Page History

 Reference

Population

Geographical scale

Intervention

Control

Conclusion

Quality score

Global effect

1

Santos, PZF; Crouzeilles, R; Sansevero, JBB. 2019

Land use in Brazilian atlantic forest.

Brazilian Atlantic Forest.

1)biodiverse agroforestry systems (>5 different plant species), 2) simple agroforestry systems(<5 different plant species), 3) conventional agriculture or pasture.

Old-growth forests

Biodiverse agroforestry systems are most similar to natural forests, in terms of biodiversity conservation. Results highlight the influence of the type of agroforestry system over the maintenance of biodiversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. From an applied perspective, these similar results highlight the fact that agroforestry systems are an alternative method to recover degraded lands in human-dominated landscapes and can reconcile production and conservation.

62%

Positive, compared to conventional agriculture. Positive, for biodiverse agroforestry compared to simple agroforestry. Negative, compared to natural old-growth forests.

2

Bohada-Murillo, M; Castano-Villa, GJ; Fonturbel, FE. 2019

Forestry and agroforestry plantations.

Global (including Europe).

Forestry, oil palm plantations, agroforestry with coffee and cacao

Native forest stand.

Agroforestry plantations (coffee and cacao) have no effects on bird species richness and abundance worldwide, compared to native forests. Productive plantations (Palm oil) reduce both species richness and abundance of bird species, being insular species particularly susceptible.

100%

No effect, for Cacao/coffee agroforestry compared to native forest. Negative, for forestry and productive plantations, compared to native forests.

3

Plexida, S; Solomou, A; Poirazidis, K; Sfougaris, A. 2018

Different agrosilvopastoral ecosystems of the Mediterranean Basin area.

Mediterranean basin.

Dense(r) vegetation.

Less dense vegetation.

Open agrosylvopastoral habitats have fewer species than other closed wooded habitats.

81%

Positive, compared to open vegetation in agrosylvopastoral ecosystems.

4

Torralba, M; Fagerholm, N; Burgess, PJ; Moreno, G; Plieninger, T. 2016

Agricultural land, pasture, forestry land in the EU.

Europe

Agroforestry (silvoarable, silvopasture and mixed)

1)Agricultural land, 2)pasture land, 3) forestry land (natural and planted).

Agroforestry generally enhances biodiversity relative to conventional agriculture and forestry in Europe. However, the substantial variation in results also highlights that the responses are dependent on biophysical and land-use conditions.

81%

Positive, compared to all land uses.

6

Chaudhary, A; Burivalova, Z; Koh, LP; Hellweg, S. 2016

Forests

Global

Managed forest (ten types of forest management, including agroforestry)

Unmanaged forest.

Management regimes not focusing on timber production are in general more harmful to species richness than timber producing regimes. A notable exception is agroforestry, which is associated with lower species loss than timber plantations.

75%

Negative, compared to forest.

7

Norgrove, L; Beck, J. 2016

Tropical agricultural systems.

Global, tropical zones.

Shifting cultivation (or “slash-and-burn,” swidden), homegardens, improved fallows, alley cropping, agrisilviculture, shade commodities.

More studies contained forest controls (63 %) than agricultural controls (20 %), and only 19 % contained both types of controls.

Comparisons of biodiversity to those of control habitats suggest that agroforestry has more conservation potential than agriculture but that it cannot substitute oldgrowth forests. Management practices (mostly shading regime in commodity crops) were studied either in relation to farmer’s benefits or to biodiversity, but rarely both. While shade was often associated with higher biodiversity, most studies fell short of fully evaluating economic effects for farmers. Resilience, in the sense of biodiversity recovery to old-growth levels, was studied mostly in shifting cultivation systems (i.e., using fallow age as predictor).

31%

Uncertain

8

De Beenhouwer, M; Aerts, R; Honnay, O. 2013

Coffee and cacao production in tropics.

Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Multistrata agroforestry (stratified and species-diverse tree layer).

1)natural forest (hereafter forest), 2) plantations with sparse shade trees, belonging to one or very few species (hereafter plantation). Plantations without shade trees (“sun plantations”) were not included.

Results show negative effects of (i) the conversion of natural forest into coffee and cacao agroforestry systems and (ii) the intensification of cacao and coffee agroforestry into plantation, on species richness. Along with the conservation of natural forest, there is a clear advantage of conserving structurally complex (multistrata) agroforests from further intensification.

75%

Negative, compared to native forest. Positive, for multistrata agroforestry, compared to simple agroforest plantations.

9

De Beenhouwer, M; Aerts, R; Honnay, O. 2013

Cocoa and coffee agroforestry in tropics.

Central and south America, Africa, and Asia

Plantation with sparse shade trees (plantation) and Agroforestry with a stratified and diverse tree layer (agroforestry)

Natural forest

Our results show negative effects of (1) the conversion of natural forest into coffee and cacao agroforestry systems and (2) the intensification of cacao and coffee agroforestry into plantation.

81%

Negative compared to forest.

10

Palacios, CP; Aguero, B; Simonetti, JA. 2013

Agroforestry and forestry plantations.

Global

Plantation and Agroforestry (of simpler level of complexity when compared to complex plantation)

Native forest or Complex plantation

Among amphibians, species richness is lower in plantations than in forests while among reptiles there is no significant difference. The abundance of reptiles increases in plantations.

38%

Uncertain

11

Najera, A; Simonetti, JA. 2010

Forest and tree plantations with different structural complexity.

Global (not including Europe).

Simple plantations (with thinned or cleared undergrowth, scarce or no shrub cover, or single-species canopy cover) and Complex plantations (multiple vegetation strata, dense undergrowth, abundant scrub, or multispecies canopy cover).

Natural forest.

Structural complexity within plantations enhanced the avifauna assemblage and promoted increased bird species richness and abundance. Management practices that allow or promote structural complexity and understory growth should be promoted to aid in conserving biodiversity.

50%

Bird richness: negative compared to intact forest; Bird abundance: no impact compared to intact forest; Positive impact of complex tree plantations compared to simple plantations.

12

Nichols, E; Larsen, T; Spector, S; Davis, AL; Escobar, F; Favila, M; Vuline, K. 2007

Tropical forest land use categories.

Tropical forest from Central and South America, Southeast Asia and Africa.

Selectively logged forest (14–168 m3 wood extracted/ha; n = 4, late secondary forest ( >15 yr; n = 7), early secondary forest (610 yr; n = 8), agroforests (coffee or cacao under native forest cover; n = 4) tree plantations (monoculture timber, sun coffee or cacao; n = 6), annual crops (predominantly corn fields; n = 3), cattle pastures (grass monocultures with no tree cover; n = 9) and clear-cuts (small clearings, often embedded within forest; n =7).

Intact forest.

Strong and negative response of tropical forest dwelling dung beetle communities to increasing modification of tropical forest and declining fragment size.

94%

Negative compared to intact forest.