Agroforestry Systems 3 : 9 7-128.

1985 Martinus Ni]hoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht. Printed in the Netherlands.

Classification of agroforestry systems
P.K.R. NAIR
International Council for Research in Agroforestry, P.O. Box 30677,
Nairobi, Kenya
Abstract. Classification of agroforestry (AF) systems is necessary in order to provide a
framework for evaluating systems and developing action plans for their improvement.
The AF Systems Inventory (AFSI) being undertaken by ICRAF provides the background
information for an approach to classification.
The words ' system' , ' sub-system' and ' practice' are commonly used in AF literature.
An AF system refers to a type of AF land-use that extends over a locality to the
extent of forming a land utilization type of the locality. Sub-system and practice are
lower-order terms in the hierarchy with lesser magnitudes of role, content and com-
plexity. In common parlance, however, these terms are used loosely, and almost
synonymously.
Several criteria can be used to classify and group AF systems (and practices).
The most commonly used ones are the system' s structure (composition and arrange-
ment of components), its function, its socio-economic scale and level of management,
and its ecological spread. Structurally, the system can be grouped as agrisilviculture
(crops - including tree/shrub crops - and trees), silvopastoral (pasture/animals +
trees), and agrosilvopastoral (crops + pasture/animals + trees). Other specialized AF
systems such as apiculture with trees, aquaculture in mangrove areas, multipurpose
tree lots, and so on, can also be specified. Arrangement of components can be in time
(temporal) or space (spatial) and several terms are used to denote the various arrange-
ments. Functional basis refers to the main output and role of components, especially
the woody ones. These can be productive functions (production of 'basic needs' such
as food, fodder, fuelwood, other products, etc.) and protective roles (soil conservation,
soil fertility improvement, protection offered by windbreaks and shelterbelts, and
so on). On an ecological basis, systems can be grouped for any defined ago-ecological
zone such as lowland humid tropics, arid and semi-arid tropics, tropical highlands,
and so on. The socio-economic scale of production and level of management of the
system can be used as the criteria to designate systems as commercial, ' intermediate' ,
or subsistence. Each of these criteria has merits and applicability in specific situations,
but they have limitations too so that no single classification scheme can be accepted
as universally applicable. Classification will depend upon the purpose for which it is
intended.
Nevertheless since there are only three basic sets of components that are managed by
man in all AF Systems, viz. woody perennials, herbaceous plants and animals, a logical
first step is to classify AF systems based on their component composition, into agri-
silvicultural, silvopastoral and agrosilvopastoral (or any other specialized) systems. Subse-
quently the systems can be grouped according to any of the purpose-oriented criteria.
The resulting system name can thus have any one of the three basic categories as a
prefix; for example agrisilvicultural system for soil conservation.
Some of the major AF systems and practices of the tropics are grouped according to
such a framework. The scheme appears a logical, simple, pragmatic and purpose-oriented
approach to classification of AF systems.
98
1. I nt roduct i on
One of the important stages in the evolution and emergence of agroforestry
(AF) as a distinct land-use approach has been (and, to some extent, still is)
finding a definition for the term. Several definitions have been proposed,
ranging from very abstract ideas to rather lengthy parables [13]. Though the
issue has not quite been settled, the surge of enthusiasm in defining agro-
forestry seems to have minimized i f not disappeared. It is now generally
accepted that AF represents an approach of integrated land-use that involves
deliberate retention or admixture of trees and other woody perennials in
crop/animal production fields to benefit from the resultant ecological and
economic interactions [36, 45, 51]. Through its repeated usage, the term
agroforestry has acquired wide acceptability in land-use parlance to such an
extent that the question ' what is AF?' that used to be asked very frequently
until recently, is seldom heard now. Instead, it has gone one step further in
detail ' what type of AFT. This not only implie s the multitude of AF systems
and practices, but also underscores the importance of having a set of classifi-
cation schemes for AF.
Along with the elucidation of the principles and development of the
concepts of AF, various workers have also tried to classify AF [10, 211 25,
31, 36, 60, 61]. Most of these attempts formed a part of the exercise in
concept development than as an aid in evaluating and analysing existing AF
systems. Now a substantial body of information has been gathered on the
structural and functional complexities of several of such existing systems
through ICRAF' s on-going global inventory of AF systems [27]. Therefore
we are more resourceful now than ever before to classify AF Systems on the
one hand, and experiencing a greater need for such classifications on the
other.
2. System, sub-system, and practice
The words ' system' , 'sub-system' and ' practice' are very commonly used in
AF literature. In systems analysis language, a system refers to a group of
physical components, i . e, , an assemblage of objects, connected or related
in such a manner so as to form and/or act as an entire unit; an ecosysystem
consists of living organisms and their non-living environment with which they
are inseparably inter-related [3, 12]. In land-use terms, a system refers to a
type of land use specific to an area and described according to its biotechnical
or socio-economic aspects. For example, an agricultural system, or a forestry
system denotes a type of agricultural or forestry land use of the locality,
described in terms of its main component s, level of management, nature of
output, and so on. The broad terms used to describe specific systems are
usually clear enough to portray the basic nature of the systems: for example,
rice production system, subsistence agricultural systems, plantation crop
99
systems, mixed cropping systems, maize-wheat rot at i on system, livestock
product i on system, commercial t i mber product i on system, and so on. And, of
course, each one of these has various sub-divisions and forms too.
These common land-use systems of agriculture and forest ry are, however,
most l y oriented to the product i on of specific commodi t y (or groups of
similar commodities) so t hat in land-use literature, commodi t y-ori ent at i on
has evolved as the first consideration of the systems nomenclature. The com-
plex and multiple out put nature of AF puts some restrictions on demarcation
of specific systems in this way. Instead, the t erm agroforestry system as used
in the AF literature corresponds to specific or generalized AF land utilization
types [69], the basis for defining and demarcating the various such systems
being not only biological or technical, but also economic or social. In a
sociological cont ext , Raintree [51 ] explains the concept of land management
systems for the ' diagnostic and design (D&D)' purpose, as t hat part of the Man-
Envi ronment complex or ' human ecosyst em' where the organizing influence
of the manager (the Man) is felt most clearly and directly; in other words, a
relevant decision-making unit within a local human ecosystem. Obviously this
is a variable-scale concept because the ext ent of the decision-making unit can
vary from the family farm to broader geographical units. Thus, from the
point of view of distinguishing and classifying AF Systems, an AF system can
be considered as a t ype of AF land use t hat is specific to a locality and
described according to its biological composition and arrangement, level of
technical management, or socio-economic features.
The other commonly-used expression in AF literature is sub-system.
Semantically it indicates a lower-order hierarchy of the system. A system can
well be conceived to be composed of various sub-systems, or compart ment s,
each with definable boundaries, though being unable to exist independently;
it is in this way t hat the t erm is used in a physical sense in the sytems analysis
language. But in AF literature the sub-system refers to a part of the system
with a more restricted role, content and compl exi t y than the system itself.
Depending on the criteria used for defining or designating the system (bio-
logical, socio-economic, and so on), the types of sub-system can also vary.
For example an agrisilvicultural system can have several types of sub-systems
according t o the t ype and arrangement of its constituent component s; but
anot her way of looking at it is based on the system' s out put , this is, to
consider a system to be composed of several subsystems, each Producing a
defined ' basic need' as its major out put so that there can be a food subsystem,
an energy subsystem, a shelter subsystem, a cash subsystem, and son on [51 ].
This aspect will be considered i n greater detail in a later section.
An agroforestry practice usually denotes a specific land management
operation of an agroforestry nature on a farm or other management unit.
Several such practices will be involved in the constitution and maintenance
of an AF system. Commonl y these practices include the arrangements of
100
component s in space and time Vis-a-vis the major functions of the tree
component. Alley cropping (hedgerow intercropping), boundary planting of
trees, trees and shrubs as shelterbelts and windbreaks, use of woody perennials
in soil conservation, tree gardens, woodlots on agricultural lands, etc. are all
commonl y-found AF practices. Any of these practices becomes an AF
system when it is developed or spread to such an ext ent in a specific local
area so as to form a definite land utilization t ype in t hat area. One essential
point to not e here is that an AF practice can be found to exist even in a non-
agroforestry land use system. An example is the practice of growing rows of
Sesbania grandiflora on the bunds of rice paddies in Java, Indonesia. This
woody species is harvested for its leaves as green manure, its flowers are
eaten as a vegetable, it provides firewood and it adds to the fertility of the
soil underneath through biological fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. Thus
the woody species interacts ecologically and economically with the crop
(rice) product i on system; in other words, it is an AF practice in a crop
product i on system.
Hierarchically, the system, the sub-system and the practice form different
levels of organization of the components, i.e., a system to consist of several
sub-systems and each sub-system to consist of several practices. Depending on
the degree of ' evol ut i on' and the level of physical spread, these terms also
represent different extents to which t hey are adopted in a given locality, a
system being widely-practised to form a land utilization t ype of the locality,
a practice being a definite management operation involving the components,
and a subsystem falling in between. However, the words are used rather
promiscuously and even synonymousl y in common AF usage, so t hat it
becomes difficult to differentiate t hem from one another. But it is hoped t hat
the field examples and descriptions presented in subsequent sections of this
paper will make the distinction between the terms clearer.
3. Purpose and criteria of classification
Most of the existing information concerning AF systems is descriptive. The
descriptions and data can be assembled in several ways to facilitate their
storage, retrieval and, to some extent, comparison. However such an assem-
blage of dat ai s only an essential first step in developing a practical and realistic
framework for analysing the systems and development of AF. The purpose of
classification should essentially be to provide such a framework. But depend-
ing on the focus and emphasis of such strategies and action plans, the structure
of the framework will also vary. Essentially any classification scheme should
- include a locigical way of grouping the major factors on which production
of the system will depend;
- indicate how the system is managed (pointing out possibilities of manage-
ment interventions to improve the system' s efficiency);
- offer flexibility in re-grouping the information; and
- be easily understood and readily handled (practical).
101
The complexities of these requirements suggest t hat j ust a single classifi-
cation scheme cannot satisfactorily accommodat e all of them. A series of
clssifications will be needed, and each one has to be based on a definite
criterion to serve a different purpose. Lundgren [36] points out t hat the most
commonl y used criteria so far have been spatial and t emporal arrangement of
components, relative i mport ance and role of components, product i on aims/
out put s from the systems and social and economic features. While some of
the classification schemes have been based on only one of these criteria (for
example, role of components: 31 ; t emporal arrangement of components: 61),
some others have tried to integrate several of these criteria in hierarchical
schemes in rather simple ways [60] or more complex ones [10, 64]. An
assessment of the various criteria (to be) used in classifying AF indicates t hat
t hey refer to the system' s structure, function (out put ), socio-economic nature,
or ecological (environmental) spread. These characteristics also denote the
most common purposes to be served in classification schemes. Therefore most
AF systems (including sub-systems and practices as well) can be categorized/
grouped according to the following sets of criteria:
- structural basis - refers to the composition of the components, including
spatial admi xt ure of the woody component , vertical stratification of the
component mix and t emporal arrangement of the different components;
- functional basis - refers to the major function or role of the system,
mainly of the woody component s (these can be productive, e.g. produc-
tion of food, fodder, fuelwood and so on, or protective, e.g. windbreak,
shelterbelt, soil conservation and so on).
- Socio-economic basis - refers to the level of inputs of management (low-
input, high-input) or intensity or scale of management and commercial
goals (subsistence, commercial, intermediate);
- ecological basis - refers to the environmental condition and ecological
suitability of systems, on the assumption t hat certain types of systems can
be more appropriate for certain ecological conditions: thus there can be a
set of AF systems for arid and semi-arid lands, tropical high-lands, low-land
humid tropics, and so on.
These broad bases of classification of AF systems are by no means inde-
pendent or mut ual l y exclusive. Indeed it is obvious t hat t hey have to be inter-
related because the structural and functional bases relate to the woody
component s in the system whereas the socio-economic and ecological stratifi-
cation refer to the organization of the systems according to certain defined
conditions (socio-economic or ecological). And in any defined socio-economic
or ecological situation, the systems should still have specific structure (com-
position and arrangement of component s) and function/role. Thus the
compl exi t y of AF classification can considerably be reduced i f the structural
and functional aspects are taken as the pri mary considerations in categori-
zation of the systems and socio-economic and agro-ecological/environmental
(as well as any other such physical or social) factors t aken more as a basis for
102
stratifying or grouping the systems for definite purposes, than for classifying
them. These approaches for classification of AF systems are summarised in
Table 1.
4. Structural basis f or cl assi ci ati on
Structure of the system can be defined in terms of its component s (consti-
tuents) and the expect ed roles or functions of each (manifested in terms of
outputs). I t is not only the nature (t ype) of component s t hat is i mport ant ,
but also their arrangement.
4.1 Based on the nature o f component s
In AF land use systems there are three basic sets of elements or component s
t hat are managed by man, namely, the tree ( = woody perennial), the herb
(agricultural crops including pasture species) and the animal. In order for a
land-use system to be designated as an AF system, it should always have the
first one, i.e., the woody perennial. In most AF systems, the second once (the
herbaceous species) is also involved, the notable exceptions could be apiculture
with trees and aquaculture (pisciculture) in mangrove areas with trees. The
third set of component s (animals) is present in some AF systems. This leads
to a simple classification of AF systems as given below and depicted in
Figure 1.
Agrisflvicultural - crops and trees including shrubs/vines/trees and trees
Silvopastoral - pasture/animals and trees
Agrosflvopastoral - crops, pasture/animals and trees.
Additionally there are a few systems such as multipurpose woodl ot s (that
interact economically and ecologically with other land-use production
component s and hence fall under the purview of AF definition), apiculture
with trees and aquasilviculture. In the absence of a bet t er t erm to encompass
these forms of AF, t hey can be grouped together under ' ot hers' .
This categorization of AF systems into three major types is so funda-
mental t hat any one of these can conveniently be used as a prefix to other
terms emanating from other efforts to classify/group AF systems in order to
explicitly express the basic composition of constituents of any such system.
For example, there can be an agrisilvicultural system for food production,
a commercial silvopastoral system for fodder and food product i on in lowland
sub-humid (or dry) tropics, an agrisilvopastoral system for food productio n
and soil conservation in highland humid tropics, and so on. Therefore it seems
logical, compatible and pragmatic to accept the nature of component s as the
basic criterion in the hierarchy of AF classification.
There can be several other criteria of the lower order to demarcate sub-
systems and practices. In addition to the functional categorization of sub-
systems as the food sub-system, the fodder sub-system, and so on, there can
be structural categorization too. For example, the various sub-systems and
T
a
b
l
e

1
.

M
a
j
o
r

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

i
n

c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
r
o
f
o
r
e
s
t
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

(
a
n
d

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
)

C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

(
B
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e
i
r

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
)

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

(
N
a
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
,

e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

(
R
o
l
e

a
n
d
/
o
r

o
u
t
p
u
t

w
o
o
d
y

o
n
e
s
)

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
,

N
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

A
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

w
o
o
d
y

o
n
e
s
)

~
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

A
g
r
i
s
i
l
v
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

I
n

s
p
a
c
e

(
S
p
a
t
i
a
l
)

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

(
c
r
o
p
s

a
n
d

t
r
e
e
s

i
n
c
l
.

M
i
x
e
d

d
e
n
s
e

F
o
o
d

s
h
r
u
b
s
/
t
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

t
r
e
e
s
)

(
e
.
g
.
:

H
o
m
e

g
a
r
d
e
n
)

F
o
d
d
e
r

S
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

M
i
x
e
d

s
p
a
r
c
e

F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

(
p
a
s
t
u
r
e
/
a
n
i
m
a
l
s

a
n
d

(
e
.
g
.
:

m
o
s
t

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

O
t
h
e
r

w
o
o
d
s

t
r
e
e
s
)

o
f

t
r
e
e
s

,
i
n

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
s
)

A
g
r
o
s
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

S
t
r
i
p

O
t
h
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

(
c
r
o
p
s
,

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
/
a
n
i
m
a
l
s

(
w
i
d
t
h

o
f

s
t
r
i
p

t
o

b
e

a
n
d

t
r
e
e
s
)

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

o
n
e

t
r
e
e
)

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

O
t
h
e
r
s

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

W
i
n
d
b
r
e
a
k

(
m
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
r
e
e

l
o
t
s
,

(
t
r
e
e
s

o
n

e
d
g
e
s

o
f

S
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t

a
p
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

w
i
t
h

t
r
e
e
s
,

p
l
o
t
s
/
f
i
e
l
d
s
)

S
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

_

a
q
u
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

w
i
t
h

t
r
e
e
s
,

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

e
t
c
.
)

I
n

t
i
m
e

(
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
)

S
o
i
l

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

S
h
a
d
e

C
o
n
c
o
m
i
t
a
n
t

(
f
o
r

c
r
o
p
,

a
n
i
m
a
l
,

O
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
i
n
g

a
n
d

m
a
n
)

S
e
q
u
e
n
t
i
a
l

(
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
)

I
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
d

G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g

o
f

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

(
A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

s
p
r
e
a
d

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
)

A
g
r
o
-
e
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
/

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

a
d
a
p
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

S
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

l
e
v
e
l

S
y
s
t
e
m
s

i
n
/
f
o
r

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

L
o
w
l
a
n
d

h
u
m
i
d

t
r
o
p
i
c
s

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

i
n
p
u
t

H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d

h
u
m
i
d

t
r
o
p
i
c
s

L
o
w

i
n
p
u
t

(
M
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
)

(
a
b
o
v
e

1
,
2
0
0

m

a
.
s
.
1
;

M
e
d
i
u
m

i
n
p
u
t

e
.
g
.
:

A
n
d
e
s
,

I
n
d
i
a
,

H
i
g
h

i
n
p
u
t

M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
)

L
o
w
l
a
n
d

s
u
b
h
u
m
i
d

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

c
o
s
t
/
b
e
n
e
f
i
t

t
r
o
p
i
c
s

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
e
.
g
.
:

s
a
v
a
n
n
a

z
o
n
e

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

o
f

A
f
r
i
c
a
,

C
e
r
r
a
d
o

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

o
f

S
o
u
t
h

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
)

H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d

s
u
b
h
u
m
i
d

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

t
r
o
p
i
c
s

(
T
r
o
p
i
c
a
l

h
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
s
)

(
e
.
g
.
:

i
n

K
e
n
y
a
,

E
t
h
i
o
p
i
a
)

104
u61
T r q l R i o n d ~ . b s Off p o s t u r e s
SYSTE~
o n d o t h e r
MiXtures o f DlOntotion CrOpS
o~

Figure 1. Categorization of agroforestry systems based on t he nat ur e of component s
(with examples of common sub-systems/practices under each system).
practices in agrisilviculture include hedgerow intercropping (alley cropping),
use of improved ' fallow' species in shifting cultivation, multistorey combi-
nations of multispecies plant communities, multipurpose trees and shrubs on
farm lands, shade trees for commercial plantation crops, agroforestry fuel-
wood production, shelterbelts and windbreaks on crop production fields, and
so on. Silvopastoral systems include animal production sytems in which
multipurpose woody perennials provide the fodder (protein bank) or function
as living fences around grazing land or are retained as commercial shade/
browse/fruit trees in pasture lands. Examples of agrosilvopastoral systems
include the use of woody hedgerows for browse, mulch and green manure as
well as for soil conservation, the crop/tree/livestock mix around homestead
(home gardens), and so on. More field examples of each category of system
shall be presented in a latter section.
It may be not ed that the term agrisilviculture (rather than agrosilvi-
culture) is used to denote the combination of trees and crops, whereas
105
agrosflvopastoral (rather than agrisilvipastoral) is used for crops + animals/
pasture + trees. The intention here is to limit the use of the word agrisilvi-
culture only to those combinations involving agricultural crops and trees. The
word agrosilviculture can encompass all forms of agriculture (including animal
husbandry) with trees, and thus be another word for agroforestry. That again
is the reasoning behind the use of the all-inclusive ' agro' prefix to agrosilvo-
pastoral. It is wort h mentioning in this cont ext that during the process of
evolution of the word ' agroforestry' , some opinions had been expressed that
the proper usage of the term (from the linguistic point of view) should be
agriforestry and not agroforestry [see 59]. But the word agroforestry has
become so firmly implanted that it would now be very confusing if another
word were to be popularised to encompass the same concept. After all, one
can find several other usages in technical languages that may not strictly
satisfy the niceties of conventional linguistic usage.
4.2 Based on the arrangement o f component s
Arrangement of components refers to plant components of the system. Even
in AF Systems involving animals, the management of such animals according
to a definite plan, such as, say, a rotational grazing scheme, is in consideration
more of the plants than of the animals. Such plant arrangements in multi-
species combinations can involve dimensions in space and time.
Spatial arrangements of plants in AF mixtures can result in mixed dense
strands (as in home gardens) or in mixed sparce stands (as in most systems of
trees in pastures). Moreover, the species (or species mixes) can be in zones or
strips of varying widths. There can be several forms of such zones varying
from microzonal arrangement (such as alternate rows) to macrozonal ones. A
commonly mentioned example of the zonal pattern is the hedgerow inter-
cropping (alley cropping) [58, 67]. An extreme form of the zonal planting is
the boundary planting of trees on edges of plots and fields for a variety of
purposes and outputs (fruits, fodder, fuelwood, fencing and protection, soft
conservation/windbreak, and so on). It is also important to not e that extreme
forms of macrozonal arrangements can lead to sole cropping systems; but the
interactive association of different components can be used as the criterion to
decide the limits between zonal AF and sole crop (component) plots.
Temporal arrangements of plants in AF can also take various forms. An
extreme example is the conventional shifting cultivation cycles involving
2 - 4 years of cropping cycle and more than 15 years of fallow cycle, when a
selected woody species or mixtures of species could be planted. Similarly,
some silvopastoral systems may involve grass leys in rotation, with the same
species of grass remaining on the land for several years. These temporal
arrangements of components in AF has been described by terms such as
coincident, concomitant, overlapping ( of which the extreme case is relay
cropping), separate, interpolated, and so on (25, 32). These terms are more
easily explained, than defined, as in Figure 2.
106
Figure 2. Temporal arrangement of components in agroforestry systems (adapted from
Huxley: 25; Kronick: 31, and Young: 69).
Temporal arrangement Schemat i c illustration Examples
(also see Table 5)
Coincident Coffee under shade trees;
Pasture under trees
Taungya
Annual crops under coconut;
Seasonal grazing of cattle in
pastures under trees
Home garden
Black pepper and rubber
Improved 'fallow' species in
shifting cultivation
time
(time scale will vary for each combination)
Concomitant
Intermittant
(space-dominant)
Interpolated
(space- and time-dominant)
Overlapping
Separate
(time-dominant)
woody component non-woody component
5. Functional classification of agroforestry systems
Two fundamental attributes of all AF Systems are p r o d u c t i o n and sustaina-
bi l i t y. This implies t hat AF systems have a productive function (producing
one or more products, usually ' basic needs' ) as well as a service role ( of
protecting and maintaining the production systems).
Raintree [51 ] argues t hat any land use system, regardless of its degree of
commercialization, can be described and evaluated in terms of the outputs of
relevant basic needs such as food, energy, shelter, raw materials, cash, and so
on. This is the strategy which underlines the basic needs approach within the
met hodol ogy for AF diagnosis and design development by ICRAF [28].
According to this approach, the service roles of woody perennials are also
t aken as factors contributing to the product i on of one or more of these
basic needs. For example, soil conservation affected by appropriate AF
practices can be expressed in terms of its contribution to augmenting the
sustainability of crop production; amelioration of microclimate through
well-designed arrangements of trees and crops (e.g. shelter-belts) can be
evaluated in terms of its effect on crop yields, and so on.
However, this emphasis on production of out put s places an undue import-
ance on this attribute at the cost, i f not exclusion, of the other i mport ant
attribute, viz. sustainability. Although product i on is a very i mport ant con-
sideration in AF, it is the sustainability aspect t hat makes it different from
other approaches to land use. Moreover all AF systems will be producing
more t han one basic-need out put (largely so because of the multipurpose
nature of the associated woody perennial component ). Therefore, all AF
107
systems have both the productive and protective roles, though to varying
degrees of magnitude. Depending on the relative dominance of the particular
role, the system can be termed as productive or protective as indicated in
Table 2.
This summary Table (which also indicates the spatial arrangement of
woody components and the nature of their inteaction with other components)
shows the inadequacy of choosing the production of a particular basic-need
output as the sole criterion for classifying AF systems. However, i f produc-
tion of an output, or for that matter any such other aspect, may be chosen as
the basis for undertaking an evaluation of available AF options with a view to
selecting the most appropriate ones to fulfill the stated objective.
6. Ecological and soci o-economi c grouping o f agroforestry systems
6.1 Ecological grouping
Several enumerations of AF practices have been presented from various
geographical regions to a large number of seminars, workshops, etc. during
the past 5- 6 years. Notable among them include such group discussions held
at CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica [11], ICRAF, Nairobi [7, 9, 24, 25] and
IITA, Ibadan [38]. There have also been several compilations on specific
systems as well as country/region overviews, such as the Acacia albida system
in West Africa [17], Prosopis cineraria system in western India [39], and
reviews on AF in francophone Africa [15] and Indian sub-continent [16].
Also, several other reports have been published [37, 43, 44 and so on].
Recently a series of AF systems descriptions has also started appearing in
Agroforestry Systems as an output from ICRAF' s AF Systems Inventory
Project.
Most of these AF Systems documentation pertain to specific ecological
situations from different geographical regions. It is thus easy to find several
descriptions on AF systems in say, highland sub-humid tropics (or tropical
highlands as popularly known) for example: the Chagga system in Mount
Kilimanjaro in Tanzania [18], hill farming in Western Nepal [19], and multi-
purpose tree integration on the highlands of Rwanda [48]. Similarly a large
number of system descriptions can be found for various other ecological
regions too. Recommendations on AF technologies have also been suggested
for specific agroecological regions (for example, for hilly regions of Rwanda:
41 ; for sloping areas: 69).
Descriptions of existing systems as well as recommendations of potential
AF technologies for specific agro-ecological zones include a mixture of
various forms of AF (in terms of the nature as well as arrangement of
components). Thus there can be agrisilvicultural, silvopastorai or agrosilvo-
pastoral systems in any of the ecological regions. Young [69] analyzed the
AF potential for sloping lands using the primary data collected by ICRAF' s
Q
O

T
a
b
l
e

2
.

T
h
e

r
o
l
e

o
f

w
o
o
d
y

p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
s
,

t
h
e
i
r

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

i
n

s
o
m
e

c
o
m
m
o
n

a
g
r
o
f
o
r
e
s
t
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

S
y
s
t
e
m

S
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
/

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

r
o
l
e

o
f

A
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

N
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

m
a
j
o
r

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

w
o
o
d
y

p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
s

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
y
p
e

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

s
p
a
c
e

(
s
)

a
n
d

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
i
m
e

(
t
)

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

A
g
r
i
s
f
t
v
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

H
e
d
g
e
r
o
w

i
n
t
e
r
e
r
o
p
p
i
n
g

(
A
l
l
e
y

c
r
o
p
p
i
n
g
)

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

f
a
l
l
o
w

M
u
l
t
i
s
t
o
r
e
y

c
r
o
p

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

M
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
r
e
e
s

o
n

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
s

S
h
a
d
e

t
r
e
e
s

f
o
r

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

A
F

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t
s

a
n
d

w
i
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
s

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
:

Z
o
n
a
l

(
s
t
r
i
p
)

(
s
o
f
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
)

t
:

C
o
n
c
o
m
i
t
a
n
t

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

t
:

S
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
a
l

(
s
o
i
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
)

(
t
i
m
e
-
d
o
m
i
n
a
n
t
)

a
n
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

s
:

M
i
x
e
d
,

d
e
n
s
e

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

s
:

M
i
x
e
d
,

s
p
a
r
c
e

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

t
:

I
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
d

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

s
:

M
i
x
e
d

(
s
c
a
t
t
e
r
e
d
)

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

o
r

Z
o
n
a
l
;

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

s
:

Z
o
n
a
l

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

a
n
d

(
s
t
r
i
p
/
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
:

Z
o
n
a
l

(
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
/

I
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
d

T
a
b
l
e

2
.

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

S
y
s
t
e
m

S
f
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

A
g
r
o
s
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

S
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
/

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

r
o
l
e

o
f

w
o
o
d
y

p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
s

A
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

i
n

s
p
a
c
e

(
s
)

a
n
d

t
i
m
e

(
t
)

P
r
o
t
e
i
n

b
a
n
k

L
i
v
i
n
g

f
e
n
c
e

T
r
e
e
s

o
v
e
r

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
s

W
o
o
d
y

h
e
d
g
e
r
o
w
s

f
o
r

b
r
o
w
s
e
,

m
u
l
c
h
,

g
r
e
e
n

m
a
n
u
r
e

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

T
r
e
e
-
c
r
o
p
-
l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

m
i
x

a
r
o
u
n
d

h
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
s

A
g
r
i
s
i
l
v
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

t
o

s
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

(
a
n
d

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
)

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

(
a
n
d

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
)

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e

s
:

Z
o
n
a
l

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
/

I
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
d

s
:

Z
o
n
a
l
/
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

s
:

M
i
x
e
d

s
p
a
r
c
e

a
n
d

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

s
:

M
i
x
e
d

o
r

z
o
n
a
l

(
s
t
r
i
p
)

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

s
:

M
i
x
e
d

t
:

C
o
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
/

I
n
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t

s
:

M
i
x
e
d

t
:

O
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
i
n
g

t
o

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e

N
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

m
a
j
o
r

t
y
p
e

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

a
n
d

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

S
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

a
n
d

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

110
AF Systems Inventory Project and others for eight systems in sloping lands in
various parts of the world. A summary of his analysis is presented in Table 3.
It shows that all the three basic categories of AF system (agrisilvicultural,
silvopastoral and agrosilvopastoral) can be seen in this particular land form.
This is true for other agro-ecological zones also.
In summary, agro-ecological zonation alone cannot be taken as a satis-
factory basis for classification of AF Systems. Several AF Systems and
practices are relevant (existing as well as potential) to any major agro-
ecological zone; depending on the special conditions of any zone, the emphasis
of the system/practice will also vary. For example, in tropical highlands, one
of the main considerations would be the protective role (soil conservation
potential) of AF, whereas in sparsely-populated semi-arid savannas, silvo-
pastoral systems for production of livestock (and fuelwood) would be of
priority consideration.
6.2 Socio-economic grouping
Socio-economic criteria such as scale of production and level of technology
input and management have also been used as criteria for classifying AF
systems. Lundgren [36] thus groups systems into commercial, intermediate
and subsistence systems.
The term commercial is used where the production of the output, usually
a single commodity, for sale is the major aim of the system; scale of operations
is often medium to large and land ownership may be government, corporate
or private; labour is normally paid or otherwise contracted. Examples include
commercial production of agricultural plantation crops such as rubber,
oilpalms and coconut, with permanent underplantings of food crops, other
crops, or pasture/animals; commercial production of shade-tolerating plan-
tation crops like coffee, tea, and cacao under overstorey shade trees;
rotational t i mber/ food crop systems in which a short phase of food crop
production is used as a silvicultural method to ensure establishment of the
timber species (various forms of taungya); commercial grazing and ranching
under large-scaie timber and pulp plantations; etc.
' Intermediate' AF Systems are those that are intermediate between
commercial and subsistence scales of production and management. Production
of perennial cash crops and subsistence crops is undertaken on medium-to-
small-sized farms where the cash crops cater for the cash needs, and the food
crops meet the family' s food needs. Usually farmers who either own the land,
or have long-term tenancy rights to land, reside and work themselves on the
land, supplemented by paid temporary labour. The main distinguishing
features of the intermediate system from those of the commercial system on
the one end and subsistence system on the other are holding size and level of
economic prosperity. Several AF systems in many parts of the world can be
grouped as intermediate systems, especially those based on plantation crops
such as coffee, cacao, coconut, etc. Similarly there are also several
iii
intermediate AF systems based on a large number of fruit trees, especially in
the Asia-Pacific region [45] and short-rotation timber species such as Al b i z i a
f al cat ari a in the Philippines [50] and Indonesia [44].
Subsistence AF systems are those where the use of land is directed toward
satisfying the basic needs, and managed mostly by the owner/occupant and
his family. Cash crops, including sale of surplus production of commodities
may well be a part of these systems, but are only supplementary. Most of the
AF systems practised in various parts of the developing countries come under
the subsistence category. All forms of traditional shifting cultivation found
throughout the tropics are the most wide-spread example. However, all forms
of subsistence AF systems are not as ' undesirable' or resourse-depleting as
traditional shifting cultivation. For example, the integrated, multi-species
systems of homegardens found is almost all thickly-populated areas is a
'progressive' AF system (4, 64). Similarly several commendable systems of a
subsistence nature can be found in many other regions also; for example in
Latin America [66] ; arid West Afriac [62] ; humid West Africa [20] ; India
[26] and so on.
Grouping of AF systems according to these socio-economic and manage-
ment criteria is yet another way of stratifying the systems for a purpose-
oriented action plan. In development efforts, for example, such an approach
will be useful. However, there are some drawbacks i f these criteria are accepted
as the primary basis for classifying the systems. First, the criteria in defining
the various classes are not well-quantifiable; the standards set for such a
differentiation will reflect the general socio-economic situation of the locality.
What is considered as 'subsistence' level in one set of situations may well fall
under ' intermediate' or even a higher category in another set of situations.
Secondly, these class boundaries will also change with time. A good example
is the gum-aribic production system of the Sudan. It used to be a flourishing
' intermediate' system consisting of a planned rotation of Ac ac i a senegal for
gum production for 7 - 1 2 years. Ac a c i a senegal also provided fodder and
firewood and improved soil fertility [54]. But with the advent of artificial
substitutes for gum arabic, the Ac ac i a senegal - millet system has now
regenerated into a subsistence system.
Therefore these socio-economic factors that are likely to change with time
and management conditions cannot rigidly be adopted as the satisfactory
primary basis for an objective classification scheme, but t hey can be employed
as a basis for grouping the systems for a defined objective or action plan.
7. A framework for classification of agroforestry systems
The foregoing analysis reveals the following:
The usually used criteria for classifying AF systems and practices are: (1)
Structure of the system (nature and arrangement of components); (2) Func-
tion of the system (role and out put of components); (3) Agro-ecological
112
0
0
0
0
~a
~4
[ 9 E l e ! p u I ~ N
[ t ] s X u o s l "
[69] nsod
[ 6 9 ] s o u ! d d ! I ! q d
[ 8 ] e o ! H e : ~ s o D
[69 ' i,] e!souopuI ' e n mu n s
[ 8 I ] s ! u ~ z u s ~
[ 6 1 ] l ~ d O N
o
e~
> ,
o ~ ~1 ~
~. ~ ~ ~
~'~ 0 ~ ~
o
T
a
b
l
e

3
.

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

(
1
)

(
2
)

(
3
)

(
4
)

(
5
)

(
6
)

(
7
)

(
8
)

(
9
)

T
r
e
e

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

*

*

*

*

T
i
m
b
e
r

*

*

*

F
o
d
d
e
r

(
c
u
t
)

*

*

F
o
o
d

*

*

*

C
a
s
h

c
r
o
p

*

*

*

S
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

*

*

*

*

S
o
i
l

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

*

*

F
e
n
c
i
n
g

*

I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s

S
p
a
c
e

*

*

*

*

T
i
m
e

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

M
i
x
e
d

d
e
n
s
e

*

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

M
i
x
e
d

s
p
a
r
c
e

*

S
t
r
i
p

*

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

S
o
c
i
o
-

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

*

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

*

*

S
c
a
l
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

*

*

*

*

1
)

A
d
a
p
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

Y
o
u
n
g

[
6
9
]

2
)

S
e
e

T
a
b
l
e

5

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
o
n
l
y

u
s
e
d

w
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

i
n

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

p
l
a
c
e
s

*
*

M
P
T

=

m
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
r
e
e

*

*

~

*

~
O

114
Table 4. Framework for a purpose-oriented classification of agroforestry systems*
First step Subsequent steps(s)
Classification based on Criteria Major areas of Application
the nature of components
- Agrisilvicultural
- Silvopastoral
- Agrosilvopastoral
- Other (specify)
Arrangement of
components
- in time
- in space
Function/role of
components
- productive
- protective
(service)
Agroecological
zones and other
specified land forms
Socio-economie
aspects
Research on plant
management for optimizing
interactions
Development projects for
exploiting agroforestry
potential
Land-use planning,
regional development
R & D programmes,
Socio-economic ai3alysis
of agroforestry potential,
Resource utilization plan
*See Table 1 for major approaches in classification and Table 5 for a listing of examples
and characteristics of existing agroforestry systems and practices.
zones where t he syst em exists or is adopt abl e; and (4) Soci o-economi c scales
and management levels o f the system.
Each of these criteria has merits and applicability in specific situations; but
t hey have limitations also so t hat no single classification scheme can be
accept ed as a universally applicable one. Classification o f AF syst em will have
t o be purpose-ori ent e d.
The compl exi t y o f t he- pr obl em can be reduced i f t he st ruct ural and func-
t i onal aspects o f t he syst em are t aken as t he criteria for categorizing t he
systems and agro-ecological and soci o-economi c aspects as t he basis f or
groupi ng t hem.
Since there are onl y t hree basic sets of component s t hat are managed by
man in all agroforest ry systems ( woody perennials, herbaceous plants and
animals), a logical first step t o classify AF is based on t he nat ure of these
component s, viz (1) agrisilvicultural; (2) silvopastoral; and (3) agrosilvo-
pastoral (t here are also a few ot her specialized systems).
Having done such a prel i mi nary cat egori zat i on, t he systems can subse-
quent l y be grouped accordi ng t o any of t he purpose-ori ent ed criteria
ment i oned above. Each of t he resulting gr oup can have any one of t he above
three categories as a prefix, for exampl e: (1) silvopastoral syst em for cattle
pr oduct i on in t ropi cal savannas; (2) agrisilvicultural syst em f or soil conser-
vat i on and f ood pr oduct i on in t ropi cal highlands, and so on. A f r amewor k for
classification o f AS systems based on these consi derat i ons is given in Table 4.
115
As ment i oned earlier, there are several field examples of extensively
practised AF systems in various parts of the world. ICRAF' s Agroforestry
Systems Invent ory Project has collected i nformat i on on a large number of
such systems and practices with a view to analysing their merits, weaknesses
and constraints, identifying their research needs and extrapolating the essen-
tial aspects of the systems to other adoptable areas. Summary accounts have
been given of a large number of such systems [44] as well as the woody
species involved [46]. Some of these field examples of AF are grouped
together in Table 5 according to the framework for classification proposed
above. At first, the systems are designated according to the nature of
component s, and then, for each category, i nformat i on is given on other major
characteristics that can be used as the criteria for grouping them subsequently
for any specified purpose. This appears to be a logical, simplel pragmatic and
purpose-oriented approach to classification of AF systems.
Ref erences
1. Alvim R and Nair PKR (1985) Agroforestry practices involving agricultural plan-
tation crops in southeast Bahia, Brazil. Agroforestry Systems (in press)
2. Ambar S (1982) Overview of the results of traditional agroforestry study in
Ci-Tarum river basin, West Java. Paper presented to The Regional Seminar-Workshop
in Agroforestry, 18-22 October, 1982. SEARCA, CoUege, Laguna, The Philippines
3. Arnold GW and de Wit CT (eds) (1976) Critical Evaluation of Systems Analysis in
Ecosystem Research and Management. Centre for Agric. Pub. Docum., Wageningen,
The Netherlands
4. Atmosoedaryo S and Wijayakusumah K (1979) Ecological aspects of agroforestry in
the lowland humid tropics: Southeast Asia. In: Chandler T and Spurgeon D (eds)
International Cooperation in Agroforestry, pp 117-128. ICRAF, Nairobi
5. Boonkird S-A, Fernandes ECM and Nair PKR (1984) Forest villages - an agro-
forestry approach to rehabilitating forest lands degraded by shifting cultivation in
Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 2:87-102
6. Bourke RM (1984) Food, coffee and Casuarina: an agroforestry system from the
Papua New Guinea highlands. Agroforestry Systems 2: 273-279
7. Buck L (ed) (1981) Proceedings of the Kenya National Seminar on Agroforestry.
November, 1980. ICRAF/Univ Nairobi, Nairobi
8. Budowski G (1981) An attempt to quantify some current agroforestry practices in
Costa Rica. In: Huxley PA (ed) Plant Research and Agroforestry, pp 43-62.
ICRAF, Nairobi
9. Chandler T and Spurgeon D (eds) (1979) International Cooperation in Agroforestry.
Proceedings of ICRAF/DSE Conference. ICRAF, Nairobi
10. Combe J and Budowski G (1979) Classification of agroforestry techniques. In: de
las Salas (ed) Proceedings of the Workshop on Agroforestry Systems in Latin
America, pp 17-47. CATIE, Costa Rica
11. de las Salas G (ed) (1979) Proceedings of the Workshop on Agroforestry Systems in
Latin America. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica
12. de Wit CT and J Goudrian (1974) Simulation of Ecological Processes. Centre for
Agric Pub Docum, Wageningen, The Netherlands
13. Editors (1982) What is agroforestry? Agroforestry Systems 1:7-12
14. Evans PT and Romhold JS (1984) Paraiso (Melia azedarach var. 'Gigante') woodlots:
an agroforestry alternative for the small farmer in Paraguay. Agroforestry Systems
2:199-214
15. Food and Agriculture Organization (1981a) Agroforesterie Africaine. FAO, Rome
16. Food and Agriculture Organization (1981b) India and Sri Lanka: Agroforestry.
FAO, Rome
T
a
b
l
e

5
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

o
f

s
o
m
e

c
o
m
m
o
n

a
g
r
o
f
o
r
e
s
t
r
y

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

a
n
d

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
r
o
p
i
c
s

S
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
/
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

M
a
j
o
r

o
u
t
p
u
t
/
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
/

S
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

(
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

R
e
g
i
o
n

s
c
a
l
e

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)

S
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

w
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

I
.
A
.

A
g
r
i
s
i
l
v
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

-

H
u
m
i
d

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

'
F
a
l
l
o
w
'

F
o
o
d

a
n
d

w
o
o
d

(
i
n

s
h
i
f
t
i
n
g

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
;

c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n

a
r
e
a
s
)

S
o
i
l

f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y

i
n
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

W
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

p
l
a
n
t
e
d

a
n
d

l
e
f
t

t
o

g
r
o
w

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

'
f
a
l
l
o
w

p
h
a
s
e
'

M
u
l
t
i
s
p
e
c
i
e
s

m
i
x
e
s

(
T
r
e
e

g
a
r
d
e
n
s
)

M
u
l
t
i
l
a
y
e
r
,

m
u
l
t
i
-

s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,

d
e
n
s
e

p
l
a
n
t

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

n
o

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d

p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
o
d
,

f
o
d
d
e
r

a
n
d

w
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

f
o
r

h
o
m
e

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
a
l
e

f
o
r

c
a
s
h

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

N
i
g
e
r
i
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

A
l
e
u
r
i
t
e
s

m
o
l
u
c
a
n
a

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

s
p
p
.

S
t
y
r
a
x

s
p
p
.

A
c
i
o
a

b
a
r
t
e
r
i
i

A
n
t
h
o
n
o
t
h
a

m
a
c
r
o
p
h
y
l
l
a

N
i
g
e
r
i
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

D
a
n
i
e
l
l
i
a

o
l
i
v
e
r
i

G
l
i
r
i
c
i
d
i
a

s
e
p
i
u
m

P
a
r
M
a

c
l
a
p
p
e
r
t
o
n
i
a
n
a

P
t
e
r
o
c
a
r
p
u
s

a
f
r
i
c
a
n
a

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

I
n
o
c
a
r
p
u
s

e
d
u
l
i
s

I
s
l
a
n
d
s

M
o
r
u
s

n
i
g
r
a

S
p
o
n
d
i
a
s

c
l
u
l
c
e

I
n
d
i
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
,

A
r
e
c
a

c
a
t
e
c
h
u

S
r
i

L
a
n
k
a

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

A
r
t
o
c
a
r
p
u
s

s
p
p
.

C
o
c
o
s

n
u
c
i
f
e
r
a

M
a
n
g
i
f
e
r
a

i
n
d
i
a

P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
,

M
e
l
i
a

a
z
e
d
a
r
a
c
h

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

L
e
u
c
a
e
n
a

l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
a

S
.
E
.

A
s
i
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

f
a
l
c
a
t
a
r
i
a

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

A
r
t
o
c
a
r
p
u
s

s
p
p
.

M
a
j
o
r

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

[
9
,

3
3
1

[
2
0
1

[
2
0
]

[
5
3
]

[
3
5
,

4
0
,

4
2
]

[
1
4
]

[
2
,
5
1

H
e
d
g
e
r
o
w

i
n
t
e
r
c
r
o
p
p
i
n
g

(
A
l
l
e
y

c
r
o
p
p
i
n
g
)

w
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

i
n

h
e
d
g
e
s
;

a
g
r
i
c
,

s
p
p
.

i
n

a
l
l
e
y
s

i
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

h
e
d
g
e
s
;

m
i
c
r
o
z
o
n
a
l

o
r

s
t
r
i
p
/
h
e
d
g
e

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

M
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
r
e
e
s

s
h
r
u
b
s

o
n

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
s

T
r
e
e
s

s
c
a
t
t
e
r
e
d

h
a
p
h
a
z
a
r
d
l
y

o
r

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

s
o
m
e

s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c

p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
;

s
p
a
r
c
e

s
t
a
n
d

o
f

t
r
e
e
s
.

C
r
o
p

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
o
d

a
n
d

f
i
r
e
w
o
o
d
;

S
o
i
l

f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
o
d
,

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
,

o
t
h
e
r

w
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
;

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
;

S
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

f
o
r

s
a
l
e

(
c
a
s
h
)
;

S
.
E
.

A
s
i
a

N
i
g
e
r
i
a

B
r
a
z
i
l

I
n
d
i
a

K
e
n
y
a

S
.
E
.

A
s
i
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

(
a
l
s
o

e
x
p
e
r
-

i
m
e
n
t
a
l
)

(
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l
)

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

B
a
m
b
u
s
a

s
p
p
.

D
u
r
i
o

z
i
b
e
t
h
i
n
u
s

N
e
p
h
e
l
i
u
m

l
a
p
p
a
c
e
u
m

C
a
l
l
i
a
n
d
r
a

c
a
l
l
o
t
h
y
r
s
u
s

L
e
u
c
a
e
n
a

l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
a

a
n
d

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

o
t
h
e
r

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

C
a
s
s
i
a

e
x
c
e
l
s
a

L
.

l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
a

M
i
m
o
s
a

s
c
a
b
r
e
l
l
a

D
e
r
r
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

E
m
b
l
i
c
a

o
f
f
i
c
i
n
a
l
i
s

M
o
r
i
n
g
a

o
l
e
i
f
e
r
a

T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
u
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

A
n
a
c
a
r
d
i
u
m

o
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
e

C
e
i
b
a

p
e
t
a
n
d
r
a

M
a
n
g
i
f
e
r
a

i
n
d
i
c
a

M
a
n
i
l
k
a
r
a

a
c
h
r
a
s

A
c
a
c
i
a

m
a
n
g
i
u
m

A
r
t
o
c
a
r
p
u
s

s
p
p
.

D
u
r
i
o

z
i
b
e
t
h
i
n
u
s

G
l
i
r
i
c
i
d
i
a

s
e
p
i
u
m

S
e
s
b
a
n
i
a

g
r
a
n
d
i
f
l
o
r
a

P
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

A
n
a
c
a
r
d
i
u
m

o
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
e

C
a
m
e
l
l
i
a

s
i
n
e
n
s
i
s

[
5
8
]

[
5
8
,
6
7
1

[
4
7
]

[
4
5
,

4
7
]

[
7
]

T
a
b
l
e

5
.

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

o
o

S
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
/
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

(
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)

1
)

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

c
r
o
p
s

i
n

i
n
t
i
m
a
t
e

p
l
a
n
t

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

m
i
x
e
d

d
e
n
s
e

2
)

M
i
x
t
u
r
e
s

o
f

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

e
.
g
.

c
o
c
o
n
u
t

a
n
d

c
a
c
a
o
;

u
s
u
a
l
l
y

i
n

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c

r
o
w

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
.

3
)

S
h
a
d
e

t
r
e
e
s

f
o
r

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s
;

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

i
n

r
e
g
u
l
a
r

r
o
w

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
,

s
h
a
d
e

t
r
e
e
s

s
c
a
t
t
e
r
e
d

M
a
j
o
r

o
u
t
p
u
t
/
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
/

R
e
g
i
o
n

S
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

s
c
a
l
e

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

w
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
u
b
s
i
d
i
a
r
y

(
f
o
o
d
)

c
r
o
p
s
;

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
e
u
s

n
u
e
i
f

e
r
a

C
o
f
f
e
a

a
r
a
b
i
c
a

E
l
a
e
i
s

g
u
i
n
e
e
n
s
i
s

H
a
v
e
a

b
r
a
s
i
l
i
e
n
s
i
s

P
i
p
e
t
"

n
i
g
r
u
m

T
h
e
o
b
r
o
m
a

c
a
c
a
o

B
r
a
z
i
l

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

t
o

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

B
e
r
t
h
o
l
l
e
t
i
a

e
x
c
e
l
s
a

C
o
p
e
r
n
i
c
i
a

p
r
u
n
i
f
e
r
a

C
o
r
d
i
a

a
l
l
i
o
d
o
r
a

I
n
g
a

s
p
p
.

O
r
b
i
g
n
y
a

s
p
p
.

S
a
m
a
n
e
a

s
a
m
a
n

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
e
a

I
n
d
i
a
,

S
r
i

L
a
n
k
a

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

t
o

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

t
o

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

C
o
r
d
i
a

a
l
l
i
o
d
o
r
a

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

p
o
e
p
p
i
g
i
a
n
a

G
l
i
r
i
c
i
d
i
a

s
e
p
i
u
m

I
n
g
a

s
p
p
.

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
p
p
.

C
a
s
s
i
a

s
p
p
.

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

s
p
p
.

G
r
e
v
i
l
l
e
a

r
o
b
u
s
t
a

M
a
j
o
r

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

[
1
,
2
2
1

[
8
,

1
0
,

1
1
1

[
3
5
,

4
0
,

4
2
]

A
F

f
o
r

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
n
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

f
i
r
e
-

w
o
o
d

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

o
n

o
r

a
r
o
u
n
d

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d
s
;

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

f
o
r
m
s

o
f

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
-

m
e
n
t
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

z
o
n
a
l
,

s
t
r
i
p

a
n
d

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
.

S
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t
s
,

w
i
n
d
-

b
r
e
a
k
s
,

s
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
-

v
a
t
i
o
n

h
e
d
g
e
s

P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

a
r
o
u
n
d

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d
s

a
s

w
i
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
s

a
n
d

s
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t
s
;

p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g

a
l
o
n
g

c
o
n
t
o
u
r
s

f
o
r

t
e
r
r
a
c
e

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
;

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

o
t
h
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

l
i
k
e

f
o
o
d
,

p
o
l
e
s
,

f
o
d
d
e
r
;

F
e
n
c
i
n
g
,

s
h
a
d
e
,

s
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t
s
,

e
t
c
.

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e

r
o
l
e
s

(
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t

w
i
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
,

e
t
c
.
)
;

S
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
;

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
o
d
,

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
.

S
.
E
.

A
s
i
a

W
e
s
t

I
n
d
i
e
s

W
e
s
t
e
r
n

S
a
m
o
a

I
n
d
i
a

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

I
n
d
i
a

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a

(
a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

p
a
r
t
s

o
f

S
.
E
.

A
s
i
a

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

t
o

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
,

i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

V
a
r
i
o
u
s

f
r
u
i
t

t
r
e
e
s

I
n
g
a

v
e
r
a
,

V
a
r
i
o
u
s

s
p
i
c
e

t
r
e
e
s

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

v
a
r
i
e
g
a
t
a

G
l
i
r
i
c
i
d
i
a

s
e
p
i
u
m

L
e
u
c
a
e
n
a

l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
a

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
p
p
.

C
a
s
s
i
a

s
i
a
m
e
a

C
a
s
u
a
r
i
n
a

s
p
p
.

D
e
r
r
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

E
m
b
l
i
c
a

o
f
f
i
c
i
n
a
l
i
s

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

f
a
l
c
a
t
a
r
i
a

C
a
l
l
i
a
n
d
r
a

c
a
l
l
o
t
h
y
r
s
u
s

S
e
s
b
a
n
i
a

g
r
a
n
d
i
f
l
o
r
a

T
r
e
m
a

o
r
i
e
n
t
a
l
i
s

C
a
s
u
a
r
i
n
a

e
q
u
i
s
e
t
i
f
o
l
i
a

S
y
z
y
g
i
u
m

c
u
m
i
n
i
i

G
l
i
r
i
c
i
d
i
a

s
e
p
i
u
m

L
e
u
c
a
e
n
a

l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
a

S
e
s
b
a
n
i
a

g
r
a
n
d
i
f
l
o
r
a

[
4
5
]

[
5
3
1

[
2
6
,

4
7
]

[
4
7
]

[
4
7
]

[
4
7
]

~
D

T
a
b
l
e

5
.

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

S
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
/
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

(
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)

M
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

s
h
r
u
b
s

o
n

f
a
r
m
-

l
a
n
d
s

M
a
j
o
r

o
u
t
p
u
t
~
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

I
,
B
.

A
g
r
i
s
i
l
v
i
e
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

-

T
r
o
p
i
c
a
l

h
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
s

F
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
;

S
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
n

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
/

R
e
g
i
o
n

S
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

s
c
a
l
e

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

w
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

C
r
o
p

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
o
p
s

(
a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
s

s
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s
)

I
n
d
i
a

K
e
n
y
a

N
e
p
a
l

P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y

T
a
n
z
a
n
i
a

B
r
a
z
i
l

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a

I
n
d
i
a
,

S
r
i

L
a
n
k
a

K
e
n
y
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
,

i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
,

i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

A
H
b
i
z
i
a

s
p
p
.

B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a

v
a
r
i
e
g
a
t
a

D
a
l
b
e
r
g
i
a

s
i
s
s
o
o

C
e
i
b
a

p
e
t
a
n
d
r
a

E
r
i
o
b
o
t
r
y
a

j
a
p
o
n
i
c
a

G
r
e
v
i
l
l
a
e

r
o
b
u
s
t
a

B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a

s
p
p
.

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

s
p
p
.

F
i
c
u
s

s
p
p

L
i
t
s
e
a

p
o
l
y
n
t
h
a

M
e
l
i
a

a
z
e
d
a
r
a
c
h

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
p
p
.

C
o
r
d
i
a

a
f
r
i
c
a
n
a

C
r
o
t
o
n

m
a
c
r
o
s
t
a
c
h
y
s

T
r
e
m
a

g
u
i
n
e
e
n
s
i
s

A
l
n
u
s

a
c
u
m
i
n
a
t
a

E
n
t
e
r
o
l
o
b
i
u
m

c
o
n
t
o
r
s
i
l
i
q
u
u
m

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

v
e
l
u
t
i
n
a

A
l
n
u
s

a
c
u
m
i
n
a
t
a

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

p
o
e
p
p
i
g
i
a
n
a

I
n
g
a

s
p
p
.

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
p
p
.

G
r
e
v
i
l
l
e
a

r
o
b
u
s
t
a

G
r
e
v
i
l
l
e
a

r
o
b
u
s
t
a

M
a
j
o
r

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

[
4
7
]

[
1
9
]

[
1
4
]

[
1
8
1

[
8
,

1
0
,

1
1
]

P
a
p
u
a

N
e
w

G
u
i
n
e
a

R
w
a
n
d
a

T
a
n
z
a
n
i
a

A
F

F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
s
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s
)

I
n
d
i
a

N
e
p
a
l

S
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t
s
,

W
i
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
s
,

S
o
i
l

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

H
e
d
g
e
s

I
.
C
.

A
g
r
i
s
i
l
v
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

-

A
r
i
d

a
n
d

s
e
m
i
-
a
r
i
d

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

M
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

s
h
r
u
b
s

o
n

f
a
r
m
-

l
a
n
d
s

I
n

m
a
n
y

p
l
a
c
e
s
,

s
t
r
i
p
s

o
f

t
r
e
e
s

a
r
e

p
l
a
n
t
e
d

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

e
d
g
e
s

o
f

c
o
n
t
o
u
r

t
e
r
r
a
c
e
s

(
s
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s
)

B
r
a
z
i
l

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

A
f
r
i
c
a
n

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c

I
n
d
i
a

K
e
n
y
a

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
,

i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

C
a
s
u
a
r
i
n
a

o
l
y
g
o
d
o
n

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
p
p
.

C
o
r
d
i
a

a
f
r
i
c
a
n
a

G
r
e
v
i
l
l
e
a

r
o
b
u
s
t
a

T
r
e
m
a

g
u
i
n
e
e
n
s
i
s

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
a

B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a

s
p
p
.

G
r
e
w
i
a

s
p
p
.

(
s
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s
)

C
a
e
s
a
l
p
i
n
i
a
f
e
r
r
e
a

P
r
o
s
o
p
i
s
j
u
l
i
f
l
o
r
a

Z
i
z
y
p
h
u
s

f
o
a
z
e
i
r
o

A
d
a
n
s
o
n
i
a

d
i
g
i
t
a
t
a

B
a
l
a
n
i
t
e
s

a
e
g
y
p
t
i
a
c
a

B
o
r
a
s
s
u
s

a
e
t
h
i
o
p
i
u
m

C
a
/
a
n
u
s

c
a
/
a
n

D
e
r
r
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

P
r
o
s
o
p
i
s

c
i
n
e
r
a
r
i
a

T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
u
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

A
c
a
c
i
a

s
p
p
.

B
a
l
a
n
#
e
s

a
e
g
y
p
t
i
a
c
a

C
a
f
a
n
u
s

c
a
f
a
n

[
6
1

[
4
8
1

[
1
8
]

[
2
6
1

[
4
7
1

[
2
9
]

[
6
8
]

[
3
9
,

4
7
l

T
a
b
l
e

5
.

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

S
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
~
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

(
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)

A
F

F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

M
a
j
o
r

o
u
t
p
u
t
/
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
/

R
e
g
i
o
n

S
u
d
a
n

&

S
a
h
e
l
i
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

T
a
n
z
a
n
i
a

C
h
i
l
e

I
n
d
i
a

S
a
h
e
l

I
n
d
i
a

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

S
h
e
l
t
e
r
b
e
l
t
s

a
n
d

W
i
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
s

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
g
r
i
.

f
i
e
l
d
s

f
r
o
m

w
i
n
d
s
;

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d

I
I
.
A
.

S
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

-

H
u
m
i
d
/
s
u
b
-
h
u
m
i
d

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s

P
r
o
t
e
i
n

b
a
n
k

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

M
u
l
t
i
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

f
o
d
d
e
r

f
o
d
d
e
r
/
l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

t
r
e
e
s

o
n

o
r

a
r
o
u
n
d

a
n
d

f
o
o
d

c
r
o
p
s

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
s

I
n
d
i
a
,

N
e
p
a
l
,

S
r
i

L
a
n
k
a

S
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

s
c
a
l
e

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
,

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

M
o
s
t
r
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

w
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

A
c
a
c
i
a

a
l
b
i
d
a

A
c
a
c
i
a

s
p
p
.

C
o
m
b
r
e
t
u
m

s
p
p
.

P
r
o
s
o
p
i
s

t
a
m
a
r
u
g
o

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

l
e
b
b
e
k

C
a
s
s
i
a

s
i
a
m
e
a

P
r
o
s
o
p
i
s

s
p
p
.

A
c
a
c
i
a

a
l
b
i
d
a

A
.

s
e
n
e
g
a
l

A
.

t
o
r
t
i
l
i
s

A
z
a
d
i
r
a
c
h
t
a

i
n
d
i
c
a

C
a
f
a
n
u
s

c
a
j
a
n

C
a
s
s
i
a

s
i
a
m
e
a

E
u
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s

s
p
p
.

P
i
t
h
e
c
e
l
l
o
b
i
u
m

d
u
l
c
e

P
o
p
u
l
u
s

s
p
p
.

A
r
t
o
c
a
r
p
u
s

s
p
p
.

A
n
o
g
e
i
s
s
u
s

l
a
t
i
f
o
l
i
a

B
o
m
b
a
x

m
a
l
a
b
a
r
i
c
u
m

C
o
r
d
i
a

d
i
c
h
o
t
o
m
a

M
a
j
o
r

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

[
1
7
,

6
2
]

[
4
7
]

[
3
4
]

[
2
6
1

[
6
3
]

[
5
5
,
5
6
]

[
2
6
,

4
9
,

5
7
]

t
O

L
i
v
i
n
g

f
e
n
c
e
s

o
f

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

f
o
d
d
e
r

t
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
n
c
e
)
;

s
h
r
u
b
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
e
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
.

T
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

s
h
r
u
b
s

o
n

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
s

s
i
m
i
l
a
r

t
o

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
/

m
u
l
t
i
-
p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
r
e
e
s

l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

a
n
d

o
n

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
s

w
o
o
d

l
l
.
B
.

S
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

-

T
r
o
p
i
c
a
l

h
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
s

P
r
o
t
e
i
n

b
a
n
k

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
d
d
e
r
/

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

a
n
d

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
;

S
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a

E
t
h
i
o
p
i
a

S
.
E
.

A
s
i
a

B
r
a
z
i
l

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a

I
n
d
i
a

I
n
d
i
a
n

s
u
b
-

c
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

D
a
l
b
e
r
f
l
a

s
i
s
s
o
o

E
u
g
e
n
i
a

f
a
m
b
o
l
a
n
a

S
a
m
a
n
e
a

s
a
m
a
n

Z
i
z
y
p
h
u
s

f
u
/
u
b
a

D
i
p
h
y
s
a

r
o
b
i
n
o
i
d
e
s

G
l
i
r
i
c
i
d
a

s
e
p
i
u
m

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

a
b
y
s
s
i
n
i
c
a

S
e
s
b
a
n
i
a

g
r
a
n
d
i
f
l
o
r
a

A
c
a
c
i
a

s
p
p
.

A
n
a
c
a
r
d
i
u
m

o
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
e

C
e
d
r
e
l
a

o
d
o
r
a
t
a

C
o
r
d
i
a

a
l
l
i
o
d
o
r
a

V
a
r
i
o
u
s

p
a
l
m
s

E
n
t
e
r
o
l
o
b
i
u
m

c
y
c
l
o
c
a
r
p
u
m

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

p
o
e
p
p
i
g
i
a
n
a

S
a
m
a
n
e
a

s
a
m
a
n

D
e
r
r
i
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

E
m
b
l
i
c
a

o
f
f
i
c
i
a
n
a
l
i
s

P
s
i
d
i
u
m

g
u
a
f
a
v
a

T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
u
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
a

B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a

s
p
p
.

F
i
c
u
s

s
p
p
.

G
r
e
w
i
a

o
p
p
o
s
i
t
i
f
o
l
i
a

M
o
r
u
s

a
l
b
a

[
8
,

1
0
,

I
I
I

[
2
2
,

3
0
1

[
8
,
1
1
1

[
5
7
]

t
O

t
.
o

T
a
b
l
e

5
.

(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)

S
u
b
-
s
y
s
t
e
m
/
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e

(
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)

L
i
v
i
n
g

f
e
n
c
e
s

M
a
j
o
r

o
u
t
p
u
t
/
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

r
o
l
e
s

T
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

s
h
r
u
b
s

F
o
d
d
e
r
/
a
n
i
m
a
l

o
n

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
;

f
o
o
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
I
.
C
.

S
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

-

A
r
i
d

a
n
d

s
e
m
i
-
a
r
i
d

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

P
r
o
t
e
i
n

b
a
n
k

S
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

C
o
u
n
t
r
y
/

R
e
g
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a

E
t
h
i
o
p
i
a

E
a
s
t

A
f
r
i
c
a

B
r
a
z
i
l

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a

I
n
d
i
a
n

s
u
b
-

c
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t

I
n
d
i
a

S
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

s
c
a
l
e

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

t
o

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

t
o

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

t
o

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

w
o
o
d
y

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

G
l
i
r
i
c
i
d
i
a

s
e
p
i
u
m

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

a
b
y
s
s
i
n
i
c
a

D
o
v
y
a
l
i
s

c
a
f
f
r
a

E
u
p
h
o
r
b
i
a

t
i
r
u
c
a
l
l
i

I
b
o
z
a

m
u
l
t
i
f
l
o
r
a

D
e
s
m
a
n
t
h
u
s

v
a
r
i
g
a
t
u
s

D
e
s
m
o
d
i
u
m

d
i
s
c
o
l
o
r

A
l
n
u
s

a
c
u
m
i
n
a
t
a

A
l
b
i
z
i
a

s
t
i
p
u
l
a
t
a

A
l
n
u
s

n
a
p
a
l
e
n
i
s

G
r
e
w
i
a

s
p
p
.

R
o
b
i
n
i
a

p
s
u
e
d
o
a
c
a
c
i
a

A
c
a
c
i
a

n
i
l
o
t
i
c
a

A
i
l
a
n
t
h
u
s

e
x
c
e
l
s
a

O
p
u
n
t
i
a

f
i
c
u
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

P
r
o
s
o
p
i
s

s
p
p
.

R
h
u
s

s
i
n
u
a
t
a

M
a
j
o
r

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

[
5
7
]

7
0

4
~

L
i
v
i
n
g

f
e
n
c
e
s

S
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

T
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

s
h
r
u
b
s

o
n

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
s

S
a
m
e

a
s

i
n

o
t
h
e
r

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

I
I
I
.

A
g
r
o
s
i
l
v
o
p
a
s
t
o
r
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

W
o
o
d
y

h
e
d
g
e
r
o
w
s

f
o
r

b
r
o
w
s
e
,

m
u
l
c
h
,

g
r
e
e
n

m
a
n
u
r
e

a
n
d

s
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

T
r
e
e
-
c
r
o
p
-
l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k

m
i
x

a
r
o
u
n
d

h
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d

(
k
n
o
w
n

a
s

H
o
m
e

G
a
r
d
e
n
s
,

t
h
e
s
e

d
e
n
s
e

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

f
o
u
n
d

i
n

a
l
m
o
s
t

a
l
l

e
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
;

o
n
l
y

s
o
m
e

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

a
r
e

g
i
c
e
n
)

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
o
d
/
f
o
d
d
e
r
/

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
;

S
o
i
l

c
o
n
s
e
r
-

v
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
o
o
d
/
f
o
d
d
e
r
/

f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
,

e
t
c
.

f
o
r

h
o
m
e

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d
,

s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
,

f
o
r

s
a
l
e

(
c
a
s
h
)

E
a
s
t

A
f
r
i
c
a

I
n
d
i
a

M
i
d
d
l
e

E
a
s
t

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n

I
n
d
i
a
n

s
u
b
-

c
o
n
t
i
n
e
n
t

(
H
u
m
i
d

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s
)
,

S
.
E
.

A
s
i
a

S
o
u
r
h

a
n
d

S
E

A
s
i
a

(
H
u
m
i
d

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s
)

N
i
g
e
r
i
a

(
H
u
m
i
d

l
o
w
l
a
n
d
s
)

L
a
t
i
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s

T
a
n
z
a
n
i
a

(
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
s
)

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

o

i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

M
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

S
u
b
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

A
c
a
c
i
a

s
p
p
.

C
o
m
m
i
p
h
o
r
a

a
f
r
i
c
a
n
a

E
u
p
h
o
r
b
i
a

t
i
r
u
c
a
l
l
i

Z
i
z
y
p
h
u
s

m
u
c
r
o
n
a
t
a

A
c
a
c
i
a

s
p
p
.

P
r
o
s
o
p
i
s

s
p
p
.

T
a
m
a
r
i
n
d
u
s

i
n
d
i
c
a

A
c
a
c
i
a

s
p
p
.

C
e
r
a
t
o
n
i
a

s
i
l
i
q
u
a

H
a
l
o
x
y
l
o
n

s
p
p
.

P
r
o
s
o
p
i
s

c
i
n
e
r
a
r
i
a

T
a
m
a
r
i
x

a
p
h
y
l
l
a

E
r
y
t
h
r
i
n
a

s
p
p
.

L
e
u
c
a
e
n
a

l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
a

S
e
s
b
a
n
i
a

s
p
p
.

[
6
5
]

[
6
6
]

[
1
8
]

126
17. Felker P (1978) State of the Art: Acacia albida as a Complementary Intercrop with
Annual Crops. Univ California, Berkely, California (AID/aft C-1361 ; mimeo)
18. Fernandes ECM, O' Kting' ati A and Maghembe J (1984) The Chagga home-gardens:
a multi-storied agroforestry cropping system in Mt. Kilimanjaro, N. Tanzania.
Agroforestry Systems 2: 73- 86
19. Fonzen P and Oberholzer E (1984) Use of multipurpose trees in hill farming systems
in western Nepal. Agrofore stry Systems 2: 198- 197
20. Getahun A, Wilson GF and Kang BT (1982) The role of trees in the farming systems
in the humid tropics. In: MacDonald LH (ed) Agroforestry in the African Humid
Tropics, pp 28- 35. United Nations University, Tokyo
21. Grainger A (1980) The development of tree crops and agroforestry systems. Intern
Tree Crops J 1: 3- 14
22. Hecht SB (ed) (1982) Amazonia: Agriculture and Land Use Research. CIAT, Call,
Colombia
23. Heuveldop J and Lagemann J (eds) (1981) Agroforestry: Proc of a seminar held at
CATIE, 23 Febr uar y- 3 March, 1981. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica
24. Hoekstra DA and Kuguru FM (eds) (1982) Agroforestry Systems for Small-Scale
Farmers. ICRAF/ BAT, Nairobi
25. Huxley PA (1983) Comments of agroforestry classification with special reference to
plants. In: Huxley PA (ed) Plant Research and Agroforestry, pp 161- 171. ICRAF,
Nairobi
26. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (1979) Proceedings of the National Seminar
on Agroforestry, May 1979. ICAR, New Delhi
27. International Council for Research in Agroforestry (1983a) A Global Inventory of
Agroforestry Systems: A Project Announcement. Agroforestry Systems 1: 269- 273
28. International Council for Research in Agroforestry (1983b) Draft guidelines for
agroforestry diagnosis and design. Working Paper 7, ICRAF, Nairobi
29. Johnson DV (1983) Agroforestry Systems in Northeast Brazil. Report of the
Special Consultant. ICRAF, Niarobi (unpublished)
30. Johnson DV and Nair PKR (1984) Perennial crop-based agroforestry systems in
northeast Brazil. Agroforestry systems 2 : 2 8 1 - 2 9 2
31. King KFS (1979) Agroforestry and the utilization of fragile ecosystems. Forest
Ecol Management 2: 161- 168
32. Kronick J (1984) Temporal analysis of agroforestry systems for rural development.
Agroforestry Systems 2: 165- 176
33. Kundstadter P, Chapman EC and Sabhasri S (eds) (1978) Farmers in the Forest:
Economic Development and Marginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand. East-West
Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
34. Little EL (1983) Common Fuelwood Crops: A Handbook for their Identification.
McClain Printing Co., Parsons, West Virginia
35. Liyanage M de S, Tajwani KG and Nair PKR (1984) Intercropping under coconuts
in Sri Lanka. Agroforestry Systems 2: 215- 228
36. Lundgren B (1982) The use of agroforestry to improve the productivity of con-
verted tropical land. Prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment of the
United States Congress. ICRAF Miscellaneous Papers, ICRAF, Nairobi (unpubl)
37. Lundgren B and Raintree JB (1982) Sustained agroforestry. In: Nestel B (ed)
Agricultural Research for Development: Potentials and Challenges in Asia, pp
37- 49. ISNAR, The Hague
38. McDonald LH (ed) (1982) Agroforestry in the African Humid Tropics. United
Nations University, Tokyo
39. Mann HS and Saxena SK (eds) (1980) Khejri (Prosopis cineraria) in the Indian
Desert. CAZRI Monograph No 11. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur,
India
40. Nair PKR (1979) Intensive Multiple Cropping with Coconuts in India: Principles,
Programmes and Prospects. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin (West)
41. Nair PKR (1983a) Some promising agroforestry technologies for hilly and semi-arid
regions of Rwanda. In: Chang J (ed) Report of a Seminar on Agricultural Research
in Rwanda: Assessment and Perspectives, pp 93- 99. ISNAR, The Hague
42. Nair PKR (1983b) Agroforestry with coconuts and other tropical plantation crops.
127
In: Huxley PA (ed) Plant Research and Agroforestry, pp 79- 102. ICRAF,
Nairobi
43. Nair PKR (1983c) Tree integration on farmlands for sustained productivity of
smaUholdings. In: Lockeretz W (ed) Environmentally Sound Agricultural Alter-
natives, pp 333- 350, Praeger, New York
44. Nair PKR (1985a) Tropical Agroforestry systems and practices. In: Furtado JI and
Ruddle K (eds) Tropical Resource Ecology and Development. John Wiley,
Chichester, England (in press)
45. Nair PKR (1985b) Fruit Trees in Agroforestry. Working Paper. Environment and
Policy Inst, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
46. Nair PKR, Fernandes ECM and Wambugu PN (1984) Multipurpose leguminous trees
and shrubs for agroforestry. Agroforestry systems 2: 145- 163
47. National Academy of Sciences (1980) Forewood Crops: Shrubs and Trees for
Energy Production. NAS, Washington, DC
48. Neumann I (1983) Use of trees in smallholder agriculture in tropical highlands. In:
Lockeretz W (ed) Environmentally Sound Agriculture, pp 351- 374. Praeger,
New York
49. Panday K (1982) Fodder Trees and Tree fodder in Nepal. Swiss Devpt Corp, Berne,
and Swiss Federal lnst of Forestry Research, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
50. Pollisco F (1979) National, bilateral and multilateral agroforestry projects in Asia.
In: Chandler T and Spurgeon D (eds) International Cooperation in Agroforestry,
pp 161- 168. ICRAF, Nairobi
51. Raintree JB (1984) A systems approach to agroforestry diagnosis and design.
ICRAF' s experience with an interdisciplinary methodology. Paper to the VI World
Congress for Rural Sociology. 15- 21 December 1984, Manila
52. Raintree JB and Lundgren B (1985) Agroforestry potentials for biomass production
in integrated land use systems. Presented at the Workshop on Biomass Energy
Systems: Building Blocks for Sustainable Agriculture. World Resources Inst
29 J a n - 1 Feb. 1985
53. Richardson SD (1984) Agroforestry in the Pacific Islands. In: Schirmer A (ed) The
Role of Agroforestry in the Pacific, pp 53- 70. German Foundat i on for Inter-
national Development (DSE), Eschborn, W Germany
54. Serf-el-Din AG (1981) Agroforestry practices in the dry regions. In: Buck L (ed)
Proceedings of the Kenya National Seminar on Agroforestry, 1980, pp 419- 434.
ICRAF, Nairobi
55. Sheikh MI and Chima AM (1976) Effect of windbreaks (tree rows) on the yield of
wheat crop. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 26: 38- 47
56. Sheikh MI and Khalique A (1982) Effect of tree belts on the yield of agricultural
crops. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 32:21 - 23
57. Singh RV (1982) Fodder Trees in India. Oxford and IBH Pub Co, New Delhi
58. Ssekabembe C (1985) Perspectives of hedgrow intercropping. Agroforestry Systems
(in press)
59. Stewart PJ (1981) Forestry, agriculture and land husbandry. Commonw For Rev
60( 1) : 29- 34
60. Tortes F (1983) Agroforestry: concepts and practices. In: Hoekstra DA and Kuguru
FM (eds) Agroforestry Systems for Small-scale Farmers, pp 27- 42 ICRAF/ BAT,
Nairobi
61. Vergara NT (1981) Integral agroforestry: a potential strategy for stabilizing shifting
cultivation and sustaining productivity of the natural environment. Working Paper
Environment and Policy Inst, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
62. yon Maydell H-J (1979) The development of agroforestry in the Sehelian zone of
Africa. In: Chandler T and Spurgeon D (eds) International Cooperation in Agro-
forestry, pp 15- 29. ICRAF, Nairobi
63. yon Maydell H-J (1984) Agroforestry Systems and Practices in the Arid and Semi-
Arid Parts of Africa. Report of the Special Consultant, ICRAF, Nairobi (unpub-
lished)
64. Wiersum KF (1980) Observations on agroforestry in Java, Indonesia. Forestry
Faculty, Gadjah Mada Univ. Indonesia and Department of Forest Management,
University of Wageningen, The Netherlands
128
65. Wiersum, KF (1982) Tree gardening and taungya in Java: examples of agroforestry
techniques in the humid tropics. Agroforestry Systems 1:53-70
66. Wilken GC (1977) Integration of forest and small scale farm systems in middle
America. Agro-Ecosystems 3:291-302
67. Wilson GF and Kang BT (1981) Developing stable and productive biological crop-
ping systems for the humid tropics. In: Stonehouse B (ed) A Scientific Approach to
Organic Farming, pp 193-203. Butterworth, London
68. Yandji E (1982) Traditional agroforestry systems in the Central African Republic.
In: MacDonald LH (ed) Agroforestry in the African Humid Tropics, pp 52-55.
UNU, Tokyo
69. Young A (1984) Evaluation of agroforestry potential in sloping areas. Working
Paper 27. ICRAF, Nairobi