Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conversion of Amazonian forests to pastures and crops threatens soil fertility, but whether tree-based land uses conserve it remains poorly quantified in the Ecuadorian Amazon. We compared a secondary forest (SF, reference) with a cacao agroforestry system (AFC), two silvopastoral systems (Axonopus scoparius and Paspalum dilatatum pastures with trees; GGWT, DGWT) and the same pastures without trees (GGWIT, DGWIT) in Napo and Pastaza provinces. Each land use comprised three plots (5 – 7 sampling points each) sampled at 0 – 10 and 10 – 30 cm (184 samples). Land-use effects were tested with linear mixed models with plot as a random effect. In the topsoil, land use affected aeration porosity (AP; 11.4% in AFC to 19.2% in SF), soil organic matter (SOM; 8.5% in GGWIT to 17.9% in GGWT) and exchangeable K+ (0.09 cmolc/kg in AFC vs. 0.22 – 0.28 cmolc/kg in GGWT, DGWT and DGWIT), whereas bulk density, pH, total N, available P, Ca2+ and Mg2+ did not differ significantly. Relative to SF, AP decreased by 15% – 41% in all land uses, SOM by 47% in GGWIT and K+ by 43% in AFC. Most nutrients were concentrated in the topsoil. Stocks in the 0 – 30 cm layer of exchangeable K+ (53 – 102 kg/ha) and, except in DGWT, of available P (6.5 – 22.2 kg/ha) were below forest-maintenance thresholds, whereas NH4+ stocks were highest in treeless pastures and lowest in AFC. Multivariate analyses isolated AFC and grouped the silvopastoral systems with SF. Retaining trees in pastures and replenishing K and P in cacao agroforestry systems are recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bravo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: