PRACTICE OF FORESTRY

A Role for Agroforestry in Forest Restoration in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley

• Michael G. Dasskey, Gary Benlrup, and Michele Schaenebe er

Agroforeslry op~ons ole explored for restoring impGrtonl functions and yolll8'S of boHomlond hardwood (BtH) forests in tbe lower Mississippi River Alluvial Volley (!.MAV). AgrofOfeslry proctices (on ougmenl the size ond quolity of BLH hBbilol, provide corridors between 8tH areas, ond ellObie restoration 01 oolulol hydrologic patterns 000 wo1er quality. Agroforestry practices ore designed primarily 1o benefit agriculture, whkh may appeal 10 formers in the region. Profit polenliol from some ogroforestry proctic:es is mrent/y compelitivt! with ogrKdluroi crops and production iOfeslTy on mor,noI ogrir:uhurol lands in the lMAV. lJxk of e~rience with ogroforesfry in Ihis region finders adoption, bul emerging mall:ets lor biofuek and e<osystem serW:es could enhQll(t future prospeds. (OlKepts ole presented for how ogroforeslry (on be Ioco!ed ond designed for restoring BlH forest fundions ond .oIues in !he lIMV olld lherdly contribute to achieving gooIs lor fKoIogicol resfofotion.

Keywords: ogroloreslry, M0sy5lem servif:es, bottomland hordwoods, wildlife, forest restorDlion

B ouomland hardwood (BLH) foresrs in the lower Mississi ppi River Allu­vial Vallc:y (LMAV) provide impor­

lant production and ecosystem services in­cluding wood products, wildl ife habita!, clc:an water, and recreation. Today, only onc-quarter of Ihe origin31 extent of BLH forcsts remains while two-thirds of the LMA V has been cleared and converted to agriculTUre (Twedt and Loesch 1999; Figu re I ). As a consequence, supply of some ecosys­tem services that are linked to the abundance ofBLH foresu, such as populat ionsofforest wildlife, have declined to alarming levels. The capability of remaining BLH fo rests to provide those services has also declined be­cause: of fOTest fragmentation, altered hy­drology. sedimentation a.nd wa.tcr pollution, inva.sive exotic plams. and indiscriminant timber ha.rvesting (Ga.rd iner a. nd Oliver 2005).

Restoration of BLH forests in the LMAV has been a goal offorestry a. nd wild­life interests for many years. A ma.jor impe­tus for this eITort has centered on the resto­ration of forest habitat for migr.uory birds (Lower Mississippi Valley Joim Venlure [LMVJ V] 2007). Reforestation often takes the form of conversion of marginal fa.rmland to timber planta.tions, BLH set-asides, and riparian forest buffers. Agroforestry, generi­cally defined as the imegration of trees into productive agricultu ra. l systems, may pro­vide additional oplions 10 supplement cu r­rem reforestation strategies. Agroforestry plantings can be located a.nd designed to provide kc:y ecoJogica.1 atttibutes normally provided by BLH foreslS. An assessment of agroforestry options in light of current issues and emerging opportunities may identify promising new wa.ys to bolster thc success of forest restoration cfforu in the LMAV.

Reaivc:d July 21. 2010; accepted M~r 31. 20 11 : htlp: lldx.doi.orgll 0.5849/jo[ 10-061.

Restoring Forest Functions and Values in the !MAV

Restoration of BLH forests has been a key conserva.tion goal in !.he LMAV si nce the 19705. The LMVJV, a partnership of state and federal agencies and private conser­vation orga.niutions, has establ ished a resto­ra.lion larget of 2 million ae by 2020 (Haynes 2004, Gardiner and Oliver 2005). For economic reasons, marginal fa.rm land has b«:n a major target for conversion to 8LH forest$. These la.nds are estima.tcd to

cover about 7.5 million ae (Amacher et aI. 1997) and mainly include lower-lying areas

that 2fe difficult to fa.rm because of inade­quate drainage or flood control. CosIS for establishing 2 mill ion ac of 8LH foreslS un­der a 1 O-yar Conservation Reserve Progra.m (CRP)- typccontract can range from $1.4 to 1.7 billion based on tree establishment COSts

of $75- 245/3e and a land remal tate of $60/ae (Stanturf et aI. 2000. Gardiner and O liver 2005, Spriggs 2006). Restoration of drier sites, which arc needed for roosting and reari ng of some forest avian species, may be more expensive 10 restore. Rdativcly less atca of drier site types remain in BLH forestS bcca.use it is the most highly valued agricul­tural land a.nd without greater financial in­centives, landowners are more likely to keep it in agricultural production (US Forest Ser­vice 2006). Longer program enrotiment pe­

riods will also increase: COSt. A predominant strategy for selecting

sitcs for restoration has been to enlarge

Mjchad G. Dflssltry (mdtnsltty@fi.ftd.us) is rrstar(h «ologisl. Cltry !knlTUp r&kntrup@fi.fod.us) is frstllr(h IamiscllJN planMr, and Mjch~k Schom~btrgtf (rmcbotntkrgtr@Jiftd.us) is rtstar(h projrd kadtr. US Form ~roift, Solubim Rts~afch STaTion. Na/ional Agrofornrry GenUr. £au CIlmpus-Univwiry of N~brilJlta, Lincoln, N£ 68583·0822.

48 journalofFort"Irry • January/February 2012

blocks of ~xisl ing BLH forests (LMVJV 2007). Thissrratcgy is intended 10 maximilC imerior forest habitat and is d riven mai nly by i nt~rests in incr~asjng populations of for­est.breeding hirds. A minimum BLH block si·leof I 0,000 ac has be~n recommended for cr~atjng viable habim fo r forest-breeding birds, which includes a 0.3- ro O.G-mi-wide (3000-GOOO acre) BLH buffer arou nd a core of desired interior BLH habitat (Llewel· Iyn et al. 1996, Muell~r et al. 1999). By 1992, 98 for~st patches met this criterion in the LMAV, most of which arc located in the southern half of the LMA V (T w~dt and Loesch 1999).

The present restof3tion strategy has had some success. It is estimated that 0.77 mil­lion ae of cI~ar~d land has been restored to forest cover over 30 years through 2005 (King et al. 2006). More recently. over 30 thousand addit ional ac have beell restored since: 2004 under the Ivory-Billed Wood­pecker Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service [US FWSj20 1O). At this pace, how­ever, reaching the goal of 2 mi ll ion ac by 2020 set by the LMVJV will require sub­stantial additional gains. Stratcgies that sup­plement current forest restoration practices may help 10 sustain and cnhance progress toward achieving this conservation goal.

Agroforestry Restores Forest Functions and Values

Agroforestry is the imegration of trees illIO agricultuf31 systems 10 aid thc manage­melll of th~ agriculruf31 companellt. [n an agroforesuy system, the "forest H areas are in­tentionally designed and managed 10 en­hance agricultuf31 production and !O miti­gate environmental problems genef3tcd by agricu ltural activi ties. It is distinguished from forestry by lhe interaction between the trees and nearby agriculture. In contrast, a woodlot or riparian forest on one corner of a fa rm .hat does not beneficially interact with crops or livestock is not agroforcstry.

Agroforestry could supplement current forest restoration strategies. Agroforcstry practiccs can create fo rcst habitat and im­prove water quality on prod uctive agricul­tural lands (Figure 2). When properly 10-cHed, they can cnha nce habitat and watcr quality within adjacent BLH areas. Agrofor­estry presents income options that may ap­peal to landowners that want to continue in farm production. Income can be g~ncrated from improved yields of adjacent crops, var­ious nontimber fo rest products, sawtimber

MO

AR

LA

KY

TN

MS

Legend Open Wlter Urn. n Upland Forest Bottomland Forest CropllndfPaslure

Figure 1. Location and land cover of the LMAV. Land coverodapted from the 2006 National land Cover Database (Multi-Resolution Land Cover Consortium 20111.

and pulpwood, biofuel feedslOck. hUllli ng and recreation leases, and from emcrging markets for water qualiry and carbon slOragc credits (Montagnini and Nair 2004, Keole­ian and Yolk 2005. Garr~1t 2009). Agrofor­estry can add to lhe palcuc of choiees pre­sented to landowners for restoring forest functions and values to the LMA V.

Agroforestry practices encompass a di ­versity of forms and arrangements. Some general types include riparian fo rest buffers, windbreaks, silvopasture, alley cropping, forest farmi ng, and strip-type arrangemcnts of shorr-rotarion woody crops. among oth­ers (sidebar). Agroforcstry prdctices can be adapted in the LMAV in several ways 10 pro-

mote BLH forest restoration goals, indud­lIlg:

• Provide habitat buffcrs bcrwccn exist­ing BLH areas and intensively farmed areas. Curr~nt stratcgy calls for BLH forests to pro­vide a 0.3- to O.G-mi-wide buffer 1..0ne around a core BLH foreSt palch. The buffer 1..0ne requirement alone can more than dou­ble the required forested area. Agroforestry practices could be used to creatc thosc buffer wnes. By creating the necessary tree struc­ture to function likc a fo rested buffer, agro­forestry can enlarge the area of effective in­terior BL H forest habitat and turn smaller. less·viable BLH forest patches (5.000-10,000 ac) illlo effcctiv~ illlerior habitat

Journal of Fomfry • January/February 20 12 49

!

Agrofor..:stry is thc illlcgracion of tre~ inco agriculcural systems co provide an optimal mix of ecosystem services and economic benents. It is distinguished from forestry by its designed inceraction with nearby agricuhur.U crops. Detailed deKription of most agroforestl), pr;act iccs can be found in Garrett (2009). Short­rotation woody crops arc described by Dickmann (2006). The major agrofor­CStry types practiced in telllper:l.le regions ofNonh America include:

Ripllrian FOrrsl Buffin: Forest vcgcration loclled adjacellt to waterways primarily co enhanct and protect the aquatic environ­melll from adverse impaas of ncarhy agri­cultural land uses. TIle forest vcgcration provides $hade, orb>anic debris, and stability ro ch:U1nds.and shorelincs; filt en pollutants Out of agricultural runoff; and creates forcst habital and corridors. Although typically installed as narrow Strips, their size, vegela­li\'C composition, :and management can Ix: varied to match si le oondilions, desired ecological funa ions. and opponunitics for economic products.

Willdhrto.lts: Li near 51rips of foresl vegetation designed 10 protcct agricul­tural soil from wind erosion. crops from desiccalion and soil abrasion. and live­stock from the ~trtsS of hOi summer and cold wintcr winds. Windbreaks also pro­vide foresl habir:1.I :and corridors for wild­life and water erosion control and runoff filtering for water quality protcction.

SillJ()pllJzurr. A system of forage and/or livestock production in the lInder· story of trce pl:Ult:uion5. Forage and live­stock provide the landowner wilh ncar~

term cash flow while the trccs mature into a marketable commodity. Silvopasmre can

without aClu.ally increasing the siu of Ihe 8LH forest patches.

• Provide tree corridors that conneCi 8LH forest habital patches. Fragmentation of I3LH forests has created Ilumerous small parches thai arc nOI viable for .area-sensitivc specics of forest wildlife. Connecting small I3LH forest patches with tree corr idors across cropl ands will facililate the: move:­ment afforest wildlife betwee:n patches and effcctively increase the habitat viability of each small I3LH fo rest patch (USDA Natu­ral Resources Conserva tion Service 1999, Hilryel al. 2006). Agroforestry practices call be used 10 create those wildlire corridors.

be practiced among pines (Pinus spp.) and hardwoods such as oak (Qunrus), walnut Uuglans), and pecan (CAryn).

Aiky Cropping: Widely spaced rows of rrees between which agricultural crops are grown. The trees provide timher, biomass fecds(Ock, nlllS. or other prod· UCts and me companion .alley crop pro­duces row and cereal crops. forages, or spcci.alty crops. The alley crop provides near-term cash flow. and the trt."C crop provides prot!."Ction for the crop. erosion control and water qualiry bencfits, and periodic financial returns over a longer term.

FornI Fo.rming: Management offor­est canopy for the produCiion of spc· cialty products in rhe UnderslOry. Prod­Uct options include food (berries 3nd mushrooms), botanicals (herbs and me­dicinals), decoratives (floral grecnery and dyes), and handicrafls (basket and wood craft materials). Forest overStol)' is mod· ified to provide the appropriare under· SlOry microclimate bur 1I0t enough to

greatly interfere with its comributions 10

wildlife habitat, erosion control, and wa­ler filtering. Alley cropping and silvopas­ture can provide a transilion.al stage umil a forest canopy is created.

Short-Rotation Woody Crops: Fast­growing tree species such as poplar (Populus) and willow (Salix) grown fot fiber and biofud with rotation agc.~ of 3- 12 years. Whcn grown in strip config­urations, they can function as wind­breaks, riparian forest buffers, and the tree componclH of alley cropping. Cut­tingsome strips every few years creatcs a diversity of SIfUClUre that may fun ct ion Ix:tter for some wildlife

• Improve water quality in eXlSllng BLH forest patches. Runoff fl owing from agricultural lands imo existing BLH forest areas carries sediments, nutrients, and pesti­cides thai can impair Ihe health of both aquacic and terrestrial wildlife (Hoover and Killgore 1998). High sedimem loads from eroding farmland and stream hanks degrade waler quality and fill-i n seasonal forested Rood zones and backwater pools thai arc re­quired for reproduclion of many fish and amphibian species; nutrients in ru noff lead to euuophicalion .and hypoxia in sloughs and oxbows that degrade open water habital for nsh and amphibians; pesticides in runoff

50 Journalo[Formry • January/ f ebruary 2012

C1n be toxic toward [he health and develop­meilf of all species, bill particularly for sen· sitive larv31 fish and amphibians (Hoover and Killgore 1998. 2002). In turn, degraded aquatic health reduces the food supply for forest wildlife that feed on aquatic plants and animals. Agroforestry pT'.Icliccs located in critical agricultural areas can improve BLH forest habitat qualiry by reducing the flow of sediments, nutrients, and pesticides from agricultural lands into existing BLH forest areas.

• Enable rescoration of hydrology in ex­ist ing 13L1-1 arcas. Drainagc and flood con· trol improvements design cd 10 protcct flood-sensitive annual crops, such as cotcon and soybeans, have altered the hydrolob'Y and hydroperiod of remaining BLH forest areas (Ki ng and Kccland 1999). [nstalling agroforeslry practices [hat have tree species and intended uses that arc more compatible with wet ness and periodic flooding can rc­duce the need fordrainage and flood conr rol :and enable the rescoration of natural hydro· logic pancrns.

• Provide rapid development of early succession forest slructure and accelerate de­velopmelll of mature BLH foreslS. T ree struClUre is the main determinant of bird species occurrence and community compo­sition in the LJ\iAV (Twedt and Portwood 1997, Hamel 2003 , Twedt and Scsi 2004). By seleCting f2st.growing agroforestry tree species and praC[icing weed control. agrofor­estry praCtices can promote rapid initial de­velopment of forest cover and accelerate the devdopmellt of habil'at for laler-succession forest birds (Twedt and Ponwood 2003, Wilson and Twedt 2005). Agroforestry C11l be used as a transition toward I3LH forest restorat ion (Twedr and Portwood 2003).

Agroforcsuy can also provide benefits in the LMA V beyond prolecling and ell­h:mcing existing BLH forests. Agroforestry practices thcmselves create valuable habitat for a broad range of birds and other forest­dwelling wildlife (T wed, and Portwood 2003. Heitmeyer et ill. 2005) including game birds and nsh that impro\'e hunring and nshing opportunities (Burger 2005). Shifting liind from annual crops to agrofor­estl)' can improve regional drinking water quality and reducc erosion of valuable agri . cultur;al soil. Agroforestry can also provide economic diversification that improves the financial well-being or farms and communi­ties, espC{;ially those of sma!I-to-medium re­~ource farmers (Hendersoll 1991 ).

Func~onal Quality of Agroforestry

Allhough agroforestry can produce the kinds of environmental benefits that BLH forestS do, it is not likely thaI it produces them to the same levels as BLH forcsls. This is particu larly true for wildlife because habi-131 suilabiliry and quality can be sensilive to

vegetation species and strucrure, manage­ment activities, and conditions in Ihe sur­rounding landscape. Generally. agroforesrry Iree species and spacing will differ from BLH planting designs. Various managc­mem activities such as weed comrol, gru­ing, imercropping. and tree harvcsting are conducted periodically thai would not gen­erally occur in a uue BLH forcst reswr:llioll.

In lighl of these differences, it is important to consider what level of ecological bendit agroforestry call provide compared with BLH forestS.

Because consavation of birds is a major goal of BLH forest restor-Hion , a good mea­sure is comparing avian habitat value from agroforesrry-rype plamings to that from ma­ture BLH forestS. Nuttle and Burger (1996) and NUtlie (1997) compared hardwood planting sites of difTerelH ages in me LMAV in Mississippi (0 mature BLH focestS (Table I). Although these you ng plantings were not agcoforestry practices per se, they are. never­theless. similar in structure and provide a basis for what level of avian benefits could be expeCied from agroforestry praClices. The results clearly show substantial habital value of young hardwood stands for forest birds (Table I). By the agc of 21-27 years old , hardwood plaming siles were frequented by large populations of many forest sp«ies (high Morisita Index). Some high-prioriry forest species were also observed (high Con­servation Value Index), such as prothono­tary warbler (Prorht)1l0tllrill cifrtll) and yel­low-billed cuckoo (COtI)'ZUS amtricanus), but not as many high-prioriry species as ob­served in mature BLH forests.

Faster-growing tree species can provide forest habitat sooner. Twedt et al. (2002) estimated that 5- to 9-year-old cottonwood (Populus rk/roidts) had rwice the conserva­tion value of oak plantings at the same age and attributed it 10 more rapid development of vertical structure. Selection of fast-grow­ing tcee sp«ies plus weed control in agrofor­estry systems would promote even faster tree growth and more rapid developmenr of for­est bird habitat.

Younger treeplantings can cOlllribute

Figure 2. Agroforestry practices offer a voriety of options for landowners: (Al riparian forest buffers, (B) windbreaks, (C) silvopasture, (0) olley cropping, (E) forest fanning, and IF) short-rotation woody crops. (Photos provided courtesy of the USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service lA, B, and Fl, the University of Missouri Ie and OJ and the University of Minnesota (E).)

habirar for other imponan t bird communi­ties (Table I ). New planting si tes up to IS years old supported grassland and shrub­succession bird communities. including high~prioriry dickcissel (Spiw. am~ricana) ,

northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) , yellow-breasted chat ([curia virtns), and painted bunting (Passtrina ciris). These

birds are not present in older ueeplantings and mature BLH fores ts. These results indi­cate that some high-priority bird species may benefir from management-related dis­turbance and replanting of tree stands asso­ciated with agroforestry pract'ices that are not provided by BLH forests.

Even narrow plant ings can provide im-

JournalofFormry • January/February 2012 51

ponan! habitat in fragmcmcd landscapes. Kilgo el aI. (1998) reponed [hat strips as narrow as 165 n provided habitat fo r BLH forest species such as hooded warbler (Wi/­sonia citrin~) and Acadian flycatcher (Empi­donax lIirtsctns). However, forest strips as wide as 1.500 n or more may be necessary for area-sensilive species such as Swainson's warbler (Limnothfypis lwaimonil). Large mammals may also benefil from narrow plantings. A study in Louisiana documemed black bears (Unus amtricallus) using wooded corridors 15-250 n wide 10 access habital palches for foraging and breeding (Anderson \997) .

The habitat value of Ireeplamings is greatly increased by loc:uing them adjacent to existing BLH forest tracts. Warwick (2004) observed tha t agroforestry plantings adjacent 10 forest remnants had more swamp rabbi IS (Syilliiagus aquaticus) com­pared wilh agroforcstry plantings not adja­cent to remnallls. Twedt et al. (2006) csti­mated that targeted BLH forcst restorat ion in the LMAV could increase lhe effect ive area of forest imerior habi tat for birds by 32 times more Ihan by random treeplantings. We hypolhesize that targeted agroforcsuy can have similar impac( on imerior habilat while also creating habitat for early succes­sion species of concern .

Overal l, agroforesuy plamings will probably have lower habitat qualiry per unit area than mature BLH forcslS for most inte­rior forest species of concern. However, Ihe potential for convening more arca to trees, fas ter uee growth, and targeted instal lat ion could translate into a substantial regionwide contribution by agroforesl ry 10 conserv:<ltion of high-priority species.

Profitability of Agroforestry in the iNlAV

Widespread adopt ion of agroforestry practices by farme rs will depend on develop­ing systems that produce sound financial re­turns that are at least similar to the agricul­rural crops they would replace or the timber production and fore.~t easement options that agroforesuy may substilUle for. Ti mber and pulpwood p[amarions and forest Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) easements have been shown 10 be compelitive with agricul­tural crops on marginal agriculwrallands in the LMA V (Amacher et aI. 1997, Anderson and Parkhursl 2004). Under current market conditions, agroforestry is also compelitive wilh crops and timber on marginal agricul­tural lands, particularly if incentive pay-

To,*, 1. Habitat value of tr"ee~nlings of different ages for birds during the breeding season compared with mature BlH forem in the IlMV.

S=d~ Mori5itllindo: Con~rvacion Value Indo< Observed bird

'~I '%1 '%1 community type

G-4 3-, 34 Gr:;wland 7-15 3>-42 4G Shrub 5u=ion 2 1_ 27 7~' " Fores, Mam.., rora! 100 100 Forese

Th~ Mo,i.i,. Jndo:. Mo.,,"'" 1imibtioy of .pee .... nd .bundanco. The Conx",.,ion Val"" I"""" ~.:r .... ,,,, .imiwil)' of 'I""'"".nd .bund"",,,, ..... igll1«1 by ..... co" .. .,...'ion in.I""""« of coch '1""';'" s.,u.ccc: D . .. f,OID Surge, (200~).

menrs arc provided by government pro­grams (Table 2; Frey el at. 2010). Competitive agrofo restry options include pine si lvopasture and COllonwood alley cropping along with riparian forest buffer casement"S. On average or beller agricultural land, however, agriculmral crops arc more profitable than either forestry or agroforeslry (Ibendahl 2008, Frey et al. 20 I 0); therefore, there is currem[y [ill[e economic incentive for landowners to conven good cropland to fo rest al ternatives. These studies did not as­sess forest farm ing as an agroforcstry option in the LMAV.

Longer-term profit pOlemiai from agroforestry is critical to sustain gains in for­est restoration. Allhough CRP and some WRP connacls offset installation eosls and crop production tosses in the short [erm, a sustai nable Row of profits from markerable goods and services may be necessary 10 pre­vent shon-tcrm acreage gains from becom­ing ephemeral aner program contracts ex­pire. Future prospects for profitability from agroforestry hinge 011 many variables, in· clud ing priccs, discounl Tates, and govern­mell! programs. Emerging markets for bio­mass biofuels and ecosystem services present both opportunities and challengcs. Profil polential from corn biomass has risen dra­matically recently on demand from ethanol producers. In lhe short term, high profils from corn will discourage conversion 10

other land uses. In the longer term, however, exfX!rIS predict that Ihe ind ustry will shift substantially from starch to cellulose feed­stocks (DiPardo 2002). If that occurs, the market likely will shift toward t ~es, such as short-rotation woody crops, and bolsler rhe incemive for [and conversion 10 agrofor­estry. However, there would need 10 be a large increase from cu rrent biomass prices for short-rotation woody crops to be com­peti tive with agricultural crops (Frey et aI. 20 I 0). Emerging markets for ecosystem ser­Vices including carbon sequestration and

water quality credit Had ing could also en­hance financial returns. For example, con­version of cropland (Q agroforestry can in­crease carbon SlOrage in soil and standing trees (Tolhen er aI. 1999) . Credits for the amount of gain in carbon SlOragecan be sold to companies 10 offset the carbon dioxide that they produce through aCfivities such as the burning of foss il fuel s (Ruddell et a1. 2006). Conversion of cropland to agrofor­csuy is also widely recognized to improve runoff water quality (Tolben et aI. 1998, Schu ltzet aI. 2009) . A landowner can obtai n credits based on the estimated level of im­provement, and, these credits can be sold 10

buyers to offset water-degrading activities elsewhere (US Environmental PrOlecrion Agency 2007). Markets for ecoSYSlem ser­vices represent a nt'W kind of profit potential fo r agroforestry, but they arc not well devel­oped and may be risky umi[ they mature further.

Other Factors Affecting Adoption of Agroforestry

Adoption rates for convening crops 10

agroforestry (and forestry) on marginal agri­cul tural lands in the LMAV have been lower than would be pred icted based purely on profitabiliry (Frey et a1. 2009). Agroforesuy presents greater fin ancial risk than conven­tional agricultural crops. Many agroforesl ry products lack well-developed markets and suppOrt policies thai agricultural crops en­joy. There is also less technical knowledge ahoul agrofofCStry in the LMAV. Docu­mentation of agroforcs,ry practice in Ihe LMA V is scarce beyond riparian forest buf­fers. Short-rotation woody crops have been studied occasionally since the 19705 for pro­ducing fiber and biofuel feedslock (Wright and Berg 1996, Stanturf et a1. 2003). Exper­imental a1[ey cropping systems have been re­poned (Gold and Hanover 1987, Zinkhan and Mercer 1997) . Gr31.ing cattle in pecan

52 journalojFortJtry • JanuaryfFebruary 2012

Tabfe 2. Estimated net present value for production systems without and with government payment programs on overage ond morginal cropland in the lMAV.

Annual Crop Soybeans Ri~

Fo<cmy

SY"~m

Cottonwood for pulpwood Cononwood for ",....umbe, Hard hardwoods (dean;ull Hard hardW<:>Ods (sustainable) Cononwood and oak ,mer planting (ckarcu.) Cononwood and oak interplan,jng (s ustainable)

Agroforesll)' ShOfl'fOlluion woody crop Pccm silvopulure Hard hardwoods Silvopa.! (Ufe Pine si lvopa.'l(u.e Hard hardwoods riparian buffer Cononwood and oak riparian buffer P«:an allq cropping Hard hardW<:>Ods aUq crop Collonwood alley crop

Av~ragc cropland" govnnm~OI P!Y",ents

None

Mo.rginal cropland" govcnm~m p~yments

Payments (program)'

........................ (2008 Siha. 5% d,5O.IuOl fllIC) ........•

!i.l SO 7 .771

-257 I,ISO

" - 179

IS' - 12

-2.217 1.020

'" 2.512 - 333 - 590 2.35S

'" 2.144

5.950 (ACRE. FDP)

2.233 (WRP)

3.696 (CRP)

9" -768

- 338 1.210 - 129 -357

" -158

- 2.2S3 - 28 32'

1.861 -510 -769 -235 -, 1.367

1.478 (ACRE and FDP)

2.233 (WRP)

2.184 (CRP)

• A"""W'.nd m.rginal cropland .... dtfintd .. USDA N .. u.>I Rnour<<'$ Co" .. " .. uion s.,,,,itt L.nd C.p.>b;I;!)"Ct....;~C>,;"" 3.nd 5. r<'$~,ivdy. 'I",ym<"' progr=. ,,,dude A""",S"C"", ~nu< 8"",10" (ACRE). Fiud i);r«< Payment (FOP). WRP. and CRr. Soun:<"' 0. .... ,,,,,,«I rrom Frey tl >I. (2010).

orchards (i.e., pecan sitvopasmre) is prac·

ciced in the LMAV. although praclilioners may nol call it agroforesuy (Frey et al.

2010). Lack of local experience crealCS

greater uncenainry and risk to landowners about profitabiliry of agroforestry. Tree­

based practices arc also less flexible 10 change back 10 crops if cOlldilions become unfavor. able for agroforestry.

Social faclOrs call also playa role in

whether landowners will adopt agroforestry. Blending agroforestry practices into an agri­

cu llura l landscape can be more complic;ned to implemem and manage than a single land

usc. Agroforestry pract ices can also appear nonuniform and messy. because of mixed

plant ings, which may not conform 10 a land­owner's concept of good land stewardship

(Nassauer 1988, Ryan et al. 2003). lncreas· ing landowners' famil iariry with the benefits thai nonuniformiry and landscape complex.

iry can provide may allay some of rllI:.W: con· cerns.

Agrafarestry: A Viable Restoration Option

Agroforestry practices broaden [he spectrum of forestry options that might ap­peal to landowners in the LMA V. Agrofor.

estry can be blended into agricultural land­

scapes and tailored through placemelll and design 10 provide desired m ixes of produc·

tion and conservalion benefitS. Profit poten·

lial from agroforestry can Ix: competi t ive

wilh agricultu ral crops and production for·

eSlTY on marginal agricultural lands in the

LMAV. Emerging markets for biofud s and

ecosystem services may enhance future pros·

peCls for agroforestry profitability. Adoption

of agroforestry practices is hindered by the

lack of famili<l rilY and experience with agro­

forestry in [his region. Nevertheless, having

more options for landowners 10 choose from

increases che chances of finding one Ihal ap'

peals to each landowner's preferences. In

this way, agroforestry could supplemem cur·

rem BLH forest restor:n ion practices for rc·

Sloring fo rest functions and values in the LMAV.

literature Cited AMACHER, G .• J. SUUIVAN. L SHABMAN, L. ZEPP,

AND J. GRONINGER. 1997. Rmorarion ofrlN UJwu MiSJjSJjppi D~/ul horromfilnd hl1rdwood form: Economic I1nd poliry roruidnatiom. Vir· gini .. Water Resour. Res. Unler Res. Bull. ISS. Virginia rolyttthnic and Sta\(: Univ. , Blacksburg. VA. S5 p.

A"-lDERSON.D.R. 1997. Corridor us~.fndinguol. ogy. and habiUll rti4riomhipI ofhlllt}, b~an in a fragmmlnl i4ndsraJN in LouUiDnl1. MSc thes is. Univ. of T~nnessee, Knoxville. TN. 124 p.

ANDERSON. J.D .. AND C.M. PARKHURST. 2004. Economic comparison of commodity md con· servation program benefits: An example from

the Mississippi Delta. }. Aric. Appl Econ. 36(2):4 I 5-424.

BURGtR.. L.W. JR.. 2005. TI,e Conservalion Re­serve rrogram in Ihe SOUlheast: Issucs affttting habitac value. P. 63-92 in Fuh and wildlif bmr}i1I ofFaTm Bill programs: 2000-2005 up­rUJu, Tuh. RnJ. 05·2, HauAer, J.B. (cd.). The Wildl ife Sociel}'. Bethesda, MD.

D1CKMANN. 0.1. 2006. Silviculture and biology of shon·rocation woody crops in temperate reo gions: Then and now. Biomass Biotnt'tJ 30: 696-705.

Dt r ARDO. J. 2002. Outkmk for biomass rlhanol production I1nd tUmand. US Dcp,- of Energy. Energy Informacion Admin.. Washington. DC. 10 p.

FREY. G.E .. D.E. MERCER. F.W. CUBBAGE, AND R.C. ABT. 2009. A real options method for est imating Ihe ldoplion potemial of forestry and agroforcsuy syscems on private lmds in the Lower Mississippi Al luvial Valley. USA. P. 1- 11 in Prot. of XIII World Fomtry Con· grw. Buenos Aires, Argemina. Oct. IS -23, 2009. lip.

FREY, G.E .• D.E. MERCER. F.W. CUBBAGE, AND R.c. ART. 2010. Economic polcmial of agro­fort.luy md forcstty in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valky with incentive programs and carbon paymenl.';. Sou/h. J. Appl For. 34: 176-ISS.

GARDINER. E.S .• AND J.M. OUVER. 2005. Resto­ration of bouomland hardwood forests in the Lower Mississippi Alluvjal Valley. U.S.A. P. 235-25 I in 1m/oration ofborta/and umporllU fomrs. Slanturf. J.A .. and r. Madsen (cds.). CRC rress, Boca RalOn. FL.

journal of Formry • January/ February 2012 53

GAAAETT, H. E. (ED.). 2009. North Am~rican

agrofomtry: An inugratrd scima and praC"tiu, 2nd Ed. American Society of Agronomy, Mad­ison, WI. 379 p.

GOLD, MA, AND j.W. HANOVER. 1987. Agro­forc:!; uy SYSlems for me lempc:rale wne. Agro­form. Syst. 5;109~ 121.

HAMEL, r.B. 2003. Wimer bird communiI)' dif­ferences among methods ofoonomland hard­wood foreSI rC:!;lotalion: Resulu alier seven growing seasons. Form'} 76{2): 189- 197.

HAYNES, R.J. 200·i. Thedevdopmem ofOOllom­land forC:!;1 rC:!;lOration in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Val ley. £CoL Rmor. 22:170-182.

HEITMEYER, M.E., R.J. CooP£iI, J.G. D!CKSON, AND B.D. LEOPOLD. 2005. Ecological relalion­ships of warm-blooded venebtales in botlom­land hardwood ecoSYSlems. P. 281 - 306 in Ecology and manag~mml of botloml4nd hard­wood uosylUms: TIN stal( of our und~l1l11nding, Fredrickson, L H., S.L King, and R.M. Ka­minski (eds.). Gaylord Memorial Lab. Spec. Pub1. 10, Vniv. of M issouri~Columbia, Puxico. MO. ~42 p.

HENDERSON. D. 1991. OpporlUnili(!S for agro­forestry in Ihe mid-SOUlh. P. 8~-1 00 in PrO(". of Mid-soulhconf on agroformry pracrirts a"d pol_ ici~s. Henderson, D.R. (ed.). Winrock Inter­nalional Insti lute for Agricuhural Develop­menl, MorrUlon. AR. Wc:!;1 Memphis, AK, Nov. 28 - 29, 1990.

HILTY, j.A .. W.Z. LIOICKER JR .. AND A.M. ME­RENLENDER. 2006. Corridor rcology: Thr sci~n(r and prarria of lin Iring I4ndscaptJ for biodillmity eonsrrvalion. Island Press, Washinglon, DC. 323 p.

HOOVER, j.j., ... ND K.j. KILLGORE. 1998. Fish Communili(!S. P. 237- 287 in Soulh~", forrstrd wnl4nds: Eeolog, and mana~mrnt, Messina, M.G .• and W.H. Conner (eds.). lLwis Pub­lishm, New York. 616 p.

HOOVER, j,j .. AND K.j. KIllGORE. 2002. Small jloodpl4in pools as habital for fisM and amphib­ians: MtthodJ for (tIalualion. US Army Envi­tOn. R(!S. and lliv. Cem~r Tech. NOle EM­RRJ>-EM-03, Vicksburg, MS. 13 p.

IBEN[)AHL, G. 2008. An accouming ltadeoff berwccn WRP and governmenl paymenlS. P. 1- 16. in PrO(. of ann. con! f)ft~ Southrr" Agrirultural Economic AJsO("ialion, Dallas. TX, Feb. 2~ 6, 2008. 16p.

KEOlE!A.N, G.A .. AND T.A VOLK. 2005, Renew­able energy from wi llow biomass crops: Life cycle, energy, environmental, and economic benefilS. Crit. R(tI. Plant Sci. 24{)-6):38~-406.

Kl LGO, j.e, RA S ... RGENT, B.R. CH/J'MAN, AND K.V. MILLER. 1998. Effecl of siand widlh and adjacent habilal on breeding bird communi­ties in boHomland hardwoods.). WildL Ma1ll1g.62(1):72-83,

KING, S.L., AND B.D. KEEl..AND. 1999. Evalua­tion of reforestation in Ihe Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. &slor. Eeo/. 7(4):348 -359.

KI NG, S.L., D.J. TWEDT, ... ND R.R. WtLo;QN. 2006, The role of the Wetland Rese:rve Pro­gram in conservation efforts in the Mississippi

River Al luvial Valley. Wildl. Soc. BuH. 34: 914-920.

LLEWEllYN, D.W .. G.P. SHAfFER, N.j. OWG, L OtfASMA.N. 0, PASHLEY, M. SWAN, ... ND C. BROWN. 1996. A decision-support syslem for prioril i1.ing rc:!;tQ rat ion sites on the Mississippi River alluvial plain. ConsrrtJ. BioI. 10(5): 1446- 1 4~~.

loWER MISSISS!PPI V ... LlEY JOINT VENTURE (LMVjV). 2007. Rmororian, managrment. and moniloring ofform ftIOurcn in Ihr Millis­sippi Alluvial Valfty; Ruommrndati01l1 for rn­handng wildlift habilat, Wilson, R. , K. Rib­beck, S. King. and O. Twedt (ros.). LMVJV For. Resaur. Conserv. WorlOng Group, Vicks­burg, MS. 137 p.

MUln-RESOLlJT!ON lAND CoVER CoNSORTIUM (MIU.C). 2011. 2006 Norional land co,," data. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC Available online at www.mrlc.gov/inda.php; lasl accessed May 13.2011.

MONTAGNINI, F., AND P.K.R. NA.lR. 2004. Car­bon sc:que5Itarion: An under~xpJ oi led envi­ronmelllal benefil of agroforestry systems. Agrofomt. S}SI. 61 -62(l -3):281-29~.

MUEllER, AJ .. D.J, TWEDT. AND C R. LoESOi. 1999. Devclopmem of managemeIJt objectives fOI breeding birds in the Mississippi Altuvial Valley. p. I - l~ in PrO(. oft~ 3rd Parmrrs in Highr Worlrshop, Cal' May, Nj, Orr. 1-5. 1995. Straugi~s for bird (ons~roalion: TIK Part­nm in Hight pl4nning proms, Bonney, R. , D. Pashley, R. Coof)Cr, and L Nil(!S (eds.). Cape May, NJ. Availableonlineal www.birds. corndl.edu/pifapc:may/mudler.hlm: lasl ac­cessed May 10,2011.

NASSAUER, j.1. 1988. The atSth<'l ia of horticul­lUre: Nearness as a fo rm of a re. Hartie. Sci. 23:97}-977.

NIJTTLE, T.J. 1997. RrsponJ~ ofbrrrding bird com­munitirs ro ajforrstari01l of hardwood bottom­I4nd sim in Millwippi. MSc Ihesis, Mississippi Stale Un;v .. Srarkville, MS. 68 p.

NUTILE. T.J ..... ND LW. BURGER. 1996. Re­sponse of bteeding bird communilic:!; to rl.'SIO­ration of hardwood bouomlands. PrO("tfflings of lIN Annual Conformer of tIN !)qurhrastrm As­s()(iatio" ofFi1h and Wildlifr Agrnrits ~0:228 -236.

RUDDElL, S., M.j. WALSH .... ND M. KANAKASABAI. 2006. Form carbon Irading and marlrering in lIN U1I;rrd Statrs. Society of Amerian Forest· ers, Bethesda, MD. I ~ p. Avai lable online al Iwww.fs.fed.us/ecosY$temservices/pdflforesl­carbon-trading. pdf; laSI accessed May 10, 2011.

RYAN, R. L, O.L ERICKSON, AND R. DE YOUNG. 2003. Farmers' motivations for adopling con­servalion pr3.Clices along riparian w nes in a mid-western agricullUraI landscape. j. Enlli­ro". PI4". Manag. 46: 19- 37.

SCHULTZ, R.c.. T.M. ISENHART, J.P. CollElTI, W.W. SIMPIONS, R.P. UDAW"''''A. ANO P.L SCHULTZ.. 2009. Riparian and upland buffer praclicc:!;. P. 163-218 in North Amrrican agro­forestry: Intrg,atrd Kirnuand praelier, 2nd Ed" Garren, H.E. (ed.), Amerian Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

54 jf)urnalofFomtry • january/February 2012

SPRIGGS, P. 2006. Privale landowners hold Ihe key. Comptm6:9-10.

STANTURf, j., E. GARDINER, r.B. H ... MEl, M.S. DUVALL, T.O. LEININGER, AND M.E. WARREN, JR. 2000. Ra lOring ool1omJand hnowood ecosYSlems.j. For. 98(8): 10 - 16.

STANTURF, j., E. GARDINER, AND S. ScHOEN~!OlTZ.. 2003. Imerplaming for bioc:nergy and riparian resrotalion in the soumeaslem USA P. 24 1- 249 in Proc. of thr muting on Shon rotation crops for biornngy; Nrw h aland. 2003, 1m. Energy Agency. Bioenergy Res. Prog., ROlOrua, New Zealand. Available onlin~ al www.shoruOiation crops.orglPDFsl2oo3Mtgl29-Slanlurf~lalNZ. pdf; last accessed. May 10, 2011.

TOLBERT. V.R" F.e. THORNTON. J.D. jOSUN, B.R. BocK. W.E. B ... NDARA1·'1AY"'Kf, D.O. Ty­LER, O. PETTRY, T.H. GREEN, R. M ... KJK, L BINGHAM, AE. HOUSTON. M. SHIItES, j. DEWEY, ... ND S. SCHOEN HOLTZ. 1998. Soil and water quality asp·eclS of herbaceous and woody energy crops ptoductions: Lessons from re­seareh-5Cale comparisons wilh agricuhural crops. P. 1- 8 in PrO(". ofeo"f. on BioEnr,!! '98; Expanding bior"trgy pamlmhips. US DellI. of Energy, Washington. DC, Madison, WI. Oct. 4- 8,1998.8 p.

TOLBERT. V.R .• J.D. JOSUN, F,C TBORNTON, B.R. BocK, D.E. PETTRY, W. BANDARAN ... y­

AKE. D. TYLER, A. HOUSTON, AND S. ScHOEN­HOLTZ. 1999. Biomass crop production: Ben­efilS for soil qualiry and carbon I'Cqu(!Str:l.lion. 1'. 127- 132 in Biomass: Agrowth opportunity in grren rnrro a"d lIalur-tubkd prodUCIS: Th~ fourth biomiW e()"Jrrrne~ oft~ Amtrieas, Over­end. R. P .. and E. Chorn<'l (eos.). FJsevier Sci­ence, OJord, UK. Available online al www. ornl.gov/- webworkslcppr/y 200 I/presl l 13727. pdf. last acc.es.scd May I]' 2011.

TWEDT, 0.]., "'NOj. PORTWOOD. 1997. BOHom­land hardwood reforc:!;tat ion for neoHopial migratory birds: Arc we missing Ihe forest for Ihe [fees~ Wildl. SO(". BuH. 25(3):647- 6~2.

TWEDT, D.j., AND CR. loESCH. 1999. Forest area and disuibution in the Mississippi Allu­vial Valley: Implicalions for breeding bird con· $l!:rvation.). Biogrogr. 26: 121 ~-1224.

TWEPT, 0.]., R.R. WLLSON, j.L HENNE- KERR, AND DA GRQSSH UESCH. 2002. Avian re­sponse: 10 bonomland hardwood teforestalion: The fint 10 years. Rmor. EcoL 10:64~- 65~.

TWEDT. D.J., .... 'om J. PORTWOOD. 2003. Synergy of agroforeslry and bollomland hardwood af­fOrl.'S13 lion. 1'. 8~- 89 in PrO(". of61h eon[ on Agroforrstry in North Amrrica. Associalion for Temperate Agroforestry. Columbia, MO, Hot Springs. AK.lune 12-16, 1999.

TWEDT, D.J., AND C. Bm . 2004. RCSloration of Roodplain forests for !he conservation of miW'l­tory landbirds. !?rstor. Erol. 22(3): 194 -203.

TWEDT. D.j., W.B. VIHLEIN Ill, ... ND AB. EL­LIOT. 2006. A spalially aplicit decision sup­port model for r(!slOtation of foreSI bird habi­lal. Comrro. Bioi. 20(1):100-110.

USDA N ... TURAl. REsoURCES CoNSERVAnON SERVICE (NRCS). 1999. C01l1trvation corridor pl4nning al the I4ndJcapr kurl· Managing for wildlift habitat. USDA NRCS National Biol­ogy Handbk., ParI 190, Washington, DC.

US ENvIRONMENTAl. f>RoTEcnoN AcWO' (USEPA). 2007. WaUT qwdi.ry tradi"K toolKit for ,,"",it wrirm. EPA 833-R-07-004. USEPA, Washington. DC. Available online al _ .epa. go>' I owow I watershed/ ll'3ding/WQlT 001101. htm!; l2S1 accessed May 11 . 2011 .

US FISH AND W1LDU FE SERVICE (USFWS). 2010. R(t'olluy pion for liN Iwry-bilka Wooaptritr (Camptphilw prinr-ipalis). USFWS Southeast Region. Adama. GA Available online at www. fws.govlivorybill/!XIfli BWRecoveryPlan20 I O. pdf; last accessed May 12. 20 1 1.

US FOREST SERVICE. 2006. LowtT Mississippi AI­"willi Vai!q "Kional Slut/mUtt worhhop; S,n'

tMis of illformJltion. Av.lilable online at www.

kfcd. usfsuslainecllsymhesis- informalion.doc; las! aocc:sscd May II . 2011.

W AftWlCK.JA 2004. Dism'bjltion andabjlNkIlU' of lWtlmp rabbits and bats itt ftaprmua wrtlond flm" of soutiNtlSl Missouri. MSc thesis, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. MO. 127 p.

WI LSO N, R.R., AND D.J. T WEDT. 2005. BOI­lombnd hardwood cSlablish melll and avian colonizat ion of reforested siles in the Missis­sippi Alluvial Valley. P. 34 1- 351 in Ecology ana managtmtnr ofbotlomlona harawood J]S­

ums: Stau of our unatTstanainl, Frederick­son . L.H., S.L. King, and R.M. Kaminski

(cds.). Gaylord Memorial Lab. Spec. I'ubl. 10. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia, PU)lico, MO. 542 p.

WRICHT. L.t. , AND S. BERG. 1996. Industryl government collaborations o n shon -rOla· l ion woody crops for energy. fiber and wood products. In Prot'. of con! BioEntrgy '96; /'artntrlhipl to atllt lop and appi, biomllJl t((hnologin, US Dept. of Energy. Washing­lOll. DC. Nashvi lle. T N. SepL 15- 20 . 1996. 6p.

ZINIi:HAN. F.e., AND D.E. MERCER. 1997. An as­sessment of agrofotcstry systems in the south­ern USA Axroform. SJSr. 35:303- 32 1.

JounUlI of FortJtry • January/February 20 12 55