FARMER LIVELIHOODS STRATEGIES AND THE IMPACT OF AGROFORESTRY
PRACTICES ON PARKLAND SYSTEMS IN KEDOUGOU SENEGAL
By
Chad Papa

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Forestry – Masters of Science
2017

ABSTRACT
FARMER LIVELIHOODS STRATEGIES AND THE IMPACT OF AGROFORESTRY
PRACTICES ON PARKLAND SYSTEMS IN KEDOUGOU SENEGAL
By
Chad Papa
Farmers throughout West Africa have always faced adverse conditions and high
vulnerability with regards to management of their agroecological systems, but climate change
poses a new challenge to the sustainability of farming systems. Through field research conducted
in the department of Kedougou in southwestern Senegal, I identified and analyzed livelihood
strategies, and investigated the effects of climate change on farmer’s management of their
agroecological systems. Using the rural livelihood framework, I used focus group discussions to
assess farmers’ management approaches when facing climate related disturbances to
agroecological systems. With the survey results, I used a regression model to analyze whether or
not agroforestry has impacted farmer livelihood with regards to the valuation of on-farm
activities through crop yields and livestock holdings. The lack of statistical significance from the
regression model might point towards a lack of impact from agroforestry practices; however, the
multiple co-benefits of agroforestry cannot be overlooked to reducing vulnerability. This study
shows that West African farmers generally use approaches that enhance the resiliency of their
agroecological systems to sustain their livelihoods when facing adverse environmental
challenges, but that agroforestry has not shown to impact livelihoods in terms of production.

Copyright by
CHAD PAPA
2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first and foremost like to thank my advisor, Dr. Pascal Nzokou, for his support of
my research ideas and helping me succeed academically. This project would not have happened
without your support and ideas. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Laura
Schmitt-Olabisi and Dr. Runsheng Yin, for their feedback and encouragement during the
formulation of research ideas and completion of this research, as well as everyone at the MSU
Department of Forestry who gave their support.
I need to thank Dr. Cheikh Mbow because without you, this project would have never
gotten off of the ground. I would also like to thank my Senegalese family in Syllacounda and
Kedougou, Karamokho ‘Ntoxoma’ Guirassy, Mah Tounkara, Karamba Diakhaby, Oumou
Sawane, Sanoussy Tounkara, Lassana Diakhite, and Bocar Diallo, for making me fall in love
with Senegal and want to continue research there. In addition, I need to thank my field
technicians and translators, Lamine Savane and Mady Camara, for making this project possible,
and everyone at the l’Insitut des Science de l’Environnement at l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop.
To you I say, ‘I nin baaro’.
I also need to thank my gracious funding sources, the U.S. Borlaug Food Security
Fellowship and the MSU Academic Achievement Graduate Assistantship, for taking a chance on
my research ideas.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for supporting me and for giving me the
opportunity to pursue a career path professionally and academically of my choosing, and for
putting up with me when I decided to pick up everything and travel across the planet.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... ix
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1.1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH CONTEXT............................................................... 1
1.2. RATIONALE AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ................................................................ 2
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 8
2.1. DEFINITION OF AGROFORESTRY: PRACTICES AND SYSTEMS ......................... 8
2.1.1. Classification of Agroforestry Systems ....................................................................... 8
2.1.2. Intercropping................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.3. Taungya ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.4. Multistrata Systems ...................................................................................................... 13
2.1.5. Improved Fallow ........................................................................................................... 14
2.1.6. Protective Agroforestry Systems ................................................................................. 15
2.1.7. Silvopasture ................................................................................................................... 15
2.1.8. Tree Woodlots and Specialty Crops ............................................................................ 16
2.1.9. Predominant Agroforestry Systems in West Africa .................................................. 16
2.1.10. Parkland Systems ........................................................................................................ 17
2.2. FOCAL POINTS FOR THIS STUDY ............................................................................... 18
2.2.1. Role of Agroforestry in Land Management ............................................................... 19
2.2.2. Ecosystem Services........................................................................................................ 19
2.2.3. Food Security ................................................................................................................. 22
2.2.4. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation .............................................................. 24
2.2.5 Effects of Climate on Agroforestry Systems in West Africa ...................................... 25
2.2.6. Key Factors and Drivers for Choosing Agroforestry Systems ................................. 26
2.2.7. Rural Livelihood Framework ...................................................................................... 30
2.3. GEOGRAPHY OF THE STUDY AREA: KEDOUGOU, SENEGAL ........................... 30
2.3.1. Climate ........................................................................................................................... 31
2.3.2. Agroecological and Forestry Data ............................................................................... 32
2.3.3. Socio-Economic Demographics and Indicators.......................................................... 33
2.3.4. Biophysical Indicators .................................................................................................. 34
2.3.5. Agroforestry Systems in Kedougou, Senegal.............................................................. 35
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 38

v

CHAPTER 3. FARMER LIVELIHOOD STRATEGY, ATTITUDES, AND RESPONSES
TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN AGROFORESTRY PARKLANDS IN KEDOUGOU
SENEGAL ................................................................................................................................... 53
3.1. ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 53
3.2. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 53
3.2.1. Livelihood Model for Rural Sahelian Communities .................................................. 54
3.3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 57
3.3.1. Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 57
3.3.2. Methodologies ................................................................................................................ 58
3.3.3. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 58
3.3.4. Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 59
3.3.5. Focus Groups ................................................................................................................. 59
3.3.6. In-Depth Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................ 59
3.3.7. Personal Observations and Field Observations ......................................................... 60
3.4. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS .......................................................................................... 60
3.4.1. Common Agroforestry Practices ................................................................................. 61
3.4.2. Spatial Organizations of Systems ................................................................................ 63
3.4.3. Common Agroforestry Species .................................................................................... 65
3.4.3.1. Parkland Species ........................................................................................................ 66
3.4.3.2. Cultivated Species ...................................................................................................... 68
3.4.3.3. Homegarden Species .................................................................................................. 69
3.4.4. Fallow Trends ................................................................................................................ 70
3.4.5. Determinants for Crop and Tree Choices .................................................................. 71
3.4.6. Factors Driving use of Trees on Farms ....................................................................... 73
3.4.7. Farmer Attitudes Towards Model Constraints .......................................................... 76
3.4.8. Responses to Model Variable Properties .................................................................... 77
3.4.9. Flexible and Adaptive Management Strategies .......................................................... 78
3.5. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 79
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 81
CHAPTER 4. IMPACTS OF AGRFORESTRY PRACTICES AND TREE DENSITY ON
FARM VALUATION: THE CASE OF KEDOUGOU SENEGAL ....................................... 87
4.1 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... 87
4.2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 87
4.3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGIES ......................................................................... 89
4.3.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 89
4.3.2. Survey Method .............................................................................................................. 90
4.3.3. Conceptual Method....................................................................................................... 90
4.4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 91
4.4.1. Trends in Senegal’s Agricultural Sector ..................................................................... 91
4.4.2. Description of Agroforestry Practices in Southeastern Senegal ............................... 92
4.4.3. The Effect of Farm Size on Yields ............................................................................... 94
4.4.4. Effect of Choice of Agroforestry Practice on Farm Valuation ................................. 95
4.4.5. Effect of Tree Diversity on Farm Valuation ............................................................... 96
4.4.6. Analysis of Deviation from Mean by Agroforestry Practice ..................................... 97
4.4.7. Analysis of Deviation from Mean by Tree Diversity ................................................. 98
vi

4.5 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 99
4.5.1. Agroforestry Practice ................................................................................................... 99
4.5.2. Tree Diversity .............................................................................................................. 100
4.5.3. Linking Agroforestry, Tree Diversity, and Vulnerability ....................................... 101
4.5.4. Limitations ................................................................................................................... 102
4.6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 102
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 104
CHAPTER 5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 110
5.1. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........ 110
5.2. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 111
5.3. IMPLICATIONS AND A GLOBAL CONTEXT ........................................................... 112
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 113

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Scientific names of important endemic or naturalized fruit trees (source: adapted from
Diedhiou, 2004)………………………………………………………………………………….37
Table 2: Common trees used for forestry products (Dansokho et al., 2012)……………………37
Table 3: List of common cereal grains and crops grown in agroforestry systems (Dansokho et al.,
2012)…………..…………………………………………………………………………………37
Table 4: Communes and Villages included in the study………………………………………...57
Table 5: Institutions and functions of key stakeholders…………………………………………60
Table 6: Common agroforestry practices used in Kedougou……………………………………62
Table 7: Endemic species used in parkland systems (1=frequent; 2=occasional; 3=rare)………67
Table 8: Common cultivated and extended species used in agroforestry systems ……………...68
Table 9: Common species used in homegarden systems…………………………………………69
Table 10: Amount of years in fallow cycle per village (Average fallow = 4 years)……………..70
Table 11: Factors contributing to the use of trees on farms………………………………………74
Table 12: Factors that contribute to a decreased use of trees on farms………………………….75
Table 13: Yearly increases in agroforestry practices in Kedougou (Source: IREF, 2013, 2014,
2015)………………………………………………………………,…………………………….94

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Agroforestry Classification (adapted from: Sinclair, 1999)…………….………….…..10
Figure 2: Agroforestry Classification (adapted from: Nair, 2014)…………….………………...11
Figure 3: Climatic zone of West Africa (Source: Jahnke, 1982)…………………………………18
Figure 4: The Region of Kedougou in Senegal………………………………………………….31
Figure 5: Model analyzing social organization of Sahelian agricultural communities (Modified
from: Mortimore & Adams, 1999)………………………………………………………………56
Figure 6: Area of Study…………………………………..……………………………………..58
Figure 7a: Spatial Arrangement I……………………………………………………………….64
Figure 7b: Spatial Arrangement 2……………………………………………………………….64
Figure 8: Calendar of various income or food producing activities in Kedougou (Adapted from:
(CSE, 2011a)…………………………………………………………………………………….66
Figure 9: Trends in cereal grain production (left); area under cultivation in hectares (right);
yields in hectogram per hectare (bottom) between 1961 and 2010 (Source: ANACIM et al.
2013)……………………………………………………………………………………………..93
Figure 10: Total Valuation of Crop Yield and Valuation of Livestock Holdings by
Village…………………………………………………………………………………………...94
Figure 11: Correlation between crop valuation and farm size …………………………………95
Figure 12: Effect of agroforestry practice on valuation of crop yields (left); Effect of
agroforestry practice on valuation of crop yields with livestock holdings (right); 1 = Parkland; 2 =
Parkland + Taungya; 3 = Parkland + Hedgerow; 4 = Parkland + Taungya + Hedgerow………..….96
Figure 13: Effect of tree species diversity on valuation of crop yields (left); Effect of tree species
diversity valuation of crop yields and livestock holdings (right); 1 = 1-5 tree species; 2 = 6-10 tree
species; 3 = ≥11 tree species, *No statistical significance ………………….……………………. 97

Figure 14: Analysis of deviation from mean for valuation crop yields (above); analysis of
deviation from mean for valuation of crop yields and livestock (below), by agroforestry practice;
1 = Parkland; 2 = Parkland + Taungya; 3 = Parkland + Hedgerow; 4 = Parkland + Taungya +
Hedgerow…………………………………………………………….………………………….97

ix

Figure 15: Analysis of deviation from mean by valuation crop yields (above); analysis of
deviation from mean by valuation of crop yields and livestock (below), by tree diversity; 1 = 1-5
tree species; 2 = 6-10 tree species; 3 = ≥11 tree species…..............................................…….....98

x

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

AFS

Agroforestry Systems

ANACIM

National Agency for Civil Aviation and Meterology - ‘Agence
Nationale de l’Avion Civile et de la Météorologie’

ANSD

National Agency for Statistics and Demographics - ‘Agence
Nationale de la Statistique et de la démographique’

BCEAO

Central Bank of West African States – ‘Banque Centrale des Etats
de l’Afrique de l’Ouest’

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

ICRAF

World Agroforestry Centre

NFTP

Non-Forest Timber Products

SD

System Dynamics

WFP

World Food Programme

xi

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1.

BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH CONTEXT
Climate change has emerged as a global environmental problem that has created many

challenges for economic development. While climate change is a global problem affecting
people from the international to local scale, rural farmers in developing countries face some of
the greatest challenges to livelihood management due to climate change that will affect major
aspects of everyday life. This is ever present across the Sudano-Sahelian and Guinean ecological
zones in West Africa where contending with climate vulnerability and extreme weather events is
the norm (Timberlake et al., 2010).
This study explores livelihood strategies and the impacts agroforestry has had on
smallholder agroforestry systems in the region of Kedougou in southeastern Senegal. Going
forward, it will be necessary for small-scale farmers to adapt to a changing climate to help
reduce vulnerability to climate change while increasing food security and livelihood resiliency.
Agroforestry as a cropping system has been proposed by many as a strategy to help decrease
farmer vulnerability in the face of climate change (Mbow et al., 2014).
There is an ever-growing need to feed a larger population with the same amount of arable
land while decreasing vulnerability and increasing food security. Local peoples whose
livelihoods depend on subsistence farming face the challenge of altering their management
practice through several pathways: land-use extension, intensification, diversification, or
migration to meet their needs (Chidumayo & Marunda, 2010). With regards to farmers in West
Africa, these four management responses lead to an adaptable and resilient livelihood strategy to
continually meet the needs of a community in addition to other drivers of land-use change (RosTonen et al., 2005).

1

To meet the future’s growing needs, agriculture intensification, which is the increase of
yields per area of cultivated land, is seen as an ideal response (Campbell et al., 2014; Petersen &
Snapp, 2015). However, there is a need to increase yields without negatively impacting the
environment; thus there is a need for sustainable intensification which is intensifying in an
environmentally friendly way (Bommarco et al., 2013; Garnett et al., 2013). Agroforestry is seen
as one pathway to sustainably intensify an agriculture system (Mbow et al., 2014). A more
common response to growing settlements is land-use extension or extensification, which is the
expansion of land to produce more goods or services (Kleemann et al., 2017). Lastly,
diversification of production and livelihood outcomes is common and seen as integral
management adaptation (Brookfield, 2001) while migration can be seen as a final effort to find
other resources in the face of adversity (Tiffen et al., 1994).

1.2.

RATIONALE AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
Kedougou is one of the most rural and impoverished regions in Senegal, making

smallholder farmers more vulnerable to the effects of climate change (ANACIM et al., 2013).
With over 70% of the population living in poverty, the majority of the population works in the
agrarian sector in a subsistence capacity. Kedougou has a food insecure rate above the national
average and one of the lowest diet diversities (WFP, 2014). Additionally, Kedougou has an
increasing population due to a high birthrate (ANSD, 2015) and immigration from surrounding
parts of West Africa due to a recent increase in interest of mineral extraction, predominantly gold
(Diop, 2014).
Farmers in Kedougou will need to adapt or mitigate the negative effects of climate
change to continue meeting the needs of their communities to thrive in the face of adverse

2

conditions. Specifically, how farmers respond to system disturbance such as climate change has
larger ramifications on regional and national level management policy and economic
development goals through the effects of land-use change. Therefore, an analysis of farmer
attitudes and responses to climate change is needed to assess the ability of communities to meet
their livelihood needs.
In this research, I aim to explore how farmers in Kedougou manage, adapt, and respond
to climate change in their livelihood strategies as well as the impacts of agroforestry on
livelihoods. The major research question explored in this paper is:
-How are farmers actively adapting to the pressures of climate change to create a resilient
agroecological system?
The two specific objectives of the study addressed in the following chapters are:

1. To conduct an analysis of agroforestry systems in the Kedougou region and assess how
adaptive behavior affects management strategies regarding climate change
2. To determine how agroforestry has impacted farmer livelihoods through valuation of on
farm activities

This study is laid out into five sections including the introduction (Chapter 1). Chapter 2
beings with a literature review of consisting of the definition and general principles of
agroforestry followed by various focal points and subjects covered throughout the thesis. In
chapter 3, a model derived from the rural livelihood framework is used to analyze farmer
management strategies and how that relates to climate change. Chapter 4 uses a regression
model to explore and analyze whether or not agroforestry practices have had an impact on

3

the valuation of farm activities. Finally, chapter 5 provides a summary of the results and
lessons learned during the research as well as discussing their implications, limits, and
recommendations for future research.

4

REFERENCES

5

REFERENCES

ANACIM, WFP, & IRI. (2013). Climate risk and food security in Senegal: Analysis of climate
impacts on food security and livelihoods. Retrieved from
https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/fr/system/files/documents/files/Climate risk impacts
on food security and livelihoods in Senegal.pdf
ANSD. (2015). Situation Economique et Sociale Regionale: Kedougou 2013. Kedougou.
Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., & Potts, S. G. (2013). Ecological intensification: harnessing
ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(4), 230–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012
Brookfield, H. (2001). Intensification, and alternative approaches to agricultural change. Asia
Pacific Viewpoint, 42(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8373.00143
Campbell, B. M., Thornton, P., Zougmoré, R., van Asten, P., & Lipper, L. (2014). Sustainable
intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 8, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.002
Chidumayo, E., & Marunda, C. (2010). Dry forests and Woodlands in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Context and Challenges. In E. Chidumayo & D. Gumbo (Eds.), The Dry Forests and
Woodlands of Africa: Managing for Products and Services (pp. 1–10). London: Earthscan.
Diop, M. USAID Kedougou Synergy meeting (2014).
Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, P., …
Godfray, H. C. J. (2013). Sustainable Intensifi cation in Agriculture : Premises and Policies.
Science, 341(6141), 33–34. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234485
Kleemann, J., Baysal, G., Bulley, H. N. N., & Furst, C. (2017). Assessing driving forces of land
use and land cover change by a mixed-method approach in north-eastern Ghana, West
Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 196(1), 411–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.01.053
Petersen, B., & Snapp, S. (2015). What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts. Land
Use Policy, 46, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.002
Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Zaal, F., & Dietz, T. (2005). Reconciling Conservation Goals and
Livelihood Needs : New Forest Management Perspectives in the 21 st Century. In African
Forests Between Nature and Livelihood Resources; Interdisciplinary Studies in
Conservation and Forest Management Edited (pp. 3–29). Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales:
The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd.

6

Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M., & Gichuki, F. (1994). More People, Less Erosion: Environmental
Recovery in Kenya. Kenya: African Centre for Technology Studies. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=a9h&AN=7030082&site=ehost-live
Timberlake, J., Chidumayo, E., & Sawadogo, L. (2010). Distribution and Characterisistisc of
African Dry Forests and Woodlands. In E. Chidumayo & D. Gumbo (Eds.), The Dry
Forests and Woodlands of Africa: managing for Products and Services (pp. 11–42).
London: Earthscan.
WFP. (2014). Analyse Globale de la Vulnerabilite, de la Securite Alimentaire et de la Nutrition.

7

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. DEFINITION OF AGROFORESTRY: PRACTICES AND SYSTEMS
2.1.1. Classification of Agroforestry Systems
Agroforestry systems have been developed in various forms throughout human history in
both temperate and tropical regions. Agroforestry can generally be defined as the purposeful
growing of trees and crops with some form of interaction to provide a combination of products or
commodities with a vast array of ecological or environmental services. Essentially it is the
culmination of perennial trees or shrubs grown on the same parcel of land as agricultural crops or
animals in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence. Several other terms for
similar systems have been used. While the distinction can be considered hazy between
agroforestry and other terms used in the literature such as community forestry, social forestry,
and farm forestry, there is a distinct difference between these terms and agroforestry;
additionally, these terms are used alongside such terms as permaculture, agroecology, and other
integrated farming systems. While the first three directly involved trees, they focus on simply
planting trees whereas agroforestry focuses on the interaction of crops, livestock and trees for
multiple products and services. The latter are simply different types of agricultural systems;
however, it is common for these terms are often used as synonyms or out of context (Nair, 2014).
Traditionally, indigenous forms of agroforestry systems incorporated a form of shifting
cultivation also known as the swidden system which, defined by Raintree and Warner (1986), is
‘the deliberate management of woody fallow vegetation as part of the rest cycle of fallow-based
agricultural production.’ Once the fallow cycle is completed, fields are then cleared usually by
the use of fire. Afterwards, the fields are cultivated for a shorter period of time then again
fallowed (Conklin, 1957); however, due to population and competing uses of land and labor

8

these systems have generally undergone an intensification with a reduced period of fallow which
now are categorized by a more scientific definition of AFS.
AFS throughout tropical Africa come in a wide variety of temporal scales and spatial
forms that are dependent on environmental, climatic, economic, and socio-cultural niches. They
can be as simple as solitary trees scattered throughout a landscape or be more organized in a
specific spatial arrangement (Mbow et al., 2014). Okigbo and Greenland (1974) built off earlier
work of classifications to devise a system of classification for farming systems throughout
tropical Africa; however, this does not separate out monoculture, agroecology, pastoral, or
agroforestry systems. It primarily relied upon fallow period, cropping period, and level of
management.
From 1982 to 1987, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) conducted a global
inventory of indigenous AFS. This information included the system’s structure, function, and
pros and cons. Nair (1987) proposed a classification scheme based on several criteria. This
scheme was then modified by Sinclair (1999) in which the term system is defined by Spedding
(1979) as: ‘a group of interacting components, operating together for a common purpose, capable
of reacting as a whole to external stimuli: it is unaffected directly by its own outputs and has a
specified boundary based on the inclusion of all significant feedbacks.’ The generally accepted
definition found in the agroforestry literature for ‘farming systems’ is ‘a group of farms that are
sufficiently similar to one another to be considered together for the purposes of improvement and
the formulation of extension recommendations’ (Simmonds, 1985). This is used primarily
because it encompasses forest systems along with agricultural systems. The slightly modified
hierarchical framework used in this paper that incorporates parts of both the AFS classification
devised by Nair (1987) and the modified one by Sinclair (1999) is as follows:

9

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

Structure of the system and temporal scale
a. Agrosilviculture (silvopastoral)
i. Trees on Crop Land - 2
ii. Crops on Tree land
1. Plantation tree-crops - 2.i.1, 2.ii.3
2. Plantation Forest/trees (cropping phase or orchard/tree garden) - 2.i
3. Natural Forest/Tree Cover (forest garden, parkland, or cropping phase of
shifting cultivation) – 2.i.2
b. Silvopastoral
i. Trees on Pasture/Rangeland – 2
ii. Pasture on tree land
1. Plantation Tree-crops - 2.i.1/2.ii.3
2. Plantation Forest/trees – 2.i.1/2.ii.3
3. Natural Forests/Tree Cover – 2.i.1/2.ii.3
c. Trees and Animals (not pasture)
i. Trees as Fodder (fodder banks) – 2.ii.5
ii. Trees and bees
iii. Trees and fish
d. Forests/trees and people (sustainable multipurpose utilization)
i. Fallow phase of shifting Cultivation (improved fallow)
ii. Hunting/Collection
e. Trees and perennial agricultural tree crops 2.i.1
Spatial arrangement
a. Arrangement, density diversity
i. Dispersed
1. Regular
2. Irregular
ii. Zoned
1. Boundaries (live fences, boundary planting, windbreaks/timber belts)
2. Contours (terraces, bunds, barrier hedges)
3. Rows (ally cropping, production hedges)
4. Clumped
5. Blocked (fodder banks, farm woodlands)
Location (distance from dwelling)
a. Home garden
b. Permanent field/Forest land/woodlands
Land type (altitude, slope, aspect, access to irrigation, and soil fertility)
Primary function
a. Food, fodder, fuel, or income
b. Protection or service function
Level of management
a. Subsistence to commercial
b. Household consumption to market-oriented

Figure 1: Agroforestry Classification (adapted from: Sinclair 1999)
P.K. Nair (2014) also devised a more simplified or streamlined subgrouping of systems
which are as follows:

10

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

Multistrata Systems
 Homegardens
 Shaded perennials
 Other multistrata agroforests
Tree intercropping
 Alley cropping
 Multipurpose trees on farmlands
Silvopasture (trees in support of crop production)
 Grazing under scattered or planted trees
 Tree-fodder systems (fodder banks)
Protective systems
 Boundary planting, windbreaks, shelterbelts, soil conservation hedges
Agroforestry woodlots
 Blocking planting of preferred tree species for specific purpose such as reclamation of saltaffect lands, eroded lands, acid soils, waterlogged soil, etc.

Figure 2: Agroforestry Classification (adapted from: Nair, 2014)
There is still a lack of consensus among the scientific community on how to classify
agroforestry systems primarily due to the great diversity of management practices, spatial
arrangements, temporal sequences, and ecological functions these systems have, and the variety
of niches they fill depending on the climate, ecology, and culture of the area they are being
cultivated in. Classification of temperate climate AFS are far less diverse and less complex than
systems in the tropics. The five major agroforestry practices in the North America are alley
cropping, forest farming, riparian buffer strips, silvopasture, and windbreaks (Nair, 2014). This
paper will now focus on agroforestry systems and practices that occur throughout the entire
tropics, but with a specific focus on West Africa.

2.1.2. Intercropping
Intercropping, the most widely researched topic in agroforestry, can take many forms,
spatial arrangements, and temporal scales. A common intercropping practice is alley cropping
which was developed by researchers as an alternative to the swidden systems. Alley cropping has
the ability to achieve the same benefits of a natural fallow period in a decreased period of time.

11

Alley cropping is predominantly the planting of arable crops in between woody, fast-growing,
leguminous species that have the ability to withstand repeated cutting to prevent shading of
crops. Along with providing such benefits as nutrient recycling, weed suppression, and erosion
control. The cuttings from the hedgerow can then be used for mulch, green manure, animal
fodder, polewood, and fuelwood (Nair, 2014).
Pairing specific fertilizer trees with crops gives higher crop yields, increased nutrient
cycling, increased soil organic matter, improvement in soil biological properties, and
improvement in soil physical properties, along with carbon sequestration and climate mitigation
(Sileshi et al., 2014).
Intercropping does have a high labor demand primarily associated with pruning which
compounds the effect that if there is insufficient production of mulch or biomass, there is no
added advantage to incorporating this practice concerning production and ecosystem services
(Rao, Nair, & Ong, 1998). While there can be competition between trees and crops, it can be
shown that the added benefits outweigh negatives through the amount of sequestered carbon and
the enhanced stabilization of water-stable aggregates which in turn decreases erosion from water
(Mutuo et al., 2005).
The most common form of intercropping throughout sub-Saharan Africa is known as the
parkland system. This system can be found throughout all semi-arid Sub-Saharan African
making it the predominate system found in West Africa (Boffa, 1999). Parklands are loosely
defined as areas scattered with multipurpose mature trees in a landscape that is actively being
cultivated or recently fallowed (Pullan, 1974). Common trees used in parkland systems are
Faidherbia albida, Parkia biglobosa, and Vitelleria paradoxa. Parkland systems can be
classified by the dominant species in the system. While they are usually dominated by one or two

12

species, parklands have been observed to incorporate up to 40-50 species in turn helping to
conserve genetic diversity. Common understory crops are maize, millet, cassava, sorghum, and
cotton. Following the growing season, animals may also be released in the field to graze leftover
crops and grasses (Boffa, 1999; Nair, 2014).

2.1.3. Taungya
Originally from Myanmar, taungya is considered a forestry system where the first 1-5
years act as an agroforestry system that eventually evolves into a plantation style or silviculture
system. In taungya systems, farmers plant trees in a plantation style arrangement and then plant
crops in between the trees each successive year until the trees eventually shade out the crops all
while pruning the trees to maturity (Agyeman et al., 2003). In such places as Ghana, this system
has been identified as a potential adaptation strategy for climate change that has the ability to
improve food security and livelihoods along with sequestering carbon (Kalame et al., 2011). The
primary purpose of taungya systems is to provide sustenance or income generation from farm
related activities through the use of fruit producing trees or timber species as opposed to other
forms of intercropping that might focus on environmental services (Sinclair, 1999).

2.1.4. Multistrata Systems
Considered a highly efficient land management system and also the most intensive and
multispecies practice, multistrata systems are predominantly used throughout the humid and subhumid tropics. The most common of these systems are homegardens, but multistrata systems can
be considered any multistoried or multitier agroforestry system (Nair, 1987). The ICRAF global
inventory of agroforestry identified several types of traditional land use that can all be considered

13

‘homegardens.’ The size of homegardens are small (<1 ha) with an intimate multistory
combination of trees located close to homesteads with the use of shaded perennials with an over
story of commercial tree crops or timber species managed intensively by family labor. Animals
may or may not be incorporated into the system. These systems can be considered sustainable
due to ecosystem services such as efficient nutrient cycling due their reliance on decomposition
of organic material, lack of machinery used, and ability to sequester high levels of carbon (Nair,
2013). Homegardens incorporate food crops, fruits, and other forms of food. Common products
from homegardens are tubers, leafy vegetables, fruits, vegetable crops, and medicinal plants
(Fernandest & Nair, 1986).

2.1.5. Improved Fallow
Fallow is the resting of land from cropping often using natural vegetation to improve soil
fertility and the use of animals to graze the land. Improved fallow is the deliberate use of fast
growing trees to increase soil fertility rapidly. Improved fallow is conducted for a shorter period
of time (2-3 years) and may contain woody species that have economic or forestry products
(Nair, 2014). Studies have shown replenishment of soil fertility throughout numerous subSaharan countries using leguminous, fast-growing tree species; however, there have been very
low adoption rates of this practice (Kaya, Hildebrand, & Nair, 2000). Improved fallows have
good potential for ecological and economic benefits especially if trees species that produce such
things as wood, gums, fruits, or fodder are used during the improved fallow (Boffa, 1999).
Improved fallow can also be paired with grazing systems where fertilizer trees may be
used in the fallow cycle to improve soil properties, increase grass production for grazing, and

14

provide leaf fodder for animals to eat (Sileshi et al., 2014). The use of fodder trees in improved
fallow system has also shown to improve livestock productivity (Franzel et al., 2014).

2.1.6. Protective Agroforestry Systems
This practice uses trees or shrubs for their ecosystem-protection benefit. These include
windbreaks, timber belts, shelter belts, soil conservation hedges, riparian buffers, and hedgerows.
These systems, managed as part of a crop or livestock operation, are used to protect crops, trees,
plant species, and animal species that are wind sensitive. Shelter belts and riparian buffers are
used to prevent runoff, decrease non-point source pollution, stabilize stream banks, and provide a
harvestable product. These systems are also used to prevent soil erosion of fields (Nair, 2013).
Stigter et al. (2002) analyzed 5 case studies from sub-Saharan Africa showing that shelter
belts can greatly reduce soil degradation and desertification from wind erosion while protecting
crops or trees inside the shelterbelt. The use of protective AFS is a financially accessible way for
farmers to protect their crops and livelihoods and as a coping mechanism for climate variations
(Lin, 2007).

2.1.7. Silvopasture
Silvopastoral systems incorporate trees and shrubs with livestock. There are two primary
versions of silvopasture where animals are allowed to graze in open pastures or where fodder is
grown in tree-fodder systems, and then brought to the animals. Intensive open grazing of free
roaming animals is common throughout the sub-Saharan Africa especially in parkland systems.
The use of silvopasture systems also provides desirable ecosystem services such as climate

15

change mitigation, soil conservation, improved water quality, and providing shade for cattle
(Nair, 2013).
Silvopastoral systems can be combined with many other AFS such as improved fallow,
protective AFS, and intercropping to create a system that leads to increased livelihoods by
increasing livestock productivity along with the added benefits of improved fallow, protective
AFS, and intercropping (Franzel et al., 2014).

2.1.8. Tree Woodlots and Specialty Crops
These terms can denote any “non-conventional” land-use system; however, they are most
commonly used to describe woodlots, boundary planting production for firewood, timber, poles,
and fence posts, and the use of trees to reclaim degraded lands. This can also be used to describe
the implementation of “fallow regeneration” which is used throughout various parts of subSaharan Africa (Nair, 2013).
Woodlots can be an independent system, but they can also be paired with other AFS such
as intercropping, silvopasture, protective AFS, and improved fallow to create multiple synergies
between all of the systems (Franzel et al., 2014). These systems can be integral to livelihood
strategies for rural populations with regards to energy production (Kristoferson & Bokalders,
1986).

2.1.9. Predominant Agroforestry Systems in West Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa can be broken up into a few different types of ecological regions.
The two most predominant systems in West Africa are the semi-arid climatic zone known as the
Sahelo-Sudanian climatic zone and the sub-humid to semi-arid ecological zone known as the

16

Sudano-Guinean climatic zone (Kaufmann et al., 1985). Agroforestry systems in specific
climatic zones tend to tailor towards the needs of the local populace; for example, trees being
cultivated for fuelwood tend to be more common place in areas that have a lower density of
trees. In the Sudano-Guinean climatic zone, the most common AFS are improved fallows in
shifting cultivation, improvement to taungya, alley cropping, multilayered tree gardens,
homegardens, woodlots, and multipurpose trees on crop lands (Nair, 1989). Additionally,
combining livestock with trees is common in traditional and introduced agroforestry practices to
intensify systems (Gambiza et al., 2010). Regardless, the use of trees, crops, and animals in
agricultural systems can be seen as integral to livelihoods across various scales (Marunda &
Bouda, 2010).
However, the predominant system used throughout West Africa is the agroforestry
parkland system which is a variation on shifting cultivation (Boffa, 1999). In parkland systems,
fallow lands and plots are used for livestock grazing and fuel wood production, incorporating
silvopastoral systems and woodlots (Ohler, 1985). During the rainy season many farmers will
graze their herds at a communal location away from fields being cultivated in fallow areas, and
animals will then feed on crop residue and animal fodder from trees during the dry season
(Houerou, 1989).

2.1.10. Parkland Systems
The dominant system across sub-humid West Africa, parkland systems, are landscapes in
which mature trees occur scattered across cultivated or recently fallowed plots of land (Pullan,
1974). Nair (1987) classifies these systems in the general category of ‘multipurpose trees on

17

farmlands’. The production of livestock in these systems can be a major or secondary
component, but the term ‘parkland’ can be interpreted widely (Boffa, 1999).
Parklands are heavily changed by anthropogenic selection where up to 75% of the trees
can be cut down for annual crop cultivation. There is a definite bias towards comestible trees
where as much as 50% of the trees can be one comestible species (Maranz, 2009). Parklands
have always played an integral role to society throughout West Africa. Evidence has been found
that parklands have been practiced for at least 1000 years and up to 3000 years (Ballouche &
Neumann, 1995). There is a large diversity to how parklands are managed including various
gendered and cultural contexts (Elias, 2015). A primary management component of parklands is
natural regeneration of woody species through fallow or planting of seedlings which changes the
composition and distribution of plant species (Gijsbers et al., 1994; Larwanou & Saadou, 2011).

Figure 3: Climatic zones of West Africa (Source: Jahnke, 1982)
2.2. FOCAL POINTS FOR THIS STUDY
Agroforestry, as a land management system, can be viewed as one piece of the puzzle to
combatting climate change through the multiple synergies that it creates such as increasing food
18

security, increasing ecosystem services, and mitigating climate change. These things are
accomplished through management and livelihood strategies which are affected by multiple
factors. The type of system being managed as well as factors that affect management all interplay
with how AFS impacts food security, ecosystem services, and climate change mitigation. The
following sections will touch on various topics that agroforestry impacts that has relevance to
this study.

2.2.1. Role of Agroforestry in Land Management
Agroforestry is recognized as a sustainable land management practice that has the ability
to increase and sustain agricultural production in land that has not been benefitted by the Green
Revolution (Campbell et al., 2014; Ofori et al., 2014). AFS play an important role in creating a
globalized food network that integrates significant co-benefits to populations, ecosystems, and
biodiversity. While contributing to basic needs, AFS also contribute to ecosystem services which
in turn contribute to many development goals on a national or local level (Pachauri, 2012;
Steiner, 2012). The following section will discuss many of the ecosystem services that AFS
provide.

2.2.2. Ecosystem Services
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has broadly defined ecosystems services as the
benefits humans obtain from ecosystems. They are then grouped into four categories:
provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural services (Arico et al.,
2005).

19

Provisioning services are defined as food, fuel wood, fiber, biochemical, and genetic
resources received from a system. There are varying results between production of cereal crops
and trees which is predominantly due to the competition between the trees and cereals. More
shade tolerant crops such as legumes and tubers show greater potential for intercropping with
trees. Increased tree management such as pruning can improve cereal yields along with
rejuvenating older fruit trees (Bayala et al., 2014; Ræbild, 2012; Sanou et al., 2012). AFS
possess the potential to increase the quantity as well as quality of fodder being consumed by
livestock during the dry season (Hansen et al., 2008). AFS promote genetic diversity thus by
increasing agriculture system resilience through the use of undomesticated trees and the
introduction of exotic trees (Dawson et al., 2014; Boffa, 1999). Another way AFS provide
provisioning services is through fuel wood or wood for construction (Franzel et al., 2014; Ohler,
1985) and through other forest products such as medicine, secondary forest products such as shea
butter, and other secondary income generation (Faye, et al., 2010; Gakou, Force, & McLaughlin,
1994).
Regulating services are defined as climate, disease, and water regulation, as well as water
purification. Trees have the ability to create microclimates for crops being grown around them
by reducing average daily temperatures along with increasing the minimum air humidity and soil
moisture (Lin, 2007, 2010; Lott et al., 2009; Ong et al., 2000). Infiltration of rainfall is also
increased along with reduced soil temperature and lower rates of soil evaporation (Bayala et al.,
2008; Samba et al., 2001). Another mechanism in which trees impact soil water dynamics is
through hydraulic lift. Hydraulic lift is a process that redistributes water to the top soil making it
more available for plants and preventing the top soil from drying out. Especially in sub-Saharan
Africa, hydraulic lift plays a critical role in drought tolerance and soil moisture content (Bayala

20

et al., 2008; Ong et al., 2014; Ong et al., 2002). Trees have the ability to capture nutrients that
have leached below agronomic crops and would normally leach into bodies of water by recycling
them through plant matter, keeping them stored in the plant-soil systems (Nair, 2013).
Supporting services are defined as soil formation, nutrient cycling, primary production,
and provision of habitat. AFS build up soil fertility over time along with improving physical,
biological, and chemical fertility characteristics of soil (Boffa, 1999; Chen et al., 2017; Zhang et
al., 2007). AFS provide nitrogen fixation, enhanced nutrient cycling, and the capturing of deep
nutrients as some added advantages to improve soil quality (Nair, 2014). Agroforestry species
are also used as “fertilizer trees” if they are able to fixate nitrogen in soils. It once was generally
assumed that nitrogen fixing trees increased crop yields; however, it is very difficult to quantify
and to understand the actual benefits of such trees. Regardless, various woody species across
West Africa have been shown to affect soil organic matter, pH, and available nutrients in soil
(Bayala et al., 2005; Bernatchez et al., 2008). Perhaps more importantly, trees greatly increase
the amount of biomass decomposition that occurs, improve soil through soil conservation by
reducing erosions, and contribute significantly to higher soil microbiological activity. Another
added benefit that trees provide is the increased amount of carbon in soil and an increase in
stable carbon in deeper soil profiles (Deans et al., 1999; Lufafa et al., 2008; Nair, 2013).
Cultural services are nonmaterial services that are defined as recreational benefits such as
ecotourism, aesthetics, inspiration, and education as well as religion, sense of place, and cultural
heritage. These types of services are hard to quantify and value, and they are often intangible;
however, they play an important role in smallholder livelihoods nonetheless. These services are
often tightly bound with societal norms, human values, and communities (Arico et al., 2005). A
community’s interactions with a landscape are driven in part by local perceptions and the

21

dynamic interplay between productions and outcomes, creating a situation where trade-offs
between various ecosystems services and how communities interact with them are necessary for
assessing management goals and outcomes (Bennett, Peterson, & Gordon, 2009).
Sinare & Gordon (2015) conducted a review of ecosystem services for woody vegetation
across West Africa, showing that there are multiple direct benefits to incomes and livelihoods
with either positive or neutral indirect benefits to regulating services; however, they pointed out
that these studies primarily show benefits at the individual tree or shrub scale. the relationships
between various ecosystem services need to be taken into account to better understand the
complexities of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being (Bennett et al., 2015).

2.2.3. Food Security
Food security is a major issue facing many communities throughout the world. Due to
rising food prices, population growth, volatility in production, degradation of natural resources,
urban migration, and economic and political instability, food insecurity is an ever growing
problem (Beddington et al., 2012). All of these factors create an ever increasing demand to
produce more food per parcel of land or to intensify production; however, a trajectory that leads
to a path of environmentally sustainable agricultural intensification is needed to meet the global
food demand (Tilman et al., 2011). Agroforestry is often considered as a way to sustainably
intensify a system with the use of low external inputs and cost effective management strategies
to increase food security. It can be shown that food security and environmental services are
driving factors for adopting intensified AFS (Mbow et al., 2014).
Sustainable intensification is a concept where increased yields, better nutrition, and
increased net incomes are produced from pre-existing agriculture land while decreasing the need

22

of external inputs such as chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, along with the
additional benefits of climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and mitigation of other negative environmental impacts (Garnett et
al., 2013; Lal et al., 2015). While other factors play into intensification, ecological
intensification, which utilizes agricultural processes to intensify a system, is one pathway to
increase food security. Agricultural practices such as agroforestry, integrated pest management,
and conservation agriculture are just some of the pathways to intensification (The Montpellier
Panel, 2013).
Incorporating trees into a system with low tree cover has been identified as a strategy to
increase food production without increasing deforestation (Belem et al., 2011; Yin & Hyde,
2000) as well as contributing direct ecosystem service benefits and income to livelihoods (Sinare
& Gordon, 2015a). Additionally, there are the added effects of enhanced soil fertility which can
increase crop production. AFS directly affect livelihoods through such products as fuel wood,
timber, fruits, and fodder. While some of these do not directly provide nutritional value, they
have the ability to provide other services important for livelihoods (Bucagu et al., 2013). By
diversifying marketable products, AFS are able to decrease food insecurity during times of
extreme climate due to increased income from other sources (Faye et al., 2010; Petit, 2003;
Ræbild, 2012; Thorlakson & Neufeldt, 2012).
Tree fruit and other edible products from AFS can be an important source of nutrients
and vitamins with the added effect of providing sources of food during parts of the year food
may be increasingly scarce as well as during periods of drought (Bayala et al., 2014). AFS can be
valuable to particularly vulnerable groups by providing lipids, proteins, and micronutrients to
help diversify and enhance diets as products become available throughout the year (Boffa, 1999)

23

2.2.4. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
Studies have shown that AFS have the ability to store more carbon in soil compared to
treeless systems (Nair, 2013; Nair et al., 2009; Pandey, 2002). While there is not a consensus to
just how much agroforestry systems can sequester carbon, especially with the use of wood
products from agroforestry systems, there is consensus that AFS do sequester more carbon than
conventional land management practices. With a wide variety of systems being used through the
tropics and sub-humid tropics, more research is required to quantify how much carbon AFS can
sequester along with the role smallholder farmers play in climate mitigation (Mutuo et al., 2005).
AFS systems have been shown to sequester more carbon than cropping/pasture systems in the
humid tropics along with reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from soils, but
this is greatly dependent on fallow length and tillage methods (Mutuo et al., 2005; Luedeling et
al., 2011).
While AFS do have the ability to sequester carbon, systems such as the parkland system
are not likely to be used in carbon sequestration projects unless the tree density is increased.
Parkland systems do store significant amounts of carbon, but they do not meet the Kyoto
Protocol definition of carbon sequestered as a result of newly implemented mitigation projects.
While parkland systems do possess some potential, agroforestry practices such as live fencing or
fodder banks possess a considerately greater potential for sequestering carbon (Dayamba et al.,
2016; Nair et al., 2009; Takimoto et al., 2008; Tschakert et al., 2004).
Perhaps more relevant the carbon sequestration, AFS as a land use system possess a
strong ability to meet mutual benefits between climate change adaptation, mitigation, and
ecological conservation by efficiently using limited resources (Matocha et al., 2012) and
increasing ecosystem resiliency (Lal et al., 2015). AFS efficiently use nutrients creating a more

24

closed loop system that mitigates environmental disturbances. For example, AFS conserve soil
and rainwater to be utilized more efficiently to increase productivity (Amuri, 2015). This
increased in soil conservation and nutrient dynamics increases soil fertility which counter acts
such things as droughts or soil acidity which may be exacerbated by climate change (Lungu,
2015).
Additionally, policy can be created to increase the adaptive capacity and resilience of
AFS to mitigate climate change while meeting mutual benefits (Verchot et al., 2007). Climate
change poses a threat to crop yields throughout Sudano-Guinean ecological zone making an
already vulnerable population even more vulnerable, but the coupling of traditional agricultural
techniques and agroforestry technologies has been shown to reduce the effects of climate change
on crop yields along with increased carbon storage and a variety of increased environmental
services (Bayala et al., 2014; Faye et al., 2010; Mbow et al., 2014).

2.2.5 Effects of Climate on Agroforestry Systems in West Africa
The vast majority of agriculture systems throughout Sub-Saharan Africa are dependent
upon rainfall. Barrios et al. (2008) shows a direct link between increasing temperatures and
decreasing precipitation to production shortages since the 1970s; however, the IPCC projects a
temperature increase ranging from +1.8 °C to +4.7 °C in West Africa along with precipitation
ranges varying from -9 % to +13 % (UNEP, 2007). As temperatures rise in both the SudanoSahelian and Guinean ecological zones, cereal grain yields will decrease; although, predictions
of the severity are hard to quantify. Changes in rainfall will either aggravate or mitigate negative
impacts of changing temperature (Roudier et al., 2011). Additionally, it has been shown in

25

Senegal that there is a strong correlation between rainfall and crop yields of the main crops of
rice, maize, groundnut, sorghum, and millet (ANACIM, 2013).
Current losses of tree species throughout the Sudano-Sahelian and Guinean ecological
zones can be attributed to a decline in rainfall (Maranz, 2009) where a decline in rainfall has a
strong negative effect on crop yields (Lobell et al., 2011; Lobell & Field, 2007; Sultan et al.,
2013). Gonzalez et al. (2012) states that human populations are a cause of tree loss throughout
the Sudano-Sahelian and Guinean ecological zones too. However, it can be assumed that
precipitation and temperature along with human disturbances directly lead to a decline of tree
density throughout landscapes. This negative effect is compounded when broadened to a food
security perspective in a local and global market context (Knox et al., 2012; Schlenker & Lobell,
2010).

2.2.6. Key Factors and Drivers for Choosing Agroforestry Systems
As part of a decentralized natural resources management plan, household decision
making with regards to livelihood is key to how these natural resources are managed. Farmers
throughout sub-Saharan Africa have always had to develop their livelihood strategies around
great uncertainty, erratic climate, and changing policies at the local, national, or global level
(Mertz et al., 2009). While climate certainly plays a role in influencing livelihood strategies,
there are many other factors that influence coping and adaption strategies, even more so with
poorer and more vulnerable communities (Elmqvist & Olsson, 2006).
Factors can be grouped into three main categories of socioeconomic, environmental, and
mental processes that are all influenced by such things as an individual’s needs, knowledge set,
and own perceptions and biases (Thangata & Alavalapati, 2003). This study sets out to primarily

26

explore how various factors, especially climate, affect systems and land use change over time.
The result of this change can be grouped into the three main categories of intensification,
extensification, and diversification with each response being a product of constraint and
incentives where households attempt to meet food and livelihood security objectives (Vosti &
Reardon, 1997)
There are many examples throughout the literature that show farmers weighing different
factors into what they decide to grow, where they decide to grow, and what specific species they
decide to grow. They must use a mixture of indigenous knowledge, predetermined biases, and
newer knowledge to decide which factors are most important to them. Local knowledge and
decision-making can be very important for the future because research organizations and
development organizations need to take into account the knowledge farmers already possess to
maximize strategies and goals (Mccorkle, 1989). Factors can be categorized into two different
temporal categories of event driven factors and more static factors where something such as an
extreme event or decline in rainfall would be event driven, and population pressure on resources
would be a static factor. It should also be taken into account that there will not be any one factor
that solely drives responses or changes in land-use systems along with the fact that some factors
will also be random (Reenberg, 2001).
It is difficult to satisfactorily choose an optimal management strategy to fulfill a specific
measurable objective such as maximum yield or maximum income simply as a consequence of
population size and need for food, but if specific priorities are looked at such as field size, soil
type, and the divisions of inputs as more specific factors, broader insights and analyses of
management strategies can be identified based on different objectives and rationalities for land
use decisions (Reenberg & Paarup-laursen, 1997).

27

Farmers may use various factors such as biophysical, economic, climate, and risk in the
management of agriculture systems. It is well documented that farmers use various soil
indicators to choose cropping decisions as well as time scales (Assé & Lassoie, 2011; Badini &
Dioni, 2004; Benjaminsen et al., 2010; Dawoe et al., 2012; Lal, 2013; Reenberg & Paaruplaursen, 1997; Rushemuka et al., 2014; Thangata & Hildebrand, 2012). Economic factors and
risk also play a role when farmers decide on livelihood strategies and diversification of
production (Caveness & Kurtz, 1993; Ghadim et al., 2005; Ghadim & Pannell, 1999; Marra et
al., 2003; Orlove et al., 2010). Additionally, national agriculture policy has been shown to affect
management strategies (Mortimore et al., 2005) as well as gender dynamics within a community
(Gakou et al., 1994; Nyanga, 2012; Kiptot et al., 2014; Villamor et al., 2014). Lastly, climate in
both the short and long term affects farmers decision-making for management strategies (Below
et al., 2010; Elmqvist & Olsson, 2006; Lacy et al., 2006; Menapace et al., 2015; Nyong et al.,
2007; Roncoli, 2006). Adversely, there is also strong evidence that climate change plays a small
role in decision-making and that farmers are responding to more localized weather events
(Mertz, 2009; Mertz et al., 2010). All of these drivers show that a multitude of experiences,
cultural practices, and knowledge sets go into a complex process on deciding livelihood
strategies and adaptability.
Farmers throughout sub-Saharan Africa have been coping and adapting to various
climatic conditions for centuries. Chuku and Okoye (2009) note four available options for
farmers to adapt: (i) income/asset management, (ii) government programs and insurance, (iii)
farm production and practices, and (iv) technological developments. Farm level implementation
of adaptation strategies have been researched, but it is difficult to separate the underlying drivers
to these changes. Mertz et al. (2010) suggest that farmers respond more to a decline in yields as

28

opposed to climate change, although those yield declines can be attributed to climate change.
However, on farm activities such as agroforestry can be viewed as a primary way to adapt to
climate change with added ecological co-benefits (Lasco et al., 2014; Mbow et al., 2014). Other
common adaptation practices can be diversification of crops and crop varieties, changing times
of planting and sowing, irrigation, extensification, and off farm income activities (Tambo &
Abdoulaye, 2013). Weather forecasting, increasing training and extension services, and utilizing
climate smart policy are seen as viable options to help farmers adapt to climate change (Juana et
al., 2013; Mertz et al., 2011).
Coping mechanisms are another pathway to mitigating the impacts of climate change.
Households have shown a large capacity to adapt to long term and short term climate variability
(Goldman & Riosmena, 2013; Mortimore & Harris, 2005; Mortimore & Adams, 2001; Panda et
al., 2013). Within agricultural systems, adaptation to agricultural practices and income
diversification are a primary way households mitigate risk. A mixture of various on farm and off
farm activities allows households to earn various income streams and food producing activities.
Additionally, migration of younger household members, dry season income generating activities,
and remittances are all examples of other coping mechanisms (Griep, 2005).
There are a wide variety of factors or drivers that drive land use change throughout
Senegal and sub-Saharan Africa. Farmers take into account socio-economic, cultural,
environmental, and political drivers into their decision-making. Trying to disaggregate primary
drivers from underlying drivers is difficult if not nearly impossible, and it could be argued that
all of these factors are driven by farmers’ perceptions and biases toward these main categories of
drivers. By better understanding the relevant and viable decisions by farmers, policy and
institutional support can be increased to optimize agricultural systems (Hansen, 2002).

29

2.2.7. Rural Livelihood Framework
Decisions across spatial and temporal scales such as short-term and long-term household
decisions more or less culminate into a larger framework that farmers use to manage agricultural
systems. Research in this field has led to the development of the rural livelihood strategy
framework (Berkes et al., 2003a, 2003b; Berkes & Folke, 1998; Scoones, 1998). This framework
links socio-ecological concepts such as ecosystems, people and technology, local knowledge,
property rights, interactions, and outcomes. A framework like this is important for assessing
livelihood strategies in a specific context such as policy, historical, agroecological, or socioeconomic settings (Scoones, 1998) providing a practical application to study the processes in
which people achieve (or fail to achieve) sustainable livelihoods and creating a more exhaustive
analysis of factors affecting populations in an international development context.
The social and ecological components of a system are both self-organizing and adaptive
which essentially leads to the idea of adaptive management which parallels the accumulation of
knowledge over generations in indigenous knowledge systems emphasizing flexibility (Holling,
Berkes, & Folke, 1998). Both of these resource management types link to the idea of resiliency
defined as: ‘the ability of a system to maintain its structure and patterns of behavior in the face
of disturbance.’ (Holling, 1973). This definition has evolved and has been expanded to socialecological systems where resilience within adaptive management is needed for sustainable
development (Walker et al., 2004).

2.3. GEOGRAPHY OF THE STUDY AREA: KEDOUGOU, SENEGAL
Senegal is a country of about 14 million people located on the Atlantic coast of the West
Africa with the geographic coordinates of 14.00 N and 14.00 W. There are 11 regions in Senegal

30

with Kedougou being the most southeastern region of Senegal bordering the countries of Mali
and Guinea. Kedougou has 3 departments, 6 arrondissements, and 19 communes. The region in
primarily of Pulaar and Malinke ethnicities with a large amount of smaller ethnic groups such as
Bassari, Bedik, Jakhanke, Jalounke, and Tende. The majority of the population are subsistence
agriculturists.

Figure 4: The Region of Kedougou in Senegal

2.3.1. Climate
Kedougou is in the Sudano-Guinean climatic zone which is a sub-humid climate with
tropical characteristics such as having distinct rainy and dry seasons with the rainy season
occurring from June to October, and the dry season occurring from November to May
(Dansokho et al., 2012). Kedougou receives approximately 1200 mm of rain per year (ANACIM
et al., 2013).
Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for Senegal are 16.89 Mt CO2, but approximately
10.59 Mt CO2 is being sequestered by the forestry sector. The energy sector is approximately 49
percent of the total GHG emissions with a 0.4 metric tons per capita of CO2 emission in 2009.
31

Agriculture makes up 37 percent of GHGs while waste and industrial process making up the
remaining 14 percent of GHGs (UNEP, 2015).

2.3.2. Agroecological and Forestry Data
Kedougou is primarily classified as a Sudanese deciduous wooded savanna with more
than 150 woody species having been identified. The landscape is not dominated by one specific
species; however, frequent bush fires occur throughout the year (CSE, 2009; Giffard, 1974).
While savannas are the predominant vegetation formations, several others do occur primarily as
a function of geomorphology, soils, rainfall, fire, and grazing and shifting cultivation to a much
lesser degree. To a lesser degree gallery forests occur throughout the landscape (CSE, 2011).
Additionally, unique formations known as a grassy bowal are common through the region. A
bowal is an outcrop of impermeable laterite clay that resists root growth or penetration ultimately
creating a grassy meadow devoid of woody species (Stewart, 1987). Trends in land use change
have remained relatively unchanged for the greater part of the last century with about 98 % in
2000 of the region still being covered by diverse natural vegetation types, with the exception
coming from areas of fast growing mineral extraction and gallery forests being converted to
agriculture lands (Tappan et al., 2004).
Over the past few decades, Kedougou has seen a marginal increase in wooded savannas
with a marginal decline of gallery forests primarily due to human activities (Woomer et al.,
2004). Over 90 % of the landscape has remained unchanged from 1986 to 2010 The greatest
change in the landscape is primarily due to the exploration of mineral resources and the
extraction of these minerals (Dansokho et al., 2012). The structure and diversity of native plant
communities are driven primarily by precipitation, temperature, soil type, micro-topography, and

32

fire disturbances (Abdoulaye & Fujiwara, 2007). It is common for villages to have a ‘sacred
forest’ for socio-cultural reasons. These parcels of land remain relatively untouched, and they are
areas that predominantly have higher biodiversity and density of tree species than surrounding
areas (Dansokho et al., 2012).
Kedougou is home to Senegal’s largest national park, the Niokolo-Koba National Park,
which has 913,000 hectares of protected land with over 1,500 plants species, 80 mammal
species, and 300 species of birds (Dupuy, 1971; Madsen et al., 1996). The park contains a
majority of Senegal’s gallery forests making it very important to sequestered carbon and the fight
against desertification.
The majority of agricultural systems in Senegal are small holdings with a very low degree
of mechanization, poor infrastructure, and high dependence on rain-fed crops (CSE, 2009; Diop,
2014). Overall there is a very low productivity in the agricultural sector coupled with high
unemployment and poverty creating challenges. More recently, the government has undergone
reforms in agriculture focusing on the promotion of crop diversification, agroforestry, soil
restoration, and finance (MEDD, 2014). Forestry totaled 26.7 billion West African ‘Communauté
Financiére d’Afrique’ Franc (CFAF) in 2010 along with providing energy for 84 percent of
households and increasing food security through fruits, leaves, roots, and game (UNEP, 2015).
The 2016 exchange rate for CFA to USD was 593.01 francs to a dollar according to the BCEAO.

2.3.3. Socio-Economic Demographics and Indicators
As of 2013, Kedougou has a population of 151,000 with the growth rate increasing
rapidly from 0.9 % between 1976-1988 to 3.5 % between 2002-2013 with 42 % of the population
being 15 years old or younger. 25 % of the population lives in an urban environment

33

predominantly located in the regional capital Kedougou. The region has a food insecure rate
which indicates if a household experiences food insecure periods throughout the year of 33 %.
Additionally, 79 % of households are living in a rural setting. The majority of the population is
in the agricultural sector where rain fed subsistence agriculture is the primary livelihood strategy.
Wood makes up 84.8 % of household energy consumption and charcoal is 11.6 % (ANSD, 2015;
Diop, 2014).
89 % of households are considered very poor or poor by the WFP wealth index which
measures wealth based on ownership of non-productive assets. Maize is the largest product crop
from Kedougou; however, groundnuts and rice by a majority of households followed by sorghum
and millet. Rice is the main staple consumed (80 % of households nationwide) where rice must
be purchased to meet demand. Millet is another crop that is produced elsewhere but consumed in
Kedougou (ANACIM et al., 2013). The 2016 Gross National Income (GNI) per capita was $950
USD where Kedougou is dominated by an informal economic sector.

2.3.4. Biophysical Indicators
The majority of soil classified in Kedougou is classified as a haplic lixisol. Soils in this
area are predominately low fertility, high in aluminum and phosphates, and are very prone to
erosion due to heavy rainfall especially after clearing of trees (Stancioff et al., 2013). Lixisols are
soils that are leached acidic soils with a clay-enriched subsoil. Soils in this area are dominated by
kaolinitic clay mineralogy with exceptions for areas dominated by montmorillonite mineralogy.
The soil is red in color due to accumulation of iron oxides in the soil. A major constraint to soil
conservation in Kedougou is seasonal flooding and erosion (Jones et al., 2013). All of these soils
are found on top of lateritic and Precambrian bedrock (Tappan et al., 2004).

34

Soils in Kedougou are approximately made up on 10-30 % silt, 20-45 % clay, 10-45 %
sand, and 10-40 % gravel content depending on where they are in Kedougou. The soils have a
very low CaCO3 content, and they are considered very acidic to acid soil. The cation exchange
capacity is 4-20 cmol/kg, and a base saturation of < 20-50 % depending on terrain. The soils are
either imperfectly to moderately well drained and have > 150 mm water storage capacity (Jones
et al., 2013). These parameters were determined using the World Reference Base for Soil
Resources adopted by the International Union of Soil Science in 1998, which created revisions
on the United States Department of Agriculture soil taxonomy classification scheme. According
to the United States Department of Agriculture’s system for classification, Kedougou is
dominated by alluvial or hydromorphic vertisols and lithosols (CSE, 2009)

2.3.5. Agroforestry Systems in Kedougou, Senegal
Kedougou is dominated by Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral systems that are predominantly
classified as agroforestry parkland systems characterized by farmers growing crops on tree lands
with a few exceptions of trees being grown on cropland. Farmers conduct a form of shifting
cultivation where they will abandon a parcel of land once yields decrease and let it lay fallow for
a period of time using the fallowed land as pasture land. Farmers in Kedougou are predominately
subsistence agriculturist where most products from the systems are consumed or utilized at the
household level; however, surpluses of cereal, grains, and fruits are sold in markets along with
some farmers partaking in the production of charcoal, foraged fruits for market, production of
bamboo fencing, and fire wood. Most farmers compliment on farm activities with dry season off
farm activities to increase incomes. Agricultural is predominantly done by animal-drawn ploughs
and by hand with very little inputs with a few exceptions of mechanization on a relatively

35

minimal scale. Chemical inputs are used if a farmer has enough extra financial resources to
purchase.
In addition to commercial products, endemic or naturalized fruit trees remain very
important to the diets and economies of the local populace along with providing other forest or
wood products and medicine or cultural services. Many of these species have been underutilized
with regards to commercial value and represent an economic niche that agroforestry systems can
help fill (Diedhiou, 2004). A brief list of common species found in Kedougou agroforestry
systems are listed in Table 1 below. Additionally, common forestry products, including fuel
wood, timber, biochar, and le crinting (bamboo fencing), are produced by AFS. Table 2 shows a
list of significant species for forest products such as timber, fuel, and residual products. The
importance of various shrubs and grasses for the co-benefit of ecosystem services has also been
observed. Vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) is widely used in riparian buffer zones and to
help control erosion (Dansokho et al., 2012).

36

Table 1: Scientific names of important endemic or naturalized fruit trees (source: adapted from
Diedhiou, 2004)
Scientific Name
Detarium senegalense
Ficus spp.
Borassus aethiopum
Adansonia digitate
Saba senegalensis
Parkia biglobosa
Vitellaria paradoxa
Cordyla pinnata
Cola cordifolia
Cola netifolii
Ziziphus mauritiana
Anacardium occidentale
Lannea spp.

Common Name
Detax
Fig
Palm
Baobab
Madd
Nere
Shea, Karite
dimb, nbimba, dimbe, dimbur
Cola Nut, ntaba
Cola Nut
Jujube
Cashew

Table 2: Common trees used for forestry products (Dansokho et al., 2012)
Scientific Name
Acacia spp.
Prosopis spp.
Bombax costatum
Hymenocardia acida
Borassus akeassii/aethiopum
Combretum spp
Arundinaria alpine;
Oxytenanthera abyssinica

Common Name
Mesquite
Garabou, laobe, kuyokuyo
Palmyra palm
Bamboo

Table 3: List of common cereal grains and crops grown in agroforestry systems (Dansokho et
al., 2012)
Scientific Name
Sorghum bicolor
Zea mays
Pennisetum glaucum
Oryza glaberrima
Manihot esculenta
Solanum tuberosum
Disoscorea spp.
Digitaria exilis
Cucurbita spp

37

Common Name
Sorghum
Maize
Millet
Rice
Manioc
Potatoes
Yams
Fonio
Squash

REFERENCES

38

REFERENCES

Abdoulaye, D., & Fujiwara, K. (2007). Vegetation structure , diversity and site conditions in the
south of the Diambour Forest Reserve, southeastern Senegal. Tropics, 17(1), 25–42.
Agyeman, V. K., Marfo, K. A., Kasanga, K. R., Danso, E., Asare, A. B., Yeboah, O. M., &
Agyeman, F. (2003). Revising the taungya plantation system: new revenue-sharing
proposals from Ghana (Vol. 54). Rome, Italy.
Amuri, N. A. (2015). Enhancing Resilience of Food Production Systems Under Changing
Climate and Soil Degradation in Semi-arid and Highlands of Tanzania. In R. Lal, B. R.
Singh, D. L. Mwaseba, D. Kraybill, D. O. Hansen, & lars O. Eik (Eds.), Sustainable
Intensification to Advance Food Security and Enhance Climate Resilience in Africa. New
York: Spring International Publishing.
ANACIM, WFP, & IRI. (2013). Climate risk and food security in Senegal: Analysis of climate
impacts on food security and livelihoods. Retrieved from
https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/fr/system/files/documents/files/Climate risk impacts
on food security and livelihoods in Senegal.pdf
ANSD. (2015). Situation Economique et Sociale Regionale: Kedougou 2013. Kedougou.
Arico, S., Bridgewater, P., El-beltagy, A., Harms, E., Program, S., Hepworth, R., … Watson, R.
T. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington D.C.
Assé, R., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Household decision-making in agroforestry parklands of
Sudano-Sahelian Mali. Agroforestry Systems, 82(3), 247–261.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9395-2
Badini, O., & Dioni, L. (2004). Landscape and Soil Characterisitcs of Madiama Commune. In K.
Moore (Ed.), Conflict, Social Capital and Managing Natural Resources: A West African
Case Study. Cambridge MA: CABI Publishing.
Ballouche, A., & Neumann, K. (1995). A new contribution to the Holocene vegetation history of
the West African Sahel: Pollen from Oursi, Burkina Faso and charcoal from three sites in
northeast Nigeria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 4, 31–39.
Barrios, S., Ouattara, B., & Strobl, E. (2008). The impact of climatic change on agricultural
production: Is it different for Africa? Food Policy, 33, 287–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.01.003
Bayala, J., Kheng Heng, L., Noordwijk, M. Van, & Jean Ouedraogo, S. (2008). Hydraulic
redistribution study in two native tree species of agroforestry parklands of West African dry
savanna. Acta Oecologica, 34, 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2008.06.010
39

Bayala, J., Mando, A., Teklehaimanot, Z., & Ouedraogo, S. J. (2005). Nutrient release from
decomposing leaf mulches of karite (Vitellaria paradoxa) and nere (Parkia biglobosa) under
semi-arid conditions in Burkina Faso , West Africa. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 37, 533–
539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.015
Bayala, J., Ouedraogo, S. J., & Teklehaimanot, Z. (2008). Rejuvenating indigenous trees in
agroforestry parkland systems for better fruit production using crown pruning. Agroforest
Syst, 72, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9099-9
Bayala, J., Sanou, J., Teklehaimanot, Z., Kalinganire, a., & Ouédraogo, S. J. (2014). Parklands
for buffering climate risk and sustaining agricultural production in the Sahel of West Africa.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6(1), 28–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.004
Beddington, J. R., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M. E., Bremauntz, A. F., Guillou, M. D., Jahn, M.
M., … Wakhungu, J. (2012). The role for scientists in tackling food insecurity and climate
change. Agriculture & Food Security, 1(10), 1–9.
Belem, M., Bayala, J., & Kalinganire, A. (2011). Defining the poor by the rural communities of
Burkina Faso : implications for the development of sustainable parkland management.
Agroforest Systems, 83, 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9390-7
Below, T., Artner, A., Siebert, R., & Seiber, S. (2010). Micro-level Practices to Adapt to Climate
Change for African Small-scale Farmers: a review of selected literature. IFPRI Discussion
Paper, 953(February), 28.
Benjaminsen, T. A., Aune, J. B., & Sidibé, D. (2010). Geoforum A critical political ecology of
cotton and soil fertility in Mali. Geoforum, 41, 647–656.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.03.003
Bennett, E. M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B. N., … Woodward, G.
(2015). Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges
for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
14, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among
multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1394–1404.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003a). Introduction. In Navigating Social-ecologycal
Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Changes (pp. 1–25).
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003b). Navigating Social - Ecological Systems: Building
Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press. New York: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957
40

Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability. In F. Berkes, C. Folke, & J. Colding (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological
Systems: Management Practices of Social Mechanism for Building Resilience (pp. 1–26).
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bernatchez, F., Jeannotte, R., Begg, C. B. M., Hamel, C., & Whalen, J. K. (2008). Soil fertility
and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi related to trees growing on smallholder farms in Senegal.
Journal of Arid Environments, 72, 1247–1256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2007.12.014
Boffa, J. M. (1999). Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Conservation Guide
(Vol. 34). Rome, Italy.
Bucagu, C., Vanlauwe, B., Wijk, M. T. Van, & Giller, K. E. (2013). Assessing farmers ’ interest
in agroforestry in two contrasting agro-ecological zones of Rwanda. Agroforest Syst, 87,
141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9531-7
Campbell, B. M., Thornton, P., Zougmoré, R., van Asten, P., & Lipper, L. (2014). Sustainable
intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 8, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.002
Caveness, F. a., & Kurtz, W. B. (1993). Agroforestry adoption and risk perception by farmers in
Senegal. Agroforestry Systems, 21, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00704923
Chen, C., Liu, W., Jiang, X., & Wu, J. (2017). Effects of rubber-based agroforestry systems on
soil aggregation and associated soil organic carbon: Implications for land use. Geoderma,
299, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.03.021
Chuku, C. A., & Okoye, C. (2009). Increasing resilience and reducing vulnerability in subSaharan African agriculture : Strategies for risk coping and management. African Journal of
Agircultural Research, 4(13), 1524–1535.
Conklin, H. C. (1957). Hanunóo agriculture: a report on an integral system of shifting cultivation
in the Philippines. FAO Development Paper.
CSE. (2009). Annuaire sur l’Environnement et les Ressources Naturelles du Sénégal. Dakar.
CSE. (2011). Rapport Technique - ANNEE 2011. Dakar.
Dansokho, M., Lo, M. M., & Diop, M. (2012). L’évaluation économique des services des
écosystèmes forestiers au Sénégal: Etude de cas des communautes rurales de Niakhene et
de Bandafassi.
Dawoe, E. K., Quashie-sam, J., Isaac, M. E., & Oppong, S. K. (2012). Exploring farmers’ local
knowledge and perceptions of soil fertility and management in the Ashanti Region of
41

Ghana. Geoderma, 179–180, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.02.015
Dawson, I. K., Leakey, R., Clement, C. R., Weber, J. C., Cornelius, J. P., Roshetko, J. M., …
Jamnadass, R. (2014). The management of tree genetic resources and the livelihoods of
rural communities in the tropics : Non-timber forest products , smallholder agroforestry
practices and tree commodity crops. Forest Ecology and Management, 333, 9–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.01.021
Dayamba, S. D., Djoudi, H., Zida, M., Sawadogo, L., & Verchot, L. (2016). Biodiversity and
carbon stocks in different land use types in the Sudanian Zone of Burkina Faso , West
Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 216, 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.023
Deans, J. D., Diagne, O., & Lindley, D. K. (1999). Nutrient and organic-matter accumulation in
Acacia senegal fallows over 18 years, 124, 153–167.
Diedhiou, B. (2004). Etude de la Contribution des Fruitiers Forestiers a la Securite Alimentaire.
Dakar, Senegal.
Diop, M. USAID Kedougou Synergy meeting (2014).
Dupuy, A. R. (1971). Le Parc National Du Niokolo-Koba. Biological Conservation, 308–310.
Elias, M. (2015). Gender, knowledge-sharing and management of shea (Vitellaria paradoxa)
parklands in central-west Burkina Faso. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 27–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.01.006
Elmqvist, B., & Olsson, L. (2006). Livelihood diversification: continuity and change in the
Sahel. GeoJournal, 67, 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9043-6
Faye, M. D., Weber, J. C., Mounkoro, B., & Dakouo, J.-M. (2010). Contribution of parkland
trees to farmers’ livelihoods: a case study from Mali. Development in Practice, 20(3), 428–
434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614521003710013
Fernandest, E. C. M., & Nair, P. K. R. (1986). An Evaluation of the Structure and Function of
Tropical Homegardens. Agricultural Systems, 21, 279–310. https://doi.org/0308521X/86/S03-50
Franzel, S., Kiptot, E., & Lukuyu, B. (2014). Agroforestry: Fodder Trees. In Encyclopedia of
Agriculture and Food Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 235–243). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44452512-3.00023-1
Gakou, M., Force, J. E., & McLaughlin, W. J. (1994). Non-timber forest products in rural Mali: a
study of villager use. Agroforestry Systems, 28(3), 213–226.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00704757

42

Gambiza, J., Chidumayo, E., Prins, H., Fritz, H., & Nyathi, P. (2010). Livestock and Wildlife. In
E. Chidumayo & D. Gumbo (Eds.), The Dry Forests and Woodlands of Africa: managing
for Products and Services (pp. 179–204). London: Earthscan.
Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, P., …
Godfray, H. C. J. (2013). Sustainable Intensifi cation in Agriculture : Premises and Policies.
Science, 341(6141), 33–34. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234485
Ghadim, A. K. A., Pannell, D. J., & Burton, M. P. (2005). Risk, uncertainty, and learning in
adoption of a crop innovation. Agricultural Economics, 33, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2005.00433.x
Ghadim, A., & Pannell, D. (1999). A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultral
innovation. Agricultural Economics, 21, 145–154.
Giffard, P. L. (1974). L’arbre dans le paysage senegalais. Dakar: Centre technique forestier
tropical.
Gijsbers, H. J. M., Kessler, J. J., & Knevel, M. K. (1994). Dynamics and natural regeneration of
woody species in farmed parklands in the Sahel region (Province of Passore, Burkina Faso).
Forest Ecology and Management, 64, 1–12.
Goldman, M. J., & Riosmena, F. (2013). Adaptive capacity in Tanzanian Maasailand: Changing
strategies to cope with drought in fragmented landscapes. Global Environmental Change,
23(3), 588–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.010
Gonzalez, P., Tucker, C. J., & Sy, H. (2012). Tree density and species decline in the African
Sahel attributable to climate. Journal of Arid Environments, 78, 55–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.11.001
Griep, S. (2005). Coping Strategies of the Riimaybe in Debere (douentza district). In M. de
Bruijn, H. van Dijk, M. Kaag, & K. van Til (Eds.), Sahelian pathways: Climate and society
in Central and South Mali (pp. 127–146). Leiden: African Studies Centre.
H. Nyanga, P. (2012). Factors Influencing Adoption and Area under Conservation Agriculture: A
Mixed Methods Approach. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 1(2), 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v1n2p27
Hansen, H. H., Sanou, L., & Nacoulma, B. M. I. (2008). Tree leaves in the diet of free-ranging
ruminants in three areas of Burkina Faso. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20(3).
Hansen, J. W. (2002). Realizing the potential benefits of climate prediction to agriculture :
issues, approaches, challenges. Agricultural Systems, 74, 309–330.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics, 4, 1–20.
43

Holling, C. S., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Science, sustainability and resource management.
In F. Berkes & C. Folke (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (pp. 342–362). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Houerou, H. N. Le. (1989). Grazing Land Ecosystems in the African Sahel. In W. Billings, F.
Golley, O. Lange, J. Olson, & H. Remmert (Eds.), Ecological Studies, Vol. 75 (1st ed., pp.
1–291). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74457-0
Jones, A., Breuning-Madsen, H., Brossard, M., Dampha, A., Deckers, J., Dewitte, O., …
Zougmoré R. (2013). Soil Atlas of Africa. European Commission. Luxembourg.
https://doi.org/10.2788/52319
Juana, J. S., Kahaka, Z., & Okurut, F. N. (2013). Farmers’ Perceptions and Adaptations to
Climate Change in Sub-Sahara Africa: A Synthesis of Empirical Studies and Implications
for Public Policy in African Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science (1916-9752), 5(4),
121–135. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v5n4p121
Kalame, F. B., Aidoo, R., Nkem, J., Ajayie, O. C., Kanninen, M., Luukkanen, O., & Idinoba, M.
(2011). Modified taungya system in Ghana : a win – win practice for forestry and adaptation
to climate change ? Environmental Science and Policy, 14(5), 519–530.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.03.011
Kaufmann, R., Okigbo, B., & Opong, E. (1985). Integrating Crops and Livestock in West Africa.
Rome, Italy.
Kaya, B., Hildebrand, P. E., & Nair, P. K. R. (2000). Modeling changes in farming systems with
the adoption of improved fallows in southern Mali, 66, 51–68.
Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., & Degrande, A. (2014). Gender, agroforestry and food security in Africa.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6(1), 104–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.019
Knox, J., Hess, T., Daccache, A., & Wheeler, T. (2012). Climate change impacts on crop
productivity in Africa and South Asia. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034032
Kristoferson, L. A., & Bokalders, V. (1986). Fuelwood: Forestry & Agroforestry. In Renewable
Energy Technologies: Their Applications in Developing Countries (pp. 3–21). Oxford:
Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-034061-6.50007-X
Lacy, S. M., Cleveland, D. A., & Soleri, D. (2006). Farmer Choice of Sorghum Varieties in
Southern Mali. Human Ecology, 34(3), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-90215

44

Lal, R. (2013). Shifting Cultivation Versus Sustainable Intensification. Reference Module in
Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012-409548-9.09295-2
Lal, R., Singh, B. R., Mwaseba, D. L., Kraybill, D., & Hansen, D. O. (2015). Sustainable
Intensication to Advance Food Security and Enhance Climate Resilience in Africa. New
York: Springer International Publishing.
Larwanou, M., & Saadou, M. (2011). The role of human interventions in tree dynamics and
environmental rehabilitation in the Sahel zone of Niger. Journal of Arid Environments, 75,
194–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.09.016
Lasco, R. D., Delfino, R. J. P., Catacutan, D. C., Simelton, E. S., & Wilson, D. M. (2014).
Climate risk adaptation by smallholder farmers: The roles of trees and agroforestry. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 83–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.013
Lin, B. B. (2007). Agroforestry management as an adaptive strategy against potential
microclimate extremes in coffee agriculture, 144, 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.12.009
Lin, B. B. (2010). The role of agroforestry in reducing water loss through soil evaporation and
crop transpiration in coffee agroecosystems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 150(4),
510–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.11.010
Lobell, D. B., Bänziger, M., Magorokosho, C., & Vivek, B. (2011). Nonlinear heat effects on
African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nature Climate Change, 1(4), 42–45.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1043
Lobell, D., & Field, C. B. (2007). Global scale climate – crop yield relationships and the impacts
of recent warming Global scale climate – crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent
warming. Environmental Research Letters, 2, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/2/1/014002
Lott, J. E., Ong, C. K., & Black, C. R. (2009). Understorey microclimate and crop performance
in a Grevillea robusta-based agroforestry system in semi-arid Kenya. Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology, 149(1), 1140–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.02.002
Luedeling, E., Sileshi, G., Beedy, T., & Dietz, J. (2011). Carbon Sequestration Potential of
Agroforestry Systems. Advances in Agroforestry 8, 8(C), 61–83.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1630-8
Lufafa, A., Diédhiou, I., Samba, S. A. N., Séné, M., Khouma, M., Kizito, F., … Noller, J. S.
(2008). Carbon stocks and patterns in native shrub communities of Senegal’s Peanut Basin.
Geoderma, 146, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.05.024

45

Lungu, O. I. (2015). Use of Conservation Tillage and Cropping Systems to Sustain Crop Yields
Under Drought Conditions in Zambia. In R. Lal, B. R. Singh, D. L. Mwaseba, D. Kraybill,
D. O. Hansen, & lars O. Eik (Eds.), Sustainable Intensification to Advance Food Security
and Enhance Climate Resilience in Africa (pp. 425–439). New York: Spring International
Publishing.
Madsen, I. E., Dione, D., Traore, A. S., & Sambou, B. (1996). Flora and vegetation of NiokoloKoba National. In The Biodiversity of African Plants (pp. 214–219). Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Maranz, S. (2009). Tree mortality in the African Sahel indicates an anthropogenic ecosystem
displaced by climate change. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 1181–1193.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02081.x
Marra, M., Pannell, D. J., & Abadi Ghadim, A. (2003). The economics of risk, uncertainty and
learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: Where are we on the learning
curve? Agricultural Systems, 75, 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00066-5
Marunda, C., & Bouda, H.-N. (2010). Environmental Service from the Dry Forests and
Woodlands of Sub-Saharan Africa. In E. Chidumayo & D. Gumbo (Eds.), The Dry Forests
and Woodlands of Africa: Managing for Products and Services (pp. 231–260). London:
Earthscan.
Matocha, J., Schroth, G., Hills, T., & Hole, D. (2012). Integrating Climate Change Adaptation
and Mitigation Through Agroforestry and Ecosystem Conservation. In P. K. R. Nair & D.
Garrity (Eds.), Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use (9th ed., pp. 105–127).
Dordrecht: Spring Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3
Mbow, C., Smith, P., Skole, D., Duguma, L., & Bustamante, M. (2014). Achieving mitigation
and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in africa.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 8–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002
Mccorkle, C. M. (1989). Toward A Knowledge of Local Knowledge and Its Importance for
Agricultural RD & E 1.
MEDD. (2014). Politique Forestiere du Senegal 2005-2025. Dakar, Senegal.
Menapace, L., Colson, G., & Raffaelli, R. (2015). Climate change beliefs and perceptions of
agricultural risks: An application of the exchangeability method. Global Environmental
Change, 35, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.005
Mertz, O. (2009). Trends in shifting cultivation and the REDD mechanism. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 1(2), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.002
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Nielsen, J. O., Maiga, A., Diallo, D., Reenberg, A., … Dabi, D. (2010).
46

Climate Factors Play a Limited Role for Past Adaptation Strategies in West Africa. Ecology
and Society, 15(4). https://doi.org/25
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., & Diouf, A. (2009). Farmers’ perceptions of climate change
and agricultural adaptation strategies in rural sahel. Environmental Management, 43(5),
804–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9197-0
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., Genesio, L., Lambin, E. F., D’haen, S., … Sandholt, I.
(2011). Adaptation strategies and climate vulnerability in the Sudano-Sahelian region of
West Africa. Atmospheric Science Letters, 12, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.314
Mortimore, M., Ba, M., Mahamane, A., Serra, P., & Turner, B. (2005). Changing systems and
changing landscapes : Measuring and interpreting land use transformation in African
drylands. Danish Journal of Geography, 105(1), 101–118.
Mortimore, M., & Harris, F. (2005). Do small farmers’ achievements contradict the nutrient
depletion scenarios for Africa? Land Use Policy, 22(1), 43–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.06.003
Mortimore, M. J., & Adams, W. M. (2001). Farmer adaptation, change and “crisis” in the Sahel.
Global Environmental Change, 11(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09593780(00)00044-3
Mutuo, P. K., Cadisch, G., Albrecht, A., Palm, C. A., & Verchot, L. (2005). Potential of
agroforestry for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils
in the tropics. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 71, 43–54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-004-5285-6
Nair, P. K. . (1987). Agroforestry Systems Inventory. Agroforestry Systems, 5, 301–317.
Nair, P. K. R. (2013). Agroforestry: Trees in Support of Sustainable Agriculture. Reference
Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.05088-0
Nair, P. K. R. (2014). Agroforestry: Practices and Systems. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and
Food Systems, 1, 270–282. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-525123.00021-8
Nair, P. K. R., Nair, V. D., Kumar, B. M., & Haile, S. G. (2009). Soil carbon sequestration in
tropical agroforestry systems: a feasibility appraisal. Environmental Science & Policy, 12,
1099–1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.010
Nyong, A., Adesina, F., & Elasha, B. O. (2007). The Value of Indigenous Knowledge in Climate
Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob
Change, 12, 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9099-0

47

Ofori, D. A., Gyau, A., Dawson, I. K., Asaah, E., Tchoundjeu, Z., & Jamnadass, R. (2014).
Developing more productive African agroforestry systems and improving food and
nutritional security through tree domestication. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 6(1), 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.016
Ohler, F. M. . (1985). The fuelwood production of wooded savanna fallows in the Sudan zone of
Mali. Agroforestry Systems, 3, 15–23.
Okigbo, B. N., & Greenland, D. J. (1976). Intercropping Systems in Tropical Africa. ASA
Special Publication American Society of Agronomy.
Ong, C., Black, C. R., Wilson, J., Muthuri, C., Bayala, J., & Jackson, N. A. (2014).
Agroforestry : Hydrological Impacts. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems
(Vol. 1, pp. 244–252). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00028-0
Ong, C. K., Black, C. R., Wallace, J. S., Khan, A. A. H., Lott, J. E., Jackson, N. A., … Smith, D.
M. (2000). Productivity, microclimate and water use in Grevillea robusta-based agroforestry
systems on hillslopes in semi-arid Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 80(1),
121–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00144-4
Ong, C. K., Wilson, J., Deans, J. D., Mulayta, J., Rauseen, T., & Wajja-Musukwe, N. (2002).
Tree–crop interactions : manipulation of water use and root function. Agricultural Water
Management, 53, 171–186.
Orlove, B., Roncoli, C., & Kabugo, M. (2010). Indigenous climate knowledge in southern
Uganda : the multiple components of a dynamic regional system, 243–265.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9586-2
Pachauri, R. K. (2012). Climate Change and Agroforestry. In P. K. . Nair & D. Garrity (Eds.),
Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use (pp. 13–16). Dordrecth: Spring
Science+Business Media.
Panda, A., Sharma, U., Ninan, K. N., & Patt, A. (2013). Adaptive capacity contributing to
improved agricultural productivity at the household level: Empirical findings highlighting
the importance of crop insurance. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 782–790.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.002
Pandey, D. N. (2002). Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Climate Policy, 2(4), 367–
377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-3062(02)00025-6
Petit, S. (2003). Parklands with fodder trees: a Fulße response to environmental and social
changes. Applied Geography, 23(2–3), 205–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2003.08.008
Pullan, R. A. (1974). Farmed Parkland in West Africa. Savanna, 3(2), 119–131.

48

Ræbild, A. (2012). Improved management of fruit trees in West African parklands. Agroforestry
Systems, 85(3), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9524-6
Raintree, J. B., & Warner, K. (1986). Agroforestry pathways for the intensification of shifting
cultivation. Agroforestry Systems, 4, 39–54.
Rao, M. R., Nair, P. K. R., & Ong, C. K. (1998). Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry
systems. Agroforestry Systems, 38, 3–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005971525590
Reenberg, A. (2001). Agricultural land use pattern dynamics in the Sudan – Sahel - towards an
event-driven framework. Land Use Policy, 18, 309–319.
Reenberg, A., & Paarup-laursen, B. (1997). Determinants for Land Use Strategies in a Sahelian
Agro-ecosystem Anthropological and Ecological Geographical Aspects of Natural Resource
Management. Agricultural Systems, 53, 209–229.
Roncoli, C. (2006). Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers ’
responses to climate predictions. Climate Research, 33, 81–99.
Roudier, P., Sultan, B., Quirion, P., & Berg, A. (2011). The impact of future climate change on
West African crop yields: What does the recent literature say? Global Environmental
Change, 21(3), 1073–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.007
Rushemuka, N. P., Bizoza, R. A., Mowo, J. G., & Bock, L. (2014). Farmers’ soil knowledge for
effective participatory integrated watershed management in Rwanda : Toward soil-specific
fertility management and farmers’ judgmental fertilizer use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 183, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.020
Samba, S. A. N., Camire, C., & Margolis, H. A. (2001). Allometry and rainfall interception of
Cordyla pinnata in a semi-arid agroforestry parkland, Senegal. Forest Ecology and
Management, 154, 277–288.
Sanou, J., Bayala, J., Teklehaimanot, Z., & Bazie, P. (2012). Effect of shading by baobab
(Adansonia digitata) and nere (Parkia biglobosa) on yields of millet (Pennisetum glaucum)
and taro (Colocasia esculenta) in parkland systems in Burkina Faso , West Africa.
Agroforest Syst, 85, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9405-4
Schlenker, W., & Lobell, D. B. (2010). Robust negative impacts of climate change on African
agriculture. Envrionmental Research Letters, 5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/5/1/014010
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods a Framework for Analysis. IDS Working
Paper (Vol. 72). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1110037
Sileshi, G. W., Mafongoya, P. L., Akinnifesi, F. K., Phiri, E., Chirwa, P., Beedy, T., &
Makumba, W. (2014). Agrofroestry: Fertilizer Trees. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and
49

Food Systems (pp. 222–234). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-525123.00022-X
Simmonds, N. W. (1985). Farming Systems Research: A Review. World Bank Technical Paper.
Washington D.C.
Sinare, H., & Gordon, L. J. (2015). Ecosystem services from woody vegetation on agricultural
lands in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 200,
186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.009
Sinclair, F. L. (1999). A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestry Systems, 46,
161–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/A
Spedding, C. (1979). An Introduction to Agricutural Systems. Elsevier Applied Science, 189.
Stancioff, A., Staljanssens, M., & Tappan, G. (2013). Cartographie et teledetection des
ressources de la republique du senegal: Etude de la geologie, de l’hydrologie, des sols, de
la vegetation et des potentiels d’utilisation des sols. Dakar.
Steiner, A. (2012). Agroforestry and the Transition to the Future. In P. K. R. Nair & D. Garrity
(Eds.), Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use (pp. 17–20). Dordrecht: Spring
Science+Business Media.
Stewart, R. F. (1987). Mande-speaking people of West Africa: a study of culture change along
language and envirnomental continua. Clark University.
Stigter, C. J., Eltayeb, A., Al-amin, N. K. N., Onyewotu, L. O. Z., Oteng’i, S. B. B., & Kainkwa,
R. M. R. (2002). Agroforestry solutions to some African wind problems. Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 90, 1101–1114.
Sultan, B., Roudier, P., Quirion, P., Alhassane, A., Muller, B., Dingkuhn, M., … Baron, C.
(2013). Assessing climate change impacts on sorghum and millet yields in the Sudanian and
Sahelian savannas of West Africa. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014040
Takimoto, A., Nair, P. K. R., & Nair, V. D. (2008). Carbon stock and sequestration potential of
traditional and improved agroforestry systems in the West African Sahel. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 125, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.12.010
Tambo, J. A., & Abdoulaye, T. (2013). Smallholder farmers’ perceptions of and adaptations to
climate change in the Nigerian savanna. Regional Environmental Change, 13, 375–388.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0351-0
Tappan, G. ., Sall, M., Wood, E. ., & Cushing, M. (2004). Ecoregions and land cover trends in
Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments, 59(3), 427–462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.03.018
50

Thangata, P. H., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2003). Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: the
case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize. Agricultural Systems, 78, 57–
71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00032-5
Thangata, P. H., & Hildebrand, P. E. (2012). Carbon stock and sequestration potential of
agroforestry systems in smallholder agroecosystems of sub-Saharan Africa: Mechanisms for
“reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” (REDD+). Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 158, 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.007
The Montpellier Panel. (2013). Sustainable Intensification : A New Paradigm for African
Agriculture. London.
Thorlakson, T., & Neufeldt, H. (2012). Reducing subsistence farmers ’ vulnerability to climate
change: evaluating the potential contributions of agroforestry in western Kenya. Agriculture
& Food Security, 1(15), 1–13.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable
intensi fi cation of agriculture. In Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of
the United States of AMerica (Vol. 108). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116437108
Tschakert, P., Khouma, M., & Sene, M. (2004). Biophysical potential for soil carbon
sequestration in agricultural systems of the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal. Journal of Arid
Environments, 59, 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.03.026
UNEP. (2015). Green Economy: Scoping Study - Senegal.
Verchot, L. V, Noordwijk, M. van, Kandji, S., Tomich, T., Ong, C., Albrecht, A., … Palm, C.
(2007). Climate change : linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig
Adapt Strat Glob Change, 12, 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9105-6
Villamor, G. B., van Noordwijk, M., Djanibekov, U., Chiong-Javier, M. E., & Catacutan, D.
(2014). Gender differences in land-use decisions: Shaping multifunctional landscapes?
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6(1), 128–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.015
Vosti, S. A., & Reardon, T. (1997). Poverty Alleviation: A Policy and Agroecological
Perspective. (S. A. Vosti & T. Reardon, Eds.). Baltimore and London: International Food
Policy Research Institute: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and
Transformability in Social–ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.258101
Woomer, P. L., Tieszen, L. L., Tappan, G., Touré, A., & Sall, M. (2004). Land use change and
terrestrial carbon stocks in Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments, 59(1), 625–642.
51

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.03.025
Working Group III. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Geneva
Switzerland.
Yin, R., & Hyde, W. F. (2000). Trees as an agriculture sustaining activity: the case of northern
China. Agroforestry Systems, 50(1), 179–194.
Zhang, M., Fu, X. H., Feng, W. T., & Zou, X. (2007). Soil organic carbon in pure rubber and tearubber plantations in South-western China. Tropical Ecology, 48(2), 201–207.

52

CHAPTER 3. FARMER LIVELIHOOD STRATEGY, ATTITUDES, AND RESPONSES
TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN AGROFORESTRY PARKLANDS IN KEDOUGOU
SENEGAL
3.1. ABSTRACT
Farmers managing agroecological systems across sub-humid West Africa face a variety
of challenges in meeting their needs to provide sustainable and resilient livelihoods for their
communities. In the face of adverse conditions, farmers have successfully managed agroforestry
parklands to create a long-term sustainable system. However, climate change presents a
challenging and new disturbance to farmer livelihood strategies. Using a mixed-methods
approached, I use the rural livelihood framework to analyze and assess farmers’ livelihood
strategies, attitudes, and responses to climate change. Through the use of semi-structured focus
groups, the results showed that farmers are constantly changing management strategies through
flexible and adaptable decision-making to mitigate negative disturbances. Through the
accumulation of indigenous knowledge and adaptive management, West African farmers are
keenly ready to handle challenges of managing agroecological systems under great vulnerability.

3.2. INTRODUCTION
Understanding decision-making factors for the management of agroforestry and
agricultural systems is paramount to creating sustainable community based natural resource
management strategies. Shifting from the ‘technology-adoption’ paradigm has been shown to
create a more inclusive perspective looking at how farmers adapt. This shows how vulnerability
interplays with decision-making allowing for an enhanced ability to capture complex interactions
of farmer decision-making, especially regarding climate parameters, and how they interplay with
farmer perceptions (Roncoli, 2006).

53

Various factors affecting decision-making and management strategies across West Africa
have been well documented across the literature (Baker, 2000; Kristjanson et al., 2012; Mertz et
al., 2011; Okike et al., 2017), but the role that climate narratives play into these factors is less
documented (Mertz et al., 2010, 2009). These processes and strategies are a direct product of
indigenous knowledge and perceptions and their direct interaction with the environment where
local knowledge changes, adapts, and assimilates new ideas (Becker & Ghimire, 2003).
Traditional forest management and conservation neglected the needs and interests of local
peoples (Ros-Tonen et al., 2005). However, local knowledge has successfully been used to
develop management strategies and identify conservation needs (Lykke, 2000).
The use of traditional subsistence farming knowledge and perspectives remains integral
to developing more sustainable agricultural systems because it combines local knowledge with
scientific findings and extension strategies to enact management interventions and move towards
more sustainable land management, especially agroforestry (Isaac et al., 2009; Kristjanson et al.,
2002; Rist & Daubouh-Guebas, 2006). Research on a local scale in Senegal is lacking linkages
between farmers’ indigenous knowledge of management strategies and climate change. Using
both quantitative and qualitative methodologies and the integration of these two methodologies
allows for a better understanding of the adaptation of farming systems to climate change
(Kalaugher et al., 2013).

3.2.1. Livelihood Model for Rural Sahelian Communities
Theoretical frameworks for the linking of social and ecological systems place emphasis
on human beings as the driving force behind management practices and land-use change in
natural and managed lands where mechanisms exist to maintain system and societal resilience

54

through adaptive behavior (Bebbington, 1999; Berkes et al., 2003; Berkes & Folke, 1998;
Scoones, 1998). Using a model derived from the livelihood framework for the linkages between
rural Sahelian communities and ecological systems (Figure 5) created by M. J. Mortimore &
Adams (2001), I propose to analyze the variable properties diversity, flexibility, and adaptability,
and the linkages between theses variable properties and the system constraints, rainfall and
bioproductivity, in the context of climate change and agroecological management to assess
resiliency of farming systems.
Within the model, diversity refers to the resources and options available to a household
with these resources being natural, economic, technical, or social. The active decisions a
household makes about its resources in the short term is flexibility. More specifically within
flexibility, this paper refers to (i) the use of biodiversity, (ii) use of economic plants, and (iii)
choice of livelihood strategy within agricultural systems. Adaptability refers to longer term
decision-making that affects inter-year adjustments and responses to the constraints. This can be
viewed as a sequential element or a culmination of the flexibility decisions to reflect
understanding of longer term and larger scale management. This change is a constant and
continuous changing patchwork of the relationship between people and the environment to
manage variation and adapt to changing conditions.

55

Figure 5: Sahelian model derived from Rural Livelihood Framework (Modified from:
Mortimore & Adams, 1999)
The objective of this study was to conduct an analysis of agroforestry systems in the
Kedougou region of Senegal fully characterizing major cropping systems used, key factors
affecting agroforestry systems, how farmer attitude affects these factors in a climate context
under the model listed above, and how the management of constant variation leads to system
responses and adaptation. The premise of the study was that these factors are critical to natural
resource management and adaptations and culminate in a resilient agroecological system.
Characterizing and identifying these factors such as (1) the use of biological resources; (2) soil
fertility management; and (3) livelihood management can lead to insights for both community
stakeholders and relevant members of the extension, development, and policy community. I will
show how farmers use gradual sequential change to mitigate high vulnerability and variability
within agricultural systems in response to disturbances to agroecological systems such as climate
change. This study will add to a body of literature regarding the understanding of community
based natural resource management across a longitudinal scale that more properly characterizes
and diagnoses land use change and the decision behind it to create resiliency.
56

3.3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.3.1. Study Area
The study area is located in the region of Kedougou (Figure 5) in the southeastern part of
Senegal. Twelve villages were randomly selected from a survey of villages and coordinates
provided by ANSD. All villages were located within the administrative district of Kedougou
spanning four communes (Table 4). Kedougou has a population of 151,000 where 79% live in a
rural setting and the poverty rate is of 71.3% which is far above the national average of 46.7%.
The food insecure rate or rate at which a household experiences food insecurity throughout the
year for the region is 33% of households. The majority of the population works in the
agricultural sector with many of those being subsistence farmers, and 69% of the agricultural
products from the region are cereal grains grown in rain fed agricultural systems (ANSD, 2015;
Diop, 2014). Kedougou has some of the higher forest cover in Senegal, but bush fires are
common and are seen as a threat to forest cover throughout the region of Kedougou (CSE, 2011).
Table 4: Communes and Villages included in the study
Commune
Village

Bandafassi
Sinthiouroudji

Dindefelo
Thiangue

Tomboronkoto
Niemenike

Dimboli
Kafory

Syllacounda Diakha

Dar Salam

Mako

Bambaya

Bandafassi

Woulaba

Thiabedji
Niangue

57

Figure 6: Area of Study
3.3.2. Methodologies
This study takes a mixed-methods approach to analyze the research question of how
adaptive behavior affects management strategies regarding climate change. It combines data
collected by various governmental agencies or international research organizations, in-depth
interviews, in field observations, and focus groups. The in-depth semi-structured interviews of
key stakeholders (Table 5) were conducted with relevant stakeholders in the government and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

3.3.3. Data Analysis
Analysis was done using participant response matrices to identify patterns within
agricultural, social, and resource organizations across households participating in focus groups
(Wolcott, 1994). Answers and language from different respondents describing various
components of local agroecological systems were analyzed to identify similar patterns among
farmer knowledge, attitudes, and practices (Murray-Prior, 1998) using a mixture of categories,
theory, and evidence for analysis derived from Crang (1997). A listing method was used to
58

identify common parkland tree species and an indices of use of tree species similar to that as
used in Lykke (2000).

3.3.4. Data Collection
Field work was conducted over a series of 5 months from May to September 2016. This
time was selected to coincide with the beginning and middle of the rainy season to increase
accuracy of personal observations from the field since farmers would be actively cultivating. The
climate data was collected from the Senegalese government agencies.

3.3.5. Focus Groups
A total of three focus groups were conducted in each of the twelve villages. The focus
group structure was created using Stack (2009) and Laws et al. (2003). The focus groups
continually built off of the previous focus groups in a linear fashion introducing climate
narratives later on to avoid biases in answers. All focus groups were conducted in local
languages through a translator trained by USAID/Feed the Future in stakeholder engagement and
lasted between 1-2 hours followed by field observations with focus group participants. A total of
175 participants took part in the focus groups where 30% partook in all of the focus groups and
55% partook in at least two focus groups.

3.3.6. In-Depth Stakeholder Interviews
Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders within the
agriculture sector of Kedougou. The purpose of these interviews was to get the unique

59

perspective and insights of people who play an integral role within the agriculture sector of
Kedougou.

Table 5: Institutions and functions of key stakeholders
Institution
Eaux et Forets
Kedougou Bureau de
l’Agriculture
Trees for the Future
Peace Corps Senegal
Universite Cheikh Anta Diop de
Dakar l’Insitut des Science de
l’Environnement
Centre de Suivi Ecologique

Function
Government agency charged with protection and management of forests,
fauna, reforestation, soil conservation, and public education;
Implementation of food and agriculture policies, extension services, pest
control programs, and research and training in crop production;
International NGO working to alleviate poverty through agriculture
development;
Grass roots development organization in agriculture, health, and economics;
The Institute for Environmental Sciences at the University Cheikh Anta
Diop in Dakar. Conducts research in all fields pertaining to environmental
sciences throughout all regions of Senegal;
Center specializing in environmental monitoring and sustainable
management of natural resources to provide information to the local and
national government, private sector, civil society, and research and
development institutions

3.3.7. Personal Observations and Field Observations
In additional to the focus groups and in depth interviews, personal observations of
agricultural systems from focus group participants were conducted allowing for some follow up
questions about their systems and to clarify discrepancy that seemed to occur. A total of 35 farms
were observed following the focus groups using a human geography participant observation
methodology derived from Cook (1997).

3.4. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
To begin understanding responses within agricultural systems under the Sahelian social
organizational model (Figure 4), it is necessary to do a characterization of agroecological
systems present in the region starting with predominant types of agricultural practices, spatial
organizations, species diversity within systems, and temporal scales (e.g. diversity of resources)
followed by determinants for crop and tree choice as well as determinants for the incorporation
60

of trees on farms (e.g. flexibility). This is followed lastly by using local indigenous knowledge to
analyze long-term responses and management strategies of farmers (e.g. adaptability) that all
culminate in one of the three categorical responses.

3.4.1. Common Agroforestry Practices
The vast majority of agricultural systems in Kedougou are agroforestry systems
(Dansokho et al., 2012; Diedhiou, 2004; FAO & CSE, 2007). As represented in Table 3, farmers
reported the use of four main agroforestry practices, which are parklands, hedgerows,
plantations, and the taungya system. Parklands are the predominant system in which 99% of
responders reported that they practiced parkland systems. It has been well documented that
parklands are the predominate system used across west Africa (e.g. Assé & Lassoie, 2011; Boffa,
1999; Tappan & Mcgahuey, 2007).
Taungya was the second most common practice in which 66.3% of farmers reported the
use of the taungya practice while attempting to establish a plantation for fruit and wood
production. Farmers establish mango or cashew orchards while rotating corn, sorghum, rice,
millet, and peanuts between the rows of trees for subsequent years until the trees reached
maturity shading out the cereal grains. In this study, hedgerows are defined as various practices
such a live fencing, wind breaks, erosion control, and field demarcation lines depending on the
farmers' individual needs. 27.7% of farmers practiced one of these various types of hedgerows.
Only 11% of farmers responded with just practicing plantation style arrangement without
planting annual crops in between rows of trees. It was noted that all of the responders that listed
this were from villages that were heavily involved in artisanal gold mining. The farmers in these
villages cited that agricultural production was viewed as a secondary source of income with the

61

primary source being the extraction and production of gold. However, these farmers did show
interest in establishing fruit orchards as a long-term financial investment for their families
knowing that gold is a nonrenewable resource. Farmers that practiced simple plantations
primarily used the fallowed land and forests to collect forest products such as fruit, bamboo, and
pole wood to be sold in market, used for construction, or transformed into charcoal for sale to
supplement incomes during times of the year without mining.

Table 6: Common agroforestry practices used in Kedougou
Agroforestry
Practice

Description of Practice

Parkland

Landscapes in which mature trees occur scattered across
cultivated or recently fallowed plots of land (source:
Boffa, 1999)
Plantation style arrangement with crops grown between
trees for each successive year until trees shade out crops
(source: Agyeman et al., 2003)
Use of trees to for boundary planting and to protect
from wind, erosion, and animals (source: Nair, 2014)
Single species stands of forestry and fruit species
(source: Nair, 2014)

Taungya

Hedgerow
Plantation

Number of
Respondents
(n=101)
100

Percentage

67

66.3%

28

27.7%

11

10.9%

99%

During field observations, there was a relationship between the distance of farming fields
from the household compound or village and its level of management. Fields closer to villages
had lower tree density to allow for greater cereal grain cultivation along with a greater duration
of years under cultivation before beginning the fallow cycle. These fields were also more likely
to have chemical inputs be used on them along with an increased amount of years between
fallow periods. Fields farther from village centers usually had a higher density of trees along
with longer fallow times. Farmers showed a strong preference toward intensifying fields closer to
the village or homesteads.
The majority of farmers incorporated more than one of these practices onto the same plot.
To a much smaller scale, riparian buffer zones, windbreaks, and hedgerows to control for erosion

62

were observed. Farmers with fields adjacent to rivers would leave a row of tree species when
converting the forest to farmland along the banks of the river forming a riparian buffer zone. All
fields that had fully functioning windbreaks were in villages that had been or were currently
active intervention sites for government or NGO extension services.
Farmers show a diverse use of various agroforestry practices to mitigate climate risk
through buffering its negative impacts through such things as increased soil moisture and relative
humidity. Additionally, a diversity of activities in an agroecological system generates production
from a variety activities increasing the availability of food or resources throughout the year. By
utilizing various practices, the impacts from reductions in production from specific on farm
activities can be dampened by concurrent production from other on farm activities. The use of
various agroforestry practices has a large effect across the spatial and temporal management of
resources and agroecological systems.

3.4.2. Spatial Organizations of Systems
The spatial and temporal scales of a physical settlement in relation to agricultural systems
requires a distinct land use observation. Settlements are a major ecological disturbance across
natural landscapes that have effects on biological resources available, use of biological resources,
and livelihood strategies (Duvall, 2006). Two different types of spatial arrangement of villages
and farms were observed which impacted the structure of agricultural system temporally and
spatially. These arrangements largely fell along ethnic lines, but this was not the case in every
village.

63

Figure 7a: Spatial Arrangement I

Figure 7b: Spatial Arrangement 2

The main differences between the two spatial arrangements is that the first spatial
arrangement (Figure 7a) has the majority population living closely together with the fields
completely surrounding the village while the second type of spatial arrangement (Figure 7b) has
highly intensified fields in between family compounds. The villages with the fields in between
cited protection of field crops from animals as the main rationale. It was cited that it was easier
to build a fence around that area then around fields farther away from the village to keep animals
out. Spatial arrangement I is similar to other systems describe in Assé & Lassoie (2011), Duvall
(2006), and Mortimore & Adams (1999), while spatial arrangement II is similar to a system
described in Brookfield (2001).
Fields within the village in spatial arrangement II are usually cultivated on a longer cycle
of consecutive years with a higher reliance on chemical inputs such as fertilizers or pesticide to
mitigate decline yields. In both spatial organizations I and II forests that are not actively being
cultivated still provide various forest products for households such as fuel wood, food, medicine,
construction material, and marketable goods such as charcoal or bamboo. The option remains to
expand the area under cultivation if needed. Additionally, fallowed fields were actively used in

64

gathering various native fruits and other wood products such medicine, firewood, or construction
materials.
About half of the villages delineated land between pasture and cropland on a temporal
scale. These villages usually would delineate one side of the village in which all of the fields are
being fallowed as pasture land while they actively cultivate fields on the opposite side of the
village eventually switching between these plots once yields begin to decrease. Farmers cited
that it was easier to protect their crops from animals, the animals actively provided manure to
increase soil fertility of the fallowed areas, and animal fodder was more readily accessible in the
fallowed area.
Settlements within Kedougou are inherently a distinct type of land use within spatial and
temporal scales that have direct effects on biological resource use, fertility management, and
livelihood management fitting into the theoretical framework for Sahelian societies. The
spatiality of settlements can be seen as an adaptive and flexible variable leading to one of the
three model responses in the framework. Spatial organization of settlements impacts both the
intensity of cultivation and land use type where farmers weigh the cost-benefit of plot proximity,
water sources, and resource availability within agroecological systems.

3.4.3. Common Agroforestry Species
Diversifying with the use of different tree species effectively mitigates negative impacts
of the rainfall and bioproductivity constraints by diversifying productions throughout the year.
Diversifying wood and non-wood forest products augments household nutrition, availability of
resources, and can increase incomes (Faye et al., 2010; Maranz et al., 2004; Petit, 2003; Ræbild,
2012). For example, dry season activities may consist of gathering fruits from Vitellaria

65

paradoxa and Parkia biglobosa to process into shea oil and ‘nere’ respectively. These can serve
as nutritional or income sources during the beginning of the rainy season before crops have
matured (Figure 8) Common species used in various agroforestry systems in the region were
identified along with what farmers use them for and the level at which they are used to measure
the use of biological diversity. A scale of 1-3 is used to denote the level of use of each species
where one denotes common use and three denotes sparse use by using the listing method from
trees cited in focus groups.
Source of revenue
Activities
Agricultural crops
Home/Market Gardens
Animal Husbandry
Timber Products
Adasonia digitatas
Vitellaria paradoxa (Shea)
Saba Senegalensis
Parkia biglobosa
Gold Mining/Panning

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 8: Calendar of various income or food producing activities in Kedougou (Adapted from:
CSE, 2011a)
3.4.3.1. Parkland Species
This paper defines parkland specie as endemic or naturalized tree species being used in
agricultural systems. The trees listed in the table below were identified by farmers as trees that
they commonly use in their parkland systems. The trees and uses in listed in Table 7 are similar
to other species recorded across the literature (e.g. Gueye et al., 2014; Sinare & Gordon, 2015).

66

Table 7: Endemic species used in parkland systems (1=frequent; 2=occasional; 3=rare)
Species
Vitellaria paradoxa

Level of use
1

Common uses
Food, butter, oil, medicine

Parkia biglobosa **

1

Food, medicine

Adansonia digitata

1

Food, forest products, medicine

Saba senegalensis

1

Food, medicine

Tamarind indica **

1

Food, green manure, nitrogen fixation

Acacia spp.**

1

Protection, green manure, nitrogen fixation

Ziziphus mauritiana

1

Food, nitrogen fixation

Bombax costatum

2

Wood, forest products

Ceiba spp.

2

Wood, forest products

Cordyla pinnata

1

Food, firewood

Lannea spp.

2

Food, firewood

Ficus spp.

3

Food, medicine

Khaya senegalensis

1

Firewood, construction wood

Detarium microcarpum

1

Food, forest products

Detarium senegalense

1

Food, forest products

Pterocarpus erinaceus

3

Wood, medicine

Borassum aethiopium

1

Food, wood, palm wine

Elaeis guineensis

2

Oil, palm wine, wood

Raphia sudanica

1

Food, oil, palm wine, construction wood

Bambusa spp.

1

Construction wood

Piliostigma reticulatum **

1

Firewood

Piliostigma thonningii **

1

Firewood

**Denotes trees that fixate nitrogen
Vitellaria paradoxa and Parkia biglobosa were the two most commonly listed species. 75
% of the trees listed provide provision services that increase the nutrition or the income of
households. The majority of the species utilized provide multipurpose products such as food,
marketable value-added products, and forestry products such as firewood consumed by
households. While the vast amount of products is consumed at the household level, a smaller
proportion of these products are used as on farm and off farm income generation.

67

3.4.3.2. Cultivated Species
Along with leaving endemic or naturalized species in-situ in their systems farmers also
actively propagate species that mainly have nutritional or economic benefits that have primarily
been introduced by extension services, the colonial system, or NGOs. Many of these species are
actively extended by governmental and non-governmental organizations throughout Senegal in
efforts to increase food security and stop deforestation.

Table 8: Common cultivated and extended species used in agroforestry systems
Species

Level of use

Use

Mangifera indica

1

Food, market product

Anacardium occidentale

1

Food, market product

Citrus spp.

1

Food, market product

Acacia spp.

1

Live fencing, green manure

Psidium guajava

2

Food, market product

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

2

Windbreak, wood

Senna spp.

2

Windbreak, pole wood

Leucaena leucocephala

3

Windbreak, green manure, pole wood

Bauhinia ruscefens

2

Live Fencing, green manure

Jatropha curcas

1

Live fencing, demarcation, medicine, oil

Tamarind indica

2

Food, green manure

Azerondacta indica

1

Wind break, pesticides, oil

All of the villages had a mixture of parkland species and cultivated species throughout
farming landscapes. Farmers put an emphasis on the importance of having parkland trees in their
systems along with having cultivated species to increase nutrition, products, and income. Land
tenure and increased production were stressed as the factors behind the preference.
A stark difference between the two types of species is farmers very rarely actively
cultivate native or endemic tree species as opposed to the species listed in Table 8. Farmers
noted that they do not actively cultivate endemic species because they are plentiful in the forests.

68

Management of such trees is limited to natural regeneration, collection of forest products, and
minor pruning and tree selection when occurring in-situ on farms.

3.4.3.3. Homegarden Species
While not all households practiced homegardens, the practice was common throughout
all of the focus groups. These small intensified areas were cultivated not only during the rainy
season but during the dry season with a direct focus on food production, such as leaves and
vegetables for household consumption, using an intimate multistory combination of trees and
crops. Homegardens are primarily managed by women in the household and occur within the
homestead or immediately adjacent to the homestead.
Table 9: Common species used in homegarden systems
Common Homegarden Species
Jatropha curcas

Level of use
1

Use
Live Fence, demarcation, medicine, oil

Moringa oleifera

1

Food

Carica papya

1

Food

Musa spp.

2

Food

Psidium guajava

2

Food

Punica granatum

3

Food

*Amaranths and leafy vegetables are an integral component of homegarden understories
Farmers have shown great diversity of using various tree species to provide a multitude
of provisioning and protective services to not only increase food security but also mitigate the
negative impacts of rainfall or bioproductivity. Using a large number of trees on farms shows the
flexibility of farmers to use biodiversity and economic plants to increase food security (Agbola et
al., 2008; Reardon et al., 1992) The management of endemic and non-endemic tree species on
farms shows diversity and flexibility within livelihood strategies with large impacts on land-use
options and resource management across agricultural landscapes.
69

3.4.4. Fallow Trends
Soil is a major management component for all agroecological systems. Flexibility within
decision-making with regards to soil management on a year to year basis culminates into
adaptability by impacting not only soil fertility but also the biodiversity, bioproductivity, and
general livelihood strategies.
Farmers in the region of Kedougou still practice a form of shifting cultivation. Once
cereal grain productions begin to decline (usually 3-5 years) per plot of land, farmers then fallow
the plot to allow vegetation naturally regenerated to ameliorate topsoil and soil health. When the
fallow cycle has been completed, naturally regenerated mature trees are selected to be cut down
or coppiced. The plot of land is then burned. Farmers cited that the burned trees provide fertilizer
for the soil. Table 10 shows the average fallow cycle per cultivated plot as well as factors
leading to a decline in fallow cycles.

Table 10: Amount of years in fallow cycle per village (Average fallow = 4 years)
Village
Woulaba

Fallow
5-7 years

Syllacounda Diakha

1-2 years

Dar Salam

5-7 years

Thiangue

5 years

Bambaya

4-5 years

Thiabedji

4-5 years

Population pressure and land availability

Niangue

3-5 years

Decreased land availability due to encroachment of nationally protected
lands

Kafory

3-4 years

Population pressure and land availability

Indara/Bandafassi

4-5 years

Sinthiouroudji

None

Niemenike/Touba
Diakha

4-5 years

Mako

3-5 years

Reasons for reduction in fallow cycle
Population pressure and land availability

Reduction in available land due to lack of land tenure and encroachment of
surrounding communities

Land availability

70

Farmers were asked questions about the mechanism behind fallow and soil regeneration.
When asked, farmers responded that the decomposition of biomass from trees, predominantly
leaves, woody material, and roots, along with burning woody debris are the two main ways soil
health is increased by fallow. Farmers put a large emphasis on the decomposition of leaves being
the primary mechanism for soil regeneration with burning woody debris during field preparation
being the second most important mechanism for soil regeneration. There was a lack of
understanding about the nitrogen fixation; however, farmers cited nitrogen-fixing trees as trees
that can be attributed to faster soil health regeneration
Reduction of available land and increasing populations were the main stresses on land
availability because the constraint bioproductivity does not have the ability to increase, resulting
in either intensification or extensification of fields. This has created pressure to feed a growing
population with a similar amount of land, leading to a reduction in fallow cycles to produce
higher production from the same plot of land. Households would apply chemical inputs to plots
of land if the financial means were available to increase production. Due to various stresses and
pressures, farmers are being forced to adapt to changing conditions to maintain an equilibrium,
showing a level of resilience.

3.4.5. Determinants for Crop and Tree Choices
A primary component of the flexibility and adaptability of farmers is the management of
soil fertility. A few different factors have been identified as the key determinants for choosing
what farmers decide to grow on various temporal and spatial scales within the given constraints.
Focus group responses ranked soil type, quality, and texture as the primary determinants for crop
choice across spatial and temporal scales. Farmers demonstrated a vast amount of knowledge and

71

understanding of soil quality. For example, they could clearly understand the difference between
sand, silt, and clay, and had the ability to determine soil texture using the hand method. This
conforms to similar soil classification systems and perceptions impacting management strategies
(e.g. Assé & Lassoie, 2011; Badini & Dioni, 2004; Dawoe et al., 2012). Farmers regularly noted
that various crops perform better under various soil textures and organic matter.
Higher clay soils are reserved exclusively for rice production due to its seasonal flooding
ability. Millet and peanuts are cultivated primarily in sandier soils with higher gravel content
while corn is cultivated in soil with a higher silt fraction or soils resembling loam. Farmers
primarily grow corn or millet immediately following the fallow and then switch to peanuts after
yields begin to decrease. After peanuts, they will then try to get at least another season or two of
corn or millet again before letting the field go to fallow and switching their place of cultivation.
Farmers cited soil type as a determinant to specific tree species too with an understanding that
specific trees increase organic matter at a higher rate. Norgrove & Hauser (2016), Rushemuka et
al, (2014), Assé & Lassoie, (2011), and Dawoe et al., (2012) found similar findings regarding
farmer knowledge of soil and crop choice.
Farmers reported a preference for cultivating cereal grains over tree products due to the
ability of long-term food storage to increase food security. Cereal grains can be stored until
prices increase during the lean season coinciding with the beginning of the subsequent rainy
season. Due to lack of transportation and available markets, farmers reported that it is difficult to
consume larges amount of fruit before spoilage.
Responses on crop and tree determinants show flexibility on a year to year basis with the
management of resources and soil fertility. Farmers make adaptive decisions about planting
choices on a yearly basis based on soil quality. While these determinants show flexibility on an

72

annual basis, these determinants also have ramifications on the management of trees on farms, in
turn affecting both the diversity of resources and adaptive management.

3.4.6. Factors Driving use of Trees on Farms
The culmination of shorter-term decisions sequentially equates to longer-term
management strategies. Within the model, farmers must manage trees and crops on different
temporal scales while navigating the pros and cons of various livelihood strategies. During the
open-ended discussions, farmers discussed positive and negative drivers or factors that affect the
use of trees within their agricultural systems. These discussions were approached with the
understanding that trees are managed as long-term and permanent structures in agricultural
landscapes where I sought to understand the underlying drivers for the inclusion of both parkland
species utilized following a fallow cycle and trees purposefully planted on farms. These
decisions can be seen as the adaptability of farmers using both diversity and flexibility
properties. These factors tend to be a culmination of shorter-term decisions that impact
adaptability and long-term management creating feedback loops for soil fertility management,
food security, and ecosystem services as well as mitigating risk.

73

Table 11: Factors contributing to the use of trees on farms
Factors that increase the use of trees on farms

Number of Responses
(n=101)
10

Percentage of
Responders
10%

Forest Products (fruit, leaves, medicine, wood)

69

68%

Microclimates (Increased shade, cooler
temperatures)

37

37%

Increased rainfall and water retention

9

9%

Protective services (windbreaks, live fences,
shelterbelts)

23

23%

Products for Market/Income Generation

12

12%

Increased soil health

22

22%

Increased production of green manure

5

5%

Prevent Desertification

2

2%

Long term food security and income investment

2

2%

Aesthetics

2

2%

Increased land tenure and land ownership rights

7

7%

Increased production of animal fodder

7

7%

Reduction in pest pressure

1

1%

Cultural/Religious Importance

By far the key positive driving factor for the incorporation of agroforestry cropping
systems are yields that provide direct provisioning for the household. There is a primary focus on
products that either provide direct nutrition to the household through fruit or leaves along with
medicine and wood for construction or fuel. The data shows that environmental factors are by far
the main driving force behind farmers’ decision-making practices in Kedougou. From the 101
responses, over 85% can be considered environmental factors; however, it is difficult to separate
these factors from other underlying drivers that influence all decision-making of farmers. The
larger share of factors focused on provisioning services, but there was also emphasis on
supporting and regulating services. However, there is a religious and cultural importance tied to
the use of trees on farms (Brun, 2017; Duvall, 2006).

74

Table 12: Factors that contribute to a decreased use of trees on farms
Factors that decrease the use of trees on farms

Number of responses (n=101)

Percentage of Responders

Clear trees for extensification*

13

13%

Termites*

6

6%

Past failures/biases

1

1%

Lack of information/training/ignorance*

11

11%

Lack of water or protection or materials*

9

9%

Fire

1

1%

Lack of Market Access

10

10%

The key negative driver for a decrease in use of trees is also directly related to providing
provisions for the household. One topic that came up during every focus group was the debate
between needing trees due to their direct benefits for nutrition, household consumption, market
value, and environmental services versus the need for more space to cultivate cereal grains which
make up the bulk part of a household’s diet. Farmers definitely understood the beneficial side of
trees; however, there was an underlying driver that too many trees took up space that could be
used for growing cereal grains which farmers viewed as more beneficial to feeding their families
and increasing food security. They discussed that some trees are good because they create
microclimates that increase yields of cereals grains; however, an overabundance of trees will
shade crops out. There seems to be either a lack of knowledge or another underlying driver as to
why farmers do not practice more aggressive pruning techniques to reduce shading in their
fields. Instead farmers often decide to cut the tree down and burn it.
Debate occurred between long-term spatial and temporal management of trees on farms
with the production of cereal grains in the short term. In the short term, farmers responded to
large changes in constraints to primarily increase production through extensifying cereal grain
production by the clearing of more land or intensifying cereal grain production by cultivating a

75

specific plot for a longer period of time where chemical inputs may be applied to mitigate
declining annual yields.

3.4.7. Farmer Attitudes Towards Model Constraints
Within the model, climate change can be viewed as a disturbance to the overall system
impacting the variable properties and constraints, changing system outcomes or responses to
create a feedback that then affects the variable properties and constraints again (Berkes & Folke,
1998). Farmers provided a vast wealth of knowledge on how they use trees to buffer and adapt to
high variation in climatic conditions. However, it appears that climate change narratives are a
secondary factor with regards to the long-term management of mature trees across agricultural
landscapes. While trees are viewed as a buffer to climate variation, long-term management
strategies appear to be affected by other factors such as food security, biophysical indicators, and
population pressures.
Farmers noted how they viewed changes in precipitation and temperature over the past
10 years as well how they view the impacts on three components within their agricultural
systems. Farmers cited a strong correlation with tree density and precipitation patterns with a
high density of trees corresponding with high annual precipitation. Respondents generally saw an
increase in precipitation as a positive effect on production for all components of their agricultural
systems while an increase in temperature as a negative effect. Adapting to climate change is
viewed under the notion of flexibility which fosters continuous adjustments to agroecological
systems (McIntosh, 2000).

76

3.4.8. Responses to Model Variable Properties
Farmers must manage framework constraints while managing diversity of resources
within a system through flexible decisions in the short-term and long-term adaptable decisionmaking. The three responses observed throughout this study were intensification through
reduction of fallow cycles or chemical inputs, extensification cited as a response to lower than
expected yields on an annual basis, or diversification through the use of biological and technical
resources. Diversification appears to be a constant throughout farm management across the
region to mitigate all types of risk, socio-economic or biophysical.
Respondents cited extensification of cereal grain production was the primary response to
changes in the constraints (rainfall and bioproductivity) as a means to increase agricultural
production on a year to year scale. Farmers will simply expand the range of fields surrounding
village to increase the area under cultivation. This can mean an expansion of agricultural lands
onto lands not ideally suited for cultivation. This response causes a reduction in forest lands by
the clearing of trees off existing forested lands. Another for extensification is that trees may be
cleared off of existing agricultural lands. Another common response is to intensify fields by
continuing to cultivate plots sequentially for a longer period of time.
Farmers noted costs and benefits to allocating areas across plots of land to the
management of mature trees with a decrease in area for cereal grain cultivation. Cereal grain
production provides household food in a rapid time period that is easily stored for long periods of
time as where trees are a long-term investment until the trees have reached maturity. A farmer
would have the ability to cultivate a cereal grain for multiple rainy seasons on the same piece of
land that a tree would be taking up as it matures so while a tree might provide sustainable

77

resources, resources from cultivating a cereal grain would be seen within the first year as
opposed to a multi-year time scale.
Farmers do use agroforestry practices and trees on farms as ways to reduce agricultural
risk and climate variation along with added benefits such as nutrient cycling, reduced soil
temperatures, increased humidity, increased water retention, increased income generations, and
livestock benefits. It remains to be seen whether or not climate impacts the density of mature
trees on farms. Regardless, farmers do see trees as a way to mitigate reduction in precipitation
and increases in annual temperature.
Outside of the model used, farmers view governmental and non-governmental extension
services as a key technical resource when facing adverse conditions. Additionally, the use of
religion and prayer was strongly emphasized as a way to mitigate negative effects of climate
change. Farmers stressed a strong spiritual connection to trees and the use of trees in agricultural
landscapes believing that trees provide secure sources of nutrition and income while adding cobenefits of soil regeneration and beneficial conditions for cereal grain production.

3.4.9. Flexible and Adaptive Management Strategies
All management decision-making towards model constraints, variables, and responses
create a resilient livelihood strategy used by farmers. With a mixture of the accumulation of local
indigenous knowledge and adaptive management, farmers are acutely prepared to manage
agroecological systems with resilience. The combination of using a diverse set of resources
(biological, technical, and cultural) and the flexibility of decision-making around soil fertility
management, agroforestry practice use, and farm spatial scales on an annual basis accumulates

78

into longer term adaptive measures; however, these adaptive measures may only go so far in
mitigating the negative effects of climate change.

3.5. CONCLUSION
The model to analyze the social organization of Sahelian households and livelihood
strategies used in this study offers various insights in indigenous knowledge and household
decision-making with regards to climate change and agroecological system management to
maintain a resilient equilibrium. A key insight is that farmers readily perceive changes in climate
(actual or not) and incorporate this knowledge into the long-term management of agricultural
systems. A second insight is that farmers possess a fairly strong knowledge of ecological
principles directly related to the management of soil, food production, and management of
forests and forestry products. Lastly, farmers use trees to adapt and cope by reducing
vulnerability to variations in climate, but also strongly depend on extensification.
There is a primary focus on production of provisioning services from agroforestry
systems. Primarily products such as food, fuel wood, timber, and medicine are consumed at the
household level with excess being sold at market. This can be seen in the factors listed for
reasons to incorporate trees on farm, and within the specific species farmers choose to cultivate.
This makes plausible sense since the vast majority of farmers in the region are subsistence
farmers. The next tier of factors listed for adoption albeit do not directly provide food for the
farmers except money being made from products sold can be understood to also increase yields.
Farmers put a great importance on microclimates and soil health which have the beneficial effect
of increasing crop yields, which in turn would increase food security through better nutrition and
a greater disposable income.

79

While climate change does play a role in farmer and household decision making, there is
a lack of evidence that climate change narratives are a primary driver to farmer adaptation.
Farmers continue to adapt and respond to all factors that affect farming systems. Farmers in West
Africa have and will continue to practice agriculture in agroecological systems under high
variability and volatility. The livelihood model developed for Sahelian communities allowed for
an analysis of how farmers adapt by flexible management decisions on a year to year time scale.
It was shown in the focus groups that farmers have a vast wealth of knowledge of ecosystem
services provided by trees on farms along with using them as an adaptation strategy to ever
changing climate variations along with increasing extreme weather events. Farmers have shown
resilience in adapting to climate variation across temporal scales through traditional knowledge
of farming systems.

80

REFERENCES

81

REFERENCES

Agbola, P. O., Awotide, D. O., Ikpi, A. E., Kormawa, P., Okoruwa, V. O., & Babalola, D. A.
(2008). Effect of Income Diversification Strategies on food Insecurity Status of Farming
Households in Africa: Result of Analysis from Nigeria. In 12th EAAE Congress “People,
Food and Environments: Global Trends and European Strategies” (pp. 26–29). Gent.
Agyeman, V. K., Marfo, K. A., Kasanga, K. R., Danso, E., Asare, A. B., Yeboah, O. M., &
Agyeman, F. (2003). Revising the taungya plantation system: new revenue-sharing
proposals from Ghana (Vol. 54). Rome, Italy.
ANSD. (2015). Situation Economique et Sociale Regionale: Kedougou 2013. Kedougou.
Assé, R., & Lassoie, J. P. (2011). Household decision-making in agroforestry parklands of
Sudano-Sahelian Mali. Agroforestry Systems, 82(3), 247–261.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9395-2
Badini, O., & Dioni, L. (2004). Landscape and Soil Characterisitcs of Madiama Commune. In K.
Moore (Ed.), Conflict, Social Capital and Managing Natural Resources: A West African
Case Study. Cambridge MA: CABI Publishing.
Baker, K. (2000). Indigenous Land Management in West Africa: An Environmental Balancing
Act. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and Capabilities, A Framework for Analyzing and rural
livelihoods. World Development, 27(12), 2021–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305750X(99)00104-7
Becker, C. D., & Ghimire, K. (2003). Synergy Between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
Conservation Science Supports Forest Preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology, 8(1).
Retrieved from http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss1/art1%0A2.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating Social - Ecological Systems: Building
Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press. New York: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability. In F. Berkes, C. Folke, & J. Colding (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological
Systems: Management Practices of Social Mechanism for Building Resilience (pp. 1–26).
Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boffa, J. M. (1999). Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa. FAO Conservation Guide
(Vol. 34). Rome, Italy.

82

Brookfield, H. C. (2001). Exploring Agrodiversity. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brun, A. P. (2017). Notes sur les Croyances et les Pratiques religieuses des Malinkes Fetichistes.
Anthropos, BD, 2(4), 722–729.
Cook, I. (1997). Participant observation. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in
Human Geography: a guide for students doing research projects (pp. 127–150). Essex:
Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Crang, M. (1997). Chapter 11 - Analyzing qualitative materials. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin
(Eds.), Methods in Human Geography: a guide for students doing research projects (pp.
183–196). Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
CSE. (2011a). Analyse Globale de la Vulnerabilite, de la Securite Alimentaire et de la Nutrition:
Cartographie des zones de moyen d’existence. Dakar.
CSE. (2011b). Rapport Technique - ANNEE 2011. Dakar.
Dansokho, M., Lo, M. M., & Diop, M. (2012). L’évaluation économique des services des
écosystèmes forestiers au Sénégal: Etude de cas des communautes rurales de Niakhene et
de Bandafassi.
Dawoe, E. K., Quashie-sam, J., Isaac, M. E., & Oppong, S. K. (2012). Exploring farmers’ local
knowledge and perceptions of soil fertility and management in the Ashanti Region of
Ghana. Geoderma, 179–180, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.02.015
Diedhiou, B. (2004). Etude de la Contribution des Fruitiers Forestiers a la Securite Alimentaire.
Dakar, Senegal.
Diop, M. USAID Kedougou Synergy meeting (2014).
Duvall, C. S. (2006). Villages, Vegetation, Bedrock, and Chimpanzees: Human and Non-Human
Sources of Ecosystem Structure in SOuthwestern Mali. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
FAO, & CSE. (2007). Caractérisation des systèmes de production agricoles au Sénégal:
Document de synthèse. Dakar.
Faye, M. D., Weber, J. C., Mounkoro, B., & Dakouo, J.-M. (2010). Contribution of parkland
trees to farmers’ livelihoods: a case study from Mali. Development in Practice, 20(3), 428–
434. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614521003710013
Gueye, M., Ayessou, N. C., Koma, S., Diop, S., Akpo, L. E., & Samb, P. I. (2014). Wild Fruits
Traditionally Gathered by the Malinke Ethnic Group in the Edge of Niokolo Koba Park
(Senegal). American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5, 1306–1317.
Isaac, M. E., Dawoe, E., & Sieciechowicz, K. (2009). Assessing Local Knowledge Use in
83

Agroforestry Management with Cognitive Maps. Environmental Management, 43, 1321–
1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9201-8
Kalaugher, E., Bornman, J. F., Clark, A., & Beukes, P. (2013). An integrated biophysical and
socio-economic framework for analysis of climate change adaptation strategies: The case of
a New Zealand dairy farming system. Environmental Modelling & Software, 39, 176–187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.018
Kristjanson, P., Neufeldt, H., Gassner, A., Sayula, G., Thiede, B., Förch, W., … Coe, R. (2012).
Are food insecure smallholder households making changes in their farming practices?
Evidence from East Africa. Food Sec., 4, 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-0120194-z
Kristjanson, P., Place, F., Franzel, S., & Thornton, P. K. (2002). Assessing research impact on
poverty : the importance of farmers’ perspectives. Agricultural Systems, 72, 73–92.
Laws, S., Harper, C., & Marcus, R. (2003). Research for development: a practical guide.
London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lykke, a. M. (2000). Local perceptions of vegetation change and priorities for conservation of
woody-savanna vegetation in Senegal. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(2), 107–
120. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0336
Maranz, S., Kpikpi, W., Wiesman, Z., De Saint Sauveur, A., & Chapagain, B. (2004). Nutritional
Values and Indigenous Preferences for Shea Fruits (Vitellaria Paradoxa C.F. Gaertn. F.) in
African Agroforestry Parklands. Economic Botany, 58(4), 588–600.
https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0588:NVAIPF]2.0.CO;2
McIntosh, R. J. (2000). Social Memory in Mande. In R. J. Mcintosh, J. A. Tainter, & S. K.
McIntosh (Eds.), The Way the Wind Blows (pp. 141–180). New York: Columbia University
Press.
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Nielsen, J. O., Maiga, A., Diallo, D., Reenberg, A., … Dabi, D. (2010).
Climate Factors Play a Limited Role for Past Adaptation Strategies in West Africa. Ecology
and Society, 15(4). https://doi.org/25
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., & Diouf, A. (2009). Farmers’ perceptions of climate change
and agricultural adaptation strategies in rural sahel. Environmental Management, 43(5),
804–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9197-0
Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., Genesio, L., Lambin, E. F., D’haen, S., … Sandholt, I.
(2011). Adaptation strategies and climate vulnerability in the Sudano-Sahelian region of
West Africa. Atmospheric Science Letters, 12, 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.314
Mortimore, M., & Adams, W. M. (1999). Working the Sahel: Environment and Society in
Northern Nigeria. London and New York: Routledge.
84

Mortimore, M. J., & Adams, W. M. (2001). Farmer adaptation, change and “crisis” in the Sahel.
Global Environmental Change, 11(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09593780(00)00044-3
Murray-Prior, R. (1998). Modelling Farmer Behaviour : a Personal Construct Theory
Interpretation of Hierarchical Decision Models. Agricultural Systems, 57(4), 541–556.
Nair, P. K. R. (2014). Agroforestry: Practices and Systems. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and
Food Systems, 1, 270–282. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-525123.00021-8
Norgrove, L., & Hauser, S. (2016). Biophysical criteria used by farmers for fallow selection in
West and Central Africa. Ecological Indicators, 61, 141–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.013
Okike, I., Jabbar, M. A., Manyong, V. M., Smith, J. W., Jabbar, M. A., Manyong, V. M., &
Ecological, J. W. S. (2017). Ecological and Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Agricultural
Intensification in the West African Savannas : Evidence from Northern Nigeria Ecological
and Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Agricultural Intensification in the West African
Savannas : Evidence. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 27(2), 5–37.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v27n02
Petit, S. (2003). Parklands with fodder trees: a Fulße response to environmental and social
changes. Applied Geography, 23(2–3), 205–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2003.08.008
Ræbild, A. (2012). Improved management of fruit trees in West African parklands. Agroforestry
Systems, 85(3), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9524-6
Reardon, T., Delgado, C., & Matlon, P. (1992). Determinants and Effects of Income
Diversification Amongst Farm Households in Burkina Faso. Journal of Development
Studies, 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389208422232
Rist, S., & Daubouh-Guebas, F. (2006). Ethnosciences –– A step towards the integration of
scientific and indigenous forms of knowledge in the management of natural resources for
the future. Environ Dev Sustain, 8, 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9050-7
Roncoli, C. (2006). Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers ’
responses to climate predictions. Climate Research, 33, 81–99.
Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Zaal, F., & Dietz, T. (2005). Reconciling Conservation Goals and
Livelihood Needs : New Forest Management Perspectives in the 21 st Century. In African
Forests Between Nature and Livelihood Resources; Interdisciplinary Studies in
Conservation and Forest Management Edited (pp. 3–29). Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales:
The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd.
85

Rushemuka, N. P., Bizoza, R. A., Mowo, J. G., & Bock, L. (2014). Farmers’ soil knowledge for
effective participatory integrated watershed management in Rwanda : Toward soil-specific
fertility management and farmers’ judgmental fertilizer use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 183, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.020
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods a Framework for Analysis. IDS Working
Paper (Vol. 72). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1110037
Sinare, H., & Gordon, L. J. (2015). Ecosystem services from woody vegetation on agricultural
lands in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 200,
186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.009
Stack, J. (2009). Participatory approaches to research. In K. Muir-Leresche, R. Coe, & A.
Ekwamu (Eds.), Graduate Environmental and Agricultrual Research: A Guide to Effective
and Relevant Graudate Research in Africa (pp. 115–126). Kampala, Uganda: Reginoal
Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Africulture.
Tappan, G., & Mcgahuey, M. (2007). Tracking environmental dynamics and agricultural
intensification in southern Mali. Agricultural Systems, 94, 38–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.07.011
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation.
SAGE Publications, Inc.

86

CHAPTER 4. IMPACTS OF AGRFORESTRY PRACTICES AND TREE DENSITY ON
FARM VALUATION: THE CASE OF KEDOUGOU SENEGAL
4.1 ABSTRACT
Rural subsistence households face a variety of environmental pressures that increase
vulnerability. Agroforestry and biodiversity are seen as two practices that can reduce sensitivity
to risk thus by decreasing vulnerability. There was a strong correlation between crop production
and farm size (R2 = 0.89) where livestock was a significant proportion of the total farm
valuation. Using a regression model, the effect of agroforestry practices and tree diversity on the
valuation of crop yields and livestock holdings was analyzed. There was a lack of significance
between means except for the types of agroforestry practices had an effect on the valuation of
crop yields and livestock holdings together. Even though agroforestry practices and tree diversity
were shown to have a small effect on farm valuation the multiple co-benefits cannot be
overlooked when assessing their impact on reducing vulnerability. The lack of significance is
probably due to a small sample size and lack of a multi-year data set.

4.2 INTRODUCTION
Food security is defined as when ‘all people, at all times, have physical and economic
access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preference for
an active and healthy live’ (FAO, 1996). Food security is a direct outcome of the status of a food
system with a food system being a range of activities from consumption to production of food
(Ericksen et al., 2009). To completely understand and study food systems, a broadening of the
definition to fully encompass the economic, social, and environmental drivers that affect food
security, food, management, and livelihood strategies is needed as well as their outcomes. A
broader definition of food systems includes the interactions between biogeophysical and human

87

environments, the activities themselves, and the outcomes of the activities with feedback
mechanisms (Berkes et al., 2003; Ericksen, 2008). The production of food, food security, and
food systems can all be directly linked to vulnerability for subsistence farming systems through
both natural capital and financial capital.
While there is not agreement on a perfect method of assessing vulnerability especially
within subsistence farmers, farm productivity, household wealth, and diversification of activities
have all been used to develop vulnerability indices (Evangelista et al., 2015; Hoogeveen et al.,
2004). Regardless, the incorporation of agroforestry practices has been shown to rapidly increase
agricultural output (Yin & Hyde, 2000) while creating systems that can be sustained long-term
(Mbow et al., 2014). The FAO views augmentation to traditional production systems through
agroforestry as a viable option for agricultural development in rural areas (El-Hadji et al, 2001).
Agroforestry has added advantages as compared to other adjustments to agricultural
lands. Practices such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or extension of improved seed varieties
may lead to a decrease in soil organic matter (Maeder et al, 2002), increased crop vulnerability to
pests and diseases (Matson et al., 1997), and a decrease in overall environmental productivity
(Aktar et al., 2009). Whereas the increase of tree cover through agroforestry practices can
increase hydraulic lift (Ong et al., 2014), reduce wind velocity (Stigter et al., 2002), increase soil
carbon (Chen et al., 2017), and decrease pests or diseases (Gadanakis et al., 2015). By looking at
the relationship between the valuation of crop yields, valuation of livestock holdings (i.e. the
amount of livestock per household converted to a monetary value), agroforestry practices, and
tree diversity, I aim to assess if there are beneficial effects to crop yields on farms that practice
different agroforestry practices and have different amounts of tree diversity. The main objective
of this study is to determine if agroforestry practices can reduce sensitivity to risk in turn

88

reducing vulnerability by looking at crop yields and livestock valuation as proxies for
productivity and capital. Evangelista et al., (2015) defines sensitivity as the degree to which a
system is affected and by increasing plant diversity, number of livestock, types of land-use, and
agricultural yields. An increase in any of these factors decreases the sensitivity or the degree by
which a household experiences vulnerability.
In this study, I examined agricultural yields and valuation of livestock holdings as a
function of both agroforestry practices and tree diversity on farms. This approach examines how
various agroforestry practices and tree diversity occurring as a result of different management
styles affect valuation of crop yields and valuation of livestock holdings. Agroforestry practices
and tree diversity were chosen because increased biodiversity (i.e. multiple tree species) in an
agroecological system increases overall ecosystem health (Peterson, Allen, & Holling, 1998),
and agroforestry practices increase both ecosystem services and primary productivity (P K R
Nair, 1998).

4.3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGIES
4.3.1 Study Area
Kedougou, Senegal is the most rural and food insecure region of Senegal. The population
relies primarily upon rain fed agriculture with a large dependency on parkland agroforestry
species to increase incomes and nutrition (ANSD, 2015; Gueye et al., 2014). The rainy season
normally last from May to late October with about 1200 mm of water per year (Dansokho et al.,
2012).
The main crops cultivated are peanuts, rice, maize, cassava, fonio, and potatoes with
parklands being dominated by mangos, cashews, shea trees, locust bean, and palm trees (Wood

89

& Mendelsohn, 2014). Maize is the dominant cash crop in Kedougou; however, by household
consumption groundnuts and rice are important followed by sorghum and millet (ANACIM et
al., 2013). Additionally, this region of the country produces a large amount of charcoal and wild
fruits (IREF, 2015), but wood is used for the majority of energy production followed by propane
and charcoal (ANSD, 2015). Average farm size was determined to be 2.27 hectares where 89 %
of households are considered very poor or poor by the WFP wealth index which measures wealth
based on ownership of non-productive assets.

4.3.2. Survey Method
53 households were surveyed across 12 randomly selected villages. The data was
collected using translators whom had been trained to engage stakeholders and community
groups. All values were calculated in 2016 FCFA currency rates. Households were 36 % Mande
speakers and 64 % Pulaar speakers. Average farm size was 2.27 hectares, and maize, peanuts,
and rice were the predominant grains cultivated. All households cultivate subsistence
agroforestry systems while using surrounding forests for additional wood and NTFPs to augment
household diets and income. The majority of households view soil health and rainfall as the main
determinants for production.

4.3.3. Conceptual Method
Two separate multi-linear regression models were conducted with the two response
variables being crop valuation and the sum of crop valuation and livestock holdings respectively.
Crop valuation was used to evaluate annual production of a farm while the sum of both crop
valuation and livestock holdings served as proxy for a household’s yearly capital. These

90

independent variables were used to assess farm productivity from two separate concepts.
Agroforestry practice and crop diversity were the dependent variables for both models.

The model takes form as:

ln Yi = α + β1x1i + β2x2i + ɛi

where Y is crop valuation and livestock holdings, α is a constant, x1 is categorical variable for
agroforestry practices, x2 is the categorical variable for tree diversity, β1 and β2 are intercepts, ɛi
are independently distributed error terms where i represents each household. Crop yields were
determined by multiplying size of farms by average regional yields per hectare, and the
multiplied by median market pricing for 2016. Valuation of livestock were determined by
multiplying herd size by median market prices for 2016. Pricing was determined by surveying
local market vendors.

4.4. RESULTS
4.4.1. Trends in Senegal’s Agricultural Sector
Senegal’s agricultural sector has remained fairly stagnate in terms of production and
acreage for the latter part of the 20th century. Figure 8 show trends in production, area under
cultivation, and yields over a 49-year period. The majority of these have remained relatively
stable with the exception being increases in maize and paddy rice production without a
comparable increase in area under cultivation which can be viewed in both the production and
yields charts. Annual decreases especially in the 1970s are due to major droughts (ANACIM et
al., 2013).

91

Trends in market pricing for cereal grains has also remained fairly constant over a similar
time period (Kelly et al., 1996). Even though cereal grain production has remained fairly
constant, total area under agroforestry practices has more than doubled through the extension of
agroforestry practices from governmental and non-governmental extension services (CSE, 2009).

4.4.2. Description of Agroforestry Practices in Southeastern Senegal
Senegal promoted monoculture production of cereal grains and cash crops such as cotton
starting from the colonial era through independence. More recently, Senegal has undertaken
agricultural and land-tenure reforms decentralizing land rights and forest management (MEDD,
2014). The state has shifted focus on the promotion of diversification of food crops as well as the
development of more intensive agro-sylvo-pastoral systems as well as the promotion of
agroforestry to meet the needs of the households specifically in a rural context. Senegal has
begun more specific promotion of practices depending on the type of landscape and
environmental conditions such as the exploitation of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) and
paddy rice cultivation in southern Senegal (FAO & CSE, 2007) to decrease dependence on
imports (El-Hadji et al., 2001). This is especially important to the region of Kedougou due to
historically lower yields per unit area of cereal grains compared to national averages (ANACIM
et al., 2013).

92

Figure 9: Trends in cereal grain production (left); area under cultivation in hectares (right);
yields in hectogram per hectare (bottom) between 1961 and 2010 (Source: ANACIM et al. 2013)
Agricultural systems in Kedougou are predominantly rain fed parkland agroforestry systems
intermixed with various agroforestry practices such as hedgerows and taungya. Hedgerows are a
practice of using trees to establish a row of trees to protect fields from wind damage, erosion,
floods, or animals often called windbreaks, shelterbelts, or live fences. Taungya is the practice of
growing agricultural crops in between trees during the early stages of establishing forestry
species for timber or NFTPs (P.K.R. Nair, 2014).
Table 13 shows the amount of additional hectares and linear kilometers of taungya and
hedgerows over the years 2012, 2014, and 2015. The region of Kedougou Senegal poses an
interesting opportunity to examine the impact of specific agroforestry practices on agricultural
production. I aim to analyze how agroforestry practices and tree diversity have an effect on farm
productivity and household wealth through valuating crop production and livestock holdings.

93

Table 13: Yearly increases in agroforestry practices in Kedougou (Source: IREF, 2013, 2014,
2015)
Year
Plantation (ha) Hedgerow (linear km)
72.59
44.9
2012
150.56
95.964
2014
130
88.35
2015

4.4.3. The Effect of Farm Size on Yields
Figure 10 shows the average amount of crop yields cited per village as well as the
average value of livestock holdings per village. This figure shows that livestock holdings make
up a majority of capital possessed by each household whereas the value of the crop yields is
predominantly smaller. Livestock is the predominant way to store wealth across West Africa
(Kamuanga et al., 2008).

Valuation of Farm Activities
2500

CFA

2000
1500
1000
500
0

Crop Revenue

Livestock Valuation

Figure 10: Total Valuation of Crop Yield and Valuation of Livestock Holdings by Village

Figure 11 shows that as farm size increases so does valuation of crop yields per farm.
The R2 value of 0.89 shows that there is a strong correlation between farm size and crop
94

valuation. Area under cultivation is an accurate predictor to yields of cereal grains especially on
farms with a low level of mechanization. As area under cultivation increases so does the amount
of yields.

Crop Valuation
3000
2500

R² = 0.8931

CFA

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Hectare

Figure 11: Correlation between crop valuation and farm size

4.4.4. Effect of Choice of Agroforestry Practice on Farm Valuation
An analysis of agroforestry practice difference on crop valuation showed no overall
statistical significance (F = 0.76, p = 0.5218). Looking at pairwise comparisons for agroforestry
practice on solely crop valuation showed no significant difference between means. However,
livestock valuation with crop revenue showed a statistical significance (F = 2.37, p = 0.0827)
using an alpha value of α = 0.10.
A closer look at pairwise comparisons for crop and livestock together showed there is a
statistical difference between farms that practiced parklands alone, farms that practiced either
taungya or hedgerows with parklands, and farms that practice all three congruously. Farms that
practice all three forms of agroforestry has the highest valuation of crop yields and livestock
holdings. Farms that practices either taungya or hedgerows in conjunction with parklands had the

95

next highest valuation of crops yields and livestock holdings where farms that only practiced
parklands had the lowest amount of crop yields and livestock holdings.

Figure 12: Effect of agroforestry practice on valuation of crop yields (left); Effect of
agroforestry practice on valuation of crop yields with livestock holdings (right);
1 = Parkland; 2 = Parkland + Taungya; 3 = Parkland + Hedgerow; 4 = Parkland + Taungya +
Hedgerow

4.4.5. Effect of Tree Diversity on Farm Valuation
Looking at the number of tree species per farm also showed no statistical significance for
crop valuation (F = 0.45, p = 0.6415) as well as valuation of livestock holdings and crop
valuation together (F = 1.16, p = 0.3233). This goes to suggest that the diversity of trees on farms
does not dictate the amount of crop yields or livestock holdings. Additionally, there does not
seem to be any increase or decrease trends for farm valuation with changes to tree diversity.
Finally, an analyses of interaction between the two variables showed there was no significant
interaction between them.

96

Figure 13: Effect of tree species diversity on valuation of crop yields (left); Effect of tree species
diversity valuation of crop yields and livestock holdings (right);
1 = 1-5 tree species; 2 = 6-10 tree species; 3 = ≥11 tree species, *No statistical significance
4.4.6. Analysis of Deviation from Mean by Agroforestry Practice

Deviation of Crops
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
0

1

2

3

4

5

4

5

Deviation of Crops and Livestock

2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
0

1

2

3

Figure 14: Analysis of deviation from mean for valuation crop yields (above); analysis of
deviation from mean for valuation of crop yields and livestock (below), by agroforestry practice;
1 = Parkland; 2 = Parkland + Taungya; 3 = Parkland + Hedgerow; 4 = Parkland + Taungya +
Hedgerow
97

Figure 14 shows that for both the valuation of crops and livestock there is a negative
correlation for deviation from the mean of each respectively. A negative correlation signifies that
the incorporation of agroforestry practices is correlated to a stronger valuation of farm activities.
The correlation for the deviation for crop yields alone is weaker than with the valuation of both
crop yields and livestock holdings together; however, both of them of a negative trend.

4.4.7. Analysis of Deviation from Mean by Tree Diversity

Deviation by Crop Valuation
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
0

1

2

3

4

Deviation by Valuation of Crop and LIvestock
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
0

1

2

3

4

Figure 15: Analysis of deviation from mean by valuation crop yields (above); analysis of
deviation from mean by valuation of crop yields and livestock (below), by tree diversity;
1 = 1-5 tree species; 2 = 6-10 tree species; 3 = ≥11 tree species
98

Figure 15 shows that there is a negative correlation for both the valuation of crop yields
and the valuation of crop yields and livestock together with added diversity on farms. The more
tree diversity on farms has a higher correlation with regards to deviation from the mean.
Valuation of crop yields has a stronger correlation with tree diversity than valuation of both crop
yields and livestock holdings together.

4.5 DISCUSSION
4.5.1. Agroforestry Practice
The lack of significance with agroforestry practices and crop valuation (Figure 12) may
lie in the idea that agroforestry is viewed as having a positive net effect over the long-term.
There has been a recent increase in area under agroforestry in Kedougou; however, there is an
inherent time lag within the establishment of agroforestry benefits. Additionally, giving up arable
land to production of trees instead of crops could be another reason to why the incorporation of
trees on farms showed no positive effect on crop yields. While overall productivity may increase
in the long-term, crop yields may decrease due to less land available for cultivation.
Individual tree-crop interactions such as maize and Gliricidum sepium have been studied
at length (Odhiambo et al., 2001; Smethurst et al., 2017) so another reason for the lack of
significance could be competition between crops and the trees intercropped or a lack of fertilizer
trees properly suited for this specific environment. The problem could also lie within specific
aboveground or belowground competition such as a less than optimal planting arrangement, root
competition, nutrient competition, shading, or competition for water. To increase efficiency

99

within an agroforestry system, proper tree selection is needed to fit specific biological niches and
decrease competition between species (Schroth, 1995).
A significance between the type of agroforestry practice and total farm valuation (i.e.
crop yields and livestock holdings) may be linked to traditional management of fallow lands and
livestock. Hedgerows and other agroforestry practices provide protection and increased weight
gain for livestock (He et al., 2017) while creating and increasing a significant fodder source
through leaves, pods, and fruits (Franzel et al., 2014). Another possible reason is that households
with higher capital i.e. larger livestock holdings are more likely to adopt agroforestry practices
(Caveness & Kurtz, 1993) so the significance between the means could a product of households
already possessing larger wealth in livestock may be more likely to adopt agroforestry practices.

4.5.2. Tree Diversity
Tree diversification has shown to increase soil health (Abdoulaye & Fujiwara, 2007) as
well as diversifying household nutrition, livelihoods, and income streams (Diedhiou, 2004;
Maranz et al., 2004; Ordonez et al., 2014). An increased number of species also reduces stress
from disease and pests (Way & Heong, 1994) as well as generally increasing a household’s
resiliency to adverse conditions (Bayala et al., 2014). However, the link between tree diversity
and crop yields is not as strongly established. While there is a strong link between biodiversity
and food security (Thrupp, 2010), this might not readily translate into increased yields which the
lack of significance in this study would support.
There could be a variety of reasons for the lack of significance with one reason being the
shading of crops caused by trees. A higher amount of tree diversity within a farm could be
correlated to higher shading of crops. Over shading of crops especially within parklands (J.

100

Bayala et al., 2008) can cause a decrease in crop yields even with the added benefits of
intercropping. Without a proper pruning and spacing, trees will shade out crops reducing yields
(Chauhan et al., 2013). Tree-crop competition between roots (Stigter et al., 2002), tree spacing,
and competition for nutrients (Rao et al., 1998) also lead to a lack of significance. While an
increase in tree diversity may intuitively lead to increases in valuation of livestock holdings
through a diversity across seasons in fodder for animals (Gachuiri et al., 2017; Petit, 2003), a
lack of ability to buy feed in times of shortages may play into this (Dawson, Carsan, et al., 2014).

4.5.3. Linking Agroforestry, Tree Diversity, and Vulnerability
At a national policy level, increased yields may be the goal to feed an ever growing
population, but being able to feed that population sustainably under adverse conditions through
resilient systems is also necessary. Agroforestry and trees are one piece of the puzzle to decrease
vulnerability (Nguyen, Hoang, & Öborn, 2013). While the incorporation of agroforestry
practices and tree diversity on farms may have not shown a statistical significance with regards
to differences in farm valuation, the other benefits provided by these two factors cannot be
overlooked. As well as the contribution to species diversity to improving household diets.
(Ng’endo et al., 2015)
Figure 14 and 15 strengthen the argument that while there was not an overall
significance to either agroforestry practices and tree diversity on farm valuation there is still a
beneficial effect cause by both agroforestry practices and tree diversity. The incorporation of
more agroforestry practices and higher tree diversity are both correlated with a larger departure
from the mean regarding higher valuation of farm activities.

101

Regardless of impacts on valuation of farm activities, an increase in diversification of
practices has shown a strong correlation to decrease the vulnerability through decreasing
sensitivity of the system (Reidsma & Ewert, 2008; Thorlakson & Neufeldt, 2012). Trees on
farms have the added benefit of increasing ecosystem services by not only increasing
provisioning services (Kuyah et al., 2016) but increasing regulating services (Bayala et al., 2014)
and secondary services (Lott et al., 2009; Ong et al., 2000). So while statistical significance and
an increase in valuation was not observed, the added co-benefits of agroforestry cannot be
overlooked when creating sustainable food systems in a rural developmental context. Research
looking at yields and farm valuation over a multiple year period is needed to assess the true
efficacy of agroforestry on food systems in Kedougou.

4.5.4. Limitations
The overall lack of significance could be a results of a small sample size or a lag time
between agroforestry practice implementation and maturation of trees. Additionally, an analysis
of practices on forest products both timber and NTFPs is necessary to understand the larger
picture of how agroforestry can affect farm yields and valuation. Going forward, data collected
on a multi-year time scale may show a correlation between an increase in agroforestry practices
in Kedougou and increased yields. A lack of maturity of trees within practices could be main
cause of lack of significance within farm valuation.

4.6. CONCLUSION
National agricultural policy in Senegal has shifted towards a more decentralized
governance with a focus on sustainable practices such as agroforestry. While this study suggests

102

that there is a low correlation between overall valuation of farm production with both
agroforestry practices and tree diversity on farms, an increase in such practices can have an
overall positive affect on other factors not quantifiable in a monetary value.
Even with a lack of statistical significance between crop yields and livestock holdings
with agroforestry practice and tree diversity, except for the effect of agroforestry practice on the
valuation of both crop yields and livestock holdings, agroforestry practices and tree diversity can
still be considered to decrease vulnerability of farmers through a decreased in sensitivity to risk.
Additionally, multiple co-benefits such as increased environmental services lead to a more stable
and sustainable environment to produce food.
Agroforestry can be viewed as just one piece of the puzzle to the issue of low yields
across rural areas in the developing world. It remains to be seen whether agroforestry practices in
the Kedougou region will translate to increases of agricultural crops, but agroforestry will
continue to contribute to the livelihoods of rural farmers in Kedougou through boosting multiple
ecosystem services.

103

REFERENCES

104

REFERENCES

Abdoulaye, D., & Fujiwara, K. (2007). Vegetation structure , diversity and site conditions in the
south of the Diambour Forest Reserve, southeastern Senegal. Tropics, 17(1), 25–42.
Aktar, W., Sengupta, D., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their
benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7
ANACIM, WFP, & IRI. (2013). Climate risk and food security in Senegal: Analysis of climate
impacts on food security and livelihoods. Retrieved from
https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/fr/system/files/documents/files/Climate risk impacts
on food security and livelihoods in Senegal.pdf
ANSD. (2015). Situation Economique et Sociale Regionale: Kedougou 2013. Kedougou.
Bayala, J., Ouedraogo, S. J., & Teklehaimanot, Z. (2008). Rejuvenating indigenous trees in
agroforestry parkland systems for better fruit production using crown pruning. Agroforest
Syst, 72, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9099-9
Bayala, J., Sanou, J., Teklehaimanot, Z., Kalinganire, a., & Ouédraogo, S. J. (2014). Parklands
for buffering climate risk and sustaining agricultural production in the Sahel of West Africa.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6(1), 28–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.004
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating Social - Ecological Systems: Building
Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press. New York: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957
Caveness, F. a., & Kurtz, W. B. (1993). Agroforestry adoption and risk perception by farmers in
Senegal. Agroforestry Systems, 21, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00704923
Chauhan, S. K., Dhillon, W. S., Singh, N., & Sharma, R. (2013). Physiological Behaviour and
Yield Evaluation of Agronomic Crops Under Agri-horti-silviculture System. International
Journal of Plant Research, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.plant.20130301.01
Chen, C., Liu, W., Jiang, X., & Wu, J. (2017). Effects of rubber-based agroforestry systems on
soil aggregation and associated soil organic carbon: Implications for land use. Geoderma,
299, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.03.021
CSE. (2009). Annuaire sur l’Environnement et les Ressources Naturelles du Sénégal. Dakar.
Dansokho, M., Lo, M. M., & Diop, M. (2012). L’évaluation économique des services des
écosystèmes forestiers au Sénégal: Etude de cas des communautes rurales de Niakhene et
105

de Bandafassi.
Dawson, I. K., Carsan, S., Franzel, S., Kindt, R., Graudal, L., Orwa, C., & Jamnadass, R. (2014).
Agroforestry , livestock , fodder production and climate change adaptation and mitigation
in East Africa : issues and options (No. 178). Nairobi.
Diedhiou, B. (2004). Etude de la Contribution des Fruitiers Forestiers a la Securite Alimentaire.
Dakar, Senegal.
El-Hadji, H., Weid, J. M. von der, & Scialabba, N. (2001). L’agriculture biologique au Senegal.
Rome.
Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research.
Global Environmental Change, 18, 234–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002
Ericksen, P. J., Ingram, J. S. I., & Liverman, D. M. (2009). Food security and global
environmental change: emerging challenges. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 373–377.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.04.007
Evangelista, R. J. P., Evangelista, K. P. A., Ureta, J. U., & Lasco, R. D. (2015). Vulnerability of
smallholder farmers in Lantapa , Bukidnon (Smart Tree-Invest No. 216). Los Banos,
Philippines. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP15727.PDF
FAO. (1996). Rome declaration and world food summit plan of action. Rome.
FAO, & CSE. (2007). Caractérisation des systèmes de production agricoles au Sénégal:
Document de synthèse. Dakar.
Franzel, S., Kiptot, E., & Lukuyu, B. (2014). Agroforestry: Fodder Trees. In Encyclopedia of
Agriculture and Food Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 235–243). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44452512-3.00023-1
Gachuiri, A. N., Carsan, S., Karanja, E., Makui, P., & Kuyah, S. (2017). Diversity and
importance of local fodder tree and shrub fresources in mixed farming systems of central
Kenya. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 26(3), 143–155.
Gadanakis, Y., Bennett, R., Park, J., & Areal, F. J. (2015). Evaluating the Sustainable
Intensification of arable farms. Journal of Environmental Management, 150, 288–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.005
Gueye, M., Ayessou, N. C., Koma, S., Diop, S., Akpo, L. E., & Samb, P. I. (2014). Wild Fruits
Traditionally Gathered by the Malinke Ethnic Group in the Edge of Niokolo Koba Park
(Senegal). American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5, 1306–1317.
He, Y., Jones, P. J., & Rayment, M. (2017). Agricultural and Forest Meteorology A simple
106

parameterisation of windbreak effects on wind speed reduction and resulting thermal
benefits to sheep. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 239, 96–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.02.032
Hoogeveen, J., Tesliuc, E., Vakis, R., & Dercon, S. (2004). A Guide to the Analysis of Risk,
Vulnerability and Vulnerable Groups.
IREF. (2013). Rapport Annuel 2012: IREF - Kedougou. Kedougou.
IREF. (2014). Inspection Regionale des Eaux et Forets de Kedougou - Rapport Annuel 2014.
Kedougou.
IREF. (2015). Inspection Regionale des Eaux et Forets de Kedougou - Rapport Annuel 2015.
Kedougou.
Kamuanga, M. J. B., Somda, J., Sanon, Y., & Kagone, H. (2008). Livestock and regional market
in the Sahel and West Africa: Potentials and challenges. Issy-les-Moulineaux, France.
Kelly, V., Diagana, B., Reardon, T., Gaye, M., & Crawford, E. (1996). Cash Crop and
Foodgrain Productivity in Senegal : Historical View, New Survey Evidence, and Policy
Implications.
Kuyah, S., Muthuri, C., Jamnadass, R., Mwangi, P., Neufeldt, H., & Dietz, J. (2012). Crown area
allometries for estimation of aboveground tree biomass in agricultural landscapes of
western Kenya. Agroforest Syst, 86, 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9529-1
Lott, J. E., Ong, C. K., & Black, C. R. (2009). Understorey microclimate and crop performance
in a Grevillea robusta-based agroforestry system in semi-arid Kenya. Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology, 149(1), 1140–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.02.002
Maeder, P., Ma, P., Flie, A., Dubois, D., & Gunst, L. (2002). Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in
Organic Farming. Science, 296, 1694–1697. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071148
Maranz, S., Kpikpi, W., Wiesman, Z., De Saint Sauveur, A., & Chapagain, B. (2004). Nutritional
Values and Indigenous Preferences for Shea Fruits (Vitellaria Paradoxa C.F. Gaertn. F.) in
African Agroforestry Parklands. Economic Botany, 58(4), 588–600.
https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0588:NVAIPF]2.0.CO;2
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., & Swift, M. J. (1997). Agricultural Intensification
and Ecosystem Properties. Science, 277(July), 504–509.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.504
Mbow, C., Smith, P., Skole, D., Duguma, L., & Bustamante, M. (2014). Achieving mitigation
and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in africa.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 8–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002

107

MEDD. (2014). Politique Forestiere du Senegal 2005-2025. Dakar, Senegal.
Nair, P. K. R. (1998). Directions in tropical agroforestry research: past, present, and future.
Agroforestry Systems, 38, 223–245.
Nair, P. K. R. (2014). Agroforestry: Practices and Systems. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and
Food Systems, 1, 270–282. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-525123.00021-8
Ng’endo, M., Keding, G. B., Bhagwat, S., & Kehlenbeck, K. (2015). Variability of On-Farm
Food Plant Diversity and Its Contribution to Food Security: A Case Study of Smallholder
Farming Households in Western Kenya. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,
39(10), 1071–1103.
Nguyen, Q., Hoang, M. H., & Öborn, I. (2013). Multipurpose agroforestry as a climate change
resiliency option for farmers : an example of local adaptation in Vietnam, (8), 241–257.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0550-1
Odhiambo, H. O., Ong, C. K., Deans, J. D., Wilson, J., Khan, A. A. H., & Sprent, J. I. (2001).
Roots, soil water and crop yield: tree crop interactions in a semi-arid agroforestry system in
Kenya. Pland and Soil, 235, 221–233.
Ong, C., Black, C. R., Wilson, J., Muthuri, C., Bayala, J., & Jackson, N. A. (2014).
Agroforestry : Hydrological Impacts. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems
(Vol. 1, pp. 244–252). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00028-0
Ong, C. K., Black, C. R., Wallace, J. S., Khan, A. A. H., Lott, J. E., Jackson, N. A., … Smith, D.
M. (2000). Productivity, microclimate and water use in Grevillea robusta-based agroforestry
systems on hillslopes in semi-arid Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 80(1),
121–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00144-4
Ordonez, J. C., Luedeling, E., Kindt, R., Tata, H. L., Harja, D., Jamnadass, R., & Noordwijk, M.
Van. (2014). Constraints and opportunities for tree diversity management along the forest
transition curve to achieve multifunctional agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 6, 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.009
Peterson, G., Allen, C. R., Peterson, G., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (1998). Ecological
Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems, 1(1), 6–18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900002
Petit, S. (2003). Parklands with fodder trees: a Fulße response to environmental and social
changes. Applied Geography, 23(2–3), 205–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2003.08.008
Rao, M. R., Nair, P. K. R., & Ong, C. K. (1998). Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry
systems. Agroforestry Systems, 38, 3–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005971525590
108

Reidsma, P., & Ewert, F. (2008). Regional Farm Diversity Can Reduce Vulnerability of Food
Production to Climate Change. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 38.
Schroth, G. (1995). Tree root characteristics as criteria for species selection and systems design
in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems, 30(1), 125–143.
Smethurst, P. J., Huth, N. I., Masikati, P., Sileshi, G. W., Akinnifesi, F. K., Wilson, J., &
Sinclair, F. (2017). Accurate crop yield predictions from modelling tree-crop interactions in
gliricidia-maize agroforestry. Agricultural Systems, 155(April), 70–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.008
Stigter, C. J., Eltayeb, A., Al-amin, N. K. N., Onyewotu, L. O. Z., Oteng’i, S. B. B., & Kainkwa,
R. M. R. (2002). Agroforestry solutions to some African wind problems. Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 90, 1101–1114.
Thorlakson, T., & Neufeldt, H. (2012). Reducing subsistence farmers ’ vulnerability to climate
change: evaluating the potential contributions of agroforestry in western Kenya. Agriculture
& Food Security, 1(15), 1–13.
Thrupp, L. A. N. N. (2010). Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security : the valuable
role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. International Affairs, 76(2), 265–281.
Way, M. J., & Heong, K. L. (1994). The role of biodiversity in the dynamics and management of
insect pests of tropical irrigated rice — a review. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 84,
567–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000748530003282X
Wood, S. A., & Mendelsohn, R. O. (2014). The impact of climate change on agricultural net
revenue: a case study in the Fouta Djallon, West Africa. Environment and Development
Economics, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X14000084
Yin, R., & Hyde, W. F. (2000). Trees as an agriculture sustaining activity: the case of northern
China. Agroforestry Systems, 50(1), 179–194.

109

CHAPTER 5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
5.1. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The objective of this research was to assess farmer attitude, responses, and livelihood
strategies and agroforestry’s impact on farmer livelihood in agroforestry parklands in Kedougou,
Senegal. There is currently a growing body of literature around indigenous knowledge and
adaptive behavior regarding livelihood strategies and resilience (Engle, de Bremond, Malone, &
Moss, 2014; Gbedomon et al., 2016; Isaac et al., 2009; Mahoo et al., 2015; Merritt, Patch,
Reddy, Rout, & Syme, 2014; Ozesmi & Ozesmi, 2004; Rushemuka et al., 2014; Tremblay,
2016). By incorporating the resiliency of local knowledge with scientific knowledge, policymakers and decision-makers will be better suited to confront the ever growing challenge of
climate change (Nyong et al., 2007). The chapter assessing farmer livelihood strategies, attitudes,
and responses regarding climate change adds to this body of literature. These findings strengthen
the arguments that human managed systems may achieve a resilient equilibrium (Mortimore,
2010; Petra Tschakert & Dietrich, 2010; Vanlauwe et al., 2014). The chapter showed through
adaptive management and the accumulation of knowledge, farmers used the vast amount of
options available to them to mitigate any negative risks or disturbances. Specifically, farmers
used a wealth of diverse technical, biological, and cultural resources, diversification of activities,
management of soil, and the management of agricultural systems spatially and temporally, as
well as flexible decisions across annual and great time scales.
The results from the regression model showed that agroforestry has had little to no impact
on production from a monetary stand point. However, there was significance with regard to the
management of livestock across practices. The more agroforestry practices incorporated was
correlated to a higher valuation of livestock holdings and crop yields. Regardless, the multiple

110

co-benefits provided to farmers by agroforestry cannot be overlooked such as increased
regulating and secondary ecosystem services.
Based on these results, I conclude that West African farmers have developed a resilient
agricultural systems using flexible and adaptive management to achieve their current goals and
partially mitigate the negative effects of climate change while trying to meet the needs of the
future using agroforestry. Going forward, there needs to be more targeted research looking at the
correct scale of such research to best aid in local, regional, and national level policy discussions.
Lastly, research needs to be conducted on how responses to livelihood strategies affect various
biophysical indicators over time such as tree density, nutrient dynamics, soil fertility, yields, and
nutrition as well as land-use change. With further research, stakeholders will be able to aid
communities in developing sustainable practices and management plans using scientific evidence
and local knowledge to face future challenges.

5.2. LIMITATIONS
This research has some limitations presented as follows:
(I). One of the first biggest limitations is the use of focus groups as a primary data source due to
the inherent human bias within answers. Although methods were used to avoid this, due to
societal norms there is a chance of a gender bias to the data. Women were present and
participated in all of the focus groups; however, due to societal norms, there still could be an
inherent gender bias
(II). The survey results used in the regression model had a relatively small sample size
potentially leading to lack of significance in the results

111

(III). The lack of repeated data on an annual time scale for the region of Kedougou also makes it
difficult for agroforestry practices and tree diversity to show an impact on production on farms
(IV). An analysis of labor as well as dry season and off-farm activities would also provide a
more insightful analysis of agroforestry systems in the region

5.3. IMPLICATIONS AND A GLOBAL CONTEXT
This study was conducted at a time and context where developing countries are beginning
to emerge while still having to mitigate and combat climate change affecting both local and
national level policy concerning natural resource management and the decentralization of forest
and agricultural management. As Senegal continues to decentralize forest management,
agricultural management, and land-tenure policy (Faye, 2008; MEDD, 2014), the incorporation
of traditional knowledge as well as farmer representation will be integral in developing
sustainable management policies. These policies will affect not only the lives of rural
communities, but surrounding urban centers as Senegal continues to emerge on the international
stage.
I addressed how farmers in Kedougou incorporated a complex, flexible, and multifaceted
decision-making process with the available resources to carve out a livelihood strategy that
mitigates some risks to meet local needs. Farmers have shown great ingeniousness in adverse
conditions, and this will continue to happen to partially mitigate the negative impacts of climate
change. Stakeholders in the area need to incorporate this knowledge and skills at local, regional,
and national scale to best impact and create “climate smart” solutions to problems facing farmers
in the area. Local farmers need a seat at the table when implementing forest and agricultural
activities to build a resilient global management system.

112

REFERENCES

113

REFERENCES

Engle, N. L., de Bremond, A., Malone, E. L., & Moss, R. H. (2014). Towards a resilience
indicator framework for making climate-change adaptation decisions. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19(1), 1295–1312.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9475-x
Faye, J. (2008). Land and decentralisation in Senegal. Drylands Programme. London.
Gbedomon, R. C., Floquet, A., Mongbo, R., Salako, V. K., Fandohan, A. B., Assogbadjo, A. E.,
& Glèlè Kakayi cyrillic, R. (2016). Socio-economic and ecological outcomes of community
based forest management: A case study from Tobé-Kpobidon forest in Benin, Western
Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 64, 46–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.001
Isaac, M. E., Dawoe, E., & Sieciechowicz, K. (2009). Assessing Local Knowledge Use in
Agroforestry Management with Cognitive Maps. Environmental Management, 43, 1321–
1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9201-8
Mahoo, H., Mbungu, W., Yonah, I., Recha, J., Radeny, M., Kimeli, P., & Kinyangi, J. (2015).
Integrating Indigenous Knowledge with Scientific Seasonal Forecasts for Climate Risk
Management in Lushoto District in Tanzania. Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from
www.ccafs.cgiar.org
MEDD. (2014). Politique Forestiere du Senegal 2005-2025. Dakar, Senegal.
Merritt, W., Patch, B., Reddy, V. R., Rout, S. K., & Syme, G. J. (2014). Modeling Livelihood
Indicators and Household Resilience using Bayesian Networks. Integrated Assessment of
Scale Impacts of Watershed Intervention: Assessing Hydrogeological and Bio-Physical
Influences on Livelihoods. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8000670.00009-8
Mortimore, M. (2010). Adapting to drought in the Sahel: Lessons for climate change. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.25
Nyong, A., Adesina, F., & Elasha, B. O. (2007). The Value of Indigenous Knowledge in Climate
Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in the African Sahel. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob
Change, 12, 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9099-0
Ozesmi, U., & Ozesmi, S. L. (2004). Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multistep fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling, 176, 43–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027
Rushemuka, N. P., Bizoza, R. A., Mowo, J. G., & Bock, L. (2014). Farmers’ soil knowledge for
114

effective participatory integrated watershed management in Rwanda : Toward soil-specific
fertility management and farmers’ judgmental fertilizer use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 183, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.020
Tremblay, G. (2016). Adaptation Strategies in the Valley of the Senegal River : A Social
Approach to Dealing with Climate Change in Senegal. In Agricultural Adaptation to
Climate Change (pp. 185–198). Spring International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31392-4
Tschakert, P., & Dietrich, K. A. (2010). Anticipatory Learning for Climate Change Adaptation
and Resilience. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 11. https://doi.org/Artn 11
Vanlauwe, B., Coyne, D., Gockowski, J., Hauser, S., Huising, J., Masso, C., … Van Asten, P.
(2014). Sustainable intensification and the African smallholder farmer. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 8, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.06.001

115