AFToday December 2001 - theNRgroup AFToday2001[1]… · Guy-Alain Ambé & Franáois Malaisse 7...

Agroforestry TodayAgroforestry Today

Jumping cholla:Ornamental becomes livestock barrier

Restoring degraded landin the Himalayas

Blister beetle:Tree-feeding diversity

V O L U M E 1 3 N U M B E R S 1–2 • D O U B L E I S S U E

Selecting the bestwild fruits

Dennis Garrity is ICRAF’snew Director General

Dr Dennis Garrity became the fourth Di-rector General of ICRAF on 1 October2001.

Dr Garrity joined ICRAF in 1992, after12 years with the International Rice Re-search Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. Hefounded the Centre’s collaborative researchand development activities in SoutheastAsia, building that initiative into ICRAF’slargest regional programme with more than40 international and national professionalstaff working in six countries.

He led the systems improvement re-search in the humid tropics of the region todevelop and evaluate agroforestry alterna-tives to slash-and-burn agriculture; devel-oped conservation-oriented agroforestrysystems for sloping uplands; and launchedinstitutional innovations related to farmer-led organizations in sustainable agricultureand natural resources management. Hewas active in promoting the Landcaremovement in Southeast Asia.

Dr Garrity, an American citizen, has aBSc in agriculture from Ohio State Univer-sity, an MSc in agronomy from the Univer-sity of the Philippines at Los Baños, and aPhD in crop physiology from the Universityof Nebraska. He served as agronomist andcrop ecologist and head of theAgroecology Unit at IRRI between 1982and 1992.

Born in Cleveland, Ohio, Dr Garrityspent his childhood weekends and summervacations working on his grandfather’s farmin Lorain County, Ohio.

“The farm was 70 acres,” he says. “Mygrandfather grew wheat, corn and hay, andhad dairy cattle and chickens. But he al-ways struggled. It was excruciatingly hardfor him and my grandmother just to makethe mortgage payments. That’s where I firstlearned what it’s like to be a smallholderfarmer, and what it means to fight to holdon to the family farm.”

Dr Garrity learned a lot from his grand-father, he says, but he credits his 11thgrade science teacher for turning him to-wards what would be his eventual career. Itwas 1968, and Mr Carl Locke announcedthere would be no lectures or tests in hisclass. Instead, the students were instructedto go to the library, pick a topic they liked,and write a term paper on it.

In the library he picked up a copy of amagazine with an article describing thecoming famines and the population explo-sion in Asia and India – a gripping globalissue at the time. “Reading that article gal-

vanized me. I had always been interestedin agriculture and science, but for the firsttime I realized I could fuse the two to-gether, and do something really useful tosolve some big problems.”

Dr Garrity then went to Ohio StateUniversity, where he earned an under-graduate degree summa cum laude withdistinction in agronomy. In 1971, hissophomore year, he had an opportunity togo to the Punjab Agricultural University inIndia, where he spent three semesters.

On the way back home from India, hebackpacked solo through Southeast Asiafor five months learning about farmingsystems in the tropics. It was there hestopped at IRRI in the Philippines, wherescientists had just starting work on crop-ping systems. “I got very excited abouttheir work, and from that time on I wasscheming to get back there.”

After finishing his BSc at Ohio State,Dr Garrity was raring to go back to thetropics. With an IRRI scholarship, he re-turned to the Philippines and finished hisMSc, testing the methodology that laterbecame the foundation for the AsianFarming Systems Network. He completeda doctorate at the University of Nebraskain 1980, and returned to IRRI.

Dr Garrity believes that with the pastdecade of solid research results behind it,ICRAF is well positioned to create opportu-nities for positive change on a truly globallevel.

“We are poised to improve people’slives and the environment in a unique wayand on a much greater scale,” he says.“For farmers, employing trees and treecrops for lifting themselves out of povertyis not a pipe dream. This has been goingon in many areas of the tropics success-fully, if unheralded, for decades. I believewe have the prospect of using the scienceof agroforestry to champion the opportu-nities that already exist, and greatly ex-pand them. They can be developed formillions more people as a route out ofpoverty.

“As scientists and leaders, our visionof what we can do is much sharper thanever before. We have a bold strategy. Weare now challenged to really put it towork. And I believe that we will.”

Agroforestry TodayPublished by the international Centre forResearch in Agroforestry (ICRAF)

Editors: Dali Mwagore, Bob HugganArt direction and design: Conrad Mudibo,Staff photographer: Anthony NjengaSubscriptions/circulation: Elizabeth Mwamunga

Change of address: To avoid missing copies,allow 8 weeks for change of address. Senddetails to: Circulation, Agroforestry Today, POBox 30677, Nairobi, Kenya [email protected]

The geographic designations employed and thepresentation of material in this publication donot imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of ICRAF or the CGIARconcerning the legal status of any country,territory, city or area or its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.

Articles appearing in Agroforestry Today may bequoted or reproduced without charge, providedthe source is acknowledged and copies ofreprinted articles are sent to the editor. Opinionsexpressed in articles are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of ICRAF.ISSN 1013 3225

ICRAF is an autonomous, non-profitinternational research body supported by theConsultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR). ICRAF aims to improvehuman welfare by alleviating poverty, increasingcash income, improving food and nutritionalsecurity, and enhancing environmentalresilience in the tropics. It is governed by aBoard of Trustees and has research anddevelopment activities in 23 countries in Africa,Latin America and Southeast Asia.

Director General: Dennis Garrity (USA)Board of TrusteesChair: Lucie Edwards (Canada)Vice Chair: Mingsarn Kaosa-ard (Thailand)Dennis Garrity (USA)Anette Reenberg (Denmark)Richard H Beahrs (USA)Daniel Murdiyarso (Indonesia)Eugene R Terry (Sierra Leone)Hiroyuki Watanabe (Japan)Wilfred Mwangi (Kenya)Mark A Adams (Australia)Robert J Scholes (South Africa)Sergio C Trindade (Brazil)Kees van Dijk (Netherlands)Seyfu Ketema (Ethiopia)Bo Larsen (Denmark - representing CIFOR)Secretary: Tiff Harris (USA)

Due to staffing and resource difficultiesduring the second half of 2000, a secondissue of Agroforestry Today could not bepublished. Thus, this first issue of 2001 is,in fact, two issues, combining to give you44 pages that feature a wide variety –geographical and scientific – of where andhow agroforestry practices are havingsignificantly positive effects on the lives andlivelihoods of developing-country farmers.

Dr Dennis Garrity

A G R O F O R E S T R Y T O D A Y 1

Contents

2How Ivory Coast’s Malinké ethnic group select the most beneficial wild fruits

Guy-Alain Ambé & Franáois Malaisse

7Kodampuli – a fruit for all reasons

T.P. Manomohandas, K.N.Anith, S. Gopakumar and M. Jayaranja

9Savannization: A runoff agroforestry system for semi-arid and arid zone

developmentPaul Ginsberg

14Potential agroforestry species identified in the Tamaulipan thornscrub of

north-eastern MexicoPando-Moreno Marisela and Villalón-Mendoza Horacio

16Small-time operations – big-time loss: Illegal logging in the northern Philippines

Ben J. Wallace

19Agroforestry trees restore degraded land in the Himalayas

Girish C.S. Negi and Varun Joshi

22Feeding diversity of blister beetle and extent of damage it does under

agroforestry systemsChitra Shanker and K.R. Solanki

25Jumping cholla—the ornamental that became a wildlife and livestock barrier

Pritpal Soorae

28Presowing treatment with acid strongly influences germination and seeding

growth of gum ArabicR. Marimuthu, R. Swarnapriya, K. Vairavan and C.V. Dhanakodi

30News and Notes from around the world

35Paths to prosperity through agroforestry

ICRAF’s corporate strategy for 2001–2010

37Book Review

39Q & A

Where ICRAF scientific staff answer questions from readers

How Ivory Coast’s Malinké ethnic groupselect the most beneficial wild fruits

Small-time operations – big-timeloss: Illegal logging in the

northern Philippines

Blister beetle feeding on green gram inflorescene

V O L U M E 13 N U M B E R S 1–2D O U B L E I S S U E

A G R O F O R E S T R Y T O D A Y2

How Ivory Coast’s Malinké ethnic groupselect the most beneficial wild fruits

Seventy-five wild edible fruit

species were inventoried and

their favourites identified

—for taste, for medicinal

purposes and to satisfy hunger

Guy-Alain Ambé & François Malaisse

Many studies in various part ofAfrica stress the importance ofedible wild plants in the diet ofrural people (Campbell 1987;Baumer 1995; Bergeret 1986;Bergeret et al. 1990; Maydell1990; Malaisse 1992; Malaisse1997). Because of agriculturaldevelopment, the importance ofgathering plants and dietarydiversity are decreasing. Thenumber of wild foods has droppeddramatically with people’stransition from hunter-gatherers tofarmers (Tivy 1990). Nevertheless,these wild foods may greatlycontribute to the diet of ruralpeoples by providing rarenutrients and facilitating survivalin times of famine. According toGrivetti and others (1987), thebest and perhaps the only way ofhaving a healthy and balanceddiet is to diversify and vary it byconsuming as many differentfoods as possible.

As the wild edible species areimportant, their protection mustremain a priority. In order tomaintain diversity, a “woodyrevolution” is suggested. It consistsof the integration of indigenousspecies into local agriculturalsystems. According to Leakey(1994), the integration and re-

evaluation of indigenous trees isnecessary to protect biologicaldiversity and to provide anopportunity for all inhabitants of theworld to have adequate food. Forthis purpose, it is useful to identifythe best species according to localpreferences. These are important inany programme of development(Harrison 1991). Local people knowspecies that provide variousproducts for nutrition, medicine,construction, etc.

The setting of priorities for treeimprovement is based on variouscriteria. In the present study, the se-lection criterion is based on the ap-preciation of fruits for its benefits(taste, hunger prevention or medici-nal purposes). In order to identifythe wild species particularly appre-ciated for this purpose, an ethnobo-tanical survey was carried out onthe selection of appropriate fruitspecies consumed in Guinea pre-forest savannas of the Ivory Coast.

The marketing of some wild fruits is important. The fruits of Dialium guineense aretraded alongside other exotic fruits.


The wild fruit species that theMalinké ethnic group eats werelisted. From these, the most appre-ciated fruit species were selected.

The region studied

The study was carried out inSéguéla, a department in the north-west of the Ivory Coast. Six villages,located in the south of the depart-ment were investigated: Kavena,Somina, Kénégbé, Dangreso,Bingoro and Bac-sémien. The veg-etation around these villages is rec-ognized as a Guinea pre-forest sa-vanna (Guillaumet et Adjanohoun1971). It is characterized by contactbetween the forest and the savannaand consists of a mosaic of forest“islands” and savannas.

Biological diversity is particu-larly important because the speciesthat belong to both forest and sa-vanna exist side by side. The inhab-itants belong to the Malinké ethnicgroup. While this ethnic group hasthe reputation for trade and trans-portation activities (Arnaud 1987),the inhabitants who live in the vil-lages use many local natural prod-ucts. However, as a result of humanoccupation of the region, clearingfor cultivation (deforestation, fires)is happening more and more, andthreatens soil fertility and biologicaldiversity (Guillaumet etAdjanohoun 1971). Some trees thatprovide commonly edible fruit,such as Adansonia digitata, Parkiabiglobosa, Lophira lanceolata, etc.,are selected when clearing land forcultivation. The availability of mostwild species is being significantly

affected by the increase in culti-vated crops.

Material and methods

The method used for the selectionof right fruit species is mostly basedon steps defined by Franzel et al.(1996).

In the first step, we focused oncreating inventories of the wild spe-cies of fruits that are edible in the re-gion. From semi-structured inter-views, the villagers were asked tolist the edible fruit species that theyknow. They had also to provideknowledge about other uses of eachspecies. Also, from observation, werecognized some species that arelisted in the literature as providingfruit for consumption. They wereadded to the list even though the vil-lagers visited did not eat their fruits.

In the second step, the most im-portant fruit species were selectedby means of the “free-listing”method (Cotton 1996). This ap-proach works on the principle thatthe more significant fruit species arelikely to be mentioned by severalinformants, and are likely to bementioned earlier in each list.

In the third step, the fruit speciesselected were ranked according to

Many wild fruits are used daily andprobably greatly contribute to the dietof rural peoples by providing rarenutrients. But it is extremely difficultto quantify their contribution in termsof nutrients because they are eatenthroughout the day between meals. Ingathering sites, children commonlyswallow the delicious and succulentbales of Flacourtia flavescens.

the amount of interest in their fruits.A sample of 59 informants was se-lected for their better knowledge ofwild edible resources. They wereasked to choose their 5 preferredfruit and to order them according tothe criteria defined (taste, hunger ormedicine). A numerical value wasassigned accordingly: 5 for the firstchoice and 1 for the fifth. Data fromeach informant were then used tocalculate the total number of a


given species; then an overall rank-ing was determined according toCotton (1996).

The classification from each in-formant was verified by the methodof “paired testing”. This consists of

Table I. . . . . Classification of wild fruits consumed in Guinea’s pre-forest savannahsaccording to the preferences of the MalinkÉ ethnic group.

Scientific nameScientific nameScientific nameScientific nameScientific name Total numberTotal numberTotal numberTotal numberTotal number RankRankRankRankRank

Saba senegalensis (A. DC.) Pichon 83 01

Uvaria chamae P. Beauv. 81 02

Dialium guineense Willd. 67 03

Landolphia spp. 67 03

Annona senegalensis Pers. 59 05

Aframomum alboviolaceum (Ridley) K. Schum. 54 06

Diospyros mespiliformis Hochst ex A. DC. 43 07

Vitex doniana”Sw. 34 08

Gardenia erubesens Stapf & Hutch. 26 09

Detarium senegalensis J. F. Gmel. 26 09

Pterocarpus santalinoides DC. 21 11

Spondias mombin L. 18 12

Lannea kerstingii Engl. & K. Krause 14 13

Ziziphus mauritiana Lam. 14 13

Parinari congensis F. Didr. 12 15

Parinari curatellifolia Planch. ex Benth. 9 16

Passiflora foetida L. 8 17

Thaumatococcus daniellii (Bennet) Benth. 6 18

Flacourtia flavescens Willd. 6 18

Cordia myxa L. 6 18

Pentadesma butyraceanSab. 6 18

Nauclea latifolia Sm. 5 22

Santalinoides afzelii (R. Br. ex Planch.) Schellenbg 5 22

Blighia sapida Koening 5 22

Opilia celtidifolia (Guill. & Perr.) Endl. ex Walp. 5 22

Cola gigantea A. Chev. var. glabrescens Brenan & Keay 5 22

Cola laurifolia Mast 4 27

Strychnos spinosa Lam. 4 27

Deinbollia leptophylla Gillg. ex Radlk 3 29

Myrianthus serratus (TrÉcul) Benth. & Hook. 3 29

Nauclea pobeguinii (Pob. ex Pell.) Petit 1 31

Cynometra megalophylla Harms 1 31

Ficus capensis Thunb. 1 31

Syzygium guineense (Will.) DC. var. macrocarpum Engl. 1 31

presenting the species to informantsin a range of combinations in orderto assess consistency of an indi-vidual informant’s responses. Thecommonly used fruit species (Adan-sonia digitata, Parkia biglobosa,

Tamarindus indica, and Lophiralanceolata) were not taken into ac-count on this step. The reason isthat they are widely known and ex-tremely important for local peoplewho protect them using variousagroforestry systems (stakes,hedges). Unlike the other wild spe-cies, they cannot be considered asbeing in danger of disappearing.

During the surveys, the specieswere reported by vernacular namesand later converted to scientificnames. Unfortunately, some speciesare not differentiated by vernacularnames, so the surveys were basedon visual stimuli when vernacularnames were not sufficient. For thispurpose, a collection “database”was created for the majority offruits. They were gathered and col-lected as fresh or dry matter andwere pictured in situ or in localmarkets.

The information most useful foreach species were the vernacularnames (in the six visited villages),the fruit characteristics (taste,colour, height,) and some speciescharacteristics such as ecology,habitat, and height. When given in-formation was not clear, the infor-mant was asked to identify the spe-cies mentioned via the visualstimuli (picture, fresh or dry matter).An interpreter, selected for havinggood knowledge of wild resources,translated and verified the receivedinformation. In spite of these pre-cautions, the edible fruits of the ge-nus Landolphia could not be differ-entiated by the informants. Thesefruits are similar and are indicatedby the same vernacular name, Gbéi(in Dioula). Therefore, the termLandolphia ssp. was used to indi-cate the three species L. hirsuta, L.heudelotii and L. owariensis.

Results and discussion

The rank of importance of each spe-cies is presented in table I. Thefruits of Saba senegalensis, Uvariachamae, Landolphia spp. (L. hirsuta,


L. heudelotii, L. owariensis), Annonasenegalensis and Aframomumalboviolaceum appear to be par-ticularly appreciated. These fleshyfruits include heart-shaped syncar-pous berries (A. senegalensis), or-ange-colored berries (Landolphiaspp.) or aggregated berries (U.chamae). These relatively big fruitscontain large delicious edible pulpwith a highly aromatic and refresh-ing taste.

Some other fruit species are alsopreferred even though their fruitsare smaller. The round drupes ofVitex doniana (about 2 cm in diam-eter), the sweet-scented fleshy fruitsof Diospyros mespiliformis, and theflattened round pods of Dialiumguineense are well ranked. Thereason for this, as mentioned byinterviewees, is that each of thesebig trees bears many fruits duringthe gathering season. Their con-sumption is widespread. The fleshyfruits appear in the local marketsonly in the gathering season. Out-side the period of harvest, onlysome dry fruits such as Dialiumguineense are widely marketed.

Some fruits were not so wellranked in spite of their deliciousand succulent pulp. Examples ofthis are Flacourtia flavescens andPassiflora foetida. These two plantsseem less important according tovillagers because, in addition to theedible part being very small, theyare represented by only a smallnumber of individual species grow-ing in a few habitats, such as rockyground (F. flavescens) or roadside (P.foetida). Only children commonlyeat these fruits at the growing sites.

On the other hand, villagersliked Gardenia erubescens, thoughits fruits are less juicy, because theyare available when other fruit spe-cies do not occur. Hunters, shep-herds and farmers reported that thefruits of G. erubescens greatly con-tribute to satisfying hunger whenthey are out working for long hours.The fruits do not appear in localmarkets.

The more appreciated fruits in Guinea pre-forest savannas by the Malinkéethnic group: Uvaria chamae (1), Landolphia owariensis (2), Saba senegalensis(3), Landolphia heudelotii (4), Aframomum alboviolaceum (5) and Annonasenegalensis (6).


Some fruits, not included as firstchoices, are however important forspecific groups of the people inter-viewed. For example, the fleshysyncarpous fruit of Myrianthus ser-ratus, despite its low rank (29/34), isgreatly appreciated by the inhabit-ant of Bac-semien, a riverside vil-lage visited.

Conclusion

As presented here, it is evident thatfruits are appreciated for two majorreasons: taste and ability to satisfyhunger. Species that are widely dis-tributed and those that bear fruitsover long periods, including timesof famine, are greatly appreciated.These criteria should be taken intoaccount in any planned improve-ment of fruit species in the region.

References

Arnaud JC. 1987. Le pays Malinké deCôte d’Ivoire (Air ethnique etexpansion migratoire). Thëse deDoctorat, Université de Cocody,Abidjan.

Baumer M. 1995. Arbres, arbustes etarbrisseaux nourriciers du Sahel.Dakar: Enda tiers-monde(Environnemental DevelopmentAction in the Third World)

Bergeret A. 1986. Nourriture decueillette en pays sahélien.Journal d’ Agriculture Traditionnelle etde Botanique Appliquée. 33:91–95.

Bergeret A, Ribot J. 1990.L’arbre nourricier en pays Sahélien.Paris: Maison des Sciences del’Homme.

Campbell BM. 1987.The use of wild fruits in Zimbabwe.Economic Botany 41:375–385.

Cotton CM. 1996. Ethnobotany:principles and applications.Chichester: Wiley.

Franzel S, Jaenicke H, Janssen W. 1996.Choosing the right trees: Settingpriorities for multipurpose treeimprovement. Research Report No.8. The Hague: ISNAR.

Grivetti LE, Frentzel CJ, Ginsberg KE,Howell KL, Ogle BM. 1987.Bush foods and edible weeds ofagriculture: perspectives on dietaryuse of wild plants in Africa, theirrole in maintaining humannutritional status and implicationsfor agricultural development. InHealth and disease in tropicalAfrica, R. Akhtar, ed, London:Harwood, pp. 51-81

Guillaumet JL, Adjanohoun E. 1971. Lavégétation. In Le milieu naturel de laCôte-d’Ivoire, ORSTOM, ed, Vol. 50.Paris: ORSTOM. pp. 161-262

Harrison P. 1991. Une Afrique verte.Wageningen: Karthala/CTA.

Herzog F, Farah Z, Amado R. 1994.Composition and consumption ofgathered wild fruits in the “v-Baoulé” Côte d’Ivoire. Ecology ofFood and Nutrition 32:181–196.

Leakey RRB. 1994. Les arbres au boisdormant. Agroforestry Today 6(2):3.

Malaisse F. 1992. La gestion desproduits sauvages comestibles.Défis-Sud 7:18–19.

Malaisse F. 1997. Se nourrir en forÍtclair africaine. Approche écologiqueet nutritionnelle. Gembloux(Belgium): Les pressesAgronomiques de Gembloux/Wageningen (Pays-Bas): CTA (CentreTechnique de Coopération Agricoleet Rurale.

Tivy J. 1990. Agricultural ecology. NewYork: Longman Scientific &Technical/John Wiley & Sons.

von Maydell H-J. 1990. Arbres etarbustes nourriciers du Sahel : leurscaractéristiques et leurs utilisations.Weikerskeim (Allemagne)†: Margraf

Guy-Alain Ambé and François Malaisseare scientists at the FacultéUniversitaire des SciencesAgronomiques de Gembloux, Belgium.

The fruits were gathered with theparticipation of rural inhabitants,

collected fruit came from big trees(Ricindendron heudelotii) and

undergrowth herbs (Thaumatococcusdaniellii).


Kodampuli – a fruit for all reasonsT.P. Manomohandas, K.N.Anith, S. Gopakumar and M. Jayaranja

The most sought-after fruit in

Kerala, India can be eaten,

employed as a food flavouring

and for curing fish, used to treat

rheumatism, bowel problems,

and mouth diseases of cattle,

helps coagulate rubber latex,

and polishes gold and silver

Farmers in the tropics have availablea great variety of plants, including awealth of tree species, that providea range of products and services intheir farm-based economies. Kerala,on the southwestern coast of India,has a tropical humid climate. Withits tremendous diversity in trees, thearea is virtually a big homegarden.In this small state, intensive agricul-ture comprises multistoreyedagroforestry combinations of crops,trees and livestock in a mixed densepattern. These gardens vary widelyin the combinations found in them,but all supply family requirementsof food, fodder, fuel and timber, andgenerate extra income by the sale ofsurplus products (Salam andSreekumar 1991).

The government of India hasinitiatated the National WatershedDevelopment Programme forRainfed Areas. As part of thisprogramme, scientists attached tothe Farm Science Centre and Re-gional Agricultural Research Stationof the Kerala Agricultural Universityin the Wayanad District of Keralaundertook a series of farm interven-tions aimed at generally improving

the watershed. Farm visits showednumerous tree species being culti-vated by the farmers of this region.The common trees included jack,teak, mango, coffee, arecanut, co-conut and other perennial woodycrops in agroforestry systems basedon black pepper.

Garcinia cambogia Desr., locallyknown as ‘kodampuli’, is widelygrown in the homegardens ofKerala. The genus Garcinia to whichit belongs is large; its evergreentrees or shrubs are found in tropicalAsia, Africa and Polynesia. About30 species grow in India, mainly inthe Western Ghats, a mountainousstretch in southwest India that isidentified globally as a major hotspot of biological diversity.

G. cambogia is a medium-sizedtree with a rounded crown andhorizontal or drooping branches. Itsglobular fruits are the size of an or-ange, 60 to 70 mm in diameter. Theyellowish or reddish fruits have 7 to13 (normally 8) deep longitudinal

furrows that do not extend to theapex. The apex is smooth, de-pressed and often nipple shaped.Seeds, one in each groove of thefruit, are long, oval, depressed andsurrounded by a copious juicy redor white aril, with pale brown andveiny testa.

Many uses

Kodampuli fruits are widely soughtafter in the market for various uses.The rind of the underripe fruits ispeeled, sun-dried for 3-5 days to amoisture level of 20%, thensmoked. This dried rind is a choiceflavouring in Kerala cuisine – a sub-stitute for tamarind (Tamarindus in-dica). Currently, a kilogram of driedkodampuli rind sells in Kerala mar-kets for approximately 250 Indianrupees (US$5). In nearby Sri Lanka,the dried rind is used with salt tocure fish. A decoction of the fruitrind is used to cure rheumatism andbowel complaints in human beings.

Figure 1. Thereis significantvariation inthe shape andsize of thekodampulifruit.


It is also used as a rinse for diseasesof the mouth in cattle (Geetha1994). The dried rind is used forpolishing gold and silver, and as asubstitute for acetic or formic acidin coagulating rubber latex. A trans-lucent yellow resin obtained fromthe tree is reported to have purga-tive properties.

Realizing the importance ofkodampuli in the local markets andin households throughout Kerala,we made an elementary survey ofthe trees in the Mannathavady‘taluk’ (a taluk is a cluster of vil-lages) located in the northern re-gion of Wayand District, a part ofWestern Ghats. The aim of this in-ventory was to verify local farmers’claims of the diversity of kodampulifruit existing in this region.

The survey and the collection offruits were carried out in the south-west monsoon season between Juneand August 1998. We approached lo-cal contact farmers and grassroots ex-tension personnel of the Department

of Agriculture to identify homesteadswhere kodampuli trees stood. Usu-ally we found only one Garcinia treein a homegarden, because one tree isenough to meet a household’s re-quirement for dried rind.

Fruits were collected from differ-ent canopy levels of several treesspread over an area of 450 km2. Thelocation of each tree and the levelof the canopy (top, centre, base)from which fruits were collectedwere recorded. The fruits were thengraded according to visible charac-teristics like shape and size, num-ber of rinds, and the presence orabsence of a nipple at the fruit tip(Fig. 1). The data on the variabilityof the fruits are shown in Table 1.

Since the rind is the economi-cally important part, its thicknessdetermines the price that it fetchesin the market. Fruits weighing morethan 100 grams, with a rind per-centage above 80 and a rind-to-seed ratio of above 3.5, sell well.The large variation in fruit size and

rind percentage calls for renewedefforts to identify and vegetativelypropagate trees with the most desir-able fruit characteristics. This is par-ticularly important since kodampuliis androdioecious, that is, the treebearing male flowers also bears her-maphroditic flowers (George andothers 1994) and all the trees wescreened had originated from seed-lings.

Vegetative propagation needs tobe done with care to prevent desir-able characteristics from getting lostthrough cross-pollination. Further, ifa more scientific inventory onkodampuli were carried out in thenatural ecosystems of WesternGhats, it could unearth more eco-nomically important tree types thatcould be domesticated.

References

Geetha CK. 1994. Kodampuli –Garcinia cambogia – anunderexploited crop in the Keralahomestead. Spice India 7(4):9–10.

George ST, Latha AK, Mathew KL.1994. Soft wood grafting inkodampuli (Garcinia cambogiaDesr.) Indian Cocoa, Arecanut andSpices Journal 18:51.

Salam AM, Sreekumar D. 1991. Keralahomegardens: a traditionalagroforestry system from India.Agroforestry Today 3(2):10.

Dr. T. P. Manomohandas and S.Gopakumar are associate professorand assistant professor, respectively,with the Krishi Vigyan Kendra (FarmScience Centre) Ambalavayal, ofKerala Agricultural University

Dr. K. N. Anith and M. Jayarajan areassistant professor and researchassistant, respectively, with theRegional Agricultural ResearchStation, Ambalavayal, of KeralaAgricultural University

* Corresponding author:S. Gopakumar, Assistant Professor(Agroforestry), KVK, Ambalavayal PO,Wayanad-673 593, Kerala, India. Fax91-0493-660421

Table 1. Fruit diversity in Garcinia cambogia

Fruit type Fruit Fruit Rind Rind:% seedweight (g) diameter (cm) ratio

Round 165.50 7.31 82.0 4.61mammiform 162.50 7.31 80.0 4.00

157.50 6.86 76.0 3.20147.50 6.80 80.0 3.92105.00 6.50 71.0 2.5097.50 5.89 62.0 1.6075.00 5.51 77.0 3.28

Round 128.00 6.97 83.0 4.82115.00 6.29 73.0 2.6872.50 5.45 83.0 4.863.33 5.39 66.0 1.92

Oval mammiform 70.00 5.14 75.0 3.0060.00 5.35 67.0 2.0045.00 4.49 89.0 8.0030.00 3.95 67.0 2.00

Oval 83.30 5.37 78.0 3.6368.33 5.11 68.0 2.1550.00 4.53 73.0 2.75

Cylindrical 90.00 5.51 78.0 3.5083.00 5.31 78.0 3.5571.66 5.42 74.0 2.91

* Numbers in a row represent the average values of 10 fruits collected from a single tree


Savannization is a management

tool for restoring and improving

degraded shrub lands in the

200–300 mm precipitation belt

in the Negev Desert. It creates

savanna-like parklands which

provide a multitude of goods

and services to the local

population and the surrounding

ecosystem.

Savannization is a land manage-ment technique developed by theForest Department’s Southern Re-gion of the Keren Kayemeth Leisrael(KKL) in Israel. The name arisesfrom the landscape aspect of thesystem’s management—the creationof water- and nutrient-enrichedpatches for forest tree planting, thustransforming a shrublike landscapeinto a savanna-like one (Shachak1999). The “Savannization Project”grew out of efforts to expand foresttree planting into the NegevDesert’s northern fringes—a zonecovered by degraded shrub landsreceiving between 100–300 mm. ofannual precipitation. The challengeof successfully managing tree estab-lishment centres around the effi-cient and intelligent use of waterharvesting techniques which makeavailable a very limited supply ofrainwater to planted trees.

Since its inception in 1986, the“Savannization Project” hasevolved into a fully fledged, inter-disciplinary research endeavour ex-

Savannization: A runoff agroforestry system forsemi-arid and arid zone development

Paul Ginsberg

amining the structure, function andecology of a degraded, shrublandecosystem and how it reacts to hu-man, landscape-level manipula-tions. Early results indicate theproject’s potential for use in re-gional development schemes at theurban/rural interface and in semi-arid areas. A multiple-use land-scape, created through integratedplanning and interdisciplinary man-agement, will thus benefit both thelocal population and the ecosys-tem.

Historical perspective

Water harvesting has been practisedin the Middle East for over 4000years (Evenari et al 1982; NAS1974). In Israel’s Negev Desert, theNabatean culture (300 BC–600 AD)incorporated it widely. Their forti-fied towns and villages thrived ontrade with Arabia, India and China,and on the agricultural goods theyproduced with runoff-based desertagriculture.

The work of Evenari and his col-leagues documents the identification,analysis, and restoration of severalNabatean farms based exclusively onrainwater harvesting via various sys-tems of terracing and water catch-ment structures. Surface runoff wasdirected from large catchment areasto small agricultural plots. It wasfound that an average catchment arearatio of 20 hectares was needed to ir-rigate and sustain 1 hectare of agri-cultural land. Evenari’s work showedthat it was possible to grow grains,pasture, grapes and assorted fruit andnut trees with this method in the 100mm rainfall zone of the NegevDesert.

Landscape restoration

According to Whisenant (1995),ecological restoration of arid land-scapes attempts to manage humanintervention by stimulating naturalsuccessional processes which candevelop stable structural and func-tional ecosystem dynamics. Land-scape processes essential to the es-tablishment and maintenance ofarid ecosystems should be identi-fied, researched and then incorpo-rated into a restoration plan.

Degraded arid lands are re-source poor. They are limited in wa-ter, nutrients, and soil, and tend tosuffer from leakages of these re-sources due to the systems’ inabilityto retain them by physical or bio-logical means.

The application of landscape[level] considerations to arid landrestoration problems might focuson capturing flows of scarce re-sources across the landscape…Restoration strategies should linksoil-vegetation-landscape asso-ciations to the dynamic pro-cesses controlling the flow oflimiting resources… Carefullandscape design contributes tothe retention of nutrients, waterand other materials. The flows ofwater, energy, nutrients,propagules, soil and organicmatter that flow into, within, andout of landscape elements canbe manipulated to help achieverestoration objectives(Whisenant 1995).One management solution for

decreasing resource leakage is tocreate sink patches. Thse are char-acterized by two features—the firstis a structure that prevents the flow


of runoff water, soil, organic matter,and nutrients from a landscape unit;the second is a storage unit thatmaintains and absorbs water, or-ganic matter, and nutrients(Shachak et al 1998). On the basisof this strategy, the “ SavannizationProject”” was conceived and imple-mented.

Management practices

The desertified shrublands in thenorthern Negev Desert are com-prised of scattered shrub patchesdispersed over a matrix of crustedsoil (Shachak 1999). Water, soil andnutrients are the main resourceslimiting biological production anddiversity in these systems. Resourceflow through the system can becharacterized as a “sink-source” re-lationship – the crusted soil matrixis the contributory source of re-sources and the scattered shrubpatches act as sinks capturing theresource flow. Low numbers ofsinks (shrub patches) trap a smallpercentage of resources leakedfrom the system, thus resulting inlow ecosystem productivity andbiodiversity.

Savannization focuses on creat-ing additional artificial patches ofrelatively high productivity byplanting trees in desert landscapesof low productivity. These patchesbenefit from soil-water enrichmentgenerated by the collection of sur-face runoff from the undisturbedarea (JNF 1994). Boers et al (1986)discuss the applicability ofmicrocatchment-water-harvesting(MCWH) technologies for runoff-based reafforestation projects in thearid zone. As a restoration process,

it stops desertification, increasesthe abundance and diversity of or-ganisms, allows for multiple landuse, and leads to environmentalbenefits. The savannization ap-proach establishes an ecologicallybased, human-made, artificial eco-system in desertified environ-

ments, leading to partial restora-tion of environmental distur-bances. This concept represents acontinuous manipulation processcontrolled by natural successionand managed by humans (Sachs& Moshe 1999).Detailed site planning, in-depth

soil surveys, and simple agro-technical techniques can alter thelandscape mosaic by creating newsinks to trap otherwise lost systemresources. Four types of sinkpatches used in the project are: (1)hillslope minicatchments – earthenstructures for individual tree plant-ing; (2) earthen contour terraces –earthen barriers created mechani-cally along slope contours for theplanting of widely spaced strips oftrees; (3) limans – sites in whichearthen dams are constructedacross stream beds, creating smalloases of planted trees; and (4)stream bed terraces – stone damsconstructed across stream beds tocollect and store runoff water anderoded sediment (Shachak et al1997). Contour ploughing, terrac-ing, and microcatchment construc-tion entrap water, soil and nutrientsin small, localized patches. Theseresources are subsequently madeavailable to planted trees and natu-ral seed banks.

The most commonly plantedtree species are: Eucalyptustorquata, E. sargentii, E.stricklandii,Prosopis alba, P.chilensis, P. juliflora, Acacia anera,A. elatior, A. raddiana*, Pinus brutia,P. halepensis*, Pistacia atlantica*,Tamartx aphylla (=T. articulate)*,Ceratonia siliqua*, Zizyphus spina-christi*.

Secondary species include: Eu-calyptus astringens, E. occidentalts,E. umbellata, E.loxophleba, E.subcinerea, E. salubris, E.camaldulensis;Pinuseldarica;Prosopis nigra;Pistaciapalaestina*;Acacia victoriae, A.negevensis*, A. salicinia;Tamarixaphylla var. stricta*; Cupressus

sempervirens;Ficus carica*, F.sycamorus*. (from Shachak et al1997). *native species

Prior to tree planting, the site isfenced in and closed to grazing inorder to allow undisturbed growthand ecosystem recovery. After 4–5years the once degraded landscaperesembles a savanna of widelyspaced trees (100–20 trees/hectare)with a diverse understorey of sea-sonal, herbaceous vegetation andshrubs.

Savannization can thus be char-acterized as a form of dryland for-estry combining integrated water-shed management planning on themicro-scale, with a silvopastoral-type agroforestry system (Ffolliot etal 1995). The managed flow andstorage of limited, water-borne re-sources results in increased biom-ass, primary productivity, and diver-sity of herbaceous species, and isthe basis for successful tree estab-lishment. Thus, a multilayered eco-system of trees, shrubs, herbs, andgrasses serves as the biological in-frastructure for social forestry usesof this system.

Social forestry applications

According to Pickett et al (1999),ecological systems should be man-aged for multiple uses, such as toyield commodities, amenities, orservices, for economic, social, aes-thetic, cultural, or other values. Theprocess of ecological management[restoration] should accommodatemultiple societal goals, be they eco-nomic, agricultural, cultural, orwildlife preservation, among others.These statements reflect thosestated in the Summary Report onSocial Forestry presented to theEleventh World Forestry Congress(1997) in Antalya, Turkey – that so-cial forestry projects should, andmust, provide a multitude of non-commodity goods and services tothe society that undertakes such anendeavour.


As illustrated in Figure 1, the“Savannization Project” is mod-elled as a social forestry-type en-terprise. It integrates three infor-mation-rich areas of knowledge(management philosophy, appliedtechnologies, historical precedent)within an ecosystem (degradeddesert shrubland), and generates aset of multiple benefits – an im-proved landscape resource, en-hanced ecosystem productivity, asilvopastoral agroforestry system,an educational resource, and atransferable technology for re-gional development work – for thelocal society’s good. A successfulcombination of integrated water-shed management with a runoff-based agroforestry system of treeplanting and grazing managementhas created a new landscape inthe arid zone of Israel, and showsthe possibilities ofmultidisciplinary, integrated man-agement.

The goal of the Forest Depart-ment’s savannization effort is tostop desertification and increase thevalue of the land for human use byecological management of vegeta-tion, soil and water (Sachs & Moshe1999). The basic management ap-proach – adding man-made sinkpatches enriched with runoff waterand nutrients for planting trees andenhancing natural vegetationgrowth – has not only rehabilitateda degraded ecosystem, but hasadded new uses in the form of graz-ing lands and recreational parks(Shachak et al 1998).

Located near urban settlements,the savanna landscape systemserves as a green belt, resulting inincreased land value for the localpopulation. The addition of scenicroads, walking trails, and observa-tion points fulfil the needs of thenearby urban population for an ac-cessible, green, open space re-source.

According to Boeken & Shachak(1999), artificial patches can beused as a tool for the sustainablemanagement of lands threatened bydesertification. Firewood, shadeand enriched pasture outputs willbenefit humans, wildlife and do-mesticated animals alike. Some ar-eas have been successfully openedto controlled sheep grazing 4-5years after planting (JNF 1994). Inaddition, patches rich in plant spe-cies numbers and biomass canfunction as biodiversity reserves forspecies whose habitats may bethreatened by desertification.

Another potential by-product ofthe system is the creation of short-season bee pasture from the trees’,shrubs’ and herbs’ flowers. Severalnative and exotic tree species(Ziziphus spina-christi; Ceratoniasiliqua; Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E.occidentalis, E. stricklandii, E.torquata) show great promise in thisfield, especially during the dearth

Figure 1. System model of the savannization project.


Tree Species Fuelwood Fodder Bee pasture Nitrogen fixation Landscape

Acacia aneura ***** *****Acacia eliator *****Acacia negevensis *****Acacia pendula *****Acacia raddiana ***** ***** *****Acacia salicinia ***** *****Acacia victoriae *****Ceratonia siliqua ***** ***** ***** *****Cupressus sempervirons ***** *****Eucalyptus astringens *****Eucalyptus camaldulensis ***** ***** *****Eucalyptus loxophleba *****Eucalyptus occidentalis ***** ***** *****Eucalyptus salubris ***** *****Eucalyptus sargentii *****Eucalyptus stricklandii ***** *****Eucalyptus subcinerea *****Eucalyptus torquata ***** *****Eucalyptus umbellata *****Ficus carica ***** *****Ficus sycamorus ***** *****Parkinsonia aculeata *****Pinus brutia ***** *****Pinus eldarica ***** *****Pinus halepensis ***** *****Pistacia atlantica ***** *****Pistacia palaestina ***** *****Prosopis alba ***** ***** ***** *****Prosopis chilensis ***** ***** ***** *****Prosopis juliflora ***** ***** ***** ***** *****Prosopis nigra *****Tamarix aphylla (articulata) ***** *****Tamarix aphylla var. stricta *****Ziziphus spina-christi ***** ***** ***** *****

Table 1: Tree Species in the Savannization Project and Their Potential Uses (Goor & Barney 1976; NAS 1980; Purdue University2000)


period between the dry summerand early winter (Eisikowitch &Masad 1980; Reves & Eisikowitch1981).

As a landscape managementtool, savannization has potential toimprove the quality of life at the ur-ban/suburban/rural interface in aridzones. When utilized as a greenbeltplanting surrounding cities and vil-lages, aesthetics and land values in-crease, as does the possibility forrecreational development and use.The “greening” of desert landscapesencircling urban centres has im-mense value for the localpopulation’s well-being and can actas an incentive to attract newcom-ers to desert fringe settlements.(Table 1 illustrates all of the benefitsassociated with each tree speciesused in the project.)

Conclusion

Overall, the “SavannizationProject” has shown that an aridlandscape properly understood anddeveloped can yield multiple goodsand services. By combining histori-cal knowledge, ecological under-standing, a relevant managementphilosophy, and provenagrotechnical and silviculturalmethods in an intelligent and mea-sured way, desertification of aridand semi-arid landscapes can behalted and even reversed. Socialand ecological benefits will arisefrom a once degraded ecosystemthrough proper management andthe willingness to succeed.

References

Bocken B, Shachak M. 1999. Desertplant communities in human-madepatches. Ecology and Environment5(2–3):85–94. [In Hebrew withEnglish summary].

Boer Th. M, Zondervan K, Ben-Asher J.1986. Micro-catchment-water-

harvesting (MCWH) for arid zonedevelopment. Agricultural WaterManagement 12:21–39.

Eisikowitch D, Masad Y. 1980. Nectar-yielding plants during the dearthseason in Israel. Bee World 61:11–18.

Eleventh World Forestry Congress.1997. Summary report on Area F:Social Dimensions of Forestry’sContribution to SustainableDevelopment. In: Main Report –Proceedings of the 11th WorldForestry Congress, Volume 7,Antalya, Turkey, 13–22 October1997.. Antalya: World ForestryCongress. p 28–29.

Evenari ML. Shanan L, Tadmor N.1982. The Negev: the challenge of adesert. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Folliott P, Brooks KN, Gregersen HM,Lundgren AL. 1995. Drylandforestry: planning and management.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Goor AY, Barney CW. 1976. Forest treeplanting in arid zones. New York:Ronald Press Co.

Jewish National Fund (JNF). 1994.Savannization—an ecologicalanswer to desertification. Jerusalem:Dept. of Publications and Audio-Visual Aids, JNF.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS).1974. More water for arid lands:promising technologies and researchopportunities. Washington D.C:NAS.

_________ 1980. Firewood crops:shrub and tree species for energyproduction. Washington DC: NAS.

Pickett STA, Shachak M, Bocken B,Armesto JJ. 1999. The managementof ecological systems. In: Arid landsmanagement. towards ecologicalsustainability, TW Hoekstra, MShachak, eds. Chicago: Univeristy ofIllinois Press. p 8–17.

Purdue University. 2000. Center forNew Crops & Plant Products. http://newcrop.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop.

Reves Y, Eisikowitch D. 1981. Acclim-atization of eucalypts under semi-arid conditions. International Journalof Biometeorology 25(l):21–28.

Sachs M, Moshe I. 1999.Savannization: an ecologicallyviable management approach to

desertified regions. In: Arid landsmanagement: towards ecologicalsustainability. TW Hoekstra, MShachak, eds. Chicago: University ofIllinois Press. p 248–253.

Sachs M, Shachak M, Moshe I.Ecological restoration of desertifiedregions through savannization. XXWorld Congress, IUFRO, Tampere,Finland, 6–12 August 1995.(unpublished transcript).

Shachak M. 1999. Ecological aspects ofthe Savannization Project.

Ecology and Environment 5(2–3):63–69. [In Hebrew w/ Englishsummary].

Shachak M, Sachs M, Moshe I. 1997.Savannization—an integration ofecological theory, experimentalapproach and successful landscapemanagement in the Negev Desert.In: Forestacion y Silvicultura enZonas Aridas y Semiaridas de Chile,G Vaidebenito R, S. Benedetti R,eds., Santiago, Chile: InstitutoForestal Filial Corfu & Corporacionde Fomento de la Produccion. p 93–117.

Shachak M. 1998. Ecosystemmanagement of desertifiedshrublands in Israel. Ecosystems1:475–483.

Whisenant SG. 1995. Landscapedynamics and arid land restoration.In: Proceedings: wildland shrub andarid land restoration symposium, BARoundy et al, comps. 19–21October 1995. Las Vegas, NV.General Technical Report-315.Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station. p26–34.

Paul Ginsberg is a soil conservationspecialist with the Land DevelopmentAuthority, Northern Region, KerenKayemeth Leisrael, Israel.


Large arid and semiarid areas of

north-eastern Mexico are

subject to prolonged droughts,

very hot summers and winter

frosts. These adverse climate

conditions limit the possibilities

for successful agriculture, and

alternative methods to single

crops need to be promoted to

improve the economic status of

the rural inhabitants.

Tamaulipan thornscrub in north-eastern Mexico includes about 80woody species. Many of them havetraditionally been used to producefirewood, charcoal, and wood forfurniture, construction and fenceposts. However, in spite of the sig-nificant contribution that these spe-cies can make toward increasingrural family incomes, they havebarely been used as part of anagroforestry system. Now, a recentstudy has concluded with the selec-tion of species with high agro-forestry potential for the region.

The selection was made in anarea located in the north-east ofMexico (24∞47’ North and 99∞32’West). It lies in a gently sloping, un-dulated terrain with an average alti-tude of 355 m and a semiarid,subhumid climate. Precipitation ishighly variable from year to year,with a maximum recorded rainfallof 1847.7 mm and a minimum of390.1 mm. Mean annual rainfall is810.6mm. Temperature is also vari-able through the year with very hotsummers and occasional severefrosts during winter. Extreme tem-peratures are 44∞C and –11.5∞Cwhile the mean annual temperatureis 22.4∞C (Cavazos & Molina,1992).

Up to now, there has been alack of studies in this region aimedat evaluating interactions betweennative woody species and crops.Thus, selection of the species wasbased on only three criteria: (1) spe-cies reported in literature to be usedfor more than one purpose, (2) spe-cies native to the region, and (3)species under current use by the ru-ral population in the area.

Eleven native woody species

were initially selected from literatureas being used in the region for morethan one purpose. Sources for thisinformation were: Cabral & Treviño,(1989); Reid and others (1989); Reidand others (1990); Peñaloza andothers (1989); Benavides, (1989); dela Garza, (1989); Carrillo (1991);and Infante (1993).

A list of the 11 selected specieswas taken to the field and informalinterviews were made with 50 ruralinhabitants—10 people from 5 dif-ferent communities—about the useof such species. Every interviewerreported that 9 out of the 11 specieswere being used for several pur-poses. A list of the finally selectedspecies as well as their current usesis shown in Table 1. A proposedagroforestry system for each speciesis also included in the table.

This is obviously a very firstapproach to the implementationof agroforestry systems in the re-gion. However, the species se-lected here can be taken as start-ing points for further studies sincethey meet two very important re-quirements for an agroforestry sys-tem to succeed: (1) species arewell known and accepted as use-ful by the local rural populationand (2) they are multipurpose spe-cies. Another valuable characteris-tic is that they are native to the re-gion so their use and reproductionwould contribute to preserve localdiversity.

Pando-Moreno Marisela and Villalôn-Mendoza Horacio are professors in theAgroforestry Department of theUniversidad Autónoma de NuevoLeón, Mexico.

Potential agroforestry species identified in theTamaulipan thornscrub of north-eastern Mexico

Pando-Moreno Marisela and Villalón-Mendoza Horacio


References

Benavides C. 1989. Evaluación delpotencial aprovechable delmezquite (Prosopis spp.) en el IVDistrito de Tamaulipas. In:Proceedings of the AgroforestrySymposium in Mexico. Linares,Nuevo León, Mexico, 14–16November 1989. Linares:Universidad Autónoma de NuevoLeón. p 588–602.

Cabral I, Treviño B.1989. Efecto decorte en la dinámica de crecimientode especies de uso múltiple delmatorral espinoso tamaulipeco en elnoreste de Mexico. In: Proceedingsof the Agroforestry Symposium inMexico, Linares, Nuevo León,Mexico, 14–16 November 1989.Linares: Universidad Autónoma deNuevo León. p 457–497.

Carrillo A. 1991. Efecto de algunostratamientos silvícolas y de factoresabióticos sobre la regeneración ymanejo del matorral. BachelorThesis. Facultad de CienciasForestales, Universidad Autónomade Nuevo León, Mexico.

Species Common Family Current use Proposed agroforestryname system

Acacia berlandieri Huajillo Leguminosae Construction, firewood, Silvopastoral system fodder, fence posts.

Acacia farnesiana Huizache Leguminosae Firewood, fence posts, charcoal. Agrosilvopastoral system

Condalia hookeri Brazil Rhamnaceae fence posts, fodder construction, Silvopastoral system

Diospyros texana Chapote Ebenaceae fire-wood, fodder Agrosilvopastoral system

Ebenopsis ebano (Pithecellobium ebano) Ebano Leguminosae Construction, furniture, fence posts, Agrosilvopastoral system

charcoal, handcrafts.

Eysendhardtia polystachya Vara Dulce Leguminosae fire-wood, fodder Agrosilvopastoral system

Havardia pallens (Pithecellobium pallens) Tenaza Leguminosae Construction, fire-wood, fodder, Silvopastoral system

fence posts, handcrafts.

Helietta parvifolia Barreta Rutaceae Construction, fire-wood, fence posts. Agrosilvopastoral system

Prosopis laevigata Mesquite Leguminosae construction, fire-wood, fence posts, Silvopastoral system furniture, and parquet.

Table 1. Potential agroforestry species for the region (NE, Mexico), their current use and proposed agroforestry system.

Cavazos T, Molina V. 1992. Registrosclimatológicos de la región citrÌcolade Nuevo León. Technical BulletinNo.1. Facultad de CienciasForestales, Universidad Autónomade Nuevo León, Linares, NuevoLeón, Mexico.

Garza de la, F. 1989. Potencialeconómico de la producción decarbón en Mexico. In: Proceedingsof the Agroforestry Symposium inMexico, Linares, Nuevo León,Mexico, 14–16 November 1989.Linares, Nuevo León, Mexico.Universidad Autónoma de NuevoLeón. p 631–637.

Infante O. 1993. Propiedades ísico—mecánicas del mezquite (Prosopislaevigata Humb & Bonpl. Ex Willd.M.C. Johnst) en Linares, NuevoLeón. Bachelor Thesis. Facultad deCiencias Forestales, UniversidadAutÛnoma de Nuevo León. Mexico.

Peñaloza R, Reid N. 1989. Pasado,presente y futuro del uso de la tierraen el matorral tamaulipeco delnoreste de Mexico. In: Proceedingsof the Agroforestry Symposium,Linares, Nuevo León, Mexico, 14–

16 November 1989. Linares:Universidad Autónoma de NuevoLeón, pp 663–692.

Reid N, Stienen H, Hempel H. 1989.Uso de especies maderables delmatorral para postes (estantes) en elnoreste de Mexico. In: Proceedingsof the Agroforestry Symposium inLinares, Nuevo León, Mexico, 14–16 November 1989. Linares:Universidad Autónoma de NuevoLeón. p. 521–528.

Reid N, Marroquín J, Beyer-Munzel P.1990. Utilization of shrubs and treesfor browse, fuelwood and timber inthe Tamaulipan thornscrub,northeastern Mexico. Forest Ecologyand Management 36:61–79.


While illegal logging operations areoften carried out on a grand scaleby large corporations, in the ex-treme north-western part of thePhilippine province of Ilocos Nortein northern Luzon illegal loggingoperations are carried out by small-time operators. The results, how-ever, are the same: primary forestcover is rapidly disappearing.

As part of a long-term researchand development project in thePhilippines, named “Good Roots:Ugat ng buhay”, the primary causesof deforestation (slash-and-burncultivation, illegal logging, charcoalmaking, and fuelwood use) are be-ing examined (see Wallace 1994,1995, 1997). In three of the GoodRoots research barangas (communi-

Small-time operations – big-time loss

Illegal logging in the northern Philippines

Ben J. Wallace

ties or villages), with a combinedpopulation of 2,754 people, thereare 15 illegal logging teams, eachone composed of four to sevenmen. Because of the sensitive anddangerous nature of collecting dataon this activity, the villages wherethese teams are based are referredto here as Village I, Village II, andVillage III. Village I has four teams,Village II has two and Village III hasnine. The basic tools of illegal log-ging in the area are chainsaws,axes, machetes, and digging bars.

Logging by these teams is donein primary forest growth areas, usu-ally three to four hours walking fromthe home village. The most commonspecies being cut by the illegal log-gers are narra (Peterocarpus indicus),

tanguile (Shorea polysperma), apnit(Shorea contorta), guijo (Shoreaguiso), yakal (Shorea astylosa),almaciga (Agathis philippinesis) anddao (Dracentomelon dao). In thisarea of the Philippines these speciesare found almost exclusively in pri-mary forest growth areas. They arefound above 300 m in elevation.Most forest areas below 300 m aresecondary growth. Legal logging inthe immediate area ceased two de-cades ago.

The most common method of moving“squared” logs from the mountains tothe lowlands.


Each logging team consists of amain chainsaw operator, an assis-tant operator and two to three com-panions. The team usually stays inthe forest for 3-5 days. The numberof logging trips they make eachyear depends on current demandand price of illegally cut wood.Most of the loggers maintain a re-serve stock of felled trees in the for-est in order to avoid detection byauthorities and to ensure a supplyof wood on demand from buyers.Loggers say that freshly cut logs aretoo heavy to transport out of the for-est and that logs are best seasonedin the forest.

The responsibility of the chain-saw operator and his assistant is todecide the direction of the fallingtrees and the size of the squaredlogs to be cut from them, plusmaintenance of the chainsaw andthe carrying out of all major sawingcuts. The companions are respon-sible for cleaning the cutting area,cutting and preparing trees as scaf-folding in case the buttress is toohigh or cutting at the base of thetree is not possible. They also over-see the routing of log transporta-tion, and the moving of logs awayfrom the cutting site.

Transportation of the logs, gener-ally cut into what are called“squared logs” (usually 25 cm by30 cm by 4 m), are pulled from theforest by carabao (water buffalo) orby what is called the “balloonmethod” (where the logs are sup-ported by inflated automobile tiretubes and floated down river). Thebuyers and end-users of the illegallogs are usually outside the homevillages of the loggers. Dependingon the buyer, the logs are pur-chased as logs, squared logs, or assized lumber.

Data from general interviewswith villagers and loggers, detailedinterviews with logging team lead-ers, visits to logging sites, and ac-tual measurement of trees and cutlogs in three logging sites, suggestthat although illegal logging in the

ties, are included, the people in Vil-lage I extract from the forest 183.3trees each year; Village II loggersextract 91.7 trees, and the loggingteams in Village 3 extract 412.5trees. In total, the Good Roots com-munities extract from nature 687.5hardwood trees, or .25 trees perperson each year, all from primaryforest growth areas. As there are2,750 trees/ha (70 of this numberwith a diameter of 50 cm or more)in primary forest in the Good Rootsarea, this amounts to 24% of ahectare of primary forest growth.The villages under investigationconstitute only 34% of the popula-

tion in the immediate area, andother villages also have teams of il-legal loggers.

It is estimated that there are atleast 50 logging teams in the imme-diate area. It is estimated that al-most 1 ha of non-replaceable hard-wood timber is being cut each year,just in the Good Roots area. Exceptfor an occasional pioneer slash-and-burn plot, the bulk of primaryforest cutting is carried out by ille-gal loggers. Most slash-and-burnactivity and fuelwood cutting isdone in secondary forests.

Not all cut trees are of equalloss to the environment. The cuttingof a single hardwood tree in pri-mary forest growth is a greater lossthan the cutting of a fuelwood treein secondary forest growth. Mostfuelwood trees, because they areabundant and fast growing, will re-generate in only a few years whilethe loss of a hardwood tree may bea loss forever. This becomes evenmore important considering thatthere are 858 cubic metres of woodper hectare in trees in primary for-est growth in the Good Roots areawhile there are only 98 cubicmetres per hectare in secondary for-est growth.

It is projected that in the GoodRoots and adjacent villages 2,025trees per year, or .73 ha, are cuteach year from primary forest. Itshould be remembered, however,that there is almost nine times thevolume of wood in the primary for-est as there is in the secondary for-est. Given this situation, illegal log-ging, even though practised on asmall-scale basis, is having a signifi-cant impact on the local environ-ment.

Reducing the extent to whichfarmers cut the best and largesthardwoods from the primary forestwill not be an easy undertaking. Aslong as there is a market for thelogs, as long as the Philippine De-partment of Environment and Natu-ral Resources is so understaffed thatit cannot enforce the laws, and as

Transportation of the logs,

generally cut into what are

called “squared logs” (usually

25 cm by 30 cm by 4 m), are

pulled from the forest by carabao

(water buffalo) or by what is

called the “balloon method”.

Good Roots villages is small-scale,it is a significant activity. The totalvolume of major timber trees cut bythe four teams in Village I is 120.5cubic metres per year. The twoteams in Village II cut 60.2 cubicmetres. Village III, with nine teams,cuts a total of 271 cubic metres. Inaddition, smaller timber tress andthose of lesser value are cut or de-stroyed in preparing the site. VillageI cuts 8.3 cubic metres of smallertrees per year. Village II destroys 4.1cubic metres and Village III cuts18.6.

When maturing saplings, de-stroyed or seriously damaged in as-sociation with illegal logging activi-


long as the farmers remain poor, theillegal logging activities will con-tinue. With each year, and withfewer hardwood trees available, theprice of quality lumber will con-tinue to increase, making the illegalcutting activities even more profit-able. Supply and demand will con-tinue to control the market for theforeseeable future.

The best opportunity for reduc-ing the number of illegally cut treesis the improvement of economicopportunities for rural Filipino fami-lies. Cutting trees from the primaryforest, hauling the logs to the low-lands, and turning the logs intolumber, is difficult and time-con-suming work. Given these labour-intensive demands and the risks offines or jail or worse associatedwith illegal logging, interviews withfarm families suggest that theywould prefer more profitable andsafer economic opportunities.

Assuming that populationgrowth in the Good Roots region iscomparable to the Philippine na-tional average, the population inthe area will double over the nexttwo to three decades, placing evengreater demands on the environ-ment. Under this situation, it is esti-mated that in less than a generationthese forests will be almost fully de-nuded. Unless the farmers of up-land Northern Luzon are able toslow the process of deforestation, itis most likely that land that wasonce covered with primary forestwill be become a sea of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), render-ing it basically useless for humansand animals.

References

Wallace BJ. 1994. Multipurpose researchand the multipurpose research team:The Philippine Good Roots (Ugat ngbuhay) Project. Bulletin of the Cultureand Agriculture Group, AmericanAnthropological Association 48: 13–19.

Wallace BJ. 1995. How many treesdoes it take to cook a pot of rice?Fuelwood and tree consumption infour Philippine communities.Human Organization 54:182–187.

Wallace BJ. 1997. Good roots—Ugatng buhay: Helping farmers reclaimtheir environment. Manila: Caltex(Philippines) Inc.

Ben J. Wallace is Professor ofAnthropology at Southern MethodistUniversity and director of an on-goingagriculture and forestry developmentproject known in the Philippines asGood Roots: Ugat ng buhay.

As long as there is a market for

the logs, as long as the

Philippine Department of

Environment and Natural

Resources is so understaffed

that it cannot enforce the laws,

and as long as the farmers

remain poor, the illegal logging

activities will continue.

Rural woodworking shop forprocessing timber


Agroforestry trees restoredegraded land in the Himalayas

Girish C.S. Negi and Varun Joshi

In the Central Himalayan mountainsin India, subsistence agriculture,which is the mainstay, demandsmassive quantities of fodder, leavesfor manure, fuelwood, wood for ag-ricultural implements, and timberfor minor construction projects. Al-though 63 percent of the geographi-cal area of this region is classified asforestland, only 40 percent is for-ested and in only 16.6 percent ofthe area are the forests well stocked(Ramakrishnan and others 1992).The rate of biomass harvest far ex-ceeds the rate at which these forestsregenerate (Singh and Singh 1991).People—mainly the women and therural poor—may have to spendtwice as much energy collecting for-est biomass as they spend directlyon agricultural activity (Ralhan andothers 1991). This skewed expendi-ture of energy makes life miserable.

Obviously, much of the biomassharvested comes from the villagesurroundings, which are frequentedyear-round. Further, large herds offree-grazing livestock degrade thevegetation base. These practiceslead to marginal rainfed terraces be-ing abandoned and the wastelandaround human settlements increas-ing (Negi and Joshi 1997). On aver-age, there exists about one hectareof degraded land for every hectareof cultivated land in this region.

Thus, the first task necessary to in-crease the resource base is to‘revegetate’ the village wastelandsand degraded forests.

Agroforestry trees andshrubs—the suitable choice

A number of indigenousagroforestry trees and shrubs (AFTS)grow in and around the crop fieldsin this region. Year-round, theyserve many purposes and fill manyneeds (Table 1). Most occur eitheras isolated individuals in the nativevegetation or on the crop fieldbunds and village surroundings. Vil-lages protect the existing trees, butthey make minimal efforts to plantnew stock. They lack know-how inpropagation and in nursery andplantation technology. Nor are theysure about the performance of newstock under erratic rainfall, which isthe only source of moisture in thedegraded lands. But they stronglyfeel the need to grow a few AFTSthat give promise of surviving andgrowing under the prevailingagroclimatic conditions.

Under our institute’s integratedwatershed management project, lo-

cated at an altitude of 1400 m inGarhwal Himalaya, we planted 10locally available AFTS. The specieswere selected for their particularuses and for their ecosystem ser-vices such as nitrogen fixation andsoil and water conservation (Negi1995). The village people partici-pated in collecting seeds from thesurroundings, raising seedlings atthe site, and planting them out in10 m x 10 m blocks. In doing this,the people found out about theseed source and learned nurseryraising and plantation techniques.

After three years in plantation,Alnus nepalensis had grown the tall-est (262 cm), but its survival was thepoorest (26 percent) among all thespecies (Table 2). This species fixesnitrogen (29–117 kg of nitrogen perhectare per year) and regeneratesprofusely (Sharma and Ambasht1988), but the villagers consider itinferior for fodder and fuelwood.The maximum survival rate (77 per-cent) was recorded for Grewiaoptiva, but its growth was poor; itreached a height of only 64 cm. Thisspecies yields quality fodder (crudeprotein, 26 percent) during summer,good fuelwood, fibre (used for ropemaking) and endures heavy lopping

Pant Institute staffoften train ruralwomen in nurseryand plantationtechnology. Here ascientist of theinstitutedemonstrates Albiziastipulata, Bauhiniavariegata andDalbergia sissoogrowing inStyrofoam trays.

How can the severely degraded

land around many Indian villages

be revegetated? Villagers in the

Central Himalayan mountains

are eager to start by planting

agroforestry trees.


Species Height Survival Phenological attributes(cm) (%) Growth Leafing Leaf Seed Period of Agroforestry traits

form Period drop maturation canopyperiod period closure

NON-NITROGEN-FIXING

Bauhinia variegata 143.7 + 7.1 62 D summer summer summer July–Feb deep rooted, enduresheavy lopping stress

Celtis australis 75.9 + 5.9 70 D spring autumn autumn June–Nov sparse crown

Grewia optiva 63.9 + 3.9 77 SE summer summer autumn June–Feb endures heavy loppingstress, short stature

Melia azedarach 66.8 + 5.9 65 D spring winter winter July–Nov sparse crown

Prunus cerasoides 167.8 + 10.9 36 SE autumn autumn winter Dec–Aug sparse crown,short stature

Quercus leucotrichophora 115.7 + 8.1 25 E summer summer winter June–Mar deep rooted

NITROGEN-FIXING

Albizia stipulata 3.9 + 5.6 51 D summer winter winter June–Oct sparse crown

Alnus nepalensis 262.3 + 15.0 26 D spring winter autumn May–Nov sparse crown,fast growing

Dalbergia sissoo 134.0 + 9.8 69 D summer winter winter June–Dec sparse crown,fast growing

Ougeinia dalbergiodes 60.0 + 3.3 66 D summer spring summer June–Jan short stature

Average non-NFT 107.4 + 15.2 56.1 + 7.1

Average NFT 137.6 + 44.2 53.0 + 9.8

D = deciduous, SE = semi-evergreen, E = evergreen

Table 2. Growth and survival and phenological records of the agroforestry trees and shrubs

Species Main use Minor Crude Season of Proportion Proportionuse protein major use in local planted by

content(%) vegetation (%) people (%)

NON-NITROGEN-FIXING

Bauhinia variegata FD, FR AG, F 18.1 winter 0.9 1.0Celtis australis FD, FR AG 8.2 summer 6.1 1.9Grewia optiva FD, FR F 26.1 winter 24.2 4.5Melia azedarach MT, FR FD 18.4 rainy 1.1 1.8Prunus cerasoides SC, S FR, FD 19.2 year-round 5.6 0.0Quercus leucotrichophora FD, FR, SC AG 18.1 year-round 4.2 12.3NITROGEN-FIXING

Albizia stipulata FR FD 15.0 summer 0.0 12.5Alnus nepalensis SC FR, FD 12.6 year-round 0.0 2.5Dalbergia sissoo T FD 9.1 summer 0.0 62.9Ougeinia dalbergioides FD, AG MT, M 18.2 summer 0.0 0.7

FD = fodder, FR = firewood, MT = minor timber, SC = soil and water conservation, S = sacred, T = timber, AG = agriculturalimplements, F = fibre, M = medicine

Table 1. Agroforestry trees and shrubs, their uses and use period, proportion in native vegetation, and people’s preference inprivate plantations


(Negi 1994). Similarly, Quercusleucotrichophora, although its sur-vival rate was low and its growthslow, is greatly valued as it providesquality fuelwood, leaves for manureand fodder during lean months, andis also a key species for soil and wa-ter conservation. On average, heightgrowth of nitrogen-fixing trees andshrubs (NFTS) was higher than of thenon-NFTS. Survival rate, however,was almost the same.

One cannot recommend a set ofMPTS based merely upon growthand survival records. People rightlyattach a number of other values toeach species. For example, the tim-ber value of Dalbergia sissoo ishigh, Melia azederach suits minortimber needs, flower buds ofBauhinia variegata are used as avegetable, Ougeinia dalbergioides isbest for agricultural implements,and Prunus cerasoides is a sacredspecies. All these species can alsoprovide green fodder year-round(Nautiyal and others 1987).

However, to green the wastelandsrapidly and to reduce soil erosion, itis pertinent to plant AFTS species thatwill upgrade soil fertility through ni-trogen fixation and litter quality(Maikhuri and others 1997). Our ex-perimental plot served as a demon-stration unit, from which local peoplepicked out the species of their choiceand gained know-how on how to cul-tivate them. On about 3.3 hectares ofland, they planted 1837 seedlings ofnine species. About 63 percent of thepeople preferred D. sissoo; nextchoices were Albizia stipulata (12.5percent) and Q. leucotrichophora(12.3 percent). As the other species(Table 1) already grew in their sur-roundings, villagers were less inter-ested in cultivating them.

People have already domesti-cated the AFTS examined here thatare suitable for revegetating de-graded lands. They use them to meeta variety of needs, from fodder to fi-bre and fertilizer (Nautiyal and Negi1994). Some are short in stature andhave a sparse crown, permittingabundant sunlight to filter through to

the agricultural crops, hence affect-ing crop yield only marginally.Canopy closure and active growth inmost of them occur during rainy sea-son (Table 2). In some, leaf drop co-incides with germination and growthof winter crops.

As the trees complete their leaf-ing, flowering and fruiting duringsummer (the fallow period of thecrop fields), they stagger the de-mand for nutrients and moisturefrom soil and least affect the devel-opment of rainy season crops.Some endure high lopping stressand have a deep root system, com-peting very little with food crops forwater and nutrients.

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

It is apparent that the benefits har-vested from the AFTS are many. Inthis region, where 85 percent of theagriculture is rainfed and crop culti-vation is practised on tiny terracescarved out of hill slopes, growingAFTS on degraded lands and foodcrops under their canopy helps en-sure a year-round supply of variousresources for the subsistence livingof the people and helps deteriorat-ing mountain ecosystems recover.

Before we recommend theseagroforestry species as suitable for acrop mix in this region, however,we need studies on their nutrientdemands, soil-ameliorating proper-ties, allelopathic effects, nurseryand plantation technology, and theeffect of lopping and silviculturaloperations on their growth.

References

Maikhuri RK, Semwal RL, Rao KS,Saxena KG. 1997. Agroforestry forrehabilitation of degradedcommunity lands: a case study inthe Garhwal Himalaya. InternationalTree Crops Journal 9:89–99.

Nautiyal AR, Thapliyal P, Purohit AN.1987. A model for round the yearsupply of green fodder in the hills.In: Pangtey YPS and Joshi SC, eds.,Western Himalaya (environment,

problems and development), vol. 2.Nainital, India: GyanodayaPrakashan. p 725–731.

Nautiyal AR, Negi GCS. 1994.Multipurpose tree species withpotential for introduction in theHimalayan mountains. In: Singh P,Pathak PS, Roy MM, eds. Agro-forestry system for degraded lands.New Delhi, India: Oxford and IBHPublishing. p 269–278.

Negi GCS. 1994. Phenology, leaf andtwig growth pattern and leafnitrogen dynamics of somemultipurpose tree species ofHimalaya: implication towardsagroforestry practice. Journal ofSustainable Agriculture 6(4):43–60.

Negi GCS. 1995. Agroforestry system inCentral Himalayan mountains ofIndia: a commentary. HimalayanParyavaran 3(1):12–17.

Negi GCS, Joshi V. 1997. Land use in aHimalayan catchment under stress:system responses. Ambio 26(2):126–128.

Ralhan PK, Negi GCS, Singh SP. 1991.Structure and function of theagroforestry system in thePithoragarh District of CentralHimalaya: an ecological viewpoint.Agriculture, Ecosystem andEnvironment 35:282–296.

Ramakrishnan PS, Rao KS, Kothyari BP,Maikhuri RK, Saxena KG. 1992.Deforestation in Himalaya: Causes,consequences and restoration. In:Singh JS, ed., Restoration ofdegraded land: concepts andstrategies. Meerut, India: RastogiPublication, Meerut. p 271–289.

Sharma E. Ambasht RS. 1988. Nitrogenaccretion and its energetics inHimalayan alder plantations.Functional Ecology 2:229–235.

Singh SP, Singh JS. 1991. Analyticalconceptual plan to reforest CentralHimalaya for sustainable development.Environmental Management15:369–379.

Drs Girish CS Negi and Varun Joshiwork with the Land and WaterResource Management Division ofGovind Ballabh Pant Institute ofHimalayan Environment andDevelopment, Garhwal Unit, PO Box92, Srinagar-Garhwal (UP), 246 174India; email: [email protected];fax: +91 1388 2424.


In the recent past, agroforestry as aland-use practice has gained mo-mentum, but information availableon the changing pest status underagroforestry systems is scarce. It hasbeen suggested that the pest prob-lem under agroforestry would de-cline based on some extensive re-views of the arthropod diversity un-der diversified agroecosystems.(Root, 1973; Risch et al., 1983;Andow, 1991).

These studies are based on theheterogeneity in agricultural cropspecies. Some reports have also

been made on the moderating ef-fect of species diversity on the peststatus of trees. A mixed plantationof Chlorophora excelsa andMaesopsis eminii (Engl.) had re-duced infestation of the gall bug,Phytolyma lata (Mchowa andNyugi, 1994, quoting Schaefer andSiva, 1990). Presence of weed spe-cies in orchards was found to in-crease vertebrate and invertebratenatural enemy activity thereby re-ducing pest population levels.(Chakravarty et al., 1986; Dix et al.,1996). Vegetational diversity does

not always result in reduced pestpopulations.

When the tree and crop compo-nent shares one or more key pests,the pest interaction is of the primarytype. Selection of tree-crop speciesshould be made with caution toavoid such interactions. The insectunder this study, Mylabris pustulataor the banded blister beetle, is apolyphagous flower beetle feedingon the flowers, pollen and some-times on leaves of a number ofplant species. It feeds on flowers ofmany agricultural crops, mainlypulses (Hill, 1987), ornamental andmedicinal plants (Murugesan et al.,1997) and a few forest trees(Sivaramakrishnan, 1984). It is dis-tributed in Africa, India,Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and South-east Asia.

In northern India this beetlemakes its appearance at the begin-ning of July, soon after the arrivalof monsoon showers and contin-ues to remain in the field till Octo-ber. During this period a numberof trees and crops flower in syn-chronization. At Jhansi, we ob-served the host range of M.pustulata, its seasonal distributionand the extent of its damage underagroforestry.

Jhansi, situated at 25∞27' N lati-tude and 78∞35' E longitude, has

Feeding diversity of blister beetle and extent ofdamage it does under agroforestry systems

Chitra Shanker and K.R. Solanki

Plate 1. Blister beetle feeding on greengram inflorescence


unimodal rainfall with an annualrange of 800-1000 mm in 53 rainydays. The rainy months are July toSeptember. Two predominant crop-ping seasons exist – Kharif (July toOctober) and Rabi (November toFebruary). The most preferred cropsduring Kharif, especially underrainfed situations, are pulses suchas green and black gram. Morethan 25 multipurpose tree speciesgrown with and without crops wereobserved for blister beetle damage.The ornamental plants grownaround the farm, and weeds associ-ated with the field, were also ob-served.

Host range of Mylabrispustulata

The tree/plant species mentionedabove were closely scrutinized forfeeding by beetles from June to Oc-tober. The preference rank was cal-culated from the number of beetlesfeeding on a host (sum of 25 inflo-rescences) during the peak activeperiod (August). The blister beetlewas found feeding on the flowers ofseven tree hosts, all the pulse crops,cucurbits, okra, a few ornamentalsbelonging to three families, andthree weed species (Table 1). Thetrees and crops belonging to the su-per family Leguminosae were mostattractive to the beetles. Among trees

A. tortilis was the most preferredwith 6–8 beetles clinging to a singleflowering branch of 30 cm length.

Murugesan (1988) reports thataccumulation of flavonols, auronesand carotenoids in sufficientamounts in the flowers are more at-tractive to the beetles while lowerconcentrations reduce its palatabil-ity. The flowers need to be exam-ined in this light.

D. cinerea flowers are an at-tractive pink and A. nilotica flow-ers a bright yellow. Yet the whiteflowering A. tortilis and L.luecocephala are more attractive tothe beetles.

Name of Host Family Preference rankon a 1 - 5 scale

TreesAcacia tortilis Leguminosae 5A. catechu Leguminosae 1A. luecophloea Leguminosae 1A. nilotica Leguminosae 1Dichrostachys cinerea Leguminosae 3Leucaena luecocephala Leguminosae 3Pongamia glabra Leguminosae 3

CropsVigna radiata Leguminosae 5V. mungo Leguminosae 5V. unguiculata Leguminosae 5Cucurbitaceous vegetables Cucurbitaceae 5

OthersOrnamentals Malvaceae, Fabaceae, Compositae 4 - 5Cleome gynandra (weed) 2Tridax procumbens (weed) Compositae 2Ipomea sp. (weed) Convolvulaceae 3

Table 1. Host range of blister beetle on tree/plant species associated withagroforestry

Abundance of beetles underagroforestry

The research trials of NRCAF forthe evaluation of various tree spe-cies under agroforestry were ob-served for abundance of beetles.All trees were planted deliberatelyfor research purposes underagrisilvicultural and agrihorti-cultural systems within the agricul-tural field, except for A. tortilis,which was a border plantation.The beetles were visually countedon the crop in a 1 m2 quadrant se-lected randomly to cover the en-tire field.

The abundance of beetles onthe pulse crops V. mungo and V.radiata grown under differentagroforestry tree species —Zizyphus mauritiana, Emblicaofficinalis, Dendrocalamus strictus,Anogeissus pendula, Hardwickiabinata, A. tortilis, Albizia procera,Tectona grandis — was studied.The maximum number of beetles

was found on the crop of greengram grown with A. tortilis followedby black gram grown with the sametree species (Table 2).

The total beetle population in-creased five times on the greengram crop adjoining border planta-tions of A. tortilis when comparedto the area away from the tree bor-der. (Fig 1). The average beetlecount at 1-4 m from tree base was15, while at 5-9 m it was 5 and at10-14 m it was 2. During the kharifseason of 1998 the beetle popula-tion was so high that the crop wastotally devastated by the beetles.The inflorescence was eaten awayby the beetle, leaving behind thespikes. (Plate 1).

In general, the beetles weremore abundant when the tree andcrop combinations belonged to thesame botanical family viz.,Leguminosae. Singh, 1995, has al-luded to the possibility of such in-teractions when the tree-crop com-binations under agroforestry belong


System MeanTree Crop Spacing beetles/ m2

Zizyphus mauritiana Vigna mungo 10 x 6 m 5.0Emblica officinalis V. mungo 10 x 6 m 5.1Dendrocalamus strictus V. mungo 8 x 8 m 4.6Anogeissus pendula V. mungo 6 x 8 m 2.0Azadirachta indica V. mungo 5 x 8 m 3.3Hardwickia binata V. mungo 6 x 8 m 3.5Acacia tortilis V. mungo 5 m 12.0A. tortilis V. radiata 5 m 15.4Albizia procera V. mungo 5 x 5 m 3.2Tectona grandis V. mungo 5 x 5 m 2.0Only crop V. mungo 3.3Only crop V. radiata 4.2

Table 2. Abundance of blister beetle under different agroforestry systems

Hill DS. 1987. Agricultural insect pestsof the tropics and their control. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Mchowa JN, Nyugi DN. 1994. Pestcomplex in agroforestry systems: theMalawi experience. Forest Ecologyand Management, 64:277–284.

Murugesan S. 1988. Some biochemicalcorrelates in relation to thequantitative food utilisation andreproduction in two species ofMeloids (Coleoptera: Meloidae).Proc. Indian Natn. Sci. Acad. B54(2&3):155–160.

Murugesan S, Shivesh Kumar,Sundararaj R, S. Kumar. 1997.Blister beetles as a threat tomedicinal/ ornamental plants of aridand semi arid regions. IndianForester 123(4):341–344.

Risch SJ, Andow D, Altieri MA. 1983.Agro-ecosystem diversity and pestcontrol: data, tentative conclusionsand new research directions.Environmental Entomology12(3):625–629.

Root RB. 1973. Organisation of aplant–arthropod association insimple and diverse habitats: thefauna of collards (Brassicaoleracea). Ecological Monographs43:95–124.

Schaefer C, Siva ZV. 1990.Recommendations for thecollection, processing and storage ofChlorophora excelsa seed. TechnicalNote No. 13. Muguga, Kenya:Kenya Forestry Research Institute.

Singh Rathore MP. 1995. Insect pests inagroforestry. Working Paper No. 70.Nairobi: ICRAF.

Sivaramakrishnan VR. 1984. Mylabrispustulata (Coleoptera: Meloidae) anew pest record on sandal. IndianForester 10 (12):1201–1202.

Chitra Shanker is an entomologist atthe National Research Centre forAgroforestery (NRCAF), Pahuj Dam,Gwalior Road, Jhansi-284003, UP,India. K.R. Solanki is the director ofNRCAF.

to the same botanical taxa. It iswith caution that such combina-tions should be recommended foragroforestry. If recommended, avigilant monitoring should be un-dertaken for possible outbreaksthrough primary interactions.

References

Andow DA. 1991.Vegetational diversityand arthropod population response.Ann. Rev. Ent., 36:561–586.

Chakravarty AK, Natrajan SP,Pattanshetti HV. 1986. Effect ofEucalyptus on birds: a field surveyin Malnad. Tiger Paper 13(3):8–11.

Figure 1. Blister beetle distribution onv.radiata in relation to tree border

Locations

Distance from tree border

10–14 mts�� 5–9 mts�� 1–4 mts

Num

ber

of b

eetle

s


Jumping cholla (Opuntia exaltata) isa naturalized cactus found inKenya, but is originally from Bo-livia, Peru and Ecuador in SouthAmerica, where it grows between2600–3700 metres above sea level.The stems are approximately 2–5metres high with a definite trunk.The joints are fleshy and are easilydetached, and the fleshy leaves areabout 1–7 cm long. The long, sharpspines are 1–5 in number and canbe 5–13 cm long, and the flowersare brick red with green unpalatablefruit usually containing sterile seeds(Britton & Rose, 1963). Cholla was

Jumping cholla—the ornamental that became a wildlife and livestock barrier

Pritpal Soorae

Cholla fences can form suitable livebarriers in arid to semi-arid areaswhere physical fences (e.g. electricfences) may be too expensive andother types of live fences (e.g. keiapple and Mauritius thorn) unsuitable.

originally planted as an ornamentalbut its use as an effective barrierhas subsequently been recognized.It only propagates via vegetative re-production and is not a prolific pestlike the prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) that has a palatable fruit andfertile seeds.

Use as a live barrier

This cactus is extensively used as alive fence in the Nakuru andLaikipia districts of Kenya, whichlie at an altitude of between 1800–2000 metres and receive an annual

rainfall of between 400–800 mm/yr.The use of cholla as a wildlife andlivestock barrier was investigated inthese two districts (Soorae, 1994).

It is used as a live barrier againstwildlife and livestock, a securitybarrier against human intrusion,


a firebreak (the juicy stems stoppeda bush fire from entering a ranch),and for protecting earthen damwalls from destruction by el-ephants. It was also found to be ef-fective against wildlife species suchas antelopes and gazelles, baboons,bush pigs, warthogs, buffalo, zebra,giraffes, and hippo. A cholla fenceis opaque so a lot of wildlife spe-cies will hesitate to jump over afence they cannot see through.Since cholla stems are easily de-tachable, they fall and litter thebase of the fence and, with theirlong spines, act as a further deter-rent to animals approaching orchallenging the fence. A survey inthe two districts showed that 27.5%of the inhabitants thought thatcholla was an excellent barrier,62.5% a good barrier and only 10%a poor barrier.

Methods of planting andgrowth rates

The three main methods of plantingcholla fences are by (a) laying stemsflat on the ground, (b) digging asmall furrow and placing the stemsin this and partially covering withsoil, and (c) planting each stem ver-tically. The most successful methodof planting was the furrow method,as the soil covering allowed roots todevelop and avoided desiccationduring the early stages of growth.The vertical planting method wasconsidered too labour intensive anddangerous, due to the necessity ofhandling stems with such sharpspines. An experimental fence

planted in Naivasha, Nakuru Dis-trict in January 1993 attained aheight of 0.73 m by May 1993 and1.63 m by August 1995.

Problems associated withcholla fences

Invasiveness

Opuntia species such as the pricklypear are known for their invasivepotential. A cholla fence becomesinvasive only by gradual wideningsince its seeds are sterile, andspreads by dropping its stems,which take root and give rise to anew plant. A fence planted inNaivasha, Nakuru District, Kenya in

Table 1 Growth of cactus compared to soil depth and depth of concretions

Growth Height of Soil depth Depth ofcactus (m) (cm) concretions (cm)

Good – medium 1.6–2.5 63–100 37–70 (non-coherent)

Poor 1.0–1.1 67 21

Very poor 0.45–0.89 3–17 Over hard rock

the 1960s is now approximately 7.5m wide, widening at a rate of ap-proximately 0.3 m/year.

Invasiveness can be easily man-aged by pruning a fence annuallyand disposing of excess cuttings ina pit where they can be burnedwith other farm wastes. Smallerfences can be trimmed manually byusing machetes or grass slashers.Larger ranches sometimes use bull-dozers to push any newly fallenjoints or stems, or new growth, intothe base of the fence. This methodalso has the advantage of creating athicker growth at the base. It alsocompacts the soil on either side ofthe fence, which prevents thespread of new growth.

Slow growth and gaps in the fence:

Slow growth, gaps in the fence andpoor growth are mainly caused bysoil compaction and poor moistureretention. Soil analysis (chemicaland physical), nutrient analysis andsoil water retention studies wereconducted along fences wheregrowth was good, marginal andpoor. The factors causing poorgrowth were (a) shallow soil depth,(b) high soil compaction, and (c)poor moisture retention capacity ofthe soil. The levels of major nutri-ents were not found to be signifi-cantly different in the three growthzones and growth differences werefound to be mainly affected by thephysical status of the soil as shownin Table 1.

Another observation was thatmedium shade helps the fence togrow faster and at a higher growthrate. It was found that the shade un-der the savanna tree Maeruatriphylla actually promoted a fastergrowth, resulting in a barrier withgood width and height. The shadeprovided by the yellow fever treeAcacia xanthopholea is muchdeeper and results in a poorergrowth. The soil under these sa-vanna trees was found to containmoisture for longer periods and hada deeper layer of leaf litter debris.

Invasiveness can be easily

managed by pruning a fence

annually and disposing of excess

cuttings in a pit where they can

be burned with other farm

wastes. Smaller fences can be

trimmed manually by using

machetes or grass slashers.

Larger ranches sometimes use

bulldozers to push any newly

fallen joints or stems, or new

growth, into the base of the

fence.


Establishing a cholla fence

1) Planning stage

a) What specific use is the barrierbeing planted for?• To protect crops?• As a wildlife / livestock bar-

rier?• As a firebreak barrier?• To protect dam walls from

erosion by wildlife?b) If cholla is being used as a wild-

life barrier:• What species of wildlife will

cholla be used against?• Is the barrier function going to

be year-round or on a seasonalbasis?

• There might be a need for a tem-porary barrier – what choices areavailable?

• Jumping species of wildlife canbe easily deterred by plantingcholla in a wide-strip approxi-mately 3–4 metres wide.

c) The intended fence may bealong a common boundary andso there must be a consensusamongst neighbours. During thisstudy a fence that had beenplanted on a ranch in LaikipiaDistrict, Kenya was continuouslyuprooted because of a boundarydispute.

d) Natural barriers such as escarp-ments and rivers can be used inconjunction as they reduce cost.

2) Harvesting

a) A suitable site should be locatedwhere cholla exists and can beharvested to provide plantingmaterial.

b) In places where such barriers areto be planted nurseries can beestablished.

c) Harvesting should be done byusing grass slashers and ma-chetes to cut the joints of themain stem. These should beraked into piles and loaded ontoa cart or vehicle for transporting.

3) Planting

a) This should be done during thedry season as fungal infectionscan cause major losses of cut-tings. Over 80% of an experi-mental plot during this study waslost to fungal infections due tounseasonal rain during the plant-ing stage.

b) The main cause of poor fencedevelopment is mainly due tosoil and climatic conditions.• Soil auger samples should be

taken along the intendedfence line to determine thesoil’s physical structure. Ide-ally the soil depth should notbe less then 75 cm and with-out the presence of gravel orcompacted layers.

• The main reason for patchygrowth is due to varying soilconditions, failure of somestems to grow and presenceof trails or paths passingthrough a fence line.

• A trench, about 1 m deep by1 m wide, should be dugalong an intended fence line.The soil, or other type if theexisting soil is unsuitable,should be returned with alter-nating layers of soil and or-ganic wastes mixed with ma-nure. This results in a soilwith an improved structureand which acts as a sponge toretain moisture. In arid areasthe area surrounding thetrench should be gently slop-ing towards the trench to actas a microcatchment andchannel rainfall into thetrench.

• The cuttings should then begently laid on the surface ofthis trench and partially cov-ered with soil.

4) Post-planting management

• After planting, some controlshould be kept over weeds and

grasses, which can smother thecholla cuttings.

• During the first two years, extracholla cuttings should be addedin places where stems havefailed to take root as this pre-vents gaps forming. In difficultareas where growth is not pos-sible the gaps can be closed withposts and wire.

• The fence should also be prunedonce a year and excess cuttingsdisposed by burning.

• Baboons are notorious for feed-ing off the stems of cholla joints.Therefore newly planted fencesshould be covered with thornybushes.

References

Britton NL, Rose JN. 1963. TheCactaceae: Descriptions andillustrations of plants of the cactusfamily. Vol. I & II. New York: DoverPublications Inc.

Soorae PS. 1994. The biology and useof the cactus Opuntia exaltata as agame defence barrier. UnpublishedMSc. Thesis, Dept. of Zoology,University of Nairobi.

Pritpal Soorae is a scientist with theEnvironmental Research and WildlifeDevelopment Agency, Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates.


Gum Arabic—Acacia senegal (L.)Willd.—is a small, thorny, decidu-ous tree native to North Africa. Adrought-hardy species, suitable fordry tropics, it tolerates temperaturesas high as 48oC and long periods ofdrought up to 11 months per year. Itthrives from sea level to an eleva-tion of 1700 m. It grows well inrocky deserts and hills, on dry sandflats and in clayey soil, but cannottolerate waterlogging. The wood isused to make poles and agriculturalimplements and for firewood. Thegum is obtained from the bark ofthe trunk. The seedpods are used asfodder for goats and sheep. The treeis also used in desertification con-trol to re-establish vegetation in de-graded areas, for sand dune fixationand wind erosion control (Vimal,1986).

Gum Arabic is multiplied byseeds. However, seed germinationis poor under normal conditions(14%). To see if it could be im-proved, a study was undertaken atthe National Pulses Research Cen-tre (NPRC), Vamban, India in 1998to investigate better methods of ger-minating A. senegal seeds.

Materials and methods

The NPRC is situated at 8∞N lati-tude at an elevation of 121m. It re-ceives an annual rainfall of 1233mm in 68 rainy days. The soil typeis red loam with pH 5.0, availableN 78.4, available P2O5 12.6 andavailable K2O 60 kg ha–1. Croppingis possible only for 3-4 months dur-ing September-December and that,too, is dictated by monsoonal rains.

Pure seeds of A. senegal selectedfor the study were treated as fol-lows: cold water soaking for 12 hrsand 24 hrs, then soaking the seedsin 80oC hot water for 10 minutes,followed by treating them in 20 Nsulphuric acid for 10 minutes and20 minutes, then treating the seedswith cow dung extract for 12 hrsand, finally, an untreated control.After these treatments, the seedswere thoroughly washed and sownin pots filled with red soil, sand andcompost at a ratio of 1:1:1. The potswere irrigated as and when neces-sary.

The dates of germination andgrowth parameters were measuredfrom Day 5 onwards, the germina-tion count was recorded daily, anda final stand count was recorded30 days after sowing. Five plantsfrom each treatment were selectedrandomly in each replication forbiometric observations. They wereuprooted without snapping theroots and root and shoot lengths(cm) were measured. Root and

shoot dry matter production was re-corded after drying to a constantweight in an oven at 70∞C for 48hrs on the 90th day after sowing.

Results and discussion

Germination:

The results of the experiments(Table 1) show that there was sig-nificant difference among the treat-ments for germination. Thesulphuric acid treatment for 20minutes (T1) registered the highestgermination of 98 %, followed bythe sulphuric acid treatment for 10minutes (T4) with 96 %, whereasthe untreated seeds registered only14 %. Improvement of seeds germi-nation under sulphuric acid treat-ment might be due to softening ofthe hard seed coat and helping theseeds to germinate by breaking theseed dormancy. A similar observa-tion with commercial sulphuricacid treatment for the improvement

Presowing treatment with acid strongly influencesgermination and seedling growth of gum Arabic

R. Marimuthu, R. Swarnapriya, K. Vairavan and C.V. Dhanakodi

Gum Arabic—Acaciasenegal (L.) Willd.—isa small, thorny,deciduous tree nativeto North Africa.


of seed germination was reportedby Shaybany and Roughani (1976)in Acacia cyanophylla, Subburamuand Sridhar (1977) in Phaseolusmungo, Kumari and Kohli (1984) inCassia occidentalis, Sheikh (1988)and Masilamani and Vadivelu(1997) in Prosopis juliflora (honeymesquite).

Seedling growth:

The seedling growth of A. Senegalrevealed that the root length was amaximum 19.95 cm in sulphuricacid treatment (T5). The lowest(11.58 cm) was recorded in the un-treated control (T7). Similarly theshoot length was significantly influ-enced by sulphuric acid treatment.Sulphuric acid softens the hard seedcoat and breaks the dormancy,which helps the early emergence ofseedlings and produces more seed-ling growth. The maximum shootlength of 26.6 cm was recorded inpots treated with sulphuric acid (T5)and the minimum in untreated con-trol (13.21).

Dry-matter production:

The DMP was significantly influ-enced by different seed treatments.The maximum root weight (1.24g)was observed in the treatment with

Treatment Germination (%) Root Shoot Dry root Dry shootlength (cm) length (cm) weight/seedling (g) weight/ seedling (g)

T1 18.0 (10.2) 18.07 18.95 0.81 1.96

T2 12.0 (7.0) 14.97 ** 19.15 0.71 1.88 **

T3 8.0 (4.7) 16.43 ** 18.63 0.89 2.07

T4 96.0 ** (73.0) 18.06 21.44 1.07 ** 2.25 **

T5 98.0 ** (79.0) 19.95 26.60 ** 1.24 ** 2.33

T6 12.0 (7.0) 16.68 13.63 0.66 1.57

T7 14.0 (8.0) 11.56 13.21 0.67 1.64

Cd 0.05 0.74 1.26 2.96 0.09 0.12

Cd 0.01 1.04 1.77 4.15 0.13 0.17

Figures given in parentheses are the transformed values.

sulphuric acid for 20 minutes (T5)followed by sulphuric acid treat-ment for 10 minutes (T4). The shootweight (2.33g) was also higher aftersulphuric acid treatment for 20minutes (T5) followed by the 10-minute treatment (T4) (2.25 g) andat par with each other (T4 & T5).

The higher value of root, shootlength, root and shoot dry weightexhibited by the seedlings withsulphuric acid treatment for 20minutes (T5), followed by the samesulphuric acid treatment for 10minutes (T4) might be due to thesoftening of the hard seed coat andearly emergence of seedlings whichmight have resulted in early com-mencement of growth.

It could be inferred from thestudy that seeds of A. senegaltreated with sulphuric acid for 20minutes before sowing induced thegermination and enhanced the rootand shoot growth. Hence, we caninfer that the sulphuric acid treat-ment can be effectively used in A.senegal for inducing germination.

References:

Kumari A, Kohli RK. 1984. Studies ondormancy and macromoleculardrifts during germination in Cassiaoccidentalis. L.†Seeds. J. Tree Sci,provide full name 3:111–125

Table 1. Effect of seed treatment on germination and growth of Acacia senegal seedlings

Masilamani P, Vadivelu KK. 1997. Effectof seed extraction methods on

germination and vigour of honeymesquite. Madras AgriculturalJournal 84(8):512–514.

Shaybany B, Roughani I. 1976. Effect ofpresowing treatment andtemperature on seed germination ofAcacia cyanophylla Lindl.Horticultural Science 11:381–383

Sheikh MI. 1988. Straight trees ofProsopis juliflora (mesquite) fordesert afforestation. Pakistan Journalof Forestry 38:119–120.

Subburamu K, Sridhar K. 1977.Pretreatment studies on blackgram(Phaseolus mungo) to improvegermination. Seed Research 5:177–179.

Vimal OP, Tyagi PD. 1986. Fuelwoodfrom wastelands. New Delhi: YatanPublications.

R Marimuthu, R Swarnapriya, KVairavan and CV Dhanakodi arescientists at the National PulsesResearch Centre, Vamban Colony PO622 303 Pudukottai District, TamilNadu, India


Camels as candidates foragrisilvopastoralism

Many pastoralists in northern Kenyaregard the camel as their favouriteanimal, says Omar Bulle Mohamedof the Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development in Mandera,Kenya. Why? Because camels havean exceptional tolerance to heat,they can go without food and waterin that arid region for many days,they can still produce significantamounts of milk during extremedrought conditions, and they havethe ability to walk fast—80 km in aday—at the same time carryingheavy loads of up to 300 kg.

Although there is an estimatedcamel population of nearly 800,000in northern Kenya alone, the spe-cies has not been seriously consid-ered for modern husbandry prac-tices or to gauge its production po-tential under agrisilvopastoralism.Yet it could contribute to food secu-rity and poverty alleviation, thinksMr. Mohammed.

He says that in Mandera only afew progressive farmers keep cam-els on their farms along the sea-sonal River Dana. They comfortablyfeed on finger euphorbia (Euphor-bia triculli), planted as a live fence,which increases milk productionand weight gain. Saltlick supple-ments are minimally required.Salvadora persica trees left alongboundary lines for demarcation pur-poses on adjacent farms, andgrasses and herbs within the farm-ing units form the principle diet.

In the evening during milking,leguminous bean fodder, a highprotein source, is given as a feedsupplement. Animals reared under

News and Notes from around the world

this practice produce relativelymore milk compared to thosereared on rangeland. The few treesthat are palatable to the camel areeasily pruned, making the camel anefficient ‘bush control’ animal.

Mr. Mohammed feels that if thecamel is experimented with in zero-grazing units – with the benefits ofresearch, veterinary services, andaccess to artificial insemination andbreeding facilities, and if there wasprofessional marketing of camelmeat and by-products – the ani-mals can contribute significantly toenhancing food security duringcritical hunger periods, and allevi-ating poverty.

“The major constraint affectingriverine camel production inagrisilvopastoralism practices is theprevalent camel disease, trypanoso-miasis, caused by Trypanosomaevansi and transmitted by numer-

ous biting flies,” cautions Mr.Mohammed. “However, the pro-phylactic and curative camel drug,Triquine, is commonly used to treatinfected animals, though availabil-ity is sometimes a problem with thefew veterinary chemists in thearea.”

Biological weed control ofImperata cylindrical

Papa Dagomba is a settled farmer atGomoa Ojobi in the Central Regionof Ghana, about 38 km from Accra,the capital city. Farming is themainstay of the inhabitants andland scarcity, poor soil fertility andweed infestation are the main con-straints to food production. AlbertKojo Quainoo of the University forDevelopment Studies in Tamale,Ghana first met Papa Dagomba in

Camels can contribute to enhancing food security during critical hunger periods



1988 when he was a student. At thattime, Papa Dagomba’s farm couldsustain his family of five throughoutthe year.

Many years later, the story wasdifferent. “Speargrass has colonizedmy farm,” said Papa Dogomba. “Ido not know what to do, I have noland to cultivate.” Mr. Quianoo ad-vised Papa to put his field under le-guminous shrub fallow for twoyears. Neighbours laughed when hedid so. But today the laughter hasdied as they see him harvestinggrain and selling it to a ready mar-ket in Accra.

Speargrass (Imperata cylindrical)is a stubborn weed that is very diffi-cult to control once established in afield. It has grassy leaves, the youngshoots being sharply pointed whilethe full-grown leaves are like spearblades with two sharp edges. It isthe most common weed in GomoaOjobi and the surrounding area anda threat to agricultural productivity.Farmers often abandon their fieldswhen they become infested, reportsMr. Quainoo.

Pigeonpea, (Cajanus cajan), afast-growing leguminous shrub, hasbeen found to effectively controlimperata. Seeded in the soil at thetime of land preparation, pigeonpeaovershadows the speargrass, render-ing it ineffective. For more effectivecontrol, planting for two years isrecommended. Papa Dagomba saidthat using this system ‘‘almostdoubled my maize yields withoutapplying any inorganic fertilizer af-ter two years of fallowing.’’

Besides controlling imperata,says Mr. Quianoo, pigeonpea alsoimproves the soil with abundantleaf litter. The extensive root system

ensures that nutrients are recycledto the soil for plant use, and the for-mation of nodules helps fix atmo-spheric nitrogen. The grain is edibleand features prominently in the di-ets of the people of northernGhana. Extra grain is sold in themarkets to improve family incomes.

“Following Papa Dagomba’s suc-cess, the abandoned fields are nowunder Cajanus cajan fallow,” con-cludes Mr. Quainoo. “The waragainst the stubborn Imperatacylindrica has been won, fields re-gained, and soil fertility improved,resulting in bumper harvests with-out the use of expensive herbicidesto remove the grass, and costly fer-tilizers to increase crop production.The technology means lower costs,better yield and an environmentallysafe and friendly practice of con-trolling weeds”.

Wodesa – a promisingindigenous tree species inEthiopia

Western Oromia, Ethiopia, is wellendowed with many indigenoustree and shrub species, but manyare suffering from severe exploita-tion. Of these, wodesa (Cordiaafricana Lam.) is the most importanteconomically, but is becoming ahighly endangered species, reportsAbbebe Yadessa from Bako inOromia, Ethiopia. The tree is so im-portant that places, hotels and busi-ness firms are named after it.

The tree is widespread in Africa asshown by its many local names:wodesa (Oromo), Sudan teak (En-glish), wanza (Amharic), gambil (Ara-bic), and miringaringa (Kiswahili). InEthiopia, the species is found in the

Pigeonpea,(Cajanus cajan),a fast-growingleguminous shrubthat effectivelycontrols imperata


northwest and southwest, at altitudesranging from 550 to 2600 m, withmean annual rainfall from 700 to2000 mm. The species is a forest rem-nant in cultivated areas.

Mr. Yadessa describes wodesa asa branched deciduous tree, fromless than 9 m to 25 m in height. Thetrees are usually found growing sin-gly, a desirable characteristic mak-ing them suitable as scattered treeson cultivated fields, grazing areas,and farm boundaries. Their goodcoppicing ability is an added ad-vantage.

The leaves of wodesa trees arecovered with soft, light brown hairs,which help the trees trap dust, andother particles created during culti-vation and wind erosion, and whichare eventually returned back to thesoil system through precipitation.The tree has beautiful white flowersthat are sweet-scented, attractingbees. Beehives are often hung on thetrees for local honey production. Themoney earned from the sale of lo-cally produced honey is consider-able in this area. The mature fruithas a sticky, sweet inner flesh, whichis eaten by people and animals. Inrural areas it is a favourite snack forboth herdsmen, who spend longhours outdoors, and schoolchildren,who often travel long distances toreach home.

“Almost every part of the treehas a use,” says Mr. Yadessa. “It is agood source of firewood, lumber,medicine, animal feed, and helpsimprove soil. When coppiced dur-ing the dry season, wodesa pro-vides cattle fodder containing about12-25% crude protein. It also en-riches the soil, because its leavesdecompose quite readily, and it

provides valuable timber for homeuse or for sale.

Western Oromia is noted for itsmanufacture of high-quality furni-ture and household materials madefrom wodesa trees. The wood ishard (544 kg/m3) and durable, thususeful for making house furniture,beds, mortars, boxes, cupboards,shelves, doors and windows. Theincome generated from the sale ofthese products and timber helpsimprove livelihoods, especiallyduring periods when household in-comes are low.

The tree also provides roots andleaves for medicinal purposes –leaves are mixed with butter to treatskin infections. Branches of wodesa

(left over from timber production)are used to make livestock sheds,fences, and bases, known locally asmuka-tuullaa, for piling crops in thefields before threshing. This helpsthe farmers to protect the harvestfrom damage by termites and mice,and from premature germinationdue to unexpected weatherchanges.

Growing treessuccessfully on sand

“As we have no modern equipmentsuch as electricity, telephones,computers and typewriters, it is noteasy to contribute to your maga-zine”, writes Erik Jessen of theOnankali Community Trust inNamibia. “However, now I thinkwe have something to tell yourreaders, so it’s worth the effort.”

The Trust is situated in the north-ern part of Namibia in a flat area atan altitude of between 1100–1130m. The average rainfall is 400–450mm per year and the potentialevaporation some 2500 mm. Thesoil is Kalahari sand although thereare some variations due to clay andsilt content. The project was givenone hectare of pure sand that, ac-cording to the local population,could not produce plants. The sandis more than 2 m deep all over thearea.

“Since 1992,” says Mr. Jessen,“93 species of trees, fruit trees,bushes and herbs have been testedfor growth and production plantingLeucaena leucocephala in N–S linesfor every 8 m. Indigenous plants areonly watered initially and even ex-otics are only given a minimum ofwater or no water at all after a short


Western Oromia is noted for its

manufacture of high-quality

furniture and household

materials made from wodesa

trees. The wood is hard (544 kg/

m3) and durable, thus useful for

making house furniture, beds,

mortars, boxes, cupboards,

shelves, doors and windows. The

income generated from the sale

of these products and timber

helps improve livelihoods,

especially during periods when

household incomes are low.



Species Local No of Part of Ailment curedname independent plant used

reports

Tithonia diversifolia Maua 22 Leaf Stomach ache, witchcraftmadogo and ‘evil eye’, malaria,

antidote for snakebite

Tephrosia vogelii Jinga 3 Crushed leaves Used for washing livestockand as fish poison

Senna siamea Oyieke/ 9 Bark and root Gastrointestinal complications,ndek owinu gonorrhoea; mixed with

Zanthoxylum chalybeumfor snakebite antidote

Eucalyptus Bao 7 Crushed leaves Inhaled as decongestant camaldulensis for flu, colds, throat infections

Sesbania sesban Sawosawo/ 7 Crushed leaves Used for jaundice/yellowoyieko fever, persistent hiccups,

skin rashes, dementia

Markhamia lutea Siala 13 Leaves, roots, Eye injuries, used asthicker branches purgative, body pains

“Trees and shrubs are the sourceof many products which makean important contribution to thewelfare and quality of life in ur-ban and rural areas,” says

Owuor Bethwell of ICRAF’sTree Domestication Programme.A one-year, ethnobotanicalstudy in Migori District, Kenya,

has found that a number of intro-duced and native agroforestry treesand shrubs were significant compo-nents of local medicines.

During the survey, formal andinformal interviews were conductedwith 23 herbalists, 9 herb vendorsand 99 villagers to determine theirknowledge of plant names and us-

Agroforestry trees and shrubs complement traditional medicine

age. The results showed 312 me-dicinal plants in use. In the tablebelow, Mr. Owuor briefly de-scribes six of them also used inagroforestry systems. “All theseplants contribute to health care inMigori and are used by herbalistsand non-herbalists alike,” hesays.

establishment period. Twenty indig-enous tree species have been in-cluded with various results.”

As termites constituted a prob-lem in the initial stages, especiallyfor leucaena, the Trust members—5local people and Mr. Jessen—

looked for favourite food for themoutside the fenced area of sand.Hand weeding had removed all thetermites’ potential food. Drybranches from bitter bush proved tobe a valuable fodder for thetermites and many branches were

placed in the area to attract them.This method provided the neededtime for most of the leucaenas toreach sizes where they were moreor less resistant.

All weeds are plucked by hand.During the first 3–4 years the


weeds were used for mulching thetrees but the project could notgrow enough for a cover for morethan 2–3 months per year. Now itis self-sufficient with mulching ma-terials, and green weed is incorpo-rated into the sand near plants thatare watered. A hole (22 cm diam-eter, 120 cm depth) is dug half ametre from the tree, and 15 cmlayers of fresh weed, alternatingwith 5 cm of sand, are deposited inthe hole. When it is full, a funnel(plastic bottles with bottoms re-moved) is placed on top, sur-rounded with sand. Water is addedonce a week.

During the following weedingseason, the holes (600 of them) arerefilled as the material inside hasdecomposed. This system forces theroots of the tree deeper to get thewater and the weed is 100% reusedcompared with only 10% as mulch.

“Many species have been aban-doned for various reasons,” says Mr.Jessen. “Sesbania sesban was tooshort-lived, Acacia karroo andDichrostachys cinerea were too in-vasive. Carica papaya performs ex-tremely well on rainfed soils but isuseless on deep sand.

“Among the exotics, Morus albaand Tamarindus indica are still wa-tered and show almost 100% sur-vival. Well-performing exotics thatare not watered include Acaciagalpinii, Leucaena leucocephala,Tecoma stans, Azadirachta indicaand Melia azerdarch. The latter two,plus many indigenous species,compete favourably with old euca-lyptus within our area. Promisingindigenous species include Moringaovatifolia, Ricinodendronrautanenii, Vangueria infausta,

Sclerocarya birrea (100% survivalrate) Kigelia africana, andPeltophorum africanum (100% sur-vival rate).

“As leucaena here is near itslimits concerning altitude, rainfalland soil,” says Mr. Jessen, “it couldbe replaced with peltophorumwhen fodder is not an objective, asthe latter is not disturbed by ter-mites and establishes easily.”

The most astonishing result,however, is reported to have beenmade with passion fruit (Passifloraspp.) locally known as granadilla.

The species have not been identi-fied but there are two, producingyellow and purple fruit respectively,both of which reach maximumweights of 180 grams. They havealso proved to be the best wind-breaks, give the best shade, andprovide the best mulch of all testedplants.

“And they have also been themost productive in economicalterms,” says Mr. Jessen. “Once es-tablished (6–8 months), they aremerely rainfed and not given ma-nure or other inputs. Since April1995, only one month has pro-duced no fruit. More astonishing,the quality of the fruit has no equal.They are sold locally and to a gour-met restaurant in the capital. Thebiggest plant covers 400 m2 andproduced 150 kg of fruit in 1998when it had already passed the ageof 5 years.”

As the life span of granadilla isonly 4–8 years, plants are replacedregularly, propagated either byseeds or cuttings. Using hormonecuttings is the most favouredmethod as flowering begins earlier(2 months compared with 6–24months for seedlings).

The reason for this remarkablegrowth, according to Mr. Jessen, “isthe deep sand that provides for adeep and extensive root system. Butthis still does not explain the qual-ity of the fruit produced without theuse of organic or inorganic inputs.”

For more information on this projectwrite to Erik Jessen, Manager, OnankaliCommunity Trust, PO Box 2768,Ondangwa, Namibia.


The most astonishing result, is

reported to have been made

with passion fruit (Passiflora

spp.) locally known as

granadilla. They have proved to

be the best windbreaks,

give the best shade, and

provide the best mulch of all

tested plants.


As readers of Agroforestry Todayhave learned from these pages overthe years, ICRAF’s business isagroforestry — growing trees onfarms, alongside crops and live-stock, to improve the livelihoods ofthe rural poor and to protect theworld’s natural resource base. Thisis an activity of major global impor-tance, for it has been estimated thatabout 1.2 billion people — 20% ofthe world’s population — depend toa large extent on agroforestry prod-ucts and services for their survival.

Although the word itself is rela-tively new, having been coined inthe mid-1970s, the ideas encapsu-lated in it are based on a vast storeof indigenous knowledge developedby farmers since the dawn of agri-culture. However, researchers beganto link this indigenous knowledgewith modern science only duringthe past two decades, yet this part-nership is already providing power-ful technological and policy innova-tions that are rapidly spreadingthroughout Africa, Asia, LatinAmerica, and more recently in sev-eral developed countries.

Last year, backed by cutting-edge science and working with abroad range of research and devel-opment partners, ICRAF embarkedon a bold undertaking, which is de-scribed in detail in the corporatestrategy, Paths to prosperity through

Paths to prosperity through agroforestry

ICRAF’s corporate strategy for

2001-2010 provides more

options for improved livelihoods

for millions of poor people in the

developing world

Agroforestry: ICRAF’s CorporateStrategy 2001 to 2010. The strategysets out some very speci˚c goals.During this current decade, ICRAFand its partners will:• Help farmers plant 5 billion

trees†— the equivalent of an-other major tropical forest

• Reach 80 million of the world’sagricultural poor, giving themknowledge and opportunities toimprove their way of life, in-crease incomes and assets in thedeveloping world by US$3 bil-lion

• Help move 20 million peopleout of poverty

• Remove 100 million tonnes ofcarbon from the air, thereby di-rectly attacking global warming

• Increase tree biodiversity onfarms in the developing world by20 percent.To make this promise become a

reality, ICRAF is simultaneouslybuilding its organizational capacityand scaling up its developmentwork with the farmers of Africa,Asia and Latin America. A key com-ponent of this activity is the Trees ofChange campaign.

Trees of Change

This is ICRAF’s campaign to meetthe needs of the agricultural poor indeveloping countries, and involvesundertaking major flagship projects.Each of these major projects isrooted in high-quality research andis tailored to the people and the en-vironmental conditions of a specifcregion but with the potential forbroad application. Each flagshipproject contains proven mecha-nisms to facilitate rapid farmer-to-

farmer adoption, along with boost-ing family income, increasing ac-cess to food, and improving thenatural resource base. The flagshipprojects are:• Seedlings of Change: implement-

ing small-scale tree nurseries inAfrica, Latin America and South-east Asia

• Greening the Sahel: scaling upagroforestry solutions for themost extreme conditions of pov-erty, hunger and environmentaldegradation in the world

• Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn inLatin America: working with farm-ers on sustainable and pro˚tableagroforestry options to saverainforests, which are being de-stroyed at the rate of 4.6 millionhectares a year†— equivalent to acountry the size of Denmark.To put in place the financial,

technical and development re-sources necessary for success,ICRAF is seeking funding to launchscaled-up demonstration projectsand to build the organizational ca-pacity necessary to succeed withthe Trees of Change campaign. Theinitial funding goal is $1.5 million.

ICRAF’s vision for 2010

Through agroforestry, 80 millionpoor people will have more optionsfor improved livelihoods, and theglobal environment will be moresustainable.

ICRAF’s mission

To conduct innovative research anddevelopment on agroforestry,strengthen the capacity of partners,enhance worldwide recognition of


the human and environmentalbene˚ts of agroforestry, and providescienti˚c leadership in the ˚eld ofintegrated natural resource manage-ment. This will be achieved bycombining the best of science withfarmer knowledge in a wide rangeof strategic alliances across the re-search-development continuum.

ICRAF’s three goals

The corporate strategy rests on threeinterdependent goals, each one in-tegral to the achievement of themission and the realization of thevision for 2010. ICRAF will:• Conduct interdisciplinary natural

resource management researchto improve agroforestry trees, en-hance their ecosystem functions,and improve policies

• Rapidly scale up the adoptionand impact of agroforestry re-search by engaging with devel-opment partners

• Provide a strong, diversified hu-man and ˚nancial resource basethat supports the centre’s re-search and development efforts.

The research–developmentcontinuum

The heart of ICRAF’s corporate strat-egy is its work across the research-to-development continuum. All itsactivities are located somewherealong that continuum. Efforts at thedevelopment end of the continuumgenerate results that feed back intothe Centre’s research, helping tokeep research relevant to the needsof the poor. Efforts at the researchend of the continuum produce thenew technologies and policy inno-vations needed to make ICRAF’sdownstream efforts successful. Thisinterdependence between researchand development is the de˚ning ele-ment of the strategy.

Research

At ICRAF, research is conceived andimplemented as an integratednatural resource managementagenda. It focuses on generatingnew knowledge on domesticatingindigenous trees that generate high-value products for incomegeneration; improving theecosystem services of trees — suchas soil fertility replenishment,watershed hydrology and carbonsequestration — for attaining foodsecurity and ecosystem resilience;and conducting policy research toimprove decision-making thatfacilitates agroforestry innovations.

Development

In a departure from traditional re-search institution approaches to dis-seminating knowledge and tech-nologies, ICRAF has assumed,

In the poor countries of Africa, Asia,and Latin America, poverty meanspeople go to sleep hungry everynight. Adequate food, clothing andshelter are beyond their reach. Cleanwater, basic health care, andeducation for their families are onlydreams. Being poor in thedeveloping world means a constant,unrelenting daily struggle to merelysurvive.

Despite decades of progress inthe last half of the 20th century,poverty remains rampant in thedeveloping world. About half of theworld’s six billion people live on lessthan US$2 per day. Well over onebillion people live on less than US$1per day. Every day, 40, 000 humanbeings in the developing world —most of them women and children— die from causes related tomalnutrition, the most immediateeffect of poverty.

through its Development Division, amore hands-on, proactive role in un-derstanding, facilitating andcatalysing the process of ‘scalingup’. The Centre believes that it willhave greater and earlier impact onpoverty reduction and environmen-tal sustainability by directly engag-ing in the development processthrough strategic partnerships. Themain elements of ICRAF’s develop-ment strategy are strategic alliances,innovation assessment, germplasmsupply, market development, policydialogue, knowledge sharing, capac-ity building and technical support.

ICRAF’s Corporate Strategy 2000-2010is available electronically on the ICRAFweb site http://www.icraf.cgiar.org/.Those who are unable to access it thisway can obtain a printed copy bywriting to Agroforestry Today.

Poverty: What does it really mean?

Compelled by desperation,people practise unsustainablefarming methods, such as slash-and-burn farming, that result inenvironmental damage at local andglobal scales and decreased foodproduction. The poor flood intocities, looking for better lives —most times in vain.

The only way to lift people outof poverty and save our planet fromenvironmental degradation is tomake life better for the world’s ruralpoor by helping them grow morefood, produce high-value productsthey can sell, and improve the localand global environment at the sametime.

This is the mission of theInternational Centre for Research inAgroforestry — to help feed theworld, eliminate poverty andimprove the environment.


Book ReviewAgroforestry Parklands in sub-Saharan Africa

J.M. Boffa

1999. FAO Conservation Guide 34ISBN 92-5-104376-0ISSN 0259-2452

The huge increase of environmentalpressure and degradation on sub-Saharan farming systems hasresulted in a much greater interestin agroforestry systems. Limitedsuccesses with systems such asalley cropping, live fences,shelterbelts, woodlot afforestationand other high-density treeplantings have turned attention toagroforestry systems with scatteredtrees, such as parklands, savannawoodlands, certain types of opentaungya systems and orchards, aswell as silvipastoral systems. Insuch systems trees have productiveas well as protective (thuseconomic as well as ecological)functions – jointly grown with, orleft growing while raising, foodcrops, or in temporary fallows orwith grazing animals.

West Africa in particular hasmany examples of parklands in itssemi-arid and sub-humid parts. TheOctober 1993 Ouagadougou Con-ference on Agroforestry Parklandsof the West African Semi-Arid Re-gions, organized by ICRAF, broughttogether for the first time peoplefrom various disciplines interestedin improved resource use in suchagroforestry parklands. However,parklands did not become a majorobject of study until fairly recently– said to be due to its multi-disciplinarity – so that knowledgeon and experience with the utiliza-tion of such a system and its variouscomponents remains scatteredthroughout literature of very differ-ent kinds. It is therefore fortunatethat FAO has attempted with one of

its Conservation Guides to bring to-gether much of the existing infor-mation on parkland agroforestrysystems in “a state of knowledgepaper integrating a wide range ofinformation on the biophysical,socio-economic and policy aspectsrelating to the understanding andsustainable management ofparkland species and systems”.

With 460 references, this bookis without doubt the most elaboratecollection of knowledge on suchagroforestry parklands, dealing insuccessive chapters with defini-tions/terminology, system dynam-ics, biophysical factors in theirmanagement, improved parklandmanagement and the institutionalfactors involved, production levels,and socio-economic benefits ofparklands.

Illustrated with many figures(maps and photographs, but no sci-entific drawings), tables, and boxescontaining specific information onimportant subjects, the book makesfor very informative and also pleas-ant reading. It contains much dataon the most abundantly occurringspecies of parkland trees in sub-Sa-haran Africa and where they arefound, at different scales. Thesescales go from continental, to re-gional, to around the villages, atvarying distances and land uses,and as influenced by ethnic speci-ficities and agricultural policies.

There are both pessimism andoptimism on the future of park-lands, with specific examples thatillustrate both outlooks, but there isalso a definite lack of quantitativedata to allow firm conclusions to bemade on trends and likely develop-ments. Climatological, biological,cultural, socio-economic and de-mographic factors, as well as agri-cultural development policies, arediscussed as influencing – somepositively and others negativelywithin the same category – the ex-tent, density and age distribution ofparkland trees. It is interesting tonote that some of the examples arevery much in line with the outcomeof "more people, less erosion" ofTiffen et al. in Machakos, Kenya.According to Boffa: "Within reason-able limits, farmers' response torapid population growth can there-fore lead to more intensive sustain-able land management practices".However, the opposite occurs aswell.

After highlighting the abundantproof of higher soil fertility in thepresence of larger trees, the mecha-nisms that are discussed in the book

With 460 references, this book is

without doubt the most

elaborate collection of

knowledge on agroforestry

parklands, dealing in successive

chapters with definitions/

terminology, system dynamics,

biophysical factors in their

management, improved parkland

management and the

institutional factors involved,

production levels, and socio-

economic benefits of parklands.


include soil microbial activity, atmo-spheric inputs, nitrogen fixation,dung deposition, pre-existing soilfertility, and soil management prac-tices. One conclusion is that morespecific information is needed onthe dynamics of soil fertility with in-creasing tree size in relation to theperformance of associated crops,and recommendations on size/ageand related conditions of tree standsfrom which increased nutrient avail-ability can potentially generate en-hanced crop yields. It is also statedthat, so far, the depressive effect oftree-crop competition and its spatialpatterns have not been clearly mea-sured and demonstrated inagroforestry parklands, because ithas a complex relationship to treesize and density. However, it is wellknown that the difference in produc-tivity between tree-covered and tree-less sites is substantially reducedwhen fertilizer is applied and/orabundant water is available.

On parkland management prac-tices the book discusses (i) regen-eration of trees, although oftenpractised in a non-parkland setting;(ii) planting of trees, in compoundsand non-compound fields, togetherwith crops or at high-fertility micro-sites, identified by previous crop-ping; (iii) improved fallows, withslow fertility improvement by, par-ticularly, N-fixing trees, preferablynot too young, that are thoroughlymanaged; and (iv) fire protection,because burning should be avoidedas much as possible in the Sahel.Instead, field clearance residuesshould be spread over the fields asmulch after the largest woody partshave been removed. Further issuesreviewed include silvicultural tech-niques, management techniques forimproved crop production (such as

pruning, mulching and crop selec-tion), and genetic improvement ofparkland species.

Because implementation of im-proved management and conserva-tion techniques, to be successfuland sustainable, has to be comple-mented by institutional arrange-ments, a very long separate chapterdeals with customary land and treetenure and state land and forestlaw. It is clear from the materialcollected that these are complicat-ing, sometimes confusing, and oftenvery harmful factors in sustainabletree resource management thatshould not be overlooked in any re-search projects on agroforestryparklands. Participation and activeresource management by farmers,including women and pastoralistsas particularly neglected stakehold-ers, appears served by the devolu-tion of access and use rights and byinstitutional change within forestadministrations, with far greateremphasis given to training of staff inparticipatory approaches, andacknowledgement of the often sus-tainable nature of traditional man-agement practices.

The final section of the book,before the conclusions and recom-mendations, contains a review onsocio-economic benefits ofparklands and some, but not much,material on parkland productionlevels (fruit, foliage, gum andwood), due to little quantitativedata being available. There are alsosections on food security aspects,health care, economic importanceof parklands products at the locallevel, parkland products of interna-tional economic importance, socialdifferentiation in Non-Timber ForestProducts (NTFP) activities – includ-ing gender aspects, socio-cultural

and spiritual values of parklandproducts – as well as an analysis ofcosts and benefits of the direct useof parkland production. It is alsoconcluded that collection, process-ing and commercialisation activitiessurrounding parkland products arethe source of a strong interdepen-dence between participants, pro-moting social integration, transfer oftechnical knowledge and economicexchanges.

This conservation guide reviewof agroforestry parklands should beread by researchers on agriculturalproduction under the discontinuouscover of parkland trees, as well asby principal policy and decisionmakers. It is absolutely necessarybackground material for the long-term efforts to conserve and enrichexisting parklands and to establishnew ones that are critical to thesub-Saharan African environmentand economy.

The book also contains helpfulguidance material on additional re-search needs and on key con-straints, which can be useful in theset-up of projects in any field of re-source management improvementin which non-forest trees occur. It islikely, however, because parklandsreflect deliberate human manipula-tion of trees in agricultural produc-tion systems, that still more infor-mation remains hidden in localgrey literature on sub-Saharan Af-rica. Perhaps the appearance of thisbook will stimulate the emergenceof such valuable data.

Kees StigterTraditional Techniques of Microcli-mate Improvement,African Network Liaison Office,Wageningen University and Re-search Centre, The Netherlands

Book Review


Q & A

Where ICRAF scientific staff answer questions from readers

Apart from susceptibility to thepsyllid in varying degrees,Leucaena leucocephala and L.diversifolia have been well re-ceived as fodder plants in Kasulu,Tanzania. However, availability oftimber is still a dilemma. Are thereany species in the genus Leucaenathat may solve both timber andfodder deficits simultaneously?

The genus Leucaena has severalspecies that are suitable for fodderas well as fuelwood. Evaluations oflesser-known leucaena species forfodder and fuelwood have shownthat species such as L. pallida, L.diversifolia and L. macrophylla can

be managed both for fodder and forwood production. These specieswill grow best in well-drainedsandy clay loams with neutral to al-kaline soil reaction. Environmentaland soil conditions in Kasulu willpresent a perfect environment forrapid growth of leucaenas.

Tobacco that is flue-cured or fire-cured is a good cash earner forfarmers, and also for national gov-ernments in the form of taxes andfees paid by tobacco-buying com-panies. However, although theyhelp to alleviate poverty, these to-bacco firms encourage deforesta-tion where tobacco is grown.Could Agroforestry Today:

(a)address any recent advances intobacco-processing technologythat are environmentallyfriendly, which farmers in thedeveloping world may easilyadopt?

(b)recommend an agroforestry re-gime and possible species thatmay be used in tobacco-growingareas?

(c)provide any literature in thisfield for my use?

Tobacco curing is one of the majoragents of deforestation in most to-bacco-growing areas in Tanzaniaand southern Africa. ICRAF and itspartners in Tabora, Tanzania havebeen developing agroforestry tech-nologies to help farmers grow trees

on-farm for tobacco curing. At thesame time, we have been trying tointroduce improved curing stoves toreduce the amount of fuelwoodused for curing tobacco.

Considerable progress has alsobeen made in the development andevaluation of rotational woodlotswith fast-growing Australian aca-cias. The rotational woodlot tech-nology involves growing trees to-gether with crops during the estab-lishment phase for 2–3 years; thenthe trees are left to develop in a fal-low phase until harvested in 5–8years.

Australian acacias such asAcacia crassicarpa, A. jilifera andA. leptocarpa have produced 80–150 tons/ha of firewood in fiveyears in Tabora. The technology hasbeen evaluated on farms and sev-eral farmers are now adopting rota-tional woodlots. We believe thiscan reduce pressure on the miombowoodlands.

Further reductions in wooduse—as high as 70% in traditionalfurnaces—can be achieved throughthe adoption of the Malakis fur-nace, which is being promoted bythe government extension system inTabora.

For further literature and infor-mation on the rotational woodlotsand the Malakis furnace pleasecontact Dr. Robert Otsyina, Tanza-nia/ICRAF Project, Tumbi ResearchStation, Box 3006, Tumbi, Tabora.He can also be reached by email [email protected] [email protected].

Two questions from

Benedict Kavugushi, Kasulu,

Western Tanzania, answered

by Dr Robert Otsyina,

senior scientist in range

management, ICRAF.

Dr RobertOtsyina,


Which methods shall we use topromote replanting of indigenousmedicinal trees/plants to growquickly, and how can farmers plantthem in areas that are differentfrom the original areas? Shall wehave to transport the soil?

The best way to promote plantingof medicinal trees by farmers is totake a participatory approach. Youshould involve the farmers in se-lecting the tree species to beplanted, involve them in seed col-lection, and train them how to raisethe plants in the tree nursery andhow to plant and care for the trees.For the trees to grow quickly, youneed to have a clean area for plant-ing, free of weeds, tree diseases andtree pests. Protect the trees frombrowsing by domestic or wild ani-mals. You can also use some or-ganic or inorganic fertilizers, to pro-mote tree growth where possible.You should avoid transporting soilbecause it is uneconomical and isnot a sustainable method, espe-cially when dealing with resource-poor rural farmers. Always try togrow tree species within their natu-ral geographic range (area).

Three questions from Dr E.P.

Whiteside, agricultural

consultant, Moshi, Tanzania,

answered by James Were, ICRAF

research officer, Nairobi, Kenya

We have a few leucaena andcalliandra trees growing. Please listsuitable fodder trees forKilimanjaro and Arusha regions ofTanzania, with average rainfall of738 to 923 mm.

For fodder, suitable species includeCalliandra calothyrsus, Gliricidiasepium, Grevillea robusta,Leucaena trichandra, Populus del-toids, and Sesbania macrantha.

We are planning to grow organiccoffee in the following coffee belts:lower coffee belt, 900–1250 m, av-erage rainfall 875 mm; middle cof-fee belt, 1200–1550 m, averagerainfall 1374 mm; upper coffeebelt, 1550–1850m, average rainfall1500 mm. Which trees in the dif-ferent zones will give the mostbulk for mulching or feeding tolivestock?

Generally, coffee-growing areas arecharacterized by high rainfall, mod-erately high altitude and welldrained, slightly acidic to acid soils.ICRAF has developed anAgroforestree Database that is agood species reference and guide-line for determining tree speciessuitable for various areas and func-tions. This database lists the follow-ing species as suitable for intercrop-ping with coffee: Acrocarpusfraxinufolius, Albizia amara, Albizialebbeck, Albizia procera, Artocarpusheterophyllus, Bridelia micrantha,Ekebergia capensis, Elaiesguineensis, Erythrina abbysinica, Fi-

cus thonningii, Flemingiamacrophylla, Gliricidia sepium,Luecaena trichandra, Paraserianthesfulcataria, Senna siamea, Tephrosiacandida, and Trema orientalis. Otherspecies that provide good qualitymulch for coffee growing are Cordiaafricana, Grevillea robusta, Hageniaabyssinica, Prunus africana,Polyscias fulva, Senna siamea,Sesbania sesban, Vitex donianaVitex keniensis, and Warbugiaugandensis.

We are also planning to plant fod-der grasses. In the lower coffeebelt we shall plant elephant grass.There seem to be two types: thinleaf and wide leaf. In the middleand upper coffee belts we willplant Guatemala grass andSetaria splendida. Can you recom-mend where can I get the variousseeds of trees and grasses? Whichorganization in Kenya does workon grasses and legumes?

ICRAF has also developed a TreeSeed Suppliers Directory (TSSD) thatprovides information on various sup-pliers who provide tree seeds. Youcan access and find sources of seedof different agroforestry species inboth the Agroforestree database andthe TSSD at the ICRAF website http://www.cgiar.org/icraf. More specifi-cally, grass seed in Kenya can be ob-tained from Kenya Seed Company,PO Box 553, Kitale, Kenya, or fromits subsidiaries. For legume seedsplease contact the Kenya Forest SeedCentre, PO Box 20412, Nairobi,Kenya. In case you require furtherassistance on seed procurement,please contact James Were, Re-search Officer, Domestication ofAgroforestry Trees Programme,ICRAF, PO Box 30677, Nairobi,Kenya; phone +254 02 524000, fax+254 02 524001; [email protected]

A question from Wanja

Elizabeth and Naaanyu

Solomon, Tajeu Kenya, Narok,

Kenya, answered by James

Were, ICRAF research officer,

Nairobi, Kenya

James Were

African Development Bank

African Academy of Sciences

Asian Development Bank

Austria

Australia

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

CIAT

Consultative Group onInternational AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR)

Cornell International Institutefor Food, Agriculture andDevelopment

Denmark

Department for InternationalDevelopment, UK

European Union

Finland

Food and AgricultureOrganization of the UnitedNations (FAO)

Ford Foundation

France

German Development Service

Germany

International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC)

International Foundation forSciences

International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI)

International Fund forAgricultural Development(IFAD)

International LivestockResearch Institute {ILRI)

International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI)

Internationaler Verband-IUFRO

Ireland

The International Centre for Re-search in Agroforestry is a Fu-ture Harvest centre, receivingits principal funding from 58governments, private founda-tions, and international and re-gional organizations known asthe Consultative Group on In-ternational Agricultural Re-search. Future Harvest buildsawareness and support for foodand environmental research fora world with less poverty, ahealthier human family,well-nourished children, and abetter environment. Future Har-vest supports research, pro-motes partnerships, and spon-sors projects that bring the re-sults of research to rural com-munities, farmers and familiesin Africa, Latin America, andAsia.

The International Council forResearch in Agroforestry wasestablished in 1978 to promoteagroforestry research in devel-oping countries. ICRAF wascreated in response to a vision-ary study led by Canada’s Inter-national Development ResearchCentre (IDRC). The study calledfor recognizing the key roletrees play on farms and coinedthe term ‘agroforestry’. Duringthe 1980s, ICRAF operated asan information council focusedon Africa until it joined theConsultative Group on Interna-tional Agricultural Research(CGIAR) in 1991 to conductstrategic research onagroforestry at a global scale,changing its name from Councilto Centre.

ICRAF’s business is agroforestry- growing trees on farms to im-prove livelihoods of the agricul-tural poor and to protect thenatural resource base. About1.2 billion people in develop-ing countries depend onagroforestry products and ser-vices for their well being.

Japan

Kenya

Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute

Mexico

Norway

Netherlands

Norwegian Agency forDevelopment Cooperation

Overseas Development Institute

Peru

Philippines

Portugal

Private Contributions

Regional Land ManagementUnit (RELMA)

Rockefeller Foundation

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Thailand

Tropical Soil Biology andFertility Programme (TSBF)

United States Department ofAgriculture

Winrock International

Netherlands DevelopmentAssistance (NEDA)

New Zealand

United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)

United Nations Educational,Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO)

United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP)

Unites States of America

University of Wisconsin

World Resources Institute

World Bank

World Vision

About ICRAF

Our vision

By 2010 ICRAF sees 80 millionagricultural poor with access toagroforestry innovations thatwill improve their livelihoodsand help sustain the global en-vironment.

Our mission

To conduct innovative researchand development onagroforestry, strengthen the ca-pacity of our partners, enhanceworldwide recognition of thehuman and environmental ben-efits of agroforestry, and pro-vide scientific leadership in thefield of integrated natural re-source management. we will dothis by combining the best ofscience with farmer knowledgein a wide range of strategic alli-ances across theresearchdevelopment con-tinuum.

Our goals

ICRAF’s corporate strategy restson three interdependent goals,each one integral to theachievement of our mission andthe realization of our vision for2010. We will:

• conduct interdisciplinarynatural resource managementresearch to improveagroforestry trees, enhancetheir ecosystem functions,and improve policies

• rapidly scale up the adoptionand impact of agroforestry re-search by engaging with de-velopment partners, and

• provide a strong, diversifiedhuman and financial re-source base that supportsICRAF’s research and devel-opment efforts.

Our investors

International Centre for Research in AgroforestryInternational Centre for Research in AgroforestryInternational Centre for Research in AgroforestryInternational Centre for Research in AgroforestryInternational Centre for Research in Agroforestry

PO Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya

Email: [email protected]

Contact via Kenya contact via USA

Tel: +254 2 524000 Tel: +1 650 8336645

Fax: +254 2 524001 Fax: +1 650 833 6646

http://www.icraf.cgiar.org

ICRAF is a member of supported by

the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

AFToday December 2001 - theNRgroup AFToday2001[1]… · Guy-Alain Ambé & Franáois Malaisse 7...

Documents

Transcript of AFToday December 2001 - theNRgroup AFToday2001[1]… · Guy-Alain Ambé & Franáois Malaisse 7...