Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Agroecological assessment of silvi-horticultural land-use systems in Theni District, Tamil Nadu: Economic performance and ecosystem services

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.16450
Submitted
30 June 2026
Published
28-09-2026

Abstract

The silvi-horticultural system, a key agroforestry practice integrating fruit-bearing trees with understorey horticultural crops, delivers significant multidimensional benefits, including economic returns and ecological services. This study presents a comprehensive economic valuation and ecosystem services documentation of the silvi-horticultural system as practised by 40 farmers across five taluks of Theni District, Tamil Nadu. Data were collected through a structured pilot survey administered in May 2026, covering socioeconomic profiling, land and system details, cost-and-return analysis using the farm-budget methodology and a four-category ecosystem services documentation framework encompassing provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services. Results indicate that the system generates a mean total gross return (GR) of ₹118913 per acre (95 % confidence interval (CI): ₹106276–131551) against a total cost of cultivation (TC) of ₹66682 per acre, yielding a benefit–cost ratio (BCR) of 1.82 over total cost (95 % CI: 1.60–2.04) and 2.57 over variable cost (95 % CI: 2.25–2.89), both significantly above the economic-viability threshold of 1.0 (one-sample t-test, p < 0.001). Net returns over total cost averaged ₹52231 per acre (95 % CI: ₹38612–65850), significantly greater than zero        (p < 0.001). Ecologically, farmers reported shade provision on 97.5 % of farms, temperature reduction on 90.0 %, reduced soil erosion on 82.5 % and increased bird species richness on 80.0 % of farms. These are self-reported perceptions rather than independently measured effects and should be interpreted with the recall-bias and no-control-group caveats detailed in the discussion. The dominant species combination mango (Mangifera indica L.) and jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.) as tree components and cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum (L.) Maton) and pepper (Piper nigrum L.) as intercrops, represents an ecologically complementary and economically productive arrangement well-suited to the foothills of the Western Ghats in Theni District.

References

  1. 1. Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, Ahrends A, Bossio D, Trabucco A, et al. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):29987. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
  2. 2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press; 2005.
  3. 3. Nair PKR. An introduction to agroforestry. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, in cooperation with International Centre for Research in Agroforestry; 1993.
  4. 4. Kumar BM. Species richness and aboveground carbon stocks in the homegardens of central Kerala, India. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2011;140(3–4):430–40.
  5. 5. Nair P. Carbon sequestration studies in agroforestry systems: a reality-check. Agrofor Syst. 2012;86(2):243–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9434-z
  6. 6. Bhagwat SA, Willis KJ, Birks HJB, Whittaker RJ. Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23(5):261–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.005
  7. 7. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403(6772):853–8. http://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
  8. 8. Spices Board of India. Area and production statistics of spices. Kochi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India; 2019.
  9. 9. Dhyani S, Ram A, Newaj R, Handa A, Dev I. Agroforestry for carbon sequestration in tropical India. In: Carbon management in tropical and sub-tropical terrestrial systems. Springer; 2019. p. 313–31.
  10. 10. Newaj R, Chaturvedi O, Handa A. Recent development in agroforestry research and its role in climate change adaptation and mitigation. Indian J Agrofor. 2016;18(1):1–9.
  11. 11. Government of India (GoI). National agroforestry policy 2014. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation; 2014.
  12. 12. Jose S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst. 2009;76(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
  13. 13. Verchot LV, Van Noordwijk M, Kandji S, Tomich T, Ong C, Albrecht A, et al. Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2007;12(5):901–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9105-6
  14. 14. Young A. Agroforestry for soil management. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851991894.0000
  15. 15. Harvey CA, Medina A, Sánchez DM, Vílchez S, Hernández B, Saenz JC, et al. Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl. 2006;16(5):1986–99. http://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1986:POADID]2.0.CO;2
  16. 16. Calder IR, Rosier PT, Prasanna KT, Parameswarappa S. Eucalyptus water use greater than rainfall input—possible explanation from southern India. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 1997;1(2):249–56. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-1-249-1997
  17. 17. Dagar JC, Tewari VP. Agroforestry: anecdotal to modern science. Springer; 2018.
  18. 18. Garrity DP, Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, Weldesemayat SG, Mowo JG, Kalinganire A, et al. Evergreen agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Secur. 2010;2(3):197–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0070-7
  19. 19. Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Ajayi OC, Place F. Meta-analysis of maize yield response to planted legume fallows and green manures in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Soil. 2008;307:1–19.
  20. 20. Murthy IK, Gupta M, Tomar S, Munsi M, Tiwari R, Hegde G, et al. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India. J Earth Sci Clim Change. 2013;4(1):1–7.
  21. 21. Pandey DN. Multifunctional agroforestry systems in India. Curr Sci. 2007;455–63.
  22. 22. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Michener CD. Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101(34):12579–82. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405147101
  23. 23. Berkes F. Sacred ecology. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2012. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123843
  24. 24. IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; 2019.
  25. 25. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU). Package of practices for mango-based intercropping systems. Coimbatore: TNAU Extension Publication; 2020.
  26. 26. Rana MT. Productivity analysis of mango-based agroforestry systems in the Madhupur Sal Forest of Bangladesh. Eur J Agric Food Sci. 2022;4(2):24–9.
  27. 27. Singh V, Raj A, Jhariya MK, Thakur S. Economic evaluation of agroforestry and non-agroforestry systems in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Vegetos. 2022;35(3):810–5. http://doi.org/10.1007/s42535-022-00348-9
  28. 28. Masiero M, Pettenella D, Boscolo M, Barua SK, Animon I, Matta J. Valuing forest ecosystem services: a training manual for planners and project developers. Vol. 11. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2019.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.