Pa ge 1 Pa ge 40 American Journal of Environmental Economics (AJEE) An Overview of Tree Species Used for Agroforestry Practices in Nepal Sher Bahadur Budha1* Volume 1 Issue 1, Year 2022 ISSN: 2833-7905 (Online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajee.v1i1.461 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Article Information ABSTRACT Received: August 4, 2022 Accepted: August 25, 2022 Published: August 29, 2022 Tree species are the main component of the agro-forestry system because they provide farmers with direct benefits and play a vital role in mitigating climate change, stabilizing slopes, and ecological balance. The list of tree species used in different agro-forestry prac- tices shows 110 tree species belonging to 42 families. Tree species belonging to the family Moraceae are widely used in agro-forestry practices, followed by Liguminosae, Rosaceae, Rubiaceae, and so on. There are approximately 44 species of trees suitable for single use, such as forage, fruit, fuelwood, and timber production. Similarly, tree species with two func- tions are better than tree species with only one function. Approximately 40 trees have two functions: food and fuelwood, fruit and fuelwood, and wood and fuelwood. Among the 110 species used in agro-forestry practices in Nepal, 21 species have more than two functions and are the most suitable species for agro-forestry practices. The use of tree species in dif- ferent agro-forestry practices shows that the number of trees used in Silvo-pastoral systems is the highest (30%), followed by Horto-agri-silviculture (23%). Approximately 21% of tree species are used in more than two agro-forestry systems. The minimum number of tree spe- cies used for Agri-silvi-pastoral and home gardens is 3% and 4% respectively. Keywords Agro-forestry, Systems, Tree Species, Use 1 Institute of Forestry, Hetauda Campus, Tribhuvan University, Hetauda, Nepal. * Corresponding author’s e-mail: sherbdr025@gmail.com INTRODUCTION Agro-forestry is a type of land use in which trees supply both products and services to the environment (Forestry et al., 2013). When trees grown on different farmlands in the same area are aggregated in agro-forestry systems, it might result in a better-wooded situation, hence improving environmental protection (Otegbeye, 2002). According to Kang (1993), trees have social and economic values in addition to direct agricultural benefits. From a social, economic, and ecological standpoint, the value of tree components derived by farmers from agro-forestry was assessed (Anderson and Sinclair, 1993). Agro-forestry’s social and economic benefits can be measured in terms of production, stability, and long-term viability. Rural Nepali farmers’ livelihoods, and thus food security, are largely dependent on their ability to access tree resources, whether from their own land or from community forests. (Cedamon et al., 2018). Nepali farmers have a long history of planting trees on their land (Nuepane et al. 2002) and these traditional agro- forestry systems have been well described by Amatya and Newman (1993) among others. Typical Nepali agro- forestry relies largely on fodder trees for livestock and the manure and forest litter produced, which are used as bedding materials to maintain soil fertility (Garforth et al. 1999; Palikhe and Fujimoto 2010). Agro-forestry trees are the primary source of fodder (Amatya 1990; Pandey et al. 2009), accounting for up to 70% of dry matter intake for much of the year (Degen et al. 2010). Farmers grow maize, wheat, millet, and vegetable crops on their terraced, tree-bounded farms. These agro-forestry systems supply subsistence products as well as environmental services like soil stabilization and improvement (Pandit and Thapa 2004; Pandit et al. 2014; Nuepane and Thapa 2001; Gilmour and Nurse 1991; Malla 2000; Regmi and Garforth 2010; Nuepane et al. 2002; Pandit and Thapa 2004; Nuepane and Thapa 2001) and conservation of biological diversity (Acharya 2006). Modern agro-forestry integrates technological knowledge along with multipurpose tree species to provide maximum benefits to farmers. However, in Nepal, traditional agro- forestry practices are the most common. Rather than planting seedlings of multipurpose tree species, farmers protect seedlings and saplings of naturally regenerated species. Tree species are primarily employed for the production of fodder, fuelwood, fruit, and timber. Farmers are still unaware of the multiple roles that tree species perform in the agro-forestry system. The main aim of this study is to compile a list of tree species, their applicability, and their use in various agro-forestry systems, as well as to offer policymakers with pertinent advice for encouraging the planting of these species. On the other hand, it directly assists framers in the adoption of agro-forestry practices along with multipurpose tree species, as well as reaping the benefits of maximizing the value of a limited piece of land. The objective of this report is to provide an overview of the tree species employed in Nepal’s agro-forestry systems. METHODOLOGY Secondary sources are employed to acquire information on tree species used in Nepalese agro-forestry practices. Published articles, relevant books, and online databases are all included in this source. About 15 agro-forestry related articles from 1984 to 2021AD retrieved from Research Gate, and the tree species referenced by various authors were compiled in an excel spreadsheet. The tree https://doi.org/10.54536/ajee.v1i1.461 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee mailto:sherbdr025%40gmail.com?subject= Pa ge 41 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Am. J. Environ Econ. 1(1) 40-43, 2022 species are then classified according to their family, uses, and classification system. Excel was used to display the results in charts, tables, and a pie chart. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Tree species and their family In Nepal, around 110 tree species from 42 different families are used in agro-forestry practices. The Moraceae family has the most tree species (16), followed by the Liguminosae family (8), Rosaceae and Rutaceae (6), and Anacardiaceae and Malvaceae (5) tree species in each family, respectively. Each of the three tree families, Lauraceae, Euphorbiaceae, and Fagaceae, has four tree species. Similarly, the Sapindaceae, Verbenaceae, Meliaceae, Myrtaceae, and Combretaceae families each include three tree species, whereas the Rubiacace, Caesalpinaceae, Sapotaceae, Annonaceae, Lythraceae, Theaceae, Arecaceae, Apocynaceae, and Lamiaceae families each contain two tree species. There are 19 different families within family others in the following chart, each with one tree species utilized for agro-forestry. Tree species having single use Out of the 110 tree species cultivated in agro-forestry in Nepal, 44 species are particularly good for single Figure 1: Family wise number of agro-forestry tree species function. These 44 tree species are further divided into groups based on their intended usage. Only 22 species are used for fodder, 12 species for fruit, 6 species for fuel wood, and 4 species are used for timber. Figure 2: Agro-forestry tree species having single use Status of species having multiple (2) functions 18 species of trees are used for fodder and fuelwood, 13 species are used for fruit and fuelwood, and 9 species are used for timber and fuelwood products, out of the total species used for agro-forestry practices in Nepal. Multipurpose agro-forestry tree species Figure 3: Agro-forestry tree species having two uses https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Pa ge 42 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Am. J. Environ Econ. 1(1) 40-43, 2022 Trees species having multiple applications are best for agro-forestry practices as they provide maximum benefits within same piece of land comparing the species having single application. 21 tree species which are best for agro- forestry practices in Nepal are listed in following table1. Table 1: Agro-forestry tree species having multiple uses S.N Local Name Scientific Name Family Use 1 Badahar Artocaarpus lakoocha Moraceae Fodder, timber, Fruit, firewood 2 Dabdabe Garuga pinnata Bursearaceae Fodder, fuel (timber) 3 Bakaino Melia azedarach Meliaceae Fodder, Timber, fruit 4 Sal Shorea robusta Dipterocarpaceae Fodder, Timber, Firewood 5 Sisoo Dalbergia sisoo Liguminosae Fodder, Timber, firewood 6 Aanp Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae Fruit, Fuel, Timber 7 kadam Anthocephalus chinsis Rubiacace Timber, fuel, fodder 8 Gamari Gmelina arborea Verbenaceae Timber, fuel, fodder 9 Seto siris Albizia procera Liguminosae Timber, fuel, fodder 10 Karma Adina cordifolia Rubiacace Fodder, fuel, timber 11 Amala Phyllanthus emblica Euphorbiaceae Fuel, fruit, Medicine 12 Harro Terminalia chebula Combretaceae Fuel, fruit, Medicine 13 Baroo Terminalia bellerica Combretaceae Fuel, fruit, Medicine 14 Uttis Alnus nepalensis Betulaceae Timber, Fuelwood, Fodder 15 Musure Katus castanopsis tribuloides Fagaceae Fuelwood, Fodder, Fruit 16 Chilaune Schima wallichii Theaceae Timber, Fuelwood, Fodder 17 Paiyu prunus cerasoides Rosaceae Timber, Fuelwood, Fodder 18 Mel Pyrus pashia Rosaceae Fuel, timber, live fence 19 Vakkimilo Rhus javanica Anacardiaceae Fodder, fuel, Medicine, Fruit 20 Khari Celtis australis Cannabaceae Fodder, fuel, timber 21 Chiuri Bassia butyracea Sapotaceae Fodder, fruit, fuel Tree species for agro-forestry practices There are about 110 tree species of 42 families are used for agro-forestry practices in Nepal. Table 2: Tree species used for agro-forestry practices, their family, uses, appropriate agro-forestry system and altitudinal range SN Local Name Scientific Name Family Uses Systems Altitude(m) 1 Badahar Artocaarpus lakoocha Moraceae Fodder, timber, Fruit, firewood Horti-agri-silviculturl, Agri-silviculture, Silvo- pastoral, Home garden 1300 Tree species and appropriate agro forestry system Different tree species are the component of different agro-forestry systems. The choice of tree species depends upon objectives of farmers but in conventional agro- forestry practices, most of the farmers having lack of knowledge about species identification to suit specific practices. In this review, maximum numbers of tree species (30%) are used for silvo-pastoral system followed by the horto-agri- siliculture system i.e. 23% and Agri-silviculture i.e.19%. Similarly, 4% and 3% tree species are used for Home garden and Agri-silvi-pastoral system. Figure 4: Agro-forestry tree species having two uses https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Pa ge 43 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Am. J. Environ Econ. 1(1) 40-43, 2022 2 Dabdabe Garuga pinnata Bursearaceae Fodder, fuel (timber) Silvo-pastoral 1300 3 Ipil-Ipil Leucaena leucocephala Leguminosae Fodder, Fuel, Agri-silvi-pastoral, Silvo-pastoral 1500 4 Kabro Ficus lacor Moraceae Fodder Home garden 500 5 Khnyau Ficus semicordata Moraceae Fodder, Fuel, Agri-silviculture, Home garden, Silvo- pastoral 200-1700 6 Kimbu Morus alba Moraceae Fodder, Fruit, Horti-agri-silvicultural 2400 7 Koiralo Bauhinia variegate Caesalpinaceae Fodder, Fuel, Home garden 1900 8 Kutmero Litsea monopetala Lauraceae Fodder, Fuel, Agri-silviculture, Agri- silvi pastoral 1500 9 Tanki Bauhinea purpurea Caesalpinaceae Fodder, Fuel, Home garden 1600 10 Bakaino Melia azedarach Meliaceae Fodder, Timber, fruit Home garden, Agri- silvculture, Silvo- pastoral 700-1300 11 Sal Shorea robusta Dipterocar- paceae Fodder, Timber, Firewood Agri-silvi-pastoral 1000 12 Sisoo Dalbergia sisoo Liguminosae Fodder, Timber, firewood Horti-agri-silvicultural, Agri-silviculture 1500 13 Amba Psidium guajava Myrtaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 500 14 Aanp Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae Fruit, Fuel, Timber Horti-agri-silvicultural 1200 15 Anar Punica granatum Punicaceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 700-2300 16 Aaru Prunus persica Rosaceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 1500-2680 17 Kagati Citrus aurantifolia Rutaceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 800-1400 18 Litchi Litchi chinensis Sapindaceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 800 19 Mewa Carica papaya Caricaceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 1000 20 Naspati Pyrus serotina Rosaceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 1800-2800 21 Nibuwa Citrus limon Rutaceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 800-1400 22 Rukh katahar Atrocarpus heterophyllus Moraceae Fruit, Fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 160-1528 23 Sapeta Eucalyptus camaludensis Myrtaceae Timber Horti-agri-silvicultural, Agri-silvculture 1500 24 Teak Tectona grandis Verbenaceae Timber Agri-silvculture, Silvo- pastoral 700 25 kadam Anthocephalus chinsis Rubiacace Timber, fuel, fodder Silvo-pastoral 1000 26 Gamari Gmelina arborea Verbenaceae Timber, fuel, fodder Silvo-pastoral 1200 27 Kapok Ceiba pentandra Malvaceae Timber, fuel, Silvo-pastoral 1000 28 Seto siris Albizia procera Liguminosae Timber, fuel, fodder Silvo-pastoral, Agri- silvculture 1500 29 Neem Azadirachta indica Meliaceae Timber, fuel Silvo-pastoral 900 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Pa ge 44 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Am. J. Environ Econ. 1(1) 40-43, 2022 30 Ginderi Premna integrifolia Verbenaceae Fodder, fuel Silvo-pastoral 600-3500 31 Khaksi Streblus asper Moraceae Fodder Silvo-pastoral 500 32 Karma Adina cordifolia Rubiacace Fodder, fuel, timber Silvo-pastoral 800 33 Jamun Syzygium cumini Myrtaceae Timber , fuel Silvo-pastoral 1600 34 Mahuwa Madhuca indica Sapotaceae Timber , fuel Silvo-pastoral 1200 35 Khyar Acacia catechu Liguminosae Timber, fodder, fuel Silvo-pastoral 1400 36 Gazuma Guazuma ulmifolia Malvaceae Fodder, fuelwood Silvo-pastoral 400-1200 37 Simal Bombax ceiba Malvaceae Timber ,fodder Agri-silviculture 1500 38 Amala Phyllanthus emblica Euphorbiaceae Fuel, fruit, Medicine Agri-silvi-pastoral 150-1400 39 Harro Terminalia chebula Combretaceae Fuel, fruit, Medicine Agri-silvi-pastoral 1100 40 Baroo Terminalia bellerica Combretaceae Fuel,fruit, Medicine Agri-silvi-pastoral 1100 41 Bhogate Citrus grandis Rutaceae Fruit, fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 1340 42 Sitafal Annona reticulata Annonaceae Fruit, fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 1500 43 Sarifa Annona squamosa Annonaceae Fruit, fuel Horti-agri-silvicultural 1500 44 Sajana Moringa oleifera Moringaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 600 45 Bel Aegle marmelos Rutaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 150-1400 46 Suntola Citrus reticulata Rutaceae Fruit Home garden 900-1200 47 Mausami Citrus sinensis Rutaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 900 48 Aanar Punica granatum Lythraceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 700-2300 49 Aaruba- khada Prunus domestica Rosaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 1000-2000 50 Syau Malus pumila Rosaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 1500-2700 51 Imili Tamarindus indica Liguminosae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 1500 52 Bayer Ziziphus mauritiana Rhemnaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 1200 53 Uttis Alnus nepalensis Betulaceae Timber, Fuelwood, Fodder Agri-silviculture 500-2700 54 Musure Katus Castanopsis tribuloides Fagaceae Fuelwood, Fodder, Fruit Home garden, Agri- silvculture, Silvo- pastoral 450-2300 55 Bar Ficus bengalensis Moraceae Fodder Home garden, Agri- silviculture 600 56 Pakhuri Ficus glaberrima Moraceae Fodder Home garden, Agri- silviculture 750-1134 57 Dudhilo Ficus nimoralis Moraceae Fodder Home garden, Agri- silviculture 900-2200 58 Pipal Ficus religiosa Moraceae Fodder Home garden, Agri- silviculture 1520 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Pa ge 45 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Am. J. Environ Econ. 1(1) 40-43, 2022 59 Kapas Gossypium herbaceum Malvaceae Fodder Home garden, Agri- silviculture 1500 60 Botdhyaro lagerstroemia parviflora Lythraceae Fodder Silvo-pastoral 1200 61 Kaulo Machilus odoratissima Lauraceae Fodder Agri-silviculture, Silvo- pastoral 1000-2000 62 Salla Pinus roxburghii Pinaceae Timber, Fuelwood Silvo-pastoral 400-2000 63 Kharsu Quercus semicarpifolia Fagaceae Fodder Silvo-pastoral 1700-3800 64 Rittha Sapindus mukorossi Sapindaceae Fodder Silvo-pastoral 1000 65 Chilaune Schima wallichii Theaceae Timber, Fuelwood, Fodder Home garden, Silvo- pastoral 900-2000 66 Bedula Ficus subincisa Moraceae Fodder Agri-silviculture 300-1800 67 Paiyu Prunus cerasoides Rosaceae Timber, Fuelwood, Fodder, Agri-silviculture 1200-2400 68 Lapsi Choerospondias axillaris Anacar- diaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 850-1900 69 Vimsenpati Buddleia asiatica Scrophul- ariaceae Fuelwood, Fodder Agri-silviculture 350-2000 70 Timilo Ficus auriculata Moraceae Fuelwood, Fodder Agri-silviculture 250-1700 71 Thotne\ Khasreto Ficus hispida Moraceae Fuelwood, Fodder Agri-silviculture 450-1100 72 Asna Terminalia tomentosa Combretaceae Fuelwood, Timber Agri-silviculture 1400 73 Sindur Bixa orellana Bixaceae Fodder, Fuelwood Agri-silviculture 2000 74 Rato Tanki Bauhinia longifolia Fagaceae Fodder, firewood Horti-agri-silvicultural 1000 75 supari Areca catechu Arecaceae Fruit Horti-agri-silvicultural 1000 76 Chuletro Brassiopsis hainla Arecaceae Fodder Agri-silviculture 800-1800 77 Chhatiwan Alstonia scholaris Apocynaceae Timber Silvo-pastoral 1000 78 Bhalayo Semicarpus anacardium Anacardiaceae Fuel Silvo-pastoral 1000 79 Sindure Mallotus philippinesis Euphorbiaceae Fodder Silvo-pastoral 1500 80 Gedilo Ficus clavata Moraceae Fodder Agri-silviculture 750-1134 81 Vimal Grewia optiva Malvaceae Fodder, fuel Agri-silviculture 1800-2000 82 Bilauni Maesa chisia Primulaceae Fodder, fuel Silvo-pastoral 2130 83 Mel Pyrus pashia Rosaceae Fuel, timber, live fence Silvo-pastoral 1158-2000 84 Vakkimilo Rhus javanica Anacardiaceae Fodder, fuel, Medicine, Fruit Silvo-pastoral 500 85 Kathe kaulo Machilus gamblei Lauraceae Fodder, fuel Silvo-pastoral, Agri- silvculture 700-2400 86 Guren Callicarpa arborea Lamiaceae Fodder, fuel Silvo-pastoral 1300-1700 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Pa ge 46 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Am. J. Environ Econ. 1(1) 40-43, 2022 87 Tejpat Cinnamon tamala Lauraceae Spice, fuel Silvo-pastoral 450-2200 88 Gayo Bridelia retusa Euphorbiaceae Fuel, fodder Silvo-pastoral 1000-1400 89 Lakuri Fraxinus floribunda Oleaceae Fuel, timber Silvo-pastoral 1500-2700 90 Kabirei Nerium odorum Apocynaceae Fuel, sacrificial value Silvo-pastoral 1900 91 Khari Celtis australis Cannabaceae Fodder, fuel, timber Agri-silviculture 500-2500 92 Mandar Erythrina variegata Fagaceae Fodder, fuel Agri-silviculture 1500 93 Chiuri Bassia butyracea Sapotaceae Fodder, fruit, fuel Agri-silviculture, Horto-agri-silviculture 1000-2500 94 Kafal Myrica esculenta Myricaceae Fruit, fuel Silvo-pastoral 900-1500 95 Maleto Macaranga pustulata Euphorbiaceae Fuel Agri-silviculture 900-1800 96 Anyaar Lyonia ovalifolia Ericaceae Fodder Silvo-pastoral 1500-2200 97 Githhi Boehmeria rugulosa Urticaceae Fodder Agri-silviculture 1000-2000 98 Jhingaane Eurya acuminata Theaceae Fuel Silvo-pastoral 1500-2400 99 Bhusure Leucosceptrum canum Lamiaceae Fuel, Fruit Agri-silviculture, Horti-agri-silviculture 1000-2800 100 Cassod Cassia siamea Leguminosae Fuel Silvo-pastoral 1400 101 Champ Michelia champaca Magnoliaceae Timber Agri-silviculture 600-1500 102 Gogan Saurauia napaulensis Actinidiaceae Fodder Agri-silviculture 750-2100 103 Ban timila Ficus sarmentosa Moraceae Fodder Agri-silviculture 1400-2500 104 Sandan Desmodium oojenense Liguminosae Fodder Agri-silviculture 600-1220 105 Dumri Ficus racemosa Moraceae Fodder Agri-silviculture 300 106 Piyari Bachanania latifolia Anacardiaceae Timber, Firewood Silvo-pastoral 150-2000 107 Kusum Schleichera oleosa Sapindaceae Timber, Firewood Silvo-pastoral 900 108 Rato siris Albizia julibrissin Liguminosae Fodder Agri-silvculture, Silvo- pastoral 1500 109 Akhataruwa Trichilia connaroides Meliaceae Fuel Agri-silvculture, Silvo- pastoral 1000 110 Asare Viburnum cordifolium Adoxaceae Fuel Agri-silvculture, Silvo- pastoral 2700-3000 Sources: [(Kerkhoff, 2003), (Dhakal et al., 2012), (Magar et al., 2020), (Tamang et al., 2020), (Pandit et al., 2014), (Fonzen & Oberholzer, 1984), (Paudel et al., 2019), (Luang, 2006)(R. Sharma et al., 2007), (Cedamon et al., 2018), (Khadka et al., 2021), (S. Sharma, 2021), (Brook et al., 2012), (Chander 2015.Pdf, n.d.)] CONCLUSION Agro-forestry relies heavily on trees since they bring various benefits to farmers. The tree species chosen in an agro-forestry system significantly impact the ultimate product. Farmers gain many benefits from planting multipurpose trees with agricultural crops, such as fuelwood, lumber, fruit, fodder, and so on. In addition to direct benefits, these trees provide various indirect benefits. Agro-forestry practices use 110 tree species from 42 distinct families, however only 21 species provide more than two benefits and are the best for agro-forestry operations. Trees have their own altitude ranges in which to grow. Farmers can use any of these species for various goods depending on the altitudinal content of the site. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Pa ge 47 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee Am. J. Environ Econ. 1(1) 40-43, 2022 REFERENCES Acharya, K. P. (2006). Linking trees on farms with biodiversity conservation in subsistence farming systems in Nepal. Biodiversity & Conservation, 15(2), 631-646. Amatya, S. M., & Newman, S. M. (1993). Agroforestry in Nepal: research and practice. Agroforestry systems, 21(3), 215-222. Amatya, S. M. (1990). Fodder trees and their lopping cycle in Nepal. Fodder trees and their lopping cycle in Nepal. Alao, J. S., & Shuaibu, R. B. (2013). Agroforestry practices and concepts in sustainable land use systems in Nigeria. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 5(10), 156-159. Anderson IS, Sinclair FL (1993). Ecological Interactions in Agroforestry Systems. Agroforestry Systems 6(2), 58-61. Brook, R. M., Tiwari, T. P., Brook, R. M., Wagstaff, P., & Sinclair, F. L. (2012). Effects of light environment on maize in hillside agro-forestry systems of Nepal. Retrieved October, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0165-4. n.d. Cedamon, E., Nuberg, I., Pandit, B. H., & Shrestha, K. K. (2018). Adaptation factors and futures of agro-forestry systems in Nepal. Agroforestry Systems, 92(5), 1437–1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0090-9. n.d. Degen, A. A., Pandey, L. N., Kam, M., Pandey, S. B., Upreti, C. R., & Osti, N. P. (2010). Goat production and fodder leaves offered by local villagers in the Mid-Hills of Nepal. Human ecology, 38(5), 625-637. Dhakal, A., Cockfield, G., & Maraseni, T. N. (2012). Evolution of agro-forestry based farming systems: A study of Dhanusha District, Nepal. Agroforestry Systems, 86(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012- 9504-x. n.d. Fonzen, P. F., & Oberholzer, E. (1984). Use of multipurpose trees in hill farming systems in Western Nepal. Agroforestry systems, 2(3), 187-197. Garforth C, Malla Y, Neopane R, Pandit B. 1999. Socioeconomic factors and agro-forestry improvement in the hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development. 19:273–278. n.d. Gilmour, D. A., & Nurse, M. C. (1991). Farmer initiatives in increasing tree cover in central Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 329-337. Kerkhoff, E. E. (2003). Sustainable sloping lands and watershed management conference (ICIMOD). Khadka, D., Aryal, A., Bhatta, K. P., Dhakal, B. P., & Baral, H. (2021). Agro-forestry systems and their contribution to supplying forest products to communities in the chure range, central Nepal. Forests, 12(3), 0–20. https:// doi.org/10.3390/f12030358 Kafle, S. K. (2006, March). Reclamation of flood-damaged areas through agroforestry: a case study from Nepal. In Proceedings of fourth disaster risk management practitioners’ workshop for Southeast Asia, Bangkok (pp. 8-10). Magar, L. K., Kafle, G., & Aryal, P. (2020). Assessment of Soil Organic Carbon in Tropical Agroforests in the Churiya Range of Makawanpur, Nepal. International Journal of Forestry Research, 2020. https://doi. org/10.1155/2020/8816433. n.d. Malla Y. (2000). Farmers’ tree management strategies in a changing rural economy, and factors influencing decision on tree growing in Nepal. International Tree Crops Journal, 10(3), 247–266. Nuepane R, Sharma K, Thapa G. (2002). Adoption of agro-forestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems, 72(3), 177–196. Nuepane R, Thapa G. (2001). Impact of agro-forestry intervention farm income under the subsistence farming system in the middle hills Nepal. Agroforestry Systems, 53(1), 31–37. n.d. Otegbeye GO (2002). Report on Agroforestry and Land Management Practices, Diagnostics Survey of Katsina State of Nigeria. May 2000, Katsina State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority. Katsina. (pp. 89). Palikhe A, Fujimoto A. 2010. An economic analysis of major farming components in the mid-hills of Nepal: cases of Nuwakot, Kavre and Lalitpur Districts. Journal of Agricultural Science. Pandey LN, Kam M, Pandey S, Upreti C, Osti N, Degen A. 2009. Indigenous knowledge of fodder tree selectivity by local goats in the mid-hills of Nepal. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 3(3), 241–255. Pandit, B. H., Shrestha, K. K., & Bhattarai, S. S. (2014). Sustainable local livelihoods through enhancing agroforestry systems in Nepal. Journal of forest and Livelihood, 12(1), 47-63. Pandit, B. H., & Thapa, G. B. (2004). Poverty and resource degradation under different common forest resource management systems in the mountains of Nepal. Society and Natural Resources, 17(1), 1-16. Pandit, B. H., Shrestha, K. K., & Bhattarai, S. S. (2014). Sustainable Local Livelihoods through Enhancing Agroforestry Systems in Nepal, 12(1), 47–63. Paudel, P., Rimal, S., Ghimire, P., & Parajuli, K. (2019). Agro- forestry for enhancing adaptation of local community against drought in hilly region of Nepal. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 7(4), 440- 445. Regmi, B. N., & Garforth, C. (2010). Trees outside forests and rural livelihoods: a study of Chitwan District, Nepal. Agroforestry systems, 79(3), 393-407. Sharma, R., Xu, J., & Sharma, G. (2007). Traditional agroforestry in the eastern Himalayan region: Land management system supporting ecosystem services. Tropical Ecology, 48(2), 189 Sharma, S. (2021). Contribution of agroforestryon livelihood of chandra aakar and the cerd magazine contribution of agro-forestry on livelihood of rainadev chhahara rural minicipality-7, Palpa district, Outcome Recoarded species. The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity.Retrived May 19-23, 2003. https:// doi.or. n.d. Tamang, B. B., Shah, M. K., Dhakal, B., Chaudhary, P., & Chhetri, N. (2020). Participatory ranking of fodders in the western hills of Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 3(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.3126/ janr.v3i1.27001. n.d. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee