Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals

Garrity, D. P.

doi:10.1023/b:agfo.0000028986.37502.7c

Cited by 226 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The potential significance of agricultural production systems for biodiversity conservation is stressed by nature conservation agencies and the international research community (WRI 1992, pp. 110-115, 128, and 130;Halladay and Gilmour 1995;Collins and Qualset 1999;Siebert 2002;García-Ferná ndez et al 2003;Garrity 2004;Schroth 2004).…”

Section: Rubber Agroforest As a Disturbed Forest Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Plant and bird diversity in rubber agroforests in the lowlands of Sumatra, Indonesia

Danielsen²,

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant and bird diversity in the Indonesian jungle rubber agroforestry system was compared to that in primary forest and rubber plantations by integrating new and existing data from a lowland rain forest area in Sumatra. Jungle rubber gardens are low-input rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) agroforests that structurally resemble secondary forest and in which wild species are tolerated by the farmer. As primary forests have almost completely disappeared from the lowlands of the Sumatra peneplain, our aim was to assess the contribution of jungle rubber as a land use type to the conservation of plant and bird species, especially those that are associated with the forest interior of primary and old secondary forest. Speciesaccumulation curves were compiled for terrestrial and epiphytic pteridophytes, trees and birds, and for subsets of 'forest species' of terrestrial pteridophytes and birds. Comparing jungle rubber and primary forest, groups differed in relative species richness patterns. Species richness in jungle rubber was slightly higher (terrestrial pteridophytes), similar (birds) or lower (epiphytic pteridophytes, trees, vascular plants as a whole) than in primary forest. For subsets of 'forest species' of terrestrial pteridophytes and birds, species richness in jungle rubber was lower than in primary forest. For all groups, species richness in jungle rubber was generally higher than in rubber plantations. Although species conservation in jungle rubber is limited by management practices and by a slash-and-burn cycle for replanting of about 40 years, this forest-like land use does support species diversity in an impoverished landscape increasingly dominated by monoculture plantations.

show abstract

Section: Rubber Agroforest As a Disturbed Forest Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Plant and bird diversity in rubber agroforests in the lowlands of Sumatra, Indonesia

Danielsen²,

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Geared as they so often are to the production of a focal crop like coffee or cacao, with supplemental or obbligato products in the form of fruits and wood products, many agroforestry systems reportedly contribute to the diet, income and general well-being of the land managers involved (Garrity 2004;Garrity and Cooke 2010;Gockowski and Dury 1999). Research efforts focused on farmers' welfare with links to tree products from agroforestry have centered around domestication of local tree crops such as the bush mango (Irvingia gabonensis), African nut (Ricinodendron heudelotii), or African plum (Dacryodes edulis) (Garrity and Cooke 2010;Leakey et al 2005), or on timber tree production within cacao or coffee systems (Beer 1995;Somarriba 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fruits from shade trees in coffee: how important are they?

Rice

2011

Agroforest Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agroforestry systems often receive attention and support in the literature for what is perceived as the benefits from multiple products associated with the trees that create the ''forest'' component of the setting. A comparison of small coffee growers' use of fruits derived from the coffee agroforestry holding in Guatemala and Peru reveals that significant differences exist between these groups-not merely in the importance of the fruits themselves, but in the ways they are used. The overall importance of fruits from the coffee system accounts for a relatively small portion of the total value coming from the coffee area (about 10%), but the consumption and sales of the various products do generate needed income or sustenance for most farmers. The fate of fruits shows significant differences between the two countries. Whether at the farm level or on a per hectare basis, Guatemalan coffee farmers are more linked into a market economy and sell significantly more fruits than Peruvian farmers. The opposite is the case when on-farm consumption (use value) of the fruits is compared. While the potential value of these products may be quite large (from $95 to $270/ha), we find that little gets consumed or sold, resulting in tremendous loss of potential benefits that could flow from these sources. Both groups lose more fruits than are sold or used, with Guatemalans foregoing more than three times the dollar value per hectare than Peruvians ($151/ha vs. $44/ha). Data about the economic context within which these growers and the fruits from coffee are found reveal possible reasons as to why we see the differences in use and exchange values realized in the two countries.

show abstract

“…Agroforestry, and specifically the practice of growing trees on farmland alongside crops, has well-established research evidence of its potential to reduce deforestation and forest degradation at a landscape scale (Rahman et al 2014;Idol et al 2011;Garrity 2004). One definition of agroforestry is 'a dynamic, ecologically-based, natural resources management system that, through the integration of trees on farms and in the agricultural landscape, diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land users at all levels ' (Mead 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on existing forest?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Swidden cultivation can contribute to deforestation and land degradation, which can subsequently result in a number of serious environmental problems. This paper examines the economic and social potential of agroforestry systems and the barriers to their widespread adoption, as a land use alternative to swidden cultivation, which may potentially help protect local forest. The Gunung Salak valley in West Java, Indonesia is presented as a case study. Based on farmers' and experts' assessment, costs and benefits have been estimated, which show that the two investigated agroforestry systems have higher net present value and benefit-cost ratio (B/C) than the two swidden cultivation systems. Tree ownership also creates more permanent rights to farmland and is prestigious in the community. Agroforestry products (fruit, vegetables etc.) have high monetary value and help strengthen social cohesion when shared with neighbors. However, farmers are reluctant to implement agroforestry. Stated reasons are related to both culture and capacity. Farmers practicing agroforestry are less involved in forest clearing and forest products collection than swidden farmers indicating that it may contribute positively to conservation of local forests. Increasing the adoption of agroforestry farming in the study area will require support to overcome capacity constraints.

show abstract

Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals

Cited by 226 publications

References 25 publications

Plant and bird diversity in rubber agroforests in the lowlands of Sumatra, Indonesia

Plant and bird diversity in rubber agroforests in the lowlands of Sumatra, Indonesia

Fruits from shade trees in coffee: how important are they?

Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on existing forest?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About