Previous Article in Journal
Impact of the 2023–2024 ENSO Event of the North Pacific Coral Reefs of Costa Rica
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 11
10.3390/d17110792
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Diversity and Environmental Challenges in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation in the Face of Deforestation

by
Roy Vera-Velez
1,* and
Raúl Ramos-Veintimilla
2
1
College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
2
Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Panamericana Sur km 1 ½, Riobamba 060155, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(11), 792; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110792 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 17 October 2025 / Revised: 7 November 2025 / Accepted: 10 November 2025 / Published: 12 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biodiversity, Community Structure and Ecology of Terrestrial Ecosystems Under Global Change)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The biosphere is undergoing critical transformations due to deforestation, agricultural expansion, and logging, which have led to biodiversity loss, degradation of ecosystem services, and climate change. In tropical forests such as the Ecuadorian Amazon, these pressures are especially severe because reductions in forest cover compromise key ecological processes. The purpose of this article is to analyze the relationship between shifting agriculture, food security, and conservation in the Ecuadorian Amazon, with emphasis on the agroforestry system known as the chakra practiced by Kichwa communities. This model integrates crops such as cacao, maize, and cassava with native trees, without chemical inputs, and constitutes a practice that is both culturally significant and environmentally sustainable. Whereas conventional shifting agriculture tends to reduce soil fertility and the forest’s regenerative capacity, chakras maintain important levels of floristic diversity, favor the conservation of endemic species, and provide ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and nutrient regulation. In this sense, chakras represent a resilient yet context-dependent agroforestry alternative that connects food security and sovereignty, biological conservation, income, Indigenous identity, and climate-change mitigation, although their long-term sustainability remains influenced by market forces, land-use pressure, and policy support in tropical contexts.

1. Introduction

The biosphere has undergone profound transformations in recent decades, driven by population growth, agricultural expansion, and land-use change. These pressures have triggered abrupt and often irreversible changes in species composition and the functional integrity of ecosystems [1,2]. Unsustainable tree extraction practices, such as logging and large-scale clear-cutting, have intensified forest degradation, leading to desertification and the loss of approximately 178 million hectares of forest worldwide since 1990 [3]. The resulting landscape modifications have amplified environmental crises, including biodiversity decline and climate change [4,5,6,7,8].
Ecosystem functionality is closely tied to biological diversity, which supports productivity and the provision of ecosystem services [9,10]. Mechanisms such as niche complementarity and resource partitioning regulate these interactions by enhancing the efficient use of energy and nutrients across species [11,12,13,14,15]. Maintaining high biodiversity is therefore essential to sustain ecosystem structure and resilience, particularly in tropical forests where accelerating deforestation threatens ecological stability and vital environmental processes [16,17,18,19].
The conversion of forests into agricultural land has contributed substantially to the loss of habitat and numerous tropical species [20,21]. As a result, research on the relationship between agriculture, biodiversity, and sustainability has become a global priority aimed at identifying strategies to reduce resource overexploitation and promote ecological resilience [3,22,23,24]. Simplified plant communities resulting from deforestation or intensive farming negatively affect ecosystem productivity and services [8,9]. In contrast, species-rich assemblages enhance ecological stability through the portfolio effect, sustaining biomass production, nutrient cycling, and taxonomic diversity [25]. According to resource partitioning theory, species coexistence and the efficient use of resources depend on spatial and temporal differentiation among plant species [26]. Although biodiversity effects can be confounded with sampling effects [27], functional diversity remains critical for maintaining ecosystem performance.
The loss of natural resources and the decline of plant taxa impact multiple ecological mechanisms, such as nutrient cycling, regeneration, and resilience that are fundamental to ecosystem benefits [22,23]. Services like pollination, soil fertility, and carbon sequestration provide both direct and indirect contributions to human well-being [28,29]. Consequently, species diversity plays a key role in sustaining forest function and regulating environmental change [25].
Tropical forests, which hold a large share of global biodiversity, are among the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. Deforestation continues to compromise their ecological balance and the benefits they deliver to society [20]. Understanding the connection between agricultural production and forest conservation has therefore become crucial, particularly in tropical landscapes undergoing rapid transformation [22,23,30,31,32]. Developing and promoting sustainable alternatives that preserve biodiversity and ecosystem integrity is essential for maintaining long-term ecological stability.
In this article, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the relevance of shifting agriculture and its relationship to food security and tropical forest conservation. Specifically, we analyze the traditional chakra system practiced by Kichwa communities as an adaptive and sustainable variant of shifting agriculture. Unlike conventional swidden systems, chakras are planned cycles of forest opening, cultivation, and recovery, integrating native trees with lower shrub and herbaceous layers. These cycles intentionally include fallow periods to restore soil fertility and biodiversity. This integration of agriculture and forest regeneration positions chakras as an evolved form of shifting agriculture that supports both ecological and cultural resilience in the Ecuadorian Amazon. However, the ecological and socio-economic sustainability of chakras also depends on factors such as land availability, policy support, and access to stable markets. Recognizing these constraints allows for a more realistic and balanced understanding of how chakras contribute to conservation, income, food sovereignty, and Indigenous identity within a changing tropical landscape.
The purpose of this review is to synthesize past and current literature to identify and discuss the main advantages and challenges of the chakra agroforestry system in the Ecuadorian Amazon. By examining ecological, social, and economic dimensions, this review highlights how chakras operate as adaptive systems that integrate biodiversity conservation, food security, and sustainable land use in tropical forest landscapes. This review also aims to consolidate and interpret current knowledge to provide a coherent understanding of chakra agroforestry. Throughout the manuscript, consistent terms such as advantages, benefits, and challenges are used to describe the ecological, social, and cultural aspects of chakras.
The analysis of this review was based on a structured search and selection of relevant literature addressing chakra agroforestry, shifting agriculture, and forest management in tropical regions, with emphasis on the Ecuadorian Amazon. While this review does not seek to formally define the advantages of chakras, it synthesizes existing research to highlight key ecological, social, and cultural benefits identified in the literature. Peer-reviewed and gray literature were examined using databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Search terms included combinations of “chakra agroforestry,” “shifting cultivation,” “Ecuadorian Amazon,” “biodiversity,” “forest regeneration,” and “food security.” Publications were selected according to their relevance to Indigenous land-use practices, ecological processes, and socio-economic outcomes in tropical forest landscapes. Articles that were purely technical (e.g., focused only on crop physiology or non-forest products), lacked methodological transparency, or did not provide empirical or conceptual information relevant to ecosystem processes were excluded. The search yielded a total of 203 publications, of which 118 were discarded because they fell outside the inclusion criteria or contained redundant information. A total of 85 articles were found appropriate and were reviewed to synthesize the ecological, social, and economic dimensions of chakra agroforestry systems. Priority was given to peer-reviewed studies and reports that explicitly examined the relationships between chakra agroforestry, biodiversity conservation, food security, and sustainable land management. Additionally, studies published after 2000 were prioritized, while earlier foundational works were incorporated to provide historical and conceptual context.

2. Shifting Agriculture and Its Relationship to Tropical Forests

The domestication of crops and the development of shifting, or migratory, agriculture have been practiced for millennia across diverse regions of the world. Although largely replaced by modern farming in industrialized nations, this traditional system remains prevalent in many tropical rural areas. Shifting cultivation generally follows a three-phase cycle: tree cutting and clearing, a short cropping period, and a fallow phase that allows ecological succession toward secondary forest recovery [33]. Currently practiced in roughly 90 tropical and subtropical countries, covering nearly 400 million hectares, this system has faced criticism for its uneven use of fire as a clearing method and potential negative effects on biodiversity and soil fertility [34].
One of the key challenges of shifting cultivation is its reliance on long fallow periods, which often exceed the duration of cropping cycles. This dynamic can create pressure for larger areas of forested land to maintain sustainability [34]. Shortening fallow periods, often due to population growth and land scarcity, can alter species composition and ecosystem regeneration, reducing the soil’s natural fertility and threatening food security [35,36,37]. These changes also contribute to carbon emissions, although the magnitude of their impact remains insufficiently quantified.
Shifting cultivation has been criticized for its environmental impacts and effects on food security. Declining fallow durations and increased deforestation have intensified environmental degradation, leading to lower crop yields, reduced soil productivity, and heightened risks to global food security [38,39,40]. Consequently, transforming traditional farming systems into more sustainable models has become a major focus for both conservation and development. A promising alternative is the use of agroforestry systems (AFS), which combine native trees with crops on rural farms. This practice preserves tropical biodiversity, reduces pressure on primary forest, and enhances ecosystem services [41,42]. By combining ecological restoration with food production, AFS provides a practical alternative to conventional shifting cultivation, particularly in tropical regions where rural livelihoods depend on forest resources.
Among the diverse agroforestry approaches emerging across the tropics, the chakra system of the Ecuadorian Amazon stands out as a distinctive example that integrates ecological restoration with traditional land management. The chakra system represents a localized form of shifting cultivation rooted in Indigenous knowledge. While it follows the basic swidden sequence of clearing, cropping, and fallow, chakras differ by using no chemical inputs and maintaining native tree cover that facilitates forest regeneration. These characteristics align chakras with agroforestry principles, illustrating how traditional shifting agriculture can evolve into a sustainable land-use model that conserves biodiversity and supports food security.

3. Divergence Between Biodiversity Conservation and Food Security in the Ecuadorian Amazon

The interaction between forest clearing and agricultural intensification is an old anthropogenic phenomenon widely studied around the world [3]. In Latin America, this dynamic is worsened by socioeconomic conditions, with high levels of multidimensional poverty and alarming deforestation [43]. The region holds a significant share of protected forests, yet pressure on natural resources is high, endangering numerous endemic species [3]. Efforts to address these challenges have led to various studies in the tropical regions of Central and South America, focusing on reducing environmental degradation and climate change [41,44,45,46]. Special attention has been paid to smallholder agricultural systems in remote and vulnerable areas, such as the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, where such systems have been culturally important for decades, yet little is known about their economic and environmental productivity [3].
Despite covering only 1.5% of South America’s total area, Ecuador harbors exceptional biological richness, particularly within the Amazon region [47]. This area ranks among the planet’s leading biodiversity hotspots, with extraordinarily high tree-species density compared to other tropical forests [48,49]. For instance, Yasuní National Park contains approximately 655 tree species per hectare [50], far exceeding the 154 species ha−1 recorded in Colombia’s La Planada Nature Reserve [51] and 96 species ha−1 in Thailand’s Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary [52]. Remarkably, less than 1% of Ecuador’s territory accounts for nearly 34% of basin-wide biodiversity (Table 1) and supports an estimated 6.7% of the world’s endemic plant species [53]. However, rapid population growth and oil-related activities have triggered dramatic increases in deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon, especially in the northern provinces [54,55,56], jeopardizing ecosystem functionality and integrity as well as the survival of numerous species [56].
The Ecuadorian Amazon (EA) can be broadly divided into northern and southern subregions that differ in their patterns of land use and conservation. The northern EA contains several national parks and biological reserves, including Yasuní National Park, Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, Cayambe-Coca, and Llanganates (Figure 1), which together represent some of the most biologically diverse areas in the country. However, this region also experiences the highest rates of agricultural expansion and deforestation, particularly related to oil extraction and settlement. In contrast, the southern EA, notably the provinces of Pastaza, Morona Santiago, and Zamora Chinchipe, retains large tracts of continuous primary forest and includes smaller but significant protected areas such as Podocarpus National Park. These forests exhibit lower anthropogenic pressure and more limited agricultural activity.
Forests cover most of the Ecuadorian Amazon’s 13 million hectares [57]. Primary and mature forests, concentrated in biological reserves, are vital for biodiversity conservation and represent a major share of regional land use [58]. Agricultural activity is largely concentrated in transition and buffer zones, where perennial crops, particularly cacao and coffee, are prevalent in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon [3]. Primary forests occur mainly within protected areas such as the Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, Cayambe-Coca, Antisana, and Llanganates (Figure 1), which together comprise roughly 46% of land use in the EA but represent nearly 60% of the region’s protected lands [58]. Meanwhile, agricultural landscapes dominate the buffer zones, where perennial crops cover over 95% of cultivated areas in the north, while pastures represent about 60% of land use in the southern provinces (Table 2).
The predominance of cacao-based chakra systems in the northern EA provides an ideal context for examining interactions among traditional agroforestry practices, biodiversity conservation, and forest dynamics. The region’s mosaic of forests and agricultural plots makes it a valuable model for studying how human-managed landscapes influence ecological structure and diversity. This context also allows for applied research on vegetation composition, species distribution, and the socioecological interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities that rely on these systems for food security and income.
Among Indigenous groups, the Kichwa have developed the chakra system, an agroforestry practice that integrates production and conservation objectives (Table 3). According to Arévalo [60], chakras involve cultivating small forest openings for 2 to 25 years to meet household food and income needs, after which the plots are left fallow to allow forest and soil recovery (Figure 2a). A defining feature of these systems is the use of multi-layered shade gradients created by retaining native trees that support diverse plant assemblages and enhance microclimatic conditions [4]. These characteristics enable chakras to preserve native floristic diversity, though their specific contributions to the conservation of endemic and threatened species remain underexplored.
The chakra system represents transitional disturbance systems that balance agricultural production with forest regeneration, making them a viable approach for sustainable resource management and climate-change mitigation. However, proximity to roads and markets has increased commercialization and connectivity, encouraging land-use intensification and shorter fallow cycles (Figure 2b). These trends raise two key questions: (1) to what extent can agroforestry practices maintain forest structure and ecosystem integrity under shortened fallow regimes? (2) Does reducing fallow duration increase fragmentation and biodiversity loss? Addressing these questions is crucial to developing sustainable land-use strategies in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Determining minimum forest-cover thresholds and biodiversity levels compatible with human activity will be vital for balancing ecological resilience with local livelihoods and improving forest management at regional and global scales.

4. The Chakra System: Structure, Dynamics, and Ecological Advantages

Building upon the discussion of shifting agriculture in the Ecuadorian Amazon, the chakra system can be identified as a dynamic agroforestry model that bridges agricultural production and forest conservation. Through its multi-strata composition and cyclical land-use patterns, the chakra system supports biodiversity, maintains ecosystem functions, and reflects a long-standing Indigenous approach to managing forest landscapes.
In the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, chakra agroforestry systems are characterized by the absence of fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy machinery. Their principal advantage lies in preserving mature native trees that fulfill multiple ecological and cultural functions. Typically, small forest clearings are cultivated for a few years to meet food and household needs before being intentionally left fallow to promote forest recovery [60]. The presence of diverse native tree species across vertical strata, many of which hold social and spiritual meaning, reflects a multifunctional land-use system capable of sustaining high floristic diversity [4,61].
Chakras embody an adaptive strategy directly associated with socioeconomic conditions focused on food security, land management, and balanced use of forest resources through environmentally respectful approaches. The first aspect is ensuring adequate food supply and income. For example, maize and cassava are two of the most important staple crops in the tropics [62]; meanwhile, cacao cultivation provides important economic returns across South and Central America, Africa, and Asia [4,63,64,65]. Second, chakra plots in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon typically range between 0.05 and 6.0 ha [66], comparable to similar integrated systems in East Africa (0.4–3.0 ha [65]). Such small plot sizes are strategically designed to match family labor capacity while maintaining sustainable productivity. Third, the establishment of chakras often involves the selective transformation of mature forest or secondary forests rather than random clearing. Although farmers’ tree selection aims primarily to increase crop productivity, the presence of culturally significant species, such as Ilex guayusa Loes. and Aphandra natalia (Balsev and A.J. Hend.) Barfod, and other native herbaceous species such as Urtica urens L. [66], suggest the integration of ecological function and Indigenous identity within these systems [60,61]. Through their spatial and structural complexity, chakras sustain diversity at multiple levels. Notably, tree diversity in adjacent mature forests tends to be lower due to ongoing selective management of canopy layers (Figure 3).
The dynamic structure between mature forests and chakras maintains significant levels of diversity. Notably the diversity in mature forest is limited by continuous modifications of tree strata (Figure 3). The photograph (Figure 3) illustrates a chakra established from a secondary forest in recovery, depicting an intermediate stage of land-use transition where forest regeneration and agroforestry coexist. This reflects the cyclical dynamics described in Figure 2, where forest recovery and chakra cultivation alternate as part of the shifting agricultural mosaic. It is worth noting that the proximity of chakras to protected reserves or extensive tracts of mature forest may also influence their floristic composition, with sites nearer to undisturbed areas generally exhibiting greater canopy diversity and faster regeneration. In contrast, landscapes dominated by commercial agriculture, timber extraction, or conventional shifting cultivation might have reduced canopy diversity and slower forest recovery. These practices, conducted by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, though to different degrees, contributed to the lowering of species diversity across the region.
The number of tree families in mature and secondary forests adjacent to chakras is lower than that recorded in undisturbed reserves, where species richness ranges from 217 to 307 tree species per hectare in sites such as Jatun Sacha, Yasuní National Park, and Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve [50,67,68]. In contrast, mature forests adjacent to chakras support around 81 tree species per hectare (Table 4), reflecting the influence of selective clearing and localized management. This difference indicates that chakra landscapes experience a low degree of intervention, where tree removal is restricted primarily to small areas needed for crop establishment, while most native vegetation is retained. Such practices promote partial forest recovery and species coexistence over successive cultivation cycles. Although the floristic richness of chakras is lower than that of pristine forests, it remains considerably higher than in other tropical agroforestry or monoculture systems, underscoring their ecological importance in sustaining biodiversity within managed Amazonian landscapes.
Although chakra plots exhibit lower floristic richness than pristine forests, their diversity surpasses that of most tropical agroforestry or monoculture systems, underscoring their ecological importance. After forest conversion, diversity typically declines but remains comparatively high, e.g., 32 effective tree species ≥10 cm dbh per hectare in maize plots, 20 in cassava, and 62 in cacao systems (Table 4). These numbers contrast clearly with cacao agroforestry in Ghana (15 species) and Mexico (13 species) [69,70]. The combined contribution of forests and chakras increases total diversity by about 25%, adding roughly 28 species to overall floristic richness (Table 4). Together, these land-use types yield 109 tree species in total, demonstrating their complementary role in maintaining biodiversity within the northern Ecuadorian Amazon.
Beyond their structural and compositional attributes, chakras provide important opportunities for conserving endemic, vulnerable, and threatened species. According to Vera et al. [66], two endemic taxa, Alseis lugonis L. Anderson and Stryphnodendron porcatum D.A. Neill & Occhioni f., persist largely due to Indigenous management practices that sustain forest resilience. Additionally, the buffer zones host several endangered species, including Cedrela odorata L., Swietenia macrophylla King, and Cedrelinga cateniformis (Ducke) Ducke, valued for their timber [4]; Croton lechleri Müll. Arg., used medicinally [71]; and Pseudolmedia rigida (Klotzsch & H. Karst.) Cuatrec., an important wildlife food source, particularly for spider monkeys [72]. The ecological dynamics of chakras influence key ecosystem processes such as soil conservation, nutrient retention, and carbon storage. While replacing mature-forest species with faster-growing chakra species can alter the carbon balance, these pioneer trees, especially Cordia alliodora (Ruiz & Pav.) Oken and Ochroma pyramidale (Cav. ex Lam.) Urb., act as significant carbon sinks during early successional stages [73]. The magnitude of this effect depends on disturbance intensity and resource availability [74]. Thus, chakra agroforestry represents a viable agricultural alternative that mitigates carbon emissions while supporting local livelihoods.
The attributes of chakras, as agroforestry systems, intersect local food production, conservation of adequate levels of biodiversity and native species, and culturally representative ethnic traditions. These are tangible characteristics that enable a more harmonious, less labor-intensive agricultural system used by Indigenous communities to obtain key supplies for their well-being while preserving forests, natural habitats, and plant diversity. In short, land use involving intercropped systems, i.e., chakras, in the Amazon region and other tropical countries has great potential to enhance food security and improve climate-change outcomes at local and regional scales by preserving the structure, integrity, and functional dynamics of natural forested landscapes. Similar positive effects of this agrosystem, together with the fundamentals of forest resilience, could benefit other tropical regions worldwide.

5. Cacao Chakras: Socioeconomic and Environmental Advantages and Challenges

Within the broader chakra framework, cacao-based systems represent a particularly resilient and economically significant form of agroforestry in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Cacao chakras balance long-term productivity, ecological restoration, and cultural continuity amid increasing land-use pressure and agricultural intensification.
In the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, most chakra agroforestry systems originate from secondary forests in recovery, rather than from mature primary forests. Establishment generally involves selective clearing that retains native tree cover and promotes natural regeneration after several years of cultivation [60]. However, in areas facing higher population density and limited available land, portions of mature forest communities have increasingly been converted into chakras or other crop systems. While cacao-based agroforestry occurs in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous contexts, only a proportion of these systems are chakras. Among Kichwa communities, the chakra remains the dominant traditional model of cacao cultivation, integrating ecological sustainability, food security, and cultural continuity.
Intensification of cropping systems in vulnerable forest landscapes presents one of the greatest challenges for ecosystem conservation and the maintenance of environmental services. Despite these pressures, the tree structure and floristic diversity of cacao chakras are highly significant in the Ecuadorian Amazon and can buffer the ecological effects of intensifying shifting agriculture (Figure 1b), though with certain limitations. As land-use intensification increases, plant density and tree basal area tend to decline within cacao agroforestry systems [66,75,76]. Despite undergoing human modification, cacao chakras retain many of the structural characteristics typical of mature-forest communities. For instance, species such as Cedrela odorata and Inga edulis Mart. occupy multiple canopy strata, enabling levels of natural regeneration comparable to those observed in primary forests [77]. According to Vera-Velez et al. [78], species richness within cacao agroecosystems increases as agricultural intensification decreases. The composition of these systems supports the persistence of native, endemic, and even endangered trees, contributing to a synergistic process of biodiversity conservation. Conversely, highly intensified forms of shifting cultivation are associated with lower overall diversity and substantial losses of forest structure and ecosystem services [79,80].
The dynamic integration of agroecosystems and shifting agriculture embodied by chakras can therefore be viewed as a mechanism of ecological resilience, a model potentially adaptable to other crop–tree systems worldwide [79,80]. This approach has strong potential to reduce forest degradation and enhance carbon sequestration capacity across tropical and subtropical regions.
A major challenge of shifting agriculture is the decline in soil fertility and productivity resulting from shortened recovery periods between cultivation cycles. Vegetation plays a critical buffering role in this process, as organic matter contributes to soil structure, nutrient retention, and fertility, all of which are essential for maintaining productivity and food security [81]. Many tropical farmers continue to rely on shifting cultivation practices that incorporate fallow phases and natural soil regeneration to sustain affordable and productive food systems [4,82]. Although tree composition in tropical forests often varies according to environmental gradients [83], patterns of species turnover in the Ecuadorian Amazon remain relatively stable within a 100 km range [84]. Consequently, the most significant differences in vegetation composition are largely attributable to human activities, which modify soil chemistry and nutrient dynamics. Variations in fallow duration influence the alternation of tree species and their interactions with soil micro- and macronutrients, particularly when recovery intervals are shortened [78]. These relationships highlight the key role of plant communities in sustaining ecological processes, partly through their influence on soil microbial diversity and activity [85]. As noted by Powers et al. [86], the effects of individual plants on soil characteristics are diminished under dense, multi-species canopies. However, the influence of specific trees on soil properties often depends on their dominance or abundance, a typical feature of tropical forests and agroforestry systems. Consequently, shifts in the frequency or dominance of certain plant families may underlie observed fluctuations in soil physical and chemical attributes.
The multi-species structure of cacao chakras helps buffer the negative effects of intensive land use on soil productivity and health. Tree cover regulates microclimatic conditions, enhances nutrient cycling, and supports long-term soil health, ultimately promoting stable yields and ecosystem resilience under both natural and anthropogenic pressures. Nonetheless, the composition and dominance of tree species play a decisive role in maintaining ecological balance, particularly under shortened or intensified fallow cycles. Sustaining this structural diversity is therefore essential to preserve soil fertility, carbon storage, and the functional integrity of chakra agroecosystems in a rapidly changing climate.
The ecological balance maintained through tree diversity within cacao chakras also determines the temporal stability of these systems. The longevity of dominant perennial crops, particularly cacao, directly influences how long a chakra remains productive before returning to a forested state. It is important to distinguish between short-cycle chakras cultivated for subsistence crops and those based on perennial species such as cacao. While many traditional chakras are cultivated for 2–3 years before being left fallow to allow forest recovery [60], cacao trees have a productive lifespan of 20–30 years, during which the plot remains under continuous management. This extended period transforms the chakra into a semi-permanent agroforestry system where forest regeneration occurs gradually beneath the canopy rather than through full fallow cycles. Consequently, cacao-based chakras represent a more stable and long-term form of shifting agriculture that integrates sustained productivity with ecological restoration.

6. General Considerations: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Broader Implications of Chakras Agroforestry

Deforestation-related challenges in tropical regions, particularly those driving biodiversity loss and climate instability, have become a central concern at global, political, and social levels. These issues are closely linked to forest degradation and the widespread conversion of complex ecosystems into simplified, low-biomass landscapes such as pastures and monocultures [4]. The resulting environmental changes contribute to rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and altered hydrological cycles that threaten human well-being and local livelihoods [87,88,89]. Such impacts are often exacerbated by unsustainable, large-scale agricultural practices, including intensive forms of shifting cultivation [90,91,92,93,94,95].
Agroforestry systems offer several advantages, integrating food production with biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of ecological functions. These systems sustain native species, enhance ecosystem resilience, and preserve traditional land-use knowledge within local cultures. In the Ecuadorian Amazon, the Indigenous chakra agroecosystem exemplifies these advantages. Rooted in centuries of traditional practice, chakras represent a productive, adaptive, and ecologically grounded model that balances human needs with forest conservation. The application of chakra-based agroforestry across the Amazon and other tropical regions demonstrates considerable potential to strengthen food security and mitigate climate impacts. By conserving forest structure, integrity, and ecological function, chakras help maintain essential ecosystem services and support sustainable rural development. Recent studies indicate that chakra systems not only sustain high levels of floristic diversity but also store significant amounts of above-ground biomass carbon, often comparable to secondary forests, underscoring their role as nature-based climate solutions [30,31].
Among the key advantages, chakras contribute to food sovereignty and dietary diversity, mitigating food insecurity among Kichwa families [96]. At the same time, cacao-based agroforestry within chakras provides a source of income, but with cautionary notes: while cacao enhances livelihoods, its contribution may be uneven and should be balanced with maintaining ecological integrity [97]. Tree and palm management practices in swidden fallows also illustrate how Kichwa land-use decisions influence regeneration dynamics and ensure long-term sustainability of agroecosystems [98]. The ecological and functional differences between chakra agroforestry systems and conventional shifting agriculture are summarized in Table 5. This comparison highlights the capacity of chakras to maintain biodiversity, soil fertility, and carbon storage, while also identifying disadvantages related to land tenure, labor intensity, and market dependence. By contrasting these systems, Table 5 underscores the integrative role of chakras in balancing agricultural productivity with forest conservation and cultural resilience in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Comparable agroforestry systems that integrate food production with biodiversity conservation have been established in other tropical forest regions. In Southeast Asia, community-managed forest gardens in Thailand and Indonesia demonstrate how agroforestry can sustain high levels of plant diversity while reducing deforestation and maintaining wildlife corridors within fragmented landscapes [99,100,101]. Similarly, in Central America, shade-grown cacao and coffee systems serve as multifunctional land uses that help conserve native tree species and improve soil and carbon dynamics [102]. These systems share functional similarities with chakra agroforestry in the Ecuadorian Amazon, combining ecological restoration with sustainable livelihoods. Together, they illustrate how culturally grounded agroforestry models can address biodiversity loss and contribute to broader forest conservation strategies across tropical regions.
Despite their ecological and cultural importance, cacao-based chakras exhibit considerable variability in household income. Economic returns depend on bean quality, market accessibility, cooperative participation, and fluctuations in international cacao prices. In some Kichwa communities, income from cacao represents a primary but often unstable cash source, typically supplemented by subsistence crops, fruits, and forest products. In recent years, however, the development of local and fair-trade market chains, particularly through Kichwa-led organizations such as the Kallari Association [103], has improved income stability by connecting Indigenous producers to national and international markets under equitable trade conditions. These initiatives reinforce the multifunctional nature of the chakra system, linking traditional agroforestry practices with emerging economic opportunities and community resilience.
Multi-layered shade cacao cultivation plays an essential role due to the balanced combination of different trees that are vital to Indigenous culture and traditions, in addition to preserving forests, natural habitats, plant diversity, and ecosystem functions. As argued by Torres et al. [76], chakras embody a culturally rooted climate adaptation strategy that integrates biodiversity conservation with human well-being, making them a viable model for broader replication. Thus, the agroforestry–shifting agriculture combination represents a balanced agricultural system designed to promote food security and safeguard local cultural practices, forest communities, and the diversity of habitats and plants, all of which enable trophic dynamics and biological corridors for flora and fauna.
Table 5. Summary of comparative advantages and disadvantages of chakras agroforestry systems (AFS) and conventional shifting agriculture (SA) systems. A = advantage; D = disadvantage.
Table 5. Summary of comparative advantages and disadvantages of chakras agroforestry systems (AFS) and conventional shifting agriculture (SA) systems. A = advantage; D = disadvantage.
Ecosystem Process/AspectChakra AFSConventional SA
BiodiversityA: High floristic and structural diversity. Integrates native trees, shrubs, and crops; provides habitat continuity and promotes pollinator networks [4,61,66,71].
D: More management effort and ecological knowledge to maintain species diversity over time [60,66].		A: Natural regeneration during fallow can restore species richness if cycles are long [33,35,36].
D: Periodic land clearing causes habitat loss; shortened fallow reduces recovery capacity [34,35,37].
Soil FertilityA: Enhance nutrient cycling and soil organic matter through; prevent erosion and nutrient leaching [55,78,81,85].
D: Decline in fertility possible under poor management or short rotations [78,86].		A: Initial ash from burning provides temporary nutrient enrichment [34].
D: Rapid nutrient loss, erosion, and reduced fertility with repeated cultivation and shortened fallow [36,37,40].
Carbon SequestrationA: Store substantial above- and below-ground carbon, comparable to secondary forests [30,31,73].
D: Lower carbon storage when large trees are removed during establishment [74].		A: Temporary carbon storage during regrowth phases [33,73].
D: Carbon released during burning; reduced recovery under shorter cycles [91,93].
Water RegulationA: Maintain soil moisture, reduce runoff, and enhance infiltration via multi-layer canopy and root diversity [55,98].
D: Water use may increase under high-density planting of shade trees [55,99].		A: Partial hydrological recovery possible during extended fallow [33].
D: Deforestation increases runoff, sedimentation, and watershed degradation [4,87].
Climate RegulationA: Moderate local temperature and humidity through shading and evapotranspiration; reduce greenhouse gas emissions by maintaining tree cover [30,31,76].D: Short-term emissions during biomass decomposition and burning; contribute to microclimatic warming and variability [87,89].
Food Security & LivelihoodA: Provide diverse food and income sources (cacao, cassava, maize, fruits); improve resilience to market or climatic fluctuations [62,63,96,97].
D: Depend on stable markets and labor availability; profitability can vary with prices [97,103].		A: Support subsistence food production during cultivation period [33,40].
D: Limited long-term income; vulnerable to yield decline and climatic variability [38].
Cultural & Social ValueA: Preserve Indigenous ecological knowledge, cultural identity, and traditional land stewardship (e.g., Kichwa chakras) [60,61,66,99].
D: Transmission of knowledge depends on generational continuity and community cohesion [60,102].		A: May maintain some traditional practices if managed communally [33].
D: Often driven by short-term needs; loss of Indigenous management systems [104,105].
Land Use PressureA: Reduce expansion into primary forests by maintaining long-term productive plots; optimize use of cleared land [66,75].
D: Require secure land tenure and long-term planning [104,105]		A: Can support small populations sustainably when cycles are long [34,35].
D: Major driver of deforestation when population or market pressure shortens cycles [54,55,56].
Resilience to DisturbanceA: High ecological resilience due to multi-strata vegetation and soil protection [4,66,78].D: Low resilience under intensive use; repeated clearing degrades ecosystem recovery [34,37,79].
Overall LimitationsDepend on secure land tenure, local labor, and stable markets (e.g., fair-trade initiatives such as Kallari) for long-term viability [76,103].Rapid soil degradation, deforestation, and declining yields under intensified cycles [78,79,80].

7. Conclusions

While chakra systems demonstrate strong potential to improve food security and climate outcomes by conserving forest structure and ecological functions, their broader application faces significant challenges. In many tropical regions, land-tenure insecurity restricts long-term investment in agroforestry, as seen in smallholder cacao and coffee landscapes of the Peruvian and Colombian Amazon [104,105]. Population pressure and agricultural expansion can shorten fallow cycles and reduce the regenerative capacity of forest-based systems [78]. In more market-driven contexts, fluctuating cacao prices and dependence on export markets have been shown to undermine household stability in agroforestry communities in Central America and West Africa [10]. Additionally, invasive species and soil degradation pose persistent ecological risks to agroforestry plots in Southeast Asia [106]. These examples highlight that while chakras offer a promising model for integrating conservation and livelihoods, their successful replication depends on secure land rights, supportive policy environments, and local community engagement tailored to regional socio-ecological conditions.
Adopting similar systems in tropical and subtropical regions could help reduce forest degradation and strengthen forests’ capacity as CO2 sinks. Such strategies can also preserve ecosystem health and support the functional balance between people and natural landscapes. However, scholars stress that broader uptake requires not only technical validation but also the creation of supportive policy frameworks and local empowerment mechanisms [30,76,107]. Implementing environmentally respectful agricultural policies is necessary to curb the loss of tropical biological diversity [108,109]. Positive outcomes will only be possible through collaboration among multidisciplinary research teams, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous farmers, community leaders, and governments [110].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.V.-V.; investigation, R.V.-V. and R.R.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, R.V.-V.; writing—review and editing, R.R.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pacifici, M.; Visconti, P.; Butchart, S.H.; Watson, J.E.; Cassola, F.M.; Rondinini, C. Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 205–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. de la Riva, E.G.; Ulrich, W.; Batáry, P.; Baudry, J.; Beaumelle, L.; Bucher, R.; Čerevková, A.; Felipe-Lucia, M.R.; Gallé, R.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; et al. From functional diversity to human well-being: A concepttual framework for agroecosystem sustainability. Agric. Syst. 2023, 208, 103659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Key Findings. 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/CA8753EN/CA8753EN.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2025).
  4. Porro, R.; Miller, R.P.; Tito, M.R.; Donovan, J.A.; Vivan, J.L.; Trancoso, R.; Van Kanten, R.F.; Grijalva, J.E.; Ramirez, B.L.; Gonçalves, A.L. Agroforestry—The Future of Global Land Use; Nair, P.K.R., Garrity, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Homeier, J.; Werner, F.A.; Gawlik, J.; Peters, T.; Diertl, K.H.J.; Richter, M. Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Environmental Change in a Tropical Mountain Ecosystem of South Ecuador. In Plant Diversity and Its Relevance for the Provision of Ecosystem Services; Bendix, J., Beck, E., Bräuning, A., Makeschin, F., Mosandl, R., Scheu, S., Wilcke, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 93–106. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tapia-Armijos, M.F.; Homeier, J.; Espinosa, C.I.; Leuschner, C.; de la Cruz, M. Deforestation and Forest Fragmentation in South Ecuador since the 1970s–Losing a Hotspot of Biodiversity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Esquivel, M.J.; Vilchez-Mendoza, S.; Harvey, C.A.; Ospina, M.A.; Somarriba, E.; Deheuvels, O.; Filho, E.d.M.V.; Haggar, J.; Detlefsen, G.; Cerdan, C.; et al. Patterns of shade plant diversity in four agroforestry systems across Central America: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 8538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Visscher, A.M.; Meli, P.; Fonte, S.J.; Bonari, G.; Zerbe, S.; Wellstein, C. Agroforestry enhances biological activity, diversity and soil-based ecosystem functions in mountain agroecosystems of Latin America: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2024, 30, e17036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Liang, J.; Zhou, M.; Tobin, P.C.; McGuire, A.D.; Reich, P.B. Biodiversity influences plant productivity through niche–efficiency. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 5738–5743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sari, R.R.; Priyadarshini, R.; Rozendaal, D.M.; Saputra, D.D.; Hairiah, K.; Van Noordwijk, M. Tree diversity and social–ecological resilience of agroforestry after volcanic ash deposition in Indonesia. Sustain. Sci. 2023, 18, 2735–2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Naeem, S.; Thompson, L.J.; Lawler, S.P.; Lawton, J.H.; and Woodfin, R.M. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 1994, 368, 734–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tilman, D. Distinguishing between the effects of species diversity and species composition. Oikos 1997, 80, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hector, A. Diversity favours productivity. Nature 2011, 472, 45–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Coelho, A.J.P.; Teixeira, H.M.; Verweij, P.; Matos, F.A.R.; Villa, P.M.; Meira-Neto, J.A.A. Functional richness mediates landscape and management effects on tree biomass and soil fertility during secondary forest succession. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 162, 112029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Isaac, M.E.; Gagliardi, S.; Ordoñez, J.C.; Sauvadet, M. Shade tree trait diversity and functions in agroforestry systems: A review of which traits matter. J. Appl. Ecol. 2024, 61, 1159–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, Y.; Chen, H.Y.; Reich, P.B. Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: A global meta-analysis. J. Ecol. 2012, 100, 742–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liang, J.; Crowther, T.W.; Picard, N.; Wiser, S.; Zhou, M.; Alberti, G.; Schulze, E.-D.; McGuire, A.D.; Bozzato, F.; Pretzsch, H.; et al. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 2016, 354, aaf8957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ammer, C. Diversity and forest productivity in a changing climate. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 50–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Heredia-R, M.; Torres, B.; Cayambe, J.; Ramos, N.; Luna, M.; Diaz-Ambrona, C.G. Sustainability assessment of smallholder agroforestry indigenous farming in the Amazon: A case study of Ecuadorian Kichwas. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Duivenvoorden, J.F.; Svenning, J.C.; Wright, S.J. Beta diversity in tropical forests. Science 2002, 295, 636–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bhat, Y.; Nandy, S.; Das, K.; Tamang, M.; Padalia, H.; Nath, A.J.; Majumdar, K.; Pebam, R.; Thongni, P.; Kurmi, B.; et al. Vegetation disturbance and regrowth dynamics in shifting cultivation landscapes. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 28324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. MEA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. Polania, C.; Pla, L.; Casanoves, F. Diversidad Funcional y Servicios Ecosistémicos; Valoración y Análisis de la Diversidad Funcional y su Relación con los Servicios Ecosistémicos; Casanoves, F., Pla, L., Di Rienzo, J., Eds.; CATIE: Cartago, Costa Rica, 2011; pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mathieu, A.; Martin-Guay, M.O.; Rivest, D. Enhancement of Agroecosystem Multifunctionality by Agroforestry: A Global Quantitative Summary. Glob. Change Biol. 2025, 31, e70234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bonan, G.B. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 2008, 320, 1444–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tilman, D. Resource Competition and Community Structure; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wardle, D.A. Is “sampling effect” a problem for experiments investigating biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships? Oikos 1999, 87, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gasparatos, A.; Stromberg, P.; Takeuchi, K. Biofuels, ecosystem services and human wellbeing: Putting biofuels in the ecosystem services narrative. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huera-Lucero, T.; Lopez-Piñeiro, A.; Torres, B.; Bravo-Medina, C. Biodiversity and carbon sequestration in chakra-type agroforestry systems and humid tropical forests of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Forests 2024, 15, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Álava-Núñez, P.; Torres, B.; Castro, M.; Robles, M. AGB carbon stock analysis in the Indigenous agroforestry of the Ecuadorian Amazon: Chakra and Aja as Natural Climate Solutions. Front. For. Glob. Change 2025, 8, 1513140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Recent theoretical advances. Oikos 2000, 91, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kapp, G.; Manning, D.B. Land Management Systems at the Interface Between Forestry and Agriculture; Forests and Rural Development; Pretzsch, J., Darr, D., Uibrig, H., Auch, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 85–110. [Google Scholar]
  34. Delang, C.O.; Li, W.M. Ecological Succession on Fallowed Shifting Cultivation Fields: A Review of the Literature; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  35. Uhl, C. Factors controlling succession following slash-and-burn agriculture in Amazonia. J. Ecol. 1987, 75, 377–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kennard, D.K. Secondary forest succession in a tropical dry forest: Patterns of development across a 50-year chronosequence in lowland Bolivia. J. Trop. Ecol. 2002, 18, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nye, P.H.; Greenland, D.J. The Soil Under Shifting Cultivation; Technical Communication; Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux: London, UK, 1960. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mertz, O. The relationship between length of fallow and crop yields in shifting cultivation: A rethinking. Agrofor. Syst. 2002, 55, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dalle, S.P.; de Blois, S. Shorter fallow cycles affect the availability of noncrop plant resources in a shifting cultivation system. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hoffmann, U. Agriculture at the crossroads: Assuring food security in developing countries under the challenge of global warming. Trade Environ. Rev. 2013, 1, 2–8. [Google Scholar]
  41. Guiracocha, G.; Harvey, C.; Somarriba, E.; Krauss, U.; Carrillo, E. Conservación de la biodiversidad en sistemas agroforestales con cacao y banano en Talamanca, Costa Rica. Agroforestería En. Las. Américas 2001, 8, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ashley, R.; Russell, D.; and Swallow, B. The policy terrain in protected area landscapes: Challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 663–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. ECLAC. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Poverty in Latin America Remained Steady in 2017, but Extreme Poverty Increased to the Highest Level Since 2008, While Inequality Has Fallen Notably Since 2000. 2019. Available online: https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/poverty-latin-america-remained-steady-2017-extreme-poverty-increased-highest-level (accessed on 15 October 2025).
  44. Reitsma, R.; Parrish, J.D.; McLarney, W. The role of cacao plantations in maintaining forest avian diversity in southeastern Costa Rica. Agrofor. Syst. 2001, 53, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schroth, G.; Harvey, C.A.; da Fonseca, G.A.; Vasconcelos, H.L.; Gascon, C.; Izac, A.M.N. (Eds.) Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes; Island Press: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  46. Harvey, C.A.; Gonzalez, J.; and Somarriba, E. Dung beetle and terrestrial mammal diversity in forests, indigenous agroforestry systems and plantain monocultures in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 555–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sierra, R.; Campos, F.; and Chamberlin, J. Assessing biodiversity conservation priorities: Ecosystem risk and representativeness in continental Ecuador. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2002, 59, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Finer, M.; Jenkins, C.N.; Pimm, S.L.; Keane, B.; Ross, C. Oil and gas projects in the western Amazon: Threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e2932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bass, M.S.; Finer, M.; Jenkins, C.N. Global conservation significance of Ecuador’s Yasuní National Park. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e8767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Valencia, R.; Foster, R.B.; Villa, G.; Condit, R.; Svenning, J.C.; Hernández, C.; Romoleroux, K.; Losos, E.; Magard, E.; and Balslev, H. Tree species distributions and local habitat variation in the Amazon: Large forest plot in eastern Ecuador. J. Ecol. 2004, 92, 214–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vallejo, M.I.; Samper, C.; Mendoza, H.; Otero, J.T. La Planada Forest Dynamics Plot, Colombia. In Tropical Forest Diversity and Dynamism: Findings from a Large-Scale Plot Network; Losos, E.C., Leigh, E.G., Jr., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2004; pp. 517–526. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bunyavejchewin, S.; Baker, P.J.; LaFrankie, J.V.; Ashton, P.S. HuaiKha Khaeng Forest Dynamics Plot, Thailand. In Tropical Forest Diversity and Dynamism: Findings from a Large-Scale Plot Network; Losos, E.C., Leigh, E.G., Jr., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2004; pp. 482–491. [Google Scholar]
  53. Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; Da Fonseca, G.A.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nepstad, D.; Schwartzman, S.; Bamberger, B.; Santilli, M.; Ray, D.; Schlesinger, P.; Lefebvre, P.; Alencar, A.; Prinz, E.; Fiske, G.; et al. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How Are the World’s Forests Changing? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4808e.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2025).
  56. Mena, C.F. Trajectories of Land-use and Land-cover in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2008, 74, 737–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Veas, N.; Moncayo, P. Mapa de Carbón. In Evaluación Forestal Nacional-Resultados; Ministerio del Ambiente: Quito, Ecuador, 2014; pp. 127–143. [Google Scholar]
  58. MAE. Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador Socio Estratégico para el Desarrollo. Ministerio del Ambiente. 2016. Available online: https://www.scribd.com/document/471108580/Areas-protegidas-del-Ecuador-socio-estrategico-para-el-desarrollo (accessed on 15 September 2025).
  59. INEC. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. 2010. Available online: http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/ (accessed on 10 October 2025).
  60. Arévalo, V. Chakras, Bosques y Ríos: El Entramado de la Biocultura Amazónica; Editorial Abya-Yala: Quito, Ecuador, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  61. Perreault, T. Why chacras (swidden gardens) persist: Agrobiodiversity, food security, and cultural identity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Hum. Organ. 2005, 64, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Schroth, G.; Harvey, C.A. Biodiversity conservation in cocoa production landscapes: An overview. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 2237–2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cerda, R.; Deheuvels, O.; Calvache, D.; Niehaus, L.; Saenz, Y.; Kent, J.; Vilchez, S.; Villota, A.; Martinez, C.; Somarriba, E. Contribution of cocoa agroforestry systems to family income and domestic consumption: Looking toward intensification. Agrofor. Syst. 2014, 88, 957–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abebe, T. Diversity in Homegarden Agroforestry Systems of Southern Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  66. Vera, V.R.R.; Cota-Sánchez, J.H.; Grijalva Olmedo, J.E. Biodiversity, dynamics, and impact of chakras on the Ecuadorian Amazon. J. Plant Ecol. 2019, 12, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Valencia, R.; Balslev, H.; Miño, G.P.Y. High tree alpha-diversity in Amazonian Ecuador. Biodivers. Conserv. 1994, 3, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Palacio, W.; Jaramillo, N. Riqueza florística y forestal de los bosques tropicales húmedos del Ecuador e implicaciones para su manejo. Recur. Nat. Y Ambiente 2001, 36, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  69. Asase, A.; Tetteh, D.A. The role of complex agroforestry systems in the conservation of forest tree diversity and structure in southeastern Ghana. Agrofor. Syst. 2010, 79, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ramírez-Meneses, A.; García-López, E.; Obrador-Olán, J.J.; Ruiz-Rosado, O.; Camacho-Chiu, W. Diversidad florística en plantaciones agroforestales de cacao en Cárdenas, Tabasco, México. Ecosistemas Y Recur. Agropecu. 2014, 29, 215–230. [Google Scholar]
  71. Jones, K. Review of sangre de drago (Croton lechleri)-a South American tree sap in the treatment of diarrhea, inflammation, insect bites, viral infections, and wounds: Traditional uses to clinical research. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2003, 9, 877–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Suarez, S.A. Diet and travel costs for spider monkeys in a nonseasonal, hyperdiverse environment. Int. J. Primatol. 2006, 27, 411–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chazdon, R.L. Tropical forest recovery: Legacies of human impact and natural disturbances. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 6, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chazdon, R.L.; Letcher, S.G.; van Breugel, M.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Bongers, F.; Finegan, B. Rates of change in tree communities of secondary Neotropical forests following major disturbances. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 362, 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Jadán, O.; Torres, B.; Selesi, D.; Peña, D.; Rosales, C.; Günter, S. Diversidad florística y estructura en cacaotales tradicionales y bosque natural (Sumaco, Ecuador). Colomb. For. 2016, 19, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Torres, B.; Maza, O.J.; Aguirre, P.; Hinojosa, L.; Günter, S. Contribution of Traditional Agroforestry to Climate Change Adaptation in the Ecuadorian Amazon: The Chakra System. In Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation; Filho, W.L., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 1973–1994. [Google Scholar]
  77. Loo, L.C.; Song, G.Z.M.; Chao, K.J. Characteristics of tropical human-modified forests after 20 years of natural regeneration. Bot. Stud. 2017, 58, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Vera-Vélez, R.; Grijalva, J.; Cota-Sánchez, J.H. Cocoa agroforestry and tree diversity in relation to past land use in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. New For. 2019, 50, 891–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gaglio, M.; Aschonitis, V.G.; Mancuso, M.M.; Puig, J.P.R.; Moscoso, F.; Castaldelli, G.; Fano, E.A. Changes in land use and ecosystem services in tropical forest areas: A case study in Andes mountains of Ecuador. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 264–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zurita-Benavides, M.G. Cultivando las plantas y la sociedad waorani. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 2018, 12, 495–516. [Google Scholar]
  81. Jakovac, C.C.; Peña-Claros, M.; Mesquita, R.C.; Bongers, F.; Kuyper, T.W. Swiddens under transition: Consequences of agricultural intensification in the Amazon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 218, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cairns, M.F. Shifting Cultivation and Environmental Change: Indigenous People, Agriculture and Forest Conservation; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  83. Legendre, P.; Borcard, D.; Peres-Neto, P.R. Analyzing beta diversity: Partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol. Monogr. 2005, 75, 435–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Condit, R.; Pitman, N.; Leigh, E.G.; Chave, J.; Terborgh, J.; Foster, R.B.; Núñez, P.; Aguilar, S.; Valencia, R.; Villa, G.; et al. Beta-diversity in tropical forest trees. Science 2002, 295, 666–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Russell, A.; Kivlin, S.; Hawkes, C. Tropical tree species effects on soil pH and biotic factors and the consequences for macroaggregate dynamics. Forests 2018, 9, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Powers, J.S.; Kalicin, M.H.; Newman, M.E. Tree species do not influence local soil chemistry in a species-rich Costa Rica rain forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 2004, 20, 587–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Nepstad, D.C.; Lefebvre, P.; da Silva, U.L.; Tomasella, J.; Schlesinger, P.; Solórzano, L.; Moutinho, P.; Ray, D.; Benito, J. Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: A basin-wide analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2004, 10, 704–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nobre, C.A.; Borma, L.D.S. Tipping points’ for the Amazon forest. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009, 1, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Malhi, Y.; Aragão, L.E.; Galbraith, D.; Huntingford, C.; Fisher, R.; Zelazowski, P.; Sitch, S.; McSweeney, C.; Meir, P. Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 20610–20615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Cochrane, M.A.; Barber, C.P. Climate change, human land use and future fires in the Amazon. Glob. Change Biol. 2009, 15, 601–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Silva, J.M.N.; Carreiras, J.M.B.; Rosa, I.; Pereira, J.M.C. Greenhouse gas emissions from shifting cultivation in the tropics, including uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2011, 116, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ayanu, Y.Z.; Nguyen, T.T.; Marohn, C.; Koellner, T. Crop production versus surface-water regulation: Assessing tradeoffs for land-use scenarios in the Tat Hamlet Watershed, Vietnam. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 2011, 7, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ellen, R. Studies of swidden agriculture in Southeast Asia since 1960: An overview and commentary on recent research and syntheses. Asia Pac. World 2012, 3, 18–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Heinimann, A.; Mertz, O.; Frolking, S.; Christensen, A.E.; Hurni, K.; Sedano, F.; Chini, L.P.; Sahajpal, R.; Hansen, M.; Hurtt, G. A global view of shifting cultivation: Recent, current, and future extent. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, eD184479. [Google Scholar]
  95. Henley, D. Swidden farming as an agent of environmental change: Ecological myth and historical reality in Indonesia. Environ. Hist. 2011, 17, 525–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Watanabe, R. Analyzing Food Sources and Food Insecurity of Kichwa Farming Families in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  97. Torres, B.; Luna, M.; Tipán-Torres, C.; Ramírez, P.; Muñoz, J.C.; García, A. A simplified integrative approach to assessing productive sustainability and livelihoods in the “amazonian chakra” in Ecuador. Land 2024, 13, 2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. zur Lage, R.B.; Peña-Claros, M.; Rios, M. Management of trees and palms in swidden fallows by the Kichwa people in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environ. Dev. 2023, 46, 100855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Warren-Thomas, E.; Nelson, L.; Juthong, W.; Bumrungsri, S.; Brattström, O.; Stroesser, L.; Chambon, B.; Penot, É.; Tongkaemkaew, U.; Edwards, D.P.; et al. Rubber agroforestry in Thailand provides some biodiversity benefits without reducing yields. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  100. Gunawan, H.; Yeny, I.; Karlina, E.; Suharti, S.; Murniati; Subarudi; Mulyanto, B.; Ekawati, S.; Garsetiasih, R.; Pratiwi; et al. Integrating social forestry and biodiversity conservation in Indonesia. Forests 2022, 13, 2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Salafsky, N. Forest gardens in the Gunung Palung region of West Kalimanta, Indonesia: Defining a locally-developed, market-oriented agroforestry system. Agrofor. Syst. 1994, 28, 237–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wiegel, J.; Del Río, M.; Gutiérrez, J.F.; Claros, L.; Sánchez, D.; Gómez, L.; González, C.; Reyes, B. Coffee and cacao market systems in the Americas: Opportunities for supporting renovation and rehabilitation. Int. Cent. Trop. Agric. 2020. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/108108 (accessed on 15 October 2025).
  103. Kallari. KALLARI. 2024. Available online: https://kallari.com.ec/ (accessed on 31 October 2025).
  104. Padoch, C.; Sunderland, T. Managing landscapes for greater food security and improved livelihoods. Unasylva 2013, 64, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  105. Montagnini, F.; Nair, P.R. Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2024, 61, 281–295. [Google Scholar]
  106. Van Noordwijk, M.; Ekadinata, A.; Leimona, B.; Catacutan, D.; Martini, E.; Tata, H.L.; Öborn, I.; Hairiah, K.; Wangpakapattanawong, P.; Mulia, R.; et al. Agroforestry options for degraded landscapes in Southeast Asia. In Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes: Recent Advances and Emerging Challenges; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 1, pp. 307–347. [Google Scholar]
  107. Coq-Huelva, D.; Higuchi, A.; Alfalla-Luque, R.; Burgos-Morán, R.; Arias-Gutiérrez, R. Co-evolution and bio-social construction: The Kichwa agroforestry systems (chakras) in the Ecuadorian Amazonia. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Corna, S. Indigenous Agroforestry Systems Empowerment as Participatory Sustainable Development Strategy for the Amazon Basin: Chakra Kichwa Amazónica of Ecuador. Master’s Thesis, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  109. Pinheiro Edelstein, C. Effect of functional diversity on ecosystem services in cocoa agroforestry systems. Maest. En. Agroforestería Y Agric. Sosten. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Swamy, L.; Drazen, E.; Johnson, W.R.; Bukoski, J.J. The future of tropical forests under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. J. Sustain. For. 2018, 37, 221–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00792 g001
Figure 1. Location of the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon (NEA). (a) Map of South America showing Ecuador in gray; (b) Ecuador with the Northern Amazon region highlighted; (c) Detail of the NEA indicating protected areas in dark gray. Chakras and other crops occur in the light gray area in (c).
Figure 1. Location of the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon (NEA). (a) Map of South America showing Ecuador in gray; (b) Ecuador with the Northern Amazon region highlighted; (c) Detail of the NEA indicating protected areas in dark gray. Chakras and other crops occur in the light gray area in (c).
Diversity 17 00792 g001
Diversity 17 00792 g002
Figure 2. Conceptual diagram depicting the succession of shifting agriculture in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. (a) Cycle with long fallow periods; (b) Cycle with reduced fallow intervals.
Figure 2. Conceptual diagram depicting the succession of shifting agriculture in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. (a) Cycle with long fallow periods; (b) Cycle with reduced fallow intervals.
Diversity 17 00792 g002
Diversity 17 00792 g003
Figure 3. Traditional Kichwa chakra in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon, established from a secondary (recovering) forest through the selective transformation of vegetation into a diverse agroforestry system integrating native trees, crops, and fruit species. Photo credit: Roy Vera-Velez.
Figure 3. Traditional Kichwa chakra in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon, established from a secondary (recovering) forest through the selective transformation of vegetation into a diverse agroforestry system integrating native trees, crops, and fruit species. Photo credit: Roy Vera-Velez.
Diversity 17 00792 g003
Table 1. Species richness in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon (NEA). Yasuní National Park as a comparative example for the Amazon Basin. Adapted from Bass et al. [49].
Table 1. Species richness in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon (NEA). Yasuní National Park as a comparative example for the Amazon Basin. Adapted from Bass et al. [49].
Organisms# of SpeciesAmazon Basin (%)
Area of the NEA *9820 km2 *0.15% *
Amphibians15028%
Reptiles12133%
Birds59634%
Mammals169–20427–33%
Fish382–49912–16%
Vascular plants2704–40007–10%
* Information provided for reference.
Table 2. Land Cover and Land Use area (ha) in the Ecuadorian Amazon (EA). Comparative percentage of land use in the northern vs. southern Amazon. Adapted from INEC [59].
Table 2. Land Cover and Land Use area (ha) in the Ecuadorian Amazon (EA). Comparative percentage of land use in the northern vs. southern Amazon. Adapted from INEC [59].
Land UseTotal Area (ha)Northern EA (%)Southern EA (%)
Cocoa58,96595.44.6
Coffee22,16495.34.7
Plantain25,38059.540.5
Corn21,53490.89.2
Cassava938630.070.0
Grasslands361,73039.960.1
Forest2,911,34146.753.3
Fallow737084.815.2
Moors55,93857.142.9
Other 154,04857.142.9
Total3,627,8564654
Table 3. Characteristics of the chakra system (Adapted from Arévalo [60]).
Table 3. Characteristics of the chakra system (Adapted from Arévalo [60]).
ComponentsDescription
Main crops cultivatedCacao, cassava, maize, rice, and other subsistence crops
Tree managementMulti-species canopy structure with varying shade levels
Technology usedTraditional practices; reliance on small tools
Labor force Family-based, individual and household members
FertilizationNone
Pesticide useNone or minimal
Weed managementManual
Producer profileSmall-scale Kichwa family
Production objectivePersonal food and income resource
Production managementCommunities
Table 4. Number of plant families, genera, and species in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon across primary crop units and adjacent secondary and mature forest zones. Values are in numbers per hectare of trees >10 cm dbh (diameter at the breast height). Adapted from Vera et al. [66].
Table 4. Number of plant families, genera, and species in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon across primary crop units and adjacent secondary and mature forest zones. Values are in numbers per hectare of trees >10 cm dbh (diameter at the breast height). Adapted from Vera et al. [66].
System# Plant Families# Genera# Species
Manihot esculenta (cassava)182020 ± 1.54
Zea mays (corn)213032 ± 2.12
Theobroma cacao (cocoa)335762 ± 2.37
Secondary forest315254 ± 1.79
Mature forest387481 ± 1.48
Total *4396109 ± 9.90
* Total counts have been adjusted to exclude overlaps among plant families, genera, and species.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vera-Velez, R.; Ramos-Veintimilla, R. Diversity and Environmental Challenges in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation in the Face of Deforestation. Diversity 2025, 17, 792. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110792

AMA Style

Vera-Velez R, Ramos-Veintimilla R. Diversity and Environmental Challenges in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation in the Face of Deforestation. Diversity. 2025; 17(11):792. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110792

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vera-Velez, Roy, and Raúl Ramos-Veintimilla. 2025. "Diversity and Environmental Challenges in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation in the Face of Deforestation" Diversity 17, no. 11: 792. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110792

APA Style

Vera-Velez, R., & Ramos-Veintimilla, R. (2025). Diversity and Environmental Challenges in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation in the Face of Deforestation. Diversity, 17(11), 792. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17110792

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop