IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v15y2025i8p830-d1632551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Soil Biological Activity and Macroinvertebrate Diversity in Amazonian Chakra Agroforestry and Tropical Rainforests in Ecuador

Author

Listed:
  • Thony Huera-Lucero

    (Área de Edafología y Química Agrícola, Facultad de Ciencias—Instituto del Agua Cambio Climático y Sostenibilidad, Universidad de Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain)

  • Bolier Torres

    (Ochroma Consulting & Services, Tena 150150, Ecuador
    Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Estatal Amazónica (UEA), Puyo 160101, Ecuador)

  • Carlos Bravo-Medina

    (Facultad de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Estatal Amazónica (UEA), Puyo 160101, Ecuador)

  • Beatriz García-Nogales

    (Área de Edafología y Química Agrícola, Facultad de Ciencias—Instituto del Agua Cambio Climático y Sostenibilidad, Universidad de Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain)

  • Luis Vicente

    (Área de Edafología y Química Agrícola, Facultad de Ciencias—Instituto del Agua Cambio Climático y Sostenibilidad, Universidad de Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain)

  • Antonio López-Piñeiro

    (Área de Edafología y Química Agrícola, Facultad de Ciencias—Instituto del Agua Cambio Climático y Sostenibilidad, Universidad de Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain)

Abstract

Soil biological activity and macroinvertebrate diversity are key indicators of ecosystem function in tropical landscapes. This study evaluates the effects of different land-use systems—Amazonian Chakra agroforestry (timber-based and fruit-based), cocoa monoculture, and tropical rainforest—on soil microbial respiration, enzymatic activity, and macroinvertebrate diversity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Forest soils exhibited the highest edaphic respiration (240 ± 64.3 mg CO 2 m 2 ha −1 , p = 0.034), while agroforestry systems maintained intermediate biological activity, surpassing monocultures in microbial diversity and enzymatic function. The soil organic matter (SOM) content at a 10 cm depth was significantly higher in monocultures (19.8 ± 3.88%) than in agroforestry and forest soils ( p = 0.006); however, the enzymatic activity showed greater functional responses in agroforestry and forest systems. The relationship between recorded CO 2 respiration (REC_CO 2 ) and basal respiration (RBC_CO 2 ) exhibited a non-linear trend, as revealed by LOWESS smoothing, suggesting that microbial respiration dynamics are influenced by substrate availability and enzymatic thresholds beyond simple linear predictions. These findings underscore the potential of agroforestry as a sustainable land-use strategy that enhances soil biodiversity, carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling. Implementing optimized agroforestry practices can contribute to long-term soil conservation and ecosystem resilience in tropical agroecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Thony Huera-Lucero & Bolier Torres & Carlos Bravo-Medina & Beatriz García-Nogales & Luis Vicente & Antonio López-Piñeiro, 2025. "Comparative Analysis of Soil Biological Activity and Macroinvertebrate Diversity in Amazonian Chakra Agroforestry and Tropical Rainforests in Ecuador," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:8:p:830-:d:1632551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/8/830/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/8/830/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bolier Torres & Marcelo Luna & Cristhian Tipán-Torres & Patricia Ramírez & Julio C. Muñoz & Antón García, 2024. "A Simplified Integrative Approach to Assessing Productive Sustainability and Livelihoods in the “Amazonian Chakra” in Ecuador," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. William Ballesteros-Possú & Juan Carlos Valencia & Jorge Fernando Navia-Estrada, 2022. "Assessment of a Cocoa-Based Agroforestry System in the Southwest of Colombia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Anna Orczewska & Aleksander Dulik & Patryk Długosz & Łukasz Depa, 2024. "Intensive Agriculture vs. Invertebrate Biodiversity: A Case Study of Woodland Islets in a Matrix of Arable Land," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-11, August.
    4. Norman Myers & Russell A. Mittermeier & Cristina G. Mittermeier & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Jennifer Kent, 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6772), pages 853-858, February.
    5. Andi Nur Cahyo & Ying Dong & Taryono & Yudhistira Nugraha & Junaidi & Sahuri & Eric Penot & Aris Hairmansis & Yekti Asih Purwestri & Andrea Akbar & Hajar Asywadi & Risal Ardika & Nur Eko Prasetyo & Dw, 2024. "Rubber-Based Agroforestry Systems Associated with Food Crops: A Solution for Sustainable Rubber and Food Production?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    2. McLennan, D. & Sharma, R., 2012. "The Delivering Ecological Services Index (DESI)," Working papers 119, Rimisp Latin American Center for Rural Development.
    3. Caviedes, Julián & Ibarra, José Tomás & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Álvarez-Fernández, Santiago & Junqueira, André Braga, 2024. "Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    4. Maeda, Eduardo Eiji & Clark, Barnaby J.F. & Pellikka, Petri & Siljander, Mika, 2010. "Modelling agricultural expansion in Kenya's Eastern Arc Mountains biodiversity hotspot," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 609-620, November.
    5. Aibo Jin & Gachen Zhang & Ping Ma & Xiangrong Wang, 2024. "Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in the Chaohu Lake Basin Based on Land-Use Scenario Simulations," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-29, December.
    6. Jaiswal, Sreeja & Balietti, Anca & Schäffer, Daniel, 2023. "Environmental Protection and Labor Market Composition," Working Papers 0736, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    7. Chomitz, Kenneth M. & Thomas, Timothy S. & Brandão, Antônio Salazar P., 2005. "The economic and environmental impact of trade in forest reserve obligations: a simulation analysis of options for dealing with habitat heterogeneity," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 43(4), January.
    8. Gulay Cetinkaya Ciftcioglu, 2025. "Tackling the resilience of the olive landscape through nature-based solutions: a case study from the Akdeniz protected area of Northern Cyprus," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Elisa Barbour & Lara Kueppers, 2012. "Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changing California," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 135-163, March.
    10. Tyler M Harms & Kevin T Murphy & Xiaodan Lyu & Shane S Patterson & Karen E Kinkead & Stephen J Dinsmore & Paul W Frese, 2017. "Using landscape habitat associations to prioritize areas of conservation action for terrestrial birds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    11. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Brannstrom, Christian, 2001. "Conservation-with-Development Models in Brazil's Agro-Pastoral Landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1345-1359, August.
    13. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    14. Pütz, S. & Groeneveld, J. & Alves, L.F. & Metzger, J.P. & Huth, A., 2011. "Fragmentation drives tropical forest fragments to early successional states: A modelling study for Brazilian Atlantic forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(12), pages 1986-1997.
    15. Paige, Sarah B. & Malavé, Carly & Mbabazi, Edith & Mayer, Jonathan & Goldberg, Tony L., 2015. "Uncovering zoonoses awareness in an emerging disease ‘hotspot’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 78-86.
    16. Stephanie D. Maier & Jan Paul Lindner & Javier Francisco, 2019. "Conceptual Framework for Biodiversity Assessments in Global Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-34, March.
    17. Sehgal, Shaina & Babu, Suresh, 2021. "Economic Transformation of the Nicobar Islands Post-tsunami: A Material Import–Export Analysis," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 4(02), July.
    18. Poonam Tripathi & Mukund Dev Behera & Partha Sarathi Roy, 2017. "Optimized grid representation of plant species richness in India—Utility of an existing national database in integrated ecological analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Davis, Katrina & Pannell, David J. & Kragt, Marit & Gelcich, Stefan & Schilizzi, Steven, 2014. "Accounting for enforcement is essential to improve the spatial allocation of marine restricted-use zoning systems," Working Papers 195718, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Norman Myers, 2003. "Conservation of Biodiversity: How Are We Doing?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 9-15, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:8:p:830-:d:1632551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.