and appropriate establishment techniques are used for agroforestry plantings. Nevertheless, climatic and edaphic conditions are important limiting factors o­n tree establishment in some regions (e.g., Intermountain, Northern and Southern Great Plains). In some areas within those regions, the choice of species is more restricted due to harsh environmental conditions. Not o­nly is the need for protective plantings such as windbreaks greater in these areas, but the cost to establish trees and shrubs also will be higher than in locations where milder environmental conditions prevail. Because of the extra costs associated with irrigation, alley cropping and silvopasture may be more economically viable in areas of the US that normally receive sufficient rainfall to support both trees and crops together. However, the availability of low-cost water (e.g., municipal or industrial wastewater) for irrigation may make these practices possible in drier climate zones. Riparian buffer strips can be established along any stream or river with sufficient soil moisture to support perennial woody vegetation. Even in areas affected by brackish water or saline soil, adaptable species can be identified for buffer plantings. Forest farming can be practiced wherever there is sufficient forest cover, and edaphic and climatic conditions are suitable, for the cultivation of shade-tolerant understory crops. Higher rainfall areas of the country are likely to be more suitable for forest farming compared to regions with low rainfall and high potential evapotranspiration. However, high crop values can offset irrigation costs. Sustainability Issues Natural Resource and Environment Four natural resource sustainability issues were cited as being critical in every region of the US: soil erosion, water quality, wildlife habitat, and riparian zones. All areas of the US are subject to soil erosion by water or wind, and erosion control is o­ne of the primary reasons for conservation agroforestry practices. The quality of both surface and ground water resources is a major issue in all regions. The primary concern is non-point source pollution, i.e., sediment, nutrients, chemicals and animal wastes, resulting from agriculture, industry, and communities. The loss of biodiversity and declining populations of bird, animal, and fish species resulting from terrestrial and aquatic habitat destruction is an issue nationwide. A major contributing factor in the degradation of water quality and loss of wildlife habitat throughout the nation is the clearing of vegetation from riparian areas. Several other environmental problems cited in the assessments have regional significance. Concerns about the impacts of farming operations o­n air quality (e.g., dust, soil particulates, and odor) are important in the Southwest, Northern and Southern Great Plains, and Midwest. Also in the Midwest, issues related to the reclamation of surface coal minelands and regeneration of native hardwood species are important. Other regional problems include the impacts of farming o­n natural playa lakes in the Southern Great Plains, the spread of invasive non-native plants in the Southwest, and the decline of aquifers used for irrigation and drinking water supplies in the Southern Great Plains. Socioeconomic Four socioeconomic issues are of nationwide importance: urban encroachment o­n rural areas, farm demographics, declining rural economies, and public land management. In all regions, except the Great Plains and the Pacific, the expansion of cities into rural areas is occurring at a rapid pace. This "urbanization" process creates both challenges and opportunities for farming, ranching and forestry. A national trend in farm demographics is changing the priorities for agroforestry research and technology development: fewer, but larger farms account for a high proportion of total agricultural production, while the number of small, part-time, or "lifestyle" farms is growing. At the same time, the strength of rural, resource-based economies has weakened, particularly in parts of the West dependent o­n timber harvests from public lands. This has resulted in part from conflicts over the management of public lands, which has a proportionally greater impact in regions where large acreages are publicly owned. Several other socioeconomic issues affecting sustainability mentioned by authors of the regional assessments also have national relevance. Health problems of native populations resulting from dietary changes is a concern in the Pacific Islands and the Southwest. The economic impacts of geographic isolation and the transition from subsistence to market-based economies are major issues facing the Pacific Islands. Farmworker health and food safety were important issues mentioned in several regions. The cost and availability of energy was cited as a concern in two regions (Intermountain, Southern Great Plains), although it also affects every region of the country. Likewise, although the impact of the global economy and NAFTA o­n agriculture was mentioned o­nly in o­ne region (Intermountain), this of course has national relevance. Landowner Adoption If agroforestry practices have such promising economic, environmental and social benefits, why are they not practiced more widely today in the US? Many of the authors of the regional assessments cited a variety of factors which affect the adoption of agroforestry practices by private landowners. Some have regional significance, while others are valid considerations throughout the US. An understanding of both the motivations for, and constraints against, adoption of particular land use practices is necessary to better tailor research and education programs. A general observation mentioned by several authors is that most private landowners are not familiar with the term "agroforestry," although they may recognize land use practices that fall within the definition (e.g., windbreaks or riparian buffer strips). Extension advisors and other land use professionals are more likely to have heard the term "agroforestry," although they tend to associate it with a particular land use practice in their region rather than as a suite of different practices. In some cases, landowners or professionals associate agroforestry with practices which are controversial or which they actively discourage (e.g., uncontrolled forest grazing). Lack of recognition of the general term "agroforestry" by practitioners may not necessarily be a cause for concern since technical and financial assistance programs would more likely focus o­n specific agroforestry practices (e.g., alley cropping). Whether or not a particular land use practice is seen by the landowner as "agroforestry," a number of factors affect their willingness to adopt that practice. An important element of landowner adoption cited by some of the regional assessment authors pertains to the size and commercial intensity of farms. Owners of large, "industrial" farms, small sustainable/organic farms, and part-time or hobby farms each have a different set of priorities for land management. Larger farming operators are more likely to be concerned primarily with short-term profit potential while small farming operators may be more interested in environmental or aesthetic benefits which do not necessarily generate cash returns. Therefore, different agroforestry practices may appeal, for different reasons, to these distinct groups of landowners. Reasons for Adoption Economic gain was cited as the most important reason why landowners may adopt an agroforestry practice. Opportunities to profitably produce a marketable product through production-driven agroforestry, to generate income during the early years of a long-term tree rotation, and to diversify farm income with supplemental products are all primary motivating factors. Government incentive programs to reduce out-of-pocket costs for the establishment of some conservation-oriented agroforestry practices are a major reason for their adoption. The importance of government assistance varies by region and by program. For example, federal cost-share programs are used in almost o­ne-half of all tree planting o­n non-industrial private forestland in the South, while relatively little agroforestry planting has resulted from public cost-share funding in the Northeast. Some states also provide cost-share incentives for particular agroforestry practices. The need to mitigate an environmental problem (e.g., damaging winds) is another important reason for agroforestry adoption. The underlying motivation may be to increase income by improving the conditions for plant or animal growth, or it may be for the sake of conserving a vital resource (e.g., erodible soil). As a corollary to environmental mitigation, the fear of government regulation, which imposes restrictions o­n land use, may motivate some landowners to adopt them pro-actively. For some landowners, although certainly not most, the principal reasons for adopting an agroforestry practice may be non-economic. Land uses which provide aesthetic, recreational, environmental and/or domestic use benefits are attractive, particularly to landowners who do not need to earn their entire living from the land. Constraints to Adoption Counter balancing the positive reasons that landowners adopt agroforestry practices are a number of negative factors which may discourage adoption. The constraints mentioned in the regional assessments may be categorized within four broad categories: economic, land management, information and technology development, and public policy. Just as economic factors may be the main reasons for a landowner's decision to use an agroforestry practice, they may be paramount considerations in the decision not to use agroforestry. Other alternative land uses may offer more potential profit with a shorter waiting period and with less risk in established markets than do production oriented agroforestry practices. Reliable farm-level cost/benefit analyses are often lacking for agroforestry. Capital for start-up and operating costs for new or untested practices may be difficult to obtain. The perceived high cost of establishment of agroforestry practices was mentioned by several authors as the over-riding constraint to adoption (e.g., extra irrigation costs necessary to establish trees in a harsh environment). The lack of, or restrictions o­n, government cost-share funding is an important disincentive for conservation agroforestry. Agroforestry adoption may also be constrained by factors related to land management. Trees and shrubs may be seen to interfere with farming operations (e.g., aerial spraying or equipment movement), to compete excessively with crops for limited resources (e.g., water), or to displace valuable cropland. o­n-farm trials of agroforestry practices may yield disappointing results or prove incompatible with existing cropping patterns, which dissuades the landowner from larger-scale adoption. Land tenure is also an issue because tenant farmers are not likely to be able to invest in practices that take a long time to yield economic or other benefits. Other alternative practices (e.g., residue management or crop rotation) may be seen as more effective than tree planting in improving agricultural productivity and sustainability. The lack of practical, locally-relevant information o­n the economics and management of agroforestry practices often discourages their adoption. Without printed information, agroforestry-literate extension advice, o­n-farm demonstrations, or experience of other local farmers, many landowners are not convinced that agroforestry is a proven land use option. Agroforestry practices may require unfamiliar management skills, additional labor, or customized services which are not locally available. There may be conflicting or erratic promotion of agroforestry among and within public agencies. With the exception of some growers' associations that produce specialty crops, there is no well-organized, grass roots support or beneficiary group which promotes agroforestry o­n behalf of its farmer-members, as do many commodity-centered farm associations and marketing cooperatives. Public policy may directly or indirectly affect rural land use, and some policies contain disincentives to agroforestry adoption. For example, forest practice regulations or taxation policies may discourage forest grazing. The current Conservation Reserve Program restricts active management of planted hardwoods, thereby eliminating agroforestry as an option. Rural landowners are also at a disadvantage regarding legislation affecting them due to the concentration of political power in urban areas. As o­ne author noted, institutional policies may discourage long-term interdisciplinary research o­n innovative agroforestry practices. Needs and Recommendations The regional assessments identified a variety of needs and opportunities to advance agroforestry research and development. Some needs were voiced by several authors, while others pertain primarily to individual regions. Many general and specific recommendations for action were also proposed. General recommendations are integrated in the following summary of needs and opportunities (refer to the summaries of the individual regional assessments in Section V for more specific recommendations). Research and Development There was a unanimous call by the authors for more research o­n agroforestry. To help overcome the information gap in agroforestry, research should be regional and site-specific so that landowners do not have to rely o­n results from other, dissimilar regions. Both applied and basic research are needed, especially programs that extend across a geographic region to show where and under what circumstances particular agroforestry practices are likely to succeed. Given the nature of agroforestry, research needs to be long-term and interdisciplinary. Because the objectives of large corporate farms and small family farms may be different, approaches to research should accommodate those differences. In the Pacific Islands, research is needed that integrates traditional, subsistence agroforestry practices with modern, market-driven practices. Among specific topics for research, the greatest need is for research which quantifies the direct and indirect economic costs, benefits, and risks of agroforestry practices for specific regions and applications. Research is needed o­n ways that landowners can realize some income from land devoted to conservation-oriented agroforestry. For example, cropping or selective harvesting of trees within riparian buffers may be compatible with maintaining the filtering capability of the buffer strip. Research is needed o­n low-cost, fast-growing windbreaks that displace a minimum amount of cropland but still provide adequate shelter. For silvopasture, additional livestock management research is needed o­n techniques to reduce the impact of trampling and browsing o­n trees and soils. For alley cropping, research is needed to select crop species which are complementary to the trees, and o­n crop cultural practices that reduce injuries to tree roots or trunks (i.e., which may degrade wood quality). The selection and improvement of plant materials for agroforestry requires long-term work, but is critical to maximizing the potential for economic gain from agroforestry. Economics and Marketing Because economic considerations are often the most important consideration leading to landowner adoption of agroforestry practices, most authors placed a high priority o­n farm-level financial and economic studies. Similar to the budgets routinely prepared by extension economists for the production of field and orchard crops, real data are needed o­n the expected costs and returns from production-driven agroforestry practices. More attention should be given to the development of domestic and export markets for agroforestry products, and marketing intermediaries between producers and consumers (e.g., marketing associations representing growers of forest farming products). For conservation-oriented agroforestry practices, many authors recommended a more thorough accounting of the value of "externalities" of agroforestry practices (e.g., the economic, environmental and social benefits associated with the amelioration of non-point source pollution). These non-product benefits of agroforestry need to be quantified, such as lowering heating and cooling costs, reducing airborne dust and fine particulates from wind-erodible farmland, maintaining water quality, and enhancing wildlife habitat. This information would allow farm managers to evaluate the trade-offs between o­n-farm practices and off-farm effects, and could encourage adoption of some agroforestry practices. It would also help policy makers determine who should pay for, and who gains from, the benefits of conservation practices implemented o­n private lands. Education and Training All regional assessments identified a need for training of extension, agency, and technical personnel so they will better understand the potential benefits, costs, and limitations of agroforestry practices, and know under what circumstances to recommend them to landowners. Cooperation among agencies in training workshops is an important element in coordinated efforts aimed toward the goal of increasing landowner adoption. o­ne author suggested that training in sales techniques is needed for extension advisors. College-level course curricula should be developed which covers both theoretical and applied, region-specific aspects of agroforestry. Information and Technology Development Coupled with the currently inadequate state of technical assistance in agroforestry, the regional assessments identified the need for quantitative information o­n agroforestry practices that is regionally and locally relevant. Guides to agroforestry information sources, resource packets for libraries and extension offices, and computerized "expert" systems would benefit both landowners and public agency advisors. Beyond printed information, a powerful tool for conveying technical information is o­n-farm demonstration sites. Most authors placed a high priority o­n the development of applied agroforestry demonstrations that can be utilized for field days and seminars. Technology development is aided by "turn-key" custom services (e.g., tree planting) that private entrepreneurs or conservation districts provide for landowners. Most authors expressed the need to improve communication about agroforestry with farmers, foresters, ranchers and other groups. Many landowners are unfamiliar with the term "agroforestry," and factual information is needed to counter negative perceptions associated with particular practices. Where concrete data are lacking, the authors cautioned that the potential benefits of agroforestry should not be oversold. Partnerships with stakeholder organizations can improve communication about agroforestry and coordinate joint efforts behind informational or demonstration projects. Information o­n suitable agroforestry practices should also be directed toward suburban homeowners (e.g., home or subdivision shelterbelts), and native American tribes (e.g., tree crops for dietary improvement). The rural/urban interface is an ideal location to demonstrate the benefits of agroforestry. Public Policy and Funding Public land use policies and the availability of financial incentives can either be a major contributor or deterrent to the adoption of agroforestry. Government regulations and taxation policies that discourage agroforestry need to be examined (e.g., restrictions o­n income from timber crops o­n lands enrolled in CRP). Several authors stressed the importance of federal leadership for agroforestry development through the National Agroforestry Center, specifically including an ecosystem- based approach to land management, coordination of contact points for landowner assistance among different agencies, and establishment of regional research programs. Most authors identified cost-share funding, mainly from federal but also from some state programs, as a critical factor in the establishment of conservation types of agroforestry. However, concern was expressed over the future availability of government cost-share funds for agroforestry, given the current federal budget reallocations. A need was identified for targeted funding to support long-term, interdisciplinary research at land grant universities, and to finance regional small grants programs for agroforestry demonstration and marketing projects. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. SUMMARIES OF REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS A. NORTHEAST5 Region Description For this report, the Northeast region includes the New England states of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island; the mid-Atlantic states of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; and the south-Atlantic states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia (see Figure 1). The assessment focused o­n o­ne representative state within each sub-region; Vermont, New York and Maryland. The region has a continental climate with relatively homogeneous temperature gradients and no markedly dry season. Some soils are not productive for annual crops, but do support trees. Land use in the Northeast is mainly forest (60%), cropland (13%), pasture (8%) and urban (11%). Sustainability Issues Environmental Erosion : Soil erosion and sedimentation are important non-point sources of water pollution from agriculture. Cropland erosion is declining due to a combination of improved practices and loss of land in agriculture. The amount of cropland considered highly erodible is also declining. Water quality : The health of water resources is a prime concern. Agriculture is a major source of sediments, pesticides and nutrients affecting water resources. Rural septic systems are also an important source of pollutants. Wetlands : There is growing concern over the loss of wetlands that provide fish and wildlife habitat and water quality functions. Riparian buffers : Some 66,000 lineal miles of riparian streambank in the region are without trees or shrubs. Clearing of riparian vegetation has caused streambank destabilization and erosion. Socioeconomic Farm demographics : Total farmland acreage has decreased in all states, due to the general decline of the agriculture industry in the region. In some areas, agricultural lands are being rapidly converted to metropolitan uses, while in others abandoned agricultural lands are reverting to their former forested status. From 1980-93, average farm size in the region increased and the number of farmers decreased, except in Massachusetts and Vermont where the total number of farms increased. Suburbanization : The region is more urbanized than the nation as a whole. Development is also increasing in rural areas. However, urbanization creates opportunities for low-volume, high value production for specialty markets in urban and suburban areas. A characteristic urban-rural fringe agriculture is emerging based o­n local production and consumption strategies and dense market networks. Forestry : Most Northeastern forestland is owned by small private landowners. Amenity values as well as timber potential are important to them. Development pressures o­n rural lands provide a strong incentive to forest landowners to harvest and then sell their land for development. Agroforestry Practices Historical : Native peoples in the Northeast practiced nut tree planting, gathering, and shifting cultivation. Woodlots and forest grazing were common practices among the early European settlers. Today, each of the five main agroforestry practices is evident, but most are practiced o­n a limited, spontaneous basis. Alley Cropping and Intercropping : High value hardwoods for timber may be interplanted with "nurse tree crops" (e.g., black locust), or herb or forage crops during the early years of establishment. Examples are evident of organic fruit and vegetable production within alleys between rows of nut or willow trees. Such operations are small scale and their products destined for local farmers markets. Interplanting of small fruits in orchards or vineyards is not widespread, but has been practiced for many years. Forest farming : Markets for high value specialty products (e.g., ginseng, maple syrup, and mushrooms) are growing. Development is aided by both marketing and growers associations (e.g., the Vermont Specialty Foods Association, New York State Ginseng Association). Among the five practices this probably has the greatest potential for significant expansion in the region. Riparian buffers : While riparian buffers have been established o­n o­nly a very limited basis to date, interest in their economic and environmental value is rapidly expanding. Several states in the region have active riparian buffer programs. Silvopasture : Intensive rotational grazing schemes sometimes incorporate the use of woodlots and abandoned orchards o­n a carefully controlled basis. Windbreaks : Windbreaks and shelterbelts are generally in a state of decline in the region as landowners continue to invest in their removal. There is some evidence they are being developed or rehabilitated to protect vineyards and alternative livestock operations (e.g., fallow deer, sheep.) Landowner Adoption Perceptions of Agroforestry The authors conducted a survey of 42 resource professionals and landowners regarding the status and potential of agroforestry in the Northeast. They found that while most landowners are not familiar with the term "agroforestry", most resource professionals are. Most resource professional tend to associate agroforestry with a particular application or practice, some of which they may actively discourage (e.g., forest grazing). Agroforestry is not a widely known or used concept in the Northeast, though interest is growing. It assumes various meanings within different geographic and land use contexts. In Appalachia and New England agroforestry tends to be equated with forest farming, while o­n the Coastal Plains the term more commonly refers to riparian buffer strips. Most agroforestry practices have arisen spontaneously from demographic and market forces that shape land use patterns. Relatively little agroforestry implementation results from public cost-share funding or technical assistance programs. Public support for agroforestry Federal : Although federal cost share programs include some agroforestry practices (e.g., CRP, ACP, SIP), the acreage of land o­n which these practices have been implemented using federal cost-share is small. State : Several state and watershed-level water quality programs support riparian buffer plantings (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay Program, Connecticut River Joint Commission). Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Research & Development Urban-rural interface : Dense networks of mixed urban and rural land uses create the need for "environmentally-friendly" buffering between the two. Strategies for making these protective plantings as productive and profitable as possible should be investigated. The production of willow and poplar for energy biomass presents o­ne under-exploited opportunity. Understory cultivation : Better information is needed about the site conditions required for cultivating high quality herbs in the forest understory o­n a continuous basis. The potential complementarity between maple syrup and herb production enterprises in parts of Appalachia and New England should be investigated. Watershed protection : Roles of riparian buffers and forest farming in watershed and wetland protection should be carefully investigated, and public incentive programs to landowners tailored accordingly. Abandoned land conversion : Silvicultural and economic dimensions of managing the succession of abandoned agricultural land to advance the production of high value timber with low intensity haying or grazing need to be better and more widely understood. Specialty products : Community supported agriculture and farmer's markets provide opportunities for marketing of agroforestry specialty products. While these products have long been sold in the region, it has been o­n a small scale and limited basis. The domestic and international market potential for woods-grown products of many varieties needs to be more systematically monitored. Information & Technology Development Potential : There is significant unmet potential to expand agroforestry knowledge and practice in the region. Networking : Efforts to coordinate and focus the expanding interest in agroforestry (e.g., the Northeast Agroforestry Consortium) will need at least a minimal level of public financial resources. Policy & Funding Tenure and taxes : Important disincentives to the practice of agroforestry fall within the realm of tenure and tax policy. The development of cooperative agreements through collaborative problem-solving among public agency and private interests concerned with sustainability issues can help address such constraints o­n a pilot, demonstration basis. In this context, agroforestry may be more readily viewed as a strategic bridge between conservation and development objectives throughout the region. Small grants : There is need for a regional small grants program focused o­n agroforestry technology, marketing and policy reform needs, modeled partially after the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE). Unlike the current program, it must provide for multi-year findings and outcomes. Cost-share : Federal cost share and associated technical assistance programs should be coordinated and reoriented to support integrative approaches to land use. Leadership : National leadership and financial resources aimed toward sustainable land use practices are needed to advance agroforestry in the region. B. SOUTH6 Region Description The South includes the following ten states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee (see Figure 1). The region has a generally moderate climate with year-around precipitation and relatively long growing seasons. Some soils in the region have limitations due to low fertility, shallowness and water logging. Most of the undeveloped non-federal land is in forest (57%), 22% is cropland, and 14% is pasture. From 1982-87, over two million acres of crop and pasture lands were lost to development. There is a high potential for conversion of land- use between forestry and agriculture. The region's large forest land base is highly productive; over 80% of Southern forest land is capable of growing at least 50 cubic feet of industrial wood per acre annually. Private ownership predominates, with about 70% of commercial timberland owned by non-industrial private landowners. Sustainability Issues Environmental Soil erosion : Erosion exceeds the national average in 8 of 10 states in the region. Nutrient runoff problems are exacerbated when farmers try to compensate for fertility loss by adding fertilizer. Exposed subsoils often contain toxic elements (e.g., aluminum). Wind erosion problems are local and relatively modest. Water quality : Non-point source pollution of surface and groundwater from agricultural irrigation activities (e.g., pesticides, nitrates and sediment runoff) is a problem in 8 of 10 states. Riparian zones : Clearing of riparian zones for farming has increased runoff and sedimentation. Wildlife : Land-use changes (e.g., agricultural development, forest clearing and urban growth) have contributed to species endangerment. Socioeconomic Growth : The region's population is growing more rapidly and is more rural than the nation as a whole. It lags behind the nation in terms of disposable income, poverty reduction and educational attainment. Farm demographics : Average farm size in the South is smaller than the national average. From 1990-93, the number of southern farms decreased by about 4% while average farm size increased slightly. Agroforestry Practices Historical : The earliest form of southern agroforestry was forest grazing. However, the practice became controversial due to land use conflicts and problems caused by uncontrolled grazing. Silvopasture : Native forest grazing is the dominant agroforestry practice in the region, mainly loblolly pine-grass-cattle combinations. The South has the greatest potential acreage for forest grazing in the US. Animals other than cattle are used to a lesser extent (e.g., sheep for forest brush control). While some financial evaluations of silvopasture are encouraging, the negative effects of grazing and trampling o­n seedling survival and soil productivity remain a major concern. Combination of grazing with pecans is intensively practiced in areas where pecan orchards are established (e.g., Louisiana). Although pecan trees are mainly grown for nuts, overmature trees are being harvested for furniture-grade lumber. Intercropping/Tree-crop and tree-forage : These practices are not as common as forest grazing. Crops such as soybeans or grains are cultivated in plantations of fast-growing hardwoods (e.g., cottonwood or sycamore) early in the rotation. Landowner Adoption Survey of public land-use professionals Reasons for adoption : The most frequently mentioned reasons for adopting agroforestry practices are (in rank order): (1) economic gain, (2) multiple land use management and income diversification, (3) site suitability and erosion control, (4) shortening the wait for and increasing the regularity of income, and (5) consistency with environmental and ecological concerns. Constraints to adoption : The most commonly noted problems associated with agroforestry practices are (in rank order): (1) negative effects of livestock o­n seedling survival and soil productivity, (2) low productivity or poor economic performance, (3) lack of management skills and technical knowledge, (4) incompatibility between the multiple outputs, and (5) high establishment and annual management costs. Additional factors affecting landowner adoption Cost-share : o­ne or more federal forestry cost-share programs were used in 47% of all tree planting o­n non-industrial private forestland (1993). Agroforestry was adopted o­n o­nly 1.2% of the total Stewardship Incentive Program acreage from 1991-95, although there was a sharp increase in agroforestry enrollments during 1994-95. While federal programs predominate, some states (i.e., Mississippi and North Carolina) also provide incentives for tree planting. Site potential : Land use professionals (survey respondents) placed more emphasis o­n site potential than the innovativeness or technical knowledge of the landowner when selecting situations most appropriate for agroforestry implementation. Silvopasture was recommended by 70% of respondents while 30% recommended tree-crops. Non-economic values : Results of another recent survey of private forest landowners suggest that opportunities exist for agroforestry practices that provide non-economic benefits (e.g., aesthetic, recreational, environmental and domestic use) at a reasonable cost. Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Research & Development Research priorities : Southern land use professionals identified the following critical research needs for agroforestry (in rank order): (1) improvement of economic returns, (2) enhancing productivity, (3) reducing damage to trees and soils by livestock and farm equipment, (4) quantifying the potential of agroforestry to solve environmental problems, including wildlife impacts, and (5) educating the public and extension personnel about agroforestry. Marginal lands : Almost 17 million acres of marginal crop and pasture lands in the South could produce higher economic returns if planted to pine. Pine and hardwood tree-crop and tree-forage combinations would generate regular cash flows and encourage the establishment of tree cover o­n highly erodible lands. The soil fertility of marginal lands could be enhanced with legume cover crops or nitrogen fixing trees. Riparian buffers : Re-establishment of woody vegetation in riparian areas could improve water quality and provide timber production and wildlife habitat. By selectively harvesting timber and maintaining riparian forests in an active growth phase, the buffer's pollution amelioration potential is more fully realized. Windbreaks and natural barriers:  Although not as common as in other regions, windbreaks are needed to protect sandy soils in areas subject to wind erosion (e.g., Southern Mississippi Valley Alluvium, Coastal Plain soils). Windbreaks also protect sensitive crops (e.g., tobacco) from sand abrasion. Windbreaks would improve the efficiency of poultry and pork operations by reducing climatic stresses, and also provide wildlife habitat. Natural pine management : Livestock grazing can improve the financial returns from natural pine forest management, and thus could affect the current trend towards conversion of native pine forests to plantations after harvest. The availability of shade tolerant forage species is critically important. Pine straw mulch is another potential source of revenue from natural pine forest. Hardwood plantation-crops : Removal of southern hardwoods is exceeding growth. Intercropping early in the rotation and direct seeding could help offset the relatively high regeneration costs. Black walnut intercropping should be considered o­n abandoned cropland and riparian areas. Increasing stumpage prices for southern hardwoods help to offset the higher establishment costs for hardwood plantations. Production of fast-growing hardwoods like paulownia may become economically feasible if markets develop. Pine plantation-crops : Harvesting of softwood timber also exceeds growth in the region. Interplanting a crop early in the rotation would improve cash flow. Specialty products : Production of specialty products is likely to be important for small landowners involved in organic and/or environmentally sensitive types of farming and weekend hobbyists. Suitable niche products include honey, mushrooms, honeylocust, and ginseng. Education & Training Training : Southern land-use professionals listed the following needs for improving the capacity of extension personnel in agroforestry (in rank order): (1) distribution of guidelines for recommending livestock and forestry combinations, (2) availability of economic and productivity data, (3) training o­n how to develop demonstration sites, (4) distributing guidelines for mixing crop and forest management, and (5) distributing guidelines for enhancing wildlife management. Information & Technology Development Extension : Land-use professionals suggested the following recommendations for improving agroforestry extension (in rank order): (1) expanded training of extension personnel, (2) development of a research base and evaluation guidelines, (3) expanded publicity, (4) development of demonstration sites, (5) improved inter-agency cooperation, and (6) increased numbers of personnel specialized in agroforestry. Policy & Funding Cost share : Current federal cost share programs don't always allow for agroforestry practices. Moreover, given current federal budget problems, it appears likely that federal cost-share programs will be reduced or eliminated in the future. Recommended actions : In the absence of traditional federal cost-share programs to encourage agroforestry, these actions are recommended: (1) lobby for state and regional cost-share programs for agroforestry, including funds for programs involving urban forestry, waste management, and recreation/tourism, (2) initiate demonstration, research and development projects to educate land use professionals and owners about the potentials of agroforestry, and (3) expand funding for economic and social research to document the potential profitability of agroforestry practices beyond their environmental benefits. Landowners need to be assured that agroforestry will produce at least an equal or greater return than alternate land use investments. Reducing financial uncertainty is the "single most important factor" for encouraging agroforestry adoption. C. MIDWEST7 Region Description The Midwest region encompasses the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Missouri (see Figure 1). The region has a continental climate with temperature extremes and year-around rainfall. Most of the soils are highly productive for agriculture and forestry. The landscape of the Midwest is dominated by agriculture and remaining native hardwood forests. Sustainability Issues Environmental Erosion : Loss of soil from agricultural operations is the principal environmental problem of the Midwest. Water quality : Non-point source pollution from agriculture impacts water quality (e.g., sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes). Air quality : Problems include dust and odor from feedlots, compounded by the lack of windbreak protection. Loss of wildlife habitat : Clearing of native woody vegetation has reduced bird and animal populations. Riparian devegetation : The clearing and cultivation of riparian corridors has contributed to wildlife habitat loss and water quality degradation. Surface coal mining : Reclamation of mined lands is a slow and costly process, and failures lead to surface water pollution and erosion problems. Hardwood forests : Regeneration of fine hardwoods is not keeping pace with harvesting. Regionally-adapted practices that can meet the high demand for hardwoods are needed. Socioeconomic Growth : Continued urban/suburban expansion into rural areas and the conversion of forests to agriculture and urban development has prompted state land use regulations (e.g., "Right to Farm" ordinances) and proposals for similar rules to protect rights to practice forestry. Urban growth has also inflated rural land prices. Rural economy : In the eastern portion of the Midwest, there has been a shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy. In Ohio, less than 10% of the population is involved in farming, while in Iowa more than 25% are involved in farming. Regional farm income is relatively strong, although the number of people in farming is generally decreasing and average farm size increasing due to consolidation. Agroforestry Practices Historical : Early settlers in the Midwest practiced slash and burn agriculture and tended multi-layer home gardens. Intercropping : Among agroforestry practitioners, agrisilviculture (e.g., alley cropping) is among the most common, followed by mixed systems outside of alley cropping [intercropping], and Christmas trees combined with crops. Black walnut : Agroforestry management of black walnut for timber, nuts and grazing is gaining interest. The involvement of a commercial company in Missouri (Hammons Products Co.) has played an important role in information and demonstration related to black walnut agroforestry. Silvopasture : Grazing of sheep and cattle in native hardwood forests and black walnut plantations is common among agroforestry practitioners. Windbreaks : Windbreaks and boundary plantings are also common among agroforestry practitioners. Landowner Adoption Needs identified by field-level professionals and practitioners Water quality : Major problems result from both agricultural practices and suburbanization. Research is needed o­n the minimum width required for an effective buffer along streams, since streambanks and ditches can be the most productive soils for crop planting. Landowner education : Farmers and the public need to be made aware of non-point source pollution problems (e.g., from feedlots and lawn fertilization). Soil erosion : Research is needed o­n improved windbreak designs that are inexpensive, fast-growing and take up as little space as possible. Rural development : Opportunities for agroforestry adoption are presented by new, small landowners willing to use incentive programs and their own funds to try alternate land uses that do not provide immediate financial benefits. Training : Training of professionals is needed o­n the use of agroforestry to enhance biodiversity. Cost-sharing : Stewardship and incentive programs are important to agroforestry adoption; reauthorization of the Farm Bill will influence what takes place o­n the ground. In Missouri, cost- share funding is available for alley cropping through the state Department of Conservation. Reasons for Adoption Motivation : It appears that adoption of agroforestry is motivated primarily by income potential and/or aesthetic or hobby reasons. Conservation plays a minor role in adoption except for landowners wishing to promote wildlife. Farm size : A survey of agroforestry practitioners indicated that the majority of agroforestry in the Midwest is being implemented o­n small tracts where annual income from farming operations may be of lesser importance. Constraints to Adoption Policy : Although state programs exist to promote farm tree planting (e.g., windbreaks), restrictions apply which limit their use for other types of agroforestry. The Classified Forest Act (Indiana) provides tax relief to forest landowners, but excludes lands that are grazed. Cost/benefit data : There is a lack of reliable farm-level cost/benefit data for agroforestry practices in the region. Economic analyses need to internalize the social and environmental benefits and to account for markets and labor availability. Land tenure : Where the average length of land ownership has decreased in recent decades, long term investment in agroforestry is less feasible. Political power : The rural population is at a disadvantage regarding legislation that affects rural programs due to the greater political power of urban centers. Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Research & Development Biological process research : There is a lack of fundamental research that extends across the region to show where and when agroforestry practices are biologically and economically effective and where they are not. Current research does not allow applied or basic comparisons among soil types, climate zones, crop mixes, or whole agroforestry systems. Erosion control:  Agroforestry practices can play a major role in the reduction of soil loss (e.g., windbreaks, alley cropping, and riparian buffers). Wildlife : Agroforestry can contribute to wildlife conservation by creating habitat through the planting of hedgerows, windbreaks, and riparian buffers. Minelands : Mining reclamation with a mix of grass, crops and trees would provide quick cover and erosion control as well as long term habitat and income. Specialty Products : Growing specialty products or developing artificial agroecosystems to support recreational activities (e.g., fee hunting) may be part of the forestry enterprise. Fine hardwoods : Agroforestry with black walnut and other hardwoods can help encourage planting to meet the strong market demand by offsetting initial plantation establishment costs. Waste application : Research is underway in Iowa o­n applying municipal sludge to woody energy crops in alley cropping. Biomass and pulp : Agroforestry with fast growing trees (e.g., hybrid poplar) could play an important role in supplying biomass for energy production and paper pulp. Economics & Marketing Economic data : A limiting factor for implementation is case-study economic data that landowners can use for decision-making. Information & Technology Development Promotion : Agroforestry in the Midwest is still young, and therefore the potential of agroforestry practices (e.g., alley cropping) should not be oversold. Its promotion should progress with "healthy skepticism." Information : The lack of data o­n biological and economic potentials of agroforestry practices across the region precludes providing proven options to landowners. Most landowners will not be convinced by the inadequate information base for agroforestry that is currently available. D. NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS8 Region Description The Northern Great Plains includes the states of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska (see Figure 1). The region's semi-arid climate is characterized by low and variable rainfall, temperature extremes, high potential evapotranspiration, periodic drought, and strong winds. Some soil types present conditions difficult for tree establishment (e.g., heavy texture, alkalinity), particularly in areas of rigorous climate. Most tree planting has occurred o­n land capability class III or better soils; tree planting is unsuitable o­n class VII-VIII soils and poorly suited o­n class VI soils. Major tree planting efforts in the region date from the Prairie States Forestry Project in 1935. Sustainability Issues Environmental Farm practices : Conventional agricultural practices, such as clean cultivation, stream-side grazing, cropping border to border, chemical use, and cultivation of highly erodible land, are causing "significant damage" to natural resources. Soil erosion : Wind erosion accounts for 60-70% of gross cropland erosion in the region. Water erosion above tolerable levels occurs o­n 10% of regional cropland. The off-site costs of erosion (e.g., sedimentation)may be as significant to society as losses in crop yields. Water quality : Non-point source pollution from agriculture impacts both surface and ground water in the region. Sedimentation severely affects waterways, reservoirs and canals, and also riparian and fisheries habitats. Air quality : Air quality is periodically impaired by agricultural operations. While the impacts can be severe for short periods, they are not long-lasting. Socioeconomic Economy : Agriculture has the greatest promise for future improvement in the region's economy, but there is the need to better protect natural resources. Recreation, tourism and industrial development are other important components of regional economic sustainability. Agroforestry Practices Farm tree plantings in the Northern Great Plains are primarily for conservation and protection: 30% are field windbreaks, 38% are farmstead/feedlot windbreaks, 29% are wildlife plantings, and 3% are for other purposes (e.g., living snowfence, Christmas trees, etc.). Windbreaks : Reducing soil loss is the most commonly accepted reason for tree planting in the region. However, 50% of current windbreak plantings are functioning below their potential and need renovation. Riparian buffers : No states in the region have significant plantings of artificially established woody buffer strips, but interest appears to be growing. Intercropping : No operational examples were found. Landowner Adoption Future trends in US agriculture : Like elsewhere in the US, agriculture is undergoing dramatic changes in the region, and the trend is towards "mass-industrialization." Modern agriculture is more specialized, labor efficient and capital intensive than the diversified, non-intensive agriculture of 60 years ago for which windbreaks were originally designed. About 50,000 large farms, franchises and co-ops will be responsible for 90% of commercial production in the US by next century, and the remainder of the agricultural sector will comprise about 1.5 million small, part-time and hobby farms. Different approaches to the development of sustainable practices are required for large industrial farms and small family farms. While emphasis o­n agroforestry's multiple benefits may serve well for smaller farmers, larger farmers are likely to be more interested in short-term economics. Therefore, the potential for agroforestry to have significant impact depends o­n the structure of the agriculture community in the future. Agriculture must adopt environmentally-sound practices to achieve long-term sustainability while also maintaining productivity. The threat of government regulation may compel adoption of new practices. Nevertheless, a survey of agency staff suggested that crop diversification, residue management and crop rotation would be more effective than tree planting in improving agricultural productivity and sustainability in the region. Constraints to Adoption Cost : Due to harsh climate and soil conditions, tree establishment is difficult and therefore costly. High cost and difficulty are also impediments to windbreak renovation. Interference : Interference with and from agricultural operations constrains tree planting (e.g., herbicide use in small grains production). Markets : There is a lack of reliable markets for farm-grown wood products in the region. Production of market-based agroforestry products is unlikely due to geographic dispersal, lack of strong market demand, and difficult tree growing conditions. Conventional wisdom : Many landowners believe that the costs associated with windbreaks exceed their potential benefits. Also, many believe that residue management alone is sufficient for erosion control. Promotion : There is erratic promotion and/or discouragement of agroforestry among and within public agencies. Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Research & Development Sustainability : Research should address the most important sustainability issues for cultivated cropland: erosion, salinity, and water quality. Windbreak s: The highest priority is research and development leading to the renovation or replacement of field windbreaks, focusing o­n their economic benefits. Energy conservation with farmstead/feedlot windbreaks is a high priority for research. Riparian buffers : Riparian restoration and buffer planting are also high priorities. Other practices : Improvement of wildlife habitat and living snowfences are important in the region. However, other agroforestry practices (e.g., fuelwood, alley cropping, and silvopasture) are likely to have limited potential in the region. Education & Training Training : There is a need for resource managers and technical advisors who are knowledgeable in agroforestry. Salesmanship training is also important. Information & Technology Development Promotion : "Realizing significant gains in the incorporation of trees and shrubs o­n agricultural land would require very aggressive and extended promotion." Target audience : The primary target audience for agroforestry information are landowners and producer groups. Landowner initiative and contact with other landowners are important factors in decision making. Services : Tree establishment and maintenance "turn key" services by Conservation Districts and individual entrepreneurs, and the increased use of weed-barrier fabrics in drier regions, would facilitate tree planting o­n farmland. Demonstration : More demonstration projects (e.g., North Dakota's "Project Renovate") and windbreak education are needed. Policy & Funding Cost-share : Tax incentives and cost-share are the most important means to reduce establishment and maintenance costs. Increased cost-share funding would provide the greatest opportunities for agroforestry expansion. Agency coordination : Public agencies should coordinate among themselves to agree o­n which agroforestry practices are most needed. E. SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS9 Region Description The Southern Great Plains includes the states of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas (see Figure 1). Moisture and heat stress due to the semi-arid climate in much of the region are limiting factors o­n plant growth. Most of the soils have good agroforestry potential. About 40% of all non-federal land is crop or pasture land, 51% is range and 7% is forest. Sustainability Issues Environmental Water quality : Non-point source pollution from farmland, pasture and feedlots impacts surface water quality. Groundwater : Contamination of drinking water supplies by nitrate and pesticides is a concern. Irrigation pumping has significantly lowered water tables, leading inevitably to the reduction in irrigated acreage and a return to dryland farming o­n many lands. Erosion : Wind erosion is severe o­n 12 million acres in the region, and annual rates are higher than the national average. Air quality : Dust, spray drift, and odor from agricultural operations, particularly large feedlots, impact air quality. Riparian zones : Irrigation diversions, stream channelization, over-grazing, and land clearing have severely affected riparian areas. Playa lakes : Farming impacts o­n playa lakes (which dry up in summer) include devegetation from grazing and clearing, loss of wildlife habitat from disking and burning, feedlot runoff, and increased sedimentation and organic nutrients. Wildlife and Fisheries : Intensification of agriculture in the region has reduced wildlife and fish habitat. Restoration of riparian zones and playa lakes could be the best means of improving wildlife habitat. Socioeconomic Sustainability issues : Agricultural sustainability concerns in the region include: (1) creating healthy local economies that withstand climatic extremes and economic boom/bust cycles, (2) ensuring continued soil productivity o­n cropland enrolled in CRP, (3) farmworker health, (4) food safety, (5) energy cost and availability, and (6) declining groundwater aquifers. Agroforestry Practices Windbreaks : Windbreaks are commonly used in the region to protect soil, crops and livestock. Plantings of field windbreaks decreased from 1982-87. There is substantial potential to use feedlot windbreaks for livestock protection. Riparian buffers : While incipient riparian management may be occurring, there are few concrete examples of deliberate riparian restoration or agroforestry practice in the region. The best example of coordinated efforts at wetland and riparian management is the Wetlands and Riparian Areas Project (WRAP) in Kansas. Intercropping:  There is no evidence found of intercropping in the Southern Great Plains. Landowner Adoption In the region, "there is little purposeful agroforestry in which tree and agricultural components are deliberately managed together." The o­nly common agroforestry practices are windbreaks and cattle grazing with trees. Constraints to Adoption Lack of quantitative agroforestry research : Research is needed o­n many topics, including genetics, site adaptation, and economics. Externalities : There is a need for research to analyze the economic, environmental and social costs, and the thresholds of erosion, non-point source pollution, and other environmental consequences of agriculture. This research would allow farm managers to evaluate trade-offs between o­n-farm practices and off-farm effects, and thus may lead to increased adoption of agroforestry. Lack of institutional structures : Being interdisciplinary, agroforestry in the US lacks established institutional structures to support needed research and development. Technical advisors do not have adequate knowledge to assist producers with the implementation of agroforestry practices. Lack of public understanding of agroforestry : Public awareness of agroforestry was found to be very low within the region. Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Research & Development Highly erodible cropland : There is substantial potential to use agroforestry practices such as windbreaks and intercropping to protect highly erodible land. Riparian buffers:  Riparian vegetative buffer strips are the "highest priority need." An important research topic is the design of agroforestry practices in the riparian zone that optimize crop mixes while maintaining adequate buffering capacity. Grazing : Grazing is important in the region and the potential to increase grazing of forests, red cedar, pecan, and fodder trees should be studied. Intercropping : Research is needed to document the potential benefits of intercropping. Economics & Marketing Marketing : Marketing frameworks that provide intermediaries between agroforestry producers and consumers may facilitate access to larger markets. Education & Training Extension : Training for extension personnel is needed so they will recognize the potential of agroforestry practices and be able to provide technical assistance to landowners. Information & Technology Development Information : "Significant adoption of agroforestry practices will not occur until additional quantitative information and demonstration sites are available and economic incentives change. This will require both substantial public investment and fundamental reforms in academic institutions and government agencies." Policy & Funding Institutional : Overcoming the constraints to adoption of agroforestry requires: (1) earmarked funds for research, (2) revitalized leadership infrastructure, and (3) modified public agency perspectives. Policy : Incentives must be provided to landowners for them to reasonably consider agroforestry. Allowing for income opportunities o­n CRP lands while meeting erosion control requirements would protect more acres in the long-term. F. INTERMOUNTAIN10 The Intermountain region includes Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and Utah (see Figure 1). The climate is highly variable and strongly influenced by elevation. Arid lowlands support shrub and grass vegetation while rainfall at higher elevations is sufficient to support dense forests. Sustainability Issues Environmental Water cost and availability : While most water is now used for agriculture, increasing demand for residential and in-stream (e.g., fish and wildlife) uses could lead to restricted supplies and higher costs for irrigation. Loss of biological resources : Habitat destruction resulting from traditional land uses and urban growth have threatened fish and animal species. Energy : Energy conservation continues to be a long-term concern for the region. Socioeconomic Growth : The region's population is highly urbanized and rapidly growing. The Intermountain states are among the top six fastest growing states in the nation. Growth is rapidly altering the region's economy and established land uses. Farm economy : There has been a decline both in the number of farms and per-acre values from 1985-92. Declining natural resource-based industries : Prices of agricultural and mineral commodities have declined (1975-88), seriously impacting rural economies. Although timber prices have increased over the same period, supplies from national forests in the region have dropped dramatically and there is o­nly a limited amount of private timber land that can realize the potential gains from higher stumpage prices. Demographic changes : Rapid urban growth, declining resource-based economies and limited rural employment opportunities, have fueled urban migration and eroded the stability of rural communities. Urban/wildland interface issues have become more critical. Global economy : NAFTA and global trade will affect the profitability of new and existing land uses, which in turn will affect rural economies and demographics. Agroforestry Practices Windbreaks : Windbreaks are the o­nly common agroforestry practice in the region, and they are extensively used o­nly in Colorado. The Field Windbreak Campaign has actively promoted windbreak planting in Colorado. The Idaho Agroforestry Coalition involves public agencies and private groups to promote agroforestry practices. Other practices : Other agroforestry practices that are less common in the region include field windbreaks, living snowfences, and riparian buffers. Landowner Adoption Constraints to Adoption Economic : The restricted availability of capital and limited agroforestry markets, services and supplies for agroforestry affect its adoption in the region. Environmental : Harsh environmental conditions for tree establishment in the Intermountain region increase the costs of tree establishment (e.g., irrigation requirement). Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Research & Development Priorities : An assessment by NRCS foresters concluded that all states could benefit from more field windbreaks. In all states except Utah, the establishment of riparian buffers is a priority. Living snowfences are a priority for Colorado and Idaho, farmstead windbreaks are priorities in Nevada and Utah, and Christmas trees are recommended for Utah. Goals : The region needs agroforestry practices that (1) provide economic opportunity in rural areas (e.g., Christmas trees, specialty products); (2) enhance energy efficiency and the livability of human environments (e.g., residential windbreaks); and (3) improve water quality and wildlife habitat (e.g., riparian buffers). Tribal lands : Characterized by marginal productivity, high unemployment, and subsistence use, tribal lands need windbreaks and multipurpose trees. Urban/Suburban : Agencies should expand their programs to embrace this non-traditional, yet politically powerful constituency. o­ne way would be to encourage residential windbreaks for energy conservation, aesthetics and wildlife. Site-specific : Research from other regions has limited application to the Intermountain states. Therefore, research should be specific to the region's conditions and needs (e.g., windbreak design and effects o­n crops). Suitable species for agroforestry in the region need to be identified. Economics & Marketing Rural economic opportunities : Opportunities exist to increase markets for Christmas trees, specialty products, and trees for production landscaping. Education & Training Training : Educational opportunities should be expanded in three critical areas: (1) training for extension, agency and technical personnel; (2) training opportunities for landowners; and (3) agroforestry college courses at the region's Land Grant universities. Improved employment opportunities in agroforestry are needed to continue university programs. Information & Technology Development Demonstration : Demonstration sites are needed to foster awareness and improve region-specific technical information. Policy & Funding Coordination : Better coordination between agencies, universities and the private sector is needed. Working partnerships between government and the private sector are needed to establish demonstrations and create new markets and services. Incentive programs : Existing federal cost-share programs (e.g., SIP and ACP) should be expanded. Funding programs for water quality could be used to encourage establishment of riparian buffers and shelterbelts. Land trusts and conservation easements could also be used to promote agroforestry. Federal leadership : The region's large federal land ownership makes federal leadership important in the adoption of agroforestry practices. Ecosystem management should be viewed as an opportunity to expand agroforestry. G. PACIFIC NORTHWEST11 Region Description The Pacific Northwest, which includes (for this report) northern California, Oregon and Washington, is a region of dramatic physical and environmental contrasts (see Figure 1). The principal north-south mountain ranges divide two distinct climate zones: the western coastal portion with higher rainfall and more even, moderate temperatures, and the drier and colder eastern interior. The region contains highly productive forest, range and farmland. Sustainability Issues Environmental Soil erosion : Farmland erosion is a serious regional problem. Although water erosion in Oregon and Washington decreased from 1982-92, the rates are still above the national average. Wind erosion in Washington during that period increased, counter to the national trend. Erosion of range and riparian areas is due to over stocking and poor management. Forestland erosion is the result of logging road construction, recreational use, fire, and timber harvesting. Water quality : Runoff of sediment, nutrients, and chemicals from farmland leads to pollution of surface waters. Improper use of household chemicals and septic systems o­n rural/suburban acreages should not be overlooked. Riparian degradation : Riparian areas in the region are subject to flooding and erosion, both inherently and through human activity. Devegetation of riparian areas harms fish and impoverishes habitat for other animals. Fish and Wildlife : Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat o­n farm, range and forestlands are affecting fish and wildlife populations, particularly migratory species. Socioeconomic Growth : Rapid population growth is creating intense pressure for the development of forest, farm and rangelands. Public lands : A high percentage of land in the region is publicly owned. There are conflicting views, from diverse groups, o­n desirable objectives for public land management. Decisions o­n the management of public lands also affect private landowners and rural dwellers (e.g., reduced harvesting of federal timberland and proposed changes in grazing of public land). Rural economy : Rural communities are severely impacted by declining timber harvests and changing agricultural economics, resulting in reduced educational opportunities and social services. Agroforestry Practices Silvopasture : Combined timber and pasture production is still rare in the Northwest, but it has "excellent prospects" based o­n the early results of trials in western Oregon. Windbreaks : Windbreaks are sometimes used to protect crops and livestock in the region. More may be planted by new rural dwellers seeking privacy, beauty and energy conservation. Many of the older windbreaks have deteriorated or been removed. Interest in wildlife may help spur more windbreak planting. Riparian buffers : "Of all agroforestry practices, woody riparian buffers is the o­ne with the greatest future importance due to the extraordinary economic and environmental costs of not improving the region's watersheds." Caution should be used in extrapolating recommendations for riparian buffers from other regions. Landowner Adoption Constraints to Adoption Obstacles to adoption include the high cost of establishment, insufficient financing and lack of technical assistance. Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Priorities to advance agroforestry in the Northwest include better coordination among multiple contact points for technical assistance, training for technical assistance personnel, clarifying financial assistance options, and improving the research base. Research & Development Site-specific : Research o­n agroforestry practices must be regional and site specific. Commercial trial plantings to demonstrate ecological and economic performance are needed. Economics & Marketing Economics : Develop real data o­n costs and returns for marketable products from agroforestry practices. Market development for new agroforestry products is often neglected. Externalities : It is difficult to identify the external (e.g., environmental) cost savings of agroforestry and to fairly allocate these savings between those who pay and those who gain. Opportunity cost:  It is important to weigh the establishment and management costs of proactive agroforestry practices (e.g., riparian restoration, erosion control) against the costs of not doing so. Information & Technology Development Information : There is inadequate technical assistance o­n agroforestry in the region, largely because the relevant research base is weak and demonstration sites are lacking. Planning : The objectives of an agroforestry practice must be made explicit as it is designed, implemented and evaluated. Knowledge limits must be recognized and the potential benefits not over-sold if agroforestry is to become more accepted. Ecosystem management : While the goals of ecosystem management are admirable, they will be difficult to implement. Small-scale, short-term actions are needed to incrementally improve ecosystem sustainability "while learning to think, plan and act o­n broader geographic and temporal scales." Policy & Funding Funding : Private funding for agroforestry research is scarce when there is no direct commercial interest involved. Since agroforestry lacks a well-organized beneficiary group, it does not fare well in competition for funding with other worthy land-use research needs. H. SOUTHWEST12  Region Description For the purpose of this assessment, the Southwest region includes southern and central California, Arizona and New Mexico (see Figure 1). The region's climate is generally semi-arid, with variable rainfall and temperature regimes. Arizona and New Mexico receive some rainfall year-round while California receives rain o­nly in winter. The better soils are devoted to agriculture, although soil-related problems such as salinity and waterlogging limit their capacity for tree growth. Highly productive irrigated farmland is found in California and Arizona, and the mountains of all three states support extensive native forestland. All three have large federal ownerships of timberland, and tribal lands are important in Arizona and New Mexico. Sustainability Options Environmental Soil erosion : Water erosion has resulted from poor grazing, logging and development practices. Some areas are subject to wind erosion. Water quality and availability : Fertilizer and pesticide application in farming areas has contaminated ground and surface waters. In several areas of irrigated farmland, inappropriate water management has led to salinization and water-logging of the soil. The availability of surface and ground water has been altered by pumping for irrigation, damming, stream channelization and invasive phreatophytic weeds. Air quality : Dust generated from abandoned or fallowed farmland without windbreaks leads to health problems and highway accidents in all three states. In desert areas, blowing sand creates a physical problem encroaching o­n highways, housing and farmland. Wildlife habitat : Little undisturbed habitat, including wetlands, riparian zones and old growth forest, remain in the Southwest. While attention has focused o­n individual rare and endangered species, ecosystem protection may be essential for species protection. Non-native plants : Competitive, invasive weedy species of Mediterranean origin have a negative impact both o­n agriculture and native plant communities. Pest management : Monocultural crop systems are more vulnerable to pests than complex systems. Socioeconomic Development:  In the Southwest, land is rapidly being converted to urban and suburban uses. Development of 5 to 20 acre ranchettes are fragmenting many areas of farm, range and timberlands. Public health : Diabetes is endemic in the Native American communities of the Southwest as a result of dietary changes. Fine particulates and fungal spores in blowing dust lead to lung disease and Valley Fever disease. Economics:  The marginal economics of rural resource management have led to the conversion of forestlands to brush and the abandonment of cropland. Poverty is a severe problem in many rural areas. Agroforestry Practices Historical : The native peoples of the Southwest were skillful "applied ecologists" who planted and tended trees for food and other needs. The early settlement period was characterized by rapid resource extraction. Windbreak s: Field windbreaks are common, and are still being planted to protect high value row, vine and tree crops. Windbreaks are also used to shelter highway and railroad lines from blowing sand. Intercropping : o­ne commercial example of intercropping is dates interplanted with citrus in the Coachella Valley of California. Riparian buffer strips : The planting of riparian filter strips has not been widely adopted or promoted in the Southwest. However, riparian and wetlands restoration projects are underway in Arizona and California. Landowner Adoption Constraints to Adoption Economics:  "Farmers are reluctant to adopt agroforestry practices until their profitability is demonstrated." Emphasis o­n technical rather that socio/political issues : Land tenure, a hopeful view of the future, and absence of crippling farm debt are necessary ingredients for successful agroforestry development. The importance of women in resource management is often overlooked. Subsidies and distorted markets : "Economic considerations are the most critical factor in the adoption of agroforestry and sustainable resource management. People can rarely be encouraged to do something that is ‘right' if it is not also economically advantageous." Accounting for external costs, i.e., environmental degradation, will be a key to agroforestry development. Tax, regulatory and institutional policies may discourage the adoption of agroforestry practices. Ignorance : "Simple ignorance is probably the most serious impediment to agroforestry development in the Southwest." Relevant information o­n agroforestry is difficult to find, and most of it is poorly indexed and distributed. Over-specialization : The narrow focus of education and research in US academic institutions contributes to the lack of information and expertise in agroforestry. Specialization also makes it difficult to get funding for innovative research. Separation of knowledge and experience : Basic and applied research are often separated in the US. There is a need for more "hands-on" and problem-based learning and research. Limited time, vision and commitment : Short-term funding cycles are incompatible with agroforestry research that may take 10 or more years. Differing priorities among agencies in the US affect how well agroforestry practices are promoted. Many public agencies are crippled by funding cutbacks and hiring freezes. Emphasis o­n publications : Short-term theoretical or laboratory studies are often favored over applied, long-term interdisciplinary projects. Current academic reward systems in US universities favor publications rather than achieving practical solutions to problems. Needs/Opportunities/Recommendations Research & Development Wild harvest : Special forest products are the most immediate option for new job creation in the region. A wide variety of specialty products could be collected or cultivated, including mushrooms, pinyon pine nuts, berries, mesquite pods, and acorns. Traditional medicinal plants could also help reverse the incidence of diabetes in Native Americans. Tree crops o­n cropland : New specialty crops could be produced for the growing Asian and Latin American markets. In California, fast growing hardwoods such as paulownia could be grown profitably. The use of wastewater to reduce irrigation water costs could be useful in establishing and maintaining agroforestry trees. Windbreaks : Greater use of windbreaks could be expected if their economic benefits are quantified and training and extension materials are improved. Specific benefits that need study include the potential health care savings as a result of dust control, and reduced vehicle fuel use and accidents o­n windbreak-sheltered highways. Ground and drain water management : An estimated 7.5 million trees o­n 25,000 acres would be required for regional ground water management in central California. Tree fodder : The use of trees for fodder (e.g., poplar, willow, and leucaena) may be less environmentally costly and more profitable than alfalfa. Coppice crops: Coppice is promising as a means to produce fuelwood, fodder and craft materials, and to provide environmental  protection in the Southwest. Trees o­n range and pasture : The most important agroforestry development o­n rangeland is likely to be shade and shelter for livestock. Fast-growing timber trees or nut trees could be planted in pastures to serve as shelterbelts. Other research needs include living fences, native hardwoods, and economical means for the reconversion of brushlands to productive use. Forest gardens : Research and development trials are needed to suggest urban forestry designs for energy conservation, food, medicine, etc., appropriate for low income and farmworker housing, suburban homes, parks and rural ranchettes. Filter and buffer strips : Filter strips are needed to reduce erosion and water pollution from irrigated cropland in California and Arizona. Live cuttings (e.g., willow) could also be used along streambanks to control erosion. Biodiversity : Windbreaks, filter strips and tree plantations will also provide needed wildlife habitat, thereby improving biodiversity. Other research priorities : Cooperative research o­n agroforestry practices should be started with Native American farmers. An inventory of useful trees and agroforestry practices appropriate for the Southwest and its climatic analogs worldwide should be undertaken. Research is needed o­n traditional medicinal plants. Economics & Marketing Cost/benefit analyses : Detailed economic analyses of the costs, benefits and risks associated with agroforestry practices are needed for specific sites and applications, watersheds and regions. Import/export : Evaluate the potential for substitution of tree crops in import/export markets for the nation, states and regions. Policy & Funding Ecosystem : "Approach all land management issues from an ecosystem perspective." Regional centers : The establishment of regional agroforestry research centers and the support of partnerships with private non- governmental organizations are needed. Interagency working groups focused o­n agroforestry should be created. Forest policy : Obstacles to agroforestry in forest policy and practice regulations should be reviewed and removed. Tax and regulatory policy : There is a need to assess tax and regulatory policies that provide economic disincentives to practicing agroforestry. Dust Buster : Review policy to determine if a Dust Buster program is needed, similar to the Swamp Buster and Sod Buster programs. Funding : Develop funding for long-term, interdisciplinary research involving basic and applied topics. Education & Training Extension : Develop agroforestry extension programs for farmers, foresters, and homeowners. A key step would be to prepare a guide to sources of agroforestry information. Education : Interdisciplinary agroforestry curricula and course materials adapted for the Southwest region are needed. Alternatives to current reward systems in academia should be investigated (i.e., that foster long-term interdisciplinary research). Literacy requirement:  Ecological and cultural literacy requirements should be developed for new academic positions, with hands-on training to improve skills. Information & Technology Development Demonstration : Establish regional and local agroforestry demonstration sites with regular tours, workshops, etc. Research plots with small landowners could also serve for demonstration. Large-scale demonstration projects could be developed o­n abandoned agriculture land. Technical information : Develop manuals o­n agroforestry for specific user groups in different bioregions and climate zones. Distribute agroforestry information to libraries, including key agroforestry journals. Expert systems : Develop a "smart system" to identify appropriate agroforestry practices and predict probable costs and profits. I. PACIFIC ISLANDS 13   Region Description The Pacific Islands region includes the Hawaiian islands and US affiliated islands in Micronesia, Polynesia and Samoa (see Figure 1). The area has a tropical climate, characterized by high rainfall and humidity, and warm temperatures year-round. The soils are mainly of volcanic origin, and their agricultural fertility is dependent o­n maintaining vegetative cover and preventing erosion, particularly o­n steep slopes. Sustainability Issues Environmental Soil erosion : Erosion is a serious problem resulting from the cultivation of crops o­n steep land under heavy precipitation. Erosion also results from fire and land clearing activities. Water quality : On atoll islands, pumping for irrigation and domestic use can lower the ground water table, thereby causing salt water intrusion. o­n larger islands, fertilizer and pesticide runoff from farmlands have contaminated ground water. Rare and endangered species : The Pacific Islands are home to a rich variety of endemic plants and animals. Loss of habitat through clearing for agriculture and development, along with the introduction of damaging, non-native plants and animals, threatens the indigenous biodiversity. Socioeconomic Health problems : Many of the native inhabitants of Pacific Islands suffer from diabetes and heart disease, largely as a result of a shift from their traditional diet to imported, processed food. Rural economy : Some of the Pacific Islands (e.g., Micronesia and Palau) are undergoing a transition from a subsistence to a cash economy. Economic development is made more difficult by their isolation, small size and dependency o­n natural resources (e.g., fisheries) which have an uncertain future. Rural poverty has fueled a trend to urban migration. Farm income is often insufficient to pay for investment in conservation practices. Agroforestry Practices Several agroforestry practices used in the Pacific Islands are found no where else in the US. They take advantage of the tropical climate and the rich diversity of useful plants available. Shifting cultivation : "Swidden" agriculture has been practiced since the earliest settlers. It is sustainable when the fallow period is long enough (e.g., 15-25 years) to renew soil organic matter and fertility. Multilayer tree gardens : This common agroforestry practice typically consists of three layers: (1) a permanent  overstory of trees (e.g., breadfruit, coconut, forest species), (2) a lower canopy of fruit and multipurpose trees, and (3) an understory of shrubs and herbaceous plants. It produces a variety of products both for subsistence and commercial sale. Windbreaks : Field windbreaks are common in locations subject to persistent trade winds, and are used to protect crops, orchards and pastures. Intercropping : In Samoa, the N-fixing legume  Erythrina  is interplanted in gardens and banana plots. Coffee plantations in Hawaii may be established with an intercrop of sorghum; elsewhere mature coffee is interplanted with bananas and shade trees. Taro is of great importance o­n many islands, and patches of taro may be intercropped between tree gardens. Alley cropping : Alley cropping o­n sloping land between parallel hedgerows of nitrogen fixing trees planted o­n the contour is being demonstrated, but so far few landowners have adopted this practice. Silvopasture : Local people have used plantations to graze livestock. Research in Hawaii has been conducted o­n using cattle, sheep and goats under macadamia, guava and banana plantations. Landowner Adoption Constraints to Adoption Changing interests : o­n many smaller islands, there is a greater interest in modern rather than traditional lifestyles, particularly among young people. This has resulted in a declining number of young people involved in farming. Some agroforests are left unharvested and unmanaged due to the lack of available labor. Technical simplification : The focus o­n short-term income from agriculture and shorter periods of average land tenure have led to shorter rotation lengths and cultivation of fewer crops at o­ne time compared to traditional agroforestry practices. There is also a loss of indigenous knowledge of agroforestry practices as generations change. Rural Economics : Inter-island markets for agroforestry products are hampered by isolation, high transportation costs, infrequent shipping schedules and quarantines. Smaller islands may not be able to economically compete with developing (Asian) countries in the production of export crops due to higher costs of land, labor, production and shipping, and inexperience in meeting quality standards. High-value crops are also subject to theft o­n some islands. Needs/Opportunities / Recommendations Research & Development Integrated research : Although agricultural research in the Pacific has often been separated between "traditional" and "modern" practices, there is a need for applied research which integrates both approaches through agroforestry. Research should be aimed to serve farmers’ current needs (for cash, etc.). Plant materials : Farmers need access to high quality  planting materials of selected species and improved cultivars through local nurseries. Economics & Marketing Markets : Efforts should be directed to: (1) develop markets for existing agroforestry products, (2) add marketable cash crops to traditional agroforestry practices, and (3) develop high-value, lightweight, non-perishable agroforestry products for export. Tourism : Agroforestry is a visually attractive land use and, by reducing erosion, it protects marine resources which attract tourists. Traditional farms with agroforestry can also be promoted as tourist attractions, and agroforestry products can be marketed directly to tourists. Cattle grazing with Acacia koa : This is an economically promising land use for existing pastures, which combines grazing with high-value hardwood production. Grazing improves the early cash flow and may reduce property taxes. Economic value : The economic values of agroforestry practices and products need to be quantified. Education & Training College forestry : There is a critical need for college-educated, native foresters in Samoa and Micronesia. A college degree program in forestry is being considered at the University of Hawaii. Training : Training in agroforestry practices is needed for local extension staff, especially outside Hawaii. Also, better extension material and operations funding is required. Information & Technology Development Women : The traditional role of women in farming o­n Pacific islands should not be overlooked in extension efforts. Extension : A forestry extension specialist at the University of Hawaii is needed to disseminate information generated by research. A national forester or agroforester for the Federated States of Micronesia is also needed. Public education : An objective explanation of the benefits and a fairly specific definition of agroforestry are needed to overcome misunderstanding of the term "agroforestry". Enthusiasts have tended to oversell the potential benefits of agroforestry. In Hawaii, it had been identified with particular practices that are the subject of controversy (e.g., unmanaged grazing or plantation silviculture). Diet : Public campaigns to encourage consumption of traditional agroforest foods (e.g., the "Waianae diet" in Hawaii) also promote agroforestry. Policy & Funding Land Tenure : The impact of land tenure o­n agroforestry needs examination. For example, in Hawaii, concentration of private ownership in relatively few, large holdings has  limited the access of smallholders to land for long-term investment in horticulture. Property taxation also influences land use (e.g., grazing is usually taxed lower than forestry in Hawaii). Federal funding : Grants from the USFS support operating budgets for agroforestry nurseries, training, demos and extension in Samoa and Micronesia, which makes these programs vulnerable to cut-backs. EIS : Some islands need the establishment of environmental impact statement procedures, to help emphasize sustainability in land use and agricultural development. LITERATURE CITED and NOTES 1 Garrett, H.E., et al., 1994, Agroforestry: an integrated land-use management system for production and farmland conservation, Assn. for Temperate Agroforestry, 58 pp. 2 AFTA, 1994, Agroforestry for Sustainable Development: A National Strategy to Develop and Implement Agroforestry, Workshop to "Develop a Framework for a Coordinated National Agroforestry Program," June 29-30, Nebraska City, NE 3 Rietveld, W.J., Technical Coordinator, 1995, Proceedings, Agroforestry and Sustainable Systems Symposium; 1994, August 7-10, Ft. Collins, CO. General Technical Report RM-GTR-261. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO 4 Garrett, H.E., et al., 1994, Agroforestry: an integrated land-use management system for production and farmland conservation, Assn. for Temperate Agroforestry, 58 pp. 5 A summary of the report, Agroforestry Practice and Potential in the Northeast: a Macro-level Assessment, by Louise E. Buck and Amy B. Waterman, Dept. of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3001 6 A summary of the report, Agroforestry and Sustainable Systems in the South, by F. Christian Zinkham, Lundy-Fetterman School of Business, Campbell University, Buies Creek, NC 27506, and D. Evan Mercer, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 12254, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 7 A summary of the report, An Agroforestry Assessment of the Midwestern United States, by Andrew R. Gillespie, J. Doland Nichols and Shibu Jose, Forestry and Natural Resources Dept., 1159 Forestry Bldg., Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1159. 8 A summary of the report, Present Status and Future Potential for Agroforestry in the Northern Great Plains, by Peter R. Schaefer and John J. Ball, Dept. of Horticulture, Forestry, Landscape and Parks, South Dakota State University, P.O. Box 2207C, Brookings, SD 57007-0096. 9 A summary of the report, Agroforestry and Sustainable Systems in the Southern Great Plains, by Steven Anderson, Forestry Dept., 008C Agricultural Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-0491. 10 A summary of the report, Agroforestry and Sustainable Systems in the Intermountain Region, by Robert J. Lilieholm, Dept. of Forest Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5215.> Region Description 11 A summary of the report, Agroforestry Opportunities in Northern California, Oregon and Washington, by Linda H. Hardesty and Linda M. Lyon, Dept. of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6410. 12 A summary of the report, Agroforestry in the Southwest: A Rich Past and Promising Future, by David A. Bainbridge, Biology Dept., California State University, San Diego, CA 92182. 13 A summary of the report,  Agroforestry in the United States-Affiliated Pacific Islands: Present Status and Future Potential , by Kathleen S. Friday, USDA FS, and Robert W. Wescom, USDA NRCS, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, 1151 Punchbowl St., Rm. 323, Honolulu, HI 96813. Written by Tyler Carlson

American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) is a familiar plant to many people in the Appalachian region. For several generations "digging sang" has been an enjoyable and profitable activity for many mountain people. In 1995, wild dried roots of ginseng sold for as much as $470 per pound. That price has tripled in the last ten years. In 1995, quite a few pounds of cultivated dried ginseng roots sold for $20 per pound. That price has been reduced by half in the last ten years. Why should there be such a difference in the prices paid for wild and cultivated ginseng? Nearly all of the ginseng, grown or gathered from the wild in the United States, is exported to oriental countries for sale. Ginseng growers and gatherers in the US. and Canada produced about four million pounds of ginseng for export to the Orient in 1994. Apparently the Chinese people prefer wild ginseng over cultivated because it more closely resembles the revered wild Oriental Ginseng (Panax ginseng). The Chinese believe that the slower-growing wild roots, which are harvested at an older age, absorb more curative power from the forest floor. Anyone who knows ginseng can easily tell the difference between wild and cultivated roots. The wild roots are dark tan in color, gnarled in appearance and show many concentric growth rings. Wild roots are generally small in size and light in weight. The cultivated roots are cream colored, smooth and fat, and exhibit few concentric growth rings. Cultivated roots are often large and heavy. The Oriental buyers have quite an elaborate grading system for the dried roots they purchase.   Intensive Cultivation Approximately 3,800 acres of ginseng are grown in intense cultivation under artificial shade in Wisconsin. Under intense cultivation the roots grow quickly to a harvestable size. Four year old roots are very commonly harvested. Yields as high as 2,500 pounds of dried root per acre have been reported. Establishment costs for o­ne acre of ginseng beds, under wood lath shade or under polypropylene shade cloth, varies from $20,000 to $30,000 depending upon the current prices of materials needed. The greatest problem associated with intensely cultivated ginseng is disease, including alternaria blight, damping off and phytophthora. Any disease outbreaks severely threaten ginseng under intense cultivation because the plants are so close together that the disease can spread quickly through the entire bed. This intense fungus disease pressure forces artificial shade growers to use a vigorous fungicide spray schedule to prevent losses.   Wild-Simulated A method called wild-simulated cultivation can be used to grow ginseng without fungicide sprays and expensive establishment costs. The prices paid for ginseng grown under wild-simulated cultivation are normally the same as prices paid for wild ginseng roots. While ginseng growing is very risky, wild-simulated ginseng cultivation can potentially provide supplemental income for persons who have patience, perseverance and discretion. To grow wild-simulated ginseng, the first step is site selection. The most favorable temperature and soil moisture conditions generally are associated with north or east facing slopes with at least a 75 per cent shade canopy. The best shade is provided by deep rooted, deciduous trees such as poplars and oaks. Ginseng grows best in a moist, well drained soil. Successful growth of ginseng most often occurs in sites where herbaceous woodland plants such as Jack-in the-pulpit, bloodroot, Solomon's seal and ferns are growing. If no herbaceous plants are growing o­n the forest door, ginseng will probably not grow there. Excellent soil drainage is essential. In the wild-simulated method, stratified ginseng seed is planted in the fall when the trees lose their leaves. In some locations, clearing of undergrowth will be necessary. If the site is sufficiently shaded, there should not be a great deal of competitive weed growth. This is an extensive (as opposed to intensive) planting method. If dense patches of weeds exist o­n the site, simply avoid them and plant in other areas. It is desirable to disturb the site as little as possible to reduce the spread of fungus diseases. The o­nly tools needed to plant wild-simulated ginseng are a rake and a garden hoe. It is a good idea to plant seeds in defined beds that are 5 feet wide and 50 feet long. The beds should be separated by three foot wide walkways. The beds should run up and down the slope rather than across the slope for better air drainage around the plants. Rake the leaves o­n the forest floor away from the bed right down to the topsoil. Using the hoe, make three narrow furrows 13 inches apart, all the way down the length of the bed. Plant ginseng seeds, by hand, three inches apart in each furrow About o­ne ounce or 500 seeds will be needed to plant three furrows at this spacing in a bed that is 5 feet wide and 50 feet long . Cover the seeds with 3/4 inch of soil. After planting, carefully step down each row to firm the soil around the seeds. To finish the planting, rake o­ne inch of leaves back over the bed as a mulch. After a couple of rain storms, no o­ne will be able to detect that any planting has occurred. The site will look completely natural. The stratified seed will germinate the next spring. The plants will look like three small strawberry leaves o­n a stem about o­ne inch tall. Some of the ginseng seeds will not germinate and some will be eaten by rodents. Over the next seven years, the plant population in each bed will be reduced every year by various natural forces. The final stand will be a thin, healthy population of wild ginseng plants. In the wild-simulated method, after planting, no more work is required until the ginseng roots are dug six to ten years later. The ginseng plants are left to the vagaries of nature. Weeds o­n the forest door will compete with the plants for water and nutrients. Insects and rodents will attack certain plants. Fungus diseases infect ginseng plants from time to time. Severe weather may reduce plant growth. All of these stressful conditions result in a wild appearance of the roots that are eventually harvested. Digging the roots will be difficult work because they often become entwined with the roots of other woodland plants. The harvested roots should be air-dried in the shade.   Investment The investment in a half acre of wild-simulated ginseng is $800.00 for 10 pounds of stratified seeds and 20 days of labor. A half acre will produce anywhere from 0 to 200 pounds of dried roots in six to ten years. The natural fertility of the particular planting site will determine both the quantity and the quality of the ginseng that can be grown there. The greatest threat to the crop is theft. Ginseng should not be planted in areas where people go to dig wild ginseng. In some regions, ginseng hunters comb the mountains every fall looking for wild ginseng. These hunters will certainly be excited if they come across a dense population of plants. Somehow cultivated ginseng plants are often considered "fair game" by wild gatherers. Fines for stealing ginseng are negligible. The wild-simulated method of growing ginseng is best practiced o­n lands where access is controlled. It is highly recommended that anyone attempting to grow ginseng this way, keep quiet about the enterprise. Ideal growing conditions for ginseng are more difficult to find in low-lying regions than they are in the mountains. The forest floor in most woodland areas is too hot and dry during the summer for ginseng to survive. Micro-environments may be found, however, that are good, if not perfect, places for ginseng to grow. Small pockets of cooler soil may be found very often o­n a north-facing hillside above a stream or river. Many Virginia landowners are successfully growing ginseng well out of the mountains.   Marketing For several decades, natives of the Southern Appalachian region have harvested natural plant materials from the wild for sale to the many medicinal herb buyers in the region. Very often these buyers operate small grocery stores. There is at least o­ne buyer in every town in southwest Virginia. Products most commonly traded are ginseng, black cohosh, bloodroot, goldenseal, lady slipper, mayapple and slippery elm. The local person, who buys the roots, bark, leaves or seeds from medicinal plants, often also buys furs and hides. These small buyers, in turn, sell the plant materials they purchase to regional brokers who either export the materials to the Orient or sell them directly to pharmaceutical companies in the United States. As native wild populations of these medicinal plants disappear due to over harvesting, potential increases for profitable sale of cultivated woodland medicinal plants. Indeed, many small landowners throughout the region have already successfully grown and sold these plants. There is never any problem marketing the products they grow. Prices fluctuate, of course, but the market channels developed years ago for sale of wild harvested plant materials can reliably be used for sale of any cultivated medicinal herbs in current demand. Written by Andy Hankins, Virginia State University Parent Category: 1997 Vol. 5 Category: Vol. 5 No. 1 January 1997 Published: 12 March 2014

Cornell University is a center of active research on the development of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) as a high-value forest farming product in the hardwood forests of eastern North America. An update on several current research projects was featured during the recent fifth North American Agroforestry Conference at Cornell. Ginseng research is being conducted at the Arnot Forest near Ithaca, New York, which is managed by the Cornell Dept. of Natural Resources. Sugar maples at Arnot Forest are managed for maple syrup production, and ginseng is a compatible understory crop which benefits from the shade, leaf litter nutrients and improved soil moisture provided by the maple trees.   Research Goals Several Cornell researchers were on hand to describe their current projects on ginseng. Their research has two goals: to reduce the collection pressure on wild American ginseng, and to determine optimal management requirements for producing it using “woods-grown” (forest farming) methods. One project is seeking to characterize the optimal ecological and soil conditions for ginseng in its native habitat. Cornell senior extension associate Louise Buck described how the project has enlisted the aid of “shang hunters” (wild ginseng collectors), who have an intimate knowledge of where the best roots can be found, to collect soil samples from those sites. That project is related to another study conducted by Cornell researchers Jillian Gregg and Todd Dawson which seeks to determine how climatic region, slope aspect and species composition of the forest canopy affect the growth and ginsenoside content of ginseng. Preliminary results indicate that microclimate or soil characteristics are likely to be more important than any of those factors.   Ginsenoside Research Concurrent with the field studies, laboratory analyses are being conducted to quantify the ginsenoside content of ginseng roots that differ in age, shape, geographic origin, and whether they are wild or cultivated. Ginsenosides are the biologically active chemicals in ginseng roots that produce a quantifiable physiological effect on mammals and therefore are the basis for its medicinal value. The first step of this research is to develop a quick and easy method for measuring the seven most common and diagnostic ginsenosides. The goal is to investigate whether or not the traditional criteria used to judge the quality (and therefore price) of ginseng roots, e.g. age, shape, color, are reliable indicators of ginsenoside content and thus medicinal value. Market price should logically be based on ginsenoside assays, and growers will receive a better return once they know how to grow ginseng to maximize its ginsenoside content. Small plots have been established at Arnot Forest to demonstrate various cultivation methods and to evaluate the growth of ginseng from different geographic provenances. Young ginseng plants require 70-80% shade. During the first year of establishment plants are most susceptible to animal damage (e.g. slugs and rodents) and fungal pathogens (e.g. alternaria, phytophthora). Woods-grown roots are thinned to a final spacing of one per square foot and harvested after 7-10 years. Several private organizations are cooperating with Cornell in these demonstration trials, including the New York State Ginseng Association and a newly formed growers' group, the North American Ginseng Association.  Parent Category: 1997 Vol. 5 Category: Vol. 5 No. 4 October 1997

By Miles Merwin Oregon farmer Rob Miller planted his first buffer strip of native cottonwood 25 years ago along the riverbanks adjacent to his cropland. "Working" buffer strips have since then not o­nly protected this valuable farmland from erosion, but have also provided a profitable wood crop. They are now an integral part of a diversified farming operation that includes row crops, a research and production nursery, and specialty crops. Mt. Jefferson Farms, owned by second-generation farmer Rob Miller, produces a variety of row crops o­n about 200 acres of fertile alluvial soil along the North Santiam River in the Willamette Valley south of Salem. According to Miller, the farm originally had 600 acres of irrigated cropland along the river, but 400 acres were lost to erosion and siltation following periodic river flooding. The remaining acreage has been saved by the planting of riparian buffer strips. Riparian Buffers Following his father's interest in poplars, Rob Miller visited the Poplar Institute in Rome, Italy, in the mid-1960's. There he procured cuttings of 100 hybrid clones for testing o­n the family farm. He planted the first buffer strips of native black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and hybrid poplars in 1970. The original plantings have withstood several major floods along the river, and portions of it have since been harvested several times for high-value wood products. "My aim is to show landowners that buffer strips can be profitable," Miller said, "or at least a break-even proposition." The original planting of native black cottonwood was commercially thinned in 1980 and 1994. The 1994 harvest yielded 10,000 board feet per acre, almost all of which was sold for veneer peeler logs at a value of $350 per thousand bd ft. The harvest produced a total gross return of $70,000. Miller said that other sites o­n his farm planted with black cottonwood in the mid-1970's have yielded 20-25,000 bd ft per acre of veneer grade logs. Rob Miller has also planted poplars and cottonwoods in upland areas of his farm where the soils are too poor to grow economic yields of row crops or grass seed. In a 10 year old test planting that includes native black cottonwood and several clones of hybrid poplar, the native cottonwood has grown about half as fast as the hybrid poplar. However, where Miller has planted native cottonwoods o­n better soils adjacent to the riverbank, they have attained merchantable size for veneer in as little as 12-15 years. About 200 acres of riparian buffer strips are now managed o­n a sustainable basis at Mt. Jefferson Farms. The plantings range from 200 to 1000 feet wide along 2 miles of river frontage. Rob Miller's aim is to harvest and replant portions of the buffer strips every year to achieve an annual sustained yield of timber while maintaining their protective capacity. He manages these multipurpose buffer strips as a profitable wood crop, to protect his farmland from erosion and flooding, and to prevent excess nutrients and agricultural chemicals from reaching the river. Miller sees the use of riparian buffer strips to protect water quality as a proactive step to meet expected future regulation which may mandate controls o­n farming operations near riparian areas. In addition to the riparian buffer strips of cottonwood and poplar, Miller has effectively utilized several bioengineering practices to prevent streambank erosion. Both poplars and willows are densely planted as "live stakes," and cuttings are used to construct fascines and brush mattresses to help protect the river banks. Buffer strips, combined with bioengineering measures, have reduced erosion and siltation of Miller's farmland during recent floods while large barriers of rock rip-rap installed in an effort to protect the neighboring farm o­n the opposite side of the river have not been successful for the landowner. A zonal design is used to establish riparian buffer strips at Mt. Jefferson Farms. In the zone closest to the river, native cottonwood and native understory plants are established. In some areas with suitable soils, hybrid poplars are densely planted (1 X 1 foot spacing) near the riverbank, both to control erosion and as a stool bed for cuttings. In the next zone away from the river, a variety of trees are planted at wider (8 X 8 foot) spacing for timber. In addition to hybrid poplar, Rob Miller is also planting Knobcone-Monterey hybrid (KMX) pine and leyland cypress for wood production o­n a sustainable cycle of harvest and coppicing or replanting. Nursery Operations Mt. Jefferson Farms is also o­ne of Oregon's first and largest hybrid poplar nurseries. The company has growing grounds and greenhouse facilities near Salem. Every year, the nursery supplies millions of dormant cuttings, from 8 inch "sticks" to 10 ft "whips" for landscaping, farmland plantings, and industrial fiber plantations. The nursery also does selection, breeding and genetic improvement of hybrid poplars for private industry and public agencies. Many new poplar clones, obtained from Washington State University, University of Washington and other sources, have been screened in greenhouse and field trials. Clones are tested not o­nly for growth, but also for their capacity to uptake nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Clones which are highly efficient at absorbing excess nutrients will be used for "phytoremediation" treatment of wastewater. Embryos of trees selected through greenhouse and field screening are multiplied by tissue culture at Oregon State University in Corvallis, and the resulting plantlets are then grown out at the nursery to sufficient size for field planting. In 1992, Rob Miller began selecting and custom-propagating a variety of other native tree and shrub species for ornamental and environmental purposes, e.g. wastewater treatment, filter strips, bioengineering, and watershed revegetation. Customers for contract propagation include both public agencies (e.g. USFS, BLM) and private companies. The aim is to vegetatively propagate plant material for replanting in the same watershed or zone where it originated. By using locally-collected native plants rather than introducing off-site genetic material, Miller said that the survival rate for revegetation projects can be improved. Species which the nursery has propagated include spirea, alder, cottonwood, rose, berries, conifers, willow, cypress and grasses. A three-phase process is used at Mt. Jefferson Farms for contract propagation. Phase 1 begins with the arrival of cuttings collected by the customer from plants already growing at the project site. Testing is performed to develop successful methodologies for vegetative propagation of each species. At the same time, greenhouse evaluations for nutrient absorption capacity are conducted in cooperation with the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology and OSU. In phase 2, mother blocks are established at the nursery as a source of cuttings for large-scale multiplication. In phase 3, the best plant materials developed through phases 1 and 2 are established in test plots to evaluate their suitability for buffer strips, phytoremediation, bioengineering, veneer production, etc. ther farming enterprises at Mt. Jefferson Farms include essential oils (e.g. mint, marigold, parsley), seed (e.g. grass, sage, coriander), and specialty crops (e.g. tea, ornamental plants). Rob Miller and a partner are currently screening over 900 varieties of tea (Camelia sinensis) to select adaptable cultivars for a new perennial crop in Oregon. The introduction of commercial tea cultivation in the US might also provide a new opportunity for agroforestry. Since tea bushes grow best under shade, Miller said that there would be the potential for alley cropping combinations of tea with hybrid poplar or other suitable tree species. (This article appeared originally in the Temperate Agroforester, July 1997. For more information, contact Rob Miller, Mt. Jefferson Farms, P.O. Box 12708, Salem, OR 97309). Written by Miles Merin Parent Category: 1997 Vol. 5 Category: Vol. 5 No. 3 July 1997 Published: 12 March 2014 riparian buffers

Agroforestry research scientists work hard at generating, controlled, replicated "scientific" observations. The day-to-day operation of agroforestry systems used in research also produces practitioner experiences which, although lacking the control of planned experiments, nevertheless provide useful information. I would like to share some of the "scientific" and "practitioner" experiences which I have acquired during 16 years of grazing sheep in conifer/pasture silvopastures. Agroforest system processes are primarily managed by manipulating vegetation composition and structure. Spatial pattern of trees is an important structural element in silvopastures. Trees are often grouped in clusters or rows in order to facilitate agricultural operations such as spraying, mowing, fertilizer application, and fencing. Although few replicated studies have been published, sufficient information is available to provide some principles for silvopasture design: Pasture production is greater when trees are aggregated together, leaving wide pasture interspaces free of trees, than when trees are spaced equally apart in grids. The influence of tree pattern o­n pasture production increases as number of trees per acre and individual tree size increases. Tree growth is little affected by pattern, provided that each tree has at least o­ne side exposed to full sun. This means that single rows of trees and double rows of trees should grow at similar rates, while the inner row of triple row plantings will eventually suffer reduced growth from competition. Surprisingly little has been written about the influence of silvopasture tree pattern o­n the livestock and native animal components of silvopastures. We have all seen animals seek out shade under trees during hot weather and shelter beneath trees during cold rainy weather. A grove or row of trees provides better protection from the elements than do single trees. However, animals also react to tree pattern in more subtle ways. Many wild animals prefer a habitat which contains protective vegetation where they can shelter from the weather and can hide from predators together with more open feeding areas where preferred food can be found. These conditions are most commonly found at the edge where two plant communities meet. Cluster or row silvopastures have a large amount of forest/pasture edge. This is very attractive to deer, rabbits, and birds which shelter in/under trees and feed in the pasture. In o­ne of our agroforests, deer began to commute in from adjacent oak woodlands to feed in our silvopasture soon after its establishment. Deer use increased as trees grew until they are now living entirely within the silvopasture. Deer damage to young trees has progressed from being primarily browsing damage of newly planted trees to being mechanical damage from rubbing the velvet off their horns in the fall. Because deer appear to select trees between 3 and 6 ft tall for rubbing posts, we expect this damage to end as trees grow. Planting trees in rows and spraying strips to reduce competition from pasture can expose trees to browsing damage from deer and rabbits. Browsing animals will sometimes follow the rows, eating trees as they go. o­ne year, I debated whether to spray the grass away from o­ne-year-old Douglas-fir trees. I was concerned that the grass, although reducing tree growth, might be concealing the rows of trees from deer. Sure enough, o­nce I sprayed the grass, deer easily found the trees and browsed every o­ne. I would have been better off to accept the grass competition. Birds such as flickers, robins, and thrushes use our conifer trees as perches. From the tops of tree rows, they can easily survey the pasture alleys for insects, worms, and other food items. Unfortunately, heavy bodied birds frequently break the terminal leaders off trees when attempting to perch o­n leaders which have not yet become woody. Birds faeces deposited near trees may contain weed seeds. Newly established poison oak under several silvopasture trees most likely arrived by this mechanism. Livestock are generally easier to herd in row silvopasture than in grid or cluster plantings. Their natural tendency is to drift parallel to barriers such as tree rows. Given a choice, animals will usually head downwind. This makes herding livestock between rows relatively easy. However, they may be reluctant to cross between rows. This is especially true for animals who are used to electric fencing. Modern high voltage fence chargers deliver 5000-7000 volts of charge at high amperage for a very short duration. o­nce animals have experience with electric fences, they are not anxious to repeat it. When in doubt, they often perceive any hard edge as a potential fence line. New Zealand sheep farmers, for instance, have successfully contained livestock by clipping the edge along strips of tall grass to produce a "grass fence". I used to keep our dog out of the vegetable garden by putting up a single piece of string, which he recognized as an electric fence wire. Low elevation remote sensing of our silvopastures shows slightly reduced pasture production in the center of alleys between tree rows. We believe that this results from trampling of livestock who are trying to stay away from what they perceive as a "tree fence". We have attempted to reduce this effect by encouraging sheep to browse the lower tree limbs so that they can easily see under them. A related off shoot of this principle is that you do not want trees planted near gates. I have spent a lot of frustrating time trying to get sheep to move through an open gate. They see the tall grass and trees as a fence line and will not pass through. Livestock can be extremely difficult to herd in grid or cluster silvopastures. Animals attempt to maintain a personal space between them and a potential predator such as a herder. As you approach them, they will walk away to preserve this space. o­nce this space is reestablished, they will often stop and look around to see that is happening. o­nce livestock pass behind a tree, they lose sight of you. They assume that you can't see them, so lose all interest in being herded. When you suddenly appear around the tree, they are spooked and attempt to flee. This situation becomes really interesting when you are attempting to control a large group of livestock, some of whom can see you, and some who can't. Tree rows o­n steep slopes are often planted o­n the topographic contours. While this is ideal for soil conservation, it may impede livestock movement. Livestock and native ungulates, just like people know better than to walk straight up or down hills. They walk at a slight angle to the hill's contour. These use patterns are usually easily seen in big game or livestock trails. Planting trees along these travel contours should capture most of the soil conservation benefits without impeding animal movement. In summary, my experience is that silvopastures planted in rows are far superior for livestock production than are either grid or cluster plantings. Trees planted in rows with wide open spaces for pasture production between them, support high forage production and facilitate agricultural operations and animal herding. The large amount of edge created and maintained long into the timber rotation tends to maintain high biodiversity. Deer, rabbits, and perching birds find the structure of cluster and row agroforests appealing. Therefore, o­ne should be prepared for the potential impacts upon trees and pastures which may accompany increased use by wildlife. Double rows should allow for fewer but wider pasture strips between rows without reducing tree production. If planting a new silvopasture today, I would plant trees in offset double rows as shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Design for a Douglas-fir/grass-clover silvopasture for western Oregon hill lands. It will qualify as a fully stocked forest for regulatory and forestry cost sharing purposes. Dr. Sharrow is Professor or Range Management and Agroforestry, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 97331 * This article originally appeared in the July 1998 issue of the Temperate Agroforester. Written by S.H. Sharrow, Oregon State University Parent Category: 1998 Vol. 6 Category: Vol. 6 No. 3 July 1998 Published: 12 March 2014 silvopasture management planting design

Carbon (C) sequestration in forests has been widely promoted as a practice to offset increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. Since the 1930's, shelterbelts or field windbreaks have been planted extensively in the Great Plains of the U.S. Shelterbelts are an agroforestry practice that consists of o­ne to several rows of trees planted across crop fields or grazing lands to reduce wind speed and improve the local microclimate. Shelterbelts are most common in semiarid areas where they also protect the soil from wind erosion. Some measurements of the C storage potential of shelterbelt trees have been made but there have been no measurements of C sequestration in the leaf litter or soil under this agroforestry practice. Accurate assessment of the C stored in existing and potential shelterbelt plantings is needed to give full credit for its C sequestration potential.   Establishing agroforestry practices, such as windbreaks, o­n formerly cropped or grazed land offers great potential to not o­nly sequester carbon, but also improve soil quality.(Photo courtesy author) Planting trees o­n soils previously managed for crop or forage production has potential to change many soil properties by altering organic matter and nutrient cycling processes. In forest systems, litter-fall is the primary organic input, while in many cropping and grassland systems the primary organic input is the decomposition of roots or of incorporated residues and manures. Decomposition of leaf litter o­n the soil surface in forests tends to be reasonably rapid with significant losses of soluble organic forms of several nutrients by leaching. Forest soils therefore often have a thin, organic-rich O horizon over an deeper horizons that have relatively low concentrations of nutrients. To assess the effect of shelterbelt planting o­n soil organic carbon (SOC), samples were collected within and adjacent to a 35 yr-old shelterbelt in eastern Nebraska to determine the amount of C stored in the litter and surface soil layers. The 2-row, north-south shelterbelt was composed of eastern red cedar and scotch pine. Adjacent fields had been cropped to wheat, grain sorghum, corn, and soybean. Four soil cores were collected within 10 inches of 118 grid points, divided into 0-3 and 3-6 inch depth increments, and composited by depth. Under the shelterbelt, all surface litter in a 20 x 20 inch square at 63 grid points was collected before soil sampling at those points. The litter was hand sorted into 8 categories (sticks, pine needles, etc.) with the remaining fine material divided into >2 mm (coarse) and <2 mm (fine) duff. Soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration in the 0-3 inch layer in the uncultivated areas within the shelterbelt was 55% greater than in the cropped fields (3.04% versus 1.96%). The differences were less for the 3-6 inch layer (2.00% versus 1.78%) but SOC was still greater in the uncultivated areas. Significantly greater SOC in the surface soil layer within the shelterbelt is attributed to decomposition of tree litter, absence of tillage, erosion reduction, and deposition of wind-blown dust. Average litter mass was 0.95 lbs/sq ft with over 70% of the mass composed of coarse and fine duff. The duff fraction contained over 60% of the C in the litter layer. When added together, the C stored in the surface soil layers and leaf litter beneath the shelterbelt accounted for approximately 20% of the C stored in the shelterbelt. This estimate would likely increase by including SOC from deeper soil layers and C from roots. Productive conservation is a term for land use practices that enhance or conserve soil, water, and air quality while maintaining a viable economic return. Agroforestry systems including shelterbelts can include diverse tree (e.g. nut, fruit, & veneer) and understory (e.g. forage, herbs, & medicinals) species that produce a wide variety of food, fiber, and specialty products. From a soil science perspective, agroforestry systems also offer great potential to improve soil quality by reducing soil disturbance and by providing permanent ground cover. In particular, the potential to increase SOC content of the surface layer is of great interest as SOC is a critical soil quality indicator through its role in C and nutrient cycling, enhancing soil fauna, and improving infiltration and soil water holding capacity. Establishing agroforestry practices o­n formerly cropped or grazed land, especially if the soil is eroded or otherwise degraded, offers great potential to not o­nly sequester significant C in the trees, litter, and soil, but also improve the quality of the soil. Better information o­n litter accumulation and changes in SOC and C in tree roots will allow better estimates of the full C sequestration potential of agroforestry systems. More research is also needed to identify which processes are responsible for the changes in SOC within agroforestry practices and management techniques to promote C storage. By Tom Sauer and Cindy Cambardella (USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory) and Jim Brandle (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Parent Category: 2005 Vol. 13 Category: October No. 4 Published: 05 April 2014 windbreaks shelterbelts carbon sequestration

The Prairie States Forestry Program (PSFP) was initiated in 1935 to combat severe soil erosion from the Dust Bowl years. Over the course of the next 7 years, the U.S. Forest Service, working with the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, planted nearly 220 million seedlings in the Great Plains. These plantings, known as windbreaks or shelterbelts, created 18,600 miles of linear strips of trees from North Dakota through Texas (Williams 2005). Windbreaks play an important role on the landscape in the plains region. These linear plantings of trees and shrubs are designed to enhance crop production, protect structures and livestock, and benefit soil and water conservation (Figure 1). Windbreaks also provide habitat for wildlife and pollinators, sequester carbon, provide income opportunities and enhance aesthetics. Figure 1. An example of field windbreaks in an agricultural setting. Source: USDA National Agroforestry Center Anecdotal evidence suggests that windbreaks are being removed due to a variety of factors including age-related decline, modern farming practices, and crop prices. Yet no coordinated, permanent, recurring monitoring program exists for trees used in agroforestry in the U.S. This limits information available to decision makers, resource managers, and land planners. The USDA has formally recognized the need to inventory and monitor agroforestry systems such as alley cropping, silvopasture, forest farming, riparian forest buffers, and windbreaks ( USDA Agroforestry Strategic Framework 2011 ). The lack of information about these windbreaks limits the inclusion of important contributions of these important tree resources into state, regional, and national assessments. There is no baseline information needed for wise decision-making in the sustainable management of these systems in the face of changing conditions. The USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC) (Lincoln, NE) and the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program at the Northern Research Station (St. Paul, MN) have partnered to develop a monitoring program for these resources in the central United States. One such effort, aimed at building a historical baseline for windbreaks, is bringing old information into the digital age. Original PSFP maps, photos, and other relevant information that have been housed at NAC are being inventoried, digitized, and scanned. Old hand-drawn legal land description maps that show original windbreak plantings are being digitized using GIS technology, allowing for a baseline inventory of the original windbreaks, which can be viewed using current aerial photography. In one example from Antelope County in Northeast Nebraska, original plantings were compared to 2010 aerial photography (Figure 2). Analysis found that 38% of the original windbreak locations were still intact, with 40% partially intact and 22% no longer in existence. Figure 2. An old paper map showing original windbreak locations overlaid on current aerial imagery using GIS. Source: USDA National Agroforestry Center Information about species, landowners, tree spacing, growth and other interesting tidbits give some insight into the vast PSFP work. Bringing this information forward in a usable, digital format helps tell the story about windbreaks and trees in the Great Plains in general (Figure 3).  Figure 3. Example of old photographs being digitally archived. Source: USDA National Agroforestry Center In an effort to provide current, spatially-rich information about trees in the central Plains States, NAC and FIA are also developing maps based on high-resolution aerial photography. The work is ongoing in conjunction with partners at North Dakota Forest Service, South Dakota Conservation and Forestry, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Kansas Forest Service, and Texas A&M Forest Service. An example of a complete map dataset for Kansas can be found at the U.S. Forest Service Research Data Archive . The Prairie States Forestry Program was one of the largest conservation efforts ever in the U.S. President Roosevelt’s “Great Wall of Trees” was and is still an unprecedented federal effort with local buy-in that planted trees on mostly private lands. Preserving this rich history and using current technology to meet current information demands will help ensure these important resources are being counted and can be managed into the future. References USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2011) USDA agroforestry strategic framework, fiscal year 2011–2016 – enriching our lives with trees that work. http://www.usda.gov/documents/AFStratFrame_FINAL-lr_6 –3–11.pdf . Accessed 01 December 2017. Williams, Gerald W. (2005) The USDA Forest Service—The First Century. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Written by Todd Kellerman, USDA National Agroforestry Center

By Steve Sharrow, Oregon State University One visible effect of including trees in pastures is the shady haven which they provide for livestock o­n hot summer days. The benefits of providing protection from the hot rays of the summer sun are obvious. After all, that is why we wear a hat! It easily follows that animals, which are unable to shelter from the direct sun during the heat of the day, will have to expend energy to deal with their discomfort and/or reduce their feeding activity. Their productivity should decline in proportion to the time spent under these unfavorable conditions. Increased livestock production during hot weather is often promoted by agroforesters as o­ne of the benefits of having trees. However, there is very little published research available to either verify or disprove this widely held belief.   A recent article by Cook et al. (1998) discussed a similar situation for thermal cover for elk. The need for tree canopy cover to shelter deer and elk is so widely accepted that forest management prescriptions often include thermal cover guidelines. However, most evidence of benefits from thermal cover for animals is circumstantial. We know that deer and elk prefer shady habitat during hot weather (Ockenfels and Brooks 1994). However, shady areas may differ from unshaded areas in terms of topographic position, understory vegetation, and proximity to other habitat factors such as water. Benefits from any of these factors could be attributed to shade. Animals will also sometimes prefer things which they do not actually need. So do animals really benefit from the shade or just like it? Surprisingly, the o­nly available direct comparison of shade trees vs. unshaded habitat (Cook et al. 1998) shows no effect of shade o­n elk summer grazing habits or weight gains. While elk prefer shade, they no not need it in Oregon's Blue Mountains. Similar to elk, livestock are attracted to shade o­n hot sunny days.Cattle may orient their pasture use to be near sources of shade. But how much does livestock performance really improve when summer shade is provided? This is a harder question to answer than you might think. Millions of cattle are successfully raised in the hot humid summers of the Midwestern and Southeastern states without shade. So, would shade increase their performance? Shade has generally been useful in increasing milk yields of dairy cattle and liveweight gains of feed lot cattle in hot climates. This is especially true for European breeds of cattle in areas that are both hot and humid (Blackshaw and Blackshaw 1994). However, high concentrations of high producing animals consuming relatively high-energy rations are somewhat different than the conditions typical of forage-based cattle production in pastures and rangelands. Surprisingly few reliable studies of cattle productivity with and without shade have been done under realistic pasture conditions. I could o­nly find two controlled comparisons of cattle grazing in pastures with vs. without shade in the regularly published literature. The greatest effect of shade trees o­n summer weight change in free ranging cattle was reported for European breeds of cattle in Louisiana (McDaniel and Roark 1956). Averaged over 4 years, cows grazing under scattered pines spent about half an hour more time grazing each day and gained 1.29 lb./head/day compared to cows grazing open pastures, who lost weight during the summer. Unfortunately, no pasture data are provided. It is not possible, therefore, to completely separate shade effects upon forage quantity and quality from its effect o­n animal thermoregulation. Much more modest increases in summer weight gains were reported for cattle with access to artificial shade structures in Oklahoma (McIlvan and Shoop 1970). During 4 years, weight gains of Hereford cattle were increased 6, 9, 1, and 11% by artificial shades, with the greatest impact of shade seen during hot and humid weather. Only Cook et al.'s (1998) elk data are available to represent the western states. Humidity is probably as important as temperature in summer heat stress of grazing livestock. We often think of the daily high temperatures as the main issue in heat stress. However, night conditions are probably equally important. As those who have lived without air conditioning in the southern U.S. will agree, it is not just the hot humid days that wear you down, it's also the hot humid nights. Some small daily variation in body temperature is normal for mammals. A slight increase in body temperature during the heat of the day, followed by a similar reduction in body core temperature during the cool of night allows large mammals to use their body mass as a buffer. The issue becomes serious when animals are not able to recover from the previous day's heat stress before the next day begins. Mercifully, heat and humidity are an uncommon combination in the more arid, higher elevation areas of western rangelands. This probably explains the lack of shade effects o­n elk reported by Cook et al. (1998) Blackshaw and Blackshaw (1994) summarized the literature relating shade to heat stress in cattle. As they explain the situation, cattle receive heat directly from the sun when standing in the open. Dull, dark colored hair absorbs most sunlight, which is converted to heat. White, shiny coats reflect much of the energy and less is converted to heat. Shade can be very helpful in reducing heat loading from the sun's rays, especially for dark colored animals. However, quite a bit of heat can be received after being reflected from bare soil or nearby objects. Shade is not very effective in protecting cattle from reflected radiation. For example, a California study found that 33% of the heat load received by a shaded animal was reflected from the ground and 28% came from the overhead shade material. Total heat load was o­nly reduced by 30% under shade compared to out in the sun. Metabolic heat generated from the digestion and use of energy contained in food can also be a significant source of heat. Approximately 35-70% of the energy which cattle extract from food is converted to heat. Active animals and those consuming large amounts offered can generate significant amounts of internal heat. Shade has no direct effect upon this heat source. So, although shade may reduce heat loading of cattle, it probably o­nly directly affects less than a quarter of the total heat energy cattle must deal with o­n a sunny day. This reduction may be important under severe heat conditions or when livestock are under stress because of other factors. It is less likely to be crucial for acclimated cattle that are otherwise well fed, well watered, and healthy. Cattle lose heat primarily by transferring it to cooler air, and by evaporation of water from sweat and from moist tissues in the respiratory system. The cooler air temperatures under trees are very helpful in increasing heat transfer from animals. This is probably as important in the general cooling effect of shade as is protection from direct sun light. It is less effective, however, for naturally well insulated animals, such as some of the northern European breeds of cattle, which have thick coats of hair. Shade trees do not reduce air temperatures under windy conditions and still air under trees may be more humid as well as cooler than that out in open pasture. Because of the major role that evaporation of water plays in heat transfer, heat stress is much greater under humid conditions than under dry heat. The issue of heat stress is further complicated by both physiological and behavior adaptations which cattle make to reduce the effects of heat. Heat stress may reduce animal performance in two ways. First, it may depress grazing and food intake. And second, animals may resort to panting or other actions that consume energy. Cattle breeds differ markedly in their ability to tolerate heat. In general, Brahman type cattle are more heat tolerant than are northern European breeds. However, much heat tolerance is behavioral. Cattle may successfully deal with lack of shade by restricting their grazing and traveling to the cooler hours of the day or night and by standing together in areas of good airflow. So, where does all this leave agroforesters? There are many sound esthetic, ecological, and economic reasons for including trees in pastures. It makes intuitive sense to most of us that shade should increase comfort and improve animal performance. However, the factual basis for improved livestock production due to shade is very limited. We need to be careful about advocating shade as a means of reducing heat stress. Protection from sunlight o­nly reduces o­ne of several sources of heat which contribute to thermal stress in animals. Livestock have both physiological and behavioral mechanisms they can use to counter environmental stresses. Livestock performance is unlikely to be greatly improved by shade unless heat stress is sufficiently great and of adequate duration to overcome these coping mechanisms. Such conditions are probably less common under traditional range and pasture production systems than we think. Literature Cited Blackshaw, J.K., and A W. Blackshaw. 1994. Heat stress in cattle and effect of shade o­n production and behaviour: a review. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 34:285-295. Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildl. Mono. 141:1-61. McDaniel, A.H., and C.B. Roark. 1956. Performance and grazing habits of Hereford and Aberdeen-angus cows and calves o­n improved pastures as related to type of shade. J. Anim. Sci. 15:59-63. McIlvain, E.H., and M.C. Shoop. 1970. Shade for improving cattle gains and rangeland use. J. Range Manage. 24:181-184.  Ockenfels, R.A., and D.E. Brooks. 1994. Summer diurnal bed sites of coues white-tailed deer. J. Wildlife Manage. 58:70-75. *This article originally appeared in the July 2000 issue of the Temperate Agroforester. Dr. Sharrow is Professor or Range Management and Agroforestry, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 97331 Written by Tyler Carlson Parent Category: 2000 Vol. 8 Category: July No. 3 Published: 12 March 2014 silvopasture livestock

Following the drought and dust storms of the 1930s the US federal government’s response was to invest $13.8 million to plant more than 200 million trees and shrubs throughout the Great Plains. These planting were initially established to reduce windblown soil, but research suggests there is an additional benefit that would surprise many agricultural producers. Windbreaks increase crop yields!   How can this be? Many producers notice the obvious reductions in crop yields in the zone immediately adjacent to windbreaks. But is seeing always believing? Past research has shown that the crop yield reductions immediately adjacent to windbreaks are more than compensated for by increased yields in the “protected zone” further out from the windbreak. These yield increases were summarized on a worldwide basis as far back as 1986 at the First International Windbreak Conference, held in Lincoln, Nebraska, and documented yield increases from 8% to 23% for corn, wheat and soybeans. Some economists also suggest that field windbreaks pay for themselves within 10 to 15 years and provide additional income over their remaining life span, even accounting for the land occupied by the windbreak and the yield reductions in the root zone of the trees. To check the validity of this long-standing research, discourage the removal of shelterbelts and encourage the planting of new ones, a crop yield study is being developed throughout the US Great Plains with cooperation from partners in the Canadian Prairie Provinces. The Great Plains Crop Yield Study will gather information from electronic yield monitors that are now found in many combines, in order to assess the effects of windbreaks on crop yields. The study’s idea is to compare multiple years of data from fields with and without windbreaks over a large area and from many farmers. Because we are looking for relative crop yield changes and not absolute numbers, this approach minimizes the variables of rainfall, fertility, crop rotation, and farming methods. The key is that the data already exists with farmers. When combined with GPS, yield monitors can provide crop yield data for virtually every point in a field. The first step is to find landowners who are willing to share their yield monitor data. Ideally, these data would be from both windbreak-protected and unprotected fields. The fields will be identified on aerial photography and when windbreaks are involved, their effectiveness will be determined. This will involve making a few on-the-ground observations and measurements. Then the landowner can either upload the monitor data to a site for analysis or save it to a storage device for uploading later. The eventual outcome from this study will be an updating of our knowledge of the windbreak/crop yield interaction. This information will be shared among farmers and conservationists through technical reports, journals, agriculturally related publications, and conferences. By the way the study has been designed, it will not be possible to report comparison yield results for a specific locality. However, if the study can include several years of data, we may in time, be able to answer other questions. For example, do windbreaks have greater, lesser, or no effect during times of drought? Are windbreaks more effective with some crops and less with others? In short, creating a database that spans several years and a wide region may potentially add value to agriculture production beyond the original purpose of the study. (This article was excerpted from “Kansas Canopy” Issue #49 – Winter, 2013)

The financial potential and environmental impact of agroforestry practices are being evaluated o­n approximately 300 acres of land at the Hill Farm Research Station, Homer, LA. Currently, the land base is comprised of loblolly pine silvopastures, loblolly pine plantations, and open-pastures. Long-term objectives are to determine the potential for annual timber harvests and for maintaining livestock ownership through a timber production cycle. Intermediate objectives are to determine the impact of the interactive competition between the tree and forage crops o­n timber and livestock productivity. Tree crop growth plays a pivotal role is the success of a silvopasture because tree to tree competition influences both timber and forage production. Reducing the number of trees, altering the spatial arrangement of the trees, and manipulating canopy size can control the competitive impact of the tree crop. Since the study area contains six different tree-age classes, five types of spatial arrangement and an array of pruning options, the impact of timber management practices can be evaluated in a chronosequential manner. Tree crop establishment practices include planting density rates from 680 to 220 trees per acre and spatial arrangements of o­ne, two, and three row sets planted o­n 8, 12, 16, 24, and 32 foot-centers. Intermediate harvests will reduce tree density to 50, 75, 100, or 150 trees per acre at ages 10 and 15, and final harvest are planned for ages 25, 35, and 45. Mechanical and chemical pruning methods are being used manipulate canopy size at ages 4, 7, and 10. Tree growth rate and quality characteristics will be evaluated in response to annual N fertilization, reduced tree densities, and damage from hail and ice. The influence of timber management practices o­n the performance of perennial warm-season (bahiagrass, common bermudagrass, and Coastal bermudagrass) and annual cool-season forage crops (ryegrass and subterranean clover) will be evaluated at tree canopy densities of 0, 50, 75, 100, and 150 trees per acre for varying tree ages. Fertilization applications will include either N at 100 or 200 lbs. per acre combined with a basic pasture mix of P, K, and S, or broiler litter at 2 and 4 tons per acre. Potential for alley crop hay production will be investigated in tree spatial arrangements of o­ne, two, and three row sets planted o­n 16, 24, and 32 foot-centers. Electric fencing and portable watering systems are being used to develop rotational grazing systems and to provide remedial riparian zones along streams and existing ponds. Beef cattle production under a tree canopy is being evaluated by comparing cow/calf productivity o­n open pasture with silvopastoral productivity. Both open pastures and silvopastures are being managed to sustain 9 months of grazing by overseeding a warm-season perennial forage with ryegrass and/or subterranean clover. Both pasture types are being rotationally grazed at a stocking of 1 animal unit per acre and pasture productivity is being measured by cow weight changes, body condition scores, cow pregnancy rates, and calf weaning weights. Although weather conditions in 1998 limited stocking to 0.5 animals per acre, animal performance was similar o­n both pasture types. Cow weight changes, cow body condition scores, cow pregnancy rates, and 205-day calf weaning weights averaged +60 lbs, 5.7, 100%, and 540 lbs, respectively. In addition to beef cattle production, the study area will be used to evaluate the potential to background dairy heifers in a silvopastoral situation. Written by Terry Clason, Louisiana State University, Homer, LA Parent Category: 1999 Vol. 7 Category: Vol. 7 No. 1 January 1999 Published: 12 March 2014 silvopasture economics ecosystem services planting design