How can we grow the plantation estate and improve private native forest management in Australia? Silvopastoral systems provide a solution

References

• Chizmar S, Castillo M, Pizarro D, Vasquez H, Bernal W, Rivera R, Cubbage F, Abt R, Parajuli R, Cubbage F. 2020. A discounted cash flow and capital budgeting analysis of silvopastoral systems in the Amazonas region of Peru. Land. 9(10):353. doi:10.3390/land9100353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook BG, Grimes RF. 1977. Multiple land use of open forest in south-eastern Queensland for timber and improved pasture: establishment and early growth. Tropical Grasslands. 11(3):239–245.
   Google Scholar
• De Stefano A, Jacobson MG. 2018. Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Systems. 92(2):285–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. 2013. Australian National Greenhouse Accounts. Australian land use, land use change and forestry emissions projections to 2030. Canberra (Australia): Commonwealth of Australia; [accessed 2022 Jun 7]. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-measurement
   Google Scholar
• Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 2014. Managing a native forest practice: a self assessable vegetation clearing code. Brisbane (Australia): Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
   Google Scholar
• Donaghy P, Bray S, Gowen R, Rolfe J, Stephens M, Hoffmann M, Stunzer A. 2010. The bioeconomic potential for agroforestry in Australia’s northern grazing systems. Small-scale Forestry. 9(4):463–484. doi:10.1007/s11842-010-9126-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming A, O’Grady AP, Mendham D, England J, Mitchell P, Moroni M, Lyons A. 2019. Understanding the values behind farmer perceptions of trees on farms to increase adoption of agroforestry in Australia. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 39(1):1–11. doi:10.1007/s13593-019-0555-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis B, Venn T, Lewis T, Brawner J. 2022. Case studies of the financial performance of silvopastoral systems in Southern Queensland, Australia. Forests. 13(2):186. doi:10.3390/f13020186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legg P, Frakes I, and Gavran M. 2021. Australian plantation statistics and log availability report 2021. Canberra (Australia): Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. [accessed 2021 Nov 18]. https://daff.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_AU/search/asset/1032742/0
   Google Scholar
• Lewis T, Menzies T, Brawner JT, Venn T, Francis B, Ryan S, Kelly A. 2020. Improving productivity of the private native forest resource in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. [accessed 2022 Apr 11]. https://www.fwpa.com.au/resources/reports/resources.html
   Google Scholar
• Maraseni TN, Cockfield G, Maroulis J. 2009. An assessment of silvipasture potential in southeast Queensland, Australia. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies. 15(3):297–310.
   Google Scholar
• McSweeney C, and Tomkins N. 2015. Impacts of Leucaena plantations on greenhouse gas emissions in northern Australian cattle production systems. Final Report. Sydney (Australia): Meat and Livestock Australia. [accessed 2022 Apr 11]. https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/reports/2015/impacts-of-leucaena-plantations-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-carbon-sequestration-in-northern-australian-cattle-production-systems—department-of-agriculture-ref-no-01200.035/
   Google Scholar
• Montagnini F, Ibrahim M, Murgueitio E. 2013. Silvopastoral systems and climate change mitigation in Latin America. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques. 316(2):3–16. doi:10.19182/bft2013.316.a20528.
   Google Scholar
• Montreal Process Implementation Group for Australia and National Forest Inventory Steering Committee. 2018. Australia’s state of the forests report 2018. Canberra (Australia): Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Orefice J, Carroll J, Conroy D, Ketner L. 2017. Silvopasture practices and perspectives in the Northeastern United States. Agroforestry Systems. 91(1):149–160. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9916-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan S, Taylor D. 2006. Sustainable native forest management: case studies in managing private native forest in south-east Queensland. Brisbane (Australia): Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.
   Google Scholar
• Scanlan JC. 2002. Some aspects of tree-grass dynamics in Queensland’s grazing lands. The Rangeland Journal. 24(1):56–82. doi:10.1071/RJ02003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoo LP, Freebody K, Kanowski J, Catterall CP. 2016. Slow recovery of tropical old-field rainforest regrowth and the value and limitations of active restoration. Conservation Biology. 30(1):121–132. doi:10.1111/cobi.12606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JR. 2004. Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida. Ecological Economics. 49(3):349–359. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith GC, Lewis T, Hogan LD. 2015. Fauna community trends during early restoration of alluvial open forest/woodland ecosystems on former agricultural land. Restoration Ecology. 23(6):787–799. doi:10.1111/rec.12269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith MM, Bentrup G, Kellerman T, MacFarland K, Straight R, Ameyaw L, Stein S. 2022. Silvopasture in the USA: a systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 326:107818. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittle L, Lock P, Hug B. 2019. Economic potential for new plantation establishment in Australia: outlook to 2050. [accessed 2022 Apr 11]. https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/abares/documents/PlantationEstablishmentOutlook2050_v1.0.0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zepeda Cancino RM, Velasco Zebadua ME, Nahed Toral J, Hernández Garay A, Martinez Tinajero JJ. 2016. Adoption of silvopastoral systems and the sociocultural context of producers: support and limitations. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 7(4):471–488. doi:10.22319/rmcp.v7i4.4282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar