Assessment of Parkland Tree Species and Their Management Practice in Ana Sora District of Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia

  


    
Farmers Management Practice of    Parkland Trees 

    
Frequency

    
Percentage

    
Season of Parkland Trees Management Practice 

    
Frequency

    
Percentage

  

  


    
Thinning 

    
2 

    
5 

    
Wet season 

    
21 

    
52.5 

  

  


    
Pruning 

    
16 

    
40 

    
Dry season 

    
10 

    
22.5 

  

  


    
Thinning and Pruning 

    
18 

    
45 

    
Year round 

    
9 

    
25 

  

  


    
Thinning, Pruning and Pollarding 

    
4 

    
10 

    
Total 

    
40 

    
100 

  

  


    
Total 

    
40 

    
100 

    
 

    
 

    
 

  

Table 4: Farmers management practice and season of management practice of park land trees in Ana Sora District of Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

Key informants and respondent households indicated that, farmers of the study area have practiced branch and shoot pruning and pollarding management activities during wet season for the purpose of soil fertility improvement. For example, Croton macrostachyus, Cordia africana, Hagenia abbysinica, Ficus sur, and Schefflera abbysinica commonly used park land tree species were acquired management activities in wet season for soil fertility enhancements. In support of this study, [26] reported that farmers practiced pruning activities largely for the purpose of soil fertility improvement through transferring the biomass to the crop fields by applying their leaves as a mulch and makes nutrient available to the crops, besides reducing the competition of the trees for water and light and for other purposes.

In addition, all of the respondents and key informants in the study area indicated that, farmers practiced branch pruning of the following parkland tree species such as Maesa lanceolota, Syzygium guineense, Vernonia amygdalina and Vernonia auriculiferea for animal feed and fuel wood purposes during dry season of the study area. In terms of different management practices conducted by farmers of the study area, (45%) and (40%) of the respondents were used thinning and pruning, and pruning activities respectively (Table 4). Whereas, 10% of the respondents were used thinning, pruning and pollarding management activities and only 5% of the respondents were used thinning management practice (Table 4).

Key informants and respondents of the study area mentioned that, in parkland agroforestry system farmers practiced thinning and pruning activities to minimize shade effects of tree species on under story crops and for the purpose of fuel wood and construction material. In line with this study, in their earlier study results [15] and [16] reported that to reduce light competition with the undergrowth and provision of usable products farmers practiced different tree management activities. Moreover, farmers of the study area employed pollarding management practices to control shade effect of the tree branches on under story crops and for better growth of the new shoots vital for construction purposes. In conformity with this study, [15] and [29] indicated that pollarding management practices are very significant to control the level of shade on coffee and Enset and to promote the formation of shoots useful as construction poles/timber production.

Services and products of Parkland Tree Species of the Study Area

Parkland trees are used to satisfy the needs and demands of the households such as used for energy sources, soil fertility improvement, provision of pollen and nectar for honey production, construction materials, economic benefits, fodder values and shade for underneath crops and animals.

Soil Fertility Improvement

The domestication of soil improving trees commonly known as multipurpose trees for enhancing soil productivity through a combination of selected trees and food crops on the same piece of a farm field is one of the reasons for practicing agroforestry [30]. Similarly, farmers of the study area have culture of tree planting or conserving those naturally regenerated tree species on their farm lands for the purpose of soil fertility improvement. This study showed that, farmers have practiced branch and shoot prunings of Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Erthrina abyssinca, Hagenia abyssinica and Schefflera abyssinica parkland tree species for the purpose of soil fertility improvement through transfering the biomass of the trees to the crop fields. In agreement with this study, previous study results conducted by [31] and [32] in different parts of the country showed that parkland tree species modify soil moisture availability through increased infiltration and their fallen leaves are commonly used as a fertilizer in farming systems. Furthermore, [33] reported that small shoots of species such as Ficus sur and Cordia africana plays a role in soil fertility management for trees integrated into agroforestry systems to conserve soils and add organic matter.

Timber and Construction Purposes

In Ethiopia, fast growing indigenous tree species are being increasingly integrated in the traditional land-use practices, mainly for timber, pole and construction wood [34-35]. This study also showed that, from indigenous and exotic parkland tree species either planted or retained on farmers lands, Crabia velutina, Cupresus lustanica, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Hagenia abyssinica, Grevilia robusta, Juniperus procera, Podocarpus falcatus and Pinus patula were the most commonly used tree species for timber and construction purposes. In support of this study, in Gemechis District of Harerge Zone and in Jimma South West Oromia farmers maintained scattered tree species on their crop fields, mainly for its wood products and indigenous trees are the most preferred species for the construction of doors, windows and other construction materials [26,36]. Moreover, in the Dawro Zone of Southern Ethiopia, local people use tree species such as Cordia africana, Ficus vasta and Croton macrostachyus for building and furniture purposes [37].

Fuel Wood

In Ethiopia majority of the rural population relies on biomass energy sources for every energy necessity. Fuel wood is the most important source of household energy for rural communities of Ethiopia and therefore there is a need to integrate trees with food crops in the land use system. In the study area, smallholder farmers are highly depended on fuel wood for cooking, heating and lighting. From the identified parkland trees of the study area, the following tree species such as Bersama abyssinica, Mytenus arbutifolia, Maesa lanceolata, Milletia ferugenia and Myrica salifolia are commonly used for fuel wood. In line with this study, smallholder farmers of Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia largely used Millettia ferruginea and Prunus africana indigenous tree species for fuel wood [15, 38].

Shade for Underneath Crops and Animals

In parkland agroforestry practice the role of tree species serving as a shade for underneath crops and animals are very significant. The survey results showed that, Cordia africana, Ficus sur Milletia ferruginea and Podocarpus falcatus parkland tree species are serving for coffee shade.

In addition, the following exotic and indigenous parkland tree species such as Grevilia robusta, Pinus patula, Cupresus lustanica, Schefflera abyssinica, Ficus sur and Pittosporum viridiflorum are commonly used for animal shade.

Beehives Construction and Bee Forage Calues

The contribution of parkland tree species for beehives construction and bee forage values for smallholder farmers of the study area is higher. Based on the survey results, for beehives construction indigenous tree species are mostly preferred by farmers of the study district. In this regard, Croton macrostachyus, Ekerbergia capensis, Ficus sur, Millettia ferruginea, Pittosporum viridiflorum and Polyscias ferruginia were used for beehives construction and beehives are hung on their branches. In support of this study, [15] reported that Croton macrostachyus, Ficus sur and Millettia ferruginea used locally to make beehives in Gedio Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Moreover, the findings of this study indicated that indigenous parkland tree species are used as honey bee forage for honey production. Based on the findings of this study, flowering of Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Hagenia abysiinica, Schefflera abyssinica tree species are important bee forage of the study area. Similarly, in other areas of the country tree species such as Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Schefflera abyssinica, Vernonia amygdalina and Vernonia schimperiin are valuables fodder plants for honey bees [39-40].

Constraints of Parkland Trees of the study area

Key informants and respondent households stated that parkland tree species of the study area were faced many challenges. This study showed that, constraints of parkland trees of the study district were lack of extension services (20.3%), inadequate supply of seedlings (24.7%), expansion of agricultural lands (17.3%), small land holding size (18.5%) and harvesting of the trees for various uses (19.2%) (Figure 5). In agreement with this study, [41] reported that lack of replanting, exotic tree expansion and small land size were the major challenges for the improvement of parkland agroforestry practice in Southern Ethiopia. Furthermore, in their earlier study results [42] and [22] indicated that the expansion of exotic trees, small size of individual land holdings, inadequate research and extension services, land and tree tenure insecurity and increased strategy towards market-oriented mono-cropping were the major constraints that cause decrease of the indigenous tree species in farmland.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The present study has provided valuable information on the assessment of parkland tree species, farmers management practice, services and products of parkland tree species of the study area. The result of this study showed that 31(thirty-one) parkland tree species were identified in the study area and majority of them were indigenous tree species. Smallholder farmers of the study area have their own preferences of parkland tree species based on the following criteria such as soil fertility attributes, construction values, bee forages, serving for shade and used for fuel wood for energy sources of households. Parkland tree species either retained or planted on the farmlands of smallholder farmers of the study area were obtained thinning, pruning and pollarding management practices for better growth of underneath crops, to transfer the biomass of the trees to the crop fields and for the purpose of fuel wood and construction material. Moreover, parkland trees contributed to soil fertility improvement, timber and construction values, bee forages, fuel wood and serving shade for under story crops and animals were some of the services and products of parkland trees for farmers of the study area. However, parkland tree species of the study area were faced a constraint such as expansion of agricultural lands, lack of extension services, in adequate supply of seedlings, small land holding size and over exploitation of the trees for various purposes. Therefore, attention should be given on conservation of parkland tree species and smallholder farmers of the study area could be encouraged by the government through research and extension services and supplying by planting material of indigenous tree species to improve the significant of ecological and productive role of parkland tree species of the study area.

Author Statements

Acknowledgment

Grateful thanks to Oromia Agricultural Research Institute and Bore Research Center for financial support and facilities needed during the study time. The authors also thank local communities of Ana Sora district who generously shared their wisdom and experiences on parkland agroforestry practice. Moreover, the authors acknowledge all members of agroforestry research case team for their constant encouragement during the study time.

References

1. Boffa JM. Agroforestry parklands in sub-Saharan Africa, FAO Rome. 1999.
2. Bayala J, Sanou J, Teklehaimanot Z, Ouedraogo SJ, Kalinganire A, Noordwijk MV. Advances in knowledge of processes in soil–tree–crop interactions in parkland systems in the West African Sahel: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2015; 25-35.
3. ICRAF. Creating an evergreen Agriculture in Africa for food security and environmental resilience, World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi, Kenya. 2009.
4. Sebukyu VB, Mosango DM. Adoption of Agroforestry Systems by Farmers in Masaka District of Uganda, Ethnobotany Research and Applications. 2012; 10: 59-68.
5. Nair PK, Kumar BM, Nair VD. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration’, Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2009; 172: 10-23.
6. Ogunkunle C, Awotoye O. Soil Fertility Status under Different Tree Cropping System in a Southwestern Zone of Nigeria. 2010; Notulae Scientia Biologicae. 2011.
7. Vandenbeldt R. Faidherbia albida in the West African semi-arid tropics: proceedings of a workshop. Niamey, Niger, World Agroforestry Center. 1992; 22-26.
8. Nye PH, Greenland DJ. The soil under shifting cultivation. Common wealth Institute of Biological Control, Technical Communications no. 1960; 51.
9. Kalaba KF, Chirwa P, Syampungani S, Ajayi CO. Contribution of agroforestry to biodiversity and livelihoods improvement in rural communities of Southern African regions. Environmental Science and Engineering. 2010; 461–476.
10. Mohammed H, Asfaw Z. Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions, Attitudes, and Management of Trees in Farmed Landscapes in Northeastern Ethiopia. USA: USAID 51. 2015.
11. Nair PKR. An Introduction to Agroforestry, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, Netherlands. 1993; 272.
12. Tesfaye B. Understanding farmers: Explaining soil and water conservation in Konso, Wolliata and Wello, Ethiopia. PhD thesis, Wageningen University and Research Centre. The Netherlands. 2003; 246.
13. Tesfaye A. Diversity in homegarden agroforestry systems of Southern Ethiopia. PhD Thesis Wageningen University and Research Centre. The Netherlands. 2005; 143.
14. Kindeya G. Dry land agroforestry strategy for Ethiopia. Mekelle University paper presented at the drylands agroforestry workshop 1st-3rd. ICRAF Headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya. 2004; 26.
15. Mesele N. Trees Management and Livelihoods in Gedeo’s Agroforests, Ethiopia. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods. 2007; 17: 157-168.
16. Abebe T. Diversity in Homegarden Agroforestry Systems of Southern Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation, Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University. 2005; 143.
17. Abide EB, Asfaw Z. On-farm tree species diversity and management in semi-arid of Lemo district, Southern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems. 2022; 96: 817-828.
18. Badege B, Abdu A. Agroforestry and Community Forestry for Rehabilitation of Degraded Watersheds in the Ethiopian Highlands. Proceeding of EAF International Symposium on Contemporary Development Issues in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Western Michigan University. 2003.
19. Raj JA, Lal BS. Agroforestry Theory and Practices. Jodhpur: Scientific Publishers. 2014.
20. Guyassa E, Raj AJ. Assessment of Biodiversity in Cropland Agroforestry and Its Role in Livelihood Development in Dryland Areas: A Case Study from Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Technology. 2013; 9: 829-844.
21. Gizachew Z, Tesfaye A, Wassie H. Ficus vasta L. in Parkland and Agroforestry Practices of Hawassa Zuria District, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources. 2015; 15: 1-14.
22. Endale Y, Abayneh D, Mekuria A, Catherine M. Farmland tree species diversity and spatial distribution pattern in Semi-Arid East Shewa, Ethiopia. For. Trees Livelihoods, 2017; 26: 199–214.
23. Tolera M. Woody Species Diversity of Agricultural Landscapes in Arsi Negelle District, Ethiopia: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. M.Sc. Thesis, Hawassa: Wondo Genet College of Forestry, Hawassa University. 2006.
24. Abebe H, Asfaw Z. Contribution of Agroforestry to Woody Species Diversity and Conservation in Ginir District, Southeast Ethiopia. American Journal of Environmental Protection. 2021; 10: 90-99.
25. Goremsu G, Daba B, Abera T. Assessment of Farmer’s Tree Preferences and Their Seasonal Frost Management Practices in Frost-Affected Highlands of Eastern Ethiopia. Indonesian Journal of Environmental Management and Sustainability. 2023.
26. Desalegn M, Zebene A. Assessment of farmers’ management activities on scattered trees on crop fields at Gemechis district, west Hararge zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. Int J Agric. 2016; 1: 1–15.
27. Zekwan S, Lisanework N, Eyasu M. Tree species diversity, preference and management of smallholder coffee farms in Bedeno Woreda, Eastern Hararghe Zone, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia. 2020.
28. Latamo L, Wondmagegn B. Farmers local knowledge on Niche selection, management strategies and uses ofCordia africanatree in agroforestry practices of Sidama zone, southern Ethiopia. Am J Agric For. 2020; 8: 258–264.
29. Kassa H, Gebrehiwet K, Yamoah C. Balanites aegyptiaca, a potential tree for parkland agroforestry systems with sorghum in Northern Ethiopia. J Soil Sci Environ Manage. 2010; 1: 107-114.
30. Asfaw Z, Ågren GI. Farmers’ Local Knowledge and Topsoil Properties of Agroforestry Practices in Sidama, Southern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems. 2007; 71: 35-48.
31. Sileshi GW. The Magnitude and Spatial Extent of Influence of Faidherbia albida Trees on Soil Properties and Primary Productivity in Drylands. Journal of Arid Environments. 2016; 132: 1-14.
32. Ebisa L, Abdela G. Diversity of shade tree species in smallholder coffee farms of western Oromia, Ethiopia. Int J Agroforest Silvicult. 2017; 5: 294–304.
33. Negash M, Starr M. Biomass and soil carbon stocks of indigenous agroforestry systems on the south-eastern rift valley escarpment, Ethiopia. Plant Soil. 2015; 393: 95–107.
34. Girmay D, Emiru B, Nigussie A. Woody species diversity in Oxytenanthera abyssinica based homestead agroforestry systems of Serako, Northern Ethiopia. J Nat Sci Res. 2015; 59: 18-16.
35. Balcha A. Plants used in material culture in Oromo community, Jimma, Southwest Oromia, Ethiopia. Afr J Plant Sci. 2013; 7: 285–299.
36. Mathewos A, Sebsebe D, Zemede A. Indigenous knowledge on management of home gardens and plants in Loma and Gena Bosa districts of Dawro zone, southern Ethiopia: plant biodiversity conservation, sustainable utilization and environmental protection. Int J Sci Basic Appl Res. 2013; 10: 63–99.
37. Tadesse K. Five Thousand Years of Sustainability? A Case Study on Gedeo Land Use (Southern Ethiopia). Wageningen Agricultural University. Ph.D. Dissertation.,Wageningen, Netherlands. 2002.
38. Tola G, Borjeson L, Feyera S, Hylander K. Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers’ use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in south western Ethiopia. Ecol Soc. 2014; 19: 30.
39. Teklu G. Assessment of major Honey bee flora resources on selected districts of Sidama and Gedeo zones of SNNPRS of Ethiopia. J. Agric. Econ. Extens. Rural Develop. 2016; 4: 368–381.
40. Bayisa B, Kotola F. Contribution of Parkland Agroforestry Practices to the Rural Community Livelihood and Its Management in Southern Ethiopia. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 8: 104-111.
41. Bongers G. Dynamics in People Tree Interactions in Farm Fields; Farmers’ Perspectives in Meskan District, Ethiopia. Wageningen University, Wageningen. Netherlands. 2010.