Agroforestry, Livelihood and Biodiversity Nexus: The Case of Madhupur Tract, Bangladesh
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Data Collection
- Species richness: the species richness denotes the number of different species in a specific area. It was calculated to measure the sensitivity of the agroforestry ecosystems and their resident species.
- Species-area curve: It was designed from the total number of plant species found at different sample plots to capture the maximum number of plant species in the study area.
- Shannon–Wiener Index: Also called the diversity index, which expresses the total number of species in a habitat (richness) and their relative abundance. The Shannon–Wiener index was measured using the following formula given by Magurran (1988) [35]. H′ = − , where H′ = Shannon diversity index, pi = proportion of individual of ith species in an entire community, n = individual of a given species and N = total number of individuals in a community.
- Evenness: Is the calculation of the relative abundance of the different species that constitute the richness of an area. The evenness is calculated following the formula given by Magurran (1988) [35]. E = where E = Evenness of the species in an ecosystem, H′ = Shannon index, S = number of species.
- Similarity index: The similarity index, also known as the community coefficient, is calculated to find out how the species overlap, as well as their similarities and contrasting differences between ecosystems or forests. The similarity index was calculated using the Jaccard and Sorensen index [36,37].Jaccard Index = j/(a + b + c − j), Sorensen Index = 2S (A + B + C), where j/S = number of species common along the three zones and a/A, b/B, c/C = number of species in zone A, B, and C, respectively.
- Simpson index: Also called the Concentration of Dominance (CD), is often used to quantify the biodiversity of a habitat. The Simpson index takes the number of species present into account, as well as the abundance of each species, which is determined by the following formula [38], CD = − , where pi = proportion of individual of ith species in a whole community.
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Description and Economic Outputs of Agroforestry Practices
3.2. Livelihood Development of Agroforestry Farmers
3.3. Biodiversity Conservation through Agroforestry Practices
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UN. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision; The Population Division of the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.unfpa.org/world-population-trends (accessed on 19 February 2022).
- UN. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights; The Population Division of the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2022).
- FAO. How to Feed the World in 2050: Global Agriculture Towards 2050; Economic and Social Development Department Report: Rome, Italy, 2019; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Dagar, J.C.; Gupta, S.R.; Teketay, D. (Eds.) Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes: Recent Advances and Emerging Challenges; Springer Publication: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Mcneely, J.A.; Schroth, G. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation: Traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 549–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing, Value Added (% of GDP) in Bangladesh; World Bank National Accounts Data: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- BBS. Agriculture Census, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS); Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Arable Land (Hectares per Person) in Bangladesh; The World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?locations=BD (accessed on 18 February 2022).
- Islam, K.K.; Hyakumura, K. The potential peril of Sal Forest land grabbing in Bangladesh: An analysis of economic, social, and ecological perspectives. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 15368–15390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, K.K.; Saifullah, M.; Hyakumura, K. Does Traditional Agroforestry a Sustainable Production System in Bangladesh? An Analysis of Socioeconomic and Ecological Perspectives. Conservation 2021, 1, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, K.K.; Hyakumura, K. Forestland concession, land rights and livelihood of ethnic minorities: The case of the Madhupur Sal forest, Bangladesh. Forests 2019, 10, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nair, P.K.R. An Introduction to Agroforestry; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, K.K.; Jose, S.; Tani, M.; Hyakumura, K.; Krott, M.; Sato, N. Does actor power impede outcomes in participatory agroforestry approach? Evidence from Sal forests area, Bangladesh. Agroforest. Syst. 2015, 89, 885–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, K.K.; Rahman, G.M.; Fujiwara, T.; Sato, N. People’s participation in forest conservation and livelihoods improvements: Experience from a forestry project in Bangladesh. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2013, 9, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nair, P.K.; Kumar, B.M.; Nair, V.D. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nut. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gain, P. The Last Forest of Bangladesh; Society for Environmental and Human Development (SEHD): Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2002; pp. 101–179. [Google Scholar]
- Muhammed, N.; Koike, M.; Haque, F.; Miah, M.D. Quantitative assessment of people oriented forestry in Bangladesh: A case study from Tangail Forest Division. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pimm, S.L.; Russell, G.J.; Gittleman, J.L.; Brooks, T.M. The future of biodiversity. Science 1995, 269, 269–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jose, S. Agroforestry for conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 85, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rands, M.R.; Adams, W.M.; Bennun, L.; Butchart, S.H.; Clements, A.; Coomes, D.; Entwistle, A.; Hodge, I.; Kapos, V.; Scharlemann, J.P.; et al. Biodiversity conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science 2010, 329, 1298–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nyaupane, G.; Poudel, S. Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood, and tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1344–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 947–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opermmann, R.; Beaufoy, G.; Jones, G. High Nature Value Farming in Europe: 35 European Countries—Experiences and Perspectives; Verlag Regionanlkultur: Ubstadt-Weiher, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Udawatta, R.P.; Rankoth, L.K.; Jose, S. Agroforestry and biodiversity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alam, M.S.; Sarker, M.A.; Hoque, M.J.; Khan, M.S.H. Use of Agrochemicals in Pineapple Farming: A case study from Madhupur Forest Areas of Bangladesh. J. South Pac. Agric. 2019, 22, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, K.K.; Sato, N. Protected Sal Forest and Livelihoods of Ethnic Minorities: Experiences from Bangladesh. J. Sustain. For. 2013, 32, 412–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DFID. Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets-Comparing Development Approaches; Department for International Development (DFID): London, UK, 2002. Available online: https://www.dfid.gov.uk/ (accessed on 22 February 2022).
- Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihood: A Framework for Analysis; IDS Working Paper No. 72; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, K.K.; Sato, N. Participatory forestry in Bangladesh: Has it helped to increase the livelihoods of Sal forests dependent people. South. For. 2012, 74, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carney, D. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods; What Contribution Can We Make? Department for International Development: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hussein, K.; Nelson, J. Sustainable Livelihood and Livelihood Diversification; IDS Working Paper, No. 69; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Lovejoy, T.E. The Global 2000 Report to the President; The Technical Report, Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 327–332. [Google Scholar]
- Kareiva, P.; Marvier, M. What is conservation science? BioScience 2012, 62, 962–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, M.; Furukawa, Y.; Sarker, S.K.; Ahmed, R. Sustainability of Sal (Shorea robusta) forest in Bangladesh: Past, present and future actions. Int. For. Rev. 2008, 10, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magurran, A.E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement; Springer Nature Publication: Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Jaccard, P. The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol. 1912, 11, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorensen, T. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species context, and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Skr. 1948, 5, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
- Simpson, E.H. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, K.K.; Hyakumura, K. Forestland grabbing by the foreigners in Hokkaido, Japan: Is it a big concern for sustainable forest development? Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Foley, J.A.; Defries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zomer, R.J.; Neufeldt, H.; Xu, J.; Ahrends, A.; Bossio, D.; Trabucco, A.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Wang, M. Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Islam, K.K.; Hoogastra, M.; Ullah, M.O.; Noriko, S. Economic contribution of participatory agroforestry program to poverty alleviation: A case from Sal forests, Bangladesh. J. Res. 2012, 23, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobel, J. Can We Trust Social Capital? J. Econ. Lit. 2002, 40, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gain, P. Bangladesher Biponno Bon (In Bengali); SEHD: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2005; p. 123. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, K.K.; Fujiwara, T.; Noriko, S.; Hyakumura, K. Evolving and Strengthening the Cooperative Approach for Agroforestry Farmers in Bangladesh: Lessons Learned from the Shimogo Cooperative in Japan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rigg, J.D. Forests, marketization, livelihoods and the poor in the Lao PDR. Land Degrad. Dev. 2006, 17, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torralba, M.; Fagerholm, N.; Burgess, P.J.; Moreno, G.; Plieninger, T. Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bardhan, S.; Jose, S.; Biswas, S.; Kabir, K.; Rogers, W. Home garden agroforestry systems: An intermediary for biodiversity conservation in Bangladesh. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 85, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamps, W.T.; Woods, T.W.; Linit, M.J.; Garrett, H.E. Arthropod diversity in alley cropped black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) stands in eastern Missouri, USA. Agrofor. Syst. 2002, 56, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanieski, M.R.; Longhi, S.J.; Soares, P.R.C. Methods for Biodiversity Assessment: Case Study in an Area of Atlantic Forest in Southern Brazil; IntechOpen Limited Publication: London, UK, 2018; p. 50. [Google Scholar]
- Ludwig, J.A.; Reynolds, J.F. Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1988; p. 338. [Google Scholar]
- Kleijn, D.; Kohler, F.; Báldi, A.; Batáry, P.; Concepción, E.D.; Clough, Y.; Díaz, M.; Gabriel, D.; Holzschuh, A.; Knop, E.; et al. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 2008, 276, 903–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Helgason, B.L.; Walley, F.L.; Germida, J.J. No-till and soil management increases microbial biomass and alters community profiles in soil aggregates. App. Soil Ecol. 2010, 46, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | Agroforestry Practices | ||
---|---|---|---|
Pineapple-Turmeric Based AF | Pineapple-Ginger Based AF | Pineapple-Aroid Based AF | |
Cost (USD) | |||
Tree seedlings/saplings costs | 232.56 | 191.86 | 215.12 |
Land preparation costs | 180.47 | 165.12 | 98.84 |
crop seedlings/rhizomes/sucker buying costs | 356.40 | 377.91 | 191.86 |
Labor costs | 759.30 | 877.33 | 473.84 |
Fertilizer and manure costs | 236.05 | 299.42 | 99.42 |
Insecticides and pesticide costs | 239.53 | 87.79 | 40.70 |
Weeding and Irrigation costs | 143.02 | 145.93 | 98.26 |
Harvesting costs | 297.67 | 411.63 | 261.63 |
Sticks | 98.84 | 66.28 | 58.14 |
Transport | 8.02 | 9.88 | 14.53 |
Tree seedlings costs | 144.19 | 190.70 | 145.35 |
Land Price (100 Decimal) * | 87,209.3 | 87,209.3 | 87,209.3 |
Total Cost of Production | 2486.74 | 2823.84 | 1697.67 |
Return (USD) | |||
Timber income | 488.37 | 465.12 | 511.63 |
Thinning income | 58.14 | 75.58 | 104.65 |
Firewood income | 23.26 | 25.58 | 23.26 |
Fodder income | 6.98 | 13.95 | 8.14 |
Crops income | 4476.74 | 7267.44 | 4127.91 |
Total Gross Income (USD) | 5053.49 | 7847.67 | 4775.58 |
Net Income (USD) | 2566.74 | 5023.84 | 3077.91 |
BCR (Benefit–Cost Ratio) | 2.03 | 2.78 | 2.81 |
Characteristics | Farmers |
---|---|
Age (Mean ± SD) | 36.15 ± 8.80 |
Household size (Mean ± SD) | 5.40 ± 1.20 |
Male: Female ratio | 48:52 |
Per household landholding (ha) (Mean ± SD) | 0.32 ± 1.30 |
Distribution of households by religion | |
Muslim | 86% |
Christian | 5% |
Shangsarek | 2% |
Hindu | 7% |
Others | 0 |
Households’ main sources of income | |
Agriculture/Jhum | 39% |
Wage labor | 32% |
Business | 7% |
Unemployment | 11% |
Fuelwood and NTFPs collection from forests | 5% |
Others | 6% |
Distribution of households as origin | |
From same area/village | 8% |
From same district (not same village) | 15% |
From another district | 76% |
From another country | 0 |
Items | Agroforestry Farmers | Current Trends |
---|---|---|
Human | ||
-Agroforestry training received from | ||
Govt./FD | 76% | increasing |
NGOs | 17% | |
Others | 2% | |
-Literacy rate | 33 | increasing |
-Children school attendance rate | 92 | sharpy increased |
-Available family labor (18 to 60 years) | 1.75 | declining |
-Health care facilities | Medium to low | improving |
Physical | ||
-Household structure | Tin-wall with tin-roof | Improving |
-Road structure | Mostly brick with bitumen sealant | Good |
-Land holdings | 0.138 ha | Low |
-AF practice distance from market | 6.2 km | Bit far |
-Livestock (small and big) | 7.25 and 2.40 | Improving |
Social | ||
-Social organizations involved | 11 | Improving |
-Relationship with FD/Govt. officials | Neutral to bad | Decline |
-New social platform | Created | Positive |
-Annual food sufficiency (month/year) | 11 | Improving |
Natural | ||
-Number of trees in agroforestry plot | 225 | declining |
-Number of trees in homestead | 14.45 | improving |
-Dependency on natural forest | Low to zero | improving |
-Watershed availability | Nil | immediate need |
Financial | ||
-Household getting micro credit | 61% | increasing |
-Sources of household income | ||
Agroforestry practices | 64% | |
Agriculture and Livestock | 21% | improving |
Labor/Wage | 12% | |
Remittance | 2% | |
Others | 1% | |
-Annual expenditure (% of total income) | 93% |
Sl No. | Local Name | Scientific Name | Family Name | Habit | Uses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
01 | Mango | Mangifera indica | Anacardiaceae | Tree | F, Fd, T |
02 | Taro | Colocasia esculenta | Araceae | Herb | Fd |
03 | Supari | Areca catechu | Arecaceae | Tree | M, Fd |
04 | Pineapple | Ananas comosus | Bromeliaceae | Herb | Fd |
05 | Jiga | Lannea coromandelica | Burseraceae | Tree | Fd, M, N, T |
06 | Papaya | Carica papaya | Caricaceae | Herb | Fd |
07 | Bohera | Terminalia bellirica | Combretaceae | Tree | Fd, M, T |
08 | Bon Chalta | Dillenia pentagyna | Dilleniaceae | Tree | Fd, M, T |
09 | Sal | Shorea robusta | Dipterocarpaceae | Tree | T |
10 | Gab | Diospyros malabarica | Ebenaceae | Tree | M, T |
11 | Akashmoni | Acacia auriculiformis | Fabaceae | Tree | F, N, T |
12 | Gliricidia | Gliricidia sepium | Fabaceae | Tree | M, N |
13 | Minjiri | Senna siamea | Fabaceae | Tree | Fd, T, M |
14 | Teak | Tectona grandis | Lamiaceae | Tree | M, T |
15 | Gamari | Gmelina arborea | Lamiaceae | Tree | T |
16 | Jarul | Lagerstroemia speciosa | Lythraceae | Tree | N, T |
17 | Shimul | Bombax ceiba | Malvaceae | Tree | M, T |
18 | Lambu | Khaya anthotheca | Meliaceae | Tree | T |
19 | Mahogany | Swietenia macrophylla | Meliaceae | Tree | T |
20 | Mahogany | Swietenia mahagoni | Meliaceae | Tree | T |
21 | Neem | Azadirachta indica | Meliaceae | Tree | M, T |
22 | Ghora Neem | Melia azedarach | Meliaceae | Tree | M, T |
23 | Jackfruit | Artocarpus heterophyllus | Moraceae | Tree | Fd, N, T |
24 | Joyfol | Myristica fragrans | Myristicaceae | Tree | Fd, M, T |
25 | Guava | Psidium guajava | Myrtaceae | Herb | F, Fd, M, N |
26 | Eucalyptus | Eucalyptus camaldunensis | Myrtaceae | Tree | F, N, T |
27 | Boroi | Ziziphus mauritiana | Rhamnaceae | Shrub | Fd |
28 | Lemon | Citrus limon | Rutaceae | Shrub | Fd, M |
29 | Bael | Aegle marmelos | Rutaceae | Tree | Fd, M, T |
30 | Litchi | Litchi chinensis | Sapindaceae | Tree | Fd, M, T |
31 | Joina | Schleichera oleosa | Sapindaceae | Tree | Fd, M, T |
32 | Agar | Aquilaria agallocha | Thymeliaceae | Tree | N |
33 | Ginger | Zingiber officinale | Zingiberaceae | Herb | Fd, M |
34 | Turmeric | Curcuma longa | Zingiberaceae | Herb | Fd, M |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Islam, K.K.; Fujiwara, T.; Hyakumura, K. Agroforestry, Livelihood and Biodiversity Nexus: The Case of Madhupur Tract, Bangladesh. Conservation 2022, 2, 305-321. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/conservation2020022
Islam KK, Fujiwara T, Hyakumura K. Agroforestry, Livelihood and Biodiversity Nexus: The Case of Madhupur Tract, Bangladesh. Conservation. 2022; 2(2):305-321. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/conservation2020022
Chicago/Turabian StyleIslam, Kazi Kamrul, Takahiro Fujiwara, and Kimihiko Hyakumura. 2022. "Agroforestry, Livelihood and Biodiversity Nexus: The Case of Madhupur Tract, Bangladesh" Conservation 2, no. 2: 305-321. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/conservation2020022