Socially Modified Organisms in Multifunctional Agriculture - Addressing the Needs of Smallholder Farmers in Africa

Abstract

To address on-going issues of hunger, malnutrition, poverty and land degradation in Africa, smallholder farmers are developing Socially Modified Crops as part of a 3-step approach to a multifunctional farming system that impact positively on the social, economic and environmental constraints to farm productivity responsible for the gap between potential and actual yield. Furthermore, these new crops also rehabilitate, diversify and intensify the agroecosystem, diversify local diets and generate income from trade and new value-adding business opportunities.

Keywords

Agroecology, Domestication, Food security, Marketing and trade, Nutritional security, Poverty alleviation, Rural development

Introduction

Issues of hunger, malnutrition and poverty still prevail affecting around a billion people [1] despite the substantially increased potential yields of major crops achieved by the Green Revolution [2]. The successes of the Green Revolution have been achieved by a combination of crop breeding and the use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and mechanization, typically cultivated in monocultures on land cleared of other vegetation. However, large-scale, capital-intensive agriculture of this sort is very much better suited to industrialized countries in temperate latitudes than to tropical and sub-tropical countries where farmers have very small farms and live on the very brink of the cash economy. Despite these differences, much attention has been placed on introducing this industrial approach to agriculture across the Developing Countries of the world without adequately recognizing that the smallholder farmers' lack of income is a severe constraint to accessing the essential technical package: improved seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and mechanization. The consequence, especially in Africa, has been severe land degradation and soil nutrient loss, low crop yields and the currently continuing problems of food insecurity [3] - all of which are inter-related with the social and economic issues [4]. Nevertheless, food production globally has been greatly increased and the incidence and impacts of severe famine have been reduced. However, the on-going challenge of matching agricultural production to the needs of a growing population was recognized by Norman Borlaug, the 'father of the Green Revolution'. When accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, he indicated that the Green Revolution would only be a temporary solution, "a breathing space", in man's war against hunger and deprivation.

The Challenge

Appreciating the above issues, the challenge now is to make further progress in those parts of the world where agriculture is underperforming due to soil nutrient deficiencies and where actual farm yields are well below the potential yields of modern varieties. For example, average maize yield across Africa is about 1.5 tonnes ha^-1, while potential yield is around 7 tonnes ha^-1 [5]. The reasons for this poor performance are very complex, but can be condensed down to a web of interacting social, economic and environmental constraints, such as: deforestation and land degradation (loss of soil fertility; breakdown of agro-ecological function, and erosion), poverty, poor education and infrastructure, social exclusion, etc. [6], causing a lack of access to farm inputs. The downward spiral driving this process has been called the 'Cycle of Land Degradation and Social Deprivation' (Figure 1) [4]. Reversing this cycle will require a holistic, multifunctional approach to agricultural intensification that simultaneously addresses the social, economic and environmental drivers of land degradation which are responsible for the loss of crop yield. Thus, it accords with the concept of Multifunctional Agriculture proposed by IAASTD [7] that recognizes the 'inescapable interconnectedness of agriculture's different roles and functions' in rural development (Figure 2).

Interestingly the social issues behind productive tropical agriculture mirror those behind the international debate on wildlife conservation. The latter has largely focused on two approaches: (i) High input intensification, or 'land saving' and (ii) Less intensive more diversified farming systems, or 'land sharing'. Very appropriately, Bennett [8] has recently suggested that this dichotomy overlooks the need to address both biodiversity conservation within wild-life friendly farming systems, as well as the need to address the needs of poor farmers. This suggestion in fact also conforms to the recommendations of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development which proposed the concept of Multifunctional Agriculture [7]. Many other international reports have also called for more sustainable approaches to food production, for example: Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture [9], the Ecosystems and Human Well-Being [10] and "Shaping the Future of Global Food Systems" [1].

A Solution

Finding practical ways to develop Multifunctional Agriculture should be based on a sound understanding of the downward spiral of the 'Cycle of Land Degradation and Social Deprivation' [6] and good progress has been made by the CGIAR World Agroforestry Centre and its research partners (Table 1). This research combines the ideals of both land saving and land sharing in an integrated 3-step generic model [4,6] to close the Yield Gap and reverse the Cycle of Land Degradation and Social Deprivation [11].

A Generic Model

The three steps of this highly adaptable model, is best illustrated by a Case Study from the South and South- West Provinces of Cameroon involving many farmers, CBOs and NGOs. It was led by the World Agroforestry Centre [12-19] and started with a few farmers in two villages. From these modest beginnings, it rapidly grew over 12 years by local level dissemination of appropriate technology to over 10,000 farmers in more than 500 villages. This rapid adoption is attributable to its close affinity with the needs and desires of local people, and the projects support to village-level capacity building [20]. The key components of this training are: (i) The restoration of soil fertility and agroecological health; (ii) The creation of Socially Modified Crops by the participatory domestication of wild indigenous trees producing useful and marketable food and non-food products at the community level; and (iii) The marketing and value addition of the tree products for local and regional trade [6,11].

Step 1

The first of these steps harnesses the capacity of many leguminous trees and shrubs to fix nitrogen in the soil through a symbiotic association with Rhizobium bacteria. Typically, these trees and shrubs can fix 300-650 kg N ha^-1 yr^-1 when grown at high density [21], which is considerably more than many commonly cultivated leguminous food and fodder crops which produce 23-176 kg N ha^-1 yr^-1 [22]. Trees also produce greater biomass than vegetable crops. In addition, there are soil health benefits from these 'fertilizer' trees and shrubs; such as increased aggregate stability, porosity, and hydraulic conductivity resulting from increased the soil organic matter and improved soil structure and water infiltration (Table 2). Together these benefits improve water use efficiency and rain use efficiency [23]. Furthermore, the trees are a useful source of poles, fuel wood and animal/bee fodder, and provide some control of parasitic weeds, such as Striga spp. [24]. The roots of trees also penetrate deeper into the soil profile and so both draw deep nutrients up from below the crop root zone, and provide a web of roots to capture nutrients being leached from the surface soil layers [25].

This low cost and simple 'improved fallow' technology has been widely tested throughout Africa [25,26] and found to typically increase cereal crop yields about 3-fold in 2-3 years. Unlike conventional industrial agriculture, this 'fertilizer tree' intervention is typically implemented on a small scale within a land use mosaic involving mixed cropping on a patch-by-patch basis, usually starting with the areas with severely failing crops. As they become productive after a few years their enhanced yield allows the intervention to move on to better land without a reduction in overall food production. If a farmer cannot afford to take any land out of production in this way, the system of Relay Cropping is very effective. The latter involves simultaneously sowing leguminous shrubs with crops such that the shrubs grow as a dry season fallow after the crop has been harvested [27]. As with the application of inorganic fertilizers, the maintenance of soil nitrogen fertility by biological nitrogen fixation is not a one-time solution. However, once the farming system has been diversified with tree crops creating a healthier agroecosystem, the trees do contribute to more permanent nutrient recycling.

Through the biological replenishment of soil nitrogen, crop yields are typically increased to about half the yield potential of modern cereal varieties. This represents a substantial increase in food security for farming households [28]. If sufficiently scaled-up, this 200%-400% increases in actual yield could alone resolve the food crisis in Africa. Sadly, however, there is little sign yet that this potential will be taken up by policy makers. Nevertheless, if adopted to achieve these levels of production, land currently devoted to staple food crops would be freed up on other parts of the farm for cash cropping [6]. To go further and close the Yield Gap (so reaching the full yield potential from the staple food crops) will require other major and minor nutrients from complete fertilizers. Due to their poverty, poor smallholder farmers do not have access to these inputs. Thus, to purchase them an income source is needed [4]. This requirement in addressed by Steps 2 and 3 [29].

Step 2

The second step, which can be implemented in parallel or independently of Step 1, implements the output of more than two decades of research [30,31], aimed at the domestication of useful tropical trees to rebuild important natural forest resources, create new highly nutritious tropical crops for smallholder farmers, and so to generate income in local markets and diversify the local economy. These trees can be integrated into the farming systems in many different configurations and densities. Typically, they are planted at only 10-50 trees per hectare as scattered trees in field systems; in boundary plantings; along the contours to reduce runoff and erosion; as shade for commodity crops like cocoa, coffee and tea; in corners of marginal land, or in home gardens. The benefits in income soon outweigh any loss of production by field crops. This diversification adds resilience to the farming system and to the home economy by reducing the risks from the over-reliance on individual staple food crops. Crucially this diversification also rebuilds the lost functions of degraded agroecosystem, making smallholder farming systems more sustainable, and productive. Ecologically, the planted trees (the planned biodiversity) create niches for colonization by a wide range of wildlife (the unplanned biodiversity) which enrich the food chains, enhance lifecycles and promote the recycling of nutrients, etc., with important beneficial impacts on pests and diseases [32]. In Africa, this mosaic of diversification typically contains both exotic and indigenous tree species in approximately equal numbers and is well suited to smallholder farms across the tropics and sub-tropics [6]. From a regional, global and landscape viewpoint, these biodiverse farming systems, which are unlike the monocultures found in industrial agriculture, help to conserve wildlife [32].

The above concept of domesticating indigenous trees has been undertaken in response to a request from farmers in Cameroon for help to cultivate the indigenous tree species that have provided a wide range of traditionally important, and marketable food and non-food products [6]. These products are now called Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs) to distinguish them from the common-property resources known as Non-timber Forest Products or NTFPs gathered from natural forests and woodlands [33]. The species producing these products have been overlooked by mainstream agriculture [30]. To implement this domestication programme, an international team has worked to empower local village communities to cultivate and improve a wide range of local food species (Table 3). This process has involved the use of robust, but simple, horticultural techniques of clonal propagation (rooting stem cuttings, marcotting and grafting [34,35]) to capture the desirable traits of elite individuals within the existing wild resource of the species. In contrast to tree breeding, this horticultural approach allows farmers to rapidly create their own high quality cultivars from sexually mature shoots [14,29], which allows these cultivars to start fruiting in only two to three years. These domestication techniques are equally applicable to exotic species like mango, avocado, cocoa, etc.

The process of tree domestication developed in Cameroon is a 'grassroots', self-help, participatory approach, involving community capacity building in simple and locally-appropriate techniques to capture the elite individuals from among individual village tree populations. For example, the creation of clonal cultivars can be done in a village nursery without the need for electricity or piped water [34,35]. Likewise, simple genetic characterization studies have been done in many of the 50+ tropical and sub-tropical species being studied [6] to acquire an understanding of the extent and complexity of genetic variation in populations of these wild species. This research has been focused on the selection of elite trees at the level of village population. Typically, it has been found that there is 3- to 10-fold tree-to-tree intraspecific variation in these small populations [36-41]. This indicates that there are great opportunities to develop elite cultivars with a wide range of different traits, and that they can be combined to form an 'ideotype' to meet the needs of different uses, marketplaces and even new industries [42]. Some of these studies have used molecular techniques and they have found that these village populations contain about 80% of the intraspecific variation [43] making a decentralised approach to domestication by social modification both effective and low risk [6,19]. Gepts [44] has described this decentralized approach to the domestication of new tree crops as particularly appropriate because it addresses the needs of local farmers, as dictated by local adaptation and consumer preferences. Importantly, the farmers control the process and are the beneficiaries of their innovations and work [6,11,17]. This is, therefore, an empowering process that is transforming the lives of the participating communities. The highly participatory nature of our approach to tree domestication, together with its aim to address the local social and economic constraints limiting the success of local agriculture, characterizes the concept of these cultivars as Socially Modified Organisms [45,46] - new crops created by individual farming households through the domestication of elite individuals from within existing wild genetic resources.

This innovative participatory approach to developing new crops does, however, come with the risk of biopiracy. So, there is a need to develop ways to ensure that the farmer's intellectual property is not misappropriated by unscrupulous entrepreneurs [47]. New approaches to registering the intellectual property of smallholder farmers within global frameworks have been suggested [48], but work is still needed to implement them.

Step 3

The third step to creating multifunctional agriculture involves the post-harvest processing, value-adding and marketing of the Agro Forestry Tree Products from these socially-modified crops. To maximize the benefits from commercialization, this step should follow behind the domestication process, as the regional and international end of the value-chain demands a reliable supply of top quality and uniform products [49]. It is important to recognize here that traditionally, many of these locally-important indigenous food species are currently well recognized and appreciated in local markets as wild resources, and that they are already a valuable source of cash to supplement the income of people living on only a few dollars per day. Some international commentators have described these products a 'famine foods', but for many of these species this is a misnomer [33], as they are greatly appreciated and recognized in local culture. They are frequently and widely traded by women in local markets providing important household income. Many women are keen to expand and develop this trade, and are developing new businesses [47]. Some of these involve local processing and value addition (eg. Manyu Women's Multipurpose Cooperative in Cameroon [MAWACOOP]). Building on the work to characterize the genetic diversity in wild fruit and nut species, 'ideotypes' are being used to direct the domestication process towards the selection of cultivars with highly desirable, but perhaps uncommon, combinations of genetic traits [42]. Thus, the traditional market potential can be transformed to create opportunities for new business and employment in new local industries [49]. Furthermore, the domestication process improves the uniformity of the products being marketed and should also improve the reliability of quality and supply in the expanding value-chains.

At the community level, income from village nurseries has risen from almost zero to an average of $28,350 in ten years [29]. The product commercialization step further expands the financial benefits in the rural economy. For example, one group of 10 women each made profits from processing food crops of around US $3000-$4000 per year; while a group of local metal workers making equipment for drying, and grinding products generated income over US $120,000 [29]. By creating employment in this way, this initiative has also created employment outside of subsistence farming and has brought local people into the cash economy. These and other impacts [19,29] all have important implications for social equity and justice [11]. The extra income generated by farming households also allows them to improve local infrastructure; to purchase farm inputs such as fertilizers and livestock, and so to initiate a series of improvements that further improve household well-being [19,29].

Conclusion

This African initiative by farmers and researchers in Cameroon has focused on innovative and practical ways to restore productivity in Africa to levels not attainable by conventional crop breeding and genetic modification of staple food crops. It thus offers a new and more appropriate paradigm for the intensification African agriculture - one that also combats land degradation, hunger, malnutrition and social injustice. This approach which encompasses a focus on under-utilized, indigenous food species is also applicable to exotic species and is equally relevant in Latin America, South and South-East Asia, and in Oceania. Specifically, it includes the development of socially-modified new crops as part of a 3-step approach to multifunctional farming systems by subsistence farmers and addresses the social, economic and environmental constraints to farm productivity. Overcoming the constraints which have created the gap between potential and actual yield has so far alluded those trying to improve the food security of many millions of tropical and sub-tropical farmers. Sadly, this problem has been inadequately recognized by international policy makers, but perhaps with new insight this can now be addressed. Importantly, this approach also diversifies the agroecosystem and the rural economy in novel ways. The package of new opportunities includes the diversification of local diets and the generation of income from trade and new value-adding businesses. This more sustainable approach to tropical agriculture has been tried and tested on a small-scale. It now needs to be scaled-up to have real impact, to improve the lives of the world's most vulnerable people, while also contributing to the resolution of some of the big social issues behind climate change, illegal immigration and social conflict.

References

1. World Economic Forum (2017) Shaping the Future of Global Food Systems: A Scenarios Analysis. A Report by the World Economic Forum's System Initiative. Geneva, Switzerland, 27p.
2. Pingali PL (2012) Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. PNAS 109: 12302-12308.
3. Conway G (2012) One Billion Hungry, Can We Feed the World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA, 439p.
4. Leakey RRB (2013) Addressing the causes of land degradation, food/nutritional insecurity and poverty: A new approach to agricultural intensification in the tropics and sub-tropics. In: UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review. Geneva, Switzerland, 13p.
5. Sebastian K (2014) Atlas of African Agriculture Research and Development. Revealing Agriculture's Place in Africa. IFPRI, Washington DC, USA, 92p
6. Leakey RRB (2012) Living with the Trees of Life. Towards the Transformation of Tropical Agriculture. CABI. UK, 200p.
7. IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global Report. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 590p.
8. Bennett EM (2017) Changing the agriculture and environment conversation. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 1-2.
9. Baulcombe D, Crute I, Davies B, et al. (2009) Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. Royal Society, Evolution, 65p.
10. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, 915p.
11. Leakey RRB (2017) Multifunctional Agriculture: Achieving Sustainable Development in Africa. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, 480p.
12. Tchoundjeu Z, Kengue J, Leakey RRB (2002) Domestication of Dacryodes edulis: State-of-the art. For Tree Livelihoods 12: 3-13.
13. Tchoundjeu Z, Asaah E, Anegbeh PO, et al. (2006) Putting participatory domestication into practice in West and Central Africa. For Tree Livelihoods 16: 53-69.
14. Tchoundjeu Z, Degrande A, Leakey RRB, et al. (2010) Impact of participatory tree domestication on farmer livelihoods in west and central Africa. For Tree Livelihoods 19: 217-234.
15. Asaah EK, Tchoundjeu Z, Leakey RRB, et al. (2011) Trees, agroforestry and multifunctional agriculture in Cameroon. Int J Agric Sustain 9: 110-119.
16. Degrande A, Schreckenberg K, Mbosso C, et al. (2006) Farmers' fruit tree growing strategies in the humid forest zone of Cameroon and Nigeria. Agrofor Syst 67: 159-175.
17. Degrande A, Franzel S, Yeptiep YS, et al. (2012) Effectiveness of grassroots organisations in the dissemination of agroforestry innovations. In: Agroforestry for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services - Science and Practice. Elsevier, 141-164.
18. Degrande A, Gyau A, Foundjem-Tita D, et al. (2014) Improving smallholders' participation in tree product value chains: experiences from the Congo Basin. For Tree Livelihoods 23: 102-115.
19. Leakey RRB (2014) Agroforestry: Participatory Domestication of Trees. In: Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. San Diego, Elsevier, USA, 1: 253-269.
20. Franzel S, Degrande, A, Kiptot, E, et al. (2015) Note 7: Farmer-to-Farmer Extension. GFRAS Good Practice Note for Extension and Advisory Services. Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services, Lindau, Switzerland, 4p.
21. Nygren P, Fernández M, Harmand JM, et al. (2012) Symbiotic dinitrogen fixation by trees: an underestimated resource in agroforestry systems? Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 94: 123-160.
22. Herridge D, Peoples MB, Boddey RM (2008) Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant and Soil 311: 1-18.
23. Sileshi GW, Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, et al. (2011) Integration of legume trees in maize-based cropping systems improves rainfall use efficiency and crop yield stability. Agr Water Manage 98: 1364-1372.
24. Sileshi GW, Mafongoya, PL, Akinnifesi FK, et al. (2014) Agroforestry: Fertilizer trees. In: Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. Elsevier, San Diego, USA, 1: 222-234.
25. Sanchez PA (2002) Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295: 2019-2020.
26. Sileshi G, Akinnifesi FK, Ajayi OC, et al. (2008) Meta-analysis of maize yield response to woody and herbaceous legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Soil 307: 1-19.
27. Cooper PJM, Leakey RRB, Rao MR, et al. (1996) Agroforestry and the mitigation of land degradation in the humid and sub-humid tropics of Africa. Exp Agr 32: 235-290.
28. Degrande A, Asaah E, Tchoundjeu Z, et al. (2007) Opportunities for and constraints to adoption of improved fallows: ICRAF's experience in the humid tropics of Cameroon. In: Bationo A, Waswa B, Kihara J, et al. Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer, 901-910.
29. Leakey RRB, Asaah EK (2013) Underutilised species as the backbone of multifunctional agriculture - The next wave of crop domestication. Acta Hort 979: 293-310.
30. Leakey RRB, Newton AC (1994) Tropical Trees: Potential for Domestication, Rebuilding Forest Resources. HMSO, London, 284p.
31. Leakey RRB, Weber JC, Page T, et al. (2012) Tree domestication in agroforestry: progress in the second decade. In: Nair, PK Ramachandran, Garrity, et al. Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use. Springer, USA, 145-173.
32. Leakey RRB (2014) The role of trees in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Ann Rev Phytopath 52: 113-133.
33. Leakey RRB (2012) Non-Timber Forest Products - a misnomer? Guest Editorial. J Trop For Sci 24: 145-146.
34. Leakey RRB, Mesén JF, Tchoundjeu Z, et al. (1990) Low-technology techniques for the vegetative propagation of tropical trees. Commonw For Rev 69: 247-257.
35. Leakey RRB (2014) Plant cloning: Macro-propagation. In: Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. Elsevier Publishers, San Diego, USA, 4: 349-359.
36. Atangana AR, Tchoundjeu Z, Fondoun JM, et al. (2001) Domestication of Irvingia gabonensis: 1. Phenotypic variation in fruit and kernels in two populations from Cameroon. Agrofor Syst 53: 55-64.
37. Atangana AR, Ukafor V, Anegbeh PO, et al. (2002) Domestication of Irvingia gabonensis: 2. The Selection of multiple traits for potential cultivars from Cameroon and Nigeria. Agrofor Syst 55: 221-229.
38. Waruhiu AN, Kengue J, Atangana AR, et al. (2004) Domestication of Dacryodes edulis: 2. Phenotypic variation of fruit traits in 200 trees from four populations in the humid lowlands of Cameroon. Food Agri Env 2: 340-346.
39. Anegbeh PO, Usoro C, Ukafor V, et al. (2003) Domestication of Irvingia gabonensis: 3. Phenotypic variation of fruits and kernels in a Nigerian village. Agrofor Syst 58: 213-218.
40. Anegbeh PO, Ukafor V, Usoro C, et al. (2005) Domestication of Dacryodes edulis: 1. Phenotypic variation of fruit traits from 100 trees in southeast Nigeria. New For 29: 149-160.
41. De Smedt S, Alaerts K, Kouyaté AM, et al. (2011) Phenotypic variation of baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) fruit traits in Mali. Agrofor Syst 82: 87-97.
42. Leakey RRB, Page T (2006) The 'ideotype concept' and its application to the selection of cultivars of trees providing agroforestry tree products. For Tree Livelihoods 16: 5-16.
43. Pauku RL, Lowe A, Leakey RRB (2010) Domestication of indigenous fruit and nut trees for agroforestry in the Solomon Islands. For Tree Livelihoods 19: 269-287.
44. Gepts P (2014) Domestication of plants, In: Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. Elsevier Publishers, San Diego, USA, 2: 474-486.
45. Leakey RRB (2017) Trees: Ensuring that farmers benefit from domestication: an update. In: Multifunctional Agriculture: Achieving Sustainable Development in Africa. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, 343-346.
46. Leakey RRB (2017) Trees: Meeting the social, economic and environmental needs of poor farmers - scoring sustainable development goals: an update. In: Multifunctional Agriculture: Achieving Sustainable Development in Africa. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, 415-418.
47. Lombard C, Leakey RRB (2010) Protecting the rights of farmers and communities while securing long term market access for producers of non-timber forest products: Experience in southern Africa. For Tree Livelihoods 19: 235-249.
48. Santilli J (2015) Agroforestry and the Law: the impact of legal instruments on agroforestry systems. Final Report to World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, 86p.
49. Leakey RRB, van Damme P (2014) The role of tree domestication in green market product value chain development. For Tree Livelihoods 23: 116-126.
50. Franzel S, Jaenicke H, Janssen W (1996) Choosing the right trees: Setting priorities for multipurpose tree improvement. ISNAR Research Report The Hague, Netherlands, ISNAR 8: 87p.
51. Leakey RRB, Schreckenberg K, Tchoundjeu Z (2003) The participatory domestication of West African indigenous fruits. Int For Rev 5: 338-347.
52. Tchoundjeu Z, Atangana A, Asaah E, et al. (2008) Domestication, utilisation, and marketing of indigenous fruit trees in West and Central Africa. In: Akinnifesi FK, Leakey RRB, Ajayi OC, et al. Indigenous Fruit Trees in the Tropics: Domestication, Utilization and Commercialization. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 137–170.
53. Leakey RRB, Akinnifesi FK (2008) Towards a domestication strategy for indigenous fruit trees in the tropics. In: Akinnifesi FK, Leakey RRB, Ajayi OC, et al. Indigenous Fruit Trees in the Tropics: Domestication, Utilization and Commercialization. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 28-49.
54. Leakey RRB, Tchoundjeu Z, Smith RI, et al. (2004) Evidence that subsistence farmers have domesticated indigenous fruits (Dacryodes edulis and Irvingia gabonensis) in Cameroon and Nigeria. Agrofor Syst 60: 101-111.
55. Leakey RRB, Greenwell P, Hall MN, et al. (2005) Domestication of Irvingia gabonensis: 4. Tree-to-tree variation in food-thickening properties and in fat and protein contents of Dika Nut. Food Chem 90: 365-378.
56. Schreckenberg K, Awono A, Degrande A, et al. (2006) Domesticating indigenous fruit trees as a contribution to poverty reduction. For Tree Livelihoods 16: 35-51.
57. Takoutsing B, Tchoundjeu Z, Degrande A, et al. (2014) Scaling-up Sustainable Land Management Practices through the Concept of the Rural Resource Centre: Reconciling Farmers' Interests with Research Agendas. J Agric Edu Ext 5: 463-483.
58. Lowe AJ, Gillies ACM, Wilson J, et al. (2000) Conservation genetics of bush mango from central/west Africa: implications from random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. Mol Ecol 9: 831-841.
59. Jamnadass R, Lowe A, Dawson IK (2009) Molecular markers and the management of tropical trees: the case of indigenous fruits. Trop Plant Biol 2: 1-12.
60. Leakey RRB (1999) Potential for novel food products from agroforestry trees: a review. Food Chem 66: 1-14.
61. Leakey RRB, Tchoundjeu Z, Schreckenberg K, et al. (2005) Agroforestry Tree Products (AFTPs): Targeting Poverty Reduction and Enhanced Livelihoods. Int J Agric Sustain 3: 1-23.
62. Kengni E, Tchoundjeu Z, Tchouangep FM, et al. (2001) Sensory evaluation of Dacryodes edulis fruit types. For Tree Livelihoods 11: 57-66.
63. Kengue J, Tchuenguem Fohouo FN, Adewusi HG (2002) Towards the improvement of Safou (Dacryodes edulis): Population variation and reproductive biology. For Tree Livelihoods 12: 73-84.
64. Dawson IK, Leakey RRB, Clement C, et al. (2014) The management of tree genetic resources and the livelihoods of rural communities in the tropics: non-timber forest products, smallholder agroforestry practices and tree commodity crops. For Ecol Manage 333: 9-21.
65. Asaah EK, Tchoundjeu Z, Wanduku TN, et al. (2010) Understanding structural roots system of 5-year-old African plum tree (D edulis) of seed and vegetative origins (G Don) H J Lam). Trees 24: 789-796.
66. Asaah EK, Wanduku TN, Tchoundjeu Z, et al. (2012) Do propagation methods affect the fine root architecture of African plum (Dacryodes edulis)? Trees 26: 1461-1469.
67. Schreckenberg K, Degrande A, Mbosso C, et al. (2002) The social and economic importance of Dacryodes edulis (G.Don) H.J. Lam in southern Cameroon. For Tree Livelihoods 12: 15-40.
68. Mbosso C, Degrande A, Villamor GB, et al. (2015) Factors affecting the adoption of agricultural innovation: the case of Ricinodendron heudelotii kernel extraction machine in southern Cameroon. Agrofor Syst 89: 799-811.
69. Gyau A, Faith AN, Foundjem-Tita D, et al. (2014) Small-holder farmers' access and rights to land of Njombé in the Littoral region of Cameroon. Afrika Focus 27: 23-39.
70. Ayuk ET, Duguma B, Franzel S, et al. (1999) Uses, management and economic potential of Garcinia kola and Ricinodendron heudelotii in the humid lowlands of Cameroon. J Trop For Sci 11: 746-761.
71. Ayuk ET, Duguma B, Franzel S, et al. (1999) Uses, management and economic potential of Irvingia gabonensis in the humid lowlands of Cameroon. For Ecol Manage 113: 1-9.
72. Cosyns H, Degrande A, de Wulf R, et al. (2011) Can commercialization of NTFPs alleviate poverty? A case study of Ricinodendron heudelottii (Baill.) Pierre ex Pax. Kernel marketing in Cameroon. J Agr Rural Dev Trop 112: 45-56.
73. Cosyns H, van Damme P, De Wulf R, et al. (2013) Can rural development projects generate social capital? A case study of Ricinodendron heudelotii kernel marketing in Cameroon. Small-Scale Forestry 13: 163-182.
74. Facheux C, Tchoundjeu Z, Foundjem D, et al. (2006) From research to farmer enterprise development in Cameroon: case study of kola nuts. Acta Hortic (ISHS) 699: 181-187.
75. Facheux C, Tchoundjeu Z, Foundjem-Tita D, et al. (2007) Optimising the production and marketing of NTFPs. Afr Crops Sci Conf Proc 8: 1248-1254.
76. Leakey RRB, Tomich TP (1999) Domestication of tropical trees: from biology to economics and policy. In: Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandes ECM, Agroforestry in Sustainable Ecosystems. CRC Press, New York, USA, 319-338.
77. Simons AJ, Leakey RRB (2004) Tree domestication in tropical agroforestry. Agrofor Syst 61: 167-181.
78. Foundjem-Tita D, Tchoundjeu Z, Speelman S, et al. (2013) Policy and legal frameworks governing trees: Incentives or disincentives for smallholder tree planting decisions in Cameroon? Small-scale For 12: 489-505.
79. Facheux C, Gyau A, Foundjem-Tita D, et al. (2012) Comparison of three modes of improving benefits to farmers within agroforestry product market chains in Cameroon. Afr J Agric Res 7: 2336-2343.
80. Jamnadass RH, Dawson IK, Franzel S, et al. (2011) Improving livelihoods and nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa through the promotion of indigenous and exotic fruit production in smallholders' agroforestry systems: a review. Int For Rev 13: 338-354.
81. Jamnadass R, Dawson I, Ofori D, et al. (2012) Tree domestication for small-scale farmers. In: Dawson I, Harwood C, Jamnadass R, Agroforestry Tree Domestication: A Primer. World Agroforestr Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, 9-19.
82. Foundjem-Tita D, D'Haese M, Degrande A, et al. (2011) Farmers' satisfaction with group market arrangements as a measure of group market performance: a transaction cost analysis of non-timber forest products' producer groups in Cameroon. For Policy Econ 13: 545-553.
83. Foundjem-Tita D, Degrande A, D'Haese M, et al. (2012) Building long-term relationships between producers and trader groups in the non-timber forest product sector in Cameroon. Afr J Agric Res 7: 230-239.
84. Gyau A, Takoutsing B, Degrande A, et al. (2012) Producers' motivation for collective action for kola production and marketing in Cameroon. J Agric Rural Dev 113: 43-50.
85. Leakey RRB, Prabhu R (2017) Towards multifunctional agriculture-an African initiative. In: Multifunctional Agriculture: Achieving Sustainable Development in Africa. Academic Press, San Diego, USA, 395-416.