Agroforestacin en Ingles - Odt

Reconstrucción de la selva brasileña: Estrategias agroforestales para la sucesión de bosques
secundarios Artículo (Disponible en PDF) en Geografía Aplicada 43: 171-181 · Septiembre

2013 con 93 lecturas
econstrucción de la selva brasileña: estrategias agroforestales para la sucesión de bosques

secundarios ☆
• Christine E. Blinn , , ,
• John O. Browder b , ,
• Marcos A. Pedlowski , c , ,
• Randolph H. Wynne a ,
Disponible en línea el 1 de agosto de 2013
Reflejos
•
Presentamos las características socioeconómicas del propietario de la tierra en la Amazonia

brasileña.
Los agricultores que se dedicaban a la agrosilvicultura tenían más probabilidades de permitir

la reforestación.
Los agroforestales dependían menos de la producción de ganado en base a las ventas de 2009.
• e produjo más sucesión de bosques secundarios cerca de parcelas de madera y de agrosilvicultura

mixta.
• La agroforestería tiene el potencial de conducir a la reforestación en el Amazonas.
AbStracto
¿La adopción de agroforestería por parte de los pequeños agricultores de la Amazonia brasileña
promueve la sucesión de bosques secundarios en las praderas degradadas y en los campos de
cultivo? Nuevos resultados de un proyecto piloto de agroforestería agropecuaria en pequeña escala,
el Proyecto Piloto Agroforestal de Rondônia (RAPP), que comenzó en 1992, se presentan en este
documento. En 1992, 242 agricultores fueron encuestados mediante un protocolo de muestreo
aleatorio estratificado, 50 de los cuales fueron seleccionados para participar en el RAPP,
constituyendo su grupo experimental. Los restantes 191 agricultores sirvieron como grupo de
control. Los agricultores de ambos grupos fueron re-encuestados en 2002 (después de 10 años) y de
nuevo en 2010 (después de 18 años). Se realizaron visitas anuales a las granjas de los grupos
experimentales de 1993 a 2003 para monitorear el desarrollo y manejo de la parcela agroforestal y
los cambios en las características socioeconómicas y demográficas pertinentes, como la capacidad
de los hogares, los sistemas de producción y la participación social. Se encontraron diferencias en el
tamaño de la propiedad, número de personas que residían permanentemente en la propiedad y
participación social entre el grupo experimental y el grupo control, con el grupo experimental con
propiedades más grandes, más residentes y más participación en asociaciones de ayuda mutua. Los
agricultores del grupo de control también dependían más de la producción de ganado (sobre la base
de las ventas de 2009) a pesar de tener cantidades similares de pastos como los agricultores del
grupo experimental. Dentro del grupo experimental, se encontraron muy pocas diferencias entre los
agricultores en función del tipo de parcela agroforestal: madera, mixta o no maderera. Los análisis
de sensores remotos revelan diferencias espectrales a largo plazo (10 años +) en términos de
similitud con el bosque primario tanto de las parcelas agroforestales como de las propiedades totales
de las granjas en este estudio. Los agricultores de grupos experimentales con parcelas agroforestales
mixtas o basadas en madera permitieron que ocurriera más sucesión de bosques secundarios en y
alrededor de sus parcelas que los agricultores con parcelas no maderables. Aunque en promedio, las
propiedades agrícolas se han vuelto menos espectralmente similares a los bosques primarios desde
1992, las propiedades con parcelas agroforestales tienden a tener más sucesión secundaria y / o
bosque primario en sus tierras en 2011. Varias propiedades de ejemplo muestran la tendencia de los
agricultores Con parcelas agroforestales para permitir una mayor sucesión de bosques secundarios
en sus tierras.
Palabras claves
• Deforestación ;
• Desarrollo ;
• Frontier ;
• Uso de la tier
Abstracto
en sus tierras.
Descubra la investigación del mundo

• 12 millones Miembros
• 100 millones Publicaciones
• 700k + proyectos de investigación
Únete gratis
stracto
en sus tierras.
Descubra la investigación del mundo

• 12 millones Miembros
• 100 millones Publicaciones
• 700k + proyectos de investigación
Únete gratis
7
Highlights
•
We present land owner socio-economic characteristics in the Brazilian Amazon.
Farmers that engaged in agroforestry were more likely to allow reforestation.
Agroforesters were less reliant on cattle production based on 2009 sales.
More secondary forest succession occurred near timber and mixed agroforestry plots.
Agroforestry has the potential to lead to reforestation in the Amazon.
Abstract
Does the adoption of agroforestry by small farmers in the Brazilian Amazon promote secondary
forest succession on the degraded pastures and crop fields? New results from a small-scale farm
agroforestry demonstration project, the Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project (RAPP) that began in
1992 are presented in this paper. In 1992, 242 farmers were surveyed by a stratified random
sampling protocol, 50 of whom were selected to participate in the RAPP, constituting its
experimental group. The remaining 191 farmers served as a control group. Farmers from both
groups were re-surveyed in 2002 (after 10 years) and again in 2010 (after 18 years). Annual site
visits to the experimental group farms were conducted from 1993 through 2003 to monitor
agroforest plot development and management, and changes in pertinent socio-economic and
household demographic characteristics such as household capacity, production systems, and social
participation. Differences in property size, number of people permanently residing on the property,
and social participation were found between the experimental and control group, with the
experimental group having larger properties, more residents, and more participation in mutual aid
associations. Control group farmers were also more reliant on cattle production (based on 2009
sales) despite having similar amounts of pasture as farmers in the experimental group. Within the
experimental group, very few differences were found between farmers based on the type of
agroforestry plot: timber, mixed or non-timber. Remote sensing analyses reveal long-term (10
years+) spectral differences in terms of the similarity to primary forest of both the agroforestry plots
and the entire properties of the farms in this study. Experimental group farmers with mixed or
timber-based agroforestry plots allowed more secondary forest succession to occur in and around
their plots than farmers with non-timber plots. Although, on average, farm properties have become
less spectrally similar to primary forest since 1992, properties with agroforestry plots tend to have
more secondary succession and/or primary forest on their land in 2011. Several example properties
are shown to illustrate the tendency of farmers with agroforestry plots to allow more secondary
forest succession to occur on their land.
Keywords
• Deforestation;
• Development;
• Frontier;
• Land use;
• Landsat;
• Multi-temporal
Object 1
Introduction
Agroforestry and tropical forest succession
Socio-economic research articles on the role of agroforestry in promoting secondary forest
succession were absent from Mercer and Miller's (1998) content review of the journal Agroforestry
Systems, spanning 1982 to 1996. Since then this subject has entered into a broader scientific
discourse on tropical agroforestry (e.g., Chowdhury, 2007; Ehiagbonare, 2006; JIRCAS., 2007;
Lieberei and Gasparotto, 1998; Meza et al., 2006; Raman et al., 2009; Shono et al., 2007 ; Vieira
et al., 2009). Agroforestry, defined as a “system of land use in which harvestable trees or shrubs are
grown among or around crops or on pastureland” (Agroforestry, 2011) has evolved in numerous
social and cultural contexts as a managed successional land cover to achieve fallow enrichment,
secondary forest cover, riparian forestland rehabilitation, degraded forest recuperation or recovery,
and agro-successional restoration. As a vehicle for promoting reforestation through managed
secondary forest succession, research has also focused on the factors that influence farmers to adopt
agroforestry practices ( Smith et al., 1998; Warner, 1993 ; Yokota et al., 2009). Related research has
also explored the impacts of agroforestry and secondary forest succession on nutrient cycles (Sirois,
Margolis, & Camiré, 1998), on biodiversity and wildlife populations ( Bobo et al., 2006; Harvey
and Haber, 1998; Letcher and Chazdon, 2009; Lozada et al., 2006 ; Schulze et al., 2004), on
atmospheric carbon sequestration ( Castro et al., 2003; Delaney, 1999; Fearnside and Guimarães,
1996; Lasco et al., 2004; Roshetko et al., 2002; Schroth et al., 2002; Takimoto et al., 2009 ; Wise
and Cacho, 2011), and on agroforestry's contribution to rural household livelihood, not being
limited to just income generation ( Alavalapati and Nair, 2001; Barton, 1994; Budowski, 1980 ;
Pattanayak and Mercer, 1998). As the research literature on agroforestry and its potential
contribution to natural reforestation grows, questions remain regarding what types of agroforestry
systems produce greater positive results in promoting secondary forest succession in the tropics.
Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project
This paper updates selected findings of the Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project (RAPP), an on-
farm experimental agroforestry demonstration project involving small-scale farmers in the
southwestern Brazilian Amazon state of Rondônia over an 18 year (1992–2010) period (Browder
and Pedlowski, 2000; Browder et al., 2005 ; Summers et al., 2004). One of the long-term research
questions that the RAPP sought to address was: Is successful agroforestry a catalyst to secondary
forest succession that might encourage reforestation of degraded lands on small farms in the
Amazon? And, more specifically, does the type of agroforestry system (non-timber, mixed, or
timber-based) adopted influence the likelihood that a farmer will manage degraded land for
secondary forest regrowth as previously hypothesized (Browder et al., 2005)? Furthermore, are
there socio-economic household characteristics that might predict secondary forest succession based
on agroforestry?
Considerable differentiation in the spectral signatures from satellite images of the RAPP planting
sites and their immediate surroundings were noticed over time. In some cases, farmers had allowed
secondary forest vegetation to subsume their agroforest plots and in others, farmers had more
carefully managed their plots sites to minimize secondary vegetation. The spectral differentiation
within the experimental group led the principal investigators to speculate about socio-economic
factors that might influence these spatial patterns. They hypothesized that three variables, for which
household level survey data were available, might contribute to a better understanding of these
patterns, as follows: (1) Household capacity of the control and experimental groups (number of
working age adults living and working on the farm and the size of the farm area). The greater the
household capacity the more likely a household might be to pursue a more labor intensive non-
timber or mixed agroforestry experiment. (2) Dominant farming strategy pursued by the
experimental farmers (area devoted to perennial cropping, annual cropping, and cattle). The more
area in perennial cropping the more likely a farmer would exhibit a tendency to manage crops for
annual harvest and income leading to a non-timber agroforestry preference. (3) Associational
activities of control and experimental groups (farmer participation in mutual aid associations and
rural workers unions). Farmers more active in these associations would be more likely to innovate
and adopt agroforestry experimentally because of the greater network of technical information and
mutual support such participation provides.
From these questions and observations the research objectives for this paper, enumerated below,
emerged – to assess the potential impact of agroforestry adoption on secondary forest succession
and primary forest conservation.
Objectives
In this paper, both 2010 land owner survey results and contemporaneous remote sensing analyses
were used to address the following research questions:
1)
Are there any significant differences in socio-economic characteristics between:
a)
The experimental group of agroforestry adopters (n = 31) and the control group of non-
adopters (n = 39) included in the 2010 survey?
b)
The three different sub-groups of agroforestry adopters; timber, non-timber, and mixed,
in the experimental group?
2)
Are there any significant spectral differences in land cover in and around the agroforestry
plots between the sub-groups of agroforestry adopters in the experimental group that might
indicate a positive synergy between agroforestry demonstration plots and subsequent
secondary forest succession?
3)
Are there any significant differences in the amount of remnant primary forest cover on the
properties in the project's experimental and control groups that might indicate a potential
natural forest conservation effect of agroforestry adoption?
Study sites
Both control and experimental groups were drawn from the same rural population of family farmers
who had migrated to Rondônia between 1980 and 1985 and settled in the project's two study sites,
the municipios (counties) of Nova União and Alto Paraiso. The largest proportion of these farmers
originated in the South and Southeast regions of Brazil, most having worked as sharecroppers and
tenant farmers on coffee plantations. With the progressive government-sponsored conversion from
coffee to soybean production beginning in the mid-1960s this rural population became
progressively displaced from their traditional livelihoods and the government actively encouraged
their migration to Rondônia as part of a larger regional development and resettlement program
called The Northwest Region Development Plan (POLONOROESTE) ( Browder & Godfrey, 1997;
pp. 164–175). The farming strategies pursued by these new homesteaders in Rondônia typically
followed a similar pattern: Small-scale forest clearing and planting of annual crops (corn, rice,
beans) and a small area of perennial crops (usually coffee and cacao). Small livestock and
eventually milk cattle, then beef cattle were added over time. For various reasons, several patterns
of socio-economic and land use differentiation began to emerge leading some unsuccessful farmers
to sell all or part of their properties, whilst more successful neighbors enlarged their holdings (for a
more detailed examination, see Browder, 1994). The causes of these parallel processes of property
subdivision and enlargement and how they correlated to changes in land cover, land use, household
income, and numerous other household level socio-economic and demographic characteristics
within the context of leading theories of frontier expansion are presented elsewhere (Browder et al.,
2008). Suffice it to say that the study sites and their rural populations surveyed were representative
of the general rural population of Rondônia during the time period of the project.
Methods
The Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project (RAPP) – ground-level analyses
Detailed descriptions of the RAPP study sites and project methodology were previously published
in Browder and Pedlowski (2000) and Browder et al. (2005). In summary, during 1992, 50 farms
were selected from a stratified random sample of 242 farms surveyed in two colonization areas of
the frontier state of Rondônia, in the western Brazilian Amazon. Farmers self-selected their
participation in the project based on their responses to the initial standardized baseline
questionnaire, which was administered by personal interview by trained Brazilian agronomy and
forestry students. Invited participants were those indicating a predisposition toward planting trees
(for example, did they already plant trees on their farm, could they recognize native species in the
wild, and the like) and experimenting with innovative agro-silvicultural practices in the survey and
subsequent open-ended interviews.
Participating farmers were invited to choose from a menu of 20 plant species (all native except for
teak – Tectona grandis – an Asian exotic introduced into the Amazon some 20 years before the
RAPP) each producing one or more commodities of local market demand. Seedlings were produced
on local project nurseries using regionally available seed stock. Plots were designed to fit on a 1-ha
area containing no primary forest vegetation. Each plot consisted of between 800 and 1000
individuals from between 2 and 18 species. Plot composition typically included a mix of fruit, palm,
oil and nut-producing species (with potential to generate revenues in the mid-term (4–5 years),
along with various citrus and industrial timbers (hard and soft-woods). To enhance farm income in
the short-term, participating farmers were offered a bee-keeping component, an option which 36%
of the original experimental farmers elected.
Seedlings were distributed to participants during the first half of the rainy season. The farmers used
household labor to plant the seedlings according to each farmer's plot plan. Within six months of the
initial planting each farm was visited, seedling growth was measured, and problems with plot
maintenance were described. The project was monitored annually from 1993 to 2001 and then, in
2002, a 10-year follow-up survey of all 242 farms (by then subdivided into 283 farms) was
undertaken (Browder et al., 2005 ; Summers et al., 2004). A second follow-up study was conducted
in 2003 of a smaller subset of the original sample, to further investigate the tropical forest
management and silvicultural practices of this farming population (Summers, 2008). Then in 2010,
a third follow-up farm-level survey was completed that revisited all 31 (out of 50) surviving RAPP
experimental farms, along with another 39 farms from the original control group.
By 2010, three types of experimental farms had emerged: those that had chosen initial agroforest
designs that emphasized long-term commercial timber components (timber-based agroforest
systems), and had subsequently managed those plots to maximize long-term timber yield; those that
opted for faster-growing ground and bush cropping agroforestry systems, without a significant long-
term timber component (non-timber-based agroforest systems); and those that combined timber and
non-timber elements into mixed agroforestry systems (Fig. 1). Mean values for each variable of
interest from the 2010 survey were calculated for the entire sample, for both the experimental and
control groups of farms, and for the three types (timber, non-timber, and mixed) of farms in the
experimental group, described above. The socio-economic variables of interest fell into three types
of characteristics: household capacity (property size and number of adults residing on the property);
production system type (based on annual cropping, permanent cropping, and pasture/cattle); and
social participation (membership in farmers organizations).
Fig. 1.
Illustrative agroforest plots of each experimental farm type. Note: The figure shows examples
of actual plots developed by RAPP farmers based on their interests (see Browder &
Pedlowski, 2000). Considerable variation exists within each farm type in terms of species
composition. All participants were required to include one tree species in their agroforest
plots. Classification Criteria: “Non-timber” based systems incorporated just one tree species
but predominantly consisted of perennial ground-covering bush species producing fruits,
seeds for commercial or medicinal purposes; “Timber based” systems usually contained one
perennial ground cover crop but predominantly included 2 or more timber producing tree
species; “Mixed” systems consisted of more balanced proportions of elements of both non-
timber and timber species.
Figure options
The Anderson–Darling normality test was used to determine if the continuous variables of interest
were normally distributed and could thus be evaluated with parametric statistical tests.
Nonparametric statistical tests were selected based on the normality test results. Medians between
the experimental and control groups were tested for all continuous variables using the Mann–
Whitney test. While medians between the intra-experimental groups were tested using the Kruskal–
Wallis test, which can accommodate more than two groups. Binomial variables were tested with
Fisher's exact test and the chi-square test of association for comparisons of two or three groups,
respectively. All tests were conducted with Minitab™ (Minitab Inc., 2012), a statistical software
program.
Remote sensing analyses

Two Landsat path/rows, 231/68 and 232/67, contained the study area (Fig. 2). Five image dates
(Table 1) at approximately five year intervals were acquired from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) for each path/row between 1991 or 1992 and 2011. All images were obtained in the
standard level-one terrain-corrected format and thus did not require image to image co-registration.
Each Landsat image was processed through the Landsat Ecosystem Disturbance Adaptive
Processing System (LEDAPS) (Masek et al., 2006) to surface reflectance to minimize differences
caused by atmospheric conditions at the time of image acquisition. Similar to Browder et al.'s
(2005) methods, calculations were standardized across image dates and path/row boundaries by
using a common area between Landsat scenes. The common area was ten thousand pixels in size
and contained primary forest in all images. A mean surface reflectance vector for primary forest was
calculated for each image, path/row and date, using the common area. Images with the spectral
distance from primary forest were then created by calculating the Euclidian distance (ED) between
each pixel in an image and that image's primary forest mean surface reflectance vector using five of
the six non-thermal Landsat spectral bands, two through five and seven.
equation(1)
ED=∑i=27(≠6)(μi−xi)2
Turn MathJax on
where: i = Landsat band number; μi = mean value for band i; and xi = pixel value for band i. As an
example, the ED calculation for a pixel in the 2011 image from 232/67 is illustrated in Table 2.
Fig. 2.
Study area location within Brazil and Landsat path/rows used.
Figure options
Table 1.
Landsat TM dates used in analysis for each path/row.
231/68 232/67
7/25/1992 6/28/1991
7/20/1996 6/09/1996
8/03/2001 8/10/2001
7/16/2006 6/21/2006
8/15/2011 8/06/2011
Table options
Table 2.
Euclidian distance calculation for a pixel in the 2011 image from 232/67 with an
ED = 363.398.
Landsat Pixel reflectance Primary forest mean Difference squared

band Vectora (xi) reflectance vectora (μi) (μi − xi)2
2 392 313.702 6130.577
3 295 244.603 2539.858
4 2852 2525.466 106,624.5
5 1315 1198.933 13,471.55
7 531 473.630 3291.317
Sum 132,2057.8
a
Units are 10,000 times the percent reflectance.
Table options
Summary statistics were calculated for three buffer zones, 50, 85, and 117.5 m (Fig. 3), around the
center location of each agroforestry plot using the spectral distance from primary forest images.
These radii were selected to assess the synergistic “spillover” effect of the agroforest plot on the
land cover of its immediate surrounding environment. The mean spectral distance of each
agroforestry plot from primary forest was averaged by agroforestry plot type and buffer distance.
The mixed and timber plot types were combined in the remote sensing analyses because of similar
spectral distance trajectories through time (correlation of 0.79). A forest similarity index, between 0
and 1, was created by subtracting each plot's mean spectral distance from the maximum mean
spectral distance of all properties and then dividing by the maximum spectral distance. The forest
similarity index was plotted vs. time by agroforestry plot type and for an example plot where
secondary forest succession occurred (Fig. 4). The Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric test of medians
with an alpha of 0.05 was used to test for the equality of the forest similarity index medians
between the mixed/timber and non-timber plot types at each time interval. In order to compare
farmers that were part of the experimental group, who had agroforestry plots on their land, with the
control group of farmers, who were surveyed, but did not have agroforestry plots, the average forest
similarity index of all pixels within each property boundary was calculated by farmer group
(experimental vs. control). This surrogate measure of primary and/or secondary forest retention or
regeneration is plotted vs. year and by farmer group in Fig. 5 and also tested for equality of medians
with the Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric test.
Fig. 3.
Example plot with three buffer zones over a Landsat image displayed with a band 4,3,2
(RGB) band combination. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Figure options
Fig. 4.
Mean forest similarity index of pixels within a 50 m buffer of an agroforestry plot's center by
agroforestry plot type. A plot that was allowed to return to “Secondary Forest” is also
included for comparison. The first image date was collected in different years, 1991 and 1992,
for the two path/rows and is thus labeled 1991/1992.
Figure options
Fig. 5.
Mean forest similarity index of all pixels within all properties containing agroforestry plots
vs. control properties without agroforestry plots. A plot that was allowed to return to
“Secondary Forest” is also included for comparison. The first image date was collected in
different years, 1991 and 1992, for the two path/rows and is thus labeled 1991/1992.
Figure options
Results
The 2010 survey results revealed some statistically significant differences in household
characteristics between the experimental group and the control group, but no statistically significant
differences between the three types of agroforest farm designs adopted (Table 3a ; Table 3b). Since
all but one of the sample distributions from the continuous variables (Table 3a) were not normally
distributed, nonparametric tests were used to compare medians between and within the groups.
Table 3a.
Mean and median statistics of continuous socio-economic variables of interest in 2010 by

farm and agroforestry plot type groupings.
Size
Size Pasture Pasture Cattle Cattle
(ha) People People
(ha) area (ha) area (ha) (au) (au)
media mean median
mean mean median mean median
n
Control group 76.8a 23.0d
57.8 50.6c 3.3 3.0c 34.6 24.1
(n = 39) (30.1b) (20.0b)
Experimental
group (n = 31)
75.7 77.1c 6.0 5.0c 30.3 21.7 18.2 6.0d
Timber (n = 7) 74.7 72.3 5.4 5.0 34.4 28.9 30.4 10.0
Mixed (n = 11) 76.0 77.1 6.3 5.0 30.5 19.3 16.7 6.0
Non-timber
75.9 79.5 6.2 5.0 27.9 21.7 12.8 10.0
(n = 13)
Overall sample
(n = 70)
65.7 68.7 4.5 4.0 32.7 21.7 50.5a 12.0
where:
Size – primary property size in hectares.
People – number of people permanently residing on property.
Pasture Area –size of pasture area in hectares.
Cattle – number of cattle (animal units) sold in 2009.
One farmer did not respond to this question and is thus not included in this statistic.
Statistic calculated with three outliers (value greater than 200) removed.
Statistically significant difference based on the Mann–Whitney test at alpha of 0.050.
d
Statistically significant difference based on the Mann–Whitney test at alpha of 0.055.
Table options
Table 3b.
Binomial socio-economic variable results from 2010 survey by farm and agroforestry plot
type groupings.
Annual Perennial Syndicates Associations Utilization

crops (%) crops (%) (%) (%) (%)
Control group
46.2 74.4 61.5 46.2
(n = 39)
Experimental
54.8 77.4 77.4 61.3 58.1
group (n = 31)
Timber (n = 7) 57.1 71.4 85.7 71.4 71.4
Mixed (n = 11) 54.5 72.7 63.6 54.5 54.5
Non-timber
53.8 84.6 84.6 61.5 53.8
(n = 13)
Overall sample
50.0 75.7 68.6 52.9
(n = 70)
where:
Annual Crops – percentage of sample producing annual/temporary crops.
Perennial Crops – percentage of sample producing perennial/permanent crops.
Syndicates – percentage of sample participating in rural workers syndicates.
Associations – percentage of sample participating in mutual aid associations.
Utilization – percentage of RAPP experimental group reporting utilization of agroforest plots.
Table options
Experimental vs. control group
Household capacity
Statistically significant differences in median property size and household composition between the
experimental and control groups emerged between the two groups by 2010, although there were no
significant differences in either at the time of the 1992 baseline survey (Browder & Pedlowski,
2000), both having been drawn from the same initial population (Table 3a). Both median property
size and number of permanent property residents were larger for the experimental group, suggesting
that farmers participating in the RAPP until 2010 enjoyed greater capacity for innovation (more
land to work with and more workers per farm to work the land).
Production systems
While there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of
percentage producing annuals and perennial crops (Table 3b), and number of hectares in pasture,
there was a statistically significant difference in medians at an alpha of 0.055 in the number of cattle
marketed in the previous year (2009) (Table 3a). Three farmers in the control group sold more than
200 cattle in 2009, with one selling 1200. If these farmers are considered as outliers in the
population, the difference in median number of cattle sold between the control and experimental
groups is no longer statistically significant. Even though farmers in the experimental and control
groups allocated roughly the same amount of land to “productive pasture” (although non-adopters
had a larger proportion of their total property in pasture), the control group sold a larger number of
cattle in 2009 (median of 23 without outliers removed) than the experimental group sold (median of
6.0) despite the borderline statistical significance for this variable. Although both experimental and
control groups share similar production systems, the control group was more dependent on cattle
production for household livelihood than the agroforestry adopters.
Social participation
Differences in social participation rates observed between the experimental and control groups were
not statistically significant, although agroforestry adopters appear to be more engaged in both rural
workers syndicates (unions) (77.4% vs. 61.5%) and mutual aid associations (61.3% vs. 46.2%) for
sharing labor among different households (Table 3b). There is an effect in these findings, associated
with the survey instrument or sample design, since social participation was one of the original
criteria used for experimental group selection. Given that the sample frames were constituted in
1992, it is noteworthy that these social participation rates still remain higher among agroforestry
adopters than the control group of non-adopters.
Intra-experimental group differentiation: timber vs. non-timber vs. mixed-based

agroforest systems
Unlike the differences observed between the experimental group, as a whole, and the control group,
no statistically significant differences were observed between types of agroforest system adopters.
The lack of statistical significance is likely due to small sample sizes and thus differences in four of
the indicators seem noteworthy. First, a greater proportion of non-timber system households
managed perennial crops (84.6%) than either of the other two types of agroforest system adopters
(Perennial Crops, Table 3b). The second difference pertains to the number of cattle sold (Cattle,
Table 3a). Timber-based system adopters sold more animal units in 2009 (30.4) than either of the
other two types of agroforest system adopters. A third difference pertains to the degree of social
participation among the 3 groups of agroforest system adopters (Associations, Table 3b). A larger
proportion of timber-based system adopters reported participating in mutual aid associations
(71.4%) than either of the other two types. Finally, a higher percentage of timber-based system
adopters (71.4%) reported obtaining benefits from their agroforest plots than either of the other two
groups (Utilization, Table 3b). Although only one experimental group household sold any produce,
participants typically reported non-timber benefits of occasional game, shade, fresh water, cleaner
air, and cooler temperatures associated with the agroforest plots.
Remote sensing results

Twenty eight of the original 50 agroforestry plot locations were analyzed, six timber-based, thirteen
non-timber, and nine from the mixed sub-group. A total of 9, 26, and 50 pixels, respectively, were
contained within the three buffer distances, 50, 85, and 117.5 m, around each agroforestry plot
center. Mixed/timber agroforestry plots had a decrease in their average forest similarity index
between 1991/1992 and 1996 (Fig. 4), presumably as a result of land clearing for plot
establishment. During this same time period, non-timber agroforestry plots had very little change in
their average forest similarity index despite plot establishment activities. Between 1996 and 2001
mixed/timber agroforestry plots had a large increase in their average forest similarity index while
non-timber plots showed little change or a slight decrease in their average similarity index. From
2001 to 2006, non-timber plots had a decrease in their average forest similarity index while
mixed/timber plots had little change in their average forest similarity index. All plot types had
decreasing average forest similarity indices between 2006 and 2011 with non-timber plots having a
very large drop relative to the mixed/timber plot type. The mixed/timber plots had a mean forest
similarity index trajectory through time that was more similar, albeit not identical, to that of a plot
where secondary forest succession occurred (Fig. 4).
The observed changes in the forest similarity index within a 50 m buffer around each agroforestry
plot were very similar to the changes within the 85 and 117.5 m plot buffers. At all buffer distances,
the areas surrounding each agroforestry plot were least similar to primary forest in the non-timber
plot type in 2001, 2006, and especially in 2011. Within each plot type, the mean forest similarity
index was almost identical for all three buffer distances in 1991/1992 and 1996. In 2001, 2006, and
2011, the mean forest similarity index decreased slightly with buffer size across all plot types. In
2006 and 2011 the mixed/timber plots had significantly higher median values of forest similarity
index than the non-timber plot types based on the Kruskal–Wallis test of equality of medians at the
alpha 0.05 level. The Kruskal–Wallis test results were not significant for the previous four time
periods.
Farm boundaries were available for 34 of the farmers in the control group and 28 of the farmers in
the experimental group. At the farm scale, the average forest similarity index of all pixels within the
properties of farmers in the experimental group did not start to diverge from the average forest
similarity index of pixels within properties of farmers in the control group until 2006 (Fig. 5). The
greatest difference between forest similarity indices of the experimental and control groups
occurred in 2011 (Fig. 5) and was statistically significant at the alpha 0.05 level for this year only.
This suggests that farmers in the experimental group are retaining more primary and/or secondary
forest on their properties than farmers in the control group. Both groups have moved farther from
primary forest since 1991/1992 with the control group moving at a faster rate between 2001 and
2011.
Discussion
The RAPP began with utilitarian assumptions: (1) farmers would allocate effort in direct proportion
to benefit; (2) such benefits may or may not be pecuniary in nature, as even in fully commercialized
farms, some land devoted to subsistence production almost always occurs; and (3) utility
maximization always occurs in a contemporary policy context, which frames the ways costs and
benefits are apportioned in society. No personal welfare maximization model of behavior can ignore
the political economy in which household [land use] decisions are made. Hypothetically, then,
successful experimental group farmers are either: (1) deriving a tangible benefit from their
agroforest plots, monetary or subsistence; or (2) some exogenous factor has shaped the context that
either artificially encourages or dissuades the farmer from continuing in the RAPP.
Socio-economic characteristics: experimental vs. control group
Household capacity
Perz (2005) found that agricultural diversity on small farms in the Brazilian Amazon tended to be
greater for households that were more “asset-rich” with labor being the most important factor. We
similarly expected farmers with larger farms and more adult residents to have a greater capacity to
adopt a potentially risky innovation like an agroforestry experiment. The larger the farm, the more
likely a farmer could take a small area out of normal production to dedicate it to an experiment
without jeopardizing household food security. Similarly, the more adult residents present on the
farm, the more likely a farm household could adopt an additional productive activity minimizing the
labor reallocation costs of additional workload within the household. In this study, the experimental
group had larger farms on average and more people per farm than the control group (Table 3a),
which supports our expectations. This finding corresponds with Sydenstricker-Neto's (2012) results
showing that diversified agricultural systems in the Brazilian Amazon are associated with
households having more labor force and resource access.
Production system
Since the RAPP was intended to supplement, not substitute, existing farming practices, no
differences in farming systems (mix of cropping regimes) between adopters and non-adopters were
predicted. Very similar mixes of cropping regimes were found between the experimental and control
groups (Table 3b). The control group was more dependent on cattle, but this could have been
associated with the fact that they had smaller farms on average (sensu D’Antona et al., 2006; Vosti
et al., 2002 ; Sydenstricker-Neto, 2012). However, the RAPP project design did hypothesize that
farmers adopting agroforestry would either manage larger secondary forests or retain a larger
proportion of primary forests than non-adopters. We address this in Section 6.3.
Rural households can diffuse the risks of adopting innovative farming practices by pooling their
energies in various forms of labor sharing and social participation (e.g., Pannell & Vanclay, 2011).
In the Brazilian project areas, two forms of farmer organization are prevalent: rural workers unions
(sindicatos de trabalhadores rurais) and associations of mutual (labor sharing) support
(associações de ajuda mútua). Rural workers unions, although often politicized with specific
partisan affiliations, frequently provide members with some collective clout of political
representation that individual farm households usually lack. These can be important for defending
contested property claims, voicing protests to abusive third party marketing practices, and
confronting corruption by local officials, all of which are widely viewed to empower farmers to
accept greater risk. Mutual support associations are usually basic labor sharing activities, where a
group of workers spend a few days per month working on one member's farm in return for
reciprocal support from the association. Hypothetically, such participation would reduce the risk of
innovation and agroforestry adopters, it was predicted, would be more involved in such
organizations, which is supported by the findings in Table 3b. Perz (2005) also found a positive
relationship between production diversity and participation in local organizations.
Socio-economic characteristics: intra-experimental groups (timber vs. non-

timber vs. mixed-based agroforest systems)
Household capacity
There is no particular reason to presume that farm size would be a factor influencing what type of
agroforestry system a farmer would adopt: timber, non-timber, or mixed. However, among the
experimental group of farmers adopting an agroforestry system, it may be argued that those
households adopting timber-based systems could afford to be smaller in number of residents than
those adopting either mixed or non-timber systems where regular labor requirements are greater
(e.g., in harvesting fruits, nuts, latex, etc.). Although the differences were small, the timber based
agroforestry adopters did have slightly fewer people residing on the farm than others in the
experimental group (Table 3a).
Production system
It is not intuitive that there would be any differentiation in farming systems resulting from the
adoption of different types of agroforestry systems, so none were predicted and again no significant
differences were observed (Table 3b). The slightly greater proportion of non-timber agroforest
adopters growing perennial crops than other adopters (Table 3b) would be expected since perennial
crops constitute a substantial part of non-timber agroforest systems. The same, however, could be
said for mixed system adopters given that the proportion managing perennial crops is the same as
those pursuing timber-based systems. A logical reason for the larger number of cattle sold by
timber-based system adopters (Table 3a) might be that timber-based system adopters derive less
income from the other components of their farming system and are more reliant on cattle. There is
no evidence from the survey to confirm this possible reason. This difference may be idiosyncratic to
the particular year of the survey, but is notable nonetheless.
The greater social participation of timber-based system adopters in mutual aid associations might
have an ambiguous meaning. On the one hand it seems counter-intuitive that households planting
trees would require additional non-household labor typically used during the harvest periods for
perennial crops. On the other hand, timber-based system adopters may have more labor time
available to share with neighbors in mutual aid associations since they do not seasonally harvest any
crops from their agroforest plots; their plots are long-term investments, with negligible regular labor
requirements. Again, there is no evidence from the survey to support these speculations. Lastly, the
higher percent of timber-based system adopters reporting utilization of their agroforestry plots may
be a result of their plots potentially attracting a greater diversity of plant and animal populations
than either of the other two more intensively managed agroforest systems.
Impacts of agroforestry plots on forest cover

Buffer zones around each agroforest plot were examined to ascertain differences in secondary
succession associated with plot maintenance. Circular buffers were used for ease of creation, but the
buffers corresponded closely to a 3 × 3, 5 × 5, or 7 × 7 pixel window around the center of each plot.
We hypothesized that the area outside, but in closest proximity to each plot would be more
influenced by the plot type and possibly managed as secondary forest. Secondary forest succession
did occur in and around the mixed/timber agroforestry plot types from 1996 to 2001 based on the
forest similarity index statistics (Fig. 4). In contrast, the non-timber plots stayed fairly constant
through 2001, but became less similar to primary forest between 2001 and 2006 and especially
between 2006 and 2011 (Fig. 4). The significant difference in forest similarity index medians
between mixed/timber and non-timber plot types in 2006 and 2011, as illustrated in the boxplot in
Fig. 6 for 2011, supports the hypothesis that agroforestry plot type influences the likelihood of
secondary forest succession in and around plots, the plot impact areas. Non-timber agroforestry
plots are less likely to result in secondary forest succession in plot impact areas. Mixed and timber
agroforestry plots followed a spectral trajectory more similar to secondary forest succession
between 1996 and 2001 with a leveling off and slight decrease in forest similarity index between
2001 and 2011 (Fig. 4) presumably as a result of increased management and/or utilization of the
timber products produced on the plots.
Fig. 6.
Boxplot of the mean forest similarity index in 2011 of pixels within a 50 m buffer of an
agroforestry plot's center by agroforestry plot type.
Figure options
Property level impacts

Fig. 5 shows that properties in both the control and experimental group are on average becoming
less spectrally similar to primary forest through time. The rate of this change has increased since
2001, especially on properties in the control group, which were significantly different from the
experimental group at the alpha = 0.05 level in 2011. To visually illustrate the observed changes, a
Landsat time series of images for one farmer in the experimental group is shown in Fig. 7. This
particular farmer cleared a majority of his/her entire property at one point in time or another, but has
allowed both the agroforestry plot and the surrounding area to regenerate into secondary forest,
which is in stark contrast to the rest of the property which was all pasture in 2011 (Fig. 7). Another
farmer in the experimental group, who also has cleared all of his/her property at one point in time or
another, has allowed more than one third of his/her property to return to secondary forest since the
agroforestry plot was installed (Fig. 8). Ethnographic research activities associated with the RAPP
(i.e. in-depth interviews with experimental group participants) confirmed some consciousness of the
benefits associated with secondary succession and agroforestry: “We should have started planting
trees a long time ago. If we had, we would have money from that right now” (personal
communication, author's translation) (johnobrowder.wordpress.com).
Fig. 7.
Landsat time series of a farmer's property with the agroforestry plot, which was installed
between 1992 and 1994, location circled. Only the area in and around the agroforestry plot
has not been converted to pasture or other nonforest uses. Images are displayed with Landsat
bands 4, 3, and 2 displayed as red, green and blue, respectively. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
Figure options
Fig. 8.
Landsat time series of a farmer's property with the agroforestry plot, which was installed
between 1992 and 1994, location circled. More than one third of the property has been
allowed to return to a forested condition. Images are displayed with Landsat bands 4, 3, and 2
displayed as red, green and blue, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Figure options
Conclusions
Despite an overall land cover trend on small farms in the Brazilian state of Rondônia towards less
forest cover, the practice of timber-based agroforestry appears to encourage landowners to allow
secondary forest succession to occur on their lands at least for the short-term (11–15 years). The
type of agroforestry implemented by farmers matters, with more forest succession occurring on
properties with timber or mixed agroforestry plots. Landowners with larger properties and more
people residing on their farms were more likely in this study to try innovative systems that included
agroforestry. Participants in this agroforestry research project were also less dependent on cattle
(based on 2009 sales), although timber-based agroforesters appear to rely more on cattle sales for
household income than do non-timber agroforesters. The experimental group was also more
involved in mutual aid associations than the control group, probably because such participation
enables access to more extensive information networks and labor sharing support than non-
participation.
These findings would support the policy recommendation that timber-based agroforestry on small
family farms holds some promise as an intermediate degraded tropical forest land-use rehabilitation
strategy. The secondary forest succession that timber-based agroforestry appears to promote has
potentially synergistic implications for carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat restoration, and long-
term economic benefits for property owners, who will eventually harvest the mature timber
elements of the agroforest plots, as some apparently have after 10 years. Important questions
regarding the long-term impacts of timber-based agroforestry on land cover cannot be answered in a
longitudinal study that extends less than 20 years. The evidence gained at this juncture provides
some encouragement for those seeking to rebuild tropical forests through agroforestry.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the John and Teresa Heinz Charitable Trust and the Landsat
Science Team (USGS contract number G12PC00073).
References
• Alavalapati and Nair, 2001
• J. Alavalapati, P.K.R. Nair
• Socioeconomic and institutional perspectives of agroforestry
• M. Palo, J. Uusivuori, G. Mery (Eds.), World forests, markets and policies 2001
(2001), pp. 71–81 Dordrecht, Netherlands
•
• Agroforestry, 2011
• Agroforestry
• In The American heritage dictionary of the English language
• (5th ed.) (2011) Retrieved from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?
q=agroforestry
•
• Barton, 1994
• D. Barton
• Indigenous agroforestry in Latin America: A blueprint for sustainable agricultures?
• NRI socio-economic series 6Natural Resources Institute (NRI), Chatham, UK (1994)
•
• Bobo et al., 2006
• K.S. Bobo, M. Waltert, H. Fermon, J. Njokagbor, M. Mühlenberg
• From forest to farmland: butterfly diversity and habitat associations along a gradient
of forest conversion in southwestern Cameroon
• Journal of Insect Conservation, 10 (1) (2006), pp. 29–42
• CrossRef
|
View Record in Scopus
|
Citing articles (37)
• Browder, 1994
• J.O. Browder
• Surviving in Rondônia
• Studies in Comparative International Development, 29 (3) (1994), pp. 45–69
• CrossRef
|
|
• Browder and Godfrey, 1997
• J.O. Browder, B.J. Godfrey
• Rainforest cities: Urbanization, development, and globalization of the Brazilian
Amazon
• Columbia University Press, New York (1997)
•
• Browder and Pedlowski, 2000
• J.O. Browder, M.A. Pedlowski
• Agroforestry performance on small farms in Amazonia: findings from the Rondônia
agroforestry pilot project
• Agroforestry Systems, 49 (2000), pp. 63–83
• CrossRef
|
|
• Browder et al., 2008
• J.O. Browder, M.A. Pedlowski, R. Walker, R.H. Wynne, P.M. Summers, A. Abad, et
al.
• Revisiting theories of frontier expansion in the Brazilian Amazon: a survey of the
colonist farming population in Rondônia's post-frontier, 1992–2002
• World Development, 36 (8) (2008), pp. 1469–1492
• Article
|
PDF (352 K)
|
|
• Browder et al., 2005
• J.O. Browder, R.H. Wynne, M.A. Pedlowski
• Agroforestry diffusion and secondary forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon:
further findings from the Rondônia agroforestry pilot project (1992–2002)
• Agroforestry Systems, 65 (2) (2005), pp. 99–111
• CrossRef
|
|
• Budowski, 1980
• G. Budowski
• The place of agroforestry in managing tropical forests
• Paper presented at the international symposium on tropical forests: Utilization and
conservation, New Haven, CT (1980)
•
• Castro et al., 2003
• K.L. Castro, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, B. Rivard
• Monitoring secondary tropical forests using space-borne data: implications for
Central America
• International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24 (9) (2003), pp. 1853–1894
• CrossRef
|
|
• Chowdhury, 2007
• R.R. Chowdhury
• Household land management and biodiversity: secondary succession in a forest-
agriculture mosaic in southern Mexico
• Ecology and Society, 12 (2) (2007) art. 31
•
• Delaney, 1999
• M. Delaney
• Field test of carbon monitoring methods for agroforestry in the Philippines
• Field tests of carbon monitoring methods in forestry projects, Winrock International,
Arlington, VA (1999), pp. 28–32
• View Record in Scopus
|
Citing articles (1)
• D’Antona et al., 2006
• Á.O. D'Antona, L.K. VanWey, C.M. Hayashi
• Property size and land cover change in the Brazilian Amazon
• Population and Environment, 27 (5–6) (2006), pp. 373–396
• CrossRef
|
|
• Ehiagbonare, 2006
• J.E. Ehiagbonare
• Effect of Taungya on regeneration of endemic forest tree species in Nigeria: Edo
State Nigeria as a case study
• African Journal of Biotechnology, 5 (18) (2006), pp. 1608–1611
|
Citing articles (7)
• Fearnside and Guimarães, 1996
• P.M. Fearnside, W.M. Guimarães
• Carbon uptake by secondary forests in Brazilian Amazonia
• Forest Ecology and Management, 80 (1–3) (1996), pp. 35–46
• Article
|
PDF (766 K)
|
|
• Harvey and Haber, 1998
• C.A. Harvey, W.A. Haber
• Remnant trees and the conservation of biodiversity in Costa Rican pastures
• CrossRef
|
|
• JIRCAS., 2007
• JIRCAS
• Agroforestry approach to the rehabilitation of tropical lands by using nurse trees
• Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Tsukuba, Japan (2007)
vii-70
•
• Lasco et al., 2004
• R.D. Lasco, I.Q. Guillermo, R.V.O. Cruz, N.C. Bantayan, F.B. Pulhin
• Carbon stocks assessment of a secondary forest in Mount Makiling Forest Reserve,
Philippines
• Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 16 (1) (2004), pp. 35–45
|
• Lieberei and Gasparotto, 1998
• R. Lieberei, L. Gasparotto
• Agroecological profile of plants used as production factors and as management
components in tropical polyculture systems
• Proceedings of the third SHIFT-workshop, manaus, March 15–19, BMBF, Bonn,
Germany (1998), pp. 307–312
•
• Letcher and Chazdon, 2009
• S.G. Letcher, R.L. Chazdon
• Rapid recovery of biomass, species richness, and species composition in a forest
chronosequence in northeastern Costa Rica
• Biotropica, 41 (5) (2009), pp. 608–617
• CrossRef
|
|
• Lozada et al., 2006
• T. Lozada, G.H.J. de Koning, R. Marché, A.M. Klein, T. Tscharntke
• Tree recovery and seed dispersal by birds: comparing forest, agroforestry and
abandoned agroforestry in coastal Ecuador
• Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 8 (3) (2006), pp. 131–140
•
• Masek et al., 2006
• J.G. Masek, E.F. Vermote, N.E. Saleous, R. Wolfe, F.G. Hall, K.F. Huemmrich, et al.
• A Landsat surface reflectance dataset for North America, 1990–2000
• IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 3 (1) (2006), pp. 68–72
• CrossRef
|
|
• Mercer and Miller, 1998
• D.E. Mercer, R.P. Miller
• Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: progress, prospects, and priorities
• Agroforestry Systems, 38 (1–3) (1998), pp. 177–193
•
• Meza et al., 2006
• A. Meza, C. Sabogal, W. Jong
• Rehabilitation of degraded forest lands in the Peruvian Amazon: Review of
experiences and lessons learned
• Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia (2006)
•
• Minitab Inc, 2012
• Minitab Inc. (2012). Minitab (Version 16.2.3) (Software).
•
• Pannell and Vanclay, 2011
• D. Pannell, F. Vanclay
• Changing land management: Adoption of new practices by rural landholders
• CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood (2011)
•
• Pattanayak and Mercer, 1998
• S. Pattanayak, D.E. Mercer
• Valuing soil conservation benefits of agroforestry: contour hedgerows in the Easter
Visayas, Philippines
• Agricultural Economics, 18 (1) (1998), pp. 31–46
• Article
|
PDF (1286 K)
|
|
• Perz, 2005
• S.G. Perz
• The effects of household asset endowments on agricultural diversity among frontier
colonists in the Amazon
• Agroforestry Forum, 63 (3) (2005), pp. 263–279
• CrossRef
|
|
Citing articles (9)
• Raman et al., 2009
• T.R.S. Raman, D. Mudappa, V. Kapoor
• Restoring rainforest fragments: survival of mixed-native species seedlings under
contrasting site conditions in the Western Ghats, India
• Restoration Ecology, 17 (1) (2009), pp. 137–147
• CrossRef
|
|
• Roshetko et al., 2002
• J.M. Roshetko, M. Delaney, K. Hairiah, P. Purnomosidhi
• Carbon stocks in Indonesian homegarden systems: can smallholder systems be
targeted for increased carbon storage?
• American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 17 (3) (2002), pp. 138–148
|
• Sirois et al., 1998
• M.C. Sirois, H.A. Margolis, C. Camiré
• Influence of remnant trees on nutrients and fallow biomass in slash and burn
agroecosystems in Guinea
• CrossRef
|
|
• Schulze et al., 2004
• C.H. Schulze, M. Waltert, P.J.A. Kessler, R. Pitopang, Shahabuddin, D. Veddeler, et
al.
• Biodiversity indicator groups of tropical land-use systems: comparing plants, birds,
and insects
• Ecological Applications, 14 (5) (2004), pp. 1321–1333
• CrossRef
|
|
• Schroth et al., 2002
• G. Schroth, S.A. D'Angelo, W.G. Teixeira, D. Haag, R. Lieberei
• Conversion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture plantations in
Amazonia: consequences for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks after 7 Years
• Article
|
PDF (265 K)
|
CrossRef
|
|
• Shono et al., 2007
• K. Shono, E.A. Cadaweng, P.B. Durst
• Application of assisted natural regeneration to restore degraded tropical forestlands
• CrossRef
|
|
• Smith et al., 1998
• N. Smith, J. Dubois, D. Current, E. Lutz, C. Clement
• Agroforestry experiences in the Brazilian Amazon: Constraints and opportunities
• World Bank, Brasilia, Brazil (1998)
•
• Summers, 2008
• P.M. Summers
• The post-frontier land use and social change in the Brazilian Amazon (1992–2002)
• University Libraries, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
VA (2008)
•
• Summers et al., 2004
• P.M. Summers, J.O. Browder, M.A. Pedlowski
• Tropical forest management and silvicultural practices by small farmers in the
Brazilian Amazon: recent farm-level evidence from Rondônia
• Article
|
PDF (386 K)
|
|
• Sydenstricker-Neto, 2012
• J. Sydenstricker-Neto
• Population and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: a mediating perspective and a
mixed-method analysis
• Population and Environment, 34 (1) (2012), pp. 86–112
• CrossRef
|
|
Citing articles (9)
• Takimoto et al., 2009
• A. Takimoto, V.D. Nair, P.K.R. Nair
• Contribution of trees to soil carbon sequestration under agroforestry systems in the
West African Sahel
• CrossRef
|
|
• Vieira et al., 2009
• D.L.M. Vieira, K.D. Holl, F.M. Peneireiro
• Agro-successional restoration as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery
• CrossRef
|
|
• Vosti et al., 2002
• S.A. Vosti, J. Witcover, C.L. Carpentier
• Agricultural intensification by smallholders: from deforestation to sustainable land
use
• Research Report 130 International Food Policy Research Institute (2002)
•
• Warner, 1993
• K. Warner
• Patterns of farmer tree growing in Eastern Africa: A socioeconomic analysis
• Oxford Forestry Institute, Oxford, UK, (1993) Tropical Forestry Papers, 27
•
• Yokota et al., 2009
• Y. Yokota, R.A. Martin, R. Siki
• Potentiality of local communities participation in agroforestry program
• JIRCAS Working Report, 60 (2009), pp. 94–97
|
Citing articles (1)
• Wise and Cacho, 2011
• R.M. Wise, O.J. Cacho
• A bioeconomic analysis of the potential of Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks
• Environmental Science & Policy, 14 (4) (2011), pp. 451–461
• Article
|
PDF (394 K)
|
|
Citing articles (4)
Recommended articles
1. Tree recovery and seed dispersal by birds: Comparing forest, agroforestry and
abandoned agroforestry in coastal Ecuador
2. 2007, Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics
more
3. A global meta-analysis of the biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits of coffee
and cacao agroforestry
4. 2013, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
more
5. Diversity in Knoxville: An applied perspective
6. 2013, Applied Geography
more
2. View more articles »
Citing articles (5)

Agroforestacin en Ingles - Odt

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Agroforestacin en Ingles - Odt

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Reconstrucción de la selva brasileña: Estrategias agroforestales para la sucesión de bosques

secundarios Artículo (Disponible en PDF) en Geografía Aplicada 43: 171-181 · Septiembre

econstrucción de la selva brasileña: estrategias agroforestales para la sucesión de bosques

Presentamos las características socioeconómicas del propietario de la tierra en la Amazonia

Los agricultores que se dedicaban a la agrosilvicultura tenían más probabilidades de permitir

• e produjo más sucesión de bosques secundarios cerca de parcelas de madera y de agrosilvicultura

• La agroforestería tiene el potencial de conducir a la reforestación en el Amazonas.

Descubra la investigación del mundo

Descubra la investigación del mundo

We present land owner socio-economic characteristics in the Brazilian Amazon.

Farmers that engaged in agroforestry were more likely to allow reforestation.

Agroforesters were less reliant on cattle production based on 2009 sales.

Agroforestry has the potential to lead to reforestation in the Amazon.

Are there any significant differences in socio-economic characteristics between:

Remote sensing analyses

Study area location within Brazil and Landsat path/rows used.

Landsat Pixel reflectance Primary forest mean Difference squared

Units are 10,000 times the percent reflectance.

Mean and median statistics of continuous socio-economic variables of interest in 2010 by

Size – primary property size in hectares.

People – number of people permanently residing on property.

Pasture Area –size of pasture area in hectares.

Cattle – number of cattle (animal units) sold in 2009.

Statistically significant difference based on the Mann–Whitney test at alpha of 0.050.

Annual Perennial Syndicates Associations Utilization

Annual Crops – percentage of sample producing annual/temporary crops.

Perennial Crops – percentage of sample producing perennial/permanent crops.

Syndicates – percentage of sample participating in rural workers syndicates.

Associations – percentage of sample participating in mutual aid associations.

Utilization – percentage of RAPP experimental group reporting utilization of agroforest plots.

Experimental vs. control group

Intra-experimental group differentiation: timber vs. non-timber vs. mixed-based

Remote sensing results

Socio-economic characteristics: experimental vs. control group

Socio-economic characteristics: intra-experimental groups (timber vs. non-

Impacts of agroforestry plots on forest cover

Property level impacts

Citing articles (5)

También podría gustarte