Abstract
The Tahitian (or Polynesian) chestnut Inocarpus fagifer is distributed widely in tropical South-East Asia and in the Pacific region. It is an important component in traditional agroforestry systems. However, its importance as a food plant has decreased considerably. There is no evidence that the species has ever been domesticated, nor that deliberate breeding and crop improvement is presently taking place. This article aims to provide an overview of the current status of knowledge about its distribution, biology, its past and current cultivation and use as a species in agroforestry systems, and to analyse its future potential for production, commercial use and plant improvement. Inocarpus fagifer grows in lowlands in coastal and near coastal areas, often along rivers. It often forms almost pure stands underneath the canopy trees. Inocarpus fagifer trees are very vigorous and shade-tolerant. They thrive in moist to wet soils. Nearly all parts of the tree have been used for multiple purposes including timber, medicine, and animal fodder. The seed has significant traditional importance as human food, and it plays an important role in the diets of rural communities, in particular during the crop harvesting season. Inocarpus fagifer is mostly disease-free. Reports about the commercial use of I. fagifer remain localised and largely anecdotal. The species retains a good potential for commercial development and for a wider commercial use as an alternative food source. No accessible genebank accessions are available. Fundamental questions on its marketability and genetic potential need to be answered.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Agroforestry systems, which are agricultural systems that integrate trees with crops and/or animals [1], have received increasing scientific attention over the few decades. A growing amount of scientific data published over the last twenty years show that agroforestry systems provide a multitude of different ecosystem services and environmental benefits as well as economic commodities as part of a multifunctional working landscape [2,3,4,5]. This is particularly true for traditional agroforestry systems situated in tropical countries, which are important for sustainable agriculture and for food and nutritional security. In tropical Asia and the Asia–Pacific region, agroforestry systems are part of the traditional land use systems [6,7,8]. They support livelihoods of the rural populations [9] and can serve as an insurance against natural disasters [10]. Many indigenous tree species, either planted or protected, have been a part of traditional farming practices for many hundreds of years. Benefits of these trees include timber, food and nutritional security (often particularly used during periods of occasional food shortage), source of income, basis for farming systems protecting the environment, and conserving soils and maintaining biodiversity [11]. However, individual research studies show that as a result of the planting of cash crops and non-indigenous fruits and nuts, e.g. banana, cassava or macadamia nut, traditionally planted or used, local crops for food, medicine and other daily needs are often abandoned, downplayed and no longer actively cultivated [12, 13]. These changes in cultivation are linked to a loss of knowledge about traditional land management and its resources.
The Tahitian (or sometimes called Polynesian) chestnut Inocarpus fagifer (Parkinson ex F.A.Zorn) Fosberg (Fabaceae) is a well-known species in the Asia–Pacific region [14] and an important component in traditional agroforestry systems [15]. Pauku [9, 16], in a participatory survey among village communities in the Solomon Islands, showed that villagers considered the species most important as a source of food and income. Given its local and regional significance, it is intriguing to see that Huml et al. [17] called I. fagifer an “underutilised legume”, and Pauku [9] called it a “Cinderella tree”. The term “Cinderella tree” was introduced by Leakey and Newton [18] and is defined as a “traditionally important indigenous species that has been overlooked by science for agroforestry and forestry”. There seems to be a conflicting discrepancy between the species’ local popularity and its (actual or perceived) importance for agriculture at least in some parts of its area of distribution, and its overall use and promotion in agriculture in the Asia–Pacific region.
The aim of this article is therefore to gather available scientific literature and to provide an overview of the current status of knowledge about I. fagifer—what is known about its biology, its past and current cultivation and use across its area of distribution, and its future potential for production and as a species in agroforestry systems in the Asia–Pacific region? Can the results from detailed local studies (such as Pauku [9, 16] from the Solomon Islands and Bourke [12] from Papua New Guinea) be generalised across the species’ area of distribution to find general patterns? Can the results from these studies be used in a way to improve propagation and market situation elsewhere? Is plant genetic material readily available for use, e.g., in plant improvement and breeding projects?
2 Taxonomy
Fosberg [19] proposed the name Inocarpus fagiferus (Parkinson) Fosberg, and made the combination for Parkinson’s previous name Aniotum fagiferum Parkinson. The valid name is Inocarpus fagifer (Parkinson ex F.A.Zorn) Fosberg. Inocarpus edulis J.R.Forst & G.Forst is found in the literature as a widespread synonym. Adema [15] provides the most up-to-date taxonomic reference to I. fagifer and compares the species with its congeneric relatives. Inocarpus fagifer is one of currently three species in the small papilionoid genus Inocarpus belonging to the Fabaceae tribe Dalbergieae. The genus Inocarpus is characterized by simple leaves, short inflorescences, a regular corolla, stamens which are adnate to the corolla tube and large orange fruits [15].
3 General habit and morphology
Inocarpus fagifer can vary considerably in growth form and habit. Individuals of the species can be found growing as a straggling bush, as a small, multi-stemmed tree, giving the impression of being coppiced and reaching heights of about 10 m [20], or they can grow into single-stemmed, large trees reaching 20 to even 30 m [21]. I could not find any published information on whether these different growth forms are part of a phenological modification in response to specific habitat conditions or whether they are the result of actual genetic changes that underlie potentially adaptive phenotypic variation. Inocarpus fagifer can create dense groves and closed canopies. Already Fosberg [19] described individuals found in some deep valleys of Tahiti which showcase huge buttressed trunks. This observation was confirmed by Huebert and Allan [21], who found mature trees which often form massive buttresses. The tree has a shallow taproot and a well-developed network of lateral roots which appear on the soil surface [22].
The evergreen, dark green leaves of I. fagifer are alternate as for the vast majority of species in the Fabaceae family. The leaf blade is 15 to 30 (− 40) cm long and 7 to 13 cm wide (Fig. 1). The leaf base is rounded to cordate. Stipules are 1–2 by 1–2 mm large. The leaf apex is mostly obtuse to rounded, rarely acuminate. The flowers appear usually in November/December and are arranged in clusters. They have a faint sour fragrance. The corolla is 12–15 mm long, with five narrow, yellowish-white petals. The calyx is two-lipped and 5–6 mm long (Fig. 2). Bracts are 0.4–1.5 by 1–2 mm large. The stamens are arranged in two whorls. The style is up to 0.5 mm long. The monocarpellate (one seeded) and indehiscent fruits can be very variable in shape and colour. They are slightly flattened, irregularly ovoid, rounded or oblong [14]. They vary in size, which ranges between 30 and 90 by 45 and 75 by 24 and 40 mm [14, 15]. A single tree produces up to 100 fruits per season, usually between January and May [13]. On islands of Papua New Guinea, fruiting occurs mainly between November and February [12]. The initially green fruits turn orange-brown when ripe [22] (Fig. 3).
Taxonomically and morphologically, the English vernacular name Tahitian (or Polynesian) chestnut is misleading, as the species is not a chestnut (which is a name applied to species in the genus Castanea, Fagaceae). Neither is it correct to talk about a nut when describing the fruit, as the pericarp of the fruit is not dry and hard but coriaceous. Using Spjut’s terminology [23], the fruit can be classified as a camara. Several authors (for example [13]) refer to the single, kidney-shaped, starchy seed inside the fruit as a “kernel”. The word “kernel”, colloquially defined as “the inner softer part of a seed, fruit stone, or nut” is not a scientific term and should be avoided all together. In this paper, I therefore simply talk about a “seed”. It has a size of 5 × 7 cm. The tree bark is rough and brown or grey [22].
4 Origin and distribution
Inocarpus fagifer is distributed widely in tropical South-East Asia and in the Pacific region, in particular in lowlands from sea level to 400–500 m a.s.l. altitude in coastal and near coastal areas (Fig. 4). With a long history of ancient introductions across large parts of Oceania [24], the identification of its original native area of distribution in Malesia and the exact pathways of its subsequent anthropogenic dispersal to Near and Remote Oceania eastwards to the Marquesas Islands of French Polynesia [21] in pre-historic times remain unanswered questions. As Adema [15] put it, the natural distribution of I. fagifer is obscured by the long history of human dispersal as a cultivated species. Whistler [25] listed the species as one of the important canoe plants that the first Polynesian settlers took with them on their seafaring journeys eastwards colonising vast parts of the Pacific Ocean, something that had already been suggested by Corner [20]. This notion is supported by archaeological evidence presented by Kirch [26] who could show I. fagifer as being among other economically important plants during the colonisation by Polynesian settlers.
Inocarpus fagifer is common in the Indonesian province of Maluku, the islands of Borneo, Sulawesi and New Guinea [12], in parts of the Philippines but it is rare in Java. Authors disagree whether the somehow isolated populations in east Johor in Peninsula Malaysia are natural or man-made. Corner [20] was convinced that those populations are wild and natural components of tidal forests, whereas Walter and Sam [14] and Thomson et al. [24] spoke about human introductions. The species is distributed (most likely naturalised after ancient introductions) in Micronesia (Kiribati, Marshall Islands and certain islands of the Federated States of Micronesia). It occurs widely in Melanesia (Papua New Guinea including the Bismarck archipelago [12], the Solomon Islands [9, 16, 27], Vanuatu, and Fiji). It is rare in New Caledonia [28]. In Polynesia, the species is distributed widely in Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands and French Polynesia. The dubiousness among scientists about the naturalness (or not) of populations of I. fagifer in Polynesia becomes evident when for example Pauku [9, p. 128] mentioned that the species occurs as an indigenous species to many Polynesian countries, only to continue that the species was believed to be an aboriginal introduction in parts of Polynesia and Micronesia. Evans [13] confirmed its native status in Vanuatu. Harrison and Karim [29] reported it as a common wild species in Fiji—already Seemann [30] had referred to the species as one of the most common trees in Fiji.
For most of the Pacific islands, precise times of the human-facilitated arrival of I. fagifer are difficult to identify, due to the lack of genetic, palaeobotanical and archaeological data. Archaeobotanical evidence from Maupiti (Society Islands, French Polynesia) presented by Dotte-Sarout and Kahn [31] shows that I. fagifer appeared late in Eastern Polynesia, and reached the Marquesas Islands by 1650, if not earlier. Outside the South-East Asian and Pacific regions, the species was introduced into Hawai’i (USA) in more recent times [15, 24] and to some parts of the Caribbean.
Huebert and Allan [21], studying anthropogenic forest changes in the Marquesas Islands found that such changes taking place at low and mid altitudes extensively remodelled the natural vegetation in pre-historic times. Polynesian settlers established productive and diverse arboricultural gardens, in which I. fagifer was an important tree. By 1650 CE, the low- and mid-elevation vegetation was extensively remodelled. Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg), Inocarpus fagifer and other economic species became widely established and cultivated. Dotte-Sarout and Kahn [31] showed for the French Polynesian island of Maupiti that the species was an essential crop in low-lying areas as early as the seventeenth century. Despite the lack of ethnographic descriptions of specific traditional subsistence practices at or before European contact, one can comfortably assume that I. fagifer was firmly incorporated in the cultural and economic systems of the arriving Polynesian colonizers. Further work would be needed to investigate how I. fagifer and other crop trees, whether introduced or indigenous on specific islands in South-East Asia and the Pacific region, could have been at the foundation of a cultural landscape that colonists actively modelled in the few centuries following their arrivals [31]. Multiple vernacular names exist for I. fagifer across its area of distribution, some of which are included in Fig. 4.
5 Ecology
In many places, I. fagifer forms almost pure stands as the most common understorey tree underneath the dominant forest canopy trees. Inocarpus fagifer trees are very vigorous and shade-tolerant. They thrive in moist to wet soils, and although their roots are often immersed almost continuously in water, the species does not appear to have pneumatophores. Corner [20] found that it is very common in the mildly brackish, tidal swampy forests in parts of east Johor (Peninsula Malaysia) from near the sea to some ten miles inland. In Java, individual trees can be found along river banks and canals, growing in moist soil [32]. Walter and Sam [28] reported that I. fagifer is often seen in villages and village gardens. It can be assumed with a high degree of certainty that in many cases, the species will have escaped from cultivation and colonised natural or secondary forests (Fig. 5).
6 Uses of the species
6.1 Seed
While nearly all parts of the tree have been used for multiple purposes by various cultures in the Asia–Pacific region, the seed has significant traditional importance as food, and it plays an important role in the diets of rural communities throughout the species’ area of distribution, in particular during the crop harvesting season [12, 13]. Huml et al. [17] even called the seed a “traditional staple food of the Pacific region”. At the same time, the seed may constitute a food supply insurance during times of natural disasters, when imported food and commercial crops are temporarily not available [10]. Kinaston et al. [33] referred to nuts and fruits of other crop trees as snacks which in the Solomon Islands are traditionally eaten outside the main meal. Although these authors did not explicitly mention I. fagifer, it can be assumed that its seeds, consumed as part of a main meal or outside mealtimes, were an important source of calories and nutrients. Pollock [34] called snacks outside main mealtimes “non-meal edibles”. In Tahiti and possibly elsewhere, non-meal edibles are part of complex dishes, which are cooked packed in an earth oven.
The fruits, containing the seeds, are harvested either directly from the tree at maturity or they are collected after they have fallen to the ground [9]. Pauku [16] states a yield of up to 75 kg fruits per tree and year for individual trees older than 25 years. The seeds are then extracted from the fruits. The seeds must be cooked (usually roasted in hot ashes or boiled) before consumption to remove mild toxins [14, 35]. Alternatively, the entire fruit can be baked, and the seeds extracted afterwards [36]. The taste is described as rather bland [13]. Seeds are also stored in underground pits after partial fermentation, as it is done with breadfruit [28]. The seeds can also be processed into a sort of jam [13]. In contrast, the seed testa and other parts of the fruit are not edible.
Handy [37, 200] provided the recipe of a popular dish piahi in the Marquesas Islands, prepared from grated I. fagifer seed mixed with coconut milk and baked in a stone oven.
The ihi nut (Inocarpus edulis), which may be roasted and eaten in the same way as the chestnut of America, is delicious when made into a piahi [= anything grated and mixed with coconut milk, and baked in a loaf]. The nut is cut open with an axe (formerly, the natives say, there grew an ihi which could be bitten open or torn apart with the fingers), the kernel is removed and soaked overnight, so that the dark skin can be peeled off. The kernel is then grated […] into the coconut milk, the immediate immersion in the liquid preventing it from turning dark and rancid. The milk and gratings are stirred constantly until a thick batter is formed. This is wrapped in banana leaves in long, flat packages, and baked in the oven.
I am aware of only two studies which looked at the nutrient content of the seeds. Setyowati and Wawo [38] analysed seeds from populations in west Java and found a high content of carbohydrates (75.79 to 77.70%). Huml et al. [17] analysed I. fagifer seeds for the presence of fatty acids, minerals, phenolic compounds (ferulic and coumaric acids being the most abundant phenolics) and B vitamins. Within the oil fraction, 14 unsaturated fatty acids and 21 saturated fatty acids were detected. The overall profile demonstrated a greater portion of polyunsaturated fatty acids (31%) over monounsaturated fatty acids (22%). The results of a mineral elements analysis showed that calcium, potassium, magnesium, phosphorus and sulphur were the most abundant elements, with a significance presence of micronutrients such as Cu, Mg, Mn and Zn. Huml et al. [17] concluded that seeds constitute a valuable dietary source.
6.2 Timber
Although Walter and Sam [28] stated that the wood of I. fagifer was of little use, other authors reported on a multitude of different uses. The use of the wood as firewood is often mentioned [for example, 9, 25, 31, 39]. Handy [37] and Huebert and Allan [21] reported on the use of large branches as firewood for a traditional earth oven feikai mei in the Marquesas Islands. In addition, the wood is used for light constructions, for tools such as axe handles, spears, and tapa cloth beaters [24], but also for furniture making (bed frames) and canoe manufacturing [9, 16, 25].
6.3 Medicine
While it is not uncommon at all to find literature references to the medicinal use of parts of the tree, these references seem to be based more on anecdotal evidence than pharmacological and ethnopharmacolocial research studies, and they lack any required detail to withstand scientific scrutiny. In Borneo and Java, tannin from the bark is taken internally as a remedy against intestinal disorders, which is consistent with Walter and Sam [28] and Pauku [16] who reported on the use of the bark to treat urinary infections. In the Marquesas Islands, the bark has medicinal uses [21], and Huml et al. [17] stated in rather general terms that various parts of the tree are used for medicinal purposes. The juice from the mesocarp of green fruits is used in Tonga to treat insect bites and burns [40].
6.4 Animal fodder
The leaves of I. fagifer are used as animal fodder [24, 32, 39]. Seeds are valued to feed free-range chicken [16, 24, 40].
7 Role of the species in the forest ecosystem
In addition to the various direct human uses of various parts of I. fagifer as summarised above, the species plays an important role in the forest ecosystems throughout its area of distribution, and provides additional ecosystem services to the local populations.
In Samoa, I. fagifer fruits are regularly eaten by different species of fruits bats in the Pteropodidae family, in particular during February and March when the availability of other fruits is limited [41]. A recent survey conducted in the Philippines shows that four different species of fruit bats regularly visit I. fagifer forests in the Philippines, that might act as pollinators for the tree while feeding on the nectar [42]. Fruit bats also contribute to the dispersal of the tree [28, 42]. The tree is a food source for birds and provides nesting site [29]. The extensive network of lateral roots extends a long distance from the trunk, which is useful for erosion protection and for the stabilisation of coastal land [16].
8 Past and current cultivation
Inocarpus fagifer is an important element in traditional agroforestry systems in the Asia–Pacific region. In islands of the Bismarck Archipelago and in the islands of Milne Bay Province (Papua New Guinea), the species is an important element of traditional village agriculture [12]. Pauku [9] showed for the island of Kolombangara (Solomon Islands) that I. fagifer trees grow naturally in old gardens and in different types of forests. In Vanuatu, individual village communities recognise an average of six (but up to 18) different cultivars which all carry specific names, in addition to many unnamed cultivars with highly variable fruits [14]. Pauku [16] and Thomson et al. [24] observed significant intraspecific variation in leaf and fruit shape and colour, with farmer-selected cultivars recognised not only in Vanuatu but also in Samoa and Tonga. Farmers in Solomon Islands confirmed that they select for trees with desirable seed characters [9]. Despite these reports on existing cultivars and the fruit variability, there is no evidence that I. fagifer has ever been domesticated [43], nor that deliberate breeding and crop improvement is taking place.
As part of traditional agroforestry systems, I. fagifer acts as a shelter and shade tree, in particular for crops such as taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) and giant taro (Alocasia macrorrhizos (L.) G.Don) [9, 29, 40]. Harrison and Karim [29] gave the example of a coastal site near Nadi in western Viti Levu (Fiji), where taro was planted as a farm household food crop next to an I. fagifer tree. Providing shade, wind protection, and avoiding topsoil drying are important during the establishment of the young taro plants. However, according to Pauku [16], I. fagifer should not be planted right next to taro and other light-demanding agricultural crops because of its dense canopy and suggests that only shade-tolerant agricultural crops should be planted in its vicinity.
Throughout the Pacific region, the importance of I. fagifer as a food plant has decreased considerably, and increasingly so over the last 60–70 years [36]. Walter and Sam [14] pointed out that its cultivation in the region has declined, although no official production statistics are available to quantify this decline, which is seen as the result of the widespread adoption of cassava and the increase of cultivation of sweet potato in rural agricultural systems [12] and of the availability of imported rice as an alternative food source [16]. Lepofsky [44] showed that the cultivation practices of the Maohi in the Society Islands of French Polynesia have undergone considerable changes since the time of European contact. Today only a limited number of traditional and introduced crops are raised in family gardens and fields. Of the traditional food plants, banana, taro, breadfruit, sweet potato, and yams are still commonly eaten, but many other previously widely cultivated plant species are no longer cultivated. Labour-intensive methods, such as nursery gardens or terraced irrigated fields, are no longer practiced [44]. In Papua New Guinea, the seeds of I. fagifer are not popular outside the immediate areas where I. fagifer trees grow [12]. Current cultivation of I. fagifer in the French Polynesian Society Islands could not be confirmed [44], despite the fact that villagers are eating the seeds.
Naturally germinated seedlings are plentiful but are usually not allowed to grow in order to keep the area clear around adult trees so to ease the gathering of the fruits. Although I. fagifer can be easily propagated by single-leaf stem cuttings or by planting seeds, and detailed propagation protocols are published [16], active new planting happens, if at all, only on a small scale. This is done either by planting a mature fruit or by transplanting a young seedling, Already Corner [20] pointed out that the Malays did not make any efforts to cultivate I. fagifer. There are no published data available on propagation and active planting of the species, so it is not possible to estimate or calculate the scale of propagation and planting. No information about specific pre-planting measures is known [16].
9 Pest and diseases
Inocarpus fagifer tends to be mostly disease-free; only few literature references mention pest and diseases. Pauku [16] observed very moderate infestations of young leaves by leaf miners in the Solomon Islands. No major pests or diseases are known to attack mature foliage. Developing flowers and fruits are susceptible to fruit flies, whereby the fruit flies lay eggs on the skins of the immature fruits, and the hatched larvae burrow themselves into the fleshy mesocarp [9]. Severe fruit-fly infestations may result in a total loss of yield, although some cultivars appear more resistant to fruit-fly attacks than others [24].
10 Commercial use
While the importance of I. fagifer as a food plant has decreased considerably over the last 60–70 years as mentioned above, there are no data or statistics available to quantify this decline, neither there are data available regarding its production and commercial use. Such data would be essential to answer the question to which degree I. fagifer is a commercially under-used and neglected crop. Reports about the commercial use of I. fagifer remain localised and largely anecdotal. In the Solomon Islands, surplus stock is commonly traded at local food markets [9]. Although local people in Java are generally not familiar with the tree or with its actual or potential utilisation, seeds are processed into a snack and sold in Jakarta on a limited scale [38], whereas Bourke and Harwood [36] reported for parts of Papua New Guinea that the seeds “can be found in local farmers markets”. Bourke and Harwood [36], in their most detailed overview over agriculture in Papua New Guinea, did not give any production figures for I. fagifer. Overall and until up-to-date statistics become available, it has to be assumed that commercial use including commercial marketing of I. fagifer does not take place beyond a rather limited, local scale [13].
This assumption stands in stark contrast to the potential of I. fagifer for commercial development and for a wider commercial use as an alternative food source [12, 38], not at least because of the nutritional value of the seeds and the general disease resistance of the tree. Before this potential can be fulfilled and the actual prospect for commercial development and use be changed to higher levels, fundamental questions need to be answered—currently limited or entirely unavailable information on various aspects of I. fagifer is at the moment one of the main obstacles.
For example, there is contradictory information about the storability of the seeds. While according to Evans [13], the seeds are easily stored and transported, which would make them good candidates for commercial marketing, Pauku [9] found that the fresh seeds possess only a limited shelf-life and deteriorate quickly, which would limit their commercial prospects at least until appropriate preservative methods are found. Air drying and smoking are two locally applied preservation methods. In Vanuatu, fresh fruits are dried on bamboo racks and in the dark, and thus stored for several months, whereas in Fiji, the fruits are smoked to extend the storability of the seeds [16]. Walter and Sam [28] reported on an effective traditional preservation technique, which consists of burying the seeds in a deep pit, or keeping them flat between two layers of grass. However, there are no quantitative data available on such preservation techniques or storage improvement more generally, and major postharvest handling challenges remain [24].
11 Availability in gene bank collections and current breeding work
Ex-situ gene bank accessions of I. fagifer are not available. An online search on global databases for plant genetic resources (Genesys PGR [45], FAO WIEWS [46], GRIN Global of the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System [47], and the seed list of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank [48]) showed that no active, accessible gene bank collection exists at all, anywhere in the world. NPGS [47] lists seven historic collections in their database, of which four accessions were sampled in French Polynesia, and one accession from Honduras, the youngest accession dating from 1981. Genesys PGR [45] lists one doubtful accession from Honduras dating from 1946, stored at CATIE, Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre Costa Rica. The apparent lack of accessible gene bank accessions of I. fagifer does not necessarily mean that no accessions exist. It might be possible that hidden accessions exist in a gene bank, but that their passport data have not been registered or shared with the global databases. But if this were the case and such accessions existed, as information about them are not available, they would remain hidden and inaccessible for researchers and breeders. To the best of my knowledge, no breeding work is happening.
12 Future directions
Inocarpus fagifer has been traditionally used in agroforestry systems in the Asia–Pacific region, and although this use has declined, the tree is still used locally and perceived as a valuable multipurpose tree by local village communities over large areas of the Pacific Ocean. It is currently impossible to quantify its present underuse. Nevertheless, the species retains a great potential for commercialisation and income generation for those village communities and as a component in a sustainable agroforestry production systems [8, 9]. Thomson et al. [24] recognised the scope for a range-wide selection and breeding programme to improve commercial traits in this species, especially seed size and value improvement as human food. One has to critically ask whether a breeding programme should be implemented for I. fagifer at all. A breeding programme with the aim to introduce a new commercial crop to be cultivated in monoculture would be culturally out of context and would contravene the species’ appearance in traditional agroforestry systems that pre-dates the European arrival in the Pacific region. Any new breeding should be kept in line with such traditional systems. In any case, in order to be used on a wider scale and commercially, several questions on various aspects need to be answered. First of all, additional knowledge on its local and traditional uses should be gathered. Secondly, a standard characterisation and inventory project including genetic and chemical features should map existing local varieties across its entire area of distribution. The diversity of local varieties on specific islands could indirectly pinpoint towards possible areas of origin and diversification and could help reconstruct the dispersal history across the Pacific Ocean. With this information, studies on its use and marketability could be conducted [11]. Standard techniques for the removal of the toxins present need to be developed. Some cultivars are said to have less toxicity, but this needs to be tested. If it is true, low toxin cultivars will need to be propagated and distributed. Regardless of processing techniques, it seems likely the flavour of the rather bland taste of the seeds needs to be improved [35]. Thomson et al. [24] wanted to see the species used as a major component of multispecies agroforestry and reforestation programs in low-lying coastal areas. Harrison and Karim [29] considered I. fagifer an ideal urban species, providing urban beautification and shade for parks and streets. Traditional farming systems of the Asia–Pacific region are inherently resilient. Climate-smart agriculture, using traditional multicrop garden systems is an approach being recommended to achieve sustainable agricultural development for food security under climate change [49]. Inocarpus fagifer might play a significant role in this.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Gliessman SR. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2019.
Schroth G, Da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Vasconcelos HL, Gascon C, Izac AMN. Introduction: the role of agroforestry in biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. In: Schroth G, Da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN, editors. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington: Island Press; 2004. p. 1–12.
Jose S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforest Syst. 2009;76:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7.
Kuyah S, Öborn I, Jonsson M. Regulating ecosystem services delivered in agroforestry systems. In: Dagar J, Tewari V, editors. Agroforestry. Singapore: Springer; 2017. p. 797–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7650-3_33.
Mahmud AA, Raj A, Jhariya MK. Agroforestry systems in the tropics: a critical review. AGBIR. 2020;36(5):83–7.
Clarke WC, Thaman RR. Agroforestry in the Pacific Islands: systems for sustainability. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 1993.
Shin S, Soe KT, Lee H, Kim TH, Lee S, Park MS. A systematic map of agroforestry research focusing on ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacific region. Forests. 2020;11:368. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11040368.
Shukla J, Dhyani S. Potential of traditional agroforestry systems for intensification of agriculture and meeting global goals: lessons from Asia and Africa. In: Dagar JC, Gupta SR, Sileshi GW, editors. Agroforestry for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Sustainability Sciences in Asia and Africa., Singapore: Springer; 2023. p. 665–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4602-8_20
Pauku RL. Domestication of indigenous fruit and nut trees for agroforestry in Solomon Islands. [PhD dissertation]. Townsville: James Cook University; 2005. http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/22458. Accessed 26 Oct 2023.
Thaman RR, Meleisea M, Makasiale J. Agricultural diversity and traditional knowledge as insurance against natural disasters. Pac Health Dialog. 2002;9(1):76–85.
Leakey RRB, Simons AJ. The domestication and commercialization of indigenous trees in agroforestry for the alleviation of poverty. Agrofor Syst. 1998;38:165–76.
Bourke RM. Edible Indigenous Nuts in Papua New Guinea. In: Stevens ML, Bourke RM, Evans BR, editors. South Pacific indigenous nuts. Proceedings of a workshop 31 October–4 November 1994, Le Lagon Resort, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); 1996. p. 45–55.
Evans BR. Overview of resource potential for indigenous nut production in the south pacific. In: Stevens ML, Bourke RM, Evans BR, editors. South Pacific indigenous nuts. Proceedings of a workshop 31 October–4 November 1994, Le Lagon Resort, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); 1996. p. 10–35.
Walter A, Sam C. Indigenous nut trees in Vanuatu: ethnobotany and variability. In: Stevens ML, Bourke RM, Evans BR, editors. South Pacific indigenous nuts. Proceedings of a workshop 31 October–4 November 1994, Le Lagon Resort, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); 1996. p. 56–66.
Adema F. Notes on Malesian Fabaceae (Leguminosae-Papilionoideae). 13. The genus Inocarpus. Blumea. 2007;52:401–7. https://doi.org/10.3767/000651907X609133.
Pauku RL. Inocarpus fagifer (Tahitian chestnut), ver. 2.1. In: Elevitch CR, editor. Species profiles for Pacific Island agroforestry. Holualoa: Permanent Agriculture Resources; 2006. p. 407.
Huml L, Miksatkova P, Novy P, Drabek O, Sabolova M, Umar M, Tejnecky V, Pohorela B, Kourimska L, Maskova E, Tulin A, Lapcik O, Kokoska L. Fatty acids, minerals, phenolics and vitamins in the seeds of Inocarpus fagifer, a Pacific Island underutilized legume. J Appl Bot Food Q. 2016;89:264–9. https://doi.org/10.5073/JABFQ.2016.089.034.
Leakey RRB, Newton AC. Domestication of ‘Cinderella’ species as a start of a woody plant revolution. In: Leakey RRB, Newton AC, editors. Tropical trees: potential for domestication and the rebuilding of forest resources. London: HMSO; 1994. p. 3–6.
Fosberg FR. Inocarpus fagiferus (Parkinson) Fosberg [Leguminosae]. J Wash Acad Sci. 1941;31:95–6.
Corner EJH. Notes on the systematy and distribution of Malayan Phanerogams III. Gard Bull Singap. 1939;10:239–329.
Huebert JM, Allen MS. Six centuries of anthropogenic forest change on a Polynesian high island: archaeological charcoal records from the Marquesas Islands. Q Sci Rev. 2016;137:79–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.01.017.
Smith A, Sangur K, Molle DF, Haurissa L, Maulany G, Renyaan B. Leaf and Stomata Morphometrics of Gayam Inocarpus fagifer (Fabaceae) at Different Altitudes. Jurnal Riset Biologi dan Aplikasinya. 2023;5(1):16–26. https://doi.org/10.26740/jrba.v5n1.p.16-26.
Spjut RW. A systematic treatment of fruit types. Memoires of the New York Botanical Garden 70. New York: New York Botanical Garden; 1994.
Thomson L, Doran J, Clarke B. Trees for life in Oceania: conservation and utilisation of genetic diversity. ACIAR Monograph No. 201. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; 2018.
Whistler WA. Plants of the canoe people: an ethnobotanical voyage through Polynesia. Lawai: National Tropical Botanical Garden; 2009.
Kirch PV. Late Holocene human-induced modifications to a central Polynesian island ecosystem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:5296–300. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.11.5296.
Hancock IR, Henderson CP. Flora of the Solomon Islands. Honiara (Solomon Islands): Dodo Creek Research Station, Research Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands; 1988.
Walter A, Sam C. Fruits of Oceania. ACIAR Monograph No. 85. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; 2002.
Harrison S, Karim MS. Promoting sustainable agriculture and agroforestry to replace unproductive land use in Fiji and Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; 2016.
Seemann B. Flora Vitiensis: a description of the plants of the Viti or Fiji Islands with an account of their history, uses, and properties. London: L. Reeve and Co.; 1873.
Dotte-Sarout E, Kahn JG. Ancient woodlands of Polynesia: a pilot anthracological study on Maupiti Island, French Polynesia. Q Int. 2017;457:6–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.10.032.
Wawo AH, Setyowati N, Utami NW. Studi Persebaran dan Pemanfaatan Gayam [Inocarpus fagifer (Parkinson ex Zollinger) Fosberg] di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Majalah Ilmiah Biologi Biosfera: Sci J. 2011;28(3):140–51.
Kinaston RL, Hallie R, Buckley HR, Gray A. Diet and social status on Taumako, a Polynesian outlier in the Southeastern Solomon Islands. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2013;151:589–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22314.
Pollock NJ. Food classification in three pacific societies: Fiji, Hawaii, and Tahiti. Ethnology. 1986;25(2):107–17.
Evans BR. What we don’t know about indigenous nuts in Melanesia. In: Stevens ML, Bourke RM, Evans BR, editors. South Pacific indigenous nuts. Proceedings of a workshop 31 October–4 November 1994, Le Lagon Resort, Port Vila, Vanuatu. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); 1996. p. 67–73.
Bourke RM, Harwood T. Food and agriculture in Papua New Guinea. Canberra: ANU E Press; 2009.
Handy ESC. The native culture in the Marquesas. Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum; 1923.
Setyowati N, Wawo AH, Husein A. Revealing the existence and potential of gayam (Inocarpus fagifer) as an alternative food source in Sukabumi, West Java. Pros Sem Nas Masy Biodiv Indon. 2015;1(1):71–7. https://doi.org/10.13057/psnmbi/m010111.
Elevitch C. Species profiles for Pacific Island agroforestry. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. 2006. https://www.sare.org/wp-content/uploads/EW02_001.pdf Accessed 16 Nov 2023.
Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Simons A. Agroforestree Database:a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. 2009. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/af/treedb/. Accessed 16 Nov 2023.
Banack SA. Diet selection and resource use by flying foxes (genus Pteropus). Ecology. 1998;79(6):1949–67. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[1949:DSARUB]2.0.CO;2.
Betco GL, Demetillo MT, Salanatin C, Along AA, Goloran AB. Preliminary assessment of chiropteran fauna within Kayam Forest (Inocarpus fagifer) in Barangay Pagatpatan, Butuan City, Philippines. Open Access Library J. 2021;8: e7251. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107251.
Pauku RL, Lowe AJ, Leakey RRB. Domestication of indigenous fruit and nut trees for agroforestry in the Solomon Islands. For Trees Livelihoods. 2010;19(3):269–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2010.9752671.
Lepofsky D. The ethnobotany of cultivated plants of the Maohi of the Society Islands. Econ Bot. 2003;57(1):73–92. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2003)057[0073:TEOCPO]2.0.CO;2.
Genesys PGR. Gateway to genetic resources. 2023. https://www.genesys-pgr.org/. Accessed 16 Nov 2023.
FAO. WIEWS—World Information and Early Warning System on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. 2023. https://www.fao.org/wiews/data/ex-situ-sdg-251/search/en/?no_cache=1. Accessed 16 Nov 2023.
NPGS. GRIN-Global, version 2.3.6. 2023. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/search. Accessed 16 Nov 2023.
RBG Kew. MSB seed list. 2023. https://apps.kew.org/seedlist/SeedlistServlet. Accessed 16 Nov 2023.
Lorens A, Taylor M, Hunter D, Borelli T. Promoting nutrition sensitive and climate smart agriculture through increased use of traditional underutilised species in the Pacific. Poster presented at Tropentag 2014. In: International Conference on Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development. “Bridging the Gap between Increasing Knowledge and Decreasing Resources” Prague (Czech Republic) Sep 17–19 2014. Rome: Bioversity International; 2014.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier text version. I am grateful to Jon Sullivan, Graham Montgomery, and Dominik M. Ramík who kindly permitted the use of their photographs. Peter C. van Welzen provided Fig. 2 drawn by artist Anita Walsmit Sachs. Filippo Guzzon commented on an earlier version of this article.
Funding
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author confirms sole responsibility for study conception and design, data gathering, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. This research did not include human participants and/or animals, nor did it require informed consent declarations.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Müller, J.V. The Tahitian chestnut [Inocarpus fagifer (Parkinson ex F.A.Zorn) Fosberg, Fabaceae], a neglected multi-purpose tree from the Asia–Pacific region. Discov Agric 2, 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-024-00020-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-024-00020-7