Effect of Blue Agave ( Agave tequilana Weber) Management on Soil Erosion

Abstract

The expansion of blue agave (Agave tequilana Weber) plantations beyond the plant’s original distribution range in the state of Jalisco, Mexico, has caused a drastic change in land use and crop patterns, exerting pressure on natural resources. This study originated based on a request from landowners who leased their land to a tequila company to grow agave in the municipality of Autlán. Therefore, this study records the effect of crop management on the degradation of non-renewable soil and water resources in plots conventionally managed by the company compared to the one managed by a private owner The sampling unit was 2 m × 5 m runoff lots, with a repetition and a control lot (without vegetation cover) with a 6% slope. Sampling was carried out in the rainy season from July to October, 2020. The results showed different behavior between repetitions. Total sediment yield in the farmer’s plot was 9.260 t ha⁻¹ and in its control 6.844 t ha⁻¹ versus the company’s plot of 13.796 t ha⁻¹ and its control 5.233 t ha⁻¹. These values reflect an increase in soil loss by 26% and 62%, respectively, due to management effects. The difference between sites is due in part to the different rainfall intensities and distribution of recorded rainfall separates the two sites. Given these results, there is a lack of knowledge of the impact of crop management on soil degradation by companies and farmers who lease or plant blue agave, in addition to the absence of a sustainable project that considers the conservation of soil and water, based on agronomic and cultural measures before, during, and after the harvest season by the municipality and state authorities and the agave-tequila companies.

Keywords

Soil loss blue agave—tequila management practices runoff rainfall

Introduction

Much of the pressure exerted on natural resources results from the expansion of the agricultural frontier by converting forest to pasture or hillside agricultural land, hindering the implementation of conservation programs (Barral et al., 2020). On hillsides, constant land use change has caused soil loss due to increased runoff and sediments from deforested areas dedicated to rainfed agriculture (Borrelli et al., 2020; Rivera-Ruiz et al., 2012). Soil erosion caused by runoff water, if not prevented by adequately managing soil and plant cover, creates or expands gullies in the agricultural landscape (Chuma et al., 2021). Besides losing soil, edaphic biodiversity, organic matter and nutrients, erosion causes long-term off-site effects (Osman, 2014).

In central Mexico, terminal efficiency for the control of runoff and soil erosion is 40% in tilled crops and 62% in cover crops (Rivera-Ruiz et al., 2012). In southern China, runoff and soil erosion in forest areas decreased by 44.7% and 43.7%; in orchards the reduction was 61.1% and 68.6%, compared to an increase of runoff and sediment yield in agricultural areas by 52.2% and 42.6%, and by 48.8% and 29.6% for fallow soils (Zhang et al., 2015). The effect of land use change and loss of native vegetation is framed in the extensive advance of agriculture over other types of vegetation cover, which also involves population and production dynamics (Antonio-Némiga et al., 2006).

In the areas where blue agave (Agave tequilana Weber) is planted, extensive land use conversion has been driven by the international Designation of Origin of Tequila (DOT; Diario Oficial de la Federación, 1997). The DOT recognized the exclusive geographical region where blue agave can be cultivated for tequila production, which comprises all 125 municipalities in the state of Jalisco, 29 municipalities in Michoacán, 11 in Tamaulipas, 8 in Nayarit, and 6 in Guanajuato. In these five states, 108,777.8 ha are planted with agave—83.7% of Mexico’s total crop. The remaining 16.3% is cultivated in 27 other states. Based on records from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development ( Secretaria de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, 2020), blue agave represents 0.72% of the 18 million hectares destined for agriculture in the country. In the state of Jalisco, with 68% of the total DOT area, 6.8% is cultivated in the region known as Sierra de Amula, where the municipalities of Tonaya (24.5%), Tuxcacuesco (14.9%), and Autlán de Navarro (14.7%) have the largest area dedicated to agave plantations.

In Sierra de Amula, the expansion of blue agave was incentivized by the high prices of raw materials, constant deficit and demand cycles, and specific financing programs. Thus, this crop has displaced native seasonally dry tropical forest cover, which resulted in soils with high erodibility (R. L. M. Martínez et al., 2007). Expansion was also accelerated by a lack of knowledge about the plant’s growth patterns and the edaphic conditions in which they develop, which slowed the transfer of technology needed to maximize yields (Álvarez-Sánchez et al., 2010). This situation encourages farmers to lease their smallholdings promoting monocultures, with the resulting environmental costs (Herrera-Pérez et al., 2018) and the disappearance of agroecological practices, such as intercropping and crop rotation (Herrera-Pérez et al., 2017). In addition, by the end of the last century, pests and diseases exerted pressure on the production of blue agave in its traditional area in N and NE Jalisco, forcing tequila companies to search for suitable areas in other regions of the state. By 2002, the prices of raw blue agave increased from 750.00 to 17,000.00 Mexican pesos ton; this led to an exponential increase in the area planted with blue agave in the Sierra de Amula and Costa Sur regions in SW Jalisco, as well as in the number of farmers willing to plant this crop (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, 2003). This situation has led farmers and ejidatarios (name given in Mexico to define smallholding farmers that live and work in communal lands, or ejidos), to either replace maize, green agave, or pastures in hillsides, and more recently sugar cane in valleys, with blue agave on their own. Moreover, they have modified their traditional farming techniques by imitating the agave-tequila companies’ management model, or have leased their lands without decision-making possibilities (Bowen & Gerritsen, 2007; Navarro et al., 2006) to company-hired agave growers who do not know, or care, about the real impact this management has on the soil.

In addition to the projects undertaken in the original area of distribution of agave in Jalisco (e.g. Bowen & Zapata, 2009; Herrera-Pérez et al., 2017, 2018), the last two decades have seen an increase in the number of studies done in the Sierra de Amula region related to blue agave expansion (e.g. Fregoso-Zamorano et al., 2023; Gerritsen et al., 2011; Guevara et al., 2012; R. L. M. Martínez et al., 2007; Moreno et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Contreras et al., 2017; Rulfo et al., 2007). Despite the growing number of projects, the present study is the first one that aims to quantify and compare the erosive effect between plots managed conventionally by a commercial agave-tequila grower with plots managed by a local farmer. It is also the first study in the municipality of Autlán de Navarro, where blue agave plantations are rapidly expanding, replacing both native tropical dry forest in hill slopes, and other commercial crops such as sugar cane and corn, in the flat irrigated valley.

Site Description

The study was carried out in the municipality of Autlán de Navarro, in the state of Jalisco, Mexico (Figure 1). Two plots planted with blue agave in soils with no vegetation cover were selected on 6% slope terrains close to tropical dry forest, which is the dominant native vegetation type (Figure 2). One was located in Ejido El Corcovado (19°50′09″–19°50′16″N; 104°17′49″–104°18′03″W) and managed by a large tequila company (L-cia). The second one, managed by a local ejidatario (L-agr), was located in Ejido Rincón de Guanajuato (19°47′28″–19°47′29″N; 104°04′–104°20′08″W). The climate in this region is warm semi-arid BS₁(h′)w(i)w″ (L. M. R. Martínez et al., 1991). The soil type is haplic phaeozem (Mantel et al., 2023), of medium texture, mineral soil, rich in organic matter, dark color, homogeneous physiographic conditions. Both plots had no vegetation cover and were very similar in soil structure and gradient.

Figure 1.

Location of the study plots, Municipality of Autlan de Navarro, Jalisco-Mexico.

Figure 2.

Plot managed conventionally (L-cia) with a metal sheet and tank to capture runoff and sediments, and plot managed by farmer (L-agr). No visual differences between them.

Methods

Rainfall was recorded using wedge rain gauges installed in the plots. Surface runoff and soil loss were measured by installing 2 m wide by 5 m long runoff lot, as a complementary alternative to understanding the use and management of the soil. A 40 cm wide galvanized metal sheet was inserted vertically 15 cm into the soil around the contour of each runoff lot, and a 220-L tank was placed at the lower-elevation end of the runoff lot to catch runoff water and suspended sediments (Figure 3). After each rain event that caused runoff, the water level in the tanks was measured to determine the total volume of water captured. A control plot with the same measures, soil characteristics and slope, but with no blue agave plants to emulate deforestation, was established next to each site to monitor run-off and sediment yield (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Control plot with galvanized metal device and water tank (left); sampling of water taken from the tank. Municipality of Autlán de Navarro, Jalisco-Mexico.

Statistical analysis

A one-liter sample of runoff water taken from the tank to obtain sediment weight using a WHATMAN 5:2.5 μm filter paper, oven-dried at 100°C for 24 hours, and weighed in the laboratory. Rainfall records were plotted in relation to runoff and estimated soil loss. A polynomial regression analysis was selected to quantify the correlation between these variables, once the best linear equation was selected to obtain the best data fit. Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS statistical package (SAS Institute, 2021) was applied to determine differences between each plot and its control.

Results

Rainfall was distributed from June to October, with torrential rains and maximum rainfall amounts in September and July. The rainfall that generated runoff in L-cia was 259.5 mm distributed in 14 events, leading to an estimated water runoff total of 1.271 m³ and 13.796 t ha⁻¹ of soil loss. At its control lot, there was 0.548 m³ of runoff and 5.233 t ha⁻¹ of soil loss—57% and 62% lower volume of water and soil loss compared to the L-cia crop plot. In L-agr, rainfall was 201.4 mm distributed in 10 events, producing a runoff volume of 0.994 m³ and soil loss of 9.3 t ha⁻¹ in the crop plot and 0.695 m³ of water runoff and 8.8 t ha⁻¹ of soil loss in its control lot (Figure 4); the water and soil runoff values in the control lot were 30.1% and 5.4% lower than in the L-agr crop plot. All the values are summarized in Table 1. In both plots, September had the highest rainfall and runoff values, accounting for 45.5% and 63% of the total soil loss during the rainy season.

Figure 4.

Monthly values of variables measured in crop and control plots.

Table 1.

Summarized Soil Loss Values Obtained in the Two Blue Agave Plots With Different Management.

	Farmer’s lot (L-agr)		Company’s lot (L-cia)
	Plot	Control	Plot	Control
Runoff (m³)	0.994	0.695	1.271	0.548
Soil loss (t ha⁻¹)	9.3	8.8	13.796	5.233
Rainfall (mm)	201.4	201.4	259.5	259.5

Regression analysis showed a statistically significant relationship between variables (Figures 5 and 6). As median values between plots were variable, a one-way non-parametric ANOVA analysis was applied with two degrees of freedom showing significant differences (p < .001). Tukey tests were also applied to identify differences between multiple group means (Table 2).

Figure 5.

L-agr correlation prediction models for a) runoff-rainfall; b) soil loss-rainfall; c) soil loss runoff.

Figure 6.

L-cia correlation prediction models for a) runoff-rainfall; b) soil loss-rainfall; c) soil loss runoff.

Table 2.

L-Agr Pairwise Multiple Comparison (Tukey Test).

Comparison	Diff of ranks	q	p < .05
Control
Rainfall vs. runoff	198	7.112	Yes
Rainfall vs. soil L.	102	3.664	Yes
Soil L. vs. runoff	96	3.448	Yes
Control
Rainfall vs. runoff	176	6.322	Yes
Rainfall vs. soil L.	124	4.454	Yes
Soil L. vs. runoff	52	1.868

The observed alterations between variables for L-cia considering the median values for crop and control groups were of 12.5 for rainfall, 0.063 and 0.02 for drained volume, and soil loss of 0.36 and 0.058. With H = 31,067 for crop and H = 28,503 with two degrees of freedom and significant differences with p < .001 (Table 3).

Table 3.

L-cia Pairwise Multiple Comparisons (Tukey Test).

Comparison	Diff of ranks	q	p < .05
Crop
Rainfall vs. runoff	356.5	7.767	Yes
Rainfall vs. soil L.	231.5	5.043	Yes
Soil L. vs. runoff	125	2.723	No
Control
Rainfall vs. runoff	322.5	7.026	Yes
Rainfall vs. soil L.	265.5	5.784	Yes
Soil L. vs. runoff	57	1.242	No

Discussion

Contrast between management practices

Tropical dry forests are among the most biodiverse and threatened ecosystems worldwide, with Mexico having almost 40% of the total extent (Portillo-Quintero & Sánchez-Azofeifa, 2010) but with high rates of land conversion to cropland and pastures (Cotler & Ortega-Larrocea, 2006). In contrast to the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, usually not acknowledged by local actors, soil erosion and deforestation are the most commonly recognized impacts (Arroyo-Lambaer et al., 2021; González-Morales et al., 2018). Blue agave cultivation in two municipalities from the Sierra de Amula started in 1994 (R. L. M. Martínez et al., 2007) and expanded in 1996 to cover the whole region (Gerritsen et al., 2011). Tropical dry forests in the hillside are the main ecosystems converted into agave cultures in Sierra de Amula, so the overall benefits provided by these forests are diminishing (Bakhshandeh et al., 2019; Barreto-García et al., 2018; Fregoso-Zamorano et al., 2023; Portillo-Quintero et al., 2015). Not only ecosystem services and resources are lost, but soil erosion drastically reduces the resilience that characterizes these ecosystems (Flores et al., 2020).

In SW Jalisco, ejidatarios and farmers have historically cultivated other varieties of agave since 1845, mostly green agave (A. angustifolia), in a less environmentally aggressive way to distill other products known as “Licor de Agave” (Gerritsen et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Contreras et al., 2017). The establishment of blue agave was considered an important agricultural achievement, possibly due to the high number of leased plots and the large percentage of private owners (Gerritsen et al., 2011). In the region, green and blue agave fields using soil conservation practices can still be seen (Figure 7), although most new plantations are managed using conventional unsustainable high-input, high-yield technology to fertilize and control pests and diseases (Herrera-Pérez et al., 2018; R. L. M. Martínez et al., 2007. In a conventional blue agave monoculture agrosystem, at least 60% of the farmers use agroecological practices and, among them, 80% use contour planting (Herrera-Pérez et al., 2017). However, in spite of the use of these alternative practices, there is a lack of understanding of how agave should be managed to reduce the soil’s degradation process, as not every alternative practice known to reduce soil runoff will decrease erosive rates in this particular crop (Guevara et al., 2012). Therefore, the management practices employed in blue agave plantations in the Sierra de Amula region of the state of Jalisco are identified as unsustainable (Moreno et al., 2011). Sadly, the stories of ecosystem degradation in the regions within and out of the state of Jalisco, where blue agave is planted conventionally, are similar and increasing in numbers (Tena-Meza et al., 2018, 2023).

Figure 7.

Blue (right) and green agave grown with soil conservation practices: native cacti and grasses (blue) or mulch (green) between furrows. Sierra de Amula, Jalisco-Mexico.

Crop management and soil loss

Our findings of higher erosion values in control plots under both management conditions were unexpected, as we had expected control plots with no vegetation cover to have higher water and soil runoff values than crops with agave plants. These results are similar to those presented by Flores-Lopez et al. (2013) in NE Jalisco, where erosion values were similar in blue agave and bare soil. In L-cia, the type of erosion observed is laminar and in furrows, and the erosion class is moderate to strong, with a soil loss range of 10 to 25 t ha⁻¹ per year. Although erosion in L-agr is light to moderate, it also has a very serious degradation speed (FAO, 1984). In agave plots and those with bare soil the accumulation of erosion was very similar, with a close relationship of soil loss with rainfall events during the study period. This implies the need for constant protection throughout the agave rainfall cycle, but particularly in the initial years of the crop and when it is first planted. Assuming that the soil loss values obtained in this study (Table 1) remain the same, we estimate a total soil loss in the six-year period needed to harvest the agave of 50 to 80 t ha⁻¹. Moreover, agave in the region is planted on slopes with 15% gradient on average; our study plots had a 6% slope. Thus, a more thorough study is required as runoff and soil loss in the region are probably higher, as bare ground between furrows and deep gullies are becoming part of the landscape (Figure 8).

Figure 8.

Deep gullies that result from no soil cover and slope gradient are becoming more frequent in conventional agave plantations in Sierra de Amula Region, Jalisco-Mexico.

In regards to the characteristics of a rainstorm and its influence on the erosion process, Mohamadi and Kavian (2015) report a linear relationship between low rainfall intensity and soil loss, but a nonlinear relationship for high-intensity storms. However, when high storm intensity is coupled with short storm duration, runoff and soil loss are further increased. Rainfall, runoff volume, and soil loss show correlations of R² > .5, results that not necessarily follow rainfall record trends (Flores-Lopez et al., 2013), but explain the increments in soil loss favored by crop agronomic and cultural management. These conditions, high storm intensity with a short duration are occurring more frequently in our study region, and the lack a conservation management, might explain the soil loss values in our control plots.

Crop management is believed to be the main explanation of these results, as the use of a non-selective systemic weed killer (i.e. Glyphosate) applied between furrows and mixed with a commonly used sealer keeps the soil between furrows completely bare. In addition, it is common that during the first years of the crop’s development, the soil is loosened by hoeing to “wrap” the plants, which was not done in the control lots, where the ground was never moved and retained traces of secondary vegetation, which reduces runoff and facilitates infiltration. This response is influenced by the plant’s morphological characteristics, rainstorms erosive properties, and soil management (Flores-Lopez et al., 2013). In agricultural soils, this property, known as repellency, is reduced or nonexistent when the soil is tilled or treated with herbicides (Bodí et al., 2012); this exacerbates soil degradation, sediment production and runoff volume as planting crops without associated coverage promotes the erosion process (Castelán Vega et al., 2017). Thus, differences in sediment flow result from soil movement, increasing the possibility of erosion (Rivera-Ruiz et al., 2012). These management activities disrupt the structure and micro-topography of soil, which together with the kinetic energy produced by the impact of the rainfall and the friction of surface runoff, increase particle scavenging and soil erosion, regardless of the use of contour planting when this is the only conservation practice applied to mitigate the erosive process. The overall result is the formation of small channels between furrows, the accumulation of sediments along the furrows and, eventually, the formation of gullies.

Years after the first wave of blue agave plantations were planted in the region, bare soils and gullies became part of the blue agave landscape. Both companies and farmers apparently do not care about this fact. Converting tropical forest, considered by many as idle or wasteland, into pasture or cropland, particularly agave, is profitable. Landowners do not easily get money for conserving forests, but will get money for agave, despite the per kilo price fluctuations that result of excessive supply or shortage of the agave hearts needed for tequila production (Tena-Meza et al., 2018). For instance, at the beginning of 2023 companies would buy the agave hearts at 23.00 Mexican pesos a kilogram; by the end of this year, the price was between 10 and 12.00 pesos. On average, an agave heart weighs 40 kg, and 300 plants are harvested by ha. In 6 years, an average return would be around 120,000 pesos/ha. These numbers can easily convince a farmer to plant agave, as less time and hard work are required in contrast to other agricultural products, or by conserving “idle” forests.

Finally, the government of Jalisco and the Tequila Regulating Council (Consejo Regulador del Tequila, 2021) recently created the certification named as Agave Responsable Ambiental ARA, “Environmentally Responsible Agave” to encourage sustainability and reduce the environmental footprint derived from agave cultivation. It certifies that tequila was made with agaves planted in plots that have not caused deforestation. This was established as an industry self-regulation measure and as an action to stop deforestation in compliance with the federal General Law of Sustainable Forest Development (LGDFS). However, agave growers are not obliged to register their agave plantations with the CRT (Tena-Meza et al., 2018), nor inform about their management techniques. In Sierra de Amula, blue agave growers sell their harvested agave hearts with the “assistance” of intermediaries, who resell them to the Tequila companies. This could explain the reason why the “small omission” of cultivating the agave in recently deforested areas continues and has not been penalized.

Agricultural production in the state of Jalisco has developed and expanded rapidly in the last decade, reason why it is now known as Mexico’s agrifood giant (Padilla, 2017). Among the many cultivated products in which Jalisco is the leader, the three most important market-oriented crops are blue agave for tequila production, avocado, and berries. These have not only transformed the landscape, but are also known for their negative environmental impacts, with agave and avocado being the main sources of deforestation in the state (Santana Castellón & Graf Montero, 2019).

Aside from needing more detailed research in the region on the ecological impacts of conventionally growing agave, such as erosion impact and edaphic biodiversity loss, it is urgent to promote the importance of conserving tropical dry forests among farmers and people in general. Additionally, workshops intended in promoting conservation measures are quite relevant, as the farmers that knew and implemented them are being replaced by younger farmers who are not necessarily acquainted with them. It is also important to promote actions to protect this ecosystem through the implementation of the Mexican laws created to reduce deforestation and loss of biodiversity, as well as those created to ensure better wages and security to agricultural workers. With the boom of tequila, Lastly, but not less important, tequila and other agave liquors are part of Mexican culture, and some tequila companies are promoting environmental responsibility in the production of their liquors. Therefore, international and national tequila consumers should be targeted with more information about the unsustainable practices promoted by some companies and highlight the names of those that are buying agave from growers who try conserving the environment. Sustainable consumption is known to force unsustainable practices sustainable (Ribeiro et al., 2019), thus it can promote green purchase among young tequila consumers.

Limitations of This Study

It is important to highlight that the results here present limitations that should be considered, being the lack of replications and the length of the study the main ones. This study started when five ejidatarios asked us to monitor soil loss in their lands that had been leased for blue agave cultivation. Before beginning field work, four of them backed out as they considered that if the tequila company discovered that unauthorized research work was being carried out, it could block the purchase of the harvested agave hearts.

Conclusions

This is the first study aiming to relate rainfall, runoff, soil erosion, and management in blue agave plantations in SW Jalisco. It is confirmed that rainfall cycle’s erosive effect combined with an inadequate conservation management on blue agave plantations increases the soil’s vulnerability to the impact of rainfall. The impact could be seen starting with a short precipitation of 5.7 mm (around 15 minutes) as well as the superficial runoff friction.

It is confirmed that soil and crop management are factors that increase the degradation processes of soil and water, the deterioration seen throughout the municipality and all areas with blue agave plantations under the same management scheme. This degraded condition will prevail for at least the six years required for the plant to grow and reach its maturity.

A lack of knowledge, or interest, or both, has been observed from companies and farmers about crop management and its impact on soil degradation. On the other hand, there is an absence of a comprehensive project to consider sustainability as a strategy for the conservation of soil and water, based on agronomic and cultural responsible measures before, during, and after the “jima” (name received when the agave heart is extracted) of the crop, to be adopted by farmers, municipal, and state authorities, and agave-tequila companies.

Despite the fact that laws, policies, and incentives have been enacted and created to reduce deforestation to increase agave plantations for tequila production, there is a need for more interest and participation of the different actors involved in tequila production and consumption. This would certainly result in policies for a better environment and a “greener” tequila.

Determining the soil’s susceptibility through variable correlations will permit the creation of a model in which one can determine the existing relations between the soil’s degradation process and the spatial distribution in those regions where blue agave is planted. Nonetheless, more research is needed to reduce soil’s erosion and degradation with the aim of promoting better and more sustainable agricultural practices.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Rubén D. Guevara-Gutierrez: research, methodology, data analysis, and original draft writing. Carlos Palomera-Garcia: conceptualization, bibliographical search, translation to English and editing. José Luis Olguín-López responsible of erosive process estimation and statistical analysis. Oscar Raúl Mancilla-Villa co-responsible of erosive process estimation, field data analysis, and validation. Manuel Pio Rosales: project design and statistical analysis. Oscar Arturo Barreto-García responsible of field work and data collection and support in draft revision and writing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Carlos Palomera-Garcia

References

Álvarez-Sánchez

M. E.

Velázquez-Mendoza

Maldonado-Torres

Almaguer-Vargas

Solano-Agama

A. L.

(2010). Diagnóstico de la fertilidad y requerimiento de cal de suelos cultivados con agave azul (Agave tequilana Weber). Terra Latinoamericana, 28, 287–293.

Antonio-Némiga

Treviño-Garza

E. J.

Jiménez-Pérez

Villalón-Mendoza

Návar-Cháidez

J. J.

(2006). Cambios en la vegetación en la subcuenca el río Pilón, Nuevo León, México. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 12(1), 5–11.

Arroyo-Lambaer

Uscanga

Pina Tejeda

V. M.

Vázquez-Barrios

Reverchon

Rosell

J. A.

Escalante

A. E.

Peña-Ramírez

V. M.

Benítez

Wegier

(2021). Cognitive maps across multiple social sectors: Shared and unique perceptions on the quality of agricultural soils in Mexico. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 522661.

Bakhshandeh

Hossieni

Zeraatpisheh

Francaviglia

(2019). Land use change effects on soil quality and biological fertility: A case study in northern Iran. European Journal of Soil Biology, 95, 103119.

Barral

M. P.

Villarino

Levers

Baumann

Kuemmerle

Mastrangelo

(2020). Widespread and major losses in multiple ecosystem services as a result of agricultural expansion in the Argentine Chaco. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(12), 2485–2498.

Barreto-García

O. A.

Guevara-Gutierrez

R. D.

Olguin-Lopez

J. L.

Mancilla-Villa

O. R.

Medina-Valdovinos

E. K.

Murillo-Hernandez

J. E.

(2018). Macroinvertebrados de hojarasca y suelo en selva baja caducifolia y zonas perturbadas. IDESIA, 36(1),105–113.

Bodí

M. B.

Cerdà

Mataix-Solera

Doerr

S. H.

(2012). Repelencia al agua en suelo forestales por incendios y en suelo agrícolas bajo distintos manejos y abandono”. Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica, 38(2), 53–74.

Borrelli

Robinson

D. A.

Panagos

Lugato

Yang

J. E.

Alewell

Wuepper

Montanarella

Ballabio

(2020). Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015–2070). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(36), 21994–22001.

Bowen

Gerritsen

P. R.

(2007). Reverse leasing and power dynamics among blue agave farmers in western Mexico. Agriculture and Human Values, 24, 473–488.

10.

Bowen

Zapata

A. V.

(2009). Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: The case of tequila. Journal of rural studies, 25(1), 108–119.

11.

Castelán Vega

López Texola

L. C.

Tamariz

F. J. V.

Linares-Fleites

Cruz Montalvo

. (2017). Erosión y pérdida de nutrientes en diferentes sistemas agrícolas de una microcuenca en la zona periurbana de la ciudad de Puebla, México”. Terra Latinoamericana 35(3), 229–235.

12.

Chuma

G. B.

Mondo

J. M.

Ndeko

A. B.

Mugumaarhahama

Bagula

E. M.

Blaise

Valérie

Jacques

Karume

Mushagalusa

G. N.

(2021). Forest cover affects gully expansion at the tropical watershed scale: Case study of Luzinzi in Eastern DR Congo. Trees, Forests and People, 4, 100083.

13.

Cotler

Ortega-Larrocea

M. P.

(2006). Effects of land use on soil erosion in a tropical dry forest ecosystem, Chamela watershed, Mexico. Catena, 65(2), 107–117.

14.

Consejo Regulador del Tequila. (2021). Gobierno de Jalisco y Agroindustria tequilera refuerzan acciones por la sustentabilidad del sector en: Agave Responsable Ambiental. https://www.crt.org.mx

15.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. (1997). NOM-006-SCFI Bebidas alcohólicas – Tequila – Especificaciones con motivo de la declaración general de protección a la Denominación de Origen “Tequila”. Retrieved September 3, 1997, from https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4893152&fecha=03/09/1997#gsc.tab=0

16.

FAO. (1984). Metodología provisional para la evaluación y la representación cartográfica de la desertización.

17.

Flores

B. M.

Staal

Jakovac

C. C.

Hirota

Holmgren

Oliveira

R. S.

(2020). Soil erosion as a resilience drain in disturbed tropical forests. Plant and Soil, 450, 11–25.

18.

Flores-Lopez

H. E.

de la Mora

Ruíz-Corral

J. A.

Chávez-Duran

A. A.

(2013). Efecto de la cobertura de suelo de tres cultivos sobre la erosión hídrica. Revista Chapingo Serie Zonas Áridas. XII(1), 19–25.

19.

Fregoso-Zamorano

B. E.

Mancilla-Villa

O. R.

Guevara-Gutiérrez

R. D.

Moreno-Hernández

Figueroa-Bautista

Can-Chulim

Á.

Hernández-Vargas

Cruz-Crespo

Ortega-Escobar

H. M.

Khalil Gardezi

Villalvazo-López

V. M.

(2023). Edaphological characterization in a blue agave (Agave tequilana Weber) cultivation in Tonaya and Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco, Mexico. Terra Latinoamericana, 41, 1–14.

20.

Gerritsen

P. R. W.

Rosales

A. J. J.

Moreno

H. A.

Martínez

L. M. R.

(2011). Agave azul y el desarrollo sustentable en la cuenca baja del río Ayuquila, Costa Sur de Jalisco (1994–2004). Región y sociedad, 23(51), 161–192.

21.

González-Morales

S. B.

Mayer

Ramírez-Marcial

(2018). Assessment of soil erosion vulnerability in the heavily populated and ecologically fragile communities in Motozintla de Mendoza, Chiapas, Mexico. Solid Earth, 9(3), 745–757.

22.

Guevara

G. R. D.

Pelayo

Miramontes

C. A. I.

(2012). Agave azul, distribución e impacto sobre la frontera forestal: evaluación bajo la perspectiva ambiental del desarrollo sustentable (p. 100). Editorial Académica Española.

23.

Herrera-Pérez

Juárez-Sanchez

J. P.

Ramírez-Valverde

(2018). Estrategias de producción campesina en Agave tequilana en el municipio de Tequila, Jalisco. Revista de Geografía Agrícola, 61, 39–65.

24.

Herrera-Pérez

Valtierra-Pacheco

Ocampo-Fletes

Tornero-Campante

M. A.

Hernández-Plascencia

J. A.

Rodríguez-Macías

(2017). Prácticas agroecológicas en Agave tequilana Weber bajo dos sistemas de cultivo en Tequila, Jalisco. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 8(18), 3713–3726.

25.

Mantel

Dondeyne

Deckers

(2023). World reference base for soil resources (WRB). In J. Michael (Ed.), Goss, margaret oliver encyclopedia of soils in the environment (2nd ed., pp. 206–217). Academic Press.

26.

Martínez

L. M. R.

Sandoval

L. J. J.

Guevara Gutierrez

R. D.

(1991). El clima en la Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra de Manantlán (Jalisco-Colima, México) y en su área de influencia. Agrociencia. Serie Agua-Suelo-Clima, 2(4), 107–118.

27.

Martínez

R. L. M.

Gerritsen

P. R. W.

Rosales

A. J. J.

Moreno

H. A.

Contreras

M. S.

Solís

M. J. A.

Rivera-Cervantes

L. E.

Cárdenas

O. G.

Iñiguez

D. L. I.

Cuevas

G. R.

Palomera-Garcia

García

R. E.

Aguirre

Olguín Lopez

J. L.

(2007). Implicaciones socioambientales de la expansión del cultivo agave azul (1995–2002) en el municipio de Tonaya, Jalisco, México. In: En lo ancestral hay futuro: del tequila, los mezcales y otros agaves (pp. 265–284). Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, A.C. (CICY), Merida, Yucatan, México.

28.

Mohamadi

M. A.

Kavian

(2015) Effects of rainfall patterns on runoff and soil erosion in field plots. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 3, 273–281.

29.

Moreno

H. A.

Estrella-Chulim

Escobedo-Garrido

Bustamante-González

Gerritsen

P. R. W.

(2011). Prácticas de manejo agronómico para la sustentabilidad: características y medición en Agave tequilana Weber en la región Sierra de Amula, Jalisco. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 14(1), 159–169.

30.

Navarro

Moreno

Gerritsen

Rosales

J. J.

(2006). El agave en Tonalá, Jalisco: tradición vs globalización. Carta Económica Regional, 97, 3–9.

31.

Osman

K. T.

(2014). Soil erosion by water. In Soil degradation, conservation and remediation (pp. 69–101). Springer, Netherlands.

32.

Padilla

(2017). Jalisco, Gigante Agroalimentario. Gobierno de Jalisco y Universidad de Guadalajara.

33.

Portillo-Quintero

C. A.

Sánchez-Azofeifa

G. A.

(2010). Extent and conservation of tropical dry forests in the Americas. Biological conservation, 143(1), 144–155.

34.

Portillo-Quintero

C. A.

Sanchez-Azofeifa

G. A.

Calvo-Alvarado

Quesada

do Espirito Santo

M. M.

(2015). The role of tropical dry forests for biodiversity, carbon and water conservation in the neotropics: lessons learned and opportunities for its sustainable management. Regional Environmental Change, 15, 1039–1049.

35.

Ribeiro

A. P.

Harmsen

Carreón

J. R.

Worrell

(2019). What influences consumption? Consumers and beyond: purposes, contexts, agents and history. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 200–215.

36.

Rivera-Ruiz

Oropeza-Mota

J. L.

Martínez-Menes

M. R.

Mejía-Sáenz

Tapia-Vargas

L. M.

Ventura-Ramos

Jr. (2012). El proceso lluvia-escurrimiento-erosión en laderas y microcuencas instrumentadas. Tecnología y Ciencias del Agua, 3(4), 151–166.

37.

Rodríguez-Contreras

F. E.

Martínez

R. L. M.

Palomera-García

(2017). Contextualización socioambiental del agave en Tonaya, Jalisco, México. Región y sociedad, 29(70), 71–102.

38.

Rulfo

V. F. O.

, et al. (Eds.). (2007). Conocimiento y prácticas agronómicas para la producción de Agave tequilana Weber en la zona de denominación de origen del tequila. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias. Centro de Investigación Regional del Pacífico Centro.

39.

Santana Castellón

Graf Montero

. (2019). Sustentabilidad, población y territorio. In Jalisco a Futuro: 2018–2030, Construyendo el Porvenir (vol. 1, pp. 407–458) Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara. https://editorial.udg.mx/gpd-jalisco-a-futuro-2018-2030.html

40.

SAS Institute. (2021). Guía del usuario (versión 9.4). SAS Institute.

41.

Secretaria de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. (2020). Estadística de la producción agrícola 2020. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. http://infosiap.siap.gob.mx/gobmx/datosAbiertos.php

42.

Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. (2003). Agave tequilero: Generación e innovación tecnológica para incrementar su producción y mantener su alta rentabilidad en Lagos de Moreno, Jalisco. Informe técnico de proyecto.

43.

Tena-Meza

Avila, R.

Navarro-Cerrillo

R. M

. (2018). Tequila, Heritage and Tourism: Is the Agave Landscape Sustainable? Food, Gastronomy and Tourism Social and Cultural Perspectives. Coleccion Estudios del Hombre, 49–67.

44.

Tena-Meza

M. P.

Navarro-Cerrillo

R. M.

Villavicencio-García

Contreras-Rodriguez

S. H.

(2023). Caracterización agroclimática del cultivo de Agave tequilana Weber en la barranca del Río Santiago. Revista Mexicana de ciencias agrícolas, 14(3), 375–387.

45.

Zhang

Sheng

Yang

Chen

Kong

Wagan

(2015). Effects of land use and slope gradient on soil erosion in a red soil hilly watershed of Southern China. Sustainability, 7(10), 14309–14325.