Missouri
Acknowledgments
The 3rd edition of North American Agroforestry would not have been possible were it not for the assistance of two supporting co‐editors in the preparation of the 1st edition. The current editors express their thanks to W. J. “Bill” Rietveld and R. F. “Dick” Fisher for making this 3rd edition possible. Many hours are spent preparing chapters of the nature found in this text, as is also the case for reviewers who give freely of their time. The editors wish to extend a very special thanks to the authors and dedicated reviewers for their contributions. We also are grateful to Caroline Todd at the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry for the logistical support she provided during this project.
The senior editor would be remiss if he did not acknowledge his wife, Joyce, who provided guidance and computer skills in revising and formatting chapters. Without her very capable assistance and encouragement, his job as a co‐editor would have been many times more difficult. And last but not least, to the many contributors to the temperate zone, agroforestry literature, the editors express acknowledgement and appreciation for a job well done!
This work is partially supported by the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry and USDA ARS Dale Bumpers Small Farm Research Center, Agreement number 58‐6020‐6‐001 from the USDA ARS.
1 Agroforestry as an Integrated, Multifunctional Land Use Management Strategy
Shibu Jose, Harold E. “Gene” Garrett, Michael A. Gold, James P. Lassoie, Louise E. Buck, and Dean Current
Agriculture is in the midst of a 21st century technological revolution, and we are well into the digital age of farming. The development of agriculture over 10,000 yr, including the technological advancements of the 20th century, has helped push the world population to 7.5 billion, with projections of 9.8 billion by 2050 (Searchinger et al., 2018). While the Green Revolution has helped to feed billions of people, the global environmental footprint of modern agriculture threatens the very existence of the socio‐ecological system in which we live (Funabashi, 2018). The natural resource base, including soil and water, that supports agriculture is experiencing immense pressure. The world is looking for sustainable solutions not only for food security but also for environmental security for the burgeoning population (Searchinger et al., 2018).
The United States led the agricultural revolution with a massive commitment to enhancing food and fiber production capabilities. The overall strategy was to become self‐sufficient with respect to agricultural crops and timber while improving the health and welfare of rural Americans. Obviously, this was successful within well‐defined limits—today, food remains plentiful and relatively inexpensive, the timber famine was averted, and forest and farm lands abound. Such gains, however, did not come without some high environmental costs, and by the 1970s the public was demanding more environmentally benign land use practices (Laurence, 1987).
As a consequence of the environmental transgressions committed during the construction of our industrialized nation, new criteria for defining successful land use management strategies were identified during the late 1980s (Turner, 1988). Sustainability, stability, and equability have now joined increased production efficiency as objectives for agriculture (Conway, 1987), and forestry is developing new management strategies that optimize the yield of many products and multiple uses rather than merely maximizing the production of one—timber (Coufal & Webster, 1996; Gillis, 1990; Maser, 1994). But what about the hybrid between agriculture and forestry that is practiced worldwide—integrative management systems far more common than the developed world’s often myopic approach to the production of a limited number of monocultures? Many professionals believe that agroforestry is a strategy for sustainable land use management that might be useful throughout North America (Garrett et al., 1994; Gold & Hanover, 1987; Kremen & Merenlender, 2018; Wiersum, 1990).
As we have moved into the 21st century, concerns have been raised about our dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels, and the CO2 emissions from our past and continued use of fossil fuels have increasingly been linked to global warming issues. The production of biofuels and energy from herbaceous and woody biomass has become a major interest with increasing amounts of research funding and private investment. Agroforestry practices combining herbaceous and woody species could play an important role in both the production of biomass for biofuels and energy as well as systems that enhance the ability of agricultural cropping to sequester and store carbon without the ecological problems of currently utilized agricultural systems (Downing, Volk, & Schmidt, 2005; Feliciano, Ledo, Hiller, & Nayak, 2018; Gruenewald et al., 2007; Holzmueller & Jose, 2012; Peichl, Thevathasan, Huss, & Gordon, 2006; Schoeneberger, 2005; Volk et al., 2006; White et al., 2007).
Because of its diversity, defining agroforestry could easily occupy an entire article—in fact on a number of occasions, it has (see Atangana, Khasa, Chang, & Degrande, 2013, pp. 35–47; Elevitch, Mazaroli, & Ragon, 2018; Lundgren, 1982; Nair, Viswanath, & Lubina, 2017). Presently, the concepts and practices of agroforestry in the United States are reasonably well understood within most professional circles to include “… intensive land management that optimizes the benefits (physical, biological, ecological, economic, social) arising from biophysical interactions created when trees and/or shrubs are deliberately combined with crops and/or livestock” (revised from Garrett et al., 1994). In identifying a niche for domestic agroforestry, emphasis must be directed toward a practice meeting the requirements of the four I’s–that is, it must be intentional, intensive, integrative, and interactive. As discussed below, the options available under this definition are many (also see Chapter 2; Gold & Hanover, 1987; Campbell, Lottes, & Dawson, 1991; Schultz, Colletti, & Faltonson, 1995). Agroforestry practices in the North America involve more than the production of single products (e.g., monoculture field crops, livestock feedlots, forest plantations, biomass plantings, etc.), the extensive collection of special forest products (e.g., floral greens, mushrooms, wild game, etc.), or the extensive grazing of livestock in woodlots or on open ranges. This is not to minimize the importance of such land uses, but each one is already well supported by an established knowledge base and a well‐educated group of practicing management professionals. Combining such practices into agroforestry arrangements that are ecologically sound and economically viable is a totally different story!
Intensive production of agricultural and forestry monocultures is found in both advanced, developed countries (e.g., corn [Zea mays L.], soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], pine [Pinus spp.], fruit and nut orchards, vineyards) and many tropical regions in the form of woody perennial tropical tree, shrub, and vine crops including oil palm (Elaeis spp.), rubber [Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A. Juss.) Müll. Arg.], tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze], coffee (Coffea spp.), pepper (Piper nigrum L.), and vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Jacks.) (Chambers, Pacey, & Thrupp, 1989; Jha et al., 2014; Liu, Kuchma, & Krutovsky, 2018; Pacheco, Gnych, Dermawan, Komarudin, & Okarda, 2017; Richards, 1985). On the other hand, agroforestry has remained the primary land use approach most common throughout the developing world (King, 1987; Mercer, 2004), where complex indigenous farming systems for food, fiber, and forage production have operated effectively for centuries (Nair, 1993). Not only have such agroforestry systems produced a variety of commodities for home use and/or sale, it is likely that they have offered a level of environmental protection unmatched by most modern land use technologies. Such dual features—production and protection—have become the basis for the concept of sustainability, which is now central to international development activities aimed at breaking the negative feedback relationship between intensive land use and progressive environmental degradation. Similarly, concepts such as “productive conservation” and “multifunctional agriculture,” which combine production agriculture with conservation
