Component interactions

in agroforestry systems
Definisi AF
Definisi yang dipakai oleh ICRAF yaitu (seperti yang disebutkan oleh Lundgren
dan Raintree, 1982) :
Agroforestry adalah kumpulan istilah untuk sistem dan teknologi
pemanfaatan lahan dimana tanaman kayu yang berumur panjang
(pohon, semak, palma, bambu dll.) dibudidayakan secara sengaja dalam
satu unit pengelolaan lahan dengan tanaman pertanian dan/atau ternak
denganterdapat interaksi antar komponen secara ekologis dan ekonomis
pengaturan ruang dan waktu tertentu. Pada sistem agroforestry
terdapat interaksi antar komponen secara ekologis dan ekonomis.

Tujuan AF mencakup:
• Memaksimalkan penggunaan energi matahari
• Mengoptimalkan efisisiensi penggunaan tanah dan air
• Meminimalkan hilangnya unsur hara dari dalam sistem
• Meminimalkan run-off dan erosi
Definisi AF harus menitikberatkan dua karakter pokok yg membedakan AF
dengan sistem lain (Lundgren, 1982), yakni:
1. Adanya pengkombinasian yang terencana/disengaja antara masing2
komponen, secara bersamaan (pengaturan ruang) maupun bergiliran
(pengaturan waktu)
2. Adanya interaksi ekologis dan/atau ekonomis yang nyata antarkomponen,
baik positif atau negatif

Ciri-ciri AF yang penting (Lundgren dan Raintree, 1982) al.:

1. Tersusun dr 2 jenis tanaman atau lebih, salah satu adl tumbuhan berkayu
2. Siklus sistem agroforestry lebih dari satu tahun
3. Ada interaksi ekologi dan ekonomi antara tan kayu dan tak berkayu
4. Multi produk: pakan ternak, kayu bakar, buah, obat-obatan dll.
5. Minimal memiliki satu fungsi pelayanan jasa (service function): pelindung angin, penaung,
dll.
6. Low input (terutama di daerah tropis), tergantung pada penggunaan dan manipulasi
biomasa, misalnya sisa panen
7. Sistem AF yang paling sederhana pun lebih kompleks dari sistem budidaya monokultur
 Success of agroforestry relies on:
 Species selection
 Exploitation of the beneficiary effects of trees
 Exploitation of component interactions
However:
• Very few information and knowledge of the mechanism of the interaction between
components in agronomic and ecological studies, due to:
• Very few studies have been designed and carried out for exploring the theoretical and
experimental aspects
• Complexity and lifespan of the AF components

Without knowledge about mechanism of the interaction, it is impossible to generalize and

extrapolate results from studies elsewhere

Component interactions represent critical aspect in AF, but knowledge is limited

What is component interaction?
Influence of one component of a system to the performance of the other
components as well as the system as a whole

In ecology, the type of interactions of two-species populations is described

as the basis of the net effect of interations:
• Commensalistic (positive “+” effect on species one, no observable affect
“0” on species two)
• Amensalistic (-, 0)
• Monopolistic, predatory, parasitic (+, -)
• Inhibitory (-, -)
• Synergistic, mutualistic (+, +)
Nature of component of biological
interaction in AF systems

Complementary Supplementary Competitive

Tree ouput

Crop and/or livestock output

 Partitioning the interactions
Why partitioned? Providing sound basis for studying the processes involved as
well as suggesting improved management options for components and systems

Interaction refers how to get, receive, absorb, intercept the growth factors: solar
energy, water and nutrient. For tree-crop interaction, may involves:
 Above-ground: for radiant energy, absorbed/intercepted through foliage
 Below-ground: for nutrient and water, absorbed through roots

For tree-animal? Below ground interaction may not be practicable.

Net results of the interactions may be more acceptable: positive effects
(beneficial or production-enhancing) and negative effects (harmful or production-
decreasing). Both interactions can be direct or indirect.
Because tree is the main component, therefore component interactions are treated
as positive or negative that occur on:
 Tree-crop interface (TCI)
 Tree-animal interface (TAI)
The major effects at the TCI and TAI

At the TCI At the TAI

Positive  Shading trees (stress  Shading
reduction)  Manure deposition
 Biomass contribution
 Water conservation
 Soil conservation

Negative  Light competition  Phytotoxins

 Nutrient competition  Browsing damage
 Water competition  Trampling
 Allelopathy  Disease/pest hosts (?)
Tree-crop interface
1. Nutrient balance
2. Microclimate amelioration: soil moisture and soil temperature
relations, resulting from shading and the use of trees for live
supports, live fences, windbreaks, shelterbelts

Shading:
 not only reducing light and heat
 temperature, humidity, movement of air, soil temperature and moisture
 photosynthesis, transpiration, energy balance
 increasing yield

practiced well by traditional farmers: microclimate management

Shading reduces the “drying power” of the air
 Example in Mexico comparing shaded and open-grown coffee plantations
 Coffee under Inga jinicuil (205 trees/ha, height 14 m), the average maximum
temperature 5.4°C, minimum 1.5°C, and lower drying power of the air
 Smaller temp. fluctuation caused by: reduced radiation load at day, reduced heat
loss at night.
 Lower drying power (probably) caused higher water input through trees
transpiration, combined by lower temp.
(Barradas and Fanjul, 1986)
 Drying power  reduction of transpiration  less water stress of the intercropped
crops, esp. of drought periods  yields, e.g. for tea yields in Tanzania in dry
season (Wiley, 1975)

Similar examples from coconut and cacao combination (Nair and Balakhrisnan,
1977) and an alley cropping of millet and Leucaena in India (Corlett et al, 1989):
a buffering effect of the trees on the microclimate beneath them.

How does the effect of shading on favoring microclimate of seed bed in AF systems?
Effect (positive and negative, ?) of trees on
water budget
 Lower evaporation, affecting higher temperature
 Litter layer and mulch sheded by deciduous trees may
helpful for reducing evaporation in dry season
 Litter layer increases water infiltration in rainy season
 (-) Transpiration of the shade trees affecting stress of the
associated crops
Natural weeding by trees
 Tree shade, severe for light demanding plants/weeds
 Most of weed/grass species are light-demanding
 Some examples:
 Weed yields positively correlated with available correlation in alley
cropping in Nigeria (Yamoah et al, 1986)
 Cassia siamea controlled weed better than Gliricidea sepium and
Flemingia macrophylla (Anonomius report)
 Closely spaced Leucaena alleys reduced weed better than wider
space (Jama et al, 1991)
 Alley cropping of Erythrina poeppigiana and G. sepium trial in
Costa Rica reduced 50% of weed biomass (Rippin, 1991)
 Slowly decomposing mulches suppress weeds more effectively
 Trees

Tree-animal interface

Affect in term of:

Cover crops,
 Transforming weeds, fodder
autotrophic productivity
(of no direct use to
farmer: weed, fodder) Livestock
into animal biomass  Mulch
 Transfer of manure as  Green
manure
fertilizer source
 Compost
 Sheet mulching

Cattle dung
Livestock on ranching field or estate
plantation
 Shading for reducing heat stress, one of the main constraints to animal production
in the tropics
 Animals tend to seek shade, reducing time spent grazing in the open  total feed
decrease (Payne, 1990)
 But, this may balanced by energy expenditure of the animal, animals in shade show
higher feed conversion, weight gain, milk production (Campbell and Lasley, 1985;
Payne, 1990)
 Shade has a beneficial effect on reproduction
 Protein supplement from leguminous trees (Devendra, 1990)
 Shade + high quality feed (high energy and fiber)  esp. contributes to milk
production, in general provides better productivity and higher reproduction

Research on TAI is very scarce. Example in Malaysia, sheep under rubber plantation,
grazing of the sheep controls weed, and benefit from manure for soil fertility. Almost no
trampling effects (Majid et al, 1989)
Negative interactions on TCI
 Competition for light, nutrients and water
 Allelopathy
 Diseases/pests stimulation

Competition for light

 Shading was found to be more important than below-ground competition (Willey and
Reddy, 1981)
 Competition for light was a more critical factor than root competition (Verinumbe and
Okali, 1985)
 In alley cropping, crops cultivated adjacent to tree strips produced less biomass than
in the center of alley, although trenching was done to eliminate root competition from
the trees (Budiadi, 1999)
Interacting effects of shade and soil fertility on the yield of cacao
(Alvim, 1977)
100

Relative Yield (%)

80

100 60
110
Relative Yield (%)

80 40

20
60

0
40 LIGHT
MED

20 HEAVY

HIGH MED LOW

10 0
Soil fertility
 Diagrammatic representation of general crop differences in
response to shading and soil fertility (Cannel, 1983)

Non-legumes, fruit trees,

many herbaceous crops
Yield per hectare

Legumes, many
tree species

Fruit-yielding trees
& herbaceous crops

Increasing shade Decreasing soil fertility

Competition for nutrients and water

 Decreasing productivity of crops is recognizable

 Trees have greater root volume that occupy large soil volume
 Effect of nutrient competition will be more severely to crops

 Competition for water always occur in all agroforests, except of areas with well-
distributed rainfall
 The effect of water competition depends on the severity of the drought and the
drought tolerance of plants

 But, (1) root research is hard and difficult, (2) difficult to separate the effect of light,
water, nutrient and allelochemical interactions
 Allelopathic interaction in agroforestry

• Inhibition of growth of one Examples of AF tree species with allelopathic effects

plant by chemical
Tree species Effect on
compounds released into
the soil from neighboring Alnus nepalensis Glycine max
plants. Casuarina equisetifolia cowpea, sorghum, sunflower
• Allelopathy contained in
Eucalyptus tereticornis cowpea, sorghum, sunflower,
plant tissues, but nature
of active chemicals and potato
mode of action is lacking. Gliricidea sepium maize/rice sedlings, tropical
• Modern agroforestry grasses
plantation should consider Grevilea robusta Grevilea seedlings
allelopathic interactions.
Leucaena leucocephala maize/rice sedlings
cowpea, sorghum, sunflower
Microclimatic modification for pests
and diseases
 Important but unexplored
 In shaded, humid environments: bacterial and fungal
disease  greater humidity, deceased wind. Exp.
Phytophthora infested cacao
 Great important is that of polyculture
Negative interactions on TAI
 Direct effects
 Low quality and toxic components impact in livestock production
 Mechanical damage of trees and oil properties
 Tree fodder important in dry season
 Examples:
 tannins in Cassia siamea and Gliricidea sepium may reduce palatability and
digestibility
 mimosine in Leucaena leaves
Toxic or irritant compounds in selected tree
fodder species
Species/feed Compound
Acacia Cyanoglucosides, Fluoroacetate, Tannins
Banana leaves Tannins
Cassava leaves HCN
Caliandra calothyrsus Tannins
Gliricidea sepium Tannins
Leucaena spp. Mimosine (esp. young leaves, stems, seeds)
Prosopis spp. Tannins
Nair (1993): adapted from Devendra (1990) and Lowry (1990)
Component management
 The magnitude of interactive effects between trees and other components depends
on:
 Characteristics of species
 Planting density
 Spatial arrangement
 Tree management

 Manipulating density and arrangement is the right method to earn beneficial effects
of trees
 Identification of desirable tree attributes, but not satisfy
 If there is no acceptable trees, management operation should be practiced.
 Goals: increase production of desired products, decrease growth and competition
of undesired components
 Facilitative interaction involves: (1) increasing efficiency of nutrient cycling, (2)
improved soil structure, (3) improve moisture status of understory plants, (4)
reduction of loss to insect pests (from Ashton and Montagnini, 1999)
Management options to manipulate growth
(enhancing beneficial interactions)
Management options
(1) Increased growth (2) Decreased growth
 Microclimate amelioration  Pruning
 Fertilization  Pollarding
 Application of mulch/manure  Root pruning
 Irrigation  Trenching
 Soil tillage  Excessive shading
 Adapted species  Herbicides
 Supplemental feeding  Grazing/browsing
 Control of
erosion
Carbon Schematic
fixation presentation of the Wind
processes by
which trees can
improve soils
(Young, 1989)
Atmospheric
input Water

Litter
fall

Nitrogen Slower carbon

fixation oxidation
CNPK
Ca Mg
Litter cover Litter decay

Soil physical Nutrient

properties recycling NPK
Root residues Penetration of indurated layers
CNPK Ca Mg
Nutrient uptake <Back
PK Ca Mg
pruning pruning

trenching trenching

<Back