Sustainability Science

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 641–656 | Cite as

Constraints to the adoption of fodder tree technology in Malawi

  • Gregory G. Toth
  • P. K. Ramachandran Nair
  • Colm P. Duffy
  • Steven C. Franzel
Special Feature: Original Article Sustainability Science for Meeting Africa’s Challenges
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Sustainability Science for Meeting Africa’s Challenges

Abstract

The declining availability of grazing land and the increasing prices of commercial dairy feed threaten the sustainability of traditional smallholder livestock farmer (SLF) practices across sub-Saharan Africa. Fodder tree technology (FTT), an agroforestry approach that entails the cultivation of multipurpose fodder trees on farmlands, could help address such challenges. However, the adoption rate of FTT has been low, especially in Malawi, where dairy processing plants usually operate at 20% capacity and milk consumption is less than half the African average. This paper investigates the role of 20 possible determinants of FTT adoption. It uses binary logistic regression to analyze primary data collected through two extensive household surveys conducted during the Agroforestry Food Security Program (AFSP) in different regions of Malawi. This data is complemented with qualitative information extracted through in-depth interviews with SLF. The general lack of knowledge regarding FTT was identified as the largest constraint to adoption. It was further confounded by other factors such as the lack of market access, inconsistent emphasis of training organizations during extension efforts, gender disparities, poor land quality, and issues of land tenure. The “extension environment” created by the AFSP influenced the perceptions of SLF for some adoption determinants. In particular it reduced the influence of sociological and geographic factors such as relationships with lead farmers, and shifted financial focus from the cost and availability of inputs, to the means of capitalizing on outputs (such as market access). This improved FTT adoption by 53% overall. Some suggestions for future extension efforts on how to improve the perceptions of the expected utility of FTT include the careful evaluation of farmer-led extension models, assurance of seed supply, and the consideration of institutional/sociological factors in project design. Examples of such factors include divorce rates, conflicts between formal and customary laws/rules, and infrastructure.

Keywords

Agroforestry Extension environment Farmer-led extension model Food security Smallholder livestock farmers 

Abbreviations

AFSP

Agroforestry Food Security Program

BLA

Binary logistic regression

CIE

Center for independent evaluations

FTT

Fodder tree technology

SLF

Smallholder livestock farmer

ICRAF

World agroforestry centre

References

  1. Adesina AA, Chianu J (2002) Determinants of farmers’ adoption and adaptation of alley farming technology in Nigeria. Agrofor Syst 55(2):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Mullila-Mitti J, DeWolf JJ, Matakala PW, Kwesiga FR (2008) Adoption, profitability, impacts and scaling-up of agroforestry technologies in Sourthern African countries. In: Batish D, Kohli R, Jose S, Singh H (eds) Ecological basis of agroforestry. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 344–357Google Scholar
  3. Ajayi OC, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi GW, Mn’gomba S, Place F, Gondwe F, Chaula K (2010) Report of the baseline survey of agroforestry food security programme (AFSP) districts of Malawi. ICRAF, LilongweGoogle Scholar
  4. Akinnifesi FK (2010) Agroforestry food security programme (AFSP) in Malawi. ICRAF, LilongweGoogle Scholar
  5. Alavalapati JRR, Luckert MK, Gill DS (1995) Adoption of agroforestry practices: a case study from Andhra Pradesh, India. Agrofor Syst 32(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allison P (2012) When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? Retrieved from statistical horizons. http://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity. Accessed 15 Feb 2017
  7. Ayuk ET (1997) Adoption of agroforestry technology: the case of live hedges in the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso. Agric Syst 54(2):189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bach A (2012) Nourishing and managing the dam and postnatal calf for optimal lactation, reproduction, and immunity. J Anim Sci 90(6):1835–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baidu-Forson J (1999) Factors influencing adoption of land-enhancing technology in the Sahel: lessons from a case study in Niger. Agric Econ 20(3):231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Banda LJ, Kamwanja LA, Chagunda MG, Ashworth CJ, Roberts DJ (2012) Status of dairy cow management and fertility in smallholder farms in Malawi. Trop Anim Health Prod 44(4):715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Batz FJ, Peters KJ, Janseen W (1999) The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption. Agric Econ 21(2):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benson T, Mabiso A, Nankhuni F (2016) Detailed crop suitability maps and an agricultural zonation scheme for Malawi: spatial information for agricultural planning purposes. Food Security Policy Innovation Lab Research Paper 17. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University and International Food Policy Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  13. Bernet T, Oritz O, Estrada RD, Quiroz R, Swinton SM (2001) Tailoring agricultural extension to different production contexts: a user-friendly farmhousehold model to improve decision-making for participatory research. Agric Syst 69(3):183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blatner KA, Bonongwe CSL, Carroll MS (2000) Adopting agroforestry: evidence from Central and Northern Malawi. J Sustain For 11(3):41–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bohringer A, Ayuk E, Katanga R, Ruvuga S (2003) Farmer nurseries as a catalyst for developing sustainable land use systems in southern Africa. Part A: nursery productivity and organization. Agric Syst 77:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brazys S, Heaney P, Walsh PP (2015) Fertilizer and votes: does strategic economic policy explain the 2009 Malawi election? Elect Stud 39:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chakeredza S, Hove L, Akinnifesi FK, Franzel S, Ajayi OC, Sileshi G (2007) Managing fodder trees as a solution to human-livestock food conflicts and their contribution to income generation for smallholder farmers in Southern Africa. Nat Resour Forum 31(4):286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Changunda MGG, Gondwe TN, Banda L, Mayuni P, Mtimuni JP, Chimbaza T, Nikwanda A (2011) Smallholder dairy production in Malawi: current status and future solutions. Scottish Agricultural College (International Development Fund), LilongweGoogle Scholar
  19. Cherchye L, De Rock B, Walther ST, Vermeulen F (2016) Where did it go wrong? Marriage and divorce in Malawi. Ku Leuven Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series March 2016Google Scholar
  20. Chirwa E (2008) Land tenure, farm investments, and food production in Malawi. IPPG Discussion Paper Series 18: 1–22. Research Consortium on Improving Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Chirwa E, Dorward A, Matita M (2012) Thinking about ‘Graduation’ from the farm input subsidy programme in Malawi. ICRAF, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  22. C.I.E. (2011) Evaluation of ICRAF’s Agroforestry Food Security Program (AFSP) 2007–2011. Center for Independent Evaluations, LilongweGoogle Scholar
  23. DAHLD (2005) Policy document on Livestock in Malawi. Agriculture Communication Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, MalawiGoogle Scholar
  24. Dawson IK, Carsan S, Franzel S, Kindt R, van Breugel P, Graudal L, Lillesø J-PB, Orwa C, Jamnadass R (2014) Agroforestry, livestock, fodder production and climate change adaptation and mitigation in East Africa: issues and options. ICRAF Working Paper No. 178. Nairobi, World Agroforestry CentreGoogle Scholar
  25. De Wolf JJ (2010) Innovative farmers, non-adapting institutions: a case study of the organization of agroforestry research in Malawi. In: German L, Ramisch JJ, Verma R (eds) Beyond the biophysical: knowledge, culture, and power in agriculture and natural resource management. Springer, London, pp 217–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Degrande A, Franzel S, Yeptiep YS, Asaah E, Tsobeng A, Tchoundjeu Z (2012) Effectiveness of grassroots organisations in the dissemination of agroforestry innovation. In: Kaonga M (ed) Agroforestry for biodiversity and ecosystem services—science and practice. INTECH, Rijeka, pp 141–164Google Scholar
  27. Dionne KY, Horowitz J (2013) The political effects of anti-poverty initiatives: an analysis of malawi’s agricultural input subsidy program. Paper presented at the Midwest Group in African Political Economy Meeting. Indians University, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Doss CR (2003) Understanding farm level technology adoption: lessons learned from CIMMYT’s micro surveys in Eastern Africa. CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 03–07, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  29. Douglas M (1985) Risk acceptance according to the social sciences. Russel Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. ECA (2004) Land tenure systems and their impacts on food security and sustainable development in Africa. Economic Commission for Africa, Addis AbabaGoogle Scholar
  31. Feder G, Anderson JR, Birner R, Deininger K (2010) Promises and realities of community-based agricultural extension. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Franzel S (2004) Financial analysis of agroforestry practices: fodder shrubs in Kenya, woodlots in Tanzania, and improved fallows in Zambia. In: Alavalapati JRR, Mercer DE (eds) Valuing agroforestry systems: methods and applications. Advances in agroforestry 2. Kluwer Academic Publishing, London, pp 9–37Google Scholar
  33. Franzel S, Scherr SJ (2002) Introduction. In: Franzel S, Scherr S (eds) Trees on the farm: assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Africa. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Franzel S, Wambugu C (2007) The uptake of fodder shrubs among smallholders in East Africa: key elements that facilitate widespread adoption. In: Hare M, Wongpichet K (eds) Forages: a pathway to prosperity for smallholder farmers. Ubon Ratchathani University, Ratchathani, pp 203–222Google Scholar
  35. Franzel S, Wambugu C, Tuwei P (2003) The adoption and dissemination of fodder shrubs in central Kenya. Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AgREN). Network paper No. 131Google Scholar
  36. Franzel S, Carsan S, Lukuyu B, Sinja B, Sinja J, Wambugu C (2014) Fodder trees for improving livestock productivity and smallholder livelihoods in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6(1):98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Franzel S, Degrande A, Kiptot E, Kirui J, Kugonza J, Preissing J, Simpson B (2015) Farmer-to-farmer extension. Note 7. GFRAS good practice notes for extension and advisory services. Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, LindauGoogle Scholar
  38. German G, Akinnifesi FK, Edriss AK, Sileshi GW, Masangano C, Ajayi OC (2009) Influences of property rights on farmer’s willingness to plant indigenous fruit trees in Malawi and Zambia. Afr J Agric Res 4(5):427–437Google Scholar
  39. Giger M, Liniger H, Sauter C, Schwilch G (2015) Economic benefits and costs of sustainable land management technologies: an analysis of WOCAT’s global data. Land Degrad Dev 1–13. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2429
  40. Gould B, Saupe W, Klemme R (1989) ConservationTillage: the role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Land Econ 65(2):167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gurung B (2010) Framing participation in agricultural and natural resource management research. In: German L, Ramisch JJ, Verma R (eds) Beyond the biophysical: knowledge, culture, and power in agriculture and natural resource management. Springer, London, pp 241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. ICRAF (2016) Species profiles, world agroforestry database. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb2/speciesprofile.php?Spid=1069. Accessed 19 Jan 2016
  43. Jamison DT, Moock PR (1984) Farmer education and farm efficiency in Nepal: the role of schooling, extension services and cognitive skills. World Dev 12(1):67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jayne TS, Chamberlin J, Headey DD (2014) Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in Africa: a synthesis. Food Policy 48:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kabirizi J (2009) Integrating Calliandra calothyrsus trees in smallholder crop-livestock farming systems: effect on milk yield and household income. Unpublished paper presented at the second World Congress on Agroforestry, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  46. Kebreab E, Smith T, Tanner J, Osuji P (2005) Review of under nutrition in smallholder ruminant production systems in the tropics. In: Ayantunde AA, Fernandez-Rivera S, McGrabb G (eds) Coping with feed scarcity in smallholder livestock systems in developing countries. Int’l Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, pp 3–96Google Scholar
  47. Kindt R, John I, Ordonez J, Smith E, Orwa C, Mosoti B, Chege J, Dawson I, Harja D, Kehlenbeck K, Luedeling E, Lillesø J-PB, Muchugi A, Munjuga M, Mwanzia L, Sinclair F, Graudal L, Jamnadass R (2016) Agroforestry species switchboard: a synthesis of information sources to support tree research and development activities. Version 1.3. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/agroforestree-database. Accessed 11 Oct 2016
  48. Kiptot E, Franzel S (2011) Gender and agroforestry in Africa: are women participating? ICRAF Occasional Paper No. 13. World Agroforestry Centre, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  49. Kiptot E, Franzel S (2014) Voluntarism as an investment in human, social and financial capital: evidence from a farmer-to-farmer extension program in Kenya. Agric Hum Values 31(2):231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kiptot E, Hebinck P, Franzel S, Richards P (2007) Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agric Syst 94(2):509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kwesiga F, Akinnifesi FK, Mafongoya PL, McDermott MH, Agumya A (2003) Agroforestry research and development in southern Africa during the 1990s: review and challenges ahead. Agrofor Syst 59(3):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Makoka D, Ajayi OC, Phiri A, Gama S, Phula M, Dakamau M, Kambauwa G, Mkwinda S, Jumbe C, Kayuni F (2010) Agroforestry policy working group 2010 review of natural resources management policies in Malawi: an overview of findings. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Zomba, Malawi, p 42Google Scholar
  53. Marra M, Pannell DJ, Ghadim AA (2003) The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the teaming curve? Agric Syst 75(2):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Meijer SS, Catacutan D, Ajayi OC, Sileshi GW, Nieuwenhuis M (2015) The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 13(1):40–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 61(1):311–328Google Scholar
  56. Mercer DE, Pattanayak SK (2010) Agroforestry adoption by smallholders. In: Sills E, Abt K (eds) Forests in a market economy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 283–299Google Scholar
  57. Mignouna B, Manyong M, Rusike J, Mutabazi S, Senkondo M (2011) Determinants of adopting Imazapyr-resistant maize technology and its impact on household income in Western Kenya. AgBioforum 14(3):158–163Google Scholar
  58. Mloza-Banda H (2005) Integrating new trends in farming systems approaches in Malawi. Afr Crop Sci Conf Proc 7:961–966Google Scholar
  59. Mpofu IDT (2005) Coping with feed scarcity in Zimbabwe: causes and consequences of undernutrition. In: Ayantunde AA, Fernandez-Rivera S, McGrabb G (eds) Coping with feed scarcity in smallholder livestock systems in developing countries. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, pp 121–129Google Scholar
  60. Muraguri GR, McLeed A, Taylor N (2004) Estimation of milk production from smallholder dairy cattle in the coastal lowlands of Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod 36(7):673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nair PKR (1993) An introduction to agroforestry. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nair PKR, Toth GG (2016) Measuring agricultural sustainability in agroforestry systems. In: Lal R, Kraybill D, Hansen DO, Singh BR, Mosogoya T, Eik LO (eds) Climate change and multi-dimensional sustainability in African agriculture. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 365–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ngwira A, Johnsen FH, Aune JB, Mekuria M, Thierfelder C (2014) Adoption and extent of conservation agriculture practices among smallholder farmers in Malawi. J Soil Water Conserv 69(2):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. NORAD (2014) Malawi—National Census of Agriculture and Livestock 2006–2007. (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation), International Household Survey Network. http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog/4578. Accessed 14 Feb 2017
  65. Oino P, Mugure A (2013) Farmer-oriented factors that influence adoption of agroforestry practices in Kenya: experiences from Nambale District, Busia County. Int J Sci Res 2(4):450–456Google Scholar
  66. Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang JC (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57(3):173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Place F (2009) Land tenure and agricultural productivity in africa: a comparative analysis of the economics literature and recent policy strategies and reforms. World Dev 37(8):1326–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Place F, Otsuka K (2001) Tenure, agricultural investment, and productivity in the customary tenure sector of Malawi. Econ Dev Cult Change 50(1):77–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Place F, Adato M, Hebinck P, Omosa M (2005) The impact of agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment practices on the poor in western Kenya. Washington/Nairobi: International Food policy Research Institute in Collaboration with the World Agroforestry Centre. Research Report No. 142Google Scholar
  70. Place F, Roothaert R, Maina L, Franzel S, Sinja J, Wanjiku J (2009) The impact of fodder trees on milk production and income amoung smallholder dairy farmers in East Africa and the role of research. ICRAF, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  71. Polson RA, Spencer DSC (1992) The technology adoption process in subsistence agriculture: the case of Cassava in South-western Nigeria. Agric Syst 36(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Poppy GM, Jepson PC, Pickett JA, Birkett MA (2014) Achieving food and environmental security: new approaches to close the gap. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 369:1639–1645Google Scholar
  73. Reniers G (2003) Divorce and remarriage in rural Malawi. Demogr Res 1(1):175–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Revoredo-Giha C, Arakelyan I, Chalmers N (2015) Processors pricing and smallholders’ milk supply response in Malawi: an application of the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag model. Agriculture in an Interconnected World. International Conference of Agricultural Economists 9–14 August 2015, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  75. Roothaert RL, Franzel S, Kiura M (2003) On-farm evaluation of fodder trees and shrubs preferred by farmers in central Kenya. Exp Agric 39:423–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rukkwansuk T (2011) Effect of nutrition on reproductive performance of postparturient dairy cows in the tropics: a review. Thai J Vet Med 1:3–107Google Scholar
  77. Shideed KH (2005) Theoretical framework for assessing adoption and impact of improved technologies. In: Shideed KH, Mourid ME (eds) Adoption and impact assessment of improved technologies in crop and livestock production systems in the WANA region. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  78. Sirrine D, Shennan C, Sirrine JR (2010) Comparing agroforestry systems’ ex ante adoption potential and ex post adoption: on-farm participatory research from southern Malawi. Agrofor Syst 79(2):253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sitko NJ, Jayne TS (2014) Structural transformation or elite land capture? The growth of “emergent” farmers in Zambia. Food Policy 48:194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Takane T (2009) Disparities and diversities among female-headed households in rural Malawi after 20 years of economic liberalization. Singap J Trop Geogr 30(3):358–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tebug SF, Chikagwa-Malunga S, Wiedeman S (2012a) On-farm evaluation of dairy farming innovations uptake in northern Malawi. Livest Res Rural Dev 24(5):1–9Google Scholar
  83. Tebug SF, Kasulo V, Chikagwa-Malunga S, Wiedemann S, Roberts DJ, Chagunda MG (2012b) Smallholder dairy production in Northern Malawi: production practices and constraints. Trop Anim Health 44(1):55–62. doi: 10.1007/s11250-011-9887-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Thangata P, Alavapati JPR (2003) Agroforestry adoption in Southern Malawi: a case study of Gliricidia sepium and Maize. Agric Syst 78(1):57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thorpe WR, Mullins G, Reynolds L, Maloo SH, Muinga RW, Mureithi J, Njuni M, Ramadhan A (1993) Research on smallholder dairy production in coastal lowland Kenya. In: Future of livestock industries in East and Southern Africa. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, pp 33–45Google Scholar
  86. Toth GG (2016) Evaluation of factors influencing agroforestry adoption: case studies from Malawi. Doctoral Dissertation, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  87. UNICEF (2013) Improving child nutrition: the achievable imperatives for global progress. UNICEF, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  88. UNPD (2015) Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Population Division. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/. Accessed 24 Dec 2015
  89. Useche P, Bradford BL, Foltz JD (2012) Trait based adoption models using ex-ante and ex-post approaches. Am J Agric Econ 44:1–7Google Scholar
  90. van Raaji F (2002) Implicit expected utility theory for decision making and choice. APAC Adv Consum Res 5:343–348Google Scholar
  91. Wambugu C, Franzel S, Cordero J, Stewart J (2006) Fodder shrubs for dairy farmers in East Africa: making extension decisions and putting them into practice. World Agroforestry Centre, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  92. Wambugu C, Place F, Franzel S (2011) Research and development and scaling up the adoption of fodder shrub innovations in East Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 9(1):100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wanyoike FN (2005) Dissemination and adoption of improved fodder trees: the case of Calliandra calothyrsus in Embu District, Kenya. Dissertation, University of NairobiGoogle Scholar
  94. Ward PS, Bell AR, Parkhurst GM, Droppelmann K, Mapemba L (2016) Heterogeneous preferences and the effects of incentives in promoting conservation agriculture in Malawi. Agric Ecosyst Environ 222:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wejnert B (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework. Annu Rev Sociol 28:297–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. World Bank (2007) Agriculture for development. IBRD, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  97. Zerihun MF, Muchie M, Worku Z (2014) Determinants of agroforestry technologyadoption in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Dev Stud Res 1(1):382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory G. Toth
    • 1
  • P. K. Ramachandran Nair
    • 1
  • Colm P. Duffy
    • 2
  • Steven C. Franzel
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Forest Resources and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Plant and Agri-Biosciences Research CentreNational University IrelandGalwayIreland
  3. 3.World Agroforestry CentreNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations