Modelling the yield and profitability of intercropped walnut systems in Croatia

In Croatia, farmers are showing increasing interest in establishing walnut orchards for nut production on arable land due to higher anticipated net margins. One way to address the lack of profitability in the initial years when nut yields are low may be to plant arable intercrops. The anticipated impacts of this practice were assessed using a biophysical simulation model (Yield-SAFE) to determine the growth and yield of crops and trees in arable, orchard, and silvoarable systems, and an economic farm model (Farm-SAFE) was used to assess their profitability. The walnut orchard and the intercropped orchard systems were simulated assuming tree densities of 170, 135, and 100 trees ha−1, to determine the profitability and break-even date of the systems. The biophysical simulation predicted a decline in arable intercrop yields over time in all tree density scenarios. However, analysis of productivity of intercropped systems showed that intercropping was more productive than separate arable and walnut production for all tree density scenarios. From financial aspect, the return from intercropping helped to offset some of the initial orchard establishment costs and the arable intercrop remained profitable until the sixth year after tree planting. The modelling predicted that a system with 170 trees ha−1 that included intercropping for the first 6 years provided the greatest cumulative net margin after 20 years. The financial benefit of intercropping over the first 6 years opposed to monoculture walnut fruit production appeared to be consistent across the three tree densities studied. These results suggest that silvoarable agroforestry is profitable approach to establishing walnut orchards.

[1]  P. Burgess,et al.  Modelling and valuing the environmental impacts of arable, forestry and agroforestry systems: a case study , 2018, Agroforestry Systems.

[2]  Paul J. Burgess,et al.  Implementation and calibration of the parameter-sparse Yield-SAFE model to predict production and land equivalent ratio in mixed tree and crop systems under two contrasting production situations in Europe , 2010 .

[3]  P. Burgess,et al.  Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union , 2017 .

[4]  J. Palma CliPick – Climate change web picker. A tool bridging daily climate needs in process based modelling in forestry and agriculture , 2017 .

[5]  D. Reheul,et al.  Trees increase soil organic carbon and nutrient availability in temperate agroforestry systems , 2017 .

[6]  P. Burgess,et al.  Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis , 2016 .

[7]  P. J. Burgess,et al.  Farm-SAFE: the process of developing a plot- and farm-scale model of arable, forestry, and silvoarable economics , 2011, Agroforestry Systems.

[8]  C. Böhm,et al.  Ecological benefits provided by alley cropping systems for production of woody biomass in the temperate region: a review , 2012, Agroforestry Systems.

[9]  M. Westlake,et al.  The Council of the European Union , 1995 .

[10]  T. S. Oliveira,et al.  Integrating belowground carbon dynamics into Yield-SAFE, a parameter sparse agroforestry model , 2017, Agroforestry Systems.

[11]  J. Six,et al.  Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen , 2015, Global change biology.

[12]  G. Moreno Response of understorey forage to multiple tree effects in Iberian dehesas , 2008 .

[13]  Paul J. Burgess,et al.  Integrating environmental and economic performance to assess modern silvoarable agroforestry in Europe , 2007 .

[14]  Paul J. Burgess,et al.  Modeling environmental benefits of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe , 2007 .

[15]  P. Burgess,et al.  Agroforestry for high value tree systems in Europe , 2018, Agroforestry Systems.

[16]  M. Veste,et al.  Trade-Off between Energy Wood and Grain Production in Temperate Alley-Cropping Systems: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Derivation of Land Equivalent Ratio , 2019, Agriculture.

[17]  I. Cañellas,et al.  Changes in limiting resources determine spatio-temporal variability in tree–grass interactions , 2009, Agroforestry Systems.

[18]  E. Sirtori,et al.  Guide to Cost-benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 , 2014 .

[19]  P. J. Burgess,et al.  Poplar (Populus spp) growth and crop yields in a silvoarable experiment at three lowland sites in England , 2005, Agroforestry Systems.

[20]  M. Koyuncu,et al.  Physical and chemical composition of some walnut (juglans regia L) genotypes grown in Turkey , 2005 .

[21]  P. Burgess,et al.  Advances in European agroforestry: results from the AGFORWARD project , 2018, Agroforestry Systems.

[22]  R. Hüttl,et al.  Ecological benefits of the alley cropping agroforestry system in sensitive regions of Europe , 2009 .

[23]  F. Liagre,et al.  Farmer perception of benefits, constraints and opportunities for silvoarable systems , 2017 .

[24]  C. Chenu,et al.  Increased soil organic carbon stocks under agroforestry: A survey of six different sites in France , 2017 .

[25]  P. Burgess,et al.  Yield-SAFE: A parameter-sparse process-based dynamic model for predicting resource capture, growth and production in agroforestry systems , 2007 .

[26]  Paul J. Burgess,et al.  Development and application of bio-economic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable and forestry systems in three European countries , 2007 .

[27]  C. Black,et al.  A framework for quantifying the various effects of tree-crop interactions. , 2015 .