indigenous trees as hedgerows species on sloping acid · pdf fileindigenous trees as hedgerows...
TRANSCRIPT
Indigenous Trees as Hedgerows Species on Sloping Acid Upland
Agroforestry System
Agustin R. Mercado, Jr., PhDDon Immanuel A. Edralin
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Outline of presentation
• Upland areas and Smallholder
• Hedgerow system development
• Agroforestry complementarity
• Indigenous tree species integrated on‐farm
• Promising vegetables grown with trees
Upland areas and Smallholder’sPhilippines• More than 7,000 islands• Population is 92 M people• Land area is 30 M has.• 10 M has sloping acid upland soils• 5 M has are less productive upland
areas due to degradation
A typical farm and farming household in the Philippine uplands: Poor, isolated, disenfranchised, and vulnerable but their actions on farm have impacts locally and beyond their farm boundaries.
Claveria represents the bio‐physical and socio‐economic environments (>20M people; 30% of Philippines’ land area)
Upland areas and Smallholder’sProblem and solution
•Practices slash and burn system•Occupies about 1-2 has and •Subsistence farming practices•Choice of incorporating trees depends on their perceived influences to crops•Effective sector in restoring forest ecosystems or driving towards near forest ecosystems•Inappropriate farming practices• Soils are acidic and inherently poor•Declining productivity• Deforestation in upper watersheds• Poverty and malnutrition
• Communities in many forest and vegetable producing watersheds in the Philippines are suffering from forest, soil and water resources degradation, and poverty
• Trees should:– not compromise food production and the livelihood of upland farmers. It should instead complement income generation and promote food security of farmers
– when integrated with vegetable production promote positive interaction, increased productivity, economic profitability, improve fertilizer use efficiency and enhance ecosystem functions
Upland areas and Smallholder’s• Soil loss ha‐1 yr‐1
– Traditional farming = 350 Mg
or 14,000 bags of soil
– Contour farming = 40 Mg
or 1,600 bags of soil
– Tolerable soil loss = 12 Mg
or 480 bags of soil
AgroforestryA land use system in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos)
are deliberately used in the same land management unit as agricultural crops (woody or not), animals or both, either in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence – Lungren and Raintree (1982)
‐ Domestication of indigenous trees within AF may reduce pressures on natural forests
‐ Cannot really be as biodiverse as forests but can be better than convensional agric’l system
Hedgerow intercropping or alleycropping system1970-1990:
Pruned hedgerow1990-2000: NVS 2000- present:
commercial trees for fruit and
timber
PositiveControl soil erosionProvide organic fertilizerFodder for animalNegativeLabor intensiveCompetes with crops:space and growth resources
PositiveVery cheap to establishControl soil erosion effectivelyNegativeNo economic benefits
Potentials:Productivity/ProfitabilitySustainabilityEnvironmental services:
- Diversity- Carbon stocks
Upland areas and Smallholder’s
– Tree hedgrow system = 6.5 Mg
or 260 bags of soil
– Tolerable soil loss = 12 Mg
or 480 bags of soil
– Grass hedgerow system = 2.2 Mgor 88 sacks of soil
Upland areas and Smallholder’s
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 reduction of soil loss which is about 55 times than traditional up and down the slope cultivation thus making soil nutrients particularly N become available to the food crops”.
Understanding agroforestry biophysical processes leads to greater economic returns: Enhancing landscapes functions, livelihood
opportunities and sustainability
Tree‐vegetable interaction
Agroforestry system
4 Ways of Improving Economic Benefit of Agroforestry System
1. Increase the value of trees (T)
2. Increase the value of complementarity (Y2)
3. Decrease or eliminate competition value (Y1)
4. Decrease or eliminate the value of crop displacement area (D)
Increasing the value of T (Trees) (1)
• Choose indigenous timber trees with premium timber quality
• Optimize vertical use of aboveground resources (space and light) by using multi‐canopies hedgerow systems (e.g. trees + banana + grasses)
• Optimize use of vertical and horizontal belowground resources (space, water and nutrients) by using deep rooted indigenous trees)
• Optimize use of inert resources such as air and CO2 by using N2‐fixing trees (e.g. Narra Pterocarpus indicus and fast growing trees e.g lauan for timber and carbon sequestration)
Increasing the value of Y2 (2) (complementarity
zone) through the use of:
• Optimum tree line/
hedge spacing
• Responsive alley crops to
micro‐climate improvement
• Deep‐rooted hedgerow species
• Optimum tree pruning regime (silviculture)
• Appropriate tree species or other hedgerow species (less competitive)
Decreasing the value of Y1 (3) (competition zone) through the use of:
• Adapted alleycrops (cassava vs maize)• Appropriate tree species
– Medium to narrow and light canopies– Deep rooted – N2‐fixing (if possible)– Appropriate tree pruning regime
• Appropriate tree pruning regime (canopy removal and timing)• Supplemental water and nutrient application at competition
zone (e.g. skewing the application of prunnings and fertilizer, application of drip irrigation)
• Orient the tree rows parallel to the direction of the sun (east‐west if possible)
Decreasing or eliminating the value of D (crop displacement area) (4)
• Ensure that the value of T is greater than opportunity cost of D• Use similar approach as employed in increasing the value of T• Use of early maturing hedges in combination with indigenous
trees (clonally propagated trees: rubber, coffee, timber and fruit trees (marcotting vs grafting; use of rooting hormones (IBA, ANAA, etc); forage grasses and legumes
• Reduce the displacement area by having fewer hedges (e.g. 20 meters instead of 5‐6 meters apart) thus enhancing AF complementarity effect
Indigenous trees on farm
kalumpit
molave
saplungan
lauan
apitong
tindalo
Indigenous tree species used as hedge
Local Name Scientific Name Family
Almon Shorea almon Dipterocarpaceae
Apitong Dipterocarpus grandiflorus Dipterocarpaceae
Dao Dracontomelon dao Anacardiaceae
Kalumpit Terminalia microcarpa Combretaceae
Molave Vitex parviflora Verbenaceae
Narra Pterocarpus indicus Fabaceae
Tindalo Afzelia rhomboidea Fabaceae
White lauan Shorea contorta Dipterocarpaceae
Yakal-saplungan Hopea plagata Dipterocarpaceae
Indigenous trees on farm
Indigenous trees on farm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lower elevation Middle elevation Higher elevation
Percen
tage
Indigenous tree species
Harvested (%)
Mortality (%)
Survival (%)
Indigenous trees on farm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lower elevations (457‐476 masl)
Middle elevation (519‐529 masl) Higher elevation (788‐953 masl)
Percen
tage
Indigenous tree species
1‐10 cm
10‐20 cm
20‐30 cm
30‐40 cm
Diameter class
Performance assessment of tree, leafy, vegetables, fruit, root and climbing vegetables
Tree‐vegetable interaction
Growth of vegetables under trees
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Bea
ns (g
/plt)
Distance from the tree
Competition zone Complementarity zone Nuetral zone Average yield
Yield is less than Without trees
Yield is greater than without trees
Yield same as without trees
Schematic diagram of tree‐vegetable agroforestry farm
D
Tree‐ tomato interaction under boundary planting system
Yield same as without trees
Yield is greater than without trees
Yield is less than Without trees
ComplementarityCompetition Neutral
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 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
Can
opy
wid
th (c
m)
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 b
Bellpepper 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 ab
Yardlong bean (3) Vigna unguiculata TVO 2074 0.40 dTree (4) Malunggay Moringa oleifera local 0.57 bc
Chinese malunggay Sauropus androgynous local 0.80 aRoot 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
Percent increase of crops at complementarity zones
Vegetables Wet season(June – Sept)
Dry season(Feb – May) Average
Chinese cabbage 37 30 34
Cabbage 13 0 7
Tomato 40 10 25
Bell pepper 20 10 15
Carrots 37 30 34
Mean 29 16 18
Conclusion• Indigenous trees e.g. Lauan performed well with agric. crops hence can be use to improve the value of T to have higher net benefit or complementarity
• Inclusion of indigenous trees on farm reduces the amount of soil erosion and thereby reducing fertilizer replacement cost making the system an advantage to smallholder farmers
• Indigenous trees increase above ground and fertilizer use efficiency by taking up leached nutrients below crop root zone
Conclusion• Amaranthus, cabbage, bellpepper, tomato, alugbati, chinese malunggay and carrots are adapted to the 1‐4.5m +/‐ 1.2m from tree lines hence may produce well under competition zones
• Amaranthus, jute, chinese cabbage, bellpepper, okra, yardlong bean and katuray planted under trees attained above average yield than w/o trees thus may produce more when planted at complementarity zones
Conclusion
• The use of indigenous tree species, like Molave, Saplongan, Lauan, in agroforestry is a viable option for smallholders to increase upland farming systems total productivity and climate change resilience
• The added value of using indigenous trees in agroforestry apart from having premium timber price is they act as biodiversity corridors linking patches of forests for habitat linkage and solving forest fragmentation
Conclusion
• Incorporating timber trees on farm is economically viable as it enhances agricultural production promoting short‐term and medium‐term and long‐term requirements and promotes soil and water conservation
End of presentation