See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316668174

TROPICAL HOMEGARDENS

Chapter · December 2014

CITATION READS

1 1,295

1 author:

Kunhamu Tk
College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University
65 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trees Outside Forests View project

Bamboo agroforestry, forest seed technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kunhamu Tk on 04 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Kunhamu, T.K. 2013. Tropical homegardens. Agroforestry-Theory and Practice. Raj, A.J. and S.B. Lal (eds). Scientific
publishers (India), Jodhpur. pp- 365-375

TROPICAL HOMEGARDENS

Dr. T.K.Kunhamu
(Associate Professor & Head, Dept. of Silviculture & Agroforestry, College of Forestry,
Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala)

Introduction

Homegardens are multi-species, multi-tier agroforestry production systems often in

small parcels of land surrounding homesteads that integrate tree-crop-animal
components and largely confined to humid tropics. By definition they are ‘intimate,
multi-story combinations of various trees and crops, sometimes in association with
domestic animals, around homesteads’ (Kumar and Nair, 2004). They are space
constrained subsistence farming systems running on traditional low input technologies
while maintaining multiple outputs often meeting the livelihood and nutritional
security of millions of people in the tropics. These homegardens maintain the
biological diversity of native and exotic as well as managed or wild species, and play
an important role in improving the quality of life and the economic and social welfare
of people. Physiognomicaly homegardens resemble evergreen forests by virtue of the
assemblage of diverse tree and crops arranged in multi-tiered-intimate-interlocked
fashion (Ewel, 999). Hence, they are often described as most natural production
systems which are ecologically and economically sound and socially acceptable. It
evolved through generations of gradual intensification of cropping in response to
increasing human pressure and the corresponding shortage of arable lands (Kumar
and Nair, 2004). These systems have probably evolved over centuries of cultural and
biological transformations and through generations of innovation and experimentation
(Wiersum, 2006).

A typical homegarden is primarily a multiple output production system that spin

around the homestead where selected trees, shrubs and herbs are grown for edible
products and cash income, as well as for a variety of outputs that have both
production and service values including aesthetic and ecological benefits.

1
Homegarden products are directly linked with the livelihood security of the farmers
who are primarily at subsistence level (Nair, 2001). Traditionally, the homegardens
mainly served to produce vegetables, fruits and other crops, which supplemented the
staple food crops produced on open croplands Apart from the enumerable direct
benefits that meets the basic human needs, homegardens deliver quiet a lot of
ecosystem services that are assumed to be the key drivers of their sustainability. The
biophysical advantages like efficient nutrient cycling, maintenance of biological
diversity, and multiple products economic value, socio-cultural and socio-political
advantages are the other traits that make homegardens important.

However, these fascinating systems while following sub-optimal management

strategies still remain largely unexplored in terms of their productivity and
sustainability and the scientific underpinnings of mystery of its sustenance over 1000s
of generations. Today the studies on homegardens takes larger shifts on account of
their perceived role in climate mitigation through their carbon sink functions and the
low C footprints of the homegarden products.

Distribution

The warm humid tropics are assumed to be the seat of homegardens. Historically,
their origin dates back to human settled agriculture, proceeding the era of shifting
cultivation. From these pre-historic and probably scattered origins, homegardens has
gradually spread to many humid regions in South- and Southeast Asia including Java
(Indonesia), the Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh. Randhawa
(1980) reports that many travellers in the early 14th century describes the
homegardens in Kerala, India with coconut (Cocos nucifera), black pepper (Piper
nigrum), ginger (Zingiber officinale), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) and pulses
(grain legumes). Nair and Kumar (2006) well described the distribution of
homegardens. According to them the largest stretches of homegardens are found to be
in the humid high rainfall regions 40o N and 30o S of equator. However, South- and
Southeast Asia, the Pacific islands, East- and West Africa, and Mesoamerica are the
regions where largest concentrations of homegardens can be found (High and
Shackleton, 2000; Nair and Kumar, 2006; Montagnini, 2006). Prominent among
them are the Javanese homegardens in Indonesia and the Kerala homegardens of
2
India. Homegardens vary in their local vocabulary. For instance, the Javanese
homegardens are known as Talun-Kebun and ‘pekarangans’, Kerala homegardens as
‘purayida krishi’ while that found in the Mt. Kilimanjaro in East Africa often
described as Chagga homegardens with coffee and banana integrated with
multipurpose trees, Enset coffee homegardens in Ethiopia (Abebe, et al, 2006).
Despite the presence, information on the area under homestead farming in different
regions is by far limited. Nair and Kumar, (2006) describes homegardening as the
prominent land use in tropical countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh,
Philippines. They provide conservative estimates that suggest 5.13 million ha of land
under pekarangans in Indonesia, 0.54 million ha under homesteads in Bangladesh,
1.05 million ha in Sri Lanka, and 1.44 million ha in Kerala, India. Prominent regions
in the Africa were homesteads practices are prevalent include Sudan, Ethiopia,
Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania etc while Peruvian Amazon homegardens, Brazilian,
Mexican, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaraguan and Costarican homegardens are the
potential homegarden regions in the Latin America.

Tree-crop diversity

Homegardens are one among the many agroforestry approaches that are common to
many ecological regions, but the nature of components that constitute the systems
may vary depending upon site-specific factors (Nair, 1991). Homegardens are
intimate assemblage of tree-crop-livestock in variable spatial and temporal sequence.
The key factor that distinguishes homegarden from other agricultural land use systems
is the high species diversity (Swift and Anderson 1993; Kumar et al. 1994; Abebe et
al. 2006). They are often christened as the epitome of biodiversity (Kumar and Nair,
2004). Livelihood conditions are important factor influencing the structure and
composition of homegardens. Homegardens scattered in different parts of the world
are found to be agro-ecologically diverse in terms of composition and arrangement of
various components. However, there exists remarkable similarity in the functional
space occupied by various components. The species diversity is strongly influenced
by functional priorities evolved through generations. Also, it is often dictated by the
agroecological adaptability. Homegarden component diversity may be affected
geographic conditions as well. Compared to lowlands, homegardens in highland
areas have lower plant diversity and simpler species composition (Karyono, 1990).
3
Similarly, diversity is more in wetter areas compared to arid and semi-arid regions.
Various cultures also influence the structure and composition of homegardens. For
e.g. Abdoellah (1990) reported that vegetables and ornamentals were often more
common in Sundanese homegardens. The diversity and density of woody species may
decline with increasing age of crop fields, while diversity of woody species increase
with increasing age and size of homegardens (Tolera, et al., 2008).

There are considerable differences in the species diversity with homegarden types.
For instance, Javanese homegardens are rich in diversity as compared to those found
in other regions. Studies on diversity of arboreal taxa in different homegardens clearly
demonstrate their variation. For instance, Kumar et al. (1994) reported 127 tree taxa
in the homegardens of Kerala, India. Among them coconut and arecanut were the
most prominent. Ailanthus triphysa, Mangifera indica, Artocarpus heterophyllus,
Tamarindus, Erythrina indica, Macaranga peltata, Thespesia populnea, Gliricidia
sepium were the other preferred tree species in Kerala homesteads. They also
observed that the species diversity and size of homegardens strike an inverse trend.
However, such patterns are not true for many homegarden types. For instance, the
Brazilian homegardens show higher species diversity associated with larges
homesteads (Albuquerqu, et al. 2005). They reported a total of 54 woody species
distributed among 46 genera and 23 families. A. squamosa, P. juliflora, P. guajava
were the most abundant tree species. Reports also suggest species number and
structural complexity is greater in humid areas than arid (Azudia and Leiva, 2004).
Much higher tree species diversity has been observed from elsewhere (301 trees and
shrubs from Mayan homegardens of Yucatan, Mexico (Rico-Gray et al., 1991), 168
and 179 species from Peruvian Amazon (Padoch and de Jong, 1991) and West Javan
homegardens (Soemarwoto, 1987) respectively. Studies in the south-central highlands
of Ethiopia compared the tree species diversity among homesteads, cropped lands and
natural forests and observed that the highest number of woody species (64) was
recorded in homegardens, followed by crop fields (32) and the lowest number (31) in
remnant natural forest (Tolera, et al., 2008).

It is observable that the functional priority often changes with regional

preferences. E.g., homegardens in Peruvian Amazon regions consists more of fruit
trees such as Mangifera indica L., Eryngium foetidum L., Syzygium sp., Cocos
4
nucifera L., Persea americana Mill, Citrus sinensis, Anacardium occidentale L.,
Artocarpus altilis, Annona squamosa, Spondias purpurea L., Cedrela odorata L,
Theobroma cacao (Perrault-Archambault and Coomes, 2008). Gebauer (2005) from
central Sudan also reported on the preference for fruit trees. As per their report, the
five most common fruit trees were lime (Citrus aurantifolia), guava (Psidium
guajava), mango (Mangifera indica), date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) and grapefruit
(Citrus paradisi). In general, plant species composition within the homegardens is the
result of continuous selection in which the family usually favors the planting of fruit
trees with high productivity (Caballero, 1992).

Agricultural crop diversity also varies considerably among homegardens.

Prominent understorey crops in the Kerala homegardens include vegetables such as
brinjal, ladies finger, cow pea, ash guard, bitter guard, snake guard, black pepper,
tuber crops such as colocasia, elephant food yam, diascoria. Banana is the common
intercrop in homegardens throughout Kerala. Cassava, papaya, fodder grasses,
pineapple, Curcuma longa, C. aromatic, Zingiber officinale, are the other common
intercrops (Kumar and Nair, 2004).

Socioeconomic status and livelihood conditions may impact the species composition
in the homegardens. For instance, the farmers at the subsistence level make use of the
limited land for production of essential staple foods rather than supplementary crop
production. Contrary to this well off people living in urbanized areas and having
access to non-farm incomes may no longer maintain homegarden as part of their
farming system, rather aesthetic considerations dominate their retention. Thus, not
only the overall livelihood conditions, but also specific socioeconomic variables such
as access to land or off-farm labor opportunities impact the homegarden structure and
composition (Wiersum, 2006)

Structural attributes

Despite the limitation in management area, the high diversity in the tree-crop and
animal components in the homegardens is often coupled with their characteristic
structural arrangement (Nair, 1993). The layered canopy stratification and admixture
of compatible species often mimicking evergreen forests, is the most conspicuous
5
characteristics of all homegardens. They are carefully structured systems with every
component having a specific place and function. The gradient of light and relative
humidity creates different spatial niche enabling various species groups to exploit
them. The stratification is often dictated by the life history of the different species. In
general, all homegardens consist of an herbaceous layer near the ground, a tree layer
at upper levels, and intermediate layers in between. The lower layer can usually be
partitioned into two, with the lowermost dominated by different vegetable and
medicinal plants and second layer being composed of food plants such as cassava,
banana, papaya, yam etc. However there can be changes in the vertical stratification
and composition of components for different homegarden types.

Typical Kerala homegardens show 3-4 strata with ground layer consisting of
herbaceous food crops, forage, medicinal and other crops while fruit trees and spice
crops dominate the middle storey (Nair, 1993; Kumar and Nair, 2004). The upper
canopies constitute mostly tall trees/palms such as coconut, teak, mahogany, and other
fast growing multi-purpose trees. Michon (1983) reported typical Javanese home
garden occupy 4-5 strata. Lowest strata constituting less than 1m height contained
14% of total canopy volume, 2nd layer 1-2 m (9%), 3rd layer 2-5m (25%), 4th layer 5-
10 m (36%) and 5th >10 m (16%). Herbaceous species form the layer near the
ground. The upper layers are occupied by trees, while intermediate layer in between
shared by medium sized trees, mostly fruit and medicinal trees. Quiet often, the lower
layer may be partitioned to less than 1 m– dominated by vegetables and medicinal
plants, while second layer constitute food plant such as cassava, banana, papaya, yam
and so on. The intermediate layers of 3-10 m height are dominated by various fruit
trees- this layer is not structurally static- always dynamic. The upper tree layer
divided to two viz. emergent fully grown timber and fruit trees occupying the
uppermost layer (25 m height), medium sized trees of 10-20 m occupying the next
lower layer.

The vertical structure of Brazilian homegardens reflects their degree of specialization

and complexity. The lower stratum (1–3 m) consists mainly of medicinal and fruit
trees, such as Psidium guajava, Annona squamosa, Jatropha molissima, as well as
saplings of forage species (e.g. Prosopis julifora and Capparis flexuosa). The
midstratum (3–7 m) is formed by combination of species with multiple uses. The
6
upper stratum is generally formed by trees of approximately 7–12m tall, such as P.
julifora, Schinopsis brasiliensis, Anacardium occidentale, Erythrina velutina, and
Anadenanthera colubrina var. cebil (Albuquerque et al, 2005).

Homegardens in high humid, rainfall areas constitute more number of canopy

stratification with more species diversity. For instance, the homegardens in the
Andaman islands, India maintain 5 characteristic strata (Pandey, et al, 2006). The top
storey (15-20 m) was occupied by coconut whereas fourth storey (10-15 m) by
arecanut and jackfruit. The third storey was dominated by trees like mango, cashew
nut and tamarind (5-10 m). Second storey (2-5 m) however, was abundant with spice
trees particularly nutmeg, cinnamon and clove. Fruit trees were closer to the house.
Clove was found in both second as well as in third storey. Species that require
specific niche like cinnamon, requiring high humidity, was grown mostly under the
arecanut and occasionally under coconut. Similarly, banana usually grown in open
receiving good water and sunlight usually were water of house drained. short height
annual crops like Curcuma longa, Zingiber officinalis, Manihot esculenta,
Ammorphophallus campanulatus, grasses and pineapple (Ananas comosus) occupied
the first storey (< 2 m).

The traditional Asian homegardens in general have in common a spatially separated

farming system consisting of cultivated fields away from homes while maintaining
homegarden surrounding residential houses. Home gardening in such farming
systems is mostly subsidiary to staple food production and mainly focuses on
vegetables, fruits, and condiments (Wiersum, 2006; Soemarwoto, 1987;
Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, 1993). But, instances of homegardens forming part of
integrated farming system where staple food production is also an integral part is not
uncommon. These ‘complementary’ homegardens typically consist of small (0.01 to 1
ha) plots around houses with a more or less randomly organized cropping pattern.
Since, these type of homegardens are integral part of other components of the entire
farming system, the component diversity and homegarden functioning are influenced
by the nature and characteristics of the other components of the overall farming
system (Karyono, 1990; Abebe et al 2006).

7
Functional attributes

The list of direct benefits accrued from homegardens are large that include food, fuel,
fodder, fruits, timber, pulp, green manure etc. Food production function is recognized
as the most important one from homegardens especially at subsistence level. Various
food products include edible fruits, nuts, grain, rhizomes and tubers, leaves, flowers to
name a few. Homegardening being an agricultural practice at low or moderate input
level, the produce are ecologically safe and hence contribute to the social health and
hygiene.

Fruit and other food trees constitute predominant component of all homegardens
(Nair, 1993). Mango, guava, papaya, rambutan, mangosteen and other food
producing trees such as Moringa oleifera and Sesbania grandiflora, spice crops such
as cinnamon, clove, nutmeg dominate the Asian homegardens. Torquebiau (1992) in
a review observed that dietary supplies from homegardens accounted for 3% to 44%
of the total calorie and 4% to 32% of the protein intake. Homegardens function as a
buffer source of food ensuring food security during the lean seasons. The
homegardens are also significant sources of minerals and nutrients (Asfaw and Woldu
1997). Nutritional security is another area where homegardens considerably
contribute. Year round availability of many high nutritional value crops takes care of
the nutritive requirements (proteins, vitamins, and minerals) of the family. Studies
revealed that families involved in year-round production and consumption of vitamin
rich fruits and vegetables, alleviated deficiencies of iodine, vitamin A and iron
(Molina et al. 1993) and made children of garden owners less prone to xerophthalmia
(Shankar et al. 1998).

In addition homegardens provide enumerable products and services which are closely
linked with the household needs of the farmer. For instance, they are potential source
of wood and small timber for meeting the farmer requirements. Kumar et al. (1994)
observed that the average standing stock of commercial timber in the Kerala, India
homegardens has been estimated to range from 6.6 to 50.8 m3 ha-1. Homegardens are
also good source of non timber products such as bamboo. Studies on the standing
stock of thorny bamboo (Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss) in the homegardens in three
8
districts of Kerala, India suggest substantial stocking to the tune of 28,659 Mg
(Thrissur), 124, 389 Mg (Palakkad), and 86, 267 Mg (Malappuram) on dry weight
basis (Kumar et al, 2005; Kumar, 2008). Also, tropical homegardens function as
predominant supplier of biofuels for rural households (Krishnankutty, 1990;
Wickramasinghe, 1996; Levasseur and Olivier, 2000; Shanavas and Kumar, 2003;
Kumar and Nair, 2004). For example, reports suggest about 51% to 90% of the
domestic fuelwood needs in south and Southeast Asia is met from homegardens
(Krishnankutty, 1990; Torquebiau, 1992).

Ecosystem services

Agroecosystem that remains relatively unexplored from an ecosystem service

perspective is homegardens. They provide a large set of ecosystem services, cultural
services being the category most valued. The quality and magnitude of ecosystem
services provided by homegardens differ from those provided by other types of
agroecosystems (Calvet-Mir et al., 2012). Major ecological functions rendered by
homegardens include maintenance of soil fertility, regulation of pests and pathogens,
wildlife protection, clean water supply, carbon sequestration, maintenance of rural
landscapes and rural lifestyles, and maintenance of recreational areas for ecotourism
(Sandhu et al., 2010; Swinton et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007).

Traditional agriculture practices such as homegardens are characterized by

maintenance of high agro-biodiversity (Altieri, 1999; Jackson et al., 2007) which
ensures coupling of agricultural productivity with the delivery of the other adaptable
services that biodiversity provides. For instance, maintenance of agro biodiversity in
homesteads leads to enhancement in agroecosystems’ resilience to ecosystem changes
mooted by demographic pressure (Jackson et al., 2007; Pascual et al., 2010).
Homesteads essentially a low input agro ecosystem rely primarily on site-specific
biological, edaphic, and climatic conditions there by reducing dependence on heavy
inputs such as machinery, phytochemicals and power thereby reducing related
hardships in terms of soil compaction, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions etc
(Altieri, 1999).

9
 Biophysical interactions triggered by trees provide substantial ecosystem
services. Trees with their deep root system act as nutrient pumps and the fine roots
dynamics contribute substantially to enrich the carbon content and nutrient status of
the soil. The multilayered canopy stratification and the high litter production from the
trees cover the soil and protect from insulation. The tree cover moderates the
extremes of climate and biophysical extremes. Yet another environmental function
rendered by homegardens is their carbon sink properties and in so doing take part in
climate change mitigation. Homegardens are unique in that they address all the three
mechanisms that qualify agroforestry as GHG reduction strategy viz. carbon
sequestration, carbon substitution and carbon conservation (Montagnini and Nair,
2004; Kumar, 2006). The trees and other perennial components in the homegardens
sequester substantial amount of CO2. On a comparative scale homegardens sequester
C much better than intensively managed crop lands (Nair et al. 2009). For example,
cropped land after slash and burn showed CS values 39 to 52 Mg C ha-1(Sanchez,
2000) while Indonesian homegardens, Sumatra sequester much higher to the tune of
55.8 to 162.7 Mg C ha-1 (Roshetko et al., 2002). Aboveground carbon stocks of trees
(>20cm girth at breast height) in the homegardens of selected 28 panchayaths of
central Kerala, India were 24.32 Mg ha-1 (Kumar, 2011). Homegardens also stands out
as a promising example of climate change resilient landuse practice.

Management characteristics

As always, homegardens are less intensely managed systems. Scientific management

of these traditional systems poses serious limits on account of intertwined nature of
various components in time and space. The understorey space utilization for
intercropping depends entirely on the tree density and light availability. A legitimate
approach is to manipulate the tree environment rather than the tree itself. Hence
practices such as branch pruning for improving understorey light conditions are a
common management practice in homesteads. For instance, branch pruning of taller
trees such as teak (Tectona grandis), Terminalia paniculata, Sweitenia macrophylla
is a common practice in homegardens of Kerala. Other conventional practices such as
weeding, fertilization, crop density regulation are also in vogue in the various parts of
the tropics. There has been renewed interest on tree husbandry in view of their
economic stability and market demands. Especially the recent trends suggest tree
10
based cash crops such as rubber and nutmeg rigorously managed in homegardens.
Coconut is the most popular among the trees followed by arecanut and spices in high
rainfall coastal regions like Kerala and the intensive management practices that
include fertilization, use of plant protection chemicals, systematic weeding and
management of interspaces in between the palms for intercropping etc are limited to
such economically important crops only (Peyre et al, 2006). Levels of management
are again strongly influenced by the land size and socio-economic adaptability. A
clear gradient in management intensity exist among homegardens in Kerala (Peyre et
al, 2006). For example, the small sized gardens are characterized by low to medium
management with a concentration on internal inputs and with random arrangement of
trees while the medium to big sized homegarden are subject to a more intensive
management with use of both internal and external inputs such as chemical fertilizers,
insecticides and purchased seedlings (Peyre et al, 2006).

The type and intensity of management again may vary with objectives. The
coffee-banana dominated Chagga homegardens in Tanzania follow time bound
management practices for productivity enhancement. Various operations include
opening up the canopy to ensure better fruiting of the coffee, spacing out the banana
stools, and manuring the different crops (Fernandes et al, 1985). As evident from the
homegardens in Kerala, the management capabilities and preferences of the owner
decide the number of banana clumps and coffee bushes in the Chagga gardens.
Fernandes et al. (1985) reported that the range of banana clumps per homegarden
varies from 200 to 800 (330 to 1,200 per ha) and coffee trees from 300 to 1,000 (500
to 1,400 per ha). The management strategies followed in Javanese homegardens also
vary with the system followed. The popular Javanese Pekarangan system is a mixture
of annual crops, perennial crops, and animals on the land surrounding a house where
as Kebun-Talun system is more production oriented and permits clearing the trees to
cultivate field crops on a rotational basis. The Kebun phase confines to the crop
cultivation with high economic value gradually merge with kebun-campuran phase
where annuals are mixed with half grown perennials, period of low economic but high
ecological value. The final phase (Talun) after the harvesting of the annuals is
dominated by perennials of commercial value. The Kebun-talun will be converted to
Pekarangan system when the house is developed upon it (Christanty et al, 1985).

11
Shifting trends in Homegardening

Despite the manifold virtues as a promising land use system with potential to support
livelihood security of millions of people in the tropics, homegardens are undergoing
massive transformation that wear down their intrinsic characteristics. Fast changing
agriculture scenario and the high market-orientation, due to government policies and
demographic pressures; do exert considerable pressures on homegardens (Kumar and
Nair, 2004). Urbanization and associated socioeconomic polarization has influenced
the homegardens quiet a lot. Commercialization has resulted in drastic reduction in
the structure and functions of homegardens world over. Indonesian ‘pekarangan’
(Abdoellah 1990; Abdoellah et al. 2001), Kerala homesteads (Kumar and Nair, 2004),
are some of the examples for this. In Kerala, the multi species structure of
homegardens are shifting to cash crops based monocultures such as rubber and
coconut, inflicting serious drain in plant diversity. Population pressure on the land
and associated fragmentation, high cost of land, alternative options of land use are
potential threats to retaining homegardens in the tropics. Homegardens are assumed
to be the last refuge of many local varieties of crop/tree species. Urbanization and
land fragmentation has exhausted many of these natural varieties. Report from West
Java, Indonesia, suggests a loss of 27 varieties of mango during a 60-year period
(Soemarwoto, 1987) while Chagga homegardens of Tanzania experienced decline in
diversity due to fragmentation (Rugalema, et al., 1994).

Socio-economic transformation triggered by globalization and market driven

lifestyle has prompted people to do away with traditional agricultural practices which
are ‘labour intensive and time consuming’. The shift towards development oriented
non-agricultural land use practices has started manifesting its far reaching
consequences in all spectrum of human life such as escalated rates of landslides, soil
and water conservation, poor drainage, massive soil erosion and associated loss of soil
fertility. Need of the hour is to hold lessons from the advantages of homesteads as
invaluable sustainable farming system that integrates diverse crop forms to meet the
multitude of benefits to mankind.

12
Conclusions

Homegardens are unique traditional multistrata land use systems that integrate various
life forms and practiced within the small land parcels surrounding the home. They are
ecologically sound, economically viable, socially acceptable and culturally pragmatic
systems that touch upon the livelihood security of millions people in the tropics. The
favorable biophysical environment promotes high level of association and
comlementarity among the various components that guarantee sustainability of
homegardens. The high floristic diversity attached to these systems has evolved
through preferential selection followed over generations. Apart from the multitude of
direct benefits, the array of ecosystems services rendered by the homegardens
distinguishes them as robust land use system. The enormous potential of
homegardens as carbon sinks qualify them as promising example of climate change
resilient agriculture and mitigation strategy. Despite all these multifarious advantages,
homegardens are yet to receive recognition that they deserve neither at the policy
level nor at scientific front. Moreover, this time-tested agrarian tradition appears to
fade out under the pressure of urbanization and globalization. Influx of monoculture,
land fragmentation, alternative market avenue for homegarden products and fast
changing socio-economic and cultural equations have put serious threats on the future
of these wonderful systems.

References

Abdoellah, O.S. 1990. Homegardens in West Java and their future development. pp.
69–79. In: Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds), Tropical Homegardens, United
Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Abdoellah, O.S., Takeuchi K., Perikesit G.B. and Hadikusumah H.Y. 2001. Structure
and function of homegarden revisited. pp. 167–185. In: Proc. First Seminar
toward Harmonisation between Development and Environmental
Conservation in Biological Production. JSPS-DGHE Core University Program
in Applied Biosciences. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo.

Abebe, T., Wiersum, K.F., Bongers, F. and F. Sterck. 2006. Diversity and dynamics
in homegardens of southern Ethiopia. In: Kumar B.M. and Nair P.K.R. (eds),

13
 Tropical homegardens: A time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry. pp
123–142. Springer Science, Dordrecht.

Albuquerque, U.P., Andrade, L.H.C. Caballero, J. 2005. Structure and floristic of

homegardens in Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Arid Environments 62 (2005)
491–506

Altieri, M.A., 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 74, 19–31.

Azurdia, C., and Leiva, J.M. 2004. Home Gardens and Agrobiodiversity, P.B.
Eyzaguirre and Linares O.F., (Eds), Smithsonian Books, Washington, 168

Asfaw, Z. and Woldu, Z. 1997. Crop associations of homegardens in Welayta and

Gurage in southern Ethiopia. Sinet (an Ethiopian J Sci) 20: 73–90.

Caballero, K. 1992. Mayan homegardens: past, present and future. Etnóecolgica 1:

35–54.

Calvet-Mir. L, Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Reyes-García, V. 2012. Beyond food

production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in
Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics.
Volume 74, February 2012, Pages 153–160.

Christanty L., Abdoellah O.L., Marten G.G. and Iskandar J. 1986. Traditional
agroforestry in West Java: the Pekaranagan (homegarden) and Kebun-Talun
(annual-perennial rotation) cropping systems. pp. 132–158. In: Marten G.G.
(ed.), Traditional Agriculture in South East Asia. Westview Press, Boulder,
CO.

Ewel, J.J. 1999. Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable systems of
land use. Agroforest Syst 45: 1–21.

Fernandes, E. C. M., Oktingati, A. and J. Maghembe. 1985. The Chagga home

gardens: A multi-storeyed agro-forestry cropping system on Mt. Kilimanjaro,
Northern Tanzania. Food and Nutrition Bulletin Volume 07, Number 3, 1985
(UNU, 1985, 87 p.)

Gebauer, J. 2005. Plant Species Diversity of Home Gardens in El Obeid, Central

Sudan. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and
Subtropics 106 (2): 97–103.

High, C. and Shackleton C.M. 2000. The comparative value of wild and domestic
plants in homegardens of a South African rural village. Agroforest Syst 48:
141–156.

Hoogerbrugge, I.D. and Fresco, L.O. 1993. Homegarden systems: Agricultural

characteristics and challenges. International Institute for Environment and
Development, Gatekeeper series no. 39, London, 23p.

14
Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U., Hodgkin, T., 2007. Utilizing and conserving
agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 121, 196–210.

Karyono, 1990. Karyono 1990. Homegardens in Java; their structure and function.
pp. 138–146. In: Landauer K. and Brazil M. (eds), Tropical Homegardens,
United Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Krishnankutty, C.N. 1990. Demand and supply of wood in Kerala and their future
trends. Research Report 67. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala,
66 pp.

Kumar, B.M., George S.J. and Chinnamani S. 1994. Diversity, structure and standing
stock of wood in the homegardens of Kerala in peninsular India. Agroforest
Syst 25: 243–262.

Kumar, B.M. and Nair, P.K.R. 2004. The enigma of tropical homegardens. 2004.
Agroforestry Systems. 61: 135–152.

Kumar, B.M., Sudheesh, K.G., Rajesh, G., 2005. Standing stock of thorny bamboo
[Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss] in the homegardens of Thrissur, Kerala. J. Trop.
Agric. 43, 61–66.

Kumar, B.M. 2006. Carbon sequestration potential of tropical homegardens. In:

Kumar B.M. and. Nair P.K.R.(eds). Tropical Homegardens: A Time-Tested
Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. Springer. The Netherlands pp. 185-204.

Kumar, B.M. 2008. Assessment of standing stock of thorny bamboo [Bambusa

bambos (L.) Voss] in the homegardens of Palakkad and Malappuram districts
in Kerala. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 46 (1-2): 32–37.

Kumar, B.M. 2011. Species richness and aboveground carbon stocks in the
homegardens of central Kerala, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. 140: 430–440.

Levasseur, V. and Olivier A. 2000. The farming system and traditional agroforestry
systems in the Maya community of San Jose, Belize. Agroforest Syst 49: 275–
288.

Michon, G., Bompard J., Hecketsweiler P. and Ducatillion C. 1983. Tropical forest
architectural analysis applied to agroforests in the humid tropics, the example
of traditional village agroforestry in West Java. Agroforest Syst 1: 117–129.

Molina, M.R., Noguera A., Dary O., Chew F., Valverde C. 1993. Principal
micronutrient deficiencies in Central America. Food Nutr Agric 7: 26–33.

Montagnini, 2006. Homegardens of mesoamerica: biodiversity, food security, and

nutrient management. In: Kumar B.M. and Nair P.K.R. (eds), Tropical
homegardens: A time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry, pp 61 – 84,
Springer Science, Dordrecht.

15
Montagnini, F. and Nair, P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequestration: an underexploited
environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforest Syst. 61: 281 – 295.

Nair, P.K.R., 1991. State-of-art of agroforestry systems. Forest Ecology and

Management 45(1-4): 5–29.

Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 499 pp.

Nair, P.K.R. 2001. Do tropical homegardens elude science, or is it the other way
around? Agroforest Syst. 53: 239–245.

Nair, P.K.R. and Kumar B.M. 2006. Introduction. In: Kumar B.M. and Nair P.K.R.
(eds), Tropical homegardens: A time-tested example of sustainable
agroforestry, pp 1 – 10, Springer Science, Dordrecht.

Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M. and Vimala D. N. 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for
carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172: 10–23.

Padoch, C. and de Jong W. 1991. The housegardens of Santa Rosa: diversity and
variability in an Amazonian agricultural system. Econ Bot 45: 166–175.

Pandey, C.B., Lata, K., Venkatesh and R.P.Medhi. 2006. Diversity and species
structure of home gardens in South Andaman. Tropical Ecology 47(2): 251-
258.

Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L.C., Duraiappah, A., 2010. Exploring the links
between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A
conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 69, 1237–1244

Perrault-Archambault, M. and Coomes, O.T. 2008. Distribution of Agrobiodiversity

in Home Gardens along the Corrientes River, Peruvian Amazon. Economic
Botany, 62(2):109–126.

Peyre, A., Guidal, A., Wiersum, K.F. and F. Bongers. 2006. Homegarden dynamics
in Kerala, India. In: Kumar B.M. and Nair P.K.R. (eds), Tropical
homegardens: A time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry. 87–103

Randhawa, M.S. 1980. The history of Indian agriculture. Vol. 2, pp 414 – 415. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

Rico-Gray V., Chemas A. and Mandujano S. 1991. Use of tropical deciduous forest
species by the Yucatan Maya. Agroforest Syst. 14: 149–161.

Roshetko M., Delaney M., Hairiah K. and Purnomosidhi P. 2002. Carbon stocks in
Indonesian homegarden systems: Can smallholder systems be targeted for
increased carbon storage? Amer J Altern Agric 17: 125–137

16
Rugalema, G.H., Johnsen, F.H., Rugambisa, J., 1994a. The homegarden agroforest
system to Bukoba district, North-Western Tanzania.2. Constraints to farm
productivity. Agroforestry Systems 26, 205–214.

Sanchez, P.A. 2000. Linking climate change research with food security and poverty
reduction in the tropics. Agric Ecosyst Environ 82: 371 – 383.

Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., 2010. Organic agriculture and ecosystem
services. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 1–7

Shanavas, A. and Kumar B.M. 2003. Fuelwood characteristics of tree species in the
homegardens of Kerala, India. Agroforest Syst 58:11–24.

Shankar, A.V., Gittelsohn J., Pradhan E.K., Dhungel C. and West K.P. Jr. 1998.
Homegardening and access to animals in households with xerophthalmic
children in rural Nepal. Food Nut Bull 19: 34–41.

Soemarwoto, O. 1987. Homegardens: A traditional agroforestry system with a

promising future. In: Steppler H.A. and Nair P.K.R. (eds), Agroforestry: A
Decade of Development, ICRAF, Nairobi. pp. 157–170.

Swift, MJ, Anderson, JM. 1993. Biodiversity and ecosystem function in agricultural
systems.. In: Schulze E-D, Mooney HA, eds. Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Funciotn. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Pp 15-41

Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K., 2007. Ecosystem services
and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits.
Ecological Economics 64, 245–252.

Tolera, M, Asfaw, Z., Lemenih, M and Karltun, E. 2008. Woody species diversity in a
changing landscape in the south-central highlands of Ethiopia. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment. 128: 52–58.

Torquebiau, E. 1992. Are tropical agroforestry homegardens sustainable? Agric

Ecosyst Environ 41: 189–207

Wickramasinghe, A. 1996. The non forest wood fuel resources of Sri Lanka. Wood
Energy News 11: 14–18.

Wiersum, K.F. 2006. Diversity and change in homegarden cultivation in Indonesia.

In: Kumar B.M. and Nair P.K.R. (eds), Tropical homegardens: A time-tested
example of sustainable agroforestry. pp 13 – 24. Springer Science, Dordrecht.

Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem
services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics. 64, 253–260.

17
 Plate 1: Chagga homegardens of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

Plate 2. A typical Kerala homegarden: Multistrata composition of various components

is evident.

18
Plate 3. A typical Kerala homegarden: Multistrata composition of various components
is evident (coconut, arecanut and banana combination).

Plate 4. A typical large Kerala homegarden: Example for coconut based integrated
multistrata farming system.

19
 20

View publication stats