CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgroforestry and silvopastoral systemsSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis

Unlocking sustainable livestock production potential in the Colombian Amazon through paddock division and gender inclusivity

Open access
Castro-Nunez, Augusto, Buritica, Alexander, Holmann, Federico, Ngaiwi, Mary, Quintero, Marcela, Solarte, Antonio, Gonzalez, Carolina·2024·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-024-63697-2PMC PMC11176341
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Low-emissions livestock production can be achieved through scaling production systems integrating trees, forages, and livestock within the same area. Such systems are known as silvopastoral production systems (SPS). However, despite SPS reported benefits, adoption rates globally remain low. This paper, therefore, aims to inform land use policy oriented towards increasing SPS adoption. This study intends to capture this by assessing SPS adoption benefits, identifying determinants of SPS adoption, and thus to contribute to policy for scaling low-emissions livestock production. Data was collected on socioeconomic status, livestock farming technical and economic indicators, and farm and paddock practices through farm-level surveys in four municipalities in the Amazon Piedmont of Colombia. Unlike previous studies that assume homogeneous farm management, when in fact, it is heterogeneous, this study assessed SPS adoption determinants using the paddock (n = 2819) as the unit of analysis. This methodological approach is consistent with paddock-level land use decisions taken by farmers based on socioeconomic and biophysical factors such as soil financial resources, type, and topography. The methodological approach allows us to provide new insights into the determinant of adopting SPS and an understanding of intra-farm level land use decisions. The results show that the adoption of SPS at both paddocks and farm levels in Caquetá is low. The main factors associated with higher SPS adoption levels at the paddock level are framed in gender, resources, and knowledge. We observe that women are more motivated to conserve the environment. Cattle paddocks managed by women, smaller in size, and those with more SPS-related projects show a tendency for medium or high SPS adoption. Furthermore, the positive relationship between access to credit and SPS adoption emphasizes the importance of financial resources tailored to SPS projects. Enhancing gender roles, improving access to finance in land use, and providing training programs on SPS systems can contribute to low-emission livestock production in Colombia. This research paper highlights the significance of implementing diverse management strategies and reaching out to farmers not involved in SPS projects. It emphasizes investments in low-emission livestock production, especially for female heads of households. This approach recognizes the broader benefits of SPS, beyond production and financial gains, promoting the division of paddocks and the adoption of SPS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-024-63697-2

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women disproportionately lose, and female livelihoods associated with the forest lose room in a socioeconomic environment of increased gender inequality.

    “Women in turn disproportionately lose, while female livelihoods associated with the forest lose room in a socioeconomic environment of increased gender inequality (Hodel, 2023;Castro-Núñez et al., 2024;Schmink and Arteaga Gómez-García, 2015).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Castro-Núñez et al., 2024

    The Introduction says women often have limited access to land, credit, and extension services, and the Discussion (‘Targeting female heads of household’; page unavailable) says their agricultural contributions are often undervalued. These passages support a general gender disadvantage, but the paper does not say that women disproportionately lose, that forest-associated female livelihoods are losing room, or that gender inequality is increasing. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. [1]Kerr RB Agroecology as a transformative approach to tackle climatic, food, and ecosystemic crises Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2023 62 101275 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101275 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Baudry G Costa L Di Lucia L Slade R An interactive model to assess pathways for agriculture and food sector contributions to country-level net-zero targets Commun. Earth Environ. 2023 4 46 10.1038/s43247-023-00693-w · DOI
  3. [3]Scialabba, N. E.-H. Full-cost accounting for decision-making related to livestock systems. In Managing Healthy Livestock Production and Consumption 223–244 (Elsevier, 2022).
  4. [5]Arndt C Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 15 C target by 2030 but not 2050 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022 119 e2111294119 10.1073/pnas.2111294119 35537050 PMC9171756 · DOI
  5. [6]Igbatayo, S. A. Climate change and agroforestry resilience strategy in West Africa’s cocoa supply chain dynamics. In Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience 361–385 (Springer, 2023).
  6. [7]Palmer L A new climate for grazing livestock Nat. Clim. Change 2014 4 321 323 10.1038/nclimate2215 · DOI
  7. [8]Lebrazi, S. & Fikri-Benbrahim, K. Potential of tree legumes in agroforestry systems and soil conservation. In Advances in Legumes for Sustainable Intensification 461–482 (Elsevier, 2022).
  8. [9]Sileshi, G. W., Dagar, J. C., Kuyah, S. & Datta, A. The Great Green Wall Initiatives and Opportunities for Integration of Dryland Agroforestry to Mitigate Desertification. In Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa 175–206 (Springer, 2023).
  9. [10]Brook R Silvopastoral systems for offsetting livestock emissions in the tropics: A case study of a dairy farm in Costa Rica Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022 42 101 10.1007/s13593-022-00834-z 36254245 PMC9560984 · DOI
  10. [11]Ikendi S Ecological conservation, biodiversity, and agricultural education as integrated approaches for envisioning the future of sustainable agriculture in North America Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World 2023 30 152 163 10.1080/13504509.2022.2127032 · DOI
  11. [12]Montagnini, F. & del Fierro, S. Functions of agroforestry systems as biodiversity islands in productive landscapes. In Biodiversity Islands: Strategies for Conservation in Human-Dominated Environments 89–116 (Springer, 2022).
  12. [13]Pitman WD Multifunctional landscapes for enhanced ecosystem benefits and productive agriculture in the southeastern US Landsc. Ecol. 2022 37 1957 1971 10.1007/s10980-022-01474-0 · DOI
  13. [15]Castro-Nunez A The risk of unintended deforestation from scaling sustainable livestock production systems Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021 3 e495 10.1111/csp2.495 · DOI
  14. [16]Castro-Nunez A Mertz O Quintero M Propensity of farmers to conserve forest within REDD+ projects in areas affected by armed-conflict For. Policy Econ. 2016 66 22 30 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.02.005 · DOI
  15. [17]Fuentes E A review of silvopastoral systems in the Peruvian Amazon region Trop. Grassl. 2022 10 78 88 10.17138/tgft(10)78-88 · DOI
  16. [19]Lecoutere E Spielman DJ Van Campenhout B Empowering women through targeting information or role models: Evidence from an experiment in agricultural extension in Uganda World Dev. 2023 167 106240 10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106240 · DOI
  17. [21]Ngigi MW Mueller U Birner R Gender differences in climate change adaptation strategies and participation in group-based approaches: An intra-household analysis from rural Kenya Ecol. Econ. 2017 138 99 108 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.019 · DOI
  18. [22]Naz, F. & Doneys, P. Gender-based differences in access to and use of loans from rural credit programs for flood adaptation in the farming-dependent char communities of Bangladesh. In Women’s Studies International Forum vol. 95 102651 (Elsevier, 2022).
  19. [23]Lelea MA Garbaba CA Guluma A Hensel O Gendering post-harvest loss research: Responsibilities of women and men to manage maize after harvest in southwestern Ethiopia Food Secur. 2022 14 951 963 10.1007/s12571-022-01259-y · DOI
  20. [24]Tschopp M Ceddia MG Inguaggiato C Adoption of sustainable silvopastoral practices in Argentina’s Gran Chaco: A multilevel approach J. Arid Environ. 2022 197 104657 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2021.104657 · DOI
  21. [25]Jara-Rojas R Russy S Roco L Fleming-Muñoz D Engler A Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices: Insights from silvopastoral systems of Colombia Forests 2020 11 648 10.3390/f11060648 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [26]Lee S Adoption potentials and barriers of silvopastoral system in Colombia: Case of Cundinamarca region Cogent Environ. Sci. 2020 6 1823632 10.1080/23311843.2020.1823632 · DOI
  23. [27]Alvarado Sandino CO Examining factors for the adoption of silvopastoral agroforestry in the Colombian Amazon Sci. Rep. 2023 13 12252 10.1038/s41598-023-39038-0 37507434 PMC10382530 · DOI
  24. [28]Rapey H Lifran R Valadier A Identifying social, economic and technical determinants of silvopastoral practices in temperate uplands: Results of a survey in the Massif Central region of France Agric. Syst. 2001 69 119 135 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00021-X · DOI
  25. [30]Clerici N Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods Sci. Rep. 2020 10 4971 10.1038/s41598-020-61861-y 32188909 PMC7080754 · DOI
  26. [31]Murgueitio E Calle Z Uribe F Calle A Solorio B Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands For. Ecol. Manag. 2011 261 1654 1663 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.027 · DOI
  27. [32]Rincón-Ruiz A Correa HL León DO Williams S Coca cultivation and crop eradication in Colombia: The challenges of integrating rural reality into effective anti-drug policy Int. J. Drug Policy 2016 33 56 65 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.06.011 27402468 · DOI
  28. [33]Broom DM Galindo FA Murgueitio E Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals Proc. Biol. Sci. 2013 280 1771 20132025 10.1098/rspb.2013.2025 24068362 PMC3790492 · DOI
  29. [34]Ganzenmüller R Sylvester JM Castro-Nunez A What peace means for deforestation: An analysis of local deforestation dynamics in times of conflict and peace in Colombia Front. Environ. Sci. 2022 10 51 10.3389/fenvs.2022.803368 · DOI
  30. [35]Herrero M Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013 110 20888 20893 10.1073/pnas.1308149110 24344273 PMC3876224 · DOI · Paper page
  31. [38]Varela E Unravelling opportunities, synergies, and barriers for enhancing silvopastoralism in the Mediterranean Land Use Policy 2022 118 106140 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106140 · DOI
  32. [39]Che Y Feng H Hennessy DA Will adoption occur if a practice is win-win for profit and the environment? An application to a rancher’s grazing practice choices Ecol. Econ. 2023 209 107826 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107826 · DOI
  33. [41]Piñeiro V A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes Nat. Sustain. 2020 3 809 820 10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y · DOI
  34. [44]Sandoval, D. F., Florez, J. F., Valencia, K. J. E., Cabrera, M. E. S. & Stefan, B. Economic-environmental assessment of silvo-pastoral systems in Colombia: An ecosystem service perspective. Heliyon (2023). PMC10448473 37636404
  35. [47]Ramirez-Santos AG Ravera F Rivera-Ferre MG Calvet-Nogués M Gendered traditional agroecological knowledge in agri-food systems: A systematic review J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2023 19 1 19 10.1186/s13002-023-00576-6 37024903 PMC10080974 · DOI
  36. [50]Lemes AP Silvopastoral system is an alternative to improve animal welfare and productive performance in meat production systems Sci. Rep. 2021 11 14092 10.1038/s41598-021-93609-7 34238990 PMC8266897 · DOI
  37. [52]Ngo Bieng MA Tree diversity in a tropical agricultural-forest mosaic landscape in Honduras Sci. Rep. 2022 12 18544 10.1038/s41598-022-21280-7 36329120 PMC9633691 · DOI
  38. [53]Zepeda Cancino RM Velasco Zebadua ME Nahed Toral J Hernández Garay A Martinez Tinajero JJ Adoption of silvopastoral systems and the sociocultural context of producers: Support and limitations Rev. Mexicana Cienc. Pecuarias 2016 7 471 488 10.22319/rmcp.v7i4.4282 · DOI
  39. [54]Rodríguez T Analyzing influencing factors to scale up agroforestry systems in Colombia: A comparative ex-ante assessment of cacao farming and cattle ranching in two regions Agrofor. Syst. 2022 96 435 446 10.1007/s10457-022-00730-1 37521826 PMC8765677 · DOI
  40. [55]Smith MM Silvopasture in the USA: A systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022 326 107818 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818 · DOI
  41. [58]Setsoafia ED Ma W Renwick A Effects of sustainable agricultural practices on farm income and food security in northern Ghana Agric. Food Econ. 2022 10 9 10.1186/s40100-022-00216-9 · DOI
  42. [59]Bertolozzi-Caredio D Stakeholder perspectives to improve risk management in European farming systems J. Rural Stud. 2021 84 147 161 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.004 · DOI
  43. [61]Vercillo S A feminist political ecology of farm resource entitlements in Northern Ghana Gender Place Cult. 2022 29 1467 1496 10.1080/0966369X.2021.2013781 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Castro-Nunez, A., Buritica, A., Holmann, F., Ngaiwi, M., Quintero, M., Solarte, A., & Gonzalez, C.
Affiliations
  • International Center for Tropical Agriculture (KE)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
Corresponding author
Castro-Nunez, Augusto
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-06-13
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
13644-13644
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-024-63697-2
PMC
PMC11176341
OpenAlex
W4399636953
Cited by
14
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
FWCI
7.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agroforestry and silvopastoral systems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Keywords
access to credit, female-headed households, land use policy, Caquetá, sustainable livestock production
MeSH terms
Farms, Agriculture, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Colombia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Female, Humans, Male, Socioeconomic Factors, Livestock

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review