(1) Brazil has great potential to expand the area under agroforestry, and thereby simultaneously enhance multiple ecosystem services. However, divergent interests are currently polarized between drastic environmental deregulation and public resource allocation to chemical-intensive land use versus conservation and sustainable agriculture. This highlights an urgent need for a comprehensive overview of the evidence of the benefits to society generated by agroforestry across Brazil. (2) We present a systematic map of the scientific evidence related to the effects of agroforestry on ecosystem services in Brazil. (3) Reviewing 158 peer-reviewed articles, published in international scientific journals (database: Web of Science), we identified a disproportionate emphasis on the Atlantic Forest. Very little research has been published on the Cerrado savanna, Pampa grasslands and Pantanal wetlands. Regulating services were much more frequently studied (85%) than provisioning (13%), while cultural services represent a major gap. A consistent positive effect of agroforestry was demonstrated for soil quality, habitat and food provisioning. Trade-offs were demonstrated for soils and habitats. (4) Our analysis identifies high-priority gaps given their critical importance for human well-being which should be filled: agroforestry effects on water provision and regulation. Moreover, they should assess other ES such as erosion control, flood protection and pest control to enable a more reliable inference about trade-offs.

Sustainable management of tropical and subtropical secondary forests for multiple purposes, including timber, may encourage farmers to promote regeneration of native forest. We studied the population structures and commercial timber production in two adjacent 33 years-old Brazilian Atlantic Forest stands: a 26 ha forest managed through enrichment with three fast-growing commercial timber species, and a 10 ha naturally regenerated unmanaged forest. The tree species presented basal area of 26.9 m² ha^–1 and 23.8 m² ha^–1 in the enriched and the unmanaged forest, respectively. Timber volume (DBH ≥ 15 cm) in the enriched forest was 104 m³ ha^–1 (3.7 m³ ha^–1 year^–1 rate of increment), 67% of which from the species planted in the enrichment process. The unmanaged forest presented 78.4 m³ ha^–1 of timber (2.4 m³ ha^–1 year^–1 rate of increment) (45% from the planted species). Timber volumes and DBH distributions of both stands suggest that selective harvesting could produce valuable timber now, while stimulating growth of the next cycle.