v

\

I v“ 'I' up

 

.." .0

 

a???”

  

 

     

"1""

.

{'1"

 
  

   
 
  

.1 .....II .
U;." r.‘ 1"‘11‘.'.'

5.. . _ I - . 1“
-"'.'I""' 1:1511‘. ,
' I

  
   
 
   
   
  

 

Ia
iU-‘U

1' ,.
. £3” 1:“ U' 1 [7'
”'ith ‘ 1 ‘3, ”mpg [II

V 7111.1; 1.. 1'11. . "U“ 1" \r".'

'"1'" ...,tavahiU‘. 'Ul'fi‘g .11'111— l' '1""' .11 '14ij 111:1". ...... ‘1 :71} IIII: :

        
     
 
 
  
  
 
  
    
     
        
      
   

 

111,; . '“"' ." ' " .
. 1 ‘V'UU '1 r, r: 1' ,JM' I ' 8 D ' I _ ’, .“ -" U .1 ‘
"1';'U:?u1" .";{’U"J '.'U E .‘JU '""m‘w'bfit‘flt'1"U1‘U"'.'""" U'f "lUfiUU‘UU‘ £0211...“ 'é :TZVUW I '1 [1161:9’114» :5, .‘u
1" "1 "1; "U 1~""‘ " _ '.' 'nt) "- I1 . . 111 L‘. U‘:. f? 4" ' ‘ A
‘1! U'3I.I " "‘9"-.e7' “:1 , 1?;1. «21'. U1 U1 U: 111'" 11'1U"."1"."$ 1' , r'filU': '1'1; . ."'.' 1-1'JUJ21'1 'fUtJU's'I JU' ' 1.;1'32UU .‘E‘U‘TJ :Z" -
1 U . I. | "*n'16' 1

‘ ‘1}: ‘1' U '1'11'1 "|U."'U 1 ‘11." ,hH "I‘:"' .1. .11 c L ..1. £1”: -.

1.1 I '. 1 II ...“ I'I. UUUUJI I .1 ..d' “Jam 1|I‘+<110MJ ".I'. :3'113‘1' .‘f ._ 11'M:'U

'1 1,;11 '1‘. 15111 .

‘."

. 1;;1’1'11'11'11
W 11?; "3111',
'L .11.

I713". 11323 ' ;
U‘nh. |.1-muff ‘U

   

1,.

       
  

1 11+ .
“"i$

I.» :1 1_.U$ 23$; {15? hi}
1.. 'Ufi‘
-: an' ”.1;

   
  

 

111:1” '
‘ ‘ High
1“”. :3;

.'U"U:|' 31"}

Z. (11“. ‘ 1.;
U111 1,11 .413ng

1:1 . U111“ ~ 11 '1" ,,
I“ 1:”; Uta; "x l‘ ...:Iié: 'r'r [UJIU BUUUU Uifiuflah~Nlfl
' 1

 

    

 
 
      

 
 

“
....— 3.»:
t. " :In -
. -h ..

.' ' v' -§- 1, ..
tun-9"“ “13". .2; . "'
$25: 1- ' ”‘- '- ‘ .

. . » - ‘-:- .; —.—-:'
. ‘ ' I 14"

. x x J. ...
. . ‘- ‘ - ~. =- L. "
, - ..

 
   
 
        

    

  
 
  

 

 

    

    
  
    

       

     

  

         
    
    
 
      

       
 

  

'.;.;" 11;. U( “i J ‘I...1‘|-U1 1‘- 51H '
1__.U11~ I. 3 U: I 10.1.. .

1| '4' ' ""'"" "'1' "1"1""'"U'U"U "' 1-U *1113'34'1211131' 'hU'E'é' ""3 '

1 .U I.'-I;I 131,11? 3 p."U ....."'U. 1 I'»_'.U'U"U;':'U€€.:U'U'U'§( “gig: .1”in “5‘ '. .- '1‘. . 11-12:

. .. "FL-'31.? .U' I. 11 ';‘ |;L}.I'. I::;1I.‘.UI‘ IJ'UU; 1?...“ "U" U,‘;!- WM ,1; U 1|on ‘ . ”Lb; .
' "- 111111 11:"? 1U" 11'“. 1. U3 - 1 " 1UU‘U171H21 til 3;“; U: ' ' " '
1: ”'11."; .. 1:12;) 1|. _F “”13. 13.’ g? 3:; :17: {‘IIb gang: ,£.,Uzfi'i.;|11jd" E1:

1 . '1‘ ' '0 . .1 c . (RU:

. 1 11%| .1111 1 1 1 |.1. 2151*: ~11 1111 ‘11
4 1 ‘ . . “ 'UU'?‘ ":

J'§ 1;. UNUr'" (Ulla: UI'| (1" _ '1U' "'11:. “15”?“ U U1; "U ' "UUJh‘q'; 9‘3. ""1, ""1191. jg.)

‘5 U1“ 11' i141 ' :1; |1|1-‘ _.;1' 1:. U314!” 1 ‘ "','U"§"“ ‘ | 1"":

”1?".U" ' I J. 1I1II§1I4 U 11-';‘:' .1 '11- 2 1. ... 1. .1

A 1 -U;:I I1. UZU .1 '.U'. ‘3 [fl .
@111 "3.3531111” “"1 3 1"§--1I-
.U.; |U.1'U'1',n '

|_ ... I512“; "."

. 7"-‘.“‘

    
   
        
 
    
   
        

   

    

   

   

 

,UI .;

'1' ' ; Ui'fi' ‘ 1|

1511‘? "111'; ‘1', ”“5..."
M! 1,‘ 172;";:;' '

' "|'1;U.='
';|,E"'1U1"."';'i'| "'
‘11 I],:;I'1§‘U'I '

1|”.

1
.1
;'.:‘1;

   

'i§:
U'U‘U;

 
       
  

 
 
  
       
    
  
   

 
    

   

 

 
 
         
    
 

  
  

 

   
  

     

1. , 13.1.,._:2...1I'..
. . *C'C.'- rm. 1.1;.‘4? 411': 1 ' ..I; , | I.- 11 f; 1- 131:;

||"-.‘.U',' 1".1 |IIU 3111": 'J'."‘I "~1'U :5." """"":'1 £321~v'1'1'111"1'1‘3":""'"?"'

III.I 3. I 3.1.. 11U'U'|;-':"|§U1' I - ”1.;er U MU; 1 ."".".

I ",,U' 'J1"'1J"y" "' ""‘,

;|""-.1..1‘“=:T1'1:, ‘ 1'11.

'U'UU'UJ. 1- ,IUUI"U'.I|'UUJ""'J"'1

'1"4.3""U";"'1"""""""' {11335-1 11

' 1"'U' " 1"1 .'1 UU"U"" U111!

‘,, 11‘. 1 111‘ 1’1‘1‘;.11 U '1.

“-1.11. """ {1 |U1;' . 1 1

U, ;11 1 '."; I U.U:U" "'l- U" '4 1 is; 'U1'11 "' 2'

‘'1'." '1'. 'J'UUU"U 1"U""""1";| "' U '1 ".J'. "'" UU'U'U' .‘UU . I'UU'U"1UU 'RIUU 'U"'"'U

'1": U1":1, "'|; J:,':1.. II..I UU' 1 ; J SW [1‘ “”1“" J 1': ng' .l;. 'l ‘11 1'.ng U‘UU‘HL 1‘“; ;
1115'; '1 '1'1' ' 1| 1';U 'UU'"' ""-'11"1" :UU'.; I::‘.'UU’1.] '11'11'11‘» ;1'1'U S'E'UA)?!’ 1.
'|1‘.‘|U‘ 1' '1""' .'1',""l'."1""'111 1"1":U"."U1" 1' "11""? 1'11UUUUMU '1 U'uqu' .13” 1'11:- '1'
1.11;; 1111:; ';;-; 1;; 11;}! w .. 191'; 11111111' “1.1;; l | 1131;; 1 $211 .
";' W; .U1;U;E'U If?" .‘"“1.'.‘ ;,‘:;.1-1 UU' U |'_|1;'[-"I U'U I"31 U1? "'"?'U'
1";‘11UUL'11'11111,",.;'1";"3' -:'I"'U11; 'U1UU :JU1.U1U:""'.1" "" ' ' "‘Ul" '
‘52:?! 511113112; 111.1114. lJJI'iifi‘ljU 111;; 131111;;1191’1111141‘. - 1|
fiiiU;'-."‘U""'$i"'113141111111:111'11fl"1‘;U31'{:"J'UU1;1;|",1‘1‘ """UJ
11"U U'-";'v!:'_1'3 1"":" 1“.” " U11 '1'1' '1'UUU'U

11131131111121 13_'1..*'.U..|.:.1|||'11-‘U.1 1|. UU.|'.11:."1...

THESlS

RANES

 

Li W * ! ll\llljlllljlllllllllllllll
Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Dispersed Tree Agroforestry In Eastern El
Salvador: Local Farmer Knowledge And
Management Practices For Preferred Species
Of An Indigenous Agroforestry System

presented by

Steven Russel Michmerhuizen

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in ForeStU

 

 

 

Date August 27, 1997

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE-3 return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECAHED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

“gm 2 2 0W?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma mu

DISPERSED TREE AGROFORESTRY IN EASTERN EL SALVADOR:
LOCAL FARMER KNOWLEDGE
AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PREFERRED SPECIES OF AN
INDIGENOUS AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM
By

Steven Russel Michmerhuizen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forestry

1997

Abstract

Forest resources in rural agrarian areas are often converted to cleared land for
agricultural production. A high population density in the same area may shorten the
fallow period and, through time, incorporate more forest land into agricultural production.
Intensified land use systems in these highly populated areas have historically
incorporated woody perennials in fields of staple crops to meet household demands of
wood and non-wood products. These intensified land use systems are generally referred
to as agroforestry systems and one example is dispersed tree agroforestry.

This research documented local indigenous knowledge regarding dispersed trees
retained by farmers within their fields. Information was gathered using a survey
questionnaire to guide informal conversations with resoufce-poor households in eastern
El Salvador to assess: 1) tree species diversity and number of dispersed trees; and 2) the
uses and management practices assigned to each species.

The study found that dispersed trees were selected on the basis of potential tree
use and farmer experience because the wood and non-wood products and benefits were of
greater value than staple crops. Multiple purpose tree species were retained by both
renter and owner farmers because these species served as sources for tree fodder,
fuelwood, shade, tool wood, and medicine. Tree fodder use during the dry season was a
critical food source and maintained milk production within S % of wet season production
rates. Twenty-seven tree species were critical for very specific one-time purposes such as
comer-posts, rafters, and cross-beams used in house and out-building construction.

Key words: dispersed tree, agroforestry, indigenous knowledge, El Salvador,

Simarouba glauca, Mimosa ten uiflora, Guazuma ulmzfolia, Cordia alliodora

Copyright by
STEVEN RUSSEL MICHMERHUIZEN
1997

for

Ken and Karen Michmerhuizen

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My most sincere thanks goes out to the people of Las Huertas who opened their
homes and lives to me through unending hospitality that I shall always remember. I also
extend appreciation to Jennifer Phillips who opened her home, welcomed me, and was a
great companion through the whole research process.

Appreciation is extended to the institutions at Michigan State University and in
East Lansing that funded this research: the Center for Advanced Study of International
Development; the Institute of International Agriculture; the Graduate School; and the
East Lansing Rotary Club.

A very special thank you to José Rolando Barillas at Peace Corps El Salvador,
Modesto A. Juarez V. at the Center for Tropical Agronomy Teaching and Research
CATIE El Salvador, and Dr. Samaria Chavarria at ITAMA. Assistance was graciously
provided to me at the Biblioteca del Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables MAG, the
Departamento de Fitopatologia Universidad de El Salvador, and the Asociacién Jardin
Botanico La Laguna, Antiguo Cuscatlan. At Michigan State University my appreciation
goes out to Dr. Delbert Mokma, Dr. Jeremy Fried, Dr. Otto Suchsland for their assistance
in gathering information and completing this thesis. Special thanks goes to my advisor
Dr. Douglas 0. Lantagne who patiently guided me through the research process and then
diligently edited the thesis at every stage of development. And to my committee
members Dr. Michael A. Gold and Dr. Richard H. Bernsten, for the resources from the

“Gold Mine” and the learning process involved in developing my questionnaire,

respectively. Sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. F.C.F. Barney at Northern Michigan
University for believing in me so many years ago and for letting me know that he did.
My parents Ken and Karen Michmerhuizen have encouraged me to always
venture boldly into the uncharted waters of my own dreams and aspirations. For their
life-long support I am truly grateful. Finally, for more than I could write on this page or

all the pages in this thesis, my inexpressible thanks goes to my wife Jan.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Site Characteristics ............................................................................................. 6

Natural Vegetation ....................................................................................... 6

Regional Climate ......................................................................................... 7

Population and Settlement ......................................................................... 11

2.2 Agroforestry ..................................................................................................... 12

Agroforestry Description ........................................................................... 12

Dispersed Trees .......................................................................................... l3

Tree/Crop and Soil Interactions ................................................................. 18

Tree/Crop and Light Interactions ............................................................... 19

2.3 Land and Tree Tenure ...................................................................................... 21

2.4 Gender in Agroforesz .................................................................................... 23

2.5 Indigenous Knowledge .................................................................................... 23

Using Indigenous Knowledge in the Development Process ...................... 24

Indigenous Agroforestry Knowledge ......................................................... 26

2.6 Survey Methods ............................................................................................... 28

Interviewing ............................................................................................... 28

Survey Instrument and Sample Population ................................................ 29

Key Informant Interviewing ....................................................................... 30

2.7 Woody Species Taxonomy and Descriptions .................................................. 31
CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS ....................................................................................... 33

Site Selection and Sample Population ................................................................... 33

Survey Instrument .................................................................................................. 34

3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................ 34

Interview Process ....................................................................................... 35

Field Informal Interview ............................................................................ 36

Key Informants .......................................................................................... 37

Data Handling and Statistical Methods ...................................................... 38
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 39

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 39

4.2 Site Description ................................................................................................ 39

vii

Population ...................................................................................... 39

Settlement ...................................................................................... 40
Agriculture ..................................................................................... 40
4.3 Dispersed Tree Resources in Las Huertas ........................................................ 44
Species diversity and number of trees according to farm size,
land tenancy, and number of livestock owned ........................................ 44
Farmer management practices and use of dispersed trees
according to land tenancy ....................................................................... 46
4.4 Uses of Dispersed Trees in Las Huertas .......................................................... 51
Fodder ........................................................................................................ 5 1
F uelwood .................................................................................................... 52
Fruit ............................................................................................................ 52
Medicine .................................................................................................... 53
Construction ............................................................................................... 53
Furniture Wood .......................................................................................... 54
Posts ........................................................................................................... 54
Farm Tools and Domestic Implements ...................................................... 54
Shade .......................................................................................................... 55
Other Uses .................................................................................................. 55
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 57
5.1 Dispersed Tree Resources ................................................................................ 57
5.2 Description of Tree Use and Management Practices ....................................... 63
Fodder ........................................................................................................ 63
Fuelwood .................................................................................................... 68
Fruit ............................................................................................................ 70
Medicine .................................................................................................... 71
Construction ............................................................................................... 73
Furniture Wood .......................................................................................... 77
Posts ........................................................................................................... 78
Tool Wood ................................................................................................. 79
Shade .......................................................................................................... 80
Other .......................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 83
6.1 Limitations of this study and fiiture research ............................................. 83
Limitations ................................................................................................. 83
Future Research ......................................................................................... 83
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................... 84
Conclusions .................................................................................... 84
Recommendations .......................................................................... 85

viii

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................... 89

APPENDIX B. ................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX C. ................................................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX D. ................................................................................................................. 100
APPENDIX E. ................................................................................................................. 105
APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX G. ................................................................................................................. 1 19
APPENDIX H .................................................................................................................. 150
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 1 53

ix

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

LIST OF TABLES

Total number of cultivated fields and mean field size in hectares by land
tenancy from June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador ....................... 42
Total number of maize-sorghum fields in early and late planting seasons by
tenancy from June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador ....................... 42

Total number of dispersed trees and species number per cultivated field
according to land tenancy found on fields from June to August, 1996 in
Las Huertas, El Salvador ..................................................................................... 45

Number of cases of farmer assigned tree uses by land tenure for dispersed trees
from June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador ..................................... 47

Access by renter farmers to uses of dispersed trees found on rented land from
June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador ............................................. 48

Access by renter farmers to the use identified by them for the most commonly
occurring dispersed trees species found on land rented from June to August,
1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador ....................................................................... 49

Number of trees, diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), height, and crown diameter
for the most commonly occurring trees found in fields from June to August,
1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador ....................................................................... 50

Number of trees, number of fields, trees per field and number of farmers who
retained the most commonly occurring trees found in fields from June to
August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador .......................................................... 51

Number of trees, number of fields, trees per hectare and particular uses assigned
the most commonly occurring trees found in fields from June to August, 1996
in Las Huertas, El Salvador ................................................................................ 52

Appendix B
Table 1. Dispersed tree species most commonly found (> 10 % frequency) in
farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador, June to August, 1996 by botanical name
and local tree name and the percentage of fields in which they were present ....... 95

Table 2. Dispersed tree species less commonly found (< 10 % frequency) in
farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador, June to August, 1996 by botanical name
and local tree name and the percentage of fields in which they were present ....... 96

Appendix C
Specific gravity measurements for several dispersed tree species found in farmers

fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador, June to August, 1996 ...................................... 99
Appendix D

Table 1. Botanical and local tree species names and uses of dispersed trees found

in farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador ...................................................... 101

Table 2. Local and botanical tree species names and uses of dispersed trees found
in farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador ...................................................... 103

Appendix B
Table 1. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for
FODDER for meat and milk production by the number of farmers who identified
each particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this
use ........................................................................................................................ 106

Table 2. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for
FUELWOOD by the number of farmers who identified each particular species
listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ......................... 107

Table 3. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for
FRUIT by the number of farmers who identified each particular species listed and
the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ......................................... 109

Table 4. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for
MEDICINE by the number of farmers who identified each particular species listed
and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ................................... 110

Table 5. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for

CONSTRUCTION by the number of farmers who identified each particular species
listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ......................... 111

Table 6. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for
FURNITURE by the number of farmers who identified each particular species
listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ......................... 112

Table 7. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used
for POSTS by the number of farmers who identified each particular species listed
and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ................................... 113

Table 8. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for

TOOL WOOD by the number of farmers who identified each particular species
listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ......................... 114

xi

Table 9. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being used for
SHADE by the number of farmers who identified each particular species listed
and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ................................... 115

Table 10. Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields identified as being use for
other UNIQUE USES by the number of farmers who identified each particular

species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use ............ 116
Appendix F

Fruit trees found in homegardens in Las Huertas, El Salvador and the percentage

of households which were growing each species ................................................. 118
Appendix F

Scientific name (family, genus and species) of dispersed trees found in farmers
fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador from June to August, 1996 ............................ 151

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of El Salvador showing location of research site in Las Huertas ................ 3
Figure 2. Annual rainfall distribution for Cutuco, La Union, El Salvador ......................... 9
Appendix A

Plate 1. Cordia alliodora ................................................................................................. 90
Plate 2. Simarouba glauca ................................................................................................ 91
Plate 3. Guazuma ulmifolia ............................................................................................... 92
Plate 4. Mimosa tenuiflora ................................................................................................ 93

xiii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

When asked which trees were left in the field as he was preparing it for planting
that year, one farmer said, “Anything I like I leave.” His sentiment is the assumption for
the study because it focuses on farmer preference and uses of dispersed tree species in
cultivated fields: farmers leave the trees they like. Another assumption is that dispersed
trees on the agricultural landscape of heavily populated areas like El Salvador, are the
necessary compromise of an agrarian society between food production and demand for
wood and non-wood forest products. Presence of dispersed trees indicates that trees are
an option for future opportunities and needs.

The goal of this research was to investigate the local knowledge regarding
dispersed tree species in eastern El Salvador. The area was chosen because societies in
agrarian areas of high population density have historically adopted intensified land-use
systems that incorporate trees and shrubs to meet human needs (Raintree and Warner
1986). Studies to document farmer preferences of useful tree species have been done in
areas such as Vanuatu (Barrance 1995), Ethiopia (Poschen 1986), Nepal (Fonzen and
Oberholzer 1984), and Tamil Nadu, India (J ambulingham and F emandes 1986). In each
situation a farmer retained dispersed trees in cultivated fields because high population
pressure had limited off-farm tree resources and increased the demand for tree products.

Land-use change in El Salvador has undergone several key events that shaped the

patterns of present agricultural land-use. The Pipil and Lenca were early (ca. 900 AD.)

settlers of the region that was to become El Salvador (Map 1) (Cardenal 1996). From
former population centers, these early societies brought shifiing, or slash-and-burn,
agricultural practices. In this system a plot in the forest was cleared, the dry brush
burned, and staple crops such as maize, beans, and squash were planted (Browning 1971).
After several years the crop production level would diminish and another plot would be
cleared. The fallow area would usually then regenerate: 1) a woody vegetation cover and
2) soil fertility through nutrient cycling of fallen leaf litter (Ewel 1986).

During the Colonial period, land-use in eastern El Salvador was primarily
dedicated to commercial indigo and staple crop production through shifting cultivation
methods 03rowning 1971, Lindo-Fuentes 1990). The earliest historical reference
indicates that the region of Las Huertas was brought into agricultural production by the
mid-seventeenth century (Larde y Larin 1957). After the Colonial era, coffee plantation
expansion in western El Salvador affected northern and eastern portions of the country
through internal emigration of landless poor in search of settlement areas. Also, the
population tripled during the 19th century from 250,000 to 783,000 and tripled again over
the next 60 years to 2,511,000 (Browning 1971). Coffee plantations were established on
fertile volcanic slopes throughout the country, while the flat valley and coastal areas
tended to support larger farms and cattle ranches. Modern agriculture inputs such as
fertilizers, pesticides and new seed varieties have tended to concentrate on increasing
export crop production of coffee, sugar cane, henequin, and cotton (Daugherty 1970).
Under these historical events, the entire territory of El Salvador was populated by the
early decades of this century and frontier areas ceased to exist. From the 1930’s to the

present, forest resources in El Salvador have been severely reduced and current

 

 
 
 
      
   

San Salvador

   
   

El Salvador Las Hue rtas

    

00

Gulf of Fonseca

Pacific Ocean

 

 

 

Map 1. El Salvador.

Map of El Salvador showing location of research site in Las Huertas.

estimates of forest cover range from 13 % to 14 % (2,800 km2 to 3,000 kmz) of the
national territory (Barry et al. 1996)‘. A growing population has dramatically increased
the need for staple crop production on farms which successive generations of rural
farmers have continuously had to sub-divide (Barry et al. 1996). In 1971, 86 % of these
small landholding farms (< 4 hectares) were concentrated on 19.5 % (283,311 hectares)
of the total agricultural land in production and often located on land unfit for agriculture
due to steep slopes and poor soil fertility (Diskin 1991).

Until recently, agricultural improvement activities have ignored the woody
species component found within the farming system and concentrated instead on
increasing the production of staple crops. Also, reforestation projects have tried to meet
fuelwood needs through measures such as fuelwood plantations, yet ignored food
production issues in communities they were meant to serve. Today, rural development
projects seek to meet community needs through agroforestry improvements that provide
services in areas such as marketable goods, domestic consumable products, and sustained
agricultural yield through soil conservation and improvement (OAS 1994, Belaunde and
Rivas 1993). A critical step towards project success is the investigation and
incorporation of local knowledge regarding agricultural and natural resource use and the
process of decision making which leads to resource use (Walker et al. 1995). Another
author stated that, “the relative ignorance of the research community about woody plants
used by rural people adds a special need for ethnobotanical research to identify promising

species (woody and herbaceous) for agroforestry systems, and to understand what is

 

' Estimates of 3,000 km2 include coffee plantations as forested areas.

already known about their interactions with soil, animals, other crops, and their uses,
ownership and management” (Rocheleau 1987271).

This study seeks to document the farmer knowledge base regarding dispersed
trees that has allowed this traditional agroforestry system to become a part of rural life in
El Salvador. The research objectives for this study were to: 1) develop a comprehensive
description of the number and species diversity of dispersed trees, 2) describe the uses
and products of dispersed trees, and 3) identify the persons (e. g. land renter, land owner,
women, men) involved with the management of dispersed trees for the various uses and

products.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Site Characteristics
Natural Vegetation

The site, Caserio Las Huertas (N 13° 29’; W 87° 57’), is located 30 meters above
sea level on hilly and eroded late Pliocene volcanic materials in the Tizate River valley
on predominantly clayey Hapludalfs and Pelluserts, which may be shallow to bedrock
(Daugherty 1970, Universidad de El Salvador 1974).

Holdridge characterized this zone as a tropical dry-forest, transitioning to sub-
tropical dry forest. Bio-temperatures are S 24 °C and air temperatures 2 24 °C for six
months of the year (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia 1978). Salvador Flores (1988)
describes the same zone as a Lowland Deciduous forest community - Selva Baja
Caducifolia. This vegetation pattern, the most widespread in El Salvador, includes the
southern portion of the Department of La UniOn and most of eastern El Salvador
(Salvador Flores 1988).

Daugherty (1970) maintains that man-induced ecological changes began to occur
in this area as shifting agriculture techniques favored and expanded pyrophytic taxa such
as Cresentia, Curatella, and Brysonima. In El Salvador the result can be seen in present
day savanna woodlands found in eastern San Miguel and La Union. These woodlands are
named morro savannas, after the predominating morro tree (Cresentia alata). Some other

woody plants associated with the morro savannas are commonly found in Caserio Las

Huertas (primarily in non-cultivated areas) and include tree species such as jicaro
(Cresentia cujete), chapparo (Curatell americana), nance (Brysonima crassifolia), izcanal
(Acacia hindsii) espino blanco (A. farnesiana), and carbOn (Mimosa tenuiflora) (Castro
1978, Daugherty 1970).

Regional Climate

Ktieppen describes the climate for eastern El Salvador as a tropical wet-and—dry
climate (Vivo Escoto 1964). This designation signifies humid tropical climates where no
month of the year has an average temperature less than 18 °C, and a distinct wet and dry
season annually. The maximum precipitation is generally received in September and
October (V ivo Escoto 1964).

The most influencing climatic factor of Las Huertas and the entire Pacific Coastal
region of Central America are the distinct wet and dry seasons. This seasonality is due to
the annual north/south movement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and the
northern hemisphere subtropical high pressure cell (Daugherty 1970, Martyn 1992).
Northeast Trade Winds, which dominate the wind patterns throughout the year, may carry
moisture inland from the Caribbean Sea. However, this moisture is kept on the Atlantic
facing slopes due to orographic precipitation, leaving most of Pacific Central America in
a rain shadow for half the year (Vivo Escoto 1964). During the same period, the southern
location of the ITCZ positions the northern hemisphere subtropical high pressure cell
over Central America and the downward moving air associated with high pressure cells

produces the dry season conditions from mid-November to May (Daugherty 1970).

Changes in climate begin when the ITCZ moves northward to about 12 CN, and
the South Pacific High attains a northerly position bringing southwesterly winds that
begin to carry moist air off the warm waters of the Pacific Equatorial Countercurrent
(V ivo Escoto 1964, Martyn 1992). Rainfall during May and June is associated with two
storm patterns. Initial showers, or “chubascos” are cloudbursts moderate in strength,
which persist for 5 minutes to 2 hours, and may total >50 mm per event. These
convection storms usually occur in late afiemoon or early evening afier a clear day of
high afternoon temperatures , high humidity and sunshine. Towards late June,
thunderstorms are occasionally moderate to strong in strength, with heavy steady rains
lasting up to 8 hours, and may total 100 mm occasionally, and sometimes >150 mm
(Instituto Geografico Nacional 1979).

Following the early rains of May and June is a 30 - 40 day period of lesser
rainfall, which is referred to as “canicula”, or “veranillo” - little summer. This dry spell
is related to the southward retreat of the ITCZ and an increase in atmospheric pressure
(V ivo Escoto 1964, Daugherty 1970). The bimodality of precipitation in the Pacific
Coastal region of Central America is clearly illustrated in Figure 1 (Instituto Geografico
Nacional 1979). Farmers in most of Central America and Mexico have responded to the
annual occurrence of this dry spell by developing two planting seasons - early
(primavera) and late (postrera). One farmer in the study stated “We like a good hot dry
spell because the earth heats up and lets the seed of the late planting season grow strong.
We usually have good harvests when the dry spell is hot and humid and poorer harvests

when it just remains cool and humid”.

precipitation in mm

Figure 1. Annual rainfall distribution
for Cutuco, La Union, El Salavdor
(Instituto Geografico Nacional 1979).

 

900
800 ~
700 -

600 ..
500 ~-
400 ..
300 4»
200 «~
100 ..

 

 

 

— - - maximum
average
— - minimum

 

 

 

 

 

 

Distinct wet-dry season rainfall patterns are evident for this site 21 km. fiom Las Huertas.

“Canicula”, or period of less rain fall due to southward retreat of the ITCZ.

10

Late rains begin in September and continue until mid-October, dropping off
significantly in November. The showers of this period represent the majority of annual
precipitation for this region and are characterized by two types of storms (V ivo Escoto
1964). One is a weak to moderate in strength local storm lasting 10 to 24 hours
precipitating >150mm of rain. More common during this period is a low-pressure frontal
storm, locally known as a “temporal”. This storm is also weak to moderate in strength,
yet lasts 24 to 72 hours with total precipitation between 100 - 600 mm, occasionally 800 -
1,000 mm (Instituto Geografico Nacional 1979). Storms of the second variety frequently
become stationed over the Gulf of F onseca and contribute to the high September average
rainfall of 400-500 mm for the surrounding area (Martyn 1992).

Lauer (1968) states that annual temperature variation in El Salvador is less than
diurnal temperature variation. In San Salvador, which has data available for >50 years,
the annual temperature fluctuation was calculated to be only 2.5 °C on average.

However, average diurnal temperature fluctuations in dry months (e.g. January to April)
were between 12 - 15 °C; whereas for humid months fluctuations were only specified as
“somewhat less”, but may average 6 °C in some years.

In Las Huertas and all of El Salvador, as the rains abate by mid-December, the
winds steadily become northerly and high pressure dominates the region once again
(V ivo Escoto 1964). December night temperatures reach 18 - 19 °C and are the coldest of
the year in the coastal region, including Las Huertas (Ministerio de Agricultura y
Ganaderia 1975). In January, after the rains have ceased completely, it is typically cold
and windy with a steady north wind blowing for days at a time. Rising diurnal and

nocturnal temperatures typify February, but March and April are the hottest months of the

11

year. In eastern El Salvador, including Las Huertas, the very dry, very hot clear days of
April produce an average high temperature of 41 °C. Typically however, coastal day time
temperatures are 28 -29 °C in April and May (Instituto Geografico Nacional 1979).
Population and Settlement

La UniOn is not as densely pOpulated as other areas of the country. The land area
of El Salvador is 20,935 km2 and total population in 1994 was 5,641,000. Country-wide
population density is 269.5 persons/ km2. The Department of La Union is 2,074.34 km2
and has a population of 255,565; yielding a population density of 123 persons/km2
(Ministerio de Economia 1995).

The Municipality of San Alejo, which includes Caserio Las Huertas, is one of the
least populated areas in the Department of La Unién. Rural population density for the
San Alejo was 74 persons/kmz, which falls below the departmental average of 97
persons/kmz. Extending 251.64 kmz, the municipal population was 22,793 in 1992,
which represents 8.9% of the total population of Department of La Union and 0.4% of the
national population (Ministerio de Economia 1995). Irrespective of urban and rural
population categories, San Alejo ranks 12‘h in population for the entire Department of La
UniOn and the average of 91 persons/km2 (1992 Census) is below the departmental
average of 129 persons/kmz. Thus, the population density of Las Huertas is not as high as

areas such as Rwanda, Vanuatu, or Nepal.

12

2.2 Agroforestry
Agroforestry Description

Agroforestry practices are cultivation methods that incorporate selected woody
Species to accormnodate such needs as fuelwood, building materials, fruit, fodder, and
shade. Agroforestry has been described as:

...a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where wooay
perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same
land-management units as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial
arrangement or temporal sequence. In agroforestry systems there are both
ecological and economical interactions between the dijfirent components
(Nair 1989:17).

These practices are manifested throughout the world and are not restricted to
parameters such as population density, climatic conditions, economic development, or
biogeography.

The biophysical interactions in agroforestry systems between tree and agricultural
crop have been investigated to some degree and there is a growing body of scientific
literature (Sanchez 1995). Investigations concerning agroforestry interactions have
included: soil erosion (Lal 1989, Moench 1991, Dharmasema 1994, Banda et al. 1994);
soil fertility, organic matter content, nutrient cycling, and microbial activity (Moench
1991, Haggar et al.1993, Campbell et al. 1994, Sharma et al. 1994, Nygren and Ramirez
1995); and root and canopy competition for light, water and nutrient resources (Kater et
al. 1992, Kessler 1992, Ruhigwa et al. 1992, Schroth and Zech 1995). The results of

these studies contribute scientific knowledge to the agroforestry research community and

l3

identify future research needs. Additionally the results can guide development project
personnel as they plan agroforestry improvements with communities to increase positive
and reduce negative biophysical interactions within the proposed intervention.
Dispersed Trees

Agrarian areas of high population density and reduced land-holdings require
intensified agroforestry systems and woody species have often been integrated into these
systems as live fences or dispersed trees (Raintree and Warner 1986). Dispersed trees are
those which have been deliberately retained or planted within a cultivated area by the
farmer. They are left during clearing or field preparation to provide some benefit or
function that takes precedence over annual or perennial crop production.

There is a growing body of scientific information regarding the retention of trees
in dispersed patterns across agricultural landscapes. The following section provides
geographical location, tree species names and information concerning dispersed trees in
studies of nutrient cycling and soil condition/fertility (Jambuligngam and Femandes
1986, Poschen 1986, Altieri et al. 1987, Jofre et a1. 1988, Vityakon et al.1988,
Ulluwishewa 1991, Kater et al. 1992, Kessler 1992, Sae-lee et al. 1992, Jodha 1995),
grain/pasture yields and climate modification (Poschen 1986, Jofre et al. 1988, Akbar et
al. 1990, Kessler 1992, Sac-lee et al. 1992, Sharma 1992, Dove 1995, Jodha 1995,
Tilander et al. 1995), and tree uses and functions (Geilen 1982, Fonzen and Oberholzer
1984, Jambuligngam and Femandes 1986, Shankarnarayan et al. 1989, Jofre et al. 1988,
Wapakala 1988, Ulluwishewa 1991, Erkkila and Siiskonen 1992, Kater et al. 1992,
Kessler 1992, Khaleque and Gold 1993, Kimwe 1993, den Biggelar and Gold 1996,

Barrance 1995, Dove 1995, Jodha 1995, and Scherr 1995).

14

Numerous multiple purpose trees (MPTs) are retained as dispersed trees in Tamil
Nadu, India (Jambuligngam and Femandes 1986). For example, palmyrah palm
(Borassusflabellifer (L.)) is primarily used to provide a sugary exudate called nera,
which is collected during the dry season when there is less annual crop work in the field.
Kapok trees (Ceiba pentandra (L.)), typically planted around the field boundaries and
roadsides, are harvested for the flossy fibers from the seed endocarp (Jambuligngam and
F emandes 1986). Jodha (1995) and Shankarnarayan et al. (1989) state that khejri
(Prosopis cineraria) and ber (Ziziphus numalaria) are both maintained within fields for
fodder and fuel. Dove (1995) reports that in northwest Pakistan, 74 % of the households
surveyed left trees on the farm landscape either singly or in small numbers for fuelwood,
timber and fodder.

Fonzen and Oberholzer (1984) reported that MPTS in western Nepal are
preserved/retained on a terrace when it is established. Apart from the uses provided by
the trees (fodder, fuel, fi'uit, fence and timber), tree retention on the terrace allows for
farming to continue on the 40 -70 % slopes in that region. Khaleque and Gold (1993)
reported that Garo farmers in Bangladesh developed a pineapple agroforestry system in
response to changes land use rights and population pressure. On the island of Mota Lava
in Vanuatu, as garden size decreased, important fruit trees were planted in taro gardens
and along property boundaries with other perennials (Barrance 1995). Variations of the
same taro garden farming system were employed on Paarna, where rerau (T rema
orientalis) trees were allowed to regenerate as fallow vegetation in the taro gardens at

higher altitudes. These slender stems, cutback during preparation, were used as fencing

15

material for the growing cycle and removed for fuelwood after the taro harvest (Barrance
1995)

Investigations of retained tree practices on rice paddy fields or bunds in Thailand
reveal farmer awareness of the soil enriching capabilities of the retained trees. Sae-lee et
al. (1992) state that Samanea saman, Parinarim anamense, Dipterocarpus obtusifolius,
and D. intricatus were all retained or planted on rice paddy bunds to positively effect soil
fertility. Ulluwishewa (1991) documented the traditional rice cultivation cycle and
mentioned that trees were left to provide shade for meal times when working in fields.

Jofre et al. (1988) describe the present state of the oak parkland “dehesa”
agroforestry system of southern Spain. Although the sustainability of this system has
been dramatically reduced in the last 40 years, it still provides crop land, fruits for
foraging domestic animals, shade, tannins, and cork.

Dispersed tree agroforestry experiences in Kenya have been documented by
several authors (Geilen 1982, Wapakala 1988, Castro 1991, Kimwe 1993, and Scherr
1995). Dispersed trees are typically sources of building poles, fuelwood, and fruit
(Wapakala 1988, Kimwe 1993, Scherr 1995). Gielen (1982) documented 24 indigenous
trees used for non-fruit products and 11 fruit producing trees all grown within cultivated
fields. Castro (1991) provided a historical perspective on the development of
agroforestry systems leading up to the present in areas near Mt. Kenya.

1n Sahelian west Africa, sorghum is planted in association with Vitellaria
parodoxa and Parkia biglobosa that are retained as food sources and for shade (Kater et
al. 1992, Kessler 1992,). ViteIlaria parodoxa fruits are a source of fat after being

processed into butter and Parkia biglobosa is used for the sugar extract to make

16

“soumbala” vegetable cheese, medicine and timber. Meihe (1986) reported findings from
a study from western Sudan that included F aidhadia albida, Cordia abyssinica, and
Zizr’phus spina-christi. Dispersed within the fields of sorghum and millet, these trees
provided seasonal fodder (e. g., pods and leaves) for grazing animals. Particularly
important was F. albida that is leafless during the planting season and foliates during the
dry season. Similar benefits are described by Poschen (1986) in an evaluation of the F.
albida agroforestry system in eastern Ethiopia. Rwandan farmers leave woody plants, but
also include leaving herbaceous materials in their fields that they classify as “trees” or
“Shrubs” (den Biggelar and Gold 1996).

Brkkila and Siiskonen (1992) described traditional uses of tree species in
Namibia. For example, the fi'uits of marula (Sclerocarypa birrea subsp. cafiia) are
commonly used to make wine and the trees are retained with mahangu millet (Pennisetum
glaucum) cultivation in Owambo. Also, mopane (Colophospermum mopane) is
extensively used in the construction of homestead palisades and walls in the same region
of the country.

The presence of trees in cultivated fields in Latin America has been documented
by several authors and identified as a potential solution to present-day farmer needs
(Munoz Aldeén 1981, Altieri et al. 1987, Morrison 1991, Belaunde and Rivas 1993,
Torres et al. 1993, Radulovich et al.1994).

Torres et al. (1993) reported that nineteen trees/shrubs were identified as useful
by residents in the Altiplano of Peru. Andreatta (1994) reported that Jamaican farmers
planted eleven species of fruit bearing trees in their fields. Several papers mentioned the

retention of useful trees within pastures (Morrison 1991, Munoz Aldean 1981). Yerba

17

mate (Ilex paraguariensis), is known by the author to be cultivated as a dispersed tree in
Colonia Katuete, Paraguay. Munoz Aldean (1981) states that trees in some regions of the
Ecuadorian Andes are often left to grow around fields more than within them, forming
property delineating boundaries.

Recently, several agroforestry projects in Central America and the Caribbean have
established or recommended dispersed tree plantings in cultivated fields. Morrison
(1991) recommends that Jamaican farmers plant preferred fodder trees within crop lands
to augment dry-season fodder shortages. The Plan Trifrnio fuelwood reforestation project
expanded beyond initial community fuelwood plantations to incorporate fruit tree
demonstration plots at the request of numerous beneficiaries (Organization of American
States 1994). Farmers involved in the Madelefia 3 project expressed interest to plant
Eucalyptus spp. within their maize fields (Belaunde and Rivas 1993). Juarez and
McKenzie (1991) completed a financial analysis for this system that projected higher
four-year returns for a maize and E. camaldulensis intercropping, than either sole maize
or pure tree plantation.

The citations above provide clear evidence that the retention of dispersed trees on
agricultural landscapes commonly occurs in areas of high population, decreased field
size, and reduced forest resources. Farmers in eastern El Salvador also appear to retain
dispersed trees on the agricultural landscape and this study will attempt to document
whether this is a planned activity or an artifact of the farming method. No literature was

noted which described this approach for farmers in El Salvador.

l8

Tree/Crop and Soil Interactions

Soil properties are often modified through the addition of organic matter to the
soil and these complex biophysical relationships have received attention from many
researchers. In general, research indicates that soil organic matter and nutrient levels
increase in close proximity to a tree canopy.

Decreased nutrient levels for soil nitrogen, phosphorus, and calcium, along with
cation exchange capacity, were reported with increased distance from dispersed trees in
maize-Prunus spp. traditional agroforestry plots in Tlaxcala, México (Altieri et al. 1987).
The authors suggested that the tree canopy provided additional organic material through
leaf litter fall that contributed to soil conditions. A study of soil fertility and hydrological
balance under a dispersed tree canopy found that “the value for organic content, total
exchange capacity, potassium, phosphorus, total nitrogen and carbon contents are twice
those of the same variables outside the tree canopy cover” (Jofre et al. 1988). These
results were reported at the 0-5cm depth, the most biologically active soil region, and at
the 5-20cm depth. The improved soil conditions were attributed to leaf shedding, litter
fall, and excretions from grazing animals (Jofre et al. 1988). Poschen (1986), in a study
in eastern Ethiopia, reported a 56 % increase in crop production under the canopy of
F aihidia albida due partially to increased organic matter and soil moisture content under
the canopy.

Studies of fine leaf decomposition on rice paddy bunds or in fields have also been
shown to be related to increased soil organic matter, fertility, and cation exchange
capacity (V itayon et al. 1988, Ulluwishewa 1991, Sac-lee et al. 1992). Soil fertility

measurements (organic matter, nutrient content, and pH) taken under Samanea saman

l9

tree canopies showed a higher nutrient content and lower C/N ratio than soil samples not
affected by any tree canopies and increases were shown to be highest at positions nearest
the tree itself (Sac-lee et al. 1992). Kessler (1992) reported however, that soil fertility did
not vary under the tree canopy or the open field. Another study in the same region did
report that the soil directly under the tree was positively affected by the additional organic
matter (Kater et al. 1992). In one case, increased humidity (in soil and air) under the tree
canopy reduced the number of plants that could survive. It was assumed that fungi
thrived in this environment and damaged the plants (Kater et al. 1992).

This brief review provides evidence that positive changes in soil nutrient levels,
organic matter content and cation exchange capacity are possible when leaf litter is added
to the soil. In each case, leaf litter was provided by dispersed trees and impacts decreased
with distance from the source. Although dispersed tree and soil interactions were not
researched in the study area, this researcher was looking for awareness on the part of
farmers about any perceived soil improving properties of dispersed trees.

Tree/Cro and Li t Interactions

Trees have often been planted in rows as windbreaks designed to reduce soil loss
caused by wind erosion. However, researchers have been concerned regarding the
reduction of photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) on crops grown under the influence of
tree canopies (Brewbaker 1987). The reduction in photosynthetic rates of food crops
growing in the shade of a dense tree canopy may affect the overall growth of the plant
and grain production. Decreased crop yields may especially be found in C4 crops such as

maize and sorghum, which typically have high photosynthetic rates (Salisbury and Ross

20

1985, Kessler 1992, Kater et al. 1992). Likewise, reductions in C3 crops, such as wheat
and beans have also been reported (Akbar et al. 1990, Sharma 1992, Chirko et al. 1996).

Kessler (1992) and Kater et al. (1992) reported sorghum yield decreases of 50 to
70 % under tree canopies of Vitellaria parodoxa and Parkia biglobosa. Tilander et al.
(1995) completed a follow-up study in the same area and reported that sorghum grain
yields under trees coppiced (i.e. reduced canopies) were 48 % higher than trees not
coppiced. These results indicate that reduced canopy shade and increased soil fertility
through organic matter accumulation appear to have created optimum growing conditions
for crop plants. Also, Tilander et al. (1995) reported that plants around trees coppiced
early produced higher yields than if coppicing was done later in the growing season and
may indicate that initial growth is affected by shading.

Chirko et al. (1996) reported on direction and distance effect of variations of light
intensity on a Paulownia tree and wheat crop planting system in northern China.
Paulownia, a tree native to China, demonstrates late leaf emergence and thereby favors
the planting of a cereal crop, such as wheat, because the tree does not shade the growing
crop until later in the spring season. Wheat grain yield and kernel weight did not differ
on either side of the north-south planted Paulownia row. However, grain yields did show
differences when under tree yields were compared to yields 20m away from the rows of
trees.

Sharma (1992) studied Acacia nilotica var. jaquemontii field bund tree and wheat
crop interactions in north Central India. Decreased grain yields nearest the field bund
were attributed to shading. It was recommended that pruning could reduce this affect,

especially at the <4m range where yield decrease was greatest. Akbar et al. (1990)

21

investigated boundary tree (Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Albizia procera, Morus alba, and
Leucaena leucocephala) and wheat crop interactions planted under rain—fed conditions in
Pakistan. In all cases wheat yields were lowest at <2m on either side of the north-south
tree lines and increased with greater distance from the tree line, until “there is little, if
any, impact up to 6m distance and almost no impact at 8, 10 , or 12m distances” (Akbar
et al. 1990:8).

The importance of tree-crop light interaction research cannot be overemphasized.
In the context of this study, tree and crop interactions are significant because farmers
often prune tree branches to minimize the shading affects of dispersed trees. These
management activities to minimize crop loss due to shading, must also respond to the
social context of land tenancy and access rights within which the farming operation
functions.
2.3 Land and Tree Tenure

Land and tree tenure systems in agricultural societies define resources, users,
management, and inheritors of trees and land alike. Tree and land tenure has often been
viewed collectively; however, it is critical to consider them as independent yet linked,
because “many agricultural peoples differentiate rights to plants from rights to the land on
which they are growing” (Weinstock and Vergara 1987). Numerous concepts and
degrees of tenure and access to resources exist within any given community. Often
access is dejure ownership by law, de facto ownership by use, or usufiuct which is the
right of a user to use and enjoy a piece of property as though it were private, yet without

destroying the item (Fortrnann 1992). Also, tenure or usufruct to land or trees may be

22

inherited through a maternal or paternal lineage (Castro 1991) or may acquired through
purchase (Cernea 1981)

Understanding local tree and land tenure is critical in agroforestry because it may
place limitations on tree planting opportunities or influence tree survival. Often the
incentive to plant and care for trees are low if insecurities surrounding land tenure issues
exists for a community of user group (Khaleque and Gold 1993). Tree planting may
secure tenure, as in the case of Indonesian farmers who planted rattan to secure defacto
ownership because tenure was insecure for unplanted areas (Weinstock and Vergara
1987). Clear understanding of local tenure practices is critical for any type of
improvement project designed to apply benefits to all sectors of the population. Cernea
(1981) reports that misinterpretation of tenure status for land to be reforested would have
benefited only those people who actually had access to the forest area. Access and tenure
status is gender influenced as well and can lead to either opportunities for both women
and men or limitations for one group and advantages for the other. Rocheleau (1985)
reports that tenure laws were often cast in favor of men in Africa during and after colonial
rule. Presently, these differences define where and what can be planted and harvested for
women in many societies. Land and tree tenure issues can also be viewed according to
user groups. Rocheleau (1987) defined several groups and those which apply to this study
could be defined by activity (large or small farmers), by rights of access and ownership
(individual dejure owners, renters, users by permission), and by management unit
(individuals [men, women, children], households, and communities).

Local farmer uses and management activities documented in this study rests

within the complex land and tree tenure systems of El Salvador. Gathering information

23

about the interactions between user groups allows a concept of how tenure influences
management decisions and activities.
2.4 Gender in Agroforestry

Gender division does not, in many societies, provide an equal division of either
the resources, responsibilities, or corresponding benefits of the resource among men and
women. Agroforestry systems are also affected by gender divisions of whose plants are
whose, who will take care of which plants, and who had access to what (Rocheleau
1985). Labor issues can also be tied to tenure issues. For example, extension efforts in
Nigeria with an alley cropping soil enrichment system met with little success. In the
local culture of the project region, women were discouraged from tree planting because
men feared diminished tenure status on fields with trees planted by women. To
circumvent the issue, extension agents called the tree a bush (Cashman 1988). Preferred
tree species are often distinct between men and women as well. Hocking et al. (1996)
reported results from a Bangladesh tree planting campaign in which women chose to
plant more fi'uit bearing and fuelwood species within the homestead and men chose to
plant more valuable timber trees in fields.
2.§ Indigenous Knowledge
Using Indigenous Knowledge in the Development Process

An author recently wrote that if participation is the key to project success and
accuracy, then indigenous knowledge (1K) is the key to participation (Havercort 1991).
Until recently, development and agricultural improvement projects have typically side-
stepped indigenous knowledge in favor of the "scientific” approach. This approach often

undermined the dignity of local people the project was meant to serve. Frequently in

24

these “top-down” approaches the beneficiaries were not contacted as to what they desired,
what they knew, and were generally left out of the planning process (Mathias-Mundy
1993). In these circumstances, project failure around the globe was frequently attributed
to many things such as lack of education, lack of resources, or lack of sophisticated
methods “designed” to function with maximum efficiency, but rarely to poor planning or
implementation.

Since the early 1980’s however, there has been a growing awareness that greater
participation at the initial stages of project development can foster pride and project
ownership among participants and that “success” can be achieved through more “bottom-
up” projects (Bunch 1982, Walker et al. 1995). Over the last 15 years, several new
understandings of development have become apparent. First, it has been recognized that
peOple-focused projects at a smaller, more manageable scale are better able to respond to
changes in project direction (Bunch 1982). Second, although the long-term goal may be
healthier living or food security, the pathway toward that goal must necessarily pass
through people-development (Bunch 1982). And third, indigenous knowledge is a
component of the people-development process because it “reflects the dignity of the local
community and puts them on equal footing with the outsiders involved in the process of
technology development” (Havercort 1991).

A further step toward indigenous knowledge utilization and community
participation arises when farmers become experimenters with agricultural technology on
their own land (Havercort 1991). Research station experimental conditions are typically
strongly controlled using outside chemical inputs and machinery. Replication of yield

results depend on precise management guidelines for the farmers to follow. This

25

typically results in little to no adoption by resource limited farmers. To avoid transfer
problems project personnel with Madelefia 3 pre-selected demonstration farms that were
representative of the local farming systems surrounding the proposed farm (Reiche 1988).
Later, farmers involved in the project participated as the main experimenters after they
expressed interest in intercropping maize-Eucalyptus spp. plots (Belaunde and Rivas
1993). A tree planting campaign in Bangladesh also relied on fanner-management for
project implementation (Hocking and Islam 1995, Hocking et al. 1996). This project
allowed farmers to assume the responsibility for the care and benefit of as many trees as
they desired to retain on their land. In the initial stages farmers were given tree seedlings
and basic planting advice and then were allowed to manage the trees. After the third
year, farmers had removed poorly grown and unwanted dispersed trees. Stocking rates
within fields after six years were approximately 55 % of the original designed stocking
rate of 120 trees/hectare, with the majority of mortality attributable to livestock browsing
(Hocking and Islam 1995, Hocking et al. 1996).

Literature provides strong indicators that project success is directly linked to
community based contributions, direction, ownership and management. This study was
completed with the anticipation that non-govemmental or governmental agencies
involved with agroforestry projects in El Salvador would use this information to engage
rural communities designing projects that address local needs.

Indigenous Agroforesfl Knowledge

Research has been done regarding indigenous agroforestry in many parts of the

world. Many farmers in Central America use certain tree species as live fence posts and

secondary products and 92 tree species were recorded in one study (Sauer 1979,

26

Budowski and Russo 1993). An investigation into Rwandan farmer indigenous
knowledge and plant classification systems regarding the woody and non-woody material
in their fields revealed that farmers had deliberately located each tree found in the fields
(den Biggelar and Gold 1996). Indigenous knowledge concerning traditional forage and
fodder plants has been done in Nigeria (Bayer 1990), Jamaica (Morrison 1991), and
Nepal (Rusten and Gold 1991).

Indigenous knowledge has also been used to establish or guide agroforestry
improvement projects. Vabi (1996) describes how participatory research methods used in
a inter-agency agroforestry project in Cameroon and the Central African Republic
resulted in appropriate species selections for the beneficiaries. A plantation forestry
program in Vanuatu was suspended once project personnel realized that local villagers
would obtain little benefit from the project (Barrance 1995). Foresters then spoke with
villagers and redirected the project to include local village agroforestry practices which
provided appropriate benefits.

Indigenous technical knowledge is very closely associated with the use or
function of the preferred trees or shrubs in an agroforestry system. Farmer families in
Mangwende, Zimbabwe traditionally intercrop mango trees and staple crops in communal
areas (Musvoto and Campbell 1995). Results indicated that farmers prune branches to
provide optimum yields of fruit and staple crops and then use the branches for fuelwood,
poles, posts, or construction. Farmers in Burkina Faso also prune tree branches to
maximize fruit harvests, yet consider fuelwood and better crop growing conditions as

incidental to preserving tree health and productivity (Timmer et al. 1996).

27

Literature sources provide ample evidence that traditional knowledge of
agroforesz systems is complex, varied, and cosmopolitan. Concurrent with this nascent
appreciation is the need to incorporate indigenous and scientific knowledge within project
development. However, “before this indigenous technical knowledge can be successfully
used for development, information on it must be collected , documented and evaluated”
(Mathais-Mundy et al. 199222). This research has been completed to provide some initial
documentation of indigenous agroforestry practices of dispersed trees for El Salvador.

Several authors recently reported that ecological knowledge is the basis for
indigenous agroforestry knowledge and therefore ultimately the source for farmer
decision making (Walker et al. 1995, Thapa et al. 1995). Ecological knowledge
therefore, guides and directs farmers’ decisions and perceptions concerning the
interactions that occur between crops and trees. By understanding these concepts
agroforestry researchers have opportunities to identify areas where traditional knowledge
and scientific knowledge correspond or complement each other, and which areas could be
further investigated in cooperation through on-farm research (Havercort 1991, Walker et
al. 1995, Thapa et al. 1995). There are examples of this idea which illustrate the concept
quite well. For example, stated that Nepalese farmers understand the influence of “shade
and splash erosion caused by leaf droplets (a process locally referred to as ‘tapkan’)
reduced crop yield, and that tree attributes such as leaf size, leaf texture, crown density,
crown size, tree height, and leaf inclination angle influenced shade and/or leaf drip
effects” (Thapa et al. 1995:252). Paraguayan farmers also identified certain plants that
were caliente (“hot”) and warned against planting crops in close proximity to them.

Ignorance of these concepts could reduce acceptance of agricultural “improvements” and

28

Walker et al. (1995) recommended that traditional ecological knowledge and empirical
scientific knowledge be engaged in the development process with local communities to

compliment areas where scientific knowledge is missing key ecological concepts.

2.6 Survey Methods

Interviewing

Research information is commonly gathered through an interview process, of
which there are many variations (Derrnan 1990). Often, if there is a particular resource
user group within a population, a focus group approach may be used to acquire inputs
from various people. Sensitive topics typically require a certain level of privacy and
confidentiality and for this reason the participants in these studies are often interviewed
alone. Conducting survey research in developing countries often requires added attention
and awareness by the interviewer regarding cross-cultural issues (Buzzard 1990). The
most difficult issues arise when multiple languages are used since answers may contain
nuances and subtleties of language that can be lost in translation and therefore rendered
useless if taken literally (Derman 1990). Also, there are certain customs and practices
regarding gender associations which may restrict the ability of a researcher to meet and
survey certain participants (Buzzard 1990). The amount of time an interview will require
also needs to be addressed by the researcher. Improper time demands can cause many
problems, for example, a long interview may cause a respondent to answer quickly in a
rush to finish the interview and with opinions that may not be truly representative
(Buzzard 1990). Failure to address these cultural issues places limits on the research

gathering process and applicability of study results (Buzzard 1990).

29

To achieve accurate information an interview must be a relaxed open interaction
between researcher and subject and rapport must be established with each individual
respondent during the interview. If a series of questions flows in logical order, an
interview can have a relaxed atmosphere where the researcher guides the respondent
(Burgess 1991). During the interview process, the researcher is encouraged to listen more
than talk, not interrupt, and perhaps rephrase or reflect out loud the topics that were just
discussed. By repeating information the respondent may hear what was understood by
the interviewer, correct the information if needed, and allow a more precise recording of
the information (Whyte 1991).

Survey Instrument And Sample Population

Information gathered during an interview is typically noted on a survey form or
recorded using a tape player. A coded survey form is often used because coded questions
reduce the amount of interruptions during the interview caused by paper shuffling and
searching for the next questions. Coded forms therefore allow the researcher to
accurately formulate the next question and record the answer, which in turn allows the
questions to flow in an even manner and become an informal conversation (Burgess
1991). To facilitate post-interview information verification, researchers often tape record
an interview to be replayed later (Kumar 1989). However, tape recording an interview in
a cross-cultural setting may arouse suspicions among respondents as to the real intent of
the interviewer (Morrison 1991). The number of questions should be limited to only
those which will add pertinent information to the study; however, if certain individuals
are able and willing to provide more information they should not be discouraged (Burgess

1991).

30

A sample population is chosen because it reflects the characteristics of the larger
population. If there is a great amount of diversity in a population for social
characteristics such as religion, ethnicity, language, or birthplace then a larger sample of
the population must be taken to ensure greater representation of the various groups
(Buzzard 1990). Likewise, surveys conducted in areas with a homogeneous population
regarding these issues may not require a sample population of more than 40 - 50
households (Aleck and Settle 1985). Involving a respondent in an interview must be
done on a strictly voluntary basis and giving gifts or paying people to cooperate is
generally not recommended (Buzzard 1990).

The interview and survey techniques cited above were used to guide this research
during preparation, surveying and data compilation. Open rapport and willingness to
communicate with any party concerning any question was a priority during the study and
measures were taken to minimize logistical problems and peoples’ suspicions of the
research process.

Key Informant Interviewing

Throughout the duration of the research period the researcher was able to gather
additional information, though simple observation of every day activities, about tree
product uses and management in the study area. Key informants were consulted to better
understand the observed phenomena. Kumar stated that, “key informant interviews
involve interviewing a select group of individuals who are likely to provide needed
information, ideas, and insights on a particular subj ect”(Kumar 1989: 1). This group need

be only a few knowledgeable individuals drawn from the sample population who are

31

interviewed more intensively and for an extended period of time (Kumar 1989, Tremblay
1991)

Soliciting information from key informants has certain advantages and
disadvantages. Advantages include the acquisition of broader information concerning
difficult or time consuming explanations from a few knowledgeable persons. Also, new
information may be provided which can guide the development or procedure of regular
surveys. Certain disadvantages also exist which include bias due to wealth or
employment. Interviewers can also obtain biases early on concerning a topic and then
‘listen for’ that subject to confirm pre-conceived ideas (Kumar 1989, Tremblay 1991).

Typically informants in this study were long-time residents, respected by others in
the community, deemed knowledge by others regarding tree uses, and willing and able to
communicate their knowledge. Key informants were consulted during the research
period for in-depth conversation concerning: activities involving wood products, tree
species descriptions and management, and gender roles concerning tree use and
management. Selection of these informants usually occurred after the regular interview
had taken place and rapport had been established.

2.7 Woody Species Taxonomy and Descriptions

The principal sources for scientific nomenclature and descriptions for this study
came from three sources specific to El Salvador. Calderon and Standley wrote Lifl
Preliminar de Plantas de El Salvador (1941) which is a later edition of their earlier work
(1925). Felix Choussy produced a four volume set M (1976) which
includes photographs of the species and a very brief species description. Witsberger,

Current, and Archer wrote Arboles del Pargue Deininger (1982) which includes

32

illustrations, lengthy descriptions, and bibliographic information for the tree species
found within Deininger National Park.

Cross-referencing materials for botanical names included several sources from the
Caribbean, the Meso-america, and South America. Very helpful was Common Trees of

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Vol. 1 (Little, Jr. and Wadsworth 1964) and Trees of

 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Vol. 2 (Little, Jr. et al. 1974). Nomenclarture
Polyglotte des Plantes Haitiennes et Tropicales (Pierre-Noel 1971) served as an excellent
tool for common names for most of the Americas. Practical information regarding the
silviculture of many tropical species was provided in El Arbol, Vol. 2 (Geilfus 1994). A
dry-tropics Meso-american source was Principales Arboles del Alto Bags (Guizar
Nolazco and Sanchez-Velez 1991). Lopez produced Arboles Comunes del Paragt_r_ay
(1987) a text quite similar to Arboles del Pargue Deininger. Other reference materials
consulted covered ethnobotany (Fowler 1989) and species descriptions for certain

Leguminosae (Allen and Allen 1981).

Chapter 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Materials
Site Selection and Sample Population

The survey was conducted in Caserio Las Huertas, CantOn El Tizate, Municipality
of San Alejo, Department of La Union, El Salvador (N 13° 29’; W 87° 57’). This area of
the country was chosen because of the semi-arid climate and tropical-dry deciduous
vegetation. The specific site was selected in cooperation with personnel from Peace
Corps-El Salvador and the Center for Tropical Agronomy Teaching and Research-El
Salvador (CATIE). This region of El Salvador was also chosen because the climate and
' vegetation characteristics are shared with the Gulf of F onseca coastal areas in Honduras
and Nicaragua.

As one takes any road or path into Las Huertas it is impossible to miss the large
flat-topped hill (Cerro La Picachos) which dominates the view. In the valley lies the
Tizate River winding its way towards the Gulf of Fonseca. On the valley floor and hill
sides is a patchwork of farm plots. Steep slopes, rock outcrops, and riparian areas are
forested and remain outside of the agricultural spectrum. Fallow ground and pastures are
covered in a thorny shrub vegetation dominated by Mimosa spp.

The community of Las Huertas was specifically chosen for several reasons. First,
the rural population of the area is homogeneous regarding language, religion, and

ethnicity. Second, agricultural practices in the wider research area are similar to those in

33

34

Las Huertas given the climate patterns and ecology of the entire region. For these
reasons, and mobility and time constraints, the survey efforts were focused exclusively on
the resident of this community. Through the course of the study all households in Las
Huertas were invited to participate. Because the entire community was interviewed the
surveyed population represents a census and not a selected sample. Of the 43 households
consulted for the study, 38 were actively farming during the 1996 farming season. These
38 farmers were further consulted regarding each dispersed tree species growing in the
field(s) they were cultivating or planned to be cultivating that farming season. Nineteen
farmers had bovine animals and were asked another set of questions pertaining to
management and milk production of these animals.

Survey Instrument

A questionnaire was created to facilitate the collection of pertinent information
related to household and farming systems such as farm size, cropping patterns, and
livestock in a guided, yet informal interview process (Appendix G). The questionnaire
consisted of several sets of questions, not all of which were discussed with every
respondent. Certain sections such as cattle ownership, tree fodder usage, or dairy cow
milking only applied to households that engaged in these activities.

Tree measurements (diameter-at-breast-height, crown diameter, and height) were
recorded for some of the dispersed tree species. Due to time constraints, tree size
measurements were not collected for all trees or species.

3.2 Methods
The person within each household primarily responsible for the clearing,

preparation, sowing, care and harvest of staple crops was interviewed in this study. It

35

was assumed that this person would have the most interaction with the retention,
management and use of dispersed trees. Divisions of labor exist among many rural farm
families in El Salvador, including La Huertas (Marroquin 1980). In Las Huertas, men
were engaged in field crop production and women primarily with household duties and
care of children. This is certainly not the situation in every rural area of Central America
or even El Salvador (Safa 1992). This definition resulted in a large number of male
respondents as compared to female respondents. However, over half of the male
respondents were joined by their wife during the interview process and actively
participated. Based on the survey respondents, inferences or analyses were not
considered along gender divisions.

Interview Process

The interview process consisted of usually three, sometimes two, visits to each
household. The initial visit was to introduce the researcher, establish a rapport, socialize,
and answer any questions that members of the household might have concerning the
survey or other topics. All interviews were conducted in Spanish and a translator was not
used.

During this first visit, a time was determined when it would be convenient to
return to complete the first section of the survey. This portion was completed for all
households, often during the first visit. The interview process was a relaxed informal
conversation guided by the researcher which allowed the farmer to respond at length.
Information was recorded on the questionnaire during the interview and answer time was

not limited.

36

Field Informal Interview

If a farmer indicated that the family was farming that year, a visit to the fields
under cultivation was scheduled. Typically, this would occur within the next day or two.
In the field, farmers were consulted regarding every dispersed tree species growing within
each plot they were farming that year. Farmers frequently have knowledge of many uses
for a particular tree species, however a particular use may stand out during an interview
depending upon current need. For this reason farmers were asked to prioritize the uses of
the trees available to them in order that importance could be determined independent of
immediate need. The information recorded included: name of the tree, uses of the tree,
which part of the tree was used for specific purposes (bark, leaves, branches, trunk, etc.),
when was the tree used for this specific purpose, how was the part physically obtained for
the specific purpose (i.e. are the branches removed, are the fruits collected, is the tree
removed, etc.), who utilized the tree for the specified purpose, was accessibility to use
influenced by land tenure, and who planted the tree. Total number of individual trees was
recorded by species, within each field.

Whether a person has usufruct or tenure to a particular resource may influence the
opinion of that person regarding the usefulness of that item to that person. Because tree
ownership is implied through land ownership in the study region, owner farmers were not
asked questions regarding tenure and access was assumed. However, to examine tree
tenure for rented land, each renter farmer was asked if access to the particular use(s)
described were prohibited or not. If a person replied that a use was restricted, they were

asked if restrictions were always applied to that use. If they replied negatively they were

37

then asked to describe when and under what conditions they were able to access the
resource for that use.

Questions about each tree species were answered while visiting each field.
Individuals of the same tree species were not examined more than once in the same field.
However, at least one individual was examined in each new field. Tree size
measurements were taken for roughly 10 % of all dispersed trees in the study area.
Diameter at breast height (dbh) measurements were taken using a dbh tape. Height
measurements were taken using a clinometer. Crown diameter estimates were taken by
averaging the total of four distance measurements from the trunk to the edge of the crown
in different directions.

Key Infonnants

Key informants were consulted during the survey to clarify or broaden knowledge
concerning observed activities involving wood and non-wood forest products.
Throughout the three month stay in the area, the researcher was a participant in many of
the daily and several extraordinary social events (6. g. socializing, collecting water at the
spring, patron saint festival). During these events wood products of various tree species
were often used and the researcher would ask a few probing questions to explore the
persons knowledge of the item or activity. Later, several key informants would be asked
to elaborate upon the activity or item used to obtain a greater perspective of wood use.

An advantage of working with informants is that encounters were informal, not
time demanding, and usually took place in afternoon hours. Two key informants most
frequently encountered in the study area were landlords of the researchers’ domicile and

visited everyday. All the people consulted as key informants were considered by other

38

residents as knowledgeable and reliable sources. Certain disadvantages of working with
informants centered on the researchers biases through time. It was essential that the
researcher did not begin to listen for certain uses or species and ignore those references
which contradicted previously recorded information.
Data Handling and Statistical Methods

The researcher was the only interviewer during the entire research process.
Surveys and accompanying notes were reviewed, checked for accuracy and coded at the
end of each field day. Categories of data collected included both quantitative (e. g.
number of hectares, number of trees) and qualitative (e.g. first, second, and third use of a
dispersed tree). Additionally, nominal data was gathered for each tree (name) and field
(e. g. rented or owned, maize-sorghum, maize, sorghum). Comparison of means test were
done using an independent samples t-test for equality of means. Frequency data
comparisons and cross-tabulations were utilized to interpret the qualitative survey results.
Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess the linear association between

quantitative variables and test the statistical significance of the relationships.

Chapter 4

RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

The results are divided into the following three sections: Section 4.2 Site
description of Las Huertas; Section 4.3 Dispersed tree resources related to farm size, land
tenure, livestock and gender; and Section 4.4 Description of tree species and assigned

1.1888.

4.2 Site Description

Population

All households in the research area (Las Huertas) were visited during the research
period of June 17 to August 3, 1996. The recorded population of Las Huertas
participating in the survey was 238 persons. Based on observation by the researcher
during community social events, a total population of 2502 was estimated. Interviews
were conducted with 43 of the 48 households (90 %) in the community. Five households
were not included in the survey: one person was sick and unavailable; one household was
removed because they were temporary non-farming visitors to Las Huertas; and three
households had no interest in participating.

The household member primarily responsible for the preparation, planting, care

and harvest of the staple field crops was interviewed. There were five female and 38

 

2 Although “no-response” persons did not wish to be included in the survey, they participated in
community activities, which made it possible to observe the number of persons per household.

39

40

male survey respondents of the households surveyed and both groups averaged 44 years
of age. The number of persons per household ranged from one to eleven, with six being
average. Level of school attendance for 12 respondents averaged five years (range one to
nine), but most respondents (31) had no formal schooling background.

Settlement

The area of Las Huertas has been settled for approximately 50 years. A large
ranch was divided into individual parcels and purchased by settlers in the 1940’s. Many
families relocated to Las Huertas from other nearby towns in eastern El Salvador and
only the most recent settlers have arrived from distances greater than 20 km. Sixteen
families (37 %) have lived in Las Huertas 40 years or more. Two residents reported that
they had settled in the area even before the area was parceled into individual plots and
had been residing in Las Huertas for 60 years. On average, the length of residency was
32 years, and many of these households are comprised of the sons and daughters of the
early residents.

In Las Huertas, there was a state run primary school with two grades and two
houses that sold dry-goods, vegetables, oil and kerosene. There was only one church in
the community, a Roman Catholic chapel. There is no electricity, running water, phone,
health post, or government office in the community. Although there are several foot
paths to arrive or leave the area, only one road was passable for motor vehicles. Las
Huertas is serviced by one bus line that makes two return trips daily to San Miguel.
Agg' culture

Las Huertas is an agriculturally based community where 40 of 43 households

actively cultivate a plot of land every year. The term “plot” refers to a parcel of land with

41

specific boundaries used for the cultivation of crops or grazing of livestock. Farming in
Las Huertas is exclusively a manual operation relying on implements such as hoes,
machetes, and planting sticks.

All landowners of Las Huertas resided within the community and some rented
land to other residents. In the case of one owner, he was farming one section of a field
whose other sections he had rented to three other farmers. During the interview process,
several farmers described the typical rental agreement: one 100 lb. bag of sorghum per
hectare of rented land plus the crop residues.

There were a total of 76 farm plots actively cultivated in 1996. In total there was
more owned land being cultivated than rented land and plot size averaged 0.93 hectares
(n = 75) (Table 1). Owned plots averaged significantly larger (P < 0.001) at 1.12 hectares
compared to rented plots which averaged 0.69 hectares (Table 1).

Maize-sorghum intercropping accounted for 55 % (37 ha) of all cultivated land.
A higher number of rented maize-sorghum fields were planted in the early growing
season (17) as compared to the late growing season (5), while owners planted almost
equally in both growing seasons (Table 2).

The typical maize-sorghum planting cycle begins with weeding and herbicide
spraying in early May and the planting of 120-day maize after the early rains in May and
June. Approximately 21 days later, after the maize flowers, 160-day sorghum or beans
are interplanted with the maize. In September, the maize stalk is doubled over to
temporarily dry the maize in the field and facilitate the flow of water off the husks, to

diminish grain spoilage. Sorghum flowers in October or November, and is ready for

42

Table 1. Total number of cultivated fields and mean field size in hectares by land

tenancy from June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador.

 

 

 

 

 

Number of fields Hectares in Mean field size (ha)
cultivation
DOM—«Lima 42 (57 %) 47 I_lzm
Rented land 33 (43 %) 23 069*”
Total 75 (100 %) 70 0.92

 

*** Significant difference in sample means of owned and rented field sizes

(independent samples t-test for equality of means P< 0.001)

Table 2. Total number of maize-sorghum fields in early and late planting seasons

(1996) by tenancy in Las Huertas, El Salvador '.

 

 

 

Early season Late season Total
Owned field 9 11 20
Rented field 17 5 22
May] 26 16 42

 

’ Although late season fields were not sown during the research period it was possible to

visit these fields because they were being cleared and prepared for planting.

43

harvest sometime in January or February. Late season planting closely follows the
procedure as described above, but usually begins after late rains in September. Once all
grain for both growing seasons has been taken out of the fields in December and January,
cattle are released to graze crop residues.

There were a variety of domesticated animals found in Las Huertas including:
bovine, equine, porcine, and fowl. The 76 hogs counted in the survey were generally
allowed to free-range during the day and were pen fed at night. The 18 horses were used
to work on the six cattle ranches within Las Huertas or as transportation. Seven farmers
with cattle, rotated their fields between annual crops, pasture and fallow over a period of
four to six years. After the cropping years were completed farmers would sow a local,
unimproved grass to form a pasture, within which would regenerate woody species such
as Mimosa tenuiflora, Acacia farnesiana, and Mimosa platycarpa.

The most common animals sold were dairy cows and calves. Four farmers
reported that the need to acquire money was the reason for selling those animals and
others stated a variety of reasons such as a barter or age. Only one farmer went on to
specify that he purchased seeds and pesticides with profits from his livestock sales. Six
farmers sold their animals within Las Huertas and only one farmer auctioned his livestock
in San Miguel (18 km).

Forty households (93 %) reported fruit bearing trees planted around the home. In
32 cases (74 %) the respondent stated that they were responsible for establishing the fruit
trees. There was a total of 281 fruit trees among all 40 households, thus each household

had an average of three different tree species and seven trees total. Appendix F contains a

44

list of the 15 fi'uit tree species that were planted and the percentage of households where

these tree species occur.

4.3 Dispersed Tree Resources in Las Huertas

Smcies Diversig and Number of Trees According to Farm Size, Land Tenancy, and

Number of Livestock Owned

A total of 1,391 dispersed trees of 52 different species were found on 58 fields
and eight fields had no trees on them at all. A complete list of the scientific and local
names of the dispersed tree species found in the research area is available in Tables 1 and
2 of Appendix B and family, genus and species names with author are in Appendix H.
Several statistical analyses were used to test the relationships of agricultural data such as
farm size, land tenure, and livestock ownership with dispersed tree data such as total
number of trees, species diversity and trees per hectare. The total number of dispersed
trees according to farm size and land tenure were quite different, but this difference was
not statistically significant (Table 3). Species diversity of dispersed trees was not
statistically different across farm size or land tenure (Table 3). There was a higher tree
density (trees/hectare) on owner cultivated land than renter cultivated land, and the
difference was significantly different (P < 0.05) (Table 3). In addition, a greater number
of trees per species were found on owner cultivated land in comparison to renter
cultivated land, although the difference was not statistically significant (P < 0.10) (Table
3). There was no statistical difference between the number of livestock owned and
number of dispersed trees or species. Pearson correlation analysis indicated that the

correlation coefficient was not statistically significant and the association was not strong

45

Table 3. Total number of dispersed trees and species number per cultivated field

according to land tenancy found on fields from June to August, 1996 in Las

 

Huertas, El Salvador .
Owned land Rented land All land
(47 ha) (23 ha) (70 ha)

 

total trees/ha " total trees/ha b

Number of trees 1,003 38c 388 18c
Number of species 46a 7 33’ 6
Trees per species 262 8d 85 3d

total trees/ha b

1,391 31
52 7
346 6

 

" Many of the 52 species encountered in the study occurred on both owned and rented

land.

b The average number of trees per hectare was determined by calculating the number of

trees per hectare for each individual field and then averaging that number across

all fields.

° The number of trees per hectare on owned and rented land were found to be significantly

different at P < 0.05 by independent samples t-test for equality of means.

" The number of trees per species per hectare on owned land and rented land was not

found to be significantly different at P < 0.10 by independent samples t-test for

equality of means.

46

(.283 and —.218 for species diversity and total trees)’. An inverse measure of association
between the number of livestock owned and number of trees per hectare (-.434) was also
not statistically significant and only slightly stronger.
Farmer Management Practices and Use of Dispersed Trees According to Land Tenancy

Ten main uses were identified by respondents for the 52 tree species encountered
during data collection. A comparison of results from Table 4 and Table 5 indicates that
farmers, whether owners or renters, identified the same uses for similar tree species. For
example, there were 48 cases where a renter farmer considered a tree to have primarily a
construction purpose (Table 4), although construction use by the renter was inaccessible
in 85 % of these cases (Table 5). Similarly in other cases, furniture and tools were the
primary uses identified even though access to the tree for these purposes was prohibited
or by permission only. In contrast, the use of fruit, shade, and cutting of branches for
posts, were relatively unaffected by tenure usufruct restrictions. The largest difference
between owner and renters occurred with forage uses where renter farmers identified a
species for this purpose in only two cases in comparison to 24 cases of owner farmer
designation. Tenure affected the accessibility to some of the most commonly found
species in Las Huertas (Table 6). Certain species were considered more valuable for
construction purposes such as Cordia alliodora and Karwinskia calderoni calderonii, and
access to these species was unrestricted by the land owner. Guazuma ulmifolia, in
comparison was not restricted in 17 cases and unrestricted in only four cases.

Tree measurement data were also collected among 21 species for 10 % of the

dispersed trees found in the study and are included in Table 7. In total these data were

 

3 Linear association is measured between -1 and l, with zero indicating no association.

47

Table 4. Number of cases of farmer assigned tree uses by land tenure

for dispersed trees in Las Huertas, El Salvador in 1996.

 

 

 

 

Land Tenure
1.11% M W M

construction wood 68 48 116
fuelwood 62 33 95
fruit 34 15 49
posts 28 17 45
shade 22 18 40
furniture wood 16 12 28
forage 24 2 26
tool wood 9 14 23
other 7 6 13
medicine 8 3 11
nothing 2 2
Total 278‘I 167’ 445

 

' The number of uses identified is greater than the number of tree species counted since

some species have multiple uses as identified by farmers.

Table 5. Access by renter farmers to uses of dispersed trees found on rented land

in Las Huertas, El Salvador from June to August, 1996. '

 

Access restrictions

 

 

 

 

 

@ no restriction access prohibited allowed by terms "
forage n.a. ° 2 n.a.
fuelwood 14 16 3
fruit 13 2 n.a.
shade 17 l n.a.
medicine 2 1 n.a.
firrniture wood n.a. 11 1
tool wood n.a. 9 3
construction wood 3 41 4
posts 10 6 1
other 4 2 n.a
Total 63 91 12

 

" These are cases where farmers assigned a particular use to a specific tree species.

" Access in these cases was permissible through an agreement between the owner and

another interested party, typically a renter farmer.

° In certain cases access restriction categories are not represented because access

restriction did not apply to all cases.

49

Table 6. Access by renter farmers to the use identified by them for the most
commonly occurring dispersed trees species found on land rented

in Las Huertas, El Salvador from June to August, 1996.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Access restrictions
Tree species no restriction access prohibited allowed by
m.

Cordia alliodora 1 20 2
Guazuma ulmifolia 17 4 l
Simarouba glauca 1 1 1 1 2
Mimosa tenuiflora 9 3 1
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 1 5 n.a °
Cordia dentata 2 4 n a
Karwinskia calderoni calderonii n.a. 7 2
Lysiloma divarticatum n.a. 4 n.a.

 

’ These are cases where farmers assigned a particular use to a specific tree species.

b Access in these cases was permissible through an agreement between the owner and
another interested party, typically the renter farmer.

° In certain cases access restriction categories are not represented because access

restriction did not apply to all cases.

50

Table 7. Number of trees, diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), height, and crown
diameter for a sample of the most commonly occurring trees found

in fields June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador '.

 

 

Scientific name Number of d.b.h. height crown
trees (cm) (m) diameter
sampled (m)
Cordia alliodora 55 7.6 6 3.3
Guazuma ulmifolia 7 58 10 7.3
Simarouba glauca 1 1 25 7 6.7
Mimosa tenuifolia A 34 5 4 4
Lysiloma divarticatum 7 18 10 7.3

 

' Only 10 % of the dispersed trees were measured.

51

collected on eight farms (19 %) in the research area. Due to time constraints the
collection of these data was halted shortly into the study. However, there are a few
results that have some interpretive value when looking at other data collected concerning
tree use and management.

4.4 Uses of Dispersed Trees in Las Huertas

Knowledge of local tree species use for items such as fuelwood, fruit,
construction, and posts was common among households, while fewer households also
identified medicinal, tool wood and fodder species as additional uses for some tree
species. Results concerning each tree use by species are described in the following
sections.
fodder

Farmers reported using eight tree species for fodder and unanimously indicated
Guazuma ulmifolia as a first choice. Five farmers stated that they procured the majority
of their tree fodder from their property fence rows and three procured the majority of their
fodder from dispersed trees within their cultivated fields.

Two farmers recommended Gliricidia septum as a fodder. The farmer who
considered fodder the most important use of Gliricidia sepium employed it exclusively as
a silage component for his cattle. One farmer recommended that cattle may also eat the
young leaflets of Mimosa tenuiflora and three farmers reported that swine relish the
ripened drupe fruits of Cordia dentata. Twelve of 19 farmers (63 %) with cattle reported
using tree fodder during the dry season.

Detailed information from the survey concerning fodder use of any dispersed tree

recorded in the study is included in Table 1 of Appendix E.

52

Fuelwood

The importance of a fuelwood supply is considerable because all the households
surveyed depended on fuelwood for cooking and household needs‘. Thirty households
(70 %) reported using a total of twenty-seven species (52 %) for fuelwood and the three
species most preferred were Mimosa tenuifolia, Cordia alliodora, and Guazuma
ulmifolia.

Fuelwood was often the first use for the residual wood left after a previous use
had caused the removal of the tree (i.e. construction, post, or furniture) or for branches
that had been pruned for shade. Thirteen species (25 %) were considered useful only as
fuelwood by 15 farmers (35 %).

Detailed information from the survey concerning fuelwood use of any dispersed
tree recorded in the study is included in Table 2 of Appendix E.

F__ru_i_t_

Twenty-four surveyed households (56 %) were farming fields with fruit bearing
species as dispersed trees. Many of the same fruit tree species were planted in the home
gardens (11 of 52 species [21 %]). The majority of these fi'uit trees were volunteer,
although one farmer indicated he had planted some of the fruit trees.

Detailed information from the survey concerning fruit use of any dispersed tree

recorded in the study is included in Table 3 of Appendix E.

 

‘ A few homes were equipped with a gas stove, but this was not the preferred cooking method and gas was
difficult to obtain.

53

Medicine

Seven households (16 %) recommended using specific dispersed trees for
medicinal purposes. In total they described the preparations necessary for six (11 %) tree
species found in the research area.

The most commonly suggested species for both humans and domestic animals
was Guazuma ulmifolia, which was recommended by six households (14 %). Five other
species were mentioned by two farmers as effective for a variety of ailments.

Detailed information from the survey concerning medicinal use of any dispersed
tree recorded in the study is included in Table 4 of Appendix E.

MED};

Farmers indicated several ways to utilize local tree species for construction
purposes with 27 dispersed tree species (52 %) being recommended by 34 households (79
%). Fifteen farmers (35 %) identified six species (11%) most often used as comer-posts
for houses and out-buildings. Eight farmers had Lysiloma divarticatum in their fields and
unanimously reported that this tree was to be used precisely for this construction purpose.
Karwinskia calderoni calderonii and Gliricidia septum were also identified as comer-
post species by four and three farmers, respectively. Three other species, Chlorophora
tinctoria, Mimosa tenuiflora, Caesalpinia coriaria were identified by two farmers.

Small branches or trunks of four other tree species were recommended as inner
support structures for walls by 10 households. Interview results indicated that Cordia
dentata and Mimosa tenuiflora were most frequently used in this manner, five (11 %) and
four (8 %) farmers mentioning each species, respectively. Two other species, Guazuma

ulmifolia, Casearia corymbosa were also suggested for inner wall structures.

54

Detailed information from the survey concerning construction use of any
dispersed tree recorded in the study is included in Table 5 of Appendix E.
Furniture Wood

Eighteen farmers (42 %) indicated that 10 tree species (19 %) were used for
furniture wood construction. There were several species that were frequently suggested
Cordia alliodora and Simarouba glauca, while another eight species identified were only
mentioned once each by farmers.

Detailed information from the survey concerning furniture use of any dispersed
tree recorded in the study is included in Table 6 of Appendix E.

Posts

 

Twenty-six households (60 %) recommended using 14 local tree species (27 %) as
fence posts. The most commonly suggested fence-posts was Mimosa tenuiflora which
was mentioned by 15 farmers (35 %) and Cordia dentata mentioned by 10 farmers (23
%).

Detailed information from the survey concerning post use of any dispersed tree
recorded in the study is included in Table 7 of Appendix E.

Farm Tools and Domestic Implements

Six farmers (14 %) described six species (11 %) as useful for general tool handle
purposes, such as for a curved machete, planting stick, or hoe. Farmer opinion was
unanimous that small diameter, yet hard branches of Tabebuia impetiginosa,
Chlorophora tinctoria, Psidium guava, Luehea candida, Cresentia alata, Cordia

alliodora should be used for these implements. Eight farmers specifically mentioned that

55

four species, Chlorophora tinctoria, Caesalpinia coriaria, Lonchocarpus minimiflorus,
Karwinskia calderoni calderonii were excellent for wagon axles.

Detailed information from the survey concerning tool wood use of any dispersed
tree recorded in the study is included in Table 8 of Appendix E.
M

Twenty-one farmers (48 %) stated that 21 species (40 %) were useful as shade
trees. Ten farmers (23 %) reported that the primary users of shade trees were animals and
13 additional farmers (30 %) stated that shade was also used by humans while resting
from field work. The most frequently recommended shade species were Guazuma
ulmifolia, Enterolobium cyclocarpum, Simarouba glauca, and Andira inermis. A similar
number of species were identified as useful for humans and animals, 12 and 13,
respectively although only six were the same species.

Detailed information from the survey concerning shade use of any dispersed tree
recorded in the study is included in Table 9 of Appendix B.
Other Uses

Eight households described uses for five tree species (10 %) which deserve
special attention. For example, five households (12 %) recommended the pressed and
processed fruits of Simarouba glauca as an excellent source of soap for general and
hygienic purposes. Two farmers stated that Cetba pentandra is very usefirl as a boat and
one farmer recommended using the fluffy endocarp of opened seed pods as stuffing for a
mattress or pillow. Two other farmers stated that Gltricidia septum and Mimosa
tenuiflora could be used in the preparation of organic pesticide and blacksmith furnace

fires, respectively. One farmer stated that tannins extracted from Caesalpinia coriaria

56

fi'uits can be used for tanning leather hides. Two households specified that fruits of
several species such as Spondtas purpurea and Cresentia alata had religious purposes.
Detailed information from the survey concerning other uses of any dispersed tree

recorded in the study is included in Table 10 of Appendix E.

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

5.1 Dispersed Tree Resources

To understand the dispersed tree agroforestry system in Las Huertas requires an
appreciation of farmers needs, of tree species uses, of tree biology, and the complexities
of land and tree tenure. The study found that the trees left in fields during land clearing
and cropping were selected on the basis of potential tree use and farmer experience.
Individual farmer needs dictate when and for what purposes dispersed trees are removed
from the fields. Therefore the balance of current household needs and future potential
needs were always impacting what “appears” on the farming landscape in any given year.

Results from the study indicated that there was a higher tree density per hectare on
owned land than rented land (38 trees/hectare of owned land in comparison to 18
trees/hectare of rented land). It may be that owner farmers elect to retain more trees on
their land than renter farmers because they will ultimately utilize all the benefits of the
dispersed tree. While renter farmers, although they recognize similar uses as owners for
dispersed trees (Table 4), may decide to leave certain species according to the amount of
access and benefits they ultimately receive (Table 5). For example, a higher number of
dispersed Cordia alliodora were found on owned fields than rented fields (Table 8) and
renter use of this species was restricted in 22 out of 23 cases (Table 7). In contrast,

Guazuma ulmifolia were accessible to renter farmers in 17 out of 22 cases (Table 7) and

57

58

occurred in more than twice as many fields on rented land than owned land and in double
the number (Table 8).

Results also indicate that similar tree species are kept by both types of farmers
because these species are important to farmers as multiple purpose trees, which are not
removed from the field through a one-time use (Table 9). Certain species listed in Table
8 are retained in higher numbers of individual trees than others, while the number of
fields they occur in may be quite similar. For example, Guazuma ulmifolia and
Simarouba glauca were represented by 52 and 47 trees, respectively, and occurred in 21
fields; yet these two species served a wide variety of purposes such as fodder, fuelwood,
medicine, fruit, posts, construction and tool wood (Table 9). Other species such as
Mimosa tenuiflora and Cordia alliodora, which served uses such as fuelwood,
construction, tool wood, and fumiture, were represented by 521 and 292 trees and
occurred in 21 and 22 fields, respectively. These differences in tree number may be
understood by examining the management practices involved to access the use. Some
tree uses such as construction or furniture wood require tree removal, while others such as
fodder, fuelwood, and medicine uses require only the pruning of the crown. Thus, the use
of Mimosa tenuiflora and Cordia alliodora tend to result in their removal for construction
purposes, while the use of Simarouba glauca and Guazuma ulmifolia tend to allow them
to remain standing in the fields. Since these species are removed it appears that this may
be one explanation as to why there are large numbers of trees for these species and lower
numbers of trees for other species that are not typically removed through use.

Results also indicate that the overall species to hectare ratio of seven species per hectare

is lower than results from other areas of the world. For example, in a study from

59

Table 8. Number of trees, number of fields, trees per field and number of farmers

who retained the most commonly occurring trees found in fields

from June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador.

 

 

 

Owned land Rented land

Scientifip name farmers fields trees farmers fields trees
Mimosa tenuifolia 12 14 365 7 7 156
Cordia alliodora 9 10 208 1 1 12 84
C ordia dentata 8 8 94 3 3 4
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 7 9 82 5 5 11
Simarouba glauca 10 12 27 8 9 20
Lysiloma divarticatum 6 7 25 2 2 13
Guazuma ulmifolia 6 7 16 13 14 39
Karwinskia calderoni 3 4 12 5 5 9

calderonii

" Total number of farmers who had this tree in fields they were cultivating in 1996.

b Total number of fields were this tree occurred in 1996.

 

° Total number of trees for this species that occurred on these fields in 1996.

60

Table 9. Number of trees, number of fields, trees per hectare and particular uses
assigned the most commonly occurring trees found in fields

from June to August, 1996 in Las Huertas, El Salvador.

 

 

Scientific name Ipee_s ’ Eds 1’ Trees/Ha ° Eggs d
Mimosa tenuifolia 521 21 28.7 C, D, F, P
Cordia alliodora 292 22 13.9 C, F , L, N, S
Cordia dentata 98 11 12.6 C, D, F, P, S
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 93 14 8.7 C, D, F, P, S
Guazuma ulmifolia 55 21 4.9 C, D, F, G, M, P, S, T
Lysiloma divarticatum 38 9 4.4 C, D, F, P
Karwinskia calderoni 21 9 3.6 C, F, L, P, S
calderonii
Simarouba glauca 47 21 3.2 C, F, N, O, S, T

 

" Total number of trees of this species found in cultivated fields in 1996.
b Total number of fields were this species occurred in 1996.
° Average number of trees/hectare for this species that occurred on these fields in 1996.

“Uses: C = construction wood; D = fodder; F = fuelwood; G = nothing; L = tool wood;
M = medicine; N = fumiture wood; 0 = other; P = posts; 8 = shade; T = fruit.

61

Rwanda, two farmer groups (control farmers and tree experts) were surveyed and each
had 11.7 species/farm and 34.4 species/farm on farms that averaged 0.18 and 1.27
hectares, respectively (den Biggelar and Gold 1996). Two explanations for the difference
in species diversity may be: 1) Salvadorans are acquiring resources to meet their needs
from other sources such as home gardens, live fence-posts, live fences, or riverine forests;
and/or 2) the lower population pressures in Las Huertas of 74 persons/km2 are
significantly less than the 423-533 persons/km2 for Rwanda. Under these comparative
circumstances off-farm resources in Las Huertas may still exist to a greater extent than
would other wise be considered.

Nevertheless, the presence of dispersed trees on fields in Las Huertas does
indicate that farmers have adopted intensified agricultural practices to satisfy their needs
of timber, fuel, and food. Scherr (1995), in an evaluation of farmer agroforestry adoption
practices in Kenya, stated that Kenyan farmers historically adopted agroforestry
technologies as “induced innovations” as identified by Raintree and Warner (1986), and
that agricultural practices became increasingly intensive as population increased and
shifting cultivation patterns decreased. The population of El Salvador tripled between
1900 and 1960, and has continued to grow at 1.6 % for the last decade (U SAID 1996). In
this setting unclaimed farm land has become non-existent and forest resources have
diminished as urban and rural demand for wood products continue to increase (Barry et
al. 1996). Also, Scherr (1995) commented that farmers adopt agroforestry practices when
the benefits of the adopted practice are more advantageous than the staple crop or cash

crop production. Results of this study indicate that Salvadoran farmers have knowledge

62

concerning the use of dispersed trees and retain these species because the products and
benefits are of greater value than staple crops. Finally, Scherr (1995) described that
Kenyan farmers adopted species which adequately met their needs. Salvadorans farmers
likewise, did not adopt “trees”, or even “trees and crops” but specific species that met
specific needs and which could be incorporated into their agricultural landscape.
Another explanation for varying number of trees has to deal with morphological
differences between species. Tree species that have crowns which create dense shade due
high numbers of leaves and branches were less frequently found than crowns which
allowed greater light penetration to the soil surface. For example, the Cordia alliodora
found in the study were straight, fast growing, columnar shaped tree with few branches,
sparse foliage, averaging 6 m in height and 3.3 m in crown diameter (Table 7) (Plate 1 of
Appendix A). The shading affect of these trees was minimal, crop loss was not an
expressed concern of farmers, and lower branches were not pruned. There were 13.9
Cordia alliodora per hectare, which is 4 to 6 times greater than the nmnber of other
species with heavier crowns such as Simarouba glauca (Plate 2 of Appendix A) and
Guazuma ulmifolia (Plate 3 of Appendix A) respectively. There were only three to five
trees of the latter species per field and these trees averaged 6.7 and 7.3 m, respectively in
crown diameter. Several farmers mentioned that trees with this type of crown reduced
crop yields due to shading so fewer trees were retained (Table 9). This is similar to
Borassusflabellifer, a palm which farmers retain as dispersed trees and on paddy bunds
in Tamil Nadu, India (Jarnbulingam and Femandes 1986). Because the tree has a small
round crown it produces negligible shading effects and farmers typically leave between

100 - 150 of these palms per hectare. At the same time, Tamil Nadu farmers keep certain

63

trees with heavy dense foliage out of the best crop producing fields, and instead they
prefer to establish these trees on poor sites that have low crop production. Thus, by
planting fruit-bearing Tamarindus tndica on poor sites they compensate for crop yield

loss through fruit production and sales which is of higher value to the farmers.

5.2 Description of Tree Use and Management Practices

 

Other examples will be considered in the following sections which describe
farmer use preferences and management for the myriad of dispersed tree species found in
Las Huertas.
1mm

Small farmers in developing countries often use tree leaves, seed pods or tender
branches as supplemental feeding sources for livestock. Often the nutrient levels in tree
or shrub fodder sources will fluctuate less annually and remain higher during the dry-
season than common grown pasture grass species which tend to loose nutritive value
(Crowder and Chheda 1982). Crude protein levels, for example become significantly
more important in the dry season when these levels decrease in grasses, while tree fodder
levels remain constant and sometimes twice as high as the grasses (Crowder and Chheda
1982)

The use of a tree fodder as an alternative feed source during periods of limited
resources, such as the dry season, has been found elsewhere. For example, Costa Rican
farmers reported 51 species that were potentially useful as dry-season fodder (Araya et al.
1994). Fur farmers in the Sudan harvested lopped branches of Acacia albida to feed to
their livestock (Miehe 1986). Jamaican farmers used locally available inexpensive tree

leaves and fruits as alternative dry season feed for their cattle (Morrison 1991). Nepalese

64

farmers were reported to use over 40 trees or shrubs as fodder sources in one study

(F onzen and Oberholzer 1984). In addition, Nepalese farmers have been found to
distinguish between fodder sources that render desirable properties to the cow’s milk and
butter products (Rusten and Gold 1991). Thus, consistent with the use of these resources
is a local knowledge about which trees provide the best fodder.

Six farmers (54 %) mentioned Guazuma ulmifolia as a fodder source, and four
ranked this use as the most important for this tree. Guazuma ulmifolia, a native, medium
size tree (2-15 m high) with thick dark green, deciduous foliage only shedding its leaves
for a brief period near the end of the dry season, is commonly used as a fodder source
(Morrison 1991, Herrera and Morales 1993, Geilfus 1994). All six farmers reported that
the new leaves which appear in April and May are the most desired source of fodder from
Guazuma ulmifolia. Young Guazuma ulmifolia leaves are estimated to have 16-17 %
crude protein which is important for animal health, growth, production and reproduction
(Crowder and Chheda 1982, Geilfus 1994, Medina et al. 1994). Also, foliar nutrient
analysis revealed that Guazuma ulmifolia has a high nitrogen content (3.21 % dry-weight)
and a low total fiber content (27.63 % neutral detergent fiber), a particular combination
that is favorable for bovine fodder digestability (Hunter and Stewart 1993). Besides
leaves, the fruits of Guazuma ulmifolia have also been found to have crude protein (7.9
%) nutritive value (Bressani et al. 1981). It was recommended that the fruits be used as a
dried and milled feed supplement and added to normal rations at levels < 30 % of total
feed. Supplements levels > 30 % were found to contain high lignin and tannin

compounds, which contributed to poor digestability, poor digestability and negatively

65

affected weight gain in study animals (Bressani et al. 1981, Hunter and Stewart 1993,
Humphreys 1994).

Live fence posts and dispersed trees are primary sources of Guazuma ulmifolia
fodder for farmers in Las Huertas. A strong branch regeneration capability after heavy
coppicing was described by one farmer as important for the trees’ ability to replenish the
fodder source. Dispersed Guazuma ulmifolia trees often had a large trunk (d.b.h. 58 cm),
relatively small crown diameter (7.3 In), many (10-20) straight small diameter branches
(3-10cm), and few large limbs perhaps as a result of lopping and coppicing activities
(Plate 3). Good regeneration potential was also common for tree species found in areas
where tree fodder branches were periodically lopped (Meihe 1986).

Farmers indicated that some species were excellent fodder sources yet no activity
was necessary on their part other than allowing the animal to graze where the pods have
fallen. One particular species, Enterolobium cyclocarpum was recommended by five
farmers as useful fodder during the last month of the dry season. The ripe fruits fall
before the first rains and usually contain 6-16 seeds within a sweet gum-exuding pod, and
serve as an excellent fodder source that foraging animals consume (Janzen 1982). The
leaves and pods of Enterolobium cyclocarpum are protein sources containing up to 36 %
and 17 % crude protein, respectively (Herrera and Morales 1993, Geilfus 1994).

Interview results also revealed that the seed pods of four other species (Lysiloma
divarticatum, Cassia grandis, Pithecellobium saman, and Caesalpinia coriaria) were
recommended as fodder by seven farmers. No farmer mentioned using leaves of these

species as fodder sources. The preference for pods over leaves has been noted in Ethiopia

66

where farmers value the copious quantities of F atdherbia albida pods as dry-season
fodder more than the leaves (Poschen 1986).

The nine fodder species identified by farmers were also identified for an average
of four other uses such as fuelwood, posts, medicine, and fruit. Fodder production
management by farmers did not restrict the use of these tree for the other stated purposes.
Araya et al. (1994) in a comparative review of the literature found that a multiplicity of
uses were identified by Costa Rican farmers for the 51 fodder species they identified for
researchers. For example, cattle grazing on fallen seed pods and leaves do not eliminate
the tree from being used for other uses such as shade and branching pruning for
fuelwood. The multiple uses of fodder trees has also been recorded by other researchers
(Fonzen and Oberholzer 1984, Meihe 1986, Budowski and Russo 1993).

Fodder use of tree species was considered a much less important use of the trees
by renters that owners (Table 4). Guazuma ulmifolia was the only species mentioned by
two renters as a fodder source, but they did not have usufruct rights to the tree for fodder.
All other farmers (10) who mentioned use of tree fodder were owners of bovine animals
and had the rights of fodder use otherwise denied to renters. Limited access and
ownership of bovines appears to have impacted the importance of fodder uses that were
identified in the survey. The overall impact on the survey is considered negligible since
other uses considered important by renters and owners such as construction and furniture
were also restricted.

The use of alternative food sources for cattle during the dry season such as tree
fodder can impact milk and cheese production. Generally, farmers reported that wet

season milk production averaged 60 % higher (5.7 bottles per cow per day) than dry

67

season production (2.25 bottles per cow per day). Dry season food sources such as
residues, concentrate and tree fodder should be seen to function together as
complimentary sources of fiber and protein, with different rates of digestibility
(Humphreys 1994). Nine of the 13 cattle owners tried to maintain milk production levels
during the dry season by supplementing the use of crop residues with tree fodder
resources or a diet of high energy sorghum and molasses concentrate or some
combination. Milk production rates varied by only 5 % for those farmers who were
feeding some combination of concentrate, crop residues, and tree fodder during the dry
season. Four farmers who did not supplement their cattle’s diet of crop residues with tree
fodder during the dry season found milk production to drop by 67 %. Although crop
residues are abundant in the field after harvest, residues typically have a low crude
protein content, low digestibility rate and are a poor energy source to maintain milk
production (Crowder and Chheda 1982).

Another side effect of using crop residues for cattle production is the loss of soil
protection by the removal of crop residues. The amount of soil erosion has been shown
to be significantly increased on fields where crop residues have been removed (Sosa and
Bolafios 1993). A recent report from El Salvador stated that, “more research and
extension on improved sources of animal feed during the dry period could help alleviate
pressure on crop residues”, which would through time decrease soil erosion rates and
increase crop yields (Sain and Barreto 1996:320). Traditional fodder sources, such as
those used in Las Huertas could provide improved food sources to meet these research

needs.

68

Fuelwood

Fuelwood is traditionally gathered from a variety of sources in El Salvador such
as forest wood lots, roadsides, live fences, and coffee plantations. Forest wood lots
however are often privately owned and wood use is restricted to the owners. Roadsides
are often as communal fuelwood sources, but as common property collection is
unmanaged and random. Live-fences, a common landscape features in some parts of El
Salvador and other parts of Central America, provide not only fuelwood as needed but
additional products such as fruit, shade, medicine, and posts (Sauer 1979, Budowski and
Russo 1993).

The exclusive use of fuelwood for cooking and the restricted number of trees
accessible in the study area requires households to be imaginative in frnding sources of
fuelwood. Within Las Huertas, dispersed trees also serve as important fuelwood sources
for the households in Las Huertas. Thirty-one households (72 %) used 27 dispersed tree
species (52 %) as fuelwood. They were used fuelwood in three distinct ways: 1) use of
branches pruned to mitigate crop loss due to shading 2) use of removed limbs and
branches after felling the tree for construction purposes, and 3) wood collected during
clearing of fallow fields or pastures.

Lower branches of dispersed trees are pruned when the farmer decides that shade
will interfere with crop production. Renting farmers also had the incentive to prune
lower branches since they were able to use these branches. A renter did caution however,
that excessive pruning was not acceptable and that removal of the entire tree was
definitely prohibited. In general, fuelwood from dispersed trees was a by-product of

management goals within the field. This is not an unusual practice, for example in the

69

past, the oak parklands in southern Spain were also managed for very similar purposes:
mitigate shade and provide material for charcoal production (Parsons 1962, Jofre et al.
1988). Farmers in Burkina F aso pruned Parkia biglobosa to rejuvenate tree health,
control insect pests, and increase fruit production, however the by-products served as
fuelwood (Kater et a1. 1992, Kessler 1992, Tilander et al. 1995). Similarly, farmers in
Zimbabwe recognized that pruning branches of mango trees provided dual benefits of
increased fi'uit production as management goal and fuelwood as the by-product (Musvoto
and Campbell 1995).

Dispersed trees become another source of fuelwood when the primary use calls
for tree removal. Eighteen households (42 %) reported using the small branches for
fuelwood when trees were cut for construction purposes such as raising a house or barn.
These uses were restricted to the owners of the land. Fifteen species identified for
construction, such as Lysiloma divarticatum, Cordia alliodora, and Karwinskia calderoni
calderonii, were also identified as good for fuelwood material. The complete use of a
harvested tree is commonplace in Las Huertas given the need for fuelwood on a daily
basis.

Another important source of fuelwood was from the clearing of fallow areas for
crop production. Fallow and pastures of the dry Pacific coast of Central America are
typically invaded by Mimosa tenuiflora, a quick growing, nitrogen-fixing, multiple
stemmed, thorny tree, that quickly establishes itself in abandoned areas (Plate 4 of
Appendix A) (Allen and Allen 1981, Kass et al. 1993). Two clearing methods were
observed in Las Huertas: 1) the main branches were cut off from the main stems and left

to dry on the ground, and 2) the trees were felled to the ground.

70

The first clearing technique was observed on only one farm, and the farmer
wanted to maintain live stems for future use as poles or posts. The second, more
common clearing technique was for all branches to be cut as previously described and
then the stem cut off about 10-20 cm above the ground. The cut material was left in the
field so that the dried leaf litter would fall to the ground and decompose. The use of
pesticides by farmers in Las Huertas for field preparation insured that nitrogen additions
from leaf litter decomposition remained in the field. In a review of fallow systems in the
Americas, Kass et al. (1993) compared the soil analysis from a 12-year-old Mimosa
tenuiflora fallow with a 32-year-old secondary forest. It appeared from this comparison
that the 12-year-old fallow had higher levels of organic matter, calcium, magnesium, and
phosphorus as compared to the secondary forest. Investigations regarding the addition of
soil nutrients such as nitrogen are needed to further understand these benefits of this field
preparation and clearing technique.

Epu_it_

Interview results indicated that most fruits were collected and eaten without
preparation from these tree species: Brysonima crassifolia, Mangifera indica, Simarouba
glauca, Psidium guava, Genipa amertcana, Anona reticulata, and Spondtas purpurea.
The fresh fruit of several species however, required processing before consumption. For
example, six farmers collected the fleshy seed coat and nutmeat ofAnacardium
occidentale which they made into juice or roasted, respectively. Farmers also
recommended that the fresh fruits of some species such as Cresentia cujete, Cresentia

alata, and Guazuma ulmifolia be processed into juice drinks either to refresh or treat

71

stomach problems. Toasted and ground Cresentia alata seeds are combined with rice in a
refreshing drink known as “horchata” (Castro 1978).

One farmer had field planted 34 improved Anacardium occidentale specimens
from a community forestry project. These were the only dispersed fi'uit trees identified as
planted within the study area. The majority of fruit trees established in Las Huertas were
planted in homegardens. Data are insufficient from the Las Huertas study to make
inferences concerning who made the fruit tree planting location decisions. However, it is
possible that fruits trees were planted closer to the home to ensure better survival rates
through better care and for a measure of protection against theft. One study, which
reported a 50 % survival rate after four years for fruit trees established near the home,
attributed this rate to the care and protection provided by women who chose to plant these
trees in their homegardens (Hocking et al. 1996). Dispersed fiuit trees are difficult to
secure against theft of ripe fruits and would be more inconvenient to collect, while
placement of fruit trees in the homegarden is convenient, secure and increases the
likelihood of care and survival.

Medicine

Four households recommended Guazuma ulmifolia remedies to treat human
health problems such as the loss of body fluids from dysentery. The remedy suggested
was a tea made from crushed and boiled fruits or bark. Recently a scientific study
verified, in part, this traditional remedy. Eighty-four traditionally used plants were

screened and Guazuma ulmifolia was one of 10 species found to be an effective inhibitor

72

of enterobacterium’ which are pathogenic to man, and are commonly fecally transmitted
or acquired through contaminated water sources (Caceres et al. 1990). Knowledge of
Guazuma ulmifolia for medicinal purposes is widespread and has been used for medicinal
purposes in Nicaragua, as well as El Salvador and Guatemala (Herrera and Morales
1993)

Two households suggested a Guazuma ulmifolia remedy if a cow has not
discharged the placenta after birthing. In this Situation, farmers recommended that a
small portion of bark is steeped in water, the liquid is cooled, and given to the cow to
drink, pouring it down the throat if necessary. Farmers stated during the interview, and
key informants later corroborated, that this treatment is “100 % effective”. The afterbirth
is reportedly discharged within minutes after the cow ingests this liquid. Research
describing the effects of Guazuma ulmifolia in this situation were not found in the
literature.

Other species mentioned included Eucalyptus spp. as a tea for colds, Genipa
amertcana and Haematoxylon campechianum against diarrhea and dysentery, Exostema
caribaeum to treat fever, and Cresentia cujete for an unspecified illness. The latter four
species were maintained on the farm of two key informants. Genipa amertcana and
Eucalyptus spp. are also popular in Nicaragua for cold relief and diarrhea, respectively
(Herrera and Morales 1993).

Inclusion of medicinal plants as live fence-posts and as dispersed trees has been
reported in several studies. Budowski and Russo (1993) listed 21 species, grown as live

fence-posts in Costa Rica that can serve in medicinal purposes. Three of these Cresentia

 

5 Enterobacteria: Salmonella typht and Shigella dysenteriae

73

alata, Eucalyptus spp., and Guazuma ulmifolia were found in Las Huertas as dispersed
trees and assigned the same medicinal use. A study from Rwanda reported that two-
thirds of all species (106 of 152) which farmers planted on their fields were for medicinal
purposes (den Biggelar and Gold 1996). These farmers stated that a wide variety of
medicinal species was necessary given the disease/parasite curative specificity of many
medicinal plants. Two species, Simarouba glauca and Mimosa tenutflora, were not
assigned medicinal uses in Las Huertas yet are described in literature sources as a
febrifirge to reduce fever and as a very effective analgesic to treat burn victims,
respectively (Armour 1959, Anton et al. 1993).
Construction

Locally available wood resources were commonly employed as posts, rafters, and
to assemble walls for house and out-building construction in Las Huertas. Many of the
older structures in Las Huertas are made of materials such as pole timber, clay, thatch, or
tile, while more recently constructed houses are of saw timber, brick, and cement.

Household decisions to utilize dispersed trees for construction materials are made
on a need-to-use basis. No household gave a time frame as to when it would use
construction species (e. g. “in five years”), instead they all stated that tree resources were
used as needed. During the research period, there were four construction projects in
process. In each case there were several dispersed trees utilized.

Although there was a great variety of trees recommended for construction
purposes, farmers were specific in their opinion about where and how certain species

should be utilized. Cordia alliodora and Lysiloma divarticatum for example, are not only

74

construction use specific (all farmers reporting first use as construction), but also certain
functions within the house or out-building.

The comer-post is a very specific use that few trees were assigned. As a comer-
post, a sawn tree trunk holds up the rafters, cross-beams, roof, and must have a forked top
to do this effectively. Besides the forked end, the trunk must have a well developed
heartwood to be reasonably termite and decay resistant when set into the earth for
stability. Fifteen farmers (35 %) identified six species (11%) as comer-post species for a
house or out-building. One species, Lysiloma divarticatum was unanimously reported by
eight farmers to be used precisely for this purpose. In fact, when discussing the uses of
this tree, the first response was always “forked comer-post” (horco'n) and not under the
general heading of “construction”. Lysiloma spp. in general are heavy, dense woods with
high specific gravity (0.63) and highly durable heartwood (Herrera and Morales 1993,
Chudnoff 1980). Basic specific gravity (ovendry weight lgreen voltune) is often used as
a characteristic for assessing the use potential of a wood and may be related to important
wood attributes such as mechanical strength and shrinkage, which are influenced to a
great extent by cell wall thickness and component tissues. Durability is a general term
used to describe a woods’ resistance to termite and fungi attack (Chudnoff 1980).
Assignment of durable, hard, dense woods found in Las Huertas to these particular uses
provides evidence that local farmers recognize similar characteristics and attributes in
wood species they chose to utilize. Similar expectations were reportedly demanded by
the Fur people in the Sudan who utilized thiphus spina-christt as support poles for a roof

only when the tree had attained a well developed trunk (Meihe 1986).

75

Five other species with high specific gravity and strong heartwood (Appendix C)
were also recommended as comer-posts (Gltrtctdta septum, Chlorophora tinctoria,
Mimosa tenutflora, Caesalpinia coriaria, and Karwinskia calderoni calderonii). Several
species were commonly used as comer-posts and other heavy construction in other parts
of Central America and the Caribbean (Rojas Chaoén 1981, Geilfus 1994, Herrera and
Morales 1993).

As mentioned, the comer posts hold up rafters, cross-timbers, and tiles and the
farmers are specific about timber qualities for these uses. Farmers considered resistance
to warping or checking as important qualities for rafter or roofing timber species.
Whether sawn or simply striped of bark and used as a rough pole, farmers reported that a
rafter needed to be, as one woman said, “true to it’s shape year after year”. This was
critical because rafters or crossbeams are often laid into the forked trunk or secured
together with nails or dowels to hold other portions of the roof in place. Any movement
of the timbers in these positions would have negative effects on the longevity of the roof.

Two species Calycophyllum candidtssimum and Cordia alliodora were mentioned
by individual farmers as specifically useful for rafters and data concerning wood
properties supports farmer recommendations. Cordia alliodora is described as a fast air-
drying wood only slightly susceptible to warping and checking. The heartwood is
durable, resistant to white-rot and brown-rot fungi, and shows good resistance to dry-
wood termites (Chudnoff 1980). The availability of these quality trees is mentioned by
Budowski (1993) who reported that Cordia alliodora trees growing in areas with distinct
wet/dry seasons, like Las Huertas, develop a dark and very strong heartwood.

Calycophyllum candtdissimum is susceptible to some warping and checking if sawn into

76

pieces smaller than rafters, and lacks durability to fungi (Chudnoff 1980). Similar uses
for each species were recommended in other parts of Central America (Rojas Chacbn
1981, Herrera and Morales 1993). Key informants stated that Cordia alliodora should
not be used for any construction purpose that brings it in contact with the ground because
it will be attacked by termites. Agreement on this point was not unanimous among
farmers and the species has been reported as resistant to only dry-wood termites
(Chudnoff 1980, Geilfus 1994, Witsberger et al. 1982).

Farmers used a practical measurement to describe when a tree was ready for
construction purposes such as rafters or poles. When asked, “when do you use this tree
for this purpose?”, farmers typically used their hands to form a circle to illustrate a
suitable tree trunk. Tree measurements in Table 7 for Cordia alliodora trees designated
for construction uses fit the description of a future pole timber. Although not a precise
scientific measurement this illustrates that farmers distinguish between pole timber and
saw timber which was used for other purposes.

Certain species were mentioned as useful for the small cross-rafter poles upon
which the tiles rest when the roof completed. Five farmers suggested that Cordia dentata
be used for this purpose, and Mimosa tenuiflora and Guazuma ulmifolia were also
mentioned. Two of these species (Cordia dentata and Guazuma ulmifolia) were managed
through coppicing to produce long straight branches suitable for cross-rafter supports. In
contrast, Mimosa tenuiflora stems, which typically produces numerous (1-6) long (2-3m)
straight stems, were cut, dried in the field, removed, and used for building purposes.
Poles for building purposes are also accessible through the coterminous tenure agreement

for cultivated plots with cut fallow vegetation.

77

Ten households also suggested that straight branches or stems can be placed
upright as the inner-wall support structures that are later covered over with clay and
whitewash. Four species, Cordia dentata, Mimosa tenuiflora, Guazuma ulmifolia, and
Casearia corymbosa were mentioned for this use. Similar to the cross-rafter uses, Cordia
dentata and Guazuma ulmifolia could be managed to produce necessary branches and
Mimosa tenutflora grows straight stems suitable for this purpose. Also, it is possible that
lopped branches initially removed for fodder could later serve as inner-wall supports.

More trees and more species of trees in Las Huertas were assigned construction
uses by more farmers than any other use. Obviously, farmer opinion about construction
trees represents a broad knowledge base that needs to be investigated before agroforestry
interventions are begun in an area.

Furniture Wood

Eighteen farmers (42 %) identified 10 tree species (19 %), as light, easily worked
woods for furniture construction or other specialty items. Products mentioned included
tables, chairs, doors, and coffins. Renter farmers stated that tenure and access restrictions
strictly prohibited use of tree for furniture (Table 4 and 5). These restrictions are similar
to those for construction use, although one farmer indicated that use was possible through
an agreement.

The majority of tree species assigned furniture uses were lighter and more easily
worked than woods recommended for construction purposes. Correspondingly, the range
of specific gravity measurements for more commonly mentioned furniture woods tended
to be lower (0.34 to 0.52 for Simarouba glauca and Cordia alliodora, respectively)

(Chudnoff 1980, Witsberger et al. 1982). Some species, for example Simarouba glauca,

78

C ordia alliodora, C eiba pentandra, Enterolobium cyclocarpum, and Bursera simaruba
are only susceptible to minor warping and checking as saw lumber (Witsberger et al.
1982, Chudnoff 1980). Four species, Chlorophora tinctoria, Cordia alliodora, Hymanea
courbartl, and Swietenta humtlts are commonly used throughout Central America for fine
furniture manufacturing; while other species Enterolobium cyclocarpum and Simarouba
glauca are used for less expensive, more economical furniture (Armour 1959, Rojas
Chacén 1981, Herrera and Morales 1993).

Furniture items are typically made from planks of saw lumber. Farmer opinion
related to resource-readiness for saw-timber is worth noting. Asked, “when would you
use this tree for furniture wood?”, farmers frequently responded “when the tree is large,
like this...” at which point the farmer would hold this arms in front of himself to form a
circle, as if he was wrapping his arms around a tree trunk to measure it. This designation
may not appear to be very exact, but it indicates farmer preference of using trees with
large diameter trunks as saw timber for furniture uses and smaller diameter trunks as pole
timber for construction purposes, as mentioned earlier.

Posts

 

Clearly defined property boundaries are often established through the
incorporation of woody or non-woody species in areas of high population like Las
Huertas (Raintree and Warner 1986). In Las Huertas, farmers used fence posts, barbed
wire and thorny plants to deter any would be trespassing person or animal. Typically, a
straight portion of trunk or branch set in the ground with barbed-wire strung between the

posts and a spiny, tough relative of the pineapple (Bromelia pinquin) was usually planted

79

below the barbed wire. A similar arrangement of materials has been noted throughout
Central America (Sauer 1979)".

Fence posts were established in Las Huertas as live-fences, yielding additional
products, and the cutting of other fence posts. Twenty-six households reported species
useful as fence posts. Mimosa tenuiflora and Cordia dentata were most commonly
recommended, 15 and 10 farmers, respectively. Mimosa tenuiflora was reportedly used
at any time of the year. All households reported that this species, although sometimes
placed in the ground, would never take root and become a live fence post. In contrast,
straight Cordia dentata branches about 15cm in diameter, were specifically cut in late
April and set about 50cm into the ground. These branches would then resprout and grow
once the rains came in May and as a living fence post became a source of fruit, fuelwood,
shade, construction materials, medicinal plants, and other fence posts for the household
(Daugherty 1970).

Tenure restrictions did not apply to post uses (Table 5), primarily because the
management activities associated with posts were not completely removing the tree from
the field. Once again, only straight branches, perhaps those shading crops or those out for
fodder use were employed for this purpose. All the species mentioned by farmers are
commonly used elsewhere in Central America (Radulovich et al. 1994).

Tool Wood
Farmer opinion was unanimous that small diameter, yet hard branches of

Tabebuia impetiginosa, Chlorophora tinctoria, Psidium guava, Luehea candida,

 

‘5 The authors’ personal observations of this boundary system have been made in parts of Guatemala and
Honduras, as well as El Salvador.

80

Cresentia alata, and Cordia alliodora should be used for tool handle purposes such as for
a curved machete, planting stick, or hoe. Smaller portions of a branch were actually
needed to manufacture a handle and renter farmers had open access to trees for tool
handle wood use (Table 4 and 5). However, larger tool wood use was, in general,
restricted by tenure and access limitations (Table 4 and 5), which illustrates that the
recognized importance of these species in the farmer knowledge base is separate item
tenure.

Several species were specifically labeled by eight farmers (18 %) as excellent for
the preparation of the axle for wooden wagons. In each case, “wagon axle” was the
utility designated for the four high specific gravity Species which were Karwinskia
calderoni calderonii, Chlorophora tinctoria, Caesalpinia coriaria, and Lonchocarpus
minimiflorus (Appendix C). Use of carts in agricultural areas is very common and
Jambulingam and F emandes (1986) reported that farmers in Tamil Nadu, India were also
familiar with cart construction uses of Acacia nilotica. In Las Huertas the task of
manufacturing an axle was not as common as the knowledge concerning appropriate
species. Key informant farmers stated that the only place to get a wagon made was in the
next village, about 3 km away.

Me

Farmers identified species for shade use by both humans and animals. Almost an
equal number of farmers (12 and 13, respectively) stated that shade use was for animals
or humans. Four species, Enterolobium cyclocarpum, Pithecellobium saman, Cordia
dentata, and Guazuma ulmifolia were identified as useful to animals and provided fallen

fruits for fodder at the end of the dry-season. Thirteen farmers reported that humans are

81

the primary users of shade trees for resting from field work. This same use was
commonly reported as of value to traditional farmers in Sri Lanka who primarily planted
trees on rice paddy bunds to provide a resting area for small children brought to field
while their parents work and for the entire family in meals times (Ulluwishewa 1991).

Renter farmers, in general, stated that they had open access during working hours
to shade use (Table 4 and 5). This open access to shade use may be the reason why 10
renter farmers identified this as the primary use for the dispersed trees on their rented
fields. These same species were identified by other farmers for other purposes, and
specification of this use may indicate renter farmer prioritization of use according to
accessibility, with shade being very accessible and therefore a high priority.
m

Some residents in Las Huertas recommended the oil, pressed and processed from
Simarouba glauca fruits, as an excellent source of soap for general and hygienic
purposes. Armour (1959) has reviewed the potential of Simarouba glauca as an oil-nut
producing tree and recommended using vegetative methods for propagation. Two
farmers stated that Ceiba pentandra is very useful as a boat and one farmer recommended
using the fluffy endocarp of the opened seed pods as stuffing for a mattress or pillow.
The usefulness of Ceiba pentandra as stuffing was also popular in India, and
Jarnbulingarn and Femandes (1986) reported that Indian farmers in Tamil Nadu use
Ceiba pentandra for the same purposes. Two other farmers stated that Gliricidia septum
and Mimosa tenutflora could be used for organic pesticide preparation and black-smith
furnace fires, respectively. One farmer stated that tannins extracted from Caesalpinia

coriaria fruits can be used for tanning leather hides. This use has been known for many

82

years and was mentioned by Calderon and Standley (1941) in one of the earliest reference
books for Salvadoran plants and trees.

Two households specified several uses which had religious significance. Both
households mentioned that Spondtas purpurea fruits were used for preparation of
molasses (“miel”) during Holy Week. Also, several key informant households described
the significance of the cross shaped Cresentia alata leaves, and stated that branches were
carried to church on Day of The Cross to be blessed. These branches were then placed at

the four comers of the house to pass the blessing on to the house and household’.

 

7Other areas of El Salvador celebrate Day of the Cross by standing jiote (Bursera simaruba) branches,
arranged in the shape of a cross, in the ground and pouring water over the cross on May 3", Day of the
Cross to ensure the arrival of early rains. Often the branch in contact with the ground will take root and
grow and become a tree, this was observed in several communities.

Chapter 6

CONCLUSION

6.1 Limitations of this Study and Future Research
Limitations

In an attempt to survey and dialogue with the person actually responsible for
retaining a tree within a field, the decision was made to speak with the principal producer
of the staple field crops. Adherence to this parameter yielded a population census of Las
Huertas that was comprised of five women and 38 men. However, the extrapolation or
inference of gender tendencies within this population was not possible due to the
unbalanced gender distribution of five women and 38 men. Obviously, there were more
men as the primary staple crops producer in Las Huertas. However, this obscures the fact
that women are involved in basic grains production at various levels. Even though
women were present and participated in over half of the interviews conducted, it is not
however, possible to infer that their gender is accurately represented in the information or
results.
Future Research

Knowledge of local “resource readiness” classification systems could be very
useful in understanding dispersed tree utilization. When, these resources are used or
when they move from one use size to the next (i.e. pole timber to saw timber) could

benefit planners and communities in setting appropriate project goals. For example,

83

84

because farmers prefer Cordia alliodora for pole timbers, there could be potential
problems if a project was promoting this species for saw timber.

The information gathered revealed that farmers were concerned about the amount
of shade their crops received from some dispersed tree species. This indicates that there
is an understanding of tree-crop interactions. Positive and negative crop and tree
interactions need to receive further research considerations and local indigenous
knowledge can provide necessary insights to guide the research and development process.
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions

Farming communities utilize wood and non-wood tree resources for a wide
variety of purposes. F arrners in Las Huertas retained and managed trees in dispersed
patterns within agricultural fields to serve as important sources of useful materials for
household needs. Certain species were managed to provide specific benefits and were
selectively protected and favored by these farmers to enable them to utilize these trees in
the future.

Farmers have developed management practices which allow them to utilize their
dispersed trees as multiple purpose tree or one-time use. Certain species such as
Enterolobium cyclocarpum, Guazuma ulmifolia, and Simarouba glauca were managed to
provide multiple purposes such as such fodder, fruit, shade, medicine, tool wood, posts,
and fuelwood. While other species such as Cordia alliodora, Cordia dentata,
Karwinskia calderoni calderonii, Lysiloma divarticatum, and Mimosa tenuiflora were
managed to provide one-time uses such as construction wood. One-time use however,

did not exclude other post-harvest uses of the dispersed tree residues. For example,

85

removing a tree for construction purposes released the fuelwood resource previously
unavailable.

Farmers who fed a combination of tree fodder and crop residues to their cows
during the dry season reported that milk production rates were only 5 % lower than wet
season rates. In contrast, farmers in Las Huertas who used only crop residues reported
milk production rates that were 60 % less than during the wet season. In this way
dispersed trees were important in meeting farmers needs at critical times of the year.

Farmers who anticipated house and out-building construction in Las Huertas
depended greatly on the dispersed trees resources growing within their fields. Over 25 %
of all tree use assignments and 27 dispersed tree species were for construction uses. Even
specific locations were identified within a house for certain types of wood products such
as comer-posts, rafters, cross-beams, inner wall supports, and tile supports.

Access and use of dispersed tree resources was strongly influenced by land tenure
rights. Primarily, any use that would imply the removal of the tree itself, was not
permissible under the tenancy rights system. However, even under these restrictions, it
was possible for renter farmers to utilize fallow vegetation from parcels they rent. This
agreement was for parcels that were brought into production that year and farmers must
remove the dried materials before or during the harvest period.

W

The results of this study indicated that the women and men of Las Huertas were
very familiar with their natural surroundings and have developed their agroforestry
adaptations based upon this understanding. For this reason it is recommended that future

agroforestry projects in rural areas of El Salvador, Central America, and other developing

86

countries investigate local indigenous knowledge as part of the planning process.
Leadership in this role had been provided by the initiation of farmer managed
experiments in Central America (Belaunde and Rivas 1993). All these activities should
be done in as participatory manner with community members contributing their
knowledge and experience to guide the project.

Concurrent with this local knowledge investigation it is imperative to gain
understanding concerning local land tenure and tree tenure issues. The relationship
between renter and owner farmers in many areas of the world follows specific nrles
which require time to fully comprehend. For example, it could be possible that certain
user rights are only in place during a particular time of the year. Participatory research
processes can aid in gathering this information to avoid pitfalls and problems in designing
agroforestry interventions.

Finally, at the resource poor farmer household level, preservation and active
engagement of local knowledge regarding agroforestry tree species is critical to project
success. Because community opinion regarding the dispersed trees to retain or establish
in the fields may be distinct from species recommendations completed by an agency or
development effort from outside of the community. Thus, one author states that
“selection of agroforestry components and extension technologies should begin with
systematic assessment of existing practices” (Scherr 1995:802). Promotion of unfamiliar
tree species may result in disillusioned beneficiaries and frustrated agency personnel.
Global transfer of multiple purpose tree gerrnplasm is very easily done. However, the

indigenous knowledge associated with these multiple purposes is often not transferred

87

and the usefulness of the introduced species may be diminished (Mathias-Mundy et al.
1992).

Highly populated rural agrarian areas with limited forest resources presently
utilize locally known tree and shrub species in agroforestry systems. How these
communities will continue to benefit from their resources depends on many interrelated
and dynamic factors. A disruption of farming system efficiency is often caused by
increased demands on a diminishing land resource, increased population, shifts from self-
sufficient agriculture to cash-crop, increased dependence on off-farm resources such as
fertilizers, hybrid seeds, pesticides, and colonization of areas unfavorable to farming
methods familiar to the migrant population. During migration to new areas or relocation
of youth populations to urban areas, the local ethno-botanical knowledge carried within a
community may be lost. The dispersed tree indigenous knowledge in Las Huertas is an
example of a community knowledge that, if understood and engaged in a participatory

way, can guide and direct agroforestry interventions in positive and fruitful ways.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

90

Appendix A Plate 1

Cordia alliodora

 

Landscape of dispersed trees in Las Huertas, El Salvador. Cordia alliodora and
watermelon/bean field in foreground, maize and sorghum fields in background with more
Cordia alliodora and Simarouba glauca. San Miquel Volcano (Chaparrastique) is in the

distance.

91

Appendix A Plate 2

Simarouba glauca

 

Simarouba glauca and watermelon/bean field. Note the dense full canopy of the tree and
the amount of shade cast on the cultivated crops. There is typically not many of these

trees on the fields.

92

Appendix A Plate 3

Guazuma ulmifolia

 

Guazuma ulmifolia as a dispersed tree in a maize field in Las Huertas, El Salvador. The
foliage of this tree serves as an excellent tree fodder and the removed branches are

commonly used as fuelwood.

93

Appendix A Plate 4

Mimosa tenuiflora

 

Mimosa tenuiflora vegetation in a fallow/pasture area that was cleared for agricultural
production in June 1996. The foliage will dry in the field and contribute leaf litter to the
soil. Note the multiple, straight stems which serve well as firewood, construction

materials for walls and roofs, and posts.

APPENDIX B

95

Appendix B Table 1

Dispersed tree species most commonly found (> 10 % frequency) in farmers fields in
Las Huertas, El Salvador, June to August, 1996 by botanical and local tree name
and the percentage of fields in which they were present.I

 

Scientific name Local name Percentage of fields where
species occurred2

 

Cordia alliodora laurel 30 %
Mimosa tenutfolta carbén 29 %
Guazuma ulmifolia guacimo 29 %
Simarouba glauca aceituno 27 %
Enterolobium cyclocarpum guanacaste negro 18 %
Cordia dentata ti gllilote l7 %
Karwinskia calderoni guiliguiste 12 %
calderonii
Lysiloma divarticatum quebracho 12 %

 

' During the interview process, 66 fields were visited and the number of dispersed trees
recorded for each field.

2 Tree species which were recorded on more than 10 % of the visited fields (11 = 66).

96

Appendix B Table 2

Dispersed tree species less commonly found (< 10 % frequency) in farmers fields in
Las Huertas, El Salvador, June to August, 1996 by botanical and local tree name
and the percentage of fields in which they were present.1

 

 

Scientific name Local name Percentage of fields where
species occurred2
Albizia caribea guanacaste blanco 9 %
Anacardium occidentale marafion 9 %
Cresentia cujete jicaro 9 %
Caesalpinia coriaria nacascolo 7.5 %
Gliricidia septum madre de cacao 6 %
Brysonima crassifolia nance 6 %
C hlorophora tinctoria mora 6 %
Calycophyllum candidissimum salarno 6 %
Ceiba pentandra ceiba 6 %
Alvaradoa amorphoides zorro 4.5 %
Andira inermis almendro 4.5 %
Anona reticulata anona 4.5 %
Bursera simaruba jiote 4.5 %
Genipa amertcana jagua 4.5 %
Mangifera indica mango 4.5 %
Mimosa platycarpa carboncillo 4.5 %
Acacia pennatula 3
Pithecellobium saman carreto 4.5 %
Tabebuia impetiginosa cortez 4.5 %
Thounidium decandrum zorillo 4.5 %
unknown zorro candelio 4.5 %
Acacia farnesiana espino blanco 3 %
Casearia corymbosa come culebra 3 %
Cassia grandis carao 3 %
Cresentia alata morro 3 %
Eucalyptus sps. Eucalyptus 3 %
Lonchocarpus minimiflorus chapemo 3 %
Psidium guava guayaba 3 %
Spondtas purpurea jocote 3 %
Stemmadenia obovata cojOn 3 %
Astroneum graveolens ron-ron 1.5 %

 

97

Appendix B Table 2 (cont’d)

 

 

Scientific name Local name Percentage of fields where
species occurred2
Combretumfarinosum chupa-chupa 1.5 %
Exostema caribaeum quina 1.5 %
Haematoxylon campechianum brasil 1.5 %
Hymanea courbaril guapinol 1.5 %
Luehea candida cabo de acha 1.5 %
Piptadenta constricta pintadillo 1.5 %
Piscida carthagenensis zope 1.5 %
Pithecellobium dulce mangoyano 1.5 %
Richardia scabra tabaquillo 1.5 %
Spondtas mombin jocote agrio 1.5 %
Swietenta humilis caoba 1.5 %
T abebuia rosea maquiliste 1.5 %
unknown caguano 1.5 %
unknown san cristébal 1.5 %

 

' During the interview process, 66 fields were visited and the number of dispersed trees
recorded for each field.

2 Tree species which were recorded on less than 10 % of the visited fields (n = 66).

3 There was some confusion on correct name for this tree species. Both scientific names
were given in the same reference for this common name (Medina et al. 1994). Mimosa
platycarpa was used in the text exclusively.

APPENDIX C

99

Appendix C

Specific gravity measurements for several dispersed tree species found in farmers
fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador .

 

specific gravity
(ovendry weight/green volume)

Calycophyllum candidissimum 0.67 ’
Cholorophora tinctoria 0.71-0.78 ‘

Cordia alliodora 0.44-0.52 ’
Gliricidium septum 0.855 b

Hymanaea courbaril 0.7-1.06 "
Karwinskia calderoni calderonii 1.05-1.2 b

Lysiloma divarticatum 0.63 ’

 

’ Chudnoff, Martin 1980. Tropical Timbers of the World. Agriculture Handbook 607.
Unites States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

b Witsberger, Dennis, Dean Current, and Edgar Archer 1981. Arboles del Parque
Deininger. Ministerio de Educacién, San Salvador, El Salvador.

APPENDIX D

101

Appendix D Table l

Botanical and local tree species names and uses of the dispersed trees found in
farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador '.

 

 

Scientific name Local name 11g b
First ° Second ° Third °
Acacia farnesiana espino blanco F. P F
Albizia caribea guanacaste blanco C. F. N. S F
Alvaradoa zorro C. F. S F
amorphoides
Anacardium marafion T T F
occidentale
Andira inermis almendro S
Anona reticulata anona T
Astroneum graveolens ron-ron S
Brysonima crassifolia nance F . S. T S F
Bursera simaruba jiote N. P
Caesalpinia coriaria nacascolo C. L. 0 C. D. L, P C. S
Calycophyllum salamo C F
candidissimum
Casearia corymbosa come culebra C, S F
Cassia grandis carao C. D P F
Ceiba pentandra ceiba C. L. 0 N. 0 0
Chlorophora tinctoria mora L C. N. S
Combretum farinosum chupa-chupa G
Cordia alliodora laurel C. S C. F. L. N F. N
Cordia dentata tigiiilote C, P C. D. F. P, S C. D. F . S
Cresentia alata morro T L
Cresentia cujete jicaro 3. T L, M
Enterolobium guanacaste negro C. S C. D. F. N. S D. S
cyclocarpum
Eucalyptus sps. Eucalyptus C M
Exostema caribaeum quina M
Genipa amertcana jagua M. S. T
Gliricidia septum madre de cacao C. D, P C. F. 0 D
Guazuma ulmifolia guacimo D. F. G. M. C. D. F. M. C, F. M.
S, T P, S P, S
Haematoxylon brasil M F

campechianum

 

102

Appendix D Table l (cont’d)

 

 

Scientific name Local name Lisp b
First ° Second ° Third “
Hymanea courbaril guapinol N
Karwinskia calderoni guiliguiste C, P. S C, F, L
calderonii
Lonchocarpus chapemo C, L C. P F
minimiflorus

Luehea candida cabo de acha L
Lysiloma divarticatum quebracho C D. F P
Mangifera indica mango T C. S S
Mimosa platycarpa carboncillo F. P P
Acacia pennatula
Mimosa tenuifolia carbOn C. F, P C. F. P D. F
Ptptadenia constricta pintadillo F C
Piscida carthagenensis zope F
Pithecellobium dulce mangoyano F
Pithecellobium saman carreto C D, F S
Psidium guava guayaba T L
Richardia scabra tabaquillo F
Simarouba glauca aceituno C. N, T C. N, S. T F. C. 0
Spondias mombin jocote agrio P
Spondias purpurea jocote T T
Stemmadenia obovata cojOn F P
Swietenta humilis caoba N F
Tabebuia impetiginosa cortez C, F. L C. L
Tabebuia rosea maquiliste C
Thountdium decandrum zorillo C. S F

unknown caguano N

unknown san cristébal C

unknown zorro candelio C F

 

‘ Sorted alphabetically by botanical name.

b Uses: C = construction wood; D = fodder; F = fuelwood; G = nothing; L = tool wood;
M = medicine; N = furniture wood; 0 = other; P = posts; S = shade; T = fruit.

° Particular uses of tree species ranked by farmers (alphabetical order).

103

Appendix D Table 2

Local and botanical tree species names and uses of the dispersed trees found in

farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador '.

 

 

Local name Scientific name Use "
First ° Second ° Third °
aceituno Simarouba glauca C. N, T C. N, S. T F. C, 0
almendro Andira inermis S
anona Anona reticulata T
brasil Haematoxylon M F
campechianum
cabo de acha Luehea candida L
caguano unknown N
caoba Swietenta humilis N F
carao Cassia grandis C. D P F
carboncillo Mimosa platycarpa F. P P
Acacia pennatula

carbOn Mimosa tenuifolia C, F, P C. F, P D. F
carreto Pithecellobium saman C D, F S
ceiba Ceiba pentandra C. L. O N. 0 O
chapemo Lonchocarpus C, L C, P F

minimiflorus
chupa-chupa C ombretum farinosum G
cojOn Stemmadenia obovata F P
come culebra C asearia corymbosa C. S F
cortez Tabebuia C. F. L C. L

impetiginosa
espino blanco Acacia farnesiana F. P F
eucalyptus Eucalyptus sps. C M
guacimo Guazuma ulmifolia D. F. G. M, C. D. F. M. C. F. M. P,

S, T P, S S

guanacaste blanco Albizia caribea C. F. N, S F
guanacaste negro Enterolobium C. S C, D, F. N. S D, S

cyclocarpum
guapinol Hymanea courbaril N
guayaba Psidium guava T L
guiliguiste Karwinskia calderoni C, P, S C. F, L

calderonii
jagua Genipa amertcana M, S. T
jicaro Cresentia cujete S. T L, M

Bursera simaruba N. P

jiote

 

104

Appendix D Table 2 (cont’d)

 

 

 

Local name Scientific name I_Jpe b
First ° Second ° Third °

jocote Spondias purpurea T T
jocote agrio Spondias mombin P
laurel Cordia alliodora C. S C. F. L. N F. N
madre de cacao Gliricidia septum C. D. P C. F . 0 D
mango Mangifera indica T C. S S
mangoyano Pithecellobium dulce F
maquiliste Tabebuia rosea C
marai’fon Anacardium T T F

occidentale
mora Chlorophora tinctoria L C, N. S
morro Cresentia alata T L
nacascolo Caesalpinia coriaria C. L. 0 C. D. L, P C. S
nance Brysonima crassifolia F. S, T S F
pintadillo Ptptadenia constricta F C
quebracho Lysiloma divarticatum C D, F P
quina Exostema caribaeum M
ron-ron Astroneum graveolens S
salamo Calycophyllum C F

candidissimum

san cristObal unknown C
tabaquillo Richardia scabra F
tigtiilote Cordia dentata C, P C. D. F. P. S C. D. F. S
zope Piscida carthagenensis F
zorillo T hounidium C. S F

decandrum
zorro Alvaradoa C. F . S F

amorphoides
zorro candelio unknown C F

 

‘ Sorted alphabetically by local name.

b Uses: C = construction wood; D = fodder; F = fuelwood; G = nothing; L = tool wood;
M = medicine; N = furniture wood; 0 = other; P = posts; S = shade; T = fruit.

° Particular uses of tree species ranked by farmers (alphabetical order).

APPENDIX E

106

Appendix E Table l

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for FODDER for meat and milk production by the number of farmers
who identified each particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by
importance of this use.

 

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees "
First Use b Second Use b Third Use b

farmer tries farmer m farmer t_r_e_e§
Caesalpinia coriaria 1 6
Cassia grandis l 1
Cordia dentata 2 78 1 1
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 3 21 2 4
Gliricidia septum 1 5 1 9
Guazuma ulmifolia 1 14 2 7
Lysiloma divarticatum 1 2
Mimosa tenuifolia 1 n.a.
Pithecellobium saman 2 2

 

" Number of farmers (11 = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
Species and then rank them according to importance of use.

107

Appendix E Table 2

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for FUELWOOD by the number of farmers who identified each
particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use b Second Use " Third Use "
farmer figs farmer LTLCS. farmer pipes
Acacia farnesiana l 1 1 2
Albizia caribea 2 2 4 7
Alvaradoa amorphoides 1 2 1 3
Anacardium occidentale 1 34
Brysonima crassifolia 1 l l 1
Calycophyllum candidissimum 3 3
Casearia corymbosa 2 3
Cassia grandis 1 1
Cordia alliodora 4 98 4 149
Cordia dentata 2 3 1 4
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 1 55
Gliricidia sepium 1 5
Guazuma ulmifolia 5 13 4 14 2 5
Haematoxylon campechianum 1 1
Karwinskia calderoni 2 1 1
calderonii
Lonchocarpus minimtflorus l 2
Lysiloma divarticatum 7 36
Mimosa platycarpa 2 5
Acacia pennatula
Mimosa tenuifolia 4 11 7 157 3 224
Ptptadenia constricta l 7
Piscida carthagenensis 1 1
Pithecellobium dulce 1 1
Pithecellobium saman 1 5
Richardia scabra l l
Simarouba glauca 1 3
Stemmadenia obovata 2 3
Swietenta humilis l l
Tabebuia impetiginosa l 3
Thounidium decandrum 1 6

zorro candelio 2 3

 

108

’ Number of farmers (n = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

109

Appendix E Table 3

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for FRUIT by the number of farmers who identified each particular
species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees ‘
First Use " Second Use b Third Use ”
farmer ggps farmer legs farmer t_r_e_§_s_
Anacardium occidentale 6 40 6 40
Anona reticulata 3 3
Brysonima crassifolia 2 6
Cresentia alata 2 3
Cresentia cujete 3 5
Genipa amertcana 1 1
Guazuma ulmifolia 1 3
Mangifera indica 3 9
Psidium guava 2 5
Simarouba glauca 4 9 7 8 1 1
Spondias purpurea 2 7 l 1

 

' Number of farmers (n = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

110

Appendix E Table 4

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for MEDICINE by the number of farmers who identified each
particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use b Second Use b Third Use b

 

farmer trees farmer trees farmer trees

Cresentia cujete l

Eucalyptus sps. 1 1

Exostema caribaeum l l

Genipa amertcana l 1

Guazuma ulmifolia 2 7 2 6 1 6
Haematoxylon campechianum 1 1

 

' Number of farmers (n = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

" Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

111

Appendix E Table 5

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for CONSTRUCTION by the number of farmers who identified each
particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use " Second Use b Third Use "
farmer tre_es farmer LIES farmer legs
Albizia caribea 1 1
Alvaradoa amorphoides l 3
Caesalpinia coriaria 2 7 1 1 1 3
Calycophyllum candidissimum 4 4
Casearia corymbosa 1 1
Cassia grandis 1 1
Ceiba pentandra 2 2
Chlorophora tinctoria 2 2
Cordia alliodora 18 290 1 2
Cordia dentata 3 4 2 8 1 4
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 1 l 92 l 1
Eucalyptus sps. 2 6
Gliricidia sepium 2 2 1 9
Guazuma ulmifolia 1 3 1 3
Karwinskia calderoni 6 17 1 3
calderonii
Lonchocarpus minimtflorus 1 2 l 1
Lysiloma divarticatum 8 38
Mangifera indica 1 7
Mimosa tenuifolia 3 321 2 30
Ptptadenia constricta l 7
Pithecellobium saman 3 7
Simarouba glauca 7 16 3 11 2 3
Tabebuia impetiginosa 1 1 1 1
T abebuia rosea 1 1
san cristobal 1 12
zorro candelio 3 4

 

’ Number of farmers (n = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

112

Appendix E Table 6

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for FURNITURE by the number of farmers who identified each
particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use b Second Use b Third Use b

 

farmer trees farmer trees farmer trees

Bursera simaruba 1 1
Ceiba pentandra
Chlorophora tinctoria
Cordia alliodora
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 1
Hymanea courbaril 1
Simarouba glauca 4 1 1 3 6
1
1

~\)h—iI—i
p—ua
O\
h
—a
N

Swietenia humilis
caguano

 

' Number of farmers (11 = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

113

Appendix E Table 7

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador
identified as being used for POSTS by the number of farmers who identified each
particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use b Second Use b Third Use "
farmer pgs farmer _t_r§_es farmer megs
Acacia farnesiana 1 2
Bursera simaruba 2 3
Caesalpinia coriaria 1 3
Cassia grandis 1 1
Cordia dentata 8 94 2 3
Gliricidia sepium 1 9
Guazuma ulmifolia 1 1 1 2
Karwinskia calderoni l 3
calderonii
Lonchocarpus minimiflorus 1 2
Lysiloma divarticatum 2 15
Mimosa platycarpa l l l 4
Acacia pennatula
Mimosa tenuifolia 9 187 6 329
Spondias mombin 1 1
Stemmadenia obovata 1 2

 

' Number of farmers (n = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

114

Appendix E Table 8

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for TOOL WOOD by the number of farmers who identified each
particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use " Second Use " Third Use "
farmer m farmer LIES farmer t_rpss
Caesalpinia coriaria 2 4 2 2
C eiba pentandra l l
Chlorophora tinctoria 4 4
Cordia alliodora 3 l8
Cresentia alata 1 1
Karwinskia calderoni 4 6
calderonii
Lonchocarpus mtnimiflorus 1 1
Luehea candida 1 1
Psidium guava 1 2
T abebuia impetiginosa l 1 1 3

 

' Number of farmers (n = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

115

Appendix E Table 9

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for SHADE by the number of farmers who identified each particular
species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this use.

 

Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use ” Second Use b Third Use b

 

farmer trees farmer trees farmer trees

Albizia caribea 2 2
Alvaradoa amorphoides l 2
Andira inermis 2 2
Astroneum graveolens 1 1
Brysonima crassifolia 1 1 1 1
Caesalpinia coriaria l 1
Casearia corymbosa l 2
Chlorophora tinctoria 1 1
Cordia alliodora 1 2
Cordia dentata 1 l 1 20
Cresentia cujete 1 1
Enterolobium cyclocarpum 1 1 1 3 l 18
Genipa amertcana l l
Guazuma ulmifolia 6 14 2 7 l 3
Karwinskia calderoni 1 1

calderonii
Mangifera indica 1 1 1 7
Pithecellobium saman 1 1
Simarouba glauca 1 6 2 2
Thounidium decandrum 2 2

 

' Number of farmers (11 = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

116

Appendix E Table 10

Dispersed tree species found on farmers fields in Las Huertas, El Salvador identified
as being used for other UNIQUE USES by the number of farmers who identified
each particular species listed and the number of trees ranked by importance of this

 

 

use.
Scientific name Number of farmers and trees '
First Use b Second Use b Third Use "

farmer trees farmer trees farmer trees
Caesalpinia coriaria l 1
C eiba pentandra l 1 1 1 1 l
Gliricidia sepium l 1
Mimosa tenuifolia 1 6
Simarouba glauca 1 4 2 4 2 3

 

' Number of farmers (n = 43), number of tree species (n=52).

b Number of farmers who identified a species with this use and the number of trees that
farmers assigned this use. In each field, the farmer was asked to identify all uses for that
species and then rank them according to importance of use.

APPENDIX F

118

Appendix F

Fruit trees found in homegardens in Las Huertas, El Salvador and the percentage of
households which were growing each species.

 

 

 

Scientific name Common name Percentage of households
Spondias purpurea jocote 48.8 % (21)
Anacardium occidentale marafién 39.5 % (17)
Mangifera indica mango 35 % (15)
Citrus spp. citrus 35 % (15)
Carica papaya papaya 32.6 % (14)
Tamarindus indica tamarindo 16.3 % (7)
Andira inermis almendro 7 % (3)
Persea amertcana aguacate 4.6 % (2)
Anona reticulata anona 4.6 % (2)
Brysonima crassifolia nance 2.3 % (1)
Musa spp. guineo 2.3 % (l)
Cresentia cujete jicaro 2.3 % (l)
Cresentia alata morro 2.3 % (1)
Cocos nucifera coco 2.3 % (1)
Meliccoca bijuga mamones 2.3 % (1)

 

' Number of households (n = 43).

 

APPENDIX G

120

Appendix G

Household Information Survey Guide

 

Agroforestry of Dispersed Trees HH#

 

Instructions : After reading the declaration of participation on the front page, and
after greetings and salutations, ask the following questions to the head of the
household.

 

1. Are you from this village? If yes,

2. Have you lived here all your life?

3. How many peOple live in this house?

4. How old are you?

5. How many years did you go to school?

6. Have you ever participated in an agroforestry project? If yes,
7. Was there a part that had to do with trees?
8. Do you have pastures? If yes,

9. What is the area?

10. Are these owned or rented?

11. Do you have cereal fields? If yes,

12. What is the area?

13. Are these fields owned or rented?

14. Do you have fruit trees? If yes,

15. Where?

121

16. Who planted these trees?

17. What animals do you have? If yes,

18. How many of them do you have?

19. Have you sold any since last summer? If yes,

20. Which ones did you sell?

21. How many did you sell?

22. Why did you sell them?

23. Where did you sell them?

24. In what month did you sell them?

25. What do you feed your animals in the winter?

26. Which tree fodder?

27. What fodder do you use in the summer?

28. Where does your tree fodder grow?

29. Where does the majority of your tree fodder grow?
30. How many cows do you milk a day?

31. How many times per day?

32. Do your calves milk also?

33. How many bottles do you produce per day in the winter?
34. Does this number go down in the summer? If yes,
35. How many bottles do you produce in the summer?
36. What milk products do you make at home?

37. Does the quantity of your milk products also drop-off in the summer? If yes,

122

38. Who eats these milk products?

39. Have you sold and milk products during the last year? If yes,
40. Where did you sell them?

41. When did you sell them?

42. How many tree are there in each field?

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agroforestry of Dispersed Trees HH#_
1 hour here
2 life
3 persons
4 age
5 grade
6 program
7 trees
8 pasture
9 areas
10 own/rent
11 grains
12 areas
13 own/rent
l4 fruits
15 where
16 planted
17 animals
18 how many
19 sold any

20 which ones
21 how many
22 why

23 where

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 when
25 winter
26 fodder
27 summer
28 where
29 most
30 cows
31 times
32 calves
33 bottles
34 down milk
35 summer
36 products
37 down
38 who cats
39 sold
40 where
41 when
42 how many

 

 

 

 

 

125

Agroforestry of Dispersed Trees HH#

Tree: refers to woody plants: shrubs or trees

Instructions: draw the farm map, finish the household questionnaire, ask if it is possible
to see some dispersed trees, and then ask the following questions for every species of
dispersed tree.

 

1. What is the name of this tree?

2. Where is the tree located?

3. Is this plant a shrub or a tree?

It this tree is in a pasture,

4. What is the name of the pasture grass? (circle response(s))

5. How many cows graze on this pasture right now?

 

It this tree is in a crop field,

6. What crop is this growing right now in this field?
7. What was the total production in quintals for this field last primera and postera?

Ask: What are all the u_ses of this tree?

 

 

 

 

8. Of all the things provided, what is the most valued use of this tree?

9. You said was the most valued use of this tree. What months do
you use the tree for ?

 

10. What parts of the tree do you use for ?

126

What do you do to the tree to get the ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.

12. Who comes to get the from the tree?

13. What is the second most valued use of this tree?

14. You said was the second most valued use of this tree. What
months do you use the tree for ?

15. What parts of the tree do you use for ?

16. What do you do to the tree to get the ?

17. Who comes to get the from the tree?

18. What is the third most valued use of this tree?

19. You said was the third most valued use of this tree. What
months do you use the tree for ?

20. What parts of the tree do you use for ?

21. What do you do to the tree to get the ?

22. Who comes to get the from the tree?

23. Is this land rented or owned?

If rented:

24. You said was the most valued use of this tree, is your use of this
tree for ever limited?

25. km, what months is the use for these products limited?

26. You said was the second most valued use of this tree, is your use
of this tree for ever limited?

27. I_flps, what months is the use for these products limited?

28. You said was the third most valued use of this tree, is your use of
this tree for ever limited?

29. I_f_Y_e_s, what months is the use for these products limited?

127

We ’ve talked about the uses of the tree, let ’s talk about establishing this kind at tree.
30. Who planted this tree?
If someone planted it,

31. Can you remember what year you planted this tree?

 

32. If you did not plant it, or cannot remember exactly when it was planted, how old do
you think this tree is now?

 

Getting back to planting the tree.

33. How did you plant it?

If you planted this tree as a stake:

34. What is the shape of the cutting at the top & bottom?

35. When do you take cuttings for stakes?

36. How many days do you let these stakes rest before you plant them?

37. Out of 10 trees planted as stakes, how many will survive?

 

What did you do to ensure the survival of this tree:
38. When it was just planted?
39. When it was young and growing?

40. What conditions are important (weather, etc.) when you plant stakes?

 

 

 

41. Do you plant according to the moon phase?
42. If YES, which phase?

43. When you plan, where do you generally get the stakes you need?

128

We ’ve talked about the important benefits that this tree has for you and your animals,

44. What are all the negative aspects, or the things you like the least about this tree?

 

 

 

 

45. What do you do to correct for this problem?

That’s all the questions I have about this tree. I’d like to take some measurements of it,
but before I do that, is there anything else you think I should know about this tree and it’s
uses?

 

 

 

 

46. What is the dbh of this tree?

 

47. What is the height of this tree?

 

48. What is the crown diameter? #1 #2 #3 #4 _ Average
May I take a picture of the tree?

May I draw a map of the location of each tree?

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 name

2 tree/shrub
3 where
4 pasture
5 it of cows
6 crop

7 production
8 first

9 when
10 what

i 1 how
12 who
13 second
14 when

l 5 what
16 how
17 who
18 third
19 when
20 what
21 how
22 who
23 own/rent

 

 

 

 

 

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 first pro
25 when
26 second pro
27 when
28 third pro
29 when
30 planted
31 year
32 old
33 how
34 when out
35 days wait
36 survival
37 phases
38 which
39 recent
40 growing
41 stakes
42 seedlings
43 not like
44 correct
45 dbh
46 height
47 diameter

 

 

 

 

 

131

Agroforesteria de Arboles en Disperso HH#

Instrucciones: Despues de leer la declaracio'n de participacidn en la primera pdgina, y
despues de presentaciones y saludos, preguntale las siguientes preguntas al miembro de
la casa encargada de la casa

 

I. Informacién de la casa

1. Ud. es de este pueblo?
l=Si 2=No

2. Ha vivido Ud. aqui toda su vida?
l=Si 2=No

3. Cuantas personas viven en la casa?

4. Cuantos afios tiene Ud.?

5. Hasta qué grado llego?

6. Ha participado Ud. en un programa de extensiOn forestal con CENTA o Desarollo
Juvenil Communitario?

l=Si 2=No

_Si_s_i_,

7. Hubo una parte del programa relaciondada a la siembra y cuida de arboles?
l=Si 2=No

II. Produccidn agricola y silvicola

Podemos hacer un mapa de las parcelas que UD. esta cultivando este ano?

8. Cuantas fincas estan en pasto?

9. Cuantas tareas es la area de pasto?

10. Cuantas fincas son proprias o alquiladas?

132

Propria alquiladas

11. Cuantas fincas cultiva Ud. con granos basicos?

12. Cuantas tareas es la area de los cultivos?

13. Cuéntas fincas son proprias o alquiladas?

Propria alquiladas

l4. Tiene Ud. cultivos frutales o arboreas?
l=Si 2=No

Si si,

15. Cuales son las especies que cultivan, cuantos hay, y donde estan creciendo? Ud.
puede marcar en el mapa donde estan estos arboles?

15.1=nance # 15.9 = citrus #

15.2=maranon # 15.10= almendro #

15.3=tamarindo # 15.11= aguacate #

15.4=quineo #_ 15.12: amona #_
15.5=platano #_ 15.13= jicaro #_
1 5 .6=j ocate #_ 1 5. l4=coco #—
15.7=mango #_ 1 5. 1 5=mamones #—

15.8=papayo #_

1=en parcela de pasto
=en cerca viva

5=por el nascimiento

16. Quien planto estos arboles?

1=Ud. 2=su padre

3=su madre

2=en cultivo grano basico
4=en huerta casera

6=otro

4=familia

133

5=nadie 6=dueno anterior 7=otro

COpiar e1 mapa aqui

III. Informacidn de Animales

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Qué tipos de animales tiene Ud.

1=vacas 2=bueyes 3=caballos 4maros
6=charchos 7-otro 9=none

De los siguientes, cuantos de cada uno tiene Ud.?

Vacas _ lecheras __ bueyes _ horro
chivos __ caballos __

Ha vendido Ud. algunos bovinos desde el verano pasado?
l=Si 2=No

Cuales fueron vendidas?

1=vacas 2=chivos 3=bueyes 4=toro
Cuantas de cada uno ha vendido?

1=vacas

Por qué se vende los bovinos?

5=chivos

5=otro

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

134

1=para comprar fertilizantes 2=para comprar semillas 3=para comprar herramientas
4=para carnbiar para una vaca 5=dinero 6=viejo 7=otra

A dOnde vende generalmente los bovinos?

1=Las Huertas 2=El Capitan 3=La Presa 4=San Alejo 5=San Miguel
6=otro___

En qué mes vende generalmente los bovinos?

1=ene 2=feb 3=mar =abr 5=may 6=jun 7=qu 8=ago 9=sep

10=oct 11=nov 12=dec 13=todo el ano

Qué tipo de conrida da Ud. a los bovinos en inviemo?

1=guate 2=pasto 3=concentrado 4=forage de arboles 5=otro

Que planta?

1=guacimo 2=chupa chupa 3=fiquilote 4=guacaste 5=guebrado 6=j octe

=medecoco 8=jiote

Qué usa para forrage durante el verano?
1=guate 2=hojas de arobles 3=pastos secos 4=todos
5=concentrado 6=otro

DOnde estan creciendo los arboles que usa Ud. para forage?

1=en medio del cultivo 2=pasto 3=camino =orilla 5=casa 6=otro
Entre todos estos lugares, de dOnde viene la mayoria del forage de los arboles?
1=en medio del pasto 2=enmedio del cultivo 3=en cerca viva

=en poste vivo 5=por el nascimiento 6=otro

135

IV. ProducciOn lechera

30. Cuantas vacas esta ordenando esto dias?

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

 

Cuantas veces por dia estan ordenando?
1=uno 2=dos 3=otro

Los chivos marnam tambien?

l=Si 2=No

Cudntas botellas de leche produce en total por dia en el inviemo?

 

Baja la cantidad de leche en el verano?
l=Si 2=No

Cuantas botellas de leche produce en total por dia en el verano?

 

Qué productos lecheras hace en casa?
1=crema 2=queso 3=cuaj ada 4=otro

Si la cantidad de la leche baja en verano, la cantidad de los productos lecheras baja
tambien? ’

l=Si 2=No

Quien come generalmente los productos lecheras?

l=hombres 2=mujeres 3=ninas 4=ninos 5=bebes 6=no aplicable
7=todos 8=otro

De todo lo que produce, qué productos ha vendido e1 ano pasado?

1=crema 2=queso 3=cuajada 4=otro

DOnde vende generalmente los productos?

1=Las Huertas 2=El Capitan 3=La Presa 4=San Alejo 5=San Miguel

6=otro

136

41. Cuéndo vende generalmente los productos lecheras?
1=ene 2=feb 3=mar 4=abr 5=may 6=jun 7=qu 8=ago =sep
10=oct 11=nov 12=dec 13=todo el ano 14=verano 15=inviemo
16=cuando hay

42. Cuantas arboles hay en cada finca?
P#l
P#2
P#3

P#4

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agroforesteria de Arboles en Disperso HH#
1 pueblo
2 vida
3 personas
4 aflos
5 grado
6 programa
7 arboles
8 pasto
9 tareas
10 pro/arr
ll granos
12 tares
l3 pro/arr
l4 frutales
15 cual
l6 planto
17 animales
l8 Cuantos
l9 vendido
20 cuales

'21 Cuantas
22 porque
23 donde

 

 

 

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Cuando
25 inviemo
26 planta
27 forrage
28 donde
29 mayor
30 vacas

3 1 veces
32 chivos
33 botellas
34 baja
35 botellas
36 productos
37 baja
38 quién come
39 vendido
40 donde
41 Cuando
42 parcela

 

 

 

 

 

139

Arbol: se refiere a un arbol o arbusto

Instrucciones: dibujar el mapa, completar e1 cuestionario, despues preguntarle si es
posible de ver algunos arboles en disperso y hace cada progunta para todos los arboles
en disperso que se encuentre.

 

1. COmo se llama este arbol?

 

2. Esta planta es un arbol 0 un arbusto?
l=arbol 2=arbusto
3. DOnde esta ubicado este arbol?
1=en medio del cultivo 2=en medio del cultivo/pasto
Si el arbol esta en un potrero,
4. COmo se llama este pasto?
l=pasto mejorado (pangola, estrella, guatemala, o elefante)

2= jaragua 3=saleja 4=otro

 

5. Cuantas vacas pastorean en este potrero?

 

Si el arbol esta en lafinca de cultivos,
6. COmo se llame el cultivo que esta sembrado alli ahora?
lainn 2=post 3=n.a.

7. COmo fue la produccion total en quintales en esta finca para el ano pasado (primera y
la postera)?

140

Cuales son todos los usos de este arbol?

 

 

 

8. Entre todos los usos de este arbol, cual es el uso que tiene mayor irnportancia para
Ud.?

1=forage 5=medicina para gente
2=lena 6=medicina para animales
3=comestible 7=madera para muebles
4=sombra 8=madera para herramientas

9=madera para construcciones

 

 

 

 

10=postes
11=otro
9. Cuando se utiliza este arbol para ?
1=ene 2=feb 3=mar =abr 5=may 6=jun 7=qu 8=ago =sep
10=oct 11=nov 12=dec 13=todo el ano 14=verano 15=inviemo
16=al cortar 17=aldesnochor 18=trabajo 20=otro
10. Qué partes del arbol se utiliza para ?
hojas l=cojollo 2=viejas
corteza 3=nueva 4=vieja 5=afurea 6=adentro
ramas 7=verde 8=chicas 9=medianas 10=grandes
semillas 11=vainas 12=semillas 13=cascara
fruta 14=verde 1 5=maduras
16=raizes
l7=tranco
18=todo
l9=corazon

20=otro

 

11.

12.

13.

14.

141

Que hace Ud. para conseguir del arbol?

 

l=corta y lleva

2=corta y daja

3=corta ramas

4=corta todo el arbol

5=corta las hojas

6=la corteza

7=cortar todo y asserar

8=colectar las frutas 7 comer/usar
9= colectar las frutas que had caido
10=deja que los animales comen las frutas
11=otro

 

Quien viene a buscar del arbol?
1=Ud. 2=cipotes 3=todos 4=parientes 5=dueno =n.a. (se daja)

7=otro

 

Entre todos los usos de este arbol, cual es el uso que tiene segunda importancia para
Ud.?

1=forage 5=medicina para gente
2=lena 6=medicina para animales
3=fruta 7=madera para muebles
4=sombra 8=madera para herramientas
9=madera para construcciones
10=pasto
l 1=otro

 

Cuando se utiliza este arbol para ?
1=ene 2=feb 3=mar 4=abr 5=may 6=jun 7=qu 8=ago
9=sep 10=oct 11=nov 12=dec 13=todo e1 ano 14=verano

1 5=invierno

16.

142

 

 

 

 

15. Qué partes de arbol se utiliza para ?
hojas 1=nuevas 2=viejas
corteza 3=nueva 4=vieja 5=tiema 6=dura
ramas =verde 8=chicas 9=medianas 10=grandes
semillas 11=vainas 12=semillas 13=cascara
fruta 14=verde 15=maduras
16=raizes
l7=tranco
18=otro
Qué hace Ud. para conseguir del arbol?
1=corta y lleva
2=corta y daja
3=corta ramas
4=corta todo el arbol
5=corta las hojas
6=contar la corteza
=sacar las raizes
8=colectar las frutas
9= colectar las frutas que han caido
10=deja que los animales comen las frutas
11=otro
Quien viene a buscar del arbol?

17.

18.

1 =hombres

=Otl‘0

 

2=muj eres

 

3=ninas 4=ninos 5=no aplicable (e.g. se deja)

Entre todos los usos de este arbol, cual es el uso que tiene tercera importancia para

Ud.?

1 =forage
2=lena
3=fruta
4=sombra

5=medicina para gente
6=medicina para animales
7=madera para muebles
8=madera para herramientas
9=madera para construcciones

l 0=pasto
l 1=otro

 

143

19. Cuando se utiliza este arbol para ?

 

1=ene 2=feb 3=mar 4=abr 5=may 6=jun 7=jul 8=ago

9=sep 10=oct l 1=nov 12=dec 13=todo el ano 14=verano

 

 

 

15=inviemo
20. Qué partes del arbol se utiliza para ?
hojas 1=nuevas 2=viejas
corteza 3=nueva 4=vieja 5=tierna 6=dura
ramas 7=verde 8=chicas 9=medianas 10=grandes
semillas 11=vainas 12=semillas 13=cascara
fruta 14=verde 15=maduras
16=raizes
l7=tranco
1 8=otro
21. Qué hace Ud. para conseguir del arbol?
1=corta y lleva
2=corta y daja
3=corta ramas
4=corta todo el arbol

5=corta las hojas
6=contar la corteza

=sacar las raizes
8=colectar las fi'utas
9= colectar las frutas que han caido
10=deja que los animales comen las frutas
11=otro

 

22. Quien viene a buscar del arbol?

 

l=hombres 2=mujeres 3=ninas 4=ninos 5=no aplicable (e.g. se deja)

=otro

 

23. Esta parcela es propria o arrendada?

l=propria 2=arrendada

144

Si es arrendada,

24. Su uso de este arbol para (mayor)

esta prohibida en algun tiempo

 

 

 

 

del ano?
l=Si 2=No
Si Si,
25. Cuando esta prohibida el uso para ?
l=siempre 2=desnocha 3=con permiso seco se =otro
26. Su uso de este arbol para (segunda) esta prohibida en algun tiempo
del ano?
l=Si 2=No
Si Si,
?

27. Cuando esta prohibida el uso para

 

1=ene 2=feb 3=mar =abr
=sep 10=oct 11=nov 12=dec
1 5=inviemo

28. Su uso de este arbol para (tercer)

5=may 6=jun 7=qu 8=ago

13=todo el ano 14=verano

esta prohibida en algun tiempo

 

del ano?
l=Si 2=No
Si Si,

29. Cuando esta prohibida el uso para

 

1=ene 2=feb 3=mar 4=abr
9=sep 1 O=oct 1 1=nov 12=dec

1 5=inviemo

5=may 6=jun 7=qu 8=ago

13=todo e1 ano 14=verano

145

Hemos placticado de las usos, ahora vamos habIar del establecimiento del arbol.
30. Quien sembro este arbol?

1=Ud. =su padre 3=su madre =pariente 5=nadie 6=otro
Si alguien lo sembro:

31. Ud. puede recordar en qué afio fue sembrado?

 

32. Si Ud. no lo sembro, o no se recuedrda bien cuimdo fue, curintos afios piensa Ud. que
tiene este arbol?

 

33. C6mo fue sembrado?

1=semilla =estaca 3=plantita =otro

 

Se fue sembro por estaca,
34. Cuando se cortan las estacas?

1=fin de verano 2=comienzo de inviemo 3=durante inviemo

4=todo el ano 5=otro

 

35. Cuantas dias paso hasta que los sembro? 0=inmediato

 

36. Entre 10 estacas sembradas, cuantas sobreviven?

 

37. Ud. siembra las estacas segun las fases de la luna?
l=Si 2=No
38. Cual(es) fases son mas favorables para la siembra de estacas?
1=nueva 2=llena 3=creciente 4=menguante 5=escondida

6=otro

 

146

Sifiie sembrado
39. Qué hace Ud. para asegurara que sobrvive el arbol recien sembrada?
1=cercar 2=estiercol 3=abono organico 4=fertilizante quimico

5=riego con agua 6=limpieza 7=otro

 

40. Qué hace Ud. para asegurara que sobrvive el arbolito ya pegado?
1=cercar 2=estiercol 3=abono orgainico 4=fertilizante quimico

5=riego con agua 6=limpieza 7=otro

 

41. Cuando Ud. siembra con estacas de donde consiga la mayoria de las estacas?
l=proprio 2=parientes 3=vecino 4=bosque proprio
5=bosque en las comunidad 6=del borde del camino

7 =otro

 

42. Cuando Ud. siembra por plantitas de donde consiga generalmente las plantitas?
1=proprio vivero 2=otro viviero 3=proprio bosque 4=otro bosque

5=otro

 

Hemos hablado sobre los beneficios que tiene este arbol, ahora
43. Cuales son las cosa negativas, osealas cosas que Ud. no le gusta de este arbol?
1=problemas de plagas (cuales) 2=ramas que cayan 3=atrae relampago

4=sombra 5=demasiado fruta 6=otro

 

44. Qué hace Ud. para corregir esta problema?

l=poda el arbol 2=colectar las frutas 3=otro

 

147

Estos son todoas las preguntas que yo tengo sabre este arbol, Me gustaria tomar unas
mediciones del arbol, pero antes de esta, le pregunto a Ud. si queda alguna cosa quel le
parece importante que yo sepa de este arbol?

 

 

 

46. Qué es el dap del arbol?

 

47. Qué es la altura del arbol?

 

48. Que es el diametro de la copa?

#1 #2 #3 #4 promedio

 

 

Puedo tomarle una foto del arbol?
Puedo dibujar un mapa para localizar e1 arbol en relacion a los demas?

Muchas gracias por su tiempo y por la consultal

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—I_ llama
2 arb/arb
3 donde
4 pasto
5 it vacas
6 cultivo
7 produccion
8 mayor
9 cuando
10 parte
1 l hace
12 quien
13 segunda
l4 cutindo
15 parte
l6 hace
17 quien
l8 tercera
l9 cuando
20 parte
21 hace
22 quien
23 pro/arren

 

 

 

 

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 uso
25 cuando
26 uso 2ndo
27 cuando
28 uso 3m
29 cuando
30 planto
31 ano
32 cuantos
33 plantada
34 coradas
35 dias paso
36 de 10
37 fases
38 cual
39 recien
40 creciendo
41 estacas
42 plantitas
43 no gusta
44 corregir
45 dap
46 altura
47 diametro

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H

151

Appendix H

Scientific name (family, genus and species) of dispersed trees found in farmers fields
in Las Huertas, El Salvador from June to August, 1996

 

ANACARDIACEAE

ANN ONACEAE
APOCYNACEAE
BIGNONIACEAE

BOMBACACEAE
BORAGINACEAE

BURSERACEAE
COMBRETACEAE
FLACOURTIACEAE
LEGUMINOSAE
CESALPINIOIDEAE

LEGUMINOSAE
MIMOSOIDEAE

LEGUMINOSAE
PAPILIONOIDEAE

Anacardium occidentale

Mangifera indica
Spondias mombin
Astroneum graveolens
Spondias purpurea
Anona reticulata
Stemmadenia obovata
Tabebuia impetiginosa
Tabebuia rosea
Cresentia cujete
Ceiba pentandra
Cordia alliodora
Cordia dentata
Bursea simaruba

C ombretum farinosum
Casearia corymbosa

Hymanea courbaril
Caesalpinia coriaria
Haematoxylon
campechianum
Cassia grandis

Mimosa tenuifolia
Enterolobium
cyclocarpum
Albizia caribea
Lysiloma divarticatum
Mimosa platycarpa
Acacia pennatula
Acacia farnesiana
Ptptadenia constricta
Pithecellobium dulce
Pithecellobium saman

Gliricidia sepium
Andira inermis

L.
L.
L.
Jacq.
L.
L.

(Hook & Am.) Schum.
(Mart. ex DC.) Stand].
(Bertol.) DC.

L.

(L.) Gaertn.
(Ruiz & Pav.) Oken
Poir.

(L.) Sarg.
H.B.K.
H.B.K.

L.
(Jacq.) Willd.

L.
L.F.

(Willd.) Poiret

(Jacq.) Greisb.
(Urban) Britt. & Rose
(Jacq.) Macbride
n.a.

(Schlecht. et Cham.) Benth
(L.) Willd.
(Micheli & Rose) Macbride
(Roxb.) Benth.
(Willd.) Benth.

(Jacq.) Kunth. Ex Greisb.
(W. Wright) D.C.

 

152

Appendix H (cont’d)

 

MALPIGHIACEAE
MELIACEAE
MORACEAE
MYRTACEAE

RHAMNACEAE

RUBIACEAE

SAPINDACEAE
SIMAROUBACEAE

STERCULIACEAE
TILIACEAE

Piscida carthagenensis
Lonchocarpus
minimiflorus
Brysonima crassifolia
Swietenia humilis
Cholophora tinctoria
Psidium guava
Eucalyptus sps.
Karwinskia calderoni
calderonii
Richardia scabra
Exostema caribaeum
Calycophyllum
candidissimum
Genipa amertcana
Thounidium decandrum
Simarouba glauca
Alvaradoa amorphoides
Guazuma umlifolia
Luehea candida

Jacq.

Donn. Smith
(L.) H. B. K.
Zucc.
(L.) Grand.
L.

n.a.

Standl.
L.
(Jacq.) Roem. & Schult.

(V ahl) DC.
L.

(H. & B.) Radlk.
DG.
Liebm.
Lam.
(DC.) Mart.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akbar, Ghulam, Munir Ahmad, Shahid Rafique, and K.N. Babar 1990. “Effect of trees
on the yields of wheat crop,” Agroforestry Systems 11:1-10.

Aleck, Pamela L. and Robert B. Settle 1985. The Survey Research Handbook. Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois.

Allen, ON. and Ethel K. Allen 1981. The Leguminosae: A Source Book of
Characteristics, Uses, and Nodulation. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,
WI.

Altieri, Miquel A., F. Javier Trujillo, and John Farrell 1987. “Plant-irrsect interactions
and soil fertility relations in agroforestry systems: implications for the design of
sustainable agroecosystems,” Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials.
Ed. H.L. Gholz. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Andreatta, Susan L. 1994. A Study of Community Formation and Resource Use in A
Caribbean Agrarian Resettlement: Green Park, Jamaica (1990-1991) from an
Ecological Anthropological Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept of Anthropology,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Anton, R., Y. Jiang, B. Weniger, J .P. Beck, and L. Rivier 1993. “Pharmacology of
Mimosa tenuiflora (Willd.) Poiret,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology 38: 153-157.

Araya, Juan, Jorge Benavides, Rodrigo Arias y Arnoldo Ruiz 1994. “Identificacibn y
caracterizaciOn de arboles y arbustos con potencial forrajero en Puriscal, Costa Rica,”
Arboles y Arbustos F orrajeros en América Central, Volumen I y 2, Serie Técnica
Informe Técnica No. 236. Ed. Jorge Evelio Benavides. CATIE, Tuniabla, Costa
Rica.

Armour, Robert P. 1959. “Investigations on Simarouba glauca Dc. in El Salvador,”
Economic Botany 13(1):41-66.

Banda, A.Z., J.A. Maghembe, D.N. Ngugi, and VA. Chome 1994. “Effect of
intercropping maize and closely spaced Leucaena hedgerows on soil conservation and
maize yield on a steep slope at Ntcheu, Malawi,” Agroforestry systems 27:17-22.

Barrance, A.J. 1995. “Traditional knowledge as a basis for village forestry in Vanuatu,”
Commonwealth Forestry Review 74(2): 138-141.

155

Barry, Deborah, Herman Rosa, and Nelson Cuéllar 1996. “Restricciones para el
desarollo forestal y la revegetacién en El Salvador,” PRISM Boletin No. 16. San
Salvador, El Salvador.

Bayer, Wolfgang 1990. “Use of native browse by Fulani cattle in Nigeria,” Agroforestry
systems 12:217-228.

Belaunde, Elvira and Carlos Rivas 1993. “Responding to practice and affecting policy:
the experience of the Madeletia-3 Project in Central America,” Rural Development
Forestry Network 16a:Winter 1993.

Bressani, Ricardo, Jorge Mario Gonzalez, and Roberto Gomez Brenes 1981.
“Evaluacibn del fruto del caulote (Guazuma ulmifolia, Lam) en la alimentaciOn de
temeros,” Turrialba 3 1(4):281-285.

Brewbaker, James L. 1987. “Significant nitrogen fixing trees in agroforestry systems,”
Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials. Ed. H.L. Gholz. Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Browning, David 1975. El Salvador: La T ierra y El Hombre. DirecciOn de
Publicaciones e Impresos del Ministerio de Cultura y Comunicaciones, San Salvador,
El Salvador.

Budowski, Gerardo 1993. “The scope and potential of agroforestry in Central America,”
Agroforestry Systems 23(2-3): 121-131 .

Budowski, Gerardo and Ricardo O. Russo 1993. “Live Fence Posts in Costa Rica: A
Compilation of the Farmer’s Beliefs and Technology,” Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 3(2):65-87.

Bunch, Roland 1982. Two ears of Com: A Guide to People-Centered Agricultural
Development. World Neighbors, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Burgess, Robert G. 1991. “The Unstructured Interview as a Conversation,” Field
Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. Ed. Robert G. Burgess. Routledge,
London, UK.

Buzzard, Shirley 1990. “Surveys: Avoiding the Common Problems,” Methods for Social
Analysis in Developing Countries. Eds. Kurt Finsterbusch, Jasper Ingersoll, and Lynn
Llewellyn. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Caceres, Armando, Orlando Cano, Blanca Samayoa, and Leila Aguilar 1990. “Plants
used in Guatemala for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders. 1. Screening of 84
plants against enterobacteria,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology 30(1):55-73.

156

Calderon, Salvador and Paul C. Standley 1941. Lista Preliminar de Plantas de El
Salvador, 2“ Edicidn. Ediciones Culturales UES, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Campbell, B.M., P. Frost, J.A. King, M. Mawanza, and L. Mhlanga 1994. “The
influence of trees on soil fertility on two contrasting semi-arid soil types at Matopos,
Zimbabwe,” A groforestry Systems 28: 159-172.

Cardenal, Rudolfo 1996. Manual de Historia de Centroamérica. Universidad
Centroamericana José Simebn Catias Editores, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Cashman, Kristin 1988. “Promoting the ‘Fertilizer Bush’ among Nigerian farmers,”
VITA News, July/Octz7-10.

Castro, Alfonso Peter 1991. “Indigenous Kikuyu Agroforestry: A Case Study of
Kirinyaga, Kenya,” Human Ecology 19(1): 1 -l 8.

Castro, Vilma Ethel de 1978. “Estudio autoecolOgico del morro (Cresentia alata I-IBK),”
Agrociéncta 2(1):43-56.

Cemea, Michael M. 1981. “Land Tenure Systems and Social Implications of Forestry
Development Programs,” World Bank Stafir Working Paper No. 452. World Bank,
Washington, DC.

Chirko, Charles R, Michael A. Gold, Phu. V. Nguyen, and J .P. Jiang 1996. “Influence
of direction and distance from trees on wheat yield and photosynthetic photon flux

density (Qp) in a Paulownia-wheat intercropping system,” Forest Ecology and
Management 83: 171-180.

Choussy, Felix 1976. Flora Salvadoreiia, T omo 1-1 V. Editorial Universitaria, San
Salvador, El Salvador.

Chudnoff, Martin 1980. Tropical Timbers of the World. Agriculture Handbook 607.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Crowder, L.V. and HR. Chheda 1982. Tropical Grassland Husbandry. Longman
Group Limited, London, UK.

Daugherty, Howard Edward 1970. Man-induced ecological change in El Salvador.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles,
Califomia.

den Biggelar, C. and MA. Gold 1996. “Development of utility and location indices for

classifying agroforestry species: the case of Rwanda,” Agroforestry Systems 34:229-
246.

157

Derman, William 1990. “Informant Interviewing in International Social Impact
Assessment,” Methods for Social Analysis in Developing Countries. Eds. Kurt
Finsterbusch, Jasper Ingersoll, and Lynn Llewellyn. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado.

Diskin, Martin 1991. “Lack of Access to Land and Food in El Salvador,” Harvest of
Want: hunger and food security in Central America and Mexico. Eds. Scott
Whiteford and Anne E. Ferguson. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Dharrnasena, PB. 1994. “Conservation farming practices for small reservoir
watersheds: a case study from Sri Lanka,” Agroforestry Systems 28:203-212.

Dove, Michael R. 1995. “The shift of tree cover from forests to farms in Pakistan: a long
and broad view,” Tree Management in Farmer Strategies: Responses to Agricultural
Intensification. Eds. J .E. Michael Arnold and Peter A. Dewees. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.

Erkkila, Antti and Harri Siiskonen 1992. Forestry in Namibia 1850-1990. University of
J oensuu, Joensuu, Finland.

Ewe], John J. 1986. “Designing Agricultural Ecosystems for the Humid Tropics,”
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17:245-271.

Fonzen, Peter F. and Erich Oberholzer 1984. “Use of multipurpose trees in hill farming
systems in Western Nepal,” Agroforestry Systems 2: 187-197.

Fortrnann, Louise 1992. “Social Aspects of Resource management Systems,” Integrated
Resource Management: Agroforestry for Development. Eds. Charles V. Kidd and
David Pimentel. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California.

Fowler, William R. Jr. 1989. The Cultural Evolution of Ancient Nahua Civilizations:
The Pipil-Nicarao of Central America. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Geilfus, Frans 1994. El Arbol Al Servicio del Agricultor: Manual de Agroforesteria
para el Desarollo Rural: Volumen 2 Guia de Especies. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa
Rica.

Gielen, Hans 1982. Report on an Agroforestry Survey in Three Villages of Northern
Machakos, Kenya. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.

Guizar Nolazco, Enrique and Alejandro Sanchez-Velez 1991. Guia para el
Reconocimiento de los Principales Arboles del Alto Balsas. Universidad Auténoma
Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico.

158

Haggar, J .P., E.V.J. Tanner, J .W. Beer, and D.C.L. Kass 1993. “Nitrogen Dynamics of
Tropical Agroforestry and Annual Cropping Systems,” Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 25(10): 1363-1378.

Havercort, Bertus 1991. “F armers’ experiments and participatory technology
development,” Joining Farmers’ Experiments: Experiences in Participatory
Technologi Development. Eds. Bertus Havercort, Johan van der Karnp, and Ann
Waters-Bayer. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.

Herrera Alegria, Zoila and Aleyda Morales Vargas 1993. Propriedades y Usos
Potenciales de 100 Maderas Nicaraguenses. Instituto Nicaragiiense de Recursos
Naturales y del Ambiente y Editorial Hispamer, Colombia

Hocking, D. and K. Islam 1995. “Trees in Bangladesh paddy fields. 2. Survival of trees
planted in crop fields,” Agroforestry Systems 31:39-57.

Hocking, Drake, Anna Hocking, and Khairul Islam 1996. “Trees on farms in
Bangladesh. 3. Farmers’ species preferences for homestead trees, survival of new tree
planting, and main causes of death,” Agroforestry Systems 33:231-247.

Humphreys, LR. 1994. Tropical Forages: Their role in sustainable agriculture,
Chapter 9. Longman Group Limited, London, UK.

Hunter, LR. and J .L. Stewart 1993. “Foliar nutrient and nutritive content of Central
American multipurpose tree species growing at Comayagua, Honduras,”
Commonwealth Forestry Review 72(3): 193-197.

Instituto Geografico Nacional 1979. Atlas de El Salvador, 3" a Edicidn. Ministerio de
Obras Publicas, Instituto Geografico Nacional, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Jambulingarn, R. and E.C.M. F emandes 1986. “Multipurpose trees and shrubs on
farmlands in Tamil Nadu State (India),” Agroforestry Systems 4:17-32.

Janzen, DH. 1982. “Variation in average seed size and fruit seediness in a fruit crop of a
guanacaste tree (Leguminosae: Enterolobium cyclocarpum),” American Journal of
Botany 69(7): 1 169-1 178.

Jodha, Narpat S. 1995. “Trends in tree management in arid land use in western
Raj asthan,” Tree Management in Farmer Strategies: Responses to Agricultural
Intensification. Eds. J .E. Michael Arnold and Peter A. Dewees. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.

Jofre, Richard, Jean Vacher, Carlos de los Llanos, and Gilbert Long 1988. “The dehesa:
an agrosilvopastoral system of the Mediterranean region with special reference to the
Sierra Morena area of Spain,” Agroforestry Systems 6:71-96.

159

Juarez, Modesto and Thomas A. McKenzie 1991. “Sistema agroforestal maiz-eucalipto,
en El Salvador: analisis financiero,” Silvoenergia Nurnero 45, Junio.

Kass, D.L.C., C. Foletti, L.T. Szott, R. Landaverde, and R. Nolasco 1993. “Traditional
fallow systems of the Americas,” Agroforestry Systems 23(2-3):207-218.

Kater, L.J.M., S. Kante, and A. Budelman 1992. “Karité (Vitellaria paradoxa) and
néré (Parkia biglobosa) associated with crops in South Mali,” Agroforestry Systems
18:89-105.

Kessler, J .J . 1992. “The influence of karité (Vitellaria paradoxa) and néré (Parkia
biglobosa) trees on sorghum production in Burkina Faso,” Agroforestry Systems
17:97-118.

Khaleque, Kibriaul and Michael A. Gold 1993. “Pineapple agroforestry: an indigenous
system among the Garo community of Bangladesh,” Society and Natural Resources
6:71-78.

Kimwe, SK. 1993. Planting Sites, Configurations and Tree Management on the High
Potential Areas of Kenya: Experiences of Kenya F uelwood and A groforestry
Programme. ETC Kenya Consultants B.V., Nairobi, Kenya.

Kumar, Krishna 1989. “Conducting Key Informant Interviews in Developing
Countries,” A.I.D. Program Design and Evaluation Methodology Report No. 13.
Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

Lal, R. 1989. “Agroforestry systems and soil surface management of a tropical alfisol:
II: Water runoff, soil erosion, and nutrient loss,” Agroforestry systems 8:97-111.

Larde y Latin, Jorge 1957. El Salvador: Historia de sus Pueblos, Villas y Ciudades.
Ministerio de Cultura, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Lauer, Wilhelm 1968. “Problemas de la divisiOn fitogeografica en America Central,”
Geo-ecology of the Mountainous Regions of the Tropical Americas. Schmidt Publ.,
Neustadt, Germany.

Lindo-Fuentes, Hector 1990. Weak Foundations: The Economy of El Salvador in the
Nineteenth Century. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Little, Elbert L., Jr. and Frank H. Wadsworth 1964. Common Trees of Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands, Volume 1, Agriculture Handbook No. 249. US. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

160

Little, Elbert L., Jr., Roy 0. Woodbury, and Frank H. Wadsworth 1974. Trees of Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands, Volume 2, Agriculture Handbook 449. US. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Lopez, Juan Alberto 1987. Arboles C omunes del Paraguay: Nande Yvyra Mata Kuera.
Cuerpo de Paz, ColecciOn e Intercambio de InformaciOn, Washington, DC.

Mathias-Mundy, Evelyn, Olivia Muchena, Gerard McKieman, Paul Mundy 1992.
Indigenous Technical Knowledge of Private Tree Management: A Bibliographic
Report. Iowa State University Research Foundation, Ames, Iowa.

Mathias-Mandy, Evelyn 1993. “Indigenous Knowledge for Rural Development with an
Emphasis on Sustainable Living,” Keynote paper presented at the 20'“ Waigani
Seminar on Environment and Development, University of Papau New Guinea, 22-27
August, 1993.

Marroquin, Alejandro Dagoberto 1980. Panchtmalco: Investigacidn Sociologica, 3" a
Edicidn. Ministerio de Educacibn, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Martyn, Danuta 1992. Developments in Atmospheric Science 18: Climates of the World.
Polish Scientific Publishers PWN Ltd., Warsaw, Poland.

Medina, Juan Manuel, Benoit Rouyer, Mauro Tejada, Michel Layus, Benedicte Boiron
1994. “EvaluaciOn prelirninar de la produccién de biomasa de especies lefiosas bajo
crecimiento natural en la zona Sur de Honduras,” Arboles y Arbustos F orrajeros en
Ame'rica Central, Volumen 1 y 2, Serie Técnica Informe Técnica No. 236. Ed. Jorge
Evelio Benavides. CATIE, Turriabla, Costa Rica.

Miehe, S. 1986. “Acacia albida and other multipurpose trees on the fur farmlands in the
Jebel Marra Highland, Western Darfur, Sudan.” Agroforestry Systems 4:89-119.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia 1975. Anuarto Meteoroldgico de El Salvador
1975. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, Direccién General de Recursos
Naturales Renovables, Servicio Meteorolégico, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia 1978. Mapa Ecologico de El Salvador: Sistema
de zonas de vida del Dr. Lr. Holdridge. Eds. Joseph Jr. Tosi and Gary Hartshom.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Ministerio de Economia 1995. Censos Nacionales Vde Poblacto'n y IV de Vivienda
1992, Toma XIV La Unién, El Salvador. Ministerio de Economia, DirecciOn General
de Estadlstica y Censos, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Moench, M. 1991. “Soil erosion under a successional agroforestry sequence: a case
study from Idukki District, Kerala, India,” Agroforestry Systems 15:31-50.

161

Morrison, Bruce J. 1991. “Indigenous Knowledge Relating to Fodder Trees and Silvo-
pastoral Management Systems of Small-scale Farmers in Jamaica.” M.Sc. Thesis,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Mufioz Aldean, Mauro 1981. “Sistemas Agrosilvopastoriles en el Ecuador,” Simposio
Internacional sabre las Ciéncias F arestales y su Contribucidn al Desarollo de la
America Tropical, San Jose, Costa Rica 11-1 7 Octubre, 1979. Ed. Manuel Chavarria.
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y TecnolOgicas, San Jose, Costa
Rica.

Musvoto, C. and BM. Campbell 1995. “Mango trees as components of agroforestry
systems in Mangwende, Zimbabwe,” Agroforestry Systems 32:247-260.

Nair, P.K.R. 1989. “Agroforestry defined,” Agroforestry Systems for the Tropics. Ed.
P.K.R. Nair. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Nygren, Pekka, and Carlos Ramirez 1995. “Production and turnover of N2 fixing
nodules in relation to foliage development in periodically pnmed Erythrina
paeppigiana (Leguminosae) trees,” F arest Ecology and Management 73:59-73.

Organization of American States 1994. Energy Conservation and Environmental
Protection Program Summary: Plan Trifinia El Salvador-Guatemala-Honduras.
Department of Regional Development and Environment, OAS and Finnish
International Development Agency, Washington, DC.

Parsons, James J. 1962. “The acom-hog economy of the oak woodlands of southwestern
Spain,” Geographical Review April:211-235.

Pierre-Noel, Arsene V. 1971. Nomenclature Polyglotte Des Plantes Haitiennes et
T ropicales. Presses Nationales D’Haiti, Port-au—Prince, Haiti.

Poschen, Peter 1986. “An evaluation of the Acacia albida-based agroforesn'y practices
in the Hararghe highlands of Eastern Ethiopia,” Agroforestry Systems 4: 129-143.

Radulovich, Ricardo, Roduel Rodriguez, Jorge Mercado, Carlos Heer, Orlando Moncada,
Ana M. Castillo, and Claudia Velasquez 1994. “Agroforesteria para Zonas de Ladera
con Sequia Estacional,” Tecnalagias praducttvas para sistemas agrasilvopecuarios

de Iadera can sequia estacional. Serie Técnica, Informe Técnica no. 222. CATIE,
Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Raintree, J .B. and K. Warner 1986. “Agroforestry pathways for the intensification of
shifting cultivation,” Agroforestry Systems 4:39-54.

162

Reiche, Carlos E. 1988. “Socio-economic approach and analysis of agroforestry systems
applied on demonstration farms in Central America,” Paper at ‘Fragile Lands in Latin
America: Search for Sustainable Uses, XIV Congress of the Latin American Studies
Association, March 17-19, 1988, New Orleans, Louisiana. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa
Rica.

Rocheleau, Diane E. 1985. “Women, Trees, and Tenure: Implications for Agroforestry,”
Whose trees? Prapriety Dimensions of Forestry. Eds. L. Fortmann and J .W. Bruce.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Rocheleau, Diane E. 1987. “The user perspective and the agroforestry research and
action research agenda,” Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials. Ed.
H.L. Gholz. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Rojas ChacOn, Victor 1981. “Algunos aspectos sobre la utilizacién de la madera en
Costa Rica,” Simposio Internacional sabre las C iéncias F orestales y su Cantribucidn
al Desarollo de la America Tropical, San Jose, Costa Rica 11-1 7 Octubre, 1979. Ed.
Manuel Chavarria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y TecnolOgicas,
San Jose, Costa Rica.

Ruhigwa, B.A., M.P. Gichuru, B.Mambarri, and NM. Tariah 1992. “Root distribution of
Acacia barteri, Alchornea cardtfalia, Cassia stamea, and Gmelina arborea in an

Ultisol,” Agroforestry Systems 19:67-78.

Rusten, Eric D. and Michael A. Gold 1991. “Understanding an indigenous knowledge

system for tree fodder via a multi-method on-farm research approach,” Agroforestry
Systems 15:139-165.

Sac-lee, S., P. Vityakon, and B. Prachaiyo 1992. “Effects of trees on paddy bund soil
fertility and rice growth in Northeast Thailand,” Agroforestry Systems 18:213-223.

Safa, Helen I. 1992. “Development and Changing Gender Roles in Latin America and
the Caribbean,” Women ’s Work and Women ’s Lives: The Continuing Struggle
Worldwide. Eds. Hilda Kahne and Janet Z. Giele. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado.

Sain, Gustavo E. and Hector J. Barreto 1996. “The adoption on soil conservation
technology in El Salvador: Linking productivity and conservation,” Journal afSail
and Water Conservation 51(4):313-321.

Salisbury, Frank B. and Cleon W. Ross 1985. Plant Physiology, 3"‘1 Edition, Chapter
11. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

Salvador Flores, José 1988. Tipos de Vegetacidn de El Salvador y su Estada Actual: Un
Estudia Ecologico, 2nd Ed. Editorial Universitaria, San Salvador, El Salvador.

163

Sanchez, Pedro 1995. “Science in Agroforestry,” Agroforestry Systems 30:5-55.

Sauer, Jonathan D. 1979. “Living fences in Costa Rican agriculture,” Turrialba
29(4):255-261.

Scherr, Sara J. 1995. “Economic Factors in Farmer Adoption of Agroforestry: Patterns
Observed in Western Kenya,” World Development 23(5):787-804.

Schroth, GOtz, and Wolfgang Zech 1995. “Root length dynamics in agroforestry with
Gliricidia sepium as compared to sole cropping in the semi-deciduous rain forest zone
of West Afiica,” Plant and Soil 170:297-306.

Shankamarayan, K.A., L.N. Harsh, and S. Kathju 1989. “Agroforestry in the arid zones
of India,” Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics. Ed. P.K.R. Nair. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Sharma, K.K. 1992. “Wheat cultivation in association with Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd
ex. Del. field bund plantation - a case study,” Agroforestry Systems 17:43-51.

Sharma, R., E. Shanna, and N. Purohit 1994. “Dry matter production and nutrient
cycling in agroforestry systems of cardamom grown under Alnus and natural forest,”
Agroforestry Systems 27:293-306.

Sosa, Heriberto and Jorge Bolafios 1993. “Respuesta del Sistema Maiz-Maicillo y Maiz-
F rijol a Distintos Niveles de Mantillo bajo de ConservaciOn,” Sintests de Resultados
Experimentales del PRM 1992 4:114-118.

Thapa, 3., FL. Sinclair, and DH. Walker 1995. “Incorporation of indigenous
knowledge and perspectives in agroforestry development. Part 2: Case-study on the
impact of explicit representation of farmers’ knowledge,” Agroforestry Systems
30:249-261.

Tilander, Y., G. Ouedraogo, and F. Yougma 1995. “Impact of tree coppicing on tree-
crop competition in parkland and alley farming systems in serrriarid Burkina Faso,”
Agroforestry Systems 30:363-378.

Timmer, L.A., J .J . Kessler, and M. Slingerland 1996. “Pruning of néré (Parkia biglobosa
(Jacq.) Benth.) on farmlands of Burkina Faso, West Africa,” Agroforestry systems
33:87-98.

Torres, Hermes, Rolian Borel, Nicanor Bustamente, and Maria [sable Centeno 1993.
“Traditional Uses of Native Shrubs in the South of Puno,” Rural Development
Forestry Network 16e:Winter 1993.

164

Tremblay, Marc-Adélard 1991. “The Key Informant Technique: A Non-Ethnographic
Application,” Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. Ed. Robert G.
Burgess. Routledge, London, UK.

Ulluwishewa, Rohana 1991. “Soil Fertility Management of Paddy Fields by Traditional
Farmers in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka,” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 1(3):95-
106.

USAID 1996. USAID 1996 Latin American and Caribbean Selected Economic Social
Data, Country Economic Data, El Salvador [Online] Available at:
http://www.lanic.utexas.edu/la/region/aid/aid96/Country_Economic/escen.htrnl

Universidad de El Salvador 1974. Mapa Pedalagica de El Salvador. Ed. M. Rico. UES,
Facultad de Ciencias Agronomicas, Departamento de Suelos, San Salvador, El
Salvador.

Vabi, Michael 1996. “Eliciting Community Knowledge about Uses of Trees through
Participatory Rural Appraisal Methods: Examples from Cameroon and the Central
Afiican Republic,” Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 19C:30. Overseas
Development Institute, London, UK.

Viva Escoto, Jorge A. 1964. “Weather and Climate of Mexico and Central America,”
Handbook of Middle American Indians Volume I : Natural Environment and Early
Cultures. Ed. Robert Wauchope. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.

Vityakon, Patrna, Suriya Smutkupt, and Buared Prachaiyo 1988. “Trees in Paddy Fields:
Their Contributions to Soil Fertility, and Sustainability of the Paddy Rice System,”
Sustainable Rural Development in Asia, Proceedings of the SUAN IV Regional
Symposium on Agroecosystem Research held at Khan Kaen University, July 4- 7,
I988. Eds. Terd Charoenwatana and A. Terry Rambo. Khon Kaen University and
Southeast Asian Universities Agroecosystem Network, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Walker, D.H., F.L. Sinclair, and B. Thapa 1995. “Incorporation of indigenous
knowledge and perspectives in agroforestry development. Part 1: Review of methods
and their applications,” Agroforestry Systems 30:235-248.

Wapakala, William W. 1988. “Crop Husbandry in Agroforestry Production Systems,”
Agroforestry development in Kenya: Proceedings of the Second Kenya National
Seminar on Agroforestry held in Nairobi, Kenya. Eds. A.M. Kilewe, K.M. Kealey,
and K.K. Kebaara. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.

Weinstock, J .A. and NT. Vergara 1987. “Land or plants: agricultural tenure in
agroforestry systems,” Economic Botany 41(2) 312-322.

165

Witsberger, Dennis, Dean Current, and Edgar Archer 1982. Arboles del Parque
Deininger. Ministerio de EducaciOn, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Whyte, William Foote 1991. “Interviewing in Field Research,” Field Research: A
Sourcebook and Field Manual. Ed. Robert G. Burgess. Routledge, London, UK.

"‘iiiliitiiittiiii