Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems

*Pérez-Flores Julian, Facundo Sánchez Gutiérrez, Bautista-Mora Evarista, José Jesús Obrador-Olán, Ruiz-Rosado Octavio and Valdéz-Balero Apolonio*

## **Abstract**

The cocoa agroforestry system (Cocoa-AFS) is a source of forest and forest non-timber resources. Forest timber resources (FTR) provide society with timber products. The most common uses for trees from the cocoa-AFS are shade for cocoa, firewood, medicinal, timber, fence posts, tool handles, ornamental, and supports and roofing for houses. Forest non-timber resources (FNTR) are those plant and animal products and services that can be obtained from the system. These resources include fruits, medicinal plants, ornamental plants, honey, and many others. Worldwide, FNTR may be the only source of personal income or food for the inhabitants of marginalized areas. Cocoa cultivation faces problems of low production and low prices. These problems induce growers to left-hand or to reduce their cocoa-AFS. Such reduction means the loss of FTR and FNTR that could complement grower incomes from the sale of cocoa. In this paper, we documented the forest tree species and determined the timber volume in cocoa-AFS in the municipality of Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico. In addition, we determined and quantified the current use of FTR and FNTR. The emphasis of FNTR was on the associated flora and the stored carbon on aboveground biomass as environmental services by the shadow trees.

**Keywords:** cocoa agroecosystem, timber products, non-timber products, carbon sequestration

## **1. Introduction**

Cocoa tree (*Theobroma cacao* L.) is cultivated in agroforestry systems (AFS) in Mexico. An AFS is a set of land management techniques that combines forest with crops, livestock, or both. It can be established simultaneously or stepwise over time and space [1]. In these systems, cocoa maintains close association with diverse tree species and other useful plants that potentially produce benefits for the families of cocoa growers [2]. In this way, cocoa-AFS possess a broad spectrum of plant associations and strong potential for production of timber, firewood, fruits, medicines, forages, oils, and ornamental plants [3]. Cocoa-AFS is possible since cocoa crop requires low radiation as a C3 plant [4]. Then, it can be established under a tree canopy [5], although in Africa, Malaysia, Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador cocoa production systems under full sunlight have been developed [6]. Having a broad diversity of tree species, cocoa-AFS contain a high diversity of plants, microfauna, and macrofauna and have an important role in the protection and conservation of biodiversity and carbon storage [7, 8]. García [9] reported that the species *Erythrina americana* Mill*, Diphysa robinoides* Benth, *Gliricidia sepium* (Jacq.) Walp, *Samanea saman* (Jacq.) Merr. and *Colubrina arborescens* (Mill.) Sarg. are the most outstanding shade trees of the cocoa-AFS in Comalcalco, which is the first municipality cocoa producer in Tabasco, Mexico. Cocoa producers also introduce other species of their preference useful by their timber (*Cedrela odorata* L*.*) and fruits such as *Mangifera indica* L., *Citrus* spp. and *Pouteria sapota* (Jacq.) H. E. [9, 10].

Plant diversity in cocoa-AFS can be divided into forest timber resources (FTR) and forest non-timber resources (FNTR). Some of them are shown in **Figure 1**.

FTR provide the society with environmental services (conservation of water, soil and biodiversity, atmospheric carbon sequestration, mitigation of climate change, and global warming). These aspects have not been quantified in most of the cocoa-producing regions of the world [5, 8, 11]. Tangible contributions of FTR are timber products used in the production of lumber (boards, planks, beams, and packing material), paper, veneer and plywood, and for energy (firewood).

The most common uses for trees from the cocoa-AFS are medicinal, timber, pillars for constructing houses, fence posts, tool handles, fruit production, shade for cocoa, firewood, ornamental, and roofing for houses [12]. In the function of their diameter at breast height (DBH 1.3 m), 34% of the trees in cocoa-AFS in Costa Rica and 15% in Bolivia are used for thick boards [13, 14].

Non-timber resources are those plant and animal products and services that can be obtained from the forest [15], that is, they are the set of biological resources that include fruit, medicinal plants, ornamental plants, honey, and many others [16]. In many parts of the world, these resources are indispensable for the inhabitants of marginalized areas, who are the main extractors of these products, which may be their only source of personal income [17, 18].

In Mexico, the largest cocoa-producing states are Chiapas and Tabasco occupying an area of 58,084.8 ha, on which 47,000 growers depend. In Tabasco, the area under cocoa is 40,848 ha, which produces 17,403.8 tons of dry cocoa [19, 20]. Of this area, 96% is in the Chontalpa region and 4% in the Sierra region [21].

#### **Figure 1.**

*Cocoa agroforestry system and some of their timber and non-timber resources in Tabasco, México. Up, from left to right: Calathea lutea, Mangifera indica, Citrus sinensis, and Cedrela odorata logs. Down, from left to right: Persea Americana, Alpinia purpurata, Firewood, and Capsicum annuum.*

**25**

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

Cocoa cultivation faces problems of low production and prices. These problems discourage growers who no longer maintain their plantations; thus, fewer and fewer number of farmers now cultivate cocoa. The reduction in area planted in cocoa means the loss of a production system that maintains tree cover and provides FTR and FNTR that could complement grower incomes from the sale of cocoa. In this paper we are reporting the forest tree species present in the AFS and determining the timber volume in cocoa-AFS in the municipality of Cárdenas, Tabasco. Also we are determining and quantifying the current use of FTR and FNTR in the

The study was conducted in 20 plantations (cocoa-AFS) distributed in the populations C-20 (Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla) and C-28 (Gregorio Méndez Magaña) in the municipality of Cárdenas, Tabasco (**Figure 2**). This municipality is located between 17° 15′ and 17° 40′ N and 90° 59′ and 94° 06′ W, at an altitude of 2–17 m above sea level. Climate is hot-humid with mean annual precipitation of 2643 mm and a monthly mean of 355 mm; mean annual temperature is 26°C with a maximum of 45°C [22].

Cárdenas with an area of 10,487 ha of cocoa-AFS is the second main cocoa-

**2. Current use of forest timber resources and forest non-timber** 

*2.1.2 Quantification of the current use of FTR and FNTR from the cocoa-AFS*

by the price per kilogram and subtracting production costs per hectare.

*2.1.3 Forest timber resources and estimation of C stored in aboveground biomass*

of each tree were recorded. A Haga pistol was used to measure Th (m), the

the Social Sciences (SPSS version 20).

The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics in the Statistical Package for

In each sampling site, total height (Th) and diameter at breast height (DBH)

Twenty 50 × 100 m sampling sites were established in the same number of plantations (one site per plantation). In each site, age and area of the plantation and number of FTR and FNTR plant species were recorded. Common names of the species were recorded with the aid of people who depend on the cocoa-AFS. For scientific names of the species, the appropriate literature on the vegetation of Tabasco was consulted. A specific questionnaire was given to the owners of each plantation to elicit information on destination and use of FTR and FNTR, as well as on cocoa production. Only the principal use of each species was considered. The social part of the questionnaire included information on family makeup and land ownership. The economic section comprised questions on who works in the production activities, how much is invested in the plantation, and how much is the yield per hectare. The questions relative to the destination of the FNTR of the cocoa-AFS were what products are used in the plantation and how, how much is used of each, and what income is obtained. Average income from the FNTR in the cocoa-AFS was obtained by adding the income of each of the 20 plantations and dividing by the number of plantations. Income from sale of cocoa was obtained by multiplying yield (kg ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

)

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

producing municipality of Tabasco [20].

**resources from cocoa-AFS**

**2.1 Materials and methods**

cocoa-AFS.

*2.1.1 Study area*

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

Cárdenas with an area of 10,487 ha of cocoa-AFS is the second main cocoaproducing municipality of Tabasco [20].

Cocoa cultivation faces problems of low production and prices. These problems discourage growers who no longer maintain their plantations; thus, fewer and fewer number of farmers now cultivate cocoa. The reduction in area planted in cocoa means the loss of a production system that maintains tree cover and provides FTR and FNTR that could complement grower incomes from the sale of cocoa. In this paper we are reporting the forest tree species present in the AFS and determining the timber volume in cocoa-AFS in the municipality of Cárdenas, Tabasco. Also we are determining and quantifying the current use of FTR and FNTR in the cocoa-AFS.

## **2. Current use of forest timber resources and forest non-timber resources from cocoa-AFS**

### **2.1 Materials and methods**

#### *2.1.1 Study area*

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

*indica* L., *Citrus* spp. and *Pouteria sapota* (Jacq.) H. E. [9, 10].

and 15% in Bolivia are used for thick boards [13, 14].

their only source of personal income [17, 18].

a tree canopy [5], although in Africa, Malaysia, Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador cocoa production systems under full sunlight have been developed [6]. Having a broad diversity of tree species, cocoa-AFS contain a high diversity of plants, microfauna, and macrofauna and have an important role in the protection and conservation of biodiversity and carbon storage [7, 8]. García [9] reported that the species *Erythrina americana* Mill*, Diphysa robinoides* Benth, *Gliricidia sepium* (Jacq.) Walp, *Samanea saman* (Jacq.) Merr. and *Colubrina arborescens* (Mill.) Sarg. are the most outstanding shade trees of the cocoa-AFS in Comalcalco, which is the first municipality cocoa producer in Tabasco, Mexico. Cocoa producers also introduce other species of their preference useful by their timber (*Cedrela odorata* L*.*) and fruits such as *Mangifera* 

Plant diversity in cocoa-AFS can be divided into forest timber resources (FTR) and forest non-timber resources (FNTR). Some of them are shown in **Figure 1**. FTR provide the society with environmental services (conservation of water, soil and biodiversity, atmospheric carbon sequestration, mitigation of climate change, and global warming). These aspects have not been quantified in most of the cocoa-producing regions of the world [5, 8, 11]. Tangible contributions of FTR are timber products used in the production of lumber (boards, planks, beams, and

packing material), paper, veneer and plywood, and for energy (firewood).

The most common uses for trees from the cocoa-AFS are medicinal, timber, pillars for constructing houses, fence posts, tool handles, fruit production, shade for cocoa, firewood, ornamental, and roofing for houses [12]. In the function of their diameter at breast height (DBH 1.3 m), 34% of the trees in cocoa-AFS in Costa Rica

Non-timber resources are those plant and animal products and services that can be obtained from the forest [15], that is, they are the set of biological resources that include fruit, medicinal plants, ornamental plants, honey, and many others [16]. In many parts of the world, these resources are indispensable for the inhabitants of marginalized areas, who are the main extractors of these products, which may be

In Mexico, the largest cocoa-producing states are Chiapas and Tabasco occupying an area of 58,084.8 ha, on which 47,000 growers depend. In Tabasco, the area under cocoa is 40,848 ha, which produces 17,403.8 tons of dry cocoa [19, 20]. Of this area, 96% is in the Chontalpa region and 4% in the Sierra region [21].

*Cocoa agroforestry system and some of their timber and non-timber resources in Tabasco, México. Up, from left to right: Calathea lutea, Mangifera indica, Citrus sinensis, and Cedrela odorata logs. Down, from left to right:* 

*Persea Americana, Alpinia purpurata, Firewood, and Capsicum annuum.*

**24**

**Figure 1.**

The study was conducted in 20 plantations (cocoa-AFS) distributed in the populations C-20 (Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla) and C-28 (Gregorio Méndez Magaña) in the municipality of Cárdenas, Tabasco (**Figure 2**). This municipality is located between 17° 15′ and 17° 40′ N and 90° 59′ and 94° 06′ W, at an altitude of 2–17 m above sea level. Climate is hot-humid with mean annual precipitation of 2643 mm and a monthly mean of 355 mm; mean annual temperature is 26°C with a maximum of 45°C [22].

#### *2.1.2 Quantification of the current use of FTR and FNTR from the cocoa-AFS*

Twenty 50 × 100 m sampling sites were established in the same number of plantations (one site per plantation). In each site, age and area of the plantation and number of FTR and FNTR plant species were recorded. Common names of the species were recorded with the aid of people who depend on the cocoa-AFS. For scientific names of the species, the appropriate literature on the vegetation of Tabasco was consulted. A specific questionnaire was given to the owners of each plantation to elicit information on destination and use of FTR and FNTR, as well as on cocoa production. Only the principal use of each species was considered. The social part of the questionnaire included information on family makeup and land ownership. The economic section comprised questions on who works in the production activities, how much is invested in the plantation, and how much is the yield per hectare. The questions relative to the destination of the FNTR of the cocoa-AFS were what products are used in the plantation and how, how much is used of each, and what income is obtained. Average income from the FNTR in the cocoa-AFS was obtained by adding the income of each of the 20 plantations and dividing by the number of plantations. Income from sale of cocoa was obtained by multiplying yield (kg ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) by the price per kilogram and subtracting production costs per hectare.

The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 20).

#### *2.1.3 Forest timber resources and estimation of C stored in aboveground biomass*

In each sampling site, total height (Th) and diameter at breast height (DBH) of each tree were recorded. A Haga pistol was used to measure Th (m), the

#### **Figure 2.**

*Location of the study area: C-20 town of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and C-28 town of Gregorio Méndez Magaña, Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

DBH was measured with a diametric circumference tape, and the result was divided by 3.1415 (π). With the variables Ht and DBH, basal area (BA, m<sup>2</sup> ) and volume with bark (vwb, m3 ) were calculated for each tree. The formulas used were BA = (DBH/2)<sup>2</sup> × π and vwb = BA × ff × Ht, where ff = form factor (0.70) [23, 24]. With vwb, the volume of bark per hectare was calculated (Vwb, m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ). Vwb was used to calculate the physical carbon inventory PCI, t ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . The formula used was PCI = Vwb × FEB × FCC, where FEB is factor of expansion of biomass (1.6) and FCC is the factor of conversion of biomass to carbon (0.05).

#### **2.2 Results and discussion**

In the Cocoa-AFS sampled, a total of 3239 trees of 56 species and 27 families were recorded. The average tree density per hectare was 324, varying from 58 to 544. The families Fabaceae and Meliaceae predominate. **Table 1** shows the most frequent species. *Erythrina americana* Mill individuals (1678) account for 51.8% of the total.

FTR provide environmental services. Families obtain direct benefits, such as oxygen, lumber, fence posts, forked support posts, window and door frames, and firewood. Incomes per family reported by producers from sale of these items were US\$ 155.4 a year. Of this amount, US\$ 120.8 is from sale of timber for milling and US\$ 34.6 from sale of firewood.

**27**

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

**Common and scientific name Num. trees Percentage**

Fabaceae 1678 51.81

Meliaceae 349 10.77

Rhamnaceae 300 9.26

Fabaceae 188 5.80

Rutaceae 188 5.80

Malvaceae 87 2.69

Bignoniaceae 81 2.50

Fabaceae 68 2.10

Urticaceae 41 1.27

Verbenaceae 36 1.11

As FNTR, 6308 plants from 29 families and 53 species were recorded. The plants

46 other species 223 6.88 Total 3239 100

The 10 most frequent species are listed in **Table 2**. *Heliconia latispatha* Benth, considered an ornamental plant, accounted for 26.36% of total (1663 plants).

Of the people who depend on the cocoa-AFS, 90% have the same living conditions. They own their home, which has hard floors and concrete roofs. Three to six people live together and obtain income from sugarcane cultivation. However, 70% do not have any use for the products found in the cocoa-AFS, 20% gather them for home use, and 10% sell them. Cocoa production is the main reason for maintaining the system. What growers receive as income from the sale of cocoa is complemented with income from other crops, such as sugarcane (*Saccharum officinarum* L.), and from other activities. The 20% that use these products themselves use FTR for carpentry, supporting posts, fence posts, and roof beams, and

were grouped into six use categories (**Figure 3**), according to the families who depend on the cocoa-AFS in Cárdenas, Tabasco. The predominating categories were ornamental with 2719 plants, fruit tree with 1776, and vegetable with 1578 plants. Ornamental plants were more common because of their rapid growth and broad distribution. Moreover, since these types of plants do not require high solar radiation, the cocoa-AFS is an ideal habitat. The other highest use categories are those for

*Most frequent forest species found in cocoa-AFS, according to the number of trees recorded.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

Mote

Cedro

Tatuan

Naranja

Guácimo

Macuílis

Cocoite

Guarumo

Cesniche

**Table 1.**

Chipilcohite

*Erythrina americana* Mill.

*Diphysa robinioides* Benth

*Citrus sinensis* (L.) Osb.

*Guazuma ulmifolia Lam.*

*Tabebuia rosea* (Bertol) *DC.*

*Cecropia obtusifolia* Bertol.

*Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth ex Walp.*

*Lippia myriocephalus* Sch. y Cham.

*Colubrina arborescens (*Mill) Sarg.

*Cedrela odorata* L.

*2.2.1 Forest non-timber resources in cocoa-AFS*

home use: fruit, vegetable, and medicinal.

*2.2.2 Use of forest and non-forest species*

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*


#### **Table 1.**

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

DBH was measured with a diametric circumference tape, and the result was divided by 3.1415 (π). With the variables Ht and DBH, basal area (BA, m<sup>2</sup>

*Location of the study area: C-20 town of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and C-28 town of Gregorio Méndez* 

(0.70) [23, 24]. With vwb, the volume of bark per hectare was calculated (Vwb,

The formula used was PCI = Vwb × FEB × FCC, where FEB is factor of expansion of biomass (1.6) and FCC is the factor of conversion of biomass to

In the Cocoa-AFS sampled, a total of 3239 trees of 56 species and 27 families were recorded. The average tree density per hectare was 324, varying from 58 to 544. The families Fabaceae and Meliaceae predominate. **Table 1** shows the most frequent species. *Erythrina americana* Mill individuals (1678) account for 51.8% of

FTR provide environmental services. Families obtain direct benefits, such as oxygen, lumber, fence posts, forked support posts, window and door frames, and firewood. Incomes per family reported by producers from sale of these items were US\$ 155.4 a year. Of this amount, US\$ 120.8 is from sale of timber for milling and

). Vwb was used to calculate the physical carbon inventory PCI, t ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

) were calculated for each tree. The formulas

× π and vwb = BA × ff × Ht, where ff = form factor

and volume with bark (vwb, m3

used were BA = (DBH/2)<sup>2</sup>

*Magaña, Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

**2.2 Results and discussion**

US\$ 34.6 from sale of firewood.

)

.

**26**

the total.

m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

**Figure 2.**

carbon (0.05).

*Most frequent forest species found in cocoa-AFS, according to the number of trees recorded.*

#### *2.2.1 Forest non-timber resources in cocoa-AFS*

As FNTR, 6308 plants from 29 families and 53 species were recorded. The plants were grouped into six use categories (**Figure 3**), according to the families who depend on the cocoa-AFS in Cárdenas, Tabasco. The predominating categories were ornamental with 2719 plants, fruit tree with 1776, and vegetable with 1578 plants. Ornamental plants were more common because of their rapid growth and broad distribution. Moreover, since these types of plants do not require high solar radiation, the cocoa-AFS is an ideal habitat. The other highest use categories are those for home use: fruit, vegetable, and medicinal.

The 10 most frequent species are listed in **Table 2**. *Heliconia latispatha* Benth, considered an ornamental plant, accounted for 26.36% of total (1663 plants).

#### *2.2.2 Use of forest and non-forest species*

Of the people who depend on the cocoa-AFS, 90% have the same living conditions. They own their home, which has hard floors and concrete roofs. Three to six people live together and obtain income from sugarcane cultivation. However, 70% do not have any use for the products found in the cocoa-AFS, 20% gather them for home use, and 10% sell them. Cocoa production is the main reason for maintaining the system. What growers receive as income from the sale of cocoa is complemented with income from other crops, such as sugarcane (*Saccharum officinarum* L.), and from other activities. The 20% that use these products themselves use FTR for carpentry, supporting posts, fence posts, and roof beams, and

**Figure 3.** *Number of plants found in cocoa-AFS, in Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico, by use categories.*


#### **Table 2.**

*Most frequent non-timber species found in cocoa-AFS.*

the residues are used as fuel (firewood). It is estimated that these uses add up to a yearly average savings of US\$ 197.50, which can be considered income since, if they were not obtained from the cocoa-AFS, the grower would have to pay out that amount. Some essential FNTR for home use were banana and banana leaves (*Musa* spp.), wild papaya (*Carica mexicana* A.DC.), "platanillo" (*Calathea lutea* Aubl Schult), purple maguey (*Tradescantia spathacea* Sw.), "amashito" chili (*Capsicum annuum* L.), yerba buena (*Mentha sativa* L.), arrowleaf elephant's ear (*Xanthosoma sagittifolium Schott*), Mexican cilantro (*Eryngium foetidum* L.), bitter watermelon (*Momordica charantia* L.), and achiote (*Bixa orellana* L.). Their fruits or leaves are used to prepare food. Moreover, the families save by not buying these products. Of the population that has cocoa plantations, 10% sell their FNTR at the local markets, generating incomes averaging US\$ 41.9 per year. The producers that do not use products from the cocoa-AFS are interested only in the production of cocoa but not in the diversity of resources nor the uses they might have.

**29**

a *Dry cocoa.* b

c

**Table 3.**

*Mexico.*

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

) (**Table 3**).

**Incomec**

 **from C payments (US\$ ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>**

**)**

*2.2.3 Economic value of cocoa and potential income from sale of carbon sequestration* 

This yield provides an average net income from the sale of cocoa in pulp of US\$

Two growers have the highest yields and two the lowest. The former can be attributed to good management of their plantations, as the result of their participation in the ICCO-Nestle program. This program consists of training cocoa growers in good management of their cocoa plantations to ensure good yield, which is later marketed by the same program. The lowest yields can be attributed to two factors.

> **Net income cocoa (US\$ ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> )**

 500 833 143.29 1074.67 333 417 87.92 659.41 233 417 86.57 649.30 333 667 122.07 915.53 267 500 111.90 839.27 200 333 148.98 1117.37 233 417 215.75 1618.13 333 417 165.79 1243.41 200 333 165.18 1238.83 333 417 122.45 918.36 500 667 117.46 880.98 333 417 99.85 748.87 333 417 115.29 864.70 333 500 160.98 1207.37 367 417 33.04 247.81 333 583 77.83 583.69 333 417 115.53 866.49 333 333 91.42 685.65 250 208 105.39 790.46 333 417 120.27 902.03 Media 320.8 456.3 120.38 902.6 D. E. 79.6 140.1 39.34 295.1 C. V 24.8 30.7 32.69 32.69

*Income (US \$) from sale of cocoa in pulp and potential sale of carbon, from cocoa-AFS, in Cárdenas, Tabasco,* 

, which is not profitable since the estimated cost of produc-

. The 70% of the growers reported yields above

**AGB Cb (t ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> )**

Average cocoa yield reported by growers was 320.8 (±79.6 kg ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

*environmental services*

tion is US\$ 345.8 (± US\$ 135.9) ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

**Production a (kg.ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> )**

*Source: Questionnaire given to cocoa growers 2014.*

*Carbon in aboveground biomass.*

*Estimated price of a ton of C = US \$ 7.5.*

456.3 ± US\$ 140.1 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

of the average.

**Plantation number**

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

## *2.2.3 Economic value of cocoa and potential income from sale of carbon sequestration environmental services*

Average cocoa yield reported by growers was 320.8 (±79.6 kg ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) (**Table 3**). This yield provides an average net income from the sale of cocoa in pulp of US\$ 456.3 ± US\$ 140.1 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , which is not profitable since the estimated cost of production is US\$ 345.8 (± US\$ 135.9) ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . The 70% of the growers reported yields above of the average.

Two growers have the highest yields and two the lowest. The former can be attributed to good management of their plantations, as the result of their participation in the ICCO-Nestle program. This program consists of training cocoa growers in good management of their cocoa plantations to ensure good yield, which is later marketed by the same program. The lowest yields can be attributed to two factors.


*Source: Questionnaire given to cocoa growers 2014.*

a *Dry cocoa.*

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

*Number of plants found in cocoa-AFS, in Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico, by use categories.*

**Common name Scientific name Num. plants Percentage** Platanillo *Heliconia latispatha* Benth 1663 26.36 Hoja de To *Calathea lutea* G.F.W*.* Meyer 653 10.35 Platano Cuadrado *Musa paradisiaca* L. 408 6.47 Platano Macho *Musa balbisiana* L 386 6.12 Canna *Canna indica* L. 351 5.56 Pitahaya *Hylocereus undatus (*Haw.) 311 4.93 Macal *Xanthosoma sagittifolium S.* 307 4.87 Heliconia Pie gallo *Heliconia psittacorum* L. f 292 4.63 Hierba Mora *Solanum tuberosum* L*.* 248 3.93 Papaya Silvestre *Carica mexicana* (A.DC.) 237 3.76 43 remaining species 1452 23.02 Total 6308 100

the residues are used as fuel (firewood). It is estimated that these uses add up to a yearly average savings of US\$ 197.50, which can be considered income since, if they were not obtained from the cocoa-AFS, the grower would have to pay out that amount. Some essential FNTR for home use were banana and banana leaves (*Musa* spp.), wild papaya (*Carica mexicana* A.DC.), "platanillo" (*Calathea lutea* Aubl Schult), purple maguey (*Tradescantia spathacea* Sw.), "amashito" chili (*Capsicum annuum* L.), yerba buena (*Mentha sativa* L.), arrowleaf elephant's ear (*Xanthosoma sagittifolium Schott*), Mexican cilantro (*Eryngium foetidum* L.), bitter watermelon (*Momordica charantia* L.), and achiote (*Bixa orellana* L.). Their fruits or leaves are used to prepare food. Moreover, the families save by not buying these products. Of the population that has cocoa plantations, 10% sell their FNTR at the local markets, generating incomes averaging US\$ 41.9 per year. The producers that do not use products from the cocoa-AFS are interested only in the production of cocoa but not

in the diversity of resources nor the uses they might have.

*Most frequent non-timber species found in cocoa-AFS.*

**28**

**Figure 3.**

**Table 2.**

b *Carbon in aboveground biomass.*

c *Estimated price of a ton of C = US \$ 7.5.*

#### **Table 3.**

*Income (US \$) from sale of cocoa in pulp and potential sale of carbon, from cocoa-AFS, in Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

First, these growers attach little importance to their plantations because they depend mainly on other crops such as sugarcane, while their cocoa-AFS is only an additional option. The second factor causing low yields is the moniliasis disease caused by the fungus *Moniliophthora roreri*, which attacks the cocoa pods directly and can cause 20–80% yield losses.

The average estimated production of carbon (C) in cocoa-AFS was 120.35 t ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . At a price of US\$ 7.50 per ton of C, average incomes were calculated at US\$ 914.3 h<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . Thus, sale of environmental services would provide 50% more income than cocoa production. Moreover, payment for C sequestration involves conserving trees, mainly young trees since protecting them increases the amount of C captured by the cocoa-ASF. However, because payment of environmental services is a slow process, an option for cocoa growers is to sell FTR and FNTR to obtain more income from their cocoa-AFS.

Cocoa-AFS have been caught up in a vicious cycle since 2005 when moniliasis came to Mexico depleting the cocoa production. When the grower considers only cocoa production and obtains low yields (and incomes), he stops investing in his plantation (time invested in its management decreases). With little or no care of the plantation (less pruning, little or no disease control, less or no fertilization), crop yield is reduced. The average yield in dry weight estimated in this study is below the national average (430 kg ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) [20] and that of the Ivory Coast (550 kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), the largest cocoa producer in the world [25].

## **3. Timber trees from the cocoa-AFS and their potential use**

### **3.1 Materials and methods**

#### *3.1.1 Study area and sampling sites*

The study was conducted in 20 cocoa-AFS in different localities of the municipality of Cárdenas, Tabasco. Experimental plots (50 × 100 m) were set up on Eutric Fluvisols (FLeu) and Eutri-gleyic Fluvisols (FLeugl). These soils are the typical soils of the study area and of the cocoa-AFS [26]. The cocoa-AFS for sampling were defined by interviews to local authorities in order to contact cooperating producers.

### *3.1.2 Tree sampling and taxonomic identification*

For each one of the 20 cocoa-AFS, the age and surface were recorded before the tree sampling. Trees were numbered by painting on them; then they were identified taxonomically and located with a Global Positioner System (GPS, Garmin model GSmap60csx ®) [27]. Tree sampling consisted on record the variables: diameter at breast height (DBH1.3 m, cm) measured with a diametric tape, total height (Th, m), and commercial height (Ch, m) measured with a Haga® Pistol. Basal area (BA, m<sup>2</sup> ) was estimated with the equation BA = (DBH/2)2 × π. Total and commercial volume (TV, CV, m3 ) were estimated with the equation V = BA × ff × H, where ff = form factor (0.70) and H = total or commercial height [23, 24].

#### *3.1.3 Canopy classification and potential use of trees*

Tree canopy was classified based on height [28]: <5 m high (very low stratum), ≥5–<15 m (low), ≥15–<25 m (medium), and ≥25 m high (high stratum). DBH data of trees was classified by categories (1–10 cm, 10–20, 20–30 cm, etc.) to calculate the frequency per class [14, 27]. The potential use per tree was defined in function

**31**

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

The total surface sampling was 10 out of 36.5 ha of cocoa-AFS visited. The mean

of DBH [29]: DBH < 5 cm (without use), ≥5–<10 cm (firewood), ≥10–<15 cm (posts), ≥15–<30 cm (narrow boards), and DBH ≥30 cm (thick boards).

surface per cocoa-AFS was 1.8 ha, varying from 0.5 to 5 ha, which indicate that cocoa-AFS belongs to smallholder producers. In Ref. [13], a mean surface of 1.3 ha per cocoa plantation, varying from 0.25 to 15 ha, is reported in Talamanca, Costa

In the 10 ha of cocoa-AFS sampled, 2856 forest trees were found, belonging to 67 species, 58 genera, and 28 families. In another work [12], 6 ha in Tabasco Mexico were sampled and 38 species, 35 genera, and 24 families were found. Also in Tabasco, [9] recorded 40 species of 19 families in a survey of 72 producers, while [5] in the Soconusco region in Chiapas, Mexico, recorded 790 trees belonging to 23 families, 38 genera, and 47 species in 7.2 ha. In our study, we recorded more tree families and species than that reported in [9, 5]. In contrast, [30] in Brazil recorded 2514 trees belonging to 293 species and 52 families, i.e., less trees and more diversity than ours. It could be attributed to the cleared rainforests areas where cocoa-AFS were located or due to the larger sampling (15 ha). Besides, [31] in Nigeria reported

The mean number of species per hectare was 14, ranging from 6 to 35. The most common species were *E. americana* and *C. odorata*. For Bolivia, [14] reported the species Mahogany (*Swietenia macrophylla*)*,* Brazilian firetree (*Schizolobium para-*

mean density. Fabaceae and Meliaceae were the most frequent families. Somarriba

were reported [34], while in Brazil 47–355 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

[30]. Results obtained from our study are in agreement with four previous studies mentioned here concerning tree density per hectare, and that Fabaceae is the most

The age of cocoa-AFS sampled varied from 6 to 35 years old. In this entire range of ages, *Moté* (*E. americana*), Spanish cedar (*C. odorata*), and *Cocoite* (*G. sepium*) were outstanding (**Table 4**). These results agree with [10] who stated *E. americana* (25% of the shade trees) in Cárdenas, Tabasco, but differ with the same author for *G. sepium* (75% of the shade trees). It was cited for Brazil [30] that *Schefflera morototoni* (Aubl.) Maguire (8%) and *Artocarpus heterophyllus* Lam. (7%) are the most common shading species in cocoa. In Nigeria the tree species *Elaeis guineensis* Jacq*., Cola nítida* (Vent.) Schott et Endl.*, C. sinensis, Mangifera indica, Anacardium occidentale* L.*, Psidium guajava* L.*, Persea americana* Mill.*, Ricinodendron heudelotii* Muell. Arg.*, Citrus reticulata* L., and *Cocos nucifera* L. summed 76% of the scored trees [31]. In Talamanca, Costa Rica, *C. alliodora, Citrus* spp., *C. nucifera*, *Inga* spp. and *C. odorata* were outstanding [13], but in Bolivia, the outstanding species were *S. macrophylla, S. parahyba*, *A. cearensis*, *Centrolobium ochroxylum*, and *C. odorata* [14]. Comparing our results with those of such studies, we found that

, ranging from 96 to 618 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

in Panamá and Costa Rica; in Venezuela

, as

were reported

487 trees belonging to 45 species and 24 families in 1.3 ha sampled.

In our study, we found 286 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

commonly used tree family for shading cocoa.

*3.2.2 Frequency of tree species by cocoa-AFS age*

et al. [32, 33] recorded 278 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

300 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

*hyba*), and Roble (*Amburana cearensis*) as the more frequent per hectare.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

**3.2 Results and discussion**

*3.2.1 Tree flora composition*

Rica.

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

of DBH [29]: DBH < 5 cm (without use), ≥5–<10 cm (firewood), ≥10–<15 cm (posts), ≥15–<30 cm (narrow boards), and DBH ≥30 cm (thick boards).

### **3.2 Results and discussion**

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

and can cause 20–80% yield losses.

the national average (430 kg ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

**3.1 Materials and methods**

*3.1.1 Study area and sampling sites*

*3.1.2 Tree sampling and taxonomic identification*

was estimated with the equation BA = (DBH/2)2

*3.1.3 Canopy classification and potential use of trees*

factor (0.70) and H = total or commercial height [23, 24].

largest cocoa producer in the world [25].

First, these growers attach little importance to their plantations because they depend mainly on other crops such as sugarcane, while their cocoa-AFS is only an additional option. The second factor causing low yields is the moniliasis disease caused by the fungus *Moniliophthora roreri*, which attacks the cocoa pods directly

The average estimated production of carbon (C) in cocoa-AFS was 120.35 t ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

sale of environmental services would provide 50% more income than cocoa production. Moreover, payment for C sequestration involves conserving trees, mainly young trees since protecting them increases the amount of C captured by the cocoa-ASF. However, because payment of environmental services is a slow process, an option for cocoa grow-

Cocoa-AFS have been caught up in a vicious cycle since 2005 when moniliasis came to Mexico depleting the cocoa production. When the grower considers only cocoa production and obtains low yields (and incomes), he stops investing in his plantation (time invested in its management decreases). With little or no care of the plantation (less pruning, little or no disease control, less or no fertilization), crop yield is reduced. The average yield in dry weight estimated in this study is below

The study was conducted in 20 cocoa-AFS in different localities of the municipality of Cárdenas, Tabasco. Experimental plots (50 × 100 m) were set up on Eutric Fluvisols (FLeu) and Eutri-gleyic Fluvisols (FLeugl). These soils are the typical soils of the study area and of the cocoa-AFS [26]. The cocoa-AFS for sampling were defined by interviews to local authorities in order to contact cooperating producers.

For each one of the 20 cocoa-AFS, the age and surface were recorded before the tree sampling. Trees were numbered by painting on them; then they were identified taxonomically and located with a Global Positioner System (GPS, Garmin model GSmap60csx ®) [27]. Tree sampling consisted on record the variables: diameter at breast height (DBH1.3 m, cm) measured with a diametric tape, total height (Th, m), and commercial height (Ch, m) measured with a Haga® Pistol. Basal area (BA, m<sup>2</sup>

) were estimated with the equation V = BA × ff × H, where ff = form

Tree canopy was classified based on height [28]: <5 m high (very low stratum), ≥5–<15 m (low), ≥15–<25 m (medium), and ≥25 m high (high stratum). DBH data of trees was classified by categories (1–10 cm, 10–20, 20–30 cm, etc.) to calculate the frequency per class [14, 27]. The potential use per tree was defined in function

) [20] and that of the Ivory Coast (550 kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

a price of US\$ 7.50 per ton of C, average incomes were calculated at US\$ 914.3 h<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ers is to sell FTR and FNTR to obtain more income from their cocoa-AFS.

**3. Timber trees from the cocoa-AFS and their potential use**

. At

. Thus,

), the

)

× π. Total and commercial volume

**30**

(TV, CV, m3

The total surface sampling was 10 out of 36.5 ha of cocoa-AFS visited. The mean surface per cocoa-AFS was 1.8 ha, varying from 0.5 to 5 ha, which indicate that cocoa-AFS belongs to smallholder producers. In Ref. [13], a mean surface of 1.3 ha per cocoa plantation, varying from 0.25 to 15 ha, is reported in Talamanca, Costa Rica.

## *3.2.1 Tree flora composition*

In the 10 ha of cocoa-AFS sampled, 2856 forest trees were found, belonging to 67 species, 58 genera, and 28 families. In another work [12], 6 ha in Tabasco Mexico were sampled and 38 species, 35 genera, and 24 families were found. Also in Tabasco, [9] recorded 40 species of 19 families in a survey of 72 producers, while [5] in the Soconusco region in Chiapas, Mexico, recorded 790 trees belonging to 23 families, 38 genera, and 47 species in 7.2 ha. In our study, we recorded more tree families and species than that reported in [9, 5]. In contrast, [30] in Brazil recorded 2514 trees belonging to 293 species and 52 families, i.e., less trees and more diversity than ours. It could be attributed to the cleared rainforests areas where cocoa-AFS were located or due to the larger sampling (15 ha). Besides, [31] in Nigeria reported 487 trees belonging to 45 species and 24 families in 1.3 ha sampled.

The mean number of species per hectare was 14, ranging from 6 to 35. The most common species were *E. americana* and *C. odorata*. For Bolivia, [14] reported the species Mahogany (*Swietenia macrophylla*)*,* Brazilian firetree (*Schizolobium parahyba*), and Roble (*Amburana cearensis*) as the more frequent per hectare.

In our study, we found 286 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , ranging from 96 to 618 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , as mean density. Fabaceae and Meliaceae were the most frequent families. Somarriba et al. [32, 33] recorded 278 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in Panamá and Costa Rica; in Venezuela 300 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> were reported [34], while in Brazil 47–355 trees ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> were reported [30]. Results obtained from our study are in agreement with four previous studies mentioned here concerning tree density per hectare, and that Fabaceae is the most commonly used tree family for shading cocoa.

#### *3.2.2 Frequency of tree species by cocoa-AFS age*

The age of cocoa-AFS sampled varied from 6 to 35 years old. In this entire range of ages, *Moté* (*E. americana*), Spanish cedar (*C. odorata*), and *Cocoite* (*G. sepium*) were outstanding (**Table 4**). These results agree with [10] who stated *E. americana* (25% of the shade trees) in Cárdenas, Tabasco, but differ with the same author for *G. sepium* (75% of the shade trees). It was cited for Brazil [30] that *Schefflera morototoni* (Aubl.) Maguire (8%) and *Artocarpus heterophyllus* Lam. (7%) are the most common shading species in cocoa. In Nigeria the tree species *Elaeis guineensis* Jacq*., Cola nítida* (Vent.) Schott et Endl.*, C. sinensis, Mangifera indica, Anacardium occidentale* L.*, Psidium guajava* L.*, Persea americana* Mill.*, Ricinodendron heudelotii* Muell. Arg.*, Citrus reticulata* L., and *Cocos nucifera* L. summed 76% of the scored trees [31]. In Talamanca, Costa Rica, *C. alliodora, Citrus* spp., *C. nucifera*, *Inga* spp. and *C. odorata* were outstanding [13], but in Bolivia, the outstanding species were *S. macrophylla, S. parahyba*, *A. cearensis*, *Centrolobium ochroxylum*, and *C. odorata* [14]. Comparing our results with those of such studies, we found that

#### Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*


#### **Table 4.**

*Amount and frequency of the most common trees in cocoa-AFS from 6 to 35 years old in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

species are similar, but tree density is different. It is because the shading species in the cocoa-AFS vary among countries and among regions into the same country.

In 6, 20, and 25-year-old cocoa-AFS, *C. odorata* was the most frequent shading tree species at 78.0, 41.9, and 15.1% frequencies, respectively. In 15- and 20-year-old cocoa-AFS, the most common species was *G. sepium* (35.1 and 27.1%). At 18-, 25-, and 30-year-old cocoa-AFS, the most frequent species was *Erythrina americana* (46, 45.4, 56.6%, respectively). In 18- and 35-year-old cocoa-AFS, *Tabebuia rosea* was the most frequent species (15.2 and 15.8%). *Diphysa robinioides* with 47.8 and 38.5% frequencies was the most common species in 27- and 33-yearold cocoa-AFS, whereas *C. arborescens* with 17.5, 12.8 and 16.9% frequencies was the most common shading tree species in 30-, 33-, and 35-year-old cocoa-AFS (data not tabulated).

#### *3.2.3 Species with greater basal area by age of cocoa-AFS*

The main tree species by the largest BA in cocoa-AFS from 6 to 35 years old were *E. americana* with 6 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , *E. poeppigiana* 3.8 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , and *C. odorata* with 1.6 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . Each one of the other 64 species had ≤1 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> of BA. By age, the smallest BA (12.2 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) and the largest BA (22.7 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) were recorded on the 20- and 25-year-old cocoa-AFS, respectively (**Figure 4**).

In 6- and 20-year-old cocoa-AFS with 15.7 and 2.2 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively, a main species by BA was *Cedrela odorata*. In 6- and 18-year-old cocoa-AFS with 0.6 and 1.9 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively, the main species was *Guazuma ulmifolia*. In 15-, 25-, and 30-year-old cocoa-AFS, with 7.8, 9.1, and 1.9 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively, a main species was *E. poeppigiana*. In 15-, 20-, and 35-year-old cocoa-AFS with 4.3, 2.7, and 3.5 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively, the main species was *Gliricidia sepium*. In 15-, 18-, 25-, and 30-year-old cocoa-AFS with 3.3, 8.3, 8.2, and 14 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively, the main species was *E. Americana*. *Mangifera indica* was the main species in 18-, 30-, and 33-year-old cocoa-AFS with 1.4, 0.9, and 2.6 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> BA. *Samanea saman* in 25- and 33-year-old cocoa-AFS with 1.7 and 7 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> BA was the main species. *Diphysa robinioides* with 3.5, 2.5, and 1 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> BA was the main species in 27-, 33-, and 35-year-old cocoa-ASF (**Figure 4**).

The mean basal area (BA) of all the scored trees was 18.5 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> and a range of 8.3–34.6 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . In Cárdenas, Tabasco [12] stated 48.2 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> as average BA and *S. saman* with 12 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , *D*. *robinoides* 7.8 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> and *G. ulmifolia* with 5.6 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> as the main species. Such BA values are greater than ours because their reported species have higher frequency and bigger diameter, e.g., *S. saman*.

**33**

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

In Panamá, a mean of 11 m2

Peru, a mean BA of 5.71 m<sup>2</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

way, [37] stated 4.8 m<sup>2</sup>

Domínguez [36] reported 4.1 m2

*Tree species with the largest basal areas (m2*

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

*T. ivorensis* (11 m<sup>2</sup>

*rosea* 4.5 m2

**Figure 4.**

33.5% (64.4 m3

*rensis* (81 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

reported [36].

*Vitex gaumeri* 31.6 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

with 27.4% (14.4 m3

*Cordia alliodora* with 21 m3

(15.5 m3

118 m3

52.6 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

, and *C. alliodora* with 2.8 m2

*3.2.4 Total timber volume and commercial volumes (TV, CV)*

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

), and *T. rosea* (46 m3

, *Tabebuia donnell-smithii* 33.9 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

In the 20 cocoa-AFS sampled, we recorded 526.29 m3

), 18.7% (9.9 m3

the species *C. alliodora* was stated with the greatest CV (31 m3

*Cedrela odorata* [38], which is in agreement with our results.

varying from 21.9 to 146.7 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

), *E. americana* 20.9% (40.3 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

trees were younger and smaller on diameter.

in a sustainable way. A TV of 1923.8 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

The average TV was 192.4 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

), and *T. rosea* (10 m2

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

 *ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>*

was reported; the species *C. alliodora* (12 m2

of mean BA; *T. ivorensis* with 52 m2

of mean BA in Honduras. Our recorded BA values are

was reported; the species with the largest BA were

*) in cocoa-AFS of different ages in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

in logs was found in the 20 sampled sites.

) had the largest BA [32]. In Lima,

were the main species. By the

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

), and *C. odorata* 8.1%

) were reported as having larger volumes

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

log of CV; the mean was

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

*, Cojoba arborea* 33.5 m3

. The ten main species summed

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

. Ten

), *T. ivo-*

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

), respec-

), which is due to

TV were

, and

 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ,

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

. It ranged from 70.4 to 619.86 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

[37]. In Costa Rica, *Terminalia ivorensis* with 35 m3

), and 11.9% (6.1 m3

*Inga* sp., *Citrus nobilis*, and *Piptadenia favia* [35]. In Costa Rica, Somarriba and

higher than those of the four previous authors cited maybe because their sampled

There is a large quantity of timber in cocoa-AFS that can and should be used

species accounted for 87.4% of the TV; the outstanding species were *E. poeppigiana*

) (**Figure 5**). In Panama, the species *C. alliodora* (90 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

than those of our study [32], as they were established preferentially for shade. The values were similar to those reported in Honduras for the species *Cordia megalantha*

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

, and *Tabebuia rosea* with 19 m3

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

tively, were the most outstanding species (**Figure 6**). For cocoa-AFS in Costa Rica,

its preference for shading tree; in the same study, the species with smaller CV was

82.9% of CV; among such species, *E. poeppigiana*, *E. americana*, and *C. odorata*

 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ),

 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , *T.*  *Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

#### **Figure 4.**

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

species are similar, but tree density is different. It is because the shading species in the cocoa-AFS vary among countries and among regions into the same country. In 6, 20, and 25-year-old cocoa-AFS, *C. odorata* was the most frequent shading tree species at 78.0, 41.9, and 15.1% frequencies, respectively. In 15- and 20-year-old cocoa-AFS, the most common species was *G. sepium* (35.1 and 27.1%). At 18-, 25-, and 30-year-old cocoa-AFS, the most frequent species was *Erythrina americana* (46, 45.4, 56.6%, respectively). In 18- and 35-year-old cocoa-AFS, *Tabebuia rosea* was the most frequent species (15.2 and 15.8%). *Diphysa robinioides* with 47.8 and 38.5% frequencies was the most common species in 27- and 33-yearold cocoa-AFS, whereas *C. arborescens* with 17.5, 12.8 and 16.9% frequencies was the most common shading tree species in 30-, 33-, and 35-year-old cocoa-AFS (data

*Amount and frequency of the most common trees in cocoa-AFS from 6 to 35 years old in Cardenas, Tabasco,* 

**Common and scientific name of the species Number of trees Frequency (%)** Moté, *Erythrina americana* Mill 812 28.4 Spanish cedar, *Cedrela odorata* L. 573 20.1 Cocoite, *Gliricidia sepium* (Jacq.) Walp 247 8.7 Tatúan, *Colubrina arborescens* (Mill.) Sarg. 246 8.6 Chipilcohite, *Diphysa robinioides* Benth 188 6.6 62 other species 790 27.6 Total 2856 100.0

The main tree species by the largest BA in cocoa-AFS from 6 to 35 years old

) and the largest BA (22.7 m2

species by BA was *Cedrela odorata*. In 6- and 18-year-old cocoa-AFS with 0.6 and

cies was *E. poeppigiana*. In 15-, 20-, and 35-year-old cocoa-AFS with 4.3, 2.7, and

species was *E. Americana*. *Mangifera indica* was the main species in 18-, 30-, and

. In Cárdenas, Tabasco [12] stated 48.2 m2

reported species have higher frequency and bigger diameter, e.g., *S. saman*.

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

The mean basal area (BA) of all the scored trees was 18.5 m<sup>2</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

, *D*. *robinoides* 7.8 m2

as the main species. Such BA values are greater than ours because their

, *E. poeppigiana* 3.8 m<sup>2</sup>

, respectively, the main species was *Guazuma ulmifolia*. In 15-, 25-, and

, respectively, the main species was *Gliricidia sepium*. In 15-, 18-, 25-,

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

BA was the main species in 27-, 33-, and

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

, and *C. odorata* with

of BA. By age, the

, respectively, a main spe-

) were recorded on the

, respectively, a main

, respectively, the main

and a range

as average

and *G. ulmifolia* with

BA. *Samanea saman* in 25- and

BA was the main species. *Diphysa* 

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

**32**

5.6 m<sup>2</sup>

not tabulated).

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

of 8.3–34.6 m<sup>2</sup>

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

smallest BA (12.2 m<sup>2</sup>

1.6 m2

**Table 4.**

*Mexico.*

1.9 m2

3.5 m2

were *E. americana* with 6 m2

*3.2.3 Species with greater basal area by age of cocoa-AFS*

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

30-year-old cocoa-AFS, with 7.8, 9.1, and 1.9 m2

33-year-old cocoa-AFS with 1.4, 0.9, and 2.6 m2

33-year-old cocoa-AFS with 1.7 and 7 m2

*robinioides* with 3.5, 2.5, and 1 m2

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

BA and *S. saman* with 12 m<sup>2</sup>

35-year-old cocoa-ASF (**Figure 4**).

ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

20- and 25-year-old cocoa-AFS, respectively (**Figure 4**). In 6- and 20-year-old cocoa-AFS with 15.7 and 2.2 m<sup>2</sup>

and 30-year-old cocoa-AFS with 3.3, 8.3, 8.2, and 14 m2

. Each one of the other 64 species had ≤1 m2

*Tree species with the largest basal areas (m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) in cocoa-AFS of different ages in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

In Panamá, a mean of 11 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> was reported; the species *C. alliodora* (12 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), *T. ivorensis* (11 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), and *T. rosea* (10 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) had the largest BA [32]. In Lima, Peru, a mean BA of 5.71 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> was reported; the species with the largest BA were *Inga* sp., *Citrus nobilis*, and *Piptadenia favia* [35]. In Costa Rica, Somarriba and Domínguez [36] reported 4.1 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> of mean BA; *T. ivorensis* with 52 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , *T. rosea* 4.5 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , and *C. alliodora* with 2.8 m2 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> were the main species. By the way, [37] stated 4.8 m<sup>2</sup> ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> of mean BA in Honduras. Our recorded BA values are higher than those of the four previous authors cited maybe because their sampled trees were younger and smaller on diameter.

#### *3.2.4 Total timber volume and commercial volumes (TV, CV)*

There is a large quantity of timber in cocoa-AFS that can and should be used in a sustainable way. A TV of 1923.8 m3 in logs was found in the 20 sampled sites. The average TV was 192.4 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . It ranged from 70.4 to 619.86 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . Ten species accounted for 87.4% of the TV; the outstanding species were *E. poeppigiana* 33.5% (64.4 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), *E. americana* 20.9% (40.3 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), and *C. odorata* 8.1% (15.5 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) (**Figure 5**). In Panama, the species *C. alliodora* (90 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), *T. ivorensis* (81 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), and *T. rosea* (46 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) were reported as having larger volumes than those of our study [32], as they were established preferentially for shade. The values were similar to those reported in Honduras for the species *Cordia megalantha* 118 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , *Tabebuia donnell-smithii* 33.9 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> *, Cojoba arborea* 33.5 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , and *Vitex gaumeri* 31.6 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> [37]. In Costa Rica, *Terminalia ivorensis* with 35 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , *Cordia alliodora* with 21 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , and *Tabebuia rosea* with 19 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> TV were reported [36].

In the 20 cocoa-AFS sampled, we recorded 526.29 m3 log of CV; the mean was 52.6 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> varying from 21.9 to 146.7 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . The ten main species summed 82.9% of CV; among such species, *E. poeppigiana*, *E. americana*, and *C. odorata* with 27.4% (14.4 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), 18.7% (9.9 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), and 11.9% (6.1 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), respectively, were the most outstanding species (**Figure 6**). For cocoa-AFS in Costa Rica, the species *C. alliodora* was stated with the greatest CV (31 m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ), which is due to its preference for shading tree; in the same study, the species with smaller CV was *Cedrela odorata* [38], which is in agreement with our results.

#### **Figure 5.**

*Tree species with the highest timber volumes (m3 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) in cocoa-AFS in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

#### *3.2.5 Classification of tree canopy by height*

A mean total height of 10.1 m varying from 2 to 35.5 m was registered for trees in the cocoa-AFS sampled. In the very low stratum, the 5.8% of trees were classified. These trees were *C. odorata*, *T. rosea*, and *C. arborescens* young plants. The low canopy stratum included 84.2% of trees, whereas the high canopy included 1% of trees (**Figure 7**). This 1% grouped species such as *E. poeppigiana* (Erythrina), *S. saman* (Samán), and *A. altilis* (Chestnut). In Cárdenas, Tabasco, some trees of 36 m, mainly of the species *S. saman, G. ulmifolia*, and *C. arborescens,* were reported [12], evidencing that cocoa-AFS contains tree species of similar height to those found in the tropical rainforests. In Talamanca, Costa Rica, up to 30 m for the upper canopy of cocoa-AFS is reported [13]. In Panama and Honduras, average heights of 17 and 13 m have been reported [32, 37]; such heights are higher than those recorded in our study.

**35**

**Figure 9.**

*Mexico.*

*3.2.6 Tree classification by diameter at breast height and potential use*

The mean diameter at breast height (DBH1.3 m) was 23 cm varying from 1 to 146 cm. The 91% of the 2856 scored trees had a DBH of between 1 and 40 cm. Among these trees, 53% had 10–30 cm DBH (**Figure 8**). In Bolivia, 45% of the

*Potential timber use by diameter at breast height (DBH1.3m) of trees from the cocoa-AFS in Cardenas, Tabasco,* 

*Categories of trees by diameter at breast height (DBH1.3m) of the cocoa-AFS in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

*Trees distribution by height (m) in cocoa-AFS in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

**Figure 7.**

**Figure 8.**

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

**Figure 7.** *Trees distribution by height (m) in cocoa-AFS in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

#### **Figure 9.**

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

 *ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>*

*) in cocoa-AFS in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

*) in the cocoa-AFS, in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

**34**

**Figure 5.**

**Figure 6.**

recorded in our study.

*3.2.5 Classification of tree canopy by height*

*Main tree species by commercial volume (CV, m3*

*Tree species with the highest timber volumes (m3*

A mean total height of 10.1 m varying from 2 to 35.5 m was registered for trees in the cocoa-AFS sampled. In the very low stratum, the 5.8% of trees were classified. These trees were *C. odorata*, *T. rosea*, and *C. arborescens* young plants. The low canopy stratum included 84.2% of trees, whereas the high canopy included 1% of trees (**Figure 7**). This 1% grouped species such as *E. poeppigiana* (Erythrina), *S. saman* (Samán), and *A. altilis* (Chestnut). In Cárdenas, Tabasco, some trees of 36 m, mainly of the species *S. saman, G. ulmifolia*, and *C. arborescens,* were reported [12], evidencing that cocoa-AFS contains tree species of similar height to those found in the tropical rainforests. In Talamanca, Costa Rica, up to 30 m for the upper canopy of cocoa-AFS is reported [13]. In Panama and Honduras, average heights of 17 and 13 m have been reported [32, 37]; such heights are higher than those

 *ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>*

*Potential timber use by diameter at breast height (DBH1.3m) of trees from the cocoa-AFS in Cardenas, Tabasco, Mexico.*

#### *3.2.6 Tree classification by diameter at breast height and potential use*

The mean diameter at breast height (DBH1.3 m) was 23 cm varying from 1 to 146 cm. The 91% of the 2856 scored trees had a DBH of between 1 and 40 cm. Among these trees, 53% had 10–30 cm DBH (**Figure 8**). In Bolivia, 45% of the

trees in cocoa-AFS had DBH of between 10 and 20 cm [14], while a maximum DBH of 137 cm for some species was reported in Cárdenas, Tabasco [12]. In Panamá [32] and Honduras [37], average DBH of 25 and 28 cm were reported, which are larger than those found in our study, probably because the authors averaged only three timber species, while we averaged all the timber species found in the cocoa-AFS.

According to the DBH, the main timber uses of the registered trees were narrow and thick boards, 39 and 27.4%, respectively, and 6.9% of the trees were recorded without any use (**Figure 9**) because they were reforestation species established in areas without shade. Use varies with species, age, diversity, and culture, among other factors. In Talamanca, Costa Rica, 34% of the trees with use for thick boards were registered [13], and in Bolivia 15% with this use were reported.

## **4. General conclusions**

Cocoa agroforestry systems are made up of a large number of timber and nontimber resources. From cocoa-AFS in Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico, information on current use was obtained, and species were quantified. The most common species used as shade trees are *E. americana*, *C. odorata*, *G. sepium*, *C. arborescens*, and *D. robinioides*. The species with the largest timber volumes are *E. poeppigiana*, *E. americana, C. odorata, S. saman*, and *G. sepium.* This timber resource can be used sustainably in different ways. The principal uses of these timber resources were in making narrow boards and thick boards, a function of their diameter at breast height (DBH1.3 m).

Non-timber resources included 6308 plants belonging to 53 species grouped in 29 families. The 53 species were classified by use into five groups: ornamental, fruit, vegetable, medicinal, and forage. Seventy percent of the people do not use the cocoa-AFS resources; 20% use them in their homes, and only 10% sell them. The products of the cocoa-AFS that are used or sold are square banana and plantain, arrowleaf elephant's ear, banana leaves, papaya, platanillo, Moses in the cradle, amashito chili, yerba buena, parsley, bitter melon, achiote, and firewood. Cocoa production is complemented with income obtained from the sale of forest timber and non-timber resources. Income from the sale of environmental services could be up to 50% higher than income from cocoa production.

### **Acknowledgements**

The authors are grateful to Graduate College in Agricultural Sciences, Mexico, for the financial support received to conduct the researches.

**37**

**Author details**

Pérez-Flores Julian1

José Jesús Obrador-Olán1

provided the original work is properly cited.

University of Chiapas, Catazajá, Chiapas, Mexico

\*Address all correspondence to: julianflores@colpos.mx

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

4 Graduate College in Agricultural Sciences, Campus Veracruz, Veracruz, México

\*, Facundo Sánchez Gutiérrez2

, Ruiz-Rosado Octavio4

1 Graduate College in Agricultural Sciences, Campus Tabasco, Tabasco, México

2 Maya Faculty of Agriculture and Cattle Husbandry Studies, Autonomous

3 Technological University of Candelaria, Candelaria, Campeche, México

, Bautista-Mora Evarista3

and Valdéz-Balero Apolonio1

,

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

### **Conflict of interest**

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

## **Author details**

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

were registered [13], and in Bolivia 15% with this use were reported.

in the cocoa-AFS.

**4. General conclusions**

height (DBH1.3 m).

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

trees in cocoa-AFS had DBH of between 10 and 20 cm [14], while a maximum DBH of 137 cm for some species was reported in Cárdenas, Tabasco [12]. In Panamá [32] and Honduras [37], average DBH of 25 and 28 cm were reported, which are larger than those found in our study, probably because the authors averaged only three timber species, while we averaged all the timber species found

According to the DBH, the main timber uses of the registered trees were narrow and thick boards, 39 and 27.4%, respectively, and 6.9% of the trees were recorded without any use (**Figure 9**) because they were reforestation species established in areas without shade. Use varies with species, age, diversity, and culture, among other factors. In Talamanca, Costa Rica, 34% of the trees with use for thick boards

Cocoa agroforestry systems are made up of a large number of timber and nontimber resources. From cocoa-AFS in Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico, information on current use was obtained, and species were quantified. The most common species used as shade trees are *E. americana*, *C. odorata*, *G. sepium*, *C. arborescens*, and *D. robinioides*. The species with the largest timber volumes are *E. poeppigiana*, *E. americana, C. odorata, S. saman*, and *G. sepium.* This timber resource can be used sustainably in different ways. The principal uses of these timber resources were in making narrow boards and thick boards, a function of their diameter at breast

Non-timber resources included 6308 plants belonging to 53 species grouped in 29 families. The 53 species were classified by use into five groups: ornamental, fruit, vegetable, medicinal, and forage. Seventy percent of the people do not use the cocoa-AFS resources; 20% use them in their homes, and only 10% sell them. The products of the cocoa-AFS that are used or sold are square banana and plantain, arrowleaf elephant's ear, banana leaves, papaya, platanillo, Moses in the cradle, amashito chili, yerba buena, parsley, bitter melon, achiote, and firewood. Cocoa production is complemented with income obtained from the sale of forest timber and non-timber resources. Income from the sale of environmental services could be

The authors are grateful to Graduate College in Agricultural Sciences, Mexico,

up to 50% higher than income from cocoa production.

for the financial support received to conduct the researches.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

**36**

Pérez-Flores Julian1 \*, Facundo Sánchez Gutiérrez2 , Bautista-Mora Evarista3 , José Jesús Obrador-Olán1 , Ruiz-Rosado Octavio4 and Valdéz-Balero Apolonio1

1 Graduate College in Agricultural Sciences, Campus Tabasco, Tabasco, México

2 Maya Faculty of Agriculture and Cattle Husbandry Studies, Autonomous University of Chiapas, Catazajá, Chiapas, Mexico

3 Technological University of Candelaria, Candelaria, Campeche, México

4 Graduate College in Agricultural Sciences, Campus Veracruz, Veracruz, México

\*Address all correspondence to: julianflores@colpos.mx

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] Combe J, Budowski G. Clasificación de las técnicas agroforestales. Sistemas agroforestales en América Latina. Turrialba, Costa, Rica; 1979

[2] Alvim R, Nair PKR. Combination of cocoa with other plantation crops. Agroforestry Systems. 1986;**4**:3-15

[3] Sotomayor A, García E, González M, Lucero A. Modelos agroforestales. Sistema productivo integrado para una agricultura sustentable. Instituto Forestal de Chile (INFOR), Castilla 109-C; 2008. p. 24

[4] Baligar VC, Bunce JA, Machado RCR, Elson MK. Photosynthetic photon flux density, carbon dioxide concentration, and vapor pressure deficit effects on photosynthesis in cacao seedlings. Photosynthetica. 2008;**46**(2):216-221

[5] Salgado MMG, Ibarra NG, Macías SJE, López BO. Tree diversity in cacao plantations in the Soconusco area, Chiapas, Mexico. Interciencia. 2007;**32**(11):763-768

[6] González LVW. Cacao en México: Competitividad y medio ambiente con alianzas. USAID; 2005. p. 80

[7] Parrish J, Reitsma R, Greenberg R, Mclarney YW, Mack R, Lynch J. Cocoa plantations as tool for the conservation of biodiversity biological corridors and buffer zones. Agroforestería en las Américas. 1999;**6**(22):16-19

[8] Roa RHA, Salgado MMG, Álvarez HJ. Analysis of the structure arborea agroforestry system cocoa (*Theobroma cacao* L.) in Soconusco, Chiapas - Mexico. Acta Biológica Colombiana. 2009;**14**(3):97-110

[9] García LJL. Los árboles utilizados como sombra de cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) en Comalcalco, Tabasco [thesis]. México: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo; 1983. Available from:

http://www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis. exe/?IsisScript=bosque.xis&method=po st&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion =mfn=000707

[10] Córdova AV, Sánchez HM, CNG E, Macías LA, Sandoval CE, Martínez ST. Factores que afectan la producción de cacao (*Theobroma cacao* L.) en el ejido Francisco I Madero del Plan Chontalpa, Tabasco, México. Universidad y Ciencia. 2001;**17**(34):93-100

[11] Beer JW, Muschler R, Kass D, Somarriba E. Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations. Agroforestry Systems. 1998;**4**:175-189

[12] Ramírez-Meneses A, García-López E, Obrador-Olán JJ, Ruiz-Rosado O, Camacho-Chiu W. Plant diversity in cocoa agroforestry systems in Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico. Universidad y Ciencia. 2013;**29**(3):215-230

[13] Somarriba E, Trivelato M, Villalobos M, Suárez A, Benavides P, Moran K. Diagnosis of indigenous of Bribri and Cabecar small organic cacao farms in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Agroforestería en las Américas. 2003;**10**:37-38

[14] Orozco L, Somarriba E. Timber trees in organic cacao farms in alto Beni, Bolivia. Agroforestería en las Américas. 2005;**43**:43-44

[15] Ledig FT. Conservación y manejo de recursos genéticos forestales. In: Vargas HJJ, Basilio BV, Ledig FT, editors. Manejo de recursos genéticos forestales. 2nd Ed. Zapopan, Jalisco: Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Edo. de México, y Comisión Nacional Forestal; 2004. pp. 2-18

[16] De Beer JH, MJ MD. The Economic Value of Nom-Timber Forest Products in Southeast Asia. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Netherlands Committee for the IUCN; 1989

**39**

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems*

2015;**74-75**:1-7

2007. p. 213

2010;**26**(1):1-17

2007;**31**(1):101-112

php?codAcervo=537869

Environment. 2007;**122**:5-11

CATIE, No. 276; 1996. p. 47

[25] Wessel M, Quist-Wessel PMF. Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent developments. NJAS– Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences.

[26] Palma LDJ, Cisneros DJ, Moreno CE, Rincón RJA. Suelos de Tabasco: su uso y manejo sustentable. Villahermosa,

Postgraduados-ISPROTAB-FUPROTAB;

[27] Zarco EVM, Valdez HJL, Ángeles PL, Castillo AO. Structure and diversity of arboreal vegetation in the Parque Estatal Agua Blanca, Macuspana, Tabasco. Universidad y Ciencia.

[28] Pinelo GI. Manual de campo inventario forestal integrado en unidades de manejo comunitario, zona de uso múltiple, Reserva de la Biosfera Maya Peten, Guatemala. Fundación Naturaleza para la Vida; 2001. p. 49

[29] Mora F, Hernández W. Commercial volume estimation by product for teak stands at the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Agronomía Costarricense.

[30] Sambuichi RHR. Ecología da vegetação arbórea de cabruca - mata atlântica raleada utilizada para cultivo de cacau - na região sul da Bahia [thesis]. Universidad de Brasilia; 2003. https://consulta.bce. unb.br/pergamum/biblioteca/index.

[31] OKE D, Odebiyi KA. Traditional cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in Ondo state, Nigeria. Agriculture, Ecosystems and

[32] Somarriba E, Domínguez L, Lucas C. Cacao bajo sombra de maderable en Ojo de Agua, Changuinola, Panamá: Manejo, Crecimiento y producción de cacao y madera. Informe técnico/

Tabasco, México: Colegio de

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

[17] FAO. Memoria- Consulta de Expertos sobre Productos Forestales No Madereros para América Latina y el Caribe. [Internet]. 1995. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t2354s/ t2354s00.htm#Contents [Accessed: May

[18] Ros-Tonen MAF, editor. Seminar Proceedings: NTFP Research in the Tropenbos Programme: Results and Perspectives. Wageningen The

Netherlands; 1999. p. 186

Puebla; 2005. pp. 65-78

2015]

2005. p. 54

21, 2013]

[19] Córdova AV. Organización

campesina en la reconversión del cacao tradicional a orgánico en Tabasco, México. In: Aragón GA, López-Olguín JF, Tapia-Rojas AM, editors. Manejo Agroecológico de Sistemas. Puebla: Dirección de Fomento Editorial, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de

[20] SIAP (Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera). Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Agrícola [Internet]. Available from: http://www. siap.gob.mx/cierre-de-la-produccionagricola-por-cultivo/[Accessed: May 08,

[21] López APA, Delgado NVH, Azpeitia MA, López AJI, Jiménez CJA, Flores RA, et al. El cacao en Tabasco: manejo y producción. 3ra ed. Villahermosa, Tabasco, México: INIFAP- ISPROTAB;

[22] CNA-SMN-SCDI. Climatología y Estadísticas [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://smn.cna.gob.mx/index. php?option=com\_content&view=artic le&id=42&Itemid=75. [Accessed: July

[23] Dauber E. Propuesta para la elaboración de tablas volumétricas y/o factores de forma. Santa, Cruz, Bolivia:

BOLFOR. USAID; 1997. p. 621

[24] FAO. Inventario forestal nacional. Manual de campo modelo. Programa de Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales (ERF). Guatemala; 2004. p. 89

04, 2015]

*Current and Potential Use of Timber and Non-timber Resources of the Cacao Agroforestry Systems DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.82337*

[17] FAO. Memoria- Consulta de Expertos sobre Productos Forestales No Madereros para América Latina y el Caribe. [Internet]. 1995. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/t2354s/ t2354s00.htm#Contents [Accessed: May 04, 2015]

[18] Ros-Tonen MAF, editor. Seminar Proceedings: NTFP Research in the Tropenbos Programme: Results and Perspectives. Wageningen The Netherlands; 1999. p. 186

[19] Córdova AV. Organización campesina en la reconversión del cacao tradicional a orgánico en Tabasco, México. In: Aragón GA, López-Olguín JF, Tapia-Rojas AM, editors. Manejo Agroecológico de Sistemas. Puebla: Dirección de Fomento Editorial, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla; 2005. pp. 65-78

[20] SIAP (Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera). Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Agrícola [Internet]. Available from: http://www. siap.gob.mx/cierre-de-la-produccionagricola-por-cultivo/[Accessed: May 08, 2015]

[21] López APA, Delgado NVH, Azpeitia MA, López AJI, Jiménez CJA, Flores RA, et al. El cacao en Tabasco: manejo y producción. 3ra ed. Villahermosa, Tabasco, México: INIFAP- ISPROTAB; 2005. p. 54

[22] CNA-SMN-SCDI. Climatología y Estadísticas [Internet]. 2012. Available from: http://smn.cna.gob.mx/index. php?option=com\_content&view=artic le&id=42&Itemid=75. [Accessed: July 21, 2013]

[23] Dauber E. Propuesta para la elaboración de tablas volumétricas y/o factores de forma. Santa, Cruz, Bolivia: BOLFOR. USAID; 1997. p. 621

[24] FAO. Inventario forestal nacional. Manual de campo modelo. Programa de Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales (ERF). Guatemala; 2004. p. 89

[25] Wessel M, Quist-Wessel PMF. Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent developments. NJAS– Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2015;**74-75**:1-7

[26] Palma LDJ, Cisneros DJ, Moreno CE, Rincón RJA. Suelos de Tabasco: su uso y manejo sustentable. Villahermosa, Tabasco, México: Colegio de Postgraduados-ISPROTAB-FUPROTAB; 2007. p. 213

[27] Zarco EVM, Valdez HJL, Ángeles PL, Castillo AO. Structure and diversity of arboreal vegetation in the Parque Estatal Agua Blanca, Macuspana, Tabasco. Universidad y Ciencia. 2010;**26**(1):1-17

[28] Pinelo GI. Manual de campo inventario forestal integrado en unidades de manejo comunitario, zona de uso múltiple, Reserva de la Biosfera Maya Peten, Guatemala. Fundación Naturaleza para la Vida; 2001. p. 49

[29] Mora F, Hernández W. Commercial volume estimation by product for teak stands at the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Agronomía Costarricense. 2007;**31**(1):101-112

[30] Sambuichi RHR. Ecología da vegetação arbórea de cabruca - mata atlântica raleada utilizada para cultivo de cacau - na região sul da Bahia [thesis]. Universidad de Brasilia; 2003. https://consulta.bce. unb.br/pergamum/biblioteca/index. php?codAcervo=537869

[31] OKE D, Odebiyi KA. Traditional cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in Ondo state, Nigeria. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2007;**122**:5-11

[32] Somarriba E, Domínguez L, Lucas C. Cacao bajo sombra de maderable en Ojo de Agua, Changuinola, Panamá: Manejo, Crecimiento y producción de cacao y madera. Informe técnico/ CATIE, No. 276; 1996. p. 47

**38**

Theobroma cacao *- Deploying Science for Sustainability of Global Cocoa Economy*

http://www.sidalc.net/cgi-bin/wxis. exe/?IsisScript=bosque.xis&method=po st&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion

[10] Córdova AV, Sánchez HM, CNG E, Macías LA, Sandoval CE, Martínez ST. Factores que afectan la producción de cacao (*Theobroma cacao* L.) en el ejido Francisco I Madero del Plan Chontalpa, Tabasco, México. Universidad y Ciencia.

[11] Beer JW, Muschler R, Kass D, Somarriba E. Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations. Agroforestry Systems. 1998;**4**:175-189

[12] Ramírez-Meneses A, García-López E, Obrador-Olán JJ, Ruiz-Rosado O, Camacho-Chiu W. Plant diversity in cocoa agroforestry systems in Cárdenas, Tabasco, Mexico. Universidad y Ciencia.

[13] Somarriba E, Trivelato M, Villalobos M, Suárez A, Benavides P, Moran K. Diagnosis of indigenous of Bribri and Cabecar small organic cacao farms in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Agroforestería

en las Américas. 2003;**10**:37-38

[14] Orozco L, Somarriba E. Timber trees in organic cacao farms in alto Beni, Bolivia. Agroforestería en las Américas.

[15] Ledig FT. Conservación y manejo de recursos genéticos forestales. In: Vargas HJJ, Basilio BV, Ledig FT, editors. Manejo de recursos genéticos forestales. 2nd Ed. Zapopan, Jalisco: Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Edo. de México, y Comisión Nacional Forestal;

[16] De Beer JH, MJ MD. The Economic Value of Nom-Timber Forest Products in Southeast Asia. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Netherlands Committee for the IUCN;

=mfn=000707

2001;**17**(34):93-100

2013;**29**(3):215-230

2005;**43**:43-44

2004. pp. 2-18

1989

[1] Combe J, Budowski G. Clasificación de las técnicas agroforestales. Sistemas agroforestales en América Latina. Turrialba, Costa, Rica; 1979

[2] Alvim R, Nair PKR. Combination of cocoa with other plantation crops. Agroforestry Systems. 1986;**4**:3-15

[3] Sotomayor A, García E, González M, Lucero A. Modelos agroforestales. Sistema productivo integrado para una agricultura sustentable. Instituto Forestal de Chile (INFOR), Castilla

[4] Baligar VC, Bunce JA, Machado RCR, Elson MK. Photosynthetic photon flux density, carbon dioxide concentration, and vapor pressure deficit effects on photosynthesis in cacao seedlings. Photosynthetica. 2008;**46**(2):216-221

[5] Salgado MMG, Ibarra NG, Macías SJE, López BO. Tree diversity in cacao plantations in the Soconusco area, Chiapas, Mexico. Interciencia.

[6] González LVW. Cacao en México: Competitividad y medio ambiente con

[7] Parrish J, Reitsma R, Greenberg R, Mclarney YW, Mack R, Lynch J. Cocoa plantations as tool for the conservation of biodiversity biological corridors and buffer zones. Agroforestería en las

[8] Roa RHA, Salgado MMG, Álvarez HJ. Analysis of the structure arborea agroforestry system cocoa (*Theobroma cacao* L.) in Soconusco, Chiapas - Mexico. Acta Biológica Colombiana.

[9] García LJL. Los árboles utilizados como sombra de cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) en Comalcalco, Tabasco [thesis]. México: Universidad Autónoma

Chapingo; 1983. Available from:

alianzas. USAID; 2005. p. 80

Américas. 1999;**6**(22):16-19

2009;**14**(3):97-110

109-C; 2008. p. 24

**References**

2007;**32**(11):763-768

[33] Somarriba E, Beer J, Muschler R. Methodological problems and solutions in agroforestry research with coffee and cacao at *CATIE*. Agroforestería en las Américas. 2000;**7**:27-32

[34] Mogollón JP, García MJ, Sánchez LF, Chacón N, Araujo J. Nitrógeno potencialmente disponible en suelos de cafetales bajo diferentes árboles de sombra. Agronomía Tropical. 1997;**47**(1):87-102

[35] Concha JY, Alegre JC, Pocomucha V. Determination of carbon in the aerial biomass of agroforestry systems of Theobroma cacao L. in the department of san Martín, Perú. Ecología Aplicada. 2007;**6**(1-2):75-82

[36] Somarriba CE, Domínguez L. Maderables como alternativa para la substitución de sombra en cacaotales establecidos: manejo y crecimiento. Informe técnico/CATIE. No. 240; 1994. p. 96

[37] FHIA (Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola). Uso de especies maderables tropicales latifoliadas como sombra del cacao. Hoja técnica, programa de cacao y agroforestería; 2007. p. 5

[38] Calero BWA. Producción e incrementos de madera y carbono de laurel (Cordia alliodora) y cedro amargo (*Cedrela odorata* L*.*) de regeneración natural en cacaotales y bananales indígenas de Talamanca, Costa Rica. [thesis]. Turrialba, Costa Rica: CATIE; 2008

**41**

Section 2

Cocoa Pests and Diseases

Management

Section 2
