Vegetation Structure and Diversity Under Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration: A Comparison of Silvo‐Arable and Silvo‐Pastoral Systems in Kenya

ABSTRACT Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) is a low‐cost, adaptable agroforestry practice that enhances land restoration by promoting systematic integration of naturally regenerating trees within farming systems through tree selection and management. Despite its increasing adoption in sub‐Saharan Africa, comparative evidence across land uses remains limited. This study empirically compares tree and woody regeneration density, species richness, and composition between silvo‐arable (maize cultivation) and silvo‐pastoral (grazing) FMNR systems in semi‐arid Kenya. Sixty‐three plots were established across these two land uses, within which a total of 1409 trees and 505 woody regeneration individuals were recorded. Tree density was higher in silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems (558/ha) than in silvo‐arable systems (150/ha), though the difference was not statistically significant. In contrast, woody regeneration density was significantly greater in silvo‐arable systems (2450/ha vs. 727/ha). Rarefied species richness of trees was the same in silvo‐arable FMNR and silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems, while richness of regeneration was either significantly higher than the tree community, like in silvo‐arable systems, or significantly lower than the tree community, like in silvo‐pastoral systems. Non‐metric multidimensional scaling showed that silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems exhibited similar species composition between trees and regeneration, whereas silvo‐arable FMNR systems displayed greater variability in tree composition across fields, reflecting less variable preferences by farmers. Given that regeneration represents future tree communities, reduced regeneration diversity in silvo‐pastoral systems may constrain long‐term species richness. These findings suggest that silvo‐arable and silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems follow distinct restoration pathways, with implications for biodiversity conservation, livelihoods, and the scaling of FMNR as a restoration practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Land Degradation and Development
Published
2026-04-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.70605
Primary Topic
African Botany and Ecology Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Vegetation Structure and Diversity Under Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration: A Comparison of Silvo‐Arable and Silvo‐Pastoral Systems in Kenya

Christian Borgemeister, Till Stellmacher, Madelon Lohbeck, Tony Rinaudo et al.
Land Degradation and Development
African Botany and Ecology Studies
article

Vegetation Structure and Diversity Under Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration: A Comparison of Silvo‐Arable and Silvo‐Pastoral Systems in Kenya

Christian Borgemeister, Till Stellmacher, Madelon Lohbeck, Tony Rinaudo, Ermias Aynekulu, Irene Awino Ojuok
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) is a low‐cost, adaptable agroforestry practice that enhances land restoration by promoting systematic integration of naturally regenerating trees within farming systems through tree selection and management. Despite its increasing adoption in sub‐Saharan Africa, comparative evidence across land uses remains limited. This study empirically compares tree and woody regeneration density, species richness, and composition between silvo‐arable (maize cultivation) and silvo‐pastoral (grazing) FMNR systems in semi‐arid Kenya. Sixty‐three plots were established across these two land uses, within which a total of 1409 trees and 505 woody regeneration individuals were recorded. Tree density was higher in silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems (558/ha) than in silvo‐arable systems (150/ha), though the difference was not statistically significant. In contrast, woody regeneration density was significantly greater in silvo‐arable systems (2450/ha vs. 727/ha). Rarefied species richness of trees was the same in silvo‐arable FMNR and silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems, while richness of regeneration was either significantly higher than the tree community, like in silvo‐arable systems, or significantly lower than the tree community, like in silvo‐pastoral systems. Non‐metric multidimensional scaling showed that silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems exhibited similar species composition between trees and regeneration, whereas silvo‐arable FMNR systems displayed greater variability in tree composition across fields, reflecting less variable preferences by farmers. Given that regeneration represents future tree communities, reduced regeneration diversity in silvo‐pastoral systems may constrain long‐term species richness. These findings suggest that silvo‐arable and silvo‐pastoral FMNR systems follow distinct restoration pathways, with implications for biodiversity conservation, livelihoods, and the scaling of FMNR as a restoration practice.

Land Degradation and Development
World Vision (US), University of Bonn (DE), Vision Australia (AU), World Vision International (GB), World Agroforestry Centre (KE), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Stiftung fiat panis, German Academic Exchange Service London
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
African Botany and Ecology Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.