Agroforestry Systems 46: 3–23, 1999.

 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Ecological rationalities of the traditional homegarden

system in the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand

J. GAJASENI* and N. GAJASENI

Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
(*Author for correspondence: E-mail gjiragor@pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th)

Key words: microenvironments, nutrient cycling, species diversity, Thai settlements

Abstract. Although the homegarden systems in the tropics are claimed to sustain basic com-
munity needs without environmental deterioration, the ecological rationalities behind the
harmony between the humans, homegardens, and the environment are not well understood.
Four study sites (Sukhothai, Srisatchanalai, Ayudhaya, and Nonthaburi) representing the four
Thai eras in the Chao Phraya Basin were selected for studying these rationalities. The size and
physical stature of the homegardens, their plant association and community features, physical
environmental factors, nutrient and soil fertility parameters, and cultivation practices were
studied. The major factor that determines species selection in homegardens is the utilization of
the products, while the various practices within the homegardens are determined by such factors
as the species, the system, and the environment. All homegardens had four vertical stratifica-
tions, with physical structures almost similar to that of dry dipterocarp forest, but with lower
height for each layer, lower diversity of plants, and sparser crown layer. The analysis also shows
a high possible utilization efficiency for space, light, water and nutrients in the soil in the
homegardens. Shannon-Wiener’s indices of species diversity of the homegardens were close to
those of dipterocarp forest. The homegardens are in-situ reservoirs for biodiversity at genetic-,
species-, and ecological levels. There was no complete harvesting from these homegardens. This
practice ensured minimal nutrient export from the systems, while high amounts and diversity
of litter biomass should contribute to high efficiency of nutrient cycling. Futhermore, phosphorus
availability could be better in homegardens. The homegardens had more favorable microenvi-
ronment with lower soil and atmospheric temperature and higher relative humidity than outside.
There has been no single incident of a pest outbreak at a threatening level.

Introduction

Homegardens are classified from a land-use perspective as an agroforestry

system with a mixture of trees, shrubs, herbs, and other agricultural crops
within the household boundary and under the family labour and management
(Fernandes and Nair, 1986). Archeological excavations and other evidence
in Southeast Asia show that humans have cultivated the land for centuries
(Gorman, 1969). The cultivation systems were mixed and diverse with trees,
shrubs, and herbs together with hunting and gathering from the natural eco-
systems. These systems were claimed as the origin of agriculture in the region
(Gorman, 1971). The important crops in the homegardens were taro (Colocasia
esculenta), yam (Dioscorea alata), banana (Musa spp.), coconut (Cocos
nucifera), jackfruit (Artocarpus spp.), mango (Mangifera indica), and durian
(Durio zebethinus) (Pelzer, 1978). In some parts of Thailand, homegardens
4

have been in existence on the same site for over 200 years (Makaraphirom,
1989). Any agroecosystem with such a long and continuous use must fit with
the peoples’ way of life and be in accordance with local environmental
contexts. Although the homegarden has long been associated with Thai and
some other tropical societies, scientific, quantitative studies on them are rare.
The unanswered question is: what are the ecological rationalities behind the
harmony between humans, homegardens, and the environment?
This study focused on four questions:
1. How is the species combination selected? Where did this knowledge
descend from?
2. What are the system outputs and are the outputs continuous?
3. How do microenvironments in the system change?
4. How do nutrients undergo recycling? How does soil fertility change?

Methods

From a preliminary historical study, three Thai eras on the Chao Phraya Basin
were identified: Sukhothai (circa 1238–1438 AD), Ayudhaya (1350–1767 AD),
and Rattanakosin or Bangkok (1782 AD–). The two most prosperous kingdoms
during the Sukhothai era were Sukhothai and Srisatchanalai (Prince Dumrong,
1907). Four study sites were selected representing these four kingdoms
(Figure 1):
1. Khum Sak Ngam, Ban Chatuphon, Tumbon Muang Kao, Sukhothai;
2. Ban Waang Sum Rong, Tumbon Srisatchanalai, Srisatchanalai;
3. Ban Maha Bramma, Tumbon Maha Bramma, Ayudhaya;
4. Ban Khlong Oom, Tumbon Bang Rukyai, Nonthaburi.
Nonthaburi is the province immediately north of Bangkok. This site was
selected as the representative for the Rattanakosin era, and not Bangkok itself,
as Bangkok has changed physically, socioeconomically, and culturally.
Currently there are homegardens in Bangkok. However, the traditional way
of life has changed drastically. Nonthaburi is well known for having the best
Thai fruits since the beginning of the Rattanakosin era. However, cultivation
practices in Nonthaburi are different from those at the other three sites. Only
plant association analysis was used for comparison.
Based on preliminary surveys, homegardens that fulfilled the following
conditions were selected in each study site:
(1) sites must be in the vicinity of the old kingdoms;
(2) families must have settled in the sites for at least three generations;
(3) families do live in traditional Thai-style housing; and
(4) families are associated with paddy rice cultivation.
At each location one household was selected. The whole area of each house-
hold was used as the monitoring unit. For each selected unit, the following
Figure 1. Map of Thailand
with locations of the study
sites, soil characteristics and
climatic conditions.

5
6

characteristics were studied: physical stature and size, plant species diver-
sity, Shannon-Wiener’s Index of species diversity (Krebs, 1985), and the plant
growth form (Whittaker, 1975), profile diagram and crown projection diagram
from 6-m width by the total length of each homegarden, root distribution from
0 to 100-cm depth using soil core sampling, light intensity at three levels:
just under the top crown cover, ground level, and about half way in between
the two (mid-level) in each homegarden measured using a light meter, and
air temperature, soil temperature and relative humidity between inside and
outside the homegardens from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. at one hour intervals.
Ten soil samples were taken from 0 to 25, 25 to 50, 50 to 75, and 75 to
100 cm depth within each homegarden using a systematic soil core sampling
method, and ten soil samples from 0 to 100 cm depth were taken outside
each homegarden. The composite samples were analyzed for organic matter
using the Walkley and Black method (Jackson, 1958), total nitrogen by the
Kjeldhal method (Page et al., 1987), total phosphorus using perchloric acid
extraction (Page et al., 1987), and available phosphorus using the Bray II
method (Bray and Kurtz, 1975).
Standing stock of litter dry weight (105 °C, 48 hr) were monitored from
10 sampling plots of 1 × 1 m2. System outputs from each homegarden were
continuously monitored for one year. In order to accomplish this, each house
was provided with a weighing balance and 12 data sheets to be filled out.
Output products from the homegardens were weighed and recorded by an
assigned family member. At the end of each month, the researchers went out
to interview and collect the data sheets.
Out of the 15 indicators proposed for ecological and socioeconomic
sustainability of homegardens (Torquebiau, 1992), five ecological indicators
were used in this study. Some indicators were partially in accordance with
Torquebiau’s model but there were differences.

Results

1. Size and physical stature

The largest homegarden was at Ayudhaya (2,284 m2). The second and third
largest homegardens were Sukhothai and Nonthaburi with sizes of 1671.3 and
1545.5 m2, respectively. The smallest was at Srisatchanalai (864 m2). An
average of 3% of the area was allocated for housing and rice storage facili-
ties for all properties; the rest was for homegardening. Only at Sukhothai,
where the property was far away from the Mayom river (a tributary of the
Chao Phraya river), was a reservoir built using 12.5% of the property land.
The other sites were by the Chao Phraya river or a tributary and no reservoir
was used. An exception to this was Nonthaburi. Due to a seasonal brackish
water invasion deep into the Chao Phraya river, a controlled dike system was
built around the property. The dike system serves two objectives: first, pre-
 7

vention of brackish water damage to crops, especially highly sensitive durian

(Durio zebethinus), and secondly, supplying water during the dry season. A
byproduct from the dike system provided a very important objective, namely,
fertilization to the homegarden by taking out the decaying organic material
from the bottom and using it as an organic fertilizer. The dike system required
annual maintenance.

2. Plant association and community analysis

2.1. Aboveground
Vertical stratification of plants was classified into four layers (Figure 2). The
emergent layer had a height of 10 m or more and composed of coconut (Cocos
nucifera), areca palm (Areca catechu), bamboo (Dendrocalamus asper), and
teak (Tectona grandis). The canopy layer was between 5 to 10 m with mango
(Mangifera indica), tamarind (Tamarindus indica), durian, coral tree
(Erythrina subumbrans), Indian trumpet flower (Oroxylum indicum), and plum
mango (Bouea macrophylla). The understory layer had the most diversity of
fruit trees with a height less than 5 m. The shrub and ground cover were
shrubs, herbs, spices, vegetables, and flowers. The profile diagrams and crown
cover projections of Srisatchnalai were selected to represent the homegardens
in Figure 3. The average number of layers of leaf arrangement for each layer
is presented in Table 1, compared with leaf arrangement in the deciduous
forest of Haui Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Uthaithanee, Thailand.

2.2. Belowground
Belowground stratification of the root system is presented in Figure 4. The
lowest root biomass was in the 0 to 25 cm layer, and it was composed of
very fine roots (> 1 mm diameter) of the shrub and ground cover vegetation.
The highest and continuous root biomass was in the 25 to 75 cm layer. This
consisted of medium-size roots (1 to 5 mm diameter) of the understory fruit
trees. The large-size roots (> 5 mm diameter) with the highest biomass per
unit volume was found in the 75 to 100 cm layer. These were the root systems
of the canopy and emergent layers.

2.3. Species diversity and growth form

Species diversity with the scientific names and growth forms of the four
homegardens are presented in Table 2. The highest diversity was found in
Srisatchanalai with 53 species. While Sukhothai and Nonthaburi had 45 and
36 species, respectively, the lowest diversity was in Ayudhaya with 26 species.
Trees were the dominant growth form in the homegardens except in
Nonthaburi where it was shrubs. Betel leaf and piper were the lianas in the
homegardens. Table 3 presents plant species diversity based on utilization.
Fruit plants were the dominant group with the highest numbers of 21 and 17
species in Nonthaburi and Srisatchanalai, respectively. Srisatchanalai still
had plants with spiritual connotations; some example are: khun (multiply),
 8
Figure 2. Vertical physical structure of vegetation in a homegarden system in Srisatchanalai, Thailand.
Figure 3. Crown cover projection (A) and profile diagram (B) of the homegarden system in Srisatchanalai, Thailand.

9
10

Table 1. Average leaf arrangement (number of layers) of the homegardens and a deciduous
forest in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand.

Vertical stratification Deciduous forest Homegardens

Emergent layer 2.70 2.80

Canopy layer 2.60 2.40
Understory layer 1.40 1.70
Shrub and ground cover 1.05 1.30

0.93 Sukhothai
0-25 2.12
0.71 Srisatchanalai
Ayudhaya
Soil depth (cm)

1.24
25-50 1.9
0.83

2.12
50-75 1.73
0.72

2.56
75-100 0.71
0.63

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

-3
Root biomass (kg m )

Figure 4. Root biomass of the homegarden systems in four soil depths in three locations in
Thailand.

khum (support), sak (dignity), rak (love), mairuroi (eternity). The Shannon-
Wiener’s index of species diversity (Krebs, 1985) was highest in Sukhothai
with 2.7; the indices were 2.5 in Srisatchanalai, 2.1 in Ayudhaya, and 1.9 in
Nonthaburi. In all homegardens there were plants that were not considered
as weeds and these were used as daily vegetables. The most dominant were
sanoe (a legume), tumlung (a vine), wild spinach, wild yam, and wild bitter
gourd.

3. Physical environmental factors

Incident light intensity successively declined from the crown layer to the
middle and lowest layer at the ground throughout the day (Table 4).
Temperature, relative humidity and soil temperature inside and outside the
homegardens of Sukhothai, Srisatchanalai and Ayudhaya are presented in
Table 5. Air and soil temperatures were lower inside the homegardens than
outside, while relative humidity was higher inside the homegardens than
outside.
 11

Table 2. Species diversity and plant growth form of the homegarden system in the four study
locations in Thailand.

Scientific name English common name Thai common name

Common species in all four locations

Trees
Cocos nucifera L. Coconut palm Ma Prao
Dimocarpus longan Lour. Longan Lum Yai
Mangifera indica L. Mango Ma Muang
Morinda citrifolia L. Morinda Yor
Shrubs
Annona squamosa L. Custrad apple Noi Nar
Capsicum frutescens Linn Cherry capsicum Prik Khee Noo
Citrus hystrix DC. Leech lime Ma Krood
Phyllantus acidus Skeels Star gooseberry Ma Yom
Herbs
Carica papaya L. Papaya Ma La Kor
Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf. Lemon grass Ta Krai
Musa sapientum L. Banana Kuai Num Wa
Ocimum basilicum L. Sweet basil Ho Ra Pa

Species noted at specific sites

Sukhothai
Trees
Acacia pennata (L.) Wild. Acacia Cha Om
Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk. Jack fruit Kha Noon
Azadirachta indica L. Neem tree Sa Daao
Borassus flabellifer L. Fan palm Taln
Ceiba pentandra Gaertn. White silk cotton tree Noon
Dendrocalamus asper Back. Bamboo Phai Tong
Eugenia simensis Craib. Water apple Chom Phoo Nam
Moringa oleifera lamk. Horseradish tree Ma Rume
Oroxylum indicum (L.) Vent Indian trumpet flower Pae Ka
Sandoricum koetjape Merr. Yellow sentol Kra Tond
Tamarindus indica L. Tamarind Ma Kham
Tectona grandis L. Teak Sak
Shrubs
Canna indica L. Indian shot Phud Tha Ruk Sa
Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.&Panz)
Swing. Lime Ma Naao
Citrus maxima Merr. Pummelo Som O
Ervatamia loronaria Stapf. Crepe jasmine Phud Sone
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. Shoe flower Cha Ba
Hibiscus schizopetalus (Mast) Hook Coral hibiscus Phoo Ra Houng
Ixora lobbii Loud. Ixora Khem Daeng
Psidium guajava L. Guava Fa Rang
Punica granatum L. Pomegranate Tup Tim
Herbs
Ananas comosus Merr. Pineapple Sup Pa Rod
12

Table 2. (Continued).

Scientific name English common name Thai common name

Herbs
Benincasa hispida Cogn. Chinese water melon Fuk Kheaw
Coccinia grandis Voight. Coccinia Tum Lung
Hippeastrum equestre (W. Ait.) Herb. Hippeastrum Wan See Thid
Lanquas galanga (L.) Stuntz. Galanga Kha
Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb. Angled loofah Boub Leam
Ocimum sanctum L. Holy basil Ka Praw
Piper aurantiacum Miq. Piper Cha Plue
Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC. Winged bean Tuae Plu
Solanum aculeatissimum Jacq. Cockroach berry Ma Khue Proe
Vigna sinensis Savi ex Hassk. Cow pea Tua Fak Yaao
Zingiber officinale Roscoe Ginger Khing

Srisatchanalai
Trees
Acacia pennata (L.) Wild. Acacia Cha Om
Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk. Jack fruit Kha Noon
Azadirachta indica L. Neem tree Sa Daao
Borassus flabellifer L. Fan palm Taln
Bouea macrophylla Griff. Plum mango Ma Prang
Cassia fistula Linn. Pudding-pine tree Khun
Ceiba pentandra Gaertn. White silk cotton tree Noon
Dendrocalamus asper Back. Bamboo Phai Tong
Eugenia javanica Lamk. Java apple Chom Phoo Kam Mam
Moringa oleifera Lamk. Horseradish tree Ma Rume
Oroxylum indicum (L.) Vent Indian trumpet flower Pae Ka
Sandoricum koetjape Merr. Yellow sentol Kra Tond
Tamarindus indica L. Tamarind Ma Kham
Tectona grandis L. Teak Sak
Unidentified species Khum
Shrubs
Canna indica L. Indian shot Phud Tha Ruk Sa
Citrus aurantifolia (Christm. & Panz)
Swing. Lime Ma Naao
Citrus maxima Merr. Pummelo Som O
Ervatamia loronaria Stapf. Crepe jasmine Phud Sone
Psidium guajava L. Guava Fa Rang
Punica granatum L. Pomegranate Tup Tim
Ixora lobbii Loud. Ixora Khem Daeng
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. Shoe flower Cha Ba
Hibiscus schizopetalus (Mast) Hook Coral hibiscus Phoo Ra Houng
Herbs
Ananas comosus Merr. Pineapple Sup Pa Rod
Benincasa hispida Cogn. Chinese water melon Fuk Kheaw
Coccinia grandis Voight. Ivy gourd Tum Lung
Hippeastrum equestre (W. Ait.) Herb. Hippeastrum Wan See Thid
Lanquas galanga (L.) Stuntz. Galanga Kha
Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb. Angled loofah Boub Leam
 13

Table 2. (Continued).

Scientific name English common name Thai common name

Herbs
Ocimum sanctum L. Holy basil Ka Praw
Pandanus kaida Kurz. Pandanas Taey
Piper aurantiacum Miq. Piper Cha Plue
Psophocarpus tetragonolobus (L.) DC. Winged bean Tuae Plu
Solanum aculeatissimum Jacq. Cockroach berry Ma Khue Proe
Vigna sinensis Savi ex Hassk. Cow pea Tua Fak Yaao
Zingiber officinale Roscoe Ginger Khing
Unidentified species Ruk
Unidentified species Ban Mai Rue Roi
Lianas
Piper chaba Hunt. Piper Dee Plee
Piper betel L. Betel leaf Plu

Ayudhaya
Trees
Azadirachta indica L. Neem tree Sa Daao
Dendrocalamus asper Back. Bamboo Phai Tong
Eugenia cumini (L.) Druce. Black poum Waar
Manilkara achras (Mill) Fosberg. Sapodilla plum La mood
Sesbania grandiflora (L.) Poir Agasta Kae
Tamarindus indica L. Tamarind Ma Kham
Shrubs
Agave americana L. Century plant Ma Li Laa
Manihot esculenta Crantz. Tapioca plant Mun Sum Pa Lung
Psidium guajava L. Guava Fa Rang
Solanum incanum L. Local garden egg Ma Waeng
Wrightia pubescens R. Wrightia Moke
Herbs
Lanquas galanga (L.) Stuntz. Galanga Kha
Ocimum canum Sims. Hairy basil Mang Lak
Zingiber officinale Roscoe Ginger Khing

Nondhaburi
Trees
Acacia pennata (L.) Wild. Acacia Cha Om
Areca catechu L. Areca palm Mak
Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk. Jack fruit Kha Noon
Baccaurea spinda Muell. Burmese grape Ma Fai
Bouea macrophylla Griff. Plum mango Ma Prang
Durio zibethinus L. Durian Durian
Elaeocarpus hygrophilus Kurz. Elaeocarpus Ma Kok Num
Erythrina subumbrans Coral tree Thong Lang
Eugenia javanica Lamk. Java apple Chom Phoo Kam Mam
Eugenia malaccensis L. Malay apple Chom Phoo Ma Meaw
Garcinia mamgstana L. Mangosteen Maung Kood
Sandoricum koetjape Merr. Yellow sentol Kra Tond
14

Table 2. (Continued).

Scientific name English common name Thai common name

Trees
Sesbania grandiflora (L.) Poir Agasta Kae
Spondias dulcis Forst. Spanish plum Ma Kok Fa Rang
Spondias pinnata (L.f) Kurz. Hog plum Ma Kok
Shrubs
Citrus aurantifolia (Christm. & Panz)
Swing. Lime Ma Naao
Citrus maxima Merr. Pomelo Som O
Manihot esculenta Crantz. Tapioca Mun Sum Pa Lung
Psidium guajava L. Guava Fa Rang
Herbs
Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. Asianic pennywort Bua Boak
Ocimum sanctum L. Holy basil Ka Praw
Saccharum officinarum L. Sugar cane Oye
Solanum stramonifolium Solanum Ma Oek
Lianas
Piper betel L. Betel leaf Plu

Note: Orchids, mosses and lichen were found at Sukhothai and Srisatchanalai where natural
forests are not too far away. But they are not included here.

Table 3. Species diversity based on utilitiesa of the homegardens in four study locations in
Thailand.

Site Species diversity

Fruit Spicesb Spiritual Vegetable Ornamental Othersc

and food

Sukhothai 16 7 2 14 5 1a
Srisatchanalai 17 10 6 14 5 1a
Ayudhaya 10 8 0 6 2 0
Nondhaburi 21 6 0 9 0 0
a
Identified by major utility once only.
b
Betel leaf and areca palm were included.
c
White silk cotton tree for mattress and pillow filling.

4. Nutrient and soil fertility

The major reservoir for nutrient cycling in the tropical terrestrial ecosystems,
the litter, had a relatively wide range in the homegardens. The highest was
at Ayudhaya with 3,068.8 ± 187.2 g m–2 and 1440.0 ± 249.6 g m–2 at
Srisatchanalai. While the lowest was in Sukhothai with the value of
678.4 ± 436.8 g m–2.
 15

Table 4. Light intensity at three vertical stratifications in the homegardens in the mid growing
season (August) at three locations in Thailand.

Time Light intensity (Lux)

Levels Sukhothai Srisatchanalai Ayudhaya

7.00 Crown cover > 6,000 1,250 > 6,000

Mid-crown cover > 5,800 1,000 > 6,000
Ground cover > 950 0,700 > 6,000
9.00 Crown cover > 6,000 2,000 > 6,000
Mid-crown cover > 5,900 1,200 > 6,000
Ground cover > 1,600 0,800 > 6,000
11.00 Crown cover > 5,000 3,000 > 6,000
Mid-crown cover > 4,200 1,300 > 6,000
Ground cover > 2,600 0,700 > 5,400
13.00 Crown cover > 6,000 3,000 > 6,000
Mid-crown cover > 3,800 1,300 > 6,000
Ground cover > 2,600 0,700 > 6,000
15.00 Crown cover > 2,400 3,600 > 6,000
Mid-crown cover > 2,000 1,250 > 5,800
Ground cover > 1,400 1,000 > 5,600
17.00 Crown cover > 1,200 2,200 > 4,900
Mid-crown cover >0, 750 0,800 > 3,500
Ground cover >0, 580 0,650 >0, 900

Table 5. Daily average atmospheric temperature, soil temperature, and relative humidity inside
and outside the homegardens at three locations in Thailand.

Site Air temperature (°C) Soil temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%)

Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside

Sukhothai 29.7 ± 1.8 30.6 ± 1.3 21.0 ± 0.0 24.0 ± 0.0 78.5 ± 2.8 70.7 ± 06.2
Srisatchanalai 29.5 ± 1.4 32.3 ± 1.6 20.0 ± 0.0 24.0 ± 0.0 76.2 ± 3.8 59.9 ± 08.7
Ayudhaya 31.3 ± 1.2 32.7 ± 1.4 22.1 ± 0.2 24.0 ± 0.7 75.9 ± 4.5 59.6 ± 12.1

A comparison of soil fertility indicators, such as the pH, total nitrogen,

organic matter, total phosphorus, and available phosphorus, of soil inside and
outside the homegardens cleary showed higher soil fertility inside the
homegardens, where it was highest in the 0 to 25 cm layer (Table 6). There
was no input of chemical fertilizer to maintain soil fertility, neither were
chemical compounds used for weed or pest suppression. Weeding was done
by hand and weed biomass was used as green manure. In Nonthaburi, the
decaying material from the bottom of the dike system was used as organic
fertilizer.
Table 6. Soil chemical factors inside and outside homegarden systems at four different soil depths in the three study locations in Thailand.

16
Site Soil Total nitrogen Organic matter Organic carbon C:N Phosphate Total phosphorus pH
depth (mg/100g) (%) (%) (mg/100g) (mg/100g)
(cm)

Inside Outsidea Inside Outsidea Inside Outsidea Inside Outsidea Inside Outsidea Inside Outsidea Inside Outsidea

Sukhothai 0–25 65.7 1.4 0.7 11.3 12.5 354.0 6.1

± 27.2 ± 0.6 ± 0.3 ± 5.4 ± 31.8 ± 1.4
25–50 46.4 25.8 6.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 8.5 3.7 10.7 2.7 232.7 112.0 6.0 6.8
± 14.2 ± 0.3 ± 0.1 ± 2.4 ± 36.3 ± 1.5
50–75 50.2 1.1 0.4 8.4 11.0 202.0 6.1
± 25.9 ± 0.5 ± 0.2 ± 0.02 ± 21.0 ± 1.5
75–100 36.7 0.6 0.3 8.8 9.0 152.3 6.1
± 27.8 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 0.3 ± 7.5 ± 1.6
Srisatchanalai 0–25 68.9 1.5 0.7 10.1 13.1 1258.3 6.4
± 31.6 ± 0.7 ± 0.3 ± 0.9 ± 11.8 ± 0.4
25–50 52.3 39.5 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.4 8 10.5 11.1 9.7 689.0 955.0 6.4 5.8
± 17.0 ± 0.4 ± 0.2 ± 0.6 ± 258.3 ± 0.5
50–75 47.7 1.0 0.4 8 10.1 1216.3 6.4
± 19.0 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 ± 1.8 ± 164.8 ± 0.8
75–100 49.4 1.1 0.4 8.4 13.1 1287.3 6.5
± 25.1 ± 0.6 ± 0.3 ± 04 ± 8.8 ± 0.9

Ayudhaya 0–25 121.0 2.2 1.0 8.7 8.7 454.3 6.0

± 61.8 ± 0.9 ± 0.5 ± 0.03 ± 2.36 ± 0.5
25–50 77.2 34.7 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.2 7.9 5 7.7 3.4 736.3 281.5 6.0 6.9
± 41.0 ± 0.7 ± 0.4 ± 0.1 ± 59.1 ± 0.6
50–75 61.0 1.2 0.5 8.6 8.4 869.3 6.0
± 34.2 ± 0.5 ± 0.3 ± 0.1 ± 27.8 ± 0.4
75–100 54.9 1.3 0.5 9.4 6.8 1156.0 5.9
± 36.9 ± 0.8 ± 0.4 ± 0.1 ± 10.11 ± 0.3
a
Average of 0–100 cm depth.
 17

5. Cultivation practices

The first step in homegarden establishment was land clearing, when some
big trees were felled for home construction. Some trees were thinned to
increase light for lower layers of plants. Other trees were selected and left on
the site for different purposes such as construction, non-timber products, or
maintenance of favorable microenvironmental factors, especially relative
humidity. The second step included planting some fast growing crops, espe-
cially banana and crops which are believed to enhance favorable site
conditions such as the coral tree, a leguminous species. Then the major tree
crops such as coconut, mango, and durian were planted. After these tree crops’
survival was ensured, the associated crops were selected and planted.

Discussion

The homegarden is claimed by the general public and academics as an effi-

cient, highly rationale, ecologically and socioeconomically sustainable
agroecosystem that can sustain basic community needs without environmental
deterioration (Fernandes and Nair, 1986; Landauer and Brazil, 1990).
However, these claims have been based on social or qualitative studies without
much quantitative data or vigorous system analyses (Wojkowski, 1993).
According to Torquebiau (1992), for an agroecosystem to be claimed as sus-
tainable, it must be ecologically stable, be appropriate to the social contexts,
and should have supportive externalities. He used four indicators for evalu-
ating sustainability of ecosystems: soil conservation, the efficient use and con-
servation of existing resources, the use of biological interactions, and the use
of inputs that are easily available and of inputs and practices that ensure both
human health and environmental conservation. In this discussion, the home-
gardens are evaluated based on five ecological indicators: an indigenous eco-
logical knowledge base, physical stature, biological diversity, nutrient cycling,
and microenvironment.

1. Indigenous ecological knowledge base

The homegarden is one of the systems which reflects the wisdom of tradi-
tional culture that evolved and was passed on from generation to generation.
In general ecosystem development theory, the species are not deliberately ‘put’
into a certain positions of an ecosystem, but species become established in
habitats or ecosystems if the conditions, including competition, are suitable
for propagation and growth. The major factor for species selection in the
homegardens has been value and utility of the main products. In the estab-
lishment of a homegarden, the first group of species to be established is the
fast growing plants. The most common species is the coral tree. This species
has been widely planted for soil fertility improvement. Banana was also
18

planted with the coral tree for early products such as fruit, young edible
flowers, and leaves. Banana provides ground cover too. Therefore, once these
species are established, they change the conditions of the system, soil fertility
and microenvironmental conditions, which are likely to be favorably affected.
Spacing is an another aspect of practical knowledge and skill. There are
two types of durian, which produce fruits at different times. The slow growing
variety was planted 24 m apart. At this distance, there is no competition for
light, nutrients and water among these trees. A fast growing durian would then
be under-planted. From the vertical root stratification study, root systems of
the two varieties were found to be concentrated at different depths. There
was no competition between these varieties and an efficient pattern of uti-
lization of soil and light existed. Durian, perhaps the most expensive fruit in
Thailand, was continuously supplied from these gardens.
This indicates that a comprehensive understanding of species, system, and
environment was taken into consideration by homegardeners.

2. Physical stature

All homegardens had four vertical stratifications; the emergent, canopy, under-
story, and shrub and ground cover layers. This vertical stratification is a
common structure among homegardens throughout the tropics (Gillespie et
al., 1993, Karyono, 1990). The natural ecosystems with similar physical
structures are tropical, evergreen and deciduous forests. A comparison of
profile- and crown-projection diagrams between the homegardens and dry
dipterocarp forest at Sakaerat Biosphere Reserve, Nakornratchaseema has
shown that their physical structures are almost identical (Sahunalu et al.,
1993). Both had four similar vertical stratifications, but the dry dipterocarp
forest had a higher height of each layer, a higher density of plants, and a denser
crown layer. One conclusion is that the traditional homegardens are micro-
cosms, or imitations of natural tropical forest ecosystems with a less diverse
physical structure and species to serve the daily subsistence human need.
Physical structure of natural tropical forest ecosystems has been evolved
for the highest utilization efficiency of space and resources, especially light
and soil. A study from a deciduous forest ecosystem of Huai Kha Khaeng
wildlife sanctuary, Thailand showed that light intensity decreases from the
crown layer toward the shrub and ground cover (Gajaseni, unpublished data).
Light intensity at the ground cover was 0.1% of light intensity over the crown
layer. Coincidently, the average number of leaf layers from the same forest
were; 2.9 for emergent, 2.6 for crown, 1.4 for understory, and 1.05 for shrub
and ground cover layers (Gajaseni, unpublished data). The lower leaf layer
means a higher leaf area per unit of intercepted light. Therefore, shrub and
ground cover can survive with less light intensity, while at the same time a
unit space can accommodate more species by vertical stratification of physical
structure. The natural tropical ecosystem has been imitated by the homegarden
agroecosystem, not just structurally but functionally as well. Light intensity
 19

successively decreases from the emergent layer toward ground cover in the
homegardens, so the average number of leaf layers from the four stratifica-
tions of the homegardens also successively decreased from 2.8 for emergent
to 2.4 for crown and 1.7 for understory layers, and then to 1.3 for shrub and
ground cover. These show a high possible utilization efficiency for space and
resources by the homegarden agroecosystem as well.
Vertical root stratification at the different soil depths of the four different
aboveground layers in the homegardens also shows the maximum utilization
efficiency of soil nutrients and water. If a root system is distributed in one
depth, nutrients and water at the other depths would be expected to exhibit
loss or not be utilized.
If one accepts that the natural ecosystem is an ecologically sustainable
system because the system has evolved to the point of balance between
structure, function, and environment, then the effects of such tight linkages
between physical structure, function, and environment are reflected manifold
in the homegardens to the point of ecological sustainability.

3. Biological diversity

Shannon-Wiener’s indices of species diversity of the homegardens were 2.7

to 1.9. These values are close to the species diversity indices of a dipterocarp
forest ecosystem in Num Phrom Basin in the northeastern Thailand (Sahunalu
et al., 1979), but were low when compared with those from the other forest
ecosystems in Thailand (Boontawee et al., 1995). However, a classification
of different agroecosystems on the basis of the relative diversity of produc-
tion systems and diversity of species gave homegardens the highest biodi-
versity and complexity amongst man-made agroecosystems (Swift and
Anderson, 1994). This means that biological diversity in the homegardens is
close to that of the natural ecosystems. This confirmed the hypothesis that
the homegardens were human-made ecosystems using the natural forest
ecosystem as the prototype. Contrary to expectation, the homegardens were
not assemblies of species at random like the natural forest ecosystems. The
biological diversity was selected for the homegarden with utility of the specific
products as the main criterion. Each component has a vital function in the
integrated agroecosystem. This high biological diversity in the homegardens
also decreased pest and weed outbreaks. There is a tendency for higher fungus
attacks or insect infections in monoculture forest plantations than in poly-
culture plantations (Montagnini et al., 1994).
The homegardens are in-situ reservoirs for biodiversity at all levels: genetic,
species, and ecological. Each species in the homegardens had more than one
variety. For durian, because of market preferences, only three varieties were
marketed. This is a serious threat to the genetic diversity of indigenous species
and sustainability. In the homegarden of Nonthaburi, there were at least three
varieties of durian which never appeared on the market. In Ayudhaya, there
were five rare varieties of mango. Studies from Micronesia confirmed the
20

in-situ genetic reservoirs of homegardens. There were 21 varieties of coconut,

28 of bread fruit, and 37 of banana in the homegardens of Micronesia
(Falanruw, 1990). The homegardens had high species richness and evenness
of the different growth forms, i.e., trees, shrubs, herbs, liana, and epiphytes.
All were usable as fruits, vegetables, herbs, or ornamentals, or had signifi-
cant spiritual value. One example of these is the star gooseberry (Phyllantus
acidus). Almost every Thai garden has at least one star gooseberry growing
because it is thought that such a shrub brings affection to everyone in the
house.
In the present study of homegardens, there were an average of 45 species
at Sukhothai, 53 at Srisatchanalai, 26 at Ayudhaya, and 36 at Nonthaburi.
The potential of homegardens as in-situ reservoirs for biodiversity is even
higher. Whitmore (1971) reported 17 families of natural forest trees in a 676
hectare tropical rain forest in Malaysia with agricultural or pharmacological
values. While Makaraphirom (1989) monitored over 200 species in indige-
nous traditional homegardens in Thailand, Ahmad and Abood (1990)
documented 19 families, 30 genera, 44 species of forest species in agroforestry
ecosystems in Malaysia. This indicates that homegardens have the potential
to encompass more diversity of plants, possibly in response to the demand
for increased production or economic return to cope with socioeconomic
conditions of the society.

4. Nutrient cycling

There is a consensus among ecologists that nutrients are limiting factors in

tropical ecosystems (Richard, 1952). Therefore, nutrient cycling must be the
principal determinant for ecological rationality of homegardens. It has been
claimed that the tropical homegarden can conserve soil fertility involving
organic matter content in the system. Nevertheless, the claim has not been
adequately substantiated with data (Balasubramanian and Egli, 1986; Ninez,
1987; Torquebiau, 1992).
Soil pH from the homegardens in this study was in the range of 5.9 to 6.5.
Within this range, most of soil phosphorus concentration is in soluble forms
which are available to plant. This means that soils of the homegardens were
in favorable fertility conditions as far as pH is concerned. Production output
from the homegardens were in the forms of fruits, leaves, young shoots, bark,
flowers or other non-timber products. There was no complete harvesting from
the homegardens. This mechanism ensured minimal nutrient export from the
system.
Litter is the primary raw material for decomposition. The average litter in
standing crop in the homegardens was higher than even in a typical tropical
forest: 1729 g m–2 compared with 500 g m–2 respectively (Jordan, 1985).
Therefore, high litter biomass and diverse litter composition in the home-
garden should contribute to a high efficiency of nutrient cycling. Futhermore,
the results from a study on effects of organic matter decomposition on
 21

phosphorus mobilization in a diversified agroforestry system in Northern

Thailand confirmed that more diversified agroforestry systems help allevia-
tion of phosphorus availability from diverse litter decomposition (Gajaseni
et at., unpublished data). This suggests that phosphorus availability could be
better in homegardens.

5. Microenvironment

The homegardens had more favorable microenvironments with lower soil and
atmospheric temperature and higher relative humidity than the outside. Lower
soil temperature causes less soil evapotranspiration; therefore, retention of
more water happens in the homegardens. Lower soil temperature and high
water content also enhance biological activities in the soil, especially in
relation to the decomposition processes. These assertions are based on eco-
logical research in a diversified agroforestry system (Gajaseni et at., unpub-
lished data). Resource availability is to a large extent determined by the
activity of decomposers, while the most important factors influencing
decomposer activity are the availability of water and nutrients. However, high
relative humidity might cause fungus and/or insect outbreaks, the most
common problem in tropical agriculture. This is not the case in homegardens
with relatively high genetic and species diversity. From general surveys in the
homegardens and from the interviews with homegardeners, there had been
no single incident of a pest outbreak at a threatening level, nor any chemical
compound used for pest and weed control in the homegardens.

Conclusion

Techniques of the homegarden management should have evolved over the

years with the transferred indigenous ecological knowledge-base of interac-
tion among species, product utilization, and the basic environmental require-
ments of different species. That wisdom was reflected in species selection and
spacing. The physical structure analysis shows that the traditional home-
gardens are microcosms or imitations of natural tropical forest ecosystems to
serve for daily subsistance. With paddy rice as the major staple food, the
dual systems of paddy rice and homegardens have been the foundation of the
Thai society of the permanent settlers, not shifting cultivators.
Aboveground and belowground structures of the homegardens have evolved
for a high utilization efficiency of space and resources, especially light, water
and soil nutrients. The homegardens are not assemblies of biological diver-
sity at random, but the species are rather selected with their utility as the main
criterion. The homegardens are in-situ reservoirs for biological diversity,
especially genetic diversity with the potential to incorporate higher diversity
to increase production or economic return.
In spite of or, perhaps because of, the relatively high genetic diversity and
species diversity, there had been no pest outbreaks at a threatening level.
22

Within a neutral pH range, soils of the homegardens are assumed to be in

favorable fertility conditions. With minimal export of harvested products from
the homegardens, nutrients export from the system is relatively less. High
litter biomass and diverted litter composition also contribute to high efficiency
of nutrient cycling. Therefore, the homegardens can maintain production
within renewable limits and with appropriated human intervention.

Acknowledgements

The authors were grateful to Mr. Chuae Prakit of Sukhothai, Ms. Lumpong
Kaewthung of Srisatchanalai, Mr. Saard Sukphodee of Ayudhaya, and Mr.
Phon Boonchum of Nonthaburi for providing study sites. They also shared
the immense wisdom that they inherited, learned and developed through
practice. It will now be transferred to the next Thai generation.
Thanks are also due to Mr. Muang Koktung, the villagers, and graduate
students for their contribution to the project. Mr. Rory Mackenzie and Dr.
David Rufollo kindly reviewed and improved the English and style of the
manuscript. Comments of two anonymous referees and the editor greatly
helped improve the paper.
The project was funded by the Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn
University.
This work is dedicated to Ms. Jerm Sukhavanich, grandmother of the first
author. Her homegarden was the inspiration of this project.

References

Ahmad AM and Abood F (1990) Selected forest trees with potential application in Malaysian
agroforestry. BIOTROP Special Publication No. 39. BIOTROP, Indonesia. 77-89.
Balasubramanian V and Egli A (1986) The role of agroforestry in the farming systems in Rwanda
with special reference to the Bgesera-Mingogo region. Agrofor Syst 4: 489-534
Boontawee B, Plengklai C and Khao-sa-ard A (1995) Monitoring and measuring forest bio-
diversity in Thailand. In: Boyle TJB and Boontawee B (eds) Measuring and monitoring
biodiversity in tropical and temperate forests, pp 113–126. CIFRO, Bogor, Indonesia
Bray RH and Kurtz LT (1945) Determination of total organic and available form of phosphorus
in soils. Soil Science 59: 39–45
Dumrong, Prince (1907) The Pongsawadan. Department of Fine Arts. Ministry of Education.
Bangkok, Thailand (in Thai)
Falanruw MVC (1990) The food production system of the Yap Island. In: Landauer K and Brazil
B (eds) Tropical homegardens, pp 94–104. United Nations University Press, Tokyo
Fernandes ECM and Nair PKR (1986) An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical
homegardens. Agric Syst 21: 279–310
Fox RL and Kamprath EJ (1970) Phosphate sorption isotherm for evaluating the phosphate
requirement of soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 34: 902–906
Gajaseni J Matta-Machado R and Jordan CF (1995) Diversified agroforestry systems: buffer
for biodiversity reserve and landbridge for fragmented habitats in the tropics. In: Szaro R
 23

and Johnston DW (eds) Biodiversity in managed landscapes, pp 506-513. Oxford University

Press, New York
Gillespie AR Knudson DM and Geilfus F (1993) The structure of four homegardens in the Peten,
Guatemala. Agrofor Syst 24: 157–170
Gorman CF (1971) Subsistence patterns in Southeast Asia during the Late Pleistocene and
Early Recent period. World Archeology 2: 217–240
Jackson ML (1958) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey
Jensen M (1993) Productivity and nutrient cycling of a Javanese homegarden. Agrofor Syst 24:
187–201
Jordan CF (1985) Nutrient cycling in tropical forest ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester
Jose D and Shanmugaratnam N (1993) Traditional homegardens of Kerala: a sustainable human
ecosystem Agrofor Syst 24: 203–213
Karyono (1990) Homegarden in Java:their structure and function. iIn: Landauer K and Brazil
M (eds) Tropical homegardens, pp 138–146. United Nations University Press, Tokyo
Krebs, CJ (1985) Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Harper
and Row, Publisher, New York
Landauer K and Brazil M (eds) (1990) Tropical homegardens. United Nations University Press,
Tokyo
Makaraphirom P (1989) Check list of species for extension in agroforestry systems. Agroforestry
Research 30, Royal Forestry Department, Bangkok, Thailand (in Thai)
Marten GG (ed) (1986) Traditional agriculture in Southeast Asia. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado
Montagnini FR Gonzales P Rheingans R and Sancho F (1994) Mixed tree plantations in the
humid tropics: growth, litterfall and economics of experimental systems in Latin America,
pp 125–135. Proceedings of IUFRO Symposium on Growth and Yield of Tropical Forests,
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Fuchu, Tokyo
Ninez V (1987) Household gardens: theoretical and policy considerations. Agric Syst 23:
167–186
Page AL (ed) (1982) Methods of soil analysis. Soil Science Society of America, Inc.
Pelzer KJ (1978) Swidden cultivation in Southeast Asia: historical, ecological, and economic
perspectives. In: Kunstadter P Chapman EC and Sabhasri S (eds) Farmers in the forest, pp
271–285. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu
Richard PW (1952) The tropical rain forest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sahunalu P Jumruenpruek M Phuriyakorn P Dhammmanond P Suwannaphirom W and Prachaiyo
B (1979) Comparative structure of three forest types in Num Phrom basin, Chaiyaphum
province. Forestry Research Report 63, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University. Bangkok,
Thailand (in Thai)
Sahunalu P Dhammanond P and Phongumphai S (1993) A study on dipterocarp changes. Interim
Report to the Research Counsil of Thailand. Research Council of Thailand. Bangkok,
Thailand (in Thai)
Torquebiau E (1992) Are tropical agroforestry homegarden sustainable? Agric Ecosystem
Environ 41: 189–207
Whitmore TC (1971) Wild fruit trees and some trees of pharmacological potential in the rain
forest of Ulu Kelantan. Malayan Nat J 24: 222–224
Whittaker RH (1975) Communities and ecosystems, 2ed. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York
Wojtkowski PA (1993) Toward an understanding of tropical homegardens. Agrofor Syst 24:
215–222