@misc{KayRegaMorenoetal., author = {Kay, Sonja and Rega, Carlo and Moreno, Gerardo and Herder, Michael den and Palma, Jo{\~a}o H. N. and Borek, Robert and Crous-Duran, Josep and Freese, Dirk and Giannitsopoulos, Michail and Graves, Anil and J{\"a}ger, Mareike and Lamersdorf, Norbert and Memedemin, Daniyar and Mosquera-Losada, R. and Pantera, Anastasia and Paracchini, Maria Luisa and Paris, Pierluigi and Roces-D{\´i}az, Jos{\´e} V. and Rolo, Victor and Rosati, Adolfo and Sandor, Mignon and Smith, Jo and Szerencsits, Erich and Varga, Anna and Viaud, Val{\´e}rie and Wawer, Rafal and Burgess, Paul J. and Herzog, Felix}, title = {Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe}, series = {Land Use Policy}, volume = {83}, journal = {Land Use Policy}, issn = {0264-8377}, doi = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.025}, pages = {581 -- 593}, abstract = {Agroforestry, relative to conventional agriculture, contributes significantly to carbon sequestration, increases a range of regulating ecosystem services, and enhances biodiversity. Using a transdisciplinary approach, we combined scientific and technical knowledge to evaluate nine environmental pressures in terms of ecosystem services in European farmland and assessed the carbon storage potential of suitable agroforestry systems, proposed by regional experts. First, regions with potential environmental pressures were identified with respect to soil health (soil erosion by water and wind, low soil organic carbon), water quality (water pollution by nitrates, salinization by irrigation), areas affected by climate change (rising temperature), and by underprovision in biodiversity (pollination and pest control pressures, loss of soil biodiversity). The maps were overlaid to identify areas where several pressures accumulate. In total, 94.4\% of farmlands suffer from at least one environmental pressure, pastures being less affected than arable lands. Regional hotspots were located in north-western France, Denmark, Central Spain, north and south-western Italy, Greece, and eastern Romania. The 10\% of the area with the highest number of accumulated pressures were defined as Priority Areas, where the implementation of agroforestry could be particularly effective. In a second step, European agroforestry experts were asked to propose agroforestry practices suitable for the Priority Areas they were familiar with, and identified 64 different systems covering a wide range of practices. These ranged from hedgerows on field boundaries to fast growing coppices or scattered single tree systems. Third, for each proposed system, the carbon storage potential was assessed based on data from the literature and the results were scaled-up to the Priority Areas. As expected, given the wide range of agroforestry practices identified, the carbon sequestration potentials ranged between 0.09 and 7.29 t C ha -1 a -1 . Implementing agroforestry on the Priority Areas could lead to a sequestration of 2.1 to 63.9 million t C a -1 (7.78 and 234.85 million t CO 2eq a -1 ) depending on the type of agroforestry. This corresponds to between 1.4 and 43.4\% of European agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Moreover, promoting agroforestry in the Priority Areas would contribute to mitigate the environmental pressures identified there. We conclude that the strategic and spatially targeted establishment of agroforestry systems could provide an effective means of meeting EU policy objectives on GHG emissions whilst providing a range of other important benefits.}, language = {en} } @misc{LiAmmannHelfensteinetal., author = {Li, Yafei and Ammann, Jeanine and Helfenstein, Julian and Williams, Tim G. and Levers, Christian and Mohr, Franziska and Diogo, Vasco and Zafeiriou, Rigas and Rolo, V{\´i}ctor and Beckmann, Michael and Hernik, J{\´o}zef and Kizos, Thanasis and Herzog, Felix}, title = {The potential of variable-rate technology for sustainable intensification of European arable farming}, series = {European journal of agronomy}, volume = {172}, journal = {European journal of agronomy}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1161-0301}, doi = {10.1016/j.eja.2025.127868}, pages = {1 -- 17}, abstract = {Sustainable intensification of agriculture calls for reducing inputs while increasing yields. Variable-rate technology (VRT) enables the application of the right amount of resources at the right time and place to meet crop requirements. VRT remains relatively underutilized in European arable farming compared to Americas and Australia. Facilitating VRT adoption and other precision agricultural technologies in European arable farming requires understanding the pressing needs of farmers and proposing location-specific solutions to their problems. To address this gap, we conducted online surveys of experts in agricultural research, service, and primary production across seven European arable farming regions. Experts were asked to estimate the current and future adoption of VRT and to assess the role of relevant factors for adopting VRT in their regions. Furthermore, we asked about the challenges of fertilization, weed/pest control, and water management. Our results show a higher current and future VRT application for fertilization compared to weed/pest control and irrigation across all regions. The biggest barriers against VRT adoption in arable farming are cost, government regulations, and technology complexity. Moreover, our results show that VRT can more efficiently address the challenges of fertilizer application and weed/pest control, but has limited potential in addressing water management challenges, which need to be tackled by crop breeding, irrigation infrastructure, and water withdrawal rights. Our findings suggest that the low adoption of VRT in Europe is related to high cost and complexity of VRT, the substitute measures of VRT, and the limitation of VRT in addressing agroecological and policy-related challenges. Sustainable intensification thus requires a portfolio of technological, social, behavioral, and policy innovations.}, language = {en} } @misc{LiHelfensteinSwartetal., author = {Li, Yafei and Helfenstein, Julian and Swart, Rebecca and Levers, Christian and Mohr, Franziska and Diogo, Vasco and B{\"u}rgi, Matthias and Williams, Tim G. and Zafeiriou, Rigas and Zarina, Anita and Ammann, Jeanine and Rolo, V{\´i}ctor and Verburg, Peter H. and Beckmann, Michael and Hernik, J{\´o}zef and Kizos, Thanasis and Herzog, Felix}, title = {Agroecological and technological practices in European arable farming : past uptake and expert visions for future development}, series = {Land use policy}, volume = {153}, journal = {Land use policy}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0264-8377}, doi = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107553}, pages = {1 -- 14}, abstract = {Agroecological and technological innovations are two important approaches in the transition towards agricultural sustainability. We lack knowledge about how current agricultural contexts may influence future development pathways and the relative importance of the two approaches. This study explores the alignment between past uptake of agroecological and technological practices and future visions of agricultural development in seven European arable farming systems. By combining landscape mapping with farmer interviews, we first assessed the past adoption of agroecological and technological practices in each region. Then, we compared our findings with expert surveys about the future directions of agricultural development that can address local arable farming challenges. We found that in regions with intensive arable farming, agroecological approaches lagged behind the uptake of technological measures, both in the past and in future prospects. In low-intensity regions, we found large gaps between past uptake and future prospects of agroecological and technological practice adoption. These gaps need to be overcome in the context of future challenges of climate change adaptation and of environmental obligations. Our results indicate the need to take differentiated measures depending on farm management intensity and landscape conditions to enhance the future uptake of agroecological and technological solutions that can address the local challenges.}, language = {en} }