An integrative approach to silvopastoral system design: perspectives, potentials and principles

Figures & data

Table 1. Review of the positive and negative impacts of silvopastoral systems globally for a range of outcomes.

Outcome	Positive impacts of silvopastoral systems	Negative impacts of silvopastoral systems	References
Pasture production	Some systems can increase pasture production compared to open pasture Processes that impact this outcome include: evapotranspiration reductions via shade and wind reductions; buffering of winter temperature lows; litterfall and litter decomposition; root decomposition; Mycorrhiza fungi interactions; increased soil biota diversity and richness; increased microbial activity; livestock excreta deposition under canopies.	Some systems can decrease pasture production compared to open pasture. Processes that impact this outcome include: photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) interception and excessive shading; lower average yearly temperature under canopy; competition for water via tree water use; nutrient uptake by the tree; livestock overgrazing and camping in the tree-pasture environment.	Bahamonde et al. (2009); Belsky et al. (1989); Benavides et al. (2009); Callaway et al. (1991); Douglas et al. (2001); Fernández-Moya et al. (2011); He et al. (2003); Howlett et al. (2011); Mackay-Smith et al. (2022b); Moreno et al. (2005); Peri (2005); Rivest et al. (2013); Roos and Allsopp (1997); Rossetti et al. (2015); Seddaiu et al. (2018)
Slope stability	Hydrological mechanisms: Interception of rainfall and snow by canopies of vegetation, thus promoting evaporation and reducing water available for infiltration. Root systems extract water from the soil for physiological purposes (via transpiration), leading to lower soil moisture levels. Mechanical mechanisms: Individual strong woody roots anchor the lower soil mantle into the more stable substrate. Strong roots tie across planes of weakness along the flanks of potential landslides. Roots provide a membrane of reinforcement to the soil mantle, increasing soil shear strength. Roots of woody vegetation anchor into firm strata, providing support to the upslope soil mantle through buttressing and arching.	Hydrological mechanisms: Roots, stems, and organic litter increase ground surface roughness and soil's infiltration capacity. Depletion of soil moisture may cause desiccation cracks, resulting in higher infiltration capacity and short-circuiting of infiltrating water to a deeper failure plane. Mechanical mechanisms: Weight of trees (surcharge) increases the normal and downhill force components. Wind transmits dynamic forces to the soil mantle via the tree bole.	Phillips and Marden (2005); Schmidt et al. (2001); Sidle and Ochiai (2006)
Discharge rates and nutrient losses	Silvopastoral systems have typically been shown to reduce surface runoff and associated sediment and nutrient losses compared to paired treeless pastoral areas. Processes that impact this outcome include: rainfall interception and throughfall reduction; tree water and nutrient use; maintenance of a good ground cover; soil quality improvements increasing infiltration; root systems increasing infiltration.	Silvopastoral systems can also increase surface runoff and sediment and nutrient losses. Processes that impact this outcome include: trees encouraging more pasture grazing under trees; stemflow facilitating surface runoff; competition between tree and pasture; tall trees increasing the erosive power of rain.	Bambo et al. (2009); Chen et al. (2018); de Aguiar et al. (2010); Grewal et al. (1994); Levia et al. (2017); Li et al. (2019); López-Díaz et al. (2011); Mackay-Smith et al. (2022a); Michel et al. (2007); Nair et al. (2007); Nanko et al. (2006); Wiersum (1985); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhu et al. (2020)
Greenhouse gas emissions	Silvopastoral systems generally sequester more carbon (both above and below ground) than open pasture.	Higher density tree cover can result in higher methane and nitrous oxide emissions if soil moisture is elevated.	Aryal et al. (2019); Baah-Acheamfour et al. (2016); Baah-Acheamfour et al. (2020); Cardoso et al. (2022); Dold et al. (2019); Haile et al. (2010); Hoosbeek et al. (2018); Lorenz and Lal (2014); López-Santiago et al. (2019)
Livestock welfare	Silvopastoral trees reduce heat stress in cattle and sheep, anc can result in lower respiratory rate, lower body temperature, lower water intake, longer grazing times and higher milk production. Little to no research on cold stress.	Excessive livestock camping under trees, or systems with a higher minimum night time temperature under trees, could increase the prevalence of parasites in livestock.	Blackshaw and Blackshaw (1994); Cloete et al. (2021); Dada et al. (2021); De et al. (2020); Jackson et al. (1986); Hawke (1991); Pent et al. (2021); Skonieski et al. (2021); Vieira et al. (2020); Yamamoto et al. (2007)
Biodiversity conservation	Silvopastures are generally beneficial to bird and insect populations compared to treeless pasture. Land-use history likely an important driver of local biodiversity as well as current land-use type. Systems can harbour high floral diversity. Even if floral diversity reduces under trees, the vegetation structure generally changes which adds to the overall diversity of the flora. Native trees should be a better habitat for native birds and soil fauna.	Studies have also shown silvopastures to have a neutral impact, as well as a negative impact, on biodiversity.	Fischer et al. (2010); Gómez-Cifuentes et al. (2020); Lencinas et al. (2015, 2008); Mackay-Smith et al. (2023); Mupepele et al. (2021); Peri and Ormaechea (2013); Rossetti et al. (2015); Santos-Reis and Correia (1999); Seddaiu et al. (2018); Tölgyesi et al. (2018); Torralba et al. (2016)
Cultural values and aesthetics	Silvopastoral systems can become important cultural practices in terms of the maintenance of traditional knowledge, recreation and eco-tourism services, and cultural heritage, such as in the dehesa system in Spain. Native trees will likely hold more cultural value than exotic trees. Different trees will have different cultural values depending on the location, this is highly location specific and often depends on use.	Farmers that have not typically planted trees may hold less value for silvopastoral systems than treeless pasture.	Borremans et al. (2016); Brown et al. (2012); Garrido et al. (2017); Moreno et al. (2018); Plieninger et al. (2021); Wilkens et al. (2022); Wossink and Swinton (2007)
Income diversification	Trees can provide additional income opportunities through providing fruit, nuts, high quality timber, post lumber and firewood. Either add extra income or a supplementary source to increase resilience. Carbon sequestration by trees can also generate an income if captured in a trading scheme.	High value timber and fruit/ nut trees have typically higher establishment costs Sequestered carbon can become a liability if the scheme requires that any tree loss requires offsetting.	Bruck et al. (2019); Ares et al. (2006); Frey et al. (2012); Holderieath et al. (2012); Klopfenstein et al. (1997); Montagnini and Nair (2016); Orefice et al. (2017); Pizarro et al. (2020); Rodriguez-Rigueiro et al. (2021)
Supplementary forage	Supplementary forage provides a diversified diet that can be more resilient, improve digestion, alter methane emissions and reduce parasite load.	Toxins can restrict use of some trees.	Franzel et al. (2014); Orefice et al. (2017); Vandermeulen et al. (2018)
Management	Management practices can become important cultural identifiers and are a form of traditional knowledge.	There is a cost to establishing trees. Trees can be difficult to protect against livestock damage, and take a long time to influence the system. Trees may also require management (pruning, felling etc.).	Charlton et al. (2007); Garrido et al. (2017); Mackay-Smith et al. (2021); Peri et al. (2016); Thorrold et al. (1997)

Figure 1. Ecological interactions between system components with increasing complexity for pasture, livestock and tree interactions in a pastoral system. The direction of the arrow indicates how the component the arrow comes from impacts the component the arrow goes towards. For instance, for number 7, the microclimate impacts livestock through changes to temperature, humidity, PAR and wind.

Figure 2. The number of articles on specific silvopasture outcomes (left) and processes (right).

Table 2. Occupation and participant numbers for the workshop participants.

Occupation	Number of focus groups	Number of participants
Landowner/farmer	3	16
Land management advisors (LMAs)	1	6
Policy advisors	1	5
Advocacy groups	1	7
Total	6	34

Figure 3. Landowner responses for silvopastoral benefits (left) and limitations (right).

Table 3. Limitations given by non-landowner groups for the potential of silvopastoral systems to be realised in the future.

Workshop occupation	Benefits	Limitations
Policy	Animal welfare Biodiversity Climate Cultural amenity/outcomes Farm diversification Ecosystem health Shelter Te Ao Māori Water quality	Cost Lack of knowledge and demonstration of benefits Lack of science funding Long-term thinking required/short-term planning common Social resistance Some benefits are intangible
LMA	Aesthetics Bee populations Biodiversity Carbon/Emissions trading scheme Climate Bee populations Resilience of farm system Shade Shelter Slope stability Soil management Summer feed Water quality	Cost ETS legislation important for individual trees Importance of maintaining ground knowledge if too much emphasis on technology Lack of knowledge Lack of supply of trees Protection Undeveloped industry for alternative timber
Advocacy	Carbon farming Ecosystem services Employment potential Erosion Fodder Income diversification Organic addition to the soil Slope stability Water retention	Bad experience with past trees Emissions Extreme weather Lack of interest Lack of knowledge Lack of success stories Need for economic value of land Policy thresholds

Figure 4. Potential landslide-derived sediment delivery to streams based on modelling landslide susceptibility (Spiekermann et al. 2022a) and landslide connectivity (Spiekermann et al. 2022b) modelling for a small pastoral area in the Wairarapa, NZ. The comparison of a treeless baseline scenario with the actual tree cover (shown in the orthophoto from 2013) demonstrates that the eucalyptus grove (photo insert) has led to a much greater reduction in future sediment delivery compared with the poplars and willows to the west, which were largely planted in areas where landslides are unlikely to occur with or without trees present.

Figure 5. Schematic diagram illustrates how silvopastoral design could vary spatially within a farm and how the design relates to desired outcomes. A typical farm will be more spatially diverse than this diagram indicates, and this figure is purely a representation of how there is a relationship between silvopasture outcome, topography and tree attribute/vegetation type on the farm.

Table

Silvopastoral system comparison	Density	Tree age (yr)	Location	Long-term annual rainfall (mm)	Reference
Acacia nigrescens Oliv.; Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Hochst.; Colophospermum mopane (J.Kirk ex Benth.) J.Léonard; Lonchocarpus capassa Rolfe; Cassia abbreviata Oliv., Lannea schweinfurthii (Engl.) Engl.	15 m apart on average	Not given	Saadani National Park, Tanzania	540	Treydt et al. (2007)
Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne; Adansonia digitata L.	Isolated trees	Not given	Tsavo National Park, Kenya	450; 750	Belsky et al. (1993a)
Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne; Adansonia digitata L.	Isolated trees	Not given	Tsavo National Park, Kenya	400	Belsky et al. (1993b)
Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Hayne; Adansonia digitata L.	Isolated trees	Not given	Tsavo National Park, Kenya	400–500	Belsky et al. (1989)
Albizia saman (Jacq.) F.Muell.; Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Jacq.) Griseb; Tabebuia rosea (Bertol.) Bertero ex A.DC.; Guazuma ulmifolia Lam.	Isolated trees	Mature	Matalagalpa district, Nicaragua	1500	Casals et al. (2014)
Andira inermis (W.Wright) DC; Bellucia pentamera Naudin; Guarea Guidonia (L.) Sleumer; Phragmanthera leonensis (Sprague) Balle; Zygia longifolia (Humb. & Bonpl. Ex Willd.)	Isolated trees	Not given	Caqueta, Colombia	3793	Álvarez et al. (2021)
Brazilian native tree system (Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan); Peltophorum dubium (Spreng.) Taub.; Zeyheria tuberculosa (Vell.) Bureau ex Verl.; Cariniana estrellensis (Raddi) Kuntze; Piptadenia gonoacantha (Mart.) J.F.Macbr; Guazuma ulmifolia Lam.; Croton floribundus (Spreng.); Eucalyptus urograndis (EUCUG) system	Native system: 17 m wide rows and three tree line rows with a spacing of 2.5 m x 2.5 m. Eucalyptus: 15 m wide row; 4 × 4 m spacing between trees.	Native system: 7–10 years; Eucalyptus system: 3–6 years	São Paulo, Brazil	Dry season: 250 mm. Rainy season: 1100 m	Pezzopane et al. (2019)
Caesalpinia eriostachys Benth.; Cordia elaeagnoides A.DC.	Isolated trees or 10 × 10 m	Not given	Jalisco, Mexico	746	Galicia and Garcı́a-Oliva (2004)
Cassia grandis L.f.; Guazuma ulmifolia Lam.; Tabebuia rosea (Bertol.) Bertero ex A.DC.	Isolated trees	Not given	Central Nicaragua	1500	Rusch et al. (2014)
Eucalyptus melliodora A.Cunn. Ex S.Schauer; Eucalyptus blakelyi Maiden; Eucalyptus nova-anglica H.Deane & Maiden	Isolated trees	Not given	New South Wales, Australia	800–900	Wilson (2002)
Ficus insipida Willd.; Ficus colubrinae Standl.; Nectandra ambigens (S.F.Blake) C.K.Allen	Isolated trees	5–30	State of Veracruz, Mexico	4725	Guevara et al. (1992)
Guazuma ulmifolia Lam., Cassia grandis L.f.; Albizia saman (Jacq.) F.Muell	16 × 16 m	13	Cordoba, Colombia	1380	Martínez et al. (2014)
Guazuma ulmifolia Lam.; Crescentia alata Kunth	Isolated trees	Mature	Southwestern Nicaragua	1400	Hoosbeek et al. (2018)
Hybrid Eucalyptus grancam; Hybrid Eucalyptus urograndis	12 × 2 m (rows)	8	São Paulo, Brazil	1100–1500	Sarto et al. (2020)
Inga spp.; Phragmanthera leonensis (Sprague) Balle	Isolated trees	Not given	Pichincha, Ecuador	3198	Rhoades et al. (1998)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	Row spacings of 1.8, 3.7, 7.3 and 14.6 m	7–8	Virginia, USA	1000	Buergler et al. (2005)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	Row spacings of 1.8, 3.7, 7.3 and 14.6 m	7–8	Virginia, USA	1000	Buergler et al. (2006)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	Isolated trees	10–11	Virginia, USA	1000	DeBruyne et al. (2011)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	12 × 4 m (single row)	13–14	Virginia, USA	1000	Fannon et al. (2017)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	12.2 × 12.2 m	10	Virginia, USA	1000	Pent and Fike (2019)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	12.2 × 12.2 m	9–11	Virginia, USA	1000	Pent et al. (2020a)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	12.2 × 12.2 m	9–11	Virginia, USA	1000	Pent et al. (2020b)
Juglans nigra L. (black walnut); Gleditisia triacanthos L. (honey locust)	12.2 × 12.2 m	15	Virginia, USA	1000	Poudel et al. (2022)
Low tree diversity system (Eucalyptus grandis W.Hill ex Maiden); high tree diversity system (Acacia mangium Willd., Acacia angustissima (Mill.) Kuntze, Mimosa artemisiana Heringer & Paula, Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit, Eucalyptus grandis)	Triple rows of trees (3 × 3 m) interspersed by 30 m of pasture	22	Coronel Pacheco, Minas Gerais, Brazil	1500	Cá et al. (2022)
Lysiloma acapulcensis (Kunth) Benth. and Vachellia pennatula (Schltdl. & Cham.) Seigler & Ebinger	Isolated trees	Not given	Veracruz, Mexico	909	Avendaño-Yáñez et al. (2020)
Mimosa caesalpiniifolia Benth.; Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth	10 × 1 × 0.5 m (double rows)	4–5	Pernambuco, Brazil	1200	Apolinário et al. (2016a)
Mimosa caesalpiniifolia Benth.; Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth	15 × 1.0 × 0.5 m (double rows)	6–7	Pernambuco, Brazil	1200	Gomes da Silva et al. (2021a)
Mimosa caesalpiniifolia Benth.; Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth	15 × 1.0 × 0.5 m (double rows)	6–7	Pernambuco, Brazil	1200	Gomes da Silva et al. (2021b)
Mimosa caesalpiniifolia Benth.; Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth	10 × 1.0 × 0.5 m (double rows)	7–9	Pernambuco, Brazil	1300	Lima at el. (2020)
Mimosa caesalpiniifolia Benth.; Machaerium aculeatum Raddi; Phragmanthera capitata (Spreng.) Balle; Artocarpus integrifolia L.	Isolated trees	Not given	Pernambuco State, Brazil	1200	Dubeux et al. (2014)
Native tree silvopasture; Pinus taeda L. silvopasture	Isolated trees	Native tree not given; Pinus taeda: 8–15	subtropical Atlantic Forest, Argentina	2000	Gómez-Cifuentes et al. (2019)
Native tree silvopasture; Pinus taeda L. silvopasture	Isolated trees	Native tree not given; Pinus taeda: 8–15	subtropical Atlantic Forest, Argentina	2000	Gómez-Cifuentes et al. (2020)
Pinus elliottii Engelm; Eucalyptus viminalis Labill; Quercus robur L.	20 × 2 × 2 m (double rows)	15	Córdoba, Argentina	700–800	Plevich et al. (2019)
Pinus palustris Mill.; Pinus taeda L.; Quercus pagoda Raf.	12 × 2 × 2 × 2 m (triple rows) and 24 × 2 × 2 × 2 m (triple rows)	8–11	North Carolina, USA	1500	Castillo et al. (2020)
Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce; Acacia nilotica (L.) P.J.H.Hurter & Mabb., Ziziphus nummularia (Burm.f) Wight & Arn., Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Edgew; Acacia senegal (L.) Willd.	Isolated trees	Not given	Jodhpur district, India	100–450	Tripathi et al. (2005)
Prosopis juliflora – legume (maybe); Ziziphus joazeiro – non-legume; Spondias tuberosa – non-legume	Isolated trees or 10 × 10 m	13–14	Pernambuco, Brazil	600	Wick et al. (2000)
Quercus douglasii Hook. & Arn; Quercus wislizeni (A.DC.); Pinus sabiniana Douglas	Isolated trees	Not given	California, USA	500	Frost and McDougald (1989)
Quercus douglasii Hook. & Arn; Quercus wislizeni (A.DC.); Pinus sabiniana Douglas; Ceanothus cuneatus K.Brandegee	Isolated trees	Not given	California, USA	500	Ratliff et al. (1991)
Quercus robur L.; Betula pendula Roth	Isolated trees	Mature	Östra Vätterbranterna, Sweden	656	Jakobsson et al. (2019)
Zeyheria tuberculosa (Vell.) Bureau ex Verl; Eucalytpus grandis W.Hill ex Maiden	15 × 4 m (rows)	Zeyheria tuberculosa: 20; Eucalytpus grandis: 10	Lagoa Santa, Brazil	Not given	Lana et al. (2016)
Ziziphus joazeiro Mart.; Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC.; Spondias tuberosa Arruda	10 × 10 m	Ziziphus joazeiro and Spondias tuberosa: > 50; Prosopis juliflora: 14	Custódia, Brazil	740	Menezes and Salcedo (1999)
Ziziphus joazeiro Mart.; Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC.	10 × 10 m	Ziziphus joazeiro: > 50; Prosopis juliflora: 14	Custódia, Brazil	740	Menezes et al. (2002)

Bahamonde HA, Peri PL, Martínez Pastur G, Lecinas MV. 2009. Variaciones microclimaticas en bosques primarios y bajo uso silvopastoril de Nothofagus antarctica en dos Clases de Sitio en Patagonia Sur. Proceedings of the 1st National Congress of Silvopastoral Systems. Misiones: INTA Editions; p. 14–16.

 Google Scholar

Belsky AJ, Amundson RG, Duxbury JM, Riha SJ, Ali AR, Mwonga SM. 1989. The effects of trees on their physical, chemical and biological environments in a semi-arid savanna in Kenya. J Appl Ecol. 26:1005. doi:10.2307/2403708.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Benavides R, Douglas GB, Osoro K. 2009. Silvopastoralism in New Zealand: review of effects of evergreen and deciduous trees on pasture dynamics. Agrofor Syst. 76:327–350. doi:10.1007/s10457-008-9186-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Callaway RM, Nadkarni NM, Mahall BE. 1991. Facilitation and interference of Quercus douglasii on understory productivity in central California. Ecology. 72:1484–1499. doi:10.2307/1941122.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Douglas GB, Walcroft AS, Wills BJ, Hurst SE, Foote AG, Trainor KD, Fung LE. 2001. Resident pasture growth and the micro-environment beneath young, widespaced poplars in New Zealand. Proc N Z Grassl Assoc. 63:131–138. doi:10.33584/jnzg.2001.63.2441.

 Google Scholar

Fernández-Moya J, San Miguel-Ayanz A, Cañellas I, Gea-Izquierdo G. 2011. Variability in Mediterranean annual grassland diversity driven by small-scale changes in fertility and radiation. Plant Ecol. 212:865–877. doi:10.1007/s11258-010-9869-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

He X-H, Critchley C, Bledsoe C. 2003. Nitrogen transfer within and between plants through common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs). Crit Rev Plant Sci. 22:531–567. doi:10.1080/713608315.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Howlett DS, Moreno G, Mosquera Losada MR, Nair PKR, Nair VD. 2011. Soil carbon storage as influenced by tree cover in the Dehesa cork oak silvopasture of central-western Spain. J Environ Monit. 13:1897. doi:10.1039/c1em10059a.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mackay-Smith TH, López IF, Burkitt LL, Reid JI. 2022b. Kānuka trees facilitate pasture production increases in New Zealand hill country. Agronomy. 12:1701. doi:10.3390/agronomy12071701.

 Google Scholar

Moreno G, Obrador J, García E, Cubera E, Montero M, Pulido FJ. 2005. Consequences of dehesa management on the tree-understory interactions. Proceedings of the Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Land Management. Lugo: CAB International.

 Google Scholar

Peri PL. 2005. Patagonia Sur. Sistemas Silvopastoriles en Ñirantales. IDIA XXI For. 5:245–249.

 Google Scholar

Rivest D, Paquette A, Moreno G, Messier C. 2013. A meta-analysis reveals mostly neutral influence of scattered trees on pasture yield along with some contrasted effects depending on functional groups and rainfall conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 165:74–79. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roos PC, Allsopp N. 1997. Soil nutrient ecology associated with Acacia sieberana at different tree densities in a South African savanna. Afr J Range Forage Sci. 14:39–44. doi:10.1080/10220119.1997.9647918.

 Google Scholar

Rossetti I, Bagella S, Cappai C, Caria MC, Lai R, Roggero PP, Martins da Silva P, Sousa JP, Querner P, Seddaiu G. 2015. Isolated cork oak trees affect soil properties and biodiversity in a Mediterranean wooded grassland. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 202:203–216. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seddaiu G, Bagella S, Pulina A, Cappai C, Salis L, Rossetti I, Lai R, Roggero PP. 2018. Mediterranean cork oak wooded grasslands: synergies and trade-offs between plant diversity, pasture production and soil carbon. Agrofor Syst. 92:893–908. doi:10.1007/s10457-018-0225-7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Phillips C, Marden M. 2005. Reforestation schemes to manage regional landslide risk. In: Glade T, Anderson MG, Crozier MJ, editors. Landslide hazard and risk. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons; p. 517–547.

 Google Scholar

Schmidt KM, Roering JJ, Stock JD, Dietrich WE, Montgomery DR, Schaub T. 2001. The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon coast range. Can Geotech J. 38:995–1024. doi:10.1139/cgj-38-5-995.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sidle RC, Ochiai H. 2006. Natural factors influencing landslides. In: Sidle RC, Ochiai H, editors. Landslides: processes, prediction, and land use. American Geophysical Union; p. 41–119. doi:10.1029/18WM04.

 Google Scholar

Bambo SK, Nowak J, Blount AR, Long AJ, Osiecka A. 2009. Soil nitrate leaching in silvopastures compared with open pasture and pine plantation. J Environ Qual. 38:1870–1877. doi:10.2134/jeq2007.0634.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen H, Zhang X, Abla M, Lü D, Yan R, Ren Q, Ren Z, Yang Y, Zhao W, Lin P, et al. 2018. Effects of vegetation and rainfall types on surface runoff and soil erosion on steep slopes on the Loess Plateau, China. Catena. 170:141–149. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2018.06.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Aguiar MI, Maia SMF, Xavier FADS, de Sá Mendonça E, Filho JAA, de Oliveira TS. 2010. Sediment, nutrient and water losses by water erosion under agroforestry systems in the semi-arid region in northeastern Brazil. Agrofor Syst. 79:277–289. doi:10.1007/s10457-010-9310-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grewal SS, Juneja ML, Singh K, Singh S. 1994. A comparison of two agroforestry systems for soil, water and nutrient conservation on degraded land. Soil Technol. 7:145–153. doi:10.1016/0933-3630(94)90016-7.

 Google Scholar

Levia DF, Hudson SA, Llorens P, Nanko K. 2017. Throughfall drop size distributions: a review and prospectus for future research. WIREs Water. 4:e1225. doi:10.1002/wat2.1225.

 Google Scholar

Li G, Wan L, Cui M, Wu B, Zhou J. 2019. Influence of canopy interception and rainfall kinetic energy on soil erosion under forests. Forests. 10:509. doi:10.3390/f10060509.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

López-Díaz ML, Rolo V, Moreno G. 2011. Trees’ role in nitrogen leaching after organic, mineral fertilization: a greenhouse experiment. J Environ Qual. 40:853–859. doi:10.2134/jeq2010.0165.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mackay-Smith TH, Burkitt LL, López IF, Reid JI. 2022a. The impact of a kānuka silvopastoral system on surface runoff and sediment and nutrient losses in New Zealand hill country. Catena. 213:106215. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2022.106215.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Michel G-A, Nair VD, Nair PKR. 2007. Silvopasture for reducing phosphorus loss from subtropical sandy soils. Plant Soil. 297:267–276. doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9352-z.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nair VD, Nair PKR, Kalmbacher RS, Ezenwa IV. 2007. Reducing nutrient loss from farms through silvopastoral practices in coarse-textured soils of Florida, USA. Ecol Eng. 29:192–199. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.07.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nanko K, Hotta N, Suzuki M. 2006. Evaluating the influence of canopy species and meteorological factors on throughfall drop size distribution. J Hydrol. 329:422–431. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.036.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wiersum KF. 1985. Effects of various vegetation layers in an Acacia auriculiformis forest plantation on surface erosion in Java, Indonesia. In: El-Swaify SA, Moldenhauer WC, Lo A, editors. Soil erosion and conservation. Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society of North America; p. 79–89.

 Google Scholar

Zhou J, Fu B, Gao G, Lü Y, Liu Y, Lü N, Wang S. 2016. Effects of precipitation and restoration vegetation on soil erosion in a semi-arid environment in the Loess Plateau, China. Catena. 137:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2015.08.015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhu X, Liu W, Chen J, Bruijnzeel LA, Mao Z, Yang X, Cardinael R, Meng F-R, Sidle RC, Seitz S, et al. 2020. Reductions in water, soil and nutrient losses and pesticide pollution in agroforestry practices: a review of evidence and processes. Plant Soil. 453:45–86. doi:10.1007/s11104-019-04377-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aryal DR, Gómez-González RR, Hernández-Nuriasmú R, Morales-Ruiz DE. 2019. Carbon stocks and tree diversity in scattered tree silvopastoral systems in Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor Syst. 93:213–227. doi:10.1007/s10457-018-0310-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baah-Acheamfour M, Carlyle CN, Lim S-S, Bork EW, Chang SX. 2016. Forest and grassland cover types reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils. Sci Total Environ. 571:1115–1127. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.106.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baah-Acheamfour M, Carlyle CN, Bork EW, Chang SX. 2020. Forest and perennial herbland cover reduce microbial respiration but increase root respiration in agroforestry systems. Agric For Meteorol. 280:107790. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107790.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cardoso ADS, Alari FDO, de Andrade N, Nascimento TDS, van Cleef FDOS, Alves BJR, Ruggieri AC, Malheiros EB. 2022. Nitrous oxide emissions in silvopastoral systems: key driving variables and seasonality. Agric For Meteorol. 316:108851. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108851.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dold C, Thomas AL, Ashworth AJ, Philipp D, Brauer DK, Sauer TJ. 2019. Carbon sequestration and nitrogen uptake in a temperate silvopasture system. Nutr Cycl Agroecosystems. 114:85–98. doi:10.1007/s10705-019-09987-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Haile SG, Nair VD, Nair PKR. 2010. Contribution of trees to carbon storage in soils of silvopastoral systems in Florida, USA: contribution of trees to carbon storage in soils. Glob Change Biol. 16:427–438. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01981.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hoosbeek MR, Remme RP, Rusch GM. 2018. Trees enhance soil carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling in a silvopastoral system in south-western Nicaragua. Agrofor Syst. 92:263–273. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-0049-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lorenz K, Lal R. 2014. Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 34:443–454. doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

López-Santiago JG, Casanova-Lugo F, Villanueva-López G, Díaz-Echeverría VF, Solorio-Sánchez FJ, Martínez-Zurimendi P, Aryal DR, Chay-Canul AJ. 2019. Carbon storage in a silvopastoral system compared to that in a deciduous dry forest in Michoacán, Mexico. Agrofor Syst. 93:199–211. doi:10.1007/s10457-018-0259-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blackshaw JK, Blackshaw AW. 1994. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. Aust J Exp Agric. 34:285–295. doi:10.1071/EA9940285.

 Google Scholar

Cloete SWP, Muller A, Steyn S, van der Merwe DA, Nel CL, Cloete S, Kruger ACM, Brand TS. 2021. The effect of tree shade on ambient conditions and heat stress indicator traits of new-born South African Mutton Merino and Dormer lambs: preliminary results. J Therm Biol. 99:103024. doi:10.1016/j.jtherbio.2021.103024.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dada JMV, Santos MLPD, Muniz PC, Nunes-Zotti MLA, Barros FROD, Vieira FMC. 2021. Postpartum behavioural response of Santa inês x dorper ewes and lambs in a silvopastoral system. Small Rumin Res. 203:106495. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2021.106495.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De K, Sharma S, Kumawat PK, Kumar D, Mohapatra A, Sahoo A. 2020. Tree shade improves the comfort of sheep during extreme summer. J Vet Behav. 40:103–107. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2020.10.003.

 Google Scholar

Jackson RA, Townsend KG, Hawke MF. 1986. The availability of ovine infective trichostrongyle larvae on forested paddocks. New Zeal Vet J. 34(12):205–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.1986.35351.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hawke MF. 1991. Pasture production and animal performance under pine agroforestry in New Zealand. For Ecol Manag. 45:109–118. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(91)90210-M.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pent GJ, Fike JH, Kim I. 2021. Ewe lamb vaginal temperatures in hardwood silvopastures. Agrofor Syst. 95:21–32. doi:10.1007/s10457-018-0221-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Skonieski FR, Souza ERD, Gregolin LCB, Fluck AC, Costa OAD, Destri J, Neto AP. 2021. Physiological response to heat stress and ingestive behavior of lactating Jersey cows in silvopasture and conventional pasture grazing systems in a Brazilian subtropical climate zone. Trop Anim Health Prod. 53:213. doi:10.1007/s11250-021-02648-9.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vieira FMC, Deniz M, Vismara ES, Herbut P, Pilatti JA, Sponchiado MZ, de Oliveira Puretz B. 2020. Thermoregulatory and behaviour responses of dairy heifers raised on a silvopastoral system in a subtropical climate. Ann Anim Sci. 20:613–627. doi:10.2478/aoas-2019-0074.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yamamoto W, Dewi IA, Ibrahim M. 2007. Effects of silvopastoral areas on milk production at dual-purpose cattle farms at the semi-humid old agricultural frontier in central Nicaragua. Agric Syst. 94:368–375. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2006.10.011.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer J, Zerger A, Gibbons P, Stott J, Law BS. 2010. Tree decline and the future of Australian farmland biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 107:19597–19602. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008476107.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gómez-Cifuentes A, Vespa N, Semmartín M, Zurita G. 2020. Canopy cover is a key factor to preserve the ecological functions of dung beetles in the southern Atlantic forest. Appl Soil Ecol. 154:103652. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103652.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lencinas MV, Kreps G, Soler R, Peri PL, Porta A, Ramírez M, Pastur GM. 2015. Neochelanops michaelseni (Pseudoscorpiones: Chernetidae) as a potential bioindicator in managed and unmanaged Nothofagus forests of Tierra del Fuego. J Arachnol. 43:406–412. doi:10.1636/0161-8202-43.3.406.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lencinas MV, Martínez Pastur G, Rivero P, Busso C. 2008. Conservation value of timber quality versus associated non-timber quality stands for understory diversity in Nothofagus forests. Biodivers Conserv. 17:2579–2597. doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9323-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mackay‐Smith TH, López IF, Burkitt LL, Reid JI. 2023. Pasture production–diversity relationships in a kānuka silvopastoral system. Ecol Solut Evid. 4(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eso3.v4.2.

 Google Scholar

Mupepele A-C, Keller M, Dormann CF. 2021. European agroforestry has no unequivocal effect on biodiversity: a time-cumulative meta-analysis. BMC Ecol Evol. 21:193. doi:10.1186/s12862-021-01911-9.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Peri PL, Ormaechea S. 2013. Relevamiento de los bosques nativos de n ̃ire (Nothofagus antarctica) en Santa Cruz: base para su conservacio ́n y manejo. Buenos Aires: Ediciones INTA.

 Google Scholar

Santos-Reis M, Correia AI. 1999. Caracterizaçao da flora e fauna do montado da Heredade da Ribeira Abaixo (Grândola, Baixo Alentejo). Lisbon: CBA.

 Google Scholar

Tölgyesi C, Bátori Z, Gallé R, Urák I, Hartel T. 2018. Shrub encroachment under the trees diversifies the herb layer in a Romanian silvopastoral system. Rangel Ecol Manag. 71:571–577. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2017.09.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Burgess PJ, Moreno G, Plieninger T. 2016. Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 230:150–161. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Borremans L, Reubens B, Van Gils B, Baeyens D, Vandevelde C, Wauters E. 2016. A sociopsychological analysis of agroforestry adoption in Flanders: understanding the discrepancy between conceptual opportunities and actual implementation. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 40:1008–1036. doi:10.1080/21683565.2016.1204643.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown P, Mortimer C, Meurk C. 2012. Visual landscape preferences in the Canterbury region. Lincoln: Landcare Research.

 Google Scholar

Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Plieninger T, Pulido F, Moreno G. 2017. Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: a case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy. 60:324–333. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.022.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moreno G, Aviron S, Berg S, Crous-Duran J, Franca A, de Jalón SG, Hartel T, Mirck J, Pantera A, Palma JHN, et al. 2018. Agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value in Europe: provision of commercial goods and other ecosystem services. Agrofor Syst. 92:877–891. doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0126-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Plieninger T, Flinzberger L, Hetman M, Horstmannshoff I, Reinhard-Kolempas M, Topp E, Moreno G, Huntsinger L. 2021. Dehesas as high nature value farming systems: a social-ecological synthesis of drivers, pressures, state, impacts, and responses. Ecol Soc. 26:art23. doi:10.5751/ES-12647-260323.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wilkens P, Munsell JF, Fike JH, Pent GJ, Frey GE. 2022. Is livestock producers’ interest in silvopasture related to their operational perspectives or characteristics? Agrofor Syst. 96:541–551. doi:10.1007/s10457-021-00664-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wossink A, Swinton SM. 2007. Jointness in production and farmers’ willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 64:297–304. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bruck SR, Bishaw B, Cushing TL, Cubbage FW. 2019. Modeling the financial potential of silvopasture agroforestry in eastern North Carolina and Northeastern Oregon. J For. 117:13–20. doi:10.1093/jofore/fvy065.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ares A, Reid W, Brauer D. 2006. Production and economics of native pecan silvopastures in central United States. Agrofor Syst. 66:205–215. doi:10.1007/s10457-005-8302-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frey GE, Fassola HE, Pachas AN, Colcombet L, Lacorte SM, Pérez O, Renkow M, Warren ST, Cubbage FW. 2012. Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agric Syst. 105:21–32. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.09.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holderieath J, Valdivia C, Godsey L, Barbieri C. 2012. The potential for carbon offset trading to provide added incentive to adopt silvopasture and alley cropping in Missouri. Agrofor Syst. 86:345–353. doi:10.1007/s10457-012-9543-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Klopfenstein NB, Rietveld WJ, Carman RC, Clason TR, Sharrow SH, Garrett G, Anderson B. 1997. Silvopasture: an agroforestry practice. Agrofor Notes. 8:1–4.

 Google Scholar

Montagnini F, Nair P. 2016. Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst. 61:281–295. doi:10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029005.92691.79.

 Google Scholar

Orefice J, Carroll J, Conroy D, Ketner L. 2017. Silvopasture practices and perspectives in the Northeastern United States. Agrofor Syst. 91:149–160. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9916-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pizarro D, Vásquez H, Bernal W, Fuentes E, Alegre J, Castillo MS, Gómez C. 2020. Assessment of silvopasture systems in the northern Peruvian Amazon. Agrofor Syst. 94:173–183. doi:10.1007/s10457-019-00381-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Rigueiro FJ, Santiago-Freijanes JJ, Mosquera-Losada MR, Castro M, Silva-Losada P, Pisanelli A, Pantera A, Rigueiro-Rodriguez A, Ferreiro-Dominguez N. 2021. Silvopasture policy promotion in European Mediterranean areas. PLoS One. 16:1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245846.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Franzel S, Carsan S, Lukuyu B, Sinja J, Wambugu C. 2014. Fodder trees for improving livestock productivity and smallholder livelihoods in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 6:98–103. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vandermeulen S, Ramírez-Restrepo CA, Beckers Y, Claessens H, Bindelle J. 2018. Agroforestry for ruminants: a review of trees and shrubs as fodder in silvopastoral temperate and tropical production systems. Anim Prod Sci. 58:767. doi:10.1071/AN16434.

 Google Scholar

Charlton D, McIvor IR, Gawith P, Douglas G. 2007. Growing poplar and willow trees on farms – guidelines for establishing and managing poplar and willow trees on farms. Compiled and Prepared by the National Poplar and Willow Users Group as part of the Sustainable Farming Fund’s Poplar & Willow Project (Grant No. 04/089), New Zealand.

 Google Scholar

Mackay-Smith TH, Burkitt L, Reid J, López IF, Phillips C. 2021. A framework for reviewing silvopastoralism: a New Zealand hill country case study. Land. 10:1386. doi:10.3390/land10121386.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peri PL, Bahamonde HA, Lencinas MV, Gargaglione V, Soler R, Ormaechea S, Pastur GM. 2016. A review of silvopastoral systems in native forests of Nothofagus antarctica in southern Patagonia, Argentina. Agrofor Syst. 90:933–960. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9890-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Thorrold BS, Knowles RL, Nicholas ID, Power IL, Carter JL. 1997. Evaluation of agroforestry options for three tree species. Proc N Z Grassl Assoc. 59:187–190. doi:10.33584/jnzg.1997.59.2240.

 Google Scholar

Spiekermann RI, Smith HG, McColl S, Burkitt L, Fuller IC. 2022a. Quantifying effectiveness of trees for landslide erosion control. Geomorphology. 396:107993. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2021.107993.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spiekermann RI, Smith HG, McColl S, Burkitt L, Fuller IC. 2022b. Development of a morphometric connectivity model to mitigate sediment derived from storm-driven shallow landslides. Ecol Eng. 180:106676. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106676.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Treydt AC, Heitkonig IMA, Prins HHT, Ludwig F. 2007. Trees improve grass quality for herbivores in African savannas. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 8:197–205. doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2007.03.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Belsky AJ, Mwonga SM, Amundson RG, Duxbury JM, Ali AR. 1993a. Comparative effects of isolated trees on their undercanopy environments in high- and low-rainfall savannas. J Appl Ecol. 30:143. doi:10.2307/2404278.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Belsky AJ, Mwonga SM, Duxbury JM. 1993b. Effects of widely spaced trees and livestock grazing on understory environments in tropical savannas. Agrofor Syst. 24:1–20. doi:10.1007/BF00705265.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Casals P, Romero J, Rusch GM, Ibrahim M. 2014. Soil organic C and nutrient contents under trees with different functional characteristics in seasonally dry tropical silvopastures. Plant Soil. 374:643–659. doi:10.1007/s11104-013-1884-9.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Álvarez F, Casanoves F, Suárez JC. 2021. Influence of scattered trees in grazing areas on soil properties in the Piedmont region of the Colombian Amazon. PLoS One. 16:e0261612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261612.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pezzopane JRM, Nicodemo MLF, Bosi C, Garcia AR, Lulu J. 2019. Animal thermal comfort indexes in silvopastoral systems with different tree arrangements. J Therm Biol. 79:103–111. doi:10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.12.015.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Galicia L, Garcı́a-Oliva F. 2004. The effects of C, N and P additions on soil microbial activity under two remnant tree species in a tropical seasonal pasture. Applied Soil Ecology. 26:31–39. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2003.10.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rusch GM, Zapata PC, Casanoves F, Casals P, Ibrahim M, DeClerck F. 2014. Determinants of grassland primary production in seasonally-dry silvopastoral systems in Central America. Agrofor Syst. 88:517–526. doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9711-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wilson B. 2002. Influence of scattered paddock trees on surface soil properties: a study of the Northern Tablelands of NSW. Ecol Manag Restor. 3:211–219. doi:10.1046/j.1442-8903.2002.00115.x.

 Google Scholar

Guevara S, Meave J, Moreno-Casasola P, Laborde J. 1992. Floristic composition and structure of vegetation under isolated trees in neotropical pastures. Journal of Vegetation Science. 3:655–664. doi:10.2307/3235833.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martínez J, Cajas YS, León JD, Osorio NW. 2014. Silvopastoral systems enhance soil quality in grasslands of Colombia. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2014:1–8. doi:10.1155/2014/359736.

 Google Scholar

Sarto MVM, Borges WLB, Sarto JRW, Pires CAB, Rice CW, Rosolem CA. 2020. Soil microbial community and activity in a tropical integrated crop-livestock system. Applied Soil Ecology. 145:103350. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.08.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rhoades CC, Eckert GE, Coleman DC. 1998. Effect of pasture trees on soil nitrogen and organic matter: implications for tropical montane forest restoration. Restor Ecol. 6:262–270. doi:10.1046/j.1526-100X.1998.00639.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buergler AL, Fike JH, Burger JA, Feldhake CR, McKenna JA, Teutsch CD. 2005. Botanical composition and forage production in an emulated silvopasture. Agron J. 97:1141–1147. doi:10.2134/agronj2004.0308.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buergler AL, Fike JH, Burger JA, Feldhake CM, McKenna JR, Teutsch CD. 2006. Forage nutritive value in an emulated silvopasture. Agron J. 98:1265–1273. doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0199.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DeBruyne SA, Feldhake CM, Burger JA, Fike JH. 2011. Tree effects on forage growth and soil water in an Appalachian silvopasture. Agrofor Syst. 83:189–200. doi:10.1007/s10457-011-9376-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fannon AG, Fike JH, Greiner SP, Feldhake CM, Wahlberg MA. 2017. Hair sheep performance in a mid-stage deciduous Appalachian silvopasture. Agrofor Syst. 93:81–93. doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0154-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pent GJ, Fike JH. 2019. Lamb productivity on stockpiled fescue in honeylocust and black walnut silvopastures. Agrofor Syst. 93:113–121. doi:10.1007/s10457-018-0264-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pent GJ, Greiner SP, Munsell JF, Tracy BF, Fike JH. 2020a. Lamb performance in hardwood silvopastures, II: animal behavior in summer. Transl Anim Sci. 4:363–375. doi:10.1093/tas/txz177.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pent GJ, Greiner SP, Munsell JF, Tracy BF, Fike JH. 2020b. Lamb performance in hardwood silvopastures, I: animal gains and forage measures in summer. Transl Anim Sci. 4:385–399. doi:10.1093/tas/txz154.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Poudel S, Fike JH, Pent GJ. 2022. Hair cortisol as a measure of chronic stress in ewes grazing either hardwood silvopastures or open pastures. Agronomy. 12:1566. doi:10.3390/agronomy12071566.

 Google Scholar

Cá J, Lustosa Filho JF, da Silva NR, de Castro CRT, de Oliveira TS. 2022. C and N stocks in silvopastoral systems with high and low tree diversity: evidence from a twenty-two year old field study. Sci Total Environ. 833:155298. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155298.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Avendaño-Yáñez MDLL, Quiroz-Martínez S, Pérez-Elizalde S, López-Ortiz S. 2020. Litterfall from tropical dry forest trees scattered in pastures. Revista Chapingo serie ciencias forestales y del ambiente. 26:409–418. doi:10.5154/r.rchscfa.2019.12.092.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Apolinário VXO, Dubeux JCB, Andrade Lira M, Sampaio EVSB, Amorim SO, Miranda e Silva NG, Muir JP. 2016a. Arboreal legume litter nutrient contribution to a tropical silvopasture. Agron J. 108:2478–2484. doi:10.2134/agronj2016.02.0120.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gomes da Silva IA, Dubeux JCB, Melo ACL, da Cunha MV, dos Santos MVF, Apolinário VXO, Freitas EV. 2021a. Tree legume enhances livestock performance in a silvopasture system. Agron J. 113:358–369. doi:10.1002/agj2.20491.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gomes da Silva IA, Dubeux JCB, Santos MVF, de Mello ACL, Cunha MV, Apolinário VXO, de Freitas EV. 2021b. Tree canopy management affects dynamics of herbaceous vegetation and soil moisture in silvopasture systems using arboreal legumes. Agronomy. 11:1509. doi:10.3390/agronomy11081509.

 Google Scholar

Dubeux JC, Lira MDA, dos Santos MVF, Muir J, da Silva MA, Teixeira VI, de Mello ACL. 2014. Soil characteristics under legume and non-legume tree canopies in signalgrass (Brachiaria decumbens) pastures. Afr J Range Forage Sci. 31:37–42. doi:10.2989/10220119.2014.880746.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gómez-Cifuentes A, Giménez Gómez VC, Moreno CE, Zurita GA. 2019. Tree retention in cattle ranching systems partially preserves dung beetle diversity and functional groups in the semideciduous Atlantic forest: the role of microclimate and soil conditions. Basic Appl Ecol. 34:64–74. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2018.10.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Plevich JO, Gyenge J, Delgado AS, Tarico JC, Fiandino S, Utello MJ. 2019. Production of fodder in a treeless system and in silvopastoral system in central Argentina. Floresta E Ambiente. 26:e20160517. doi:10.1590/2179-8087.051716.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Castillo MS, Tiezzi F, Franzluebbers AJ. 2020. Tree species effects on understory forage productivity and microclimate in a silvopasture of the Southeastern USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 295:106917. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2020.106917.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tripathi G, Ram S, Sharma BM, Singh G. 2005. Soil faunal biodiversity and nutrient status in silvopastoral systems of Indian desert. Environ Conserv. 32:178–188. doi:10.1017/S0376892905002109.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wick B, Tiessen H, Menezes RSC. 2000. Land quality changes following the conversion of the natural vegetation into silvo-pastoral systems in semi-arid NE Brazil. Plant and Soil. 222:59–70. doi:10.1023/A:1004756416281.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frost WE, McDougald NK. 1989. Tree canopy effects on herbaceous production of annual rangeland during drought. J Range Manag. 42:281–283. doi:10.2307/3899494.

 Google Scholar

Ratliff RD, Duncan DA, Westfall SE. 1991. California oak-woodland overstory species affect herbage understory: management implications. J Range Manag. 44:306. doi:10.2307/4002388.

 Google Scholar

Jakobsson S, Plue J, Cousins SAO, Lindborg R. 2019. Exploring the effects of pasture trees on plant community patterns. J Veg Sci. 30:809–820. doi:10.1111/jvs.12771.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lana ÂMQ, Lana RMQ, Lemes EM, Reis GL, Moreira GHFA. 2016. Influence of native or exotic trees on soil fertility in decades of silvopastoral system at the Brazilian savannah biome. Agroforest Syst. 92:415–424. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9998-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Menezes RSC, Salcedo IH. 1999. Influence of tree species on the herbaceous understory and soil chemical characteristics in a silvopastoral system in semi-arid northeastern Brazil. Rev Bras Ciênc Solo. 23:817–826. doi:10.1590/S0100-06831999000400008.

 Google Scholar

Menezes RSC, Salcedo IH, Elliott ET. 2002. Microclimate and nutrient dynamics in a silvopastoral system of semiarid northeastern Brazil. Agrofor Syst. 56:27–38. doi:10.1023/A:1021172530939.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar