Talk:Agroforestry/Archive 1

rewrite
In reading the entry, I found it rather dated. I rewrote it. The changes expressed are based on my work, specifically the books that I published on agroforestry. I hope that this helps... P.A. Wojtkowski

pre-rewite commments
This article needs a lot of expansion. Agroforestry is an incredibly diverse subject, encompassing everything from windbreaks to improved fallows to fodder trees to living fences... I will be glad to work on it in the next few months, but don't have time to do so right now.

The second section of the article, on biomass for ethanol production, is misleading. Tree plantations are not considered "agroforestry." Agroforestry refers to the integration of trees with annual crops, livestock, or some other non-tree component. A willow plantation is not agroforestry; it is just forestry.

i second that, anything that is forestry should be removed. --Hypo Mix (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

James Sholto Douglas
I think Douglas and his book, 'Forest Farming' (978-0946688302) deserve a spot in here somewhere - not sure where yet though? 89.240.2.60 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Hart
Some interesting info which could be incorporated here from Hart's book, re Hart, Douglas, Smith and Kagawa -

[] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.2.103 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Tropical?
I would also like to add a little bit on tropical agroforestry. Especially the work of Craig Elevitch, who has written some books on the historical techniques used on Pacific Islands. See his publications W Nowicki (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Adaptation to climate change
I added a section to provide more detail on some of the "benefits" mentioned for agroforestry, specifically the results of a recent study indicating that poor smallholder farmers have begun using agroforestry as a way to help adapt to climate change impacts. New editor, comments and corrections welcome. Thanks! C.peterson32 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Challenges section
I've added a challenges section to this agroforestry article. In researching agroforestry, primarily in the context of the United States, I found little information on challenges to agroforestry and why it is not more widespread. I have yet to find reliable sources answering that question in specific cases but I did find sources (as cited in my creation of a challenges section) sharing estimates about how widespread agroforestry is and general obstacles for agroforestry system adoption.

Those sources had limited scopes so it would be good to find more information to enrich the challenges section (which seems important to have - I tried to remain objective in my editing so I did not phrase the introduction of the section basically as 'if ag.fo. is so useful, why is it not more widespread?'). In particular it would be good to expound upon how widespread it is, how we know this (could be a different section in itself), and what challenges exist in different contexts (for example, all the challenges I listed are in the context of US extension programs trying to spread agroforestry).

I am a first time editor so please offer any constructive criticism you may have. Thanks. Cr0 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Agroforestry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707051700/http://www.plant-trees.org/resources/data.htm to http://www.plant-trees.org/resources/data.htm#download
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414124659/http://www.viskogen.se:80/English/Organisation.aspx to http://www.viskogen.se/English/Organisation.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

frienzsoil: changes in chapter "Benefits"
Hello friends of agroforestry

Considering the talk-comments about improving the structure of this article, I have made a draft of some major changes in the chapter "benefits". I suggest 4 sub-chapters to have a better overview: Biodiversity, Soil and plant growth, Contribution to sustainable agricultural systems and Other environmental goals. I will NOT delete anything existing but complement some of the existing bullet points with further scientific literature-based explanations and examples. It would be nice to have other writers complementing the other bullet points with additional information. I will wait for one day for any comments on my suggestions on this talk-site and will then upload the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frienzsoil (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Now the changes are done. I suggest to also extend the other bullet points with explanations and examples and particularly, with literature references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frienzsoil (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional information in chapter "Applications" by explaining a successful hillside agroforestry project in Honduras
Additional information in chapter "Applications" by explaining a successful hillside agroforestry project in Honduras. I will NOT delete any information already present. I would appreciate any constructive feedback, opinions and/or comments BEFORE I will make the changes to the article in a few days. Please read through my suggested improvements here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anatol.F.H/sandbox Thank you! Anatol.F.H (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional information example agroforestry in Switzerland
My plan is to add some informations about agroforesty in Switzerland, as an example of a central europaen country. Thank you for your constructive feedbacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lubu90/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubu90 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Promotion by NGOs and pressure groups
It is not appropriate for general articles like this one to report on the activities of NGOs and pressure groups. If they are separately notable then their activities can be described neutrally in their own articles. This article should focus on its subject, namely the theory and practice of agroforestry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * For any users wondering what prompted this discussion, I added the following sentence to the "Adaptation to climate change" section: "The Glacier Trust promotes agroforestry as a way of dealing with the effects of climate change in the Pahad belt of the Himalayas".


 * I thought this was appropriate since the content was reflective of the TGT, and it's relevant to the contents of the section. The sentence does deal with the "theory and practice of agroforestry", so I don't see why it should have been removed. I don't see a general problem with mentioning NGOs as long as mention of them is relevant, neutral, and well-organized. Is there any basis in Wikipedia policy for your objection? Matthew V. Milone (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Let's start with WP:UNDUE, as basically there's little reason in a general article to start talking about pressure groups. If we are to do so at all, it must not be by picking one (perhaps a loud one) and citing its own website, but by finding a WP:RS which covers the role of pressure groups in agroforestry, and independently describes the contribution of pressure groups as a whole. Your "content was reflective of the TGT" (I take it that's "The Glacier Trust") says that the deleted content was partial rather than across-the-board neutral, violating WP:NPOV. Nothing that organisation says about itself can demonstrate that it is representative of the whole sector, nor that the sector is significant in agroforestry. For that, we need reliable, third party coverage, as always in Wikipedia: these are core policies, and the encyclopedia won't work without them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * TGT isn't a pressure group. It operates in scientific and charitable spheres, not the legal sphere. There was no point of view being promoted, just a statement of fact: The Glacier Trust promotes agroforestry as a way of dealing with the effects of climate change in the Himalayas. I agree with your point about third-party sources. Here are two:
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281326382_Agro-forestry_Systems_as_a_Means_to_Achieve_Carbon_Co-benefits_in_Nepal
 * http://gsisdiscoveryweek.weebly.com/nepal.html
 * They note TGT's scientific and charitable promotion of agroforestry, respectively. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, this is certainly progress, as the sources are at least third-party. However, both Weebly and ResearchGate are very close to being blogs - basically anyone can use them (ResearchGate papers are often not peer-reviewed, so not RS), so it would be good to find sources which are plainly RS, i.e. in serious journals, books, or major organisations like FAO. My concern about undue focus on "TGT" remains, why would we want to limit discussion to exactly 1 example? — there must be others in other parts of the world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * They're reliable because of the organizations that produced them—the platform they're posted on is irrelevant. The paper on ResearchGate was written by the Journal of Forest and Livelihood (which is recognized by the FAO), and the article on Weebly was written by the German Swiss International School and is not intended to be a scientific paper, anyhow.
 * "Flaky" is the word that enters my mind unbidden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are examples of agroforestry efforts specific to other regions. The proper way of dealing with that is by adding more content for those efforts, as long as they're notable and coverage of them is reliable. It is common for a subject to contain separate paragraphs, sections (e.g. platoon), or even articles (e.g. sanitation and its various sanitation-in-X spinoffs) for the ways in which the subject varies by location. "Don't add A unless you also add B and C" is not a valid reason for blocking new content from being added outside of subjects that describe conflicting points of view, which this doesn't do. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't expected to have to write an introductory treatise on how to add a claim to Wikipedia, but there's no harm in going back to first principles. To work: arguing from what happened in other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is a classic example of what not to say in a Wikipedia discussion. Be that as it may, randomly adding one thing after another is the method of construction of Wikipedia's worst and cruftiest articles, so it can hardly be recommended. Don't get me wrong, the randomness is with respect to this article (let's call it y): it is perfectly natural and wholly non-random for people with a healthy and good interest in topic x to add paragraphs about x to articles y, (and y1, y2, y3, ...), but they will equally naturally do that without giving much thought to whether article y has enough coverage of the larger topic to which x belongs (let's call it big X), or indeed whether broader coverage of x1, x2, x3 would not be more apposite. Since we all want balanced coverage, intentionally seeking more and more sources for exactly one item smacks of partiality. You are rightly looking for better sources; I expect that if you broaden your search, you will find better materials. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * First, describing something as "flaky" isn't a compelling argument against its validity. Second, you keep framing this edit in terms of conflicting interests, but there aren't any. Partiality is a zero-sum concept, so what side am I being "partial" against? It's not as if I'm deleting or blocking information on similar groups. Third, while imbalance isn't a good thing, it's certainly not the worst option, either. If you were stuck on an island, wouldn't you rather have an imbalanced diet consisting only of bananas than have no food at all? Matthew V. Milone (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. By "flaky" I mean that a source is of questionable independence and reliability, for the reasons already given. Rather than keep coming back here to argue the toss again and again, all you need to do to avoid the multiple issues with major, indeed core, Wikipedia policies that I have flagged is to locate a *single* reliable, independent source which covers the area in reasonable detail: a textbook with one page on the subject would be sufficient. I have not used the phrase "conflicting interests" at any time, nor do I imagine that to be an issue here; obviously if you had any such then you should have declared them, and since you have not I assume in good faith that the matter does not arise here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're badly mischaracterizing most of the policies and guidelines you're citing, with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS probably being the most improperly used. I would go into specifics, but given your tendency to ignore points (e.g. that publisher matters more than platform), I don't think it would do much good. I'm formally requesting a third opinion. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was simply rude. Insofar as it expresses any coherent opinion, however, it is mistaken. Since I am not in the habit of repeating arguments, I have finished here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * Thanks for the input. I agree that your version is ideal, given that complete coverage is better than incomplete coverage. If you don't mind me asking, which violation is the original sentence on the borderline of? There were numerous objections to it. Matthew V. Milone (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fourth opinion
It's not helpful to just mention a group in the text (instead put them in an external link). It reads like you're promoting them. If they did something specific that is notable ("Group x completed a major project in country y that...") that is a different matter. Lfstevens (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Shading systems
What doesn't seem to be mentioned at the shading systems is the benefit of deciduous trees. Diciduous trees lose their leaves in winter (when adjacent crops can do with a bit of extra sunlight and heat) but have leaves and provide shading in summer (when the crops benefit from some shade). It is especially useful to counter extreme weather events

Draft:Agroforests
Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

In forestry silviculture discipline is similar to agronomy in agriculture.
Silviculture 106.207.145.56 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Editathon June 17
Just a heads-up that as part of an editathon I'm leading on June 17, new editors might be making some edits to this article. I'll be following up shortly afterwards to check for copyright compliance and other quality issues and will clean up stuff if needed. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 23:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Additions of sections on Hawai'i
Hello everyone, I’m new to editing Wikipedia pages so please bear with me if I don’t understand some conventions or formalities.

I noticed the Historical Use section of the article was pretty bare, so I’ve added a couple more paragraphs of research on Native Hawaiian practices of agroforestry, which predate the formal scientific study of agroforestry. While these are here, I believe that it could also be shuffled to another section under “Tropical Agroforestry,” since I indicate that there are modern efforts and research rooted in archaeology that act as a direct continuation of the historical use. Weighing in on the conversation about NGO and pressure group activity, I wonder if it still might be productive to list examples of practices of agroforestry with an express political or economic purpose. These are still significant examples of modern practice and research, no matter their origin. While looking over the original references to double check the content, I found that many required library or journal access. This might point to a larger obstacle across Wikipedia to bar access to resources which could serve as further reading, or for other editors to verify sources. I digress but I’d love other thoughts on this considering the state of the article. Chartering90 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)