agriculture” (p. 8) and mosaics of “various reconstitution phases.” However,
we emphasize that fallows are primarily components of an agricultural land
use system, and their ecological or forestry status as secondary vegetation or
phases in the “reconstitution” of forest in this context is, indeed, secondary.
Fallows are components of an integrated farming system in which multiple
objectives for the livelihoods of the farmers have to be met. They exist for a
number of ecological and socioeconomic reasons, among which are soil fertil-
ity restoration, erosion reduction, weed control, and opportunities to gather
products for sustaining the household. As far as forest “reconstitution” is con-
cerned, in many tropical landscapes fallows may never develop into a commu-
nity resembling the original one of the site, even if they are not subject to fur-
ther disturbance. We therefore follow Burgers et al. (2000) in defining fallow
communities as the vegetation and associated fauna that occupy land that has
been cleared for cultivation but is not currently so used, although the commu-
nity may have multiple other uses, such as the provision of firewood or non-
timber forest products. The vegetation component of the community nor-
mally is made up of plants that regenerate naturally when the land is left fallow
(we follow authors such as Spencer [1966, cited by Watters 1971] and Smith
et al. [1997, 2001] in not using the term abandonment,with its inappropriate
connotations, in reference to the transition from crop to fallow). It also con-
tains useful plants that are conserved by the farmer, whether planted or natu-
rally regenerated (jungle rubber cultivation systems are a special case here; see
Chapter 10, this volume), and remnants of agricultural crops and weeds.
Professional and popular attitudes toward shifting cultivation vary. It is one
of the major agricultural systems used by humanity, is ancient in origin and in
the context of certain levels of available technology, capital, and population
densities, and is considered by many to be a sophisticated and sustainable land
use (Nye and Greenland 1960; Watters 1971; Whitmore 1989). On the other
hand, the fact that shifting cultivation leads to the replacement of natural
communities by anthropogenic ones means it is often identified as a major
cause of habitat destruction and biodiversity loss in the tropics (Myers 1980),
although other opinions have recently emerged (Brown and Schreckenberg
1998). The growing consensus that tropical biodiversity conservation can no
longer be centered solely on protected areas, but will entail action in all land
use types across landscapes and regions (Western and Pearl 1989; Aide 2000),
makes an analysis of shifting cultivation necessary in the context of the pres-
ent book.
From many points of view, including that of biodiversity maintenance and
generation, it is important not to confuse shifting cultivators who have lived
for a long time in a region (established shifting cultivation sensuConklin,
called “traditional” in this chapter) and recent immigrant shifting cultivators
(pioneer shifting cultivation sensuConklin). Traditional shifting cultivation is
itinerant, thus temporary on any given patch of land, and is strongly but not
154 III. The Biodiversity of Agroforestry Systems