Farmers' agronomic practices in relation to the productivity of cacao, Theobroma cacao L. in the major growing regions of Uganda

 Corresponding author: Godrey H. Kagezi Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0. Farmers’ agronomic practices in relation to the productivity of cacao, Theobroma cacao L. in the major growing regions of Uganda Godfrey H. Kagezi 1, *, Godfrey Sseremba 1, Judith Kobusinge 1, Peter Charles Apunyo 2, Veronica Twesigye 1, Gerald Kyalo 3 and Geofrey Arinaitwe 1 1 National Coffee Research Institute (NaCORI)/National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), P.O. Box 185 Mukono, Uganda. 2 Department of Crop Production and Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Busitema University. P.O Box 236 Tororo.. 3 Coffee Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), P.O Box 102, Entebbe, Uganda. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 Publication history: Received on 25 June 2025; revised on 30 July 2025; accepted on 02 August 2025 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.27.2.2369 Abstract Despite being the 3rd most important foreign earner crop in Uganda, production of cacao is only 550 kg/ha of dry beans, compared to Côte d'Ivoire (800 kg/ha) and Malaysia (1,700 kg/ha), probably due to poor agronomic and management practices, among others. We therefore visited 116 cacao growing households located in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda to assess agronomic and management practices carried out by farmers. A 50 x 50 m plot was demarcated in each household garden and 12 cacao trees were systematically sampled along two cross diagonal transects. We established the age, number of pods, level of plant and field management as well as spacing of cacao trees. Results showed that >50% of cacao trees were >20 years old, with an average of 13.1 pods per tree. Cacao trees were generally poorly managed and spaced at an average of 4.0 x 4.1m. Gardens were highly intercropped (94%) and under agroforestry (99.9%), with (89.7%) and coffee (51.7%), and, Maesopsis eminii (32.1%), being most prevalent, respectively. More than half of the gardens were moderately to highly weeded or mulched but, only 2.6 and 12.9% of the gardens had cover crops and trenches, respectively. Furthermore, the number of pods increased significantly (p≤0.05) with pruning and stumping but, decreased with age and plant density, though not significantly (p≥0.05). This information forms a baseline for developing technologies and innovations for managing these agronomic and management stresses as well as the National Cacao Research Agenda and Strategic Plan for Uganda. Keywords: Age; Agroforestry; Intercropping; Maesopsis-Eminii; Mulching; Number-Of-Pods; Pruning; Spacing; Stumping; Weeding 1. Introduction Cacao (Theobroma cacao L) is a tropical crop that belongs to the Malvaceae family and the genus Theobroma [1] and is commonly known as cacao in case of plant or cocoa when referring to products [2, 3]. The crop is native to the tropical and humid forests of the Amazon and Central America [4, 5]. Cacao is extensively cultivated for its beans, which are the primary raw material for various cocoa products particularly, chocolate, cocoa powder, and cocoa butter [6]. Cacao is one of the major agricultural commodities that are traded and consumed around the world because it provides economic benefits to producing countries, smallholder farmers cultivating the crop, and the confectionery industry by providing key raw materials [7]. Approximately, 5 to 6 million farmers grow the crop worldwide [8] and it is estimated that around 40 to 50 million people rely on its production for their livelihood [9]. Annually above 5 million tons of cocoa beans are produced worldwide, around 75% in Africa, mainly in Ivory Coast and Ghana [10]. In Uganda, cacao production has been rapidly increasing in the past 20 years [11], as shown by exports growing from World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1830 2,130 metric tons (MT) of commercial cocoa in the year 2001, to 35,000 MT in the year 2020 [12]. This trend is expected to continue due to the country’s suitable climatic conditions for cacao cultivation [13] and increasing governmental promotion efforts [14]. Due to its contribution to export earnings, cacao is one of the 10 commodities selected by the Fourth National Development Plan (NDPIV) to foster a sustainable agro-industrialization agenda in Uganda [15]. The crop is grown by 15,000-20,000 households on an estimated 20,000 ha of land with major production areas being in mid-western, central and mid-eastern regions [14, 16]. Cacao successfully grows in Uganda due to good soil and climatic conditions for cacao [17]. Furthermore, being a perennial tree crop, cacao plays many other ecological roles including atmospheric carbon sequestration and conservation of useful fauna such as pollinators and decomposers [18]. It is, therefore, a key crop in eradicating extreme poverty as well as ensuring environmental sustainability [19]. Despite its immense economic potential, cacao yields at farm level in Uganda are only 550 kg/ha of dry beans [20], compared to what is produced in countries like Côte d'Ivoire (800 kg/ha) and Malaysia (1700 kg/ha) [21]. These relatively low yields are due to a combination of factors including poor agronomic and management practices for the abiotic and biotic stresses [22]. In addition, most farmers are managing these stresses without being guided by research findings [23]. Moreso, the country lacks the socioeconomic frameworks for the cocoa sub-sector such as Cocoa Policy, National Cocoa Strategic Plan and National Cocoa Research Agenda [24]. Basing on this backdrop, we therefore hypothesized that the low cacao productivity in Uganda is attributable to suboptimal agronomic practices. As such, we conducted a field assessment with an aim of describing the agronomic characteristics of the cacao in the three (3) major cacao growing regions of Uganda. Specifically, we ascertained the agronomic practices: (i) at plant-level; (ii) at plot-level; and, (iii) in relation to cacao productivity. This information serves as a baseline for developing innovations and technologies for managing these stresses. It will also inform the necessary socio-economic frameworks for guiding the cocoa sub-sector in Uganda. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Study area The study was conducted in Uganda, located in East Africa and lies astride the Equator, between latitudes 4o12’N and 1o29’S and longitudes 29o34’W and 35o0’E. Temperatures are in the range of 15–30oC. A total of 11 districts were surveyed in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda [25, 26], including: central (Mpigi, Kayunga, Mukono and Buikwe districts), mid-eastern region (Jinja, Kamuli, Luuka and Mayuge districts) and mid-western region (Bundibugyo, Kibale and Hoima district) (Fig. 1). Figure 1 Map showing the survey districts in the major cacao growing regions of Uganda 2.2. Data collection Two (2) sub-counties were randomly selected in each of the above-mentioned districts and 116 cacao gardens (36 in central, 35 in mid-eastern and 45 in mid-western regions) selected. In each selected cacao garden, a plot measuring 50 x 50m was demarcated. At plant level, 12 cacao trees were systematically sampled along two cross diagonal transects running the full length of the demarcated plot (one running from left to right and the other one from right to left). In each diagonal, 6 cacao trees were selected every after 14 m for data collection. The age of each of the sampled cacao tree World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1831 was estimated and all the pods counted and recorded. The sampled cacao tree was further scored for the level of pruning, de-suckering and stumping [27] at a scale of 0-3, where: 0= not practicing, 1=low, 2=moderate, and, 3=high. At plot level, the spacing of the 12 sampled cacao plants was established by measuring the distance between the sampled cacao tree to the trees neighboring it – infront , behind, left and right, and then taking the average [28]. In addition, other crops in the cacao gardens were established. Then, the number of trees and shrubs (at least 1.5 m tall) apart from cacao was established and identified to species levels (where possible) in either English or scientific name [29]. Furthermore, the level of weeding, mulching, use of cover crops and trenches was also scored as: not practiced, low, medium or high. 2.3. Data analysis Descriptive and summary statistics such as means, frequencies, variances and ranges were used to analyze the data. In addition, correlation and regression analyses were performed to establish the relationship between the number of pods and the level of application of the different agronomic practices (pruning, stumping, de-suckering, age and plant density) on cacao in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software [30] was used to perform all the analyses. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Plant level practices 3.1.1. Age of the cacao trees Having knowledge of the age of cacao trees is vital as it has been reported to be one of the main factors that influence the yield [31]. Results of this study showed that on average, more than half of the cacao trees we surveyed were more than 20 years of age, particularly in mid-western Uganda where 85.6% of the cacao trees were in this category (Table 1), implying that most of the cacao trees in Uganda are relatively old. This could be attributed to the fact that historically, Bundibugyo area is one of the pioneer areas where cacao was established because of its elevation, slope and rainfall that favored growth of the crop [26, 32]. Similar results have been reported in Uganda [12] and in other countries such as Ivory Coast [33], Cameroon [34], and, East Java [35]. The old age of the cacao plants and gardens is one of the major causes of low yields in most of the cacao growing countries in Africa [22, 31, 36, 37, 38]. This is due to the biological lags inherent in perennial crops [39]. Generally, a cacao tree begins producing pods at about three years after planting, reaching full bearing capacity around the age of 10-20 years, and their output starts to diminish gradually thereafter due to loss of flower cushions and nutrient mining [40, 41, 42, 43]. In addition, old age of cacao trees has been associated with increase in incidence and damage of pests and diseases [44], such as the witches’ broom [45, 46]. Therefore, the existing old trees in farmers’ gardens, particularly in mid-western Uganda need to be rejuvenated and rehabilitated [47] or the cacao gardens need to be replanted [31, 48] so as to recover the yield performance [39, 49]. However, research shows that some farmers may be reluctant to rehabilitate their cacao trees or replant their cacao gardens if the trees can still bear some cacao pods and therefore provide some income [38]. Table 1 Age ranges of cacao trees surveyed in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda Region Mean age (years) <5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20 Central 25.0 25.0 8.1 2.8 39.1 Mid-eastern 0.2 26.2 28.3 21.0 24.3 Mid-western 2.8 8.0 3.7 0.0 85.6 Overall mean 8.9 18.8 12.5 7.2 52.7 3.1.2. Number of pods per cacao tree Determining the number of pods on a tree is one of the methods that is usually used to forecast cacao yields [50, 51]. Our results showed that the overall mean number of cacao pods recorded was 13.1, with the highest (23.1 pods) being World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1832 recorded in central and lowest (6.8 pods) in the mid-western region (Fig. 2). This could in part due to fact that cacao trees in the mid-western were generally older than in other regions [38, 39]. Similar to our finding, [25] observed that 78-92% of the local cacao varieties were producing less than 20 pods per tree in Damba Island, Mukono district, Uganda. Low numbers of cacao pods per plant have also been reported elsewhere [52, 53]. However, our overall mean number of pods is far less than the recommended good yield of 20 or more pods per tree [54]. The number of pods produced on a cacao tree depends on a number of interplaying factors such as age of the tree, genetics, environmental, pests and diseases, as well as the agronomic practices [e.g. 51, 55, 56, 57]. Nevertheless, pod count per tree is considered as one of the methods of determining when to renew cacao trees and [49] recommends that a tree having 14 or less pods should be renewed. This implies that the cacao trees in the mid-western and mideastern regions need to be renewed so as to rejuvenate their productivity [49, 58]. Figure 2 Mean number of pods recorded on cacao trees surveyed in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda 3.1.3. Level of pruning of the cacao trees Pruning is the removal of unwanted branches from a cacao tree [59]. This modifies the leaf area and therefore affect the vegetative, reproductive, and production variables [60]. Overall, most (37.7%) of the cacao plants were not pruned across all the three study areas, with the mid-western region having the highest (70%) number of unpruned cacao trees (Table 2). This finding is in agreement with [19] who observed that 80% of the cacao plants in Hoima district which is located in mid-western Uganda, were not pruned. Similarly, a baseline study conducted in Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria showed that only 1.8 and 16.6% of the cacao producers, respectively, reported that they had pruned their cacao trees [61]. Low levels of pruning of cacao plants in the mid-western region could in part be attributed to the fact that in this region, majority of the cacao trees were generally old (Table 1), implying that farmers might be experiencing challenges in accessing the tree canopies in order to prune off the old or excess branches [62]. In addition, farmers might be having limited technical knowledge and capacity to execute this practice [63], though, some of them might prefer to leave some chupons on the main branches thinking that they will produce more pods [64, 65, 66]. But also, famers in Ecuador do not usually prune tall and old cacao trees because the practice is costly (US$1 per tree) and the yield gain is marginal, making it uneconomical [67]. However, our results showed that more than 70% of the cacao trees sampled in central Uganda were highly pruned (Table 2). This finding is supported by observations made elsewhere [68, 69]. This could be in part be due to fact that cacao in central Uganda is generally younger than in the mid-western region (Table 1) and therefore easier to prune [70]. Nevertheless, pruning, which is the removal of unwanted branches (chupons or water threats/shoots) from a cacao tree [71, 72, 73, 74], reduces crowding in cacao plantations [75] by maintaining the proper shape of the cacao tree, thus, facilitating the crop management tasks [68]. Pruning also allows sunlight to penetrate through the cacao canopy, creating a warm condition which induces flowering and pods production [76. 77, 78], thus, enhancing yields [60]. It is also considered an important practice for managing cacao pests and diseases [79] such as frosty pod rot, Moniliophthor aroreri [68] and black pod, Phytoptora palmivora [80]. Pruning should therefore be considered as one of the components of a cost-effective, locally realizable pest and disease management strategy that holds potential to reduce the amount of pesticides and the associated negative effects on human health and the environment [81]. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1833 Table 2 Pruning levels of the cacao plants as observed in the three major cocoa growing regions of Uganda Region Not pruned Low Moderate High Central 8.8 4.6 9.0 77.5 Mid-eastern 23.3 53.8 21.2 1.7 Mid-western 72.0 7.0 4.3 16.7 Overall mean 37.7 20.4 10.8 31.0 3.1.4. Level of de-suckering of the cacao trees De-suckering is the removal of excess suckers or chupons from the cacao plant [70] because they take away nutrients from productive branches [82]. Our results showed that all the cacao plants were either lowly de-suckered or not desuckered at all. Overall, 54.8 and 45.2% of the sampled cacao trees were lowly de-suckered or not de-suckered, respectively, with the highest percentage (78.3%) of the trees which were not de-suckered being registered in the midwestern region (Table 3). Low level of sucker removal by farmers has also been reported in Hoima district, mid-western Uganda [19] and other cacao growing countries in Africa such as Nigeria [83]. This could in part be due to the fact that farmers might be having limited knowledge on the advantages as well as application and capacity to execute this agronomic practice [63]. But also, this practice might be time consuming and costly to the farmers, thus, making it uneconomical, though, it is commonly done in other cacao growing countries in Latin America, particularly, Ecuador and Brazil [67]. A cacao tree is usually maintained as a single stem by continuously removing all the other suckers (chupons) to prevent development of subsequent jorquettes and restricting further vertical growth [84]. In addition, this practice is one of the most commonly used cultural method for managing pests and diseases in cacao systems [85]. Research and extension should therefore encourage farmers to continuously remove these suckers or chupons from their cacao trees [86, 87]. Table 3 De-suckering levels of the cacao plants as observed in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda Region Not de-suckered Low Central 13.9 86.1 Mid-eastern 34.8 65.2 Mid-western 78.3 21.7 Overall mean 45.2 54.8 3.1.5. Level of stumping or coppicing the cacao trees Stumping or coppicing is the complete removal of the majority of the main stem of a cacao tree to encourage the regeneration of the canopy by chupon growth as well as regulating the crown shape and tree size [34, 51, 88, 89, 90]. Results of our study showed that none of the cacao plants sampled in the mid-eastern and only 3.6% of those sampled in mid-western had been stumped (Fig. 3). Our finding is in line with earlier study conducted by [91] in Ondo State, Nigeria which showed that only 1% of the farmers they interviewed has fully integrated coppicing in their cacao rehabilitation programs. Similarly, low levels of adoption by farmers of the coppicing as a technique for rehabilitating cacao has been reported elsewhere [e.g. 90, 92, 93, 94]. This low level of stumping observed in the mid-western and mid-eastern regions could in part be due to the fact that farmers might be having limited knowledge on the advantages as well as the application and capacity to execute this agronomic practice [63]. In addition, stumping or coppicing might be time consuming and costly, and, therefore, the farmers do not realize the economic gain in terms of yield [67]. Contrary, 87% of the cacao trees we sampled in the central region had been stumped (Fig. 3). Similarly, [95] reported that 70.1% of the farmers they interviewed in Boki Local Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria had knowledge of coppicing as a technique for rehabilitating old cacao trees. The high level of stumping observed in the central region could in part due to the fact that cacao trees in this region are generally young (Table 1) and therefore easier to be stumped [96]. Nevertheless, stumping or coppicing improves light penetration, stimulates the development of new buds, removes undesirable branches that compete for nutrients with productive branches, reduces pests and diseases, and enhances nutrient availability, ultimately boosting flowering and pod production [e.g. 56, 60, 76, 77, 97, 98]. This enhance yields and productivity of cacao [e.g. 99, 100, 101, 102]. There is therefore a need to sensitize the cacao farmers on rejuvenation and rehabilitation of their farms to increase been yield which will improve their standard of living and World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1834 poverty reduction [63, 102]. Figure 3 The percentage of trees stumped as observed in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda 3.2. Plot level practices 3.2.1. Spacing of the cacao trees In cacao, spacing configurations is important in maximizing yield and bean characteristics [103]. The optimum spacing between trees is the planting density which will give the greatest economic return per unit area of land [83]. Generally, the overall spacing between the sampled cacao trees (4.0 x 4.1 m) (Table 4) was bigger than the recommended spacing of 3 x 3 m in most of the cacao growing countries including Uganda [e.g. 17, 45, 83, 103, 104, 105]. This could in part be due to the fact that farmers may be lacking the technical guidance on the optimal spacing regime for maximizing profits [28], but also some of the cacao trees might have been lost due to pests and diseases [106]. Literature shows that irregular spacing and density of cacao trees are some of the main causes of low productivity of cacao in Africa [106] and in cacao, spacing configurations is important in maximizing yield and bean characteristics [103]. However, studies conducted in other countries have demonstrated superiority of high density population over the traditional low density plantings in the early years of production [45, 83. 107, 108]. Research in Uganda should therefore explore this possibility of a high planting density system during the first few years of establishment while the trees surpluses be eliminated once the plants’ canopy spread are becoming too interwoven [83]. Table 4 Cacao tree spacing observed in the three major cocoa growing regions of Uganda Region Average spacing (m) Central 3.5x3.8 Mid-eastern 4.2x4.4 Mid-western 4.2x4.0 Overall mean 4.0x4.1 3.2.2. Intercropping in cacao gardens Cacao intercropping is the practice of growing other crops and trees in the same area as cacao trees [109]. Our results showed that majority (94%) of the cacao gardens sampled in the three cacao growing regions of Uganda were intercropped (Table 5). This finding agrees with [110] who observed that over 90% of the farmers interviewed in Tanzania had intercropped their cacao with other plant species. Similarly, [111] observed that almost all the farmers he interviewed in Nigeria had intercropped their cacao with other crops with only less 1% of the farms having it as a monocrop. This emphasizes the importance farmers attach to intercropping their cacao with food and cash crops to meet both food security and income needs [67, 112]. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1835 Table 5 Percentage of cacao gardens that had intercrops in the major cocoa growing regions of Uganda Region Not intercropped Lowly Moderately Highly Central 2.8 27.8 41.7 27.8 Mid-eastern 5.7 48.6 45.7 0.0 Mid-western 8.9 42.2 20.0 28.9 Overall mean 6.0 39.7 34.5 19.8 Results of this study further showed that overall, the main intercrops in cacao gardens were: bananas (89.7%) and coffee (51.7%) (Table 6). This finding is in agreement with earlier studies which reported that 92.3% of the farmers in Bendel, Ogun and Ondo states [111] and 71.1% in Oyo State of Nigeria [113], 95.1% in Mexico [113] and >85% in Tanzania [110] had intercropped their cacao with bananas. In addition, 41.0% of the farmers sampled in Bendel, Ogun, Ondo and Oyo States of Nigeria had also intercropped their cacao with coffee [111]. However, intercropping cacao and coffee might present a challenge because they share some pests, particularly, the notorious black coffee twig borer (BCTB), Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) [19, 114. 115, 116, 117]. Furthermore, cassava was prominently observed as an intercrop in the central region (66.7%) (Table 6), agreeing with studies in Bendel, Ogun, Ondo and Oyo States as well as Osun State, Nigeria which showed that 51.3 and 39.2% of the farmers respectively, had intercropped their cacao with cassava [111, 118]. Farmers practice intercropping in order to maximize the available space to produce cacao for cash and other crops such as cassava, yams, beans for food security in their households [67, 112]. Intercropping can therefore give rise to substantial increases in yields because the component crops complement each other and make better use of environmental resources than when grown separately [119, 120]. In addition to being sources of food and cash for the households, bananas and cassava also provide shade for young cacao trees during plantation establishment [17, 113, 121, 122]. This is an effective strategy to maximize farmland utilization [121]. All in all, intercropping in cacao should be properly designed to take maximum advantage of the potential for complementarity in order to avoid or reduce completion for nutrients, light, moisture, space as well as promotion of pests and disease [123]. Table 6 Percentage of the main intercrops observed in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda Region Bananas Coffee Cassava Coco yams Vanilla Central 97.2 27.8 66.7 47.2 16.7 Mid-eastern 100.0 82.9 11.4 28.6 17.1 Mid-western 75.6 46.7 11.1 2.2 20.0 Overall mean 89.7 51.7 28.4 24.1 18.1 3.2.3. Cacao agroforestry systems Cacao (Theobroma cacao) is an understory plant [124, 125], cultivated under different cropping systems, from full-sun monocultures to multi-strata agroforestry systems [126]. Our results showed that 99.9% of the cacao gardens we sampled in the three major cacao growing region of Uganda had been inter-planted with other tree and shrub species (Table 7). Similarly, studies conducted in the western and central cacao growing regions of Uganda showed that agroforestry was widely adopted in every district sampled by [12] and almost all surveyed farmers were aware of the concepts of agroforestry. Also, 86% of the farms surveyed in southwestern Cote d’Ivoire reported that they had embraced cacao agroforestry [127]. Table 7 further shows that majority (52%) of cacao gardens had moderate to high levels of canopy cover, agreeing with [19[ who reported that 40% of the cacao gardens sampled in Bundibugyo and Hoima districts of western Uganda had moderate level of canopy cover. Optimum cacao agroforestry has been reported to improve soil fertility and structure, enhance climate resilience, sequester carbon, reduce pests, weeds and diseases, modified light infiltration, enhance moisture availability, conserve biodiversity, enhance household incomes and livelihood as well as food and nutrition needs [e.g. 128, 129 130, 131, 132, 133]. In addition, agroforestry systems have been reported to increase yield of cacao [29, 134]. Government should therefore create economic incentives in order for farmers to retain shade trees on their cacao farms [135]. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1836 Table 7 Percentage of cocoa gardens practicing agroforestry in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda Region Not practicing Lowly Moderately Highly Central 0.0 47.2 38.9 13.9 Mid-eastern 0.0 47.1 47.1 5.9 Mid-western 2.2 46.7 20.0 31.1 Overall mean 0.9 47.0 33.9 18.3 Furthermore, a total of 46 different trees and shrub species belonging to 26 families were recorded in the cacao-based agroforestry systems (Table 8), agreeing with a number of earlier studies [136, 137, 139, 139]. The most prominent families were: Moraceae (9 species), Euphorbiaceae (4 species), and, Mimosaceae, Myrtaceae and Rutaceae (3 species each), agreeing with other research studies by [136, 140, 141]. The umbrella tree, Maesopsis eminii was the most frequently (32.1%) recorded shade tree species in the cacao systems of Uganda. This has also been observed in other cacao agroforestry systems of Uganda [12, 17, 19, 46] and elsewhere [142, 143]. The popularity of this tree species is attributed to its fast growth, readily available planting materials and ease of propagation [19]. In addition, the leaves of M. eminii decompose easily and it is compatible with most of the agricultural practices [144]. M. eminii also provides additional products such as timber and firewood [145]. However, this tree species has been reported to be one of the good alternate host plant species for the Black Coffee Twig Borer (BCTB), Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff) [146, 147]. X. compactus is currently one of the major insect pests infesting cacao in Uganda [146, 147, 148] and elsewhere [114, 115, 149]. This implies that the presence of X. compactus on M. eminii inter-planted in cacao presents a dilemma in managing this pest [147]. It should be noted that three (3) of the five (5) most common tree species recorded in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda were edible fruit trees, in particular, jackfruit (10.8%), avocado (9.9%) and mango (7.2%) (Table 8). This finding supports other studies that have reported that edible fruit trees form a large proportion of tree species recorded in cacao-based agroforestry systems [136, 138, 150, 151]. This implies that farmers plant and/or retain and maintain tree species in their cacao gardens for ecological, economic, and social reasons [152, 153, 154] as well as for food and nutrition [136, 138]. Since the cacao agroforestry systems are popular in all the cacao growing regions of Uganda, research should therefore be geared towards identifying the most appropriate agroforestry tree species (including fruit trees) and spacing regimes which will not compromise cacao yields [134, 155]. Table 8 Diversity of non-cocoa tree and shrub species in the 50 x 50 m transect of cacao agroforestry in the three major cacao growing regions of Uganda English name Botanical name Family Region Central Eastern Western Total Umbrella tree Maesopsis eminii Rhamnaceae 41.3 24.8 32.5 32.1 Jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus Moraceae 5.4 12.9 13.3 10.8 Avocado Persea Americana Lauraceae 9.5 11.9 7.8 9.9 Markamia Markhamia lutea Bignoniaceae 5.7 8.8 11.0 8.6 Mango Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae 6.8 7.6 7.0 7.2 Fig tree Ficus natalensis Moraceae 6.3 3.1 4.3 4.4 Paw paw Carica papaya Caricaceae 4.6 0.0 4.5 3.9 African teak: Milicia excels Moraceae 1.9 5.7 1.5 3.3 Barbados nut Jatropha curcas Eupborbiaceae 0.3 2.9 1.8 1.8 Guava Psidium guajava Myrtaceae 3.0 1.8 0.3 1.7 African elemi, Canarium schweinfurthii Burseraceae 1.4 2.1 0.3 1.3 Silk tree Albizia chinensis Mimosaceae 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1837 Orange Citrus sinensis Rutaceae 1.1 2.5 0.0 1.3 Lightwood Albizia coriaria Mimosaceae 1.9 1.0 0.5 1.1 African tulip tree Spathodea campanulata Bignoniaceae 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.8 Golden wonder tree Senna spectabilis Caesalpiniaceae 0.5 0.2 1.8 0.8 Indian rubber tree Ficus elastic Moraceae 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.7 Lemon Citrus limon Rutaceae 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.7 Bitter leaf Vernonia amygdalina Compositae 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.6 Large-leaved Albizia Albizia grandibracteata Mimosaceae 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.6 Upas tree Antiaris toxicaria Moraceae 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.6 Caribbean pine Pinus caribaea Pinaceae 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 Horseradish tree Moringa oleifera Moringaceae 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.5 Castor bean. Ricinus communis Eupborbiaceae 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.4 Pheasant-berry Margaritaria discoideus Eupborbiaceae 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 White mulberry Morus alba Moraceae 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 Java plum Syzygium cuminii Myrtaceae 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.4 Sandpaper tree, Ficus exasperate Moraceae 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 Mucus Fig Ficus mucuso Moraceae 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 Oil palm Elaeis guineensis Palmae 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 Silky oak Grevillea robusta Proteaceae 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 Mandarin orange Citrus reticulate Rutaceae 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 African grape. Pseudospondias microcarpa Anacardiaceae 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 Cheese wood Alstonia boonei Apocynaceae 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 Eucalyptus Eucalyptus grandis Myrtaceae 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 Red-hot poker tree Erythrina abyssinica Papilionaceae 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 African cherry Prunus Africana Rosaceae 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 Soursop Annona muricata Annonaceae 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Parasol tree Polyscias fulva Araliaceae 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Terminalia Terminalia glaucescens Combretaceae 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Bitter leaf Vernonia auriculifera Compositae 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Bush nightfighter Dracaena steudneri Dracaenaceae 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Candlenut tree Aleurites moluccana Eupborbiaceae 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 Dragon's blood tree Harungana madagascariensis Guttiferae 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 Neem Azadirachta indica Meliaceae 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Punjab tree Ficus ovate Moraceae 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.2.4. Weeding Regular weeding is an important farm activity for the maintenance of cacao [156] and it improves the growth of crop [157, 158]. The majority of cacao gardens (79%) sampled in our study had been moderately to highly weeded (Table 9), implying that farmers generally weed their cacao gardens. This finding is in line with observations in a study conducted in the western region of Uganda that showed that 93.3% of the cacao gardens sampled had been moderately to highly weeded [19]. Similarly, 95 and 91% of the farmers in Ghana and Ivory Coast, respectively, reported that they World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1844 [64] Vos JGM, Ritchie BJ, Flood J. Discovery Learning about Cocoa: An Inspirational Guide for Training Facilitators. CABI Bioscience, Wallingford, UK; 2003. [65] Gockowski J, Asamoah C, David S, Gyamfi I, Adu-Kumi M. An evaluation of farmer field school induced changes in Ghanaian cocoa production. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2010 Oct; 17(3):4356. [66] Dzomeku BM, Vifa IK, Agordoku SK. Sustainable cocoa production in Ghana: A case study of farmer field school and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus. 2014 Sep; 79(2):125-131. [67] Daymond A, Mendez GM, Hadley P, Bastide P. 2022. A Global Review of Cocoa Farming Systems. University of Reading; 2022. [68] López-López LR, Waldo OB, Mario RC, Marco AII, Jose AJC. Interception of photosynthetically active on cocoa plantations in Mexico. Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences. 2016 Oct; 2(10):1-8. [69] Bymolt R, Laven A,, Tyszler M. Demystifying the cocoa sector in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Chapter 8, Cocoa production practices. The Royal Tropical Institute (KIT); 2018. [70] Tosto A, Evers, JB, Anten NPR, Zuidema PA. Branching responses to pruning in cocoa. Scientia Horticulturae. 2023 Dec; 322:112439. [71] Asare R, David S, Sonwa D. eds. Good agricultural practices for sustainable cocoa production: a guide for farmer training. Manual no. 3: Conservation and biodiversity in and around cocoa farms. Development and Environment Series 12Revised 2011. Forest and Landscape Denmark; 2009. [72] International Cocoa/Coffee Organization (ICCO). Guidelines on best known practices in the cocoa value chain. Consultative Board on the World Cocoa Economy. Nineteenth meeting, Moscow, Russia; 2009. [73] International Cocoa/Coffee Organization (ICCO). Annual Report 2016/2017; 2017. [74] Oyekale AS. Cocoa farmers’ compliance with safety precautions in spraying agrochemicals and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in Cameroon. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018 Feb; 15(2):327. [75] Asare R, David S. Good agricultural practices for sustainable cocoa production: A Guide for farmer training. Manual No 1: Planting, replanting and tree diversification in cocoa systems. Forest and landscape. Denmark and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; 2011. [76] Prawoto AA. Pruning. In: Wahyudi T, Panggabean TR, Pujiyanto, eds. Complete guide of cocoa. Management, from upstream to downstream agribusiness. Penebar Swadaya, Jakarta; 2008. [77] Prawoto AA. Improving cocoa yield and suppress pod rot disease through thinning and pruning modifications. International conference on plant physiology. Bali, Indonesia; 2015. [78] Niether W; Armengot L, Andres C, Schneider M, Gerold G. Shade trees and tree pruning alter throughfall and microclimate in cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) production systems. Annals of Forest Science. 2018; 75(2):1-16. [79] Armengot L, Riedel J, Milz J, Schneider M. Monitoring pest and diseases under different production systems in a long-term trial in Bolivia. International Symposium on Cocoa Research (ISCR), Lima, Peru; 2017. [80] Ortíz-García CF, Torres-dela Cruz M, Hernández-Mateo SC. Comparison of two systems of the cacao crop management in presence of Moniliophthora roreri in México. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana. 2015 Apr; 38(2):191196. [81] Riedel J, Kägi N, Armengot L, Schneider M. Effects of rehabilitation pruning and agroforestry on cacao tree development and yield in an older full-sun plantation. Experimental Agriculture. 2019 Feb; 55, 849-865. [82] Moriarty K, Elchinger M, Hill G, Katz J, Barnett J. Cacao intensification in Sulawesi: A green prosperity model; 2014. [83] Olufemi AK. Olatunde FA, Adewale AS, Mohammed I, Osasogie U, Efe AF, Adeyemi OF. Effect of density planting on the vigour and yield of Theobroma cacao L. in the Southwest of Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 2020 Oct; 8(1):217–223. [84] Mossu G. Cocoa. The Tropical Agriculturalist. Macmillan/CTA; 1992. [85] Bowers JH, Bailey BA, Hebbar PK, Sanogo S, Lumsden RD. The impact of plant diseases on world chocolate production. Plant Health Progress. 2001 Jul; 10.1094/PHP-2001-0709-01-RV. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1845 [86] Ghana Cocoa Board. Manual for Cocoa Extension in Ghana. CCAFS manual; 2018. [87] Chowdappa P, Elain Apshara S, Nagaraja NR, Ananda KS. Training manual on cocoa production technology. ICARCPCRI, Kasaragod, Kerala; 2018. [88] Adeyemi EA, Oloyede AA, Famaye AO, Idrisu M, Ugioro O, Nduka BA. Sustainable cacao production in Nigeria: A Rehabilitation approach. Journal of Global Agriculture and Ecology. 2017 Jul; 7(2):73-78. [89] Tade E. Papua New Guinea cocoa farmer’s handbook. PNG Cocoa and Coconut Institute, Tavilo, East New Britain Province, Papua New Guinea; 2017. [90] Akinnagbe MO. Adoption levels of cocoa rehabilitation programmes in South-west Nigeria. Pelita Perkebunan. 2020 Sep; 36(2):180-189. [91] Sina BJ, Adefemi O, Bobola PA. Econometric analysis of factors affecting the intensity of adoption of cocoa rehabilitation techniques in Ondo State, Nigeria. Agribusiness Management in Developing Nations, 2025 Feb; 3(1):1-7. [92] Adeogun SO, Olawoye JE, Akinbile LA. Information sources to cocoa farmers on cocoa rehabilitation techniques (CRTs) in selected states of Nigeria. Journal Media and Communication Studies. 2010 Jan; 2 (1):9-15. [93] Adebiyi S, Okunlola JO. Factors affecting adoption of cocoa farm rehabilitation techniques in Oyo State of Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2013; 9(3):258-265. [94] Oloyede AA, Okeniyi MO, Oluyole KA, Adedeji AR, Adebiyi S. On-Farm Evaluation of cocoa rehabilitation techniques adopted among trained cocoa farmers in south-west Nigeria. International Journal of Progressive Research in Science and Engineering. 2021 May; 2(5):1–4. [95] Akinpelu AO, Lawal JO, Ibiremo OS, Ogunwolu QA. Socio-economic factors and cocoa rehabilitation techniques among farmers in Boki, Cross River State, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Research in Crop Science. 2021 Jun; 6(4):1-6. [96] Hytönen J. Stump diameter and age affect coppicing of downy birch (Betula pubescens Ehrh.). European Journal of Forest Research. 2019 Feb; 138, 345–352. [97] Govindaraj K, Jancirani P. Effect of pruning on cocoa (Theobroma cacao L) on morphological, flowering and yield and quality of cocoa beans. International Journal of Agricultural Science Research. 2017 Dec; 7(6):113-118. [98] Susanti RA, Hadley P, Daymond A, Bastide P, Lambert S, Ingram K, Motamayor JC. The effect of pruning on photosynthetic rate of cacao trees in a novel cropping system. International symposium on cocoa research (ISCR), Lima, Peru; 2017. [99] Adenikinju SA. Observations on chupons as a tool for cacao rehabilitation. 11th international cocoa research conference, Yamousoukro, Côte d'Ivoire; 1993. [100] Olaiya AO, Hammed LA, Famaye AO. Yield evaluation of cocoa rehabilitation through coppicing. 14th international cocoa research conference. Accra, Ghana; 2003. [101] Olaiya AO, Daramola AG, Fuwape JA, Okunlola JO, Oke DS, Ajibefun I. Comparative evaluation of four cocoa rehabilitation techniques in farmers participatory approach in Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of Recent Research in Science and Technology. 2010 Jan; 2(4):64-70. [102] Adebiyi S., Uwagboe EO, Agbongiarhuoyi AE, Famuyiwa BS, Abdulkarim IF, Williams AO. Effects of coppicing on yield of cocoa pods in Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) demonstration plot. International Journal of Development Research. 2018 Jun; 8(6):20941-20944. [103] Jegadeeswari V, Vijayalatha KR, Padmadevi K, Mohanalakshmi M, Sidhdharth G, Kalaivani J. Effect of different spacing levels on yield and yield contributing characters in cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.). Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2024 May; 30(6):671–678. [104] Orozco-Aguilar L, Deheuvels O, Villalobos M, Somarriba E. El sector cacao en Centroamerica: Estado de desarrollo en el año 2007. Serie Técnica, Informe Técnico 401, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica; 2015. [105] Sonwa DJ, Weise SF, Schroth G, Janssens MJJ, Shapiro H-Y. Structure of cocoa farming systems in West and Central Africa: a review. Agroforestry Systems. 2018 Nov; 93(5):2009-2025. [106] Leitão MCC. Shade, Disease and Cocoa Production in Western Ghana – A Case Study. (MSc dissertation). Wageningen University, Netherlands; 2019. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1846 [107] Dias LAS, Santos MM, Santos AO, Almeida CMVC, Cruz CD, Carneiro PCS. Effect of planting density on yield and incidence of witches' broom disease in a young plantation of hybrid cacao trees. Experimental Agriculture. 2000 Oct; 36(4):501-508. [108] Mooleedhar V. A review of high density planting of cocoa in Trinidad and Tobago. Proceedings of international workshop on cocoa breeding for improved production systems. Trinidad and Tobago; 2003. [109] Rozita O, Nurfadzilah M, Helmi S, Boney M, Nurafiza A. The potential of cocoa integration planting systems with other economic crops: crop diversity. Malaysian Cocoa Journal. 2021 Jan; 13(2):13-26. [110] Nyomora A, Kanyeka Z, Ndunguru A. Supporting Tanzania’s cocoa farmers. Research report 12/3, Dar es Salaam, REPOA; 2012. [111] Oladokun MAO. Tree crop based agroforestry in Nigeria: a checklist of crops intercropped with cocoa. Agroforestry Systems. 1990 Sep; 11:227-241. [112] Gonzales AT, Pattung B, Sawadan R. Growth and economic potential of newly established cacao (Theobrama cacao) plantation intercropped with glutinous corn (Zea mays) and mungbean (Vigna radiata L.). Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences. 2020 May; 16(5):39-45. [113] Agbongiarhuoyi AE, Ayegboyin KO, Ogunlade MO, Orisajo SB. Farmers’ use of banana instead of plantain as shade crop in cocoa establishment: A case of Cross River State, Nigeria. World Rural Observations. 2016 Feb; 8(1):1422. [114] Delgado C, Couturier G. First record of Xylosandrus compactus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) on cocoa in Peru. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia. 2017 Jun; 43(1):121-124. [115] Asman A, Rosmana A, Purung MH, Amiruddin A, Amin N, Sjam S, Dewi VS. The occurrence of Xylosandrus compactus and its associated fungi on cacao from South Sulawesi, Indonesia: A preliminary study of an emerging threat to the cacao industry. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection. 2021 Sep; 128:303-309. [116] Nuriadi, Sjam S, Ahdin G, Vien D. The intensity of attack of Xylosandrus compactus (Coloeptera: Curculionidae) on cocoa in East Luwu Regency South Sulawesi. AIP conference proceedings; 2023. [117] Mbakania J, Bwambale BB, Sseremba G. Incidence of black coffee twig borer in selected host crops, farmer awareness and effectiveness of ecofriendly pest management practices. Journal of Research Innovation and Implications in Education. 2025 Feb; 9(1):34-153. [118] Meludu NT, Elijah B, Okanlawon OM, Olanrewaju PO. Perceived effect of agricultural transformation agenda on livelihood of cocoa farmers in Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2017 Jul; 21(12):17–29. [119] Rao MR, Morgado LB. A review of maize/beans and maize/cowpea intercrop systems in the semi-arid Northeast Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira. 1984 Feb; 19(2):179-192. [120] Natarajan M, Willey RW. Effect of row arrangement on light interception and yield in sorghum/pigeonpea intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Science, 1985 Mar; 104:263-270. [121] Ofori PA, Opoku-Agyemang F, Owusu-Nketia S. A new intercropping system for cocoa cultivation using erect cassava. Tropical Agriculture and Development. 2003 Jan; 67(2):54–59. [122] Evizal R, Prasmatiwi F. Bananas intercropping effects on cocoa yield and land productivity. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; 2024. [123] Stomph T, Dordas C, Baranger A, de Rijk J, Dong B, Evers J, Gu C, Li L, Simon J, Jensen ES, Wang Q, Wang Y, Wang Z, Xu H, Zhang C, Zhang, L, Zhang W, Bedoussac L, van der Werf W. Designing intercrops for high yield, yield stability and efficient use of resources: Are there principles?. Advances in Agronomy. 2020 Jan; 160(1):1-50. [124] Rice RA, Greenberg R. Cacao cultivation and the conservation of biological diversity. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 2000 May; 29(3):167-173. [125] Almeida A-AF, de Valle RR. Ecophysiology of the cacao tree. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2007 Dec; 19(4):425–448. [126] Manga FE, Isabelle M, Mala WA, Levang P, Ambang Z, Begoude D, Moisy C, Ngono F, Carrière SM. Cocoa-based agroforestry system dynamics and trends in the Akongo subregion of central Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems. 2021 May; 95, 843–854. [127] Kouassi J-L, Diby L, Konan D, Kouassi, A, Bene Y, Kouame C. Drivers of cocoa agroforestry adoption by smallholder farmers around the Tai National Park in southwestern Côte d'Ivoire. Scientific Reports. 2023 Aug; 13:14309. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1847 [128] Beer JW. Advantages, disadvantages and desirable characteristics of shade trees for coffee, cacao and tea. Agroforestry Systems. 1987 Mar; 5:3–13. [129] Beer JC. Harvey I, Muhammad JM, Harmand JM, Somarriba E, Jiménez F. Servicios ambientales de los sistemas agroforestales. Agroforestería en las Américas. 2003 Jan; 10(37/38):80-87. [130] Hartemink AE. Nutrient stocks, nutrient cycling, and soil changes in cocoa ecosystems: A review. Advanced in Agronomy. 2005 Dec; 86:227–253. [131] Suárez LR, Suárez Salazar JC, Casanoves F, Ngo Bieng M. Cacao agroforestry systems improve soil fertility: Comparison of soil properties between forest, cacao agroforestry systems, and pasture in the Colombian Amazon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2021 Jul; 314:107349. [132] François M, Pontes M, Silva A, Mariano-Neto E. Impacts of cacao agroforestry systems on climate change, soil conservation, and water resources: A review. Water Policy. 2023 Jun; 25(6):564–581. [133] Boadi SA, Bosselmann AS, Owusu, K, Asare R, Olwig MF. Household economics of cocoa agroforestry: costs and benefits. In: Olwig ME, Bosselmann AS, Osusu, K, eds. Agroforestry as climate change adaptation: The case of cocoa farming in Ghana. Palgrave Macmillan. London, UK; 2024, p. 121-146. [134] Asitoakor BK, Vaast, P, Ræbild A, Ravn HP, Eziah VY, Owusu K, Mensah, EO, Asare R. Selected shade tree species improved cocoa yields in low-input agroforestry systems in Ghana. Agricultural Systems, 2022 Oct; 202:103476. [135] Nunoo I, Obiri BD, Nsiah FB. From deforestation to afforestation: Evidence from cocoa agroforestry systems. XIV World Forestry Congress, Durban, South Africa; 2015. [136] Oke D, Odebiyi KA. Traditional cocoa-based agroforestry and forest species conservation in Ondo State, Nigeria. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2007 Nov; 122 (3):305-311. [137] Braga DPP, Domene F, Gandara FB. Shade trees composition and diversity in cacao agroforestry systems of southern Pará, Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems. 2019 May; 93:1409–1421. [138] Ndah NR, Lucha CF-B, Nsáalah AF. Shade tree composition, structure and management in cocoa agroforestry systems in Kumba south west region, Cameroon. International Journal of Forestry and Horticulture. 2023 Jan; 9(1):16-32. [139] Villanueva-González CE, Ruiz-Chután JA, Kalousova M, Moya RW, Villanueva C, Lojka B. Botanical diversity, structure and composition in cocoa agroforest systems in Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. Scientia Agropecuaria. 2023 Jun; 14(2):223-234. [140] Boko BB, Koulibaly A, Amon-Anoh DE, Koffi DB, M’Bo KAA, Porembski S. Farmers Influence on plant diversity conservation in traditional cocoa agroforestry systems of Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences. 2022 Jan; 6(11):1-11. [141] Sib MDOS, Kouamé YAGK, Soro S, Yeboue NL, Traore K. Importance, diversity and economic value of trees associated with cocoa trees in different agroforestry systems. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 2024 Nov; 24(2):2423-2439. [142] Hall J. Future options for Maesopsis: agroforestry asset or conservation catastrophe? In: Bongers F, Tennigkeit T. eds. Degraded forests in Eastern Africa: Management and restoration. London; 2010, p. 221-246. [143] Anglaaere LCN, Cobbina J, Sinclair FL, McDonald MA. The effect of land use systems on tree diversity: farmer preference and species composition of cocoa-based agroecosystems in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems. 2011 Jan; 81:249–265. [144] Hall JB. Maesopsis eminii and its status at Amani. Report to the East Usambara Catchment Forest Project; 1995. [145] Kalanzi F, Nansereko S. Exploration of farmers’ tree species selection for coffee agroforestry in Bukomansimbi district of Uganda. International Journal of Research on Land-use Sustainability. 2014 Jun; 1(1):9-17. [146] Kagezi GH, Kucel P, Nakibuule L, Kobusinge J, Ahumuza G, Wagoire WW. Current research status and strategic challenges on the black coffee twig borer, Xylosandrus compactus in Uganda. 2nd Scientific Conference on African Coffee, Yaounde, Cameroon; 2016. [147] Kagezi GH, Kucel P, Nakibuule L, Kobusinge J, Katondi AP, Wagoire WW. Field-based evidence of the Black Coffee Twig Borer infesting Maesopsis eminii, a common tree species in coffee agro-systems in Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2019 Jan; 19(1):15-20. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1848 [148] Kagezi GH, Kucel P, Mukasa D, van Asten P, Musoli PC, Kangire A. Preliminary report on the status and host plant utilization by the Black Coffee Twig Borer, Xylosandrus compactus (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Uganda. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Coffee Science, ASIC. San José, Costa Rica; 2013. [149] CABI Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK; 2005. [150] Gockowski J, Dury S. The economics of cocoa-fruit agroforests in southern Cameroon. International symposium on multi-strata agroforestry systems with perennial crops. Turrialba, Costa Rica; 1999. [151] Koko LK, Snoeck D, Lekadou TT, Assir AA. Cacao-fruit tree intercropping effects on cocoa yield, plant vigour and light interception in Côte d'Ivoire. Agroforestry Systems, 2013 Apr; 87:1043–1052. [152] Franzen M, Borgerhoff MM. Ecological, economic and social perspectives on cocoa production worldwide. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2007 Jun; 16:3835–3849. [153] Deheuvels O, Avelino J, Somarriba E, Malezieux E. Vegetation structure and productivity in cocoa-based agroforestry systems in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2012 Mar; 149:181– 188. [154] Caviedes Rubio DI, Parra García PE, Andrade Vargas KC. Ecological, economic and social impacts of the Colombian cocoa sector. La Granja: Revista de Ciencias de la Vida. 2024 Feb; 40(2):50-64 [155] Konaté N, Ouattara Y, Kouakou AK, Barima YSS. Effects of traditional agroforestry practices on cocoa yields in Côte d’Ivoire. Sustainability. 2024 Nov; 16(22):9927. [156] Asamoah M. The impact of agricultural credit on the adoption of recommended technologies. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research. 2015; 3(4):1165-1168. [157] Oppong FK, Osei-Bonsu K, Amoah FM, Acheampong K. Effectiveness of glyphosate in controlling weeds during cocoa establishment. Proceedings of 1st international seminar on cocoa pests and diseases. Accra, Ghana; 1995. [158] Oppong FK, Opoku-Ameyaw K, Osei-Bonsu K, Amoah FM, Brew KM, Acheampong, Oppong K. The effect of time of planting at stake on cocoa seedling survival, Ghana. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1999 Apr; 32(1):79–86. [159] Konam J, Namaliu Y, Daniel R, Guest DI. Integrated pest and disease management for sustainable cocoa production: A training manual for farmers and extension workers, 2nd edition ACIAR Monograph No. 131. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, Australia; 2011. [160] Yulianita E. Weed control techniques in plantation crops (Cocoa). Faculty of Agriculture. Padjadjaran University; 2016. [161] Kaur R, Kaur S. Strategies for integrated weed management in major pulse crops. Indian Farming, Sep 2021; 71(8):14–20. [162] Konlan S, Quaye AK, Pobee P, Amon-Armah, F, Dogbatse JA, Arthur, A, Fiakpornu R, Dogbadzi R. Effect of weed management with glyphosate on growth and early yield of young cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) in Ghana. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2019 Jul; 14(28):1229-1238. [163] Ayegboyin KO, Adejobi KB, Olaniyi OO, Adeosun, SA, Ugioro O, Idrisu M, Adeleke SA. Evaluation of herbicides and manual weed control methods in the establishment of Theobroma cacao L. in Cross River State of Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 2020 Oct; 8(1):298–306. [164] Ali ES, Sari A. Cocoa seed growth response (Theobroma cacao L.) in nurseries due to mulch giving and some watering intervals. International Journal of Economic, Technology and Social Sciences. 2021 May; 2(1):339-350. [165] Acheampong K, Daymond AJ, Adu-Yeboah P, Hadley P. Improving field establishment of cacao (Theobroma cacao) through mulching, irrigation and shading. Experimental Agriculture. 2019 Jan; 55 (8):898-912. [166] Akpalu MM, Ofosu-Budu GK, Kumaga FK, Ofori E, Oppong-Danso E. Mulching and irrigation practices on cocoa seedling survival and field establishment. Journal of Agriculture and Crops. 2020 Oct; 6(8):126-132. [167] Aboh CL, Effiong JB. Adoption of different weed management techniques among cocoa farmers in Akamkpa local government area, Cross River State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences. 2019 Apr; 25(1):7. [168] Bae H, Kim SH, Kim MS, Sicher RC, Lary D, Strem MD, Natarajan S, Bailey BA. The drought response of Theobroma cacao (cacao) and the regulation of genes involved in polyamine biosynthesis by drought and other stresses. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2008 Feb; 46(2):174-188. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1849 [169] Matković A, Božić D, Filipović V, Radanović D, Vrbničanin S, Marković, T. Mulching as a physical weed control method applicable in medicinal plants cultivations. Lekovite Sirovine. 2015 Dec; 35(1):37-51. [170] Qin W, Hu C, Oenema O. Soil mulching significantly enhances yields and water and nitrogen use efficiencies of maize and wheat: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2015 Nov; 5:16210. [171] Schmidt JE, Hasan H, Ward A, Firl AJ, Khalsa SDS. Tradeoffs among ecosystem services and microbiome impacts associated with two cover crops for cocoa in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems. 2025 Jan; 99(24):10.1007/s10457-024-01098-0. [172] Tham-Agyekum E, Ankuyi F, Boansi D, Edeafour P, Rakotomarolahy P, Prah S, Okorley E, Sharma R, Bakang J-EA. Cocoa farmers' adaptation to climate extremes in Atwima Nwabiagya north district, Ghana. Jurnal Ekonomi Pertanian dan Agribisnis. 2024 Jan; 8(1):283-297. [173] Hall H, Li Y, Comerford N, Gardini E, Cernades L, Baligar VC, Popenoe H. Cover crops alter phosphorus soil fractions and organic matter accumulation in a Peruvian cacao agroforestry system. Agroforestry Systems. 2010 Nov; 80(3):447-455. [174] [174] Sharma P, Singh A, Kahlon C, Brar A, Grover K, Dia M, Steiner R. The Role of cover crops towards sustainable soil health and agriculture - A review paper. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2018 Aug; 9(9):1935-1951. [175] Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Training manual – Good agricultural practices (GAP) guidelines; 2022. [176] Bosompem M, Kwarteng JA, Ntifo-Sraw E. Is precision Agriculture Feasible in Cocoa production in Ghana? The case of cocoa High technology programme “in the eastern region of Ghana. Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana; 2007. [177] Byamukama W, Ssemakula E, Kalibwani R. Influencing the uptake and sustainable use of soil and water conservation measures in Bubaare micro-catchment, Kabale district, south western Uganda. Journal of Environmental Health Sciences. 2019 Apr; 5(1):26-32. [178] Maghfiroh CN, Putra ETS, Dewi HSES. Root detection by resistivity imaging and physiological activity with the dead-end trench on three clones of cocoa (Theobroma cacao). Biodiversitas. 2020 May; 21(6):2794-2803. [179] Kurothe RS, Vishwakarma AK, Sena DR, Kumar G, Rao BK, Pande VC. Decision support system for contour trenching. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation. 2014 Jan; 41(2):143-153. [180] Mugisha J, Alobo S. Determinants of land management practices in the agricultural highlands of Uganda: A case of Kabale highlands in western Uganda. Ruforum 3rd biennial conference. Entebbe, Uganda; 2012. [181] Balasimha D. Efficacy of pruning in enhancing bean yield of cocoa. Journal of Plantation Crops. 2007 Sep; 35(3):201–202. [182] Daymond AJ, Prawoto A, Abdoellah S, Susilo AW, Cryer NC, Lahive F, Hadley P. Variation in Indonesian cocoa farm productivity in relation to management, environmental and edaphic factors. Experimental Agriculture. 2020 Nov; 56:738–751. [183] Tarqui-Freire O, Feintrenie L, Leandro Munoz ME, Cerda-Bustillos R, Dessauw D. Agronomic and economic performances of improved cacao clones under different agro-ecological conditions in Costa Rica. International Symposium on Cocoa Research (ISCR), Montpellier, France; 2023. [184] Díaz-José O, Aguilar-Ávila J, Rendón-Medel R, Santoyo-Cortés VH. Situación actual y perspectivas de la producción de cacao en México. Ciencia e Investigacion Agraria. 2013 May ; 40(2):279–289. [185] Adesimi AA. ‘Normal’ yields by tree ages as a basis for tree crop insurance scheme in Nigeria. Agricultural Administration. 1984; 15(4):197-203. [186] Zuidema PA, Leffelaar PA, Gerritsma W, Mommer I, Anten NPR. 2005. A physiological production model for cocoa (Theobroma cacao): Model presentation, validation and application. Agricultural Systems. 2005 May; 84(2):195225. [187] Ryan D, Bright GA, Somarriba E. Damage and yield change in cocoa crops due to harvesting of timber shade trees in Talamanca, Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems. 2009 Oct; 77(2):97-106. [188] Edwin J. Masters WA. Genetic improvement and cocoa yields in Ghana. Expérimental Agriculture. 2005 Oct; 41(4):491-503. [189] Glendinning DR. Further observations on the relationship between growth and yield in cocoa varieties. Euphytica. 1966 Feb; 15:116–127. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 27(02), 1829-1850 1850 [190] Zuidema PA, Leffelaar PA. A physiological production model for cacao: results of model simulations. Wageningen University, Netherlands; 2002. [191] Mustiga GM, Gezan SA, Phillips-Mora W, Arciniegas-Leal A, Mata-Quirós A, Motamayor JC. Phenotypic description of Theobroma cacao L. for yield and vigor traits from 34 hybrid families in Costa Rica based on the genetic basis of the parental population. Front. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018 Jun; 19(9):808. [192] Tsufac AR, Nyong PA, Bernard PKY. Assessing the determinants of soil fertility in cocoa-based (Theobroma cacao) agroforestry systems in the littoral region of Cameroon. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science, 2020 Dec; 32(17):52-60. [193] Biloa JB, Monique A, Giweta M, Fiaboe K, Nanga S, Viviane M, Essobo J, Onana A, Cargele M. Influence of cocoa farm age and slope, and shade rate on cocoa soils fertility. Environmental Challenges, 2025 Feb; 19(3):101115. [194] Rizal M, Karmawati E, Siswanto S, Trisawa I, Samsudin S, Rismayani; Rohimatun, Indriati G, Mardiningsih T, Kardinan A, Maris P, Tarigan N. A sustainable and ecological approach to integrated cocoa pest management in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2024 May; 1346(1):012021. [195] Graefe S, Meyer-Sand IF, Chauvette K, Abdulai I, Jassogne L, Vaast P, Asare R. Evaluating farmers’ knowledge of shade trees in different cocoa agro-ecological zones in Ghana. Human Ecology. 2017 Mar; 45:321–332. [196] Niether W, Jacobi J, Blaser WJ, Andres C, Armengot L. Cocoa agroforestry systems versus monocultures: a multidimensional meta-analysis. Environmental Research Letters. 2020 Oct; 15:104085. [197] Schneider M, Andres C, Trujillo G, Alcon F, Amurrios P, Perez E, Weibel F, Milz J. Cocoa and total system yields of organic and conventional agroforestry vs. monoculture systems in a long-term field trial in Bolivia. Experimental Agriculture. 2017 Aug; 53(3):351–374. [198] Abdulai I, Vaast P, Hoffmann MP, Asare R, Jassogne L, van Asten P, Rötter RP, Graefe S. Cocoa agroforestry is less resilient to sub-optimal and extreme climate than cocoa in full sun. Global Change Biology. 2018 Jan; 24(1):273– 286.