Agroforest Syst

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00821-7 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

Do carbon stocks and floristic diversity of tropical

homegardens vary along an elevational gradient and based
on holding size in central Kerala, India?
B. Mohan Kumar

Received: 1 September 2022 / Accepted: 2 February 2023

 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023

Abstract Homegarden (HG) agroforestry combines
biological carbon (C) sequestration with biodiversity
conservation outcomes. Although C stocks and
species richness of HGs vary along elevational
gradients and as a function of holding sizes, there is
no consensus on the nature and magnitude of such
variations. Field studies were conducted in the
Western Ghats region of central Kerala, India (180
homesteads in 20 selected panchayats), to evaluate the
effects of elevation (near sea level to 1938 m) and
garden size (162–10,117 m2) on aboveground C stocks
and floristic diversity. The C stocks (per unit area) of
HGs (arborescent species) were highly variable
(0.63–93.65 Mg ha–1), as garden management was
highly individualistic and it exhibited a weak negative
relationship with elevation. Likewise, there was a
weak negative relationship between C stocks and
garden size. Tree stocking levels (stems/garden) and
species richness (species/garden) positively impacted
total C stocks per garden. Floristic diversity was high
in the study area (753 species) and included many rare
and endangered species (43 IUCN Red-Listed species)
making homegardens circa situm reservoirs of biodi-
versity. Elevation and holding size exerted a weak
negative linear relationship on Simpson’s floristic
diversity index, which ranged from 0.26 to 0.93 for
B. M. Kumar (&)
Arunachal University of Studies, Knowledge City,
Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh 792103, India
e-mail: bmohankumarkau@gmail.com
the arboreal species. Homegardens, regardless of
elevation or size, contribute to C sequestration and
agrobiodiversity conservation and help achieve the
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), partic-
ularly Climate Action (SDG-13) and conserving
agrobiodiversity (SDG-15, Life on Land).
Keywords Agrobiodiversity  Carbon
sequestration  Climate change mitigation  Western
Ghats  Sustainable development goals
Introduction
Agroforestry systems (AFS) contribute significantly to
the global carbon (C) cycle due to their high biomass
production and C accumulation potentials (Nair et al.
2021). Homegarden agroforestry (Fig. 1) not only has
a large potential for biological C sequestration in soil
and biomass (Kumar and Kunhamu 2021) but also is
an icon of circa situm biodiversity conservation
(preserving planted and/or relic trees and wildings
on farmlands where forests or woodlands of similar
composition existed once; Dawson et al. 2013; Kumar
2011). Distributed predominantly in the tropical areas
of Asia, Africa, Central America, the Caribbean, and
the Pacific Islands (Nair et al. 2021), the homegardens
(HGs) are rich in plant diversity and have been ranked
first among all man-made agroecosystems in terms of

123

Fig. 1 Multispecies Kerala homegardens. Top: a large-sized
garden on a rolling terrain, Middle: a small garden on the
lowland plains and Bottom: a small garden on the edges of
paddy fields. The coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) are a
prominent feature of the Kerala homegardens and are grown
in association with several annual and perennial species of
different forms (Photo: BM Kumar)
123
Agroforest Syst
species richness (Kumar and Nair 2006; Kabir and
Webb 2008a). HGs provide food and nutritional
security to the gardeners and represent Nature-based
Solutions (NbS) for climate change mitigation and
biodiversity conservation. Indeed, they provide an
effective framework fundamental to C cycle regula-
tion and agrobiodiversity conservation with enormous
potential for achieving the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs: Sharma et al. 2022).
Multiple factors, however, influence the C seques-
tration and biodiversity attributes of tropical HGs,
making it difficult to discern the effects of a single
factor. Elevation, size of the holdings, stand age, and
management practices (e.g., the suite of species,
silvicultural/agronomic techniques, and harvesting)
are important in this respect (Nair et al. 2009, 2010).
Increasing elevation, associated with a decline in
temperature (Sundqvist et al. 2013), may reduce
decomposition rates and enhance soil organic matter
(SOC) accumulation. However, such low-temperature
regimes are also associated with low radiation regimes
and low nitrogen availability, signifying lower pro-
ductivity levels (Grubb et al. 1963; Moser et al. 2011).
The increasing mean annual temperature at lower
elevations, conversely, may promote higher biomass
productivity, but it is also possible that faster organic
matter decomposition leads to lower SOC
accumulation.
Experiments in the neotropical mountain forests of
Latin America have revealed a negative linear rela-
tionship between elevation and standing stocks of
aboveground biomass (Raich et al. 2006; Leuschner
et al. 2007; Malhi et al. 2017), and a positive trend in
respect of SOC (Kitayama and Aiba 2002; Raich et al.
2006; Girardin et al. 2010), with no significant net
changes in total C stocks (Girardin et al. 2010;
Selmants et al. 2014). Phillips et al. (2019), however,
reported a unimodal distribution in the aboveground C
stocks of the tropical mountain forests of Colombia
with elevation (750–2800 m range), which peaked in
the middle of the gradient and then decreased, with a
similar trend reported for other tropical mountain
forests (e.g., Marshall et al. 2012; Ensslin et al. 2015;
Venter et al. 2017).
Although several studies have examined how C
stocks of natural forest ecosystems change along an
elevational gradient, only a few studies have eval-
uated the C stocks and species diversity variations
of HGs along such a gradient. Birhane et al. (2020)
Agroforest Syst

reported that for southern Ethiopian HGs, total Materials and methods
biomass and soil C stocks were significantly
(p = 0.001) higher in the upper (1877–2000 m) Field surveys were conducted in central Kerala, India,
elevation zone than in the mid (1754–1876 m) and at four locations, namely, Thrissur, Ernakulum,
lower (1630–1753 m) zones with 26% more C stock Idukki, and Malappuram districts (Fig. 2). The study
in the upper zone. Bargali and Bargali (2020) also area falls within the broad biogeographic region of the
showed that soil C stocks increased with increasing Western Ghats, a ‘‘global biodiversity hotspot’’, and
altitude (350–2000 m) for small HGs in the Central experiences a warm humid tropical climate. The
Himalayas, India; but for medium and large HGs, it principal soil types, number of households, and other
increased up to the mid-altitude and decreased details of the study locations are described in KSLUB
thereafter, signifying a complex interrelationship (1995). HGs constitute the predominant land use
between C stocks, size of gardens, and altitudinal activity in the study area (Kumar and Nair 2004;
positions. Kumar and Takeuchi 2009; Kumar 2011), which,
The association between biological C sequestra-
tion and plant diversity has become a subject of
huge scientific interest in the discourse on climate
change mitigation. Although this hypothesis on
species diversity and net primary production (i.e.,
species-diverse systems are more productive) was
tested for natural systems (Tilman et al. 1997), very
little research has been conducted to validate these
claims in an agroforestry setting. Saha et al. (2009)
reported that the soil C stock was directly related to
the plant diversity of HGs. Yet, the interrelation-
ships between species richness and aboveground
biomass C stocks were seldom evaluated for HGs. It
was, therefore, hypothesized that an increase in the
number of species may influence the accumulation
of biomass C and as a result, HGs that have higher
species diversity may have greater C sequestration
potential (CSP). However, operational attributes
such as the size of HGs and managerial interven-
tions may have a complex effect on species richness
and biomass productivity. Therefore, it was further
hypothesized that although biomass C stocks of
Kerala HGs may co-vary with species richness along
an elevational gradient, operational attributes such
as the size of the HGs and managerial interventions
may have an overriding impact on species diversity
and CSP. The specific objectives of the study were
(1) to investigate how the aboveground C stocks and
species diversity attributes of Kerala HGs varied
along an elevational gradient, (2) to examine the
differences in aboveground C stocks in HGs of
varying sizes, and (3) to assess the interrelationships
between the aboveground C stocks and species
Fig. 2 Map of Kerala showing the study locations. Shapefile
diversity/richness. reprinted from GADM database under CC BY license

123

however, are being cleared for various purposes, but
offset by the expansion of younger, less diverse
agroforests into paddy wetlands (Fox et al. 2017).
For estimating carbon stocks and species diversity
of the HGs along an altitudinal gradient (near sea level
to 1938 m elevation), 20 panchayats (the lowest level
of local self-government) from the coastal plains to the
High Ranges of Kerala were selected considering their
elevations and ease of access (i.e., 11% of all
panchayats in the designated districts). The survey
was conducted during the period from February 2019
to March 2020 (until the onset of the Covid-19
pandemic). The contact details of the farmers and
information on the approximate size of holdings and
the general land-use pattern were obtained from the
Krishibhavans (agricultural development offices) of
the respective panchayats. The respondents were
contacted and a detailed investigation of their home-
steads was conducted, which included gathering
details on the nature and kind of species, socioeco-
nomic parameters, and farm management.
Three broad size categories of HGs viz., small
(\ 0.4 ha holding size), medium (0.4–0.8 ha holding
size), and large ([ 0.8 ha holding size) were included
in the study (at least three gardens each per category
and panchayath) and a total of 180 HGs with a total
farm area of 190.18 ha was sampled. The extent of
HGs within the total farm was ascertained from the
gardeners, and it was occasionally cross-checked by
field observations. In many small gardens, however,
the boundaries of the HGs and the total farms were co-
terminus with one another. Geographic coordinates
and altitudes of each HG surveyed were noted using a
Garmin eTrex 30 9 GPS (USA). Mean monthly
temperature and precipitation data for the study
locations for the 1991–2021 period were downloaded
from the Climate-data.org portal (Table 1; https://en.
climate-data.org/asia/india/kerala-752/).
All arboreal species (trees and shrubs: ] 5 cm
girth at breast height; 1.37 m, GBH) present in the
HGs, including the border rows, were enumerated by
measuring their GBH, bole height, and total height
using a measuring tape and Haga Altimeter, respec-
tively. For plantation species such as coconut (Cocos
nucifera), rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), areca nut
(Areca catechu), and nutmeg (Myristica fragrans),
10 random plants were measured, in addition to
recording their total numbers as stated by the
landowner. For bamboos, GBH of 10 random culms
123
Agroforest Syst
was measured and the number of culms per clump was
counted, besides measuring clump height using a Haga
Altimeter. Within each HG, three randomly selected
1 m 9 1 m quadrats were also laid out, and the
species-wise counts (number of plants within the
quadrat) of the herbaceous plants (\ 5 cm GBH) were
recorded. Sample specimens of plant species that
could not be identified in the field were collected for
comparison with the herbaria collections maintained
at Kerala Agricultural University.
Computations and statistical analysis of the data
The aboveground tree biomass was computed using the
following allometric equations for individual trees and
summed up to derive the garden-wise biomass esti-
mates. However, species-specific allometric equations
have not been developed for several dicot species.
Therefore, a generalized allometric equation for the
moist tropical forests (FAO 2004) was used in such
cases.
• Ailanthus triphysa: lnB ¼ 2:06622 þ
2:120555lnDBH; where B = Aboveground bio-
mass, DBH = Diameter at breast height (cm)
(Kumar et al. 1998).
• Artocarpus heterophyllus: InB ¼ 1:71891þ
2:251298lnDBH, where B = Aboveground bio-
mass, DBH = Diameter at breast height (cm)
(Kumar et al. 1998).
• Artocarpus hirsutus: lnB ¼ 3:06934þ
2:793477lnDBH, where B = Aboveground bio-
mass, DBH = Diameter at breast height (cm)
(Kumar et al. 1998).
• Emblica officinalis (syn. Phyllanthus emblica):
LnB ¼ 2:70511 þ 0:969805lnðDBH 2 HÞ, where
B = Aboveground biomass, DBH = Diameter at
breast height (cm), H = Total height (m) (Kumar
et al. 1998).
• Hevea brasiliensis: B ¼ 0:002604G2:7826 , where
B = Shoot weight in kg and G = girth in cm at
150 cm height (Shorrocks et al. 1965).
• Tectona grandis:
Log10 B ¼ 0:815 þ 2:382log10 DBH, where
B = Aboveground biomass, DBH = Diameter at
breast height (cm) (Kraenzel et al. 2003).
• All other dicot trees: Y¼
expf2:134 þ 2:53lnðDÞg; where Y = biomass
per tree in kg, exp = exponential function,
Agroforest Syst

Table 1 Latitude, longitude, and elevation of the study areas (Panchayats) and the range, mean, and standard error values of carbon
stocks of homegarden trees and shrubs (] 5 cm GBH) in central Kerala, India with meteorological parameters of the study locations
Panchayat Latitude Longitude Elevation Homegarden biomass carbon Mean Mean annual
(N) (E) (m) stocks (Mg ha–1) monthly precipitation* (mm)
temperature*
(C)
Min Max Min Max Mean Standard Min Max
Error

Adimali 10.02 76.93 529 867 24.49 64.58 36.7 4.72 20.8 24.1 2672
Alagappanagar 10.44 76.29 19 36 24.88 73.54 46.4 5.98 24.9 28.3 3161
Athirapilly 10.30 76.49 34 102 21.82 74.52 40.5 6.36 24.2 28.1 3161
Chakkupallam 9.77 77.05 1031 1146 27.40 68.53 41.4 4.81 21.3 24.6 1548
Chelakkara 10.69 76.34 33 67 27.15 68.21 46.7 4.37 24.6 28.9 2242
Erumapetty 10.68 76.19 17 38 36.03 71.97 58.1 3.97 24.9 28.8 2746
Kandanassery 10.51 76.08 14 37 12.46 75.16 47.7 4.88 25.3 28.6 2522
Kavalangad 10.04 76.76 35 131 16.99 56.08 35.1 3.43 23.7 27.0 3410
Kodassery 10.34 76.39 14 45 26.04 64.79 42.1 4.79 25.4 28.5 2641
Madakkathara 10.42 76.21 23 36 25.12 66.75 36.1 4.10 25.2 28.9 2520
Orumanayur 10.55 76.04 5 11 14.00 49.86 34.5 3.54 25.3 28.6 2522
Pallivasal 10.02 76.91 708 933 7.98 83.03 31.6 7.47 19.4 22.7 2672
Pariyaram 10.31 76.42 16 177 22.88 62.37 34.6 3.98 24.5 27.6 2979
Pudukad 10.40 76.30 11 23 18.11 60.93 36.7 4.56 25.0 28.7 2520
Thiruvilwamala 10.73 76.45 50 79 19.39 66.39 39.5 5.84 24.3 29.0 2284
Vadakkekad 10.65 76.01 8 14 12.61 93.65 40.7 8.53 25.4 28.9 2696
Vallikkunnu 11.11 75.85 13 52 23.94 63.25 34.6 4.54 25.5 28.9 2746
Vandiperiyar 9.59 77.08 741 1067 22.05 68.17 46.5 5.31 20.8 23.9 3343
Vattavada 10.18 77.25 1632 1938 0.63 25.81 6.3 4.88 17.8 20.1 2932
Velur 13.35 76.16 9 35 16.42 89.51 37.3 7.73 25.1 29.0 2248
Overall mean – – 38.7 –
*Source: https://en.climate-data.org/asia/india/kerala-752/; temperature and precipitation values correspond to the 1991–2021 period.
For the Panchayats for which meteorological data were not available, the data from the nearby location available were used; for
latitude and longitude, the mean values for all homegardens surveyed are presented

D = diameter at breast height in cm. This equation • Bambusa spp. (culms): Log B = 1:2471þ
predicts the trunk and canopy biomass of moist 3:5238logD, where B is the total dry weight (kg)
(1500–4000 mm rainfall) forest trees (D \ 80 cm) and D is the culm diameter at breast height (cm)
with reasonable precision (R2 = 0.97) (FAO (Shanmughavel and Francis 1996).
2004).
Carbon sequestration was estimated based on
• Coconut palms: Y ¼ 5:5209x þ 89:355, where
biomass stocks, i.e., 50% of the total aboveground
Y = dry weight (kg); x = palm age (years) (Kumar
biomass stock was taken as C stock. Total C stock (per
and Russell, unpublished data, 2006).
garden) was divided with the HG area, which includes
• All other palms (areca palm or Areca catechu L.,
the area used for herbaceous crop production in
palmyra palm or Borassus flabellifer L., etc.):
association with trees and the portions used for
Y ¼ 4:5 þ 7:7H, where Y = biomass (kg) and
residential purposes, to derive the C stock per hectare.
H = stem height (m) (Brown 1997).

123
 Agroforest Syst

Simpson’s diversity index (D) was calculated as
S 
Pni 2
D¼1 N , where s = total number of spe-
i¼1
cies, ni = number of individuals of species ‘i’,
N = total number of individuals in the plot, and D
is the diversity index (Simpson 1949) and Shan-
non index (H’) was computed as H 0 ¼ 3:3219
 
 P S
log10 N  N1 ni log10 ni ; where H’ = Shannon
i¼1
index, s = total number of species, ni = number of
individuals of species ‘i’, and N = total number of
individuals in the plot (Shannon and Weaver 1949). In
addition, Hmax, the maximum dispersion taking into
account the number of species present
(Hmax ¼ 3:3219 log10 S, where S is the total number
of species) and equitability (E), a measure of homo-
geneity of relative diversity (E ¼ H 0 =Hmax ), were
computed. Species richness or accumulation (number
of species) and stocking levels (number of stems per
garden) of arboreal species (] 5 cm GBH) were
derived from the HG survey data.
Linear regression equations linking aboveground C
stocks (per hectare) with elevational positions and size
of the holdings, tree stocking levels (stems per garden)
also highlight the high degree of variability in the C
stocks within the panchayats. Elevational gradient
generally had a negative linear relationship with C
stocks (Fig. 3A). But the R2 value was low, indicating
high ‘‘noise’’ levels in the dataset (F = 1.924;
p = 0.167). The size of the HGs (Fig. 3B) also did not
exert any robust influence on biomass C stocks.
Although a higher C stocks in smaller HGs was
postulated, the data presented in Fig. 3B, show only a
weak negative trend (F = 2.32; p = 0.129). The size of
gardens, however, was a major determinant of the
number of stems of arboreal species per garden, which
increased more or less linearly (F = 18.78;
p \ 0.00002) and the larger HGs generally had more
stems per garden (Fig. 4A). The number of species also
increased with the size of the garden (Fig. 4B) in a log-
linear manner. The coefficients of determination for the
prediction equations were, however, low. The wide
variability among the HGs in species richness (3–38
species) and the number of stems per garden (21–1640)
presumably may explain this lack of tight relationships
A 100
y = 41.7453 – 0.00879x
Carbon stocks (Mg C/ha)

and species richness of arboreal species with holding 80 R² = 0.0476

size, total C stocks (per garden) with stocking levels
and species richness, and Simpson’s floristic diversity 60
indexes of arboreal species with the size of holdings
40
and elevational positions were fitted, using the ‘‘least
squares’’ method and applying the principle of parsi-
20
mony in MS-Excel. Since the R2 values of the fitted
equations were modest, other equations (exponential, 0
power, logarithmic, and polynomial) were also tried, 0 500 1000 1500 2000
which again did not improve the R2 values much. Altitude (m)
Analysis of variance was performed to test the levels B 100
of variability within the regression model.
Carbon stocks (Mg C/ha)

y = 42.4422 – 0.00108x
80 R² = 0.0129

Results 60

40
Aboveground C stocks
20
The aboveground C stock ranged from 0.63 to
0
93.65 Mg ha–1 for the HGs studied (Fig. 3A), implying
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
great variability in the C sequestration potential of HGs. Holding size (m2)
Average standing stocks of C panchayat-wise (for all
holding sizes) were in the range of 6–58 Mg ha–1 Fig. 3 Aboveground carbon stocks (per ha) of trees and shrubs
(Table 1). The moderately high standard error values (]5 cm girth at breast height) of homegardens along an
elevational gradient (A) and as a function of garden size (B)

123
Agroforest Syst
Number of stems per garden
1800 90

Total carbon stock/arden

A A
1600 80 y = 6356.435 + 36.8818x
1400 70 R² = 0.4653
1200 60

(Mg)
1000 y = 121.2626 + 0.0389x 50
800 R² = 0.0954 40
600 30
400 20
200 10
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Holding size (m2) Number of stems per garden
90
Species richness (per garden)

40

Total carbon Stock/garden

B 80 B
35 y = – 4.6678 + 3.2098ln(x) y = – 217.755+ 743.1002x
70 R² = 0.1541
30 R² = 0.0918
60
25
50

(Mg)
20 40
15 30
10 20
5 10
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 10 20 30 40
Holding size (m2) Number of species per garden

Fig. 4 A: The number of stems per garden (]5 cm GBH) and Fig. 5 Aboveground biomass carbon stock as a function of (A)
B: Number of species per garden (]5 cm GBH) in the the number of stems per garden (]5 cm GBH) and (B) the
homegardens of central Kerala as a function of the size of number of species per garden (] 5 cm GBH) in the homegar-
holdings dens of central Kerala, India

among the variables. The number of stems per garden, in number of stems or species per garden (data not
turn, determined the total C stocks per garden (Fig. 5A) presented).
and the linear function linking the variables explained
the trend reasonably well with an R2 value of 47% Floristic richness and diversity
(F = 154.92; p \ 0.0001) signifying that large gardens
with a greater number of stems will have higher total C A total of 753 plant species (313 herbs, 155 shrubs,
stocks. The total C stock also increased with the number and 285 trees; Table 2 and Appendix 1) were
of species (Fig. 5B; R2 = 15%; F = 32.42; encountered in the HGs studied, which involved 43
p \ 0.0001). Aboveground C stocks per hectare, how- endangered species (8 Near Threatened, 9 Endan-
ever, did not show a distinctive trend in respect of the gered, 3 Critically Endangered, and 23 Vulnerable
species) as per the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2022).

Table 2 Summary of plant species encountered in the homegardens of central Kerala with the IUCN status
Habit Number of Species IUCN categories*
DD LC NT EN CR VU NE

Herbs 313 8 47 0 1 1 1 255

Shrubs 155 3 30 1 0 0 2 119
Trees 285 6 96 7 8 2 20 146
Total 753 17 173 8 9 3 23 520
*DD Data deficient, LC Least concern, NT Near threatened, EN Endangered, CR Critically endangered, VU Vulnerable, NE Not
evaluated. As perIUCN (2022)

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 3 List of Critically Endangered, Endangered, Near Threatened and Vulnerable plants observed in the homegardens of central
Kerala
Sl. no Species name Local name Habit IUCN—Red List category

1. Agave vivipara Dwarf aloe S VU

2. Aporosa cardiosperma Vetti T VU
3. Araucaria angustifolia X Mas tree T CR
4. Araucaria heterophylla X Mas tree T VU
5. Borassus flabellifer Palmyrah palm T EN
6. Bridelia stipularis Charalu S LC
7. Buchanania lanceolata Kulamavu T VU
8. Cajanus cajan Pigeonpea S NT
9. Chlorophytum borivilianum Safed Musli H CR
10. Cinnamomum wightii* Kattukaruva T EN
11. Cleistanthus collinus Odugu T VU
12. Coffea arabica Arabica coffee T EN
13. Cupressus macrocarpa Monterey cypress T VU
14. Curcuma pseudomontana* Kattumanjal H VU
15. Cycas siamensis - S VU
16. Dalbergia latifolia Rosewood T VU
17. Dimocarpus longan Logan fruit T NT
18. Diospyros paniculata Karivella T VU
19. Dipterocarpus indicus* Vellaayani T EN
20. Drypetes wightii* Vellakasavu T VU
21. Dysoxylum ficiforme Akil, Karakil, Puvilakil T VU
22. Elaeocarpus recurvatus* Cholarudralksham T VU
23. Eucalyptus grandis Grandis T NT
24. Hopea ponga* Irumbakam, Kambakam T VU
25. Myristica malabarica* Chorapali, Pathri T VU
26. Neolitsea fischeri* Varimaram T VU
27. Pistacia vera Pistha T NT
28. Platycladus orientalis Thuja T NT
29. Prunus ceylanica Attanaripongu, Irattani T EN
30. Psydrax dicoccos Irumbarappan T VU
31. Pterocarpus marsupium Venga T NT
32. Pterocarpus santalinus Red Saunders T EN
33. Pterospermum reticulatum* Malayuram T VU
34. Sageraea thwaitesii* Pothandi, Manjaara T NT
35. Santalum album Sandal wood tree T VU
36. Saraca asoca Asokam T VU
37. Swietenia macrophylla Mahogany T VU
38. Syzygium densiflorum* Njaval T VU
39. Tabernaemontana heyneana* Kambipala T NT
40. Vanilla planifolia Vanilla H EN
41. Vateria indica* Malabar white pine T VU
42. Vateria macrocarpa* Vellapine T CR

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 3 continued
Sl. no Species name Local name Habit IUCN—Red List category

43. Vatica chinensis Adakkapine T EN

IUCN Red-List categories: DD Data deficient, LC Least concern, NT Near threatened, EN Endangered, CR Critically endangered,
VU Vulnerable, NE Not evaluated. As per IUCN (2022)
C Climber, H Herb, S Shrub, T Tree
*Endemic to the Western Ghats (https://indiabiodiversity.org/)

Table 4 Floristic diversity indexes (mean ± standard error) of arborescent plants ([ 5 cm GBH) in the homegardens of central
Kerala, India
Panchayat No. of stems No. of Simpson’s index Shannon index
per garden species per
garden CD D H’ Hmax E

Adimali 244 ± 33.4 15 ± 0.91 0.451 ± 0.059 0.549 ± 0.059 1.343 ± 0.144 2.668 ± 0.069 0.504 ± 0.052
Alagappanagar 134 ± 25.9 22 ± 1.44 0.166 ± 0.031 0.834 ± 0.031 2.342 ± 0.183 3.087 ± 0.071 0.752 ± 0.046
Athirapilly 118 ± 24.6 20 ± 1.80 0.204 ± 0.030 0.797 ± 0.030 2.166 ± 0.102 2.984 ± 0.083 0.728 ± 0.036
Chakkupallam 126 ± 15.5 21 ± 2.74 0.163 ± 0.014 0.837 ± 0.014 2.332 ± 0.117 2.996 ± 0.126 0.778 ± 0.020
Chelakkara 170 ± 43.8 20 ± 1.73 0.249 ± 0.042 0.751 ± 0.042 1.959 ± 0.146 2.947 ± 0.102 0.672 ± 0.053
Erumapetty 198 ± 47.9 21 ± 1.41 0.234 ± 0.045 0.766 ± 0.045 2.056 ± 0.196 3.028 ± 0.077 0.676 ± 0.057
Kandanassery 279 ± 76.3 21 ± 1.73 0.307 ± 0.047 0.693 ± 0.047 1.719 ± 0.135 3.003 ± 0.084 0.577 ± 0.047
Kavalangad 212 ± 49.3 20 ± 1.83 0.317 ± 0.053 0.683 ± 0.053 1.730 ± 0.140 2.947 ± 0.088 0.600 ± 0.063
Kodassery 376 ± 152.6 19 ± 1.77 0.364 ± 0.048 0.636 ± 0.048 1.557 ± 0.152 2.913 ± 0.099 0.530 ± 0.041
Madakkathara 319 ± 44.9 25 ± 2.69 0.230 ± 0.024 0.770 ± 0.024 2.023 ± 0.135 3.157 ± 0.117 0.636 ± 0.027
Orumanayur 169 ± 39.7 17 ± 1.17 0.327 ± 0.049 0.673 ± 0.049 1.607 ± 0.171 2.816 ± 0.065 0.563 ± 0.049
Pallivasal 644 ± 169.0 24 ± 1.58 0.314 ± 0.054 0.687 ± 0.054 1.701 ± 0.145 3.150 ± 0.069 0.547 ± 0.054
Pariyaram 102 ± 13.5 19 ± 2.17 0.161 ± 0.014 0.839 ± 0.014 2.222 ± 0.115 2.888 ± 0.122 0.767 ± 0.021
Pudukad 193 ± 33.7 19 ± 1.84 0.227 ± 0.019 0.773 ± 0.019 1.945 ± 0.095 2.902 ± 0.096 0.671 ± 0.027
Thiruvilwamala 83 ± 8.1 19 ± 1.17 0.200 ± 0.031 0.800 ± 0.031 2.197 ± 0.111 2.923 ± 0.063 0.749 ± 0.027
Vadakkekad 221 ± 63.7 21 ± 2.52 0.249 ± 0.026 0.751 ± 0.026 1.900 ± 0.124 3.008 ± 0.121 0.637 ± 0.045
Vallikkunnu 223 ± 53.1 23 ± 2.92 0.301 ± 0.067 0.699 ± 0.067 1.877 ± 0.199 3.053 ± 0.123 0.618 ± 0.064
Vandiperiyar 308 ± 58.5 26 ± 1.48 0.249 ± 0.028 0.751 ± 0.028 2.011 ± 0.098 3.240 ± 0.059 0.621 ± 0.029
Vattavada 38 ± 5.8 5 ± 0.75 0.343 ± 0.048 0.657 ± 0.048 1.258 ± 0.155 1.472 ± 0.165 0.855 ± 0.033
Velur 266 ± 77.5 18 ± 2.09 0.357 ± 0.055 0.643 ± 0.055 1.584 ± 0.193 2.833 ± 0.133 0.562 ± 0.067
GBH Girth at breast height (1.37 m), CD Concentration of dominance, D Simpson’s diversity index, H’ Shannon diversity index,
Hmax = Maximum diversity, E Equitability or evenness

Significantly, this included as many as 20 vulnerable
trees, which are listed in Table 3 along with the other
endangered species.
The number of stems and species per HG showed
considerable variability among the studied gardens
and their locations (Table 4), implying the interplay of
holding size and management factors, besides
locational attributes in determining stocking levels
(number of stems per garden) and species richness of
the HGs. For example, a high-altitude location such as
Vattavada (near Munnar), where winter veg-
etable growing is the predominant occupation of the
villagers, had the smallest suite of species and
stocking levels (five species and 38 stems per

123
 Agroforest Syst

1.00 Discussion
Simpson's Divesity Index (D)

0.80
Homegardens for climate action
0.60
Biological C sequestration, a key strategy for reducing
0.40
y = 0.74497 – 0.000053x atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and for mitigating
R² = 0.0048
0.20 global warming, is a central feature of HGs. A
A comparison of the data in Table 1 indicates that the
0.00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 aboveground biomass C stocks of HGs in central
Holding size (m2) Kerala (arboreal species) ranged between 6 and
58 Mg ha–1. The high variability among the panchay-
Simpson's Diversity Index (D)

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
B
0.00
0 500
Elevaonal gradient (m)
Fig. 6 A Simpson’s Diversity Index of plants (] 5 cm girth at
breast height) as a function of the size of homegardens and
B along an elevational gradient
garden respectively). Conversely, Panchayats like
Madakkathara, Pallivasal, and Vandiperiyar located
in vastly different altitudinal zones (Table 1) showed a
greater number of species (24 to 26 per garden) and
stems (] 5 cm GBH) per garden (308 to 644 stems),
signifying the highly location-specific and unique
nature of the HG systems.
The Simpson’s diversity index (D) of the sampled
HG trees and shrubs (] 5 cm GBH; Table 4) ranged
from 0.55 (Adimali) to 0.84 (Pariyaram) and the
density-based Shannon index (H’) from 1.34 (Adi-
mali) to 2.34 (Alagappanagar), with Hmax values of
1.472 (Vattavada) to 3.24 (Vandiperiyar), signifying
moderately high species diversity. The moderate to
high equitability or evenness index, 0.504 (Adimali) to
0.855 (Vattavada), indicates that the stems were more
or less evenly distributed among the species. Neither
holding size (Fig. 6A; F = NS) nor elevation (Fig. 6B;
F = NS) revealed any distinct floristic diversity pat-
tern for the arboreal species, but a faint negative
correlation was visible for both parameters.
ats may be because of the interplay of a complex set of
factors such as species composition of the gardens
(Table 4), HG sizes which ranged from 162 to 10,117
m2, site characteristics, tree age, tree stocking or
density, and tree/land management practices (Nair
y = 0.735895 – 0.000021x et al. 2010; Kumar 2011). Many of these parameters
R² = 0.0041 differed widely among the gardens and among the
physiographic zones of Kerala (midlands, highlands,
1000 1500 2000
and coastal plains). Regardless of such variations, the
aboveground standing C stocks were generally very
high ([ 30 Mg ha–1). Kumar (2011) in the previously
mentioned study also reported average aboveground
standing stocks of C in the range of 16–36 Mg ha-1
for trees in the size class above 20 cm GBH, which is
broadly consistent with the present observations. The
high biomass C stocks indicate the potential of HGs in
climate change mitigation strategies (e.g., SDG-13;
Sharma et al. 2022). For instance, in neighboring Sri
Lanka, HGs figure prominently in the Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and in meeting the climate
mitigation goals under UN REDD ? Program to cut
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
(Mattsson et al. 2018). Nonetheless, locations like
Vattavada (Munnar), where winter vegetable growing
is the predominant land use activity in the managed
ecosystems, had low C stock values such as
6 Mg ha-1, which highlights the crucial role that land
use management plays in determining biomass C
stocks.
Homegarden C stocks along the elevational
gradient
Although elevation is generally considered an impor-
tant determinant (negative) of biomass C stocks,
elevation of HGs showed only a weak negative

123
Agroforest Syst
correlation in the present study (Fig. 3A). For natural
ecosystems, many previous studies, however, have
reported robust negative relationships between eleva-
tion and C stocks (Raich et al. 2006; Leuschner et al.
2007; Malhi et al. 2017). The underlying functional
relationship between elevational positions and forest
net primary productivity is usually explained by the
strong correlation between elevation and mean annual
temperature (Girardin et al. 2013) and/or precipitation
seasonality (Cruz-Amo et al. 2020). The variations in
mean monthly temperature values (range: 17.8–29.0
C; Table 1) and precipitation seasonality (a general
bimodal distribution pattern with the mean annual
precipitation ranging from 1548 mm for Chakkupal-
lam to 3410 mm for Vandiperiyar, about 20 km way;
Table 1) for the present study locations, however, were
not profound, implying that other resource gradients
that co-vary with elevation, and more importantly, the
management factors play a crucial role in this respect.
Consistent with this, Birhane et al. (2020) attributed
the greater C stocks in the high elevation zone to the
higher frequency of the bigger diameter class individ-
uals, owing to the exploitation of trees in the HGs at
the mid and lower elevations. Furthermore, in the
tropical mountain forests of Colombia, Phillips et al.
(2019) reported a unimodal distribution of above-
ground C stocks with elevation peaking in the middle
of the gradient, implying a more complex interrela-
tionship between elevation and biomass C stocks.
Carbon stocks as a function of holdings size
As documented by Kumar (2011) for the mid and
lower elevation zones of central Kerala, the size of
holdings may systematically vary the C stocks of the
HG systems. However, the influence of holding size on
the biological C sequestration process was modest in
the present study (Fig. 3B). Kumar (2011) in the study
on the aboveground C stocks of HGs for a subset of the
sampled locations reported that C stocks (on a unit
area basis) decreased in the order, small [ medium [
large size classes. Saha et al. (2009) also reported
similar results for soil organic C stocks in the HGs of
Thrissur, Kerala. The inclusion of a wider elevational
belt for sampling in the present study (Table 1) and the
disparate array of HG sizes, besides the interplay of
many site factors and managerial interventions of
variable intensity, may explain this weak relationship
(Fig. 3B). The bottom line is that site factors,
managerial interventions, and the structural attributes
of HGs play a cardinal role in determining HG
biomass C stocks than elevation per se or size of the
holdings.
Large gardens with a greater number of stems per
garden (Fig. 4A) had higher total C stocks (per
garden), as expected (Fig. 5A). Species richness also
exerted a favorable influence on total C stocks
(Fig. 5B). High species assemblages in the HGs may
promote higher net primary productivity as they
harbor divergent species presumably with contrasting
resource-utilization characteristics, in turn, promoting
C sequestration, compared to less species-rich sys-
tems. Thompson et al. (2012) reported that the C stock
in a system depends on both functional diversity and
the diversity of woody species. Therefore, a positive
relationship between plant species richness and C
sequestration (Fig. 5B) is plausible, despite the mod-
est R2 values of the fitted curve. Richards and Mendez
(2014), however, argued that since AFS represents
human-managed systems with substantial disturbance,
greater species diversity may not be associated with
increased standing stock of C, implying the crucial
role of managerial interventions (species introduction,
planting, harvesting, and other agronomic practices) in
determining biomass C stocks. A more important
driver of C sequestration than species richness,
therefore, is the number of stems per garden or
stocking levels (Fig. 5A).
Homegardens as a biodiversity conservation tool
With a total of 753 plant species (313 herbs, 155
shrubs, and 285 trees; Table 2), the species richness of
the HGs in the study area was profound. Not only that,
but the Kerala HGs also harbored many species that
figure in the IUCN Red List. For instance, a total of 43
Threatened, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and
Vulnerable plants were located in the study area, of
which 14 were endemic to the Western Ghats
(Table 3). Incidentally, Kerala is home to 5094 taxa
of flowering plants (Sasidharan 2012), which includes
1709 taxa that are endemic to peninsular India (Nayar
et al. 2008). In addition, the HGs contained several
exotic plants as well (data not presented). According
to Sasidharan (2012), the flowering plants of Kerala
include 858 exotics; of which around 200 species have
become naturalized. Furthermore, the farmers may
focus on exotic or other fast-growing timber tree
123

species because of economic benefits (Nath et al.
2016) or promotion by certain external agencies
(Kabir and Webb 2008b). Consistent with this, Nath
et al. (2016), evaluating the tree planting behavior of
farmers of Kodagu district, Karnataka state (India),
reported that exotic species such as Grevillea robusta
are planted 5.4 times more often than native trees.
The Simpson’s and Shannon’s diversity indexes,
the two popular diversity indexes used in this study,
for the arboreal species generally followed a similar
trend (Table 4). The diversity indexes were also
moderately high. The natural forest ecosystems,
however, had substantially higher diversity indexes
(unpublished data). Holding size (Fig. 6A) and eleva-
tional gradient (Fig. 6B) exerted only a modest
negative influence on Simpson’s floristic diversity
attributes. Earlier, Kumar (2011) hypothesized that
smaller gardens may have higher species richness
(unit area basis) than larger gardens under identical
ecological conditions (e.g., mid and lower-elevation
HGs). For a wide range of altitudinal positions and
holding sizes, however, the variations in site charac-
teristics and managerial interventions may over-
shadow such effects, and as a result, the
generalization that small HGs may have higher species
richness than larger gardens is unlikely to hold
(Fig. 6A). Likewise, the notion that farmers may
grow/plant more species at lower elevations (e.g.,
Birhane et al. 2020) resulting in greater species
diversity at lower elevations was also not true for the
HGs of central Kerala (Fig. 6B). Furthermore, the
high evenness indexes (Table 4) indicate that individ-
uals are evenly distributed across species, with no
discernible influence from location and, inter alia,
elevation.
Clearly, HGs provide a potentially valuable con-
servation tool that can offset the erosion of farmland
species diversity. Traditionally, the concept of ‘‘Bio-
diversity hotspots’’ has been the ‘‘mantra’’ for con-
servation efforts, which, however, leaves out vast
stretches of the globe with considerable biological
diversity ‘‘in the cold’’—the so-called biodiversity
‘‘coldspots’’ (Kareiva and Marvier 2003; Nair et al.
2021). Conservation, in the future, will need to rely
increasingly on these smallholder-farm circa situm
approaches such as AFS and HGs (Bhagwat et al.
2008), perhaps transitioning to lower and less valuable
(from a conservation perspective) farmland tree
123
Agroforest Syst
species diversity over time (Dawson et al. 2013; Nair
et al. 2021).
Although harbingers of biodiversity and aligned
with SDG-15, HGs have received little or no attention
from conservationists in the past. Indeed, there are no
policy prescriptions to promote HGs in Kerala and
elsewhere. Clearly, there is a need for incentivizing the
farmers to conserve these biodiverse land use systems
by repaying the cost of maintaining native trees on
farms, as exemplified in the Payment for Ecosystem
Services (PES) schemes (Ferraro and Kiss 2002;
Pascual et al. 2014).
Conclusions and way forward
This study evaluated aboveground C stocks and
floristic diversity attributes of HGs of varying ecolog-
ical characteristics along an elevational gradient from
the coastal plains to the High Ranges of Kerala and,
inter alia, examined the association between tree
stocking levels and species richness with biomass C
stocks and garden sizes. Aboveground biomass C
stocks of Kerala HGs showed a modest negative
correlation with elevation. Although a robust relation-
ship was expected, this was not evident owing to the
interplay of a wide array of locational and manage-
ment factors. Indeed, garden management was highly
individualistic in the study area (author’s observa-
tions), making any generalization on this vis a vis
elevation, difficult. As expected, C stocks (per ha) and
holding sizes showed a negative trend, albeit weak,
implying greater biomass accumulation on a unit area
basis in the smaller gardens, presumably because of
more intense land management including higher stand
density (stems per ha), than large gardens. But large
gardens, by default, had greater stocking levels (stems
per garden) and higher species richness and hence
higher total C stocks (per garden) than small gardens.
High species assemblages presumably have promoted
higher net primary productivity as they harbored
divergent species with seemingly strong resource-
utilization characteristics. Both stocking levels (stems
per garden) and species richness (species per garden)
showed a positive trend with biomass C stocks, but
holding size and elevation exerted a weak negative
linear relationship on Simpson’s floristic diversity
index.
Agroforest Syst
The generally high floristic diversity levels
observed in the study area, which includes many rare
and endangered species (43 IUCN Red-Listed spe-
cies), imply that HGs provide a potentially valuable
conservation tool, i.e., a circa situm reservoir of
biodiversity that can be employed for offsetting land-
use pressure and improving rural livelihoods by
providing a range of goods and services. The diverse
range of timber and non-timber produce-yielding
species in the HGs may also alleviate the resource-
use pressure on natural forests. The potential of tree-
covered but intensively managed landscapes to sup-
port native species suggests that maintaining and
creating habitats in human-dominated landscapes can
help conserve a large proportion of biodiversity.
Furthermore, conservation in the future will need to
rely increasingly on these smallholder-farm circa
situm approaches, often dubbed as biodiversity ‘‘cold-
spots’’. However, HGs in Kerala have received little or
no formal attention from the perspectives of biodiver-
sity conservation or climate change mitigation,
although the Sri Lankan HGs figure prominently in
that country’s climate change mitigation programs.
From the multifunctional land-use planning per-
spective, the conservation feature of HGs should be
given proper recognition. However, biodiversity con-
servation in managed ecosystems such as HGs should
be sensitive to the economic needs of the farmers as
well. The farmers often must sacrifice part of their
incomes for maintaining high species diversity on the
farmlands, which should be compensated. Unless this
is done, more and more of the traditional land use
systems are likely to be transformed into intensive
agricultural production systems with a fewer number
of species. In fact, many multi-species Kerala HGs
have been converted into monospecific production
systems of rubber and coconut primarily for greater
economic gains in the past. Therefore, incentive
schemes should be designed to repay the cost of
maintaining these biodiverse agroecosystems involv-
ing a diverse range of native trees, i.e., payment for the
ecosystem services provided by HGs, besides soft
credits for developing ecological farming systems to
make conservation appealing to the farmers.
Acknowledgements The study described in this paper was
conducted during the tenure of the author as an ICAR Emeritus
Scientist at Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur. Mr.
R. Abijith, Mr. P.S. Sreebin, and Mr. Sonik Anto assisted in
the fieldwork and Dr. T.K. Kunhamu, Professor and Head,
Department of Silviculture and Agroforestry, Kerala
Agricultural University, Thrissur, provided the necessary
office and laboratory space.
Author contributions BMK conceived the study, collected
and analyzed the data, and prepared the manuscript.
Funding This research was funded under the Emeritus
Scientist Scheme of the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, New Delhi, which was awarded to the author as per
Letter F. No. 9 (24)/2018-ES-HRD dated 2 July 2018 of the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. The author
also reports a non-financial support relationship with Kerala
Agricultural University, Vellanikkara that includes office and
administrative support.
Data availability Original data are available with the author,
which can be shared upon request. Analyzed and summary data
are presented in the manuscript along with an Appendix
describing the names of 753 plant species.
Code availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no known
competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The
author further declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Ethical approval An ethics approval was not required as per
the Kerala Agricultural University guidelines and national reg-
ulations. However, the expert committee of the Indian Council
of Agricultural Research, New Delhi has reviewed and approved
the study as a competitive research grant.
Consent to participate Verbal informed consent was
obtained from all research participants (180 farmer respondents)
of the field study according to institutional and national
requirements and no minors (non-adults) participated in this
research. Verbal approval (prior) from the head of the family
also was obtained for conducting the field survey.
Appendix 1
See Table 5.
123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 List of herbs, shrubs, trees, and pteridophytes observed in the homegardens of central Kerala and their IUCN Redlist status
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

1. Herbs
1. Abrus precatorius Kunni kuru H NE
2. Achyranthes aspera Kadaladi H NE
3. Achyranthes spp. – H NE
4. Acorus calamus Vayambu H LC
5. Acmella calva Eripacha H NE
6. Actinidia deliciosa Kiwi H NE
7. Acmella paniculata – H LC
8. Adenosma Indiana Kasithumba H LC
9. Adenostemma lavenia Sticky Daisy H NE
10. Aerva lanata Cherula H NE
11. Ageratum conyzoides Appa H LC
12. Ageratum houstonianum Neela appa H NE
13. Ageratina adenophora Neelagiri H NE
14. Aglaonema commutatum Aglaonema H NE
15. Alangium salviifolium ssp. hexapetalum Valli ankolam C NE
16. Aloe vera Kattar vazha H NE
17. Alocasia amazonica Elephant’s ear H NE
18. Alternanthera paronychioides Smooth chaff flower H NE
19. Alternanthera tenella – H NE
20. Alternanthera bettzickiana – H NE
21. Alternanthera brasiliana Joy weed H NE
22. Allium sativum Veluthulli H NE
23. Alpinia calcarata Chittaratha H NE
24. Amaranthus spinosus Mullan cheera H NE
25. Amaranthus viridis Cheera H NE
26. Amaranthus tricolor Red Amaranthus H NE
27. Amorphophallus bulbifer Kattuchena H NE
28. Amorphophallus paeoniifolius Chena H LC
29. Ananas comosus Pineapple H NE
30. Alternanthera bettzickiana – H NE
31. Anamirta cocculus Nanchuvalli C NE
32. Andrographis paniculata Kiriyathu H NE
33. Anthurium sp. Anthurium H NE
34. Anthurium andraeanum Anthurium H NE
35. Axonopus compressus Buffalo grass H NE
36. Asclepias curassavica Kammalchedi H NE
37. Axonopus spp. – H NE
38. Asystasia gangetica Chinese violet H NE
39. Asystasia intrusa Common Asystacia H NE
40. Asparagus setaceus Evergreen C NE
41. Bacopa monnieri Bhramhi H LC
42. Barleria cristata Kattu Kanakambaram H NE
43. Barleria prionitis Kanakambaram H NE

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

44. Basella alba Vallicheera H NE

45. Begonia cucullata Clubed Begonia H NE
46. Begonia malabarica Bigonnia H NE
47. Benincasa hispida Kumbalam C NE
48. Begonia floccifera Kalthamara H NE
49. Bidens pilosa Kithachedi H NE
50. Biophytum sensitivum Mukkutti H NE
51. Boerhaavia diffusa Thazhuthama H NE
52. Brassica oleracea var. botrytis Cauli flower H NE
53. Brassica oleracea Cabbage H DD
54. Brachypodium distachyon purple false brome H NE
55. Bulbophyllum spp. – H NE
56. Cactus spp. Kallichedi H NE
57. Cereus pterogonus Columnar cactus H NE
58. Centrosema molle Kattupayar C NE
59. Caladium cucullatum – H NE
60. Calathea zebrina Zebra plant H NE
61. Caladium bicolor Varnachempu H NE
62. Calamus rotang Chooral C NE
63. Calamus thwaitesii Aanachooral C NE
64. Kalanchoe blossfeldiana January chedi H NE
65. Canscora diffusa Jeerakapullu H NE
66. Canavalia gladiata Valamara H NE
67. Canna indica Kanna vazha H NE
68. Canna edulis Canna H NE
69. Capsicum annum Mulaku H NE
70. Capsicum frutescens Kantharimulaku H LC
71. Cardiospermum halicacabum Uzhinja H LC
72. Catharanthus roseus Savam nari H NE
73. Celosia argentea var. argentea Kozhipoovu H NE
74. Celosia argentea var. cristata silver cock’s comb H NE
75. Centratherum punctatum Brazilian bachelor’s button H NE
76. Centella asiatica Muthil H LC
77. Chrysothemis pulchella Sunset bells H NE
78. Chlorophytum borivilianum Safed musli H CR
79. Chromolaena odoratum Communist pacha H NE
80. Cissus quadrangularis Changalam paranda C NE
81. Citrulus lanatus Thannimathan H NE
82. Clitoria ternata Shanku puspham H NE
83. Clerodendrum thomsoniae Bleeding heart vine H NE
84. Cleome viscosa Kattukadugu H NE
85. Cleome rutidosperma Neelavela H NE
86. Clematis gouriana Nikidakodi C NE
87. Coccinea grandis Koval C NE
88. Coix lacryma-jobi Malamani H NE

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

89. Colocasia esculenta Cheriya Chembu H LC

90. Corchorus trilocularis Arenukam H NE
91. Coriandrum sativum Malli H NE
92. Costus pictus Insulin plant H NE
93. Costus speciosus Channa koova H NE
94. Commelina diffusa Creeping day flower H LC
95. Commelina benghalensis Adukkavettila H LC
96. Conyza stricta Horseweed H NE
97. Crassocephalum crepidioides Appuppanthadi H NE
98. Cucumis melo Kakkiri C NE
99. Cucumis sativus Vellari C NE
100. Cucurbita maxima Mathan C NE
101. Curculigo orchioides Nilapana H NE
102. Curcuma amada Mangainji H NE
103. Curcuma aromatica Kasthuri manjal H NE
104. Curcuma longa Manjal H DD
105. Curcuma pseudomontana Kattumanjal H VU
106. Cuscuta reflexa Moodilla thali H NE
107. Chrysanthemum segetum Com Marigold H NE
108. Cyathula prostrata Cherukadaladi H NE
109. Cyclea peltata Padakizhangu C NE
110. Cymbopogon flexuosus Lemongrass H NE
111. Cyanotis cristata Nabhali H LC
112. Cynodon dactylon Karuka H NE
113. Cyperus rotundus Muthanga H LC
114. Daucus carota carrot H LC
115. Dactyloctenium aegyptium Kavarapullu H NE
116. Dahlia hortensis Dahlia H NE
117. Dendranthema grandiflora Jamanthi H NE
118. Dendrobium spp. Orchid H NE
119. Dendrophthoe falcata Ithilkanni H NE
120. Desmodium triflorum Nilam paranda H LC
121. Dianthus chinensis China pink H NE
122. Dioscorea alata Kavathu H NE
123. Dieffenbachia seguine Dumbcane H NE
124. Dioscorea esculenta Cherukizhangu H NE
125. Dioscorea hispida Podikizhangu H NE
126. Dioscorea spicata Kawala H NE
127. Dracaena sanderiana Lucky bamboo H NE
128. Eclipta alba Kanjunni H LC
129. Eclipta prostrata Kayyonni H LC
130. Eichhornia crassipes Kulavazha H NE
131. Eleutheranthera ruderalis Venapacha H NE
132. Elettaria cardamomum Cardamom H NE
133. Emilia sonchifolia Muyalcheviyan H NE

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

134. Epiphyllum oxypetalum Nishagandhi H LC

135. Epipremnum pinnatum Money plant C NE
136. Eragrostis spp. – H NE
137. Eryngium foetidum Mallicheera H NE
138. Eupatorium triplinerve Ayyapana H NE
139. Euphorbia hyssopifolia – H NE
140. Euphorbia splendens Euphorbia H NE
141. Euphorbia hirta Hirta H NE
142. Euphorbia milii Crown of Thorns H LC
143. Foeniculum vulgare Perumjeerakam H LC
144. Evolvulus alsinoides Vishnukranthi H NE
145. Fragaria ananassa Strawberry H NE
146. Galinsoga parviflora Mukuthipoovu H NE
147. Glycine max Soybean H NE
148. Gloriosa superba Menthonni H LC
149. Gnetum edule Gnetum H LC
150. Gomphrena globosa Vadamalli H NE
151. Gymnema sylvestris Chakkara kolli H NE
152. Gynandropsis gynandra Karavenga H NE
153. Hemerocallis alba Lily H NE
154. Heliotropium scabrum Thelkada H NE
155. Helianthus annus Sun flower H NE
156. Heliconia psittacorum Ornamental vazha H NE
157. Hemidesmus indicus Naruneendi H NE
158. Hemigraphis alternata Muri koodi H NE
159. Hibiscus hispidissimus Panachikam H NE
160. Hippeastrum spp. – H NE
161. Hymenocallis littoralis Spider lilly H NE
162. Hydrocotyle javanica Vaite-kala C LC
163. Ichnocarpus fruitescens Parvalli H NE
164. Impatiens balsamina Balsam H NE
165. Impatiens spp. – H NE
166. Ipomoea batatas Madhurakkizhangu C DD
167. Ipomoea marginata Thiruthali H NE
168. Ipomoea quamoclit Nakshathraminni C NE
169. Ipomoea purpurea Common morning-glory C NE
170. Ipomoea spp. – H NE
171. Jasminum grandiflorum Pichakam H NE
172. Gerbera Jamesonii Gerbera H NE
173. Globba sessiliflora Kattinji H LC
174. Jasminum sambac Mulla C NE
175. Jasminum multiflorum Common jasmin C NE
176. Jasminum coarctatum Vellakattumulla C NE
177. Justicia procumbens Water willow H NE
178. Justicia aurea – H NE

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

179. Justicia spp. – H NE

180. Kaempferia galanga Kacholam, galangal H DD
181. Kaempferia rotunda Cheganeer kizhangu H NE
182. Kalanchoe pinnata Ilamulachi H NE
183. Kyllinga nemoralis Peemuthanga H LC
184. Kyllinga brevifolia var. brevifolia Nutsedge H NE
185. Kyllinga monocephala Muthanga H NE
186. Laportea spp. Choriyan thumba H NE
187. Laportea bulbifera Choriyanam H NE
188. Lablab purpureus Amara C NE
189. Leucas aspera Poothumba H NE
190. Lilium wallichianum Lilly H NE
191. Limnophila aromatica Manganari H NE
192. Lindenbergia spp. – H NE
193. Lindernia ciliata Fringed false pimpernel H NE
194. Ludwigia perennis Neerkarayambu H NE
195. Luffa acutangula Chathuran peechinga H NE
196. Luffa cylindrica Peechinga C NE
197. Lycopersicum esculentum Thakkali H NE
198. Lagenaria siceraria Bottle gourd C NE
199. Macrotyloma uniflora Muthira H NE
200. Maranta arundinacea Koova H NE
201. Mentha arvensis Puthina H LC
202. Mentha piperita Peppermint H NE
202. Mikania micrantha Mikenia C NE
204. Mimosa diplotricha Valiya thottavadi H NE
205. Mimosa pudica Thottavadi H LC
206. Mirabilis jalapa Nalumani poo H NE
207. Mitracarpus spp. Thaval H NE
208. Mollugo spp. – H NE
209. Momordica charantia Kaippa, Paval C NE
210. Momordica dioica Kattupavelam H NE
211. Monochoria vaginalis Karimkovalam H LC
212. Mucuna pruriens Naikkaruna H NE
213. Musa paradisiaca Kadhali vazha H NE
214. Musa spp. Vazha H NE
215. Naregamia alata Nilanarakam H NE
216. Nymphaea nouchali Aambal H LC
217. Nymphea rubra Velutha ambal H LC
218. Ocimum americanum Kattu RamaThulasi H NE
219. Ocimum basilicum Rama thulasi H NE
220. Ocimum gratissimum Kattuthulasi H NE
221. Ocimum scharicum Karpurathulasi H NE
222. Oldenlandia corymbosa Parpadakapullu H LC
223. Oplismenus spp. - H NE

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

224. Orthosiphon aristatus Poochamesa H NE

225. Oxalis corniculata Puliyorila H NE
226. Panicum maximum Ginipullu H NE
227. Panicum brevifolium Thavalappullu H NE
228. Passiflora edulis Passion fruit C NE
229. Passiflora foetida Poocha pazham C NE
230. Peperomia pellucida Mashipatcha H NE
231. Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass H LC
232. Phaseolus vulgaris Beans C LC
233. Phyllanthus amarus Kizhar nelli H NE
234. Physalis angulata Njetta njaliyan H LC
235. Piper betle Betel leaf H NE
236. Piper longum Thippali H NE
237. Piper nigrum Black pepper C NE
238. Piper argyrophyllum Kattukurumulaku C NE
239. Plectranthus amboinicus Panikkoorkka H NE
240. Plectranthus rotundifolius Koorkka H NE
241. Portulaca grandiflora 10 ‘O’ clock plant H NE
242. Pothos scandens Anapparuva C NE
243. Pouzolzia spp. – H NE
244. Petunia hybrida Violet-flower petunia H NE
245. Persicaria nepalensis Cherumukkala H NE
246. Pseuderanthemum laxiflorum Star flower H NE
247. Asparagus racemosus Shathavari H NE
248. Rauolfia serpentina Sarpagandhi, Amalpori H NE
249. Rauvolfia tetraphylla Pambukolli H NE
250. Rheo discolor Boat lily H NE
251. Rhynchoglossum notonianum – H NE
252. Rhynchospora corymbosa – H LC
253. Ruta chalepensis Arutha H NE
254. Ruellia tuberosa Meadow weeds H NE
255. Ruellia prostrata Velipadakam H NE
256. Saccharum officinarum Karimbu H NE
257. Salvia splendens Scarlet sage H NE
258. Scoparia dulcis Kallurukki H NE
259. Scadoxus multiflorus African Blood Lily H NE
260. Selaginella sp. Selaginella H NE
261. Senna auriculata Kozhinjil H NE
262. Sesamum laciniatum Kaduku H NE
263. Sida cordifolia Kurumthotti H NE
264. Sida rhombifolia Anakurumthotti H NE
265. Solanum americanum Manithakkali H NE
266. Sonchus wightianus Corn Sowthistle H NE
267. Spathoglottis plicata Malayan ground orchid H NE

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

268. Spatholobus parviflorus Chamatha C LC

269. Sphaeranthus indicus Mundi H LC
270. Sphagneticola trilobata Kammalpoo H NE
271. Sphenoclea zeylanica Kozhivalan H LC
272. Spilanthes calva Eripacha H LC
273. Stevia rebaudiana Stevia H NE
274. Strychnos minor Cherukanjiravally C NE
275. Streptogyna crinita Karimkurinji H NE
276. Synedrella nodiflora Mudiyan pacha H NE
277. Sorghum bicolor Cholam H LC
278. Solanum tuberosum Urulankizhangu H NE
279. Talinum portulacifolium Sambar cheera H LC
280. Tagetes erecta Marigold H NE
281. Tephrosia candida Thottappayar H NE
282. Tiliacora accuminata Vallikanjiram H NE
283. Tinospora cordifolia Chitttamrithu H NE
284. Torenia spp. Wishbone flower H NE
285. Torenia bicolor Kakkapoovu H LC
286. Torenia violacea - H NE
287. Tragia involucrata Choriyanam H NE
288. Trichosanthes cucumerina Padavalam C NE
289. Trichosanthes lobata Kaipan padavalam H NE
290. Trichosanthes tricuspidata - H NE
291. Tridax procumbens Kumminnippacha H NE
292. Triticum aestivum Bread wheat H DD
293. Turnera subulata Sage rose H NE
294. Thunbergia coccinea Thunbergia C NE
295. Thunbergia fragrans Noorvan-valli C NE
296. Tylophora indica Vallippala H NE
297. Vanda tessellata Maravazha H LC
298. Vanilla planifolia Vanilla H EN
299. Vernonia cinerea Poovankurunnila H NE
300. Vetiveria zizanoides Ramacham H NE
301. Vigna unguiculata Payar H NE
302. Vitis vinifera Grape C LC
303. Wedelia trilobata Singapore daisy H NE
304. Xanthosoma sagittifolium Valiya chembu H NE
305. Zingiber officinale Inchi H DD
306. Zingiber zerumbet Kattinchi H DD
307. Zinnia elegans Zinnia H NE
308. Zephyranthes candida White rain lily H NE
2. Shrubs
1. Abelmoschus esculentus Venda S NE
2. Abelmoschus mostatus Kasthurivenda S NE
3. Abutilon indicum Kammal chedi S NE

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

4. Acacia caesia Incha C LC

5. Acalypha hispida Poochavalan S NE
6. Achetaria azurea Brazilian snapdaragon S NE
7. Adenium obesum Desert Rose S LC
8. Allamanda cathartica Kolambi poovu S NE
9. Allophylus cobbe Mukkannanpezhu S NE
10. Alstonia venenata Anali vegham S NE
11. Agave spp. – S NE
12. Agave americana Aanakaitha S LC
13. Agave salmiana var. ferox – S NE
14. Agave vivipara Dwarf aloe S VU
15. Aristolochia indica Garudankolli S NE
16. Bambusa bambos Mula S NE
17. Bambusa vulgaris Manja mula S NE
18. Bambusa tuldoides Buddha’s belly bamboo S NE
19. Borassus flabellifer Karim pana S EN
20. Bougainvillea spectabilis Bougeainvillea S NE
21. Breynia disticha Snowbush S NE
22. Bridelia stipularis Charalu S LC
23. Cajanus cajan Thuvara S NT
24. Calotropis gigantea Erukku S NE
25. Camellia sinensis Tea S DD
26. Calycopteris floribunda Pullani S NE
27. Capparis brevispina Chedimukanthi S NE
28. Canthium coromandelicum Kaara S NE
29. Caesalpinia pulcherrima Rajamalli S LC
30. Carica papaya Pappaya S DD
31. Carissa carandas Cherry S NE
32. Chassalia curviflora var. ophioxyloides Karutha-amalppori S NE
33. Citrus aurantifolia Cherunarakam S NE
34. Citrus limon Odichukuthi narakam S NE
35. Clerodendron serratum Cheru teku S NE
36. Clerodendron viscosum Peruku, Peringalam S NE
37. Clerodendrum infortunatum Peruku S NE
38. Clidemia hirta Soapbush S NE
39. Cochlospermum religiosum Para panji S NE
40. Cnidoscolus aconitifolius Tree spinach S LC
41. Cocos nucifera Thengu S NE
42. Codiaeum variegatum Ornamental croton S LC
43. Cordyline terminalis Goodluck plant S NE
44. Cordyline fruticosa Good luck plant S LC
45. Corypha umbraculifera Kuda pana S DD
46. Cosmos sulphureus Mangannari S NE
47. Crossandra infundibuliformis Red kanakambaram S LC
48. Crotalaria retusa Kilukki S NE

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

49. Croton tiglium Kadalavanakku S LC

50. Cycas circinalis Cycas S LC
51. Cycas revoluta Sago palm S LC
52. Cycas siamensis – S VU
53. Cyphomandra betacea Marathakkali S NE
54. Dalbergia horrida Anamullu S NE
55. Datura metel Ummam S NE
56. Datura stramonium Vella ummam S NE
57. Desmodium motorium Nagathakara S NE
58 Dianthus caryophyllus Carnation S NE
59. Dioscorea oppositifolia Kachil C NE
60. Dracaena spp. – S NE
61. Dracaena reflexa Song of India S LC
62. Duranta erecta Manikyachembazhukka S LC
63. Elaeocarpus serratus Badhraksham S NE
64. Ervatamia coronaria Crape jasmine S NE
65. Eugenia uniflora Surinam cherry S NE
66. Euphorbia antiquorum Chathurakkalli S NE
67. Euphorbia nivulia Ela kalli S NE
68. Euphorbia pulcherrima Poinsettia S LC
69. Euphorbia tirucalli Thriukalli S LC
70. Flemingia macrophylla Kamatty S NE
71. Gardenia angusta Gandha rajan S NE
72. Girardinia diversifolia Aanachoriyanam S NE
73. Glycosmis pentaphylla Panal S LC
74. Hamelia patens Ottavari S LC
75. Helianthus annuus Sooryakanthi S LC
76. Heliconia humilis Alanghara vazha S NE
77. Helicteres isora Edampiri valampiri S NE
78. Hibiscus acetosella Pulivenda S NE
79. Hibiscus mutabilis Changing rose S NE
80. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Chemparuthi S NE
81. Hyptis suaveolens Nattapoochedi S NE
82. Hylocereus undatus Dragon fruit C DD
83. Hydrangea macrophylla Hydrangea S NE
84. Indigofera tinctoria Neela amari S NE
85. Ixora coccinea Thechi S NE
86. Ixora polyantha Kattuchethi S NE
87. Ixora finlaysoniana Vellathechi S NE
88. Jatropha curcas Kattavanakku S LC
89. Jatropha multifida Churakkalli S NE
90. Jasminum mesnyi Japanese Jasmine S NE
91. Justicia adathoda Adalodakam S NE
92. Justicia beddomei Cheriya adalodakam S NE
93. Justicia gendarussa Vatham kolli, Odichukutthi S NE

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

94. Lantana camara Kongini S NE

95. Lawsonia inermis Mylanji S NE
96. Lepianthes umbellata Attanari S NE
97. Malphigia punicifolia West India cherry S NE
98. Manihot esculenta Cassava, Tapioca S DD
99. Melastoma malabathricum Melastoma S NE
100. Maesa indica Kattuvizhal S LC
101. Mimosa diplotricha Anathottavadi S NE
102. Morus alba Mullberry S LC
103. Mussaenda frondosa Vellilam S NE
104. Mussaenda philippica Musanda S LC
105. Murraya paniculata Kattumulla S NE
106. Nerium oleander Ornamental arali S LC
107. Naragamia alata Nilanarakam S NE
108. Nyctanthus arbor-tristis Parijatham S NE
109. Nicandra physalodes Oomathan S NE
110. Ocimum tenuiiflorum Krishnathulasi S NE
111. Nothapodytes nimmoniana Peenari S NE
112. Ochlandra travancorica Eetta S NE
113. Otacanthus azureus Brazilian snapdragon S NE
114. Oxytenanthera monadelpha Kattumula S NE
115. Cyrtostachys renda Ornamental palm S NE
116. Cyrtostachys renda Red palm S NE
117. Pandanus canaranus Thazha kaitha S NE
118. Pandanus odoratissima Poo kaitha S NE
119. Pentas lanceolata Pentas S NE
120. Phoenix dactylifera Endha pana S LC
121. Phoenix sylvestris Persian palm S NE
122. Photinia glabra - S LC
123. Plumaria pudica Fiddle leaf tree S NE
124. Phyllanthus reticulatus Neeroli S NE
125. Phyllanthus myrtifolius Mousetail plant S NE
126. Plumbago indica Koduveli S NE
127. Polyscias fruticos Ming Aralia S NE
128. Punica granatum Mathalanarakam S LC
129. Quisqualis indica Kulamariyam S NE
130. Radermachera yunnanensis - S LC
131. Rhinacanthus nasutus Nagamulla S NE
132. Ricinus communis Kallavanakku S NE
133. Rosa spp. Rose S NE
134. Rosa multiflora Japanese Rose S NE
135. Pseudarthria viscida Moovila S NE
136. Saracandra chloranthoides - S NE
137. Senna tora Thakara S NE
138. Senna alata Malamthakara S LC

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

139. Sauropus androgynus Elakeera, Velicheera S NE

140. Schefflera arboricola Dwarf umbrella tree S NE
141. Sesbania grandiflora Agathi cheera S NE
142. Solanum melongena Vazhuthana S NE
143. Solanum violaceum Puthari chunda S NE
144. Solanum virginianum Kandakari vazhudhana S NE
145. Solanum viarum Kandakarichunda S NE
146. Strobilanthes anceps - S NE
147. Synsepalum dulcificum Miracle fruit S LC
148. Tabernaemontana divaricata Nandhyar vattam S NE
149. Thevatia peruviana Manja arali S NE
150. Tithonia diversifolia Tree marigold S NE
151. Thottea siliquosa Alpam S NE
152. Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower S NE
153. Urena lobata - S LC
154. Zanthoxylum ovalifolium Thorny yellow wood S LC
155. Ziziphus rugosa Thodali S NE
3. Trees
1. Acacia auriculiformis Acacia T LC
2. Acacia catechu Karingali T NE
3. Acacia mangium Mangium T LC
4. Acacia nilotica Babul T LC
5. Actinodaphne bourdillonii Eeyoli, Malavirinji T NE
6. Acrocarpus fraxinifolius Kurangadi, Narivenga T NE
7. Acronychia pedunculata Mavuringi T LC
8. Adenanthera favonian Manmade T NE
9. Aegle marmelos Koala T NE
10. Galatia malabarica Chuvannakil T NE
11. Ailanthus excelsa Peemaram T NE
12. Ailanthus triphysa Matti T NE
13. Albizia amara Nenmeni vaka T LC
14. Albizia chinensis Pottavaka, Vaaka T NE
15. Albizia lebbeck Vaka T NE
16. Albizia odoratissima Kunni vaka T LC
17. Albizia procera Vellavaka, Pulivaka T LC
18. Alstonia scholaris Pala T LC
19. Alstonia venenata Theeppala T NE
20. Anacardium occidentale Kashu mavu T NE
21. Annona muricata Mullanchakka T LC
22. Annona reticulata Athachakka T LC
23. Annona squamosa Seethapazham T LC
24. Antiaris toxicaria Aranjili T LC
25. Atalantia recemosa Kattunarakam T NE
26. Anogeissus latifolia Mazhu kanjiram T NE
27. Ancistrocladus heyneanus Modiravalli C NE

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

28. Aporosa cardiosperma Vetty T VU

29. Areca catechu Betelnut tree T NE
30. Areca triandra - T LC
31. Araucaria heterophylla X Mas tree T VU
32. Araucaria angustifolia X Mas tree T CR
33. Artocarpus heterophyllus Jackfruit tree T NE
34. Artocarpus hirsutus Ayani, anjili T LC
35. Artocarpus incisus Breadfruit, Kadapilavu T NE
36. Averrhoa bilimbi Irumban puli T NE
37. Averrhoa carambola Enu puli, chathurapuli T NE
38. Azadirachta indica Arya veppu T LC
39. Baccaurea courtallensis Moottilthoori T NE
40. Bauhinia acuminata Vella mandaram T LC
41. Bauhinia malabarica Malabar bauhinia T LC
42. Bauhinia purpurea Chuvannamandaram, Butterfly tree T LC
43. Bauhinia tomentosa Manja mandaram T LC
44. Bauhinia variegata Purple mandaram T LC
45. Bauhinia scandens Nagavalli, Pambuvalli C NE
46. Bixa orellana Kuppa manjal T LC
47. Bischofia javanica Chorakkali T LC
48. Bombax ceiba Poola, Ilavu T LC
49. Bombax insigne Periyailavu T NE
50. Briedelia retusa Mullankaini, Mullu venga T NE
51. Butea monosperma Plashu T DD
52. Buchanania axillaris Malamavu T NE
53. Buchanania lanceolata Kulamavu T VU
54. Buchanania lanzan Kalamavu, Moongapezhu T NE
55. Caesalpinia coriaria Dividivi T NE
56. Caesalpinia sappan Pathi mugham T LC
57. Callistemon citrinus Bottle brush T NE
58. Calophyllum astroindicum Kattupunna T NE
59. Calophyllum inophyllum Punna T LC
60. Calophyllum polyanthum Malampunna, Kattupunna T NE
61. Cananga odorata Langilangi T LC
62. Canarium strictum Thellippayin T NE
63. Carallia brachiata Vallabam, Vangana T NE
64. Careya arborea Pezhu T NE
65. Caryota urens Chunda pana T LC
66. Cassia fistula Kanikonna T LC
67. Cassia roxburghi Purple cassia T NE
68. Cassia javanica Pink cassia T LC
69. Cassine paniculata Thannimaram T NE
70. Casuarina equisetifolia Kattadi T LC
71. Calophyllum calaba Cherupunna, Manjapunna T NE
72. Ceiba pentandra Panji poola T LC

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

73. Cerbera odollam Odallam T LC

74. Ceriscoides turgida Malankara, Vellakara T NE
75. Chukrasia tabularis Chandanavembu T LC
76. Chrysophyllum cainito Star apple T NE
77. Chrysophyllum roxburghii Athappala T LC
78. Chionanthus mala-elengi Mala-elengi T NE
79. Cryptocarya lawsonii Chembalamaram T NE
80. Cinnamomum malabatrum Vayana T LC
81. Cinnamomum verum Karuvappatta T NE
82. Cinnamomum wightii Kattukaruva EN
83. Citrus aurantium Vadukappuli T NE
84. Citrus maxima Babloos narakam T LC
85. Citrus medica Ganapathi narakam T NE
86. Citrus spp. Narakam T NE
87. Citrus reticulata Orange T NE
88. Cleistanthus collinus Odugu T VU
89. Coffea arabica Kappi S EN
90. Commiphora caudata Kili maram T NE
91. Couroupita guianensis Nagalingamaram T LC
92. Crataeva magna Neermadhalam T NE
93. Cullenia exarillata Vediplavu T NE
94. Cupressus macrocarpa Monterey cypress T VU
95. Cupressus sempervirens Mediterranean cypress T LC
96. Dalbergia lanceolaria Pachilamaram, Painkanni T LC
97. Dalbergia latifolia Rosewood T VU
98. Dalbergia sissoides Kari veeti T NE
99. Dalbergia lanceolaria Velleetty T LC
100. Dimocarpus longan Logan fruit T NT
101. Delonix regia Mayflower tree T LC
102. Dillenia pentagyna Vazha punna T NE
103. Dillenia indica Elephant apple T LC
104. Diospyros buxifolia Mala muringa T NE
105. Diospyros ebenum Ebony T DD
106. Diospyros sylvatica Karimaram T NE
107. Diospyros discolor Velvet apple T NE
108. Diospyros paniculata Karivella T VU
109. Diospyros ovalifolia Karimaram, Karimpala T NE
110. Drypetes wightii Vellakasavu T VU
111. Dipterocarpus bourdillonii Karanjali T NE
112. Dipterocarpus indicus Vella ayani T EN
113. Dysoxylum ficiforme Akil, Karakil, Puvilakil T VU
114. Dysoxylum malabaricum Vellakil T EN
115. Elaeis guineensis Ennapana T LC
116. Elaeocarpus tuberculatus Vellathaanni T NE
117. Elaeocarpus recurvatus Cholarudralksham T VU

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

118. Erythrina stricta Mullumurikku T NE

119. Erythrina variegata Murikku T LC
120. Eucalyptus grandis Grandis T NT
121. Eucalyptus tereticornis Eucalyptus hybrid T LC
122. Excoecaria agallocha Komatty T LC
123. Ficus auriculata Seema Athi T LC
124. Ficus hispida Parakam, Erumanakku T LC
125. Ficus callosa Kadaplavu T NE
126. Ficus drupacea var. pubescens Chela, Kallal T NE
127. Ficus elastica Indian rubber tree T NE
128. Ficus exasperata Therakam, Parakam T LC
129. Ficus racemosa Athi T LC
130. Ficus benjamina Vellal T LC
131. Ficus religiosa Arayal T NE
132. Ficus tinctoria Ithi T LC
133. Flacourtia inermis lovi lovi T NE
134. Flacourtia jangomas Luikka T NE
135. Flacourtia montana Charal pazham, Vayyamkaitha T NE
136. Garcinia gummi-gutta Kudam puli T NE
137. Garcinia mangostana Mangosteen T NE
138. Garcinia morella Desrouss Chikiri T NE
139. Garuga pinnata Kattu nelli T NE
140. Gliricidia sepium Seemakkonna T LC
141. Gmelina arborea Kumizh T LC
142. Grevillea robusta Silver oak T LC
143. Grewia glabra Kallayini T NE
144. Grewia tiliifolia Chadachi, unnam T NE
145. Haldina cordifolia Manjakadabu T NE
146 Hevea brasiliensis Rubber T LC
147. Hopea ponga Irumbakam, Kambakam T VU
148. Holarrhena pubescens Kudakappala T LC
149. Holigarna arnottiana Cheru T NE
150. Holoptelea integrifolia Aaval T NE
151. Hopea parviflora Thampakam T LC
152. Hydnocarpus alpina Malamarotti T NE
153. Hydnocarpus pentandra Marotti T NE
154. Isonandra perrottetiana Karimpala T NE
155. Knema attenuata Chora pathiri T LC
156. Lagerstroemia microcarpa Venthekku T NE
157. Lagerstroemia parviflora Chenengi T NE
158. Lagerstroemia speciosa Manimaruthu, Poomaruthu T NE
159. Lannea coromandelica Karasu T NE
160. Leucaena leucocephala Subabul T NE
161. Litsea floribunda Pattuthali T NE
162. Litsea oleoides - T NE

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

163. Litsea laevigata Mulakunari T NE

164. Macaranga peltata Vatta T NE
165. Madhuca longifolia Ilippa T NE
166. Malus sylvestris Apple T DD
167. Mallotus philippensis Chenkolli, Sindoori T LC
168. Mallotus tetracoccus Thavittuvatta T NE
169. Mangifera indica Mango tree T DD
170. Manihot carthaginensis ssp. glaziovii Ceira rubber, Kattu-rubber T NE
171. Manilkara zapota Sapota T NE
172. Melia dubia Malaveppu T NE
173. Melicope lunu ankenda Nashakam T LC
174. Meliosma simplicifolia Chenthanam T NE
175. Memecylon molestum - T NE
176. Mesua ferrea var. ferrea Churuli T NE
177. Michelia champaca Chempakam T LC
178. Miliusa tomentosa Kanakaitha T NE
179. Mimusops elengi Elangi T LC
180. Morinda pubescens Manjanatthi T NE
181. Morinda citrifolia Cherumanjnathi T NE
182. Moringa pterygosperma Muringa T NE
183. Muntingia calabra Birds’ cherry T NE
184. Murraya koenigii Kari veppu T NE
185. Mussaenda bellila Vellilam T NE
186. Myristica fragrans Nutmeg T DD
187. Myristica beddomei Kattujathi T NE
188. Myristica malabarica Chorapali, Pathri T VU
189. Nephelium lappaceum Rambutan T LC
190. Nephelium ramboutan-ake Pulasan T NE
191. Neolamarckia cadamba Aattuthekku, T NE
192. Neolitsea cassia Pravari T NE
193. Neolitsea fischeri Varimaram T VU
194. Neolitsea scrobiculata Shanthamaram T NE
195. Olea dioica Edana, karivetti T NE
196. Oroxylum indicum Palakappayyani T NE
197. Otonephelium stipulaceum Poripoovam T NE
198. Pajanelia longifolia Payyani, Azhanda T NE
199. Paraserianthes falcataria Kattamaram T LC
200. Pavetta indica Pavetta T NE
201. Peltophorum pterocarpum Copper pod tree T NE
202. Persea americana Butter fruit, Avocado T LC
203. Persea macrantha Kolamavu T NE
204. Phyllanthus acidus Arinelli T NE
205. Phyllanthus emblica Nelli T NE
206. Pimenta dioica Sarvasugandhi T LC
207. Pithecellobium dulce Kodukkappuli T LC

123
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

208. Pistacia vera Pistha T NT

209. Plumeria rubra Pagoda tree, Vellachempakam T LC
210. Platycladus orientalis Thuja T NT
211. Polialthia fragrans Nedunar T NE
212. Polyalthia longifolia Aranamaram T NE
213. Polyscias acuminata - T NE
214. Pongamia pinnata Ungu T LC
215. Pouteria campechiana Eggfruit T LC
216. Prunus persica Peach T LC
217. Prunus ceylanica Attanaripongu, Irattani T EN
218. Psidium guajava Pera T LC
219. Psydrax dicoccos Irumbarappan T VU
220. Pterocarpus marsupium Venga T EN
221. Pterocarpus santalinus Rakthachandhanam T NT
222. Pterospermum reticulatum Malayuram T VU
223. Pterygota alata Anathondi T NE
224. Pyrus pyrifolia Asian pear, Sabarjil T NE
225. Quassia indica Karinjatta T LC
226. Sageraea thwaitesii Pothandi, Manjaara T NT
227. Samanea saman Rain tree T LC
228. Santalum album Chadhanam T VU
229. Sapindus trifoliatus Pashakotta, Chavakkay T NE
230. Saraca asoca Ashokam T VU
231. Salix tetrasperma Vanchi, Vanchimaram T LC
232. Schleichera oleosa Poovam, Dhoodhalam T LC
233. Semecarpus anacardium Alakku cheru, Theankotta T NE
234. Senna siamea Yellow cassia T LC
235. Simarouba glauca Lakshmitharu T LC
236. Spathodea campanulata Spathodia T NE
237. Spondias indica Kattambazham T NE
238. Spondias pinnata Ambazham T NE
239. Sterculia guttata Peenari, Kavalam T NE
240. Sterculia villosa Vakka T NE
241. Stereospermum colais Pathiri T NE
242. Streblus asper Paruva parakam T LC
243. Strychnos nux-vomica Kanjiram T NE
244. Symplocos racemosa Pachotti, Podippari T NE
245. Swietenia macrophylla Mahagony T VU
246. Syzigium laetum Venjavel T NE
247. Syzygium jambos Rose chamba T LC
248. Syzygium aquem Watery rose apple, Champa T NE
249. Syzygium aromaticum Grambu T NE
250. Syzygium gardneri Kattunjaval T NE
251. Syzygium cumini Njaval T LC
252. Syzygium malaccense Malayan chamba T LC

123
 Agroforest Syst

Table 5 continued
Sl. no: Species name Local name Habit IUCN – Red list category

253. Syzygium densiflorum Njaval T VU

254. Tabernaemontana heyneana Kambi pala T NT
255. Tabernaemontana alternifolia Kundalappala T NE
256. Talipariti tiliaceum Veliparuthi T LC
257. Tamarindus indica Puli T LC
258. Tecoma stans Tree kolambi T LC
259. Tectona grandis Teak T
260. Terminalia catappa Indian almond, Badam T LC
261. Terminalia chebula Kadukka T NE
262. Terminalia elliptica Marathu T NE
263. Terminalia paniculata Pulla maruthu T NE
264. Terminalia tomentosa Karimaruthu T NE
265. Terminalia bellirica Thanni T NE
266. Theobroma cacao Cacoa T NE
267. Thespesia populnea Poovarasu T LC
268. Toona ciliata Madhigiri vembu T LC
269. Trema orientalis Amathhali T LC
270. Trewia polycarpa Pambara kumbil T NE
271. Eurya nitida Kattu-theyila T NE
272. Vateria indica Adakka pine T VU
273. Vateria macrocarpa Vella paine T CR
274. Vatica chinensis Adakka pine T EN
275. Vernonia arborea Karana T NE
276. Viburnum punctatum Konakkara, Konakarimaram T NE
277. Vitex altissima Mayilellu T NE
278. Vitex negundo Karinochi T LC
279. Wrightia tinctoria Dandha pala T LC
280. Xanthophyllum arnottianum Mottal, Madukka T NE
281. Xylia xylocarpa Irumullu T LC
282. Zanthoxylum rhetsa Mullilam T LC
283. Ziziphus mauritiana Ber T LC
284. Litchy chinensis Litchy T NE
285. Psidium cattleianum Chinese guava T NE
4. Pteridophytes
1. Adiantum spp. Maidenhair fern H NE
2. Christella dentata Downy Maiden Fern H LC
3. Pteris argyraea Silver Brake Fern H NE
4. Phlebodium aureum Golden serpent fern H NE
5. Drynaria quercifolia Pannal H NE
*DD Data deficient, LC Least concern, NT Near threatened, EN Endangered, CR Critically endangered, VU Vulnerable, NE Not
evaluated. As per IUCN (2022)
C Climber, H Herb, S Shrub, T Tree

123
Agroforest Syst
References
Bargali K, Bargali SS (2020) Effect of size and altitude on soil
organic carbon stock in homegarden agroforestry system in
Central Himalaya. India Acta Ecologica Sinica
40(6):483–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2020.10.
002
Bhagwat S, Willis KJ, Birks HJB, Whittaker RJ (2008) Agro-
forestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends Ecol
Evol 23:261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.
005
Birhane E, Ahmed S, Hailemariam M, Negash M, Rannestad
MM, Lindsey N (2020) Carbon stock and woody species
diversity in homegarden agroforestry along an elevation
gradient in southern Ethiopia. Agrofor Syst 94:1099–1110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00475-4
Brown S (1997) Estimating biomass and biomass change of
tropical forests: a primer. A Forest Resources Assessment
Publication, FAO Forestry Paper 134. Food and Agricul-
ture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Dawson IK, Guariguata MR, Loo J, Weber JC, Lengkeek A,
Bush D, Cornelius J, Guarino L, Kindt R, Orwa C, Russell
J, Jamnadass R (2013) What is the relevance of small-
holders’ agroforestry systems for conserving tropical tree
species and genetic diversity in circa situm, in situ and ex-
situ settings? A review. Biodivers Conserv 22:301–324.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0429-5
de la Cruz-Amo L, Bañares-de-Dios G, Cala V, Granzow-de la
Cerda Í, Espinosa CI, Ledo A, Salinas N, Macı́a MJ,
Cayuela L (2020) Trade-offs among aboveground,
belowground, and soil organic carbon stocks along altitu-
dinal gradients in andean tropical montane forests. Front
Plant Sci 11:106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00106
Ensslin A, Rutten G, Pommer U, Zimmermann R, Hemp A,
Fischer M (2015) Effects of elevation and land use on the
biomass of trees, shrubs and herbs at Mount Kilimanjaro.
Ecosphere 6:45. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00492.1
FAO (2004) Assessing carbon stocks and modelling win-win
scenarios of carbon sequestration through land-use chan-
ges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, p 156
Ferraro PJ, Kiss A (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodi-
versity. Science 298:1718–1719. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1078104
Fox TA, Rhemtulla JM, Ramankutty N, Leska C, Coyle T,
Kunhamu TK (2017) Agricultural land-use change in
Kerala, India: perspectives from above and below the
canopy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 245:1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agee.2017.05.002
Girardin CAJ, Farfan-Rios W, Garcia K, Feeley KJ, Jørgensen
PM, Murakami AA, Pérez LC, Seidel R, Paniagua N,
Fuentes Claros AF, Maldonado C, Silman M, Salinas N,
Reynel C, Neill DA, Serrano M, Caballero CJ, La Torre
Cuadros MA, Macı́a MJ, Killeen TJ, Malhi Y (2013)
Spatial patterns of above-ground structure, biomass and
composition in a network of six Andean elevation tran-
sects. Plant Ecol Divers 7(1–2):161–171. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17550874.2013.820806
Girardin CAJ, Malhi Y, Aragao LEOC, Mamani M, Huasco
WH, Durand L, Feeley RJ, Rapp J, Silva-Espejo JE, Silman
M, Salinas N, Whittaker RJ (2010) Net primary produc-
tivity allocation and cycling of carbon along a tropical
forest elevational transect in the Peruvian Andes. Glob
Change Biol 16:3176–3192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-2486.2010.02235.x
Grubb PJ, Lloyd JR, Pennington TD, Whitmore TC (1963) A
comparison of montane and lowland rain forest in Ecuador
I. The forest structure, physiognomy, and floristics. J Ecol
51(3):567–601. https://doi.org/10.2307/2257748
IUCN (2022) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Ver-
sion 2021-3. https://www.iucnredlist.org
Kabir MDE, Webb EL (2008a) Floristics and structure of
southwestern Bangladesh homegardens. Int J Biodivers Sci
Ecosyst Serv Manag 3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17451590809618183
Kabir MDE, Webb EL (2008b) Can homegardens conserve
biodiversity in Bangladesh? Biotropica 40(1):95–103.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00346.x
Kareiva P, Marvier M (2003) Conserving biodiversity cold-
spots. Am Sci 91:344–351
Kerala State Land Use Board (KSLUB) (1995) Land Resources
of Kerala State, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, p 209
Kitayama K, Aiba S (2002) Ecosystem structure and produc-
tivity of tropical rain forests along altitudinal gradients
with contrasting soil phosphorus pools on Mount Kinabalu,
Borneo. J Ecol 90:37–51. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-
0477.2001.00634.x
Kraenzel M, Castillo A, Moore T, Potvin C (2003) Carbon
storage of harvest-age teak (Tectona grandis) plantations,
Panama. For Ecol Manag 173:213–225. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0378-1127(02)00002-6
Kumar BM (2011) Species richness and aboveground carbon
stocks in the homegardens of central Kerala, India. Agric
Ecosyst Environ 140:430–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2011.01.006
Kumar BM, George SJ, Jamaludheen V, Suresh TK (1998)
Comparison of biomass production, tree allometry and
nutrient use efficiency of multipurpose trees grown in
woodlot system and silvopastoral experiments in Kerala.
India for Ecol Manag 112(1–2):145–163. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00325-9
Kumar BM, Kunhamu TK (2021) Carbon sequestration poten-
tial of agroforestry systems in India: a synthesis. In:
Udwatta R, Jose S (eds) Agroforestry for ecosystem ser-
vices. Springer, pp 389–430
Kumar BM, Nair PKR (eds) (2006) Tropical homegardens: a
time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry. Volume 3
in the book series ‘‘Advances in agroforestry’’. Springer
Science, The Netherlands, p 377
123

Kumar BM, Nair PKR (2004) The enigma of tropical home-
gardens. Agrofor Syst 61(1):135–152. https://doi.org/10.
1023/B:AGFO.0000028995.13227.ca
Kumar BM, Takeuchi K (2009) Agroforestry in the Western
Ghats of peninsular India and the Satoyama landscapes of
Japan: a comparison of two sustainable land use systems.
Sustain Sci 4:215–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
009-0086-0
Leuschner C, Moser G, Bertsch C, Roderstein M, Hertel D
(2007) Large altitudinal increase in tree root/shoot ratio in
tropical mountain forests of Ecuador. Basic Appl Ecol
8:219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2006.02.004
Malhi Y, Girardin CAJ, Goldsmith GR, Doughty CE, Salinas N,
Metcalfe DB, Huasco WH, Silva-Espejo JE, del Aguilla-
Pasquell J, Amézquita FF, Aragão LEOC, Guerrieri R,
Ishida FY, Bahar NHA, Farfan-Rios W, Phillips OL, Meir
P, Silman M (2017) The variation of productivity and its
allocation along a tropical elevation gradient: a whole
carbon budget perspective. New Phytol 214:1019–1032.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14189
Marshall AR, Willcock S, Platts PJ, Lovett JC, Balmford A,
Burgess ND, Latham JE, Munishi PKT, Salter R, Shirima
DD, Lewis SL (2012) Measuring and modelling above-
ground carbon and tree allometry along a tropical elevation
gradient. Biol Conserv 154:20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biocon.2012.03.017
Mattsson E, Ostwald M, Nissanka SP (2018) What is good about
Sri Lankan homegardens with regards to food security? A
synthesis of the current scientific knowledge of a multi-
functional land-use system. Agroforest Syst 92:
1469–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0093-6
Moser G, Leuschner C, Hertel D, Graefe S, Soethe N, Iost S
(2011) Elevation effects on the carbon budget of tropical
mountain forests (S Ecuador): the role of the belowground
compartment. Global Change Biol 17:2211–2226. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02367.x
Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a
strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci
172:10–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800030
Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2021) An introduction to
agroforestry: four decades of scientific developments, 2nd
edn. Springer Science, The Netherlands
Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter JM (2010) Carbon
sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron
108:237–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2113(10)08005-3
Nath CD, Schroth G, Burslem DFRP (2016) Why do farmers
plant more exotic than native trees? A case study from the
Western Ghats, India. Agric Ecosyst Environ
230:315–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.05.013
Nayar TS, Sibi M, Rasiya Beegam A, Mohanan N, Rajkumar G
(2008) Flowering plants of Kerala: status and statistics.
Rheedea 18:95–106
Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin
A, Gomez-Baggethun E, Muradian R (2014) Social equity
123
Agroforest Syst
matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience
64(11):1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146
Phillips J, Ramirez S, Wayson C, Duque A (2019) Differences in
carbon stocks along an elevational gradient in tropical
mountain forests of Colombia. Biotropica 51(4):490–499.
https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12675
Raich JW, Russell AE, Kitayama K, Parton WJ, Vitousek PM
(2006) Temperature influences carbon accumulation in
moist tropical forests. Ecology 87:76–87. https://doi.org/
10.1890/05-0023
Richards MB, Mendez VE (2014) Interactions between carbon
sequestration and shade tree diversity in a smallholder
coffee cooperative in El Salvador. Conserv Biol
28:489–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12181
Saha SK, Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM (2009) Soil carbon
stock in relation to plant diversity of homegardens in
Kerala, India. Agrofor Syst 76(1):53–65. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10457-009-9228-8
Sasidharan N (2012) Flowering plants of Kerala—version 2.0.
DVD No. 14. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi,
Kerala, India
Selmants PC, Litton CM, Giardina CP, Asner GP (2014)
Ecosystem carbon storage does not vary with mean annual
temperature in Hawaiian tropical montane wet forests.
Glob Change Biol 20:2927–2937. https://doi.org/10.1111/
gcb.12636
Shanmughavel P, Francis K (1996) Aboveground biomass
production and nutrient distribution in growing bamboo
(Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss). Biomass Bioenergy
10(6):383–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-
9534(95)00124-7
Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of
communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, p 125
Sharma R, Mina U, Kumar BM (2022) Homegardens agro-
forestry systems in achievement of sustainable develop-
ment goals: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 42:44. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13593-022-00781-9
Shorrocks VM, Templeton JK, Iyer GC (1965) Mineral nutri-
tion, growth and nutrient cycle of Hevea brasiliensis: 3.
Relationship between girth and shoot dry weight. J Rubber
Res Inst Malaya 19:5–92
Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature
163:688–1688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
Sundqvist MK, Sanders NJ, Wardle DA (2013) Community and
ecosystem responses to elevational gradients: processes,
mechanisms, and insights for global change. Annu Rev
Ecol Evol Syst 44:261–280. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-ecolsys-110512-135750
Thompson ID, Ferreira J, Gardner T, Guariguata M, Koh LP,
Okab K, Pan Y, Schmitt CB, Tylianakis J, Barlow J, Kapos
V, Kurz WA, Parrotta JA, Spalding MD, van Vliet (2012)
Forest biodiversity, carbon and other ecosystem services:
relationships and impacts of deforestation and forest
degradation (Chapter 2). In: Parrotta JA, Wildburger C,
Mansourian S (eds) Understanding relationships between
Agroforest Syst
biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: the key to
achieving REDD? objectives. A global assessment report
prepared by the Global Forest Expert Panel on Biodiver-
sity, Forest Management, and REDD?. IUFRO World
Series Volume 31. Vienna, p 161
Tilman D, Lehman CL, Thomson T (1997) Plant diversity and
ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1857–1861. https://doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.94.5.1857
Venter M, Dwyer J, Dieleman W, Ramachandra A, Gillieson D,
Laurance S, Cernusak LA, Beehler B, Jensen R, Bird MI
(2017) Optimal climate for large trees at high elevations
drives patterns of biomass in remote forests of Papua New
Guinea. Glob Change Biol 23(11):4873–4883. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.13741
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
and applicable law.
123