An assessment of silvopastoral systems condition and their capacity to generate ecosystem services in the Colombian Amazon

References

• Ainsworth JA, Moe SR, Skarpe C. 2012. Pasture shade and farm management effects on cow productivity in the tropics. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 155:105–19. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holliday JA, Wang T, Curtis‐mclane S. 2008. Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evol Appl. 1(1):95–111. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2007.00013.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Álvarez F, Casanoves F, Suárez JC 2021b. Influence of scattered trees in grazing areas on soil properties in the Piedmont region of the Colombian Amazon. PLos One. 16(12):e0261612. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Álvarez F, Casanoves F, Suárez JC, Pezo D 2021a. The effect of different levels of tree cover on milk production in dual-purpose livestock systems in the humid tropics of the Colombian Amazon region. Agroforest Syst. 95:93–102. doi:10.1007/s10457-020-00566-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anfinnsen B, Aguilar-Støen M, Vatn A 2009. Actitudes de los productores ganaderos de El Petén, Guatemala, respecto a la implementación de sistemas silvopastoriles. Agroforestería en las Américas. 47:20–26.
   Google Scholar
• Armenteras D, Murcia U, González TM, Barón OJ, Arias JE. 2019. Scenarios of land use and land cover change for NW Amazonia: impact on forest intactness. Global Ecol Conserv. 17:e00567. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armenteras D, Rudas G, Rodriguez N, Sua S, Romero M. 2006. Patterns and causes of deforestation in the Colombian Amazon. Ecol Indic. 6(2):353–368. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Benjamin T, Cerdán CR, DeClerck F, Madsen AL, Rusch GM, Salazar ÁG, Sánchez D, Villanueva C. 2016. Assessing ecosystem services from multifunctional trees in pastures using Bayesian belief networks. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 18:165–174. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.002.
   Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Cisse Y, Kaya B, N’Diaye I, Yossi H, Diarra A, Keita S, Dembele A, Maiga D, Rusch GM, et al. 2017. Diagnosing agrosilvopastoral practices using Bayesian networks. Agroforest Syst. 91(2):325–334. doi:10.1007/s10457-016-9931-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Kelemen E, Dick J, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Jacobs S, Hendriks CM, Termansen M, García-Llorente M, Primmer E., et al. 2018. (Dis) integrated valuation–Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 29:529–541. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021.
   Google Scholar
• Blackshaw JK, y Blackshaw AW. 1994. Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviors: a review. Aust J Exp Agr. 34(2):285–295. doi:10.1071/EA9940285.
   Google Scholar
• Cáceres DM, Tapella E, Quétier F, Díaz S. 2015. The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol Soc. 20(1). doi:10.5751/ES-07297-200162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cajas-Giron YS, y Sinclair FL. 2001. Characterization of multistrata silvopastoral systems on seasonally dry pastures in the Caribbean region of Colombia. Agroforest Syst. 53(2):215–225. doi:10.1023/A:1013384706085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calle Z, Murgueitio E, Chará J, Molina CH, Zuluaga AF, Calle A. 2013. A strategy for scaling-up intensive silvopastoral systems in Colombia. J Sustain Forestry. 32(7):677–693. doi:10.1080/10549811.2013.817338.
   Google Scholar
• Camargo JC, Ibrahim M, Somarriba E, Finegan B, y Current D. 2000. Factores ecológicos y socioeconómicos que influyen en la regeneración natural de laurel en sistemas silvopastoriles del trópico húmedo y subhúmedo de Costa Rica. Agroforestería en las Américas. 7(26):46.
   Google Scholar
• Casals P, Romero J, Rusch GM, Ibrahim M. 2014. Soil organic C and nutrient contents under trees with different functional characteristics in seasonally dry tropical silvopastures. Plant Soil. 374(1–2):643–659. doi:10.1007/s11104-013-1884-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casanoves F, Macchiavelli R, Balzarini M. 2005. Error variation in multienvironment peanut trials: within-trial spatial correlation and between-trial heterogeneity. Crop Sci. 45(5):1927–1933. doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.0547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis JT, Mcintosh RP. 1950. The interrelations of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characters. Ecology. 31(3):434–455. doi:10.2307/1931497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dávalos LM, Dávalos E, Holmes J, Tucker C, Armenteras D. 2021. Bosques, coca y conflicto: la dinámica de la frontera de pasturas y deforestación en la Amazonía andina. J Illicit Econ Dev. 3(1):74–98. doi:10.31389/jied.87.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Env Sust. 14:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Quétier F, Cáceres DM, Trainor SF, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Bret-Harte MS, Finegan B, Peña-Claros M, Poorter L. 2011. Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature’s benefits to society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(3):895–902.
   Google Scholar
• Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Balzarini MG, González L, Tablada M, y Robledo CW. 2018. InfoStat, versión 2018. Argentina: Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
   Google Scholar
• Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Pla L, Vilchez S, Di Rienzo MJ. 2010. Qeco-Quantitative ecology software: a collaborative approach. Nota Informativa, Revista Latinoamericana de Conservación. 1:73–75.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon HJ, Dolores JW, Joshi L, Sinclair FL. 2001. Agroecological knowledge toolkit for windows: methodological guidelines, computer software and manual for AKT5. In: School of agriculture and forest scinces. Bangor: University of Wales; p. 171.
   Google Scholar
• Esquivel MJ, Harvey CA, Finegan B, Casanoves F, Skarpe C. 2008. Effects of pasture management on the natural regeneration of neotropical trees. J Appl Ecol. 45(1):371–380. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01411.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esquivel MJ, Harvey CA, Finegan B, Casanoves F, Skarpe C, y Nieuwenhuyse A. 2009. Regeneración natural de árboles y arbustos en potreros activos de Nicaragua. Agroforestería en las Américas. 47:76–84.
   Google Scholar
• Esquivel H, Ibrahim M, Harvey CA, Benjamin T, Sinclair FL. 2011. Dispersed trees in pasturelands of cattle farms in a tropical dry ecosystem. Trop Subtropical Agroecosyst. 14(3):933–941.
   Google Scholar
• Esquivel H, Ibrahim M, Harvey CA, Villanueva C, Benjamin T, Sinclair FL. 2003. Árboles dispersos en potreros de fincas ganaderas en un ecosistema seco de Costa Rica. Agroforestería en las Américas. 10:24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer J, y Lindenmayer DB. 2002. The conservation value of paddock trees for birds in a variegated landscape in southern New South Wales. 2. Paddock trees as steppingstones. Biodivers Conserv. 11(5):833–849. doi:10.1023/A:1015318328007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Stott J, Zerger A, Warren G, Sherren K, Forrester RI. 2009. Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion. 106: 10386–10391. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900110106.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca D et al. 2009. Cobertura de la tierra: una mirada desde la perspectiva del cambio climáticoMonitoreo de los bosques y otras coberturas de la Amazonia colombiana. Instituto Sinchi. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. Bogotá. 83–98.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL, Strutzel E. 1968. The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nurs Res. 17(4):364. doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grande D, de León F, Nahed J, y Pérez-Gil F. 2010. Importance and function of scattered trees in pastures in the Sierra of Tabasco, Mexico. Res J Biol Sci. 5(1):75–87. doi:10.3923/rjbsci.2010.75.87.
   Google Scholar
• Grime JP. 1998. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects. J Ecol. 86(6):902–910. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00306.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griscom HP, Connelly AB, Ashton MS, Wishnie MH, Deago J. 2011. The structure and composition of a tropical dry forest landscape after land clearance; Azuero Peninsula, Panama. J Sustain Forestry. 30(8):756–774. doi:10.1080/10549811.2011.571589.
   Google Scholar
• Grondard N, Hein L, Van Bussel LGJ. 2021. Ecosystem accounting to support the common agricultural policy. Ecol Indic. 131:108157. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guevara S, Laborde J, Sánchez G 1998. Are isolated remnant trees in pastures a fragmented canopy?. Selbyana. 19(1):34–43.
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez G, Suarez J, Álvarez CF, Orjuela JA. 2012. Árboles dispersos en potreros y conectividad estructural en el paisaje de fincas ganaderas en la amazonia colombiana. Ingenieria Amazonia. 5(1):30–41.
   Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R. 2011. Exploring ecosystem service issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian belief networks. Progress Phys Geograph. 35(5):681–699. doi:10.1177/0309133311422977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartel T, Hanspach J, Moga CI, Holban L, Á S, Tamás R, Réti KO 2018. Abundance of large old trees in wood-pastures of Transylvania (Romania). Sci Total Environ. 613:263–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartel T, Réti KO, Craioveanu C. 2017. Valuing scattered trees from wood-pastures by farmers in a traditional rural region of Eastern Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 236:304–311. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.11.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey CA, y Haber WH. 1999. Remnant trees and the conservation of biodiversity in Costa Rican pastures. Agroforest Syst. 44:37–68. doi:10.1023/A:1006122211692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey CA, Medina A, Sanchez D, Vilchez S, Hernandez B, Saenz J, Maes JM, Casanoves F, Sinclair FL. 2006. Patterns of animal diversity associated with different forms of tree cover retained in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Appl. 16:1986–1999. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1986:POADID]2.0.CO;2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey CA, Villanueva C, Esquivel H, Gómez R, Ibrahim M, Lopez M, y Villacís J. 2011. Conservation value of dispersed tree cover threatened by pasture management. For Ecol Manage. 261(10):1664–1674. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holdridge L. 1978. Ecología basada en zonas de vida. San José, Costa Rica: IICA; p. 216.
   Google Scholar
• Holl KD 1999. Factors limiting tropical rain forest regeneration in abandoned pasture: seed rain, seed germination, microclimate, and soil. Biotropica. 31(2):229–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoosbeek MR, Remme RP, Rusch GM. 2018. Trees enhance soil carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling in a silvopastoral system in south-western Nicaragua. Agroforest Syst. 92(2):263–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosseininasab MS, Barani H, Akbarlou M, Moayeri MH. 2017. The structure of plant population of forested rangeland in different legal definitions (case study: Sabzkouh Region, Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari Province, Iran). J Rangel Sci. 7(4):361–375.
   Google Scholar
• IDEAM. 2017. Resultados monitoreo de la deforestación 2017. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales IDEAM. Centro de Documentación e Información Científico Técnica. Bogotá – Colombia. 45.
   Google Scholar
• IGAC. 1993. Aspectos ambientales para el ordenamiento territorial del Occidente del Departamento de Caquetá. Bogotá, DC: Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi —IGAC—. Programa Investigaciones para la Amazonia —INPA—. Serie Estudios en la Amazonia Colombiana VI. Tercer Mundo Editores.
   Google Scholar
• IGAC. 2014. Estudio general de suelos y zonificación de tierras: departamento de Caquetá, escala 1/100.000. Subdirección de agrología. Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi. 410.
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Paris: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
   Google Scholar
• IPBES. 2022. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment regarding the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature). Bonn: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
   Google Scholar
• Jose S, Dollinger J. 2019. Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforest Syst. 93(1):1–9. doi:10.1007/s10457-019-00366-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee S, Bonatti M, Löhr K, Palacios V, Lana MA, Sieber S, Li F. 2020. Adoption potentials and barriers of silvopastoral system in Colombia: case of Cundinamarca region. Cogent Environ Sci. 6(1):1823632. doi:10.1080/23311843.2020.1823632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombo DF, Tobar D, Villanueva C. 2011. Estado de la cobertura arbórea en pasturas activas en dos paisajes agropecuarios en el neotrópico americano. En: Villanueva et al. editor. Manejo agroecológico como ruta para lograr la sostenibilidad de fincas con café y ganadería. Turrialba, CR: CATIE; p. 93.
   Google Scholar
• López M, Gómez R, Harvey CA, Villanueva C. 2004. Caracterización del componente arbóreo en los sistemas ganaderos de Rivas, Nicaragua. Encuentro. 36(68):114–133. doi:10.5377/encuentro.v0i68.4261.
   Google Scholar
• Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer D. 2006. Scattered trees are keystone structures – Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv. 132(3):311–321. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Enciso C, Villanueva-López G, y Casanova-Lugo F. 2013. México. Agrociencias. 47(5):483–496.
   Google Scholar
• Medina A, Harvey CA, Sánchez D, Vilchez S, y Hernández B. 2004. Diversidad y composición de Chiropteros en un paisaje fragmentado de bosque seco en Rivas, Nicaragua. Encuentros. 68(68):24–43. doi:10.5377/encuentro.v0i68.4255.
   Google Scholar
• Medina A, Harvey CA, Sánchez D, Vílchez S, y Hernández B. 2007. Bat diversity and movement in a neotropical agricultural landscape. Biotropica. 39:120–128. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00240.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messeder JVS, Silveira FA, Cornelissen TG, Fuzessy LF, Guerra TJ. 2020. Frugivory and seed dispersal in a hyperdiverse plant clade and its role as a keystone resource for the Neotropical fauna. Ann Bot. doi:10.1093/aob/mcaa189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murcia U, Medina R, Rodríguez JM, Castellanos H, Hernández A, y Herrera E. 2014. Monitoreo de los bosques y otras coberturas de la Amazonia Colombiana, a escala 1:100.000. Datos del periodo 2012. Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas Sinchi. Bogotá, D. C., 190.
   Google Scholar
• Nepstad DC, Uhl C, Pereira CA, Da Silva JMC. 1996. A comparative study of tree establishment in abandoned pasture and mature forest of eastern Amazonia. Oikos. 25–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyberg Y, Wetterlind J, Jonsson M, Öborn I. 2020. The role of trees and livestock in ecosystem service provision and farm priorities on smallholder farms in the Rift Valley, Kenya. Agric Syst. 181:102815. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102815.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagiola S, Ramírez E, Gobbi J, de Haan C, Ibrahim M, Murguetitio E, Ruiz JP. 2007. Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecol Econ. 64:374–385. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual U, Muradian R, Rodríguez LC, Duraiappah A. 2010. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol Econ. 69(6):1237–1244. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce F. 2019. Rivers in the sky. New Scientist. 244(3254):40–43.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez Marulanda L, Lavelle P, Rudbeck Jepsen M, Castro-Nunez A, Francesconi W, Camilo K, Vanegas M, Romero M, Suárez JC, Solarte A, et al. 2020. Farmscape composition and livelihood sustainability in deforested landscapes of Colombian Amazonia. Agriculture. 10(12):588. doi:10.3390/agriculture10120588.
   Google Scholar
• Pignataro AG, Levy-Tacher SI, Aguirre-Rivera JR, Nahed-Toral J, González-Espinosa M, González-Arzac A, Biganzoli F. 2017. Natural regeneration of tree species in pastures on peasant land in Chiapas, Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 249:137–143. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.08.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pignataro AG, Tacher SIL, Rivera JRA, Toral JN, Espinosa MG, Carmona NR. 2016. Silvopastoral systems of the Chol Mayan ethnic group in southern Mexico: strategies with a traditional basis. J Environ Manage. 181:363–373. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramírez BL, Lavelle P, Orjuela JA, y Villanueva O. 2012. Characterization of cattle farms and adoption of agroforestry systems as a proposal for soil management in Caquetá, Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias. 25(3):391–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R core team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R foundation for statistical computing. [accessed 2018 Nov 20].
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-León CH, Roa-Fuentes LL, Sterling A, Suárez JC. 2022. Plant biodiversity homogenization across the chronosequence in highly fragmented landscapes in the Colombian Andean–Amazonian transition. Forests. 13(9):1422. doi:10.3390/f13091422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz F, Gomez R, Harvey CA. 2005. Caracterización del componente arbóreo en los sistemas ganaderos de Matiguás, Nicaragua. Managua, Nicaragua: Revista Tropitecnica de Nitlapan, UCA.
   Google Scholar
• Rusch VE, López D, Cavallero L, Rusch GM, Garibaldi LA, Grosfeld JE, Peri P. 2017. State-and-Transition model of Ñire forest in NW Patagonia as a tool for sustainable silvopastoral management. Ecología Austral. 27:266–278. (In Spanish). doi:10.25260/EA.17.27.2.0.240.
   Google Scholar
• Rusch VE, Rusch GM, Goijman AP, Varela SA, Claps L. 2017. Ecosystem services to support environmental and socially sustainable decision-making. Ecología Austral. 27:162–176. doi:10.25260/EA.17.27.1.1.295.
   Google Scholar
• Rusch GM, Zapata P, Casanoves F, Casals P, Ibrahim M, DeClerck F. 2014. Determinants of grassland primary production in seasonally-dry silvopastoral systems in Central America. Agroforest Syst. 88(3):517–526. doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9711-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez MD, Harvey CA, Grijalva A, Medina A, Vílchez S, Hernández B. 2005. Diversidad, composición y estructura de la vegetación en un agropaisaje ganadero en Matiguás, Nicaragua. Revista de biología tropical. 53(3–4):387–414. doi:10.15517/rbt.v53i3-4.14601.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sánchez YKKÁ, Tapia MEP, Salazar JCS. 2017. Importancia cultural de vegetación arbórea en sistemas ganaderos del Municipio de San Vicente del Caguán, Colombia. Revista UDCA Actualidad Divulgación Científica. 20(2):393–401. doi:10.31910/rudca.v20.n2.2017.397.
   Google Scholar
• Soberón JM, y Llorente JB. 1993. The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conserv Biol. 7(3):480–488. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030480.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotelo M, Suárez Salazar JC, Álvarez Carrillo F, Castro Núñez A, Calderón Soto VH, Arango J. 2017. Sistemas sostenibles de producción ganadera en el contexto amazónico - Sistemas silvopastoriles: ¿una opción viable? Publicación CIAT No. 448. Cali, Colombia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). p. 24.
   Google Scholar
• Spooner P, Lunt I, Robinson W. 2002. Is fencing enough? The short-term effects of stock exclusion in remnant grassy woodlands in southern NSW. Ecol Manage Restor. 3:117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Staal A, Flores BM, Aguiar APD, Bosmans JH, Fetzer I, Tuinenburg OA. 2020. Feedback between drought and deforestation in the Amazon. Environ Res Lett. 15(4):044024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab738e.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens WD, Ulloa C, Pool A, Montiel OM 2001. Flora de Nicaragua (Vol. 85, No. 1, p. 943). St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suárez J, Álvarez CF, Orjuela JA, y Aldana OD. 2013. Conocimiento local sobre el manejo de la cobertura arbórea en sistemas ganaderos bajo el sistema de doble propósito. En: Álvarez CF, editor. Árboles dispersos en potreros en fincas ganaderas del piedemonte amazónico. Florencia – Caquetá – Colombia: Universidad de la Amazonia; p. 54–78.
   Google Scholar
• Suárez J, Álvarez CF, Orjuela JA, Ocaña H, Londoño SM, Ceballos M, Rojas P, López N, García F, y Torres O. 2013. Caracterización de fincas ganaderas bajo el sistema de doble propósito en el departamento del Caquetá. En: Álvarez CF, editor. Árboles dispersos en potreros en fincas ganaderas del piedemonte amazónico. Florencia – Caquetá – Colombia: Universidad de la Amazonia; p. 39–52.
   Google Scholar
• Torrijos, RR. 2022. Cifras de contexto ganadero regional 2022. Ed. Comité Departamental .de Ganaderos del Caquetá. Florencia, Caquetá, Colombiap. 32.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2021. Guidelines on biophysical modelling for ecosystem accounting - 2.0.
   Google Scholar
• Valdano SG, Di Rienzo JA. 2007. Discovering meaningful groups in hierarchical cluster analysis. An extension to the multivariate case of a multiple comparison method based on cluster analysis. Available via InterStat Journal. [accessed 2016 Oct 13]. http://interstat.statjournals.netsubordinate-document/http://interstat.statjournals.net/YEAR/2007/articles/0704002.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Valtorta SE, Leva PE, Gallardo MR. 1997. Evaluation of different shades to improve dairy cattle well-being in Argentina. Int J Biometeorol. 41(2):65–67. doi:10.1007/s004840050055.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verchot LV, Van Noordwijk M, Kandi S, Tomich T, Ong C, Albrecht A, Mackensen J, Anupama KV, Palm C. 2007. Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 12:901–918. doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9105-6.
   Google Scholar
• Vílchez S, Harvey CA, Sánchez D, Medina A, y Hernández B. 2004. Diversidad de aves en un paisaje fragmentado de bosque seco en Rivas, Nicaragua. Managua, Nicaragua. Encuentros. 68:60–75. doi:10.5377/encuentro.v0i68.4257.
   Google Scholar
• Villacis J, Harvey CA, Ibrahim M, Villanueva C. 2003. Relaciones entre la cobertura arbórea y el nivel de intensificación de las fincas ganaderas en Rio Frio, Costa Rica. Agroforestería en las Américas. 10:17–23.
   Google Scholar
• Villanueva C, Ibrahim M, Harvey C, Esquivel H. 2003. Tipologías de fincas con ganadería bovina y cobertura arbórea en pasturas en el trópico seco de Costa Rica. Agroforestería en las Américas. 10:9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Villanueva-Partida C, Casanova-Lugo F, Villanueva-López G, González-Valdivia N, Oros-Ortega I, Díaz-Echeverría V. 2016. Influence of the density of scattered trees in pastures on the structure and species composition of tree and grass cover in southern Tabasco, Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 232:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.07.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wassie A, Sterck FJ, Teketay D, y Bongers F. 2009. Effects of livestock exclusion on tree regeneration in church forests of Ethiopia. For Ecol Manage. 257(3):765–772. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunderle JM Jr. 1997. The role of animal seed dispersal in accelerating native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. For Ecol Manage. 99(1–2):223–235. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00208-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar