Local knowledge of impacts of tree cover on ecosystem services in smallholder coffee production systems

Abstract

The potential for tree components of coffee agroforestry systems to provide ecosystem services is widely recognized. Management practices are a key factor in the amount and quality of ecosystem services provided. There is relatively abundant information on ecosystem services provision within agroforestry systems, but comparatively scant information regarding how coffee farmers manage their plantations, the factors influencing their farming practices and the extent to which farmers' local knowledge - as opposed to global scientific understanding - underpins management decisions. Policymakers and scientists too frequently design development programs and projects in the coffee sector. On occasion technicians are included in the design process, but farmers and their knowledge are always excluded. This research explores farmers' knowledge regarding how trees affect coffee productivity and ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Farmers' knowledge on the effects of trees on coffee productivity was compared with that of other knowledge sources: coffee processors, technicians and scientists. Farmers were shown to have detailed knowledge regarding ecosystem services that their coffee agroforestry systems provide as well as on the interactions between trees and coffee productivity. When asked on the services that trees provide, farmers classified trees according to water protection, soil formation, or contribution to biodiversity conservation. These classifications were related to tree attributes such as leaf size, biomass production or root abundance. Comparison of coffee productivity knowledge from different knowledge sources revealed considerable complementarity and little contradiction. The effects of shade trees on biophysical conditions and their interactions with coffee productivity were well understood by farmers. They recorded and classified shade trees as 'fresh' (suitable for integration with coffee) or 'hot' (unsuitable) based on their leaf texture and size, foliage density, crown shape, and root system attributes. The fresh/hot classification significantly related to positive/negative provision of services. This classification was widely used by farmers, and unknown by coffee technicians. Detailed local knowledge included several different topics, such as the role of trees in soil formation and in abundance of pollinators. Farmers were also aware of the influence of these ecosystem services on crop productivity. Generally, management decisions were made to maintain coffee productivity rather than ecosystem services. Based on these results, it is suggested that technical interventions addressing the improvement of coffee plantations are more likely to be successful if they take into account not only the scientific information on agroforestry interactions but also the knowledge possessed by farmers. Lack of comprehension of local coffee knowledge could be expected to reduce the success of development programs and projects aimed at improving productivity or other ecosystem services. (Résumé d'auteur

Local tree knowledge can fast-track agroforestry recommendations for coffee smallholders along a climate gradient in Mount Elgon, Uganda

“…timber, fuelwood, fruit, and high value niche markets) or environmental (e.g. biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and buffering changes in temperature and precipitation), and can enhance the sustainability and resilience of agricultural systems (Cerdán et al 2012;Nzeyimana et al 2013;Perfecto et al 2007;De Souza et al 2012). However, the extent to which ES are beneficial for coffee productivity depend on the local environment, livelihood strategies of producers, local market conditions (e.g.…”

“…Trees in AFS increase the biodiversity that enhances biological control of P&D (Staver et al 2001;Bos et al 2007;Perfecto et al 2007;Tscharntke et al 2011). The role of companion trees in climate change adaptation and mitigation needs to be better documented and compared to monocropping systems (Cerdán et al 2012;Harvey et al 2014;Rahn et al 2013;Vaast et al 2005Vaast et al , 2006. Research on coffee companion trees has been mainly concentrated in Latin America and India, and mostly on their effects on coffee.…”

“…Local knowledge is, as opposed to indigenous knowledge, not geographically or ethnically specific and can be similar at different locations if within similar agroecological context (Sinclair and Joshi 2000). While Albertin and Nair (2004) and Soto-Pinto et al (2007) have reported on local knowledge on tree diversity in coffee AFS, it is only in recent years that research has documented on both local knowledge and ES provision in coffee AFS and landscapes (Cerdán et al 2012;Lamond et al 2016;Smith-Dumont et al in press).…”

“…Local tree knowledge plays an important role in traditional agroforestry design, because farmers customise their AFS according to their knowledge and preference of trees and ES that these trees are providing (Cerdán et al 2012;Valencia et al 2015). Preferences and management decisions regarding companion trees can be gender-specific, especially with coffee, as it is traditionally a men's cash crop (Kasente et al 2002;Kelemen et al 2015;Kiptot et al 2014;Kiptot 2015).…”

“…coffee prices and local wages), and management practices (e.g. use of external inputs) Cerdán et al 2012).…”