Agricultural Systems 177 (2020) 102711

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Crop-diversification and organic management increase the energy efficiency T

of cacao plantations
David Pérez-Neiraa, Monika Schneiderb, Laura Armengotb,*
a
University of Leon. Postal address: Economy and Statistic Department, University of Leon, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071 Leon, Spain
b
International Cooperation Department, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, FiBL, Switzerland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The increasing global demand for chocolate and related products has intensified their production systems by
Energy analysis both replacing traditional agroforestry systems with monocultures and increasing the use of synthetic external
EROI inputs and machinery. High dependence on non-renewable energy is a clear symptom of unsustainability in food
Agroforestry systems production systems. Consequently, more sustainable agricultural practices should be promoted. With a special
Subproducts
focus on non-renewable energy, this work compares: i) the cumulate energy demand (CED), ii) energy return on
Energy return on labour
investment (EROI), and iii) energy return on labour of four different cacao production systems: two agroforestry
systems and two monocultures under organic and conventional management. Cacao and subproduct yields and
the use of labour and external inputs were recorded during the first five years after the establishment of the trial
in Bolivia. Results show that CED per hectare was almost 2-fold higher in monocultures than in agroforestry
systems. With regard to the kilograms of cacao produced, the higher number of inputs used in monocultures was
compensated by a higher cacao output. However, when subproducts were also taken into account, non-re-
newable CED was 7.4 times higher in monocultures, and non-renewable EROI increased up to 4.8 times in
agroforestry systems compared to monocultures. Under organic management, less than 10% of CED was from
non-renewable sources, while it reached 75% in conventional systems. Non-renewable EROI was higher under
organic management, both when only cacao was considered and when subproducts were also included.
Productivity per hour worked and per energy unit of labour invested were both higher in agroforestry systems
than in monocultures. In conclusion, diversification of production and organic management are crucial to in-
crease EROI and diminish dependence on non-renewable energy sources of cacao plantations.

1. Introduction monocultures is strongly related to a large-scale change in energy me-

Cacao is mainly cultivated by smallholders in the tropical lowlands
of Central and South America, West Africa, and South-East Asia
(Donald, 2004; Franzen and Borgerhoff-Mulder, 2007), and then mostly
exported for the production of chocolate and other subproducts. The
increase in the global demand for cacao (Vaast and Somarriba, 2014)
has led to changes in the production systems of this crop. The tradi-
tional shade management has been gradually replaced by full-sun
monocultures (Franzen and Borgerhoff-Mulder, 2007), due to, among
other reasons, higher yields at the short term (Armengot et al., 2016).
Both the adoption of intensive agricultural practices and the reduction
of forest areas have been identified as the main drivers of the loss of
biodiversity and ecosystem services (Milestad and Darnhofer, 2008;
Morris, 2010). In addition, different authors have proved how the
evolution and transformation of the agricultural landscape promoted by
tabolism (Infante-Amate et al., 2017; Marco et al., 2018). During this
process, labour and locally-produced inputs are being replaced on the
farms by a large number of external inputs (synthetic fertilizers, her-
bicides and pesticides, fuels, electricity, oils, etc.) and machinery and
infrastructure adapted to the new monocultures and improved varieties
(Leach, 1976: Pimentel, 1980). Thus, in most cases, the modernization
of agriculture is helping increase the productivity of the target crop (kg
and/or $ ha−1) and labour (kg ha−1) at the cost of reducing energy
efficiency and incrementing dependence on fossil energy (Giampietro
et al., 1999; Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl, 2007), while contributing to
other environmental impacts (Emmerson et al., 2017).
Leach (1976) and Bayliss-Smith (1982) measured how the energy
return rates of industrial agriculture drastically dropped from pre-in-
dustrial values ranging between 40:1 and 25:1 to very low ones be-
tween 2.5:1 and 1.3:1. In this sense, agroforestry systems are not an

⁎
Corresponding author at: International Cooperation Department, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, FiBL, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland.
E-mail addresses: dpern@unileon.es (D. Pérez-Neira), monika.schneider@fibl.org (M. Schneider), laura.armengot@fibl.org (L. Armengot).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102711
Received 23 May 2018; Received in revised form 14 May 2019; Accepted 19 September 2019
Available online 31 October 2019
0308-521X/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
D. Pérez-Neira, et al.
exception. Infante-Amate et al. (2017) have analysed how the moder-
nization of the production of coffee in Costa Rica led to important
transformations in the management of the agroecosystems that resulted
in higher dependence on external energy sources, with a consequent
loss of efficiency. There is broad agreement on the idea that heavy
dependence on oil in agriculture is a clear symptom of environmental
unsustainability (Arizpe et al., 2011). In fact, in a context of oil de-
pletion (Murray and King, 2012), modern agriculture must face the
challenge of eco-efficiency and sustainable production (Pirdashti et al.,
2015; Hassanien et al., 2016). In this sense, some researchers have
underlined the importance of using renewable energy to reduce oil
consumption (Bardi et al., 2013; Gül-Bayrakc and Koçar, 2012; Panwar
et al., 2011). Others, although their studies have yielded contradictory
results (Smith et al., 2015; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017), have
highlighted the potential of ecological agriculture to reduce energy
consumption and balance long-term productivity and ecological sus-
tainability (Pagani et al., 2016; Hoffman et al., 2018). On the other
hand, agroforestry systems have been proposed as a production alter-
native to monoculture due to their potential role in curtailing the loss of
biodiversity and soil degradation, as well as in C sequestration and, as a
result, climate change mitigation (Jose, 2009; Somarriba et al., 2013;
Marconi and Armengot, 2020). Recent research has debated the po-
tential positive effects of agroforestry systems for soil fertility (Blaser
et al., 2017; Wartenberg et al., 2017), but some studies indicate that,
when optimally managed, agroforestry systems can exhibit higher and
sustainable yields (Saj et al., 2017).
In the case of cacao production, Büsser and Jungbluth (2009) and
Pérez-Neira (2016a) pointed to on-farm production as the most energy-
demanding and GHG-emitting phase in the life cycle of chocolate (63
and 75%, respectively). Likewise, Recanati et al. (2018) stressed the
importance of the energy supply in the manufacturing phase as one of
the main hotspots (49% of the cumulate energy demand) in the pro-
duction of an Italian dark chocolate studied from a cradle-to-grave
approach. Despite the publication of relevant works analysing the life
cycle of cacao (Ntiamoah and Afrane, 2012; Steiger, 2010) the energy
use in the production phase under different production managements
has only been vaguely studied (see Pérez-Neira, 2016b on different
cacao production systems in Ecuador). In addition, information on this
issue in relation to ecological monocultures and, particularly, young
plantations is non-existent.
The main objective of the present study is to compare the energy use
and energy efficiency of four different cacao production systems, in
particular two agroforestry systems and two full-sun monocultures
under organic and conventional management, during the first five years
of a newly established experimental plantation in Alto Beni, Bolivia.
The comparative analysis of the energy behaviour of agriculture under
different types of management provides relevant information that can
contribute to technical and political decision-making processes, which
is especially interesting in the case of young plantations because their
yields and productivity are not yet stabilized. Cacao plantations reach
full production in approximately 10 years, so that the first years are
indeed the most sensitive ones, due to the low cacao output rates
(Armengot et al., 2016). In this sense, it is particularly relevant to
evaluate the extent to which the diversification of production in cacao
systems allows improving the energy efficiency of the cacao production,
reducing dependence on energy use and contributing to local food se-
curity (Cerda et al., 2014; Coulibaly et al., 2017; Kristjanson et al.,
2012) through a higher energy return of the farmers’ labour (Altieri
et al., 2011; Moore, 2010). Three are the initial research hypotheses: (i)
the energy output of cacao is higher in full-sun monocultures and
conventionally-managed systems, although (ii) the lower non-renew-
able energy consumption of ecological systems and the higher energy
output of subproducts in agroforestry systems compensate, from an
energy point of view, their lower cacao yields. In addition, (iii) a higher
energy return on labour in the form of energy output is expected in
agroforestry systems, despite the higher energy demand for labour.
2
Agricultural Systems 177 (2020) 102711
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site and trial description
The trial is located Alto Beni, Bolivia. The average annual pre-
cipitation and temperature in the area are approximately 1540 mm and
26.6 °C. The establishment of the plantation finished in 2009. In this
study, four different cacao production systems were assessed: two full-
sun monocultures and two agroforestry systems under organic and
conventional management. Each production system was replicated four
times. The size of the gross plots was 48 m × 48 m, with a net plot of
24 m × 24 m. The cacao tree spacing was 4 m × 4 m (625 trees ha−1),
resulting in 36 trees in the net plot. The organically-managed systems
followed EU regulations. In the agroforestry systems, the main shade
trees were Inga spp. and Erythrina spp., complemented by timber, fruit
and palm trees. The total density of the shade trees was 304 trees ha−1.
In both the full-sun monocultures and agroforestry systems, plantain
was also planted at a density of 625 trees ha−1. They were removed at
the end of 2011 in the full-sun monocultures and replaced by banana
trees in the agroforestry systems, according to local farming practices. A
perennial legume cover crop (Neonotonia wightii (Am.) Lackey) was
sown in the organically-managed systems. More information about the
trial design is available in Armengot et al. (2016) and Schneider et al.
(2016). From 2010 to 2014, all data (e.g. production, inputs applied,
working time, etc.) were collected from the net plots and all figures
were converted to hectares.
2.2. Sampling procedures and functional units
The functional units chosen were three: 1 ha of production system;
1 kg of dried cacao, and 1 kg of socialized output (including cacao and
subproducts). The energy analysis was performed according to four
study levels (adapted from Pérez-Neira et al., 2013). Level 1 measured
the output in terms of edible biomass commercialized or socialized in
the form of agricultural products, as shown on Eq. (1). The total fresh
cacao bean yield was converted to dry bean yield by applying the dry-
bean factor of 0.33. The plantain and banana yields were recorded as
the weight of bunches, and the weight of plantains and bananas was
estimated from them. Level 2 quantified the energy consumed directly
at the farm (direct energy), which included organic fertilization, labour
and diesel. Levels 3 and 4 measured the energy consumed outside the
farm (indirect energy and capital). Level 3 reflected the energy cost of
producing the inputs used during the production process (NPK fertili-
zers, crop protection, diesel, oil and tools), while Level 4 considered the
energy amortization of the tools used on the farm. The cumulate energy
demand (CED) was estimated through Eq. (2).
Socialized energy output = ∑ Dry cacao (kg ha−1) x α(c) (MJ kg−1)
+ ∑ subproducts(i) (kg ha−1) × α(i) (MJ kg−1) (1)
Where: α(c): dry-cacao energy coefficient; i: subproduct i (banana and
plantain); α(i): output energy coefficient of i; α(c) and α(i) represent the
metabolizable energy of food.
Cumulate energy demand (CED) = ∑ Input(j) (unit ha or kg-1) x ß(j)
(MJ unit-1) (2)
Where: j: input j (NPK fertilizers, organic fertilization, crop protection,
etc.); ß(j): energy coefficient of input j.
The main inputs used for the production of cacao are the following:
i) Fertilization: Only cacao trees were fertilized. Starting in 2010,
Blaukorn BASF (12-8-16-3 N-P2O5-K2O-MgO) was applied in the
conventionally-managed plots, whereas compost prepared using
biomass from the surroundings of the trial site in addition to pur-
chased woodchips and/or rice shells was applied in the organic
ones. The agroforestry systems received half the dose used in the
D. Pérez-Neira, et al.
full-sun monocultures, i.e. on average: conventional full-sun
monoculture: 112 kg ha−1; conventional agroforest: 56 kg ha−1;
organic full-sun monoculture: 8 t ha−1; and organic agroforest: 4 t
ha−1. Foliar applications (Super Foliar 20-20-20) were once applied
in the conventional plots together with pesticides.
ii) Crop protection: Crop protection included weeding and pest control.
Weeding in the conventionally-managed systems was performed by
manual weeding using both machetes and brush cutters, and
through herbicide application (adherents where also added) be-
tween four and five times per year. In the organically-managed
systems no herbicides were used. The use of those tools was
therefore not included within this input group, but within the
"tools" and "fuel" groups. Pesticides (Lorsban PlusR, Dow
AgroSciences, Chlorpyrifos 50 g l−1, Cypermethrin 5 g l−1) were
only applied once in the conventionally-managed plots to control
the cacao leaf-cutting ant (Atta spp.).
iii) Tools: an inventory of all the materials and tools used during the
trial was made, including brush cutters, pruning material, spraying
material (manual backpack sprayers, gloves, protection clothes,
etc.) or cacao harvesting trays. Each tool’s useful life was estimated
and they were amortized over their time of use in each production
system and plot, e.g. that of the spraying material according to the
litters applied, that of the harvesting trays based on the total kilo-
grams produced, that of the pruning scissor based on the total time
required for pruning, etc.
iv) Petroleum derivatives: The amount of fuel and oil was estimated
according to the total time of use of brush cutters and their theo-
retical consumption (l h−1).
v) Human labour: The working time devoted to each agronomic ac-
tivity in the net plot was recorded, mainly harvesting cacao and
plantain/banana, managing the trees, applying fertilizers and
weeding. Additionally, the working time devoted to activities per-
formed outside the plots, such as compost preparation or post-
harvest processes, was also registered.
The coefficients used to define the energy output of (dry) cacao,
plantain and banana were 19.0, 5.11 and 3.73 MJ kg–1, respectively
(adapted from Pérez-Neira, 2016a; and VDE, 2015). That of fertilizers
(NPK), herbicides, adherents, pesticides (active ingredient) and oil was
calculated on the basis of the total embodied energy –including pro-
duction and distribution– of the amount of material used. The energy
output of organic fertilization was estimated according to the energy
content of the compost applied. That of diesel was calculated in relation
to the fuel’s gross energy and energy cost of production and distribu-
tion. In the case of tools, the energy cost of production was amortized
over their useful life (between 3 and 5 years). The coefficients selected
in order to measure these inputs are a key factor in energy analyses,
because they significantly influence the results obtained, but they are
not always well defined (see Frischknecht et al., 2015). For the energy
assessment of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides (active ingredient),
diesel and oil the work by Aguilera et al. (2015) was used as reference.
After making a thorough literature review, this work presented a co-
herent data base that included the direct and/or indirect energy of the
main agricultural inputs at the maximum disaggregation level avail-
able. In the same line, the work by Pérez Neira et al. (2013) was used
for the energy valuation of organic fertilization and the tools used to
carry it out.
The quantification of energy embodied in human labour is a con-
troversial issue and varies according to the researchers’ criteria (see
Rugani et al., 2012 or Aguilera et al., 2015). The present work has
opted for estimating human labour according to the energy content of
the food consumed by the workers to perform the required agricultural
tasks depending on the energy intensity of labour (Kasumov et al.,
2017). This choice is justified by its analytical simplicity and coherence
with the objectives of the present work: from the dietary energy con-
sumption it is possible to estimate the energy efficiency of in-farm
3
Agricultural Systems 177 (2020) 102711
labour (see 2.3), and, at the same time, easily compare different pro-
duction management systems without having to consider the energy
cost of producing the food (which depends on the diet and on the way
the food is produced) or other socioeconomic factors affecting the en-
ergy cost of reproducing the labour force (see Aguilera et al., 2015). For
this purpose, the work by Kasumov et al. (2017) was taken into con-
sideration because it allows calculating the energy consumption asso-
ciated to human labour on the basis of the workers’ weight, age and sex
and the degree of intensity of the various agronomic activities per-
formed. In the present case, the workers were all men, aged between 20
and 40 years-old, with an average weight of 65–70 kg, and the intensity
of the work executed was 50% medium-high and 50% high.
2.3. Energy indicators
For the energy analysis, six synthetic indicators were selected; they
are specified in the following six equations. Energy return on invest-
ment (EROI) estimates the return of the energy that is intentionally
invested by society in agricultural systems (Guzmán and González,
2015). Non-renewable EROI (NR EROI) emphasizes the dependence on
inputs brought from outside the agricultural system from the point of
view of non-renewable energy use (Tello et al., 2016). Non-renewable
energy intensity (NR EI) allows analysing the systems’ capability to
produce food (kg) in relation to the consumption of non-renewable
energy (Omidi-Arjenaki et al., 2016). To calculate indicators 4 and 5,
the CED was also separated and classified into renewable and non-re-
newable CED (Pirdashti et al., 2015). Renewable CED includes human
labour, organic fertilization and the proportional share of renewable
energy (mainly wind, hydraulic and solar) used in the production of
agricultural inputs, and was estimated according to both the informa-
tion provided by Aguilera et al. (2015) and Bolivia’s national energy
balance (MHE, 2015).
The energy return on labour was analysed from two different per-
spectives. Firstly, Human Labour EROI (LH EROI) (indicator 6) allows
calculating the energy return (edible biomass) in relation to the energy
consumption associated to human labour (Altieri et al., 2011; Funes-
Monzote, 2009). This first approach does not take into consideration
the degree of mechanization of the agronomic activities (for instance,
weeding with the help of machinery in agroforestry systems reduces
time and human effort). In other words, it does not calculate the extent
to which the energy return on labour is related to an increase in the use
of direct energy in the plots. In order to take into account the sub-
stitution effect of labour and time, the cumulate energy demand for
labour (CEDL) was also calculated. It is understood as the addition of
human labour and the direct energy that replaces/complements human
labour within the plot (indicator 7). Thus, the energy return on labour
(Labour EROI) can be re-estimated according to Eq. (8).
Energy Return On Investment (EROI) = Socialized energy output
(MJ ha−1) x CED−1 (MJ ha-1) (3)
Non-Renewable EROI (NR EROI) = Socialized energy output
(MJ ha−1) x Non-renewable CED-1 (NR CED) (MJ ha−1), where, NR
CED = CED (MJ ha−1) - Renewable CED (MJ ha−1) (4)
Non-Renewable Energy Intensity (NR EI) = Socialized energy output
(kg ha−1) x NR CED1 (MJ ha−1) (5)
Human Labour EROI (LH EROI) = Socialized energy output
(MJ ha−1) x Human labour energy-1 (MJ ha−1) (6)
Cumulate Energy Demand for Labour (CEDL) = Human labour en-
ergy (MJ ha−1 or MJ kg−1) + Energy that replaces/complements
human labour in the plot (MJ ha−1 or MJ kg−1) (7)
Labour EROI (L EROI) = Socialized energy output (MJ ha−1) x
CEDL−1 (MJ ha−1) (8)
D. Pérez-Neira, et al. Agricultural Systems 177 (2020) 102711

2.4. Statistical analysis

We analysed the effects of the four cacao production systems on the

socialized energy output, CED, NR CED, EROI, NR EROI, NR EI, demand for
labour, LH EROI, CEDL and L EROI through linear mixed-effect models. The
CED, NR CED, EROI, NR EROI and NR EI were calculated both for the
whole system’s production, i.e. including cacao, bananas and plantains, and
for cacao as the only cash crop. The production system, the year, the in-
teraction between the two, and the block were included as fixed factors,
while the plot nested in the block was considered a random factor. The year
was included as an ordered factor. Data were log-transformed when ne-
cessary to meet the normality and homoscedasticity requirements. The
anova table showed significant differences in the production system factor
in all cases; a difflsmeans post-hoc test was performed to test for differences
between them. Differences between monocultures and agroforestry systems
were also checked by re-categorizing the production systems, i.e. both or-
ganic and conventional monocultures were considered monocultures and
the same was applied to the agroforestry systems. All analyses were per-
formed in R 3.2.3 (R Core Team, 2015), with the “lme4” package for mixed
models (Bates et al., 2015), “lmerTest” to evaluate the significance of the
effects (Kuznetsova et al., 2015), and “multcomp” for the post-hoc tests
(Hothorn et al., 2008).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Energy outputs and inputs

Energy input-output analyses are a valuable tool to compare dif-

ferent agricultural production systems, evaluating energy efficiency and
dependence as key aspects of agricultural sustainability (Arizpe et al.,
2011; Maestre-Valero et al., 2018). By applying this methodology to
cacao production, it is possible to observe how, between 2010 and
2014, the energy output of cacao ranged between 2.2 and 5.6 MJ ha−1
(Fig. 1a). Considering only the four productive years in this period
(2011–2014), the energy output of cacao (between 2.8 and
7.0 MJ ha−1) slowly reached a value that was close to the average for
energy return in South America, which ranges from 7.8 to
13.6 MJ ha−1 (estimated from Vaast and Somarriba, 2014). As ex-
pected, the monoculture systems produced approximately 42% more
energy in the form of cacao than the agroforestry systems due to the
latter’s lower yield per hectare (Armengot et al., 2016; Gockowski et al.,
2013; Ramírez et al., 2001). In addition, while the energy output of
cacao in conventional monocultures was higher than in organic
monocultures, there were no significant differences found between the
conventional and the organically-managed agroforestry systems
(Fig. 1a). At the plot level, plantain and banana stood for 94.8 and
71.5% of the total energy output of the agroforestry and monoculture
systems, even though these trees were removed from the latter in 2012
(Fig. 1a). The total output of the agroforestry systems was three-fold
higher than that of the monocultures, a shocking data when compared
to the results obtained when only cacao was considered. This outcome
was nevertheless coherent with those of previous works. For instance,
in a study performed in five Central America countries, Cerda et al.
(2014) showed how the diversification of production in agroforestry
systems allowed increasing the production. In the case here analysed,
subproducts allowed multiplying by 20.1, 17.9, 3.7 and 3.0 the total
energy output in relation to the energy output of cacao only in, re-
spectively, conventional and organic agroforestry systems, and con-
ventional and organic monocultures.
In the first five growing years, the cumulate energy demand per hectare
(CED ha−1) was almost 2-fold higher in the monocultures than in the
agroforestry systems (Fig. 1b). Also, the organic systems reached a higher
CED ha−1 than the conventional systems. However, most of the CED ha−1
in the organic systems came from renewable energy, i.e. up to 93% of the
total CED came from renewable sources, while it was only about 25% in the
conventional systems (Fig. 1b). Overall, the results showed how the
Fig. 1. Annual mean ± standard error from 2010 to 2014 of the a) Socialized
energy output of the cacao and plantain and bananas production, b) Cumulative
energy demand (CED) classified into renewable and non-renewable CED, and c)
relative contribution to the CED of the different energy inputs (fertilizers, crop
protection, fuel, tools and labour) in the four production systems: conventional
agroforestry (Afc), organic agroforestry (Afo), conventional full-sun mono-
culture (Mc), and organic full-sun monoculture (Mo).
Where, different letters indicate significant differences between production
systems. Capital letters refer to the compared agroforestry and monoculture
systems. Small letters in a) compare the cacao output and total output of the
different production systems, in b) compare non-renewable CED and total CED
between production systems.
intensity of the systems analysed in terms of non-renewable energy use was
low, especially in the organic systems, which have a greater capacity to
reuse the biomass and, therefore, use renewable energy (Guzmán and
González, 2015). Actually, the higher CED ha−1 in the organic systems
compared to the conventional ones is mainly due to the use of compost in
the former. For other crops, Mäder et al. (2002) and Seufert and
Ramankutty (2017) have found that the greater soil fertility and biodi-
versity of organically managed plots allow reducing dependence on external
inputs, especially synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. More specifically, for
the organically-managed systems, organic fertilizers (86.7 and 94.6% in
agroforestry systems and monocultures, respectively) and tools (8.1 and
2.7%) were the most important inputs, while tools (61.9 and 56.4%),
chemical fertilizers (10.9 and 13.0%), crop protection (11.8 and 13.4%) and
petroleum derivatives (10.2 and 14.6%) were the main ones for the con-
ventional managements (Fig. 1c).
3.2. Energy efficiency according to the production management
Contrary to the results obtained for the CED per hectare, no sig-
nificant differences were found in the CED per kilogram of cacao

4
D. Pérez-Neira, et al. Agricultural Systems 177 (2020) 102711

Table 1
Annual mean of the energy sustainability indicators from 2010 to 2014 and results of the post-hoc test for the four production systems: conventional agroforestry
(Afc), organic agroforestry (Afo), conventional full-sun monoculture (Mc); organic full-sun monoculture (Mo); agroforestry (Af) and monoculture (M).
Indicators Unit Afc Afo Mc Mo Af-M

Cacao
Cumulate Energy Demand (CED) MJ kg−1 67.33a 164.10b 52.74a 231.93c
Energy Return On Investment (EROI) – 0.29a 0.12b 0.37a 0.08c
Non-Renewable CED (NR CED) MJ kg−1 49.22a 16.09b 40.46a 9.12c
Non-Renewable EROI (NR EROI) – 0.39a 1.21b 0.48a 2.13b
Non-Renewable Energy Intensity (NR EI) Kg MJ−1 0.020a 0.062b 0.025a 0.110c
Farm
Cumulate Energy Demand (CED)† MJ kg−1 0.73a 1.93b 4.61c 26.92d +
Energy Return On Investment (EROI) – 5.80a 2.12b 1.38c 0.25d +
Non-Renewable CED (NR CED) MJ kg−1 0.53a 0.19b 3.54c 1.06d +
Non-Renewable EROI (NR EROI) – 7.94a 21.62b 1.80c 6.40a +
Non-Renewable Energy Intensity (NR EI) Kg MJ−1 1.88a 5.29b 0.28c 0.94d +

Where, different letters indicate significant differences between production systems. All the indicators were log-transformed to meet the normality and homo-
scedasticity requirements; + indicates differences between agroforests and monocultures. For details on the calculation of the indicators refer to the text.

produced between the agroforestry and monoculture systems (Table 1).
This means that the higher number of inputs used in the monocultures
was compensated by their larger cacao production. The higher CED per
kilogram of organic cacao compared to that of conventional cacao was
explained by the lower productivity per hectare and greater reuse of
biomass for fertilization in ecologically-managed systems. This led to
lower energy efficiency, i.e. the energy return on investment (EROI)
was lower in the organically-managed systems (Table 1). However,
when the energy use analysis considered renewable and non-renewable
energy separately, the results changed: the organically-managed sys-
tems presented lower values of non-renewable cumulate energy de-
mand (NR CED) and higher values of non-renewable energy efficiency
(NR EROI) when compared to the conventional ones. In consonance
with previous studies, the results obtained showed how, in most cases
and in contrast with conventional management, organic management
allows reducing dependence on the use of non-renewable energy (see
Smith et al., 2015). More specifically, organic management allowed
multiplying by, respectively, 3.1 and 4.4 the energy efficiency (NR
EROI) and energy intensity (NR EI) of the cacao production in the
agroforestry and monoculture systems. Muner et al. (2015) delivered
similar results for coffee and reported how the energy efficiency of
organic farms in terms of non-renewable energy use was 6 times higher
than that of conventional farms. Pérez-Neira (2016b), studying the
cacao production in Ecuador, concluded that organic management
improved the NR EROI, particularly in conventional monocultures.
Thus, in a context of oil depletion, it is urgent to design agroecosystems
that will reduce the use of non-renewable energy and improve its effi-
ciency producing higher return rates per unit invested as a necessary
condition for agricultural sustainability (Altieri et al., 2011).
Another result of the present work that should be highlighted is the
importance, in terms of energy, of diversifying the production in cacao
plantations. When subproducts were taken into account in addition to
the cacao output, the energy demand (CED MJ kg−1) decreased and the
efficiency (EROI) increased in the agroforestry systems compared to the
monocultures (Table 1). According to Altieri et al. (2011), the farmers’
strategy of minimizing risks by planting several species in the same
agroecosystem allows stabilizing long-term yields, promoting diet di-
versity and maximizing returns even with limited resources and low
technological levels. In economic terms, the sale of subproducts may
improve the profitability of cacao farms, although their income is also
conditioned by other socioeconomic and institutional variables such as
prices and access to markets, as Armengot et al. (2016) have shown for
Bolivian cacao. With regard to energy use, in the present study, the CED
kg-1 was 8.6 times higher in the monocultures than in the agroforestry
systems (when only cacao was considered, there was no statistical
difference between the CED kg−1 of monocultures and agroforestry
systems, Table 1). In consequence, the energy efficiency (EROI) of the
agroforestry systems increased up to 5.5 times in contrast to that of the
monocultures. When only non-renewable energy was considered, the
patterns already identified for cacao were again observed, i.e. the or-
ganic production systems had a lower energy demand and higher effi-
ciency than the conventional ones, with values that were even more
favourable for the organic production when the output of both cacao
and its subproducts were considered. This result underlines the poten-
tial contribution of organic farming and subproducts such as plantain
and banana to the improvement of energy returns in cacao farms and
validates the second hypothesis of the present work.
3.3. Energy return on labour
Agroforestry systems have a higher demand for human labour
(Table 2), mainly due to works associated with the management of
agroforestry trees and the harvest of subproducts (Armengot et al.,
2016). Despite this higher demand, the agroforestry systems of the

Table 2
Annual mean of the energy return on labour from 2010 to 2014 and results of the post-hoc test for the four production systems:
conventional agroforestry (Afc), organic agroforestry (Afo), conventional full-sun monoculture (Mc); organic full-sun monoculture
(Mo); agroforestry (Af) and monoculture (M).
Indicators Unit Afc Afo Mc Mo Af-M

−1
Demand for labour h ha 783.4a 860.4a 660.0b 714.4c +
Labour productivity† kg h−1 16.3a 11.2b 5.0c 1.8d +
MJ h−1 68.6a 45.8b 31.8c 11.9d +
Human Labour EROI (LH EROI) † – 65.0a 43.4b 30.1c 11.2d +
Cumulate Energy Demand for Labour (CEDL) † MJ ha−1 1736a 1353b 2879c 1218b +
Labour EROI (L EROI) – 31.0a 29.1a 7.3b 7.0b +

Where different letters indicate significant differences between production systems. † Log-transformed. + Indicates differences be-
tween agroforests and monocultures. For details on the calculation of the indicators refer to the text.

5
D. Pérez-Neira, et al.
present study obtained an output per hour of work invested (kg h−1) in
all agronomic activities that was almost 4.1 times higher than that
obtained in the monocultures (Table 2). In other words, the time of
human labour invested in the agroforestry systems was more efficient to
produce food (kg), whether for sale, exchange in proximity networks or
household consumption, notably contributing to the family savings and
food security of small farmers (Cerda et al., 2014; Kristjanson et al.,
2012). Considering the different management systems, there were no
differences in the demand for labour between organically and con-
ventionally-managed agroforestry systems, but the demand was higher
in the monoculture under organic management. Labour productivity
(kg h−1) was higher in the conventional systems than in the organic
ones due to the higher yields per hectare of the former. Likewise, the
agroforestry systems produced larger energy outputs per energy unit of
human labour invested (LH EROI). Different authors have discussed the
positive synergies between the high productivity/energy efficiency of
labour and food security, especially in polyculture traditional and/or
agro-ecological systems with low-intensity use of non-renewable energy
(Funes-Monzote, 2009; Infante-Amate et al., 2017). For instance, Altieri
et al. (2011) analysed how, in a typical highland Mayan maize farm, the
energy return per hour of work invested was 44.7 MJ, a similar value to
those obtained for the agroforestry systems in the present study.
Due to the industrialization of agriculture, polycultures, human la-
bour and locally-produced organic inputs have been progressively re-
placed by monocultures, capital and a high number of external inputs
that have transformed the energy metabolism of agriculture (Leach,
1976; Pimentel, 1980). The increase in labour productivity (kg h−1) of
industrialized agriculture has been counteracted by a loss of efficiency
and a higher use of non-renewable energy that has replaced or com-
plemented the energy contribution of human labour (Giampietro et al.,
1999; Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl, 2007). In the present work, the
fossil energy that replaced/complemented human labour amounted to
approximately 58.7 and 76.3% of the CEDL in, respectively, the agro-
forestry systems and monocultures. Thus, the energy returns on labour
measured through the L EROI was much larger in agroforestry systems
than in monocultures (Table 2). This result evidences the high energy
efficiency of cacao agroforestry systems: if the non-renewable energy
replacing/complementing human labour were again substituted by
human labour, the energy efficiency of labour (L EROI) would still be
30:1 and 6.85:1 for, respectively, agroforestry systems and mono-
cultures. This result validates the third hypothesis of this work and
proves for the first growing years the high degree of energy sustain-
ability of low-intensity agroforestry systems as concerns the use of non-
renewable energy.
4. Conclusions
To be able to design more sustainable agroecosystems in terms of
energy, it is necessary to implement the appropriate methodologies that
can guide in-farm technical and production decision-making while
capturing the specificities of the different production management
systems. After applying the energy analysis methodology to four dif-
ferent cacao production systems during five years, our results show that
the diversification of production (agroforests) and organic management
are, in young plantations, two key elements that allow improving the
energy efficiency of cacao production systems while reducing their
dependence on fossil fuels. Despite the higher yield per hectare of cacao
grown under conventional systems and monocultures, organic man-
agement makes it possible to reduce the non-renewable energy demand
per kilogram of cacao produced and, when considering as well the
subproducts, the agroforestry system proves to be, on average,
4.8 times more efficient (NR EROI) than monocultures, especially when
organically managed. In addition, agroforestry systems have a higher
energy return on labour. To reverse the current scenario of agricultural
systems with low energy efficiency and high demand for non-renewable
energy, cacao stakeholders should promote the adoption of practices
6
Agricultural Systems 177 (2020) 102711
such as agroforestry systems and organic farming to ensure the sus-
tainability of cacao plantations, which at the same time will enhance
the farmers’ livelihood and ecosystem services, as it has been previously
reported.
Acknowledgements
The authors are hereby grateful to their Bolivian colleagues of the
research station in Sara Ana. This study was financed by the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Liechtenstein
Development Service (LED), Biovision Foundation for Ecological
Development, and the Coop Sustainability Fund.
References
Aguilera, E., Guzmán, G., Infante-Amate, J., Soto, D., García-Ruiz, R., Herrera, A., Villa, I.,
Torremocha, E., Carranza, G., González de Molina, M., 2015. Embodied Energy in
Agricultural Inputs. Incorporating a Historical Perspective. DT-SEHA 15-07.
Available online at http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/141278/
DT-SEHA%201507.pdf?sequence=. Accessed 26 Apr 2016. .
Altieri, M.A., Funes-Monzote, F., Petersen, P., 2011. Agroecologically efficient agri-
cultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 32, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6.
Arizpe, N., Giampietro, M., Ramos-Martin, J., 2011. Food security and fossil fuel de-
pendence: an international comparison of the use of fossil energy in agriculture
(1991-2003). Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci. 30, 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.
2011.554352.
Armengot, L., Barbieri, P., Andres, C., Milz, J., Schneider, M., 2016. Cacao agroforestry
systems have higher return on labor compared to full-sun monocultures. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 36, 70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0406-6.
Bardi, U., El Asmar, T., Lavacci, A., 2013. Turning electricity into food: the role of re-
newable energy in the future of agriculture. J. Clean. Prod. 53, 224–231. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.014.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., 2015. Fitting linear mixed effects models
using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Bayliss-Smith, T.P., 1982. The Ecology of Agricultural Systems. Cambridge Topics in
Geography, New York second series, p. 112.
Blaser, W.J., Oppong, J., Yeboah, E., Six, J., 2017. Shades trees have limited benefits for
soil fertility in cocoa agroforests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 243, 83–91.
Büsser, S., Jungbluth, N., 2009. LCA of Chocolate Packed in Aluminium Foil Based
Packaging. ESU-services Ltd. Uster, Switzerland. Commissioned by German
Aluminium Association (GDA) in cooperation with European Aluminium Foil
Association (EAFA), Düsseldorf, Germany.
Cerda, R., Deheuvels, O., Calvache, D., Niehaus, L., Saenz, Y., Kent, J., Vilchez, S., Villota,
A., Martinez, C., Somarriba, E., 2014. Contribution of cocoa agroforestry systems to
family income and domestic consumption: looking toward intensification. Agroforest.
Syst. 88, 957–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9691-8.
Coulibaly, J.Y., Chiputwa, B., Nakelse, N.T., Kundhlande, G., 2017. Adoption of agro-
forestry and the impact on household food security among farmers in Malawi. Agric.
Syst. 155, 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.03.017.
Donald, P., 2004. Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production sys-
tems. Conserv. Biol. 18, 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.01803.x.
Emmerson, M., Morales, M.B., Oñate, J.J., Batáry, P., Berendse, F., Liira, J., Aavik, T.,
Guerrero, I., Bommarco, R., Eggers, S., Pärt, T., Tscharntke, T., Weisser, W., Clement,
L., Bengtsson, J., 2017. How agricultural intensification affects biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Adv. Ecol. Res. 55, 43–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.
2016.08.005.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Haberl, H., 2007. Socioecological Transitions and Global Change:
Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Institute of Social Ecology,
Klagenfurt University. Edward Elgar Publishing, Vienna, Austria, pp. 288.
Frischknecht, R., Wyss, F., Knöpfel, S., Lützkendorf, T., Balouktsi, M., 2015. Cumulative
energy demand in LCA: the energy harvested approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20
(7), 957–969 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1073-1.
Franzen, M., Borgerhoff-Mulder, M., 2007. Ecological, economic and social perspectives
on cocoa production worldwide. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 3835–3849. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10531-007-9183-5.
Funes-Monzote, F.R., 2009. Agricultura Con Futuro: La Alternativa Agroecológica Para
Cuba. Estación Experimental Indio Hatuey, Matanzas. On line:https://www.socla.co/
wp-content/uploads/2014/Agricultura_Funes_Monzote1.pdf?iv=213Accessed 10
Jan 2018.
Giampietro, M., Bukkens, S.G.F., Pimentel, D., 1999. General trends of technological
changes in agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci. 18, 261–282.
Gül-Bayrakc, A., Koçar, G., 2012. Utilization of renewable energies in Turkey’s agri-
culture. Renew Sust. Energ. Rev. 16, 618–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.
08.027.
Guzmán, G., González, M., 2015. Energy efficiency in agrarian systems from an agroe-
cological perspective. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 39, 924–952. https://doi.org/10.
1080/21683565.2015.1053587.
Hassanien, R.H.E., Li, M., Dong, D.L., 2016. Advanced applications of solar energy in
agricultural greenhouses. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 54, 989–1001. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.095.
D. Pérez-Neira, et al.
Hoffman, E., Cavigelli, M.A., Camargo, G., Ryan, M., Mirsky, S., 2018. Energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: ac-
counting for nutrient inflows. Agric. Syst. 162, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2018.01.021.
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., Westfall, P., 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric
models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425.
Infante-Amate, J., Picado, W., Guzmán, G., 2017. Energy return on investment in tradi-
tional and modern agricultures. Coffee agro-ecosystems in Costa Rica from an agro-
ecological perspective (1935-2010). In: Guzmán, Gloria, Molina, Manuel Gonzálezde
(Eds.), Energy in Agroecosystems: A Tool for Assessing Sustainability. CRC Press, pp.
157–176.
Jose, S., 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an
overview. Agroforest. Syst. 76, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7.
Kasumov, N., Mozhaev, E., Kasumova, S., Slesarenko, S., Kasumova, N., 2017. Energy
analysis of agricultural labor. Chem. Eng. Trans. 58, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.3303/
CET1758009.
Kristjanson, P., Neufeldt, H., Gassner, A., Mango, J., Kyazze, F.B., Desta, S., Sayula, G.,
Thiede, B., Förch, W., Thornton, P.K., Coe, R., 2012. Are food insecure smallholder
households making changes in their farming practices? Evidence from East Africa.
Food Secur. 4, 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0194-z.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P.B., Bojesen Christensen, R.B., 2015. lmerTest: Tests in Linear
Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 2.0–29. Accessed 7 March 2015. http://
cran.r-project.org/package=lmerTest.
Leach, G., 1976. Energy and Food Production. IPC Science and Technology Press, London,
pp. 444.
Mäder, P., Flissbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., Niggli, U., 2002. Soil fertility and
biodiversity in organic farming. Science. 31 (296(5573)), 1694–1697. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1071148.
Maestre-Valero, M.V., Martin-Gorriz, B., Nicolas, B., Martinez-Mate, M.A., Martinez-
Alvarez, V., 2018. Deficit irrigation with reclaimed water in a citrus orchard. Energy
and greenhouse-gas emissions analysis. Agric. Syst. 159, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agsy.2017.10.017.
Marco, I., Padró, R., Catteneo, C., Caravaca, J., Tello, E., 2018. From vineyards to fee-
dlots: a fund-flow scanning of sociometabolic transition in the Vallès County
(Catalonia) 1860–1956–1999. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 981–993. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10113-017-1172-y.
Marconi, L., Armengot, L., 2020. Complex agroforestry systems against biotic homo-
genization: the case of plants in the herbaceous stratum of cocoa production systems.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 287, 106664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106664.
MHE (Ministerio de Hidrocarburos y Energía), 2015. Balance Energético Nacional.
Ministerio de Hidrocarburos y Energía de Bolivia.
Milestad, R., Darnhofer, I., 2008. Building farm resilience: the prospects and challenges of
organic farming. J. Sustain. Agric. 22, 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J064v22n03_09.
Moore, S.R., 2010. Energy efficiency in small-scale biointensive organic onion production
in Pennsylvania, USA. Renew. Agr. Food. Syst. 25, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S1742170510000098.
Morris, R.J., 2010. Anthropogenic impacts on tropical forest biodiversity: a network
structure and ecosystem functioning perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci.
365, 3709–3718. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0273.
Muner, L.H.D., Masera, O., Fornazier, M.J., Souza, C.V.D., de Loreto, M.D.D., 2015.
Energetic sustainability of three arabica coffee growing systems used by family
farming units in Espírito Santo state. Eng. Agrã¯â¿â½cola 35, 397–405.
Murray, J., King, D., 2012. Climate policy: oil’s tipping point has passed. Nature 481,
433–435. https://doi.org/10.1038/481433a.
Ntiamoah, A., Afrane, G., 2012. Environmental impacts of cocoa production and pro-
cessing in Ghana: life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1735–1740.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.11.004.
Omidi-Arjenaki, O., Ebrahimi, R., Ghanbarian, D., 2016. Analysis of energy input and
output for honey production in Iran (2012–2013). Renew. Sus. Energ. Rev. 59,
952–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.060.
Pagani, M., Vittuari, T.G., Johnson, T.G., De Menna, F., 2016. An assessment of the energy
footprint of dairy farms in Missouri and Emilia-Romagna. Agric. Syst. 145, 116–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.009.
Panwar, N.L., Kaushik, S.C., Kothari, S., 2011. Role of renewable energy sources in
Agricultural Systems 177 (2020) 102711
environmental protection: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 1513–1524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.037.
Pérez-Neira, D., Soler-Montiel, M., Simon-Fernández, X., 2013. Energy analysis of organic
farming in Andalusia (Spain). Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 37, 231–256. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10440046.2012.734263.
Pérez-Neira, D., 2016a. Energy sustainability of Ecuadorian cacao export and its con-
tribution to climate change. A case study through product life cycle assessment. J.
Clean. Prod. 112, 2560–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.003.
Pérez-Neira, D., 2016b. Energy efficiency of cacao agroforestry under traditional and
organic management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-
016-0386-6.
Pimentel, D., 1980. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton
FL, pp. 417.
Pirdashti, H., Pirdashti, M., Mohammadi, M., Baigi, M.G., Movagharnejad, M., 2015.
Efficient use of energy through organic rice–duck mutualism system. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 35, 1489–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0311-4.
R Core Team, 2015. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R foun-
dation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Accessed 7 March 2015.
Ramírez, O., Somarriba, E., Ludewigs, T., Ferreira, P., 2001. Financial returns, stability
and risk of cacao-plantation-agroforestry systems in Central America. Agroforest.
Syst. 2, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010655304724.
Recanati, F., Marveggio, M., Dotelli, G., 2018. From beans to bar: a life cycle assessment
towards sustainable chocolate supply chain. Sci. Total Environ. 613–614, 1013–1023.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.187.
Rugani, B., Panasiuk, D., Benetto, E., 2012. An input-output based framework to evaluate
human labour in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 795–812. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0403-1.
Saj, S., Jagoret, P., Etoa, L.E., Fonkeng, E.E., Sakouma, E.M., 2017. Lessons learned from
the long-term analysis of cacao yield and stand structure in central Cameroonian
agroforestry systems. Agric. Syst. 156, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.
06.002.
Schneider, M., Andres, C., Trujillo, G., Alcon, F., Amurris, P., Pérez, E., Weibel, F., Milz,
J., 2016. Cocoa and total system yields of organic and conventional agroforestry vs.
Monoculture systems in a long-term field trial in Bolivia. Exp. Agric. 53, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479716000417.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., 2017. Many shades of gray—the context-dependent perfor-
mance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602638. https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1602638.
Smith, L., Williams, A., Pearce, B., 2015. The energy efficiency of organic agriculture: a
review. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 30, 280–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1742170513000471.
Somarriba, E., Cerda, R., Orozco, L., Cifuentes, M., Dávila, H., Espin, T., Mavisoy, H.,
Ávila, G., Alvarado, E., Poveda, V., Astorga, C., Say, E., Deheuvels, O., 2013. Carbon
stocks and cocoa yields in agroforestry systems of Central America. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 173, 46–57.
Steiger, N., 2010. Effect of Higher Product Quality on Environmental Impact: the Example
of Chocolate Production. IED – Institute for Environmental Decisions and NSSI –
Natural and Social Science Interface. Available athttp://www.uns.ethz.ch/pub/
publications/pdf/1742.pdfAccessed 10 Jan 2017.
Tello, E., Galán, E., Sacristán, V., Cunfer, G., Guzmán, G.I., de Molina, M.G., Krausmann,
F., Gingrich, S., Padró, R., Marco, I., Moreno-Delgado, D., 2016. Opening the black
box of energy throughputs in farm systems: a decomposition analysis between the
energy returns to external inputs, internal biomass reuses and total inputs consumed
(the Vallès County, Catalonia, c. 1860 and 1999). Ecol. Econ. 121, 160–174. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.012.
Vaast, P., Somarriba, E., 2014. Trade-offs between crop intensification and ecosystem
services: the role of agroforestry in cocoa cultivation. Agroforest Syst. 88, 947–956.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9762-x.
VDE (Viceministerio de Desarrollo Energético), 2015. Balance Energético Nacional.
Ministerio de Hidrocarburos y Energía, Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, La Paz.
Wartenberg, A., Blaser, W.J., Gattinger, A., Roshetko, J.M., Van Noordwijk, M., Six, J.,
2017. Does shade tree diversity increase soil fertility in cocoa plantations? Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 248, 190–199.