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 ([email protected]) is rrstar(h «ologisl. Cltry !knlTUp r&[email protected]) is frstllr(h IamiscllJN planMr, and Mjch~k Schom~btrgtf ([email protected]) 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