Cocoa grown under other trees, measured for yield, carbon, wildlife and profit. The studies do not agree on whether shade costs yield, and the disagreement is reported as it stands.
10 studies2009 to 2024Each checked against its published abstract
What these studies add up to
On yield the studies split. Three Indonesian systems gave the same bean yield from open sun to dense mixed shade, and species richness there did not fall as yield rose; in Bolivia and Cameroon cocoa yield was lower under more shade.
Arrangement may matter more than amount: about a hundred shade trees per hectare, deliberately spaced, out-yielded removing shade by over half in one optimisation.
Carbon rises steeply with shade: fivefold from unshaded to mixed shade in Sulawesi, and about 117 tonnes per hectare in Central American agroforests, most of it in soil and shade trees.
For wildlife, the step from agroforest to plantation is the costly one, losing far more species than the step from forest to agroforest.
Total output can rise while cocoa falls: in the Bolivian trial the other crops more than made up the difference.
Farmers may not want it. Ghanaian farmers surveyed mostly saw complex agroforests as belonging to the past.
Seventeen Cameroonian cocoa gardens showed no clear link between profit and biodiversity
How do ant diversity, vegetation structure and profitability vary across cocoa management intensities?
How
Cross-sectional study of 17 traditional cocoa forest gardens in southern Cameroon, with an index of profitability based on net annual income per hectare.
Finding
Ant species richness was significantly higher in floristically and structurally diverse, low-intensity, old cocoa systems than in intensive young systems. The authors found no clear relationship between profitability and biodiversity.
Does not establish: It does not show that certification for shade-grown cocoa raises farmer income. The authors only suggest it may provide incentives.
Limits: Small sample, one taxon as the biodiversity measure, and system age is confounded with intensity.
Is there a trade-off between biodiversity and cacao yield in smallholder agroforests?
How
Cross-sectional comparison integrating biodiversity and crop productivity data for smallholder cacao in Indonesia. The abstract gives no number of plots.
Finding
There was little relationship between yield and biodiversity under current management. Species richness of trees, fungi, invertebrates and vertebrates did not decrease with yield. Moderate shade, adequate labour and input level can be combined with a complex habitat structure.
Does not establish: It does not show that full-sun monocultures hold as much biodiversity as agroforests, and it does not measure farmer income.
Limits: Observational, within the range of management found on existing Indonesian farms. It says nothing about systems more intensive than those sampled.
Why do farmers favour near full-sun cocoa when researchers promote complex agroforests?
How
Field surveys in 2005 and 2008 with 180 migrant and autochthon farmers in four districts of Ghana, with some plot-level measurements and satellite images in a fifth district.
Finding
Most smallholders consider complex cocoa agroforests a thing of the past. The factors identified were adoption of sun-loving hybrids, negative perception of ecological services in relation to hybrids, legislation excluding smallholders from the legal timber market, expansion of the timber industry and migration.
Does not establish: It does not show that full-sun cocoa is more profitable over the life of a farm.
Limits: Farmer accounts and a descriptive analytical grid. No yield or income comparison is reported in the abstract.
How much biodiversity and ecosystem service provision is lost when forest becomes agroforest and when agroforest becomes plantation?
How
Meta-analysis with mixed models on data from 74 studies across Africa, Latin America and Asia, covering cacao and coffee together.
Finding
The decline in total species richness was higher when comparing agroforest with plantation (-46%) than when comparing forest with agroforest (-11%). Management intensification decreased provision of ecosystem services by 37% from forest to agroforest and by 27% from agroforest to plantation.
Does not establish: It does not report cocoa yield or income, so it cannot say what farmers gain or lose from either conversion.
Limits: Cacao and coffee are pooled. The authors note a conspicuous lack of studies in Africa, where most cocoa is grown.
How much carbon is stored in Central American cocoa agroforestry systems, and in which compartments?
How
Field inventory of carbon in a network of 229 permanent sample plots in cacao-based agroforestry systems and natural forests in five Central American countries.
Finding
Total carbon was 117±47 Mg per hectare, with 51 Mg in the soil and 49 Mg (42% of total carbon) in aboveground biomass. Cocoa trees held 9 Mg (18% of aboveground carbon), and timber and fruit trees stored 65% of aboveground carbon. Only 4% of plantations were full sun or rustic.
Does not establish: It does not measure a yield cost or benefit of carrying more carbon.
Limits: Carbon was measured, but the relation between carbon and cocoa yield was explored only qualitatively from literature and expert knowledge.
How do shade tree diversity and shade level relate to pests, natural enemies, cocoa yield and net returns?
How
Cross-sectional field study in 20 cocoa agroforests differing in woody and herbaceous vegetation diversity, with a shade index calculated from eight vegetation variables. The title places the study in West Africa.
Finding
The number of herbivore species and the rate of herbivory on cocoa pods decreased with increasing shade index. Shade index was negatively related to yield, with yield significantly higher at shade and herb covers below 50%. Higher inputs did not necessarily result in a higher net return.
Does not establish: It does not establish which shade level maximises farmer income.
Limits: Twenty farms observed, not manipulated. The abstract gives no net return figures.
Does shade always reduce cocoa yield, and could yield, certification and REDD payments together make shade-grown cocoa pay?
How
Field-based optimisation of yield against two shade metrics, canopy cover and neighbouring tree density, in a biodiversity hotspot, followed by application to the design of a certification scheme. The abstract gives no sample size or country.
Finding
Canopy cover alone suggested removing shade trees to maximise yield. Optimising also for neighbouring tree density showed a yield over 50% higher was achievable with approximately 100 shade trees per hectare planted in a spatially organised fashion. The authors add that even a 50% yield increase may prove insufficient to stop farmers converting away from traditional agroforestry.
Does not establish: It does not show that certification premiums or REDD payments have in practice raised the income of shade cocoa farmers.
Limits: A modelled optimum from one setting, not a trial in which farms were rearranged and yields measured afterwards.
How do carbon stocks, productivity and bean yield differ between unshaded, single-species shade and multi-species shade cacao?
How
Cross-sectional comparison of three co-occurring cacao cultivation systems, 3 replicate stands each, in Sulawesi, Indonesia: non-shaded monoculture, cacao with Gliricidia sepium, and cacao with several shade tree species.
Finding
Total biomass carbon stocks increased fivefold from the monoculture to the multi-shade system, from 11 to 57 Mg per hectare, and total net primary production doubled from 9 to 18 Mg C per hectare per year. Despite canopy cover rising from 50 to 93%, cacao bean yield remained invariant across the systems.
Does not establish: It does not show that shade never reduces yield. Other studies in this set report lower cocoa yield under shade.
Limits: Nine stands in one region. Existing farms were compared, so soil, age and management may differ between systems.
How do root production, cocoa yield and whole-system yield compare between cocoa monocultures and agroforestry systems?
How
Field experiment comparing five cocoa production systems: two monocultures and two agroforestry systems under conventional and organic farming, and a successional agroforestry system. Fine roots were measured at 0-25 and 25-50 cm depth. The abstract does not name the country or number of plots.
Finding
Cocoa yield was lower in the agroforestry systems, but the additional crops generated a higher system yield and aboveground biomass than the conventional cocoa monocultures. Total fine root production was 4-times higher in the agroforestry systems and the organic monoculture than in the conventional monoculture. Roots of associated trees occupied the same soil space as cocoa roots.
Does not establish: It does not show that agroforestry gives farmers more income, since prices and labour are not reported in the abstract.
Limits: One trial site. System yield counts by-crops whose value depends on local markets.
Which ways of growing cocoa in Ghana combine profit with low greenhouse gas emissions?
How
A 2021 survey of plots in Ghana's Eastern region, grouped into hybrid cocoa in full sun, hybrid cocoa under moderate shade of 13 to 25 shade trees per hectare, and older Amazonia cocoa under moderate shade.
Finding
Hybrid cocoa under moderate shade had the highest net removal of greenhouse gases, 48% above Amazonia and 127% above hybrid in full sun, and the highest and least variable value of production.
Does not establish: That adding shade trees to a given farm raises its profit.
Limits: One region and one survey year, comparing plots that differ in more than shade. The abstract as indexed is cut short.
Why shade costs yield in some places and not others. Rainfall, shade species, cocoa variety and management all differ between the studies.
Whether agroforestry pays the farmer better. One study found no clear link between profit and biodiversity and another that more inputs did not mean more net return.
How shade behaves in drought, which the climate studies show can go either way.
How long the carbon stays stored once a farm is replanted.
These are questions the studies read for this page leave unanswered. They are not a claim that nobody has answered them.
We would like to set two Google Analytics cookies to count page views, and to count them in our own cookie-free measurement as well. They do not identify you and nothing is shared with advertisers. Decline and the site works exactly the same — see cookies for what each one does.