Multifunctional Agriculture: Achieving Sustainable Development in Africa

Multifunctional Agriculture

Achieving Sustainable Development in Africa

Roger R.B. Leakey

International Tree Foundation, Oxford, England, United Kingdom

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Biography

Preface

Part I: The Basics

Section 1: Agroecology and the Role of Trees

Section 1. Agroecology and the Role of Trees

Chapter 1. Definition of Agroforestry Revisited: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 1996. Agroforestry Today, 8 (1), 5–7, with permission of World Agroforestry Center

Abstract

Chapter 2. The Role of Trees in Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2014. Annual Review of Phytopathology 52, 113–133, with permission of Annual Reviews

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Understanding the Problem Before Seeking Solutions

Addressing Soil Fertility

Biodiversity and Agroecological Functions

Rebuilding Agroecological Functions

Maintaining Late Successional or Mature Agroecosystems

Filling the Niches Below the Canopy With Useful Plants

Landscape and Scaling Issues

The Big Picture: The Role of Agroecology and Agroforestry in Tropical Agriculture

Chapter 3. Trees: A Keystone Role in Agroecosystem Function: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Section 2: Agroforestry Practices and Systems

Section 2. Agroforestry Practices and Systems

Chapter 4. Agroforestry and the Mitigation of Land Degradation in the Humid and Sub-Humid Tropics of Africa: This chapter was previously published in Cooper, P.J.M., Leakey, R.R.B., Rao, M.R., Reynolds, L., 1996. Experimental Agriculture, 32, 235–290, with permission of Cambridge University Press

Abstract

Summary

Land Degradation

The Role of Agroforestry

Soil Fertility Improvement

Soil Conservation

Multipurpose Trees and Shrubs as Fodder Supplements

High-Value Trees for Income Generation

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 5. The Domestication and Commercialization of Indigenous Trees in Agroforestry for the Alleviation of Poverty: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Simons, A.J., 1998. Agroforestry Systems, 38, 165–176, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Domestication Strategies

Research in Progress

Commercialization

Conclusion

Chapter 6. Trees: Delivering Enhanced Crop Production and Income: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Section 3: Importance of Tree Products

Section 3. Importance of Tree Products

Chapter 7. Potential for Novel Food Products From Agroforestry Trees: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 1999. Food Chemistry, 64, 1–14, with permission of Elsevier

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Humid Lowlands of West Africa

Semi-Arid Lowlands of West Africa

Southern African Plateau—Miombo Woodlands

Western Amazonia

Conclusions

Chapter 8. Evidence that Subsistence Farmers have Domesticated Indigenous Fruits (Dacryodes edulis and Irvingia gabonensis) in Cameroon and Nigeria: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Tchoundjeu, Z., Smith, R.I., Munro, R.C., Fondoun, J-.M., Kengue, J., Anegbeh, P.O., Atangana, A.R., Waruhiu, A.N., Asaah, E., Usoro, C. and Ukafor, V., 2004. Agroforestry Systems, 60, 101–111, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 9. Non-Timber Forest Products – A Misnomer?: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2012. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 24, 145–146, with permission of Forest Research Institute of Malaysia

Abstract

Chapter 10. Trees: An Important Source of Food and Non-Food Products for Farmers: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Part II: Genetic Selection for Added-Value and New Opportunities

Section 4: Tree Domestication

Section 4. Tree Domestication

Chapter 11. Domestication of Forest Trees: A Process to Secure the Productivity and Future Diversity of Tropical Ecosystems: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Last, F.T., Longman, K.A., 1982. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 61, 33–42, with permission of Commonwealth Forestry Association

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Exploitation of Natural Forest and the Needs of the Future

Domestication of Underutilized Timber Species

Domestication of Species for Fruit and Other Forest Products

Plantations in the Tropics

Acknowledgments

Chapter 12. Tree Domestication in Tropical Agroforestry: This chapter was previously published in Simons, A.J., Leakey, R.R.B., 2004. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 167–181, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Origins and Concepts of Domestication

Objectives of Tree Domestication

Tree Domestication Strategies

Germplasm Sourcing, Documentation, and Deployment

Tree Improvement Research

Participatory Domestication

Case Studies

Recommendations: Future Developments

Chapter 13. Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs): Targeting Poverty Reduction and Enhanced Livelihoods: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Tchoundjeu, Z., Schreckenberg, K., Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C., 2005. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 3, 1–23, with permission of Taylor & Francis

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Trees

The Participatory Tree Domestication Approach—the Case of West and Central Africa

Identification, Capture, Retention, and Protection of Genetic Diversity

Cultivation and the Growth of Cultivars

Markets

Economic and Social Benefits from Trading AFTPs

The Linkages between the Domestication and Commercialization of AFTPs

Winners and Losers: Impacts on Livelihoods

Features of this Agroforestry Approach to Rural Development

Policy Guidelines

Development Issues for the Future

Chapter 14. Tree Domestication in Agroforestry: Progress in the Second Decade (2003–2012): This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Weber, J.C., Page, T., Cornelius, J.P., Akinnifesi, F.K., Roshetko, J.M., Tchoundjeu, Z., Jamnadass, R., 2012. In: Nair, P.K., Garrity, D. (Eds.), Agroforestry – The Future of Global Land Use. Springer, USA, pp. 145–173, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

The First Decade (1992–2002)

The Second Decade (2003–12)

Recent Developments in Agroforestry Tree Improvement

Negotiation of Access to Markets

Public/Private Partnerships: Localization and the Case of Allanblackia spp

Toward the Third Decade

Chapter 15. Trees: Capturing Useful Traits in Elite Cultivars: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Part III: Research Methods

Section 5: Strategy and Techniques

Section 5. Strategy and Techniques

Section 5.1: Strategy

Chapter 16. Towards a Domestication Strategy for Indigenous Fruit Trees in the Tropics: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Akinnifesi, F.K., 2008. In: Akinnifesi, F.K., Leakey, R.R.B., Ajayi, O.C., Sileshi, G., Tchoundjeu, Z., Matakala, P., Kwesiga, F. (Eds.) Indigenous Fruit Trees in the Tropics: Domestication, Utilization and Commercialization. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 28–49, with permission from CABI

Abstract

Introduction

Developing a Strategy for Creating New Cultivars Vegetatively

Developing a Strategy for Clonal Selection

Opportunities for Introducing New Variation

The Wise Use of Genetic Variability

Socioeconomic and Environmental Context for This Strategy

Conclusions

Section 5.2: Techniques: Vegetative Propagation

Chapter 17. Low-Technology Techniques for the Vegetative Propagation of Tropical Trees: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Mesén, J.F., Tchoundjeu, Z., Longman, K.A., Dick, J. McP., Newton, A.C., Matin, A., Grace, J., Munro, R.C. and Muthoka, P.N., 1990. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 69, 247–257, with permission from Commonwealth Forestry Association

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Materials and Methods

The Nonmist Propagator

Results

Discussion

Chapter 18. Stockplant Factors Affecting Root Initiation in Cuttings of Triplochiton scleroxylon K. Schum., an Indigenous Hardwood of West Africa: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 1983. Journal of Horticultural Science, 58, 277–290, with permission from Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Experimental and Results

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Chapter 19. The Rooting Ability of Triplochiton scleroxylon K. Schum. Cuttings: The Interactions Between Stockplant Irradiance, Light Quality and Nutrients: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Storeton-West, R., 1992. Forest Ecology and Management, 49, 133–150, with permission of Elsevier

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 20. Plant Cloning: Macro-Propagation: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2014. In: van Alfen, N., et al., (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 4. Elsevier, San Diego, pp. 349–359, with permission of Elsevier

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

The Use of Macropropagation

Techniques of Macropropagation

Grafting and Budding

Marcotting or Air Layering

Stem Cuttings

Stockplant Environment

Conclusions

Section 5.3: Techniques: Genetic Characterization

Chapter 21. Quantitative Descriptors of Variation in the Fruits and Seeds of Irvingia gabonensis: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Fondoun, J-.M., Atangana, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., 2000. Agroforestry Systems, 50, 47–58, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods and Materials

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 22. Domestication Potential of Marula (Sclerocarya birrea subsp caffra) in South Africa and Namibia: 1. Phenotypic Variation in Fruit Traits: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Shackleton, S., du Plessis, P., 2005. Agroforestry Systems, 64, 25–35, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods and Materials

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 23. Domestication Potential of Marula (Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra) in South Africa and Namibia: 2. Phenotypic Variation in Nut and Kernel Traits: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Pate, K., Lombard, C., 2005. Agroforestry Systems, 64, 37–49, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods and Materials

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 24. Domestication Potential of Marula (Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra) in South Africa and Namibia: 3. Multiple Trait Selection: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2005. Agroforestry Systems, 64, 51–59, with permission of Springer

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods and Materials

Results

Discussion

Acknowledgments

Section 5.4: Techniques: Ideotypes

Chapter 25. The Ideotype Concept and its Application to the Selection of AFTP Cultivars: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Page, T., 2006. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 16, 5–16.

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Domestication of Agroforestry Trees

Ideotypes in Agroforestry Species

Conclusion

Chapter 26. Trees: Skills and Understanding Essential for Domestication: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Strategy

Vegetative Propagation

Genetic Characterization

Ideotypes

Part IV: Towards Delivery

Section 6: A Bottom-Up Approach

Section 6. A Bottom-Up Approach

Section 6.1: Participatory Tree Domestication

Chapter 27. The Participatory Domestication of West African Indigenous Fruits: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., Schreckenberg, K., Tchoundjeu, Z., 2003. International Forestry Review, 5, 338–347, with permission from Commonwealth Forestry Association

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Methods

Results and Discussion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 28. Agroforestry—Participatory Domestication of Trees: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2014. In: van Alfen, N. et al., (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 1. Elsevier, San Diego, pp. 253–269, with permission from Elsevier

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Strategy

Techniques

Outcomes

Future Impact

Section 6.2: Intellectual Property Rights

Chapter 29. Protecting the Rights of Farmers and Communities While Securing Long Term Market Access for Producers of Non-timber Forest Products: Experience in Southern Africa: This chapter was previously published in Lombard, C., Leakey, R.R.B., 2010. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 19, 235–249, with permission of Taylor & Francis

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Phytotrade Africa’s Experience

Case Studies

Issues for Further Attention

Conclusion

Section 6.3: Commercialization of Agroforestry Tree Products

Chapter 30. The Role of Tree Domestication in Value Chain Development: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., van Damme, P., 2014. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 23, 116–126, with permission of Taylor & Francis

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Conclusion

Section 6.4: Development and Impact

Chapter 31. Underutilised Species as the Backbone of Multifunctional Agriculture—The Next Wave of Crop Domestication: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B. and Asaah, E.K. 2013. Acta Horticulturae, 979, 293–310, with permission of ISHS

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 32. Trees: Ensuring That Farmers Benefit From Domestication: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Section 7: Agroforestry: A Delivery Mechanism for Multifunctional Agriculture

Section 7. Agroforestry: A Delivery Mechanism for Multifunctional Agriculture

Chapter 33. Trees, Soils and Food Security: This chapter was previously published in Sanchez, P.A., Buresh, R.J., Leakey, R.R.B., 1997. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B, 352, 949–961, with permission of The Royal Society

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Impact of Trees on Soil Functions

Trees and Overcoming Rural Poverty in Africa

The Way Forward

Chapter 34. Addressing the Causes of Land Degradation, Food/Nutritional Insecurity and Poverty: A New Approach to Agricultural Intensification in the Tropics and Sub-Tropics: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2013. In: Hoffman, U. (Ed.), Wake Up Before It Is Too Late: Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate, UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review 2013. UN Publications, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 192–198 (Chapter 3), with permission from United Nations

Abstract

Chapter 35. Trees: A Call to Policy Makers to Meet Farmers’ Needs by Combining Environmental Services With Marketable Products: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Section 8: Sustainable Intensification of Tropical Agriculture

Section 8. Sustainable Intensification of Tropical Agriculture

Chapter 36. The Intensification of Agroforestry by Tree Domestication for Enhanced Social and Economic Impact: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2012. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 7 (035), 1–3

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Three Steps to Intensification

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Chapter 37. Twelve Principles for Better Food and More Food From Mature Perennial Agroecosystems: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2014. In: Proceedings of Perennial Crops for Food Security FAO Workshop, (Chapter 22), 28–30 August 2013, Rome, Italy

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

Principles

Sustainable Intensification

Chapter 38. Trees: Delivering Productive and Sustainable Farming Systems: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

Section 9: Integrating Rural Development to Deliver Multifunctional Agriculture

Section 9. Integrating Rural Development to Deliver Multifunctional Agriculture

Chapter 39. Toward Multifunctional Agriculture – An African Initiative: R.R.B. Leakey and R. Prabhu

Abstract

Summary

Introduction

What are the Issues?

Having Identified Action-oriented Targets for Sustainable Intensification, Where Do We Go From Here?

Chapter 40. Trees: Meeting the Social, Economic and Environmental Needs of Poor Farmers—Scoring Sustainable Development Goals: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Abstract

References

Index

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-805356-0

For Information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Andre G. Wolff

Acquisition Editor: Nancy Maragioglio

Editorial Project Manager: Billie Jean Fernandez

Production Project Manager: Nicky Carter

Designer: Victoria Pearson

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

Biography

Roger Leakey has diplomas in practical agriculture (NDA and CDA) and degrees in agricultural science (BSc, PhD, DSc), with truly global experience of field-based research in tropical agriculture, horticulture, and forestry spanning nearly 50 years. He was Director of Research at the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF 1993–1997) and Professor of Agroecology and Sustainable Development of James Cook University, in Cairns, Australia (2001–2006). He has been Vice President of the International Society of Tropical Foresters and is Vice Chairman of the International Tree Foundation, a UK-based charity supporting development projects in Africa. He holds a number of Fellowships in learned societies, universities, and international research centres. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) which was approved by 58 governments in an Intergovernmental Plenary meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa in April 2008. This Assessment examined the impact of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology on environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable development worldwide over the last 50 years and suggested that to meet these challenges agriculture has to advance from a unifunctional focus on food production and to additionally embrace more environmental, social, and economic goals to become multifunctional.

Preface

This book charts the evolution of a practical and effective means of transforming the lives of farming households in the tropics and subtropics from deprivation due to hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, toward plenty, with food and nutritional security as well as social and economic empowerment. Currently one-third of farm land is severely degraded with staple crops actually yielding only 10–15% of their biological potential and many millions of rural households suffering from food shortages, dietary deficiencies, ill health, and extreme poverty. The emerging story in this book illustrates how this can relatively easily be transformed by rehabilitating soils and agroecosystems, leading to greatly improved actual food crop yields. Crucially, however, the story also includes the creation of new nutritious fruit and nut crops by farmers trained to simply domesticate traditionally important and marketable indigenous food species, which are important for better nutrition and health, as new crops. This process then creates new local businesses and industries to further develop the rural economy and livelihoods.

This approach of combining agroecological restoration with income generation to address poor crop yield is especially important in developing countries where farm land is severely degraded, farmers are trapped in poverty, hunger and malnutrition, and opportunities for improved lifestyles are virtually inaccessible. Past practices of clearing forest as new land for agriculture are no longer acceptable, so, if the global food crisis is to be averted, ways have to be found to rehabilitate degraded farm land and make existing fields more productive. The cultivation of tree crops also helps to mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon above- and belowground.

Trees of many different types offer a range of useful and appropriate functions: from atmospheric nitrogen fixation; the restoration of soil structure and nutrient cycling; niche creation for organisms from the smallest microbe to birds and mammals; as well as producing a wide range of edible products from leaves, fruits, and nuts, as well as a wide array of nonfood products for existing and future markets. In addition, trees protect watersheds and sequester carbon. Interestingly, farmers in the tropics and subtropics are still very much better connected with the role of trees and forests in both the environment and society—connections lost by centuries of so-called civilization associated with modern living in industrialized countries.

With his research partners, the author has been instrumental in developing ideas, strategies, techniques and practices spanning many disciplines, which are now allowing these functions to be harnessed by poor farmers in small-scale, bottom-up, community development projects. In essence, this involves the evolution of a logical approach to multifunctional agriculture—food production together with social, economic, and environmental benefits—through the sustainable intensification of farming practices within an integrated approach to rural development.

Over the last decade, many international reports have pointed a critical finger at agriculture for its environmental and social costs to both global health and human livelihoods, calling for a more sustainable approach, saying that business as usual in farming is no longer acceptable (e.g., MEA, 2005; GEO, 2007; CAWMA, 2007; IAASTD, 2009; The Royal Society, 2009), especially in the tropics and subtropics. However, these reports do not go on to say how to achieve the desired outcome. This desire for a new and more multifunctional approach to rural development has also been expressed in the seventeen 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. To address these broad-ranging social, economic, and environmental goals, which form a matrix of interacting issues, will require a set of equally interrelated interventions that together form a holistic solution. Furthermore, the current tendency to focus on individual goals misses the opportunity to be as cost effective as a more integrated approach. Thus, it is important that development agencies focus on activities that promote the simultaneous delivery of multiple goals.

In a world increasingly focused on specializing in the detail of small components of a single scientific discipline, this book is innovative and perhaps unique in looking in the other direction. It draws on the experience and output of a single scientist trained in agriculture and botany, and who then over the course of his career became increasing involved in work with scientists in other disciplines. This multi- and transdisciplinary work at the interface of agriculture with forestry, horticulture, plant physiology, genetics, ecology, soil science, food science, economics, social sciences, and environmental science has led to a more holistic way to address the complex issues of today’s food crisis.

This book compiles a selection from the 300+ publications that span many disciplines and are the outcome of this research. Organized by core concept, each chapter of this book also includes an update, revealing the progress that has been made as well as some pointers to future work. This will also identify those concerns and limitations that still factor into the adoption and utilization of multifunctional agriculture in maximizing crop production, closing the yield gap in staple food crops, enhancing the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and their communities, and addressing environmental degradation and natural resource mismanagement. From this we can get an insight into how a new multidisciplinary approach to agriculture (agroforestry) has emerged over the last 25 years. It resonates with the complex interacting problems facing the achievement of the new 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. However, agroforestry is often misunderstood by decision makers who consider that trees should be cleared to make way for crops, rather than recognizing their essential role in ecosystem and planetary health.

The challenge now for the unconventional approach to modern agriculture described in this book is to promote the scale-up of these research outputs in development programs to the point where they have regional, and even global, impact. This requires acceptance of the concepts and outcomes by policymakers, agribusiness, and academics, most of whom are currently going in a different—more conventional and less sustainable—direction, perhaps unaware of the business opportunities presented by this environmentally more sustainable and socially acceptable option.

In conclusion, this book provides the research publications underpinning the story presented in Roger Leakey’s personal odyssey of field experience from around the world, Living with the Trees of Life—Towards the Transformation of Tropical Agriculture. Both have been compiled for those focused on long-term solutions to the environmental, as well as food supply, challenges facing the world, and provide an important resource for understanding how and why trees provide a crucial part of the total solution.

Part I

The Basics

Outline

Section 1 Agroecology and the Role of Trees

Section 2 Agroforestry Practices and Systems

Section 3 Importance of Tree Products

Section 1

Agroecology and the Role of Trees

Outline

Section 1. Agroecology and the Role of Trees

Chapter 1 Definition of Agroforestry Revisited: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 1996. Agroforestry Today, 8 (1), 5–7, with permission of World Agroforestry Center

Chapter 2 The Role of Trees in Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics: This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2014. Annual Review of Phytopathology 52, 113–133, with permission of Annual Reviews

Chapter 3 Trees: A Keystone Role in Agroecosystem Function: An Update: R.R.B. Leakey

Section 1. Agroecology and the Role of Trees

There are many definitions of agroforestry, one of the delivery mechanisms of multifunctional agriculture. Until the mid-1990s these definitions related to the many ways of integrating trees into farming systems as stand-alone agronomic technologies. This viewpoint overlooks the ecological functions that underpin the ways that allow it to enhance the environmental sustainability, as well as the productivity, of farming systems. Here, agroforestry is seen as applied agroecology in which the planting of trees in many combinations and/or configurations creates niches in farming systems that are colonized by a wide range of wild organisms initiating successive phases of an agroecological succession with increasing ecological integrity. The niche-forming principle within this functional definition also opens the opportunity for farmers to add diversity and fill some niches with plants and animals producing useful and marketable products in ways that increase total productivity and promote the social and economic sustainability of the farm.

Diversified and functional agroecosystems thus rehabilitate degraded agroecosystems, making them more productive: an unconventional approach to agricultural intensification. The processes are becoming better understood—both in the early pioneer and later mature phases of succession. This knowledge emerged when biodiversity studies found that mature cash crop systems, such as cacao and coffee with shade trees, provide habitat for wildlife of importance for conservation. These findings then led to studies on the ways that insectivorous birds and other natural predators reduce the numbers of pests and pathogens, providing information about the complexity of interacting factors that regulate ecological food chains. However, much more research is needed to better understand how these processes can be managed and manipulated so that environmentally friendly farming systems can provide enhanced productivity for food and nutritional security, as well as poverty alleviation, in harmony with wildlife.

Chapter 1

Definition of Agroforestry Revisited

This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 1996. Agroforestry Today, 8 (1), 5–7, with permission of World Agroforestry Center

Abstract

The current definition of agroforestry views it as a set of stand-alone technologies in which trees are sequentially or simultaneously integrated with crops and/or livestock. This falls far short of its ultimate potential as a way to mitigate deforestation and land degradation and thus alleviate poverty. A different view, however, is that agroforestry practices can be seen as phases in the development of a productive agroecosystem, akin to the normal dynamics of natural ecosystems – i.e., an ecologically based, natural resource management system that diversifies and sustains smallholder production for increased social, economic, and environmental benefits.

Keywords

Agroforestry; agroecosystem succession; agronomy; biodiversity; land degradation; natural resource management; niche; rehabilitation; technology

Agroforestry has been defined in several ways (Nair, 1989). The current definition of the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF—now called the World Agroforestry Center) is a collective name for land-use systems and practices in which woody perennials are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land-management unit. The integration can be either in a spatial mixture or in a temporal sequence. There are normally both ecological and economic interactions between the woody and nonwoody components in agroforestry. This definition has served well and helped agroforestry to become recognized as a branch of agricultural science in its own right (Sanchez, 1995).

Agroforestry practices come in many forms but fall into two groups: those that are sequential, such as fallows, and those that are simultaneous, such as alley-cropping (Cooper et al., 1996). In all, some 18 different agroforestry practices have been recognized by Nair (1993a,b), although each has an infinite number of variations. Thus, at the moment, agroforestry is viewed as a set of stand-alone technologies that together form various land-use systems in which trees are sequentially or simultaneously integrated with crops and/or livestock. In agroforestry research, practices are often applied after diagnosis and design, participatory research or characterization studies, as appropriate, depending on the social, economic, and environmental problems in an area.

Agroforestry is generally practiced with the intention of developing a more sustainable form of land-use that can improve farm productivity and the welfare of the rural community.

My problem with the current view of agroforestry is that many people still see it as a set of distinct prescriptions for land-use. As a result, it falls far short of its ultimate potential as a way to mitigate deforestation and land degradation and thus alleviate poverty. A different view, however, is that agroforestry practices can be seen as phases in the development of a productive agroecosystem, akin to the normal dynamics of natural ecosystems. Over time, the increasing integration of trees into land-use systems through agroforestry can be seen as the passage toward a mature agroforest of increasing ecological integrity. By the same token, with increasing scale, the integration of various agroforestry practices into a landscape is like the formation of a complex mosaic of patches in an ecosystem, each of which is composed of many niches.

These niches are occupied by different organisms, making the system ecologically stable and biologically diverse. Filling some of these niches with species that provide important environmental services or economically valuable products, or both, should result in land-use that is both more sustainable and productive. Furthermore, the benefits with increasing scale from the farm to the landscape and the region are exponential, since the ecological and social benefits of diversity on a landscape-scale are considerably greater than the sum of the individual farm-scale benefits.

Within this ecological framework, farmers can manipulate and manage their trees to take advantage of the benefits of the processes in ecosystem services or products, by breaking the process of agradation—or ecosystem development—at any point, or by allowing a mature agroforest to develop. Fallowing and relay cropping, e.g., make use of the benefits of early successional stages of ecosystem development, while complex multistrata systems approach a mature vegetation, such as the commercially valuable damar agroforests of Sumatra.

Therefore, I suggest that agroforestry should be reconsidered as a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource management system that, through the integration of trees in farm- and rangeland, diversifies and sustains smallholder production for increased social, economic, and environmental benefits.

If these concepts are accepted, then agroforestry researchers and extension workers have a challenge—to start the process of integrating a number of the current agroforestry practices into productive and sustainable land-use systems that alleviate poverty. Contrary to the alternative of monocultures, over time and space these land-use systems become more complex, biodiverse and both ecologically and economically resilient to the normal patterns of climatic variability and pest and disease outbreaks. It is worth noting that in some areas of high population density, farmers are already ahead of the game, and are already practising this kind of agroforestry.

Chapter 2

The Role of Trees in Agroecology and Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics

This chapter was previously published in Leakey, R.R.B., 2014. Annual Review of Phytopathology 52, 113–133, with permission of Annual Reviews

Abstract

In conventional modern agriculture trees are typically seen as a hindrance to intensive agriculture and are thus cleared from fields with the subsequent loss of the biodiversity and its role in a very diverse set of agroecological functions. This deforestation leads to the loss of soil fertility, land degradation, declining crop yields and loss of livelihoods, as well as greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere and threats to the survival of wildlife. This chapter examines how all these impacts can be reversed by integrating trees back into farmland and developing an alternative model for farm intensification – one especially appropriate for smallholder farming systems in the tropics.

Keywords

Agroecosystem; agroforestry; biodiversity; cocoa; coffee; conservation; ecological succession; Nelder fan; pests and diseases; Replacement series; wildlife

Summary

Shifting agriculture in the tropics has been replaced by sedentary smallholder farming on a few hectares of degraded land. To address both low yields and low income, the soil fertility, the agroecosystem functions, and the source of income can be restored by diversification with nitrogen-fixing trees and the cultivation of indigenous tree species that produce nutritious and marketable products. Biodiversity conservation studies indicate that mature cash crop systems, such as cacao and coffee with shade trees, provide wildlife habitat that supports natural predators, which in turn reduce the numbers of herbivores and pathogens. This review offers suggestions on how to examine these agroecological processes in more detail for the most effective rehabilitation of degraded land. Evidence from agroforestry indicates that in this way productive and environmentally friendly farming systems that provide food and nutritional security, as well as poverty alleviation, can be achieved in harmony with wildlife.

Introduction

The future of agriculture is the focus of much international debate (Cribb, 2010; Garnett et al., 2013; Giovannucci et al., 2012; IAASTD, 2009). The main area of consensus is that it needs to be more sustainable and more productive, and that business as usual is not an option (GEO, 2007; Hassan et al., 2005; IAASTD, 2009; Molden, 2007; Royal Society, 2009). The problems are numerous and complex, especially in the tropics and subtropics, where interactions between both biophysical and socioeconomic issues are affecting agricultural productivity, mainly through a combination of land degradation driven by population growth and a declining resource of productive land for agriculture. This has led to farmers becoming sedentary smallholders without the financial resources to replenish soil fertility (Leakey, 2012b, 2013).

In his book The Coming Famine, Julian Cribb (2010) says that … the challenge facing the world’s 1.8 billion men and women who grow our food is to double their output of food—using far less water, less land, less energy and less fertilizer. They must accomplish this … amid more red tape, economic disincentives, and corrupted markets, and in the teeth of spreading drought. Adding more detail to this scenario, the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington has indicated that the world population will rise from the current 7 billion to approximately 9 billion by 2050, and that to support all these people, food production will have to increase by 70% (IFPRI, 2011). However, it is not clear whether this projection is accepting the status quo in terms of the living standards of the poor in least-developed countries or of the effect on the environment. The real need is, of course, to feed marginalized people and also to improve their lives.

These projections make pretty gloomy reading, but is it a lost cause? The context of the problems here is important. We need to understand that hundreds of millions of poor farmers are trying to support their families on a small area of land without access to fertilizers and other technologies. This new sedentary lifestyle is the result of population growth and the lack of new forest to clear for the practice of shifting cultivation. As sedentary farmers, they have to survive, feed, and provide for all the daily needs of their families on approximately two to five hectares of cleared land without a source of income or the lifeline of social services if something goes wrong.

Regarding solutions, much of the focus of discussion is polarized between whether to improve productivity through biotechnology and genetic modification or through better soil husbandry and organic farming. A third commonly advocated solution is to pay greater attention to agroecology, which is certainly relevant to addressing the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function. However, achieving a sustainable future for agriculture will involve more than just improving agroecological functions. Instead, it is necessary to take a more holistic view of a problem that encompasses the need for improved soil fertility and health; reduced risk of pest, disease, and weed outbreaks; improved crop yields; improved rural and urban livelihoods; and opportunities for economic growth.

Understanding the Problem Before Seeking Solutions

Current estimates are that land degradation affects 2 billion hectares (38% of world cropping area) (Eswaran et al., 2006), with soil erosion affecting 83% of the global degraded area (Bai et al., 2008). The problems are especially severe in Africa, where more than 80% of countries are nitrogen-deficient, and where nutrient loss has been estimated at 9–58 kg ha−1 year−1 in the 28 worst affected countries and 61–88 kg ha−1 year−1 in 21 others (Chianu et al., 2012). Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) deficiencies occur on 59%, 85%, and 90% of harvested land area, respectively (Chianu et al., 2012).

Understanding the complexity of the numerous and interacting socioeconomic and biophysical causal factors underlying land degradation and the problems of modern agriculture in the tropics and subtropics is difficult. In the past, they have been lumped together as a downward spiral in which poverty drives land degradation and land degradation drives further poverty, but this is a gross simplification (Scherr, 2000). In an attempt to make the concept more meaningful, Leakey (2010) added some steps to a conceptual diagram of the land degradation and social deprivation cycle. In this highly interactive cycle, a desire for security and wealth drives deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable use of soils and water, all of which cause agroecosystem degradation. In farmers’ fields, this is seen as soil erosion, breakdown of nutrient cycling, and the loss of soil fertility and structure. The consequence of this degradation is the loss of biodiversity and the breakdown of ecosystem functions that regulate food chains, nutrient cycling, and the incidence and severity of pests, diseases, and weeds. All of these things result in lower crop yields, which in turn lead to hunger, malnutrition, and increased health risks, all of which manifest as declining livelihoods and so return the cycle to a desire for security and wealth. It is recognized that at all of the steps within this conceptual diagram, there are a range of socioeconomic and biophysical influences that will determine the speed of the downward progress at any particular site. Such factors include access to markets, land tenure, and local governance; external factors, such as natural disasters and conflict and war; and economic drivers, such as international policy and trade agreements.

The net result highlighted by this conceptual cycle of land degradation and social deprivation is that in developing countries where farmers are poor and must rely on a small piece of land for all their household needs, the benefits expected from existing agricultural technologies, such as improved crop varieties and livestock breeds, are constrained by a need for income to purchase the inputs essential for food production. As a consequence, crop yields decline as the soil fertility is depleted. This leads to what is called the yield gap in food crops, which is the difference between the yield potential of new modern varieties and the yield actually achieved by a farmer (Tittonell and Giller, 2013).

Addressing Soil Fertility

Conventional agriculture would advocate that inorganic fertilizers be used to make up these deficiencies, but unfortunately in many of the least-developed countries where this need is greatest, the farmers are too poor to purchase them. Even when available, they are typically much more expensive than in industrialized countries. An alternative promoted by the organic agriculture movement is the use of manure, compost, and mulching. The problem here is that organic manure is seldom available in the quantities (10–40 Mg ha−1 year−1) needed for large areas (Mafongoya et al., 2006).

Another alternative is to utilize biological nitrogen-fixing technologies, such as 2-year improved fallows, relay cropping, or Evergreen Agriculture, by which nitrogen-deficient soils are enriched with fast-growing leguminous trees, shrubs, or vines. A study involving 16 tree species found that the rate of nitrogen fixation was higher than the 23–176 kg N ha−1 year−1 for food or fodder legumes (Herridge et al., 2008), and in high-density plantings, such as improved fallows or fodder banks, could be as high as 300–650 kg N ha−1 year−1 (Nygren et al., 2012). Together, these research findings on crop production conform to the general experience of adopting farmers who report yield increases of two- to threefold. The combination of inorganic fertilizers and biological nitrogen can, however, be synergistic.

Agroforestry has a long and well-documented history in the use of low-cost, biological nitrogen fixation by leguminous trees and shrubs to restore nitrogen deficiencies in the soils across Africa and other areas of the tropics and subtropics (Sanchez, 1976; Young, 1997). A recent meta-analysis of 94 studies in sub-Saharan Africa found that these tree technologies increased maize yields by 0.7–2.5 Mg ha−1 (or 89–318%) (Sileshi et al., 2008a). Furthermore, these yield increases were more stable than monocultures treated wih recommended applications of artificial fertilizer (Sileshi et al., 2011). Indirectly, leguminous trees can also recycle other macro- and micronutrients through uptake from their more extensive and deeper root systems (which act as a safety net to absorb deep nutrients) and subsequent leaf litter fall and fine root turnover (Mweta et al., 2007). By comparison with artificial fertilizers, nitrogen of tree origin is less likely to be lost to, or pollute, groundwater.

Environmentally, biological nitrogen fixation by leguminous trees and shrubs is important for soil health, as it increases the organic matter and carbon contents of soil, which improve soil structure (aggregate stability, porosity, and hydraulic conductivity), reduce soil erosion, and promote greater water infiltration. Soil organic matter content is important in all agroecosystems, but it is especially important in areas where rainfall can be a limiting factor. Ecologically, the organic nitrogen not taken up by the crops is stored in the soil organic matter pools (Schroth et al., 2001) and so is available to other organisms, such as mycorrhizal fungi and earthworms (Sileshi et al., 2008b,c). This nitrogen resource is less likely to be leached and to pollute groundwater than is the use of inorganic fertilizers. Leguminous trees have also been shown to considerably improve rain-use efficiency (the ratio of aboveground net primary production to annual rainfall) (Sileshi et al., 2011) Likewise, water-use efficiency was higher in maize intercropped with leguminous trees than in the sole maize (Chirwa et al., 2007). In general, the use of biological nitrogen fixation to improve soil fertility also leads to crops less susceptible to pests and diseases (Schroth et al., 2000). On the negative side, as with inorganic fertilizers, there can be N2O emissions associated with higher levels of soil nitrogen.

Biodiversity and Agroecological Functions

The role of ecological processes in agricultural sustainability has been studied for many years (Swift and Anderson, 1994), and its importance for the future of global agriculture is well recognized (Tscharntke et al., 2012). However, its application has not occurred on a large-enough scale to have impact on the global problem of land degradation. The challenge, therefore, is to demonstrate conclusively and to the satisfaction of policy makers, agribusiness, and academics that diverse mixed cropping systems can be productive while using natural resources sustainably. This concept is described as sustainable intensification (Garnett et al., 2013). Care, of course, has to be taken not to introduce species that cohost serious pests and diseases of the planted crops (Schroth et al., 2000).

Previously we saw that integrating leguminous trees and shrubs in cropping systems can initiate the process of rebuilding soil fertility and also boost agroecosystem functions. In recognition of this role of trees, Leakey (Leakey, 1996, 1999b) described agroforestry practices as phases in the development of a productive agroecosystem, akin to the normal dynamics of natural ecosystems … and the passage toward a mature agroforest of increasing ecological integrity. By the same token, with increasing scale, the integration of various agroforestry practices into the landscape is like the formation of a complex mosaic of patches in an ecosystem, each of which is composed of many niches … occupied by different organisms, making the system ecologically stable and biologically diverse. Over recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the number of studies examining the biological diversity associated with complex multistrata agroforestry systems, especially cocoa (Clough et al., 2009a) and coffee (Somarriba et al., 2004), and their comparison with other farming systems (Collins and Qualset, 1999; Schroth et al., 2004; Table 2.1). Many of these studies find that agroforestry systems maintain a level of biodiversity that is considerably higher than other agricultural systems but generally a little lower than that of natural forest. Again, a typical finding is that agroforests provide habitat suitable for forest-dependent species and so, in most cases, are important for wildlife conservation.

Table 2.1

Published assessments of biodiversity in agroforestry systems (see also Moguel and Toledo, 1999; Perfecto et al., 1996).

The belowground ecosystem is out of sight and so often out of mind, but it is very complex and crucially important to the proper functioning of agroecosystems. Lavelle (1996) identified four complex assemblages of organisms with different roles that differ in the size and number of individuals—from the smallest to the largest: the microflora, the micropredators, the litter transformers, and the ecosystem engineers. Agroforestry, as an agricultural system with high aboveground biodiversity and minimum soil disturbance, is recognized to have a diverse rhizosphere associated with the four belowground species assemblages that together form a soil ecosystem typical of a fully functional late successional stage. Tillage, however, disturbs the soil, killing many of the larger organisms and breaking the fungal networks (Cavigelli et al., 2012). This disturbance switches the soil ecosystem back to an early successional stage in which some functions are destroyed and must be rebuilt (Beare et al., 1997).

Forest clearance rapidly changes the soil microflora from one associated with the trees and understory to one associated with the invading pioneers (Mason et al., 1992), with complete clearance of trees having more serious impacts than partial clearance. Complete clearance makes the establishment of tree plantations more difficult even in the moist tropics, as reduced soil inoculum of the appropriate mycorrhizal fungi makes it difficult for planted tree seedlings to develop the best mycorrhizal associations (Mason et al., 1992) and hence survive and thrive. Once established, however, these trees slowly rebuild the soil inoculum over several decades (Wilson et al., 1992).

Importantly, in the few studies that have looked at the effects of conserving biodiversity and the productivity of these systems, there is little, if any, evidence that including biodiversity conservation within these wildlife-friendly perennial crop agroforests has any negative effects on crop production. Indeed, it seems that these agroforests can often successfully combine wildlife and crop production benefits without the need for further deforestation (Clough et al., 2011). In effect, when these complex agroforests also include trees that produce high-value marketable products, replace the natural fallows of shifting agriculture and become commercial fallows, which can be productive and support the livelihoods of local communities for many decades (Michon and de Foresta, 1996), if not a perennial and sustainable sedentary farming system. McNeely & Schroth (2006) recognize that maintaining diversity in agroforestry systems provides a wide range of options for adapting to changing economic, social, and climatic conditions.

So, although this focus on biodiversity conservation within productive farming systems is highly desirable, and indeed the focus of the Ecoagriculture Initiative, it is unfortunate that it mainly focuses on late/mature succession agroecosystems, typically dominated by large trees, and seldom addresses the need to understand the role of biodiversity in the pioneer stages of agroecosystem succession (Leakey, 1999b). One consequence of the predominant focus on mature agroecosystems as habitat for wildlife is that we still have a very poor understanding of the importance of this species diversity in the control of pests, diseases, and weeds. However, recent research has started to fill this knowledge gap by focusing on the agroecological factors that affect the phytopathology of crop productivity, especially in mature agroecosystems.

Regulation processes are complex, but it is recognized that important biological synergisms are a function of plant biodiversity (Altieri and Nicholls, 1999), which, of course, is variable depending on the climate temperature and rainfall, soil types, and levels of disturbance. One important factor in the prevention of disease, pest epidemics, and weed invasions is the limitation of their dispersal. Other factors are the density of herbivores, predators, and other natural enemies; the distance to, and the diversity of, natural vegetation; and the turnover rate of crops within these agroecosystems and the intensity of their management. Furthermore, ecological functions are probably also subject to variation in species abundance, the density dependence of food chains and life cycles, the rates of colonization, reproductive success, mortality rates, and the ability to locate hosts. In addition, there are more species-specific factors, such as odors, repelling chemicals, feeding inhibitors, synchrony of life cycles, etc. One conclusion from agroecological research investigating these factors has been that species composition is more important than the number of colocated species (Altieri and Nicholls, 1999). Thus, identifying the best species assemblages needs to be the focus of future research to determine ecological principles for application under very different circumstances around the world.

Rebuilding Agroecological Functions

In ectomycorrhizal, and perhaps endomycorrhizal, species there are fungi associated with roots of seedling trees, and as the seedling grows, these fungi remain associated with young roots and radiate out away from the tree’s stem, allowing late-stage fungi to colonize closer to the stem. In this way, a successional series of fungi develops over time (Last et al., 1987; Peay et al., 2011). Consequently, for land restoration and stimulation of vegetational colonization, it is important for rapid tree establishment to innoculate tree seedlings with early-stage fungi in the tree nursery prior to planting (Lapeyrie and Högberg, 1994). Likewise, in trees with endomycorrhizal symbionts, the rapid development of these symbiotic relations is important, especially on severely degraded sites where good levels of seedling survival are highly dependent on mycorrhizal inoculation with the best symbionts (Wilson et al., 1991); however, any symbiont seems to be better than none. For agricultural production on severely degraded land, tree establishment is a precursor to the reestablishment of the soil inoculum. This inoculum is then beneficial to the infection and growth of associated crops (Hailemariam et al., 2013). Mulch from leguminous tree species has also been found to encourage the development of soil microflora, as evidenced by increased microbial biomass and increased enzyme activity (Mafongoya et al., 1997; Tian et al., 2001). In Zimbabwe, e.g., actinomycete populations were six to nine times greater when biomass of Vachellia and Calliandra species was applied to the soil surface than when incorporated into the soil (Mafongoya et al., 1997).

Leguminous fertilizer trees have also been shown to promote the return of soil fauna even in highly degraded soils (Sileshi et al., 2008a; Sileshi and Mafongoya, 2006). For example, in Zambia earthworm densities were two to three times higher in maize intercropped with Vachellia, Calliandra, Gliricidia, and Leucaena species compared with maize receiving NPK fertilizer (Sileshi et al., 2008a), whereas maize planted after Sesbania with Tephrosia and pigeon pea fallows had two to three times greater numbers of earthworms than maize alone (Sileshi and Mafongoya, 2006).

Phytopathological knowledge in developing tree-based agroecosystems is substantially based on an understanding of the regulation of pests, pathogens, and weeds in farming systems and on a limited number of case studies (Altieri and Nicholls, 1999; Schroth et al., 2000). In pioneer and early successional stages of agroforestry ecosystems the best-known case studies involve leguminous species. For example, the leguminous shrub Sesbania sesban induces suicide germination of the seeds of the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica, resulting in reduced infestations on cereals (Khan et al., 2007). In other legumes, Desmodium spp. acts as a repellent to stem borers of cereals, whereas Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) attracts the pests away from the crops. The combination of these agroecological functions has been described as a push-pull technology (repelling and attracting pests) (Cook et al., 2007). S. sesban has also been credited with reducing the dispersal of maize rust (Krauss, 2004). Some tree and shrub species (e.g., Lantana camara, Melia azedarach, Azadirachta indica, Tephrosia spp.) are known to have insecticidal properties, and some specific insecticidal chemotypes of Tephrosia vogelii have been identified (Belmain et al., 2012). However, there has been concern that some leguminous shrubs also harbor insect herbivores. However, when pure and mixed species legume fallows were tested there was no evidence of serious biomass loss due to herbivory (Girma et al., 2006). Tephrosia fallows had the lowest population densities of 18 species recognized as pests of fallows.

Predator-prey interactions can also be modified in early-stage agroecosystems by diversifying the habitat around fields by planting trees on the field boundaries. For example, in China, pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) is planted around rice to provide habitat for spiders that control leafhoppers; in Latin America, ants protect cocoa from the arthropod vectors of disease. Trees planted throughout coffee plantations provide habitat for birds, spiders, and ants, all of which contribute to pest control. These properties have been used in farming systems as part of integrated pest management strategies, in which the need for pesticides is reduced by harnessing these natural processes (Dix et al., 1999).

Maintaining Late Successional or Mature Agroecosystems

Recently, a number of studies have started to seek agroecological understanding of pest, disease, and weed problems in mature agroforestry systems in order to find practical, simple, and affordable techniques for poor farmers. These phytopathological studies have been based on both observation and the enumeration of the interactions between certain pests and pathogens and likely predator/parasite species (Table 2.2). Very recently, a few studies have taken observation to the next step in acquiring understanding of specific predator-prey relationships by manipulating parts of the agroecosystem. To some extent, there have been three phases of this research.

Table 2.2

Published investigations of agroecological functions in agroforestry systems.

Shade Modification

Tree shade is important to provide the best growing environment for some crops, especially those originating from the forest understory. In cocoa, this shade can be controlled to manage the incidence of diseases, such as frosty pod rot, which is caused by the fungus Moniliophthora roreri (Krauss and Soberanis, 2001). Likewise, in coffee plantations, shade trees can be managed to provide optimal light conditions to minimize the risks from pests [e.g., Cercospora coffeicola (coffee berry and leaf blotch), Planococcus citri (citrus mealy bug), Hemileia vastatrix (coffee rust)] and maximize conditions for beneficial fauna and microflora, even in areas with different soils and climate. Shade has been found to be more beneficial in the dry season and should be reduced by pruning in the wet season (Staver et al., 2001). Predation of insect pests by canopy birds is greatest when the canopy is not intensively managed, with the richness of shade trees explaining much of the variation in bird diversity (van Bael et al., 2007a,b). In another study, disease and insect attacks were more prevalent under single species tree canopies than under mixed canopies, supporting the hypothesis that tree diversity minimizes the risks of pest outbreaks (Bos et al., 2007a,b,c). In addition, shade trees also provide breeding sites for beneficial insects, such as midges, which are pollinators of cocoa (Young, 1982, 1983).

Removal of shade trees has been found to lower the abundance and richness of birds of most guilds, including insectivorous species (Philpott and Bichier, 2012); conversely, the abundance of insectivorous birds was greatest when the canopy cover was dense and species-rich, and there was some dead vegetation. In conclusion, the multifunctional role of shade trees for agriculture and biodiversity conservation is now recognized, but their important role in risk avoidance from insect pest outbreaks is inadequately understood. Nevertheless, it is clear that a diversified food-and-cash-crop livelihood strategy is possible (Tscharntke et al., 2011).

Bird Exclusion

A small number of experiments have investigated the importance of bird and bat populations on organisms further down the food chain in multistrata cocoa and coffee agroforestry systems by setting up exclusion experiments (Johnson et al., 2009; Maas et al., 2013; Peters and Greenberg, 2013). An experiment in which caterpillars were placed on coffee plants with and without bird exclusion confirmed that birds do reduce pest outbreaks, but this was only significant in association with high floristic diversity, indicating the importance of species diversity in the habitat (Perfecto et al., 2004). Likewise, Greenberg et al. (2000) found that exclusion of birds also resulted in a 64–80% reduction in large (>5 mm) arthropods and consequently some increased herbivory. Other studies in cocoa and coffee have generally confirmed these findings, showing that exclusion does generally increase the abundance of foliage-dwelling insect herbivores, with knock-on impacts on leaf damage (van Bael et al., 2007a,b, 2008). In Indonesia, the exclusion of birds and bats resulted in a 31% reduction of crop yield, illustrating the economic importance of these insectivores (Maas et al., 2013).

Food Chain and Life Cycle Studies

Shaded coffee and cocoa agroecosystems with a well-developed canopy of shade trees have high biodiversity, a wide diversity of microclimates and ecological niches (Siebert, 2002), and, as we have seen, fewer pest problems, most likely because of the greater abundance and diversity of the predators of herbivores. However, the species interactions in predator or parasite impacts on prey and crop production can be very complex. For example, without shade phorid flies negatively affect ant populations, and because ants negatively affect coffee berry borer, there is more damage to coffee berries (Pardee and Philpott, 2011). This indicates how shade impacting on phorid flies can enhance the biological control of berry borer by ants. Another example of the shade benefits involves parasitic wasps of the coffee leaf miner. Leaf damage by the miner was lower when twig-nesting ants were abundant, indicating that ant populations control leaf miners in shaded coffee (de la Mora et al., 2008); thus, through the effects of shade, ants provide important ecosystem services in coffee agroecosystems. Perhaps similarly, a study of parasitoid wasps in cocoa agroforests has found that wasp community composition was influenced by season, disturbance, the species richness of the shade trees, and the scale of the cocoa planting (Sperber et al., 2012). However, the impacts of such interactions can be complex and affected by such things as the climate zone and feeding habits of the bird species. For example, large frugivorous and insectivorous birds are more attracted to agroforests than small-to-medium insectivores and nonspecialist feeders. As might be expected, frugivores and nectarivores favored canopies with high species richness (Clough et al., 2009a,b). Thus, studies of bird populations need to take into account species