Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 47–70 | Cite as

Structure and function of traditional agroforestry systems in the western Himalaya. I. Biomass and productivity

  • Om Parkash Toky
  • Pradeep Kumar
  • Prem Kumar Khosla


Species composition, biomass, and productivity patterns of three types of traditional agroforestry systems, namely, agrisilvicultural, agrihorticultural, and agrihortisilvicultural, commonly practiced in the western Himalaya, were studied. Species composition in the systems varied depending upon the size of the land holdings, and the basic requirements of the farmer. Among three systems agrihortisilvicultural was highly diverse in vegetation, with as many as 13 tree and 5 agricultural crops mixed together. This system showed the highest productivity up to 25.8 t ha−1 yr−1, out of which 68 percent was contributed by the trees and the remainder by the annuals. Agrisilvicultural system having predominantly annuals had the lowest productivity of 20.4 t ha−1 yr−1 with only 27 percent contribution by the trees. Total aboveground biomass in agrihortisilvicultural or agrihorticultural system was around 48 t ha−1 and it was about 2-fold higher than agrisilvicultural system. In fodder trees, a significant percentage of annual production, up to 48 percent, was allocated in current twigs, while in horticultural trees a major portion, up to 63 percent was partioned towards fruits. Implications of the results have been discussed in context with the growing problems of fuel, fodder, and packaging material in the western Himalaya.

Key words

Western Himalaya traditional agroforestry systems species composition biomass productivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bartholomew WV, Meyer J and Laudelout H (1953) Mineral nutrient immobilization under forest and grass fallow in the Yangambi (Belgian Congo) region. Publications de L'Institut National pour L'Etude Agronomique de Congo Belge, Serie Scientifique 57: 1–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borthakur DN, Singh A, Awasthi RP and Rai RN (1978) Shifting cultivation in the north-eastern region. In: Resources Development and Environment in the Himalayan Region, pp 330–342, Sci and Tech Depart, Govt of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Budowski G (1983) An attempt to quantity some current agroforestry practices in Costa Rica. In: Huxley PA (ed) Plant Research and Agroforestry, p 43–62. ICRAF, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burley J and von Carlowitz PG (1984) Multipurpose Tree Germplasm. ICRAF, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burley J (1987) Exploitation of the potential of multipurpose trees and shrubs in agroforestry. In: Steppler HA and Nair PKR (eds) Agroforestry: A Decade of Development, pp. 273–288. ICRAF, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curtis JT (1959) The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of Wisconsin Press, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards PJ and Grubb PJ (1977) Studies of mineral cycling in a montane rain forest in New Guinea. I. The distribution of organic matter in the vegetation and soil. J Ecol 65: 943–969Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fernandes ECM and Nair PKR (1986) An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical homegardens. Agric Syst 21: 279–310Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frissel MJ (ed) (1977) Cycling of mineral nutrients in agricultural ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 4: 1–354Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harper JL (1974) Agricultural ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 1: 1–6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huxley PA (1983) Phenology of tropical woody perennials and seasonal crop plants with reference to their management in agroforestry systems. In: Huxley PA (ed) Plant Research and Agroforestry, pp 503–526. ICRAF, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khosla PK (ed) (1985) Improvement of Forest Biomass. Ambica Publications, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khosla PK and Toky OP (1985) Renewed scientific interest in agroforestry. In: Khosla PK, Khurana DK and Puri S (eds) Agroforestry Systems: A New Challenge, pp 7–23. Indian Society of Tree Scientist, Solan, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kira T and Shidei T (1967) Primary production and turnover of organic matter in different forest ecosystems of the western Pacific. Japanese J Ecol 17: 70–87Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loucks OL (1977) Emergence of research on agro-ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8: 177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lowrance R, Stinner BR and House GJ (eds) (1984) Agricultural Ecosystems: Unifying Concepts, John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lundgren B and Nair PKR (1985) Agroforestry for soil conservation. In: El-Swaify SA, Moldenhauer WC, and Lo A (eds) Soil Erosion and Conservation, pp 703–717, Soil Conservation Society of America, Nakey, IowaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Margalef R (1968) Perspective in Ecological Theory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Maydell HJ (1984) Agroforestry: The contribution of trees and shrubs to food in the tropics. Universitas 26: 207–216Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nair PKR (1984) Soil Productivity Aspects of Agroforestry. ICRAF, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newbould PJ (1967) Methods for Estimating the Primary Production of Forest. International Biological Programme, Handbook No. 2. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ng SK, Thamboo S and Souza P (1968) Nutrient contents of oil-palms in Malaya. II. Nutrients in vegetative tissue. Malay Agric J 46: 332Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nye PH and Greenland DJ (1960) The Soil Under Shifting Cultivation. Technical Communication No 51, Commonwealth Bureau of Soils, HarpendenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pandey U and Singh JS (1984) Energetics of hill agro-ecosystems: A case study from Central Himalaya. Agric Syst 13: 83–95Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramakrishnan PS, Toky OP, Mishra BK and Saxena KG (1981) Slash and burn agriculture in northeastern India. In: Mooney HA, Bonnicksen TM, Christensen NL, Lotan JE and Reiners WA (eds) Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties, pp 570—586. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report WO-26, Honolulu, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh GB (1987) Agroforestry in the Indian subcontinent: past, present, and future. In: Steppler HA and Nair PKR (eds) Agroforestry: A Decade of Development, pp 117–137. ICRAF, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh J and Ramakrishman PS (1982) Structure and function of a sub-tropical humid forest of Meghalaya. II. Litter dynamics and nutrient cycling. Proc Indian Acad Sci (Plant Sci) 91: 255–268Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh RV (1982a) Forest biomass as a source of energy. In: Khosla PK (ed) Improvement of Forest Biomass, pp 293–298. Indian Society of Tree Scientists, SolanGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh RV (1982b) Wastage of spruce and silver fir wood in the manufacture of wooden boxes for packing apples in Himachal Pradesh. J Tree Sci 1: 71–76Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh RV (1982c) Fodder Trees in India, Oxford-IBH, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spurr SH (1952) Forest Inventory. 476 p, The Ronald Press Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steinlin H (1979) Development of new agroforestry land use systems in the humid tropics. Plant Res Dev 10: 7–17Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stern VM, Adkisson PL, Beingolea OG and Viktorov GA (1976) Cultural controls. In: Huffaker CB and Messenger PS (eds) Theory and Practice of Biological Control, pp 593–613. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stokes V (1983) Need for substitute packaging for environmental harmony. In: National Workshop on Substituting Forest Timber for Packaging of Horticultural Produce, Tea, Tobacco and Textiles. July 30–31, Vigyan Bhavan, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Swaminathan MS (1987) The promise of agroforestry for ecological and nutritional security. In: Steppler HA and Nair PKR (eds) Agroforestry: A Decade of Development, pp 25–42. ICRAF, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Templeton JK (1968) Growth studies in Hevea brasilensis. I. Growth analysis up to seven years after bud-grafting. Rubber Res Inst Malaya 20: 136Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toky OP and Khosla PK (1984) Comparative growth of agroforestry trees (indigenous vs exotic) in subtropical western Himalaya. J Tree Sci 3; 93–98Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Toky OP and Ramakrishnan PS (1981) Cropping and yields in agricultural systems of the north-eastern hill region of India. Agro-Ecosystems 7: 11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Toky OP and Ramakrishnan PS (1982) A comparative study of the energy budget of hill agro-ecosystems with emphasis on the slash and burn agriculture (jhum) at lower elevations of northeastern India. Agric Syst 9: 143–154Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Toky OP and Ramakrishnan PS (1983a) Secondary succession following slash and burn agriculture in north-eastern India. I. Biomass, litterfall and productivity. J Ecol 71: 735–745Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Toky OP and Ramakrishnan PS (1983b) Secondary succession following slash and burn agriculture in north-eastern India. II. Nutrient cycling. J Ecol 71: 747–757Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Om Parkash Toky
    • 1
  • Pradeep Kumar
    • 2
  • Prem Kumar Khosla
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ForestryHaryana Agricultural UniversityHisarIndia
  2. 2.Department of Tree Improvement and Genetic ResourcesDr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and ForestryIndia

Personalised recommendations