Implementing silvo-pastoral practices

Sustainable silvo-pastoral systems should be designed according to some general principles which are tailored to the specific climate, landscape, and socio-economic context. Guiding principles include:

• Consider the type and initial conditions of land and balance its components: 
  • Establish silvo-pasture in suitable areas. Avoid sensitive areas and intact ecosystems with high biodiversity and climate protection value, such as wetlands and old-growth forests.
  • If a silvo-pastoral system is established within existing woodlands, consider introducing forage plants (e.g. grasses; legumes or forbs) or shrubs and/or trees to be used as livestock fodder (e.g. chestnut or persimmons).
  • If a silvo-pastoral system is established within existing pastureland, trees should be added while avoiding excessive canopy cover, which could suppress forage growth.
• Select appropriate livestock species and breeds:
  • Select appropriate livestock species and breeds to match the condition of the land and its stage of vegetations. This is crucial in order to avoid damage to other elements of the system (e.g. by overgrazing, soil compaction or damage to vegetation and soil).
• Adopt rotational grazing:
  • Rotational grazing systems utilize recurring periods of grazing and recovery with animals being rotated among paddocks, or pastures management units.
  • Timing and duration of grazing, stocking rates and carrying capacity of the pasture must be carefully monitored to maintain site quality and tree seedling survival. Seedlings can be damaged through animal trampling and rubbing, overgrazing and soil compaction.
  • A comprehensive grazing management plan – including fencing or paddocking, periodic burning, rotational grazing, fertilization, placement of watering and/or supplemental feeding areas – must be implemented to maintain a silvo-pasture system.
• Select appropriate tree species:
  • In selecting trees, consider soil type, microclimate and multifunctionality of trees as trees should match to the ecosystem they belong to as they generate more damage than benefit if not.
  • Micro-climate management is one of the main advantages of silvo-pastoral systems, since tree shade reduces heat stress of livestock and improves animal performance and well-being. 
  • Select preferably local indigenous tree species and tree species adapted to current or future impacts of climate change.
• Incorporate a diversity of appropriate forage and fodder
  • A diverse range of grasses, forbs, herbaceous plants and trees gives animals a more diverse and healthy diet that is both nutritious and potentially medicinal. It also allows fodder supply to become more resilient. 
• Appropriate land management
  • Management of silvo-pastoral systems are technically complex given the direct and indirect interactions among trees, livestock and forage which requires knowledge of ecological principles and skills to manage ecological complexity. 

Successfully implementing silvo-pastoral systems requires robust governance structures that strengthen institutional capacity.

• Secure land tenure rights: Land managers and farmers are more likely to invest in planting trees/forages and soil management measures if their land rights are sufficient and secure. Security of tenure can be improved by land registration and titling, but other measures may be more effective depending on the context. Such measures should be gender-responsive to prevent unequal land access and enable women to be effective stewards of the environment. 
• Ensure full and effective participation from local communities, Indigenous Peoples, and other stakeholders which ensures their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in existing government plans and programs, as well as evaluating economic, social, and environmental trade-offs during program design.
• Offer specialized training for extension workers and technicians in silvo-pastoral systems, focusing on integrated tree-livestock-pasture management, soil restoration, and biodiversity conservation. Agricultural advisory services and sustainable inputs can equip land users with the knowledge and resources to adopt practices that enhance soil health and productivity in these systems. Additionally, public research on agriculture and food systems, along with other rural investments, should also prioritize equity, ensuring that smallholders and marginalized groups benefit from silvo-pastoral innovations.
• Support dedicated credit lines and incentives, such as payment for ecosystem services, tailored to silvo-pastoral systems and scale up market-based instruments (e.g. pricing CO2 emissions with a carbon tax or Emission Trading Systems and rewarding net soil carbon sequestration with carbon price-based payment), to encourage adoption of practices that enhance carbon storage, biodiversity, and land resilience. Be sure to also account for and avoid the possibility of conflicts with pastoralist communities over land tenure disputes, as seen in cases where such projects have displaced customary land uses and reduced community rights (e.g. fishing activities in Indonesia, where exclusion from coastal or riparian zones tied to carbon projects has disrupted livelihoods and diminished customary environmental stewardship, including functions such as early fire detection and ecosystem monitoring).
• Invest in decent rural farming and non-farming employment and livelihood opportunities within silvo-pastoral systems, with a focus on women and youth. Support entrepreneurship, enterprise development, smallholders, and family farms engaged in integrated tree-livestock-pasture production and ensure equitable, inclusive, and decent income-generating opportunities. Such investments can diversify livelihoods, strengthen value chains for silvo-pastoral products, and enhance resilience while promoting social equity.
• Reduce and remove large-scale agricultural subsidies that incentivize environmentally harmful livestock production, overproduction, or shifts toward monocultures, which can degrade ecosystems and ecosystem services, while redirecting support toward silvo-pastoral systems that integrate trees, livestock, and pasture, rewarding practices that restore soils, enhance biodiversity, and maintain ecosystem functions.
• Conduct outreach campaigns to inform consumers of the benefits of silvo-pastoral systems.
• Link existing certification schemes to silvo-pastoral systems to aide market access. For example, this could be focused on animal welfare regulations and/or nature conservation but will depend on the target markets.

Key tools and guides to support the implementation of silvo-pastoral systems can include:

Tools

Guides

The implementation of silvo-pastoral systems can also help advance the targets of the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), as well as those of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Climate change mitigation benefits

Silvo-pastoral systems can help sequester emissions and thus contribute to climate mitigation targets under the Paris Agreement:

• The forage component of SPSs plays an important, and often underappreciated, role in carbon sequestration both above and belowground. Silvo-pastoral systems and forest remnants store 27–163% more carbon compared to open pasturelands. Such systems have a carbon sequestration potential of 1.1 to 6.55 Mg/ha/yr depending on geographic location and on the system age, design, and management. Planting crop trees can (partially) offset GHG emissions from ruminants through carbon sequestration in biomass and soil.
• Soil properties and capacity for carbon sequestration can be improved through greater uptake of nutrients from deep soil layers, enhanced availability of nutrients from leaf-litter and increased nitrogen input by N2-fixing trees and leguminous forages. However, it is important to select tree species that are adapted to local environmental conditions and complementary to other crops within the system, since adding species to a system will contribute to resource competition (for example, for water, nutrients and light). Fast growing leguminous species can provide relatively quick returns, as well as add flexibility and diversity to a system.
• Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of animal product are lower in silvo-pastoral systems because of higher production efficiency (lower age at first calving, shorter calving intervals, higher weight gains, increased milk yields) and improved dietary composition.

Climate change adaptation benefits

Among the seven key areas of adaptation put forward in the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, implementing silvo-pastoral systems can directly contribute to:

• Targets 9a & 9d (Water & Sanitation and Ecosystems): Silvo-pastoral systems enhance water regulation, increase water absorption, reduce runoff, and help maintain water quality, contributing to climate-resilient water supply and ecosystem restoration. 
• Targets 9b & 9c (Food & Agriculture and Health): By providing shade and cooling for livestock, improving nutrition through diverse farm outputs, and reducing exposure to climate-related hazards (e.g., dust, heat), silvo-pastoral systems can contribute to better health outcomes for people, animals and vegetation.
• Targets 9d & 9g (Ecosystems & Cultural heritage): Globally, Indigenous and traditional communities maintain dynamic agroforestry and silvo-pastoral systems that support ecosystems by enhancing biodiversity, soil health, water regulation, and climate resilience. These practices integrate multiple tree uses with livestock grazing, guided by Indigenous knowledge that preserves cultural landscapes and heritage. By sustaining traditional ecological knowledge, they protect both ecosystem integrity and cultural identity.
• Target 9e (Infrastructure): Silvo-pastoral systems improve soil and water quality, stabilize soils, and reduce erosion, thereby protecting rural infrastructure, such as roads, irrigation, and settlements, from climate-related risks like landslides and flooding, and enhancing the sustainability and resilience of rural land and water resources.
• Target 9f (Livelihoods): Silvo-pastoral systems enhance rural incomes and support poverty reduction by diversifying farm outputs and increasing resilience to climate shocks, particularly benefiting small and medium-scale farmers. They improve farm productivity and profitability through more efficient resource use, higher stocking rates, and diversified products like timber, fruit, and fodder, providing multiple income streams. Additionally, training extension workers and promoting peer-to-peer learning empower communities, especially marginalized groups such as women and youth, strengthening social capital and supporting equitable poverty reduction.

Biodiversity benefits

Action under this policy option can also help to deliver on several KM-GBF targets, in particular: 

• Target 1 (Plan and Manage all Areas To Reduce Biodiversity Loss): Implementing silvo-pastoral systems can ensure that livestock production and management is conducted in a way that maintains ecosystem integrity and minimizes negative impacts on biodiversity. Silvo-pastoral systems ideally require a degree of land planning – including environmental assessments or impact assessments – to optimise the interaction between the different SPS components (e.g. livestock, forage, tree, crop, grazing and spatial arrangements). In this way, such systems can contribute to the objective of Target 1 to bring all areas under biodiversity inclusive spatial planning by 2030.
• Target 2 (Restore 30% of all Degraded Ecosystems): Implementing methods like silvo-pastoral systems and re-establishing trees and shrubs to landscapes is a direct way to improve degraded lands through, not only boosting soil integrity, but also enhancing ecosystem resilience as well as pasture productivity. In this way, expanding land under silvo-pastoral systems can effectively contribute to scale up the area of degraded ecosystems under ecological restoration.
• Target 3 (Conserve 30% of Land, Waters and Seas): Implementing silvo-pastoral systems option can contribute positively to the conservation of land by ensuring that agricultural production is carried out in line with environmental objectives. In view of this, the policy implementation can contribute to the establishment and/or expansion of protected areas and OECMs to areas that are primarily allocated to cattle farming, where traditional land conservation measure could collide with the interest of local farming communities. In fragmented, anthropized landscapes in temperate regions, silvo-pastoral systems have shown higher cattle weight gain and animal welfare successes on smaller areas of land than conventional pasture alternatives. These factors can help to incentivize long-term protection and enhancement of land by the farmer and mitigate the risk of destructive practices into protected or high conservation value areas.
• Target 7 (Reduce Pollution to Levels That Are Not Harmful to Biodiversity): Silvo-pastoral systems can effectively minimize water and soil pollution by enhancing ecosystem service, such as by minimizing soil erosion and thereby decreasing sediment and nutrient runoff into water bodies, as well as promoting nutrient cycling, which reduces the need for mineral fertilizer application. These systems improve soil quality, enhance water retention and increase soil organic matter. Besides influencing water dynamics, silvo-pastoral systems can lower air temperature at the local scale, effectively modifying the microclimate. This, in turn, positively influences soil, plant, and animal lives within the system.
• Target 8 (Minimize the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Build Resilience): Given the potent greenhouse gas properties of methane and its catalytic role in the creation of tropospheric ozone, methane emissions play a substantial role in climate change. Agricultural production, mainly through livestock and rice production, is the leading source of global methane emissions. There is a variety of evidence to suggest that silvo-pastoral systems can mitigate methane emissions arising from agricultural production and, in turn, reduce the threat that climate change poses to biodiversity. Cattle held on pastures produces less methane and sustainable silvo-pastures can potentially store 0.55–1.9 Mg ha−1−1 C per year through promoting carbon sequestration. Furthermore, silvo-pastoral system can favor soil health, support the proper functioning of the hydrological cycle as well as water retention, while mitigating soil erosion and runoff. The shrubs and trees add layers of vegetation capable of transforming solar energy into biomass, which includes the formation of roots that penetrate deeper soil layers to extract nutrients and water. These qualities make silvo-pastoral landscapes more resilient to climate-induced events such as drought and heavy rainfall. Furthermore, by providing shade for the animals, SPSs also enhance the resilience of livestock to rising temperatures amid climate change, enhancing production.
• Target 10 (Enhance Biodiversity and Sustainability in Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Forestry): Silvo-pastoral systems are widely documented to have a positive impact on biodiversity by increasing both abundance and diversity across different taxonomic levels. This is achieved by creating a mosaic of habitats that support a broader range of flora and fauna. Trees provide shade, shelter, and food sources, while the pasture component offers open spaces for species that prefer less dense environments. This diversity of habitats supports a richer variety of insects, birds, and mammals, contributing to more resilient ecosystems. Studies have shown that silvo-pastures can host higher levels of biodiversity compared to monoculture pastures or forests alone.
• Target 11 (Restore, Maintain and Enhance Nature’s Contributions to People): Silvo-pastoral systems contribute to the provision of ecosystem services in several ways over and above conventional pastureland, including enhancing carbon sequestration, water retention and nutrient cycling. Silvo-pastoral systems can have positive effects on the physical, chemical, and microbiological properties of the soil. Silvo-pastoral systems can also allow more abundant and heterogeneous biomass to enter the soil such as leaves, tree branches, fruits, resins and exudates with positive impacts on nutrients, organic matter and soil biota. As a result, the overall soil health in silvo-pastoral systems is often higher than conventional pastureland. The richness and nutrient density of the resulting pastureland can further benefit people by having a sustainable intensification effect – increasing the quality and quantity of food produced over the same size area of conventionally-managed land.

Other sustainable development benefits 

Food production in silvo-pastoral systems can provide a Triple win, supporting increased farm-level productivity and profitability, environmental improvements, and increased animal welfare, while contributing to several SDGs, including:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Silvo-pastoral systems contribute to improved livelihoods and enable smallholder farmers to tap into market demand for livestock products, thereby supporting poverty alleviation by increasing farm profitability, creating economic opportunities, and building resilience against climate shocks for vulnerable rural communities.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): SPS contributes to this SDG through improving rural food security by enhancing forage availability and livestock productivity, especially during dry seasons, lowering costs and boosting incomes, as seen in Mali where women benefited significantly. By integrating trees, crops, and livestock, SPS diversify food and income sources, reducing food and nutrition security vulnerability, with studies in Sudan highlighting their role in sustaining livelihoods on degraded lands.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): beneficial ecological interactions within silvo-pastoral systems can lead to increased yields per unit area, improved resource use efficiency, and enhanced provision of environmental ecosystem services. Animal-sourced products provide proteins, micronutrients and contribute to overall dietary diversity, particularly for vulnerable groups. 
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): By optimizing natural resource use, improving animal welfare and minimizing reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, SPS contribute to responsible consumption and production. Through sustainable land use, soil health can be improved, reducing degradation, and regulating water, which sustains long-term productivity. Additionally, participatory approaches and gender inclusion in SPS adoption empower communities and strengthen rural livelihoods.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): SPS increase carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product and compared to open pasturelands, they store significantly more carbon – studies have reported 27%-160% higher carbon stocks in tree biomass, roots, and soil organic matter. Additionally, these systems reduce the vulnerability of livestock production to climate change.
• SDG 15 (Life on land):  The presence of shrubs and trees in SPS enhances biodiversity by creating complex, multi-layered habitats that support a wide range of wild animals and plants. By fostering richer ecosystems and preventing land degradation, SPS contribute directly to the conservation and restoration of terrestrial habitats.

The successful adoption of silvo-pastoral system hinges on thoughtful design and efficient implementation. However, this process is often challenged by a combination of technical and non-technical barriers, including:

• Livestock can negatively impact a landscape if the species and breeds are not matched to the land type:
  • As a result, stocking rates must be suitable for the context.
  • Pigs: could root and trample desired vegetation, damaging woodland, or pasture in a very short period. Again, sustainable stocking rates are key.
  • Sheep & Goats: depending on forage type could overgraze the landscape and/or strip the bark off young trees, killing them. 
  • Poultry: could scratch or root down to bare soil, damaging roots, and plantings. 
• Practicing continuous grazing instead of rotational grazing negatively impacts forage quantity and quality as well as animals’ exposure to diseases. 
• Higher technical complexity of managing silvo-pastoral systems, especially if implementing or piloting new practices.
• High upfront investment costs (e.g., tree planting, livestock purchase) frequently result in initial negative cash flow.
• The inappropriate selection of tree species to fulfill green initiative goals can harm native ecosystems and damage pastoral livelihoods. Therefore, tree selection must be carefully considered during the planning stages to prevent environmental degradation and support sustainable outcomes.

Incorporating the following measures into a comprehensive and integrated design for silvo-pastoral system implementation can help minimize trade-offs and effectively address implementation challenges:

• Appropriate land-use planning.
• Appropriate selection of livestock species and breeds, which may necessitate training.
• Appropriate selection of local and adapted tree and shrub species.
• Rotational grazing. 
• Appropriate management for payment for environmental ecosystem services: Farms with high management level usually reach positive cash flow more quickly during period of adoption. 
• Financial risk assessment and finance plan in planning phase.
• Provision of dedicated credit lines; equitable financial support/incentives including. 
• Access to technical support for farmers.
• Design of appropriate, equity-sensitive training programmes; specialized training for extension workers and technicians.
• Adequate provision of inputs and supplies (e.g. seedlings; advisory services).
• Access to alternative financial streams or programmes, with particular emphasis on supporting low income or marginalized populations.

Robust monitoring tools, well-defined indicators, and comprehensive frameworks are essential for effectively tracking the implementation and outcomes of silvo-pastoral systems, including progress as well as biodiversity and climate-related impacts.

Indicators to monitor biodiversity outcomes

The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a comprehensive set of headline, component, and complementary indicators for tracking progress toward the targets of the KM-GBF. Some of these indicators could also be functional for monitoring the implementation of silvo-pastoral system-related policies. These indicators are:

Tools to monitor biodiversity outcomes

Tools to monitor climate outcomes

Implementation costs vary by country and local context, and reported estimates differ across studies:

• An average of USD 1,543 per hectare (results from case studies from Argentina, Colombia and Mexico).
• A meta-analysis suggests an average of USD 761.57 per hectare in annual operation costs for silvopasture.

Notable examples of the implementation of silvo-pastoral systems includes:

• The “Mainstreaming Sustainable Cattle Ranching in Colombia” project covers more than 2,500 farms across five regions of the country. It has introduced environmentally friendly cattle production on close to 50,000 ha, placed 51,900 ha under a Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme, improved stocking rates and productivity per animal by 15%, protected 50 globally endangered plant species on the farms, and sequestered 1.9 million Mg of CO2eq above and below ground. In addition, the project has significantly contributed to the development of public policies, the training of technicians and farmers, and the development of a network of demonstration farms and service providers.
• The Ficus thonningii Silvopasture Project in northern Ethiopia, launched in 2006 in Sefe’o village, Tigray: By integrating drought-tolerant F. thonningii trees into farmland and pasture, the project improved soil fertility and boosted crop yields beneath tree canopies, while reducing water needed for fodder production by 85%, greatly easing livestock water stress. Degraded slopes and wastelands were restored into productive landscapes, conserving soil and water, and enabling the return of wildlife, including the endangered, White-Billed Starling. Beyond environmental gains, households benefited from improved fodder access, higher land productivity, and increased incomes, while the system strengthened community resilience to recurring droughts and climate stress.
• Additionally, global case studies provided by the FAO, such as those in Latin America and Portugal, demonstrate: significant increases in forage yield (12–733% improvement in some Latin American farms) and ecosystem service provision; Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of animal product due to higher production efficiency and; Increases in on-farm biodiversity, improved soil properties, and enhanced water regulation and pest control as a result of diversified vegetation layers.

1. Amorim, H. C. S., Ashworth, A. J., O’Brien, P. L., Thomas, A. L., Runkle, B. R. K., & Philipp, D. (2023). Temperate silvopastures provide greater ecosystem services than conventional pasture systems. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 18658.
2. Arango, J., Ruden, A., Martinez-Baron, D., Loboguerrero, A. M., Berndt, A., Chacón, M., et al. (2020). Ambition Meets Reality: Achieving GHG Emission Reduction Targets in the Livestock Sector of Latin America. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00065/full.
3. Aryal, D. R., Morales-Ruiz, D. E., López-Cruz, S., Tondopó-Marroquín, C. N., Lara-Nucamendi, A., Jiménez-Trujillo, J. A., et al. (2022). Silvopastoral systems and remnant forests enhance carbon storage in livestock-dominated landscapes in Mexico. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 16769.
4. Balehegn, Mulubrhan. (2018). Drought tolerant Ficus thonningii silvopastures sustain livestock and crops in Northern Ethiopia. 10.13140/RG.2.2.24805.93924.
5. Banegas, N., Santos, D., Viruel, E., & Gasparri, N. (2024). Impact of Grazing and Silvopastoral Systems on Carbon and Nitrogen in Sodic Soils of the Dry Chaco.
6. Balehegn, Mulubrhan. (2018). Drought tolerant Ficus thonningii silvopastures sustain livestock and crops in Northern Ethiopia. 10.13140/RG.2.2.24805.93924.
7. Chará J., Reyes E., Peri P., Otte J., Arce E., Schneider F. (2019). Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f78403a3-d9c2-4b81-b999-85031935875c/content.
8. FAO. (2019). Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/ca2792en/ca2792en.pdf.
9. Florez, J.F.; Louhaichi, M.; Yigezu, Y.A.; Abdrahmane, W.; Hassan, S.; Gonzalez Quintero, R.; Notenbaert, A..; Burkart, S. (2024) Ecosystem services in livestock farming: Integral valuation framework and field applications. 23 p.
10. Gabriel, S. (2018, June 28). Six Key Principles for a Successful Silvopasture [Cornell Small Farms Program]. Retrieved February 6, 2024, from https://smallfarms.cornell.edu/2018/06/six-key-principles-for-a-successful-silvopasture/
11. Gabriel, S. (2018). Silvopasture : a guide to managing grazing animals, forage crops, and trees in a temperate farm ecosystem.
12. Implementing Silvopastoral Systems in the North Rift | IKI Small Grants. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2026, from https://iki-small-grants.de/k1project/implementing-silvopastoral-systems-in-the-north-rift/
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Retrieved February 6, 2024, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-change-and-land/AAB03E2F17650B1FDEA514E3F605A685
14. Jose, S., & Dollinger, J. (2019). Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforestry Systems, 93(1), 1–9.
15. Kletty, F., Rozan, A., & Habold, C. (2023). Biodiversity in temperate silvoarable systems: A systematic review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 351, 108480.
16. Methane | Climate & Clean Air Coalition. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2025, from https://www.ccacoalition.org/short-lived-climate-pollutants/methane.
17. Montagnini, F., Ibrahim, M., & Murgueitio, E. (2013). Silvopastoral systems and climate change mitigation in Latin America. Bois et Forets Des Tropiques, 67, 3–16.
18. Poudel, S., Pent, G., & Fike, J. (2024). Silvopastures: Benefits, Past Efforts, Challenges, and Future Prospects in the United States. Agronomy, 14(7), 1369.
19. ReForest project. (n.d.). Tools and technologies to support sustainable agroforestry practices. ReForest. Retrieved August 19, 2025, from https://agroreforest.eu/tools/
20. Rosenstock, T. S., Rufino, M. C., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Wollenberg, E., & Richards, M. B. (Eds.). (2016). Methods for measuring greenhouse gas balances and evaluating mitigation options in smallholder agriculture. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29794-1
21. Ruiz-Hurtado, A. F., Bolaños, J. P., Arrechea-Castillo, D. A., & Cardoso, J. A. (2025). TreeEyed: A QGIS plugin for tree monitoring in silvopastoral systems using state of the art AI models. SoftwareX, 29, 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2025.102071
22. Sandoval, D. F., Florez, J. F., Enciso Valencia, K. J., Sotelo Cabrera, M. E., & Stefan, B. (2023). Economic-environmental assessment of silvo-pastoral systems in Colombia: An ecosystem service perspective. Heliyon, 9(8), e19082.
23. Sawsan Hassan, Mounir Louhaichi. (30/5/2024). Technologies for silvopastoral Monitoring and Assessment. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/043b8053-97d2-41c4-9e68-ff0d8c7775f5
24. Silvopasture | Project Drawdown. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2025, from https://drawdown.org/solutions/silvopasture.
25. What are integrated systems? (n.d.). ICLS. Retrieved February 6, 2024, from https://sites.bu.edu/croplivestock/.