hu-etd home - hawassa university
TRANSCRIPT
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
COLLAGE OF NATURAL & COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE
DEPARTIMENT OF BIOLOGY
HOMEGARDEN PLANT DIVERSITY AND ASSOCIATED USE-
VALUES IN CHEHA WOREDA, GURAGE ZONE SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA
BY
TEFERI YENEALEM WONDE
MARCH, 2020
HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
COLLAGE OF NATURAL & COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE
DEPARTIMENT OF BIOLOGY
HOMEGARDEN PLANT DIVERSITY AND ASSOCIATED USE-
VALUES IN CHEHA WOREDA, GURAGE ZONE SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA
MSc THESIS SUBMITTED TOTHE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
COLLEGE OF NATURAL AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCES,
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE IN BIOLOGY.
MAJOR ADVISOR: - FIREW KEBEDE (PhD)
CO-ADVISOR:- GETACHEW SIME (PhD)
MARCH, 2020
HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA
I
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
ADVISORS APPROVAL SHEET
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Homegarden plant diversity and assocated use-value
of Cheha Woreda,Gurage Zone,SNNPRS, Ethiopia‟‟is done by Teferi Yenealem Wonde.
I recommend that I have read this thesis prepared in accordance with my direction and that it
be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement.
Frew Kebede (PhD) __________
Name of major advisor Signature Date
Getachew Sime (PhD)
Name of co-advisor Signature Date
II
DECLARATION
I have declared that this MSc thesis is my original work and has not been submitted for a
degree in any other university, and that all sources used for this thesis have been properly well
acknowledged.
Name Signature
Place: Hawasaa University, Hawasa
Date of submission:
III
EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET
As a final member of the MSc defense Examiners board of the final open defense by Teferi
Yenealem have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “Homegarden plant diversity and
assocated use-value in Cheha Woreda, Gurage Zone, SNNPRS, Ethiopia”, and recommend
that it could be accepted accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MSc.
Name of Chairperson Signature Date
Name of Major advisor Signature Date
Name of Co-advisor Signature Date
Name of Internal examiner Signature Date
Name of External examiner Signature Date
Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final
copy of the thesis to the School of Graduate Studies (SGS) through the School Graduate
Committee (SGC) of the candidate‟s major department.
Stamp of SGS
Date: ____________
Remark
IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and for most I would like to glorify and bring the greatest of all tanks to God for helping
me to start and finish this research work. I would like to express my heartfeltgratitude to my
major advisor Dr. Frew Kebede for his guidance, consistent stimulating advice, comments and
encouragements. I also thank my co-advisor Dr. Getachew Sime for his valuable guidance and
continuous support.
I would like to thank my special gratitude for ministry of education and Department of
Biology of Hawassa University for Financial support to carry out this study.
I gratefully acknowledge the Cheha Woreda Agricultural and rural development office,
Finance and economy office and the Wereda agricultural extension workers found in my
study site that provide necessary information for this work.
I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my wife, Aster Dender and all my family
members who give me moral support through out in my study period.
V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CWAAO Chena Woreda Agricultural AdminstrativeOffice
DAs Developmental agents
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
GPS Geographical Positioning System
HA Hectare
HGS Homegardens
IBC Institute of Biodiversity Conservation
Km Kilometer
M Meter
MM Millimeter
NGOs Non governmental organization
PAs Peasant Assocations
SNNPRS Southern Nation Nationalities and Peoples Regional State
W H O World Health Organization
VI
TABLES OF CONTENTS Content Page
ADVISORS APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................. I
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................... II
EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET ....................................................................................... III
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... V
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the study ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the problem .................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Objectives of the study .................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. General objective ...................................................................................................... ̀ 3
1.3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Research questions ........................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Significance of the study.................................................................................................. 4
1.6. Limitation of the study ..................................................................................................... 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Definition of Homegarden ............................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Characteristics of homegarden ................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Structure and composition of homegardens ............................................................... 6
2.1.3. Homegarden plant Species diversity ......................................................................... 7
2.2 Benefits of homegarden .................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Contribution of home gardens to the family health .................................................... 8
2.2.2 Contribution of home gardens to Food security ......................................................... 9
2.2.3 Contribution of homegardens to household income ................................................. 10
2.2.4 Medicinal value of homegarden. .............................................................................. 10
2.2.5 Environmental and Socio-Cultural Value of Homegardens ..................................... 11
2.3. Indigenous knowledge associated with plant use and management .............................. 12
2.4. Factors affecting homegarden plant species diversity and productivity. ....................... 13
2.5. Homegrden and in situ conversion of plant biodiversity. .............................................. 13
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS ........................................................................................... 15
VII
3.1 Description of the study area ` ........................................................................................ 15
3.1.1 Geographical location of the study Area .................................................................. 15
3.1.1.2 Land use of the study area .................................................................................. 16
3.1.1.3 Climate, temperature and rain fall ...................................................................... 16
3.1.2 Population and Socio-economic characteristics of the study area............................ 17
3.1.2.1 Populaton ........................................................................................................... 17
3.1.2.2 Crop production ................................................................................................. 17
3.1.2.3 Livestock ............................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Sampling design and methods of data collection............................................................ 17
3.2.1 Sampling Design ...................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Selection of study kebeles ........................................................................................ 18
3.2.3. Selection of informants ........................................................................................... 18
3.2.4. Ethnobotanical data collection ................................................................................ 18
3.2.4.1 Survey and interview.......................................................................................... 19
3.2.4.2 Group discussion ................................................................................................ 19
3.2.4.3 Market survey..................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Methods of Data analysis ................................................................................................ 20
3.3.1 Preference ranking .................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Direct matrix ranking ............................................................................................... 21
3.3.3 Frequency ................................................................................................................. 21
3.3.4 Density ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.5. Shannon and Wiener diversity index ....................................................................... 22
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 23
4.1. Species Diversity and Species Richness of homegarden Plants .................................... 23
4.1.1 Growthforms of plants .............................................................................................. 24
4.1.2. Comparison of homegarden plant diversity among the study area ......................... 24
4.1.3. Occurrence and frequency of plants in the homegarden ......................................... 25
4.1.4. Relative density of trees in the study area ............................................................... 26
4.2. Traditional use-value of the plants in homegardens ...................................................... 29
4.2.1 Food and spice plant species in the study area of home garden ............................... 30
4.2.2. Medicinal plants in the Home garden of the study area. ......................................... 32
VIII
4.3 .Market demand and consumption of home garden Products ......................................... 33
4.4. Factors that affect the diversity and composition of homegardens plant species .......... 34
4.5. Homegarden traditional management and indigenous knowledge of the study area .... 35
4.6. Uses of homegarden to insitu conservation of plant biodiversity .................................. 37
5. CONCULSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 38
5.1. Conculsion ..................................................................................................................... 38
5.2. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 38
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 48
IX
LIST OF TABLES Tables Pages
Table 1: The land use of cheha woreda .................................................................................... 16
Table 2: Species richness, diversity (H‟ =Shannon-wiener index), evenness in the
homegardens of the study area .......................................................................................... 25
Table 3: The most abundance frequency species occurring in the study area ......................... 26
Table 4: Ten tree species with the highest number of individual, density and relative density.
.......................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 5: Direct matrix ranking of seven homegarden tree species in seven major use
categories by ten key informants; ..................................................................................... 28
Table 6: The plant species most important food crops in the homegardens of the study area,
their total score and preference ranks ............................................................................... 31
Table 7: The spice plant species collected from sample plots of the homegarden in the study
area .................................................................................................................................... 32
X
LIST OF FIGURES Figures Pages
Figure 1. Administrative map of the study area. ...................................................................... 15
Figure 2: Growth forms of plant species in the homegarden in the study area ........................ 24
Figure 3: Use-value plant species diversity and percentage in the study area ......................... 29
Figure 4: Habits of medicinal plants in the study area ............................................................. 33
Figure 5. Some of the homegardens plants products seen in the study area of the local market
.......................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6: Diseases and pests that affect homegarden plant species in the study area .............. 35
XI
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendices Pages
Appendix I. List of informants who participated in the study area .......................................... 48
Appendix II. Semi-structured interview items for data collection in the study area................ 50
Appendix III. List of total plant species collected from the study area ................................... 52
Appendix IV. Food plant species collected from the study area ............................................. 57
Appendix V. Medicinal plants recorded from homegardens for treating human being and live-
stock diseases of the study area. ....................................................................................... 59
Appendix VI. Plant family name with number of species and individual percentage. ............ 62
XII
ABSTRACT
Homegarden is defined as a land use system where a variety of plant species grown and
maintaind by household for different purposes. This study was conducted with the objectives
to assess homegarden plant diversity and their uses, and the management of homegarden
plant diversity,as well as the traditional knowledge of people in Cheha Woreda, Gurage Zone
Southern Ethiopia.Ten peasant associations (PAs) from 41 kebeleswere selected by the
purposive sampling method. Six homegardens selected through a random sampling method in
each kebeles in the study area. Ingeneral, a total of 60 households participated in the study
area. Ten key informants were selected purposively in the study area. For collecting of plants
from homegarden; sample plot of 20m x 20 m (400 m2) delimited in the study area.
Ethnobotanical data were collected using semi-structured interviews, field observations,
group disscation and market survey. Preference ranking and direct matrix ranking were used
to to analyze and summarize the importanceof some species of plants. Also descriptive
statistics methods used to describe the data. A total of 118 homegarden plant species,
distributed in 88 genera and 48 families were recorded from the sampled homegardens of the
study area. Interms of number of species, Fabaceae appeared as the most prominent family
that contains 11 species, followed by Poaceae containing 10 species and Solananceae and
Rutaceae each containing 8 species.The habits of the useful plants collected from
homegardens belongs to herbs (44 %), shrubs (26%), trees (23%) and climbers (7%). Among
the total, 52 species (44%) were grouped as edible, while 42 (36%)were medicinal plants.
Inaddition, 20 (17%) species were livefence and 18 (15%) were used for constructions.
Among the kebeles of the study, Jatu kebele had the highest Shannon index of diversity
(H’=2.99) followed by Gasore (H’=2.94) and Dagag (H’=2.89).However, the major factors
such as diseases and pests, wild animals, insufficient agricultural support, homegarden size
affect species diversity. If these challenges have been given attention by concerned bodies
such as the government, nongovernmental organization, developmental agents (DAs), farmers
and researchers will maintain the value of homegarden and its existing biodiversity and
traditional management system inorder to solve the problem food security and on sustainable
basis in the future.
Keywords: ChehaWoreda, Ethnobotany, Homegarden, Traditional local knowledge
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Homegarden is commonly defined as landuse system involving deliberate management of
multipurpose trees and shrubs in intimate association with annual and perennial agricultural
crops and livestock within the compounds of individual houses, these multipurpose trees,
shrubs, agricultural crop, and animal unit is managed by family- labour (Fernandes and Nair,
1986, Kumar and Nair, 2006).
Agriculture is the principal source of livelihood for rural population in Ethiopia. It is
characterized by subsistence mixed farming system of rain-fed, irrigated crops, and livestock
production together with trees planted as agro forestry. Homegarden with trees are one of
agroforestry practices known to be ecologically sustainable and diversifies livelihood of local
community (Ewuketu,2014).
Tropical homegardens are traditional agro-forestry systems which were characterized by the
complicacy of their structure and multiple functions (Das and Das, 2005). And they are
theoldest form of managed land use system next only to shifting cultivars and rare
/endangered species have been maintained and conserved (Watson and Eyzaguirre, 2002).
Nair (1993) stated that homegardens are found in both rural and urban areas in predominantly
small-scale subsistence agricultural systems. Despite its vast coverage; homegarden
agroforestery practice in Ethiopia inventory and documentation of homegarden diversity and
species composition are very few (Zemede Asfaw,2001a).
Homegaredns are traditional agro system with complex structure and multiple functions. They
help to conserve plants both wild and domesticated, because of their uses to the households
(Abdoellah et al., 2006). They are an attractive model for research and the design of
sustainable agro ecosystems (Das and Das, 2005).
Homegardens have attracted considerable research attention mainly due to they contain
characteristics, which make them an interesting model of sustainable agro ecosystems
characterized by efficient nutrient recycling, low external inputs, soil conservation potential,
eco-friends management practices (Torquebiau, 1992; Jose and Shanmugaratnam, 1993).
2
Plants are invaluable and fundamental to almost all life on earth. They provide wide range of
uses to human beings such as medicine, food, shelter, clothing, utensils as well as ritual and
religious benefits. They also recycle essential nutrients of ecosystems, establishing soils and
maintaining soil fertility in addition to protecting areas of water catchments. Moreover, they
keep ecological and climatic balance, facilitate and control rainfall through the process of
evaporative transpiration. Traditionally, these use values are obtained and maximized by local
people in the areas by cultivating plants in and around homegardens (Westphal, 1975; ICRAF,
1989 and Okigbo, 1990).The structure and function of homegardens was made in details only
for some areas of Ethiopia until the past decade, like that of Wolaita and Gurage (Zemede
Asfaw and Zerihun Woldu, 1997); Sidama (Tesfaye Abebe, 2005) Wolaita (Talemos Seta,
2007) and Gedeo (Solomon Tamrat 2011).The people have a rich traditional knowledge
transmitted orally from generation to generation. A wealth of information existed among this
people for utility and management plants in their localities.
In order to keep natural resources in the environment and to meet the homegarden products
for requirements of the people during stress of climate related hazards scientific information is
required. Lack of such scientific knowledge of homegarden system may let destruction of
plant diversity which resultsin soil erosion during high rain fall and this lead to loss of soil
fertility, less income food insecurity and hunger (Ewuketu Linger, 2004). Therefore to address
the above mentioned problem in the study area, plant species diversity and compositionin
homegarden system of the Cheha district of Southern in Ethiopia
3
1.2 Statement of the problem
Homegardening is a practice of integrated land-use and agricultural production systems which
dates back for years throughout the tropical world (Shaw, 2003). Homegardens are generally
believed to have evolved from the shifting cultivation in order to overcome resource
constraints, population pressure and consequent reduction in available land, labor and capital
(World Bank, 2008). Moreover, physical limitations like remoteness of the area dictate
inhabitants to set provisions for most of their basic needs in a self-contained manner.
Gradually, it became a common practice by which plants collected from the natural ecosystem
and those introduced from outside are cultivated together in the homegarden.
As noted earlier, some scientists have described the homegarden structure, function and
diversity for some areas in Ethiopia such as Zemede Asfaw and Zerihun Wolde (2001),
Feleke Woldeyes (2000), Habitamu Hailu (2008), Mekonnen Amberber (2011), and Solomon
Tamrat (2011). However, a detailed analyses of composition and productivity of their species
in homegarden is not yet available. The structure, composition and diversity of home gardens
plants, their relation to can not be fully explained with the knowledge management of
indigenous farmers.Therefore this study is to fill the gaps on scientific documentation of
homegarden plant diversity and indigenous knowledge on the homegarden plants diversity in
the study area.
1.3. Objectives of the study
1.3.1. General objective `
The general aim of the study was to assess homegarden plant diversity and their uses, and
traditional knowledge of the people towards management of home garden plant diversity in
Cheha woreda Gurage Zone SNNPRS.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
1. To identify the plant species diversity in the homegardens of the study area.
2. To identify plant species that are the most important to the local people.
3. To document homegarden plant species in the study area
4. To identify factors that affect diversity and productivity of homegarden plants in the
study area.
4
1.4. Research questions
The following research questions were being addressed in the present study:
1. What are the plant species diversity and management of the homegardensin the
study area?
2. What are the main uses of plants in the homegardens and associated indigenous
knowledge of the communities in the study area.
3. Which types of plant species are used to multi purpose?
4. Whatfactors affects plantsspeciesofthe homegardenin the study area?
1.5. Significance of the study
The present study on Homegarden plant diversity and associated use-values at Cheha Wereda
of Gurage Zone in SNNPR of Ethiopia would contribute to a better understanding of
homegardens and plant use knowledge of the local people, and the traditional management
practices on the agro ecosystems of the area.
The homegarden plants diversity and associated use-values has not been studied so far.
Hence, this study is significant for different reasons.
To provide primary information about the homegarden plants diversity and associated use –
value in the study area.
To provide important information in the management and conservation of natural resources.
The outcome of the study would be used as reference for other similar studies conducted
insimilar ecological situation of the country.
1.6. Limitation of the study
Studying the overall homegardens plants diversity in Cheha woreda is significant in many
ways. However, investigating the overall home garden plant species composition and
diversity of the Woreda, require several times and budget. Thus, due to time,
resources,logistics and budget constrains the research could not cover all kebeles of the
Woreda. Hence, the study was limited only in Ten (10) kebeles of Cheha Woreda.
5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Definition of Homegarden
Homegardenshave usually been defined as a small scale, supplementary food production
system by household members that mimics, the natural, multilayered ecosystem
(Hoogerbruggle and Fresco, 1993). Homegardens can be found in almost all tropical and
subtropical eco-zones where Subsistence land-use systems predominate (Nair, 1993).
Homegardens in the highlands of Ethiopia cultivate a large diversity of plant types that range
from staple food crops to ornamental plants (Tesfaye Abebe,2005).
A homegarden is part of a household livelihood strategy and has gained prominence as a
natural asset through which sustainable use of resources, particularly for the livelihoods of the
poor, may be achieved. Homestead gardening systems provide an important contribution to
sustainable agricultural production because of their potential to meet economic, social,
ecological, and institutional conditions (Nair, 2006).
According to Fernandes and Nair, (1986), tropical homegarden consist of an assemblage of
plants, which may include trees, shrubs, vines, and herbaceous plants, growing in or adjacent
to a homestead or home-compound. These gardens are planted and maintained by members of
the household and their products are intended primarily for household consumption; the
gardens also have considerable ornamental value, and they provide shade to people and
animals. The word "homegarden" has been used rather loosely to describe diverse practices,
from growing vegetables behind houses to complex multistoried systems. It is used here to
refer to intimate association of multipurpose trees and shrubs with annual and perennial crops
and, invariably livestock within the compounds of individual houses, with the whole crop-
tree-animal unit being managed by family labor.
In addition to the above, Micthell and Hanstad (2004), homegarden refer to the traditional
land use system around a homestead, where several species of plants are grown and
maintained by the household members and their products are primarily intended for the family
consumption. Several terms have been used to describe these garden production systems, such
as “homestead garden, backyard garden, kitchen garden, agro forestry, mixed garden, garden
culture, etc.
6
2.1.1 Characteristics of homegarden
The most conspicuous characteristics of all homegardens are their layered canopy
arrangements and admixture of compatible species, with each components occupying a
specific place and function (Nair,1993).
According to Michelle and Hanstand (2004), homegardens are identified by five
characteristics. First; the garden is located near the residence. Second, the garden contains a
high diversity of plants. Third, garden production is additional rather than a main source of
family consumption or income. Fourth, the garden occupies a “small” area, (Brownrigg 1985
and Christanty,1990). A fifth additional characteristic of homegardens that distinguished by
Marsh (1998) is that homegardens are a production system that the poor can easily enter at
some level.Homegardens are commonly established on lands that are marginal or not suitable
for field crops or forage cultivation because of their size, topography, or location
(Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, 1993). The specific size of a home garden varies from household
to household and, normally, their average size is less than that of the arable land owned by the
household.
2.1.2 Structure and composition of homegardens
Tropical homegardens are characterized by vegetation layers, imitating the tropical forest
structure. The top storey consists of a canopy of tall trees which reduces radiation and
mechanical impact of rainfall, creates a relatively constant micro-climate in the lower layers
and through leaf fall contributes to the maintenance of soil fertility. The lower layer features
staple food and fruit production (e.g. banana, mango, papaya, etc,) followed by bush level
growth (e.g. cassava, maize, peppers, etc.) in the third layer. In-ground and ground-covering
species (roots and tubers and others) form the last layer, while climbing species transverse the
lower stories (Fernandes and Nair, 1986; Ninez, 1987).
Homegardens in Ethiopia have variable shapes: some almost encircle the house others square,
rectangle or irregular (Zemede Asfaw, 1997; 2001). Gardens usually have boundaries from
home of other home gardens by fences; dry woody material, stones, and live plants (thorny
shrubs) and some time bounded by natural barriers like rivers, gorge and patterning of the
crop also varies from place to place.For instance, the plants like bamboos are on the outer
7
margins, some are planted in side margin next to the fence, chat, coffee and enset are
planted(thorny shrubs) and some time bounded by natural barriers like rivers, gorge and
patterning of the crop also varies from place to place. For instance, the plants like bamboos
are on the outer margins, some are planted in side margin next to the fence, chat, coffee and
enset are planted in the depressions of rows, others like perennial planted far apart with water
collection depressions (Zemede Asfaw, 1997; Tesfaye Abebe, 2005).
The compositions of crops grown in homegardens can be grouped based on function as
ornamental, fruits, food crops, vegetables, medicinal, spices and fodder, building materials
and fuel woods (Kumar and Nair, 2004). The patterns and compositions of homegardens are
disordered due to the educational level of gardener, the indigenous knowledge of farmer, the
market and the size of land availability (Zemede Asfaw, 2001) and also Fernandes and Nair,
(1986) reported that socio cultural, environmental and ecological factors determine species
composition and types of homegardens.
2.1.3. Homegarden plant Species diversity
Agricultural biodiversity is defined as the variety and variability of plants, animals and
microorganisms at genetic, species and ecosystem level involving the whole agro ecosystem
that is actively managed by farmers (Cromwell et al., 1999).
Homegardens are dynamic in their structure, composition evolution and also uses. Their
structure, composition, species and their diversity have been influenced by the changes in
socio-economic circumstances and cultural values of the users. Furthermore, farmers often
use home gardens as sit of experimentation, introduction and domestication of liked plants
(Engels, 2002; Shrestha et al., 2004).
In addition to the above, Hodgkin,(2002),tropical homegardens are important in contributing
biodiversity conservation services at ecosystem, species and infra specific levels and they
provide complex multi-story niches in which farmers could maintain large number of useful
plant species over decades or century. Home gardens are highly diversified in their
components. For instance, in the homegardens of West Java, 56 species of plants were
recorded in a single and in a hamlet of 41 households the number of species reached 272
8
(Soemarwoto and Conway, 1992) and the presence of up to 100 varieties of banana was
reported from the home gardens of Bukoba, Tanzania (Rugalema et al., 1994).
2.2 Benefits of homegarden
Homegardens, with their diversified agricultural crops and trees, are of vital importance to the
subsistence economy of many areas in the tropics (Nair,1993), and also play numerous roles
as, nutritional supplements, food security in times of crisis, shade, fuel wood, cash income,
experimentation, medicinal plants and small-animal raising (FAO, 2000). Also it has a great
role to in situ conservation of agro biodiversity or plant genetic resources (FAO, 2001;
Eyzaguirre and Linares, 2004).
2.2.1 Contribution of home gardens to the family health
Homogardens are one strategy for addressing malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies.
Even though animal products are the best source of micronutrients, vegetables and fruits may
be the only source of micronutrients that are reliably available to poor households (Talukder
et al., 2000).
A number of studies have been reported that homogardens are producing a high percentage of
fruits and vegetables consumed by homegardening families. Although it is relatively straight
forward to determine whether a homegardening program has increased production and
consumption of fruits and vegetables, it is not a simple matter to determine the impact of
homegardening on nutritional status (HKI/AP, 2003). Nevertheless, a number of studies have
concluded that homogardens are associated with better household nutrition.
A large-scale homegardening project implemented by Heller Keller International (HKI) in
Bangladesh found that families, who grew more fruits and vegetables, were likely to have a
high intake of vitamin A (HKI/IP, 2001). A study of homegarden consumption in rural
Bangladesh found that fruits and vegetables were the most important factor associated with
higher intake of vitamin A by women of reproductive age, that consumption of fruits and
vegetables contributed more to vitamin A intake than consumption of animal products, and
that the number of varieties of fruits and vegetables produced in the homegardens was
significantly associated with a higher vitamin A intake (Bloem, 1996).
9
One of the most important vitamins supplied by homegardens is vitamin A, which is essential
not only for healthy eyes but also for protection of infectious diseases such as measles (Soleri
et al., 1991).While the home garden is the most unnoticed production system, it provide not
only food but also income and aesthetic, spiritual and psychological benefits for the poor and
marginalized families in the developing world (Boncodin et al., 2000).
According to Christianty (1990), cultural values should also be taken into account. The
disappearance of homegardens and the species diversity in them can lead to a loss of social,
traditional and cultural values. Nevertheless, the economic contribution has been largely
underestimated. In additional to their usefulness in combating vitamin A deficiency home
gardens are associated with a number of other nutritional benefits, some of which have tended
to be overlooked (Marsh, 1998).
2.2.2 Contribution of home gardens to Food security
Homegarden often constitute a small farm area where intense food production occurs. The
promotion and improvement of home gardens represents an agricultural strategy with
potential benefit to food security, nutrition, health status, and livelihood of poor rural
households (FAO, 2003). It is common misconception that home gardens are exclusively
subsistence-oriented. Whereas in fact home gardens provide households with cash crop as
well as food crops. There are sustainable profitable ways to cultivate cash crops in well-
managed home gardens and to raise the standard of living of the local population by
promoting nature based sustainable spice-business from and supporting farmers in
them(Reyes,2008).
In many cases the scale of products produced on homegardens significantly improves the
family‟s financial status (Mitchell and Hanstad, 2004). Food production is the primary role of
most, if not all, of the homegardens (Nair, 1993). Hence, the variety of annual and perennial
crops and vegetables grown in these gardens provide a secure supply of fresh produce
throughout the year (Shrestha et al., 2002).
The magnitude and rate of production, as well as the ease and rhythm of maintenance, of the
homegarden system depend on its species composition. Although the choice of species is
10
determined to a large extent by environmental and socioeconomic factors, as well as the
dietary habits and market demands of the locality, there is a remarkable similarity with respect
to species composition among different homegardens in various places, especially with
respect to the herbaceous components. This is so because food production is the predominant
role of most herbaceous species and the presence of an over story requires that the species are
shade-tolerant. Thus, tuber crops such as taro, cassava, yam, and sweet potato dominate
because they can be grown with relatively little care as understory species in partial shade and
yet be expected to yield reasonable levels of carbohydrate-rich produce. Harvesting can be
staggered over several weeks depending upon household needs. A conspicuous trait of the
tree-crop component in home gardens is the predominance of fruit trees, and other food-
producing trees.
2.2.3 Contribution of homegardens to household income
In addition to other benefits, the scale of products produced in homegardens significantly
improves the family‟s financial status. Homegardens can contribute to the household with
cash crops as well as food crops (Hoogerbuugge and Fresco, 1993).
In fact, returns to land and labour are often higher for homegardens than for field agriculture
(Marsh, 1998). Homegardens can contribute to household income in several ways. The
household may sell products in the homegarden including fruits, vegetables, animal products
and other valuable materials. The household may use the homegarden site to conduct cottage
industries to produce crafts or small manufactures that can be sold (Marsh,
1998).Homegardens can contribute to household income in several ways. The household may
sell products in the homegardens including fruits, vegetables, animal products and other
variable materials.
2.2.4 Medicinal value of homegarden.
In Ethiopia, more than 95% of traditional medical preparations are of plant origin (Dawit
Abebe, 1986), and more than 80% of the people are dependent on plants for their health
services (Dawit Abebe, 2001).
11
In Ethiopia, most medicinal plants used by the herbalists are collected from the natural
vegetation. Home based medicinal plants use relies on plants of homegarden crops, weeds and
that grow wild around human habitation. The cultivated medicinal plants are mostly produced
in homegardens either for medicinal or rather primary purposes. The public knows medicinal
plants of homegarden, as knowledge on them is open or public. Zemede Asfaw (1997)
reported that only 6% of the plants maintained in homegardens in Ethiopia are primarily
cultivated for their medicinal value even though many other plants grown for non-medicinal
purposes turn out to be important medicines when some health problems are encountered.
Traditional medicine in Ethiopia includes medicinal preparations from plants, animals and
mineral substances, as well as spiritual healing, hydrotherapy, bone setting, etc. Traditional
medicine is largely practiced by traditional medicine practitioners, although, particularly for
certain common health problems, it is also practiced at home by the elderly and by mothers
(Abbink, 1995).
2.2.5 Environmental and Socio-Cultural Value of Homegardens
Diversity of plant species and the layered canopy of species are the most striking features of
homegarden with all homegardens generally consisting of herbaceous layer near the ground, a
tree layer at upper levels, and intermediate layers in between (Nar, 1993). The high diversity
of homegarden provides habitat for wild animals such as insects, reptiles, birds and small
mammals (Christianty, 1990).
According to Western Kamp and Gottsberger, (2000), homegardens are micro-environments
within the system that provide many goods and services of environmental, economic, social
and cultural importance. These environmental goods and services also contribute to
sustainable livelihoods in a number of ways. Biodiversity, especially that of the below ground
part of the system, performs a variety of ecological services such as nutrient recycling,
regulation of local hydrological processes, and detoxification of noxious chemicals. Farmers
have a rich traditional knowledge on the complementarities of annual- perennial species
composition and structure, and they use this traditional knowledge and genetic diversity for
rich and healthy homegardens. Healthy homegardens not only increase the diversity of soil
micro-organisms and predators of natural enemies, but also increase populations of
12
pollinators; fruit setting and gene flow.By spending leisure time and work in homegardens,
families and communities turn them in to culturally constructed spaces (Eyzaguirre and
Linares, 2004) where ethnobotanical knowledge is actively preserved. Customs, tradition and
aesthetic preferences are instrumental in deter-mining the overall aspect of the garden ( Smith
et al., 2006).
2.3. Indigenous knowledge associated with plant use and management
Indigenous knowledge of a people, as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), is knowledge held by a people based on a “combination of cultural distinctiveness and
prior territorial occupancy relative to a more recently arrived population with its own distinct
and subsequently dominant culture” .Indigenous knowledge is usually unwritten and
preserved only through oral tradition, and it refers to the knowledge system of indigenous
people and minority cultures (Khasbagan, 2008).
According to Stephen and Justin, (2003), indigenous knowledge is knowledge that is unique
to a given culture or society. It is the basis for local- level decision making in agriculture,
health care, food preparation, education and natural resource management. Traditional
knowledge (TK) is used to sustain the community and its culture and to maintain the genetic
resources necessary for the continued survival of the community.
It is „traditional‟ because it is created, perceived and disseminated in the way it reflects the
traditions of communities those maintained it. From long past to present indigenous people
have developed such wealth, i.e. traditional knowledge, and had been using and transferring it
to the next generations for the betterment of their life. Indigenous knowledge is used to
sustain the community‟s culture, religion and environments; and in connection to our aim to
use and manage the floral diversity of a particular area (Cotton, 1996). The culture of home
gardening has developed a general structure that allows owners to produce crops of their
choice and they manage and direct much of the development process for their gardens. There
is free exchange of germplasm among relatives, friends, neighbors and acquaintances.
Traditional ways of restricting uncontrolled transfer of germplasm from Homegardens
developed by households was also observed (Zemede Asfaw, 2001a; Bennett-Lartey et al.,
2002; Shrestha etal., 2002).
13
2.4. Factors affecting homegarden plant species diversity and productivity.
According to Tesfaye (2005) reported that not all factors are important in influencing crop
species richness and diversity of farms. Access to markets, access to major roads, altitude,
slope of the farm and livestock holding were among the most important factors that
influenced species richness and evenness of crops.
In determining how homegardens can best contribute to conservation of agro-biodiversity, all
factors affecting its distribution within and across gardens, its evolution and resilience over
time need to be understood. For such purpose, one of the urgent issues facing research on
garden based conservation is the “definition of minimum size of conservation units” which is
needed to conserve viable populations of the target species. Once established, these
conservation units can be used to monitor evolutionary changes in the genetic diversity they
harbor, for example, by using molecular markers for measures of drift, selection and gene-
flow. Such information is crucial to ensure long-term conservation of any crop as well as of
the many associated wild species (Goddard et al., 2009).
2.5. Homegrden and in situ conversion of plant biodiversity.
The Conservation on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines in situ conservation as “the
conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable
populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or
cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive
properties”(UNCED 1992).
In situ conservation of domesticated resources focuses on farmers‟ fields as part of existing
agro-ecosystems, while other types of in situ conservation are concerned with wild plant
populations growing in their original habitats (genetic reserves). The conservation of whole
agro-ecosystem that provides the habitat of target species and varieties (Cromwell etal.,1999).
Watson and Eyzaguirre (2002) Stated that home-gardens are regarded as ideal production
system for in situ conservation of genetic resources because of their large diversity of crop
species and cultivated varieties .such conservation technique allows for further crop evolution
and adaptation to changing environments ,while genetic diversity is regarded; frozen; in ex
14
situ approaches(Brook field, 2001). Preservation of evolutionary processes (mutation,
migration, recombination, selection) is often cited as a major advantage of in situ
conservation. Homegardens can be described as an in-situ practice of integrated and use of
agricultural production system, which date back for years through the tropical world.
Homegardens can potentially play a large role in the conservation of local natural resources
that are vital to the maintenance of local ecosystem function. As an ecosystem, homegarden
contains multiple levels of diversity, including cultural, genetic and agro economic diversity
(Posey, 1999; Prain and Warren, 1999).
15
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 Description of the study area `
3.1.1 Geographical location of the study Area
The study area is found in Cheha Woreda, Gurage Zone southern Ethiopia. Cheha woreda is
located at distance of 185 km far from Addis Ababa in south west direction along the Jimma
road and located at North 80 -8
015‟ latitude and in eastern 37
‟40
0-38
‟ longitude and the
altitude was 1600m-2600meter above the sea level. Cheha woreda is bordered on the north by
Wabe river, on the south by Enemorna Eaner, on the west by the oromia region, on the east
byEzha and on the south east by Gumer and Geta Woreda (CWAAO, 2019). Map of Cheha
Woreda (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Administrative map of the study area.
16
3.1.1.2 Land use of the study area
According to Cheha Woreda agricultural administrative office (2019) the total area of the
woreda was 57,315 hectar. From these 16,285.5 hectar, (28.41%) covered agricultural crop
with annual, 21,383.75ha, (37.31%) covered with perennial crop,3,215ha,(5.61%) covered
With natural forest, 3,736.75ha, (6.52%) cultivable land, 2046ha, (3.57%) grazing
land,5,006ha,(8.73%) non-cultivable land 516ha,(0.9%) communal forest, and Private forest
5,126ha,(8.94%).These show that the land system of Cheha woreda is dominated by
agriculture 47,406 (72.2%) hectares from the total area of 57,315 hectares.
Table 1: The land use of cheha woreda
No Land use system Area in hectares Area in%
1 perennial crop 21,383.5 37.31
2 annual crop 16,285.5 28.41
3 Natural forest 3,215 5.61
4 Grazing land 2,046 3.57
5 Cultivated land 3,736.75 6.52
6 Non-cultivable land 5,006 8.73
7 Communal forest 516 0.9
8 Individual forest 5,126 8.94
Total 57,315 100
3.1.1.3 Climate, temperature and rain fall
According to Cheha woreda Agricultural office;the study area gets its main rain during
summer season starts from early June and ends in August up to mid- September.It also gets its
spring and autumn rains.The annual crops are grown in the Woreda during 2 rainy seasons:
the main rainy season that lasts from June to September and the short rainy season that lasts
from March to April. There are three agro-climatic zones high land (Dega consists of 20% of
the area which is 2300-3200 m.a.s.l.), mid-land (woina-dega consists of 70% of the area
which is 1500-2300 m.a.s.l.), and Low-land (kola consists of 10% of the area which is 500-
1500 m.a.s.l.).An annual average temperature of the area is 200c the maximum is 21
0c and the
minimum is180C and the annual rain fall is 1001-1200mm per-year. When we see the
17
topography 60% was plan, 30 % was up and down hill, 8% was sloppy and 2% is wetland
(CWAAO,2019).
3.1.2 Population and Socio-economic characteristics of the study area
3.1.2.1 Populaton
According to the Cheha woreda finance plan and economy development office (2019) the
population was 147,805. Out of these 72,465(49.03%) were male whereas the remaining
75,340 (50.97%) were females. From this population 10,368 were urban dwellers and were
137,437 were living in rural areas.
3.1.2.2 Crop production
The Cheha Woreda is known for its enset-based farming system in which both annual and
perennial crops are grown. In addition to enset, most of the other crops grown are perennial,
such as, coffee, chat, mango, avocado, lemon, and orange. A small group of households that
own more land cultivate teff,barley, maize, and wheat. Because of the small size of
landholdings, farmers do not have separate plots for particular crops. Consequently, each
farming activity is performed for all the crops on the same field. During the main rainy
season, farmers grow barley, wheat, teff, and potatoes, while the short rainy season, they
practice intercropping of maize, tomato, cabbage, and green peppers with immature enset and
coffee. Planting Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. globulus) trees for cash income
is also becoming common practice in the area (Holeta Agricultural Research Center 2011).
3.1.2.3 Livestock
In Cheha Woreda Cattle, goats, sheep, horses, mules and donkeys are the major type of
livestock rearing. From the total livestock found in the Woreda cattle, goats and sheep are
more available (CWAAO,2019).
3.2 Sampling design and methods of data collection
3.2.1 Sampling Design
This study was conducted May-December 2019.The study was focused on the homegarden
plant diversity and associated use value in Cheha woreda, Gurage Zone, Southern nation
nationalities people of regional state.
18
3.2.2 Selection of study kebeles
The Selection of study sites wasconducted done after discussion with experts from Woreda
agriculture and rural development offices. Out of 41 Kebelesin the study Woredaonly ten
Kebeleswere selected by purposive sampling method.The selection of these study sites was
influenced by the fact that they had better vegetation cover and because of their altitudinal
variation and biodiversity in rough over estimation based on information from woreda
Agricultural and rural development office. Accordingly,three from high lands (Moche,
Dakuna, and Girar), four from the mid lands (Sisenaimatye, Buchach, Adoshe, and Werdene),
and three from low lands (Dagag, Jatu, and Gasore) were selected purposely.
3.2.3. Selection of informants
Fromone Kebele twelve household farmers were selected systematically by direct
participation of the kebele administrative and agricultural extenstion workers. Selection was
based in accepting ideasforwarded by agricultural extension workers to do all agronomic
activitiesthrough direct observation that do have well organized gardening and proper
management of homegardens.From these, six household farmers were randomly selected from
each kebele. Therefore, a total of sixity household farmers(40 male and 20 Female) were
selected (Appendix-I).Ten key Informants were selected by the purposive sampling methods
based on use criteria applying the procedure for direct matrix ranking.
3.2.4. Ethnobotanical data collection
Ethnobotanical techniques was conducted to collect data on knowledge and management of
homegarden plants used by people in the study area as described in Martin (1995) and
Cotton(1996).The techniques are group discussion, semi-structured interviews, field
observations and market survey. The interview and discussions were made using local
„Guragegna‟ language and Amhariclanguage.
For vegetation data preferential sampling method was used by using sample plots of
20mx20m (400m 2) for main plot and subplots of size 2mx2m were laid in the main plots to
collect herbaceous plants from the homegardens, following a sampling approach as described
by Muller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974). Six sample plots were delimited in each selected
19
Kebele. A total of sixty sample plots were delimited in the study area. The plants inside the
plot were counted, collected, pressed and dried for identification. In addition to these local
names plant species, uses and growth habitswere also recordedby asking the ownersand
through repeated observations. Plant specimens collected from the homegardens were
identified from primary data sources with reference to the volumes of the“Flora of Ethiopia
and Eritrea”( vol.1-10) andwritten articles.
3.2.4.1 Survey and interview
The household surveys involved various data collected methods, such as semi structured
interview questionnaire (Appendix-II), informal discussion and observation.The interview
focused on basic questions concerning the informant‟s knowledge on uses of local plants,
their management a practices, tree utilization and factors that hinder the homegarden plant
diversity.
Since the interview is semi-structured more questions were asked in addition to ones
presentedon appendix two to collect data such as plants used as a source of food, used for
medicinal value, factor influence species diversity and so on.
During survey for this study, secondary data were collected in order to provide background
information on the study and the general information from the woreda Agricultural Office,
journals, and research articles and from various books.
The quantitative and qualitative data were collected from secondary data and primary data
respectively. Primary information gathered through semi-structured interviews. In the semi-
structured interview, all interviews were asked the same questions in the local „Guragegna‟
and Amharic language using open and close-ended questionnaires. Semi structured interview
were conducted on Six HH farmers in each of the ten Kebeles or totally 60 HH
farmers.Information on household characteristics, the more diversified homegarden plants
habit and purpose of homegarden practice was collected through household interview.
3.2.4.2 Group discussion
Group discussions were held with key informants and field assistant assigned to the woreda
agricultural office. Ten key informants were formed in ten Kebeles based on the type of
homegarden and indigenous knowledge of homegarden management. During the discussion,
20
the key informants were allowed to discuss what type of food crops are found in their
homegarden, the role of homegardens based diets in their food supply, and the income earned
from the homegardens in the study area.
3.2.4.3 Market survey
According to Martin (1995), study of the important plants in a market setting is similar to
carrying out an ethnobotanical inventory in a community. In the study market survey was
assessed in order to ensure that some of the homegarden plant products have a potential to
generate income for the native communities.Therefore, they are complementary to a
community ethnobotanical study and are an important parts of ethnobotanical data collection
process. Therefore, a market survey was done on Emdeber town on Saturday, on Dakuna on
Monday and on Jatu on Sunday to record the variety of food and other plant products that
have market values in the study area. The different kind of home garden products such as
vegetables, fruits, roots and tubers, cereals, spices, medicinal plants and others were observed
in these local markets by interacting with producers, sellers and consumers.
3.3 Methods of Data analysis
Ethnobotanical data collected was analyzed by using different methods described in Martin
(1995) including preference ranking, direct matrix ranking, descriptivestatic methods such as
frequencies, relative frequencies densities, relative densities, Shannon and Wiener (1949)
index of species diversity.The collected data were analyzed by using Microsoft excel was
employed to interpret the homegarden plants used as different use-categories and habits. Chart
and tables were used to illustrate quantitative results.
3.3.1 Preference ranking
A preference ranking technique were conducted with informants to rank some selected
homegarden plants according to their significances. According to Martin (1995), preference
ranking was selected as the most commonly used food crops in homegarden among ten
informants. Each rank is given an integer value 1-10 and the most important value being the
highest value (10), and the least important one being the smallest value (1). The level for the
species was determined by adding these values to all the key informants.
21
3.3.2 Direct matrix ranking
To assess their relative importance to local people a direct matrix ranking level was applied to
seven multipurpose tree species. Based on their relative importance, ten selected informants
were asked to assign use values for each plant (5 = best, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = less
used, 1 = least used and 0 = not used) for each category use. The use value in comparison
include; food, medicinal, construction, fencing, fire wood, shade, and fodder and charcoal.
Next, the ranking results are summed up to generate direct matrix table.
3.3.3 Frequency
Frequency is the number sample plot of a particular species occurred in the study area.
It is determined by calculating the percentage of plots/quadrats in a sample area where a
particular species occurs.
% Frequency = Number of plots in which species A occur X100
Total number of plots
Relative Frequency is the distribution of one species in a sample relative to the distribution of
all species.
Relative frequency = Frequency of species in the homegarden X100
Total frequency of all species in sampled homegarden .
3.3.4 Density
Density is the average number of individuals of a species on a unit area basis. It is closely
related to abundance but more useful in estimating the importance of a species.
Density = Number of individuals of a given species in the homegarden
Total area of the 60 sample plots (m2)
This method was used to compute the number of individuals of tree species in the 60 sample
plots divided by the total number of individuals of all tree species.
22
Relative Density
Relative density is the number of individuals of a species as a percentage of the total number
of individuals of all species in that homegarden.
Relative density = density of a species x 100
Total density of all species
This method was applied to compute the number of individuals of tree species in the
quadrates of 60 sample plots divided by the total number of individuals of all tree species. For
both density and relative density of tree species in the study area were used to compute the
number stems of species found in the 60 plots of 60 homegardens of the study area. Each
sample plot was 20mx20m (400 m2) = 0.04 ha and the total size of 60sample plots is 2.4ha.
3.3.5. Shannon and Wiener diversity index
Shannon and Wiener diversity index were applied to quantity species diversity and richness
using the formula:
S
H‟= -Σ (Pi ln Pi)
i=1
Where H׳= Shannon diversity index
Σ = summation symbol
S = the number of species
Pi = the proportion of individual or abundance of the ith
species expressed as a
proportion of the total cover
ln = Log base n (natural logarithms).
The species evenness or equitability (EH) that measures the equity of species were calculated
from the ratio of observed diversity to maximum diversity using the equation
EH = H‟/Hmax
The diversity of each cluster will calculated using this index based on the frequency of species
as input source.
23
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Species Diversity and Species Richness of homegarden Plants
In the study area a total of 118 homegarden plant species belonging to 88 genera and 48
families were recorded (Appendix III). Among these plant species Fabaceae appeared as the
most prominent family that contains 11species,followed by Poaceae which contain 10
species,Solanaceae and Rutaceae each represented 8 species, Asteraceae and Lamiaceae each
represented 6 species, Euphorbiaceae, Brassicaceae and Rosaceae each contain 5 species,
Mytraceae, Moraceae and each contain 3species, Acanthaceae, Verbenaceae, Aliaceae,
Cuccrbitaceae, Cupressaceae, Appiaceae, Dioscoreaceae, Musaceae, and Celasteraceae each
contain 2 species and the remaining twnity nine families each containing one species. The
representative families and number of species under each family is given under (Appendix
VI).
The families Fabaceae, Poaceae, Solanaceae and Rutaceae were represented by the highest
numbers of plant species in homegardens of the study area than other families. This shows
that the study area consists of considerable diversity of plant species within these families and
contribute highest number of useful plant species to the local people of study area. Similar
results were reported by Tefera Mekonen, (2010) Sebeta-Hawas Woreda, Southwestern
Shewa Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia reported that Fabaceae had the highest number of
species, followed by the families Asteraceae, Rutaceae and Poaceae and Solomon
Tamrat,(2011) in Kochere Woreda of Gedeo zone reported that Fabaceae and Asteraceae are
amongst the three plant families presented by flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea that contributes
more number of use full plant species to the study area people. In other hand this shows that
the richness of the local peoples with indigenous Knowledge associated to continuous use and
conservation system of this plant family in the study areas.The result of present study shows
that presence of high diversity of homegarden plant species in the study area and diversified
uses of the plants. This study shares with the research done on biodiversity Conservationin
Sebeta-Hawas Woreda,SouthwesternShewaZone of OromiaRegion homegardens Agro, by
Tefera Mekonen, (2010).
24
4.1.1 Growthforms of plants
Among useful plant species recorded in this study, 52 species (44%) were herbs, 31 species
(26%) were trees,27 species (23%) were shrubs and 8 species (7%)were climbers (Figure 2).
Analysis of habit of useful plants in this study area is in agreement with the result reported by
Telemos Seta (2007), Solomon Tamrat, (2010), and Mekonnen Amberber, (2011) and Feleke
Woldiyes,(2011).Herbs are the most abundant growth form found in homegarden of Cheha
Woreda followed by trees and shrubs.
Figure 2: Growth forms of plant species in the homegarden in the study area
4.1.2. Comparison of homegarden plant diversity among the study area
The result of Shannon -Weaver diversity and evenness value shown in (Table 2) below, a
higher diversity of plant species in Jatu home garden (H'=2.99) as followed by to the home
gardens of Gasore (H'=2.94), Dagag (H'=2.89), Dakuna (H'=2.84), Buchach
(H'=2.77),Moche(H=2.70),Girar (H=2.63),Adoshe (H=2.56), Wordene (H=2.48)Sisenamatye
(H=2.39). The present study result showed that the diversity of plant species in the study area
varies dueto agro ecological variation.Therefore, species richness increase with decreasing
altitude below 1500 meters a.s.l. The evenness index shows that in Dagag home gardens most
of the speciesareevenlyabundant (E=0.76), Gasore(E=0.74), Jatu(E=0.72),Moche (E=0.71),
Buchach,DakonaandGirar(E=0.70each),Adoshe(E=0.64),Wordene(E=0.63)and
Sisenamatye(E=0.61). The plant species recorded in the study area of homegarden was
44%
26%
23%
7%
Herbs
Trees
Shrubs
Climbers
25
multilayer canopy and it exhibit complex structure in vertically and horizontally with trees,
shrubs, herbs and climbers intimately mixed each other.
Table 2: Species richness, diversity (H’ =Shannon-wiener index), evenness in the
homegardens of the study area
No Study site Altitude Richness Shannon (H) Evenness
1 Sisenaimatye 1401-2051 50 2.39 0.61
2 Buchach 1309-1901 51 2.77 0.70
3 Adoshe 1652-2010 48 2.56 0.64
4 Jatu 1180-1345 62 2.99 0.72
5 Moche 1752-2017 46 2.70 0.71
6 Dagag 1256-1478 57 2.89 0.76
7 Girar 1272-1443 42 2.63 0.70
8 Dakuna 1813-2451 45 2.84 0.70
9 Gasore 1273-1445 52 2.94 0.74
10 Woredene 1563-2041 49 2.48 0.63
4.1.3. Occurrence and frequency of plants in the homegarden
To understand the relative similarity and approximate indications of species diversity,in the
study area, the percentage frequency values and relative frequency of each species were
computed.. Ensete ventricosum was the most abundance frequent species occurring in almost
all the study homegarden with relative frequency of 1.39% followed byChata edulis 1.36%
andCoffea arabica 1.28 %and ranked 1st, 2
nd and 3rd, respectively.Persea americana
1.22%Zea mays1.06%, andColocasia esculenta 0.95% ranked 4th and 5th respectively of the
total sampled homegarden. These are given in (Table 3).
26
Table 3: The most abundance frequency species occurring in the study area
Botanical name Local
name
No.qua
of occur
Total number
of quadrant
% Frequency %of relative
Frequency
Ensete ventricosum Eset 50 60 83.3 1.39
Chata edulis Chat 49 60 81.7 1.36
Coffea arabica Kawa 46 60 76.7 1.28
Persea americana Abkado 45 60 73.3 1.22
Zea mays Bokolo 38 60 63.3 1.06
Colocasia esculenta Godale 34 60 56.7 0.95
4.1.4. Relative density of trees in the study area
In the study area 30 tree species were recorded from the sample plots of the homegarden.
Among tree species identified, Sesbania sesban was the most abundant ( 315 individuals)
with the highest relative density (27.03%) dueto these trees used as shade for young seedlings
,followed by Eucalyptus globules 184 individuals and relative density of 15.79%, Persea
americana with151 individuals and relative density of (12.96%),Cordia africana 125
individuals and relative density of (10.72%), Cupressus lustanica with 105 individuals and
relative density of (9.01 %), Mangifera indica with 85 individuals and relative density of
(7.29%),Eucalyptus camaldulensiswith 78 individuals and relative density of (6,70%),
Juniperus procera 45 individuals and relative density of (3.85%), Citrus sinesis with 42
individual and relative density of (3.60%) and Croton macrostachyus with 35 individuals and
relative density of (2.98%). Casuarina equisetifolia, Jacaranda mimosiqolia, Moringa
stenopetala, Olea europaea, Gravillea rubsta,Melia azedarach and Ficus sur Forsk showed
the least relative density . The top ten tree species with theirrelative densities are given under
(Table 4)
27
Table 4: Ten tree species with the highest number of individual, density and
relative density(Total density=0.0485).
Scientific name Local name No individual
tree plant
Density/
m2
Relative
density
Sesbania sesban Sesebaniye 315 0.01312 27.03
Eucalyptus globules Besheyeatanekert 184 0.00766 15.79
Persea americana Abucado 151 0.00629 12.96
Cordia africana Koffi 125 0.00520 10.72
Cupressus lustanica Yeferiji det 105 0.00437 9.01
Mangifera indica Mango 85 0.00354 7.29
Eucalyptuscamaldulensis Gudiye atanekert 78 0.00325 6.70
Juniperus procera Yehabesha det 45 0.00187 3.85
Citrus sinesis Birtukan 42 0.00175 3.60
Croton macrostachyus Washena 35 0.00145 2.98
Tree species like Eucalptus globules, Cordia africana and Arundinaria alpinea are used to
construct houses, store house and material utilized in home of the study area. In addition,
plant species like Acacia abyssinca, Albizia gummifera and Eucalptus globules are used for
fire wood and charcoal, these are the main energy source of the local people of the study area.
Homegarden tree plant species also provide other products such as soil conservation and soil
fertility purpose, these are Acacia abyssinica,Cordia africana, andMillettia ferruginea.
According to personal observation and information collected from local people, the study area
of local people uses the trees for traditional bee keeping system. The most growth tree species
are Cordia africana Albizia gummifera, Croton macrostachyus, Millettia ferruginea are used
to source of nectar to the production of honey. The honey is very important for local people as
source of food, homemade drinks, and medicines and as source of income. The same result
was reported by Tadesse Kippie, (2002) for Gedio people in addition to what reported for
28
Sidama homegardens by Tesfaye Abebe, (2005) that various types of woody species managed
in gardens were used for diverse types of uses.
Homegarden owners and other local people in the study area have the tradition of using
different tree species found in their homegarden for various purposes. The results of ten key
informants using direct matrix ranking in the ten study sites showed that tree species have
multipurpose uses (Table 5). The tree species were chosen according to the informants‟
consensus.Thus,Croton macrostachyusshowed a total score of 258 and ranked first, Cordia
africanaandMillettia ferrugineawith a total score 248, and 238 second and third positions,
respectively. Persea americana the highest score for food, Croton macrostachyus and Persea
americana for their medicinal use, Cordia africana and Eucalyptus globulus for construction,
Millettia ferruginea and Eucalyptus globulus highest score for firewood, Cordia africana
and Croton macrostachyus with highest score for traditional bee keeping, Eucalyptus
globules for fence, Acacia abyssinica and Cordia africana for shade.
Table 5: Direct matrix ranking of seven homegarden tree species in seven major use
categories by ten key informants,use criteria;5=excellent, 4=verygood, 3=good,
2=less, 1=least, 0=no use
Tree species Use Categories
Food Med
icie
Shade Constr
uction
Fire
wood
Fence T/bee
keeping
Total Rank
Acacia abyssinica 0 0 50 38 46 42 46 216 6
Eucalyptus globules 0 0 32 50 50 50 28 210 7
Albizia gummifera 0 0 48 44 46 44 50 232 3
Croton macrostachyus 0 50 42 38 42 36 50 258 1
Persea americana 50 40 32 26 30 28 20 226 5
Cordia africana 20 0 50 50 40 38 50 248 2
Millettia ferruginea 0 24 46 36 50 38 44 238 3
These showed that planting trees mainly for fire wood, shade, construction and traditional bee
keeping ranked from first to fourth. This indicated that the study area of local people give
more focus for these trees based on their multipurpose function they protect and cultivated in
29
and around homegardens. Accordingly (Tadese Kippie 2002) reported multi-purpose species
growing in the home gardens and crop fields with more than one beneficial aspect were found
to provide multi-purpose benefit to households.
4.2. Traditional use-value of the plants in homegardens
The present study shows that the majority of plant species were useful for different purposes.
About 44% of the plants are used for food purpose, 36% of the plants are used for medicines
and 9 % of the plants encountered in the homegardens studied are used as spice.
Theproportions of use- value diversity of plants in the homegardens studied namely food,
medicinal, life fence, shade, firewood, , spice, construction, ornamental, soil fertilizersfodder,
traditional bee keeping tooth brush, cultural value, stimulants, making charcoal, making rope,
bee hive making, timber production purposes.
Figure 3: Use-value plant species diversity and percentage in the study area
The current study shows that people of the study area manage plants of divers use among
these more plants used as food shows the role of home gardens plays in the house hold food
security. This result agreed with that of Zemede Asfaw and Ayele Nigatu (1995), Belachew
Wasihun et al. (2003), and Talemos seta (2007). Moreover, the result on use of garden plants
for diverse benefits agreed with the result of Solomon Tamirat (2011), Habitamu Hailu,
(2008), Zemede Asfaw and Ayele Nigatu (2001), in that indigenous people often have a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nu
mb
er
of
spe
cie
s
Use-value diversity
30
wealth of knowledge and experience about local people resources and rely on of them for
food, medicine construction, firewood, shade etc.
4.2.1 Food and spice plant species in the study area of home garden
The semi structured interview and focus group discussion the results revealed that home
gardens plant production have different use values for mainly home consumption. Among the
recorded 118 plant species 52 plant species were recorded as having food use-value and
grouped in 41 genera and 26 families (Appendix IV). This edible purpose of homegardens
also reported by Zemede Asefaw (1997a) reportedabout 126 (75%) of the total plant species
used as food from Ethiopian homegardens. InadditionBelachew Wasihun et.al (2003) and
Habitamu Hailu (2008) reported 48 and 37 edible plants species from Arba Minch and Sebeta
areas respectively. The present study identifies 52 species used as source of food from home
gardens in Cheha woreda. Out of these 52 edible plants 48 species (92.3%) of the edible or
40.7% of the total are cultivated while the remaining 4 are wild or semi wild. Depending on
the parts of the total edible plants collected, 24 (46%) of the plants were used for fruits, 11
(27%), were used for seed, 8 (15%) were used for leaves and root. The remaining used for
stems, bulb and tuber in association with other parts.The food crop diversity in the study area
has important roles to increase nutritional and income status of the local people. Enset
ventricosumis the main staple crop in the study area and also the accidental health problem
such as bone fracture can be treated by supportive food such as Enset local clones (Guarye,
Astara, Kemnar and Dere) for the bone to recover. It provides better soil fertility and more
elasticity than it provides as a shade for small plants underneath. In addition the leaves are
used for baking, food storage.Tadesse Kippie (2002) and SLUF (2006) reported similar results
about the diverse benefits obtained from garden plants by Gedeo people, with emphasis on Enset as
multipurpose crop.
Preference ranking were done for important food crop plant frequently mentioned, the result
(Table 7) of which showedEnsete ventricosum,Zea mays,Brassica species,were the most
culturally important food plant species for Gurage people in the area.These results are also
supported by findings of homegardens of Southern Ethiopia by Tesfaye Abebe (2005), in that
coffee, Enset, maize and Brassica species were found at the top of frequency of on farm
occurrence of crop species for Sidama homegardens in south Ethiopia.
31
Table 6: The plant species most important food crops in the homegardens of the
study area, their total score and preference ranks (1-9), 9-for most important,1-for
least important
plant species Scores given by key informants(I)
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10 Total Rank
Ensete ventricosum 9 8 9 7 9 8 9 8 9 8 86 1
Zea mays 9 7 8 8 7 8 6 7 8 7 75 2
Solanum tuberosum 7 6 5 7 6 5 6 7 5 4 58 4
Colocasia esculenta 6 4 3 5 4 2 3 5 6 4 42 6
Brassica species 7 5 7 8 6 7 5 6 7 4 62 3
Eragrostis tef 6 4 5 3 4 5 6 2 5 6 46 5
Persea americana 5 7 4 5 3 2 6 3 2 4 41 7
Musa paradisica 2 4 2 5 2 3 4 6 4 3 35 9
Dioscorea species 4 5 3 2 5 4 2 6 5 4 40 8
Interms of the number of food plant species in the homegardens of the study area the accounts
family Poaceae and Rutaceae each with 6 species followed by Solanaceae and Brassicaceae
each with 5 species ,Fabaceae with 4 species, family Apiaceae, Asteraceae and Alliaceae,
Dioscoreaceae, Musaceae and Myrtaceae each with 2 species the remaining 16 family each
accounts 1 species( Appendex IV).The current study shows that homegardens farm important
source of food crops and Societies in the study area were cultivating fruits for market demand
as well as home consumption. In the study area the most common fruit crops are Persea
americana, Mangifera indica, Caricapapaya, Citrus sinensis, Citrus aurantifolia, Ananas
comosus and Musa paradisiaca.
Beyond this, in the study area of the home gardens comprise 10 spice food plants species
belong to in 8 genera and 5 families. The spice species grouped to Alliaceae, Zingiberaceae,
Verbenaceae, Lamiaceae and Rutaceae (Table 7).
32
Table 7: The spice plant species collected from sample plots of the homegarden in
the study area
Scientific name Local name Family name Parts used
Allium cepa Shinkurt Alliaceae Bulb
Allium sativum Tuma Alliaceae Bulb
Curcuma domestica Irid Zingiberaceae Root
Lippia adoensis Koseret Verbenaceae Leaves
Mentha spicata Nana Lamiaceae Leaves
Ocimum americanum Tosegn Lamiaceae Seeds ,leaves
Ocimum basilicum Azmoreni Lamiaceae Seeds ,leaves
Rosmarinus officinalis Siga metibesha Lamiaceae Leaves
Ruta chalepensis Chaneye Rutaceae Fruit
Zingiber officinale Zinjiber Zingiberaceae Rhizome
Similarly, the same result reported by Tesfaye Abebe et al. (2010) that 10 spice plant species
were recorded in sidama home gardens. The local people in the study area uses above listed
spice plant species commonly used in food and beverages to have a good taste and texture.
More than this 50 % of the above listed the spice plant species used in medicinal value. This
finding agrees with Feleke Woledeys, (2011) reported that historically spices have been food
related benefits of spices can be viewed from perspectives; flavoring, nutrition, preservation
and other additional use.
4.2.2. Medicinal plants in the Home garden of the study area.
The plant species recorded in the study area 42 (35.59%) are medicinal plant species from
home gardens grouped under 40 genera and 31 families (Appendix V). Asterace, Solanaceae,
and Rutaceae with three species each, Alliaceae, poaceae, Brassicaceae, Acanthaceae,
andLamiaceae with two species each and the remaining 23 families were represented by one
species each. Medicinal plants are used for when humans and cattle have different symptoms,
they can be cured by providing the right medication. With regard to parts used 20 (47.62 %)
out of 42 species for leaves, 8 (19.05%) for roots or bulbs, 6 (14.29%), for fruits, 6 (14.29%)
for the seed and 3 (7.14%) for stems (Appendix V). This is similar to the result of Zemede
33
Asfaw (2002), Belachew Wasihun et.al (2003) and Habtamu Hailu (2008). The growth forms
comprise as 22 (52.38%) herbs, 11(26.19%) shrubs, 8(19.05%) trees and 1 (2.38%) climbers
are given in Figure (4).
Figure 4: Habits of medicinal plants in the study area
Out of the recorded medicinal plants 53% are herbs. The study conducted by Tilahun
Teklehaymanot and Mirutse Giday (2007)also indicates that in Ethiopia there is a general trend
that the proportion of herbs for the dominant traditional medicinal application is high.
In the study area showed that the local people have low indigenous knowledge about
medicinal plants used for treat livestock aliments. Among the 42 recorded medicinal plant
species from homegardens,35 plant species (83.3%) were used for treat human ailments and
5 plant species (11.9%) were used for treating both humans and livestock ailments and 2
plant species (4.8%) were used for treating livestock ailments. This exhibited that knowledge
of medicinal plants used totreat human ailments is wider than that of traditional veterinary
medicines in the area. This couldbe because of the cultural dependence of the local people on
plant materials for their subsistenceas food or sources of income and inputs for material
culture, than on animals.Tesfaye Awas et al.(1997) reported a similar result about dependence
of local people on plants than on animals for their livelihoods.
4.3 .Market demand and consumption of home garden Products
In the study area the local and surrounding communities take share as supplier and consumer
on Saturday in Emdeber and Monday in Dakuna market. In these market various homegarden
plant products were being exchanged. Some of the products used to go out of the local food
market are mainly Ensete ventricosumn plant qocho or bula, Solanum tubersum,Colocasia
53%
26%
19%
2%
Herbs
Shrubs
Trees
Climbers
34
esculenta, Dioscoria species, vegetables, various fruits, spices, medicinal plants, stimulants
such as Coffea arabica and Catha edulis were exchange valuable household goods instead.By
selling these products improve the familiy‟s economic status by generating additional source
of income for families. This is similar results were reported by Talemos Setaet al. (2013) that
garden products are sold when there is surplus production and the objective being to buy other
basic needs or to balanced diets and get more income for sustenance of livelihood of the
family.
Women and children have played an important role in promoting the marketing of garden
vegetables products such as Brassica species, Allium cepa, Allium sativum ,Capsicum
frutenscens, Daucus carota, Beta vulgaris, Solanum tubersum, Saccharum officinarum,
Colocasia esculenta, and Dioscoria species),various fruits such as Persea americana,
Mangifera indica, Musa paradisiaca, Citrus sinensis, Citrus aurantifolia, and Citrus
aurantium. In addition these spices such as Ocimum basilicum, Lippia adonesis, medicinal
plants such as Ruta chlepensis, Zingiber officinale, Rhamnus prinoides, cerals such as Zea
mays, Hordum vulgaris, Vicia faba, and the Enset products of fiber and rope were widely seen
in the market of the study area (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Some of the homegardens plants products seen in the study area of the
local market (photo by Teferi Yenealem, 2019)
4.4. Factors that affect the diversity and composition of homegardens plant species
The diversity of plant species and floristic composition in the study area are influenced by
several factors.According to the results, the main factors that affect the productivity
anddiversity of theplant species in the study area include diseases and pests, homegarden size,
35
wildlife, climate change, insufficient agricultural support, main path way and human
activitiy, such as cutting down home garden trees for a variety of purpouses, such as charcoal
and firewood, which affect plants in the study area.
Among the above listed factor diseases and pests (93%), wildlife (86%), homegarden size
(82%), climate change (62%) which ranked first to fourth respectively are the major fator
affecting the plant species diversity and productivity. Among the total informants (93%) said
that diseases and pests are the main biological factors of the study area that affect the plants
species diversity such as Coffea arabica, Ensete ventricosum and Citrus sinensis (Figure 6).
The second factor is wildlife. From the total informants (86%) indicated that wild animals are
also affect plant species diversity.
Figure 6: Diseases and pests that affect homegarden plant species in the study area
( photo by Teferi Yenealem, 2019).
The third main factor is homegarden size. This indicates that the medium size homegarden
has large proportion of plant species diversity. The households holding large homegarden tend
to have more diverse garden and produce high yield product than small size of homegarden.
The fourth factor is climate change such as drought and flood are affect plant species diversity
in the study area.
4.5. Homegarden traditional management and indigenous knowledge of the study area
There are a variety of plant species management practices in the study area, managed by
family members, and in the area of the study, keeping soil fertility, protecting crops from
various factors such as wild life, disease and pests.There is division of labor among family
36
members. Women participate in the admenstration of planting, watering, fertilizing, weeding,
harvesting and selling plants, vegetables, spices, and ornamental plants.
Men often participated in the cultivation, digging, and finding of quality seeds for cash crops
planting trees to keep the soil moist. Finding for quality seed in spices, medicines and
ornamental is part of a women‟s job. This traditional approach to management is similar to
the report of Zemede Asfaw (2002); Talemos Seta et al. (2013); Christianity (1990). Children
also participate in watering and protecting plants from wildlife (monkeys) and taking the
products to the market. In general, informants in the study area reported that women are the
main managers of homegardens and the major responsible in selling ther products and
protecting the plants from wildlife,diseases and pests, protecting the soil fertility by adding
animal wastes such as dung and urine to fertilizing the soil for improve homegarden plants
products. However, men pay attention to designing, digging, searching seed and seedling,
fencing and protecting the plants destroyed from wild animals.
Inorder to protect the crop plants from wild animals the local people that live in the study area
prefer Erythrin brucei and Carissa spinarum plant species used for live fence. Because these
plant stems has spiny when compare with other livefences protect the crops such as Ensete
ventricosum, Colocasia esculenta and Dioscorea species from domestic animals. The other
keeping methods are the children and domestic dogs are protecting crops from monkey and
apes by sitting in the localy house construction.
In addition to this the local people have their own indigenous knowledge in order to manage
the plants from wild animals by using the methods such as throwing rope with small stone
called wenchif in Amharic language, by making scarecrow like human model inside the crops
for scare away the wild animals and by making alarming sounds to scare them not to close to
the crop plants. This result is similar to Solomon Tamrat (2011) reports in usefull plants in
and around Gedeo homegarden.
In the study area soil fertility and soil moisture farmers protecting by adding animal manure,
household wastes, planting and keeping the plants such as Cordia Africana, Albizia
gummifera and Ricinus Communis.
Another management practices that obserbed in local people in the study area were crop
rotation and intercropping system. Cereal such as Zea mays, Pisum sativumTriticum aestivum,
37
Hordeum vulgaris, Sorghum bicolor were rotated with and Vica faba. These legumes increase
soil fertility by increasing the nitrogen content of the soil. Most of the time maize was
intercropping with Brassica species,Colocasia esculenta Solanum tuberosum, and Phaseolus
lunatus. Because of these are fulfill various needs of households, to collect high amount of
products, and to solve the shortage of land farms. Similar results were reported by Tesfaye
Abebe(2005); Solomon Tamrat (2011); Talemos Seta et al. (2013).
The farmers keeping the plants from disease and pests have their own indigenous knowledge.
They manage by removing the plants that were infected by the diseases isolate and burial in
pits, burns in excavations or remove those Enset and coffee plants attacked by disease and
pests to protect further distrubition of the diseases to uninfected area. The same results were
reported by Tadesse Kippie (2002); Solomon (2011).
4.6. Uses of homegarden to insitu conservation of plant biodiversity
In a report of the convention on biological diversity (CBD), (1992),insitu conservation is
defined as the conservation of ecological and natural environments and the maintenance and
recovery of viable population of species in their natural surrounding and in the case of
cultivated species in the areas where they have developed their special properties.
Homegardens provide a complex, and multi-layered environments where farmers keep large
numbers of usefull plant species over many years. They can also provide a basis for the
preserving insitu of significant amount of genetic diversity of beneficial plant species.
In general homegardens are considered suitable for insitu protection of plant genetic resources
for both wild and cultivated species (Eyzaguirre and Watson, 2002); this was confirmed by
the presence of 118 plant species in88 genera and 48 families were recorded (Appendex VI).
The highest number of plant species in this study was 62 in Jatu kebele and the minimum is
42 in Girar kebele. Large plant diversity leads to greater productivity, nutrient retention in
ecosystem and ecosystem stability in plant community (Tillman, 2000).
38
5. CONCULSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conculsion
The present study provided basic information on homegarden plant diversity and associated
use value in the Cheha district. A total of 118 species belong to 88 genera and 48 families
were recorded. Interms of number of plant species, Fabaceae appeared as the most prominent
family that contains 11 species, followed by Poaceae containing 10 species and Solanaceae
and Rutaceae each containing 8 species, Asteraceae with 7 species and Brassicaceae with 5
species.
The results of this study indicated that homegardens in Cheha Woreda possess high
speciesdiversity and rich floristic composition that is good for conservation of plant
biodiversity.
Also they provide significant contribution for the society especially, the people living in the
rural areas as source of supplementary food, medicinal value, constructions, firewood,
traditional bee keeping, source of income and others. However, the major factors such as
disease and pests,wild animals,homegarden size, insufficient agricultural support, affect the
diversity of species. If these challenges have been given attention by concerned bodies like
the government, nongovernmental organization, developmental agents (DA), farmers and
researchers will maintain the value of homegarden and its existing biodiversity andtraditional
management systems in order to solve the problem of food security and on sustainablebasis in
the future.
5.2. Recommendations
Based on the result of the study, the following recommendations are given
Increasing awareness of the local communities on the value of homegarden plants and
majorfactors that hinders the productivity and diversity and device mechanisms by
which the factorscan be minimized through training, discussion and consultation with
the local peoples for continuously manages and preserves natural resource.
Research and development efforts should pay attention to the sustainability of
homegardens as part of farming systems that play crucial roles to food security and
nutritional requirements of the local people, since a considerable amount of plant
species were found cultivated primarily for food in homegardens in the area.
39
The continued conservation of multipurpose species in cultivated lands and species
diverse homegardens should be encouraged.
Support and enhance indigenous knowledge relevant to their home gardens, such as
growing vegetables and using trees.
The government needs to focus and coordinate to create alternative energy, income
and opportunities and ensure the sustainability of the home garden plants benefit and
introduce the home garden to their own advantage.
The seed and planting material supply center needs to be moved to the plant with the
local seed distrubition.
Inorder to import agricultural products, the government should bulid rods for rural
kebeles in collaboration with the major rods.
Local community gardeners need to estabilish good relations between the government
and non- government sectors, which are essential to the success of home garden
productivity and biodiversity.
The home garden activities should be in collaboration with the agricultural extention
program.
Special attention should be given to rasing families who are not involved in home
gardening activities and lack knowledge on the importance of homegardening.
Home gardens play an important role in ensuring food security and increasing
household income, it is advisable to incourage farmers to control their home gardens.
40
REFERENCES
Abbink, J. (1995). Medicinal and Ritual Plants of Southwest Ethiopian.An Account of Recent
Research. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3:6-8.
Abdoellah, O. S., Hadikusumah, H. Y., Takeuch, K., and Okubo, S.(2006).Commercialization
of homegardens in an Indonesian village: vegetation composition and functional
changes In "Tropical homegardens a time-tested example of sustainable
agroforestry". (B. M. Kumar and P. K. R. Nair, eds.). Vol. 3, pp. 233-2250, Springer
Science, the Netherlands.
Bennett-Lartey, S. O., Ayernor, G. S., Markwei, C. M., Asante, I. K., Abbiw, D. K., Boateng,
S. K., Anchirinah, V. M. and Ekpe, P. (2002). Contributions of homegarden to in sit
conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems in Ghana. In: Homegarden
and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems: proceedings of
thesecond international homegarden workshop, 17-19 July 2001, pp.83-96, (Watson,
J. W.and Eyzaguirrre, P. B., eds). Witzenhausen, Germany.
Bloem, M.W. (1996). Production of fruits and vegetables at the homestead is an important
source of vitamin A among women in rural Bangladesh. European Journal of Clinical
Nutrition , Supplement 3: 62-67.
Boncodin, R., Campilan, D., and Prain, G. (2000). “Dynamics in tropical homegardens”. In:
Urban Agriculture Magazine, 1(1):19-20.
Brookfield, H. (2001). Exploring of agro biodiversity.Columbia University, New York,
pp.231 235 .
Brownrigg, L. (1985). Home gardens in international development. Education,
Washington,pp. 32-41.
Cheha woreda agricultural Administrative office (2019).unpublished.
Cheha woreda finance plan and economy development office (2019). unpublished.
Christanty, L. (1985). Home gardens in Tropical Asia: A special reference to Indonesia.
Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Tropical Home garden, 2-
December, 1985, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 39-42.
41
Christanty, L. (1990). Home-gardens in Tropical Asia, with special reference to Indonesia .
In: Tropical Home gardens, pp. 9-20 (Landauer, K. and Brazil, M., eds.). United
Nations University Press, Tokyo. .
Cotton CM: Ethno botany. Principles and a applications. Chichester, UK: John Willey and
Sons Ltd; 1996
Cromwell , E. Cooper, D. and Mulvany. P. (1999). Agriculture, biodiversity and Livelihoods:
Issues and entry points for development agencies. Overseas Development Institute,
London.
Das T,and Das AK (2005). In ventorying plant biodiversity in homegardens: Acase study in
Barak Valley, Assam, North East India. Curr. Sci.89:155-163.
Dawit Abebe (1986). Traditional Medicine in Ethiopia: the Attempt Bering Made toPromote
it for Effective and Better utilization. SINET: Ethiopian Journalof Science 9: 61-69.
Dawit Abebe (2001). The Role of Medicinal Plants in Health care Coverage of Ethiopia, the
Possible Integration. In: Medhin Zewdu and Abebe Demise, (eds.).Proceeding of the
National Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation andSustainable use of Medicinal
Plants in Ethiopia, 28 April- 1 May 1999. IBCR, Addis Ababa. PP.6-21.
Engels, J. (2002). Home gardens a genetic resources perspective. In: Homegarden and In situ
conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems. Proceedings of the Second
International Homegardens Workshop, 17-19July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal
Republic of Germany, pp. 3-9 (Watson, J. W. and Eyzaguirre, P. B. eds.).
International Plants Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Ewuketu Linger (2014) Agro-ecosystem and socio-economic role of homegarden agro
forestry in Jabithenan District, North-Western Ethiopia: implication for climate
change adaptation. SpringerPlus 2014, 3:154 doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-154
Debremarkos University, Debremarkos, Ethiopia.
Eyzaguirre P (.2006). Agricultural biodiversity and how human culture is shaping it. In:
Cernea, M. and Kassam, A. eds. Researching the culture in agriculture CABI,
Wallingford, UK, Pp264-284.
Eyzaguirre, P. and Linares. O (2004). Homegarden and agrobiodiversty. Smithsonian Press.
Washington, D.C, pp. 254.
42
Eyzaguirre, P. and Watson, J. (2002). Home gardens and agro biodiversity: an overview
across regions. In: Home gardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in
farming systems. Proceedings of the Second International Home gardens Workshop,
17-19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany, pp. 10-18 (Watson, J.
W. and Eyzaguirre, P. B. eds.). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome,
Italy.
FAO (2001) . Improving Nutrition through Home gardening: A training package for preparing
field workers in Africa FAO, Rome.Italy.Retrieved from: http://www
fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition household garden sen.stm.
FAO, (2003) .Agro biodiversity strategies to combat food security and HIV/AIDS impact in
rural Africa.
FAO,(2000).Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service. FAO, Rome, Italy. Retrieved
from: http:// ww.fao.org/ag/agL/agll/prosoil/verti.htm. .
Feleke Woldeyes (2011) Home gardens and Spices of Basketo and Kafa (Southwest Ethiopia)
Plant Diversity, Product Valorization and Implications to Biodiversity Conservat
.A.A.U.
Fernandes, E. C. M. and Nair, P. K. R . (1986). An Evolution of the structure and function of
tropicalhomegarden. Agricultural Systems 21: pp.279-310.
Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TA (2009).Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity
conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology 25:90-98.
Habtamu Hailu (2008). Homegardens and agrobiodiversty conservation in Sebeta town,
Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. MSc thesis-unpublished. Addis Ababa
University, Addis Ababa.
Helen Keller International /Asia – pacific (2003). Integration of Animal Husbandry in to
homegarden Programs to Increase vitamin A intake from foods: Bangladesh,
Cambodia and Nepal.
Helen Keller International,( 2001) . Home gardening in hilly and terai areas in Nepal: Impact
on food production and consumption. HKI Nutrition Bulletin 1(1):1-4.
Hodgkin, T. (2002). Home gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity . In: Home
gardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems:
43
proceedings of the second international home gardens workshop, 17-19 July 2001,
pp.56-72, (Watson, J. W. and Eyzaguirrre, P. B., eds). Witzenhausen, Germany.
Holeta Agricultural Research Center. 2011. Integrated watershed management research for
sustainable resource use and livelihood improvement at Girar-Dakuna watershed in
Chaha Woreda: a baseline study report. Holeta Agricultural Research Center, Holetta,
Ethiopia
Hoogerbrugge, I. D.& Fresco, L.O.(1993). Homegarden systems: Agricultural characteristics
and challenges.International Institute for Environment and Development . Gatekeeper
series no.39
ICRAF (1989). Agroforety potentials for the Ethiopian highland. Working paper number-
21,International Center for Research in Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya.
Jose, D. and Shanmugaratnam, N. (1993). Traditional homegardens of Kerala: a sustainable
human ecosystem. Agroforestry Systems 24:203-213 Systems 24: 187-201.
Kent, M . AndCoker, P. (1992). Vegetation Description and Analysis: A practical approach.
Belhaven Press, London. pp. 263.
Khasbagan, S. (2008). Indigenous knowledge for plant species diversity : A case study of wild
plants folk names used by the Mongolian in Ejina Desert, Inner Mongolia, P. R.,
China. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 4 :13
Kumar BM, and Nair PKR (2006). Tropical Homegardens: Time-Example of Sustainable
Agro forestry. India: Environmental Experts.
Kumar, B.M . And Nair, P.K.R. (2004). The enigma of tropical home gardens. Agroforestry.
Syst., 61: 135–15. Marten, G. D. and Abdoellah, O.(1988). Crop diversity and
nutrition in West Java. Ecology of Food and Nutrition21: 17-43.
Marsh, R. (1998). Building on Traditional Gardening to improve Household Food Security
.Food Nutrition and Agriculture No . 20, Food and Agriculture Organization.
Martin, G. J. (1995). Ethno botany: A method manual. Chapman and Hall, London, 268 pp.
Mekonnen Amberber(2011),The Role Of Home gardens For In Situ Conservation Of Agro
biodiversity In Holeta Town, Oromiya National Regional State, Ethiopia P-5.
Mitchell R and Hanstad T. (2004). Small home garden plots and sustainable livelihoods for
the poor. Rural Development Institute (RDI), Livelihood Support Programmer (LSP),
FAO, pp. 1-43.
44
Muller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and Methods of vegetation Ecology- John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Nair, P.K.R. (1993). An introduction to agroforestery. Kluwer Academic Publisher London.
Nair, P.K.R. (2006). Whither homegardens. In: Kumar, B.M.; Nair, P.K.R. (eds.). Tropical
Homegardens: A Time-Tested Example of Sustainable Agroforestry. Advances in
Agroforestry, Vol. 3, Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, p. 355-370.
Nair, P.K.R. 1984. Fruit Trees in Agro forestry. Working paper. Environment and Policy
Institute, East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA and ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ninez, V. (1987). Household Gardens: Theoretical and Policy Considerations. Agricultural
Systems. 23: 167-186.
Okigbo, N. B. (1990). Home gardens in tropical Africa. In: Tropical home gardens, pp. 21-40
(Landauer, K. and Brazil, M., eds.). United Nations University Press, Tokyo Peis
(2001) . Ethobotany and modernization of traditional Chinese medicine paper at a wok
shop on wise practice and experimental learning in the conservation and management
of Himalayan medicinal plants Kathmandu Nepal,15-20 Decemeber2002supported by
the ministry of forest and soil conservation, Nepal,W.w. Nepal program ,MMAPPA
and PPI
Posey, D. ed (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity.London Intermediate
Technology publications.
Prain, G.S. Fujisaka and Warren, M.D, eds. (1999). Biological and Cultural diversity: The
role of indigenous agricultural experimentation in development London: Intermediate
Technology Publications
Reyes T. (2008).Agro forestry system for sustainable lively hoods and improved land
management in the East Usambara mountains, Tanzaniya..
Rugalema, G., Okting'ati, A. and Johnson, F.(1994) . The Homegarden Agroforestry System
of Bokoba District, Northwestern Tanzania . I. Farming System analysis. Agroforestry
System 26 (1): 53-64. Shannon. E. &Weaver, W.(1949). The mathematical theory of
communication . The University of Illinois n press, Illinnois, USA .
Shaw, P. J. A. (2003). Multivariate Statistics for the Environmental Sciences. London:
Arnold, pp. 228.SNNPRS (2005).
45
Shrestha, P., Guatam, R., Rana, R. B. And Sthapit, B. (2002). Home gardens in Nepal: Status
and scope for research and development. In: Home gardens and in situ conservation of
plant genetic resources in farming systems: proceedings of the second international
home gardens workshop, 17-19 July 2001, pp.97-124, (Watson, J. W. and Eyzaguirrre,
P.B., eds).Witzenhausen, Germany.88
SLUF (2006). Indigenous agrofortestry practices and their implications on sustainable land
use and natural resource management: The case of Wonago Wereda. Sustainable Land
Use Forum, research report number-1. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Smith RH, ThompsonK, HodgsonJG, WarrenPH, GastonKJ (2006).urbandomesticgardens
(IX): Composition and richness of the vascular plants flora, and implications for
native biodiversity biological conservation129:312-322.
Soemarwoto. O . and Conway . G. R. (1992). The Javanese home garden . Journal for
Farming Systems Research-Extension2 (3): 95-118).
Solomon Tamrat (2011). Study of Useful Plants in and around GATE UDUMA (Traditional
Gedeo Homegardens) in Kochere Wereda of Gedeo Zone, Ethiopia: an Ethnobotonical
Approach. M.Sc. thesis Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Sormarwoto, O. (1987). Home gardens: A traditional agroforestery system with promising
future. Pp. 157-172. In: Agroforestery: A decade of development. (H.A Steppler and
P.K.R. Nair eds). ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
Stephen, H. and Justin, V. (2003) . Traditional knowledge and intellectual property: A hand
book on issues and options for traditional knowledge holders in protecting their
ntellectual property and maintaining biological diversity. AAAS Washington, DC
Storck, H., Bezabih, E., Berhanu, A., Borowieck, A., Shimelis, W. (1991). Farming systems
and farm management practices of small holders in the Hararge high lands. Farming
systems and resource economics in the tropics, vol.11.Wissenschaft surlang vauk,kiel,
Germany.Shrestha PK,Gautam R,Rana RB,and Sthapit BR(2004).Managing diversity
in various eco-systems: Home garden of Nepal In Ezyaguirre , PB and Of Linares
editors Homegarden andagrobiodiversity Smithsonian.Books, Washington.
Tadesse Kippie (2002). Five thousand years of sustainability? A case study on Gedeo land use
(Southern Ethiopia). PhD dissertation. Wageningen Agricultural University,
Wageningen.
46
Tadesse Woldemariam (2003). Vegetation of the Yayu forest in Southwest Ethiopia: Impacts
of human use and Implications for In situ conservation of Wild Coffea arabica L.
populations. Ecology and Development Series No.10.Center for Development
Research, University of Bonn .
Talemos S, Sebsebe D, Zemede A (2013). Home gardens of Wolayta, southern Ethiopia: An
ethnobotonical profile. Acad. J. Med. Plants 1(1):14-30.
Talemos Seta (2007). Diversity in enset-based Home gardens and its significance to
household food supply in Wolaita (Southernn Ethiopia): an ethnobotanical approach.
MSc Thesis Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa .
Talukdor, kiss, L, Huq, N., de pee, s. Darnton Hill , I. and Bloem, K. (2000). Increasing the
production and Consumption of vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables: Lesson
learned in taking the Bangladesh homestead gardening program to a national scale .
20:2Food and Nutrition Bulletin.
Tefera Mekonen (2010).Homegardens Agrobiodiversity Conservation in Sebeta-Hawas
Wereda, Southwestern Shewa Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia.M.Sc. thesis Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tesfaye Abebe (2005) . Diversity in homegarden agroforestery systems of Southern Ethiopian
PhD dissertation. Wageningen University. Wageningen.
Tesfaye Awas, Sebsebe Demissew and Tamrat Bekele (1997). Ethnobotanical study of non
cultivatedfood plants in Gambella region, southwestern Ethiopia. In: Ethiopia in
broaderperspective: papers of the 13th international conference of Ethiopian studies,
1-17December 1997, pp 759-774, (Kurimoto, E. F. and Shigeta S., eds). Kyoto, Japan.
Tillman, D. (2000). Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity Nature, 405: 208-211 .
Toroquebiau, E. (1992). Are tropical agroforestery homegardens sustainable? Agricultural
Ecosystems and Environmental 41(2): 189-207
Watson, J. W. and Eyzaguirre, PB . eds. (2002).Home gardens and in situ conservation of
plant genetic resources in farming systems. Proceedings of the Second International
Home gardens Workshop, 17-19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of
Germany.
Westernkamp. C and Gottsberger G. (2000) . Diversity pays in crop pollination. Crop Science
40:1209-122 2.
47
Westphal E (1975). Agricultural Systems in Ethiopia .Wageningen, Netherlands. Agric.
Res.Rep.p. 826.
World Bank (2008). Biodiversity, climate change and Adaptation. Nature based solutions
fromthe World Bank portfolio. Washington DC, USA.
Zemede Asfaw (1997a). Survey of indigenous food crops, their preparations and home-
gardens in Ethiopia. IN: Indigenous African food crops, and useful plants, 65 pp.
(Okigbo, B.N., ed.) ICIPE Science Press, Nairobi.
Zemede Asfaw (2001a). The role of home-gardens in the production and conservation of
medicinal plants. In: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in
Ethiopia: Proceedings of the National Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia, April 28-May 1 1998, pp. 76-91,
(Medhin Zewdu, and Abebe Demissew, eds). IBCR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia .
Zemede Asfaw (2001b). Origin and evolution of rural homegardens in Ethiopia. Biol. Skr.
54:273-286
Zemede Asfaw (2002). Home-gardens in Ethiopia: Some observations and generalizations. In:
Homegardens and In situ Conservation ofPlant Genetic Resources in Farming
Systems, pp. 125–139 (Watson J.W. and Eyzaguirre, P.B., eds.). Proceedings of the
Second International Home-Gardens Workshop, 17-19 July, 2001, Witzenhausen, and
Germany.International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Zemede Asfaw and Ayele Nigatu (1995). Home-gardens in Ethiopia: Characteristics and plant
diversity. SINET: Ethiop. J. Sci. 18(2): 235–266.
Zemede Asfaw and Zerihun Woldu (1997) . Crop association of home gardens in Welayta and
Gurage in Southern Ethiopia. SINET: Ethiop. J. Sci. 20 (1): 73-90.
Zemede Asfaw(1997b). Survey of indigenous food crops and useful plants, their preparations
and Homegardens in Ethiopia. Indigenous African, food crops and useful plants.
Resourse Utilizations Assessment series, No. UNU, ICIPE press.
48
APPENDICES
Appendix I. List of informants who participated in the study area
No Informants name Sex Age Marital
status
Educational
status
Locality
1 Wude Dender F 45 Married 8 Sesenamatiye
2 Sisay Anjeleko* M 40 Married 10 Sesenamatiye
3 Gebere Shemberga M 65 Married Illiterate Sesenamatiye
4 Muredat Menjiye F 60 Married Illiterate Sesenamatiye
5 Lemma Yerga M 55 Married 4 Sesenamatiye
6 Birhanu Gebere M 75 Married Illiterate Sesenamatiye
7 Melese Abesheru* M 40 Married 9 Adoshe
8 Abdureheman Nega M 30 Married 4 Adoshe
9 Hussen Mosa M 50 Married Illiterate Adoshe
10 Aster Dender F 28 Married 8 Adoshe
11 Muhajir Keder M 35 Married 9 Adoshe
12 Zeyeneba Akemel F 30 Married 8 Adoshe
13 Genewot Kemal M 40 Married Illiterate Werdene
14 Dula Moshe* M 55 Married 6 Werdene
15 Neserya Mohammed F 35 Married 2 Werdene
16 Keder Mohammed M 65 Married Illiterate Werdene
17 Alemu Tadele M 36 Married 10 Werdene
18 Suleman Keder M 70 Married Illiterate Werdene
19 Neymunat Mezewe F 60 Married Illiterate Buchach
20 Akemel Keder M 50 Married Illiterate Buchach
21 Nursefa Aregane M 50 Married Illiterate Buchach
22 Jemal Mohammed M 45 Married Illiterate Buchach
23 Saweda Hassen* F 46 Married Illiterate Buchach
24 Sefa Mohammed M 45 Married Illiterate Buchach
25 Asekale Sebane F 62 Married 3 Moche
26 Degefe Merane* M 34 Married 7 Moche
27 Hailegebereal Berhe M 50 Married 8 Moche
28 Tenker Sebane M 40 Married 8 Moche
29 Desalegn Manaye M 35 Married 6 Moche
30 Alemnesh Temerga F 33 Married 7 Moche
31 Lubaba Kemal F 28 Married Illiterate Girar
32 Birchat Agago F 50 Married Illiterate Girar
49
33 Beyene G/Mariam* M 35 Married 10 Girar
34 Ahimed Abedela M 65 Married Illiterate Girar
35 Feleke Chegen M 45 Married Illiterate Girar
36 Buregn Aregeshe M 50 Married Illiterate Girar
37 Sisay Asefaw M 40 Married 9 Dakuna
38 Addis Getaneh M 28 Married 10 Dakuna
39 Tsedale Taye* F 43 Married 12 Dakuna
40 Markosh Fersha M 60 Married 10 Dakuna
41 Teshale Kebede M 35 Married 10 Dakuna
42 Sarecho Semerga F 32 Married 8 Dakuna
43 Demesse Baye M 45 Married Illiterate Jatu
44 Keberu Bemachu M 41 Married 8 Jatu
45 Denchisa Haile M 52 Married Illiterate Jatu
46 Roman Kebede* F 43 Married 9 Jatu
47 Jemal Sultan M 54 Married Illiterate Jatu
48 Tsege Tewaje F 47 Married 8 Jatu
49 Alewi Ahimed M 56 Married 4 Gasore
50 Lubaba Ahimed F 30 Married 6 Gasore
51 Rediwan Abdo* M 28 Married 8 Gasore
52 Teka Aregaw M 45 Married 6 Gasore
53 Zulefat Umer F 46 Married Illiterate Gasore
54 Murad Tiyeb M 40 Married 9 Gasore
55 Asefa Yemerga* M 35 Married 10 Dagag
56 Muridat Sherif F 35 Married Illiterate Dagag
57 Shumnesa Zengeta M 40 Married 6 Dagag
58 Baheru Neda M 40 Married 5 Dagag
59 Zekiya Nuriden F 35 Married Illiterate Dagag
60 Nuraddis Ahimed M 33 Married 11 Dagag
Key :- (*)-indicates ten key informants
50
Appendix II. Semi-structured interview items for data collection in the study area
I/ General information
Name of respondent ______________________________
Sex______________
Age______________
Marital status _________________
Educational status ______________
Area description: Region ____________________ Zone_________________
Woreda__________ ___________ Kebele _______________
II/Semi-structured items for plant data collection
1. Tell names of plants or crops in your home garden
2.What are the dominant plants in your home garden? List accordingly
3. List food plant that grow in your homegarden and rank them accordingly.
4. List the multipurpose trees in your homegarden and rank the top ten
Local name Coll. No Habit Use Part used
5. List plants in your homegarden that are used for medicinal value.
6. What are the major cultivated plants used as a source of food in area?
7. Which plants /crops products are more common in the market?
8. Which plant /crop products of homegarden available in the market? Which month?
9. How much do you earn from the homegarden product you sold in the market per year?
10. What are the conservation practices you implement to manage your home your home
gardens?
51
11. Is there any professional expertise, who is responsible and advice you how to manage
Your homegarden?
12. What is the source of water for homegarden harvesting?
A/Rain fail B/ Irrigation C/Both
13. Is there task division based on gender? Yes / no
14. If your answer for question no-13 is yes, who is involved in the management practice?
to cultivate plants in home garden in a prolonged time
15. For what purpose do people in the study area use homegarden?
A/ house hold supply B/ shade, Aesthetics and ornamentation
C/ fuel wood production D/ nutritional security E/ fruit production F/ all
16. Who is responsible for the proper management of homegarden?
17. How do you selects seeds for planting
18. Where do you obtain your desired variety of seedling/seed?
19. Do you select the variety of the particular species you want to use in your garden?
20. Most of the plants in your homegarden is_________
A/Cultivated B/Wild C/Semi wild D/ Protected
21. How is the knowledge passed from elders to younger people in the study area?
22. What part of the plants do you use? How or for what?
23. What factors influence species diversity?
52
Appendix III. List of total plant species collected from the study area
Growth form: S= Shrubs, H=Herbs, T=Trees, C=Climbers
Status of domestication: W=Wild, SW=Semiwild, C=Cultivated
Use class: Ed=ediable, Md=medicinal, Co=construction, Sh=shade, Lf=livefence,
Fw=firewood, Sf=soil fertilize, Ch=charcoal, Sp=spice, Cr = craft making, Bh=beehive
making, Tbk=traditional bee keeping, Tb=tooth brush, Cv=cultural value,R=rope preparation,
Tm=timber,St=stimulant, Or=oranmental
No Scientific name Family name Local name Habit Use Status
1 Acacia abyssinica
Hochst.ex Benth.
Fabaceae Wato T Lf,Fw,
Ch,Sh
W
2 Acacia decurrens Willd. Fabaceae Ferenji wato T Lf,Fw, Cu
3 Ajuga integrifolia Buch.-H Lamiaceae Akenbeye H Md Cu
4 Albizia gummifera(J. F.Gmel.) Fabaceae Sendel T Lf,Fw,Ch,Sh W
5 Allium cepa L. Alliaceae Shinkurt H ed,sp,md Cu
6 Allium sativum L. Alliaceae Tuma H ed,md,sp Cu
7 Aloe sp. Aloaceae Merdidye H Md Cu
8 Annona squamosa L. Annonaceae Gisheta T Ed Cu
9 Artemisia abyssinica Afraq L. Asteraceae Wotambo H Md Cu
10 Artemisia absinthium L. Asteraceae Natrar H Cv,or Cu
11 Arundinaria alpina k. Schum. Poaceae Enet H Lf,Fw,fo,h Cu
12 Arundo donax L. Poaceae Mahoo H Lf,co Cu
13 Beta vulgaris L. Chenopodaceae Key sir H Ed,md Cu
14 Brassica carinata A. Br. Brassicaceae Semare H Ed Cu
15 Brassica oleracea L.var.
Brassicaceae Ambir H Ed, Cu
16 Brassica oleracea L. Brassicaceae Tiqilel gomen H Ed Cu
17 Brassica rapa L. Brassicaceae Kosta H Ed Cu
18 Calpurnia aurea (Ait.) Benth. Fabaceae Digita S Lf,Fw, W
19 Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC. Fabaceae Boloke C Ed,Lf Cu
20 Canna indica L. Cannaceae Abeba H Or Cu
53
21 Capsicum annuum L. Solanaceae Yefernje kale H Ed Cu
22 Capsicum frutescens L. Solanaceae Afeje H Ed Cu
23 Capsicum frutenscens L. Solanaceae Yehabesha kale H Ed Cu
24 Carica papaya L. Caricaceae Papaya H Ed,md Cu
25 Carissa spinarum L. Apocynaceae Awezembo S Lf, fw,md W
26 Casimiroa edulis La Liave Rutaceae Kasmir T Ed Cu
27 Casuarina equisetifolia L. Casuarinaceae Sheweshewe T Sh,Or Cu
28 Catha edulis (Vahl) Celastraceae Chat S st,md Cu
29 Citrus aurantium L. Rutaceae Merara S Ed,md Cu
30 Citrusaurantifolia (Christm.) Sw. Rutaceae Lommi S Ed,md Cu
31 Citrus reticulata Balanco Rutaceae Menderin S Ed Cu
32 Citrus medica L. Rutaceae Turingo S Ed Cu
33 Citrus sinesis L.OSB. Rutaceae Birtukan S Ed Cu
34 Clausenaanisata(Willd.)
Benth
Rutaceae Tife S Tb W
35 Clematis hirsuta Perr. &
Guill.
Ranunculaceae Naze C Co,Lf S
36 Coffea arabica L. Rubiaceae Qawa S St,md Cu
37 Colocasia esculenta (L)
Schoot.
Araceae Godale H Ed Cu
38 Cordia africana Lam. Boraginaceae Koffi T Md,Co,Sh,t
m,fw,,sf,tb
Cu
39 Croton macrostachyusDel. Euphorbiaceae Washena T Md,fw,tbk S
40 Cucurbita pepo L. Cucurbitaceae Kichewe C Ed,md Cu
41 Cupressus lustanica Mill. Cupressaceae Yeferje det T Tm,fw,sh Cu
42 Curcuma domestica Val. Zingiberaceae Irid H Sp Cu
43 Cymbopogon citrates (DC)
Stapf.
Poaceae Moseret H Fr,md Cu
44 Daucus carota L. Appiaceae Carrot H Ed Cu
45 Datura stramonium L. Solanaceae Azeza H Md,sf Cu
54
46 Dioscorea praehensilis Benth. Dioscoreaceae Guadye boye C Ed Cu
47 Dioscorea sagittifolia Pax. Dioscoreaceae Besheye boye C Ed Cu
48 Dovyalis caffra (Hook. f. &
Harv.)Hook. f.
Flacourtiaceae Koshem S Ed Cu
49 Echinops kebericho Mesfin. Asteraceae Chosa H Md Cu
50 Ensete ventricosum (Welw)
Cheesman.
Musaceae Eset H Ed,md,
r,fo
Cu
51 Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter. Poaceae Tafi H Ed Cu
52 Erythrin brucei Schweinf. * Fabacae Burat T Lf,sf Sw
53 Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Dehnh.
Myrtaceae Gudeye
atankert
T Fw,md,
co
Cu
54 Eucalyptus globules Labill. Myrtaceae Besheye atankert T Fw,co Cu
55 Euphorbia abyssinia Gmel. Euphorbiaceae Kulukal S lf,sf Cu
56 Euphorbiapulcherima
Klotzsch.
Euphorbiaceae Abeba S Lf,or, Cu
57 Euphorbia tirucallii L. Euphorbiaceae Kinchib S Lf Cu
58 Ficus sur Forsk. Moraceae Gorjejeye T Sh,fw,tbk W
59 Ficus sycomorus .L. Moraceae Shebera T Sh W
60 Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Apiaceae Enselal H Md ,Fr Cu
61 Gravillea robusta. R, Br. Proteaceae Gravilia T Sh,tm,co Cu
62 Hagenia abyssinica (Bruce)
J. F. Gmel.
Rosaceae Chema T Md,tbk,
sh
W
63 Helianthus annuus L. Asteraceae Suf H Ed Cu
64 Hordeum vulgare L. Poaceae Ehir H Ed,md Cu
65 Hypoestes triflora
(forssk)rome and schult
Acanthaceae Yeteibetre H Md Cu
66 Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Convolvulaceae Sikuar dinch H Ed Cu
67 Jacaranda mimosiqolia D.Don. Bignoniaceae Jacaranda T Sh Cu
68 Juniperus procera Hochst.
ex Endl.
Cupresaceae Yehabesha
det
T Fw,co,sh Cu
69 Justicia schimperiana
(Hochst. ex Nees) T.Anders.
Acanthaceae Abugafeye S Lf,md, W
55
70 Lactuca sativa L. Asteraceae Selata H Ed Cu
71 Lagenaria siceraria
(Molina) Standl.
Cucurbitaceae Komet C Lf Cu
72 Lepidium sativum L. Brassicaceae Shif H Ed,md Cu
73 Linum usitatissimum L. Linaceae Telba H Ed,md Cu
74 Lippia adoensisHochst.var.
KosheredSebsebe.
Verbenaceae Koseret S Sp Cu
75 Lippia adoensis varadoensis Verbenaceae Kessay S Md Cu
76 Lycopensicon esculentum Mill. Solanaceae Timatim H Ed Cu
77 Malus sylvestris Mill. Rosaceae Pom S Ed Cu
78 Mangifera indica L. Anacardiaceae Mango T Ed Cu
79 Maytenus arbutifolia
(A.Rich.) Wilczek
Celasteracae Atat S Lf W
80 Melia azedarach L. Meliaceae Neem T Md,or Cu
81` Mentha spicata L. Lamiaceae Nana H Sp Cu
82 Millettia ferruginea
(Hochst.) Bak.
Fabaceae Birbera T Fw,sh,sf,t
bk
W
83 Moringastenopetala (Bak.f.) Cuf Moringaceae Moringa T Md Cu
84 Morus alba L. Enjori Moraceae Enjori T Ed,Lf Cu
85 Musa paradisica L. Musaceae Muz H Ed Cu
86 Nicotiana tabacum L. Solanaceae Tinbahue H St,md Cu
87 Ocimum americanum L. Lamiaceae Tosegn H Sp, Cu
88 Ocimum basilicum L var. Lamiaceae Azmoreni H Sp Cu
89 Ocimum lamiifolium
Hochst. ex Benth.
Lamiaceae Dama S Md Cu
90 Olea europaea L. Oleraceae Woyira T Fw,sh,fr Cu
91 Pennisetum violaceum
(Lam.) L. Rich.
Poaceae Zehone sar H Fo,Lf Cu
92 Passiflora edulis Sims. Passifloraceae Yefirnji kok C Ed Cu
93 Persea americana Mill. Lauraceae Abucado T Ed,md Cu
56
94 Phaseolus lunatus L. Fabaceae Adenguale C Ed Cu
95 Phonix reclinata Jacq. Arecaceae Deye S Sh,cr Cu
96 Phytolacca dodecandra L. Herit. Pytolaccaceae Endode H Md,w W
97 Pisum sativum L. Fabaceae Getere H Ed Cu
98 Podocarpusfalcatus(Thunb.
) R.Br.exMirb.
Podocarpaceae Zegeba T Sh,Co, Sw
99 Prunus persica (L.) Batsch. Rosaceae Kok T Ed Cu
100 Psidum guajava L. Mytraceae Zeytun T Ed Sw
101 Punica granatum L. Punicaceae Roman S Ed,md, Cu
102 Rhamnus prinoides L Herit. Rhamanceae Gisho S Md,pt Cu
103 Ricinus Communis L. Euphorbiaceae Keboo S Sf,sh Cu
104 Rosa abyssinica Lindley Rosaceae Guadeye abeba S Or Cu
105 Rosa x richardii Rehd. Rosaceae Beshiye abeba S Or Cu
106 Rosmarinus officinalis L. Lamiaceae Segametibesa S Sp Cu
107 Ruta chalepensis L. Rutaceae Chaneye S Md ,sp Cu
108 Saccharum officinarum L. Poaceae Shenkoraageda H Ed,fo Cu
109 Sesbania sesban(L.) Merr. Fabaceae Sasbanye T Sh,sf,lf Cu
110 Solanum tuberosum L. Solanceae Dencha H Ed, Cu
111 Sorghum bicolor L. Poaceae Mashela H Ed, Cu
112 Triticum aestivum L. Poaceae Sene H Ed, Cu
113 Vernonia amygdalina Del. Asteraceae Girawa T Fw,md,fo W
114 Vicia faba L. Fabaceae Bakela H Ed, Cu
115 Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal Solanaceae Gisawa H Md, Cu
116 Zantedeschia aethiopica
( L.) K.P.J Sprengal
Areceae
Tirumba
abeba
H Or,lf Cu
117 Zea mays L. Poaceae Bekolo H Ed, Cu
118 Zingiber officinale Roscope Zingiberaceae Zenjiber H Sp,md Cu
57
Appendix IV. Food plant species collected from the study area
Growth form : H=Herbs, S=Shrubs, T=Trees, C-Climbers
No Scientific name Local name Family name Habit Part consumed
1 Allium cepa L. Shinkurt Alliaceae H Bulb, leaves
2 Allium sativum L. Tuma Alliaceae H Bulb, leaves
3 Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. Ananas Bromeliaceae H Fruit
4 Annona stuamosa L. Gisheta Annonaceae T Fruit
5 Beta vulgaris L. Keysir Chenopodaceae H Root
6 Brassica carinata A.Br. Semare Brassicaceae H Leaves
7 Brassica oleracea L. Var. Ambir Brassicaceae H Leaves
8 Brassica oleracea L. Tiqilel gomen Brassicaceae H Leaves
9 Brassica rapa L. Kosta Brassicaceae H Leaves
10 Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC. Boleke Fabaceae C Seed
11 Capsicum annuum L. yefernjeKale Solanaceae H Fruit
12 Capsicum frutescens L. Afinje Solanaceae H Fruit
13 Capsicum frutenscens l. Yabesha kale Solanaceae H Fruit
14 Carica papaya L. Papaya Caricaceae H Fruit
15 Casimiroa edulis La Liave Kasmir Rutaceae T Fruit
16 Citrus aurantium L. Merara Rutaceae S Fruit
17 Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Sw. Lommi Rutaceae S Fruit
18 Citrus reticulata Balanca Menderin Rutaceae S Fruit
19 Citrus medica L. Turingo Rutaceae S Fruit
20 Citrus sinesis L.OSB. Birtukan Rutaceae S Fruit
21 Colocasia esculenta (L) Schoot. Godale Araceae H Root
22 Cucurbita pepo L. Kechewe Cucurbitaceae C Leaves,fruit
23 Daucus carota L. Carrot Appiaceae H Root
24 Dioscorea praehensilis Benth. Guadiye boye Dioscoreaceae C Root
25 Dioscoreasagittifolia Pax. Beshiye boye Dioscoreaceae C Root
26 Dovyalis caffra (Hook. f. &
Harv.)Hook. f.
Koshim Flacourtiaceae S Fruit
58
27 Ensete ventricosum (Welow)
cheesman.
Eset Musaceae H Tuber, root
28 Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter. Tefi Poaceae H Seed
29 Helianthus annuus L. Suf Asteraceae H Seed
30 Hordeum vulgare L. Ehir Poaceae H Seed
31 Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Sikuar dinich Convolvulaceae H Root
32 Lactuca sativa L. Selata Asteraceae H Leaves
33 Lepidium sativum L. Shif Brassicaceae H Seed
34 Linum usitatissimu L. Telba Linaceae H Seed
35 Lycopensicon esculentum Mill. Timatim Solanaceae H Fruit
36 Malus sylvestris Mill. Pom Rosaceae S Fruit
37 Mangifera indica L. Mango Anacardiaceae T Fruit
38 Morus alba L. Enjori Enjori Moraceae T Fruit
38 Musa paradisica L. Muz Musaceae H Fruit
40 Passiflora edulis Sims. Yefirenji kok Passifloraceae C Fruit
41 Persea americana Mill. Abucado Lauraceae T Fruit
42 Phaseolus lunatus L. Adenguale Fabaceae C Seed
43 Pisum sativum L. Atero Getere Fabaceae H Seed
44 Prunus persica (L.) Batsch. Yehabesha kok Rosaceae T Fruit
45 Psidium guajava L. Zeyituna Myrtaceae T Fruit
46 Punica granatum L. Roman Punicaceae S Fruit
47 Saccharum officinarum L. Shenkora Poaceae H Stem
48 Solanum tuberosum L. Dinicha Solanceae H Tuber
49 Sorghum bicolor L. Mashela Poaceae H Seed
50 Triticum aestivum L. Sine Poaceae H Seed
51 Vicia faba L. Bakela Fabaceae H Seed
52 Zea mays L. Bekolo Poaceae H Seed
59
Appendix V. Medicinal plants recorded from homegardens for treating human being and
live-stock diseases of the study area.
No Scientific name Local
name
Family Habit Part
used
Diseases treated
1 Ajuga integrifolia
Buch.Ham.ExD.Don
Akenbeye Lamiaceae H Leaves Knee and leg
pain,appetite
2 Allium cepa L. Shinkurt Alliaceae H Bulb Hypertension
3 Allium sativum L. Tuma Alliaceae H Root Common cold
4 Aloe sp. Merdedye Aloaceae H Leaves Abdominal
pain,Ankle pain
5 Ananas comosus
(L.) Merr.
Ananas Bromeliaceae H Fruit Intestinal parasite
6 Artemisia abyssinica
Afraq.L
Wotambo Asteraceae H Leaves Tonsillitis,and
sickness inchild
7 Beta vulgaris L. Keysir Chenopodaceae H Root Anemia
8
Brassica oleracea L.
var
Ambir Brassicaceae
H Leaves Abdominal
dryness
9 Carica papaya L. Papaya Caricaceae H Fruit Treat gastricjuice
10 Carissa spinarum L. Awezenbo Apocynaceae S Stem Ear pain
11 Catha edulis (Vahl) Chat Celastraceae S Leaves Coughing
12 Citrus aurantium L. Merara Rutaceae S Fruit Hypertension
13
Citrus aurantifolia
(Christm.) Sw.
Lommi Rutaceae S Fruit Common cold
Abdominalpain
14 Coffea arabica L. Qawa Rubiaceae S Seed Treat diarrhea
15 CordiaafricanaLam. Koffi Boraginaceae T Root Wound, eye evil
16 CrotonmacrostachyusDel
.
Washena Euphorbiaceae T Root,
leaves
Gonorrhea ,ring
worms
17 Cucurbita pepo L. Kechewe Cucurbitaceae Cli Seed Treat tapeworm
18
Cymbopogoncitrates
(DC) Stapf.
Moseret Poaceae H Leaves Chestpain(human),tr
eatabdominal pain in
60
livestock
19 Datura stramonium L. Azaza Solanaceae H Leaves Ring worms
head ache
20 Echinops kebericho
Mesfin.
Chosa Asteraceae H Root Snake poison for
Bothhum and
livestock
21
Enseteventricosum
(Welw)Cheesman.
Esset Musaceae H Root Bone break,
22
Eucalyptuscamaldulensis
Dehnh.
Gudeye
atanekert
Myrtaceae T Leaves Treat common
cold by steam
inhalation
23 Foeniculum vulgare
Mill.
Ensilal Appiaceae H Leaves Head ache,
Hypertension
24
Hagenia abyssinica
(Bruce) J. F. Gmel.
Chima Rosaceae T Seed Removetape worm,
lice and ticks of
cattle
25 Hordeum vulgare L. Ehir Poaceae H Seed Muscle illness and
Bone breakof live
stock
26 Hypoestes triflora
(forssk) rome
Yeteibetre Acanthaceae H Leaves Anemia and
excessive bleeding
27 Justicia schimperiana
(Hochst.exNees)T.Anders.
Sensel Acanthaceae S Leaves Skin rashandexternal
parasite Such as lice
28 Lepidium sativum L. shif Brassicaceae H Seed Treatcommon cold
humanandlivestock
29 Linum usitatissimu L. Telba Linaceae H Seed AmoebisisConstip
ation
30 Lippia adoensis var
adoensis
Kessay Verbenaceae S Leaves Headache
31 Melia azedarach L. Neem Meliaceae T Stem Tooth ache
32
Moringa stenopetala
(Bak.f.) Cuf
Moringa Moringaceae T Leaves To treat
hypertension
61
33 Nicotiana tabacum L. Tinbahaue Solanaceae H Leaves Leech infestation
and stomach ache
34
Ocimum lamiifolium
Hochst. ex Benth.
Dema Lamiaceae S Leaves Treat common
cold and head ache
35 Persea americana Mill. Abucado Lauraceae T Fruit Face rash
36
Phytolacca dodecandra
L. Herit.
Endode Pytolaccaceae H Root To treat
bilaharizea
37 Punica granatum L. Roman Punicaceae S Fruit Hypertension,head
ache
38 Rhamnus prinoides L
Herit.
Gisho Rhamanceae S Leaves Tonsilitis
39
Ruta chalepensis L. Chaneye Rutaceae S Leaves Abdominal ache
and coughing
40 Vernonia amygdalina
Del.
Girawa Asteraceae T Leaves Skin infection,fever
and sudden illness
41 Withania somnifera
(L.) Dunal
Gisawa Solanaceae H Leaves Eye evil
42
Zingiber officinale
Roscope
Zinjiber Zingiberaceae H Rhizo
me
Treatabdominal
and tooth pain
62
Appendix VI. Plant family name with number of species and individual percentage.
No Family name Number of species Percent
1 Acanthaceae 2 1.7
2 Alliaceae 2 1.7
3 Aloaceae 1 0.8
4 Anacardiaceae 1 0.8
5 Annonaceae 1 0.8
6 Appiaceae 2 1.7
7 Apocynaceae 1 0.8
8 Araceae 1 0.8
9 Arecaceae 2 1.7
10 Asteraceae 6 5.1
11 Bignoniaceae 1 0.8
12 Boraginaceae 1 0.8
13 Brassicaceae 5 4.2
14 Cannaceae 1 0.8
15 Caricaceae 1 0.8
16 Casuarinaceae 1 0.8
17 Celasteracae 2 1.7
18 Chenopodaceae 1 0.8
19 Convolvulaceae 1 0.8
20 Cucurbitaceae 2 1.7
21 Cupressaceae 2 1.7
22 Dioscoreaceae 2 1.7
23 Euphorbiaceae 5 4.2
24 Fabaceae 11 9.3
25 Flacourtiaceae 1 0.8
26 Lamiaceae 6 5.1
27 Lauraceae 1 0.8
28 Linaceae 1 0.8
29 Maliaceae 1 0.8
63
30 Moraceae 3 2.5
31 Moringaceae 1 0.8
32 Musaceae 2 1.7
33 Myrtaceae 3 2.5
34 Oleraceae 1 0.8
35 Passifloraceae 1 0.8
36 Poaceae 10 8.5
37 Podocarpaceae 1 0.8
38 Proteaceae 1 0.8
39 Punicaceae 1 0.8
40 Pytolaccaceae 1 0.8
41 Ranunculaceae 1 0.8
42 Rhamanceae 1 0.8
43 Rosaceae 5 4.2
44 Rubiaceae 1 0.8
45 Rutaceae 8 6.8
46 Solanaceae 8 6.8
47 Verbenaceae 2 1.7
48 Zingiberaceae 2 1.7