Resilience of agroforestry practices to climate change in Europe: mechanisms, trade-offs and knowledge gaps
Through a consensus-based Delphi study involving 46 European researchers, this paper establishes that agroforestry practices generally enhance climate resilience compared to conventional farming by leveraging tree protection and biodiversity, though significant knowledge gaps persist regarding their performance relative to tree-only systems, pest dynamics, and financial viability.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
As the climate shifts, the weather patterns that have long defined European farming are becoming less predictable. Heatwaves are intensifying in the south, while the north faces more frequent flooding and fierce winds. For farmers, this means their traditional crops and livestock face new, severe risks. In response, scientists and policymakers are looking toward nature-based solutions, specifically a practice called agroforestry. This is not a new invention but a return to an ancient way of farming where trees, crops, and animals are grown together in the same space rather than in separate, single-crop fields. The idea is that by mixing these elements, the farm becomes more like a natural ecosystem, capable of buffering itself against extreme weather. However, Europe is vast, with climates ranging from the cold north to the hot Mediterranean, and it has been unclear which specific mix of trees and farming works best where, or if the effort is worth the cost.
To answer these questions, a large team of forty-six researchers from across Europe came together to map out the resilience of these mixed systems. They did not run new field experiments or build computer models; instead, they used a structured method to gather the collective wisdom of experts who study these systems daily. The team split into three groups representing Northern, Western and Central, and Southern Europe, asking each expert to compare various agroforestry designs against standard, single-purpose farming. They looked at how well these mixed systems could withstand specific climate threats, such as drought, heat, heavy rain, and wind, and they examined the trade-offs involved in managing them.
The experts reached a strong agreement on one major point: almost every type of agroforestry system offers better protection against climate shocks than farming with only crops or only livestock. When trees are added to a field, they act as a shield. Their canopies provide shade that cools crops and animals during heatwaves, while their roots hold the soil together, reducing the risk of erosion during heavy rains. The systems with the most tree cover, such as forest farming where crops grow under a dense canopy or forest grazing where animals roam in woodlands, were rated as the most resilient. These dense systems create a stable microclimate that protects the living things inside from the harshest extremes of the weather. In Southern Europe, where wildfires are a growing threat, the experts noted that managing the ground cover in these wooded systems through grazing or cropping can significantly reduce the fuel available for fires, making the landscape safer.
However, the picture becomes more complex when comparing these mixed systems to forests or orchards that already contain trees. Here, the experts were much less certain. Adding animals or crops to an existing forest does not always guarantee better resilience; in some cases, it might introduce competition for water or light that could stress the trees. The only clear exception was in Southern Europe, where experts agreed that managing the undergrowth in forests or orchards helps reduce fire risk and improves the trees' ability to survive drought. This suggests that while adding trees to a farm is almost always a good idea for climate resilience, the reverse—adding farming to a forest—requires careful planning and depends heavily on local conditions.
The study also highlighted the practical hurdles that farmers face. There was a clear consensus that managing a system with trees, crops, and animals is more difficult than managing a single crop. It requires more knowledge, different equipment, and careful timing. The financial picture was even murkier. The experts could not agree on whether these systems are more profitable than conventional farming, largely because the costs of setting them up are high and the returns from trees often take many years to materialize. While some specific setups, like intercropped orchards in the south, were seen as potentially more profitable, the overall financial benefit remains uncertain without government support.
Despite the challenges, the research points to a clear path forward. The experts suggest that farmers do not need to transform their entire land at once to gain benefits. Starting with simple additions, such as planting hedgerows or shelterbelts along the edges of fields, can provide immediate protection against wind and flooding with low risk. As farmers gain experience, they can move toward more complex, integrated systems. The study concludes that while agroforestry is a powerful tool for adapting to climate change, it is not a magic bullet that works the same way everywhere. Success depends on choosing the right mix of trees and farming for the specific climate and soil of the region, and it requires policies that help farmers manage the complexity and costs of these diverse, living systems.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.