The Center
for Subtropical Agroforestry (CSTAF), established at the University of
Florida in 2001, serves as a regional resource center for the promotion of
agroforestry research, education and extension in the southeastern United
States and other subtropical areas. Its partner institutions include
Auburn University, Florida A&M University, the University of Georgia,
and the University of the Virgin Islands. |
The Practice and Potential
of Agroforestry in the Southeastern United States
A CSTAF White Paper
By
Sarah W. Workman and Samuel C. Allen
Center for Subtropical Agroforestry (CSTAF)
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Foreword
Foreword contributed by Ramachandran P. K. Nair,
Ph.D., Distinguished Professor and Director, Center for Subtropical
Agroforestry (CSTAF), School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University
of Florida.
Today's farmers and landowners face many challenges as they seek to make
their farms and forestlands profitable, productive and environmentally
sustainable. A host of problems--farmland conversion, urbanization pressures,
reductions in water quality and availability, soil erosion, irregular cash
flows, and increased government regulation--make managing the family farm or
forest a difficult task.
In today's challenging agricultural setting, new and innovative approaches
to farm production are needed. These approaches should address the various
problems faced by farmers, landowners and their communities. They should also
be practical, profitable, and low in cost.
|
Agroforestry
is a land use system that combines trees with crops and/or animals on the
same land area, to increase certain economic, social and environmental
benefits. |
In response to these needs, significant efforts are underway in the
southeastern United States toward realization of the economic, social and
environmental benefits of agroforestry. Various research, education and
extension activities are taking place in institutions around the region to
address how agroforestry can be applied in sustainable land-use designs. In
addition, land managers are gradually taking steps to incorporate these
innovative and conservation-oriented practices on their farmlands and forested
areas.
|
This
paper will guide readers in decisions pertaining to land use management,
using agroforestry. |
The purpose of the following instructional document--officially called a
white paper--is to help farmers, landowners, extension professionals
and policymakers develop solutions to some of the problems they or their
clients face, using agroforestry as a land management tool. This will be
done by presenting readers with the various opportunities available in
agroforestry, based on a review of current and potential practices in the
southeastern United States.
The paper begins with an analysis of some of the issues faced by today's
rural landowners, including agricultural land-use changes, urbanization,
agricultural and forestry intensification, water quality and availability,
climate change, sustainability, and alternative production systems.
|
Major
agroforestry practices discussed in this paper include alley cropping,
forest farming, riparian forest buffers, silvopasture,
windbreaks, and special applications. |
Next, the paper discusses a number of current and emerging agroforestry
practices in the Southeast in terms of their research and field applications,
including alley cropping, forest farming, riparian forest buffers,
silvopasture, windbreaks, and special applications. It then reviews the
benefits, constraints and reasons for adoption of agroforestry as reported by
Florida landowners and by natural resource professionals in Alabama, Florida
and Georgia. Following this is a discussion of current developments, resources
and research needs in agroforestry with regard to education and technology
transfer, information and decision support systems, farmer's networks, public
policy, and economics. Lastly, a listing of helpful resource agencies is
provided.
|
Contact
your local extension, natural resource or forestry professional for more
information about the plant and animal species and markets that are
appropriate for your area. |
Readers who would like additional information about agroforestry are
encouraged to consult with their local county extension, natural resource or
forestry professional about the specific crops, trees, animals and markets
that are appropriate for their location. They may also refer to the enclosed
list of helpful resources, agencies and publications for more information (see
Appendices 2-3), or contact CSTAF. Lastly, readers are encouraged to visit the
CSTAF Subtropical Tree/Shrub Database, and the Southeastern Agroforestry
Decision Support System (SEADSS)--two online decision-making tools available
free-of-charge on the CSTAF Web site.
Numerous CSTAF colleagues and collaborators contributed to the preparation
of this document. I am particularly grateful to Drs. Sarah Workman and Samuel
Allen for preparing the paper. Thanks are also due to Drs. Michael Bannister
and Alan Long for their kind help with repeated reviews. Dr. Workman, with the
dedicated assistance of Andrea Garcia, completed the surveys, case studies
with Kiara Winans, and other field-research presented in the paper. The
helpful input of CSTAF partners Drs. Martha Monroe, Jarek Nowak and Edward
Ellis is acknowledged, as well as that of UF graduate students John Bellow,
Danelle Harrison, Matt Langholtz, Soumya Mohan and Kristina Stephen. We are
also grateful to CSTAF Advisory Council chair Dr. Gregory Ruark (Director,
USDA National Agroforestry Center) and Council member Dr. Evan Mercer (USDA
Forest Service) for their review of the draft and insightful comments. The
editorial assistance of Cindy Love and Joyce Dolbier is also appreciated. Many
other individuals including extension agents and landowners took part in the
study and effort leading to this report; I wish to thank them all for their
support and cooperation. This work was supported by a USDA IFAFS (Initiative
for Future Agricultural and Food Systems)/CSREES (Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service) grant.
|
The
creative involvement of landowners, extensionists, policymakers and others
is needed in order for agroforestry to succeed in meeting its intended
goals. |
Let me close by saying that, while the discipline of agroforestry holds
great potential, we need landowner innovation to push that potential
forward in practical ways. We also need the creative and enthusiastic
involvement of extension professionals, policymakers and other key
decisionmakers to help spread the word about agroforestry. With this team
approach in mind, we believe that it is our families, communities and nation
that will ultimately benefit from these collective endeavors.
Contents
Introduction
Current Trends
Changes in
Agricultural Land Use
Urbanization
Pressures on Rural Lands
Agricultural
Intensification
Forestry
Intensification
Water Quality and
Availability
Climate Change and
Carbon Sequestration
Agricultural
Sustainability and Alternative Production Systems
Agroforestry: A New
Way of Thinking about an Old Way of Farming
Emerging
Agroforestry Practices in the Southeast
Alley Cropping
Forest Farming and
Nontimber Forest Products (NTFPs)
Riparian Forest Buffers
Silvopasture
Practices
Windbreaks and Linear
or Border Plantings
Special Applications
Perceptions of
Agroforestry from the Field
Reasons for Adoption of
Agroforestry
Perceived Benefits
of Agroforestry
Perceived
Constraints to Use of Agroforestry
Methods for
Overcoming Constraints
Resources for Farmers
and Landowners
Education, Extension
and Technology Transfer Programs
Information and
Decision Support Systems
Networks, Community
Based Conservation, and Regional Outreach
Agroforestry:
What Does the Future Hold?
Policy Considerations
Economic Considerations
What Specific
Accomplishments Can Be Made?
Concluding Remarks
Appendix 1:
English-to-Metric Conversion Table
Appendix 2:
Agroforestry Resources on the Web
Appendix 3:
Agroforestry Incentive Programs for Alabama, Florida and Georgia
Literature
Cited
Footnotes
Copyright Information
|
Today’s
farm families face many new challenges. This section will outline some of
these trends and resulting land-management impacts. |
Introduction
Farm families in the United States face a host of new
challenges as we enter the 21st Century. These challenges include
changes in agricultural land use, urbanization of rural lands, agricultural
and forestry intensification, changes in water quality and availability,
climate change, food security, competition from foreign markets, and many
other issues. In turn, these trends are impacting how farmers and landowners
manage their lands and natural resources. Some of these major issues and
resulting land-management impacts are discussed below.
|
Land
use in the eastern U.S. has changed dramatically over the past 150 years. |
Current
Trends
Changes in
Agricultural Land Use
The Eastern U.S. has undergone major
changes in land-cover use over the past 150 years:
-
From the mid-1800s to the 1930s, forests, woodlands and grasslands
were dramatically altered through land clearing for timber extraction and
agriculture (Ware 2002) (see Figure 1).
-
This period also saw widespread cropland abandonment of up to 123.5
million acres (ac) in the region.
-
Since the 1940s large changes due to conversion from forest to
agriculture or urban settlement and from agriculture back to forests have
offset each other, resulting in little net change in forest area, though
not in stand age composition.
-
Today, crop and pasture lands occupy significant portions of land area
in the southeastern U.S., while forests occupy more area than all crop and
pasture lands combined (NASS 2001).
-
The southern states (Virginia to Texas) have just over 200 mil ac in
forestland, an amount that has been relatively stable in the area since
the 1970s (Ware & Greis 2002).
|
Figure 1. Change in land-cover use east of the
Mississippi River since 1850 (USDA-NRCS-RID 1997). |
|
Agriculture
and forestry are vitally important to the economies of the Southeast.
Many
forests are now owned by private corporations, including timber investment
management organizations (TIMOs).
|
Agriculture and forestry together comprise the single largest sector of the
state economy in Alabama and Georgia and the second (only to tourism) in
Florida. From 1978 to 1997 the value of all farm products sold in the three
states doubled. Cash receipt rankings for major agricultural commodities in
each state are as follows:
-
Alabama: poultry 38%, timber 22%, livestock 18%;
-
Florida: vegetables 21%, timber 20%, fruits 19%, ornamentals 16%;
-
Georgia: poultry 51%, field crops 21%, timber 16%, livestock 12%
(NASS
2001).
In the Southeast, forestlands have been exploited since
before 1700, and many of these areas, important for wildlife habitat and their
influence on hydrologic cycles, are not currently under intensive management
(Baker & Hunter 2002; NRC 1998). Various government agencies manage a
total of 11% of the timberland (21 mil ac) while the remaining 89% is
privately owned: 22% by forest industry, 21% by farmers, 12% by corporations,
and 45% by other individuals or organizations (Conner & Hartsell 2002).
Across the South, from Texas to Virginia, 92% of the private forest ownership
units are less than 100 ac with an average area of 38 acres. Since 1980 there
has been a decrease in forest industry ownership and an increase in private
corporate ownership including timber investment management organizations (TIMOs) (Conner & Hartsell 2002). Of the people who own 10 ac or more of
forest land, 56% do not reside on the parcel (Cordell et al. 1998).
|
|
A survey by Israel (1990) found that in north and north-central Florida,
one-third of forest landowners considered farming their primary occupation and
an additional one-fourth were retired. Most had owned their land for 25 to 30
years. Of these owners, 84% were male and 16% were female. Just over 28% had
off-farm jobs and 39% had spouses that worked off-farm. Over one-half had
trees and cattle with the primary emphasis on cattle. Tree planting for timber
and other forest resources (e.g., wildlife, firewood) accounted for over 80%
of the new enterprises initiated within the five years previous to the study.
Approximately three-fourths of the survey respondents said they earned less
than $10,000 a year from their land or farm and 28% said they were losing
money from the enterprise (Israel 1990).
|
Income
from farming was reported to be low by many small farm operators. |
In a similar survey of north and north-central Florida counties (Israel
& Ingram 1990), small farm operators were found to be managing one to four
agricultural enterprises on an average of 27 acres. These enterprises included
hay-pasture-rangeland (62% of respondents), cattle (38%), timber (36%), fruit
trees (20%), and vegetables (19%). Of these farmers, 61% worked off-farm and
45% had a spouse who worked off-farm. Among the respondents, the average age
was 54 years, 82% were male, 94% were white, 5% were African American, and
0.2% were of other racial background. Family incomes of over $40,000 were
reported by 37% of respondents, but income from farming, by comparison, was
low. Approximately 44% reported earning less than $5,000 in annual income from
the farm operation (Israel & Ingram 1990).
|
Urbanization
involves the conversion of farms, forests and natural areas to suburban
developments in response to economic factors and changing demographics. |
Urbanization
Pressures on Rural Lands
The urbanization of rural areas,
and the resulting increase in land values at the urban/rural interface, are
evidence of the expansion of suburbs and cities across America's rural
landscape. Essentially, in urbanization, lands that previously supplied food
to urban areas, or which were set aside for forests and natural habitats, are
channeled into development for expanding populations (Cordell et al. 1998).
This trend has arisen in part as urban dwellers have moved to the country and
as rural families have moved out of agriculture, in response to economic
factors.
The negative impacts of urbanization in the Southeast are most readily felt
on the farm in terms of:
-
a reduction in the number and size of
farms,
-
an increase in the average age of farmers,
with fewer young people venturing into farming, and
-
a general weakening of resource-based rural
economies (Workman et al. 2002a; NASS 2001).
|
In
many cases, pressures from urbanization can discourage small farm families
from staying in farming. |
This trend does not usually bode well for small farm
families. In many cases, the economic pressures of urbanization may cause them
to take their farmlands out of production because of higher tax rates, a lack
of available and affordable farm labor, or a desire for more stable and
profitable off-farm employment (Granskog et al. 2002).
|
Urbanization
brings together people with differing views and expectations about the
land and natural resources they must share. |
A variety of economic and social problems may arise from urbanization.
Urbanization tends to disconnect resource production, concentrations of
resource demand and consumption, and the impacts of consumption (Lambin et al.
2001; Svedin 1999). In addition, conflicts may arise because of rapid
modifications of landscapes, proximity of residents with differing opinions
towards these changes and the aesthetics of their surroundings, availability
of services, and assessment of markets, taxes and values (ICMA 2002; Hawken
1993). The net effect of these changes, if not handled appropriately, can in
many cases diminish the overall cultural vitality and integrity of both urban
and rural areas (Ware & Greis 2002; Duryea & Vince 2001).
|
The
interconnected ecology of rural landscapes is often overlooked by
developers and decisionmakers, resulting in poor long-term management of
the environment. |
In addition, new urban and suburban settlements can fragment rural
landscapes and disrupt the natural cycling of water, nutrients and energy that
maintain healthy ecosystems. Not seeing these linkages within the landscape
can result in short-sighted use of lakes, streams, wetlands, watersheds,
coastal water bodies and other natural resources (Carroll 1995). In the policy
arena, decisionmakers are often not aware of, or they overlook, landscape
linkages during policy formulation, leading to poor long-term management of
the environment.
|
Ultimately,
these issues influence how natural resources are used by all
consumers. |
Ultimately, the complex issues surrounding urbanization influence how
natural resources are utilized by all consumers. With an increase in
population growth across the southern states of 54% over the last three
decades (Cordell et al. 1998), there is call for adoption of land-management
practices that both increase the aesthetic and recreational value of lands
while protecting and conserving the natural resource base (Bliss et al. 1997;
Teasley et al. 1997).
|
Agricultural
intensification has grown steadily in the U.S. over recent decades.
Intensification
has made it difficult for small farmers to keep pace with corporate-run
farms and cheap foreign products. |
Agricultural
Intensification
Agricultural intensification for
cropland, forest products and livestock production has grown steadily in the
U.S. over recent decades. This is due in large part to the wide availability
of improved agricultural practices and technologies, an effective
research-extension partnership, and an increasing consumer demand for
high-quality agricultural products.
As the rate of land clearing slowed in the mid-1900s and intensification
focused more on management of land already under cultivation, food and fiber
yields per acre increased with increasing inputs of synthetic fertilizer,
pesticides and irrigation. By the 1970s, energy intensive cultivation of
maximum acreage in row crops produced surplus yields and higher incomes for
farmers. However, greater mechanization and farm inputs increased the number
of farm loans during this period, resulting in increased farm debt and
eventual wide-scale loss of farms to foreclosures during the 1980s (Fitchen
1991). Today, while some small farm families have recovered, many have opted
to quit farming due to high input costs and low profits in the face of tough
competition from corporate-run farms and cheap foreign products. These
conditions have also kept would-be farmers and investors from venturing into
farming.
|
Concerns
have also been raised about the long-term sustainability of monocrop
systems, leading some producers into more environmentally-friendly
production systems. |
Concerns have also been raised about the long-term sustainability of
monocrop systems because of environmental problems resulting from agrochemical
pollution, soil erosion, pest problems, and loss of biological diversity.
Questions about how wide-scale manipulation of ecosystems alters the natural
structure and function of land and water resources have come to the fore and
remain as major research and development concerns (Lappé et al. 1998; Vitousek
et al. 1997; Sampson & Hair 1990; Savory 1988). These concerns have led
many producers to adopt more environmentally-friendly production systems in an
effort to conserve soil, water and nutrients. Producers have also diversified
into specialty-crop production systems, such as those for organic, herbal,
culinary and ornamental plants, in response to the rising consumer demand for
cleaner, safer agricultural products.
|
Forestry
has followed a similar progression in production intensity, albeit at a
slower pace. |
Forestry
Intensification
Forestry in the Southeast has followed a
similar progression in production intensity over the past few decades,
albeit at a slower pace. Up to the 1940s, forests were cut and left to
regenerate naturally, with some managers leaving seed trees for that
purpose. With the realization that natural regeneration was inadequate to
sustain yields and supply paper mills, silviculture began to include
establishment of tree nurseries and replanting of sites after land
acquisition. Techniques such as direct seeding were improved over time,
and a series of changes in site management philosophy occurred. Use of
fertilizer at time of planting also increased, especially when phosphorus
deficiencies were noted on flatwood sites, leading to an expansion of
production area. Mid-rotation timber fertilization also came into standard
practice some 20 years ago. In the 1980s weed control increased with the
advent of readily available herbicides, and by the 1990s plantation
growers had become proficient at minimizing competition from weeds and
woody plants. Cloning, tissue culture and other forms of genetic
improvement have also contributed to intensification of forestry practices
in recent years.
|
Outdoor
recreation, forest preservation, and corporate ownership of
timberland, are important issues in forestry. |
Forestry in the Southeast has followed a
similar progression in production intensity over the past few decades, albeit
at a slower pace. Up to the 1940s, forests were cut and left to regenerate
naturally, with some managers leaving seed trees for that purpose. With the
realization that natural regeneration was inadequate to sustain yields and
supply paper mills, silviculture began to include establishment of tree
nurseries and replanting of sites after land acquisition. Techniques such as
direct seeding were improved over time, and a series of changes in site
management philosophy occurred. Use of fertilizer at time of planting also
increased, especially when phosphorus deficiencies were noted on flatwood
sites, leading to an expansion of production area. Mid-rotation timber
fertilization also came into standard practice some 20 years ago. In the 1980s
weed control increased with the advent of readily available herbicides, and by
the 1990s plantation growers had become proficient at minimizing competition
from weeds and woody plants. Cloning, tissue culture and other forms of
genetic improvement are anticipated to contribute to intensification of
forestry practices in the future.
With increased recreation demand and the call to minimize environmental
degradation on public lands, extraction of fiber from natural forests has come
increasingly from commercial and investment trust lands, and private
non-industrial lands. Since 1989, Florida and Georgia together showed a
decline of industry timberland of more than 1.1 mil acres. Much of this
timberland is now under ownership of private corporations that will likely
continue to manage it for wood products (Conner & Hartsell 2002). As
urbanization increases and more and more people desire recreation in natural
settings, there will be a continued need for trees outside, as well as within,
forests (Long & Nair 1999; Leakey 1998).
|
Other important
issues include fuel-load management for fire suppression, and
longleaf pine restoration. |
Urban encroachment on or near forestlands has also brought to the fore the
issue of fuel-load management for fire suppression. While public sentiment is
in support of forest preservation, an increase in the number of widespread
wildfires in recent years has shown the importance of pre-emptive fire
management practices on public lands. Appropriate vegetation management at the
wildland/urban interface of private lands is also needed in response to the
fire threat. Alongside these changes, the critical role of fire in longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) habitat restoration is also gaining in public
awareness.
|
Nontimber forest
products (NTFPs) are growing in acceptance by American consumers. |
Forestlands are also increasingly being used for the production of
nontimber forest products (NTFPs). These products, such as pine needles for
mulch, crafting materials, edible mushrooms and nuts, herbal plants, and
forage, are gaining in acceptance by American consumers. These products will
be discussed in more detail later in this paper.
|
The Southeast is
home to a vast number of surface and subsurface water bodies. |
Water Quality and
Availability
The southeastern U.S. is home to a vast
number of surface and subsurface water bodies. Florida alone has over 7,800
lakes, 4,000 square miles of estuaries, and 50,000 miles of rivers and
streams, including major water bodies such as Lake George, Lake Okeechobee,
the Everglades, and the St. Johns and Kissimmee rivers (FDEP 2003). In
addition, the Floridian aquifer system, underlying almost all of Florida and
portions of Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, occupies a total area of
100,000 square miles, and supplies over 3 billion gallons of water per day for
all uses throughout the region (Johnson & Bush 2002).
|
Agrochemicals and
other farm by-products pose a serious threat to water quality in
the region.
Strategies and
technologies are needed that will address both the symptoms and
the causes of water pollution.
|
The build-up of nitrate, phosphorus and other agrochemicals in the
environment and their effect upon surface and subsurface water quality is of
growing public concern (Allen 2003). This issue is particularly important in
Florida and surrounding areas, as the karst geography of the region is shaped
by vast groundwater reserves that are sensitive to nutrient build-up.
Intensive agricultural practices have led to inefficient use of applied
fertilizers and to contamination of surface and subsurface drainage water
through leaching (Ng et al. 2000; Bonilla et al. 1999). In addition, animal
waste from dairy and poultry farming operations is a significant source of
contamination in Florida's groundwaters (Katz & Bohlke 2000). Such
contaminants can leach into groundwater and pollute drinking water wells, as
well as create conditions for eutrophication and related ecological
disruptions of rivers, lakes, estuaries and aquifers (Ng et al. 2000; Bonilla
et al. 1999; Marshall & Bennett 1998; Johnson & Raun 1995). Nutrient
pollution is also the most common cause of coastal environmental problems,
such as red tide and other algal blooms, fish kills, loss of seagrass beds,
and some coral reef die-back, that are especially severe in the Southeast and
the Gulf of Mexico (Howarth et al. 1997). These on-going threats point to the
need for strategies and technologies for mitigating both the negative
environmental symptoms and the root causes of water pollution.
|
Water availability
is another major concern affecting people throughout the region. |
Water availability is another major concern affecting people
throughout the region, as demand continues to grow for access to fresh water
sources. Dams, diversions between basins, and withdrawal for irrigation affect
a vast proportion of our national river flows and have caused extensive
fragmentation of natural channels (Jackson et al. 1997). In addition, the
intense usage of water in the upland watersheds of the southeastern states has
resulted in decreased flows, diminished groundwater recharge, and damage to
aquatic life, particularly during drought years (Georgia DNR/EPD 2002).
Moreover, the population boom seen in Florida and other states, combined with
seasonal influxes of tourists and recent low rainfall rates, have placed
additional strains on the region's fresh water supplies.
|
Wetland areas, a
vital part of the region’s environment, are threatened by
changes in water use.
|
Changes in water use also affect the region's wetlands. Wetlands and
bottomland forests are critical links and buffers between upland and coastal
environments in the Southeast--the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal region (USFS
2002; Abernathy & Turner 1987). These forests contain the richest
diversity of plant and animal species east of the Mississippi River; however,
only about 20% of the original 24 mil ac of bottomland hardwoods or original
floodplain forests remain (Ainslie 2002; Conner et al. 2001; Wright 2000; NRC
1998). As in other regions, invasive plants, aquatic weeds, plant diseases and
other pests are increasingly extensive problems that threaten the integrity of
wetland plant communities (West 2002; Campbell 1997).
|
|
Recent efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state
environmental protection agencies, universities, and other agencies, have led
to some improvements in the region's water bodies. For example, the water
quality of certain impacted lakes and streams has been improved, and
agriculture-related retention ponds and riparian buffers have been
constructed. Moreover, communities are now more conscious about conserving
municipal water supplies, and farms and industries are trying to reduce point
and non-point source pollution.
|
Various
clean-up strategies, including the use of plants themselves (phytoremediation),
are being used to improve water conditions. |
In addition, significant attention has focused on
phytoremediation--natural environmental clean-up using plants--as a way
of controlling pollution from agrochemicals and wastes. Constructed wetlands
and riparian buffers, for example, are useful technologies for treating
nutrient-contaminated waters (Baker 1998). Another treatment option is the use
of alley cropping, which involves the planting of crops within rows of trees.
The effect of trees in such systems is of interest because trees are able to
intercept fertilizer nutrients in soil (Nair 1993) and water, and thus may
help clean up the groundwater in and around agricultural fields (Allen 2003;
Williams et al. 1997).
Overall, significant strides have been made to improve water quality and
quantity conditions in recent years. However, much work remains to be done in
this area.
|
Evidence
suggests that global warming is occurring because of human
activities. Possible changes in climate will have far-ranging
impacts on the environment and on the economy of the Southeast. |
Climate Change and
Carbon Sequestration
There is clear and compelling
evidence that global warming is occurring, and numerous studies have suggested
a link between this phenomenon and human activities that cause carbon release
(Parry 2001). The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC 2002) indicates that
seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the
1990s. The widespread dependence on fossil fuels, carbon emissions from
industrial plants, and deforestation all contribute to the problem. The likely
wide-ranging impacts of global warming on the Southeast include more conflicts
over fresh water and potential threats to the region's vital agriculture,
forestry, shipping and tourism industries (Montagnini & Nair 2004; Twilley
et al. 2001; UCS 2001). In this light, developing clean energy sources and
reducing dependence on fossil fuels is an essential step in reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions and creating new economic opportunities for the
region.
|
Strategies
are needed that will help sequester (store) carbon in
intensive farming systems across a large area. When done on a wide
scale, this can help to reduce global warming. |
Implementing sound practices in land- and water-resource use can reduce
ecologically harmful side effects of climate change (Parry 2001; Schimel et
al. 2001; UCS 2001). In this light, there is a need for a variety of
agricultural practices that can help sequester (store) carbon in
intensive farming systems across a large area (NAC 2000a,b; Brandle et al.
1992a). Mixed cropping systems are being considered as one way to fight global
warming. Because these systems combine annual and perennial plants, they can
contain a large amount of carbon in plant tissue, litter and soil, and can
help build soil fertility and reduce fossil-fuel based inputs (Nair & Nair
2003; Wright et al. 2001). These and other conservation-oriented practices,
such as wind-, water- and solar-powered technologies, can help reduce both
farm costs and greenhouse-gas emissions when practiced by a large numbers of
landowners over a long period of time.
|
Greater
protection of our environment and adequate food production are
major challenges confronting us at the turn of the 21st century.
The
practice of agroforestry goes hand-in-hand with the idea of land
stewardship
Sustainability
at the farm and forest level means careful stewardship of the
natural resource base.
|
Agricultural
Sustainability and Alternative Production Systems
Greater protection of our environment and
adequate food production are major challenges confronting science and
society at the turn of the 21st Century (FAO 2001; Leakey & Simmons
1997; Matson et al. 1997). The 2002 Farm Bill places emphasis on
increasing our nation's food security while maintaining sufficient yields
in sustainable production systems. In this context, sustainability at the
farm and forest level means:
-
protecting and renewing soil fertility and
the natural resource base,
-
achieving an integration of natural
biological cycles and controls,
-
optimizing the management and use of on-farm
resources,
-
reducing the use of nonrenewable resources
and purchased production inputs,
-
promoting opportunities in family farming,
farm communities, and forestry,
-
providing adequate and dependable farm and
forest income, and
-
minimizing negative impacts on health,
safety, wildlife, soil and water quality, and the environment (USDA-SARE
2003).
|
Sustainable
production should manipulate the biological interactions between
components and emphasize species diversity rather than simply crop
yield. |
This focus on agricultural sustainability also means
adopting alternative production systems. Ideally, sustainable production
should manipulate the biological interactions between components and emphasize
species diversity rather than simply crop yield (Matson et al. 1997; Scoones
& Thompson 1994). In this regard, a survey of professionals in southern
states by Zinkhan and Mercer (1997) stated that the most efficient and
economical production schemes on marginal crop and pasturelands in the
Southeast are probably tree-crop and tree-forage combinations. These are
practices that integrate agriculture with livestock and forestry, to produce
regular cash flows, improve marginal sites, and enhance wildlife habitat and
water quality.
|
Creative
approaches to land use are needed, and small farms can and should
play a key role in that process. |
These issues illustrate the need for creative approaches to land use, which
meet economic, social and environmental goals in a sustainable manner. Along
with these approaches, there needs to be increased recognition that small
farms provide tangible goods and services that maintain fundamental ecological
processes and social benefits for the nation as a whole.
|
Agroforestry,
the intentional growing of trees with crops, pasture and/or
animals, has been practiced for centuries in other cultures. |
Agroforestry: A New
Way of Thinking about an Old Way of Farming
In
response to these issues, the age-old practice of agroforestry has been
reawakened and brought to the forefront of international attention.
Agroforestry, the intentional growing of trees with crops, pasture and/or
animals, offers promise as an alternative land-use practice with potential for
alleviating certain environmental and economic problems associated with modern
agriculture (Nair 1993). Practiced in various forms since ancient times in
regions such as China, the Mediterranean, and pre-colonial America (Newman
& Gordon 1997; Nair 1994; Linnartz & Johnson 1984), agroforestry is
now gaining interest from researchers, landowners, and government and private
agencies in North America.
|
A
key aspect of agroforestry is the wide variety of land-management
options it affords for conserving natural resources and producing
income |
A key aspect of agroforestry is the wide variety of land-management options
it affords for conserving natural resources and producing income
(ICRAF 2000; Lassoie & Buck 2000; Garrett et al. 2000). By integrating
trees with crops and/or animals on the same site, agroforestry can provide
numerous environmental benefits. These include protection against loss of
topsoil and applied nutrients, regeneration of soil fertility, enhancement of
water infiltration and groundwater recharge, protection against wind, snow,
noise, odor and other nuisances, and creation of attractive and healthier
landscapes (Ewel 1999; Jordan 1998b, Daily 1997; Leakey 1996).
|
|
Agroforestry practices can also provide a variety of agricultural products
and income sources. The multiple products that come from these complementary
mixtures are available at different time intervals, can utilize space more
effectively, and can utilize nutrients and other farm inputs more efficiently.
These diverse combinations can also help buffer landowners from the risk of
income loss due to price variability, crop failure or other unanticipated
problems. Additional system features can be incorporated to promote
recreational, educational and other options on landholdings, thus offering
additional sources of income.
|
|
Finally, the practice of agroforestry goes hand-in-hand with the idea of
land stewardship, because it reaffirms to landowners that they are being good
stewards of their lands and are thus providing future generations with
healthier ecosystems (Nair 1994). Opportunities for expanding the use of
agroforestry practices, and the benefits that result, are gradually increasing
in the southern U.S.
|
Particular
agroforestry designs will depend on landowner objectives and can
involve any combination of timber, forage, row crop, fruit crop,
firewood, livestock, wildlife or recreational habitat. |
Particular agroforestry designs will depend on landowner objectives and can
involve any combination of timber, forage, row crop, fruit crop, firewood,
livestock, wildlife or recreational habitat. In this paper we explore how
agroforestry practices can provide private landowners with methods to better
manage landholdings of all sizes across the landscape, to help sustain the
family farm and conserve natural resources.
|
|
Some of the recognized
environmental and economic benefits of agroforestry are presented in Table
1 below.
Table 1. Various benefits of
agroforestry
|
Aesthetics |
Promotion of wildlife and plant
diversity and provision of recreational and leisure areas. |
Animal Production |
Improvement of health and weight and
reduction of feed costs. Shielding of noise and odor. |
Carbon Storage |
Incorporation of large quantities of
carbon in woody vegetation within the agricultural landscape. |
Economic |
Promotion of income from multiple
products with steady cash flow. Reduction of input costs and
improvement in quality and yield of crops. |
Energy Conservation |
Reduction of farm and household energy
costs and inputs. |
Pest Management |
Provision of barriers to reproduction
and spread of pests, and habitat for beneficial insects and birds. |
Soil Conservation |
Reduction of loss of nutrients, organic
matter and sediment erosion. |
Streams and Wetlands |
Interception of agricultural runoff and
sediment, protection of banks from erosion and safeguarding of
habitat. |
Water Conservation and Quality |
Reduction of water use by plants,
filtering of chemicals from runoff, promotion of infiltration to
groundwater, and treatment of waste effluent and salinization. |
Wildlife Habitat |
Provision of cover, food, nest sites,
and corridors for movement. |
|
Source: AFTA 2000
(modified). |
|
|
Emerging
Agroforestry Practices in the Southeast
Agroforestry can be divided into six major practices
or land-use techniques (Sinclair 1999; Merwin 1997; Garrett et al. 1994):
-
Alley Cropping
-
Forest Farming
-
Riparian Forest Buffers
-
Silvopasture
-
Windbreaks
-
Special Applications
This section will describe each of these
practices and how researchers and landowners are applying them in the
Southeast.
|
Alley
cropping consists of planting herbaceous or other crops between
widely spaced rows of trees or shrubs.
While
the tree crop matures, the alley crops provide annual income.
|
Alley Cropping
Alley cropping consists of planting herbaceous or other
crops between widely spaced rows of trees or shrubs. The wide alleys are
easily farmed with standard equipment. Cash crops grown in the alley could be
hay, corn (Zea mays), cotton (Gossypium spp.), watermelon
(Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus), squash (Cucurbita spp.), other
vegetables, berries, or Christmas trees. In addition, the growing demand for
medicinal or specialty crops, such as ginseng (Panax spp.), ethnic
vegetables, herbs, and bamboo, may provide additional candidate crops for
alley production (Diver 2001; Garrett & McGraw 2000). While the tree crop
matures, the alley crops provide annual income (Benjamin et al. 2000; Cutter
et al. 1999; Jordan 1998b; Lewis et al. 1985). Depending on the level of shade
provided by the tree row over time, the alley crop could be changed to match
the changing conditions.
|
Alley
cropping can use a wide variety of tree species. |
|
Figure 2. Persimmons,
ornamentals and rosemary intercropped with pines in northern
Florida. (CSTAF) |
Trees can be planted in single or multiple tree rows and thinned for
pulpwood, firewood or fencing while they are small in diameter. Larger trees
may be harvested for lumber or other high-value products. Preferred tree
species are pines (Pinus spp.) and hardwoods such as pecan (Carya
illinoensis), ash (Fraxinum spp.), oak (Quercus spp.),
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), cherry (Prunus spp.), and
poplar (Populus spp.). Nuts and fruits produced by pecan, persimmon and
walnut (Juglans nigra) can provide an intermediate income, often
coming into full production about the time alley crop production is shaded out
(Figure 2).
In addition, fruiting or ornamental shrubs such as blueberry
(Vaccinium spp.) or huckleberry (Gaylussacia spp.) can be
established instead of trees, or grown in the alleys instead of crops for
fruit or floral industry products (e.g., decorative boughs). Ground cover and
fruit-bearing shrubs next to trees can also provide wildlife travel lanes,
food, and cover. This practice improves financial returns by more intensive
and diversified use of space with combinations of annual and perennial crops;
however, it may decrease the production of any single component in the system.
|
Alley
cropping with nut- or fruit-bearing trees is one of the more
common practices. |
Alley cropping with nut- or fruit-bearing trees is one of the more common
practices. Systems with black walnut are well developed in the Midwest
(Gillespie et al. 2000; Jose et al. 2000a,b; Garrett & Kurtz 1983), as are
other hardwood-based systems farther north (Garrett & McGraw 2000;
Williams et al. 1997). Southern pecan orchards are sometimes intercropped with
cover crops or forage for hay/grazing, but in some cases are cropped with
grain or vegetable crops for the first few years until pecans come into full
production (Reid 1991; Bugg et al. 1991). In these systems, pecans may be
planted in a 40 x 40 ft grid spacing initially and then be thinned at 16-20
years and again at 25-35 years. Peach (Prunus persica L.) trees are
another option for intercropping with pecan, as they can often bear fruit and
be removed prior to nut production.
|
|
Some citrus growers practice alley cropping by cultivating horticultural
crops between young citrus seedlings for the first few years after orchard
establishment. Similarly, some farmers producing for farmers markets or
community-supported agriculture groups (CSAs) have adopted innovative designs
combining fruit and nut trees or fruiting shrubs with horticultural or
ornamental crops. Interestingly, such combinations of diverse cover crops and
trees may support insects beneficial in biological control of pest species,
such as in pecan (Bugg et al. 1991).
|
Alley
hedgerows can be useful in controlling erosion and increasing
water infiltration. |
Alley hedgerows can be useful in controlling erosion and increasing water
infiltration, especially on sloping lands (Jordan 1998a). Trees on contours
also encourage formation of natural terraces as a result of tillage,
especially when combined with practices that reduce surface soil and debris
movement. This would be particularly useful on highly erodible soils and in
areas taken out of production for conservation.
|
|
Alley tree harvest rotations can also be used to advantage to interplant
Christmas trees or short rotation woody crops (SRWC) between timber species (Merwin 1997; Kurtz et al. 1991). A SRWC of fast-growing tree species at close
spacing harvested on a short rotation of 6-10 years for energy or fiber
products (Rockwood 1996; Rockwood et al. 1993; Colletti et al. 1991) can be
combined with forage or row crops in alley cropping systems. Such systems may
be used to treat wastewater, municipal sludge, and livestock waste effluent
(Rockwood 1997; Schultz et al. 1995; Colletti et al. 1994). Of interest in
this regard, Malik et al. (2000) tested a mixture of annual and perennial
grass and legume species for erosion control in SRWC stands. They found a
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and crimson clover (Trifolium
incarnatum) mixture to be most effective for erosion control in the early
years of stand development.
|
Alley
cropping can use a wide variety of plant species and arrangements. |
A current agroforestry research project in Alabama incorporates alley
cropping for soil and water conservation using mimosa (Albizia
julibrissin), blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum) as hedgerow species (Shannon et al. 2002). This
agroforestry practice is being tested as an alternative to conventional
pipe-outlet terraces. A previous alley cropping trial was established at
Alabama A&M Agricultural Research Station north of Huntsville in 1998
using several timber species with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
and soybeans (Glycine max) intercropped the first year (Cannon 1998).
Intercropping has continued with the soybean rotation, and other crops are
also being tried between paulownia (Paulownia fortunei), pecan,
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). Paulownia has shown the greatest response to fertilization
(Gray 2001). Cannon (1998) suggested that the search for timber trees for
alley cropping can be combined with the search for species for windbreaks/line
plantings and pasture dividers since more intensive management (i.e. pruning)
could increase the value of resulting products in either practice. These
thoughts were echoed in the collection on silviculture for agroforestry
systems by Ashton and Montagnini (1999).
|
Selecting
pest resistant varieties and cultivars, mechanical weed control,
trap plants and foliar sprays, are viable alternatives in
multi-crop systems |
A research team in northwest Florida has examined tree-crop interactions in
alley cropping systems of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), longleaf pine,
or pecan associated with cotton, crimson clover, ryegrass, and bahiagrass
(Paspalum notatum). They are quantifying above- and below-ground
interactions between trees and cotton, and cotton yield in relation to tree
rows. Triple rows of young pine trees are planted to create two different
alley widths to accommodate 8 or 16 rows of crops. In addition, a cotton
intercrop study was established in a mature pecan orchard with an alley
spacing of 60 feet (Allen 2003). Scientists are currently analyzing results
from the Florida trials to determine spatial variation in crop yield, soil
water, nutrient competition, and various physiological responses of the plant
components (Allen 2003; Lee & Jose 2001). Analysis of cultural practices
and pesticide management in the established systems indicates that growers
harvesting from a multi-crop design may encounter problems with pesticide
labeling and use restrictions (Ramsey & Jose 2002). The study also points
out the need to develop alternative cultural and integrated pest management
practices. Selecting pest resistant varieties and cultivars, mechanical weed
control, trap plants and foliar sprays, are viable alternatives in multi-crop
systems (Ramsey & Jose 2002).
|
|
Extensive agroforestry research has also been carried out by the University
of Georgia. In green manure trials using row crops between mimosa (Albizia
julibrissin) hedgerows, mimosa was more effective at tapping unavailable
forms of phosphorus than a winter crop of crimson clover. Leaf litter of
mimosa significantly increased soil nitrate and ammonium forms of nitrogen
compared to conventional green manure (Rhoades et al. 1998; Matta-Machado
& Jordan 1995). The rapid rate of leaf decomposition, that makes it
attractive as a green manure, could be complemented through addition of
another component as a more lasting mulch cover for alleys (Jordan 1998a).
|
|
In the U.S. Virgin Islands, tree-crop integration takes the form of
hedgerow intercropping. The noni tree, Morinda citrifolia, has been
planted with hot peppers in the alleys, and other medicinal trees are
intercropped with high-value herbs and spice crops. The research is designed
to evaluate the influence of trees on resource use, soil fertility and yield
of intercropped specialty crops, tree influence on pest populations and
chemical pesticide inputs, and the economic benefits of these intercropping
designs (Palada 2002). A follow-up study investigating the response of
Morinda to pruning to improve its growth form showed that early pruning
tended to reduce tree development.
|
Various
research questions and technology transfer needs are
suggested for alley cropping. |
The Association for Temperate Agroforestry
(AFTA 2000) recently delineated
strategic questions and needs for the major agroforestry practices that are
equally applicable in subtropical areas. Research questions that need to be
addressed for alley cropping focus on compatible crop rotations with
tree-shrub species, yields in different combinations, optimal row spacing,
weed control at crop-tree row interfaces, and integrated pest management
components. Technology transfer needs include region-specific ratings for
species combinations, management guidelines, marketing information, financial
analysis models, and plant materials information.
|
Forest
farming utilizes forested areas for producing specialty
crops that are sold for ornamental, culinary or medicinal
uses. |
Forest Farming and
Nontimber Forest Products (NTFPs)
This practice
utilizes forested areas for producing specialty crops that are sold for
ornamental, culinary or medicinal uses. Specialty crops that tolerate partial
shade include herbs, wildflowers, saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), ferns,
mushrooms such as morels (Morchella spp.) and shiitake (Lentinula
edodes), and fruits such as plums (Prunus spp.), pawpaw (Asimina
triloba), mayhaw (Crataegus opaca), and wild berries.
|
|
|
Figure 3. Forest
farming (NAC) |
Other
nontimber products that can be collected and marketed from shaded conditions
are honey, pine straw for mulch, and crafting materials. While many of these
products have traditionally been collected from natural sources, in forest
farming, intentional management of the crop plants and the overstory trees can
increase specialty crop productivity (Figure 3). The overstory trees can also
be harvested for timber products, either during regular forest farming
operations or in a final harvest. Specialty products produced in forest farm
designs can supplement family income and increase product diversity on the
site.
The intentional cultivation of diverse products on forested land is
practiced successfully all over the world. The multi-storied nature of these
systems allows for cultivation of specialty crops at various layers--as
belowground root crops, as herbaceous ground covers, as shrubs, as understory
trees, and as trees in the canopy. Forest farming is especially useful for
commercial production of shade-tolerant specialty crops, species being
over-exploited in natural forest settings, and where long-term collecting and
sustainability are of concern. In addition, forest farming for specific
products can be promoted as part of timber stand improvement, standard
silvicultural activities to improve forest value, and management of public
lands (Hill & Buck 2000).
|
|
Reviews of forest farming practices in North America (Hill & Buck 2000;
Dix et al. 1997; Williams et al. 1997; Thomas & Schumann 1993; Smith 1953)
and texts on forest gardens (Hart 1991) and homegardens (Nair 1993; Soemarwoto
1987) explain many of the principles of the cultivation systems along with
providing examples of which forms these systems take. There are also excellent
treatments of nontimber forest products (Jones et al. 2002), forest medicinals
(Duke 1997; Davis 1993; Foster 1993; Miller 1988) and their markets in
specific regions including the Pacific Northwest (Schlosser & Blatner
1997; Hagen et al. 1996), the Mid-Atlantic (Chamberlain & Hammett 1998;
Hill & Webster 1996), the Midwest (Gold & Godsey 2002; Josiah 1999,
2001b; Baughman 1996; Mater 1994), the Rocky Mountains and Southwest (Belonogova 1993; Hernandez & Abud 1987) and the Northeast (Teal &
Buck 2002; Buck 1999). Jones et al. (2002) include a brief but commendable
description of Florida and the Caribbean area (Weigand 2002) that highlights
indigenous cultural uses and the potential for development of medicinal plant
cultivation in the U.S. subtropics.
|
Researchers
have identified four major categories of NTFPs: edible and
culinary products, medicinal and dietary supplements, floral
and decorative products, and specialty wood products. |
Chamberlain and Hammett (2002) have identified four major categories of
nontimber forest products: edible and culinary products, medicinal and dietary
supplements, floral and decorative products, and specialty wood products.
Blueberries, huckleberries, honey and mushrooms are examples of the most
common edible and culinary products. Witch hazel (Hamamelis spp.),
digitalis (Digitalis spp.), camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), saw
palmetto and ginseng are all well-known medicinal plants from forested areas.
Decorative and floral products include greenery, Spanish moss, dried plants,
berries and flowers, wreath materials, and aromatic oils. Products produced
from parts of trees, saplings or woody vines, such as furniture, musical
instruments, and utensils, are considered specialty wood products.
Apiculture and forest management combine well in forest farming. A number
of forest species such as blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), persimmon, tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and gallberry (Ilex glabra),
for example, produce nectar and pollen attractive to bees who in turn serve as
pollinators and help assure tree seed production for forest regeneration
(Alexander & Alexander 2002; Hill & Buck 2000). In addition to honey,
a number of products can be developed from beehives, and moving bees and hives
on short-term contract as pollinators can be a lucrative business.
|
|
Mushroom production is another forest farming activity that has proven to
add value to under-utilized wood products and diversify income streams for
producers. Native mushrooms, such as chanterelles (Cantharellus spp.)
and morels, have long been harvested as edibles, while exotics, such as
shiitake and various oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus spp.) are increasingly
cultivated for popular markets. Thinning operations in forests that yield
small diameter hardwood logs provide the ideal substrate for small scale
production of shiitake and other gourmet mushrooms. Small forest patches can
also be cleared for mushrooms, such as morels, that prefer forest floor litter
as a growth substrate (Hill & Buck 2000; Hill 1999).
|
|
Production and marketing of mushrooms has been studied in the Southeast,
e.g., shiitake on oak logs under pines in western Alabama (NARC&DC 2000).
In addition, cooperative efforts between statewide producers' associations in
Alabama and Florida have been developed with partners in Soil and Water
Conservation Districts and university extension (Alabama A&M University,
Auburn, and University of Florida). In this instance, developing a market for
the product was a challenge. Producers who retained steady markets and
flexibility with seasonal production and labor demands were able to continue
production and in some cases developed year-round enterprises (NARC&DC
2000; Stamets 2000; Sabota 1993; Rathke & Baughmann 1993). Farmer-to-chef
markets have been promoted for herbs, mushrooms and specialty vegetables grown
in managed forest settings. In south Florida, producers are using melaleuca as
a growth substrate for the medicinal Rishi mushroom (Ganoderma sp.) and
are cultivating oyster and other edible mushrooms on sawmill waste.
|
Plant-derived
medicines and herbs from forest settings are likely the
highest valued trade items. |
Markets for herbal supplements have grown significantly over the past ten
years. In fact, plant-derived medicines and herbs from forest settings are
likely the highest valued trade items (Chamberlain & Hammett 1998, 2002)
though formal tracking of marketing is difficult (Alexander et al. 2002).
Witch hazel, digitalis, camphor, saw palmetto and ginseng are all well-known
medicinal plants from forested areas. Additional forest plants in the
Southeast that are used as medicinals include bloodroot (Sanquinaria
canadensis), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum L.), and yellow jasmine
(Gelsemium sempervirens). Several medicinal plants that are used in
Ayurvedic and homeopathic medicine are native to the West Indies and
subtropical America. These species include pond apple (Annona glabra),
herb-of-grace (Bacopa monnier), false daisy (Eclipta alba), and
llima (Sida cordifolia), among others (Weigand 2002; Demurs 1997;
Morton 1981). Markets fluctuate, however, and it is important to understand
projected demand and identify buyers for these specialty products (Chamberlain
& Hammett 2002; Alexander et al. 2002).
|
The most
widely recognized forest farming activity in the Southeast
is gathering pine straw. |
The most widely recognized forest farming activity in the Southeast is
gathering pine straw, which has increased in popularity since the 1980s (Brauer & Burner 2001; Duryea 1988; McLeod et al. 1987). Under optimal
conditions with fertilization management (Morris et al. 1992), this NTFP
alternative combined with hunting or other fee uses could add about 20% more
income for landowners with mid-rotation longleaf pine stands (Bean 2002).
Longleaf and slash pines are preferred for straw because they have longer
needles that bale most easily for landscaping mulch and they retain a red or
brown color longer than other pines. Though needles can be raked annually,
most managers recommend raking only four to five times after year eight during
the tree rotation. Maximum needle yield at age 15 is estimated to be 200 to
300 bales per acre (Duryea 2000). Baled pine straw delivered to the seller may
earn $750-1000 per acre per year (wide sale range per bale, $0.50 or greater)
or $75-150 per acre gathered by a supplier. Once stands are thinned they are
seldom used for pinestraw, but they may generate an additional $15 per acre
(or more with incorporation of wildlife food plots) from a hunting lease
versus $2 per acre in unmanaged forestland (Bean 2002).
DONE TO HERE
|
|
Other examples of forest farming include cultivating ferns, palmettos for
fronds, or other ornamentals under shade (e.g., oak forest). Greenery products
gathered from forests are sold for floral and holiday markets. Tips from lower
limbs of conifer trees serve as raw materials for loose greenery, garlands,
centerpieces, and wreaths or swags (Hammett & Chamberlain 2002). Numerous
broadleaf evergreens and other herbaceous ornamentals exist in the coastal
plain vegetation. Early in the 20th century for example, a fern grower's
association developed out of Apopka, Florida, to supply asparagus-fern
(Asparagus setaceus) to stores in the northeastern U.S. This foliage
industry grew as a contract grower-brokerage business and evolved with
changing modes of transportation and markets promoting leatherleaf (Rumohra
adiantiformis) and asparagus-fern. In 1997 the industry grew floral greens
on over 7,300 ac of land in Florida, with sales totaling $85.5 million (FFGA
2001). These fern growers continue today as profitable enterprises with an
expanded offering of floral greens, grown under shade of native or managed oak
forest.
|
|
The history of crafting items from forest-collected materials
(wildcrafting), the foliage industry, and the use of
medicinals, especially
within specific cultural groups, provides an open door for development of
forest farming practices in the region (Teal & Buck 2002). However,
assessing which understory cropping practices are compatible with timber stand
improvement/management and which cultivars are available for use, are
questions that need to be addressed (AFTA 2000). We need to compile
information on which shade-tolerant species and NTFPs in the region have
economic potential, document their growth and management requirements, and
determine market strategies with producers. It is also possible NTFPs can be
managed on native range (Tanner et al. 1999; Bennett & Hicklin 1998) or
integrated into fence lines and riparian forest buffers. The potential for
development of NTFP enterprises holds promise not only for the Southeast but
also in the Caribbean.
|
Various
research questions and technology transfer needs are
suggested for forest farming. |
Strategic research questions outlined for forest farming
(AFTA 2000) focus
on which tree densities and regulated shade levels provide appropriate
microclimate and growing conditions for specialty crops, growth requirements
for valued NTFPs, start-up/operating costs, compatible forest management
strategies, influence of shade levels and genotypes on chemical activity and
production gains, evolving markets, and how forest farming compares with other
forest land uses. There is also a need to assess the relationships between
forest management practices, nontimber forest products, and biodiversity of
forest populations (IFCAE 2003).
|
|
Technology transfer needs identified for forest farming practices include:
wholesale and retail marketing information at region-specific levels;
production guidelines that outline species/cultivar information, plant
material sources, and compatible forest management regimes; and financial
analysis models and enterprise budgets for practices and common specialty
crops (AFTA 2000). Promise of buyer, and possibly harvester, involvement in
inventorying and monitoring specialty forest products holds effective
potential impact for NTFP longevity (IFCAE 2003).
|
Riparian
forest buffers are strips of trees and annual vegetation
along stream channels or aquatic shorelines. |
Riparian Forest Buffers
This practice is already common in the
Southeast since forest landowners maintain vegetation buffer strips along
streams according to Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) in each state.
Basically, riparian forest buffers are strips of trees and annual vegetation
along stream channels or aquatic shorelines. Generally speaking, these areas
are adjacent to water bodies, have no clear boundary delimitations, serve as
transitions between aquatic and upland settings, and are linear in shape and
appearance (Schultz et al. 2000). Riparian forest buffers, whether natural or
created, have a dominant woody component, unlike vegetative filter strips that
are used to intercept surface runoff in agricultural settings. Buffers vary in
design according to the intended management objectives (Lowrance et al. 2001;
Schultz et al. 2000) including tree crop management (Dosskey et al. 1997a,b;
Sykes et al. 1994).
|
Riparian
buffers protect streambanks, slow flood flows, and filter
sediment and other contaminants from water. |
|
Figure 4. Riparian forest buffer (NAC:
used with permission).
|
Riparian buffers provide numerous environmental
benefits. In general, they play an important role in the hydrologic cycle
between surface and ground water, and the movement of non-point source
pollution into water bodies (Lowrance et al. 1997; Verchot et al. 1997;
Welsch 1991; Lowrance et al. 1985). Specifically, they provide vegetative
resistance that serves to trap sediment, slow flood flows, and provide
waterbreaks in floodplain areas (Wallace et al. 2000; Daniels &
Gilliam 1996). They filter and process runoff, storm water, and drainage
from lawns, roads and other urban sites. They also help hold water and
control stream bank and in-channel erosion to help stabilize water
corridors (Qiu & Prato 1998; Dosskey et al. 1997a,b; Correll 1983).
|
|
Riparian buffers provide numerous environmental benefits. In general, they
play an important role in the hydrologic cycle between surface and ground
water, and the movement of non-point source pollution into water bodies (Lowrance et al. 1997; Verchot et al. 1997; Welsch 1991; Lowrance et al.
1985). Specifically, they provide vegetative resistance that serves to trap
sediment, slow flood flows, and provide waterbreaks in floodplain areas
(Wallace et al. 2000; Daniels & Gilliam 1996). They filter and process
runoff, storm water, and drainage from lawns, roads and other urban sites.
They also help hold water and control stream bank and in-channel erosion to
help stabilize water corridors (Qiu & Prato 1998; Dosskey et al. 1997a,b;
Correll 1983).
Riparian buffers also have the capacity to sequester large amounts of
carbon through active tree growth (Pallardy et al. 2002; NAC 2000a,b) and play
a critical role in maintenance of regional biodiversity (Naiman et al. 1993).
In addition, they provide wildlife and aquatic habitat, influence shade,
modify winds, screen out noise, and provide aesthetic benefits (Schultz et al.
2000). Riparian zones can thus be managed for environmental services as well
as a variety of products, including fruit, nut, and ornamental combinations
(Robles-Diaz & Kangas 1999).
|
Design
of riparian buffers will depend on BMP guidelines, site and
waterway conditions, and landowner objectives. |
The width of the riparian forest buffer depends on BMP guidelines, the
condition of the waterway/wetland, and site characteristics such as slope and
the type of soil. Landowner objectives may even call for buffer strips wider
than BMP guidelines. In agricultural settings, buffer strips can be managed
intensively or can be restored by planting strips of perennial vegetation
between fields and water. Strips may often be planted in multi-layer patterns
where unprotected waterways cross agricultural land (Workman et al. 2002b)
(Figure 4). Bioengineering techniques are available for streambank
stabilization and restoration in degraded areas (Wells 2002). |
Species
used in riparian buffers need to be tolerant of occasional
flooding or wet soil conditions. |
The trees, shrubs and grasses that are suggested for use in riparian buffer
strips and streamside management zones need to be tolerant of occasional
flooding or wet soil conditions. Those with a well-developed, shallow root
system will be more efficient in uptake of nutrients and agrochemicals. Tree
species used in these buffers range from cypress (Taxodium spp.) and
tupelo (Nyssa spp.) to willows (Salix spp.), maples, poplars,
ash and oaks. Shrubs can include wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), viburnum (Virburnum
spp.), gallberry or other hollies (Ilex spp.). While switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum) is often used for a grass buffer strip, any number
of native species can also be used in the grass/herb component.
|
Various
research questions and technology transfer needs are
suggested for riparian forest buffers. |
Research questions that need attention for riparian forest buffer practices
include: carbon storage and movement dynamics above- and below-ground; design
criteria of age, width and vegetation type; management influences on buffer
capacity to process sediments, nutrients and agrochemicals; site
characteristics and hydrology influences on buffering capacity and flood
protection; variability of buffer effectiveness in different seasons and
contaminant loadings; and inclusion of species valued for wildlife habitat or
income-generating products (AFTA 2000).
|
Silvopasture
intentionally combines trees with livestock and forage
production. |
Silvopasture
Practices
|
Figure 5.
Silvopastoral systems with cattle grazing bahiagrass in slash pine
stand (CSTAF) |
Silvopasture intentionally combines trees with
livestock and forage production. The Southeast leads the nation in development
of this practice because good growing conditions can be maintained for both
timber and livestock production on the same site. Benefits to the farmer
include income generation while converting from crop to timber (or vice
versa), improvement in water quality, wildlife habitat, and soil erosion
control. In the Southeast, these systems vary from rotational grazing in pine
forests or plantations, to intentional grazing under hardwoods and pecan
orchards.
For silvopasture, trees are planted or thinned to provide sufficient light
for good forage production. High value timber species can be intensively
managed in widely spaced rows, and are most often grouped in double or triple
rows to improve form (e.g., double-rows 8 ft apart, 4 ft between trees within
a row, and 40 ft to next set of trees). Some landowners have adopted these
systems using bahiagrass as a summer forage and clover, ryegrass or rye as a
winter forage. Some orchards and woodlots incorporate rotational grazing with
cattle, goats, sheep or other livestock.
|
Various
studies have looked at silvopasture in terms of timber
production, livestock production, and forage production. |
Providing management of the three components of livestock, forage and
trees, silvopasture has historically occurred as shade trees in pasture, as
grazed orchards or woodlands, and as rangelands that include a managed tree or
shrub component (Clason & Sharrow 2000; Robinson & Clason 1997;
Williams et al. 1997) (Figure 5). Silvopasture in the Southeast has
traditionally included forest grazing with cattle, such as flatwoods rangeland
(Pearson 1997), pine managed for turpentine and sawlogs with forage (Byrd et
al. 1984; Cary 1928), and tree pasture practices with pecan (Reid 1991).
Combinations with goats are of interest for meat production and vegetation
management (Burton & Scarfe 1991). The biological limitations and
management of each component, and the desired interactions, must be considered
during design and species selection (Robinson et al. 2001; Clason &
Sharrow 2000; Clason 1999).
|
The
long-term benefits of timber production may attract
landowners if it combines easily with their annual livestock
and haying operations and provides annual income from
wildlife and recreation enterprises. |
Other benefits of silvopasture include increased tree growth, forage
production, shade for animals, diversified recreation options, and other
products such as pine straw. The long-term benefits of timber production may
attract landowners if it combines easily with their annual livestock and
haying operations and provides annual income from wildlife and recreation
enterprises. The initial tree density or designed thinning can be managed to
control canopy cover of less than 30% for good forage production. Site
disturbance after clearcutting and before replanting can provide an
opportunity for planting of forage grasses and legumes.
Lewis and other researchers (Hart et al. 1970) demonstrated that combining
the production of southern pines and beef on improved pastures offers an
opportunity for multiple product yields. Integrating forestry with ranching
may increase profitability and help buffer year-to-year variability in income
through the sale of forest products and increased opportunities for sale of
hunting leases brought about by the creation of wildlife habitat. Scientists
(Lewis et al. 1983; Halls et al. 1957) initiated warm season forage studies
under pines in south Georgia in the 1940s that in time showed Pensacola
bahiagrass to be the most shade tolerant of the 23 grasses studied (Lewis
& Pearson 1987; Pearson 1975). Several legume species have shown potential
for production under partial shade (McGraw et al. 2001). In the Georgia
trials, annual lespedeza (Kummerowia spp.) and white clover
(Trifolium repens) were promising forage species for silvopasture.
Double rows of pines at 8 ft between rows and 4 ft between trees and 40 ft
wide alleys produced more forage and as much wood as the single 8 ft x 12 ft
rows (Lewis et al. 1985), and this remains the most popular spacing for
silvopasture across the region today (Clason & Sharrow 2000). Newer
varieties of bahiagrass (Tifton-9 and Argentine), with additional research,
may show themselves to be even better warm season forage in silvopasture
(Nowak & Blount 2002).
|
|
Studies from across the southern pine region (e.g., Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Georgia), report the possibility of productive livestock grazing while
maintaining, or even improving, high value timber production. Silvopastoral
practice in Louisiana has shown an internal rate of return that was higher
(13%) than managed timber (9%) or open pasture (6%) (Clason 1995). In southern
Mississippi, land expectation values of silvopasture combinations of
steers/cows compared favorably with pasture and were higher than timber
production. Under varied cost and revenue regimes, including fee hunting,
silvopasture and pasture both had positive cash flows with pasture overall
highest under the short time period evaluated (Grado et al. 2001).
|
|
In Georgia, there are examples of enhanced pine growth with controlled
grazing (Lewis et al. 1985), and models show loblolly-cattle-forage practices
on the Coastal Plain may have a 70% greater net present value than a pure
forestry operation per unit area (Dangerfield & Harwell 1990).
Silvopasture trials using simultaneous timber with forage or livestock
production are underway in Alabama (Brantley 1998). Researchers have found
mimosa and leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) grown without fertilizers
can be cut for fodder at 6-8-week intervals in Alabama (Bransby et al. 1996),
while leucaena has been grown in mass and used for feed pellets in Texas (Felker et al. 1998). Another viable combination could be
livestock-forage-Christmas tree production, as Pearson et al. (1990)
suggested.
|
There is
increasing interest in goat production as a means of
controlling weeds and providing income from meat. |
There is also increasing interest in goat production in the region (McGowan
et al. 1999). Goats have been used by the forest industry in the South as an
alternative to using chemical or mechanical weed control in pine plantations (Solaiman & Hill 1991) because vegetation management is a major factor in
water and nutrient competition (Nambiar et al. 1993). The goats can be an
effective practice for reducing competing vegetation and can also provide
rural forest-based operations with enhanced economic options through goat meat
production. Evidence from studies in Arkansas and Alabama indicate that goats
can help reduce vegetation, especially kudzu (Pueraria lobata
(Willd.)), during site preparation for pine plantations (Pearson & Martin
1991; Bonsi et al. 1991). On-going investigations to support development of
efficient goat production and management systems by Florida A&M University
(FAMU) under their statewide Goat Program include feeding and nutrition
components (McGowan et al. 1999).
|
Windbreaks
are rows of trees around homesteads, farms, and fields that
are managed as part of crop or livestock operations.
Windbreaks
provide numerous benefits. They reduce wind erosion and
protect crops and animals sensitive to wind, with minimal
area taken out of production.
Windbreaks
and line plantings can be integrated easily into existing
horticulture and animal production systems.
|
Windbreaks and Linear
or Border Plantings
|
Figure 6. Windbreaks
along the borders of a farmlot. (NAC) |
Most common in the Midwest
and Great Plains, windbreaks are rows of trees around homesteads, farms, and
fields that are managed as part of crop or livestock operations. They protect
soils, animals, and crops; help reduce dust, odor, and noise; and provide
cover and food for wildlife. Windbreaks help prevent frost damage and have
increased crop yields as much as 20 percent in some areas. In the Southeast
they are important sources of shade for livestock during hot summer months.
Even a single row of pine trees around a pasture border will furnish this
protection. More typically, windbreaks are planted as multiple rows of mixed
species.
Windbreaks are also planted to protect buildings, work areas, roads and
community spaces (Figure 6). Virtually any tree or shrub species can be used
to establish windbreaks, although each should be evaluated for the planting
site and project objective. Evergreens such as pines and eastern redcedar
(Juniperus virginiana L.) are ideal for year-round protection. Other
effective windbreak species are cottonwood (Populus spp.), boxelder
(Acer negundo), and shrubs such as hollies, crabapple (Malus
spp.), hawthorns (Crataegus spp.), laurelcherry
(Prunus spp.), and flowering ornamentals.
|
Windbreaks
provide numerous benefits. They reduce wind erosion and
protect crops and animals sensitive to wind, with minimal
area taken out of production. |
Windbreaks provide numerous other benefits. Windbreaks are recognized as a
way to reduce wind erosion and soil loss, protect fruit and vegetable crops
sensitive to wind (Brandle et al. 2000; Norton 1988), and enhance pastures,
most notably in dry climates (Bird 1998; Kort 1988), as well as yield both
nontimber and wood products (Josiah 2001c; Cannon 1998; Brandle et al. 1994;
Bagley 1988). Increased yields from sheltered crop fields afford positive
economic returns to producers with minimal area (5-6%) taken out of production
(Brandle et al. 2000; Brandle et al. 1992b). The presence of windbreaks and
hedgerows influences the distribution of crop pests, their predators, and
beneficial insects in agroforestry settings (Brandle et al. 2000; Dix et al.
1999; Burel 1996). Protection for livestock and confinement areas with
windbreaks is especially effective for young animals and for maintenance of
body temperature under cold/heat stress (Dronen 1988; Primault 1979). Many of
these benefits, such as enhancement of wildlife habitat and control of crop
pests (Stamps et al. 2002; Forman 1995; Dix 1991) produce additional economic
returns from potential hunting and integrated pest management strategies (Dix
1996; Altieri 1991).
|
Many
other special applications are possible, including fruit
production with intercropping and windbreaks.
Funding
and technology transfer needs are suggested for windbreak
systems. |
In addition, windbreaks and line plantings can be integrated easily into
existing horticulture and animal production systems and provide additional
economic benefits to the landowner (Brandle et al. 1992b). It is possible to
include marketable products (specialty products, ornamentals) into windbreaks
or to manage them for wildlife and integrate them in fee hunting schemes. In
addition, they can be incorporated into suburban and urban settings as part of
edible landscapes, for wildlife plantings, or refuges for diverse species, and
to reduce land fragmentation effects.
One obstacle to establishment or renovation of windbreaks has been the lack
of cost-share incentive programs to help defray landowner costs. Lack of
awareness of windbreak features in the landscape means more educational
programs are needed for professionals and landowners about windbreak
technologies and how they can be used to increase incomes--through yield
increases, potential for reduced impacts of pests and diseases, and planning
for harvestable products. Thus, there is a need to develop species
recommendations and economic fact sheets for windbreak benefits to crop and
animal production. This education will necessitate formulation of management
guidelines for the region and specific situations.
|
There
are a great variety of practices that can be termed special
applications of agroforestry in the U.S.
One of
the most appealing special applications may be the inclusion
of woody plants on farms as landscape corridors for |
Special Applications
There are a great variety of practices that can
be termed special applications of agroforestry in the U.S. They go by a
multitude of names that may differ from place to place and in how they are
carried out. In addition, their practices may overlap with that of other
agroforestry practices, or involve a combination of various agroforestry
practices.
One of the most appealing special applications may be the inclusion of
woody plants on farms as landscape corridors for wildlife habitat and
movement (Tanner 2002) (Figure 7). These corridors provide valuable habitat
for wildlife, birds and insects, and can help diminish the fragmentation of
forest habitat as well as increase aesthetic value of the area (NAC 1998).
They may also serve to enhance land value and valuation of property by
prospective buyers. Another example is the production of short rotation woody
biomass, such as poplars, which can be promoted as a component for treatment
of animal waste lagoons (Kuhn & Nuss 2000). These and other tree
applications can serve as visual screens or as barriers to decrease effects of
odor or noise around farmlands and urban interfaces (Tyndall & Colletti
2002; Wright & Ranney 1991).
|
|
|
Figure 7. Agroforestry applications
include wildlife corridors for species such as bobwhite quail. (USDA)
|
Special applications can be applied in fruit production as well. Basically,
fruit orchards that are in the establishment phase can be used for
intercropping forage, row, or vegetable crops during the first few years
(Beetz 2002; Diver & Ames 2000; Garrett & McGraw 2000). Deciduous
fruits, found across the region in southern Georgia and Alabama and northern
Florida, can do well in this special application, as can numerous species and
varieties of fruits in central and southern Florida (Orfanades et al. 2001;
Andersen et al. 2000; Crocker & Williamson 1994). These applications can
also be combined with windbreaks to enhance fruit production. Carambolla
(Averrhoa carambola L.), for example, which needs wind protection, is
often grown as a patch within another fruit tree crop, such as avocado
(Persea americana) (Crane 1994). Blueberries may also be incorporated
into this type of system, although they are seasonal and have technology
limitations (Williamson & Lyrene 1997).
Many other applications are possible. Grapes have been combined with
vegetable crops (David et al. 1993) or animals in alley cropping. And
honeybees have long been combined with citrus orchards and on farms for crop
pollination (Alexander & Alexander 2002; Sanford 1988, 2000).
|
|
There are numerous other tree-crop combinations. At the Kenari Grove in
Palm Beach County, Florida, for example, lychee (Litchi chinensis) and
longan (Dimocarpus longan) are grown with banana (Musa
sp.) and plantain (Plantago spp.) as windbreaks, and
some pommelo (Citrus maxima), with wax melon (Benincasa
hispida), roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa), and lemon grass
(Cymbopogon citratus), among other specialty intercrops (pers.
observation). Edible landscapes (Josiah 2001a) and multi-strata patio or
homegardens are increasingly popular, especially among urban residents.
Participants in programs such as Master Gardeners and Neighborhood Yards and
Gardens also cultivate butterfly garden species and other specialty plants to
increase wildlife habitat and diversity in urbanized settings.
|
Information
about agroforestry must be regional and site specific, to
be effective.
CSTAF
has begun the process of documenting agroforestry
practices and perceptions of people in the field. |
Perceptions
of Agroforestry from the Field
National efforts to assess
the potential of agroforestry (Garrett et al. 1994) and collect information on
the status of agroforestry practices in the regions of the U.S. (Merwin 1997;
Shultz et al. 1995) indicate the need for research to be regional and site
specific. Regional and local information is necessary to determine how to
design or integrate agroforestry practices under prevailing conditions (AFTA
2000).
Accordingly, beginning in the spring of 2001, CSTAF extension staff began
to document observations of agroforestry practices in use throughout the
southeastern region (Workman et al. 2002a). Information was gathered from
field observations, interviews with extension agents, foresters, university
faculty, and from farm visits with producers. These initial observations
helped in formulation of the agroforestry opinion polls for the extension
program. The information gathered will be helpful in tailoring research,
professional training for technology transfer, and extension programs to
assist landowners in adopting agroforestry.
|
|
Agroforestry practices observed in the southeastern USA in 2001 during
CSTAF field activities, are shown in Table 2 .
Table 2 .
Agroforestry practices observed in the southeastern USA during
CSTAF field activities, 2001. |
Alley Cropping |
Pecans (Carya illinoinensis)
with hay and/or clover
Pecans with peaches (Prunus persica
L.) for first 10-12 years
Vegetables or perennial peanut in
alleys during pecan or citrus establishment
Ornamentals with blueberries (Vaccinium
corymbosum L.)
Fruit or nut (e.g., persimmon, Diospyros
virginiana L., or chestnut, Castenea dentata (Marshall)
Borkh.) with intercrop (e.g., vegetables or cut flowers) |
Forest Farming |
Pine straw; N and P fertilization
increase straw
Farmer to chef - herbs, mushrooms,
specialty vegetables
Growing edible and medicinal mushrooms
(e.g., on melaleuca)
Ferns under natural woodland (e.g.,
laurel oak, Quercus laurifolia Michx.) shade
Saw palmetto (Serona repens (W.
Bartram) Small) management on native woodland range
Ornamentals under shade trees
Honey bees-(apiculture) and wildflowers
grown for seed
Native medicinals/botanicals grown
under forest shade: mosses, Queen's delight, mints, mushrooms |
Riparian Forest Buffers |
Including shrubs and trees for wildlife
use and bee forage
Managed timber or short rotation woody
crop
Managed along streamsides and in farm
drainage ravines for special products (NTFP)
Shrubs and trees with deeper roots to
aid nutrient absorption
Artificial wetlands/add woody buffer
for animal waste lagoons (including fish ponds) |
Silvopasture |
Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon (L.)
Pers.) and bahia (Paspalum notatum Flüggé) with pines
Winter grazing under pecans
Poultry litter and manure application
on trees/pasture
Forage crops for cow/calf or fodder for
confined operation
Pastured poultry and free range with
tree shade and in fruit orchards
Fruit trees with animal pasture/hay
Livestock-and -fruit for biogas on
family farm
Planting of plant browse species along
fence lines
Cattle, sheep or goats with trees
managed for shade |
Windbreaks
(Line Plantings) |
Border plantings for vineyards
Around citrus or other orchards
For protection from frost
Avocado, Persea americana Mill.,
for carambola, Averrhoa carambola L. (needs wind
protection)
Palms on bunds in flooded rice (field
rotation with vegetables)
Planting along lot lines increases
assessed land value at sale
As barriers against pesticide drift,
odor, noise, dust, or roadsides
Protection of animals from ocean winds
and excess salt |
Special Applications |
Shade for buildings, chicken houses and
fish ponds
Fruit trees combined with gardens,
ponds and as bee forage
Blackberries (Rubus spp.) for
fruit, as live fence and wildlife habitat, and in firebreak areas
Fruit (e.g., citrus) under trees (e.g.,
live oak) for frost protection
Cereal/mast species around tree
plantations with fee hunting
Planting and managing mast species for
wildlife and human consumption (e.g., plums, Prunus spp.,
mayhaw, Crategus aestivalis (Walter) Torr. & A. Gray)
and as field borders |
|
According to
the CSTAF survey of natural resource professionals, streamside
management zones or woody riparian buffers were the most
widely observed practice in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. |
According to the CSTAF survey of natural resource professionals, streamside
management zones or woody riparian buffers were the most widely observed
practice in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Overall, almost one-half of the
professional respondents indicated they knew over 20 landowners who used
streamside buffer practices. The next most observed practices were patio or
homegardens, especially in Florida, with about one-fourth of professionals
indicating they knew over 20 people using the practice. Just as many
respondents, however, knew no one who uses this multi-strata garden practice.
Forest farming and nontimber forest products were also prominent, most notably
in Georgia where 28% of the professionals knew 20 or more people involved in
this activity.
|
Florida
landowners identified patio gardens as their most widely used
practice, followed by windbreaks. |
Florida landowners responding to a question about practices identified
patio gardens as their most widely used practice (48%) and windbreaks (46%) as
the second most widely used. Streamside management zones or woody riparian
buffers (27%) and silvopasture (26%) were used by approximately one-fourth of
the landowners. A smaller percentage, 14%, managed alley cropping or forest
farming of nontimber forest products.
|
The
primary factor motivating landowners to adopt agroforestry was
improved on-farm economics and economic gain. |
Reasons for Adoption
of Agroforestry
The reasons landowners are
motivated to adopt agroforestry practices in the U.S. (NARC&DC 2000) and
specifically in the southern states (Merwin 1997; Zinkhan & Mercer 1997)
rank in order from: 1) improved on-farm economics and economic gain, 2)
multiple land use management and income diversification, 3) site suitability
and erosion control, 4) shortened wait and increased regularity of income,
increased return to labor, increased diversification and enhanced timing of
cash flow, and 5) support of conservation and environmental concerns. The main
environmental concerns noted by those surveyed were improved water quality,
wildlife habitat and soil erosion control.
|
Results
from another survey showed that silvopasture, riparian
buffers, and special agroforestry applications were the most
widely recognized practices in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. |
Results from a survey by the National Association of Resource Conservation
and Development (RC&D) Councils (NARC&DC 2000) showed that
silvopasture, riparian buffers, and special agroforestry applications were the
most widely recognized practices in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The RC&D
staff surveyed noted various issues addressed by these agroforestry practices
in the three states (see Figure 8). Of the overall 115 councils in 28 states
that responded, 52% reported special agroforestry applications in their work
areas. More than one-third of these areas were in the Southeast. These
professionals identified eight issues that special agroforestry applications
can address: Animal Waste, Dust, Municipal Waste, Noise, Odor, Community
Interface/Greenbelts, Visual Screening, and Wood Fiber (NARC&DC 2000).
Visual screening and community interface/greenbelts were the most common
practices (greater than 50% frequency), followed by agroforestry for noise
control (34%), municipal waste, animal waste, dust, and odor management (all
about 20%).
|
|
The RC&D survey showed similar results for silvopasture and riparian
buffer practices. Wildlife habitat and water quality, specifically non-point
source pollution, were the issues both practices address along with soil
erosion control. Farm economics figured prominently for silvopasture (see
Figure 8). These responses echo results from the earlier survey by Zinkhan and
Mercer (1997) for the southern states and indicate specific issues that
agroforestry addresses.
|
Figure 8. Perspectives of RC&D staff on issues addressed by
their three most observed agroforestry practices in Alabama, Florida and
Georgia. Data showing the frequency of each issue reported are from a
survey with USDA NAC. Graphs represent percentage of respondents (n=39).
Adapted.
|
|
Wildlife
habitat and water quality were the most important benefits of
agroforestry, according to natural resource professionals. |
Perceived Benefits
of Agroforestry
CSTAF used opinion polls as
instruments to gauge existing knowledge, practice, and information needs of
professionals and landowners in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (Workman et al.
2002a). In the 2001 survey of natural resource professionals, extension and
forestry personnel were presented a list of 16 potential benefits of
agroforestry and asked to rank the importance (1 lowest to 5 highest) of the
benefits in their work areas (see Figure 9). Results were similar to earlier
surveys (NARC & DC 2000; Zinkhan & Mercer 1997) in that wildlife
habitat (mean rank 4.2 out of a maximum of 5) and water quality (4.1) were top
ranked as important potential benefits, with influence on water quantity
(4.0), and long term investment (3.9) not far below. The only significant
difference between the viewpoints was that professionals in Florida perceived
soil conservation as less of a benefit than their peers in Alabama and
Georgia.
|
Figure 9. Most important agroforestry benefits as ranked by
natural resource professionals in the states of Alabama, Florida, and
Georgia in a 2001 survey by CSTAF
(n=212). |
|
Aesthetic
value and shade for livestock were the most important benefits
of agroforestry, according to Florida landowners. |
Florida landowners responding to the same question on a similar but
separate survey stated improvement of appearance and atmosphere (aesthetic)
value (82%) and shade for livestock (78%) were the most important benefits of
agroforestry (see Figure 10). Improvement of wildlife habitat and soil
conservation (70% each), long-term investment return and increased biological
diversity (65% each), increase in land value (59%), more interesting farm
(56%), water quantity (55%) and water quality (54%) were also viewed of high
importance by greater than fifty percent of the landowners.
|
Figure 10. Florida
landowner ranking of the importance of agroforestry benefits (top
10 of 16) in a 2001-2002 survey by CSTAF (n=165). |
|
Various
constraints to adoption of agroforestry have been noted in
literature. |
Perceived
Constraints to Use of Agroforestry
Constraints to adoption
of agroforestry practices that have been noted in literature include lack of
management skills and technical knowledge; incompatibility between multiple
outputs; high establishment or annual management costs; negative impacts of
livestock on tree seedlings and soil productivity (Cannon 1998; Zinkhan &
Mercer 1997; Kettler 1995; Barnes 1984; Lewis 1984); potential for weedy
species and pest interactions (Dix et al. 1999); economic planning for
intensity and timing of inputs and outputs; meager institutional and policy
support including finances and incentives (Buck 1995; Kettler 1995; Muller
& Scherr 1990); and market development, landowner information and public
education (Kurtz 2000; NARC&DC 2000; Kettler 1995). The valuation of
non-market benefits or non-economic values is evident to many practitioners
and motivates a number to implement practices; however, it is often a
constraint at higher levels of institutional and social policy (Merwin 1997).
|
Lack of
familiarity and lack of demonstrations were the most important
constraints to use of agroforestry, according to natural
resource professionals. |
When asked about potential constraints to
agroforestry, professionals
responding to the 2001 CSTAF survey ranked lack of familiarity with the
practices and the lack of demonstrations (overall mean rank 3.8 and 3.7) as
most important (see Figure 11). Lack of information and markets ranked next
highest in importance (3.6 each). Influence on water quantity, fire risk, and
lack of seed were not seen as important constraints. Of the 108 written
responses to open-ended questions about constraints, across the three states,
a total of 33% of the professionals reiterated the lack of information,
knowledge and demonstrations of successful agroforestry. Profitability and
money concerns, including the cost of investment, possibility of cost-sharing
or other incentives, and the level of return were mentioned by 17%. From 9 to
11% of the respondents noted land use conversion, increased development,
industrialization of farms, and encroaching suburbia as concerns.
|
Figure 11. Most important constraints to use of agroforestry as
ranked by natural resource professionals in the states of Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia in a 2001 survey by CSTAF
(n=212).
|
|
Competition
between components was the most important constraint to use of
agroforestry, followed by lack of information and lack of
markets, according to Florida landowners. |
The 2001 survey of Florida landowners (34%) specified competition between
crops, trees and animals as the greatest constraint to use of agroforestry
(see Figure 12). Lack of information and lack of markets were equally
important constraints (33%), followed by expense of additional management
(31%) and lack of familiarity with the practices (30%). Landowners indicated
lack of technical assistance (29%), water quantity (27%), and lack of
demonstrations (26%) were also important concerns.
|
Figure 12. Percentage of Florida
landowners indicating specific constraints about the use of
agroforestry practices in a 2001 CSTAF opinion poll (n=165). |
|
Various
methods for overcoming constraints to agroforestry have been
identified. |
Methods for
Overcoming Constraints
In 1995, the Southeastern
Agroforestry Workshop explored possibilities and constraints for agroforestry
in the region by bringing together extension, research, and policy-making
representatives. The working groups made key recommendations on how to
overcome management, ecological, economic, and policy constraints to
agroforestry adoption by landowners (Kettler 1995). Major recommendations
included:
-
synthesis of information on current
practices;
-
identification of research needs and
designs that provide economically viable options;
-
attention to agroforestry potential for
urban/rural interface; and
-
collaborative on-farm testing of
technologies.
The groups pointed out the need for compatibility of
farming system components, management for pest species and waste management,
adapting known agronomic and silvicultural practices to address soil and water
limitations, and outlining adaptive management based on understanding multiple
input-output processes.
|
To be
successful, agroforestry needs organizational and governmental
support, technical assistance, trained extension personnel,
and an institutional home. |
Participants acknowledged the lack of information about and familiarity
with agroforestry. The groups agreed organizational and governmental support,
such as federal programs for local research and technical assistance, could
provide subsidies that would be needed if costs and risks, real and perceived,
are greater than economic returns and benefits to landowners. The workshop
emphasized agroforestry's potential to furnish greater opportunities and
economic diversity to landowners provided that trained extension personnel and
an institutional home for agroforestry exist. These ideas echo nascent
thoughts on agroforestry in the southern United States that were expressed in
an earlier workshop in Louisiana a decade before (Abruzzese & Byington
1984; Linnartz & Johnson 1984).
|
|
A 1998 agroforestry conference at Alabama A&M University held for
Exploring Agroforestry Opportunities in the South was developed under the
premise that more farmers would be willing to try agroforestry if they knew
how to make it successful (Cannon 1998). There were 22 presentations that
reviewed research on agroforestry practices begun over the previous decade.
The specific research and experiences presented at that conference pointed out
the continued need to document how defined agroforestry combinations work
under stated conditions, what benefits and economic considerations exist, and
what cultivation and scheduling details can be recommended. A major limitation
to adoption was seen as lack of well-documented local agroforestry experiments
and positive experiences (Cannon 1998).
|
Farmer
willingness to spend more time on farm management and learning
new skills is limited; thus, outreach must be useful,
convenient and innovative. |
Resources
for Farmers and Landowners
Farmer willingness to spend more
time on farm management and learning new skills is limited (Israel &
Ingram 1990). Since many farmers also have off-farm employment, unless it is
compelling and preferably convenient, most will not attend special functions
or devote additional time to collecting information about land management
options though the majority of landowners welcome information to help them
improve their enterprises. In 1990 many preferred to receive information by
mail (Israel 1990; Israel & Ingram 1990) though according to the CSTAF
assessments, many can now access it via the Internet. With the number of
landowners heavily reliant on a single or few (e.g., cattle and/or timber)
production options on their agricultural land, using northern Florida as an
example (Israel 1990; Israel & Ingram 1990), diversification through use
of agroforestry technologies could provide greater income stability. The
landowners that express concerns about their time and capital available for
investment need information and assistance in learning how to evaluate which
alternatives suit their needs. Many look to Cooperative Extension and the
State Forestry agencies or other trusted sources for information to guide
their decisions.
|
Agroforestry
technologies must be recognized as relevant and applicable to
clientele needs. |
Role of Extension and Forestry Professionals
Extension and forestry
professionals are interested in developing skills to serve the needs of their
clientele and tend to concentrate their efforts on topics of highest demand.
Agroforestry technologies must first be recognized as relevant and applicable
to clientele needs, since they are only one set of tools in a suite of several
that can be called upon to offer land managers. Then the technologies must be
delivered in ways appropriate for given circumstances. This means
professionals are continually faced with integrating knowledge from various
disciplines with their personal experiences and observations. Training in
agroforestry, therefore, must offer professionals background knowledge of how
tree-animal and tree-crop combinations can be advantageous for local
circumstances.
|
Professional
training must be advertised through effective networks to
publicize learning opportunities and be offered at convenient
times for participants. |
Professional training must be advertised through effective networks to
publicize learning opportunities and be offered at convenient times for
participants. Since in-service training programs for extension and forestry
professionals are coordinated through their state agencies/institutions,
(e.g., university and county offices), one- to two-day workshops could be
delivered at several district locations throughout each state. Additional
"agroforestry modules" could be included in mini-conferences and field days
held by various state major programs, (e.g., small farms, sustainable
agriculture, pest management, silviculture), or included in programs with
Federal, (e.g., NRCS, ARS), private, (e.g., Heifer Project, The Nature
Conservancy, Audubon), or professional partner groups, (e.g., Soil and Water
Conservation Chapters, Society of American Foresters). These events could also
utilize demonstration sites run by university experiment stations and by
farmers.
|
|
The interest by landowners seeking viable production alternatives, along
with the increasing body of knowledge from agroforestry education and research
activities, calls for training, technology transfer programs, outreach, and
extension activities in agroforestry. Universities in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia and Mississippi have agroforestry education and research programs
supported by disciplines such as anthropology, landscape architecture,
biological systems, botany, horticulture, soil science, animal science and
aquaculture. In this regard, agroforestry education fits into the larger
philosophy for helping students learn conservation as part of their life's
studies (AFTA 2002; Rietveld & Workman 1998; Lassoie et al. 1994; Orr
1991; Jacobson 1990; Nair et al. 1990).
|
|
Auburn University, Clemson University, Mississippi State University,
University of Florida, and University of Georgia, for example, have strong
forestry and agriculture programs in the region. In addition, Tuskegee
University (Solaiman & Hill 1991) and sister programs at Florida A&M (Onokpise et al. 2002) and Alabama A&M (Brown 2001), have programs focused
on small ruminant production in agroforestry. Other institutions in the
southern U.S. and Caribbean, e.g., University of Missouri, Texas A&M,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and University of the
Virgin Islands, have agroforestry technology transfer programs and
publications. Much of this research and technology transfer is undertaken in
partnerships with federal and state agencies.
|
The
interest by landowners seeking viable production alternatives,
along with the increasing body of knowledge from agroforestry
education and research activities, calls for training,
technology transfer programs, outreach, and extension
activities in agroforestry. |
The USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, the
National Agroforestry Center, Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Agricultural Research Service, Resource Conservation and Development
Councils (NARC&DC) and State Forestry agencies are central players in the
collection and dissemination of research results through technology transfer
activities, public services, and education programs for landowners and
managers.
Their efforts are visible with their presence in each state and
territory in the region. State agencies, in addition, have a large role in
delivery of information to landowners and citizens in rural and urban
settings.
|
Landowners,
farmers and professionals need useful information about
agroforestry opportunities and tree species.
The
Subtropical Tree/Shrub Database, and the Southeastern
Agroforestry Decision Support System (SEADSS), are two online
decision-making tools available free-of-charge on the CSTAF
website, at: http://cstaf.ifas.ufl.edu/ |
Information and
Decision Support Systems
Landowners, farmers and
professionals need useful information about different agroforestry
opportunities and tree species of potential use in agroforestry designs.
Landowners as well as extension, forestry, and natural resource professionals
need specific geographical information for good land use planning and
management.
CSTAF's online Geographical Information System (GIS) compiles valuable
information on soils, vegetation, land use, and property information that
landowners and professionals can freely access. The online database is part of
the Agroforestry Information System begun with a prototype Decision Support
System (DSS) developed at the county level in Florida. The Agroforestry
Information System includes an agroforestry tree/shrub database, the working
prototype of the Southeastern Agroforestry Decision Support System, SEADSS
(Ellis 2001; Ellis et al. 2000), a collection of agroforestry readings, and a
photo gallery.
|
|
The evolving Tree/Shrub Database is starting out with Florida's woody
species that will expand in geographic scope to cover the Southeastern Coastal
Plain. The subtropical tree and shrub database contains plant descriptions,
information on ecology and site adaptability, management and propagation, and
economic and environmental uses of the species. There is user access to both
text descriptions and photos.
The SEADSS utilizes GIS technology to enable the client to select a
location of interest that is linked to spatial data on climate and soil
characteristics for the state of Florida. The application incorporates a
plants database as described above. Being a prototype, the application is
built with a modular and flexible framework in which spatial data of different
scales and/or regions as well as plant data may be easily added to or modified
as necessary.
|
|
The information will provide decision-support assistance to landowners,
extension agents, foresters, and researchers for agroforestry development and
investigation using Internet resources, GIS, and database management systems.
The DSS component will offer computer-based tools that integrate GIS with a
tree and shrub database and agroforestry features to assess on site
characteristics, potential practices, and suitable tree/shrub species. These
tools can be used for tree and shrub selection and evaluation on specific soil
types, land areas, or properties that are geo-referenced through the GIS. The
purpose is to educate the public and to provide landowners and professionals
easy Internet access to agroforestry information and planning tools for the
subtropical zone.
|
The
emerging pattern of linking farmers within an area together
through an information network supports the idea of
community-based conservation in action. |
Networks, Community-Based
Conservation, and Regional Outreach
The
emerging pattern of linking farmers within an area together through an
information network supports the idea of community-based conservation in
action. Farmers and rural residents with similar aspirations to maintain their
livelihood can support and inspire one another toward innovation and
stewardship. Together they scrutinize how to utilize their resources in ways
that benefit them not only as individuals, but also benefit their communities.
The more successful and diversified the area farms, the more diversified and
available the income. The increased income availability generates consumer
capital and opportunities for community members to further develop consumer
and farm-oriented specialty trades. This means the rich mix of livestock,
timber, and crop production generated by agroforestry practices can be
complemented by a diverse and robust mix of related non-agricultural
activities for both individual and community benefits. These agroforestry and
related activities can also be tailored to youth and offered through 4-H
programs, projects with schools and community groups, and other extension and
CSTAF partner affiliates.
|
The vision
for development of agroforestry within the sustainable
agriculture and forestry networks calls for skills in several
disciplines. |
The vision for development of agroforestry within the sustainable
agriculture and forestry networks calls for skills in several disciplines.
Cooperation between soil, plant, and animal scientists in collaboration with
economic and education specialists has been the logical first step. The core
CSTAF group has benefited from interaction with scientists in the
horticultural and forest sciences, farming systems, veterinary sciences, and
extension specialists. Increased interaction with scientists with
anthropological, livestock, wildlife, and water management expertise could be
of great benefit to the CSTAF activities. Graduate student involvement has
increased research effort, especially in quantification of physiological
interactions in agroforestry settings and applications for organic methods.
There are a number of additional themes ripe for graduate and undergraduate
projects throughout the region, including work on specific agroforestry
practices, species combinations, agroforestry extension, market analysis and
development with producers, and involvement in the Virgin Islands or other
subtropical areas.
|
|
Additional opportunities can be shaped with extension of materials and
future interactions within the Caribbean Basin. The CSTAF component in the
U.S. Virgin Islands will serve as a starting point for development of
practices and technology transfer in the Caribbean. Activities there can draw
upon, complement, and further experiences on neighboring Puerto Rico with a
vision for outreach to other island nations in the Caribbean. The strength of
Caribbean programs at the University of Florida and the ties and interest
between the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal region with the Caribbean can promote
development of more international exchange activities for CSREES and other
USDA agencies. This opportunity can serve as a platform for greater
utilization of CSREES strengths in extension methodologies, program
development, and human capacity building in the Caribbean region. The process
can serve as a model for international outreach and technology transfer
methods and programs.
|
Interest
in agroforestry has grown steadily in the southeastern
universities, but more extension efforts are needed in order
to communicate agroforestry knowledge to the public. |
Agroforestry:
What Does the Future Hold?
To date, interest in
agroforestry has been most concentrated in universities and has only just
begun to filter into public programs in the last ten years. Two formative
workshops in the Southeast (Kettler 1995; Cannon 1998) drew interested parties
together and fomented action in the region. Since that time, infrastructure
and dissemination mechanisms specific to agroforestry have been pioneered by
universities and government entities, specifically by the USDA NAC and NRCS
(e.g., NRCS 1997), with partner groups in the South and Southeast. With the
establishment of CSTAF in 2001 (Nair & Bannister 2001), several
institutions in the Southeast are undertaking some of the much-needed basic,
applied, and multi-disciplinary research in agroforestry. Along with its
research component, CSTAF plans to develop extension training materials in
agroforestry to complement existing technology transfer documents for
agroforestry and, in collaboration with other institutions working in the
region, provide technical "in-service" training to natural resources
professionals in the principles, technologies and opportunities unique to
agroforestry.
|
Cost share
and incentive programs can help promote integrative
technologies, conservation goals, and adoption of agroforestry. |
Policy Considerations
Many landowners may be fearful of risking loss
of agricultural transfer payments or coming under added restrictions on their
farm or forestry operation imposed by new practices and enterprises (Merwin
1997). Cost share and incentive programs can help promote integrative
technologies, conservation goals, and adoption of agroforestry (Cutter et al.
1999; SCS 1991). However, policies for trade and taxation to support farmland,
agricultural income, labor productivity, and market access (APP 2001; Durst
& Monke 2001) must be formulated and implemented to protect and conserve
natural resources and rural vitality as part of sustainable development and
ecosystem health for the region.
|
Agroforestry
must also consider current forestry policies and conditions. |
Agroforestry must also consider current forestry policies and conditions.
The trend of decline in timber prices has resulted from recent trade
agreements and increased food and fiber importation from Canada, South
America, and other regions of the world. Though economical for supply of
current need on a national scale, trade policy has distinct consequences about
land use here in the southeastern U.S. What incentive do private owners have
to invest in replanting for commercial production? Landowners are faced with
decisions on how to hold and manage their land or to sell to a commercial
developer, timber company, or find another alternative land use. Removal of
pine stocks currently exceeds growth on forest industry and non-industrial
private lands in the South (Prestemon & Abt 2002). Projections for
increasing softwood plantations from the approximately 30 mil ac of today to
about 48 mil ac by 2040 was recently reported in the U.S. Forest Service
Southern Forest Resource Assessment. It is predicted much of this production
will shift away from the increasingly urbanized eastern sector of the region
into Mississippi and the western sector of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain
(SRS 2002; Prestemon & Abt 2002).
|
The
current political atmosphere is conducive to implementation of
good land use planning, conservation, and education and youth
programs. |
Some combination of tax incentives, development rights acquisition, and
regulation to protect farmland from rising urban pressures, exists in all
fifty states. Information on agricultural protection zoning and if/how it
makes a difference, how land use choices are influenced by right-to-farm laws,
and the consequences, both economic and social, of urban growth boundaries or
other regulations to manage growth, are available to decision makers at local
and state levels (ICMA 2002).
The current political atmosphere is conducive to implementation of good
land use planning, conservation, and education and youth programs. A Bush
administration policy initiative, for example, outlined in February 2002
commits America to a strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 18% over the
next 10 years (Bierly & Eden 2002). The Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 increases conservation funding by 80% over 1996 levels and much of
this is focused on management of working lands. The Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) mandated in the law calls for funding technical assistance
by public and private sector providers (SWCS 2002).
|
The
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) remains the single largest
cost-share program funded. |
One avenue for these federal appropriations, the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), remains the single largest program funded. The program has
expanded options for economic use and creates opportunity for land restoration
and retirement gains. It contains provisions for Biomass Pilot Projects for
harvesting plant material to be used for energy production from enrolled lands
(SWCS 2002). Through the CRP, farmers can receive cost-share assistance and
annual rent payments to establish long term cover that will help conservation
efforts on eligible land. As in the 2002 Farm Bill, conservation efforts will
benefit from congressional support and growing citizen demand for sustaining
natural resources.
|
There are
various programs for cost-share incentives on private lands. See
Appendix 3 for a list of agroforestry incentive programs for
Alabama, Florida and Georgia. |
Programs for cost-share incentives on private lands to date have included
the Forestry Incentive Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands
Reserve Program, the Stewardship Incentives Program, the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (Groh 2002).
The new Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP), established by the 2002 Farm
Bill replaces several of these programs and provides for agroforestry support.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP), Farmland Protection Program (FPP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program (WHIP) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP), among others, can
now be used by states in more flexible ways to coordinate implementation of
multiple conservation programs. The CSP provides some balance to the
commodity-based subsidies in providing stewardship-based entitlements. The CSP
compensates producers who have invested in conservation and is tied to
environmental performance (SWCS 2002). Policy studies at regional levels are
needed to determine how agroforestry practices fit into land use policy
application, and how analyses of decision-making and adoption on the part of
landowners can feed back into policy formulation (Kurtz 2000; Mercer &
Miller 1997; Henderson 1991). See Appendix 2 for a list of agroforestry
resources on the Web. Also see Appendix 3 for a list of agroforestry incentive
programs for Alabama, Florida and Georgia.
|
Agroforestry
development requires time and careful observation of cash and
labor inputs and outputs. |
Economic Considerations
Agroforestry practices begin with a model and
then develop in different directions according to how the farmers adapt the
model to their own natural resource and socio-economic situations. This means
agroforestry development can take some time, and certainly different practices
will be adopted or adapted at different rates. The farmer and land manager
determines whether goals are met over time at a reasonable cost based on
private cost-effectiveness and management value (Kurtz 2000; Soule et al.
2000; Lohr 1995; Kidd & Pimentel 1990). Considerations of cash and labor
inputs, management and returns, and marketing need documentation in order to
provide land managers with decision-making information. Limited diversity of
farm enterprises makes the farm vulnerable to environmental and economic
changes. Thus, alternatives for generating income, such as agroforestry, could
provide greater stability and more balanced income flows for small farm size
operators.
Many economic cost-benefit studies have demonstrated that agroforestry
technologies such as alley cropping, forest farming, riparian buffer strips,
silvopasture, and windbreaks, can generate a positive private rate of return
higher than conventional agriculture or forestry enterprises (Kurtz 2000;
Garrett et al. 2000; Clason 1995; Brandle et al. 1992b). Outputs can also be
characterized as non-revenue generating yields such as "public goods" or
environmental services.
|
Many
economic cost-benefit studies have demonstrated that
agroforestry can generate a higher rate of return than
conventional agriculture or forestry enterprises. |
Agroforestry practices begin with a model and
then develop in different directions according to how the farmers adapt the
model to their own natural resource and socio-economic situations. This means
agroforestry development can take some time, and certainly different practices
will be adopted or adapted at different rates. The farmer and land manager
determines whether goals are met over time at a reasonable cost based on
private cost-effectiveness and management value (Kurtz 2000; Soule et al.
2000; Lohr 1995; Kidd & Pimentel 1990). Considerations of cash and labor
inputs, management and returns, and marketing need documentation in order to
provide land managers with decision-making information. Limited diversity of
farm enterprises makes the farm vulnerable to environmental and economic
changes. Thus, alternatives for generating income, such as agroforestry, could
provide greater stability and more balanced income flows for small farm size
operators.
Many economic
cost-benefit studies have demonstrated that agroforestry technologies such as
alley cropping, forest farming, riparian buffer strips, silvopasture, and
windbreaks, can generate a positive private rate of return higher than
conventional agriculture or forestry enterprises (Kurtz 2000; Garrett et al.
2000; Clason 1995; Brandle et al. 1992b). Outputs can also be characterized as
non-revenue generating yields such as "public goods" or
environmental services.
|
Research
is underway to assess market and non-market goods and services
of agroforestry systems as well as estimate multiplier effects
and distributive impacts of agroforestry. |
Research is underway to assess market and non-market goods and services of
agroforestry systems as well as estimate multiplier effects and distributive
impacts of agroforestry. A factor analysis methodology was tested by CSTAF
researchers to measure respondent's preferences and rank the magnitude of
their impact for silvopasture in southern Florida (Shrestra & Alavalapati
2002). The first application of this methodology to agroforestry showed
promise for its use by decision-makers in targeting factors critical to
adoption. Additional studies on hunting revenues relative to silvopasture and
peoples willingness to pay for environmental services will provide information
for other economic valuations of the market and non-market benefits of
agroforestry. A social accounting matrix to measure the economic spin-off
effects of agroforestry and an economic model to quantify the effects of
carbon sequestration associated with agroforestry practices are being utilized
and further developed.
|
Farmers
who are willing to learn are better able to overcome barriers
to adoption of alternative production systems. |
These economic studies along with the series of economic analyses
programmed for the CSTAF research components can help provide information on
profitability of agroforestry practices (Alavalapati et al. 2002). Farmers who
are willing to learn about the options for new enterprise development,
including value-added products and custom specialty products, are better able
to overcome barriers to adoption of alternative production systems.
|
Though we
know that agroforestry will not replace most agricultural and
forestry practices across the region, it is worthwhile to
consider how agroforestry technologies can be incorporated
into each at various geographical scales. |
What Specific
Accomplishments Can Be Made?
Though we know that
agroforestry will not replace most agricultural and forestry practices across
the region, it is worthwhile to consider how agroforestry technologies can be
incorporated into each at various geographical scales. Agroforestry practices
have application potential over a range of land area sizes, from individual
plots to total periphery of large park areas, from buffering and restoration
of degraded sites to partitioning municipal landholdings, and, as envisioned
for the Mississippi River watershed, to serve as riparian buffer zones to
guard against non-point source pollution and sedimentation. These integrated
land use practices can help bridge the gaps in the mosaic of land uses across
the region and serve as tools to strengthen the sustainable supply of goods
and environmental services needed by society. Given that farming and
plantation forestry have been rural economic mainstays against other
development options in the region, ways to improve their value as a viable
land use will continue to support rural communities and offer greater future
land use flexibility.
|
|
From the needs assessment conducted by CSTAF and the local knowledge
documented, along with information generated from the research and experiences
of partner organizations, there are abundant models to build on for successful
training endeavors for students and professionals. Excellent training
endeavors for professionals have been led by USDA, Alabama A&M University,
the FASAT group at the University of Georgia, and the Forest Stewardship, Fire
Toolkit, and Small Farms programs at Florida A&M University and the
University of Florida. Plans and materials for similar training efforts for
agroforestry practices are being considered by CSTAF in the southeastern U.S.
Technology transfer needs for all practices call for region-specific
information for design decisions, compatibility of components, production
budgets, marketing opportunities, economic analysis, and effectiveness models
(AFTA 2000). Technical designs must balance input availability, quality and
timing with production outputs, and their processing and markets for various
components. Results from research and landowner experiences can be formulated
into materials useful in training professionals and in developing technology
transfer materials they can use with their clientele.
|
|
In alley cropping and windbreak designs, as in other practices, there is a
need to identify suitable tree species, determine optimum spacing along with
tree and crop management practices, and measure effects of management on
yields, tree growth, soil parameters and economic returns. "An investment of
time and resources to develop appropriate management practices for economic
trees and annual crops could make alley cropping a profitable venture for
farmers in the South" (Shannon & Isaac 1998:2).
We also need to compile information on which shade tolerant species have
economic potential for forest farming and nontimber forest products in the
region. Studies to document their growth and management requirements and
determine market strategies with producers can help sustain the practices. Of
unique interest is the recognition of "patio" or "dooryard" gardens by
professionals. The patio or dooryard garden, or homegarden, a form of
multistrata agroforestry, has not been included in the set of temperate
agroforestry practices acknowledged in North America. However, the popularity
of multistrata agroforestry in the region likely reflects not only the
subtropical climate of the region but also the rich diversity of practices
brought to the States by people with heritage from African, Asian, Caribbean
and Latin American tropical areas.
|
|
There is information available about benefits of riparian forest buffers
and streamside management zones thanks to the local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, State Forestry offices, USDA-ARS Southeast Watershed
Research Laboratory, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources that work with the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other professional groups in the region. These studies help provide the
scientific basis for designing buffers to meet an expanding set of landowner
and societal objectives. There is continuing opportunity for greater
application of riparian buffer technologies, based on identified management
goals.
Currently, water quality management goals aim to protect aquatic habitats,
drinking water and recreation areas, prevent erosion and flooding, buffer
pollution, and prevent eutrophication of surface waters and contamination of
groundwater. These goals are addressed through state and federal programs that
include agroforestry options (Bosch et al. 1997; Wade & Tucker 1996) to
help reduce nutrient and sediment loads reaching natural drainage waters.
Fertilization and crop rotation management as well as water
drainage-storage-reuse and pump management under irrigation will also help
safeguard water quality in the Coastal Plain (Berndt et al. 1998).
|
|
Thus, given the information available, we need to compile results about
design and placement criteria and how riparian buffers can meet conservation
and production objectives. Best management practices for streamside zones and
cost share programs are in place to help restore impaired streams and to
promote maintenance and establishment of buffers and constructed wetlands
(e.g., EPA 319). CSTAF collaborators can contribute research results on
sediment control and reduction in phosphorus and nitrate loadings by
agroforestry practices. In addition, there is great potential to design
decision support tools to help on-farm performance and selection of species.
We need further investigation and demonstration of viable species combinations
and vegetation zonation to include short rotation woody species and specialty
crops of value that have potential to increase buffer width and diversity.
Available information must be developed into formats that facilitate use by
resource managers and landowners to promote greater adoption of the practices
(AFTA 2000).
|
|
In silvopasture, possibilities exist for integration of browse species for
both small ruminants and cattle into existing farm plans. New studies with
native browse species in Florida and trials with introduced species, such as
those with paulownia conducted in North Carolina (Mueller et al. 2001), are
underway. Since silvopasture technologies are applicable on a wide range of
scales, they are readily adaptable for all sizes of land holdings and for
various combinations of animal and plant species.
The materials from regional institutions and the USDA national center
(NAC)
are currently in use for a series of dynamic silvopasture workshops throughout
the Southeast (Robinson et al. 2001). The NRCS and cooperators at Land Grant
institutions have initiated a network for silvopasture training with State
Cooperative Extension and Forestry professionals. These institutions,
including CSTAF, are preparing the way for demonstration sites in the region,
which can provide landowners with training and information on appropriate
silvopastoral practices.
|
|
Lastly, landowners interested in incorporating recreational or scenic
criteria into their multiple-use management and stewardship plans (Hubbard et
al. 1999; Stein 1998) can utilize agroforestry practices in their design
objectives. Streamside management zones, and edges of harvested forest,
pasture, or crop fields are ideal places to include wildlife plantings,
hedgerows or hiking and horse trails. Windbreaks and fencerow plantings
provide additional alternatives for wildlife habitat. Seasonal activities or
year round opportunities for wildlife viewing and nature study can be enhanced
with plantings that also serve conservation purposes. Incomes from hunting and
recreation uses for diversification are increasing in popularity. Land leases
for hunting and fee hunting and fishing can provide continuous or seasonal
cash flow. These activities are compatible with forest harvesting regimes that
provide a diversity of forest age classes and habitats across the landscape,
and streamside/riparian buffer zones that provide wildlife cover and movement
corridors (Schaefer & Brown 1992).
|
Agroforestry
has the potential to improve environmental quality as well as
the diversity and productivity of an agricultural system.
However,
successful adoption of agroforestry requires careful planning
and management. Feedback from farmers in the Southeast will
help in mapping out the impetus and direction of agroforestry
for the future. |
Concluding
Remarks
Agroforestry has the potential to improve
environmental quality as well as the diversity and productivity of an
agricultural system. These improvements may enhance cash flows to farm
families and provide good return for the labor invested. These practices may
also moderate temperature and other environmental stresses as well as provide
settings for recreational uses. Compared to traditional plantation forestry or
agricultural systems, agroforestry techniques provide opportunities to
diversify incomes, expand production, and enhance non-market benefits such as
soil and water conservation and wildlife habitat.
However, successful adoption of agroforestry practices requires careful
planning and management to effectively integrate different trees, crops and
animals. In light of the objectives presented in this white paper, farmers and
other landowners are encouraged to experiment with the agroforestry practices
described in this paper, and to adapt them to their own particular locations
and production goals. In turn, feedback from these farmer-initiated activities
will be of great benefit in helping define the impetus and direction of
agroforestry for the future.
|
|
Appendix 1.
English-to-Metric Conversions
English Units
|
Conversion |
Metric Units (S.I.) |
LENGTH |
|
|
feet (ft) |
x 0.3048 = |
meters (m) |
miles (mi) |
x 1.6093 = |
kilometers (km) |
|
|
|
AREA |
|
|
miles2 (mi2) |
x 2.59 = |
kilometers2
(km2) |
acres (ac) |
x 0.4047 = |
hectares (ha) |
|
|
|
VOLUME |
|
|
gallons (gal) |
x 3.7854 = |
liters (l) |
|
|
|
MASS |
|
|
pounds (lb) |
x 0.4536 = |
kilograms (kg) |
tons (2000 lb) |
x 907.18 = |
kilograms (kg) |
Appendix
2. Agroforestry Resources on the Web
ORGANIZATIONS AND
AGENCIES
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC), National
Agricultural Library, USDA:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/altlist.htm
Association for Temperate Agroforestry (AFTA):
http://www.aftaweb.org
Center for Subtropical Agroforestry (CSTAF), University of Florida:
http://cstaf.ifas.ufl.edu/index.htm
Educational Concerns for Hunger Organization (ECHO):
http://www.echonet.org/
Forest Garden Initiative (FGI): http://www.forestgarden.org/
National Agroforestry Center (NAC), USDA: http://www.unl.edu/nac/
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/forest/
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service
(NSAIS), Appropriate
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), USDA:
http://attra.ncat.org/
University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry (UMCA):
http://agebb.missouri.edu/umca/index.htm
Winrock International (WI):
http://www.winrock.org/forestry/factnet.htm
World Agroforestry Centre (WAC):
http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/home.asp
INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS
"Building Better Rural Places" (ATTRA):
http://attra.ncat.org/guide/
"2002 Farm Bill--Incentives for
Agroforestry" (NAC): http://www.unl.edu/nac/ia/winter03/winter03.pdf
"Funding Incentives for Agroforestry in
Missouri" (UMCA): http://agebb.missouri.edu/umca/pubs/fundincent.pdf
"Southern-Region Competitive Grants
Program" (USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program (SARE):
http://www.griffin.peachnet.edu/sare/homepage.shtml
White
Paper Table of Contents
Appendix 3. Agroforestry
Incentive Programs for Alabama, Florida and Georgia
Numerous incentive programs exist on a national and state level
for the encouragement of agroforestry and agroforestry-related practices, such
as riparian buffers, alley cropping, forest farming, and habitat restoration.
While not comprehensive, the following is a brief list of specific resources
and contact information for residents of Alabama, Florida and Georgia.
(Information in this section was compiled by Ms. Danelle Harrison for
CSTAF.)
ALABAMA
1. Alabama Agriculture and Conservation Development Commission
Program
The Alabama Agriculture and Conservation Development Commission administers
state-funded conservation incentive programs. Various agroforestry-related
practices are eligible for grants, including permanent vegetative cover
establishment, buffer strip crop systems, terrace systems, cropland protective
cover, conservation tillage, riparian buffer systems, forest farming, tree
stand improvement, and silvopasture agroforestry practices.
Contact: Alabama Forestry Commission, 513 Madison Avenue, Montgomery AL
36104. Phone: (334) 240-9300. OR USDA-Alabama Natural Resources Conservation
Service, PO Box 311, 3381 Skyway Drive, Auburn, AL 36830. Phone: (334)
887-4500; Fax: (334) 887-4551.
2. Alabama Openland Tree-Planting Cost-Share Program
The Alabama Openland Tree-Planting Cost-Share Program (OTP) provides
financial assistance for tree planting, site preparation, and competition
control measures on open land, available at a 75 percent reimbursement rate
for landowners.
Contact: Alabama Forestry Commission (above) OR your local Alabama Power
office.
3. Alabama Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
The WHIP program sponsors practices aimed at restoration of native grasses,
provision of habitat for the bobwhite quail and other grassland nesting
species, restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems, and protection of fish and
shrimp living in areas sensitive to agricultural pollutants.
Contact: Alabama Natural Resources Conservation Service (above).
4. Cost Share Program for Farm, Pasture, or Woodland
The Cost Share Program for Farm, Pasture, or Woodland provides financial
and technical assistance for landowners of farms, pastures, or woodlands. The
program offers 60 percent cost share for landowners to plant trees or to
install other conservation equipment and to develop practices that help reduce
soil erosion. The program is administered by the Soil and Water Conservation
Committee and run by local Soil and Water Conservation Districts on a county
level.
Contact: Soil and Water Conservation Committee, PO Box 304800,
Montgomery, AL 36130-4800. Phone: (334) 242-2620; Fax: (334) 242-0551.
5. Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Partners for Fish and Wildlife supports implementation of conservation
strategies to protect ecologically sensitive areas on private lands, such as
the Cahaba River basin. Supported projects include wetland restoration,
riparian vegetation systems in silvopasture, protection of endangered species,
and control of exotic species.
Contact: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Service, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4270 Norwich Street Extension, Brunswick, GA 31520-2523. Phone: (912)
265-9336, ext. 25; Fax: (912) 265-1061.
FLORIDA
1. Florida Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program
The Florida Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) has provided
support to farmers and ranchers who implement practices that preserve topsoil,
improve water quality, and limit non-agricultural uses of the land. Landowners
interested in FRPP can implement alley cropping, forest farming, and
silvopasture under this program.
Contact: local Florida Cooperative Extension Service units.
2. Florida Wetlands Reserve Program
The Florida Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) provides technical and financial
assistance to eligible landowners to restore, enhance and protect wetlands
that have been altered agriculturally, including pasture and forestry
practices. One of its main focuses is to provide habitat for wildlife
migratory birds, particularly those that are threatened and endangered. The
other main focus is to improve water quality by removing nutrients, reducing
phosphorus loads, improving stream base flow which reduces temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and salinity problems in downstream waters. Landowners
interested in agroforestry can install buffers and alley cropping systems.
Contact: Wetlands Reserve Program Coordinator, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Phone: (352) 338-9509.
3. Florida Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
The Florida Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program provides funding for
landowner practices that benefit plant and animal species living in strategic
habitat conservation areas, early successional/grassland habitats, and
neotropical migrant bird habitats. Landowners interested in this program can
implement forestry practices such as buffer zones and alley cropping. Partners
in this program are: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Quail Unlimited, Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
and Florida Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Contact: Florida NRCS. Phone: (352) 338-9544.
4. Partners for Fish and Wildlife
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is an initiative developed to
provide technical and financial assistance to private landowners and other
partners who conduct habitat restoration and improvement activities on their
land. The focus of the program in Florida is on restoration of native
habitats, restoration of degraded streams and wetlands, and eradication of
invasive, exotic species. Assistance is awarded to landowners in conservation
programs administered by the USDA under the 2002 Farm Bill (e.g., Wetlands
Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve Program).
Contact: State Coordinator, PFW, 6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310,
Jacksonville, FL 32216-0912. Phone: (904) 232-2404, ext. 120; Fax: (904)
232-2404.
GEORGIA
1. Bobwhite Quail Initiative
The Bobwhite Quail Initiative is directed toward providing nesting and
brood rearing habitats for quail in Georgia. Landowners receive incentive
payments for the establishment and maintenance of certain types of early
successional habitat.
Contact: BQI Headquarters, DNR Wildlife Resources Division, BQI, 116 Rum
Creek Drive, Forsyth, GA 31029. Phone: (478) 994-7583.
2. Federal Program Information
The 2002 Farm Bill provided several changes that affect and benefit
agroforestry. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides
cost-share incentives for a number of conservation practices. Practices that
can address these priority concerns, including silvopasture and other forestry
and agroforestry practices, are eligible for funding.
Contact: Resource Conservationist, USDA-NRCS, 355 East Hancock Ave.,
Athens, GA 30601. Phone: (706) 546-2061.
3. Georgia Reforestation to Enhance Environmental Needs
Georgia Power Company and the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) provide
financial assistance for tree planting on open land to landowners with ten or
more acres. Cost-share assistance is provided at a flat rate and covers the
cost of trees, planting, prescribed burning, subsoiling, mowing, and chemical
spraying. This program can be used to implement alley cropping and forest
farming practices.
Contact: local Georgia Forestry Commission office.
4. Georgia Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
The Georgia Wildlife Incentives Program is geared mainly towards the
restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems and early successional plant systems
along with many other habitats of special concern. Some of its priority
programs include wildlife upland habitat management, wildlife wetland habitat
management, prescribed burning, riparian buffers, field borders, wetland
creation and restoration, hedgerow plantings, and tree/shrub planting.
Partners in the Georgia WHIP plan include Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, and Wildlife Resource Division's Private Land Initiative.
Contact: Georgia Natural Resources Conservation Service. Phone: (706)
546-2114.
5. Partners for Fish & Wildlife
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program assists private landowners with
fish and wildlife habitat restoration on their land. In Georgia, the program
has focused on the restoration of the longleaf pine habitat, restoration of
degraded streams and riparian areas, and restoration and improvement of
endangered, threatened, and rare species habitat.
Contact: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4270 Norwich Street Extension, Brunswick, GA 31520-2523. Phone: (912)
265-9336, ext.25; Fax: (912) 265-1061.
6. Wild Turkey Woodlands Program
The National Wild Turkey Federation along with the Georgia Forestry
Commission through Georgia's Forest Stewardship Program implements the Wild
Turkey Woodlands Program. The program certifies landowners who manage their
lands for wild turkey. Landowners interested in agroforestry can use the
discount seed program to offset the costs of forest farming, alley cropping,
and planting windbreaks or riparian buffers.
Contact: The National Wild Turkey Federation, Phone: (803) 637-3106;
E-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:nwtf@nwtf.net" nwtf@nwtf.net.
White
Paper Table of Contents
Literature
Cited
Abernathy, V. and R.E. Turner. 1987. US forested
wetlands: 1940-1980. Bioscience 37:721-727.
Abruzzese, J.R. and E.K.
Byington. 1984. Patterns and trends in farm
agroforestry in the Southcentral United States, pp. 53-64 In N.E. Linnartz and
J.J. Johnson (eds.) 33rd Annual Forestry Symposium: Agroforestry in the
Southern United States. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton
Rouge, LA.
AFTA, Association for Temperate
Agroforestry. 2000. Agroforestry in the
United States: Research and technology transfer needs for the next millennium.
Association for Temperate Agroforestry, Columbia, MO.
AFTA, Association for Temperate
Agroforestry. 2004. Education, Research and
Technology Transfer. http://www.aftaweb.org/entserv1.php?page=32
Ainslie, W.B. 2002. Forested Wetlands. Chapter 20, p. 479-499 In
D.N. Ware
and J.G. Greis (eds.) Southern Forest Resource Assessment. USDA Forest Service
GTR SRS-53.
Alavalapati, J.R.R., R.
Shrestha, G. Das, and K. Stephan. 2002. Economic
Benefits of Agroforestry Systems. Available by Center for Subtropical
Agroforestry, School of Forest Resources, University of Florida. http://cstaf.ifas.ufl.edu.
Alexander, A.G. and S.J. Alexander. 2002. Case Study: Native U.S. plants in
honey and pollen production. pp. 223-236 In E.T. Jones, R. McLain, and J.
Weigand (eds.) Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. University
Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Alexander, S.J., J.
Weigand, and K. Blattner. 2002. Nontimber forest
product commerce. pp. 115-150 In E.T. Jones, R. McLain, and J. Weigand (eds.)
Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. University Press of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS.
Allen, S.C. 2003. Nitrogen dynamics in a pecan (Carya illinoensis K.
Koch)-cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) alley cropping system in the
southern United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Altieri, M.A. 1991. Increasing biodiversity to improve insect pest
management in agroecosystems, pp. 165-181, In D. L. Hawksworth (ed.) The
Biodiversity of Microorganisms and Invertebrates: Its Role in Sustainable
Agriculture. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Andersen, P., J. Williamson, and T. Crocker. 2000. Sustainability
Assessment of Fruit Crops for North and North Central Florida. Factsheet
HS765, a series of the Horticultural Sciences Department. Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida.
APP, Agriculture Policy Project. 2001. Making Changes: Turning Local
Visions into National Solutions. Funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Agriculture Policy Project. Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural &
Environmental Policy at Winrock International, Arlington, VA.
Ashton, M.S. and F. Montagnini (eds.). 1999. The silvicultural basis for
agroforestry systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 278 p.
Bagley, W.T. 1988. Agroforestry and windbreaks. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ.
22/23:583-591.
Baker, L.A. 1998. Design considerations and applications for wetland
treatment of high-nitrate waters. Water Sci. Tech. 38:389-395.
Baker, J.C. and W.C. Hunter. 2002. Effects of forest management on
terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 4, p. 91-112 In D.N. Ware and J.G. Greis
(eds.) Southern Forest Resource Assessment. USDA Forest Service GTR SRS-53.
Barnes, R.F. 1984. Summary and overview of agroforestry in the Southern
United States, pp. 175-185 In N.E. Linnartz and J.J. Johnson (eds.) 33rd
Annual Forestry Symposium: Agroforestry in the Southern United States.
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
Baughman, M.J. (ed.). 1996. Proceedings of the Symposium on Nonindustial
Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future. Conference,
February 1996. Washington, DC. Proc. Published by Minn. Ext. Serv., St. Paul,
MN.
Bean, J. 2002. Maximizing your forestland's potential: Alternative income
opportunities from forestland. Forest Landowner 61 (2): 35-38.
Beetz, A. 2002. Agroforestry Overview. Horticulture Systems Guide. National
Sustainable Agriculture Information Center: Appropriate Technology Transfer
for Rural Areas (ATTRA). Fayetteville, AR. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf.
Belonogova, T. 1993. Changes in blueberry and cowberry yields under the
influence of forestry measures. Aquilo Ser. Bot. 31:17-20.
Benjamin, T.J., W.L. Hoover,
J.R. Seifert, and A.R. Gillespie. 2000.
Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the
midwestern USA: 4. The economic return of ecological knowledge. Agrofor. Syst.
48:79-93.
Bennett, B.C. and J.R.
Hicklin. 1998. Uses of saw palmetto (Serenoa
repens, Arecaceae) in Florida. Econom. Bot. 52 (4):381-393.
Berndt, M.P., H.H.
Hatzell, C.A. Crandall, M. Turtora, J.R. Pittman, and E.T. Oaksford. 1998. Water quality in the Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain,
Florida and Georgia, 1992-96: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1151 http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1151/.
Bierly, E.W. and H.F. Eden. 2002. Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences in the
FY2003 Budget. AAAS Report XXVII, Research and Development FY2003. American
Association for the Advancement of Science. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/03pch15.htm.
Bird, P.R. 1998. Tree windbreaks and shelter benefits to pasture in
temperate grazing systems. Agrofor. Syst. 41:35-54.
Bliss, J.C., S.K. Nepal,
R.T. Brooks Jr., and M.D. Larsen. 1997. In the
mainstream: Environmental attitudes of mid-south NIPF owners. South. J. Appl.
Forestry 21:37-42.
Bonilla C.A., J.F. Munoz and M.
Vauclin. 1999. Opus simulation of water
dynamics and nitrate transport in a field plot. Ecol. Model. 122:69-80.
Bonsi, C., E. Rhoden, A.
Woldeghebriel, P. Mount, S. Solaiman, R. Noble, G. Garis, C. McMahon, H. Pearson, and B. Cash. 1991. Kudzu-goat interactions - a
pilot study. pp. 84-90 In G. Solaiman and W.A. Hill (eds.) 1991. Using goats
to manage forest vegetation: A regional inquiry. Workshop Proceedings.
Tuskegee University Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee, AL.
Bosch, D.D., R.A. Leonard, C.C. Truman,
L.T. West, and D.W. Hicks. 1997.
Impacts of conventional agricultural practices on aquifer water quality: An
overview of the Plains, Georgia water quality study. pp. 504-507 In K. Hatcher
(ed.) Proceedings of the 1997 Georgia Water Resources Conference. Univ. of
Georgia, Athens.
Brandle, J.,T. Wardle, and G. Bratton. 1992a. Opportunities to increase
tree planting in shelterbelts and the potential impacts on carbon storage and
conservation. Chapt. 9, Forests and Global Change, Vol. 1. R.N. Sampson and D.
Hair (eds.) American Forests.
Brandle, J.R., B.B. Johnson, and T.
Akeson. 1992b. Field windbreaks: Are
they economical? J. Prod. Agric. 5:393-398.
Brandle, J.R., L. Hodges, and J.
Stuthman. 1994. Windbreaks and specialty
crops for greater profits. pp. 81-91 In W.J. Rietveld, (ed.) Proc. Symp.
Agroforestry and Sustainable Systems. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-GTR-261. Rocky Mountain For. Range Exp. Stn., Ft. Collins, CO.
Brandle, J.R., L. Hodges, and B. Wight. 2000. Windbreak practices. pp.
79-118, In H.E. Garrett, W.J. Rietveld, and R.F. Fisher (eds.). North American
Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison WI.
Bransby, D.I., S.E.
Sladden, D.D. Kee, and N.E. West. 1996. Forage yield
response of mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) to harvest frequency. pp.
64-65 Rangelands in a sustainable biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Rangeland Congress. Vol. 1. Society of Range Management, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Brantley, S. 1998. Planning silvopastoral systems in southeastern USA. pp.
9.1-9.6 In P.G. Cannon (ed.). Exploring agroforestry opportunities in the
South. Southern Agroforestry Conference sponsored by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the US Forest Service, and Alabama A&M University.
Oct. 1998. Huntsville, AL.
Brauer, D. and D. Burner. 2001. Pine straw and nuts. Dale Bumpers Center,
USDA Agricultural Research Service. mall Farms Research News, Winter 1:1-4.
Brown, G. 2001. Center for Forestry and Ecology. Available by Alabama
A&M University, School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
Department of Plant and Soil Science. http://saes.aamu.edu/ sps/Forestry.html.
Buck, L.E. 1995. Agroforestry policy issues and research directions in the
US and less developed countries: Insights and challenges from recent
experience. Agrofor. Syst. 30:57-73.
Buck, L.E. 1999. Forest farming with ginseng: A study of plant ecology,
quality, and market relations. p. 67 In J.P. Lassoie and L.E. Buck (eds.).
Exploring the opportunities for agroforestry in changing rural landscapes.
Proc. 5th Conf. on Agroforestry in North America, Ithaca, NY, Aug 1997.
Cornell University, Ithaca.
Bugg, R.L., M.
Sarrantonio, J.D. Dutcher, and S.C. Phatak. 1991. Understory
cover crops in pecan orchards: Possible management systems. Am. J. Altern.
Agric. 6:50-62.
Burel, F. 1996. Hedgerows and their roles in agricultural landscapes.
Crit.
Rev. Plant Sci. 15:169-190.
Burton, N.L. and A.D.
Scarfe. 1991. Angora goats in Alabama woodlands. pp.
78-83 In G. Solaiman and W.A. Hill (eds.) 1991. Using goats to manage forest
vegetation: A regional inquiry. Workshop Proceedings. Tuskegee University
Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee, AL.
Byrd, N.A., C.E. Lewis, and
H.A. Pearson. 1984. Management of southern pine
forests for cattle production. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, General
Report R8-GR4. 22p.
Campbell, F.T. 1997. Testimony for oversight hearing on resident exotic
plants and pests threatening the health of our national forests. Given before
the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health on
June 24, 1997. http://www.house.gov/resources/105cong/forests/jun24.97/campbell.htm.
[Accessed on 10 April 02].
Cannon, P.G. 1998. Exploring agroforestry opportunities in the South.
Southern Agroforestry Conference sponsored by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the US Forest Service, and Alabama A&M University.
Oct. 1998. Huntsville, AL.
Carroll, R. 1995. Environmental policy and sustainable rural land use: What
is the appropriate scale? p. 7 In J.S. Kettler (ed.) Southeastern Agroforestry
Workshop: Exploration of Possibilities and Constraints. Workshop Proceedings,
September 1995, Athens, GA. University of Georgia and USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Cary, A. 1928. On management of turpentine forests. Weekly Naval Stores
Review, reprints, Savannah, GA.
Chamberlain, J. and A.L. Hammett. 1998. Non-timber forest products: The
other forest products. Forest Prod. J. 48:10-19.
Chamberlain, J. and A.L. Hammett. 2002. Non-timber forest products:
Alternatives for landowners. Forest Landowner 61 (2):16-18.
Clason, T.R. 1995. Economic implications of silvipastures on southern pine
plantations. Agrofor. Syst. 29:227-238.
Clason, T.R. 1999. Silvopastoral practices sustain timber and forage
production in commercial loblolly pine plantations of northwest Louisiana.
Agrofor. Syst. 44:293-303.
Clason, T.R. and S.H.
Sharrow. 2000. Silvopastoral practices. pp. 119-147
In H.E. Garrett, W.J. Rietveld, and R.F. Fisher (eds.) North American
Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison WI.
Colletti, J., C. Mize, R. Schultz, A.
Skadberg, J. Mottila, R. Hall, L.
Rule, P. Wray, M. Thompson, I. Anderson, and D. Buxton. 1991. Land application
of sludge to forest and herbaceous energy crops. pp. 327-338 In H.E. Garrett
(ed.). Proc. 2nd Conference on Agroforestry in North America. Springfield, MO,
Aug. 1991. University of Missouri, Columbia.
Colletti, J., C. Mize, R. Schultz, R.
Faltonson, A. Skadberg, J. Mottila,
M. Thompson, R.Scharf, I. Anderson, C. Accola, D. Buxton, and R. Brown. 1994.
An alley cropping biofuels system: Operation and economics. pp. 303-310 In R.C. Schultz and J.P. Colletti (eds.). Proc. 3rd Conference on Agroforestry in
North America: Opportunities for Agroforestry in the Temperate Zone Worldwide.
Ames, IA, Aug, 1993. Iowa State University, Ames.
Conner, R.C. and A.J.
Hartsell. 2002. Forest Area and Conditions. Chapter
16, pp. 357-401 In D.N. Ware and J.G. Greis (eds.) Southern Forest Resource
Assessment. USDA Forest Service GTR SRS-53.
Conner, W.H., N.L. Hill,
E.M. Whitehead, [and others]. 2001. Forested
wetlands of the Southern United States: a bibliography. USDA Forest Service,
Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS-043.
Cordell, H.K., J.C. Bliss,
C.Y. Johnson, and M. Fly. 1998. Voices from
southern forests. Trans. 63rd No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf.:
332-347.
Correll, D.L. 1983. N and P in soils and runoff of three coastal plain land
uses. pp. 207-224 In R. Lowrance, L. Assmussen, and R. Leonard (eds.) Nutrient
Cycling in Agricultural Ecosystems. University of Georgia Special Publication
No. 23. Athens, GA.
Crane, J.H. 1994. The Carambola (Star Fruit). Fact Sheet HS-12, a series of
the Horticultural Sciences Department. University of Florida, Tropical
Research and Education Center.
Crocker, T.E. and J.G. Williamson. 1994. Dooryard Fruit Varieties. Fact
Sheet HS-23, a series of the Horticultural Sciences Department, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.
Cutter, B.E., A.I.
Rahmadi, W.B. Kurtz, and S. Hodge. 1999. State policies
for agroforestry in the United States. Agrofor. Syst. 46 (3):217-227.
Daily, G. (ed.). 1997. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural
ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Dangerfield, C.W. and
R.L. Harwell. 1990. An analysis of a silvopastoral
system for the marginal land in the southeast United States. Agrofor. Syst.
10:187-197.
Daniels, R. B. and J.W. Gilliam. 1996. Sediment and chemical load reduction
by grass and riparian filters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:246-251.
David, P.P., D.K. Bonsi, E.G.
Rhoden, and V.A. Khan. 1993. An economic
evaluation of alley cropping grapes with selected vegetable crops. J. Small
Fruit and Viticulture 1:37-47.
Davis, J.M. 1993. Goldenseal: Cultivation of a rare botanical. Hortscience
28 (5):151.
Demurs, J.A. Ferguson. 1997. Medicinal ethnobotany in North Florida. M.S.
Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Diver, S. 2001. Bamboo: A multipurpose agroforestry crop. Horticulture
Production Guide. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Center:
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA). Fayetteville, AR.
Diver, S. and G. Ames. 2000. Sustainable Pecan Production. Horticulture
Production Guide. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Center:
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA). Fayetteville, AR.
Dix, M.E. 1991. Distribution of arthropod predators of insect pests in and
near windbreaks. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Agroforestry In North
America. Association for Temperate Agroforestry. August 18-21, 1991,
Springfield, MO.
Dix, M.E. 1996. Pest management in agroforestry systems. J. Forestry
94:8-12.
Dix, M., D. Hill, L. Buck, and W.
Rietveld. 1997. Forest Farming: An
Agroforestry Practice. Agroforestry Notes AF Note - 7. USDA National
Agroforestry Center.
Dix, M.E., B. Bishaw, S.W. Workman,
M.R. Barnhart, N.B. Klopfenstein, and
A.M. Dix. 1999. Pest management in energy- and labor-intensive agroforestry
systems. pp. 131-155 In L.E. Buck, J.P. Lassoie, and E.C.M. Fernandes (eds.)
Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. CRC Press, Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL.
Dosskey, M., R. Schultz, and T.
Isenhart. 1997a. Riparian Buffers for
Agricultural Land. Agroforestry Notes AF Note - 3. USDA National Agroforestry
Center.
Dosskey, M., R. Schultz, and T.
Isenhart. 1997b. A Riparian Buffer Design
for Cropland. Agroforestry Notes AF Note - 5. USDA National Agroforestry
Center.
Dronen, S.I. 1988. Layout and design criteria for livestock windbreaks.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 22/23:231-240.
Duke, J.A. 1997. The green pharmacy. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA.
Durst, R. and J. Monke. 2001. Effects of federal tax policy on agriculture.
Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA
Agricultural Economic Report 800.
Duryea, M.L. (ed.). 1988. Alternative enterprises for your forest land:
forest grazing, Christmas trees, hunting leases, pine straw, fee fishing, and
firewood. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, IFAS Circular No. 810. University of Florida, Gainesville.
30p.
Duryea, M.L. 2000. Pine straw management in Florida's forests. Circular
831. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida.
Duryea, M.L. and S.W. Vince. 2001. The
Wildland-Urban Interface: Balancing
Growth with Natural Resource Management and Conservation. November 5-8, 2001,
Conference. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of
Florida. p. 26 Introduction to the Wildland-Urban Interface. http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/urban/abstracts.pdf.
Ellis, E. 2001. System for selecting agroforestry trees for the Southeast
United States. Ph.D. Dissertation. School of Forest Resources and
Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Ellis, E.A., P.K.R.
Nair, P.E. Linehan, H.W. Beck, C.A. Blanche, and H.M. Rauscher. 2000. A GIS-based database management application for agroforestry
planning and tree selection. Computers and Electronics in Agric. 27:1-3.
Ewel, J.J. 1999. Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable
systems of land use. Agrofor. Syst. 45 (1-3):1-21.
FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization. 2001. Assessment of the world food
security situation. Twenty-seventh Session. Committee on World Food Security.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.
FDEP, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Surface Water.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/surfacewater/index.htm.
FFGA, Florida Fern Growers Association. 2001.
http://www.fl-ag.com/ferns/history.htm.
Felker, P. C.T.
Sorensson, D. Ueckert, P. Jacoby, E. Singer, and R. Ohm.
1998. Growth, cold-hardiness, protein content, and digestibility of 70
Leucaena seedlots on three sites in Texas, USA. Agrofor. Syst. 42:159-179.
Fitchen, J.M. 1991. Endangered spaces, enduring places: Change, identity,
and survival in rural America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Foster, S. 1993. Herbal renaissance. Gibbs-Smith
Publ., Salt Lake City, UT.
Garrett, H.E. and W.B. Kurtz. 1983. Silvicultural and economic
relationships of integrated forestry farming with black walnut. Agrofor. Syst.
1:245-256.
Garrett, H.E. and R.L. McGraw. 2000. Alley cropping practices. pp. 149-188
In Garrett, W.J. Rietveld and R.F. Fisher (eds.). North American Agroforestry:
An Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison WI.
Garrett, H.E., W.J.
Rietveld, and R.F. Fisher (eds.). 2000. North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Garrett, H.E, W.B. Kurtz,
L.E. Buck, M.A. Gold, L.H. Hardesty, J.P. Lassoie, H.A. Pearson, and J.P.
Slusher. 1994. Agroforestry: An integrated
land-use management system for production and farmland conservation. Prepared
for USDA SCS 68-3A75-3-134, Resource Conservation Act Appraisal. Association
for Temperate Agroforestry, Columbia, MO.
Georgia DNR/EPD, Department of Natural Resources/Environmental Protection
Division. 2002. Decades of Change. Report, April 2002. http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/gaenviron_files/annlrpt_files/ gaenv02.pdf.
Gillespie, A.R., S. Jose,
D.B. Mengel, W.L. Hoover, P.E. Pope, J.R. Siefert, D.J. Biehle, T. Stall, and
T.J. Benjamin. 2000. Defining competition
vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the midwestern USA: 1.
Production physiology. Agrofor. Syst. 48:25-40.
Gold, M. and L. Godsey. 2002. A framework to analyze markets for
traditional and nontraditional midwestern agroforestry products: the case of
Eastern Red Cedar. pp. 179-183 In W. Schroeder and J. Kort (eds.) Proceedings
of the Seventh Biennial Conference on Agroforestry in North America. August
13-15, 2001, Regina, Sask., Canada.
Grado, S.C., C.H.
Hovermale, and D.G. St. Louis. 2001. A financial analysis
of a silvopasture system in south Mississippi. Agrofor. Syst. 53:313-322.
Granskog, J.E., T. Haines,
J.L. Greene, B.A. Doherty, S. Bick, H.L. Haney
Jr., S.O. Moffat, J. Speir, and J.J. Spink. 2002. Policies, Regulations, and
Laws. Chapter 8, pp. 189-223 In D.N. Ware and J.G. Greis (eds.) Southern
Forest Resource Assessment. USDA Forest Service GTR SRS-53.
Gray, K. 2001. Alley cropping in Alabama. Association of Research
Directors, 1890s Universities, Annual Symposium. Alabama A&M University.
Groh, T. 2002. Florida's Forestry and Wildlife Cost Share Programs.
Available by Florida Division of Forestry. http://www.fl-dof.com/Help/stewardship/costshare.html.
Hagen, B. von, J.F.
Weigand, R. McLain, R. Fight, and H.H. Christensen.
1996. Conservation and development of nontimber products in the Pacific
Northwest: An annotated bibliography. USDA Forest Service PNW-GTR-375.
Halls, L.K., G.W. Burton, and
B.L. Southwell. 1957. Some results of seeding
and fertilization to improve southern forest ranges. USDA Forest Service SE
Exper. Stat. Res. Pap. 78. Ashville, NC.
Hammett, A.L. and J.L. Chamberlain. 2002. Greenery - An opportunity for
forest landowners. Forest Landowner 61 (2):44-46.
Hart, R.A. 1991. Forest gardening. Green Books, Foxhole,
Dartington, UK.
Hart, R.H., R.H. Hughes,
C.E. Lewis, and W.G. Monson. 1970. Effect of
nitrogen and shading on yield and quality of grasses grown under young slash
pines. Agron. J. 62:285-287.
Hawken, P. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce: A declaration of sustainability.
HarperCollins Pub., New York.
Henderson, D. (ed.). 1991. Proc. Mid-South Conference on Agroforestry
Practices and Policies. Winrock Int. Inst. for Agric. Dev., Morrilton, AR.,
West Memphis, AR.
Hernandez, H.M. and Y.C.
Abud. 1987. The reproductive ecology of trees in a
mountain mesophytic forest in Michoacan, Mexico. Boletin de la Sociedad
Botanica de Mexico 47:25-35.
Hill, D. 1999. Farming Exotic Mushrooms in the Forest. Agroforestry Notes
AF Note -13. USDA National Agroforestry Center.
Hill, D.B. and L.E. Buck. 2000. Forest Farming Practices. pp. 283-320 In
H.E. Garrett, W.J. Rietveld and R.F. Fisher (eds.). North American
agroforestry: An integrated science and practice. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Hill, D.B. and T.C. Webster. 1996. Apiculture and forestry (bees and
trees). Agrofor. Syst. 29:313-320.
Howarth, R., D. Anderson, J.
Cloern, C. Elfring, C. Hopkinson, R. Lapointe,
T. Malone, N. Marcus, K. McGalthery, A. Sharpley, and D. Walker. 1997.
Nutrient Pollution of Coastal Rivers, Bays, and Seas. Issues in Ecology, No.
7. Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC. http://esa.sdsc.edu/issues9.htm.
Hubbard, B., D. Faircloth, and A. Long. 1999. Recreation options for your
forestland. Factsheet SS FOR 4. School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida.
ICMA, International City/County Management Association. 2002. Getting to
Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation. 3 June 2002. http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf.
ICRAF, International Centre for Research in
Agroforestry. 2000. Trees of
Change: Corporate Report 2000. International Centre for Research in
Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.
IFCAE, Institute for Culture and Ecology. 2003. Southeastern States
Regional Workshop: Harvester involvement in inventorying and monitoring of
nontimber forest products. Atlanta, GA, Feb. 2003. www.ifcae.org/projects/ncssf1/southeastwksp/index.html
Israel, G.D. 1990. Characteristics of forest landowners in Northeast
Florida. Extension Document PE-9. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.
Israel, G.D. and D.L. Ingram. 1990. Characteristics of small farm operators
in North Central Florida. Extension Document PE-10. Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Jackson, R.B., S.R. Carpenter,
C.N. Dahm, D.M. McKnight, R.J. Naiman, S.L. Postel, and S.W. Running. 1997. Water in a Changing World. Issues in Ecology,
No. 9. Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC. http://esa.sdsc.edu/issues9.htm.
Jacobson, S.K. 1990. Graduate education in conservation biology.
Conserv.
Biol. 4:431-440.
Johnson, G.V. and W.R.
Raun. 1995. Nitrate leaching in continuous winter
wheat: use of a soil-plant buffering concept to account for fertilizer
nitrogen. J. Prod. Agric. 8:486-491.
Johnson R.H. and P.W. Bush. 2002. Summary of the hydrology of the Floridan
Aquifer System in Florida and in Parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and
Alabama. Professional Paper 1403-A. Center for Coastal Geology, U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/pp1403a/abstract.html.
Jones, E.T., R.J. McLain, and J. Weigand (eds.). 2002. Nontimber Forest
Products in the United States. Univ. Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Jordan, C.F. 1998a. Alley Cropping. pp. 14.1-14.5 In
P.G. Cannon (ed.)
Exploring agroforestry opportunities in the South. Southern Agroforestry
Conference sponsored by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the US
Forest Service, and Alabama A&M University. Oct. 1998. Huntsville, AL.
Jordan, C.J. 1998b. Working with Nature: Resource Management for
Sustainability. Overseas Publishers Assoc (OPA), Harwood Academic Publ.,
Amsterdam.
Jose, S., A. Gillespie, J.
Siefert, and D. Biehle. 2000a. Defining
competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the midwestern
USA: 2. Competition for water. Agrofor. Syst. 48:41-59.
Jose, S., A.R. Gillespie,
J.R. Siefert, D.B. Mengel and P.E. Pope. 2000b.
Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the
midwestern USA: 3. Competition for nitrogen and litter decomposition dynamics.
Agrofor. Syst. 48:61-77.
Josiah, S.J. (ed.). 1999. Farming the forest for specialty products. Proc.
North American Conference on Enterprise Development through Agroforestry. The
Center for Integrated Natural Resources and Agriculture Management (CINRAM) at
the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
Josiah, S.J. 2001a. Edible Woody Landscapes for People and Wildlife. School
of Natural Resources and Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE.
Josiah, S.J. 2001b. Marketing Specialty Forest Products. School of Natural
Resources and Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Josiah, S.J. 2001c. Productive Conservation: Growing Specialty Forest
Products in Agroforestry Plantings. School of Natural Resources and
Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Katz, B.G. and J.K.
Bohlke. 2000. Monthly variability and possible sources
of nitrate in ground water beneath mixed agricultural land use, Suwannee and
Lafayette Counties, Florida. Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4219.
U.S. Geological Survey/Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://fl.water.usgs.gov/PDF_files/wri00_4219_katz.pdf.
Kettler, J.S. (ed.). 1995. Proceedings of Southeastern Agroforestry
Workshop. Sept. 1995, Athens GA. UGA Crop and Soil Science and Institute of
Ecology along with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Kidd, C.V. and D.
Pimentel. 1990. Integrated Resource Management:
Agroforestry for Development. Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Pubs.,
in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Committee on Population, Resources, and the Environment, NY.
Kort, J. 1988. Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 22/23:165-190.
Kuhn, G. and J. Nuss. 2000. Wastewater Management Using Hybrid Poplar.
Agroforestry Notes AF Note -17. USDA National Agroforestry Center.
Kurtz, W.B. 2000. Economics and policy of
agroforestry. pp. 321-360 In H.E.
Garrett, W.J. Rietveld and R.F. Fisher (eds.) North American Agroforestry: An
Integrated Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison WI.
Kurtz, W.B., S.E. Thurman,
M.J. Monson, and H.E. Garrett. 1991. The use of
agroforestry to control erosion: Financial aspects. For. Chron. 67:254-257.
Lambin, E.F., B.L. Turner, H.J.
Geist, S.B. Agbola, A. Angelsen, J.W.
Bruce, O.T. Coomes, R. Dirzo, G. Fischer, and C. Folke. 2001. The causes of
land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental
Change 11:261-269.
Lappé, F.M., J. Collins, and P.
Rosset, with L. Esparza. 1998. World
Hunger: 12 Myths. Grove Press/Earthscan.
Lassoie, J.P. and L.E. Buck. 2000. Development of agroforestry as an
integrated land use management strategy. pp. 1-29 In H.E. Garrett, W.J.
Rietveld, and R.F. Fisher (eds.) North American Agroforestry: An Integrated
Science and Practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison WI.
Lassoie, J.P., P. Huxley and
L.E. Buck. 1994. Updating our ideas about
agroforestry education and training. Agrofor. Syst. 28:5-19.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1996. Definition of agroforestry revisited.
Agrofor. Today 8
(1):5-6.
Leakey, R.R.B. 1998. The use of biodiversity and implications for
agroforestry. pp. 43-58 In D.E. Leihner, T.A. Mitschein, and P. Lang (eds.) A
Third Millennium for Humanity? The Search for Paths of Sustainable
Development. Frankfurt, Germany.
Leakey, R.R.B. and A.J. Simons. 1997. The domestication and
commercialization of indigenous trees in agroforestry for the alleviation of
poverty. Agrofor. Syst. 38:165-176.
Lee K.H. and S. Jose. 2001. Soil respiration under different land
management practices in Northwestern Florida. p. 54 In Program Abstracts,
Seventh Biennial Conference on Agroforestry in North America, August 13-15,
2001, Regina, Sask., Canada.
Lewis, C.E. and H.A. Pearson. 1987. Agroforestry using tame pastures under
planted pines in the southeastern United States. pp. 195-212 In H.L. Gholz
(ed.) Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials. Nijhoff Junk,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Lewis, C.E., G.W. Tanner, and
W.S. Terry. 1985. Double vs. single-row pine
plantations for wood and forage production. S. Journal Appl. For. 9:55-61.
Lewis, C.E., G.W. Burton,
W.G. Monson, and W.C. McCormick. 1983.
Integrations of pines, pastures and cattle in south Georgia, USA. Agrofor.
Syst. 1:277-297.
Linnartz, N.E. and J.J. Johnson. (eds.) 1984. 33rd Annual Forestry
Symposium, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA.
Lohr, L. 1995. Economics of
agroforestry. pp. 9-10 In J. Kettler (ed.).
Proceedings of Southeastern Agroforestry Workshop. Sept. 1995, Athens GA. UGA
Crop and Soil Science and Institute of Ecology along with USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
Long, A.J. and P.K.R.
Nair. 1999. Trees outside forests: Agro-, community,
and urban forestry. New Forests 17:145-174.
Lowrance, R., R. Leonard, L.
Asmussen, and R. Todd. 1985. Nutrient budgets
for agricultural watersheds in the southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecology
66:287-296.
Lowrance, R., R.G. Williams,
S.P. Inamdar, D.D. Bosch, and J.M. Sheridan.
2001. Evaluation of Coastal Plain conservation buffers using the riparian
ecosystem management model. J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 37:1445-1455.
Lowrance, R., L.S.
Altier, J.D. Newbold, R.R. Schnabel, P.M. Groffman, J.M.
Denver, D.L. Correll, J.W. Gilliam, J.L. Robinson, R.B. Brinsfield, K.W.
Staver, W. Lucas, and A.H. Todd. 1997. Water quality functions of riparian
forest buffers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environ. Manage. 21:687-712.
Malik, R.K., T.H. Green,
G.F. Brown, and D. Mays. 2000. Use of cover crops
in short rotation hardwood plantations to control erosion. Biomass and
Bioenergy 18:479-487.
Marshall, M.G. and C.F. Bennett (eds.). 1998. Volume 6. Outputs of drinking
water quality programs. National Extension Targeted Water Quality Program,
1992-1995. Texas A&M University, State College, TX, cooperating with
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA.
Mater, C. 1994. Minnesota special forest products: A market study. Mater
Engineering and Minn. Dep. Of Nat. Res., Corvallis, OR.
Matson, P.A., W.J.
Parton, A.G. Power, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural
intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504-509.
Matta-Machado, R.P. and C.F. Jordan. 1995. Nutrient dynamics during the
first three years of an alley cropping agroecosystem in southern USA. Agrofor.
Systems 30:351-362.
McGowan, C.H., L. Carter, S.
Pancholy, and B.R. Phills. 1999. Statewide
Goat Program: Program Plan. Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University,
College of Engineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture, Tallahassee, FL.
McGraw, R.L, N.E.
Navarrete-Tindall, and J.W. Van Sambeek. 2001. Effects of
shade on growth and nodulation of six native legumes with potential for use in
agroforestry. p. 50 In Program Abstracts, Seventh Biennial Conference on
Agroforestry in North America. August 13-15, 2001, Regina, Sask., Canada.
McLeod, K.W., C. Sherrod Jr., and
T.E. Porch. 1987. Response of longleaf
pine plantations to litter removal. For. Ecol. Manage. 2:1-12.
Mercer, D.E. and R.P. Miller. 1997. Socioeconomic research in
agroforestry:
Progress, prospects and priorities. Agrofor. Syst. 38:177-193.
Merwin, M. 1997. The Status, Opportunities, and Needs for Agroforestry in
the United States. Association for Temperate Agroforestry (AFTA), University
of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Miller, R.A. 1988. Native plants of commercial importance. OAK, Grants
Pass, OR.
Montagnini, F. and
P.K.R. Nair. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An
under-exploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor. Syst.
(in press).
Morris, L.A., E.J.
Jokela, and J.B. O'Conner. 1992. Silvicultural
guidelines for pinestraw management in the southeastern United States. Georgia
For. Res. Pap. 88. Georgia Forestry Commission, Macon, GA.
Morton, J.F. 1981. Atlas of medicinal plants of Middle America: Bahamas to
Yucatan. CC Thomas Pub., Springfield, IL.
Mueller, J.P., J.M.
Luginbuhl, and B.A. Bergmann. 2001. Establishment and
early growth characteristics of six Paulownia genotypes for goat browse
in Raleigh, NC, USA. Agrofor. Syst. 52:63-72.
Muller, E.U. and S.J.
Scherr. 1990. Planning technical interventions in
agroforestry projects. Agrofor. Syst. 12:23-44.
NAC, National Agroforestry Center. 1998. Working Trees for Wildlife. USDA
National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE.
NAC, National Agroforestry Center. 2000a. Working Trees for Carbon:
Windbreaks in the U.S. USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE. http://www.unl.edu/nac/brochures/wbcarbon/wbcarbon.pdf.
NAC, National Agroforestry Center. 2000b. Working Trees for Carbon Cycle
Balance. USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE. http://www.unl.edu/nac/brochures/wtcarbon/wtcarbon.pdf.
Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian
corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol. Applications 3:209-212.
Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to
Agroforestry. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Nair, P.K.R. 1994.
Agroforestry. Encyclopedia of Agricultural Science
1:13-25, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Nair, P.K.R. and M.E. Bannister. 2001. Center for Subtropical
Agroforestry:
A new initiative for the southeastern USA. Annual Meeting Abstracts,
Charlotte, NC, November 2001.CD-ROM. Amer. Soc. Agron, Madison, WI.
Nair, P.K.R. and V.D.
Nair. 2003. Carbon storage in North American
agroforestry systems. pp. 333-346 In J.M. Kimble, L.S. Heath, R.A. Birdsey and
R. Lal (eds.) The Potential of U.S. Forest Soils to Sequester Carbon and
Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Nair, P.K.R., H.L.
Gholz, and M.L. Duryea (eds.). 1990. Agroforestry
education and training: present and future. Forestry Sciences 35. Kluwer Acad.
Publ., Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Nambiar, E.K.S., R. Sands, and P.M. Dougherty. 1993. Competition for water
and nutrients in forests. p. 10 In G.R.G.D.H. Gjerstad, R.J. Mitchell, S.B.
Horsley, R.A. Campbell, and S.M. Zedaker, (eds.) Proceedings of the
International Conference on Forest Vegetation Management. May 1992. Auburn
University. Vol. 23. Canadian J. For. Res.
NARC& DC, USDA National Association of RC&D Councils. 2000.
RC&D Survey of Agroforestry Practices. Spring, 2000. Washington, DC.
NASS, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Derived from data at
http://goveinfo.library.orst.edu/document/ag97/agcont.html.
NCDC, National Climatic Data Center. 2002. Climate of 2001 - Annual Review.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2001/win/us_regional.html.
Newman, S.M. and A.M. Gordon. 1997. Temperate
agroforestry: synthesis and
future directions. pp. 251-266 In A.M. Gordon and S.M. Newman (eds.) Temperate
Agroforestry Systems. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Ng H.Y.F., C.F. Drury,
V.K. Serem, C.S. Tan, and J.D. Gaynor. 2000.
Modeling and testing of the effect of tillage, cropping and water management
practices on nitrate leaching in clay loam soil. Agric. Water Manage.
43:111-131.
Norton, R.L. 1988. Windbreaks: Benefits to orchard and vineyard crops.
Agric. Ecos. Environ. 22/23:165-190.
Nowak, J. and A. Blount. 2002. Silvopasture - More than Cattle Grazing in
Pine Plantations. Forest Landowner 61 (2):10-13.
NRC, National Research Council, Board on Agriculture. 1998. Changing
conditions of the forest. pp. 57-71 In Forested landscapes in perspective:
prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America's nonfederal
forests. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRCS, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1997. Alley cropping.
Conservation Practice Job Sheet No. 311. USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Washington, DC.
Onokpise, O., L. Carter, J.
Beauduin, and A. Jakes. 2002. Agrosilvopastoral
System Involving Meat Goats and Swine, Tallahassee, Florida. Available by
Center for Subtropical Agroforestry. http://cstaf.ifas.ufl.edu.
Orfanedes, M., J. Crane, and C.
Balerdi. 2001. Tropical and Subtropical
Fruit Crops for the Home Landscape: Alternatives to Citrus. Part of a series
of the Horticultural Sciences Department. Tropical Research and Education
Center, University of Florida.
Orr, D. 1991. Biological diversity, agriculture, and the liberal arts.
Conserv. Biol. 5:268-270.
Palada, M. 2002. Tree-crop Integration with High-value Horticultural Crops,
St. Croix, Virgin Islands. http://cstaf.ifas.ufl.edu.
Pallardy, S., D.
Gibbins, and J. Rhoads. 2002. Above and below-ground
biomass production by two-year-old poplar clones on floodplain sites in the
lower Midwest, U.S.A. pp. 34-39 In W. Schrodder and J. Kort (eds.) Proceedings
of the Seventh Biennial Conference on Agroforestry in North America. August
13-15, 2001, Regina, Sask., Canada.
Parry, M. 2001. Climate change: Where should our research priorities be?
Global Environmental Change 11:257-260.
Pearson, H.A. 1975. Exotic grass yields under southern pines. USDA Forest
Service Southern For. Exper. Stat. Res. Note SO-201. New Orleans, LA.
Pearson, H.A. 1997.
Silvopastures: Forest grazing and agroforestry in the
southern Coastal Plain. pp. 25-42 In D. Henderson (ed.) Proc. Mid-South Conf.
On Agroforestry Practices and Policies. West Memphis, AR. Aug 1991. Winrock
International Inst. For Agric. Development. Morrilton, AR.
Pearson, H.A. and A. Martin Jr. 1991. Goats for vegetation management on
the Ouachita National Forest. pp. 59-73 In G. Solaiman and W.A. Hill (eds.)
1991. Using goats to manage forest vegetation: A regional inquiry. Workshop
Proceedings. Tuskegee University Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee,
AL.
Pearson, H.A., V.C. Baldwin, and J.P. Barnett. 1990. Cattle grazing and
pine survival and growth in sub-terranean clover pasture. Agrofor. Syst.
10:161-168.
Prestemon, J. and R.
Abt. 2002. Timber products supply and demand. Chapter
13, pp. 299-325 In D.N. Ware and J.G. Greis (eds.) Southern Forest Resource
Assessment. USDA Forest Service GTR SRS-53.
Primault, B. 1979. Optimum climate for animals. pp. 182-189 In J.
Seemannetal (ed.) Agrometeorology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Qiu, Z. and T. Prato. 1998. Economic evaluation of riparian buffers in an
agricultural watershed. J. Am. Water Resources Assoc. 34:877-884.
Ramsey, C. and S. Jose. 2002. Management challenges of temperate alley
cropping systems from southern USA. pp. 158-163 In W. Schrodder and J. Kort
(eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Conference on Agroforestry in North
America., August 13-15, 2001, Regina, Sask., Canada.
Rathke, D.M. and M.J. Baughman. 1993. Can shiitake production be
profitable? Shiitake News 10 (1):1-7,10,13.
Reid, W.R. 1991. Low input management systems for native pecans. pp.
140-158 In H.E. Garrett (ed.) Proc. Second Conference on Agroforestry in North
America, August 1991, Springfield, MO.
Rhoades, C.C., T.M.
Nissen, and J.S. Kettler. 1998. Soil nitrogen dynamics
in alley cropping and no-till systems on Ultisols of the Georgia Piedmont,
U.S.A. Agrofor. Syst. 39:31-44.
Rietveld, W.J. and S.W. Workman. 1998. Compendium of institutional
agroforestry activities: A computer database of existing agroforestry
research, teaching, extension and international activities in the USA.
Available by USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE. http://www.unl.edu/nac/database/index.html.
Robinson, J. and T.
Clason. 1997. From a pasture to a silvopasture system.
Agroforestry Notes AF Note - 22. USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln,
NE.
Robinson, J., S. Brantley, and T.
Clason. 2001. Silvopasture - From
research to field applications: Researchers, multi-discipline technology
transfer specialists and landowners getting the job done. p. 311 In
Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Conference on Agroforestry in North
America. August 13-15, 2001, Regina, Sask., Canada.
Robles-Diaz-de-Leon,
L.F., and P. Kangas. 1999. Evaluation of potential
gross income from non-timber products in a model riparian forest for the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Agrofor. Syst. 44:215-225.
Rockwood, D.L. 1996. Using fast-growing hardwoods in Florida. Florida
Energy Extension Service. University of Florida Fact Sheet EES-328. 8p.
Rockwood, D.L. 1997. Eucalyptus -- Pulpwood, Mulch or Energy Wood? Circular
1194. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida.
Rockwood, D.L., N.N.
Pathak, and P.C. Satapathy. 1993. Woody biomass
production systems for Florida. Biomass & Bioenergy 5 (1):23-34.
Sabota, C. 1993. The effects of Shiitake mushroom strains and wood species
on the yield of Shiitake mushrooms. pp. 45-58 In Proc. National Shiitake
Mushroom Symposium. Huntsville AL.
Sampson, R.N. and D. Hair. 1990. Natural resources for the 21st Century.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Sanford, M.T. 1988. Beekeeping: Florida bee botany. Circular 686, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida. 5p.
Sanford, M.T. 2000. Florida's climate and its beekeeping. Factsheet
ENY-134, Entomology and Nematology Department, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
8p.
Savory, A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island Press, Washington,
DC.
Schaefer, J.M. and M.T. Brown. 1992. Designing and protecting river
corridors for wildlife. Rivers 3:14-26.
Schimel, D.S., J.I. House,
K.A. Hibbard, P. Bousquet, P. Ciais, P. Peylin, B.H. Braswell, M.J. Apps, D. Baker, A.
Bondeau, J. Canadell, G. Churkina, W.
Cramer, A.S. Denning, C.B. Field, P. Friedlingstein, C. Goodale, M. Heimann,
R.A. Houghton, J.M. Melillo, B. Moore, D. Murdiyarso, I. Noble, S.W. Pacala,
I.C. Prentice, M.R. Raupach, P.J. Rayner, R.J. Scholes, W.L. Steffen, and C.
Wirth. 2001. Recent patterns and mechanisms of carbon exchange by terrestrial
ecosystems. Nature 414:169-172.
Schlosser, W.E. and K.
Blatner. 1997. Special forest products: An east-side
perspective. USDA For. Serv. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GRT-380.
Schultz, R.C, J.P.
Colletti, and R.R. Faltonson. 1995. Agroforestry
opportunities for the United States of America. Agrofor. Syst. 31 (2):117-132.
Schultz, R.C., J.P.
Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, C.O. Marquez, W.W. Simpkins,
and C.J. Ball. 2000. Riparian forest buffer practices. pp. 189-281 In H.E.
Garrett, W.J. Rietveld, and R.F. Fisher (eds.). North American agroforestry:
An integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Scoones, I. and J. Thompson. 1994. Knowledge, power and agriculture -
towards a theoretical understanding. p. 16 In Beyond Farmer First. I. Scoones
and J. Thompson (eds). Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
SCS, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Forest management: A viable
alternative on marginal croplands eligible for the Conservation Reserve
Program. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
Shannon, D. and L. Isaac. 1998. Alley cropping research experience in
Haiti. pp. 15.1-15.10 In P.G. Cannon (ed.). Exploring agroforestry
opportunities in the South. Southern Agroforestry Conference sponsored by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the US Forest Service, and Alabama
A&M University. Oct. 1998. Huntsville, AL.
Shannon, D., K. Yoo, and K.
Kabaluapa. 2002. Environmental benefits of
agroforestry systems: Soil and water conservation. Available by Center for
Subtropical Agroforestry, School of Forest Resources, University of Florida.
http://cstaf.ifas.ufl.edu.
Shrestha, R. and J.R.R.
Alavalapati. 2002. Valuing environmental benefits
of agroforestry using attribute-based stated preference method. Presented at
2nd World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists. Monterey, CA,
June 24-27, 2002.
Sinclair, F. 1999. A general classification of agroforestry practice.
Agrofor. Syst. 46:161-180.
Smith, J.R. 1953. Tree crops: A permanent agriculture. The Devin-Adair Co.,
New York.
Soemarwoto, O. 1987.
Homegardens: A traditional agroforestry system with a
promising future. pp. 157-170 In H.A. Steppler and P.K.R. Nair (eds.)
Agroforestry: A decade of development. International Centre for Research in
Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.
Solaiman, G. and W.A. Hill. (eds.) 1991. Using goats to manage forest
vegetation: A regional inquiry. Workshop Proceedings. Tuskegee University
Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee, AL.
Soule, M.J., A. Tegene, and
K.D. Wiebe. 2000. Land Tenure and the Adoption
of Conservation Practices. Amer. Agr. Econ. 82:993-1005.
SRS, US Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 2002. Silvicultural
Investments, SRS/RWU-4802 New Orleans, LA. http://www.srs.fs.fed.us/4802/Silvicultural%20Investments.htm.
Stamets, P. 2000. Growing Gourmet and Medicinal Mushrooms. Third Edition.
Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, CA.
Stamps, W.T., T.W. Woods,
M.J. Linit, and H.E. Garrett. 2002. Arthropod
diversity in alley cropped black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) stands in
eastern Missouri, USA. Agrofor Syst. 56:167-175.
Stein, T.V. 1998.
Ecotourism: A new land management opportunity for private
landowners. Florida Forests 5:36-38.
Svedin, U. 1999. Urban and non-urban environmental policies as expressions
of changed perceptions about ways of handling societal change. pp. 231-242 In
Lindqvist, C. and Wallenius, L.L. (eds.) Globalization and Its Impact On
Chinese and Swedish Society. Stockholm, Sweden.
SWCS, Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2002. Seeking Common Ground: How
Conservation Measures Up in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. Available online, posted June 20, 2002. http://www.swcs.org.
Sykes, K.J., A.W.
Perkey, and R.S. Palone. 1994. Crop tree management in
riparian zones. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private
Forestry, Morgantown, WV. http://www.fsl.wvnet.edu/frm/wateshed/riparian.html.
Tanner, G. 2002. Wildlife benefits of silvopastoral systems. University of
Florida, North Florida Research and Education Center. Marianna, FL.
Tanner, G.W, J.J.
Mullahey, and D. Maehr. 1999. Saw-palmetto: An
ecologically and economically important native palm. Wildlife Ecology and
Conservation Circular WEC-109. Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. 3 p.
Teal, W.S. and L.E. Buck. 2002. Between wildcrafting and monocultures:
Agroforestry options. pp. 199-222 In E.T. Jones, R.J. McLain, and J. Weigand
(eds.) Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. University Press of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Teasley, R.J., J.C. Bergstrom,
H.K. Cordell, S.J. Zarnoch, and P. Gentle.
1997. The use of private lands in the U.S. for outdoor recreation: Results of
a nationwide survey. UGA Faculty Series 97-19. University of Georgia, Athens,
GA. 102 p.
Thomas, M.G. and D.R. Schumann. 1993. Income opportunities in special
forest products. Agric. Inf. Bull. 666. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Twilley, R.R., E.J. Barron,
H.L. Gholz, M.A. Harwell, R.L. Miller, D.J.
Reed, J.B. Rose, E.H. Siemann, R.G. Wetzel, and R.J. Zimmerman. 2001.
Confronting climate change in the Gulf Coast Region: Prospects for sustaining
our ecological heritage. Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society
of America. UCS Publications, Cambridge MA. http://www.ucsusa.org.
Tyndall, J. and J.
Colletti. 2002. Shelterbelts, livestock odor mitigation,
and sustainable agriculture: A research framework. pp. 206-219 In W. Schroeder
and J. Kort (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Conference on
Agroforestry in North America. August 13-15, 2001, Regina, Sask., Canada.
UCS, Union of Concerned Scientists. 2001. Global warming.
http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html.
USDA-NRCS-RID. 1997. National Resources Inventory. Land use since 1850.
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. www.nrcs.usda.gov
USDA-SARE. 2003. What is Sustainable Agriculture? USDA, Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education program. http://www.sare.org/htdocs/docs/SANand SARE.html
USFS, USDA Forest Service. 2002. Forest Legacy Program.
http://www.southernregion.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/legacy/default.htm.
Verchot, L.V., E.C. Franklin, and
J.W. Gilliam. 1997. Nitrogen cycling in
Piedmont vegetated filter zones: II. Subsurface nitrate removal. J. Environ.
Qual. 26:337-347.
Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J.
Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human
domination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.
Wade, T. and P.S. Tucker. 1996. Florida water policy issues.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/pubs.htm.
Wallace, D., W. Geyer, and J. Dwyer. 2000.
Waterbreaks: Managed trees for
the floodplain. Agroforestry Notes AF Note - 19. USDA National Agroforestry
Center, Lincoln, NE.
Ware, D.N. 2002. Land Use. Chapter 6, pp.153-173 In
D.N. Ware and J.G.
Greis (eds.) Southern Forest Resource Assessment. USDA Forest Service GTR
SRS-53.
Ware, D.N and J.G.
Greis. 2002. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. USDA
Forest Service in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, Southern Group of State
Foresters, and Southern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. September
2002 with summary report October 2002.
Weigand, J. 2002. The Caribbean Basin: Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. pp. 75-80 In E.T. Jones, R.J. McLain, and J. Weigand (eds.)
Nontimber Forest Products in the United States. University Press of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS.
Wells, G. 2002. Biotechnical streambank protection: The use of plants to
stabilize streambanks. Agroforestry Notes AF Note - 23. USDA National
Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE.
Welsch, D.J. 1991. Riparian forest buffers: Function and design for
protection and enhancement of water resources. USDA Forest Service, document #
NA-PR-07-91. Northeastern Area S&P Forestry, Radnor, PA.
West, B. 2002. Water Quality in the South. Chapter 19, pp. 455-477 In
D.N.
Ware and J.G. Greis (eds.) Southern Forest Resource Assessment. USDA Forest
Service GTR SRS-53.
Williams, P.A., A.M. Gordon,
H.E. Garrett, and L. Buck. 1997. Agroforestry
in North America and its role in farming systems. pp. 9-84 In A.M. Gordon and
S.M. Newman (eds.) Temperate Agroforestry Systems. CAB International, Oxon,
UK.
Williamson, J. and P.
Lyrene. 1997. Florida's Commercial Blueberry
Industry. Fact Sheet HSP 742, of the Horticultural Sciences Department.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida.
Workman, S.W., M.E. Bannister, and
P.K.R. Nair. 2002a. Agroforestry in the
southeastern United States: Current practices and potential for development.
pp. 81-93 In W. Schroeder and J. Kort (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh
Biennial Conference on Agroforestry in North America. August 13-15, Regina,
Sask., Canada.
Workman, S.W., M.E. Bannister, and
P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Agroforestry
potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and
extension professionals. Agroforesty Systems 59:73.-83
Workman, S.W., A.J. Long, S. Mohan, and
M.C. Monroe. 2002b. Agroforestry:
options for landowners. Factsheet FOR 104, School of Forest Resources and
Conservation. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Wright, D.G., R.W. Mullen,
W.E. Thomason, and W.R. Raun. 2001. Estimated
land area increase of agricultural ecosystems to sequester excess atmospheric
carbon dioxide. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Analysis 32 (11-12):1803-1812.
Wright, L.L. and J.W.
Ranney. 1991. Short rotation woody crops: Using
agroforestry technology for energy in the United States. Report:
CONF-9109448-1. Department of Energy, Washington, DC/Oak Ridge, TN.
Wright, S. 2000. Where river flows through forest. National Wildlife
Federation. National Wildlife Magazine 38 (4):38-44.
Zinkhan, F.C. and D.E. Mercer. 1997. An assessment of agroforestry systems
in the southern USA. Agrofor. Syst. 35:303-321.
White
Paper Table of Contents
Footnotes
1. This document is
Circular 1446, one of a series through the Center for Subtropical Agroforestry
(CSTAF), School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. First Published: June 2004. For
more information, contact CSTAF, PO Box 110831, Gainesville, FL 32611, or
http://CSTAF.ifas.ufl.edu. Portions of this material are taken from Workman,
Bannister and Nair (2003), Agroforestry Systems 59: 73-83,
courtesy of Kluwer Academic Publishers. Please visit the EDIS Web site at
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
2. Sarah W. Workman,
Visiting Assistant Professor, and Samuel C. Allen, Postdoctoral Researcher,
School of Forest Resources and Conservation and Center for Subtropical
Agroforestry, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, Gainesville, 32611.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Employment
Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer authorized to provide research,
educational information and other services only to individuals and
institutions that function without regard to race, creed, color, religion,
age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin,
political opinions or affiliations. For information on obtaining other
extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension Service
office.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service / Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences / University of Florida / Larry R. Arrington, Interim
Dean
Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted by the University
of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the
people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all
conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the
Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida.
Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for
educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS,
citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.
|
|