Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of agroforestry based farming systems: a study of Dhanusha District, Nepal

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines how agroforestry-based farming systems evolved in the Dhanusha district of Nepal following the conversion of forest into agriculture during the early 1950s. Some data are from two focus group discussions with agroforestry farmers and one meeting with agroforestry experts. The farmers’ discussion traced the development of farming practices from 1950 to 2010 to identify the drivers of land use change. The experts’ discussion resulted in a scale to differentiate the prevailing farming systems in the study area considering five key components of agroforestry: agricultural crops, livestock, forest tree crops, fruit tree crops and vegetable crops. Data related to the system components were collected from the randomly selected households. The study reveals that land use had generally changed from very simple agriculture to agroforestry, triggered by infrastructure development, technological innovations, institutional support (subsidies and buy-back guarantees) and extension programs. A range of farming systems with varying degrees of integration was evident in the study area: simple agriculture; less integrated agroforestry; semi-integrated agroforestry and highly integrated agroforestry. The three types of agroforestry systems, which are the focus of this study, varied significantly in terms of farm size, cropping intensity, use of farm inputs, tree species diversity, tree density, home to forest distance and agricultural labour force.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adesina AA, Chianu J (2002) Determinants of farmers’ adoption and adaptation of alley cropping technology in Nigeria. Agrofor Syst 55:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavalapati JRR, Shrestha RK, Stainback GA, Matta JR (2004) Agroforestry development: an environmental economic perspective. Agrofor Syst 61(1–3):299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan NJR (1986) Accessibility and altitudinal zonation models of mountains. Mt Res Dev 6:11–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Amatya SM (1996) Prevailing agroforestry systems and practices in Nepal. In: Asia-Pacific agroforestry profiles, Nepal, pp 11–16

  • Amatya SM, Newman SM (1993) Agroforestry in Nepal: research and practice. Agrofor Syst 21:215–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson GW, Moore RW, Jenkins PJ (1988) The integration of pasture, livestock and widely spaced pine in South West Western Australia. Agrofor Syst 6:195–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JEM (1997) Framing the issues. In: JEM Arnold, Dewees PA (eds) Farms, trees and farmers; responses to agricultural intensification. Earthscan, London, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JEM, Dewees P (1998) Rethinking approaches to tree management by farmers. ODI natural resource perspectives number 26. Overseas Development Institute, London

  • Barker SCP (1997) The impact of farming systems extension on Caribbean small-farm agriculture: the case of St. Kitts and St. Vincent. Trop Agric 74(1):58–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Boserup E (1965) The conditions of agricultural growth: the economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Aldine De Gruyter

  • Brodt S, Klonsky K, Jackson L, Brush SB, Smukler S (2009) Factors affecting adoption of hedgerows and other biodiversity-enhancing features on farms in California, USA. Agrofor Syst 76:195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter J (1995) Alley farming: have resource poor farmer benefited? Nat Resour Perspect 3:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutter BE, Rahmadi AI, Krutz WB, Hodge S (1999) State polices for agroforestry in the United States. Agrofor Syst 46:217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DDC (2009) District profile of Dhanusha District. District Administration Office, Dhanusha

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon R (1995) Agroforestry systems: sources or sinks of greenhouse gases? Agrofor Syst 31(2):99–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle CJ, Evans J, Rossiter J (1986) Agroforestry: an economic appraisal of the benefits of intercropping trees with grassland in lowland Britain. Agric Syst 21:1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dvorak KA (1996) Adoption potential of alley cropping. Final project report. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, resource and crop management program. Research monograph No. 23

  • Fonzen P, Oberholzer E (1984) Use of multipurpose trees in hill farming systems in western Nepal. Agrofor Syst 2:187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garforth CJ, Malla YB, Neopane RP, Pandit BH (1999) Socioeconomic factors and agroforestry improvements in the hills of Nepal. Mt Res Dev 19(3):273–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray AW, Boehlje MD, Gloy BA, Slinsky SP (2004) How US farm programs and crop insurance affect returns to farm land. Rev Agric Econ 26(2):238–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo L, Gifford R (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta-analysis. Glob Ch Biol 8(4):345–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayami Y, Ruttan VW (1971) Agricultural development: an international perspective. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry M, Tittonell P, Manlay RJ, Bernoux M, Albrecht A, Vanlauwe B (2009) Biodiveristy, carbon stocks and sequestration potential in aboveground biomass in smallholder farming systems of western Kanya. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:238–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long AJ, Nair PKR (1999) Trees outside forests: agro-, community and urban forestry. New For 17:145–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 61(1–3):311–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR (1985) Classification of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 3:97–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngambeki DS (1985) Economic evaluation of alley cropping Leucaena with maize and maize-cowpea in southern Nigeria. Agric Syst 17:243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel SH, Pinckey TC, Jaeger WK (1995) Smallholder wood production and population pressure in east Africa: evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve? Land Econ 71:500–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang J (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57:173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paudel GS, Thapa GB (2004) Impact of social, institutional and ecological factors on land management practices in mountain watersheds of Nepal. Appl Geogr 24(1):35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul E, Six S, Paustian J, Gregorich K (2003) Interpretation of soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in agricultural and afforested soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67(5):1620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rasul G, Thapa GB (2003) Shifting cultivation in the mountains of South and Southeast Asia: regional patterns and factors influencing the change. Land Degrad Dev 14(5):495–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasul G, Thapa GB, Zoebisch MA (2004) Determinants of land-use changes in the Chittagong Hill tracts of Bangladesh. Appl Geogr 24:217–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon T, Barret CB, Kelly B, Savadogo K (2001) Sustainable versus unsustainable agricultural intensification in Africa: focus on policy reforms and market conditions. In: Lee R, CB Barret (eds) Tradeoffs and synergies? Agricultural intensification, economic development and the environment. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 365–381

  • Regmi BN, Garforth C (2010) Trees outside forests and rural livelihoods: a study of Chitwan district Nepal. Agrofor Syst 79(3):393–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapkota IP, Odén PC (2008) Household characteristics and dependency on community forests in terai of Nepal. Int J Soc For (IJSF) 1(2):123–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherr SJ (1995) Economic factors in farmer adoption: patterns observed in West Kenya. World Dev 23:787–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz TW (1964) Transforming traditional agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven

  • Shekhawat JS, Sen NL, Somani LL (1988) Evaluation of agroforestry systems under semi-arid conditions of Rajasthan. Indian For 114(2):98–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava BP, Pant MM (1979) Social forestry on a cost benefit analysis framework. Indian For 105(1):2–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamy SL, Puri S (2005) Biomass production and C-sequestration of Gmelina arborea in plantation and agroforestry system in India. Agrofor Syst 64(3):181–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamale E, Jones N, Riddihough IP (1995) Technologies related to participatory forestry in tropical and sub-tropical countries. Technical paper number 299. The World Bank, Washington

  • Turkelboom F, Van KK, Ongprasert S, Sutigoolabud P, Pelletier J (1996) The changing landscape of the Northern Thai hills: adaptive strategies to increasing land pressure. In: Montane Mainland Southeast Asia in transition, pp 436–461

  • Valdivia C, Poulos C (2009) Factors affecting farm operators’ interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agrofor Syst 75:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergara NT, Nair PKR (1985) Agroforestry in the South Pacific region—an overview. Agrofor Syst 3:363–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winjum JK, Dixon RK, Schroeder PE (1992) Estimating the global potential of forest and agro-forest management practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut 64(1):213–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research work was financially supported by the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), Faculty of Business and Law. The authors acknowledge the contribution of the Terai Private Forest Development Association (TPFDA) and Nepal Agroforestry Foundation (NAF) and their staffs for their support during data collection. We truly appreciate the comments of anonymous reviewers. All remaining mistakes are the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Law, University of Southern Queensland (USQ), Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

    Arun Dhakal

  2. Faculty of Business and Law/Australian Centre for Sustainable catchments (ACSC), Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

    Geoff Cockfield

  3. Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments (ACSC), University of Southern Queensland (USQ), Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

    Tek Narayan Maraseni

Authors
  1. Arun Dhakal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoff Cockfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tek Narayan Maraseni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arun Dhakal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dhakal, A., Cockfield, G. & Maraseni, T.N. Evolution of agroforestry based farming systems: a study of Dhanusha District, Nepal. Agroforest Syst 86, 17–33 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9504-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9504-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation