The ecological interaction among components in temperate agroforestry systems is a broad topic to cover in a single chapter; however, some generalizations can be made based on the available literature. For example, even though the impacts of competition for light, water, and nutrients can be difficult to separate for a given system due to temporal changes in climate, level of fertilization, and the varying effects that both species diversity and species size have on a system, crop production is typically decreased in areas immediately surrounding trees in agroforestry systems. In some cases, however, such as with shelterbelts, trees can have a positive impact on overall crop production or, in the case of silvopastoral systems, improve the quality of forage despite the decrease in forage production. Even though crop yields may be decreased compared with monocultural systems, by incorporating multiple species in a single system there is a possibility to increase the overall biomass production and economic value.
In addition to the potential for increased production from agroforestry systems compared with conventional agriculture, there are other potential benefits of agroforestry systems. For example, evidence supporting the safety net role of trees in temperate alley‐cropping systems shows both a reduction in the contamination of surface and subsurface water and a reduced competition for nutrients. Furthermore, this safety net effect can also be seen in woody riparian buffer strips, which can be incorporated into any agricultural system, including conventional agriculture.
Several information gaps still exist that need immediate attention by the scientific community. These vary from quantifying the interactive effects of multiple resources on system productivity to studying broader landscape‐level interactions of agroforestry systems within the landscape matrix. Despite these limitations, there is evidence that competition for light, water, and nutrients, in combination with other factors, such as allelopathy, can be managed through both the design and maintenance of agroforestry systems so that the competitive influence is minimized while the facilitative influence is maximized. This offers promise to the long‐term ecological sustainability of agroforestry systems.
References
1 Albaugh, J. M., Albaugh, T. J., Heiderman, R. R., Leggett, Z., Stape, J. L., King, K., . . . King, J. S. (2014). Evaluating changes in switchgrass physiology, biomass, and light‐use efficiency under artificial shade to estimate yields if intercropped with Pinus taeda L. Agroforestry Systems, 88, 489‐503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457‐014‐9708‐3
2 Allen, S. C., Jose, S., Nair, P. K. R., Brecke, B. J., Nair, V. D., Graetz, D. A., & Ramsey, C. L. (2005). Nitrogen mineralization in a pecan (Carya illinoensis K. Koch)–cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) alley cropping system in the southern United States. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 41, 28–37.
3 Allen, S. C., Jose, S., Nair, P. K. R., Brecke, B. J., Nkedi‐Kizza, P., & Ramsey, C. L. (2004a). Safety‐net role of tree roots: Evidence from a pecan (Carya illinoensis K. Koch)–cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) alley cropping system in the southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 192, 395–407.
4 Allen, S. C., Jose, S., Nair, P. K. R., Brecke, B. J., & Ramsey, C. L. (2004b). Competition for 15N‐labeled fertilizer in a pecan (Carya illinoensis K. Koch)–cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) alley cropping system in the southern United States. Plant and Soil, 263, 151–164.
5 Alley, J. L., Garrett, H. E., McGraw, R. L., & Blanche, C. A. (1998). Forage legumes as living mulches for trees in agroforestry practices: Preliminary results. Agroforestry Systems, 44, 281–291.
6 Altieri, M. A. (1991). Increasing biodiversity to improve pest management in agro‐ecosystems. In D. L. Hawksworth (Ed.), The biodiversity of microorganisms and invertebrates: Its role in sustainable agriculture (pp. 165–182). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
7 Artru, S., Garré, S., Dupraz, C., Hiel, M. P., Blitz‐Frayret, C., & Lassois, L. (2017). Impact of spatio‐temporal shade dynamics on wheat growth and yield, perspectives for temperate agroforestry. European Journal of Agronomy, 82, 60–70.
8 Asbjornsen, H., Shepherd, G., Helmers, M., & Mora, G. (2008). Seasonal patterns in depth of water uptake under contrasting annual and perennial systems in the Corn Belt region of the midwestern US. Plant and Soil, 308, 69–92.
9 Atangana, A., Khasa, D., Chang, S., & Degrande, A. (2014). Tropical agroforestry. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Nature.
10 Bagley, W. T. (1964). Responses of tomatoes and beans to windbreak shelter. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 19, 71–73.
11 Baraldi, R., Bertazza, G., Bogino, J., Luna, V., & Bottini, R. (1995). The effect of light quality on Prunus cerasus: II. Changes in hormone levels in plants grown under different light conditions. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 62, 800–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751‐1097.1995.tb08732.x
12 Bobryk, C. W., Rega, C. C., Bardhan, S., Farina, A., He, H., & Jose, S. (2016). Assessing structural and compositional resources in temperate agroforestry systems using soundscape analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 90, 997–1008.
13 Bonilla, C. A., Muñoz, J. F., & Vauclin, M. (1999). Opus simulation of water dynamics and nitrate transport in a field plot. Ecological Modelling, 122, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304‐3800(99)00119‐2
14 Boring, L. R., & Swank, W. T. (1984). The role of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) in forest succession. Journal of Ecology, 72, 749–766.
15 Brandle, J. R., Hodges, L., & Zhou, X. (2004). Windbreaks in sustainable agriculture. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 65–78.
16 Brenner, A. J. (1996). Microclimatic modifications in agroforestry. In C.K. Ong and P. Huxley (Eds.), Tree–crop interactions: A physiological approach (pp. 159–187). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
17 Brooker, R. W., & Callaghan, T. V. (1998). The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: A model. Oikos, 81, 196–207.
18 Bugg, R. L., Sarrantonio, M., Dutcher, J. D., & Phatak, S. C. (1991). Understory cover crops in pecan orchards: Possible management systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 6, 50–62.
19 Burgess, S. S. O., Adams, M. A., Turner, N. C., & Ong, C. K. (1998). The redistribution of soil water by tree root systems. Oecologia, 115, 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050521
20 Burner, D. M. (2003). Influence of alley crop environment on orchardgrass and tall fescue herbage. Agronomy Journal, 95, 1163–1171. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2003.1163
21 Caldwell, M. M., & Richards, J. H. (1989). Hydraulic lift: Water efflux from upper roots improves effectiveness of water uptake by deep roots. Oecologia, 79, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378231
22 Cannell, M. G. R., van Noordwijk, M., & Ong, C. K. (1996). The central agroforestry hypothesis: The trees must acquire resources that the crop would not otherwise acquire. Agroforestry Systems, 34, 27–31.
23 Casper, B. B., & Jackson, R. B. (1997). Plant competition underground. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28, 545–570. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.545
