2 The Nature of Agroforestry

INTRODUCTION
What is agroforestry?
Agroforestry is the art and science of growing woody and non-woody plants together on the same unit of land for a range of benefits. There arie many ways in which this can be done. In some form or another, it has been happening since mankind gave up hunting and gathering. In the tropics , agroforestry is essentially for land occupiers, so that 'services' as well as products are important. Agroforestry, as it is now called (Lundgren, 1982), usually possesses all of the following features : multiple plant components, at least one of which must be a woody perennial a high level of interaction (economic and biophysical) between the woody and non-woody components usually multiple products, often of different categories (e.g., food , fodder, fuelwood) at least one service function (shelter, shade, soil amelioration, ' convenience' , etc.) and, in tropical low input situations frequently also a dependence on the use and manipulation of plant biomass, especially by optimising the use of plant residues Even if we apply these criteria it is sometimes difficu It to distinguish agroforestry from some forms of agriculture and forestry, shade trees in plantation crops , for example, or 'corridor farming' and practices that promote the use of non-Wood products in forests and woodlands. Furthermore, how is it to be separated from some aspects

of 'social forestry ' or 'community forestry ' (Wickremasinghe, 1996)? If pastoralists manipulate or enrich the woody plants in certain areas in order to foster young stock at certain times, is this ' range management' or agroforestry? When it is difficult to know exactly what is meant by a term, as in this case, it usually implies that it means somewhat different things to people with different backgrounds. Below are some definitions of agroforestry used by ICRAF at different times: "AgroforestlY refers to those landuse practices in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, woody vines, bamboos, palms) are grown in association with agricultural crops or pastures, sometimes with livestock or other animals (e .g., insects such as bees, fish), and in which there are both ecological and economic interactions between the woody plants and the other components ." "Agroforestry landllse is the deliberate inter- or sequential cropping of woody and non-woody plant components (sometimes with animals) in order to generate multiple products and 'services'. There are both ecological and economic interactions between the plant components." "Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resources management system that, through the integration of trees in fannland and rangeland, diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for landusers at all levels." Nevertheless , despite its flaws, the name 'agroforestry ' has served to direct the attention of the technical and scientific community to the need to understand more about the possibilities and limitations of growing woody and non-woody plants on the same piece of land. As farmers do not dis tin-

The Nature of Agroforestry

guish themselves as ' agriculturists', 'foresters' or ' agroforesters ' it is unlikely that they will care much what the practices are called, as long as the advice they receive is technically sound and takes into account their social and economic circumstances. Agroforestry is essentially a form of mUltiple cropping, but there are many successful forms of landuse that involve growing just one crop at a time (monocultures). In Western countries the development of biological and physical sciences occurred concurrently with the rise of industry and urbanisation. The first has provided the opportunity and the second the incentive for specialisation in farming practices. The result was that in Europe and North America traditional mixed farming, and the management of natural forests, moved rapidly towards extensive monocultures from the middle of the last century onwards. Monocultures have proved to be extremely productive with the aid of inputs such as mechanisation for tillage and harvesting, fertilisers, irrigatioJil, and the application of chemicals for the control of pests, diseases and weeds. All these can most effectively be used in a single crop that can be managed efficiently so as to exploit its value fully. Large gains in productivity have been achieved by breeding cultivars that can take advantage of this type of system. For example, cereals have been 'miniaturised' and their harvest index increased by reducing unwanted biomass. There are many reasons for continuing to encourage productive monocultures where they are sustainable and environmentally friendly. In temperate regions the trend towards specialisation in land use practices led to a separation of the applied sciences that supported them. So the disciplines of agriculture, forestry , horticulture, etc. emerged. A consequence has been that applied research disciplines related to landuse have become separate entities. For example, in the 1970s it was seen as an innovation when participants from these separate disciplines actually contributed together at the same scientific meeting (e.g., Luckwill and Cutting, 1970). A feature of agroforestry is that, of necessity , it involves inputs from a very wide range of disciplines. Although, in practice, the social and economic wellbeing of farmers and their families will nearly always determine whether or not any particular agroforestry practice is adopted (Raintree, 1991),

it is not usually the predominant factor used to categorise one; this mainly depends on the technology being used. However, it is very important that socio-economic considerations should not be left out of the earliest considerations of the suitability or otherwise of any proposals. We should consider, for example , requirements for labour and skills. Some forms of agroforestry (e.g., hedgerow intercropping) require more of both than others (e.g., simple boundary planting or fallow enrichment). Some demand a high initial input (perhaps partly in cash) in order to provide the trees, and to plant and protect them . Making it clear what the outputs are (e.g., cash, shelter, energy) will help designate the economic focus of the activity, as well as what products and services can be expected. Certainly, differen t kinds of agroforestry will involve different levels of social input (labour, management, etc.) and have different economic consequences (for food supply, cash flow, etc.). Although individual agroforestry practices may be technically suitable for one or more ecozones, the design and management of actual systems (i.e., functional units) that are eventually adopted may well change both between ecozones and because of farmer preferences as socio-economic constructs change. Also, the 'richer' the environment the greater the choice of land use practices that can successfully be undertaken (Fig. 13.8, below). This applies equally to agroforestry, and it cannot be assumed that because a particular form of agroforestry (e.g., alley cropping, better termed hedgerow intercropping) succeeds in one place it will do so in a different environmental situation.

IS THERE AN 'AGROFORESTRY UNIT'?

The importance of scale
The rudimentary elements in most agroforestry practices consist of a woody perennial, an agricultural crop species (or some pasture) and man (and there may be domesticated animals or not) (Huxley, 1983a). Simple as this scheme may seem, it can be combined in a great many ways, and these can involve very disparate scales of both time and space. The spatial scales involve both horizontal and vertical dimensions, and this 'verticality' needs

10

Tropical Agroforestry etc.). Thus there is agrisilviculture (trees with crops) , silvopastoral practices (trees with pasture and livestock), agrosilvopastoral practices (crops, pasture, animals and trees) , and various other treebased practices such as woodlots, boundary plantings, shelterbelts, etc. From a functional point of view it is sometimes useful to indicate whether the woody plants are grown in zones (lines, plots, blocks) or are more widely scattered among the crops or in the pastures. The concept of 'simultaneous' or 'sequential' use of the land is important; the latter avoids any direct competition between trees and crops, but there can be economic implications with regard to labour inputs required to clear land after tree growing. There are, in fact , some instances where woody species can have adverse effects on any subsequent plantings, i.e ., possible allelopathic effects on follow-on crops or on subsequent tree establishment. For example, it is difficult to crop after black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) in East Africa, and maize sown after Sesbania sesban at ICRAF's Field Station, Machakos, was observed to establish poorly. In semi-arid regions a 'bare fallow' is sometimes undertaken in orcler to store enough water for a succeeding crop (as in some North African countries). Usually, however, the land becomes covered with weeds or, if the fallow is long enough, with grasses , bushes and trees (a 'bush fallow'). Some form of continuous rather than intermittent land occupancy is usually desirable if soil erosion is not to occur. Taungya, which is the practice of growing crops during the first year or so of a long-term commercial forestry plantation, is ' listed as a sequential practice although , strictly speaking, it is simultaneous - cropping ceases as soon as any effective competition with the trees begins to occur. This is really the key to us understanding simultaneous practices. In agricultural intercropping there are a whole range of ways in which two or more crop components can be associated with one another and grow together during a single cropping season (see Figs. 2.1 and 8.4). In agroforestry , because they occupy the land together, there is an opportunity for trees and crops to compete with or facilitate one another (see Chapter 13). The actual period over which they do interact, however, will depend on when tbey are actually growing . The very varied behavioural patterns of growth and

to be understood with regard to how it can affect the availability of environmental resources, their 'ca pture' by the plants and their utilisation (see Chapter 9). In agroforestry, therefore, we have often to consider spatial scales that differ widely from the distance between component plants (their environmental interactions), the plot, the farm, and larger areas such as the watershed. Then there is also a need to look at processes, or events, that happen over very short time periods (e.g., hours or days for sharI-term competitive effects), over periods of weeks within seasons (Ii tterfa11), over several seasons (the accumulation of soil organic matter), or over decades or even hundreds of years ('s us tainabili ty'). An issue that arises from the complex structure of woody/non-woody plant mixtures, both above and below ground , is the extent to which vertical and lateral transfers of environmental resources occur, and how 10 evaluate the way in wHich the plant components in any system, particularly the trees, are accessing environmental resources. Farms can present a puzzling array of spatial patterns (see Chapter 22). Possibilities to exploit vertical and lateral opportunities to capture environmental resources (light, water and nutrients) represent an important way in which agroforestry may enhance productivity, but knowing from where the resources are used up, or how they are being moved around within a plot, between plots, or within the farm or landscape as a whole, is crucial to our understanding of how any system is working. The acquisition of 'extra' resources (e.g. , water and nutrients) by scattered trees or hedgelines is at the expense of the surrounding area , so that it is merely a redistribution of resources within the environment as a whole.

ARRANGEMENTS AND INTERACTIONS

Agroforestry is a generic term and the various forms that it can take (agroforestry practices, sometimes called technologies) can be classified into various groups (see Table 2.1) based on the arrangement of their components in space and time and their outputs in terms of both products and 'services' (e.g., soil and water conservation, microclimate improvement, demarcation of boundaries,

The Nature of Agroforestry

Table 2.1 Agroforestry practices.

II

Trees with crops (agrisilvicuJture)

Rotated in time (sequen tial practices): Shifting cultivation (sometimes with enrichment of the woody components) Improved tre e fallow T aungy a (i.e., cropping during the establishme nt phase of commercial forest tree plantations) Spatia ll y mixed (simultaneous practices): Trees on cropped land Multiple use of trees in crop plantations Mixed multistorey tree and crop arrangeme nts (e.g., tropical home gardens) Spatially zoned (simultaneous practices): Hedgerow intercropping (alley cropping) , co ntour hedging or barrier planting and other types of linear tree plantings Boundary plan ting for various products, or live fencing Strip planting in forests or timber plantations (corridor farming) Windbreaks, tree-e nriched windstrips, shelterbelts and wild animal habitat plantings

Trees with grass and animals (silvopastoral) (Sim ultaneous practices)

Spatially mixed: Trees planted on rangelands, in permanent pastures and grass and grass-legume leys for leaf and/or pod fodder (some times for edi ble flowers additionally) Tree-crop plantations with past ures Spatially zoned: Alley farming (sometimes with 'energy' gardens of shrubs and grass mixtures) Live fencing Boundary plantings, mainly for fodd er

Managed tree plots

Fodder banks using woody species Fuelwood lots Mixed orchards (especially if for several products, e.g., fruits and honey)

Other combinations
Agrosilvopastoral (crops, pasture, animals and trees) Trees can a lso be grown, or nutured, to provide products from insects such as bees (honey), lac insects (shellac varnish) , silkworms (silk), and so on Fish farming also sometimes utilises leafy tree fodder

flowering found in tropical woody pl ants are important in this respect (see Chapter 17). Merely consider ing th at they are occupying the same land is not the same as describing periods of functional activity. In simultaneous systems, practices can be organised according to whether they are mixed or zonal. Again, this has some functional implications. Where trees or shrubs are scattered in cropland or in pasture, the amount of tree-crop interface will be greater ttwn if they are arranged in lines, strips or zones (i.e., narrow plots) (see Cha pter 12). Furthermore, in mixtures it can be important to designate the ratio of crop to tree, that is, we say th at the

trees are in dense or sparse mixtures. This will, obviously affect the ratio of products, as well as moderating interactions between components. Whether trees/shrubs are scattered or in lines also, clearly, has management implications. A regular, zonal arrangement does not necessa rily mean that there will be no taU trees. For example, Paulownia spp. are usually planted in rows between strips of wheat in China, but Cordia alliodora may be grown scattered in coffee in Costa Rica . In a number of zonal systems, e.g., hedgerow intercropping, the woody component may be kept quite small; barrier planting of hedges on slopes for soil and water conservation is a case in point (see

12

Tropical Agroforestry

crop interfaces will influence how al1Y system functions. It is not an easy task to Ul1Tavel how trees and crops are interacting with one another within and between seasons. Nor must we forget the conflicts that can arise for inputs (labour, cash , and materials), which must balance the specific demand for the time and amount of various outputs that any system may potentially be able to Supply. There need to be convincing arguments that growing trees with crops will confer more benefits than growing them alone or st>.quentially.

THE SYSTEM
So far we have been discussing 'practices' but in later chapters, we will often be considering how 'systems' function. To be absolutely distinct, any complete system needs to be distinguishable from its surrounding environment by either physical or conceptual boundaries. Because different operators frequently investigate dissimilar aspects of the system, it is especially important to describe its limits accurately, but this may not always be easy. SometImes the purpose or usage of a system is enough to distinguish it from others, e.g., a single farm on which a family subsists. However the boundaries of farms and/or households ~ften become blurred. Some members of the family may work elsewhere for part of their time, and bring resources into or remove them from the home farm. The farm animals may sometimes be kept at home, or they may be grazed elseWhere, perhaps on common land , or lent out, and so On. Economists think of these aspects as making a system 'porous'. Systems with a common purpose may be grouped, for example, as subsistence systems or cash-generating systems. From a biophysical standpoint such systems mayor may not have much in common, but their economic and, perhaps, social characteristics will be readily distinguishable. However we may wish to view a practice Or an individual system it is important that it is described clearly and, for any particular system, that the nature of its boundaries, sub-systems and components be defined unequivocally, In agroforestry we may often find that economists, sociologists and biophysical scientists need to start investigating at different scale levels (e.g., see Chapter 25 on Sustainability); they may also each wish to define a system usin o differeilt boundaries. <>

Fig . 2.1 Pepper (Piper nigrum) is a profitable crop for small farmers . This farmer was encouraged and helped by the Upper Mahaweli Watershed Project, Sri Lanka, to create a small, highly intensive home garden of 0.5 ha on which he supports himself, his wife and two children. There are over 30 plant species being grown, stall-fed cattle , a silkworm enterprise and a methane plant.

Chapter 6), and 'feed gardens' to produce animal fodder is another (see Chapter 5). In a home garden, where 'verticality' is being fully exploited, aU the plants are usually mixed and scattered, each occupying its own niche (Fig. 2.1), unlike monocrops (Fig. 2.2). Obviously, the arrangement of plant components in a mixture affects the intimacy with which the components interact and, as competition can occur only between closely associated plants requiring the same scarce environmental resources (light, water, nutrients), the extent and nature of the tree-

The Nature of Agroforestry

Fig. 2.2 Plantation of Cupressus lusitanica, Kenya. This sectional view shows a rough, well-coupled canopy. Close spacing ensures that light interception is maximal, but there is no plant ground cover. High planting density ensures that these timber trees grow straight and that lower branches selfprune.

The terms 'practice' and 'system' are often used indiscriminately, but there is an important difference between them. 'Practice' is better applied as a form of classification, whereas 'system' has functional connotations and so is more properly used to describe specific examples of practices. Thus, any reference to a land use practice is to a general and recognisable way of using land (e.g., plantation forestry, shifting cultivation, hedgerow intercropping for fodder production and soil fertility improvement, and so on). To investigate any specific practice it will usually be necessary to examine individual systems (e.g., specific farm examples) so as to examine the way plant components function or interact, or in order to understand the specific economic or social attributes that apply to that particular case. (A 'system' is an arrangement of components (or sub-systems) that process inputs into outputs. Each system consists of boundaries, components, interactions between components, inputs and outputs.) Practices may be grouped under major headings (e.g., multistorey tree gardens) with several subordinate groups (home gardens, village forest gardens , spice gardens) which are similar in general form and arrangement but different in some social context, or in the outputs required, etc. (see Table 2.1). By giving a name to a practice it is important not to set restrictions on how the farmer may see it being applied. There are many adaptations that can be made to fit local circumstances. Hedgerow intercropping defines a spatial arrangement of plant components and a method of management (i.e., pruned hedges), but this approach can be uti-

lised for very different purposes: fodder production and/or soil fertility improvement (when it might be called alley cropping) or for soil and water conservation on slopes (when it would be known as barher planting). Each of these will have contoured hedgerows , but the exact form of layout and management could be quite distinctive, and the systems may look, and function, rather differently. Detailed discussions and accounts of agroforestry practices can be found in Nair (1989, 1993) and many of the books referred to in 'Recommended Reading' at the end of this Section. The concept of hedgerow intercropping can be amalgamated with that of a rotational practice so as to combine a simultaneous and a sequential practice on the same piece of land if this is divided into two. The whole plot is planted with trees at hedgerow spacings, but, at anyone time, only half of the land is maintained under a hedgerow system, the rest is left as a fallow. When the farmer feels that it is appropriate, the hedges are left to grow out, cropping stops and a bush fallow phase takes over. Crops are then sown in the area that had been under bush fallow, and this is accomplished by cutting back the lines of trees and forming them into hedgerows. Obviously this is suitable only where a farmer can afford to have a part of the land under fallow and where suitable tree species are used (Fig. 2.3; Huxley , 1986). Systems may contain distinguishable sub-systems or, for convenience, they can be thought of as operating in this way, according to how we want to view them. For example, if the farm depends on agroforestry enterprises these can be considered as con-

14

Tropical Agroforestry

Fig. 2.3 Rotational hedgerow inlercropping demonstration (Machakos , Kenya). An appropriate woody species is planted in rows with close in-row spacing , and the plot is divided into two. Hedgerow intercropping is carried out on one half, and the other is left as a 'fallow' tree plot. When the farmer decides, the trees are coppiced to allow hedges to form and crops are sown. The area previously used for hedgerow intercropping then becomes a tree fallow.

tributing to farm sub-systems providing basic needs: such as the 'food sub-system', the 'enelgy sub-system', and those primarily generating cash income , shelter, raw materials , and so on. This is particularly useful in analysing and describing farm constraints, as is done in rapid rural appraisal schemes (e.g., ICRAF's 'Diagnosis and Design '; Raintree , 1987a,b). Individual plant components might be contributing to more than one of such subsystems, of course. An agroforestry system is, therefore, identifiable by a coherent and unique set of circumstances. It could be a single specific local example of a practice , characterised by environment, the plant species and arrangement, management applications and the particular set of social and economic circumstances that apply. Or, we can use the term for a cluster of almost identical such units, considering each as a sub-system if this' was useful. For example, if we wanted to contrast some functional aspects of, say, Chagga (Tanzania) home gardens (Fernandes et al., 1984) with Kandy (Sri Lanka) home gardens (Ranasinghe and Newman, 1993), we could think of the typical system for each of these and compare them. There are many kinds of interactions to be considered in agroforestry, some instigated at management level. For example, there may be transfers of plant material by the farmer as when tree prunings are fed to livestock kept elsewhere. Or prunings from trees or hedges can be moved so as to provide

leafy mulch for crops. Economic transfers or interactions may include the use of cash income from the crops to purchase and establish trees, the sale of timber or fuel wood in order to purchase fertilisers for the crops or pastures, or the bene fit of having more labour available for weeding crops at peak periods because a home supply of fuelwood alleviates the need to spend time collecting wood from distant sites. Ecological and economic factors may interact, e.g., less labour needed for weeding because of fewer weeds under trees, and so on. Usually it is only possible to generalise about practices, e.g., ' most home gardens have been found to be sustainable' (Torquebiau , 1992); specific statements can only be made of agroforestry systems.

FINDING OUT ABOUT AGROFORESTRY

The speed at which interest and involvement in agroforestry developed during the 1980s was extraordinary. It was clear that everyone was looking and hoping for answers to the emerging landuse problems. Many new agroforestry enthusiasts seemed prepared to take chances that solutions would emerge and a range of hypotheses about the benefits of agroforestry were put forward ; for some, evidence was available , but not for all (see Preface). However, haste and hope were really unnecessary. Agroforestry has a sound and valid base from which to evaluate any situation: on the one hand,

The Nature of Agroforestry from those field practitioners already familiar with growing trees with crops or pastures; on the other, from existing scientific evidence. The first could be addressed through field appraisal techniques such as ICRAF's 'Diagnosis and Design' methodology; the second demanded its own evaluation in order to thoroughly explore and consider available scientific knowledge. In the early days, collecting knowledge from the field was more difficult than one might think, because of a lack of infrastructure to support agroforestry. In most countries the subject fell under different government ministries or parastatal organisations, and there was a need to create a minimum level of awareness and collaboration before multidisciplinary field teams could work together. Inputs from scientific disciplines were slow to have an impact, partly due to the initial scepticism about the latest 'fad ' from those working on more basic aspects (they did not believe in 'magic' trees!), and partly because funding for work other than very applied field testing was slow to come. Without this two-pronged approach, however, there is no sound basis from which to promulgate existing agroforestry practices, or design improved ones. It is interesting to take a moment to consider exactly what supportive scientific work is available. Ecologists, for example, have long been studying natural associations of woody and non-woody plants and, with physiologists, have developed an understanding of how environmental resources are captured and shared in mixed plant communities. Soil scientists know about the processes whereby plant residues can improve soil fertility; and they can quantify these. Foresters have obtained considerable information about the long-term effects of trees on soils, and we can compare this with what agriculturists have found in croplands. Lnformation about secondary forest products has long been available, and tropical agriculturists are conversant with many tree-based systems such as Acacia senegal gum gardens in the Sudan, mixed cropping under coconuts, and many others. Weed scientists know much about competition between crop and weed species, and of woody weeds in rangelands. And there is also a considerable body of information about the effects of, mainly, legume groundcovers in a whole range of plantation crops, as well as much useful information on the effects of mulching. Woody agricultural species such as tea, coffee, cocoa, oil palm and rubber

15

have been very well studied, and so offer relevant examples of the effects of tree and soil management on productivity. The reports of scientific investigations on these provide extremely rich sources of information that can underpin any further work with multipurpose tree species. The behaviour of tea under different forms of training and plucking, for example, is particularly relevant to the management of trees being grown for leafy fodder. The work on pruning of coffee can, similarly, provide us with an invaluable example which, together with the extensive literature on the pruning of temperate fruits, establishes a useful set of guidelines for the management of any woody plant for fruits /seeds (see Chapter 19). Finally, range ecologists have long studied the interactions between animals, grass and shrubs. Is there enough information?
11 such a wealth of information is available why do we need more? First of all , although the plantplant and plant-environment processes involved in growing woody and non-woody plants together are well established, the actual extent to which they occur in any particular agroforestry situa tion still needs to be established. Then again, agroforestry mixtures involve many interfaces between the plant components, the outcome of which will be highly site-dependent, and so require testing in the field. Finally, although many of the sources of information I have mentioned previously provide a sound scientific foundation on which to base progress in agroforestry , the actual questions addressed in ecology, forestry, horticulture, etc. have not gone far enough in many instances. For example, we find that although ecologists have studied competition in considerable depth, they do not have aJJ the answers we require. This is because they are usually concerned with which species ultimately 'win' , and which 'lose'. In agroforestry we do not want winners or losers - we need all our plant components to survive and flourish (Fig. 2.4). Thus, although ecological research is often highly relevant, and will point us in the right direction, the results to hand may not be immediately what we want, or go far enough to answer specific agroforestry questions. Intercropping research in agriculture is another source of information and relevant ideas that,

16

TropicaL Agrojoreslry

Fig. 2.4 Part of an early experiment to compare maize grown with Sesbania sesban simultaneously and at different spacings (Makoka, Malawi). Clearly, there is not enough water in this system to supply both plant components.

Fig. 2.5 End view of a three-line windbreak of neem (Azadirachta indica) in the Majjia Valley, Niger. Exposure of trees by this riverbed (now dry) shows that the trees are mainly shallow rooting.

similarly, still needs development for our purposes. The concepts of environmental resource capture and resource utilisation (see Chapter 9) have arisen from studies on crop mixtures, as an extension and collaboration of original work on monocultures. All this material is certainly immediately relevant to agroforestry. However, because in agroforestry we are dealing with a mixture of plants of diverse stature and of varying lengths of life cycle, intercropping concepts derived from agriculture again have to be modified and extended. Despite these rich sources of information and understanding about woody plants, multiple cropping and soil and environmental issues, there are some essential topics that remain largely unexplored. For example, our knowledge of rooting patterns and root behaviour in woody/non-woody plant mixtures is inadequate (see Chapter 18). Here the task is to define more clearly what questions need to be answered and then to mount sufficient effort to obtain the necessary information. One of the myths about trees is that they are always deeper rooting than associated plant types, but this is not necessarily true (Fig. 2.5). Again, the importance of

mycorrhizal associations for enhancing nutrient capture, especially on poor sites, is undisputed, but very little is still known about this for managed multiple cropping systems containing 'resident' woody plants. Also little is known about optimising pest management in agroforestry systems; certainly perennial woody vegetation can provide a home for a variety of pest and disease organisms, and there are many gaps in our knowledge of the pest species associated with multipurpose trees and the ecology of pests and their predators in agroforestry circumstances. These are just a few examples of the gaps in information, as we shall see. Then, also, there are the numerous areas where a reappraisal of existing knowledge is required. Thinking more clearly about the advantages and disadvantages of fast-growing trees is one of these (Fig. 2.5; see Chapter 13). Only recently have concerted attempts been made to explain, more fully, how to apply to agroforestry certain concepts that are well-established and well-tried in agriculture, e.g., soil organic matter dynamics (Sanchez et aL. , 1985), or environmental resource capture considerations (Ong and Huxley, 1996). Even the general thesis that trees are always 'good' has to be disclaimed; on sloping land, and in combination with overgrazing, scattered trees can help promote severe soil erosion through gulleying (Fig. 2.6).

The Nature of Agroforestry

Fig. 2.6 For example, trees can cause erosion. On this slope (upper part to left) previous overgrazing has removed most of the grass cover, and then water flowing downslope has been channelled between the trees. causing gullies.

The complexities found in intercropping woody and non-woody plants make it imperative to know not only the convenient disposition of plant types from a management point of view, but also how the various plant components will function and interact (and the animals, too, if included). In the long term the plant system will affect the site and, especially, the characteristics of the soil. Relating form and function is, therefore, an important issue when selecting plants for agroforestry, and one which even now has not been adeg ua tely addressed in agroforestry research (Huxley, 1996). Computer modelling may seem an esoteric activity when there is, clearly, so much investigation to be done in the field and so much site-moderated variability to understand . However, it is specifically because the number of agroforestry practices is large, and the differences in the characteristics of individual systems are limitless, that it is vital that the science of agroforestry is directed at establishing a basis of understanding about function that can support field activities under whatever circumstances they might occur, and help to predict their outcome. The alternative is an infinity of attempts based on trial-and-error. It is in such circumstances that computer modelling can ultimately become a powerful practical tool for decisionmaking once a sound basis of scientific fact has been established and verified and validated in the field (see Chapter 27).

TREES FOR ALL REASONS

To be able to use woody plants wisely in agroforestry it is important to appreciate exactly what the woody habit entails (see Chapter 7) , and to have a clear idea about how specific woody species can best be used. The woody components in agroforestry have come to be known as ' multipurpose trees ' (MPTs). MPTs are woody perennials (trees, shrubs, woody vines, palms, bamboos) that are purposefully grown to provide more than one significant contribution to the production and/or service functions of the landuse systems they occupy (see Chapter 15). To some extent this term is a misnomer because any tree species can be grown in this way. It is true that some MPT species cannot help but provide a number of products (e.g., palms), and a few will readily provide a supply of different products over the sa me season if reg uired to do so (e.g., Leucaena leucocephala , grown for leafy fodder and some fuelwood). However, to expect any plant to maximise parts that are competing internally for resources with others that are to be harvested also is unfeasible, so that we need to evaluate, in the farm context, whether to grow trees for multiple products or separately (Huxley, 1999, in press) . What is important is that many, if not most, of the so-called MPTs have the potential to provide several products and can be managed to do this as and when the need arises (e.g., the neem trees in Fig. 2.5). In the same way, they can be

18

Tropical Agroforestry

ananged and managed to fulfil more than one kind of service. Because the cost to the farmer of replacing one tree species with another will be high, should requirements change with time, there is considerable value in growing a species that is a flexible provider, and most of the MPTs used in agroforestry today have this characteristic. The term ' multipurpose ' really applies to the way in which we wish to use trees, etc.; such species are not necessarily a particular kind of woody plant!

CONCLUSIONS
We can see that agroforestry is really not a new discovery at all, even for scientists, although they have overlooked it until recently. Much of what we need to know in order to supply a scientific basis for advice on how to practise agroforestry successfully has already been studied to a degree in many other disciplines. Certainly, existing knowledge needs extending and elaborating, but, hopefully, progress can rapidly be achieved. We must temper enthusiasm about what agroforestry might achieve with a considered view of its limitations derived from a sound knowledge of how agroforestry systems function and what may constrain farmers who want to use it. Agroforestry is obviously a part

of the whole spectrum of using land sensibly, with potentials for increasing both productivity and sustainability, but these potentials must not be taken for granted; many aspects remain to be properly explored, as we shall see later in this book. Agroforestry is scientifically stimulating for those involved because there is so often a need to resolve technical conflicts. For example, we must conserve land whilst yet attempting to make it more productive. Indeed, it is this trade-off between productivity and sustainability that lies at the heart of the matter (see Chapters 24 and 25) , and for which some of the claims made for agroforestry have yet to be tested. Better forms of land use (i.e., more productive and more sustainable) will be acheived only by improving our understanding of how to use all the scientific and indigenous knowledge available. Furthermore, improvements in land management are likely to come about only through a multidisciplinary approach. Working in this interdisciplinary way presents both a challenge and an opportunity. It encourages us to appreciate and accommodate other points of view, and to contribute to a holistic solution that is more likely to support and sustain the wellbeing of the people whose existence and livelihood depend, crucially, on good land management.