Ecosystem services

1. 12/08/2023
1
BY
ASIGBAASE MICHAEL

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE
2
 Definition of Biodiversity
 Biodiversity-Ecosystem Service Link
 Threats and Trends
 Conservation Strategies
 Organic Coffee
 Organic Coffee and Biodiversity
 Conclusion
12/08/2023

3. INTRODUCTION
 Ecosystem; part of the environment
where communities of plants, animals
and microorganisms interact with each
other and with the physical and chemical
environment (MEA, 2005).
 Ecosystem services; benefits obtained
from passive or active utilization of
ecosystems (Harrington et al., 2010).
12/08/2023
3

4. INTRODUCTION CONT’N
12/08/2023
4
 Agroforestry – the integration of trees
with crops and/or animals for increased
socio-economic and environmental
benefits (ICRAF, 2000)
 Agroforestry systems;
- dominate tropical landscapes (Klein et
al., 2002)
- have the potential to provide ecosystem
services (Dossa et al., 2008; Nair, 2011)

5. PROBLEM STATEMENT 12/08/2023
5
 Human activities has:
- compromised ecosystems’ capacity to
provide ecosystem services (Mooney et al.,
2009)
- threatened biodiversity in ecosystems – the
backbone of ecosystem services
 Consequently;
- 60% of ecosystem services in the world are
already degraded or utilized unsustainably
(MEA, 2005; FAO, 2010)

6. PROBLEM STATEMENT CONT’N
 In Ghana, human activities has led to:
- 80% loss of original forest cover over the
past century (Opoku et al., 2005).
- 50-70% forest land encroachment in
Western Ghana (MoSE, 2002; Osafo, 2005).
 As a result;
- forest reserves and off-reserves in Ghana
are either degraded or significantly
depleted (Owubah et al., 2001; Henry et al.,
2008)
12/08/2023
6

7. PROBLEM STATEMENT CONT’N
12/08/2023
7
 Loss of forest cover implies;
- loss of biodiversity (plants and animals)
- loss carbon sinks
- carbon emission (MoSE, 2002; GPRS, 2002;
Gineste et al., 2008)
 Agricultural intensification in cocoa farms
can worsen the situation by:
- reducing floristic and faunistic species
richness (Bobo et al., 2006; Daghela
Bisseleua et al., 2013).

8. PROBLEM STATEMENT CONT’N
- recruitment of non-forest species (Asase et al.,
2008)
- water pollution from leaching chemicals
- leading to forest encroachment
- increased pressure on forests
 Implications:
- Protected areas in the tropics are insufficient to
preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services
- intensification of cocoa production systems can
promote degradation and deforestation
12/08/2023
8

9. JUSTIFICATION
12/08/2023
9
 There is the need to balance the economically
driven agricultural expansion with novel
strategies that promote the conservation of
natural resources, maintenance of ecosystem
integrity and species viability.
 Robust data on ecosystem services is required.
 Unfortunately these are lacking in cocoa
agroforestry systems because:
- little research

10. JUSTIFICATION CONT’N
12/08/2023
10
- focus on faunistics aspects
- focus on developed countries
- focus on coffee agro-ecosystems
(Bakermans et al., 2009; Mendez et al., 2007;
Rice, 2008 and 2010)
 As such, it is quantitatively difficult to
evaluate the impact of cocoa agroforests on
biodiversity (Donald, 2004).
 Major cocoa production areas are biodiversity
hotspots but they have been poorly studied
(Greenberg et al., 2000; Donald, 2004)

11. JUSTIFICATION CONT’N
 The claim that cocoa agroforests support
greater biodiversity, compared to other
agricultural land use such as cash crop systems
is yet to be well established (McNeely and
Schroth, 2006).
 Most environmentalists advocate for organic
cocoa but their potential provide ecosystem
services compared to conventional systems is
yet to be well documented.
 There an urgent need to bridge these research
gaps
12/08/2023
11

12. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Are there differences in tree diversity
between organic and conventional cacao
plantations?
 Are there differences in soil carbon stocks
between organic and conventional cocoa
plantations?
 How much tree litter is produced in organic
versus cocoa plantations?
12/08/2023
12

13. RESEARCH QUESTIONS CONT’N
 Are there differences in the contribution of
organic and conventional cocoa agroforestry
to sustainable livelihood development; and
 Are there differences in biophysical features
such as tree density, strata and shade density
between organic farms and conventional
cocoa farms?
12/08/2023
13

14. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
 determine and compare the floristic
composition, diversity and stand structure of
the two cocoa agroforestry systems under
study, and evaluate the role these factors
play in the conservation of native trees and
shrubs (Study I);
 determine and compare the C stocks of the
cocoa and shade trees biomass, litter and soil
in the two cocoa agroforestry systems (Study
II);
12/08/2023
14

15. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES CONT’N
 determine litter fall production and associated
C and N fluxes of seven woody species grown
in the cocoa agroforestry systems (Study III);
 determine and compare the contribution of
organic and conventional cocoa agroforestry to
sustainable livelihood development (Study IV);
and
 determine and compare biophysical features
such as tree density and shade density, and
evaluate the role these play in carbon storage
in the systems under study (Study V).
12/08/2023
15

16. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
 1. Organic cocoa farms maintain more
diverse tree species than conventional cocoa
farms.
 2. Organic cocoa farms maintain higher and
more complex shade canopy strata
compared to conventional cocoa farms.
 3. The contribution of organic cocoa to
sustainable livelihood development is
significantly higher than conventional cocoa.
12/08/2023
16

17. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS CONT’N
12/08/2023
17
 4. Litter production and C and N fluxes are
significantly higher in organic cocoa farms
than conventional cocoa farms.
 5. Organic cocoa farms store a significantly
higher amount of total carbon than
conventional cocoa farms.

18. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
12/08/2023
18

19. METHODS: SITE SELECTION
 With the help of Ghana Cocoa Board
(COCOBOD), organic cocoa farming
communities would be identified.
 Cocoa villages would be selected by random
sampling.
 Farms would be identified by the help of cocoa
co-operative leaders and extension officers.
 Conventional cocoa farms would be selected by
random sampling
12/08/2023
19

20. DATA REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS
 Data requirements:
• secondary data: desk study
• primary data: field surveys using standard
methods (e.g. Daghela Bisseleua, 2013)
 Methods:
 Study I: species inventory and quantitative
measurements.
 Study II: desk study for allometric equations
for carbon calculations.
• Total aboveground biomass C (TAGB C); C
stocks in trees, shrubs, cocoa, herbs).
12/08/2023
20

21. DATA REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS CONT’N
• Total belowground C stocks (TBG C) = sum of C
stocks associated with tree, shrub and cocoa
stumps and course roots, and fine root
biomass.
• Total biomass C stocks (TB C) = TAG C + TBG C.
 For soil organic C (SOC), standard methods
(e.g. Schumacher, 2002; Negash, 2013) would
be used.
 C stocks of system = TB C + SOC
12/08/2023
21

22. DATA REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS CONT’N
 Study III (C and N fluxes):
• the most abundant woody species (5 native
and 2 exotic) would be selected.
 litter traps
 monthly litter accumulated for one year
(see Jose et al., 2000)
 Study IV (Livelihoods): suitably developed
questionnaires plus data from study I
 Study V: data from study I
12/08/2023
22

23. DATA ANALYSIS
 Study I:
 Species richness per plot → number of species
per plot.
 Species dominance → percentage abundance
of each species.
 Species diversity:
- Shannon diversity index (H′),
- Simpson’s evenness index (E1/D) and
- Margalef’s diversity index (Dmg)
12/08/2023
23

24. DATA ANALYSIS CONT’N
 Similarity and dissimilarity between studied
systems → suitable quantitative index from
literature review.
 Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
 Fisher’s LSD test (LSD multiple test)
 Conversation needs → UUNC Red lists,
published and unpublished local criteria
 Study II: Statistics like mean, minimum,
maximum and standard deviation
12/08/2023
24

25. DATA ANALYSIS CONT’N
 ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD test
 Study III: (Jose et al., 2000; Dawoe et al., 2010;
Negash, 2013) :
- monthly litterfall per unit area of crown (MLP)
(g m-2)
- summed to obtain annual litter production per
unit area of crown (ALP) (g m-2 y-1)
- Mean crown area per ha (MCA) = Total unit
area of crown area ÷ total ha
- Litter production per unit land (LL) (kg ha-1 y-1) =
MCA x ALP
12/08/2023
25

26. DATA ANALYSIS CONT’N
 Annual litterfall fluxes of C and N (kg ha-1 y-1)
= C and N contents (%) x ALP (kg ha-1 y-1) x
appropriate coefficient for unit correction.
 Descriptive statistics would be used to
describe studied parameters.
 ANOVA followed by Fisher’s LSD would be
used to test for differences in studied
parameters.
12/08/2023
26

27. DATA ANALYSIS CONT’N
 Study IV (Sustainable livelihoods development):
- economic stability indicators → amount, price
and revenue from cocoa and co-products.
- livelihood sustainability indicators → native tree
diversity, co-products, amounts of chemical
inputs.
 ANOVA followed by Fisher’s LSD would be used
to test for differences in studied parameters.
 Study V: mean, minimum and maximum,
ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD.
12/08/2023
27

28. REFERENCES
12/08/2023
28

29. THANK YOU
HAPPY LISTENING
12/08/2023
29