| Literature DB >> 35287324 |
Meseret Muche1,2, Eyayu Molla3, Boris Rewald4, Berhanu Abraha Tsegay2.
Abstract
On-farm tree plantation is a form of land use where trees are planted at the edge or interspersed with crops. It has been practiced in different parts of Ethiopia due to its contribution to the household economy and soil fertility. This study was carried out to evaluate the variation in tree/shrub plantations along altitudinal gradients and plantation niches, and farmers' on-farm tree plantation practices at Kobo and Guba Lafto districts, North-eastern Ethiopia. Transect walks and semi-structured questionnaire were administered to appraise farmers' tree/shrub plantation practices and compositions between August and December 2020. A total of 135 plots along altitudinal gradients (Forty-five sample plots per altitude) and 135 retrieved questionnaires (45 per altitude) were analyzed. At each plot, tree/shrub richness, diversity, stem density, and important value index (IVI) were computed. Multivariate analysis, descriptive statistics, and preference rankings were used to evaluate vegetation data and farmers' perceptions on tree/shrub plantations. The results showed that most farmers (78.5 %) integrate trees with their crops for household use and soil fertility maintenance. The multivariate analysis revealed a significant reduction in the number of taxa, stem density, richness, and diversity with increasing elevation, from homestead to the boundary and on-farm plantation niches. Ziziphus spina-christi and Cordia africana were the most preferred tree species; Fabaceae was the dominant family representing 18.9 % of the species. The results emphasized considerable variations in relative density, relative dominance, and important value index (IVI) across altitudinal gradients and plantation niches. Acacia seyal and Z. spina-christi contributed the highest IVI at lower and middle elevations, whereas Eucalyptus globulus had high IVI at a higher elevation. In the study districts, the distribution of multifunctional indigenous tree plantations gradually decreases with the entire altitudinal gradients compared to exotic trees/shrubs. This calls for substantial efforts on the propagation and conservation of native tree and shrub genetic resources.Entities:
Keywords: Agroforestry; Conservation; Farmers acuity; Plantation niches; Species diversity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35287324 PMCID: PMC8917278 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09048
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Geographical Location of the study area (A) political map of Ethiopia by regions (B) North Wollo administrative zone of the Amhara regional state by study districts (Guba Lafto and Kobo) and (C) the study sites (9) based on altitudinal gradient.
Figure 2An illustration on the tree/shrub plantation inventory and interviewed the farmers on their perception of plantation practices on-farm systems (Photo by Meseret Muche, 2020).
Indices characterizing trees and shrubs in agroforestry systems in North-eastern Ethiopia by altitude (n = 3), tree niches (n = 3), and study sites (n = 9).
| Ecological indexes | Equation | References | |
|---|---|---|---|
| R | Menhinick's | ||
| H' | Shannon-Wiener | ||
| SD | Number of a tree/shrub species | ||
| RF | Number of species | ||
| RD | Numerical strength | ||
| RDo | Species abundance | ||
| IVI | Importance of species | IVI = RF + RD + RDo | |
R, Richness; H', Shannon Diversity Index; SD, Stem Density; RF, Relative Frequency; RD, Relative Density; RDo, Relative Dominancy; IVI, Important Value Index; N = the number of tree species; S = the number of species; Pi = the proportion of individuals of the ith species expressed as a proportion of total cover in the sample, and ln = the natural logarithm.
Socio-demographic characteristics of sampled households (n = 135) at nine study sites (45 per elevation).
| Household Characteristics | Frequency | Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 102 | 75.56 |
| Female | 33 | 24.44 | |
| Age (yrs) | 18–30 | 29 | 21.48 |
| 31–40 | 35 | 25.93 | |
| 41–50 | 30 | 22.22 | |
| >50 | 41 | 30.37 | |
| Educational status | Tertiary | 25 | 18.52 |
| Primary & secondary | 53 | 39.26 | |
| No formal schoolings | 57 | 42.22 | |
| Marital status | Married | 111 | 82.2 |
| Unmarried | 19 | 14.1 | |
| Others | 5 | 3.7 | |
| Family size | 1–5 | 69 | 51.1 |
| 6–10 | 57 | 42.2 | |
| >10 | 9 | 6.7 | |
| Landholding (ha) | <0.5 | 59 | 43.7 |
| 0.5–1 | 53 | 39.3 | |
| >1 | 23 | 17.0 | |
Figure 3Effect of an altitudinal gradient and on-farm tree plantation niches (i.e. Homestead plantation, Boundary planting, on-farm planting) on the (a) number of taxa (Taxa-S), (b) stem density, (c) richness (R), and (d) Shannon diversity (H’) in agroforestry systems of North-eastern Ethiopia. Different letters denote significant differences between means across altitudinal gradient.
General Linear Model results on the effect of altitude, tree/shrub plantation niches and their interactive effects on variables related to woody species assemblage in agroforestry systems of North-eastern Ethiopia. See text for details on variables.
| Variable | Effect | DF | F | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxa-S | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 145.9 | .000 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 41.9 | .000 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 2.99 | .047 | |
| Stem density | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 118.1 | .000 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 143.5 | .000 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 13.4 | .000 | |
| Richness | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 7.5 | .004 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 31.2 | .000 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 4.7 | .009 | |
| Diversity | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 248.9 | .000 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 31.3 | .000 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 4.6 | .010 | |
| RF | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 166.9 | .000 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 0.2 | .81 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 0.1 | 0.9 | |
| RD | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 27.2 | .000 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 19.9 | .000 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 18.6 | .000 | |
| RDo | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 206.1 | .000 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 39.9 | .000 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 39.9 | .000 | |
| IVI | Altitudinal Gradients (AG) | 2 | 247.2 | .000 |
| Tree Niches (TN) | 2 | 23.2 | .000 | |
| AG x TN | 4 | 23.7 | .000 |
The total sum of squares (SS) is the same for all models (4, 26), and effects are thus directly comparable across models. RF, Relative Frequency; RD, relative density; RDo, Relative Dominancy; IVI, Important Value Index; DF, Degree of Freedom; F, Fisher test; P, Probability Level.
Indicators characterizing woody species (tress/shrubs) assemblages in agroforestry systems along an elevation gradient in North-eastern Ethiopia.
| Species | Family | 972–1864 m asl (LE) | 1865–2704 m asl (ME) | 2705–3809 m asl (HE) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | RD | RDo | IVI | RF | RD | RDo | IVI | RF | RD | RDo | IVI | ||
| Fabaceae | 4.9 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 13.2 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 4.9 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.09 | |
| Fabaceae | 0.7 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 4.3 | 0.23 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | |
| Fabaceae | 5.8 | 10.4 | 6.1 | 22.4 | 5.3 | 10.3 | 7.0 | 22.6 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | |
| Fabaceae | 3.1 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 7.4 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 9.9 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.10 | |
| Acanthaceae | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 4.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Fabaceae | 1.6 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 10.0 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.015 | |
| Caricaceae | 4.7 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 13.6 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 4.0 | 13.7 | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.015 | |
| Apocynaceae | 1.9 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 5.3 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.23 | |
| Celactraceae | 1.8 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 5.5 | 1.9 | 1.68 | 3.0 | 6.6 | - | - | - | - | |
| Rutaceae | 2.9 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 7.5 | 3.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 7.9 | - | - | - | - | |
| Rutaceae | 3.8 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 10.9 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 14.5 | - | - | - | - | |
| Rutaceae | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 10.4 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 12.7 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.016 | 0.020 | |
| Rubiaceae | 2.2 | 2.3 | 3.4 | 8.0 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 10.7 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.15 | |
| Boraginaceae | 2.3 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 1.72 | 1.9 | 6.8 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.11 | |
| Boraginaceae | 2.3 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 6.1 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 4.1 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.1 | |
| Euphorbiaceae | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 10.2 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 10.9 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.14 | |
| Sapindaceae | 3.2 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 8.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 0.024 | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.072 | |
| Boraginaceae | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 7.6 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 5.9 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.17 | |
| Fabaceae | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 7.8 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 10.5 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.19 | |
| Myrtaceae | 2.5 | 3.6 | 3.0 | 9.1 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 8.3 | - | - | - | - | |
| Myrtaceae | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.32 | |
| Ebenaceae | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 7.2 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.06 | |
| Euphorbiaceae | 2.6 | 6.1 | 4.9 | 13.7 | 3.2 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 13.4 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.0015 | |
| Moraceae | 1.7 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 5.4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 4.9 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 | |
| Rosaceae | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 4.1 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 6.8 | - | - | - | - | |
| Proteaceae | 2.5 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 6.7 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 7.1 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.13 | |
| Euphorbiaceae | 1.0 | 0.7 | 2.3 | 4.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Anacardiaceae | 3.6 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 9.8 | 4.8 | 5.8 | 4.3 | 14.9 | - | - | - | - | |
| Moringaceae | 2.5 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 3.6 | - | - | - | - | |
| Oleaceae | 1.4 | 1.0 | 2.3 | 4.8 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.9 | 3.5 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.05 | |
| Lauraceae | 3.7 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 9.4 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 11.1 | - | - | - | - | |
| Myrtaceae | 5.0 | 6.8 | 4.9 | 16.8 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 13.7 | - | - | - | - | |
| Rhamnaceae | 4.7 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 12.9 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 4.2 | 14.1 | 0.048 | 0.046 | 0.045 | 0.14 | |
| Anacardiaceae | 1.0 | 0.6 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 3.5 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.10 | |
| Anacardiaceae | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 0.02 | 0.015 | 0.02 | 0.055 | |
| Fabaceae | 3.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 8.3 | - | - | - | - | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.18 | |
| Rhamnaceae | 5.6 | 7.7 | 4.6 | 17.9 | 5.3 | 8.7 | 5.6 | 19.6 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.07 | |
LE, Lower Elevation; ME, Middle Elevation; HE, Higher Elevation; RF, Relative Frequency; RD, Relative Density; RDo, Relative Dominancy; IVI, Important Value Index.
Figure 4Radar chart illustrating farmers' perception on benefits of integrating trees on agricultural lands across an elevation gradient in North-eastern Ethiopia. Key: FC, Fuel, and Charcoals; SFM, Soil Fertility Maintenance; BCF, Building Construction, and Fence; FF, Food and Fodder; BK, Bee Keeping; Md, Medicinal use; IG, Income Generation.
Respondents' (R1-R10; “key informants”) preference ranking for ten selected tree species based on the assumed maintenance of soil fertility. The rank was determined following the grading of ten most planted tree species to boost soil fertility; the largest value (10) was assigned to species considered to hold the greatest importance for soil maintenance, while the least contribution to soil maintenance was assigned (1).
| Tree species | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 | R10 | Total | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 10 | |
| 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 41 | 7 | |
| 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 30 | 8 | |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 88 | 2 | |
| 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 58 | 5 | |
| 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 73 | 4 | |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 19 | 9 | |
| 9 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 83 | 3 | |
| 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 51 | 6 | |
| 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 94 | 1 |