What Is Agro Forestry ?

• Agro forestry is a collective name for land

use system in which woody perennials are
grown with herbaceous crops and or
animals on the same land by spatial
arrangement (or) temporal sequence.

(Lundgren and Raintree,1992)

 Objectives of agro forestry
• To utilize the available farm resource properly.
• To maximize per unit production of food, fodder,
fuel.
• To optimizing-biological and physiological
resources
• To maintain the ecological balance
• To check soil erosion, conserve soil moisture and
increase the soil fertility
 Structural classification of systems

Classification of agroforestery based on components

Agrisilviculture- crops (including shrubs / vines & tress
Silvipastoral – pasture / animals & tree
agro–silvipastoral – crops, pasture, animals & tree
(Nair, 1999)
 Benefits of agro forestry

 Control runoff and soil erosion

 They can check the development of soil toxicities – both
soil acidification of salinization
 They can help to reduce insect pests & associated
diseases
 Moderates micro climate
 N2 fixing tress & decomposition of the tree litter
improve soil fertility
 provide employment opportunities
 Increase farm income
 Utilize waste and degraded land, improve environment
Other Agro Forestry Types
Riparian buffer strips
Contour strips
Fertility plantings
Field wind breaks
 Nutrient cycling through agro forestry
 To increase the gains from synthetic fixation, use of –
NFTS
 India is annually losing 6000 mill. tones of N,P& K2O
 Uptake by tree root systems of associated mycorrhiza –
recycling as litter
 Provide balanced nutrient supply as organic residues-
micro nutrients deficiencies
 Tree fodder accumulate N ( Muller & Dompois et al.,
1989)
 Prosopis- annual turn over 88-132 kg N
 8-16 kg P
 60- 70 kg K2O ha-1 year –1
(SinghGurbachan&Singh.,1993)
 Table :1 Nutrient content (%) in foliage of important
tree sp
Tree sp nutrient Litter
g m-2
Ca mg k Na P N

4.80 0.75 1.51 0.085 0.208 88-132 45.3

P. Juliflora

3.05 0.50 1.49 0.056 0.194 60-110 39.2

A. Indica
1.6 0.22 1.11 0.066 0.118 100-130 30.3
L.leucocephal
a
2.16 0.35 1.11 0.067 0.178 20 23.0
A. Nilotica
(Dhir et al ., 1995)
Table :2 Soil fertility improvement in teak based silvipastoral
system

Treatments Available nutrients (Kg/ha)

Org C O.M N P K Fodder

Open land 0.11 0.20 252 3.92 134.4 -

Pure fodder 0.23 0.40 336 8.96 156.8 26.2

grass
Teak 0.74 1.28 420 11.2 202.0 -

Teak + fodder 0.75 1.29 448 6.00 145.6 40.0

CD (0.05) 0.018 - 4.35 0.17 1.48 -

(Browaldh, 1997)
Agro Forestry Based Animal Production
• Animal is a essential of agro forestry component
• Benefits in 2 ways
– Crop biomass
– Manures
Top class feed - .>70 % crude protein
Leguminous trees contain- 20-30% crude protein - increase beef
production
Important dietary component
Avg * 24 % - diet of sheep
* 30 % - diet of goat
* >60 % - lean period
P. Juliflora contain 12-14 % crude protein ( figueirdo 1990)
20-30 % sucrose
40- 55 % CHO
0.11-1.54 % A.A
Role of N2 fixing trees in agro forestry

• NFTS enhance soil fertility ,soil productivity & restore

nutrient cycling
• NFTS deep rooted leaf drop nourishes the soil
• N2 is 10 nutrient; 80% N2 gas ; 6400 kg of N2 above land

• Why choose NFTS ?

• NFTS has the potential to fix huge quantity of N

• Sustainable & eco- friendly viable alternative
• Replenishing soil fertility ( nutrient pumping)
Table3: Quantities of N2 fixed by different tree sp

Species N2 fixed (Kg ha-1 yr-1)

A. mearnsii 200
A. pennatula 34
C. equisetifolia 40-60
P. Juliflora 88-132
L. leucocephala 224-274

(Mac dicken, 1994)

Capturing benefits of NFT

• Prosopis decrease soil pH, salinity & alkalinity

( Mac dicken, Kenneth.g 1994)

P.juliflora+ D. fusca- reclaim sodic soil ( singh et al 1993)

• Leg NFT + nodulated bacteria increase carbon compound

• Commercial N2 fertilizers – expensive & environmental

pollution
• Leucaenea ,sesbania intercrop wiyh cereal – more viable
( Avery & Rhodes,1990)
Management of problem soil through agro forestry

 Acid soils
 Toxic level Al & Fe
 Reclamation of problem soil through AF
 G. sepicum – 38- 110 biomass ha-1
 S. anceps -- 35 tones ha-1
 P. maximum – 46.8 t ha –1(Dager et al)
Fresh yield of Gliricidia loppings of forages crops in inter spaces

Fodder crops Fresh forage yield Fresh lopped

biomass or
Without With Gliricidia
Gliricidia Gliricidia (t/ha)
Penisetum 73.3 36.8 53.4
purpureum
Setaria 48.9 35.0 109.6
anceps
Panicum 54.1 46.8 69.6
maximum
Dagar(1990)
 Effect of Prosopis – leptochloa on an abandoned alkali soil

Soil property Original Prosopis Prosopis

soil juliflora +
leptochloa
PH soil depth 0-15cm 10.30 9.70 9.40

10.30 9.90 9.80

ECC(dsm-1) 15-30cm
0-15cm 2.20 0.66 0.42

1.50 0.78 0.63

15-30cm
Organic 0-15cm 0.18 0.30 0.43
carbon(%)
0.13 0.19 0.21
Available ‘N’ 0 -15cm 79.00 100.00 139.0
15-30cm
73.00 84.00 104.0
15-30cm
(Gurbachan Sing et al., (1997)
 Salt Affected Soils

Out of total 7 million ha – salt affected soil.

2-5m.ha – alkali soils
2.4m.ha – Inland saline soil of arid & semiarid
2.1m.ha – coastal saline soil. Semi arid (Yadau,
1989).
Performance of various MPTS & forage Spp for
amelioration as salt affected soils.
NARP centre, Kanpur.
Studies conducted NARP Centre, Kanpur
Aim : Studies for the rehabiliation of degraded salt
– affected soils.
 Wasteland development - Agroforestry

• Wasteland – land which is presently degraded and

if lying unutilized except current follows due to
various constraints(NCA, 1981)
• Two categories
• Culturable
• Unculturable
 Status of land degradation in india
Type Area (m.ha)
Water erosion 57.16
Wind erosion 10.46
Salt – affected and 9.52
water logging
Shifting cultivation 2.38
Degraded forests 24.90
Ravines 2.68
Mines, landslides 0.34

MOA, 1994
Agroforestry technology for wasteland development

Landproned to water erosion

Land degraded by wind erosion
Agrisilivicultural model for – alkali
soils
Silivipastoral model for – salt affected
soils
Reclamation of mine soils
Controlling seepage – canal and
water bodies
Agroforestry technology for wasteland
development
 Landproned to water erosion
 Land degraded by wind erosion
 Agrisilivicultural model for – alkali soils
 Silivipastoral model for – salt affected soils
 Reclamation of mine soils
 Controlling seepage – canal and water bodies
 Water erosion –

Top soil 130.5 m. ha

Terrain - 16.4m.ha
Ravine - 3.7m.ha
• In India – 8,000ha of land – ravines
• Silivipastoral model – suited – minimum loss
 Soil and nutrient loss from different land use
system
Land use system Soil Runoff % Nutrient loss
loss(t/ha)
N% K%
Eucalyptus – Bhabar grass 0.07 0.05 0.46 0.90

A. Catechu – forage grass 0.24 2.00 6.97 0.52

Sesame – rape seed 2.69 20.50 42.50 3.00

Teak – Leucaena - Bhabar 0.43 3.30 2.08 0.55

Poplar – Leucaena 1.54 4.80 5.90 1.10

Cultivated fallow 5.65 23.0 51.30 5.00

Grewal, 1993
Survival and growth characteristics of MPTS on salt affected
soils

MPTS March 1993 October 1993

Survival % Plant height Collar girth Survival %

Dalbergia sissoo 100 125 2.8 90

Eucalyptus 62 155 2.9 58

hybrid
Albezia lebbek 68 60 2.3 65

Azadirachta 100 80 3.2 62

indica

Prosopis juliflora 100 110 2.5 100

Leucaena 82 140 4.2 78

leucocephala

IGFRI, Jhansi (1993)

Relative efficiency of tree species – control of canal
seepage

 Seepage – unlined canals – logging and salinization

 HAU – water table – 15.95m – 1.56m surface – Bhakra
canal
 IGNP(1972) – Districts of Bikaner and Jaisalmer
 Trees, shrubs, perennial grasses – transmission
capacity – dispersal of canal seepage
 Eucalyptus tereticornis, Populus deltoides – utilize
seepage water – biomass production
 Agro forestry Interaction – Effective insect pest

• Due to temporal, spatial and genetic management diversity –

interaction is important.
• Interaction
• Intercropping sugarcane with oake – reduce stem borer.
Wang(1989)
• Act as Mechanical Barrier
– Orange Orchard surrounded by Pinus radiata – reduce
thrips. (Grout & Richards 1990)
• Chemical interactions:
– Volatile chemicals produced by plant – Interfere the host.
• Act as repellents.
• Rape – leaf extract – Repellant – S. cane I.c with
rape – escape of stem borer.
 Intercrop in Agroforestry

• Agricultural crops with commercial trees.

• Growing commercial trees – cash cropping – low time
return
• Trees – wide space – Agricultural crops in the fields.
• Intercropping with poplars
– Started in Terai – U.P
– Populus deltoides – Pahari keepal.
– Decidous nature – add more O.M – leaves
– Suited mixed farming systems.
– Adopt 3 – tire system
– Sugar cane and paplar – Best intercrop
– WIMCO – popular planting
– Add income 45,000/ha/yr
– Used for fodder – 10-14% cp
 Income from various crops grown with poplars

Poplar Yield Duration Gross Net income

with kg/ha income

Onion 15,000 5 7,500 18,000

Ginger 11,000 8-9 11,000 3,400

Turmeric 4,000 8-9 14,500 3,900

Mustard 8,800 3-4 2,400 1,400

Berseem 50,000 5-6 5000 2,400

Jagadish chandar (1998)

Yield and return from different inter crops with coconut
Inter crop Yield of coconut Yield of Additional Profit from
(nuts/palm/year) inter crop rweturns intercrop
(Kg/ha/yr) from (Rs/ha/yr)
coconut
(Rs/ha/yr)

Rice 70.8 850 1164 885

Taopica 61.0 15452 544 1503

colacasia 58.8 6250 1463 715

Cocoa 60.5 965 150 455

(Kannan and Nambiar.,1985)

 Role of multipurpose trees and shrubs in
Agroforestry systems

• Multipurpose trees –
» subsoil nutrients
» Provide shade
» Livefence posts
» Slow erosion
• Prosopis juliflora – central America
• NAS, washington recommend prosopis suitable fuelwood
• Caloric value – 8,050BTU/pound (Singh 1996)
• Reclamation of saline and alkali soils
• Improve soil fertility – leaf litter – 22%N, 0.4%P, 1.5 –
1.9%K
• Not adopting – Allelopathic effect
 Leucaena leucocephala

 Origin mexico
 Adopted to alkali soil
 Nitrogen fixing, deep rooted
 Used in alley cropping, energy
plantation, fuelwood
 Tamarindus indica
 Origin Mexico
 Adopted to saline soils
 Resistant to termite
 Firebreak
 Fuel wood and charcoal(Sp.gr 0.93)
 Erosion control through Agroforestry

 Effect of agroforestry on erosion factors

 Rainfall erosivity
 Soil erodability
 Reduction of runoff
 Ground surface cover
 US soil conservation service – 2.2 – 11.2t/ha/yr
 Farmers – Haiti – Hedgerow of leucaena and shrubs –
erosion control (Bannister & Pellect 1998)
Tree based cropping system

» Includes

» Agri-silivicultural system

» Agri-Horticultural system

» Silvi-pastoral system

» Horti-Silivi-Pastoral system

» Agri-silivi-Horti-Pastoral system
 Agri-silivicultural system

• Concurrent production of agricultural crops with tree

crops
FAO,1990
• Practice on terraces, field bunds alley cropping
• Poplar in field of wheat crop (Agri+Silviculture)
 Silivi-Pastoral system

 Increases – number of grasses, legumes, trees and animals

 Assure maximum resource combination

 Healthy environment and rich biodiversity

Pasture production(in t/ha/yr) – Silivi-pastoral combination in Bundelkhand
region

Tree Grass Dry forage Fodder

yield(t/ha/yr) yield(leaf)
Acacia tortilus Cenchrus ciliaris 3.4 3.2

Albizia lebbek Chrosopogon 7.8 5.4

fulvus
Dalbergia sissoo Natural pasture 4.3 1.9

Leucaena Cenchrus ciliaris 4.1 1.5

leucocephala
Albizia amara Sehima 3.3 13.5
nervosum

(IGFRI, Jhansi 1998)

 Horti-Silvicultural system
Effect of fast growing species on fruit yield of Mandarin
orange
Main plot Fruit yield of Mandarin (kg plant-1)

Eucalyptus Casuarina Grevillea Control

Mandarin
on trifoliate 2.5 7.8 5.1 6.3
rootstock

Mandarin
on citrange 2.1 10.9 6.8 10.1
rootstock

Debroy et al., 1989

 Agri-silvihortipastoral system
Sapota yield and maize fodder yield as affected by different tree
sp

Treatments Sapota fruit Maize fodder yield

yield (tonnnes per hactare)
( Kg per plant)
Maize + Sapota + grass 7.86 73.2

Maize + Sapota +Eucalyptus 5.12 30.0

+grass
Maize + Sapota + casurina 10.71 41.1
+grass
Maize + Sapota + Teak +grass 13.30 42.3

Maize + Sapota + D. sisso 10.60 47.6

+grass

(Osman and Rao., 1996)

 Home garden development through Agroforestry

• Land use form – individual houses – definite fence –

cultivated together with annual, perennial crops and
inclusion of livestock – Wiersum, 1997
• House garden
• Kitchen garden(Brierley, 1987)
• Javanese home garden(Soemarwote et al., 1990)
• Homestead Agroforestry
• Home garden – kerala and Tamilnadu
• Produce high net income throught the year
 Merits and Demerits of Agroforestry systems

• Merits – Limitations
– High cropping intensity –
long time period – High labour input

– Erosion control and runoff – Highly skilled management

management

– Low yield – allelepathic

– Strengthening of nutrient effect
cycling mechanism
– Difficulty – adoption of
– Ecologically compatible land tenure system
 conclusion

• Agro forestry – multidisciplinary, modern science and

tradition orientation

• Management of social and economic basis

• Expert oriented – generate employment

• Better use of available resources

 Future thrust
• Agroforestry relation to balancing ground water
fluctuation
• On farm adoptive research in Agroforestry system
• Integrating Agroforestry with Horticulture
• Appropriate feed systems with tree fodder for livestock
develop for different ecological seasons .
• Farmers participation and adoptive research be
increased .
• More thrust be given to agroforstry research on dry
land farming.