Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T01:41:28.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of rehabilitation pruning and agroforestry on cacao tree development and yield in an older full-sun plantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2019

Judith Riedel Open the ORCID record for Judith Riedel [Opens in a new window] ,
Nora Kägi ,
Laura Armengot  and
Monika Schneider
Judith Riedel*
Affiliation:
Department of International Cooperation, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
Nora Kägi
Affiliation:
Department of International Cooperation, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
Laura Armengot
Affiliation:
Department of International Cooperation, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
Monika Schneider
Affiliation:
Department of International Cooperation, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
*
*Email: judith.riedel@fibl.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Overaged full-sun cacao plantations and the need for sustainable production systems call for combining rehabilitation of plantations with the establishment of agroforestry. We tested the effect of drastic rehabilitation pruning of old cacao tree stock and the introduction of both high- and low-diversity agroforestry on survival, growth and yield of T. cacao in a commercial plantation in peninsular Malaysia over a period of 5 years. We further determined the incidence of pests and diseases of cacao pods and assessed the performance of the whole system for smallholder farmers, including yields of by-crops. Rehabilitation pruning negatively affected cacao tree development and short-term yield. No more effects of pruning on cacao yield were observed starting in the third year on in the monoculture and starting in the fourth year on in low-diversity agroforestry. We found similar cacao tree development and yield in the low-diversity agroforestry and a common practice monoculture, suggesting that the implementation of agroforestry is a commercially feasible strategy, due to additional income generated through timber production. Reduced cacao tree development and yield in the high-diversity agroforestry were compensated by additional harvests of cassava and banana compared to monoculture. Incidence of cocoa pod borer (Conopomorpha cramerella) was lower in the agroforestry systems, especially the high-diversity system, while the incidence of black pod disease (Phytophthora spp.) did not differ between agroforestry and monoculture. The findings highlight the potential of agroforestry to reconcile ecologically sustainable land use with natural, cost-effective pest management. While pruning needs to be done with timing and disease pressure in mind to minimize short-term yield losses, this measure proved to be a feasible strategy for establishing agroforestry on extant plantations.

Keywords

Cacao agroforestryRehabilitation pruningTree development
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 849 - 865
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abdulai, I., Jassogne, L., Graefe, S., Asare, R., Van Asten, P., Läderach, P. and Vaast, P. (2018). Characterization of cocoa production, income diversification and shade tree management along a climate gradient in Ghana. PLoS ONE 13(4), e0195777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahenkorah, Y., Halm, B.J., Appiah, M.R., Akrofi, G.S. and Yirenkyi, J.E.K. (1987). Twenty years’ results from a shade and fertilizer trial on Amazon Cocoa (Theobroma cacao) in Ghana. Experimental Agriculture 23(1), 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alliot, C., Cortin, M., Feige-Muller, M. and Ly, S. (2015). The dark side of chocolate. An analysis of the conventional, sustainable and fair trade cocoa chains. Tulle: BASIC, bureau for the appraisal of societal impacts and cost. French fair trade platform.Google Scholar
Alvim, R. and Nair, P.K.R. (1986). Combination of cacao with other plantation crops: an agroforestry system in Southeast Bahia, Brazil. Agroforestry Systems 4(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armengot, L., Barbieri, P., Andres, C., Milz, J. and Schneider, M. (2016). Cacao agroforestry systems have higher return on labor compared to full-sun monocultures. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36(4), 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asare, R., Asare, R.A., Asante, W.A., Markussen, B. and Raebild, A. (2017). Influences of shading and fertilization on on-farm yields of cocoa in Ghana. Experimental Agriculture 53(3), 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avila-Lovera, E., Coronel, I., Jaimez, R., Urich, R., Pereyra, G., Araque, O., Chacon, I. and Tezara, W. (2016). Ecophysiological traits of adult trees of Criollo cocoa cultivars (Theobroma cacao L.) from a germplasm bank in Venezuela. Experimental Agriculture 52(1), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastide, P., Paulin, D. and Lachenaud, P. (2008). Effect of cocoa tree mortality on production stability in a private estate. Tropicultura 26(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
Blaser, W.J., Oppong, J., Yeboah, E. and Six, J. (2017). Shade trees have limited benefits for soil fertility in cocoa agroforests. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 243, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, M.M., Steffan-Dewenter, I. and Tscharntke, T. (2007). Shade tree management affects fruit abortion, insect pests and pathogens of cacao. Agriculture, Ecosystems, & Environment 120(2–4), 201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M.K.V. and Lockwood, G. (2011). The water relations and irrigation requirements of cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.), A review. Experimental Agriculture 47(4), 653–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerda, R., Deheuvels, O., Calvache, D., Niehaus, L., Saenz, Y., Kent, J., Vilchez, S., Villota, A., Martinez, C. and Somarriba, E. (2014). Contribution of cocoa agroforestry systems to family income and domestic consumption: looking toward intensification. Agroforestry Systems 88(6), 957–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaura, B.P. (2002). Quantification of root crops in national food balance sheets and problems encountered. In Proceedings of the Expert Consultation on Root Crop Statistics – Volume II: Invited Papers. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y9422e/y9422e04.htm.Google Scholar
Clough, Y., Faust, H. and Tscharntke, T. (2009). Cacao boom and bust: sustainability of agroforests and opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters 2(5), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Almeida, A. and Valle, R.R. (2010). Cacao: ecophysiology of growth and production. In Ecophysiology of Tropical Tree Crops, 37–70. (Ed Da Metta, Fabio). Vicosa, Brazil: FUOV Fabio Damatta Department of Plant Biology.Google Scholar
Dias, L.A.S., Santos, M.M., Santos, A.O.S., Almeida, C., Cruz, C.D. and Carneiro, P.C.S. (2000). Effect of planting density on yield and incidence of witches’ Broom disease in a young plantation of hybrid cacao trees. Experimental Agriculture 36(4), 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. and Snyder, P.K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734), 570–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaimez, R.E., Araque, O., Guzman, D., Mora, A., Espinoza, W. and Tezara, W. (2013). Agroforestry systems of timber species and cacao: survival and growth during the early stages. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS) 114(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Leakey, R.R.B. and Tchoundjeu, Z. (2001). Diversification of tree crops: domestication of companion crops for poverty reduction and environmental services. Experimental Agriculture 37(3), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, R.V., Virakthmath, B.C. and Mallika, V.K. (1994). Management of cocoa. In Advances in Horticulture – Plantation Crops and Spices–Part 1, Vol. 9 (Ed Chadha, K.L.). New Delhi, India: Malhothra Publishing House.Google Scholar
Negussie, A., Achten, W.M.J., Norgrove, L., Mekuria, W., Hadgu, K.M., De Both, G., Leroy, B., Hermy, M. and Muys, B. (2016). Initial effects of fertilization and canopy management on flowering and seed and oil yields of Jatropha curcas L. in Malawi. BioEnergy Research 9(4), 1231–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niether, W., Armengot, L., Andres, C., Schneider, M. and Gerold, G. (2018). Shade trees and tree pruning alter throughfall and microclimate in cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) production systems. Annals of Forest Science 75(2), 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norgrove, L. (2007). Effects of different copper fungicide application rates upon earthworm activity and impacts on cocoa yield over four years. European Journal of Soil Biology 43, S303–S310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owusu-Ansah, F., Curnow, R.N. and Adu-Ampomah, Y. (2013). Optimal planning of cocoa clonal selection programmes. Experimental Agriculture 49(4), 574–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips-Mora, W., Arciniegas-Leal, A., Mata-Quirós, A. and Motamayor-Arias, J.C. (2012). Catálogo de clones de cacao seleccionados por el CATIE para siembras comerciales. Cartago, Costa Rica: Centro Agrónomicao Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE).Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J.C. and Bates, D.M. (2000). Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad Datta, S., Kumar Rattan, R. and Chandra, S. (2010). Labile organic carbon, soil fertility, and crop productivity as influenced by manure and mineral fertilizers in the tropics. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 173, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pumarino, L., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Kaartinen, R., Barrios, E., Muchane, M.N., Midega, C. and Jonsson, M. (2015). Effects of agroforestry on pest, disease and weed control: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Ecology 16(7), 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, R.A. and Greenberg, R. (2000). Cacao cultivation and the conservation of biological diversity. Ambio 29(3), 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, J., Dorn, S., Plath, M., Potvin, C. and Mody, K. (2013). Time matters: temporally changing effects of planting schemes and insecticide treatment on native timber tree performance on former pasture. Forest Ecology and Management 297, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Root, R.B. (1973). Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecological Monographs 43(1), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouse, R.E., Ozores-Hampton, M., Roka, F.M. and Roberts, P. (2017). Rehabilitation of Huanglongbing-affected citrus trees using severe pruning and enhanced foliar nutritional treatments. Hortscience 52(7), 972–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, M., Andres, C., Trujillo, G., Alcon, F., Amurrio, P., Perez, E., Weibel, F. and Milz, J. (2016). Cocoa and total system yields of organic and conventional agroforestry vs. monoculture systems in a long-term field trial in Bolivia. Experimental Agriculture 53, 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schomaker, M.E., Zarnoch, S.J., Bechtold, W.A., Latelle, D.J., Burkham, W.G. and Cox, S.M. (2007). Crown-condition classification: a guide to data collection and analysis. In General Technical Report SRS-102, 78. Asheville, NC: Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
Schroth, G. (1998). A review of belowground interactions in agroforestry, focussing on mechanisms and management options. Agroforestry Systems 43(1–3), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroth, G., Krauss, U., Gasparotto, L., Aguilar, J.A.D. and Vohland, K. (2000). Pests and diseases in agroforestry systems of the humid tropics. Agroforestry Systems 50(3), 199–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroth, G., Läderach, P., Martinez-Valle, A.I., Bunn, C. and Jassogne, L. (2016). Vulnerability to climate change of cocoa in West Africa: patterns, opportunities and limits to adaptation. Science of the Total Environment 556, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, S. and Castellan, J.C. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Somarriba, E. and Beer, J. (2011). Productivity of Theobroma cacao agroforestry systems with timber or legume service shade trees. Agroforestry Systems 81(2), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Bhagwat, S.A., Buchori, D., Faust, H., Hertel, D., Holscher, D., Juhrbandt, J., Kessler, M., Perfecto, I., Scherber, C., Schroth, G., Veldkamp, E. and Wanger, T.C. (2011). Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes – A review. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3), 619–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twisk, J.W.R. (2006). Applied multilevel analysis: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yucailla, V.A., Orozco, R.L., Burgos, J.C.V. and Hernandez, S.V. (2016). Current situation and perspective of the multi-use of Arachis pintoi in agro-ecosystems devoted to animal production. Centro Agricola 43(3), 80–87.Google Scholar
Zuidema, P.A., Leffelaar, P.A., Gerritsma, W., Mommer, L. and Anten, N.P.R. (2005). A physiological production model for cocoa (Theobroma cacao): model presentation, validation and application. Agricultural Systems 84, 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Riedel et al. supplementary material

Riedel et al. supplementary material 1

Download Riedel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.7 MB