Читать книгу North American Agroforestry - Группа авторов - Страница 58

There is obvious inconsistency in the nomenclature used to describe the six categories of agroforestry practices. In the United States, Canada and abroad, efforts have been made to clarify definitions and nomenclature in agroforestry (Table 2–1). Mantau et al. (2007) offer a thorough discussion of the concepts of classification and nomenclature with regard to non‐timber forest products while Sinclair (1999) proposes a general classification of agroforestry practices. In the United States and Canadian nomenclature, two of the practices are named on the basis of function (windbreaks, and riparian and upland buffers), the names of two are based on the adoption of popularized names (forest farming, urban food forests).

As previously discussed, the nomenclature also departs from the systems terminology developed for tropical agroforestry and temperate agroforestry in other countries. Growing trees, crops, and animals in mixtures is a long‐standing tradition of tropical farmers. Tropical agroforestry evolved from these age‐old customs as well as more recent tropical agriculture paradigms of the 1960’s and 1970’s known as “cropping systems” and later as “farming systems” (Hildebrand, 1990). Subsequently, the nomenclature of tropical agroforestry tree, crop, and animal combinations was defined by the International Center for Research on Agroforestry (Lundgren and Raintree, 1982). During this definition phase for tropical agroforestry, a great deal of effort went into development of classification methodology. Classification and descriptive criteria were based on the situation and intended purpose to which agroforestry was being applied (Sinclair, 1999). The history of agroforestry classification has been reviewed and the five approaches to classify tropical agroforestry have been summarized (Nair, 1993; Atangana et al., 2013).