Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 107–119 | Cite as

Promoting native trees in shade coffee plantations of southern India: comparison of growth rates with the exotic Grevillea robusta

  • Cheryl D. NathEmail author
  • Raphaël Pélissier
  • B. R. Ramesh
  • Claude Garcia
Article

Abstract

Traditional shade coffee plantations of Kodagu district, in the Western Ghats of southern India, harbor a high density and diversity of trees. Local farmers appreciate native biodiversity, but plantation economics and public policies drive them to gradually replace the original diversified cover with exotic shade trees such as Grevillea robusta, which grows fast and can be easily traded as timber. In order to identify and recommend native timber trees with fast growth rates, we compared the growth performance of four common native species against that of G. robusta, by fitting steel dendrometer bands on 332 shade trees. Results showed that in general G. robusta had the fastest growth rates, but large trees of the native Acrocarpus fraxinifolius had faster growth in the wet western side of the district. Computer projections of long term performance showed that most species were influenced by bioclimatic zone. Species-specific local environmental effects also occurred, including competition from coffee bushes for A. fraxinifolius, influence of aspect for G. robusta, and management block effects for Lagerstroemia microcarpa. Our results show that native species potentially could produce timber at rates equivalent to those of exotic species. However, as in many tropical countries, data on growth rates of native trees within mixed-cover plantations are scarce and this study underlines the urgent need to screen for fast-growing species. Such information provides a strong basis for recommending appropriate changes in public policies that would improve tree tenure security and encourage farmers to grow more native species.

Keywords

Silver oak Bioclimatic zone Mixed effects model Topography Competition index Tropical 

Abbreviations

KFD

Karnataka Forest Department

LME

Linear mixed effects

NCI

Neighbor competition index

BA

Basal area

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the CAFNET project of the EuropAid program of the European Union (Connecting, enhancing and sustaining environmental services and market values of coffee agroforestry in Central America, East Africa and India, CAFNET—Europaid/ENV/2006/114-382/TPS), and by a Critical Ecosystems Partnerships Fund Small Grant (to CDN) administered by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore. We thank the management of Tata Coffee Ltd., BBTC Ltd. (Elkhill Group), Biodiversity Conservation India Ltd., and Kabinakad estate, as well as individual farmers who permitted monitoring of trees at their plantations and participated in interviews. We also thank R. Ramalingam for preparing dendrometer bands, S. Aravajy and N. Barathan for tree identifications, K. M. Nanaya for map preparation, and A. Prathap and J. D. Murugesh for field assistance. Comments from two anonymous reviewers helped improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Ambinakudige S, Sathish BN (2009) Comparing tree diversity and composition in coffee farms and sacred forests in the Western Ghats of India. Biodivers Conserv 18:987–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baggio AJ, Caramori PH, Androcioli Filho A, Montoya L (1997) Productivity of Southern Brazilian coffee plantations shaded by different stockings of Grevillea robusta. Agrofor Syst 37:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhagwat S, Kushalappa C, Williams P, Brown N (2005) The role of informal protected areas in maintaining biodiversity in the Western Ghats of India. Ecol Soc 10(1): article 8. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art8/
  4. Clark DB, Clark DA (1996) Abundance, growth and mortality of very large trees in neotropical lowland rain forest. For Ecol Manag 80:235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Condit R, Hubbell SP, Foster RB (1994) Density dependence in two understory tree species in a neotropical forest. Ecology 75:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dhyani SK, Tripathi RS (1999) Tree growth and crop yield under agrisilvicultural practices in north-east India. Agrofor Syst 44:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elouard C (2000) Vegetation features in relation to biogeography. In: Ramakrishnan PS, Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C et al (eds) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, pp 25–42Google Scholar
  8. Elouard C, Chaumette M, de Pommery H (2000) The role of coffee plantations in biodiversity conservation. In: Ramakrishnan PS, Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C et al (eds) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, pp 120–144Google Scholar
  9. Gamble JS (1935) Flora of the presidency of Madras. Adlard and Son, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia CA, Bhagwat SA, Ghazoul J et al (2010) Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforestry in the Western Ghats, India. Conserv Biol 24:479–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghazoul J (2007) Challenges to the uptake of the ecosystem service rationale for conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1651–1652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Haller G (1910) Report on land revenue re-settlement of Coorg. Shakti Printers, MadikeriGoogle Scholar
  13. Harwood CE (1989) Grevillea robusta: an annotated bibliography. International Council for Research in Agroforestry, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  14. Jama B, Nair PKR, Kurira PW (1989) Comparative growth performance of some multipurpose trees and shrubs grown at Machakos, Kenya. Agrofor Syst 9:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalinganire A (1996) Performance of Grevillea robusta in plantations and on farms under varying environmental conditions in Rwanda. For Ecol Manag 80:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King DA, Davies SJ, Nur Supardi MN, Tan S (2005) Tree growth is related to light interception and wood density in two mixed Dipterocarp forests of Malaysia. Funct Ecol 19:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. King DA, Davies SJ, Noor NSM (2006) Growth and mortality are related to adult tree size in a Malaysian mixed dipterocarp forest. For Ecol Manag 223:152–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kusters K, De Foresta H, Ekadinata A, van Noordwijk M (2007) Towards solutions for state vs. local community conflicts over forestland: the impact of formal recognition of user rights in Krui, Sumatra, Indonesia. Hum Ecol 35:4427–4438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lieberman M, Lieberman D (1985) Simulation of growth curves from periodic increment data. Ecology 66:632–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lott JE, Howard SB, Ong CK, Black CR (2000a) Long-term productivity of a Grevillea robusta-based overstorey agroforestry system in semi-arid Kenya. I. Tree growth. For Ecol Manag 139:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lott JE, Howard SB, Ong CK, Black CR (2000b) Long-term productivity of a Grevillea robusta-based overstorey agroforestry system in semi-arid Kenya. II. Crop growth and system performance. For Ecol Manag 139:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonald MA, Hofny-Collins A, Healey JR, Goodland TCR (2003) Evaluation of trees indigenous to the montane forest of the Blue Mountains, Jamaica for reforestation and agroforestry. For Ecol Manag 175:379–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nath CD, Dattaraja HS, Suresh HS et al (2006) Patterns of tree growth in relation to environmental variability in the tropical dry deciduous forest at Mudumalai, southern India. J Biosci 31:651–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nath CD, Pélissier R, Garcia C (2010) Comparative efficiency and accuracy of variable area transects versus square plots for sampling tree diversity and density. Agrofor Syst 79:223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neilson J (2008) Environmental governance in the coffee forests of Kodagu, South India. Transform Cult eJournal 3(1):185–195Google Scholar
  26. Okorio J, Byenkya S, Wajja N, Peden D (1994) Comparative performance of seventeen upperstorey tree species associated with crops in the highlands of Uganda. Agrofor Syst 26:185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park A, van Breugel M, Ashton M et al (2010) Local and regional environmental variation influences the growth of tropical trees in selection trials in the Republic of Panama. For Ecol Manag 260:12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pascal J-P (1988) Wet evergreen forests of the Western Ghats of India; ecology, structure, floristic composition and successio. Institut Français de Pondicherry, PondicherryGoogle Scholar
  29. Pélissier R, Pascal J-P (2000) Two-year tree growth patterns investigated from monthly girth records using dendrometer bands in a wet evergreen forest in India. J Trop Ecol 16:429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S et al (2008) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-89Google Scholar
  32. Puri S, Nair PKR (2004) Agroforestry research for development in India: 25 years of experiences of a national program. Agrofor Syst 61:437–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL: http://www.R-project.org
  34. Russell D, Franzel S (2004) Trees of prosperity: agroforestry, markets and the African smallholder. Agrofor Syst 61:345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swaine MD, Hall JB, Alexander IJ (1987) Tree population dynamics at Kade, Ghana (1968–1982). J Trop Ecol 3:331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Takaoka S (2008) Long-term growth performance of Cordia africana and Grevillea robusta trees in the Mount Kenya region. Agrofor Syst 72:169–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uriarte M, Condit R, Canham CD, Hubbell SP (2004) A spatially explicit model of sapling growth in a tropical forest: does the identity of neighbors matter? J Ecol 92:348–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vijaya TP (2000) Contemporary society and land tenure. In: Ramakrishnan PS, Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C et al (eds) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, pp 44–53Google Scholar
  39. Yamada M, Gholz HL (2002) Growth and yield of some indigenous trees in an Amazonian agroforestry system: a rural-history-based analysis. Agrofor Syst 55:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. York RA, Fuchs D, Battles JJ, Stephens SL (2010) Radial growth responses to gap creation in large, old Sequoiadendron giganteum. Appl Veg Sci 13:498–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheryl D. Nath
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raphaël Pélissier
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. R. Ramesh
    • 1
  • Claude Garcia
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.French Institute of Pondicherry, UMIFRE CNRS-MAEE 21PondicherryIndia
  2. 2.IRD, UMR AMAPMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.CIRAD – UPR B&SEFMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations