Agroforestry systems of the lowland alluvial valleys of the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Biosphere Reserve: an evaluation of their biocultural capacity

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine

Patricia Dávila²  Oswaldo Tellez²  Omar Hernández-Ordoñez³  Ana I Moreno-Calles¹  Edgar Pérez-Negrón³  Alejandro Casas³  Mariana Vallejo³ 

[1] Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, UNAM campus Morelia, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Col. Ex-Hacienda de San José de la Huerta, Morelia 58190, Michoacán, Mexico;UBIPRO, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, UNAM, Avenida de los Baños, s/n, Apartado Postal 54090 (Los Reyes Iztacala), Tlalnepantla, Estado de México;Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, UNAM campus Morelia, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Col. Ex-Hacienda de San José de la Huerta, Morelia 58190, Michoacán, Mexico

关键词: Traditional agriculture;    Tehuacán Valley;    Sustainable management;    Silvicultural management;    Mezquital;    Biodiversity conservation;    Biocultural heritage;    Agroforestry systems;   

Others  :  1139244
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-4269-11-8

 received in 2014-09-21, accepted in 2014-12-24,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Agroforestry systems (AFS) are valuable production systems that allow concealing benefits provision with conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analysed AFS of the zone of alluvial valleys of the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley (TCV), Mexico, the most intensive agricultural systems within a region recognized for harbouring one of the most ancient agricultural experience of the New World. We hypothesized that the biodiversity conservation capacity of AFS would be directly related to traditional agricultural features and inversely related to management intensity.

Methods

Agricultural practices, use frequency of machinery and chemical inputs, and proportion of forest and cultivated areas were described in 15 AFS plots in alluvial valleys of the Salado River in three villages of the region. With the information, we constructed a management intensity index and compared among plots and villages. We documented the reasons why people maintain wild plant species and traditional practices. Perennial plant species were sampled in vegetation of AFS (15 plots) and unmanaged forests (12 plots 500 m²) in order to compare richness, diversity and other ecological indicators in AFS and forest.

Results

In all studied sites, people combine traditional and intensive agricultural practices. Main agroforestry practices are ground terraces and borders surrounding AFS plots where people maintain vegetation. According to people, the reasons for maintaining shrubs and trees in AFS were in order of importance are: Beauty and shade provision (14% of people), fruit provision (7%), protection against strong wind, and favouring water and soil retention. We recorded 66 species of trees and shrubs in the AFS studied, 81% of them being native species that represent 38% of the perennial plant species recorded in forests sampled. Land tenure and institutions vary among sites but not influenced the actions for maintaining the vegetation cover in AFS. Plant diversity decreased with increasing agricultural intensity.

Conclusions

Maintenance of vegetation cover did not confront markedly with the intensive agricultural practices. It is possible the expansion and enrichment of vegetation in terraces and borders of AFS. Information available on plant species and local techniques is potentially useful for a regional program of biodiversity conservation considering AFS as keystones.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Vallejo et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ryan R, Erickson D, De Young R: Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a Mid-western agricultural watershed. J Environ Plan Manage 2003, 46(1):19-37.
• [2]Flores A, Castillo A, Sánchez-Matías M, Maass M: Local values and decisions: views and constraints for riparian management in western Mexico. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 2014, 414:06.
• [3]Frey GE, Mercer DE, Cubbage FW, Abt RC: Economic potential of agroforestry and forestry in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley with incentive programs and carbon payments. South J Appl Forest 2010, 34(4):176-85.
• [4]Frey GE, Mercer DE, Cubbage FW, Abt RC: A real options model to assess the role of flexibility in forestry and agroforestry adoption and disadoption in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley. Agr Econ 2013, 44:73-91.
• [5]Dawson IK, Guariguata MR, Loo J, Weber Ard Lengkeek JC, Bush D, Cornelius J, Guarino L, Kindt R, Orwa C, Russell J, Jamnadass R: What is the relevance of smallholders’ agroforestry systems for conserving tropical tree species and genetic diversity in circa situm, in situ and ex situ settings? A review. Biodivers Conserv 2013, 22:301-24.
• [6]Jose S: Agroforestry for conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Agrofor Syst 2012, 85:1-8.
• [7]Grumbine RE: What is ecosystem management? Cons Biol 1994, 8:27-38.
• [8]Ajijur Rahman S, Faizar Rahman M, Sunderland T: Increasing tree cover in degrading landscapes: ‘Integration’ and ‘Intensification’ of smallholder forest culture in the alutilla valley, matiranga, Bangladesh. Small-scale For 2014, 13:237-49.
• [9]Altieri M, Nicholls C: Teoría y práctica para una agricultura sostenible. México, DF: Red de Formación ambiental para América Latina y el Caribe; 2000. [Serie de textos básicos para la formación ambiental. Programa de las naciones unidas para el medio ambiente]
• [10]McFarlane BL, Boxall PC: Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: the case of the Foothills model forest, Alberta, Canada. Soc Nat Resour 2000, 13:649-61.
• [11]Tindall DB: Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion, attitudes, and preferences about forests. For Chronicle 2003, 79(3):692-705.
• [12]Gadd ME: Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environ Conserv 2005, 32(1):50-63.
• [13]Altieri MA, Toledo VM: The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J Peasant Stud 2011, 38(3):587-612.
• [14]Nabhan GP, Amadeo MR, Reichhardt KL, Mellink E, Hutchinson CF: Papago influences on habitat and biotic diversity: quitovac oasis ethnoecology. J Ethnobiol 1982, 2:124-43.
• [15]Altieri MA: Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 2004, 2:35-42.
• [16]Nandy S, Kumar DA: Comparing tree diversity and population structure between a traditional agroforestry system and natural forests of Barak valley, Northeast India. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 2013, 9(2):104-13.
• [17]Moreno-Calles A, García-Luna V, Casas A, Toledo VM, Vallejo M, Santos-Fita D, Camou-Guerrero A: La Etnoagroforestería: el estudio de los sistemas agroforestales tradicionales de México. Etnobiología 2014, 12(2):1-16.
• [18]Kyndt T, Assogbadjo AE, Hardy OJ, Glele-Kakaï R, Sinsin B, Damme PV, Gheysen G: Spatial genetic structuring of baobab (Adansonia digitata, Malvaceae) in the traditional agroforestry systems of West Africa. Am J Bot 2009, 96(5):950-7.
• [19]Wiersum KF: Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources: an evolutionary continuum in forest-people interaction. Agri Ecosyst Environ 1997, 63(1):1-16.
• [20]World Agroforestry Centre. http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org webcite
• [21]Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Coe R, Place F: Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and geographical patterns of agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya: Working Paper No. 89. The World Agroforestry Centre; 2009.
• [22]Wilken G: Integrating forest and small-scale farm systems in Middle America. Agro-Ecosystems 1977, 3:291-302.
• [23]Moreno-Calles AI, Toledo VM, Casas A: Los sistemas agroforestales tradicionales de México: una aproximación biocultural. Bot Sci 2013, 91(4):375-98.
• [24]Dosskey MG, Bentrup G, Schoeneberger M: A role for agroforestry in forest restoration in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley. J Forest 2012, 110:48-55.
• [25]Gao J, Barberi C, Valdivia C: A socio-demographic examination of the perceived benefits of agroforestry. Agrofor Syst 2014, 88:301-9.
• [26]Assogbadjo AE, Glèlè Kakaï R, Vodouhê FG, Djagoun CAMS, Codjia JTC, Sinsin B: Biodiversity and socioeconomic factors supporting farmers’ choice of wild edible trees in the agroforestry systems of Benin (West Africa). For Policy Econ 2012, 14:41-9.
• [27]Ansong M, Røskaft E: Determinants of attitudes of primary stakeholders towardsforest conservation management: a case study of Subri Forest Reserve, Ghana. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 2011, 7(2):98-107.
• [28]Faye MD, Weber JC, Abasse TA, Boureima M, Larwanou M, Bationo AB, Diallo BO, Sigue H, Dakouo J-M, Samake O, Sonogo Diaite D: Farmers’ preferences for tree functions and species in the West African Sahel. For Trees Livelihoods 2011, 20:113-36.
• [29]Van Oudenhoven APE, de Groot R: Editorial: ecological and social factors influencing biodiversity management at different scales. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 2011, 7(2):75-6.
• [30]Acharya KP: Linking trees on farms with biodiversity conservation in subsistence farming systems in Nepal. Biodivers Conserv 2006, 15:631-46.
• [31]McNeely JA, Schroth G: Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation—traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Biodivers Conserv 2006, 15:549-54.
• [32]Kabir ME, Webb EL: Can homegardens conserve biodiversity in Bangladesh? Biotropica 2008, 40:95-103.
• [33]Moreno-Calles AI, Casas A: Agroforestry systems: restoration of semiarid zones in the Tehuacán Valley Central Mexico. Ecol Restor 2010, 28(3):1543-4079.
• [34]Gonthier DJ, Ennis KK, Farinas S, Hsieh H, Iverson AL, Batáry P, Rudolphi J, Tscharntke T, Cardinale BJ, Perfecto I: Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach. Proc R Soc B 2014, 281:20141358.
• [35]Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN: Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, USA: Island Press; 2004.
• [36]Moreno-Calles A, Casas A, García-Frapolli E, Torres-García I: Traditional agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and “chichipera” cactus forest in the arid Tehuaca´n Valley, Mexico: their management and role in people’s subsistence. Agrofor Syst 2012, 84(2):207-26.
• [37]Vallejo M, Casas A, Blancas J, Moreno-Calles AI, Solís L, Rangel-Landa S, Dávila P, Téllez O: Agroforestry systems in the highlands of the Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: indigenous cultures and biodiversity conservation. Agrofor Syst 2014, 88:125-40.
• [38]Dávila P, Arizmendi MC, Valiente-Banuet A, Villaseñor JL, Casas A, Lira R: Biological diversity in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 2002, 11:421-41.
• [39]Casas A, Valiente-Banuet A, Viveros JL, Caballero J: Plant resources of the Tehuacán Valley, México. Econ Bot 2001, 55:129-66.
• [40]MacNeish RS: A summary of subsistence. In The prehistory of the tehuacán valley: enviroment and subsistence. vo1.1. Edited by Byers DS. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press; 1967:290-309.
• [41]Lira R, Casas A, Rosas-López R, Paredes-Flores M, Rangel-Landa S, Solís L, Torres I, Dávila P: Traditional knowledge and useful plant richness in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, México. Econ Bot 2009, 63:271-87.
• [42]Blancas J, Casas A, Rangel-Landa S, Moreno-Calles A, Torres I, Pérez-Negrón E, Solís L, Delgado-Lemus A, Parra F, Arellanes Y, Caballero J, Cortés L, Lira R, Dávila P: Plant management in the tehuacán-cuicatlán Valley, mexico. Econ Bot 2010, 64:287-302.
• [43]Blancas J, Casas A, Pérez-Salicrup D, Caballero J, Vega E: Ecological and socio-cultural factors influencing plant management in Náhuatl communities of the Tehuacán Valley Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2013, 9:39. BioMed Central Full Text
• [44]CONANP: Programa de manejo reserva de la biosfera tehuacán-cuicatlán. México: D.F: CONANP-SEMARNAT; 2013.
• [45]Valiente-Banuet A, Solís L, Dávila P, Arizmendi MC, Silva PC, Ortega-Ramírez J, Treviño CJ, Rangel-Landa S, Casas A: Guía de la vegetación del Valle de Tehuacan-Cuicatlán. Transcontinental, México: Impresora; 2009.
• [46]Moreno-Calles A, Casas A, Blancas J, Torres I, Rangel-Landa S, Pérez-Negrón E, Caballero J, Masera O, García-Barrios L: Agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation in arid zones: the case of the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley, Central México. Agrofor Syst 2010, 80:315-31.
• [47]Rzedowski J, Vegetación de México: Vegetación de México. México, D.F: Limusa; 1978.
• [48]Valiente-Banuet A, Casas A, Dávila P, Arizmendi MC, Villaseñor JL, Ortega-Ramírez J: La vegetación del Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán. Bol Soc Bot Méx 2000, 67:24-74.
• [49]García E: Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Koppen. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 1988.
• [50]Valiente-Banuet A, Arizmendi MC, Rojas-Martínez A, Casas A, Godínez-Alvarez H, Silva C, Dávila-Aranda P: Biotic interactions and population dynamics of columnar cacti. In Columnar cacti and their mutualists: evolution, ecology and conservation. Edited by Flemming T, Valiente-Banuet A. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2002:225-40.
• [51]Trilleras J: Análisis Socio-ecológico del manejo, degradación y restauración del bosque tropical seco de la región de Chamela-Cuixmala, México. In Master Thesis. Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas. México: Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Morelia, Michoacán; 2008.
• [52]Colwell RK, Coddington JA: Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil Trans Royal Soc 1994, 345:101-18.
• [53]Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK: Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 2001, 4:379-91.
• [54]Colwell RK: EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8. 2006. Persistent URL http://purl.oclc.org/estimates webcite
• [55]Jost L: Entropy and diversity. Oikos 2006, 113:363-75.
• [56]Chao A, Shen T-J: Program SPADE (Species Prediction and Diversity Estimation). 2010. Program and User’s Guide published at http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw webcite
• [57]Jost L: The relation between evenness and diversity. Diversity 2010, 2:207-32.
• [58]Crawley MJ: The R Book. Chichester, United Kindon: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2007.
• [59]Rojas-Rabiela T: Agricultura prehispánica. In La agricultura En tierras mexicanas desde Sus orígenes hasta nuestros días. Edited by Coord R-RT. México, D.F: Los Noventa: CONACULTA y Grijalbo S.A. de C.V; 1991:15-119.
• [60]González-Jácome A: Ambiente y cultura en la agricultura tradicional de México, casos y perspectivas. Anales de Antropología 2003, 37:117-40.
• [61]Whitmore TM, Tuner BL II: Cultivated landscapes of middle America on the Eve of conquest. 1st edition. New York USA: Oxford University Press; 2001.
• [62]Donkin RA: Agricultural terracing in the aboriginal new world. U.S.A, Arizona: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology; 1979.
• [63]Perfecto I, Vandermeer J: Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008, 1134:173-200.
• [64]Larios C, Casas A, Vallejo M, Moreno-Calles AI, Blancas J: Plant management and biodiversity conservation in Náhuatl homegardens of the Tehuacán Valley Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 2013, 9:74. BioMed Central Full Text
• [65]Nabhan GP: Agrobiodiversity change in a Saharan Desert Oasis, 1919–2006: historic shifts in Tasiwit (Berber) and Bedouin crop inventories of Siwa, Egypt. Econ Bot 2007, 61:31-43.