Chapter 13
Agroforestry a model for ecological
sustainability
Abhishek Raja, Manoj Kumar Jhariyab, Arnab Banerjeec, Ram Swaroop Meenad, Sharad Nemae, Nahid Khanb,
Shailesh Kumar Yadavc, and Gourisankar Pradhand
a
School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India, b Department of Farm Forestry, Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya,
Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, India, c Department of Environmental Science, Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya, Sarguja, Ambikapur,
Chhattisgarh, India, d Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India, e SoS,
Forestry & Wildlife, Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, India
Abbreviations
AFP agroforestry practices
AFS agroforestry systems
C carbon
GHGs greenhouse gases
NTFPs nontimber forest products
MPTs multipurpose trees/tree species
13.1 Introduction
Changing climate, increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs),
deforestation, industrialization, mining activity, and faulty
land management practices accelerate the natural resource
degradation followed by food, nutritional, and environmental
insecurity that affects our ecosystem structure and its services
to biodiversity (Kumar et al., 2017; Doddabasawa et al.,
2020; Khan et al., 2020a,b; Meena et al., 2020a). In this
context, agroforestry is a boon and most desirable strategy
that promotes multifarious services due to diversified trees
and crops technology in unit areas that make sound man-
agement of socioeconomic conditions and maintains eco-
logical sustainability (Kumar, 2010; Ashiagbor et al., 2020;
Raj et al., 2020; Banerjee et al., 2020).
Agroforestry preferably use both agricultural and for-
estry technologies in which forest trees are perennial woody
in nature and systems are more diverse, conserve, inte-
grated, and productive that is suited to all region of tropics
as a location-specific models (Garrett et al., 2000; Dupraz
et al., 2005). Agroforestry is still gaining importance as sus-
tainable land management farming system that promotes
conservation and management of natural resources along
with socio-economic and ecological sustainability in the
era of changing climate and global warming
(Gangadharappa et al., 2003; Meena and Lal, 2018;
Ashiagbor et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2021a,b). Similarly,
Natural Resources Conservation and Advances for Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822976-7.00002-8
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
agroforestry practices (AFP) are more important in fulfilling
the multifarious objectives in the rural areas to achieve sus-
tainability in ecology, environment, and socioeconomic par-
adigm (Feldhake et al., 2008; Leakey, 2012; Westholm and
Ostwald, 2020).
However, higher crop productivity, tree biomass, live-
stock’s health and protection, soil fertility enhancement,
efficient water use potential, farm’s income enhancement
by higher production of timber and NTFPs (Nontimber
forest products), biodiversity promotion, and its conser-
vation along with storage and sequestration of carbon
(C) are the most important ecosystem services of agrofor-
estry systems (AFS) that promotes ecological sustainability
in the globe (Cole, 2010; Westholm and Ostwald, 2020).
The loss of nutrients through leaching, removal of C in
the form of CO2, nutrient depletion, and biomass removal
are the major constraints in sole cropping system in agricul-
tural land. Globally, a total 9.7 Pg C are emitted to the atmo-
sphere due to anthropogenic and deleterious human
activities and faulty unsustainable farming systems
(Peters et al., 2013). In this context, incorporating tree
species in agricultural land would be helpful in
enhancing C sequestration and biomass addition through
better ecosystem services (Raj et al., 2021; Jhariya et al.,
2021a,b). Nair et al. (2010) has estimated overall
0.3–15.2 and 30.0–300 Mg C/ha/year in both above and
below ground (up to 1 m depth) whereas Lorenz and Lal
(2014) have predicted a total C sequestration in AFS may
be up to 2.2 Pg in above and below ground in the next
50 years in world. Similarly, soil holds greater C pools
(2500 Gt) as compared to 760 Gt C in atmosphere (Lal,
2004). Also, the significance of ecosystem services through
integrating trees in agricultural systems is not limited. As
per the report of Zomer et al. (2016), the percentage contri-
bution of tree species in biomass C was more than 75% of
289
290 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability
the total 45.3 Pg C on global agricultural land whereas more
than 2.0 Pg C of total biomass C was increased by increasing
tree covers up to 3.7% in one decade (between 2000 and
2010). These data clearly represent and up vote a better eco-
system services delivered by well-managed AFS rather than
sole-based cropping system that maintain the ecological
sustainability.
Moreover, it helps in minimizing pollution from row
crop areas with the help of better soil hydraulic properties
by controlling surface runoff (Paudel et al., 2011).
Therefore, it is better to have more scientific-oriented agro-
forestry models based on location specific and would be
better linked through resource conservation and man-
agement along with less competition between woody
perennial trees and herbaceous agricultural crops (Bardule
et al., 2013). Thus, different tree-crop combination in
AFS is need to be explored by more and more scientific
studies for better outcome in yield and productivity along
with security in food and environment that helps in pro-
moting biodiversity in both flora and fauna and makes eco-
nomical profitability and ecological sustainability around
the world (Guo, 2000; Jhariya et al., 2019a,b).
In the lieu of the above information, this chapter
explores the role of agroforestry towards improvement of
the ecosystem and environment through various benefits,
process, and services that lead toward environmental and
ecological sustainability.
13.2 Agroforestry: A decade of development 13.4
The practices of agroforestry are not new but it is age old
sustainable farming systems that have been developed over
decades ago through changing tree crop combinations with
external environment at the era of changing climate. This
system was very much prevalent in the tropics, particularly,
in India from the era of Vedic, Epic, Medieval, etc. and still
changing year to year and provides various multifarious
ecosystem services (Dhyani et al., 2011; Kareemulla
et al., 2009; Meena et al., 2018). The development of
AFS is correlated with development and evolution of
humans from the forest. Therefore, the practices of AFS
exist in variety of shape due to its location specific in nature
and variable tree crop interaction. Moreover, the develop-
ments of AFP are studied from Vedic era (comprising
shifting cultivation practices), Epic era (tree availability
in garden), Medieval era (tree integration on farm bound-
aries), etc. However, many of old practices of AFS are
not systematic due to lesser studies and unscientific way
of trees crops and livestock’s combinations. But now a
day, due to recent variety of studies in different models, it
gives a good shape and nomenclature of AFS in the tropics
(Kumar, 2008).
13.3 Prominence and importance
of agroforestry
AFS are gaining more to more importance and attention due
to ongoing land degradation, food insecurity, hunger under
burgeoning population, and changing climate (Westholm
and Ostwald, 2020; Banerjee et al., 2021a,b,c,d). As we
know, agriculture is the backbone of national economy
and feeds almost 75% of the total population (Thenmozhi
and Thilagavath, 2014). Further, due to wide prominence
and importance of AFS, it has huge potential to deliver
variety of products to rural poor that helps in enhancing
income along with climate security (Raj et al., 2019a,b,c).
AFS are gaining wide importance either its wide applica-
bility and adoptability in various types of degraded/
wasteland and farm boundaries along with multifarious
ecosystem services to biodiversity such as employment
generations, enhancing soil fertility, availability of fuel
and fire woods, fodders, nutritious food, and fruits under
the era of changing climate that maintains overall eco-
logical sustainability (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010;
Ashiagbor et al., 2020). Also, better nutrient pumping,
nutrient enrichment, and efficient and closed type of
nutrient cycling are the characteristics of AFS (Sahu and
Kumar, 2015). However, the role of C storage and seques-
tration by trees in AFS are increasing the importance of AFS
in the current situation of global warming and climate
change (Nair et al., 2009; Chatterjee et al., 2020).
Agroforestry: Area coverage
The area of AFS is not confined and limited due to variety of
tree crop models across the tropics having diverse climate,
soil physiochemical properties and inhabiting organisms,
etc. However, different types of agroforestry models having
the common services of either livelihood or environmental
sustainability (Torquebiau, 2000).
AFS comprises the various tree-based systems in the dif-
ferent agro-ecological regions that are more sustainable and
requires scientific-based management that links with people’s
cultural and social programs (Mbow et al., 2014). AFP are
somewhat going to shrink due to narrow farmer perception
about tree components in farms, marketing constraints of tree
crop produces, big gap in various research and extension activ-
ities along with poor policies of government system.
As per Nair and Garrity (2012), the total 1.6 billion ha
areas will be under AFS in coming future and according
to them the 10% tree cover are already supposed to be under
a billion ha of agricultural land. Moreover, nearly 1.2 billion
rural peoples are generating their income along with social
welfare by involving themselves into AFP and management
in their farms (Raj et al., 2020). Although Nair et al. (2009)
have given remarkable data and figure on agroforestry areas
and according to him, a total of 307 million ha area are under
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13 291

the practice of sole AFS, whereas a total area under agrofor-
estry and silvopastoral systems are 823 million ha. Globally,
agroforestry areas in Asia, Africa, and Americas have
covered from 585 to 1215 million ha of total land areas
of which South America, sub-Saharan Africa, and South
East Asia contributed remarkable areas of 3.2, 1.9, and
1.3 million km2, respectively (Dixon, 1995). These rep-
resent the dominancy of AFS and continue spreading rate
in Asian, African, and European continent and tropics.
Moreover, as per Dhyani et al. (2013), the area under agro-
forestry plantations are estimated to be 7.45 million ha,
whereas 25.72 million ha areas are under social and farm
forestry along with various other tree plantations program
in AFS in India.
13.5 Classification of agroforestry
The AFS is being practiced since time immemorial and now
it is spreaded all over the tropics with a good pace in the
world. However, model of agroforestry varies as per varying
composition and type that differs region to region due to
varying climate, soil types, and topography along with
changing biophysical and socioeconomics attributes
(Singh et al., 2012; Koussihouede et al., 2020). Globally,
AFS such as silvo-arable forest farming, silvo-pastoral
systems including multipurpose trees (MPTs), riparian
buffer strips, improved fallow, shifting cultivation, etc.
are practiced (Alavalapati and Nair, 2001; Alavalapati
et al., 2004).
However, ICRAF (1993) has given extent and estimates
of different AFS throughout the country. Different AFS that
are prevalent in India are depicted in Table 13.1. Also, AFS
is prevalent in tropical region and even though these
systems are mostly location specific and are majorly
spreaded in dry regions of eastern and central Africa.
Although, the incorporation of woody perennial trees are
very effective for both better cropped lands areas and live-
stock’s grazing systems. Similarly, these trees provide both
woody timber and NTFPs that are commercially most
important for economic gain and social welfare of poor
people ( Jama and Zeila, 2000; Regmi and Garforth, 2010).
Tree is the integral part of AFS which is a keen source of
timber and fuelwood in both developed and developing
countries such as United Kingdom and China where tree
crop intercropping systems are practiced on 3 million ha

TABLE 13.1 Different models of agroforestry systems in India.

Agroforestry Agro-ecological regions of
S.n practices Combinations country References
1 Taungya system Two components viz., woody perennial Prevalent in plain and hilly region Rowbotham
trees and agricultural crops are involved of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and (1924) and
where arable crops are sown interspace Assam, etc. Ghosh and
between trees. Generally three types Ghosal (2019)
such as Departmental Taungya
(practicing for reducing weed growth),
Village Taungya (for generating income
and improving the livelihood standards
of poor farmers) and Leased Taungya
respectively
2 Shifting Most destructive methods that involve Practicing in mostly hills of North- Sati (2019), Sahu
cultivation system forest clearance and its burn then blank Eastern states and Tribal regions of et al. (2005), and
patches are utilized by cultivation of Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar etc. Maithani (2005)
arable crops for some years after that
lands are left fallow for 2–5 years which
helps in reclamation of soils. This is also
called slash and burn methods

3 Scattered trees in Some important MPTs are either Covers all regions of small and Tiwari (2008),
farm field and on scattered on farmer’s field (as shelterbelt marginal farmers for example Jhariya et al.
bund as boundary and wind breaks etc.) or on field bunds Central India, etc. (2015), and Raj
plantation et al. (2016)
4 Inter cropping in Intercropping of valuable crops and Covers throughout the regions Kumar (2010),
AFS grasses/pastures under several nitrogen Mthembu et al.
fixing woody perennial trees (2018), and
Dollinger and
Jose (2018)
Continued
292 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability

TABLE 13.1 Different models of agroforestry systems in India—cont’d

Agroforestry Agro-ecological regions of

S.n practices Combinations country References
5 Silvopastoral The name itself represents the Preferable in degraded, hilly, Singh (2008) and
model in AFS combination of only woody perennial wasteland and dry region which is Jose and
trees and important grasses under AFS characterized by less rainfall Dollinger (2019)
condition with less soil depth
6 Shelter belts and Generally agricultural crops are grow on Prevalent in the region having high Dagar et al.
windbreaks leeward side (less wind speed) of woody wind speed with prominent soil (2014) and
perennial tree component to reduce the erosion. For example, the dry Mayrinck et al.
high wind speed region of Rajasthan (2019)

7 Home gardens Vertical structure of plants comprises Mostly prevalent in Southern India Kumar (2010)
(kitchen gardens) top storey MPTs, middle and lower having rain fall >2500 mm and Galhena
storey of some fruits, vegetable and et al. (2013)
spices etc.
8 Wadi form of Generally agricultural crops are grown Mostly prevalent in the region of Hegde (2005)
cultivation and intercropped between the rows of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra,
fruits trees in the field which is and Karnataka respectively
surrounded by forestry tree on the field
boundary
9 Agri-silviculture This system combines arable crops like Prevalent in the Rajasthan, Punjab, Gill et al. (2010)
mustard along with woody perennial Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana, and Verma et al.
tree and honey bee rearing etc. (2016)

10 AFS comprising Mixing of tree with different strata with Coffee tree, fruit tree, spice crops Dagar et al.
various plantation plantation crops and ornamental plants are (2014)
or cash crops prevalent humid and subhumid
tropical regions
Combination of plantation crops with Prevalent in the North East region Selvan and
shade tree having tea plantations under shade Kumar (2017)
trees

Combination of agricultural crops with Prevalent in most of the area of Dhiman (2012),
some valuable fast growing tree species Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Luna (2009), and
Haryana, etc. Kishwan and
Kumar (2013)
Cultivation of some valuable grasses Mostly practicing on highly sloppy Singh (2008)
under fruit Tree region
Mixed farming system comprises mainly Coastal region of country Dagar (2000)
coconut tree (Cocos nucifera)

lands which is a good source of timber, cereal crops and
valuable pastures (for livestock’s) that makes a great biodi-
versity in that particular region (Sen, 1991; McAdam et al.,
1999). However, these diverse systems are more economi-
cally profitable, ecologically sustainable and socially
acceptable for the poor farmers in the various regions such
as Asia (India, China, and Pakistan), African continent
(Eastern and Southern regions). It has uncountable benefits
through effective ecosystem services such as both tangible
and intangible benefits such as delivery of timber and
NTFPs, fuelwood production, watershed management, soil
fertility enhancement, efficient nutrient cycling, food and
nutrient security, biodiversity maintenance and climate
security, etc. (Westholm and Ostwald, 2020). Moreover,
timber and wood production in AFS would help in reducing
pressure on natural forest. Excessive cutting and felling of
trees in forest will also affect the soil quality by removing
top valuable organic soil and litter that affects the overall
soil fertility and nutrient cycling. In this context, agrofor-
estry would help in minimizing pressure on natural forests
and maintains the forest covers upto 33% as per national
forest policy. As per Nair and Nair (2003), the silvopastoral
system, alley cropping, riparian buffers, and windbreaks are
prevalent in approximate 235.2 million ha in the United
States. However, day by day the practices of silvopastoral
system are becoming most popular practices due to its rec-
lamation potential of degraded and wasteland worldwide
(Workman et al., 2003).
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13 293

13.5.1 Agroforestry: Traditional
and improved practices
As we know, agroforestry is a location-specific farming prac-
tices and it is clearly understood through a comparison
between traditional AFS and classical (modern) AFS that is
totally based on varying degree of intensification
(Doddabasawa et al., 2020). Traditional AFS is practiced
across the globe and free of intensified cultivation practices
of several agricultural crops which is based on varying quality
of biophysical attributes and climatic situation and that system
differs as per varying structure, function (productive and pro-
tective), socioeconomics attributes, and ecosystem services to
biodiversity. This system is prevalent across the globe, pri-
marily in the tropics, subtropics and temperate regions
including Asia, Africa, European, North America, South
America, and other pacific Island. Practices of different tradi-
tional AFS in different climatic zones along with its character-
istics are summarized in Table 13.2 (Viswanath et al., 2018).
Ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of dif-
ferent traditional AFS are also depicted in Table 13.3.
However, various types of improved AFS are already
developed on stations and some are in the line of extension
to the farmer’s fields. Moreover, based on the tree-crop
interaction, some important economically herbs like
Murraya koenigii (curry leaf), Moringa oleifera (drum-
sticks), and Bixa orellana (Bixa species) are intercropped
with other trees and plants in the arid and semiarid regions
that are socioeconomically and ecologically sound. Simi-
larly, block plantation of quality biomass producing tree
and industrial plantation for the continuous supply of timber
for fulfilling industrial needs are very important and widely
adopted in the semiarid regions of the country. In this
system, some important MPTs such as Subabul (Leucaena
leucocephala), Eucalyptus species (Eucalyptus tereticornis)
and Casuarina equisetifolia are used prominently in the
field either in scattered and on the bund. However, agrofor-
estry models like agro-horticulture and silvi-agriculture
systems are having some economically important tree
species like Tectona grandis (Teak), Emblica officinalis
(Amla), Annona squamosa (Custard apple), Tamarindus
indica (Tamarindus), and Mangifera indica (Mango) that

TABLE 13.2 Different traditional agroforestry systems in different climatic zones along with its characteristics
(Viswanath et al., 2018).

Structure and characteristics

Climatic Description of system of traditional agroforestry
S.n zone Agroforestry system components systems
1 Subtropical Bamboo and rice based AFS is Generally, two crops of rice is Indigenous varieties of rice
highlands practiced in particularly Ziro grown in 1 year and rearing fish is such as Ampuahare are
valley of Arunachal Pradesh, common in the field of paddy cultivated along with bamboo+
India pine and different fish (grass
carp and common carp, etc.)

2 Tropical This climatic zone prefers foliage
humid and forests such as “Soppinabettas” of
subhumid Malnad in Karnataka, India
zones
Cultivation of coffee plants under
shade trees in the region of Coorg
situated in Karnataka, India
The practices of Taungya
cultivation in Indo-Burma region
This system comprises
Soppinabetta or foliage forests
which are generally recognized as
minor forests that permitted for
Areca nut farmer/grower’s to use
organic waste from the Western
Ghats as manure
In this AFS, coffee plant is
traditionally managed and
cultivated under the best
associated shade trees that
provide proper shade to this plant
for proper growth and
development and also comprises
high proportion of native species
Well, this system is very old,
primitive and came after the
practice of shifting cultivation.
That’s why this system is regarded
as an organized and
This AFS is so viable in both
structure and characteristics. In
this system Betel nut and Paddy
is jointly grown by farmers in
their field. Whereas farmers
gets compost in the organic
form from the surrounding
forest
This system generally preferred
most suitable tree species such
as four native timber species
Syzygium cumini (Jamun),
Dalbergia latifolia, Acrocarpus
fraxinifolius, and Lagerstroemia
microcarpa along with
common exotic shade tree
species like G. robusta (Silver
oak ) with coffee plant (Coffea
robusta)
Structurally, it is well diverse
and oriented in which crop
cultivation is practice in
between the forest tree species.
Categorized into departmental,
leased and village Taungya
Continued
294 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability
TABLE 13.2 Different traditional agroforestry systems in different climatic zones along with its characteristics
(Viswanath et al, 2018).—cont’d
Climatic
S.n zone Agroforestry system
Babul (Acacia nilotica) and rice
based AFS in Chhattisgarh state of
Central India
Manga bamboo (Dendrocalamus
stocksii) based AFS in the Konkan
region
3 Arid and This region basically prefers tree-
semiarid pasture based AFS i.e.,
zones silvipasture system. In this system,
Acacia leucophloea tree are used
as scattered form in the pasture
land of Tamil Nadu
Ficus based AFS in Mandya
district of Karnataka
Khejri (Prosopis cineraria) based
AFS in Rajasthan of Western India
4 Tropical Kitchen gardens of Kerala
wet humid
Practices of home gardens in
North-East India
Description of system
components
systematically managed form of
shifting cultivation
Most prevalent in Chhattisgarh
and Madhya Pradesh state where
small smallholder farmers
retained Acacia tree species on
either farms boundary or scattered
in the rice field
In this system, bamboo species
used as live hedge which protect
the crops from animals and other
factors
MPTs are integrated with
agricultural crops and livestock’s
in this AFS
This is a Common AFS which is
prevalent in arid regions of
Karnataka where Ficus tree
species are observed alongside
the field crops
This is generally traditional based
AFS preferable for rainfed
agriculture and silvopastoral
system
It is most dominant and farming
system due to preferable climatic
situation in the state
It is very common in North East
India that is preferably used in the
Barak valley region in Assam
Structure and characteristics
of traditional agroforestry
systems
This traditional based AFS
maintains biodiversity of babul
trees in turn tree provides fuel
wood and timber along with
paddy crops
Generally, Manga bamboo
(Dendrocalamus stocksii) are
used as live fence in kitchen
gardens
Crop likes horse gram and
millets are integrated under the
tree species of Acacia
leucophloea
Agriculture crops such as
maize, millet, pulses and
various oil seeds used with
Ficus species
Generally 5–80 trees of Khejri
(Prosopis cineraria) used with
pulses and cereals crops in one
hectare land
Structurally, it is more complex
due to 3–4 layers of plants
including Areca catechu etc. as
woody perennial crops,
Mangifera indica and
Tamarindus indica as fruit trees,
Tectona grandis, and Ailanthus
triphysa used as timber species
whereas Pepper vines are
grown on tree species
Structurally, it is composed of
3–4 canopy layers; top layer is
the emergent layer followed by
the several canopy and the
understory plants mostly shrub
and the herb layer (spices,
vegetable crops, etc.)
TABLE 13.3 Ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of different traditional agroforestry systems.
Type of Characteristics of traditional agroforestry systems
agroforestry
systems Ecological characteristic
Aqua-AFP Integration of fish cultivation with rice
(comprising farming was added total soil nitrogen,
aquaculture) phosphorus, potassium, and soil organic
matter by the percentage of 27.9, 44.3, 6.5,
and 28.2, respectively, as compared to
traditional sole rice farming system
Agri-silvicultural Ecologically more prominent due to totally
model organic scheme in which leaf litter and
green foliage are mixed to prepare good
compost
Agri-silvicultural This system is ecologically sound due to
model integration of native trees which helps in
enhancing quality of coffee production
Taungya system Tree crop interaction played quite
interesting role as initially shade is less due
less branching of tree which helps in
growth of agricultural crops beneath the
woody perennial trees
Agri-silvicultural Ecologically sound system in which an
model efficient and proper utilization along with
sharing of natural resources among the
components of this model
Home gardens/ In this system, the protection provided by
kitchen gardens natural fence system was ecologically
more profitable than conventional fence.
Also, bamboo plantations shed their leaf
litter which was decayed and decomposed
to form compost that helps in growth and
development of associated fruits, flowers
and vegetable crops
Agri-silvipastoral In this system, the height parameter of
system sorghum crop was increased by 20%–23%
due to shade effects of associated tree
species
Agri-silvicultural This system proved an ecologically sound
system due to a great involvement small
mammals, birds and insects that helps in
controlling the infectious disease and pest
which promotes tree propagation
efficiently
Agri-silvicultural System was ecologically sound in which
system soil fertility enhancement was more
prominent due to decaying and
decomposition of litter fall that also
improves the soil physico-chemical
properties
Home gardens This system is more ecologically
sustainable due to diversity of variable
plants such as integration of MPTs with
fruits plants, some herbaceous crops
including vegetables, spices, ornamental
and medicinal plants in different layers
which enhance the biodiversity of that
particular region
Socio economic characteristic References
This integrated system is more economical Tangjang and
viable and socially acceptable by rural Nair (2015)
farmers
Whole community was economically Purushothaman
benefited from this organically oriented and Dharmarajan
AFS (2005)
Product’s quality and yield enhancement Dhanya et al.
helped in increasing income and profit of (2014)
the farmers which directly linked with
socio-economic upliftments and
livelihood security
This system has improved the Tiwari (2008)
socioeconomic condition of farmers due to
retaining the valuable forestry seedling
along with agricultural produce
This system is economically sound due to Viswanath et al.
maximum money return in the 10 years (2000)
short term
Economically profitable by enhancing Viswanath et al.
annual income of 1 lakh rupees from the (2014) and Rane
bamboo culms et al. (2014)
This system is socioeconomically more Jambulingam and
profitable due to production of nutritious Fernandes (1986)
fruits, charcoal, fuelwood for fuel and
palatable nutritive fodder for livestock’s
and cattle’s. Also, “Kangayam” breed of
cattle is used in local festival which is
drought tolerant bull
Socioeconomically more viable due to Dhanya et al.
sustainable production of timber, NTFPs, (2013)
fuelwood and important food grains along
with some valuable dairy products and
FYM
Income of the poor farmers was increased Shankaranarayan
due to production of some important et al. (1987)
medicinal and aromatic products along
with highly nutritive fodder for cattle’s,
fuelwood and good fencing materials
This consistent variety of plants ensured Das and Das
the profit to the farmers by income (2005)
generation
296 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability
are prominently used by the farmer in their field (Korwar
and Gudapaty, 2003).
13.5.2 Agroforestry: Possibilities,
perspectives, and benefits
From the ancient time, the tree has been an integral part of
the Indian culture. The demand of timber has been
increasing that leads to overexploitation and illicit felling
of forest trees. Increasing population promotes demands
of timber, fuelwood, and fodder and nowadays there is a
big gap between demand and supply of timber that affects
the overall wood quality and production. In this context,
incorporation of MPTs in AFS plays a viable role in ful-
filling the gap between demand and supply of timber and
minimizes the biotic pressure on forestry along with main-
taining the forest cover (Singh and Jhariya, 2016; Jhariya
et al., 2015).
However, many authors have reported the significant
effects of agroforestry in many ways due to its multifarious
benefits and wide possibilities of adoption in any type of
land that promotes the various uncountable ecosystem ser-
vices to biodiversity. Soil enrichment and fertility
enhancement are the major benefits under the AFS which
are reported by many authors (Zhu et al., 2019; Jhariya
et al., 2019a,b; Raj et al., 2020; Banerjee et al., 2020;
Meena et al., 2020b). In AFS, closed type of nutrient cycling
is observed instead of open type in sole cropping system.
Similarly, higher crop productions are also observed in
the AFS. Tree shed their leaves and twigs that gets decom-
posed and releases several essential nutrients that help in
maintaining soil quality and health ( Jhariya et al., 2018a,b).
Moreover, AFS are adapted to any type of land and
topography. In this context, Taungya system is prevailing
in the Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh and observed higher
yields of intercropped such as Wheat, pulses, and maize.
Although, wood and grain yield in agroforestry were higher
up to 20% in the Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh rather
than sole based agriculture system (Dwivedi and
Sharma, 1989).
Pathak (1989) reported that the incorporation of fodder
grass in the fodder trees is more profitable in term of yield
and soil fertility. In this context, the cultivation of Subabul
(Leucaena leucocephala) with agricultural crops and
grasses are very beneficial in term of higher yield, fodder
and production of fuel for household.
13.5.2.1 Agroforestry and social milieu
Indeed, agroforestry helps in augmenting income of the
farmers by providing several tangible and intangible
products that provides socioeconomic services and uplift
the livelihood standard of the farmers (Painkra et al.,
2016; Koussihouede et al., 2020). AFS provides social
services such as provision of quality and nutritious food,
fruits, fuel, fiber, and huge employment opportunities to
societies along with environmental services such as soil
and water conservation, efficient nutrient cycling, pre-
vention of air and water pollutions and climate change mit-
igation through storage and sequestration of atmospheric C
that helps in maintaining ecological sustainability ( Jhariya
et al., 2015; Chatterjee et al., 2020).
The combination of tree and crop in agroforestry pro-
vides various opportunities to our society along with various
environmental services. For example, societal impact
includes guaranteed cash generation from variable products,
diverse crop production, tree for social and cultural
program, variable timber and NTFPs, fodder for livestock’s,
and huge employment potential whereas environmental
impacts include closed and efficient nutrient cycling, soil
fertility enhancement, watershed protection, less pollution,
maximize biodiversity, C sequestration, and climate change
mitigation, respectively (Fig. 13.1).
13.5.2.2 Agroforestry promise for economic
sustainability
Due to diversified products, agroforestry helps in strength-
ening socioeconomic status of farmers for example, farmers
earn an average amount of $800 or Rs. 31,466.20 every year
from one acre of agroforestry plot in Karnataka and Kerala
states of India that makes a good perception of farmers
towards the adoption of AFS in any agro-ecological region.
Beside it, farmers have saved the surplus money in their
bank for satisfying current and future needs that helps in sta-
bilizing economics and promoting livelihood of poor
farmers (Gangadharappa et al., 2003).
13.5.2.3 Farmer’s perception towards
agroforestry
Indeed, there is a healthy sign of farmer’s perception
towards agroforestry adoption in agroclimatic regions of
India due to its diversified products and delivery of better
ecosystem services along with promotion of social, eco-
nomic, and environmental security under the era of
changing climate. However, a scientific-based better man-
agement practices in AFS promotes both socioeconomic
condition and ecological sustainability by creating more
opportunity for employment, promotes crop diversity,
family incomes, enhance nutrient quality of food and fruits,
and reduce the dependency on natural forests by availability
of fuel wood, timber, NTFPs, etc. (Koussihouede et al.,
2020). Therefore, agroforestry is a farmer friendly farming
system and its success stories are uncountable that is utilized
by various development agencies to aware the existing
farmers for adopting and promoting agroforestry tech-
nology in their fields that maintain both natural resources
and economic stability.
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13 297

Woody perennial trees Agricultural crops

including livestock’s

Agroforestry systems

Societal impact Environmental impact

1. Guaranteed cash generation 1. Closed and efficient nutrient

from variable products. cycling
2. Diverse crop production. 2. Soil fertility enhancement
3. Tree for social and cultural 3. Watershed Protection
program 4. Less pollution
4. Variable timber and NTFPs 5. Maximize biodiversity
5. Fodder for livestock’s 6. Carbon sequestration
6. Huge employment potential 7. Climate change mitigation

Maintaining Ecological security and

its sustainability

FIG. 13.1 Agroforestry systems for social and other environmental services. (Modified from Murthy, I.K., Dutta, S., Varghese, V., Kumar, P., 2016.
Impact of agroforestry systems on ecological and socio-economic systems: a review. Glob. J. Sci. Front. Res. 16, 15–28; Jhariya, M.K., Banerjee, A.,
Meena, R.S., Yadav, D.K., 2019. Sustainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management. Springer Nature Singapore. eISBN: 978-981-13-
6830-1, Hardcover ISBN: 978-981-13-6829-5. pp. 606. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6830-1; Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2019. Agroforestry
and Climate Change: Issues and Challenges. Apple Academic Press Inc., CRC Press-a Tayler and Francis Group, US & Canada. ISBN:978-1-77188-790-
8 (Hardcover), 978-0-42957-274-8 (E-book). pp. 335. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429057274.)

Various literatures are available on farmer’s perception
and their attitude towards adoption of AFS that is based on
adoption level (high, medium and low). For example,
Gangadharappa et al. (2003) have concluded that around
39% farmer comes under high-adoption category that is fol-
lowed by 36% and 25% in medium and low adoption cate-
gories, respectively. Also, agri-silvihorticultural system is
mostly practiced by the farmers. However, the adoption
level of AFS by farmers and its impact affects the socioeco-
nomic (festival celebration, migration level, communication
impact, employment status, farm and family income status,
etc.) and ecological status (biomass and fuelwood pro-
duction, efficient nutrient cycling, ground water recharge,
and forest dependency) of the farmers that is highly signif-
icant for ecological sustainability. Thus, scientific-oriented
practices of AFS help in achieving socioeconomic and eco-
logical sustainability (Gangadharappa et al., 2003;
Koussihouede et al., 2020).
13.6 Ecosystem services through
agroforestry system
AFS contribute a number of multifarious ecosystem ser-
vices such as C storage and sequestration, soil fertility
enhancement, biodiversity conservation, and regulation of
water and air quality (Kuyah et al., 2017, 2019). Although,
298 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability
tree species, field crops and livestocks are integrated in the
AFS and delivered variety of services to ecosystem in both
direct and indirect ways (Fig. 13.2). Tangible benefits rep-
resent direct utilization of agroforestry products in the form
of timber, fuel fodder and various NTFPs (Raj and Singh,
2017), fuelwood, fodder and various diverse agricultural
crops as a food grains whereas intangible benefits lies on
indirect ways of services in the form of enhancing soil fer-
tility, soil quality and health, efficient close nutrient cycling,
erosion reducing capacity, water quality enhancement, bio-
diversity maintenance, watershed management, enhancing
scenic and aesthetics beauty, and preferably C sequestration
for climate change mitigation ( Jhariya et al., 2015; Sinare
and Gordon, 2015; F
elix et al., 2018). The role of agrofor-
estry in C sequestration and climate change mitigation are
already discussed previously and lots of studies have been
conducted by various national and international authors;
according to them, potential of C sequestration in AFS
totally depends on types of model involved, species nature,
their types, combinations levels, soil types, topographic, and
climatic situations in any geographical areas (Raj et al.,
2019b; Handa et al., 2020). However, with better man-
agement practices the potential of C storage and
Tree species Agricultural crop
DIRECT/TANGIBLE SERVICES
Timber NTFPs
Agroforestry systems
Tendu patta Gum production
FIG. 13.2 Ecosystem services through agroforestry systems.
sequestration can be increased by 12,000 and
17,000 Mg C/year in the year of 2010 and 2040, respectively
(IPCC, 2000). As we know, soil is important natural
resources that play an inevitable role in environment and
ecosystem management through efficient nutrient cycling
due to varying practices of AFS that helps in building soil
health and quality through fertility enhancement (Raj
et al., 2019c). Similarly, services of agroforestry in term
of shelterbelts and windbreaks are also gaining an impor-
tance in arid, semiarid and sand dune areas due to its pro-
tective services form chilling and desiccating high speed
winds to the crops (Ruppert et al., 2020). Moreover, agrofor-
estry also helps in providing clean water, maintains water
levels and promotes its conservation whereas several studies
are available on agroforestry potential in minimizing non-
point source of pollution through vegetation buffering in
any fields (Udawatta et al., 2011).
Therefore, the multifarious ecosystem services through
AFS have proven it a good scientific-based sustainable land
management practices that not only delivered these all ser-
vices but also helps in maintaining food and nutrition
security, climate security and promotes ecological sustain-
ability in the current era of climate change.
Livestock’s
INDIRECT/INTANGIBLE SERVICES
Soil fertility enhancement
Carbon sequestration
Biodiversity convervation
Improving climate
Regulation of water & air
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13 299

Woody perennial trees

in agroforestry system

Tree system provides

shelter/protection to the Tree system provides
herbaceous crops in turn shelter/protection to the
crops enhance economic grasses/pasture in turn
output with tree crops grassesmaintain the
ecological

Herbaceous crops in Grasses and pasture in

agroforestry systems agroforestry systems

Both systems are

economically
viable and
ecologically

FIG. 13.3 Interactive concept among woody perennial trees, agricultural crops, and grasses/pastures for the ecological sustainability. (Modified from
Bugayong, L.A., 2003. Socioeconomic and environmental benefits of agroforestry practices in a community-based forest management site in the Philip-
pines. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany, 19–23 May 2003; Raj, A., Jhariya,
M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2020. Climate Change and Agroforestry Systems: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Apple Academic Press Inc., CRC
Press-a Tayler and Francis Group, US & Canada. ISBN: 9781771888226. pp. 1–383. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429286759.)

13.7 Agroforestry for ecological
sustainability
In AFS, tree provides shelter/protection to the herbaceous
crops which in turn enhance economic output with tree
crops. Similarly, tree system provides shelter/protection to
the grasses/pasture in turn grasses maintain the ecological
sustainability. Thus, both herbaceous crops and grasses
are compatible to each other in AFS that are economically
viable and ecologically sound. This is represented in
Fig. 13.3 that represents interactive concept among woody
perennial trees, agricultural crops, and grasses/pastures for
the ecological sustainability (Bugayong, 2003).
A sole cropping and tree have less output/products and
ecosystem services. This individual tree and crop culti-
vation would promote less nutrient conservation in soil
due to open type of nutrient cycling i.e., loss of soil nutrient
will be more due to leaching effect. Whereas, tree-crop
combination plays a both productive and protective function
such as check soil and water erosion, closed nutrient
cycling, enhance micro biota along with flora and fauna,
more outputs and products (timber, NTFPs, fuelwood, and
food grains), high biodiversity conservation and high eco-
system services that not only maintain socioeconomic status
of farmers but also maintain ecological stability in sus-
tainable way (Fig. 13.4) (Gangadharappa et al., 2003;
Sobola et al., 2015). However, many authors have studied
about comparative studies between sole tree-crop system
and AFS in term of ecological stability that is depicted in
Table 13.4. Therefore, joint efforts by tree-crop systems
in agroforestry play a key role in overall ecological stability.
13.8 Agroforestry concern
for environmental security
Agroforestry also plays an important role in water conser-
vation. Lots of studies have been reported on AFS
300 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability

Tree Tree+ Crop

Crop

Check soil and Enhance

water erosion. micro biota
along with
flora & fauna
Closed nutrient
A Sole cropping and tree having
less output/products and cycling
ecosystem services. This
individual tree and crop High ecosystem
cultivation are less nutrients High biodiversity
services
conservation in soil due to open conservaon
type of nutrient cycling i.e. loss of
soil nutrient will be more due to
More outputs
leaching effect. Maintain
and products
ecosystem stability

FIG. 13.4 Agroforestry for ecological stability (Gangadharappa et al., 2003; Sobola et al., 2015; Raj et al., 2019a,b,c).

comprising different combination of crops and trees (rather
than sole cropping system) and their huge potential of water
conservation and its sustainability across the globe. As we
know, agroforestry is location specific farming practices,
therefore, different crop combination in different localities
play a variety of role in conservation and cycling of water
body that helps in marinating and smooth running of par-
ticular farming system in agroforestry. In this context, dif-
ferent crop combination in AFS and its water conservation
capacity is observed in Fig. 13.5.
13.9 Research and development
in agroforestry
The AFS has been practiced since the ancient time period
that varies as per varying social, economic, culture, and reli-
gions. Traditional AFS are old but are organically and eco-
logically sounder. However, several indigenous
agroforestry that is basically location specific, site quality,
biophysical attributes, and based on people needs. However,
the research on agroforestry is not a new but was originally
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13
TABLE 13.4 Comparative studies between sole tree-crop and agroforestry system in term of ecological stability.
Sole tree and mono-cropping
Parameters system
Hydrological Sole cropping having less positive
impact impact in the context of better
hydrology. The chances of water loss
and erosion are reported to be more
Soil and micro There is an open type of nutrient cycling
biota and less soil fertility in sole based
cropping system. Soil nutrient loss and
erosion will be more in these sole
farming systems
Pollution Higher application of inorganic fertilizer
control and in monocropping system pollutes the
environmental soil and environment and having
security detrimental effects on tree crop health
systems
Food and Sole and monocropping systems having
nutritional less potential in providing diverse food,
security fruits and other edible products due to
less diversity. However, the practices of
intensive agriculture will meet the need
of food for burgeoning population but at
the cost of land degradation, soil health,
less nutritive and environmental health
due to extensive application of fertilizers
301
Agroforestry system References
Integration of woody perennial trees and Ong et al. (2006, 2007,
MPTs in agricultural system was 2014)
reported highly significant in the arid
and semiarid tropics in term of
enhancing water productivity and water
use efficiency of whole AFS due to great
potential of trees to access unproductive
water rather than sole crops; promotes
the better hydrological impacts on
different systems of agroforestry,
minimized the nutrient loss through
leaching, evaporation, water runoff
along with enhancement in water
infiltration rate, improved the watershed
functions which maintained hydraulic
lift in varying semiarid and arid regions
Whereas incorporation of MPTs and Kuyah et al. (2017),
leguminous trees would be more viable Hoosbeek et al. (2018),
solution in minimizing the chances of and Dollinger and Jose
soil erosion and enhance overall soil (2018)
health and quality. Tree in AFS shed
their leaves and twigs that decay and
decompose to add organic matter to the
soil. Generally, closed type of nutrient
cycling was observed in this system. In
short we can say agroforestry has a great
potential of increasing soil organic C
value rather than sole/mono-cropping
systems, improve fertility and essential
nutrient availability due to integration of
MPTs, and promotes the population of
beneficial soil inhabiting microbes
which affects soil quality and health in
positive ways that overall maintains
ecological sustainability of the AFS
However, due to greater availability of Pavlidis and Tsihrintzis
organic matter and nutrients by (2017)
shedding leaves and twigs would be
more organic form of AFS. Therefore,
this system having less chances of soil
pollution along with high environmental
security i.e., pollution free ecosystem
which maintains ecological
sustainability
Indeed, agroforestry is more diverse Sarvade et al. (2014),
farming system having greater chances Jhariya et al. (2019a,
of delivery of multifarious food (also 2019b), Raj et al. (2020),
edible flower), fruits and fodder (for and Banerjee et al.
livestock’s) products that not only rich in (2020)
nutrient but also meets the needs of
peoples by minimizing the chances of
food and nutritional crisis. Therefore,
AFS provide high protein, vitamin and
fibers rich food products that help in
maintain health and lifestyle of poor
farmers and livestocks
302 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability

Water use efficiency (Kg/ha/cm)

800
700 675

600
500
400
300
200 159
121 104.9
100 93 89
43
0

Eucalyptus spp. + Rice by

Acacia salign a + Sorghum by

Acacia salign a + Cow pea by

Eucalyptus spp. plantation by Zahid

Dalbergia sissoo plantation by Zahid

Wheat (Sole) by Yan and Wu (2014)

Rice (Sole) by Ganiyu al. (2012)

Wongprom et al. (2010)
Droppelmonn et al. (2000)
Droppelmonn et al. (2000)

and Nawaz (2007)

and Nawaz (2007)

Crop combination in Agroforestry system
FIG. 13.5 Crop combination in agroforestry system and its water conservation.

initiated from the long back of two decades. But now con- adoption of ecologically sound AFP for food and environ-
siderable progresses in research and development of AFS mental security (Nair and Garrity, 2012; Jhariya
are still achieving and research are widened in the area of et al., 2015).
tree-crop-livestock’s interaction that would be helpful in
understanding the models’ existence, behavior, adoptability
along with farmers attitude in the adoption of AFS in 13.10 Policy framework for adoption
various agroclimatic zones (Liu et al., 2019). However,
several agroforestry technologies have been developed
of agroforestry
and tested on the farmer’s agricultural field and in this Adoption of AFP across the world requires some definite
context a considerable progress has been achieved (Puri policy framework. The importance of AFP is increasing
and Nair, 2004). day by day due to its multifacetes of benefits. The three
Although, research and development in AFS are con- major issue associated with adoption of agroforestry policy
ducted under the guidance and supervision of All India includes the level of awareness among farmers in relation
Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) of ICAR that is agroforestry adoption, the technical knowledge and avail-
conducted in the 31 centers that is distributed across the ability of germplasm. The policy of agroforestry should
tropical and temperate regions of India. Beside it, a brain- be governed by the climatic features, farmer’s socioeco-
storming and scientific-based training has been given to nomic condition and agroforestry technology
poor farmers, agricultural scientists and technicians all (Koussihouede et al., 2020). One of the key policies should
over the country. However, a very high expectation is be development of property rights of farmer’s in relation to
observed from the AFS that includes a benefits of food land holding for longer tenure. Thus, the farmer would be
grains production that is harmonized with environment, proactive to adopt various technologies under agroforestry.
ecology, traditions, and heritage of the rural and urban Secondly, forest laws and policies often hamper the smooth
areas of the world. Therefore, involvement of government, functioning of AFP by restricting the farming community
private, legal and nongovernment organization for the from getting economic benefits (Detlefsen and Scheelje,
shaping, and adoption of agroforestry models by 2011). Legal system should be reoriented on this aspect
scientific-based research and development are win-a-win so that AFP can be easily adopted. Third most important
strategies that would help historical dichotomy among aspect of agroforestry policy should be oriented towards
agriculture, forestry, and livestocks and promote more maintaining germplasm diversity along with conservation.
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13
At present the suitable species used in different AFS have a
narrow germplasm base, lesser adaptability and therefore
becomes unsuccessful. Policy should be formulated in this
particular aspect so that the scope of agroforestry increases.
Further government and other active bodies should provide
significant subsidies in order to promote agroforestry.
Therefore, providing subsidies for agroforestry should be
the key policy for the government in the upcoming days
(Guillerme et al., 2011).
13.11 Conclusions
Today, AFS are gaining much more importance due to its
multifarious benefits and adoptive potential in various
agro-climatic zones of the tropics. Agroforestry not only
helps in development of farmers social, economic, and
culture value but also builds the soil fertility, food, and
nutrition security (by providing nutritive foods) and main-
tains ecological sustainability. However, the interaction
among tree-crop-livestock’s is the major thrust areas in
which a scientific-based research and development are
required in the context of better production and environ-
mental security. Therefore, ecological sustainability
through AFS is a core area of research that not only repre-
sents the type and components of prevalent models but also
entails about extent of adoptability of different agroforestry
models in varying climatic situation with delivery of eco-
system services that maintain a better biodiversity on the
earth. In this context, a good governance, better policy,
and scientific-oriented research and development play a
key role in enhancing scope, adoptability, farmer’s positive
perception towards agroforestry that would be viable for
better future in agroforestry at national and global scale.
13.12 Future prospect and roadmap
of agroforestry development
By looking its adoption potential and multifarious benefits
along with metaanalysis on ecosystem services, agrofor-
estry has wide scope and its future is so bright in world
farming systems. Integration of trees in agricultural land
is so magical for farmers in the aspects of higher produc-
tivity through multiple products resulted socioeconomic
development. Also, environmental security, food security,
and ecological sustainability are the core benefits through
adoption of agroforestry with promising bright future and
its adoptive potential among the farmers throughout the
tropics. But there is a need of scientific-oriented research
in agroforestry modeling that helps in understanding a better
tree-crop interaction that would be a great thrust area for
concreting future road map of research and development
in AFS in the world. However, exploring the ecosystem ser-
vices through AFS would be helpful in knowing potential of
agroforestry in more ways that would be a great topic to
303
concern in future research. Also, the communication and
knowledge gap between farmers and researchers should
be minimized by exploring more research and development
in AFS by scientists and researchers and that must be
reached to the farms for developing understanding of the
farmers for the better utilization and adoption of better AFS.
References
Alavalapati, J.R.R., Nair, P.K.R., 2001. Socio-economics and institutional
perspectives of agroforestry. In: Palo, M., Uusivuori, J. (Eds.), World
Forests, Society and Environment: Markets and Policies. Kluwer, Dor-
drecht, pp. 71–81.
Alavalapati, J.R.R., Mercer, D.E., Montambault, J.R., 2004. Agroforestry
systems and valuation methodologies. In: Alavalapati, J.R.R., Mercer,
E. (Eds.), Valuing Agroforestry Systems: Methods and Applications.
Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–8.
Ashiagbor, G., Oduro, W., Gyiele, L., Siaw, D., Barnes, V.R., Agbenyega,
O., Twum-Ampofo, K., Partey, S., Thevathasan, N., Gordon, A., Gray,
R., Odame, H.H., 2020. Toward sustainable land resources man-
agement with agroforestry: empirical evidence from the Sunyani west
district of Ghana. Agrofor. Syst. 94, 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10457-019-00419-y.
Banerjee, A., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Raj, A., 2020. Environmental
and Sustainable Development through Forestry and Other Resources.
Apple Academic Press Inc., CRC Press- a Tayler and Francis Group,
US & Canada, pp. 1–400, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429276026.
ISBN:9781771888110.
Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., 2021a. Agroeco-
logical Footprints Management for Sustainable Food System. Springer
Nature Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9496-0. eBook
ISBN: 978-981-15-9496-0, Hardcover: 978-981-15-9495-3. pp. 514.
Banerjee, A., Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Yadav, D.K., 2021b. Ecological
footprints in agroecosystem-an overview. In: Banerjee, A., Meena, R.
S., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K. (Eds.), Agroecological Footprints Man-
agement for Sustainable Food System. Springer Nature Singapore,
pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9496-0_1. eBook ISBN:
978-981-15-9496-0, Hardcover: 978-981-15-9495-3.
Banerjee, A., Jhariya, M.K., Raj, A., Yadav, D.K., Khan, N., Meena, R.S.,
2021c. Land footprint management and policies. In: Banerjee, A.,
Meena, R.S., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K. (Eds.), Agroecological Foot-
prints Management for Sustainable Food System. Springer Nature Sin-
gapore, pp. 221–246, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9496-0_7.
eBook ISBN: 978-981-15-9496-0, Hardcover: 978-981-15-9495-3.
Banerjee, A., Jhariya, M.K., Raj, A., Yadav, D.K., Khan, N., Meena, R.S.,
2021d. Energy and climate footprint towards the environmental sus-
tainability. In: Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.
K. (Eds.), Agroecological Footprints Management for Sustainable
Food System. Springer Nature Singapore, pp. 415–443, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-981-15-9496-0_14. eBook ISBN: 978-981-15-
9496-0, Hardcover: 978-981-15-9495-3.
Bardule, A., Rancane, S., Gutmane, I., Berzins, P., Stesele, V., Lazdina, D.,
Bardulis, A., 2013. The effect of fertiliser type on hybrid aspen
increment and seed yield of perennial grass cultivated in the agrofor-
estry system. Agron. Res. 11 (1), 13–24.
Bugayong, L.A., 2003. Socioeconomic and environmental benefits of agro-
forestry practices in a community-based forest management site in the
Philippines. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Rural
304 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability
Livelihoods Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany, 19–23 May
2003.
Chatterjee, N., Nair, P.K.R., Nair, V.D., Viswanath, S., Bhattacharjee, A.,
2020. Depth-wise distribution of soil-carbon stock in aggregate-sized
fractions under shaded-perennial agroforestry systems in the Western
Ghats of Karnataka, India. Agrofor. Syst. 94, 341–358. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10457-019-00399-z.
Cole, R.J., 2010. Social and environmental impacts of payments for envi-
ronmental services for agroforestry on small-scale farms in southern
Costa Rica. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 17, 208–216.
Dagar, J.C., 2000. Agroforestry systems for coastal and island regions.
Indian J. Agrofor. 2, 59–74.
Dagar, J.C., Singh, A.K., Arunachalam, A., 2014. Agroforestry systems in
India: livelihood security and ecosystem services. In: Advances in
Agroforestry. Series vol. 10. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
81-322-1662-9. p. 400.
Das, T., Das, A.K., 2005. Inventorying plant biodiversity in homegardens: a
case study in Barak Valley, Assam, North East India. Curr. Sci. 89,
155–163.
DeFries, R., Rosenzweig, C., 2010. Toward a whole-landscape approach
for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107
(46), 19627–19632.
Detlefsen, G., Scheelje, M., 2011. Implicaciones de las normativas fore-
stales para el manejo maderable sostenible en sistemas agroforestales
de Centroam
erica. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. 41 p.
Dhanya, B., Viswanath, S., Purushothaman, S., 2013. Does litterfall from
native trees support rainfed agriculture? Analysis of Ficus trees in agro-
forestry systems of southern dry agroclimatic zone of Karnataka,
Southern India. J. For. Res. 24, 333–338.
Dhanya, B., Sathish, B.N., Viswanath, S., Purushothaman, S., 2014. Eco-
system services of native trees: experiences from two traditional agro-
forestry systems in Karnataka, Southern India. Int. J. Biodiver. Sci.
Ecosyst. Serv. Manage 10, 101–111.
Dhiman, R.C., 2012. Transforming rural Uttar Pradesh through integrating
tree culture on farm land: a case study of WIMCO’s poplar programme.
Lucknow Manage Assoc. Conv. J. 8 (1), 85–98.
Dhyani, S.K., Kumar, R.V., Ahlawat, S.P., 2011. Jatropha curcas L.: a
potential biodiesel crop and its current RandD status. Indian
J. Agric. Sci. 81 (4), 295–308.
Dhyani, S.K., Handa, A.K., Uma, 2013. Area under agroforestry in India:
an assessment for present status and future perspective. Indian
J. Agrofor. 15 (1).
Dixon, R.K., 1995. Agroforestry systems: sources or sinks for greenhouse
gases? Agrofor. Syst. 31, 99–116.
Doddabasawa, P., Chittapur, B.M., Mahadeva Murthy, M., 2020. Com-
parison of carbon footprint of traditional agroforestry systems under
rainfed and irrigated ecosystems. Agrofor. Syst. 94, 465–
475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00413-4.
Dollinger, J., Jose, S., 2018. Agroforestry for soil health. Agrofor. Syst. 92,
213–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0223-9.
Dupraz, C., Burgess, P., Gavaland, A., Graves, A., Herzog, F., Incoll, L.,
Jackson, N., Keesman, K., Lawson, G., Lecomte, I., Liagre, F., Man-
tzanas, K., Mayus, M., Moreno, G., Palma, J., Papanastasis, V., Paris,
P., Pilbeam, D., Reisner, Y., Vincent, G., Van der Werf, W., 2005. Syn-
thesis of the Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe project. INRA-UMR
System Editions, Montpellier, 254.
Dwivedi, A.P., Sharma, K.K., 1989. Agroforestry: its potential. In: Paper
Presented in the Seminar on Social Forestry and Agroforestry, FRI
Dehradun.
Feldhake, C.M., Belesky, D.P., Mathias, E.L., 2008. Forage production
under and adjacent to Robinia pseudoacacia in Central Appalachia,
West Virginia. Adv. Agrofor. 4, 55–66.
F
elix, G.F., Scholberg, J.M.S., Clermont-Dauphin, C., Cournac, L., Tit-
tonell, P., 2018. Enhancing agroecosystem productivity with woody
perennials in semi-arid West Africa. A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 38, 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0533-3.
Galhena, D.H., Freed, R., Maredia, K.M., 2013. Home gardens: a promising
approach to enhance household food security and wellbeing. Agric.
Food Secur. 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-2-8.
Gangadharappa, N.R., Shivamurthy, M., Ganesamoorthi, S., 2003. Agro-
forestry—A Viable Alternative for Social, Economic and Ecological
Sustainability. http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0051-
B5.HTM.
Garrett, H.E., Rietveld, W.J., Fisher, R.F., 2000. Social dimensions of agro-
forestry. In: Garrett, H.E. (Ed.), North American Agroforestry: An
Integrated Science and Practice. Am Soc Agronomy, Inc., Madison,
WI, pp. 361–386.
Ghosh, M., Ghosal, S., 2019. Historical geography of forestry and forest
culture in sub-Himalayan West Bengal, 1757-2015. Space Cult. India
6 (5), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.20896/SACI.V6I5.393.
Gill, R.I.S., Singh, B., Kaur, N., Sangha, K.S., 2010. Agroforestry—A
Viable Option for Crop Diversification in Punjab. Department of
Forests and Wildlife Preservation Punjab, p. 20.
Guillerme, S., Kumar, B.M., Menon, A., Hinnewinkel, C., Maire, E.,
Santhoshkumar, A., 2011. Impacts of public policies and farmer pref-
erences on agroforestry practices in Kerala, India. Environ. Manag. 48,
351–364.
Guo, Q., 2000. Climate change and biodiversity conservation in Great
Plains agroecosystems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 10, 289–298.
Handa, A.K., Chavan, S.B., Sirohi, C., Rizvi, R.H., 2020. Importance of
agroforestry systems in carbon sequestration. In: Proceedings of the
National Agroforestry Symposium 2020 (NAFS 2020) on Climate
Resilient Agroforestry Systems to Augment Livestock Productivity
Ensuring Environmental Biodiversity. New Delhi, India, 5–6 March
2020, pp. 221–235.
Hegde, N.G., 2005. Tree based Farming for Sustainable Livelihood at the
workshop on Tropical Forestry and Poverty Eradication, Bangkok,
Thailand. Apr. 5-6.
Hoosbeek, M.R., Remme, R.P., Rusch, G.M., 2018. Trees enhance soil
carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling in a silvopastoral system
in south-western Nicaragua. Agrofor. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10457-016-0049-2.
ICRAF, 1993. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry: Annual
Report 1993. Island Press, Nairobi, Kenya. 208.
IPCC, 2000. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. A Special Report
of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 375.
Jama, B., Zeila, A., 2000. Agroforestry in the Drylands of Eastern Africa: A
Call to Action. ICRAF Working Paper–no. 1, World Agroforestry
Centre, Nairobi.
Jambulingam, R., Fernandes, E.C.M., 1986. Multipurpose trees and shrubs
on farmlands in Tamil Nadu State (India). Agrofor. Syst. 4 (1), 17–32.
Jhariya, M.K., Bargali, S.S., Raj, A., 2015. In: Zlatic, M. (Ed.), Possibilities
and Perspectives of Agroforestry in Chhattisgarh, Precious Forests –
Precious Earth. InTech, pp. 237–257. ISBN:978-953-51-2175-6
https://doi.org/10.5772/60841.
Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2018a. Plant mediated transfor-
mation and habitat restoration: phytoremediation an eco-friendly
approach. In: Gautam, A., Pathak, C. (Eds.), Metallic Contamination
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13
and its Toxicity. Daya Publishing House, A Division of Astral Interna-
tional Pvt. Ltd New Delhi-110002, pp. 231–247. ISBN:
9789351248880.
Jhariya, M.K., Banerjee, A., Yadav, D.K., Raj, A., 2018b. Leguminous
trees an innovative tool for soil sustainability. In: Meena, R.S., Das,
A., Yadav, G.S., Lal, R. (Eds.), Legumes for Soil Health and Sus-
tainable Management. Springer, pp. 315–345, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-13-0253-4_10. ISBN 978-981-13-0253-4 (eBook),
ISBN: 978-981-13-0252-7 (Hardcover).
Jhariya, M.K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., Yadav, D.K., 2019a. Sustainable
Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management. Springer Nature
Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6830-1. eISBN: 978-
981-13-6830-1, Hardcover ISBN: 978-981-13-6829-5. pp. 606.
Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2019b. Agroforestry and Climate
Change: Issues and Challenges. Apple Academic Press Inc., CRC
Press- a Tayler and Francis Group, US & Canada, https://doi.org/
10.1201/9780429057274. ISBN:978-1-77188-790-8 (Hardcover),
978-0-42957-274-8 (E-book). pp. 335.
Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Banerjee, A., 2021a. Ecological Intensification
of Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer Nature Sin-
gapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3. eISBN: 978-981-
334-203-3, Hardcover ISBN: 978-981-334-206-6.
Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Banerjee, A., 2021b. Ecological intensification
of natural resources towards sustainable productive system. In: Eco-
logical Intensification of Natural Resources for Sustainable Agri-
culture. Springer, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-
4203-3_1. eBook ISBN 978-981-334-203-3. Hardcover ISBN: 978-
981-334-202-6.
Jose, S., Dollinger, J., 2019. Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock pro-
duction system. Agrofor. Syst. 93, 1–9.
Kareemulla, K., Rhizvi, R.H., Yadav, R.S., Munna, R., Dhyani, S.K., 2009.
Agroforestry for rural developmentcooperatives as viable institutions.
Agri. Situation India, 61–67.
Khan, N., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2020a. Herbaceous
dynamics and CO2 mitigation in an urban setup-A case study from
Chhattisgarh, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (3), 2881–
2897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07182-8.
Khan, N., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2020b. Structure,
diversity and ecological function of shrub species in an urban setup
of Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (5),
5418–5432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07172-w.
Khan, N., Jhariya, M.K., Raj, A., Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., 2021a. Soil
carbon stock and sequestration: implications for climate change adap-
tation and mitigation. In: Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Banerjee,
A. (Eds.), Ecological Intensification of Natural Resources for Sus-
tainable Agriculture. Springer, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-981-33-4203-3_13. eBook ISBN 978-981-334-203-3. Hardcover
ISBN: 978-981-334-202-6.
Khan, N., Jhariya, M.K., Raj, A., Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., 2021b. Eco-
designing for sustainability. In: Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Banerjee,
A. (Eds.), Ecological Intensification of Natural Resources for Sus-
tainable Agriculture. Springer, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-981-33-4203-3_16. eBook ISBN 978-981-334-203-3. Hardcover
ISBN: 978-981-334-202-6.
Kishwan, J., Kumar, D., 2013. Future of Poplars in India. Food and Agri-
cultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available
online at http://www.fao.org/forestry/6285-037bdb32f78ab
8a552bf6b163f2ffc825.pdf.
305
Korwar, G.R., Gudapaty, P., 2003. Existing and improved agroforestry
systems in low rainfall areas of India. In: Conference: Proceedings
of the International Symposium for Sustainable Dryland Agriculture
Systems, At: Niamey, Niger. Niamey Volume: Citation: Omanya, G.
O., Pasternak, D. (eds.) 2005. Sustainable Agriculture Systems for
the Drylands.
Koussihouede, H., Clermont-Dauphin, C., Aholoukpè, H., Barthes, B.,
Chapuis-Lardy, L., Jassogne, L., Amadji, G., 2020. Diversity and
socio-economic aspects of oil palm agroforestry systems on the Allada
plateau, southern Benin. Agrofor. Syst. 94, 41–56. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10457-019-00360-0.
Kumar, B.M., 2008. Forestry in ancient India: some literary evidences on
productive and protective aspects. Asian Agrihist. 12 (4), 299–306.
Kumar, B.M., 2010. Species richness and aboveground carbon stocks in the
home gardens of central Kerala, India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 140,
430–440.
Kumar, A., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2017. Vegetation
dynamics in Bishrampur Collieries of Northern Chhattisgarh, India:
eco-restoration and management perspectives. Environ. Monit. Assess.
189 (8), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6086-0.
€
Kuyah, S., Oborn, I., Jonsson, M., 2017. Regulating ecosystem services
delivered in agroforestry systems. In: Dagar, J.C., Tewari, V.P.
(Eds.), Agroforestry: Anecdotal to Modern Science. Springer Sin-
gapore, Singapore, pp. 797–815.
Kuyah, S., Whitney, C.W., Jonsson, M., Sileshi, G.W., Oborn, I., Muthuri,
C.W., Luedeling, E., 2019. Agroforestry delivers a win-win solution
for ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. A meta-analysis. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 39, 47.
Lal, R., 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change
and food security. Science 304, 1623–1627.
Leakey, R.B., 2012. Multifunctional agriculture and opportunities for agro-
forestry: implications of IAASTD. Adv. Agrofor. 9, 203–214.
Liu, W., Yao, S., Wang, J., Liu, M., 2019. Trends and features of agrofor-
estry research based on bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 11,
3473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123473.
Lorenz, K., Lal, R., 2014. Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry
systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34 (2), 443–454. Springer
Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA.
Luna, R.K., 2009. Eucalypts in Agro Forestry. Eucalypts in India. Deh-
radun Publication, India.
Maithani, B.P., 2005. Shifting Cultivation in North-East India Policy Issues
and Options. Published and printed by Krishna for Mittal Publications,
Mohan Garden, New Delhi, India.
Mayrinck, R.C., Laroque, C.P., Amichev, B.Y., Van Rees, K., 2019.
Above- and below-ground carbon sequestration in Shelterbelt trees
in Canada: a review. Forests 10, 922.
Mbow, C., Noordwijk, M.V., Luedeling, E., Neufeldt, H., Minang, P.A.,
Kowero, G., 2014. Agroforestry solutions to address food security and
climate change challenges in Africa. Curr. Opin. Env. Sustain. 6, 61–67.
McAdam, J.H., Thomas, T.H., Willis, R.W., 1999. The economics of agro-
forestry systems in the United Kingdom and their future prospects.
Scottish For. 53 (1), 37–41.
Meena, R.S., Lal, R., 2018. Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Man-
agement. Springer Singapore, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-13-0253-4_10. . pp. 541. ISBN 978-981-13-0253-4 (eBook),
ISBN: 978-981-13-0252-7 (Hardcover).
Meena, R.S., Kumar, V., Yadav, G.S., Mitran, T., 2018. Response and inter-
action of Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi
306 SECTION C Forest-based environment and ecological sustainability
in the soybean rhizosphere: a review. Plant Growth Regul. 84, 207–
223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-017-0334-8.
Meena, R.S., Lal, R., Yadav, G.S., 2020a. Long term impacts of topsoil
depth and amendments on soil physical and hydrological properties
of an Alfisol in Central Ohio, USA. Geoderma 363,
1141164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114164.
Meena, R.S., Lal, R., Yadav, G.S., 2020b. Long-term impact of topsoil
depth and amendments on carbon and nitrogen budgets in the surface
layer of an Alfisol in Central Ohio. Catena 194, 104752. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.catena.2020.104752.
Mthembu, B.E., Everson, C.S., Everson, T.M., 2018. Tree legumes-
temperate grass agroforestry system effects on inorganic soil nitrogen
as ecosystem services provision for smallholder farming systems in
South Africa. J. Crop Improv. 32 (2), 141–155.
Nair, P.K.R., Garrity, D., 2012. Agroforestry-The future of global land use.
Adv. Agrofor. 9, 531.
Nair, P.K.R., Nair, V.D., 2003. Carbon storage in North American agrofor-
estry systems. In: Kimble, J.M., Heath, L.S., Birdsey, R.A., Lal,
R. (Eds.), The Potential of U.S. Forest Soils to Sequester Carbon
and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
pp. 333–346.
Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M., Nair, V.D., 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for
carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172 (1), 10–23.
Nair, P.K.R., Nair, V.D., Kumar, B.M., Showalter, J.M., 2010. Carbon
sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv. Agron. 108, 237–307.
Ong, C.K., Black, C.R., Muthuri, C.W., 2006. Modifying forestry and agro-
forestry to increase water productivity in the semi-arid tropics. CAB
reviews: perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science. Nutr. Nat.
Resour. 1 (65), 1–19.
Ong, C.K., Anyango, S., Muthuri, C.W., Black, C.R., 2007. Water use and
water productivity of agroforestry systems in the semi-arid tropics.
Ann. Arid Zone 46, 255–284.
Ong, C., Black, C.R., Wilson, J., Muthuri, C., Bayala, J., Jackson, N.A.,
2014. Agroforestry: hydrological impacts. In: Alfen, V., Neal,
K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, second
ed. vol. 1. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp. 244–252.
Painkra, G.P., Bhagat, P.K., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., 2016. Beekeeping
for poverty alleviation and livelihood security in Chhattisgarh, India.
In: Narain, S., Rawat, S.K. (Eds.), Innovative Technology for Sus-
tainable Agriculture Development. Biotech Books, New Delhi, India,
pp. 429–453. ISBN: 978-81-7622-375-1.
Pathak, P.S., 1989. Management of subabul for optimizing production. In:
Hegde, N.G., et al. (Eds.), In Production of Fodder and Fuel Wood
Trees. BAIF Publications, Pune.
Paudel, B.R., Udawatta, R.P., Anderson, S.H., 2011. Agroforestry and grass
buffer effects on soil quality parameters for grazed pasture and row-
crop systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 48, 125–132.
Pavlidis, G., Tsihrintzis, V., 2017. Pollution control by agroforestry
systems: a short review. Eur. Water 59, 297–301.
Peters, G.P., Andrew, R.M., Boden, T., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Le Qu
er
e,
C., Marland, G., Raupach, M.R., Wilson, C., 2013. The challenge to
keep global warming below 2°C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 4–6. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1783.
Puri, S., Nair, P.K.R., 2004. Agroforestry research for development in India:
25 years of experiences of a national program. Agrofor. Syst. 61, 437–452.
Purushothaman, S., Dharmarajan, P., 2005. Upland paddies, foliage
hillocks and multistoried horticulture: an ecologically sustainable
agroecosystem. Asia-Pacific Agrofor. Newslett., 11–13.
Raj, A., Singh, L., 2017. Effects of girth class, injury and seasons on Eth-
ephon induced gum exudation in Acacia nilotica in Chhattisgarh.
Indian J. Agrofor. 19 (1), 36–41.
Raj, A., Jhariya, M.K., Bargali, S.S., 2016. Bund based agroforestry using
Eucalyptus Species: a review. Curr. Agric. Res. J. 4 (2), 148–158.
Raj, A., Jhariya, M.K., Banerjee, A., Yadav, D.K., 2019a. Agroforestry for
climate mitigation and livelihood security in India. In: Jhariya, M.K.,
Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A. (Eds.), Agroforestry and Climate Change:
Issues and Challenges. Apple Academic Press Inc., CRC Press- a
Tayler and Francis Group, US & Canada, ISBN: 9781771887908,
pp. 189–207.
Raj, A., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., 2019b.
Agroforestry: a holistic approach for agricultural sustainability. In:
Jhariya, M.K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., Yadav, D.K. (Eds.), Sus-
tainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management. Springer
Nature Singapore, pp. 101–131, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
6830-1. eISBN: 978-981-13-6830-1, Hardcover ISBN: 978-981-13-
6829-5. Pp. 606.
Raj, A., Jhariya, M.K., Banerjee, A., Yadav, D.K., Meena, R.S., 2019c. Soil
for sustainable environment and ecosystems management. In: Jhariya,
M.K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., Yadav, D.K. (Eds.), Sustainable
Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management. Springer Nature
Singapore, pp. 189–221, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6830-1.
eISBN: 978-981-13-6830-1, Hardcover ISBN: 978-981-13-6829-5.
pp. 606.
Raj, A., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A., 2020. Climate Change
and Agroforestry Systems: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies.
Apple Academic Press Inc., CRC Press- a Tayler and Francis Group,
US & Canada, pp. 1–383, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429286759.
ISBN: 9781771888226.
Raj, A., Jhariya, M.K., Khan, N., Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., 2021. Eco-
logical intensification for sustainable development. In: Ecological
Intensification of Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture.
Springer, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3_5.
eBook ISBN 978-981-334-203-3. Hardcover ISBN: 978-981-334-
202-6.
Rane, A.D., Sowmya, C., Viswanath, S., 2014. Culm emergence and soil
properties in Dendroclamus stocksii under different landuse systems
in Central Western Ghats. J. Tree Sci. 33, 48–52.
Regmi, B.N., Garforth, C., 2010. Trees outside forests and rural livelihoods:
a study of Chitwan district, Nepal. Agrofor. Syst. 79 (3), 393–407.
Rowbotham, C.J., 1924. The Taungya system in cachar division, Assam.
Indian Forester. 50 (7), 1924.
Ruppert, D., Welp, M., Spies, M., Thevs, N., 2020. Farmers’ perceptions of
tree shelterbelts on agricultural land in rural Kyrgyzstan. Sustainability
12, 1093.
Sahu, M.L., Kumar, Y., 2015. Exploring rainwater harvesting potential of
Terminalia belerica Roxb. Through rainfall partitioning and soil infil-
tration study. J. Tropical For. 31 (3), 1–7.
Sahu, S.K., Nayak, R.K., Sarangi, D., 2005. Sustainable soil and land man-
agement under shifting cultivation in Orissa. Orissa Rev. 5, 67–74.
Sarvade, S., Singh, R., Ghumare, V., Kachawaya, D.S., Khachi, B., 2014.
Agroforestry: an approach for food security. Indian J. Ecol. 41 (1), 95–98.
Sati, V.P., 2019. Shifting cultivation in Mizoram, India: an empirical study
of its economic implications. J. Mt. Sci. 16, 2136–2149. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11629-019-5416-9.
Selvan, T., Kumar, S., 2017. Agroforestry in the North-Eastern Himalayas.
In: Gupta, S.K., Pawar, P., Kaushal, R. (Eds.), Agroforestry for
 Agroforestry a model for ecological sustainability Chapter 13
Increased Production and Livelihood Security. New India Publishing
Agency (NIPA), pp. 23–40.
Sen, W., 1991. Agroforestry in China. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Beijing.
Shankaranarayan, K.A., Harsh, L.N., Kathju, S., 1987. Agroforestry in the
arid zones of India. Agrofor. Syst. 5, 69–88.
Sinare, H., Gordon, L.J., 2015. Ecosystem services from woody vegetation
on agricultural lands in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 200, 186–199.
Singh, K.A., 2008. Resource management perspective for forage pro-
duction and agroforestry system development in eastern Himalayan
region: a review. Indian J. Agron. 53 (4), 255–266.
Singh, N.R., Jhariya, M.K., 2016. Agroforestry and agrihorticulture for
higher income and resource conservation. In: Narain, S., Rawat, S.
K. (Eds.), Innovative Technology for Sustainable Agriculture Devel-
opment. Biotech Books, New Delhi, India, pp. 125–145. ISBN: 978-
81-7622-375-1.
Singh, A.K., Kumar, P., Singh, R., Rathore, N., 2012. Dynamics of tree-
crop inter face in relation to their influence on microclimatic
changes—a review. Hort. Flora Res. Spectrum 1 (3), 193–198.
Sobola, O.O., Amadi, D.C., Dan Jamala, G.Y., 2015. The role of agroforestry
in environmental sustainability. J. Agric. Veterinary Sci. 8 (5), 20–25.
Tangjang, S., Nair, P.K.R., 2015. Rice + Fish Farming in Homesteads: Sus-
tainable Natural-Resource Management for Subsistence in Arunachal
Pradesh, India.
Thenmozhi, S., Thilagavath, P., 2014. Impact of agriculture on Indian
economy. Int. Res. J. Agri. Rural Dev. 3 (1), 96–105.
Tiwari, S.K., 2008. Agro-forestry Project; Dept. of Genetics and Plant
Breeding College of Agriculture, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture
and Technology Pantnagar–263145.(14-1-2008).
Torquebiau, E.F., 2000. A renewed perspective on agroforestry concepts
and classification. Compt. Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris, Sci. Vie/Life
Sci. 323, 1009–1017.
Udawatta, R.P., Garrett, H.E., Kallenbach, R., 2011. Agroforestry
buffers for nonpoint source pollution reductions from agricultural
307
watersheds. J. Environ. Qual. 40, 800. https://doi.org/10.2134/
jeq2010.0168.
Verma, S., Singh, V., Verma, D.K., Giri, S.P., 2016. Agroforestry prac-
tices and concepts in sustainable land use systems in India. Int.
J. For. Crop Improv. 7 (1), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/
IJFCI/7.1/126-131.
Viswanath, S., Nair, P.K.R., Kaushik, P.K., Prakasam, U., 2000. Acacia
nilotica trees in rice fields: a traditional agroforestry system in central
India. Agrofor. Syst. 50, 157–177.
Viswanath, S., Rane, A.D., Sowmya, C., Rao, M.S., 2014. Quest for an
appropriate bamboo species in tropical homegardens—Can Dendro-
calamus stocksii (Munro) fit the bill? In: Paper Presented at the III
World Congress on Agroforestry. 10th -14th February 2014 at New
Delhi, Organized by World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya and ICAR,
India.
Viswanath, S., Lubina, P.A., Subbanna, S., Sandhya, M.C., 2018. Tradi-
tional agroforestry Systems and practices: a review. Adv. Agri. Res.
Tech. J. 11 (1), 18–29.
Westholm, L., Ostwald, M., 2020. Food production and gender relations in
multifunctional landscapes: a literature review. Agrofor. Syst. 94, 359–
374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00397-1.
Workman, S.W., Bannister, M.E., Nair, P.K.R., 2003. Agroforestry
potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of land owners
and extension professionals. Agrofor. Syst. 59, 73–83.
Zhu, X., Liu, W., Chen, J., Bruijnzeel, L.A., Mao, Z., Yang, X., Cardinael,
R., Meng, F.R., Sidle, R.C., Seitz, S., Nair, V.D., Nanko, K., Zou, X.,
Chen, C., Jiang, X.J., 2019. Reductions in water, soil and nutrient
losses and pesticide pollution in agroforestry practices: a review of evi-
dence and processes. Plant Soil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-
04377-3.
Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A.,
Noordwijk, M., Wang, M., 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon
on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and
national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep. 6, 29987.