Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 11, Issue 11, pp 1889–1902 | Cite as

From shade- to sun-grown perennial crops in Sulawesi, Indonesia: implications for biodiversity conservation and soil fertility

  • Stephen F. Siebert
Article

Abstract

Traditional, complex forest farming systems are increasingly convertedto sun-grown monocultures throughout the tropics. Biophysical, soil andbiodiversity effects associated with sun- vs. shade-grown coffee and cacao wereinvestigated in a case study in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Canopy height, tree,epiphyte, liana and bird species diversity, vegetation structural complexity,percent ground cover by leaf litter, and soil calcium, nitrate nitrogen andorganic matter levels in the O horizons were all significantly greater in shadedthan in sun-grown farms. In contrast, photosynthetic active radiation (PAR), airand soil temperatures, weed diversity and percent ground cover by weeds weresignificantly greater in sun compared to shade farms. At the landscape level,conversion of shade-grown crops to sun conditions isolates protected areas andremnant primary forest fragments. Local cultivators are cognizant of theagronomic and socioeconomic risks associated with sun-grown perennialmonocultures and some are increasing the density and diversity of fruit treecultivation in an effort to provide shade and organic matter, and increase anddiversify crop yields. The maintenance of traditional, complex forest farmingsystems, particularly shade-grown perennial crops, warrants greater attention inagricultural development and biodiversity conservation efforts.

Bird species Cacao Coffee Shade species 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beer J., Muschler R., Kass D. and Somarriba E. 1998. Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations. Agroforestry Systems 38: 139–164.Google Scholar
  2. Collier G., Mountjoy D. and Nigh R. 1994. Peasant agriculture and global change. BioScience 44: 398–407.Google Scholar
  3. Fox J., Truong D., Rambo T., Tuyen N., Cuc L. and Leisz S. 2000. Shifting cultivation: a new old paradigm for managing tropical forests. BioScience 50: 521–528.Google Scholar
  4. Galindo-Gonzales J., Guevara S. and Sosa V. 2000. Bat-and bird-generated seed rains at isolated trees in pastures in a tropical rainforest. Conservation Biology 14: 1693–1703.Google Scholar
  5. Gascon C., Williamson C. and Da Fonseca G. 2000. Receding forest edges and vanishing reserves. Science 288: 1356–1358.Google Scholar
  6. Greenberg R., Bichier P. and Sterling J. 1997. Bird populations in rustic and planted shade coffee plantations of eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 29: 501–514.Google Scholar
  7. Index Kewensis (1997) Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Janzen D. 1998. Gardenification of wildland nature and the human footprint. Science 279: 1312–1313.Google Scholar
  9. Jarvie J. and Ermayanti 1996. Tree Genera of Borneo—Descriptions and Illustrations. http: / / django.harvard. edu / users / jjarvie /Borneo.htmGoogle Scholar
  10. Laurance W. 1997. Introduction: edge effects in fragmented forests. In: LauranceW. and Bierregaard R. Jr (eds), Tropical Forest Remnants. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
  11. Lenne J. and Wood D. 1999. Optimizing biodiversity for productive agriculture. In: Wood D. and Lenne J. (eds), Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, Utilization and Management. CABI Publishing,W allingford, UK, pp. 447–470.Google Scholar
  12. Leopold A. 1935. Land Pathology. In: Flader S. and Callicott J. (eds), The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 212–217.Google Scholar
  13. Medellin R., Equihua M. and Amin M. 2000. Bat diversity and abundance as indicators of disturbance in Neotropical forests. Conservation Biology 14: 1666–1675.Google Scholar
  14. Moguel P. and Toledo V. 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conservation Biology 13: 11–21.Google Scholar
  15. Nye P. and Greenland D. 1960. The soil under shifting cultivation. Technical Communication 51. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Harpenden, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Perfecto I., Rice R., Greenberg R. and Van der Voort M. 1996. Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46: 598–608.Google Scholar
  17. Piggott A. 1988. Ferns of Malaysia in Colour. Tropical Press, SDN BHD, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  18. Purseglove J. 1968. Tropical Crops: Dicotyledons. Longman, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Putz F., Redford K., Robinson J., Fimbel R. and Blate G. 2000. Biodiversity and conservation in the context of tropical forest management. Biodiversity Series Impact Studies [1. The World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Rice R. and Greenberg R. 2000. Cacao cultivation and the conservation of biological diversity. Ambio 29: 167–173.Google Scholar
  21. Thiollay J. 1995. The role of traditional agroforests in the conservation of rain forest bird diversity in Sumatra. Conservation Biology 9: 335–353.Google Scholar
  22. Thrupp L. 1998. Cultivating Diversity: Agrobiodiversity and Food Security.World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Tralau H. 1969. Index Holmensis. The Scientific Publishers Ltd, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  24. Young A. 1989. Agroforestry for Soil Conservation. CAB International, BPCC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen F. Siebert
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ForestryUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations