Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(SALT):
NITROGEN FIXING AGROFORESTRY FOR
SUSTAINABLE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
Jeff Palmer
Published By
Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center (MBRLC)
Kinuskusan, Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Philippines
Jeff Palmer
Published By
Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center (MBRLC)
Kinuskusan, Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Philippines
Published by the
With the purpose of facilitating information transfer, permission is hereby given for reproducing
the contents of this manual, with the condition that proper acknowledgments are made and two
copies are sent to the publisher.
Bibliographic Citation:
Palmer, J. Jeff. (1999). Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT): Nitrogen Fixing
Agroforestry for Sustainable Soil and Water Conservation, 2nd Edition.. A publication of
the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center (MBRLC). ** pp.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and PREFACE FOR SECOND EDITION
Namely, MBRLC would like to thank the Project Co-Directors of SMAP, Dashiel
P. Indelible and Patrick Sweeting, for their support. Also, thanks to Jose Jorge C. (Boy)
Yap, Jr. and Jeremy Cole, Co-Managers, SMAP, Zone 2. A belated thank you goes to
Graham Garrod, former Project Co-Director and Ike Matulong, former Co-Manager,
Zone 2.
The staff of the MBRLC should also be given an acknowledgment for their hard
work over the years in coming up with the ideas and data enclosed. The lessons
presented are the results of many people’s work over the years that Sloping Agricultural
Land Technology and its offshoots have been developed and used. This book would not
be possible without the originators of the SALT, namely Harold R. Watson, MBRLC
Director, Warlito A. Laquihon, Associate Director MBRLC, and Rodrigo “Rod” Calixtro,
Farm Manager MBRLC.
Finally, a special thanks to the Testing and Development staff of MBRLC who
have compiled years and years of data and helped finalize this work: Gener Laquihon,
Supervisor, Carlos Juano, Technician, and Paula Wilson, Journeyman/Editor.
Jeff Palmer
Director, MBRLC
CONTENTS
Page
I) Introduction and Rationale 1
Lesson 2 Not all legumes are NF plants and thus not all are beneficial 18
to NF agroforestry systems.
Lesson 8 The benefit of the NFP comes primarily from the dead and 33
decaying biomass applied directly to the cropping zone.
Lesson 14 Hedgerows for erosion control and N rich mulch are not 46
necessarily harborers of unwanted pests and actually
may help reduce certain pests by providing diversity
in the system.
VI) Conclusion 49
VIII) Appendices 53
TABLES
Table 4 Most utilized and promising species of nitrogen fixing trees and shrubs for SALT 20
hedgerows at MBRLC, 1988 to 1995.
Table 5 Corn yield response to differing vegetative barriers in SALT; Four croppings at 22
MBRLC from 1994 to 1995.
Table 6 Hedgerow Biomass Test: The effects of cutting heights on Flemingia and 24
rensonii, May 8, 1992 to Dec. 8, 1995. Sample taken from 2 meter
linear double hedge
of each species.
Table 10 Physical properties comparison of a SALT and Non-SALT side by side plot. 31
Table 11 Moisture block readings - SALT vs. Non-SALT at an average depth of six inches, 32
September 1991 to February 1994.
Table 12 Comparison of corn yields grown in SALT - Hedgerow cuttings added versus 34
hedgerow cuttings removed. Twenty-three croppings from 1982 to 1993.
Table 13 Effects on corn production of live mulching versus “killed” mulch of close-growing 35
cover crops Arachis pintoi and Desmodium heterophyllum.
Table 14 Comparison of labor inputs. SALT vs. Non-SALT, 1985 to 1990 measured in 39
man days/hectare/year.
FIGURES
Figure 1 The law of inputs and outputs in regard to nutrient management and 9
sustainability.
APPENDICES
Rationale:
1
Agroforestry, as used in this writing, is a holistic
incorporation and inter-working of all things within the small
family farm including animals, trees, crops, and natural
resources. In reality, agroforestry is an old practice which from
the beginning of time has been used by people to produce food and
livelihood in order to provide for their families. It is a
natural way of farming integrating many crops (trees and animals
included), using a multi-storied approach and being diversified
in terms of plants and animals on the small farm. This book
treats the term “agroforestry” in this sense.
2
fixing plants (NFPs) in tropical agriculture based largely upon
the experiences of the MBRLC.
3
II) WHAT IS NITROGEN FIXING AGROFORESTRY?
The definition and “spirit” of NF agroforestry. Nitrogen
fixing agroforestry, or “NF” agroforestry, is an approach to
farming which acknowledges the benefits and encourages the
incorporation of nitrogen fixing species into any and every
farming system. The nitrogen fixing plant is seen not as an
option to sustainable farming systems but rather as the
foundation for the system. Nitrogen fixing agroforestry is open
to all forms of nitrogen fixing plants found occurring naturally
in the environment and seeks to use them symbiotically in farming
systems to enhance the sustainability of the system.
Nitrogen fixing
agroforestry is not limited to
trees which fix nitrogen or
nitrogen fixing cover crops, but
rather openly embraces all forms
of nitrogen fixers as potential
allies in creating sustainable
farming systems. For example, if
vegetative barriers are used to
control soil erosion in a
conservation cropping system,
the pro-nitrogen-fixing
agroforester immediately looks
toward a nitrogen fixing plant to act as a barrier.
4
agricultural crops.
“In any system, if the outputs exceed the inputs, then the
upkeep of that system becomes the downfall.”
5
abandon the system.
Inputs to agricultural
systems include natural,
inorganic and organic
categories. Examples of natural
inputs include existing
nutrients in the soil profile,
dust and other particles carried
by the wind, rainfall which
forces these particles down to
earth, nitrogen fixed by
lightning, and ecological
nitrogen fixation caused by
organisms naturally occurring in the soil. Inorganic inputs come
mainly from commercially produced chemical fertilizers. Organic
inputs come mostly from on-farm sources such as crop residues,
animal manures, and green manures of NFPs.
6
nutrients available in selected crop residues on a per hectare
basis.
7
A graphical presentation of the balance of inputs and outputs in
farming systems is presented below.
8
Figure 1. The law of inputs and outputs in regard to nutrient
management and sustainability.
9
10
III) BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HOW MBRLC HAS USED
NITROGEN FIXING AGROFORESTRY
One of the better advocates of nitrogen fixing agroforestry
is the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center (MBRLC) and its 25
years of promoting the Sloping Agricultural Land Technologies
(SALT).
11
SALT 1 - Sloping
Agricultural Land
Technology. SALT 1 is a
one- hectare agroforestry
model established in
1978. SALT 1 is a system
of growing food crops
(45%) and permanent crops
(30%) in 3 to 5 m
contoured alleyways
formed by double
hedgerows of fast-growing
NFT/S species (25%).
SALT 1 uses minimal tillage and the formation of green terraces
of the NFT/S to control erosion and act as a rich source of N-
fertilizer through applying the leaf biomass to the soil.
12
SALT 3 - Sustainable Agro-forest
Land Technology. SALT 3, a two-
hectare agroforestry model
established in 1987, is
basically a farmer-focused,
small-scale reforestation
scheme. The lower hectare is
devoted to a regular SALT 1
system and is called the food
component. The upper hectare is
devoted to a reforestation
scheme which is simple and
readily acceptable by the local farmer. The 1 ha forestry
component is planted to tree species in “time zones.” These time
zones are the harvest dates for different species, with
progressively more valuable products reaching maturity at 1-5,
6-10, 11-15, and 16-20 years from establishment.
13
IV) IDEAS AND LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT NITROGEN FIXING
AGROFORESTRY
This section is the heart of this book. In the following
pages the reader will find the lessons learned by the MBRLC as
well as questions raised about NF agroforestry. Bear in mind as
you read that this book was written to address primarily the
technical, biophysical side of the topic.
LESSON 1: NFT/S hedgerows can adequately control erosion if planted and maintained
properly.
For the last few years the question has been asked, “Can
vegetative hedgerows adequately control soil erosion?” Thus the
debate of those who are pro-structure and pro-grasses in
vegetative barriers to control erosion on steep croplands versus
those who rely heavily on vegetative barriers such as the NF
tree/shrub. The answer of the MBRLC based upon the SALT
experience and data is “yes,” NF trees and shrubs, if planted and
maintained well, can adequately control erosion in most hillside
farming situations.
14
Equally important is ground
cover for soil and water
conservation which prevents the
raindrop splash from initiating
erosion. If the ground is well
covered--due to zero tillage,
mulching, and/or good plant
canopy--little erosion will
occur. Therefore, in designing
an erosion control system,
attention must be paid to the
cover as well as the barrier.
15
The SALT plots were planted to NFT/S
double contour hedgerows spaced about
three to four meters apart. Every third
cropping strip or “alley” was used for
permanent crops: banana (Musa sp.), coffee
(Coffea robusta and C. arabica), and
calamondin (Citrus microcarpa). The
annual or seasonal alleys were farmed
using the same methods as the farmer
treatment, except that the seasonal crops
were planted along the contour to follow
the hedges. Soil movement was measured by
stakes placed within each treatment.
16
conducted on the same area described above. Water and soil
runoff were collected in 2.5 cubic m sample tanks below one of
the SALT and one of the Non-SALT plots. Measurements were taken
over a two and one-half year period.
17
higher (1,968 kg) than the SALT treatment (17 kg), showing NF
agroforestry systems such as SALT 1 to be excellent erosion
control systems.
LESSON 2 - Not all legumes are NF plants and therefore not all are beneficial to NF
agroforestry systems.
18
Leguminosae) are nitrogen fixing; many however are not.
19
8. Able to grow well when thickly planted.
9. Adaptable to a wide variety of soils and climates.
10. Deep/tap rooted.
11. Grows into a tree if left unattended.
12. Usable for forage.
13. Multi-purpose (i.e., fencing, fuel, feed, etc.).
Fresh Dry
NFT/S Species (T/ha) (T/ha)
1. Calliandra tetragona* 51.9 16.1
2. Calliandra calothyrsus 49.8 15.9
3. Leucaena diversifolia 42.3 11.8
4. Gliricidia sepium 36.5 8.4
5. Erythrina poeppigiana 34.3 5.8
6. Flemingia macrophylla 34.1 9.5
7. Desmodium rensonii 31.0 6.5
8. Indigofera anil** 28.5 9.1
20
Gliricidia sepium is one of the most widely-used NFT/S in
Asia. Well known for use as fencing material (largely via
cuttings) and animal feed, Gliricidia is possibly one of the best
species choice for hedgerows as well. Unfortunately, many people
have not learned to plant Gliricidia by direct seeding instead of
cuttings. Direct-seeded plantings have better tap root formation
and less lateral root invasion into the alleyways of SALT
systems. Moreover, direct seeding can reduce the amount of labor
establishing a NF agroforestry system over the use of cuttings.
Erythrinas are good nitrogen fixers and grow well from seeds
or cuttings. However, due to their thorns, they are of limited
use as hedgerows in NF agroforestry systems.
21
(Senna spectabilis + Senna spectabilis). Each system was assumed
to adequately control soil erosion, but in question was the
effect of biomass applied from the specific hedge on crop growth
in the alley.
Dry shell
Double hedge type weight(kg) Ton/ha
22
Additional trials using other hedgerow species and crops are
needed before general conclusions could be made. However, the
data from this trial do sugges that careful selection of hedgerow
species is an important factor for good crop production. And from
tests and on-farm experience here at the MBRLC, it has been found
to be important that these hedgerow species be nitrogen-fixing.
It has been our observation that some research conducted in the
past on alley cropping systems by other researchers might have
reached different conclusions had good NF species been used for
hedgerows in their trials.
LESSON 3 - Management practices of NFT/S hedges affect biomass yields and thus crop
production.
23
In regard to the practice
of trimming the hedges (item “d”
above), tests and farmers’
experience have shown that
trimming height and frequency of
trimming the NF vegetative
barriers affect the
survivability and biomass
production of the hedgerows. All
of the major NFT/S species
promoted by the MBRLC for use in
hedgerow and forage systems are
able to withstand heavy prunings of up to 12 times per year (once
per month). However, in field situations where indiscriminate
browsing may constantly occur from roaming animals, survivability
under this heavy pruning and grazing may be reduced.
Consequently, farmers who choose to trim their hedges “to the
ground” for reduced shading effect may find their vegetative
barriers dying back because of lack of sufficient reserve in the
plant for coppicing.
24
Table 6. Hedgerow Biomass Test: The effects of cutting heights on
Flemingia and rensonii - May 8, 1992 to Dec. 8, 1995. Sample
taken from 2 meter linear double hedge of each species.
From the above data, the “waist high” trimming yields the
best biomass production from the hedgerow with the “knee high”
trimming second and the ground trimming a distant third. Thus the
recommendation of good hedgerow maintenance is to trim somewhere
between waist to knee high (100 to 50 cm). Any lower would cause
significant yield reductions in biomass and consequently crop
production. Higher trimming might cause excessive shading of the
crops in the alleyways.
25
erosion control, dilutes the fertilization effect of the hedgerow
leaf matter because the trimmings must be evenly distributed over
a larger area.
26
consistently produce better than those in the 3 meter treatment,
which in turn are consistently better than in the 4 meter
treatment, etc. This productivity measurement is based on
observing the crops in the alleyways as compared on a per-unit
basis not just a per-hectare basis.
LESSON 4 - The fertility of farming systems in the humid tropics greatly resides in the
above-ground biomass (standing plants plus ground cover mulch) of the system.
27
of the tropical system resides largely in the biomass or “living
matter” of the ecosystem. Moreover, most of that biomass is found
aboveground and is not measurable using traditional techniques.
When the soil of a tropical rain forest is tested in the
laboratory, the aboveground portion where the storehouse of
nutrients resides is not represented.
The data show that the SALT and Non-SALT systems were
virtually the same in total nutrients when the standing corn
crops, ground mulch, and soil analysis nutrients were totaled.
However, the superiority of the total nutrients in the SALT
system becomes evident when the nutrients from the standing
28
hedges are added. This test was conducted after three years of
cropping with corn as the major crop. The yields of the SALT
system were greater than those of the Non-SALT (2.3 vs. 2.0 T/ha)
which also testifies to greater system fertility.
The results in Table 9 show that the lowest tomato yield was
in the plots with no added fertilizer. There was a significant
increase in yield with any amount and type or fertilizer. The
commercial fertilizer plot gave the highest yield but was the
most costly. The animal manure plus NF biomass was second. The NF
biomass plot was third in terms of yield.
The data show that biomass from NF plants can increase the
yields of crops such as tomato. Since these plants are grown on
the farm, adding available biomass is an economical way to
provide fertility to crops. Moreover, manure additions to the NF
plant biomass can take yields up another level. Even though the
commercial fertilizer plots yielded the highest, the long-term
effects to the system as well as the high cost of purchasing
these inputs should be taken into consideration.
Treatments
A B C D
Harvest kg/plot kg/plot kg/plot kg/plot Average
First 7.2 10.8 11.9 14.0 10.9
Second 4.4 5.6 6.8 7.9 6.2
29
Third 10.5 12.5 15.0 15.5 13.3
Fourth 12.5 17.5 18.8 21.3 17.5
Mean (kg/plot) 8.6 11.6 13.1 14.6
LESSON 5 - The mulching effect of the aboveground biomass does more for the physical
properties of the soil than for the chemical properties. These improved physical properties
provide greater ability capacity to utilize existing soil fertility, thus giving higher
production.
4) Soil Organisms.
5) Surface mulch.
30
producing healthy crops. This also illustrates differences
between soil in a SALT and soil in a non-SALT agricultural
system. By virute of applying plant biomass from the hedges to
the soil as mulch, enhancement of these factors is facilitated
and therefore the production of healthy crops.
31
the ground and then filling it with one liter of water. The time
needed for complete absorption of the water was recorded as the
percolation time in each treatment.
32
which measures moisture in percent and bars, data was collected
until February 1994.
A comparison of the
moisture use in a SALT system
shows that the average moisture
availability at a six-inch depth
is the same in the permanent
alleys and hedgerows and
slightly less where seasonal
crops are grown. Overall, each
of the SALT components tends
towards more available soil
moisture than the Non-SALT
farming system at a six-inch
depth.
LESSON 7 - Agroforesters have often limited themselves to NF trees and overlooked other
nitrogen fixing plants in potential cropping schemes. Similarly, cover crop specialists have
often overlooked trees and their benefits.
33
Due to specialization in agricultural/agroforestry fields,
the tendency is often to overlook plants which do not fit in with
a particular discipline. For instance, a forester might be
interested in Leucaena, Gliricidia, or Calliandra, but disregard
shrubs such as Desmodium and Flemingia. Since these species are
“shrubs” and not “trees,” they are not considered by many
forestry people. Conversely, cover crop specialists are
interested in plants such as Arachis, Mimosa, and Mucuna, and
ignore erect NF species.
LESSON 8 - Benefits of the NFP comes primarily from the dead and decaying biomass
applied directly to the cropping zone.
34
Plot A Plot B
Hedges Removed Hedges Added
Average
Ann. Yield (T/ha) 0.87 a 2.02 b
This fact is very important for those who promote the use of
the NF vegetative barriers as animal feed. Even though these
species do make good animal feed, a separate area devoted
exclusively to forage production should be maintained and its
fertility replenished through the spreading of animal manures in
the forage area.
35
nitrogen as the limiting factor in sustainable production, especially in acidic soils.
N P K
T1 0 0 0
T2 90 60 0
T3 45 30 30
T4 90 0 0
T5 45 0 0
T6 0 60 0
T7 0 30 0
T8 0 0 60
T9 0 0 30
T10 45 30 0
T11 0 30 30
T12 45 0 30
36
from the applications which had at least a combination of
nitrogen and phosphorous (Treatments 2, 3 and 10). However, the
nitrogen additions alone were found to be no better than
phosphorous additions (Treatments 4/5 vs. 6/7). This may indicate
that under low-input systems such as SALT type NF agroforestry
systems, additional inputs of commercially produced fertilizers
might be more wisely focused on phosphorous applications instead
of nitrogen.
5
Yield (Tons/ha)
0
t1 t3 t5 t7 t9 t11
Treatment Number
37
LESSON 10 - The traditional view that NF alley cropping systems are more laborious than
traditional farming systems is largely a myth. A different type of labor is required, but
possibly in lesser amounts.
Although both SALT (left) and Non-SALT (right) strips require weeding, the Non-SALT area is greater, and
weeds are not suppressed by mulch from the
Until this test, the MBRLC staff thought that SALT farming
would be more laborious. The hedgerows were perceived to be the
extra labor factor due to the need for locating, planting, and
maintaining (which includes pruning). However, Table 14 shows
that although more labor was involved in the first year of the
project, less labor was involved in the succeeding four years.
The relatively low labor requirements in SALT from 1986 to 1989
can be explained by the smaller area under annual crops and the
low labor intensity in land under perennial crops. Also, even
though hedgerow pruning labor is involved in the SALT system, the
benefit of labor saving in mulching and weed control more than
offsets the “extra” hedgerow labor.
38
Table 14. Comparison of labor inputs. SALT vs. Non-SALT, 1985 to
1990 measured in man days/hectare/year.
39
Hedgerow pruning 18.0 -
Land prep./seasonal crops 5.1 4.8
Planting seasonal crops 14.0 18.4
Weeding seasonal crops 75.5 122.8
Harvesting seasonal crops 21.0 30.8
Planting of permanent crops 6.0 6.1
Weeding of permanent crops 1.7 -
Totals 342.6 374.2
The data show for the first 20 months of the test, less
labor was required in the SALT system than in the Non-SALT
system. SALT requires “extra” hedgerow labor, but the overall
labor is less because of decreased cropping area to weed and
decreased weed growth due to mulching. Even though the SALT
treatment has less area for seasonal crop (corn) production, it
has consistently outyielded the Non-SALT treatment on a per-
hectare basis (2.3 tons/ha versus 2.1 tons/ha over five
croppings).
40
This test was conducted in the hedgerow spacing test (described
earlier) with a varying hedgerow spacing of two, three, four,
five, and six meters (Table 16).
LESSON 11 - Root invasion into cropping alleys of NF agroforestry systems such as SALT
is not as much a serious problem as some literature may indicate.
41
SALT systems is minimal. Root studies have shown that under
normal conditions, the roots of the hedges do invade the
alleyways and even meet in the middle of those alleys.
42
with the additional use of animal manures, corn yields have
reached 4,000 kg/ha. In terms of income, each of the SALT
agroforestry systems achieves good results. Below is a general
summary of the comparisons of the SALT systems and their
benefits.
SALT 3
(Small scale reforestation 2.0-2.5 20,000
scheme with NF species)
SALT 4
(Fruit production
with NF hedges)
43
Many NF species are
excellent animal feeds.
Desmodium rensonii has been
called “the alfalfa of the
tropics” because of the 23%
crude protein content in the
leaf matter. D. rensonii
readily seeds and can be fed
directly to most ruminants and
non-ruminants. Years of feeding
pure rensonii to goats at the
MBRLC testify to its excellent
forage potential. Rensonii can be fed solely to rabbits with
little side effects and is good for cattle, fish, swine, sheep,
and guinea pig. Some bloating has been observed in sheep fed
purely rensonii, but that problem is contained by mixing in a
little grass.
44
The Calliandras are also excellent forages. These species
are reported high in tannin, which can cause problems in animals
such as hair loss, poor weight gain and poor performance. Little
effects of this nature have been observed at MBRLC feeding
Calliandras.
One observation should be made about how the NFPs have been
used in the MBRLC animal systems. Primarily, they have been used
in cut-and-carry systems, not free grazing. Most SALT 2 type
systems at the MBRLC are with penned animals, and the forage is
cut twice daily and brought to them. This controls what and how
much the animal unit consumes. If these species are grazed
heavily, they possibly would not survive.
LESSON 14 - Hedgerows for erosion control and mulch production are not necessarily
havens for unwanted pests and may actually help reduce certain pests by providing
diversity in the system.
One major pest in SALT over the years has been field mice
and/or rats. They live in the hedgerows and other parts of the
farm and damage newly planted crops. However, most Non-SALT
farmers in the area have the same problem even without contoured
vegetative barriers, as in the SALT system.
45
field, the “stripping” effect breaks up the crop, localizing and
minimizing pest problems. Moreover, while serving as a potential
host to unwanted organisms, hedges also serve as a host to
beneficial ones. Further research and documentation is needed in
this area.
46
VI) CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this book has been about promoting nitrogen
fixing agroforestry farming systems based largely upon two
decades of experience at the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center.
However, the MBRLC also promotes and widely uses non-nitrogen
fixing species and crops and integrates them fully into all of
the SALT farming systems. Thus the MBRLC is not limited to
exclusively using NFPs for reforestation, forage systems,
erosion control, etc. Many trees and plants which are non-
nitrogen fixing are wonderfully effective for these uses.
However, NFPs have always been the base for building of
sustainable systems, and that is the encouragement of this book.
47
Agroforestry for Sustainable Soil and Water Conservation, will
serve as the parting thought. We should be in tune to the
potential of nitrogen fixing agroforestry. We should try to view
farming systems through a nitrogen fixing paradigm which
acknowledges and makes use of this wonder of nature: the nitrogen
fixing plant. It’s time to “catch the spirit” of NF
agroforestry.
We will be glad to share our experiences and ideas with you and
are eager to hear your experiences.
48
VII) REFERENCES USED AND FOR FURTHER READING
Bunch, R. (1997) ECHO Development Notes, Issue 58, November.
49
NFT Highlights: A publication of the Nitrogen Fixing Tree
Association 1010 Holomua Road, Paia, Hawaii 96779-6744, USA.
50
VIII) APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Commonly Used NF Plants in the Southern Philippines.
(Some of the information in the following database was obtained from the sources listed below.)
Awang, K. and Taylor, D.A., eds. (1993). Acacias for rural, industrial, and environmental development. Proceedings of the secdon
meeting of the Consultative Group for Research and Development of Acacias (COGREDA), held in Udorn Thani,
Thailand, February 15-18, 1993. Bangkok, Thailand: Winrock International and FAO. 258+ v pp.
Bailey, L.H. (1929-1930). The standard cyclopedia of horticulture. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Community forestry: some aspects. (1983). Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA), Regional Forestry Economist, FAO of
the UN, Bangkok, Thailand.
Evans, D.O. and Szott, L.T. (1995). Nitrogen fixing trees for acid soils. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports (Special Issue).
Winrock International and NFTA, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA.
Evans, J. (1992). Plantation forestry in the tropics, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Great Britain.
Hensleigh, T.E., and Holaway, B.K., eds. (1988) Agroforestry species for the Philippines. U.S. Peace Corps, Washington, D.C.
Horne, P.M., MacLeod, D.A., and Scott, J.M., eds. Forages on red soils in China: proceedings of a workshop. Lengshuitan, Hunan
Province, PRC. 22-25 April 1991. ACIAR Proceedings No. 38, 142 p.
Hubbell, D.S.(1965). Tropical agriculture an abridged field guide. Published by World Farming-Agricultura de las Americas-Farm
Science Library. Copyright by Howard W. Sams International Corporation. Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. (1989). Agroforestry technology information kit. IIRR, Silang, Cavite.
Kumar, Sri. S.V., I.F.S. and Bhanja, Sri. M., I.F.S. (1992). Forestry seed manual of Andhra Pradesh. Research and Development
Circle, Andhra Pradesh Forest Department, Hyderabad.
MacDicken, K.G. (1988). Nitrogen fixing trees for wastelands. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA), Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN, Bangkok, Thailand.
McIlroy. (1972). An introduction to tropical grassland husbandry, Second Edition. Oxford University Press.
National Research Council. (1984). Leucaena: promising forage and tree crop for the tropics. Second Edition. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. (1983). Calliandra: a versatile small tree for the humid tropics. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C.
NFTA. (1987). Proceedings of a workshop on biological and genetic control strategies for the leucaena psyllid. A special edition of
“Leucaena Research Reports.” Volume 7(2). Honolulu, HI.
Nitrogen fixing trees - a training guide. (1987). RAPA, FAO of the UN, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ochse, J.J., Soule, M.J., Jr., Dijkman, M.J., and Wehlburg, C. (1961). Tropical and subtropical agriculture, Vol. 1. The Macmillan
Company, New York.
Patnaik, L.K., Egneus, H., and Das, S.S., eds. (1989). Social forestry handbook for Orissa. Vol 2 (Annexes). Bhubaneshwar.
Resource book on sustainable agriculture for the uplands. (1990). MBRLC, Mag-uugmad Foundation, Inc./World Neighbors, IIRR.
Philippines.
Turnbull, J.W. (1986). Multipurpose Australian trees and shrubs: lesser-known species for fuelwood and agroforestry. ACIAR
Monograph No. 1, 316 p. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, GPO Box 1571, Canberra, A.C.T.
2601.
Tropical legumes: resources for the future. Report of the Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Inbnovation,
Board on Science and Technology for International Development, Commission on International Relations, National Research
Council. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1979.
51
52
53
54
55
Appendix 2 - Leguminous and Nitrogen Fixing Species Tested and Used by MBRLC.
Acacia angustissima Leucaena lanceolata (k393)
Acacia auriculiformis Leucaena leucocephalla
Acacia confusa Leucaena leucocephalla hybrid kx1
Acacia mangium Leucaena leucocephalla (k584)
Aeschynomene villosa Leucaena macrophylla
Aeschynomene americana Leucaena pallida (k376)
Albizia saman (formerly Samania) Leucaena pallida (k817)
Albizia chinensis Leucaena pulverulenta
Albizia lebbeck Leucaena retusa
Albizia procera Leucaena shannonii
Alnus nepalensis Parkia roxburghii
Arachis pintoi Peleostigma malabaricum
Arhidendron scutiferum Pettrophorum pterocarpum
Caesalpinia sappan Phacelya
Calliandra calothyrsus Saga adennanthera
Calliandra haematocephalla Sambacus nigra
Calliandra tetragona Sesbania aculeata
Cassia fistula Sesbania formosa
Cassia nodusa Sesbania grandiflora
Cassia pilusa Sesbania sesban (812)
Cassia ratondafolia Stylosantes guianensis
Cassia siamea Stylosantes lamata
Cassia spectabilis Stylosantes scabra
Centrosema acutifolium Tephrosia candida
Clitoria ternatea Tephrosia vosella
Crotalaria juncae
Dalberia spruciana
Dendrolobium umbellatum
Desmanthus virgatus
Desmodium heterocarpon
Desmodium heterophyllum
Desmodium intortum
Desmodium ovalifolium
Desmodium prenglie
Desmodium salicifolium
Enterolobium cyclocarpum
Erythrina poepiggiana
Flemingia macrophylla
Flemingia (local-Philippines)
Flemingia (local-Thailand)
Gliricidia sepium
Indigofera anil (tyesmani)
Leucaena diversifolia
Leucaena hybrid kx2 composite
Leucaena hybrid kx3 composite
Leucaena kx3a mix composite
56
Appendix 3 - MBRLC Rainfall Records, 1992 - 1995.
57