What is the available evidence concerning relative performance of different designs of mixed-species plantings for smallholder and community forestry in the tropics? A systematic map protocol

Environmental Evidence

Jennifer Firn¹  Jerry Vanclay⁴  Wolfram Dressler⁵  David Lamb³  Jessica Clendenning²  John Herbohn⁶  Huong Nguyen⁶ 

[1] School of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4001, QLD, Australia;Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia;Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, QLD, Australia;School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore 2480, NSW, Australia;School of Geography, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010, VIC, Australia;School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, QLD, Australia

关键词: Social forestry;    Forestry economics;    Reforestation;    Mixture;    Polyculture;   

Others  :  1218949
DOI  :  10.1186/s13750-015-0041-8

 received in 2014-09-17, accepted in 2015-05-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

There has been growing interest in mixed species plantation systems because of their potential to provide a range of socio-economic and bio-physical benefits which can be matched to the diverse needs of smallholders and communities. Potential benefits include the production of a range of forest products for home and commercial use; improved soil fertility especially when nitrogen fixing species are included; improved survival rates and greater productivity of species; a reduction in the amount of damage from pests or disease; and improved biodiversity and wildlife habitats. Despite these documented services and growing interest in mixed species plantation systems, the actual planting areas in the tropics are low, and monocultures are still preferred for industrial plantings and many reforestation programs because of perceived higher economic returns and readily available information about the species and their silviculture. In contrast, there are few guidelines for the design and management of mixed-species systems, including the social and ecological factors of successful mixed species plantings.

Methods

This protocol explains the methodology used to investigate the following question: What is the available evidence for the relative performance of different designs ofmixed-species plantings for smallholder and community forestry in the tropics? This study will systematically search, identify and describe studies related to mixed species plantings across tropical and temperate zones to identify the social and ecological factors that affect polyculture systems. The objectives of this study are first to identify the evidence of biophysical or socio-economic factors that have been considered when designing mixed species systems for community and smallholder forestry in the tropics; and second, to identify gaps in research of mixed species plantations. Results of the study will help create guidelines that can assist practitioners, scientists and farmers to better design mixed species plantation systems for smallholders in the tropics.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Nguyen et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lamb D. Regreening the Bare hills: Tropical Forest Restoration in the Asia-Pacific Region. Springer, Dordrecht; 2011.
• [2]Shepherd KR. Plantation Silviculture. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht; 1986.
• [3]Carnus J-M, Parrotta J, Brockerhoff E, Arbez M, Jactel H, Kremer A et al.. Planted forests and biodiversity. J For. 2006; 104:65-77.
• [4]Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL, Vanclay JK. Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen-fixing trees: a review. For Ecol Manag. 2006; 233:211-230.
• [5]Lamb D, Nhan HD, Erskine PD. Designing mixed-species plantations: Progress to date. In: Erskine PD, Lamb D, Bristow M, editors. Reforestation in the tropics and subtropics of Australia using rainforest tree species. An Australian Government Initiative; 2005:141 pp. 141.
• [6]Forrester DI. Mixed-species plantations of nitrogen-fixing and non–nitrogen-fixing trees. 2004.
• [7]Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashton PMS. The Practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology. 9th ed. Wiley, New York; 1997.
• [8]Montagnini F. Selecting Tree Species for Plantation. In: Forest Restoration in Landscapes. Springer, New York; 2005: p.262-268.
• [9]Debell DS, Cole TG, Whitesell CD. Growth, development, and yield in pure and mixed stands of Eucalyptus and Albizia. For Sci. 1997; 43:286-298.
• [10]Ewel JJ. Designing agricultural ecosystems for the Humid tropics. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1986; 17:245-271.
• [11]Montagnini F, Jordan CF. Tropical Forest Ecology: The Basis for Conservation and Management. Springer, Dordrecht; 2005.
• [12]Knoke T, Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R. Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur J For Res. 2008; 127:89-101.
• [13]Binkley D, Dunkin K, Debell D, Ryan M. Production and nutrient cycling in mixed plantations of Eucalyptus and albizia in Hawaii. For Sci. 1992; 38:393-408.
• [14]Forrester DI. Mixed-Species Plantations of Eucalyptus with Nitrogen-Fixing Trees. 2004.
• [15]Montagnini F. Accumulation in above-ground biomass and soil storage of mineral nutrients in pure and mixed plantations in a humid tropical lowland. For Ecol Manag. 2000; 134:257-270.
• [16]Mixed and Pure Forest Plantations in the Tropics and Subtropics. In: FAO Forestry Paper, 152. FAO, Rome; 1992: p.152.
• [17]Piotto D. A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations. For Ecol Manag. 2008; 255:781-786.
• [18]Kelty MJ. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. For Ecol Manag. 2006; 233:195-204.
• [19]Le HD, Smith C, Herbohn J, Harrison S. More than just trees: assessing reforestation success in tropical developing countries. J Rural Stud. 2012; 28:5-19.
• [20]Kelty MJ. Comparative Productivity of Monocultures and Mixedspecies Stands. In: The Ecology and Silviculture of Mixed-Species Forests. Kelty MJ, Larson BC, Oliver CD, editors. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston; 1992: p.125-141.
• [21]Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Cowie AL. On the success and failure of mixed-species tree plantations: lessons learned from a model system of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. For Ecol Manag. 2005; 209:147-155.
• [22]Haggar JP, Ewel JJ. Primary productivity and resource partitioning in model tropical ecosystems. Ecology. 1997; 78:1211-1221.
• [23]Manson DG, Hanan J, Hunt M, Bristow M, Erskine PD, Lamb D, Schmidt S. Modelling predicts positive and negative interactions between three Australian tropical tree species in monoculture and binary mixture. For Ecol Manag. 2006; 233:315-323.
• [24]Menalled FD, Kelty MJ, Ewel JJ. Canopy development in tropical tree plantations: a comparison of species mixtures and monocultures. For Ecol Manag. 1998; 104:249-263.
• [25]Le HD, Smith C, Herbohn J. What drives the success of reforestation projects in tropical developing countries? The case of the Philippines. Glob Environ Chang. 2014; 24:334-348.
• [26]Higgs ES. What is good ecological restoration? Conserv Biol. 1997; 11:338-348.
• [27]Light A, Higgs ES. The politics of ecological restoration. Environ Ethics. 1996; 18:227-247.
• [28]Swart JAA, Van Der Windt HJ, Keulartz J. Valuation of nature in conservation and restoration. Restor Ecol. 2001; 9:230-238.
• [29]Herbohn KF, Harrison SR, Herbohn JL. Lessons from small-scale forestry initiatives in Australia: the effective integration of environmental and commercial values. For Ecol Manag. 2000; 128:227-240.
• [30]Scopus. http://www. scopus.com webcite
• [31]CABI. http://www. cabdirect.org/ webcite
• [32]Web of Science. http://www. webofknowledge.com webcite
• [33]Agricola. http://agricola. nal.usda.gov/ webcite
• [34]GFIS.net. http://www. gfis.net/gfis/en/en/ webcite
• [35]Google Scholar. http://scholar. google.com webcite
• [36]World Bank. www. worldbank.org webcite
• [37]Asian Development Bank. www. adb.org webcite
• [38]The Center for People and Forests. www. recoftc.org webcite
• [39]Food and Agriculture Organization. www. fao.org webcite
• [40]Tropenbos International. www. tropenbos.org webcite
• [41]International Tropical Timber Organziation. www. itto.int webcite
• [42]World Wildlife Fund. www. worldwildlife.org webcite
• [43]French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development. www. cirad.fr/en webcite
• [44]Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center. http://www. catie.ac.cr/en/ webcite
• [45]University of the Philippines, Los Banos. www. uplb.edu.ph webcite
• [46]Chiang Mai University. www. cmu.ac.th/index_eng.php webcite
• [47]Center for International Forestry Research. www. cifor.org webcite
• [48]World Agroforestry Centre. www. worldagroforestry.org webcite
• [49]International Union of Forest Research Organizations. www. iufro.org webcite
• [50]Small-scale Forestry Group. http://www. iufro.org/science/divisions/division-3/30000/30800/ webcite
• [51]University of South Florida. www. esf.edu webcite
• [52]United States Department of Agriculture. www. usda.gov webcite
• [53]ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins. http://www. asb.cgiar.org/ webcite
• [54]McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistics. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012; 22(3):276-282.
• [55]Fingerman S. Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capacities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship. 2006;48(Fall). Retrieved from. http://www. istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html webcite