Abstract
This study assesses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequestration of a silvoarable system with poplar trees and a crop rotation of wheat, barley, and oilseed rape and compares this with a rotation of the same arable crops and a poplar plantation. The Farm-SAFE model, a financial model of arable, forestry, and silvoarable systems, was modified to account for life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from tree and crop management were determined from life-cycle inventories and carbon storage benefits from the Yield-SAFE model, which predicts crop and tree yields in arable, forestry, and silvoarable systems. An experimental site in Silsoe in southern England served as a case study. The results showed that the arable system was the most financially profitable system, followed by the silvoarable and then the forestry systems, with equivalent annual values of EUR 560, 450 and 140 ha−1, respectively. When the positive and negative externalities of GHG sequestration and emissions were converted into carbon equivalents and given an economic value, the profitability of the arable systems was altered relative to the forestry and silvoarable systems, although in the analysis, the exact impact depended on the value given to GHG emissions. Market values for carbon resulted in the arable system remaining the most profitable system, albeit at a reduced level. Time series values for carbon proposed by the UK government resulted in forestry being the most profitable system. Hence, the relative benefit of the three systems was highly sensitive to the value that carbon was given in the analysis. This in turn is dependent on the perspective that is given to the analysis.
Highlights
Around one-third of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are assigned to global food production, with agricultural production being the largest source [1,2]
In the more complete economic analysis, valuation of the GHG emissions and carbon sequestration associated with the three systems demonstrated that from a broader societal perspective, arable systems produced significant negative externalities in the form of GHG emissions, whilst both the forestry and agroforestry systems produced positive externalities in the form of carbon sequestration, making them both, and the forestry system, preferable to the arable system under the ‘Central carbon price’ scenario provided by BEIS [48]
This suggests that society would benefit from greater use of these tree-based systems and that directing resources to ensure the provision of carbon sequestration to combat climate change would be a good use of public resources
Summary
Around one-third of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are assigned to global food production, with agricultural production being the largest source [1,2]. The complexity of agriculture and forestry has been reduced through intensification, mechanisation as well as consolidation of agricultural land in order to simplify management and increase efficiency [4,5] This has led to modern agriculture being highly reliant on external inputs [6,7,8] which alter and affect natural habitats, landscapes, plants and animals [9]. Such management of agricultural land is associated with adverse environmental impacts such as diffuse pollution (nutrient leaching and runoff of agrochemicals), soil degradation (e.g., erosion, compaction and loss of soil organic matter), Sustainability 2021, 13, 3637.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
