Can Vegetables Be More Productive

Under Tree Based Systems?

TMPEGS – Presentation at the third annual SANREM III Meeting, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines

May 26, 2008

Overall hypothesis

In intensive vegetable production system in the uplands, monoculture systems are not sustainable, but integrating trees is feasible and offers better prospects.

TMPEGS•Technology:

–Develop economically viable and ecologically-sound vegetable-agroforestry (VAF) systems

Evolution of the AF system in Southern Philippines (Mindanao) (hedgerow intercropping)1970-90:Pruned hedgerow

1990-2000: NVS

2000- present: commercial trees

PositiveControl soil erosionProvide organic fertilizerFodder for animal

NegativeLabor intensiveCompetes with crops:spaces, growth resources, labour, etc

PositiveVery cheap to establishControl soil erosion effectivelyNegativeNo economic benefits

?Potentials:Productivity/ProfitabilitySustainabilityDiversityEnvironmental services

Environmental servicesReduction of soil loss..

Effect of different hedgerow types on soil loss===============================Hedgerow systems Soil loss (Mg ha-1)-----------------------------------------------------Grasses 2.20 cForage legumes 9.80 cShrubs 5.70 cTrees 6.50 cContour cultivation 40.0 bTraditional cultivation 350.0 a

(up & down the slope)

Tolerable rate 12.0=============================================Rainfall: 3000 mm annually “The greatest immediate impact of timber hedgerow system is reducing soil loss about 55 times than traditional up and down the slope cultivation thus making soil nutrients that will become available to the food crops”.

Relative yield of maize over six cropping periods as influenced by different timber tree species as hedgerows spaced at 8m x 3m

Yield of control

TMPEGS•Technology:–Develop economically viable and ecologically-sound vegetable-agroforestry (VAF) systems

Safety-net zone

Schematic diagram of tree-crop interaction in hedgerow intercropping system

+reduction of negative effects through silvicultural management

N 2 - fixation C0 2 - fixation

Yield of control (monocropping systems)

tree-crop nutrient transfer through pruning and roots and nodules turn-over.

leaching of nutrients to lower depths 0 - 100 cm depth

> 100 cm depth

uptake from safety- net zone (nutrient pumping below root zone of annual crops)

+

fertility, micro-climae, erosion control, nutrient pumping, safety-net, tree biomass and soil C stocks

=+competition: light, water nutrient=-

--

Net benefit = 2T+ (Y2-2Y1)-2Dwhere: T = value of tree products (inc above and below C stocks, N2

fixation)

Y1 = yield loss Y2 = yield gain D = value of displaced crop

D

Y1 Y1

Y2

Net benefit = 2T+(Y2 - 2Y1)-2D

Competition zone

Complementarity zone

Vegetable Agroforestry System ResearchGoal:

Tree-vegetable integration on farm with minimal negative interaction but

optimal positive interaction, thus increasing productivity, economic

profitability, nutrient use efficiency and environmental services

Tree integration on intensive vegetable based systems with minimal negative interaction

Approaches:• Tree-vegetable

matching• Tree management• Crop management

Methodology1. Assessment of existing VAF systems covering 21 farms, 2 AF

systems, 6 tree species, 8 vegetables, 4 aspects. Data collected were tree parameters (stem diameter, tree height, canopy height and width), spatial performance of vegetables (height, stem diameter, crown width, biomass), spatial light transmission (fish eye photography/quantum light meter)

2. Focus group discussion with 15 VAF farmers on various ways of integrating trees on vegetable farms and their practices and experiences on tree and vegetable management addressing tree-vegetable competition and complementarity

3. Evaluation of 5 commercial, 20 indigenous, and 5 tree vegetables under tree based system.

D

Eucalyptus- tomato interaction under boundary planting system

Tomato height

0102030405060708090100110120130140150

0 3 6 9 12 15Distance from the tree

heig

ht (c

m)

Competition Complementarity Neutral

Average height at nuetral zone

White bean yield under Maesopsis eminii hedge trees

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20Distance from the tree

Bea

ns (g

/plt)

M. eminii hedge

Competition zone Complementarity zone Nuetral zone

Three zones of tree-crop interaction in vegetable agroforestry systems

Average yield

Net complementarity as a simple tool in assessing appropriate tree-vegetable integration

• Net complementarity = degree of complementarity-degree of competitiveness

• Degree of complementarity = relative yield (at complementary zone) -1 x distance of influence (0= no complementarity)

• Degree of competitiveness = 1- relative yield (at competition zone) x distance of influence (0= no competition)

• Relative yield at complementarity zone = yield at complementarity zone divided by neutral zone

• Relative yield at competition zone = yield at competition zone divided by /neutral zone

Influence of timber tree species on VAF net complementarity under farmer management (tree-vegetable matching)

-0.23

0.48

-0.30

-0.85

-1.67

Acacia mangium

Eucalyptus robusta

Eucalyptus torillana

Gmelina arborea

Maesopsis emini

Net complementarityTree species

Evaluation of 12 tropical fruit trees at vegetables based system at AVRDC, Taiwan

• Artocarpus heterophyllus• Chrysopyllum caimito• Tamarindus indicus • Anona reticulata

Promising fruit tree species

Adapted from Palada et al 2008. Establishing vegetable agroforesty system research at AVRDC

Influence of vegetable crops on net complementarity under farmers management (tree-vegetable matching)

Vegetables Net complementarity index

Bell pepper

Brocolli

Cabbage

Cauliflower

Chinese cabbage

Tomato

White beans

Maize

0.14

-7.54

0.98

0.44

0.57

-0.48

-1.67

-1.55

Influence of aspects on VAF net complementarity

North (vegetable on south side) South (vegetable on north side)

East (vegetable on west side)West (vegetable on east side)

North

Influence of aspects on net complementarity under farmers

management (crop management)

Aspects Net complementarity

East (vegetable on west side)

West (vegetable on east side)

North (vegetable on south side)

South (vegetable on north side)

-2.09

- 0.54

-1.06

-1.74

Relationship between tree height (m) and net complementarity

y = 0.3034x + 12.696R2 = 0.14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

(10.00) (5.00) - 5.00 10.00

Net complementarity

Tree

hei

ght (

m)

Relationship between proportion of canopy left after pruning vs net complementarity

y = 2.0991x + 62.359R2 = 0.03

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

(10.00) (5.00) - 5.00 10.00

Net complementarity

Prop

ortio

n of

can

opy

left

(%)

Relationship between tree canopy width and net complementarity

y = -14.254x + 560.37R2 = 0.08

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

(10.00) (5.00) - 5.00 10.00

Net complementarity

Cano

py w

idth

(cm

)

Vegetable-tree matching

• Evaluation of 5 commercial, 20 indigenous (from AVRDC GRU), and 5 tree vegetables under tree based system consist of leafy, fruits and root vegetables

• Vegetables were planted 2 rows perpendicular to the 6 year old Eucalytus torillana tree row 25 cm from tree trunk

• Vegetable entries were arranged in RCB design replicated 3 times

• Vegetables were harvested spatially row by row

• Zones of interaction were calculated in each plot

Promising vegetables at competition zone (4.5 (±1.2) m from tree hedge)

Type Species Scientific name VarietyLeafy Amaranthus (5) Amaranthus caudatus TOT 2272 0.80 a

Jute (4) Corchorus olitorius TOT 4721 0.53 cCabbage Brassica oleracea Resest crown 0.73 abChinese cabbage Brassica rapa Blues 0.63 b

Fruit Eggplant (3) Solanum melongena S00- 633 0.67 bBellpepper Capsicum annuum 9950-5197 0.80 aOkra Abelmoschos esculentus 0.60 bTomato Lycopersicon esculentum WVCT-1 0.73 ab

Climbing Alugbati (3) Basella alba TOT 5274 0.73 abYardlong bean (3) Vigna unguiculata TVO 2074 0.40 d

Tree (4) Malunggay Moringa oleifera local 0.57 bcChinese malunggay Sauropus androgynous local 0.80 a

Root Carrots Daucus carota local 0.80 a

In a column, means having a common letters are not significantly different by by Tukey's test at 5% level

Adaptability index

Adaptability index = Yield at competition zone (Y1) / yield at neutral zone (Y0)

Where: 1= adapted

Promising vegetables at complementarity zone(from 5 – 15 (±2) m from tree hedge)

Type Species Scientific name VarietyComplementarity

indexLeafy Amaranthus (5) Amaranthus caudatus TOT 2272 Taiwan 2.10

Jute (4) Corchorus olitorius TOT 6667 2.70Cabbage Brassica oleracea Resest crown 1.33Chinese cabbage Brassica rapa Blues 1.60

Fruit Eggplant (3) Solanum melongena S00- 633 1.50Bellpepper Capsicum annuum 9950-5197 1.57Okra Abelmoschos esculentus 1.57Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum WVCT-1 1.33

Climbing Alugbati (3) Basella alba TOT 5274 1.87Yardlong bean (3) Vigna unguiculata TVO 2141 Philippines 2.27

Tree Malunggay (4) Moringa oleifera local 1.43Chinese malunggay Sauropus androgynous local 1.17Katuray Sesbania grandiflora local 3.37

Root Carrots Daucus carota local 1.57

Complementarity index = Yield at complementarity (Y2) / yield at neutral zone (Y0)Where: 1= no complementarity effect

Net complementarity indices of selected vegetables planted perpendicular to the tree line (researcher-managed)

Net complementarity index = Y2-Y1

Where: 1= no benefit

Type Species Scientific name VarietyLeafy Amaranthus (5) Amaranthus caudatus TOT 2272 1.30 abc

Jute (4) Corchorus olitorius TOT 6667 2.40 a

Cabbage Brassica oleracea Resest crown 0.60 bc

Chinese cabbage Brassica rapa Blues 0.97 bc

Fruit Eggplant (3) Solanum melongena S00- 168 1.27 abc

Bellpepper Capsicum annuum 9950-5197 0.50 c

Okra Abelmoschos esculentus 0.97 bc

Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum WVCT-1 0.67 bc

Climbing Alugbati (3) Basella alba TOT 1578 1.13 abc

Yardlong bean (3) Vigna unguiculata TVO 2141 1.97 ab

Tree (3) Malunggay Moringa oleifera local 0.83 bc

Alikway Sauropus androgynous local 1.03 abc

Katuray Sesbania grandiflora local 3.10 a

Root Carrots Daucus carota local 0.77 bc

In a column, means having a common letters are not significantly different by Tukey's test at 5% level

Net complementarity index

Adaptation of vegetables under different shading regimes in multi-storey agroforestry system in Indonesia.

Increase in yield over no shade

Vegetables Medium light(%)

Amaranth spp 180Kangkong 90Eggplant 71Chili 9Tomato 5

Note: Under heavy shade (Low light: 43-540*1000 lux), the growth and yield of 10 vegetables evaluated were negatively affected. Adapted from Manurong et al 2008. Can vegetables be productive under tree shade management in West Java?

Summary and Recommendations

1. Reduce competition between trees and vegetables (Y1) by:• Using vegetables that have high adaptability indices, adapted to low

light environment, at competition zone (up to 4.5m from tree line)• Using trees which are less competitive• Employing tree root pruning and root barrier (chili yield was

significantly higher in with root barrier treatment)

Can Vegetables Be More Productive Under Tree Based Systems?

3 ways of improving economic viability of vegetable agroforestry systems

Yes!

2. Increase tree-vegetable complementarity (Y2) • Using vegetables with high complementarity response

indices at complementarity zone (4.6 – 15 m away from the tree line)

• Employing appropriate pruning regime, leaving 40- 60% of the tree canopy- favorable for both trees and crops

• Using optimum tree lines/hedges spacing, 25-30 meters apart and 3 meters between trees, having approximately 110-130 trees per hectare

3. Use valuable trees (T)• Premium timber trees (indigenous species)• Adapted fruit trees (Taiwan)• Rubber trees

3 ways of improving economic viability of vegetable agroforestry systems

Thank you very much!

Questions

Acknowledgement and ContactThis study was funded and supported by the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management –Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM-CRSP) and by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

Agustin R. Mercado, Jr.World Agroforestry Centre Claveria Research Site, MOSCAT Campus, Claveria, Misamis Oriental, 9004 Philippines agustin9146@yahoo.com

TEMPEGS VAF Collaborators• Agustin Mercado, Jr. - World Agroforestry Centre • Caroline Duque World Agroforestry Centre• Manuel Reyes – World Vegetable Centre• Liwayway Engle - World Vegetable Centre• Flordeliza Faustino - World Vegetable Centre • Gregory Luther - World Vegetable Centre • Gerhard Manurong - World Agroforestry Centre• James Roshetko - World Agroforestry Centre• Bambang Purwoko - Bogor Agricultural University • Anas Susila - Bogor Agricultural University • Try Van My - Nong Lam University, Vietnam • Manuel Reyes - North Carolina A&T State

University