Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp 27–39 | Cite as

Performance of an improved fallow system in the Peruvian Amazon—modelling approach

  • Bohdan LojkaEmail author
  • Jana Lojkova
  • Jan Banout
  • Zbynek Polesny
  • Daniel Preininger
Article

Abstract

As traditional slash-and-burn systems with prolonged fallow periods are no longer feasible in most parts of the tropics, improved agroforestry systems have high potential to increase the productivity of farming systems and sustain continuous crop production. Our objective was to assess biophysical and economic performance of planted leguminous tree fallow (using Inga edulis) compared to the traditional slash-and-burn farming system, practiced by farmers on fields infested with noxious weedy grass Imperata brasiliensis around the city of Pucallpa, Peru. An existing agroforestry model SCUAF was used to predict biophysical factors, such as changes in soil characteristics and farm outputs (crop and tree yield). While a cost–benefit analysis spreadsheet, which uses the output from SCUAF and economic data on input/output levels and prices, calculates economic performance of the systems. The Inga fallow system can provide improvements to a range of soil biophysical measures (C, N, P content). This enables higher levels of farm outputs to be achieved (higher cassava yields). However, for smallholders the improved system must be more economically profitable than the existing one. At prices currently encountered, the Inga fallow system is more profitable than the Imperata fallow system only in the long-term. In adopting the Inga fallow system, smallholders will incur lower profits in the first years, and it will take approximately 10 years for smallholders to begin making a profit above that achievable with the Imperata fallow system. Unless smallholders are capable of accepting the lower profitability in first years, they are less likely to adopt the new system.

Keywords

Cost–benefit analysis Inga edulis Imperatabrasiliensis SCUAF Slash-and-burn 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conduct in the frame of Czech Development Cooperation project in Peru No. 80/03-06/Mze/B and was also supported by the grant of FRVS—Czech Fund for Development of Higher Education No. 1525/2003.

References

  1. Alegre JC, Rao MR, Arevalo LA, Guzman W, Faminow MD (2005) Planted tree fallows for improving land productivity in the humid tropics of Peru. Agric Ecosyst Environ 110:104–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrios E, Cobo JG, Rao MI, Thomas RJ, Amézquita E, Jiménez JJ, Rondón A (2005) Fallow management for soil fertility recovery in tropical Andean agroecosystems in Colombia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 110:29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chirwa TS, Mafongoya PL, Mbewe DNM, Chishala BH (2004) Changes in soil properties and their effects on maize productivity following Sesbania sesban and Cajanus cajan improved fallow systems in eastern Zambia. Biol Fert Soils 40:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ehui SK, Kang BT, Spencer DSC (1990) Economic analysis of soil erosion effects in alley cropping, no-till and bush fallow systems in South Western Nigeria. Agric Syst 34:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekeleme F, Chikoye D, Akobundu IO (2004) Changes in size and composition of weed communities during planted and natural fallows. Basic Appl Ecol 5:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fujisaka S, White D (1998) Pasture or permanent crops after slash-and-burn cultivation? Land-use choice in three Amazon colonies. Agroforest Syst 42:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujisaka S, Escobar G, Veneklaas EJ (2000) Weedy fields and forest: interactions between land use and the composition of plant communities in the Peruvian Amazon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 78:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grist P, Menz K, Nelson R (1999) Multipurpose trees as improved fallow: an economic assessment. Int Tree Crop J 10:19–36Google Scholar
  9. Hartemink AE (2005) Nutrient stocks of short-term fallows on a high base status soil in the humid tropics of Papua New Guinea. Agroforest Syst 63(1):33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jama B, Buresh RJ, Place FM (1998) Sesbania tree fallows on phosphorus-deficient sites: maize yield and financial benefit. Agron J 90:717–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaya B, Hildebrand PE, Nair PKR (2000) Modelling changes in farming systems with the adoption of improved fallows in southern Mali. Agric Syst 66:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keil A, Zeller M, Franzel S (2005) Improved tree fallows in smallholder maize production in Zambia: do initial testers adopt the technology? Agroforest Syst 64:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Limache A (2005) Performance de yuca (Manihot esculenta) en los diferentes sistemas de cultivo. Investigación universitaria I compendio. Universidad Nacional de Ucayali, Pucallpa, Peru, pp 36–54Google Scholar
  14. Magcale-Macandog DB, Predo CD, Menz K, Calub AD (1998) Napier grass strips and livestock: a bioeconomic analysis. Agroforest Syst 40:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Menz K, Magcle-Macandog DB, Rusastra WI (1998) Improving smallholder farming systems in Imperata areas of Southeast Asia: alternatives to shifting cultivation. ACIAR monograph no. 52, Canberra, Australia, p 280Google Scholar
  16. MINAG – Ministerio de Agricultura Ucayali (2002) Datos Climatologicos de la Región Ucayali. Dirección del Información Agraria, Pucallpa, PeruGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelson RA, Cramb RA, Menz K, Mamicpic MA (1998) Cost-benefit analysis of alternative forms of hedgerow intercropping in the Philippine uplands. Agroforest Syst 39:241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Riesco A (1995) Conservacion del bosque Amazonico, una estrategia comun sobre la base de la estabilizacion de la agricultura migratoria y el manejo sostenible del bosque. Proyecto Bosque. Procitropicos, Pucallpa, PeruGoogle Scholar
  19. Szott LT, Palm CA, Davey CB (1994) Biomass and litter accumulation under managed and natural tropical fallows. For Ecol Manage 6:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szott LT, Palm CA, Buresh RJ (1999) Ecosystem fertility and fallow function in the humid and subhumid tropics. Agroforest Syst 47:163–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tambula I, Sinden JA (2000) Sustainability and economic efficiency of agroforestry systems in Embu District, Kenya: an application of environmental modelling. Environ Model Softw 15:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. TCA (1997) Situacion y perspectivas de la seguridad alimentaria en la Amazoina. Tratado de Cooperation Amazonico, Secretaria Pro Tempore, Caracas, VenezuelaGoogle Scholar
  23. Vermeulen SJ, Woomer P, Campbell BM, Kamukondiwa W, Swift MJ, Prost PGH, Civaura C, Murwira HK, Mutambanengwe F, Nyathi P (1993) Use of the SCUAF model to simulate natural Miombo woodland and maize monoculture ecosystems in Zimbabwe. Agroforest Syst 22:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Young A, Menz K, Muraya P, Smith C (1998) SCUAF Version 4 – A model to estimate soil changes under agriculture, agroforestry and forestry. ACIAR Technical Reports Series No. 41, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bohdan Lojka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jana Lojkova
    • 1
  • Jan Banout
    • 1
  • Zbynek Polesny
    • 1
  • Daniel Preininger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Tropics and SubtropicsCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations