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

net/publication/389059288

Integrating farmers’ views, field soil erosion assessment, and pot

experiments to evaluate different agroforestry systems in Timor-Leste

Article in Agroforestry Systems · February 2025

DOI: 10.1007/s10457-025-01147-2

CITATIONS READS

0 65

5 authors, including:

Kadambot H M Siddique
The University of Western Australia
1,423 PUBLICATIONS 58,339 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kadambot H M Siddique on 27 February 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01147-2

Integrating farmers’ views, field soil erosion assessment,

and pot experiments to evaluate different agroforestry
systems in Timor‑Leste
Marçal Gusmão · Zevacio Fernandes · Juvencio dos Santos ·
Archontoulis V. Sotirios · Kadambot H. M. Siddique

Received: 24 September 2024 / Accepted: 3 February 2025

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2025

Abstract Over 75% of subsistence farmers in rural the rainy season from December 2021 to April 2022.
Timor-Leste face challenges from unsustainable land Interviews and focus group discussions were con-
use practices, particularly slash-and-burn farming ducted with 35 farmers involved in the project, along-
on degraded steep slopes. These practices contrib- side field assessments of soil erosion and pot experi-
ute to soil erosion, and poor crop yields, ultimately ments. The results showed that most farmers reported
leading to land and environmental degradation and improved production and outcomes from growing
food insecurity. Recently, agroforestry projects have trees and would like to replicate agroforestry systems,
aimed to improve land productivity and farmers’ live- suggesting adoption likelihood due to the multiple
lihoods, though their impact remains unclear. This benefits of agroforestry, including soil improvement,
study aimed to evaluate these impacts through three animal feed, fuelwood provision, and environmen-
research questions: (1) How do agroforestry interven- tal and biodiversity sustainability. Measurements of
tions impact field crop performance and smallholder soil loss and plant productivity confirmed the posi-
farmers’ livelihoods? (2) What is the extent of farmer tive impact of agroforestry, reducing soil erosion by
adoption of these interventions? (3) What is the effect nearly 15 times compared to traditional fallow sys-
of agroforestry interventions on soil physical and tems and improving crop growth and yields in both
chemical characteristics? The study was conducted at fallow and slash-and-mulch systems. This study pro-
the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) project vides essential baseline data and guidance for future
site at Saraida, Quelicai, Baucau municipality, during farmland management in Timor-Leste.

Keywords Agroforestry · Soil erosion · Slope · Soil

M. Gusmão (*) · Z. Fernandes · J. dos Santos cover · Soil detachment · Soil improvement · Crop
Department of Agronomy and Centre for Climate Change
response
and Biodiversity, Faculty of Agriculture, National
University of Timor Lorosa’e (UNTL), Dili, Timor-Leste
e-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
M. Gusmão · A. V. Sotirios
Department of Agronomy, IOWA State University
of Science and Technology, Ames, USA Sustainable agricultural land productivity depends on
land use that maintains ecosystem health, supporting
K. H. M. Siddique (*) the production of food, fibers, and fuel and provid-
The UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University
ing habitats for plants, animals, and microorganisms
of Western Australia, Perth 6001, Australia
e-mail: [email protected] (Velasco-Muñoz et al. 2021). Maintaining ecosystem

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 2 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

health is becoming increasingly difficult, especially in such as those led by Japan International Coopera-
developing countries (Antle and Ray 2020; Oliveira tion Agency (through Community-Based Natural
and Meyfroidt 2021; McLaughlin and Mineau 1995). Resource Management), World Vision-Timor-Leste
Various drivers of environmental degradation include (through farmer-managed natural regeneration), the
population growth, precipitation patterns, and slash- GCCA (2013–2018), and Partnership for Sustainable
and-burn farming practices on steep slopes. Popula- Agroforestry (2018–2022), have worked with small-
tion growth exerts significant pressure on agricul- holder farmers to improve land productivity and live-
tural land for food production (Syuaib 2016), while lihoods (RDTL 2018).
changes in precipitation patterns exacerbate environ- Traditionally, agroforestry can be established by
mental degradation (Hermans and McLeman 2021; leaving land fallow for several years to allow woody
Rosas et al. 2020). Smallholder farmers in Timor- species to grow, either planted before cultivation
Leste face significant socioeconomic and infrastruc- ceases or naturally during the fallow period (Hux-
ture challenges, contributing to environmental deg- ley and van Houten 2001). This process, known as
radation (Paudel et al. 2022; RDTL 2017). The main improved fallow (ICRAF 2020), restores natural veg-
factor driving degradation is unsustainable slash-and- etation and soil fertility. However, with the increas-
burn farming on degraded steep slopes. Soil erosion, ing human population, fallow periods have become
a key threat to sustainable crop production, depletes too short for soil recovery (McArthur et al. 2017),
soil fertility, reduces crop yields, and exacerbates or land is repurposed for other uses, such as rubber
food insecurity (Sulaeman 2020). Erosion, sedimen- plantation, as seen in Cambodia (Leemann and Nikles
tation, and deforestation are major indicators of envi- 2017).
ronmental degradation in Timor-Leste and similar In addition, conservation agriculture, which inte-
tropical and subtropical regions (Ananda and Herath grates cover crops into farm systems, has been pro-
2003). A review of the negative impacts of techni- moted by FAO Timor-Leste (FAO 2019, 2021,
cal changes, inappropriate government policies, and 2023) and widely adopted in tropical and subtropi-
weak institutions—including issues with land ten- cal regions (Jat et al. 2012). Conservation agriculture
ure and financial constraints (Andriatsitohaina et al. aims to reduce soil degradation by maintaining per-
2024; Kassa 2022)—suggests that a lack of reliable manent surface cover, minimizing soil disturbance,
erosion data may hinder decision-making (Rosas and and diversifying plant species (Farooq and Siddique
Gutierrez 2020). This is the real issue faced by deci- 2015; Islam and Miah 2010; Egashira et al. 2006).
sion-makers at the national level in Timor-Leste, par- While initial crop yields may be lower, reduced cul-
ticularly within the agriculture, forestry, environment, tivation costs and increased input use efficiency often
and disaster risk management sectors. result in positive economic returns (Jat et al. 2012).
Several initiatives have aimed to improve the live- For instance, in Timor-Leste, Mucuna (M. pruriens)
lihoods of smallholder farmers by promoting sustain- is commonly rotated with maize to improve soil fer-
able land management. Agroforestry is a promising tility, control weeds, and reduce fertilizer inputs.
environmentally sustainable approach that integrates In addition to cover crops, smallholder farmers also
multipurpose trees into farming systems, offering integrate legume trees such as Sesbania (S. grandi-
solutions to critical land management issues through flora) and Leucaena (L. leucocephala) for winding
a diverse range of products like food, fuelwood, fod- crops like yam, livestock fodder, or pruning to cover
der, timber, and income sources, thereby enhancing the soil. Mulching on the soil surface offers numer-
food security, environmental protection, and climate ous benefits, including reducing soil evaporation,
change (Nair 2005; Thevathasan et al. 2023). Agro- conserving moisture, controlling soil temperature,
forestry also provides smallholder farmers with new reducing weed growth, and enhancing microbial
commercial opportunities (Kassa 2022). The com- activities (Iqbal et al. 2020). Mulching can also pro-
mon traditional agroforestry systems in Timor-Leste vide economic, and environmental advantages to the
have been well-described (Cogné and Lescuyer agricultural landscape. Some smallholder farmers
2024). Agroforestry is considered a viable option for in Timor-Leste have adopted conservation agricul-
balancing socioeconomic needs and ecological func- ture because it requires less labor input. Research
tions (Paudel et al. 2022). International initiatives, showed that maize–Mucuna systems can triple maize

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 3 of 19 50

yields compared to control fields (Mausolff and Far- and 3. Finally, field soil erosion and pot experiments
ber 1995). However, Mucuna struggles in elevations were conducted to evaluate the impact of agroforestry
above 700 m above sea level (asl) due to its sensitiv- interventions on soil physical and chemical character-
ity to low temperatures. istics addressing question 3.
Despite various agroforestry and conservation
agriculture projects in Timor-Leste, no scientific stud- Field farmer interview
ies have assessed their impact on soil productivity,
smallholder farmers’ livelihoods, and adopting and The field survey, conducted in mid-December 2021,
retaining agroforestry interventions. This study aimed identified the GCCA project (2013–2018) site at
to evaluate these impacts through three research ques- Saraida, Baguia, Quelicai, Baucau municipality, for
tions: (1) How do agroforestry interventions impact this study. Thirty-five farmers involved in the GCCA
field crop performance and smallholder farmers’ live- project were individually interviewed to assess
lihoods? (2) What is the extent of farmer adoption of their views on agroforestry interventions. A struc-
these interventions? (3) What is the effect of agro- tured questionnaire with close-ended questions was
forestry interventions on soil physical and chemical used for a face-to-face interview with each farmer
characteristics? (Taherdoost 2022). This was followed by FGD using
unstructured, open-ended questions (Table 1, Photo
1) aligned with the questions used in the individual
Materials and methods interviews. The FGD participants were divided into
four groups, each addressing one discussion ques-
The research was initiated by identifying an appro- tion (except the group that worked on question 1,
priate research site from the GCCA project sites, fol- which also covered question 4). The FGD facilitated
lowed by identifying farmers involved in the project in-depth discussion, allowing participants to interact
and their group coordinator for better coordination and build upon each other’s perspectives, guided by
during farmer interviews and focus group discussions facilitators. The output of each group discussion was
(FGD) to assess farmers’ views on questions 1, 2, presented to all groups for consensus (Table 1, Photo

Table 1  Results of the focus group discussion

No. Discussion question Discussion outputs

1 Definition and types of agroforestry implemented Grow trees to protect against landslides
Increase soil fertility
Enhance the environment for biodiversity like birds
2 What are the advantages of implementing agroforestry Improve soil fertility (becomes black), soil physics, reduce ero-
sion, and improve crop yield and livelihood
Trees provide fruits, fuelwood, fodder for livestock (Leucaena),
and infrastructure like tables, chairs, and housing
Trees can be used to distinguish between landowners
Teak can be used for fuelwood and feeding animals
Integration with other crops like ginger
3 What is the disadvantage of implementing agroforestry Planting distance of trees may not follow the standard
Shade crops and competition for light and water when they grow
bigger, like mahogany and teak
Continuing to import building materials discourages farmers
from growing trees
4 How does agroforestry improve soil quality and production? Protect, increase tree litter on the ground, and improve soil fertil-
ity (black)
Protect cultivated crops
Enhance soil biological activity
5 Are you willing to continue implementing agroforestry? Yes, we wanted to continue growing trees*

*One of the participants, who was over 72 years old, said “I grow trees for the benefit of my children and the environment”

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 4 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

1). Contrasting views, such as the negative impacts soil samples after removing the organic material. The
of agroforestry (e.g., shade crops and competition for soil samples were oven-dried with the same treatment
water and light), were considered in reaching a con- as eroded soil. Soil bulk density was calculated as soil
sensus through weighing the advantages and disad- dry weight per volume of the inner ring. The soil pH
vantages of differing perspectives, followed by agree- of the eroded soil was determined using the pH H ­ 20
ment among all participants. (1: 2 soil: water ratio).
Three plastic buckets were randomly placed in
Field soil physical and erosion assessment and nearby research plots to collect rainwater. After each
rainfall collection rain event, rainwater was measured using a scaled
beaker. The cumulative rainfall was calculated from
Appropriate field sites for soil erosion measurement the beginning to the end of the rainy season.
were identified at two adjacent locations with 3 years
of continuous slash-and-burn farming and fallow sys- Agronomic performance of agroforestry practices
tems (8.62059098° S, 126.53796139° E; 577 m asl). through pot experiments
Conservation agriculture was not included in this
experiment. Pot experiments to assess field crop performance are
The Soil erosion assessment method was adapted well-documented (Gusmao 2010; Tamhane and Sub-
to Boix-Fayos et al. (2006) by establishing experi- biah 1962). Topsoil from the adjacent soil erosion
mental plots at the two adjacent sites, with a slope experimental plots (after removing organic mate-
average of 21.85% for fallow and 25.38% for slash- rial) was collected for pot experiments to assess crop
and-burn. Each site had three replication plots meas- growth and yield responses. Additionally, soil from a
uring 4 m wide × 8 m long, positioned to allow rain- nearby FAO conservation agriculture project site was
water flow. The plots were edged with bamboo to included (hereafter called slash-and-mulch). Two pot
prevent incoming and outflow runoff (Photo 2). The experiments (Experiment 1 with okra and Experi-
bamboo edging downslope of the plot was cut longi- ment 2 with soybean) were conducted in a transpar-
tudinally and installed at a slight downward angle to ent plastic house at the National University of Timor
direct the flow of water and eroded soil into a plastic Lorosa’e, Faculty of Agriculture’s field research site
bucket installed at the end. After each rain event, the at Hera, Dili. The experiments had a completely ran-
eroded soil and water were collected, and the water domized design with two factors and three replica-
drained after the soil particles had settled. This pro- tions. Experiment 1 tested land use and NPK ferti-
cess was repeated during the farming calendar from lizer treatments (Photo 3), while Experiment 2 tested
December 2021 to April 2022. The collected soil land use and chicken manure treatments (Photo 4).
samples were transported to the Ministry of Agri- Land use treatments included fallow, slash-and-burn,
culture and Fisheries’ soil laboratory, oven-dried at and slash-and-mulch (Table 2). NPK fertilizer was
105 °C for 48 h and weighed. Eroded soil was trans- applied at three levels: 0 g/pot (control), 1 g/pot, and
ported to the laboratory 11 times, and cumulative soil 2 g/pot. Chicken manure was applied at three lev-
erosion was plotted against cumulative rainfall. els: 0 g/pot (control), 4 g/pot, and 8 g/pot. Pots were
Soil texture was determined by the soil ribbon filled with approximately 9 kg (Experiment 1) and
test method. Soil bulk density was measured using 7 kg (Experiment 2) of soil. Three seeds of okra were
a stainless-steel bulk density ring (7.5 cm diameter, sown in their respective pots on 8 June 2022 (Experi-
4.9 cm height) gently inserted into the soil to collect ment 1) and soybean on 13 June 2022 (Experiment

Table 2  Pot experiments Land use/treatment NPK (g/pot) Chicken manure (g/pot)
with treatment
combinations 2 1 0 8 4 0

Fallow (F) F*2 F*1 F*0 F*8 F*4 F*0

Slash-and-mulch (SM) SM*2 SM*1 SM*0 SM*8 SM*4 SM*0
Slash-and-burn (SB) SB*2 SB*1 SB*0 SB*8 SB*4 SB*0

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 5 of 19 50

2) and later thinned to one (Experiment 1) or two Respondents’ level of education was 34.29% illit-
(Experiment 2) plants per pot after establishment. erate, 25.71% primary school, 17.14% secondary
The parameters measured included growth environ- school, 20.0% high school, and 2.86% university
ment, growth, yield, and yield components. Water degree.
use efficiency (WUE) was also determined in Experi- The field interview results indicated that 97.14%
ment 1, with total water applied at 90% field capacity of 35 respondents implemented tree planting on
recorded to estimate WUE. their land/farms for over three years. Agri-silvicul-
tural was the most practiced type of agroforestry
Data analysis (59.38%), followed by alley cropping and mixed
gardens (9.38% each) (Fig. 1). Most interviewees
Interview data was clean and coded properly in SPSS planted trees primarily to improve soil, provide
to ensure variables were categorized correctly as fodder, produce fuelwood, and enhance the envi-
nominal or scale based on the questions. Descriptive ronment and biodiversity (68.6%), increasing crop
analysis was performed to examine the percentage yield (97.1%) and family income (100%). The main
of responses for each question. The analysis of vari- crops integrated into agroforestry systems included
ance (ANOVA) with 5% least significant difference corn, sweet potato, cassava, and taro (45.16%)
of the Genstat version 18 was performed to compare (data not shown). Common livestock in the system
the results of the eroded soil from the different land included chickens and pigs (37.14%).
use of slash-and-burn and fallow systems plots. Simi- The FGD results echoed a positive definition of
larly, in the pot experiments, ANOVA with a com- agroforestry, highlighting its advantages on land
pletely randomized design with LSD 5% level was productivity and livelihoods by improving soil fer-
performed to test the impact of different land use of tility and crop yields and providing fodder, fire-
fallow, slash-and-burn, and slash-and-mulch versus wood, windbreak, and timber for infrastructure
NPK fertilizer (Experiment 1) and chicken manure (Table 1). Despite minor negative impacts, like
(Experiment 2) on growth environment, crop growth, competition for light and water with crops and
and yield variables. When interaction occurred in the Timor-Leste continuing to import building materi-
case of pot experiments, multiple comparisons with als, all participants agreed to continue to grow trees
Duncan’s test at 5% significance were performed to on their farms.
identify the combination treatment effect between
land use and either NPK fertilizer or chicken manure.
Field soil physical and erosion assessment and
rainfall collection
Results
The soil texture at the experimental sites ranged
Field farmer interview from light to medium clay. The average dried soil
bulk density was 1.23 g/cm3 in fallow land and
A total of 35 respondents were from 8 villages (15 1.50 g/cm3 in slash-and-burn land. Fallow land had
villages in total with a total population of 18,444 a significantly higher average eroded soil pH (6.04)
people) in the Administrative Post of Quelicai. than slash-and-burn land (5.84).
Overall, 68.57% of respondents were male, the rest In the first collection (after a total rainfall of
were female (31.43%), between 31 and 72 years old, 164.91 mm), slash-and-burn land had significantly
and 68.97% were head of family (data not shown). higher total soil erosion (96.85 t/ha) than fallow
The highest percentage of age interviewed was 54 land (8.38 t/ha) (Fig. 2). The slash-and-burn land
(11.43%). More than 41% of the respondents had maintained higher soil erosion throughout the meas-
family members between 7 and 9, 11.76% were urement period, culminating at 397.34 t/ha, approx-
between 10 and 12 family members and the rest imately 15 times higher than in the fallow system
were between 2 and 6 family members. Over 92% (26.96 t/ha), by the time rainfall ceased on 22 April
of respondents were married and the rest were 2022 (total rainfall: 1,406 mm).
shared between single, single mothers or fathers.

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 6 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

Fig. 1  Percentage of interviewees implementing agroforestry ing a variety of crops, trees, shrubs, and herbs together on the
types on their farms. Agri-silviculture refers to integrating same land to create a diverse ecosystem, and alley cropping
tree species with vegetables and crops on the same land, silvo- systems refer to growing trees and/or shrubs grown in rows
pastoral systems refer to integrating tree species with grazing with vegetables and crops in between
animals on the same land, mixed-garden systems refer to grow-

Agronomic performance of agroforestry practices (Table 3), while soil temperature was highest in the
through pot experiments control pots.
No significant land use × NPK fertilizer interac-
Effect of land use and NPK fertilizer on growth and tions occurred for growth, yield, harvest index, or
yield of okra (Experiment 1). WUE efficiency of okra (P > 0.05) (Table 4). At 63
No significant land use × NPK interactions DAS, the fallow and slash-and-mulch treatments
occurred for total crop water use, soil water con- had 8.69% and 7.40% higher plant basal diameter
tent, or temperature (P > 0.05) (Table 3). At 24 days than slash-and-burn (13.13 mm), with similar plant
after sowing (DAS), okra plants used significantly height and leaf number trends. Moreover, the fal-
more water in the fallow (9.38%) and slash-and- low and slash-and-mulch treatments had 13.56% and
mulch (8.90%) treatments than slash-and-burn 8.15% longer fruits than slash-and-burn (12.62 cm),
(1.74 kg/pot). Similarly, the fallow and slash-and- and 26.20% and 16.41% higher fresh fruit weights
mulch treatments had 4.89% and 4.26% higher per plant than slash-and-burn (198.60 g/plant). The
soil water contents than slash-and-burn (32.85%). fallow and slash-and-mulch treatments had compa-
However, slash-and-burn had higher soil tempera- rable root dry mass per plant, harvest index for dry
ture (30.89 °C) than fallow (29.85 °C) and slash- biomass, and WUE for dry fruit weight, significantly
and-mulch (30.37 °C). No significant differences higher than slash-and-burn. Total dry biomass per
in okra water usage occurred between the 1 g/pot plant was 18.45% (fallow), followed by the slash-and-
and 2 g/pot NPK treatments, but they were 9.52% mulch (13.02%) compared to the lowest dry biomass
and 13.64% higher than the control (1.71 kg/pot). of slash-and-burn (48.75 g/plant). The harvest index
Similar trends were found for soil water content for dry biomass was comparable between fallow and

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 7 of 19 50

Fig. 2  Log-scale cumulative soil erosion (t/ha) and rainfall Baucau. Measurements commenced on 19 December 2021 and
(mm) measured from the field research site at Saraida, village ended on 22 April 2022
of Baguia, post Administrative of Quelicai, Municipality of

Table 3  Effect of land use and NPK fertilizer on okra total slash-and-mulch, but they were 11.72% and 10.75%,
water use (kg/pot) at 24 days after sowing (DAS), soil water respectively, higher than the slash-and-burn. Water
content (%), and pot soil temperature (°C)
use efficiency for dry fruit weight was highest in fal-
Treatment Measured parameter low (13.50%), followed by slash-and-mulch (11.23%)
Total water use SWC (%) T (°C) compared to slash-and-burn (2.37 g/kg).
(kg/pot) The 2 g/pot NPK fertilizer application produced
24 DAS the highest results for all measured parameters, while
the control had the lowest (Table 4). At 63 DAS, the
Land use 2 g/pot and 1 g/pot treatments had 7.73% and 3.50%
Fallow 1.92b 34.54b 29.85a taller plants than the control (66.64 cm), 16.45%
Slash-and-mulch 1.91b 34.31b 30.37b and 6.41% more leaves (13.0), 42.14% and 23.43%
Slash-and-burn 1.74a 32.85a 30.89c greater fresh fruit weight (174.80 g/plant), 39.03%
LSD 0.1525 0.558 0.4579 and 21.85% higher total dry biomass (41.99 g/plant),
P (0.05) 0.043 < .001 < .001 30.98% and 16.09% higher harvest index for dry bio-
NPK fertilizer mass (33.84%), and 42.77% and 30.34% higher WUE
2 g/pot 1.98b 35.12c 29.67a for dry fruit weight (1.86 g/kg).
1 g/pot 1.89b 33.83b 30.26b Effect of land use and chicken manure on growth
0 g/pot 1.71a 32.75a 31.19c and yield of soybean (Experiment 2)
LSD 0.1525 0.558 0.4579 No significant land use × chicken manure inter-
P (0.05) 0.006 < .001 < .001 actions occurred for soil temperature, dry matter,
flower number, leaf number at 28 and 42 DAS, seed/
pod, or seed yield (P > 0.05) (Table 5). Land use did
not significantly affect dry matter per plant, flower
number, plant height, pot soil water content, or soil

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50

Vol:. (1234567890)
Page 8 of 19

Table 4  Effect of land use and NPK fertilizer on growth, yield, harvest index (HI), and water use efficiency (WUE) of okra
Treatment Measured parameter
BD (mm) Plant Leaf Leaf Length FFW (g/ Weight AGDB (/ RDB (/ TFB (g/ TDB (g/ HI_dry HI_fresh WUEdfw
height number number (cm/fruit) plant) (g/fruit) plant) plant) plant) plant) (%) (%) (g/kg)
(cm)
63 DAS 63 DAS 28 DAS 63 DAS

Land use
Fallow 14.38b 70.50b 6.00c 14.78b 14.60c 269.10c 23.66b 53,92c 5.85b 375.50c 59.78c 42.90b 70.80c 2.74b
Slash-and- 14.18b 70.20b 5.33b 14.33b 13.74b 237.60b 22.97b 50,84b 5.21b 342.80b 56.05b 42.43b 68.59b 2.67b
mulch
Slash-and- 13.13a 67.22a 4.78a 13.33a 12.62a 198.60a 20.66a 44.56a 4.19a 300.00a 48.75a 37.87a 65.67a 2.37a
burn
LSD 0.893 2.280 0.4669 0.831 0.740 20.64 1.376 2.339 0.670 20.38 2.512 2.163 1.814 0.2737
P (0.05) 0.019 0.013 < .001 0.006 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 0.028
NPK fertilizer
2 g/pot 15.44c 72.22c 5.78b 15.56c 14.98c 302.10c 26.09c 62.70c 6.17c 411.90c 68.87c 49.03c 73.00c 3.25c
1 g/pot 13.79b 69.06b 5.33ab 13.89b 13.76b 228.30b 22.52b 48.40b 5.32b 333.30b 53.73b 40.33b 68.27b 2.67b
0 g/pot 12.46a 66.64a 5.00a 13.00a 12.23a 174.80a 18.68a 38.23a 3.77a 273.20a 41.99a 33.84a 63.79a 1.86a
LSD 0.893 2.280 0.4669 0.831 0.740 20.64 1.376 2.339 0.670 20.38 2.512 2.163 1.814 0.2737
P (0.05) < .001 < .001 0.009 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001 < .001
Agroforest Syst

BD basal diameter, FFW fresh fruit weight, AGBD above-ground dry biomass, RDB root dry biomass, TFB total fresh biomass, TDB total dry biomass, and WUEdfw WUE for
dry fruit weight. Values are means at 5% significance. Letters a, b, and c show the statistical notation at a 5% LSD
(2025) 99:50
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 9 of 19 50

Table 5  Effect of land use and chicken manure on growth and yield of soybean
Treatment Measured
parameters
T (°C) SWC (%) DM (g/ Flower Leaf no_28 Leaf no_42 Plant height Seed Seed
plant) number (DAS) (DAS) (cm) 56 number yield (g/
DAS per pod plant)

Land use
Fallow 30.85a 28.19a 4.70a 17.39a 14.11b 16.50b 44.20a 1.77a 1.29b
Slash-and- 31.41a 27.75a 4.29a 12.39a 12.67ab 13.44ab 40.20a 1.85ab 0.71a
mulch
Slash-and- 31.81a 28.53a 3.54a 12.50a 11.56a 12.72a 38.30a 1.97b 0.91ab
burn
LSD 0.996 0.698 1.039 4.974 1.479 2.833 8.77 0.1591 0.3306
P (0.05) 0.154 1.910 0.087 0.080 0.007 0.027 0.374 0.047 0.005
Chicken
manure
8 g/pot 31.33a 28.46a 6.42c 17.83b 13.67a 18.67c 44.80a 1.86a 1.53b
4 g/pot 31.59a 27.63a 4.16b 13.50ab 12.50a 14.00b 41.30a 1.94a 0.77a
0 g/pot 31.15a 28.38a 1.94a 10.94a 12.17a 10.00a 36.70a 1.80a 0.62a
LSD 0.996 0.608 1.039 4.974 1.479 2.833 8.77 0.1591 0.3306
P (0.05) 0.649 1.910 < .001 0.029 0.110 < .001 0.175 0.210 < .001

SWC soil water content, DM dry matter, DAS days after sowing. Values are means at 5% significance
Letters a, b, and c show the statistical notation at a 5% LSD

temperature. At 42 DAS, fallow produced 22.91% Treatment combinations with the control produced
more leaves per plant than slash-and-burn (12.72 the fewest leaves per plant (9.50–13.67).
leaves/plant), with slash-and-mulch (13.44 leaves/ The fallow + 8 g/pot chicken manure treatment also
plant) comparable to both land uses. The fallow pro- produced the most pods (10.67 per plant), followed
duced 10.31% fewer seeds per pod than slash-and- by slash-and-mulch + 8 g/pot chicken manure (8.83),
burn (1.97 seeds/pod), with slash-and-mulch (1.85 fallow + 4 g/pot chicken manure (6.67), and slash-
seeds/pod) comparable to both land uses. The fal- and-mulch + 4 g/pot chicken manure (5.67) (Fig. 3B).
low treatment had 44.96% and 29.46% higher seed The slash-and-burn + control treatment produced the
yields than slash-and-mulch and slash-and-burn, fewest pods per plant (3.0).
respectively. Harvest indexes were highest in the fallow + con-
The 8 g/pot chicken manure application produced trol (40.58%) and slash-and-burn + control (37.07%),
69.78% more dry matter, 38.64% more flowers, and with fallow + 8 g/pot chicken manure (32.16%), slash-
59.48% higher seed yield than the control pots [1.94 g and-burn + 4 g/pot chicken manure (27.74%), and
(P < 0.001), 10.94 (P = 0.029), 0.62 g (P < 0.001), slash-and-burn + 8 g/pot chicken manure (21.90%)
respectively] (Table 5). The 4 g/pot treatment pro- showing intermediate results (Fig. 3C).
duced comparable results to the controls.
Significant land use × chicken manure interactions
occurred for leaf number at 56 DAS (P < 0.001), Discussion
pod number per plant (P = 0.028), and harvest index
(P = 0.011) (Fig. 3). The highest leaf number (25.67 This study is the first comprehensive exploration of
leaves/plant) was observed in the fallow + 8 g/pot farmers’ views on implementing agroforestry prac-
chicken manure treatment, followed by slash-and- tices in Timor-Leste, focusing on its impact on soil
burn + 4 g/pot chicken manure (19.67) (Fig. 3A). and agronomic responses to different land uses.

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 10 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

Fig. 3  Land use × chicken

manure interactions for
(a) leaf number at 56 days
after sowing, (b) pods per
plant, and (c) harvest index.
Values are means with Dun-
can’s multiple comparison
test at 5% significance. Let-
ters a, b, c, and d represent
statistical notation at a 5%
LSD

Farmers’ views of agroforestry generations (Paudel et al. 2022; Do et al. 2024; Cogné
and Lescuyer 2024). These systems provide food, fruits,
Results of the interview and FGD showed an important vegetables, timber for housing, fuelwood, and livestock
integration of agroforestry into farming systems. In this fodder while maintaining soil health.
study, crops such as corn, sweet potato, cassava, taro, Soil health, defined as the capacity of soil to function
arrowroot, pumpkin, and yam were intercropped with within ecosystem boundaries, support crop and animal
trees, aligning with the previous report by McArthur productivity, maintain or enhance environmental sustain-
et al. (2017). At the national level, corn was the most ability, and improve human health (Yang et al. 2020), is
grown crop by smallholder farmers (18%), followed by vital. The findings of this study, supported by interviews
rice (7.60%) and casava (7.40%) (RDTL 2019). Crops and FGD (Table 1), show that farmers experienced
like areca nut (1.90%) and taro (2%) were less com- improved crop yields and livelihoods while contributing
mon. These crops help sustain farmers’ daily food needs. to ecosystem sustainability. For example, during the FGD
The traditional land use approach of integrating crops (Table 1, Photo 1), an older participant emphasized that
with trees is practical for farmers, as it aligns with long- growing trees provide immediate benefits, such as food
standing home garden practices passed down through and fuelwood, and long-term environmental benefits for

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 11 of 19 50

future generations, highlighting agroforestry’s role in erosion. Consequently, both intensive slash-and-burn
sustainable resource management (Lua et al. 2012). agriculture and overgrazed grassland cause soil erosion.
Trees in agroforestry systems hold significant poten-
tial for sequestering atmospheric carbon into the soil Soil erosion and crop responses to different land use
(Abbas et al. 2017; Tan and Kuebbing 2023), contribut-
ing to climate adaptation and mitigation (Godinho et al. Soil erosion studies from contrasting land uses showed
2023; Terasaki Hart et al. 2023). In this study, small- that increasing land use intensity with slash-and-burn
holder farmers used Agri-silviculture systems as the first significantly heightens vulnerability to erosion (Fig. 2).
option (Fig. 1). Agroforestry systems can increase soil While unsustainable land use and soil erosion are well-
C storage, which improves water-holding capacity and known issues in Timor-Leste, scientific evidence quanti-
structural stability (Baah-Acheamfour et al. 2015). In fying soil erosion is lacking. This study provides essen-
this study, smallholder farmers recognized the impor- tial data for decision-making and improved farmland
tance of trees in enhancing biodiversity, protecting soil management practices. The study found a 15-fold higher
from erosion, and improving soil fertility, all of which soil loss from slash-and-burn farmland (397.34 t/ha)
contribute to enhanced crop growth and yield consistent than improved fallow (26.96 t/ha/season) under an aver-
with a report by Hughes (2017). Fertile soil, identified by age rainfall of 1406 mm (country’s long-term average
traditional knowledge as ‘black soil,’ is crucial for main- rainfall from 1971 to 2020 is 1500 mm; https://​knoema.​
taining land productivity and aligns with the principles com/​atlas) (Fig. 2). Although soil loss from improved
of ethnopedology, which bridges natural and social sci- fallow was significantly higher than the less than 5 t/
ences by integrating local soil and land knowledge sys- ha/yr reported by Hancock et al. (2020), this discrep-
tems (Barrera-Bassols and Zinck 2003). Trees enrich soil ancy is attributed to differences in slope and rainfall.
carbon, microbial activity, and fertility through leaf litter, Increased maize cultivation intensity has been linked to
resulting in darker, more fertile topsoil. significant topsoil carbon loss (Bruun et al. 2017). The
Another critical aspect of integrating trees into farms current study’s sites had relatively steep slopes, averag-
is their provision of fuelwood for cooking (Table 1), ing 21.85% and 25.38% for fallow and slash-and-burn,
which is a significant cultural practice in rural areas, respectively. In rural areas with even steeper slopes, soil
similar to traditions in Brazil (Mazzone et al. 2021). In loss may be more severe.
Timor-Leste, the scarcity of firewood due to limited trees The study identified two critical stages in the early
in open areas has become a pressing issue. Integrating growing season that exacerbate soil erosion under slash-
trees into farms can help alleviate this shortage, poten- and-burn: (1) land exposure to rain detachment before
tially contributing to reduced deforestation (Alongi and rainfall and (2) land clearing for weeding approximately
Carvalho 2008; Paudel et al. 2022), which averages 1.7% two weeks after corn planting (Appendix, Photo 2).
annually (RDTL 2018) and has risen to 1.9% in recent Other factors influencing soil loss include slope length,
estimates (Chao and Lim 2023). Beyond firewood, rural runoff volume, and soil degradability (Ahmad et al.
communities also rely on timber for infrastructure, espe- 2020). Soil degradability in this context refers to condi-
cially for housing. Timber is essential for constructing tions that are vulnerable to soil erosion. Timor-Leste’s
traditional secret houses (called uma lulik or uma lisan), highly degradable soils and steep slopes contribute to
and some communities mentioned during FGD buy tim- significant soil loss. The study’s limited slope length
ber from over 50 km away, which is costly for locals. of 8 m indicates that real farm soil loss could be even
Therefore, reintroducing trees into farms positively higher, necessitating urgent attention to prevent soil ero-
impacts livelihoods, fuelwood, and infrastructure. sion with better farm management, which includes tillage
Trees also provide shade and fodder for livestock. and soil cover, can reduce erosion (Gusmao 2003; Ega-
As the population grows in the study area, farmers with shira et al. 2006). The study highlights the importance
livestock face challenges finding sufficient fodder. His- of soil erosion prevention measures, especially at least a
torically, when uncultivated land was abundant, animals month after the onset of rain (Fig. 2). As crops such as
were freely grazed. However, limited grazing land today corn, arrowroot, bean, and cassava grow, their leaves help
and overgrazing can lead to decreased grass productiv- mitigate raindrop impact and reduce soil erosion. This
ity (Wu et al. 2023; Xiang et al. 2024), increasing soil positive effect was evident from the slower progression
of cumulative soil erosion after the third soil collection

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 12 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

(Fig. 2). Agroforestry should be used to prevent soil ero- soybean (Table 4 and Fig. 3). However, the negative
sion through combining agroforestry with mixed farm- correlation between soybean harvest index and chicken
ing, fallow systems, or conservation agriculture. A study manure application under improved land use types (fal-
in southern Brazil by Silva et al. (2024) showed that crop low and slash-and-mulch), suggests limited biomass
rotation and cover crops effectively reduced soil erosion, translocation into seeds (Gusmao et al. 2012). Nonethe-
decreasing sedimentation yield by up to 38.40%. Imple- less, applying 8 g/plant chicken manure increased the
menting better land use and erosion control measures is number of soybean pods per plant by 65.62, 64.15, and
more cost-effective than land restoration and rehabilita- 41.94% for fallow, slash-and-mulch and slash-and-burn,
tion, which can cost up to $15,221 per hectare, depend- respectively, compared to controls (Fig. 3B). This finding
ing on the severity of the degradation (Sulaeman and indicates improved but not optimal soil fertility under fal-
Westhoff 2020; Thevathasan et al 2023). low and slash-and-mulch. A similar growth response was
Pot studies demonstrated a strong relationship noted in okra (Table 4). The application rates of NPK fer-
between different land uses, soil erosion, and growth and tilizer and chicken manure in slash-and-burn soils were
yield (Tables 4 and 5; Fig. 3). The results indicated that far from optimal, aligning with Hou et al. (2014), who
soil from slash-and-burn sites had significantly lower reported that conventional chemical fertilization did not
fertility than fallow and slash-and-mulch sites, which enhance soil biological status or counterbalance fertility
supported better growth and yield of okra and soybean. loss due to soil erosion from slash-and-burn practices,
These findings highlight that intensive farming practices, potentially decreasing of soil bacterial community com-
such as slash-and-burn, lead to substantial soil erosion position (Liu et al. 2020).
and nutrient losses, resulting in reduced crop growth This study underscores the significant impact of slash-
and yields (Sulaeman and Westhoff 2020; Ahmad et al. and-burn farming on topsoil loss, leading to reduced
2020). These losses are reflected in decreased above- soil fertility and compromised crop growth and yield.
ground biomass, fresh fruit yield, harvest index, and Importantly, the farmers’ views aligned with the posi-
WUE observed in okra plants (Table 4). Improved okra tive impact of agroforestry on crop yields and environ-
and soybean yields under fallow and slash-and-mulch mental sustainability. Evidence from the pot experiments
conditions suggest that these practices enhance soil supports this, indicating that agroforestry through fallow
physical properties and fertility, consistent with Baah- systems or other methods like conservation agriculture
Acheamfour et al. (2015), who reported improved crop enhances land productivity and sustainability. Farm-
yields from better soil management. Intercropping agro- ers can choose from various sustainable farming tech-
forestry with maize increased maize yields by 16% in niques—such as fallow systems (Baier et al. 2023), slash-
subtropical and tropical regions (Baier et al. 2023). A and-mulch (Egashira et al. 2006), cover crops (Tan and
five-year rotational cycle of maize-Mucuna in the low- Kuebbing 2023), crop rotation (Xiao et al. 2022), contour
land of Timor-Leste increased maize yield by 1.25 t/ha tillage, ridge farming, and reduced tillage—to reduce soil
(Correia et al. 2014). Similarly, intercropping cassava erosion (Huang et al. 2022) while maintaining land pro-
with acacia trees increased total biomass, doubling when ductivity, food security, and environmental sustainability
spaced 5 m × 2 m (Lua et al. 2012). Integrating legumes (Zhao et al. 2024). Long-term conservation agriculture
into agroforestry systems is cost-effective and comple- offers numerous benefits, including improved soil health,
ments low-input farming systems, ensuring sustainable higher rainwater use efficiency, climate change mitigation
soil and land management and ecosystem services (Bado and adaptation, enhanced biodiversity, increased resil-
et al. 2021). It is essential to extend pot experiments in ience to climate shocks, higher economic returns, and
other agroforestry types existing in Timor-Leste for a bet- more leisure time for farmers (Jat et al. 2012). Among
ter understanding of their impact on soil productivity. these options, agroforestry appears particularly feasible
The low growth and yield of crops due to erosion are for smallholder farmers due to its additional benefits,
attributed to loss of rooting depth, soil structure degra- including fuelwood, fodder, and timber for infrastructure.
dation, reduced plant-available water, decreased organic Ensuring adequate soil cover at the onset of rain is cru-
matter, and nutrient imbalances (Lal and Moldenhauer cial for these land use options.
1987; Baah-Acheamfour et al. 2015). The pot experi-
ments showed that the addition of NPK and chicken
manure improved the growth and yield of okra and

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 13 of 19 50

Research limitations food and income security, improved soil health, animal
feed and fuelwood provision, and environmental and
We acknowledge the significant challenges encoun- biodiversity sustainability contributions. Measurements
tered during the fieldwork. The following limitations of soil loss and plant production highlighted the positive
were noted: impacts of agroforestry: reduced soil erosion by approxi-
mately 15-fold with the fallow system compared to slash-
• Field soil erosion measurements Measuring soil ero- and-burn practices and increased crop growth and yields
sion was labor-intensive. Setting up plot edges with with fallow and slash-and-mulch agroforestry systems.
bamboo to prevent incoming and outflow runoff This study provides crucial baseline data and fundamen-
(Photo 2) was particularly challenging, especially in tal guidance for advancing land management practices
the undisturbed fallow system plots, where access in Timor-Leste, supporting sustainable agriculture and
was limited. The bumpy or uneven ground surface environmental stewardship. Soil productivity through
further complicated the bamboo installation. To miti- pot experiments and soil erosion across different agrofor-
gate these issues, we carefully entered undisturbed estry systems in Timor-Leste remains to be studied in the
fallow plots and raised the ground surface to ensure future.
the bamboo edges fit correctly, preventing water or
soil inflow and outflow. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Aus-
tralian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
• Collecting eroded soil after rain In the tropical Alumni Research Support Facility (ARSF2) project (Grant
rainforest environment, there were rare instances numbers C002084-018). We sincerely thank Mrs. Cecilia
when rainfall lasted an entire day or even over- Maria Gusmᾶo Soares and her spouse, Mr. Filipe dos Santos
night. During these periods, field staff had to be Conceiҫᾶo, for permitting us to use their farm for this study.
Mrs. Soares was instrumental in coordinating the interviews
on standby to regularly collect the eroded soil to and FGD with her previous and current team project members.
prevent overflow from the plastic buckets installed We also appreciate Mr. Julio F. Gusmᾶo for his dedicated work
in each erosion plot. Fortunately, the field staff during the field research and Mr. Belarmino da Costa’s tem-
member stationed nearby (~ 500 m away) regu- porary fieldwork. We acknowledge Mrs. Doanata O. de Araujo
and Mr. José Adriano Marҫal who took part as co-supervisors
larly managed this task throughout the field ero- to Mr. Zevacio Fernandes and Mr. Juvencio dos Santos’ pot
sion experiment. experiments for their Bachelor degree in Agronomy. We thank
• Absence of nearby weather station The lack of Dr. Ian Nuberg of the University of Adelaide for his valuable
a nearby weather station posed a challenge in input at the initial research stage. Special thanks to Mr. Celes-
tino Luis Moreira, head of the Soil Laboratory Department at
obtaining additional rainfall data. However, the the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, for providing access
rain data collected around the research plots were to laboratory facilities. Finally, this manuscript was written
comparable to the long-term rainfall records. during the first author’s visit to IOWA State University, USA,
• Transportation of soil for pot experiments Trans- supported by a Fulbright Research Fellowship.
porting soil for the pot experiments was labor-
Author’s contribution Study design: MG; conduct research:
intensive due to the inaccessible road leading to MG, ZF, JdS; data collection and analysis: MG, ZF, JdS; writ-
the research site (~ 400 m away). ing and critical review and editing: MG, KHMS, AVS.
• Lack of controlled environment greenhouse Since
there was no controlled environment greenhouse, Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed
during the current study.
the pot experiments were conducted in a trans-
parent plastic house, which may have introduced Declarations
some environmental variability.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing inter-
ests.
Conclusion

This study confirms that farmers experienced improved

production and outcomes from incorporating trees into Appendix
their farming systems, leading to a strong interest in rep-
licating agroforestry practices. Agroforestry adoption See Photos 1, 2, 3, 4.
was driven by numerous benefits, including enhanced

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 14 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

Photo 1  Focus group

discussion activities

Photo 2  Establishment of soil erosion sites for (A) slash-and- Bamboo installed in the down part of the plot was half opened
burn and (B) fallow. Each plot measured 4 m wide × 8 m long, and installed at a slight downward angle to accommodate
sloping downward to allow rainwater flow. The plots were inflow water plus eroded soil into a plastic bucket installed at
edged with bamboo to prevent incoming and outflow runoff. the end

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 15 of 19 50

Photo 3  Okra plant

appearance on different
land use types versus NPK
application at different NPK
treatment levels

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 16 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

Photo 4  Soybean plant

appearance on different land
use types versus chicken
manure application at dif-
ferent treatment levels

References 255(3–4):1359–1366. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​foreco.​

2007.​10.​051
Abbas F, Hammad HM, Fahad S, Cerdà A, Rizwan M, Farhad Ananda J, Herath G (2003) Soil erosion in developing coun-
W, Ehsan S, Bakhat HF (2017) Agroforestry: a sustain- tries: a socio-economic appraisal. J Environ Manage
able environmental practice for carbon sequestration 68(4):343–353. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0301-​4797(03)​
under the climate change scenarios — A review. Environ 00082-3
Sci Pollut Res 24:11177–11191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Andriatsitohaina RNN, Laby P, Llopis JC, Martin DA
s11356-​017-​8687-0 (2024) Agroforestry in Madagascar: past, present,
Ahmad NSBN, Mustafa FB, Yusoff SYM, Didams G (2020) and future. Agroforest Syst. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
A systematic review of soil erosion control practices on s10457-​024-​00975-y
the agricultural land in Asia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res Antle JM, Ray S (2020) Challenges of sustainable agricul-
8(2):103–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​2020.​04.​001 ture in developing countries. In: Sustainable Agricultural
Alongi DM, de Carvalho NA (2008) The effect of small-scale Development. Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics
logging on stand characteristics and soil biogeochemistry and Food Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://​doi.​
in mangrove forests of Timor-Leste. For Ecol Manage org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​34599-0_4.

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 17 of 19 50

Baah-Acheamfour M, Chang SX, Carlyle CN, Bork EW (2015) - Knowledge Sharing Platform on Resilience| Food and
Carbon pool size and stability are affected by trees and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (fao.org)
grassland cover types within agroforestry systems of Farooq M, Siddique KHM (2015) Conservation Agriculture:
Western Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ 213:105–113. Concepts, Brief History, and Impacts on Agricultural
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​agee.​2015.​07.​016 Systems. In: Farooq M, Siddique KHM (eds) Conserva-
Bado VB, Whitbread A, Manzo MLS (2021) Improving agri- tion Agriculture. Springer, Cham. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
cultural productivity using agroforestry systems: perfor- 978-3-​319-​11620-4_1
mance of millet, cowpea, and ziziphus-based cropping Godinho M, Artati Y, Bhatta KP, Maulana AM, Baral H, Fin-
systems in West Africa Sahel. Agric Ecosyst Environ. layson RF (2023) Agroforestry manual for Timor-Leste.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​agee.​2020.​107175 Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry
Baier C, Gross A, Thevs N, Glaser B (2023) Effects of agro- Research (CIFOR) and Nairobi, Kenya: World Agrofor-
forestry on grain yield of maize (Zea mays L.) - A global estry (ICRAF). Agroforestry manual for Timor-Leste
meta-analysis. Front Sustain Food Syst Sec Agroecol Eco- v2.pdf (afocosec.org)
syst Serv. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fsufs.​2023.​11676​86 Gusmao M, Siddique KHM, Flower K, Nesbitt H, Veneklaas EJ
Barrera-Bassols N, Zinck JA (2003) Ethnopedology: a world- (2012) Water deficit during reproductive period of grass
wide view on the soil knowledge of local people. Geo- pea (Latyrus sativus L.) reduced seed yield but maintained
derma 111(3–4):171–195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0016-​ seed size. J Agron Crop Sci 198:430–441. https://​doi.​org/​
7061(02)​00263-X 10.​1111/j.​1439-​037X.​2012.​00513.x/​abstr​act
Boix-Fayos C, Martínez-Mena M, Arnau-Rosalén E, Calvo- Gusmao M (2003) Soil conservation strategies and policies
Cases A, Castillo V, Albaladejo J (2006) Measuring soil for East Timor. A literature review was submitted for the
erosion by field plots: understanding the sources of vari- Master of Science in Soil Management and Conservation.
ation. Earth Sci Rev 78(3–4):267–285. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. soil-con-
1016/j.​earsc​irev.​2006.​05.​005 servation-strategies-and-policies-for-east-timorpdf_com-
Bruun TB, de Neergaard A, Burup ML, Hepp CM, Larsen MN, press.pdf
Abel C, Aumtong S, Magid J, Mertz O (2017) Intensifi- Gusmao M (2010) Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus cv. Ceora):
cation of upland agriculture in Thailand: development or adaptation to water deficit and benefit in crop rotation. A
degradation? Land Degrad. Develop 28:83–94. https://​doi.​ Ph.D. dissertation of the University of Western Australia,
org/​10.​1002/​ldr.​2596 Perth, Australia
Chao W, Lim C-H (2023) Simplified and high accessibil- Hancock GR, Ovenden M, Sharma K, Rowlands W, Gibson A,
ity approach for the rapid assessment of deforestation Wells T (2020) Soil erosion – The impact of grazing and
in developing countries: a case of Timor-Leste. Remote regrowth trees. Geoderma. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​
Sens. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​rs151​84636 rma.​2019.​114102
Cogné M, Lescuyer G (2024) The role of agroforestry in farm- Hermans K, McLeman R (2021) Climate change, drought, land
ers’ strategies and its contribution to the well-being of degradation and migration: exploring the linkages. Curr
rural people in Timor-Leste. Forests Trees Livelihoods Opin Environ Sustain 50:236–244. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
33(1):42–67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14728​028.​2023.​ 1016/j.​cosust.​2021.​04.​013
22989​86 Hou S, Xin M, Wang L, Jiang H, Li N, Wang Z (2014) The
Correia MV, Pereira LCR, Almeida LD, Williams RL, Freach effects of erosion on the microbial populations and
J, Nesbitt H, Erskine W (2014) Maize-mucuna (Mucuna enzyme activity in black soil of northeastern China. Acta
pruriens (L.) DC) relay intercropping in the lowland trop- Ecol Sin 34(6):295–301. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chnaes.​
ics of Timor-Leste. Field Crop Res 156:272–280. https://​ 2014.​10.​001
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fcr.​2013.​10.​011 Huang B, Yuan Z, Zheng M, Liao Y, Nguyen KL, Nguyen TH,
Do H, Whitney C, La N, Storm H, Luedeling E (2024) Sombatpanit S, Li D (2022) Soil and water conservation
Adapting agroforestry to upland farming systems: nar- techniques in tropical and Subtropical Asia: a review. Sus-
ratives from smallholder farmers in Northwest Viet- tainability. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su140​95035
nam. Agron Sustain Dev 44:17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Hughes AC (2017) Understanding the drivers of Southeast
s13593-​024-​00954-8 Asian biodiversity loss. Sphere. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
Egashira K, Gusmao M, Kurosawa K (2006) The present and ecs2.​1624
future land management in Timor-Leste – from “slash Huxley P, van Houten H (2001) Overstory #75 - Glossary for
and burn” to “slash and mulch.” J Fac Agric Kyushu Univ agroforestry practices. Agroforestry: Trees of Life, Trees
51(2):367–372. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5109/​9255 for Life. https://​agrof​orest​ry.​org/​the-​overs​tory/​188-​overs​
FAO (2023) Champion of Conservation Agriculture in Timor- tory-​75-​gloss​ary-​for-​agrof​orest​ry-​pract​ices#
Leste. From staunch opponent to leading champion of ICRAF (2020) Improved fallows. The Food and Agriculture
Conservation Agriculture in Timor-Leste (fao.org) Organization of the United Nations, Kenya. https://​www.​
FAO (2021) Conservation Agriculture (CA) model in Timor- fao.​org/​teca/​en/​techn​ologi​es/​7769
Leste |KORE - Knowledge Sharing Platform on Resil- Islam S, Miah MAH (2010) Conservation agriculture and sus-
ience| Food and Agriculture Organization of the United tainable cropping systems in Bangladesh. In: Govaerts B
Nations (fao.org) and Vaghi F (eds). Compendium of deliverables of the
FAO (2019) Implementing conservation agriculture under a conservation agriculture course. International Maize and
sustainable food value chain approach in Kenya |KORE Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)

Vol.: (0123456789)
 50 Page 18 of 19 Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50

Iqbal R, Raza MAS, Valipour M, Saleem MF, Zaheer MS, research. J Land Use Sci 16(5–6):479–497. https://​doi.​org/​
Ahmad S, Toleikiene M, Haider I, Aslam MU, Nazar MA 10.​1080/​17474​23X.​2021.​20154​71
(2020) Potential agricultural and environmental benefits Paudel S, Baral H, Rojario A, Bhatta KP, Artati Y (2022)
of mulches — a review. Bull Natl Res Cent 44:75. https://​ Agroforestry: opportunities and challenges in Timor-
doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s42269-​020-​00290-3 Leste. Forests. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​f1301​0041
Jat RA, Wani SP, Sahrawat KL (2012) Chapter Four - Conser- RDTL (2017) Timor-Leste 6­ th National Report to the United
vation agriculture in the Semi-Arid Tropics: Prospects Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD).
and Problems, Editor(s): Donald L. Sparks, Advances in CBD Sixth National Report - Timor-Leste (English
Agronomy, Academic Press 117:191–273. https://​doi.​org/​ version)
10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​394278-​4.​00004-0 RDTL (2018) Final Country Report of the Land Degradation
Kassa G (2022) Agroforestry as a pathway to climate-smart Neutrality Target Setting Programme in Timor-Leste.
agribusiness: challenges and opportunities to smallholder Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Timor-Leste LDN
farmers in developing countries. Res Square. https://​doi.​ TSP Country Report.pdf (unccd.int)
org/​10.​21203/​rs.3.​rs-​184084/​v2 RDTL (2019) GDS-MoF, Timor-Leste Agriculture Census.
Lal R, Moldenhauer WC (1987) Effects of soil erosion on crop TLS_REP_ENG_2019.pdf
productivity. Crit Rev Plant Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ Rosas MA, Gutierrez RR (2020) Assessing soil erosion risk at
07352​68870​93822​44 national scale in developing countries: the technical chal-
Leemann E, Nikles B (2017) Giving up fallows and indigenous lenges, a proposed methodology, and a case history. Sci
swiddens in times of global land grabbing. In: Cairns M Total Environ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​
(ed) Shifting cultivation policies: balancing environmental 135474
and social sustainability, CABI Digital Library, pp 618– Rosas MA, Vanacker V, Viveen W, Gutierrez RR, Huggel C
635. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1079/​97817​86391​797.​0618. (2020) The potential impact of climate variability on sil-
Liu T, Wu X, Li H, Alharbi H, Wang J, Dang P, Chen X, tation of Andean reservoirs. J Hydrol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Kuzyakov Y, Yan W (2020) Soil organic matter, nitrogen 1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2019.​124396
and pH driven change in bacterial community following Silva TP, Bressiani D, Ebling ÉD, Reichert JM (2024) Best
forest conversion. Forest Ecol Manag. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ management practices to reduce soil erosion and change
1016/j.​foreco.​2020.​118473 water balance components in watersheds under grain and
Lua HT, Thang TN, Binh NQ, Hung TV, Thanh GT, Cata- dairy production. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 12(1):121–
cutan DC (2012) Potential tree-crop combinations for 136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​2023.​06.​003
conservation agriculture with trees in Vietnam. In: Sulaeman D, Westhoff T (2020) The causes and effects of soil
Hauswirth D, Sen PT, Nicetic O, Tivet F, Doanh LQ, erosion, and how to resolve it. World Resources Institute
Van de Fliert E, Kirchhof G, et al. (Eds) Conservation (wri.org). https://​www.​wri.​org/​insig​hts/​causes-​and-​effec​
agriculture and sustainable upland livelihoods: Inno- ts-​soil-​erosi​on-​and-​how-​preve​nt-​it#
vations for, with and by farmers to adapt to local and Syuaib MF (2016) Sustainable agriculture in Indonesia: facts
global changes, 183–185. Hanoi, Vietnam: CIRAD and challenges to keep. Growing in harmony with envi-
NOMAFSI University of Queensland. https://​world​agrof​ ronment. Agric Eng Int: CIGR J 18(2):170–184. https://​
orest​r y.​org/​publi​c ation/​poten​tial-​tree-​crop-​combi​natio​ cigrj​ournal.​org/​index.​php/​Ejoun​ral/​artic​le/​view/​3747
ns-​conse​r vati​on-​agric​ulture-​trees-​cawt-​vietn​am Taherdoost H (2022) Designing a questionnaire for a research
Mausolff C, Farber S (1995) An economic analysis of eco- paper: a comprehensive guide to design and develop an
logical agricultural technologies among peasant farmers effective questionnaire’. Asian J Manag Sci 11(1):8–16.
in Honduras. Ecol Econ 12(3):237–248. https://​doi.​org/​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​51983/​ajms-​2022.​11.1.​3087
10.​1016/​0921-​8009(94)​00055-Z Tamhane RV, Subbiah BV (1962) Correlation of soil tests with
Mazzone A, Cruz T, Bezerra P (2021) Firewood in the for- pot and field trials in the evaluation of soil fertility. Soil
est: Social practices, culture, and energy transitions in a Sci Plant Nutr 8(3):5–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00380​
remote village of the Brazilian Amazon. Energy Res Soc 768.​1962.​10430​991
Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​erss.​2021.​101980 Tan SSX, Kuebbing SE (2023) A synthesis of the effect of
McArthur HJ, Friday JB, Jones MJ (2017) Changing patterns regenerative agriculture on soil carbon sequestration
of shifting cultivation in Timor-Leste. In: Cairns M (ed) in Southeast Asian croplands. Agric Ecosyst Environ.
Shifting cultivation policies: balancing environmental and https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​agee.​2023.​108450
social sustainability, CABI Digital Library, pp 502–516 Terasaki Hart DE, Yeo S, Almaraz M, Beillouin D, Cardi-
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1079/​97817​86391​797.​0502 nael R, Garcia E, Kay S, Lovell ST, Rosenstock TS,
McLaughlin A, Mineau P (1995) The impact of agricultural Sprenkle-Hyppolite S, Stolle F, Suber M, Thapa B,
practices on biodiversity. Agr Ecosyst Environ 55:201– Wood S, Cook-Patton SC (2023) Priority science can
212. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0167-​8809(95)​00609-V accelerate agroforestry as a natural climate solution. Nat
Nair PKR (2005) Agroforestry. In: Editor(s): Hillel D (Ed) Clim Chang 13:1179–1190. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment, Elsevier, pp s41558-​023-​01810-5
35–44. ISBN 9780123485304. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​ Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM, Nair PKR (2023) Agroforestry.
B0-​12-​348530-​4/​00244-7 In: Goss MJ, Oliver M (Eds) Encyclopedia of Soils in
Oliveira E, Meyfroidt P (2021) Strategic land-use planning the Environment, ­2nd Edn. Academic Press, Oxford, pp
instruments in tropical regions: state of the art and future 68–87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​822974-​3.​
00269-X

Vol:. (1234567890)
Agroforest Syst (2025) 99:50 Page 19 of 19 50

Velasco-Muñoz JF, Aznar-Sánchez JA, López-Felices Global Ecol Conserv. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gecco.​

B, García-Arca D (2021) 8 - Sustainable land use and 2020.​e01118
management. Sustainable Resource Management, Modern Zhao Y, Guo S, Zhu X, Zhang L, Long Y, Wan X, Wei X
Approaches and Contexts, pp. 179–197. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ (2024) How maize-legume intercropping and rotation
1016/​B978-0-​12-​824342-​8.​00015-8 contribute to food security and environmental sustainabil-
Wu Y, Du Y, Liu X, Wan X, Yin B, Hao Y, Wang Y (2023) ity. J Clean Prod. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2023.​
Grassland biodiversity response to livestock grazing, pro- 140150
ductivity, and climate varies across biome components
and diversity measurements. Sci Total Environ. https://​ Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2023.​162994 to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
Xiang Q, Yu H, Huang H, Yan DM, Yu CZ, Wang Y, Xiong Z affiliations.
(2024) The impact of grazing activities and environmental
conditions on the stability of alpine grassland ecosystems.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
J Environ Manag. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2024.​
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
121176
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
Xiao H, van Es HM, Chen Y, Wang B, Zhao Y, Sui P (2022)
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
Crop rotational diversity influences wheat–maize produc-
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
tion through soil legacy effects in the North China Plain.
and applicable law.
Int J Plant Prod 16:415–427. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s42106-​022-​00198-0
Yang T, Siddique KHM, Liu K (2020) Cropping systems
in agriculture and their impact on soil health-a review.

Vol.: (0123456789)

View publication stats