Plant diversity in cocoa, coffee and cashew agroforest in southern Ghana

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4247447/v1

The understanding of the significance of cocoa, coffee, and cashew agroforestry systems in maintaining biodiversity and providing ecosystem services is limited in tropical and humid regions worldwide. The aim of this study was to measure the plant species and diversity in these agroforest systems compared to natural forests. We utilized the line transect method and sampled farm plots that were 20 meters by 20 meters and marked every 50 meters in the cocoa, coffee, cashew agroforest, and natural forests. We determined vegetation parameters such as relative density, relative dominance, relative frequency, and important value index of the most common tree species. The majority of individual shade trees were found in the forest reserve. The mean density and basal area of native forest trees were higher in the forest reserves and lower in the cashew agroforest farmland. Khaya ivorensis had the highest relative frequency, followed by the coffee farmlands, while the least was observed in the cashew agroforest. The findings of this study have implications for sustainable management of tropical agricultural production landscapes and contribute to biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes.

Tree

diversity

conservation

agroforest ecosystems

Rainforests, characterized by abundant rainfall, dense canopies, and rich species diversity, occupy only 7% of the Earth's land surface and harbor approximately one-third of the global biodiversity (Tetteh et al., 2018). However, the relentless pace of deforestation and forest degradation has had profound negative consequences on agricultural productivity and biodiversity conservation (Tesfay et al., 2024). In the face of this challenge, agroforestry has emerged as a potential solution, offering a glimmer of hope amidst the environmental crisis. Although numerous studies have examined the adverse impacts of cocoa cultivation on land use and biodiversity conservation (Kelley, 2018; Ruf), the concept of agroforestry, which integrates trees with crop and/or livestock systems, has gained attention as a sustainable alternative (Torralba et al., 2016; Arosa et al., 2017; Den Herder et al., 2017; de Jalón et al., 2018; Moreno et al., 2018). However, the specific relevance of different agroforestry systems to biodiversity conservation remains poorly understood. There is a lack of quantitative data on plant species diversity in different agroforestry systems compared with natural forests. The comparative role of various agroforestry systems, such as coffee, cocoa, and cashew agroforests, in conserving plant diversity has not been extensively explored, especially in agricultural landscapes dominated by monocultures (Asase & Tetteh, 2010). Thus, this study aimed to investigate the contribution of coffee, cocoa, and cashew agroforestry systems to the conservation of plant diversity.

In Ghana, cocoa agroforestry is a prevalent practice, in which farmers strategically retain a few shade trees to nurture young cocoa seedlings (Essouma et al. 2020). This method involves integrating cocoa with high-value tree species and other crops, enhancing ecological sustainability and improving farmers' livelihoods. While existing research has emphasized the potential of shaded cocoa agroforestry systems for biodiversity conservation, similar attention has not been extended to coffee and cashew agroforestry practices. Recent studies have highlighted the conservation value of coffee agroforestry systems, which rival natural forests in humid tropical landscapes (Bhagwat et al. 2008; McNeely and Schroth 2006). Coffee agroforests serve multiple functions, including habitat provision, biodiversity corridors, and the alleviation of resource pressure in conservation areas (Ashley et al., 2006). However, the full extent of tree species diversity and its conservation significance in coffee, cocoa, and cashew agroforestry systems compared to natural forests remain to be explored.

This study offers insights into the effects of different farming systems on plant diversity. This comparative analysis provides valuable information for understanding the ecological implications of various agroforestry approaches and their potential contribution to biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, this study extends beyond traditional monoculture farming by investigating the potential of agroforestry systems to support diverse plant communities while maintaining agricultural productivity. This holistic perspective contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of sustainable land management practices and offers practical guidance to policymakers, farmers, and conservationists seeking to promote biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. It is hypothesized that plant species diversity is higher in natural forests than in agroforestry systems. Therefore, our study aimed to quantify tree species diversity and assess their conservation implications across different agroforestry systems, shedding light on their potential role in biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management.

2.1 Study area

The study was conducted in the research field at the College of Agriculture, Aketen Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Ashanti Mampong campus, from December 2022 to February 2023. Geographically, the study area lies between longitudes 0°05' W and 1°30' W and latitudes 6°55' N and 7° 30' N. It is bounded in the south by the Sekyere South District, the east by the Sekyere Central District, and the north by the Ejura-Sekyedumasi District. The area experiences an average annual rainfall of 1,270 mm during the two rainy seasons. The major rainy season starts in March and ends in August, whereas the minor season is between September and November. The average annual temperature during the experimental period was 27°C with variations in mean monthly temperature ranging between 22ºC – 30°C. This area lies within a wet, semi-equatorial forest. The mean monthly relative humidity ranged from 67–91%, with the highest values occurring between May and June. Common tree species found in the study areas include Terminalia ivorensis A.Chev, Khaya ivorensis K. Schum, Cedrela odorata Blanco, and Milicia excelsa Welw) C.C. Berg .Other food crops grown in the area included Musa sapientum L, Musa paradisica L., Prospe, and C. Jeffrey, Manihot esculenta Crantz, Zea mays L and Elaeis guineensis Jacq.

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Field survey

The study was conducted between December 2022 and March 2023. The line transect method was adopted to study different agroforest farmlands and natural forest reserves. The length of the transects varied between 450 and 1000 m and were placed at least 200 m from each other for each land use type. Sampling plots of 20 m × 20 m were demarcated at 50 m intervals among the plots following the study of Manaye et al. (2019). The geographic position of each plot was determined using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Pegs were buried in the ground at the four corners of each plot. Fifteen plots were demarcated for each land use type. Thus, a total of 60 plots were demarcated for the cocoa, cashew, and coffee farms and the natural forest. Tree diversity was assessed within 20 m × 20 m plots, as described by Valencia et al. (2014). Within each plot, all trees with diameter- breast-height (DBH) ≥ 5 cm (1.3 m above ground level) were individually identified to the species level, and DBH was measured. Tree species were identified in the field by experienced tree spotters and confirmed by comparison of voucher specimens with previously identified specimens at the Forest Service Department, Ashanti Mampong Municipality.

2.2.3 Determination of vegetation parameters

The data on vegetation parameters such as relative density, relative dominance, relative frequency, and important value index of the most common tree species were determined using the following methods (Abdulrasyid et al. 2019) using the following formula:

The Importance Value Index (IVI) of each species was estimated as IVI = RA + RD + RF, where RA is the relative abundance calculated as the number of individuals per species per hectare, RD is the relative dominance defined as the basal area per species per hectare, and RF is the relative frequency (per ha) estimated as the proportion of plots in the different land use types where the species occurred at least once.

2.3 Data analysis

Species diversity was evaluated using the Shannon–Wiener index (H1=∑Si = In pi), where s is the total number of species and p is the relative abundance of the I species. In contrast to the direct measures of species richness, this index considers the relative abundance of species (Tetteh et al. 2018). Shannon’s and Simpson’s reciprocal indices were used to compare species diversity in terms of richness and evenness. Species compositional similarity between land-use types was estimated using the Jaccard similarity index. The Jaccard similarity index uses species presence/absence data for two sample sets (in this case land-use types) and is calculated as J = M/(M + N), where M is the number of species that occur in both land-use types and N is the number of species that occur in only one land-use type.

The basal area of trees was calculated using the formula πd2/4, where d is the diameter of the trees. Statistically significant differences in the mean DBH, density, and basal area of trees in the three land-use types were analyzed using ANOVA for parametric analysis. Where the test indicated a significant difference between means, the Tukey HSD test was used to compare means for parametric data and the Wilcoxon rank–sum test for non-parametric data.

4.1 Plant diversity and structural characteristics

A total of 461 individual shade trees belonging to 62 species from 15 families were identified in this study (Table 1). Families with the greatest number of species were Leguminosae (19 species), Violaceae (6 species), Meliaceae (5 species), Rubiaceae (4 species), Euphorbiaceae (4 species) and Apocynaceae (3 species). There were 263 shade tree species in the forest reserve, 85 in the cocoa agroforest, 74 in the coffee agroforest, and 39 in the cashew agroforest (Fig. 1). Of the species of trees identified ten of them, namely, Alstonia boonei De Wild, Albizia ferruginea, Azadirachta indica, Ficus exasperata Vahl, Funtumia africana, Khaya ivorensis A.Chev, Lannea welwitschii (Hiern) Engl, Luceana leocophala, Parkia biglobosa A.Chev, and Terminalia superba Engl.& Diels were found in all land-use types (Table 2). Except for Carica papaya L and Elaeis guinensis Jacq, all tree species found were native forest tree species.

Table 1

Floristic and structural characteristics of shade trees in the different land use types
Parameters	Forest reserve	Cocoa farms	Coffee farms	Cashew farms
Number of individual trees	261	85	74	39
Number of tree species	60	22	18	14
Shannon-Weinner index	0.82	0.65	0.61	0.42
Mean stem density (per ha)	17.40	6.45	2.07	2.07
Mean basal area (m²/ ha)	70.72	24.97	20.14	10.0
Mean richness	0.65	0.24	0.22	0.08

Table 2

Tree Species composition and distribution in the different land use types
Species	Family	Cocoa agroforest	Coffee agroforest	Cashew agroforest	Forest reserve
Acacia suberiana	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Albizia ferruginea Benth	Leguminosae	+	-	-	+
Albizia zygia J.F.Macbr	Leguminosae	+	+	-	+
Alstonia boonei De Wild	Leguminosae	+	+	+	+
Artocarpus comminus	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Azadirachta indica	Leguminosae	+	+	+	+
Bombax brevicuspe Sprague	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Bombax buonopozense	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Bridelia grandis	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Bridelia atroviridis Mull.Arg.	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Blighia welwitschii Hiern(Radlk)	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Ceiba pentandra Gaertn	Leguminosae	+	+	+	+
Carica papaya L	Caricaceae	+	+	-	-
Celtis malbraedii Engl	Ulmaceae	+	-	-	+
Celtis zenkeri Engl	Ulmaceae	-	-	-	+
Cedrela odorata Blanco	Meliaceae	-	-	-	+
Daniella olivieri Benn	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Dialium aubrevillei Pellegr	Caesalpinaceae	-	-	-	+
Dacryodes klaineana (Pierre) H.J.Lam	Burseraceae	-	-	-	+
Daniella olivieri Benn	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Diospyros gabunensis	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Elaeis guineensis Jacq	Palmae	+	-	-	+
Erythrina senegalensis A.DC.	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Ficus exasperata Vahl	Moraceae	+	+	+	+
Ficus sur Forssk	Moraceae	-	-	-	+
Funtumia africana (Benth.)Stapf	Apocynaceae	+	+	+	+
Funtumia elastica (Preuss)Stapf	Apocynaceae	-	-	-	+
Gliricidia sepium	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Gilbertiodenron preussii Harms	Leguminosae	-	-	-	+
Holarrhena floribunda (G.Don) T.Durand& Schinz	Apocynaceae	-	-	-	+
Khaya ivorensis A.Chev	Meliaceae	+	+	+	+
Lannea keristingii	Anacardiaceae	+	+	+	+
Lannea welwitschii (Hiern) Engl.	Anacardiaceae	+	+	+	+
Leucaena leococephala	Leguminosae	+	+	+	+

Table 2

cont’d
Species	Family	Cocoa agroforest	Coffee agroforest	Cashew agroforest	Forest reserve
Macaranga barterii Müll.Arg	Euphorbiaceae	+	+	-	+
Mareya micrantha (Benth.) Müll.Arg	Euphorbiaceae	+	+	-	+
Morinda lucida	Rubiaceae	+	-	-	+
Parkia biglobosa	Leguminosae	+	+	+	+
Pappea capensis	Sapindaceae	+	-	+	-
Pycnanthus angolensis	Myristicaceae	+	+	-	+
Rhodagnaphalon brevicuspe (Sprague) Roberty	Bombacaceae	-	-	-	+
Ricinodendron heudelotii Perre ex Pax	Euphorbiaceae	-	-	-	+
Rinorea oblongifolia C. Marquand	Violaceae	-	-	-	+
Rinorea prasina Chipp	Violaceae	-	-	-	+
Rinorea sp Aubl	Violaceae	-	-	-	+
Rothmania hispida	Violaceae	+	-		+
Rothmania longiflora	Violaceae	+	-	-	+
Rothmania whitfieldii (Lindl.) Dandy	Violaceae				+
Sapium aubrevillei Leandri	Euphorbiaceae	+	+	+	-
Teatona grandis L	Verbenaceae	+	-	-	+
Terminalia ivorensis	Combretaceae	+	+	+	+
Terminalia superba	Combretaceae	+	+	+	+
Trema orientalis Blume	Ulmaceae	-	-	-	+
Tricalysia discolor A. Juss	Rubiaceae	-	-	-	+
Tricalysia sp A. Rich.ex. DC	Rubiaceae	-	-	-	+
Trichilia monadelpha L.	Meliaceae	-	-	-	+
Trichilia prieureana P. Browne	Meliaceae	-	-	-	+
Trichilia tessmannii Harms	Meliaceae	-	-	-	+
Trilepesium madagascariensis DC	Moraceae	-	-	-	+
Xylopia zilosa	Annonaceae	-	-	-	+
Zanthoxylum gilletii L	Rubiaceae	-	-	-	+

Table 3

Relative frequency and successional stage of the most common trees in the different land use types
Species	families	Relative frequency (% tree)				Successional Stage
		Cocoa farms	Coffee farms	Cashew farms	Forest
Albizia ferrugineaBenth	Leguminosae	1.25	2.25	0.75	2.0	Pioneer
Alstonia boonei De Wild	Apocynaceae	0.25	0.75	1.0	2.25	Pioneer
Azadirachta indica	Meliaceae	1.25	1.75	0.5	3.0	Non-Pioneer
Ficus exasperata Vahl	Moraceae	0.75	0.25	0.5	2.0	Non pioneer
Funtumia africana Stap f.	Apocynaceae	1.0	0.25	0.25	2.25	Pioneer
Khaya ivorensis A.Chev	Meliaceae	0.5	0.75	0.25	3.25	Pioneer
Lannea welwitschii Hiern Engl.	Anacardiaceae	0.5	0.75	0.5	1.75	Pioneer
Luceana leococephala	Leguminosae	1.5	1.25	1.0	1.25	Pioneer
Parkia biglobosa A.Chev	Leguminosae	0.5	0.5	0.25	1.0	Non-Pioneer
Terminalia ivorensis A. Chev	Combretaceae	1.0	0.5	0.5	2.75	Pioneer
Terminalia superba Engl.& Diels	Combretaceae	0.75	0.5	0.25	1.75	Pioneer

Table 3. Importance Value Index (IVI) in the different land use types

The majority (50.1%) of the individual shade trees were found in the forest reserve, whereas 22.5%, 20.2%, and 7.2% were recorded in the cocoa, coffee, and cashew agroforests, respectively. Mean Shannon-Wiener diversity index values for shade trees differed significantly (p < 0.001) across the land use types, with forest reserves recording the highest value and cashew agroforest the least. The non-crop tree species composition similarity was highest between cocoa and coffee agroforests. The β-diversity statistics showed that non-crop tree species communities in the cocoa and coffee agroforests were the most similar (Jaccard index = 0.346), followed by those between the cashew and cocoa agroforests (Jaccard index = 0.123). The least similarity in non-crop tree species composition was found between the forest reserve and cashew agroforest (Jaccard index = 0.046).

The mean density of native forest trees was higher in the forest reserves (17.40 ± 1.21 ha-1) and lowest (2.07 ± 0.85 ha-1) in the cashew agroforest farmland (Table 2). The density of native forest trees varied significantly across land use types (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the mean density of native forest trees between the forest reserve and coffee agroforest farmlands (Tukey HSD, p < 0.0001), and between the forest reserves and traditional cocoa agroforest (Tukey HSD, p < 0.0001); however, there was no significant difference between the cocoa agroforest and coffee agroforest, the was no significant difference recorded ((Tukey HSD, p = 0.95). The interactions between land-use types and the density of native forest trees were not significant (p > 0.05).

The basal area of shade trees in the different land use types was highest (70.72 ± 3.16 ha-1) in the forest reserve and lowest (10.0 ± 2.28 ha-1) in the cashew agroforest farmland. There was a significant difference in the mean basal area of native forest trees between the forest reserve and coffee agroforest farmlands (Tukey HSD, p < 0.0001), and between the forest reserves and cocoa agroforest (Tukey HSD, p < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference between the cocoa agroforest and coffee agroforest (Tukey’s HSD, p = 0.39). The interaction between the different land-use types differed significantly (p < 0.05). Most of the shade trees were between 16 and 72 cm, representing 54.7%, 20.1%,18.2%, and 7.0% of forest reserves, cocoa farms, coffee farms, and cashew farms, respectively.

4.2 Relative frequency and successional stage of the most common tree species

It was observed that Khaya ivorensis recorded the highest (3.25) relative frequency, followed by the coffee farmlands (0.75) while the least (0.25) was observed in the cashew agroforest (Table 2). Among the common tree species found, Parkia biglobosa was found to have the lowest relative frequency in all the land use types. Except for Azadirachta indica, Ficus exasperata, and Parkia biglobosa all the other common species were pioneer species (Table 2).

In this study, the species richness and diversity of the native forest tree species was found to have significantly decreased in the cocoa, coffee, and cashew agroforest farmlands. The decrease in tree diversity and abundance as the natural forest was modified into agroforestry systems is in line with previous studies (Tetteh, 2009; Oliveria et al. 2023) as the trees provide shade for the shade tree crops and habitat for biodiversity conservation. The gradual reduction of shade trees from the natural forest and subsequent conversion to an agroforest ecosystem reinforce the need to put in management measures to prevent further deforestation. The reduction of forest trees in the food crops farmlands reduces the biological diversity and disrupts the ecosystem functions and environmental services (Oliveria et al. 2023). Tree species richness and abundance in the cocoa, coffee, and cashew farms were comparable to those reported by Ghana (Asase and Tetteh, 2010) and elsewhere (Correia et al., 2010). The Shannon -Weiner index for the natural forest was higher compared to values reported in the agroforest farms which was similar to values reported by Tesfay et al. (2022) Coffee-based agroforestry system of Southern Ethiopia. The variations of tree species in the food tree crop farms can be attributed to the management culture and farm history.

Our findings indicate that the average density of shade tree species in the natural forest was lower than that found in the coffee, cocoa, and cashew farmlands. Though these farms require some minimum shade for higher yields, however, the number of shade trees in a coffee or cocoa plantation is still an open question. Even though most researchers and farmers concur with the fact that “too much shade” decreases coffee and cocoa yields, low to moderate shade may be more beneficial than no shade at all (Meylan et al. 2017; Muschler 2001; Ruf 2011). This observation agrees with the report of (Correia et al., 2010; Lopez-Gomez et al., 2008; Peeters et al., 2003) who reported a lower average density of trees in coffee farms in Eastern Uganda. A likely reason for the lower number of trees in the present study could be due to the high density of oil palm plants in the coffee and cocoa farms.

The importance value index shows the dominance of only a few shade tree species in the cocoa and coffee farmlands. The highly important value index value of these tree species seems to relate to the farmers’ quest to the management of shade trees for various benefits. This implies that conservation efforts need to be made for the less beneficial and rare species. The relative frequency and successional stage of the most common tree species in agroforestry farms is a clear indication of how farmers made a conscious effort to manage certain shade trees in their farms possibly for medical use or related benefits.

In conclusion, tree species diversity in the cocoa, coffee, and cashew farmlands decreased drastically affecting stem density and basal area. The importance value index shows the dominance of only a few shade tree species in the cocoa, coffee, and cashew farmlands. This finding has implications for sustainable management of tropical agricultural production

landscapes as well as contribute to biodiversity conservation in the agricultural landscape.

Author Contribution

The author collected the data, analyzed , develop and edited the manuscript

Acknowledgement

Our genuine gratitude goes to the final year students for their unlimited support during the data collection. Special thanks to Anthony for the support and cooperation during the fieldwork.

Asase, A., and D. A. Tetteh. 2010. The role of complex agroforestry systems in the conservation of forest tree diversity and structure in southeastern Ghana. Agroforestry Systems 79:355–68.
Abdulrasyid, T., Hasna, A., &Sintje,L. 2019. The Composition and Important Value Index of Trees for Wildlife Feed in Bacan Island, South Halmahera. International Conference on Life Sciences and Technology. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/276/1/012037.
Bhagwat, S.A., Willis, K.J., Birks, H.J.B. & Whittaker, R.J. 2008. Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in ecology and evolution, 23, 261 – 67.
Bhagwat, S. 2002. Biodiversity and conservation of a cultural landscape in the Western Ghats of India. Oxford Forestry Institute, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford
Castle, S. E., Miller, D. C., Ordonez, P. J., Baylis, K., & Hughes, K. 2021. The impacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(2), e1167.
Correia, M., Diabaté, M., Beavogui, P., Guilavogui, K., Lamanda, N., & de Foresta, H. 2010. Conserving forest tree diversity in Guinée Forestière (Guinea, West Africa): the role of coffee-based agroforests. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19(6): 1725–1747.
Duguma, B., Gockowski, J. and Bakala, J. 2001. Smallholder Cacao (Theobroma cacao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of West and Central Africa: challenges and opportunities. Agroforestry Systems 51: 177–188.
Esche, L., Schneider M., Milz, J., Armengot, L.2023. The role of shade tree pruning in cocoa agroforestry systems: agronomic and economic benefits. Agroforest Syst (2023) 97:175–185.
Faria, D.R., Laps R, Baumgarten, J. and Cetra, M.2006. Bat and bird assemblages from forests and shade cacao plantations in two contrasting landscapes in the Atlantic Forest of southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:587–612.
Harvey, C.A., Gonza´lez, J. Somarriba, E. 2006. Dung beetle and mammal diversity in forests, indigenous agroforestry systems and plantain monocultures in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Biodiversity Conservation. 15:555–585.
López-Gómez, A.M., Williams-Linera, G., and Manson.R.H.2008. Tree species diversity and vegetation structure in shade coffee farms in Veracruz, Mexico. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment. 124(3):160–17.
Marconi, L., and Armengot, L.2020. Complex agroforestry systems against biotic homogenization: The case of plants in the herbaceous stratum of cocoa production systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 287, p. 106664.
Manaye, A., Negash, M., & Alebachew, M.2019. Effect of degraded land rehabilitation on carbon stocks and biodiversity in semi-arid region of Northern Ethiopia. Forest Science and Technology. Pp 70–79.
Meylan, L., Christian, G., Clémentine, A., Jorge, O.,Louise, J., and Bruno, R. 2017. Evaluating the effect of shade trees on provision of ecosystem services in intensively managed coffee plantations Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.245, 32–42.
Muschler, R.G. 2001.Shade improves coffee quality in a sub-optimal coffee-zone of Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems. 51,131–139.
Oliveira, W., Cruz-Neto, S., Marcelo, T., Leonardo, G., Carlos, A. P., and Ariadna, V. L.2023. Markedly declining reproductive functional diversity of food plants in the world’s largest tropical country despite rapid cropland expansion. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.
Owonubi, J.J and Otegbeye, G.O. 2002. Disappearing forest: a review of the Challenges for Conservation of genetic resources and environmental management. J. Forestry. Res. Manage. 1: 1–11.
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., Mas, A., and Soto, A.P.2005. Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification. Ecological Economics.54, 435–446.
Rice, R.A., and Greenberg, R.2000. Cacao cultivation and the conservation of biological diversity. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.pp167–173.
Schroth, G., Fonseca da, G.A.B., Harvey, C.A., Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H.L., Izac, A.-M.N., 2004. Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Island Press, Washington
Somarriba, E., Harvey, C., Samper, M., Anthony, F., Gonzalez, J., Staver, C., and Rice, R. 2004. Biodiversity in coffee plantations. In: Schroth, G., Fonseca, G., Harvey, C., Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H., Izac, A.M.N.V. 158 Ernesto Me´ndez et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 119 (2007) 145–159.
Tetteh, D.A (2009). Agroforestry, ecosystem, biodiversity conservation: A case study in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Unpublished Mphil Thesis Dissertation
Tetteh, D.A., Asase, A., Ofori-Frimpong, K and Attuquayefio, D. 2018. Effect of cocoa farming intensification on biodiversity and ecosystem properties in southern Ghana. Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment. 10(7), 172–181.
Valencia, V., García-Barrios, L., West, P., Sterling, E.J., and Naeem, S. 2014. The role of coffee agroforestry in the conservation of tree diversity and community composition of native forests in a Biosphere Reserve. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 189, (1)154–163.

No competing interests reported.

Plant diversity in cocoa, coffee and cashew agroforest in southern Ghana

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Study area

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Field survey

2.2.3 Determination of vegetation parameters

2.3 Data analysis

Results

4.1 Plant diversity and structural characteristics

4.2 Relative frequency and successional stage of the most common tree species

Discussions

Conclusion

Declarations

Author Contribution

Acknowledgement

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1