Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 88, Issue 4, pp 679–691 | Cite as

A general framework for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services of tree-based intercropping systems

  • Mahbubul Alam
  • Alain Olivier
  • Alain Paquette
  • Jérôme Dupras
  • Jean-Pierre Revéret
  • Christian Messier
Article

Abstract

This study provides the first complete framework for the valuation of ecosystem services of agroforestry and uses a tree-based intercropping (TBI) system in southern Québec, Canada, as a case study. Ten ecosystem services were estimated, all of which were of interest and directly applicable to most agricultural systems worldwide: nutrient mineralization, water quality, soil quality, pollination, biological control, air quality, windbreak, timber provisioning, agriculture provisioning, and climate regulation. A mix of mathematical models for the quantification and economic valuation of various ecosystem services were used. The results revealed a total annual margin of $2,645 ha−1 y−1 (averaged over 40 years). The economic value of combined non-market services was $1,634 ha−1 y−1, which was higher than the value of marketable products (i.e. timber and agricultural products). An analysis of the present value suggested that agricultural products ranked highest among the ecosystem services taken singularly, followed by water quality, air quality, climate regulation, and soil quality maintenance. Total economic value of all ecosystem services for the rotation period was $54,782 ha−1, only one third of which was contributed by agricultural products. Although the total value of the ecosystem services provided by TBI was high, farmers only benefited from agricultural and timber products. Thus, government incentives are needed to interest farmers in adopting practices that benefit society as a whole.

Keywords

Economic valuation Tree-based intercropping systems Non-market benefits Ecosystem services 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding supports from Consortium on Regional Climatology and Adaptation to Climate Change (OURANOS), through Fonds vert Québec, and from Fonds de recherche du Québec - Nature et technologies (FQRNT), are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Aertsens J, Nocker LD, Gobin A (2013) Valuing the carbon sequestration potential for European agriculture. Land Use Policy 31:584–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alavalapati JRP, Mercer DE (eds) (2004) Valuing agroforestry systems. Advances in agroforestry, vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Bambrick AD, Whalen JK, Bradley RL, Cogliastro A, Gordon AM, Olivier A, Thevathasan NV (2010) Spatial heterogeneity of soil organic carbon in tree-based intercropping systems in Québec and Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 79(3):343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon L (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergeron M, Lacombe S, Bradley RL, Whalen J, Cogliastro A, Jutras M, Arp P (2011) Reduced soil nutrient leaching following the establishment of tree-based intercropping systems in eastern Canada. Agrofor Syst 83:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandle JR, Hodges L, Zhou X (2004) Windbreaks in sustainable agriculture. Agrofor Syst 61:65–78Google Scholar
  7. Brandle JR, Hodges L, Tyndall JC, Sudmeyer RA (2009) Chapter 5: Windbreak practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 75–104Google Scholar
  8. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, Martin-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MB, Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 4:4–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Costanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M, Crossman N, Ghermandi N, Hein L, Hussain S, Kumar P, McVittie A, Portela R, Rodriguez LC, ten Brink P, van Beukering P (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1(1):50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Domenicano S (2013) Using modeling to predict future scenarios: Will climate change drive agroforestry systems in temperate North America towards increased competition or complementarity? Paper presented at the 13th North American Agroforestry Conference., Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 19–21 June, 2013Google Scholar
  11. Dupras J, Revéret JP, Michaud C (2013) The value of the ecosystem services in greater Montreal (Québec). In: Proceedings of the international conference of the european society for ecological economicsGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroeder HW, Rowntree RA (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs or the urban forest. J Arboric 18(5):227–234Google Scholar
  13. Evers AK, Bambrick A, Lacombe S, Dougherty MC, Peichl M, Gordon AM, Thevathasan NV, Whalen J, Bradley RL (2010) Potential greenhouse gas mitigation through temperate tree-based intercropping systems. Open Agric J 4:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hernandez M, Charland P, Nolet J, Arès M (2008) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry practices in the L’Ormière River watershed in Québec. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Québec. ISBN 978-0-662-47230-8Google Scholar
  15. Ingram JC, Wilkie D, Clements T, McNab RB, Nelson F, Baur EH, Sachedina HT, Peterson DD, Foley CAH (2014) Evidence of Payments for Ecosystem Services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosyst Serv. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.003 Google Scholar
  16. Jairell RL, Schmidt RA (1999) Snow management and windbreaks. In: Proceedings of the range beef cow symposium XVI, Greeley, 14–16 Dec 1999Google Scholar
  17. Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kellermann JL (2007) Ecological and economic services provided by birds on Jamaican blue mountain coffee farms. MSc thesis, Humboldt State University, ArcataGoogle Scholar
  19. Kort J (1988) Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage. Agric Ecosyst Environ 22(23):165–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacDonald GK, Bennett EM (2009) Phosphorus accumulation in the Saint Lawrence River watershed: a century-long perspective. Ecosystems 12:621–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Xiao Q (1999) Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. J Arboric 25:235–248Google Scholar
  22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Morandin LA, Winston ML (2006) Pollinators provide economic incentive to preserve natural land in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 116(3–4):289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morse R, Calderone NW (2000) The value of honey bees as pollinators of U.S. Crops in 2000. Bee Cult 128:1–15Google Scholar
  25. Nair PK, Garrity D (eds) (2012) Agroforestry—the future of global land use. Advances in Agroforestry 9, Springer, New York. doi  10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3_16
  26. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban Green 4:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oelbermann M, Voroney RP, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Kass DCL, Schlönvoigt AM (2006) Soil carbon dynamics and residue stabilization in a Costa Rican and southern Canadian alley cropping system. Agrofor Syst 68(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olewiler N (2004) The value of natural capital in settled areas of Canada. Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, ReginaGoogle Scholar
  29. Peichl M, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM (2006) Carbon sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based intercropping systems, southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 66:243–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:1117–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pimentel D, Wilson C, McCullum C, Huang R, Dwen P, Flack J, Tran O, Saltman T, Cliff B (1997) Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Price GW, Gordon AM (1999) Spatial and temporal distribution of earthworms in a temperate intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 44:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rivest D, Olivier A (2007) Cultures intercalaires avec arbres feuillus : quel potentiel pour le Québec? For Chron 83(4):526–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rivest D, Cogliastro A, Olivier A (2009) Tree-based intercropping systems increase growth and nutrient status of hybrid poplar: a case study from two Northeastern American experiments. J Environ Manag 91:432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rivest D, Cogliastro A, Bradley RL, Olivier A (2010) Intercropping hybrid poplar with soybean increases soil microbial biomass, mineral N supply and tree growth. Agrofor Syst 80:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rivest D, Paquette A, Moreno G, Messier C (2013a) A meta-analysis reveals mostly neutral influence of scattered trees on pasture yield along with some contrasted effects depending on functional groups and rainfall conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ 165:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rivest D, Lorente M, Olivier A, Messier C (2013b) Soil biochemical properties and microbial resilience in agroforestry systems: effects on wheat growth under controlled drought and flooding conditions. Sci Total Environ 465–464:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R, Case B (2008) The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecol Econ 64:835–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schomers S, Matzdorf B (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst Serv 6:16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simpson JA (1999) Effects of shade on maize and soybean productivity in a tree-based intercropping system. PhD Thesis, University of Guelph,GuelphGoogle Scholar
  41. Statistics Canada (2001) Census of agriculture 2001. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/. Accessed 12 Feb 2013
  42. Statistics Canada (2006) Census of agriculture 2006. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/. Accessed 12 Feb 2013
  43. Thevathasan NV (1998) Nitrogen dynamics and other interactions in a tree-cereal intercropping systems in southern Ontario. PhD Thesis. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
  44. Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM (2004) Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the North temperate region: experiences from southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 61–62:257–268Google Scholar
  45. Toor IA (2010) Economic analysis of tree-based intercropping in southern Ontario, Canada. M.Sc. Thesis, McGill University, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  46. Toor IA, Smith EG, Whalen JK, Naseem A (2012) Tree-based intercropping in Southern Ontario, Canada. Can JAgric Econ 60(2):141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ucar T, Hall FR (2001) Windbreaks as a pesticide drift mitigation strategy: a review. Pest Manag Sci 57(8):663–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Udawatta RP, Jose S (2012) Agroforestry strategies to sequester carbon in temperate North America. Agrofor Syst 86:225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. USDA (2013) Fertilizer use and prices. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx#26727. Accessed 5 Feb 2013
  50. Voora V, Barg S (2008) Pimachiowin Aki world heritage project area ecosystem services valuation assessment, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/ecosystem_valuation.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2012
  51. Wang F (2006) Modelling sheltering effects of trees on reducing space heating in office buildings in a windy city. Energy Buildings 38(12):1443–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weathers KC, Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2001) Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies and the atmosphere. Conserv Biol 15:1506–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson SJ (2008a) Ontario’s wealth, Canada’s future: Appreciating the value of the greenbelt’s eco-services. David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver. ISBN 978-1-897375-17-4Google Scholar
  54. Wilson SJ (2008b) Lake Simcoe Basin’s Natural Capital: the value of the watershed’s ecosystem services. David Suzuki Foundation, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2011/Lake-Simcoe-GreenbeltNaturalCapitalJune%20202.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2012
  55. Winfree R, Gross BJ, Kremen C (2011) Valuing pollination services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 71:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yohe GW, Lasco RD, Ahmad QK, Arnell NW, Cohen SJ, Hope C, Janetos AC, Perez RT (2007) Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of working group ii to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 811–841Google Scholar
  57. Zhang P (1999) The impact of nutrient inputs from stemflow, throughfall, and litterfall in a tree-based temperate intercropping system, southern Ontario, Can- ada. MSc Thesis, Dept. of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahbubul Alam
    • 1
  • Alain Olivier
    • 1
  • Alain Paquette
    • 2
  • Jérôme Dupras
    • 3
  • Jean-Pierre Revéret
    • 4
  • Christian Messier
    • 5
  1. 1.Département de phytologie, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentationUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Center for Forest Research, Département des sciences biologiquesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Département de géographieUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  4. 4.Département stratégie, responsabilité sociale et environnementaleUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  5. 5.Institut des Sciences de la Forêt tempérée (ISFORT)Université du Québec en OutaouaisRiponCanada

Personalised recommendations