Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation

Full text

INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity provides enormous direct economic benefits, an array
of indirect essential services through natural ecosystems, and plays a
prominent role in modulating ecosystem function and stability. It provide
farming systems and taxa the means to recycle nutrient, reduce insect,
pest and disease problems, control weed, maintain good water and soil
conditions, handle climate stresses while producing commodities
necessary for human survival. It is estimated that 1400 m ha of croplands
and agro-ecosystem may provide ecosystem services worth US$ 92 ha-1
per year in pollination, biological control, and food production amounting
to total US $ 128 x 109 per year (Costanza 1997). Moreover, Thrupp (1997)
explained several benefits provided through conservation of biodiversity
(Figure 1). The animal and plant diversity and the knowledge of
associated management of these resources are the assets with the farmers
which are important in marginal and difficult farm conditions. Higher
diversity allows greater access to available resources, and hence increased
net primary production and decreased nutrient losses. Diversity
management can constitute a central part of livelihood management
strategies of farmers and communities in different production system
(Rege et al. 2003). The multifunctional services of biodiversity in
amelioration of agro-ecosystems as given in Table 1 have also been
emphasized by both the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and
the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for
Development (2008).
21
Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
R KR K
R KR K
R Kaushalaushal
aushalaushal
aushal11
11
1, P, P
, P, P
, Pankank
ankank
ankaj Paj P
aj Paj P
aj Panan
anan
anww
ww
warar
arar
ar22
22
2, S Sarv, S Sarv
, S Sarv, S Sarv
, S Sarvadeade
adeade
ade33
33
3, JMS T, JMS T
, JMS T, JMS T
, JMS Tomaromar
omaromar
omar11
11
1
and OP Chaturvediand OP Chaturvedi
and OP Chaturvediand OP Chaturvedi
and OP Chaturvedi44
44
4
1
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Dehradun
2
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation Research Centre, Chandigarh
3 College of Agriculture, Balaghat, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur
4 ICAR-Central Agroforestry Research Institute, Jhansi

364 Agroforestry for Increased Production and Livelihood Security
Table 1. Ecosystem services of biodiversity to ameliorate problems in agricultural
ecosystems
Problem Services provided by biodiversity
Wind erosion Suitable vegetation to provide wind control by
landscape texture, manage landscape on soil type
rather than cadastral characteristics
Water erosion Control water runoff through texture of soil cover
and surface, minimal tillage, cultivate on contours
Leaching of nutrients Controlled application of fertilizers, plant
vegetation to capture nutrients, vegetate drainage
lines to strip nutrients
Rising water tables Deep rooted vegetation, increased evapotrans-
piration
Salinisation Control water tables by evapotranspiration of deep
rooted plants, vegetate recharge areas
Weeds, pests and disease Ongoing adaptive response by farmer, through
husbandry, biocides, biological control.
Source: Main (1999)
Fig. 1. The benefits provided by biodiversity (Adopted from Thrupp, 1997).

365Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
Fig. 2. Socioeconomic root and proximity causes of biodiversity loss (Adopted from
Wood et al. 2000).
Biodiversity is considered as “corner stone stability” and basis of
livelihood and sustainable development. The increasing growth,
population and modernization, agriculture intensification, introduction
of exotic, habitat loss and fragmentation, overexploitation, pollution,
global climate changes, industrial agriculture and forestry have created
crisis of severely depleting biodiversity (Figure 2). In addition, causal
factors like deforestation, jhum cultivation, tea plantation, timber felling,
forest fires, unscientific method of harvesting, hunting, soil erosion,
encroachment and urbanization were reported by Chatterjee et al. (2006).
Guillerme et al. (2011) reported decline in diversity of indigenous
multipurpose trees and shrubs and herbaceous components such as
traditional vegetable crops and ornamental plants owing to the conversion
of agroforestry systems (including home gardens or their parts) to
monospecific production systems and introduction of exotic fast growing
multipurpose trees. It is estimated that 99.9 per cent of the plant and
animal have extinct since life appeared on the earth (Leakey and Lewin
1996). Further, it is believed that about 60,000 of the world 2, 40,000
plants species and higher proportions of vertebrate and insect species
could lose their lease on life over the next three decades. Since, man
cannot stop utilizing biodiversity, therefore, a system is required to harness
the biodiversity on sustainable basis. There is also a great deal of interest
in providing financial benefits to landowners and farmers for land-use
practices that maintain environmental services of value to the wider society
(FAO State of Food and Agriculture Report 2007).
Biodiversity
loss
Socioeconomic
root causes
Proximate
causes
Climate
Change
Over-
harvesting
Pollution
Habitat loss
and alteration
Macroeconomics
policy
Poverity
inequlity Markets
Public
Policies
Demographic
change
Social change and
development

366 Agroforestry for Increased Production and Livelihood Security
ROLE OF AGROFORESTRY IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT
The agroecosystem biodiversity can be affected due to abandoning
traditional, locally adapted crop varieties and intercropping for high-
yielding monocultures (Chappell and LaValle 2011; Sunderland 2011).
Generally, agroforestry systems are closer to the natural forest systems
(Schroth and McNeely 2011). Agroforestry helps in conservation of
ecosystem through improving soil and microclimate properties, reduced
erosion, improved water quality and carbon sequesteration (Schroth and
Sinclair 2003; Schroth et al. 2004; Nair et al. 2009; Sarvade 2014)..
Farmers practice agroforestry for gaining livelihood, income
generation, risk management, food security and optimal use of available
land, labour and capital (Arnold and Dewees, 1997). It is estimated that
about 1.2 billion people (20%) of the world population depends directly
on agroforestry products and services in developing countries which
can provide goods and services, that can offset 5-20 per cent of
deforestation (Leakey and Sanchez 1997; Dixon 1995).
Agroforestry represents the pinnacle of sustainable development and
plethora of its uses has made it closer to the people. Many effective
conservation organizations are now including agroforestry as a
component in their programmes. In general, agroforestry plays five major
roles in conserving biodiversity: (1) provides habitat for species that can
tolerate a certain level of disturbance; (2) helps preserve germplasm of
sensitive species; (3) helps reduce the rates of conversion of natural habitat
by providing a more productive, sustainable alternative to traditional
agricultural systems that may involve clearing natural habitats; (4)
provides connectivity by creating corridors between habitat remnants
which may support the integrity of these remnants and the conservation
of area-sensitive floral and faunal species; and (5) helps conserve biological
diversity by providing other ecosystem services such as erosion control
and water recharge, thereby preventing the degradation and loss of
surrounding habitat (Jose 2009).
Agroforestry systems are considered as diversity enhancing land
use system especially in the context of inter-species diversity as it brings
together crops, shrubs, trees and in some cases livestock on the same
piece of land (Atta-Krah et al. 2004). A well designed agroforest, can
spontaneously attract and support higher biodiversity. In the lowlands
of Sumatra, resin-producing agroforests planted several generations ago
are now some of the last reservoirs of biodiversity as they are harboring
rare epiphytes and herbs as well as 46 species of mammals, 92 species of

367Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
birds, and much of the native soil fauna. Agroforestry plantings provide
expanded habitat for a wide range of species, from soil micro life to
insects to mammals and have diversified and intensified agro-ecosystems
to maintain and enhance biodiversity (Sanchez and Leakey 1997; Sanchez
et al. 1997). Agroforestry systems have potential to support as high as
50-80 per cent of biodiversity of comparable natural system (Noble and
Dirzo 1997). Agroforestry conserve biodiversity within deforested,
fragmented landscapes by providing habitats and resources for plant
and animal species. It makes the landscape less harsh for forest dwelling
species by reducing the frequency and intensity of fires and providing
buffer zones to the protected areas (Pandey 2002). Harvey and Gonzalez
Villalobos (2007) characterized bat and bird assemblages occurring in
forests in two types of agroforestry systems (cacao and banana) and
plantain monocultures in the indigenous reserves of Talamanca, Costa
Rica. Agroforestry systems had bat assemblages that were as (or more)
species-rich, abundant, and diverse as forests, contained the same basic
suite of dominant species, but also contained more nectarivorous bats
than forests. Agroforestry systems also harbored bird assemblages that
were as abundant, species-rich, and diverse as forests. Kumar and Nair
(2004) reported species richness of tropical home gardens varying from
27 (Sri Lanka) to 602 (West Java). In an extensive survey of floristic and
structural diversity of 402 home gardens from six regions across south-
western Bangladesh, Kabir and Webb (2009) reported 419 species (59%
native), including six species of conservation concern. Das and Das, 2005
have reported 122 species in home gardens of Barak valley of Assam,
India. Similarly, 68 species were found in home gardens of Karnataka
(Shastri et al. 2002) and 127 species in Kerala (Kumar et al. 1994). 74
species of different plants had been reported in the home gardens of
North Bengal in addition to poultry, various milch and meat animals
which are linked socially and economically to the owner (Panwar and
Chakravarty 2010).
In addition to biodiversity conservation, agroforestry provide food
security and enhances farm income through enhancement in the yield of
products and services from biodiversity rich agro-ecosystems. In
Indonesia 4 million of agroforests not only yield rubber of US $ 1.9 billion
but also contain 250-300 spp. of plant (Leakey 1998; Mc Neely and Scherr,
2001). In San Jose - the Milpa, three types of traditional agroforestry
systems viz., slash-and-burn agriculture, cacao cultivation under shade
trees and home gardens were found to meet the entire family
requirements of food and wood and generated 62 per cent of family
income in Maya community of Belize (Levasseurand Olivier, 2000). Deb
et al. (2014) recorded 44 woody and 49 herbaceous species in the

368 Agroforestry for Increased Production and Livelihood Security
traditional agroforestry system of Tripura, North East India and these
documented plants meets community day to day needs of food, timber
as well as ethno-medicinal purposes.
In addition to plant diversity, agroforestry systems also play an
important role in increasing microbial, avian and faunal diversities. The
greater diversity of birds and insect in agroforestry systems provide the
beneficial service of pest reduction to adjacent crops (Gillespie et al. 1995;
Schultz et al. 2000). Trees grown with crops improve the insect pest
management options by providing habitat that can foster populations of
natural enemies. CAST (1999) estimated natural enemy populations that
live in natural and semi natural areas adjacent to farmlands can control
more than 90 per cent of potential crop insect pests. Bugg et al. (1991)
observed that cover crops (e.g. annual legumes and grasses) sustained
lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coc-cinellidae) and other arthropods that are
useful in the biological control of pests in pecan. Price and Gordon (1999)
reported that earthworm densities were greatest next to poplar and white
ash tree-rows, due to greater litter contributions. Although the population
decreased during the summer period, but was still significantly greater
than those from a comparable conventionally maize cropped field.
In another study, population of arthropods such as opiliones,
dermaptera and carabidae, were found to be significantly higher in the
inter-cropped systems as compared to the monoculture systems. Further,
significantly higher numbers of parasitoids and detritivores were also
recorded in the inter-cropped system compared to the monoculture
system (Middleton 2001). While working with black walnut based alley
cropping system in Missouri in United States, Stamps et al. (2002) reported
that alleycropped forages (Medicago sativa and Bromis inermis) supported
a more diverse and even arthropod fauna than adjacent mono-cropped
forages. In another alley cropping trial with peas (Pisum sativum) and
four tree species (Juglans, Platanus, Fraxinus and Prunus), Peng et al. (1993)
found an increase in insect diversity and improved natural enemy
abundance compared to monocultured peas. Brandle et al. (2004) reported
greater density and diversity of insect populations in windbreaks. They
attributed this to the heterogeneity of the edges that provided varied
micro-habitats for life-cycle activities and a variety of hosts, prey, pollen,
and nectar sources.
Trees in agroforestry systems support threatened cavity nesting
birds, and offer forage and habitat to many species of birds (Pandey
1991; Pandey and Mohan 1993). The number of bird species like Streptopelia
chinensis, Psittacula krameri, Eudynamys scolopaceus, Micropternus brachyurus,
Dinopium benghalense, Oriolus xanthornus, Dicrurus macrocercus, Acridotheres

369Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
tristis, Corvus splendens, Turdus cafer, Orthotomus sutorius, Copsychus saularis,
Nectarinia zeylonica, Anthus campestris, Passer domesticus, and Ploceus
philippinus attracted to collect their food from fruit tress like Aegle
marmelos, Annona squamosa, Areca catechu, Averrhoa carambola, Carica papaya,
Carissa carandas, Cocos nucifera, Dillenia indica, Elaeocarpus floribundus,
Mangifera indica, Phyllanthus acidus, Phyllanthus emblica, Psidium guajava,
Spondias pinnata, Syzygium cumini, Tamarindus indica and Zizyphus
mauritiana from homestead gardens(Roy et al. 2013). A survey of avifauna
by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center showed about 180 species of birds
in Mexican coffee agroforests which are up to ten times more than the
bird diversity found in monoculture coffee plantations studied elsewhere.
Williams et al. (1995) investigated the extent to which birds ‘used’ or
visited an intercropped maize field, a conventional maize field and an
old-field site and found that only one species of bird nested in the maize
field, but 10 species foraged in the inter-cropped plots compared to four
species in the maize field and six in the old-field site. In Sweden,
Soderstrom et al. (2001) reported that increasing proportion of pasture
area covered by shrubs and trees had a positive effect on the species
richness of birds. This was partially attributed to an increase in the
abundance and diversity of insects and other invertebrates. Jose (2009)
compared the distribution of meso and macro-faunal communities in soil
and litter under cacao agroforestry systems and in a natural forest in the
southern Bahia state of Brazil. Higher plant diversity in agroforestry
and forest systems provided diverse micro-habitats and heterogeneous
litter, contributing to greater biological diversity in the soil. Riparian
Buffers improve bird species diversity and help reduce crop damage
and improve crop quality (Udawatta and Godsey 2010). They noticed
that riparian buffers had higher bird abundance, richness, and diversity
than did crop and pasture sites in Iowa. They attributed these positive
changes to greater vertical, horizontal, and compositional diversity in
the vegetative structure of riparian buffers than in the other areas studied.
Authors concluded that re-established riparian buffers provide habitat
to a broad suite of bird species, similar to natural grasslands and forest
habitats.
TRADITIONAL vs MODERN AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
The people associated to natural ecosystems play very important
role in biodiversity conservation as they are familiar to the ecosystem
and acquiring empirical knowledge based on their experience while living
vicinity to natural resources (Ramakrishnan 1998; Deb et al. 2012). Kalaba
et al. (2010) explained a huge potential of traditional agroforestry practices
in biodiversity conservation. Traditional cropping patterns of any area

370 Agroforestry for Increased Production and Livelihood Security
may differ with plants response to fundamental soil and climatic
conditions as well as social and ethological preferences (Ruthenberg 1976).
The valuable traditional grain crops, rhizomatous crops, pineapple, coffee,
tea and vegetables components for the community’s everyday life, and
provide a greater diversity of nutrition grown with a number of fruits
and other trees in the traditional agroforestry systems (Deb et al. 2014).
Traditional agroforestry systems like home gardens, cocoa and
coffee based agroforestry systems, shifting cultivation mimic natural
ecosystems and provide a variety of niches and resources that support a
high diversity of plants and animals (Perfecto and Snelling 1995). The
home gardens, ecologically sustainable and diversifies livelihood of local
community; are considered as excellent tools for biodiversity conservation
(Linger 2014).
In Latin America, for instance, numerous studies have shown that
the traditional coffee agroforests (coffee integrated with 2-5 other tree
species) are second only to undisturbed tropical forests in their diversity
of birds, insect life, bats, and even mammals. Similarly, the findings in
the damar agroforests of Sumatra show that these complex multi-strata
agroforests contain over 50 per cent of all the regional pool of resident
tropical forest birds, most of the mammals and about 70 per cent of the
plants (Table 2). These traditional agroforestry systems are therefore
potentially sustainable resources and a valuable compromise between
biodiversity conservation and profitable use of natural resources (Leakey
1998).
Table 2. Earthworm diversity in different agroforestry systems
Tree species Poplar Maple Ash
Spring
Within 0.98 2.22 2.39
2 m 1.51 1.71 2.20
6 m 1.06 1.27 2.26
Summer
Within 2.07 2.58 2.68
2 m 2.07 2.21 2.46
6 m 1.99 1.37 2.13
Contrary to it, modern agroforestry systems (alley cropping,
woodlots, improved fallows, fodder banks, windbreaks and shelterbelts)
tended to be the set of standalone technologies that together form various
land use systems in which trees are sequentially or simultaneously

371Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
integrated with crops and/or livestock (Nair 1993). These systems aim
at planting the trees in regular pattern and therefore mimic the temperate
models where monoculture is more prevalent (Cooper et al. 1996). These
systems maximize ecosystem processes and structural complexity, rather
than increasing number of species (Leaky 1998). These systems however,
can be useful in maintaining biotic connectivity and can improve soil
faunal and avian diversity to some extent. Tables 3 and 4 provide
biodiversity issues in traditional and modern agroforestry systems. New
agroforestry technologies are generally developed using only few selected
tree species- often in mono-tree species systems, usually with preferred
characteristic such as high yielding, fast grown NFT’s and arboreal
structure. Such an approach result is low diversity on farms and make
the system vulnerable to insect/ or diseases. These systems thus need to
be modified so as to increase the diversity. Some of the diversity
increasing measures are given in Table 5.
Table 3. Biodiversity dimensions in traditional agroforestry systems
Agroforestry system Biodiversity issues
Shifting cultivation or Fallows consist of multiple species; and biological
slash- and-burn diversity, in both inter and intra species, is intense.
Long fallow periods of 15 to 20 years preserve wild
species diversity.
Home-gardens and High inter- and intra-species diversity involving a
compound farms number of fruit, fodder and timber trees and shrubs,
food crops, medicinal and other plants of economic
value.
Forest gardens/ High species diversity similar to natural forests but
agroforests dominated by a few carefully managed economically
valuable tree species.
Parkland systems A variety of crops grown in association with naturally
propagated trees ensure wide species diversity
(Teklehaimanot, 2004). Parks range from monospecific
to multispecific with up to 20 tree species.
Trees on farmlands Diversity is more at the landscape level rather than at
(boundary plantings, field level in terms of both inter and intra-species.
scattered trees)
Source: Atta Krah et al. (2004)

372 Agroforestry for Increased Production and Livelihood Security
Table 4. Biodiversity dimensions in research developed agroforestry systems
Agroforestry technology Biodiversity issues
Alley cropping/ hedgerow Diversity limited to intra species. Emphasis on a
intercropping few tree species has raised concerns on pests and
diseases.
Improved fallows or Mostly based on mono-tree species.
planted fallows.
Fodder banks Sole stands of either leguminous trees or shrubs or
high yielding fodder grasses makes the system less
diverse.
Rotational woodlots Planted using sole stands of fast growing species
for short-cycle harvest.
Tree based intercropping Less diverse due to planting of single species.
systems
Source: Atta Krah et al. (2004)
Table 5. Diversity enhancing measures in modern agroforestry systems/technologies
Agroforestry systems Ways of enhancing diversity
Alley cropping/ Tree diversity can be increased through.
hedgerow intercropping multispecies hedgerows, and crop diversity increased
by adopting intercropping in the alleys to increase
efficiency of nutrient cycling.
Improved fallows or Multi-species fallows combining coppicing and
planted fallows. non-coppicing species or species differing in leaf litter
characteristics are likely to enhance fallow function
as well as reduce risk from pests.
Fodder banks Combining trees and fodder grasses in different
diversity increasing manner,
Rotational woodlots Mixing of N2-fixing species with non-N2-fixing
species will improve diversity, nutrient cycling and
site enrichment compared with non-N2-fixing species
alone.
Tree based intercropping Adopting new agroforestry systems such as Agri-
systems horti-silviculture, Agri-silvi-pastoral, apiculture with
trees, aquaculture with trees etc.
FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
While there is a growing literature on biodiversity within
agroforestry systems; the important questions still remain about the long-

373Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
term viability of animal and plant population in agroforestry systems.
Most studies so far have monitored or inventoried biodiversity within
landscapes that still retain some forest cover or have focused on few
taxa and have been conducted on small spatial and temporal scales. The
future agroforestry research in biodiversity should include:
!Development of economically and socially acceptable land use
systems that function like undisturbed ecosystem and maintain
diversity.
!Controlled experiments to determine the relationship between
agriculture intensification and biodiversity.
!Determine the diversity in different agroforestry systems and their
implications for ecological functioning at different scales.
!Improving the diversity of the new agroforestry technologies by
planting the trees in different combinations.
!Develop sustainable, productive, profitable and diversity enhancing
new agroforestry technologies.
Conclusion
Biodiversity is the keystone in sustainability and its loss has been
the common outcomes of the increasing population, agriculture
intensification, habitat loss and fragmentation, introduction of exotic
species, over-exploitation, pollution, global climatic changes, industrial
agriculture and forestry. Despite the limitations in our current knowledge,
there are already sufficient evidences that agroforestry systems offer
more hope for conservation of plant and animal species than the
monoculture crops. The findings have led to exciting new initiatives to
use agroforestry systems as tools for conservation in already deforested
and fragmented landscapes. The issues of biodiversity in agroforestry is
however extremely complex. Traditional agroforestry system offers more
potential toward the biodiversity conservation than modern agroforestry
technologies where diversity component has been de-emphasized. The
new agroforestry technologies which are increasingly finding its way in
the modern era all around the world need a serious thought from
researchers and policy makers to make economical and social acceptable
land use systems that enhance biodiversity too.

374 Agroforestry for Increased Production and Livelihood Security
References
Arnold JEM, Dewees PA (1997) Farms, Trees and Farmers: Responses to Agricultural
Intensification. Earthscan, London, UK. 292pp.
Atta-Krah K, Kindt R, Skilton JN Amaral W (2004) Managing biological and genetic
diversity in tropical agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 61:183-194.
Bijalwan A, Upadhyay AP, Dobriyal MJR (2015) Tree-crop combinations, biomass and
carbon estimation in conventional agri-silviculture (agroforestry) system along
altitude and aspects in the hills of Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. International
Journal of Current Research in Biosciences and Plant Biology 2(6): 214-217.
Brandle JR, Hodges L, Zhou X (2004) Windbreaks in sustainable agriculture.
Agroforestry Systems 61:65–78.
Bugg RL, Sarrantonio M, Dutcher JD Phatak SC (1991) Understory cover crops in pecan
orchards: possible management systems. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture 6: 50-62.
CAST (1999) Benefits of Biodiversity. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
(CAST), USA.
Chappell MJ, LaValle LA (2011) Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An
agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 28(1): 3-26.
Chatterjee S, Saikia A, Dutta P, Ghosh D, Worah S (2006) Review of biodiversity in
Northeast India. Background Paper No. 13. WWF, Delhi, India. 45p.
Cooper PJM, Leakey RRB, Rao MR, Reynolds L (1996) Agroforestry and the mitigation
of land degradation in the humid and sub-humid tropics of Africa.Experimental
Agriculture 32: 235-290.
Costanza R (1997) The value of world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
387: 253-260.
Das T, Das AK (2005) Inventorying plant biodiversity in home gardens: A case study in
Barak valley, Assam, Northeast India. Current Science 89(1):155-163.
Deb D, Darlong L, Sarkar A, Roy M Datta BK (2012) Traditional ethnomedicinal plants
use by the Darlong tribes in Tripura, Northeast India. International Journal of
Ayurvedic and Herbal Medicine 2: 954-966.
Deb S, Sarkar A, Majumdar K, Deb D (2014) Community structure, biodiversity value
and management practices of traditional agroforestry systems in Tripura, North
East India. Journal of Biodiversity Management & Forestry 3(3): 1-6.
Deharveng L (1992) Field report for the soil mesofauna studies, ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia.
Dixon RK (1995) Agroforestry systems: sources or sinks of greenhouse gases?
Agroforestry Systems 31 (2): 99-116.
FAO (2007) Economic and Social Development Department, Corporate Document
Repository.State of Food and Agriculture Report.http://www.fao.org/docrep/
010/ a1200e/a1200e00.htm Accessed on March 27, 2009.
Gillespie AR, Miller BK, Johnson KD (1995) Effects of ground cover on tree survival
and growth in filter strips of the Corn Belt region of the Midwestern U.S.
Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 53: 263-270.
Guillerme S, Kumar BM, Menon A, Hinnewinkel C, Maire E, Santhoshkumar AV
(2011) Impacts of public policies and farmer preferences on agroforestry practices
in Kerala India. Environmental Management 48 (2): 351-364.
Harvey CA, Gonzalez VJA (2007) Agroforestry systems conserve species-rich but
modified assemblages of tropical birds and bats. Biodiversity Conservation
16:2257-2292.

375Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(2008) Executive summary of the synthesis report. http://www. agassessment.
org/docs/SR_Exec_Sum_280508_English.htm. Accessed on March 27, 2009.
Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an
overview. Agroforestry Systems 76:1-10.
Kalaba KF, Chirwa P, Syampungani S, Ajayi CO (2010) Contribution of agroforestry
to biodiversityand livelihoods improvement in ruralcommunities of Southern
African regions. In: Tropical Rainforests and Agroforests under Global Change.
T. Tscharntke et al. (eds.). Environmental Science and Engineering. Pp.461-476.
Kabir EM, Webb EL (2009) Can home gardens conserve biodiversity in Bangladesh?
Biotropica 40: 95-103.
Kumar BM, George SJ, Chinnamani S (1994) Diversity, structure and standing stock of
wood in the home gardens of Kerala in Peninsular India. Agroforestry Systems
25:243-262.
Kumar BM, Nair PKR (2004) Tropical Home Gardens: A Time Tested Example of
Sustainable Agroforestry. Advances in agroforestry vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht.
pp.355-370.
Leakey RE, Lewin R (1996) The Sixth Extinction: Biodiversity and its Survival.
Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 271p.
Leakey RRB (1998) Agroforestry for biodiversity in farming systems. In: The Importance
of Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. Collins W. and Qualset C. (eds), Lewis
Publishers, New York. Pp. 127-145.
Leakey RRB, Sanchez, PA (1997) How many people use agroforestry products?
Agroforestry Today 9 (3): 4-5.
Levasseur V, Olivier A (2000) The farming system and traditional agroforestry systems
in the Maya community of San Jose, Belize. Agroforestry Systems 49 (3): 275-
288.
Linger E (2014) Agro-ecosystem and socio-economic role of home garden agroforestry
in Jabithenan District, North-Western Ethiopia: implication for climate change
adaptation. Springer Plus 3:154: 1-9.
Main AR (1999) How much biodiversity is enough? Agroforestry Systems45:
23-41.
Mc Neely J, Scherr SJ (2001) Common grounds common future: how ecoagriculture
can help feed the world and save wild biodiversity. IUCN, Gand/Future Harvest,
Washington, DC.
Michon G, de Foresta H (1995) The Indonesian agroforest model. Forest resource
management and biodiversity conservation. In:Conserving Biodiversity outside
Protected Areas: The Role of Traditional Agro-ecosystems. In: Halliday P,
Gilmour DA (eds), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp.90-106.
Middleton H (2001) Agroforestry and its effects on ecological guilds and arthropod
diversity. M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. 108p.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being:
biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon
sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 172: 10-23.
Nair PKR (1993) An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Netherlands. 491p.
Noble IR, Dirzo R (1997) Forests as human-dominated ecosystems. Science 277: 522-
525.

376 Agroforestry for Increased Production and Livelihood Security
Pandey DN (1991) Food selection by the Spangled Drongo Dicrurus hottentottus L.
and choice of species for afforestation. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society 88: 284-285.
Pandey DN (2002) Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Climate Policy 2:
367-377.
Pandey DN, Mohan D (1993) Nest site selection by cavity nesting birds on Melia azedarach
L. and management of multiple use forests. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society 90: 58-61.
Panwar P, Chakravarty S (2010) Floristic structure and ecological function of home
gardens in humid tropics of West Bengal, India. Indian Journal of Agroforestry
12(2): 69-78.
Peng RK, Incoll LD, Sutton SL, Wright C, Chadwick A (1993) Diversity of airborne
arthropods in a silvoarable agro-forestry system. Journal of Applied Ecology
30: 551-562.
Perfecto I, Snelling R (1995) Biodiversity and the transformation of a tropical
agroecosystem - ants in coffee plantations, Ecological Applications 5:
1084-1097.
Price GW, Gordon AM (1999) Spatial and temporal distribution of earthworms in a
temperate intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry
Systems 44: 141-149.
Ramakrishnan PS (1998) Conserving the sacred: where do we stand? In: Conserving
the sacred: for biodiversity management. Ramakrishnan, P.S., Saxena, K.G. and
Chandrashekara, U.M. (Eds.). Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.New
Delhi (India).
Rege JEO, Hodgkin T, Atta-Krah AN (2003) Managing agricultural biodiversity in
sub-Saharan Africa to increase food production, conserve natural resources and
improve human livelihoods. In: Building Sustainable Livelihoods through
Integrated Agricultural Research for Development-Programme proposal and
Reference materials. Forum for Agricultural Research Africa (FARA), Accra,
Ghana. Pp. 75-88.
Roy B, Rahman MH, Fardusi MJ (2013) Status, diversity, and traditional uses of
homestead gardens in northern Bangladesh: a means of sustainable biodiversity
conservation. ISRN Biodiversity 2013: 1-11.
Ruthenberg H (1976) Farm systems and farming systems. Ziefschrift fur Auslandische
Landwirtschaft 15: 42-55.
Sanchez PA, Leakey RRB (1997) Land-use transformation in Africa: three determinants
for balancing food security with natural resources utilization, European Journal
of Agronomy, 7: 15-23.
Sanchez PA, Buresh RJ, Leakey RRB (1997) Trees, soils and food security. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Science 352: 949-961.
Sarvade S (2014) Agroforestry: refuge for biodiversity conservation. International
Journal of Innovative Research in Science & Engineering. 2(5): 424-429.
Schroth, G, Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN (2004)
Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press,
Washington. 524p.
Schroth G, McNeely JA (2011) Biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and
livelihoods in tropical landscapes: towards a common agenda. Environmental
Management 48: 229-236.
Schroth G, Sinclair FL (eds) (2003) Trees, crops and soil fertility-concepts and research
methods. CAB International, Wallingford.

377Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation
Schultz RC, Colletti JP, Isenhart TM, Marquez CO, Simp-kins WW, Ball CJ (2000)
Riparian forest buffer practices.In: North American Agroforestry: An Integrated
Science and Practice. Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds). American Society
of Agronomy. Madison, WI, USA. University Press. Cambridge, UK,
pp. 189-281.
Shastri CM, Bhat DM, Nataraj DC, Murall KS, Ravindranath NH (2002) Tree species
diversity in a village ecosystem in Uttara Kannada district in Western Ghats,
Karnataka. Current Science 82: 1080-1084.
Sibuea T, Herdimansyah TD (1993) The variety of mammal species in the agroforest
areas of Krui (Lampung), Muara Bungo (Jambi) and Maninjau (West Sumatra).
Final research report, ORSTOM and HIMBIO. Bandung. Indonesia.
Soderstrom B, Svensson B, Vessby K, Glimskar A (2001) Plants, insects and birds in
semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors.
Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1839-1863.
Stamps WT, Woods TW, Linit MJ, Garret HE (2002) Arthropods diversity in alley
cropped black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) stands in eastern Missouri, U.S.A.
Agroforestry Systems 56: 167-175.
Sunderland TCH (2011) Food security: why is biodiversity important? International
Forestry Review 13(3): 265-274.
Thiollay JM (1995) The role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain forest
bird diversity in Sumatra. Conservation Biology 9: 335-353.
Thrupp LA (1997) Linking biodiversity and agriculture: Challenges and opportunities
for sustainable food security. World Resources Institute, USA.
Udawatta RP, Godsey LD (2010) Agroforestry comes of age: putting science into practice.
Agroforestry Systems 79: 1-4.
Williams PA, Koblents H, Gordon AM (1995) Bird use of an intercropped maize and
old fields in southern Ontario. In: Proceedings of the Fourth North American
agroforestry Conference. Ehrenreich, J.H. and Ehrenreich, D.L. (eds). Boise,
Idaho, United States. pp. 158-162.
Wood A, Pamela SE, Johanna M (2000) The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss. Earthscan
Publications. United Kingdom.