| Literature DB >> 30737435 |
John-Baptist S N Naah1,2, Boris Braun3.
Abstract
Despite the importance of local ecological knowledge of forage plants, there has been little discussion on how local agro-pastoralists perceive forage species diversity, abundance trends, habitat distributions and ecological drivers influencing changing abundance trends over time in rural West Africa's savannas. In estimating, assessing and investigating the ecological variables, we performed elaborate ethnobotanical surveys in seven villages in northern Ghana and nine villages in southern-central Burkina Faso. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation analysis and cognitive salience index calculations to disentangle the dynamics of local responses to ecological variables considered in this study. Our results revealed that agro-pastoralists exhibited extensive knowledge on forage species diversity, habitat types, abundance trends and ecological drivers. According to agro-pastoralists interviewed, about 82 percent of all forage species known to them were commonly available in local landscapes, while a majority of our interviewees indicated that available forage resources have shown a gradually increasing trend over the past few years. Rainfall variability, tree cutting and drought were the topmost perceived threats causing changes in the trends of forage species abundance. Given our findings, local perceptions of agro-pastoralists could have substantial practical implications in favor of forage-related biodiversity conservation and sustainable livestock production.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30737435 PMCID: PMC6368564 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-38636-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(Naah & Braun) Map depicting study areas/villages situated in northern Ghana and south-central Burkina Faso comprising three major ethnic groups (Dagbani, Gurunsi and Mossi) across a gradient of climatic aridity within the West African Sudanian savanna.
Brief background information on villages (study sites) in northern Ghana and southern-central Burkina Faso.
| Country | Villages (sites) | District/Province | Ethnic group | Sample size | Main landuse types & other remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghana | Sang | Mion | Dagbani | 30 | |
| Jegun | Savelugu-Nanton | Dagbani | 30 | ||
| Cheko | Tamale Metroplis | Dagbani | 30 | ||
| Nbatinga | Mion | Dagbani | 30 | ||
| Kpabia | Mion | Dagbani | 30 | ||
| Burkina Faso | Aniabiisi | Bolga Municipal | Gurunsi | 76 | |
| Nangodi | Nabdam | Gurunsi | 30 | ||
| Wallem/Kadro | Po | Gurunsi | 30 | ||
| Kolo | Jaro | Gurunsi | 30 | ||
| Tiebele | Po | Gurunsi | 30 | ||
| Nobere | Manga | Mossi | 30 | ||
| Jegemtenga | Ouagadougou | Mossi | 30 | ||
| Rapadama | Ouagadougou | Mossi | 30 | ||
| Boore | Yaku | Mossi | 30 | ||
| Sirgui | Kaya | Mossi | 30 | ||
| Soubeira-Natenga | Kaya | Mossi | 30 |
Family richness of forage species based on local agro-pastoralists’ citations in the study region.
| No | Family name | Species richness | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Poaceae | 37 | 19.07 |
| 2 | Fabaceae | 34 | 17.53 |
| 3 | Malvaceae | 11 | 5.67 |
| 4 | Combretaceae | 8 | 4.12 |
| 5 | Rubiaceae | 8 | 4.12 |
| 6 | Cyperaceae | 7 | 3.61 |
| 7 | Euphorbiaceae | 7 | 3.61 |
| 8 | Moraceae | 6 | 3.09 |
| 9 | Amaranthaceae | 5 | 2.58 |
| 10 | Anacardiaceae | 5 | 2.58 |
| 11 | Asteraceae | 4 | 2.06 |
| 12 | Capparaceae | 4 | 2.06 |
| 13 | Meliaceae | 4 | 2.06 |
| 14 | Bombacaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 15 | Lamiaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 16 | Rutaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 17 | Solanaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 18 | Commelinaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 19 | Convolvulaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 20 | Cucurbitaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 21 | Musaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 22 | Pedaliaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 23 | Sterculiaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 24 | Verbenaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 25 | Acanthaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 26 | Aizoaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 27 | Annonaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 28 | Apocynaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 29 | Arecaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 30 | Asclepiadaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 31 | Balanitaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 32 | Bignoniaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 33 | Cannabaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 34 | Caricaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 35 | Celastraceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 36 | Dioscoceaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 37 | Ebenaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 38 | Icacinaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 39 | Loganiaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 40 | Loranthaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 41 | Lythraceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 42 | Moringaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 43 | Myrtaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 44 | Nyctaginaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 45 | Olacaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 46 | Opiliaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 47 | Polygalaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 48 | Rhamnaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 49 | Sapindaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 50 | Sapotaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 51 | Scrophulariaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 52 | Simaroubaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| Total | 194 | 100 |
Correlation matrix illustrating various species diversity metrics for forage species cited by local agro-pastoralists resident in varied rural communities in northern Ghana and southern-central Burkina Faso.
| Diversity metrics | Species richness | Species evenness | Shannon’s index | Simpson’s index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species richness | 1 | −0.019 [−0.393, 0.452] | 0.735** [0.379, 0.950] | 0.502* [0.136, 0.749] |
| Species evenness | 16 | 1 | 0.327 [−0.212, 0.775] | 0.549* [0.133, 0.838] |
| Shannon’s index | 16 | 16 | 1 | 0.775** [0.402, 0.891] |
| Simpson’s index | 16 | 16 | 16 | 1 |
Bias correlated and accelerated bootstrap (BCa) 95 percent CIs reported in brackets.
Unless otherwise stated, bootstrap results are based on 1000 samples. Note: N = Sample size = 16 villages, ns = not significant (P > 0.05), *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2(Naah & Braun) Pie charts depicting proportions of local agro-pastoralists’ perceptions based on (A) Habitat types for cited forage species, and (B) Abundance trends of forage species.
Figure 3(Naah & Braun) Local agro-pastoralists’ perception on the abundance levels of ten most frequently cited forage species for: (A) Many forage species, (B) Few forage species, and (C) Rare forage species.
Figure 4(Naah & Braun) Bar charts illustrating the cultural importance with Cognitive Salience Indexes (CSI values) for topmost (A) Local ecological drivers influencing abundance trends of forage species according to local agro-pastoralists, and (B) Local conservation measures of forage resources according to agro-pastoralists.