Agroforestry Systems 61: 135152, 2004. 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

135

The enigma of tropical homegardens

B.M. Kumar1 and P.K.R. Nair2
of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur 680 656, Kerala, India; e-mail: bmkumar53@yahoo.co.uk; 2 School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA; e-mail: pknair@u.edu
1 College

Key words: Carbon sequestration, Integrated farming systems, Multispecies systems, Species diversity, Species inventory, Sustainability

Abstract Tropical homegardens, one of the oldest forms of managed land-use systems, are considered to be an epitome of sustainability. Although these multispecies production systems have fascinated many and provided sustenance to millions, they have received relatively little scientic attention. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of knowledge on homegardens with a view to using it as a basis for improving the homegardens as well as similar agroforestry systems. Description and inventory of local systems dominated the research efforts on homegardens during the past 25 or more years. The main attributes that have been identied as contributing to the sustainability of these systems are biophysical advantages such as efcient nutrient cycling offered by multispecies composition, conservation of bio-cultural diversity, product diversication as well as nonmarket values of products and services, and social and cultural values including the opportunity for gender equality in managing the systems. With increasing emphasis on industrial models of agricultural development, fragmentation of land holdings due to demographic pressures, and, to some extent, the neglect or, lack of appreciation of traditional values, questions have been raised about the future of homegardens, but such concerns seem to be unfounded. Quite to the contrary, it is increasingly being recognized that understanding the scientic principles of these multispecies systems will have much to offer in the development of sustainable agroecosystems. Research on economic valuation of the tangible as well as intangible products and services, principles and mechanisms of resource sharing in mixed plant communities, and realistic valuation and appreciation of hitherto unrecognised benets such as carbon sequestration will provide a sound basis for formulating appropriate policies for better realization and exploitation of the benets of homegardens.

Introduction Farming systems variously described in the English language as agroforestry homegardens, household or homestead farms, compound farms, backyard gardens, village forest gardens, dooryard gardens and house gardens abound in the tropics. Some local names such as Talun-Kebun and Pekarangan that are used for various types of homegarden systems of Java (Indonesia), Shamba and Chagga in East Africa, and Huertos Familiares of Central America, have also attained international popularity because of the excellent examples of the systems they represent (Nair 1993).

Although several authors have tried to describe the term homegarden, none is perhaps universally accepted as the denition; but it is well understood that the concept refers to intimate, multi-story combinations of various trees and crops, sometimes in association with domestic animals, around homesteads. These multistrata agroforests are estimated to occupy about 20% of the arable land in Java (Jensen 1993a) and are regarded as the epitome of sustainability throughout the tropics (Torquebiau 1992). Homegardening has been a way of life for centuries and is still critical to the local subsistence economy and food security in Kerala state in peninsular India that has about 5.4

136 million small gardens (mostly less than 0.5 ha in area) (KSLUB 1995). In Africa, Central America, and the Caribbean and the Pacic Islands also, homegardens are of vital importance (Ruthenberg 1980; Caballero 1992; Anderson 1993; Clarke and Thaman 1993; Rugalema et al. 1994a, 1994b, 1995; High and Shackleton 2000). Presumably, homegardening is the oldest land use activity next only to shifting cultivation. It evolved through generations of gradual intensication of cropping in response to increasing human pressure and the corresponding shortage of arable lands. The two great Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata (based on events that have supposedly happened around 7000 B.C. and 4000 B.C. respectively) contain an illustration of Ashok Vatika, a form of todays homegardens (see Puri and Nair 2004). The Javanese homegardens have reportedly originated as early as the seventh millennium B.C. (Hutterer 1984), and the Kerala homegardens are thought to be at least 4000 years old. Natural history studies in southern India during the late 1800s to early 1900s suggest that people traditionally used their homesteads for a variety of needs such as food, energy, shelter, and medicines1 . Socioculturally, homegardening ts well with the traditional farming systems and established village lifestyles. These systems have probably evolved over centuries of cultural and biological transformations and they represent the accrued wisdom and insights of farmers who have interacted with environment, without access to exogenous inputs, capital or scientic skills. A great deal has changed, however, in the philosophy of and approaches to tropical land use during the past few decades. When the economy was predominantly subsistence-oriented, the homegardens that provide an array of outputs (Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993) were quite appropriate land-use systems. With the advent of market economy, and consequent emphasis on maximization of production and use of external inputs in crop production, the homegardens have lost some of their relevance. There has been a resurgence of interest, however, in traditional land use practices in the wake of mounting environmental deterioration and/or failures of single-species agricultural enterprises; consequently homegardens have received some attention although they may not address environmental deterioration at a large scale because they exist in scattered small plots. Pioneering research on homegardens dating back to the 1940s was reported from Indonesia (Terra 1953; 1958). These were followed by Ruthenbergs studies on tropical mixed-species cropping systems in the 1970s (Ruthenberg 1980) and similar work at the Institute of Ecology, Bandung, Indonesia (e.g., Soemarwoto 1987), the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasaragod, Kerala, India (Nair 1979), and elsewhere (e.g., Michon et al. 1983). These efforts got a further boost as the ICRAF (International Centre for Research in Agroforestry) effort on global inventory of agroforestry systems got underway (Nair 1987), and several descriptions and syntheses of traditional homegarden systems were published (Nair 1989). While most of the recorded reports on homegardens provided regional perspectives, others (notably Brownrigg 1985; Fernandes and Nair 1986; Soemarwoto 1987; Gliessman 1990; Landauer and Brazil 1990; Nair 2001; Soemarwoto and Conway 1991; Torquebiau 1992) were more comprehensive, describing the structure, functioning and sustainability of different forms of homegardens in various places. And, all of them without exception highlighted the need for coordinated scientic research on these extremely interesting systems. The objective of this paper is to summarize and analyze the trends in homegarden research during the past 25 years with a view to providing some new insights and directions on improving the homegardens and hopefully other similar systems.

Major themes and advances in homegarden research It is well known that traditional land-use systems are inuenced to a great extent by the biophysical and socio-cultural characteristics of the locales where they are practiced. Homegardens are no exception. A typical homegarden, nevertheless, is an integral part of the farmers farming system and an adjunct to the house, where selected trees, shrubs and herbs are grown for edible products and cash income, as well as for a variety of outputs that have both production and service values including aesthetic and ecological benets. Although agroforestry literature lists homegardens as an agroforestry practice (Nair 1993), it could be more appropriate to say that homegardening is a generic concept much like agroforestry itself. Both involve diverse life forms and managerial regimes, which exist in harmony with one another on the same land management unit and/or on the landscape level. Ecologists have variously described these as steady-state systems (where production equals res-

137
Table 1. A comparison of the ecological attributes of climax forests, homegardens and conventional agricultural systems (monocropping). Parameter Biogeochemistry Biotic stress Canopy architecture Disturbance regimes Natural climax vegetation (humid tropics) Nutrient inputs equal outputs Low Multistrata Rare except natural disturbances such as tree fall, wind throw etc. High Normally uninterrupted, reaches a stable end-stage, e.g. climatic climax Low Shade tolerant and intolerant No external inputs High (Odum 1969) Progressive improvement (e.g. facilitation) Highest among the terrestrial ecosystems (mean NPP: 2000 g m2 year1 ) Sustainable Homegardens Inputs and outputs balance each other Low Multistrata Intermediate Conventional agricultural systems Outputs far exceed inputs High One- or two- layered High

Diversity Ecological succession

Intermediate Consciously manipulated

Low Arrested, succession does not proceed beyond the early stage High Mostly shade intolerant High Low Steady decline Low (mean NPP: 650 g m2 year1 ; Leith 1975) Unsustainable

Entropy Floristic spectrum Input use Overall homeostasis Site quality Standing biomass/net primary productivity (NPP) Sustainability

Low (?) shade tolerant and intolerant Low High Progressive improvement Comparable to the climax formations but rm estimates are lackinga Sustainable

a However, a lone report on this (Christanty et al. 1986), cf Torquebiau (1992), provides a value of 5.23 kJ (= 1250 cal) m2 yr1 for the

pekarangan gardens in Java. Clearly, this is lower than the annual energy xation in both cultivated lands and tropical rainforests (i.e., 11.3 and 34.6 MJ m2 yr1 respectively; Leith 1975).

piration and/or inputs balance outputs), with structural characteristics comparable to those of the natural mixed forest vegetation systems (Fassbender 1993; Jensen 1993a, b; Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993). Perhaps the high species diversity and low export of harvested products endow sustainability to them. Ewel (1999) considers such systems structurally and functionally the closest mimics of natural forests yet attained. Quantitative data on the biogeochemical and physiological processes in tropical homegardens are inadequate, however, to substantiate such comparisons. Some of the ecological attributes of homegardens in comparison to those of agricultural and forest systems are summarized in Table 1. It needs to be noted that such comparisons between homegrdens and forests, although fascinating to the ecologists, may sometimes be unpopular with farmers. For example, farmers in Java consider it an insult to compare their pekarangan to a forest, because, they regard homegardens as carefully tended plots, unlike the wild areas of natural forests (Soemarwoto 1987). Scientic reports on homegardens are replete with statements such as the studies on these systems have been disproportionately lower than what their eco-

nomic value, ecological benets or sociocultural importance would warrant (Nair 2001). Furthermore, most of the reported studies are of inductive nature describing the system. Very little deductive research (hypothesis formulation and testing) has been done so that our understanding of the ecological rationalities behind the harmony between the humans, the homegardens, and the environment is limited. Methodological/design problems also hinder homegarden research more than in any other related elds. Each homegarden is unique in its own way despite the larger structural and functional similarities, making it extremely challenging to use commonly accepted research designs and procedures in the study of homegardens. Most of the reported studies on homegardens are from Asia. Notwithstanding the pre-1990 work, 38 out of 83 post-1990 papers listed in CABI abstracts have been conducted in Southeast Asia (mainly Indonesia), followed by 22 from the South Asian region. Homegardens are, admittedly, predominant in those regions; yet, reports from other homegarden-rich regions such as Central America and West Africa are far less in relation to the extent of the practice.

138 The unique characteristics of homegardens have attracted the attention of several types of researchers: from proponents of energy-intensive modern production systems to champions of low-input sustainable systems, and from biophysical scientists who are in endless pursuit of quantifying every aspect of biological activity to social and behavioral scientists for whom the whole is often more than the sum of its parts. These various efforts in homegarden research during the past quarter century are briey reviewed here. System inventory System description has been the most dominant aspect of the homegarden research so far. Thirty-two out of 83 published works on tropical homegardens since 1990 dealt with this. These published inventories suggest that food crops, medicinal plants, ornamentals, fruit trees, multipurpose trees and fodder crops abound in the homegardens. Woody components generally include timber trees, fruit trees, fuelwood species and palms, and may include both native as well as exotics, besides wild or domesticated crop plants. Such studies also documented the local practices and species inventory, elucidated the need for conservation of biocultural diversity and documented the sociocultural determinants of biodiversity, besides the traditional uses of various plants. Although the value of such databases has been recognized, voices have been raised about the need for moving on from species inventories and descriptions to establishing underlying concepts and general principles and developing and pursuing researchable hypotheses (Nair 2001). Species composition and diversity While most advances in agriculture and forestry entail single-species stands, characterized quite appropriately as biological deserts of low species diversity, tropical homegardens are glorious examples of species diversity in cultivated and managed plant communities. Several landraces and cultivars, and rare and endangered species have been preserved in the homegardens (Watson and Eyzaguirre 2002). Soemarwoto and associates reviewed the early work on species diversity and plant density in Indonesian homegardens (Soemarwoto 1987; Soemarwoto and Conway 1991); more recent reports are summarized in Table 2. Wide variations in species assemblages of different geographic/eco-climatic regions are apparent. Comparisons are, however, difcult because of the different criteria employed for preparing inventories by different workers. Many studies on oristic richness of homegardens also lack information on the degree of heterogeneity in the study area (e.g. extent and socioeconomic nature of sampling units). Besides, little attention has been given to relate oristic richness to ecosystem processes. Some authors have advocated an ecological approach to computing diversity indexes and correspondence analysis (Rico-Gray et al. 1990; Kumar et al. 1994; Drescher 1996; Vogl et al. 2002; Wezel and Bender 2003), which is still relatively new in homegarden studies. The limited studies that have been made in this area indicate that homegarden diversity indexes are comparable with that of adjacent forest formations (Gajaseni and Gajaseni 1999; Kumar et al. 1994). The crop combinations found in the homegardens of a region are strongly inuenced by the specic needs and preferences of the household and nutritional complementarity with other major food sources, besides ecological and socioeconomic factors (Asfaw and Woldu 1997; Christanty et al. 1986; Vogl et al. 2002). The homegardeners are perpetual experimenters. They are constantly trying and testing new species and varieties and their management (Niez 1987). A new species may be chosen by the garden owner because of its properties, i.e., food, wood, medicinal, religious, ornamental, and based on selfinstinct or information passed on by neighbours and relatives. There is, however, no specic time of the year for planting or introducing new plant species into the gardens; it will depend on the space available and/or soil conditions (Rico-Gray et al. 1990; Yamamoto et al. 1991). Species richness of homegardens within a region is inuenced by farm size. Kumar et al. (1994) reported that oristic diversity (measured by number of species per unit land area) was greater in small gardens (<0.4 ha size) (Simpsons diversity index, D = 0.61) than in medium (0.4 to 2.0 ha, D = 0.44) and large (>2 ha, D = 0.46) gardens. Drescher (1996) also showed that the density-based Shannon-index decreased with increasing garden-size up to 599 m2 , after which it, however, increased up to 1499 m2 ; nevertheless, the smallest gardens located in the urban areas showed the highest crop species diversity in his study. Presumably, the limited space forces people to accommodate many different species in relatively small numbers on small plots. Furthermore, the religious/cultural beliefs, customs, and taboos of the villagers inuence the diversity/composition of homeg-

139
Table 2. Floristic elements reported from homegardens in different regionsa of the world. Region/location and the oristic spectrum sampled Number of species per garden Total for geographical location Source

South Asia Pitikele, Sri Lanka (edible species) Kandy, Sri Lanka (woody species) Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India (all species) As above Kerala, India (woody species) Bangladesh (perennial species) As above Kerala, India (all species) Southeast Asia West Java (all species) Northeastern Thailand (all species) Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand (all species) West Java (all species) Central Sulawesi, Indonesia (all species) Cianjur, West Java (all species) Cilangkap, Java (all species) South/Central America & the Caribbean Quintan Roo, Mexico (all species) Cuba (all species) Central Amazon (woody species) Belize (all species) Masaya, Nicaragua (all species) Santa Rosa, Peruvian Amazon (all species) Yucatan, Mexico (all species) As above Chiapas, Mexcio (all species) Cuba (all species) Other regions Catalonia, Spain (all species) Southern Ethiopia (all species) Bungoma, Western Kenya (all species) Soqotra island, Yemen (all species) Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire) (all species) Bukoba, Tanzania (woody species) Central, eastern, western and southern Ethiopia (all species)
a All except Catalonia are tropical.

418 2636 325

55 27 107 127 30 92 65

Caron (1995) Jacob and Alles (1987) John and Nair (1999) D. Jose (pers. comm., 1992) Kumar et al. (1994) Leuschner and Khaleque (1987) Millat-e-Mustafa et al. (1996) Nair and Sreedharan (1986)

1560 2653 2837 472 4258

195 230 602 149

Abdoellah et al. (2001) Black et al. (1996) Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) Karyono (1990) Kehlenbeck and Maas (2004) K Sakamoto (pers. comm., 2003) Yamamoto et al. (1991)

39 30 1874 30 1824

150 80 60 164 324 168 133135 301 241 101

De Clerck and Negreros-Castillo (2000) Esquivel and Hammer (1992) Guillaumet et al. (1990) Levasseur and Olivier (2000) M ndez et al. (2001) e Padoch and de Jong (1991) Rico-Gray et al. (1990) Rico-Gray et al. (1991) Vogl et al. (2002) Wezel and Bender (2003)

14.4 3.98.4

250 60 253 272 53 162

Agelet et al. (2000) Asfaw and Woldu (1997) Backes (2001) Ceccolini (2002) Mpoyi et al. (1994) Rugalema et al. (1994a) Zemede and Ayele (1995)

ardens. For example, crops/trees/animals are retained or excluded depending on the above considerations (Millat-e-Mustafa et al. 1996). Women too play an important role in determining the species to be included in their homegardens; indeed, in many instances, wo-

men are responsible for introducing new species into their homegardens. Structure Presence of a large number of species on the same land management unit, often seemingly not follow-

140 ing any specic geometry, makes it difcult to dene the temporal/spatial architecture of homegardens. Although a typical homegarden may represent a clearly demarcated area (fenced-in or bounded by eld risers), often it is difcult to distinguish where the homegarden ends and arable cropping starts. In addition, size and shape of gardens, and the nature of cropping are dynamic, further complicating the structural pattern. The structural entities of homegardens are, however, arranged in a complex micro-zonal pattern having well-dened vertical/horizontal stratication with each structural ensemble occupying a specic niche, such that they cannot be easily dissociated from one another (Nair and Sreedharan 1986). Understanding these interrelations will be one step forward in utilizing the advantages of homegarden agroforestry. Many authors have reported that distinct horizontal zones occur in the homegardens, and that their location, size and plant species composition reect deliberate management strategies (Abdoellah 1990; Padoch and de Jong 1991; Zemede and Ayele 1995; Millate-Mustafa et al. 1996; Agelet et al. 2000; Mendez et al. 2001). Position or distance from home, besides size, shape, crop composition, and planting pattern of the garden are the principal determinants in this respect. The number of such management zones per homegarden varies from two to six, with a mode value of three. In general, food and fruit producing species dominate near the living quarter and working areas, and small plots of annual vegetable crops separate this part of the garden from the more distant parts favored for timber species. Medicinal and ornamental species are typically cultivated in small areas or in pots surrounding the house, and vegetables in areas adjacent to the kitchen. It needs to be claried that such vegetable and ornamental gardens, may not have agroforestry implications; but they all usually mesh well into a land-use system surrounding the home in a relatively small area of land (often less than 0.5 ha), and the whole unit is referred to as homegarden. Coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) forms the nucleus of the Kerala homegardens, around which the other components are orchestrated (Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993). Multipurpose tree and shrub species used as live fences are usually planted on farm boundaries, regardless of holding size. Trees also may be scattered throughout the homestead or at specic points to provide or avoid shade, necessary or harmful to different plants, besides providing support for climbers (e.g., Piper nigrum; Mathew et al. 1996). Plants and their local uses, which are included in different zones, generally mirror the farmers management priorities and socioeconomic needs. The multi-tiered canopy structure is one of the most distinguishing features of homegardens, especially in humid tropical lowlands. Most workers delineate a three-to-six-strata system (e.g., Karyono 1990; Michon and Mary 1990; 1994; Gillespie et al. 1993; Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993; Kumar et al. 1994; Millat-e-Mustafa et al. 1996; Hochegger 1998; Gajaseni and Gajaseni 1999; De Clerck and Negreros-Castillo 2000), with about three quarters to full coverage of the ground (Jensen 1993b). Predictably, the vertical stratication provides a gradient in light and relative humidity, which creates different niches for enabling various species groups to exploit them. Obviously, shade tolerant crops constitute the lower stratum, shade intolerant trees the top layer, and species with varying degrees of shade tolerance in the intermediate strata. The Mediterranean (Catalonia, Spain) and the arid tropical (Soqotra island, Yemen) gardens do not, however, exhibit such a complex vertical structure; stratication is usually limited to a lower stratum of herbs and shrubs and a higher one of trees (Agelet et al. 2000; Ceccolini 2002). Likewise, Abdoellah et al. (2001) observed that stratication beyond 5 m was not discernible in a majority of Indonesian homegardens, suggesting profound inter-site variations. Apparently, garden age and management are important factors that inuence the vegetation structure. Older gardens, regardless of size, may evolve a multistrata canopy structure. Likewise, in gardens where ground cover or litter layer is removed due to repeated hoeing or burning, ground cover development will be adversely affected (Hochegger 1998; Karyono 1990). The question of regeneration dynamics of the woody perennials in homegardens has also been examined to a limited extent only. Kumar et al. (1994) noted that the diameter structure of trees in the homegardens exhibit a slightly skewed (+) distribution pattern, having the highest frequency in the 20 to 30 cm class, signifying adequate regeneration of the homegarden tree species. Thus, homegardens, especially of the so-called forest-garden (Wiersum 2004) type, could resemble a young secondary forest both in structure and total biomass store, and may be considered as a man-made forest kept in a permanent early-successional state (Jensen 1993b). Variations in size, form, layout, zonal pattern, species composition and management objectives abound in the homegardens (Fernandes and Nair 1986; Land-

141 auer and Brazil 1990). Accordingly, several homegarden types have been recognised. They generally reect differences in size (area) of gardens (Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993; Kumar et al. 1994; Millat-eMustafa et al. 1996) and the dominant plant species or the level of urbanization (Christanty 1990). In particular, greater urbanization increased the abundance of ornamental and aesthetic species (Drescher 1996; Karyono 1990; Rico-Gray et al. 1990). Some researchers (Michon et al. 1983; Michon and deForesta 1999; Soemarwoto 1987) employed architectural analysis to gain an understanding of the essential characteristics of the major types of homegardens. Based on zonation, diversity, total garden area and socioeconomic functions, Mendez et al. (2001) recognized six types of homegardens in Nicaragua (ornamental, handcrafting, subsistence, handcrafting and mixed production, mixed production, and minimal management) the differences among these classes may, however, seem arbitrary. A few workers (Leiva et al 2002; Mendez et al. 2001; Quiroz et al. 2002) also employed cluster analysis of presence/absence of crop species to designate homegarden types. Despite the number of classication schemes, none has been universally accepted. The need for such a universally acceptable classication scheme is, nevertheless, questionable; the lack of such a scheme has seldom surfaced as an important prerequisite for intensifying research or development in the subject. The fact remains, however, that irrespective of the classication scheme employed, it is important to consider diversity of all different functional groups of plants in homegardens, and not to limit research to selected functional groups only. Functional dynamics Research attention on production potential and quality of biomass from homegardens has been modest. In one such study, Christanty et al. (1986) (cf Torquebiau 1992) reported a net primary production (NPP) of 5.23 kJ m2 yr1 . This, however, seems to be an underestimate in view of the annual energy xation values reported by Leith (1975) for cultivated lands (11.3 MJ m2 yr1 ; Table 1), and the aboveground energy xation in some tropical plantations (e.g., 9.1 to 20.6 MJ m2 yr1 for 8.8 year-old Ailanthus triphysa stands derived from the biomass and mean combustion values given by Shujauddin and Kumar 2003 and Shanavas and Kumar 2003 respectively). Reports on functional dynamics of homegardens, i.e., change in functions with time, are also not available. In most reported studies, yields of component species, availability of varied products and continuous or repeated harvests during the year are often taken as indicators of such dynamics. Homegardens and nutritional security Food production either directly (producing edible fruits, nuts, grain, rhizomes and tubers, leaves, owers etc.) or indirectly (facilitating enhanced and/or sustained production) is a basic function of tropical homegardens. Consequently, food crops including herbaceous plants and vegetable and fruit yielding trees and shrubs abound in the homegardens (Caron 1995; Mendez et al. 2001; Vogl et al. 2002; Wezel and Bender 2003). Based on a comprehensive literature review, Torquebiau (1992) concluded that dietary supplies from homegardens accounted for 3% to 44% of the total calorie and 4% to 32% of the protein intake. It needs to be noted, however, that homegardens seldom meet the entire basic-staple-food needs of the family in any given area. At best, they are complementary to other plots such as rice (Oryza sativa) or maize (Zea mays) elds. Thus, homegardens are a component of the larger farming system of the household. Indeed, if the homegarden is the only land available to the household, food crops such as cassava (Manihot esculenta) will dominate the species composition of the garden (Wiersum 1982). The homegardens are also signicant sources of minerals and nutrients (Asfaw and Woldu 1997). In addition, the diverse products available year-round in the homegardens contribute to food security especially during lean seasons (Christanty et al. 1986; Karyono 1990). Consequently, there is now a growing awareness that homegardening combined with nutrition education can be a viable strategy for improving household nutritional security for at-risk populations, particularly women and children. In experimental studies, the target families signicantly increased their year-round production and consumption of vitaminrich fruits and vegetables compared to the control group without gardens. This, in turn, alleviated deciencies of iodine, vitamin A and iron (Molina et al. 1993) and made children of garden owners less prone to xerophthalmia (Shankar et al. 1998). Related to food security is the issue of nutritional quality of food. As little or no chemical inputs are used in homegarden systems, the products from homegardens can be expected to be of superior quality. Studies on nutritional quality of homegarden products com-

142 pared with those of products from other systems have, however, been not reported in literature. Judging from the experience of organic coffee (Coffea spp.) production in Central America (Muschler 2001), the products from homegardens could fetch premium prices in health-food stores in food-quality-conscious societies. This is perhaps a nonissue at least for the near future, because most of the homegarden products are used for the growers home-consumption and marketing is not all organized in most homegarden-dominated regions. Nevertheless, the availability of health foods from homegardens is certainly worth recognizing as one of the intangible benets of the system. Another key dimension of homegardening is the equitable distribution of the produce within the community. While a large proportion of the production is consumed domestically (Soemarwoto 1987; but see Jensen 1993b), many products such as fruits, vegetables and medicinal/ornamental plants are also generously shared within the local communities (Thaman 1990). This egalitarian distribution of the agricultural produce is signicant in a social milieu and endows the homegarden system a unique social disposition. Generation of cash income Although interest in homegardens has been primarily focused on producing subsistence items, its role in generating additional cash income cannot be overlooked (Christanty 1990; Torquebiau 1992; Dury et al. 1996; Mendez et al. 2001). Enormous variations have been reported from different regions in the proportion of homegarden products that are used for household consumption as opposed to sale. In West Java, as much as two-thirds of the homegarden production is reported to be sold (Jensen 1993b), but only 28% of such products were sold in South African homegardens, the remainder being used for household consumption (High and Shackleton 2000). The net income generated from homegardens is also correspondingly variable. For example, in Indonesia it ranged from 6.6% to 55.7% of total income with an average of 21.1% depending on the size of the gardens, family needs and species composition (Soemarwoto 1987). Timber and fuelwood production While there are many reports on food and nutritional security, relatively few workers have addressed questions relating to wood production and its utilization in the homegardens. Indeed this seems to be an unrecognized value of homegardens. For example, Singh (1987) noted that 70% of the sawlogs in Bangladesh came from homesteads, and Krishnankutty (1990) found that homesteads provided 74% to 84% of wood requirements in Kerala, India. The average standing stock of commercial timber in the Kerala homegardens has been estimated to range from 6.6 to 50.8 m3 ha1 (Kumar et al. 1994); the wide range of the values is related to variations in tree stocking levels depending on local conditions. Several workers (Krishnankutty 1990; Wickramasinghe 1996; Levasseur and Olivier 2000; Shanavas and Kumar 2003) have also reported that the traditional homegardens constitute a principal source of biofuels for the rural households. For example, 51% to 90% of the fuelwood collected in various geographical regions in South and Southeast Asia are derived from homegardens (Krishnankutty 1990; Singh 1987; Torquebiau 1992). Shanavas and Kumar (2003) noted profound variations in the combustion characteristics vis vis tissue-types of woody perennials grown in the Kerala homesteads. As in most other aspects of homegardens, scientic studies have not been undertaken on the quantity and quality of phytofuels produced in homegardens and their extraction methods. Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) Homegardens are recognized repositories of nontimber products such as medicinal and aromatic plants, ornamentals, bamboos, gums, resins, chemical extractives and green leaf manure. Of these, medicinalplant production has received some modest scientic attention (see for example Rao et al. 2004). Kumar et al. (1994) reported that out of the 127 trees and shrubs found in Kerala homegardens, 25 were medicinally important. Similarly, 27% of the 272 species maintained or cultivated as domestic ora in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire) are reported to be for medicinal purposes (Mpoyi et al. 1994). In the Catalonian homegardens, Agelet et al. (2000) documented about 250 medicinal plants with curative, palliative, symptomatic, and/or other medicinal properties. An unfortunate aspect of the situation, however, is the gradual decline in the stock of medicinal plants as reported from a number of places (Rico-Gray et al. 1990; Caballero 1992; Agelet et al. 2000). Organized efforts are needed to conserve these valuable resources in homegardens. Employment generation Quite apart from providing cash income and subsistence products to the growers, homegardens have a tremendous potential for rural employment gener-

143 ation. Torquebiau (1992) summarized several case studies on homegarden labor demands and exibility, and concluded that labor requirements were variable among regions depending on the size of gardens and the farming intensity. The amount of labor invested in a homegarden is also related to the size of the family, depending on homegardens and the gardeners primary occupation. It ranged from 50 min day1 in a 200 m2 garden in Lima, Peru, to 57 man days year1 in Sri Lanka (Torquebiau 1992). Mendez et al. (2001) reported that homegardens used on average 32.6 h family1 week1 with women contributing to roughly half (48%). Use of family labor, especially women labor in the production process not only ensures lowering of production costs (Rugalema et al. 1994a; Benjamin et al. 2001), but also satises a wide range of domestic needs more economically and effortlessly than through local markets (Soemarwoto and Conway 1991). Such calculations are, however, based on the assumption that family labor is a given, which will otherwise remain unutilized and therefore need not be accounted for. The validity of this assumption is increasingly being disputed today. Temporal complementarity in labor allocation is yet another advantage of homegardening. For example, labor demands of homegardens seldom show sharp peaks and troughs and they are more exible and distributed throughout the year in sharp contrast to that of seasonal agricultural operations such as wet land rice paddy cultivation (Karyono 1990). The notion that homegardening is practiced only by subsistence farmers in the areas of acute land hunger has also been questioned (Yamada and Gholz 2002). Although most labor requirements especially in the smaller homegardens may be satised from within the family itself, homegardens have the potential to create jobs in the rural areas, and thus reverse the negative effects of migration to urban areas. This is because the great diversity of products from homegarden provides opportunities for development of small-scale rural industries and creates off-farm employment and marketing opportunities (Nair and Sreedharan 1986; Torquebiau 1992). Animal production Most homegardens support a variety of animals cows, buffaloes, bullocks, goats, sheep, and birds such as chicken and ducks (Brownrigg 1985). Culture, religion, and economic and ecological factors are the main determinants in the choice of animal species (Soemarwoto 1987). Milk and egg production, both for domestic consumption and for sale, constitute the dominant objectives of integrating animals into these production systems. In addition, the large ruminants may provide draught power for land preparation, soil conservation practices and haulage. Animals are also important for the maintenance of soil fertility and sustainability of the production system.

Sustainability of homegarden systems Homegardens are perceived to be highly sustainable in both biophysical and socioeconomic terms. Because of the lack of widely acceptable sustainability criteria, however, these perceptions are not quantiable. The following section evaluates the situation based on generally accepted notions of sustainability. Biophysical aspects Nutrient cycling It is generally regarded that the homegardens possess a closed nutrient cycling, much similar to the tropical forests (Nair et al. 1999; Soemarwoto and Conway 1991). The dynamics of litter production and decomposition and subsequent bioelement release, which endow sustainability to these forests (Heal et al. 1997; Lavelle et al. 1993), are, therefore, relevant to homegardens. Biological N2 xation and mycorrhizal associations are important; yet, little quantitative information seems to exist in this respect. In particular, behavior of N2 -xing trees that are abundant in these systems, information on the quantities of N2 xed, and its further utilization by associated crops are not well documented. Nutrients in tree biomass are returned to soil either naturally through litterfall and root turnover, or deliberately through pruning. Nutrients circulated internally in a Javanese homegarden were estimated as 223 kg N, 38 kg P, 373 kg K, 135 kg Ca and 50 kg Mg ha1 yr1 (Jensen 1993a). Despite their importance in maintaining organic matter and nutrient ows, studies on litter and ne root dynamics in the homegarden system are few and uncoordinated. Moreover, sometimes homegarden litter is removed for fuel and/or as organic manure (to be used elsewhere), on which again, little quantitative data exist. Among the available reports on homegarden litterfall, Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) stated that the average litter in a standing crop was even higher

144 (1728 g m2 ) than that of a typical tropical forest (500 g m2 ; Jordan 1985). Soemarwoto and Conway (1991) also observed a heavy litter layer in Javanese homegardens, and Jensen (1993a) estimated litterfall and pruning as 10.0 and 7.5 Mg ha1 yr1 of dry matter respectively. Total litter production in the Mayan homegardens, however, was reported to be lower than that of other systems compared (1 to 4 Mg ha1 yr1 ; Benjamin et al. 2001). Such variations are not unusual considering that stocking levels, species attributes and management, which are variable, determine the quantity and periodicity of litterfall (George and Kumar 1998). Although hundreds, if not thousands of litter decomposition studies have been reported, only very few of them pertain to litter decay dynamics of tropical homegardens (Table 3). And, without exception all these investigations focused on characterizing the decay rates of monospecic leaf litter. This possibly underestimates the homegarden litter decay rates, because, unlike monospecic stands, homegardens provide litter of a mixture of species, and the resultant litter heterogeneity will alter the decomposition dynamics. The limited number of studies comparing decay of monospecic litter in the subcanopy of homegardens with that of adjacent open area suggests that speciesor site-related variations in decay rates are probable (Table 3). Nevertheless, ve out of the seven species on which quantitative information exist decayed faster in the subcanopy. Organic matter decomposition is generally dominated by drilosphere systems formed by associations between earthworms and soil bacteria, where soil-moisture regimes are favorable; and termitosphere systems with increasing dryness (Lavelle et al. 1993). Owing to greater organic matter ux and/or favorable soil moisture relations (Table 3), the activity of drilosphere system is expected to be greater in the homegardens. Consistent with this, higher earthworm activity and fungal/bacterial/actinomycetes counts compared to open areas were observed in the Kerala homegardens (S.R. Issac, pers. comm. 2001). Apparently, the organic matter turnover processes bring about an overall improvement in soil physicochemical properties of homegardens (Table 3). With the revival of interest in organic farming, research on addition and/or decomposition of fresh agricultural wastes and mixtures of green manure/litter is likely to become important. Coincidentally, resource quality parameters and indices that govern decomposition and nutrient release have received considerable scientic attention lately (Nair et al. 1999; Palm et al. 2001). In order for the tropical homegarden systems to continue to provide social, economic and environmental benets for successive generations, a clear understanding of the various aspects of nutrient cycling including the effects of litter/green manure addition on soil organic matter and nutrient dynamics is essential. Low soil-erosion potential Homegardens are not only similar to natural forests in respect of their high species-diversity and nutrient cycling processes but also are characterized by low export of nutrients. The multi-tiered homegarden canopy and root architecture, besides the litter layer, act as multi-layer defense mechanisms against the impact of the falling rain drops, resulting in low rates of soil erosion (0.05 to 0.06 t ha1 year1 as against tolerable limits set by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 2.2 to 11.2 t ha1 year1 ; Torquebiau, 1992). Secondly, there is no complete harvesting in the homegardens (Gajaseni and Gajaseni 1999). Overall, nutrient exports from such a system are modest. Nevertheless, the argument of low nutrient export may not be valid, if whole tree harvesting and litter removal are resorted to, leading to substantial site nutrient loss (Kumar et al. 1998). Consistent with this, some authors (Fassbender 1993; D. McGrath, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1998) based on studies on other multistrata systems have suggested that nutrient deciencies may eventually limit system productivity. But the credibility of such reports is questioned by the history of long-term survival of homegardens in a variety of locations without any apparent indications of nutrient deciency (Nair 2001). Belowground architecture Root systems of different components in the homegardens are expected to overlap considerably and the resultant higher root-length density may reduce nutrient leaching and facilitate recycling of subsoil nutrients. In certain cases, the proximity of trees to one another determines the magnitude of subsoil-nutrient recovery. For example, Kumar and Divakara (2001) found that in bamboo-based multi-strata systems in Kerala, India, 32 P uptake from the subsoil was greater when the bamboo clumps (Bambusa arundinacea) and dicot trees (Tectona grandis and Vateria indica) were close to one another. By extension, in homegardens where tree components are closely integrated, there is a substantial potential for capturing the lower leaching nutrients. On-site nutrient conservation also may be accomplished through the interlocking root

145
Table 3. Comparison of litter dynamics and soil properties of some tropical homegardens and adjacent open areasa Attributes Litter decay and half-lives Reference Gopikumar et al. (2001)b Issac and Nair (2002); SR Issac (pers. comm., 2001)b Soil water holding capacity Porosity Bulk density Particle density Soil pH J. John (pers. comm., 1997) Comments Acacia mangium leaf litter showed lower decay rates insidec homegardens decay rate coefcients (k) 19 to 28% lower and half-lives of litter decay 22 to 40% higher compared to outsidec homegardens. Leaf litter of Ailanthus triphysa, Ancardium occidentale, Artocarpus heterophyllus, Mangifera indica and Swietenia macrophylla decayed faster inside homegardensk values 7 to 14% more and half-lives 2 to 29% less than outside. Artocarpus hirsutus, however, had similar decay rates both inside and outside. Variations reiterate litter chemistry control of decay dynamics. 14 to 18% more inside homegardens 14 to 23% more inside 12 to 20% less inside 2 to 5% less inside 10 to 14% decrease in the homegardens with near-neutral soils and 10 to 12% increase for more acid soils in the Chao Phrao basin, Thailand (outside soil pH 5.8) moderation effect on soil reaction possible? Substantial improvement: 33 to 600% more SOC inside Thai gardens 48 to 62% more for southern Kerala gardens 58 to 205% more except in homegardens on inherently N-rich sites, where a 4 to 24% decline was noted 21 to 249% more inside gardens depending on site characteristics and soil depth 21 to 41% more inside 27 to 311% more inside 4 to 363% more available P in Thai homegardens, depending on site characteristics and soil depth 25 to 30% more for Kerala homegardens 10 to 19% more inside Earthworm, fungal, bacterial and actinomycetes counts were consistently higher inside homegardens (4, 36, 35 and 20% respectively). Microbial biomass C, ergosterol and basal respiration rates were generally lower (51 to 72, 53 to 79 and 10 to 49% respectively) in old South African homegardens (prolonged cropping), compared to new ones (cropping period: 1 year).

Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) as above J. John (pers. comm., 1997) Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) as above J. John (pers. comm., 1997) Gajaseni and Gajaseni (1999) as above J. John (pers. comm., 1997) as above SR Issac (pers. comm., 2001) Wichern et al. (2003)

Soil organic C (SOC)

C:N ratio Total N Available N Total soil P Available P (Bray)

Exchangeable K Soil microbiological properties

a Although edaphic attributes of homegardens were reported by some authors; few (as shown above) have actually compared this with adjacent

open areas.
b Calculated from litter mass disappearance data using the exponential decay model (Olson 1963). c inside gardens indicates directly beneath tree crowns and outside means adjoining open areas, usually outside the fenced-in area.

systems (root grafts and/or mycorrhizal connections), which essentially act as multipliers of the root systems reach. In addition, horizontal transfer/sharing of nutrient ions between the rhizospheres of the neighboring plants is probable. That is, the tree roots may release, leach out, and/or exude mineral and organic materials into the rhizosphere of neighboring plants, provided they interact with one another (Kumar et al. 1999).

Socioeconomic aspects Over long periods in the history of land use in highly populated humid tropical lowlands, homegardens have apparently remained as engines of economic and social development. Although productivity compared to intensive monocultures was modest, diversied production and income generation in perpetuity were intrinsic features of tropical homegardens. Planting and maintaining of homegardens also reect the culture and status of the household, especially the women, in the local society. In many places, women play a vital

146 role in the design and management of these land use systems. The fact that homegardens are predominant in the traditionally matrilineal societies of south and Southeast Asia (e.g., Kerala, Central Java and West Sumatra) further underscores this point (Menon et al. 2002; Soemarwoto and Conway 1991). Many activities such as vegetable growing, harvesting the products (fruits, nuts, vegetables and medicinal plants), fuel collection and animal rearing, especially in the smaller gardens are exclusively the domain of females, with or without assistance from the male members of the family. The possibility of gender equality for participating in garden management and sharing of benets is perhaps one of the major stimuli for continued household security enjoyed by homegardeners for generations. Some other aspects of socioeconomic sustainability such as household nutritional security and generation of income have already been discussed. The whole aspect of sustainability of homegardens seems to be fertile grounds for social science research. In spite of the authors lack of expertise in these areas, based on a few studies of this nature that we have come across (e.g., Arnold 1987; Soemarwoto and Conway 1991; Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993), some of the economic, social and/or cultural foundations of homegardening, in comparison with other farmingsystem components under similar situations are listed below: Low capital requirements and labor costs suitable for resource poor and small-holder farming situations Better utilization of resources, greater efciency of labor, even distribution of labor inputs and more efcient management Diversied range of products from a given area and increased value of outputs Increased self sufciency and reduced risk to income from climatic, biological or market impacts on particular crops/products Higher income with increased stability, greater equity and improved standards of living Better use of underutilized land, labor or capital, besides creating capital stocks to meet intermittent costs or unforeseen contingencies Enhanced food/nutritional security and ability to meet the food, fuel, fodder, and timber requirements of the society Increased fulllment of social and cultural needs through sharing or exchange of produces and recreational opportunities Better preservation of indigenous knowledge Methods for valuation of such intrinsic and nontangible social and cultural benets of agroforestry systems are practically nonexistent. Some of the recent efforts in this direction (for example, see Alavalapati et al. 2004) clearly show the opportunities and challenges involved. The future of homegardens Are homegardens becoming extinct? Change is said to be the only constant thing. Landuse patterns have changed enormously the world-over during the past half a century. Homegardens are no exception: they too have changed, and will continue to do so. The concern that is raised, however, is, are the homegardens on the way out? Are they becoming an anachronism? Will or how will they survive the test of time? These concerns stem not from any new discoveries questioning the ecological foundations of such systems, but from the fact that recent trends in agrarian structure and the high market-orientation, due to government policies and demographic pressures, do exert considerable pressures on homegardens. Commercialization has caused a decline of the structure and functions of the Indonesian pekarangan (Abdoellah 1990; Abdoellah et al. 2001; Soemarwoto and Conway 1991) and kebun (Whitten et al. 1996) systems. A large proportion of Kerala homegardens have been converted into small-scale plantations of coconut and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) or to cropping systems consisting of less number of crops (Ashokan and Kumar 1997). In Catalonia (Spain) during the last few decades, migration of the work force to urban areas, mechanization of agriculture and the consequent specialization of agricultural tasks have lead to an impoverishment of the traditional homegarden system (Agelet et al. 2000). Species losses from homegardens are said to occur at an unprecedented rate. Although precise data are not available, it seems reasonable to surmise that oristic diversity of homegardens in most parts of the world has declined during the past four to ve decades. For instance, many local varieties of mango (Mangifera indica), jackfruit (Artocapus heterophyllus) and other traditional fruit/vegetable crops, which were once abundant in Kerala homegardens, have now become extinct (authors personal observation). A similar situation has been reported from West Java, Indonesia, where 27 varieties of mango were reportedly lost during a 60-year period (Soemarwoto 1987). Agelet et al.

147 (2000) also noted the loss of many autochtonous varieties of crop plants and medicinal plants from the Catalonian gardens. Fragmentation of land holdings due to population growth has triggered species losses in the chagga homegardens of Tanzania (Rugalema et al. 1994b). Also, the specic inheritance system in an Islamic society, where a property is divided equally among the heirs, caused fragmentation of the Indonesian pekarangans (Arin et al. 1997). Changes in homegarden structure and ecological processes that are caused by such changes in size of gardens can safely be added to the already long list of topics that have not been, but need to be, studied. It is not clear, however, if and to what extent fragmentation of holdings per se has caused a decline in the average size of homegardens. Although fragmentation will clearly result in an increase in the number of holdings and therefore the number of homegardens, it is doubtful if the average size has shrunk proportionately; evidence is lacking. Acculturation, the process by which a culture is transformed due to the massive adoption of cultural traits from another society, has serious consequences on the species grown in homegardens (and by subsistence farmers in general) and the extent to which they are used (Caballero 1992). For instance, modication of the traditional patterns of nutrition among the Indian groups of Mexico involved the progressive disuse of traditional foods because they were considered to be of lesser nutritional value or lower social prestige than the industrialized products or other foods offered through the national market (Vogl et al. 2002). The modern-day preference to maize over traditional millets that used to be dietary staples in African societies is well known. Likewise, spread of modern medicine and healthcare facilities lead to a decline of the traditional medicines. Yet another threat to the traditional homegarden is the large-scale inux (both deliberate and unintentional) of aggressive exotics (e.g., Australian and Meso-American species such as Acacia spp., Eucalyptus spp., Mimosa invisa, Mikania micrantha and so on, especially into South Asia) that can potentially out-compete the native ora. The cumulative effect of such social and cultural changes would be a reduction in the homegarden oristic diversity. A further consequence of commercialization is a change in the proportion of the produce consumed. As more homegarden products are sold (to earn cash to buy other preferred items) and less consumed, there is a danger that the dietary role of the homegardens in providing vitamins and minerals may be reduced if not lost (Soemarwoto and Conway 1991). Commercialization could also result in a reduction of equitability, with less sharing of the produce even among close relations, and the traditional rights of the poor may disappear. Thus, homegardening may, arguably, face the threat of self-dissolution in arbitrariness and irrelevance if the traditional homegardeners are all transformed into modern urbanites. In some societies such as those in the Caribbean islands and to some extent in Kerala, where the work force migrate to nearby industrial and economically prosperous lands (North America for the Caribbean and the oil-rich MiddleEast for Keralites) and remittances from abroad is a major component of the local economies, homegardening and such traditional lifestyles are getting relegated to pastime of older generations who return to land for retirement. Long-term dynamics of homegarden transformations could be fascinating areas of study to biophysical and social scientists alike. Scientic evidence is lacking, unfortunately, to support or oppose the claims about the future of homegardens. With increasing awareness and interest the world over especially in the industrialized societies in movements such as organic farming, back to nature, and green consumerism, we have no reason, however, to abandon and denigrate everything that is traditional. Chemical agriculture has its place, but societies that have embraced it at the total exclusion of traditional ways of life are paying the price and that too heavily. These experiences, coupled with the slow rate at which economic and social transformations happen in such societies force us to believe that concerns about a bleak future of homegardens are unfounded and will hopefully be a passing cloud. Having stated that, however, the main thread of argument that runs throughout this chapter needs to be re-emphasized: the need for better understanding of the scientic bases of these fascinating systems and developing valuation methods that can realistically portray their economic and social values; in short, the need for intensied research. Future research Research is needed on all fronts. The knowledge gap that exists on various biophysical issues has already been explained. Understanding the nutrient, energy and water balance in the homegardens is crucial to providing a scientic foundation for better design and management of the system to permit efcient use of resources, to avoid loss of energy and to in-

148 crease production (Benjamin et al. 2001). Aspects such as the how and why of interference and coexistence of different species; reasons for low herbivory/pathogenicity pressure; competitive interactions as inuenced by soil resource availability and soil organic matter relations of homegardens are practically unknown. Furthermore, no effort has been made to examine the impact of harvesting pressures on resource regeneration in the homegardens. With the increasing emphasis the world over on carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, homegardens that are mostly steady-state systems as explained earlier (section 2) could be of crucial importance in the carbon-credit discussion (see Montagnini and Nair 2004). Available reports indicate that total biomass of Javanese homegardens accounted for 10 to 126 Mg C ha1 (Jensen 1993a; Delaney and Roshetko 1999). Roshetko et al. (2002) estimated the aboveground, time-averaged C stock (= half the C stock at maximum rotation length) of Indonesian homegardens as 30 to 123 Mg C ha1 . With an average of 35.3 Mg C ha1 at 13 years of age, this corresponds to the C stocks for similar-aged secondary forests. With solid quantitative foundations and research back-up for assessing C sequestration potential of homegardens and with enabling policies put in place for rewarding landowners for carbon credits (see Alavalapati et al. 2004), the homegardens of future are bound to have a much better value and prestige than today. Although a wide spectrum of goods and services are obtained from these traditional land use systems, there is yet incomplete understanding about their values. Conventional methods (discount rates, net present values, shadow prices, etc.) are inadequate for realistic valuation of non-conventional products and services provided by homegardens. Equally unsatisfactory is the situation regarding sustainability assessment. Clearly, managerial information is lacking in respect of coverage, productivity and temporal changes in woody/other plant use. More focus should, therefore, be given to compiling the vital statistics of systems at local, regional, national and global levels (Nair 2001). In spite of the small holding sizes of homegardens, there seems to be scope for GIS applications for preparing databases at different scales (local, regional, national and global) and different intensities in order to provide a sound hierarchical framework for extrapolating from eld sites to recommendation domains. With relatively more of managerial inputs and judicious selection of species, homegardens may help to retain some of the advantages of both traditional land use and commercial farming practices. A schematic illustration of some of the opportunities is presented in Figure 1. We hope that this could provide a basic framework for future research for improvement of homegardens.

Conclusions Homegardening is a time-tested example of sustainable, multispecies, agroforestry land-use, practiced as a subset of the farming system, predominantly in lowland humid tropics. The high structural and oristic diversity of tropical homegardens is a reection of the unique biophysical environment and socio-cultural factors under which they exist. As assemblages and repositories of a vast number of plants in small parcels of land around the home in direct and constant interaction with its owners, the homegardens full specic economic, social, and cultural needs of the individual owners and provide biological conservation, carbon sequestration, and such other intangible yet valuable benets to the society. With their ecological similarities to natural forest ecosystems, homegardens act as insurance against pests and disease outbreaks (although specic data are lacking to support this conjecture), and by providing a variety of goods and services for which people may otherwise depend on or destroy forests, they act as a buffer against the strong pressures on natural forests. Yet, tropical homegardens are an enigma. Their virtues are recognized more by intuition than in measured quantities. Because of that, the policy makers seldom recognize their importance although the practitioners adore them. Fundamental to solving this puzzle and realizing the potential of homegardens as a powerful land use model is a much-needed change in the single-commodity outlook of agronomists, foresters, and other such land-use-discipline specialists. Indeed, this is perhaps asking for too much, because it questions the whole foundations of educational and research set-up. We are neither calling for nor are not unaware of the difculties in accomplishing such a radical change. It is realistic, however, to call for extending ecological and economic studies to understand, value, and assess such time-tested systems as homegardens, so that these systems are recognized deservedly in policy discussions at regional and national levels, and the experiences from these systems could be exploited for the design of other sustainable land-

149

Figure 1. Predicted changes in homegarden composition and relative merits of conventional homegardens, monospecic agricultural/forest production systems and improved homegardens.

use systems. Given the track record of agroforestry research and accomplishments during the past quarter century, we certainly hope that homegarden research will attract its due share of attention in years to come. Because of the small plot sizes of homegardens, scaling up of their virtues may not be feasible in terms of extending areas under the practice, but the principles of their functioning could be used as foundations for the design of improved agroforestry practices.

End Note
1. Mateer S., 1883. Native Life in Travancore. W.H. Allen & Co, London, 450 p.; Logan W., 1906, Malabar Manual (2 vols). Asian Educational Services, 2nd ed, Madras, India 772 p.; Nagam A., 1906, Travancore State Manual Vol III. Travancore Government Press, Trivandrum, Kerala, 700 pp.

150 References
Abdoellah O.S. 1990. Homegardens in West Java and their future development. pp. 6979. In: Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds), Tropical Homegardens, United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Abdoellah O.S., Takeuchi K., Perikesit G.B. and Hadikusumah H.Y. 2001. Structure and function of homegarden revisited. pp. 167 185. In: Proc. First Seminar toward Harmonisation between Development and Environmental Conservation in Biological Production. JSPS-DGHE Core University Program in Applied Biosciences. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo. Agelet A., Angels B.M., Valles J. 2000. Homegardens and their role as a main source of medicinal plants in mountain regions of Catalonia (Iberian peninsula). Econ Bot 54: 295309. Alavalapati J.R.R., Shrestha R.K., Stainback G.A. and Matta J.R. 2004. Agroforestry development: An environmental economic perspective (This volume). Anderson E.N .1993. Gardens in tropical America and tropical Asia. Bitica (nueva poca) 1: 81102. Arin H.S., Sakamoto K. and Chiba K. 1997. Effects of the fragmentation and change of the social and economical aspects on the vegetation structure in the rural homegardens of West Java. J Jap Inst. Landscape Architect 60: 489494. Arnold J.E.M. 1987. Economic considerations in agroforestry. pp. 173190. In: Steppler H.A. and Nair P.K.R. (eds), Agroforestry: A Decade of Development, ICRAF, Nairobi. Asfaw Z. and Woldu Z. 1997. Crop associations of homegardens in Welayta and Gurage in southern Ethiopia. Sinet (an Ethiopian J Sci) 20: 7390. Ashokan P.K. and Kumar B.M. 1997. Cropping systems and their water use. pp. 200206. In: Thampi K.B., Nayar N.M. and Nair C.S. (eds), The Natural Resources of Kerala. World Wide Fund for Nature India, Kerala State Ofce, Thiruvananthapuram 14, Kerala, India. Backes M.M. 2001. The role of indigenous trees for the conservation of biocultural diversity in traditional Agroforestry land use systems: The Bungoma case study. Agroforest. Syst 52: 119132. Benjamin T.J., Montaez P.L., Jimnez J.J.M. and Gillespie A.R. 2001. Carbon, water and nutrient ux in Maya homegardens in the Yucatan peninsula of Mxico. Agroforest Syst 53: 103111. Black G.M., Somnasang P., Thamathawan S. and Newman J.M. 1996. Cultivating continuity and creating change: womens homegarden practices in northeastern Thailand. Multi-cultural considerations from cropping to consumption. Agriculture Human Values 13: 311. Brownrigg L. 1985. Home Gardening in International Development: What the Literature Shows. The League for International Food Education, Washington, DC, 330 pp. Caballero K. 1992. Mayan homegardens: past, present and future. Etnecolgica 1: 3554. Caron C.M. 1995. The role of nontimber tree products in household food procurement strategies: prole of a Sri Lankan village. Agroforest Syst 32: 99117. Ceccolini L. 2002.The homegardens of Soqotra island, Yemen: an example of agroforestry approach to multiple land use in an isolated location. Agroforest Syst 56: 107115. Christanty L. 1990. Homegardens in tropical Asia with special reference to Indonesia. pp. 920. In: Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds), Tropical Homegardens. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Christanty L., Abdoellah O.L., Marten G.G. and Iskandar J. 1986. Traditional agroforestry in West Java: the Pekaranagan (homegarden) and Kebun-Talun (annual-perennial rotation) cropping systems. pp. 132158. In: Marten G.G. (ed.), Traditional Agriculture in South East Asia. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Clarke W.C. and Thaman R.R. (eds) 1993. Agroforestry in the Pacic Islands. United Nations University, Tokyo, 224 pp. De Clerck F.A.J. and Negreros-Castillo P. 2000. Plant species of traditional Mayan homegardens of Mexico as analogs for multistrata agroforests. Agroforest Syst 48: 303317. Delaney M .and Roshetko J.M. 1999. Field test of carbon monitoring methods for homegardens in Indonesia. Field Tests of Carbon Monitoring Methods in Forestry Projects, pp. 4551. Winrock International, Arlington, VA. Drescher A.W. 1996. Management strategies in African homegardens and the need for new extension approaches. pp. 231245. In: Heidhues F. and Fadani A. (eds), Food Security and Innovations Successes and Lessons Learned, Peter Lang, Frankfurt. Dury S., Vilcosqui L. and Mary F. 1996. Durian trees (Durio zibethinus Murr.) in Javanese homegardens: their importance in informal nancial systems. Agroforest Syst 33: 215230. Esquivel M. and Hammer K. 1992. The Cuban homegarden conuco: a perspective environment for evolution and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. Genet Resour Crop Evol 39: 922. Ewel J.J. 1999. Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable systems of land use. Agroforest Syst 45: 121. Fassbender H. 1993 Modelos Edafolgicos de Sistemas Agroforestales, 2nd Ed., CATIE/GTZ, Turrialba, 530 pp. Fernandes E.C.M. and Nair P.K.R. 1986. An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical homegardens. Agr Syst 21: 279310. Gajaseni J. and Gajaseni N. 1999. Ecological rationalities of the traditional homegarden system in the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand. Agroforest Syst 46: 323. George S.J. and Kumar B.M. 1998. Litter dynamics and soil fertility improvement in silvopastoral systems of the humid tropics of Southern India. Intl Tree Crops J 9: 267282. Gillespie A.R., Knudson D.M. and Geilfus F. 1993. The structure of four homegardens in the Peten, Guatemala. Agroforest Syst 24: 157170. Gliessman S.R. (ed.) 1990. Integrating trees into agriculture: the homegarden agroecosystem as an example of agroforestry in the tropics. Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture, pp. 160168. Ecological Studies 78, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. Gopikumar K., Hegde R. and Babu L.C. 2001. Decomposition and nutrient release pattern of leaf litters of mangium (Acacia mangium Willd.) Indian J Agroforest 3: 1122. Guillaumet J.L., Grenand P., Bahri S., Grenand F., Lourd M,. Santos A.A. dos and Gely A. 1990. The homegarden orchards of the central Amazon: an example of space utilization. Turrialba 40: 6381. Heal O.W., Anderson J.M. and Swift M.J. 1997. Plant litter quality and decomposition: an historical overview. pp. 330. In: Cadish G. and Giller K.E. (eds), Driven by Nature: Plant Quality and Decomposition, CAB International, Wallingford. High C. and Shackleton C.M. 2000. The comparative value of wild and domestic plants in homegardens of a South African rural village. Agroforest Syst 48: 141156. Hochegger K. 1998. Farming like the forest: traditional homegarden systems in Sri Lanka. Tropical Agroecology, Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim, 203 pp. Hutterer K.L. 1984. Ecology and evolution of agriculture in Southeast Asia. In: Rambo A.T. and Sajise P.E. (eds), An Introduction to Human Ecology Research on Agricultural Systems in Southeast Asia. University of Philippines, Los Banos.

151
Issac S.R. and Nair M.A. 2002. Litter decay: weight loss and N dynamics of jack leaf litter on open and shaded sites. Indian J Agrofor 4: 3539. Jacob V.J. and Alles W.S. 1987. The Kandyan gardens of Sri Lanka. Agroforest Syst 5: 123137. Jensen M. 1993a. Productivity and nutrient cycling of a Javanese homegarden. Agroforest Syst 24: 187201. Jensen M. 1993b. Soil conditions, vegetation structure and biomass of a Javanese homegarden. Agroforest Syst 24: 171186. John J. and Nair M.A. 1999. Crop-tree inventory of the homegardens in Southern Kerala. J. Trop Agric 37: 110114. Jordan C.F. 1985. Nutrient Cycling in Tropical Forest Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 189 pp. Jose D. and Shanmugaratnam N. 1993. Traditional homegardens of Kerala: a sustainable human ecosystem. Agroforest Syst 24: 203213. Karyono 1990. Homegardens in Java; their structure and function. pp. 138146. In: Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds), Tropical Homegardens, United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Kehlenbeck K. and Mass B.L. 2004. Crop diversity and classication of homegardens in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agroforest Syst (in press). Kerala State Land Use Board (KSLUB) 1995. Land Resources of Kerala State. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 209 pp. Krishnankutty C.N. 1990. Demand and supply of wood in Kerala and their future trends. Research Report 67. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala, 66 pp. Kumar B.M. and Divakara B.N. 2001. Proximity, clump size and root distribution pattern in bamboo: A case study of Bambusa arundinacea (Retz.) Willd., Poaceae, in the Ultisols of Kerala, India. J Bamboo and Rattan 1: 4358. Kumar B.M., George S.J., Jamaludheen V. and Suresh T.K. 1998. Comparison of biomass production, tree allometry and nutrient use efciency of multipurpose trees grown in wood lot and silvopastoral experiments in Kerala, India. Forest Ecol Manag 112: 145163. Kumar B.M, George S.J. and Chinnamani S. 1994. Diversity, structure and standing stock of wood in the homegardens of Kerala in peninsular India. Agroforest Syst 25: 243262. Kumar S.S., Kumar B.M., Wahid P.A., Kamalam N.V. and Fisher R.F. 1999. Root competition for phosphorus between coconut, multipurpose trees and kacholam (Kaempferia galanga) in Kerala, India. Agroforest Syst 46: 131146. Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds) 1990. Tropical Homegardens. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 257 pp. Lavelle P., Blanchart E., Martin A., Martin S., Spain A., Toutain F., Barois I. and Schaefer R. 1993. A hierarchical model for decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: application to soils of the humid tropics. Biotropica 25: 130150. Leith H. 1975. Primary production of major vegetation units of the world. pp. 203215. In: Leith H. and Whittaker R.H. (eds), Primary Productivity of the Biosphere, Springer-Verlag, New York. Leiva J.M., Azurdia C., Ovando W., Lpez E. and Ayala H. 2002. Contributions of homegardens to in situ conservation in traditional farming systems Guatemalan component. pp. 5672. In: Watson J.W. and Eyzaguirre P.B. (eds), Homegardens and In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems. Proc Second International Homegarden Workshop, 1719 July 2001. Witzenhausen, Germany, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. Leuschner W.A. and Khaleque K. 1987. Homestead Agroforestry in Bangladesh. Agroforest Syst 5: 139151. Levasseur V. and Olivier A. 2000. The farming system and traditional agroforestry systems in the Maya community of San Jose, Belize. Agroforest Syst 49: 275288. Mathew T., Kumar B.M., Suresh Babu K.V. and Umamaheswaran K. 1996. Evaluation of some live standards for black pepper. J Plant Crops 24: 8691. Mendez V.E., Lok R., Somarriba E. 2001. Interdisciplinary analysis of homegardens in Nicaragua: micro-zonation, plant use and socioeconomic importance. Agroforest Syst 51: 8596. Menon T.M., Tyagi D. and Kulirani B.F. (eds) 2002. People of India: Kerala: Volume XXVII. Afliated East-West Press for Anthropological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1704 pp. Michon G. and deForesta H. 1999. Agro-Forests: Incorporating a forest vision in agroforestry. pp. 381406. In: Buck L.E., Lassoie J.P. and Fernandes E.C.M. (eds), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Michon G. and Mary F. 1990. Transforming traditional homegardens and related systems in West java (Bogor) and West Sumatra (Maninjau). pp. 169185. In: Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds), Tropical Homegardens. United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Michon G. and Mary F. 1994. Conversion of traditional village gardens and new economic strategies of rural households in the area of Bogor, Indonesia. Agroforest Syst 25: 3158. Michon G., Bompard J., Hecketsweiler P. and Ducatillion C. 1983. Tropical forest architectural analysis applied to agroforests in the humid tropics, the example of traditional village agroforestry in West Java. Agroforest Syst 1: 117129. Millat-e-Mustafa M.D., Hall J.B., Teklehaimanot Z. 1996. Structure and oristics of Bangladesh homegardens. Agroforest Syst 33: 263280. Molina M.R., Noguera A., Dary O., Chew F., Valverde C. 1993. Principal micronutrient deciencies in Central America. Food Nutr Agric 7: 2633. Montagnini F. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benet of agroforestry systems (This volume). Mpoyi K., Lukebakio N., Kapende K. and Paulus J. 1994. Inventaire de la ore domestique des parcelles dhabitation. Cas de Kinshasa (Zaire). Revue de Medecine et Pharmacopee Africaine 8: 5566. Muschler R.G. 2001. Shade improves coffee quality in a suboptimal coffee-zone of Costa Rica. Agroforest Syst 51: 131139. Nair M.A. and Sreedharan C. 1986. Agroforestry farming systems the homesteads of Kerala, southern India. Agroforest Syst 4: 339363. Nair P.K.R. 1979. Intensive Multiple Cropping with Coconuts in India: Principles, Programmes and Prospects. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, 147 pp. Nair P.K.R. 1987. Agroforestry systems inventory. Agroforest Syst 5: 301317. Nair P.K.R. (ed.) 1989. Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 664 pp. Nair P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 499 pp. Nair P.K.R. 2001. Do tropical homegardens elude science, or is it the other way around? Agroforest Syst 53: 239245. Nair P.K.R., Buresh R.J., Mugendi D.N. and Latt C.R. 1999. Nutrient cycling in tropical agroforesty systems: Myths and science. pp. 131. In: Buck L.E., Lassoie J.P. and Fernandes E.C.M. (eds), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Niez V.K. 1987. Household gardens: theoretical and policy considerations. Agr Syst 23: 167186.

152
Odum E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164: 24270. Olson J.S. 1963. Energy storage and balance of production and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44: 322331. Padoch C. and de Jong W. 1991. The housegardens of Santa Rosa: diversity and variability in an Amazonian agricultural system. Econ Bot 45: 166175. Palm C.A., Gachengo C.N., Delve R.J., Cadisch G. and Giller K.E. 2001. Organic inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agroecosystems: application of an organic resource database. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83: 2742. Puri S. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. Agroforestry research for development in India: 25 years of experiences of a national program (This volume). Quiroz C., Gutirrez M., Rodriguez D., Perz D., Ynfante J., Gamex J., Perz de Fernandex T., Marques A. and Pacheco W. 2002. Homegardens and in situ conservation of Agrobiodiversity Venezuelan component. pp. 7382. In: Watson J.W. and Eyzaguirre P.B. (eds), Homegardens and in situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems. Proc Second International Homegarden Workshop, 1719 July 2001 Witzenhausen, Germany. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. Rao M.R., Palada M.C. and Becker B.N. 2004. Medicinal and aromatic plants in agroforestry systems (This volume). Rico-Gray V., Chemas A. and Mandujano S. 1991. Use of tropical deciduous forest species by the Yucatan Maya. Agroforest Syst 14: 149161. Rico-Gray V., Garcia F.J.G., Chemas A., Puch A. and Sima P. 1990. Species composition, similarity, and structure of Mayan homegardens in Tixpeual and Tixcacaltuyub, Yucatan, Mexico. Econ Bot 44: 470487. Roshetko M., Delaney M., Hairiah K. and Purnomosidhi P. 2002. Carbon stocks in Indonesian homegarden systems: Can smallholder systems be targeted for increased carbon storage? Amer J Altern Agric 17: 125137. Rugalema G.H., OKting Ati A., Johnsen F.H. 1994a. The homegarden agroforestry system of Bukoba district, North-Western Tanzania. Farming system analysis. Agroforest Syst 26: 5364. Rugalema G.H., Johnsen F.H., Rugambisa J. 1994b. The homegarden agroforestry system of Bukoba district, North-Western Tanzania. 2. Constraints to farm productivity. Agroforest Syst 26: 205214. Rugalema G.H., Johnsen F.H., OKting Ati A., Minjas A. 1995. The homegarden agroforestry system of Bukoba district, northwestern Tanzania. An economic appraisal of possible solutions to falling productivity. Agroforest Syst 28: 227236. Ruthenberg H. 1980. Farming Systems in the Tropics (3rd ed.) Clarendon Press, Oxford, 424 pp. Shanavas A. and Kumar B.M. 2003 Fuelwood characteristics of tree species in the homegardens of Kerala, India. Agroforest Syst 58: 1124. Shankar A.V., Gittelsohn J., Pradhan E.K., Dhungel C. and West K.P. Jr. 1998. Homegardening and access to animals in households with xerophthalmic children in rural Nepal. Food Nut Bull 19: 3441. Shujauddin N. and Kumar B.M. 2003. Ailanthus triphysa at different densities and fertilizer regimes in Kerala, India: Biomass productivity, nutrient export and nutrient use efciency. Forest Ecol Manag 180: 135151. Singh G.B. 1987. Agroforestry in the Indian subcontinent: past, present and future. pp. 117138. In: Steppler H.A. and Nair P.K.R. (eds), Agroforestry: A Decade of Development, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi. Soemarwoto O. 1987. Homegardens: A traditional agroforestry system with a promising future. pp. 157170. In: Steppler H.A. and Nair P.K.R. (eds), Agroforestry: A Decade of Development, ICRAF, Nairobi. Soemarwoto O. and Conway G.R. 1991. The Javanese homegarden. J Farming Syst Res Extn 2: 95118. Terra G.J.A. 1953. Mixed-garden horticulture in Java. Malayan J Trop Geogr 1: 3343. Terra G.J.A. 1958. Farm systems in southeast Asia. Neth J Agric Sci 6: 157182. Thaman R.R. 1990. Mixed homegardening in the Pacic Islands: present status and future prospects. pp. 4165. In: Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds), Tropical Homegardens, United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Torquebiau E. 1992. Are tropical agroforestry homegardens sustainable? Agric Ecosyst Environ 41: 189207. Vitousek P.M. and Reiners W.A. 1975. Ecosystems succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis. BioScience 25: 376381. Vogl C.R., Vogl-Lukraser B. and Caballero J. 2002. Homegardens of Maya Migrants in the district of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexcio: Implications for Sustainable Rural Development. pp. 112. In: Stepp J.R., Wyndham F.S. and Zarger R.K. (eds), Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity, University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. Watson J.W. and Eyzaguirre P.B. (eds) 2002. Homegardens and in situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems. Proc Second International Homegarden Workshop, 1719 July 2001. Witzenhausen, Germany; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, 184 pp. Wezel A. and Bender S. 2003. Plant species diversity of homegardens of Cuba and its signicance for household food supply. Agroforest Syst 57: 3747. Whitten T., Soeriaatmadja R.E. and Aff S.A. 1996. The Ecology of Java and Bali. The ecology of Indonesia series 2, Perplus Edition, Jakarta, 969 pp. Wichern F., Richter C. and Joergensen R.G. 2003. Soil fertility breakdown in a subtropical South African vertisol site used as a homegarden. Biol Fertil Soils 37: 288294. Wickramasinghe A. 1996. The non forest wood fuel resources of Sri Lanka. Wood Energy News 11: 1418. Wiersum K.F. 1982. Tree gardening and taungya on Java. Agroforest Syst 1: 5370. Wiersum K.F. 2004. Forest Gardens as an Intermediate Land-use System in the Nature-Culture Continuum: Characteristics and Future Potential (This volume). Yamada M. and Gholz H.L. 2002. An evaluation of agroforestry systems as a rural development option for the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforest Syst 55: 8187. Yamamoto Y., Kubota N., Ogo T. and Priyono 1991. Changes in the structure of homegardens under different climatic conditions in Java Island. Japanese J Trop Agric 35: 104117. Zemede A. and Ayele N. 1995. Homegardens in Ethiopia: characteristics and plant diversity. Sinet (an Ethiopian J Sci) 18: 235266.