Silvopastoralism, Forest Planning and Nature Conservation: Proposals for Sustainable Management Strategies

Abstract

The need for additional fodder resources in times of climate change has led to the identification of the use of new areas for grazing. This includes wooded or naturally reforested areas as advocated in recent European project deliverables. Many forest areas were traditionally grazed by grazing livestock in the past, and some still are today in some particular agro-silvo-pastoral systems such as the Alpine larch forests, the “paturages boisés” of the Jura and NW Alps, the Baltic wooded meadows, the “dehesas”, “montado” and “meriagos” of the Iberian Peninsula and Sardinia, the acorn and others oak forests of many southern European countries. In the context of forest legislation, which is more favourable to the practice of reasoned planned and managed grazing in forest woodland and pre-forest areas, however, the question arises of how to plan and regulate such practices. These were once traditionally carried out, but inefficient management has resulted in a number of negative outcomes for forest conservation over time. An integration of forest and pastoral typologies is currently underway in order to provide a framework and appropriate technical measures for a sustainable management of the regional silvo-pastoral resources.

1. Introduction

Why should grazing in the forest be of interest to foresters today? Given that, after decades of conflicts on a technical or land policy level, the practice has resulted in ideological opposition as well as opposition from a number of different interest groups. While foresters, especially in the Mediterranean and Alpine regions, have long given priority to protecting the soil, forest vegetation and its regeneration, their current approach is to integrate environmental concerns maintaining the biodiversity in open environments [1, 2, 3] and fire safety issues [4, 5] within a framework of sustainable management of highly heterogeneous areas [6, 7]. Today, silvopastoralism is not only harvesting fodder resources from undergrowth or contain the expansion of secondary woody species on ancient grasslands [8, 9] but also applying a planned management along with silviculture and forest grazing. In this sense “forest grazing”, “silvopasture” and “turning livestock into the woods” are neither conceptually nor practically the same thing [10]. Solutions are sought that enable sustainable and effective resource management both at the regulatory level and in planning. Questions to be answered include the following. (a) Are there common approaches between forest and pastoral management? (b) What is a forest as defined at a regulatory level? (c) What is it in practice? (d) Can silvopastoral systems be mapped in landscape planning? In order to provide a comprehensive and systematic answer to these questions, an overview of the descriptive and functional typologies within the main European silvo-pastoral systems is proposed.

2. A look through the main European silvopastoral systems

The current context of agro-silvo-pastoral landscapes could be considered as a scenario inherited from centuries-old traditional practices [11, 12, 13, 14]. Grazed tree stands cover a surface of about 203.000 km² in the European Union (EU) with about 109.000 km² of pastures with sparse trees, 85.000 km² of pastures in open forest, and 9.000 km² of pastures with cultivated trees, mainly olive groves and fruit trees [15]. Despite the fact we can describe a constant regression of these areas for several decades [15], today it is possible to underline a renewed interest in traditional silvo-pastoral systems. Emphasis is often placed on the great specific and phytocoenotic diversity of these systems [1, 16] that often constitute a preferential genetic pool for various species [17]. As some syntheses have already been carried out at European level [3, 12, 18], the objective of this paper is therefore to provide considerations that form the basis for a sustainable management and typological framework approach particularly focused on Italian areas, from the Alpine and Apennine areas to the Mediterranean regions.

2.1 Grazed larch forests of Western Alps

In the Alps, the grazing larch forest is the element par excellence of the subalpine landscape with a silvo-pastoral vocation showing the existence of specific links between landscapes, local production practices and activation of environmental resources, the so called “foodscapes” [19]. In the Western Alps, the grazing larch forest has been thoroughly investigated [20, 21, 22, 23, 24], and the dynamics following the abandonment of pastoral practices have been the topic of a significant amount of research [25, 26]. According to regional planning data of Piedmont forest typology [27], specific grazing larch forests cover over 12,000 hectares in Piedmont: they are defined as “stands of larch, generally pure, characterised by meadow species in the undergrowth due to grazing still in place or recently abandoned. Sparse, monoplane forests, located throughout the regional territory. Cenosis tendentially mesophilous and indifferent to the type of edaphic gradient”. In addition to these silvopastoral larch wood type, extensive grazing is also conducted in montane larch woods, subalpine mesoxerophilous larch woods, subalpine Rhododendron-Vaccinium larch woods and tall forbs larch woods: larch forests in Piedmont cover almost 90,000 hectares [28], an area comparable to 85,000 hectares of the French Western Alps [29]. In the Valle d’Aosta region, larch forests amount to approximately 42,000 ha [30], while Liguria has smaller areas of larch woods (1,700 ha) located only in the Argentina and upper Tanaro valleys [31]. In the French Maritime and Cottian Alps, an important framework of information has been available for diachronic studies since the 1950s [32] and continued until the 1980s (with the works of Lacoste, Lavagne and others), almost always of phyto-sociological and phyto-ecological approach. Vegetation units have been identified, linked both to differentiated site situations and to phases of different dynamic and silvigenetic evolution of larch stands (concepts of “pré-bois transformés” and “pré-bois non transformés” based on the effect of light and tree cover on understory). This has stimulated some typological syntheses useful also in forestry for wood production and silvopastoral purposes [33, 34], while recently specific works [20, 29] with regard to the silvopastoral use of larch forests have further specified their forage potential (see Table 1). This has been possible thanks to more than a decade of collaboration between forestry (CRPF, ONF) and pastoral (CERPAM, Institut de l’Elevage) organisations that has led to the identification of joint technical protocols and silvicultural itineraries for silvopastoral enhancement. Going into detail, well-grassed larch forests include herbaceous undergrowth patches highlighted by previous vegetation studies:

• Larch forests with Geranium sylvaticum and Chaerophyllum hirsutum;

• Larch forests with Hieracium prenanthoies and Poa nemoralis;

• Larch forests with Sesleria varia;

• Larch forests with Brachypodium gr. pinnatum;

• Larch forests acidophilic grasses (Avenella flexuosa, Festuca gr. rubra, Agrostis capillaris).

Macrotype	Silvopastoral type	Pastoral interest	Bush cover
Well-grassed larch forests	Well-grassed larch forests with grasses	Satisfying	< 20%
	Well-grassed larch forests with tall herbs	Satisfying	< 20%
Bushy larch forests	Bushy larch forests with blueberries and rhododendron (> 1900 m)	Scarce	20–70%
	Bushy larch forests with dwarf juniper and bearberry (> 1900 m)	Scarce	20–70%
	Bushy larch forests with juniper and thorny bushes (< 1900 m)	Scarce	20–80%

Table 1.

Larch sylvopastoral types in french western Alps (extract from Bonnet et al. [29]).

It is interesting to note that the Piedmont, Liguria and Valle d’Aosta larch forest types [27, 30, 31] already adequately frame the majority of the units mentioned in Table 1 above; it remains locally necessary to define the herbaceous patches in order to be able to carry out a more precise assessment of the pastoral value of these phytocoenoses using appropriate methodologies. The pastoral value of larch woods remains modest: long ago, it was known that the nutritional value of the grass sward is therefore two or three times lower under the cover of a larch stand, depending on its density, than outside the forest [35]. However, grazing larch woods represent a major pastoral challenge, especially for cattle whose mountain pastures are located in the same altitudinal zone; for sheep, they are an attractive resource in autumn, as well as a refuge in periods of high heat [29].

2.2 “Paturages boisés” of the North-Western Alps and the Jura

In the northern Western Alps and the Jura, a traditional silvo-pastoral system has been since the Middle Age the “pâturages boisés” [36, 37, 38], mainly referring to the subalpine and high mountain spruce forests. A set of researches initially originated by the “Patubois” project [39] allowed to identify a method to reach a four-step diagnosis useful to define the types of silvopastoral management best adapted to the stands, while identifying appropriate directions of intervention [40]. A simplified silvopastoral typology is proposed, essentially based on forest cover [41], presented in Table 2; a special handbook based on this typological and operational approach was drawn up through an Interreg programme by integrating the French and Swiss regulatory bases and definitions. Species dynamics within wooded grasslands have been surveyed over the years [36, 42, 43], including evolutionary scenarios related to climate change [44]. The method used is that of sinusial phytosociology, a methodology that analyses vegetation through its different layers: this has made it possible to carry out very refined analyses and identify small-scale patterns, but it requires in-depth expertise and requires high time and costs for surveying, mapping and monitoring. Six species groups were identified by multivariate analysis [43, 45] on the basis of their different specific reaction to grazing and trampling.

Silvopastoral type	Forest cover	Main suitability	Proposed actions
Type 1: pastures with trees	0–25%	Pastoral attitude to be preserved	Reduce forest colonisation; Select the best trees
Type 2: wooded pastures	25–50%	Pastoral attitude to be restored	Reduce forest colonisation and canopy cover to 25% by removing 20–30% of the trees; conserve ecotones and open passages for livestock
Type 3: grazed woods	50–75%	Shared pastoral and forestry attitude	Different modes according to the sub-types: 3A in clusters: cut mature collectives; restore cover to 50%; facilitate livestock movement; 3B with gaps: maintaining clearances and restoring connectivity between open areas; 3C aged: cut mature trees, reduce the overall density by reducing the coverage to 50% and reopen clearings and passages.
Type 4: woods	75–100%	Forestry attitude to be improved	Thinnings in order to produce quality timber.

Table 2.

“Paturâge boisés” types (taken from Barbezat & Boquet, [41]).

2.3 Deciduous silvopastoral systems with acorn oaks

In southern Europe (Apennines, Iberian Peninsula, Pyrenees and Balkans), acorn oak forests are a classic example of agro-silvopastoral management that originated in very ancient times, as evidenced by various paintings and frescoes since the Renaissance. This activity remained widespread in the subsistence economy and had moments of crisis crossing modernity: today, it is also recovering in contemporary times [46, 47, 48, 49] mainly linked to the production of high-quality pork products that are well remunerated on the market. In addition to the well-known case of some Mediterranean evergreen forests (which will be illustrated afterwards), we will focus here on deciduous oak forests (Quercus pubescens s.l., Quercus pyrenaica, Quercus robur, Quercus petraea and Quercus cerris) and their relations with the pasture undergrowth and silvicultural and agro-forestry practices that make possible different uses of the resources of these stands. The practice of collecting ferns and litter in general is known and practised in ancient times almost everywhere in these silvo-pastoral systems, both in the Alps [50, 51] and the Apennines. In the Apennines, the collection of litter is an ancient practice [52], in particular chestnut litter together with other vegetal residues (“da sterno” or “da pattume”) that were collected after the harvesting of fodder branches or second-grade chestnuts (“da ruspo”) prior to the pigs’ opening to grazing (“rumo”) [52]. Along with the “jus lignandi” for dry wood, the “stipatura” was practised, that is, the removal of vegetation (grasses, bushes and some shrubs) that was carried out in the 4–5 years following the cutting of the coppice [52]. In the Pyrenees, this practice, still locally in vogue today, is called “soustrage” which involves mowing and removing bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), gorse (Ulex europaeus) and grasses [53]. These dried plants are then used as animal bedding and mixed with animal droppings which make excellent manure. In the Pyrenees, deciduous oak forests are often pollarded or shredded (“chênes têtards” or “trognes” in French, “haritz kapetatuak” in Basque, “robles trasmochados” in Spanish). In Sare’s communal forest, different uses on the same land are combined: charcoal, construction timber, pig breeding (thanks to acorns), grazing of other domestic animals, use of undergrowth products for “soustrage” and harvesting of leaves and branches for fodder [53]. Pollarding takes place when the oaks are 15 cm in diameter (between 15 and 30 years old, depending on fertility), with repeated cuts every 10–18 years (10–12 years in the best conditions) and be pollarded for 10 or 12 revolutions and sometimes even more; recently, the American red oak (Quercus rubra) has also been used. Small areas (<a 3 ha) are periodically taken away from extensive grazing and fenced off for renewal. The trees were most often planted (10-year-old high-stem plants) so that the density was close to 150 stems per hectare. When they were young, they were traditionally protected from the teeth of cattle by hawthorn branches [54]; even in the Apennines, young plants were “impruinate” (with thorny species including Prunus spinosa, from which it takes its name) in grazed woods to protect them from being bitten by cattle and sheep [52]. Today, there are major problems of lack of natural regeneration in old, sparse, decaying stands (between 20 et 50 plants/hectare); wide-spaced plantations of quality broadleaved trees have enabled a return to a balance between forest and pasture. In northern Spain, three types of Quercus pyrenaica grazed woods were detected, defined by the different management practices applied [55]. In Appennines, white oak “querciolaie” have today generally lost their original structure and texture due to various causes, even opposing ones, such as progressive forest dynamics with shrub multiplication, passage of fires, and failure to cut [46]. In order to evaluate the impact of different grazing regimes (high-intensity grazing, low-intensity grazing and ungrazed areas) in an agrosilvopastoral farm in Maremma region (Tuscany, Italy), an over-80-year-old tall tree turkey oak forest was studied in relation to the management of a herd of local Maremmana cattle breed herd [56]. The stand vegetation analysis showed differences only in the dominated and shrub layers and in natural regeneration, where density, height and coverage values were significantly different among the theses, inversely related to grazing intensity. Differently, in the dominant tree layer, the dendrometric and structural parameters showed a homogeneous distribution in the four theses. In conclusion, grazing management does not seem to affect the soil and tree structure, whilst it influences the consistence and the development of regeneration, shrub and dominated layers. This could be a management problem to be considered in the silvicultural treatment for the stand regeneration in the next future [57]. Besides, focusing more on soil health (meso- and the micro-soil fauna community), it is possible to underline that substantial tendency to lower soil respiration in high intensity grazing management as compared to areas with lower grazing intensities, likely connected to different soil porosity and especially to reduced biology quality. On the contrary, lower animal load showed a high level of soil biodiversity by mesofauna detection and fungal metabarcoding analyses, as well soil biological quality and ecological stability. The results suggest that long-term silvopastoral activity, based on a planned rotational management of animal load in the forest, could effectively support biodiversity and soil ecological equilibrium [58].

2.4 Oak, pines and chestnut “parcours”

In the south of France, particularly between Alpine Provence and the southern sectors of the Massif Central, transhumance from the coastal and lowland areas between the Rhône and Languedoc used to take place along preferential axes whose forests are characterised by Quercus pubescens (and Quercus ilex in the lower parts) and Pinus sylvestris or Pinus nigra woods and plantations. In the warmer sectors, livestock (generally sheep) remain even during the winter period. This silvopastoral system is also present in the Apennines and, on a smaller scale, in Ligurian Alps with Brigasca sheep. They now converge on the idea that there is a need to move from improving transhumance “parcours” and more sedentary pastoral areas to a silvopastoral management that deliberately integrates several objectives: not only wood and fodder production but also fire risk reduction, hunting, biodiversity conservation and landscape enhancement [59, 60]. Until the 1990s, an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 hectares of chestnut orchard groves were still grazed in the Cevennes and Ardèche “parcours” [61], a practice common throughout southern Europe. In recent years, “parcours” on calcareous, marly and siliceous substrates have been partially colonised by pines and various shrub species, which make them more susceptible to fire and somewhat impoverishes their forage value [62]. Already in the 1990s, there were typologies for silvo-pastoral use [60] which, based on the water level of the forest sites of French supra- and meso-Mediterranean white oak forests, corresponded well with the simplified typologies in the guides for private forest owners. Three types of white oak stand (Quercus pubescens) can be distinguished, depending on the ecological conditions (see Table 3). Intervention guidelines, modulated differently depending on forest type, provide for initial use by livestock prior to silvicultural interventions on the woody stand to open up the stand (this may be with heavy animals such as cows and horses or with goats). It is followed by a post-silvicultural intervention use (silvopastoral thinning) by livestock with the capacity for progressive transformation of the grass cover by grazing and produce new consumable fodder resources [62]; this can lead, for example, to the development of Bromus erectus and then Dactylis spp. in place of Brachypodium rupestre. In Mediterranean regions, it is interesting to note that the dry matter of the leaves of the manna ash (Fraxinus ornus), white oak (Quercus pubescens), strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) and broom (Spartium junceum) has a higher nutritive value than that of average quality hay, while that of holm oak and broom appears comparable to that of good oat straw [63]. In coastal holm oak (Quercus ilex) stands, more homogeneous from a silvopastoral point of view, a honeycomb structure [60, 64] (“en bouquets”) can be sought, which is economically more profitable compared to diffuse thinning, allows a better circulation of flocks and is also effective from the point of view of protection against forest fires because it is able to reduce the horizontal continuity of the sclerophyllous tree and shrub layer. Other silvopastoral methods and strategies were first experimented and then adopted for heaths and shrublands [65, 66]: an interesting element of reflection that can be drawn from these experiences is that, in addition to the interdisciplinary approach, shrub and bush species, instead of being considered a negative element to be eliminated a priori, are considered as a factor in the diversification of the livestock diet [67, 68, 69] and therefore a resource to be considered on a territorial and temporal level within the grazing calendar. It is the grazing itself that contributes to their control through appropriate pastoral techniques. There is a phase of regaining pastoral use (ensuring strong initial grazing pressures to regress woody species) and then a phase of perennialisation of such use through the lightening of spring grazing to encourage the return of grasses [70].

Forest type	Stand and forest sites	Undergrowth
Oak woods on deep soils	Lush coppices on former fallow land, in valleys, on flats or with a northerly exposure	Shrubs: Coronilla emerus, Cornus sanguinea, Corylus avellana; Herbs: Brachypodium gr. pinnatum et B. sylvaticum, Bromus erectus, Poa nemoralis
Dry oak woods on shallow soils	Medium-growth coppices on plateau and slope of limestone karstic areas	Shrubs: Juniperus sp.pl., Buxus sempervirens; Herbs: Bromus erectus, Festuca gr. ovina, Carex humilis, Brachypodium gr. pinnatum
Open oak woods	Coppices with trees with a low, twisted habit on marls	Herbs: Aphyllanthes monspeliensis

Table 3.

Silvopastoral typological framework in white oak woods (taken from Bellon et al. [60]).

2.5 Evergreen grazed woodlands as iberian “Dehesas”, “Montado” and sardinian “Meriagos”

In the Mediterranean area, arboreal pastures and characteristic sclerophyllous forest stands are represented by the “dehesas” in western Spain (Extremadura, Andalusia), the “montado” in southern Portugal and the “meriagos” in Sardinia; these are traditional silvopastoral systems that have been extremely well studied from every point of view (vegetation, forage and acorn production, fires, biodiversity, etc.) [18, 71, 72, 73, 74]. The definition of “dehesa” in Spain is for some time that of an open forest with discontinuous cover covering between 5 and 20% of the area, while beyond 20% of tree cover, there is a “true” forest (woodland). The species making up the sparse tree layer are mainly Quercus suber and Quercus ilex subsp. rotundifolia. The number of adult trees per hectare generally varies between 10 and 200. In Portugal [75], “montado” systems with cork-oak (Quercus suber) and holm-oak (Quercus ilex subsp. rotundifolia) were included as forests whenever the tree cover exceeded 10%. (with minimum land area = 1 ha; minimum tree height = 5 m; minimum width = 20 m). Where the oak cover is below 10%, the areas are classified according to the dominant land-cover, most commonly as cropland, pastures or shrublands. The dehesas and the montado systems are characterised by the predominance of annual herbaceous species amidst the sparse sclerophyllous trees that make up the low-density tree layer: on a vegetational level, the phytosociological correspondence is in fact related to the Poetea bulbosae and not to the forest part. Sown pastures (cereals, legumes and other forage crops) are aimed at complementing the fodder yield of natural pastures, both in quality and in seasonal distribution [18]; sowing takes place every 2–5 years and therefore, the herbaceous patch is often artificial. These silvopastoral systems are therefore characterised by a particular seasonality in which the most critical period for pasture seems to be the summer period. In Sardinia, the “meriagos” represent the most widespread agro-sylvo-pastoral system [76], where they cover about 113,000 hectares, equal to almost 10% of the utilised agricultural area of the region. The age structure of the trees is today strongly unbalanced towards the mature classes [77], and it has been shown how current management systems do not allow the natural regeneration process of the trees. Possible conservation strategies for this traditional landscape are being studied [78] to prevent overgrazing from leading to completely open environments due to the decay of cork and holm oaks that are now senescent or, on the contrary, pastoral under-use and natural sylvigenetic evolution from leading to the formation of closed forests that can no longer be used for silvopastoral purposes, with the loss of high biodiversity and landscape functionality [77]. The methods identified include the planting of new trees, the use of fences to preserve seedlings and established regeneration from grazing or, alternatively, the exclusion of grazing by working small areas in rotation for periods of 20 to 30 years to allow natural regeneration of characteristic tree species; these measures can be implemented both at farm level and in planning over a larger area.

From a typological and inventory point of view, it can therefore be seen that highly articulated systems with very low forest definitions (such as the FAO definition of forest structures similar to African savannas) have probably had the aim of increasing the possibility of conserving arboreal cenoses under high anthropic pressure. However, it must be said that, at least in Europe, where the Habitats Directive (92/43/CEE) already provides an important protective umbrella for most traditional silvopastoral systems, greater attention should be paid to those transitional structures between the wooded pastures and the cork oak and the holm oak forest in order to manage with a balanced and rotational grazing [74] all those open woodlands colonised by shrub vegetation that is not very conducive to silvopastoralism, where grazing could be forbidden by local, regional or national regulations. In fact, in Spain (specifically in Andalucia), an important part of the problems detected in relation to the “dehesa” cover framework have to do with the lack of a specific concept of “dehesa”, which is more evident in the aspects related to European regulations, where its recognition, in opinion of many, is confusing and inefficient. The law 7/2010 (Ley de la Dehesa: https://www.uco.es/biodehesa/la-ley-para-la-dehesa/), defines the Dehesa as a “farm, consisting mostly of grassland, subject to a system of land use and management based mainly on extensive livestock farming that takes advantage of pastures, fruits and branches, as well as other forestry, hunting or agricultural uses”. This law introduce the definition of “formacion adehesada” (http://www.biodehesa.es/) defined as a “forest area occupied by a wooded stratum, with a fraction of the ground covered (ground area covered by the projection of the tree crown) between 5 and 75%, composed mainly of holm oaks, cork oaks, gall oaks or wild olive trees, which allows the development of an essentially herbaceous layer for the use of livestock or game species”.

2.6 Wooded meadows

In northern Europe, particularly in the countries around the Baltic Sea, another form of traditional semi-natural wooded ecosystem is that of the “Wooded Meadows”. In the various languages, these wooden meadows were known by the names of “Gehölzewiese” or “Laubwiese” in German, “löväng” in Swedish, “lehtoniity” in Finnish, “lesolug” in Russian and “puisniit” in Estonian [79]. In reality, “wooded meadows” are an agro-sylvo-pastoral traditional mode that can also be adapted outside Fennoscandia (e.g., in the wet Alps and Apennines, Carpathians, Central Europe, UK and the Atlantic zone) [12, 14]. The peculiarity of these agro-sylvo-pastoral systems is that undergrowth management is based to periodic mowing rather than grazing. Their definition is “sparse natural stands with an annualy mown herb layer with a tree canopy usually in the range 10–50% with patches of open meadows” [80]; forest stands are characterised by decidous trees (in particular Fraxinus excelsior, Betula pendula, Betula pubescens, Quercus robur, Tilia cordata, Ulmus glabra or Alnus incana) with a few shrubs in the understory, which also consists of about 10–20% of non-mow species. Traditionally [79], these areas were managed by a combination of raking and picking fallen branches, hay-cutting, pollarding or lopping of trees: in wet meadows, some drainage systems were managed and, due to a good feeding area for large herbivores, were a privileged place for hunting. Mowing could be replaced by occasional grazing in August and September, and N.W.F.P. (Non Wood Forest Products) were collected (birch sap, berries, mushrooms, hazelnuts and bird eggs). Due to the breaks in regular mowing, there exists a continuous series of successional stages between wooded meadow and forest [79]. On the basis of the meadow community classification [80], descriptions of twelve communities, which are characteristic to wooded meadows, are given.

In conclusion, it is worth emphasising the fact that almost all of these traditional silvopastoral systems are protected habitats according to the Hab. Directive 92/43/EEC, but that depending on the professional or ideological orientation of the editors of the planning documents, the inter- or trans-disciplinary approach to management is not always the current and recommended one: foresters tend to favour the forest, pastoralists favour the pasture and many naturalists favour the absence of human intervention. The fact that these environments are semi-natural environments should, on the other hand, suggest a balanced human intervention whose aim is to maintain an agro-sylvo-pastoral economic activity compatible with the conservation of the various natural organisms present. Traditional practices underpin the management and conservation of these systems: but is it possible today to maintain only traditional methods, or is it possible or desirable to introduce innovative aspects or other parallel practices?

3. Silvopastoralism within Italian regulatory system

3.1 Current forestry regulations

Italy’s unique national text on forestry disciplines (T.U.F.F.) now provides a single regulatory framework for forestry planning valid for all Italian regions [81]. The Piedmont Region has had the merit to introduce for a couple of decades a type of planning that has been taken as an example today at a national level: in forest typology, after the prodromes carried out by Mondino in 1996, the fourth improved revision of this planning tool has now been reached in 2024. The T.U.F.F. text provides standardised definitions including those relating to the definition of a forest and the definition of a grazing forest and an arboreal meadow or pasture (Art. 3 paragraph 1 letters l and m and also Regional Law No. 4 of 10 February 2009) (see Table 4 before). A first planning level, through the regional forestry programme, has the main task of contextualising the national objectives and priorities in the regional territory, in coordination with the other environmental and landscape planning tools present; a second planning level on a territorial scale identifies the forestry plan of territorial address (P.F.I.T.: Piano Forestale di Indirizzo Territoriale). A third level on a company and operational scale is that of forest management (P.G.F.: Piano di Gestione Forestale, former P.F.A: Piano Forestale Aziendale). Regions may draw up, within territorial districts that are homogeneous in terms of environmental, landscape, economic-productive or administrative characteristics, forestry plans for territorial guidance, aimed at the identification, maintenance and valorisation of silvopastoral resources and at the coordination of the activities necessary for their protection and active management, as well as at the coordination of the forestry planning tools. P.F.I.T. level identifies at a scale of 1:10.000:

• categories of grazing areas and permanent meadows with reference to the forage value;

• grazeable woodlands and shrublands;

• priority areas for the drafting of more detailed pastoral plans (Piani Pastorali Foraggeri Aziendali)

Forest	> 20% tree cover is considered forest
Non-forest	< 20% tree cover remains in the area of meadows or wooded pastures
	Wooded areas <2000 m^2
	Terraced areas or located in traditional agrarian and pastoral landscapes
Wooded meadow or pasture (“prato o pascolo arborato”	Areas in topicality with a forest tree cover of less than 20%, mainly used for grazing livestock
Grazing forest (“bosco da pascolo”)	Forest areas traditionally used also as pastureland with non-dominant herbaceous areas

Table 4.

Definitions according to T.U.F.F. (2018 National unified forestry text).

P.G.F. is implemented at the operational level at scales of greater detail; it is in this context that silvopastoral typologies can be used that relate the forest types with pasture patches (pastoral types).

3.2 Towards a typological framework for silvopastoral systems

Traditional silvopastoral systems have changed over time, particularly during the transition between subsistence and market economies. More or less all of these systems at a European level appear today to have been modified by two opposing dynamics [15, 82], one linked to the abandonment of cultivation and the other to the intensification of pastoral practices, which has led on some occasions (e.g., in certain Sardinian meriagos) to the disappearance or rarefaction of the arboreal element. More frequent, however, is the opposite process, that is, that of cultivation abandonment and consequent dynamic progression towards woodland or shrub coenosis (for which the term “rewilding” is sometimes used, perhaps inappropriately). Today, these silvopastoral forms, their regressive forms and their evolutionary forms thus appear as a landscape patchwork with a high physiognomic and management diversity, whose transition between one form and the other does not always appear clear-cut. In land-use planning and management, it is necessary to draw lines, not so much because nature demands it (its spatial and temporal development is rather a “continuum”), but because the rules and organisation of human activities require circumscribed sets, thresholds and appropriate definitions. The first fundamental step (see Table 4) is to understand what is defined as “forest” and what is defined as “non-forest” by the regulations in force in order to understand what the different types of land are subject to. Whether the activity concerns a woodland, a second step is to consider the dominant forest stand within which silvopastoral practice takes place: the approach that first defines a category based on dominant species (cover >50%) and secondly defines forest types based on their ecological-dynamic variability allows a good characterisation of forest stands [27, 30, 31]. The third step corresponds to the definition of the herbaceous, suffruticose or shrubby vegetation on which the livestock can feed as they move through the forest (including woody sprouts). Combining herbaceous and lower woody layers is not always easy; in the approach to “paturages boisés”, sinusial phytosociology [39] divides the analysis of these layers, and certainly in the assessment of pastoral value, these two layers should be evaluated separately. Both constitute the “pasture patch” [83], which in pastoral methodology in Piedmont corresponds well to the “pastoral type” [84]. These pastoral types, initially conceived for extra-forest pastures in mountain, subalpine and alpine areas, should be integrated with the various undergrowth eco-facies present in the regional area and corresponding to the various aspects already previously analysed in larch forests and other forests at lower altitudes with a silvopastoral vocation. To simplify practical assessments, some authors [83] propose synthesising the pasture patch into three quality classes (poor, good and excellent) based on a scoring. Other proxy such pastoral value (=VP, conceptually variable from 0 to 100 and calculate through specific indices such as those of Daget & Poissonet) [84] can be used as a point level reference with regard to specific vegetation surveys or in simplified mode for forest management plans [85]. Values of 25–30 are already an indication of good pastoral quality in open environments [85] even if from some preliminary applications [86], VP values in Alpine silvopastoral systems seem to be much lower; this will have to be verified on a larger scale and on the basis of the main pastoral patches present in Alpine and Apennine forests. Among further simplifications, other authors [87] propose a silvopastoral typology based on seven functional types concerning the possibility of combining immediate harvesting of wood products and possible pastoral uses: these references can complement the assessment of cultural assets in the context of management plans (particularly in more detailed plans such as P.G.F. or farm plans). It is conceptually also possible to achieve the management scale of individual landownerships (small farm) and design appropriate thematic silvopastoral mapping that also includes the presence of paddocks for rotational grazing and other punctual or linear elements (hedgerows and fodder trees) at a scale close to 1:1.000 [83].

In view of the adaptation over time of a possible silvopastoral typology, it is then necessary to understand the possible interactions on a local level between the tree layer and the herbaceous or shrubby layer: it is therefore not a matter of the sum of two or three superimposable layers as in a GIS, but of layers that interact with each other over time, at different times and in different ways in the Mediterranean, Middle European and Alpine regions, in close relation to the grazing load, the type of livestock and the periodicity of grazing on a given plot [36, 45]. The information on the various layers must therefore be periodically updated between plans, in particular that on the herbaceous one. Indeed, it only takes a few years of grazing to transform the characteristics of the herbaceous layer of the reference pastoral type or patch, just as can occur with mowing or the passage of mechanical means (mulchers) over a herbaceous surface: the data recorded on the pastoral patch are therefore rather labile as the type of regrowth is different from the initial one. With the grazing of forest stands, the effect of sorting by the animal becomes predominant [88]. On large surfaces, the most palatable species (fine-leaved grasses and legumes) are eaten preferentially; on the other hand, the least palatable species (the most lignified, the most irritating, the coarsest, the least palatable, etc.) are often neglected in extensive grazing and form refusals whose components are placed in a privileged position to intercept light energy, complete their reproductive cycle and build up their carbohydrate and mineral reserves [88]. As a result, they proliferate by extending their clumps by disseminating and germinating their seeds. Gradually, the grazed layer becomes a mosaic of diverse elements, some of which are consumed little or not at all by the livestock, while others are over-consumed if the grazing methods are not changed. These dynamics are similar in the Mediterranean area [89] and in areas north of the Alps [45], although in the Mediterranean area, the beneficial influence of trees on forage production seems to be more evident [90] than in areas with higher rainfall and cooler climate. The influence of trees on extending the fodder production period gives forests in the Mediterranean zone an important role in improving fodder availability in these herbaceous vegetations with marked seasonality [60, 88]: this may also be the case for certain forests in temperate zones subject to current climatic changes. However, very high animal loads produce a homogenisation of the vegetation of pastoral interest, as also occurs, for example, in grazing larch groves used as stands or located near mountain stables, which become heavily covered by nitrophilous vegetation based on Urtica dioica, Rumex and Chaenopodium spp. [34].

3.3 Conservation issues at landscape level

As mentioned above, grazing is being re-evaluated in the scientific field as a possible landscape management practice in forests [15, 52, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95]. Historically, however, grazing has mainly been cited as a disturbance. For example, Del Favero [96] discusses the possibility of balancing pastoral and forestry use in the case of mugo pine. Conversely, the same author, regarding the forest types of Friuli Venezia Giulia, discourages grazing or cites it as a cause of degradation in the case of oak-hornbeam forests, beech forests, pine forests, spruce-beech forests, spruce forests, chestnut forests and oak forests [96]. This illustrates the spread of pastoral practice in these environments. It is known, in fact, that historically, forests were exploited as a resource for pastoral purposes throughout Italy, especially in those rugged areas which are inaccessible for logging [97, 98]. Even the National Catalogue of Historical Rural Landscapes [99] mentions some landscapes reflecting the presence in the past of a silvopastoral system [11, 52, 99], including the S. Antonio forest in the Majella National Park [11], the Aveto forest in Liguria, the silvopastoral area of Moscheta in the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines, the wooded pastures of Monte Minerva in Sardinia, and the wooded meadows of Salten in the Alps [99]. Today, these forests are recognised as having cultural value; however, signs of the past practices must be documented not only empirically but also through historical sources. For example, within the National Register of Historical Rural Landscapes, which confers national recognition, there are three sites where forest grazing appears among land uses. In Tolfa, among natural pastures and stable meadows, there are wooded pastures and grazed chestnut forests [100]. In Amalfi, sheep, goats and pigs grazed in the woods over approximately 5,000 hectares in 1954, about 3,000 hectares in 2018, with approximately 2,500 hectares remaining unchanged [101]. Finally, in the Municipality of Moscheta, grazed beech and oak forests decreased from over 100 hectares in 1954 to approximately 15 hectares in 2013 [102]. The legibility of grazed forests seems, therefore, to be possible thanks to the attribution of historical or natural value. This latter case is related to the identification of Natura 2000 habitats. These include habitat 5130: Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands; habitat 5210: Mediterranean arborescent matorral; habitat 6310: sclerophyllous grazed woodlands; habitat 9070: Fennoscandian wooded pastures [15] and habitat 9420: larch forests grazed are attributable to grazed forests. Therefore, it seems that recognition, particularly as a historical landscape, is now assuming new relevance given the unified definition of grazed forest provided by T.U.F.F., which recalls the traditional character of this type.

At the same time, in these cases, there is a tendency to treat the protection of recognised grazed forest areas and to create clear boundaries between areas to be protected and those that are not. However, delving into the case of Piedmont, it is noted that, while in the landscape plan, which works on landscape units, grazing activity in forests is not mentioned, the silvo-pastoral compartment class appears in the Forest Management Plans, such as those of Usseaux or Pragelato (Val Chisone-To, Piedmont). These, in accordance with pasture plans, where present, regulate the use of forests for pastoral purposes and currently represent the planning tool governing the management of this practice. Unlike in the Apennine mountains where there is evidence from various historical sources [52, 103, 104, 105, 106], for the Italian Western Alps, there is today a scarcity of traditional informations on forest grazing techniques or management: just some general information of a few practices once common in grazed larch woods (stone stripping, systematic elimination of the regeneration of arolla pine, fir, spruce, beech and other broadleaves). It is therefore difficult to affirm that, contrary to the management of meadows, pastures, fodder or acorn trees and chestnut groves, there may have been a real silvopastoral tradition in Piedmont. While a pastoral “savoir faire” in the forest may have been maintained and passed down orally in the past, with the disappearance of older generations of farmers and shepherds, depopulation and the restrictive assertion of regulations expressly forbidding it since the Serpieri law of 1923, it can be said that this “savoir faire” has been lost today, at least in the context of the Western Alps. Current practices seem rather to indicate that there is a generic sending of livestock into the forest to graze and “keep clean” in a poorly managed and organised manner. Historical studies [11, 14, 107, 108] show that contrasts have always existed between local and central logics, the latter linked to the policies of regional and/or state administrations in the management of the various territorial systems, often in conflict with different needs at the local level.

4. Balancing production and conservation: managing silvopastoral landscapes

4.1 Grazing in the forest as in the past?

The LIFE Pastoralp project (https://www.pastoralp.eu/tools/) promoted at the end of the project in 2023 effective and feasible adaptation strategies to cope with socio-economic and climate change in alpine pastoralism under climate change. LIFE Pastoralp, despite the fact that the focus of the project was mainly on alpine and subalpine pastures, identified in its glossary a definition of “forest suitability for a silvopastoral use” which can be taken here as a starting point for silvopastoral planning at regional and local level. Forests suitables for a silvopastoral use [86] are generally woods characterised by a herbaceous understory, likely rich in grasses and/or legumes and/or a shrub layer having a mid-pastoral value. In Piedmont, the main suitable forest stand for this use are larch forests, secondary broadleaf forests (birch, poplar, secondary maple and ash forests), black locust forests, scots pine, hop hornbeam and white oak forests rich in grasses and legumes. This category does not entail direct protection forests, stands under regeneration or transformation processes as well as uneven-aged stands at any stage of growth managed with C.C.F. (Continuous Cover Forestry). In Piedmont beech forests, fir and spruce forests and oak-hornbeam forests do not have a particular silvopastoral vocation. In suitable stands, the conditions of the herbaceous patches, light on the ground and passability for livestock, can be improved by thinning, also through the transformation of irregular stands, without any particular management and without any other particular vocations. The basic philosophy that deserves to be followed is that of moving from general forest grazing to a responsible and efficient silvopastoralism that intentionally integrates trees, pasture, forage crops or mowing into a single system for raising livestock [83, 109] contributing to the long-term maintenance of traditional rural landscapes with high ecological value (HNV) and helping to mitigate environmental problems such as forest fires and biodiversity declining. In particular, to get there, it is important to incorporate managed grazing techniques where the animals rotate through different sections of the land for true success [110]. Depending on the territorial situations and ecosystems present, it is important in this regard to consider every management and technical option already experimented or reported in the literature, such as silvopastoral thinning (promoted already in the 1980s in the Apennines and then in southern France [111, 112]), the improvement of paths (“layons”) for movement during transhumance and during daily commuting [68, 88], the improvement of open areas (as the “chambres” identified in the “paturages boisés”) [40, 41] within the forest, specific actions for the reduction of combustible biomass in the prevention of forest fires [4, 5, 113, 114] as well as the creation of “honeycomb structures” in Mediterranean sclerophyllous and coniferous forests. In silvopastoral areas (“comprese silvopastorali”), it is also useful to assess the variability of both herbaceous and shrub undergrowth eco-facies (pastoral types) related to the different forest stand structures and densities as well as to the site variability. As an example of multi-criteria management in Piedmont, Molinia arundinacea and Pteridium aquilinum patches are highly combustible herbaceous elements in winter when dry and are important facies to report in silvopastoral areas of high fire risk. Finally, some experiences in the neighbouring French Alps can help us understand how certain silvopastoral techniques can make it possible to valorise areas traditionally considered to be of little interest: this is the case of hazelnut stands (considered to be a rarely valorised forest type in the Piedmont region) which, contrary to a common opinion based on the low interest of its undergrowth, can also be enhanced at the silvopastoral level in combination with interventions that make the sprouts available after an appropriate selective treatment [20].

4.2 Livestock behaviour and welfare in silvopastoral systems

Agroforestry systems are based on agroecosystem diversification of the productive components (soil, pasture, animals, shrubs and trees) and the intensification of all the agroecological relationships. Silvopastoral systems are considered overall beneficial for animal welfare [115, 116] and the environment [117]. For this reason, the behaviour of animals in such systems is being studied, although the topics covered are not yet fully described, as are all geographical areas (predominance of South American regions). However, it is possible to highlight some examples that testify to a close correlation between animals and agro-silvopastoralism, also in terms of self-medication:

1. Wood pasture is particularly appetising for cattle in late summer: the leaves and shoots with less nutritional value at this time respect to spring season contain more astringent tannin substances and cellulose that seem to balance an overly watery and laxative diet based on the late meadow shoots [118].

2. The first autumn rains moisten and soften the grass and lignin-rich undergrowth shrubs, making them much more palatable [118];

3. Fruit produced by trees can also be considered active compounds within silvopastoral systems: the gastrointestinal nematode population was highly sensitive and responsive to the effect of acorn tannin in feed, so that acorn grazing had the potential of aiding in the control of the gastrointestinal parasites, and consequently result in reduced need for anthelmintic treatment [119].

4. In heritage cattle breeds, the grazing behaviour presents an interesting peculiarity: Maremmana breed showed a true collaboration between conspecifics, leading some individuals to bend plants until their foliage is lowered to ground level, thus allowing others to feed on them [63].

It is well known that intercepting solar radiation and wind by trees directly implies microclimatic specific characteristics [120, 121, 122], animals’ thermal comfort [123, 124, 125], production and composition of grass and understorey pasture [126, 127]. This highlights the importance of the adequate choice of tree species, plant density, tree arrangement and management for the proper handling of farmed animals. Operational practices like pruning and thinning can be used to allow more light input to improve the growth of trees and pastures the lowest values of microclimate variables, and thermal comfort indicators were registered on the silvopasture system with respect to treeless systems [128]. In Italy, for example, we have in fact observed the conversion of oak groves from coppice to high forest, precisely to increase the effectiveness of silvopastoral systems even at the expense of wood yield. Therefore, tree density can influence animal behaviour: for example, longer grazing time was observed in a system with low tree density (5 trees/ha), than in a system with higher tree density (227 and 357 trees/ha) [129]. In addition, animals graze longer in treeless pastures than in silvopasture systems [128, 130] that seemed to be linked to the lower forage quality of the pasture (e.g., lower crude protein) [126], which can lead to greater selectivity by animals, resulting in animals spending more time in grazing behaviour. Moreover, the longer grazing time is also related to cows’ higher walking activity [130, 131, 132]. It should be noted that the trampled surface in adult cattle amounts to 60 m²/km of walk [133]: that is an indispensable index to be considered from the point of view of reducing trampling and burying of grass, with strong reductions in terms of nutritional value, soil health and palatability. High grazing activity decreased soil porosity, thus reducing soil permeability and water holding capacity, with negative repercussions on the hydrogeological and regulating power of the forest [63]. On this point, cattle seemed to cause less damage by trampling than other species (i.e., goats and sheep), also allowing better exploitation of denser coppices. In addition, the thermal environment in the sunny areas around the trees is better for cows than areas far from trees [121]: in fact, Giro et al. found that beef cows raised on silvopasture system have a 23% lower frequency of visits to a water trough than cows in treeless pasture [134]. Furthermore, it was also observed [129, 135] a higher frequency of rumination in the higher tree density arrangement compared to a lower tree density during the cold seasons (714 trees/ha). However, during the summer, Carnevalli et al. found the highest frequency of rumination in the moderate tree density [135]. Ruminating generates heat, and usually, the peak of this behaviour occurs in the hottest hours of the day, indicating that it is more comfortable to perform it in the shade [136]. From a behavioural perspective, when the available shaded area for animals increases, the number of disputes decreases [137], and the time spent in shade areas increases [138]; therefore, comfort behaviours (rumination and idleness activities) are preferably carried out in the shaded areas. Moreover, higher (P ≤ 0.05) grazing frequency in the silvopastoral systems with low tree density compared to the arrangement with high tree density. Finally, it is interesting to note that, in general, the larger the shaded areas, the longer the animals spent idling: idle is a comfort behaviour, and the posture (i.e., standing or lying down) can indicate heat stress. The idle behaviour while standing may be associated with the animal’s attempt to maintain its body homeostasis, because remaining inactive can reduce endogenous heat production and the standing posture increases the surface area for heat exchange [139]: in cold days, the lying posture can be beneficial to avoid heat loss, but this can be influenced by the heat exchange capacity of the surface [140]. In fact, new studies are needed to figure out the influence of posture on the thermal comfort of animals raised on silvopasture.

4.3 What do we mean by sustainable forest management?

According to Fabbio [46], a sustainable management in silvopastoral systems means finding the best mediation between stakeholders of different nature and does not represent a “conservative” principle, but rather aims at overall “good governance”. If you follow a similar principle, within the scope of the purposes of planning action and current regulations, silvopastoral planning must therefore first and foremost be participatory and not imposed from above. On the other hand, it is necessary to combine traditional and innovative elements in order to obtain a consensus for new forms of management by directing proposals that go beyond both localism and the prevailing individualism that today underlies the inability to collaborate. Community collaboration, even amidst frequent quarrels, has always been the basis for the management of the common goods of mountain territories. At the local level, therefore, there is a need for close collaboration between forestry technicians, pastoralists and, above all, herders in order to optimise the use of existing fodder resources and to reap the benefits of a sustainable and long-lasting approach to forest and pastoral resources, particularly in times of climatic uncertainty. It is therefore necessary to combine the shepherds’ spirit of freedom of action on community land with respect to certain insurmountable rules (e.g., protection of natural regeneration). The necessary coexistence of pastoral and forestry activities on the same territory and/or parcel allows for synergies and greater efficiency in land use, but competition and corporate-type conflicts must be avoided. If silvopastoralism is a form of win-win agreement of practices integration [83], extensive and unmanaged grazing in the forest is not silvopastoralism as it is the bearer of high conflict; in such cases. It is perhaps better to clearly separate pastoral and forestry practices according to a suitable zonation right from the orientation planning phase. It must also be understood that forest planning needs a much longer timeframe than pastoral planning; on the other hand, many livestock production cycles have shorter timeframes and pastoral activities require very precise annual time planning (dates of mountaineering and return to the valley, deadlines for milk and meat production, etc.), in part also linked to special public subsidies. As historical studies point out, commons are fundamental to the organisation of seasonal livestock movements and thus to the organisation and planning of silvopastoral activities.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Methodological issues

1. The first issue to be considered is addressing silvopastoral aspects within the different planning documents and related issues of scale. At the Italian national level, Territorial Forest Oriented Plans (= P.F.I.T.) are now identified: it is at this level that the identification of areas with a silvopastoral vocation takes place. In Forest Management Plan (= P.G.F.), it is at this local level that the identification of different pastoral eco-facies (pastoral types or patches) and the assessment of livestock load can take place on at a more detailed scale. At the regional level, it is therefore difficult to identify precise silvopastoral types: guidelines can be given to investigate these types in more detail at the local level, based on the superposition of forest stand and pastoral patches. The regional planning level therefore identifies the main silvopastoral systems linked to certain forest categories such as larch forests, secondary and pioneer forests and some others.

2. The second issue is in the context of silvopastoral cartography, where the integration of linear and point elements overlapping on areal elements (polygons) is useful. Polygons can identify land use, forest categories and forest types suitable for silvopastoral management, pastoral types/patches; linear elements can be hedgerows, tree alignments of fodder trees, grazing “parcours” or paths (“layonnages”) for livestock movement; point elements can be single fodder trees or water points. In cases of limited integration between silvicultural and pastoral practices, it may be useful to favour concentric zonation with (a) an area of meadows or pastures around the hamlets; (b) a silvopastoral area more external to it; (c) a forest zone now closed to all grazing activities.

5.2 Technical proposals

1. Having structures characterised by low density and large canopies provides undeniable advantages over a number of services offered by the forest: transitability for livestock, acorn production, shading alternating with sunny areas, etc. Lasting silvopastoral practices must therefore be avoided with small-sized trees with very small crowns (dense coppices and plantations, aged coppices with very high and underdeveloped crowns): lower density stands optimise the various services required (supply, support and cultural) and ensure better resilience to climate change induced disturbances such as disease, fire, and heat stroke.

2. Silvopastoralism presents itself as spatially complementary to other silvicultural approaches (CCF: Continuous Cover Forerstry = SMCC: Sylviculture Mélangée à Couvert Continu) that require uneven-aged structures by groups; it is difficult to reconcile the development of such structures due to the incompatibility between diffuse regeneration and widespread grazing. Areas of future natural regeneration must be locally maintained and protected (with fencing) where the mature forest stand will have to be renewed in the following decades, thus avoiding the collapse of senescent stands.

3. Silvopastoral enhancement does not necessarily mean a homogenous, sparsely dense layer of trees on a highly impoverished and highly simplified herbaceous layer [83]. From a dietary point of view, land heterogeneity stimulates intake rate during grazing [67]. In view of the heterogeneous environmental conditions required by the grazing livestock themselves, it is appropriate to maintain areas with a higher density of tree stands in order to take advantage of the dense shade sought by the livestock during the hottest summer days.

4. Rotational grazing is essential to a healthy pasture system [10, 48, 74, 83, 110], and the diversity of tree, shrub and herbaceous elements is a necessary condition for the resilience of the silvopastoral system; this is in line with the dynamism and changeability of plants over time at both seasonal and multi-year levels [87]. According to these authors, developing grazing in a wooded environment means defining a feeding strategy that enables the selected rations to be better consumed and digested.

5. Among the most appropriate silvicultural interventions, silvo-pastoral thinning can be carried out in several ways, in terms of the intensity of thinning and the final stand to be achieved: as a general guideline, however, it is necessary to remain within the definition of a forest in terms of stand coverage (i.e., >20%) and assess its cost-benefit ratio [95]. Exceptions to this are areas characterised by younger newly formed secondary stands, which, according to the regulations in force, can be transformed into grassland, wooded pastures or meadows through a larger cut of the woody component or their complete clear cutting. Different silvopastoral thinning options can be conceived [109, 112]: the choice may be influenced by evaluations correlated to pastoral management (characteristics of the herbaceous layer, livestock load, etc.) or linked to other management elements (landscape evaluations, presence of animal biodiversity elements depending on light/shade conditions and possible valorisation of timber).

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Paolo Camerano (IPLA-Turin – I), Giovanna Seddaiu (University of Sassari-I), Ivo Rossetti (ENEA-I), Matteo Garbarino (DISAFA-University of Turin - I), José Alberto Oliveira Prendès (University of Oviedo-E) and Cyrille Van Meer (Sare-F) for the information and papers provided for this paper.

Author contribution

P.V. contributed to general coordination and work setting and typological approach; E.S. was responsible for landscape and policies approach and work setting; J.G. took care of livestock behaviour and welfare and work setting.