Agro Ecology

Paul Wojtkowski
Agroecology
Simplified and Explained
Agroecology
Paul Wojtkowski
Agroecology
Simplified and Explained
Paul Wojtkowski
Universidad de Concepción
Pittsfield, MA, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-93208-8 ISBN 978-3-319-93209-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93209-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018949050
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
As agroecology has advanced, it has become less a consensus and more a strewing
of ideas. The situation is analogous to the story of five blind men describing an
elephant.
The first, touching the trunk, thinks the elephant is like a large snake. The second,
tusk in hand, finds it like a spear. The third, feeling the ear, is reminded of a large
leaf. The fourth finds the leg like a tree trunk, and the fifth assumes the side is simi-
lar to a wall. Of course, all are correct in their interpretation.
This goes to the central dilemma. What does the beast actually look like?
The monoculture has become the face of what is termed modern agriculture. In
this text, the preferred phrase is conventional agriculture.
Further along this same road is the green revolution model. This is monocultural
where yields are boosted by high, plot-external inputs and by high-yielding crop
varieties. This model is often supported by GMO varieties and the liberal use of
agrochemicals.
Agroecologists reject this narrow view, instead putting forth the notion that agri-
culture, by way of agroecology, is based around biodiversity and the use of nature-
supplied, goal-furthering bio-interactions. These insure crop yields. Beyond this,
the situation gets messy.
This comes about because agroecology is plagued by complexity. The initial
view is of a labyrinth of concepts, ideas, principles, practices, theories, and
approaches. All front various manifestations of biodiversity. The shortfall lies in the
fact that there are few simplifying perspectives on how to navigate the maze.
In practice, the complexity is handed by subdividing agroecology into different
schools of thought. Each can have a philosophical and/or a political bent and be
represented by one or a series of practical applications.
Through subdivision, the complexity of the whole is circumvented. Permaculture
and organic agriculture are the most prominent of these schools.
This point is brought home by reading the books and articles on agroecology,
organic agriculture, permaculture, and related topics. These texts have a consistent
destination and many topical commonalities, but, at times, each seems to be looking
at a different beast. The goal of this book is to offer one view, one perspective.
v
vi Preface
Aggregating
It may seem strange to begin the process of sorting by aggregating. The various
schools of thought are clearly part of agroecology. If shorn of their political and
philosophical undertones, the underlying ecology comes to the fore.
In explaining agroecology, there is a need to aggregate the land use sciences, i.e.,
agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry. This is not a broadening of agroecology. The
logic behind this is watertight. The theories that govern agronomic agroecology
apply, in equal strength, to both forestry and agroforestry.
Universality
Going forward, agroecology must apply to all: to the rice farmers in Asia, to those
trying to eke a living from poor soils and erratic rainfall of sub-Saharan Africa, and
to the backyard gardeners of the developed world. One must not forget the very
large commercial farms found in all parts of the world.
Although those that accept conventional agriculture may eschew agroecology,
they may be eventually forced into the fold by (a) changing societal values, (b) by
climate change, (c) by consumers seeking something better, (d) by better economic
prospects, and/or (e) through a need for sustainability.
The hope is that, for all, the forces for change become irresistible and the land
users seek and find more eco-accommodating agroecosystems. In presenting the
paths and options, the avenues for change are discussed in this text.
Agroecology Explained
The main idea is to restate agroecology. The scattered studies in the literature give
little inclination that there is a skeletal core. This also applies to the needed
economics.
At the risk of spoiling any textual surprise, the core of agroecology is the plot or
parcel of land. This contains a single agroecosystem. These are planned and man-
aged systems as opposed to the unplanned ecosystems of natural ecology.
The single agroecosystem, of indeterminate size, has defining characteristics.
These are common to all agrosystems. The main characteristic is the bio-composition.
This can be a single plant species or two or more interacting species. Timing and
spacing complete this core.
Counters to the various threats are added to the core design, e.g., herbivore
insects, weeds, drying winds. The individual counters, when nature supplied, are
also termed eco-services.
Preface vii
Whatever the form, they should be present, and in sufficient quantity, such that
all of the immediate threats are sufficiently thwarted. This analysis goes to the
essence of agroecology.
From this, it is more than possible to formulate an agroecosystem, one that incor-
porates the desired crops and attains the desired objectives. This step is shortcutted
by employing, as a starting point, a standard design. Most often, this is a field-
proven agrosystem. It is through these standard designs, referred to as agrotechnolo-
gies, that the field experiences of the many are incorporated into the whole.
There is reason for this pre-summary. This, and the brief recap the beginning of
each chapter, is offered so the reader does not lose sight of the macro-whole among
the many micro-pieces. For further emphasis, the last chapter is a comprehensive
overview of the same.
Economic Goals
Agroecology may be an offshoot of ecology and some take this as the unifying
motif. Although true, this is not as strong an influence as one might think. A portion,
but not all, of the content carries over. The differences may be far greater than the
commonalities.
The strongest divergence comes by way of the economic goals. Natural ecology
is governed by nature, but nature is not directed by economic need.
Much of agroecology is directly or indirectly profit driven. The remainder is
yield-driven, cost-controlled, subsistence agriculture. In short, agroecology is fully
secured by economics. In keeping, this text pairs the development of the central
theme with the accompanying economics.
Agroecology Expanded
Agroecology goes well beyond the core and the subsequent progression. There is far
more to agroecology than a simple intercrop. Complex agroecosystems epitomize
biodiversity and constitute a discrete agroecological category. For this, they deserve
a separate chapter.
There are also agroecosystems that are not species complex and cannot be clas-
sified under an intercrop heading. These too deserve a freestanding explanation.
Objectives go beyond yields, revenues, and costs. As an objective, risk aversion
is critical to many. However, some may wish to skip over risk and the risk counters,
while others see this as a vital topic. For these reasons, risk is a separate chapter.
As stated, agroecology is a labyrinth of ideas, concepts, etc. In keeping the text
streamlined, the main flow of the book, in 12 chapters, centers on those topics that
are at the core of agroecology.
viii Preface
Not included in the core are the options, alternatives, and nuances along with
elaborations on the chapter-presented themes. Some of these are interesting asides,
some have targeted or specialized appeal, and others achieve importance given the
right circumstances.
Rather than chance these nuances being overlooked, they are included as a part
of an extensive Glossary. This Glossary is large compared with the chapter text (by
word count, the Glossary is about 60% of the book). This reflects the amount of
information contained within the previously mentioned labyrinth of concepts, ideas,
principles, practices, theories, and approaches.
The elaborations contained in the Glossary are cited, where topically congruous,
within the chapter text. The purpose is to allow the reader to delve deeper into spe-
cific discussions without disrupting the flow across the core of agroecology.
Theory
Throughout this text, a number of theorems are presented. Some were put forth by
this author, but most are the work of others. Some are well established, and others
reside closer to the frontier of science. Some come from the published literature,
and some are the product of on-farm observation. Some have empirical support, and
some are based on unassailable logic (for more, see, as a Glossary topic, Decision
Theory, page 250). A few are speculative and open to challenge.
Included are the rules of intercropping, the theory behind domestic fowl and
insect control, the reason for spatial disarray, risk reduction, complex agrosystems,
and a host of other topics. The notion that agroecology has an explanatory core is,
in and of itself, a theorem. It is the form that this takes that is open to challenge; its
existence is not in question.
For those who are educated or experienced in conventional agriculture, traveling
from empirically based agriculture to theory-based agroecology can be an alien
experience. This should be less the case for those who have studied economics or
ecology.
For those embracing agroecology, theory can be an essential step. Theory imparts
an ability to sort through the bio-complexity, assign relationships, and, when ques-
tions arise, foretell a likely solution or outcome. This is especially true when, for
agro-complex agrosystems, direct empirical results fall short or are missing. This is
especially true for those bio-complex systems where empirical data is in short
supply.
It should be noted that theories are not laws. Biology is laden with exceptions.
This applies to agroecology. This does not mean that the theory should be heavily
discounted. Quite the contrary, being the only game in town, it is the pillar which
supports the entire structure, exceptions included.
Clearly, the viability of agroecology has been amply demonstrated. The theories
explain but, more importantly, they serve to guide future directions and future
research. With theory in place, agroecology can proceed at a much quicker pace
than otherwise possible.
Preface ix
Vocabulary
As any discipline advances, it pushes against the limits of the existing vocabulary.
This is true for agroecology. The choice is to layer more meaning on existing words
or to embrace more pristine, less laden, newer expressions.
The agroecological matrix is a new concept that can be central to ecological
thought. As a result, it merits a discrete expression.
Other concepts are time tested and are gaining in importance. Ecological dynam-
ics, threat counters, and eco-services are more or less synonymous. Most utilized in
this text is the word eco-services. Although less prominent in the literature, it offers
greater exactitude.
To describe variations on the agrosystem, some prefer the expression farm prac-
tices. Being heavily layered with meaning, this is supplanted in this text by the less-
used word agrotechnologies.
It should be noted that, as part of this expansion, the words intercropping and
agroforestry are not distinct agrotechnologies. These are headers that classify like,
but slightly different, agroecosystems.
Rules/Guidelines
Throughout this text, various rules/guidelines are put forth. Some have a narrow
focus and/or are of less importance. An example are the rules of intercropping.
These aid in selecting species for co-planting.
Some are critical for success. An example are the rules for complex
agroecosystems. These are critical, as management would not be possible without
the understanding provided.
With many other examples, these rules/guidelines should be looked at as a start-
ing point or check in the design/formulation process. There are always exceptions.
Notwithstanding, if what is being contemplated violates a rule, a rethink is in order.
Scope
Agroecology is worldwide. Through examples and photos, this book takes this
global perspective. These examples and photos come from various countries and
continents. This should not be viewed as a dilution of agroecology.
There is only one agroecology. Enrichment comes when farms employ different
versions. This is most manifest when the solutions found in one part of the world
transfer to a similar problem in another part of the world. More often, the solutions
are not universally known.
x Preface
This also occurs with the practices, options, and methods. As an example, most
assume the best way to plant trees is to use seedlings. Unbeknownst to many, there
are five tree planting methods (as a Glossary topic, see Planting Methods (shrubs
and trees)). Choosing a less than suitable method represents a correctable
inefficiency.
The same happens on a larger scale when selecting cropping systems.
Understanding the full scope of agroecology requires exposure to how others utilize
the potential and the ability to relate this to the whole.
Pittsfield, MA, USA Paul Wojtkowski

Live in each season as it passes
breathe the air
drink the drink
taste the fruit
and resign yourself to the influence of the earth
Henry David Thoreau

Walden 1854
xi
Contents
1 Introduction�� 1
Definitions�� 2
Comparisons�� 2
Agriculture and Agroecology�� 3
Ecology and Agroecology�� 4
Early Agroecology �� 5
The Old (Reigning) Paradigm�� 5
Mono-Cropping�� 6
Advantages�� 7
Disadvantages�� 7
Economic Forces�� 11
Logical Progression �� 11
The New Paradigm�� 13
References�� 14
2 Agroecosystem Design �� 15
Topic Prerequisites�� 16
The Agroecosystem Defined�� 16
Simple Agroecosystems �� 17
Essential Resources�� 17
Base Analysis �� 17
Sigmoidal Functions�� 18
The Core Elements�� 18
Species �� 19
Spacings �� 21
Spatial Patterns�� 24
Timing�� 26
Sequencing (Rotations)�� 27
Evaluation�� 27
Economic Measures �� 28
Economic Orientation�� 29
xiii
xiv Contents
Profitability�� 31
Other Objectives�� 31
References�� 31
3 The Agroecological Matrix�� 33
Agroecology Redefined �� 34
Cropping Threats�� 34
Soil Fertility �� 35
Rainfall (Too High or Too Low)�� 35
Insects�� 35
Weeds �� 37
Pathogens �� 37
Pollination�� 37
Temperature (Again, the Extremes) �� 37
Wind�� 37
Small Animals (Birds, Mice, etc.)�� 38
Large Animals (Deer, Elephants, etc.) �� 39
Threat Counters (Eco-Services)�� 39
Single-Purpose Counters�� 39
Multipurpose Counters�� 40
The Counters Listed�� 42
The Counters Described�� 43
Permanent and Introduced Counters�� 47
The Agroecological Matrix�� 47
Matrix Manifestations�� 47
Expansion�� 48
Matrix-Based Analysis�� 49
Matrix (Cell) Elements�� 50
As an Analytical Tool�� 52
An Applied Example�� 52
Agroecological Intensity�� 55
Economic Implications�� 55
References�� 55
4 Agrotechnologies�� 57
Agroecology Redefined �� 58
Agrotechnologies �� 58
Classification�� 59
Simple and Complex Agroecosystems�� 63
Agrotechnological Components�� 63
Economic Underpinnings�� 63
The Non-Harvest Option�� 64
The Complete Package�� 64
Other Parameters�� 68
Improvement (Facilitative) Agrotechnologies �� 68
Bio-Structures�� 69
Contents xv
Land Modifications�� 69

Purpose Reclassified�� 69
Monocultures �� 72
Multi-Varietal�� 72
Uneven Aged�� 74
References�� 74
5 Productive Intercropping�� 75
Rules/Guidelines for Productive Intercropping �� 76
General Rules�� 76
Belowground Rules�� 77
Rules for Shade Systems�� 78
Provisos�� 78
Associated Agrotechnologies�� 79
Productive (Seasonal) Intercropping�� 79
Simple Mixes �� 80
Strip Cropping�� 82
Boundary/Barrier �� 82
Productive Agroforestry�� 83
Alley Cropping (Tree Row) �� 83
Agroforestry Intercropping (or Orchards with Understory)�� 83
Shade Systems (Light) �� 84
Tree-Over-Crop Systems �� 84
Taungyas�� 85
Multi-Species Forest Plantations �� 86
Supplementary Additions�� 86
References�� 87
6 Feed Systems and Facilitative Intercrops�� 89
Facilitative Gains �� 89
Types of Facilitation�� 90
Rules/Guidelines (Facilitative)�� 90
Desirable Plant Characteristics�� 91
Mixed-Role Agroecosystems �� 92
Economic Underpinnings�� 93
Facilitative Agrotechnologies�� 94
Facilitative Intercropping �� 94
Facilitative Agroforestry�� 96
Feed Systems �� 101
Productive Intercropping�� 101
Forage Trees�� 102
Forest Feed Systems�� 103
Aqua-Agroecology�� 104
References�� 104
xvi Contents
7 Complex Agroecosystems�� 105

Described �� 106
Agroecology�� 107
Natural Ecology �� 108
Patterns�� 108
The Non-Harvest Option�� 108
Rules/Guidelines�� 109
Economics�� 110
Variations �� 110
Pastures (Natural/Mixed Species)�� 111
Homegardens �� 111
Shrub Gardens�� 111
Agroforests�� 113
Forest Gardens �� 113
Shade Systems (Natural Canopy)�� 113
Managed Forests�� 114
Interest In �� 114
8 Risk�� 117
Agro-Threats�� 117
Trends�� 118
Water Harvesting�� 118
Types of Risk �� 119
Economic Risk �� 120
Climatic Risk �� 121
Anti-Risk Agrotechnologies�� 121
Agroecological Solutions�� 122
Plot Based�� 123
Landscape Based�� 125
Other Defenses�� 130
Other Solutions�� 131
9 Landscape Agroecology �� 135
Gains�� 136
Landscape Models �� 137
Inherent Agroecology�� 138
Farm-Wide Economic Orientation�� 140
Associated Agrotechnologies�� 141
Landscape Objectives�� 142
Economics�� 143
Risk Reduction�� 144
Environmental Outcome�� 145
Contents xvii
Landscape Deciders �� 147

Factors of Likeness�� 147
Impediments to Change �� 148
Major Site Influences �� 148
Types or Categories of Agroecology�� 149
Do-Less-Harm�� 150
Matrix�� 151
Bio-Complex�� 152
The Larger Picture �� 153
10 Advanced Economics �� 155
Agroecological Intensity�� 156
Surplus Ecology �� 157
Opportunity Costs�� 157
Eco-Services�� 157
Trade-Offs�� 158
Orientation Restated�� 159
The Upper Bound�� 160
The Lower Bound�� 161
The Practical Range �� 161
Optimization�� 162
Deviations from the Norm �� 162
Trade-Offs�� 164
Design and the Agrotechologies�� 166
Returns Within the Landscape �� 167
Commercial Farms�� 167
Subsistence Farms�� 168
Eco-Service Universality �� 168
Eco-Service Realism�� 168
Hybrid Farms �� 169
Conventional Agriculture with Agroecological Overtones�� 170
11 Macro-Challenges�� 173
Malthus, etc.�� 174
Population�� 176
Urbanization/Land Loss�� 176
Water�� 177
Energy�� 177
Diet�� 178
War �� 178
Freedom from Want �� 178
Sovereignty�� 178
Trade�� 180
xviii Contents
Genetic Resources�� 180

Properties �� 181
Heirloom Varieties �� 181
New and Useful Species�� 182
Research Challenges�� 183
Theory�� 183
Quantitative Agroecology�� 184
Qualitative Agroecology�� 185
Decision/Game Theory�� 187
Acceptance Challenges�� 187
Guidelines�� 187
Pitfalls�� 188
12 Summary�� 191
Ecology and Agroecology�� 191
Theories�� 192
Goals�� 192
Overview�� 192
The Core Elements�� 192
Matrix Analysis�� 193
Agrotechnologies �� 195
Agroecosystem Categories�� 195
Simple Agroecosystems �� 195
Complex Agroecosystems�� 197
Major Influences�� 199
Types of Agroecology�� 199
Do-Less-Harm�� 200
Matrix�� 201
Bio-Complexity�� 201
Outcome�� 201
Agroecology Defined �� 202
The Central Theme�� 203
Conclusion �� 203
Glossary�� 205
References �� 421
Index�� 433
Chapter 1
Introduction
Contents
Definitions 2
Comparisons 2
Agriculture and Agroecology 3
Ecology and Agroecology 4
Early Agroecology 5
The Old (Reigning) Paradigm 5
Mono-Cropping 6
Advantages 7
Disadvantages 7
Economic Forces 11
Logical Progression 11
The New Paradigm 13
References 14
In many ways, agroecology is a science in flux. There are questions, not to validity
and need, in regard to the scope, contents, methods, and applications. These arise
from the myriad of concepts, ideas, principles, practices, theories, and approaches
that constitute agroecological thought. This has led to a range of interpretations.
This book presents yet another view. At the heart of agroecology are the (agro)
ecological dynamics that sustain crop growth, yields, and a wished-for economic
outcome.
The active and supporting ecology (as eco-services) mostly stem from well-
directed and well-applied uses of biodiversity. The better outcomes originate from
biodiversity-derived ecological dynamics that are plentiful, potent, and reinforcing.
It is these dynamics that are the very definition of agroecology.
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 1

P. Wojtkowski, Agroecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93209-5_1
2 1 Introduction
Definitions
The existing definitions present varying pictures and emphasize different aspects of
this broad and developing science. Until things gel, practitioners must be content
with various definitional renderings. In total, these help in framing the science.
These begin with:
Agroecology as “the study of the ecological processes that operate in agricultural
production systems” (Wikipedia, Agroecology, 2016).
Agroecology as “the science of ecology applied to the design, development, and
management of agriculture” (Dictionary.com, Agroecology, 2016).
Agroecology as the “… ecology of food systems” (Francis et al. 2003).
Given the belief that agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry are subsets of agro-
ecology, there are some more encompassing definitions. These are:
Agroecology is, by way of ecology, the scientific basis for agriculture, forestry, and
agroforestry.
Agroecology is the scientific basis for the cultivation of food, fuel, fiber, and other
land-raised products with deference to and/or in cooperation with nature and
natural processes.
The latter definitions are more inclusive. There is no reason that forestry and
agroforestry, and the agroecosystems and practices contained, should be excluded.
Forestry and agroforestry are ecologically comparative to an equivalent bio-
complex agricultural ecosystem. Also in support of this inclusion, trees can be as
much of an on-farm ecological contributor, and a tool toward achieving agroeco-
logical objectives, as any other plant.
The definitions do not always fully reflect a diversity of views. Clearly, agroecol-
ogy is a science. It is also a series of practices and, in some hands, a political move-
ment. Although mostly discounted in this text, the latter view still holds value (For
additional discussion, see, as a Glossary topic, Agroecology).
Comparisons
As a science, agroecology stands alone. Comparison can, and should, be made

between conventional agriculture and the still-emerging agroecology. Although
close cousins, there is the ongoing detachment of ecology from agroecology.
Nevertheless, there are still opportunities for cross-fertilizations.
Comparisons 3
Photo 1.1 Farmers harvesting rice. Taken in Bangladesh, this photo examples how agriculture is
commonly practiced and the reliance placed upon a single staple crop. (Being worldwide, this
picture could be of any of millions of farmers)
Agriculture and Agroecology
What might be termed conventional agriculture centers around the monoculture.

This continues with the notion that outside inputs, often in agrochemical form,
allow crops to thrive in an otherwise yield-unfriendly environment.
In part, this is a self-imposed penalty. A single crop and the lack of biodiversity
can create such an horticulturally hostile situation.
The green revolution model doubles down on this. The view is that yield-denying
forces can be thwarted by improved varieties. Here genetically modified crops (GM
crops) loom large in providing an answer.
Academically, there is only a modicum of theory in conventional agriculture.
Simplicity allows for a science built on empirical underpinnings. Agronomists do
venture into other agro-expressions, but the monoculture is the starting point.
The switch from what might be termed conventional, monoculturally based agri-
culture, or from the chemically dependent green revolution model, to agroecology
can be quite profound. The various definitions do not reflect this.
Simply stated, the change is from one-crop systems to numerous expressions of
bio-complexity (often as manifestations of biodiversity). To handle this, theory
must override the empiricism that underpins monoculturally based agriculture.
4 1 Introduction
There are other equally profound differences that similarly relate (as an expanded
Glossary topic, see Precepts).
In embracing agroecology, the monoculture is no longer the central theme. It is
theory, mostly lacking in conventional agriculture, that allows the synergies and
interactions to be understood and utilized. Understanding is an important aspect, but
there remains a large leap from theory to the applied.
The overall problem is to navigate through the biodiversity and the added in-field
options to reach and manage terrestrial agrosystems. Much of this is for the food,
fuel, and fiber that sustain human health and happiness.
Over time and in this age of ecology, one expects that agroecology will be co-
opted into, and be part of, conventional agricultural (Holt-Giménez and Altieri
2013). Although this is for the good, there are caveats.
As a science, the essence of agroecology is the reliance on theory, biodiversity,
and a healthy respect for the environment. This means that, at the very least, toxic
chemical use is reduced or eliminated.
In full-on mode, there is a need to design plots and farms such that natural pro-
cesses prevail and interspecies synergies are utilized to their highest degree. All
these goals require a systematic and coherent approach, one that allows progress to
be made and the potential to be realized. This starts with a full understanding.
Ecology and Agroecology
In the previous definitions, there is a need to stress ecology, natural processes, and
interspecies synergies. With these, agroecology is clearly an offshoot of and a
branch of ecology.
The other main subdivision of ecology is natural ecology. Although there is some
overlap between natural ecology and agroecology, e.g., through population ecology,
there are major differences.
Success in natural ecology lies in maintaining a wholesome mix of native species
(both flora and fauna) and the accompanying functionality of the between-species
dynamics. In contrast, agroecology is often based on exotic/foreign species, i.e.,
common crop species.
The needed dynamics are achieved through planning, planting, and subsequent
management. In agroecology, success lies in meeting productive and/or economic
goals.
There is a clear dividing line. Natural ecology is not a land-use science (with the
possible exception of invasive and noninvasive tourism). If a natural ecosystem is
modified for productive purpose, i.e., the harvesting of flora and/or fauna, it enters
the realm of, and becomes, an agroecology application.
The Old (Reigning) Paradigm 5
Early Agroecology
Early people began the transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture roughly

4000–5000 BCE. This occurred independently on various locations across the
globe. These early efforts, and what occurred into relativity modern times, were not
an all-out battle against nature.
Virgil, Pliny, and, much later, Chaucer describe agricultural landscapes rich in
biodiversity. Yields were, by modern standards, generally quite good (Reynolds
1980). This is factually supported by the existence of advanced societies.
Found in Asia, Middle East, the Americas, Africa, and Europe, these could only
rise if they acquired a mastery beyond true subsistence agriculture. This indicates
good, if not stellar, crop yields.
A strong presupposition is that early farmers understood how crops could be
raised by harnessing or co-opting natural processes. These efforts could easily be
characterized as agroecology.
Even with this understanding, farms of the period were not risk-free Gardens of
Eden. Effort was required, the knowledge of the time could not always guarantee
sustainable yields, also the risk of crop failure would have been high.
The Old (Reigning) Paradigm
From about the latter 1800s, western society was moving toward a form of agricul-
ture characterized by the phrase “... endless fields of ripening grain.” This denotes a
land of plenty where mankind, through agriculture, gained authority over nature.
This transposed agriculture into a system where agricultural products come by way
of high inputs and high energy use.
From an ecological perspective, nature has been fully marginalized. This is char-
acterized by the complete lack of biodiversity and the notion that mankind can han-
dle the adversities of nature.
The transition away from the nature-dominated farm came about through techni-
cal advances. Tractors and harvesting machinery replaced draft animals and hand
labor. Other developments have been along the chemical front. Fertilizers replaced
manures and compost, and herbicides replaced hand weeding. Other chemicals
helped protect the large-scale, insect and disease-prone monocultures.
Genetic engineering has boosted yields all while providing a uniform, less vari-
able output. Termed the green revolution, this reduced food shortages in many parts
of the world. Many avoided starvation as the new crop varieties and the change in
farming methods became widespread. Countries that suffered from chronic food
shortages were brought back from the edge.
The breeding of high-yielding staple crops was one step in bringing the green
revolution to its current state. The underlying model rests upon monocultures and
the goal of optimizing yields.
6 1 Introduction
Optimal yields require optimal growing conditions. Mandated in this quest are a
range of agrochemicals (including fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and fungi-
cides) and, where possible and necessary, the use of irrigation.
The notion of cheap food for the masses has been a factor in the rise of this form
of agriculture. This has been aided, unnoticed, by a period of relative consistency in
weather patterns.
The changing of the climate may not be enough to alter this simple, entrenched,
and well understood agricultural model. However, the reigning paradigm has
exposed a host of troubles. Among these are environment side effects and, where
climate change intercedes, the reigning paradigm might be at its worst. This is
ongoing.
Mono-Cropping
The overriding advantage of this paradigm lies with its simplicity. Nothing could be
easier than a single crop grown on a single plot where, when problems occur, the
solutions are to spray and forget. The ability to operate within these simple param-
eters can favor large-scale, single-crop operations.
Photo 1.2 A large plot monoculture most associated with conventional agriculture
Mono-Cropping 7
Conventional, monoculture-based agriculture is often viewed, through the spray-

and-forget mentality, as discrete problems, each with individual solutions. This is
true, but there are also larger, interrelated issues.
There is a purpose in offering a lengthy discourse on the advantages and the
disadvantages associated with the large-scale monoculture. It is the latter, the extent
of the disadvantages, that highlight what could be if other, more nature-
accommodating forms of agriculture are adopted.
Advantages
Farming is not an easy occupation. To be successful, the knowledge required is

extensive.
In addition to a familiarly with the crops, farmers are managing a business. There
is the accounting, the worries over future crop prices, the repairing of the farm
equipment, the maintaining the farm infrastructure, the hiring, allocating, and man-
aging of labor, and a host of other concerns.
Farmers often do not have the time, and the inclination, to seriously consider
more complex agrosystems. Having adopted the simplest, that of chemically depen-
dent monoculture, it can be very difficult to change to the complexity of biodiversity-
based agriculture.
Disadvantages
In the long run, expectations have not been fully met. The yield gains have stalled
and, in many countries, no longer keep up with population growth. In addition, cor-
ollary effects have started to influence public opinion.
Although the toxicity of the chemicals utilized has been reduced, these remain a
problem and ultimately a concern. The continued expansion of super-large, single-
crop farm fields has also taken a toll on the environment and on public perception.
Weather
As a high-input, high-output form of agriculture, crops must be protected, and, to do

this, farmers must purchase wide array of inputs. These include seeds along with the
accompanying agrochemicals. These purchases open farmers to increased risk.
This occurs along two fronts. These are:
1. The risk of total yield failure.
2. The risk of low, crop-selling prices.
8 1 Introduction
Because of this, high-yielding monocultures may be the most risk prone form of
agriculture. Often, there is nothing, except inputs, to keep the threats at bay. High in
the list are changes in normal weather patterns. In this case, there is little, except for
irrigation, to counter unfavorable climatic events.
When crops fail, farmers have little to sell. In of itself, this is serious enough.
Crop failures also mean that farmers do not recoup the cost of seeds, fertilizers,
herbicides, and other costly inputs.
There are other dangers. These arise from those high-yielding species bred to
expect optimal growing conditions. Per-unit costs of production are low only
because the per-area yields are high.
The high cost of the many inputs means that, as yields decline, the per-unit cost
of production rises dramatically. If crop prices are low or inputs more costly than
expected, the anticipated profits can quickly become an undesirable monetary loss.
With so much weather and price risk, farmers would rightly shun this model,
instead using cropping systems less prone to failure and/or with less monetary loss
when failure does occur. In the developed world, governments have removed a lot
of this uncertainty. Farmers can obtain crop failure insurance and price supports.
This often makes the continued reliance upon green revolution model possible.
Water
In the absence of consistent and ample rainfall, high yields can come through the
use of irrigation. This is becoming less possible. People, cities, industry, and even
decorative landscaping can have a higher priority on water than agriculture. This is
especially true when major rivers cross from one country to another. In this case,
local officials are less concerned with the people and economy of the downriver
country. Water will not always be distributed wisely.
Rivers and catchments are not the only source; groundwater often figures heavily
in agriculture. Here again, there are problems.
The green revolution model can drain slowly to replenish sources. Published
examples of groundwater overused are common (e.g., Brown 2005). None seems as
problematic as the case of Northern India where huge declines in groundwater have
negative effects (Kerr 2009).
This is not the only consequence. Contamination from chemical runoff is a pol-
lutant and an environmental issue.
Environmental Issues
The green revolution model achieves very high, per-area yields; it does little or
nothing to address accompanying environmental issues. Most of the criticisms are
along the environmental front.
Mono-Cropping 9
As mentioned, the agrochemicals initially sold were quite toxic. Over time, some
of the more dangerous agrochemicals have been replaced by those with less appar-
ent toxicity.
Since many agrochemicals are designed to kill, there is debate on whether these
are truly harmless or the peril is just less evident. The mere fact that, in some regions,
a high tonnages of dubious chemicals are applied is cause for concern (for more, see
Insecticides).
There is also the issue of truant resources, those that escape from where they
have been applied and cause environmental havoc elsewhere. Fertilizers and agro-
chemicals do not often stay put. Runoff is the source of water contamination and for
dead zones in lakes and oceans. Most notable is the situation in the Baltic, Lake
Eire, and in the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth on the Mississippi River (Wikipedia,
Dead Zones (Ecology), 2016).
These chemicals are not good for agriculturally beneficial flora and fauna. The
often cited example is the honeybee. These suffer from the onslaught of various
insecticides. In turn, herbicide use has destroyed field margins and the habitat for
natural pollinators (Bretagnolle and Gaba 2015). This can reduce yields for many
crops.
Photo 1.3 An example of all-to-common, unsafe insecticide use. This situation is encountered in
small farms in poor regions. (This photo shows, while spraying, the lack of protective clothing and
the presence of nearby children)
10 1 Introduction
There are also issues of improper use. This can be especially troublesome in
poorer countries (as in Photo 1.3). Problems include no protective equipment, not
reading warning labels, and not properly disposing of empty containers (Stadlier
2016).
In addition to the unsafe use of chemicals by untrained farmers, there is the easy
availability of internationally banned agrochemicals in developing regions. To
accomplish this, companies hide the active ingredients under obscure synonyms
(this authors work in Africa and Asia).
Deception is not limited to poor farmers in poor countries. In developed regions,
some agrochemical companies pay scientists to subvert or bury studies that prove
their insecticides as unsafe (Hakim 2017).
Genetic Modification
Within the context of the green revolution model, genetic improvement would seem
a real plus. Informally, it has been going on since the beginnings of agriculture. Some
view the genetically modified organism (GMO) is just an extension of this. Often
high yields come by applying plant nutrients in more than sufficient quantities.
The green revolution has become the gene revolution. This is an attempt to
squeeze yields and mitigate some of the many problems and drawbacks, through
even more elaborate, more invasive in-plant genetic engineering.
The tendency is to achieve high yields based on an abundance of inputs. This
becomes a disadvantage when farmers plant genetically modified (GM) crops, but
cannot afford the added plant nutrients. It is also a disadvantage when rainfall is less
and irrigation is not possible. In these cases, local varieties often yield better.
The ability to tolerate resource shortfalls allows crops to tolerate competition
from weeds. This inability to tolerate even small populations of weed species neces-
sities a greater weed reduction effort. This includes the use of herbicides and
herbicide-resistant varieties. Nature has a counter. Weeds eventually acquire herbi-
cide resistance. To counter to the now-resistant weeds, farmers often apply addi-
tional or a mix of herbicides.
Centering so much effort on a few common-crop varieties represents a serious
reduction in the gene pool. For each of the major crops, e.g., rice, potatoes, maize,
wheat, etc., there are hundreds of varieties. These offer anything from a different
color to how they interact with neighboring plants and the local climate.
Losing this to a few, highly marketed GM varieties can only be termed tragic.
This is compounded knowing that the promised high yields of the GM varieties can
be matched with existing, local types.
Some advocate genetic modification to add dietary vitamins to the crop output,
e.g., vitamin A-enriched rice. This is another seemingly good selling point, but it is
more of a ploy. It is far better to add dietary vitamins in the form of on-farm crop
biodiversity and, commensurately, offer consumers more culinary choice.
Mono-Cropping 11
Despite industry promotion, and the claim that GMOs are essential in feeding
ever-growing populations, the research is not supportive.
In rebuttal, the overall yields from GMO crops, as compared with conventional
varieties, produce “small” gains. This includes those GMO crops that counter
insects and well the herbicide-resistant varieties (National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine 2016; Hakim 2016).
Consumptive
The availability of one or a few cheap food sources may be considered a societal
disadvantage. Economic and environmental issues aside, the argument is dietary.
Consumers and/or food producers will have greater reliance upon the cheapest
foodstuffs, this being the case in the USA.
Maize, readily available and low in cost, is utilized in a wide variety of products.
This lack of dietary variability contributes to human health problems, and high on
the list is obesity. The counter is greater use and consumption of different crops.
There is another side, that of quality, of the food being produced. The most
sought-after varietal characteristics are not taste and nutrition, but superior handling
and storage properties. This means consumers must look to local farmer’s markets
to find the varietal diversity and better taste.
Economic Forces
There are vested interests that want conventional agriculture to continue as the dom-
inate agriculture model. In the quest for high yields, farmers purchase expensive
farm equipment and large amounts of costly inputs. This allows agro-industries to
thrive, boosting the economy and providing the opportunities for taxation. In con-
trast, more frugal agroecology would use less inputs and offer governments poten-
tially less in tax revenue.
Logical Progression
This chapter looks at the issues associated with the chemically dependent green
revolution model. There are resulting trends.
The green revolution approach is a progression with two distinct, but not inevi-
table, end results. The first is the super-plant ideal where, through genetic modifica-
tion, plants resist all the natural forces acting against them. The second is the factory
farm where the high-input, high-output monoculture is on full display and encom-
passes vast areas.
12 1 Introduction
Super Plants
For the super plant, it is theoretically possible to breed a desert variety of normally
water-demanding rice. It would also be possible to breed, into this same rice plant,
resistant to all herbivore insects and all plant diseases. Also nice would be to make
rice perennial so as to avoid the cost of planting, only seasonal harvest would be
required.
Futuristic as this might seem, nature has other ideas. Large areas of super rice
would be an inviting target to those organisms that can overcome the built-in resis-
tance and consume the crop. Nature may initially fail, but it will keep on trying.
If there is resistance to all, a super rice would, in essence, become a super weed.
In being indestructible, it could easily invade ecosystems and dominate other plants,
crops included.
There are reports of herbicide-resistant crops sprouting in fields devoted to
another crop. Since these invaders are unwanted and herbicide-resistant, the best
eradication method might involve old-fashion hand weeding rather than, as men-
tioned, the use of more and more potent herbicides.
Factory Farming
With green revolution model, there are economies of scale. Seeds and agrochemi-
cals are cheaper purchased in very large quantities. Application can be quicker per
area and often more cost-effective with very large machinery.
If risk is low or a government or a corporate entity bears both the price and
weather risk, very large farms become economically viable. In addition, the sim-
plicity of the chemically dependent monoculture allows management by directive or
proxy.
This is not an abstraction. As stated, in the midwest of North America, parts of
Africa, in south-central Brazil, and other regions, farms of gigantic size have
evolved. This is not an environmental plus, the area becomes inhospitable for most
local flora and fauna. Also, the potential for chemical runoff is magnified.
In some countries, individuals and corporations, seeking land for ultra-large
farms, have been accused of displacing people and taking the land and water under
dubious legalities, e.g., for large-scale rice cultivation in Ethiopia (Burgis 2016).
As an offshoot and clear expression as to what is happening, farm animals have
been overly concentrated. The conditions under which some are raised are not
always what society has come to expect.
The marketing of meat and eggs from free-range animals is an indication of the
discontent. Another concern of society is the disposal of the quantities of manure
that concentrated feed operations produce.
The New Paradigm 13
Photo 1.4 Intercropping, marigolds beneath olive trees. The better growth of the flowers under
the trees can be attributed to shade and improved water use. (This photo is from Morocco)
The New Paradigm
This chapter has detailed the many self-imposed issues that accompany, and disad-
vantage, the green revolution model. Depending on one’s point of view, agroecol-
ogy has the potential to eliminate or mitigate many, most, or all of these problems.
One might think that the potential alone would result in a high degree of enthu-
siasm. This is not a given. Before the conventional model is usurped, there are a
wide array of countervailing forces that must be overcome. High on the list are those
entities that profit from the existing paradigm.
Going from the spray-and-forget mind-set of mono-cropping to bio-complexity
is another wide, possibly the widest, barrier to adaption. A lot of this involves under-
standing the parameters and practicalities of use. Here, knowledge is the key.
In essence, knowledge trumps all. If farmers, gardeners, and other land users
don’t know of it, it will not find use. True in agroecology, the purpose of this text is
to expand knowledge by laying a path through the bio-labyrinth of ideas, views,
concepts, etc.
This text puts an emphasis on those versions of agroecology that are driven by
ecological dynamics. This is where targeted ecology is used to mitigate the various
threats and/or impediments to achieving good or superior crop yields. To insure the
14 1 Introduction
best outcome, the eco-dynamics (or eco-services) should be redundant, potent, and
fully evoked.
Statement in one thing, transition another. For the ordinary farmer, success lies
in knowing the bio-tools that are available and how they are best used.
With this knowledge in hand, it should be possible to (a) construct new or adopt
existing agroecosystems to fully employ eco-dynamics, (b) add eco-services where
needed, and (c) deconstruct existing agroecosystems to fully understand the eco-
services supplied by the component parts.
In addition, any study of the eco-components requires robust economics. This
can be traditional profit-loss or, better yet, economics specifically tailored to needs
of agroecology. It is along this front that the potential of agroecology is decided.
References
Bretagnolle, V., & Gaba, S. (2015). Weeds for bees? a review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 35(3), 391–409.
Brown, L. R. (2005). Outgrowing the earth: The food security challenge in the age of falling water
tables and raising temperatures. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Burgis, T. (2016). The Billionaire’s farm. Financial Times 39, 101(March 2):7.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., et al. (2003). Agroecology: The ecology of food systems.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 99–118.
Hakim, D. (2016). Doubts about a Promised Bounty. The New York Times
CLVXVI(57,401-30-Oct.):1.
Hakim, D. (2017). Scientists loved and loathed by an agrochemical colossus. The New York Times
CLXVI (57,465–2 Jan.):1.
Holt-Giménez, E., & Altieri, M. A. (2013). Agriculture, food sovereignty, and the new green revo-
lution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 90–102.
Kerr, R. A. (2009). Northern India’s groundwater is going, going, going. Science, 5942(325–14
August), 789.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops,
experience and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 420p.
Reynolds, P. J. (1980). The working agroscape of the iron age. Landscape History (Vol. 2,
pp. 1–20), Journal of the Society for Landscape History, Rampart Press.
Stadlier, M. (2016). CropLife Nigeria assesses contract sprayers in Borno State. N2Africa ( http://
www.n2africa.org/print/4288).
Chapter 2
Agroecosystem Design
Contents
Topic Prerequisites 16
The Agroecosystem Defined 16
Simple Agroecosystems 17
Essential Resources 17
Base Analysis 17
Sigmoidal Functions 18
The Core Elements 18
Species 19
Spacings 21
Spatial Patterns 24
Timing 26
Sequencing (Rotations) 27
Evaluation 27
Economic Measures 28
Economic Orientation 29
Profitability 31
Other Objectives 31
References�� 31
Fundamental to agroecology is the internal ecology of a plot-defined agroecosys-

tem. Despite its prevalence, the monoculture is at the fringe of agroecology. Often,
agroecology is fronted by the interaction two or more species. The internal agro-
design determines how they interact and the outcome of these associations. This is
the first of the three design steps: (1) the core, (2) the threat counters, and (3) the
resulting agrotechnology.
Interaction is gauged by user objectives. Often these involve economic criteria,
e.g., monetary profit or loss. For subsistence farmers, risk, output in the face of
uncertainty, can be a critical objective. Whether the goal is monetary or subsistence,
the internal design should comply.

16 2 Agroecosystem Design
Topic Prerequisites
At the core of agroecology is the interaction of two or more plant species. Before
being explained, these should be defined.
The Agroecosystem Defined
In this book, a loosely defined agroecosystem (or agrosystem) is the central con-
stituent of applied agroecology. This is a managed land area containing plant spe-
cies (one or more) that, through their interactions, exhibit set ecology with the hope
of reaching prestated yield, risk, and/or other, often economically expressed,
objectives.
The agrosystem is plot-demarcated. The plot is an economic unit best defined by
the phrase “per-area yield(s).” The areas on a farm for which yields are measured or
estimated would be, in the eye of a landowner and/or land user, the plots. A single
agrosystem occupies one plot.
Take the case of strips of differing crops. If the strips are one or a few plants
wide, and this results in a single measure, either land equivalent ratio or profit/loss.
The crop rows (strips), collectively, are considered a single, one-agrosystem plot.
Wide strips may be evaluated individually. If this is the case, each strip is a sepa-
rate agroecosystem and a separate plot.
An agroecosystem starts when some or all of the productive species are first
planted. This ends when the primary species (one or more) have been harvested.
Subsequently, the site is agronomically reset. A new agroecosystem follows,
often from bare ground.
In the majority of cases, these criteria are unambiguous. Most likely, well over
90% of the agrosystems would fall within these definitional parameters. As an
example, intercropped carrot and onion are planted and subsequently harvested.
What follows is a new agrosystem.
There are less clear situations. Carrots may be planted among an already existing
perennial cover crop. The planting and the harvest of the carrots, as the primary
crop, defined the temporal limits of the carrot/cover crop system.
More confusing are some of the planting variations for some tree crops (e.g.,
rubber, possibly fruit and nut trees). Saplings can be introduced a few years before
the old trees are harvested. When the older are finally cut, so are the now taller sap-
lings. This facilitates the removal of the older trees. The saplings, with their now
developed root systems, resprout quickly.
This strategy cuts the period between the last harvest of the old plantation and
first harvest of the new trees. For all intents, these would be separate plantings and
separate agrosystems. The overlap is discounted.
Topic Prerequisites 17
Simple Agroecosystems
It should be stressed that, based on the number of species present in an agroecosys-

tem, agroecology subdivides. There are the simple agroecosystems; those of seven
or fewer species. There are also complex agroecosystems; those with seven or more
species.
Complex agrosystems are explained in Chap. 7. In this, and the next few chap-
ters, the focus is on simple agrosystems.
Essential Resources
Essential resources are at the heart of all agrosystems. Basically, there is complex
battle between interacting plant species. The fight is to acquire the necessities of
growth. Needed are light, water, CO2, as well as the key soil nutrients, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium (NPK). Also on the list are the trace elements, e.g., cal-
cium, iron, zinc, etc.
Base Analysis
The difference between natural and agricultural ecology is the need to evaluate
yields. This starts with base measures. If more is needed, output values are assigned.
This is can be done with raw yields or by converting the numbers into ratios.
Foremost among the ratios is the land equivalent ratio (LER). This evaluates the
outcome where different crops are interplanted, e.g., apples and oranges.
Comparing the interplanted mix with monocultural yields, the better outcomes
have LER greater than one. Basically, the higher the number, the better the
outcome.
The basic equation has
LER = (Yab / Ya ) + (Yba / Yb )
where Ya and Yb are the monocultural yields of species a and b, Yab being yield out-
put of species a grown in close association with species b. Correspondingly, Yba is
the productivity of species b when in combination with species a.
Simply explained, an LER value of 1.50 is interpreted as yields equivalent to
150% of what the site will yield if only apples or oranges are grown, i.e., at 100%
(1.0). If less successful, the mix will have an LER of less than one.
Sigmoidal Functions
In mathematical terms, agroecology is seldom based around linearity. The vast

majority of the underlying functions, e.g., the effects of one input on yield, are sig-
moidal. This is exampled in Fig. 2.1.
The importance lies when a small increase in, for example, an essential resource
translates into a large increase in yield (or the reverse can occur). This relationship
applies not just to an essential resource but to any number of changes.
Exploiting this property is an important aspect of agroecology. The majority of
the explanations rely upon the sigmoidal form. As such, Fig. 2.1 is referenced
throughout this is text.
The Core Elements
There are certain elements of agro-design that are shared, without exception, in all
terrestrial plots/agroecosystems. These are the:
Species content (with one through seven intended and interacting species)
Spacings/planting densities (uniform or variable)
Spatial pattern
Timing (the entry and exit of one or more species relative to others)
Beginning with these core design elements, there are other design variables or
inputs that, when added, shift the internal ecology and/or the economics. Keeping
things simple, this chapter discusses the four core elements of design.
Yield
Essential Resource
Fig. 2.1 A sigmoidal production function and the large yield gain from adding small amount of a
resource (shown by the arrows). That depicted here is a representative function. This and the other
sigmoidal functions illustrated in subsequent chapters are shown because they underwrite many of
the key relationships in theoretical agroecology
Species
When biodiversity prevails, questions arise on which species (two or more) to pair
and the planting densities of each. Farmers often have a preferred crop. This would
be the primary species (for more, see Primary Species, also Biodiversity). Most
often, it is the secondary species that must be decided.
The classic example is maize (corn) interplanted with beans. Maize generally
intercrops well, i.e., has good interspecies complementarity. When paired with
beans, maize yields are anticipated to be 100% (1.0), and bean yields are reduced to
50% (0.5). The resulting LER is often a favorable 1.5.
With complementarity, there are different mechanisms at work, some understood
and others less so. Certainly, interspecies complementarity can be a basis for benefi-
cial agroecology. At the other side of this spectrum, competitive relationships (with
LER values less that one) are not as exploitable but do find use. The classic example
is to design agrosystems, through species and spacings, to discourage weed growth.
There is yet another category, that of facilitation. This is where a second species
provided benefit to the primary crop.
Photo 2.1 The classic

maize with bean intercrop
Complementarity
The between-species interactions lie along a spectrum. These range from highly
complementary to highly competitive. As expected, most intercropping possibilities
are in the middle range. There are a number of reasons for affirmative complemen-
tary. Overall, LER-based complementarity is more common on well-watered, well-
drained soils (for more, see Competitive Partitioning).
When this occurs, one species may require more phosphorus, less nitrogen. The
second paired species may need more nitrogen and less phosphorus. With this, the
potential is good for strong, interspecies complementarity.
Other mechanisms can be at work. Separate sources are where two species get a
key nutrients from different origins. A deep-rooted species, one drawing nutrients
from lower soil strata, interplanted with a shallow-rooted species, can result in an
LER-affirmative pairing.
There is yet another mechanism at work, one that could possibly be paramount
in the success of seasonal intercrops. On well-watered, well-drained, fertile sites,
the yields of each of two species, when intercropped, may be slightly reduced. This
is expected. If the yield reductions for each species are less than 50%, the LER will
exceed 1.0. If the yield reductions are slight, the LER could be quite high (for more
explanation on this abstract, but entirely workable concept, see Marginal Gains
under Competitive Partitioning, especially Fig. C4, page 235).
Despite the many mechanisms of complementarity, these are cumulative only to
a point, two different interplanted species, through complementarity alone and
without any facilitative effects, would face an LER upper limit of 2.0.
Competition
At the competitive side of the complementarity-competitive spectrum are those

mechanisms that discourage coexistence. Some long-term perennials actively dis-
courage other plant species.
Pines and eucalyptus fall in this category for different reasons. Pines change the
soils acidic while eucalyptus is thought to be water competitive. Not all trees are as
competitive; poplar can result in a high LER when young and paired with many crops.
At the cropping level, big leaf plants, such as squash, can discourage weeds.
These plants can be combined with other crops; a common example is squash
beneath maize. Because of the low squash yields, the mix finds favor because the
two species control weeds. This reduces weeding costs.
The maize, bean, and squash mix examples another competitive mechanism, that
of niche crowding. Provided the planted species have niche ascendency (i.e., they
occupy the various niches before the unwanted weeds arrive), there are fewer
resources left untapped. Most pronounced, shading would have a large role in the
success of this combination (for more, see Competitive Exclusion).
Facilitation
With biodiversity, there exists the possibility that one species aids another. The
common example is where a nitrogen-fixing plant is planted simultaneously with, or
before, the primary crop species.
When in-soil nitrogen is not in abundance and limits yields, the result can be
substantial increase in the site LER. Two-species LERs of around 2.5 are quite pos-
sible, e.g., 2.6 (Seran and Brintha 2010).
One of the highest recorded LERs, above 3.6 (Ong 1994), came through facilita-
tion. This was not a passive intercrop where close proximity alone allowed for the
interspecies conveyance of nitrogen. This involved hedgerow alley cropping where
belowground nitrogen is released through plow-caused root pruning and the above
ground biomass is cut and carried to the nitrogen-demanding maize (for more on
this example, see Alley Cropping).
Facilitation is not always with nitrogen. Other plant nutrients may be part of the
interspecies relationship. Another common case is an improvement in the in-soil
moisture due to the presence of a second species, e.g., less soil drying.
Figure 2.1 shows the reason for these high values. The arrows show the added
essential resource and the corresponding upward gains in yield. The steep section of
the sigmoidal curve means that a small amount of an essential resource can translate
into a comparatively large productivity (yield) gain.
Spacings
In league with complementarity competition, there is the question of planting densi-

ties for the component species. Crop species that have high complementarity can be
interplanted, on an agriculturally favorable site, such that the planting densities of
both are at the recommended monocultural densities.
Where species exhibit less interspecies complementarity, the highest LER values
might be where densities of one or both species are slightly reduced. There are other
aspects to this.
Another involves planting ratios, where a facilitative mix may involve a lesser
number of the secondary plants. In the case of a cover crop, there can be far more
cover plants than the primary crop. This is the planting ratio and it varies as to the
species paired (for more, see Planting Ratios).
Concisely put, there are two variables under spacing. The first is the planting
density of each species; the second is the planting ratio. In finding the best combina-
tion for crops (two or more), the effect of climate, site, climate, etc., are questions
that are best answered through in-field trials. The obtained data points should allow
for the subsequent derivation of density-based possibilities curves.
Density
As with yield and LER, densities comparisons are made against monocultural fig-
ures. The maximum density for a single species within an intercrop is the same as
the recommended density for that selfsame crop in monocultural setting. The over-
all bicultural density, i.e., the density index (DI), is
DI = ( Dab / Da ) + ( Dba / Db )
where Dab is the density of species a when interplanted with species b and Dba has b
interplanted with species a, Da and Db being the recommended monocultural
densities.
Figure 2.2 shows the possible LER outcomes given a good site, two productive
species, uniform interspecies spacing, and no facilitation. The 2.0 DI value, in the
upper right corner, has the two species crowded together. The surface shows that, in
this case, maximum density does not give the highest LER.
At times, more space between plants can be the best option. A lessor spacing
generally allocates more of the essential resources to each plant. This can move
each plant higher in the resource curve. Although there are slightly fewer plants per
area, if this results in a large jump in per-plant yield (as in Fig. 2.1), the net effect is
to increase plot-wide yields, i.e., LER (for more on this, see Marginal Gains under
Competitive Partitioning, page 235).
This spacing/density, in regard to essential resources, is best expressed as a bicul-
ture density-response surface, e.g., as in Fig. 2.3. The densities that maximize over-
all yield are illustrated by the dotted ridge line. For the assumed level of essential
resources, the LER often peaks at a less crowded spacing.
Fig. 2.2 Plant densities

for species a and b in
relation to LER. The solid
LER
ridge line links those

points along this surface
that maximize the LER
Fig. 2.3 An overview of 50%-50%

Fig. 2.2 with added ratio
lines
Planting Ratios
There can be various planting ratios for two intercropped species. Figure 2.3 is
Fig. 2.2 in overview. Both show the ridge line. This overview also includes the
planting ratios in the form of ratio lines. These radiate outward from the 0,0 point
(lower left).
In addition to the axes, the three radian lines represent for species a and b, respec-
tively, 25–75%, 50–50%, and 75–25%. The point where each ratio line crosses the
Fig. 2.4 This illustrates,

top to bottom, some of the
possible, and more
common, spatial patterns.
The top is individual or
grouped. The middle are
peripheral and the bottom
are row and strip. Those on
the right are fine patterned.
Those on the left are
course patterned
Photo 2.2 A two-species intercrop. This shows a block pattern, onion with radish
ridge line represents the best possible LER for that planting density (for more, see
Planting Ratios).
For Fig. 2.3, the highest LER is where 50–50% ratio intercepts with the ridge
line. There are situations where, even with this surface, one might want a different
ratio.
There are cases where more of one species, less of another, gives the highest
LER. An example may be maize with a shorter crop. With fewer maize plants, more
light is available in the understory with higher yields from the shorter species.
This can be less a yield and more an economic decision. If one species is much
higher in value than the second, a farmer might plant more of the higher valued and
fewer of the less valued.
There are also situations where a different planting pattern may, for other rea-
sons, prove advantageous. Each pattern can require a singular density function
(Fig. 2.4 and Photo 2.2).
Spatial Patterns
The previous analysis, as presented in Figs. 2.2 and 2.3, has assumed a set planting
pattern. The default is often a fine checkerboard pattern where, in a biculture, each
plant species is bordered on all sides by a second species. This maximizes the
amount of interspecies interface, and where the potential interspecies complemen-

tarity is high, so would be the resulting LER.
As mentioned, equal populations for each intercropped species may not be best.
For uneven populations, three-dimensional possibilities curves are the preferred
means of evaluation as in Figs. 2.2 and 2.3,
Rather than just uneven planting densities, there can be variations in the spatial
pattern. Some of this may relate to the division of resources, e.g., light apportion-
ment and LER gains. For other patterns, the reason may relate less to the net LER
and involve, e.g., planting and/or harvest efficiencies.
There are some general rules that govern patterns. These depend upon interspe-
cies complementarity.
With a lesser degree of complementarity, courser patterns may be better than
lessening the planting density for one or both species. It may be better to forgo a
single species checkerboard pattern and, instead, interplant like species in small
blocks. These would closely bordered by similarly formulated blocks of a different
species (this design is shown in Photo 2.2).
A block of plants can be awkward to manage. Rows can be the preferred means
to incorporate lesser amounts of interplant interface without reducing the intraspe-
cies planting densities. Figure 2.5 shows some a few of the possible row arrange-
ments. These are shown in cross section.
There is also a general rule that, lacking any overriding concerns, rows be north-
south oriented. The idea is improved light dynamics. This may be especially impor-
tant where there is a meaningful height difference between the component species.
The overriding concerns can be topography, wind direction, and harvest needs.
This applies to row systems such as alley cropping (for more on the tradeoffs involv-
ing row direction, see Row Orientation).
Fig. 2.5 Various

cross-sectional row ...abababa...
arrangements. This figure
is labeled as to species
placement, a and b, where,
as shown, alternating rows
are ...abababa..., ...
abbabba..., and ... ...abbabba...
aabbaabbaa..
...aabbaabbaa...
Timing
As a core element of design, timing refers to the temporal dynamics of an agroeco-

system. This can be, for a single crop, when to plant. For intercrops, planting can
simultaneous or the planting can be staggered, each component species at a slightly
or widely different time.
Timing can apply to activities within a single season or species changes that
occur within a single, long-duration agrosystem. The latter exists across multiple
seasons or across many years.
In this regard, timing effects the ecology and the economics. This can be a means
for an LER above 1.0. One crop might need more light and water early in the grow-
ing season. This crop can pair well with a second one that needs these inputs later in
the season. A slight stagger in the sowing times could bring these temporal dynam-
ics more to the fore.
An example is lettuce with tomato. The lettuce grows fast, taking more light and
water before the tomato achieves peak growth and peak needs.
There are examples where simultaneous planting may result in a resource unbal-
anced agrosystem. Most common is when a crop species, one with faster growth,
outpaces a second species. Unfavorable shading on the second, and shorter, species
could result.
Photo 2.3 A maize and bean sequence. In this example, the maize stalks, post-harvest, remain as
a climbing support for the beans. Sequencing may be done when rainfall is too low for intercrop
needs. This follows the general rule where species that intercrop well also sequence well
Evaluation 27
This can be rectified by planting the slower growing species first, followed by the
faster growing second species. Here again, the goal is often LER related.
Timing also applies to long-duration systems. When the trees are small and
widely spaced, an orchard or similarly, a wood-producing, forest-tree plantation,
can be co-planted with crops. With these taungya systems, the LER is a multi-
seasonal sum.
Sequencing (Rotations)
As stated, there is a clear relationship between interspecies complementarity and

intercropping success. There are occasions where, due to a shortfall in one essential
resource, interspecies success is not always assured. For example, water can be the
limiting resource that negates an otherwise successful species pairings. The highly
productive bean with maize (with a projected LER of ≈ 1.5) does not yield well if
the seasonal rainfall is below 400 mm (Rao 1986).
Although rotations often involve a series of discrete agrosystems, it is worth
mentioning that complementarity can be the basis for the sequencing, i.e., the rela-
tive timing, of rotations. As a general rule, crops that intercrop well, generally
sequence well. There are questions on the actual succession. In this mode, there are
fewer constraints regarding a possible limiting resource (for more on this topic, see
Rotations).
Evaluation
The above core elements form the base agroecosystem. Although all the inputs and
influences are not yet in place, the core or base does foretell the socioeconomic
character of a proposed agrosystem.
Most often, the user objectives are monetary and this can include a requirement
to turn a profit. This can be done by increasing revenue and/or decreasing costs.
Conventionally, revenue increases are accomplished through harvest gains in the
one, plot-occupying crop. Through biodiversity, revenue increases can be expected
with multiple species and multiple harvests from the single plot, i.e., with LER
values greater than one.
Cost-wise, nature offers many eco-services that are free or nearly free. If used
effectively, these are prime opportunities to lower costs.
As above, agroecology offers possibilities for yields and profits. These alone
understate agroecology. The overall outlook can include an improved environmen-
tal outcome. A reduction in toxic chemicals is part of this.
Better outcomes also come when well-formulated agroecosystem meets mone-
tary as well as non-monetary social-economic goals. Such systems can be expected
to be superior along the environmental front, e.g., not only in chemical reductions
but in, for example, allowing local flora and fauna to thrive.
These latter gains are intangible and judgmentally challenging to quantify.
Although for the good, the starting point lies with a profitable financial outcome.
With this in mind, the following sections bring revenue and cost into the picture.
Economic Measures
Needed are means to gauge economic outcome both in absolute terms and relative
to competing agroecosystems. In absolute terms, standard accounting is utilized
where profit is the costs subtracted from the revenues. Other accounting techniques,
e.g., net present value, can be applied as needed.
Relative Value Total
One advantage of the LER is that monetary values are not employed. There are
times when the relative value of the different yields is important in designing the
best agrosystem. Adding these, the result is the relative value total (RVT). For this,
RVT = ( paYab + pbYba ) / paYa
The variables are the same except the addition prices. Species a has a selling
price of pa and species b has a selling price of pb, the divisor being the more valuable
of the two outputs (for more, see Relative Value Total).
For some uses, RVT directly substitutes for LER. This substitution can be made
with density functions/surfaces (as in Figs. 2.2 and 2.3). Often, the net effect is to
change the planting ratio in favor of the species that contributed the most to overall
agrosystem revenue.
Cost Equivalent Ratio
With the normal profit calculation, revenue subtracted from costs equals profit. With
ratios, this is no different. The cost equivalent ratio (CER) is determined through the
equation
CER = ca / cab
where ca are the plot-based costs for monocultural production of the primary spe-
cies, i.e., species a. For comparison, cab are the costs for species a and species b
when closely intercropped.
The above equation is more suitable where one, nonproductive species facilitates
a crop species. For classic, multiple-output systems, another equation is favored.
This is the intercropping-based CER where
Evaluation 29
CER i = ( ca + cb ) / cab
For two monocultural plots, the costs for each (ca and cb) include site preparation
and weed removal. With one intercropped plot, these costs are, in essence, halved.
The above equation includes these savings. There are variations of these measures
(for more on these variations, see Cost Equivalent Ratio).
There are examples where the CER is not a secondary measure. An often cited
study of the in-use CER is found with shade-grown coffee. From Perfecto et al.
(1996), the costs for an in-full-sunlight coffee monoculture are $1740, whereas the
costs of an equivalent area of coffee with a shade-tree overstory are $269.
The resulting CER is
=CER $=
1740 / $269 6.47
The basic CER shows that, for a given area, the shade agrosystem, in term of
added inputs, increases efficiency by 6.5.
This brings on the notion of two opposing economic options. One involves a
greater level of inputs, increased revenue, and a greater profit. The other entails less
inputs brought about by more reliance on natural dynamics and, through this, a
greater profit.
Economic Orientation
The importance of CER lies with more advanced analysis. This starts when the RVT
minus the CER (i.e., RVT – CER) roughly approximates economic orientation. This
starts a line of development often ignored in conventional analysis.
Within the range of possible agroecosystems, some systems are revenue ori-
ented, some cost oriented. Positive values indicate revenue orientation. Negative
values result when an agrosystem is cost oriented.
In brief, with revenue orientation, costs are increased. This is done in the hope of
boosting yields and, if all goes well, overall profitability.
As mentioned, green revolution monocultures employ this strategy. The opposite
is cost orientation where inputs are substituted or lesser amounts used. Expecting
modest yields and/or some loss in revenue, the hope is that this will be the most
profitable strategy (for more, see Economic Orientation).
Revenue Orientation
Going beyond the subtracting of the CER from the RVT, there is a more sophisti-
cated rendering of the revenue-cost relationship. The explanation starts with the sig-
moidally stated, standard production function (as pictured in Fig. 2.1). This can be
shown through the relationship between yield and a nutrient input, e.g., nitrogen.
Simply expressed, with revenue orientation, the goal is to reach a high level on
the production function. In doing so, the nutrient is applied until the cost of adding
an additional unit exceeds the value of the yield increase attained. When this hap-
pens, no more is added.
Based on one nutrient alone, this would determine the yield level. It goes without
saying, there is more than a single nutrient involved. In a multi-input environment,
the notion of reaching the upper level on the curve holds as long as the other plant
needs are in sufficient quantity.
Cost Orientation
There is a marked difference in philosophy with cost orientation. With a cost-

featured agrosystem, the idea is to substitute natural dynamics for outside inputs.
The notion being that eco-dynamics can be put in place at no or at a low cost.
Within an agrosystem, eco-services can take space or be slightly competitive
with the crop. This can result in a yield and revenue reduction. With implementa-
tion, the hope is that the cost savings will greatly exceed the yield/revenue loss and
that this will maximize profits.
In multi-resource situations, both revenues and cost strategies may be initiated.
Further development of economic orientation, including a mathematically based
explanation, is deferred to Chap. 10.
Overview
Based only on the core elements and the resulting base agroecosystem, there are
additional insights to be had. A single-species/variety monoculture, optimally
spaced, optimally timed, and with a base level of inputs, can be considered as hav-
ing a neutral orientation.
Farmers have the option of adding eco-services or adding external inputs. Adding
inputs to boost mono-yields is generally revenue orientation. Stronger yields,
obtained through eco-dynamics, would be cost orientation.
In this preliminary design phase, intercrops begin to exhibit an orientation.
Facilitative systems tend to be cost orientated while productive intercrops are more
inclined to be revenue orientated.
Clearly, the best outcome where high yields couple with reduced costs. These
agrosystems, although infrequent, do exist. The common example may be maize
with bean. In addition to the productive potential of dual outputs, costs are reduced
through favorable nutrient dynamics and improved weed control.
References 31
Profitability
The common assumption is that, because more cash is being spent, revenue orienta-
tion will be more profitable. This may not be true. Strong cost orientation can be
more profitable than pricey, input-supported agrosystems. This is the foundation of
low-input agriculture and, through eco-services, a central facet of agroecology.
Other Objectives
This chapter puts the focus on yield and economic outcome. Without these, there
may be no incentive to plant crops. For many, risk, i.e., certainty in yields, is of para-
mount importance.
For others, environmental goals, in all their manifestations, can be a significant
concern and a strong motive for an agroecological approach. Keeping within the
core of agroecology, discussion on risk and the environment are deferred to later
chapters.
References
Ong, C. (1994). Alley cropping ecological pie in the sky? Agroforestry Today., 6(3), 8–10.
Perfecto, I., Rice, R. A., Greenberg, R., & Van der Voort, M. E. (1996). Shade coffee: A disappear-
ing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience, 46(8), 598–608.
Rao, M. R. (1986). Cereals in multiple cropping. In C. A. Francis (Ed.), Multiple cropping systems
(pp. 96–132). New York: Macmillian Publishing, 383p.
Seran, T. H., & Brintha, I. (2010). Review of maize based intercropping. Journal of Agronomy, 9,
136–145.
Chapter 3
The Agroecological Matrix
Contents
Agroecology Redefined 34
Cropping Threats 34
Soil Fertility 35
Rainfall (Too High or Too Low) 35
Insects 35
Weeds 37
Pathogens 37
Pollination 37
Temperature (Again, the Extremes) 37
Wind 37
Small Animals (Birds, Mice, etc.) 38
Large Animals (Deer, Elephants, etc.) 39
Threat Counters (Eco-Services) 39
Single-Purpose Counters 39
Multipurpose Counters 40
The Counters Listed 42
The Counters Described 43
Permanent and Introduced Counters 47
The Agroecological Matrix 47
Matrix Manifestations 47
Expansion 48
Matrix-Based Analysis 49
Matrix (Cell) Elements 50
As an Analytical Tool 52
An Applied Example 52
Agroecological Intensity 55
Economic Implications 55
References 55
In the proceeding chapter, the core elements of intercropping design, i.e., species
(two or more), spacings, pattern, and timing, are presented. If well exploited, these
core elements, taken together, can be the basis for positive plant-on-plant comple-
mentarity and/or for corresponding facilitation.
Likewise, these go a long way in determining the internal ecology of any one
agrosystem. Assuming a stable climate and a site devoid of threats, they alone will
determine the base LER.

34 3 The Agroecological Matrix
Within an agrosystem, there are numerous forces at work. In practice, site and
weather-related stability are seldom assured. In addition, the yield-reducing crop-
ping threats are many and active, i.e., insects, diseases, etc. The core elements help
with some, but are seldom effective against all.
Agroecology Redefined
How and when these specific counters, and the associated ecology, enter the picture
is fundamental to agroecology. So much so that some of the definitions feature this
perspective. With this view in mind, it holds that agroecology is a science that “…
seeks to enhance agricultural systems by mimicking natural process, thus creating
beneficial biological interactions and synergies among components of the agroeco-
system” (Kerschen 2013).
In this definition, agroecology is fronted by the beneficial ecology of the interact-
ing parts. This perspective may capture more of the essence of agroecology, but, in
some aspects, it is less than complete.
It can be argued that monocultures, lacking in biodiversity, do not have synergies
and are therefore outside formal agroecology. Even with the high-input green revo-
lution model, there are nonchemical additions that, when applied, offer a modicum
of active ecology.
Whether it be a one-species monoculture or a species-rich agro-polyculture, the
notion is to ecologically fortify an agroecosystem against natural threats. This can
be through enhanced plot-internal ecology and/or through the ecology that sur-
rounds the targeted plot.
With all the different factors in play, there is a need to systematically present the
threats, the corresponding counters, and to show how these associate, and achieve,
system objectives within an agrosystem context. This is best understood, and pre-
sented, by way of the agroecological matrix.
Cropping Threats
Briefly summed, the cropping threats are:

Soil fertility (reduced)
Rainfall (the extremes; too high or too low)
Insects (herbivore)
Weeds
Pathogens
Pollination (lack thereof)
Temperature (again, the extremes)
Wind (constant and in microbursts)
Small animals (birds, mice, etc.)
Large animals (deer, bison, etc.)
Cropping Threats 35
Soil Fertility
Soil fertility often starts with the NPK components. To these, a host of trace elemen-
tal needs are added. Nitrogen-fixing species, cut-and-carry nitrogen-rich leaves, or
some other N-input often spells the difference between success and failure. Not to
be dismissed, and of equal importance, are the other nutrients and their sources.
Under this heading comes the structure of the soil. Low bulk density, high in-soil
carbon, and other factors contribute to a good outcome.
Rainfall (Too High or Too Low)
The key aspect of high rainfall is to prevent erosion. Here the enemy is water flow
along the surface.
When surface water flows, it loosens and carries away soil particulates. It is far
better if water infiltrates into the ground. Below ground, it does not erode the soil,
travels far slower, and is available to plants for a prolonged period.
There are two overlapping categories of counters: (1) barriers and (2) soil cover.
Both categories promote infiltration.
The first of these contours the land. These can be as terraces, mounds, ditches,
and/or rows of vegetation. These can be large structures, located every few meters,
or smaller features located decimeters apart.
The size and distance depends on the rainfall, steepness of the land, and loose-
ness of the soil structure. They can strictly follow an elevation gradient or use the
gradient as rough guide.
The other category, that of soil cover, also presents a range of options. This can
be dead vegetation, either imported, the residue of a previous planting, and/or leaf
fall from an existing crop.
Living plants, as a cover crop, also serve. These can be living and purposely
planted (either productive or facilitative) or a harmless or a less harmless weed.
Whatever the source, there must be enough, in extent and depth, to provide the
needed protection (for more, see Infiltration, Erosion, and/or Barriers).
These same measures are implemented for low rainfall. Although erosion may
not be the immediate danger, water infiltration and retention, for what little rain that
does fall, make it readily available (for more, see Infiltration).
Insects
As a threat, herbivore insects exhibit two states. The first is nonthreatening where no
or some damaging insects inhabit a plot. Yield losses are minimal and acceptable,
and controls seek to maintain this status quo.
The second occurs when the status quo breaks down. This can be an insect out-
break which requires immediate, enhanced control.
Status Maintenance
Of the control options, the best may be insect-on-insect predator-prey where good
insects eat the bad. For this, zero crop losses are not expected. Some herbivore
insects must be present to maintain a threshold population of good insects.
Economically, it may be better to endure minor crop loss (usually less than 5%)
than to undertake costly spraying. The main disadvantage is that predator-prey is
easily disrupted by direct insecticide application or from spray drift from nearby
insecticide use.
The potential for insect-on-insect predator-prey is easily gauged. If insecticides
are not area present and there is sufficient biodiversity, below, above, and/or adja-
cent the crop, this is a good indication of latent effectiveness.
Next on the list of control options is the use of repellent plants. In the best case,
designated facilitative plants would drive the bad insects into the field margins.
These boundary areas are best if stocked with attractant plants and heavily popu-
lated with predator insects (for the full listing of counters, see Insect Control).
Noteworthy is an anti-insect technique mostly lost to history. Chickens and other
domestic fowl eat insects. In the distant past, their use was commonplace. In league
with natural avian predators, e.g., barn swallows, they again could become a potent
control (for more, see Attracting under Birds).
Outbreaks
Populations of herbivore insects can, if triggered by some event, e.g., a weather

anomaly, reach crop-threatening levels. This is when, through population dynamics,
the number of bad insects approaches or reaches the upper plateau on the sigmoidal
population curve (as exampled in Fig. 2.1).
Given time, an outbreak will naturally abate. Unfortunately, waiting is not always
an option.
Outbreaks require additional measures, often including a switch in controls.
Repellent plants, cut and carried, to a site are a viable counter. Another is to pur-
chase and release a predator species. As a last ditch action, crop-saving insecticides
may be required.
As oft stated, of the many options with regard to insect control, insecticides with
exception (as above) are to be avoided. For insect maintenance, insecticides can
destroy predator-prey controls. These can be difficult to quickly reestablish (for
more, see Insecticides).
Cropping Threats 37
Weeds
The bane of the farmers, unwanted plants, can take light, water, and/or essential
nutrients from productive species. Physical removal is one control. Increased biodi-
versity, long fallows, the timing of the plowing or sowing, crop rotations, planting
density, and a preplanting burn can all be part of integrated weed management (for
more, see Weed Control).
Pathogens
Another bane of high yields are plant diseases. The broad counters are increased
biodiversity, healthier and/or more resistant plants, and/or plot and field layouts that
do not favor spread.
Pollination
The lack of pollinating insects can be an unnoticed cause for poor crop yields. For
crops that need pollination, this is the number one reason. As counters, those same
conditions that favor strong predator/prey can also support natural pollinators. The
alternative is the honeybee (for more, see Pollination).
Temperature (Again, the Extremes)
Temperatures have direct and indirect effects. Indirectly, they increase evaporation
leading to a water shortfall and water stress. Windbreaks can help retard
transpiration.
Directly, low-soil temperatures can forestall seed germination. At the opposite
end of the spectrum, high temperatures can halt pollination, e.g., the commonly
cited example is with maize. Large, open fields of a single crop are more tempera-
ture exposed. Biodiverse ecosystems offer a small degree of internal moderation,
more so if trees are present.
Wind
Winds come in varying forms. In some regions, there is a constant breeze. This can
have serious dying effect, magnified if the humidity is low and/or the winds are
channeled, or wind tunneled, through a gap or alley. A gap or alley can be formed
when spaced trees are internal or nearby.
Intermittent, stronger winds, in addition to drying, can cause sandblasting. This

is when soil particles strike and damage stems and leaves. Although each strike is
minor, the cumulative effect can be a significant force in reducing area yields.
Further along this strength scale, there are stronger wind bursts that can break
branches, dislodge fruit, or lodge some crops. These strong bursts can be associated
with thunderstorms. Inclusive are microbursts, downward winds that can flatten
areas of taller, seasonal crops.
Small Animals (Birds, Mice, etc.)
There are measures to keep small fauna away from crops. Biocontrols often are the
least effective.
Classically, the scarecrow has serve this purpose with crop-eating birds. This can
have mixed results (for slightly more on this topic, see Scarecrows). The ultimate
crow repellent may be dead crow, easily visible.
Bird management may require a delicate balance. Crop-eating birds can feast off
bugs when there are young to be fed. At the end of the cropping season, these same
bird species turn to grains. A late season scarecrow might help.
There are direct measures. Grains with long spikes (awns) can keep birds from perch-
ing. Most of the counters are, as with scarecrows, indirect. Predator birds (e.g., eagles,
hawks), if encouraged, can keep the others away (for more, see Repelling under Birds).
Photo 3.1 A scarecrow used to frighten away unwanted birds

For mice, rats, and other rodents, there are a few vegetative counters, e.g., mice
do not like mint. The best controls may be ex-plot. Again, attracting predator birds
(hawks, owls, etc.) is a possibility. A less popular control is the presence of snakes.
Nonvenomous types are suggested.
Large Animals (Deer, Elephants, etc.)
For the larger fauna, there are two basic controls, fencing and hunting. Both are ex-
plot. Fencing is good, but not always fully effective against large, more powerful
animals, e.g., deer, bison, and elephants. For the latter, locals state that honeybees
and chili spray can be effective.
Threat Counters (Eco-Services)
For each of the above threats, there are eco-services that mitigate or eliminate each.
This can be single purpose (one threat, one counter) or multipurpose (one threat,
more than one counter). This categorization is a key concept toward understanding
agroecology.
Single-Purpose Counters
A key aspect of conventional agriculture is the use of outside, ex-plot inputs. Much
of this is accomplished through agrochemicals, there being a different chemical for
each threat category. These are one-on-one solutions.
Although there are options among the counters, the pairings can be concisely
summed where:
Low-soil fertility = fertilizers
Herbivore insects = insecticides
Plant pathogens = fungicides
Weeds = herbicides
Low rainfall = irrigation
There are a number of contrary aspects to using single-purpose, one-threat, one-
counter solutions. First, when compared against natural controls, they are inherently
inefficient and represent a cost. A second aspect is the implicit environmental toll in
field-applying huge volumes of artificial compounds.
In fairness, it should be noted that not all spray-based, single-purpose solutions
are inherently evil. Against insects, a mix of soap and water (using common soap)
or organically accepted chemicals are safer and less environmentally troublesome
Photo 3.2 Close-spaced trees with wire form a living fence, one that is sturdy enough to deter
both cattle and elephants. (This photo was taken in northern Kenya where roaming cattle and ele-
phants are cropping threats)
(for more, see Insecticides). The same holds true for milk solutions that counter
fungal attacks.
The single-purpose counter goes beyond sprays and applies when a threat has
one, dedicated (with no other purpose) response. For example, insect traps have
only one target, one purpose.
Multipurpose Counters
There are three guiding precepts or principles that differentiate agroecology from
the one-on-one mind-set of conventional agriculture. These are:
1. To counter threats through natural means
2. To use a single counter against diverse threats (i.e., more than one)
3. To layer the different counters so they mutually reinforce and, in unison, are
more than enough to overwhelm or eliminate any one threat
The first two principles, (1) and (2) above, can be illustrated through the possible
gains from biodiversity. Agroecosystems consisting of more than one species can, if
the species are well selected, address various threats.
Examples are numerous. These extend far beyond the marigold/tomato intercrop
shown in Photo 3.3. In adding a cover crop below a primary crop, the eco-services
provided could include:
Increased fertility (by way of a nitrogen-fixing species)
Reduced soil loss (through a soil-covering, dense planting)
Controlling weeds (through niche-occupying bio-density)
Retaining rainfall (better capture through increased water filtration)
Controlling insects (through predator-prey dynamics or with a repellent plant)
Hosting pollinating insects
A well-selected cover crop might offer all or most of these services. If there are
specific threats that need addressing (e.g., the nematode situation in Photo 3.3), a
specific-purpose cover crop might be the better option.
One documented example has the facilitative species desmodium co-planted
with maize. The main purpose is to repel insects. In this case, effectiveness extends
to hard-to-kill stem borers.
Photo 3.3 This chapter is formulated around agrosystems where one agro-feature offers an array
of eco-services. This is evident in this photo where the marigolds, planted between the tomatoes,
benefit in six ways: (1) controlling nematodes, (2) stabilizing the soil, (3) reducing weeds, (4)
slowing the spread of diseases, (5) attracting pollinating insects, and (6) attracting predator insects
A desmodium preplanting can have a second purpose; it can eliminate or reduce

the population of the parasitic African weed striga. It does by acting as a false host.
Planted before maize, it triggers germination of the striga seeds without supporting
subsequent growth of this weed. This clears the soil for an upcoming maize crop.
Going beyond the cover crop, there are other counters that seem single purpose
but can be multipurpose. Animal manures supply plant nutrients. It has a less-than-
intuitive secondary effect; manures can also help control some insect species, e.g.,
aphids (Morales et al. 2001).
The third principle, (3) above, is mutual reinforcement, i.e., having enough eco-
logical superfluity such that each threat is easily overcome. A biodiverse agrosystem
can support predator-prey dynamics, but this might not be ecologically assertive
enough to control all the unwanted insects.
A second counter, close-at-hand field margins, could be a source of predator
insects. This could favorably tip the insect balance (for more on the related theory,
see Eco-Services).
The Counters Listed
A full listing of the sources of eco-services is quite long. Sans toxic or environmen-
tally dubious sprays, these include:
Productive/facilitative biodiversity
Species (two or more)
Spacing
Spatial pattern
Timing
Genetic/varietal
Rotations
Fallows
Fire
Landscape (plot surroundings)
Location
Land modifications
Absorption zones/micro-catchments
Gabons
Infiltration barriers
Mounds/beds
Cajetes
Catchments
Riparian buffers
Stone clusters
Terraces
Tree-based
Earthen
Stone
Water storage/transport
Paddies
Ponds
Water channels
Water-breaks
Bio-structures
Windbreaks/shelterbelts
Anti-insect barriers
Corridors/habitats
Riparian buffers
Firebreaks
Living fences
Ex-plot inputs (organically recommended)
Fertilizers (e.g., compost, manures, green biomass)
Insecticides (e.g., soap solutions, dichotomous earth)
Microbes
Environmental settings
Tillage method
Mowing method (plot and/or fringe)
Pruning
The Counters Described
Carrying forth from the three guiding principles, it is possible to describe, in eco-
service terms, the threats countered. As mentioned, a bio-diverse, base agrosystem
can provide a range of eco-services. Being ever present, this is always the starting
point.
Since multiple threats are addressed with a single counter and multiple counters
address a single threat, there is considerable task overlap. As a consequence, the
following descriptions can come across as being repetitive. To avoid this, the eco-
tasks associated with each counter are only briefly touched upon.
Productive/Facilitative Biodiversity
As the number of species in the base agroecosystem increases, so does the favorable
ecology. A companion non-facilitative or a facilitative species can be selected to
increase in-soil nutrients (particularly nitrogen), protect against erosion, control
weeds, and/or accomplish other eco-tasks.
Density and spacing reinforce the eco-services that the species, singularly or
together, carry out. The planting pattern reinforces or introduces other controls.
For example, a strip or alternating row pattern can slow the spread of plant dis-
eases and harmful insects. Continuing this example, crop strips that contour a hill-
side can be a barrier against erosion.
Timing is mostly employed to maximize the LER. There can be gains in weed
suppression.
Genetic/Varietal
As a counter, it is possible to substitute of one crop variety for another. This might
be replacing a drought-prone variety for one that survives low rainfall. These exist
for many crop species.
Rotations
There are many gains to be had by changing the sequence of crop species. If well
formulated, the gains can be improved in-soil nutrients and/or improved in-soil
moisture. Rotations can also negatively impact harmful insects and resource-
robbing weeds (for more, see Rotations).
Fallows
Allowing the land a rest period is a site reset with positive gains. The nutrient and
moisture content are increased. A reset can reduce or eliminate weeds and be part of
an insect control strategy. A fallow can last one season or many decades (for more,
see Fallows).
Fire
Uncontrolled, fire can destroy agroecosystems. Fire, as a preplanting counter, can

be a positive. For the upcoming crop, a burn releases the nutrients contained in
existing biomass. Fire can also destroy hidden insects, burn weed seeds, and ease
the preparation needed for an upcoming planting (for more, including the disadvan-
tages, see Fire, also Slash and Burn).
Threat Counters (Eco-services) 45
Photo 3.4 An example of post-fallow, preplanting burn. This burn was of moderate to low inten-
sity, most likely with only a minor effect on upcoming weed populations. The primary purpose
would be to reduce the cost of brush clearing
Landscape
The impact of surrounding plots, and those more distant, can broadly impact a tar-
geted plot. The gains come through better wind, water, disease, and insect manage-
ment. Some come through direct protection, e.g., from winds and surface water
flow. Other protections are indirect where, e.g., insect-eating insect breed in the
surroundings and venture forth to seek prey in among the crops.
The size and shape of the plot(s) can be a key factor. Plots, long and narrow, can
aid the spread of abovementioned, boundary-inhabiting, good insects. This would
include natural pollinators. Plots, long and narrow, when contouring a hillside, is
one of many erosion control measures (for more, see Landscape Agroecology).
Location
The basic idea is to plant crops where they are subject to fewer, or the least damag-
ing, threats. For example, a crop that is killed when the roots are waterlogged should
not be placed where standing water is a regular event.
Land Modifications
There are earthen structures of various designs that offer better water management,
protection from rainfall extremes (high and low), and erosion control. As stated, the
basic idea is that water should not flow across the surface. It is far better if water
infiltrates into the soil.
Once underground, it is available to crops for a longer period. This brings addi-
tional gains, mostly from reduced erosion and in water purity (for more, see
Infiltration, also Micro-Catchments, Gabons, Mounds, Cajetes, Stone Clusters,
Ponds, and Terraces).
Farm Practice
This is a catch-all category involving the many aspect of management. This includes
when to mow, plow, prune, weed, etc. Also, how and where this is best done.
Bio-Structures
There are rows, strips, or blocks of vegetation that cross the farm landscape thereby
providing various ecological services to nearly crop plots. The vegetation can be
naturally occurring, be purposely planted, or be an ecologically rich agrosystem.
The eco-services offered include the blocking of drying winds and providing a
habitat and a travel corridor for predator and pollinating insects. The affects extend
belowground where, from this reserve of micro-organisms, active plots can restocked
(D’Acunto et al. 2016).
These structures also allow for water infiltration, control soil loss, stop the spread
of wildfires, and contain roaming animals (for more, see Windbreaks/Shelterbelts,
Barriers (general use), Corridors, Riparian Buffers, Firebreaks, Field Margins,
and/or Fencing).
Ex-Plot Inputs
This category can include worrisome chemicals. These are also some that are rec-
ommended. For fertilizers, the multipurpose application of manures has been men-
tioned. Along these same lines, and possibly with the same properties, are compost
and green biomass (for more, see Mulch). The latter can be multipurpose, e.g., also
suppressing weeds.
An ancient technique that has come to the fore is in-soil charcoal (for more, see
Tierra Prieta). Charcoal does not add nutrients, but helps retain those present. It
also improves soil permeability and soil moisture.
Against insects, there are the less eco-disturbing soap solutions, dichotomous
earth, and wood ash. The latter also provides nutrients. Also, against insects are
introduced predators, e.g., wasps are brought in to control leaf-eating caterpillars

(for more, see Insect Control).
Environmental Setting
This category describes some seemingly minor, and quite diverse, agronomic prac-
tices. Despite appearing minor, these can contribute to the ecology, threat reduction,
and the agro-outcome. They include the options for plowing (or lack thereof), mow-
ing, tree pruning, tree planting, and weeding (for more, see Weeding Methods,
Pruning, and Planting Methods).
Also benefiting agriculture are specific microbes. These single-cell organisms
can be detrimental, others not so. Microbes can make nutrient available, counter
plant diseases, and can even help conserve water by reducing plant transpiration (for
more, see Microbes).
Permanent and Introduced Counters
As stated, the above counters have been divided into two categories, (1) single and
(2) multipurpose. Another division is useful.
For this new category, there are also two classes, (1) those that are always in
place, always working, and (2) those that are ex-plot and are applied or introduced
when needed. The former category would be infiltration ditches and windbreaks,
whereas the latter, those introduced, would be insect-repellent biomass, cut-and-
carried mulch, and/or burning.
The Agroecological Matrix
A matrix presentation can, from a user perspective, save the reader from unavoid-
ably long, untidy, and tedious explanations. Instead, these are reduced to a manage-
able and a concise form.
The agroecological matrix lists the previously discussed threats as rows and the
above-presented threat counters as columns. The cells or elements denote the effec-
tiveness relationship between one threat and one counter. Each line represents and
itemizes the options for countering a threat.
Matrix Manifestations
In this layout, the matrix element values can be qualitatively stated (as in Table 3.1).
In an advanced and more intuitive form, they can be quantitatively expressed (as in
Table 3.2).
Table 3.1 shows what might be a general-purpose/generic matrix. Taking a single

line out of Table 3.1, weeds (line 3) can be combated through a combination of the
base agrosystem, crop rotations, variations in farm practice, a preplanting burn, the
surrounding landscape, and hand removal. Under the right circumstances, all can be
contributory. Clearly, some are more potent than others.
The purpose of a qualified matrix is to provide insight and a brief overview. This
does not, nor is it the purpose to, fully explain the details, occurrences, and nuances
of each threat/counter relationship.
Expansion
If a site is challenging and more active agroecology needed, a farmer would take
additional measures. The adding of more eco-services to counter more threats would
be reflected in an expanded matrix. This would translate into additional lines and/or
columns.
In Table 3.1, soil fertility is a single line. This line could focus on overall soil
fertility or on the nutrient most limiting. If there are, as often the case, co-limiting
essential resources, these would be represented by two or more lines.
The same could apply to insects. Instead of one insect row, more rows, one for
each specific insect pest, could be included.
In Table 3.1, the left side are the mostly permanent counters, and the right has
those that are optional to the plot and agrosystem. Often the best economic outcome
comes by first relying on the permanent, often the lower cost counters.
Table 3.1 A qualified, non-numeric, agroecological matrix

Counters → Base Rotations/ Farm
Threats ↓ agrosystem fallows practice Fire Landscape Fertilizers Insecticides
Insects Good Good Fair Good Good – Fully
effective
Soil fertility Fair Good Good Good – Fully –
effective
Weeds Good Fair Good Good Fair – –
Wind Good – Poor – Good – –
Diseases Good Good Good Good Good – –
Temperature Fair – Fair – Good – –
Erosion Good – Good – Good – –
Infiltration Good – Fair – Good – –
Low rainfall Poor – Good – Good – –
If these are not up to the task, optional or transitory inputs would further fortify
an agrosystem. These are added as needed, e.g., compost to boost soil fertility.
Table 3.2 A quantified matrix. This is the same matrix as in Table 3.1 but restated in numerical
values. Instead of nonexistent to excellent, the ranking are 0–1
Counters → Base Rotations/ Farm
Threats ↓ agrosystem fallows practice Fire Landscape Fertilizers Insecticides
Insects 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75 – 1.0
Soil fertility 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 – 1.0 –
Weeds 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.50 – –
Wind 0.75 – 0.25 – 0.75 – –
Diseases 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 – –
Temperature 0.50 – 0.50 – 0.75 – –
Erosion 0.75 – 0.75 – 0.75 – –
Infiltration 0.75 – 0.50 – 0.75 – –
Low rainfall 0.25r – 0.75 – 0.75 – –
Matrix-Based Analysis
Restarting, the three guiding precepts/principles that underlie matrix-based agro-

ecology, i.e.:
1. Use natural means
2. Thwart multiple threats with a single counter
3. Use multiple counters to attack a single threat.
The focus now shifts to the quantitative matrix.
For this, numbers replace qualitative estimates. Using a common denominator,
the counters (matrix elements) are ranked 0–1 where zero represents no effect and
one is highly effective. The equivalency is a 0–100% scale.
Again, the across-the-row elements can be mutually reinforcing with regard to a
single threat. In the simplest and possibly the most common of the intercell mani-
festations, the cells in each row constitute a summed effect.
From Table 3.2, row 4, the wind counters are shown. These are the base agrosys-
tem (0.75) and the surrounding landscape (0.75). As presented, the summed effect
is good. The values sum to over 100%
For most rows, the row functions are a nonlinear, sigmoid form where the coun-
ters (cells) are additive within the equation. The matrix elements along a single
matrix line are shown, along the lower axis in Fig. 3.1, as summed arrows. Reaching
the lower plateau of the inverse sigmoid function is generally enough to mitigate a
threat.
With a single matrix line and more study, it is plausible that some of the indi-
vidual effects, i.e., the cells, are more than additive. This would be a mutual rein-
forcement where the sum of both is greater than the total of each.
An example would be where attractant plants (within or at the fringe of an agro-
system) concentrate herbivore insects such that predator/prey is more effective.
Also possible is to use repellent plants (within the agrosystem) to direct unwanted
insects into predator-rich surroundings (the landscape element).
Fig. 3.1 An inverse 100%

sigmoidal function
showing how, in small
steps (as illustrated by the
four arrows), each threat
counter sums and reduces Threat
the danger. The analysis Level
could also apply, with
fewer, longer arrows, to
Fig. 3.2
Matrix Elements (cells)
If there is both a species-specific lure and species-specific repellent, this is known

as a push-pull (for more in this topic, see Push-Pull). This relationship might prove
even more than additive.
As previously stated, the best approach may be to start with the in-place, perma-
nent counters. If these are not up to the task, i.e., a summed value near 100%, then
introduced or optional eco-services are added.
Turning to an applied example, the two wind counters illustrated in Fig. 3.2
would be represented in Fig. 3.1 by three arrows. The first would be the resilience
of the agrosystem itself to whatever type of wind damage is being countered, i.e.,
drying, sandblasting, etc. A change in, e.g., species composition or planting density
might suffice where the winds are minor.
This later situation is shown with the reduced treat function (dotted line, Fig. 3.1).
Here two counters (arrows) can handle this reduced threat.
In more trying situations, a tall windbreak surrounding a small plot would be a
more effective counter. In Fig. 3.1, this would be represented by an extended arrow.
For larger, wind-prone plots, internally planted tree would provide protection.
This is the third arrow.
It should be noted that an actualized total (Fig. 3.1 and the right column of
Table 3.2) could sum to over 1.0 (100%). Although this represents an overkill, it
helps insure that the right amount of ecology is present and active. This is for the
good. If the level of protection reaches the lower threat plateau (as in Fig. 3.1), this
might, in many cases, prove sufficient.
Matrix (Cell) Elements
For each matrix element, there are two entries. The first is the inherent and pur-
ported effectiveness of any one counter.
When used in full strength, i.e., as recommended, an insecticide can be theoreti-
cally 100% effective in killing insects. The effectiveness value is therefore 100% or
one when a zero to one scale is employed. For other counters, the effectiveness
values range more.
Fig. 3.2 Two methods to

counter damaging winds.
Top left shows windbreaks,
the top right has scattered
trees. These can be
combined (bottom) and
qualitatively or
quantitatively stated within
one matrix line
Due to various shortcomings, not all counters live up to their full effectiveness.
A case in point, an insecticide, if poorly applied, could be less potent than adver-
tised. This is the second entry, what actually happens or how much is applied or
realized. This would also scale in the zero to one range.
The actualized value multiples the theoretical effectiveness by the field situation,
i.e., the true application. This can be demonstrated, as below, using plausible values
as related to predator/prey insect control.
Effectiveness Application = Actualized

(a) The base agroecosystem 80% (0.8) × 50% (0.5) = (0.4)
(b) Fallow 25% (0.25) × 100% (1.0) = (0.25)
(c) Farm practice 25% (0.25) × 25% (0.25) = (0.0625)
(d) Fire (with fallow) 50% (0.5) × 0% (0) = (0)
(e) The surrounding landscape 100% (1.0) × 75% (0.75) = (0.75)
In the first line, the core or base agroecosystem (as in Chap. 2) can be 80% (0.8)
effective while at full strength. This assumes a mature ecosystem.
During the early in growth phase when the plants are small and host fewer preda-
tor insects, the system might have an application value of 50% (0.5). The actualized
effect would be 40% or 0.4.
As an Analytical Tool
The previous section has looked at the details in quantifying individual matrix lines.
Taken together, the lines, as sigmoid functions, constitute a series of equations
where, as threat counters, each line must be above (greater than) a stated threshold
value.
In this form, the full matrix represents a nonlinear, mathematical programming
problem where the line with the lowest value sets the upper limit on site productiv-
ity (for a justification of this approach, see Matrix Equations).
The goal or objective is profit maximization. Starting with an estimate of the
revenue (yield-based) and with appropriate costs assigned to each column, matrix
analysis returns those column values that optimize profit.
Since the example presented here looks at an intercrop, LER measures produc-
tivity. Along with selling prices, this provides an approximation of revenue.
An Applied Example
From the Sahel of West Africa, this example is of a four-phase cropping system.
Following (1) a long, multi-year fallow, farmers plant (2) a sorghum/cassava/yam
intercrop (as in Photo 3.5). This is seasonally followed by (3) maize and then (4)
soybean. The following is from a published case study (Wojtkowski 2016).
The single plot modeled here is rectangular, small (<0.5 ha), surrounded by fal-
lows from previous plantings. The analysis looked primarily at the first year and, as
threats, soil fertility, insects, and weeds. The estimated cell values for the first-
season eco-services are shown in Table 3.3.
Plant-harmful insects, broadly defined, can be suppressed by either predator-
prey dynamics or chemicals. Spraying an insecticide destroys the internal dynamics
of the plot. Being and either/or situation, this is the reason for two lines (Table 3.3).
Soil fertility is also generically stated with two options: (1) natural means and (2)
fertilizers. For weeds, two primary weed species, striga and spear grass, were looked
at. Both are hard to control.
The Problem Explained
This analysis compares a conventional, chemical-based approach to a complete reli-

ance on eco-services. Intermediate solutions are possible.
The available eco-services follow the precept that multiple counters can be
employed to combat a single threat. For insects, there are three of these;
1. Predator-insect hosting field edges (in this case, the land currently in fallow
tends to constitute the field boundaries)
2. A predator-welcoming, biodiverse agroecosystem
Photo 3.5 The first year intercrop, sorghum, cassava, and yam, mentioned in the text
3. Comparatively small, irregularly shaped plots that encourage the spread of use-
ful insects. This is the landscape column in Table 3.3.
For weeds, there are three columns, two of which represent eco-services. These
are (1) the long fallow and (2) preplanting burn.
Two eco-services support soil fertility. These are (1) the long fallow and (2) crop
rotations.
The Solution
As stated, the questions asked are answered through a matrix model, i.e., best, most
economical use of the inputs and/or the eco-counters available. With analysis, the
best economic solution, i.e., revenue minus costs, forgoes the use of chemical
inputs. This is based on relative costs; natural means are often considerably cheaper
than purchased chemicals and/or labor.
The long fallow is, by far, the dominant eco-service. In controlling insects and
weeds and restoring soil fertility, it contributes 70% of the overall eco-strength.
The fallow is the counter for first-season, low-soil fertility. Since the effective-
ness value is high, this works. When the second and third cropping seasons are
Table 3.3 A quantitative, plot-specific matrix. (Plot characteristics: small size where the
surrounding area contains natural vegetation)
Fire
Base Rotations/ Farm (post-
agroecosystem fallows practice fallow) Landscape Fertilizers Insecticides
Insects – 0.40 0.25 0.06 – 0.70 – –
Predator/
prey
Insects – – – – – – – 1.0
Insecticide
use
Soil – 0.90 0.10 0.40 – 1.0 –
fertility
Weeds 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.60 – – –
included, the rotation has a role in prolonging the fertility that is residual from the
fallow.
The burn has only a minor effect on fertility and weeds. It remains part of the
solution only because it contributes by reducing land clearing costs. This is the main
cost associated with the fallow.
It is possible to separately examine other seasons. Looking at the third season,
the soybean monocrop, the first-season cell values in Table 3.3 for the fallow and the
burn, now 3 years in the past, would greatly diminish. Hand weeding (farm practice
in Table 3.3) becomes the dominant counter. The boost is from an estimated LER of
0.33 to 0.66. This is low as spear grass is hard to effectively remove and hand weed-
ing less effective and less economic.
By the fourth season, the fallow gains have disappeared. What remains is a
fertility-depleted, weed-infested site.
Future Directions
In modeling any agrosystem, there is a certain tentativeness that comes from using
unverified input data. This example was chosen because (a) except for labor, the
system is entirely dependent on the eco-services and (b) the results are field verified,
i.e., the model closely agrees with the actual agroecosystem and the results obtained.
This includes predicting first-season yields with an estimated LER of 1.8.
For those farmers that must eventually abandon slash-and-burn agriculture and
those agroecologists that wish to supersede conventional agriculture with eco-
alternatives, the design roads are less than clear.
For these two groups, there is, between eco-dependent slash-and-burn and chem-
ically dependent conventional agriculture, not a dearth, but an overabundance of
potential solutions.
This goes to the heart of the problem. This involves determining the best and/or
optimal mix of eco-services where continual cropping is required. Field margins,
References 55
rotations, and cover crops, in some combinations and design, might rank highly in
this quest (for more on each of these options, see the corresponding Glossary entries).
When applied to specific farms, plots, design options, and economic situations,
matrix analysis is capable of looking at and assessing the eco-strengths and eco-
weaknesses. Even with this potential, there are a lot of unknowns and complexities
that must be overcome before this is a fully self-contained analytical tool.
This includes tackling more nuanced agro-situations involving a wider choice of
eco-services. Lacking a history of verified results, this remains a work in progress.
Matrix analysis still has a use. Given the current obstacles, i.e., in quantifying a
fully fledged, i.e., intensely expressed, matrix, the immediate potential lies more in
the clarity of thought required.
Agroecological Intensity
The matrix has another analytical role. This lies in determining the amount of agro-
ecology present.
The simplest case is that of the green revolution model with six counters, i.e.,
genetics, fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and irrigation. Each coun-
ter, being single purpose, produces a six-by-six matrix where 16% of the elements
are active.
For contrast, Table 3.1 has 72 elements of which 47 (65%) are active. Dropping
all but the natural means columns gives a matrix that is 80% active. The density of
the matrix is a gauge of agroecological intensity. This is also a form of
classification.
Economic Implications
The intensity of the matrix is important as this equates with more design options.
Since many are permanent and low cost (or free), this impacts the profitability and
economic orientation of the agrosystem(s) in question.
The threat counters, as free or reduced cost eco-services, carry the strong assump-
tion of cost orientation. This is not a universal rule. Some eco-services can be more
costly than conventional input-based alternatives, e.g., Brainard et al. (2016).
Despite the exceptions, natural counters are a major source of cost control and often
denote good land stewardship.
References
Brainard, D. C., Bryant, A., Noyes, D. C., et al. (2016). Evaluating pest regulating services under
conservation agriculture: A case study in snap beans. Agriculture, Ecology, and Environment,
235, 142–154.
D’Acunto, L., Semmartin, M., & Ghersa, C. M. (2016). Uncultivated margins are source of soil
microbial diversity in an agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
220, 1–7.
Kerschen, D. L. (2013). Agriculture’s future: Sustainable intensive agriculture and agroecology.
Creighton Law Review, 46(4), 591–618.
Morales, H., Perfecto, I., & Ferguson, B. (2001). Traditional fertilization and its effect on corn
insect populations in the Guatemalan highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
84, 145–155.
Wojtkowski, P. A. (2016). Agroecology: The universal equations. New York: CRC Press, 257p.
Chapter 4
Agrotechnologies
Contents
Agroecology Redefined 58
Agrotechnologies 58
Classification 59
Simple and Complex Agroecosystems 63
Agrotechnological Components 63
Economic Underpinnings 63
The Non-Harvest Option 64
The Complete Package 64
Other Parameters 68
Improvement (Facilitative) Agrotechnologies 68
Bio-Structures 69
Land Modifications 69
Purpose Reclassified 69
Monocultures 72
Multi-Varietal 72
Uneven Aged 74
References 74
In its simplest form, an agrosystem starts with species (one or more). With one spe-
cies, spacing is normally the only variable (the exceptions are discussed in this
chapter). Preferably, there are two or more species. From Chap. 2, the variables for
this are spacing, spatial pattern, and timing. Ideally, the system objectives, sans
threats, are fully achievable employing these core elements.
The world is far from ideal, and cropping threats are always present. In sorting
the options, the agroecological matrix, as presented in the previous chapter, is
another step toward implementing the gains from the various manifestations of
biodiversity.
Since the inception of agriculture, farmers noticed that some formulations (i.e.,
species, spacings, etc., plus a selection of single or multipurpose counters) give bet-
ter results than others. Rather than try to design the perfect agrosystem, users often
employ these field-tested, proven designs. Over time, many of these have evolved
into a standard design. For most, these have become the de facto starting point.
Farmers either keep to the standard or modify it for their specific purpose. The
endpoint is a complete design package with species, dimensions, management

58 4 Agrotechnologies
p ractices, etc. Inclusive in the package is knowing the climate, topography, and
soils, along with the social and economic situations that each is best suited. This is
a study onto itself.
The most common agrotechnology is the monoculture. Outside of the species-
delineated variations, there are some that are slightly more ecological exploitative.
These represent a departure from the established norm.
Agroecology Redefined
In the first chapter, some broad definitions were put forth. The definitions can also
reflect the design steps. In Chap. 3, agroecology is viewed with regard to ecological
dynamics and interplant synergies that are part of the design process.
In this chapter, the agroecosystem comes to the fore, and agroecology can be so
defined. For this, agroecology uses “ecological concepts and principles to the design
and management of sustainable agroecosystems” (Gliessman 1998).
Alternatively, agroecology is based on specific groupings of unlike plant species
such that the internal ecology and plant/plant synergies are preordained and har-
nessed to produce needed food, fuel, and/or fiber.
The impetus under this perspective is an agroecology that centers around pre-
designed, pre-planned, or preordained agroecosystems. This is agrotechnology-
based, agrotechnology-defined agroecology.
Agrotechnologies
In conventional agriculture, the monoculture is, for many, the only agrotechnology.
Lacking bio-heterogeneity, these are, as mentioned, differentiated by the crops
being raised, e.g., rice, maize, wheat, etc.
In contrast, agroecosystems are differentiated by their ecological dynamics, eco-
nomic purpose, and interspecies synergies. These result when unlike species and
other design variables are foregathered.
Over time, a large number of agrotechnologies have been utilized. Going beyond
mono-cropping, some find wide use and, for a few of these, a standardized, bio-
physical design has evolved.
For others, those unique to one farm or found only in scattered, remote regions,
documentation tends to be scarce or nonexistent. For these, only the rudiments of
the design, and the accompanying agroecology, is known. The ecological and eco-
nomic reasons for their existence must often be surmised.
In either form, well understood or rudimentary in design, in-field examples are
found. Table 4.1 provides a listing of the known agrotechnologies.
Agrotechnologies 59
From this list, there are those that are entirely productive. In these, facilitative
gains are encouraged, but, if existent, these are not essential to the design. This
would apply to many intercrops, e.g., carrots with cabbage, where facilitation is not
expected, but it might exist in small measure.
There are facilitative systems where the second species is tasked with countering
one, hopefully more, threats. Any yield from this second species is collateral.
An example is a contour hedge. This may serve primarily as an erosion control
barrier. It can also play a role in insect control, for water infiltration, and to capture
nutrients. As a source of firewood, it might also qualify as a productive entity. The
latter is usually discounted when classifying.
Also, for explanatory convenience, only outdoor, terrestrial, soil-grown agro-
technologies are listed and discussed. Beyond the scope are hydroponics, green-
houses, and the very few floating gardens that exist. To avoid confusion, floating
gardens are soil on raft, not the misnamed riverbank agriculture, e.g., as in Aztec
floating gardens.
Classification
The agrotechnologies can be looked at as points on a multidimensional continuum.

In moving across this continuum, one agroecosystem, with minor change, can
become another.
Given the number of variables, e.g., as presented in Chaps. 2 and 3, this could
yield, figuratively, a near infinite number of continuum points or regions. Only a few
are of interest to farmers. These would be the recognized agrotechnologies.
Here, two subsequent views are represented. The first has each agrotechnology
represented by a number of points. This is the weak agrotechnology approach where
each agrotechnology has a number of design variations.
In contrast, there is the view that one point, i.e., one set of variables, defines an
agrotechnology. This is the strong agrotechnology approach. This view is featured
within this text.
Even from a strong agrotechnology perspective, grouping the recognized agro-
technologies into viable categories is an abstract, messy affair. Classification is a
point of view, especially when the ordinarily distinct agrotechnologies cross bound-
aries and/or overlap into other categories and other dimensions, e.g., when the spa-
tial dimension overlaps with a temporal classification.
As an example, the taungyas (discussed in the next chapter) are a series of inter-
crops where the secondary species (one or more) changes across time. Ignoring the
temporal dimension, this can be classed at any given moment in time as an inter-
crop. It can also be grouped around its temporal dynamics (for a brief expansion of
this general topic, see Classification).
Table 4.1 A listing of the recognized Productive agrotechnologies

agrotechnologies
Monocultural
Pure
Varietal/genus
Productive intercropping
Simple mixes
Strip cropping (seasonal)
Barrier or boundary
Complex agroecosystems (without trees)
Productive agroforestry
Isolated tree
Alley cropping (tree row)
Strip cropping (mixed tree)
Agroforestry intercropping
Shade systems (light)
Agroforests
Multi-species forest-tree plantations
Multi-species fruit-tree orchards
Mixed fruit-forest-tree plantations
Complex agroecosystems
Natural pastures (highly biodiverse)
Mixed annuals
Intermediate polycultures
Shade systems (natural canopy)
Agroforests
Tropical homegardens
Shrub gardens
Forest gardens
Enriched forests
Forest farming
Mixed cropping
Managed natural forests (silviculture)
Sparse and infrequent harvests
Damage-salvage cuttings
Species-oriented sequences
Senility cuttings
Selective shelterwood thinnings
Light crown (the French method)
Heavy crown (the Danish method)
From below (the German method)
Liberation cuttings
Advancing
Reverting
(continued)
Agrotechnologies 61
Table 4.1 (continued) Facilitative intercropping

Simple mixes
Strip cropping
Boundary
Cover crops
Facilitative agroforestry
Parklands
Strip cropping (hedgerow)
Boundary (with trees)
Shade systems (heavy)
Temporal agrotechnologies
Enduring or continual
Single rotations
Series rotations
Overlapping cycles
Taungyas
Simple
Extended
Multistage
End stage
Continual
Feed systems
Pastoral
Pastures
Pastures with trees
Forage trees with pasture
Forage trees
Aqua-forestry
Entomo-agriculture
Avian agriculture
Aqua-agriculture
Productive bio-structures
Windbreaks/shelterbelts
Anti-insect barriers
Corridors/habitats
Riparian buffers
Firebreaks
62
Table 4.2 This shows a select group of agrotechnologies (columns) and the how these relate to cropping threats (rows)
Monocultures Productive Facilitative Facilitative strip Hedgerow alley Shade
(seasonal) intercrops (seasonal) intercrops (seasonal) Cropping Cropping Parklands (heavy) Agroforests
Insects Poor Fair Good Good Fair Poor/fair Good Good
Soil fertility Poor Fair Good Good Good Poor/fair Good Good
Weeds Poor Fair/good Good Good Poor/fair Poor Good Good
Wind Poor Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Good
Diseases Poor Fair Good Fair/good Poor Poor Fair Good
Temperature Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good
Erosion Poor Good Good Good Good Poor Good Good
Infiltration Poor Good Good Good Good Fair/good Good Good
Low rainfall Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Good
4
Agrotechnologies
Agrotechnologies 63
Simple and Complex Agroecosystems
Reaching back to Chap. 2, agroecology subdivides into simple agrosystems, those

containing six or fewer species, and complex systems, those having seven or more
species. On both sides of this divide, recognized agrotechnologies have emerged.
Under a simple heading, the agrotechnologies are wider ranging with greater eco-
logical differentiation and economic purpose.
Agrotechnological Components
With regard to eco-services, agrotechnologies have strengths and weaknesses.

Those agrotechnologies that fall under the heading of agroforests are generally well
bio-protected.
Those of intermediate biodiversity exhibit varying eco-dynamics. As previously
stated, the monoculture is noted for its vulnerabilities. This is shown in Table 4.2
where some common, in-use agrotechnologies are the columns and the threats are
the rows.
For example, the strength (Column 6, Table 4.2) of the parkland system may lie
with wind protection although there can be lesser gains from water infiltration,
insect control, and nutrient acquisition. Table 4.2 applies the same analytics to
gauge other agrosystem strength/weakness assessments.
Economic Underpinnings
Within the concept of the agrotechnology, there is rough correlation between biodi-
versity and economic orientation. The notion being that greater biodiversity often
yields numerous eco-service possibilities. This results in fewer needed inputs which,
in turn, translates to cost orientation. This inexact guide has exceptions.
Some land users embrace productive intercropping but maintain previous input
levels. This results in an agrosystem that is more revenue oriented than most mono-
cultures. This can be found with market gardens.
This case illustrates the approximative relationship that exists between agrotech-
nologies and the social, economic, and/or environmental goals. For many, the goals
and/or objectives are narrowly defined and not always open to major change. Many
agrotechnologies are frozen with regard to the crop raised and/or the economic ori-
entation. Hedgerow alley cropping, discussed in this chapter, is preset with regard
to crop (mostly maize) and orientation (revenue).
Again, exceptions exist. A case where a major orientation shift is possible is with
heavy shade systems, e.g., cocoa with a dense, shade-tree overstory. Cost orienta-
tion is the normal expression.
Heavy pruning of the overstory, along with fertilization, would increase costs,
increase yield, and change the economic orientation. As long as the trees are not
removed, the canopies can re-thicken, and the system can revert when cost orienta-
tion again becomes the better option.
This example is generally inflexible as to the crop being raised. Shade-resistant
species (i.e., coffee, cocoa), and possibly some vine species, are among the few crop
options. Beyond this, a new crop would require total or partial tree removal. This
would result in a new agrotechnology.
The Non-Harvest Option
As stated, there are agrosystems that are facilitative, and others are fully productive.
There is an overlap. This is often classified by the use of the non-harvest option.
For some crops within an intercrop, harvest may be based on convenience, i.e.,
the crop has sufficient worth and/or the labor exists for the harvest to occur. The
classic example, as in Photo 4.1, is maize with squash.
The relativity low squash yield may not merit harvest. When this happens, this
would be defined as facilitative intercrop.
The Complete Package
For some agrotechnologies, there are specific recommendations regarding the spe-
cies content. In a previously mentioned example, hedgerow alley cropping is most
often predicated around maize with Leucaena or maize with Gliricidia.
There can often be a single design formulation for each agrotechnology. Having
one standard design advances a strong agrotechnology approach.
A standard, biophysical design can be quite detailed. Hedgerow alley cropping
also starts with 4-meter inter-hedge spacing and a 1-meter pruned hedge height. A
design package can, if essential for success, specify the land type, climate, rainfall
range, etc. Often overlooked, but equally important, is the economic and social set-
ting for which an agrotechnology is best suited.
Therefore, the complete package has:
(a) Species (two or more)
(b) Physical dimensions
(c) The land-use problem (if any) being addressed
(d) The preferred site attributes
(e) The economic profile
(f) The inherent cropping flexibility
Agrotechnologies 65
Photo 4.1 The non-harvest option. In this case, squash for weed control grown beneath maize.
The system is classified on whether or not the squash is harvested
Again, citing hedgerow alley cropping, the above list field translates to:
For the land-use problem:
–– A sloping site with off-season erosion danger
–– Soil sustainability issues
For the site situation:
–– Generally fertile soils
–– Adequate seasonal rainfall
–– Soil pH greater than 5.5
For the socioeconomic profile:
–– Maize as the primary crop
–– Scarce land requiring hillside cultivation
–– Secure land tenure
–– Ample labor
–– Confinement of animals
–– A need for firewood
Flexibility is (1) the ability to change the primary crops or (2) the ability to
switch completely to another agrotechnology. With hedgerow alley cropping, there
is some flexibility to change from maize to say cabbage. In a more sweeping modi-
fication, it can be expensive to remove the hedges and convert to hedgeless
mono-cropping.
With the hedgerow system, the conditions of use are overtly stated. For most
agrotechnologies, the use restrictions come by way of inference. This holds true for
most of the named agrotechnologies (as in Table 4.1).
The close cousin of hedgerow alley cropping is a tree-row alley system. The lat-
ter has crops between rows of tall trees. From the central plains of North America,
a studied example is walnut trees with crops or forage.
Extrapolating from the few described examples, tree-row alley cropping seems
to require flatland, intensive management, and high inputs. There are also limits as
to which fruit- or nut-bearing tree species can coinhabit with active cropping. From
this, one might infer that the economic use window is quite small (for more details
on alley systems, see Hedgerow and Tree Row under Alley Cropping).
The complete packages (with a standardized biophysical design, proposed site,
clime, rainfall range, along with an economic and social setting) all establish use
parameters. If known, these countenance greater confidence in recommending a
specific agrotechnology. The advantages of having a complete, overtly stated,
Photo 4.2 An alley cropping system. This shows a slight variation off the standard design. Here
the between-hedge distance is slightly greater than the 4 m recommendation distance. (Photo cour-
tesy of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF))
Agrotechnologies
Table 4.3 Select agrotechnologies and advantages/disadvantages. The top three rows relate to site needs; the bottom three rows relate to in-use flexibility
Productive Facilitative
Monocultures intercrops intercrops Facilitative strip Hedgerow alley Shade
(seasonal) (seasonal) (seasonal) Cropping Cropping Parklands (heavy) Agroforests
Land-use None None Fertility/insects Erosion/fertility Fertility Winds Fertility/ All
problem insects
Site Flat Flat Flat Hillsides Hillsides Flat All All
(topography)
Primary crop Staple or market Staple or market Staple or market Staple or market Staple All Market Market
Economic Revenue Revenue Cost Cost Cost Revenue Cost Cost
Orientation
Flexibility Good Good Good Good Poor/fair Good Poor Good
(cropping)
Flexibility Good Good Good Good Poor/fair Good Poor Poor
(agrosystem)
67
design package include less chance of adoption failure and a greater willingness to
invest in a different agrotechnology. Table 4.3 relates select agrotechnologies to the
use/design package elements and to the relative cropping flexibility (the ability to
introduce a new primary species).
Other Parameters
For most farmers, the agrotechnologies are the preferred starting point. Despite hav-
ing a nearly complete design, more is needed.
The most glaring omission are species. As observed, some agrotechnologies are
based on a specific primary and/or secondary species, e.g., hedgerow alley cropping
that starts with maize and Leucaena or maize with Gliricidia.
Heavy shade systems mostly start with a shade-resistant understory, e.g., coffee
or cocoa. The selection of a secondary shade tree is left open. For others, e.g., sim-
ple intercropping, most seasonal crops qualify.
In addition to species, there are also management questions. These are not always
specified in a standard, biophysical design nor as part of a complete design package.
This can include questions on timing, which species to plant first, when and how to
prune, etc. These questions, and others, remain with the land user.
These can be fairly significant questions that, when unanswered, leave farmers
and other land users in a difficult position. This detail can spell success or failure.
For example, with agroforestry system, whether to plant using seedlings, striplings,
or stems can be a significant variable (for more on the shrub and tree planting
options, see Planting Methods).
Improvement (Facilitative) Agrotechnologies
All agrosystems, whether productive or purely facilitative, influence the overall

ecology of an agronomic landscape. Up to this point, productive and facilitative
agrotechnologies are jointly discussed. In offering a single or multiple yields, these
are the economic engine of agriculture.
There are agrotechnologies that are purely facilitative. These agrotechnologies
are specifically tasked to provide an indirect benefit to neighbor or nearby plot. For
some, the benefits reach across the broader farm landscape.
These can be broken down into two overlapping groups: (1) bio-structures and
(2) modifications. These agrotechnologies are grouped below. A brief delineation
follows. All are described, in detail, as Glossary terms.
Bio-Structures
Some of the facilitative agrotechnologies are plant based. These are:
Barriers (anti-insect) Firebreaks

Barriers (infiltration) Riparian buffers
Corridors (habitat) Windbreaks and shelterbelts
Fences, living Firebreaks
Land Modifications
Other facilitative agrotechnologies are land modification based.
Barriers (earthen) Paddies

Cajetes Ponds
Camellones Stone (clusters, walls, etc.)
Catchments Terraces
Gabions (rock-filled wire baskets) Water channels
Micro-catchments Waterbreaks
Mounds (crop)
Purpose Reclassified
The two above groups can overlap in their ecological responsibilities. Vegetative
bio-structures, in adding to farm biodiversity, can have a number of secondary roles.
These are mentioned in the descriptions below.
In contrast to the yielding agrotechnologies, their link to revenue and cost orien-
tation is less apparent. Some, those with high construction costs, e.g., terraces or
gabions, tend to serve only with high-valued crops grown in revenue-oriented agro-
systems. Others, costing less, may be found in league with cost-oriented systems.
It should be noted that time may weaken this bond. Terraces, constructed for
high-valued crops in the distant past, may subsequently host lower-valued
additions.
Infiltration
It is best if rainfall runoff leaves the site as a subsurface flow. If directed below
ground, the erosion threat is eliminated, and the water is available to plants for a
longer period. Therefore, infiltration is the answer to dangerous deluges. With
increased groundwater and more on-site retention, it can also be a partial answer to
periods of low rainfall.
Well-chosen, well-positioned facilitative agrotechnologies can augment this or
serve as an independent infiltrative means. Along with a brief description, the infil-
trative agrotechnologies are:
Barrier (vegetative) Micro-catchments

Barriers (earthen) Stone (clusters, walls, etc.)
Cajetes Terraces
Catchments Micro-catchments
The mainstay of landscape-wide infiltration are water-halting contour barriers.

These can be either earthen or vegetative. Those with higher holding capacity, usu-
ally ditches, can be, depending on the intensity of rain showers, spaced at greater
intervals.
There are farms that have a rocky and/or uneven topography. These would be
unsuitable for long contour structures. The options are micro-catchments or cajetes.
Micro-catchments are closely spaced, small holes or depressions that, in their hun-
Photo 4.3 A micro-catchment. (Photo courtesy of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF))
dreds, individually hold small amounts of water. Cajetes are larger digs, strategi-
cally placed and sufficiently deep, such that they fill, and not overflow, during heavy
rains.
Stone clusters and walls also serve to promote infiltration. The same applies to
more elaborate terraces. Catchments are areas covered with natural vegetation or a
perennial, low-intensity productive agrotechnology. The purpose is to capture and
hold the water for slow release.
Stream Improvements
A group of facilitative agrotechnologies are intended to improve the usefulness,

and/or prevent degradation, of a stream or brook. This can be, as with a gabion, to
dam the water, keeping it on site, and allowing for increased infiltration. These rock-
filled wire baskets may also parallel streams, segmenting the active flow from agri-
cultural bottomland.
Riparian buffers are strips of perennial vegetation that line stream banks. In addi-
tion to keeping the banks from eroding, the vegetation traps the waterborne nutri-
ents that might wash into the stream. This helps with water quality.
Flood Control
Waterbreaks are structures, generally vegetative, some stone reenforced, that trans-
verse flood-prone lowlands. Being perpendicular to the water flow, their purpose is
to stop floodwaters from scouring away soils.
In-field mounds keep growing crops out of standing water. Mounds/beds can be
multipurpose, protecting against water and low temperatures. Some are seasonal
and would be a matrix defense (Chap. 3). Others are permanent and inter-seasonal
and are therefore considered independent of any one productive agrotechnology.
The term camellones has been used for mounds in seasonally flooding lowlands.
Being above the floodwaters, they allow agriculture to proceed with those crops that
will not survive being water-covered or in water-saturated soils.
Other Facilitative Agrotechnologies
There are many on-farm improvements that are possible. Ponds and paddies hold
water for cropping and other purposes. Water channels convey water for irrigation,
to fill pond and paddies, and for a multitude of other purposes.
Windbreaks and shelterbelts are primary tasked with slowing winds. The many
secondary purposes include as habitat for predator insects, as infiltration barriers,
and, in their more spacious form, as lessor sources for fruit, nuts, and/or wood.
Live fences are generally for animal containment but can serve a minor role as an
infiltration barrier. Firebreaks are strips that keep wildfires contained and away from
combustible crops, e.g., mature wheat and other dryland grains. Also, as mentioned,
there are vegetative strips (vegetative barriers or natural corridors) that are primarily
or secondarily tasked with promoting predator-prey dynamics.
Monocultures
This chapter presents the agrotechnology as a key step in any agroecological imple-
mentation. The most common agrotechnology, that of the monoculture, can be crop
or tree based.
This, and the next two chapters, looks at the popular, as well as the not-so-
frequently found, agrotechnologies. It is only right to begin with a discussion of the
common, single-crop agrosystem.
The first chapter casts the monoculture is a somewhat negative light. This can be
true with the green revolution model where GM crops, chemicals, and large-scale
cultivation have had profoundly perverse effects. This statement compares against
what could be.
Taking the monoculture in another direction can make these more environmen-
tally friendly. It should be mentioned that large-area monocultures are not entirely
nature-foreign. An example is the kunai grass of Papua New Guinea. Some conifer-
ous trees, e.g., pines or redwoods, can be found in fairly pure stands. These cases
tend not to be the norm but the exceptions.
In a friendly form, agro-monocultures are best as smaller plots bordered by
unlike species and/or unlike agrotechnologies. This can be a block spatial pattern;
more often these are strip systems.
As shown in Table 4.2, middle column, strips help against the spread of insects
and diseases. If lacking in a bareground phase, they are very good in preventing ero-
sion, and, if the strips are perpendicular to the prevailing wind, they slow drying.
Their simplicity allows very little latitude for variation. However, some exists.
Multi-Varietal
The multi-varietal monoculture is far from a mainstay. The interplanting of cab-

bage, cauliflower, broccoli, and Brussel sprouts would be a multi-varietal monocul-
ture. This is because they share the same scientific name, i.e., are varieties of
Brassica oleracea.
Dramatic as this illustration is, there might be little ecological reason to plant this
combination. This depends on how genetically different the varieties are. If similar,
combinations could still find favor. The reason for this intercrop is to reduce crop-
ping and market risk.
Monocultures 73
Photo 4.4 An example of

a multi-varietal
monoculture. This
interplanting has two
varieties of cabbage in
adjacent rows. Not in use
for the possible ecological
gains, this planting
expands the marketing
possibilities
Other multi-varietal systems are still predicated around the scientific name. This
can be the interplanting of different types of wheat, e.g., spelt (Triticum spelta),
emmer (T. Turgidum), and common (T. Aestivum) can be intercropped.
If possible to jointly plant, harvest, and market, this could represent a viable
economic alternative. This type of planting would also apply to like tree species,
e.g., various species of pines (Pinus).
The main reason for the multiple varieties is to mitigate risk. If there is enough
genetic variation, this can be exploited to counter diseases or slow the spread of
insects. Most often, this is a buffer against rainfall fluctuation, either in timing, dura-
tion, and/or amount. This aspect is discussed in greater detail in Chap. 8.
The multi-varietal monoculture also proffers economic gains. Differences in
varieties can be marketing strategy, e.g., for fruits. Also, with apples and other fruits,
a mix of early harvest and late harvest varieties offers more marketing opportunities
and can be a more efficient use of harvest labor, i.e., fewer people working over a
long period as compared with more workers for a shorter period.
Uneven Aged
Where there is a long growing season, vegetables can be interplanted at different

periods. As with a multi-varietal monoculture, an unevened aged variation can bring
about a longer harvest interval employing few workers. This can also expand the
marketing opportunities.
With tree plantations, there can be economic gains associated with staggered
plantings. This occurs mostly when raising trees for firewood or pulpwood.
There is another use. Planting the second rotation before the first rotation is har-
vested shortens the time to productive maturity.
This can be a strategy in rubber plantations. The new trees are put in place about
5 years before the older trees are removed. When the old trees are removed, the
young trees are also cut. Because the young trees have large, developed roots, the
new trees re-sprout and regrow faster than if freshly planted. The same stratagem,
with slight variation, can be employed with a range of fruit or nut trees.
References
Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology: Ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Ann

Arbor: Ann Arbor Press, 357p.
Chapter 5
Productive Intercropping
Contents
Rules/Guidelines for Productive Intercropping 76
General Rules 76
Belowground Rules 77
Rules for Shade Systems 78
Provisos 78
Associated Agrotechnologies 79
Productive (Seasonal) Intercropping 79
Simple Mixes 80
Strip Cropping 82
Boundary/Barrier 82
Productive Agroforestry 83
Alley Cropping (Tree Row) 83
Agroforestry Intercropping (or Orchards with Understory) 83
Shade Systems (Light) 84
Tree-Over-Crop Systems 84
Taungyas 85
Multi-Species Forest Plantations 86
Supplementary Additions 86
References 87
From Chap. 2, interspecies interactions come in two forms. The first is productive,
and the second is facilitative.
This chapter focuses on the productive subset, where all the component species
(two or more) offer an economically attractive output. Discussions of facilitative
systems (those where one, non-yielding species boosts, through various means, the
yields of the primary species) are the focus of Chap. 6.
The two-species, seasonal intercrop often fronts agroecology. In this text, inter-
cropping is broadly defined and includes tree-crop and tree-tree mixes.
Tree-crop mixes are where fruit, nut, and/or wood-producing trees are inter-
planted or mixed with season crops. The resulting agrosystems would be con-
sidered agroforestry intercropping. Also possible are tree-tree intercrops. Where
wood producing, combining different forest-tree species, this would silvicultural
agroecology.

76 5 Productive Intercropping
Rules/Guidelines for Productive Intercropping
The vast majority of the potential intercrop combinations, either annuals and/or
perennials, are untried and untested. For seasonal crops, this is less a barrier. Where
needed, small-scale trials determine the efficacy of the combination and the best
spacing.
For trees and shrubs, trials are not always an option. Rule/guidelines can par-
tially fill this gap in knowledge.
General Rules
The first rules/guidelines were put forth in the early 1900s. This was at a time when
intercropping was being overtaken by monoculture-centered agriculture. First pro-
posed for forest plantations, the four, generally stated, aboveground rules function
equally well for seasonal or for long-duration intercrops.
These rules assume co-primary species (two or more) or that the primary (one)
and secondary (one or more) species are more or less equal in worth. The basic rules
are that:
Photo 5.1 An intercrop of cabbage, beans, beets, and other species. This would qualify as a sim-
ple agrosystem. If the beneficial ecology is pervasive enough, this could fall under the heading of
a complex agrosystem
Rules/Guidelines for Productive Intercropping 77
1. A light-demanding species can only be mixed with one that is shade tolerant if
the light demander grows faster (Schlich 1910; Yoshida and Kamitani 1997).
2. A slow-growing, light-demanding species is only mixed with a faster-growing,
dense-canopied, species if:
(a) Provided with help, e.g., pruning or a wider spacing (modified from Schenck
1904).
(b) They are raised in groups, rather than an individual spatial pattern (Schlich
1910).
3. When mixing shade-resistant species, the growth rates should be equal, or the
slower one is protected from being dominated (Schlich 1910), e.g., being late
planted or at a wider spacing.
4. Two or more light-demanding species should not be mixed, except:
(a) On very fertile, well-watered sites
(b) When those with the faster growth rate are in shorter rotation than the
accompanying species (Schlich 1910)
(c) If at a wider spacing.
As mentioned, these rules apply equally well to seasonal crops, tree or tree-crop
plantations, or fruit-tree bicultures. These also serve, with minor modification, to
early-stage agroforestry systems where trees are raised in league with perennial or
seasonal crops.
The rules are designed to avoid untenable plantings and unfavorable outcomes.
A case in point is an upland rice in teak-rice taungya. In the first year of this combi-
nation, the faster-growing, light-demanding rice can overtop newly planted and
slower-growing teak seedlings. This can slow or curtail the growth of the teak.
This situation is covered by rule 2(a) above. The counter is wider rice-teak spac-
ing, e.g., an open buffer zone around the small teak trees.
Belowground Rules
There are also some rules that address the belowground situation. These are:
1. Two shallow-rooted species or two deep-rooted species are best interplanted:
(a) On rich sites.
(b) When each takes mineral resources in widely differing portions.
(c) When spaced apart.
2. A deep-rooted species is co-planted with one that is shallow rooted when spaced,
area patterned, and/or timed such that the deep-rooted plant has time to reach the
lower soil layers before interference with the shallow-rooted species.
Rules for Shade Systems
These are specific agrosystems where light is not apportioned equally, but, by intent,
light is given first to the tallest species. After passing by or through the canopy of
the taller species, the light is then allocated to the shorter species.
These rules do not supersede the general rules which apply to the establishment
phase. The rules for shade systems are intended for the intermediate and mature
phase.
Examples tend to be perennial agrosystems, e.g., coffee with overstory. Annual
cropping examples also exist. This can be shade-resistant beets beneath a taller
annual crop.
The rules for shade systems state that:
1. If the overstory tree species has a dense, low-light penetrating canopy, the trees
are either:
(a) Pruned.
(b) Widely spaced.
(c) The understory species is shade tolerant.
2. If the overstory species has open canopy, one that permits ample light penetra-
tion, a more light-demanding understory species can be utilized as an understory
species.
Provisos
On the surface, the above-stated rules of intercropping could be seen as a curb or

limit on the intercropping possibilities. Given the list of intercrops (as presented in
this chapter), this is clearly not the case.
The rules/guidelines assume a high degree of interspecies interface and a maxi-
mum intercropping planting density. For the latter, this would be bicultural density
index of 2.0.
Under these assumptions and with no other information, the rules are a good
starting point. This was the case when the general rules were first put forth. As these
are implemented based on observable plant characteristics, they remain, for many,
the only guide when dealing with untested co-plantings.
The rules are not irrefutable laws. In agroecology, and ecology in general, excep-
tions do not abound but are found. When concrete, non-abstract, information on an
intercrop combination is forthcoming, the rules become just another criteria to be
considered (to expand on this topic, see Competitive Partitioning or Planting
Ratios).
Associated Agrotechnologies
Extracted from Table 4.1, the following agrotechnologies fall under the heading of
productive intercrops. It does not matter if the component plants are seasonal crops,
trees, or some mix. Those are grouped here using an agriculture/agroforestry/for-
estry breakdown.
Productive (seasonal) intercropping:
Simple mixes
Strip cropping (seasonal)
Barrier or boundary
Productive agroforestry:
Agroforestry intercropping
Taungyas
Multi-species Forest Plantations
Of the above, the biculture is the most common form. More complex mixes
(three or more species) can be found. Productive intercropping, as a category, does
not extend much beyond four or five interacting species.
Reiterating, seven or more interacting species change the overall ecology and
management. These species-complex agrosystems are discussed in Chap. 7.
Productive (Seasonal) Intercropping
As a category, seasonal intercrops tend to be noticed. This might be because exam-

ples are prominent on small farms and in gardens. These systems are most associ-
ated with agroecology.
There are some previously mentioned caveats for productive intercrops.
Generally, these require non-shaded site, fairly high in all nutrients, well watered,
and well drained. This normally leads to high LERs (for the reasons, see Marginal
Gains under Competitive Partitioning).
Productive intercrops find use when high yields are required, the crops (outputs)
are of comparatively high value, and, as above, the plot has good site attributes.
These systems are almost always revenue oriented.
As with all polycultures, seasonal intercrops are based around the core elements
of design. This can go beyond seasonal crops to co-mixtures of seasonal interplanted
with longer duration plants. This enters the realm of agroforestry, which has woody
perennials, trees, and/or shrubs, with seasonal or other crops.
Photo 5.2 One of the

many simple intercrop
mixes. This shows onion
being raised in very close
proximity to carrots. A
successful outcome, in
LER terms, would indicate
strong interspecies
complementarity.
Co-harvesting avoids the
removal issues associated
with the co-planting of root
crops
Simple Mixes
The objective of simple mix, either season or of longer duration, is a high LER.
Threat protection comes less by way of core design elements and more through
added threat counters.
The primary obstacle for seasonal intercrops is the large number of possible
plant pairings. For pure bicultural intercrops, the documented examples are many
and expanding. Without further information, it can be difficult to determine which
is the primary species. As compiled from numerous sources, listed pairs are as
follows:
Alfalfa and sorghum Garlic and potato

Asparagus and parsley Garlic and tomato
Asparagus and tomato Groundnut (peanut) and maize
Banana and cassava Groundnut and sorghum
Banana and coffee Horseradish and potato
Barley and oats Jocote and dragon fruit
Basil and pepper Kohlrabi and lettuce
Bean and beet Leek and onion

Bean and celery Lettuce and onion
Bean and cucumber Lettuce and pea
Bean and eggplant Lettuce and radish
Bean and maize Lettuce and tomato
Bean and tomato Lettuce and tomato
Beet and kohlrabi Maize and mung bean
Beet and onion Maize and muskmelon
Cabbage and celery Maize and pea
Cabbage and chili Maize and pigeon pea
Cabbage and maize Maize and pumpkin
Cabbage and onion Maize and safflower
Cabbage and soybean Maize and sesame
Cabbage and tomato Maize and sorghum
Carrot and leek Maize and soybean
Carrot and onion Maize and squash
Cassava and cowpea Maize and squash
Cassava and groundnut Maize and sugarcane
Cassava and maize Maize and sunflower
Cassava and mung bean Maize and sweet potato
Cassava and pumpkin Millet and sorghum
Cauliflower and rapeseed Mint and radish
Celery and leek Muskmelon and radish
Celery and tomato Oats and pea
Chickpea and sorghum Oats and rye
Chili and maize Onion with carrots
Cotton and cowpea Onion and pepper
Cotton and garlic Onion and tomato
Cotton and groundnut Onion and turnip
Cotton and maize Pigeon pea and sweet potato
Cotton and okra Radish and sunflower
Cotton and sesame Rice and sugar beet
Cotton and sisal Rice and tobacco
Cowpea and maize Ryegrass and wheat
Cowpea and sorghum Sorghum and oats
Cucumber and maize Sorghum and yam
Cucumber and radish Soybean and sugarcane
Cucumber and tomato Soybean and tomato
Eggplant and onion Sugarcane and sunflower
Eggplant and radish Sugarcane and sweet potato
Garlic and onion Tomato and watermelon
There are also documented three- and four-species polycultures. These include:
Asparagus, parsley, and tomato Cotton, cowpea, sweet potato

Bean, maize, and squash Garlic, lettuce, and tomato
Bean, onion, and summer savory Millet, sorghum, and cowpea
Beet, celery, and onion Millet, sorghum, and groundnut
Broccoli, nasturtium, and squash Millet, sorghum, groundnut, and cowpea
Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and thyme Mung bean, maize, potato, and wheat
Bush beans, eggplant, and marigold Plantain, cocoyam, and cassava
Cabbage, mint, and potato Tomato, tobacco, and cabbage
Carrot, flax, and potato Yam, cassava, and maize
Cassava, yam, cocoyam, and maize
The extended list drives home the point that the number of seasonal intercrop-
ping possibilities is, figuratively speaking, almost endless. Success depends less on
inter-species complementarity and more on the richness of the site and on the spac-
ings employed.
The most common reason is the need for high, per-area productivity. Other
motives are less unequivocal, e.g., on small farms, poor germination of the one crop
can result in quickly adding a second species. Other motives include indecision on
the future marketing possibilities.
Strip Cropping
These systems are much the same simple intercrops, except these employ a course,
rather than a fine pattern (Fig. 2.4). A lack of compatibility between the co-planted
species may be one reason.
More common, the wide strips allow greater harvest convenience, e.g., when
mechanization is employed and/or when harvesting one species without trampling
a second. Strip cropping is also utilized for erosion control or as part of alternating
fallow design (for more, see Strip Cropping).
Boundary/Barrier
These are when one seasonal and secondary crop surrounds the primary species.
Usually encircled are small groupings of the primary species. This can shield the
encircled plants from herbivore insects and/or improve the nutrient dynamics.
Because these are seasonal crops and all produce an economically useful output,
the boundary/barrier is often considered an integral part of an agrosystem. It would
not be a separate bio-structure (for a visual, see Glossary, Photo B, page 218).
Productive Agroforestry
Having one of the component plants, either the primary or secondary, as a perennial
woody species can be a cost-savings measure. Permanence can reduce inter-seasonal
cropping flexibility. A seasonal, second species somewhat mitigates this
disadvantage.
Alley Cropping (Tree Row)
This design has crop strips between close-spaced rows of fruit or nut trees (e.g.,
lines of orange trees with cucumber between has been observed). Instead of a single
tree row, the trees can be strip planted. Usually, this means double rows of trees.
These are less utilized as the rows and strips can require a north-south orienta-
tion. As erosion should not be an issue, use requires level or near-level site.
The timing of harvests is important. The crop must be harvested before the tree
fruit is ripe (for more on these designs, see Tree Row under Alley Cropping).
These systems also have LER as the primary objective. There are additional
costs, mainly in tree pruning (specifically, side lopping) to provide adequate sun-
light for the crop. This cost might be mitigated if the pruning lowers the tree height
and subsequently reduces the cost of picking the fruit (for more on these options,
see Pruning).
Agroforestry Intercropping (or Orchards with Understory)
There are agrotechnologies that involve the mixing of even-aged, uniformly size-
matched fruit and/or nut trees. The interplanting of peaches, plums, and nectarines
would qualify under this category. An uniformly-sized banana with papaya mix is
shown in Photo 5.3.
The LER would be elevated, but not overly high. An LER of between 1.0 and 1.3
would be expected.
There could be some cost saving. The mix of species could provide favorable
insect predator-prey dynamics. The same holds with disease control. There are also
some risk aversion gains by way of crop diversification. A temperate example are
the traditional, mixed-fruit orchards of Germany (for a description, see Streuobst)
Photo 5.3 Agroforestry intercropping. This photo shows banana mixed with papaya. (This photo
is from the Dominican Republic)
Shade Systems (Light)
If the fruit and/or nut trees are uneven in height, of different ages, or interplanted
with shrubs (e.g., berries) and the understory plants receive ample light, this then
becomes a light shade system. Usually, the tallest plants are scattered as to allow
direct light to reach all species (for more, see Shade Systems).
There are examples of forest trees (for their wood output) interspersed with fruit
or nut trees. Light shade systems, with their higher management costs, are usually
revenue oriented.
Tree-Over-Crop Systems
Comparatively rare are the crop-over-tree systems. These have crops as an under-
story for widely spaced, fruit- or nut-yielding trees. The crop can be seasonal or
perennial. The trees are spaced close enough, and with enough density, to offer an
economically viable harvest. They are also far enough apart to allow ample light to
reach the understory. This insures that the below-tree crop offers an economically
viable harvest. An example is olive trees over grape.
With these requirements, the goal is a high LER. This means these are mostly
revenue-orientated systems (for a bit more on this topic, and additional field-
encountered examples, see Tree-Over-Crop Systems).
Taungyas
Multi-species agrosystems can be timing or temporally based. This is the case with
the taungyas. These have one or more wood-producing, fruit-producing, and/or nut-
producing tree species interplanted with a seasonal or longer-duration crop. There
are a number of variations off this temporal theme.
In its simplest form, crops are grown between the very young, very small trees
during the first season. This is a single-season affair.
Extended taungyas have a sequence of seasonal crops where, as ground shading
increases, the crops raised are increasingly shade tolerant. Usually, the sequence
ends, years later, with a shade-resistant grass and grazing.
This is, in essence, a series of individual agrosystems linked through a primary
(one or occasionally more) species. The importance is to provide crop-based revenue
when the trees are very young. It also helps pay for weeding at a time when the
weeds would otherwise flourish (for more, see Taungyas).
Photo 5.4 A rubber tree-with-crop taungya. When the trees reach maturity, the crop phase is
abandoned. (Photo courtesy of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF))
Multi-Species Forest Plantations
There are agroecosystems where the primary output is wood. This can be firewood,
poles, and/or where larger tree trunks are sawn for lumber.
These contrast with natural forests in that they are planted, rather than naturally
occurring. This means that the species are purposely selected, often for their higher
harvest value. Another difference is that they contain less than the seven species and
are not complex agroecosystems.
Rather than being harvest-measured, yearly growth (expressed through diameter
increases) substitutes for yields in determining the LER. The interplanting of mul-
tiple tree species was more common in the late 1800s. The reason is a higher
LER. There can be subsidiary effects in weed control. They are rarely encountered
now. Researched combinations include:
In India, teak with Leucaena
In South America, Jacaranda falcataria with Vochysia guatemalensis
In Western North America, Douglas fir with red alder
In Europe, beech with spruce, oak with spruce, or oak with linden
From earlier periods in Europe, as referenced by Evelyn (1664), Boutcher (1775),
and Bryant (1871), some suggested combinations had:
Elm with ash
Chestnut with ash
Larch with beech
Beech with hornbeam
These lists are short compared with those for seasonal intercrops. One reason is
that decades of observation may be needed to determine complementarity.
More apt, these systems have fallen from favor with the forestry community.
Once the advantages are recognized, e.g., high LERs, and the parameters under-
stood, use could expand.
Supplementary Additions
There are systems where plant, animal, and possibly insect species reside. These
inclusions are outside the original design as preordained. They are added:
(a) Because they do not impinge in any major way on the as-originally-formulated
agrosystem.
(b) Because they offer an additional yield and an economic gain.
One example is honeybees. Another might be domestic fowl, placed in an inter-
crop to help control insects. Fowl also provides a salable and/or eatable product.
References 87
Widely scattered stalks of maize over otherwise monocultural potato offer a

minor grain harvest that has little direct monetary value. The gain comes from the
stalks. This can serve as a resting place for birds that prey on potato beetles.
There are other additions that have greater value. Truffles within a forest or an
agroforest (Chap. 7) have substantial worth. Other additions might be plant based
and less facilitative.
The vine rattan can be grown atop the canopies of tree crops, forest-tree planta-
tions, or any other tall, dense canopy. To harvest, the vine is simply pulled down by
a group of workers. Canopy damage from this is minimal. If non-facilitative, these
are normally minor additions to the agrosystem LER.
Also under this heading are trace species. These are plant additions where the
number of plants per area is low, and these are scattered, not concentrated, within
the plot. If there are only one or a few such plants, they have little impact on the
ecology and/or economics.
A few chili plants under maize or sorghum provide a spice for cooking but do
little to sway the dominant ecology and economics. Ginseng, very thinly planted
within a tree-dominated agrosystem, would have the same effect.
References
Schenck, C. A. (1904). Forest utilization, mensuration and silviculture. Biltmore, NC, 3parts.
Schlich, W. (1910). Schlich’s manual of forestry (Vol. II, 4th ed.). London: Bradbusy, Agnew,
424p.
Yoshida, T., & Kamitani, T. (1997). The stand dynamics of a mixed coppice forest of shade tolerant
and intermediate species. Forest Ecology and Management, 95, 35–43.
Chapter 6
Feed Systems and Facilitative Intercrops
Contents
Facilitative Gains 89
Types of Facilitation 90
Rules/Guidelines (Facilitative) 90
Desirable Plant Characteristics 91
Mixed-Role Agroecosystems 92
Facilitative Agrotechnologies 94
Facilitative Intercropping 94
Facilitative Agroforestry 96
Feed Systems 101
Productive Intercropping 101
Forage Trees 102
Forest Feed Systems 103
Aqua-Agroecology 104
References 104
Facilitation is where the presence of a nonproductive species benefits a second,

productive species. In large part, the purpose is still higher, per-area yields. There
are many variations on the facilitative theme. In many applications, cost orientation
comes into play.
Also headlined in this chapter are feed systems. This is where birds, insects,
cattle, goats, etc., as planned additions, forage directly within the agroecosystem.
Many of these agro-designs go beyond the common pasture.
Facilitative Gains
As expected, facilitative intercropping involves a primary species, providing the

needed yields, and one or more secondary, facilitative species. For most of these
agrosystems, the second species offers no economically useful output. The presence
of the second species is entirely facilitative.

90 6 Feed Systems and Facilitative Intercrops
The gains from, for example, cover crops, are well documented. For these, a full
statement of purpose might read as:
–– Protecting soil from erosion and drying.
–– Improving the soil structure including a reduction in bulk density and an increase
in soil-contained humus.
–– Promoting water infiltration.
–– Elevating in-soil microbial activity.
–– Impeding the growth of weeds.
–– Adding nutrients to the soil.
–– Attracting or harboring beneficial insects.
–– Deterring insects by way of repellent effects.
–– Increasing the breakdown rate for plant residues through greater ground-level
humidity.
–– Providing flowers for pollinating insects when the primary species is not in
bloom.
–– Increasing in-soil nitrogen.
Types of Facilitation
Facilitation becomes messier when the different forms are considered (for more, see
Facilitation). The forms are:
Yield increasing.
Protective.
Supportive.
A facilitative, yield-increasing intercrop describes a situation where the output is
constrained by one missing, essential element. Frequently, nitrogen is often this ele-
ment. As exampled earlier, this can be supplied by a nitrogen-fixing second species.
Other forms are protective where a second, and possibly a tertiary species, repels
damaging insects, suppresses weeds, protects against drying winds, and/or other-
wise forestalls some of the many other yield threats. Selecting from the previously
presented list, a cover crop can suppress weeds and protect against erosion.
Intercrops that provide physical support are rare but do exist. This might be vine
crops physically supported by (i.e., growing on) a living, at times pruned tree, e.g.,
grapes, kiwi fruit, pepper, etc. These systems forgo the use of nonliving trellis.
Jumping ahead, Photo 6.5 shows tree-supported pepper being harvested.
Rules/Guidelines (Facilitative)
In the proceeding chapter, the rules/guidelines for productive intercrops are discussed.
With productive intercrops, there is the assumption that the species (one or more) are
more or less equal in value. This is not the case with facilitative relationships.
Desirable Plant Characteristics 91
With facilitation, any secondary species is economically subservient to the

p rimary species. This is true even if a secondary species provides a useful yield. If
the facilitative species has a yield of equal or greater worth than that of the primary
species, the rules of productive intercropping, Chap. 5, would apply.
Reformulated for facilitative systems, the rules of intercropping are:
1. A light-demanding species can only be mixed with one that is shade tolerant if
the light demander grows faster and is the primary species, the exceptions are:
(a) When a shade-tolerant, primary species yields better in a low-light
environment.
(b) When a tall, vine-supporting plant, upon which the primary species grows,
is the secondary species.
2. A slow-growing, light-demanding species is mixed with a faster-growing, dense-
canopied species only if the latter is the primary species.
3. When mixing shade-resistant or light-demanding species, the primary species
must grow faster except, as in the first rule, when a shade-tolerant, primary spe-
cies has a higher yield in a low-light environment or a climbing species is the
primary crop.
The above rules can be restated and summarized. It follows that, if the negative
effects of interplant competition exceed the facilitative gains, and this cannot be
rectified through a reduction in the density of the secondary (facilitative) species,
the pairing is not suitable.
It also follows that complementarity with the primary species is often a critical
factor. Based on this relationship, the second, often non-yielding species, is
chosen.
Usually with facilitative systems, the density index for the primary, and yielding
species, is, with rare exception, at 100%. The second species (one or more) is spaced
to maximize the facilitative effect but also to minimize competition with the pri-
mary species.
Since many undocumented or untried plants can facilitatively contribute, the
above rules can have greater importance when compared with those for productive
intercrops.
Desirable Plant Characteristics
When facilitation could be the key to success and when lacking an obvious candi-
date species, the problem lies with the large choice of secondary, candidate plants.
Once the rules of facilitative intercropping (above) are satisfied, selection can boil
down to desirable plant characteristics.
The compiled list of the desirable characteristics is long with some use-specific
characteristics. For example, in some of the agrotechnologies described, only a tree
can function in the facilitation role.
Ten of the more-or-less standard criteria are sampled below (for more of this list,
see Desirable Plant Characteristics). These are:
–– Complementarity with the primary crop.

–– An ability to grow on a range of soil types.
–– Tolerant of climatic variation.
–– Ease of establishment.
–– Freedom from pests and diseases.
–– Ability to withstand being driven and/or stepped on.
–– Ability to trap or hold nutrients that might otherwise be lost to the ecosystem.
–– Ease of control and eventual elimination (will not become a weed).
–– Spinelessness (spines can also be a desirable property).
–– A high rate of nitrogen fixation.
Having all the characteristics in equal proportion is good, and having those most
needed in greater strength is even better. The idea is to add threat counters/eco-
services to the core agrosystem. This is the first column in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
Mixed-Role Agroecosystems
Given the above list, one might think that the choice of a facilitative/companion
species is relatively easy. This is not the case.
With productive intercropping, the choice of a companion species (one or more)
can be obvious. The decision is based on the usefulness or value of the secondary
output.
Within a productive intercrop, some species can have a facilitative role. Examples
of these productive/facilitative intercrops are listed below. For these, one of the spe-
cies both yields and fixes nitrogen, the latter to the benefit of others in the mix.
Barley and fava bean
Bean and maize
Cassava, groundnut, and maize
Cocoyam, groundnut, and maize
Groundnut and millet
Maize and pigeon pea
In these mixed examples, it can be difficult to state which is the primary and
which is the secondary species.
There are situations where productive species, having the right attributes, is
placed in an entirely facilitative role. This is due, in large part, to a species having
known and positive attributes.
A common example is squash vines that are chosen for weed control, not for the
fruit. Squash plants, with their spreading vines and large leaves, help suppress
weeds when paired with a tall primary species.
With these dual-output facilitative intercrops, where one species is clearly facili-
tative, the land user has the option to harvest the output or not (for more on this, see
the Non-Harvest Option).
Photo 6.1 Pumpkin with a cover crop. In this case, the cover species is purslane, a common weed
For many of the candidate facilitative species, the key attributes are less known.
Some are non-agricultural species that have not been fully evaluated for their
intended role (for more, see Domestication). Many of the non-yielding candidate
cover crop species may have first attracted notice as noncompetitive or beneficial
weeds. As observation progressed, they were found to have many of the desired
characteristics.
Photo 6.1 shows the common weed species purslane being employed as a cover
crop. As this species is not marketable, the eat-ability of the purslane is not enough
to qualify the system as productive intercropping.
Economic Underpinnings
The biggest addendum for the rules of facilitative intercropping lies on the eco-
nomic front. The LER for a two-species, single-output, facilitative intercrop is, in a
continuation from Chap. 2, calculated as:
LER = (Yab / Ya )
Ideally, this should present a value greater than one.

Some agrosystems economically succeed when facilitative biodiversity substi-

tutes for a pricy or difficult-to-obtain outside input. It might transpire that some
yield is lost through the presence of a facilitative plant, but since the savings (cost
reductions) are of greater worth, there is an overall economic gain. This is the
essence of cost orientation.
Facilitative Agrotechnologies
Given the larger statement of purpose, there are more facilitative agrotechnologies
than productive agrotechnologies. Listed, these are:
Facilitative intercropping
Simple mixes
Strip cropping
Boundary
Cover crops
Facilitative agroforestry
Isolated tree
Parkland
Protective barrier
Alley cropping (hedgerow)
Strip cropping (woody)
Crop over tree
Physical support systems
Facilitative Intercropping
This category is where a non-woody facilitative species, either an annual or peren-

nial, contribute to the agrosystem ecology. For presentational convenience, woody
and non-woody pairings are classified under agroforestry. There can be forestry-
based facilitation where a woody species is interplanted with facilitative companion
species. Since both produce wood, and wood is the primary output, these systems
tend to be indistinguishable from those multi-species forest plantations mentioned
in the proceeding chapter.
Simple Mixes
Despite putting cover crops as a separate category (below), the simple mix is a
mainstay of facilitation. The mixes are interplanted with a specific purpose. An
example might an insect-repelling plant among the yielding crop. Similarly, a spe-
cies favorable to predator insects could be interplanted.
Cover Crops
A staple of agroecology is the use of cover crops in farm fields. These are well
known but a mostly underutilized farming alternative. The cover crop adds biodiver-
sity to what would normally be a single-crop system.
Although weed control ranks high as facilitative gain, one must not forget, as
listed at the beginning of this chapter, the full statement of purpose, e.g., herbivore
insect control, elevating in-soil microbial activity, adding nutrients to the soil, etc.
Selection of a cover crop is best made accordingly.
Cover crops can be off-season, raised when the crops are not in place or planted
at the beginning of a long fallow. They also find use as companion species. They can
be seasonally planted or be a permanent addition.
Off-season, temperate examples are many species of clover, hairy vetch, spring
mustard, and many grain crops, e.g., wheat or buckwheat. There are some co-
planted covers that coexist with the primary species, e.g., red clover and purslane.
An example of a permanent cover is velvet bean.
Selection depends on whether the cover is permanent and no till is employed or
the cover is seasonally replanted after plowing. The farmer would generally empha-
size weed-suppressing potential. When plowed under, selection might be sided
more to add in-soil nutrients. A secondary purpose of both could be insect control.
The mechanism is predator/prey.
Unwanted plants, i.e., weeds, are often thought of as negative, to be completely
removed. Weeds can be a facilitative addition left in place to control specific insect
pests or to suppress other weeds. Selective weeding, removing only the most crop-
competitive weeds, can be a viable cover strategy.
Strip Cropping
Having alternating strips where one is planted with a crop, the next bordering are in
either a planted fallow or with natural regenerated weeds. This is the usual form for
facilitative strip cropping. A mix of weed species, as well as a planted non-yielding
species, can accomplish many of the same ecological tasks.
Photo 6.2 A barrier of sugarcane protecting a potato crop from prevailing and drying winds. (This
photo is from Central America)
Boundary
In the usual case, seasonal boundaries keep herbivore insects, winds, and other dam-
aging forces, away from susceptible crops. In some cases, the blocks are small,
generally around one to a few meters square. Barriers can also protect larger areas.
Large-area boundaries can be productive or facilitative. Those that protect
smaller areas tend to be productive (as in Photo 6.2). In either case, these systems
are generally use-confined to market, household, or community gardens.
Facilitative Agroforestry
The standard expression in agroforestry is the tree as a facilitative addition. Because

trees are perennial and usually require less maintenance, most of the applications
are cost oriented. The exception lies with those agrosystems where pruning is a
requirement.
Isolated Tree
Often found are large plots containing one or a few very widely scattered trees.
Although the direct tree-on-crop facilitative outcome is negligible, there are other
less direct positive effects.
Photo 6.3 An isolated tree system consisting of a balboa tree in a sisal field. This is found in
Southern Africa. (Photo courtesy of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF))
The tree, or trees, allows predator birds to roost. These birds can then hunt,
depending on the bird species, rats, mice, or insects.
Other gains include being a shady place for workers and cattle to rest from the
hot sun. Photo 6.3 shows one example (for more on this topic, see Isolated Tree
Agrosystems).
Parkland
There are systems that mimic those found in nature. In heavily grazed landscapes,
widely scattered trees stand above the grass. This is duplicated in parkland systems
where the widely spaced trees are above crops or pasture.
In the agricultural version, there is a preferred tree. There is usually one species
for over cropland, another species for pastures. These vary by region.
On occasion, the trees produce a secondary crop, e.g., sheanut trees in the sub-
Saharan region. There are instances where the trees are branch pruned before crops.
This reduces tree-crop competition.
The closer spaced trees are more facilitative. Foremost, the trees function as a
windbreak. In sum, they prevent drying winds from reaching the ground, i.e., crop
level. As with isolated trees, they allow predator birds to roost (for more, see
Parklands, also Mimicry).
Photo 6.4 The classic Sub-Saharan parkland with the tree species Faidherbia albida. This shows
irrigated African eggplant in the foreground. During the wet season, all the area beneath the trees
will be planted
Protective Barrier (Boundary)
Having a woody, live barrier that surrounds crops, orchards, or tree plantations has
some obvious effects. The most common use is a living fence that keeps grazing and
other animals out of productive plots. A barrier can protect against erosion. Another
function is, with predator-prey dynamics, to harbor and facilitate the movement of
predictor insects. Annual, non-woody barriers are also used for wind protection.
Barriers can be placed along rivers where flooding scours and erodes soils. In
this application, the barriers are placed perpendicular to the water flow. An example
is vetiver barriers in stream-side banana plantations. The grass vetiver and other
perennial species can also be located along hillsides, again to retard erosion (for
more, see Fencing, also Barriers).
Alley Cropping (Hedgerow)
Of the facilitative agrotechnologies, alley cropping is where strips of crops are bordered
by a single pruned treerow. The common design has maize with Leucaena. For this, the
tree is pruned to waist height or lower. This is done after a fallow season. The leaves
serve to fertilize the newly planted maize. There is also a belowground effect where
plowing releases the root-contained nutrients. This combination can be quite effective.
Photo 6.5 A crop-over-

tree system. This shows
Gliricidia over recently
harvested maize. The tree
is cut and regrows between
maize plantings. (Photo
courtesy of the World
Agroforestry Center
(ICRAF))
As mentioned in Chap. 2, one of the highest recorded LER values, i.e., above 3.6
(Ong 1994) occurred with alley cropping. An example of classic alley cropping is
shown in Photo 4.2, page 66.
Strip Cropping (Woody)
In contrast to alley cropping, strip cropping features wider tree or shrub strips. They
are low in height to keep the woody perennials from overtopping and shading the
crop strips. Located on and contouring a hillside, these are more an erosion control
measure. They are directly facilitative where the tree leaves can be cut and carried
to fertilize the crop.
Crop over Tree
The idea of pruned shrubs growing beneath a crop is less a successful example,
more a case that demonstrates the encompassing range of agroecology. From
Central America, the tree species bracatinga, always in place, is cut and burned prior
Photo 6.6 A support system. This photo shows the vine pepper grown on tree trunks. (Photo
courtesy of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF))
to planting the crop. Regrowth occurs during the crop period. This is kept in check
by pruning while the crop is present and later allowed to grow freely after the crop
harvest. The purpose is to provide crop nutrients (more can be found under Fallows).
Physical Support Systems
Already mentioned are those support systems where the vine grows atop a tree.
Mostly, a climbing perennial overtops a pruned or dwarf tree. This agrosystem was
common in antiquity (Chaucer 1382; Lelle and Gold 1994). In modern times, trel-
lises have replaced the tree thereby converting vineyards away from biodiversity to
single-crop systems (for more, see Support).
Other support mechanisms occur in fruit orchards where individual trees can
topple due to the weight of the harvest. A ground cover or plants located near the
stem can interlock roots and prevent this. This problem can be more an issue where
drip irrigation keeps the root ball of the tree small.
Shade Systems (Heavy)
Of the shade systems, the most encountered is heavy shade. This is where the under-
story is the primary crop; coffee and cocoa are common, and there is a fairly thick
overhead canopy.
Feed Systems 101
The overstory is normally a non-fruiting tree. This can be single, forest-tree spe-
cies or a mix of species. At times, the overstory is a natural forest that has been
underplanted.
Out of necessity, the principle crops, i.e., coffee and cocoa, are shade resistant.
The gains come on two fronts. The crop can suffer if in full sunlight and there is a
shortfall in water and/or a key nutrient. With shade, these same plants can yield bet-
ter. Also, with layers of shade, the weeding cost is very low. If the trees are not
pruned, these are very cost-oriented systems.
Feed Systems
They are host of grazing-based agrotechnologies that are spun off here into a sepa-
rate category. This has a clear demarcation.
Where animal forage is raised as a single species or a mix of forage species and
cut and carried, these are cropping systems. Where the animals are fed directly from
the growing plants, these are feed systems.
Feed systems differ as the animals directly influence the ecology, the economics,
the planning, and the design of the agroecosystem. Restated, the land is the source
of the feed. The animals directly harvest, i.e., graze, what is essentially an agro-
nomically raised or agronomically managed crop (for more on this general topic,
see Pastures).
In yet another application, there is non-agronomic, free-range forage where graz-
ing occurs in areas not specifically managed for either the crop and/or the animals.
Examples are many and include, from Kenya, cattle herded across the African plains
and, from North America, bison that have free access to large tracts of open land (for
more on this specialized topic, see Free-Range Grazing and Mimicry).
Productive Intercropping
For cut-and-carried designs, the forage can be part of an intercrop. As strips in a

strip system, the forage crop can be cut and carried, either as green manure to fertil-
ize a neighboring crop strip or to feed cattle. If fenced or after the crop harvest, the
cattle can also directly graze a strip or strips.
There are cases where directly grazed forage is interplanted with a crop. One
example has oats with cabbage. The primary species is the cabbage. During the
growing season, the cabbage can shove aside the oats.
The oats are facilitative in that they compete with and shade any weeds. The oats
are trampled when the cabbage is harvested. This is not a problem. After a period of
rejuvenation, the oats serve as direct food source for cattle or other grazers.
There are also cases where, if the crop only partially matures or is laid waste by
some threat, the fruits or grains are grazed instead of harvested. This provides benefit
from an otherwise lost harvest. This can be an active strategy where rains are uncertain.
Forage Trees
Traditional pastures have grazing animals feeding off perennial grasses or other
herbaceous forage. This need not be the case. Animals, e.g., horses, cattle, goats,
sheep, lamas, and the like, can also eat the leaves from woody plants. The main
advantage is that woody plants, once established, tend to produce leaves during
long dry seasons and during droughts when grasses and other non-woody forage
are not available.
There are other advantages in that the taller trees grow out of reach of most graz-
ers. This brings about an on-site cut and carry, i.e., the leaves and branches are cut
and dropped to the animals waiting below.
As expected, there are some deviations off the basic animals-eating-trees, silvo-
pastoral theme. Most of these enhance the graze ability of the tree forage through
active management.
Forage Trees Within Pastures
Where there is a distinct wet season followed by a long dry period, the pasture
grasses can run out or dry out before the dry period ends. When this occurs, trees
make up the difference, providing grazing and animal feed until the start of seasonal
rains. This is done in one of two ways.
The first option avoids the danger that the animals will eat the tree forage before
the grasses and then have nothing to eat at the end of the dry season. To prevent this,
the trees can be a less than sought after forage source, only consumed after the more
desirable ground forage is gone. This design is animal specific, more for cattle and
less with all-consuming goats.
The second option has tall trees and their leaves out of browsing harm. Out of
necessity, the grasses and other ground-level forage are eaten first. After which the
tree branches are hand-cut and supplied to the animals (for more on the options,
see Pruning).
Forage Trees Without Pasture
In tree-over-crop designs, e.g., parkland systems, the ground level can be devoted to
crop; the tree canopy serves as a pasture of sorts. At the end of the dry season, when
forage is in short supply, the tree branches are cut and fed to animals. This allows
the trees to serve as a pasture, and the trees, with fewer branches, are less competi-
tive with a subsequent crop.
The animal, present for only a short period, helps fertilize the site. Through their
droppings, this substitutes for the loss of leaf-supplied nutrients that would nor-
mally enrich a plot.
Feed Systems 103
Photo 6.7 The raising of domestic fowl is commonplace. Less so is the raising or harvest of other
bird species. Shown is a dovecote for pigeons. (This photo is from the Dominican Republic)
Forest Feed Systems
There are domestic animals that, in their ancient wild state, once inhabited natural
forests. Examples are hogs and some deer species.
Due to the high cost of tall fencing for large areas, the raising of high-leaping
deer on fenced forest may not be profitable. The situation can be different with pigs.
This latter is found more with feed-rich agroforests and other complex agroecosys-
tems. As such, this topic continues in Chap. 7.
Domestic fowl can be raised without the hen house and in a food-enhanced,
fenced, forest setting that is more in line with their ancient heritage. This is not for
laying hens but for chickens, turkeys, ducks, and guinea hens raised, on a small
scale, for consumption.
Long disregarded, the tradition dovecote, used for raising pigeons, is still an
option for subsistence farms and backyard gardens. These are less a plot-based
agrotechnology, more of a farm-wide landscape feature (Photo 6.7).
Worth mentioning is the possibility for collecting eatable insects. In a few cul-
tures, bugs are a low-cost protein source that merits further exploitation (for more,
see Entomo-Agriculture).
Aqua-Agroecology
It is possible to raise fish and/or other aquatic animals in terrestrial farm landscapes.
The more economically dominated form of aqua-agriculture is pond-raised fish.
Tilapia, catfish, and carp are among the fish species commonly encountered.
Special purpose ponds usually contain one fish species. There are variations off this
theme that use irrigation ponds and channels. These tend to be more integrated
within the overall on-farm ecology. They also might contain a mix of species.
The other forms of aqua-agriculture do not require ponds. Fish can be added to
rice paddies to control mosquito larva and disrupt the life cycles of other waterborne
insect pests. They also serve a minor, harvestable, food source. Pond-raised frogs
can accomplish similar goals against flying insects.
More in tune with farm agroecology is aqua-forestry. In this specialized form,
fish are pond-raised in conjunction with trees. The trees, directly or indirectly, serve
as a feed source for aquatic creatures. Carp and tilapia are the most cited. Other fish
species, e.g., salmon, can eat leaves and the insects that fall off trees.
Another important design feature, the trees shade and cool the water, making for
a cooler fish habitat. As a variation, frog-supporting designs are encountered.
The advantage is that the fish, or frogs, are a cheap source of protein for farm
families. At their best, this can be a self-sustaining ecosystem where fish are har-
vested with few inputs and at a low cost.
References
Chaucer, G. (1382). Parliament of Foules.

Lelle, M. A., & Gold, M. A. (1994). Agroforestry systems for temperate climates: Lessons from
roman Italy. Forest and Conservation History, 38, 118–126.
Chapter 7
Complex Agroecosystems
Contents
Described 106
Agroecology 107
Natural Ecology 108
Patterns 108
The Non-Harvest Option 108
Rules/Guidelines 109
Economics 110
Variations 110
Pastures (Natural/Mixed Species) 111
Homegardens 111
Shrub Gardens 111
Agroforests 113
Forest Gardens 113
Shade Systems (Natural Canopy) 113
Managed Forests 114
Interest In 114
References 115
The previous chapters have looked at the various manifestations of the intercrop.
These front a large percentage, but not all, of the agroecological possibilities.
Chap. 5 lists a few examples of intercrops that contain three species; rarer still are
agrosystems of four or five species. This seems the practical upper limit. Beyond
this, experience is lacking on spacing and species. The various rules of intercrop-
ping become more a hindrance than a help.
Complex agroecosystems contain seven or more different species. In practice,
mixes of over one hundred species have been documented. Normally, the number
ranges between 10 and 15. For the user, another set of rules comes into play, without
which these systems would not be feasible.

106 7 Complex Agroecosystems
Photo 7.1 A classic tropical agroforest. This is a near-house version, i.e., a tropical homegarden.
This example has a large percentage of ornamental plants. These can be sold or just enjoyed by the
farm family
Described
There are a number of variants off bio-complexity. For all of these, their hallmark is
their spatial disarray.
The variations are noted for their presumed high productivity, their extremely
low levels of inputs, and their environmental friendless. In addition, these are often
a depository for lesser-known, lesser-utilized plant species. These also serve as a
landscape refuge for birds and other small fauna. In almost all aspects, from their
productivity through to the environmental compatibility, agroforests exemplify
agroecology.
The productive role of agroforests is unique. Generally, these are not suited for
the large-scale production of one output. They are at their best when they produce
smaller volumes of many outputs. This, along with their environmental compatibil-
ity, dictates their applications and their landscape location.
All these advantages have not gone unnoticed. The resulting agroforests are
found worldwide in all humid tropical regions. Outside of this, these are occasioned
in dryer regions (Photo 7.2). A few temperate examples have been reported.
Agroecology 107
Photo 7.2 Not limited to the humid tropics, this picture shows a dryland agroforest in north-
central Senegal. With this arid location, this version is less dense than those in high rainfall areas
Agroecology
The gains from complex agroecosystems result from their unbounded internal
dynamics. Whereas intercropping features one-on-one species interactions, these
multiply as more species are added. The expectation is that with seven-plus species,
the interactions have multiplied to the point where the sum of the eco-services
exceeds the total of the interspecies interactions.
Complementarity and facilitation are expected. It would be safe to say that most,
if not all, forms of interspecies facilitation are in place (for more, see Facilitation).
Additionally, a complex agrosystem is expected to have microbes and other
microorganisms in abundance. Predator and pollinating insects, birds, and bats add
to the mix. All are attracted by a flourishing ecosystem.
Visually and ecologically, many of these can be mistaken for forest fragments.
Ecologically, these can serve the same purpose, except that these are agricultural,
rather than natural ecosystems.
It is possible to demarcate the internal dynamics. There are four factors. Complex
internal ecology is brought about by the use of density, diversity, disarray, and dura-
tion (for more, see, as individual topics, Biodiversity, Density, Disarray, and
Duration).
If each is present in sufficient quantity, the natural dynamics that underlie, and
give these complex agrosystems their unique quantities, will flourish. In essence,
the agrosystem becomes ecosystem, rather than species governed.
Natural Ecology
These systems are not without accompanying natural ecology. Since there is a toler-
ance for non-agronomic additions and the system ecologically mimics a natural
forest, these systems often serve as a refuge for exotic plants, birds, insects, and
some small mammals (for more, see Mimicry). Also for the good, complex systems
improve area water dynamics.
Patterns
Despite the use of disarray, there are observable spatial patterns. Many farmers
exploit their knowledge of species pairings. Plant species that grow well together
become close-proximity neighbors. Also plants with like harvests, e.g., have a simi-
lar fruit, for convenience in gathering, can be located in the same vicinity.
There are still other layouts. Often the more utilized species, e.g., favorite fruits
and spices, are found closer to the edge. Those plants utilized less are often located
in the center or farthest corners.
The Non-Harvest Option
First mentioned in Chap. 4, the situation can exist where the plant is more facilita-
tive and harvest an option. In agroforests, the non-harvest option generally occurs
when, for one output:
(a) The cost of the harvest exceeds the value of the crop.
(b) There is too much to sell or transport.
(c) Some of the harvest is damaged and unsellable.
(d) The labor needed for harvest is not available.
In these cases, the crop, or part of the crop, is abandoned to nature. This is not a
loss, the decaying vegetation recycles, and the contained nutrient become available
for future grown and future produce. For complex agrosystems, with their wide
variety of harvestable products, this is a common occurrence (for more, see Non-
Harvest Option).
Agroecology 109
Rules/Guidelines
For intercropping, the rules help in finding acceptable species pairings. For complex
agrosystems, managing of seven-plus species, without guidelines, is near impossi-
ble. The rules of management provide these. As proposed by Wojtkowski (1993),
they are:
1. If a plants output is needed and the plant is producing well, leave it; if not,
improve the competitive environment, e.g., prune a taller, nearby, lesser-valued
tree or shrub.
2. If its production is not needed, neglect it.
3. If it is negatively influencing a more desirable output, prune it.
4. If space exists and essential resources are underutilized, as determined by the
amount of light striking the bare ground, plant or let something grow.
Under these rules, plants are seldom removed. Unwanted plants continue but are
naturally stifled. This can be with shade or shade along with belowground competi-
tion. Eventually, the weeds become noncompetitive with other, more valuable spe-
cies. Experienced, knowledgeable farmers can use the rules as a starting point for
directing system outputs.
Photo 7.3 An example of

rule 3. This shows a tree
that was severely pruned to
allow light to reach a
planted, seasonal crop.
(The photo is from
Senegal)
Economics
Agroforests and the like are the quintessential cost-oriented system. These have very
low levels of inputs coupled with high outputs. Cost orientation comes about as users
forgo raising a single, high-value crop, instead accepting lower, per-area revenue.
The sacrifice of revenue is more than compensated for by a myriad of cross-
species facilitative effects and ecosystem-sponsored eco-services. These all come at
a low or no cost.
This is the presumed and accepted outcome. Presumption is in effect because the
traditional economic measurements are lacking, in part, due to their complexity.
For one, there is the difficulty in estimating the level of outputs from so many
productive species. Many species, e.g., wood-producing trees, do not provide a
yearly harvest. There are also obstacles in determining labor inputs. Much of the
work done is casual, undertaken while gathering or harvesting an output, rather than
as a dedicated task.
Some insight into productivity comes from indirect studies. Nasser et al. (1994)
reported that complex agrosystems in Central America produce over 90% of the
vegetables.
On the cost side, if harvests are judicious and an input/output nutrient balance is
maintained, an externally sourced nutrient inflow is not needed. This eliminates the
need for fertilizers. The large populations of insect predators keep damaging insects
in check. Directed biodiversity, through both passive and active management, har-
nesses light dynamics to combat weeds.
Variations
Given their complexity, farm-friendliness, and their low maintenance, it is benefi-

cial for users to employ the agroforest form whenever possible. This has led to some
user-distinct variations. These are:
Pastures (natural and/or of mixed species)
Homegardens
Shrub gardens
Permanent
Transitional
Agroforests
Forest gardens
Specialized
Enriched forests
Forest farming
Mixed cropping
Managed forests (silviculture)
Variations 111
Pastures (Natural/Mixed Species)
When animal forage is naturally grown and harvested, in situ, by cattle, goats,
sheep, llamas, or some other grazing animals, this is a pasture system (for more see
Pastures). The interaction of the grasses and other grazed vegetation would follow
the dynamics of complex agrosystems.
There are some major differences. Because the plants are generally too small for
individual management, the rules for complex systems would generally not apply.
Grazed pastures, as with all complex agrosystems, are cost oriented. Those with
fewer species and/or those where the forage is harvested rather than directly grazed
tend to be more revenue oriented. These are the most common of the complex
agrosystems.
Homegardens
The homegarden version is found close to or surrounding dwellings. These produce

outputs destined for household consumption. This is the quintessential agroforest
form. Located near populations, these have received the most attention.
Examples are prevalent through the humid tropics. In some regions, these serve
as an adjunct agricultural system, providing a wide range of household needs. The
exception is often the staple crops.
In other regions, these have greater importance. For example, on many South
Pacific islands, agroforests are the agricultural hub. This occurs only when the sta-
ple crop or crops, e.g., sweet potato, taro, and yam, can be grown in a plant-
competitive location.
There are other human beneficial dynamics associated with the homegarden ver-
sion. As an active ecosystem, these offer a good location to dispose of organic
household waste. In decaying away, this provides mineral nutrients. This would be
coupled with the use of the non-harvest option (where unpicked fruits are allowed
to decay and recycle).
For some versions, these provide a location to hunt small animals or to pond-
raise fish. In yet another gain, agroforests, located around houses, provide shade and
a cool, localized climate.
Shrub Gardens
This shrub garden comes in two forms. One is a permanent landscape feature that
does not change, as an agroecosystem, overtime. The second is transitional, evolv-
ing over a number of years into a taller agricultural form or into a forest/wood-
producing ecosystem.
For the permanent shrub garden, short-statured perennials, plus some annuals,
would constitute the biodiversity. There are shorter trees, e.g., tropical rose apple
and papaya and, in temperate regions, dwarf varieties of fruiting species.
A permanent, temperate shrub garden might, for example, contain dwarf apple,
pear, peach, and plum along with berries, currents, gooseberries, blueberries, and
quince and other perennials, e.g., horseradish and asparagus. Intermixed would be
some planted annuals, e.g., squash, climbing beans, and sunflower, are among the
many possible biodiversity additions. This is illustrated in Photo 7.4.
The transitional shrub garden is a means to convert from one system to another.
An annual monoculture or intercrop might be followed by some mixed planting.
As these grow, more species are added until, for a number of years, these form a
shrub garden. A typical example might be rice followed by cassava. As the cassava
is harvested, shorter fruit or nut species are added.
Some years after these establish, the natural forest will be allowed to invade, or
the understory will be planted with one or more productive trees. The end result of
this overlapping cycle could be a wood-producing natural forest, a forest garden, or
a mixed-species plantation.
Photo 7.4 A perennial

shrub garden. This
example has a mix of
dwarf fruit trees over
horseradish and other
understory species
Variations 113
Agroforests
Not to be confused with the broader agroforestry term, agroforests are species-
complex agroecosystem containing a large percentage of woody perennials. Of the
complex agrosystems, the homegarden and the agroforest may be the most com-
mon. Either of these forms might be referred to as a food forest.
The difference is that homegardens are located near dwellings; agroforests are
not. Also, agroforests would not benefit from household waste. The species mix
would be slanted more toward sellable products. For homegardens, the mix would
emphasize kitchen-destined and household-useful outputs.
Forest Gardens
A more permanent and more specialized form are the forest gardens. These are still
seven-plus agrosystems, but the emphasis is on three or slightly more primary
species.
Biodiversity does not require evenness in the number or the biomass of the indi-
vidual species. There can be a bias for a few, most often the taller trees. This is the
basis for the forest garden form.
These specialized systems take advantage of population unevenness. As a mixed-
species plantation, wood, sap, fruits, and/or nuts would be the primary outputs.
Within, and often below these trees, reside a diversity of other species. The latter
provides the natural dynamics that underwrite the forest garden.
One of the variations is the enriched forest. These can be natural forest fragment
or a nearby segment of larger forest underplanted with fruit, nut, or other producing
species. It can also be shrub garden that is planted with a valuable wood-producing
tree. In either case, the primary output from an enriched forest is wood. Any number
of secondary outputs are possible.
In contrast to the enriched forest is forest farming. The difference lies in the out-
put. With enriched forests, the emphasis is on the wood-yielding overstory. For the
farmed forest, the economic strength lies in the understory, shade-resistant crops,
commonly, planted coffee and cocoa.
Shade Systems (Natural Canopy)
Earlier chapters have discussed light (Chap. 5) and heavy (Chap. 6) shade systems.
Briefly mentioned are heavy shade systems with a natural forest overstory.
Ecologically, these are complex agrosystems. Commonly, a natural overstory is
associated with newer coffee and cocoa plantations.
Feed systems can also manifest. The most advantageous would be with pigs. As
with less complex versions, the overstory could be enriched with fruit- or nut-pro-
ducing trees. Another feed variation would be a tree overtopped pond. The common
fish is leaf- and fruit-eating tilapia.
The agroforest form has many strengths, and these find use in mixed agricultural/
agroforest applications. Mixed cropping has blocks or strips of agroforests along
with strip or blocks of crops.
Tea can be in alternating strips with a shrub or taller agroforest. This would yield
a mixed output with the most valuable and largest economic contribution coming
from the tea component. This form, a clear primary species with multiple secondary
outputs, is possible with many perennial and annual crops.
Managed Forests
A large part of conventional forestry is the study of forest management. This falls
under the heading of agroecology when active management is directed toward a
specific output. Wood is the most common crop. Thinning to increase the volume,
type, and/or quality would be the objective. This system would be managed
accordingly.
The forest ecosystem as food source would be another example. Again active
management, a specific animal output, and economic end goal put these in the
sphere of agroecology.
These systems can (a) be composed solely of naturally occurring trees and
shrubs, (b) be a species-enriched natural entity, or (c) be a completely planted multi-
species forest. The proviso for the latter is the occurrence of seven or more species,
i.e., diversity, along with density, disarray, and duration.
As with other variations, the rules of management can be utilized to good effect.
However, there are alternative management techniques that reinforce or, at time,
may supersede the general rules (for more, see Silviculture).
Interest In
Under the complex agrosystem category, natural pastures and managed forests
dominate. It is the homegardens, agroforests, and forest gardens that epitomize
agroecology and could, or should, be the basis for extensive future development.
This potential could be applied to the thousands of hectares of tree-crop planta-
tions found worldwide. Included in this are rubber and oil palm plantations that,
with some melioration, could exhibit the favorable characteristics of complex
agrosystems.
References 115
Photo 7.5 A young rubber plantation showing between-stem, weed-filled, and open space that is
available for enhanced biodiversity and addition outputs
There is research support for this assertion. For oil palms and rubber plantations,
yields are either not lost or enhanced if grown within a complex agrosystems (For
additional content, see Agroforests).
References
Wojtkowski, P. A. (1993). Toward an understanding of tropical home gardens. Agroforestry

Systems, 24, 215–222.
Chapter 8
Risk
Contents
Agro-Threats 117
Trends 118
Water Harvesting 118
Types of Risk 119
Economic Risk 120
Climatic Risk 121
Anti-Risk Agrotechnologies 121
Agroecological Solutions 122
Plot Based 123
Landscape Based 125
Other Defenses 130
Other Solutions 131
References 133
The first few chapters of this text explain the core of agroecology. Aside from brief
mentions of risk, the objective function has been LER or economically based. This
is for good reason, i.e., to keep the explanation streamlined.
The combination of yield and risk aversion adds a layer of complexity. Also risk
is not solely plot related. The broader landscape, both on-farm and regionally, plays
a role in insuring that people can eat and/or have enough output to sell.
In this age of global warming, climate change, and associated cropping uncer-
tainties, agroecology offers solutions (e.g., Altieri et al. 2015). Therefore, risk, as a
topic, merits a separate chapter.
Agro-Threats
Risk directly relates to cropping threats. As discussed in Chap. 3, these are generally
handled through a strong agro-matrix or some mix of eco-services and outside
inputs. Normal threats aside, there are some dangers that require additional mea-
sures. This is the theme in this chapter.

118 8 Risk
Trends
A large percentage of the world’s agricultural production comes from regions where
water management is the number one priority. There are those semiarid regions that
have short rainy seasons and/or rainy periods that are brief and intense. The amounts
can be adequate, but distribution is not.
There are those regions where the rains are well distributed but the crops being
grown require more water than is normally supplied. In other areas, dry season
cropping can push the needs higher.
Variation, and added risk, comes by way of erratic rains, severe storms, variabil-
ity in temperatures, etc. Climate change does not help.
Even with counters, the dangers can multiply. Weather stresses can trigger insect
and disease outbreaks in crops. Even climatically hardy woody perennials can fall
victim when there is a series of less than optimal years (Das et al. 2016).
Water shortfalls and accompanying risk may be further magnified, not only
through climate change, but by wasteful water practices, urbanization, and popula-
tion growth. Believed to be in an early stage, the agronomic effects of water short-
falls have been somewhat mitigated, at least temporarily, by drought-resistant crops
and the widespread use of irrigation.
If climatic variability increases, prediction show that there will be winners (i.e.,
those benefiting from more rainfall) and losers (those experiencing less rainfall).
The losers could outnumber the winners.
One prediction, for 2100, has a 33% decline in rice yields in Bangladesh (Karim
et al. 2012). If this comes to pass, this is not a country capable of withstanding a
large loss in agro-capacity.
By extension, water, or lack thereof, is the main source of yield risk. This brings
about a need to better manage water resources.
Water Harvesting
With plot-directed water harvesting, the cardinal notion is to keep moisture on site
as long as possible. As a corollary, surface water flow is the enemy of good
conservation.
As discussed, the gains can be profound. Belowground water is not an erosion
danger, and it is available to plants for an extended period. The absorbed water can
also boost to the water table where it is available for off-season recovery, e.g., used
to irrigate crops.
Changes that allow water to percolate into the soil include infiltration barriers,
cajetes, and catchments (for more, see Infiltration Barriers, also Cajetes and
Catchments). A robust soil cover, either as a cover crop, ground litter, and/or a
perennial crop, can also be part of the same solution.
Types of Risk 119
Interestingly, these measures help during period of normal or high rainfall. They
also help if rainfall is below average. For the latter, it is better to capture and hold
what little that does fall.
Water harvesting is a broad term that applies ex-plot. This is where there is a
need to maximize the water available on one site, so it can be directed to some other
location. This is the essence of irrigation.
Irrigation water, if belowground, can be tapped by way of wells or boreholes.
More visible in the landscape is the redirecting of surface water. This can be col-
lected, channeled, and stored. There are a number of plot and landscape modifica-
tions for doing this (for more, see Water Harvesting). Alternatively, irrigation water
may not be harvested, but come from surface sources (lakes, rivers, etc.).
Types of Risk
There are basically two forms of risk. The first is economic and the second
climatic.
Economic or climate risk can result in a negative financial result. The most griev-
ous economic consequence is bankruptcy. This is often a sequence that starts with
devastating losses and unrepaid loans and ends with the loss of a farm.
Photo 8.1 The most potent of the risk-reduction mechanics. This is an irrigation channel in south-
ern Africa. The bordering wheat crop is the product of this water
120 8 Risk
Of the two, climatically caused crop failure can be far more serious. This is when
weather, short or long term, reduces or decimates yields. In some countries or
regions, there is little fallback. When crops fail, the next-to-worst case is hunger.
The worst case is starvation.
Irrespective of the outcome, risk can be mitigated. This is easier done with eco-
nomic risk, more difficult to counter climatically. Although this chapter focuses
mainly on climate and weather, the counters to economic risk deserve discussion.
Economic Risk
With market risk, there are also solutions. One often stated advantage of productive
intercropping is that there are two outputs to sell. If the price of one is low, the sec-
ond might make up the shortfall. This is not a plot-only solution. The entire farm
benefits when there are many crops to sell and when the prices for a few are low.
Another counter comes by way of economic orientation. High-input, high-output
systems are inherently riskier. High-input costs and the promise of high yields can
force debt. The anticipated yield may not happen.
Instead, low yields and/or low crop selling prices, combined with the high sunk
costs, can lead to an unprofitable outcome. If this occurs in a one-crop farm, this
may be the first step in the previous described sequence that ends with bankruptcy.
The above is coupled with other considerations. The application of a nutrient
may portend a high yield, but, if rainfall is lacking, the yield would be lower than
predicted. Therefore, this nutrient would represent a waste and hence an economic
inefficiency.
If the economic risk is deemed too high, the other option is a switch to cost ori-
entation. With low crop selling prices, cost-efficient production can still result in a
profit. Also, with less invested, low yields are far less likely to result in a financially
devastating outcome.
With cost orientation, the aiming point is lower. There is a greater likelihood that
the other resources are present, but at a more modest level. This means that all the
needed essential resources are in closer balance and waste and inefficiencies are less
likely to happen.
There are other pros and cons to this line of thought. Per-unit harvest costs are
lower when per-area yields are higher. Opposite this, fertilizer runoff, a pollutant, is
less when less is applied.
In a few cases, there are means to switch plot orientation to accommodate the
prevailing crop selling prices. In a previously stated example, heavy shade systems,
which are normally cost oriented, can be made more revenue oriented by reducing
the amount of overhead shade. Pruning coupled with applications of fertilizer will
boost yields. This can be a normal practice in coffee or cocoa plantations when
prices rise.
This is not a permanent change. If prices subsequently fall, the system, without
effort, naturally reverts.
Anti-Risk Agrotechnologies 121
There are examples where permanent change, the removal of the shade trees, did
not find favor. In the chocolate forests (heavy shade systems producing cocoa) of
Brazil, there was a government backed effort to increase cocoa yields by abandon-
ing the shade and increasing the inputs. This was resisted by growers (Johns 1999).
Some governments offer farmers price support and/or crop failure insurance.
This can disincentive farmers seeking sensible solutions, i.e., reducing their mone-
tary risk by looking to low-input agriculture or switching to less climatically
exposed crops.
In this era of climate change, the latter might involve replacing maize with far
more drought-tolerant sorghum or millet. This could be resisted by consumers and/
or industry dependent on continued maize harvests.
Climatic Risk
In developed countries, climatic risk can go unnoticed as the government and citi-
zenry have the financial resources, and farmers the backing, to insure that crop
failure is a relatively minor inconvenience. In developing countries, this is not
always been the case.
History mentions the grim fates that awaited when crops did not yield. There are
still parts of the world where an unfortunate drought, and no backup crops, can seri-
ously impact a population.
History also records when early governments had planning foresight and took
measures to avoid the unrest that widespread hunger causes. Irrigation schemes are
often associated with early Middle Eastern civilizations. Others adopted broader
measures.
To insure that citizens are well-fed and forestall societal unrest, the Incas had
grain storehouses, undertook land modifications, installed irrigation, and employed
other landscape measures. They adopted many of, but not all, the anti-risk measures
described in this chapter.
This carries forth to this day. As with ancient civilizations, strong, risk-adverse
agriculture causes groups to flourish. Severe declines put people and, indirectly,
governments at risk.
Anti-Risk Agrotechnologies
There are landscape-wide, facilitative agrotechnologies that, by intent, mitigate

risk. First mentioned in Chap. 3, these include defenses against rainfall and flood,
wind, and temperature extremes, i.e., the possible manifestations of climate change.
To a lesser degree, they offer some protection against drought.
122 8 Risk
The list includes:
Barriers (anti-insect) Mounds (crop)

Barriers (infiltration) Paddies
Cajetes Ponds
Camellones Riparian buffers
Catchments Stone, clusters, wall, etc.
Corridors (habitat) Terraces
Fences, living Water channels
Firebreaks Water-breaks
Gabons Windbreaks and shelterbelts
Agroecological Solutions
The consequences of ignoring risk have been acknowledged. This section begins the
task of presenting the options that agroecology offers. Some (as above) are plot and
therefore design based.
Photo 8.2 A crop mound

opened to expose the yams
growing within. A mound
keeps the crop from being
waterlogged during periods
of high rains. Also, the
loose soil around this root
crop allows for ease of root
expansion and for larger
yams and larger yields
Most fit, with minor modification, within existing and standard-design agrotech-
nologies. A large number (also as above) transcend the plot and are best when land-
scape portioned. Normally, both approaches, plot and landscape, are combined.
Plot Based
Plots/agroecosystems, as agrotechnologies, can protect against a number of threats.

This is inherent with the base or standardized design. The less biodiverse agrosys-
tems tend to be at greater danger from clime-related threats.
Installed threat counters can, in large measure, compensate for a riskier design.
Those discussed in Chap. 3, i.e., the matrix-based counters, help. There are addi-
tional design features that are risk specific.
Disarray
In Chap. 7, disarray is discussed as a key component of complex agroecosystems.

Alone, without density, diversity, and duration, disarray insures against less severe
deviations off normal-growing conditions. Most of this would be water related.
Photo 8.3 Major disarray in an Ethiopian backyard garden

124 8 Risk
Yield
Rainfall
Fig. 8.1 Rainfall risk curves; the solid line is based upon fixed and regularized spacing. The dotted
line shows what can transpire with spatial disarray. The solid line is based upon maize growth
(Glover 1957). The dotted line is hypothetically derived
The notion is that plant spacing is based on expected rainfall. Wider spacing is
employed when rainfall is less; closer spacing is used where the rainfall is greater.
The corollary is that set spacing is predicated on having a fixed, and ideal, level
of rain, i.e., maximum yields occur as when ideal rains are coupled with an ideal
spacing. Yields decline when spacings are mismatched with rainfall amounts. When
there is only a slight variability in the rainfall amount, this is not a strong influence.
Spacing plays a larger role when year-to-year rainfall is highly variable. It holds
that plant spacings should reflect this. Planting disarray provides better yields when
rainfall is frequently greater or less than anticipated.
Figure 8.1 shows the functional result. The solid line shows expected yields with
a set spacing. The dotted curve would be the same crop with spatial disarray.
Although Fig. 8.1 was maize-derived, the overall effect still stands with other crops.
Disarray in intercropping might magnify this effect (as shown in Photo 8.3).
Where rainfall uncertainty is severe, a land user might take additional measures.
The intercrop might pair drought resistant with a more water-demanding species.
Good rains would offer a high LER. Poor rains would provide a base yield (for
more, see Disarray).
Crop or Crop Variety
A basic means to counter risk is to change to a less risky crop or crop variety, e.g.,
shifting from maize to millet or to a drought-resistant maize variety. This has the
impact of shifting the risk curve. Figure 8.2 shows the type of shift envisioned.
Multi-Varietalism
Chapter 4 presents some of variations of mono-cropping. Inclusive in the narrow

range is the multi-varietal monoculture. To a lesser degree, multiple varieties might
help with economic risk. This assumes a situation where the varieties vary in value,
e.g., with fruits.
Fig. 8.2 Shown is the net 100%

effect of a crop or varietal
change. When a new crop
needs less of the resource,
e.g., water, or needs less
protection, e.g., wind Threat
blocking, this shifts the Level
resource-response curve
leftward
Resource Input or Available

Protection
The stronger purpose is to mitigate many forms of risk including insects, dis-
eases, and weather. When weather and climate are the central focus, logic dictates
that drought-resistant, as well as wet-soil-tolerant plants of the same species, be
interspersed.
Figure 8.1, relabeled, would demonstrate the expected result. The solid line is the
single variety norm; the dotted line is the multi-varietal planting
Landscape Based
Beyond the plot, threat counters shift into landscape. Most involve plot locations
and contents. In the composite, the landscape is generally more adversity resistant
than the individual plots (e.g., Cohen et al. 2016). Some of this is due to the con-
tained cropping diversity.
The idea behind the various counters is that, when weather is favorable, farming
will be economically rewarding. When conditions worsen, the results may be closer
to subsistence, but the people and their livestock will survive.
Base Rules/Guidelines
As with other agroecological topics, there are some risk-based, underlying guide-
lines. These start by suggesting (1) crop diversity, (2) location, and (3) relative
placement.
Foremost, farmers should rely on a diversity of crops and, by extension, agro-
technologies. The hope is that all plots will yield. If climate or other factors inter-
cede, the intent is that some, those under the most stress, may fail, but others, the
most climatically resilient, will still produce.
As an example, agroforests are far less risk prone than seasonal monocultures.
As such, the agroforest would be a strong backup, capable of yielding in adverse
situations.
126 8 Risk
The second guideline is placement, i.e., to plant like crops in varying locations.
Placement moves the location of like crops, both in space and time, within a con-
tinuous farm.
Carrying forth with the above-stated agroforest example, these systems would be
more risk adverse if located both on a high-risk and a low-risk site. With a seasonal
monoculture, location would be less effective, but still of value.
The third rule is relative location, i.e., that plots of a like species are kept apart.
This is done for different reasons; countering climatic risk can be one. This simple
measure can also slow the spread of harmful insects and plant diseases.
Crop Tiers
At the center of a tiered strategy is the primary or staple crop. Rice, a staple to bil-
lions of people, may be first on the list. The second most popular may be wheat.
Although far less water demanding than rice, this crop requires more water that
other grains, e.g., sorghum or millet.
Also high on the list of in-demand crops is maize. These are the upper-tier crops,
those most in demand. When compared with lower-valued alternatives, these may
be less likely to yield when growing conditions are bad.
A tiered strategy is where farmers seek to diversify risk by raising less climate-
susceptible secondary crops. In wetter parts of West Africa, paddy and upland rice
is an upper-tier crop. Cassava is a second-tier crop. Cassava can still produce even
if conditions are not suitable for rice yields. In addition to wheat, farmers may opt
for sorghum or millet as middle-tier crops.
In some regions, starvation occurs if both the primary and secondary crops fail.
In this case, land users may include a bottom-tier crop, one with far less climate
risk.
These bottom-tier crops are almost always trees or shrubs. These can be fruits or
nuts.
History is rife with examples. In ancient Europe, the acorn was the backup crop
when weather, pillaging armies, or avaricious nobility took the grains and other
staple foods. The more palatable beechnut, walnut, and chestnut would have supple-
mented a rather Spartan acorn diet.
As demonstrated with the less than appetizing acorn, taste is not a requirement
for good health. Although nice, nuts should provide ample calories and are rich in
nutrients.
These lessons were learned by other groups in other regions. In Africa, there is a
long list of plants that grow in the drier regions and have the potential for yields
when other crops fail. The list includes:
Argan (Argania spinosa).
Mongongo (Ricinodendron rautanenii).
Marula (Sclerocarya birrea).

One other tree of note is moringa. This tree produces edible, nutritious leaves and
thrives in dry regions. As a backup crop, this tree has been extensively planted in
arid parts of the world.
For backup crops, the needed characteristics include low cost and low mainte-
nance. Trees often do this. Once planted, they require few if any inputs. The only
requirement may be early-stage protection from domestic or wild animals.
Scattering
With scattering, one land user does not farm continuous and adjoining plots. Instead,
individual land holdings are scattered across the landscape.
In some regions, this is forced by topography. In the mountains of Papua New
Guinea, farmers, those seeking relatively flat land, disperse over a wide area. In
some regions, scattering is a hereditary pattern. In a few, this is by intent (this might
be the case in Photo 8.4).
Photo 8.4 From a village in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, an example of scattering. This is
where farmers own dry, wheat-growing plots above and to the left of the village. They might also
own irrigated plots below
128 8 Risk
As an anti-risk strategy, scattering puts one farmer’s plots in diverse locations.

The locations should exhibit variation in topography, soil type, elevation, and the
other variables that influence yields.
Briefly, if one plot is flooded and the crops lost, another, higher up, will yield. If
a drought strikes, the plot that is wetter will yield. This thinking also applies to tem-
perature extremes, insect outbreaks, and other threats.
There are associated inefficiencies. Travel times between plots or from a plot to
a homestead can be a disadvantage.
Plots and Plowing
Long, narrow cropping strips have similar risk-countering intent. These were once
common across medieval Europe.
Long strips will cross small hills and dales. This variation in the cropping condi-
tions along the single strip insures high- and low-yielding zones. These change as
weather conditions vary. The outcome would be similar to that predicted in Fig. 8.1.
Long strips have other advantages. Disease spread is slowed. Also draft animals
and tractors are more efficient when they plow more and turn less. In this case, the
disadvantages can outweigh the gains. Harvests and grazing are more efficient on
square or near-square plots.
Another possible rainfall hedge is uneven field preparation. With a uniformly
prepared field, it is assumed that water needs match crop needs. Within a rainfall
range, or with irrigation, this is for the good.
An unevenly plowed plot would accommodate periods of higher-than-wanted
rainfall. Water pooling in the depressions will promote infiltration without wasteful
runoff. With brief inundations, this would stabilize yields. This type of plowing is
shown in Photo 8.5.
There is more. If the rains are more intense and more extensive than wished,
uneven plowing can be of benefit to crops less tolerant to waterlogging and located
on the higher portions of the field. Those plants located in the depressions would
yield poorly.
If the rains are brief and far less than expected, this can help those plants seeded
in the depressions. Yields would suffer on the more elevated areas.
Where possible, it would help to intercrop. This would involve mixing a drought-
tolerant with a more water-demanding species. Uneven plowing coupled with inter-
cropping would, at the rainfall extremes, insure a base yield.
Under these scenarios, the solid curve in Fig. 8.1 would represent level, even
plowing. The lower dotted curve would represent, as shown in Photo 8.4, uneven
plowing and/or risk-reducing intercrop. The lower axis is still the rainfall range.
It should be emphasized that these strategies are not designed to maximize yields.
They are formulated to minimize risk in regions where rains are erratic to yield-
endangering levels.
Photo 8.5 Uneven plowing. The can lead, during period of high rains, to better water infiltration
and better yields. Where rain is very erratic, this, like disarray, may serve to insure some crop yield
in bad times. This photo is from central Ghana
Ex-Plot Defenses
The ability to address multiple threats through one mechanism is a previously stated
ideal. The closest to the single-defense ideal is irrigation. The problem is that not all
forms offer broad protection.
Sprinkler systems with large water reserves can, as expected, protect against
droughts or help bridge a low rainfall period. The water sprayed onto a field can also
counter extremes in temperature. Large amounts of water can cool crops when it is
too warm and warm crops when they become too cold.
Spray systems have fallen from use. They are relatively expensive and, through
evaporation, can waste scarce water. They also require energy-consuming pumps.
The dominate system is drip irrigation. This supplies needed water but does
little else.
Tree defenses, such as windbreaks, can slow plant-sourced transpiration. When
water is scarce, well-designed and well-positioned windbreaks can offer slight pro-
tection during the extremes of temperate and shield crops during high winds.
Irrigation and windbreaks do not protect against all adversities and are best when
combined and/or coupled with some other defenses.
130 8 Risk
Photo 8.6 From Morocco, a dramatic example of stone terraces. In addition to better water infil-
tration, the stones hold heat. This can mitigate the negative effects of very cold nights. Economically,
terraces are expensive to install, but they are long lasting and allow cropping on what would nor-
mally be a crop-prohibitive site
Multiple Defenses
As advocated in Chap. 3, good defenses can involve multiple, overlapping, and

complementary agroecological mechanisms. The difference is that the threats are
not always imminent. As with imminent threats, the counters should be in place and
function even if not immediately required.
Other Defenses
As a form of savings, farmers can plant trees or bamboo to sell at periodic intervals
or in bad times. This strategy requires, within transport distance, an urban market
that continually seeks construction materials.
There are other strategies. Domestic animal herds can be increased when there is
plenty of forage. The animals are eaten or sold when grazing is difficult.
As an overall strategy, there are disadvantages. Large herds can overgraze areas,
causing environmental problems, e.g., erosion. Also, a severe weather event can
severely impact herds, causing uncontrolled die-off.
Other Solutions 131
Photo 8.7 A risk-adverse, small-farm landscape. In the center are mixed crops in semi-contour
rows. To the sides and above are perennial species. All are planted so that they span various eleva-
tional locations. This layout diversifies both climatic and economic risk. This photo is from
Nicaragua
There are anti-risk measures that apply to livestock. Villagers may plant
grains before the rain is to arrive. If the rains do not come in sufficient quantity
and the grain fails to mature, the young plants become a secondary crop. The
stalks are directly grazed or can be harvested and dried as an off-season source
of animal forage.
Those relying upon livestock may regard grasses as an upper-tier crop. When
rain is lacking, they may have second, less water-demanding, forage crop. This
would be tree or shrub based and be highly drought resistant. An example is the
Australian species saltbush (Atriplex nummularia) planted in parts of Africa and
South America.
Other Solutions
In economically advanced regions, farmers need not, nor no longer, look at a

bottom-tier, always-yielding tree crop as the base level of survival. If the econ-
omy is advanced enough, people rely upon purchasing power to have food
shipped in. There is therefore no lasting negative effect on the society for not
having bottom-tier defense.
132 8 Risk
Photo 8.8 Food storage containers in a West African village. These are constructed from mud
obtained from termite mounds
Other societies are not as fortunate. Although starvation is not in the picture,
some countermeasures are still needed. It helps to save money in good times to
purchase food when crops do not yield.
The latter has a disadvantage; when crops are plentiful, commodity selling prices
are generally low. During food shortages, food purchase prices are often high.
A tried and true method is food storage. Nation states, societies, and villages
have stockpiled essential foodstuffs. Examples go well back in history. The ruins of
the Inca storehouses are visible on Peruvian hilltops. The location provided protec-
tion against floods, vermin, and possibly bandits.
Staple crops can be stored in bins or underground pits. Metal or concrete storage
containers experience less in the way of bird, rodent, and/or insect loss. Photo 8.8
shows traditionally constructed, mud-based containers.
Other societies are starvation insured by their surroundings. People along the
shore of a sea or large lake can, when crops fail, go fishing and/or dig for shellfish.
Forests and hunting/gathering might insure others.
The number one means to avoid risk is employment. This can be family members
that have jobs, or a farmer may have an off-season occupation, work part time, or
farm part time. The latter two can result in a switch to a less labor-intensive
agrotechnology, e.g., cattle rather than crops, or a switch to a less-intense, heavy
shade system.
References 133
References
Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., & Lana, M. A. (2015). Agroecology and the design
of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(3),
869–890.
Cohen, A. S., VanWey, L. K., Spera, S. A., & Mustard, J. F. (2016). Cropping frequency and area
response to climate variability can exceed yield response. Nature Climate Change. Published
online 7 March.
Das, A. J., Stephenson, N. L., & Davis, R. P. (2016). Why trees die? Characterizing the driver of
background tree mortality. Ecology, 97(10), 2616–2622.
Glover, J. (1957). The relationship between total seasonal rainfall and yield of maize in the Kenya
highlands. Journal of Agricultural Science, 49, 285–290.
Johns, N. D. (1999). Conservation in Brazil’s chocolate forests: The unlikely persistence of tradi-
tional cocoa agroecosystems. Environmental Management, 23(1), 32–47.
Karim, M. R., Ishikawa, M., Ikeda, M., & Islam, M. T. (2012). Climate change model predicts
33% rice yield decrease in 2100 in Bangladesh. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(4),
821–830.
Chapter 9
Landscape Agroecology
Contents
Gains........................................................................................................................................ 136
Landscape Models................................................................................................................... 137
Inherent Agroecology............................................................................................................... 138
Farm-Wide Economic Orientation........................................................................................... 140
Associated Agrotechnologies............................................................................................... 141
Landscape Objectives.............................................................................................................. 142
Economics............................................................................................................................ 143
Risk Reduction..................................................................................................................... 144
Environmental Outcome...................................................................................................... 145
Landscape Deciders................................................................................................................. 147
Factors of Likeness.............................................................................................................. 147
Impediments to Change....................................................................................................... 148
Major Site Influences........................................................................................................... 148
Types or Categories of Agroecology....................................................................................... 149
Do-Less-Harm...................................................................................................................... 150
Matrix................................................................................................................................... 151
Bio-Complex........................................................................................................................ 152
The Larger Picture................................................................................................................... 153
References................................................................................................................................ 153
In Chap. 3, Tables 3.1 and 3.2, the landscape represents one column of an agroeco-
logical matrix. In this role, it is a means to defend a plot against threats. In plot-
centered agroecology, the landscape is those ecosystems that surround a targeted
plot and the eco-services they convey.
Landscape agroecology is far more. As a broad topic with numerous ramifica-
tions, landscape agroecology looks at a full farm or even at a multi-farm setting.
Within this expanded scope, there are productive, ecological, environmental, and
economic gains to be had.
For all the roles, productive through economic, the landscape should be more
than a totaling of the plots. Gains should be magnified through those interplot
dynamics that crisscross entire farms. The benefits of a well-planned, well-
formulated farm or a well-planned, multi-farm regional landscape should enhance
all land-use activities.

136 9 Landscape Agroecology
Photo 9.1 A sub-Saharan landscape showing stabilized dunes and an irrigated onion crop. On a
crop per-area basis, this is a very low-intensity agro-scape. This is also a landscape at the margin
There are major questions on how this is best done. Not all these are fully
answered. Because of the climatic, topographical, social, and economic differences,
interpretation using the topics presented here should lead in the right directions.
This rightly suggests that there are many correct alternatives and many improve-
ments that can be made within existing agro-scapes.
Gains
It is along two fronts where most of the gains occur. The first is environmental, the
second is economic.
As an environmental force, the preservation of wild flora and fauna is better
undertaken by controlling a large portion of the territory where the plants reside and
the animals roam. This is best done through ecological integration on a landscape
level, i.e., where all farms are included in the planning.
Along these same lines, water runoff and water harvesting can be a function of
the larger landscape. This applies to both volume and quality.
The economic front involves the layout of the crop plots such that interplot
ecological interactions become a tool in achieving yield (revenue) and cost
Landscape Models 137
Photo 9.2 An intense farm landscape showing agro-biodiversity byway of mixed crops and plots.
Also shown is a strong village landscape layout. This photo is from Central Guatemala
objectives. This is done by arranging the plots and other landscape features to
maximize ecological spillover and the resulting eco-benefits. This is generally a
cost-saving measure.
Also, there are cost savings in timing the needs of plots. For this, labor, e.g., for
planting and harvesting, is scheduled such that on-hand workers are used without
having to seek and hire extra people.
Landscape Models
Culture and topography can dictate the basic landscape and farm layout. These
models represent the history and culture of any area. Of the four landscape models,
the first two are, by far, the most common. The latter two are rarities.
The four models are:
1. Strong
(a) Village
(b) Town.
2. Scattered permanent.
3. Scattered temporary.
4. Nomadic.
The strong village (1a) has households clustered or ringed around a village cen-
ter. In the classic layout, outside the households are the barns. Outside these are the
garden plots, orchards, then the fields of staple crops, and the pastures. Outside this
may come intensely managed forests.
The overview may resemble pie where each farm is one slice, narrow at the vil-
lage center and far wider outside the confines of the hamlet. Very early middle
European agriculture followed this model.
Other versions are not so formally ordered. Photo 9.2 shows a variation, also
with the village in the center.
With population growth, the strong village model is less encountered. A variation
of the strong village is the strong town model (1b).
With this, individuals own plots away from their home but within an easy com-
mute. They return to the town when the work is done.
The plots for this model are shown in Photo 9.3. The town is discernible in the
upper left. Some regions of Asia, the Middle East, as well as South and Central
America follow this form.
The second regional model, the scattered permanent (2), is where the houses are
within the area being farmed. The farms and the accompanying homes are distrib-
uted widely across the full landscape.
With this model, barns and gardens are near or adjacent the households. Around
this central core are the main crop plots, the orchards, and/or the pastures. Depending
on the size of each farm, the households can be at some distance from one another.
They can also be distant from the nearest town.
The third landscape model that of a scattered temporary (3) has the primary
households located in a town or village. The plots, grouped or scattered, are far
outside the settlement.
Because they are far from villages or towns, farmers may have temporary dwell-
ings located on-site. This model is often found in rugged terrain where agricultur-
ally suitable lands are scattered and growing seasons are short. This model may
include slash-and-burn agriculture.
The nomadic model (4) is found where farmers and pastoralists roam seeking
suitable crop plots or active pasturage. This applies to classic desert setting where
herders wander about to find freshly sprouted animal forage. This model might also
apply where farmers, when seeking fertile land, move and live on new sites. The key
aspect of nomadism is that opportunity, not permanence, determines where agricul-
ture occurs.
Inherent Agroecology
The implicit, often unstated, goal of landscape agroecology is to maximize the pro-
ductive, ecological, environmental, and economic gains. There are a number of
ways to rearrange plots and other features to accomplish these goals.
Inherent Agroecology 139
Photo 9.3 An intense farm-scape where many small plots, each individually owned, cover the
area. Because of ownership patterns, this landscape type is one of the most difficult in which to
invoke change. This also examples a strong town model. The photo is from west-central Senegal
One can start with the general rules from Chap.8. Although these are generally
anti-risk measures, they can be employed on any suitable farm-scape. These involve:
–– Crop diversity – Growing a variety of crop types and utilizing different agrotech-
nologies to do so.
–– Location – Dispersing like crops, in time and space, across the area being
cultivated.
–– Relative location – Insuring that crops of the same or similar species are not in
adjoining plots or adjacent strips.
The above rules are only a start. Going on, there are two strategies regarding eco-
services: the first is landscape centered, the second plot based. These represent a
continuum where midpoint strategies are possible and more than feasible.
Allowing insects to run free allows plots to be quickly stocked with predator
types. This is best accomplished with smaller plots interlaced with strips and corri-
dors where insects can move unhindered and range widely. With the focus on cross-
plot movement, this is landscape-centered strategy.
Similarly, these same strips and corridors, if well positioned, can be part of water
infiltration plan and/or anti-erosion strategy. The best farm landscapes are a mix of
ecologically strong plots that are cross-fortified from the ecological spillover from
other ecologically strong plots.
Ecologically weak plots, e.g., monocrops, can be so strengthened. This is done

through plot layouts that feature large external boundaries, e.g., as long, narrow
strips. In turn, the eco-weak plots are best if surrounded and fortified by ecologi-
cally strong plots, e.g., biodiverse agroecosystems.
There is an additional landscape option. These are the facilitative structures that,
although not productive in their own right, are eco-contributing to the economically
important neighboring plots.
The facilitative agrotechnologies, either as bio-structures or land modifications,
come in many forms (as listed in this chapter). As an example, the classic windbreak
is nonproducing auxiliary system. If well positioned, these, in addition to blocking
winds, infiltrate water and provide travel corridors for desirable flora and fauna.
The above discussion suggests a landscape with long narrow plots. This is all
good, but it might not be feasible nor realizable.
The exception would be on hillsides where counter strips contribute to sustain-
ability. In this case, strips could be a necessity.
In cases where cattle graze or there is a large height differential between adjoin-
ing plots, other strategies are needed. This would be plot-centered design.
This would employ less interplot dynamics and base the landscape on individual
plots. Each of these is ecologically dynamic and ecologically self-sustaining. These
can be square or rectangular. The previously mentioned rules on diversity and loca-
tion would still hold.
Farm-Wide Economic Orientation
In the previous chapters, discussion looks at two forms of economic orientation. As

with plot-centered analysis, economic orientation applies to multi-plot landscapes.
There are the corporate farms where the goal is simply to maximize profit. In
practice this tends to be done by way of plot-based, revenue orientation. They raise
one or, at most, a few crops and tend to exhibit little biodiversity. Single purpose,
these farms tend to play little attention to any landscape considerations.
Large areas under a single ownership, planted with seasonal crops, are a blank
canvas upon which to paint anew. With great opportunity for change, this is where
the greatest potential lies. This might also be where change is most difficult.
Revenue-oriented family farms are quite similar in outlook and practice. They
also hope to maximize profits by raising one or a few crops. With the scattered per-
manent model, one owner, and with goals that go beyond profit, these too offer
landscape possibilities.
Photos 9.2 and 9.3 show land-use-intense, revenue-oriented family farms that
utilize strong village (Photo 9.2) and strong town (Photo 9.3) landscape models.
Ownership issues often make change difficult.
Cost-oriented farms, including subsistence agriculture, produce staple crops, but
they also raise as much as possible on-farm. Their goal is to limit outside expenses
so that a lessor volume of sellable outputs are necessitated.
Farm-Wide Economic Orientation 141
Photo 9.4 A less intense farm landscape. In this example, there is plenty of natural vegetation that
surrounds the peach orchard in the foreground. This scene is from the Guatemalan highlands
Out of need, cost-oriented farms tend to be highly biodiverse and more open to
the landscape possibilities. Because of their smaller size, the impact would be less.
This is especially true if these farms are located in a low-intensity region. Photo 9.4
shows this type of farm.
As above, all agrosystems, whether productive or purely facilitative, influence the

overall ecology of an agronomic landscape. Chapter 4 lists, restated below, the land
modifications and bio-structures that can eco-strengthen a single plot or can have a
landscape-wide facilitative role.
Barriers (anti-insect) Paddies

Barriers (infiltration) Ponds
Cajetes Riparian buffers
Camellones Stone structures (clusters, walls, etc.)
Catchments Terraces
(continued)
Corridors (habitat) Water channels

Fences, living Water-breaks
Firebreaks Windbreaks and shelterbelts
Gabons
Mounds (crop)
These are added as needed. A windy site can be improved by adding windbreaks
and shelterbelts. The alternatives are agrosystems that are less wind susceptible.
An example is a wind-protecting parkland system. Given multiple advantages,
both forms of protection may be warranted as shelterbelts are one of the best provid-
ers of predator-prey insect protection (Sorribas et al. 2016).
Purposely capturing water for a past or future, or a nearby or distant, use is land-
scape mandated. Water harvesting could employ a large number of the abovemen-
tioned agrotechnologies (for more, see Water Harvesting).
Landscape Objectives
There are, as previously stated, productive, ecological, environmental, and eco-

nomic gains that can arise from a well-designed landscape. These are mostly
unstated, sought after, but not always acted upon.
There are also the stated objectives. These emphasize one or more of the above.
With the single-plot factory farm, the landscape and the plot objectives coincide.
In this case, the objective is often profitability without any regard to other gains.
With an ecologically endowed, multi-plot farm, the objectives and goals are an
expansion or a composite of the goals associated with each plot. These landscapes,
out of necessity, must have multiple objectives.
Below is a sampling of the possible user objectives.
Economics
Profitability (revenue – costs)
Economic orientation
Resource (labor and capital) allocation
Return on investment
Risk reduction
Environmental
Do-No-Harm
Sustainability
Quality of Life
Mimicry
Landscape Objectives 143
Economics
Large factory farms may be entirely profit oriented; this is not the case for smaller
family farms. For these, there is often a mix of objectives, e.g., different outputs,
low risk, clean water, etc.
The individual plots in the farm-scape can be single objective (having one over-
riding purpose, e.g., profitable marketable outputs, assured yields, etc.), where,
through a combination of plot types, the overall farm achieves its multi-objective
form. Also possible are multi-objective plots which together reenforce the different
farm goals.
Most farmers, over time, find a good farm-scape solution for the many possible
objectives and landscape designs. Qualitatively described here, the goals can also be
quantitatively stated. The latter is a prerequisite for formal optimization, i.e., where
the mix of plots and positioning of these plots best achieve the set goals (for more
on the quantitative aspects, see Landscape Economics also Optimization).
Profitability
As is often the case, the landscape must return a financial profit. For subsistence
farmers less concerned with the balance sheet, the farm must produce a decent liv-
ing; each contributing plot is so gauged. In pursuit of the spillover effects, there are
optimal solutions found through content and layout of the different productive and
nonproductive plots.
The notion behind an economically balanced farm, i.e., an even mix of revenue and
cost-oriented agrosystems, is basically to reduce economic risk (as discussed at the
beginning of Chap. 8 or in the Glossary under Economic Orientation).
Resource Allocation (Labor)
For many farms, there are busy periods and, the opposite, times when labor demands
are low. This leads to inefficiencies where additional labor must be obtained or tasks
deferred.
Through crops raised or the agroecosystems employed, it can be advantageous to
spread labor requirements over a longer span, e.g., it is often easier, and can be
cheaper, to hire a small crew over a longer time period, than many workers for a
shorter duration. This is also a determinate of plot contents.
Resource Allocation (Monetary)
A mathematical explanation goes back to Fig. 2.1 (page 18), where farmers want to
maximize the return on money spent or labor invested. This means being high on the
steeper section of the curve while not spending or investing too much. The latter
leads to those inefficiencies associated with the flatter, upper plateau on the curve.
On a single-crop farm, this is not always easy to gauge. Theory holds that each
agrosystem should provide the same return per dollar spent. Inputs are allocated
accordingly.
Clear in theory, this can be messy in practice (there is more on this in Chap. 10).
Complicating the issue are different crops, the vulgarities in the weather, etc., as
well as the different needs of revenue or cost-orientated plots.
Return on Investment
Throughout this text, ratios have supplanted financial accounting. Return on invest-
ment is a form of resource allocation that can be necessary. This can be tricky as
wrongly applied, nonsensical results are possible.
An absurd example is erosion on hillside agriculture. Analysis can show that over
a 20-year period with a very high interest rate, the worst option (expressed as a net
present value) can be a soil-retaining agrosystem with contour barriers. As a conse-
quence, slightly lower yields are expected.
The better monetary return lies in letting the erosion accelerate and, at the end of
the 20 years, to physically transport the eroded soil back to its original hillside
location.
This is an extreme case, but it does illustrate possible fallacies. For many of the
world’s farmers, yields are essential and return on investment is not generally appli-
cable. This is not the situation with large-scale industrial farms.
Risk Reduction
Chapter 8 provides some background to risk reduction and discusses some of the
various anti-risk strategies. For some, implementation can be a life-or-death out-
come. The tiered approach, planting high- and low-risk crops, is implemented at the
landscape level.
Also, the various facilitative structures, as listed in this chapter, can be strategi-
cally positioned within the landscape for maximum effect. This is for both everyday
benefit, to counter climatic downturns, and to prevent other, less-than-helpful,
events, e.g., an insect outbreak.
Landscape Objectives 145
Environmental Outcome
In addition to yields and/or profits, many seek a good environmental outcome. This
is a broad objective with many facets. These range from the easy to obtain to goals
that require a profound change in thinking, on to those that involve the redesign of
plots and the overall farm landscape.
These are abstract concepts. The categories are arbitrary, open to interpretation,
and ranked by an indistinct approximation of environmental amicability. As a result,
these are not quantitative but are qualitatively expressed.
This section presents some of the broadly interpreted categories. This need not
be exclusive; overlaps are possible.
Do-No-Harm
The environmental objectives start with a do-no-harm admonition. Seemingly sim-

ple, this may be the most controversial.
For some, agrochemicals are a harmless, or a near-harmless, addition. For others,
these are designed to kill and have no place where foods are produced. More to the
point, it is critical not to lose the site through severe soil erosion or some other pre-
ventable calamity, e.g., salt buildup.
Sustainability
The essence of sustainability lies in keeping the soil fertile and energized (low bulk
density, good pH, high organic content, etc.). This applies in the present, for the next
crop, and for yields on into the future. This carries the do-no-harm admonition to a
more advanced state.
The oil palm plantation, as seen in Photo 9.5, is sustainable and has other good
attributives. To the negative, it does little to support local flora and fauna.
If it occupies a single plot in wide landscape, the good can outweigh the bad.
Similarly, it can be a favorable if it replaces a more damaging agrosystem. These
plantations are faulted when they replace natural forests across wide areas.
Quality of Life
Further along this environmental spectrum are the quality-of-life issues. These are
encountered in agricultural landscapes that are visually pleasing, are a source of
clean drinking water, etc.
Photo 9.5 An oil palm plantation. As a landscape entity, these are sustainable, protect the soil, and
promote clean water runoff. To the negative, these systems can be an antagonist of local flora and
fauna. This photo was taken in West Africa
No one can fault clean water runoff as a goal. This can be a product of those land
modifications (e.g., micro-catchments, gabons, infiltration barriers, etc.) and bio-
structures (e.g., windbreaks, anti-insect barriers, etc.) that can and should be present
in ample number.
Under the heading of Quality of Life comes aesthetics. Simply put, this is a beau-
tiful rural setting that has a pleasing mix of crop fields, trees, ponds, etc., all laid out
for visual impact. Flowering plants also help. A similar concept is the eatable land-
scape where there is an artistic arrangement of plants to maximize the visual effect
(for more, see Aesthetics).
Natural Mimicry
Some advocate for an agronomic landscape that visually expresses what nature
intended. This is where the contained ecosystems are similar, in composition and
form, to the pre-agricultural landscape, e.g., where parkland agrosystems replace
natural parkland savannahs.
At the utmost end of this spectrum are those landscapes that are friendly to, and
can actively host, local fauna and flora. The flora would be local plants that find
refuge along edges, boundaries, and buffers of cropping systems.
Landscape Deciders 147
Fauna would not include large destructive animals, e.g., large grazers, but would
include those birds and bats that, if well managed, are not harmful or, better, a ben-
eficial addition. This assumes a biodiverse, often cost-oriented, landscape.
Natural ecosystem ecology is far harder to duplicate with small, intensively man-
aged farms. Going the other direction, there are those areas where very large pas-
tures exist. These can accommodate bison or other cost-efficient, essentially
leave-and-forget, grazers. Cost-oriented agrosystems are at the heart of mimicry
(for added discussion, see Mimicry, also Birds and Bats).
This need not be only parkland pastures. Where vast expanses of forest once
stood, a landscape composed of woody plants in complex agrosystems would be a
near-apt replacement.
Landscape Deciders
Worldwide, agroecology comes in varying degrees. As mentioned, the worst are the
large tracts that are continually planted with a single, seasonal crop. The best are
those composed, in whole or large part, of highly biodiverse and/or complex agro-
systems. There is a lot of in between.
Up to this point, this chapter has viewed the landscape as a series of objectives
where, through layout, these goals are met. The sentiment put forth is that agroecol-
ogy is capable of achieving any goals that are within reason.
In achieving the best, there are deciders. These are those elements that influence
farm-scapes. These ultimately decide how agriculture is practiced. Roughly categorized,
these are the (a) factors of likeness, (b) impediments to change, and (c) site influences.
Factors of Likeness
Farms in a given region can be very similar in appearance and economic outcome.
The likeness between farms is the result of a concordance of external forces (for
more, see Solution Theory).
The factors that force likenesses are:
–– Banks and lending sources (for needed investments in eco-services, e.g., land
modifications, as well as farm equipment and farm structures).
–– Governmental (extension agents and/or government policies or payments that
push one crop and/or one agronomic form).
–– Societal (where the community exerts a subtle influence that results in everyone
planting the same crops in similar ways).
–– Crop needs (like crops may dictate similarities in field layout, irrigation, etc.,
think rice paddies).
–– Commercial (the availability of only certain inputs or types of equipment).
–– Economic (the ability to sell only one or a few high-value commodities).
–– User knowledge (where there is limited cognition as to the agronomic possibili-

ties which causes all to raise only one or a few crops).
–– The site (the soils, topography, and climate that can favor or force one type of
agrotechnology).
Impediments to Change
There are the more or less standard factors that tend to impede any major farm and
landscape initiatives. The list below is modified from Wikipedia (Agroforestry,
2017).
The area might be too small.
Lack of ownership or land rights.
Lack of agreement between the needed participants on improvements.
Unfamiliarity with proposed agrotechnologies.
Lack of awareness of successful examples.
Lack of demonstration sites.
Perceived unfavorable competition between trees, crops, and animals.
Lack of clear profit potential.
Expense of additional management.
Lack of farmer-centered training.
Lack of outside technical assistance.
Cannot afford adoption or startup costs, including the labor needed.
Apparent inconvenience.
Lack of infrastructure to proceed (e.g., irrigation, equipment).
Lack of seed/seedling sources, much of this would be for facilitative species.
Lack of scientific research backing (this might deter extension agents).
This list is generic and self-explanatory.
There are examples that show where farm and plot size, along with the owner-
ship patterns, limits change. The plots pictured in Photo 9.3 are on open, exposed,
windy sites. A system of windbreaks would help. Also, counter plots or strips would
be a hard-to-attain improvement.
Disappointingly, land ownership patterns may prevent either. Lack of knowledge
may also prevent adoption. Despite not having counter strips, land users have done
the next best thing: they contour the rows.
Major Site Influences
Each site has challenges. An area may be filled with ravenous insects that are eating
all the vegetation. Although serious, this threat is plot combatable and need not be a
major factor in the design, layout, and contents of a farm-scape.
Types or Categories of Agroecology 149
Likewise poor soils can inhibit agriculture. Again, this is correctable with com-
paratively little effort.
The factors of likeness and impediments to change are always present and go far
in deciding what type of agriculture is practiced. There are other site influences that
are overriding and decisive.
There are those factors that do not change and are not combatable. Being abso-
lute, these are impelling, first-line deciders in determining how an area is farmed.
These are:
1. Land-use intensity.
2. Topography.
A third factor, water availability, can and cannot be combatable. Where available,
even in extreme climates (as in Photo 9.1), agriculture proceeds. Where it is lacking,
water availability would be added to the above list as a first-line decider.
Land-use intensity results from having a large population in a small area or, as in
Photo 9.3, a lower population but large, distant markets.
As mentioned, the opposite is mostly an un-farmed landscape. Not an exception
is grazing where very few animals roam across a wide area.
This is a prime determinant of the type of agriculture/agroecology practiced. If
the land-use intensity is high, revenue orientation and the green revolution model
may reign. Lesser degrees of intensity open more doors for different forms of
agroecology.
Land-use intensity and water dictate the form agriculture takes and, hopefully,
what type of agroecology will rule. On the list is land topography. Hilly or moun-
tainous regions have different requirements than flatlands.
Types or Categories of Agroecology
Given the complexity of agroecology, it is not surprising that there are many fault
lines. These separate agroecology into different chunks. In the previous chapters,
biodiversity-based natural partitions are used to distill agroecology into explana-
tory sets.
Other divisions now come into play. These broadly categorize what types of
agroecology exist and where and when these are best used.
There are three broad types of agroecology:
1. Do-less-harm.
2. Matrix.
3. Bio-complexity.
These go in order of intensity, one through three; each encapsulates the previous.
These three versions or categories of agroecology are illustrated in Figs. 9.1, 9.2,
and 9.3.
Fig. 9.1 Shown is an overview of a do-less-harm farm landscape. This version is biodiverse and
at the upper range in this category. Still, the dominate ecology is plot centered. A landscape lacking
in biodiversity, e.g., a single monocrop, would also qualify
Do-Less-Harm
This manifestation of agroecology represents a single step beyond conventional

agriculture. Whereas the green revolution model is a step in one direction, the do-
less-harm model is a step in the opposite direction.
The goal is to put an ecologically friendly face on agriculture. Most chemicals
are banned. Organically sanctioned inputs are OK. Microbes are used as are intro-
duced predator insects. Compost and other soil-fortifying organic materials, best
locally sourced, boost soils. Rotations are also a mainstay.
Where the plots are relatively small, there may be some interplot, positive eco-
spillover. The prevailing ecology would be more plot centered, less byway of the
neighboring plots. The monocrop may reign, but intercropping, where economi-
cally feasible, is a possibility.
The do-less-harm model could also be termed agroecology-light. The tendency
is for more revenue-oriented agrosystems.
Types or Categories of Agroecology 151
Fig. 9.2 As a variation of Fig. 9.1, this landscape is more biodiverse where, through the overlap-
ping variety of plot-internal and plot-external eco-services, this carries a matrix designation
Matrix
Starting in Chap. 3, this is the version of agroecology featured in this text. The reli-
ance is on broadly defined eco-services or slightly more narrowly defined threat
counters. These are both plot internal and plot external.
The matrix label comes about because of the biodiversity-induced proliferation
of eco-services. There is enough ecology such that the matrix is, formally or infor-
mally, the analytical basis.
Fig. 9.3 In another rendering of Fig. 9.1, this is a bio-complex landscape type. Although only one
agroforest is shown (lower right), there is still enough landscape-wide density, diversity, disarray,
and duration to sustain the abundant eco-services associated with such systems
Bio-Complex
It is possible to base agroecology on complex, seven-plus polycultures. These can be

as a direct means of production, i.e., agroforests, forest gardens, and natural pastures.
Also possible is to surround agro-plots or pastures with natural ecosystems and/
or complex agro-ecosystems. If not overly large, these plots will benefit from the
eco-spillover
For this, agrosystem governance, i.e., where the eco-whole exceeds the sum of
the parts, dominates the ecology. Because their agroecology is so deep, the matrix
no longer suffices as an analytical tool. Underused and under-appreciated, this cat-
egory is explained in Chap. 7.
The Larger Picture 153
Photo 9.6 A bio-complex landscape exhibiting partial disarray and a mix of yielding trees and
shrubs. This is ecologically equivalent to the hypothetical Fig. 9.3. The photo was taken in central
Lebanon
The Larger Picture
Restated, the two major landscape influences are (1) land-use intensity and (2)
topography. At the lower end of the spectrum are situations where the do-less-harm
version of agroecology is inescapable. These are very intense landscapes where
plots, each with different owners, directly border each other (as in Photo 9.3).
With little opportunity for more biodiverse approaches and with little flexibility
for major agreement among the various land users, the do-less-harm version may be
the best obtainable.
This situation is further cemented in place if the land users or owners are at a
subsistence level and have less margin for change. The best opportunity may be to
introduce cost-saving agroecology.
Mountainous landscapes with high population densities almost always feature
terraces. The only exception is where soils are not erosion prone.
At the opposite end of this continuum, one often finds nomadic, slash-and-burn
with low-intensity site agriculture. Low-intensity sites, irrespective of the topogra-
phy, can easily accommodate bio-complexity. Correspondingly, the matrix approach
is better suited to medium-intensity flat lands or medium-intensity hillsides.
References
Sorribas, J., González, S., Domingues-Gento, A., & Vercher, R. (2016). Abundance, movement
and biodiversity of flying predator insects in crop and non-crop agroecosystems. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 36(2), 34.
Chapter 10
Advanced Economics
Contents
Agroecological Intensity 156
Surplus Ecology 157
Opportunity Costs 157
Eco-Services 157
Trade-Offs 158
Orientation Restated 159
The Upper Bound 160
The Lower Bound 161
The Practical Range 161
Optimization 162
Deviations from the Norm 162
Trade-Offs 164
Design and the Agrotechologies 166
Returns Within the Landscape 167
Commercial Farms 167
Subsistence Farms 168
Eco-Service Universality 168
Eco-Service Realism 168
Hybrid Farms 169
Conventional Agriculture with Agroecological Overtones 170
References 171
As previously stated, one aspect of economic orientation lies in formulating crop

mixes such that natural means (eco-services) substitute for costly inputs. In review,
inputs can be the essential nutrients in the form of fertilizers.
Inputs are also threat-countering insecticides, herbicides, etc. Natural inputs,
e.g., manures, introduced predator insects, etc., are not strictly a natural means but
are generally environmentally superior alternatives. These substitute for the afore-
mentioned chemically based inputs. Labor is also an input.
Except for the latter, debate swirls around the relative merits of the different
inputs. This blurs discourse. Some are to be discouraged, some are OK for limited
application, and still others are broadly acceptable. For this deeper look, readers can
interpret the discussion accordingly.

156 10 Advanced Economics
In agroecology, natural means are the gold standard. Examples are when rota-
tions reduce fertilizer needs or where greater biodiversity eliminates weeding. The
proviso is to incur no, or a slight, yield loss when this shift occurs. As always, the
ideal has high yields coupled with reduced costs.
Through its various manifestations, economic orientation has profound implica-
tions across the economic spectrum. For many, the first step is to recognize cost
orientation as valid strategy, one that benefits a large swath of farmers throughout
the world. Seemingly obvious, this is not always the case.
Agroecological Intensity
In Chap. 3, the agroecological matrix shows how threats are answered. In concept,
the matrix can be utilized to design or formulate ideal agroecosystems. In practice,
farmers most often copy what their neighbors have done. Subject to continual
improvement, these have evolved into the standard or set agrotechnologies (as
described in Chaps. 4, 5, and 6).
In the last section in Chap. 3, the matrix has a nobler purpose. It measures both
agroecological efficiency and intensity. This is the depth and breadth of the ecology
that can economically underwrite an agroecosystem. This can be qualitatively or
quantitatively expressed.
As with the other matrix examples presented, Table 10.1 shows agroecological
intensity, i.e., amount of ecology in the targeted plot. The upper matrix, i.e., the first
four columns, employs natural threat counters and ranks high in intensity. Here
about 60% of the matrix cells are active.
In contrast, the lower matrix in Table 10.1, with one-threat, one-counter inputs,
only 33% of the cells are active. With a larger matrix, this would be reduced.
Under the assumption that the ecology (a) is omnipresent (spans all or many
threats), (b) is free or at a low cost, and (c) is potent enough to serve the intended
functions, this is one perspective on cost orientation. It also kicks off those argu-
ments that expand the cost concept.
Table 10.1 A brief, but ecologically intense, quantified matrix. This is a continuation of the
example modeled in Chap. 3
Base agrosystem Farm practice Fallow Landscape Line total
Insects 0.40 0.06 – 0.70 = 1.16
Soil fertility – 0.10 0.90 – = 1.0
Weeds 0.40 0.20 0.50 – = 1.10
Fertilizers Insecticides Hand weeding
Insects – 1.0 –
Soil fertility 1.0 – –
Weeds – – 1.0
Opportunity Costs 157
Surplus Ecology
There are other analytical possibilities associated with an intense, quantified matrix.
This occurs when the values of the individual lines exceed a threshold or required
value.
When lines and cells are graded on 0–100% scale, summed values of 80–100%
usually indicate that there is enough active ecology to handle the threat in question.
It is feasible that, with a dense, intense matrix, the summed lines more than exceed
the desired threshold values.
Totals above the threshold do no harm. In upper Table 10.1, all the lines meet or
exceed threshold values. There are advantages. Surplus ecology might confer resil-
ience from an unexpected and unwanted event, e.g., a mild to severe insect
outbreak.
In addition to indicating a well-protected agroecosystem, the excess totals repre-
sent surplus, underused ecology, along with flexibility for some design changes. If
design changes are in order, they should be done without harming or weakening the
eco-services for the targeted plot(s). As an unstated cost, the surplus ecology might
represent a forgone opportunity.
Opportunity Costs
Overall, opportunity costs often involve investment money. An example would be

an investment where, if one puts the money where it yields a 4% return, while a
second investment yields 10%, the opportunity cost is 6%.
In agroecology, the basic notion is to employ low-cost, nature-supplied eco-
services to replace monetary inputs. Farmers can then seek investment opportunities
for the money saved. With all else held equal, conventional agriculture, in not using
cost-saving eco-services, represents lost opportunities. There are additional facets
to this complex topic.
Eco-Services
Through the proceeding chapters, the relatively low cost of established and func-
tioning eco-services versus the higher costs of inputs is considered a selling point.
For many, this is true. There are caveats.
The use of natural corridors to bisect large plots is generally an ecological plus.
In review, these help restock areas with predator insects and in-soil microorganisms.
Value wise, they also help contain the spread of pathogens, promote water infiltra-
tion, and help limit erosion.
They also represent a lost cropping opportunities. Corridors take space that could
be used to grow crops. Where utilized, the value of the corridors by way of the eco-
services provided should exceed the harvest value of the cropping area lost.
Not all eco-services represent a forgone opportunity. Cover crops have a direct
cost, i.e., at some point, they must be planted and, to a lesser degree, managed.
These are direct expenses. As for weed control, the benefits can be calculated and
compared against the other weed control options (for more discussion on the latter,
see Weed Control).
Being multipurpose, the other eco-roles are often less apparent. Through
improved pollination, improved in-soil nutrient balance, and in other less observed
gains, cover crops can be undervalued as an investment opportunity. This should be
looked at to determine the net overall benefit of a cover crop.
Trade-Offs
For large corporate farms, opportunity is a cash-demarcated activity, i.e., all inputs
are prorated in monetary units. For small- to medium-sized farms, cash, as well as
land and labor, can be invested. There can be a distinction between money, labor,
and land and inconsistencies in trying to harmonize these.
Photo 10.1 A situation where a farmer has forgone active cropping but instead used the land for
lower-cost grazing
Photo 10.2 A case where a farmer has surrounded a pasture with a wide row of trees. In this semi-
intercrop, the tree serves as a boundary and a source of future income. This unique design may
represent economic indecision on the farmers part. This photo is from northern Kenya
This leads to a myriad of opportunity-based decisions. For example, as local

economy expands and employment becomes available, a farmer can forgo labor-
intensive cropping; convert their land to less labor-consuming, grazed pasture (rais-
ing goats or cattle); and take an outside job.
The door is always open for a return to active cropping. As a labor-/cash-based
decision, this is not an uncommon case (Photo 10.1).
Very cost-orientated, wood-producing plantations are a less labor-demanding
alternative. These are also a form of saving where the initial investment is rewarded
at some far future date. The growth rate of the trees is the interest earned. The
opportunities for an annual return are reduced although agroforestry can rectify this.
Photo 10.2 shows both options, the raising of wood-producing trees coupled with
a pasture. In this example, the cropping option, although greatly reduced, is still open.
Orientation Restated
Throughout this text, the concept of economic orientation has been developed. This
starts with the core elements, proceeds on through the agrotechnologies, and was
touched upon with discussions of risk and of the landscape.
Chapter 2 defines agroecosystem-based economic orientation as the RVT minus

the CER (i.e., RVT – CER) (for variations on this measure, see Economic
Orientation). For such a pivotal concept, this is a rather crude gauge.
Keeping with the notion that orientation is monetarily demarcated, the two forms
of orientation can be viewed in relation to upper and lower bounds. These constitute
an economically feasible range (as in Fig. 10.1).
The Upper Bound
With revenue orientation, resources, e.g., plant nutrients, are applied until the cost
of adding an additional unit exceeds the value of the yield increase attained. In other
words, when the value of the yield increase is less than the cost of the additional unit
of any resource applied, no more is added.
Mathematically expressed, the calculation involves the first derivative of a sig-
moid production function (R’). The equation is
max ( y R ’) = n
where y is the selling price of the yield and n is the purchase value of, e.g., the nitro-
gen applied. This resource is added as long as the above holds. Once this becomes
equal to (=), no more of the resource is allotted. In addition to nitrogen or some
other essential nutrients, this can include labor.
This can also be approximated using another approach. Input maximization is
the point of highest profit (revenue minus cost) or where yield, divided by inputs
applied, peaks. Labeled as the upper bound, this point on the sigmoid function is
shown in Fig. 10.1.
Fig. 10.1 A sigmoid Yield

production curve showing Yield gap
classic range for the
application of monetarily upper
demarcated inputs. Both bound
the upper and lower
bounds, as textually
described, are shown lower
bound
Inputs (or their costs)

In all cases, there is more than a single nutrient involved. Even in a multi-input
environment, the notion of reaching the upper level on the curve would be true as
long as it is inclusive with all applicable inputs/essential resources.
For large corporate farms, this analysis underwrites thinking. Inputs are bulk
purchased at a comparatively low cost and precision (or over) applied. The analysis
is confined within a single season with little regard to any environmental issues.
On small or medium farms, reliance on the above equation lessens. Dosing is less
certain. Farmers may overapply in the hope that any remaining in-soil nutrients will
be of benefit to (a) subsequent rotations, (b) to animals eating upcoming fallow
vegetation, or (c) to fruit- or wood-producing trees that can border a plot.
The Lower Bound
There is another perspective, that of lower bound. For this, farmers apply one nutri-
ent until the additional amount added gives less in terms of a yield increase than the
previous unit. The corresponding equation involves the second derivative (R‘’). For
this, the resource under consideration is applied until
R‘’ = 0
In mathematical terms, this is the inflection point on a resource response curve.

This is also illustrated in Fig. 10.1.
Below this point, it would be better not to plant the crop in question. Instead, one
should look for a more cost-oriented, resource-miserly, land-use alternative, e.g.,
the aforementioned grazing.
The Practical Range
The upper and lower bounds represent a feasible range. By definition, the applica-
tion of inputs, in order to operate at or near the upper bound, is a revenue orienta-
tion. With this analysis, the intent is to maximize profit.
High yields can also be an objective of cost orientation, only the relationship
between high yields and profits is circumspect. The difference is that yields come,
by way of eco-services, at a hopefully low cost. Some yield and revenue may be
sacrificed in the quest for higher profits.
In an already mentioned example, natural vegetation in cross-plot corridors takes
land from production. In another, rotations involve the seasonal growing of a less
valuable crop with the goal of improved soil quality. Fallows do likewise.
With decreased yields, the revenue lost should be less than the cost saving
attained. This has the net effect of putting yields lower down within the feasible
range.
This restatement is the essence of cost orientation. Again, the intent is to maxi-
mize profits.
Optimization
Points on the upper bound, if well represented, optimize inputs for a single variable.
This is all good for inputs, slightly problematic for the eco-services.
Inputs are monetarily defined while the eco-services are often cash invisible.
Acceptable accounting and acceptable comparisons are usually made with a
monetary-based comparison, i.e., converting the eco-services into monetary units.
This is fairly direct for essential resources, e.g., substituting manures for fertil-
izers. On a number of fronts, this type of comparison does always produce an exact
match. For example, to sustain predator-prey dynamics, there is the needed for cor-
ridors, cover crops, and those residential populations of herbivore insects that keep
the predator types happy and at the ready.
The similar variables are in play with the other eco-services. Comparison is now
one counter against multiple threats or vis-á-vis.
Optimization requires a matrix approach. Optimization is almost always based
on profitability. The only exception may be the use of an advanced ratio, e.g., RVT-
adjusted CER (not previously presented, for more, see Cost Equivalent Ratio). The
latter would provide greater insight into economic orientation.
Deviations from the Norm
Just when things seem easy, exceptions intrude. The relationship between conven-
tional, revenue-orientated agriculture and cost-positioned agroecology has, through
the feasible range, been conceptually demonstrated. Most of agriculture and agro-
ecology fall within the established range and would be optimized accordingly.
Strong as this is, there are situations where infield or social practicalities inter-
cede. This produces deviations from the expected.
In the four situations exampled below, the first has yield-trumping profits. The
latter three are of farms clinging to a poorly fitting, conventional agricultural model.
A better fit may lie with purely cost-oriented agroecology.
Exceeding the Upper Bound
This is a perspective in conventional farming that farmers should strive for maxi-
mum per area output. In Fig. 10.1, this would be the highest point on the yield
curve. The yield gap is the difference between the maximum possible yield and
the profit-maximizing upper bound.
From a feed-the-world prospective, the yield gap was once used to demonstrate
the superiority of conventional agriculture over the natural alternatives. This argu-
ment has abated as, for many organic crops, the yield gap has disappeared.
More importantly, profit, sustainability, etc., not yields alone, should measure
farm success. This brings forth the negative aspect of the yield gap. As in Fig. 10.1,
it essentially wastes inputs. Notwithstanding, the concept persists.
Some of this stems from the notion that agriculture is a macroeconomic activity
and that the greatest macro-benefits occur with extreme revenue orientation, i.e.,
very high inputs leading to very high yields. In wanting strong economic activity
in the agriculturally supporting community (ex-farm purchases and sales includ-
ing more tax revenue), ag suppliers and government may seek to reinforce the
yield gap.
These are a few situations where extreme revenue orientation is possible and can
occur without a reduction in per area profit. When fertilizers and agrochemicals are
cheap and rainfall is adequate or irrigation water comes at a low cost, the gap
between the upper-bound and maximum attainable yield may be small. A small
yield gap can be commonplace when governmental polices and/or government-
subsidized fertilizers, as mentioned above, influence large commercial farms.
This can also occur outside of government influence. A small yield gap also can
be blamed on not having yield response data, with untested soils, or when farmers
believe that more is better.
The latter can be the case with insecticides. Frequently, small yield gaps are
found with market gardens or with paddy rice cultivation.
Generally, farmers wish to maximize their per plot/per farm profits. Exceeding
the upper bound is not the best way to achieve this (for a brief summary, see Yield
Gap Analysis).
Low-Set Upper Bounds
There are cases where lower than expected yields and the abundance of near- or in-
plot biodiversity may appear as cost orientation. This might not be correct.
Fertilizers, seemingly cheap, can be expensive when small farms, those in remote
areas, buy in small quantities. A day can be spent in a long journey, at times by
public transport, to a large town. Once the purchase is made, transportation back
must be arranged. Given the cost, these farms are essentially revenue orientated, but
they are operating at a very low-set upper bound.
Labor is also a limitation. If outside employment becomes available, farmers
might abandon the goal of maximizing plot yield or profit and be contented with an
outcome closer to the lower bound.
Soil Uncertainty
Soil sustainability is usually inclusive in time-tested agriculture. This occurs when

tradition farms grow tradition crops using traditional practices.
When these same farmers begin to chase high valued but untried and untested
crops, soils can get out of balance. Without testing, this can result in too much or too
little fertilizer.
There is support for this. In a study of small, East Africa farms, approximately
one half of the plots studied were not fully responsive to nitrogen fertilizer (Kihara
et al. 2016).
Family Farms
In conventional, business-based, agricultural economics, inputs are applied until the

upper bound is reached. The resulting profit, if any, provides family income.
For this, the farm is viewed as a business entity where the agronomic decisions
are separate from those of the household. There is also the family farm where the
family is inclusive in the agronomic decision/investment process.
Instead of a less-certain, on-farm cropping investment, the social benefits of
clothes, school fees, household necessities, medical costs, and a host of other
required expenses can judgmentally outweigh the worth obtained in trying to reach
high-set upper-bound yields.
In essence, socio-benefits are factored into cropping decisions. Any yield gain is
balanced against family needs. Re-expressed, the profit from trying to squeeze out
an additional unit of yield is so small that the money is judged as being better spent
within the household, more so if poor rainfall can curtail otherwise higher-set,
input-dependent yields.
Another justification is the expected profit from cropping. If a profit is less than
certain, it may serve the family better to take some of the pre-investment cash and
not risk an economic loss that results in having no family income.
Again, this could be revenue orientation but with a low-set upper bound. This
might be best viewed from a cost-orientation perspective. This also reinforces the
risk aversion strategy (Chap. 8) where investing less in a crop means more profit, or
less loss, when selling prices plunge or the weather is less favorable than expected.
Trade-Offs
Despite the above-described deviations from the expected norm, there is no question
that farmers desire high yields. If they do not have the money, they will move down-
ward toward the lower bound. Rather than have yields drop too low, they will begin
the process of substituting land and labor for monetary expenditures. This is done
either through a change in agrotechnologies or through modifications on the exist-

ing, in-use agrosystem.
To this point, it is assumed that eco-services and/or essential resource inputs fol-
low a sigmoid form. This is a strong assumption. This may not be the case when
dealing with money, land, and labor.
A Reanalysis
This analysis begins by reemploying the example presented at the end of Chap. 3.
This is from the Sahel of West Africa and involved a four-phase cropping system.
Following a (1) long, multi-year fallow, farmers plant a (2) sorghum/cassava/
yam intercrop (3) seasonally followed by maize and (4) then soybean. The single
plot modeled is rectangular and small (≈ 0.5 ha), surrounded by fallows from previ-
ous plantings. The analysis looked primarily at the first year and, as threats, at fertil-
ity, insects, and weeds.
In Chap. 3, the analysis is phrased in monetary terms. This follows convention.
When no cash changes hands, e.g., labor employed, this is pure subsistence agri-
culture. Decisions are entirely labor based.
Within a family farm, labor is internal but limited. Also, the various tasks must
fit within what can be accomplished within daily restrictions. With the family farm,
daily labor, monetarily evaluated, is “free” or at a low “cost.” This is not so if a labor
and cash evaluation substitutes for cash analysis.
Labor-based or labor/cash analysis is occasionally found, e.g., Armengot et al.
(2016). In practice, this can be messy if the basis of comparison, outside wage-
earning opportunities, is not equivalent, e.g., they may be based on busy harvest
time, not off-season rates.
For this example, the labor-guided results place a high reliance on the long-term
fallow. As in Table 10.1, this did much to keep the soil fertile while controlling
weeds and insects. As this system also carries the assumption that land is “free,” the
fallow has few associated “costs.”
The major input is the preplanting land clearance. A long fallow, with more
woody shrubs, may be easier to clear. The larger difference lies with strength of the
eco-services provided, i.e., shortening the fallow to only 1 or a few years could seri-
ously affect yields.
This cost-oriented system has yields that exceed a normal, monoculturally stated,
upper bound (LER ≈ 1.8). Under a monetary-based analysis, this represents an ideal
where profits are maximized through very high yields and no cash outlays.
With a highly judgmental, labor-based evaluation, the “costs” are higher, but it is
still approximated as being “profitable.” Where full-time, wage-earning possibilities
exist, the comparison can be made between the value of the crop in labor terms and
opportunities in receiving wages and purchasing food.
There are questions as to opportunity costs for the land. Because of shifting cul-
tivation, only about 10% to 20% of the total designated land area is under direct
cultivation. The remainder is in fallow. Besides some minor grazing, the land might
be considered as being underused.
At some future date, it might not be possible to employ a long fallow. Rather than
risk crossing the lower bound, the land user may seek an agrotechnology that is less
land based. This could be an agrotechnology such as alley cropping.
Mixed Analysis
Hedgerow alley systems are designed for situations where the lack of land and
money puts a greater emphasis on labor. This is principally through seasonal hedge
pruning, and the resulting yield increases from utilizing the nutrient-rich hedge foli-
age. Monetarily expressed, this would be cost orientation as hedge foliage replaces
expensive fertilizers. In labor terms, this involves boosting yields by adding more of
an input.
These two agrotechnologies, (1) the fallow-fortified intercropping and (2) hedge-
row alley cropping, intersect. The intersection occurs when land is no longer avail-
able for any meaningful fallow.
Both systems most likely max out the available labor. The difference is that the
generous use of land, by way of the long fallow, allows for first-year, stellar yields.
In absolute terms, alley cropping yields would be less.
The switch from fallow-fortified intercropping to hedgerow alley cropping is a
large jump. Within the continuum that is agroecology, there are at-the-intersection,
midpoint options.
Design and the Agrotechologies
In this text, the agrotechnologies have been positioned, not as distinct points but as
segments or regions within large N-dimensional continuum. This means that one
agrotechnology can transform into another as the design parameters change.
This is reflected in Fig. 10.2 where four agrotechnologies are positioned based
on their relative use of land and labor. Land is the area, directly planted or in an
upcoming fallow, that is needed to sustain productivity over time. The two are the
abovementioned hedgerow alley cropping and the fallow-sustained intercrop.
The third is a natural pasture. If sustainably stocked, these can be in daily use and
therefore would be land efficient. Because these are ecologically rich, complex
agroecosystems, they are labor efficient.
The fourth system is a monoculture. If the standard LER equation is reformu-
lated for land and labor, by definition, the monoculture values are in unity.
Within this continuum, there would be midpoint options. As in Fig. 10.2, if land
becomes scarce, a shortened fallow will reduce yields. This is a move toward the
yield-defined lower bound. To slow this progression, the land user will seek options.
These would add to labor usage, but there might be alternatives that are more
miserly with regard to land inputs. Foremost might be a duration-shortening, planted
fallow (for more, see Fallows).
Returns Within the Landscape 167
Fig. 10.2 Three high

agrotechnologies, (1) alley alley
cropping, (2) pastures cropping
(natural), and (3) a
fallow-based intercrop, and
their relationship with land
and labor orientation. The Labor 1.0 monoculture
monoculture, by definition,
is the mid-base. The 1.0
values exist using
ratio-based comparisons fallow-intensive
pastures
similar to an LER-derived cropping
ratio
low 1.0 high
Land
There could be more agreeable alternatives. Possible are the tree-over-crop

designs. These keep trees in place, but they are cut to ground level when crops are
planted. The tree regrows and is recut for each seasonal planting.
Since one of the crops in the fallow system is a tuber (yam), a design accommo-
dation might be wider intra-tree spacing (for more, see Tree-Over-Crop
Agroecosystems). The point being made is to go beyond monetary-based analysis
and look at labor and land as inputs (for a summary of this topic, see Change or, for
a far deeper look, see Diagnosis and Design).
Returns Within the Landscape
This discussion employs the concept of farm-wide economic orientation introduced

in Chap. 9. This is the dichotomy between revenue-oriented, cash-based commer-
cial farms and cost-oriented, labor-based subsistence farms.
Commercial Farms
As stated, large corporate farms are entirely monetarily evaluated. Under a conventional
agricultural approach, sustainability and environmental issues are costs that, if addressed,
reduce profits. Commercially oriented family farms often have the same outlook.
There is also a desire to maximize profits across the entire landscape. This is
often done with a single crop. This is agronomically and economically doable as
these farms tend to operate within topographically uniform landscapes. If not, envi-
ronmental problems, e.g., erosion, might follow.
Corporate farms want the same rate of return for each plot. This insures optimi-
zation returns with regard to the inputs expended. For this, inputs follow the upper-
bound equation where
(y R ) = (y R ) = (y R )
’
1
’
2
’
3
For this, plots 1, 2, and 3 are mono-cropped with the same species (valued at y).
For each plot, the marginal gains, cash-defined, will equate.
This would be true if there are different crops on each plot. However, in figuring
in the knowledge required and machinery needed to farm multiple species, this can
encourage single-species mono-crops on very large commercial farms.
Subsistence Farms
At the other end of the spectrum, subsistence farmers may want certain yield levels
for familial consumption. They may want to sell the surplus at a profit. This is best
with reduced risk. For small- or medium-sized family farms, subsistence farms
included, sustainability and environmental issues impact the welfare of the family.
These can rank high on the list of concerns.
Although both commercial and subsistence farms share the goals of maximizing
returns across the full landscape, the returns from subsistence farms come in many
forms, e.g., crops, fruit trees, firewood, etc. Evaluation can be monetary, land, and/
or labor based. As a result, they do not always have an agro-scape that is economi-
cally uniform.
Eco-Service Universality
The impression given is one where revenue orientation is the domain of the large,
profit-driven farms, whereas cost orientation is exclusive to subsistence or family
farm agriculture. Although far from the case, motives do play part.
A clearer analytical picture emerges when profit-driven, commercial farms
embrace analytic and cropping simplicity. The need to attract investors is one of the
many reasons for the dominance of the spray-and-forget mind-set.
Subsistence agriculture cannot exist in this oversimplified world. When yields
must happen and high selling prices are far from assured, a diversity of outputs and
low costs of production become a risk-reducing necessity.
Eco-Service Realism
Starting with the general rules regarding the use of eco-services, i.e.:
Eco-Service Realism 169

3. Use multiple counters to attack a single threat
There is a presumption that plots and farms can exist entirely dependent on eco-
services. Agroecology-alone systems exist but tend to be undocumented and less
noticed. The fallow followed by a sorghum/cassava/yam intercrop, as featured in
Chap. 3 and reused in this chapter, is a case in point.
Those advocating for agroecology would want to go down this road as far as pos-
sible. Although doable in theory, economically and practically one would expect to
see more of a mix of natural dynamics and outside inputs. With the goal of high
yields at a low costs, hybrid situations are quite feasible.
Hybrid Farms
It is common to have farms containing a mix of revenue and cost-oriented plots.

These operate in the overlap between conventional agriculture and agroecology.
These mixes tend to be associated with smaller family farms. These can be sub-
stance or near subsistence and rely on both chemical and natural means.
There are situations where, for large, single crop/single plot commercial enter-
prises, environmental improvements are needed or mandated. It can be argued that this
mix, agroecology with some inputs, is an endpoint manifestation of agroecology.
Where gains need to be made are with the large commercial enterprises, those
that have very extensive, single-species plantings. In converting these to a more eco-
service-based form, the first task would be to subdivide the very large plots, plant
more than one crop, and rotate the plot contents. This might not be a favored
solution.
Keeping with a one plot model, it is possible to have a few, or a majority, of the
threats eco-countered, whereas, e.g., rotationally gained soil fertility might be aug-
mented with a purchased fertilizer. Irrigation might also be inclusive in this
picture.
Since insecticide control with chemicals is mostly an either-or situation, the
alternative might involve replacing chemicals with introduced predators. The next
section discusses an alternative when this is not possible.
The stress here is on argumentation. Those eco-services that, e.g., restore soil
fertility and water, are still in place and still functioning. The inputs only allow the
upper bound to be reached. The mix of eco-services and inputs helps contain costs.
When a mix is employed, one starts with the lowest-cost approach augmented,
where necessary, with the more costly inputs. These mixes can be fully accounted
for through matrix analysis (as in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, pages 48 and 49).
Conventional Agriculture with Agroecological Overtones
Less mentioned in this text is input-based, revenue-oriented agroecology. Again,

these reside in the overlap between conventional agriculture and agroecology.
In regions where small plots abut, chemical use is universal and spillover con-
stant; some of the eco-services, especially those involving with predator-prey
insects, are not feasible. Under these circumstances, it may be better to pull together
a viable eco-matrix containing other forms of cost control. The alternative is to keep
conventional farming but go further along the revenue-oriented road.
Photo 10.3 shows an apple orchard where an increase in yield or price is needed
to stave off bankruptcy. Because of high chemical use of the nearby plots, going
organic is not possible.
Given the already high level of inputs, the farm can exploit the gains from com-
petitive partitioning. Options include widely spaced walnuts or pecans high atop the
apple trees, grapes grown on the trees, and/or seasonal crops raised below and
between the trees. Placing the emphasis on the “and,” one might expect an LER
value of approximately 2.5 (for more, see Competitive Partitioning).
Photo 10.3 An apple orchard in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon. The surrounding farms, with their
high chemical use, make it difficult to fully exploit eco-services and cost-based agroecology. The
amount of open ground represents an inefficiency that lends the system toward greater revenue
orientation through multiple outputs
References 171
This requires some planning. Following the recommendations previously dis-

cussed, the overstory trees would be widely spaced. The understory crops would be
in north-south-oriented rows where two adjacent rows are planted and the third is a
service row. Also, the crops must be harvested before the apples and grapes mature.
In the Bekaa Valley, where proposed, this would not be a complete step into
unfamiliar territory. Grapes raised directly on apple were once commonplace, but
no longer employed.
Productive biodiversity, sans most eco-services, may not be universally applica-
ble. However, it has advantages and it can find use.
The potential gains lie along previously-stated lines. One assumption is that
there are cost saving to be had. Costs, higher on a per-area basis, are lower when
evaluated per-unit-of-output. An example is the labor employed in weed control
(this being a shared cost where the weeding of one crop weeds all).
Biodiversity could help mitigate some natural threats. Restated, if one crop fails,
others might yield. This is normally a counter where the potential of a severe insect
and/or disease attack exists. With chemical counters, these attacks may be less a
concern. The ability to sell one or more crops from co-raised outputs is still a hedge
against low market prices for the primary crop.
As a form of intercropping, the overriding advantage is the high per-area produc-
tivity (LER stated). As demonstrated in this text, this leads to some distinct use
applications. These are where cultivatable land is scarce and expensive and/or where
there are large, demanding, nearby markets.
Agroecology based on external inputs and multiple, per-area outputs would need
to be, for any one site, analyzed in detail. Under the right circumstances, this could
be an end-point manifestation of agroecology.
The hope is that revenue-oriented agroecology could bring forth biodiversity in
regions where the monoculture is king. Emulation could open the door for eco-services
and ultimately, less chemical-dependent farming. Where the inputs are safe, sustain-
able, and as near natural as possible (e.g, compost, organically-certified insecticides,
and introduced predator insects, etc.), biodiversity-based, revenue-orientated agroecol-
ogy would be an improved, end-point manifestation of agroecology.
References
Armengot, L., Barbieri, P., Andres, C., et al. (2016). Cacao agroforestry systems have higher return
on labor compared to full-sun monocultures. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36, 70.
Kihara, K., Nziguheba, G., Zingore, S., et al. (2016). Understanding variability in crop response
to fertilizer and amendments in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
229, 1–12.
Chapter 11
Macro-Challenges
Contents
Malthus, etc. 174
Population 176
Urbanization/Land Loss 176
Water 177
Energy 177
Diet 178
War 178
Freedom from Want 178
Sovereignty 178
Trade 180
Genetic Resources 180
Properties 181
Heirloom Varieties 181
New and Useful Species 182
Research Challenges 183
Theory 183
Quantitative Agroecology 184
Qualitative Agroecology 185
Decision/Game Theory 187
Acceptance Challenges 187
Guidelines 187
Pitfalls 188
References 189
The first chapter looks at some of the advantages to, and the many disadvantages
for, the monoculture-based, green revolution model. The premise in this text is that
agroecology has the ability to duplicate the advantages, i.e., mainly high yields, and
surmount the disadvantages.
The propensity of conventional agriculture to cause problems is indicative of an
almost non-existent, social and environmental outlook. In support of this statement,
one need only look at the vast tonnage of agrochemical released into the environ-
ment every year. The justification is that these are part of a grand, and unstated,
compromise where humans accept some impingement on their heath in exchange
for food. Hopefully, this text has dispelled this fallacy.

174 11 Macro-Challenges
Although the drawbacks of the monoculture can be overcome, these are not the
only challenges. They go beyond the need for food, fuel, and fiber. Larger problems
and issues, either solvable or not, should be looked at from an agroecological per-
spective. This is an agroecology that surpasses the many definitions presented and
acquires social and environmental dimensions.
Justifications stem from the notion that agroecology is seamlessly tied to ecol-
ogy. From this, there is an inherent deference for nature and the environment. By
extension, there is also a responsibility for promoting health and happiness of
human populations.
For some, agroecology has strong philosophical or political dimensions. For oth-
ers, this might be a step too far.
Keeping with safe bounds, the need for food and fiber, as well as clean water and
air, is well within the operational parameters. Producing food for healthy living falls
within an expanded agroecology. Sustainability, producing food far into the future,
is also an imperative.
Malthus, etc.
In the mid-1700s, Thomas Malthus expressed concern over the future. Addressing
the situation in Europe, he worried that increased food production was a linear func-
tion (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), whereas population growth was geometric (1, 2, 4, 8, etc.).
Accordingly, population needs would eventually outstrip the ability to grow suffi-
cient food. This prediction turned out to be false, at least for the intervening time
period. A number of factors interceded to null his prediction.
Thomas Malthus lived at a time when agricultural progress was slow but begin-
ning to accelerate. For one, the development of the modern plow, rather than the far
less efficient Iron-Age ard, permitted farmers to till heavier bottomland soils.
With their tangled roots, improved steel plows also cut through grasses. This
increased the area that could be plowed in a single day.
The improved plow, the draining of swamps, and the cutting of forest lands put
greater areas into production. In some parts of Europe, migration and farm consoli-
dation, in reducing the number of rural houses and fence lines, also added more
cropland. At the same time, the new world offered previously unseen crops, notably
maize and potato. These added to and enhanced European yields.
There were other interceding factors. During this period, and for centuries after,
people migrated. Large numbers flowed from Europe to Australia, the Americas,
and other locations. This, along with traditional ways of reducing populations, i.e.,
war, famine, and disease, managed to keep the remaining people fed.
In contrast, the population of China continued to expand. With less migration,
the main population control, famine, was often accompanied by or caused by civil
strife or war.
Malthus, etc. 175
During the late 1800s, science began to have a larger impact and, in doing so, set
the stage for the current situation. With advances in the agricultural sciences, one
would not expect food shortages and starvation in the 21st century.
To a degree, this may be true. Science has taken on the task of providing, and
gains have resulted.
As climate change intercedes and various other trends begin to manifest, the ques-
tion is “can this continue apace.” The Malthusian prediction is occasionally men-
tioned, and, if populations significantly increase, it could still portend the future.
It should be noted that at-risk populations seldom walk off the edge. They are
pushed through an unfavorable event. This can be a civil upheaval. Most often it is
a weather/climate event. For this, drought would head the list. One would expect
that the uncertainties associated with climate change would increasingly trigger
food shortfalls.
There is the assumption that science can save the day by continuing to increase
per-area agricultural productivity. This trend, along with the underlying and overly-
ing assumptions, may be most damaging. The availability of abundant foods and
agricultural products has offered a sense of security.
The availability of plentiful food is a good thing, the perception of continued
abundance is not. There are a number of not-so-favorable trends.
Photo 11.1 Relative abundance, the harvesting and sorting of African eggplant
Population
The world has an estimated population of about 7.3 billion. Although there are prob-
lems at the margins, this is clearly within the current carrying capacity of the earth.
With more people, the future is less certain. This is because some countries/
regions may have exceeded or are nearing their carrying capacity. This is when the
population no longer has the ability to produce sufficient food.
Whether this is truly the case or, through the better allocation of land, water, and
other resources, the situation is reversible, high population growth does not help.
There are other, less-helpful factors.
Urbanization/Land Loss
In discussing the outputs of grain, Brown (2005) mentions the Japan syndrome.
From 1955 onward, the land area devoted to grain production halved. Japan went
from self-sufficiency in grain to importing 70% of that used. Mainly responsible
was the change from a mostly rural society to one that is urban based.
This trend is not isolated to Japan. As examples, the capital cities in most devel-
oping countries are beset by urban sprawl of great proportion. This continues as
many forgo the country and seek urban opportunities.
As populations grow, more land is taken by housing, roads, parks, schools, shops,
and other buildings. This often is not confined to the less valuable agricultural lands.
Prime farms and farmland are often sold for development. The worst case is where
land is lost and is no longer capable of supporting agriculture.
In the Japanese example, not all of the lost grain capacity is attributed to the
conversion of rural lands to urban landscapes. An increased standard of living pro-
duced a dietary shift. Agriculture lands are still in production, but farmers, as
expected, have sought higher returns by raising those vegetables and fruits that pro-
vide greater income. Still, as land is lost to agriculture, there are questions on
self-sufficiency.
This type of change is not unique to Japan; China has been fast following this
lead. To a greater or lesser extent, the loss of an agriculture base is happening in
other countries.
In a few countries, the situation has worsened, less through land lost, more through
population growth. This has caused a few countries to place less faith in local produc-
tion and to lease land to large multinational corporations or other countries. As briefly
mentioned in Chap. 1, there are examples from different parts of the world.
This is not a new trend. Well over a century ago, the emphasis was on rubber
plantations. Nowadays, multinational corporations raise a variety of crops, oil palms
are just one of many.
Malthus, etc. 177
The newer trend is one country leasing land from another. The leasing country
may anticipate that these leased areas will produce, for their homeland, guaranteed
food at below market prices. There are issues on the horizon.
The situation can aggravate if locals are purchasing food at high prices, while
food, grown locally, is sold to a foreign country at a lower price. These land-lease
arrangements will surely fail if locals face shortage or starvation while food exports
continue.
Water
With urbanization, thirsty people trump thirsty crops. This means that water, when
in short supply, is often diverted from agriculture to people and industry. The eco-
nomics are secure, and people and cities have greater income and can bid more for
the water.
In some regions, wastewater flows to agriculture. This water, often very rich in
contaminates, must be cleansed. As climate change and drying have occurred,
wastewater has become an increasingly valuable commodity.
Some populations have been forced to purify and recycle wastewater for urban
consumption. The desalinization of seawater is also becoming more common. In
both cases, the water is destined for people, not agriculture. Some of this is a cost
decision.
There are other factors in this trend. Belowground water can be the primary
source for irrigation projects. As a resource, this can be finite, or the drawdown can
be greater than the rate of replenishment. In Saudi Arabia, it was found that a wheat-
growing program was using non-replenished groundwater at a non-sustainable rate.
This forced termination of the program.
For those with non, or slowly, replenishable water, there is a need to live within
ones means.
Energy
Much of modern, commercial, large-scale agriculture rests on the assumed avail-

ability of cheap fossil fuels. The ability to transport inputs and outputs to vast dis-
tance is part of this reliance. Energy is employed in plowing, harvesting, and
spraying. There are also the chemicals employed, i.e., fertilizers, insecticides, and
the like. These are often petroleum derived. It is those same fossil fuels that increase
agricultural productivity and also increase global warming.
It is possible to grow biofuels. Agriculturally derived, these can be locally grown.
These are carbon neutral if they produce more energy than production consumes.
Biofuels are a regional, not a global, fuel solution.
Diet
The preponderance of ample, low-cost foodstuffs of one, or a few, varieties, has

profound effect. This is especially true in regard to high-calorie fats and sugars. In
parts of the world, a large percentage of the population is increasingly overweight
or obese. The connection to cheap, abundant, staple crops is not in dispute.
Some advocate fortifying staple crops to be more nutritious. A prime example is
vitamin A-fortified rice. The agroecological alternative is better.
Growing sweet potatoes, or some other high-vitamin A crop, in league with rice,
combines the advantages of agro-biodiversity with the hope of a better diet. The
biggest obstacle lies in selling the advantages, and the healthier produce, to the
consumer.
War
This is strange topic for a text on agroecology. Reasons for war include the fight for
resources, land and water being high on any list. There are countries where land is
critically short. The lowlands of Bangladesh and the highlands of Ethiopia (Photo
12.2, page 200) and Burundi are examples. The latter has already experienced trou-
bles; some fear this will continue (Keenan 2015).
In another example, Yemen must import food. The role this played in war break-
ing out can be debated. Certainly, it was the reason for the famine that resulted.
Freedom from Want
Some define human rights according to the four freedoms: freedom of speech, reli-
gion, from fear, and from want. Inclusive in the latter are more fundamental rights:
food, clothing, and shelter along with clean air and clean water.
The right to food is indisputable. The topics in this chapter show that, for some
regions and populations, there can be an uncertainty in food supplies. This topic can
be expanded to look at the ramifications of want.
Sovereignty
There is the concept that survival should not be at the whim of distant political
forces. The underlying concept is that food should be locally produced. This con-
cept, that of food sovereignty, might include those agriculture inputs, e.g., seeds,
fertilizers, etc., that allow local crops to yield.
Freedom from Want 179
With food sovereignty, food would still be imported, but the bulk would be
obtained locally. This is where agroecology comes to the fore. Sovereignty is easier
with self-sufficient agroecology. It is more difficult with input-necessitating con-
ventional agriculture.
There are a number of other aspects to sovereignty. Among the advantages, local
farms are good for the local economy. Area farmers and farmland should be sacro-
sanct, deserving of respect, where farmers are allowed to maintain their livelihood.
There are countering political forces. Cheap food for the masses has been a polit-
ical mantra going back in history. The Roman emperors kept the population of the
Rome quiet, and the mobs at bay, through bread and circuses. This required food
imports.
As a political strategy, this continues. There are countries that keep the cost of
local staples low by importing these grains. This can be done through high-valued
currencies which lower the cost of imports.
There are situations, not uncommon, where a national diet is not in sync with the
agricultural possibilities. In a few less developed countries, wheat is a staple
although it will not grow in these climates. It may be far better to encourage depen-
dence upon crops locally grown. There are plenty of grains that, although not a
perfect substitute, can be used.
These are wider gains to sovereignty. Having to think about local production,
leaders have to consider land, water, and other productive inputs.
Photo 11.2 An agricultural landscape showing rice for domestic consumption and banana for
export. (This photo is from the Dominican Republic)
Trade
Agricultural trade is important and many countries benefit. This can be in export
earnings and/or through the importation of exotic foodstuffs. Food sovereignty
may advocate for local production, but it should not eliminate trade (Burnett and
Murphy 2014).
The standard of living that many in the developed world enjoy derives, in part,
from having an availability of distance, delivered foods. Tropical and subtropical
fruits, e.g., pineapples and bananas, are a plus in the temperate world. Off-season
fruits also represent a gain in the standard of living. The occasional off-season fruit
or vegetable is one aspect, another being a reliance upon imported staples.
Countries should be self-sufficient or have the potential for self-sufficiency. An
example is the trade in bananas. For some recipient countries, this is a dietary main-
stay, but not indispensable. The farmers that rely on this export eat wheat which is
grown and exported from regions that import bananas.
The point to be made is that both benefit. If this trade were to disappear, enough
area is in cultivation that both are less at risk.
Genetic Resources
This book has mentioned GMO crops. This is a genetic resource. The unfortunate
aspect is that the green revolution model, with the dependence on high-input and
high-output GMO varieties, steers farms to revenue orientation and away from good
agroecology.
This is another large negativity. GMO varieties offer high yields, but, to attain
these, they require weed-free, near-perfect growing conditions. Local varieties have
evolved for local, more trying, conditions. These tend to yield better if there is a
shortfall in inputs or the weather is less than ideal.
Good agroecology can still benefit from problem-targeted GMO varieties. As a
best-used example, these can be a last ditch effort to combat a plant disease. This is
especially true when the disease is introduced into a susceptible population. If trees
are being attacked, there may be little time to find or breed a resistant species. The
shorter GMO path may be the best or the only viable solution.
These are other, often less-pressing, uses. These would be problem-targeted and
best if applied in concert with applicable eco-services.
Beyond the targeted uses of GM, there are genetic resources that nature provides.
Three forms are examined here. These are (1) species properties, (2) novel varieties,
and (3) new and useful plant species. Together, these represent underutilized
opportunities.
Genetic Resources 181
Properties
For most of the common crops, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of varieties.
Among these, there can be some with useful genetic properties. As is traditionally
done, these are crossbred into the mainstream to endow the common varieties with
improved attributes. These properties can range from disease and insect to salt and
drought resistance.
Photo 11.3 shows cotton boles. This is a natural, wild-found variety that could
contain desirable genetic properties lacking in the commercial types.
For this reason alone, underused and less-known varieties should be kept and
encouraged. The chief drawback is that desired properties are not often apparent
among the many known varieties. Considerable effort is required to hunt these out.
Heirloom Varieties
Genetic properties make way to the introduction of novel or heirloom varieties.

These go beyond the standard fare. They can offer resistance to threats, and they can
also be tastier, more nutritious, and be colorful and visually pleasing. This can be a
quality-of-life issue.
Photo 11.3 Cotton boles from a wild, perennial variety. (This photo was taken in western Senegal)
The common example is the tomato. Imported varieties are chosen because they
store and transport well. This is less a limitation with locally grown produce. If of a
heritage or past variety, these can come in different sizes, colors, and flavors (as in
Photo 11.4).
The varietal possibilities also apply to other common vegetables. For example,
carrots and potatoes come in variety of different colors, shapes, etc. Fruits can also
exemplify varietal difference.
New and Useful Species
The natural world contains a cornucopia of food-, fiber-, and fuel-yielding plants.
This goes beyond the narrow range of foods currently on offer and extends to the
undomesticated plants found only in nature. Worldwide, the number of wild, eatable
fruits alone may number in hundreds.
These potential foods represent a greatly underutilized resource. It is seldom as
easy as transplanting a single, wild-grown plant onto farms. Plants must be domes-
ticated or varieties found that are easily growable, harvestable, and marketable.
Seeking and/or crossbreeding a commercially interesting variety can be an involved
process.
The common banana is an early example where the transition to the current form
has been lost to history. In nature, propagation requires seeds. Each fruit contains
many hard seeds which make the fruit difficult to consume. Undoubtedly, an uniden-
Photo 11.4 The sale of heirloom tomato varieties. (The photo was taken in a US supermarket)
tified farmer in the distant past found a genetic oddity, a seedless banana. From this,
the modern fruit is disseminated.
This may seem easy, but finding the one desired fruit can be problematic. As was
once the case, farmers planted apple seeds in the hope of finding a potentially popu-
lar variety. As apple seeds are genetically erratic, this method for finding a superior
variety is a long-odds gamble.
Research Challenges
Given the severity and opportunity of the challenges and potentials outlined in this
chapter, the task ahead is great. It should be clear that, even with a streamlined,
detailed and lean version of agroecology, as presented in the previous chapters,
agroecology is complex. Taking into consideration the large array of Glossary top-
ics and what lies beyond, the complexity can be overwhelming.
Theory
In many ways, agroecology is at a disadvantage. Given the simplicity of the mono-

culture, the corresponding research needs are comparatively small. To say that the
research needs are comparatively small may seem a serious understatement.
Unfortunately, in comparison to agroecology, this is the case.
Saving the situation, agroecology offers shortcuts not found with conventional
agriculture. As the previous emphasized, one main difference between conventional
agriculture and agroecology is the theoretical underpinnings. If agroecology
required empiricism to progress, all would be lost.
This is not the case. Theory allows decisions to be made based upon rules, prin-
ciples, and in understanding the interplay of the many options and alternatives.
In Chap. 3, two matrix types are presented, (1) qualitative and (2) quantitative. In
the normal research process, field studies lead to roughly quantitative rendering,
often in the form of statistical comparisons. If carried further, this allows for more
precise mathematics, better equations, and a hope for improved decision-making.
For many, this is not needed. Strong and complete theory can be the basis for
good decisions sans equations.
This leads to two lines of attack. The first is quantitative and the basis for formal
research. The second is qualitative and is the principal basis for much on-farm
progress.
Quantitative Agroecology
In formal research, results convert to numbers. When used in statistical compari-

sons, they offer proof that one method or approach is better than another.
This is the mainstay of empirically based agriculture. These results are also
needed in agroecology.
As in agriculture, the numbers and equations, so wrought, can be compiled into
models. In their various forms, these are a valuable aid, both in understating and in
application.
Estimations
In Chap. 2, some theoretical-based, plant density configurations are presented. This

relates bicultural density and the planting ratio to LER (e.g., Fig. 2.2, page 22). An
extremely precise equation, although nice, is not needed. What is needed is a rough
approximation as to the best planting densities for two productive species.
This is based on complementarity. Interacting species that yield well in close
proximity should be closely planted. Those with less complementarity require more
interspace. Those that are competitive are generally not intercropped.
The planting ratio is generally a market decision. If more of one species are
desired, more of this species are planted. A trial planting would test the strength of
these assumptions.
Only briefly touched upon here, single-equation estimates exist throughout much
of agroecology. Taken together, these also lead to modeling.
Modeling
Predictive models are commonplace across all of agriculture and ecology. These are
developed for any number of reasons, e.g., they can foretell erosion given a soil
type, a slope, rainfall, ground cover, etc.
These special-purpose models play a role and help in understanding different
aspects of agronomic processes. More encompassing models can be equally
helpful.
A lot of research has been undertaken and study results abound. Rather than
many disparate and often unlinked conclusions, there are advantages in compiling
these into grand form. The bio-economic, predictive model would be at the apex of
this effort.
An agroecologically formulated, bio-economic model is departure from the pre-
dictive models of conventional agriculture. The latter focus on mono-yields, and
most predict through the interpolation of yield-based response studies. These would
be a composite of statistically derived data and are so classed.
To obtain a yield prediction, a user provides various inputs, e.g., soil type, tem-
peratures, rainfall, crop variety, etc., and yields prediction results. These can be
quite accurate if within their comfort ranges. If outside the targeted range, accuracy
can fall.
The basis of an agroecologically based, bio-economic model would be a depar-
ture on many fronts. With multiple outputs, the common denominator would be
LER, RVT, economic orientation, and/or risk. With the land, labor, and capital trad-
eoffs plus various cropping options, these would optimize in regard to the inputs.
This would require either mathematical programming or have iterative search
capacity.
This form of model, in this case one that is matrix based, is touched upon in
Chap. 3. Overall, development is wanting. The major stumbling block is the lack of
data.
In the scientific literature, summary articles or books are not uncommon, i.e.,
those that compile and summarize recent research findings on insect control, soil
and crops, etc. With the next step, i.e., modeling, in mind, the criterion for these
summaries should be the ability to flesh out one matrix line (for more on the above
discussion, see Modeling).
Qualitative Agroecology
This and the following section look at qualitative agroecology. This forgoes num-
bers and looks at relationships. Farmers almost exclusively use this. Foremost, it is
used to diagnose problems. The second step uses decision theory to find the best
solution.
Diagnostics
The use of diagnostics is not unique to agroecology. The difference lies in the scope
of the effort.
In mono-cropping, disease or insect problems, both above- and belowground,
front this effort. With biodiversity, these problems remain but are looked at through
an eco-service lens. These can be a relatively straightforward problem with one
elegant eco-solution or, once the main issue is identified, a matrix line with numer-
ous interacting counters. Complicating a resolution is whether or not the proposed
answer conforms to the desired economic orientation.
Drawing on one case seen and diagnosed, this is a case where pine trees, raised
in nurseries, were transplanted in a reforestation effort. Problems arose after
transplanting when nearby weeds overtopped the newly established seedlings (as
in Photo 11.5).
Photo 11.5 A pine

seedling overtopped by
weeds
In the nursery, the seedlings were raised in bags of soil. This nutrient-rich soil
was retained whole upon transplanting. The issue was that the weeds, now exposed
to a nutrient source, could outgrow the pines.
There are two solutions: (1) plant a bare-root seedling, or (2) retain the soil, but
grow the seedlings in a nitrogen-free soil mix. The latter relies on the ecology of
pines. This species can obtain nitrogen by way of mycorrhiza. If the soil is inocu-
lated with appropriate mycorrhiza, weed-on-tree competition should be reduced or
eliminated. This is where the ecology of the plant, in this case pines, led to a
solution.
Other diagnostic situations can be more involved. In the fallow case study devel-
oped in previous chapters, it was determined that the fallow was the key to high
yields and low costs. Should the long fallow become untenable, any solution should
try to keep the cost structure and the beneficial ecology.
Acceptance Challenges 187
Decision/Game Theory
The wide array of theories, concepts, rules, principles, practices, etc. open up
another avenue of development. This is decision/game theory. Using the theories,
concepts, etc. as starting points and as channeling guides, logic-based conclusions
can be reached.
These can be along many fronts and need not be minor. Although not overtly
stated, the management rules for complex agroecosystems were derived by way of
decision theory (Wojtkowski 1993).
In this case, the starting point, in terms of biodiversity, was known. The end goal,
a more efficiently managed bio-system, could be surmised. Logic alone determined
how these could be linked.
Decision/game theory has great potential for advancing agroecology. A strong
knowledge of the theories, rules, etc. would be a prerequisite. For an agroecology
predicated upon theory, this is currently underutilized (for more on this topic, with
examples, see Decision Theory).
Acceptance Challenges
Going further beyond the challenges and methods, there are often overriding ques-
tions of accepting agroecology or to keeping tried and true mono-cropping.
This leads to questions regarding acceptance.
Guidelines
Among farm populations, there is an impetus to keep, as near as possible, to the

current farm practice. Those that have grown up with intercropping are comfortable
with and understand intercropping. As a result, they are more willing to keep to this
path. For other farm groups, intercropping is a foreign concept, usually outside
consideration.
Avoiding large departures from the agricultural norms may be a requirement.
Where there is an unshakeable preference for a staple food crop, there may be little
leeway for change. This can be true even if the staple crop is destined for sale. The
reason is that farmers have acquired knowledge and specialized equipment. This
may also be true for those purchasing the crop.
This is less the case with non-staple foods and other marketable commodities. If
these are not perennial and if the profit margin, risk outlook, etc., are better, there
can be a willingness to change. Change will only come if new cropping and new
agrosystems lie within familiar parameters. Within this basic framework, there are
other conditions.
Economic orientation is a factor. A more precise rendering would look at land,

labor, and capital to determine which is the force for change. Either classic,
monetary-based orientation or an analysis of land, labor, and capital would guide
agrotechnological modification.
Complicated agroecosystems require time for the parameters of use to be
appraised. The net result is that change will be more often inclined toward
bio-simplicity.
Agroecology, as outlined in the proceeding chapters, is only part of the larger
picture. It is the details that can result in a favorable and beneficial shift in agro-
design, e.g., type of fallow, planting, pruning, plowing methods, etc. In order to
streamline the core-path presentation, these agro-details have been relegated to the
Glossary.
Pitfalls
Plenty can go wrong. This is more than illustrated by the number of failed agricul-
tural projects found in less developed countries.
Unfortunately, the rate and reasons for failure are not topics that the development
community wishes to dwell upon. As a result, the lessons are seldom disseminated.
A change of crop or crop variety is a comparatively easy choice. There are cave-
ats. The crop must represent a clear gain. This means better yields, less cost, and/or
less risk.
Mostly, this may be an income or survival-based decision. An income-generating
change is self-explanatory. For survival, farmers in land-short regions may seek
crops that furnish more calories per area. Examples are maize and potatoes in the
southern highlands of Ethiopia. These crops are gradually supplanting traditional
grains.
There are other farm practices that, without inducement or cajoling, farmers
spontaneously adopt. Observed examples are the adding of charcoal to the soil and
the use of soap as an insecticide. Both of these studies are from Liberia.
In the first of the above-cited cases, charcoal dust was freely available, a by-
product of chunk production. Some farmers learned of and made use of the soil-
improving properties.
In the second case, some farmers found that a light soap and water mix, fre-
quently applied, made a good insect repellent. This goes against general recommen-
dations that a soap mix be used in greater strength to kill harmful insects.
Just because these new approaches were adopted without prompting does not
mean that they will spread widely. Other farmers may not see the advantage and/or
are content with the current practice.
Often outsiders see a gain and embark on a project hoping for change. In some
cases, the system may seemingly find use. As long as farmers are being observed
and/or cajoled, success may seem within grasp or even established. This impression
can last for years.
References 189
Termed the Hawthorne effect, once the observation and prompting ceases, farm-
ers resort to their old ways. With enough exposure (this might span decades), the
Hawthorne effect can be overcome, and the change will stick (for slightly more on
this, see Hawthorne Effect).
References
Burnett, K., & Murphy, S. (2014). What place for international trade in food sovereignty. The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(5), 1064–1084.
Keenan, J. (2015). The blood cries out. Population Connection, 47(3 – October), 18–36.
Systems, 24, 215–222.
Chapter 12
Summary
Contents
Ecology and Agroecology 191
Theories 192
Goals 192
Overview 192
Matrix Analysis 193
Agrotechnologies 195
Agroecosystem Categories 195
Simple Agroecosystems 195
Complex Agroecosystems 197
Major Influences 199
Types of Agroecology 199
Do-Less-Harm 200
Matrix 201
Bio-Complexity 201
Outcome 201
Agroecology Defined 202
The Central Theme 203
Conclusion 203
References 204
The opening chapter was devoted, in large part, to presenting the advantages (few)
and the disadvantages (many) of conventional agriculture. The assertion, now con-
cluded, is that agroecology can do better. This summation brings home this
conclusion.
Ecology and Agroecology
Despite both being listed under the ecology banner, there is a major divergence
between the two main branches of ecology. These are (1) natural and (2) agricultural.
The divergence occurs on two fronts: in (a) the applicable theories and (b) the goals.

192 12 Summary
Theories
Ecology is concerned with understanding the eco-dynamics of natural ecosystems.

With ecology, there are no goals except to limit, wherever possible, human engage-
ment or to mitigate any damage done. This contrasts with agroecology where the
systems are planned and managed and the goals are overt and clearly stated.
Goals
As above, agroecology is goal driven. Without the need for food, fuel, fiber, etc.,
there would be no agriculture and no agroecology. What would exist are hunter/
gatherer societies.
It is the objectives that make things happen. These start with yields. This often
expands into a profit motivation. The only time when the profit motive may be sec-
ondary is when risk-free yields are at the fore.
Overview
The explanatory path presented in this text looks at agroecosystems, specifically

how component plants come together as a physical and temporal agro-design. This
is, in turn, formulated on three in-line components. These are:
1. The core elements
2. The matrix additions
3. The agrotechnologies
The assumption is that the plot, irrespective of size, is the base unit.
Some may prefer that the ecological interaction of two unlike species, being the
smallest unit, also be the base. This is a semantic difference as two unlike and coex-
isting species also occupy an area.
The Core Elements
All plot or area-based agrosystems contain four core elements. Restated from
Chap. 2, these are:
1. Species (one or more)
2. Planting densities
3. Spatial pattern
4. Timing
Overview 193
The latter is where intermixed crops are simultaneously planted or the planting
of each species is staggered across time.
These four elements alone form a base or core agroecosystem. This contains the
rudiments of a final design still, much remains.
Ratios
At this point, the economics involve mostly ratios. The LER, RVT, and CER are
base measures.
Ratios have an advantage in that they are comparative with an intuitive feel. Also
an advantage, the LER is not selling price dependent.
Without price, the LER offers a neutral gauge on the comparative productively of
any type of intercrop. Out of necessity, the other ratios include prices and costs and
are so disadvantaged (for more, see Ratios).
Taken together, the ratios for yield and costs are a rough measure of economic ori-
entation. There are two sides to this: (1) revenue and (2) cost.
Briefly, revenue orientation is the application of more inputs to achieve higher
yields. The assumption is that, by operating at or near the upper bound, this will
maximize profits. The other, cost orientation, accepts lower yields but assumes
maximized profits by way of reduced expenditures.
Conventional agriculture is formulated around revenue orientation. In contrast,
agroecology has both cost and revenue versions.
Revenue-oriented agroecology has a number of manifestations. Instead of a sin-
gle crop, yields can be maximized through intercropping. Also, as part of revenue-
orientated agroecology, it is possible to employ environmentally friendly inputs or
to use a mix of eco-services and inputs.
In its purest form, cost orientation means an almost or a complete reliance on
eco-dynamics. This does not always translate into substantially lower yields. In
some situations, farmers have the best of both, i.e., high yields coupled with
reduced costs.
Matrix Analysis
There are a host of threats and shortfalls that jeopardize yields. Commonly, these
are herbivore insects, plant diseases, drought, winds, etc.
There are three guiding principles to countering these threats. These are to:
194 12 Summary

The guidelines exist because, with the threat counters, there are shared tasks and
a high degree of overlap. Without conceptional underpinnings, the complexity can
be overwhelming.
The agroecological matrix condenses the threats to cropping and their counters
into a simple, easy-to-understand summary. In qualitative, less detailed form, the
matrix is shown on in Table 3.1 (page 48). The matrix also can exist in quantitative
form (Table 3.2, page 49).
Their importance as an explanatory tool cannot be understated. Within the
matrix, there are two aspects to the threat counters: (1) duration and (2) reach or
scope.
Under duration, there are those that are (a) permanent and those that are (b)
optional. The latter are imported into the plot as the need arises. An example is cut-
and-carried biomass to enhance soil fertility and/or to repel unwanted insect pests.
Permanent counters are always in place, always up to the task, e.g., a perpetual
ground cover that prevents erosion.
Under reach/ scope, there are those that are (a) single purpose, e.g., a fertilizer to
address poor soils. More telling from an agroecological perspective are those that
are (b) multipurpose, e.g., a permanent field boundary can:
Block winds
Allow predator insects to thrive
Help control erosion
Host natural pollinators
Or a cover crop may:
Allow predator insects to thrive
Help control erosion
Host natural pollinators
The idea is that, for each perceived threat, there are one or more counters such
that, in sum, the threat is effectively subjugated or even totally defeated. In the
above examples, the field boundary and a cover crop combine for three of four
eco-services.
The matrix is not only an explanatory tool, but it can be an analytical expression.
The notion being that the qualitatively stated eco-services can be restated as quanti-
tative equations.
The result is a bio-economically based, mathematical programming problem that
can model a range of agrosystems. Although laden in potential, use may be prema-
ture as the data needed is spotty and not always up to the task.
Agrotechnologies
One can start with the above core element and formulate an agro-design from
scratch. The problem is that the mix of core elements and matrix elements can pro-
duce any number of agro-designs. Without matrix guidance, the eco-options can
pull in different and, at times, opposite directions.
Agrotechnologies are a major agronomic shortcut. Farmers tend to copy, and
modify, local successes. In essence, they select from a narrow, often locally encoun-
tered assortment of known, and often time-tested, agrotechnologies (as listed on
pages 80 to 82).
Without nearby, in-place examples, this can be an incomplete activity. If an agro-
technology lacks a local history, there is no assurance that the agrotechnologies
being copied are the best given, e.g., regional climatic differences, cropping needs,
natural threats, and varying economic situations. With no local agroecosystem to
replicate, reliance is often on the monoculture rather than the elaborate, and possi-
bly more suited, expressions of biodiversity.
Agroecosystem Categories
Both theoretical and field agroecology divides agroecosystems into two precisely
defined groups. Based upon diversity, these are:
1. Simple (of less than seven species)
2. Bio-complex (equal to or greater than seven species)
From a practical perspective, there are separate sets of rules, one set for species
pairings in simple agrosystems and a second set for managing species-complex
agrosystems. From a theoretical perspective, the limited and quantifiable bio-ser-
vices that pervade simple agrosystems pale in comparison to the tangled eco-
dynamics found within complex agrosystems. This difference also separates these
two groupings.
Simple Agroecosystems
Agrosystems of less than seven species are predicated on a core or base. In large
measure, the pertinent, threat-countering ecology is appended to this base.
The base can be a single species (monoculture), two species (biculture), or three
interacting species (triculture). Agrosystems of four or more (four-plus polycul-
tures) are occasionally found. These tend to be unique examples and, with few
exceptions, are generally outside the mainstream.
196 12 Summary
Photo 12.1 Rice paddies within a low-intensity landscape. With this situation, one would expect,
at the least, some very positive insect dynamics
Rules
The rules of intercropping (Chaps. 5 and 6) broadly apply to systems of two species and
for deciding which two species might pair best. There are two sets: (1) those for pro-
ductive (both species provide a useful output) and (2) those for facilitative systems (one
species does not yield but aids the growth and yield of the first or primary species).
The rules help when little is known on the potential, aboveground interspecies
complementarity. Since it is fairly easy to have a season-long test with short dura-
tion vegetable and grain species, the rules tend to have greater application for multi-
species, tree-crop or forest-tree plantations.
Once more common, multi-species plantations have faded in favor of plantations
containing one tree species. Now that the ecology is better known, the barrier to use
has declined. With favorable pairings, the advantages include a very high LER.
Economics
When dealing with the agrosystem core or base, a productive intercrop can offer
higher yields (as LER stated) than a monoculture. There are overriding issues, the
hassle of planting and harvesting two or more crops may preclude use. If employed,
productive intercrops tend to be slightly revenue oriented.
For facilitative intercrops, these start having a slight cost orientation. This is
because the accompanying, nonproductive species is often positioned to replace a
costly and/or a scarce input.
Long-duration facilitative agrosystems can have a more pronounced orientation.
The common example is the heavy shade system. Because the core elements sup-
port a range of natural threat counters, these generally start out being highly cost
oriented.
Whether it be monoculture or a more biodiverse system, adding threat counters
accentuates their economic orientation. One-on-one counters, in providing a single
counter (eco-service) for each threat, can be comparatively expensive.
Eco-services, when applied to a range of threats can be far more cost effective.
Although exceptions abound, the general idea is that eco-services, being nature pro-
vided, come free or at a low cost.
When used to their fullest, the resulting agro-designs tend to be cost orientated.
This magnifies when a few eco-services are applied across multiple threats. As
always, the best cases are when the use of multiple eco-services does not sacrifice
any yield potential.
It should be mentioned that risk often plays a large role in any cropping decision.
The best systems may be a compromise between profits and assured yields.
Potential
Agroecology, as presented in this text, is based on threat counters and the ecological
services provided. In what may be a departure from the norm, it is not the biodiver-
sity of an agroecosystem that is the main concern.
Good agroecology stems from the number of threats countered through active
eco-dynamics. The quantity of eco-dynamics is gauged by the number of active
cells with a site, crop, and agrosystem-based agroecological matrix.
This involves using as many of the eco-tools as possible. In addition to those
associated with the base agroecosystem, these main drivers of good ecology are fal-
lows, rotations, and ecological spillover from the surrounding landscape. There are
also those that fall under the heading of farm practice, e.g., when to mow, plow,
prune, weed, etc., and how this is best accomplished.
The list of agrotechnologies subdivides according to number of plant species within

an agroecosystem. When more than seven plant species contribute to the internal
ecology, there is a shift from (a) plant-on-plant dynamics of simple agrosystems to
(b) the ecosystem governance of complex systems.
The latter is no longer based solely on plant-on-plant interactions. Instead, the
internal ecology becomes greater than the sum of the plant-on-plant parts. The sys-
tem is characterized by way of diversity, density, disarray, and duration.
198 12 Summary
Rules
Complex agroecosystems come with a distinct set of rules. In contrast to those of

bio-simpler systems (those where the rules suggest species pairings), the rules for
agroforests focus on active management. These are found on page 109.
Studies of agroforests show that these can contain 10 to over 100 different plant
species. The norm seems to be around 12–20 interacting species, most being yield-
ing perennials.
With the overriding complexity, it is almost impossible to derive the most eco-
logically favorable planting pattern and management plan. The rules for complex
agrosystems, when coupled with sufficient density, diversity, disarray, and duration,
are a good starting point.
These parameters do not preclude adding local knowledge. This would involve
the best locations for the different, coexisting plant species. It would also involve
putting plants next to each other that have known co-complementarity. Exploiting
knowledge of facilitative relationships would also maintain the inherent ecology
while enhancing overall yields.
Economics
Because nature provides abundant eco-services, complex agroecosystems are cost

oriented. These systems produce many outputs. This means forgoing the high rev-
enue associated with the growing of a single, high-value crop. This is the very defi-
nition of cost orientation, i.e., the sacrificing of some yield or revenue in order to
keep costs low.
Homegardens and agroforests offer a range of outputs without a dominate crop.
By keeping near the lower thresholds for density, diversity, disarray, and duration,
there is some latitude to emphasize one type of output. This strategy can be found
within forest gardens or food forests.
Potential
The importance of complex agrosystems lies in some very positive agroecological

attributes. With ample diversity, density, disarray, and duration, the system is
drought, insect, pathogen, and weed resistant. These should also be highly pro-
ductive. Theory would suggest an LER slightly below 3.0, but this is highly spec-
ulative. Studies are lacking (for a derivation of this number, see Competitive
Partitioning).
The main drawback of the complex system is that they generally produce little of
any one output. They compensate by producing a range of outputs.
As mentioned, it is possible to slant the output mix in favor of one product. The
goal is a complex agrosystem that substitutes for the very large, single-output, tree-
crop plantations, e.g., rubber and oil palm. These systems are faulted for their lack
of biodiversity and incompatibility with natural ecosystems. A bio-complex render-
ing of tree-crop plantations would go far to mitigate this fault.
Major Influences
There are two landscape factors that are unchangeable and go far in setting the char-
acter of agroecology practiced. These are (1) land-use intensity and (2) topography.
In some instances, water also qualifies.
Within high intensity landscapes, one would expect to find the area completely
cropped. With little unused land, grazing would be confined to farm and field mar-
gins and/or to crop residues. In practicality, farmers do not forgo any opportunity to
graze their animals and use any unfenced area, e.g., roadsides, school yards, etc.
In very intense landscapes, cropping would favor higher-valued crops and high
levels of inputs. This leads to a revenue-oriented landscape.
The opposite is a less intense landscape where there is ample, uncultivated space.
This leaves plenty of latitude for the use of landscape-provided eco-services. This
type of landscape tends to favor cost-oriented agrosystems.
Topography tends to dictate in other ways. For landscapes under continued cul-
tivation, the agroecosystems become adopted to the situation.
High-intensity landscapes, those with loose soils and steep hillsides most often
feature terraces. Less intensity, loose soils, and steep hillsides would favor perennial
crops. Cropping would proceed where the soils are stable, not overly prone to ero-
sion, and the hillsides are steep (as in Photo 12.2).
When farmers move from flatlands to hillsides, they often bring flatland agricul-
ture. After a period of erosion, there will be a shift to a more appropriate agriculture.
Types of Agroecology
With the context of land-use intensity, there are three categories or types of agro-
ecology. These are:
1. Do-less-harm
2. Eco-service (matrix)
3. Bio-complex
In order, these are a weak to strong ecological continuum. In general, these cat-
egories would generally parallel land-use intensity where do-less-harm pairs with a
high-intensity landscape. Bio-complexity is associated with open, less-used land.
Also, these categories are not exclusive. Within a single agro-landscape setting,
they might simultaneously coexist, located among the various farm plots.
200 12 Summary
Photo 12.2 A very high, land-use intensity landscape. This is the upper rim of the Rift Valley,
Ethiopia
Do-Less-Harm
At its lower point, do-less-harm is based around safe(r) agrochemicals or other ex-
plot inputs. Introduced predator insects could find use. Rotations would add some
agroecology. Smaller plots, strips, or otherwise would help with erosion. Within this
context, the monoculture would remain as the featured agrotechnology.
Limited biodiversity, through intercropping or the use of cover crops, could be
inclusive in this category. This would be a less comprehensive rendering of
biodiversity.
With multiple outputs, these would be revenue-oriented systems formatted to
capture the gains from competitive partitioning. Where co-planted with a facilitative
species, these would be cost oriented but where the facilitative species is selected to
address a single threat.
At times, a seemingly minor change can alter the economic and ecological out-
look. As a weed control measure, adding cattle grazing to replace herbicides has
transformed oil palm plantations into more bird-friendly places (Tohiran et al. 2017).
This simple measure would boost the standing from a low to a higher do-less-
harm. It would also lower costs and increase revenue (from the sale of cattle or
grazing rights).
Matrix
The next step or category is the eco-service or matrix approach. This is so named
because it is explained best by way of the agroecological matrix (Chap. 3).
Briefly, plots are yield-supported and cost-minimized by encouraging an array of
differently sourced, nature-supplied eco-services. This eliminates the threats to one
plot and, by way of an ecologically cross-linked landscape, across all plots.
Bio-Complexity
The utmost landscape form is bio-complexity. These are the seven-plus agrosystems
which, by way of density, diversity, disarray, and duration, work their ecological
magic. A landscape might be characterized by a mix of homegardens, agroforests,
etc. Ecological spillover would shield any less biodiverse, but closely associated,
plots from threat and harm.
The disadvantages put restrictions on how yields are obtained. Also because this
can be, for many farmers, a foreign landscape, they may require extensive pre-
introduction and user indoctrination. A bio-complex approach might have greater
application with tree-crop plantations. These exist but are limited to understory,
shade-resistant crops, e.g., coffee and cocoa.
Outcome
As a general rule, the astute agroecologist would want to recommend the highest
possible, most biodiverse, agroecological category. There are numerous impedi-
ments to change, land rights and user knowledge possibly being the most severe.
Fig. 12.1 This drawing shows a palm-based plantation reformulated as complex, landscape-wide
agroecosystem. The open rows between the tree rows (marked with arrows) allow for ease of har-
vest. To compensate for the lower primary yield, secondary outputs are more than possible
202 12 Summary
Intense landscapes, with few field margins and set crops, are least suited to the
higher categories and may confined solely to do-less-harm agriculture. Reductions
in intensity or the need for cost saving and/or less risk opens doors for matrix
agroecology.
The eminent form of agroecology is based on bio-complexity. These are the
homegardens, agroforests, and forest gardens. These can be scattered lots within an
intensely utilized landscape or be the dominate system in a less intense setting.
Topography plays a lesser role but introduces other needs and limitations.
This come in the form of auxiliary agrotechnologies, i.e., infiltration structures,
flood counters, etc. As previously exampled, steep gradients and loose soils in an
intense setting will mandate terraces. Where land-use intensity is slightly less,
a agrosystem, one similar to alley cropping, could be selected for its ability to
retard erosion.
Agroecology Defined
Throughout this text, various definitions of agroecology have been proposed. These
emphasize varying aspects of what is a large, diverse, and complex science. These
might sow more confusion than clarity.
This is made more difficult when one considers that agroecology often carries
political and social overtones. The merging of the traditional land-use sciences,
agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry adds further to the definitional complexity.
This text has looked at definitions as related to the developmental phases of agro-
ecology. Briefly, these can be based on the:
(a) Core elements/ base agrosystem.
(b) Incorporation of eco-services/ threat counters.
(c) Mature or proposed agrotechnologies.
Any definition must also encompass the categories of agroecology, i.e., do-less-
harm to bio-complexity.
Some of the earlier definitions falter on a number of fronts. Via the view of agro-
ecology offered in this text, agroecology encompasses, not just agriculture, but for-
estry and silviculture. Also, agroecology is not only concerned with food crops but
all, directly or indirectly, land-raised outputs. This rules out otherwise sound entries.
These perspectives may not find favor with all, i.e., these being too broad.
Irrespectively, the surviving definitions, some restated from previous chapters, have
agroecology as:
The scientific basis for the cultivation of food, fuel, fiber, and other land-raised
products with deference for and/or in cooperation with nature and natural pro-
cesses and with the purpose of sustaining and enhancing of human life
The specific grouping of unlike plant species such that the internal ecology and
plant/plant synergies is preordained and harnessed to produce needed food, fuel,
fiber, and other land-raised products
Conclusion 203
The need “….to enhance agricultural systems by mimicking natural process,

thus creating beneficial biological interactions and synergies among compo-
nents of the agroecosystem” (Kerschen 2013)
The application of “…ecological concepts and principles to the design and man-
agement of sustainable agroecosystems” (Gliessman 1998)
The first two are product based. The second two are plot based.
The Central Theme
This text is based around the notion that agroecology is a biodiversity-based sci-
ence. The view is one of a continuum. One end has a single species occupying a
single plot. At the other end resides the highly species-complex agroforest.
Not quite as linear as one might hope, the entire continuum is sheathed with nuances
and added dimensions. Some of these are textually presented; the r emainder, large in
number, is relegated to the correspondingly large Glossary (pages 205 through 420).
Given the biodiversity-favoring theme advanced throughout this text, agroecol-
ogy might be defined as “the use of biodiversity to achieve ecological and economic
objectives in the production of food, fuel, and fiber.” This does not override the
previous definitions.
Conclusion
Going beyond the definitions:

–– Agroecology is a biodiversity-focused, theoretically guided science.
Contrasting:
–– Conventional agriculture is a monoculturally centered, empirically supported
science.
Although profound, these differences belittle what has happened. At its worst,
conventional agriculture, especially the green revolution model, has been simplified
into single-crop agrosystems supported by synthetic herbicides, insecticides, fungi-
cides, etc. It often includes GMO crops. All know what to expect, and the contrast
could not be greater.
The gains from agroecology start with the elimination of the environmentally
dubious and unhealthy agrochemicals. Replacement by safer inputs is but a tiny step
forward.
Agroecology is fully manifested when inputs are replaced by wide-ranging eco-
services. Without costly inputs, favorable economics can occur. Agrosystems can
dwell in the best of both worlds, i.e., high yields fully supported by low-cost
eco-services.
204 12 Summary
The gains continue beyond the eco-designed plot into the wider landscape. This
should be an (agro)ecologically integrated unit where eco-services flow and mutu-
ally benefit multiple plots and multiple crops. Better yet is a landscape that is both
productive and welcoming to local flora and fauna.
Coming from a world that expects far less, the full potential of agroecology may
seem more an ideal than a realizable goal. Eventually, the notion that there exists a
parallel, but environmentally friendly, economically positive form of agriculture
will become apparent.
Once the know-how is more encompassing, wide agro-change should be envi-
able. The potential gains are too enticing to think otherwise.
References

Tohiran, K. A., Nobilly, F., Zulkifli, R., et al. (2017). Targeted cattle grazing as an alternative to her-
bicides for controlling weeds in bird-friendly oil palm plantations. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 37, 62–70.
Glossary
Carrying forth from what is stated in the prefix, agroecology is complex and
convoluted, ridden with nuances, excepts, and elaborations. The previous chapters
explain the essence of agroecology. Out of necessity, the essence is concise, stream-
lined, and shorn of deviations.
Rather than ignore the vast amount of knowledge that ultimately attaches to the
essential core, this material is offered as Glossary topics. An index of these is, as
separate and detached subjects, listed below.
Not all are chapter referenced. Those referenced are marked with an asterisk (*).
Glossary Topics
Aesthetics* Cajetes
Agroecology* Camellones
Agroforestry Canopy Patterns*
Agroforests Canopy Strategies*
Agrotechnologies (these are textually Catchments
explained, starting in Chap. 4)
Alley Cropping Change (broadly stated)*
Animal Control* Classification
Animal Husbandry Competitive Exclusion
Aqua-Agriculture/Forestry Competitive Partitioning
Barriers (general use)* Complementarity
(see Competitive Partitioning)
Bats Complex Agroecosystems
Biochar Composting*
(see Tierra Prieta)
Biodiversity Conservation Agriculture
Birds Corridors, habitat
Buffer Species* Cost Equivalent Ratio
(continued)

P. Wojtkowski, Agroecology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93209-5
206 Glossary
Cost Orientation Game Theory

(see Economic Orientation) (see Decision Theory)
Cover crops Genetically Improved/ Modified Crops
Critical Shift Grafting*
Crop-Over-Tree Agroecosystems Grazing
(see either Pastures or Free-Range Grazing)
Cut-and-Carry* Green Revolution Model
Decision Theory* Guide Species*
Decoy Plants Harvests*
Density Hawthorne Effect*
Desirable Plant Characteristics Hedgerow Alley Cropping
(for secondary species) (see Alley Cropping)
Diagnosis and Design* Hedges
Disarray Heirloom Varieties*
Disruptive-Crop Hypothesis* Horqueta Trees*
Domestication* Infiltration*
Drip Zones* Insect Control
Duration Insecticides*
Economic Orientation Insects (eatable)
(see Entomo-Agriculture)
Eco-Services* Integrated Pest Management
Enemies Hypothesis Interplant Interface*
Entomo-Agriculture Isolated Tree Agroecosystems
Erosion* Land Equivalent Ratio
Facilitation Landscape Agroecology
Factory Farming Landscape Economics
Fallows Matrix Equations*
Fencing Microbes
Field Margins Micro-Catchments
Fire Mimicry
Firebreaks Modeling*
Floating Gardens* Monocultures
Food Kilometers/ Miles Mounds
Forage Banks* Mulch
Forestry Multi-Participant Agroecosystems
(see Silviculture)
Free-Form Plots* Multi-Purpose Trees
Free-Range Grazing* Niches* (In regard to simple agrosystems, see
Competitive Partitioning)
Frost* Non-Harvest Option
Fungicides No-Till
(see Pathogens) (see Till/ No-till)
Gabons Optimization
(continued)
Glossary 207
Orchards Silvo-Pastoral Systems

(see Plantations, also Streuobst)
Paddies Slash and Burn*
Parklands* Slash and Char*
Pastures Slash and Mulch*
Pathogens Solution Theory (Landscape)*
Permaculture Stones (Clusters, Walls, etc.)
Plantations Streuobst*
Planting Methods (shrubs and trees)* Strip Cropping
Planting Ratios* Support (Physical)*
Pollination* Taungyas
Ponds Terraces
Precepts (Agroecological) Threat Counters
(see Eco-Services)
Predator-Prey Tierra Prieta*
Primary Species Till/ No-Till
Pruning (Trees) Trap Crops*
Push-pull (Insects)* Traps
Quality of Life Traumatic Release*
Ratio Lines Tree-Over-Crop
(see Planting Ratios) Agroecosystems
Relative Value Total Treerow Alley Cropping
(see Alley Cropping)
Repellent Plants Tropical Homegardens
(see Agroforests)
Resource Concentration Hypothesis* Truant Resources*
Revenue Orientation Vines

(see this topic under Economic Orientation) (see Support)
Riparian Buffers Water Channels
Rocks Water Harvesting*
(see Stones)
Rotations* Waterbreaks
Row Orientation* Weed Control*
Salt Wind Tunnel Effect*
Scarecrows* Windbreaks
Semi-Husbandry* Yield Functions
Shade Systems (see Sigmoidal Equations)
Shelterbelts Yield Gap Analysis*
Sigmoidal Equations
Silviculture (Forest Management)
208 Glossary
Aesthetics
An often overlooked aspect of agroecology is the visual. A farm landscape with

pleasant surroundings, e.g., nice vistas, scenic panoramas, plenty of color, and
ample flowers, is a quality-of-life issue.
Although seemingly intangible, nice surroundings can, through biodiversity,
positively influence crop yields (Assandri et al. 2018). As such, aesthetics should be
included in the agroecological experience.
There are no definitive ways this can be accomplished. The fundamentals have
been discussed, e.g., Litton et al. (1974), Porteous (1996), and Bell (1999), but
methodologies are still a work in progress. This is more an art than a science.
This can be done at the plot level, e.g., Beale and Boswell (1991), Wilson (1994),
and MacDonald (1994), where a mix of flowers, herbs, and vegetables come together
into visually pleasing combinations.
This can also be undertaken at the larger farm or inter-farm level. The eatable
landscape, farms, and gardens that combine beauty and productivity are
commonplace within the historical record. Examples include from France (Racine
et al. 1987), ancient Rome (Jashemski 1979 and 1987), early England (McLean
1980), Persia (Moynihan 1979), and some early Islamic versions (Husain 2000).
Agroecology
The proceeding chapters present numerous definitions that front agroecology. As

textually stated, these definitions vary and are only part of a larger picture.
Agroecology can be a science, a philosophy, and/or a farming practice. It can even
have a religious connotation (Botelho et al. 2016) or have political ramifications
(e.g., Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2013).
In a brief look at divergent perspectives, Wezel et al. (2009) observed that, in
France, agroecology is more of a farming practice and a political movement. The
corresponding science falls under agronomy.
In the USA, agroecology is more a science, less a movement. In Brazil, the stron-
ger emphasis is on being a movement and agricultural practice. The movement per-
spective also seems pervasive across much of Central America.
Confusing the picture, there are what may be termed branches of agriculture or
agroecology.
Conventional agriculture – “also known as industrial agriculture, refers to farm-
ing systems which include the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, her-
bicides and other continual inputs, genetically modified organisms” (www.
appropedia.org 2016).
Organic agriculture – “an integrated farming system that strives for sustainability,
the enhancement of soil fertility and biological diversity whilst, with rare exceptions,
prohibiting synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modi-
fied organisms, and growth hormones” (Wikipedia, Organic Agriculture, 2017).
Glossary 209
Low-input agriculture – refers “to purchasing few off-farm inputs (usually fertil-
izers and pesticides), while increasing on-farm inputs (i.e. manures, cover crops,
and especially management)” (www.nal.usda.gov 2017).
Conservation agriculture – “a sustainable agriculture production system com-
prising a set of farming practices adapted to the requirements of crops and local
conditions of each region, whose farming and soil management techniques protect
the soil from erosion and degradation, improve its quality and biodiversity, and
contribute to the preservation of the natural resources, water and air, while optimiz-
ing yields” (www.ecaf.org 2017).
Sustainable agriculture – “an integrated system of plant and animal production
practices having a site-specific application that will last over the long term”
(Wikipedia, Sustainable Agriculture, 2017).
Traditional agriculture – agrosystems not dependent on any formally acquired
knowledge of farming, but solely based on indigenous agricultural knowledge
passed from generation to generation through experience and observations
(reworded from www.dahu.bio 2017).
Permaculture – “a system of cultivation intended to maintain permanent agricul-
ture or horticulture by relying on renewable resources and a self-sustaining ecosys-
tem” (www.dictionary.com 2017).
Of these, permaculture can be viewed as a liberal political movement and philo-
sophical arm of agroecology. It leaves the science and some of the farm practice to
agroecology (Ferguson and Lovell 2014).
Organic agriculture is a movement and farm practice. In embracing cost orienta-
tion, some see low-input agriculture as being less a movement, more as farm prac-
tice. Traditional agriculture can only be considered as a practice.
Research is commonly presented under a sustainable, a conservation, or an
organic heading. This is for good reason. This focuses the initial parameters for the
reader, avoiding a discussion on how the work fits within the broader picture.
Far less research is found under a purely agroecological banner. This may be
because (a) agroecology has not been fully defined or distilled and, in being broad
in scope, (b) the wide parameters do little to position the research.
Adding confusion, there are questions on how the peripheral disciplines are
incorporated. In this text, agroforestry and forestry are integral to the topic. For oth-
ers, this is less the case. Agroforestry is part of permaculture; it is not prevalent in
conservation or organic agriculture.
This bring on questions as to how it all fits together, i.e., how the disparate parts
fit together. The proceeding chapter text presents one view. Other authors, e.g.,
Gliessman and Engles (2014), have different notions.
The situation is analogous to different paths through a forest. The forest repre-
sents the complexity of agroecology. The paths all go in the same direction. As they
snake through the forest, they cross each other. They may even merge for short
stretches. Some traverse areas or regions that others do not.
210 Glossary
The paths represent the different branches, i.e., organic, conservation, etc. The
areas or regions can be looked at as sub-disciplines. In addition to forestry and agro-
forestry, pomology, field cropping, and like specializations are inclusive.
Despite the differences, there is a commonality. This is the notion that agroecol-
ogy is the future. Whether it be through organic agriculture, biodiversity, or some
other path, feeding the world can be the macro end goal, e.g., Badgley et al. (2007),
Malézieux et al. (2009), Kremen et al. (2012), and Jacobsen et al. (2015). In fair-
ness, arguments for the green revolution model, doing likewise, are equally ardent.
This text has offered a slightly different goal. A sustainable, profitable farm is
paramount. Once farmers are well-fed and happy, they will feed the world.
Agroforestry
Agroforestry is the use of woody perennials in close association with crops, sea-
sonal or perennial, grown to provide productive, economic, and/or environmental
advantages within farm landscapes. Woody perennials and crops can interact within
the same agroecosystem or be located, and interact, by way of nearby plots.
The woody perennials can be in tree or shrub form. These can offer some useful
output and/or be a facilitative addition helping to increase crop yields or to reduce
the cost of production.
Some consider agroforestry, alongside agriculture and forestry, as a separate aca-
demic discipline. This text merges these three disciplines. The reasons are that (1)
all are productive land-use sciences sharing the same underlying theories, concepts,
and principles. Also, (2) trees can be as contributory to the (agro)ecology of farm
landscape as crops. This view is shared by permaculturists who have, in essence,
merged agriculture and agroforestry.
Defined
Agroforestry can be defined as:

“a method and system of land management involving the simultaneous cultivation
of farm crops and trees; agriculture incorporating the growing of trees”
(Wikipedia, Agroforestry, 2016).
“a system of land use in which harvestable trees or shrubs are grown among or
around crops or pastureland as a means of preserving or enhancing the produc-
tivity of the land” (Dictionary.com 2016).
“the adoption of agriculture and/or farming with forestry so that land can simultane-
ously be used for more than one purpose” (Investopedia.com 2916).
These definitions vary their presentation, but, together, they paint a rather full
picture.
Glossary 211
A full sampling of the agrotechnologies commonly associated with agroforestry is

listed below.
Productive agroforestry:
Isolated tree
Agroforestry intercropping (tree-crop mixes)
Mixed fruit-forest-tree plantations
Facilitative intercropping:
Parklands
Strip cropping (hedgerow)
Boundary (with trees)
Feed systems:
Pastoral
Pastures with trees
Forage trees with pasture
Forage trees
Aqua-forestry (trees above fish-populated streams or ponds)
Taungyas
Simple
Extended
Multistage
End stage
Complex agroecosystems:
Agroforests
Tropical homegardens
Shrub gardens
Forest gardens
Agroforests
Carrying on from the discussion Chap. 7, agroforests epitomize agroforestry and

complex agroecosystems. They are also an example, par excellence, of mimicry. On
occasion, these are called food forests.
Briefly, these are based on sufficient manifestations of (bio)density, (bio)diver-
sity, (bio)disarray, and (bio)duration. With these in place, thriving ecology should
212 Glossary
ensue and, if harvests are moderated, sustainability is insured. These are cost-ori-
ented systems with the presumption of high outputs.
Agroforests tend to produce many outputs, but this can be sided such that one is
featured over others. This could lead to rubber- or oil palm-centric agroforests
where most of the output is the one product. Again, sustainability would place limi-
tations as to how much can be of the featured output.
The agroforest has close cousins. These are homegardens, shrub gardens, forest
gardens, and forest farming. These differ as to their productive, social, and eco-
nomic role played in the farm landscape.
Chapter 7 mentions the possibility for converting large-scale, single-output, tree-
crop plantations to vastly far more nature-agreeable complex agrosystems. This can
be with one, normal-yielding primary crop along with secondary species or with
reduced primary yields.
Favorable economics would come through a mix of subsidiary outputs. The effi-
cacy of this approach has been discussed, directly or indirectly, by Singh et al. (2016),
Abraham and Joseph (2016), Nchanji et al. (2016), and Langenberger et al. (2017).
Agrotechnologies
(These are textually explained, starting in Chap. 10).
Alley Cropping
One of the more prominent agroforestry-formulated agrotechnologies is alley cropping.

The basic layout has multiple rows of seasonal crops planted between single or double
rows of parallel, woody perennials. There are two main types: (1) hedge and (2) tree.
Hedgerow Alley Cropping
With this, hedge-on-crop competition, belowground is reduced though plowing,

this cuts the crop-competing hedge roots. Aboveground, to keep light competition
from becoming a negative influence, the woody component is pruned to a low
height. This diminishes competition for essential resources during the critical crop-
ping phase.
Design Parameters
In the overall agronomic and economical dynamics, the hedgerows are generally non-
productive. The exception is where the hedge prunings are used or marketed as firewood.
The primary gains from the hedge come in offering a series of facilitative services.
Glossary 213
The first, and often the key reason for adoption, is to fertilize the crop in the
beginning of the cropping season. Nutrients, captured by the hedge during the off-
season, are transferred to the crops either through pruned and applied leafy material
or through the plow-cut fine roots.
These effects are not small (Akinifesi 2010). In affirmation, the highest LER
value recorded, i.e., 3.65, is obtained through green biomass carried from the hedge
to a maize crop (Ong 1994).
Best results are obtained by stacking the pruned branches in the center of the
crop strip, allowing the leaves to shed and, later, removing the low-in-nutrients
branch material. This is normally done prior to plowing and planting of the strip.
The second facilitative mechanism lies in preventing soil erosion. This can be
primary reason for alley cropping, that of allowing cultivation on steep hillsides. For
this, the hedges contour the slope.
Of lesser importance, but still part of the use schema, is the windbreak effect of
the hedges. This allows for crop growth where winds could otherwise seriously
reduce yields.
Design Package
Alley cropping, i.e., hedgerow style, has two primary applications: (1) to restore soil
fertility in anticipation of the cropping season and (2) to prevent soil erosion. These
reflect the elements of the design or user-prerequisite package. These include:
• A sloping site with off-season erosion danger
• Soil sustainability issues
• Generally fertile soils
• Adequate seasonal rainfall
• Soil pH greater than 5.5
• Maize as the primary crop
• Scarce land requiring hillside cultivation
• Secure land tenure
• Ample labor
• Confinement of animals
• A need for firewood
The above was compiled from Sanchez (1995), Reynolds (1991), Kang (1997),
Shepherd et al. (1997), and Ehui et al. (1992).
This continues with the desirable plant characteristics for hedge species. From
Young (1989a), Rachie (1983), and Beer (1987), these are:
214 Glossary
• Nitrogen fixing
• Ease of propagation
• A high aboveground biomass production
• A high and well-balanced nutrient content in the leaves
• Nutrient-rich, quick-decaying, fine roots
• Prunes well without dieback
• Burns well (depends on use)
• No toxic substances in the foliage (for a secondary use as forage)
• A large ratio of leaves compared to woody stems
• Small leaves when rapid decay is needed or larger, slower-decaying leaves
When erosion or weed control is sought:
• Leaves that shed easily
• Root and moisture compatibility with crops
• Attract predator and/or repel herbivore insects
• Does not harbor, but discourage, plant diseases
• Does not sprout from the roots
• Leaves that are highly, moderately, or not palatable to forage animals (depends
on use)
For Africa, some of the hedge species that have proved workable are:
• Leucaena (Leucaena diversifolia or L. leucocephala)
• Gliricidia
• Calliandra calothyrsus
• Senna siamea
• Enterolobium cyclocarpum
• Acacia auriculiformis
• Sesbania sesban
• Albizia lebbeck
The hope with a complete design package is to closely refine the conditions of use
and, in finding matching on-farm conditions, promote expanded adaptation. Offsetting
this, regions that were once thought as ideal for hedgerow alley cropping were later
determined as not fitting the predetermined design parameters (Carter 1996).
Other Hedgerow Designs
There is one other hedge design of note, that is, the mini-hedge. The parameters of
use for a low hedge are much the same as a 1.0 meter tall hedge except that the
hedge is only a few centimeters tall.
This would be the fully mechanized version where the hedge is machine pruned
and the nutrient-laden leaves scattered over the strip. This might be done at least
twice during the year. The first cut is before plowing and planting; the second oppor-
tunity, if needed, occurs after the crop is harvested. This purpose of the latter cut is
to overlay the exposed soil with an erosion-protecting layer of biomass.
Glossary 215
Tree-Row Alley Cropping
Rather than hedges, strips of crops can be bordered on each side by tall trees. The
trees are in close contact along the continual rows. The area over the crop strip is
open to light, otherwise the design gets reclassified as a light shade system (dis-
cussed under Shade Systems).
Superficially, the only difference between hedgerow and tree-row systems is the
height of the woody perennial. In practice, these are very divergent in terms of their
on-farm use and their economic outcome.
The defining characteristic of this system is an open, light-admitting space
directly above the crop row and the dual multi-output. The latter has the crop and the
trees as economic contributors. As a result, this is a very revenue-oriented system.
Keeping the above-strip, open space requires a tree with a valued output that
does not have a spreading canopy or the output value is such to economically justify
pruning. Notably row species include species of palms or trees with tall, thin cano-
pies, such as cloves.
One studied example has black walnut with forage or with a maize-soybean
understory sequence (Garrett and Jones 2016). With the proposed design, the trees
are widely spaced to promote nut production. Black walnut for wood only has been
judged less economically enticing (Harper and Kurtz 2016).
Despite the lack of a standard design, there is a use-limiting dilemma. Best
results come by way of light-maximizing row orientation. This is normally north-
south, occasionally southeast to northwest (northern hemisphere) or northeast to
southwest (southern hemisphere). This supplants any other row orientations, e.g.,
for wind or erosion protection, and confines the system to level sites (for more, see
Row Orientation).
Due to the numerous design factors, i.e., revenue orientation, specific tree require-
ments, and row direction, this agrotechnology is not commonly encountered. Still,
given the right farm situation, this system could be a strong on-farm contributor.
Animal Control
Outside of domestic animals, there are the wild animal populations. If allowed to
roam freely and without control, they can have negative effect on crops. Birds and
rodents eat grains and fruits. Fruit bats consume fruit. Larger animals, e.g., deer and
wild pigs, graze vegetation, trample plants, and/or uproot crops
The controls parallel those used to regulate harmful insects. There are barriers. Birds
can be kept off fruit trees if these are covered with nets. This is an expensive option.
Other measures are more traditional, the scarecrow (e.g., Photo 3.1, page 38) has
been a feature on many landscapes. Bird control is often a balancing act, encourag-
ing the good, deterring the bad (for more on this, see Birds).
For the larger animals, the common method is fencing. This helps with some, but
not all. Deer can jump higher than domestic animals and require more expensive,
taller fencing.
216 Glossary
One proposed control is through hunting. For this, guidelines have been pro-
posed (O’Connor and Shrubb 1986). Best accomplished closer to the habitat, rather
than where the damage actually occurs, hunting should continue beyond the point
where prey becomes scarce. This is to keep breeding populations low. Hunting can
also be a food source or income strategy.
Outside hunting, there are other means such as frighten tactics (e.g., move-
ment, scarecrows, and noise), habitat control, and the use of trap or decoy crops.
Where the unwanted animals, birds or others, transit, migrate, or move great
distance in search of food, scare tactics may be more effective than hunting.
Keeping the habitat possibilities low and, the opposite, offering habitat for preda-
tor types are alternative strategies. The former, a poor habitat, requires a good
understanding of the needs and wants of the animal being controlled.
The opposite methods may be easier. For example, a healthy population of foxes
will seriously deplete the count of mice, squirrels, and/or rabbits. Even snakes, gen-
erally those not dangerous to humans, can be so employed.
The use of decoy plants has a lesser role. These crops mature earlier than the
main crop or provide an abundance of nonmarketable fruit. This can be effec-
tive against some birds. It also has potential against larger animals, e.g., deer.
Repellent plants are yet another less employed method. It has been well reported
that chili pepper repels elephants. In an added note, honeybees are said to be effec-
tive in repelling these same beasts.
Animal Husbandry
There exists the notion that farms, those that derive a large segment of their income
from the raising of animals, can tilt their agroecology in this direction. For example,
cattle, chicken, and similar farms can be so managed. A lot of this would involve
integrating the crops with the animals.
Grazing would be part of a crop rotation where a permanent cover crop offers
off-season or fallow forage. Another possibility is a double harvest. A forage-useful
cover crop would be the understory for another, taller forage species.
Among the other options, chickens and other domestic fowl could free-range on
land that also includes a one or two season crop phase. There are moveable, open
bottom, chicken coops that are dragged daily to a slightly different location. This
duplicates the roaming-flock dynamics found in nature.
The benefits include insect and disease control, water infiltration (when the birds
scratch and loosen the ground), and increased in-soil nutrients. This coop-dragging
phase might also be part of a fallow.
The design possibilities for an agroecologically formulated, fauna-centric farm
have not been explored in any depth. Greater integration is more than possible (as
an expansion of this topic, see Mimicry or Semi-husbandry).
Glossary 217
Aqua-Agriculture/Forestry
Fish farming in ponds or within net-confined areas in lakes or oceans is generally

outside the scope of this text. There are exceptions. Among these are the ponds or
lakes that are part of irrigation system or part of the farm ecology that may be
employed to raise fish, frogs, or other aquatic animals (as shown in Photo A).
In one example, Nair et al. (2014) investigated raising prawns in rice paddies. In
this case, the value of the prawns compensated for the lower yields of organic rice.
Other prawn/rice examples exist, e.g., Talukder et al. (2016). With these systems,
the prawns feed from within the agrosystem.
If fed from outside sources, e.g., using imported fish feed, these are more supple-
mentary additions. Tilapia, catfish, and carp are among the fish species commonly
encountered in this role.
As an agroecological addition, fish and other aquatic creatures can be added to
rice paddies to control mosquito larva, disrupt the life cycles of other waterborne
insect pests, and be a minor food source. Frogs can accomplish similar goals against
flying insects, e.g., Khatiwada et al. (2016). This form of aqua-agriculture or aqua-
agroecology can also be found in permanent irrigation ponds and in active water
channels.
More in tune with farm agroecology is aqua-forestry. In this specialized form,
fish are pond-raised in conjunction with trees. This is often a self-sustaining ecosys-
tem. The fish feed from leaf fall and are harvested with few inputs and at a low cost.
Photo A An on-farm pond showing overhanging vegetation. This design can support a variety of
fish species
218 Glossary
Of the fish species that eat leaves, carp and tilapia are the most cited. Other fish
species, e.g., salmon, eat leaves and insects. There are also possibilities for fruit-
eating fish, for those that consume insects that fall off leaves, or for crayfish.
Another important feature, the trees shade and cool the water, making for a better
fish habitat. The advantage is that these systems are a cheap source of protein for
farmers.
Barriers (General Use)
In agriculture, barriers come in all forms and uses. These can be containment fenc-
ing, they can repel insects, and/or they can halt soil erosion. Taller versions can
serve as windbreaks and also intercept spray drift, i.e., retarding the movement of
spray-applied agrochemicals. Aboveground, barriers can be fencing, hedges, strips,
or around-plot repellent plants.
Belowground, curtains of dense roots can slow unwanted root spread. Root bar-
riers can also slow the travel of harmful nematodes. An example is the grass vetiver
that has a curtain of dense vertical roots.
With their prevalence and their many applications, this is an involved topic. As
such, the uses are discussed in detail under a variety of headings. An unusual appli-
cation is shown in Photo B.
Photo B (barrier). This is an unusual use of a barrier species. This photo shows cabbage planted
between a path and an onion/eggplant intercrop. The purpose is to remind those walking along the
path not to step on the intercrop
Glossary 219
Bats
As with birds, bats present a farming possibility. This is not always a positive force.
In addition to pollination and their consumption of herbivore insects, fruit-eating
bats can, in some tropical regions, seriously curtail fruit farming. These are far less
a problem when the primary crops are not fruit.
In most temperate regions, only insect-consuming species are present. This
makes bats easy to harness as an on-farm resource, one that can, at times, be more
effective than similarly tasked birds (Williams-Guillėn et al. 2008).
Bats of farming interest tend to hunt night-flying insects. This gives them a
unique niche. With further study, this might fit well in comprehensive insect control
strategy (for more on the ecology, see Birds).
Biochar
(See Tierra Prieta)
Birds
In agroecology, birds can be the wise application of natural dynamics or an agricul-

turally destructive force. The key lies in encouraging the good, mitigating the bad.
Neither aspect of this has been studied in any systematic way.
Although the attracting and repelling of birds are opposites, as strategies, the
good is intertwined with the bad. Some birds are only harmful during the harvest
season. In other cases, the good, and not so good, share the same habitat. For exam-
ple, a large tree can harbor around six bird species (Herzog and Oetmann 2001);
some would be of benefit, others not so. All this complicates matters.
Repelling
Encouraging some bird species while deterring others may be the greatest chal-
lenge. In temperate regions, robins and, to a lesser degree, common sparrows are
generally not farm desirable. Others, during nesting, may eat insects but, at other
times of the year, switch to grains. These species may be farm suitable if, during
harvests, their grain gathering can be curtailed.
220 Glossary
A number of measures keep crop-destructive birds in check. T-shaped roosting

poles, those widely placed in farm fields, can be covered with a sticky substance.
This coats the feet of birds, making it difficult to land on grain crops.
This affects the smaller, grain-eating birds more than the larger and desired pred-
ator species. For the smaller, damaging birds, the goal is to nondestructively force
these species to find other territory.
Alternative measures include decoy crops, those that seed before the main crop
and keep grain-eating birds well-fed until after the principal crops are harvested.
Field margins or other areas can be planted with a more preferred seed source.
In parts of West Africa, villagers plant the rice fields of village chiefs or elders
before planting their own. Conventional wisdom has it that these early maturing
fields attract the majority of the rice-eating birds, reducing the losses in later-planted
fields.
Also as a decoy, mulberries can be used to keep birds off cherries. Mulberries
have a long fruiting season and serve well when birds are scared away from the
primary crop.
Scarecrows and other deterrents, e.g., hawk-shaped kites (the flying object, not
the bird species), may serve a like purpose. As a strategy, scarecrows are an unde-
veloped resource (see Photo 3.1, page 38).
The notion of repellent chemicals has been mentioned and remains an underde-
veloped possibility. In one example, cow’s blood, placed in infield bamboo contain-
ers, keeps some bird species off maturing paddy rice (Singha et al. 2007).
Attracting
Most of the attention has been placed on birds as a crop-ruinous force. In contrast,
there are numerous possibilities for a positive outcome.
The first rule is to do no harm. One wants bird species that eat harmful insects,
rodents, etc., and not the crop. Weed-eating ducks find use as they eat more than
insects; they also consume weeds.
In addition to harnessing beneficial effects, birds must be lured or placed in the
target plot and enticed not to stray from their assigned task.
With domestic fowl, e.g., chickens, geese, ducks, guinea hens, and turkeys, their
service is easily obtained. Reportedly, the guinea hen is the most crop friendly.
Through fencing, these birds will stay put. By positioning them after the crop has
emerged and removing them before the crop is ready for harvest, they are more
likely to eat insects and not consume young sprouts, grains, or other fruits.
More challenging is the use of wild bird species in this role. Again, the key is to
encourage insect-eating species but reduce the presence of the crop-eating species.
As examples, wrens and woodpeckers ingest large quantities of insects, ignoring
the crop.
Insect-eating birds with discrete nesting requirements can be part of this strategy.
Wrens are a species that consume beetles and will nest in well-located wren houses.
Glossary 221
Woodpeckers need dead or dying trees in which to excavate their nests. They can
be lured into fields with peanut butter (peanut paste)-laced feeders. After the peanut
butter is consumed, they will seek nearby insects.
Another species of interest is the chimney swift. These birds eat flying insects.
More of interest is their nesting preference. If unused chimneys are not available,
tall, vertical tubes may suffice. The advantage here is that other, less-favorable birds
will not displace the nesting swifts.
The best anti-insect strategy may be a two-pronged attack. Some past societies,
notably medieval Europe, utilized a mix of domestic fowl and barnyard birds as an
element in an insect control strategy.
Ground-roaming fowl ingest insects but also cause some insects to flee. In taking
wing, they are subject to predation by birds that eat flying insects.
Chimney swifts and barn swallows, both of which eat flying bugs, are barnyard
favorable and not a threat to farm produce. As mentioned, with chimney swifts,
there is a possibility to place secure structures that mimic their preferred habitat.
Among the lure possibilities, T-shaped poles, placed in field, allow birds to rest
while hunting. This technique was once common in Central Europe. A similar prac-
tice if found in India allows owls to sit to hunt rodents (Singha et al. 2007).
Rodents eat grain and other crops and can be bird controlled. Eagles, hawks, and
owls head the list of possible species. Hawk nesting sites can be established. An
easier undertaking may be the barn owl. This night hunter has a preference for
houses of a certain design.
Biodiversity
The number of separate plant species in a given area constitutes diversity. This is
also called agrobiodiversity or biodiversity.
In use, there are slight differences in these terms. Agrobiodiversity, also short-
ened to agrodiversity, refers to the number of productive or facilitative species
within an agroecosystem. In this case, unwanted additions, i.e., weeds, are not
included. Biodiversity refers to all plant species found within an agroecosystem.
In ecology and agroecology, biodiversity is generally considered a good thing.
Within the productive context of agroecology, diversity is a planned strategy, one
expected to produce an economically positive outcome. For any farms, the upper
limit can be quite high. The general idea is to use nature as a guide and match the
species number as found in natural ecosystems of the area. This can range from tens
of species to a few hundred.
Categories
There are two classes of biodiversity. The first is the number of plant species pres-
ent; the second is the percent of each species in the total population of all plants.
222 Glossary
The number of overall species present is a crude measure with limited useful-
ness. It is the second, the percent of each, that provides system insight.
Based upon the percentage of each, three categories of biodiversity can be for-
mulated. These are (1) primary species, (2) secondary species, and (3) trace
species.
Primary Species
With simple agrosystems, the primary species is easy to ascertain. In a biculture, it

is the most valuable, the one that yields the highest, and/or is planted in greater
numbers than other species (one or more). With a maize-bean intercrop, the maize
is often the primary species simply because it out-yields bean.
There can be co-primary species when the land user does not differentiate. This
could well be the case for an onion/cabbage combination.
The situation is quite different with complex agrosystems. The primary species,
as compared to the number of individual species present, can constitute a small
percentage of the total.
For example, Jensen (1993) found, in a study of agroforests, that 3 species, out
of a total of 59, were primary species. These constituted 75% of the biomass.
Secondary Species
As stated above for intercropping, the secondary species is relatively manifest. It

can be visually apparent or, more likely, the land user’s preference.
For complex agrosystems, this second category are those species that are promi-
nent, but do not have the population numbers and rise to the biomass levels of the
primary species (as above, approximately 75% of the biomass). In an agroforest
setting, the individual species in this category would be 5–25% of the total number
of plants with similar percentages for biomass.
Trace Species
With simple agroecosystems, there is the occasional use of a trace species. These
are mostly with intercrops of five or six species. Anymore and the system crosses
the blurred line (seven-plus species) and becomes a complex agrosystem.
For complex agroecosystems, each of the trace species would make up about 1%
or 2% of the total species count. Although small by their individual populations and
biomass, in total, these species would be a significant percentage of the species total.
Glossary 223
Base Measurement
There are a number of indices for formally measuring biodiversity. At the core, all
divide the number of species by the number of plants per area. With slight variation,
these capture various nuances in biodiversity (Coffey 2002).
There is more to this than indices. Transcending numbers, there are abstract qual-
ity measures.
Sophistication
In the world of interplanted biodiversity, not all layouts are equal; some are more
sophisticated than others. This becomes apparent with complex agrosystems.
The degree of sophistication would not be numerically rankable. They can be
qualitatively evaluated. There are four proposed rankings: (1) coverage, (2) inten-
sity, (3) eloquence, and (4) holism.
The highly abstract nature of the ordering seriously limits use. The point being
made is that, although all may be within the threshold parameters of density, diver-
sity, and disarray, some layouts produce better results than others.
Coverage
The most basic layout is to evenly space the various plant species such that each
species is evenly distributed within the plot. This means that there is a large amount
of interspecies interface. In essence, this is just a collection of many species.
Although they follow the rules of management for complex agrosystems, there is
little beyond that.
Intensity
A step-up from coverage, intensity achieves different goals. The populations, loca-
tions, and interactions are so formulated as to address economic and environmental
objectives. One begins to see clumping, not as monocultural groupings, but as fuzzy
collections. This may promote harvest efficiency where the land user is not search-
ing around for like species.
Eloquence
As the bio-sophistication increases, the component ecosystem goes beyond elemen-

tary economic and environmental objectives. Clumping may be present, but the
plants chosen, and their location, confer a degree of interaction. The notion is to
fortify their specific roles. There is more attempt to have secondary species (more
than one), facilitative plants, and the ecosystem do a lot more in hosting the primary
species (one or more).
224 Glossary
Holism
With this expression of biodiversity, one expects the most possible from productive
landscapes. This is more than just meeting yield expectations. Here is a well-
developed complex agrosystem that, over time or with great user knowledge, has
reached, or maximized, its full ecological and economic potential. The interplay of
native flora and fauna might be part of defining holism.
Buffer Species
At times, a nonproductive plant species may be placed between two productive spe-
cies or between two adjoining agroecosystems. When placed between unlike and
yielding species, the purpose is to reduce interspecies belowground root interaction,
thereby reducing the interspecies or inter-row interface distance.
Buffers between rows of unlike species can increase the number of yielding
plants per area and the per-area yields. This would be with one or both of the com-
ponent species. By extension, this increases the overall LER.
When placed between two dissimilar agroecosystems, the goal is to reduce the
negative edge effect that one ecosystem has on another. Rows or strips of a buffer
species may be inserted between an agrosystem and a natural ecosystem. These may
also be used to insulate an agroecosystem from some other landscape feature, e.g.,
from a road.
The main characteristic of buffer species includes dense, vertical root system.
These should also be long-lasting perennial that, among other qualities, tolerates
climatic extremes, can survive shading, resists grazing, and does not harbor herbi-
vore insects. One common tropical species is the grass vetiver.
Where tree plots border crop plots, the interplot buffer species must have certain
aboveground attributes. A thick, vertical canopy will keep the tree canopy from
overhanging and robbing sunlight from the crop. A thick vertical canopy will also
shade below the trees, reducing weeding costs from the light-entering edge effect.
In yet another use of the buffer species, these can serve as guide species, keeping
the bole of neighboring trees straight and branchless. This increases timber value for
these agricultural additions (these are discussed under the Guide Species).
Cajetes
Rather than positioning long contour ditches as a means to capture, hold, and infil-
trate rain water, this task can be done equally through well-positioned, individual
ditches. Generally, cajetes are spaced across hillsides to maximize water capture
and are fairly deep in order to stop and contain high rainfall runoff (as in Photo C1).
As a land modification agrotechnology, these designs are useful when contour
ditches cannot be fully employed. The common situation is where boulders litter a
Glossary 225
Photo C1 In-place cajetes. These hillside ditches were excavated to capture rainwater and pro-
mote infiltration. The slanted sides stabilize the structure. With time, vegetation will provide fur-
ther stabilization. (This photo was taken in Nicaragua)
hillside, the ground is very uneven, and/or trees intercede, making it impossible to
establish long, continuous, contour structures.
Because they take the same area, cajetes are best when placed uphill from crops.
Situations differ; there can be cases where, because of the nature of the site, peren-
nial crops are interspersed with cajetes.
There are a number of variations in their design. As these can collapse or fill with
soil over time, some are surrounded or lined with vegetation to provide stability.
These can be small, one-half meter across or be quite large, several meters across.
Larger cajetes are placed alongside wades or intermediate streams to capture runoff
and allow time for this to infiltrate into the ground.
These are not ponds. They are expected to dry completely either during a dry
season or between rains. Until drying does take place, these may function as water-
ing holes for animals.
Camellones
Similar to high mounds, except that camellones are found in high rainfall areas
where, after heavy rains, the space between is completely filled with water. During
less rainy period, the water level is much lower. These function in flat areas where
flooding would normally be an issue (Harris 2016).
226 Glossary
Fig. C1 Midpoint and minimum interface canopy layouts. On the right is a midpoint design; the
left shows of minimum interface layout. The top is an overview; the bottom is the side
perspective
Canopy Patterns
In Chap. 2, some of the possible ground-level, spatial planting patterns are pre-
sented. These apply to all intercrops, and, to a lesser degree, they can be found with
seven-plus disarray. There is another set of patterns; these are the height relation-
ships of canopies. These are found in all three-plus agrosystems, disarray included.
There are two basic patterns, (1) minimum interface and (2) midpoint. The mini-
mum interface has the tallest species planted adjacent to the next tallest. This pattern
continues where, based on diminishing height, this is a progression, one species is
always next to one of lesser stature.
With midpoint design, the next tallest is located midway between the tallest spe-
cies (one or two). Between the tallest and next tallest, a shorter species is placed.
Both these patterns are shown in Fig. C1.
There can be combination designs. The tallest two or three species, usually trees,
are positioned in a midpoint design. Those nearest the ground are in a minimum
interface configuration. These are generally found with complex agroecosystems.
When these patterns are cross-sectional to a system of rows, it should be noted
that a north-south row placement is generally the first choice. This is to maximize
per species light interception. Other factors, such as topography and understory
shade tolerance, may override this consideration.
Glossary 227
Canopy Strategies
With all multi-species agroecosystems, light dynamics enter the picture. This is
especially pertinent when there is a large difference in height between the interact-
ing species.
The amount of light intercepted can be calculated. One means to do this is by
measuring the amount of light striking the ground.
From the agroecosystem design perspective, light falls under the heading of an
essential resource (for more, see Competitive Partitioning). The optimization of
light distribution and interception can be a key aspect of productivity success. For
this, light distribution depends in large part on the taller, overstory species, i.e.,
number, shape, size, and light permeability of these species. There are guidelines
that help in this process.
Interception
Some plant species prefer midday vertical light; some seek early morning or late
evening horizontal light. Horizontal canopies, often wide but without much vertical
depth, mostly capture vertical light. An example is the cabbage plant.
In contrast, tall, narrow canopies tend to catch horizontal light. Onion is an
example of the latter.
Most species do not distinguish; they seek and utilize light in either form. One
aspect of a spatial pattern is to put these preferences into their fullest effect. A com-
mon case is the interception of vertical and horizontal light in tree-row alley crop-
ping. As below, this is the reason for the suggested north-south orientation (for
more, see Row Orientation).
Interrelationships
Where the overstory is close spaced, there are two basic designs, (1) gap and (2)
light filtered.
Gaps
For gap systems, the space between overstory canopies is the source of light for
understory species. Where higher plant-per-area densities are advantageous, there
are key properties for both understory and overstory species.
In one pairing, vertically shaped, horizontal light-seeking upper story plants are
paired with smaller plants that prefer vertical light. In another variation, round,
compact, dense overstory species are often coupled with a species that favor intense
periods of vertical light.
228 Glossary
Both these designs assume a non-spreading overstory species. In a seasonal

cropping scenario, e.g., tall crops such as maize or sunflower, this is not a problem.
Some tree or other perennial species, e.g., palms, naturally assume these canopy
shapes and fit well within these designs.
For many trees, there is a tendency for the canopy to spread unless (a) con-
strained by another equal-height species or (b) the trees are pruned. This tendency
limits the potential for close-spaced gap systems. The other option is wide-spaced
designs.
To maximize light interception, the rows in alley systems are generally ori-
ented north-south. This gives the alley crop the midday light. This pattern can be
adjusted if the alley species benefits more from morning light (for more, see Alley
Cropping).
Filtered
Instead of gaps, spatial pattern can be based upon the light that penetrates through
the canopy of an overstory species. The requirement is for taller species that have
open canopies. These species often seek vertical light. This is measurable through
the leaf area index (basically measuring canopy thickness as compared to width).
Those canopies that have a high degree of light penetration, i.e., low leaf area
index species, allow for greater intercropping opportunities. Dense, high leaf area
index canopies, unless suitable for gap design, offer lesser intercropping
opportunities.
Uses
The above guidelines find practical application in the various agrotechnologies.

Listed by category, examples of gap systems are alley cropping and parklands.
Filtered examples are heavy shade and support (crop-on-stem systems).
Some agrotechnologies feature little or no difference between the heights in
close-interacting component species. These pairings are not part of this
discussion.
Some permanent agrotechnologies combine both forms, e.g., light shade and
agroforest designs have both gap and filtered light. Season intercropping can employ
one or the other, as examples, dill over some vegetable is a light-filtered design,
while a well-spaced sunflower overstory is a gap-type system.
Catchments
There can be areas, farm-wide or regional, were the collection of water is more
important than any productive role the land might have. Often dry, rocky, naturally
barren, hillsides serve as catchment zones where water from infrequent rains is
Glossary 229
diverted to another, ex-area use. Common examples are where water is captured for
use in water-intensive rice paddies.
Where these are less barren, the catchment can serve a productive function.
Natural forests and forest-tree or tree-crop plantations, if well managed, will not
affect water quality and water runoff.
There are caveats; the tree species selected must not be thirsty. This would elimi-
nate heavy water-using trees. Examples are water-demanding, but drought-resistant,
species of eucalyptus. The liberal use of riparian buffers, infiltration ditches, and
other water management features will further purpose a catchment.
Catchments can be part of a landscape subject to water harvesting. The latter is
formulated more on the placement of water infiltration structures (for more, see
Water Harvesting).
Change (Broadly Stated)
In agroecology, change takes certain forms. At the landscape level, the overall or aver-
age economic orientation can transition. Normally, this would be a slow conversion,
the result of population growth and increased agricultural demand. This is a move-
ment from low-intensity, cost-oriented agriculture to a more revenue-oriented form.
There are examples where the reverse has occurred. Change involves moving
quickly from intense agriculture to the cost-oriented version. In a cited example,
this resulted from the decline of a railroad and loss of distant markets (Soluri 2001).
Whatever the circumstances, change comes in relation to the severity of need.
The gradients are (1) substitution and (2) changeover.
With substitution, the modifications are relatively minor. These can involve
switching:
(a) One plant variety for another (e.g., adding a drought-resistant variety)
(b) One input for another (replacing fertilizer with animal manure)
(c) An input for more biodiversity (an insect-repellent facilitative species replacing
insecticide use)
(d) Forms of biodiversity (one facilitative species for another)
Changeover can be more dramatic. Where simple substitution is not the answer,
a shift to an entirely new agroecosystem (i.e., agrotechnology) may be warranted.
This occurs if the current practice is not in line with an upcoming economic or land-
use situation. This can be where the demands on the soil are draining the nutrient
content, and a change in practice would be justified.
Changeover is often economic. If the market value of an existing crop is in decline,
the cost of a changeover may be more than compensated for by the increased rev-
enues of a new agrosystem (for a different perspective, see Diagnosis and Design).
230 Glossary
Classification
It can be revealing to systematically order the land-use possibilities. This is infor-

mally undertaken throughout this text. It comes to the fore when discussing
agrotechnologies.
Classification can be messy. It can be based around the amount and type of agro-
biodiversity. The starting point is the simple monoculture, going on to more com-
plex monocultural forms, e.g., bicultures (crop and tree based). After traversing the
many design options, the process ends with highly species-rich agroforests.
Basis
The common accepted classification is somewhat crude. This is where an agrotech-

nology can be viewed as being agriculturally based, part of agroforestry, or listed
under forestry. Within this system, there is often little attempt at further subgroupings.
In opposition, some will argue that a layout under the three headings is counter-
productive. It is far better to offer land users the full range of possibilities and opti-
mize land use around those agroecosystem designs that serve best. Classification
must serve this goal by identifying and ranking agronomically, ecologically, envi-
ronmentally, socially, and/or economically interesting agroecosystems.
Types
Classifications come in many forms. One might choose to look at soil runoff, sort-
ing the agrotechnologies from weak to strong based upon the how well the alterna-
tives handle this danger. Since soil runoff addresses a singular purpose, the designs
presented would best optimize around this variable. Usually, this would be done for
hilly, erosion-prone sites.
Another form of classification is temporal. Agrosystems range from occupying a
single season to being perennial. There are also timing issues where plantings are
staggered or delayed within a longer time frame.
Going on, species, not as biodiversity, but the type of crop, can be a system of
classification. For example, vegetable systems differ from grain systems in their
layout and their underlying ecology. Outside of the species, spacing, and ecology,
economics and social factors can also contribute.
This text uses economic orientation as a separator. Also found are intercropping,
agroforestry, and fauna-based agrosystems.
Glossary 231
Proposed Categories
On the widest scale, this text suggests three categories of classification. These are
not only plot but also landscape based. This often means a mix of plots. Each plot
would exhibit its own ecology, but the overall mix reaches a minimum standard or
ecological consensus. The three categories are:
1. Do-less-harm
2. Matrix
3. Bio-complexity
These are discussed in detail in Chap. 9. Briefly, a do-less-harm landscape is
mostly input based with only a modicum of ecological dynamics.
Matrix landscapes would offer enough in the way of eco-services such that active
analysis becomes possible. The last category harnesses the very energetic ecology
associated with bio-complex agrosystems. This ecology, employed directly or
through spillover, dominates the targeted region.
Competitive Exclusion
As a subset of the plant-on-plant, complementarity-competitive range, competi-

tive exclusion is the negative or the competitively minus side, i.e., where one
plant or one plant species exerts a disadvantageous influence on another. Normally,
interspecies competitive relations are not sought after. They do however have
clear uses.
In most agroecosystems, crops are productively threatened when essential
resources are taken by unproductive plants. Weeding and/or herbicides are ways to
counter the unwanted plants and the threat. Natural dynamics, through agrosystem
design, allows the included species to exclude the unwanted ones.
There are a number of mechanisms to this. Shading and belowground niche
crowding are often intentionally employed.
Along these same lines, and using the same resource denial, is niche crowding.
This is when a mix of wanted species occupy or monopolize one or more of the
available resources. This is to the exclusion of the unwanted plants. The planting of
a cover crop is usually part of an exclusion strategy.
Competitive Partitioning
When two or more individual plant species are grown in close contact, interactions
occur. How these plants partition and convert acquired light, water, and essential
nutrients into something useful constitutes competitive partitioning.
232 Glossary
This can be based, in large part, upon those resource niches that competing plants
occupy in relationship to each other. Competitive partitioning is generally measured
through the land equivalent ratio (LER).
The Theoretical Base
Competitive partitioning applies when an essential resource is divided between two

interacting plants. When these are of the same species and variety, there are, by and
large, no LER gains to be had. When dealing with two unlike species, LER gains
(values greater than one) are possible.
Ample Supply
Successful competitive partitioning occurs when all, site-available essential

resources are in ample supply. Basically, the affect is strongest when there are more
resources to partition.
This might not always seem the case. If not, there are various mechanisms that
can make this happen (see Marginal Gains and Separate Sources as ensuing topics
in this section).
For these essential resources, the shaded area in Fig. C2 is the zone where com-
petitive partitioning starts. The darker, right side is where competitive partitioning
results in the highest LER values. The LER potential is weaker in the lighter zone
and nonexistent when one or more resources are in short supply.
In the short supply range (the left portion of Fig. C2), plant-on-plant facilitation
could make up a single resource shortfall. If the case, competitive partitioning, plus
facilitation, could also result in an LER greater than one (for more on this topic, see
Facilitation).
Fig. C2 The shaded area Yield

is the effective range of
competitive partitioning.
The strength, i.e., potential
LER, is in relation to
shading, i.e., the darker the
shading, the greater the
potential. In varying forms,
this relationship applies,
individuality, to all
essential resources
Essential Resource
Glossary 233
Planting Density
Take the case where two interacting species are highly complementary, i.e., through
various mechanisms (again, as described later in this section), where both species
suffer no yield reductions when interplanted. Under the assumption that facilitation
is not present, this could result in an LER value of 2.0.
Figure C3 shows this scenario. For this, both species in this biculture are planted
at their optimal monocultural planting densities. As explained in Chap. 2, page 22,
this gives a density index (DI) of 2.0.
Achieving an LER of 2.0 also requires a very high interspecies interface, i.e., where
the individual plants of both species are bordered on at least three, maybe four, sides
by the other species. In Fig. C3, this density-based optimization curve is labeled a.
For most biculture plantings, the optimal often has a sparser DI and a corre-
spondingly lower LER. This can be the situation when essential resources are not
fully available (see Marginal Gains, this section).
When this occurs, the optimization curves for various species co-plantings
mostly fall in the region labeled b in Fig. C3. This assumes modest to good competi-
tive partitioning.
Negative, not positive, competitive partitioning may rule. The functioning curves
for this have LER values below one. These would be in the region labeled c.
This may call into question, but not completely disqualify, specific species com-
binations. This is because a poor LER may be due to a shortage of one or more
essential resources, not because of a mismatched or unsuitable pairing.
The last of these four scenarios is where the density index is greater than 2.0.
This is labeled as d in Fig. C3. It should be noted that, given an accurate rendering
of the component monoculture density functions, the composite biculture function
would never optimize in this region.
LER a
2.0
b
d
1.0
Density Index (DI) 2.0
Fig C3 Four biculture planting scenarios: (a) two highly complementary, densely planted species;
(b) a less complementary, two-species relationship that achieves optimal results with lowered
planting densities; (c) a competitive relationship; and (d) an overly dense planting usually
employed for weed exclusion
234 Glossary
Despite this, there can be good reasons for seeking a very dense, suboptimal solu-
tion. One prominent case is where weeds are a costly and overriding problem. The
sacrifice of some LER (i.e., revenue) potential would be more than justified through
the cost savings brought about by an overly dense, weed-suppressing planting.
Upper Limit
The strong presumption is that the LER/ population density function is both sigmoi-
dal and has an upper limit asymptote. Of these two functional characteristics, the
latter may be of greater significance.
There are two reasons for this. For the first, an upper value is a key reference for
calibrating bio-complex models. The second is practical. It provides landusers,
those contemplating increased cropping diversity, with a gauge for economic plan-
ning. The apple orchard example, the last section, Chapter 10, would represent a
prime application.
Although, as in Fig. C2, bi-cultural values of 2.0 are uncommon, but possible. A
corresponding tri-culture would not achieve an LER of 3.0. This is because niche
and/or physical crowding or a reduced DI (< 3.0) would diminish overall yields.
This would be within the asymptotic range. In turn, this suggests an average or
median upper limit (irrespective of the number of species) of around 2.5.
Preliminary work has, for the underlying function, a less severe curvature than
suggested above. The proposed upper limit is near to the 2.5 value (Halty et al.
2017).
As discussed in this section, between-species complementarity can be quite vari-
able. A sampling of the land equivalent ratios for bi- and tri-culture intercrops, as
below (with the LER in parentheses), shows this variability.
Barley and fava bean (1.85)
Bean and maize (1.53)
Cassava, groundnut, and maize (2.51)
Cocoyam, groundnut, and maize (2.08)
This is would not be the case for complex agroecosystems. For agroforests based
around density, disarray, and a dozen or more interacting species, the upper value
should solidify.
One final note on the upper limit. For simple agroecosystems, the dearth of in-field
examples of four-plus polycultures would indicate that there are management issues
and no corresponding LER gains to be had.
Economics
Intercropping and competitive partitioning are generally revenue-enhancing activi-

ties. They can also be employed as a counter when risk is high. High monocultural
yields are promoted as a measure of agronomic success. This gives a LER of 1.0.
Intercrops commonly dwarf this number.
Glossary 235
Facilitation is generally used when a costly input is needed to boost yields.

Substitution replaces these inputs with free or low-cost natural means (Chap. 3). As
a result, facilitation is generally cost orientated (for more, see Facilitation).
Mechanisms
There are two overlapping agronomic mechanisms that underlie competitive parti-
tioning. These are (1) marginal gains and (2) separate sources.
These are not independent. There may be separate sources for some, but not all,
of the essential resources. For those resources that are not separately sourced, high
site abundance and/or marginal gains may be the mechanisms that allow the poten-
tial LER gains to be fully realized.
Both these mechanisms are important. It can be argued that marginal gains, with
a reduction in planting densities, are the basis for a wide range of successful
intercrops.
Marginal Gains
Take the situation where two unlike species cohabit a plot. For this analysis, a sin-
gle, essential resource determines yield. Again, for explanatory purpose, it is
assumed that the plot is well endowed with this resource and the two species are
similar in height, in growth rate, and in resource needs.
Moreover, they are evenly spaced throughout this plot. Missing would be any
facilitatory effects and any access each species might have to separate sources for
the resource in question.
Under this scenario, there can be a presumption that, given a linear production
function, there are no LER gains from a co-planting. This is not the driving precon-
dition. Because of the nonlinearity of the resource-response function, substantial
LER gains are possible.
Fig. C4 The case for high LER 200% 100%

LER values based on
150%
marginal gains. Textually
explained, this illustrates a 1.0
case where a reduction in
the planting density (from 1.23
200% to 150%) boosts the ( 0.82 x 1.5)
LER
0.94
(0.47 x 2)
Essential Resource
236 Glossary
Figure C2 shows the resource-response function for the limiting resource. This
function is overlaid, in Fig. C4, with vertical lines. These lines, marked 100%,
200%, and 150%, correspond to an intercrop density index.
The vertical line on the right are crops grown on rich site. The density index, at
100%, can be a monoculture of either species a or species b. It can also be a bicul-
ture of species a and b, both at a 50% density index (i.e., 50% + 50% = 100%). The
resulting LERs are 1.0.
If a biculture is planted where both species are at their normal planting density,
this gives a density index of 200%. Since there are twice as many plants, each spe-
cies receives ½ the amount of the essential resource.
In Fig. C4, the projected LER of each species is 0.47. For two species, double
this number. The site now gives an LER of 0.94 (0.47 × 2 = 0.94). When LER is the
sole acceptance criteria, this is a generally unacceptable value.
Some clarification would help. If the resource in question is water, doubling the
number of plants would half that resource available to each plant. Using the sigmoid
form, this is shown (in Fig. C4) to seriously drop the yield.
This might not happen. It is well documented that intercropping confers some
advantages, e.g., Olasantan (1988) and Ghanbari et al. (2010).
For water, increased shading reduces soil-surface transpiration. With more roots,
this also results in increased water recovery. Similarly, more roots per area can
translate into a greater overall capture of nutrients.
These gains often mean a higher LER than originally projected, i.e., greater than
0.94 in Fig. C4. Given a best-case situation, this might add 30% to one or more of
the resources available to each plant.
This is not always the case. There are intercrops that turn out to be very interspe-
cies competitive and yield poorly when co-planted. An example might be the co-
planting of two, high transpiration species.
It is not always possible to rely upon interspecies advantages; also there are
other, yield-constraining, essential resources. In the majority of cases, the go-to
solution would be lesser species populations.
Theoretically, the greatest LER comes at the point where the sigmoidal curve
begins to flatten. In Fig. C4, a planting density of 150% (75% from each species) is
the answer. Here, the LER is projected to be 1.23 (2 × 0.82). 1.23 is an acceptable
LER. If one or more of the component species has access to separate sources, this
number might further increase.
The above strengthens the argument that most species, if the spacing is right, can
be successfully biculturally intercropped. The long list of documented intercrops,
Chap. 5, lends credence to this argument.
Separate Sources
If two species are interplanted and each draws all resources from separate sources,
sans facilitation, the theoretical LER would be 2.0. Under this highly theoretical
scenario, the right-most vertical line, with a density index of 200%, is the theoretical
LER limit. This would be 2.0.
Glossary 237
Fig. C5 The resource- LER 200% 200%

response curve with
200%
separate sources. The right
lines give the highest 2.0
possible LER (2.0). The
lower value (LER = 0.6) is
a normal situation.
Separate sources for the 1.4
limiting resource can boost
this. The arrows show a
possible outcome
0.6
Essential Resource
This is seldom the norm. More likely, the LER would be far less. In Fig. C5, the
outcome for the left-side vertical line gives an LER of 0.6.
Based on the sigmoidal curve, adding separate sources to the mix boosts the LER
to 1.4. In Fig. C5, the arrows and dotted line show this happening.
Mechanisms Behind Separate Sources
There are a number of interspecies differences that can increase the overall plot
LER. The mechanisms are when one or more essential resources:
1. Are utilized at a different time or season
2. When the resources are utilized at the same time or season but:
(a) Are collected in different zones, e.g., plant root profiles are in different lay-
ers or zones or the canopies collect different forms of light (horizontal or
vertical)
(b) Resources are derived from different sources or the needs differ, e.g., N2
(legumes) or NO2 (non-legumes)
Timing
This mechanism is often exploited with early and late maturing species. This also
occurs when a species that grows fast early in the season is paired with a species that
experiences greater growth at a later stage.
As examples, this can naturally occur when one tree species puts on foliage in
the early spring while another waits until early summer. The intercropping of toma-
toes with lettuce, common with backyard gardeners, exploits this mechanism.
Another means to exploit this relationship is to plant one species early, wait some
days or weeks, and plant another. This increases productivity but also can add to the
cost.
238 Glossary
Fig. C6 Roots in different soil strata and not in direct competition for belowground essential
resources
Roots
Some species are deep rooted, others shallow rooted. This difference can be utilized
for mineral capture or for acquiring water. Examples include clover late planted
with beets or onions, the sowing of barley after onions are planted, or the planting
of rye after sowing onions, peas, or cabbage.
For these combinations, clover, barley, and rye are the shallow-rooted plants; the
vegetables are deep rooted. The delay in planting may be warranted as deep-rooted
species should be in place before encountering competition from those that are shal-
low rooted. This type of relationship is shown in Fig. C6.
Light
There are two basic mechanisms of light-use efficiency. The first exploits canopy
shape. Those species that seek vertical light (wide canopies) are interplanted with
those that seek horizontal light (tall, skinny canopies). Vertical light occurs at or
near to midday. Horizontal light shines in the mornings or evenings.
Through canopy shape and/or leaf orientation, some plant species can prefer one
or the other form. Light direction is fully utilized when plants with tall narrow
canopy (horizontal light seekers) are planted above those with low spreading can-
opy (vertical light seekers).
The second exploitable mechanism is shade resistance. Plants with open, low
leaf area index canopies, i.e., where much direct light passes between leaves and is
not intercepted, are planted above those that thrive and/or yield well with less light.
Shade-grown coffee falls into this latter category.
Glossary 239
Differing Sources and Needs
Despite occupying the same root zone, plants make/seek their mineral needs from
different sources. The classic example is where some plants fix airborne N2 (by
legumes) or where some plants acquire NO2 from the soil.
Less documented is where plants find minerals unassociated in the soil while
others can chemically modify in-soil compounds and/or rocks to separate out the
needed elements.
Unlike plants thrive in close contact when their internal needs differ substan-
tially. A plant that requires lots of phosphorus and little nitrogen can prosper in
competition with one that takes more nitrogen and little phosphorus.
To succeed, this relationship must be complementary across the full mineral spec-
trum or the other nutrients must be in abundant supply. This can and does happen.
Complementarity
(See Competitive Partitioning)
This is a topic covered in extensive detail in Chap. 7. This section expands on what
was previously presented.
In Chap. 2, a complex agroecosystem is characterized as having seven or more
interacting plant species. This brings about a situation where nature and natural
dynamics become the dominant force, i.e., the plant-plant relationships of a simple
agrosystem become secondary to the now flourishing natural agro-dynamics.
There is wide agreement that seven species set this boundary (Kareiva 1994;
Tilman et al. 1997; Baskin 1994). Most likely, this is a sigmoidal function where
there is a jump from a low level of natural dynamics to a far higher level.
Speculating, seven species could be either the inflection point or some point near
to where the sigmoidal function begins to level. This is based on the observation that
most complex agrosystems far exceed this number. An upper LER of 2.5 has been
suggested (see Upper Limit under Competitive Partitioning).
As previously stated (Chap. 7), species diversity does not stand alone. Density,
disarray, and duration, also above threshold values, are part of this (for more, see
Density, Disarray, Duration, also Agroforests).
Composting
Often considered a key component in organic agriculture, the notion of recycling

biodegradable waste products is enticing. Composting is where kitchen, farm, and/
or yard residue is reduced, through bacterial decomposition, into a nutrient-rich
240 Glossary
soil. Afterward, this material is carried and applied to garden or farm plots much the
same as fertilizers or animal manures.
The alternative to full-on composting is vermiculture. This is where earthworms,
not bacterial decay, are the primary mechanism for the breakdown of organic
residues.
Other Gains
As with manures, there are unheralded benefits. Added to soil along with the com-
posed materials is a blend of microorganisms. Many are directly associated with the
decay process; others are a product of the microecology.
The latter are drawn to this process by richness in other microorganisms. When
applied to crops, some help in the agrosystem ecology, deterring plant diseases and
some insect species (e.g., Morales et al. 2001).
There are other gains from a well-formulated blend of composed materials.
Some of the slow to decompose plant fibers help hold moisture in the soil and keep
soils loose and uncompacted. The latter, lesser soil density, eases root penetration
and, for root crop, allows for root expansion and high yields.
Rudiments
Separate sites for composting, other than directly on agricultural plots, are often the
norm. In a staging or preparation ground, the organic materials are transformed, the
nutrient balance is improved, and the mix is made more uniform before being
applied to crops.
The ideal mix for residue awaiting composting is often expressed through a
carbon-nitrogen ratio. For this dry weight measure, the best mixes have a ratio of
between 25 and 30 parts carbon to 1 part nitrogen. The ideal ratio is set at 30:1.
Some inputs, dry grasses, fallen leaves, and sawdust, are very high in carbon.
Others, e.g., chicken manure, fish, and other animal processing waste, are high in
nitrogen. The composting process combines these into well-balanced soil additive.
Also inclusive are waste products that add other nutrients and soil useful trace
elements. Food wastes, rock dusts, seaweed, and other biodegradable inputs can
boost the all-around mix of in-product elements.
For successful composting using locally sourced bio-waste, it helps to have cor-
responding and comprehensive NKP tables. These are found in some older texts,
e.g., Bailey (1907).
Other requirements include sufficient moisture, aeration, and frequent turning of
decaying mass. In some regions, and for some uses, temperature minimums must be
reached.
Normally, this is 40–60 °C (104–105 °F). The maximum should not exceed
65 °C (150 °F). As described later in this section, this is to eliminate disease-causing
bacteria that might contaminate, in subsequent application, consumable crops.
Glossary 241
Economics
Although composting has favorable connotations, economics may or may not sup-
port wider usage. If the raw materials have a good nutrient balance and are uniform
enough, it is less costly to skip the off-site composting phase and put these directly
on farm fields.
As an example, horse manures, when mixed with bedding straw, can decompose
on farm fields almost as easily as on a compost heap. Direct application would also
be far less costly.
On-field composting will not meet the abovementioned, and often-mandated,
achieved temperature requirements. In this case, composting is the only alternative.
If there are many raw inputs spread over a long time period, such as daily appli-
cation of kitchen waste, the economics may favor compost approach. This is espe-
cially true if the waste attracts bugs, birds, or other unwanted guests in a
non-composting environment.
Other than specific exceptions, composting, as opposed to infield application, is
found where the inputs:
(a) Require a period of decomposition before the contained nutrients are available
to plants
(b) Are too smelly or contain harmful ingredients, e.g., weed seeds or dangerous
bacteria, that require time to minify
(c) Are available at an inconvenient time in the growing cycle
(d) Arrive in amounts too small for efficient direct usage
(e) Are too concentrated or have chemical imbalance that, upon direct field appli-
cation, would damage yields
The exception to the above guidelines lies with tropical homegardens. Located
adjacent to households, these are used as a disposal site for kitchen and other
degradable wastes. For more on this, see Homegardens (Chap. 7, page 111).
Types
There are different forms of composting. Other than that done directly on farm fields,
these are the (1) higher temperature active and (2) lower temperature passive.
As materials decompose, heat is released. When compost piles are damp and
well insulated, the heat produced speeds the decay process. With hotter piles,
unwanted bacteria is destroyed or reduced, the odors are mostly eliminated, and
weed seeds are killed.
If placed directly on fields, suitable results can take weeks or months. High-
temperature composting, although much faster, can be more expensive.
More common is the natural, lower-temperature, passive approach. For this a
mix of input is mounded and allowed to slowly decay. The complete process, with-
out intrusion, can take as long as a year or two. This low-input method can be accel-
erated through earthworm activity. As with all composting moisture, aeration, and
periodic turning will ensure uniformity in the decay rate and output.
242 Glossary
Practicalities
Composting works best for small applications, e.g., backyard gardens, or on a grand
scale, i.e., large farms or commercial producers. At issue is the turning of the
compost.
For piles less than 100 kg, or slightly larger, hand turning is feasible. For large
enterprises, mechanization handles this task. For medium-sized farms with large
compost piles and without mechanical aids, earthworm-based compost may be the
better alternative.
Conservation Agriculture
This view or branch of agroecology is less philosophically laden and centered

more on future sustainability. The core idea is to protect soil resources. This is
done through minimum soil disturbance, often through no-till methods. Also
part of the plan is the use of cover crops and/or mulch and through crop
rotations.
The agroecology behind these practices is clear. For one, there is less erosion,
better water infiltration, and higher in-soil moisture. There are also the soil nutrient
and insect control advantages associated with rotations. To the negative, no-till
methods can result in weed blooms and a dependence on herbicides.
Corridors (Habitat)
Across landscapes, corridors permit freer travel by a range of beneficial organ-

isms. The idea is to link reservoirs and habitats to areas where eco-services are
needed.
These can be strips of natural vegetation, purposely planted, or a mix of natural
and planted species. Common for the latter are flowering, perennial plants, best if
selected from those plants that have a long flowering duration.
Those organisms that are aided by corridors are pollinating insects (e.g., Bäckman
and Tianen 2002), insect-eating and nonagricultural intrusive fauna such as skunks
(e.g., Vickery et al. 2002), and earthworms (e.g., Lagerlöf et al. 2002). As landscape
features, corridors also help move microflora and microfauna.
As less of an agricultural aid and more of an environmental service, corridors are
also needed by wildlife species. These allow timid animals to travel, avoiding
unwanted contact with people and predators. On a larger scale, corridors allow tree
dwellers to reach their preferred habitat without crossing open ground.
This kindness extends to plants. Peterken (1993) and Matlack (1994) found that
native plants cannot reach favorable plots if landscapes are fragmented and lack
travel corridors.
Glossary 243
As landscape features, corridors are seldom single purpose. A wide range of

facilitative systems, windbreaks, water-breaks, firebreaks, riparian buffers, buffer
zones, living fences, infiltration structures, catchments, and water channels can be,
as a double purpose, used as corridors.
These can be more effective if part of a landscape-wide plan. It only takes a bit
more planning to (a) insure that these adjoin against reservoirs and habitat-rich
systems, (b) connect where connections are needed, and (c) pass through cropping
areas where services are desired.
Cost Equivalent Ratio
Whereas the LER and the RVT put the focus on productivity and revenue, some
agrotechnologies are formulated and achieve success due to their cost efficiency.
This requires a cost equivalent ratio (CER) or a parallel, profit-loss analysis. The
CER looks at input efficiency.
The Simple CER
CER measures start with the elemental version. For this, the base equation is:
CER = ca / cab
where ca is the cost of production for species a and cab is the cost of production when
species a is closely intercropped with species b. This equation is best for single-
output, facilitative applications.
An example would be when costs are 20% less when a facilitative species reduces
weeding or other inputs. For this, the:
=
CER 1=
.0 / 0.8 1.25
This is the economic opposite of revenue orientation where the strategy is to increase
the external inputs in the hope of increasing yields and therefore profits.
An often cited example, repeated from Chap. 2, is the CER analysis of farms of
shaded coffee. The cost for a non-shaded coffee monoculture is $1740. For an
equivalent-area shaded agrosystem, the cost is $269 (Perfecto et al. 1996). The
resulting CER is:
=CER $=
1740 / $269 6.47
This analysis shows that the shade agrosystem, with regard to added inputs, increases
efficiency by almost 6.5. This brings on the notion of two opposing economic
options, revenue and cost orientation (see Economic Orientation).
244 Glossary
An Intercropping-Specific Version
The flaw in the above-presented CER is that it ignores some of the cost savings
associated with intercropping. With individual, monocultural plots of species a and
species b, two separate plowings and two separate weedings are required.
Productivity issues aside, there are cost savings in co-planting these two species. To
start, only one land preparation is needed, and a single weeding benefits both
species.
For multiple-output, classic, seasonal intercropping, the better measure may be
an intercropping-specific version of the CER. This is:
CER i = ( ca + cb ) / cab
where cb is the cost associated with the a with b intercrop. Taking into account the
joint savings, much higher cost gains are reflected. For example:
CER i = (1.0 + 1.0 ) / 0.8 = 2.5
This jump in cost savings compares with the simple CER calculation (i.e.,
CER = 1.25) shown earlier in this section.
Adjusted CERs
There are other CER variations that may offer more insight. One adjusted CER is
formulated by multiplying the relative total value (RVT) by the CER. This gives a
RVT-adjusted CER. The resulting equation is:
CER ( RVT ) = ( ca / cab ) RVT
In use, higher values are better. If a mixed-species agrosystem is superior to a mono-

culture, both in input and land-use efficiency, the CER and the RVT will be greater
than 1, e.g.:
CER ( RVT ) = (1.5 )(1.2 ) = 1.8
The idea is that a higher CER compensates for a low RVT. Conversely, a low CER
balances against a high RVT. For example:
CER ( RVT ) = ( 0.75 )(1.2 ) = 0.9
shows a situation where the cost savings do not correct for the productivity losses.
With the shaded coffee example previously presented:
Glossary 245
CER ( RVT ) = ( ca / cab ) RVT = ( $1740 / $269 )( 0.22 ) = 1.42
Despite the yield reduction and a low RVT (0.22), the cost gains are more than
makeup for the yield reductions. This result is still favorable cost orientation.
It is possible to substitute LER for the RVT and find an LER-adjusted RVT. This
removed selling price from the equation. These values are also a means to gauge
cost and economic orientation.
Cost Orientation
(See cost orientation as listed under Economic Orientation)
Cover Crops
A staple of agroecology is the use of cover crops in farm fields. These are well
known, but a mostly underutilized farming alternative.
Agroecology
The gains from cover crops are well documented (e.g., modified from Altieri and
Nicholls 2004). Restated from Chap. 6, these include:
• Protecting soil from erosion and drying
• Improving the soil structure including a reduction in bulk density and an increase
in soil-contained humus
• Promoting water infiltration
• Elevating in-soil microbial activity
• Impeding the growth of weeds
• Adding nutrients to the soil
• Attracting or harboring beneficial insects
• Deterring insects by way of repellent effects
• Increasing the breakdown rate for plant residues through greater ground-level
humidity
• Providing flowers for pollinating insects when the primary species is not in
bloom
• Increasing in-soil nitrogen
246 Glossary
Desirable Plant Characteristics
There are many crops that can serve as a cover crop. These are usually separated,
formally or informally, from the many by their desirable characteristics (presented
as a separate topic, see Desirable Plant Characteristics).
For cover crops, an expanded list of sought-after characteristics is:
(a) Resource compatibility with the primary crop
(b) An ability to grow on poor soils
(c) Tolerant of climatic variation
(d) Ease of establishment
(e) Freedom from pests and diseases
(f) Lack of root-suckering properties
(g) Ability to trap nutrients that might otherwise be lost to the ecosystem
(h) Ease of control and eventual elimination (will not become a weed)
(i) Spinelessness (spines can also be a desirable property)
(j) Dry season leaf retention (tropical plants only)
(k) Does not climb on taller plants
(l) Short statured
(m) Produces ground-level, heavy shade (through high biomass or large leaves)
(n) Provides forage or an alternate product (e.g., beans)
(o) Drought and frost resistant
(p) Fits within the temporal sequence of the primary crop
(q) Has allelopathic properties to prevent weed seed germination
(r) Promotes a microclimate to speed the decay of residual vegetation
(s) Perennial
(t) Can withstand being trampled (by foot or with farm equipment)
(u) Offers flowers to feed bees when crops are not in bloom
Use Strategies
Employing the above desirable plant characteristics (DPCs), there are parameters of
use. Cover crops can be (1) seasonal or (2) perennial.
The seasonal types can be off-season or fallow based. There are also those that
are co-planted with a crop. In temperate zones, hairy vetch; spring mustard; com-
mon clove; a range of grains, e.g., wheat, spelt, and buckwheat; and many others are
planted after the crop is harvested. They are plowed under before a new crop is
planted.
Examples of co-planted covers are, again for temperate regions, red clover and
sudan grass. For permanent covers, there are velvet bean and vetiver. Vetiver is
known for its superior erosion control, less known for its ability to kill nematodes.
This leads to its use as a permanent cover below nematode-susceptible banana.
Glossary 247
The use of cover crops is a topic with considerable potential, far more than is
realized. There are many candidate species. The question is pairing the right DPCs
with crop-specific compatibility (for long-term cover strategies, see Fallows).
Critical Shift
A shift is recommended when a crop or crop variety demands an essential resource

in comparatively large quantities and this need exceeds what that site often or occa-
sionally supplies. This is critical concept because it is the basis for growing com-
mon crops in drier regions. Think drought-resistant maize as compared with the
commonly grown, relatively-thirsty varieties. One can also substitute water-misery
sorghum or millet for maize.
A production function each productive species relates the amount of one or more
limiting resources to yields. This is shown in Fig. 8.2. If the crop is low yielding and
at the lower side of the steepest portion of production function, opportunity exists
for a substantial yield improvement with modest ecosystem changes. When this
happens, the production function shifts leftward.
This occurs, as above, when a drought-resistant plant substitutes for one that is
water demanding. This shifts the water-response curve. This can also occur when a
nitrogen-demanding variety or species (or, by extension, a phosphorous- or
potassium-demanding crop) is changed for one that needs less of this nutrient.
The critical shift, the changing of varieties or crop species, is one alternative to
reduce risk and/or combat climate change. Facilitation and risk reduction methods
(Chap. 8) may serve when the introduction of a new variety is not possible (for a
more detailed analysis, see Facilitation).
Crop-Over-Tree Agroecosystems
In the span of agrotechnologies, crop-over-tree systems find limited use. The mini-
hedge (discussed as a variation of alley cropping) might be also be considered a
crop-over-tree because the crop towers above the hedge. Other examples occur
when facilitative trees or shrubs grow underneath a crop.
Facilitative Gains
The purpose of the trees is many. Often the prime role is to provide soil-enriching
biomass. In the humid atmosphere beneath the crop, the green biomass should
decay rapidly (Sanchez 1995). In addition, these trees help with erosion control and
can aid in reducing harmful insects or nematodes (Banful et al. 2000).
248 Glossary
Photo C2 Shown is the facilitative tree species Gliricidia grown among and below maize plants
(Photo courtesy of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF))
On the labor reduction side, the two levels of canopy, the crop plus a tree or shrub
species, should greatly help in eliminating weeds and weeding. The disadvantage
lies in working around a permanent, and often intrusive, shrub or tree cover.
Design Variations
Among the designs found, the most common may be mini-hedge or scattered shrubs
below banana or plantain. Other possibilities may include a shrub or tree species
beneath a tall annual crop.
Documented examples include plantain over flemingia, jackfruit over Calliandra
calothyrsus, or Acacia angustissima. Maize has been mentioned as an overstory for
a pruned-to-ground-level facilitatory tree species (Sanchez 1995).
There are examples that are designed to take full advantage of a fallow period.
For these, the trees are cut back before planting. After cropping, fast regrowth has-
tens the establishment of a woody fallow.
The reason for the woody fallow is to rapidly reach a mature fallow phase. Trees
can be more effective at eliminating weeds and enriching the soils than a grass-
based fallow. This can greatly reduce the fallow period. Land clearing, with or with-
out burning, brings the system back into the cropping phase (for more on possible
fallow strategies, see Fallows).
Glossary 249
Cut and Carry
There are on-farm needs for leafy material. For this, cut-and-carry systems find use.
In contrast to cut-and-carry crops, these systems do not include the harvest of grains,
fruits, and nuts, mainly plant leaves, stems, and like material. Some might be mar-
ketable, others not.
Cut-and-carry forage has a lot of applications. The most common are pastures
where hay is cut, carried, stored, and fed to animals during the dry or winter sea-
sons. In places where storage is not an issue and animals are fed with the carried
biomass, the practice can increase the number of per-pasture animals.
There are other applications, leaves contain plant nutrients, and these can be used
to fertilize crops. Cut vegetation can be used to cover exposed soils as an erosion
preventative. There are also applications where insect-repellent vegetation is cut
and carried to a crop experiencing an insect outbreak.
Economics
In situ, grazed pastures are cheaper, more cost-oriented feed sources than the more
revenue-oriented versions, i.e., when the time and expense are taken to harvest and
transport the forage. The same holds true with other uses such as green manure or
insect-repellent leaves; in situ growth is often the cheaper alternative.
Although more cost-oriented, intercropping these plants is not always the best
option. Advantages in having separate areas or plots for useful biomass are:
• The forage species can be selected based on the nutrient-gathering ability with
less regard to crop-on-crop competitiveness.
• The pruning schedule depends more on the crop nutrient requirements and less
on reducing light or water competition.
• The pruning (biomass harvest) period can be spread over a longer time period,
permitting better overall use of labor.
• The biomass source can be in close proximity to the crop strip, reducing labor
inputs.
• A greater opportunity to employ buffer species between cut-and-carry crop and
nearby recipient plot in order to reduce the inter-strip interface distance and
improve land-use efficiency.
• A greater latitude to design, and use, the cut-and-carry plot improves the micro-
climate in the neighboring crop strip.
Variations
The variations for cut-and-carry systems are not large. For fertilization and insect con-
trol, the biomass can be in strips alternating with crops. These can contain nutrient-
rich biomass that is cut and spread, often mechanically, to an adjacent crop strip.
250 Glossary
As a variation of the strip theme, it is possible that the strip on each side on the
crop be of a different biomass type, one with an insect-repellent species and the
other for nutrient-laden biomass. These are cut and spread according to the immedi-
ate needs of the crop.
Decision Theory
The theoretical base of agroecology often starts with an observed need. Why some-
thing is happening? How can a practice be improved? The list goes on.
Since agroecology is theory-based, field research is guided, directed, or under-
pinned by abstractions or hypotheses. These must be based on ecologically oriented
logic where the theory proposed is in agreement with known facts; available
research, if any; and an expected outcome or conclusion.
This process proceeds under the guise of decision or game theory. Some of this
is based on descriptive decision theory where “… observed behavior under the
assumptions that the decision making agents are operating under some consistent
rules” (Wikipedia, Decision Theory, 2017).
In agroecology, the consistent rules are that the observed or anticipated practices
are (1) ecologically concordant while, in practice, they are (2) capable of achieving
a user-acceptable economic end goal. The latter is a broad economic statement that
has revenue, cost, risk, as well as any possible on-farm limitations, e.g., lack of
labor, land, etc.
Simply put, sheer logic, following the above two dictates, should suffice in
explaining those practices that currently lack full empirical backing. As presented in
the preface and subsequent chapters, un-researched theory includes the rules/guide-
lines for the various forms of intercropping and for complex agrosystems (as found
in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7).
Also included are theoretical bases for domestic fowl as an insect control mecha-
nism (see Attracting under Birds), spatial disarray to mitigate risk, and the use of
marginal gains to explain high LER values on resource-rich sites (see Competitive
Partitioning).
For the above, proof, in the form of researched support, will take time. Until this
happens, acceptance must rely on (a) the force or strength of the logic; (b) being in
line, or being concordant, with established ecology; and (c) the economic advantage
conferred.
Not all issues can be resolved by decision/game theory alone. It is essential that,
when used, the outcome must be based upon unassailable logic.
As theory replaces the empiricism of agronomy, this is determinant topic. This,
along with scattered research results, can drive the continued expansion of
agroecology.
The importance should not be understated. Without the use of decision/game
theory from which to feed in new theories and concepts, agroecology could fall
short of what could be.
Glossary 251
Decoy Plants
Some species are good at attracting insect and birds away from the fruit and foliage
of productive species. It this way, they protect the economically important crops.
Decoy or host plants are a mechanism in insect control. Trap plants also have a role
luring insects, birds, rodents, and other wild fauna away from the main crop.
One disadvantage of a decoy in insect control is that, unless riddance measures
are taken, insects will only multiply on the trap crop. Later, they go on, in greater
numbers, to infect economically valuable crops. As a counter, a decoy crop can also
be habitat for insect-consuming insects or insect-eating birds.
Host species also find use with destructive birds. The mulberry tree can divert
fruit-eating birds away from such crops as cherries or grapes.
The mulberry has near-ideal characteristics, it is easy to maintain and produces
large volumes of fruit over an extended period. The latter allows for the main crop
to be harvested while the birds are occupied consuming the decoy fruit.
All things being equal, birds will raid both food sources. For the proper decoy
effect, close, but not too close, proximity to the protected crop is necessary. There
also has to be some scare or repel mechanism, e.g., scarecrows, that will force birds
to regard the mulberry as the most desirable feed source.
Density
The number of plants in a given area, also designated agro-biodensity, biodensity, or

agrodensity, is an important factor in agroecological design. For monocultures,
there is an optimal density that can vary greatly depending upon growing condi-
tions, the plant species, and the variety.
For intercrops, the situation is more complex. A lot of this relates to the site and
the growth characteristics of the intercropped species (for a detailed explanation,
see Competitive Partitioning, also Facilitation).
Applications
Density analysis underlies much of intercropping. This can be with ordered polyc-
ultures or the density, diversity, disarray, and duration for the agroforests and other
species-complex agroecosystems (more on the latter is found in Chap. 7).
Measurement
In monocropping, there is a suggested number of plants per area. By definition, this

density and the resulting optimal yields, are the basis of comparison, i.e., the
denominator, for computing the LER.
252 Glossary
Repeated from Chap. 2, the density index (DI) is:
DI = ( Dab / Da ) + ( Dba / Db )
where Dab is the density of species a interplanted with species b, Dba has b inter-
planted with species a, and Da and Db are the normal monocultural densities.
This analysis carries forth into intercropping. Ratio lines are part of density anal-
ysis and, in use, exhibit a clear optimum both for one density ratio and for the all the
possible densities in a two species mix (for an expanded explanation, see Ratio
Lines and the Production Possibilities Curve).
Desirable Plant Characteristics (For Secondary Species)
For a primary species, the species and variety chosen are a local decision. The num-
ber one criterion is the output (i.e., fruit, fuel, and/or fiber). This is not always true
with a facilitative species. Output can, and often does, guide the decision.
Where output is not a factor, selection criteria rests on facilitative services pro-
vided. Farmers can search wide for non-yielding species with desirable
characteristics.
General Characteristics
Desirable plant characteristics (DPCs) for non-yielding companion species can

include some obvious as well as overlooked DPCs. In typical use, the following
attributes are desired for all companion species, annuals or perennials, woody or
non-woody. This list is modified from Wojtkowski (2002).
(a) Resource compatibility with the primary crop
(b) An ability to grow on poor soils
(c) Tolerant of climatic variation
(d) Ease of establishment
(e) Freedom from pests and diseases
(f) Lack of root-suckering properties
(g) Ability to trap nutrients that might otherwise be lost to the ecosystem
(h) Ease of control and eventual elimination (will not become a weed)
(i) Spinelessness (spines can also be a desirable property)
(j) Dry season leaf retention (tropical plants only)
(k) Provides flowers to support bee populations when the primary species are not
blossoming
Glossary 253
Facilitative Characteristics (For Seasonal Intercrops)
(a) A high rate of nitrogen fixation

(b) Dense ground-level biomass (for weed control)
(c) A preponderance of deep roots (to obtain deep-strata nutrients and water)
Application or Agroecosystem-Specific Characteristics
Going beyond the general, broad application characteristics, inclusion in the various
agrotechnologies demands specific use characteristics. For same uses, e.g., trees on
the farm landscape without a defined agroecosystem, these can be quite broad. For
African farms, Franzel et al. (1995) found that land users look for:
(a) Growth characteristics mainly comparability with crop and fast growth rate
(b) Timber characteristics including resistance to insects, appearance, and
straightness
(c) For firewood, fast drying and wood that produces a long-lasting fire
For formal uses, these lists are generally longer. For shade trees in light or heavy
shade systems, the specific use characteristics are listed below. This list is modified
from Beer (1987).
(a) Valuable or useful secondary outputs
(b) Smooth bark that does not harbor herbivore insects
(c) Self-pruning with good bole form
(d) Limited maximum size for tree growth
(e) Strong branches and stems (blow-down resistance)
(f)Small leaves to minimize raindrop coalescence and drip damage
(g) For deciduous trees, rapid flushing of the leaves to regenerate the shade
(h) Small canopy to reduce wind resistance and ease tree harvest with minimum
crop damage
(i) Open canopy to allow greater light penetration
(j) High salvage value (high wood or firewood value)
Proceeding on, there are the superior biomass plants, those that find use in cut-
and-carry agrosystems. These are used to supply biomass for soil enrichment, ero-
sion preventing mulch, or even as a secondary animal forage. This list was compiled
from Young (1989a), Rachie (1983), and Beer (1987).
(a) A high aboveground biomass production.
(b) A moderate to high, balanced foliage nutrient content.
(c) Good burning properties (depends on use).
(d) A dense network of fine roots.
(e) Absence of toxic substances in the foliage.
(f) High leaf to stem ratio.
254 Glossary
(g) Small leaves or leaflets for rapid decay or larger leaves for better erosion or
weed control.
(h) Leaves detach readily.
(i) Leaves are highly, moderately, or not palatable.
(j) Has an appreciable nutrient content in the root system.
Similarly, there are systems where cover crops can be a positive ecological and
economic addition. The list below presents some DPCs for such plants.
(a) Does not climb on taller plants
(b) Short statured
(c) Produces ground-level, heavy shade (through high biomass or large leaves)
(d) Provides forage or an alternate product (e.g., beans)
(e) Drought and frost resistant
(f) Fits within the temporal sequence of the primary crop
(g) Has allelopathic properties to prevent weed seed germination
(h) Promotes a microclimate to speed the decay of residual vegetation
(i) Perennial
(j) Can withstand being trampled (by foot or with farm equipment)
(k) Has flowers that can support bee populations when the primary species are not
blooming
These three use-specific lists only sample those agrotechnologies where facilita-
tive plants can be of benefit. Similar listings formalize the selection process when a
facilitative, often non-yielding, species is sought. The purpose is to make the pro-
cess more efficient and responsive. It is possible to assemble plants with the right
DPCs by grafting stems to root stocks or branches to stems.
Diagnosis and Design
There are many situations where in-place agroecosystems, and the overall agro-
scape, may not be up to expectations. More is needed.
In modifying the base design into something better, it helps to have some formal
methodology or procedure to deal with change. Diagnosis and design (D&D) is an
approach to finding and designing the best land-use system. This arose in response
to the recognized complexity, and an inability to make rapid seasonal changes,
encountered in agroforestry (Raintree 1983, 1990).
Most of the emphasis in diagnosis and design lies in the evolution, and the ulti-
mate optimization, of individual, plot-based agroecosystems. This can be a slowly
moving target where, as socioeconomic conditions change, so does the need to
modify one or more agrosystems.
Glossary 255
Design Packages
All agroecosystems possess various attributes or use characteristics. These can

include the crop types favored, inherent agro-dynamics, resistance or susceptibility
to unfavorable events, and the revenue, costs, and the economic potential.
Land users want certain outcomes from their crop plantings. For their plots, they
want high productivity, high revenue, low costs, low risk, and long-term
sustainability.
On one side, design packages are a formal reckoning of agroecosystem attri-
butes. On the other side, there are the land user needs via their farm plots and their
farm landscapes. This approach seeks to match the use and site requirements of the
various agrotechnologies against use and site requirements of a farmer.
In practice, the use requirements from either side, i.e., the agrosystem attributes
and a farmer needs, can be long and involved. Take the case of hedgerow alley crop-
ping. The system is best utilized when:
• A sloping site with off-season erosion danger
• Soil sustainability issues
• Generally fertile soils
• Adequate seasonal rainfall
• Soil pH greater than 5.5
• Maize as the primary crop
• Scarce land requiring hillside cultivation
• Secure land tenure
• Ample labor
• Confinement of animals
• A need for firewood
This feeds into the notion of cost or revenue orientation. The design package
improves the economic outcome by using what a farmer has in relative abundance.
Those in ag-intense regions will use more inputs, less nature. The package should
emphasize cost-saving eco-services where these are on offer.
As covered in Chap. 10, some systems are capital, land, or labor intensive. It may
be best to continue to emphasize this aspect in selecting or modifying an agrotech-
nology. The above list has ample labor as an agrosystem requirement. Alley crop-
ping may not be a good fit where land is in relative abundance and/or there is a
relative shortfall in labor (discussed in Chap. 10).
256 Glossary
Stages
When matching agroecosystem requirements against farmer needs, many times an

exact match cannot be found. This is where diagnosis and design comes into the
picture. The process breaks down into stages; these are (a) pre-diagnostic, (b) diag-
nostic, (c) modification, (d) plantification, and (e) implementation.
In the first of these stages, the specific problem is ascertained. This is a study of
what is. The second stage takes into account the options, often which standard-version
agrotechnologies best address the problem. Through modification, the agrotechnolo-
gies are looked at in detail as to how modifications will best address the situation.
This can be iterative in that, as progress is made, the ensuing step examines the
progress made and the steps remaining. These are often the finer details in design.
It is easier to match agrosystems with user needs when a lot is known on the use
parameters. Hedgerow alley cropping is comparatively a well-studied system. Those
agrosystems less encountered or with less following in the research community are
less understood. This is often an impediment in this process.
Once candidate agrotechnology designs are formulated, planification involves
the testing of each design variation. A feedback loop allows a return to the diagnos-
tic stage for a re-modification of the proposed designs.
During implementation, an agrotechnological variation goes into on-farm trials
or is placed on-farm for examination. Another feedback loop may be considered if
shortcomings are found in the design being tested.
The early stages are not based on field trials. Instead, they rely upon assessment
and logic. This is where decision and game theory can come to the fore (for more,
see Decision/Game Theory).
Example
In a case study of a staged design process, Versteeg et al. (1998) looked at a soil
depletion problem from Benin, Africa. In this example, greater population and more
intense land pressure had rendered a decade-long fallow pattern obsolete. Needed
was sustainable alternative that keeps maize as the primary crop. This evaluation is
the pre-diagnostic stage. This situation mirrors the case study present in Chap. 3.
In the diagnostic stage, four candidate agrotechnologies were identified. These
were:
1. Hedgerow alley cropping
2. Strip cropping
3. Crop rotations
4. The use of a soil-restoring cover crop
During the plantification, it was discovered that the default hedge species,
Leucaena leucocephala, did not grow well on the locally sandy soil. In a feedback
loop, the hedge species, Acacia auriculiformis, proved to be up to the task both for
local suitability and for the amount of biomass supplied.
Glossary 257
Crop rotations with groundnuts (peanut) did restore soil nutrients, but did not
have long-term sustainability. After 2 years, maize yield declined and did not
recover. This was attributed to a loss of in-soil, moisture-holding biomass.
Strip cropping using Acacia auriculiformis proved to be a viable alternative
comparable to alley cropping. The cover crop design, with velvet bean as the
cover species, reduced maize yields compared with the alley agrotechnology.
The advantages are a bean harvest and a reduction in the hard-to-remove weed
spear grass.
It would be during the implementation stage that final options would be decided
upon. There is no reason that this should result in a single design and would emerge
as the winner. Some farms may favor one system; others may favor a different
alternative. There is no reason that some mix of agrotechnologies may emerge.
Also part of any diagnosis are the agro-services supplied. In regard to the crop-
ping threats, each of the candidate agroecosystems has strengths and weaknesses.
This is an economic evaluation where these free, or nearly free, eco-services are
looked at in relation to the severity of each site threat. As general observation,
strip cropping may come closest to replacing the eco-services provided by a
fallow.
As an added consideration, there may also be loss of fallow-obtained products.
In the above study, palm wine was produced during the long fallow and should be
included in any plan. The implementation feedback would seek to replace lost
outputs.
Uses
For many, diagnosis and design may seem a restatement of the obvious. For others,
this may represent the piling on of complexity to an already overly complex
situation.
As in the above example, it is, from an agroecosystem prospective, a compara-
tively simple process to switch from one standard-design agrotechnology for
another (local farmers might not be so accommodating). With this approach, the
different agrotechnologies exist as distinct, standard designs with few transitional
variables. This can be termed the strong agrotechnology perspective.
This contrasts with the weak agrotechnology approach. With this view, agrotech-
nologies represent an area, not a point, in multidimensional continuum. The differ-
ent agrotechnologies have common borders and link through subtle changes in their
design variables.
If one subscribes to the continuum concept, there are a multitude of slightly dif-
ferent agro-designs and far more options from which to choose. Consequently, an
agro-changeover is more likely to succeed. However, such a situation is much harder
to diagnosis.
The exact process and the associated stages are a work in process. To overcome
the often mentioned complexity, the importance may lie in having a formal diagnos-
tic structure with defined steps (for an additional perspective, see Change).
258 Glossary
Disarray
Spatial disarray refers to the in-plot or landscape ordering of intercropped plants.

Rather than a neatly ordered spatial system, i.e., plants in clear rows, blocks, etc., it
is possible to place species in some disarrayed pattern. In referring to planned and
managed agrosystems, these terms biodisarray and agro-biodisarray are synonymous.
In use, disarray should not be confused with randomness. Disarray is the absence,
in part or in all, of fully patterned or fully ordered planting arrangement. Planning
is still involved, either through the rules of management for complex agrosystems
or through knowledge possessed by the land user.
Applications
In practice, spatial disarray is encountered under two scenarios. The first is cultural;
some societies prefer a less ordered planting arrangement. These can border on or
appear to be completely disarrayed. This can be a means to reduce risk in response
to irregular rainfall (as explained in the next section and in Chap. 8).
The second commonly found application lies with seven-plus polycultures (com-
plex agroecosystems). With fewer species, it may be possible to find an arrangement
or pattern that maximizes user objectives. This often involves placing, as neighbors,
resource-compatible plants and placing, at distance, plants that are mutually
competitive.
In a crowded, many species polyculture, an optimal arrangement becomes prob-
lematic. This is especially true when dealing with scores of co-inhabiting plants. In
this situation, disarray, with management rules, will most likely produce the best
possible outcome. This is especially true given the lack of knowledge on the best
plant pairing and the best arrangement of the many included species.
Risk
Beyond the impossibility of dealing with multiple species, there is another eco-
nomic aspect inherent in disarray. As explained in Chap. 9, with a set density and
spatial arrangement, yields will not always be optimal. With greater resource inputs,
a closer spacing may give the best yield; where a resource is short, a more open
spacing could be best.
With disarray, some plants are closely spaced; others are at a greater distance.
The result is that when resources are scarce, some plants, those with more room to
grow, yield best. When a resource is plentiful, those that are closer provide greater
per-area productivity.
Glossary 259
The net effect is to flatten the resource/yield production curve. This is shown in
Fig. 8.1 where at the edges of the curve, where resources are in greater or lesser
supply, yield is improved. In the optimal middle, the system does not do as well.
The net effect, and general rule, is that disarray may be advantageous on sites
where resources are slightly variable. Ordered arrangements are best where
resources are highly constant.
Categories
Beyond a complete ordered, arranged system, there are degrees of disarray. There
are partial, complete, and complete with increased density. These are illustrated in
Fig. D1.
Fig. D1 The types of

disarray, from top to
bottom: (a) an ordered
system, (b) partial disarray,
(c) full disarray, and (d)
full disarray with increased
density
260 Glossary
Partial Disarray
For some agrosystems, a primary species can be placed in an ordered layout. A

secondary or trace addition is placed in a random or disorder pattern. Classic exam-
ples are where, upon establishing a widely spaced forest tree, other trees are allowed
to invade and grow. The result is a partially disarrayed, in-forest plantation.
Complete Disarray
In some cases, rather than planting in an ordered arrangement, the economics may be
more favorable, the risk less, or the culture may be more inclined to not having an
underlying pattern. All the species are in full or complete disarray, as in Fig. D1(c).
Density-Enhanced Disarray
With complete disarray, some plants may be seen as too widely spaced. The large
gap, with sunlight striking the ground, can be a waste of site resources. These gaps
are also an inviting habitat for invading and unwanted weeds. This brings on an
added cost.
As these large interplant gaps appear, it may be best to fill them with some spe-
cies, either another primary, a secondary, or some weed-suppressive plant addition.
It is this scenario that makes complete disarray with increased density more com-
mon and more desirable than disarray with optimal planting ratio.
Pattern Within
Land users do not always view disarray in terms of spatial evenness. What is com-
monly found are clump patterns where like species and/or species that grow well
when in close proximity are grouped. With like species, this often serves to aid
harvest. Figure D2 shows species evenness and clumped version of an agroforest.
Disruptive Crop Hypothesis
One means to control of harmful insects is the disruptive-crop hypothesis. Through

this control, it holds that, within complex polycultures, a greater diversity of species
makes it harder for plant-eating insects to find their preferred food source.
This disruption is the result of confusion from other species, e.g., this may be due
to the chemical odor emulating from some other plant type. This hypothesis is often
included in an integrated approach (for more, see Insect Control).
Glossary 261
Fig. D2 These are

overviews of agroforests.
The top shows species
evenness; the bottom
highlights a clumped
pattern
Domestication
All the current and some of the future agricultural plants had been, or will be, found
living free in nature. Some have experienced thousands of years of being trans-
formed from their wild state to a crop well suited for household gardens or for com-
mercial agriculture. This holds true for the staple crops, e.g., wheat, barley, maize,
etc., which result from thousands of years of domestication.
262 Glossary
Photo D1 Some outward manifestations of desirable plant characteristics (DPCs). In this photo,
the oil palm has the short stature that allows for ease of harvest. It is also high yielding with many
bunches of oil-heavy fruits
Other crops transition from a wild state to commercial utilization much quicker.
Kiwi fruits and macadamia nuts are examples of eatables that arrived in markets in
short order (Cooper et al. 1996).
The oil palm in Photo D1 possesses ideal commercial traits. These are short stem
height and many large bunches of oil-rich palm fruits.
There are long lists of species, still in the wild, that have the potential for becom-
ing a useful addition as commercially raised food, fuel, or fiber sources. Styger et al.
(1999) cited 150 uncultivated fruits found in the natural ecosystems of Madagascar.
Aman (1998) has compiled a list of over 500 unexploited fruits found wild in
Malaysia. Other lists, e.g., NRC (1996) and Mertz (1998), contain grains and veg-
etables with consumptive possibilities. Worldwide, the potential for new untried
plants to enrich the human experience is enormous.
Drip Zone
Companion plants, mainly trees, channel rainfall, via their leaves, to the ground.
Some direct this water down stems; others place this water to a drip zone at the
periphery of the canopy. As a mechanism of water movement, this can be a factor in
agrotechnology design.
Glossary 263
Duration
The longevity of an agroecosystem is expressed as the time between major, system-

destroying disruptions. Duration is also referred to as agro-bioduration or
bioduration.
Eco-longevity has advantages. With time, stable, viable ecosystems develop. The
hope is that the agrosystem will be in balance and is contributory to a favorable farm
outcome. This means the proliferation of microorganisms and an abundance of
predatory, at-the-wait insects. In some situations, this can also mean large popula-
tions of insect-eating birds and bats.
Duration can confer other gains. Native plants, those that have trouble moving
between scattered habitats, will eventually colonize. This is an under-reported
effect. Studies have found that some plants move very slow across landscapes, tak-
ing hundreds of years to reach a nearby area, if connectivity corridors are lacking
(Peterken 1993; Matlack 1994).
In evaluating agroecosystems, an important step is to determine the land equivalent

ratio (LER). Equally revealing is a measure of the cost equivalent ratio (CER).
Combined, the RVT minus the CER (RVT – CER) approximates the economic ori-
entation of an agroecosystem.
Economic orientation measures whether an agroecosystem is revenue or cost
oriented. Revenue orientation is where more inputs are added to increase the output
and revenue. The hope being that the costs are less than the revenue. The opposite
occurs with cost orientation; inputs are reduced in the hope that revenue will still
exceed the now lower costs.
The next step is to decide whether revenue orientation or cost orientation is the
most profitable course of action. Profit is decided through traditional accounting
where revenue – costs = profit.
Determination
Orientation, whether revenue or cost, is determined by comparing this against a

monoculture of the primary species. The equation for finding the economic orienta-
tion ratio is:
EOR = ( ( pa Yab + pbYba ) / pa Ya ) − ( Ca / Cab )

264 Glossary
For this, Yab is the yield of species a growth near species b, Yba is the yield of species
b growth near species a, and Ya is the comparative, in size and site, monocultural
yield of species a. The selling prices for theses yields are pa and pb for species a and
b. The costs of production for species a are Ca; the joint costs, species a raised with
species b, are Cab. Since the:
RVT = ( pa Yab + pbYba ) / pa Ya
and the:
CER = Ca / Cab
the economic orientation ration can also be stated as:
EOR = RVT − CER
Utilizing data from Perfecto et al. (1996), shaded coffee is compared with mono-
cultural coffee. This is a single-output system, the overstory being nonproductive.
The resulting EOR is:
RVT = ( pa Yab / pa Ya ) = $314 / $1397 = 0.22
=
CER C=
a / Cab $1740 / $269 = 6.46
and
EOR = RVT − CER = 0.22 − 6.46 = −6.24
The negative value of the EOR indicates cost orientation. The value itself, less
than six, shows very strong cost orientation. The analysis indicates that the coffee
plants do not have a very productive relationship with the shade trees. This draw-
back is more than compensated for in that costly inputs are being used with a high
degree of efficiency.
This is a fairly conclusive example, demonstrating, among other things, why
shaded coffee would be popular with poor farmers unable to afford expensive inputs.
There is a lot more to economic orientation than an ability to control costs.
Uses
Large farms in some countries are mostly revenue oriented, e.g., the wheat- and
maize-producing regions of North America. In other regions of the world, large
farms can be cost oriented, e.g., cocoa growing in Brazil. Crop-diverse farms world-
wide are often a mix of cost- and revenue-oriented systems.
Glossary 265
It should be stated that, for a single-plot agrosystem, there is no indication that

revenue orientation is any more profitable than cost orientation. For this, a lot
depends on the selling price of the crop or crops and the cost of the inputs.
There are reasons for the predominance of cost orientation in certain regions.
Much of this relates to risk. High-input systems quickly become unprofitable if crop
selling prices drop or input costs rise. High-input, revenue-oriented systems are also
at a greater disadvantage when yields are low or nonexistent, i.e., the greater initial
investment translates into a greater financial loss.
This is not the case when costs are controlled. Cost-oriented systems, with their
low inputs, can remain profitable even when crops sell for less money. Also, since
inputs are low or not used, input prices have proportionally less or no influence on
the financial aftermath.
There are greater macroeconomic gains with revenue orientation. Commerce,
specifically the selling of agrochemicals and other inputs and the transport and pro-
cessing of outputs, is at a higher level. There are also increased tax opportunities for
the government.
With the greater levels of risk faced by farmers, government supports in some
form, e.g., selling price floors, crop failure insurance, etc., are needed to take some
of the risk out of revenue orientation. If not, farmers will seek haven in less risky
cost orientation. This tends to occur in the absence of some risk-reducing
measures.
Market risk may be the reason for economically mixed farms, i.e., some plots are
revenue oriented, others cost-oriented. For these farms, the strategy is often to put
ample resources on the most fertile, well-watered plots and to make the other plots
cost-oriented. The result, if crop selling prices are high and the cost of inputs low, is
that the revenue-oriented plots become the profit centers. If crop selling prices are
low and the costs of input high, the cost-oriented sections of the farm become the
profit focus.
Variations
The analysis presented is monetarily defined. Chap. 10 expands this view where, in
addition to capital, land and labor can also be the basis for orientation analysis.
Eco-Services
Chapter 3 presents the underlying principles/precepts to counter cropping threats:

266 Glossary
Utilizing the above, agroecology is at its best. Questions remain how this is best
done. In sync with Chap. 3, this section further fleshes out the theory regarding the
above principles.
Means
The countering means or methods refer to chemical and/or environmentally harmful

counters. Rather than being potentially harmful, counters should provide a range of
eco-services by actively harnessing nature and natural dynamics.
Carried even further, the means and methods from which the eco-services origi-
nate should maintain or channel active ecology that is in keeping with the flora and
fauna of the area. The latter is a tall order.
At the larger scale, the local flora and fauna can be agriculturally destructive. As
expected, the best attainable would be active, but downscaled, natural ecology.
Ecological Multitasking
A prime example of having one counter span multiple tasks is the case study pre-
sented in Chap. 3. Here a long fallow enriched the soil, eliminated on-site weeds,
and was instrumental in the predator/prey control of insects.
Eco-services were at 100% after the long fallow and some of the effects were
strong enough to linger for two more seasons. The soil and weed effects exhausted
within three cropping seasons. Insect control persisted. The latter is due to ecologi-
cally active, nearby fallowed land.
Although a few can persist, most counters function only within a single season.
Textually, this is referred to as effectiveness. Where effective is only seasonally
partial, not at 100%, layering is required.
Matrix Rows
The use of layering (above) refers to the agroecological matrix. The layers are cells.
Each is a counter along one matrix row or track where, together, these combine to
thwart a threat.
For each threat, insects, drought, etc., there can be more than one approach or set
of counters. For insects, the strongest example is predator-prey. This is generally
one row.
The cells or elements reinforce the key counter. In the case of predator/prey, this
is a field margin that serves as a reservoir or habitat for the needed insects. Each
cell/element would be complementary with this mission. The next layer might be an
agroecosystem that is welcoming to predator insects. This would be reinforcing as
Glossary 267
would be crop rotations, fallows, and an insect-resistance crop variety species. In

this case, all would complement the predator/prey approach.
A second, insect control track might be based on repellent plants. Again, the
other columns, as cell or elements, would strengthen the goal. An example would be
a plant, located near the plot, that attracts the herbivore insects. Together, these con-
stitute the push and the pull. The abovementioned rotations, fallows, and resistance
would also aid this approach.
The use of herbicides, because these are not complementary with a predator/prey
track, is generally regarded as a single-cell, one-element track. There are excep-
tions. This could be part of a push-pull that does not rely on predator/prey. Also, a
targeted, spot-applied insecticide, e.g., a soap solution, could find use to control a
localized outbreak in a predator/prey track.
As briefly stated in Chap. 4, the lack of pollinating services is a cause for poor
yields. One track or row, for natural pollinators, would have elements that are not
that much different for a predator/prey row. The use of honeybees might be single-
cell rows or be added to as reinforcement for the cells that encourage natural
pollinators.
Base Layers
When counters are layered, there should be an ordering as to their cost, effective-
ness, and/or presence. Presence is when the counter is permanent and always func-
tioning. This is the base layer. The fallow example presented clearly has the fallow
as the base layer.
It is quite possible that the layers are transitory and only approach 100% effec-
tiveness when in number. Ordering would be a judgment call, usually based on cost
or cost as compared against effectiveness.
Where fallows are not possible, the heading of base layer can pass to the field
margins, although with presence and effectiveness in many tasks, this does not
include weed control. Here the situation is in flux with the possible base layers
being rotations or a permanent cover crop.
Theory
There is little doubt that the three principles/precepts of eco-service, integral to

agroecological theory, should play a major influence on how agroecology is prac-
ticed. This is not yet an exact science.
For many of the threats, the title of base layer and the degree of complementarity
between the counters are not yet known. Also not fully understood are some of the
mathematical relationships.
268 Glossary
The matrix examples (pages 48 and 49) suggest additive relationships. Within in
the accepted sigmoidal form, this would be the case. However, exceptions are bound
to occur. Since agroecology is theoretically underpinned, more conceptional
advancement would be useful in this regard.
Enemies Hypothesis
The primary alternative to insecticides is the use of predator insects to control the
herbivore types. This hypothesis holds that insect-eating insects are more common
in polycultures than in monocultures. This is often part of integrated approach. This
is considered as the most potent of the natural controls (for more, see Insect Control).
Entomo-Agriculture
The purposeful raising of insects in agricultural or forestry settings underlies

entomo-agriculture. This can be more than insects as an occasionally-gathered out-
put (where gathered from wild or productive plots). Here bugs, and possibility
insect-related products, are a planned and expected output.
There are many eatable insects that can be nutritious in the human and domestic
animal diet. Where not already culturally and dietarily accepted, this has attracted
interest with attendant, lead-up-to-acceptance discussion. Some of this related to
consumer attitudes and gastronomic penchants (e.g., Halloran and Flore 2017;
Ghosh et al. 2017)
Consumption leads to demand. Raised in specific-purpose agroecosystems, cul-
tivated insects can be an agroecologically and economically beneficial activity.
For the less initialized, some eatable insects, along with the region/country where
consumed, are;
African silkworm West Africa

Agave worm Mexico
Honeypot ant Australia
Leafcutter ant South America
Lemon ant Thailand
Bee (larva) Worldwide
Centipede China
Cicada Eastern USA
Cockroach Madagascar
Cricket Mexico, Thailand
Glossary 269
Dragonfly China, Indonesia

Great weevil Indonesia
June bug North America
Locust Where found
Meal worm Where found
Nsenene Uganda
Sago grub Papua New Guinea
Scorpion China, Thailand
Silk worm Korea
Stingless bee Senegal
Termite China
The above listing was compiled from various Internet sources.
Photo E Restaurant-
served larva. This author
found them chewy and
rather tasteless. (This
photo was taken in
Zimbabwe)
Erosion
On farmland erosion comes in two forms, (1) water and (2) wind. As the counters to
these forms differ, the physical means to address these also differ, i.e., there being
little overlap.
270 Glossary
Water Erosion
Water eroding soil has two components and two counters. The first component is
falling water (rain). Drops striking the ground dislodge soil particles. These are then
subject to the second, more apparent component, flowing water carrying or washing
away soil and in-soil nutrients. In heavy rains on unprotected soils, these effects can
be very damaging. The two counters are (1) ground cover and (2) anti-erosion
barriers.
Ground Cover
A ground overlay will protect against drop impact and flow erosion. This can be a
mulch, a living cover crop, a blanket of small stones or larger rocks, an in-place crop
or after-harvest crop residue.
A good soil cover can cushion water impact. Raindrops that fall off leaves, if the
fall is high enough, can have as much or more impact than non-intercepted rain.
This is because, above 8 meters, the falling force can be greater than falling rain-
drops. Because water can concentrate on leaves, falling off trees and tall shrubs, this
can produce droplets of greater size and weight. This means greater impact force.
To accomplish the intended task, it is important that the soil has a 50% or better
uniform cover and that this cover be at or slightly above ground level.
A good ground cover, in impeding flow, also promotes water infiltration into the
ground. Once belowground, the flow slows dramatically, allowing for prolonged
stay on-site, and greatly expands the time period in which plants can use this water.
Anti-Erosion Barriers
The second, non-exclusive form of water erosion is the barrier. These are spaced
and proportioned to stop all surface-flowing water. Their role is to slow or pool
water, holding soil and nutrients on-site. These can be ditches, bunds, hedgerows, or
some combination.
If slopes are steep, the soils are loose, and the rain is voluminous and of short
duration, these should be strictly contoured. If slope is not steep, the soil is less ero-
sion prone, and the rainfall is generally light and uniform; a contour approximation
(semi-contour) design is possible.
If each defensive line is slight, these are closely spaced; if more substantial, these
may be positioned further apart. The important aspect is to keep surface water from
flowing off site.
Glossary 271
Wind Erosion
The second erosion danger is from winds. Without a ground cover or barrier, soils
can blow away. The same ground covers that control water erosion keep winds off
soils. Again, these are a non-living mulch, a growing cover crop, a blanket of small
stones or larger rocks, an in-place crop or after-harvest crop residue. There is a pro-
viso that mulch and crop residue be heavy enough or firmly anchored so it does not
blow away with soils.
The common barrier method is the windbreak. These come in different designs
and sizes. Briefly, there are larger shelterbelts. More substantial in width, these
cross regions or large farms. These seldom find use on smallholder properties.
The most common structure is the windbreak. These can be a row of tall trees or
mix of shrubs with a tall tree. Height would depend upon inter-windbreak spacing.
A further measure might be seasonal interplot divisions, a ground cover, or widely
spaced trees (for more on this topic, see Windbreaks).
Facilitation
Facilitation is where the presence of one plant species benefits another. Examples
are numerous.
Facilitation can increase the amount of water and essential minerals in an agro-
ecosystem. This can result in enhanced yields. This assumes that a site is deficient
in one, possibly more, essential resource(s).
Facilitation can also guard productive plants from climate-related threats. It can
also protect these same species against unwanted flora and fauna, e.g., weeds, her-
bivore insects, grain-eating birds, etc.
Facilitation is a major force in agroecology. The number of combinations and
accompanying effects is very large and applications extensive.
The most common form of facilitation is where the primary species receives help
from a secondary species. This is one-way facilitation.
Also encountered is mutualism. This is where there are cross effects, a secondary
species aids the growth of the primary species, and, at the same time, the presence
of the primary species assists the secondary species.
Facilitation can be plant-on-plant, as when a facilitative species is intercropped
with a primary species. Effects can also be distant. When the two species are far
apart, the primary species can still be within the facilitative umbrella of the facilitat-
ing species, e.g., a tall windbreak.
272 Glossary
Fig. F1 The operational Yield

range (the shaded area) for
facilitation in regard to a
limiting essential resource.
Within this area, LER
potentiality relates to
shading. The darker the
shading, the greater the
possible LER. For a
contrast with competitive
partitioning, see Fig. C2,
page 130
Essential Resource
Types
There are various manifestations of facilitation. The common version boosts plant
growth and yield. Also possible are protective, subtractive, and indirect versions. The
first involves increasing or retaining a key essential resource. The second protects
plants from yield losses. Both of the latter have use and both are extensively employed.
Yield (Direct) Facilitation
As expected, the growth-and-yield facilitation occurs where an essential resource(s)

is lacking or in short supply. The hope is that a second species can rectify this short-
fall. This is the most common version of facilitation.
Nitrogen-fixing plants paired with a nitrogen-demanding primary species is the
most common manifestation. The common mechanism is nutrient capture-transfer
(as described later in this section).
Indirect facilitation
Plant-on-plant facilitation need not directly supply nutrients to the target species.
The ecology can be indirect.
An example is the use of cover crop. Well-paired, weed-reducing cover crops
increase yields over an unweeded plot. This is indirect as a cover crop should have
greater complementarity with the primary species than an unconstrained weed. This
frees resources that the primary species can access.
As an added note, this might well be the mechanism by which potential cover
crops are identified. They are first recognized for being noncompetitive with pri-
mary species (one or more).
This may not be where the emphasis lies. In attempting to maintain a weed-free
plot, the intended outcome is not only a weed-free status quo, but reduced costs, by
eliminating herbicides or manual weeding. Under cost facilitation, any yield and
revenue gains are an added bonus.
Glossary 273
Fig. F2 A maize drying

production function
Yield
showing when soil drying
increases yields. The arrow
shows this effect
In-Soil Moisture
Subtractive Facilitation
There is another side to facilitation, the removal of an essential resource. Although

examples are less numerous, the effects on output can be equally pronounced.
This is when site resources are absorbed by the facilitative species, and this
results in a yield gain. This only occurs when one resource is in situational oversup-
ply, and this has a negative effect on growth and yields.
This mechanism is shown in Fig. F2. The overabundance of one resource is
adversely impacting potential yield (right portion of the curve). Taken away, yield
maximizes.
There are two prominent examples; maize and a few other crops are very suscep-
tible to waterlogging, i.e., oversaturated soils. When this occurs, less water leads to
greater yields. The other example is when water-constrained plants are subject to
direct, unfiltered sunlight. This can cause wilting. Less light and lower evapotrans-
piration, as within a light shade system, is a second example of subtractive
facilitation.
Protective Facilitation
There are facilitatory effects that do not directly contribute to growth and yields. A
large portion of the facilitative effects are protective; they guard against yield losses.
The most prominent example is insect protection. This is a large specialized
category with much variation. These can be repellent, decoy, and/or attractant
plants. These safeguard against herbivore insects as well as nematodes, birds, and
other crop-destroying organisms.
Also, shielding crops from wind and climatic extremes is among the services
offered by participating plants. The windbreak is the staple of many a rural land-
scape. Hedges and tree rows promote water infiltration and help during high water
events.
274 Glossary
Associated Theory
Yield gains are gauged by way of the LER. Outside of the competitive partitioning
aspects of interspecies competition, facilitation can play a large role. This relation-
ship is expressed with the following equation.
LER = ± competitive partitioning + facilitation
For this, growth-and-yield facilitation effects are always positive, never negative.
An example of the additive effect (above) is the classic maize-bean intercrop. For
this example, the beans and the maize partition all the essential resources; the posi-
tive gain is the bean-supplied nitrogen.
The equation also applies within a single resource. Since facilitation is best when
the resource being facilitated is in short supply and competitive partitioning is best
when the resource is in ample supply, the overlapping range is comparatively small.
Contrasting Figs. F1 and C1 show this.
Most combinations have a yielding primary species paired with a non-yielding
facilitative species. The arrow in Fig. F3 shows facilitation added to the yield norm.
Despite having only one yielding species, the LER bounces to a very high 2.1.
Theoretically speaking, there is an unknown, upper asymptotic bound on direct,
LER-boosting facilitation. This is because the sigmoidal yield functions upon which
these rest also flatten in the upper range. This could be around 2.5 where nutrients
are naturally transferred (e.g., Seran and Brintha 2010). Values above three have
been recorded in human-assisted (cut-and-carry) alley cropping (Ong 1994).
Associated Economics
When facilitation increases the system LER, this can be a revenue effect. This
occurs when a facilitative plant, by hiking the limiting resource, allows for hitherto
unrealized productivity increases.
Fig. F3 The additive

LER
effects of facilitation. This
shows the norm, an LER of
1.0. Adding a second 2.1
species, and more of an
essential and limiting
resource, can boost the
LER to a very respectable
2.1 1.0
Essential Resource
Glossary 275
When yields are already high, adding a facilitative species is cost facilitation.
Optimally, this trades a costly external input for a less costly natural form. The
inputs being replaced through growth-and-yield facilitation are, e.g., fertilizers, irri-
gation, and physical support. Those replaced through protective facilitation are
insecticides and fungicides.
Throughout this text, the economics are ratio based, measured by way of the
LER or CER. Viewing these as an input substitution allows the affects to be trans-
lated to monetary-based evaluation (for more, see Economic Orientation).
Mechanisms
Growth facilitation functions by supplying one essential resource to the primary

species. The supplying of a second resource is theoretically possible.
Ideally, the one resource is the yield-constraining resource for the primary spe-
cies. Because of this, facilitation functions best on sites where there is a shortfall in
one key essential resource, an increase in the one resource. The addition of this
resource should have a major effect on the primary species.
There a various ways to achieve this. The mechanisms that can produce yield
gains, direct or indirect, are:
Nutrient capture-transfer
Nutrient pump
Airborne nutrients
Fixation of nitrogen
Chemical conversion
Timing of release
Water capture-transfer
Hydraulic lift
Microclimatic change
Retention
Accumulation-concentration
Site improvement
Parasitic
Physical support
Nutrient Capture-Transfer
On many sites, productivity is constrained by a mineral resource. The resource or

resources that constrain plant yields can be nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, or
some trace element. There are a variety of ways that one or more facilitative plants
can furnish these to the primary species.
276 Glossary
One mechanism of supply is the nutrient pump. Basically, a deep-rooted species

is paired with a shallower-rooted, primary species. The hope is the deep-rooted spe-
cies will find, in the deep soil, minerals, and these are brought to the surface. They
are subsequently incorporated into the leaves and stems of facilitative plants. Later,
these are released through death and decay.
Although the nutrient pump is proven, the effect on productivity is not known.
The best option for implementation is to add deep rootedness as a desirable charac-
teristic for a facilitative species.
Another mechanism of facilitation is the capture of airborne nutrients. Again,
this is a proven effect, one often expressed when nitrogen-fixing plant species find
this element in the air. Well established in agriculture and with numerous examples,
this effect is significant in both agriculture and agroecology.
Airborne nutrients, other than nitrogen, can be captured from the air by way of
impacted dust. The dust is slowed and allowed to settle through the wind blocking
effects of trees and other plants. This mechanism can add a range of elemental nutrients.
As examples, there are the aerophytes, plants that survive solely through the
aerial capture of water and nutrients. These plants, through death and decay, supply
minerals under the trees in which they live.
Nutrients can be bound in plant-inaccessible chemical compounds and/or physi-
cally trapped in rocks. Facilitative plants, those that breakdown these associations,
can add more available nutrients to the primary species.
One lesser known, but possibly potent, means of facilitation is the timing of
release. Nutrients are often trapped and are inaccessible in decaying plant remains.
If the decay process is accelerated, the now-available nutrients could provide greater
yield benefit.
Water Capture-Transfer
Essential nutrients are only part of growth facilitation. A close cousin of the nutrient
pump is the hydraulic lift. Again, a deep-rooted species pulls water from the deep
soil strata.
This benefits the primary species through release into the soil and subsequent
capture or by greater humidity and less aboveground drying. As with the nutrient
pump, the effects of the hydraulic lift on yields are unknown.
Retention
Another aspect of facilitation does not involve finding additional water or mineral
resources, but keeping that available from being lost.
One aspect of retention is in countering erosion. Plants do this as a uniform ground
cover or as series of barriers. A cover crop is an example of uniform ground cover. A
series of hillside contour hedges is an example of barrier approach to erosion.
Not all retention involves holding soils. Plants, either closely spaced or as wind
shelters or windbreaks on nearby plots, can increase the humidity of a plot, r etarding
Glossary 277
drying, thereby reducing the moisture requirement. Although the effects of micro-
climatic change are small, these have, in the right circumstances, been shown to be
a significant influence, e.g., Zhang Fend (1996).
Accumulation-Concentration
Facilitative plants can capture, hold, and transfer nutrients. An example is alley
cropping with a nitrogen-fixing tree species. Tree species, such as Leucaena or
Gliricidia, capture and retain nutrients during off-season. Before the crop is planted,
the trees are pruned and the leaf-contained nutrients made available, through decay,
to the in-place crop.
Site Improvement
At times, sites can be unsuitable because of plant-toxic soils. The ground can be
overly acidic, alkaline, salty, or contain growth-retarding allelopathic chemicals.
There is another soil component of growth and yield, that of growing conditions.
Soil conditions, such as bulk density, porosity, pH, etc., are changeable and these
can be accomplished by way of a facilitative species. Hence, these are also inclusive
under this heading.
Parasitic
A few plants directly feed off other plants. These are the parasitic plant species. A
very minor category in agroecology, there are a few commercially viable examples.
The mistletoe is parasitic on the branches of oak trees. This is sold as a decorative.
Another example of considerable worth is the truffle. This is a belowground addi-
tion to tree-based agroecosystems.
Physical Support
There are versions of facilitation that increase the growth and yields of vine crops
through the support provided. The common example is grapes grown atop living
trees (for other examples, see Support (Physical)).
There is a second, belowground aspect that, in contrast to trellised and other
aboveground systems, could be the basis for a separate agrotechnology. Drip-
irrigated fruit trees can be, when fruit-laden, prone to toppling. This is because the
small, moist area under a tree can result in a restricted root base.
The idea is to plant a short-statured, shade-tolerant, perennial shrub outside the
root zone of the fruit species. The hope is that the interlocking roots will keep the
tree from lodging.
278 Glossary
Factory Farming
The factory farm is often described as severe, taken-to-the-extreme application of

the monoculture. These may be the antithesis of agroecology. In use, large areas,
many square kilometers in area, are planted with the same species, often the same
variety.
These could be divided into two groups, the (1) tree-crop plantations and (2)
seasonal crops. The tree-crop plantations include rubber, tea, coffee, and, more
recent, oil palm. Being perennial, and often with understory, these do-less-harm on
a number of fronts, e.g., in not being hostile to some natural bird species.
Tree-crop plantations have been around for a considerable period. Tea planta-
tions date from the early 1800s, rubber plantation from the 1920s.
More recently, the large land holdings have been planted with seasonal crops.
Being extreme manifestations of the green revolution model, these represent the
antithesis of agroecology (as discussed in the first chapter).
The term factory farm is also employed when domestic animals are raised on a
large scale in confined, at times, inhumane conditions. Agroecology assumes that
fauna, domestic and otherwise, are integral to the ecology of the farm landscape.
The wholesale rearing of animals in factory-like or feedlot-style surroundings is
generally outside the scope of this text. The focus of this section is on the green
revolution model applied on a massive scale.
Agroecology
Being the contrariety of agroecology, with the green revolution model, there is
almost nothing in the way of nature or natural processes. These large areas of one
species are made possible through genetic engineering that armors the plants against
diseases and insects pests. It also comes by way of the liberal use of chemical inputs,
most notably fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides.
Although windbreaks and riparian buffers can be found with this approach, there
is no attempt in harnessing the subsidiary benefits. These would be one purpose
farm additions. Done without regard or interest in preserving nor in utilizing natural
flora and faunas, factory farms, although covered with vegetation, cannot be consid-
ered eco-friendly.
Economics
The economics of these systems can be misleading. These are highly revenue-
oriented systems where inputs, minus the high costs, are expected to yield a profit.
The expectation is that large areas should translate into large profits.
With the promise of cheap agricultural commodities as animal feed and indus-
trial feed sock, these systems are championed. Support can come from farm
Glossary 279
s uppliers that thrive by selling the needed inputs. Governments are enticed by the
tax revenues from these sales and from the income farms and suppliers generate.
The profits and economic gains are not all that they seem. There are two eco-
nomic elements, unless offered by government or provided by a large corporation,
that can eliminate the factory farm as viable economic entity.
The first problem lies in risk. Despite genetic inputs and organism-destroying
chemicals, unforeseen and yield-reducing events will happen. The large outlay in
seeds, fertilizers, and soil preparation means that a yield loss places a severe finan-
cial burden on the farmer or the controlling corporation. Without risk insurance or
deep-pocket monetary support to cover these losses, the system can be untenable.
A second form of insurance may be required, that of price supports. These are
revenue-oriented systems that, because of the extensive and costly use of inputs,
cannot withstand large drops in price. This contrasts to cost-oriented agriculture
where the low levels of inputs can allow for profitability even when crop selling
prices are low.
Because of the extensive area planted with the single crop, low selling prices
quickly translate into an unprofitable situation. As with crop failure risk, this can
require government or other outside prices supports and/or a well-financed corpora-
tion in order to continue. Without these, farms would seek better balanced, less
risky, and more ecological forms of agriculture.
Variations
The factory version of the monoculture normally is genetically pure, with very little
variation in the method of application. Variation comes, not by way of agricultural
crops planted, but through forestry.
As mentioned, there are the large-scale tree-crop plantations. These can host
small animals, but not larger species (Yue et al. 2015). These are not as exclusionary
as the seasonal crop versions
Not as hostile to native flora and fauna as the cropping version, there are the
forest-tree plantations. Because there is far less in-plantation human activity, these
can be ecologically better than tree-crop plantations. If they are not wholly based on
exotic species, they may be welcoming to some local flora and fauna.
To control costs, highly competitive trees are the basis in most applications.
These are often species of pine or eucalyptus. The pines inhibit other plants by turn-
ing the soil acidic. Eucalyptus is thought to do this through water competition.
Among a long list of environmental harms, eucalyptus has been faulted for drying
the area streams.
There is some dispute on the latter (Srivastava et al. 2003). The number of web-
sites that mention soil and/or swamp drying attests to the counter view, e.g.,
Wikipedia, Eucalyptus, 2017.
280 Glossary
Future Ideals
The question is whether to treat large-scale plantations as agriculture or to improve

the long-term environmental perspective. This is not an issue with green revolution
cropping. The question lies with the tree-crop plantations. This text, Chap. 7, advo-
cates adding more internal biodiversity and an improved environmental footprint.
Fallows
In agroecology, there is the concept of the auxiliary agroecosystem, one that pro-
duces little but adds to the ecology and the productive potential of a farm. The fal-
low period exists both as a spatial and a temporal agrotechnology. Fallows are a
natural reprieve, a rest period for the land, allowing nutrient recovery and a resetting
of the eco-dynamics.
Beneficial Ecology
Fallows have, in all likelihood, existed since agriculture began. A period without
crops and without the accompanying nutrient removal allows, through natural
forces, for an increase in in-soil elemental nutrients.
The needed crop-free interval can range from a season every few years to
extended fallows lasting decades. The latter was once the traditional form of slash-
and-burn agriculture.
Other uses are in ridding the soil of unwanted insects and weeds. This comes
about through the change in habitat ecology. Herbivore insects can lie waiting for
their favorite crop; weeds can regrow anticipating a hospitable cropping
agrosystem.
In both cases, these organisms will be disappointed. Finding unwelcoming eco-
systems can break their reproductive cycle. This does not eliminate these as a future
threat, but can reset their populations to near zero.
One of the larger decisions is to burn or not at the end of the fallow period.
Burning releases nutrients for the immediate use of the crop. An intense burn can
kill in-soil weed seeds and insect eggs and grubs.
To the negative, burning can strips the soil of any protective layer, making it
more susceptible to erosion. Through fire, a large percentage of the in-biomass
nutrients can be lost to the system.
The alternative, natural decay does protect the soil, but the nutrients are released
at a slow rate, often missing the peak need period of the subsequent crop. Natural
decay does provide a high degree of erosion protection.
Glossary 281
Variations
As expected, fallows come in varying forms. Classification does not always relate to
length; three other factors define nonproductive fallows. These are whether or not
they are (1) woody or non-woody, (2) burned or unburned, and (3) the species com-
position. Eight of these variations are detailed below.
In addition to the nonproductive fallows, there are the productive fallows. These
are found and are utilized. These are also elaborated on in this section.
Burned, Woody, and Polycultural
The classic fallow is plot that, with sufficient time, regrows with small trees or
woody shrubs. When the fallow ends, these are cut, allowed to dry, and then burned
in place. This approach is limited to hand-cultivated plots. Plowing is not always
possible as stumps are a serious impediment. Plowing may not be necessary as fire
lays the soil bare for planting. In this case, fire destroys the large branches that
would interfere with cultivation.
Unburned, Woody, and Polycultural
Rather than burning at the end of the fallow, the cut branches would be left in place
to dry. After the leaves shed, the branches are removed. There are a lot of obstacles
to success with this variation, nutrient release timing, stumps that interfere with
planting, and weed bloom that can follow post-fallow land clearing. As such, this
may be the least found variation.
The overriding advantage is the ability of the system to prevent soil loss through
erosion. The main application is on erosion-prone hillsides.
Burned, Non-Woody, and Polycultural
This variation is based upon a short fallow without woody regrowth and/or fallow
growth with perennial grasses. Often the grasses sprout anew from in-place root
systems.
In an example observed in Mexico (Gliessman 1998), maize is planted before the
grasses are burned. The fire, far from intense, does not kill the maize seeds. These
then germinate into a cropping phase during which the grasses regrow. This system
provides a flux of post-burn nutrients that are available to the maize. The hope is that
the sprouting maize and reestablished grasses keep weeds at bay.
282 Glossary
Unburned, Non-Woody, and Polycultural
In contrast to the woody version, this unburned variation has wider application. The
notion here is to have a mix of fallow species. Often these are just those plants that
establish post-harvest.
Without fire, the main obstacles might be the slow release of nutrients and the
weeds that establish. These are countered if the fallow biomass is plowed under. It
then decays faster and the contained nutrients come into play much sooner. Also
weed regrowth is slowed.
This system would rely, during the fallow period, on a mix of species. To insure
a true outcome, these may be planted or be the residual cover crop that remains after
the crop is harvested. It goes without saying that this version is short duration, for
one or a few seasons only.
Burned, Woody, Monocultural
The fallows with a monocultural content are mostly of specific purpose, i.e., found
in conjunction with a single fallow species. This variation has been described in
Brazil (Kass and Somarriba 1999). The tree species is bracatinga. These are cut and
burned and the crop planted. Regrowth of the tree occurs during the crop period and
the tree is pruned as part of the weeding. After harvest, the tree reestablishes.
Unburned, Woody, Monocultural
An example of an unburned monocultural fallow is from Costa Rica. Stands of the

tree caragra are harvested for firewood, before, and in the early stages of regrowth,
a crop can be planted and harvested.
For classification purposes, these are tree-over-crop systems (for more, see Tree-
Over-Crop Agroecosystems). This is considered a fallow variation only because the
primary species is the crop. If the tree is the primary species and, at some stage, the
crop is no longer planted, this becomes a taungya.
Burned, Non-Woody, Monocultural
The vine kudzu is soil replenishing, but, outside its native Asia, it is also a rapidly
growing, invasive species. In a more positive role, kudzu is utilized in a fallow
monoculture. A cut-and-burn provides the crops with nutrients. The rapid regrowth,
initially weeded, is later left to reestablish.
The whole package produces a short-duration fallow. The kudzu fixes nitrogen,
increases soil porosity, and transports minerals up from the lower soil strata. Grazing
is another option which converts this into a productive fallow.
Glossary 283
Unburned, Non-Woody, Monocultural
The unburned mono-fallows are mostly found with cover plants established during
or shortly after the cropping phase. These later become the primary and only fallow
species. Three species have been mentioned for use in the dryer part of Latin
America; these are canavalia, lablab and velvet beans. These species can be plowed
under or cut down to accommodate the post-fallow cropping period.
The common example in temperate regions is the post-harvest planting of winter
rye. This usually overwinters and is plowed under in the spring.
Productive Fallows
The productive fallow involves some harvest from a fallowed plot. The key require-
ment is that fewer nutrients are removed by the harvest than are being replaced.
With this limitation in mind, the most common example is a grazed pasture.
On-site animals redeposit nutrients, keeping the nutrient removal rate low. This is
also an example of an unburned, non-woody, polycultural fallow.
Other harvests may include the above cited lablab bean or other less demanded
products. Out of necessity, only small amount of produce or the non-harvest option
is used to limit the take. This is also an unburned, non-woody, mono-fallow.
Yet another variation occurs with long-term fallows. From the tropical regions of
West Africa, upland rice is followed by cassava. The cassava, harvested over a
1-year period, is interplanted with longer-duration plants; fruit-bearing small shrub
and trees dominate.
This marks the beginning of the fallow during which harvests gradually diminish.
By the start of the cropping period, fruit and other product gatherings have mostly
ceased and, using a burned, woody and polycultural process, the system restarts.
Fallow Duration
For some of the simpler, slash-and-burn fallows, there is a question as to the dura-
tion, i.e., how long the fallow should last. Very long fallows (i.e., 50+ years) may be
beneficial to natural forests and the contained ecology.
Under this regime, only a small percentage of the natural ecosystem is impacted.
After harvests have ended, the area being fallowed reseeds with both nearby and
faraway trees.
This represents a healing where species diversity may actually increase. The long
duration implies low human population density and plenty of natural flora and fauna.
Lesser duration fallows (i.e., less than 50 years, but greater than 20 years) are, as
expected, more destructive to the flora and fauna of the region. The surrounding
ecosystem may never quite reach a climax stage, but enough is in place to maintain
some resemblance of natural ecology.
284 Glossary
Again, on this sliding scale are the even lesser duration fallows (i.e., of less than
20 years, but greater than 5 years). In some ways, this is less environmentally
destructive than a longer duration fallow. The taller trees and larger animals may be
long gone and no longer under threat. This is now more an agronomic landscape,
without natural ecosystem pretexts.
If human population density remains static (not always a realistic assumption), a
modicum of natural flora and fauna might reintroduce. This could be the situation
where farm populations have declined due to migration or expanded employment
opportunities.
From an agronomic perspective, the best fallows are where woody vegetation
replaces annual plants. This means that in-soil nutrients are high and the pesky weed
species, and their in-soil seeds, have succumbed. Crop pathogens and crop-attacking
insects may also be long gone.
At the lower end, fallows of less than 5 years do not always allow the establish-
ment of woody plants. Hence, they do not deliver all the expected agroecological
benefits. Being below the woody plant threshold, there is still a lot of ecological
good to be had.
A fallow can be intensified by planting or encouraging the rapid establishment of
woody regrowth. Many of the nonproductive variations (described earlier in this
section) succeed by doing this.
Many fallows last 2–3 years. This is enough time to get to the edge of the upper
plateau on a sigmoid, duration vs. yield, response function. Longer fallows push, to
greater benefit, higher on the curve.
Cropping Duration
The majority of the eco-services supplied by a fallow, i.e., weed-free soils, fertility,
etc., disappear after 2 years of crops. If the cropping period extends beyond this, the
dynamics change. A 1- or 2-year fallow still supplies benefits, but the cropping
sequence, i.e., the rotation, becomes more important (Wood et al. 2013).
There are still gains from shorter fallows. As mentioned, these can be intensified
by an initial planting of those species, e.g., a cover crop that rapidly boosts the soil,
suppresses weeds, etc.
The above is a general assessment. As conditions vary, so does this outcome. If
there are large neighboring, protected areas (the emphasis here is on protected),
even a short fallow can be a helpful addition with regard to flora and fauna. This
comes through ecological spillover. Although this helps, there is still the need for
enough time to pass in order to achieve the full complement of agroecological ben-
efits (i.e., 5+ years).
Glossary 285
Fencing
Fencing can be more than the partitioning of farms and farm landscapes. This can
be, if the right type of fencing is utilized, an agroecologically positive addition.
When the economics are favorable as to the direct costs, both for installation and
maintenance over the life of the fence, this is an avenue worth going down.
Agroecology
Wire-on-post fencing, the current standard, is single purpose with no ecological

role. Vegetative types, e.g., hedges, have multiple uses within landscape.
Besides fencing, these serve as infiltration structures; as riparian buffers, for ero-
sion control; and as corridors for the movement of insect-eating insects. These have
a lesser role as a windbreak and can harbor some local bird and plants (Pulido-
Santacruz and Renjifo 2011).
Multiple roles are best exploited through an integrated, connected, and func-
tional overlap. This occurs when these serve as corridors in an eco-landscape (for
more, see Corridors).
Stone fencing can be agroecologically important or an imposing, but an ecologi-
cally minor, landscape feature. As a minor feature, stone fencing is often a place to
put the stones that litter some plots. In an expanded role, stone fencing, as contour
structures, promotes water infiltration.
Economics
Barbed wire on wooden or metal posts is also the comparative standard when look-
ing at the economics. These dead fences are only a barrier for animals and people;
they offer no wind protection, do not harbor insect-eating birds and insects, and do
not repel insects.
Wire fencing is effective at their task. They can be more expensive to establish or
maintain. If more is spent on construction, i.e., with decay-resistant posts, these can
be cheap to maintain. If untreated wood posts are used, there is wood decay and a
periodic replacement cost. This can be decades long or a more economically pro-
hibitive lesser interval.
As a disadvantage, live fencing requires an establishment period. Depending
upon the design, this can be a number of years. As a result, live fencing may be a
replacement for some other type. This can be a gradual process where the living
fence gradually replaces the dead fence (as in Photo 3.2, page 40).
Live fencing does require maintenance. This can be accomplished off-season
when farm labor is in surplus.
The initial cost of dead fencing can be too much of an expense for poor farmers.
This will favor live versions that do not require outside purchases.
286 Glossary
Photo F1 A living, shrub-type barrier. (This photo is from northern Kenya)
In semiarid climates, the wire version can last a long time with minimal
maintenance. In the humid tropics, decay or rust can take an early toll. Coupled
with the fast growth of live fencing, the climate will often tip the economic bal-
ance in favor of tropical use. Still, semiarid designs, those that employ cacti, are
encountered.
The most expensive, but cheapest form of fencing, is that of stones. These are
best in areas where stones are underfoot and must be cleared. Construction is an
arduous task. The benefits of well-placed stone fencing should accrue for years to
come.
Variations
There are various types of dead and live fencing. The dead version is wire on metal
or wooden poles. Stone fencing is also a dead version with some variation. Live
fencing offers a number of alternatives.
Dead Fencing
There are stone fences that arise when there is an abundance of plot-collectable
stones. Widely spaced on a flat site, these offer fewer ecological gains. Closer
spaced and/or topographically placed, e.g., along a hillside, these can be a major
Glossary 287
Fig. F4 The various types of live fencing. From top to bottom, this shows (1) wire on living post,
(2) close-spaced stems, (3) thorny hedge, and (4) woven branches
source of eco-services. This can be crops raised between piled rocks in small enclo-
sures of a few meters square, e.g., two to ten (for more on the ecology of crops with
piled rocks, see Stones).
Small enclosures usually relate to farming intensity. Where high, this also
requires a rocky topography, cool nights, and short, brief rains. Where hilly, stone
fencing usually manifests as stone terraces.
With these structures, the rocks moderate daytime and nighttime temperatures,
encourage rains to permeate the soil, and keep the soil from washing or blowing
away. Over time, the physical and chemical breakdown of rocks can supply some
mineral nutrients.
288 Glossary
Photo F2 Another example of a live fencing. This is a wire-on-stem design from the Dominican
Republic
Live Fencing
There are a lot of variations with living fences. There are those versions where
barbed wire is strung on live posts. One design has normal post spacing; a second is
the same inter-post plan, but with a spiny vine growing on the wire. The vine-cov-
ered wire design can be utilized with dead posts, but is better with live posts. This is
because the vines will impede post replacement.
In yet another wire-with-live-post design, there is the possibility for a wider
inter-post spacing. For this, woody branches are interwoven into the wire to give
support. These branches can be the branch sprouts that are cut from the posts.
The other live fence types are all vegetative. There is the open hedge where
animal-unfriendly plants are closely spaced. The classic example uses cacti or cacti-
like plants. Other plants, including sisal and, in Europe, the white thorn, are used in
these open-hedge designs.
The pleached hedge uses fast-establishing tree or shrub where, as growth occurs, the
branches are interwoven. This forms a dense, impenetrable barrier (as in Fig. F4(d)).
Usually the branches sticking out away from the barrier are cut away, restricting
the hedge thickness. These cut branches are placed under the fence to close any
below-barrier openings. Further strengthening the underside, some suggest planting
the hedge on the top of a small bund. This suggestion may help with survival while
insuring uniform growth.
Glossary 289
A variation of the pleached hedge is the plashed hedge (Rham 1853). For this,
saplings are planted or allowed to grow. These are spaced every few, i.e., 2–3,
meters. When they reach a ground-level diameter of about 4–5 centimeters and a
height of about 2–3 meters, the stems are notched, at ground level, midway through.
They are then bent and staked to the earth. The result would be an upward branch
growth and downward rooting. This produces a uniform hedge that, for further
strength, can be pleached (i.e., woven).
Another possibility is the multi-post design. This consists of numerous individ-
ual trees, planted in very close proximity. The close spacing of the 5–10 centimeter
stems keeps animals from passing. The trees are cut to a height that will contain the
targeted animal.
The above applies to the common cattle fence. Other animals require different
fencing. Pigs can force their way through some enclosures; many of hedge designs
are strong enough at the lower levels and will thwart these animals. Horses and
llamas can also be contained by dead fence or live hedge.
Deer, with their jumping ability, require a higher obstacle. For this, a tall hedge
may prove less costly than a 10 meter dead fence. These would be trees with a tall,
narrow canopy.
Other animals, e.g., bison, are difficult to enclose as these require a strong parti-
tion. The expense is such that many advocate allowing these large grazers to roam
free and cross legal boundaries at will.
In some areas, sturdy fencing may be required. Photos 3.2 and F1 show fencing
in northern Kenya. These would discourage cattle; equally important, the dense-
packed trees would thwart elephants.
Field Margins
Field margins come in many forms. These can be actively cultivated and managed
neighboring plots. They can also be areas of natural or seminatural vegetation. For
discussion here, field margins are the narrow, uncultivated area that surrounds
active plots.
Generally, these are nonexistent or almost nonexistent where agriculture is
intense and plots are hand cultivated (as in Photos 9.2 and 9.3). Where tractors find
use and need room to turn, these margins can be quite wide. In many cases, these
would not exist unless land users tolerate or see advantage in their placement.
Ecology
To the positive, field margins can harbor both predator and pollinating insects. For
these to spill over into the crop plot, it is best that the margins provide a favorable
habitat. The consensus is that margins be rich in flowering species. Clearly, this is
good for pollinators. This is also good for insect predators (Tschumi et al. 2016; van
Rijn and Wäckers 2016).
290 Glossary
As a general rule, a diversity of flowering species is better than one species.

Although there is a perceived danger, the margin is not necessarily a direct source
of in-plot weeds (Marshall et al. 2003). This would be assured if the contained spe-
cies are chosen and planted.
Of note, the continued supply in-soil biota is another, less acknowledged eco-
service (D’Acunto et al. 2016). For food safety reasons, field margins have been
discouraged. Research has shown that this is not an issue (Karp et al. 2016).
Layout
As a major contributor of eco-services, it is better that the cultivated plots are not
too large. This is because the margin-supplied eco-services can have limited travel
(Woodcock et al. 2016). The best layout is to divide a large plot into strips. Each
would connect to the field margins.
Economically, replanting each year is usually a nonstarter. It is far cheaper to
encourage perennials or species that reseed each season.
If uncontrolled grazing is a problem, reseeding species (two of more) may be the
preferred option. If reseeding is used, it is far better if the species employed are not
potentially damaging weeds. As stated, a flowering cover crop may find use.
Fire
The use of fire within agriculture and silviculture is a specialized topic. There are
times and places of use. In other situations, fire is a danger to be avoided.
In agriculture, fire, as part of slash-and-burn, is an agro-strategy found in some
societies. In others, fire is also used to clear crop residues from plots as part of pre-
paring land for replanting. As discussed in the text, fire can impact insect popula-
tions, reduce the incidence of plant disease, and release biomass-borne nutrients.
To the negative, fire can be a danger to drying and maturing crops. When close to
harvest, wheat and other grains are prone to burning.
In silviculture, fire has a more complex relationship with the various land uses.
For the most part, forest fires are a constant danger, especially in lower rainfall, drier
regions. Much money and resources are spent on monitoring, lessening the danger,
and in actually fighting a fire should one occur.
For some natural forests, fire is a naturally occurring, ecologically expected addi-
tion. Frequent fire is an evolutionary force that produced a fire-dependent ecosys-
tem. Serotinus cones are found on some pine species. The cones require high heat
before they can open and germinate. The giant sequoia, the world’s tallest tree,
achieves longevity, in part, because it has thick, fire-resistant bark.
In parts of North America, this burn interval was 2–3 years (Kilgore and Taylor
1979). In the forests of Northern Europe, fire is less the norm. It occurs at 259 year
intervals (Clark et al. 1989).
Glossary 291
Some forest-tree plantations use the fire-resistant properties of the trees as a cost-
containment measure. Frequent small fires, every 2–5 years, keep the stand pure and
free of unwanted weeds. Burning is also the cheapest means for weed control. It
also has dangers in that, if a fire is too hot and burns too deep, these plantations can
experience very high rates of erosion. Tree loss or damage is also a possibility.
Firebreaks
In some regions, fire is a danger to agriculture. This can include some annual crops
and plantations in various forms. In addition to monitoring, in-place controls are
needed. One is the firebreak or fire barrier.
The purpose of a fire barrier is to contain the spread of the risk. The best barriers
are of bare earth. These are expensive to maintain and are prone to erosion.
Other types are vegetative. A root crop, in place when the fire danger is low, and
harvested before the fire season peaks, is a possibility. This is useful as the land is
bare of crops only during the dryer, low-erosion, high fire-danger period.
Another option is to plant a crop that does not easily combust. Traditional species
in this role are cacti.
Floating Gardens
One highly specialized and a very intense form of agriculture is the raising of crops
on floating mats or other buoyant structures. As an insignificant agrotechnology,
these rafts, often constructed of bamboo or papyrus, are covered with soil. Because
these float on rivers, ponds, and lakes, these provide a well-watered, but expensive,
means to produce high-value crops.
As these are expensive to construct and maintain, they are utilized when agricul-
tural demands are high and where agricultural land is scarce. The often cited exam-
ple, the Aztec floating gardens, is misnamed. This is really lake-side agriculture. An
unequivocal example has been documented in Bangladesh (Rezaul Haq et al. 2004).
Food Kilometers (Or Food Miles)
The notion that food is better grown locally can be expressed in terms of food kilo-
meters or food miles. The basic concept holds that the lesser the transport distance,
the better for all. Along with distance, this can be articulated in the fuel (i.e., energy)
required to move the crop from the field to the consumer.
292 Glossary
Using fewer food kilometers has a number of positive ramifications. Food raised
and sold close-by arrives at the consumer fresher and of higher quality. The higher
quality comes as crops are picked ripe. Also varieties are selected based more on
taste, not for their travel durability.
Another consumer advantage occurs when more varieties are available. Again,
this favorably impacts taste and nutrient quantity. Along these same lines, food-
borne diseases are local and far easier to contain; these are not transmitted across
the larger populations.
Regionally grown food is also good for the local/regional economy. This is
because more of the money spent on food remains, circulates, and is re-spent locally.
Far more reaching, more local income means less incentive for farmers to sell
prime farmland for nonagricultural use. Operational farmland, as biodiverse open
space, not paved-over land, is better for local flora and fauna. This produces a
healthier, better-balanced landscape. This is also a quality-of-life issue.
Local growth is not possible with all crops and in all regions. Some foods and
other ingredients must be imported. Bananas, oranges, and some of the spices that
cooks expect will continue to be grown in tropical or semitropical regions and trans-
ported to northern climes. There are also seasonal considerations. Vegetables will
need to be imported when winter cold prohibits their growth.
The economics of locally grown foods are not always favorable. In some faraway
countries, the cost of growth and harvest can be very low. Transport, as sea freight,
may also be very low when expressed in tons per kilometer. This can make the cost
of importation lower than raising the crop locally. This is especially true when
locally raised crops must be hand harvested and labor costs are high.
Forage Banks
As part of cut-and-carry systems, forage banks serve often a dual function, that of a
feed source for animals and source of green manure for crops. Pastures, those cut for
hay, are forage banks on a larger scale. Smaller plots, often containing tree- or
shrub-derived forage, can be a useful landscape feature.
For the small farmer, 20 or 30 superior biomass trees can feed one cow (Faizool
and Ramjohn 1995). Other uses are in arid zones where forage trees outgrow and
outproduce traditionally employed seasonal grasses (for more on this and related
topics, see Pastures).
Forestry
(See Silviculture)
Glossary 293
Free-Form Plots
There are individuals and societies that eschew the notion of the one-plot, one-
agrotechnology model. These free-form plots and landscape are based upon other
set principles and/or the land users’ own knowledge of plant-plant relationships.
These landscape types are unusual and are found in traditional societies. Mostly,
they occur in parts of Africa.
Guidelines
Without basic guidelines, a free-form farm would be a difficult project to put into
place and still maintain some degree of cropping efficiency. Based on the work of
den Biggelaar (1996), plant species chosen are based upon:
(a) Whether they damage the soil or associated crops
(b) Where they fit within the farming system (near or away from crops)
(c) Where they grow best
(d) The potential functions or uses (live fencing, food, etc.)
In condensed form, these guidelines can be restated as:
1. A species is located where it grows best as long as it does not take space away
from a more valuable or more useful species.
2. The population of each species is proportional to its value and within farm
resource limitations (i.e., the labor needs of each species).
Expressions
The above rules would not be out of place in plot-based landscapes. The difference
is that this can lead to a semi-plot or free-form landscape where the crops are not in
defined plots. This can also be the case where plot boundaries are not distinct.
The latter is where one crop overlaps with the next. What usually happens is that,
for part of an area, there will be a monoculture. The overlap with the neighboring
species will be a population-variable or disarrayed intercrop. Further on, the inter-
crop will give way to monocrop of the neighboring species (see Photo, page 123).
Free-Range Grazing
Where possible, the alternative to contained pastures is the free-ranging of animals.

The difference between the classic pasture and a free-range strategy is that, with
pastures, the vegetation is managed whereas, with free-range, the fauna component
is managed to maximize the ecology of the area with the ultimate goal of maximiz-
ing animal yield.
294 Glossary
Both turkeys and hogs can free-range in a forested, often fenced environment.
There is the option of enriching the forest with desirable feed species. This would
be more along the lines of a classic pasture. For more, see Forest Feed Systems
(Chap. 6, page 103).
The enriched forest or pasture, not free ranging, would clearly be an agroecologi-
cal activity in accordance with most definitions, e.g., those in Chap. 1.
More telling are those extensive areas where large ungulates roam and graze.
This is best done in accordance with naturally established principles. Briefly pre-
sented, the herds are large, dense, and in constant motion. Also, the area has herds
of different animal species.
With free-ranging, the idea is to replicate what herds naturally do in a predator-
rich setting. The presence of natural predators bunches and moves herds. These lead
to short, intense periods of grazing. In duplicating the ecology of a grazed savannah
ecosystem, this is thought better than long-duration, low-intensity grazing.
This form of free-ranging, without direct enrichment, can fall outside the scope
of some, but not all, of the proposed definitions. Still, as an agronomic activity, free-
ranging comes in three forms, with (1) domestic, (2) semidomestic, and/or (3) wild
animals.
Domestic
Cattle, goats, and llamas can traverse and graze large natural areas. These fully
domestic animals can be accompanied by herders. The herds can also co-graze with
wild grazers, e.g., zebra, elk, wildebeest, etc. Co-grazing is found in the savannahs
of East Africa (as in Photo G1).
Semidomestic
There is a second class of grazers, those that are less domesticated and indigenous
to a region. These species offer a better fit with the natural ecology of the area.
The classic example are the bison that live in the central plains of North America.
Reindeer are another example. For this, the animals are loosely managed. They may
roam free or be herded. They are considered property.
Wild
There is the situation where wild ungulates graze in untamed, unmanaged areas.
These animals are not owned.
To avoid the tragedy of the commons, i.e., unsustainable hunting, there should be
an overseeing organization. From Africa and other regions, there are many good and
bad examples. To name two, deer and antelope can be hunted in a sustainable way.
Glossary 295
Photo G1 From northern Kenya, this free-ranging, mixed-species herd (cattle and goats) would
not be ecologically out of place in the grazed savannas of Africa
Frost
One cropping danger can be frosts, brief periods of below freezing temperatures
that occur early or late in a growing season or, in dry regions, throughout the season.
The early or late season frosts come during the spring and fall season. In dry cli-
mates, and usually at high altitudes, nighttime temperatures can descend to below
freezing.
The anti-frost counters are many and varied. These range from low-tech, cost-
oriented to high-input, revenue-oriented measures.
The use of mounds is common. Crops, slightly elevated, are slightly warmer
when ¼ to ½ meter above the inter-mound valley. Mounds have other purpose, and,
for maximum effect, these should be incorporated in any system design (for addi-
tional discussion, see Mounds).
Water and rocks can play a large role in countering low temperatures. Standing
water very near or in channels between crops will store daytime heat, releasing this
at night. The same strategy applies when dark-colored rocks are placed around
plants, small plots are surrounded by stone fences, or stone terraces are in place.
Water, in the form of sprinkler irrigation, is also a frost counter. These systems
are turned on when temperatures plunge. This introduces slightly warmer water into
the air.
296 Glossary
The free water, while in the air, on plants, and while in the process of freezing,
will release some heat. There is a drawback in that, if the nighttime temperature is
very low, the irrigation water will freeze on the crop. The heavy ice will cause lodg-
ing or branches to snap. These measures, rock and water, also counter high, crop-
damaging temperatures.
There are agroecosystems that retain heat and are less prone to freezing. Trees
above crops do much the same. A barrier of tall trees, often coupled with a few park-
land, in-plot trees, can reflect heat downward, warding off cooler temperatures.
Other measures involve the movement of air. Plots of cold-susceptible crops are
located on light-exposed hillsides. The notion here is to allow cold air to descend
away from the crop. The hillside should face the rising sun such that the morning
warmth quickly dissipates the cool air.
Another related mechanism is the use of channels to divert cool air to lower ele-
vations without passing over the crops. This can involve wades, as diversion chan-
nels, along the sides of susceptible plots and the use of placed tree rows to further
channel the air. As part of an anti-frost landscape design, crops or agroecosystem
that can withstand freezing is placed in the lowlands.
Most of the counters are in-place always functioning. There are temporary mea-
sures that can be introduced when freezing is in the weather forecast but quite
unexpected.
Plants can be covered with cloth, hay, or other types of biomass. Bonfires can be
lit at the periphery of plots (including, if necessary, the burning of neighboring bio-
mass strips). As a costly technical solution, giant fans, positioned within or above
plots, can stir the air, preventing frost from settling on crops.
Fungicides
(See Pathogens)
Gabons
One of the many flood and drought defenses is rock-filled wire baskets. These
gabons are placed crossways in wades and streams to slow water flow, promote
infiltration, and keep soil from washing downstream. They are also used to line
riverbanks to eliminate erosion.
As with most water management structures, gabons serve a double purpose, con-
trolling flows during periods of high rainfall. By encouraging in-soil absorption,
serve as infiltration structures (for the other options, see Infiltration).
A key aspect is to first place the gabons high in watersheds where the wadies or
streams are small. Once in place, they are then positioned at lower altitudes.
This type of placement insures that these are most effective in their intended use
and will not be overwhelmed by surges of water. Ideally, these should be spaced so
Glossary 297
that the water, backed up behind one gabon, just touches the base of the next in the
uphill placement.
In use, these can be an effective means to increase the in-soil water content in
streamside plots (Cohn 2005). These have some of the hydrodynamical effects and
duplicate some of the resulting natural ecology, of beavers and beaver dams found
in Europe and North America.
One variation is not designed to promote water infiltration. These are high dikes,
as flood containment structures, placed along streambanks. In separating the active
stream from bordering agricultural land, these can be a risk-reducing measure.
During the high-water flows of a rainy season, they are used to keep normally inun-
dated land open for agriculture.
Game Theory
(See Decision Theory)
Genetically Improved/Modified Crops
Going outside traditional forms of crop breeding, crops are developed using genetic
material from a range of plants and even animal genes. Since this is “foreign”
genetic material being incorporated into genetically modified (GM) commercial
crop, it would not, in a more natural process, reach the crop. Use has invoked strenu-
ous debate.
Included under this heading is gene snipping. This can be more targeted and
involve the intraspecies movement of genes. As with all GM crops, the normal goals
are better nutrition, yields, and/or growth properties.
The process of inserting foreign genes into crops is open to objection. It is the
resulting picture that many find abhorrent. GM can be, and often is, a component of
the green revolution model where chemicals and monocropping crowd out nature.
Farming is no longer an environmentally friendly activity.
End Goal
The ultimate objective of the process, although unstated, would be a crop species
entirely armored against the forces of nature. This includes herbivore insects,
droughts, frosts, and other calamities. Weeds are controlled, not through normal
competitive forces, but by breeding plants that are impervious to herbicides.
Herbivore insects may not agree. An inviting crop will encourage crop-eating
insects to evolve to withstand and even relish the in-plant toxins. This process is
always underway. The goal of a plant, one that is genetically armored against harmful
insects, may be less of an end goal, more a temporary reprieve.
298 Glossary
The same holds true for weeds. It has come to pass that some weeds have become
resistant to herbicides. Another unintended consequence, the herbicide-resistant
crop can become a weed for a subsequent planting of another crop species.
Other Arguments
Research indicates that GM crops are safe for human consumption. This does not
mean that they should be utilized.
Although promoted on the basis of their high yields, these yields can be dupli-
cated with traditional varieties. Since GM crops are formulated under ideal growing
conditions, they can yield poorly when faced with a shortfall in one or more essen-
tial resources. Traditional crops, those raised from saved seed, can be more forgiv-
ing and yield better when faced with a resource shortfall.
Objections are also based on the narrow range of crop varieties found with GM
crops. These few varieties are most often chosen for transport and storage proper-
ties, rather than taste, nutrition, and cooking quality. The resulting foods represent a
decline in the human culinary experience.
Some, e.g., Taverne (2007), have argued that, in a world where there must be
more food, fiber, and fuel, GM crops and the green revolution package are not only
desirable, but necessary. Since the argument is intertwined with those of chemically
supported farming systems, this raises other concerns and other questions.
With strong support from a segment of industries and individuals, GM crops are
not going away. They may become less associated with food stuffs and more associ-
ated with feed stocks. This would be animal feeds and crops destined for industrial
uses or for processed foods.
Grafting
The procedure of attaching branches and stems from a closely related, woody peren-
nial or from a variety of the same plant is not uncommon. This often involves stems
from a highly productive variety or one with specific fruit characteristics. These are
grafted onto disease resistant or other root stock with needed characteristics.
The notable example lies with varieties of grapes. Wine grapes are commonly
grafted to concord grape root stock. This confers resistance to belowground
diseases.
As with the grape example, the potential uses expand, especially when roots
need certain characteristics and stem and canopies require specific attributes. When
one variety with the above- and belowground attributes cannot be found, grafting
offers the potential to grow the perfect species. The literature has offered two exam-
ples of matching root with canopy characteristics to produce the desired result.
Grafting the shade resistance of the Ceara rubber tree onto cassava root stock
produced a shade-resistant, high-yielding version of cassava (de Foresta et al. 1994).
This new plant, better suited for intercropping applications, worked because of the
close relationship between the two species.
Glossary 299
In another example, the root stock of Coffea canephora is grafted to branch stock
arabica. This increases water capture and yields.
The potential does not stop with stems and branches grafted onto roots. Plants
can be a mix of stems, roots, and branches all from different varieties, all lending to
make the perfectly suited addition to a specific agrotechnology.
Grazing
(See either Pastures or Free-Range Grazing)
Green Revolution Model
As a logical extension of conventional agriculture, the green revolution model takes

revenue orientation to its endpoint. The goal is the highest possible yields. This is
monocropping-based agriculture where yields are maximized through the use of
irrigation and agrochemicals. GM crops are often part of this picture.
Under conventional economic wisdom, profits are generally maximized when
the cost of the added unit of input (think fertilizers) is greater than the added value
of the yield obtained. In practice, inputs often exceed this guide. Profits are gener-
ally assumed maximized when yields are maximized.
Because of operational simplicity (when compared with agrobiodiversity-based
systems), the green revolution model is the basis for large-scale farms or p lantations.
As stated in the first chapter, this model is loved by industry and governments.
There are a number of reasons for this. The large volume of single crop or output
can serve as raw material for industry. This, and the high value of required pur-
chases, increases the economic activity and profits for suppliers. For governments,
there is ample opportunity to extract tax revenues from the subsequent money flows.
There are very few saving graces from an environmental perspective. In their
worst form, i.e., very large areas of a single, seasonal crop, these epitomize the ills
of conventional agriculture. The tree or tree-crop version is slightly better but still in
need of improvement.
Guide Species
Guide species are utilized in forestry or agriculture applications where tall, straight,
tree stems are a prerequisite. When these are grown in the open or in small plots,
there is a tendency for the trees to side branch.
To force tall, straight stems, tall shrubs or short trees, those with vertically
shaped, densely foliated canopies, are in closely spaced rows that surround stands
of timber-producing trees. This also eliminates the excessive weed growth along the
inside edges of the tree plots.
300 Glossary
The most common application is where plots of wood-producing trees are part of
farm landscapes. Well-positioned plots of trees serve a number of ecologically ori-
ented on-farm functions. This can be as windbreaks, to promote water infiltration,
to prevent erosion, and to harbor insect-eating bugs, birds, and bats.
Guide species can increase the market value of the trees. Guide species allow for
smaller tree plots. This, coupled with ecological gains, can make small plots of
wood-producing trees an economically viable on-farm addition.
The gains from guide species extend to the crop side of the tree-crop interface.
Tree stands in open, crop-surrounded plots have a tendency to spread outward, both
above- and belowground, into neighboring cropping areas.
Guide trees, with their dense vertical canopies, work to correct associated
aboveground problems. Buffer trees, with their vertical dense root systems, counter
the below interspecies competition. An expectation of the latter is to reduce inter-
face distance between the two dissimilar plots, increasing overall farm yields.
Ideally, these attributes, vertically dense canopy and vertically dense roots, are
combined into one species. Lacking a tree or shrub with both these characteristics,
two side-by-side species may be so utilized.
Harvests
The gathering of farm outputs, whether these be fruits, nuts, grains, vegetables, for-
age, or other products of value, is one of the more costly farm undertakings. In
addition to the economics, harvests place limits on intercropping but are a variable
that can reduce the incidence of insect damage or plant diseases.
Agroecology
Some harvests, especially for annual crops, may be the most intrusive land-use pro-
cess. Unless measures are taken, this can leave the land exposed to wind and water
erosion. Some of this is mitigated by the ground cover provided by the post-harvest
crop residues.
Good for erosion control, these residues can harbor harmful or good insects.
These same residues can also harbor disease organisms. One counter is to burn resi-
dues or to rotate crops. It is generally recommended that burning be avoided and
that the crop residues decay and enrich the soil.
The timing of the harvest is a variable. At times, this is positive, e.g., an early
harvest to avoid the late season wilt. This is done for potatoes in Asia (Kumar et al.
2007). Also, an early first cutting of alfalfa can control alfalfa weevils.
In general, this is a variable that is very site related. An early planting and early
harvest may deter some insect species and cause harm to others (for more, see Insect
Control).
Glossary 301
Economics
As an input-intensive process, harvesting is costly, and attempts are made to reduce

this cost. For example, the hand collection of grains is replaced by cheaper mecha-
nization. Often little can be done to reduce costs.
The general rule is the greater the per-area output, the less the per-unit cost of the
harvest. This is because interplot movement and the handling of the outputs in
dense-packed plots are more efficient. This tends to be an advantage found with
high-output, revenue-oriented systems.
There are other ramifications in this rule. Farmers want crops, such as fruit and
vegetables, that ripen at the same time or within a shorter time period. This means
fewer collection passes through field and less per-unit harvest costs.
Because different harvests are required, this can discourage some multi-varietal
monoculture. This also applies to intercrops which require more harvest handling.
There can be an advantage in multiple harvests. These use fewer workers for
longer period whereas one large harvest requires far more workers. The former can
be cheaper.
Marketing concerns also enter the picture. If selling directly to consumers, a
long-term flow of fruit or vegetables can result in far more sales.
There is another general rule that applies to harvests. This is a yes or no variable.
If the cost of the harvest is greater than the value of the output, the crops are left. If
the harvest can profitably be undertaken, it is implemented.
There are examples where the non-harvest option is part of this. There may be a
market for unblemished, but not for damaged, fruit. In this case, only the unblem-
ished fruit is picked; the rest is left. The unharvested fruit will decay and return
nutrients to the soil.
An alternative is to let free-ranging domestic animals eat what is left. The latter
may be part of non-harvest strategy; if the crop proves to be valuable, it is harvested,
and if not, animals eat it. Squash planted as a weed control crop is a prime example.
If the squash is marketable, it is picked and sold, and if not, animals eat what remains
(for more in this, see the Non-Harvest Option).
Along these same lines, some harvest strategies are more cost oriented. Rather
than cutting, drying, and collecting forage, it is a lot less expensive to let animals
graze freely. This has limits, especially in regions where forage must be stored for
lean times, e.g., winters or dry seasons. There are agrotechnologies, by allowing
extended grazing, designed to reduce harvest costs of animal forage (for more, see
Pastures).
Hawthorne Effect
The Hawthorne effect has been described as when “… individuals modify or

improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being
observed” (Wikipedia, Hawthorne Effect, 2017). This interpretation might be an
302 Glossary
understatement as observations could include active promotion. At times this is

accompanied by a payment or the offering of free goods. In this case, the expected
behavior would be the tentative adoption of the change.
Hitherto, this has been an industrial concept. The study that prompted discovery
involved manufacturing. There is no reason that the Hawthorne effect cannot be
applied to agriculture.
Clearly, the failures of agricultural projects do not all relate to this effect. The
Hawthorne Effect can be diagnosed when a project ceases and so does the seem-
ingly successful outcome. Instead, farmers revert to their past, pre-project
practices.
Hedges
In agroecology, hedges come in varying forms and are in place for varying purpose.
They can be for purely containment; some find use in promoting water infiltration
and preventing erosion. Hedges also find use in containing or halting the cross-
landscape movement of herbivore insects or in aiding the movement of insect
predators.
This section deals with hedges as an auxiliary or facilitative structure within the
farm landscape. Hedges can be an integral part of an agrotechnology (for discussion
on either use, see Alley Cropping or Feed Systems) or they can be a type of ecologi-
cally friendly fencing (see Fencing).
Desirable Characteristics
For this auxiliary structure, shrub species are chosen that have the desired plant
characteristics. A good, stand-alone hedge species has:
Fast growth
Spines, dense or rough branches, or other animal-repellent properties
Ease of establishment and management
Non-spreading (no root sprouts)
Compatibility with crops
Value as fodder (or grazing resistance, depending upon use)
Fire resistance
Of limited height
Deep rooted
Resists drought or other climatic events
Attracts insect-eating insects
Will flower and feed bees when crops are not in bloom
All the above are not likely in one species. Still, users have hit upon suitable spe-
cies for general hedges. In parts of North America, the privot is considered a good
hedge species. In northern Europe, the white thorn has proven a species of choice.
Glossary 303
Variations
The most basic form is the close-spaced, single-species hedge line. More can be
done; pleached hedges have interwoven branches which increase their effectiveness
in containing large animals. Other variations employ plants other than woody peren-
nial shrubs. The sisal and agave are leafy plants that, when close spaced, form an
animal-impenetrable barrier.
Plashed hedges are an establishment method where a line of spaced, single-
stemmed, taller trees, a few centimeters diameter, are cut halfway through. These
are bent and held to the ground to form a row. The resulting branch and root spouts
become, after a few years, a unique hedge design.
Throughout agroecology, biodiversity is the watchword. This holds true with
hedgerows. Without introducing undue complexity, a mix of hedge species can be
the better option (Solomon et al. 2016).
In addition to animal containment, hedges can be basis for infiltration, for ripar-
ian buffers, as corridors, and as part of insect control strategy. These are discussed
as individual topics (for more, see Insects, Corridors, Infiltration, and/or Fencing).
Heirloom Varieties
In selecting a grain-producing or fruiting species, the characteristics of the output,

along with the growth characteristics of the plant, are factors to be considered. The
output can be selected for taste, color, size, shape, nutrient content, cookability,
storability, and/or durability in transport. The commercial varieties of many fruits
and vegetables are selected for the latter properties, long shelf life and ability to
endure transport with little damage.
For heirloom or heritage, the emphasis is placed more on the former, i.e., taste,
color, nutrient content, etc. These exist, as a genetic resource, often from the distant
and not so distant past, when most fruit and vegetables were grown and marketed
locally. Hence, shelf life and transport were less important.
As examples, carrots, potatoes, and other root crops come in a variety of colors.
Red, purple, pink, and green are among the hue possibilities. Tomatoes, as well as
other vegetables, come in differing flavors, shapes, sizes, and colors (Photo 11.4,
page 182).
Heirloom varieties are generally not favored by large-scale, high-output produc-
ers, but are more the province of specialty farmers, backyard gardeners, and those
that grow for local farmers’ markets. These unique properties, often in taste and or
color, find use in high-end culinary applications.
These varieties can be a genetic resource for the adaptability in agroecological
applications, e.g., there are varieties of maize and beans that have best growth char-
acteristics and therefore the best yields when intercropped.
304 Glossary
Photo I1 Contour mounds with ditch within an open field. These should be spaced and/or deep
enough such that all the surface water flow is captured. (This photo is from southern Chile)
Horqueta Trees
In semiarid regions, hay and other types of animal forage can be stored, away from
hungry animals, on platforms high in trees. As a cheap replacement for barns, silos,
or other means to store animal feed, this technique finds use where there is a long,
unbroken, dry season.
There is a requirement that the feed not degrade or be lost during storage, i.e., be
rained upon or blown away. Regions where horqueta trees are utilized include the
altiplano of South America and the drylands of Africa.
Infiltration
There are different methods to prevent erosion and to allow for water infiltration.
The two basic forms are (1) ground cover and (2) barriers. The latter are contour or
cross-contour ditches, bunds, and/or hedges that impede the water flow down mild
slopes or steep hillsides.
In their more intense form, infiltration barriers are employed with seasonal crops
and where soil is subject to high level of water runoff. With tree-crop or forest-tree
plantation, these are not always needed as a substantial ground cover is usually in
place.
Glossary 305
Photo I2 A micro-
catchment located slightly
above a planted tree
Infiltration barriers are not in-stream or in-wade structures. Also, these are not
employed where water flows concentrate and can overwhelm these structures.
Agroecology
As an auxiliary agrotechnology, in-soil barriers (as in Photos I1 and I2) have limited
facilitative purpose. As stated, most, but not all, involve water management under
the general rule that water should flow below, not aboveground.
Water flowing belowground does not contribute to erosion. Belowground water
is available on-site for a far longer period.
As ditches or bunds, these are mostly for water management. A hedge, properly
placed and designed, can also double as fencing or a refuge for insect-eating insects.
Vegetation-filled ditches or vegetation-topped bunds maintain their effectiveness in
water management but also serve to shelter insect-eating insects.
Variations
For a ditch system, rather than being one long ditch, these can be segmented. There
is a purpose for this. In the event that a small section washes out, other sections
remain intact. This design feature is requisite if these are positioned in semi-contour
or non-contour arrangement. The segmentation of these structures is important even
if these are purely contour.
306 Glossary
The steeper the slope, the greater the need for pure contour. Where slopes or rainfall
is less or the ground well covered with live vegetation, mulch, or stones, the requirement
for a pure contour design lessens. This is when the other schemes find application.
As an added note, there are alternatives. There is the aforementioned use of alter-
native ground cover. In some situations, e.g., where the site is too uneven for con-
tour structures or trees or boulders get in the way, cajetes, i.e., individual scattered
ditches, may be the better option (for more, see Cajetes).
Insects (Eatable)
(See Entomo-Agriculture)
Insect Control
An important part of agroecology is the management of insects, both as pests and as

a benefit to cropping. One aspect is the pollination of crops (for more, see
Pollination); the second aspect, discussed here, is the control of those insects that
cause harm to crops.
This can be an involved topic that, for many, goes to the heart of agroecology.
The mechanisms of control employed and variations therein are numerous.
Complexity comes in gauging the potential and the pitfalls of each application.
Agroecology
The basic notion behind the management of plant or crop-eating insects is to control
harmful populations through natural means. This failing, other techniques/mecha-
nisms are utilized. There are a number of broad strategies for an all-encompassing
plan of attack.
The strategies are:
(a) Maintenance – the intent is to keep herbivore insects at low, manageable levels.
This can be through in-place, permanent controls that emphasize predator-prey.
It can also be done through periodic spraying.
(b) Outbreak – when insect populations threaten to explode, countermeasures are
taken so that this does not happen.
(c) Generalist – this is the targeting of all damaging insects.
(d) Specialist – there can be a specific emphasis, through traps, pheromones, etc.,
on one or more common and reoccurring insect species.
Good agroecology requires in-place maintenance controls. These are always
present, always functioning. This is usually done by way of nearby repellent plants
or thriving populations of insect-eating insects. This can be through threat controls
and eco-services.
Glossary 307
The second is to have some means to handle outbreaks. When the population of
plant-eating insects increases, an introduced countermeasure, e.g., a cut-and-carried
repellent biomass or a safe chemical, will drive off or kill these sudden intruders.
In concert with in-place or need-initiated controls is the generalist or specialist
strategy. A generalist approach is encountered more with an in-place, everyday con-
trols. This focuses on driving away or destroying all potentially damaging insects.
The second, often outbreak related, tackles a specific insect species.
Broad Counter Strategies
The above paragraph repositions the four strategies into two embracing strategies.
These are (1) generalist-maintenance and (2) specialist-outbreak. For the first, the
control strategies are
(a) Predator-prey
(b) Repellent plant
(c) Safe spraying
(d) Traps
The second, specialist-outbreak, relies much upon the above, but in specialist
mode. This means one targeted insect species where the sub-counters that make up
the strategy (either a, b, or c above) function best against the targeted species.
Using natural controls, the number one counter is predator-prey. A repellent
plant approach is generally less understood and less utilized. The deficiency lies in
not knowing the best plant species (one or more) to employ. This may end up being
a localized measure dependent on the repellent species regionally available.
The last and less natural strategy is the chemical spray. The hope is that this is,
as a stand-alone measure, a safer, organically approved type, noting that the broad
application of nontargeted chemicals can destroy predator-prey dynamics.
The middle two, repellent plant and safe spraying, can be employed in league
with predator-prey. This is where the repellent plant drives unwanted insects into the
jaws of the predator types. If spray based, the chemical must be spot applied and is
best if it only kills by direct contact, e.g., a strong soap solution. It can also be a
chemical, spot applied, that does not kill, but drives unwanted insects away (for
more, see Insecticides).
The latter, trapping and killing, works best against the more mobile herbivore
insects. It can be both maintenance and outbreak employed.
Predator-Prey
Agroecology offers many examples of predator-prey relationships. These can be

exploited at different levels and in different situations. The categories are (a) insect-
insect, (b) fauna-insect, and (c) human-insect.
308 Glossary
As discussed in this section, predator insects are often the mainstay of insect
control. The use of uncultivated strips, field margins, and hedges to hold spiders,
wasps, ladybugs, and ants would be part of such a control. Field attractant plants
and straw mulch, e.g., Long 2001, will lure and hold beneficial insects.
There is an extensive list of in-place possibilities; any and all can be effective
insect control mechanisms. This is a more the merrier situation where more preda-
tors increase effectiveness (Gable et al. 2012).
As outbreak counter, it is possible to purchase and introduce insects. Lady bugs
and wasps head this list.
There are other possibilities. Birds and some animals also consume insects in
quality. The easiest to employ are domestic fowl. Chickens, ducks, turkeys, and
Guinea hens, while roaming fields, become a counter against herbivore insects.
Domestic fowl can be in-place or outbreak-initiated counter (for more on this inter-
esting topic, see the subtopic Attracting under Birds).
Wild birds and bats are also consumers of harmful insects. Those that have an
insect-only diet would be the first choice. One study in coffee plantations found
birds to be effective, bats not so. This was because bats feed on both predator and
herbivore insects with no net effect (Karp and Daily 2014).
What makes this a difficult topic is that there are many bird species that eat both
grain and insects. Birds will also eat predator insects.
Additional research will shed light in these dynamics. Generally, bird popula-
tions can have a more positive and a less negative affect on crops (Tremblay et al.
2001) (for more on discouraging crop-eating birds, see Repelling under Birds).
There are tree-based cases where bird activities resulted in a net gain. For exam-
ple, a reduction in borer populations by woodpeckers outweighed the bark damage
caused (Whitcomb 1970).
Humans preying on insects may seem outside the norm. Examples exist where
insects are a human food source (for more, see Entomo-Agriculture).
It helps if predator-prey is well understood before implementation. There are
caveats. The possibility exists that some pests may be protected from predation by
insects, birds, etc. This occurs when these predators eat more of the more-visible,
insect-eating insects, fewer of the hidden herbivore types (Snyder and Ives 2001).
Repellent Plants
Many plant species have been identified that repel insects. To mention just a few of
the many:
Chives (repels aphids and mites)
Geranium (repels leafhoppers)
Horseradish (repels Colorado potato beetles)
Rue (repels Japanese beetles)
Sage (repels cabbage maggots and cabbage moths)
Spearmint (repels ants and aphids)
Glossary 309
Thyme (repels cabbage moths)

Wormwood (repels cabbage moths and slugs).
For infield use, there are two options. The first is in situ, where these species are
grown, as a facilitative addition, along with productive trees or crops. The second
has the needed plants, grown away from the crop, cut-and-carried to the outbreak
location.
For in situ repellent species, their passive presence is meant to discourage herbi-
vore insects. When more is required, there is also an associated outbreak option, the
traumatic release of contained chemicals. This is accomplished by crushing or
mashing the leaves, releasing the volatile repellent chemicals. This can vastly
increase the insect-repellent influence of a plant.
For the cut-and-carry approach, repellent species are grown in conveniently
located small blocks or strips. When an insect outbreak occurs, the biomass is cut
and carried to the outbreak location. These species, when not being used, need not
be inert within the farm landscape. Rows of repellent plants can double as anti-
insect, anti-spread barriers.
It is possible to lure plant-eating insects away from a less desirable crop with a
more desirable decoy plant. This can be part of a push-pull strategy where the push
comes by way of a repellent species and the pull is the decoy plant.
As a stand-alone countermeasure, decoy plants may present a long-term danger
as a decoy crop can encourage the population growth of the undesirable insects.
The effectiveness of the decoy can be boosted. When planted within area well-
populated with predator insects, the drawbacks disappear. This strategy would be
based on field margins (for more, see Field Margins, also Trap Crops).
Another strategy is to attract insects to areas where less intrusive insecticides are
spot applied. The plot layout would have interspersed rows of a decoy plant every
few meters.
Along the same lines as decoy plants, there are plant species that encourage
predator insects. These provide congenial habitat and/or a nectar source that will
lure or retain desired populations. For example, ants will populate plant species that
provide nectar source and, in doing so, increase the morality rate for nearby herbi-
vore insects. Host plants are not only useful for insect predators but may be employed
to attract insect-eating birds.
Temperate zone examples include:
Alyssum (attracts hoverflies and parasitic mini-wasps)
Cornflower (attracts hoverflies, mini-wasps, and aphids)
Dill (attracts lacewings, mini-wasps, and aphids)
Lemon balm (attracts hoverflies, mini-wasps, and tachinid flies)
Parsley (attracts hoverflies, tachinid flies, and mini-wasps)
Yarrow (attracts hoverflies, mini-wasps, and aphids)
310 Glossary
Safe Spraying (Insecticides)
There are safer insecticides that can be a generalist-maintenance control or be a

specialist-outbreak counter. The former is less recommended. If the other strategies
fail, the only option may be to spray. If done, there are associated disadvantages. In
addition to the toxicity of the chemical used, spraying can negatively impact a future
predator-prey relationship.
The best use of insecticides may be as an outbreak control. Even better is to catch
the outbreak early when the insecticide, in very small amounts, can be spot applied
(for more, see, as a separate topic, Insecticides).
Traps
Just as snares are effective against small rodents, traps also function against insects.
These can be physical or chemical where insects, once entrapped, die.
Synthesized pheromones as a lure may be the most potent weapon. Once enticed
to a location, the targeted pests enter an imprisoning device or encounter a spot-
applied, and therefore less intrusive, insecticide. There is an expanding list of insects
susceptible to pheromone-based traps. These include apple maggots, bag worms,
corn earworms, European corn borers, fruit flies, and peach tree borers.
There are lists of less sophisticated, less costly, and user-friendly traps. In
Southeast Asia, coconuts, each with a small hole, are buried. Unwanted ants enter,
and once present in great numbers, the coconuts are removed, the ants killed, and
the coconuts repositioned.
Along these same lines, slugs also fall victim to less sophisticated traps. Saucers,
filled with beer and placed at ground level, attract and drown these leaf eaters. In yet
another option, melon peels, placed face down, can entice slugs for later destruction.
Combined Mechanisms
The control of insect pests may be best when part of an overlapping approach.
Commonly these are the:
• Push-pull (repellent plants push insect to a host or trap crop)
• Push-kill (repellent plants spur insects to visit insect traps)
• Lure-kill (decoy plants attract herbivore insects while, at the same time and in the
same close vicinity, predator insects are drawn to attractant plants)
• Push-pull-kill (repellent and decoy plants serve to move crop-eating insects near
attractant plants and their insect-killing hosts)
Glossary 311
Economics
In agroecology, the economics are different than those that underwrite chemical-
supported agriculture. Instead of destroying all potentially harmful insects, i.e., pur-
chasing insecticides to protect revenue, the agroecology tolerates minor crop loss.
Without the expense of insecticides, the intent is to come out monetarily ahead (for
more on these options, see Economic Orientation).
With this as a backstop, there is the cost/benefit of the different approaches. A
predator-prey strategy can be based on threat counters and free eco-services as laid
out through matrix analysis (presented in Chap. 3). This is less the case with a repel-
lent plant strategy.
For both strategies, matrix lines should exceed the recommended threshold val-
ues. This is a practical fail-safe.
Both the predator-prey and repellent plant are generalist strategies that can
require some nonproductive land to fully implement. This can be a strip for insect-
consuming insects or fruiting trees or shrubs for beneficial bird populations. This
can also be a strip where repellent species (one or more) are raised. This, along with
some minor crop losses, would figure into the cost analysis.
The specialist outbreak controls are usually implemented based upon integrated
pest management. This is a field assessment on the state of insect populations, the
amount of damage being done, and what will happen next.
With good planning, the in-place defenses will prove adequate. When these fail
to hold, there is an added cost of introduced counters. A cut-and-carried repellent
plant would example one such cost.
For these interventions, there are some economic rules that apply in outbreak
situations. One should not invest more in saving the crop than the crop is worth. If
costs are below this constraint, then the control should be as minimal as possible.
Integrated pest management was originally intended to keep from spraying toxic
chemicals over a large area as an overreaction to a minor insect outbreak. This notion
of limited intervention also applies to nontoxic, nature-agreeable countermeasures.
Sub-Mechanisms
Within the insect control theme, there are the options and alternatives that can be
or are commonly used in conjunction with the main methods of control. Much of
this involves habitat modification, making the plot or landscape an uninviting or
a downright hostile place for unwanted insect species. Effectiveness can be
increased if part of comprehensive strategy where the various mechanisms mutu-
ally reinforce. These sub-mechanisms are:
Intercropping
Habitat
Timing
Rotations
Fire
312 Glossary
Resistance
Immunization
Barriers
Reservoirs-corridors
Intercropping
There is a long list of reported examples where both seasonal and perennial inter-
crops help thwart insects. As compiled by Altieri and Nicholls (2004), some exam-
ples are:
Intercrop Insect(s) thwarted

Brussel sprouts with fava bean Flea beetle and cabbage aphid
and/or mustard
Maize with beans Leafhoppers, leaf beetle, and fall armyworm
Cotton with cowpea Boll weevil
Tomato with cabbage Diamondback moth
Peaches and strawberries Leaf roller and oriental fruit moth
Intercropping is generally not considered a separate mechanism. A lot of the

effectiveness is related to improved conditions for predator-prey. Another factor is
the dispersal difficulty that insects experience in moving from one species to like
species. The latter would be more pronounced with small, crawling insects such as
aphids.
Habitat
The conditions in which insects reside have large effect on their ability to survive
and thrive. Humidity and microclimate are part of this; these can exert a positive or
negative effect.
As a subject only touched upon, there are influences and ramifications that offer
insight. For example, the use of natural fertilizer (manure) has been shown to have
a more detrimental effect on insect pests than synthetic fertilizers (Morales et al.
2001). This may be microbe related.
Timing
Examples exist where the timing of crop planting can have an effect on the insect
populations and crop losses. The carrot rust fly can be deterred by seeding the crop
after this insect has emerged (Reinders 2007). With this counter, these flies will die
before they have a chance to harm the crop.
Glossary 313
Rotations
Changing the crops that grow on a plot each season offers a means to control some
insects and pathogens. For insects wanting one crop, rotations with another, one far
less delectable, can break the cycle, reducing the numbers. This is especially true
when the insect pest lives and breeds on the site.
Fire
In this effort, fire can help. This is the burning of insect harboring crop residues or,
as part of a growing cycle, the killing of insects and weeds in plantations of fire-
resistant trees.
A case in point, Stringer and Alverson (1994) found that alfalfa weevil eggs were
destroyed when, after the cropping season, crop residues were burned. This is a
specific case. Generally, it is advisable that crop residues remain to decay and for-
tify the soil.
Resistance
Internal resistance to insects is a desirable trait. Healthy crops can, to a high degree,
deter herbivore insects. Some varieties bring increased resistance.
This is an argument for genetically modified crops. To the negative, there have
been unanticipated side effects, one being pollen toxic to bees. Internal resistance,
in natural form, is less controversial. Enticingly simple, it should not be a complete
substitute for the anti-insect defenses presented in this section.
Immunization
Far less developed is the idea that plants can be immunized against pathogen and
insects. Broad discussion (Day 2001) and more specialized study (e.g., Ruc 1990)
show that resistance can be built by stimulating the production of defensive com-
pounds within a plant internal structure.
A small population of a herbivore insect can bring this about. This fortifies the
argument that, for a predator-prey strategy, small populations of the bad insects
should be present.
Barriers
The use of plants as barriers is well documented. Plots can be surrounded or subdi-
vided by repellent species. The desirable properties of these plants include having
sufficient height to serve the intended function and sufficient repellent properties.
314 Glossary
Another type of barrier is less repellent, more inviting for harmful insects. Well
stocked with predator insects, these serve as a hunting ground for these predator
types. These barriers are often a biodiverse strip or composed of a single species that
attracts ants or other predator insects. Likewise, barriers can be composed of repel-
lent plants to further hamper insect movement.
Reservoirs-Corridors
Habitats for predator insects can be landscape features. These can also shelter
insect-eating birds, bats, and mammals. Reservoirs and corridors are used where
predator-prey is the foremost in-place, generalist strategy. This is not an outbreak,
but it can be part of specialist strategy.
Reservoirs can be an area of natural vegetation, an auxiliary structure, or produc-
tive entity within the landscape. Often a biodiverse hedge or grass strip is employed.
These can be infiltration structures with a secondary use.
Also possible are riparian buffers or plantation blocks with this as a secondary
role. Neighboring fields, such as mixed forage species, e.g., grasses, or wide field
margins, make good habitat for insect-eating insects and birds.
The placement and size of reservoirs and corridors also play a role in effective-
ness. The specific interaction zone from a hedge or strip, where predator insects are
most active, can be about 2 meters, although others have found a wider population
spread (Alomar et al. 2002).
These function best with certain dimensions and with well thought-out landscape
placements. There are questions on best types of anti-insect landscapes, e.g., many
smaller areas or a few larger ones (Tscharntke et al. 2002).
Some of the landscape layout questions may be answered through the composi-
tion of the reservoirs and corridors. This means enriching corridors with key attrac-
tant species to foster insect spread. Flowering and nectar-producing plants can lure
predator insects (e.g., Altieri and Nicholls 2004). This can also attract insects asso-
ciated with crop pollination (Milius 2003).
Insecticides
Chemicals that kill insects have gained a strong foothold in agriculture. Some argue,
with justification that, without insecticides, it would be very difficult to feed the
worlds populations. The corollary of this argument is that, without insecticides,
much more land would be required to produce the current levels of agricultural
outputs.
Whatever the insecticide, there are negative consequences. As an example, Van
der Valk et al. (1999) found that an increase in grasshopper populations occurred
Glossary 315
after the immediate effects of a broad-spectrum insecticide subsided. This was

because the positive predator-prey relationships were destroyed.
The use of chemical controls can force a costly reliance where this becomes the
only workable mechanism. This effect on predator populations occurs if the insecti-
cides are safe, organic, or conventional (Bianchi et al. 2013).
The Case
There are a lot of reasons not to use. There are valid reasons for forgoing insecti-
cides (as in Photo 1.3, page 9). This is hard to overcome, especially in less devel-
oped regions (de Bon et al. 2014).
Even if application guidelines are followed. A single application of an insecticide
does not confer a long-term decrease in insect populations. As mentioned above, the
insects that need control often emerge more quickly than the predator types. This
necessitates the need for continued applications and a hard-to-break reliance.
Instances where misuse has affected human health are all too common. The same
holds true with water contamination. Past use of downright dangerous chemicals
did leave an ecological legacy.
Although Silent Spring issues (Carson 1962) have receded as the relative toxicity
of agrochemicals has diminished, the fact remains that these chemicals are designed
to kill. That, in itself, brings about a level of apprehension. Still, there are degrees of
danger, and not all insecticides fit fully into an environmentally negative category.
The earlier versions, those that proved highly toxic and environmentally destruc-
tive, are less found. These are still sold, under synonyms, in less developed coun-
tries (this author’s observations).
It is advertized that the newer versions are relatively safe, can biodegrade, and do
not generally reach consumers in field-level quantities. This argument has not
proved adequate for many. The rise of the organic movement is a prime example.
Agroecology, as a science, gained impetus from the need to find alternatives.
Insecticides are not the only control method, and with more development, these
may become a tool of last resort. It is along these lines that agroecology must pro-
ceed. This topic is, and should be, part of an integrated approach. This is presented
in the previous section (see Insect Control).
Safe Insecticides
The list of benign chemicals is not as long as the list of dubious insecticides. If these
must be employed, there are some starting points.
316 Glossary
Organically Approved
Without broaching the topic of organic certification, there are some commercial
insecticides that feature an organic label. This is because the active ingredient(s) are
deemed to be very safe around humans and animals.
There are the plant-derived chemicals. Azadirachtin from the neem tree is con-
sidered very safe. Plant-derived pyrethrum is a bit more toxic.
Some organic products are based on other chemicals, notably iron phosphate and
diatomaceous earth. The latter has proven effective in controlling a broad range of
beetles. Used as a food additive, it does not directly harm fauna. Despite the benign
characteristics, it can still ruin a predator-prey approach.
Also among the homemade insecticides are oils. Some farmers in remote regions
use kerosine (paraffin oil). Other oils do find application, e.g., citrus, vegetable, and
mineral oils (Tansey et al. 2015). The latter would have a lighter environmental
impact than petroleum-based products. The mechanism would be to smother insects.
A secondary mechanism is to repel.
Homemade
For millions of cash-strapped farmers in developing regions, easy to obtain ingredi-

ents may be the best approach. Because it is safe, effective, readily available, and
cheap, soap is foremost.
Soap has been promoted for quite some time, e.g., Hilgard (1893). The accom-
panying research extends over a long period. It remains spotty, outside the main-
stream, scattered across time, and far from complete. With exception, Koehler et al.
(1983), soap has been shown to be effective, e.g., Fleming and Baker (1934), Otanes
(1924), Musau and Perry (1988), and Shamanskaya and Zhukovskii (2002).
The existing literature shows two variables, the type of soap and the concentra-
tion. Beyond this, informational relevance shifts to the popular sphere. There are
two uses of soap. The first is as a contact killer; the second is as an infield, insect
repellent.
As a direct killer, soap is mixed with water in a rich, sudsy concentration. This
mix both smothers and, by destroying the waxy body coating, dehydrates insects.
Key here is that, as a direct killer, the soap mix must coat the offending insect.
As death comes fast, the concentration can be proven by capturing and spraying
a few test subjects. Just before spraying, neem oil or, for poorer farmers, crushed
and strained neem leaves or seeds can be added.
The repellent mix is much lighter. To this is added a crushed and filtered extract
from one, preferably more, aromatic plants. Often mentioned are onion, garlic, chili
pepper, mint, etc. Neem can also be included.
Chasing insects to other plots can be a futile endeavor. For full effect, this is part
of the larger farm ecology where the insects are driven to bordering areas well-
populated with predator insects.
Glossary 317
Among the home remedies finding use is fine wood ash. The ash is thought to
gum the mouth parts of herbivore insects. In addition, ash may help obscure plants
from those insects that seek a specific crop species. This can be added, in very minor
amounts, to soap spray solution. Too much will clog a sprayer.
For backyard gardens and subsistence farmers, bug juice is occasionally utilized.
The formula is to gather a quantity of the insect needing control. These are ground
or mashed to a pulp. Water is added, this juice can be immediately sprayed. Some
prefer to wait a day or so to multiply the germ content.
Agroecological purists may find any pesticide or pesticide use a foreign concept,
but for most, there are legitimate uses. The chemical is important, more so is the
method.
Better Use
Besides employing only the most ecologically benevolent inputs, there are ways to
blunt the effects of man-made chemicals and increase the efficacy. The latter is the
case applied to oversized plots within large commercial farms.
Photo I3 Senegalese
farmers mixing a soap with
neem insecticide mix
318 Glossary
The general guidelines for application are:

(a) Less invasive (toxic) chemicals
(b) The infrequent use at a minimal dosage
(c) The targeting of one especially bothersome insect species (through type and
method of application, e.g., under-leaf spraying to control aphids)
(d) Spot applications in and around outbreaks
(e) Timing that coincides with local outbreaks and/or emergence
Two of the above, items d and e, involve integrated pest management to judge the
when and where. The others are designed to reduce any negative effects (for more,
see Insect Control and/or Integrated Pest Management).
Integrated Pest Management
Originally applied to herbivore insects, the objective was to cut costs and reduce the
environmental negatives. This means applying insecticides only when insect popu-
lations reached critical thresholds. These thresholds are established based on popu-
lation ecology and the projected increase in the numbers.
This approach, that of monitoring and implementation, is utilized whenever crop
pests require an outbreak response. Integrated pest management (IPM), in its
broader form, is used to trigger responses against not only insects but birds, fruit
bats, rodents, and plant diseases.
The key component is overall monitoring, catching any outbreak before the dam-
age becomes too great. For insects, traps may be employed. When populations of a
damaging insect begin to increase beyond set thresholds, a predator insect may be
introduced, chickens or wild insect-eating birds are placed in or lured to the infected
area, or traps are placed in greater densities.
Despite the use of initial countermeasure, monitoring continues. If the outbreak
is not curbed, more measures are employed. One of the principles of IPM is to put
the most environmentally friendly controls first. If these fail, a benign chemical
might be utilized. Only when the situation gets out of control and devastating losses
are imminent are other, more severe, chemical controls considered.
A similar pattern is employed against birds, fruit bats, rodents, and plant dis-
eases. In a less formal form, IPM also applies to weeds. The main difference is that
the outbreak or need-initiated controls are fewer and outbreaks less local.
Interplant Interface
The interface is the distance between like or unlike species. This can be between
two annual crop species, two tree species, and/or a tree and crop species. As sug-
gested, an interface can also be between two similarly sized plant species or between
two plants with a large size disparity.
Glossary 319
Distance
The reason for studying the interspecies interface is to determine optimal inter-row
spacing. This is the between-row distance that produces a superior productive or
economic outcome. Often, this is determined through per-area LER, revenue, costs,
and/or profitability.
Interface distance is also a density problem, e.g., as in Figs. 2.2 and 2.3 (pages
22 and 23). In turn, this translates into spacings and patterns.
Although many spatial patterns are possible, per-area density determinations can
be, and often are, based upon the optimal interspecies interface distance. This is
often expressed as a row planting, e.g., as exampled in Fig. 2.5, page 25.
Dynamics
In general, better plant-plant complementarity will close the interface distance,

increase the per-area distance, and increase the LER. The net effect is a density
planted and highly productive intercropping. It is worth noting that there can also be
a cost factor, e.g., weed control, for determining the optimal interface distance (for
far more detail on spacing, see Marginal Gains under Competitive Partitioning).
Isolated Tree Agroecosystems
A large, single tree located in a large plot can, if the one tree has ecological and
economic purpose, constitute an agrotechnology (see Photo 6.2, page 96). Also
qualifying are designs that have two or three randomly placed trees.
There is no restriction as to the type of tree; fruiting species, e.g., a large apple or
mango tree, are often encountered. This contrasts with scattered trees of a parkland
system where only a number of use-specific, nonproductive tree species are
included.
Facilitative Gains
In facilitative terms, gains in in-soil nutrients and other positive qualities are often
listed. This is true when a solitary tree towers over a large plot, e.g., Kiebacher et al.
(2017). However, being one tree among none, this effect is, across a wide area, very
small.
The facilitative services lie elsewhere. These trees can be home to or a roost for
numerous bird species. The hope is that the assemblage of various bird species will
eat herbivore insects and consume cropping-eating rodents. Less desirable are those
birds that eat or damage crops.
320 Glossary
Another facilitative service lies in the shade provided. Workers seeking refuge
from the midday sun can rest under the tree. If there is grazing or an associated graz-
ing cycle, animals can also seek out the tree to shelter from the hot, midday sun.
There are other, minor gains. The trees can serve as a horqueta tree (safe, in-
canopy storage of animal forage). Because these trees are solitary, they offer little in
the way of protection from wind or water erosion. If well placed, they can help with
water infiltration.
Design Package
Isolated tree systems are mildly cost oriented. The output, if any, is minor. The
design itself is highly flexible, requiring only a single tree of any species. The tasks
envisioned would dictate the species. Most often, there is regional preference.
Land Equivalent Ratio
A key measure of intercropping success, the land equivalent ratio (LER) is the
mainstay of agroecological economics. This was first proposed by Mead and Willey
(1980). Restated from Chap. 2, this is mathematically expressed as:
LER = (Yab / Ya ) + (Yba / Yb )
where Ya and Yb are the monocultural yields of species a and b. Yab being the yield
output of species a grown in close association with species b. Correspondingly, Yba
is the productivity of species b when in combination with species a.
Calculation can be demonstrated with a hypothetical example. For the denomi-
nators of the above equation, the normal monocultural yield of species a is set at
5000 kg per ha, while, on the same or a similar site, the monocultural output of spe-
cies b is 8000 kg per ha. When closely intercropped, the yields of the two species, a
and b, are, respectively, 3000 and 4800 kg; the LER calculation will be:
LER = ( 3000 / 5000 ) + ( 4800 / 8000 ) = 1.2
For most crops, seasonal or perennial, annual yields serve well computationally. In
a few cases, multi-year averages are needed. For silvicultural purpose, annual tree
growth, e.g., diameter increase, can be substituted for crop yields.
For this measure, monocultures have a defined value of one. Intercrops with
values greater than one, as above, are considered site and cross-species compatible
and of greater economic interest than a monoculture of the primary species. The
highest LER values reported exceeded 3.5.
Multi-output systems with values less than one are considered less site and cross-
species accommodating. When productivity is overriding, these can be less interest-
ing and ultimately less usable than a monoculture of the primary species.
Glossary 321
Uses
The LER is the premiere measure in agroecology, but it does not answer all the
economic questions. A fuller picture is obtained through the cost equivalent ratio or
through a parallel economic profit-loss analysis.
The advantages of the LER lie in its ease of use and its intuitiveness. Shorn of
monetary values, i.e., crop selling prices, it provides a raw and insightful look at the
underlying agronomic dynamics. Since all systems are evaluated using the same
base, i.e., monocultural yields, this measure is universally comparable irrespective
of the site. With base value of unity, the numbers calculated are also intuitive, i.e.,
not needing further interpretation.
The LER is a nice explanatory tool. Under one transformation:
(Yab / Ya ) = 1 ± Cab + f ab
and
(Yba / Yb ) = 1 ± Cba + f ba
where Cab represents, through competitive partitioning, the allocation of essential
resources to species a. Cba is the share of these resources going to species b. These
effects can be positive or negative.
Along these same lines, fab are the facilitative effects species b has on species a
and fba are the facilitative effects of species a on species b. Facilitation is always
positive. Combined these are:
LER = 1 ± Cab ± Cba + f ab + f ba
The value of this equation lies in being able to separate and focus on the indi-
vidual mechanisms of competitive partitioning and/or facilitation (for more on these
lines of development, see Competitive Partitioning and/or Facilitation). The notion
is to, through an understanding of the mechanistic happenings, improve the overall
agronomic efficiency of an intercrop.
Variations
Being a flexible tool, the LER is open to many variations beyond the biculture. The
basic equation applies when a productive species is paired with a nonproductive,
facilitative species, e.g., LER = (Yab/Ya) + (0ba).
The LER also finds use with multiple producing species. In triculture form, LER
is expressed as LER = (Yabc/Ya) + (Ybac/Yb) + (Ycba/Yc). This has species c grown
together with species a and b. There is no change in the base value (1.0) in these
species-expanded situations.
322 Glossary
In addition, LER is essential in calculating revenue orientation and, ultimately,

the economic orientation. Both these serve to classify and to find optimization use
of any one agrotechnology (for more, see Revenue under Economic Orientation).
Landscape Agroecology
As covered in Chap. 9, a farm landscape (or a farm-scape or agro-scape) is more

than the aggregation of farms. For a single farm, it is also more than a collection of
plots. For each plot, the surrounding vegetation, either crops or natural ecosystems,
exerts an ecological effect. With some planning, the effect or effects should be
goal-positive.
The ecology can be plot-in as well as plot-out. For the latter, each plot-defined
area exerts an ecological influence on the neighboring plots. Across the wider land-
scape, mutually supporting plots should be the norm. The net result is that all plots
gain in regard to their individual objectives.
With this in mind, there will be optimal, landscape-wide solutions that address
the overall farm objectives. Working with cultural norms, environmental require-
ments, quality-of-life issues, a host of other human needs, as well as climatic and
topographical limitations, there are many possible outcomes. Some are better than
others. A few are optimal. It is the latter that are sought (for more, see Solution
Theory).
Plots
In steep mountain terrain, agricultural plots often conform to limitations of the land.
This means plots that are irregular in shape and size. This is a terrain dominance
effect.
Conversely, where the land is relatively flat, plots are often square or rectangular.
This is the geometric form.
When the land is flat and unimpeded, it is possible for plots to be irregular in
shape. This can be a cultural expression, but it is not without ecological purpose.
These asymmetrical fields can conform to (a) an underlying soil type, (b) slight
variations in ground moisture, or (c) attempt to maximize the amount of interplot
interface (for more about this variation, see Free-Form Plots).
It goes without saying that better outcomes occur when each plot is bordered on
all sides by unlike plots. At the minimum, this should be crops of different species.
Field margins, if flowered and biodiverse, are good (for more, see Field Margins).
In intense landscapes, more diverse, perennial plots, such as agroforests, can be
both an economic and an eco-service contributor (Singh et al. 2016). For less intense
Glossary 323
landscapes, forest fragments serve the same purpose but with fewer economic
rewards. Fragments and agroforests are best if interconnected (Mitchell et al. 2014).
Farm Types
Farm plots can be self-contained, often cost oriented, requiring few, if any, outside
inputs. With these, there is lot of freedom of location. Farm plots can also be totally
dependent on outside inputs. For efficiency reasons, these high-input plots are best
located near households or roads.
Farm landscapes are often a mix of high and low input plots. This leads to plot-
centric model where a few, high-input, high-output plots occupy the better land and/
or are located nearer the center of activity. The other plots are low input, often pas-
tures or the like, that are found on less promising soils or in the far corners of a farm.
Ex-Farm Landscape Categories
Individual farms operate within a larger community. It is these broad or ex-farm

landscapes that can dictate the boundaries of each farm and, as a continuation, the
internal layout. For these, there are four sweeping landscape models. Repeated from
Chap. 7, these are the:
1. Strong
(a) Village
(b) Town
2. Scattered permanent
3. Scattered temporary
4. Nomadic
The strong village has households clustered or ringed around a village center.
Outside the households are the barns. Outside this are the garden plots, orchards,
and then the plots for staple crops. Further out are the pastures and intensely man-
aged forests. The farms and their outer plots ring the village center.
A variation of this theme is the strong town model. For this, the plots surround
the town, but are not adjacent to the home. Instead, farmers commute, i.e., walk or
drive, to their land holdings.
The second regional model is where farms are scatted about the landscape, not
directly connected to villages or towns. Near the household are the barns and gar-
dens. Around and outside this central core are the main crop plots, the orchards,
and/or the pastures. Depending on the size of each farm, the households can be at
some distance from one another.
The third landscape model has the main household located in a village. The
plots, grouped or scattered, are far outside the settlement. The farmers have
temporary dwellings located on site. This model is often found in rugged terrain
324 Glossary
where agriculturally suitable lands are scattered and growing seasons are short. If
farmers normally live in a town, this model can include cut-and-burn agriculture.
The nomadic model is often expressed where farmers roam seeking suitable crop
plots or active pasturage. This is found in a classic desert setting where herders wan-
der about to find freshly sprouted animal forage. This model applied to situations
where farmers move and live on new sites when seeking cut-and-burn opportunities.
Limitations
In contrast to individual plots, large and even small-farm landscapes are seldom
empty expanses to be arranged and filled at a land user’s discretion. A farm land-
scape is often the result of many external and internal expressions.
On the list are the types of crops raised, the economic orientation, local divi-
sional patterns (the positioning of legal boundaries), land control (imposed or
agreed-upon ownership or rental constraints), topography, and climate, along with
gender and cultural values.
Being rooted in nature, time, and tradition, these can be hard to change. It is
within these constraints, the factors mentioned above, that farmers seek to maxi-
mize their goals.
Rules for Landscape Design
There are some provisional rules that guide the design, i.e., the placement of plots,
of farm landscapes. Restated from Chap. 9, these are:
Crop diversity – growing a variety of crop types and utilizing different
agrotechnologies
Location – dispersing like crops across the area being cultivated
Relative location – insuring that crops of the same or similar species are not in
adjoining plots or adjacent strips
The above help mitigate risk, but aside from risk, these provide a baseline start-
ing point.
Landscape Economics
As is often the case, the landscape must return a financial profit. For subsistence
farmers less concerned with the balance sheet, the farm must produce a decent liv-
ing. The contributions of each plot can be so gauged.
In pursuit of the spillover effects, there are optimal solutions found through con-
tent and layout of the different productive and nonproductive plots. Plots are evalu-
ated through measurement.
Glossary 325
Landscape Equivalent Ratios
Whereas the land equivalent ratio is a standard criterion of land-use efficiency, there
is an expanded version that encompasses more than a single plot. Based on the land
equivalent ratio (LER), there is the landscape land equivalent ratio (LLER). This is:
LLER = 1( LER )1 + 2 ( LER )2 +…+ N ( LER )n
This equation takes into account a series of individual plots, i.e., (LER)1 through
(LER)n. The individual plots that make up the farm-scape are expressed as a ratio
that sums to 1 (plots 1 through N). As an example, where plots make up 50%, 25%,
15%, and 10% of a holding, the ratio values are, respectively, 0.50, 0.25, 0.15, and
0.10.
Assuming that a farm contains three plots and each has a different crop monocul-
ture, the comparative analysis has a landscape with a LLER of 1, i.e.:
LLER = 0.25 (1.0 )1 + 0.25 (1.0 )2 + 0.5 (1.0 )3 = 1.0
Expanding upon the above, take the case where one plot, plot 3, has been subdivided
in to a monoculture (3a) plus and an added auxiliary system (3b), the resulting add-
on change is:
3 ( LER )3 = 3a ( LER )3a + 3b ( LER )3b
The interplot facilitative effects are numerically:
LLER = 0.25 (1.0 )1 + 0.25 (1.0 )2 + 0.4 (1.50 )3a + 0.1( 0 )3b = 1.10
For this, 20% of plot 3 is taken by the new auxiliary structure (plot 3b). This land
loss is more than compensated by the 50% gain in productivity from plot 3a, e.g.,
through less wind and/or fewer herbivore insects.
It is also possible to look at costs in the same way where landscape cost equiva-
lent ratio (LCER) is:
LCER = 1( CER )1 + 2 ( CER )2 + ..…+ N ( CER )n
Economics can measure agroecological improvement among multiple plots (see

variations under Land Equivalent Ratio and under Cost Equivalent Ratio). It is also
possible to evaluate for a redesign of the full landscape.
Along these same lines, a similar multi-plot cost equivalent ratio (CER) can be
devised. This is based on the base CER (for more on the underlying equation, see
Cost Equivalent Ratio).
326 Glossary
Multi-Objective Analysis
It is possible to look at a wider range of factors when evaluating and maximizing a

farm landscape. Again, profitability alone is not always sufficient. Some of the cri-
teria that underlie multi-objective analysis include, in addition to profitability, the
revenue or cost orientation balance, risk, biodiversity, and a range of environmental
concerns, e.g., no erosion and no chemical runoff.
For the landscape, optimization involves the contents of neighboring plots and
positioning these plots such that cross gains occur. Given the combinations of plot
layouts with regard to types and mix of crops planted and given the wide range of
possible objectives, formal solutions require mathematical programming (for more,
see Modeling or Optimization).
For most, good judgment must suffice. The rules for landscape design (Chap. 9,
page 139) can guide this effort.
Matrix Equations
The section continues, and expands, a line of development started in Chap. 3. The
agroecological matrix stands alone as instructive or informative tool.
The case can be made for the validity of the matrix as a predictive tool. An
example is use demonstrated at the end of Chap. 3. The following was modified
from a similar presentation in Wojtkowski (2016).
Validation of this starts with the broad and abbreviated equation:
Y = min  f ( L ) , f ( W ) , f ( N ) 
where agrosystem yields (Y) are functions (f) of three essential resources, light (L),
water (W), and nutrients (N). This is the basis of the von Liebig hypothesis where
an upper limit on yields is set by the one resource that is in least supply.
The competing hypotheses are the Liebscher and Mitscherlich. Due to difficulty
in statistically differentiating the competing hypotheses (Paris 1992), the use of the
von Liebig hypothesis would be a strong assumption.
Isolating the essential resources as individual equations and adding the two direct
intercropping effects (Pab and Fab) along with two external facilitative effects (Fx1
and Fx2), the two equations produced are:
Ywater =  RW − f ( Pab ) + f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) + f ( Fx 2 ) 
Ynutrients =  RN − f ( Pab ) + f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) + f ( Fx 2 ) 
Rw and Rn are yield levels that correspond to the specified essential resource. For
practical purpose, there are no facilitative effects with light. A possible exception is
the use of microbes to add in-plant shade resistance.
Glossary 327
Light is included only when infield biodiversity shades the one or more primary
species (and expressed through –Pab and –Pab). This also applied with the compan-
ion species in an intercrop is negative for the resource in question. Above, this
would be water and nutrients.
In this case, facilitation alone produces a 2 × 3 line-additive, facilitation matrix.
This is:
 f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) + f ( Fx 2 )  water
 f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) + f ( Fx 2 )  nutrients
Other than light, water, and nutrients, there are the cropping threats. These also
put an upper limit on yield. Briefly, restated, these are:
Insects
Weeds
Pathogens
Temperature (again, the extremes)
Wind
Small animals (birds, mice, etc.)
Large animals (deer, elephants, etc.)
Since these function much like essential resources, the base equation can be
expanded, adding weeds and insects along with other yield-limiting factors. This
would be:
Y = min  f ( L ) , f ( W ) , f ( N ) , f ( weeds ) , … , f ( insects ) 
In a further modification, this becomes:
Y = min  f ( L ) , f ( W ) , f ( soil ) , f ( weeds ) , … , f ( insects ) 
As threats, insects (Yinsect), soil nutrients (Ysoil), etc. join with the essential
resources as yield-limiting constraints. As with water and nutrients, these can also
be expressed separately as individual equations. These are:
Yinsect = f ( insects ) = [ f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) + f ( Fx 2 +…+ f ( Fxn )  insect
and
Ysoil = f ( soil ) = [ f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) + f ( Fx 2 +…+ f ( Fxn )  soil
Note that there are no competitive partitioning (Pab), i.e., intercropping, losses
with insects, weeds, and threats. There can be net gains from including a second
Intercropped species (e.g., Fab). With the other threats added to the base yield equa-
tion, this gives:
328 Glossary
Y = min  f ( L ) , f ( W ) , Yinsect , Ysoil , …, Yanimals 
The above base equation can be broken down, as previously demonstrated, as lines
in the larger matrix. This is:
Ywater =  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  water
Ysoil =  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  soil
Yinsects =  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  insects
Yanimals =  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  animals
For many of the threats, the sigmoidal function is generally accepted, e.g., for
insect losses (Bardner and Fletcher 1971). Where opinion or proof is lacking, it can
be strongly assumed that each of the matrix/equation lines is a sigmoidal function.
Thus, the matrix becomes:
{
Ywater = f sigmoid  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  water }
{
Ysoil = f sigmoid  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  soil }
{
Yinsects = f sigmoid  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  insects }
{
Yanimals = f sigmoid  f ( Fab ) + f ( Fx1 ) +…+ f ( Fxn )  animals }
The matrix can now be restated as a nonlinear, mathematical programming prob-
lem where one of the lines sets the lower limit on yields. Missing is the objection
function. With monetary values added, maximizing profit might be the first objec-
tive analyzed.
In the above analysis, a set of limiting factors are presented. Although seldom
mentioned, there is good cause to add pollination to this list (for more see
Pollination).
Microbes
Some say that the future of agriculture and agroecology may lie in microbes. These
are the fungi, bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that inhabit agrosystems.
In short, microbes are the response for many possible, positive effects and can be
used to a great effect, e.g., Zimmer (2016), van der Heijden et al. (2008), Köhl et al.
(2014), and Mosttafiz et al. (2012).
Glossary 329
There are two ways to look at microbes. These can be:

1. Part of a healthy, naturally occurring ecosystem
2. A spray-and-forget, threat-targeted addition
Natural
Some advocate for natural, microbe-supportive agrosystems. This follows the eco-
logical theory on biodiversity where an active system keeps the different popula-
tions in check. This applies on the microscale.
Soils contain a wealth, both in numbers and diversity, of microbes. From this, the
belowground effect is viewed as a mob attack where, not one, but many organisms
participate. Although plant-assaulting pathogens can succeed, they face many
obstacles in their quest.
The ability of manure to reduce aphid populations (Morales et al. 2001) may be
due to microbial activity. The theory is that the increased microbial activity nega-
tively affects aphid populations. Not all insect types are affected, but promoting a
healthy agrosystem, microbes included, is definitely for the good.
Chore Based
As agrochemicals decline, the spray-and-forget mind-set will not. In turning to safer

alternatives, there are threat- or chore-based microbes. Microbial actions can be put
into three, possibility four, categories. They serve as:
1. Bio-fertilizers
2. Bio-pesticides
3. Bio-herbicides
4. Other favorable, but miscellaneous, uses
The latter (4) might include adding drought resistance.
Bio-Fertilizers
Well-known is nitrogen fixation by way of the rhizobium bacteria. This is a key

mechanism by which some plants obtain nitrogen. The fungus, Penicillium bilaii,
unlocks phosphate from soil compounds for plants to absorb (Qureshi et al. 2012).
Phosphates are also retained from loss by way of in-soil biota (van der Heijden 2010).
Bio-Pesticides
This does not include GM crops where bacteria have been incorporated in the
genome of the species; think Bt corn. For open spray applications, a number of
bacteria-derived products have been marketed. The mechanisms lie in inhibiting
330 Glossary
insect growth, feeding, development, or reproduction. Bacteria that find use include
Bacillus thuringiensis, Bacillus subtilis, and Bacillus sphaericus (Mnifa and Ghribia
2015).
Subsistence farmers and backyard gardeners can encourage anti-insect germs by
making bug juice. For this, a quantity of the targeted insects are gathered and
mashed, water is added, and the liquid is briefly fermented, after which it is filtered
and sprayed. This is best with larger, easier-to-gather insects. As with all microbe-
based insect controls, it is used to counter outbreaks.
Bio-Herbicides
As with most spray-and-forget situations, safe, nonchemical herbicides are of inter-

est, and some products have entered the market. These seem targeted toward emerg-
ing weeds. That being the case, these would be less stand-alone counters, more as
part of an integrated weed management strategy (Cordeau et al. 2016).
Bio-Fungicides
Dealing with plant pathogens is among the bio-chores undertaken by microbes. In

addition to insects, microbes can infect plant-attacking fungi. An example is
Ampelomyces quisqualis which slows or kills powdery mildew (Wikipedia,
Biopesticides, 2017). These will work aboveground and well as below the soil.
Micro-Catchments
Rather than long infiltration ditches and/or dense hedges, it is possible to place, on
hillsides, many small catchment structures. This is only a 10 cm or, at most, 20 cm
wide and 10 or so cm deep. The idea is to divert rainfall to the small holes.
Usually, these holes are plant specific. Adjacent to a small hole is a water-
receiving plant. Commonly, this can be a tree or shrub. The intended target plants
benefit from greater survival rate. This is exampled in Photo I2 (page 305).
Micro-catchments are generally employed in semiarid regions or where rainfall
is erratic. Experience in India found that, although this is a more expensive way to
grow trees, i.e., costs go up by 20–30%, survival rates increase by from 50% to
90%. (Gupta et al. 2000)
Micro-catchments can have landscape intent. These are utilized, closely spaced,
for multiple tree plantings. As with all infiltration methods, the idea being that,
through their great numbers, hillside runoff is eliminated along with any erosion
threat. The larger version is the cajete (for more, see Cajetes).
Glossary 331
Mimicry
As a form of agroecology, mimicry advocates a form of agriculture that duplicates

nearby natural ecosystems. These are examples where agriculture and nature
overlap.
There is some justification for mimicry. The early, prehuman landscapes of
Europe, North America, and Asia may have resembled more the savanna landscapes
of Africa than the often envisioned blanket of dense, old-growth forest.
A wide variety of large grazers, along with periodic fires, would have provided
the diversity of plants and small animals that live in dynamic, ever-changing ecosys-
tems. Early agroecology (agriculture) would have ecologically fit within this
panorama.
Variations
Malézieux (2012) suggests three natural models from which to work. These are the
rainforest, the dry forest, and the savannah or prairie. From this, variations stem.
The first step away from the natural is the complex agroecosystems. Agroforests,
forest gardens, and the like duplicate the dynamic of both rainforest and dryland
forests. Photo 7.1, page 106 shows a rainforest-based agroforest. Photo 7.2,
page 107, shows a dryland version.
Where natural savannas are, or were, common, pasture grazing might be the
preferred form of agriculture. Parkland system with natural understory would be
very close to the naturally grazed savannah model.
This still represents an overlap. The type of grazer being the decider. There is a
functional equivalency, and some differences, between cattle grazing and natural
herbivores (Veblen et al. 2016). Where cattle are a native species, this model would
have a stronger-yet resemblance to what nature intended.
Working under the assumption that natural ecosystems are the most productive,
this would mean a diversity of grazing or foraging animals, e.g., cattle, goats, horses,
and possibly pigs (as in Photo G1, page 195). Encouraging natural herd behavior
could carry this even further (Cressman and Garay 2011; Charles 1997).
In parts of the western USA, free-range bison are raised as nature intended.
Herds are sustainable, areas are large, fences are minimal, and the harvest is divided
among the participants.
Not all can go this route. The question is how much of a nature-copying model a
land user is willing to embrace and how much of a departure this is from farm goals.
332 Glossary
Further Expansion
This model can encompass simpler agrosystems. Again, the philosophy of mimicry
is to go with the natural flow and to encourage a cross-section of local flora and
fauna. This is accomplished by providing ecosystems that local plant and animals
inherently recognize and are at home in.
Where swamps are prevalent, paddies would be installed. This would expand
beyond continually planted rice to rotations with other, water-loving crops. Slash-
and-burn agriculture in tropical forests can, in part, duplicate the natural gaps that
are essential to the dynamics of the forest.
Mixed-species shade systems are, in many aspects, ecologically and visually
very much like natural woodlands. They can partially replace the ecology of past
forests. Single-species tree plantations are many steps away. Multi-species tree or
tree-crop plantations are much closer.
Outcome
The demands of agriculture can make mimicry more of an ideal than a fully attain-
able end goal. The notion of a landscape that is fully supportive of native flora and
fauna may, in many cases, be outside the pale.
Despite the demands, the concept has validity and the advantages can extend to
crop plots. This may be especially true in low-intensity regions where cost-oriented
agriculture is the norm.
Modeling
One of the most powerful analytical expressions, useful for economic and other
forms of evaluation, is computer modeling. This is an inclusive topic that encom-
passes many expressions. Mathematically based models can range from those with
a single purpose to those all-embracing forms that optimize farm objectives.
Where research is expensive and/or laden with variables, the model should reign
supreme. This is the case when new crops are considered or new cropping systems
must be tested. Less costly, the first step should be a model (Feintrenie et al. 2010;
Lojka et al. 2008).
With the more specialized models, it is possible to predict, e.g., an erosion rate,
the reduction of harmful insects when an insecticide is applied, or yields after a
manure application. There is another form. These are the bio-economic or agro-bio-
economic models.
Containing information on costs and monetary increases, bio-economic models
predict the economic gains or losses. Often expressed in profitability terms, this
accompanies some other forecast. One can look at the costs for the different levels
of control. This can be for, e.g., the severity of erosion (wind and/or water), reten-
tion of the various nutrients, etc.
Glossary 333
Approaches
There are three broad categories of models, (1) choice, (2) statistically based, and
(3) theoretically based. These are not exclusive; some models can combine two or
three types.
For any formal analysis, there are three model components, (a) the objectives or
goals (one or more), (b) the on-the-ground parameters, and (c) the expansion vari-
ables. For example, a model may be designed to reduce erosion without a major
reduction in yields. These are the objectives.
The primary crop, secondary crop (if any), row spacing, plowing, and harvest
scheduling are common parameters. Adding expansion variables, e.g., soil type,
rainfall, wind, soil moisture, and land slope, makes the model functional for a wider
range of situations.
Choice
The choice form is the simplest. This model offers a series of options or choices.
The user inputs the situation, input costs and output prices, and the objective. For
example, when seeking the best crop or crops for a farm field, the user will state the
conditions, the expected weather pattern, the cost of fertilizer and the like, and the
anticipated selling price.
The computer has a long list of data points and, from these, selects from among
numerous options. These are actual field results with accompanying information on
the yields and other informational parameters.
The computer will scan this data and output the agrosystem (one or more) which
most closely match the situation that was imputed. In a more advanced form, the
computer may interpolate. This involves finding and outputting some midpoint
between actual data points. The more data internalized, the better the result.
Statistical
Using wide-ranging, field trial-derived data, it is possible to statistically derive,

from data points, a series of continuous mathematical functions. For example, this
can involve the relationship between a nutrient input and the resulting crop yields.
Given enough data, both common parameters and with plenty of expansion vari-
ables, functions can be derived for all major inputs via soil and moisture conditions.
The individual and overlapping functions can be programmed such that, once the
anticipated conditions are imputed, the model will offer a prediction as to the
outcome.
Many of the conventional models, those that predict yields for monoculture, use
this approach. They are quite advanced, cover most of the common crops, and are
many in number. These also come with a fair degree of accuracy (e.g., Jamieson
et al. 1998). As stated in the Chap. 11, accuracy falls if the input parameters are
outside of their design range (Mbabaliye and Wojtkowski 1994).
334 Glossary
Theoretical
It is possible to go beyond trial data and statistical derivations and, through theory,
estimate or approximate continuous and often multidimensional mathematical func-
tions. Although still grounded with field data, this frees model makers from a com-
plete reliance upon hard-to-obtain empirical data.
Scarce data can be used instead to check, correct, and/or calibrate models.
Lessening the data constraint allows for more elaborate, far-reaching, and less spe-
cialized models.
Uses
Having an accurate forecast as to outcome allows for better decision-making. This

is the minimum standard. With a bio-economic model, the baseline outcome is a
prediction on profitability for the cropping situations under consideration.
Models, especially broad statistical and mechanistic, can be expected to accom-
plish much more. These can (a) optimize, (b) be multi-objective, and (c) be capable
of finding multiple solutions.
Optimization
Rather than one prediction, a computer program, one with iterative search ability,
can look for the combination of variables that give the best result. For the bio-
economic model, profitability for the combination of variables being considered is
the minimum. Going beyond this, it would be better to search the entire variable list
for the combination that offers the highest level of profitability.
Multi-Objective
The first answer is not always the best. It is far better to answer as many questions
as possible within the context of one model and a single solution. The multi-
objective form can look at profitability but include limits on erosion, the suppres-
sion effect for harmful insects, or some other piece of information. These are the
multi-objective models.
These models add another level of complexity especially when optimization is
part of the solution. Although seldom used, multi-objective, bio-economic optimi-
zation models are entirely possible and quite useful, e.g., Ould-Sidi and Lescourret
(2011) (for further discussion, see Optimization).
Glossary 335
Multiple Solutions
As the situation being modeled grows in complexity, so does the number of possible
optimal solutions. This includes those that are simultaneously optimal. Also
included are those that are slightly sub-optimal, but where the solutions are still
acceptable to a land user. In these models, the solutions can be quite divergent with
regard to the range of variables being considered.
The purpose in seeking multiple optimal solutions is to maximize land user flex-
ibility. When there are many choices, intangibles can be included (for more devel-
opment on this topic, including dealing with multiple solutions, see Optimization).
Monocultures
The monoculture is an agroecosystem where, by intent, all plants are of the same
species. The monoculture is, worldwide, the prevailing means to raise most crops.
Monocultures, although scarce in nature, are occasionally encountered. Notable
examples include the wild relatives of rice, sorghum, sugarcane, and wheat (Wood
2000). Some can blanket a considerable area, e.g., kunai grass found in the high-
lands of Papua New Guinea.
Examples notwithstanding, the rarity of nature-produced monocultures has led
some to believe that these can be ecologically dysfunctional systems. In this state-
ment, there are truths and falsehoods.
The monoculture can be part of an agroecologically and environmentally friendly
farm landscape, or it can be the only agroecosystem across a large region. There are
two different outcomes.
Interspersed with other biodiverse agrosystems, the monoculture may detract
little from the overall environmentally friendliness. Less agroecologically friendly
versions also appear. Regions with unbroken expanses of one sole crop are the
antithesis of good agroecology (for more, see Factory Farming).
Pros and Cons
Grouping like species is advantageous when (1) one crop is substantially more valu-
able or desirable than others, (2) when a crop is mechanically planted and/or har-
vested, and/or (3) when the technical knowledge is lacking on the planting
alternatives, e.g., on intercrops and other forms of agricultural biodiversity.
There are ex-farm forces that favor monocultures. The simplicity of one-crop,
one-plot system makes these attractive to farmers. The same holds true for banks and
other lending institutions who countenance less complex calculations when making
loans and investments, e.g., Godoy and Bennett (1991) and McNeely (1993).
336 Glossary
Also supporting high-input agriculture are government and commercial inter-

ests. For governments, there is the opportunity to collect more taxes on farm yields
and on farm inputs when these are high. Commercial interests profit more from the
increased farm purchases and from bumper harvests.
Powerful as the financial forces may be, natural forces are countervailing. As
seen, one-species systems are found in nature, but these are the exception, rather
than the rule.
Nature has a far greater propensity for biodiversity while monocultures, espe-
cially seasonal, are inherently unstable. In being out of sync with nature, higher
levels of inputs, labor included, are required to maintain their productive levels as
compared with ecosystems of greater biodiversity.
One-crop systems are also a greater risk from destructive elements. In contrast,
biodiverse systems tend to have greater natural stability.
The other drawbacks are environmental. These may be overlooked as they are
difficult to monetary qualify. As examples, seasonal monocultures often have an
accompanying bare ground phase where the soil is exposed to wind and water
erosion.
Some cite the tendency of one-crop systems, with their inherent inefficiency in
mineral uptake, to leak nutrients. This is an economic loss that can have environ-
mental consequences. Additionally, monocultures, with few exceptions, do not offer
wide compatibility with flora and fauna of the area.
Economics
Monocultures prevail, in large part, due to the simplicity of use. The knowledge
requirements can pale in comparison to that required with mixed-species systems.
Also, it can be argued that some forms of economic analysis, i.e., when selling
prices enter the picture, tend to favor the monoculture. Whether this is an inherent
bias is a matter of opinion. The analysis and the economic outcome are demon-
strated under relative total value (for more, see Relative Total Value).
Although cost-oriented monocropping exists, the push is often for greater pro-
ductivity. There is no reason why cost orientation cannot be, especially in a small-
farm setting, more profitable.
The large-scale monoculture, i.e., the factory farm, may be the exception. This
statement has yet to be tested. This may prove to be more a perception rather than
reality.
Variations
From an agronomic perspective, seasonal monocultures do offer some variation. A

pure monoculture is clonal, all species being genetically alike. Unless these are
breed to resist the negative forces of natures, these are the most nature-susceptible
form.
Glossary 337
At the other end of this spectrum are monocultures that exhibit considerable
genetic variation. For maximum ecological effect, monocultures of related, but
genetically dissimilar, plants are interplanted. Examples are shown in Photo M1
and also Photo 4.4, page 73.
These can be varieties of the same species or closely related species. For the lat-
ter, wheat has many scientific names, e.g., Triticum aestivum (common wheat),
T. spelta (spelt), and T. durum (durum wheat). These are closely related species.
There are a number of reasons for these mixes. They serve to increase resistance
to harmful insects and diseases, to stagger the harvests, to spread labor, and to
increase the marketing possibilities.
The resistance reason is based on the premise that, if one species is highly sus-
ceptible to an insect or plant disease, a neighboring plant of the same species may
prove resistant. This slows or may even eliminate many threats. In some trials of
multi-varietal rice, average yields increased 50% over purer monocultures (Yoon
2000).
In order for the gains to be fully realized, certain conditions must be met. If
machine harvested, e.g., with grains, the different varieties must be simultaneously
harvested. The output can be either sold mixed or the different varieties separated.
A key application is with, e.g., biofuels, animal feeds, or with vegetable varieties
that can be easily sorted. In short, multi-varietal monocultures are best when the
crop is machine or hand planted and hand harvested.
Photo M1 A multi-varietal planting of sweet potato. (This photo was taken in Guatemala)
338 Glossary
Agro-varietalism can find use when the market does not differentiate or encour-
ages some diversity in output. The latter may lie, for example, with nutrient differ-
ences in grain varieties destined for animal feeds.
If these are not the case, then the different varieties are planted apart but in close
proximity, e.g., in a strip pattern. Although some ecological gains are still realizable,
the primary use of this design is to improve harvest efficiency and/or marketability.
It also finds use when harvests are temporally staggered.
Mounds
As certain uses, earthen or soil mounds can be an in-plot feature and an integral part
of an agrosystem design. Mounds can be diminutive, a few centimeters in height.
They can also be as much as one meter tall. They can be in long and narrow rows or
be round and individually placed. Along hillsides, long mounds serve another pur-
pose, i.e., as infiltration structures (for more, see Infiltration).
Agroecology
For crops, mounds provide three straightforward ecological services. These (1) pro-
tect against low-temperature extremes, (2) keep plant roots out of waterlogged soils,
and (3) allow root crops ease of enlargement.
The temperate difference between the top of a mound and the between-mound
depression can be, in some critical situations, about 2°. This is for a ½ m tall mound.
Although seemingly minor difference, this can be enough to insure plant survival.
As a result, mounds can be in common use in high mountain regions where
nighttime temperatures can plunge low enough to damage crops. Mounds are found
at altitude in the Andes and the highlands of New Guinea. These are also utilized
where springtime temperatures, those that occur after planting, can plunge during
the night hours.
In addition, mounds find use where soils are or can become waterlogged. Some
crops, maize being a prime example, will die if the roots are underwater for an
extended period.
Inside-the-mound growing roots, e.g., potatoes, yams, cassava, and sweet potato,
do not have to push against otherwise dense soils. This permits larger diameter
growth.
Variations
In the high plains of Bolivia, mounds are placed in flooded fields. This design uti-
lizes the heat-holding ability of water to combat low temperatures. The area between
the mounds, with free standing water, holds the daytime heat. The mound keeps the
roots of crops from being totally saturated.
Glossary 339
Photo M2 Mounds on a small African farm. In this case, mounds keep the plants above high
rainfall caused flooding. It also allows for root expansion of the sweet potato crop
Similarly, in areas subject to flooding, the mound can keep the crops from being
submerged. In this use, these are referred to as camellones (for additional descrip-
tions, see Camellones).
Also to counter frosts, mounds can be constructed from soil-covered biomass.
The decaying vegetation within the mound generates heat, further protecting a sen-
sitive crop.
Another variation utilizes other ecological principles by placing one species at
the top of a mound, another species along the side, while a third species is planted
in the inter-mound trough. The purpose is to plant species in conditions where they
grow best, i.e., the drier sunlit top, the shady wetter valley, or the intermediate zone,
each favoring a different species.
Mulch
Gardens and some commercial plots can be covered with a layer of dead plant mate-
rial. Below the mulch, new seeds or seedlings are planted.
Mulch can be part of an erosion control strategy, where the impact of falling
raindrops upon the soil is lessened and the mulch holds the soil and some
340 Glossary
a ccompanying nutrients in place. Mulch also serves to keep soils cool and humid.
This promotes microbial activity including the decay of plant residues. The mulch
itself is part of the decay.
Other gains come as beneficial insects can shelter in a mulch layer, venturing out
to attack and consume herbivore insects. In other cases, unwanted insects can winter
in crop residues.
Weed infestation can be prevented with a mulch layer, delaying or stifling emerg-
ing weeds. The mechanism is either through allelopathic properties or by making
emergence difficult. Mulch can also hasten the decay of in-soil weed seeds.
Mulch can include leaves and straw. Some include cut-and-carry green biomass.
For these applications, the initial purpose is in preventing erosion and/or dealing
with an insect outbreak. After the initial purpose is achieved, this plant material is
plowed into the soil as a green manure.
Not suggested to use are wood chips, wood shavings, or sawdust. There are two
reasons for this: (1) wood requires nutrients to decay, and these can be taken away
from those available for growing crops, and (2) sawdust and small wood chips,
unless anchored or entwined, can float away during heavy rains.
Where in widespread use as a soil protector, cut-and-carry mulch is a revenue-
oriented strategy. Other direct benefits, e.g., to repel insects, may be a necessary
expense in an otherwise cost-oriented system.
Multi-Participant Agroecosystems
Rather than one farmer or one organization managing one plot, it is possible to have
two or more farmers or organizations participating. The common case is where one
farmer or participant looks after and harvests one of the component crops and a
second participant manages and harvests a second output.
The common example is the simple taungya. In this case, farmers plant, manage,
and harvest a short-duration crop. A forester is responsible for and, at some future
data, harvests the tree stand.
There are cost advantages for both participants. Joint activities, such as land
preparation, can be shared. Fertilizer and weeding, applied to one crop, benefit both.
Specialization, one person knowing more about one crop, the other knowing more
about the second, can make for a more efficient system.
If specialized machinery is needed, only one participant needs to own it. Also, with
multiple management, the crops are monitored more closely and emerging problems
are often spotted earlier. It goes without saying that there are variations of this theme.
Management Parameters
Multi-participant systems introduce a level of management complexity not found

with single participant agroecosystems. As such, there are established guidelines.
From Wojtkowski (2002), these are to ensure:
Glossary 341
(a) That the objectives of the participants do not conflict

(b) That each participant understands their role in the system
(c) That the design parameters of the agrosystem take these roles and the differing
objectives into account
Variations
As stated, the most common use of multi-participant systems is with simple taung-
yas. This system is especially suitable as, after planting the trees, the forestry inputs
are minor. This allows farmers a freer hand.
Shared activities, i.e., land preparation, fertilization, and weeding, are subject to
negotiation. Depending upon the local situation, these can fall heavier on one party.
For example, if farmers lack land, they can be expected to prepare the land or even
plant the trees. This gives them the right to farm the land.
The reverse might occur; foresters may have to entice farmers. The forestry ben-
efits are less, but still real. Farmers will still weed and fertilize.
More complex taungyas, e.g., the extended version with multiple understory
crops, are too complex and generally thought unsuited for multi-participant
approach. The same may hold true with most intercropping scenarios. Where the
multi-participant approach could gain traction is with strip cropping or where crops
are in close proximity, but not actually intercropped.
The other possibility is with crop rotations. For this, each participant focuses on
a single crop and follows this crop across various farms and lands. A factory farm
raising seasonal crops may be so arranged although none have been reported.
The gains here are in specialized knowledge and machinery needed. Gains are
also biological; each shares in the advantages of a rotation, e.g., better soil fertility,
fewer herbivore insects, sans the economic disadvantages of farming a variety of
crop species.
Multipurpose Trees
The notion behind multipurpose trees is that shrubs or trees, selected for any one
particular use, can serve multiple functions. This can accomplish much more eco-
nomically or ecologically than normally possible.
If the tree is part of a heavy shade system, it might also harbor beneficial birds,
be superior at enriching the soil, have future value as source of wood, and/or provide
some other useful, but seldom harvested, product. These are in addition to the shade
provided. Finding species that can accomplish much is not always easy, and in light
of this, the concept lags.
There is an equivalency in agriculture, that of the multipurpose plant. This would
include trees but also useful vegetation such as cover crops. Here again, plants are
selected for their many uses in addition to their defined agrosystem role.
342 Glossary
There is a competing and ascending concept, that of desirable plant characteris-

tics. This looks at those species with the best fit, starting with the in-agroecosystem
growth and yield characteristics. Once the basic characteristics are met, then other
needs, and use options, enter into the species selection process (for more on this
concept, see Desirable Plant Characteristics).
Niches
The concept of the niche is fundamental to ecology and it has some importance in
agroecology. Basically, the conventional niche is where resources are available and
consumed by one organism in proportions which depend upon the numbers and
locations (e.g., relative nearness) of other species (Leibold 1995).
Because they have opportunity within or among all the competitive forces, these
plants and animals can survive. If this resource opening is large enough and/or the
plant characteristics are disparate enough, a species can thrive.
This is an abstract notion that goes far in explaining happenings within natural
ecosystems. With niches, there are lots of sub-factors and underlying dynamics.
Through a lack of differentiation, these tend to merge under a single umbrella. This
is called a niche.
When ecosystems are being actively managed and measured, the niche concept
becomes less abstract and more concrete. With this, different forms of niches can be
formulated.
Among the productive species in managed systems, farmers want plants to yield
and take steps to insure that this happens. They, in essence, guarantee that plants
have resources in the proportions needed. Although this can be difficult, the out-
comes are measurable.
Within farm landscapes, there are plenty of niches that operate as nature intended
and are more in line with ecologically based niche concept, e.g., insect dynamics
and the microorganisms operate within this defined and limited micro-setting.
Measurement
In agroecology, niches are generally observed and gauged through the land equiva-
lent ratio (LER). Through this, values greater than one indicate that interplant niche
differences are manifested (for more, see Land Equivalent Ratio).
Variations
Within agroecology, there is the fundamental niche where a plant has no competi-
tion and has full access to the available essential resources. This can occur when
plants are grown in pots or other containers or grown alone in open fields.
Glossary 343
In monocultures, the competition is from niche-identical species. This produces

a fundamental niche. Planting density insures that each plant has access to sufficient
resources.
The more interesting niche situations are the competition-based niches. These
are when a plant species faces competition from one or more unlike species com-
petitors. There are clear variations on this theme.
Partitioning Niches
The niche underlies competitive partitioning where, for example, two species coex-
ist within the same plot. The greater the difference in their growth characteristics
and/or essential resource needs, the more likely each will thrive and yield well.
Wanting success, the farmer has a say in this. Through spacing and spatial pat-
tern, a plant’s role within the planned agroecosystem can be assured. The basic
notion behind these allocated niches is that each plant should perform well within
the planned agrosystem.
This can be fewer plants with greater per-plant productivity or more plants with
greater niche differences and again with higher per-plant productivity. In each case,
this sums to a high per-area yield.
In simple agrosystems, the various essential resources offer opportunity to
exploit interspecies niche differences. In agroecology, the exploitation of partition-
ing niches is often synonymous with competitive partitioning (for more on resource
breakdown strategies, see Competitive Partitioning).
Complex Niches
The second form of agro-niche also occurs with complex agroecosystems. The
agrosystem that results is more along the lines of a natural ecosystem. The eco-
nomic intent is a favorable cost structure.
Although per-plant productivity may be low, it is expected that, because of high
per-area plant densities, the overall productivity of a plot will be high. With better
management, this can be adjusted upward.
Rather than random positioning, each plant will produce better if it has a well-
defined niche. This is done by positioning relative to the other species and/or through
active intervention, e.g., pruning. Ongoing crowding insures that the ecosystem
characteristics are not lost (for more, see Complex Agroecosystems).
Orthodox Niches
Within a healthy agroecosystem, more traditionally defined niche dynamics abound.

Rather than accepting a status quo, the land user is often best served by interfering
with these micro-relationships. For example, nematodes come in various forms,
344 Glossary
some predator, some prey. Having a strong prey component or having soil condi-
tions that discourage the plant-harming types is to a farmers advantage.
The use of predator insects is also an exercise in niche kinetics. The best outcome
is where most of the herbivore types fall victim to predator insects.
In the application of compost or animal manures, the resulting gains come par-
tially from the nutrients contained, less noted are the gains from an intensification
of niches. Benefits come from the soup of microorganisms that accompany these
natural sources.
The dynamics unleashed encompass not only the intended organisms and their
tasks. They also go on to impact or regulate, for example, existing fungal diseases.
In other words, in being brought into the micro-niche fold, the harmful organisms
fall prey to or are inflected by those found in the microbial soup. This line of devel-
opment is less understood, but it is not insignificant.
Non-Harvest Option
In intercropping, it is not unusual to employ a productive species in a facilitative

role. This results in two yielding species. When these pairings occur, the decision
must be made on whether or not to harvest the secondary output.
A common example is squash grown under maize. Although yielding, the eco-
nomic value of the squash comes by way of weed control. With the relatively low
yield, e.g., usually 10% of normal, the output can be harvested or left. When not
harvested, the secondary product is left for foraging domestic animals, or it decays
and subsequently enriches the soil. This is the essence of the non-harvest option.
Uses
As stated in Chap. 7, the non-harvest option finds use when:

(a) The cost of the harvest exceeds the value of the crop.
(b) There is too much of this crop.
(c) A lot of the harvest is damaged and unsellable.
(d) Labor is needed elsewhere.
Risk
There is more, especially when entwined with risk.

In non-harvest situations, the output from these secondary, facilitative crops is
not always ignored. They can be part of a larger farming strategy. Secondary outputs
can be a food security crop, yielding when staple and other key crops fail.
Glossary 345
In dry-climate parkland systems, drought-resistant trees are a normal addition.

Besides their facilitative role, these are often the backup fruit when it becomes too
dry for the usual crops.
Notable examples are the baobab tree or the desert date. These are two in a long
list of yielding plants that are farm suitable and afford food security in drought-
prone parts of Africa (Harris and Mohammed 2003).
Another use of non-harvest option is as an alternate crop when the market prices
for the primary species are low. The secondary output can be harvested and sold,
either because the price is high or to make up a revenue shortfall from the low sell-
ing price of the main output.
Rye or other grains, planted among deep-rooted vegetables, e.g., carrots and cab-
bage, are facilitative in reducing weeding costs. The commercial harvest of the grain
seed is not practical as the grains are trampled when the vegetables are removed.
Despite damage, the seeds can serve as a decoy crop, luring grain-consuming
birds away from a nearby crop. The leaves are a farm resource for on-site grazing,
available after the vegetable harvest. The secondary use depends upon the timing of
the grain planting, e.g., early planting produces a decoy grain crop and later plant-
ings are for post-harvest grazing.
There are cases when a non-harvest strategy has proven detrimental. This occurs
when a fruiting windbreak species protects fruit trees. Crop-harmful insects, most
notably the fruit fly, can find refuge and multiply in windbreak fruit and then move
on to infect the main crop.
No-Till
(See Till/No-Till)
Orchards
(See Plantations, and, for a mixed species version, see Streuobst)
Optimization
Across much of agroecology, optimization is ether implied or actively pursued. This

can be plot oriented, e.g., maximum yields or the lowest costs, or seek a landscape
layout that best insures high yields, high profits, as well as environmental objec-
tives, e.g., clean water.
Whatever the scope and objectives, there are formal methodologies and mathe-
matics (e.g., computer modeling) that help achieve an optimal result. Others may rely
on informal, judgmental, and a far less mathematically oriented decision process. In
either case, the goal, optimization, remains (for additional discussion, see Modeling).
346 Glossary
Scope
The most uncomplicated form is plot-level optimization. These models can follow
the progression outlined in this book. This starts with core elements. Other variables
and eco-services increase the possibilities.
Chapter 3 presents rudiments of matrix-based, theoretically constructed model.
With ample data, this could rise to become a statistically based model (for more, see
Modeling).
Going beyond the plot to the landscape level further increases the complexity. In
addition to the possibilities with regard to each encompassed plot, there are also
questions as to the size of each and what is required to cross-maximize any
eco-services.
It is possible to take this a step further and look at the gains from multiple farms.
This type of analysis would be less attentive to inter-farm profitability and more
concerned with reaching a good environmental outcome. The sub-outcome or sub-
problem would address the economic upshot for each component farm.
Although optimization, formal or informally applied, underlies many decisions,
there are countervailing forces. A farm landscape is constantly in flux.
Instead of set parameters and objectives, these are often moving targets, i.e.,
commodity prices change, weather patterns shift, farm labor become more or less
procurable, and a family may wish to modify their lifestyle. There is also the knowl-
edge problem. The most glaring of which are the unknowns when shifting soil and
weather conditions change expected crop yields.
The net result is a less formal, less mathematically-based optimization process.
With this, there is a greater emphasis on improvement using inform decision mak-
ing. This is still optimization, but with deference to the unknowns and the
unquantifiables.
Methods
There is little problem in comparing single numbers; clearly a land equivalent ratio
of 1.2 is superior to 0.9. The complexity of optimization lies in arriving at these
numbers.
Also, problems in agroecology are seldom simple. Solutions often comprise
many needs and desires. As mentioned, a farmer may want high, per-area profits,
but they also need reduced risk and broadly defined sustainability. The latter can
include controlling erosion and minimizing the damaging effects of agrochemicals.
These convert single-variable optimization into multi-objective analysis.
Single Equation
It is possible to state multiple objectives as single, but long, mathematical equation.

An example is where the objectives (obj) are:
Glossary 347
obj = 0.5 ( profit ) ± 0.2 ( erosion ) ± 0.2 ( risk ) ± 0.1( clean water )
Here profit would be the most important, being weighted as one-half of the objec-
tive (where the weighting breakdowns, i.e., 0.5, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.1, sum to one).
Erosion and risk, rated as equals, can be positive or negative, i.e., less is good (+)
and more is bad (−). The lesser objective, clean water, is only 10% of the objective
where clean runoff is good (+) and chemical-contaminated runoff is a negative.
This approach requires assigning a numeric value to all the objectives in the
single function. This might be problematic.
Tiered Analysis
There exists the possibility of using a tiered analysis. The most important objective
starts the sequence, others follow.
If a problem is complex enough and the optimal solutions numerous enough,
there will be many first-tier solutions. For example, the many ways to reach an opti-
mal or near optimal profitability. This can occur when the revenue- and cost-oriented
solutions are equal, or near-equal, in profitability.
The number would be further reduced by second-tier criterion. For example,
those solutions that provides long-term sustainability.
A third selection tier might be added. For example, if water harvesting is impor-
tant, this can be used to choose from the remaining options. It may be possible to
add a four selection tier.
Paddies
As one of the land modification agrotechnologies, paddies are generally associated

with the growing of rice (as shown in Photo P1). There are other crops connected
with a swamp-like environment, e.g., cranberries and wild rice. For cranberries, the
term bog is used.
Paddies are important from two perspectives. The first is the popularity of rice as
a staple crop. The second reason is that, due to the actual area devoted to the raising
of rice, so much land is also put into supporting agrotechnologies, e.g., water catch-
ments, irrigation channels, etc.
348 Glossary
Photo P1 Rice paddies
Parklands
As an expanded version of the isolated tree system, i.e., a single tree in large plot,
parkland systems contain multiple, widely spaced, and non-arrayed trees of a single
species. The defining characteristic, in addition to the dispersed tree locations, is the
tree species (one) present.
There are strict regional preferences on tree species with no more than two or
three locally recognized species. The single species found in each parkland system
would reflect the land purpose, i.e., crops, grazing, or crops in sequence with a
grazed fallow. The output from the trees, if any, is comparatively minor when com-
pared against the value of the understory crop.
The natural equivalent is the grassy plains and the well-grazed savannas where
scattered trees are present. The well-grazed savannas of East Africa are the most
recognized of the natural examples.
Facilitative Gains
Comparatively well documented are the wide range of facilitative services offered.
Along with in-soil gains are a reduction in soil temperatures; more in-soil moisture;
more nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and sulfur; faster water infiltration;
low bulk density; and greater capacity to hold water (Belsky and Canham 1994).
Glossary 349
Photo P2 An African parkland with the tree Faidherbia albida above carrots. This is different
from the norm as this is a dry season planting that is supported with irrigation. The trees still pro-
vide many of the listed ecological services
Similarly, studies on natural parkland savannas of Kenya (Belsky 1992) found for-
age with higher levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and copper.
In-soil gains, although strong, are not the only facilitative justification. Trees
reduce wind speeds with reduction in crop-harming sandblasting. Although some
have reported lower crop yields, e.g., Wilson et al. (1998) and Nair et al. (1999), the
overall effects are positive, enough to warrant use.
Design Variations
With parkland systems, comparatively minor variations exist. The classic design,
the nonproductive overstory, is represented by Africa systems. The tree species
Faidherbia albida and Prosopis cineraria increase understory crop yields (Sanchez
1995; Young 1989a), at times doubling the yields (Sanchez 1995). The tree species
Faidherbia albida fits the role well as it sheds its leaves in the wet season when
crops need light and foliates when the sun is strong and crops need shade.
Other regional designs have a lesser valued output. From southern Chile,
Nothofagus obliqua is grown with pasture/wheat sequence. Severely pruning the
trees before the wheat stage provides firewood while reducing the tree-on-wheat
competition. The branches grow back during the fallow stage.
350 Glossary
From Central America, there are similar parklands with pruned Erythrina glauca
over a variety of crops. Also, from Central America, the nonproductive tree
Pithecellobium dulce is the basis for a gazing-only system.
Agrosystems, where the trees have a greater productive potential, are found in
Africa. These are exampled by néré-sorghum and the baobab or the shea tree over
different crops. Parkland systems are natural location for those climatic-resistant
tree species that provide food even in the hardest of times.
Design Package
The parkland system is cost oriented and therefore requires a low maintenance,
system-acceptable tree species. Over time, farmers have found very few such spe-
cies. This indicates that these must possess a few unusual desirable characteristics.
These are thought to be with deep roots, high open canopy (unless pruned), and
leaves that decay rapidly with a positive effect on soils and crops.
These systems are almost a must with large-pasture grazing. Given the right tree
species, the overall gains, in terms of increased crop yields and/or as a backup food
source, would focus on the use situation.
Pastures
A common means to feed domestic animals is through pastures. Cattle, as well as

sheep, goats, pigs, geese, llamas, bison, etc., can be pastured. The forage can be
directly eaten or the forage harvested for consumption at another time and/or place.
Agroecology
Pasture systems can be straightforward copies of naturally grazed savannas. In

African savannas, with their abundance of plant-eating animals, up to 80% of the
aboveground biomass is consumed (Vera 2000).
Similar grasslands are also found, or were once extensive, in North and South
America, Asia, Australia, and Europe. Ecologically, pastures are not out of place in
most areas. In earlier times, fires, human-caused or natural, would have opened
grasslands in normally forested climes.
There are many grasses and other plant species that animals will consume. This
greatly expands the available agroecosystem options and can increase the biodiver-
sity in many pastoral systems.
Pastures can be monocultural; more often they contain a mix of forage and some
non-forage species. The underlying dynamic is based on their being complex
agrosystems (Chap. 7) and upon density, diversity, disarray, and duration of the
contained plant species.
Glossary 351
Together, these confer a high degree of agroecosystem sustainability provided

that these are not overgrazed. Mixed-species pastures offer self-sustaining insect
dynamics and again, if not overgrazed, a high degree of erosion control.
Economics
As self-sustaining, complex agroecosystems, most pastures are very cost oriented.

Coupled with low-maintenance animals, these systems allow farmers to work larger
areas than otherwise possible or to engage in input-intense agriculture on other por-
tions of a farm. Because of this, pastures are often important because of their eco-
nomic orientation (see Economic Orientation).
Harvests are one of the more costly infield activities and measures are taken to
reduce these. One is to allow animals to directly graze, i.e., self-harvest. This is not
always possible when grasses must be stored and provided during dry or winter
seasons. The option for self-harvest is another aspect of economic orientation.
Variations
One variation involves the grazing regime. Some put large populations of animals in
grazing plots for short periods. Once the grasses are eaten, the animals are moved.
Nature follows this pattern where large herds, e.g., bison or wildebeest, drifted
across the landscape. This grazing and growth strategy may be employed to keep a
healthy population of selected grass species.
Others allow few animals, but for a prolonged period. This has fewer parallels in
nature. In a farm setting, this is less costly than frequently moving animal from plot
to plot.
Simple Pastures
The most common types of forage-based feed systems are the simple pastures. These
contain multiple, well-integrated, forage species. Other versions can be more mono-
cultural, most are perennial, some are animal grazed, and others are cut and carried.
Alfalfa and clover plots are examples of pastures that can be harvested or grazed.
Among the possibilities is to utilize woody, short-statured, directly grazed peren-
nials. Once established, these are a low-cost feed source whose primary advantage
is drought resistance. These can convert unproductive, dry season pastures into a
viable feed source. This can occur even under severe conditions. An example is
found in northern Chile where an Australian desert shrub species (Atriplex nummu-
laria) replaces conventional grasses.
Other variations of the simple pasture theme are grazed fallows. Animals are also
associated with some mixes of grains or cover crops along with vegetables, e.g.,
352 Glossary
where the animals are allowed to eat what remains after a harvest. Along these same
lines, grain crops, planted in semiarid regions, if, after planting, these do not have
the moisture to yield, they are turned into pastures.
Trees/Shrubs Over Forage
Rather than planting just shrubs or grasses, a mix of the two can be utilized. The
common case is to let the animals eat the available, ground-level forage. In the off-
season, the shrub leaves are consumed. This grass-bush system requires shrub for-
age that is less desirable than the grasses so that the grasses are eaten first. Later,
when nothing else is available, animals partake of the shrub leaves.
The disadvantage of a shrub/grass design is the need to find a less palatable, but
still nutritious, shrub species. This may limit the system to a specific grazing animal,
e.g., cattle rather than goats.
A bit more versatile are tree-grass systems. Not quite as self-managing as shrub-
tree systems, these require more labor input. For this, forage trees are planted above
a pasture. When the ground-level forage is exhausted, leafy branches are manually
cut from the trees and eaten by the animals (for more, see Forage Banks or
Silvopastoral Systems).
Because there is such a large number of grass species and other forage possibili-
ties, these can be grown in most settings. A large percentage of agroforestry-based
agrotechnologies, e.g., parkland, light shade, and late-phase taungyas, can have a
grazing function. These may be especially productive as the animals are under a
warming and cooling tree canopy, i.e., they are shielded from the direct heat of the
day and the intense cold of the night. This can translate into quicker weight gain.
Pathogens
Plant diseases are of concern. Under conventional agriculture, the first remedy is to
spray. If one takes this counter, there are some organic fungicides that can be first
tried. These are based on sulfur, copper compounds, pH (e.g., sodium bicarbonate/
baking soda), natural oils, or milk.
Copper compounds, although safe around people and animals, introduce some
long-term worries. Copper is residual in the soil. The repeated buildup would impact
in-soil microbes and associated in-soil ecology.
Indirectly, oils may work by killing aphids, thrips, and other insects that spread
plant viruses. Milk is effective, but carries some unknowns. Out-of-date or spoiled
milk seems effective. Also, some say the unpasteurized milk is better than the pas-
teurized version.
The use of biocontrols, where bacterium is a natural counter, is gaining traction.
There has been some success, e.g., Mmbaga et al. (2016).
Glossary 353
Intercropping can help. The less susceptible plants mixed with unresistant variet-
ies can block spore transmission and slow the spread. Along this same line, rotations
can be a mainstay in disease control.
Colbach et al. (1997) have shown that crop rotations reduce the incidence of
wheat diseases. Other examples of rotational effects are the control of fusarium wilt
on cotton with a pre-crop of peppermint (Liping 1991), and a similar wilt on pigeon
pea can be repressed with sorghum (Rao 1986).
Permaculture
As a field of study, permaculture can be considered as a close cousin or a parallel

effort to agroecology. A more precise rendering has permaculture and agroecology
as being two sides of the same coin. Being on the same coin, it would be difficult to
differentiate actual agrosystems or farm landscapes based only upon observation.
It might be said that the permaculture side is more principled, resting on a hard-
to-refute, philosophical base. In contrast, the base of agroecology is theoretical.
Definitions
Common definitions have permaculture as:

“a system of agricultural and social design principles centered around simulating
or directly utilizing the patterns and features observed in natural ecosystems”
(Wikipedia, Permaculture, 2016).
or
“a system of cultivation intended to maintain permanent agriculture or horticul-
ture by relying on renewable resources and a self-sustaining ecosystem” (Dictionary.
com, 2016).
Tenets
In contrast to agroecology, permaculture has key tenets. These are:

1. Care for the earth
2. Care for the people
3. Return of a surplus
The latter refers to the returning or recycling of waste or unneeded produce. Also
there is a fair share component where no more is taken than needed.
These have been expanded. Principles, restated from Holmgren (2002), are:
1. Observe and interact: by taking time to engage with nature, we can design solu-
tions that suit our particular situation.
354 Glossary
2. Catch and store energy: by developing systems that collect resources at peak
abundance, we can use them in times of need.
3. Obtain a yield: ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the
work that you are doing.
4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback: we need to discourage inappropri-
ate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well.
5. Use and value renewable resources and services: make the best use of nature’s
abundance to reduce our consumptive behavior and dependence on nonrenew-
able resources.
6. Produce no waste: by valuing and making use of all the resources that are avail-
able to us, nothing goes to waste.
7. Design from patterns to details: by stepping back, we can observe patterns in
nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details
filled in as we go.
8. Integrate rather than segregate: by putting the right things in the right place,
relationships develop between those things, and they work together to support
each other.
9. Use small and slow solutions: small and slow systems are easier to maintain
than big ones, making better use of local resources and producing more sustain-
able outcomes.
10. Use and value diversity: diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats
and takes advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides.
11. Use edges and value the marginal: the interface between things is where the
most interesting events take place. These are often the most valuable, diverse,
and productive elements in the system.
12. Creatively use and respond to change: we can have a positive impact on inevi-
table change by carefully observing and then intervening at the right time.
A similar set of tenets exists for agroecology (see Precepts).
Plantations
Woody perennials, planted in almost pure stands, are a commonplace. These fall
under the heading of orchards, tree-crop plantations, or forest-tree plantations. The
outputs can vary from fruit or nuts through various other products, sap, bark, and
leaves and to those stands that furnish wood. Photo examples within this text are of
rubber (Photo 7.5, page 115) and oil palm (Photo 9.5, page 146).
Common nomenclature holds that orchards produce eatable fruits and nuts (as in
Photo 10.3, page 170), all else comes through plantations. This perspective does
nothing to agroecologically distinguish the two. As such, these forms are best jointly
presented.
This section focuses on those systems where the overstory contains the primary
species. The lower story variations are considered as a different agrotechnological
Glossary 355
category. Under this heading are the coffee, cocoa, and some tea plantations where
the primary crop is the understory species (for more, see Shade Systems).
Agroecology
Seldom in pure stands, plantations can unintentionally include a number of weed

species or intentionally include a cover crop. These are still generally referred to as
monocultures. It is how the understory is treated that determines the internal ecol-
ogy and the economic orientation.
Where the understory is eliminated or mowed, the intent is to produce a pure,
high-yielding, high-input, revenue-oriented monocrop. Where the understory is
untamed and allowed to flourish, this intent is to capture polycultural dynamics for
a less intense, biodiverse, cost-oriented system.
The revenue-oriented version is found more with fruit or nut orchards, but with
exceptions. Tree crops can be of either type, depending upon the output. Generally,
for-wood tree plantations tend to be of the cost-oriented type.
Variations
As the output varies, so does their design and use possibilities. Irrespective of the
type of understory and the economic orientation, plantations come in a number of
forms.
Monocultural
Even aged
Uneven aged
Multi-varietal
Bicultural
Even aged
Uneven aged
Polycultural
Species complex
Overriding this are the types as determined by their outputs. Orchards (consum-
able fruit and nuts), tree-crop plantations (all forms of non-woody outputs), and
forest-tree plantations (used for obtaining wood).
Within these less-than-informative categories are numerous nomenclatural
exceptions. Palm stands, e.g., coconut and oil, are generally called plantations, most
likely because their outputs have greater industrial, less consumptive, uses. Tree-
crop plantations include rubber trees, spices (e.g., cloves and cinnamon), and oil
palm.
356 Glossary
Photo P3 A teak
plantation
The forest-tree plantations are destructively harvested for wood products.

Cinnamon trees are destructively harvested for the bark. Others, at the end of their
useful life, have a similar fate.
Orchards
Utilized to produce a wide variety of consumable fruits and nuts, orchards are gen-
erally even aged. Bicultural and polycultural forms do exist. Under the more-the-
better scenario, the German streuobst is an ordered, mixed-species form with a
number of interplanted fruiting species. These are more for household use where the
non-harvested fruits are consumed by domestic animals (for more, see Streuobst).
At the bio-complex level are homegardens and forest gardens. These utilize the
full range of agroecosystem dynamics and are spatially disarrayed. As such these
are built around unique ecology (for more, see Agroforests).
Glossary 357
Photo P4 This photo shows a recent stem planting (less than 1 year old). The tree is poplar. (This
photo was taken in southern Chile)
Tree-Crop Plantations
Under tree crops come a wide variety of outputs. Fruits and nuts are included, but
these tend to be for industrial, rather than for human consumption. This are found
worldwide on a large scale. Examples are rubber, oil palm, and coconut trees.
Forest-Tree Plantations
The production of wood on a commercial scale can be from natural forests or from
a dedicated system of plantations. As natural forests diminish in number and pro-
ductive capacity (e.g., from over extraction) and wood demand grows, plantations
will produce more of the wood supply. Worldwide the principle species tend to be
pine and eucalyptus trees. Photo P3 shows a young teak plantation.
Planting Method (Shrubs and Trees)
The beginning phase of an agrosystem often sets the economic stage for what later
happens. Efficiency in planting woody or other perennials can lead to a successful
outcome or a less than successful result.
358 Glossary
Photo P5 The stump-planting method showing an about-to-be-planted stump. The dimensions

are a textually described
Users have a choice of five planting methods. With a brief explanation, these are:
1. Seeds – trees or shrubs are directly established, at location, from in-soil planted
seeds.
2. Seedlings – plants are first established in a nursery or other site; once at sufficient
size, they are replanted at the final location.
3. Striplings – in the nursery, the small trees are allowed to grow to a height of
1.5–2 m. After which, the side branches are pruned. This leaves a small, intact
canopy. The resulting stripling is then transplanted to the final site. The reason
for this treatment is to keep newly transplanted trees tall and out of reach of
shorter grazing animals.
4. Stems – with this method, trees are raised in a nursery to a substantial height.
This can be 2–10 meters. After which, the main stem of each tree is cut above
ground level with all branches being removed. It is this stem that is replanted.
This technique does not work with all tree species, e.g., pines are disqualified.
With a long stem, this can seriously shorten, by 5 or more years, the time to
maturity for forest-tree plantations. Stringent preselection insures a straight, well-
formed stem. The disadvantage is that flat, well-watered sites may be required.
Photo P4 shows tall, true, recently planted stems. Photo T1, page 399, is of
the same plantation but with slightly older trees.
5. Stumps – in a variation, seedlings are nursery-raised to a ground-level stem diam-
eter of 2–4 cm. Normally, this equates with a stem height of 1–2 m. The trees are
then physically yanked from the ground after which the stem is cut about 5 cm
above ground line. The root portion is cut about 10–15 cm below the ground line,
and the remaining short section is pruned of any side branches and side roots.
Glossary 359
It is the stump that is replanted. Photo P5 shows a pruned, about-to-be-replanted

stump.
This method finds use in severe terrain where workers must toil on steep hill-
sides. It also finds application where the to-be-planted trees must be carried long
distances. If planted one day after being cut and planted during a rainy season, the
survival rate should be around 90%.
Planting Ratios
The population of plots with more than one plant species brings about questions
regarding the planting densities of each component species. Planting densities are
one of the core elements that underlie all terrestrial agrosystems. This section is a
more in-depth look at the Chap. 2 presentation.
Expressed in Fig. 2.3, page 23 is the full scope of planting densities for a com-
mon biculture. The planting density possibilities can be for two productive species
or a productive in close association with a non-yielding facilitative species.
In Fig. 2.3, the origin, lower center, is an uncultivated plot. The upper left repre-
sents a monocultural planting, species a in the maximum density, none of species b
(100%, 0). The connecting line lower center to upper left denotes a various per-area
population for species a.
The same holds with the right corner, this is a maximum planting of species b,
none of species a (0, 100%). For this, the maximum or 100% values for monocul-
tural plantings usually are the densities that offer the best yields. These are often
known or can be estimated.
In contrast, the upper center, maximum plantings of species a and species b
would not necessarily provide the best yields. Somewhere within this defined region
is the best planting density for a mix of species a and species b.
With a bit more information, the ridge line in Fig. 2.2, shown as a dotted line in
Fig. 2.3, can be determined. The highest point on this line is the optimal planting
density.
For most crop mixes, the optimum point is unknown. The degree of complemen-
tarity, once developed, can be the bases for an estimation. Where field data is lack-
ing or in short supply, this becomes a continuation of the theory presented under
competitive partitioning (see Competitive Partitioning).
Reasons
The next step is to provide yield data that corresponds to the planting density pos-
sibilities. These are best expressed as land equivalent ratios. The objective is to
determine the optimal planting densities for a given site and climatic conditions.
With enough data, it is possible to derive an overall or composite yield function,
one covers the entire density surface; for examples of composite functions, see Fig.
P1. This is a formidable task, one made easier utilizing planting ratios.
360 Glossary
Derivations
Rather than attempting to derive the entire yield surface, it is possible to determine
the optimal through selected ratio lines. Stated in actual population, per area values,
those along a 100%-100% ratio line (as below) will have:
For the primary species (a) plants For the second (b) plants per area
per area (and the percent) (percent)
10,000 (100%)* <------------------------> 20,000 (100%)
7500 (75%)* 15,000 (75%)
5000 (50%)* 10,000 (50%)
2500 (25%)* 5000 (25%)
2000 (20%) 4000 (20%)
1000 (10%) 2000 (10%)
The 100% values, as the optimal monocultural planting densities, are at the end
of, and anchor, these values. Those ratios above, those marked with an asterisk, are
shown, as lines, in Fig. 2.3.
These lines, in composite, form various shaped density surfaces (Fig. P1, top and
bottom). The vertical axis would be LER. The goal here, shown by the function
summit, is to maximize LER.
Limitations
The main drawback for this line of analysis is the large quality of data required. This
is true with ratio lines, more so if the full composite function is attempted.
Compounding the problem, LER-based ratio analysis is crop, site, and climate
dependent, i.e., the data and results from one site may not apply to the same crop
mix on another. Figure P1 shows the different composite surfaces that result when
the crop, site, and weather change.
Note that these theory-derived functions differ in one key aspect. The upper fig-
ure, being slightly flatter, shows greater flexibility in varying the planting densities
with less of a LER penalty.
The LER-based ratio lines also vary as the spatial pattern varies. This means that
one pattern, say alternating rows of two species, need not produce the same ratio
lines as two adjoining rows of one species followed by two rows of a second
species.
Simplified
In use, these functions are not available. To proceed, a starting point is required.
Glossary 361
Fig. P1 Hard-to-derive
composite production
surfaces. The vertical axes
are LER values
If one suspects, or has found, that the species (two) in a proposed intercrop are
highly complementary, a 100–100% planting ratio might be in order. The rules of
intercropping, Chap. 5, can be useful as a starting guide.
Lesser degrees of complementarity would mean lesser population densities. This
could be 75–75% to a ratio low of 60%-60% (for a theoretical justification, see
Marginal Gains under Competitive Partitioning).
Pollination
The need to pollinate crops is critical. Often unnoticed, pollination may supersede
an essential resource deficiency as the number one factor in limiting yields (van Gils
et al. 2016). This would extend to most crops.
Pollination can be done by birds, by bats, and, more commonly, by insects.
Commercially, the prime source of pollination is the honeybee. There are some
species that rely on natural insects.
Honeybees
For large-scale producers, the honeybee is the preferred pollinator. This is where
most of the value lies. In this situation, honey, pollen, and beeswax can be second-
ary products. For some beekeepers, the value of the hives lies solely with these
secondary outputs.
362 Glossary
Photo P6 Local beehives from the southern highlands of Ethiopia. Textually mentioned is the
floral lure of nearby eucalyptus trees. Other factors that curtail their role as pollinators are poor
hive design, weak colony strength, the indiscriminate use of insecticides, and a lack of access to
water
As a means of pollination, the number of hives, their strength, and their location
are important considerations. As stated, bees tend to remain on those flower species
that they first visit each day. If located such that they first find the targeted plant,
they will pollinate that one species.
If poorly directed, this behavior can be a negative. In a case from the highlands
of Ethiopia, crop pollination lagged. This was because the few, poorly maintained
hives (Photo P6) were hung below, or even in, eucalyptus trees.
Honeybees find eucalyptus flowers to their liking. Encountering these first, they
spend all their time fertilizing the eucalyptus flowers, not the pollination-needing,
ground-level crops (author’s experience).
One often less noted influence, honeybees require water. The lack of a nearby,
accessible source can affect hive strength and/or the work done. This can be espe-
cially problematic, and less recognized, in drier regions.
Natural Pollinators
There is long list of insects and some birds and bats that pollinate crops. As expected,
bumblebees and butterflies are prominent. Less so are wasps and some fly species.
Glossary 363
It should be noted that honeybee and wild insect pollinators are not exclusive.
Effectiveness is increased if both are employed (Hevia et al. 2016). Some have
found wild pollinators more effective than honeybees (Blitzer et al. 2016; Eeraerts
et al. 2017).
There is a side benefit to facilitative ecosystems. Although pollination is not
often a stated gain, the presence of flowers on hedges, field margins, cover crops,
and the like can sustain and increase the number and variety of wild-found, natural
pollinators (Venturini et al. 2017). This is especially true when the primary species
(one or more) flowers for only a brief period.
In general, more flower-filled field margins are better for a number of reasons.
They are better at supporting both predator insects (e.g., Tschumi et al. 2016) and
natural insect pollinators. This is a situation where these are not exclusive.
One reason may be that pollinators are not sedimentary in their task. In continu-
ally moving, they may be subject to less predation.
It is best for pollination to have hosting field margins closer to crops, i.e., small
plots or narrower strips. This is more important with wild insect pollinators. If this
type of field layout is not possible, honeybees do range wider than natural pollina-
tors (Woodcock et al. 2016)
All bees are under threat from insecticides (as expected). Wild pollinators are
also under threat from herbicides (less expected). The mechanism for the latter is
the destruction of insect-supporting natural vegetation along plot margins
(Bretagnolle and Gaba 2015).
Ponds
As part of rural landscapes, ponds store water for irrigation, quench the thirst of
farm animals, are the basis for aqua-agriculture, and help support natural fauna. As
auxiliary structures, these small bodies of standing water come in varying forms and
uses.
Permanent Ponds
A main reason for this farm feature is as a source of irrigation water. These are com-
mon where crops, such as rice, are raised and where irrigation is needed. Ponds hold
water until used.
In some regions, fish are a food source and ponds underpin this. Domestic fowl,
such as duck and geese, also benefit from these structures. In small-farm landscape,
nutrient-rich sludge, dug from the bottom of ponds, may be added to gardens.
In developed countries, lowered fire insurance, not agricultural usefulness, may
be the principal reason for many near-structure ponds. Insurance is cheaper if fire-
fighters have water close at hand.
364 Glossary
Temporary Ponds
The temporary pond can either dry during part of the yearly cycle or, in the con-
verse, be lost to flood waters. Both these pond forms can be a source of irrigation
water. A seasonally dry pond has limited secondary uses. When a water source for
animals, this can cause problems. Animals and households should not use, and
depend, on the same pond water.
The importance may lie in their role in water infiltration. The goal is to keep
water on-site by, through pond-increased infiltration, elevating the water table. This
can be an especially critical use in drier regions.
Ponds that are part of a flood cycle can be natural source of fish but less useful
for commercial purpose. In this form, seasonal flooding causes these ponds to fill.
Some natural fish are washed in. As ponds dry, the fish are concentrated and can be
readily caught. Just as fish are trapped as the water recedes, introduced fish, if being
raised during the flood cycle, can escape. This limits the fish propagation capacity
of flood-submerged, temporary ponds.
Precepts (Agroecological)
The differences between agriculture and agroecology can be summed and presented
as series of precepts. As modified from Wojtkowski (2006), these are:
• Where each crop is an element or component in a larger agroecosystem
• Where each plot is a part of larger, often natural, farm, local, or regional ecosys-
tem that embraces interplot ecological solutions to plot-internal productive
obstacles
• Through a longer time frame in planning and implementation
• In a greater sensitivity toward and greater interest in diverse agricultural prac-
tices, one borne of an understanding of methods, applications, and the cultural
role of agriculture
• In the sanctity of environment and the do-no-harm admonition that accompanies
the application of agroecological principles and practices
• With an accentuation for improving the quality of life for the people and the
natural fauna that inhabit the land
• From an academic perspective, the elimination of those partitions that separate
agriculture from forestry and agroforestry recognizing that trees are as much an
ecological force in the farm landscape as are crops
• From the scientific perspective, in the wealth of theories, concepts, and princi-
ples from which to proceed when direct experience and research data are
lacking
Glossary 365
Predator-Prey
Agroecologically, it is possible to exploit the situation where one organism or ani-

mal preys upon another. The common example is insect-on-insect where herbivore
insects are consumed by predator types. This may be the most recognized expres-
sion of agroecology. Rightly so, as this is a viable, stand-alone strategy for insect
control (for more, see Insect Control).
There are other similar predator-prey expressions that also target herbivore
insects. Some advocate for birds or some other animal eating the unwanted insects.
This may be flocks of domestic fowl free-ranging in crop plots. Not studied, free-
ranging flocks can be strengthened by the presence of wild bird species (this topic
is further developed under Birds (Attracting)).
In addition, a predator-prey strategy may be aimed at undesirable fauna, e.g.,
crop-destroying birds can be targeted by hawks. Also, mice and rats can be eaten
and kept to manageable numbers, by snakes, owls, or cats.
Primary Species
In multiple cropping situations, one species is considered as the primary or the most
significant of the crops raised. A staple crop in a subsistence setting would be the,
or a, primary species.
Whether primary or not is usually determined by the comparative value, either
monetarily or within the diet of the household, of the various outputs. Where mon-
etary worth, e.g., most profitable, is the criteria, this is the value of the yield from a
given area as compared with value and yield for other crops.
The importance lies mostly in calculating measures such as the relative value
total (RVT). There are also some important infield considerations.
For example, with the classic maize-bean intercrop, the yield of maize may not
be affected by the presence of the beans, but the reverse is not true. Generally, the
presence of maize substantially reduces bean yields. If maize is the primary crop,
this combination is a good choice; the beans are, as a bonus addition, the secondary
species.
If beans are the primary crop, the reduction in yields is not usually acceptable. To
maintain yield levels, more insight is needed, e.g., a change in spacing, timing of
planting, etc., or other intercropping options should be considered.
Pruning
Trees and shrubs are utilized in a variety of productive roles. To take full advantage
of the potential requires canopy shapes of different forms. To accomplish this, there
are five different pruning methods. These are:
366 Glossary
(a) Coppicing
(b) Pollarding
(c) Stem pruning
(d) Side lopping
(e) Branch thinning
Described below, these methods are illustrated in Fig. P2. Pictured, on the left
side, is the unpruned tree; the middle is the intermediate, post-pruning stage; the
right side is the intended result.
As an added note, pruning should not totally denude a tree. Leaving one or more
branches untouched will go far in keeping the tree from dying. This applies to all the
methods.
Pruning can be a key feature of agroecosystem design and should not be under-
estimated. The method chosen, if well selected, can be a determinate of agrosystem
success.
Coppicing
With this pruning method, the stem of a tree is cut at ground level. The regrowth
results in multiple stems (labeled a in Fig. P2).
These are used as an animal feed source, for green cut-and-carry biomass, or
where the multiple shoots have an outside purpose, e.g., basket weaving.
Pollarding
Instead of cutting stems at ground level, they may be cut higher up. A 2 meter
trimmed height is the norm (as b in Fig. P2).
The purpose can be the same as with coppicing, i.e., animal feed, green biomass,
or small stems, but height keeps animals from directly eating the leaves. The higher
canopy allows ground-level pasturing or farming with less physical interference.
Another reason for pollarding is to reduce the amount of plant-on-plant competi-
tion during a cropping season. With parkland or similar systems, the branches are
pruned before crops are planted. They will grow back during a fallow period.
Stem Pruning
Common in forestry, the lower, side branches of the main stem are pruned except for
those near the tree top. This leaves a reduced terminal canopy (c in Fig. P2).
The hope is to achieve a long, branch-free stem that, after many years of growth,
will yield an elongated, knot-free, and therefore valuable log. Best results come if
the pruning is done when the trees are very young.
Glossary 367
The result depends upon the type of tree and ecosystem in which it is grown. For
many coniferous species, pruning the side branches will not result in branch
regrowth. Such species are the basis for stem-pruned, forest plantations. For most
tree species, branch cutting will result in regrowth unless heavy shade on the stems
discourages new branches. Plantations are usually so designed.
Side Lopping
When trees are placed over crops, the branches may be cut to ensure that sufficient
light reaches the understory crops. Side lopping involves cutting away the outer
branches of a tree canopy. This results in a smaller, dense canopy (d in Fig. P2). The
goal is to leave ample open space between trees that allow vertical light to reach
ground-level crops.
Fig. P2 The five

tree-pruning methods
(a) coppicing, (b)
pollarding, (c) stem
pruning, (d) side lopping,
and (e) branch thinning.
Left to right, this drawing
shows a before, during,
and the after effect. These
are textually explained
368 Glossary
When the ends of the branches are cut, they can regrow with multiple forks. This
allows for more flowers, more fruit set, and greater yields.
Lopping has some other uses. A small, more compact canopy can ease the har-
vest of fruit or nuts, i.e., workers have less problem placing ladders and do not have
to reach deeply into the tree to find and pick the fruits.
In yet another gain, lopping can shorten, thicken, and strengthen branches, For
high-yielding fruit trees, this can reduce or eliminate breakage from an abundant,
and heavy, fruit load.
Branch Thinning
For dense, tree-over-crop applications, light, rather than heavy shade, may be best.
Branch thinning keeps the main stem and secondary branches but prunes away the
other, smaller branches (e in Fig. P2).
This allows filtered light to reach understory crops. The primary application is
with heavy shade system where productivity is to be increased.
Push-Pull
The repelling of a crop pest can be effective, doubly so if combined with a pull or
decoy. The range of anti-crop species can include insects, birds, and small or large
mammals. For example, insect-repelling plants are located inside a crop plot; at the
edge are those that lure the unwanted insects. Birds are pushed out by scarecrows
while, at the same time, being attracted by host or decoy feed sources.
There are specific examples of push-pull. From East Africa, the plant species
desmodium pushes away insects while the species napier grass attracts and keeps
them off a plot. This combo has been reported to be effective against stem borers as
napier grass is a poor host and induces a high mortality with the larva stage.
There is another gain. Desmodium triggers the seed growth of, but will not sup-
port, the parasitic weed striga.
From North America, scarecrows nudge fruit-eating birds away from cherry
trees. The pull or decoy can be the low-valued, but prolific, fruiting of the mulberry
tree.
Quality of Life
One of the rationales for the study and practice of agroecology is improvement in
the quality of life. The betterment of the human experience comes about in many
ways; food, in plentiful supply and high in taste and nutrition, is only part of this.
Glossary 369
Clean, cool water, a disease-free landscape, scenic vistas, and even flower-filled,
fragrant surroundings are possible and encouraged through agroecology. This can
be for rural residents and spin off to the benefit of urban dwellers.
Examples are many. The water system of New York City, located in rural com-
munities, is managed to insure the purity of the water before treatment. This means
a landscape that has clean runoff, free of contaminates. This is more cost-effective,
and far safer, than treating dirty water.
Water is only one side of the equation. A pleasant countryside is of benefit to all.
Tourist revenue can grow if the countryside represents a pleasant experience. This
does not have to impede productive and profitable farming (see also Aesthetics).
Ratio Lines
(See Planting Ratios)
Relative Value Total
The land equivalent ratio (LER) is the key economic determinate in agroecology.
Some advocate adding prices. This results in the relative total value (RVT). Proposed
by Vandermeer (1989), this is:
RVT = ( pa Yab + pbYba ) / pa Ya
where Yab is the yield of species a grown in close association with species b and Yba
is the yield of species b raised in conjunction with species a. Ya is the monoculture
yield of species a raised on a soil-similar, same-sized plot as the a-b intercrop. The
selling price for species a is pa, and for species b, the selling or market price is pb.
The great advantage of the land equivalent ratio (LER) lies with the fact that it is
free of monetary criteria. This ratio is not tied to, or biased by, crop selling or other
prices. It is stand-alone measure.
This is not true with the RVT. In the example below:
(($5 ∗ )
1000 ) + ( $3 ∗ 800 ) / ( $5 ∗ 2000 ) = 0.74
while
(($10 ∗ )
1000 ) + ( $3 ∗ 800 ) / ( $10 ∗ 2000 ) = 0.62.
This change is entirely due to a doubling in the selling price (in bold type) of species
a. This is not a large jump, but because of this price bias, the RVT has less meaning
as a stand-alone determinant. RVT is more useful as component in economic orien-
tation (for more, see Economic Orientation).
370 Glossary
Repellent Plants
The use of vegetation to repel insects and other fauna is well established. This
occurs along a number of fronts. The vast majority of the techniques are directed
against herbivore insects (for more on this topic, see Insect Control). Outside this
sphere, there are repellent plants that work against other cropping pests.
This affect also finds application against small animals. Altieri and Trujillo
(1987) document the planting of ayacote in Mexico. This plant has a toxic root
secretion that discourages rodents.
Resource Concentration Hypothesis
In regard to the problems caused by plant-attacking insects, the resource concentra-

tion hypothesis holds that the greater the number of host plants, the greater the
opportunities for specialist insects. This is a good thing when pollinating crop, not
favorable when other insects eat crops.
Conversely, if there are no or few large, pure stands of any one crop, the lower
the probability of problematic insects. This hypothesis is the basis for field layouts
and the contents of individual plots.
Revenue Orientation
(See this topic under Economic Orientation)
Riparian Buffers
The intent of infiltration barriers and like structures is to keep moisture, soil, and
nutrients on-site. The riparian buffer is the last attempt to keep soil and nutrients
from being washed into open water. As such, these structures are found along
streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds.
This is an environmental and a quality-of-life issue. Besides loosing precious soils,
the nutrients lost can cause dead zones in the world’s oceans. Examples are found in
the Caribbean immediately south of the Mississippi river, in the Baltic, and between
Canada and the USA, in Lake Erie (Wikipedia, Dead Zones (Ecology), 2016).
Design
There are two design factors: the first is the width of the streamside buffer and the
second is the species composition. Usually, the width ranges from 2 to 5 meters. The
narrower types are found in relatively flat sites or where the erosion effects and the
movement of nutrients are small to insignificant.
Glossary 371
The wider designs are located at the base of hillsides and across small wades.
Basically, these are used where erosion potential is high and/or where nutrients are
easily lost during periods of high rainfall.
The general rule is that buffers should be wider where the aboveground water
flow is highest. This brings about more elaborate designs that extend upon wades
and other normally dry water courses.
The vegetative composition is the functional component. The best is a mix, often
naturally sprouting, of short-statured plants. The key is to use well-anchored peren-
nial species, plants less likely to be eroded. A mix of densely spaced, perennial
grasses and shrubs would be a possibility. The grass vetiver, with its superior ero-
sion properties, could be part of, but not stand-alone, a buffer species.
A few, well-chosen plants would serve well in this role. Again, employing shorter
species, a strong alternative is to base the mix around density, diversity, disarray,
and duration (as introduced in Chap. 7). With this approach, there are opportunities
for economic gain.
Secondary Uses
Buffers need not be economically inert. These are prime locations for a cut-and-
carry system, i.e., for animal forage, mulch, and/or a repellent plant. Riparian buf-
fers are also good locations for shrub gardens (see Chap. 7).
Rocks
(See Stones)
Rotations
All agricultural and forestry species can be part of and benefit from a rotational
sequence. The gains are greatest with short-duration plants. In order to obtain eco-
logical and economic gains, the key questions are which species and in what order
they best sequence.
Nutrient Dynamics
The main reason for rotations is nutritional, using one planting to prepare the nutri-
tional setting for an upcoming crop. This, plus any minerals that are added between
seasons, should present the ideal balance of nutrients for an incoming crop.
In accomplishing this, there are long-established rotational partners. Wheat
should follow beans, vetches, and clover; barley or oats should come after turnips,
carrots, or potatoes (Rham 1853). Others are soil specific. For poorer sites, a fallow
372 Glossary
is followed by wheat, then grasses, oats, peas or beans, and, to complete this 6-year
sequence, wheat.
For rich soils, a fallow is followed by wheat, then beans, and, in the fourth year,
wheat. A fallow restarts the system (Loudon 1826). For the above, wheat is the more
valuable and the primary crop.
These gains carry over into more modern times. A sampling of suggested
sequences includes:
Maize --> bean
Maize --> bean --> potato
Tomato --> onion --> squash
Oats --> clover --> ryegrass
Soybean --> groundpea (peanut) --> sunflower
Wheat --> clover --> alfalfa --> ryegrass
Clover --> alfalfa --> ryegrass
The General Rule
As stated at the end of Chap. 2, species that intercrop well, i.e., possess interspecies
complementarity, tend to sequence well. From the above list, maize intercrops well
with bean; tomato can be occasionally seen with onion.
The reverse is not always true and there are questions on the planting order. This
general rule forms a fairly strong guide that is helpful in determining which species
should be in rotation. On the flip side, established rotational sequences would be a
starting point when looking at possible intercrop combinations.
Another general rule is that more crops in rotation are better than having fewer.
In one study, Anderson (2017a) found yield increases of 52% when the rotation was
expanded from two to five crops.
Other Gains
There are a host of secondary reasons for rotations. These include ridding the land
of certain crop-specific, in-soil herbivore insects and crop-specific, disease organ-
isms. Also possible are rotations as a strategy to reduce the populations and impact
of weeds.
When applied as a disease control measure, longer seems better. A period of
6 years eliminates nematodes and rhizoctonia in potato and prevents carrot leaf spot
and wheat head blight. Some crops, e.g., carrots, seem best with even longer rota-
tions (Reinders 2007).
Row Orientation
In Chap. 2, the topic of row orientation is briefly mentioned. This may not rise to the
level of a core agrosystem design element, but in some situations, it comes close.
Glossary 373
Yield and/or economic gains accrue when rows are properly oriented. Often
there are yield and economic trade-offs that temper the situation. For this, there are
four primary considerations; these are:
1. Direction
2. Topography
3. Harvest
4. Wind
Direction
For a monocrop where all plants are of like height, row orientation is of less impor-
tance. This comes to the fore where the component species (two or more) are of
unequal height.
The flatland default direction is always north-south except when the crops dictate
otherwise. The reason is maximization of light interception for all the component
species.
The exception is where the between-row, understory species seeks early morning
light and/or afternoon shade. Also theoretically possible, but less likely, is the case
where an understory species does best with late day light and morning shade. These
scenarios would suggest a slight directional modification.
Topography
In overriding the north-south direction, topography is a major factor. Specifically,

this involves soil erosion. Simply put, rows on hillsides generally follow the con-
tours. This general rule holds except when the soils are not erosion prone or when
sufficient counters, e.g., cover crops, contour barriers, etc., are in place.
Harvest
The idea here is that workers are more task efficient when they traverse along and
do not cross rows. Also, workers should move loads, e.g., bundles of prunings or
containers of harvested produce, along a level path or in a downhill direction.
Wind
In looking at the trade-offs, one must not forget destructive winds. Air flow, chan-
neled along rows, can be a drying and a yield-reducing force. Where important, this
means rows orientated perpendicular to the prevailing winds. This can also mean
well-positioned, well-designed windbreaks that allow other directional consider-
ations to prevail.
374 Glossary
Salt
Most regard salt, when added to or present in crop plots, as yield reducing or yield
destroying. This is not always the case. Salt can be a negative or a positive.
Benefits
A reported positive effect occurs when salt is applied to fields in minuscule amounts.
Accounts hold that a small salt addition destroys weeds and some in-soil pests and
makes grasses more palatable to cattle. This time-tested technique is mentioned by
Virgil (29 BCE), much later by Johnson (1844), and by Rham (1853).
Research provides partial support. Sodium chloride (salt) will control harmful
green slugs, e.g., Ester et al. (2003). Not so good, salt can upset the nematode bal-
ance, killing beneficial nematodes, leaving the plant-parasitic types. Another gain is
the speeding of leaf-litter decomposition (Kaspari et al. 2014).
Dangers
The accumulation of salt, if in more than minor amounts, is a yield-reducing, land-

use problem. If in more than minuscule quantities, the land can be rendered useless
for agriculture and for most forestry uses. Salt naturally arrives in soil in three dif-
ferent ways: (1) through groundwater, (2) through irrigation water, and (3) wind-
borne. There are agroecological solutions that counter these detrimental transfers.
If in the water table, farmers must keep the groundwater from reaching the roots
of crops. Deep-rooted, water-thirsty trees are the favored solution. They keep the
water table low. Trees, such as eucalyptus, are used for this task.
When the irrigation water has a slight salt content, this can accumulate in the soil
over time. The normal counter is to flush the salt away through inundation and good
drainage. This is done periodically.
There are only a few vegetative solutions. The placing of crops or cover species
that provide large amount of in-soil biomass can dilute the salt concentration. This
may not eliminate the problem, periodic flushing may still be necessary, but the
interval between flushing can be increased.
The other vegetative solution is a salt-tolerant primary crop. Here again, the
problem is not eliminated. The period between flushes is increased.
When salt arrives through the wind, it must come from a nearby salt flat. A good
system of shelterbelts and windbreaks can slow or prevent the problem. This is a
landscape measure that may require regional inter-farm cooperation.
Glossary 375
Other Counters
In directly addressing the sources, the previously listed counters are the most preva-
lent. There is some evidence that bio-remediation can be effective (Ammari et al.
2013). This is when growing plants uptake salt. This is taken from the site where the
plant is removed. If viable, this would be a slow process.
Another option is to dilute the soil. Adding mulch or compost would be one
means. Some have gone as far as to remove and replace saturated soils.
Drip irrigation may represent a reprieve. This flushes the salt from around and
immediately below root zones (e.g., Burt and Isabel 2005; Thompson et al. 2010).
Scarecrows
As a push or part of push-pull strategy, the scarecrow is a time-tested means to repel

some bird species. The standard design is a dressed dummy propped up in a small
plot. Other low-tech versions are possible.
Photo 3.1, page 38, shows a stuffed animal, the more ferocious looking the bet-
ter, in a cherry tree. This is reported effective when combined with a decoy crop. In
the case, nearby mulberry trees provided this service.
As anti-bird technique, there is room for improvement in scarecrow design. As a
nondestructive means of dealing with seed-eating birds, mechanical versions are
possible. This would be the push alone or be combined with the pull, e.g., the above-
mentioned mulberry trees.
Semi-Husbandry
Cattle, goats, sheep, hogs, and horses, as well as domestic fowl, can be confined and
fed. This is a fairly intensive, revenue-oriented process with environmental prob-
lems and, in a few cases, animal cruelty issues. At the other end of this spectrum,
free-ranging livestock and domestic birds are thought to be healthier and better for
human consumption.
Taken to the extreme, it is possible to raise bird and animals in an entirely natural
setting. The only activity is the harvest. Large cattle ranches allow for unfettered
grazing. This is a form of semi-husbandry. The same can be undertaken with goats,
sheep, and hogs. All tend to be cost oriented.
Turkeys and chickens, in their pre-domesticated form, run free in forests, roost-
ing nightly in trees (Photo S1). If eggs are not the end product, these birds can be
raised in an environment close to what they originally sought in nature.
Semi-husbandry has broader applications, especially with animals that are not
domesticated. Deer, bison, llamas, and types of rodents can be encouraged and har-
vested. This would mean an encouraging environment. To make the landscape more
conducive, feed might be provided in off-seasons and/or crops planted for these
animals to directly feed.
376 Glossary
Photo S1 Tree-roosting chickens
Semi-husbandry is far from universally applicable. The region and the site must
be suitable. Also, there must be little or no opportunity to destroy crops or to seek
refuge where not wanted. As a topic, semi-husbandry bears a close resemblance to
mimicry (for comparison, see Mimicry).
Shade Systems
There are situations where an understory species is shaded by a taller growing com-
panion species. The defining attribute is that the overstory canopies are touching or
are in close proximity. The overstory and understory components can be spatially
ordered or disarrayed.
As a growth strategy, there are a lot of variations off this theme. In seasonal inter-
cropping, a taller species will overtop and take light from other plants. Where the
smaller species is shade tolerant, this is not a problem; both can yield well. The rules
of productive intercropping (Chap. 5) take this into account.
There are tree-with-crop designs where shade is integral to the agroecological
dynamics. On economic bases, the seasonal and the perennial tree systems are cat-
egorized into two distinct systems: (1) light and (2) heavy shade.
In theory and practice, both light and heavy shade systems can be seasonal. For
example, maize grown over highly shade-resistant beets could qualify. These exam-
ples are also inclusive in seasonal intercropping.
Glossary 377
Photo S2 Coffee grown beneath a mixed-species, light shade system. (This photo is from the
Dominican Republic)
Commonly, light and heavy shade systems are perennial. Similarly, wood-
producing shade systems and the associated tree management options are part of
silviculture and, as such, are so discussed (see Silviculture).
Light Shade
With light systems, the overstory species is most often a woody perennial. These
trees are widely scattered or with an open, light-penetrating canopy. This insures
that ample sunlight reaches the understory plants.
For most of these designs, both the understory and overstory species provide an
economically contributing output. The purpose is to achieve the highest LER and/or
per-area profit. Costs are contained through shared tasks, e.g., a weeding that ben-
efits both species.
Light shade systems can also be facilitative with a nonproductive overstory. The
primary gain from the overstory would be to block winds (as in Photo S2). There are
two categories of light shade systems: (1) uniform overstory and (2) mixed
species.
378 Glossary
Uniform Overstory
With a uniform canopy, light shade systems require a productive species that allows,
by way of less dense canopy, considerable light to reach ground level. The number
of such species is limited.
Most common are palms of various types. Coconut and oil palms are often
encountered. The understory can be some crop type or, far more common, grasses
and grazing. Coconut with ginger is an example of an in-use crop combination.
Dual-output, light shade systems tend to be revenue oriented.
Mixed Overstory
Rather than a one species overstory, multiple species can be employed. This can be
open-canopied species.
The other option is to use trees with dense canopies. For these, the key to success
lies in the positioning of the overstory species mix. The gaps that form should per-
mit ample light to reach lower levels allowing for ground-level growth opportuni-
ties. This eliminates from use trees with excessive canopy spread.
Heavy Shade
In contrast to the high LER, high-revenue, light shade agrosystems, heavy shade
systems are almost universally cost oriented. This is, in part, due to their low input
needs, and hence, their high, labor-based return when compared to an equivalent
monoculture (Armengot et al. 2016). These tend to be single output with one
ground-level, yielding species. With the possible exception of an infrequent wood
harvest, the overstory trees generally have little or no productive role.
With a dense, overstory, understory yields are reduced. The reliance is upon a
very low-cost upper story to achieve a profit. Normally, the understory species is
highly shade resistant. The most common example is shaded coffee.
The nonproductive overstory provides a number of facilitative services. In cycling
nutrients, these should eliminate the need for fertilizers. Since productivity from the
shaded understory can be lower, lesser amounts of nutrients are withdrawn upon
harvest. This makes these systems self-sustaining. The heavy canopy and in-place
root structure keep soils and essential nutrients from being eroded or washed away.
Another benefit of the canopy is in water capture and retention. Helpful in this is
the water-holding ability of the soil humus layer. Shade systems should equate with
forest plantations or natural forests in this regard.
With two canopies, there is usually not enough light to support more than the
planned plant species. This means weeding costs are very low. With plenty of
predator-prey relationships, insect losses should be minimal. There are three canopy
versions: (1) natural forest, (2) a purposeful shade species, and (3) wood-producing
plantation.
Glossary 379
Natural Forest Overstory
In order to further reduce costs and get the system up and running quickly, farmers
have the option of utilizing the trees on hand. This can mean directly replacing the
understory of the natural forest with the crop species.
In tropical regions, coffee or coca are common crops. In temperate forests, gin-
seng planted under a forest canopy is occasionally encountered.
Environmentally, this is the better of the heavy shade options. The natural canopy
will support a range of natural flora and fauna. Because light and belowground are
not uniform, productivity will vary between individual plants.
These generally find use where there are large areas of natural forest. The land
user plants throughout the natural forest. As the crop grows and marketing opportu-
nities emerge, the understory planting density may be increased.
Purposeful Shade Species
It is more than possible to find a single shade species with the best desirable charac-
teristics. The idea is to maximize yields without sacrificing any of the cost advan-
tages. This means keeping light dynamics constant while ensuring light is the only
limiting resource. All other essential resource needs of the productive plant are met
through the facilitative association with the tree.
The yield and costs associated with this strategy are a balancing act. High crop
prices can mean more light to the crop; with lower crop prices, less light should
reach the crop. With higher prices, pruning becomes an economically beneficial
option.
The common technique is to leave the main stem and main branches and cut a
portion of the secondary branches (branch pruning). If crop prices drop, the canopy
is allowed to fill out and the base amount of shade restored (for more on this, see
Pruning). As a shift toward revenue orientation, pruning may be economically pro-
hibited where labor is in short supply and/or expensive.
Wood-Producing Species
While the notion of a single, well-chosen, overstory species is enticing, some feel
that the wood produced is an exploitable resource. This means selecting a tree spe-
cies first for the retail value of the tree stems, second for characteristics as a shade
species.
If the primary species is the understory crop, this is best classified as a heavy
shade system. If the overstory tree and the resulting wood are the primary output,
this would be classified as a forest-tree plantation. This division is not solely
categorical.
As a heavy shade system, a greater emphasis would be placed on desirable plant
characteristics (DPCs), i.e., the trees with crop complementarity and with some
380 Glossary
desirable facilitative effects. The wood extracted is not the primary concern. Still,
given the large choice of tree species from which to select, the combination of good
DPCs and high wood value is more than possible.
A forest-tree plantation with productive understory would be managed as tree
plantation, i.e., the management options are silvicultural. Inclusive are even- or
uneven-aged designs. In this case, the most common understory is a forage crop and
grazing (for expanded discussion, see Desirable Plant Characteristics and/or
Silviculture).
Shelterbelts
The advantages of protecting crops from wind are well established. Worldwide, the
number of wind-protected farm plots is testament to this.
The most common barrier-type system is the windbreak. Less common, but
equally effective, are shelterbelts. The latter are generally wider, more substantial in
design, and less closely spaced within a farm landscape. For these reasons, these are
mostly encountered on larger farms and across rural landscapes located in drier,
wind-prone, agricultural plains.
Agroecology
Windbreaks and shelterbelts prevent the drying of the land, moderate temperature,
and lessen direct wind damage (e.g., lodging and sandblasting). The end goal is bet-
ter yields on nearby crops (for more on ecological benefits and joint utilization of
shelterbelts and windbreaks, see Windbreaks).
Variations
Shelterbelts offer many of the same ecological and economic benefits as wind-
breaks, except that their larger footprint on the land offers productive opportunities.
With income potential, they are less of a cost and more likely to be accepted. This
brings about design questions.
There are two variations. One would emphasize forestry (wood) outputs; the
other is more for fruit production.
For the forestry design, the outer trees are only guide species; the inner would be
harvested for wood. The fruit design has the opposite cross section. The outer trees
are fruit or nut bearing; the inner are of greater height and reinforce the primary
design purpose, that of a wind shelter.
It must be remembered that orientation is dictated by the primary use. For the fruit-
or nut-producing designs, the fruiting trees would be placed on the side with the most
light. Where a north-south orientation is possible, the trees can be on both flanks.
Glossary 381
Sigmoidal Equations
There are a number of mathematical equations that offer a classic sigmoidal form.
This form is the basis for the yield functions referred to throughout this text. Five
commonly utilized are:
Bertalanffy
(
Y = a (1 − e − bx ) = a (1 − exp ( −bx ) ) 3
3 ∧
)
Chapman-Richards
Y = a (1 − e − bx ) = a (1 − exp ( −bx ) ) c
c ∧
Gompertz
= a exp ( −b exp ( −cx ) )

− cx
Y = ae − be
Korf
(
Y = ae − bx = a exp −b ( x ∧ − c ) )
−c
Hossfeld
Y=

xc
x  c ( (( x c ) / a ))
= ( x∧c ) / b + ∧
b + 
 a 
These are shown in standard mathematical form and as spreadsheet equations. In

either form, Y is the yield, x the input being considered. The equation parameters are
a through c. All, except the last, are logarithmic.
Silviculture (Forest Management)
Forest ecosystems, if managed for useful output, are part of agroecology. This can
involve multiple goals. Wood, from one or many tree species, is the primary output.
Clean water runoff from a fauna-welcoming natural ecosystem is the secondary
goal.
382 Glossary
Within the farm landscape, these can be smallish plots. The latter are usually
planted with one or two tree species. These are considered plantations, not forests
(for more, see Plantations).
Qualifying
To be considered under a silviculture or forest management heading, the first

requirement is that these be complex agroecosystems formulated around density,
diversity, disarray, and duration. If naturally sprouting, nature most always insures
that these criteria are met.
There exists the option of enriching natural forests. If enriched with more than
one or two fruit or nut trees, these can be considered agroforests and are so managed
(see Agroforests).
In addition to wood output and bio-complexity, silviculture applies only to larger
blocks or stands. At the lower end of the range, there are stands of a few hectares.
At the high end, managed forests can span hundreds of hectares.
Whether a stand qualifies can be roughly ranked as a percent of the forest area
that lacks an edge effect. Edge effect occurs when a forest borders open, non-for-
ested land. At the forest edge, horizontal light reaches the ground and disrupts what
would be the prevailing ecology, i.e., the species composition, the branching char-
acteristics, and often the species density.
If more than 20–40% of the area is edge effect, these are best managed using the
rules for complex agroecosystems (page 109). If the edge effect is slight, the silvi-
cultural prescriptions (described in this section) apply.
The last requirement is management. If left unmanaged, these forest stands are
viewed from an ecological perspective. If planned and managed, these qualify as an
agroecological activity.
Agroecology
As with all complex agroecosystems, there are shared goals. These can include
water infiltration and the subsequent runoff of clean, potable water. Natural ecosys-
tems are reservoir of beneficial insects and can offer windbreak or erosion protec-
tion to neighboring plots. The latter tasks depend upon the positioning within the
larger farm landscape.
Economics
Stands of infrequently harvested forest trees can be economic gain. Harvests of

valuable wood can be a windfall used to pay a large bill.
In some regions where banking systems are weak, standing trees are a form of
saving. The advantage is that, over time, tree growth increases the stand value. The
Glossary 383
trees may be harvested to meet a large, long-anticipated expense, e.g., the cost of
wedding or purchase of farm equipment.
The market may be for firewood. In this case, the management would be different
than if the best return comes by way of large, high-value logs.
The economics may be contingent upon the topography. Income-earning forest
blocks are often best located on marginal land. These are areas of poor soil and/or
steep slopes where annual, higher-valued crops would not yield well. This makes
these locations ideal for perennial agrosystems that are not disturbed for long peri-
ods of time.
Along these same lines, the labor requirements for forest stands are time-flexible.
Work can be scheduled when manpower is available, not during busy periods in the
calendar. It goes without saying that forest stands are generally highly cost
oriented.
Management Prescriptions
If the area is large enough, there are a number of silvicultural instructions that
achieve the above-stated goals. These are:
1. Sparse and infrequent harvests
2. Damage-salvage cuttings
3. Species-oriented sequences
4. Senility cuttings
5. Selective-shelterwood thinnings
(a) Light crown (the French method)
(b) Heavy crown (the Danish method)
(c) From below (the German method)
6. Liberation cuttings
(a) Advancing
(b) Reverting
7. Enrichment
These are often chosen less for their labor requirements, more for the type of
wood sought. This can range from large, knot-free, high-value logs to low-valued
firewood. Anything in between is also possible.
Sparse and Infrequent Harvests
Under this management system, only a few trees are harvested, and each of the
harvests may be decades apart. In order for this to be done profitably, only the larg-
est and most valuable trees are taken. None of the smaller trees are extracted. This
finds use where the wood market, usually the export of logs, demands only large
sizes. This might also happen when there is a plywood factory which draws from
large areas of remote forest.
384 Glossary
The advantage of this system is that the full ecological character of the forest is
maintained. The disadvantages make this system highly improbable.
Because such a small volume of wood, when compared against the total, is har-
vested, this prescription requires large forest areas in order to maintain a wood
industry. As a result, there will be considerable pressure from commercial interests
for greater wood extraction.
This method would only find use in agricultural landscapes when most of the
wood taken is for firewood or construction poles. A few trees are left standing,
allowed to grow to large size and, because of this, infrequently harvested.
Damage-Salvage Cuttings
Under this prescription, the only wood harvested is from trees that have been dam-
aged, i.e., wind toppled, killed by disease, and/or have been fire damaged. If these
events are infrequent, this management system will not provide enough wood to
maintain a viable industry.
This system finds use when there are local plantations and/or regularly harvested
forests that provide the bulk of the logs. In this case, damage-salvage cuttings are
employed in nearby protected, and normally not logged, forests. The advantage is,
with caveats, a minimal impact on forest ecology (Royo et al. 2016). The disadvantage
is that commercial interests, often wood-seeking individuals, have motive to set fires.
Species-Oriented Sequences
With a species-oriented method, each cutting or harvest cycle removes a different

tree species. The cuttings can be at a 10 year or greater interval. With less species
diverse forests, e.g., those in Europe, there would be limits on the size diameter;
otherwise the impact, in terms of the number of trees removed, is very severe. In
highly species-diverse tropical forests, the impact on the forest would be far less
(Rice et al. 1997).
Designed to lessen the impact on forests, this system requires a rotation. This is
where one species is harvested in one area while, at the same time, another species
is extracted from another part of the forest. Due to the complexity, this method sel-
dom finds use.
Senility Cuttings
Some feel that the best way to lessen the impact on forest ecosystem is to only cut
overmature trees, those that would die naturally in the next few years (Seydack
1995; Seydack et al. 1995). A variation of this theme is to harvest mature trees,
those that no longer experience high growth rates.
Glossary 385
This system provides larger logs, but these must be limited. If not, the forests will
lack dead and dying trees, an ecological niche that provides food and shelter for
many bird and animal species.
Selective-Shelterwood Thinnings
Among the commonly employed management systems are shelterwood thinnings.

There are three variations, (1) light crown (also called the French method), (2)
heavy crown (the Danish method), (3) and from below (the German method).
The purpose may be to provide more logs of certain species and/or diameter
classes. Such uniformity can be more serviceable for a local wood industry. These
prescriptions are generally for use in less, species-rich forests, e.g., those in temper-
ate regions, less applicable in highly species-diverse, humid tropical forests.
The light canopy prescription first cuts the larger, less value tree species with the
goals of increasing the growth of the valuable species. Subsequent harvests still remove
the smaller, less valuable trees but also take a few of the now larger, valuable species.
The heavy crown system harvests only the largest size, dominant trees. There is
no limit on which species are cut. This opens the forest canopy for the faster under-
story growth, mostly in light-demanding species. The goal is to maintain continued
harvests of the largest trees.
The from-below method first cuts a large percentage of the lower suppressed
trees; the next harvest is also of the suppressed tree species. After a few decades,
what should be left are large diameter trees. As these larger trees are cut, the system
repeats, again starting with the suppressed understory.
Liberation Cuttings
This management method may be more suited to species-rich forest ecosystems.

One requirement is that the forest should have distinct successional phases, each
with their own mix of species. This system has two variations, (1) advancing and (2)
reverting.
When more of the valuable trees occur in the climax or ending stage of forest
succession, it is economically beneficial to rush through the less valuable intermedi-
ate succession.
The idea is that, once the climax trees are in place as the understory, a harvest is
undertaken. The purpose is to accelerate the growth of the more valuable climax
species. Since the climax species are generally more shade tolerant, this is normally
a light, overstory harvest, e.g., Mesquita (2000).
If the reverse occurs and the most valuable trees are in an intermediate forest
successional phase, it is advantageous to remove a fair percentage of the canopy.
This should favor the growth of more light-demanding, early-stage, successional
species and result in a more valuable mix of forest-tree species. This has found use
in Malaysia, e.g., Matthews (1989) and Whitmore (1975).
386 Glossary
Photo S3 A strip cleared in a natural forest. This would be the location for an enrichment planting
(Photo courtesy of the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF))
Enrichment
Rather than the strategic removal of trees as means to change the harvest mix and
improve the economics, there exists the option of planting young trees of desirable
species.
Under the hope that these will thrive, the notion is to have these for a future har-
vest. This can be scattered plantings or in narrow strips specifically cleared for this
purpose (as in Photo S3).
Silvopastoral Agroecosystems
Traditional pastures have grazing animals feeding off perennial grasses or other
herbaceous forage. This need not be the case. Animals, e.g., horses, cattle, goats,
sheep, lamas, and the like, can eat the leaves from woody plants.
Glossary 387
Agroecology
There are advantages to the agroforestry-based, silvopastoral technology. The main

one is that woody plants, once established, tend to resist arid climates and droughts
much better than grasses and other non-woody forage.
There are other advantages in that the taller trees grow out of reach of most
grazers. This brings about an on-site cut and carry, i.e., the leaves and branches are
cut and dropped to the animals waiting below (for additional discussion, see
Pastures).
Variations
As expected, there are some minor deviations of the animal-eating-trees theme.

Most of these involve the role of tree forage with regard to ground-level pasturage.
Trees Within Pastures
Where there is a wet season followed by a dry season, the pasture grasses can run
out or dry out before the end of the dry period. In this case, trees make up the differ-
ence, providing grazing and animal feed until the start of seasonal rains. This is
done in one of two ways.
For the first, the danger is that the animals will eat the tree forage before the
grasses. This can leave them with nothing to eat at the end of the dry season.
To avoid this, the trees can be a less sought-after forage source, only consumed
after the more desirable ground forage is gone. This design is animal specific, more
useful for cattle and less with all-consuming goats.
The second variation has tall trees and their leaves out of browsing harm. Out of
necessity, the grasses and other ground level forage are eaten first. After which the
tree branches are hand cut and supplied to the animals.
There is yet another variation of the silvopastoral theme. This is where forests are
thinned to promote grass growth and grazing. This technique was documented in the
Northeastern United States (Orefice et al. 2017). This is a form of taungya (see
Taungyas).
Trees Without Pasture
In tree-over-crop designs, e.g., parkland systems, the ground level can be devoted to
the crop; the tree canopy serves as a pasture of sorts. At the end of the dry season,
when forage is in short supply, the tree branches are cut and fed to animals. This
allows the trees to serve as a pasture, and the trees, with fewer branches, are less
competitive with the subsequent crop.
388 Glossary
The animals present for only a short period do, through their droppings, help fertil-
ize the site. This takes the place of slow- to-decay, on-site leaves that would normally
recycle and boost soil fertility prior to crop establishment.
Slash and Burn
For many millenniums, across many continents, slash and burn has found use. This
is where farmers cut down sections of forest or scrubland, allow the cut vegetation
to dry, burn the site, and hand plant crops.
This technique is popular as the fire ash and forest soils contain high levels of
nutrients. These produce high crop yields. In addition, intense burns kill in-soil
weed seeds. This means less maintenance/labor inputs.
Slash and burn is faulted for being environmentally destructive. This occurs
when large areas of natural forest are destroyed. The unprotected soils in large areas
of cleared ground are subject to erosion. Also, large-area clearings tend to be per-
manent, meaning forests, along with the flora and fauna contained, are lost.
This is the negative side of slash and burn agriculture. There are positive uses.
As is traditional, small groups, inhabiting large areas of forest, practice slash and
burn. Their plots, scattered across large areas, tend to be small in size. In many
aspects, these duplicate gaps that occur naturally in forests.
The trees that establish tend to be from an earlier stage in the forest cycle than
these climax trees that are in place before the slash. Since these gaps are often filled
through seeds deposited by birds, the resulting regrowth is often friendly to these
bird species. In general, end-of-farming tree growth promotes a more biodiverse
forest.
There is another benign use of slash and burn. This is in regions where the forest
is long gone. The slash and burn process occurs as part of a long fallow cycle. After
a 5- to 10-year period, the shrub vegetation is cut and burned; crops are then planted.
If well done, i.e., without erosion or other damaging results, this can be an accept-
able, low-intensity farming method (for peripheral topics, see also Duration under
Fallows, also Slash and Char, and Slash and Mulch).
Slash and Char
In the preparation of long fallowed or virgin forest for agricultural use, the woody
vegetation is cut and allowed to dry. Instead of surface burning as in a slash and burn
approach, the wood is burnt in covered pits; the intent is to produce large volumes
of charcoal.
This is mixed into the soil with animal manure, fertilizer, or some other high-
nutrient material. Although the exact process is not fully understood, the purpose is
to produce nutrient holding tierra prieta soil (for more on this topic, see Tierra
Prieta).
Glossary 389
Slash and Mulch
In contrast to slash and burn, there is the less destructive slash and mulch. Both slash
and mulch and slash and burn deal with the same situation, that of converting forest
or scrub-covered land to post-fallow agricultural use. The difference is that, instead
of burning, the leaves from the dry vegetation are allowed to drop and decay in
place.
As the woody branches are very low in essential elements and are slow to decay,
they may be removed and utilized for other purposes. This is done after the leaves
naturally dropped off. The common use for the branches is as firewood.
The advantages of slash and mulch lie with the full complement of nutrients
remaining on-site. Also, due to the ground cover, there is a very large reduction in
the erosion danger.
On the negative side, the slow-decaying leaves do not always release the con-
tained nutrient in accordance with agricultural requirements. Without the added
check of a burn, weeds may flourish in the available sunlight and essential resources.
This technique is generally not suitable when, e.g., broadcast grains are the upcom-
ing crop.
Solution Theory (Landscape)
In formally modeling complex farm landscapes, it is entirely possible, and quite

probable, that multiple optimal or multiple near-optimal solutions exist. It is also
conceivable that these solutions will vary greatly in the range and application, i.e.,
the design of one farm solution could vary greatly from the next even through these
farms are of similar size, layout, objectives, and physical presence (e.g., soil type).
Solution theory pushes this line of development along a logical path. There is the
why, i.e., why farms are much alike even though other, more diverse, options and
alternatives may fit one land user better than another.
Distillation
The likenesses between farms are the result of concordance of traditions, societal
values, economic influences, and user knowledge. These likenesses, as compared
with the possible, distill out these semblance-producing influences.
The lack of individuality between factory farms can result from different forces
or influences. Restating the list presented in Chap. 9, these can be:
(1) Economic (a thriving trade in one commodity)
(2) Governmental (extension agents pushing one crop or form of agriculture)
(3) Societal (the community accepts and exerts subtle influence that results in
everyone doing the same thing)
390 Glossary
(4) Commercial (merchants marketing specialized products designed for one and
only one form of production)
(5) Banks and lending (for agreed-upon farm equipment, farm structures, land
modifications, etc.)
(6) Crop needs (dictates similarities in field layout, irrigation, etc.)
(7) User knowledge (where there is limited cognition as to the agronomic possibili-
ties which causes all to raise only one or a few crops)
(8) The site (the soils, topography, and climate that may favor one
agrotechnology)
Logical Outcome
Individual farms differ in terms of their site, surroundings, soils, crops, weather pat-
terns, and yields. As an economically optimized series of agrosystems, each could
and should differ in the types of agroecology employed. This results in farms, even
neighboring holdings, that would be visually different in their layout and composi-
tion. The degree in which this holds true is another aspect of solution theory.
It also holds that, in order to achieve the optimum result, the best expressions of
agroecology are farms that are quite different. This would be more apparent when
the topography is extremely variable. The inverse of this theorem, as their reliance
upon agroecology lessens and the topography becomes less variable, is the plots and
the farms begin to resemble each other.
Underlying solution theory is the notion that biodiversity is not only expressed in
the number and populations of the plant species present. Biodiversity is also mani-
fested in the types, i.e., designs, of agroecosystems. The more the better, the more
diverse the better.
It is possible to take this concept to its logical endpoint. The more each farm var-
ies from others in their crops, soil types, and plot layouts, the greater the inter-farm
differences should be. This would appear in the range of agrotechnologies employed.
Streuobst
A German/middle European form of agroforestry, the streuobst consists of a mixed-

species orchard, of apples, pears, cherries, plums, etc. Another feature, animals are
allowed to consume the fallen, non-harvested fruit.
As orchards, these are ordered, not disarrayed systems. In their traditional use,
they were not extensive in area and and they had a distinct placement. These were
normally located near barns and homes, outside the vegetable gardens, but interior
to fields where the staple crops are grown.
Glossary 391
Strip Cropping
As an agrotechnology, strip cropping can alternate strips of annual crops or peren-

nial species. The strip contents can be woody or non-woody. Also possible are facil-
itative strips. These might have a nutrient-beneficial, inter-strip rotational pattern
where one strip is planted while the neighboring strips are fallowed.
In normal usage, the width of each strip is set by different factors. One of these
would be the width of farm equipment. Width would be constant across the entirety
of the agrosystem in question.
Agroecology
The primary reasons for strip systems lie along two fronts. The first is the contour
placement and the anti-erosion, water-infiltration benefits of this layout. The second
and lesser reason lies with insect control where this layout can discourage those
insects that feed on specific crops.
Other than the above, gains come by way of special-purpose designs. These
designs focus on the nutrient possibilities and, again, to a lesser extent on control-
ling unwanted insects.
Standard Design
The normal layout would be strips that contour shallow hillsides. These systems
would be for annual crops.
On the steeper sites, 3 meter width is suggested; for flatter areas, a greater width
is possible. Where hand cultivation is utilized, there is more flexibility in strip width.
Sans farm machinery, erosion control would be the main width determinate. As
mentioned, farm equipment commonly sets the strip width.
Another key factor, there should be different crops on abutting strips. Any num-
ber of crop types could be employed; two would be the minimum. This would both
improve erosion and insect control. If the strips are in direct, close contact, adjoin-
ing strips should have a high degree of interspecies compatibility.
Variations
Beyond the standard design, variations are more than possible. One small change is
a buffer species located between adjoining strips. These species are short and deep
rooted so as not to interfere with crops.
The non-woody perennial vetiver is common in frost-free applications. If the
buffer species is a seasonally pruned woody perennial, this system can easily trans-
form in to a hedgerow alley agrotechnology (as in Photo 4.2, page 66).
392 Glossary
Facilitative Designs
It may be in a farmer’s best interest to plant only alternate strips. The unplanted
strips are facilitative additions, harboring predator insects that spillover into the
crops. It is also possible that the facilitative strip can be a source of nutrient-rich
biomass that is cut and carried to the crop, e.g., Kwesiga and Coe (1994).
The biomass can be planted for this purpose, used both for crops and for forage.
This strip could also be a productive fallow, e.g. off-season grazing.
There are different combinations of these themes. A pairing of the crop with the
correct, nutrient content biomass is possible. For a two-crop, alternative-row, strip
design, every other row would contain the best biomass type.
These facilitative systems can be part of a crop rotation. Alternating strips, those
in fallow, would provide insect and other forms of support to an active crop strip. To
avoid a weed bloom, the fallow strip might be planted with some superior nutrient-
supplying, weed-excluding, facilitative cover crop.
The facilitative strip design can help in the harvest. The facilitative strip can
serve as a short-duration road, allowing ease of removal for a high-volume, high-
weight crop, e.g., melons or pumpkins.
Most often the facilitative strip would contain perennial, non-woody vegetation.
It is also possible that the facilitative swath contains a wood shrub or short tree.
Bamboo has been used in nutrient-supporting design, i.e., where the bamboo is
cut and burned to supply directly planted crops or cut and burned on an adjacent
crop strip (e.g., Christanty et al. 1997). If the facilitative strip is replaced by single
or double tree rows, this is a variation of alley cropping.
Productive Tree Strips
In a variation of the tree-row system, a strip can contain a productive shrub or tree.
The intent is to have alternate strips for the woody perennial; the other, alternating
and non-adjoining strips are open for a variety of crops. As with the tree-row sys-
tem, the woody plants cannot over hang the crop strip. Examples can include tea or
dwarf fruit trees.
If the tree strip is taller than the crop, there is a requirement for strip orientation.
The norm is for a north-south placement. As with facilitative system, this design can
be of aid with the harvest. The proviso is that the crop be harvested before the
woody strip. The now unused strip can be a temporary roadway during the brief
harvest period.
To aid in the harvest of the perennial strip, the rows within the strip are oriented
perpendicular to the strips themselves. This is to ease the movement of workers car-
rying the harvest.
Glossary 393
Forest Strips
There are cases where crops are planted between strips of yielding trees. Instead of
one or two tree crops, the tree strips can comprise a shrub garden or a low-height
agroforest. As these ecologically resemble a natural forest, there are positive spill-
overs. High on the list are beneficial insects, e.g., predator and/or pollinating.
Also possible are crop strips between strips of natural forest. Again, positive
spillover is expected and this can be the rational for the design. An example is tea
with forest strips (Wang 1994).
With either the agroforest or the natural forest strip, the design is limited by the
inter-strip/intercrop height differential. It holds that, where there is little overtop-
ping of the crop strip by the tree canopies, a north-south orientation is needed (for
more on the intricacies of a tall tree row, see Alley Cropping, specifically tree-row
alley cropping).
Where overtopping occurs, the only alternative is a shade-resistant crop. At this
stage, transformation to a pure shade design might prove best (for more, see Shade
Systems).
Beyond the permanent crop alternating with forests strips are some pure forestry
applications. These variations, strips of young trees within a forest setting, are
intended as an enrichment mechanism. These fall outside the strip cropping into the
sphere of the enriched forest.
Stones (Clusters, Walls, etc.)
In agroecology, stones can contribute in a major or a minor way to output gains and
to system ecology. These can be as stone fencing, stone terraces, as a ground cover
in agricultural plots, or when placed around individual plants.
Agroecology
Stones provide a number of useful functions. Foremost may be their heat-holding

ability. Rocks absorb heat during the day, releasing this heat during the night. This
shields a young, sensitive crop from night cold and can mitigate some of the day-
time heat.
Other uses lie in the erosion protection. A large number of on-the-surface rocks,
those that blanket the ground, protect soils from the impact of raindrops and help
keep soils from being washed away. Well-positioned stone fences serve as anti-
erosion and as infiltration barriers.
Similarly, stones may also help hold essential nutrients on-site. In addition, rock
clusters may also function to keep weeds in check, by covering much of the ground,
394 Glossary
Photo S4 Small, rock-bordered enclosures. Here, the owner is growing grapes atop the stone
fences. The shade from the trees and grapes may be indicative of a system designed to protect from
midday, midsummer heat, rather than nighttime cold. (This photo is from the mountains of
Lebanon)
reduce the number of unwanted plants. The physical or chemical breakdown of

stones may be too slow to be a major source of mineral nutrients.
Variations
Stone clusters can consist of a few rocks placed around individual plants. If rocks
are readily available, clusters can be small enclosures, e.g., 2–6 square meters in
area. The latter usually contain annual or small perennial crops within more sub-
stantive rock borders (as in Photo S4).
The protections offered are the same as with smaller clusters. These larger-area
designs offer a bit more cropping flexibility. Both are generally revenue oriented
(for more, see Fencing and/or Barriers).
Again, if small rocks are plentiful and handy, the entire ground may be covered. This
can serve with specific perennial crops, e.g., grapes can benefit from this application.
The rocks should be small enough so as not to trip workers and impede machinery.
In yet another variation, plots can be blanketed with very small stones. These
should be small enough to allow plowing and planting. These small stones, the size
of everyday coins, have very little role in collecting and releasing heat. They do
serve to protect against erosion.
Glossary 395
Support (Physical)
The core notion behind physical support is to have living plants replace trellises. An
example that goes back to ancient Roman times had grape vines growing, not on
trellises, but on living trees. Early writers, e.g., Chaucer (1382), observed that elm
was the preferred tree to support grapes.
For these early agriculturists, the preferred canopy shape, to avoid the need for
revenue-oriented pruning, would be umbrella-shaped. An elm species with this can-
opy shape is Ulmus glabra.
Grapes-on-trees systems have fallen from use. They seem to be relegated to
remote part of the world, e.g., FAO (1994), but remain a less explored option that
might yield some benefit, especially for organic wine production.
Vine support can also aid other crops. These could be black pepper, vanilla, kiwi
fruit, hops (Photo S5), and guaraná.
A vine atop a dwarf or pruned tree is not the only option. Two more exist. More
shade-tolerant vines can be (1) grown within the canopy or (2) below the canopy
and against the trunk of the supporting tree. An example of the latter is pepper (as in
Photo 6.6, page 100).
Photo S5 A vine crop, in

this case hops, supported
by poles. The alternative is
to have the vine grown
atop a woody perennial.
Photo 6.6, page 100, shows
a living support system
396 Glossary
These systems are bicultures and, because of their unique dynamics, rank as sepa-
rate agrotechnologies. There are other forms that may, or may not, rise to this level.
There are belowground variations. These prevent over-laden fruit trees from top-
pling. Interlocking roots keep this from happening. This is done by anchoring the
roots to nearby shrubs that are planted for this purpose. Both the above- and below-
ground effects are versions of facilitation.
Taungyas
The notion of directing excess resources, during one or more temporal phases, to
companion species is not new. This has been the norm across time and cultures.
The term taungya originated in Burma during the early 1800s. It is applied to
teak plantings with farmer participation and a crop-aided establishment phase.
The taungya is a temporal agrotechnology. This has application whenever wood,
fruit, or other productive trees are planted. For management purpose, the tree is
always the primary species.
Agroecology
Conceptually, taungyas, as one temporal agrotechnology, can also be looked upon

as an across-time series of nontemporal agroecotechnologies. That is, as the trees
grow, the internal resource dynamics change. This produces, at the different stages,
situations that duplicate or are similar to other nontemporal agrotechnologies.
Economics
Taungyas exist because they confer economic advantage. Because a second crop is
planted and harvested, revenue is increased. Costs are also reduced as weeds, those
that would normally hinder tree growth, are controlled. In addition, intense farming
among the trees allows for problems to be seen and corrected quicker than if the
trees are less frequently observed.
Variations
There are four taungya variations:

(1) Simple
(2) Extended
(3) Multistage
(4) End stage
Glossary 397
The first two involve the beginning phase; the latter occurs in the final phase. It
is possible that a plantation can open with a simple taungya and close with an end-
stage taungya.
Simple Taungya
When trees are planted, they are generally small and draw few essential resources.
Weeds and/or erosion can be a problem.
The simple taungya is a way around this. Instead of fighting these forces, crops
are planted between the young trees. All can be done by one farmer (e.g., when
planting orchards) or the system can be a multi-participational endeavor (e.g., when
one group plants the trees, another plants and tends the crops). The latter is the clas-
sic case.
There are drawbacks. For the multi-participant version, success requires a high
degree of cooperation between the groups (for more see Multi-Participant
Agroecosystems).
The economic gains are clear. Rather than paying for weeding and other land
maintenance, these costs are a crop-related expense. In some situations, farmers are
willing to assume other costs, e.g., land preparation, in exchange for the right to
farm between the trees.
There are other gains. Fertilizer, applied to the crops, will aid tree growth. The
now worked and loose soils may promote water infiltration. There is also, as
mentioned, a greater monitoring of the trees as the land is intensively managed.
The taungya phase ends when tree growth and shading make farming
uneconomic.
Since the growth characteristics of the tree have some bearing on the success of
the system, caveats exist as to which crops best pair with the tree (King 1968). This
includes the main danger, insuring that crops do not overtop and steal light from the
trees.
There are also concerns with root crops that, upon harvest, might damage the
tree roots. For this, the solution might be a small, crop-free buffer zone around
each tree.
Nontemporally, these early years can also be classified as a simple, tree-with-
crop mix. Thus, the rules of intercropping (page 77) would apply. Photo 5.4
(page 85) shows a simple taungya.
398 Glossary
Extended
Rather than limit the taungya to the early establishment phase, it is possible to con-
tinue this across the life of the plantation. This differs from a long-term, tree-based
intercrop in that the understory continually changes with the different tree growth
phases. They can be anywhere from two to six cropping changes.
The first crop, planted when then the trees are small, is the most light demanding.
There can be series of crops during this initial phase. As shade increases, this may
be followed by longer-term, more shade-tolerant crop.
The latter phase is often grazing with a shade-resistant forage crop. After some
years, the trees could be thinned, and understory conditions might again favor light-
demanding short-duration crops. Latter stage thinning is found with some forest-
tree plantations.
The economic gains come from the crops and the trees. The shared costs, e.g.,
plowing, weeding, should be lower than if raising the trees and crop separately.
The stages of the extended are definable in their nontemporal form. At first these
are mixed-species systems; they then transfigure into alley cropping or a light shade
system. In final form, these are a heavy shade design.
There are some conditions that underlie a successful extended taungya. Because
of the management complexity, these are usually undertaken by one individual or
group. Multi-participant systems are possible, but these are more difficult to man-
age. Another limitation lies with the overstory tree species. These must be highly
crop compatible.
One example comes from southern Chile. In the first few seasons, the poplar
trees are initially underplanted with maize (Photo P4), oats (Photo T1), or sugar
beets. The second phase has shade-resistant currants. The final, decade or longer,
end stage features shade-resistant grasses and grazing. The full rotation takes
20–25 years (author observed).
Multistage
Rather than having a single overstory primary species, it is possible to change the
overstory. This system starts with an orchard or tree plantation. As this nears overma-
turity, a second tree species is planted as the understory. Over time, the taller trees are
cut. The second planting replaces the first and becomes the primary species.
The system can start with a forest-tree or tree-crop plantation. When it is time to
change the initial species, the transition period is, in nontemporal form, a light or
heavy shade system. Because of the overlap, the second-phase species must have
the ability to initially survive as a shade-resistant understory species.
Not all multistage taungyas start with a tree species. It is more than possible that
the initial phase can include species such as banana or papaya.
Any fruiting or wood-producing species can follow. As the canopies of the first
phase crop intercept less light, there is wider choice of second-phase species. For this
second species, planting under an established crop can be a disadvantage when shad-
ing retards growth or an advantage when being protected from drying in the hot sun.
Glossary 399
Photo T1 The third year

of stem-planted plantation
showing oats grown under
poplar trees. (This photo
was taken in southern
Chile)
End Stage
When trees are first planted, there are excess resources available. These same condi-
tions hold true after a major thinning. The advantages are much the same as those
from the simple taungya. These late-stage systems are, in nontemporal form, also
light shade systems.
The default design has grasses and grazing under the trees. Suitable grasses will
grow even under competitive tree species, e.g., eucalyptus and pines. When the tree
species is more crop compatible, the list of understory cropping possibilities expands
greatly.
Terraces
For agriculture on steep hillsides, the terrace is a common and often a necessary
structure. These are normally found in steep, mountainous landscapes. This is
because of the associated productive and economic gains.
400 Glossary
Photo T2 Farming on a steep hillside. The lack of erosion permits farming where normally ter-
races or other countermeasures would be necessary. (This photo was taken in the Dominican
Republic)
Agroecology
The importance of terraces on steep hillsides goes without question. Their role in
erosion control is the principle reason for use. In some regions, those where the soil
are less erosion prone, it is possible to farm hillsides without investing in terraces.
This situation is found in, but not exclusive to, the mountain regions of New
Guinea and, as in Photo T2, parts of the Dominican Republic. In these exceptions,
slash and burn, not permanent on-site agriculture, is the dominant force.
In addition to preventing erosion, terraces increase the efficiency of farm work.
It is easier to operate on flatland rather than trying to labor while clinging to a steep
hillside.
There are a few other advantages. Cold air flows downward and terraces actively
shed frosts. Stone wall construction helps counter frosts. The heat absorbed during
the day is released at night. This can keep more favorable temperature during the
cooler nighttime.
There are some other gains. Flat terraces are good infiltration structures and help
keep the soil moist between periods of rainfall.
Glossary 401
Economics
For farmers, terraces can be an expensive investment. Stone terraces are more
expensive to construct than tree-faced designs. In light of the gains, many see this as
sensible investment. These can be a mainstay where population densities are high,
erosion is ever present, and flat, fertile, and well-drained land is not available nor
found in sufficient quantity.
Standard net present value analysis does not always suffice in expressing the
gains versus the benefits. Many cultures have forgone this form of analysis and
found expensive terracing to be in their best interest.
The Incas constructed finely hewn, long-lasting structures. Their descendants
still install terraces, but lacking societal organization and regime support, their
efforts are far less impressive.
Design Factors
There are three design aspects to any terrace; these are (1) the outward projection,
(2) contour positioning, and (3) the facing. The first two involve the shape with
regard to the hillside. Since each, in turn, has two variants, there are a total of four
topographic terrace options.
The third aspect is the facing, e.g., stone or grass. This defines the terrace as a
land modification agrotechnology.
Outward Projection
How a terrace projects outward from the hillside is a key aspect. A terrace can have
a flat projection. The classic examples are hillside rice paddies where the need to
hold water dictates the projection.
The other type is slope reducing. This is where the terrace surface is not level but
only reduces the degree of slope or steepness of the original, unmodified hillside.
Contour Positioning
In addition to outward projection, terraces conform to the hillside in another aspect.

They can follow a level contour. The abovementioned hillside rice paddy has a flat
projection and is contour level.
The second type is the ramp type (as in Photo T4). These do not follow a level
contour line, but contour upward or downward. The comparison is to a road zigzag-
ging up a hillside.
402 Glossary
Photo T3 A very old terrace system from the mountains of Lebanon
Variations
As discussed above, there are four possibilities based upon the above two design
aspects. Terrace can be (1) flat and follow the contour. Terraces can also be (2) flat
and ramped, (3) slope reducing and follow the contour, and (4) slope reducing and
ramped. The terrace in Photo T3 follows the contour but has a slight downward
projection. Photo T4 is of a ramp design.
Despite these variations, terraces, as land modification agrotechnologies, are
normally classified according to the facing type. Three types are in common usage:
stone, grass, or tree-faced.
Stone
A stonewall can be the retaining face or front for the rise portion of a terrace (as in
Photo 8.6, page 130, also T3 and T4). This type construction is durable and long-
lasting, confers heat-holding capacity, and is the most expensive.
Possible, and equally expensive, are terrace retaining walls made of concrete or
some other hard and durable material, e.g., a treated or a decay-resistant wood.
A less costly alternative is an earthen bank covered with large stones. These offer
erosion protection with some of the heat-maintaining advantages of rocks.
Glossary 403
Photo T4 A ramp-type terrace
Grass
Steep, soil-retaining slopes can be covered with grass. This provides the erosion
protection needed. Grass, as a form of strip arrangement, offers a habitat for
predator-prey insects. There is a cost in keeping the grass mowed or lightly grazed.
Tree
Trees are a vegetative alternative to the grass-faced retaining slope. For ease of
maintenance, these are normally small shrubs planted after earthen terraces are
constructed.
There are variations on this design. Progressive terrace is formed by first planting
a close-spaced row of trees along the line where the terrace will be. After a few
years, the pruned branches and available stones are piled against the upward side of
the trees.
This barrier traps loose and eroding soil. Over time, a tree-supported terrace will
form. Accounts say that, in forming a 35 mm high, 80 mm wide terrace on a fairly
steep slope, this takes about 6 years (Banda et al. 1994).
In another variation, the progressive terrace is constructed using tree or hedge-
row. Branches are piled and dirt is shoveled against the upward side of the hedge. In
aggressively adding soil, the hedge may be buried. This helps support the structure,
404 Glossary
while the hedge regrowth out of the terrace face allows the process to be continued
for greater height growth.
Threat Counters
(See Eco-Services)
Tierra Prieta
A lost and rediscovered technique, tierra prieta or biochar is a method for keeping
tropical soils fertile. Rather than having nutrients leach away, this involves mixing
or infusing the soil with charcoal. Effectiveness comes because the charcoal cap-
tures and lightly holds nutrients and moisture. These are still available to plants.
The technique is persistent; charcoal does not decay, and nutrients are retained
and not leached away. Reportedly, the resulting tierra prieta (meaning good earth)
has more available phosphorus, calcium, sulfur, nitrogen, greater organic content,
more micronutrients, and an improved ability to hold nutrients and moisture, There
is a growing body of research on these various gains from biochar, e.g., Atkinson
et al. (2010), Zhenga et al. (2017), Gao et al. (2016), and Yang et al. (2016).
With all these positive effects, increases in yields are expected. The amount
depends much on the starting soils. Increases of 60% have been reported, e.g.,
Genesio et al. (2015). Because the charcoal persists, high yields should last for cen-
turies (Mann 2002).
This technique was noticed in eastern Brazil. This dates from pre-Columbian
times.
The overall effect was to permit greater agricultural output and larger population
than possible with consistently poor tropical soils. This has prompted interest, and
scattered examples have been noted outside South America, e.g., Japan.
This has modern application in revenue-oriented systems. Tierra prieta would be
classed as a land modification agrotechnology.
Till/No-Till
How land is prepared prior to planting is a subject of debate both within agroecol-
ogy and within conventional agriculture. This debate looks at the advantages as well
as the disadvantages and how no-till is best put into practice, e.g., Carr et al. (2012a, b)
and Luna et al. (2012).
For conventional agriculture and agroecology, relative cost is a key point. For
agroecologists, the debate extends to the eco-services provided.
Glossary 405
Tilling
Seasonal plowing was once the standard. Although comparatively expensive, there
are some advantages. Standing vegetation is incorporated into the soil increasing
the amount of in-soil carbon and organic matter. The major gain may come through
weed control.
Early plowing can disrupt weed germination. Later plowing, after weed emer-
gence, is another alternative that will bury the first generation of weedy plants. One
disadvantage, the newly exposed soils are at threat from both wind and water.
No-Till
The comparative gains from not plowing lie in lower costs and better in-soil nutri-
ents. The lower costs stem from not expending the time and energy turning the soil.
As part of no-till, the area may be crimped prior to planting, i.e., where a heavy
roller flattens existing vegetation.
Compared with plowing, the nutrient dynamics of no-till are far superior. In one
study, the nitrogen requirement for corn was 25% lower in no-till compared with a
tillage-based rotation. Also, phosphorus needs were 30% lower and yields higher
after 20 years of no-till (Anderson 2016).
Whereas tilling can reduce weed populations, no-till systems are fully exposed.
This has led to the combination of no-till, herbicides, and herbicide-resistant crops.
Without herbicides, there might be some initial reprieve as weeds adapt to the
new growing environment, but this will not last. Eventually, weed populations will
eventually reach crop-crippling levels (Halde et al. 2015).
For no-till systems, the weed problem will be addressed with traditional coun-
ters. These would include weed-resistant or weed-tolerating crop varieties, dense
planting, intercropping, cover crops, and rotations. In one study, weed populations
fell more than 90% when alfalfa followed soybean and slightly less when alfalfa
followed corn (Anderson 2017) (for more on this line of development, see Weed
Control).
Trap Crops
The underlying notion behind a trap crop is to lure harmful insects away from a
valuable species onto a less valuable plant. This can be associated with field margins
that are rich in predator insects. Trap crops can be part of a push-pull where a repel-
lent plant, interplanted with the crop, keeps the unwanted insects from returning.
There are also versions where trap or decoy plants, once heavily populated with
herbivore insects, are sprayed with insecticides. The idea is to reduce the volume of
insecticide used.
406 Glossary
Either use is best if the plot is so designed. Trap crops are often found in field
margins. The most effective design forgoes large plots, using instead margin-
bordered strips (for more, see Field Margins). The spray approach would have a trap
crop planted every few rows.
Parker et al. (2016) found that diverse trap crops are more effective. Also, they
function well without insecticides.
Another strategy might employ a cover crop that lures insects. This would work
only if the plots are well stocked with predator insects. If not, there is the danger that
this approach would allow the herbivore types to breed and their numbers to grow.
As an added note, trap crops have been effectively employed against below-
ground nematodes (Navarrete et al. 2016). In this case, populations declined by
80–90%. The trap crop was a variety of pepper (Capsicum spp.). Successes of this
magnitude may be narrowly tailored, i.e., limited to a few pepper varieties (Laxa
et al. 2016).
Traps
An often overlooked aspect of insect management is the use of killing, capturing, or

ensnaring devices. In addition to insects, these are also employed to snare rodents
and fruit- or grain-eating birds. In their most promising form, they reduce the popu-
lations of plant-consuming insects. These come in different forms,
(a) Lure and kill
(b) Lure and contain
The lure, for rodent and birds, is some form of food source. For insects, attracting
pheromones are growing in popularity. The list of insects that can be so attracted is
also expanding. As an outbreak defense, these are effective against, e.g., apple mag-
gots, bag worms, corn earworms, European corn borers, fruit flies, and peach tree
borers.
As more of a monitoring tool and less a control measure, traps have a role in
integrated pest management. The number and location of insects caught will decide
if an outbreak defense, including possibly more traps, will be situated.
Lure and Kill
When traps are mentioned, most think of poisoned bait. Rodents and harmful birds
can fall victim to this form of trap. This strategy can also be utilized again insects
and other pests. The danger is that, unless well designed, harmless fauna can fall
victim.
Glossary 407
For a trap of simple design, saucers are filled with beer. These are placed at
ground level to trap and drown slugs. With this design, only the targeted slugs are at
risk.
More technically astute designs lure through attractant chemicals. Inside the trap
is a poison. This is the kill mechanism.
There are dangers; poison in the environment goes against the precepts of agro-
ecology. Despite this prohibition, there are toxins that are species specific or that are
chemically unstable and do not linger in environment. These can overcome the
poison-in-the-environment objection. These tend to be used against rats and mice,
less against birds and insects.
Lure and Contain
The other version attracts and imprisons the pest. These can later be removed and
disposed of. In a simple example, a trap for destructive ants consists of a coconut
with a single hole. Buried in the earth, ants are drawn in the trap, and the trap is
removed and emptied of ants. It can later be repositioned (Brown and Marten 1986).
For most used, the pest, rather than a user preference, dictates whether the trap is
lure and kill or lure and contain. Part of the decision process depends if the trapped
organism has value, for example, when captured insects are added to chicken feed.
Traumatic Release
Repellent plants can be integral in an insect control strategy. These are plants that
naturally release aromatic compounds that drive away unwanted insects.
Repellent plants are a maintenance strategy and an in-place control. The intent is
to keep insect populations low and at sustainable levels. Sustainability refers to
amount of damage inflected on the crop and that any ensuing losses are economi-
cally acceptable. The everyday release of repellent compounds is also generalist
strategy, not designed for any one specific insect species, but to repel all types.
The more intense form is traumatic release. This is still a part of a generalist
strategy but used as a counter for the rise in the populations (one or more) of herbi-
vore insects.
In traumatic release, some of the leaves of repellent plants are scathed or shred-
ded. This allows for a greater release of the insect-repelling aromatic chemicals.
Cutting may work; however more may be released shredding or crushing the leaves.
This starts near where an insect outbreak is happening or anticipated. Monitored
closely for effectiveness, the process may ultimately involve a larger area.
This requires that the repellent plant be grown along the small plots. For larger
plants, the plants must be intercropped or row planted with the plot. If this is not
possible, cut-and-carrying repellent vegetation to a potential insect outbreak would
be part of traumatic release.
408 Glossary
Photo T5 Limes, in the background, being grown with banana and cassava
Tropical Homegardens
(See Agroforests)
Tree-Over-Crop Agroecosystems
There are productive agrotechnologies that have trees over seasonal crop, a non-
woody perennial or a woody perennial. There are two distinguishing characteristics:
(1) all the species are productive and (2) the upper story is well-spaced where, even
over a crop row, the canopies do not touch.
These systems would be inclusive in agroforestry. They are a seldom encoun-
tered agrotechnology.
As a perennial version of the simple intercrop. They can be found with a peren-
nial or a season understory. In all, these systems are very flexible, especially when
it comes to seasonal crops.
A wide range of seasonal species can be included in a tree-crop or orchard envi-
ronment. The only real limitation may be with root crops, e.g., potatoes and cassava,
where the tree roots can be problematic during harvest. This is a lesser limitation as
root crops have been found, e.g., rubber trees with cassava. There are also harvest
considerations when workers must move about without impediment.
Glossary 409
Agroecology
As with most tree-based systems, there are ecological gains. Being perennial sys-
tems, one can expect these to be more ecologically active than with seasonal bicul-
tures. Expected are favorable insect dynamics, less diseases, and no erosion. As
with a shaded understory, these follow the general rules for shade systems (page 78).
Economics
The economics is simple, to maximize plot yield and revenue. The LER is often the
acceptance criteria. As a result, the majority of these are revenue orientated.
Examples
In addition to trees with annual crops, there are trees with woody and non-woody
perennials. A sample list includes:
Breadfruit and jackfruit Macadamia nut and papaya

Cloves and banana Olive and grape
Coconut and cacao Olives and opuntia
Coconut and pineapple Rubber and cacao
Grape and almond Rubber and coffee
Truant Resources
Within agriculture, there are mineral resources, especially applied chemical fertil-
izers and animal manures, that are not taken up by plants and escape a site. These
resources, when they cause mischief, are truant from the system. Often they pollute
standing or flowing water.
On the macroscale, dead zones in the world’s oceans are a direct result of fertil-
izer runoff. These are found at the mouth of the Mississippi River, in Lake Erie, and
in the Baltic.
When the damage is economically valued, this should be considered as cost in a
cost-benefit assessment. The problem is that this damage, indirect and, at times,
distant from a plot, can be very difficult to assess and monetarize. The economics
are more pronounced if viewed from the perspective of nutrients paid for, but not
used.
The solution is to wisely apply fertilizers and other external nutrients. This is
more easily said than done. Tierra prieta (biochar), used to keep these on-site, is an
expensive counter.
410 Glossary
Photo W1 A less-than-common method to harvest subsurface water. As an alternative to the bore-

hole or well, hillside tunnels are seldom encountered and often date to antiquity. This example is
from Lebanon
The tried-and-true method is the use of riparian buffers. These can stop most of
the runoff and can even channel otherwise lost nutrients for productive use (for
more, see Riparian Buffers).
Vines
(See Support (Physical))
Water Channels
Among the land modification agrotechnologies are small canals or channels used to
convey water across farm landscapes. These can be a supporting feature for produc-
tive agrotechnologies, but within their own right, these can be an ecological and an
economic feature within the farm landscape.
Those being discussed here are small, usually not more than a meter wide. These
can be dry some of the year or flow year round. Even though these channels are
small, there are minor opportunities for productive or protective inclusions (for
more, see Riparian Buffers).
Glossary 411
Agroecology
As single-purpose systems, water channels would seem to be of little ecological

interest. In many farm landscapes, this would be the case. Where channel water is
for human consumption, clear, cool water results were the water course is over-
topped and, through nutrient uptake, cleaned by vegetation.
Where the water is only utilized for irrigation, there is less of a requirement for
clean water. In many cases, nutrient-laden water may ultimately be better for crop
growth.
There is still the requirement that these channels not silt up nor the banks col-
lapse. With this in mind, channels, being a rich water source, can expand cropping
opportunities. This would be secondary perennial plants that can grow along and
support the channel banks.
Design
There are some general guidelines for vegetation along channels. Normally, trees
are grown only on the uphill side. On the downhill side are grasses, cover crops, or
other small protective plants. There is a good reason for this. When cleaning, there
is room to shovel the channel silt and deposit it to build up the lower bank.
The other design option is much the same; only a few, widely spaced trees are
placed along the lower bank. This still leaves space for cleaning, but with greater
support and additional shading of the water. The water channel pictured in Photo 8.1,
page 119, is lined and therefore less an ecological, more of an economic feature.
Water-Breaks
As part of a series of anti-flood defenses, strips of trees or shrubs can be placed

across flood-prone lands. These cross plots such that the flowing water is slowed,
erosion is prevented, and waterborne silt is deposited.
These bio-structures are employed when flooding is an irregular occurrence, but
when it does happen, valuable soils are washed away. These structures can have
multiple eco-purposes, i.e., they can double as travel corridors, windbreaks, and/or
animal fencing. Examples of the in-use possibilities are found in Wallace (1997)
and Nabham and Sheridan (1977).
Water Harvesting
This text discusses the use of infiltration barriers and like structures to slow water
and allow it to infiltrate into the soil. The purpose is to limit how much of the rainfall
is lost to a site and to maximize how much is available to present and future crops.
412 Glossary
Water flowing underground is less likely to be lost (as happens with uncontrolled
surface flows). Once underground, the hope is that it will linger and, over a growing
season, crops will directly uptake this water.
If not directly uptaken through roots, the moisture can surface, nearby or far
away, through springs and wells, or eventually flow, underground, directly into
streams and rivers.
As a subsurface source, the water should be clean and long-lasting. The effec-
tiveness of crop-supporting infiltration would depend on a cooperating soil structure
and area geography.
Infiltration can be done through active vegetation, either purposely planted or
though left-in-place natural plants (for more, see also Catchments, Cover crops, and/
or Mulch). Other non-vegetative mechanisms of infiltration may also be utilized (for
more on this aspect, see Infiltration, Cajetes, Mounds, Terraces, and/or Barriers).
Water harvesting also applies when surface flows are used at a nearby or a distant
site. In many cases, long-term use requires storage ponds (see Ponds). There are
some inherent disadvantages. With surface flows, there are evaporative losses. There
are also heavy-rain overflow losses.
Weed Control
Weeds may be the greatest threat to cropping and one of the most difficult to over-
come. From one source (Gharde et al. 2018), crop yield losses, plot-wise, range to
a high of about 75%. On the macroscale, the overall losses are put at about 25%.
These numbers are for the major crops of India.
When one thinks of weeding method, what comes to mind are hand, mechanical,
and chemical weeding. There are options which, in addition to physical removal,
lessen the weed populations.
Questions arise on how this is best done. In general, integrated weed manage-
ment is an unsettled topic.
The fault lies with the widespread use of herbicides. This has delayed progress
on the nonchemical alternatives (Liebman et al. 2016).
There are quite a few control options. As with most threat-countering methods,
only a few are stand-alone. For most, effectiveness can be increased by simultane-
ously employing more than one.
Listed the counters are:
Hand weeding
Plowing (tillage)
Timing
Fire
Varietal resistance
Crowding
Intercropping
Cover crops
Glossary 413
Rotations
Mechanical
Fallows
Mulch
Ducks/geese
Chemical (herbicides)
Miscellaneous
Hand Weeding
Hand removal is often the best course of action. The variations are:
(1) Total removal
(2) Selective weeding
(3) Near the plant
(4) Away from the plant
Total removal is where all the weeds are removed or killed. This is the most com-
mon anti-weed strategy.
Second on the list is selective weeding. Farmers know from experience which
weeds are bad (have the most negative effect on the crop) and which are good (coex-
ist, are complementary, or are slightly crop facilitative, e.g., help control erosion).
The good weeds remain; the bad are removed.
Photo 6.1 (page 93) is a close-up of selective weeding that has resulted in the
edible weed purslane being employed as a cover crop beneath a pumpkin crop. This
species was brought to the fore by the removal of the other weed species. To prevent
the purslane from becoming troublesome, some advise mowing, but not weeding.
The third option is to weed only near the plant. The assumption is that those
weeds outside a crop-weed buffer do-less-harm. There is also the possibility that
these weeds, in harboring predator insects, may do more good than harm.
The forth option is away-from-the-plant weeding. The assumption here is that
the crop can dominate and suppress nearby weeds. The greater threat comes mainly
from those unwanted plants out of the reach of crop. Fast-growing crops with dense
canopies are more likely to be weed dominant.
Tillage
The tilth can set back weed growth. The key lies in the type and timing, e.g.,
Brandsæter et al. (2017).
The mechanisms are clear. One option, a seasonally late, deep plowing before
planting, but after weed emergence, allows crops a period to gain ascendency over
the weeds. As a related option, an early, deep plowing can bury weed seeds. Many
would be too deep to sprout.
414 Glossary
Conventional agriculture has embraced no-till because it saves on plowing costs.

To eliminate weeds, herbicides have been the go-to counter. The combination, her-
bicides and no-till, is effective against weeds, e.g., Anderson (2017). This may be
proceeded, to effect, by crimping where the existing vegetation is rolled flat, e.g.,
Ciaccia et al. (2015).
This is only seasonal. The initial weed reduction will not last (Halde et al. 2015).
This is an unsettled topic with many, as of yet, unresolved counter combinations.
If plowing is not used, weed control may be best if based on other countermeasures.
For example, it has been shown that tillage is less important than rotations (TerAvest
et al. 2015).
Timing
Since weeding is not a daily activity, the decision is to weed early when these plants
are small or to wait. Timing also applies to tillage (above).
Fire
Post-fallow, pre-planting fires, especially a hot, fuel-rich burn, can destroy in-soil
seeds and permit the crop some weeks of weed-free growth. This can be part of
post-fallow strategy where the burn adds to the fallow effect.
Varietal Resistance
Some crops and/or some varieties are better able to tolerate weeds more than oth-
ers. These varieties exist for many crop species. The mechanisms vary. These can
include the ability to tolerate weeds or to actively suppress, through allelopathic
properties, weed competition. It has been shown that taller maize with a larger
leaf area yielded better than shorter, less leafy varieties (Boydston and Williams
2016a and b).
Crowding
Suppressing weeds by crowding them out is an obvious counter. It carries the pro-
viso that the crops have initial ascendency over aspiring weed species.
This is done through dense monocropping. Increased per-area density can be cou-
pled with a weed-resistant crop, e.g., Bajwa et al. (2017) and Mhlang et al. (2016).
Density carries an additional cost (more seeds) and may entail an additional risk.
The crops may be less able to tolerate lower-than-normal rainfall.
Glossary 415
Intercropping
The alternative to planting the primary crop in high density is to plant a second spe-
cies. The mechanism relies less on physically crowding out weeds, more occupying
all the essential resource niches.
Intercropping can have a similar effect. The classic example remains the weed-
controlling, maize, bean, vine-squash combination.
Cover Crops
A purposefully planted understory species can play a number of facilitative roles.

Weed control would be high on this list. Cover crops are clearly effective when used
as an understory during the cropping season. The mechanisms are the same as with
intercropping. The affects are well documented, e.g., Masilionyte et al. (2017).
Cover crops are also effective as an off-season counter. For example, Buchanan
et al. (2016) found a 50% reduction in seeds and better crop yields when a winter
cover was utilized.
Rotations
Rotations are a mainstay against most common weed species, e.g., Koocheki et al.
(2009) and Eshel et al. (2015). To date, this is another unsettled topic with consider-
able potential, e.g., Boydston and Williams (2016a and b) and Shahzad et al. (2016).
In one study, weed populations fell more than 90% when alfalfa followed soybean
and slightly less when alfalfa followed corn (Anderson 2017) (for more on this line
of development, see Rotations).
There may be a need to target one weed species. Rotations make it possible to
disrupt the life cycle of the weed being targeted. A notable example is the weed
striga which is parasitic on maize. This weed is disrupted by a false host planted in
the proceeding planting cycle.
Mechanical
This form of weeding utilizes a tractor or hand-pushed implement, one that rakes
the between-row soil. This is an away-from-the-plant method that, if used alone,
relies on the crop having weed resistance.
Mechanical weeding can be coupled with hand weeding. For this, where the first
pass is mechanical, the second go-around is a close-to-the-plant, hand weeding.
416 Glossary
Fallows
This is also a time-tested, weed elimination method. The main requirement is there
being enough time such that the potential weed species are replaced by an ecosys-
tem succession.
Weed species are normally considered as eliminated when the broadleaf, woody
vegetation begins to emerge. This generally takes about 5 years (for more, see
Fallows).
Mulch
The covering of the soil with dead vegetation is good against erosion, less so against
weeds. This can be cut and carried; more often this is the residual biomass from the
previous season’s crop. The usual outcome may be a delay in weed competition.
Effectiveness is increased if the mulch has allelopathic properties. A mulch layer
may also help by promoting the decay of weed seeds.
A less than natural variation is the use of plastic sheeting. As a soil cover, this
finds application with higher-valued vegetable crops. Clearly effective, weeds can
still emerge next to desired plants. There are questions on cost as well as the dis-
posal of the used plastic.
Ducks/Geese
These birds will eat weeds if fenced and provided they do not consume the crop, e.g.,
geese have proven effective in cotton, strawberries, and in taller, more mature maize.
Chemical
The development of herbicide-resistant, GMO crops has allowed for the widespread
use of herbicides. Widespread, these poise a threat and are not advocated.
On occasion, farmers spray with weed-suppressing solutions. These home rem-
edies usually have a high or a low pH and kill leaves on contact. These solutions do
not kill roots, but do allow time for crops to gain ascendency. Being indiscriminate,
they must not come into contract with the crop.
Miscellaneous
There is interest in microbes in the form of plant diseases that attack and kill targeted
weeds. The use of bio-herbicides has gained some traction (Cordeau et al. 2016)
There is evidence that specific insects can play of role. One study has ground
beetles eating 73% of the weed seeds (Petit et al. 2017).
Glossary 417
Goals
In controlling herbivore insects and other threats, the goal is to have a diverse array
of mutually supporting eco-services. If one fails or is weak, others complete the
protection. Ideally, the theory should be strong, i.e., knowing whether a matrix line
is additive or some other function. More important, in-field effectiveness should be
assured.
For weed containment, the natural counters, individually, have yet to live up to
their full potential. There is also far less understanding on how, in combination, the
weed counters, e.g., rotations, tillage, timing, etc., mutually reinforce.
Windbreaks
A standard feature of many flat, open, windy, agricultural landscapes is the use of
wind-blocking tree barriers. These can be as windbreaks or, within large farms or
across regions, a mix of smaller windbreaks and larger, more substantial
shelterbelts.
Agroecology
Windbreaks, in addition to their main role of blocking the wind, accomplish a num-
ber of ecological tasks. A reduction in wind speed diminish plant transpiration and
soil drying. These can have a substantial effect upon yields.
Windbreaks also eliminate sandblasting, where wind-borne sand particles strike
and injure plant leaves and stems. The healing needed slows growth and lessens
yields.
The positive effects of a wind-sheltered environment transfer to domestic ani-
mals. Being protected from hot or cold winds allows for faster and greater weight
gain. Protection also reduces the mortality for the more susceptible young animals.
As a side benefit, windbreaks can serve as live fencing. In the off-season, when
crops are not in place, a reduction in winds prevents soil erosion. It should be noted
that windbreaks do more than just block winds.
These structures can be a habitat for both pollinating and predator insects. They
can increase the effectiveness of the latter. One reason is that slower winds make
predator insects more effective. This is not minor. Numerically stated, these insects
can be 66% more effective at their assigned task (Barton 2014).
Given the totality of potential eco-services, the notion of using a single counter
against diverse threats is very much alive. Windbreaks/shelterbelts merit a matrix
column and, correspondingly, field consideration.
With all the eco-service possibilities, one should not be distracted. Any second-
ary purposes should add, not take away, from their primary function (Sudmeyer and
Speijers 2007).
418 Glossary
Design
The effectiveness (or wind-blocking ability) is generally a function of height and

density. In the design, the height extends the effective distance. This distance can be
further lengthened if the wind structure is wind permeable.
Permeability means close-spaced trees with open, less dense canopies or slightly
wider spacing with many small, inter-tree gaps. A few large gaps can cause wind
tunnel effect, i.e., localized areas where the force of the wind is forceful and often
damaging (for more on this, see Wind Tunnel Effect).
In practice, shelterbelts are usually placed 50–60 heights apart, and windbreaks
are spaced 30 heights apart. The height measurement refers to the vertical altitude
of the wind structure.
Figure 3.2, page 51 shows the placement of a shelterbelt/windbreak system. If
the plots are large, usually some measure is taken for internal protection. Figure 3.2
shows a parkland system augmenting the windbreak.
Another large-plot option is small, sub-windbreaks. The plot and crop can be
internally protected by short, multi-seasonal, non-woody windbreaks, e.g., sugar-
cane (Photo 6.2, page 96) or Jerusalem artichoke.
Less effective are seasonal windbreaks. Photo W2 has a row of maize wind pro-
tecting a cabbage/hot pepper intercrop.
Photo W2 A short-
statured, seasonal,
windbreak. This has maize
protecting a cabbage/hot
pepper intercrop. To the
left is a carrot monocrop
Glossary 419
As to effectiveness, Zhang Fend (1996) found, with a combination of shelterbelts

and windbreaks on a windy Mongolian plain, wind velocity decreased by 32–38%.
This brought about increase in soil moisture by 3–6%, a decrease in summer tem-
peratures by 0.1–0.7 °C, and an increase in winter temperatures by 0.5–1.6
°C. Seemingly small, this increased maize yields by 64% and millet yields by 70%.
Variations
In contrast to the wider shelterbelt (for more on these designs, see Shelterbelts),
windbreaks range from one to three species wide. Height depends upon use and
location. The key design features are dense, wind-restricting base, a slightly less
dense canopy above the height of the crop, with much less density higher up.
The purpose of less density higher up is to reduce the side pressure on the trees,
i.e., to keep them from toppling. The latter is more important with single tree-row
windbreaks. This is less an issue with mutually supporting multi-species designs.
Wind Tunnel Effect
The design of farm landscape and of individual plots, if poorly thought out, can lead
to a wind tunnel effect. This is where prevailing winds, when passing through an
agroecosystem, are channeled and their velocity accelerated. These effects can be
negative. This can cause plant drying and sandblasting from the wind-borne soil
particles.
Wind tunnels come in different forms. The first is where breezes are concentrated
when flowing under plants. This can happen when winds are channeled under a row
of dense-canopied trees.
A second form has winds converging between and along rows between tall
plants. The third effect is the side swirl where winds intensify when rounding the
corner of a tall, tree-based ecosystem.
The counter to the tunnel and swirl lies either in the orientation of the rows or the
orientation of an entire agroecosystem. These can also be countered through changes
in internal design and/or by establishing a protective and surrounding wind barrier.
Although a minor, often overlooked effect, wind channeling is a consideration.
420 Glossary
Yield Functions
(See Sigmoidal Equations)
Yield Gap Analysis
Yield comparisons can be made on any level and for any purpose. Normally, the
comparison is what can or should be against what is. A yield gap can result. For
example, per-area output can be used to compare yields in good seasons with those
where the weather is not favorable. In agroecology, this can measure the resilience
of an agrosystem to climatic adversity.
This type of analysis manifests in many forms and for many purposes. The yield
gap was once used to present conventional agriculture, agrochemicals, and GMO
crops included, in a highly favorable light.
This argument was exampled in Chap. 10 (with Fig. 10.1, page 158, showing the
equational location of the gap). The gist of the argument is that the high yields
obtainable cannot not be surpassed and that, without these, populations could not be
fed. This argument has been debunked (National Academies of Science, Engineering,
and Medicine 2016; Hakim 2016).
In agroecology, these upper limit yields have value as they anchor the sigmoidal
curves (as in Fig. 10.1). Beyond this, the concept falters as meaningful measure.
There are two main reasons for this.
The first is that intercrops can exceed, in total, per-area useful output, anything
that is possible with monocropping. Although, the possible uppermost LER values
are, at this stage, not fully known, multi-output intercropping destroys the gap con-
cept (for more, see Upper Limit under Competitive Partitioning).
The second reason is that a yield gap assumes revenue orientation. For cost-
orientated farms, the yield gap has little worth.
The yield gap argument is a macroeconomic view of agroecology. The notion is
that extreme revenue orientation requires large quantities of many inputs. This
encourages economic activity in the ag-supporting community. For government this
is good as there is greater employment and more opportunities for tax revenue.
Policies to encourage revenue orientation include price supports, crop loss insur-
ance, cheap inputs, and extension advice on how to use these inputs.
This may not be in the best interest of farmers. Conventional and agroecologi-
cal, revenue-oriented farming is better economically served without the yield gap.
This can be more the case with a crop-balanced, lower-cost, eco-service, depen-
dent farm.
References
Abraham, L., & Joseph, P. (2016). A new weed management approach to improve soil health in a
tropical plantation crop, rubber (Hevea brasiliensis). Experimental Agriculture, 52(1), 36–50.
Akinifesi, F. K. (2010). Fertilizer trees for sustainable food security in the maize-based produc-
tion systems of Eastern and Southern African region: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 30(31), 615–629.
Alomar, O., Goula, M., & Albajes, R. (2002). Colonization of tomato fields by predatory mirid
bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) in northern Spain. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment,
89, 105–115.
Altieri, M. A., & Trujillo, J. (1987). The agroecology of corn production in Tlaxcala, Mexico.
Human Ecology, 15(2), 189–220.
Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2004). Biodiversity and pest management in agrecosystems (2nd
ed., 236p). New York: Food Products Press.
Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., & Lana, M. A. (2015). Agroecology and the design
of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(3),
869–890.
Aman, R. (1998) Rare and wild fruits of Peninsular Malaysia and their potential uses. In M. N. B
Nair, M. H. Sahri, & Z. Asharri (Eds.), Sustainable Management of Non-Wood Forest Products
(pp. 204–211). Proceedings of an International Workshop Universiti Putra Malaysia, 14–17
October 1997, Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, 327p.
Ammari, T. G., Ta’any, R. A., Abu-Baka, S., & Hasan, M. (2013). Bioremediation of extremely
salt-affected calcareous soils. Journal of Food, Agriculture, and Environment, 11(2), 1.
Anderson, R. (2016). Increasing corn yield with no-till cropping systems: A case study in South
Dakota. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(6), 568–573.
Anderson, R. L. (2017). Improving resource-use-efficiency with no-till and crop diversity.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 32(2), 105–108.
Armengot, L., Barbieri, P., Andres, C., et al. (2016). Cacao agroforestry systems have higher return
on labor compared to full-sun monocultures. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36, 70.
Assandri, G., Bogliani, G., Pedrini, P., & Brambilla, M. (2018). Beautiful agricultural landscapes
promote cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment, 256, 200–210.
Atkinson, C. J., Fitzgerald, J. D., & Hippe, W. A. (2010). Potential mechanisms for achieving
agricultural benefits from biochar applications to temperate soils: A review. Plant and Soil,
337, 1–18.
Bäckman, J.-P. C., & Tianen, J. (2002). Habitat quality of field margins in a Finnish farmland
area for bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Bombus and Psithyrus). Agriculture Ecosystems and
Environment, 89, 53–68.

422 References
Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., et al. (2007). Organic agriculture and the global food
supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2), 86–108.
Bailey, L. H. (1907). The fertility of the land. London: The MacMillian Company, 421p.
Bajwa, A., Walsh, M., & Singh Chauhan, B. (2017). Weed management using crop competition in
Australia. Crop Protection, 95, 8–13.
Banda, A. Z., Meghembe, J. A., Ngugi, D. N., & Chome, V. A. (1994). Effect of intercropping
maize and closely spaced Leucaena hedgerows on soil conservation and maize yield on a steep
slope at Ntcheu, Malawi. Agroforestry Systems, 27, 12–22.
Banful, B., Dzietror, A., Ofori, I., & Hemeng, O. B. (2000). Yield of plantain alley cropping with
Leucaena leucocephala and Flemingia macrophylla in Kumasi, Ghana. Agroforestry Systems,
49, 189–199.
Bardner, R., & Fletcher, K. E. (1971). Insect infestations and their effect on the growth and yield
of field crops: A review. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 64(1), 141–160.
Barton, B. T. (2014). Reduced wind strengthens top-down control of an insect herbivore. Ecology,
95(9), 2375–2381.
Baskin, Y. (1994). Ecologists dare to ask: How much does diversity matter? Science, 264(8 April –
5156), 202–203.
Beale, G., & Boswell, M. R. (1991). The earth shall blossom. Woodstock, VT: The Countryman
Press, 263p.
Beer, J. (1987). Advantages, disadvantages and desirable characteristics of shade trees for coffee,
cacao and tea. Agroforestry Systems, 5, 3–13.
Bell, S. (1999). Landscape patterns, perceptions and process. New York: Routledge, 344p.
Belsky, A. J. (1992). Effects of trees on nutrient quality of understory gramineous forage in tropical
savannas. Tropical Grassland, 26, 12–20.
Belsky, A. J., & Canham, C. D. (1994). Forest gaps and isolated savanna trees. Bioscience, 44(2),
77–84.
Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Ives, A. R., & Schellhorn, N. A. (2013). Interactions between conventional and
organic farming for biocontrol services across the landscape. Ecological Applications, 23(7),
1531–1543.
Blitzer, E. J., Gibbs, J., Park, M. G., & Danforth, B. N. (2016). Pollination services for apple are
dependent on diverse wild bee communities. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 221,
1–7.
Botelho, M. I. V., Cardosa, I. M., & Otsuki, K. (2016). “I made a pack with God, with nature, and
with myself”: Explaining deep agroecology. Agriculture and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(2),
116–124.
Boydston, R., & Williams, M. (2016a). Sweet corn hybrid tolerance to weed competition under
three weed management levels. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(4), 281–287.
Boydston, R., & Williams, M. (2016b). No-till snap bean performance and weed response fol-
lowing rye and vetch cover crops. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1742170516000405.
Brainard, D. C., Bryant, A., Noyes, D. C., et al. (2016). Evaluating pest regulating services under
conservation agriculture: A case study in snap beans. Agriculture, Ecology, and Environment,
235, 142–154.
Brandsæter, L. O., Mangerud, K., Helgheim, M., & Berge, T. W. (2017). Control of perennial
weeds in spring cereals through stubble cultivation and mouldboard ploughing during autumn
or spring. Crop Protection, 98, 16–23.
Bretagnolle, V., & Gaba, S. (2015). Weeds for bees? a review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 35(3), 391–409.
Brown, B. J., & Marten, G. G. (1986). The ecology of traditional pest management in Southeast
Asia. In G. G. Marten (Ed.), Traditional agriculture in Southeast Asia: A human ecology per-
spective (pp. 241–272). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 358p.
References 423
Buchanan, A. L., Kolb, L. N., & Hooks, C. R. R. (2016). Can winter cover crops influence weed
density and diversity in a reduced tillage vegetable system? Crop Protection, 90, 9–16.
Burgis, T. (2016). The Billionaire’s farm. Financial Times 39, 101(March 2):7.
Burnett, K., & Murphy, S. (2014). What place for international trade in food sovereignty. The
Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(5), 1064–1084.
Burt, C. M., & Isabel, B. (2005). Leaching of accumulated soil salinity under drip irrigation.
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 48(6), 2115–2121.
Carr, P., Anderson, R., Lawley, Y., Miller, P., & Zwinger, S. (2012a). Organic zero-till in the north-
ern US Great Plains region: Opportunities and obstacles. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 27(1), 12–20.
Carr, P., Mäder, P., Creamer, N., & Beeby, J. (2012b). Editorial: Overview and comparison of
conservation tillage practices and organic farming in Europe and North America. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(1), 2–6.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 368p.
Carter, J. (1996). Alley farming: Have resource poor farmers benefited. Agroforestry Today, 8(2),
5–7.
Charles, D. (1997). Can bison replace engines of war? New Scientist, 154(10 may – 2081), 10.
Chaucer, G. (1382). Parliament of Foules.
Christanty, L., Kimmins, J. P., & Mailly, D. (1997). ‘Without bamboo, the land dies’: A conceptual
model of the biogeochemical role of bamboo in an Indonesian agroforestry system. Forest
Ecology and Management, 91, 83–91.
Ciaccia, C., Canali, S., Campanelli, G., et al. (2015). Effect of roller-crimper technology on weed
management in organic zucchini production in a Mediterranean climate zone. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(2), 111–121.
Clark, J. S., Merkt, J., & Muller, H. (1989). Post-glacial fire, vegetation and human history on the
northern alpine foreland, south-western, Germany. Journal of Ecology, 77(4), 897–925.
Coffey, K. (2002). Quantitative methods for the analysis of agrobiodiversity. In H. Brookfield,
C. Padoch, H. Parsons, & M. Stocking (Eds.), Cultivating biodiversity: Understanding, analyz-
ing, and using agricultural biodiversity (pp. 78–95). London: ITDG Publishing, 292p.
Cohen, A. S., VanWey, L. K., Spera, S. A., & Mustard, J. F. (2016). Cropping frequency and area
response to climate variability can exceed yield response. Nature Climate Change. Published
online 7 March.
Cohn, J. P. (2005). A new breed of ranchers. The Americas, 57, 6–13.
Colbach, N., Licas, P., Cavelier, N., & Cavelier, A. (1997). Influence of cropping system on short
eyespot in winter wheat. Crop Protection, 16(5), 415–422.
Cooper, P. J. M., Leakey, R. R. B., Rao, M. R., & Reynolds, L. (1996). Agroforestry and the
mitigation of land degradation in the humid and sub-humid tropics of Africa. Experimental
Agriculture, 32, 235–290.
Cordeau, S., Trioleta, M., Wayman, S., et al. (2016). Bioherbicides: Dead in the water? A review of
the existing products for integrated weed management. Crop Protection, 87, 44–49.
Cressman, R., & Garay, J. (2011). The effects of opportunistic and intentional predators on the
herding behavior of prey. Ecology, 92(2), 432–440.
D’Acunto, L., Semmartin, M., & Ghersa, C. M. (2016). Uncultivated margins are source of soil
microbial diversity in an agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
220, 1–7.
Das, A. J., Stephenson, N. L., & Davis, R. P. (2016). Why trees die? Characterizing the driver of
background tree mortality. Ecology, 97(10), 2616–2622.
Day, S. (2001). Fight the blight. New Scientist, 171(1 September – 2306), 36–39.
de Bon, H., Huat, J., Parrot, L., et al. (2014). Pesticide risks from fruit and vegetable pest man-
agement by small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 34(4), 723–736.
de Foresta, F., Basri, A., & Wiyono, A. (1994). A very intimate agroforestry association cassava
and improved homegardens: The Mukibat technique. Agroforestry Today, 6(1), 12–14.
424 References
den Biggelaar, C. (1996). Farmer experimentation and innovation: A case study of knowledge
generation process in agroforestry systems in Rwanda, Community Forestry Case Study Series
12. Rome: FAO, 123p.
Eeraerts, M., Meeus, I., Van Den Berge, S., & Smagghe, G. (2017). Landscapes with high intensive
fruit cultivation reduce wild pollinator services to sweet cherry. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Ehui, S. K., Kang, B. T., & Spencer, D. S. C. (1992). Economic analysis of soil erosion; effects in
alley cropping, no-till, and bush fallow system of southwestern Nigeria. In J. L. Moock & R. E.
Rhoades (Eds.), Diversity, Farmer Knowledge and Sustainability (pp. 225–243). Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 278p.
Eshel, G., Egozi, R., Goldwasser, Y., et al. (2015). Benefits of growing potatoes under cover crops
in a Mediterranean climate. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 211, 1–9.
Ester, A., van Rozen, F., & Molendijk, L. P. G. (2003). Field experiments using the rhabditid
nematode Phasmarhdbditis hermaphodita or salt as control measure against slugs in green
asparagus. Crop Protection, 22(5), 689–895.
Faizool, S., & Ramjohn, R. K. (1995). Agroforestry in the Caribbean. Oficina regional de la FAO
Para American Latina y El Caribe, Santiago, 35p.
FAO (1994). Prácticas Agroforestales en el Departmento de Potosí Bolivia: Documemto de
Trabajo No 1. FAO/HOLANDA/CDF, Proyecto “Desarrollo Forestal Comunal el Altiplano
Boliviano”, Potosí, 134p.
Feintrenie, L., Ollivier, J., & Enjalric, F. (2010). How to take advantage of a new crop? The experi-
ence of Melanesian smallholders. Agroforestry Systems, 79(2), 145–155.
Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, R. S. (2014). Permaculture for agroecology: Design, movement, prac-
tice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2), 251–274.
Fleming, W. E., & Baker, F. E. (1934). Testing contact insecticides on Japanese beetles and results
with some sodium and potassium soaps. Journal of Agricultural Research, 49(1), 29–38.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., et al. (2003). Agroecology: The ecology of food systems.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 99–118.
Franzel, S., Hitimana, L., & Akyeampong, E. (1995). Farmer participation in on-station tree species
selection for agroforestry: A case study from Burundi. Experimental Agriculture, 31, 27–38.
Gable, J. T., Crowder, D. W., Northfield, T. D., Steffan, S. A., & Snyder, W. E. (2012). Niche engi-
neering reveals complementary resource use. Ecology, 93(9), 1994–2000.
Gao, S., Hoffman-Krull, K., Bidwell, A. L., & DeLuca, T. H. (2016). Locally produced wood bio-
char increases nutrient retention and availability in agricultural soils of the San Juan Islands,
USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 233, 43–54.
Garrett, H. E., & Jones, J. C. (2016). Companion crop recommendations for planting with black
walnut. www.fs.fed.us/pub/misc/walnut/p102-106.pdf
Genesio, L., Miglietta, F., Baronti, S., & Vaccari, F. P. (2015). Biochar increases vineyard produc-
tivity without affecting grape quality: Results from a four years field experiment in Tuscany.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 201, 20–15.
Ghanbari, A., Dahmardeh, M., Siahsar, B. A., & Ramroudi, M. (2010). Effect of maize (Zea
mays L.) - cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) intercropping on light distribution, soil temperature
and soil moisture in arid environment. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 8(1),
102–108.
Gharde, Y., Singh, P. K., Dubey, R. P., & Gupta, P. K. (2018). Assessment of yield and economic
losses in agriculture due to weeds in India. Crop Protection, 107, 12–18.
Ghosh, S., Jung, C., & Meyer-Rochow, V. B. (2017) What governs selection and acceptance of
editable insect species. p. 331–350. In: Halloran, A., Flore, R., Vantomme, P., and Roos, N.
(eds.) Editable Insects in Sustainable Food Systems. Springer, Switzerland 478p.
Gliessman, S. R., & Engles, E. (2014). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems.
New York: CRC Press.
References 425
Glover, J. (1957). The relationship between total seasonal rainfall and yield of maize in the Kenya
highlands. Journal of Agricultural Science, 49, 285–290.
Godoy, R., & Bennett, C. P. A. (1991). The economics of monocropping and intercropping by
small holders: The case of coconuts in Indonesia. Human Ecology, 19(1), 83–98.
Gupta, G. N., Mutha, S., & Limba, N. K. (2000). Growth of Albizia lebbeck on micro-catchments
in the Indian arid zone. International Tree Crops Journal, 10, 193–202.
Hakim, D. (2016). Doubts about a Promised Bounty. The New York Times CLVXVI(57,401-30-Oct.):1.
Hakim, D. (2017). Scientists loved and loathed by an agrochemical colossus. The New York Times
CLXVI (57,465–2 Jan.):1.
Halde, C., Bamford, K. C., & Entz, M. H. (2015). Crop agronomic performance under a six-year
continuous organic no-till system and other tilled and conventionally-managed systems in the
northern Great Plains of Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 213, 121–130.
Halloran, A., & Flore, R. (2017) Ingredients: Aspiring chef’s opinions on insects in gastronomy.
p. 129–137. In: Halloran, A., Flore, R., Vantomme, P., and Roos, N. (eds.) Editable Insects in
Sustainable Food Systems. Springer, Switzerland 478p.
Halty, V., Valdés, M., Tejera, M., et al. (2017). Modeling plant interspecific interactions from exper-
iments with perennial crop mixtures to predict optimal combinations. Ecological Applications,
27(8), 227–2289.
Harper, C., & Kurtz, W. (2016). Economics of Eastern black walnut systems. www.fs.fewd.us/pub/
misc/walnut/p32-36.pdf
Harris, J. (2016). Outsmarting climate change. Discover May: 30–37.
Harris, F. M. A., & Mohammed, S. (2003). Relying on nature: Wild foods in Northern Nigeria.
Ambio, 32(1), 24–29.
Herzog, F., & Oetmann, A. (2001). Communities of interest and agroecosystem restoration:
Streuobst in Europe. In C. Flora (Ed.), Interactions between agroecosystems and rural com-
munities (pp. 85–102). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 273p.
Hevia, V., Bosch, J., Azcárate, F. M., et al. (2016). Bee diversity and abundance in a livestock
drove road and its impact on pollination and seed set in adjacent sunflower fields. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 233, 336–344.
Hilgard, E. W. (1893). Soap as an insecticide. Scientific American Supplement, 38(924),
14769–14770.
Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Hepburn:
Holmgren Design Services, 320p.
Holt-Giménez, E., & Altieri, M. A. (2013). Agriculture, food sovereignty, and the new green revo-
lution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 90–102.
Husain, A. A. (2000). Scent in the Islamic garden: A study of Deceani Urdu literary sources.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 284p.
Jacobsen, S.-E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., & Weiner, J. (2015). Using our agrobiodiver-
sity: Plant-based solutions to feed the world. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(4),
1217–1235.
Jamieson, P. D., Porter, J. R., Goudriaan, J., et al. (1998). CERES-Wheat, Sirius, SUCROS2 and
SWHEAT with measurements from wheat grown under drought. Field Crops Research, 55(1–
2), 23–44.
Jashemski, W. F. (1979). The gardens of Pompeii. New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas Brothers, 272p.
Jashemski, W. F. (1987). Recently excavated gardens and cultivated land of the villas at Boscoreale
and Oplontis. In E. B. MacDougall (Ed.), Ancient Roman villa gardens (pp. 33–75). Washington,
DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, 260p.
Jensen, M. (1993). Soil conditions, vegetation structure and biomass of a Javanese homegarden.
Agroforestry Systems, 24, 171–186.
Johns, N. D. (1999). Conservation in Brazil’s chocolate forests: The unlikely persistence of tradi-
tional cocoa agroecosystems. Environmental Management, 23(1), 32–47.
Johnson, C. W. (1844). The Farmer’s encyclopedia and dictionary of rural affairs. Philadelphia:
Carey and Hart, 1165p.
426 References
Kang, B. T. (1997). Alley cropping – Soil productivity and nutrient recycling. Forest Ecology and
Management, 91, 75–82.
Kareiva, P. (1994). Diversity begets productivity. Nature, 368(21 April), 686–687.
Karim, M. R., Ishikawa, M., Ikeda, M., & Islam, M. T. (2012). Climate change model predicts
33% rice yield decrease in 2100 in Bangladesh. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(4),
821–830.
Karp, D. S., & Daily, G. C. (2014). Cascading effects of insectivorous birds and bats in tropical
coffee plantations. Ecology, 95(4), 1065–1074.
Karp, D. S., Moses, R., Gennet, S., Jones, M. S., Joseph, S., M’Gonigle, L. K., Ponisio, L. C.,
Snyder, W. E., & Kremen, C. (2016). Agricultural practices for food safety threaten pest control
services for fresh produce. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 1402–1412.
Kaspari, M., Clay, N. A., Donoso, D. A., & Yanoviak, S. P. (2014). Sodium fertilization increases
termites and enhances decomposition in an Amazonian forest. Ecology, 95(4), 795–800.
Kass, D. C. L., & Somarriba, E. (1999). Traditional fallows in Latin America. Agroforestry
Systems, 47, 13–36.
Keenan, J. (2015). The blood cries out. Population Connection, 47(3 – October), 18–36.
Kerr, R. A. (2009). Northern India’s groundwater is going, going, going. Science, 5942(325–14
August), 789.
Khatiwada, J. R., Ghimire, S., Khatiwada, S. P., et al. (2016). Frogs as potential biological control
agents in the rice fields of Chitwan, Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 230,
307–314.
Kiebacher, T., Scheidegger, C., & Bergamini, A. (2017). Solitary trees increase the diversity of
vascular plants and bryophytes in pastures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 239,
293–303.
Kihara, K., Nziguheba, G., Zingore, S., et al. (2016). Understanding variability in crop response
to fertilizer and amendments in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
229, 1–12.
Kilgore, B. M., & Taylor, D. (1979). Fire history of a sequoia-mixed conifer forest. Ecology, 60(1),
129–142.
King, K. F. S. (1968). Agro-Silviculture (The Taungya system). Dept. of Forestry, University of
Ibadan, 107p.
Koehler, C. S., Barkley, L. W., & Kretchum, T. M. (1983). Soap as an insecticide. California
Agriculture, 37(9/10), 11–12.
Köhl, L., Oehl, F., & van der Heijden, M. G. A. (2014). Agricultural practices indirectly influ-
ence plant productivity and ecosystem services through effects on soil biota. Ecological
Applications, 24(7), 1842–1853.
Koocheki, A., Nassiri, M., Alimoradi, L., & Ghorbani, R. (2009). Effect of cropping systems and
crop rotations on weeds. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(2), 401–408.
Kremen, C., Iles, A., & Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified farming systems: An agroecological,
systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 44.
Kumar, S., Sah, U., & Singh, P. H. (2007). Traditional ecological management of late blight in
potatoes. Leisa, 23(4), 12–13.
Kwesiga, F., & Coe, R. (1994). The effect of short rotation Sesbania sesban planted as fallows on
maize. Forest Ecology and Management, 64, 199–209.
Lagerlöf, J., Goffre, B., & Vincent, C. (2002). The importance of field boundaries for earth-
worm (Lumbricidae) in the Swedish agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Langenberger, G., Cadisch, G., Martin, K., et al. (2017). Rubber intercropping: A viable concept
for the 21st century? Agroforestry Systems, 91, 577–596.
Laxa, P., Climaco Rondan Dueñasb, J., & Ramosc, D. (2016). Host suitability of peppers to the
false root-knot nematode Nacobbus aberrans. Crop Protection, 79, 15–19.
Leibold, M. A. (1995). Mechanistic models and community context. Ecology, 76(5), 1371–1382.
References 427
Lelle, M. A., & Gold, M. A. (1994). Agroforestry systems for temperate climates: Lessons from
roman Italy. Forest and Conservation History, 38, 118–126.
Liebman, M., Baraibar, B., Buckley, Y., et al. (2016). Ecologically sustainable weed management:
How do we get from proof-of-concept to adoption? Ecological Applications, 26(5), 1352–1369.
Liping, Z. (1991). Biological control of insect pests and plant diseases in agroforestry systems. In
M. E. Avery, M. G. R. Cannell, & C. K. Ong (Eds.), Biological research for Asian agroforestry
(pp. 73–87). New Delhi: Winrock International, AK and Oxford and IBH Publishing, 285p.
Litton, R. B., Tetlow, R. J., Sorensen, J., & Beatty, R. A. (1974). Water and landscape: An aesthetic
overview of the role of water in the landscape. New York: Water Information Center, 314p.
Lojka, B., Lojkova, J., Banout, J., Polesny, Z., & Preininger, D. (2008). Performance of an
improved fallow system in the Peruvian Amazon—Modelling approach. Agroforestry Systems,
72(1), 27–39.
Long, C. (2001). Bring on the bugs. Organic Gardening, 48(4), 10.
Loudon, J. C. (1826). Encyclopedia of agriculture. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown,
and Green, 1226p.
Luna, J., Mitchell, J., & Shrestha, A. (2012). Conservation tillage for organic agriculture: Evolution
toward hybrid systems in the western USA. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(1),
21–30.
MacDonald, J. (1994). The ornamental kitchen garden. Devon: David and Charles, 144p.
Malézieux, E. (2012). Designing cropping systems from nature. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 32(1), 15–29.
Malézieux, E., Crozat, Y., Dupraz, C., et al. (2009). Mixing plant species in cropping systems:
Concepts, tools and models. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(1), 43–62.
Mann, C. C. (2002). The real dirt in rainfall fertility. Science, 297(9 August-5583), 920–923.
Marshall, E. J. P., Brown, V. K., Boatman, N. D., et al. (2003). The role of weeds in supporting
biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Research, 43, 77–89.
Masilionyte, L., MaikCsteniene, S., Kriauciuniene, Z., et al. (2017). Effect of cover crops in smoth-
ering weeds and volunteer plants in alternative farming systems. Crop Protection, 91, 74–81.
Matlack, G. R. (1994). Plant species migration in mixed-history forest landscapes in eastern North
America. Ecology, 75(5), 1491–1502.
Matthews, J. D. (1989). Silvicultural systems. Oxford: Claredon Press, 284p.
Mbabaliye, T., & Wojtkowski, P. A. (1994). Problems and perspectives on the use of a simulation
model in an African research station. Experimental Agriculture, 30, 441–446.
McLean, T. (1980). Medieval English garden. New York: The Viking Press, 298p.
McNeely, J. A. (1993). Economic incentives for conserving biodiversity: Lesson from Africa.
Ambio, 22(2–3), 144–150.
Mead, R., & Willey, J. (1980). The concept of ‘Land equivalent Ratio’ and the yield advantages
from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture, 16, 217–228.
Mertz, O. (1998). Wild vegetables as potential new crops in farming systems of Serwak, Malaysia.
In M. N. B. Nair, M. H. Sahri, & Z. Asharri (Eds.), Sustainable management of non-wood forest
products. Proceedings of an International Workshop Universiti Putra Malaysia, 14–17 October
1997, (pp. 70–83). Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, Serdang, 327p.
Mesquita, R. C. G. (2000). Management of advanced regeneration in secondary forests of the
Brasilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 130, 131–140.
Mhlang, B., Singh Chauhan, B., & Thierfelder, C. (2016). Weed management in maize using crop
competition: A review. Crop Protection, 88, 28–36.
Milius, S. (2003). Sweet lurkers. Science News, 164(13 December - 24), 374.
Mitchell, M. G. E., Bennett, E. M., & Gonzalez, A. (2014). Forest fragments modulate the provi-
sion of multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 909–918.
Mmbaga, M. T., Mrema, F. A., Mackasmiel, L., & Rotich, E. (2016). Effect of bacteria isolates
in powdery mildew control in flowering dogwoods (Cornus florida L.). Crop Protection, 89,
51–57.
Mnifa, I., & Ghribia, D. (2015). Potential of bacterial derived biopesticides in pest management.
Crop Protection, 77, 52–64.
428 References
Montenegro, M. www.ensia.com/voices/agroecology-can-help-fix-our-broken-food-system-
heres-how
Morales, H., Perfecto, I., & Ferguson, B. (2001). Traditional fertilization and its effect on corn
insect populations in the Guatemalan highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
84, 145–155.
Mosttafiz, S., Rahman, M., & Rahman, M. (2012). Biotechnology: Role of microbes in sustainable
agriculture and environmental health. The Internet Journal of Microbiology, 10(1), 1.
Moynihan, E. B. (1979). Paradise as a garden in Persia and Mughad India. New York: George
Braziller, 168p.
Musau, D. M., & Perry, W. H. (1988). Comparison of potential of orgenophorus insecticide and
soap in conifer aphid protection. Crop Protection, 7(4), 267–372.
Nabham, G. P., & Sheridan, T. E. (1977). Living fencerows of the Rio San Miguel, Sonora, Mexico:
Traditional technology for floodplain management. Human Ecology, 5(2), 97–111.
Nair, P. K. R., Buresh, R. J., Mugendi, D. N., & Latt, C. R. (1999). Nutrient cycling in tropical
agroforestry systems: Myths and science. In L. E. Buck, J. P. Lassoie, & E. C. M. Fernandes
(Eds.), Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems (pp. 1–11). New York: CRC Press,
416p.
Nair, C. M., Salin, K. R., Joseph, J., et al. (2014). Organic rice–prawn farming yields 20% higher
revenues. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(3), 569–581.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Genetically engineered crops,
experience and prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 420p.
Navarrete, M., Djian-Caporalino, C., Mateille, T., et al. (2016). A resistant pepper used as a trap
cover crop in vegetable production strongly decreases root-knot nematode infestation in soil.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(4), 68.
Nchanji, Y. K., Nkongho, R. N., Mala, W. A., & Levang, P. (2016). Efficacy of oil palm inter-
cropping by smallholders. Case study in South-West Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems, 90(3),
509–520.
NRC (1996). Lost crops of Africa: Vol. 1, Grains. Washington, DC: Board on Science and
Technology for International Development, Natural Resource Council, National Academy
Press, 383p.
O’Conner, R. J., & Shrubb, M. (1986). Farming and birds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 290p.
Olasantan, F. O. (1988). The effects on soil temperature and moisture content and crop growth and
yield of intercropping maize with melon (Colocynthis vulgaris). Experimental Agriculture,
24(1), 67–74.
Orefice, J., Carroll, J., Conroy, D., & Ketner, L. (2017). Silvopasture practices and perspectives in
the Northeastern United States. Agroforestry Systems, 91(1), 149–160.
Otanes, F. Q. (1924). Soap as an effective killer for Philippine migratory locust. Crop protection,
ixiii(2), 84–88.
Ould-Sidi, M.-M., & Lescourret, F. (2011). Model-based design of integrated production systems:
A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31, 571.
Paris, Q. (1992). The von Liebig hypothesis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74,
1019–1028.
Parker, J. E., Crowder, D. W., Eigenbrode, S. D., & Snyder, W. E. (2016). Trap crop diversity
enhances crop yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 233, 254–262.
Perfecto, I., Rice, R. A., Greenberg, R., & Van der Voort, M. E. (1996). Shade coffee: A disappear-
ing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience, 46(8), 598–608.
Peterken, G. F. (1993). Long-term floristic development of woodland on former agricultural lands
in Lincolnshire, England. In C. Watkins (Ed.), Ecological effects of afforestation: Studies in the
history and ecology of afforestation in Western Europe (pp. 31–43). New York: CABI, 224p.
Petit, S., Trichard, A., Biju-Duval, L., & at. (2017). Interactions between conservation agricultural
practice and landscape composition promote weed seed predation by invertebrates. Agriculture,
References 429
Porteous, J. D. (1996). Environmental aesthetics: Ideas, politics and planning. London: Routledge,
290p.
Pulido-Santacruz, P., & Renjifo, L. M. (2011). Live fences as tools for biodiversity conservation:
A study case with birds and plants. Agroforestry Systems, 81(1), 15–30.
Qureshi, M. A., Ahmad, Z. A., Akhtar, N., et al. (2012). Role of phosphate solubilizing bacteria
(psb) in enhancing p availability and promoting cotton growth. Journal of Animal and Plant
Sciences, 22, 1.
Rachie, M. D. (1983). Intercropping tree legumes with annual crops. In P. A. Huxley (Ed.), Plant
research in agroforestry (pp. 103–116). Nairobi: ICRAF, 595p.
Racine, M., Boursier-Mougenot, E. J.-P., & Binet, F. (1987). The gardens of Provence and the
French Riviera. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 315p.
Raintree, J. B. (1983). Guidelines for agroforestry diagnosis and design: Draft for comment.
Working Paper No. 6, ICRAF. Nairobi, Kenya, 35p.
Raintree, J. B. (1990). Theory and practice of agroforestry diagnosis and design. In K. G.
MacDicken & N. T. Vergara (Eds.), Agroforestry, classification and management (pp. 58–97).
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 382p.
Rao, M. R. (1986). Cereals in multiple cropping. In C. A. Francis (Ed.), Multiple cropping systems
(pp. 96–132). New York: Macmillian Publishing, 383p.
Reinders, H. P. (2007). Multiple strategies on an organic farm in the Netherlands. Leisa, 23(4),
32–34.
Reynolds, P. J. (1980). The working agroscape of the iron age. Landscape History (Vol. 2,
pp. 1–20), Journal of the Society for Landscape History, Rampart Press.
Reynolds, L. (1991). Livestock in agroforestry: A farming systems approach. In M. E. Avery,
M. G. R. Cannell, & C. K. Ong (Eds.), Biological research for Asian agroforestry (pp. 233–
256). New Delhi: Winrock International, AK and Oxford and IBH Publishing, 285p.
Rezaul Haq, A. H. M., Ghosal, T. K., & Ghosh, P. (2004). Cultivating wetlands in Bangladesh.
Leisa, 20(4), 18–20.
Rham, W. L. (1853). The dictionary of the farm. London: George Routledge and Company, 498p.
Rice, R. E., Gullison, R. E., & Reid, J. W. (1997). Can sustainable management save tropical for-
ests? Scientific American, 276(4), 44–49.
Royo, A. A., Peterson, C. J., Stanvick, J. S., & Carson, W. P. (2016). Evaluating the ecological
impacts of salvage logging: Can natural and anthropogenic disturbance promote coexistence.
Ecology, 97(6), 1566–1582.
Ruc, J. (1990). Compounds from plants that regulate or participate in disease resistance. In D. J.
Chadwick & J. March (Eds.), Bioactive compounds from plants (pp. 213–224). New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 242p.
Sanchez, P. A. (1995). Science in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems, 30, 5–55.
Schenck, C. A. (1904). Forest utilization, mensuration and silviculture. Biltmore, NC, 3parts.
Schlich, W. (1910). Schlich’s manual of forestry (Vol. II, 4th ed.). London: Bradbusy, Agnew,
424p.
Seran, T. H., & Brintha, I. (2010). Review of maize based intercropping. Journal of Agronomy, 9,
136–145.
Seydack, A. H. W. (1995). An unconventional approach to timber yield regulation for multi-
aged, multispecies forest I. Fundamental consideration. Forest Ecology and Management, 77,
139–153.
Seydack, A. H. W., Vermeulen, W. J., Heyns, H. E., et al. (1995). An unconventional approach to
timber yield regulation for multi-aged, multispecies forest II. Application to a South African
forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 77, 155–168.
Shahzad, M., Farooq, M., Jabrand, K., & Hussain, M. (2016). Impact of different crop rotations
and tillage systems on weed infestation and productivity of bread wheat. Crop Protection, 89,
161–169.
Shamanskaya, L. D., & Zhukovskii, A. U. (2002). Use of insecticide soap in plant protection.
Agrokhimiya, 10, 48–51.
430 References
Shepard, K. D., Ndufa, J. K., Ohlssong, E., Sjögren, H., & Swinkels, R. (1997). Adoption poten-
tial of hedgerow alley cropping in maize-based cropping systems in the highlands of western
Kenya. 1. Background and agronomic evaluation. Experimental Agriculture, 33, 197–209.
Singh, A. K., Gohain, I., & Datta, M. (2016). Upscaling of agroforestry homestead gardens for
economic and livelihood security in mid–tropical plain zone of India. Agroforestry Systems,
90(6), 1103–1112.
Singha, B., Singha, R., & Choudhury, D. (2007). Ecological pest management for emerging pest
problems. Leisa, 23(4), 11–13.
Snyder, W. E., & Ives, A. R. (2001). Generalist predators disrupt biological control by a specialist
parasitoid. Ecology, 82(3), 750–756.
Solomon, B., Ghezehei, S. B., Annandale, J., & Everson, C. (2016). Optimizing resource distri-
bution and crop productivity in hedgerow intercropping by manipulating tree arrangement.
Agroforestry Systems, 90(5), 861–873.
Soluri, J. (2001). Altered landscapes and transformed livelihoods: Banana companies, Panama
disease and rural communities on the north coast of Honduras, 1880-1950. In C. Flora (Ed.),
Interactions between agroecosystems and rural communities (pp. 15–30). New York: CRC
Press, 273p.
Sorribas, J., González, S., Domingues-Gento, A., & Vercher, R. (2016). Abundance, movement
and biodiversity of flying predator insects in crop and non-crop agroecosystems. Agronomy for
Srivastava, R. J., Kumar, A., & Prasad, K. (2003). Studies on soil moisture variations with eucalyp-
tus plantations. www.fao.org/docrep/article/wfc/XII/0500-b2.htm
Stadlier, M. (2016). CropLife Nigeria assesses contract sprayers in Borno State. N2Africa (http://
www.n2africa.org/print/4288).
Stringer, W. C., & Alverson, D. R. (1994). Use of fire as a management tool in alfalfa produc-
tion ecosystems. p. 492–493. In K. L. Cambell, W. D. Graham, & A. B. Bottcher (Eds.)
Environmentally Sound Agriculture. Proceedings of the Second Conference, 22 April, Orlando
FL. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 578p.
Styger, E., Kakotoarimanana, J. E. M., Rabevohitra, R., & Fernandes, E. C. M. (1999). Indigenous
fruits of Madagascar: Potential components of agroforestry systems in improving human nutri-
tion and restore biological diversity. Agroforestry Systems, 46, 289–310.
Sudmeyer, R. A., & Speijers, J. (2007). Influence of windbreak orientation, shade and rainfall inter-
ception on wheat and lupin growth in the absence of below-ground competition. Agroforestry
Systems, 71(3), 201–214.
Talukder, B., Saifuzzaman, M., & VanLoon, G. (2016). Sustainability of agricultural systems in
the coastal zone of Bangladesh. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(2), 148–165.
Tansey, J. A., Jones, M. M., & Vanaclocha, P. (2015). Costs and benefits of frequent low-volume
applications of horticultural mineral oil for management of Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina
citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Psyllidae). Crop Protection, 76, 59–67.
Taverne, D. (2007, November) The real GM food scandal. Prospect (pp. 24–27).
TerAvest, D., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Thierfelder, C., & Reganold, J. P. (2015). Crop production and
soil water management in conservation agriculture, no-till, and conventional tillage systems in
Malawi. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 212, 285–296.
Thompson, T. L., Roberts, T., & Lazarovitch, N. (2010). Managing soil surface salinity with sub-
surface drip irrigation. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing
World, 1–6 August, Brisbane, Australia, on-line.
Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., & Siemann, E. (1997). The influence of
functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science, 277(29 August – 5330),
1300–1306.
Tohiran, K. A., Nobilly, F., Zulkifli, R., et al. (2017). Targeted cattle grazing as an alternative to her-
bicides for controlling weeds in bird-friendly oil palm plantations. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 37, 62–70.
Tremblay, A., Mineau, P., & Stewart, R. K. (2001). Effect of bird predition on some pest insect
populations in corn. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 83, 143–152.
References 431
Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kruess, A., & Thies, C. (2002). Contribution of small habitat
fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland-cropland landscapes. Ecological
Applications, 12(2), 354–363.
Tschumi, M., Albrecht, M., Collatz, J., Dubsky, V., Entling, M. H., Najar-Rodriguez, A. J., & Jacot,
K. (2016). Tailored flower strips promote natural enemy biodiversity and pest control in potato
crops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 1169–1176.
van der Heijden, M. G. A. (2010). Mycorrhizal fungi reduce nutrient loss from model grassland
ecosystems. Ecology, 91(4), 1163–1171.
van der Heijden, M. G. A., Bardgett, R. D., & van Straalen, N. M. (2008). The unseen majority:
Soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology
Letters, 11(3), 296–310.
van der Valk, H. C., Niassy, A., & Bèye, A. B. (1999). Does grasshopper control create grasshop-
per problem? Monitoring side-effects of fenitrothion applications in the western Sahel. Crop
Protection, 18(2), 139–149.
van Gils, S., van der Putten, W. H., & Kleijn, D. (2016). Can above-ground ecosystem services
compensate for reduced fertilizer input and soil organic matter in annual crops? Journal of
Applied Ecology, 53, 1186–1194.
van Rijn, P. C. J., & Wäckers, F. L. (2016). Nectar accessibility determines fitness, flower choice
and abundance of hoverflies that provide natural pest control. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53,
925–933.
Vandermeer, J. (1989). The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 237p.
Veblen, K. E., Porensky, L. M., Riginos, C., & Young, T. P. (2016). Are cattle surrogate to wildlife?
Savanna plant community composition explained by total herbivory more than herbivore type.
Ecological Applications, 26(6), 1510–1623.
Venturini, E. M., Drummond, F. A., Hoshide, A. K., et al. (2017). Pollination reservoirs for wild
bee habitat enhancement in cropping systems: A review. Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, 41(2), 101–142.
Vera, F. W. M. (2000). Grazing ecology and forest history. The Netherlands: CABI Publishing,
506p.
Versteeg, M. N., Amadji, F., Eteka, A., Gogan, A., & Koudokpon, V. (1998). Farmers’ adopt-
ability of Mucuna fallowing and agroforestry technologies in the coastal savanna of Benin.
Agricultural Systems, 56, 269–287.
Vickery, J., Carter, N., & Fuller, R. J. (2002). The potential value of managed field margins as
forging habitats for farmland birds in the UK. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 89,
41–52.
Virgil (29 B.C.E.). Georgics III.
Wallace, D. (1997). Give the foodplain a break a waterbreak. Inside Agroforestry (Fall):1.
Wang, H. (1994). Tea and trees: A good blend from China. Agroforestry Today, 6(1), 6–8.
Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., et al. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice.
A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(4), 503–515.
Whitcomb, W. H. (1970). Woodpeckers in the ecology of southern Hardwood borers. In Proceedings
of the Tall Timbers Conference on Ecological Animal Control by Habitat Management. Vol. 2,
26–28 Feb 1970 (p. 309–315). Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station, 286p.
Whitmore, T. C. (1975). Tropical rainforests of the Far East. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 282p.
Williams-Guillėn, K., Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2008). Bats limit insects in a neotropical
agroforestry system. Science, 320(5872), 70.
Wilson, J. (1994). Landscaping with Herbs. Houghton Mifflin Company, NY, 220p.
Wilson, T. D., Brook, R. M., & Tomlinson, H. F. (1998). Interactions between néré (Parkia big-
lobosa) and under-planted sorghum in a parkland system in Burkina Faso. Experimental
Agriculture, 34, 85–98.
Systems, 24, 215–222.
432 References
Wojtkowski, P. A. (2002). Agroecological perspectives in agronomy, forestry, and agroforestry.

Enfield, NH: Science Publishers, 356p.
Wojtkowski, P. A. (2006). Introduction to agroecology: Principles and practices. Binghamton,
NY: Haworth Press, 404p.
Wojtkowski, P. A. (2016). Agroecology: The universal equations. New York: CRC Press, 257p.
Wood, D. (2000). In defense of monocultures. Leisa, 16(4), 14–15.
Wood, S. L. R., Rhemtulla, J. M., & Coomes, O. T. (2013). Cropping history trump fallow dura-
tion in long-term soil and vegetation dynamics of shifting cultivation. Ecological Applications,
27(2), 519–531.
Woodcock, B. A., Bullock, J. M., McCracken, M., et al. (2016). Spill-over of pest control and
pollination services into arable crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 231, 15–23.
Yang, D., Liu, Y., Liu, S., et al. (2016). Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agronomy for
Yoon, C. K. (2000). Simple method found to increase crop yield vastly. The New York Times (22
August):D1–D2.
Yoshida, T., & Kamitani, T. (1997). The stand dynamics of a mixed coppice forest of shade tolerant
and intermediate species. Forest Ecology and Management, 95, 35–43.
Young, A. (1989a). Agroforestry for soil conservation. Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International,
275p.
Young, A. (1989b). The environmental basis of agroforestry. In W. E. Reifsnyder & T. O. Darnhofer
(Eds.), Meteorology and agroforestry (pp. 29–48). Nairobi: ICRAF, 546p.
Yue, S., Brodie, J. F., Zipkin, E. E., & Bernard, H. (2015). Oil palm plantations fail to support
mammal diversity. Ecological Applications, 25(9), 2285–2292.
Zhang Fend. (1996). Influences of shelterbelts in Chifeng, Inner Mongolia. Unasylva, 47(185):
11–15.
Zhenga, J., Hana, J., Liua, Z., et al. (2017). Biochar compound fertilizer increases nitrogen produc-
tivity and economic benefits but decreases carbon emission of maize production. Agriculture,
Zimmer, C. (2016). Immunity underfoot. The New York Times CLXV(37,270–28 June):D4.
Index
The page numbers in bold type reference Glossary entries. These provide a more detailed
look at a specific topic.
A Branches, 4, 38, 97, 102, 191

Adjusted CER, 244 Buffer species, 42, 43, 46, 69, 71, 73, 224,
Adjusted LER, 245 249, 371, 391
Aesthetics, 146, 208
Agroecological matrix, ix, 33–55, 57, 135,
156, 194, 197, 201 C
Agroecology (defined), 2, 34, 58, 202 Cajetes, 224–225
Agroecology (types/intensity of), 55, 149, Camellones, 69, 71, 122, 141, 225, 339
156, 199 Canopy patterns, 100, 102, 110, 113, 226
Agro(eco)system (defined), 16 Canopy strategies, 78, 227
Agroforestry, 210–212 Catchments, 228–229
Agroforestry (defined), 210 Cattle, 40, 89, 97, 101, 102, 111, 132, 140,
Agroforests, 211–212 159, 200
Agrotechnologies, 211–212 Chickens, 36, 103, 216, 220, 240, 308, 318,
Agrotechnologies (defined), 58–59 375, 376, 407
Alley cropping, 212–215 See also Domestic fowl
Animal control, 42, 46, 215 Classification, 55, 59, 230, 231, 281, 282
Animal husbandry, see Grazing and pastures Climate change, vi, 6, 117, 118, 121, 175,
See also Semi-husbandry 177, 247
Aqua-agriculture/forestry, 104, 217 Commercial farming, 167–169, 242, 317
Competitive exclusion, 20, 231
Competitive partitioning, 231–235
B Complementarity, see Competitive partitioning
Barn swallows, 36, 221 Complex agroecosystems, 239
Barriers (general use), 46, 218 See also Rules
Bats, 107, 147, 215, 219, 263, 300, 308, 314, Composting, 5, 43, 46, 239–242
318, 361, 362 Conservation agriculture, 47, 209, 242
Bees, 361–362 Core elements, 18–20, 26, 27, 30, 33, 34, 57,
Biochar, see Tierra prieta 79, 159, 192–193, 195, 197, 202
Biodensity, see Density Corporate farming, 140, 161, 167
Biodisarray, see Disarray Corridors, habitat, 43, 46, 69, 122
Bioduration, see Duration Cost equivalent ratio (CER), 28, 29, 162, 193,
Birds, 219–221 243–245, 263–264, 275, 325
Bison, 34, 39, 101, 147, 289, 294, 331, 350, Cost orientation, see Economic orientation
351, 375 Cover crops, 245–247

434 Index
Critical shift, 247 Fire, 290–291

Crop-over-tree agroecosystems, 84, 94, 99, Firebreaks, 43, 46, 69, 71, 122, 142, 291
247–248 Fish, 104, 111, 114, 132
Cut-and-carry, 35, 249, 253, 274, 292, 309, Floating gardens, 59, 291
340, 366, 371, 387, 407 Food, 2, 4, 5, 11, 101, 104, 113, 126, 131, 132,
145, 165, 173–179, 182, 187, 192, 198,
202, 203
D Food forests, 113, 198, 211
Decoy plants, 216, 251, 309, 310, 405 Food kilometers/miles, 291–292
Decision theory, 185, 187, 250, 256, 297 Food sovereignty, 178, 179, 180
Drip irrigation, 100, 129, 375 Food storage, 132
Deer, 34, 39, 103, 215, 216, 289, 294, 327, 375 Forage banks, 101, 292, 352
Density, 251 Forest gardens, 110, 112–114, 152, 198, 202
Design packages (defined), 64–66, 255 Forestry, see Silviculture
Desirable plant characteristics, 91–92, Free-form plots, 139, 293, 322
213–214, 246, 252–254, 262, 379 Free-range grazing, 101, 293–294, 299
Diagnosis and design, 167, 229, 254, 256, 257 Frogs, 104, 217
Diet, 10, 11, 126, 176, 178, 179, 180, 268, Frost, 295–296
308, 365 Fungicides, 6, 39, 55, 203, 275, 296, 330, 352
Disarray, 258 See also Pathogens
Disruptive-crop hypothesis, 260
Domestication, 93, 261–262
Domestic fowl, viii, 36, 86, 103, 216, 220, G
221, 250, 308, 363, 365, 375 Gabons, 42, 46, 69, 71, 122, 142, 146,
Dovecote, 103 296–297
Drip zones, 262 Game theory, see Decision theory
Duration, 263 Gathering, 5, 108, 110, 132, 219, 249,
283, 300
Geese, 220, 350, 363, 413, 416
E See also Domestic fowl
Earthworms, see Vermiculture Genetically improved/modified crops, 3,
Eatable insects, see Entomo-agriculture 10, 297
Economic orientation, 263 Genetic modification, 3, 5, 10–11, 72, 180,
Eco-services (defined), 1, 39–48 203, 278, 297–299, 329, 416, 420
See also Rules Genetic resources, 180–183, 303
Elephants, v, 39, 40, 216, 289, 327 GM, see Genetic modification
Enemies hypothesis, 268 Goats, 89, 102, 111, 159, 294, 295, 331, 350,
Energy, 5, 129, 145, 177, 231, 291, 354, 405 352, 375, 386, 387
Entomo-agriculture, 103, 268–269, 306, 308 Grazing, see Pastures/Free-range grazing
Erosion (water), 35, 139, 144, 157, 269, 270, Grafting, 254, 298–299
300, 320, 332 Green revolution model, 299
Erosion (wind), 46, 209, 213, 215, 245, 269, Guidelines, see Rules
271, 332 Guide species, 224, 299–300, 380
F H
Facilitation, 271–277 Harvests, 300
See also Rules Hawthorne effect, 189, 301–302
Factory farming, 12, 278–280, 335 Hedgerow alley cropping, see Alley cropping
Fallows, 280–282, 416 Hedges, 302
Family farms, 106, 140, 143, 164, 165, 167, See also Living fences
168, 169 Heirloom varieties, 181, 303–304
Fencing, 285–289 Herbicides, 5, 6, 8–12, 39, 55, 155, 200, 203
Field margins, 289–290 Herds, 130, 138, 294, 295, 331, 351
Index 435
Hogs, see Pigs Mimicry, 97, 101, 108, 142, 147, 211, 216,
Honeybees, 9, 39, 86, 216, 267, 361–362, 363 331, 332, 376
See also Pollination Modeling, 54, 184, 185, 326, 332,
Horqueta trees, 304, 320 345–346, 389
Horses, 102, 241, 289, 331, 375, 386 Monocultures, 335–338
Hunting, 5, 39, 132, 216, 221, 294, 314 Mounds, 338–339
Hybrid farms, 169 Mulch, 339–340
Multi-participant agroecosystems, 340, 397
Multi-purpose trees, 42, 46, 158, 194,
I 341–342
Industrial farming, 144, 208
See also Commercial farming; Factory
farming N
Infiltration, 304–306 Natural ecology, vi, vii, 4, 108, 266, 283,
Infiltration (water), 35, 46, 59, 63, 70–71, 90, 294, 297
128–130, 139, 157 Niches, see Competitive partitioning
Insect control, 306–314 Non-harvest option, 64, 65, 92, 108, 111, 283,
Insecticides, 314–318 301, 344–345
Insects (eatable), see Entomo-agriculture No-till, see Till/no-till
Integrated pest management, 318
Intercropping (seasonal examples), 80–82
Interplant interface, 25, 318–319 O
Irrigation, 6, 8, 10, 39, 55, 71, 118, 119, Opportunity costs, 157–159, 165
121, 177 Optimization, 345–346
See also Drip irrigation Orchards, see Plantations; Streuobst
Isolated tree agroecosystems, 319–320 Organic agriculture, v, 208–210, 239
Oceans, 9, 217, 370, 409
L
Lakes, 9, 119, 132, 217, 291, 370, 409 P
Land equivalent ratio (defined), 33 Paddies, 347
Landscape agroecology, 45, 135–153, Parklands, 348
322–324 Pastures, 350–352
Landscape economics, 143, 324 Pathogens, 352–353
Landscapes (categories of), 137–138, 323 Permaculture, v, 209, 353
Landscape land equivalent ratio (LLER), 325 Pigs (hogs), 103, 114, 215, 289, 294, 331,
LER, see Land equivalent ratio 350, 375
Light dynamics, 25, 110, 227, 379 Pitfalls, 188–189, 306
See also Canopy patterns Plantations, 354–356
Living fences, 40, 43, 98, 243, 285, 288 Planting methods (shrubs and trees),
See also Hedges 357–359
Lodging, 277, 296, 380 Planting ratios, 21, 23, 24, 78, 184, 260, 359,
Low-input agriculture, 31, 121, 209 361, 369
Pollination, 34, 37, 158, 219, 306, 314, 328,
361–363
M Ponds, 363
Malthus, 174–178 See also Lakes
Manure, 5, 12, 42, 43, 46, 101, 155, 162, 209, Population ecology, 4, 318
229, 240, 241, 249, 292, 312, 329, 332, Precepts (agroecological), 40, 49, 52, 265,
340, 344, 388, 409 267, 364, 407
Matrix equations, 52, 326–328 Predator-prey, 365
Microbes, 328–330 Primary species, 365
Micro-catchments, 42, 46, 69, 70, 146, Profitability, 29, 31, 55, 142, 143, 162, 279,
305, 330 319, 326, 332, 334, 346, 347
436 Index
Profit (defined), 28 Silviculture, 110, 114, 202, 381–382

Pruning (trees), 365–366 Slash and burn, 338
Push-pull (insects), 368 Slash and char, 388
Slash and mulch, 388, 389
Solution theory (landscape), 147, 389–390
Q Sparrows, 219
Quality-of-life, 142, 145, 181, 208, 292, 322, Spatial patterns, 18, 24–26, 42, 57, 72, 77,
368–369 108, 192
Starvation, 5, 120, 126, 132, 175, 177
Stones (clusters, walls, etc.), 69, 70, 141,
R 393–394
Ratio lines, see Planting ratios Streams, 71, 98, 211, 225, 279, 296, 297,
Relative value total (RVT), 369 370, 412
Repellent plants, 36, 41, 49, 216, 218, 267, Streuobst, 83, 345, 356, 390
306–311, 314, 370, 371, 405, 407 Strip cropping, 391–393
Resource concentration hypothesis, 370 Subsistence farming, 5, 15, 103, 125, 140,
Revenue orientation, 370 143, 153, 165, 167–169
Rice paddies, see Paddies Support (physical), 90, 94, 100, 277, 395, 410
Riparian buffers, 370–371 Surplus ecology, 157
Rivers, 8, 9, 59, 98, 119, 291, 296, 370,
409, 412
See also Streams T
Robins, 219 Taungyas, 396–399
Rocks, see Stones Temperature, 34, 37, 48, 49, 62, 71, 118, 121,
Rotations, 371 128, 129, 185
See also Rules Terraces, 399–400
Row orientation, 25, 215, 227, 372–373 Threat counters, see Eco-services
Rules (for) Tierra prieta, 46, 219, 388, 404, 409
below ground interactions, 77 Till/no-till, 174, 345, 404–405
complex agrosystems, 109 Trade, 180, 275, 389
eco-services, 40–41, 49, 169, 194 Tradition agriculture, 209
facilitation, 90–91 Trap crops, 40, 71, 92, 251, 309, 310,
intercrops, 76–77 405–406
landscapes, 139, 324 Traps (birds and animals), 406–407
risk reduction, 125, 126 Traps (insect), 40, 306, 307, 310, 318
rotations, 272 Traumatic release, 309, 407
shade systems, 78 Tree-over-crop agroecosystems, 167, 282,
408–409
Treerow alley cropping, see Alley cropping
S Tropical homegardens, 106, 211, 241, 408
Salt, 145, 181, 374, 375 Truant resources, 9, 409–410
Scarecrows, 38, 215, 216, 220, 251, 368, 375
Scattering (risk), 127–128
Secondary species, 19, 59, 68, 91, 92, 212, V
222, 223, 252–254, 271, 365 Vermiculture, 240–242
Semi-husbandry, 375–376 Vines, 67, 87, 90, 91, 92, 100, 277, 282, 288,
Shade systems, 376 395, 410
See also Rules See also Support
Shelterbelts, 43, 46, 69, 71, 122, 142, 374, 380 von Liebig hypothesis, 326
See also Windbreaks
Shrub gardens, 110–113, 211, 212, 371, 393
Sigmoidal equations, 381 W
Sigmoid functions (illustrated), 18, 50, 125, Wades, 225, 296, 305, 371
160, 232, 235, 237, 274 Waterbreaks, 43, 69, 71, 122, 142, 411
Index 437
Water channels, 43, 69, 71, 122, 217, 243, Wind tunnel effect, 37, 418, 419
410–411 Woodpeckers, 220, 221, 308
Water harvesting, 118, 119, 136, 142, 229,
347, 411–412
Weed control, 412–414 Y
Windbreaks, 37, 46, 47, 50, 69, 71, 97, 122, Yield functions, see Sigmoidal equations
129, 140, 142, 146, 148, 417 Yield gap analysis, 162, 163, 420
See also Shelterbelts

Agro Ecology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agro Ecology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul Wojtkowski

ISBN 978-3-319-93208-8 ISBN 978-3-319-93209-5 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018949050

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Pittsfield, MA, USA Paul Wojtkowski

Henry David Thoreau

Land Modifications�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69

7 Complex Agroecosystems������������������������������������������������������������������������ 105

Landscape Deciders ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147

Genetic Resources�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 180

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 1

As a science, agroecology stands alone. Comparison can, and should, be made

Agriculture and Agroecology

What might be termed conventional agriculture centers around the monoculture.

Ecology and Agroecology

Early people began the transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture roughly

The Old (Reigning) Paradigm

Conventional, monoculture-based agriculture is often viewed, through the spray-­

Farming is not an easy occupation. To be successful, the knowledge required is

As a high-input, high-output form of agriculture, crops must be protected, and, to do

The New Paradigm

Fundamental to agroecology is the internal ecology of a plot-defined agroecosys-

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 15

The Agroecosystem Defined

It should be stressed that, based on the number of species present in an agroecosys-

LER = (Yab / Ya ) + (Yba / Yb )

In mathematical terms, agroecology is seldom based around linearity. The vast

The Core Elements

Photo 2.1 The classic

At the competitive side of the complementarity-competitive spectrum are those

In league with complementarity competition, there is the question of planting densi-

Fig. 2.2 Plant densities

ridge line links those

Fig. 2.3 An overview of 50%-50%

Fig. 2.4 This illustrates,

amount of interspecies interface, and where the potential interspecies complemen-

Fig. 2.5 Various

As a core element of design, timing refers to the temporal dynamics of an agroeco-

As stated, there is a clear relationship between interspecies complementarity and

Relative Value Total

Cost Equivalent Ratio

There is a marked difference in philosophy with cost orientation. With a cost-­

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 33

Briefly summed, the cropping threats are:

Rainfall (Too High or Too Low)

Populations of herbivore insects can, if triggered by some event, e.g., a weather

Temperature (Again, the Extremes)

Intermittent, stronger winds, in addition to drying, can cause sandblasting. This

Small Animals (Birds, Mice, etc.)

Photo 3.1 A scarecrow used to frighten away unwanted birds

Large Animals (Deer, Elephants, etc.)

Threat Counters (Eco-Services)

A desmodium preplanting can have a second purpose; it can eliminate or reduce

The Counters Listed

The Counters Described

Uncontrolled, fire can destroy agroecosystems. Fire, as a preplanting counter, can

introduced predators, e.g., wasps are brought in to control leaf-eating caterpillars

Permanent and Introduced Counters

The Agroecological Matrix

Table 3.1 shows what might be a general-purpose/generic matrix. Taking a single

Table 3.1 A qualified, non-numeric, agroecological matrix

Restarting, the three guiding precepts/principles that underlie matrix-based agro-

Fig. 3.1 An inverse 100%

Matrix Elements (cells)

Pittsfield, MA, USA Paul Wojtkowski

Land Modifications�� 69

7 Complex Agroecosystems�� 105

Landscape Deciders �� 147

Genetic Resources�� 180

Agriculture and Agroecology

Ecology and Agroecology

The Old (Reigning) Paradigm

Conventional, monoculture-based agriculture is often viewed, through the spray-

The New Paradigm

The Agroecosystem Defined

The Core Elements

Relative Value Total

Cost Equivalent Ratio

There is a marked difference in philosophy with cost orientation. With a cost-

Rainfall (Too High or Too Low)

Temperature (Again, the Extremes)

Small Animals (Birds, Mice, etc.)

Large Animals (Deer, Elephants, etc.)

Threat Counters (Eco-Services)

The Counters Listed

The Counters Described

Permanent and Introduced Counters

The Agroecological Matrix

Matrix (Cell) Elements

As an Analytical Tool

An Applied Example

The Problem Explained

Table 4.1 A listing of the recognized Productive agrotechnologies

Table 4.1 (continued) Facilitative intercropping

Simple and Complex Agroecosystems

The Non-Harvest Option

The Complete Package

Improvement (Facilitative) Agrotechnologies

Other Facilitative Agrotechnologies

Rules/Guidelines for Productive Intercropping

Rules for Shade Systems

Productive (Seasonal) Intercropping

Alley Cropping (Tree Row)

Agroforestry Intercropping (or Orchards with Understory)

Shade Systems (Light)

Multi-Species Forest Plantations

Desirable Plant Characteristics

Protective Barrier (Boundary)

Alley Cropping (Hedgerow)

Photo 6.5 A crop-over-

Strip Cropping (Woody)

Crop over Tree

Physical Support Systems

Shade Systems (Heavy)

Forage Trees Within Pastures

Forage Trees Without Pasture

Forest Feed Systems