Paper · 2019 · Agritrop (Cirad)

Shade tree species with Ca-enriched litter improve cocoa agroforest functions in Central Cameroon

Marie Sauvadet; Stéphane Saj; Grégoire T. Freschet; et al.

18
claims
36
verbatim quotes
0
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Associating shade trees to cocoa plantations supply many services to farmers, yet their contrasting impacts on soil fertility in relation to their traits remains little understood (Blaser et al., 2017). In 2017, 6 cocoa shading modalities of cocoa were studied across 8 farmers' plots (Bokito district, Cameroon): unshaded, shaded with Canarium schweinfurthii, Dacryoides edulis, Milicia excelsa, Ceiba pentandra and Albizia adianthifolia. For each shading modality, we analyzed the plant association community values of: litterfall; N and P resorption efficiency; litter C, macronutrients and tannins content; Van Soest fractions and litter pH. We measured soil C, N, NO3 -, NH4 +, Olsen P, pH, bioassay and cocoa yield. Shade tree – cocoa association increased total litterfall for all the species without impacting on cocoa yield. Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes. Soil properties were not impacted by Canarium and Dacryodes, while Albizia, Milicia and Ceiba increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassays (Fig 1). Finally, soil pH and total C and N content increased under Milicia and Ceiba, leading to the highest increase in soil fertility. Multiple regression models suggested a critical role of litter Ca to improve soil fertility in such systems. Using shade trees like Milicia or Ceiba with high Ca cycling should thus be advised to farmers to improve their system.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 18

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Each shade tree association increased total litterfall.

Treatment
Shade tree – cocoa associatione0
Outcome
total litterfalle0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Shade tree – cocoa association increased total litterfall for all the species without impacting on cocoa yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 722–833 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shade tree association did not impact cocoa yield.

Treatment
Shade tree – cocoa associatione0
Outcome
cocoa yielde0
Direction
without impactinge0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Shade tree – cocoa association increased total litterfall for all the species without impacting on cocoa yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 722–833 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Albizia shading had higher litter N.

Treatment
Albiziae0
Interactor
AlbiziaAlbiziae0other
Outcome
litter Ne0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Albizia
Albizia · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryAlfredo F. Fuentes Claros · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Milicia shading had higher litter P.

Treatment
Miliciae0
Interactor
MiliciaMiliciae0other
Outcome
litter Pe0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ceiba shading had higher litter P.

Treatment
Ceibae0
Interactor
CeibaCeibae0other
Outcome
litter Pe0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ceiba
Ceiba · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Milicia shading had higher Ca.

Treatment
Miliciae0
Interactor
MiliciaMiliciae0other
Outcome
Cae0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ceiba shading had higher Ca.

Treatment
Ceibae0
Interactor
CeibaCeibae0other
Outcome
Cae0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ceiba
Ceiba · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canarium shading had lower litter pH.

Treatment
Canariume0
Interactor
Canariume0other
Outcome
litter pHe0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dacryodes shading had lower litter pH.

Treatment
Dacryodese0
Interactor
DacryodesDacryodese0other
Outcome
litter pHe0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Dacryodes
Dacryodes · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Own work · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further, litter N was higher with Albizia, while litter P and Ca were higher with Milicia and Ceiba and litter pH was lower with Canarium and Dacryodes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–986 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canarium shade had no reported impact on soil properties.

Treatment
Canariume0
Interactor
Canariume0other
Outcome
Soil propertiese0
Direction
not impactede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties were not impacted by Canarium and Dacryodes, while Albizia, Milicia and Ceiba increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassays (Fig 1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1144 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dacryodes shade had no reported impact on soil properties.

Treatment
Dacryodese0
Interactor
DacryodesDacryodese0other
Outcome
Soil propertiese0
Direction
not impactede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Dacryodes
Dacryodes · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Own work · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties were not impacted by Canarium and Dacryodes, while Albizia, Milicia and Ceiba increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassays (Fig 1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1144 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Albizia shade increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassay results.

Treatment
Albiziae0
Interactor
AlbiziaAlbiziae0other
Outcome
soil inorganic N and P content and bioassayse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Albizia
Albizia · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryAlfredo F. Fuentes Claros · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties were not impacted by Canarium and Dacryodes, while Albizia, Milicia and Ceiba increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassays (Fig 1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1144 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Milicia shade increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassay results.

Treatment
Miliciae0
Interactor
MiliciaMiliciae0other
Outcome
soil inorganic N and P content and bioassayse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties were not impacted by Canarium and Dacryodes, while Albizia, Milicia and Ceiba increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassays (Fig 1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1144 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ceiba shade increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassay results.

Treatment
Ceibae0
Interactor
CeibaCeibae0other
Outcome
soil inorganic N and P content and bioassayse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ceiba
Ceiba · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil properties were not impacted by Canarium and Dacryodes, while Albizia, Milicia and Ceiba increased soil inorganic N and P content and bioassays (Fig 1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1144 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Milicia shade increased soil pH and total C and N content and yielded the greatest soil fertility increase.

Treatment
Miliciae0
Interactor
MiliciaMiliciae0other
Outcome
soil pH and total C and N contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Finally, soil pH and total C and N content increased under Milicia and Ceiba, leading to the highest increase in soil fertility.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1145–1273 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ceiba shade increased soil pH and total C and N content and yielded the greatest soil fertility increase.

Treatment
Ceibae0
Interactor
CeibaCeibae0other
Outcome
soil pH and total C and N contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ceiba
Ceiba · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Finally, soil pH and total C and N content increased under Milicia and Ceiba, leading to the highest increase in soil fertility.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1145–1273 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Regression models suggested litter Ca has a critical role in improving soil fertility.

Compound
litter Cae0
Outcome
soil fertilitye0
Qualifier
critical rolee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Multiple regression models suggested a critical role of litter Ca to improve soil fertility in such systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1274–1382 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Farmers should use shade trees such as Milicia or Ceiba with high Ca cycling to improve their systems.

Outcome
Using shade trees like Milicia or Ceiba with high Ca cyclinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Theobroma cacao
Theobroma cacao · TaxonLuisovalles · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Using shade trees like Milicia or Ceiba with high Ca cycling should thus be advised to farmers to improve their system.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1502 · show in text ↑
t0

“cocoa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑

shade · yield · Theobroma cacao (cocoa)Results differ

16 papers: 10 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.