Introduction

B. M. K UMAR

6.1 Introduction

6 Native Fruit Tree Improvement in Amazonia: An Overview

C.R. C

LEMENT

,

¹

J.P. C

ORNELIUS

,

²

M.H. P

INEDO

-P

ANDURO³ AND

K. Y

UYAMA¹

1Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil;²World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), CIP, Lima, Peru;

3Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana, Iquitos, Peru

included among the environmentally friendly and economically viable options for the region. Smith et al. (1998) analysed the numerous constraints on the adoption of agroforestry, while Clement (1997) analysed those on development of underutilized fruit tree species, both of which help to explain the expansion of pasture and grains. These constraints notwithstanding, fruit crops in orchards or agroforestry systems are important in the region; as this importance increases, area, labour involvement, productivity and income generated also increase. The most important species, however, are not native to Amazonia, which is apparently an anomaly when compared with South-east Asia, the other world centre of origin of tropical fruit crops (Clement, 2004).

The majority of the fruit species used, cultivated and domesticated by Native Amazonians are indigenous to Amazonia and include at least eight domesticates, 18 semi-domesticates and 21 incipient domesticates, as well as another 33 fruit crops from other parts of Central and South America that have been domesticated to varying degrees (see Tables A6.1–A6.3). Hundreds of other species remain wild, either because they never attracted enough Native Amazonian attention or because they naturally occur in sufficient abundance to make cultivation unnecessary. Two of the Amazonian natives that are important around the world today are cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) and pineapple (Ananas comosus Merr.). Others are moderately familiar as minor fruits and agroforestry fruit tree species: peach palm (Bactris gasipaes Kunth), abiu or caimito (Pouteria caimito Radlk.), inga or ice cream bean (Inga edulis Mart.) and Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa Kunth). All of the other native fruits are of minor importance regionally, although they may be important locally. At the same time, the most important fruits in Amazonia are banana and plantains (Musa spp.), orange (Citrus sinensisOsbeck) and other citrus species, coconut (Cocos nuciferaL.), mango (Mangifera indicaL.) and several American species from outside Amazonia that had been introduced before European conquest, such as papaya (Carica papayaL.), passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims.) and avocado (Persea americanaMill.).

The small percentage of native Amazonian fruits known outside the region raises a question. Why are Amazonian fruits so often unimportant in the market?

Are the fruits to blame? Many cannot be consumed in natura. Patiño (2002) divides neotropical fruits into those that require processing and those that do not, with many more in the first category. Most have unacceptably short shelf lives. Many have strange flavours, aromas or textures that are acquired tastes.

Most are extremely variable in quality because they are seed-propagated, and only the most intensively selected come relatively true from seed. This latter point is the major problem for most fruits around the world and can be solved through appropriate improvement strategies, which is the topic of this book.

Additionally, many neotropical fruits are more like staple foods than desserts (see Table 6.1; most of the palm and starchy oily fruits), which places them at a competitive disadvantage in extra-Amazonian markets that concentrate on dessert or fresh out-of-hand fruits, although this characteristic may make them more important for food security and sovereignty at the subsistence level.

Over the last half-century there has been considerable research and development (R&D) on native American fruits implemented principally by

national agricultural research services. The primary objective has generally been to get fruit into national and international markets, rather than using it as an additional item in food security. Unfortunately, this objective has not been achieved very often. In part, this may have been because most fruits in Amazonia, especially the native fruits, are produced by family farmers, whereas the clients for R&D have been considered to be commercial farmers and agroindustry.

Additionally, international fruit markets are highly competitive and any new fruit takes market share from existing fruits because overall growth of the international fruit market is small. According to Alonso González (CIAT, 2006, personal communication) growth is currently 3% per year. However, economic growth currently averages 4–5%. Hence, new fruits must have high quality, uniformity and good price, which are difficult objectives to attain quickly, especially for family farmers. Because of globalization, national urban supermarkets follow international markets in their demands for quality, uniformity and price. The result is that rural Amazonian fruit producers compete with fruits of international standard, both imported and nationally produced, while at the same time suffering from developing-world limitations (Clement, 1997; Smith et al., 1998). In Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil, for example, apples from Argentina and Rio Grande de Sul, Brazil, are cheaper and more uniform in quality than locally produced native fruits. Consequently (and, possibly, because of local preferences), demand in supermarkets is higher for the imported fruits.

The need for improvement of native species, whether already domesticated or still wild, is clear when the objectives are the regional, national or international markets. Is the same true for species used exclusively for food security? We argue that it is, as any family farmer will market excess yields when possible, and the better the quality of fruit sent to market the more likely the family will be to receive a good price. Sale of farm produce also contributes to food security, as a considerable number of off-farm products are now part of most people’s diets even when the family is far from an urban centre.

In this chapter, we list some of the current native fruit improvement activities in Amazonia, examine two cases that contrast conventional and participatory approaches, and consider the challenges for the next decade. We concentrate on Brazilian and Peruvian Amazonia, which constitute most of the Basin and have the greatest concentration of research and development activity.

Table 6.1. Comparison of the mean chemical compositions (g/100 g)^aand energy values (kcal) of contrasting native Amazonian fruit groups. The mesocarp is generally the most important part of the palm, starchy/oily and juicy fruit groups (Clement, 2006).

Group (nspecies) Water Protein Fats Carbohydrates Fibre Energy

Nuts and seeds (8) 3.9 14.1 57.4 18.1 4.8 62.1

Palm fruits (8) 45.3 3.5 21.8 16.0 12.2 31.0

Starchy/oily fruits (8) 51.1 2.5 8.3 32.4 9.0 23.1

Juicy fruits (21) 82.8 0.9 0.8 11.9 2.9 6.3

aFresh weights; the difference between the sum of these means and 100 is due to ash content.

6.1.2 History of Amazonian agriculture

It is thought that between 12,000 and 25,000 years ago the ancestors of the Native Amazonians arrived from the north, although the exact period of immigration is not certain. Initially, these people were hunter-gatherers, but as climates changed and forests expanded during the early Holocene, the people gradually developed food production systems (Piperno and Pearsall, 1998), domesticating both landscapes and plant populations in the process (Clement, 1999). During the last 5000 years, in particular, Amazonia became a biome strongly influenced by humans, with at least 15% modified by human activities – to such an extent that these modifications are still visible today, 400 years after the demographic collapse caused by European conquest. It is probable that most of the biome was modified to some extent (Mann, 2005). Before the conquest, there were probably between 5 and 25 million people in the Amazonian biome and these people depended principally upon horticulture for their subsistence, with a significant number of fruit crops in their diet (Clement, 1999).

After the demographic collapse (AD1600–1700), Amazonia started to be repopulated, a process that accelerated during the rubber boom (1880–1915), which brought an influx of peoples from north-eastern Brazil, the Andes, Africa and Europe. After the rubber crash (1915–1916), the immigration rate slowed until the 1970s, when national efforts to integrate Amazonia into its various Nation States and their economies accelerated, financed by cheap international credit. This immigration soon led to the current worldwide concern about environmental change in Amazonia, as all of the immigrants are agricultural peoples with varying interests, knowledge and access to capital. In Brazil alone, nearly 20% of the original forest cover has been removed since the 1970s. In general, this has contributed little to regional development, and enormous areas are now in secondary forests of varying ages. The lack of contribution to regional development is mostly because the great majority of these immigrants discovered that agriculture in Amazonia is more of a challenge than expected, especially to those who have neither much knowledge (traditional or other) about the region, nor the capital to obtain knowledge and inputs readily. This discovery, in turn, caused migration within Amazonia, this time from the countryside to the cities, although other factors obviously influenced personal decisions about migration. In Brazilian Amazonia, 80% of the population is now urban, including a considerable proportion of the Native American population and the peasants who had learned horticulture from the natives, thus leaving a large proportion of recent immigrants in the countryside – precisely those with least traditional knowledge about Amazonia. This strongly influenced decisions about which fruit trees to plant, and recent R&D on fruit trees reflects these decisions.