Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 167–175 | Cite as

Tree planting pattern effects on forage production in a Douglas-fir agroforest

  • S. H. Sharrow
Article

Abstract

Resource sharing among agroforestry system components, as expressed by spatial patterns along interfaces between components, is a crucial factor in both understanding present systems and in designing new agroforestry applications. A study of the spatial pattern of forage production surrounding 9–10 year old Douglas-fir trees in a agrosilvopastoral plantation near Corvallis, Oregon, was conducted during 1988 and 1989. Transects of plots were clipped both between trees (tree/tree) and between trees and open pastures (tree/pasture). Best-fit regression models relating forage production to distance from trees (tree/tree R2 = 0.87; and tree/pasture R2 = 0.89) were combined into a single prediction model. Observed forage production increased rapidly with increasing distance from trees during the initial 4 m. Trees had little effect on forage production beyond 4.5 m (approximately 2 canopy diameters) from the nearest tree. Predictions of different combinations of tree density and planting pattern indicated a strong interaction between density and pattern with highly aggregated plantations better able to maintain forage production at high tree densities.

Key words

agrosilvopastoral sheep conifer clover competition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, JF (1964) Zonation of understory around a juniper tree. J Range Manage 17: 41–42Google Scholar
  2. Avery, M and Gordon, J (1983) New frontiers in agroforestry: consequences of pattern in tree and forage systems. In: Hannaway, DB, ed., Foothills for food and forests. Timber Press, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, pp 261–270Google Scholar
  3. Buck, MG (1986) Concepts of resource sharing in agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 4: 191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doyle, CJ, Evans, J and Rossiter, J (1986) Agroforestry: An economic appraisal of the benefits of intercropping trees with grassland in lowland Britain. Agroforestry Systems 21: 1–32Google Scholar
  5. Draper, N and Smith, H (1981) Applied regression analysis. John Wiley and Sons, NYGoogle Scholar
  6. Everett, RL, Sharrow, SH and Meeuwig, RO (1983) Pinyon-juniper woodland understory distribution patterns and species associations. Bull Torry Bot Club, 110: 454–463Google Scholar
  7. Huxley, PA (1985) The tree/crop interface: or simplifying the biological/environmental study of mixed cropping agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 3: 251–266Google Scholar
  8. Knezevich CA (1975) Soil survey of Benton County area, Oregon. USDA, Soil Conservation ServiceGoogle Scholar
  9. Krueger, WC (1981) How a forest affects a forage crop. Rangelands 3: 70–71Google Scholar
  10. Larson FR and Wolters GL (1983) Overstory-understory relationships: mixed conifer forests. In: Overstory-understory relationships in western forests. USDA For Serv West Reg Res Pub 1, pp 21–25Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, CE, Tanner, GW and Terry, WS (1985) Double vs. single-row pine plantations for wood and forage production. Southern J Appl Forestry 9: 55–61Google Scholar
  12. Reid, R and Wilson, G (1985) Agroforestry in Australia and New Zealand. Goddard and Wilson, Victoria, Australia, 223 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Tombleson, JD and Inglis, S (1986) Comparison of radiata pine shelterbelts and plantations. In: Maclaren, P, ed., Proc Agroforestry Symposium Rotorua, 24–27 November 1986, pp 261–278, Forest Resource Institute Bull 139, Rotorua, New ZealandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. H. Sharrow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Rangeland ResourcesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations