What is the future for agroforestry in Italy?

Abstract

The successful promotion of agroforestry in Italy depends on both a recognition of tradition and the opportunities for innovation. In Italy, agroforestry has traditionally been a key component of landscape management. Complex systems, based on the integration among crops–livestock–fruit/forest trees, provided a wide variety of products (e.g. food, feed, fibers, fuelwood and timber) and other ecosystem services (e.g. soil erosion control and biodiversity preservation). Silvopastoral systems have been used for centuries and are still managed in marginal areas. The integration of fruits trees (in primis olive trees) with crops and grazing was widely practiced and is still profitable. Coltura promiscua was historically developed integrating fruit and forest trees and particularly multifunctional trees (e.g. Juglans regia L. and Prunus avium L.) to support vines and intercrops. Building on recent research, projects have also focused on innovation in agroforestry. The adoption of shade tolerant forage species and crops has been studied in silvopastoral and olive systems. Silvopastoral systems can significantly offset the greenhouse gas emissions produced by livestock and shield grazing animals from “heat waves”. Integration of fast growing timber trees (like Populus) in arable systems can help reverse the decline in plantation forestry in Italy. Finally, the constraints imposed by the EU agricultural policy, especially the prevalent provisions for monocrops severely limiting the introduction of innovative agroforestry approaches, are discussed. New political measures and certification actions are strongly required.

Full text

This is a pre-print of an article published in the journal Agroforestry. The final authenticated
1
version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00346-y
2
3
4
What is the future for agroforestry in Italy?
5
Paris Pierluigi1*, Camilli Francesca2, Rosati Adolfo3, Mantino Alberto4, Mezzalira Giustino5, dalla
6
Valle Christina5, Franca Antonello6, Seddaiu Giovanna7, Pisanelli Andrea1, Lauteri Marco1,
7
Brunori Antonio8, Giovanni Antonio Re6, Federico Sanna6, Giorgio Ragaglini4, Mele Marcello9,
8
Ferrario Viviana10, Burgess, Paul J.11
9
(1) Institute of Research on Terrestrial Ecosystems, National Research Council, V. le Marconi
10
2, 05010 Porano (TR) Italy
11
(2) Institute of Biometeorology, National Research Council. Via Caproni 8, 50143, Firenze, Italy
12
(3) Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi dell'Economia Agraria, Centro di Ricerca
13
Olivicoltura, Frutticoltura e Agrumicoltura (CREA OFA), Spoleto, Italy
14
(4) Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy
15
(5) Veneto Agricoltura, Regional Agency for Agriculture, Forestry and Agrifood Sectors, Viale
16
dell’Università, 14 - 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
17
(6) Institute for the Animal Production System in the Mediterranean Environment, National
18
Research Council, Traversa La Crucca, 3 - Localita' Baldinca - 07040 Li Punti, Sassari, Italy
19
(7) Department of Agriculture Sciences, Sassari University. Viale Italia 39, 07100, Sassari, Italy
20
(8) PEFC-Italy, Perugia, Italy
21
(9) Dep. of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, Via del Borghetto, 80 Pisa,
22
Italy
23
(10) Università Iuav di Venezia, Santa Croce, 191, 30135 Venezia, Italy
24
(11) Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, United Kingdom
25
Running title: Agroforestry in Italy
26
*Corresponding author
27
Pierluigi Paris, pierluigi.paris@cnr.it
28

Phone. +39 0763 374904, fax +39 0763 37498
29
30

What is the future for agroforestry in Italy?
31
32
P. Paris1, F. Camilli2, A. Rosati3, A. Mantino4, G. Mezzalira5, C. dalla Valle5, A. Franca6, G.
33
Seddaiu7, A. Pisanelli1, M. Lauteri1, A. Brunori8, G.A. Re6, F. Sanna6; G. Ragaglini4, M. Mele9, V.
34
Ferrario10, P.J. Burgess11
35
1CNR-IRET, Porano, Italy 2CNR-IBIMET, Firenze, Italy; 3Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi
36
dell’econimia agraria (CREA), Spoleto, Italy; 4Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy; 5Veneto
37
Agricoltura, Legnaro-Italy, 6CNR-ISPAAM, Sassari, Italy; 7Dep. of Agriculture Sciences, Sassari University,
38
Sassari, Italy; 8PEFC-Italy, Perugia, Italy; 9Dep. of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa,
39
Italy; 10Università Iuav di Venezia, Italy. 11Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom
40
41
Keywords: sustainable management; marginal areas; silvoarable; silvopastoral; CAP; production
42
certification; physiological ecology
43
44
Abstract. The successful promotion of agroforestry in Italy depends on both a recognition of
45
tradition and the opportunities for innovation. In Italy, agroforestry has traditionally been a key
46
component of landscape management. Complex systems, based on the integration among
47
crops-livestock-fruit/forest trees, provided a wide variety of products (e.g. food, feed, fibers,
48
fuelwood and timber) and other ecosystem services (e.g. soil erosion control and biodiversity
49
preservation). Silvopastoral systems have been used for centuries and are still managed in
50
marginal areas. The integration of fruits trees (in primis olive trees) with crops and grazing was
51
widely practiced and is still profitable. Coltura promiscua was historically developed integrating
52
fruit and forest trees and particularly multifunctional trees (e.g. Juglans regia and Prunus avium)
53
to support vines and intercrops. Building on recent research, projects have also focused on
54
innovation in agroforestry. The adoption of shade tolerant forage species and crops has been
55
studied in silvopastoral and olive systems. Silvopastoral systems can significantly offset the CO2
56
emissions produced by livestock and shield grazing animals from “heat waves”. Integration of
57
fast growing timber trees (like Populus) in arable systems can help reverse the decline in
58
plantation forestry in Italy. Finally, the constraints imposed by the EU agricultural policy,
59
especially the prevalent provisions for monocrops severely limiting the introduction of
60
innovative agroforestry approaches, are discussed. New political measures and certification
61
actions are strongly required.
62

63
1. Introduction
64
To address global climate change and food security whilst maintaining or improving the
65
environment, international researchers and policy makers are increasingly promoting
66
agroforestry (IPCC 2000; FAO, 2013; Lasco et al., 2014). Agroforestry is a land use practice
67
integrating woody perennials (trees or shrubs) with crops and/or animals on the same land unit
68
(Nair 1993). In Europe, it is both a traditional land use (Eichhorn et al. 2006) and a focus for
69
innovation. Burgess and Rosati (2018) highlighted that such systems can form a sweet spot
70
between agriculture and forestry. A recent survey carried out in the European AGFORWARD
71
project (www.agforward.eu), estimated a total European area under agroforestry management
72
of about 15 million ha corresponding to 8.8% of the utilized agricultural land (den Herder et al.,
73
2017).
74
Italy has the fourth largest area of agroforestry in Europe of 1.4 million ha (Table 1), the second
75
largest area of silvoarable and agroforestry with high value trees and the fourth largest area for
76
livestock agroforestry systems. Italy also contains a wide range of agroclimatic environments
77
ranging from cool Alpine areas to the warm Mediterranean (Metzger et al., 2005), leading to a
78
wide variety of agroforestry systems, which are often rich in biodiversity.
79
Prior to the 1950s, forests and trees were integral to many Italian land-use systems, as a source
80
of wood and food (fruits and game) and a crucial means for maintaining soil fertility of croplands
81
(Sereni, 1961). However, mechanization, the use of agrochemicals and the increasing cost of
82
agricultural labor have reduced the close links between Italian forests and agriculture (Paris et
83
al., 2001), leading to a progressive simplification of agro-ecosystems, which is a key weakness of
84
current Italian agriculture. However, there are opportunities for implementing both traditional
85
and modern forms of agroforestry that provide both production and environmental benefits
86
(Scherr et al, 2012). Furthermore, the wide range of Italian agroforestry can also create and
87
maintain diversified landscapes that are valuable for recreation and tourism (Gao et al., 2014;
88
Lefebvre et al., 2015).
89
2. Objectives and Methodology
90
In order to develop appropriate strategies to promote agroforestry in Italy, this paper reviews
91
the pivotal historic role played by agroforestry in the rural economy of Italy and then examines
92
recent innovations and the current and future constraints and opportunities. The review of
93

traditional agroforestry systems in Italy extends previous research by Pardini (2009) and
94
Eichhorn et al. (2006). The examination of innovative agroforestry systems builds largely on the
95
research and development undertaken in the AGFORWARD project between 2014 and 2017
96
(Burgess and Rosati 2018). In addition, a qualitative narrative review of literature was
97
conducted based on scientific articles collected through ISI WEB of Science and Google scholar,
98
and grey literature known to the authors. The agroforestry found in Italy and the associated
99
innovations are considered in terms of i) silvopastoral systems and those systems focused on ii)
100
olive trees and iii) arable production. Lastly, agroforestry certification is also considered.
101
102
3 Silvopastoral systems in Italy
103
Silvopastoral systems include both the integration of trees on livestock farms and the use of
104
livestock in forests (e.g. forest grazing) and orchards, particularly olive groves. Currently In Italy,
105
there is estimated to be 1,304,600 ha of land that integrates trees with livestock production,
106
equivalent to about 10.1% of the utilised agricultural area (Table 1). Historically silvopastoral
107
systems range from forestry grazing to the use of scattered trees in natural pastures. The tree
108
component varies from beech (Fagus silvatica L.) and conifers (mostly larch – Larix decidua
109
Mill.) at high elevations in Alpine and Apennine mountainous areas, to sweet chestnut
110
(Castanea sativa L.) in more humid mountain sites, and mainly oaks (like Quercus ilex L., Q.
111
suber L., Q. pubecens Willd. and Q. cerris L.) in the dry Mediterranean areas. Nowadays, most
112
managed silvopastoral systems occur in marginal areas. The benefits of silvopastoral systems in
113
Italy include the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, the improvement of livestock
114
adaptability to climate change and the nutritional quality of livestock products (Cassandro et al,
115
2013; Bernabucci et al., 2014; Segnalini et al., 2013; Nardone et al., 2010). Although overgrazing
116
is a problem for forest regeneration, this can be prevented by managing the grazing pressure
117
through rotational, mixed or precision grazing. A summary of the main silvopastoral systems in
118
three agroclimatic zones, as classified as by Ronchi (2009) is reported below.
119
Alpine silvopastoral systems
120
The areas of wood pasture that remain in the Italian Alps (Rackham and Grove, 2003) are
121
typically semi-extensive and grazed by cattle (Ronchi 2009). The structure includes both low-
122
density tree populations, and mosaics of small woods amongst pastures and shrubland
123
(Emanueli and Agnoletti, 2016). On the mountains of Piedmont and Aosta Valley, a traditional
124
system of great landscape and ecological value, although in decline, is the thin larch wood
125

pasture (Garbarino et al., 2011). This system integrates cattle, sheep, pasture and timber
126
production (Pardini 2009). The deciduous larch facilitates the spring regrowth of the pasture
127
and provides shelter to livestock from the summer heat. There are over 1000 ha of residual
128
larch wood pastures at Salten, Bolzano on the Mazzoccolo upland, one of the largest grazed
129
larch woodland in Europe (Emanueli and Agnoletti 2016). Often, the Alpine wood pastures form
130
part of wider transhumance system involving valleys or lowland areas, and in recent years,
131
herds are moved from the Mediterranean climate zones of Tuscany up to the Piedmont Alps to
132
spend the summer months on mountain pastures, called alpeggi (Pardini 2009). In the North-
133
West sector of the Alps, there has also been an increase in goat grazing in forests, because of
134
the growing interest in dairy goat products (Corti 2006).
135
Apennine silvopastoral systems
136
In past centuries, the rural economy of the Apennines was based on agro-silvopastoral
137
transhumance systems, and these led to a reduction in the area of shrubland and forests across
138
central-southern Italy through fire, charcoal production, and grazing of natural vegetation
139
(Caballero et al., 2009). However, after the second half of the 20th century, the reduction in
140
grazing in marginal areas led to a recolonization of shrublands and forests (Santilocchi and
141
D'Ottavio, 2005; Palombo 2013), and in particular the encroachment of Juniperus communis and
142
J. oxycedrus, Spartium junceum and Rosa canina in large tracts of the Central Apennines.
143
It is considered that there are about 600,000 ha of large-scale grazing systems in the Central
144
Apennines (Caballero et al. 2009), of which about half involves agrosilvopastoral practices
145
(D’Ottavio, personal communication). The main silvopastoral systems on the Apennines are
146
based on indigenous beef breeds, grazing continuously or moved to forest clearings and wood
147
pastures from the end of spring to the beginning of autumn depending on the altitude and
148
environmental conditions (Ronchi 2009).
149
Longhi et al. (2004) reported that on the northern Apennines, grazing with small herds of sheep
150
and cattle still occurs in clearings of some forest districts. The herds are kept mainly for the
151
benefit of tourists and land conservation rather than for an economic activity (Longhi et al.,
152
2004). The role of sheep grazing in ski lanes and firebreaks lines has received growing interest as
153
a special form of silvopastoralism aiming at preventing shrub ingression and reducing ski lanes
154
management (Argenti et al., 2000; Longhi et al., 2004; Talamucci et al, 1995; Tallarico et al.,
155
2002;). However, many managers consider this practice negatively since animals can dig plants
156
out from shallow soils and, thus, increase the risk of soil erosion.
157

Mediterranean silvopastoral systems
158
Silvopastoral systems are particularly important in the Mediterranean areas of Italy, including
159
the extensive and semi-extensive management for beef cattle, dairy sheep and goats (Ronchi
160
2009). In Mediterranean areas, the proportion of land area classified as “woods” range from
161
50% in Sardinia (1.2 million ha) and 40% in Calabria to 10% in Sicily and 7.5% in Apulia. Among
162
these regions, the greatest diversity and area of silvopastoral systems (wooded pastures, grazed
163
woodlands) is found in Sardinia. In Calabria, Campania, Apulia and Sicily, due to abandonment
164
of pasture, inadequate forest policies, and forest and shrub encroachment, only residual
165
patches of ancient silvopastoral systems are still present. Agnoletti (2013) describes such
166
silvopastoral systems as “historical rural landscapes”.
167
In the Sardinian silvopastoral systems, livestock (mainly sheep, goats and/or beef cattle but
168
sometimes pigs) typically graze throughout the year in almost all the region, using different feed
169
resources (grasses, shrubs and trees) sometimes on common land. Sedda et al. (2011) estimated
170
that the total area covered by oak-based agro-silvopastoral systems in Sardinia could exceed
171
400,000 ha. Also, Rossetti et al. (2015) reported that dehesa-like systems in Sardinia cover
172
about 113,000 ha. They are mainly dominated by cork oak, with tree densities ranging from 7 to
173
250 per hectare and are generally concentrated in the hilly north-eastern and central areas.
174
They are often tilled and sown every two to eight years, to grow annual mixtures for grazing
175
and/or hay production. Such dehesa-like systems are principally grazed by sheep and cattle
176
(Rossetti and Bagella 2014); however, in pure stands of cork oak, grazing is excluded and shrubs
177
are cleared mechanically when encroachment occurs. Beside cork oak forests, Sardinian agro-
178
silvopastoral systems (mostly under private ownership) combine cereals, pastures and forage
179
crops. In the public silvopastoral areas, farmers share grazing rights and agree on the
180
partitioning of the grazing area. Subsidies (e.g. subsidies for compensation of natural
181
limitations) have so far kept most systems viable even if at low-income conditions.
182
Innovations for Italian silvopastoral systems
183
Within the AGFORWARD project, Camilli et al. (2018) examined the positive and negative
184
perceptions of Italian stakeholders in relation to silvopastoral systems. This analysis highlighted
185
concerns related to the effect of agroforestry on pasture productivity, the need to increase the
186
forage availability and the assessment of the appropriate stocking rate to ensure system
187
resilience. The interactions between trees and pasture production have been determined by the
188
capacity of the different components to capture and use light, water and nutrients (Rao et al.,
189
1997; Nissen et al., 1999; Dodd 2005; Koukoura et al., 2009). Generally, annual herbage
190

production decreased as light availability decreased, due to reduced photosynthesis and
191
modification of leaf and tiller anatomy (Devkota and Kemp, 1999). However, the shade provided
192
by trees can increase pasture production at some critical stages in the year (Seddaiu et al.,
193
2018).
194
Many of the early studies on shade tolerant pasture species focused on the use of grass and
195
legumes as cover crops under orchards or tree hedgerows often using or simulating artificial
196
shade (Watson et al., 1984; Lin et al., 2001; Koukoura et al., 2009). Feldhake and Belesky (2005)
197
indicated that shade tolerant cultivars of selected species would be important for successful
198
silvopastoral management; however, actual experiments using selected species on agroforestry
199
farms are rare. Recently, Mauro et al. (2011, 2014) reported a specific adaptation to shaded
200
environments for some legumes such as Medicago rugosa Desr., M. polymorpha L. and Trifolium
201
spumosum. Franca et al. (2016) reported about the adaptation and persistence of a grass-
202
legume mixture for the rehabilitation of a fire prone grazed oak woodland in Sardinia and
203
concluded that the oversowing of well-adapted pasture mixture (Trifolium yanninicum, T.
204
brachycalycinum, Medicago polymorpha and Lulium rigidum) facilitated the recovery of the
205
burnt area under grazing management. As part of the AGFORWARD project, the CNR ISPAAM
206
research group completed field trials on shade tolerant pasture legume species on silvopastoral
207
farms. The preliminary results for the site-specific conditions indicated that the most promising
208
species were Trifolium subterraneum var. Campeda and Ornithopus sativus var. Cadiz. Some
209
persistence capability, due to their high levels of hardseededness, may be presumed for
210
Trifolium vesiculosum and M. polymorpha (Franca et al. 2017).
211
4 Olive agroforestry systems in Italy
212
The olive tree (Olea europaea L.) is the most widely-planted tree crop in Italy covering an area
213
of 1.16 million ha (FAOSTAT 2016). It is also currently the tree crop species most often
214
cultivated in agroforestry systems (Table 3). Its cultivation dates back millennia in Italy, as in the
215
rest of the Mediterranean (Zohary and Hopf, 1994; Besnard et al., 2013), and has profoundly
216
affected the economy and culture of the region (Loumou and Giourga, 2003; Kaniewski et al.,
217
2012). Historically, olive cultivation, as for other fruit trees, was typically an agroforestry system,
218
with sparse trees intercropped with grains and legumes, forages and even vines (Sestini 1963;
219
Lelle and Gold 1994), as described by Columella in “De re rustica”. Such olive agroforestry
220
systems remained virtually unchanged for centuries and even today the Italian land registry
221
(cadaster) classifies these lands as “seminativo arborato” (arable land with trees). When the
222
understory was not cultivated, the orchard provided pasture for animals which, in turn,
223

controlled weeds and provided fertilization for the orchards (Vannucci, 2009). As an evergreen
224
species, olive pruning materials also provided forage.
225
The area of recorded olive agroforestry (i.e. olive trees intercropped with other crops and/or
226
grazed) in Italy declined from 1.8 million ha in 1910 to 1.08 million ha in 1980 (Table 3),
227
associated with increasingly specialized orchards, with closer spaced trees, to increase
228
production (Brugnoli and Varanini, 2005). This trend certainly continued after 1980, but there
229
are no current data on the present extent of olive agroforestry. Despite this trend, olive
230
orchards in Italy are still in great part managed with traditional cultivars and large trees, often
231
planted at low and irregular densities and this makes it difficult to precisely estimate the actual
232
area covered by olive trees. Even so, it is estimated that there are several hundred thousand
233
hectares of relatively sparse olive trees in Italy that are, or could be, intercropped with other
234
crops and/or grazed.
235
Innovations for olive agroforestry
236
In recent decades, green mulching in olive orchards has been increasingly recommended and
237
adopted, both to prevent soil erosion and soil degradation and to increase biodiversity.
238
Surprisingly, there has been minimal focus on using economically viable crops as green mulches,
239
perhaps because of cultural perceptions associated with intercropping. By contrast, Rosati et al
240
(2009; 2011) argue that there are revenue benefits of using marketable crops as long as they are
241
compatible with modern orchard management. Since, in Italy, olive trees are protected,
242
because of their landscape value and removing them is mostly illegal, the low profitability of
243
olive systems implies a risk of abandonment for large areas. Turning the orchards into more
244
productive and economically valuable agroforestry systems may contribute to their preservation
245
and the maintenance of attractive olive landscapes that support tourism.
246
There have been some recent attempts to design modern olive agroforestry systems. Possible
247
crops to be intercropped with olive trees need to be compatible with modern orchard
248
management, including widely used crops or innovative ones for highly profitable market niches
249
connected to eco-tourism. Preference should be for perennial crops, which offer greater soil
250
erosion control benefits than annual crops (Vallebona et al., 2016). There is also interest in
251
introducing medicinal species and species that encourage bees and other pollinator species.
252
Growing alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in olive orchards in Italy is still relatively common. Mantino
253
et al. (2016) examined alfalfa grown in wide-spaced (i.e. 5 m x 10 m) olive orchards in Tuscany,
254
and observed that the nutritive value of the alfalfa was unaffected by the trees despite lower
255

yields than in open field conditions.
256
Alternative intercrops also include naturally occurring edible vegetation for gourmet markets
257
(Rosati et al. 2009; 2011). Examples are species of arugula (Diplotaxis spp.) and species from the
258
sunflower family like sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus) and wild chicory (Cichorium intybus). These
259
species were historic components of the Mediterranean diet and, although recently neglected,
260
if their cultural and health value was identified and promoted, they could be profitable crops.
261
This could be particularly interesting for the 20,000 farms in Italy that integrate farming with
262
tourism activities (agro-tourism), where such products can be introduced and explained directly
263
to the consumers.
264
Recent research proposed the cultivation of a perennial wild asparagus (Asparagus acutifolius
265
L.) as an understory crop in olive orchards (Rosati 2001; 2009; 2011; Mantovani et al., 2016). As
266
a perennial crop, asparagus can help reduce soil erosion. The spears of wild asparagus have
267
been traditionally consumed in the Mediterranean area (Venezia et al., 1993; Fiori et al., 2001;
268
Adam 2004; Aliotta et al., 2004; Pieroni et al., 2005), and they remain a valuable product as
269
Asparagus acutifolius (as opposed to Asparagus officinalis) is not widely grown (Rosati, 2001).
270
The cultivation of wild asparagus, however, is possible (Venezia et al, 1993; Rosati and
271
Falavigna, 2000; Rosati et al., 2005; Benincasa et al., 2007; Rosati 2008) and it can be used as an
272
intercrop in olive orchards (Rosati et al., 2012b; 2012a; 2012c). The drought tolerance of the
273
Mediterranean wild asparagus also makes this crop particularly suitable for environments
274
where olive trees are typically grown.
275
Olive orchards can also be combined with poultry systems, like free range chickens, to weed and
276
fertilize the trees (Rosati et al., 2009, 2012a, 2012b; 2012c; 2014). The chickens under the trees
277
feel better protected from predators and the trees encourage wider ranging as chickens venture
278
further away from their sheds, thus foraging and benefitting from the pasture more than
279
without trees (Dal Bosco et al., 2014). The enhanced foraging can also improve chicken meat
280
quality (Dal Bosco et al., 2016). A life cycle assessment (LCA) by Paolotti et al (2016) also showed
281
that combining free range chicken with olive orchards brings about environmental benefits,
282
partly due to the chickens improving fertilization and weed control. Rosati et al. (2009, 2012a,
283
2012b, 2012c) have also examined and produced a video describing an agroforestry system
284
combining olives, wild asparagus and chickens. They observed that the mature asparagus plants
285
are prickly and do not get damaged by the birds.
286
287
5. Agroforestry for arable farms in Italy
288

The area of arable land in Italy has declined from 13 million ha in 1950 to 7 million ha in 2010
289
(Table 2), associated with the industrialization of agriculture, socio-economic change and the
290
globalization of agricultural markets. This reduction in arable area has meant that a higher
291
proportion of arable crop products is now imported into Italy. In addition, much of the
292
remaining arable land is found in lowland Mediterranean climates where crop yields are
293
particularly susceptible to climate change (Burlando and Rosso 2002; Giorgi and Lionello 2008).
294
The land use changes in arable areas have had contrasting effects on the tree cover. In many
295
marginal areas, the land has been abandoned and there has been natural tree regeneration. In
296
other arable areas, trees scattered across fields or along field margins have been removed with
297
negative effects for biodiversity, soil protection and wood production.
298
As in the rest of Europe, farmers with arable land in Italy receive Pillar I and Pillar II payments
299
from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, despite the multiple public benefits
300
provided by trees, the level of Pillar I payment received by farmers for arable land declines as
301
the tree density increases (Figure 1) (Perali, 2004). Since 1992, farmers have been able to
302
receive Pillar II payments for establishing buffer strips to reduce water contamination, and
303
broadleaved tree plantations either for valuable hardwood plantations (e.g. walnuts, wild
304
cherry) or for bioenergy plantations with fast growing tree species such as Populus spp., Salix
305
spp and Robinia pseudoacacia L. (Facciotto et al, 2015). However, the majority of farmers are
306
not attracted to these systems because of the poor financial returns and the depressed Italian
307
market for high value timber.
308
309
Coltura promiscua (literally promiscuous cultivation) is a commonly used term in Italy indicating
310
the typical association of trees, vines and arable crops (Meynier 1958; Zimmermann 1981;
311
Meeus et al., 1990; Pinto Correia and Vos, 2005; Zimmermann 2006). Such systems were also
312
found in other regions of Southern Europe characterized by very wet winters and hot summers
313
e.g. in northern Portugal (Stanislawski 1970), in the Basque region of Spain, and areas of
314
Southern France (Lavignac 2001). In many Italian regions the coltura promiscua was so
315
widespread that in 1929 in Tuscany, 97.2% of the land has been reported as being dedicated to
316
coltura promiscua and only 2.8% to specialized crops (Pazzagli 1979).
317
One system involved the planting of scattered trees in fields to sustain one or more vines. In
318
other areas, fields were divided into long arable strips separated by rows of vines trained on the
319
trees (Fig 2). The branches of the vines were woven from one tree to another along the same
320
row with intercrops of cereals, vegetables or forage. Desplanques (1959) defined this system a
321

“vertical mixed cropping”. This traditional agroforestry system was regionally practiced under
322
different names: alberata in Tuscany, Umbria and Marche, arbustato in the Naples hinterland,
323
piantata in the Po valley, creating diverse veritable “landscapes of trees” (Meynier 1958).
324
According to Babo 1866, the coltura promiscua was a perfect multifunctional agricultural system
325
providing several services from the same field: food (grains, wine and fruits), feed (hay and tree
326
fodder), fuel (wood) and building materials (timber). Trees provided shelter for birds and small
327
game, reduced hailstorm damage and excessive solar radiation on the vines, limiting
328
transpiration and reducing drought stress. Prior to the 1950s, these systems were estimated to
329
contribute to more than half of domestic timber and wood production in Italy (13 million m3
330
roundwood), compared to forest production of 10 million m3 (Mezzalira 1999). After the 1960s
331
and the associated modernization of Italian agriculture, coltura promiscua virtually disappeared
332
(Sereni 1957; Desplanques 1959; Gambi 1973) as the “outdated” rows of vines trained on the
333
trees were perceived as an obstacle to agricultural machines and were eradicated from the
334
fields. However, some relicts of tree rows and vines can still be found (Fig 3) and they are
335
increasingly recognized for their heritage value as a living archive of the coltura promiscua
336
historical landscape (Ferrario, 2012). Although the coltura promiscua cannot be revived as it was
337
in the past, it could provide a basis to understand the mutual behavior of different crops and
338
new forms of multifunctional and sustainable agriculture systems (Lang et al. 2018).
339
340
Agroforestry innovations for arable systems
341
Agroforestry on arable lands can improve land productivity, reduce pollution and address
342
climate change by sequestering more carbon than conventional arable systems. CNR-IBAF,
343
Veneto Agricoltura, the University of Pisa and the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa
344
have investigated the effects of tree buffer strips along field margins and drainage systems and
345
silvoarable systems on wood production and environmental benefits (Fig 4). Borin et al. (2010)
346
reported the positive effects of such systems on reducing pollutants in runoff water, reducing
347
nitrogen leaching and increasing carbon sequestration. Although the wood production
348
component of the system was often unprofitable (Borin et al. 2010), the use of fuelwood for
349
self-consumption is often practiced and difficult to evaluate.
350
There is a global demand for high quality timber from hardwood tree species; however, this
351
typically requires soils with good fertility, which creates competition with food crops (Pra et al.,
352
2016). Early silvoarable research in Italy focused on walnut and the competition between young
353
trees and crops for soil nutrients and water (Paris et al. 1995, 1998, 2005; Pini 1999). Regarding
354

light competition, Paris et al. (2013) showed that tree shade can be strongly detrimental to crop
355
yields; however, modelling research in France suggests that the combination of high value
356
walnuts with arable crops could still be profitable (Palma et al. 2007). In Italy, experimental
357
plots on poplar-oak silvoarable systems, set up within the AGFORWARD project, demonstrated
358
that the initial timber quality of poplar trees is not negatively affected by the wide tree spacing
359
required by agroforestry (Paris et al. 2016). Chiti et al. (2012) reported that approximately 70%
360
of the soil carbon stored on arable land in Italy occurs within the top 30 cm. Cardinael et al.
361
(2016) found an average soil organic carbon accumulation of 0.24 (0.09–0.46) Mg C ha-1 yr-1 at a
362
depth of 30 cm in silvoarable sites in France. If similar responses were found in Italy, then
363
turning arable lands into silvoarable agroforestry could be a means of increasing national carbon
364
sequestration.
365
6. Agroforestry certification
366
Interest is growing in extending the scope of sustainable forest management certification to
367
"trees outside the forest" (ToF) (de Foresta et al., 2013; PEFC 2015). Such agroforestry
368
certification will require the establishment of sustainable management criteria and guidelines
369
for agroforestry in Europe in a similar way to agriculture and forestry. It could also form the
370
basis of future certification of products from sustainably managed agroforestry systems, which
371
could increase the awareness of the social and environmental benefits of agroforestry by
372
European consumers.
373
In Italy, the National Governing Body of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
374
Certification schemes (PEFC) in 2015 and 2016 developed a national standard focused on tree
375
plantations, that includes some ToF management systems close to agroforestry. However,
376
agroforestry certification will be available only after the approval at the international level of
377
the PEFC SFM meta-standard, expanding the scope and including a new appendix for ToF
378
interpretation. A new national level of agroforestry or ToF standard would also require the
379
implementation of a pilot agroforestry certification to explore critical issues identified during
380
PEFC ToF scoping phase and clearly sharing practical feedback with PEFC from project
381
implementation.
382
7. Conclusions
383
Recent research on agroforestry in Italy has highlighted its historic and cultural importance, and
384
its capacity to address current concerns by combining climate-smart food production with
385

enhanced environmental benefits and opportunities for high value timber production. There are
386
important biodiversity benefits from preserving traditional plant cultivars and livestock breeds
387
found within traditional silvopastoral systems. Well-managed wood pasture systems also
388
provide opportunities to minimize land abandonment. However agroforestry often requires
389
additional management inputs compared to conventional farming, and hence in view of its
390
wider societal benefits, we argue that agroforestry in Italy deserves to be supported through the
391
CAP and associated rural development measures. As reviewed by Mosquera-Losada et al (2018)
392
and Santiago-Freijanes et al. (2018), the CAP support for agroforestry is dispersed in many
393
different measures and the profile of agroforestry would be increased if these measures were
394
brought together. Local and national policy makers in Italy can also promote the adoption and
395
maintenance of agroforestry by minimizing the administrative barriers associated with tree
396
management on farm land.
397
Acknowledgement
398
We acknowledge funding for this research from the European Community's Seventh Framework
399
Program under Grant Agreement No.613520 (Project AGFORWARD).
400
References
401
Adam D (2004) L'asperge sauvage: de la recolte spontanee a une production commerciale.
402
Infos-Ctifl 207:43-45
403
Agnoletti M (2013) Italian historical rural landscapes: dynamics, data analysis and research
404
findings. In: Agnoletti M (ed) Italian Historical Rural Landscapes, Springer Netherlands,
405
pp 3-87
406
Aliotta G, Aceto S, Farina A, Gaudio L, Rosati A, Sica M, Parente A (2004) Natural history,
407
cultivation and biodiversity assessment of asparagus. In: Research Advances in
408
Agriculture and Food Chemistry, Global Research-Network, pp 1- 12
409
Argenti G, Merati M, Staglianò N, Talamucci, P (2000) Herb sowing and evolution in ski lanes in
410
alpine areas (Insediamento ed evoluzione di inerbimenti tecnici di piste da sci in
411
ambiente alpino). Rivista di Agronomia 34, 1 (In Italian)
412
Babo A (1866) Bericht über die im Auftrage des k k Ministeriums für Handel und
413
Volkswirtschaft unternommene Bereisung der Weinbau treibenden Kronländer
414
Österreichs. I. Kroatien, Dalmatien, Istrien, Venetien, Tirol, Krain, Steiermark. Verlag C.
415
Gerold's Söhne, Wien
416
Benincasa P, Tei F, Rosati A (2007) Plant density and genotype effects on wild asparagus
417

(Asparagus acutifolius L.) spear yield and quality. HortScience, in press
418
Bernabucci U, Lacetera N, Baumgard LH, et al (2010) Metabolic and hormonal acclimation to
419
heat stress in domesticated ruminants. Animal 4:1167–1183. doi:
420
10.1017/S175173111000090X
421
Bernabucci U, Biffani S, Buggiotti L, Vitali A, Lacetera N Nardone A (2014) The effects of heat
422
stress in Italian Holstein dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 97:471-486. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6611
423
Besnard G, Khadari B, Navascués M, Fernández-Mazuecos M, El Bakkali A, Arrigo N, Baali-
424
Cherif D, Brunini-Bronzini de Caraffa V, Santoni S, Vargas P, Savolainen V (2013) The
425
complex history of the olive tree: from Late Quaternary diversification of Mediterranean
426
lineages to primary domestication in the northern Levant. Proc Biol Sci.
427
doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2833
428
Borin M, Passoni M, Thiene M, Tempesta T (2010) Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming
429
areas. Eur J Agron 32: 103-111. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.003
430
Brugnoli A, Varanini GM (2005) Olivi e olio nel medioevo italiano (Vol. 29), CLUEB, Bologna
431
Burgess PJ, Rosati A. (2018) Advances in European agroforestry: results from the
432
AGFORWARD project. Agroforest Syst 92: 801-810. Doi:10.1007/s10457-018-0261-3.
433
Burlando P, Rosso R (2002) Effects of transient climate change on basin hydrology. 1.
434
Precipitation scenarios for the Arno River, central Italy. Hydrol Process 16:1151–1175.
435
doi: 10.1002/hyp.1055
436
Caballero R, Fernandez-Gonzalez F, Perez Badia R, Molle G, Roggero PP, Bagella S, D´Ottavio P,
437
Papanastasis, VP, Fotiadis G, Sidiropoulou A, Ispikoudis J (2009) Grazing systems and
438
biodiversity in Mediterranean áreas: Spain, Italy and Greece. Pastos, 39: 9-154
439
Camilli F, Pisanelli A, Seddaiu G, Franca A, Bondesan V, Rosati A, Moreno GM, Pantera A,
440
Hermansen JE, Burgess PJ (2018) How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry
441
systems: an Italian perspective. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-
442
0127-0
443
Cardinael R, Chevallier T, Barthès BG, et al (2015) Impact of alley cropping agroforestry on
444
stocks, forms and spatial distribution of soil organic carbon - A case study in a
445
Mediterranean context. Geoderma 259–260:288–299. doi:
446
10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.06.015
447
Cassandro M, Mele M, Stefanon B (2013) Genetic aspects of enteric methane emission in
448
livestock ruminants. Ital J Anim Sci 12:73. doi:10.4081/ijas.2013.e73
449
Chiti T, Gardin L, Perugini L, et al (2012) Soil organic carbon stock assessment for the different
450
cropland land uses in Italy. Biol Fertil Soils 48:9–17. doi: 10.1007/s00374-011-0599-4
451

Corti M (2006) Risorse silvo-pastorali, conflitto sociale e sistema alimentare: il ruolo della capra
452
nelle comunità alpine della Lombardia e delle aree limitrofe in età moderna e
453
contemporanea. In: SM Annali di S. Michele, 19:235-340
454
455
D'Ottavio P, Scotton M, Ziliotto U, (2000) Legumes in mountain pastures of Monti Sibillini
456
(Central Apennines, Italy) grazed by sheep. Grassland Science in Europe 5:286-288
457
Dal Bosco A, Mugnai C, Mattioli S, Rosati A, Ruggeri S, Ranucci D., Castellini C (2016) Transfer of
458
bioactive compounds from pasture to meat in organic free-range chickens. Poultry
459
Science 00:1–8. doi:10.3382/ps/pev383
460
de Foresta H, Somarriba E, Temu A, Boulanger D, Feuilly H, Gauthier M (2013) Towards the
461
assessment of trees outside forests forest. Resources Assessment Working Paper 183.
462
FAO, Rome
463
den Herder M, Moreno G, Mosquera-Losada RM, et al (2017) Current extent and stratification
464
of agroforestry in the European Union. Agric Ecosyst Environ 241:121–132. doi:
465
10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.005
466
Desplanques H (1959) Il paesaggio della coltura promiscua in Italia. Rivista Geografica Italiana
467
LXV: 29-64
468
Devkota NR, Kemp PD (1999) Morphological aspects of pasture species in the shade in relation
469
to various management practices under silvopastoral systems. J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 19
470
-20:1- 26
471
Dodd IC (2005) Root-to-shoot signalling: Assessing the roles ‘‘up’’ in the up and down world of
472
long-distance signalling in planta. Plant Soil 274: 251—270. doi:10.1007/s11104-004-
473
0966-0
474
Eichhorn MP, Paris P, Herzog F, Incoll LD, Liagre F, Mantzanas K, Mayus M, Moreno G,
475
Papanastasis VP, Pilbeam DJ, Pisanelli A, Dupraz C (2006) Silvoarable Systems in Europe:
476
past, present and future prospects. Agroforestry Systems 67: 29-50.
477
Emanueli F, Agnoletti M (2016) History and Traditional Management of Italian Wood Pastures.
478
In: Agnoletti M, Emanueli F (eds) Biocultural Diversity in Europe. Springer International
479
Publishing, Cham, pp 141–155
480
Facciotto G, Minotta G, Paris P, Pelleri F (2015) Tree farming, Agroforestry and the New Green
481
Revolution. A necessary alliance. O. Ciancio (Ed.), Proceedings of the II International
482
Congress of Silviculture, Vol. II, pag.658-69. Italian Academy of Forest Sciences, Firenze-
483
Italy, 26-28 nov. 2014; ISBN 978-88-87553-21-5
484
FAO (2013) Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda: A guide for decision-makers, by G.
485

Buttoud, in collaboration with O. Ajayi, G. Detlefsen, F. Place & E. Torquebiau.
486
Agroforestry Working Paper no. 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
487
Nations. FAO, Rome
488
FAOSTAT (2013) Available at http://faostat3.fao.org/. Accessed on 15 February 2016
489
Feldhake CM, Belesky DP (2005) Photosynthetically active radiation use efficiency of Dactylis
490
glomerata in a hardwood silvopasture. North American Agroforestry Conference, CD-
491
ROM, June 2005
492
Ferrario V (2012) Aratorio arborato vitato. Il paesaggio agrario della coltura promiscua tra fonti
493
catastali e fonti cartografiche. In: Bortolami S Mengotti C (eds) Antico e sempre nuovo.
494
L’agro centuriato a nord est di Padova dalle origini all’età contemporanea. Cierre
495
edizioni, Verona
496
Fiori PP, Giola M, Ledda M, Tedde M (2001) Valorizzazione dell’asparago selvatico (A.
497
acutifolius L.). L’Informatore agrario, 50: 47.
498
Franca A, Caredda S, Sanna F, Fava F, Seddaiu, G (2016) Early plant community dynamics
499
following overseeding for the rehabilitation of a Mediterranean silvopastoral system.
500
Grassl Sci 62: 81–91. doi:10.1111/grs.12114
501
Franca, A., Porqueddu, C., Sanna, F., Seddaiu, G., Re, G.A. (2017). Lessons learnt for grazed oak
502
wood pasture in Sardinia, Italy. Contribution to Deliverable 2.5 in the AGFORWARD
503
project. 13 November 2017. http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/grazed-oak-
504
woodlands-in-sardinia.html
505
Gambi L (1973) Critica ai concetti geografici di paesaggio umano. In: Id. Una geografia per la
506
storia. Einaudi, Torino, pp 151-168
507
Gao J, Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2014) Agricultural Landscape Preferences: Implications for
508
Agritourism Development. J Travel Res 53:366–379. doi: 10.1177/0047287513496471.
509
Garbarino M, Lingua E, Martinez Subirà M, Motta R (2011) The larch wood pasture: structure
510
and dynamics of a cultural landscape. Eur J For Res 130:491–502. doi: 10.1007/s10342-
511
010-0437-5
512
Giorgi F, Lionello P (2008) Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob
513
Planet Change 63:90–104. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.09.005
514
IPCC (2000) Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B,
515
Ravindranath NH, Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ (Eds.) Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 375
516
ISTAT Italian National Institute of Statistics. http://www.istat.it/it/ Last accessed on 16.07.2018
517
Kaniewski D, Van Campo E, Boiy T, et al (2012) Primary domestication and early uses of the
518
emblematic olive tree: Palaeobotanical, historical and molecular evidence from the
519

Middle East. Biol Rev 87:885–899. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00229.x
520
Koukoura Z, Kyriazopoulos AP, Parissi ZM (2009) Growth characteristics and nutrient content
521
of some herbaceous species under shade and fertilization. Spanish J Agric Res 7:431–
522
438. doi: 10.5424/sjar/2009072-433
523
Lambers, H., Chapin III, F. S., & Pons, T. L. (2008). Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer New
524
York.
525
Lang, C.P., Merkt, N., Geilfus, C.M., Graeff–Hönninger, S., Simon, J., Heinz Rennenberg, H., &
526
Zörb, C. (2018) Interaction between grapevines and trees: effectson water relations,
527
nitrogen nutrition, and wine. Archives of Agronomy and Soil, Science. doi:
528
10.1080/03650340.2018.1493197
529
Lasco RD, Delfino RJP, Catacutan DC, et al (2014) Climate risk adaptation by smallholder
530
farmers: The roles of trees and agroforestry. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:83–88. doi:
531
10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.013
532
Latawiec AE, Strassburg BBN, Valentim JF, et al (2014) Intensification of cattle ranching
533
production systems: socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in Brazil.
534
Animal 8:1255–1263. doi: 10.1017/S1751731114001566
535
Lavignac G (2001) Cépages du Sud-Ouest. Mémoire d'un ampélographe. Editions du Rouergue,
536
Rodez
537
Lefebvre M, Espinosa M, Gomez y Paloma S, et al (2015) Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale
538
public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J Environ Plan Manag
539
58:2088–2112. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2014.891975
540
Lelle MA, Gold MA. (1994) Agroforestry Systems for Temperate Climates: Lessons from Roman
541
Italy Forest & Conservation History 38 118–26
542
Lin CH, Mcgraw ML, George MF, Garrett HE (2001) Nutritive quality and morphological
543
development under partial shade of some forage species with agroforestry potential.
544
Agrofor Syst 53:269–281. doi:10.1023/A:101332340983
545
Longhi F, Pardini A, Ghiselli L, Tallarico R (2004) Comparison of terrestrial and aerial
546
oversowing of ski lanes grazed by sheep in the northern Apennines (Central Italy). In:
547
Proceedings of an international congress on silvopastoralism and sustainable
548
management “Silvopastoralism and sustainable land management”, Lugo, Spain, pp.
549
152-153
550
Loumou A, Giourga C (2003) Olive groves: “The life and identity of the Mediterranean”.
551
Agriculture and Human Values 20:87-95
552
Mantino A, Ragaglini G, Tozzini C, Cappucci A, Mele M, Bonari E (2016) Yield and nutritive value
553

of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in an olive (Olea europaea L.) alley-cropping practice. Book
554
of abstract 3rd European Agroforestry Conference, Montpellier, Franc. ISBN: 978-2-
555
87614-717-1, EAN: 9782876147171. Page: 403-406
556
Mantovani D, Benincasa P, Rosati A (2016) Olive (Olea europaea L.) and wild asparagus
557
(Asparagus acutifolius L.) agroforestry system: asparagus performance and its best
558
positioning in the olive orchard. In: Book of abstract 3rd European Agroforestry
559
Conference, Montpellier, Franc. ISBN: 978-2-87614-717-1, EAN: 9782876147171. Page:
560
229-231.
561
Mauro RP, Occhipinti A, Longo AMG, Mauromicale G (2011) Effects of Shading on Chlorophyll
562
Content, Chlorophyll Fluorescence and Photosynthesis of Subterranean Clover. J Agron
563
Crop Sci 197:57–66. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2010.00436.x
564
Mauro RP, Sortino O, Dipasquale M, Mauromicale G (2014) Phenological and growth response
565
of legume cover crops to shading. J Agric Sci 152:917–931.
566
doi:10.1017/S0021859613000592
567
Meeus JHA, Wijermans MP, Vroom MJ (1990) Agricultural landscapes in Europe and their
568
transformation. Landscape and Urban Planning 18: 289-352 doi:10.1016/0169-
569
2046(90)90016-U
570
M. J. Metzger, R. G. H. Bunce, R. H. G. Jongman, C. A. Mücher, and J. W. Watkins (2005) A
571
climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 14: 549–563.
572
doi: 10.1111/j.1466-822x.2005.00190.x
573
Meynier A (1958) Les paysages agraires. Colin, Paris
574
Mosquera-Losada, MR, Santiago-Freijanes, JJ., Pisanelli, A., Rois-Dı´az, M., et al. (2018)
575
Agroforestry in the European common agricultural policy. Agroforest Syst 92:1117–
576
1127. doi 10.1007/s10457-018-0251-5
577
Nair PR (1993) An introduction to agroforestry. Springer Science & Business Media.
578
Nardone A, Ronchi B, Lacetera N, et al (2010) Effects of climate changes on animal production
579
and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest Sci 130:57–69.
580
doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011
581
Nissen TM, Midmore DJ, Cabrera ML (1999) Aboveground and belowground competition
582
between intercropped cabbage and young Eucalyptus torelliana. Agrofor Syst 46:83–93.
583
doi: 10.1023/A:1006261627857
584
Palma JHN, Graves a. R, Bunce RGH, et al (2007) Modeling environmental benefits of
585
silvoarable agroforestry in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119:320–334. doi:
586
10.1016/j.agee.2006.07.021
587

Palombo C (2013) The influence of land-use and climatic changes on mountain pine (Pinus
588
mugo Turra spp. mugo) ecotone dynamics at its southern range margin on the Majella
589
massif, Central Apennines. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Molise
590
Paolotti L, Boggia A, Castellini C, et al (2016) Combining livestock and tree crops to improve
591
sustainability in agriculture: A case study using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
592
approach. J Clean Prod 131:351–363. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.024
593
Pardini A (2009) Agroforestry systems in Italy: traditions towards modern management. In
594
Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects. Rigueiro Rodriguez A,
595
McAdam J, Mosquera Losada MR, (eds), Springer, New York, pp 255–267
596
Paris P, Buresti E, Cannata F (2001) Agroforestry in Italy. Tradition of the practice and research
597
indications on new models. Proceedings of the Chinese-italian Workshop “Forestry and
598
Agroforestry for Environmental protection and Rural Development", Beijing, China, 2-6
599
Nov. 1999
600
Paris P, Cannata F, Olimpieri G (1995) Influence of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) intercropping
601
and polyethylene mulching on early growth of walnut (Juglans spp.) in central Italy.
602
Agrofor Syst 31:169–180. doi:10.1007/BF00711724
603
Paris P, Olimpieri G, Todaro L, et al (1998) Leaf-water potential and soil-water depletion of
604
walnut mulched with polyethylene and intercropped with alfalfa in central Italy. Agrofor
605
Syst 40:69–81. doi:10.1023/A:1006079215567
606
Paris P, Perali A, Pisanelli A (2013) Uso di G, area basimetrica, per la modellizzazione
607
dell’interazione tra alberi e colture erbacee consociate in sistemi silvoarabili di noce da
608
legno. Poster. IX Congresso Nazionale SISEF, “Multifunzionalità degli ecosistemi forestali
609
montani”, Libera Università di Bolzano/Bozen
610
Paris P, Pisanelli A, Todaro L, et al (2005) Growth and water relations of walnut trees (Juglans
611
regia L.) on a mesic site in central Italy: Effects of understorey herbs and polyethylene
612
mulching. Agrofor Syst 65:113–121. doi:10.1007/s10457-004-6719-5
613
Paris P, Tosi L, Leonardi L, Ciolfi M, Della Valle C, Mezzalira G, Sangiovanni M, Lauteri M (2016).
614
Interspecific interactions on the light, water and nitrogen availability in a young poplar
615
silvoarable system. In: Gosme M et al. [eds], Celebrating 20 years of Agroforestry
616
research in Europe. Book of extended Abstracts of the 3rd European Agroforestry
617
Conference, European Agroforestry Federation. Montpellier, 23-25 May 2016, pagg.
618
232-235
619
Pazzagli C (1979) Per la storia dell'agricoltura toscana nei secoli 19 e 20 Dal catasto particellare
620
lorenese al catasto agrario del 1929. Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Torino.
621

PEFC (2015). https://www.pefc.it/documenti/standards-gestione-forestale-sostenibile-
622
piantagioni-arboree
623
Perali A (Academic Year 2011/2012) PhD Thesis: Modelli colturali pr lo sviluppo di sistemi
624
agroforestali nell’ambito della Politica Agricola Comunitaria. University of Tuscia,
625
Viterbo, Italy
626
Pieroni A, Nebel S, Santoro RF, Heinrich M (2005) Food for two seasons: Culinary uses of non-
627
cultivated local vegetables and mushrooms in a south Italian village. Int J Food Sci Nutr
628
56:245–272. doi:10.1080/09637480500146564
629
Pini R, Paris P, Benetti A, Guidi GV (1999) Soil physical characteristics and understory
630
management in a walnut (Juglans regia L.) plantation in central Italy. Agrofor Syst 46:95–
631
105. doi:10.1023/A:1006200310884
632
Pinto Correia T, Vos W (2005) Multifunctionality in Mediterranean landscapes. Past and future.
633
In: Jongman RHG (ed) The New Dimensions of the European Landscapes. Springer The
634
Netherlands, pp 135-164
635
Pra A, Brotto L, Mori P, Buresti Lattes E, Polato R, Pettenella D (2016) Redditività finanziaria
636
delle piantagioni da legno. Sherwood 222:11-16
637
Rackham O, Grove ATG (2003) The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History,
638
Yale University Press
639
Rao MR, Nair PKR, Ong CK (1997) Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry systems.
640
Agroforestry Systems, 38: 3–50
641
Ronchi B (2009) Rilevanza e prospettive dei sistemi zootecnici silvopastorali. Proceedings of the
642
Terzo Congresso Nazionale di Selvicoltura per il miglioramento e la conservazione dei
643
boschi italiani. 16-19 ottobre 2008, Taormina (Messina), pp. 366-371
644
Rosati A (2008) Come realizzare una piccola coltivazione di asparago selvatico partendo dal
645
seme. Vita in Campagna 11(2008): 26-29
646
Rosati A (2011) Asparagi nell’oliveto e la produzione raddoppia. Olivo e Olio 7/8: 20-24
647
Rosati A (2014) Coltivare asparagi selvatici e allevare polli in un piccolo oliveto. Vita in
648
Campagna 12: 44-48
649
Rosati A (2001) Un possibile futuro per l’asparago selvatico. L’Informatore Agrario 7: 89-92
650
Rosati A, Castellini C, Dal Bosco A, Mugnai C, Paoletti A, Caporali S (2012b) Olive agroforestry:
651
an inverse approach to agroforestry. In “What priorities for European agroforestry”,
652
M.R. Mosquera-Losada, A. Pantera, A. Rosati, J. Amaral, J. Smith, C. Dupraz Editors. Book
653
of abstracts of the 1rst European agroforestry conference, 9-10 October 2012, Brusseles.
654
ISBN: 978-84-96351-79-0
655

Rosati A, Castellini C, Dal Bosco A, Mugnai , Paoletti A (2012a) Manuale per la coltivazione
656
consociata olivo, asparago selvatico, pollo rustico. Edizioni 3A-PTA. ISBN 88-88417-06-0.
657
87 pagine
658
Rosati A, Concezzi L, Dal Bosco A, Mugnai C, Paoletti A (2012c) Olivo Asparago selvatico, Pollo
659
rustico. Video on the olive, wild asparagus and free-range chicken system:
660
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALw73WwUr2o. Accessed on march 2017
661
Rosati A, Falavigna A (2000) Germinazione dei semi di asparago selvatico. L’Informatore
662
Agrario 56/46: 53-55
663
Rosati A, Piottoli L, Cartoni A, Dal Bosco A, Castellini C (2014) Polli al pascolo nell'oliveto
664
Risparmio a tutto campo. Olivo e Olio 6: 4-7
665
Rosati A, Pepe R, Senatore A, Perrone D, Falavigna A (2005) Produttività dell’asparago
666
selvatico. L’informatore agrario 8: 75-77
667
Rosati A, Caporali S, Paoletti A (2009) Olive, Asparagus and animals: an agroforestry model for
668
temperate climate in developed countries. Proceedings of the III OLIVEBIOTEQ (For a
669
renovated, profitable and competitive Mediterranean olive growing sector), Sfax,
670
Tunisia, 15-19 December 2009, ISBN: 978-9938-9513-0-1, 229-233
671
Rossetti I, Bagella S (2014) Mediterranean Quercus suber wooded grasslands risk
672
disappearance: New evidences from Sardinia (Italy). For Ecol Manage 329:148–157. doi:
673
10.1016/j.foreco.2014.06.010
674
Rossetti I, Bagella S, Cappai C, et al (2015) Isolated cork oak trees affect soil properties and
675
biodiversity in a Mediterranean wooded grassland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 202:203–216.
676
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.008
677
Santilocchi R, D'Ottavio P (2005) The evolution of cattle and sheep breeding systems in Central
678
Italy over the past two centuries. EAAP Publication 115, pp 15-18
679
Santiago-Freijanes, J.J., Pisanelli, A., Rois-Díaz, M., Aldrey-Vázquez, J.A., Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A.,
680
Pantera, A.,, Vityi, A., Lojka, B., Ferreiro-Domínguez, N., Mosquera-Losada, M.R. (2018)
681
Agroforestry development in Europe: Policy issues. Land Use Policy 76: 144–156. doi:
682
10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.014
683
Scherr SJ, Shames S, Friedman R, et al (2012) From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart
684
landscapes. Agric Food Secur 1:12. doi:10.1186/2048-7010-1-12
685
Sedda L, Delogu G, Dettori S (2011) Forty-Four Years of Land Use Changes in a Sardinian Cork
686
Oak Agro- Silvopastoral System: A Qualitative Analysis. Open For Sci J 4:57–66
687
Segnalini M, Bernabucci U, Vitali A, et al (2013) Temperature humidity index scenarios in the
688
Mediterranean basin. Int J Biometeorol 57:451–458. doi:10.1007/s00484-012-0571-5
689

Seddaiu, G., Bagella, S., Pulina, A., Cappai. C., Salis, L., Rossetti, I., Lai, R, Roggerom P.P. (2018).
690
Mediterranean cork oak wooded grasslands: synergies and trade-offs between plant
691
diversity, pasture production and soil carbon. Agroforestry Systems 92:893–908.
692
Sereni E (1957) Note per una storia del paesaggio agrario emiliano. In: Zangheri R (ed) Le
693
campagne emiliane nell'epoca moderna. Feltrinelli, Milano
694
Sestini A (1963) Il Paesaggio (Touring club italiano)
695
Stanislawski D (1970) Landscapes of Bacchus. The Vine in Portugal. University of Texas Press,
696
Austin
697
Talamucci P, Pardini A, Argenti G, Staglianò N (1995) Functioning of a sylvopastoral system
698
based on different resources, including firebreak lines utilized by sheep. Options
699
Méditerranéennes 12:179–182
700
Tallarico R, Ghiselli L, Pardini A, Argenti G (2002) Cover in lanes. Acer, 1, 69-73 (In Italian)
701
Vallebona C, Mantino A, Bonari E (2016) Exploring the potential of perennial crops in reducing
702
soil erosion: A GIS-based scenario analysis in southern Tuscany, Italy. Appl Geogr
703
66:119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.11.015
704
Vannucci S (2009) Storia dell’olivo. L’ulivo e l’olio. Bayer CropScience, Milano
705
Venezia A, Soressi GP, Falavigna A, (1993) Aspetti relativi alla valorizzazione di specie di
706
asparago spontanee in Italia. Agricoltura e Ricerca 141: 41-48
707
Watson VH, Hagedorn C, Knight WE Pearson HA (1984) Shade tolerance of grass and legume
708
germplasm for use in the southern forest range. J. Range Manag. 37:229-232
709
Zimmermann RC (1981) Disappearing rural landscapes: a plea for a more systematic pictorial
710
record. Europa (Revue d’Etudes Interdisciplinaires) IV: 267–271
711
Zimmermann RC (2006) Recording rural landscapes and their cultural associations: some initial
712
results and impressions. Environ Sci Policy 9:360–369. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.009
713
Zohary D, Hopf M (1994) Domestication of plants in the Old World, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press,
714
Oxford, UK
715
716
717

Fig 1. Reduction in Pillar 1 EU single farm payments in relation to the area occupied by trees in
718
agricultural areas, based on crown projectionin Italy (Perali, 2011)
719
720
721
722

Table 1. Extent and distribution of agroforestry in Italy based on LUCAS data categorized
723
according to two systems and relative to the utilised agricultural area (UAA) and total extent
724
(from den Herder et al., 2017)
725
Agroforestry type
Primary land cover
Total
Propo
rtion
Ranking
Permanent crops
(‘000 ha)
Woodland
(‘000 ha)
Shrubland
and
grassland
with sparse
trees
(‘000 ha)
(‘000 ha)
of
UAA
(%)
in EU-27 in
terms of total
area
Agroforestry with
livestock
116.2
622.4
565.0
1303.6
10.1
4th
Arable agroforestry
90.3
15.8
0.0
106.1
0.8
2nd
Total
202.2
638.2
565.0
1403.9
10.9
4th
Utilised agricultural area
(UAA)
12856.0
726
727
Table 2. Area of forestry and different types of agricultural land and the number of livestock in
728
Italy in 1861, 1950 and 2010 (Source, Italian National Institute of Statistics, ISTAT).
729
Year
Agriculture
Forestry
Livestock (Cattle, pig,
Arable land
(million ha)
Pasture land
(million ha)
Permanent crops
(million ha)
(million ha)
sheep, goat, and equine)
(million head)
1861
12.70
5.70
2.30
5.63
16.78
1950
13.10
5.10
2.40
5.67
27.16
2013
6.80
3.34
2.26
10.98a
24.82
a INFC 2016 (www.sian.it)
730
731

732
Table 3. Area of cultivation of fruit trees in agroforestry systems in Italy for selected years
733
between 1910 and 1980 (Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), data published by
734
Agnoletti 2013). After 1980, ISTAT no longer distinguished between specialized and agroforestry
735
cultivation of fruit trees.
736
Year
Area of fruit trees in agroforestry systems (‘000 ha)
Vine
Olive
Apple
Pear
Peach
Plum
Almond
Walnut
Fig
1910
3570
1799
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1930
2974
1355
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1940
2963
1360
1595
1908
1142
898
760
775
1273
1950
2899
1437
1523
1749
1062
874
320
689
1342
1960
2578
1394
405
432
182
112
457
148
264
1970
702
1280
192
220
104
71
413
98
130
1980
445
1080
62
83
47
23
265
54
46
Na: not available
737
738

Fig 3. Coltura promiscua in the fertile alluvial area of northern Italy with poplar trees supporting
739
grapevine. Trees crown is periodically lopped for reducing the shade on the understory. Pruning
740
was used in the past for fuelwood, hay (fresh shoots with leaves), and basketwork (photo by M.
741
Turato, 2013).
742
743
Fig 4. Linear planting of poplar and oak along drainage ditches in Masi (Padova), Italy (photo by
744
A. Mantino, 2018).
745
746