Open Access

TEK and biodiversity management in agroforestry systems of different socio-ecological contexts of the Tehuacán Valley

  • Mariana Vallejo-Ramos1,
  • Ana I. Moreno-Calles2 and
  • Alejandro Casas3Email author
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine201612:31

DOI: 10.1186/s13002-016-0102-2

Received: 12 January 2016

Accepted: 13 July 2016

Published: 22 July 2016

Abstract

Transformation of natural ecosystems into intensive agriculture is a main factor causing biodiversity loss worldwide. Agroforestry systems (AFS) may maintain biodiversity, ecosystem benefits and human wellbeing, they have therefore high potential for concealing production and conservation. However, promotion of intensive agriculture and disparagement of TEK endanger their permanence. A high diversity of AFS still exist in the world and their potentialities vary with the socio-ecological contexts. We analysed AFS in tropical, temperate, and arid environments, of the Tehuacan Valley, Mexico, to investigate how their capacity varies to conserve biodiversity and role of TEK influencing differences in those contexts. We hypothesized that biodiversity in AFS is related to that of forests types associated and the vigour of TEK and management. We conducted studies in a matrix of environments and human cultures in the Tehuacán Valley. In addition, we reviewed, systematized and compared information from other regions of Mexico and the world with comparable socio-ecological contexts in order to explore possible general patterns. Our study found from 26 % to nearly 90 % of wild plants species richness conserved in AFS, the decreasing proportion mainly associated to pressures for intensifying agricultural production and abandoning traditional techniques. Native species richness preserved in AFS is influenced by richness existing in the associated forests, but the main driver is how people preserve benefits of components and functions of ecosystems. Elements of modern agricultural production may coexist with traditional management patterns, but imposition of modern models may break possible balances. TEK influences decisions on what and how modern techniques may be advantageous for preserving biodiversity, ecosystem integrity in AFS and people’s wellbeing. TEK, agroecology and other sciences may interact for maintaining and improving traditional AFS to increase biodiversity and ecosystem integrity while improving quality of life of people managing the AFS.

Keywords

Agroecology Agroforestry systems Sustainable management TEK Traditional management

Background

Transformation of natural ecosystems into intensive agricultural systems is among the main factors determining the high biodiversity loss throughout the world [15]. The expansion of agriculture and grassland areas is progressively growing. For instance, from 1980 to 2000, more than 55 % of new agricultural fields were established in primary forests and nearly 28 % in secondary forests [6]. Main efforts for biodiversity conservation have been directed to decree natural reserves and protected areas, but these have only protected nearly 8 % of the planetary forests [7]. Most of the natural protected areas are surrounded by or have inside them agricultural landscapes, commonly with environmental problems such as fragmentation, contamination by agrochemicals, illegal hunting and taming, soil erosion, among others [8, 9]. Therefore, threatening of biodiversity within and outside protected areas are closely linked with socio-ecological processes occurring in landscapes at the surrounding area as well as inside them, including the matrix of agricultural and forest lands, and the management forms of agricultural systems [1012].

In extent areas of the world, landscapes comprise agroforestry systems (AFS), which may play important roles for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystems integrity [2, 13]. These systems are strongly supported by TEK, ecology, and agroecology; therefore, cooperation of TEK and ecological sciences in understanding and acting may be crucial for optimizing such a role of AFS in conservation programs while ensuring the wellbeing of people managing the systems.

AFS are complex systems combining wild and domesticated plant, animal, fungal and microorganisms components interacting, determining processes and emergent properties with beneficial consequences for both ecosystems and societies. These systems are designed and managed based on millenarian experiences of peoples throughout the world and are expressions of TEK and biocultural heritage. Traditionally, management of AFS include among their components trees, shrubs and herbs that are part of the natural forests, which confer them good capacities for conserving native species. Native species may be let standing, both adult plants and their sprouts, but also people may plant their propagules, or provide them special care [1416].

Components of AFS are managed in systemic ways of land use [1719] and practices could be reminiscences of the earliest forms of agriculture [20]; actually, several authors have postulated that agriculture derives from experiences of managing forests [21]. Current AFS are apparently the result of TEK based on centuries and even millennia of interactions between humans and nature, as well as knowledge and techniques resulting from such interactions. AFS synthesize the expression of ancient and deep biocultural interactions and TEK [2225].

AFS have been studied from ecological sciences [26, 27], economic [1, 28], cultural and ethnoecological approaches [22, 25, 29], landscape analysis [4], among other disciplines. It is generally recognized that AFS integrate multiple wild and domesticated plant and animal components [25] in a coherent totality [30]. Crops and forest components are disposed in dynamic patches determining a high diversity of biophysical and socio-ecological processes [23] that favour the conservation and resilience of both components and functions [11, 3134].

From an ecological perspective, at landscape level AFS may conform corridors that favour processes of dispersion of native flora and fauna, as well as maintenance of ecosystem functions that provide valuable environmental services. Among them, carbon sequestration, refuge of pollinators and natural predators of crop pests, reservoirs of propagules of plants for vegetation regeneration, soil conservation, and regulating factors of water, nutrient flows, and microclimates [2, 5, 3538].

It has been documented that soils of AFS may be productive enough to sustain long term agricultural production [13, 17, 33], and are highly beneficial to maintain and improve production in areas with soils of low fertility and high or low humidity [37]. Presence of a cover of wild and domesticated plants favours availability of nutrients like nitrogen and absorption of nutrients in deep layers of soil [5, 37, 38].

AFS may favour maintenance of local and regional biodiversity [2, 23]. At regional level, the mosaic of agricultural and forest patches allows maintaining habitats, connectivity and gene flow among populations of flora and fauna species of conserved and fragmented areas [9, 26, 27, 33, 3943]. At local scale, AFS may increase the floristic composition of both useful and not useful plants species [44], wild, weedy and domesticated plants [14, 21, 45], species from primary and secondary forests, and even plant species from several forest types of a region [16, 4549]. All these practices significantly contribute to increase the species richness and diversity in AFS and the surrounding landscapes. In addition, some components of AFS, particularly trees, provide habitats favourable to other plant (e.g. epiphytes and hemi-parasitic plants) and animal species [2, 13, 15]. These processes, in turn, favour the coexistence and interactions among species, the stability and resilience, as well as a more sustainable productivity of the system than monocultures [1, 26, 50, 51].

AFS favour the potential of regeneration of forests disturbed by establishing of agricultural plots, and ease its restoration and that of the neighbouring systems. While conserving soil, water, animals dispersers of seeds, pollinators, and propagules of native plant species, AFS allow that fallow and abandoned agricultural plots are in good conditions for a faster succession and regeneration of natural ecosystems than those systems drastically transformed [9, 52, 53].

AFS have been used based on the principle of multiple use of natural resources and functions of the systems, which has favoured the diversification of production systems for rural people subsistence [22, 28, 54]. The strategy of multiple use of resources prevail in rural peasant contexts, mainly where traditional agriculture is predominant, and where people have a close relationship with their land and perceive and know its multiple constituents, functions and interactions [9, 22]. Such management strategy allows that AFS provide agricultural products along with forest resources used as construction, fuel, medicines, food, and other benefits [1, 26, 47, 49, 55, 56], which in turn may contribute to decrease pressure on resources extraction and clearing of forest areas. In addition, these have allowed generating monetary incomes to households in different regions [47, 48].

However their agroecological and biocultural importance, AFS are in high risk of disappearing. Among the factors that mainly endanger their existence, are the increasing social and economic pressures to intensify the production systems [25, 57], as well as loss of TEK associated to loss of traditional cultures, knowledge and techniques [22]. In addition, in Mexico, some governmental programs enhance removing vegetation cover in crop fields arguing that the remaining vegetation decreases agricultural production [15, 25]. Some programs of governmental agencies and NGOs are careless, enhancing reforestation or AFS without considering local knowledge and opinions. These programs are generally unsuccessful [28, 54, 58]. Documenting TEK and management experience associated to AFS throughout the World is therefore a high priority of ethnobiological and agroecological research.

AFS have persisted throughout the time from the origins of agriculture. In the Tehuacán Valley, one of the earliest areas of agriculture of the New World [59], AFS predominate in the regional agricultural landscape [15, 47] and are most probably the earliest agricultural systems in that region, and probably in other areas of Mesoamerica. The hypotheses include the “hydro-horticulture” and the “streams horticulture” proposed by MacNeish [59], the forest disturbance model proposed by Smith [60], and the silvicultural origin model proposed by Casas et al. [14, 21]. A high diversity of AFS has been reported in the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico and other areas of the world [2, 5, 25, 27, 38, 41]. Their potentialities and limitations varying according to the ecological, cultural, social and economic contexts where they are practiced. Our study aimed to examine how social and ecological factors influence the management and structure of AFS systems. In particular, we directed our review to analyse how variable are AFS systems in different environmental contexts in Tehuacán Valley, how varies their capacity to conserve biodiversity, and which factors mainly influence the variation. We hypothesized that biodiversity harboured in AFS should be proportional to amount of diversity existing in the associated forests, as well as to the prevalence of TEK and management over intensive agricultural systems.

Methods

We conducted studies in a matrix of environments and human cultures in the Tehuacán Valley, central Mexico (Fig. 1) during nearly 10 years of studies comparing the vegetation composition of AFS and forests. Such studies have included AFS and different forest types in (1) dry areas (columnar cacti forests, thorn-scrub, and rosetophyllous forests), (2) tropical sub-humid and dry forests, which are associated to the rivers conforming a gradient from tropical dry forests to real tropical wet forests, and (3) temperate zones (oak-pine forests, sclerophyllous forests or mexical a type of Mediterranean-like vegetation). AFS systems may include two great groups of systems, those attached or close to peoples’ houses (homegardens), and a great variety of systems apart from houses we call them in this study “field AFS”. “Field AFS are not only different to homegardens in relation to the distance from houses but in relation to their function in production, extent, and capacity for maintaining natural vegetation. Our studies are now centred in “field AFS”, and a comparison with homegardens will be discussed elsewhere. The analyses based on vegetation sampling, which allowed calculating the species richness, diversity and composition, relating density, frequency and biomass of each species in the sampling areas in both, forests and AFS. Plant composition was evaluated through the number of plant families, genera and species, considering all species and only native plant species. In forests we sampled square units of 500 m2 subdivided in five squares of 10X10 m2. For sampling AFS we recorded individual plants of each species in areas of vegetation cover associated to agroforestry practices (remaining patches of forests inside agricultural plots, vegetation islands, vegetation fringes, isolated trees and living fences surrounding agricultural plots). In addition, we have documented general features of local human cultures, their agricultural knowledge and practices, emphasizing about the reasons why people maintain vegetation cover in their agricultural plots, the economic, ecological and agricultural benefits perceived by practicing AFS. We compared plant species richness and diversity among forests and AFS, as well as among AFS managed at different levels of intensity.
Fig. 1

Location of the Tehuacan Valley in Central Mexico. We indicate the names of the localities where the study was conducted and the type of environment studied

In addition, the studies included interviews to the owners of each agricultural plot that allowed documenting the type of management, land tenure, managed crops, the destiny of production (direct consumption, commercialization or interchange), total amount of production, use or not of machines, agro-chemicals, as well as strategies and techniques of management of natural vegetation maintained inside and around the plot, the purpose and reasons for maintaining the particular components.

Our study includes also information systematized from different regions of Mexico. During the last five years, we have compiled and systematized ecological, agronomic, human cultural and economic information on AFS of Mexico. Consequently, we have constructed the database “Biblioteca de Sistemas Agroforestales Tradicionales de México” (Library of Traditional Agroforestry Systems of Mexico), leaded by Ana Isabel Moreno-Calles, which can be consulted at https://www.zotero.org/groups/sistemas_agrofo-restales_tradicionales_de_méxico/.

We finally conducted an exhaustive review of literature on agroforestry systems from tropical, temperate and dry areas of the world, centring our attention on information comparing biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in the context of traditional and intensive agricultural management in order to compare and analyse the context of our own information.

Results

Agroforestry systems in tropical areas

The most studied AFS are those located in tropical regions [2, 53, 6164]. In the Tehuacán Valley, México, the tropical areas are located throughout the main permanent rivers and numerous streams of the region. There is a gradient of tropical vegetation, from tropical dry forests in the northern zone of the region to sub-humid vegetation represented by mezquitales in the central portion of the alluvial valleys to tropical wet forests in the lowest southernmost areas, where forests are really tropical rain forests surrounded by dry areas. Our studies documented mainly those sub-humid areas [49] that in lowland alluvial valleys. In these tropical forests zones, AFS associated to the multi-crop traditional system called milpa (commonly cultivating maize, beans and squashes) maintain 66 species of trees and shrubs, 81 % of them being native species natives and representing nearly 38 % of the woody flora of the forests surrounding the AFS (Tables 2 and 5). We found that even some endemic species may increase their abundance with agroforestry practices.

Agroforestry practices

In the tropical area, the most important agroforestry practices are semi-terraces, with fringes containing living fences and shrubby and herbaceous vegetation, where people maintain wild species. In some cases people move individual plants that are inside the plots to these fringes, which contribute to maintain soil and humidity and prevent erosion. The reasons for maintaining natural vegetation inside agricultural plots are mainly utilitarian, since most of them are used as food (fruits, the greens called quelites), medicinal, fodder, fuelwood and wood. However, it is also explicit the purpose of preventing soil erosion, maintaining soil fertility and having shade for resting during the agricultural work. In addition, people commonly say that they maintain trees and shrubs to ensure the specific hábitat of some other useful species. For instance, they maintain Parkinsonia praecox since the edible larvae cuchamá live on their stems and branches. Another example is the mezquite (Prosopis laevigata), which is maintained as support for pitahaya (Hylocereus undatus). Other non-utilitarian reasons are related with the beauty that plants provide to the plot, rituals, respect to use regulations, prestige or simply the recognition of the right of plants to live. We recorded 15 different reasons (Table 1).
Table 1

Main reasons why people from different socio-ecological zones of the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley, central México, let standing trees and shrubs in their agroforestry systems (AFS)

 

Reasons

Temperate zones

Arid zones

Tropical dry and wet zones

Utilitarian

Edible product

X

X

X

Firewood

X

X

X

Fodder

X

X

X

Edible fruit

X

 

X

Tools

X

X

X

Medicine

X

X

X

Timber

X

  

Construction

 

X

 

Beverages

X

X

 

Ecosystem benefits

Shade

X

X

X

Maintenance of fertility

X

X

 

Erosion control

 

X

X

Water control

  

X

Windbreaks

X

 

X

Attractor of rain

X

  

Boundary

X

X

 

Crop management

Support climbing crops

X

  

Habitat of useful species

 

X

X

Storing straw

 

X

 

Conforming the terrain

   

Ethics

Part of nature

X

X

 

Ornamental

  

X

Ceremonial

 

X

X

Does not affect

X

 

X

Use regulations

  

X

In the humid tropical areas of Mexico, some outstanding AFS are found in south-eastern Mexico, where Ford and Nigh [65] and other authors identified that the shifting agriculture practiced by the Maya peoples involve the management of nearly 70 domesticated plants species that are cultivated in the fallow areas, together with useful wild plant species. These systems are associated to wetter tropical forests than those found in the Tehuacan Valley. Management techniques involve cultivation, transplantation and which increase their abundance artificially in the recovered forests. This practice appears to be ancient not only in the Maya region, and not only in tropical forests but in other Mesoamerican areas and vegetation types [14, 21]. Another group of tropical AFS is represented by the Kuojtakiloyan, a system studied in the Sierra Norte of the state of Puebla by Toledo and Moguel [66]. This system is also wetter than the tropical sub-humid forests that we documented in the Tehuacan Valley. Kuojtakiloyan are managed by the Náhuatl people, and it is mainly directed to produce coffee under shaded conditions, but people maintain in the systems up to 140 plant species, nearly 96 % of them deliberately maintained because of their use. Together with such a high plant diversity, other associated biodiversity has been reported, mainly birds, amphibians and insects. The Kuojtakiloyan is representative of several similar systems practiced in tropical areas of Mexico by traditional peoples. It may be associated to cocoa, pineapple and other fruit production trees plantations, or other main crops, determining monetary benefits. However, these crops are commonly in association with multiple resources, retaining the capacity of maintaining high biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Several studies have reported that these systems may maintain on average nearly 60 % of species of plants, birds, insects and mammals recorded in the neighbouring forest zones [27]. Consequently, AFS are particularly important in the conservation policies of these areas, which are the reservoirs of the highest biodiversity and indigenous cultures of the whole planet [41]. Paradoxically, the tropical zones are also considered the most strongly disturbed areas on Earth [67, 68]. Approximately 70 % of their plant cover has been converted into agriculture or grassland areas [26], which has determined local extinction of numerous species and threatening tropical biodiversity [69]. The natural habitats are progressively decreasing; for instance, according to FAO [70] in Mexico and Central America the deforestation rate is nearly 1.2 % of the total cover per year, which proportionally increases fragmentation, severe degradation and pressure on the remaining forest [33].

In numerous tropical landscapes, AFS are the managed ecosystems more similar to natural forests [5]. During the last decades, agroforestry has promoted in tropical areas strategies to manage in balanced ways natural resources of forests in association with agriculture, water and soil management, and biodiversity conservation [9, 71] together with efforts for the maintenance of ecosystem services [33, 37]. Such holistic approach of ecosystem management has resulted in successful practices for conserving biodiversity, ecosystems and their capacity for recovering after disturbance. Removing trees from AFS may determine the reduction of resistance and resilience of the agricultural system and the household units that manage them, increasing the incidence and vulnerability to pests and climate change [4, 5]. Therefore, the maintenance of these elements in the systems becomes critical for sustainability of the natural and artificial systems, as well as the households’ life.

In the tropics of the world, there are numerous examples of AFS of coffee and cocoa plantations favouring conservation (Table 2), but AFS combining production of staple grain crops combined with fruit trees are also common. These systems have also demonstrated to be relevant in biodiversity conservation, maintaining high levels of species richness, diversity and structure similar to those of cocoa AFS referred to above [63, 72, 73]. Studies by Asase and Tetteh [74] confirm that trees maintained in these systems provide shade, reduce evapotranspiration, erosion and destructive effects of strong wind (Table 2).
Table 2

Examples of species richness and diversity maintained in agroforestry systems (AFS) in different tropical, temperate and arid zones of the World

Reference

Environment

Region

AFS

Species richness

Diversity

% of species from forest

Taxa evaluated

Bhagwat et al. (2008) [27]

Tropical

General review

General review

N/A

N/A

60 %

General

Toledo and Moguel (2012) [66]

Tropical

Puebla, México

Coffee plantations

140

N/A

 

Plants

Steffan-Dewenter et al. (2007) [68]

Tropical

Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.

Cocoa plantations

189 trees

 

40 %

Trees

166 herbs

N/A

Herbs

208 insects

 

40 %

Insects

Sonwa et al. (2007) [91]

Tropical

Central and southern Cameroon,

Cocoa plantations

203

Sørensen 0.44

 

Trees

Shannon 3.7

 

Simpson 0.12

 
  

70 %

Ants

30

N/A

N/A

Ants

Asase and Tetteh (2010) [74]

Tropical

Adjeikrom, Ghana

Cocoa plantations

27

Shannon 2.46

N/A

Trees

Other crops

31

AFS 2.6 Forest 4.94

N/A

Okubo et al. (2010) [63]

Tropical

Java, Indonesia

Bamboo gardens

76

Shannon: 1.66

N/A

Trees

Vallejo et al. (2014) [49]

Temperate

Tehuacán Valley, Mexico

Maize fields

79

N/A

43 %

Trees and shrubs

Moreno-Calles et al. (2010) [15]

Arid

Tehuacán Valley, Mexico

Maize fields

73

N/A

59 %

Plants

Nabhan (1987, 2007) [24, 54]

Arid

Northern Mexico

Cultivated oasis

139

N/A

N/A

Plants

103

N/A

N/A

Birds

14

N/A

N/A

Mammals

Blanckaert et al. (2007) [45]

Arid

Tehuacán Valley, México

Maize fields

161

N/A

49 %

Herbs

N/A The information was not available in the revised article

A common problem in AFS of the tropical regions is the increasing of mechanization and use of agrochemicals, which has in turn favored increasing of pests problems [1, 67, 68] (Table 4). The industrialization of agriculture and public policies favoring intensive agricultural systems have been a main cause of transformation from diversified traditional agriculture to agro-industrial systems highly dependent from agrochemical inputs [9, 72, 75].

AFS in temperate zones

Temperate zones have demonstrated high potential for favoring long-term sustainable management practices of AFS and natural resources use [20, 76, 77]. In the Tehuacán Valley, we recently documented [49] that AFS associated to temperate forests are mainly managed with the multi-crop traditional system called milpa (commonly cultivating maize, beans and squashes) maintaining 79 species of trees and shrubs, 86 % of them being native species native to the region, representing nearly 43 % of woody flora of the forests surrounding the AFS (Tables 2 and 5). Local people said that the main reasons for maintaining trees and shrubs in their agricultural plots are their use as fruit trees, fuelwood, shade, protection of annual crops against wind, beauty, and respect to nature, among other purposes (Table 1, Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Mexican ethnoagroforestry systems, integrating elements from forests (wild) and agricultural or domesticated components of biodiversity in the Tehuacan Valley. The image illustrate several agroforestry practices such as friges of vegetation, isolated trees, terraces, and barriers against strong wind. AFS of the Tehuacán Valley showed in this image represent different environments discussed in the text but cultivation of maize and beans are the main annual crops in all cases, changing the composition of the wild vegetation composing the system. a AFS with Polakia chichipe and Myrtllocactus schenckii in the arid zone studied, b Fringes of vegetation mainly composed with Agave salmiana in the arid zone studied, c AFS with patches of vegetation composed by Escontria chitilla, Myrtillocactus schenckii, Polaskia chchipe and P. chende in the arid zone studied; d Fringes of terraces in the sub-humid region studied; e combination of native and domesticated trees, crops and herbaceous species; f Example of the aspect of an Island of vegetation in a cleared cropland; g Terraces constructed with ground and plants, h Terraces with stones, i General aspect of the landscape of AFS associated to the river

AFS in these areas may be as ancient as in the tropical zones not only in the Tehuacán Valley but also in Mexico. In the temperate zones of the Americas, there are abundant records of old and recent annual crop systems of maize cultivated in combination with native trees including pines, oaks and other wild species, as well as fruit trees such as apples, pears, plums, among others [78]. In these areas there are specific problems such as climatic and microclimatic conditions such as snow, hailstorms, and frosts, maintaining of soil nutrients, control of underground water level, maintenance of favorable habitats for plants, insects and other animal species, fungi and microorganisms, all of them representing challenges for agricultural practices; stabilization of soils protection against wind are among the most common factors motivating maintenance of natural vegetation in AFS of this zones [79] (Table 3). The most common agroforestry practices in temperate zones are the combination of annual crops with fruit and timber producing trees, frequently forming terraces, as well as a great variety of practices for establishing fences for protecting plots against strong winds, soil erosion, and other multiple purposes (Table 3).
Table 3

Ecosystem benefits reported for agroforestry systems from tropical, temperate and arid zones

Reference

Environment

Region

SAF

Ecosystem benefits

DeClerck et al. (2010) [33]

Tropical

Mesoamerica

General review

Biological corridors enhance secondary succession, favour pollination, biological control of pests, maintenance of microclimates, favour restoration.

Tscharntke et al. (2011) [5]

Tropical

Tropical areas of the World

Cocoa and coffee plantations

Provide biomass for construction, fuel and food (fruit). Favour soil fertility stimulating decomposition of leaf litter, the nutrient cycles and erosion control. Increasing carbon sequestration and reduction of GEG emitions, contributing to mitigation of effects of climate change. Improve functional biodiversity.

Bhagwat et al. (2008) [27]

Tropical

Tropical areas of the World

General review

Refuge of species out of protected areas, maintain heterogeneity of habitat and landscape, reduce anthropogenic pressure on wild areas, may be buffer or corridor areas among conserved zones.

Steffan-Dewenter et al. (2007) [68]

Tropical

Central Sulawesi, Indonesia.

Cocoa plantations

Reduce soil temperature, increase humidity and decomposition rate and maintain soil fertility.

Jose et al. (2004) [79]

Temperate

General review

General review

Biological control through ecological interactions among species, nitrogen fixation due to presence of legume species.

Quinkenstein et al. (2009) [76]

Temperate

Europa

General review

Improve microclimates and thus the stability of productivity of crops. Efficient use of hydric resources and nutrients, sustainable use with low input of fertilizers, pesticides and hand labour. Increase structural heterogeneity of landscape. Promotion of biodiversity, favoring landscape connection. Carbon capture in soil.

Vallejo et al. (2014) [49]

Temperate

Tehuacán Valle, México

Maize fields

Provide shade, protect against strong winds, and provide fruit. Fuel wood and fodder.

Shankarnarayan, K. A., Harsh, L. N., & Kathju

Arid

India

Prosopis AFS

Stabilize dunes, maintain trees adapted to thin soils, reduce effects of strong wind, reduce evapotranspiration, multipurpose trees (fruit, fuel, fodder, etc.).

Moreno-Calles et al. (2010) [15]

Arid

Tehuacán Valley, México

Maize fields

Provide shade, fodder and fruit

Altieri and Toledo (2005) [22]

Arid

México

General review

Conservation of soil and water, reduce evapotranspiration, maintain soil fertility and useful species.

The diversity and structure of plant components of AFS in these zones allow to regulate microclimatic conditions, to favor moderate temperatures, reducing intensity of solar radiation and improving the water (decreasing effects of frosts, snow and storms, increasing the humidity and buffering erosion effects of rain and wind, and reducing the loss of evaporation of superficial water). Although trees may compete for water with crops, benefits are higher [76].

Agroforestry practices

Living fences were identified as the main and most extent agroforestry practice. In these fences people maintain the greater number of individual plants of wild vegetation, and are mainly directed to protect plots against strong wind. Another important practices are vegetation islands, which are arranged in small vegetation patches that allow maintaining natural vegetation which is let standing because of their use and ecosystem services without hindering agricultural labors such as passing through of ploughs or even tractors. In these patches it is common to find domesticated fruit producing trees together with several native species let standing with several purposes. Vegetation patches are mainly left growing in areas of the plots where it is difficult to practice agricultural activities; for instance where stones are abundant, the topography particularly pronounced flooded areas or inappropriate soils. In these areas people commonly use to let standing growth and abundance of a great variety of species of natural vegetation, particularly in areas that do not affect agricultural practices.

Temperate zones generally have high availability of water, enough for allowing production of domesticated trees, and sometimes more than one season of production of annual crops. The main reasons for maintaining vegetation in AFSs of this region are food benefits, but we identified a total of 16 reasons mentioned by people (Table 1).

AFS of temperate zones have been documented as important reservoirs of native biodiversity; on average, agroforestry systems harbor two to three times more species than intensive systems [80]. It may also include a high number of species and crop varieties specifically adapted. For instance, nearly 10,000 varieties of apples and 1000 to 2000 varieties of plums are maintained in situ in these systems [81].

In areas of AFS of temperate zones the heterogeneity of landscapes has being decreasing with agro-industrialization, a phenomenon that is more pronounced in developed countries, but even in those zones AFS have adapted to changes, maintaining and providing ecological structure for species inhabiting the agricultural landscapes [82] (Table 4). These landscapes provide essential services for human wellbeing [76, 81].
Table 4

General advantages and problems of agroforestry systems of tropical, temperate and arid zones

Ecological zone

Uses

Main agroforestry practices

Ecosystem benefits

Problems

Tropical

•  Shade crops (coffee. cocoa)

Fringes

Soil protection

Intensification

• Fruit production

Living fences

Shade

 

• Timber products

Isolated trees

Soil fertility

Loss of TEK

• Pest control

 

High biodiversity

Pesticides, deforestation

Temperate

• Windbreaker

Windbreaker barriers

Microclimate conditions

Intensification

• Snowing damage

Living fences

Buffering winds

No replacement of trees

• Fruit production

Fringes, isolated trees

Soil protection

Fruit commercialization

• Timber products

Vegetation patches

Reduction of damages by frosts

Loss of TEK

• Control of pests

Vegetation patches

Biodiversity

Industrialization

Arid

• Resistance to dryness

Windbreaker barriers

Water management

Specificity of native species

• Retention of humidity and soil

Isolated trees

Soil protection

Abundance of rare species

• Timber and non-timber

Vegetation patches

Shade

Intensification

• Medicinal

Living fences, fringes

Biodiversity

I

AFS of arid zones

Arid zones are characteristic for low rainfall, high radiation and extreme temperatures. These conditions determine high hydric stress and biotic communities of these areas have particular adaptations, highly specialized to survive in such extreme conditions [83]. Ecosystems of these zones are particularly fragile, and relatively small disturbances may determine great consequences including the irreversible loss of components [69], such loss may be more drastic than in other ecosystems [8386]. Production activities have required fine and deep ecological knowledge and management practices according to particular ecological, cultural, and social components [86]. In order to minimize the negative effects associated to environmental conditions, local peoples of the arid lands have developed production systems in which the woody perennial species have an important role in terms of production and conservation [87].

Several studies illustrate the capacity of AFS of arid zones for conserving biological diversity. In the Tehuacán Valley, AFS are managed at small scale, mainly associated to the multi-crop called milpa, with low use of chemical inputs and mechanization, and most commonly their products destined to direct consumption by households [47]. Several studies conducted in the area (Table 4), reveal that AFS play an important role to satisfy human needs and conserving biodiversity in terms of species richness and genetic diversity of particular species [8890]. Moreno-Calles et al. [15, 47] reported that on average 59 % of plant species of natural forests are maintained in AFS, and that some endemic species such as Escontria chiotilla and Lemaireocereus hollianus may increase their abundance in these systems. Blanckaert et al. [45] found nearly 161 of herbaceous plant species in agricultural systems of the area, nearly 49 % of them being present in the local forests (Tables 1, 2 and 5). Dominant arborescent cacti species of the region such as Stenocereus stellatus, S. pruinosus, Escontria chiotilla, Polaskia chende and P. chichipe have been reported in AFS to have on average 93.8 % of genetic variation occurring in wild populations. But in some plots were recorded with even higher levels of genetic diversity than in wild populations [12, 15, 88]. It is relevant in addition to mention that populations of the species mentioned in AFS maintain a dynamic gene flow with wild populations, which also indicate that AFS are key areas for implementing policies of regional biodiversity conservation.
Table 5

General socio-ecological and technological aspects recorded in AFS in different indigenous and Mestizo communities of the Thuacán Valley, México

  

Temperate

Arid

Arid-alluvial valleys

Aspect

Variable

Santa María Coyomeapan

San Lorenzo Pápalo

Santa María Ixcatlán

San Luis Atolotitlán

Santiago Quiotepec

Zapotitlán Salinas

San Losé Axusco

Sociocultural

Ethnicity

Náhuatl

Cuicateco

Ixcateco

Mestizo and Náhuatl

Mestizo and Cuicateco

Meztizo and Mixteco

Náhuatl

Land tenure

Private, ejidal and communal

Communal and private

Communal

Ejidal

Communal and private

Communal

Communal and ejidal

Farming practices

Crops

Corn, beans, squashes, pumpkins, peas

Corn, bean, gourd, fava beans, peas

Corn, beans and squashes

Corn, beans and squashes

Corn, beans and squashes

Corn, beans and squashes

Corn, beans and squashes

Fallow

1 year

1–3 years

6 months

1–5 years

6 months

6 months

6 months

Irrigation

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Machinery

Mattock

Plough and mattock

Tractor and mattock

Plough

Plough

Tractor and mattock

Tractor and Plough

Agrochemicals

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Livestock

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Agroforestry systems

Agroforestry practice

Boundaries, windbreaks and isolated trees

Boundaries and vegetation islands

Boundaries and patches of vegetation

Isolated trees, vegetation islands and fringes against soil erosion, vegetation surrounding the fields.

Fringes for water managenment and against soil erosion

Fringes for water managenment and against soil erosion

Fringes for water managenment and against soil erosion

Principal uses

Edible fruit, Other edible product and Firewood

Shade, firewood and boundary

Shade, firewood and boundary

Edible fruit, firewood and shade

Edible fruit, shade and fodder

Asthetic (beauty), shade and Maintaining water

Other edible product, shade and fodder

Ecological

Species richness

39

18

29

71

32

58

10

Diversity (Shannon Índex)

3

2.5

2

3.2

N/A

N/A

N/A

Agroforestry practices

In the AFS of the arid zones of the TCV, we documented several managemet practices, such as vegetation islands and patches, living fences and isolated trees. The latter agroforestry practice is represenred bt arboreaus species of great economic and cultural value for local people. These include big trees providing shade, fruits, fuelwood and fodder. In arid zones of the TCV the main reason to maintain native vegetation in agricultural plots are shade, fodder, and other 13 reasons (Table 1).

In other regions of Mexico, in the Sonoran Desert for instance, Nabhan [54] documented the traditional agricultural techniques practiced by the Papago people, who have conserved the oases of their territories and have developed a complex system of biotic interactions. This author identified eight plant associations and various agroforestry practices including living fences and windbreaker barriers, as well as high levels of diversity of trees, birds and mammals. The Papago have modified the landscape geomorphology through terraces, channels and flood zones [22, 91]. In the Mezquital Valley in central Mexico, the Ñañhú or Otomí people have constructed terraces and borders to manage water and sediments to improve soil and humidity for crops. Particularly important for these purposes are agave, which in addition provide multiple products used as food, beverages, and fibers, and others [22] (Table 3).

In the arid zones of the numerous human cultures have interacted with the difficult conditions of these zones for thousands of years, and a significant amount of knowledge and techniques have been developed [22, 24], which are all crucial at present for designing the future. Investigating trees and shrubs associated to crops may provide valuable information for improving the AFS, conserving biodiversity and supporting techniques for restoring disturbed areas of arid zones [24, 47] (Tables 3 and 4, Fig. 2).

Discussion

TEK and biodiversity and ecosystem management

Our studies in the Tehuacán Valley reveal that the bases of variation of practices and management techniques at both particular elements of biodiversity and ecosystem levels is the presence, explicit expression and depth of traditional ecological knowledge. In that region, we have documented more than nearly 2000 species of plants that are used with a high variety of purposes. Local people know their useful properties but also details about their distribution, abundance, interactions with other plants and animals and they have an extraordinary information about germination, growth and phenology. All these elements are crucial expressions of TEK that significantly influence their decisions about what and how managing in AFS. Blancas et al. [46] documented with an extraordinary detail how people make decisions about which edible plants may or may not be managed, should or should not be managed, and how and in which systems would be managed. These authors show that TEK is an on-going construction, continually adapting to the changing conditions. The new conditions, as the authors discuss, may be ecologically, economically, culturally and technically influenced. And all these elements may be highly dynamic.

Our studies in the Tehuacán Valley (Table 5) allow seeing that indigenous peoples may adopt technologies of intensive agriculture, and they decide how necessary and viable their adoption is. Ethnicity may or may not be representative of the maintenance of traditional agricultural practices or the adoption of modern technologies. For instance, Table 5 shows that in Axuxco, an eminently Náhuatl village, people decided the adoption of modern elements of agriculture (tractor and agrochemicals), whereas in Santa María Ixcatlán, where the Ixcatec people are markedly few and Mestizo people is the great majority, the traditional agricultural practices in AFS are clearer. Another important aspect to mention is that adoption of modern agricultural techniques not necessarily is the cause of decreasing vegetation cover and biological richness and diversity maintained in AFS. For instance, in Table 5 it can be seen that some communities using tractor and agrochemicals may also maintain a high vegetation cover and plant diversity inside their plots. Therefore, causes and effects of traditional management and intensive agriculture are not linear in relation to ethnicity and vegetation cover, respectively. These are aspects that deserve a deeper analysis, which is of great importance for constructing policies in relation to agricultural patterns and biodiversity conservation.

Literature available on this and other issues reviewed in this analysis has been produced from different approaches and an appropriate comparison and establishing of general conclusions is for the moment difficult. However, further research on AFS including explicitly the questions of how traditional societies adopt and adapt modern agricultural elements and how much these elements influence decreasing biodiversity conservation capacity of AFS are of high importance for constructing alternatives and policies at different scales.

Particularities of AFS in specific environmental contexts

Local peoples manage AFS according to environmental particularities in order to make them functional, productive and viable. In tropical zones, AFS multi-crops are commonly associated to let standing or planted components of the exceptionally diverse natural forests. Coffee and cocoa plantations are out-standing AFS in terms of biodiversity conservation. Soil degradation due to rain and deforestation are main problems faced by people through conserving high species richness, mainly of fruit and fine timber trees but also numerous herbaceous plants. In temperate zones, the main challenges are erosion caused by rain and wind, as well as loss of production caused by frosts, snow, storms and wind. In these areas, the windbreaker barriers, terraces and borders, as well as isolated trees contribute to create propitious microenvironments in AFS, particularly through trees providing fruit, fuel and wood. In the arid zones, the environmental pressures are mainly associated to drought and erosion caused by wind and the infrequent but heavy rains. These zones are particularly fragile since removal of particular species may determine drastic alterations in biotic interactions (pollination, seed dispersal, and facilitation of establishment of numerous plant species by nurse plant species), which may be particularly sensible because native species of perennial plants generally have slow growth rates. AFS in these areas are designed and managed in order to attend these problems and to optimize and ensure availability of valuable natural resources, as well as procuring ecosystem benefits associated to humidity, shade, propitious microenvironments and soil conservation (Tables 3 and 4).

How does capacity of biodiversity conservation changes with environmental contexts?

The highest species richness of AFS have been reported in tropical areas, which is consequence of the also high natural species richness recorded of these ecosystems; however, when considering the proportion of species maintained in AFS, the ciphers are similar in the three environmental zones analyzed (Table 2). This result suggests that biodiversity conservation capacity is not an exclusive function of the nature of ecosystems.

The diversity of strategies for practicing AFS is high, and these patterns are associated to the diversity of agricultural techniques developed among ecological zones as well as regions of the World. It is difficult with the information available for the moment establish general conclusions. Every region has environmental socio-ecological and biocultural particularities, and all of them influence the responses and strategies practiced by human groups. AFS are ancient systems of agricultural production and most probably the earliest forms of agriculture. Therefore, the experiences accumulated during thousands of years have influenced the diversity of technical responses.

Today, inventorying the diversity of strategies is particularly important to enhance the option of AFS as alternative of raw matter production for food and other industries based on more environmental friendly principles. Intensive agriculture has been highly criticized since it has required high amounts of water, machines, oil-based energy and toxic agrochemicals. Agricultural production based on organisms genetically modified has demonstrated not to be a viable solution to the environmental problems initiated during the green revolution but, contrarily, the possible cause of even higher socio-ecological problems. Therefore, the construction of alternatives should be based on the valuable millenary experiences of humans throughout the world that have been able to conceal conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems with the satisfaction of raw matter required for diverse industries. Some few companies producing seeds and agrochemicals are the main beneficiaries of the intensive technological alterative production models, but not most of the agricultural producers of the World, who, for the contrary are in risk of make stronger their dependent relations with such companies and making even deeper de poverty and inequity prevailing at planetary scale. This fact should motivate reflexions of humans to other models of future perspectives, based more strongly on the traditional ecological knowledge and management techniques, which have sustained the humanity for nearly 99 % of the history of humans as agriculturalists. Consequently, intensification of studies of strategies and techniques of AFS throughout the World should be a priority of research for several scientific disciplines, outstandingly ecology, agroecology and ethnobiology.

Conclusions

AFS have been used since the origins of agriculture, and have maintained a millenary richness and ecosystem functions that are agroecological lessons for rescuing and constructing technological innovation for sustainable agricultural management and landscape maintenance and recovering. AFS summarize crucial biocultural heritage. AFS have important advantages for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem functions while satisfying human needs, at different spatial scales.

Technical experiences varied extraordinarily in part associated to the characteristics of the ecosystems where agriculture is conducted, but also according to human culture and history in the regions of the world. A global research strategy directed to analyse agricultural techniques, soils, productivity, and resilience capacity of the systems, biodiversity conservation challenges, among other main topics in different ecological and cultural contexts is a priority. The construction of alternatives technically and culturally viable would be possible based on such research strategy.

Contribution of such a research strategy would be a valuable source of alternatives more environmentally friendly than intensive agriculture. Each region of the world has a high variety of ecological and cultural conditions and human experience has also been highly variable. Therefore, efforts of such a global strategy require the participation of different disciplines. However, the role of ecology, agroecology and ethnobiology are crucial. Traditional ecological knowledge associated to agroforestry systems synthesize thousands of years of experience of managing biodiversity and agroecosystems, and this knowledge is a key stone for shortening times of building viable alternatives.

The results systematized in this study may not be representative of the situations throughout the world. Such analysis requires systematizing the broad experiences and knowledge documented, which is undoubtedly a priority task for ethnobiological and agroecological sciences. Documenting the techniques and purposes for maintaining wild plants together with crops, the richness and diversity biological components of the systems resulting of such intentions, the economic advantage of those actions and their ecological benefits are crucial aspects for designing sustainable strategies of management of these systems.

Abbreviations

AFS, Agroforestry systems; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; TCV, Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley; TEK, Traditional ecological knowledge

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), Mexico for supporting postgraduate studies and a grant for the first author, respectively. We also thank financial support from CONACYT (Research Project CB-2013-01-221800), and the DGAPA-PAPIIT, UNAM (Research projects IN209214 and IA203115 “Manejo etnoagroforestal de la biodiversidad en México: Aprovechamiento y conservación”), as well as Edgar Pérez-Negrón and Selene Rangel-Landa for fieldwork assistance. We emphatically thank people of the villages of the Tehuacán Valley for sharing their knowledge and experience, their hospitality and friendship.

Funding

The Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), Mexico supported postgraduate studies and a grant for the first author. Our studies were financially supported by CONACYT (Research Project CB-2013-01-221800), and the DGAPA-PAPIIT, UNAM (Research projects IN209214 and IA203115.

Authors’ contributions

MV main author of planning the research, fieldwork, interviews, data analysis and writing of this paper. AC main coordinator and advisor of the research project, together with the first author designed the research and data analysis and assisted in writing the paper. AIMC collaborated in the design of the research and coordinated the systematization of information on AFS of Mexico. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

MV postdoctoral researcher at the Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (CIGA), UNAM. AC full-time researcher at the Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad (IIES), UNAM. AIMC researcher at the Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores (ENES), UNAM.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

People interviewed were informed about the study and eventual publication of the general information, maintaining anonymous source of data.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors asked permit for carrying out the study to local authorities and people interviewed.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
(2)
Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
(3)
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)

References

  1. Donald PF. Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production systems. Conserv Biol. 2004;18:17–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Schroth GG, da Fonseca AB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. USA: Island Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK. Global consequences of land use. Science. 2005;309:570–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity –ecosystem services management. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:857–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Bhagwat SA, Buchori D, Faust H, Hertel D, Hölscher D, Juhrbandt J, Kessler M, Perfecto I, Scherber C, Schroth G, Veldkamp E, Wanger TC. Multi-functional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes – a review. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48:619–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibbs HK, Ruesch AS, Achardc F, Claytond MK, Holmgrene P, Ramankuttyf N, Foley JA. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(38):16732–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Schmitt CB, Burgess ND, Coad L, Belokurov A, Besançon C, Boisrobert L, Campbell A, Fish L, Gliddon D, Humphries K, Kapos V, Loucks C, Lysenko I, Miles L, Mills C, Minnemeyer S, Pistorius T, Ravilious C, Steininger M, Winkel G. Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests. Biol Conserv. 2009;142:2122–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol Appl. 2005;15:19–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Harvey CA, Komar O, Robin C, Ferguson BG, Finegan B, Griffith DM, Martínez-Ramos M, Morales H, Nigh R, Soto-Pinto L, Van Breugel M, Wishnie M. Integrating Agricultural Landscapes with Biodiversity Conservation in the Mesomerican hotspot. Conserv Biol. 2008;22:8–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Wallace GN, Barborak J, MacFarland CG. Land-use planning and regulation in and around protected areas: a study of best practices and capacity building needs in Mexico and Central America. Natureza y Conservacao. 2005;3:147–67.Google Scholar
  11. Vandermeer J, Perfecto I. The agricultural matrix and the future paradigm for conservation. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:274–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J. The agricultural matrix as alternative to the landsparing/ agriculture intensification model. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(13):5786–91.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Altieri MA. How best can we use biodiversity in agroecosystems. Outlook Agr. 1991;20:15–23.Google Scholar
  14. Casas A, Otero-Arnaiz A, Peréz-Negrón E, Valiente-Banuet A. In situ management and Domestication of Plants in Mesoamerica. Ann Bot. 2007;100:1101–15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Moreno-Calles A, Casas A, Blancas J, Torres I, Rangel-Landa S, Pérez-Negrón E, Caballero J, Masera O, García-Barrios L. Agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation in arid zones: the case of the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley, Central México. Agrofor Syst. 2010;80:315–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Blancas J, Casas A, Rangel-Landa S, Moreno-Calles A, Torres I, Pérez-Negrón E, Solís L, Delgado-Lemus A, Parra F, Arellanes Y, Caballero J, Cortés L, Lira R, Dávila P. Plant Management in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley, Mexico. Econ Bot. 2010;64:287–302.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Krishnamurthy L, Ávila M. Agroforestería básica. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente. Serie Textos Básicos para la Formación Ambiental N° 3. México D.F., México. 1999.
  18. ICRAF. Paths to prosperity through agroforestry. ICRAF’s corporate strategy, 2001-2010. Nairobi: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry; 2000.Google Scholar
  19. Combe J, Budowski G. Classification of agro-forestry techniques. In: De Las Salas G, editor. Proc agro-forestry systems in Latin America. Costa Rica: CATIE; 1979. p. 17–47.Google Scholar
  20. Gordon AG, Newman S. Temperate Agroforestry Systems. UK: Cabi Internacional; 1998.Google Scholar
  21. Casas A, Caballero J, Mapes C, Zárate S. Manejo de la vegetación, domesticación de plantas y origen de la agricultura en Mesoamérica. Bol Soc Bot Mex. 1997;61:31–47.Google Scholar
  22. Altieri M, Toledo VM. Natural resources management among small-scale farmers in semi-arid lands: Building on traditional knowledge and agroecology. Ann Arid Zones. 2005;44:365–85.Google Scholar
  23. McNeely JA, Schroth G. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation–traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Biodivers Conserv. 2006;15(2):549–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Nabhan GP. Agrobiodiversity change in a Saharan desert oasis, 1919–2006: historic shifts in Tasiwit (Berber) and Bedouin crop inventories of Siwa, Egypt. Econ Bot. 2007;61:31–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreno-Calles AI, Toledo VM, Casas A. Los sistemas agroforestales tradicionales de México: una aproximación biocultural. Bot Sci. 2013;91(4):375–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J. Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1134;173–200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Bhagwat SA, Willis KJ, Birks HJB, Whittaker RJ. Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23:261–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Boffa JM. Parques agroforestales en África occidental: claves para la conservación y la sostenibilidad. Unasylva. 2000;51:11–7.Google Scholar
  29. Backes MM. The role of indigenous trees for the conservation of biocultural diversity in traditional agroforestry land use systems: the Bungoma case study: in-situ conservation of indigenous tree species. Agrofor Syst. 2001;52(2):119–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Sinclair FL. A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agrofor Syst. 1999;46:161–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Vandermeer J, van Noordwijk M, Anderson J, Ong C, Perfecto I. Global change and multi-species agroecosystems: concepts and issues. Agri Ecosyst Environ. 1998;67(1):1–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Holt-Giménez E. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agri Ecosyst Environ. 2002;93(1):87–105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. DeClerck FAJ, Chazdon RL, Holl KD, Milder JC, Finegan B, Martinez- Salinas A, Imbach P, Canet L, Zayra R. Biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes of Mesoamerica: Past, present, and future. Special Issue: Biodivers Conserv. 2010;143:2301–13.Google Scholar
  34. Eakin H, Benessaiah K, Barrera JF, Cruz-Bello GM, Morales H. Livelihoods and landscapes at the threshold of change: disaster and resilience in a Chiapas coffee community. Reg Environ Change. 2012;12(3):475–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Daily GC. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C: Island Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  36. Soto-Pinto L, Perfecto I, Caballero-Nieto J. Shade over coffee: its effects on berry borer, leaf rust and spontaneous herbs in Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor Sys. 2002;55:37–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Jose S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst. 2009;76:1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Nair PKR. Agroforestry Systems and Environmental Quality: Introduction. J Environ Qual. 2011;40:784–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Otero‐Arnaiz A, Casas A, Hamrick JL, Cruse‐Sanders J. Genetic variation and evolution of Polaskia chichipe (Cactaceae) under domestication in the Tehuacán Valley, central Mexico. Mol Ecol. 2005;14(6):1603–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Prasad K. Linking trees on farms with biodiversity conservation in subsistence farming systems in Nepal. Biodivers Conserv. 2006;15:631–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Scales BR, Marsden SJ. Biodiversity in small-scale tropical agroforests: a review of species richness and abundance shifts and the factors influencing them. Environ Conserv. 2008;35:160–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Parra F, Casas A, Peñaloza-Ramírez JM, Cortés Palomec AC, Rocha Ramírez V, González-Rodríguez A. Evolution under domestication: ongoing artificial selection and divergence of wild and managed Stenocereus pruinosus (Cactaceae) populations in the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. Ann Bot-London. 2010;106(3):483–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Parra F, Blancas J, Casas A. Landscape management and domestication of Stenocereus pruinosus (Cactaceae) in the Tehuacán Valley: human guided selection and gene flow. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012;8:32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Swift MJ, Vandermeer J, Ramakrishnan PS, Anderson JM, Ong CK, Hawkins BA. In: Mooney HA, Cushman JH, Medina E, Sala O, Schulze ED, editors. Biodiversity and Agroecosystem Function. Fuctional Roles of Biodiversity: A Global Perspective. Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto and Singapore: Wiley; 1996. p. 262–94.Google Scholar
  45. Blanckaert I, Vancraeynest K, Swennen RL, Espinosa-García FJ, Piñero D, Lira R. Non-crop resources and the role of indigenous knowledge in semiarid production of Mexico. Agri Ecosyst Environ. 2007;119:39–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Blancas J, Casas A, Pérez-Salicrup D, Caballero J, Vega E. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influencing plant management in Nahuatl communities of the Tehuacan Valley, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;9(1):39.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Moreno-Calles A, Casas A, García-Frapolli E, Torres-García I. Traditional agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and “chichipera” cactus forest in the arid Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: their management and role in people’s subsistence. Agrofor Syst. 2012;84(2):207–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Larios C, Casas A, Vallejo M, Moreno-Calles AI, Blancas J. Plant management and biodiversity conservation in Náhuatl homegardens of the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013;9:74.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Vallejo M, Casas A, Blancas J, Moreno-Calles AI, Solís L, Rangel-Landa S, Dávila P, Tellez O. Agroforestry systems in the highlands of the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: Indigenous culture and biodiversity conservation. Agrofor Syst. 2014;88:125–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Altieri M, Nicholls C. Teoría y práctica para una agricultura sostenible. Serie de Textos Básicos para la Formación Ambiental. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente. México: Red de Formación ambiental para América Latina y el Caribe; 2000.Google Scholar
  51. Perfecto I, Armbrecht I, Philpott SM, Soto-Pinto L, Dietsch TM. Shaded coffee and the stability of rainforest margins in northern Latin America. The Stability of Tropical Rainforest Margins, Linking Ecological, Economic and Social Constraints of Land Use and Conservation. In: Tscharntke T, Leuschner C, Zeller M, Guhadja E, Bidin A, editors. Environmental Science Series. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2007. p. 227–64.Google Scholar
  52. Chazdon RL. Tropical forest recovery: legacies of human impact and natural disturbances. Perspect Plant Ecol. 2003;6:51–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Harvey CA, Medina A, Sánchez Merlo D, Vílchez S, Hernández B, Saenz J, Maes J, Casanovas F, Sinclair FL. Patterns of animal diversity associated with different forms of tree cover retained in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl. 2006;16:1986–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Nabhan GP, Amadeo MR, Reichhardt KL, Mellink E, Hutchinson CF. Papago influences on habitat and biotic diversity: Quitovac oasis ethnoecology. J Ethnobiol. 1982;2:124–43.Google Scholar
  55. Montagnini F. Homegardens of Mesoamerica: biodiversity, food security, and nutrient management. In: Kumar BM, Nair PKR, editors. Tropical Homegardens: A Time-Tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. The Netherlands: Springer; 2006. p. 1–23.Google Scholar
  56. Vallejo M, Casas A, Pérez-Negrón E, Moreno-Calles AI, Hernández-Ordoñez O, Tellez O, Dávila P. Agroforestry systems of the lowland alluvial valleys of the Tehuacan-Cuicatlan biosphere reserve: an evaluation of their biocultural capacity. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015;11:8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Armbrecht I, Rivera L, Perfecto I. Reduced Diversity and Complexity in the Leaf‐Litter Ant Assemblage of Colombian Coffee Plantations. Conserv Biol. 2005;9(3):897–907.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Tougiani A, Guero C, Rinaudo T. Community mobilisation for improved livelihoods through tree crop management in Niger. GeoJ. 2009;74(5):377–89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. MacNeish RS. A summary of subsistence. In: Byers DS, editor. The prehistory of the Tehuacán Valley: Enviroment and Subsistence vo1.1. Austin: University of Texas Press; 1967. p. 290–309.Google Scholar
  60. Smith CE. Flora, Tehuacán Valley. Chicago Natural History Museum. 1965.
  61. Perfecto I, Snelling R. Biodiversity and the transformation of a tropical agroecosystem: ants in coffee plantations. Ecol Appl. 1995;5:1084–97.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Oke DO, Odebiyi KA. Traditional cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in Ondo State, Nigeria. Agri Ecosyst Environ. 2007;122:305–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Okubo S, Harashina K, Muhamad D, Abdoellah OS, Takeuchi K. Traditional perennial crop-based agroforestry in West Java: the tradeoff between on-farm biodiversity and income. Agrofor Syst. 2010;80:17–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Schroth G, Faria D, Araujo M, Bede L, Van Bael SA, Cassano CR, Oliveira LC, Delabie JH. Conservation in tropical landscape mosaics: the case of the cacao landscape of southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodivers Conserv. 2011;20(8):1635–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Ford A, Nigh R. Origins of the Maya forest garden: Maya resource management. J Ethnobiol. 2009;29(2):213–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Toledo VM, Moguel P. Coffee and sustainability: the multiple values of traditional shaded coffee. J Sustain Agr. 2012;36(3):353–77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature. 2002;418(6898):671–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Steffan-Dewenter I, Kessler M, Barkmann J, Bos MM, Buchori D, Erasmi S, et al. Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:4973–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Desertification Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2005.Google Scholar
  70. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). State of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO; 2005.Google Scholar
  71. Izac A, Sanchez PA. Towards a natural resource management paradigm for international agriculture: the example of agroforestry research. Agr Syst. 2001;69:5–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Leakey R. Agroforestry for Biodiversity in Farmin Systems. In: Colling W, Qyalset C, editors. Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. NY: Lewis Publishers; 1999. EU.Google Scholar
  73. Marie CN, Sibelet N, Dulcire M, Rafalimaro M, Danthu P, Carrière SM. Taking into account local practices and indigenous knowledge in an emergency conservation context in Madagascar. Biodiv Conserv. 2009;18(10):2759–77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Asase A, Tetteh DA. The role of complex agroforestry systems in the conservation of forest tree diversity and structure in southeastern Ghana. Agrofor Syst. 2010;79:355–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Perfecto I, Armbrecht I. The coffee agroecosystem in the Neotropics: Combining ecological and economic goals. In: Vandermeer J, editor. Tropical Agroecosystems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2003. p. 159–94.Google Scholar
  76. Quinkenstein A, Wöllecke J, Böhm C, Grunewald H, Freese D, Schneider BU, Huttl RF. Ecological benefits of the alley cropping agroforestry system in sensitive regions of Europe. Environ Sci Policy. 2009;12(8):1112–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Bradley R, Cogliastro A, Folkard P, Grant R, Kort J, Liggins F, Njenga F, Olivier A, Pharo C, Powell G, Rivest D, Schiks T, Trotter, Van Rees K, Whalen J, Zabek L. Agroforestry research and development in Canada: the way forward. In: Agroforestry-The Future of Global Land Use. Netherlands: Springer; 2012. p. 247–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Budowski G. El alcance y el potencial de la agroforestería con énfasis en Centroamérica. In: Krishnamurthy L, Leos JA, editors. Agroforestería en Desarrollo, Educación: Investigación y Extensión. Centro de Agroforestería para el desarrollo sostenible. México: UACh; 1994. p. 1–16.Google Scholar
  79. Jose S, Gillespie AR, Pallardy SG. Interspecific interactions in temperate agroforestry. Agrofor Syst. 2004;61:237–55.Google Scholar
  80. Dupraz C, Newman SM. Temperate agroforestry: the European way. In: Gordon AM, Newman SM, editors. Temperate agroforestry systems. Wallingford: CAB International; 1997. p. 181–236.Google Scholar
  81. Herzog F. Streuobst: a traditional agroforestry system as a model for agroforestry development in temperate Europe. Agrofor Syst. 1998;42:61–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Plieninger T, Schaar M. Modification of land cover in a traditional agroforestry system in Spain: processes of tree expansion and regression. Ecol Soc. 2008;13(2):25.Google Scholar
  83. Sharma AK, Gupta JP. Agroforestry systems for the hot arid regions of India. In proceedings of IUFRO-DNAES Conference on Resource Inventory Techniques to support agroforestry and environment activities. October 1-3. Chandigarh. pp. 259-262. 1996.
  84. McNeely JA. Biodiversity in arid regions: value and perceptions. J Arid Environ. 2003;54:61–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Moreno-Calles AI, Casas A. Conservación de biodiversidad y sustentabilidad en sistemas agroforestales de zonas áridas del valle de Tehuacán, México. Zonas Áridas. 2008;12(1):13–35.Google Scholar
  86. Whitfield S, Reed MS. Participatory environmental assessment in drylands: introducing a new approach. J Arid Environ. 2012;77:1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Tewari VP, Arya R. Degradation of arid rangelands in Thar Desert, India: A review. Arid Land Res Manag. 2004;19(1):1–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Casas A, Cruse J, Morales E, Otero-Arnaiz A, Valiente-Banuet A. Maintenance of phenotypic and genotypic diversity of Stenocereus stellatus (Cactaceae) by indigenous peoples in Central México. Biodiv Conserv. 2006;15:879–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Blancas JJ, Parra F, Lucio JD. Manejo tradicional y conservación de la biodiversidad de Polaskia spp. (Cactaceae) en México. Zonas Áridas. 2006;10:20–40.Google Scholar
  90. Parra F, Pérez-Nasser N, Peréz Salicrup D, Lira R, Casas A. Populations genetics and process of domestication of Stenocereus pruinosus in the Tehuacán Valley, México. J Arid Environ. 2008;72:1997–2010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Sonwa DJ, Nkongmeneck BA, Weise SF, Tchatat M, Adesina AA, Janssens MJJ. Diversity of plants in cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone of Southern Cameroon Biodivers. Conserv. 2007; 16: 2385–2400.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016