Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-22T23:13:17.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing human–ecological relationships and drivers using the Quesungual agroforestry system in western Honduras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2010

Miguel Ayarza ,
Elisabeth Huber-Sannwald ,
Jeffrey E. Herrick ,
James F. Reynolds ,
Luis García-Barrios ,
Luis A. Welchez ,
Peter Lentes ,
Jellin Pavón ,
Jairo Morales  and
Anabel Alvarado
...Show all authors
Miguel Ayarza*
Affiliation:
Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Program, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
Elisabeth Huber-Sannwald
Affiliation:
Division of Environmental Sciences, IPICYT, San Luis Potosi, México.
Jeffrey E. Herrick*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
James F. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Luis García-Barrios
Affiliation:
Universidad Frontera Sur, ECOSUR, Chiapas, Mexico.
Luis A. Welchez
Affiliation:
FAO, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Peter Lentes
Affiliation:
Forage Project, CIAT, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Jellin Pavón
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, INTA, Managua, Nicaragua.
Jairo Morales
Affiliation:
Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Agrarian National University, Managua, Nicaragua.
Anabel Alvarado
Affiliation:
Department of Socioeconomy, Universidad Nacional de Agricultura, ENA, Honduras.
Mario Pinedo
Affiliation:
National School of Forestry, ESNACIFOR, Honduras.
Noemí Baquera
Affiliation:
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
Sergio Zelaya
Affiliation:
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany.
Rolando Pineda
Affiliation:
Forestry Department, National School of Forestry, ESNACIFOR, Honduras.
Edgar Amézquita
Affiliation:
Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Program, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
Marco Trejo
Affiliation:
Dirección de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria, DICTA, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
*
*Corresponding author: mayarza@corpoica.org.co and jherrick@nmsu.edu
*Corresponding author: mayarza@corpoica.org.co and jherrick@nmsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Development of sustainable agricultural production systems in the tropics is challenging in part because the local and external conditions that affect sustainability are constantly in flux. The Quesungual agroforestry system (QSMAS) was developed in response to these changing conditions. The history and potential future of the QSMAS provide an opportunity to consider the factors affecting small-scale agricultural production systems on marginal lands throughout the world. We evaluated the QSMAS in Honduras in the context of the five principles of the Drylands Development Paradigm (DDP) during three periods: pre-QSMAS, QSMAS adoption and the future. The first two periods provided lessons that could be relevant to other regions. The QSMAS system in Honduras must continue to evolve, if long-term benefits are to be realized. We conclude that while the DDP was a useful framework for systematically identifying the critical drivers and processes determining the sustainability of QSMAS in Honduras, it is ultimately no more able to predict the future than the collective knowledge of those who choose to apply it. The DDP, however, can facilitate the integration and application of knowledge.

Keywords

agroforestryQuesungualQSMASDrylands Development Paradigm, DDPHondurassustainabilityinterdisciplinary
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 219 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Heerink, N., van Keulen, H., and Kuipers, M. (eds). 2001. Economic Policy and Sustainable Land Use: Recent Advances in Quantitative Analysis for Developing Countries. Springer Physica-Verlag, New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Sivakumar, M.V.K. and Valentin, C. 1997. Agroecological zones and the assessment of crop production potential. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B—Biological Sciences 352:907–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Sayer, J. and Campbell, B. 2004. Learning by doing on tropical American hillsides. In Sayer, J. and Campbell, B. (eds). The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. p. 170–187.Google Scholar
4Shriar, A.J. 2007. In search of sustainable land use and food security in the arid hillside regions of Central America: putting the horse before the cart. Human Ecology 35:275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Young, P.D. (ed.). 1991. Fragile lands management. In Latin America and the Caribbean: A Synthesis. DESFIL Technical Report. Development Alternatives, Inc., Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
6CIAT. 2005. An innovative approach to prevent, reduce and reverse land degradation in the tropics. Conceptual Framework. Internal Document, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. p. 10.Google Scholar
7Hellin, J., Williams, L.A., and Cherrett, I. 1999. The Quezungual system: an indigenous agroforestry system from western Honduras. Agroforestry Systems 46:229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Janzen, D. 1988. Guanacaste National Park: tropical ecology and biocultural restoration. In Claims, J. Jr (ed.). Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. Volume 11. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 143–192.Google Scholar
9Nicholaides, J.J., Bandy, D.E., Sanchez, P.A., Benites, J.R., Villachica, J.H., Coutu, A.J., and Valverde, C.S. 1985. Agricultural alternatives for the Amazon Basin. Bioscience 35:279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Melendez, G., Vernooy, R., and Briceño, J. (eds). 1999. Frijol tapado en Costa Rica: fortalezas, opciones y desafíos. In Agronomia Costarricence. ACCS, San José, CR. p. 60.Google Scholar
11Alvarez Welchez, L. and Cherret, I. 2002. The Quesungual systems in Honduras: alternative to slash-and-burn. Magazine on Low Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 18(3):10–11. Available at Web site: http://www.leisa.info (accessed 28 March 2010).Google Scholar
12Clercx, L. and Deugd, M. 2002. Pobreza, agricultura sostenible y servicios financieros rurales en América Latina: Reflexiones sobre un estudio de caso en el departamento de Lempira, Honduras. 1 a ed. Centro de estudios para el desarrollo rural Universidad Libre de Ámsterdam (CDR-ULA), Managua. p. 55. Available at Web site: http://www.cdr.or.cr/publicaciones.htm (accessed 28 March 2010).Google Scholar
13FAO. 2005. El Sistema Agroforestal Quesungual. In Argueta, R. (ed.) Una Opción para el Manejo de Suelos en Zonas Secas de Ladera. FAO, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. p. 49.Google Scholar
14Barrios, E. and Trejo, M.T. 2003. Implications of local soil knowledge for integrated soil management in Latin America. Geoderma 111:217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Armitage, D. 2004. Nature-society dynamics, policy narratives, and ecosystem management: integrating perspectives on upland change and complexity in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Ecosystems 7:717–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Brady, N.C. 1996. Alternatives to slash-and-burn: a global imperative. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 58:3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Vosti, S.A. and Witcover, J. 1996. Slash-and-burn agriculture—household perspectives. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 58:23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Reynolds, J.F., Smith, D.M.S., Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Mortimore, M., Batterbury, S.P.J., Downing, T.E., Dowlatabadi, H., Fernandez, R.J., Herrick, J.E., Huber-Sannwald, E., Jiang, H., Leemans, R., Lynam, T., Maestre, F., Walker, B., and Ayarza, M. 2007. Global desertification: building a science for dryland development. Science 316:847–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Anderson, P.J. and Putz, F.E. 2002. Harvesting and conservation: are both possible for the palm, Iriartea deltoidea? Forest Ecology and Management 170:271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Huber-Sannwald, E., Maestre, F.T., Herrick, J., and Reynolds, J.F. 2006. Ecohydrological feedbacks and linkages associated with land degradation: a case study from Mexico. Hydrological Processes 20(15):3395–3411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Ordoñez, J. 2004. Main factors influencing maize production in the Quesungual agroforestry system in Southern Honduras: an explorative study. Masters thesis, University of Wagenningen.Google Scholar
22CPWF. 2009. Quesungual slash and mulch agroforestry system (QSMAS): Improving crop water productivity, food security and resource quality in the sub-humid tropics. Project Completion Report: 1 September 2007 to 15 March 2009. p. 61. Available at Web site: http://www.waterandfood.org (accessed 28 March 2010).Google Scholar
23Poesen, J. and Lavee, H. 1994. Rock fragments in top soils: significance and processes. Catena 23:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Rivera, M. and Amézquita, E. 2006. Efectos de diferente contenido de piedra y frecuencias de aplicación de riego en el almacenamiento de agua en el suelo y en la producción de biomasa de Maíz (Zea mays L.) bajo invernadero. In Memorias del XIII Congreso Colombiano de la Ciencia del Suelo (SCCS), Conénfasis en sostenibilidad del suelo y competitividad agrícola, Bogotá, Colombia, Octubre 2006.Google Scholar
25Amuedo-Dorantes, C. and Pozo, S. 2004. Workers' remittances and the real exchange rate: a paradox of gifts. World Development 32:1407–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26FAO. 2004. Historia de un proceso de desarrollo: Metodología del programa Lempira Sur. Proyecto Gobernabilidad local en Lempira. GCP/HON/028/NET Documento de Campo 01. p. 122.Google Scholar
27Stafford Smith, D.M. and Reynolds, J.F. 2001. Desertification: a new paradigm for an old problem. In Stafford Smith, D.M. and Reynolds, J.M. (eds). Global Desertification: Do Humans Cause Deserts? Dalhem Workshop Report 88. Dahlem University Press, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
28Ruben, R. and Clercx, L. 2003. Rural Finance, Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Land Use: The Role of Credit for the Adoption of Agroforestry Systems in Occidental Honduras. p. 24. Available at Web site: http://library.wur.nl/file/wurpubs/LUWPUBRDGoogle Scholar
29Ayarza, M.A. and Welchez, L.A. 2004. Drivers affecting the development and sustainability of the Quesungual slash and mulch agroforestry system (QSMAS) on Hillsides of Honduras. In International Water Management Institute, Comprehensive Assessment ‘Bright Spots’ Project. Final Report. p. 187–201.Google Scholar
30Smith, S. 1994. The Human Farm: A Tale of Changing Lives and Changing Lands. Kumarian Press Inc., West Hartford, CT.Google Scholar
31Suazo, T.E., Gómez, L.V., Mejía, C.R., Villatoro, D., Castro, G., del Cid, W., Zelaya, C., Cherret, I., Lindemann, T., and Gaviria, L. 2004. Historia de un proceso de desarrollo: Metodología del programa Lempira Sur. Programa Lempira Sur. Proyecto de gobernabilidad Local en Lempira. GCP/HON/028/NET. FAO, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. p. 148.Google Scholar
32Jansen, H., Siegel, P.B., and Pichón, F. 2005. Identifying the drivers of sustainable rural growth and poverty reduction in Honduras. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). DSGD Discussion Paper No. 19.Google Scholar