Next Article in Journal
Physical Ripening Indices Improve the Assessment of Mechanical Harvesting Time for Olive Cultivars Resistant to Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Application of Nitrogen Fertilizer, Microbial and Humic Substance-Based Biostimulants on Soil Microbiological Properties During Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) Cultivation
Previous Article in Journal
Optimizing Lemon Balm (Melissa Officinalis L.) Cultivation: Effects of Different Manures on Plant Growth and Essential Oil Production During Consecutive Harvests
Previous Article in Special Issue
Castor Meal and Ground Hydrothermalized Phonolite Optimize Sweet Potato Nutrition, Yield, and Quality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/horticulturae10101107
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Effect of Fertilization in Companion Cropping Systems of Andean Fruit Trees in the Municipality of Ipiales

by
Ovidio Javier Moran-Chamorro
1,
Danita Andrade-Díaz
2,*,
Juan Sebastian Chirivi-Salomon
2 and
Pedro Alexander Velasquez-Vasconez
3
1
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Nariño, Pasto 520001, Colombia
2
Escuela de Ciencias Agrícolas, Pecuarias y del Medio Ambiente, Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia, Bogota 111511, Colombia
3
Escuela de Ciencias Básicas, Tecnología e Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia, Pasto 520001, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(10), 1107; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101107
Submission received: 12 August 2024 / Revised: 11 September 2024 / Accepted: 12 September 2024 / Published: 18 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organic Fertilizers in Horticulture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Companion cropping offers a potential solution to the challenges of sustainable agriculture, such as optimizing resource use and reducing reliance on chemical inputs. The problem of achieving higher yields while maintaining environmental health remains critical. This practice enhances natural resource conservation, improves fertilization, and optimizes nutrient cycling through the balanced use of chemical and organic sources. Studies, such as those involving tree tomato and Hass avocado, have demonstrated a significant yield increase compared to monocultures, underscoring the viability of this practice. In addition to their environmental benefits, companion crops provide economic advantages by allowing producers to harvest multiple products simultaneously, thereby strengthening food security and the rural economy. This study evaluated three levels of fertilization and interactions between fruit trees at different altitudes, observing differential behavior in the variables evaluated. The combination of cape gooseberry and blackberry showed significantly positive results, with more leaves and fewer pests, demonstrating the benefits of companion plants. A trend towards the combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers was observed, a potential strategy to reduce costs and improve crop growth. The results indicated that the UF system (P. peruviana and P. vulgaris) had the highest plant height, while TF (tree tomato and bean) showed the best stem perimeter development. The incidence of pests was also significant, with Trialeurodes vaporarioum being most prevalent in the P. peruviana companion. These findings support companion cropping as a viable and promising strategy for more efficient and sustainable agriculture, offering both environmental and economic benefits.

1. Introduction

Cultivated soil has experienced erosion due to practices such as conventional tillage and the excessive use of machinery, resulting in increased dependence on fertilizers for production [1]. However, accessing and acquiring fertilizers has become more difficult due to their high costs and the scarcity of raw materials needed for their manufacture [2,3]. This has raised production costs and made it difficult to obtain consistent profits in each production cycle [4]. In addition, their indiscriminate use is common, as it is usually not carried out considering soil analysis and without following technical criteria, which leads to contamination problems, especially by nitrogen fertilization, which can affect vulnerable populations [5].
The Department of Nariño is no stranger to this situation, and it is of great importance because it depends mainly on agriculture as an economic source, with fruit trees being the most representative sector, occupying more than 38% of the total area dedicated to agriculture in the region [6]. Specifically, in the townships of San Juan in the municipality of Ipiales, fruit trees have been adopted by producers and contribute significantly to their economy [7]. In this sense, Andean fruit trees, such as cape gooseberry, have experienced an increase in the region, with numerous farms dedicated to its production for fresh export [8].
Andean fruit trees, such as cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana), tree tomato (Solanum betaceum), blackberry (Rubus glaucus), and passion fruit (Passiflora edulis), are native species to the mountainous ecosystems of the Andes. These species are characterized by their adaptability to different altitudes and microclimates, making them essential for agroforestry systems in the region. In addition to their nutritional value, these fruits have antioxidant properties and are highly appreciated in both local and international markets. The production of these fruit trees not only contributes to food security but also represents a significant source of income for rural families, diversifying their economies and strengthening sustainable rural development. Therefore, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, such as companion cropping, is crucial to maximize yields and conserve biodiversity in these systems [8].
To minimize the use of chemical fertilizers, which are not viable for small producers, research is being encouraged to develop agroecological strategies that are environmentally friendly and contribute to climate change adaptation [4].
Chemical fertilization can improve crop growth and yield, but productive, quality, and environmental benefits have also been reported with organic fertilization in Andean fruit trees, which requires further evaluation. Recent studies have highlighted that organic fertilization can enhance soil quality, improve microbial biodiversity, and contribute to sustainable agricultural practices [9,10].
In this context, companion cropping systems are presented as a sustainable alternative for the production of Andean fruit trees, as they contribute to reducing production costs and conserving soil resources [11,12]. Companion crops are complex cropping systems in which two or more species are planted in spatial proximity, which can result in competition or complementation between them, positively influencing their development and yield [13]. These diversified systems, such as companion cropping and agroforestry, are considered more sustainable and contribute to the conservation of natural resources [11,12]. These systems have been called the “new green revolution” due to their potential to increase soil productivity by taking advantage of complementarities between species and allowing intensive agriculture in small areas in a sustainable manner [9,10].
The interaction between species in companion crops allows for enhancing fertilization, promoting more sustainable organic fertilization and a balance between chemical and organic sources, since the soil depends on the biological component for nutrient cycling from organic to mineral forms available to plants [10]. These systems also benefit from nutrient cycling and organic matter availability, which improves the overall nutrition of the different companion crops [9]. These systems further benefit from nutrient cycling and organic matter availability, which improves the overall nutrition of the different companion crops [14]. Companion crops have proven to be viable in various species of economic importance, as was observed in an intercropping system of tree tomato and Hass avocado, where a positive influence was evidenced in 75% of the population in terms of size and yield, marking a significant difference compared to monoculture systems [15].
These companion cropping systems are not only more profitable for producers by obtaining multiple products in the same crop but also contribute to food security and improve the economy of low-income rural families who depend mainly on the production of a single crop or small self-consumption gardens [16]. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the interactions between plants and fertilization in each region, considering specific characteristics that can modify the results of possible combinations. By achieving a balance between chemical and organic fertilization in each companion system, a production alternative is presented that reduces the excessive use of chemical fertilizers, which could help mitigate production costs and generate greater benefits for producers, considering the high prices and global shortage of some chemical fertilizers, as well as their indiscriminate use [4].
The companion cropping systems proposed in this research focus on crops that have been widely accepted by producers in the area due to their market potential, profitability, and management knowledge. Therefore, the results of the different development variables in intercropping companion systems managed with three levels of fertilization for crops such as blackberry, purple passion fruit, cape gooseberry, and tree tomato complemented with bush beans should be demonstrated and shared for the benefit of producers [16,17].
Having said the above, this project aimed to evaluate the initial growth and determine the incidence of pests and diseases in five companion cropping systems with Andean fruit trees under three levels of fertilization in environmental conditions of the corregimiento of San Juan vereda Loma de Zuras. Additionally, the aim is to share the results obtained with producers in the area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location

This study was carried out between 2022 and 2023, in the municipality of Ipiales, specifically in the corregimiento of San Juan, located in the Department of Nariño. Evaluations were conducted in several townships, including Loma de Zuras, Camellones, Laguna de Vaca, Boquerón, and Guacan. The evaluated plots are located at altitudes ranging between 2575 and 2877 masl (Table 1; Figure 1). Ipiales, located in southwestern Colombia, has a cool Andean climate characterized by mild temperatures ranging from 11 °C to 13 °C (52 °F to 55 °F) year-round, with significant drops during the night. The area experiences moderate annual rainfall between 1000 and 1500 mm (39 to 59 inches), mainly concentrated in the rainy seasons from March to May and October to November, while the period from June to August is generally drier. The humidity is relatively high, averaging around 80%, with frequent cloud cover and strong winds, especially in the afternoons.

2.2. Planting Material

The 15 experimental plots with an area of 5000 m2 were planted with cape gooseberry, blackberry, tomato, and purple passion fruit seedlings supplemented with beans, obtained from the BIOPASS nursery certified by the ICA by resolution number 065191 of 2020.

2.3. Experimental Design

According to the altitude data of each of the lots, stratification was made, in low, medium, and high taking the highest and lowest location, which corresponds to the repetitions or blocks (Table 1). In each stratum, one of the five proposed intercropping systems was randomly distributed (Figure 2) for a total of 15 trials. Within each of the intercropping systems, the companion models (Species 1 in monoculture and bush bean, Species 2 in monoculture and bush bean, Species 1 and 2 with bush bean) and the fertilization levels (fertilization level one (F1), 100% chemical fertilization; fertilization level two (F2), 50% chemical fertilization and 50% organic fertilization; and fertilization level three (F3), 100% organic fertilization) were distributed, for which a layout was made according to the experimental design of Divided Plots.
The planting distances were as follows: cape gooseberry: 3 m between furrows and 3 m between plants; tree tomato: 3 m between furrows and 2.5 m between plants; purple passion fruit: 3 m between furrows and 3 m between plants; blackberry: 2.5 m between furrows and 1.5 m between plants. In the purple passion fruit trials, the distance between furrows in monoculture was 6 m. Beans were planted in two rows between the lanes of the fruit trees with distances between plants of 0.30 m and between furrows of 0.50 m.
The distribution of the factors within the strips was determined after conducting a soil fertility analysis, following the methodology proposed by AgroMel. This methodology is based on an integrated management model that allows for geo-localized collection, processing, and analysis of multiple agronomic variables on a detailed scale. It characterizes the different productive micro-environments of each block on the farms, comparing them with growth and vigor indexes obtained via satellite imagery. This approach enables the visualization of the soil’s physical, chemical, and structural variables.

2.4. Variables Evaluated

Five evaluations were made every 45 days, on 2 plants per species in each treatment selected at random: total height (TH), taken from the base of the stem to the apex using a tape measure; stem perimeter (SP), measuring in cm the basal part of the stem at 10 cm from the ground; number of total leaves (NL) by direct counting; and total leaf area of the plant (LA). The leaf area index (LAI) was determined by the equation: LAI = ((leaf area) × (stocking density))/(planted area), and the pest and disease incidence (IPD), which records the presence of pests and diseases, was determined by the formula: IPD = (affected plants)/(total plants evaluated) × 100.
To measure the leaf area, the predictive models for leaf area obtained for these species by Velasquez and Andrade [18] were used. Once the average leaf area per leaf was calculated, it was multiplied by the total leaves per plant to obtain the leaf area of the plant.

2.5. Information Analysis

The information obtained for each of the variables was organized in an Excel spreadsheet to be analyzed using the methodology of a Functional Growth Analysis, which is used for measurements made at frequent time intervals (45, 90, 135, 180, and 225 dap) in each of the species that allows for determining the vigor in terms of the growth rate for the response variables. The data were transformed with the “log” function of the “R environment”, version 4.3.1, to meet the linearity assumption and to obtain regression data using the linear regression model method [19].
The values of the regression coefficients (β) obtained in the Functional Analysis of Growth were analyzed based on the Analysis of Variance (ANDEVA) according to the split-plot design:
Yijk = µ + Rk + Ai + (RA)ik + Bj + (RB)kj + (AB)ij + (RAB)kij.
where
Yijk = Response variable
µ = overall mean of the experiment
Rk = effect of the k-th block corresponding to the heights
Ai = effect of the factor associated with the i-th main plot corresponding to the companion crops (RA)ik = Error a of the main plot
Bj = effect of the factor associated with the j-th subplot corresponding to fertilization (RB)kj = error b associated with the subplot
(AB)ij = effect of the interaction between the main plot and subplot (i, j).
Based on the ANDEVA results, the hypotheses were either rejected or accepted. When a null hypothesis (Ho) was rejected, a comparison of means was made using the DUNKAN test with a significance level of 95% in order to determine the best treatments and interactions. Analyses were performed with the spltplot function [20] and plotted with the ggplot2 package [21] of the free “R 1.3.0” software. The pest and disease incidence variable (IPD) was analyzed descriptively using graphs. From a contingency table with absolute frequency values of the incidence of pests and diseases, a chi-square test was performed to identify whether the companion and fertilization interaction was significant, to subsequently perform a simple correspondence analysis (ANACOR) using the FactoMineR package Husson [22]. Graphs were constructed with the ggplot2 package [21] in the free software “R”.

2.6. Training with Producers and Dissemination of the Information Generated in This Project

An initial socialization was carried out with producers to make known the methodology to be used and the dynamics implemented. During the execution of the research, the partial and results of the research were shared by applying field school methodology (ECA).

3. Results

3.1. Functional Analysis of Growth and ANDEVA Analysis of Variance of the Regression Coefficients Obtained

For the variable plant height (TH) (Table 2), the results of the ANDEVA show that there is a significant difference in the source of companion variation; therefore, we can determine that the variation in growth was affected by the microclimate of the different blocks and the cultural management in each crop related to the formation pruning that affected the data collection and the growth register.
In all systems, a linear increase over time of the evaluated variable is observed (Figure 3A), and the differentiation in the behavior of this variable (Table 3) is evidenced by the fact that between the growth of some of the species, the gray shading does not overlap.
When analyzing the means of Table 3, we can highlight that the UF system (P. peruviana and P. vulgaris) outperforms the other fruit tree species with a minimum in growth.
According to the results of the chi-square test for the identification of the interaction between companion and fertilization, there was a highly significant interaction (p = 0.01). The crops in companionship with TMF, UGF, GTF, MF, and UF presented greater severity in terms of diseases (Figure 3). Similarly, the presence of pests is significant in all the companions, with a greater amount of Trialeurodes vaporarioum in the UF companion.

3.2. Determination of the Incidence of Pests and Diseases

According to the results of the chi-square test for the identification of the interaction between companion and fertilization, there was a highly significant interaction (p = −0.01). The simple correlation analysis indicated that the crops in companionship with TMF, UGF, GTF, MF, and UF presented greater severity in terms of diseases (Figure 4). Similarly, the presence of pests was also significant in all the companions (Figure 5), with a greater amount of Trialeurodes vaporarioum in the UF companion. The beans in the companions were an important factor in the growth of this pest because of their ability to host it, according to observations and technical assistance carried out in the field.

3.3. Field Schools

Eight Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) were conducted during the period January to December 2022. These FFSs focused on topics such as protocol and biosecurity in food production and marketing; the development of methodologies to identify vulnerable areas; habitat description in terms of soil, topography, climate, and plants; climate risk management in terms of crop health; and the recognition of climatic and edaphic requirements of production systems. Box tests show a significant increase in participants’ knowledge on each of these topics after completing the FFS, which demonstrates the success of the participatory “Learning by Doing” methodology used. Farmers showed a high level of interest and active participation in the FFSs, which contributed to the effective acquisition of new knowledge and skills.

4. Discussion

4.1. Functional Analysis of Growth and ANDEVA Analysis of Variance of the Regression Coefficients Obtained

The plant height variable is of great importance, since the greater the height, the lower is the risk of diseases affecting the fruit due to contact with the soil, and the greater the height, the greater are the number of fruits with better quality and the possibility of storing reserves for times of high requirements [23].
The TF-TGF-UF-TMF companions showed better development in terms of stem perimeter (Figure 3B). TF was the companion with the best performance for this variable. TF is among the top three companions, with no noticeable difference among the three types of fertilization. As for TMF, a slight improvement was noted in the interaction with organic fertilizers, with a better development of stem perimeter. On the contrary, the TGF companion is better favored by the F1 fertilization (100% chemical). The results can be attributed to a combination of specific plant interactions and varied responses to fertilization. In these companion cropping systems, the complementarity between species can lead to a more efficient utilization of resources, such as light, water, and nutrients, thus improving stem growth. In addition, the different species in the companionships can positively influence the soil structure and soil health, which, together with the use of different types of fertilizers, can optimize the availability and uptake of nutrients needed for robust stem development. These plant–plant and plant–soil interactions, as well as the adaptive response to fertilization, can result in improved stem growth in these specific companion systems [24].
With respect to leaf production in UF-MF-UMF (Figure 3C), in the interactions between plant age after planting, significant statistical differences were observed when comparing age after planting days. The development of the UF and MF companions could be influenced by the nutrient content of the dry matter input to the soil. Thus, leaf production is expected to increase at an early age, where synthetic fertilizers have been found to play a better role in this variable [25].
Regarding the leaf area and leaf area index, a consistent upward trend can be observed in all intercropping combinations, which indicates that FA and LAI tend to increase over time, particularly in those companions represented by the highest lines and steeper slopes; these are the treatments that show faster growth, indicating greater efficiency in light capture, better utilization of available resources, greater leaf density, and possibly a more efficient canopy for photosynthesis, as presented in the MGF system that over-emitted for both variables and presented no difference with UF and MF (Figure 3D,E).
The rate of leaf emission in the different plots of the municipality showed a constant growth. Leaf development is related to solar brightness and photosynthetically active radiation, since there is evidence that leaf formation is constant, with different degrees of shade generating a greater or lesser number [26].
Similarly, it can be affirmed that by obtaining significant differences in the blocks and these being distributed at different altitudes, we can say that this factor directly affected the leaf production of these crops in the aforementioned companions and also gives us an understanding that these crops share a similar potential at a certain altitude point with respect to this variable.
The leaf area is related to the photosynthetic rate, evapotranspiration, and vegetative development, as well as water and nutrient uptake. This is why we highlight the importance of this variable along with leaf number (Figure 3D).
Temperatures between 15 and 22 °C offer an exponential growth of the leaf; on the other hand, if the temperature reaches more than 29 °C, a longitudinal growth of very high branches originates, with a large number of nodes, but it in turn retracts the growth of leaves [27]. Therefore, according to the results obtained in the foliar part and the significant differences found between the blocks, we can say that the leaf area was affected by the temperature of the different altitudes in each block and the adaptations of each companion to these.
The continuous application of organic fertilizers is critical for sustainable crop management. While organic fertilizers improve soil structure, microbial biodiversity, and long-term soil health, they may also pose challenges to efficiency and crop yield when used continuously without complementary measures.
It has been reported that continuous use can lead to nutrient imbalances, negatively impacting crop yields [28]. Similarly, potential issues with the carbon/nitrogen ratio have been noted, affecting nutrient availability [29]. Conversely, other research shows that continuous application could improve water retention and crop yields under stress conditions [30]. However, the positive effects depend on the crop type, local climate, and fertilizer composition.
To mitigate potential yield declines, integrating organic with mineral fertilizers or complementary practices such as crop rotation is recommended [31,32]. Monitoring soil nutrient levels and adjusting practices accordingly is essential.

4.2. Determination of the Incidence of Pests and Diseases

The high severity of diseases observed in crops under companionship with the TMF, UGF, GTF, MF, and UF systems may primarily result from the widespread dissemination of fungi among these companion crops. This dissemination can be attributed to several factors, including poor management practices by producers, such as inadequate disinfection of tools, insufficient crop hygiene, and improper handling of infected plant material. These practices can facilitate the spread of fungal pathogens that thrive in environments with high moisture, shade, and poor air circulation [1]. Recent studies have demonstrated that dense cropping systems, where plants are closely spaced, can create a favorable microenvironment for fungal growth, leading to a higher disease incidence and severity [1].
Similarly, the significant presence of pests across all companion systems, particularly the increased levels of Trialeurodes vaporariorum (whitefly) in the UF companion, underscores the susceptibility of these systems to pest infestations. The whitefly is a well-known pest in Colombia, notable for its rapid reproduction rate, broad host range, and resistance to various chemical control methods. Its population growth is exacerbated by environmental conditions, such as prolonged dry seasons, which favor its life cycle and reduce the effectiveness of natural predators [33]. Additionally, the presence of beans in the companion systems contributes to the proliferation of whiteflies, as beans serve as a preferred host that supports their reproduction and acts as a reservoir for spreading infestations to other crops [34]. This finding highlights the importance of carefully selecting companion crops to manage pest populations effectively.
The growth and spread of pests in companion cropping systems are also significantly influenced by the proximity of neighboring plots or crop systems. When host plants are removed or controlled in one plot, adult pests frequently migrate to adjacent plots, increasing the risk of infestation and damage. This phenomenon, known as “pest spillover,” has been widely documented in mixed or fragmented cropping systems, where pests easily move between different plant species [35]. In this study, pest spillover was evident in the GMF, GTF, UGF, and UF companion systems, where pests such as aphids, leaf-miner flies (Agromyzidae), and thrips were prevalent. The purple passion fruit, which was most affected by pests under conditions of free exposure, further supports the conclusion that the spatial arrangement of crops significantly impacts pest dynamics [36]. Moreover, the severe impact of slugs from the genus Deroceras on purple passion fruit around 45 days after planting (dap) delayed crop growth in the GF companion system. However, the reduced presence of this pest in the GMF and GTF companion systems suggests that certain companion crops may offer protective effects, possibly through physical barriers, chemical deterrents, or by providing habitats for natural predators [37].
The choice of companion crops is crucial in determining pest and disease outcomes in intercropping systems. While some companion plants may enhance pest control by attracting beneficial insects or repelling harmful ones, others may inadvertently serve as hosts or attractants for pests, as seen with beans and whiteflies. Agroecological principles, such as increasing plant diversity and promoting beneficial ecological interactions, are essential in designing effective companion cropping strategies [38]. Incorporating plants with pest-repellent properties or those that attract beneficial insects can help reduce pest pressure and minimize reliance on chemical controls [39]. Additionally, companion plants that improve soil health or provide structural support for the main crops contribute to the overall resilience of the cropping system, making it less susceptible to both pests and diseases [40].
Moreover, the findings emphasize the need for improved management practices, such as regular monitoring, enhanced sanitation protocols, and the use of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, to reduce the incidence of pests and diseases in companion cropping systems. IPM approaches that combine biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical controls provide a comprehensive pest management strategy that promotes environmental sustainability. For example, incorporating natural enemies such as parasitoids and predators, creating habitats for beneficial organisms, and using organic mulches can help suppress pest populations and improve crop health, Future research should focus on identifying the most effective combinations of companion crops, environmental conditions, and management practices to optimize pest and disease control in diverse agricultural settings.
Furthermore, understanding the specific interactions between companion plants, pests, and diseases, as well as the role of environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and soil health, is vital for developing more targeted and effective management practices. For instance, research on the microclimatic effects of different companion crops could provide new insights into how these interactions influence pest and disease dynamics. Integrating this knowledge into decision-making frameworks can help farmers tailor their cropping systems to local conditions, reducing pest pressures and improving overall crop productivity and resilience [12].

4.3. Field Schools

The success of the Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) conducted between January and December 2022 reflects the effectiveness of the participatory “Learning by Doing” methodology in enhancing farmers’ knowledge and skills in key areas such as biosecurity, climate risk management, and sustainable production practices. This approach aligns with recent studies emphasizing the importance of experiential learning in agricultural education. For example, [41] found that participatory learning methods, such as those used in FFSs, significantly improve farmers’ capacity to adopt new technologies and practices by fostering a deeper understanding of local ecological conditions and adaptive management strategies. By directly engaging farmers in the learning process, FFS programs help build a sense of ownership and confidence in applying new knowledge, which is crucial for the long-term sustainability of agricultural innovations.
Moreover, the increase in participants’ knowledge demonstrated by the Box tests suggests that FFS programs can effectively address gaps in technical knowledge related to food production, marketing, habitat management, and climate risk adaptation. Recent literature supports the idea that FFSs can play a critical role in building farmers’ resilience to climate change. A study by Davis [42] highlights that farmers who participate in FFS programs are better equipped to understand and manage climate risks, such as erratic rainfall and temperature fluctuations, by applying context-specific knowledge and practices. The focus on topics such as soil, topography, and climate within the FFS curriculum is particularly relevant given the growing need for site-specific management practices that consider the unique climatic and edaphic conditions of different agricultural systems. For example, the authors of [43] suggest that climate adaptation in African agriculture must be based on an approach that considers local variations in soils and climates, supporting resilient agricultural practices.
The high level of interest and active participation observed among farmers in the FFS sessions further underscores the value of this approach. Research by Murphy [44] suggests that the participatory nature of FFSs not only enhances knowledge acquisition but also strengthens social capital within farming communities. This social dimension is crucial for fostering collaboration and collective action among farmers, which are essential components for successful adaptation to environmental changes and market dynamics. Additionally, the interactive format of the FFSs encourages peer-to-peer learning and the exchange of local knowledge, which can be more effective than conventional top-down extension methods in promoting the adoption of sustainable practices. This conclusion is supported by studies demonstrating that participatory extension approaches, such as farmer-to-farmer training programs, can significantly improve the dissemination of agricultural innovations in rural contexts [45].
The focus on biosecurity protocols and methodologies to identify vulnerable areas within FFS curricula is particularly timely in light of recent global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and increasing biosecurity threats from transboundary pests and diseases. According to [46], integrating biosecurity training into agricultural extension programs such as the FFSs can significantly improve farmers’ capacity to detect and respond to pest and disease outbreaks, thereby safeguarding local and regional food security. This integration of biosecurity measures within the FFSs is consistent with broader efforts to enhance food system resilience through a more holistic approach that combines ecological, social, and economic dimensions. The authors of [47], for example, highlight the importance of integrated approaches to addressing food security in contexts of high vulnerability.
Finally, the FFS methodology’s emphasis on recognizing climatic and edaphic requirements of production systems aligns with the broader shift toward agroecological approaches in agriculture. Recent studies have shown that such approaches, which integrate ecological principles into agricultural production, can enhance ecosystem services, improve crop yields, and promote sustainable land management practices [38]. By equipping farmers with the knowledge and tools to manage their production systems more effectively within their specific environmental contexts, FFS programs contribute to the development of more resilient agricultural landscapes and communities.

5. Conclusions

This study addressed key challenges in agricultural practices, particularly the management of pests, diseases, and crop productivity in companion cropping systems. The initial issues identified included high disease severity and pest incidence, which were linked to factors such as poor management practices, suboptimal plant spacing, and the selection of companion crops that inadvertently served as hosts for pests. Additionally, climate risks and the need for improved biosecurity and sustainable practices were highlighted as critical areas for intervention.
The implementation of Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) demonstrated significant benefits by improving farmers’ knowledge and skills in various aspects of agricultural management, including biosecurity, climate risk adaptation, and sustainable production methods. The participatory “Learning by Doing” methodology effectively increased participants’ understanding and application of new techniques, fostering greater resilience in agricultural practices.
The achievements of this study include identifying the most effective companion cropping combinations that enhance pest and disease management and promote crop growth. The findings emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate companion crops and implementing integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to optimize productivity. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that targeted educational initiatives, such as FFSs, can play a vital role in empowering farmers, building community resilience, and supporting sustainable agricultural development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.J.M.-C., J.S.C.-S., P.A.V.-V. and D.A.-D.; methodology, D.A.-D.; software, O.J.M.-C., J.S.C.-S., P.A.V.-V. and D.A.-D.; validation, D.A.-D. and J.S.C.-S.; formal analysis, D.A.-D. and P.A.V.-V.; investigation, O.J.M.-C., J.S.C.-S. and D.A.-D.; resources, D.A.-D.; data curation, O.J.M.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, O.J.M.-C. and D.A.-D.; writing—review and editing, J.S.C.-S. and D.A.-D.; visualization, O.J.M.-C., P.A.V.-V. and D.A.-D.; supervision, J.S.C.-S.; project administration, J.S.C.-S.; funding acquisition, J.S.C.-S. and D.A.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Sistema General de Regalias (SGR) of the Ministerio de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación, Colombia (MINCIENCIAS). Research project: “Estudio de sistemas de cultivo asociados a los frutales andinos estrategia innovadora para la reactivación económica de los municipios de Sandoná, La Florida, Arboleda, Providencia y El Peñol” with BPIN number 2020000100677.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article. For any additional information, contact the author by correspondence.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their heartfelt gratitude to Johana M. Belalcazar, Jenifer B. Vargas, Laura M. Pantoja, Luisa F. Vallejo, Javier M. Chamorro, Carlos Charfuelan, and Tania M. Pantoja for their invaluable support and dedication in collecting and organizing the data for this study; their contributions are deeply appreciated. The authors are deeply grateful to Martha I. Cabrera Otalora for their invaluable support and guidance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Moreno, M.A.M. Efectos de la Labranza Convencional y Labranza de Conservación en la Producción Agrícola: Revisión de Literatura; Escuela Agrícola Panamericana, Zamorano: Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 2021; 43p, Available online: https://bdigital.zamorano.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a8681a48-2637-44e2-9867-5b12a8ee8a51/content (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  2. Benavides, M.A. Alternativas Para la Comercialización Internacional de Fertilizantes Agrícolas de la Empresa Agrochuldey el Fomento a Las Exportaciones; UPEC: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Higuera, J.M.I.; Villa, C.U. Estudio de Factibilidad Para el Proyecto de Fabricación de Módulos de Acuaponía y Prestación de Servicios Afines Para el Área Rural de Uribia. Manaure y Maicao en La Guajira de la Fundación Aquaponics Relief. 2020. Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/handle/10495/16651 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  4. FAO. El Mercado Mundial de Fertilizantes: Balance de la Situación de un Mercado en Dificultades; Organanización de La Naciones Unidad Para La Alimentación y La Agricultura: Rome, Italy, 2022; Available online: https://investing.com (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  5. Rivas, A.C.; Melendez, J.P.; Mayorquín, N. Alternativas microbiológicas para la remediación de suelos y aguas contaminados con fertilizantes nitrogenados Microbiological alternatives for the remediation of soils and water contaminated with nitrogen fertilizers. Sci. Tech. Año XXV 2020, 25, 172–183. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ministerio de Agricultura. Plan Departamental de Extension Agropecuaria del Departamento de Nariño PDEA—Nariño; Gobernacion de Nariño: Nariño, Colombia, 2019; 222p. Available online: https://www.minagricultura.gov.co/ministerio/direcciones/Documents/PDEA%27sAprobados/PDEA Nariño.pdf%0A (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  7. Alcaldía Municipal de Ipiales. Plan de Desarrollo 2020–2023 Hablemos con hechos. Turismo Activo y Progresivo; Fundación Empresarios por la Educación: Bogota, Columbia, 2024; p. 141. Available online: https://www.obsgestioneducativa.com/download/plan-de-desarrollo-municipal-ipiales-2020-2023/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  8. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario—ICA. En Ipiales, Productores de Uchuva se Blindan Contra las Moscas de la Fruta; Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural: Bogotá, Columbia, 2019. Available online: https://www.ica.gov.co/noticias/ica-productores-uchuva-blindan-moscas-fruta-narino (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  9. Martínez-Camacho, Y.D.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E.; la Mora, A.N.-D.; Amescua-Villela, G. Agroecological Management with Intra- and Interspecific Diversification as an Alternative to Conventional Soil Nutrient Management in Family Maize Farming. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 46, 364–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Morales-Belpaire, I.; Alfaro-Flores, A.; Ramos, K.L.; Velarde, O.P.; Ordonez, P.A.; Armengot, L. Soil Quality Indicators under Five Different Cacao Production Systems and Fallow in Alto Beni, Bolivia. Agrofor. Syst. 2024, 2024, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tinoco-Jaramillo, L.; Vargas-Tierras, Y.; Habibi, N. Agroforestry Systems of Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Forests 2024, 15, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Prabhu, R.; Barrios, E.; Bayala, J.; Diby, L.; Donovan, J.; Gyau, A.; Graudal, L.; Jamnadass, R.; Kahia, J.; Kehlenbeck, K.; et al. Agroforestry: Realising the Promise of an Agroecological Approach. In Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition: Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium, Rome, Italy, 18–19 September 2014; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015; pp. 201–224. [Google Scholar]
  13. Aguirre Cuellar, B.; Lobo, J.C. Shading in Family Coffee Farms as an Environmental Incentive Promoter for Ecosystem Services in Tolima, Colombia. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2022, 20, 1015–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alvez, N.V.; Alayon Luaces, P. Evaluación de policultivos frutihortícolas agroecológicos del Nordeste Argentino. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 2020, 55, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gómez Herrera, D.A.; Muñoz Monsalve, C. Análisis del Comportamiento Morfológico de las Variables Altura y Diámetro de Tallo, en los Sistemas de Siembra Mono Cultivo y Asocio, de las Especies Aguacate (Persea americana) Variedad Hass y Tomate de Árbol (Solanum betaceum), Durante 12 Meses, en el. 2020. Available online: https://repository.unad.edu.co/bitstream/handle/10596/39011/dagomezhe.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  16. Rosero Alpala, M.G.; Tapie, W.A.; Rosero Alpala, D.A. Diversidad fenotípica de papas nativas en las comunidades indígenas de la etnia de los Pastos (Nariño, Colombia): Agricultura ecológica para la seguridad alimentaria y el desarrollo rural. Rev. Peru. Biol. 2020, 27, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tumbani, Z. Evaluacion de la Asociacion con dos Especies Fabaceas (Crotalaria júncea y Lupinus mutabilis) con el Cultivo de Cilantro (Coriandrum sativum L.) en Invernadero de la Comunicad de la Comunidad Sullkataca baja del Municipio de Laja; Universidad Mayor de San Andrés: San Andrés, Bolivia, 2018; pp. 50–107. Available online: http://dspace.ups.edu.ec/handle/123456789/17965 (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  18. Velasquez-Vasconez, P.A.; Andrade Díaz, D. LeafArea Package: A Tool for Estimating Leaf Area in Andean Fruit Species. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2024, 15, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gardner, E.S. Exponential smoothing: The state of the art. J. Forecast. 1985, 4, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Popat, R.; Banakara, K. Doebioresearch: Analysis of Design of Experiments for Biological Research. 2020. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=doebioresearch (accessed on 28 May 2022).
  21. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sébastien, L.; Julie, J.; François, H. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. Found. Open Access Stat. 2008, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  23. López Cerda, I.G. Análisis de Cuatro Cultivos Precolombinos en Asocio, Establecidos en dos Métodos de Labranza: Camellones Prehispánicos y Labranza Convencional. Diriamba, Carazo 2018; Universidad Nacional Agraria: Managua, Nicaragua, 2018; Available online: https://repositorio.una.edu.ni/4307/ (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  24. Paola De Sá, F.; Cerioni Belniaki, A.; Panobianco, M.; Gabira, M.M.; Kratz, D.; Lima, E.A.D.; Wendling, I.; Luiz Esteves Magalhães, W. Peach palm residue compost as substrate for Bactris gasipaes self-sustaining seedlings production. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2024, 9, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rebolledo-Martínez, L.; Megchún-García, J.V.; Rebolledo-Martínez, A.; Orozco-Corona, D.M. Association of Persian Lime (Citrus latifolia) and Coconut Palm (Cocos nucifera L.) Trees with the Contribution of Dry Matter by Annual Crops. Ibero-Am. J. Bioecon. Clim. Change 2019, 5, 1248–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Larramendi, L.A.R.; Hernández, F.G.; Castro, H.G.; Flores, M.F.; Castañeda, J.C.G.; Ruiz, R.P. Leaf Anatomy Related to the Photosynthetic Pathway in Coffee Trees (Coffea arabica L.; var. Caturra rojo) Exposed to Different Levels of Solar Radiation in the Sierra Maestra, Granma, Cuba. Acta Agron. 2019, 65, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fischer, G.; Melgarejo, L.M. The ecophysiology of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.)—An Andean fruit crop. A review. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Hortíc. 2020, 14, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, Y.; Ge, T.; Wang, J. Long-term effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil organic matter and microbial community structure in a tropical agricultural ecosystem. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118993. [Google Scholar]
  29. Goss, M.J.; Tubeileh, A.; Goorahoo, D. A Review of the Use of Organic Amendments and the Risk to Human Health. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 272, 224–239. [Google Scholar]
  30. Singh, B.P.; Setia, R.; Marschner, P. Organic amendments enhance soil functioning and crop performance in various agroecosystems: A review. Soil Use Manag. 2018, 34, 592–602. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chivenge, P.; Vanlauwe, B.; Six, J. Does the combined application of organic and mineral nutrient sources influence maize productivity? A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Möller, K. Assessment of alternative farm practices in organic farming using life cycle assessment methodology: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 23. [Google Scholar]
  33. Czarnecka, D.; Czubacka, A.; Agacka-Mołdoch, M. The occurrence of fungal diseases in maize in organic farming versus an integrated management system. Agronomy 2022, 12, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Amata, R.L.; Otipa, M.J.; Waiganjo, M.; Wasilwa, L.A. Management strategies for fungal diseases in passion fruit production systems in Kenya. Acta Hortic. 2009, 911, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fones, H.N.; Fisher, M.C.; Gurr, S.J. Emerging Fungal Threats to Plants and Animals Challenge Agriculture and Ecosystem Resilience. In The Fungal Kingdom; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jabbour, R.; Barbercheck, M.E. Soil management effects on entomopathogenic fungi during the transition to organic agriculture in a feed grain. Biol. Control. 2009, 51, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fisher, M.C.; Gurr, S.J.; Cuomo, C.A.; Blehert, D.S.; Jin, H. Threats posed by the fungal kingdom to humans, wildlife, and agriculture. MBio 2020, 11, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology: Principles for designing sustainable farming systems. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 5031–5043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Luna, J.M.; Snyder, W.E. Integrated pest management for sustainable agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 274, 67–73. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wezel, A.; Bellon, S.; Doré, T.; Francis, C.; Vallod, D.; David, C. Agroecology as a science, a movement, and a practice: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Friis-Hansen, E.; Duveskog, D.; Taylor, E.W. Farmer field schools: A transformative learning approach in rural Africa. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2020, 26, 29–44. [Google Scholar]
  42. Davis, K.; Lion, K.A.; Ramasamy, S. Agricultural extension and rural advisory services: Understanding the capacities needed to adapt to climate change. Glob. Food Secur. 2021, 28, 100498. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mbow, C.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Luedeling, E.; Neufeldt, H.; Minang, P.A.; Kowero, G. Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 6, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Murphy, J.; Lyon, S.; Dalzell, B. Building community resilience through farmer field schools: A review of evidence from African case studies. J. Rural. Stud. 2019, 72, 110–121. [Google Scholar]
  45. Franzel, S.; Sinja, J.; Simpson, B. Farmer-to-farmer extension in Kenya: The perspectives of volunteer farmer trainers on their motivations, challenges, and experiences. Dev. Pract. 2014, 24, 403–414. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, J.; Settle, Q. Integrating biosecurity into agricultural extension programs: Lessons from COVID-19. J. Agric. Educ. 2021, 62, 95–109. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tomich, T.P.; Brodt, S.; Dahlgren, R.; Scow, K.; Stephens, S. Agroecology for food security and resilience in the face of climate change. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 4, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
Horticulturae 10 01107 g001
Figure 1. Location of the experimental sites: 1. Tablon; 2. Cundala; 3. Chapicha; 4. Rancheria; 5. Santa Barbara; 6. Culacal; 7. Cundala; 8. Tuquer; 9. Churumbuta; 10. Yerba Buena; 11. Capuli; 12. Churumbuta—Laguna de Vaca; 13. Campanario; 14. Cundala; and 15. Chuchala.
Figure 1. Location of the experimental sites: 1. Tablon; 2. Cundala; 3. Chapicha; 4. Rancheria; 5. Santa Barbara; 6. Culacal; 7. Cundala; 8. Tuquer; 9. Churumbuta; 10. Yerba Buena; 11. Capuli; 12. Churumbuta—Laguna de Vaca; 13. Campanario; 14. Cundala; and 15. Chuchala.
Horticulturae 10 01107 g001
Horticulturae 10 01107 g002
Figure 2. Intercropping systems evaluated in the project. 1. Cape gooseberry, blackberry, and bean, system 2. Tree tomato, blackberry, and bean, system 3. Purple passion fruit, cape gooseberry, and beans, system 4. Purple passion fruit, tree tomato, and bean and system 5. Purple passion fruit, blackberry, and bean.
Figure 2. Intercropping systems evaluated in the project. 1. Cape gooseberry, blackberry, and bean, system 2. Tree tomato, blackberry, and bean, system 3. Purple passion fruit, cape gooseberry, and beans, system 4. Purple passion fruit, tree tomato, and bean and system 5. Purple passion fruit, blackberry, and bean.
Horticulturae 10 01107 g002
Horticulturae 10 01107 g003
Figure 3. Integral analysis of growth variables with comparison of regression coefficients (β) under the split-strip design model. (A) Plant height, (B) stem perimeter, (C) number of leaves, (D) leaf area, and (E) leaf area index.
Figure 3. Integral analysis of growth variables with comparison of regression coefficients (β) under the split-strip design model. (A) Plant height, (B) stem perimeter, (C) number of leaves, (D) leaf area, and (E) leaf area index.
Horticulturae 10 01107 g003
Horticulturae 10 01107 g004
Figure 4. Analysis of the presence of diseases in different companions—(A) heatmap and (B) simple correlation.
Figure 4. Analysis of the presence of diseases in different companions—(A) heatmap and (B) simple correlation.
Horticulturae 10 01107 g004
Horticulturae 10 01107 g005
Figure 5. Analysis of the presence of pests in different companions—(A) heatmap and (B) simple correlation.
Figure 5. Analysis of the presence of pests in different companions—(A) heatmap and (B) simple correlation.
Horticulturae 10 01107 g005
Table 1. Information and data of experimental plots.
Table 1. Information and data of experimental plots.
Name—PlotBlock/SystemXYArea (m2)Masl
Tablon1-low/1947,277.0898591,090.250722655
Cundala1-low/2947,119.3487590,739.868392586
Chapicha1-low/3945,570.4425590,613.250032676
Rancheria1-low/4947,074.3692590,816.764182620
Santa Barbara1-low/5947,507.7808591,300.752372576
Culacal2-medium/1944,307.8386589,604.863582686
Cundala2-medium/2945,619.9373589,926.454702742
Tuquer2-medium/3943,785.2733589,759.551902695
Churumbuta2-medium/4946,619.0676590,880.750872751
Yerba buena2-medium/5942,863.7872588,375.765932736
Capuli3-high/1943,370.221588,113.551782812
Churumbuta Laguna de vaca3-high/2946,547.2773590,646.651202768
campanario3-high/3943,103.9658588,347.851072800
Cundala3-high/4945,680.5052589,754.382762770
Chuchala3-high/5943,173.5561587,244.151402753
Table 2. ANDEVA mean squares for regression coefficients (β) under the split-strip design mode.
Table 2. ANDEVA mean squares for regression coefficients (β) under the split-strip design mode.
FVG.LTHSPNLLALAI
Block20.029 ns0.023 ns4989.3 *0.135 ns0.136 ns
Companion80.034 *1.621 **16,039.7 **0.517 *0.525 *
Fertilization20.001 ns0.027 ns41.4 ns0.003 ns0.417 ns
Companion × Fertilization160.001 ns0.018 ns252.9 ns0.006 ns0.650 ns
Error a150.0290.073811203.91760.173
Error b340.0030.01091243.40.0090.009
Mean0.4780.88662.480.70.17
R20.8740.970.9520.9550.955
CV (%)12.0911.7824.9714.0214.03
** Highly significant. * Significant. ns Not significant.
Table 3. Comparison of means for the regression coefficients (β) of the variables evaluated under the split-strip design model. The same letters correspond to results without statistical differences.
Table 3. Comparison of means for the regression coefficients (β) of the variables evaluated under the split-strip design model. The same letters correspond to results without statistical differences.
TreatmentTHSPNLLALAI
UF24.23 a1.08 b117.66 ab0.93 ab0.92 ab
MF19.01 ab0.50 c134.47 a0.96 ab0.91 ab
MGF18.19 ab0.56 c59.63 cd1.02 a1.36 a
TMF15.93 ab1.06 b58.56 cd0.69 ab0.68 abc
GF14.95 ab0.45 c34.89 de0.64 adc0.62 abc
UGF14.74 ab0.57 c28.65 de0.44 c0.47 c
UMF14.55 ab0.71 c84.31 bc0.75 abc0.72 abc
TGF13.03 b1.08 b19.58 e0.51 bc0.49 c
TF11.38 b1.80 a13.26 e0.33 c0.38 c
UF24.23 a1.08 b117.66 ab0.93 ab0.92 ab
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

Moran-Chamorro, O.J.; Andrade-Díaz, D.; Chirivi-Salomon, J.S.; Velasquez-Vasconez, P.A. Effect of Fertilization in Companion Cropping Systems of Andean Fruit Trees in the Municipality of Ipiales. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101107

AMA Style

Moran-Chamorro OJ, Andrade-Díaz D, Chirivi-Salomon JS, Velasquez-Vasconez PA. Effect of Fertilization in Companion Cropping Systems of Andean Fruit Trees in the Municipality of Ipiales. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(10):1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101107

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moran-Chamorro, Ovidio Javier, Danita Andrade-Díaz, Juan Sebastian Chirivi-Salomon, and Pedro Alexander Velasquez-Vasconez. 2024. "Effect of Fertilization in Companion Cropping Systems of Andean Fruit Trees in the Municipality of Ipiales" Horticulturae 10, no. 10: 1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101107

APA Style

Moran-Chamorro, O. J., Andrade-Díaz, D., Chirivi-Salomon, J. S., & Velasquez-Vasconez, P. A. (2024). Effect of Fertilization in Companion Cropping Systems of Andean Fruit Trees in the Municipality of Ipiales. Horticulturae, 10(10), 1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10101107

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