Advances in Forage Legumes:
Shrub Legumes
by
H.M. Shelton
School of Land and Food Sciences, The University of
Queensland, Australia
Presented at the 19th International
Grassland Congress, 10-21 February 2001, Sao Pedro, Brazil
"It is a humbling fact for grass
pasture experts to realize that probably more animals feed on shrubs and trees, or on
associations in which trees and shrubs play an important part, than on true grass-legume
pastures"
CAB Publication No. 10 (1947)

|
Abstract
Forage tree legumes benefit agriculture through their
multi-purpose contributions to livestock feeding, to productivity of farming systems, and
to protection of the environment.
Of the several hundred forage tree legume species
regarded as having potential for forage only about twenty are in common use. These are listed
together with their agroecological range and tolerance of adverse environments including
acid soils, cool temperatures, low rainfall, poor drainage and high salinity. The value of
many species to ruminants is limited due to low nutritive value arising from low protein
availability and low acceptability caused principally by high condensed tannin content.
Only 10 of the 20 listed species are considered to have a high nutritive value viz. Albizia
lebbeck, Chamaecytisus palmensis, Cratylia argentea, Desmodium rensonii, Desmanthus
virgatus, Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena leucocephala, Leucaena diversifolia, Sesbania
grandiflora,and Sesbania sesban.
The germplasm in commercial use worldwide is often
inferior and with a narrow genetic base. The need for farmer access to a greater diversity
of planting material and improved varieties through better distribution systems is
highlighted. However, plant improvement is often limited due to taxonomic confusion in
many genera e.g. Albizia, Prosopis, and farmer access to new varieties is limited
by lack of information and lack of resources to purchase high quality seeds. There is
debate over whether to use fast growing exotic species or slower growing native species.
There are as many as 150-200 M people use Gliricidia sepium worldwide but there is
minimal use in its native range. Conversely, native Acacia communities are
over-exploited in their native range with minimal use elsewhere. Conservation of native
range is critical and in situ, ex situ and circa situm approaches are
suggested. Issues of weediness potential are paramount when using exotic species requiring
greater care in the evaluation of risk factors.
Finally, the reasons for successes and failures in
promotion of forage tree legume use in world farming systems are analyzed and suggestions
made to extend the utilization of this important group of legume species.
1. Introduction
Multipurpose tree legumes (MPTs) offer many benefits to
agriculture. Apart from their value as feed for livestock, tree legumes are recognised for
their multi-purpose contributions to the productivity of farming systems, to the welfare
of people and to the protection of the environment. It is the flexibility of their uses
that makes them especially significant; they can be found on farms ranging from
small-holder subsistence to large-scale commercial.
The history of tree legume use dates back
several millennia. In Mexico and Central America, where many of our most useful forage tree
legume species originate, there was no tradition of tree forage use although they were
used for other purposes. For example, Mesquite (Prosopis spp.) pods were a
component of diets of inhabitants of the United States and Mexican border lands for
several thousand years, and later on were consumed by the white pioneers of the 1800s
(Ibrahim 1992). Its use as a browse has been more recent.
There is evidence of indigenous use of unripe Leucaena
pods and seeds for human consumption in the Tehuacan Valley in Mexico dating back to 6800
BC. It seems that Leucaena cultivation may have begun about 2000 years ago (Hughes
1998) and continues to be cultivated for human consumption in Mexico today, but rarely for
forage.
Current interest in MPTs is principally for forage. In
developing countries, an increasingly affluent urban population is consuming more meat,
and demanding highelarger quality meat. Smallholders are responding to this new and
profitable opportunity with feeding strategies designed to fatten animals for slaughter at
a younger age. This requires either high quality locally grown feeds or use of expensive
concentrates. Farmers are finding that forage tree legumes meet this need enabling them to
achieve increasing levels of profitability.
In Australia, scale Leucaena leucocephala
(leucaena) plantings are occurring because farmers appreciate that leucaena-grass systems
are both sustainable and highly productive. This production system allows them to produce
cattle for high value domestic and export markets in East and Southeast Asia (Larsen et
al. 1998).
The purpose of this paper is to review the important
issues for R & D on forage tree legumes in tropical and subtropical farming systems.
2. Taxonomic confusion
Accurate classification and documentation of genus and
species relationships within important plant groups are a prerequisite for effective plant
improvement programs. Accurate naming, and knowledge of the diversity available,
influences the direction of plant evaluation (Hughes 1998b). Without this, key taxa may be
omitted and uncertainty is often the main result. This has occurred with most forage tree
legume plant improvement programs.
After a long period of disagreement, Leucaena has
finally been described in detail, agronomically and nutritionally (Shelton et al.
1998), and 22 species have been named (Hughes 1998a and b), compared with only 17 species
in an earlier report (Hughes and Harris 1995). This is not the case with all important
genera. Only a small proportion of the total diversity in Albizia has been
surveyed, and there is considerable unmapped potential in this genus (Hughes and Pottinger
1997). There is incomplete understanding and confusion regarding the taxonomy, genetics
and ecology of Prosopis (Dutton 1992). Hybridisation, intra-specific polymorphism
and heterogeneity make it very difficult to identify some Prosopis spp. (Ibrahim
1992).
Another source of taxonomic confusion arises when natural
hybridisation occurs among taxa, normally well separated in their native range, that are
brought together in evaluation programs. Hybrid seed is unknowingly collected and spread.
Examples of this phenomenon have been documented in Leucaena (Hughes 1998a), Erythrina
(Neill 1993), and Gliricidia (Lavin 1996). In Papua New Guinea, where Leucaena
leucocephala and L. diversifolia were introduced separately, a vigorous
inter-specific hybrid has appeared spontaneously. It is highly favoured and known locally
by the incorrect name L. mexicana.
Further, our ability to describe variation in plant
material has greatly improved, and this may warrant a re-investigation of some genera.
Traditionally, morphological and agronomic traits have been used to characterise patterns
of diversity in plants. It is now known that these represent only a small proportion of
the genome. Such traits are influenced by environmental factors, thus limiting their use
for description of genetic relationships and variability. Molecular approaches such as the
use of isozymes, and other genetic markers, which may be more independent of environmental
influence, are likely to provide a more powerful method to gauge species relationships and
origins (Dawson and Chamberlain 1996). Macqueen (1996) confirmed that studies of molecular
data, polyploidy and hybridisation research, rather than morphological work, were needed
to understand the complex patterns of variation in Calliandra.
Unfortunately, in the present economic environment, it is
difficult to find support for taxonomic studies, yet such activity underpins all plant
improvement programs, and ultimately influences the quality of new varieties made
available for farmers.
3. Diversity, quality and availability
of planting material
(a) Lack of diversity in original introductions
In most cases, the movement of tree legume germplasm
around the world began more than a century ago. Original seed introduced into an area was
usually harvested from a few readily accessible trees. This meant that the early
developments were based on unimproved, inferior and often seedy varieties that contained
little genetic diversity.
The movement of small amounts of seed of Leucaena
leucocephala subspecies leucocephala from Mexico to Southeast Asia in the 1600s
is the most celebrated example of this phenomenon. This species is a highly self-fertile
polyploid, so that further movement of the introduced variety, was of almost identical
genetic material. The spread of readily harvestable seed from country to country, region
to region, organisation to organisation, farmer to farmer, has resulted in over-reliance
on an extremely narrow genetic base (Hughes 1998a and b). This original leucaena, now
known as the "common weedy type", has invaded disturbed sites, and become a weed
in many countries. We now appreciate a much greater diversity in Leucaena from a
range of ecological zones, some of which has significant potential value for agriculture,
with much lower weed risk (Mullen et al. 1998b).
Similarly, Dutton (1992) reported that most seed of Prosopis
planted around the world was of unknown origin and from a narrow genetic base. The thorny Prosopis
shrubs, widespread in Africa and India, came from introductions of inferior germplasm, and
this has lead to a poor appreciation of the genus. Research trials have shown that there
is superior germplasm for different rainfall zones and soil types, and information on this
new material needs to be disseminated.
The introduction of Gliricidia sepium from
Trinidad to Sri Lanka was reported to be made with seed from one tree (Stewart et al.
1996). They suggested that the genetic diversity in many introduced populations will not
be sufficient to ensure long-term stability.
There are other examples. Only two seed samples of Calliandra
calothyrsus were first introduced into Indonesia (Java) from Guatemala in 1936 to
provide shade for coffee. After 1974, seed was further spread by forest rangers for
fuelwood use and now covers more than 30,000 ha in Java alone (Kartasubrata 1996).
There is an added problem as selection of best performing
varieties by farmers has narrowed diversity. In Flores Indonesia, a wide diversity of tree
legumes was grown in farming systems in the 1960s. Species such as Acacia, Albizia,
Calliandra, Cassia, Gliricidia, Pterocarpus, Sterculia
and Tamarindus were all grown in diverse mixed farming systems. With
intensification and commercialisation, there was greater reliance on a few species notably
leucaena (Djogo et al. 1995). The arrival of the psyllid in this region in the
mid-80s was particularly devastating.
The current recommendation for selection of seed from a
native range is to obtain seed from at least 25, and preferably 50 trees, with sufficient
distance between them (50 m) to minimise the likelihood of co-ancestry (Allison and Simons
1996). This simple approach was not appreciated when the first introductions were made.
(b) Accessing high quality germplasm
It is clear that many farmers are using inferior planting
material and that overcoming this limitation will not be a simple matter. Cromwell et
al. (1996), in surveys of farmers using multi-purpose trees (MPTs) in Honduras, Sri
Lanka and Malawi, found that the quality and reliability of MPT germplasm supply was
limited. Purchase from formal sources was often expensive, and seed was often obtained
locally, as it was cheaper and more accessible. For this reason, germplasm was often:
- Of unknown genetic quality,
- Collected and distributed with weak protocols,
- Selected on timber criteria,
- Distributed with no knowledge or understanding of
provenance quality, provenance origins, or the importance of genetic diversity,
- Not reliably available.
Other workers have found that the market is not
discerning. Much of the demand for Gliricidia has been met with seed of inferior
quality with no premium paid for quality (Simons 1996). A major and serious limitation for
Prosopis spp., which is restricting adoption, is lack of availability of seed of
well documented provenances or improved varieties. There is also no source of clones of
best vegetatively propagated material (Dutton 1992).
This has not been the case with leucaena, as high quality
seed is marketed under species, cultivar or provenance name.
There are difficulties when introducing new varieties to
areas where inferior varieties are already well established. There are two reasons for
this.
- Farmers may not be prepared to purchase seed of improved
varieties e.g. of Gliricida, as they consider it a low value crop (Simons 1996).
They can use existing material at no cost. New germplasm would need to be markedly
superior. Although seed of the best provenances of Gliricidia is now becoming
available from seed orchards around the world, much of the current demand for Gliricidia
is being satisified by inferior unlabelled material, and it may be difficult to promote
superior provenances such as Retalhuleu (Simons 1996). Simons (1996) suggested that new
varieties will need to be at least 30% better in terms of woody and leaf biomass to
interest farmers.
- When new material is introduced into existing areas, there
may be hybridisation, loss of purity and therefore loss of advantage. This will be less of
a problem for vegetative propagation and selfed seed. There may also be inbreeding
depression if farmers collect seed from just a few trees for propagation eg. from those
that seed prolifically.
However, other experience is that farmers will plant new
varieties if they recognise key benefits. For instance, farmers in Batangas Province in
the Philippines were immediately enthusiastic about the new F1 hybrid KX2 leucaena (A.
Castillo, personal communiucation). They appreciated its improved growth potential and its
resistance to psyllids. By contrast, K636 (cv. Tarramba) may not be accepted as quickly as
it is similar to the giant leucaenas already present in the Philippines.
In order to introduce new varieties it may therefore be
important to:-
- Ensure that the variety has clear benefits e.g. insect /
disease resistance, or greatly improved productivity,
- Create an appropriate local name for the new variety,
- Provide seed or planting material of high quality,
- Ensure that seed is readily available through traditional
channels at a reasonable price, and promoting farmer level (smallholder) seed production
schemes to provide income for farmers, and local availability of seed.
4. The principal species and their agro-ecological
range
(a) Principal species
There are several hundred species of leguminous trees
with potential for forage listed in the literature (Houérou 1980, Atta-Krah 1989). Most
have not been investigated and few are in current use in any significant way. Of the 5000
known nitrogen fixing woody species, Brewbaker (1986) suggested that only about 80
leguminous tree and shrub species may have potential multipurpose agroforestry roles,
including fodder, in tropical farming systems. Roshetko et al. (1996) listed 46
species suitable for fodder, but many fewer have found significance in world animal
production systems.
Table 1. Most used tree legume species
for forage purposes (key references in parenthesis)
Higher quality species |
Lower quality species |
- Albizia lebbeck
(Lowry 1989)
- Chamaecytisus palmensis
(Snook 1982)
- Cratylia argentea
(Argel and Lascano 1998)
- Desmodium rensonii
(Djojo et al. 1995)
- Desmanthus virgatus
(Gutteridge 1994a)
- Gliricidia sepium
(Stewart et al. 1996)
- Leucaena leucocephala
(Shelton et al. 1998)
- Leucaena diversifolia
(Shelton et al. 1998
- Sesbania grandiflora
(Gutteridge and Rekib 1995)
- Sesbania sesban
(Gutteridge and Rekib 1995)
|
- Acacia aneura
(Beale 1994) *
- Acacia nilotica
(Carter 1994)
- Acacia tortilis
(Wickens et al. 1995) *
- Albizia chinensis
(Zabala 1997)
- Albizia saman
(Roshetko 1995)
- Calliandra calothyrsus
(Evans 1996)
- Erythrina
spp. (Westley and Powell 1993)
- Faidherbia albida
(Wickens et al. 1995) *
- Flemingia macrophylla
(Gutteridge 1994a)
- Prosopis juliflora
(Dutton 1992)
|
* Principal application is
in indigenous semi-subsistence systems
Table 2. Tolerance of some
fodder tree legumes to various environments
Species |
Acid soils (pH<5.5) |
Cool temp. (15-25oC) |
Low rainfall (<500mm) |
Medium rainfall (5-1000 mm) |
High rainfall (>1000mm) |
Poor drainage |
High salinity |
| Acacia aneura Acacia angustissima
Acacia nilotica
Acacia tortilis
Albizia chinensis
Albizia lebbeck
Albizia saman
Calliandra calothrysus
Chamaecytisus palmensis
Cratylia agentea
Desmodium rensonii
Desmodium virgatus
Erthrina spp.
Faidherbia albida
Flemingia macrophylla
Gliricidia sepium
Leucaena diversifolia
Leucaena KX2 hybrid
Leucaena leucocephala
Leucaena pallida
Leucaena trichandra
Prosopis juliflora
Sesbania grandiflora
Sesbania sesban |
T
T
NT
NT
T
T
T
T
NT
T
T
NT
T
NT
T
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT |
T
NT
NT
NT
T
T
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
T
NT
T
T
NT
NT
T |
T
NT
NT
T
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
NT
NT |
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
T
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
T
T
T
T
NT
NT
NT |
NT
T
NT
NT
T
T
T
T
NT
T
T
T
T
NT
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
NT
T
T |
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
T |
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
T |
T = tolerant; NT = not
tolerant
Source: Roshetko et al. (1996),
Shelton (1994a)
which have forage potential, and within each species
there is genetic variation which can be exploited. However, in this brief review only
those species in significant use for forage are listed.
Other species may have potential but are not yet in significant use. Examples
include the Leucaena pallida x L. leucocephala KX2 hybrid, L. collinsii
and L. trichandra, the latter species for the high altitude tropics (Shelton et
al. 1998).
(b)Agro-ecological range
Agroforesters require forage tree legumes
adapted to a wide range of environments. Species are needed for climates ranging from the
humid tropics of some Pacific Island countries, the seasonally dry tropics of Southeast
Asia, the cooler high altitude tropics of East Africa, and the arid zones of the Sahel in
North Africa. Similarly, adaptation to a great range of edaphic conditions is sought from
the alkaline vertisiols of the brigalow soils in Central Queensland to the very acid high
aluminium grasslands of South America.
A summary of the general ecological
adaptation of key species is given in Table 2.
There is a wide range of ecological
adaptation among tree legumes, although there are no single species suited to the entire
range of conditions. Managers must select carefully to ensure successful growth of tree
species in their environment. The topic of environmental adaptation is treated in detail
elsewhere (Shelton 1994a). The vexed question of suitable leguminous trees for acid soils
continues to be an important research objective for many workers (Evans and Szott 1995).
Several species such as Cratylia argentia, Desmodium velutinum and Flemingia
macrophylla, are valued in South America because of their acid soil tolerance, but
need to be more thoroughly tested for nutritional quality for ruminant feeding (Kexian et
al. 1998). No tolerance of severely acid soils (pH < 5.0, with high aluminium
saturation) was found in Leucaena (Mullen et al. 1998a).
5. Animal productivity
(a) Management
Once established, forage legume systems
can deliver sustainable high productivity. This has been shown in Australia where the
oldest leucaena / grass systems have been grazed for over 30 years and remain productive.
In Central Queensland, liveweight gains of 1.26 kg/day have been achieved over 100 days in
leucaena - buffel grass pastures (Larsen et al. 1998). This greatly exceeds that
obtained from herbaceous grass/legume pastures in similar environments.
Other advantages of the leucaena/grass
system compared to herbaceous grass/legume pastures in Australia include:-
- Relative ease of maintaining a suitable grass
legume balance as the two components are separated spatially.
- High level of nitrogen cycling leading to strong grass
growth, or ingress of desirable grasses, between leucaena rows,
- Insulation of farms against the worst effects of droughts,
provided conservative stocking rates are employed. This arises due to the deep rooted
character of leucaena enabling it to produce high protein sprouts during dry periods.
- Control of run-off during heavy precipitation and
excellent infiltration thus minimizing soil erosion.
In the drier regions of the world, e.g. the
arid and semi-arid zones of the Sahel and North Africa, tree legumes, principally Acacia
spp., provide a proportion of total herbage intake, and most of the protein intake, for
livestock. This proportion increases during dry periods (Baumer 1992).
(b) Nutritive value, palatability,
toxicity and preference
High nutritive value for livestock is an
essential pre-requisite for successful adoption of forage species. Without high quality,
commercially oriented farmers may not achieve the economic animal responses to justify
their investment. On the other hand, in areas where feed resources are grossly inadequate,
or other uses are equally important, farmers may accept a more modest contribution from
browse, especially if the species is indigenous and does not require specific introduction
and management.
New varieties, promising because of their
agronomic and ecological adaptation, must then be assessed for nutritive value (Dicko and
Sikena 1992). Plants which grow well but contribute little to livestock production are of
little value as forage species. For instance, the species Cratylia argentia, Desmodium
velutinum and Flemingia macrophylla, are valued in South America for their acid
soil tolerance, but Flemingia macrophylla has low intake, high condensed tannin
content, low digestibility and protein quality (Kexian et al. 1998).
The most important measure of forage quality
is intake of digestible dry matter (nutritive value), and ultimately the production of
animal product. Whilst this is known for well researched species such as Leucaena
leucocephala (Middleton et al. 1995), Sesbania sesban (Gutteridge
1994b), Calliandra calothrysus (Shelton et al. 1996), and Gliricidia
sepium (Stewart 1996), there is much less information on other species. Much of the
data available are chemical composition only, and therefore of limited value. The concepts
of nutritive value of tree legumes are described in detail in Norton (1994a,b,c).
Tannins
One aspect of forage quality that deserves
special mention is the secondary plant compounds which are common in tree legumes. They
appear to have no functional role, although they may impart ecological advantage by
limiting or preventing damage from insects, fungi, bacteria, protozoa or grazing animals.
In particular, many tree legumes species
contain condensed tannins (CT). These compounds are highly polymerised proanthocyanidins
composed of flavanoid units with molecular weight from 1000-20,000. Tannins may have
positive and negative effects on feed quality for ruminants. They bind with protein
(astringency) reducing digestibility of dietary protein in the rumen, but the effect may
be positive if protein is released post-ruminally.
It is clear that high levels of CT are
detrimental to forage quality. Dalzell et al. (1998) showed that there was a strong
relationship between in vitro digestibility and the ratio of crude protein to CT in
tissues of Leucaena. Levels of CT above approx. 5-6% reduced digestibility. The
relative binding capacity of CTs varies among species eg. L. leucocephala CT is
less astringent than L. pallida CT (McNeill et al. 1998). The concentration
of CT in plant tissue varies seasonally with variables such as radiation, moisture supply
and soil fertility (S. Dalzell, unpublished data). The astringency of the CT may also vary
seasonally although this has not been investigated.
Many genera contain species that have high
levels of tannins (>10%) e.g. Acacia (Woodward and Reed (1997), Calliandra (Shelton
et al. 1996), Prosopis (Ibrahim 1992), Leucaena (Dalzell et al.
1998), and Flemingia (Kexian et al. 1998). However, there is great variation
in CT levels both between and within species. This was shown in Leucaena where L.
collinsii, L. lanceolata, L. macrophylla, L. magnifica, L. shannonii, L. trichodes,
and L. lempirana had low CT content while L. pallida, L. trichandra,
and L. diversifolia had high CT contents (Dalzell et al. 1998).
Some genera, such as Acacia, are
unlikely to contain high quality species. They are clearly valuable for supplemental
forage but most could not supply adequate minerals when used as sole feeds (Karachi et
al. 1997). Volatile fatty acid (VFA) analysis showed that mixed rumen microbes, after
12 hours, produced only 15 æmol/ml from A. angustissima fermentation compared to
63.9 æmol/ml from Sesbania sesban (Osuji et al. 1997).
Similarly, Prosopis, Flemingia,
Calliandra, Erythrina, whilst important, can be regarded as species of lower
quality. In contrast, key species from Leucaena, Gliricidia, Sesbania
and Chamaecytisus (Osuji et al. 1997) are generally of higher quality, but
there can still be significant inter- and intra-specific variation, as was found in Leucaena
(Dalzell et al. 1998).
There is also evidence that diets containing
forage trees can influence rumen microbial composition. Extracts of A. angustissima inhibited
the growth of pure cultures of rumen bacteria, while those from Sesbania sesban
increased growth. Acacia cyanophylla decreased the numbers of protozoa in Ethiopian
highland sheep (Osuji et al. 1997).
Palatability
Palatabilty is another complex issue with
tree legumes. There are reports of low palatability in Gliricidia, Sesbania,
and Leucaena whilst similar material at other locations was relished by livestock.
It is now clear, that 'palatability' of tree legumes is not constant and is influenced by
prior learning, time to accustom to new feeds, smell, method of presentation and breed of
animal (Faint et al. 1998).
Length of time of exposure to feeds is an
especially crucial parameter in 'palatability'. In 5-day trials at ILRI in Ethiopia, MPTs
such as Leucaena leucocephala and Sesbania sesban and less well known
species such as Acacia venosa, Acacia persiciflora, Acacia melanoxylon,
Acacia hockii, Acacia polyacantha, Tamarindus indica, Chamaecytisus
palmensis, Tipuana tipu, Indigofera arrecta and Atriplex nummularia,
had high palatability. Flemingia macrophylla, Erythrina abyssinica, Acacia
salicina, Acacia coriacea, Albizia schimperana, Ceratonia siliqua,
Casuarina glauca and Erythrina burana, had poor palatability. Gliricidia
sepium and Calliandra calothyrsus, had only a medium palatability ranking
(Kaitho et al. 1996).
Educational programs are required to inform
researchers, extension workers and farmers of the value of "apparently
unpalatable" plants, including methods to overcome the initial reluctance of
inexperienced animals to consume new materials.
Livestock
species preferences
In semi-arid and arid Africa, cattle, sheep,
equines, wildebeast, most antelopes and gazelles graze forage tree legumes in the dry
season to balance their diets. During the wet season, they prefer grass. Species, such as
goats, camels, eland, impala, kudu, elephant, giraffe, black rhino and a number of
antelope, are primarilty browsers of forage tree legumes (Wickens et al. 1995). The
Orma people in the Tana and Lamu Districts of Kenya, who keep cattle, goats, sheep, camels
and donkeys (in descending order of importance) found that browse preferences varied with
species (Anttila et al. 1994). The ability of herbivores to graze browse trees
often depends on their ability to handle thorns, woody materials, or high tannin foliage.
Goats have greater preference for high tannin species than sheep or cattle, because of
their ability to secrete proline rich saliva to reduce the astringency of the tannins
(Kaitho et al. 1997, Kexian et al. 1998).
There is opportunity for mixing both
livestock and plant species to take advantage of the varying preferences of livestock
species.
Monograstric animals consume very little
forage from tree legumes although there are many examples of MPTs being used for
supplementing diets of monogastric livestock. However, the general consensus is that they
have a limited role to play in monograstric feeding, and only as leaf protein concentrate.
In general, they are not a suitable feed due to (a) their high content of anti-nutritive
compounds, which non-ruminants have greater difficulty utilizing, (b) their high fibre
content (Dutton 1992) and (c) their low energy content. Seeds are sometimes fed to
monogastrics but may need detoxification procedures before being fed (D'Mello 1992).
6. Diseases and
insects
Diseases and insects of forage tree legumes
limit productivity worldwide. As the use of tree legumes is expanding rapidly, pest
problems are likely to increase in occurrence and severity, yet the extent of knowledge of
diseases and insects of tree legumes is generally poor.
There are data providing lists of pathogens
but little information on their significance or on pathogenic variability (Lenné 1992).
Disease and insect pests are reviewed for specific species and genera including Gliridicia
(Boa and Lenné 1996), Leucaena (Boa and Lenné 1995), Erythrina (Westley
and Powell 1993) and Sesbania (Murphy 1990). There are some important tree legume
species with little information available (Lenné and Boa 1994).
There are also summary tables of insects
pests on tree legumes (Walter and Parry 1994) but little is known about insect and host
plant relationships and other aspects of their ecology. For this reason, there is often
ignorance concerning acceptable control measures. Chemical control may be the easiest
approach as a range of broad spectrum insecticides are available. However, in many cases,
chemical control may not be an acceptable approach as (a) chemicals are sometimes not
accessible to farmers, (b) chemicals are expensive, (c) broad spectrum chemicals have
other harmful effects, and (d) animals may consume the sprayed leaf material with
detrimental results. The leucaena psyllid (Heteropsylla cubana) is the most studied
insect pest. While chemical control measures are effective and biological control using
predatory insects is partially effective, the most practical, the most cost-effective, and
the most ecologically sound approach is the use of resistant varieties. We still do not
understand the mechanisms of resistance in Leucaena necessary to develop effective
screening programs (Mullen et al. 1998a).
It is vital that more detailed information
is assembled on the diseases and pests affecting the cultivation and productivity of tree
legumes. Country and region surveys are needed to describe the location and extent of
problems. The existing networks are an appropriate way to gain information on disease and
insect problems currently experienced (Lenné and Boa 1994). Catalogues and manuals
illustrating the key insect and disease species are required to assist field workers, not
only with identification but also with formulation of control measures. Preparation of
quarantine guidelines to ensure the safe movement of seed to limit the spread of pests is
another priority.
Unfortunately, there is often a lack of
specialist expertise to address these problems.
7. Conservation issues
The development and improvement of tree
legumes for farm use is contingent on the availability of germplasm from the Centres of
Origin of species to underpin improvement programs. It is therefore imperative that the
native ranges of tree legumes are protected from exploitation and over use. Some examples
of the current status for selected species are given below.
According to Wickens et al. (1995),
the former Acacia communities in the Sahel in North Africa and the Near East have
deteriorated almost beyond recovery. This has been due principally to excessive demand for
fuelwood, but also to overgrazing, and demand for more agricultural land, all driven by
increasing population pressures. The result is almost irreversible. Rehabilitation of
these areas will be very slow where desertification and soil movement has occurred as
there is little soil seed reserve. They stress the need for low cost participatory
approaches, emphasising preventative rather than remedial measures.
Stands of Faidherbia albida in Wadi
Aribo in western Sudan are endangered due to indiscriminate lopping for browse by nomads
for their camels (Wickens et al. 1995).
Due to its colonising nature, G. sepium
is not under threat at the species level, but certain important provenances such as
Retalhuleu in Guatemala are under serious threat from human encroachment and river erosion
(Stewart et al. 1996).
The majority of Albizia species is
severely depleted in their native range in Mexico and Central America. Most species remain
abundant in only a few areas. Promotion of greater use of the species would assist with
their in situ conservation (Hughes and Pottinger 1997).
In Leucaena, the majority of species
are of no conservation concern. However, three species, L. matudae, L. magnifica
and L. involucrata are rare and threatened. There are less than 400 known
individual plants of L. magnifica (Hughes 1998a).
Prosopis africana is seriously
threatened in the semi-arid lowlands of West Africa in Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali and
Senegal. ICRAF has organized seed collections of this species to capture the genetic
diversity before invaluable genetic resources are lost (Tchoundjeu et al. 1998).
Patterns of genetic diversity in populations of Calliandra calothyrsus were
examined using isozyme analysis and their conservation status was reported by Chamberlain
(1998).
There are various methods used to conserve
genetic resources. Hughes (1998) discusses the merits of in situ (maintenance of
natural population), ex situ (e.g. germlasm banks and botanic gardens) and circa
situm (maintenance while in agricultural use e.g. as hedge row) conservation. In
vitro techniques for conservation and multiplication of germplasm, and elimination of
disease, have been applied to the conservation of Leucaena leucocephala, Erythrina
brucei and Sesbania sesban by Ruredzo and Hanson (1988). Perhaps a
combination of all approaches may be necessary. As with taxonomic studies, it is now
exceedingly difficult to obtain financial support for conservation of undomesticated
genetic resources in their native range.
8. The debate over exotic versus native
species
"Too often in extension work, a few
exotic species have been strongly promoted without any attention being given to the rich
indigenous flora and local knowledge of it" (Bekele-Tesemma et al. 1993).
Over recent years there has been increasing
interest in indigenous species as an alternative to introducing exotic species, and debate
concerning the appropriateness of introducing exotic species into indigenous ecosystems.
There are many reasons for this trend:
(a) Farming communities have very detailed
knowledge of the use and value of indigenous species, and often this has not been
documented, assessed or verified (B. Calub, personal communication, Schrempp et al.
1992).
(b) There are ecological advantages in using
a diversity of indigenous species, compared to a monoculture of exotics.
(c) There is concern about preserving and
conserving indigenous germplasm.
(d) A reduced emphasis on promotion of
exotic species and greater in situ use of local tree diversity, may reduce risk of
unwanted weed invasion and genetic pollution through hybridisation (Hughes 1994).
There is no simple answer to this debate and
decisions have to be made on merit based on the important issues. Combined use of native
and exotic species may be an option in some instances.
Indigenous forage tree species have
generally been used for subsistence feeding rather than in commercial systems. Wickens et
al. (1995) describe how fuelwood and grazing were the principal uses of the former Acacia
communities in the Sahel, North Africa and the Near East. However, due to overuse, some
have now deteriorated, almost beyond recovery.
Often exotic species are more vigorous and
produce higher yields than indigenous species. This was the case in Malawi where L.
leucocephala, Cassia spectabilis and Gliricidia sepium have been
promoted over the indigenous Faidherbia albida which is slow growing (Cromwell et
al. 1996). There are many regions where exotic species have made invaluable
contributions. It has been estimated that 150 to 200 M people use gliricidia world-wide,
the majority of whom live outside its native range (Simons 1996). Leucaena is now
naturalised in the Philippines where it is the principal source of tree fodder and of
fuelwood. This species underpins a sustainable, highly productive beef cattle production
system in northern Australia (Middleton et al. 1995).
In India, fast growing, multipurpose exotic
tree species introduced with the relatively slow growing Acacia nilotica (an
indigenous tree) enhance biomass production. However, competition reduces growth of the
indigenous tree. Careful planning and thoughtful species selection was recommended before
implementation of exotic large-scale afforestation programmes (Neelam-Bhatnagar et al.
1993).
Significantly, most commercial use of forage
from tree legumes has been with exotic species. Indigenous species appear to have been
confined to subsistence feeding systems perhaps due to their lower productivity and lower
quality. The communal management regimes employed in traditional systems place few limits
on use, and this has led to over exploitation (Wickens et al. 1995).
Sometimes indigenous species are better
adapted to difficult soils. In Costa Rica, native leguminous species had more potential
for reforestation and agroforestry on acid soils high in aluminum and manganese than
exotic species (Tilki and Fisher 1998). In contrast, in the mountainous area of Minas
Gerais, Brazil, where acid infertile soils predominate, the exotic species Acacia
mangium and A. auriculiformis achieved faster growth than indigenous species
when introduced into an existing B. decumbens pasture (Carvalho 1997).
Exotic species can have significant effects
on associated ecosystem species. In Hawaii, 4 species of native birds rarely feed on the
fruits of the exotic nitrogen-fixing tree Myrica faya which is invading Hawai'i
Volcanoes National Park. However, five species of exotic birds were seen ingesting the
fruit (Woodward et al. 1990). In South Africa, invasive exotic plants such as Acacia
longifolia and A. mearnsii, were detrimental to native, ground-living,
invertebrate fauna. There was no significant effect on species richness and diversity, but
there was a different assemblage of species associated with exotic compared to indigenous
vegetation. Management should therefore be sensitive to the needs of the ecosystem to
ensure conservation of desirable species when native vegetation is replaced by exotics
(Samways et al.1996).
Over the last three decades, there has been
movement of plant material around the world on an unprecedented scale, with few
restrictions covering movement. Hughes (1994) advocated a more cautious approach to
species introduction and a more thorough assessment of the advantages and limitations of
native and exotic species to lessen the risks of introduction of a weed.
Many native plants are incompletely studied.
Some species are only now undergoing preliminary domestication and are still harvested by
the traditional gathering activities associated with wild species. A case in point is Acacia
albida (Faidherbia albida) which is now the focus of international
collaborative efforts to extend its versatility of utilization (Nouaille 1992). There is
large variability in performance of individual trees as little plant improvement has
occurred, and little is known of the silviculture of the species (Cromwell et al.
1996).
It is likely that the most appropriate path
through this minefield is judicious use of both native and exotic species. For instance,
in tropical humid Africa, research may continue on species such as Leucaena, Gliricidia
and Sesbania, but emphasis may gradually shift to local species as adoption may be
more rapid and widespread. Schrempp et al. (1989) (cited in Schrempp et al.
1992) noted from their work in the eastern highlands of Ethiopia that preferred species in
fields were indigenous species such as A. albida, while preferred species off-field
were fast growing exotics such as A. mearnsii, A. saligna, Eucalyptus spp.
and P. procera.
9. Weediness
A number of introduced tree legumes have become serious
weed pests. Given the large number of introductions to many new environments, this is not
surprising. Weediness of introduced exotic trees has generally occurred when:-
- The purpose for the introduction has failed, or has
resulted in only partial use of trees,
- Seedlings and trees are protected from grazing by thorns,
or by low palatability,
- Trees have abundant, precocious seed production,
- Seeds are only partially digested by ruminant grazers, and
viable seeds are spread in faeces,
- Seed is spread on the hoofs of animals, or transported by
flood waters,
- Seeds are long-lived in the soil,
- Young plants grow and colonise rapidly, and tolerate
drought, grazing and fire,
- Trees are long-lived,
- There are disturbed areas nearby suitable for invasion,
- There is unpredictable growth as trees perform beyond
expectations away from natural predators, or in new climatic, edaphic or management
environments.
These conditions have been partially met by a number of
introduction events e.g. Acacia nilotica was introduced to provide shade and fodder
for sheep in western Queensland but now infests 6 M ha of Astrebla grasslands
(Carter 1994).
Over the past 80-100 years, mesquite (Prosopis
spp.) has become an aggressive invader of desert grasslands in the southwest United States
(Ibrahim 1992) due to interference in the natural ecological balance by man and his
activities. Strategies for control and management of this problem are still not available.
Grazing livestock and reduced occurrence of fire were key factors in the increase in
density of mesquite. The original movement of Leucaena leucocephala subspecies leucocaphala
around the world has lead to this inferior but seedy variety becoming a weed in many
tropical environments (Hughes 1994). Species may also
become a weed in their own environment. Albizia tomentosa is a weed in disturbed
areas in Mexico (Hughes and Pottinger 1997) and Acacia aneura is often weedy in
southwest Queensland when poorly managed (Beale 1994). The question of weed risk raises many difficult questions with few easy answers.
Some suggest that only indigenous species should be considered in agroforestry programs.
But this is an unrealistic constraint on the development of competitive farming systems
and indeed on the environment. Forage tree legumes are already major contributors to the
sustainability of our farming systems. They have the potential to become even more
important in our livestock industries, thus enhancing the quality of life of rural
communities. However, it will be imperative to pursue our objectives with environmental
responsibility. The key is to carefully evaluate the level of risk, reject high risk
introductions, and carefully manage introductions to minimise the chances of weed
outbreak. When introducing new species to an
environment it may be necessary to first:-
- Review susceptibility of seedlings and trees to grazing
(thorns, toxins, anti-palatability will reduce animal access)
- Assess seed production and longevity,
- Assess seed dispersal mechanisms,
- Study climatic and soil characteristics to predict
potential areas susceptible to invasion,
- Study insect predators and pathogens in the native range
of species,
- Evaluate methods of control e.g. pests, fire, chemical and
mechanical methods,
- After introduction, install long-term monitoring and rapid
action systems, and
- Ensure that farmers have support to make full use of MPT
introductions
Other approaches should also be used. For example, to
minimise the weed risk status of Leucaena, it will be necessary to (a) educate
farmers to achieve good grazing management to minimise seed production and to prevent
seedling growth; (b) spray or slash isolated seedlings; (c) introduce less seedy
varieties, e.g. the KX2 hybrid; (d) develop sterile hybrids which will eliminate risk; and
(e) utilise biological control methods such as the leucaena bruchid beetle (Acanthosceloides
macrophthalmus) which greatly reduces the amount of viable seed produced. A number of
these strategies can be combined to reduce the weed risk of this species. Perhaps the most
important step is to ensure that the rural community adopting the new species have the
tools to make full use of the MPT. There are many examples of apparent weediness occurring
because villagers may be unaware of the many uses of new plants.
Nevertheless, tree legumes should not be introduced where
risk is high, or where nearby disturbed vegetation might be ecologically threatened.
10. Integrating forage tree legumes into farming systems
and farmer uptake
Examples of successful adoption of exotic and indigenous
tree legumes, for multi-purpose uses including forage are numerous. Outstanding examples
are Leucaena leucocephala in Australia (Middleton et al. 1995) and Asia (Moog et al.
1998), Gliricidia sepium in southeast Asia (Stewart 1996), Sesbania grandiflora in
Indonesia (Gutteridge 1994b), Calliandra calothyrsus in Indonesia (Palmer et al. 1994),
and Acacia spp. in Africa (Wickens et al. 1995). Nevertheless,
despite high levels of promotion, farmer uptake has been lower than anticipated. Recent
attempts to achieve adoption of complex agroforestry packages, such as alley cropping,
have been only partially successful due to unrecognised failings in approach (Gutteridge
1998). Difficulties in achieving high levels of adoption for Leucaena are reported for
Africa (Dzowela et al. 1998), South America (Argel et al. 1998) and Asia (Moog et al.
1998). Although the forage bank concept has been
shown to be feasible in tropical Africa, rate of adoption has been low due to
socio-economic constraints such as land tenure insecurity and lack of infrastructure
support (Cromwell et al. 1996). The value of alley
cropping, is hotly debated in Africa (Cromwell et al. 1996). Research groups have become
cautious about the sustainable benefits of the system and in particular the value of the
mulch in terms of increased crop yields on farm. Part of the problem has been identified
by Grist et al. (1999). They found that while alley cropping of Gliricidia in Imperata
grasslands can increase soil fertility, farmers were likely to incur a loss in the first
year of development, and that it would take c. 4 years to begin making a profit. Humphreys
(1994) concluded that alley cropping systems were more successful when prunings were used
for livestock feeding rather than for fertility improvement alone. Gutteridge (1998)
argued that alley cropping was less successful in subhumid environmetns where competition
for moisture reduced inter-planted crop yields. There
have been many reasons advanced to explain success or lower than anticipated levels of
adoption (Smith 1992, Cromwell et al. 1996, Larsen et al. 1998) . Simple innovations e.g.
a new variety overcoming a key problem, may be adopted with relatively little
intervention. However, complex innovation, involving a new farming system, generally
require sustained, high profile intervention. From case studies reviewed, several factors
were common to successful adoption including:
Technical.
- Technical constraints must be resolved promptly to avoid
farmers and extension workers becoming discouraged and losing interest.
- Technical information needs to flow frequently, accurately
and in a variety of appropriate formats (field visits, manuals, videos, newsletters,
discussion groups) to farmers.
- A range of MPT species may need to be available to meet
the diverse needs of farmers, their environments and farming systems. New germplasm needs
to be markedly superior than existing material, as is the case with the KX2 Leucaena
hybrid being introduced into the Philippines.
- The best planting material should be available to farmers.
This will require education of both extension agents and farmers to ensure adequate farmer
knowledge concerning suppliers and their varieties available.
Socio-economic.
Farmers, local leaders and groups, and government all need
to be closely involved in the process and there needs to be frequent contact among all
players. All need to feel some ownership and all need to be respected for their
contribution to the innovation. The importance of communication / training / extension and
research networks needs to be stressed (Dutton 1992).
Innovation needs to have positive commercial outcomes for
individual farmers as well as environmental outcomes. Cook et al. (1989) stressed
the importance of understanding the economics of agroforestry systems from the farmer's
point of view as well as from the broader perspective of benefits to society. Project
implementation should take into account local markets and opportunities for off-farm
employment offered by tree products, as well as the opportunity costs perceived by farmers
in making adoption decisions. A full cost-benefit analysis of new agroforestry systems is
essential. It is unlikely that farmers will adopt new MPT systems on the basis of
environmental benefit only.
Other
Interestingly, successful tree legume-based interventions
have commonly involved long-term, top-down extension methodologies. The need for
institutional direction and long-term commitment may be necessary due to the complexity of
many of the tree legume systems being promoted. However, successful adoption of tree
legume interventions through a process of on-farm and participatory research has also been
a consistent theme.
Perhaps the most important elements of successful adoption
are the time, enthusiasm and long-term commitment, of farmers, researchers, and extension
agents involved. Successful innovation needs champions to ensure continuity of interest
and support over an extended time period (often > 10 years and sometimes up to 30
years).
One thing is certain without improved levels of
adoption, and more explicit demonstration of the relevance and benefits of forage tree
legumes, the good will and support of funding and donor agencies will be limited.
11. Conclusions
The principal commercial use and future potential of
multi-purpose tree legumes is forage for livestock production. There is great potential to
expand their use for both smallholder and large-scale ranch production systems. Key R
& D conclusions and recommendations are:
- While there are significant examples of adoption and use
of MPT species world-wide, there remains excellent opportunity to increase the use of this
valuable group of plants using participatory research and extension approaches.
- There is only a small number of MPT species currently in
commercial use by farmers c. 20, but they cover a wide range of ecological environments.
Many existing MPT plantings worldwide are from a narrow germplasm base, and access to the
highest quality varieties needs to be improved. Apart from improved distribution networks,
further study of taxonomy and nomenclature of important genera is required. There is
opportunity for mixed use of both native and exotic MPTs to suit both environmental and
production objectives.
- The range of MPTs that will be valuable as forage is
restricted by low palatability and low nutritive value of many species. This is primarily
due to their high content or anti-nutritive compounds such as tannins.
- The conservation status of some MPTs is threatened due to
over exploitation in their native range, and there is potential for weediness of both new
and existing introductions that needs to be carefully assessed.
12. References
Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (1996). Propagation and
husbandry. In: Stewart, J.L., Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (eds), Gliricidia sepium -
Genetic resources for farmers. Tropical forestry Paper 33. Oxford Forestry Institute. pp.
49-71.
Anttila, L.S., Alakoski Johansson, G.M., Johansson, S.G.,
Odera, J.A. (ed.); Luukkanen-MO (ed.); Johansson-SG (ed.); Kaarakka-V (ed.); Mugah-JO.
(1994). Browse preference of Orma livestock and chemical composition of Prosopis juliflora
and nine indigenous woody species in Bura, Eastern Kenya. Forestry in irrigation schemes
with special reference to Kenya. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 58:
Special Issue, 83-90.
Argel, P.J. and Lascano, C.E.
(1998). Cratylia argentea (Desvaux) O. Kuntze: una nueva leguminosa arbustiva para suelos
acidos en zonas subhumedas tropicales. Pasturas Tropicales, 20, 37-43.
Arias, R.A and Macqueen, D.J. (1996). Traditional uses and potential of the genus
Calliandra in Mexico and Central America. In Evans, D.O. (ed) International Workshop on
the Genus Calliandra. Forest, Farm and Community Reports Special Issue, 1996. Winrock
International. pp. 108-114.
Attah-Krah, A.N., Sumberg, J.E. and
Reynolds, L. (1986). Leguminous fodder trees in farming systems - an overview of research
at the humid zone programme of ILCA in Southwestern Nigeria. In: Haque, I., Jutzi, S. and
Weate, P.J. (eds). Potentials of forage legumes in farming systems of sub-saharan Africa.
ILCA, Addis Ababa, pp. 307-329.
Audru, J., Labonne, M., Guerin, H. and Bilha, A. (1992).
Acacia nilotica: a traditional forage species among the Afar of Djibouti. In: Speedy, A
and Pierre-Luc Pugliese (eds). Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for
livestock. Proceedings of the FAO expert Consultation held at the Malaysian Agricultural
Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. FAO of the United
nations, pp. 277-293.
Audru-J; Labonne-M; Guerin-H;
Bilha-A. (1993). Acacia nilotica: its fodder value and exploitation by the Afar
pastoralists in the Madgoul valley, Djibouti. Bois-et-Forets-des-Tropiques, No. 235, pp.
59-70.
Baumer, M. (1992). Trees as browse to support animal
production. In: Speedy, A and Pierre-Luc Pugliese (eds). Legume trees and other fodder
trees as protein sources for livestock. Proceedings of the FAO expert Consultation held at
the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. FAO of the United nations. pp. 1-10.
Beale, I.F. (1994). Management of mulga (Acacia aneura) scrublands in southeast
Queensland. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical
Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 325-337.
Bekele-Tesemma,A., Birnie, A. and Tengnäs, B. (1993).
Useful tress ans shribs for Ethiopia. Regional Soil Conservation Unit. Swedish
International Development Authority. 474 pp.
Benson, L. and Darrow, R.A. (1981). Trees and shrubs of
the south-western deserts. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 416pp.
Boa, E.R. and Lenné, J.M. (1995). Diseases and pests of
Leucaena. In: Shelton. H.M., Piggin, C.M. and Brewbaker, J.L. (eds), Leucaena -
Opportunities and Limitations. Proceedings of workshop held in Bogor, Indonesia. ACIAR
Proceedings No. 57, pp. 129-134.
Boa, E.R. and Lenné, J.M. (1996). Diseases and insect
pests. In: Stewart, J.L., Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (eds), Gliricidia sepium -
Genetic resources for farmers. Tropical forestry Paper 33. Oxford Forestry Institute. pp.
73-76.
Brewbaker, J.L. 1986. Nitrogen-fixing trees for fodder
and browse in Africa. In: Kang, B.T. and Reynolds, L. (eds), Alley farming in the humid
and subhumid tropics. proceedings of a workshop held at Ibadan Nigeria, 10-14 March 1986,
IDRC Ottawa, pp. 55-70.
Campbell,B.M., Clarke,J.M. and Gumbo,D.J. (1991).
Traditional agroforestry practices in Zimbabwe. Agroforestry Systems, 14, 99-111.
Carter, J.O. (1994). Acacia nilotica - a tree legume out
of control. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical
Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 338-351.
Carvalho,M.M. (1997). Asociaciones de pasturas con
arboles en la region centro sur del Brasil. Agroforesteria en las Americas 4, 5-8.
Chamberlain,J.R. (1998). Isozyme variation in Calliandra
calothyrsus (Leguminosae): its implications for species delimitation and conservation.
American Journal of Botany, 85, 37-47.
Cook, C.C., Grut, M. and Christoffersen,
L.E. (1989). Agroforestry in Sub-Saharan Africa: a farmer's perspective. World Bank
Technical Paper No. 112, World Bank, Washington, 99pp.
Cromwell, E., Brodie, A. and Southern, A. (1996).
Germplasm for Multipurpose Trees: Access and Utility in Small-Farm Communities. Case
studies from Honduras, Malawi, & Sri lanka. Overseas Development Institute. 93 pp.
Dalzell, S.A., Stewart, J.L., Tolera, A. and McNeill,
D.M. (1998). Chemical composition of Leucaena and implications for forage quality. In:
Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena - Adaptation,
Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR
Proceedings No. 86. pp. 227-246.
Daniel, J.N., Hedge, N.G. and Relwani, L. L. (1997).
Performance of Albizia lebbeck in semiarid India. In: Zabala, N.Q. (ed), International
Workshop on Albizia and Paraserianthes Species. Proceedings of workshop held in Bislig,
Suriago del Sur, Philippines, 1994. Farm, Forestry and Community Tree Research Reports
Special Issue. Winrock International. pp. 22-26.
Dart, P.J. (1994). Microbial symbioses of tree and shrub
legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical
Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 143-157.
Dawson, I.K. and Chamberlain, J.R. (1996). Molecular
analysis of genetic variation. In: Stewart, J.L., Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (eds),
Gliricidia sepium - Genetic resources for farmers. Tropical forestry Paper 33. Oxford
Forestry Institute. pp. 77-91.
Dico, M.S. and Sikena, L.K. (1992). Fodder trees and
shrubs in range and farming systems in dry tropical Africa. In: Speedy, A and Pierre-Luc
Pugliese (eds). Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for livestock.
Proceedings of the FAO expert Consultation held at the Malaysian Agricultural Research and
Development Institute (MARDI) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. FAO of the United nations. pp.
27-41.
Djogo, A.P.Y., Siregar, M.E. and Gutteridge, R.C. (1995).
Opportunities and limitations in other MPT genera. In: Shelton. H.M., Piggin, C.M. and
Brewbaker, J.L. (eds), Leucaena - Opportunities and Limitations. Proceedings of workshop
held in Bogor, Indonesia. ACIAR Proceedings No. 57, pp. 39-43.
Djogo, P.Y. (1997). Use of Albizia species in small-scale
farming systems in Indonesia. In: Zabala, N.Q. (ed), International Workshop on Albizia and
Paraserianthes Species. Proceedings of workshop held in Bislig, Suriago del Sur,
Philippines, 1994. Farm, Forestry and Community Tree Research Reports Special Issue.
Winrock International. pp. 27-36.
D'Mello, J.P.F. (1992). Nutritional potentialities of
fodder trees and fodder shrubs as protein sources in monograstric feeding. In: Speedy, A
and Pierre-Luc Pugliese (eds). Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for
livestock. Proceedings of the FAO expert Consultation held at the Malaysian Agricultural
Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. FAO of the United
nations, pp. 115-127.
Dommergues, Y. (1992). Maximising nitrogen fixation in
Prosopis. In: Dutton, R.W., Powell, M. and Ridley, R.J. (eds), Prosopis species - Aspects
of their value, research and development. Proceedings of Prosopis symposium held by CORD,
University of Durham, UK. pp. 207-218.
Dutton, R.W. (1992). A research and development strategy
for Prosopis. In: Dutton, R.W., Powell, M. and Ridley, R.J. (eds), Prosopis species -
Aspects of their value, research and development. Proceedings of Prosopis symposium held
by CORD, University of Durham, UK. pp. 3-27.
Dzowela, B.H., Wandera, P.F., Were, J. and
Mohammed-Saleem, M.A. (1998). see leucaena proceedings. Leucaena in smallholder
farming systems in Africa: Challenges for development. In: Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge,
R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality and Farming
Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No. 86. pp.
311-318.
Escalente, E.E. (1997). Saman (Albizia saman) in
agroforestry systems in Venezuela. In: Zabala, N.Q. (ed), International Workshop on
Albizia and Paraserianthes Species. Proceedings of workshop held in Bislig, Suriago del
Sur, Philippines, 1994. Farm, Forestry and Community Tree Research Reports Special Iissue.
Winrock International. pp. 93-97.
Evans, D.O. (1996). International Workshop on the Genus
Calliandra. Forest, Farm and Community Tree Research Reports Special Issue, 1996. Winrock
International. 268 pp.
Evans, D.O. and Szott, L. (1995). Nitrogen Fixing Trees
for Acid Soils. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports (Special Issue). Winrock
International and NFTA, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA. 328 pp.
Fagg,-C. (1991). Acacia tortilis: fodder tree for desert
sands. NFT Highlights, No. 91-01, Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Hawaii, USA. 2 pp.
Faint, M.A., McNeill, D.M., Stewart, J.L., Castillo,
A.C., Acasio, R.N. and Lynch, J.J. (1998). Palatability of Leucaena to ruminants.
In: Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena -
Adaptation, Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam.
ACIAR Proceedings No. 86. pp. 215-226.
Grist, P., Menz, K. and Nelson, R. (1999). Multipurpose
tress as improved fallow: An economic assessment. International Tree Crops Journal, 10,
19-36.
Gutteridge, R.C. (1994a). Other species of multipurpose
forage tree legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in
tropical Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 97-108.
Gutteridge, R.C. (1994b). The perennial Sesbania species.
In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical Agriculture.
CAB International, pp. 49-64.
Gutteridge, R.C. (1998). Leucaena in alley cropping
systems: Challenges for development. In: Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and
Bray, R.A. (eds). Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of
workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No. 86. pp. 337-341.
Hammel, R. (1992). L'importance de l'arbre fourrager pour
les eleveurs de la reserve naturelle de l'Air Tenere. Flamboyant, No. 22, 6-9.
Hughes, C.E and Harris, S.A. (1995). Systematics of
Leucaena: Recent findings and implications for breeding and conservation. In: Shelton.
H.M., Piggin, C.M. and Brewbaker, J.L. (eds), Leucaena - Opportunities and Limitations.
Proceedings of workshop held in Bogor, Indonesia. ACIAR Proceedings No. 57, pp.54-65.
Hughes, C.E. (1994). Risks of species introductions in
tropical forestry. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 73, 243-252, 272-273.
Hughes, C.E. (1998a). Leucaena. A genetic resources
handbook. Oxford Forestry Institute, Tropical Forestry Papers No. 37. 274 pp.
Hughes, C.E. (1998b). Taxonomy of Leucaena. In: Shelton,
H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality
and Farming Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No.
86. pp. 27-38.
Hughes, C.E. and Pottinger, A.J. (1997). Albizia species
from Mexico and Central America. In: Zabala, N.Q. (ed), International Workshop on Albizia
and Paraserianthes Species. Proceedings of workshop held in Bislig, Suriago del Sur,
Philippines, 1994. Farm, Forestry and Community Tree Research Reports Special Iissue.
Winrock International. pp. 57-65.
Ibrahim, K.M. (1992). Prosopis species in the
south-western United States, Their utilisation and research. In: Dutton, R.W., Powell, M.
and Ridley, R.J. (eds), Prosopis species - Aspects of their value, research and
development. Proceedings of Prosopis symposium held by CORD, University of Durham, UK. pp.
83-115.
Ir. Mansyur, Ghazali Zainal and Maimunah Tuhulele (1999).
Planting gliricidia from stem cuttings. SEAfraD News. Southeast Asia Feed resources
Research and Developmewnt network. March 1999. p. 10.
Kaitho, R.J., Umunna, N.N., Nsahlai, I.V., tamminga, S.,
van Bruchem, J. and Hanson, J. (1997). Palatability of wilted and dried multipurpose tree
species fed to sheep and goats. In: Kaitho, R.J. Nutritive value of browses as protein
supplements(s) to poor quality roughages. PhD Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University.
pp. 59-73.
Kaitho-RJ; Umunna-NN; Nsahlai-IV; Tamminga-S;
Bruchem-J-van; Hanson-J; Wouw-M-van-de; Van-Bruchem-J; Van-de-Wouw-M. (1996). Palatability
of multipurpose tree species: effect of species and length of study on intake and relative
palatability by sheep. Agroforestry Systems, 33, 249-261.
Karachi-M; Shirima-D; Lema-N. (1997). Evaluation of 15
leguminous trees and shrubs for forage and wood production in Tanzania. Agroforestry
Systems, 37, 253-263.
Kartasubrata, Junus (1996). Culture and uses of
Calliandra calothyrsus in Indonesia. In: Evans, D.O. (ed), International Workshop on the
Genus Calliandra. Forest, Farm and Community Tree Research Reports Special Issue, 1996.
Winrock International. pp. 101-107.
Kass, D.L. (1994). Erythrina species - Pantropical
multipurpose tree legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree
Legumes in tropical Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 84-96.
Kexian, Yi, Lascano, C.E. Kerridge, P.C. and Avilia, P.
(1998). The effect of three tropical shrub legumes on the intake and acceptability by
small ruminants. Pasturas Tropicales, 20, 31-35.
Kishan Kumar, V.S.. (1999). Prosopis cineraria and
Ailanthus excelsa - fodder trees of Rajasthan, India. International Tree Crops Journal,
10, 79-86.
Larsen, P.H., Middleton, C.H., Bolam, M.J. and
Chamberlain, J. (1998). Leucaena in large-scale grazing systems: Challenges for
development. In: Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds),
Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi,
Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No. 86. pp. 324-330.
Lavin, M (1996). Taxonomy. In: Stewart, J.L., Allison,
G.E. and Simons, A.J. (eds), Gliricidia sepium - Genetic resources for farmers. Tropical
forestry Paper 33. Oxford Forestry Institute. pp. 3-17.
Le Houérou (1980). Chemical composition and nutritive
value of browse in tropical West Africa. In: Browse in Africa, the current state of
knowledge. Le Houérou, H.N. (ed). ILCA, Addis Ababa, pp. 261-289.
Lenné, J.M. (1992). Diseases of multi-purpose woody
legumes in the tropics: a review. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports, 10, 13-29.
Lenné, J.M. and Boa, E.R. (1994). Diseases of tree
legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical
Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 292-308.
Lesueur, D., Date, R.A. and Mullen, B.F. (1998).
Rhizobium specificity in Leucaena. In: Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and
Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of
workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No. 86. pp. 86-95.
Lowry, J.B. (1989). Agronomy and forage quality of
Albizia lebbeck in the semi-arid tropics. Tropical grasslands, 23, 84-91.
Lundgren, D. (1992). Foreward, In A selection of useful
trees and shrubs for Kenya. International Centre for research in Agroforestry. pp. 9-10.
Macqueen, D. (1996). Calliandra taxonomy and
distribution, with particular reference to the series Racemosae. In Evans, D.O. (ed),
International Workshop on the Genus Calliandra. Forest, Farm and Community Tree Research
Reports Special Issue, 1996. Winrock International. pp. 1-17.
Maghembe, J.A. (1991). Special issue: Agroforestry
research in the African miombo ecozone. Malawi. Proceedings of a regional conference on
agroforestry research in the African miombo zone held in Lilongwe, Forest Ecology and
Management, 64, pp. 105-292.
McClintock, E. (1993). A botanical history of Erythrina
introductions. In: Westley, S.B. and Powell, M.H. (eds). Erythrina in the new and old
worlds. Nitrogen Fixing tree Research Reports Special Issue. pp. 68-71.
McNeill, D.M., Osborne, N., Komolong, M. and Nankervis,
D. (1998). Condensed tannins in the genus Leucaena and their nutritional significance. In:
Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena - Adaptation,
Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR
Proceedings No. 86. pp. 205-214.
Middleton, C.H., Jones, R.J., Shelton, H.M., Petty, S.R.
and Wildin, J.H. (1995). Leucaena in northern Australia. In: Shelton. H.M., Piggin, C.M.
and Brewbaker, J.L. (eds), Leucaena - Opportunities and Limitations. Proceedings of
workshop held in Bogor, Indonesia. ACIAR Proceedings No. 57, pp. 214-221.
Moog, F.A., Bezkorowajnyj, P. and Nitis, I.M. (1998).
Leucaena in smallholder farming systems in Asia: Challenges for development. In: Shelton,
H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds). Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality
and Farming Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No.
86. pp. 303-310.
Mullen, B.F., Gabunada, F., Shelton, H.M., Stur, W.W. and
Napompeth, B. (1998a). Psyllid resistance in Leucaena. In: Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge,
R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality and Farming
Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No. 86. pp.
51-60.
Mullen, B.F., Shelton, H.M., Basford, K.E., Castillo,
A.C., Bino, B., Victorio, E.E., Acasio, R.N., Tarabu, J., Komolong, M.K., Galgal, K.K.,
Khoa, L.V., Co, H.X., Wandera, F.P., Ibrahim, T., Clem, R.L., Jones, R.J., Middleton,
C.H., Bolam, M.J.M., Gabunada, F., Stur, W.W., Horne, P.M., Utachak, K., and Khanh, T.T.
(1998b). Agronomic adaptation to environmental challenges in the genus Leucaena. In:
Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray, R.A. (eds), Leucaena - Adaptation,
Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR
Proceedings No. 86. pp. 39-50.
Murphy, S.T. (1990). Pests of Sesbania species and
Sesbania species as pests: A review. In: Macklin, B. and Evans, D.O. (eds). Perennial
Sesbania Species in Agroforest Systems. Proceedings of Workshop, Naironi, Kenya. Nitrogen
Fixing tree Association, Hawaii. pp. 123-130.
Neelam Bhatnagar; Bhandar, D.C., Promila Kapoor;
Bhatnagar, N. and Kapoor, P. (1993). Competition in the early establishment phases of an
even aged mixed plantation of Leucaena leucocephala and Acacia nilotica. Forest Ecology
and Management, 57, 213-231.
Neill, D.A. (1993). The genus Erythrina: taxonomy,
distribution and ecological differentiation. In: Westley, S.B. and Powell, M.H. (eds).
Erythrina in the new and old worlds. Nitrogen Fixing tree Research Reports Special Issue.
pp. 15-27.
Newbold-CJ; El-Hassan-SM; Wang-J; Ortega-ME; Wallace-RJ.
(1997). Influence of foliage from African multipurpose trees on activity of rumen protozoa
and bacteria. British Journal of Nutrition, 78, 237-249.
Niang-A; Ugiziwe-J; Styger-E; Gahamanyi-A. (1996). Forage
potential of eight woody species: intake and growth rates of local young goats in the
highland region of Rwanda. Agroforestry Systems, 34, 171-178.
Norton, B.W. (1994a). The nutritive value of tree
legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical
Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 177-191.
Norton, B.W. (1994b). Tree legumes as dietary supplements
for ruminants. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in
tropical Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 192-201.
Norton, B.W. (1994c). Anti-nutritive and toxic factors in
forage tree legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in
tropical Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 202-215.
Nouaille, C. (1992). At the frontiers of domestication.
Biofutur, No. 111, pp. 43-46.
Nygren, A. (1993). Traditional uses and cultural
significance of three Erythrina species among rural population of Tuís District,
Turrialba, Costa Rica. In: Westley, S.B. and Powell, M.H. (eds). Erythrina in the new and
old worlds. Nitrogen Fixing tree Research Reports Special Issue. pp. 62-67.
Osuji, P.O., Odenyo, A.A., Acamovic, T., Stewart, C.S.
and Topps, J.H. (1997). The role of legume forages as supplements to low quality roughages
- ILRI experience. Selected papers from an international conference on Evaluation of
forages for ruminants in the tropics, Harare, Zimbabwe, 28 August-1 September 1995. Animal
Feed Science and Technology, 69, pp. 1-3, 27-38.
Palmer, B. Macqueen, D.J and Gutteridge, R.C. (1994).
Calliandra calothyrsus - a mutltipurpose tree legume for humid locations. In: Gutteridge,
R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical Agriculture. CAB
International, pp. 65-74.
Parrotta, J.A. (1995). Influence of overstory composition
on understory colonization by native species in plantations on a degraded tropical site.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 6, 627-636.
Pasiecznik-NM; Vera-Cruz-MT; Harris-PJC. (1995). Prosopis
juliflora withstands extreme aridity and goat browsing in the Republic of Cape Verde.
Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports, 13, 89-91.
Peltier, R. (1996). Les parcs a Faidherbia. Cahiers
Scientifiques No. 12, CIRAD Foret, Montpellier, France, 312 pp.
Preston, T.R. (1992). The role of multi-purpose trees in
integrated farming systems for the wet tropics. In: Speedy, A and Pierre-Luc Pugliese
(eds). Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for livestock. Proceedings
of the FAO expert Consultation held at the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development
Institute (MARDI) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. FAO of the United nations, pp. 193-209.
Roshetko, J.M. (1995). Albizia saman : pasture
improvement, shade, timber and more. NFT Highlights, NFTA 95-02. Forest, Farm, and
Community Tree Network (FACT Net), Winrock International.
Roshetko, J.M. (1997). Profiles of selected Albizia and
Paraserianthes species. In: Zabala, N.Q. (ed), International Workshop on Albizia and
Paraserianthes Species. Proceedings of workshop held in Bislig, Suriago del Sur,
Philippines, 1994. Farm, Forestry and Community Tree Research Reports Special Issue.
Winrock International. pp. 157-162.
Roshetko, J.M., Dagar, J.C., Puri, S., Khandale, D.Y.,
Takawale, P.S., Bheemaiah, G. and Basak, N.C. (1996). Selecting species of nitrogen fixing
trees. In: Roshetko, J.M. and Gutteridge, R.C. (eds), Nitrogen Fixing Trees for Fodder
Production - A Field Manuel. Winrock International, Morrilton (AR), USA. pp.23-23.
Ruredzo, T.J. and Hanson, J. (1988). The use of in vitro
culture in germplasm management. ILCA Germplasm Newsletter, No. 18, 4-9.
Russo, R.O. (1993). The use of Erythrina in the Americas.
In: Westley, S.B. and Powell, M.H. (eds). Erythrina in the new and old worlds. Nitrogen
Fixing tree Research Reports Special Issue. pp. 28-45.
Samways, M.J., Caldwell, P.M. and Osborn, R. (1996).
Ground-living invertebrate assemblages in native, planted and invasive vegetation in South
Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 59, 19-32.
Schrempp, B., Tato, K. and Hurni, H. (1992).
Non-conflicting multipurpose tree integration: a case study in the Harerge Highlands,
eastern Ethiopia. Soil conservation for survival. A selection of papers presented at the
6th International Soil Conservation Organisation held in Ethiopia and Kenya. pp. 109-117.
Shelton, H.M. (1994a). Environmental adaptation of forage
tree legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical
Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 120-131.
Shelton, H.M. (1994b). Establishment of forage tree
legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage Tree Legumes in tropical
Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 132-142.
Shelton, H.M. and Jones, R.J. (1995). Opportunities and
limitations in leucaena. In: Shelton. H.M., Piggin, C.M. and Brewbaker, J.L. (eds),
Leucaena - Opportunities and Limitations. Proceedings of workshop held in Bogor,
Indonesia. ACIAR Proceedings No. 57, pp.16-23.
Shelton, H.M., Gutteridge, R.C., Mullen, B.F. and Bray,
R.A. (eds) (1998). Leucaena - Adaptation, Quality and Farming Systems. Proceedings of
workshop held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No. 86. 358 pp.
Shelton, H.M., Norton,B.W., Mullen, B.F., Gutteridge,
R.C. and Dart, P.J. (1996). Utilisation and nutritive value of Calliandra calothrysus for
forage: a review of research at the University of Queensland. In Evans, D.O. (ed),
International Workshop on the Genus Calliandra. Forest, Farm and Community Tree Research
Reports Special Issue, 1996. Winrock International. pp. 210-221.
Simons, A.J. (1996). Seed orchards and breeding. In:
Stewart, J.L., Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (eds), Gliricidia sepium - Genetic resources
for farmers. Tropical forestry Paper 33. Oxford Forestry Institute. pp. 119-125.
Sissoko K., Soumare, S. and Soumare, A. (1993). Woody
species, a trump to protect. Projet PSS, BP 22 Niono, Mali. Lettre du Reseau Recherche
Developpement. No. 19, GRET, Ministere de la Cooperation; Paris, pp. 4-7.
Smith, O.B. (1992). Alley farming and protein banks for
tropical Africa. In: Speedy, A and Pierre-Luc Pugliese (eds). Legume trees and other
fodder trees as protein sources for livestock. Proceedings of the FAO expert Consultation
held at the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. FAO of the United nations, pp. 245-256.
Smith,O.B. (1992). Fodder trees and shrubs in range and
farming systems in tropical humid Africa. In: Speedy, A and Pierre-Luc Pugliese (eds).
Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for livestock. Proceedings of the
FAO expert Consultation held at the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development
Institute (MARDI) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. FAO of the United nations. pp. 43-59.
Snook, L.C. (1982). Tagasaste (tree lucerne)
Chamaecytisus palmensis. A shrub with high potential as a productive fodder crop. Journal
of Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, 48, 209-213.
Stewart, J.L. (1996). Utilization. In: Stewart, J.L.,
Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (eds), Gliricidia sepium - Genetic resources for farmers.
Tropical forestry Paper 33. Oxford Forestry Institute. pp. 33-48.
Stewart, J.L., Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (1996).
Gliricidia sepium - Genetic resources for farmers. Tropical forestry Papers 33. Oxford
Forestry Institute. 125 pp.
Tchoundjeu, Z., Weber, J. and Guarino, L. (1998).
Germplasm collections of endangered agroforestry tree species: the case of Prosopis
africana in the semi-arid lowlands of West Africa. Agroforestry Systems, 1998, 39, 91-100.
Tiedeman,-JA; Johnson,-DE. (1992). (Need title). Natural
Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6410, USA. Agroforestry
Systems, 17, 169-180.
Tilki, F. and Fisher, R.F. (1998). Tropical leguminous
species for acid soils: studies on plant form and growth in Costa Rica.
Forest-Ecology-and-Management, 108, 175-192.
Walter, G.H. and Parry, W.H. (1994). Environmental
adaptation of forage tree legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M.(eds), Forage
Tree Legumes in tropical Agriculture. CAB International, pp. 309-321.
Westley, S.B. and Powell, M.H. (1993). Erythrina in the
new and old worlds. Nitrogen Fixing tree Research Reports Special Issue. 358 pp.
Wickens,G.E., Sief El Din, A.G., Sita, G. and Nahal, I.
(1995). Role of Acacia species in the rural economy of dry Africa and the Near East.
FAO-Conservation-Guide, No. 27, 56 pp.
Woodward, A. and Reed, J.D. (1997). Nitrogen metabolism
of sheep and goats consuming Acacia brevispica and Sesbania sesban. Journal of Animal
Science, 75, 1130-1139.
Woodward, S.A., Vitousek, P.M., Matson, K., Hughes, F.,
Benvenuto, K. and Matson, P.A. (1990). Use of the exotic tree Myrica faya by native and
exotic birds in Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park. Pacific Science, 44, 88-93.
Zabala, N.Q. (1995). Albizia and Paraserianthes Species.
Forest, Farm, and Community Tree Research reports - Special Issue. Winrock International
and NFTA, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA. 164 pp.