Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 81, Issue 3, pp 249–265 | Cite as

The effect of land use systems on tree diversity: farmer preference and species composition of cocoa-based agroecosystems in Ghana

  • Luke C. N. AnglaaereEmail author
  • Joseph Cobbina
  • Fergus L. Sinclair
  • Morag A. McDonald


Traditionally, most cocoa farms are established by removing the forest understorey and thinning the forest canopy so that cocoa seedlings can grow into productive trees by utilising the forest rent of the newly cleared area and the shade provided by the remaining trees. With the introduction of new hybrid cocoa varieties, there is a gradual shift towards the elimination of shade trees in the cocoa landscape. Farmers have found it necessary to eliminate forest tree species to effect high performance of these new varieties and as a result large areas of forested land are being lost, thereby posing a threat to biodiversity A study was carried out in Atwima, a major cocoa farming district in the Ashanti region of Ghana, to assess the impact of cocoa cultivation on tree diversity. The study also investigated farmers’ preferences for tree species retained on cocoa farms as well as their traditional knowledge on tree species and their effect on cocoa cultivation. The assessment consisted of identification and enumeration of all tree species with diameter at breast height greater than or equal to 10 cm, and was carried out on one-hectare plots of: (a) Active Cocoa Farms (ACF), stratified into (i) Mature Cocoa Forest (MCF) and (ii) Young Replanted Cocoa (YRC); (b) Fallow land (FL), and (c) Natural Forest (NF). A total of four one-hectare plots replicated five times (or 20 ha) were enumerated. Tree diversity was more strongly influenced by landuse type than age of cocoa farm. Fallow lands contained a higher tree diversity followed by natural forest, with the active cocoa farms, both mature and young, containing the lowest variety of species. However, stem count was highest in the natural forest followed by FL and ACF. Generally, stem counts of important tree species, as well as those classified as either endangered or vulnerable, were extremely low in the landscape (0–2 per hectare), indicating a critical potential for conservation and rejuvenation. Farmers’ preference for trees on cocoa farms was based on their usefulness. Three categories of trees emerged from their classification of trees on cocoa farms: (i) naturally occurring trees that are very useful; (ii) naturally occurring species of minor economic use; and (iii) naturally occurring tree species that are aggressive or incompatible with cocoa. Multistrata cocoa farms are a potential niche for conservation, but given the current trends in cocoa replanting, future conservation strategies will have to focus on identified targeted species which are of conservation concern, as well as those that are of value to farmers.


Agroforestry Biodiversity conservation Fallow Local knowledge Cocoa plantations 



This publication is an output from research projects funded by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association (BCCCA) of the United Kingdom (UK) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) [R7446 NRSP Research Programme]. The views expressed are not necessarily those of either organisation. The participation and enthusiasm of the Chief and farmers of Gogoikrom was greatly appreciated.


  1. Akinnifesi FK, Kang BT, Ladipo DO (1998) Structural root form and fine root distribution of some woody species evaluated for agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 42:121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alger K (1998) The reproduction of the cocoa industry and biodiversity in southern Bahia, Brazil. Paper from workshop held in Panama, 3/30–4/2, 1998. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Amanor KS (1996) Managing trees in the farming system: the perspective of farmers. Forest farming series no. 1. Forestry Department, GhanaGoogle Scholar
  4. Anglaaere LCN (2005) Improving the sustainability of cocoa farms in Ghana through utilization of native forest trees in agroforestry systems. Dissertation, University of Wales, BangorGoogle Scholar
  5. Anim-Kwapong G, Osei-Bonsu K (2009) Potential of natural and improved fallow using indigenous tress to facilitate cacao replanting in Ghana. Agfor Syst 76:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asare R (1999) Managing trees on farm levels: impact on crop production: a case study of the joint forest management project, Gwira-Banso, Ghana. Dissertation, Copenhagen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Asare R (2005) Cocoa agroforests in West Africa: a look at activities on preferred trees in the farming systems. The Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning (KVL), HorsholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Asare R (2006) Learning about neighbour trees in cocoa growing systems—a manual for farmer trainers. Forest and landscape development and environment series 4-2006, Copenhagen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Asase A, Tetteh DA (2010) The role of complex agroforestry systems in the conservation of forest tree diversity and structure in southeastern Ghana. Agrofor Syst 79:355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Augusseau X, Nikiéma P, Torquebiau E (2006) Tree biodiversity, land dynamics and farmers’ strategies on the agricultural frontier of southwestern Burkina Faso. Biodivers Conserv 15:613–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bellow JG, Nair PKR (2003) Comparing common methods for assessing understorey light availability in shaded-perennial agroforestry systems. Agric For Meteorol 114:197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collier G, Mountjoy D, Nigh R (1994) Peasant agriculture and global change. BioSience 44:398–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colwell RK (2005) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species form samples. Version 7.5 user’s guide and application.
  14. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, New York, p 942Google Scholar
  15. den Biggelaar C, Gold MA (1995) The use and value of multiple methods to capture the diversity of endogenous agroforestry knowledge: and example from Rwanda. Agrofor Syst 30:263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixon HJ, Doores JW, Joshi L, Sinclair FL (2001) Agroecological knowledge toolkit for windows (AKT5 version 1.20): methodological guidelines, computer software and manual. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Donald PF (2004) Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural production systems. Conserv Biol 18:17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (2002) Agriculture data. Available at
  19. Finegan B, Nasi R (2004) The biodiversity and conservation potential of shifting cultivation landscapes: implications for the management of biodiversity. In: Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN (eds) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation of tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington, pp 153–197Google Scholar
  20. Fox J, Truong DM, Rambo AT, Tuyen NP, Cuc T, Leisz S (2000) Shifting cultivation: a new old paradigm for managing tropical forests. Bioscience 50(6):521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gockowski J, Sonwa D (2008) Biodiversity and small holder cocoa production systems in West Africa sustainable tree crops program (STCP) working paper series 6 (Version January 2008). International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Accra, GhanaGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenberg R, Bichier P, Cruz Angón A (2000) The conservation value for birds of cacao plantations with diverse planted shade in Tabasco, Mexico. Anim Conserv 3:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall JB, Swaine MD (1981) Distribution and ecology of vascular plants in a tropical rainforest. Junk, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawthorne W, Abu-Juam M (1995) Forest protection in ghana: with particular reference to vegetation and plant species. IUCN forest conservation programme. IUCN/ODA/Forestry Department of Ghana, p 202Google Scholar
  25. IUCN (2006) 2006 IUCN red list of threatened species.
  26. Jama B, Buresh RJ, Ndufa JK, Shepherd KD (1998) Vertical distribution of roots and soil nitrate: tree species and phosphorus effects. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein A-M, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2002) Predator-prey ratios on cocoa along a land-use gradient in Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv 11:683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumar K (1987) Conducting group interviews in developing countries. AID program design and evaluation methodology report no. 8. Agency for International Development, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Leakey RRB (2001) Win:win landuse strategies for Africa. 2. Capturing economic and environmental benefits with multistrata agroforests. Int For Rev 3:11–18Google Scholar
  30. Lenne JM, Wood D (1999) Optimizing biodiversity for productive agriculture. In: Wood D, Lenne JM (eds) Agrobiodiversity: characterization, utilization and management. CABI Publishing, UK, pp 447–470Google Scholar
  31. Lott JE, Black CR, Ong CK (2000) Long term productivity of Grevillea robusta-based agroforestry system in semi-arid Kenya. II. Crop growth and system performance. For Ecol Manag 139:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCrady RL, Jokela EJ (1998) Canopy dynamics, light interception, and radiation use efficiency of selected loblolly pine families. For Sci 44:64–72Google Scholar
  33. McCune B, Mefford MJ (1997) Multivariate analysis of ecological data version 3.20. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon USAGoogle Scholar
  34. McNeely JA, Schroth G (2006) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation—traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Biodiv Conserv 15:549–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mekonnen K, Buresh RJ, Coe R, Kipleting KM (1999) Root length and nitrate under Sesbania sesban: vertical and horizontal distribution and variability. Agrofor Syst 42:265–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ministry of Environment, Science (2002) National biodiversity strategy for Ghana. Ministry of Environment and Science, AccraGoogle Scholar
  37. Monteith JL (1990) Steps in crop climatology. In: Unger PW, Sneed TV, Jordan WR, Jensen R (eds) Challenges in dryland agriculture. A global perspective. Bushland Research Center, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Myers N (1986) Forestland farming in Western Amazonia: stable and sustainable. For Ecol Manag 15:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ngobo MP, McDonald MA, Weise SF (2004) Impact of fallow and invasion by Chromolaena odorata on weed communities of crop fields in Cameroon. Ecol Soc 9(2):1. Google Scholar
  40. Oduro CA, Osei-Bonsu K, Tetteh JP (2003) Traditional cocoa agroforestry: 2. Indigenous selection criteria for shade trees on cocoa farms in a typical cocoa growing district of Ghana. Paper presented at 14th international cocoa research conference, Accra, Ghana, 13–18 October 2003Google Scholar
  41. Oke DO, Odebiyi KA (2007) Traditional cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in Ondi State, Nigeria. Agric Ecosys Environ 122:305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Osei-Bonsu K, Ameyaw Oduro C, Tetteh JP (2003) Traditional cocoa agroforestry: 1. Species encountered in the cocoa ecosystem of a typical cocoa growing district in Ghana. 14th international cocoa research conference, Accra, Ghana. 13–18th October 2003Google Scholar
  43. Padi B, Owusu GK (1998) Towards an integrated pest management for sustainable cocoa production in Ghana. Paper from workshop held in Panama, 3/30–4/2, 1998. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Parrish J, Reitsma R, Greenberg R (1998) Cacao as crop and conservation tool. Paper from workshop on shade grown cocoa held in Panama, 3/30–4/2, 1998. Smithsonian Migratory Bird Centre. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Perfecto I, Rice R, Greenberg R, Van der Voort M (1996) Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 46:598–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Putz F, Redford K, Robinson J, Fimbel R, Blate G (2000) Biodiversity and conservation in the context of tropical forest management. Biodiversity series impact studies no. 1. The World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Rao MR, Muraya P, Huxley PA (1993) Observations of some tree root systems in agroforestry intercrop situations, and their graphical representation. Exp Agric 29:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rao MR, Nair PKR, Ong CK (1998) Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 38:3–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rice RA, Greenberg R (2000) Cacao cultivation and the conservation of biological diversity. Ambio 29:81–87Google Scholar
  50. Ruf F, Schroth G (2004) Chocolate forests and monocultures: a historical review of cocoa growing and its conflicting role in tropical deforestation and forest conservation. In: da Fonseca AB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AN, Schroth G (eds) Agroforestry and biodivesity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington, p 523Google Scholar
  51. Ruf F, Deheuvels O, Sarpong D (2006) Intensification in cocoa cropping systems: is agroforestry a solution for sustainability? The case of Manso Amenfi, Western region, . 15th International conference on cocoa research, vol 1. San Jose, Costa Rica, pp. 355–364Google Scholar
  52. Ruf F, Zadi H (1998) Cocoa: From deforestation to reforestation. Paper presented at the first international workshop on sustainable cocoa growing, Smithsonian Institute, Panama (
  53. Rusten EP, Gold MA (1991) Understanding and indigenous knowledge system for tree fodder via multi-method on-farm research approach. Agrofor Syst 15:139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schroth G, Gustavo AB da Fonseca, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN (eds) (2004) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington DC, p 523Google Scholar
  55. Siebert SF (2002) From shade- to sun-grown perennial crops in Sulawesi, Indonesia: imlication for biodiversity conservation and soil fertility. Biodivers Conserv 11:1889–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Singh RP, Ong CK, Saharan N (1989) Above and belowground interactions in alley-cropping in semi-arid India. Agrofor Syst 9:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sonwa DL, Nkongmeneck BA, Weise SF, Tchatat M, Adesina AA, Janssens MJJ (2007) Diversity of plants in cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone of Southern Cameroon. Biodivers Conserv 16:2385–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Southern AJ (1994) Acquisition of indigenous ecological knowledge about forest gardens in Kandy District, Sri Lanka. Dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor, UKGoogle Scholar
  59. Stenberg P, Kuuluvainen T, Kellomäki S, Grace J, Jokela EJ, Gholz HL (1994) Crown structure, light interception and productivity of pine trees and stands. In: Gholz HL, Linder S, McMurtrie RE (eds) Environmental constraints on the structure and productivity of pine forest ecosystems: a comparative analysis. Ecol Bull 43:20–34Google Scholar
  60. Taylor CJ (1960) Synecology and silviculture in Ghana. Thomas Nelson and Co., London, UKGoogle Scholar
  61. Tchoundjeu Z, Kengue J, Leakey RRB (2002) Domestication of Dacryodes edulis: state-of-the-art. For Trees Livelihoods 12:3–13Google Scholar
  62. Thapa B (1994) Farmers’ ecological knowledge about the management and use of farmland tree fodder resources in the mid-hills of eastern Nepal. Dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor, UKGoogle Scholar
  63. Thrupp LA (1998) Cultivating diversity: agrobiodiversity and food security. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang YP, Jarvis PG (1990) Influence of crown structural properties on PAR absorption, photosynthesis and transpiration in Sitka spruce: application of a model (MAESTRO). Tree Phys 7:297–316Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luke C. N. Anglaaere
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joseph Cobbina
    • 1
  • Fergus L. Sinclair
    • 2
  • Morag A. McDonald
    • 2
  1. 1.Forestry Research Institute of GhanaKumasiGhana
  2. 2.School of Environment, Natural Resources and GeographyWalesUK

Personalised recommendations