home gardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic ...€¦ · plant genetic resources in...

Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop, 17–19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of GermanyJ.W. Watson and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors

Home gardens and in situ conservation ofplant genetic resources in farming systems

<www.futureharvest.org>

IPGRI isa Future Harvest Centresupported by theConsultative Group onInternational AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR)

DeutscheGesellschaft fürTechnischeZusammenarbeit(GTZ) GmbH

Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop, 17–19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of GermanyJ.W. Watson and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors

Home gardens and in situ conservation ofplant genetic resources in farming systems

The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an autonomous international scientific organization,supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). IPGRI’s mandate is toadvance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present and future generations. IPGRI’sheadquarters is based in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in another 19 countries worldwide. The Instituteoperates through three programmes: (1) the Plant Genetic Resources Programme, (2) the CGIAR Genetic ResourcesSupport Programme and (3) the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP).

The international status of IPGRI is conferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January 2001, hadbeen signed and ratified by the Governments of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso,Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt,Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco,Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria,Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine.

In 2000 financial support for the Research Agenda of IPGRI was provided by the Governments of Armenia,Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,F.R. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (F.Y.R.), Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands,Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the UK and the USA and by the African Development Bank (AfDB), AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB), Center for Development Research (ZEF), Center for Forestry Research (CIFOR), Centrede Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Centro AgronómicoTropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Costa Rica (CATIE), Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), Technical Centrefor Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), European Environmental Agency, European Union, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asia andPacific Region (FFTC), Future Harvest, Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), Instituto Colombiano parael Desarollo de la Cienca y la Technología (COLCIENCIAS), Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission(CICAD), International Association for the Promotion of Cooperation with Scientists from the New IndependentStates of the former Soviet Union (INTAS), International Development Research Centre (IDRC), InternationalFoundation for Science (IFS), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Service forNational Agricultural Research (ISNAR), Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS),National Geographic Society, Natural Resources Institute (NRI), Programme on Participatory Research and GenderAnalysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PGRA), Regional Fund for AgriculturalTechnology (FONTAGRO), Rockefeller Foundation, Taiwan Banana Research Institute (TBRI), Technova, UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP), UNDP Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF), United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), UNEP Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF), United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA), Vlaamse Vereiniging voor Ontwikkelingssasamenwerking en Technische Bijstand (VVOB) andthe World Bank.

The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI or the CGIAR concerning the legal status of any country,territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, theviews expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.

Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only for information.

Citation:Watson, J.W. and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors. 2002. Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop:Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems, 17–19 July2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.

ISBN 92-9043-517-8

IPGRI

Via dei Tre Denari 472/a

00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino)

Rome, Italy

© International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 2002

ii HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Contents

Acknowledgements v

Foreword vi

IntroductionOpening remarks 1

G. FischbeckHome gardens—a genetic resources perspective 3

J. EngelsHome gardens agrobiodiversity: an overview across regions 10

P.B. Eyzaguirre and J. Watson

Technical contributionsHome gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity 14

T. HodgkinDocumentation of plant genetic resources in home gardens 19

H. KnüpfferContributions of home gardens to our knowledge on cultivated plant species:

the Mansfeld approach 27

K. HammerCharacterizing genetic diversity of home garden crop species: 34

some examples from the Americas

M. Hoogendijk and D. Williams Contributions of home gardens agrobiodiversity to development, nutrition and livelihoods 41

P.B. Eyzaguirre and M. Fernandez

Project reportsContribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources 42

in farming systems—Cuban component

L. Castiñeiras, Z. Fundora Mayor, T. Shagarodsky, V. Moreno, O. Barrios, L. Fernández and R. CristóbalContribution of home gardens to in situ conservation 56

in traditional farming systems—Guatemalan component

J. M. Leiva, C. Azurdia, W. Ovando, E. López and H. AyalaHome gardens and in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity—Venezuelan component 73

C. Quiroz, M. Gutiérrez, , D. Rodríguez, D. Pérez, J. Ynfante, J. Gámez, T. Pérez de Fernandez,A. Marques and W. Pacheco Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources 83

in farming systems in Ghana

S.O. Bennett-Lartey, G.S. Ayernor, C.M. Markwei, I.K. Asante, D.K. Abbiw, S.K. Boateng,V. M. Anchirinah and P. Ekpe Role of home gardens in the conservation of plant genetic resources in Vietnam 97

L.N. Trinh, N.T.N. Hue, N.N. De, N. V. Minh and P.T. Chu

CONTENTS iii

Case studiesHome gardens in Nepal: status and scope for research and development 105

P. Shrestha, R. Gautam, R.B. Rana and B. SthapitHome gardens in Ethiopia: some observations and generalizations 125

Z. Asfaw Home gardens in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java: a challenge for in situ 140

conservation of plant genetic resources

O.S. Abdoellah, Parikesit, B. Gunawan and H.Y. Hadikusumah

Working group reportsPlant genetic resources conservation in home gardens: ecosystems and key species 148

Group AIn situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components 151

of complementary conservation and use strategies for plant genetic resources

Group BDocumentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens 155

Group CMainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and

priorities for future work on managing home gardens’ agrobiodiversity for development

Group A 156

Group B 158

Group C 161

Poster presentationsTemperate home gardens of small alpine farmers in Eastern Tyrol (Austria): 163

their value for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity

B. Vogl-Lukasser and C R. VoglMansfeld’s Encyclopedia and Database on Agricultural and Horticultural Crops 165

J. Ochsmann, H. Knüpffer, N. Biermann and K. Bachmann The home garden database and information system—technical aspects 168

V. Afanasyev, J. Ochsmann and H. Knüpffer Home gardens in Kerala as an efficient agroecosystem for conservation 169

and sustainable management of biodiversity

K. Pushkaran Ethnobotany of genetic resources in Germany—diversity in city gardens 171

of immigrants

Th. Gladis

Summary and recommendationsConclusions 175

P.B. Eyzaguirre

Appendix I. Workshop Agenda 176

Appendix II. List of Participants 179

iv HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

Acknowledgements

The Home Gardens Workshop documented in these Proceedings was made possible by theconceptual guidance, financial and logistical support of the German Foundation for InternationalDevelopment (DSE). In particular, Eckard Hehne, Wolfgang Zimmermann, Theda Kirchner, andWaltraude Michaelis should be singled out for their contributions in assuring the high quality andpartnership that was achieved at this event. DSE was first involved in identifying home gardenagrobiodiversity as an important issue for in situ conservation at an earlier workshop in Bonn in 1995and we are grateful for their long-term support. In addition, the contributions of the University ofKassel, Witzenhausen and of the International Centre for Advanced Training at Witzenhausen(IBZW) to the organization of the Workshop are duly acknowledged. We are grateful that our researchpartners and scientists from several institutions in Germany and around the world were able toparticipate; their contributions greatly enriched the discussion. We also thank the team that producedthis volume, in particular Annie Huie for compiling the manuscript. The funding for the researchphase of the Home Gardens Project was provided by the Federal Ministry for Economic Co-Operationand Development (BMZ) through the Deutche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)and implemented by the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI).

vi HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Foreword

The roots of this Home Gardens Workshop go back to at an earlier meeting organized by theGerman Foundation for International Development (DSE) and its Food and Agriculture DevelopmentCentre (ZEL) in Bonn, Germany in 1995 to identify priority issues for conservation and use of plantgenetic resources in developing countries. IPGRI and various German partners considered a range ofproblems that developing countries face in managing and conserving plant genetic resources. Themeeting also suggested priorities and strategies to increase the contribution of agrobiodiversity andgenetic resources to food security and economic development of the rural poor and established a jointpriority research agenda. Home gardens, a globally distributed system managed by rural householdsto maintain and utilise plant diversity, were highlighted as an important system for in situconservation strategies. Focusing on home gardens was also an opportunity to show howagrobiodiversity contributes to better livelihoods for the rural poor and increases productivity inecosystems.

In 1998, the priorities established at the aforementioned DSE in situ workshop were put intopractice in partnership with genetic resources scientists and institutions in developing countries withthe support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)through GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit). A three-year IPGRI researchproject on agrobiodiversity in home gardens has been implemented in partnership with nationalplant genetic resources programmes in five countries: Ghana, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba andVenezuela. The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK-Gatersleben) has served asthe partner German institution working in the areas of genetic resources documentation andcharacterization.

The results of the Home Garden Project presented in these Workshop Proceedings contributeto national and global strategies for including home gardens as a distinct and important componentof in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The national and comparative studies have also begun toestablish a clear link between home garden diversity and household livelihoods and food security.IPGRI will continue to build the global research partnerships that provide national programmes andlocal organizations with the tools to include genetic resources management at the household andecosystem levels in national biodiversity conservation and development strategies and policies. Wethank the many institutions, communities, and individuals that have contributed to the research onhome gardens genetic resources and Germany for its financial support of the Workshop and theresearch activities.

Geoffrey Hawtin, PhDDirector General, IPGRI

INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction

Opening remarks

Gerhard FischbeckEmeritus Professor of Plant Breeding, University of Munich-Weihenstephan

The purpose of this international workshop is to address the topic ‘Contribution of Home Gardens tothe In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems’. As a former universityprofessor of Agronomy and Plant Breeding and one of the early Board members of IBPGR (nowIPGRI), I have been interested and engaged in plant genetic resources work for quite some time.

Many of the readers will know about, or may even have participated in, the ‘Fourth InternationalFAO Conference on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture’ that was held in Leipzig in1996. At this occasion, the status of plant genetic resources was reviewed on a worldwide basis andsignificant gaps, inherent risks, and tremendous costs became clearly apparent, confounding aconservation strategy mainly focused on ex situ gene bank conservation of plant genetic resources. Itwas not difficult to conclude that opportunities for in situ conservation of plant genetic resourcesdeserved much more interest than they had received before; even more so, since the erosion of geneticdiversity in cultivated plants did not proceed with the speed and intensity that had been fearedduring the early phases of the Green Revolution. Apparently, there are structures and/or conditionsin developing countries that support the maintenance of diversity within traditional crop speciesdepending on the needs and preferences of rural communities. Inevitably, such forms of in situconservation contain dynamic possibilities for genetic change. Such elements may result in adaptivechanges in gene frequencies without much danger of loss of genetic diversity; these may even containpositive aspects from a breeders view. In contrast, depending on the size and structure of thepopulation as well as differences in the mating and propagation system for a species, it is also possiblethat genetic drift will occur, which can result in sizable losses in genetic diversity from the originalgene pool.

IPGRI and GTZ were among the first research and donor organizations to initiate a pilot project tostudy the role of home gardens in genetic diversity conservation, and I am very glad to serve aschairman to this Second International Home Gardens Workshop, convened to derive conclusionsfrom the preceding three-year research project. Besides delegations from the five countriesparticipating directly in the project, the attendance of colleagues from at least 10 more countriesdemonstrates the increasing worldwide interest in assessing home garden diversity. Experts fromIPGRI, IPK Gatersleben and the University of Kassel are also attending, among which I want tomention personally Prof. Hammer, who pioneered the scientific interest in home gardens. Thecombination of country research partners, home garden experts from around the world, andrepresentatives from international research and development institutions will hopefully provideopportunities for broad-based discussions.

This workshop intends to concentrate more on technical than on scientific questions. Within aframe of more general lectures related to principles of in situ conservation and home gardencharacteristics, the first objective of this workshop is to provide a summary of the Home GardensProject results obtained by the five participating countries during their three-year research phase.These results form the experimental basis upon which any of the other objectives of the workshopneed to be based.

The second objective still concentrates on the individual country results but, in addition, calls for thecountry teams to elucidate from their results in situ conservation issues and to present ideas formanagement systems that suit conservation purposes.

Results and ideas from country reports together with principles demonstrated in the frameworklectures will form the basis for the third objective: to provide guidelines for extended efforts in the

2 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

utilization of home garden potential for in situ conservation. This objective will be achieved withinputs from all participants and aims at formulating project follow-up actions and more generalrecommendations that include relevant ties with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).

To this end, several working groups have been formed to discuss major issues and conclusions, aswell as to formulate proposals for follow-up actions that will hopefully emanate from this workshop.In this way, the publication of the proceedings of this workshop may form a milestone in expandingthe interest in home gardens and increasing their utilization for in situ conservation.

Home gardens—a genetic resources perspective

Jan EngelsInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

IntroductionThe importance of home gardens in the production of food, medicine and other useful products forhuman beings is widely recognized; consequently, regular attempts to improve the productivity ofthis widespread agro-ecosystem have usually been initiated with specific objectives in mind. Theimportance of the contribution of home gardens to the improvement of the nutritional status of ruraland urban families and the increase of vegetable production in the tropics are two examples ofprevious home garden research. The realization that this ‘farming’ system is also an importantreservoir of unique genetic diversity has more recently led to initiatives to study this system morecarefully in order to obtain a better understanding of the role of home gardens in the managementand conservation of genetic diversity in situ.

This overview paper is intended to assess how different aspects related to genetic diversitymanagement may contribute to or have an influence on the in situ conservation of agro-biodiversityin home gardens from a genetic resources perspective. However, before starting this assessment itwould be advantageous to provide some information on the general ‘philosophical’ context in whichthis home garden research is being implemented at IPGRI.

IPGRI’s mandate is “To advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of presentand future generations” which places IPGRI’s programmatic work clearly in the development context.This aspect is further underlined in its mission statement: “To encourage, support and undertake activitiesto improve the management of genetic resources worldwide so as to help eradicate poverty, increase food securityand protect the environment. IPGRI focuses on the conservation and use of genetic resources important todeveloping countries and has an explicit commitment to specific crops” (IPGRI 1999).

Conservation efforts can only be based on a sustainable footing if and when the targeted geneticdiversity is utilized. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is not only important to understand thegenetic diversity as such, but also its role in agro-ecosystems as well as the role and function of humanbeings in the management of genetic diversity. Only a holistic research approach, actively involvingall the relevant ‘stakeholders’ in a participatory manner and examining all components of theagroecosystem that influence diversity management will lead to meaningful results.

Closely related to the agroecosystem approach, it will be important to place the conservation in awider context in order to achieve a sustainable conservation effort; all possible options and methodsavailable should be considered to conserve the genetic diversity within the home garden agro-ecosystem. Good links with national conservation programmes will be as important as a closecollaboration with other supporting research activities in the country or region, incorporatingdisciplines such as plant taxonomy, plant breeding, nutrition, socio-economic and policy aspects.

Through a better understanding of the role of farmers and their families as the producers of gardenproducts, it will be possible to improve the management of genetic diversity in home gardens,resulting in a better and more sustainable production combined with the maintenance of a high levelof genetic diversity. Targeted and well-planned ‘interventions’ from the outside, i.e. the introductionof new crops, improved varieties and/or of specific characteristics that are missing in a given homegarden system can further strengthen the importance of this production system and allow a naturallink between conservation and development.

In the following, the different approaches to conservation will be examined followed by a brieftreatment of ways and means to encourage an increase of genetic diversity within home gardens.Than we will have a closer look at the important aspects of home gardens from a plant geneticresources perspective and, finally draw a few conclusions.

INTRODUCTION 3

Approaches to conservation

Agroecosystem approachHome gardens can be regarded as microenvironments within the agroecosystem that preserve thefunction and resilience of the larger ecosystem. It is important to think of these microenvironments inthe aggregate when determining optimum conservation units for a conservation strategy, for instancewhen selecting gardens, deciding on the number to be included in a conservation strategy,determining population sizes of plant species, etc.

Home gardens as an ecosystem contain multiple levels of diversity, including cultural, genetic andagronomic diversity. They are valued for different reasons, for instance: one can distinguish anintrinsic value related to its aesthetic value, religious value, etc.; an ecosystem value as mentionedbefore; and a value in its contribution to livelihoods. Closely related to these different types of valueis the fact that genetic diversity managed by people has a close and direct linkage with the culturaldiversity. Therefore, while purposefully conserving one aspect of diversity, it is impossible to avoidconsidering the others. One important element of this genetic diversity–cultural complex is theindigenous knowledge that is entirely interwoven with these two components. It is an integral andessential part of the genetic diversity, and consequently, the diversity can only be used as a geneticresource if both the biological and the information/knowledge components are available.

From a genetic and agronomic diversity point of view, it is often the strong influence of humanbeings managing the gardens that leads to increased diversity. As will be discussed below, homegardens are important centers of experimentation, plant introduction, and crop improvement as wellas refuges for unique genetic diversity. The latter diversity exists at the “ecosystem” level (i.e. thewider ecological environment within a geographic region in which individual gardens exist), thespecies level and within species levels. It is especially the genetic diversity in the two last levels thatis of interest for conservation efforts.

Holistic conservation approachIn broad terms, one can divide genetic conservation into two approaches. One approach deals withgenetic diversity occurring in its natural environment, e.g. the plant, animal and microbial diversityin natural habitats and the crop, animal and wild relatives in farmers’ fields and their surroundings.This form of conservation is called in situ. The other approach, the most common method for plantgenetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), is to collect the genetic diversity from its naturalsurrounding or from research programmes and store the seed, vegetative parts or even the entireplant in a man-made infrastructure, i.e. a genebank. This way of conserving genetic diversity is calledex situ conservation.

In view of the fact that each of these broad conservation approaches mentioned above can besubdivided into more specific methods, largely developed to deal with the specific biologicalrequirements of the material to be conserved, it will be important to carefully consider theserequirements in order to choose the most suitable ones. Besides the fact that each of these methods issuitable for specific types of biological material, they possess also other strengths and weaknesses thatone needs to consider when conserving genetic resources. These considerations may include theduration of the conservation exercise, the access to the conserved material, administrative andpolitical issues, questions of ownership and sovereignty, among other questions. Therefore, whensearching for the best method, it will be relatively easy to see how two or more methods should beused in combination in order to fit these variables and, thus, to provide for the most effective andefficient conservation strategy. The right combination of conservation methods can significantlyincrease the total genetic diversity conserved, its security, accessibility, and cost-efficiency. In selectingthe appropriate conservation methods it is important to take a holistic view of the overall objectivesof the conservation effort and to place it in a wider context, whenever possible, as part of adevelopment process.


While the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emphasizes the in situ approach toconservation, it views both in situ and ex situ conservation as complementary. In the case of both plantand animal genetic resources for food and agriculture, ex situ conservation has been the customarypractice to date. Germplasm collections are maintained in genebanks and are, thus, readily accessiblefor use in plant and animal improvement programmes. This perspective has now broadened to takeaccount of the role of in situ conservation, which allows the process of crop evolution and adaptationto continue.

In situ and ex situ methods are thus increasingly viewed as mutually supportive options availablefor conserving different elements of a given genepool to include traditional and modern crop varietiesas well as animal breeds, wild relatives and genetic stocks. Selection of the appropriate methodshould be based on a range of criteria, including: the biological nature of the species in question; thepracticality and feasibility of the particular method chosen (which depends on the availability of thenecessary infrastructure and the necessary human and financial resources); and the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and security afforded by its application. In many instances, the development ofappropriate complementary conservation strategies requires further research to define the criteria,refine the method and test its application for a range of genepools and situations. An important aspectto consider in linking in situ and ex situ components in the conservation strategy is the dynamic natureof the former and the static, but potentially more secure approach, of the latter.

In the case of crop plants, selection of the appropriate ex situ method (seed, pollen, in vitro, field,DNA conservation) will depend largely on the biological nature of the germplasm material. Whereverpossible, preference is given to the storage of orthodox seeds under low temperature and seedmoisture content regimes as this method is best researched, easy to apply and relatively cheap. If thespecies in question does not produce orthodox seeds or is propagated vegetatively, the material canbe maintained either in field genebanks or as tissue in reagents tubes, i.e. in vitro. Alternatively, pollencan also be considered for storage. Such ex situ efforts can be complemented by approaches such ason-farm management of the valuable genetic diversity inherent in traditional crop varieties andlandraces and in situ conservation of their wild relatives in protected areas. Engels and Wood (1999)provide more details of the individual methods, including the pros and cons.

Thus, with growing recognition that sustainable and adequate conservation of the world’s geneticresources cannot be achieved through any single approach or method, complementary strategies areincreasingly being adopted by conservation programmes around the world. Moreover, in recognitionthat lasting conservation efforts of any kind can only be achieved through the active participation ofall stakeholders, both national and international conservation efforts are increasingly being integratedinto broader development objectives and processes. Details of organizational and institutional aspectsof conservation activities at the national and international level can be found in Spillane et al. (1999).

Linking conservation with developmentIn complementary conservation, it is important to give due consideration to the utilization of thegermplasm conserved, either by the household using the resource as the foundation for foodproduction, or by the plant breeder in improvement efforts. It will be important that home gardenmaterial is made available for research as a basis for the improvement process. Therefore, establishinglinks between local communities that depend on home gardens and the formal research andconservation system is an essential pre-condition for increasing the benefits of managing diversitywithin home gardens.

Another related aspect is the establishment of linkages with extension services, as part of a widercollaboration between home garden farmers on the one side and the research and conservationsystems on the other. Such a link will be essential to the research community, providing the means toinform them of the needs and problems that occur at the grassroots level; it would also be essential tothe home gardeners themselves because they might benefit more directly from new developments inthe agricultural sector that are being disseminated by the extension service.

INTRODUCTION 5

Another dimension of linking the home garden community with the outer world is theinvolvement of the public and private sectors as well as civil society in the conservation anddevelopment projects. This will ensure that the aforementioned needs of home garden owners can bevoiced, and that influence can be asserted where and when it is necessary on their behalf.

Encouraging/facilitating the increase of genetic diversityTo maintain genetic diversity at the species and within species level, it is important to continue theprocess of evolution through farmer selection within crop diversity to obtain suitable types under theprevailing conditions, ensuring the crop’s ability to adapt to changing conditions or requirements. Itis also widely accepted that genetic diversity within a farming system provides more crop stability interms of yield security and encourages more sustainable production methods, because thedependency on outside-farm inputs is much lower. Therefore, especially in marginal environmentswhere the predictability of growing conditions is low, the use of more genetic diversity tends to bebeneficial to the people. It is assumed that this very situation is also applicable to home gardenproduction.

However, in order to ensure the long-term and broad-based suitability of the genetic diversitymanagement and conservation practices in home gardens, it will be indispensable to create awarenessof the role and importance of genetic diversity in production systems as well as in crop evolution atlarge. In particular, the relationship between crop evolution and the role of the individual is importantto understand.

In order to further strengthen the genetic base of the crops grown and bred within the gardens, itis important to facilitate access to species and varietal diversity in communities, introducing specificcharacteristics in particular crops according to the local needs. A close link with the national geneticresources programme will be beneficial.

Organizing diversity fairs and demonstration plots are two of many more approaches that willfacilitate the creation of awareness and the exchange of genetic diversity and management/usepractices among the owners of individual gardens. A related activity is the creation of opportunitiesto market the produce of the gardens in order to generate additional income for gardeninghouseholds.

Important aspects of home gardens from a plant genetic resource perspective

Plant domesticationPlant domestication most likely began around the dwellings of human settlements. The immediatearea around the homestead offers increased availability of water, better soil fertility due to organicwaste inputs, and easier protection of the crop against animals (Harlan, 1975). Facilitated by the closeinteraction between humans and plants within a home garden setting, many new crops have beendeveloped in home gardens. This process continues, especially in parts of the world where there isstill ample plant diversity available and where a ‘natural’ link between gardens and nature exist.

Very diverse selection pressures, such as significant differences in micro-environments and acontinuous flow of germplasm between gardens, affect the evolution of crop species, especially ofvegetables and other minor crops. Human selection of plant diversity within the genepool is one ofthe driving forces of crop evolution, a process that is being fueled by the availability and creation ofgenetic variability.

As the process of plant domestication and crop evolution is ongoing it can be expected thatcontinuously new germplasm will develop. Consequently, home gardens contain unique and raregenetic diversity that has evolved or be developed locally and that is of interest not only to thedevelopers but also to the conservationists within a given country as well as internationally.


Plant introduction and distribution centreHome gardens can collectively be regarded as informal ‘plant introduction and distribution’

centers, and the permanent contacts between gardens—facilitated through the strong links betweengardens, families, and local markets—as well as the great diversity in individual gardens lead tocontinuous germplasm and information exchange among them. These activities are of criticalimportance for plant domestication and crop evolution and also give rise to a dynamic situation inwhich new and unique genetic diversity can evolve.

Wherever the home garden is linked to a farm it has been regularly observed that the homegarden plays the role of a nursery where seedlings and plantlets are produced for transplanting,diseased plants are nurtured, and vegetatively propagated material is multiplied.

Experimentation centreClosely linked to some of the aforementioned points the garden is also a place for experimentation andeven fundamental research. The ground breaking genetic research of the monk Gregor Mendel duringthe 19th century in the Tjech Republic was done in the home garden of the monastery and resulted inthe formulation of the genetic laws that, among other advances, greatly facilitated plant breeding!

Experimentation with growing new species and varieties is a well-known aspect of home gardensand is in fact an important contribution to crop improvement and evolution. Human curiosity is animportant factor that stimulates experimentation and encourages rare plants to be introduced,grown and used. Information sharing on plant production increases the efficiency ofexperimentation and builds on experiences of others.

Important production centreHome gardens are the logical production system for crop plants that are eaten fresh, used on a dailybasis, consumed only in small quantities, or that need specific attention such as vegetables, spicesand herbs, medicinal plants. Species such as minor fruits, root and tubers, ornamentals and othersalso fall into this category. The types of crops grown and the closeness of the garden to the house andkitchen assure that home gardens contribute significantly to food security, especially because theyare an important source of micro-nutrients and vitamins, and therefore play a critical role in thenutritional balance of the human diet.

From a plant genetic resources perspective, it is obvious that that the home garden is an importantlocation for the cultivation of so-called neglected and underutilized species (neglected from aresearch perspective and underutilized from a broader economic perspective). Such species have sofar not received much attention from conservationists, botanists and agronomists, and they aresignificantly under-represented in genebanks. Therefore, integrating home gardens into a nationalconservation strategy would most likely lead to increased research, better conservation and to astrengthened basis for the improvement of these species.

Refuge for genetic diversityAs already mentioned, home gardens are a ‘window’ for introduction of, and experimentation with,genetic diversity. Consequently, they harbour significant amounts of genetic diversity, partly uniqueand sometimes rare. This diversity exists both at the species and within species (or varietal) level andtends to be greater in tropical gardens. In order to provide a possibility for comparison, the authorcounted the species and varietal diversity in the home garden of a friend in the central part ofGermany (i.e. Heidelberg). A total of 12 crop/species groups and 105 species and varieties werecounted in an area of approximately 750 square meters. From my own observations in CentralAmerica, East Asia and southern Ethiopia it can be concluded that the genetic diversity at the varietylevel within a garden is relatively limited but between gardens within a local community thisdiversity is high or very high. In contrast, the diversity at the species level in temperate gardens isrelatively high within a garden and more limited between gardens within a given community.

INTRODUCTION 7

Therefore, when planning a conservation strategy it is important to duly consider these aspects.Sometimes the site of the house itself is selected based on the presence of particular wild tropical

fruit trees, so the home garden then becomes a refuge for them. It was observed in Central Americathat in several instances the location of the house was determined by the presence of one or morewanted fruit trees in the forest not only for its fruits but also for shade. Therefore, in areas withrelatively recent human settlement, matured fruit trees of indigenous species frequently representthe original genotypes of a naturally distributed and usually non-domesticated species.

Home gardens and cultural heritageAs previously mentioned, there exists a close relationship between a home garden and the culture ofthe surrounding community, and in fact the two are completely interwoven. One very striking aspect,related to the traditions of a family as part of a larger community, is the key role of women inmanaging the garden and utilizing its produce, either in her own kitchen or by selling it in the market.

Strong links can be observed between culinary and botanic diversity, and a good understandingof both aspects is important to proper conservation management. The inclusion of women in theconservation strategy is obvious and needs to be given due attention during the preparatory andimplementation phases.

Another dimension of the close relationship between house, garden and family is the role thehome garden plays in terms of security. The garden is frequently part of the protected area aroundthe homestead, which often includes a fence in order to keep children and livestock in and othersout, thus also protecting genetic diversity.

Linking home gardens to research or extensionThe absence of formal or informal links between the home gardens on the one side and the nationalresearch and extension service on the other does not allow this important production system tobenefit from the outcome of research or from the services of the extension system. Furthermore, theproblems encountered within home gardens are neither addressed by public- or private-sector-funded research nor is the production of food in any way reflected in the national statistics. Thissituation leads to a continued neglect of the home gardens, excluding them from national or regionalconservation efforts, and requiring due attention and improvement.

Another consequence of this situation is that, without information on home gardens and links tothe national system, they can’t be a factor in the development or implementation of new legislationor policy, a situation that could easily result in laws and policies that are not beneficial for the homegarden system. One example of a possible negative consequence is the introduction of plant varietyprotection law in many developing countries that typically results in national seed laws that arerather restrictive to the flow of seed and planting material. For instance, in Europe it is notpermissible to exchange bigger quantities of seed or planting material when the material is notregistered as a protected variety. The latter can only be done when the material is sufficientlyuniform, stable and distinct as well as having a proven use value. These requirements can hardly beachieved for the small numbers of plants that are grown in gardens and that will not becommercialized. Therefore, such a policy could have a negative impact on the flow of germplasmand, thus, possibly undermine the home garden system.

Linkages with the marketplaceThe market place plays an important social and economic role in many rural areas of the world.Within the context of home gardens and from a genetic diversity perspective, the marketplace iscrucial in facilitating the exchange of germplasm among the members of a community as well asbetween communities. We have already seen how important such exchange is for crop evolution andimprovement as well as for the continued and sustainable production of food in the home gardens,even if the exchange of genetic diversity may be restricted to the local market. The market can also


be an important entrance point for new crops or varieties and, in this way, can link the individualgarden to a larger network.

Another aspect of the marketplace is the opportunity to sell or barter the surplus produce of thegarden, thus generating additional income for the family. The fact that women typically market thesurplus produce has the advantage that the exchange of genetic diversity is driven by the needs ofthe housewife and, consequently, may reflect important needs such as food security. Furthermore,the additional income will more likely benefit the family and/or contribute to a more balanced diet(Talukder et al. 2000); therefore, the agrobiodiversity present in home gardens has importantdevelopment as well as conservation contributions.

ConclusionsHome gardens are an important production system of food and other essential products, harbouringunique and sometimes rare genetic diversity of our crop plants and some of their wild relatives. Inaddition, as centers of experimentation, species domestication, crop improvement as well as of plantintroduction and exchange they deserve the highest possible attention in genetic resourceconservation and use programmes.

• Home gardens provide a unique opportunity to clearly explain and demonstrate theimportance of genetic diversity for crop improvement and evolution as well as the relevanceof linking conservation of agro-biodiversity with development.

• Home gardens are an important agro-ecosystem that provides national programmes andIPGRI with unique opportunities to study conservation efforts in a holistic sense, inparticular to develop complementary conservation strategies.

• It is important to link conservation efforts in home gardens with national programmes and,thus, allow the necessary integration of the home garden system in the national research andextension system.

• More targeted research support is needed to utilize the opportunities that home gardensoffer to food security and agro-biodiversity conservation.

ReferencesEngels, J.M.M. and D. Wood. 1999. Conservation of agrobiodiversity. Pp. 355–385 in Agrobiodiversity:

Characterization, Utilization, and Management (Wood and Lenne, eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Harlan, J.R. 1975. Crops and man. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.IPGRI, 1999. Diversity for development. The new strategy of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.

IPGRI, Rome, Italy.Spillane, C., J. Engels, H. Fassil, L. Withers and D. Cooper. 1999. Strengthening national programmes for plant

genetic resources for food and agriculture: planning and coordination. Issues in Genetic Resources no. 8.IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Talukder, A., L. Kiess, N. Huq, S. de Pee, I. Darnton-Hill and M.W. Bloem. 2000. Food and Nutrition Bulletin21(2):165-172.

INTRODUCTION 9

Home gardens and agrobiodiversity: an overview across regions

Pablo Eyzaguirre and Jessica Watson International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

Biodiversity conservation and development in home gardensHome gardens are microenvironments containing high levels of species and genetic diversity withinlarger farming systems. These gardens are not only important sources of food, fodder, fuel, medicines,spices, construction materials and income in many countries around the world, but are also importantfor in situ conservation of a wide range of plant genetic resources. Home gardens are dynamicsystems; their structure, composition, and species and cultivar diversity are influenced by changes inthe socioeconomic circumstances and cultural values of the households that maintain these gardens.Understanding the factors and decision-making patterns that affect the management of home gardensis crucial for including home gardens as a strategic component of in situ conservation ofagrobiodiversity.

The conservation of agrobiodiversity is inseparable from the sustainable use of plant geneticresources in agriculture. Thus agrobiodiversity conservation is both a goal and a means to secure thelivelihoods and well being of farming communities in poorer regions of the developing world. Homegardens are clear examples of diversity rich production systems that serve both a development and aconservation function. In order to strengthen this link between biodiversity conservation anddevelopment, IPGRI received the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperationand Development (BMZ) through GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) tocarry out a three-year research project on plant genetic resources in home gardens. This project hasbeen implemented in partnership with national plant genetic resources programmes in five countries,Ghana, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, and Venezuela. The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop PlantResearch (IPK-Gatersleben) has served as the partner German institution working in the areas ofgenetic resources documentation and characterization. Based on the results that are emerging, theproject is providing a framework for including home gardens as a distinct and important componentof in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The case studies have also begun to establish a clear linkbetween home garden diversity and household livelihoods and food security.

The chapters that follow contain important research findings that should also be assessed in adevelopment perspective. This is particularly important in light of the project’s overall goal, to“promote the development of tropical farming communities through the conservation and use ofdiversity in home gardens”. In light of this goal, several research objectives were elaborated andagreed at the First International Home gardens and Agrobiodiversity Workshop in Cali, Colombia, inSeptember of 1999. These research objectives are to:

• document genetic diversity in home gardens and the ecological, socio-cultural, and economicfactors that govern its distribution and maintenance

• develop methods to include home garden systems in national agrobiodiversity strategies andprogrammes

• develop strategies for home gardens linked to ecosystem conservation, livelihoods, and culturalvalues.

The results of the studies have clearly met the first two objectives and as the project moves towardscompletion, several activities are planned with policy-makers, communities and other developmentand conservation agencies to mainstream the results of the studies into national conservation anddevelopment programmes. In order to assess how the various national studies have addressed theobjectives, this presentation reviews the coordinated steps that were carried out across the fivecountries.


Sampling home gardens and key speciesThe first step was to establish a common set of sampling procedures to assess how much crop andtree diversity home gardens maintain and what would be the best ways to monitor this diversity aspart of national strategies for agrobiodiversity conservation. The key factor in the analysis was toconsider the home garden as a niche or sub-system within a larger agro-ecosystem. No singlegarden or even type of garden could be considered as a conservation unit without referring first tothe larger farm and ecosystem in which it is located. The sampling strategy was also designed tolook at the dynamics of home garden systems within and among ecosystems. In each country a setof sites were selected to reflect the farming systems and ecologies of the more importantagroecological zones that also contained significant biological diversity. These sites then weresurveyed to select a sample of home gardens for monitoring and in-depth study. The followingpoints were applied in identifying the sites and sample sizes.

• Sites selected reflect major agroecological zones (AEZ) in each country.• Broad site survey of home garden diversity to identify ‘typical’ gardens per AEZ.• Unrepresentative (newly established or commercial vegetable plots) gardens eliminated. • Key informants help select representative gardens.• Final selected sample per site n=30–50 gardens covers essential biodiversity in home gardens.

Some species were present in most home gardens within a country and even across countriesand regions—peppers, taro or sweet potato, banana and papaya. For these there were uniquevarieties found in home gardens and in several cases the home garden serves as the germplasmbank or source for planting material or where new types are developed and introduced. These ‘keyhome garden species’ merited in-depth genetic diversity study. In order to select the key homegarden species with high diversity the following selection criteria were applied:

• the species has unique varieties found in home gardens• there are significant levels of varietal diversity of the species• households attach sociocultural importance to the species• the species is economically important both for consumption and/or sale.

The species were then characterized using agromorphological traits and descriptors, as well asethnobotanical diversity indicators based on farmers’ local taxonomy and local germplasmmanagement systems. In some cases the national teams were able to use DNA markers to measure thegenetic diversity of one key species in the home garden and compare it with the diversity that hasbeen already measured and maintained in ex situ genebanks. Genetic diversity in key species is linkedto unique uses even for crops that are widely distributed and present both in large stands or fieldsand in home gardens. For example, Vietnamese home gardens were an important source of bananadiversity even though banana is also an important commercial and plantation crop. The home gardencultivars were distinctive and used for special purposes such as dried and pickled bananas formedicinal uses, and green bananas used ceremonially (Tet shrine).

The key species in home gardens of the five countries are listed below. The number of farmervarieties is being evaluated to confirm their uniqueness.

Vietnam• Pomelo (9–14 varieties per ecosystem): Do, Thanh tra, Bien Hoa, Chum, Bi, Ngot, Oi, Nam roi,

Hong, DHNN1, Phuc trach, Chua, Son, Dao.• Banana (Musa spp.) (9–12 varieties): Xiem, Su, Gia, Hot, Cau, Samp, Tieu, Ta qua, Do, Ngu, Lan,

Chua.• Luffa (Luffa cylindrical) (6 varieties): Trau, Huong, Khia, Dai, Den, Tay.• Taro (Colocasia esculenta) (8–17 varieries): So, Sap, Tim, Ngua, Nuoc, Cao, Ngot, Mung.

INTRODUCTION 11

Ghana• Yam: Dioscorea alata (4), rotundata (15), praehensilis (1), cayenensis (1), bulbifera (2), dumetorum (1),

esculenta (1), burkiliana (1), one wild species• Plantain: Musa spp. 15 local varieties• Pearl Millet: Pennisetum glaucumi 3–4 varieties

Guatemala• Zapote/Sapota (Pouteria sapota).• Chillies (Capsicum spp.). • Huisquil/Chayote (Sechium edule).

Cuba• Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus): 16 agro-morphological descriptors, 3 cultivated groups, 1 wild. • Zapote (Pouteria sapota): 11 AMI, no clear varieties.• Chilli (Capsicum): frutescens (10–18), chinense (7–11), annuum (5–10).

Venezuela• Papaya (Carica papaya): 5.• Avocado (Persea americana): 18, with more variety in size and shape than ex situ• Chilli (Capsicum sp.): 11.• Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris): 14, with disease resistance found in 2–3.

Conservation value of home gardens The case studies analysed the various ways that home gardens contribute to biodiversity, at theecosystem, species and genetic levels. At the ecosystem level, the home garden provides a complexmicroenvironment that links more complex natural ecosystems with agricultural systems. It has beennoted that home gardens mimic the natural structure of forest systems, with the crucial difference thatnearly all the species found in a home garden are used. Thus a valuable conservation role for homegardens is as a sustainable use system within or around protected forest areas. This function was wellstudied and confirmed in Cuba, and could apply to other countries where natural forests areimportant sources of income and are also being threatened with overexploitation of outrightconversion. Biodiversity conservation in home gardens can be linked to protected areas verysuccessfully according to these studies.

Home gardens are often the focal point of a household’s social interactions within the family andwith visitors. One of the important functions that home gardens perform is to keep knowledge ofvarieties and uses of diversity alive from generation to generation. In home gardens children andvisitors can learn from the family experts in different types of diversity and its uses. These can benutritional, commercial, aesthetic, and spiritual. Home gardens in all the countries served as refugesfor the ‘heirloom crop varieties’ that were valued and maintained in the family but had little place incommercial markets. Households were also able to exchange their home garden varieties as part ofthe social visits. Sharing and exchanging plant genetic resources are common features of visitsbetween households.

In several countries and ecosystems the home garden was where germplasm from the wild wasbrought under cultivation. This complex ecosystem close to the house where plants can be closelyobserved and managed makes it a convenient site for traditional plant experimentation anddomestication. For some of the root crops such as taro and yams, ruderal material from the wild iscontinually brought under cultivation in home gardens to renew the vigour of the germplasm forplanting in larger fields. Some home garden species that exist in both cultivated and uncultivatedforms are also income earners. The study in Guatemala focused attention on loroco (Fernaldiapandurata), a wild species that is also cultivated and widely commercialized as a vegetable for use in


tamales, the production being almost entirely from home gardens. Similarly varieties of eggplantsand peppers appear in both cultivated and uncultivated forms in home gardens.

Ecosystem services that home gardens provide to the larger agricultural systems and the healthand well being of the household were often noted in the interviews with farmers. The home gardensprovided protected and enriched environments for varieties that may have been more susceptible tobiotic and abiotic stresses in the fields. Among the services they provided were soil enrichment,improved water retention, a habitat for pollinators. Home gardens are a good example of howhumans cause niche differentiation that can increase the total productivity of agroecosystems.

The five national studies were able to bring the diversity analyses at the different levels togetherand link it to development actions and policy. This forms the basis of in situ conservation strategiesthat give prominence to the contribution of home gardens. The specific elements for implementingthat strategy are first, to identify those species and varieties that are best conserved in home gardenbased on the following features:

• Occurring only in gardens.• Being replaced by improved varieties.• Undergoing process of domestication.• Wild species or variety whose environment is threatened.• Identify possible links to ex situ conservation in genebanks particularly for rare crop varieties.

In situ conservation in genebanks as several of the studies described.

The second element in that strategy is to develop a sampling and monitoring strategy for geneticresources that are typical and mainly found in home gardens. Several of the countries were able toidentify empirically the optimal number of gardens and their linkages to each other and surroundingecosystems as the basis for a monitoring strategy that is cost effective and builds upon the existinginstitutions in both nature conservation, local community development and agricultural research andextension. These low cost sampling approaches are best suited to the conditions of tropicaldeveloping countries. In addition, links to ex situ conservation programmes in genebanks wereparticularly valuable in targeting the varieties and zones where home gardens complement in situconservation in crop fields and in genebanks.

The role of formal genetic resources programmes in the work of in situ conservation was variableacross countries. It was clear however that home garden biodiversity could benefit from formal linksto genetic resource conservation programmes. Home gardens are increasingly institutionalized inCuba as the key element in the national in situ conservation strategy. In Vietnam, the focus on homegardens has helped to further a growing understanding of the complementarity between ex situ andin situ conservation in Vietnam. In Guatemala, home gardens agrobiodiversity is best maintained anddeveloped as part of a broad based strategy linking to community development associations andNGOs. In Ghana, building policy support and public awareness of agrobiodiversity and the need toconserve it was achieved by linking home gardens to traditional foods and income opportunities forrural households. In Venezuela, the conucos, or home garden can be closely linked to growing supportfor traditional foods and ecological agriculture. In sum, the home garden proved to be a natural andeasy way to focus attention on the role of agrobiodiversity in food security and healthy environments.Because the garden is close to home, we were able to bring these agrobiodiversity issues to people’sattention in a humane and understandable way.

INTRODUCTION 13

Technical contributions

Home gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity

Toby HodgkinInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

SummaryHome gardens contribute to the conservation of biodiversity at the ecosystem, species and withinspecies levels. They provide complex, multi-layered environments in which farmers can maintain largenumbers of useful plant species over many years. They may also provide a basis for the maintenance insitu of significant amounts of intra-specific (genetic) diversity of useful plant species.

The maintenance of genetic diversity in home gardens will depend on farmer management, theenvironmental characteristics of the garden and species biology. The amount and distribution of thegenetic diversity of different characters (e.g. agromorphological, biochemical or molecular), within andbetween gardens, will also vary with the characters measured and the ways in which each is affected byfarmer management, environment and species biology. Understanding the ways in which farmersmanage planting materials, maintain identifiable populations and varieties, and exchange or mixmaterials will be especially important to analysing and understanding observed patterns of diversity.

From a conservation perspective, key concerns of those investigating the maintenance of geneticdiversity in home gardens have included the small population sizes maintained by farmers, therelatively high levels of selection intensity that may be practiced and the vulnerability of individualgarden populations to random events causing loss of whole populations. Determining the contributionthat home gardens can make to in situ conservation requires an understanding of the amount anddistribution of genetic diversity of different species in home gardens and of the ways in which selection,gene flow and other processes affect its maintenance over time. This understanding needs to beintegrated with an analysis of farmer management practices and of the needs and objectives of the homegarden owners.

IntroductionHome gardens have characteristics that present particular challenges and opportunities for thoseinterested in the maintenance of genetic diversity within production systems. They are complex,multi-storeyed environments with very high species diversity and a wide range of very variedecological micro-niches (Eyzaguirre, this volume). They are clearly important targets for agro-ecosystem conservation, in that they provide a wide range of ecological benefits and services and avaluable set of products for the rural poor. They are also important in the conservation of useful plantspecies since they contain very large numbers of species which are often absent or disappearing fromother production systems (e.g. Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba, Castineiras et al. this volume) or have yet tobe introduced to agriculture (e.g. Fernaldia pandurata in Guatemala, J. M. Leiva et al. this volume). The role of home gardens in the conservation of within species variation (genetic diversity) is lessobvious. Population sizes of most home garden crops are extremely small, varying from a fewindividuals to, at most, a few hundred plants. The materials are often ephemeral, frequently being lostby the owners and having to be reintroduced. These, and other factors, would seem to mitigateagainst home gardens playing a significant part in conservation of intra-specific diversity. In thispaper, I hope to provide an overview of some of the issues involved in determining the role of homegardens in conserving crop diversity from a genetic diversity perspective.

Conservation and production Crop diversity is maintained in home gardens when it meets producers’ needs. It may be maintainedover long periods, and in this sense, it may be said to be conserved in situ. However, conservation is


rarely (if ever) the actual objective. Farmers who maintain diversity do so because they find it useful.Thus, any evaluation of in situ conservation of crop diversity in home gardens has to place the desiredconservation objectives (the amount of diversity maintained, the duration of maintenance etc.) in thecontext of farmers’ production objectives.

Three groups of interacting factors will affect the maintenance of crop genetic diversity in homegardens: the biological characteristics of the crops; the way in which farmers manage the productionand reproduction of the material; and, the way in which environmental factors affect crop production.Reproductive biology, and the way in which planting material is maintained, will be among the mostsignificant biological characteristics. Outbreeders and inbreeders often have markedly differentamounts of diversity in local cultivars, with hotspots of high diversity in some inbreeders (Schoen andBrown 1991). The patterns of diversity distribution are also usually very different, as is also the casefor clonally propagated crops such as Musa or taro. Farmer management determines what is sown,what planted, the size of the population and what is saved for future seed. Farmers provide the majorsources for the effects of selection and gene flow on diversity. The environment provides anothermajor source of the effects of selection. Temperature, moisture availability, day length, biotic andabiotic stresses will all have an impact of gene frequency and on the nature and amount of diversitymaintained within a crop population.

In trying to determine how home gardens can best contribute to conservation, it is necessary tounderstand the ways in which environment, crop biology and farmer management are affecting theextent and distribution of genetic diversity. This involves determining what diversity is maintainedby farmers, where and when it is maintained, and how and by whom. It also involves exploring whyfarmers choose to maintain the cultivars they do, in the ways that they do. The next sections of thispaper consider some aspects of determining the amount, distribution and maintenance of diversitythat are particularly relevant to home gardens.

The amount of genetic diversityThere is a range of different approaches to describing the amount of genetic diversity present in a cropin a home garden or group of home gardens. Whichever methods are used, the three most importantfeatures that are measured are the richness, evenness and distinctness of the characteristics. Richnessis a measure of the number of different types, while evenness describes their distribution within andbetween the different populations (cultivars, home gardens, areas etc.). Distinctness provides usefuladditional information on how different the types are and can be particularly important for assessingwhether some populations or areas have unique types.

Richness, evenness and distinctness can, with suitable adjustments, be measured using almost anycharacters, which seem to be biologically or genetically meaningful. A first approach might be simplyto record the numbers of local cultivars and the extent to which the same ones occur in different homegardens. Further studies might determine differences with respect to important morphological traits(e.g. seed colour, root flesh colour, plant height) or performance traits (yield, stress or diseaseresistance etc.). The trouble with agromorphological measures is often that their expression depends,at least in part, on the environment and that they do not provide a completely accurate picture ofgenetic differences. For this reason, studies of biochemical differences (isozymes) can be useful ormolecular markers can be used (see also Frankel et al. 1995, Karp et al. 1997, Jarvis et al. 2000).

Numbers and identities of local cultivars present in home gardens provide an obvious startingpoint to determining the amount of diversity. However, some caution may be needed in analysingsuch data. The names given by farmers may be different for the same local cultivar or the same fordifferent cultivars. This has been demonstrated in specific farming situations but similar informationfor home gardens is lacking. It may be more difficult to obtain a clear classification of local cultivarsand their identities in home garden production systems than it is in other farming systems. Sizes ofpopulations are much smaller and cultivar identity may be more personalized or more casual. There

TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 15

is evidence from farming situations that, even when names differ, farmers recognize the sameimportant distinguishing attributes between local cultivars. In such cases, these characters can beused to establish identities and determine numbers and patterns of distribution of local cultivars,providing that the analysis frameworks developed for traditional farming situations are valid forhome garden systems.

Analysis of many morphological and performance related traits is frequently used to determinevariation in home garden materials and to compare local cultivars from different gardens,communities or areas. For some traits, which show little variation with environment, it may bepossible to do this, using measures taken in home gardens. In other cases, trials on a single site willbe needed and collection of planting material will be required. This may be difficult for some cropssuch as taro where only one or two plants of each type are maintained in any garden. Wherequantitative traits are analysed (time to flower, height) measures such as coefficient of variation willgive an estimate of richness. Using multivariate statistics it may be possible to detect quite distinctpatterns of variation and combinations of traits in specific areas or communities, which cansignificantly help understanding how evenness and distinctness are expressed in the crop.

Molecular markers are increasingly used to investigate genetic diversity distribution and they areincreasingly replacing the use of isozymes (although the latter remain useful, functional andinexpensive). Molecular markers such as RAPDs can give inconsistent results (Karp et al. 1997) whileother approaches (AFLPs, microsatellites) require more investment or more expertise. However, theymay be especially useful when only small amounts of material can be obtained and they certainly givevery substantial amounts of information on patterns of neutral diversity.

The information obtained in this way can begin to answer some important conservation relatedquestions. If all farmers or communities maintain the same diversity, it may be less important, whichones continue to grow local cultivars while if some have unique varieties their continued interest inthese cultivars may be very important. Information on gene flow can indicate that there is significantexchange of materials between farmers and communities and that we have a meta-population of thecrop. This would indicate that the small size in any one garden is not necessarily a conservationconstraint. In contrast, evidence of genetic drift or of significant bottlenecks in some local materialsmay suggest that they are very vulnerable and may need additional ex situ conservation measures ormultiplication.

The distribution of diversityIn analysing diversity, the way it is distributed - between local cultivars, between cultivars in differentgardens, between communities and areas—is as important as the simple description of the amount ofdiversity. Again, the information can come from local cultivar numbers and identities,agromorphological characters or molecular markers. It can also be linked with ways of analysinggeographical information such as DIVA (Hijmans et al. 2001).

One important question is the extent to which local cultivars in home gardens, or the geneticcharacters they possess are unique. Does the same variation exist in the wild? Or in other productionsystems? Thus, a semi-cultivated tree species such as sapote may occur also in the wild but the typesmaintained in home gardens may have unique flavour, maturity or yield traits. Since the species isunlikely to be maintained on any scale in ex situ collections, home gardens may be the only reasonableway of maintaining the traits and diversity found. Similarly, the types of Capsicum maintained inhome gardens may be quite different from those grown for commercial production and provideunique flavour, quality, season or other characteristics. Answering these questions will require thatthe diversity found in home gardens is compared with that found from other sources such as samplesfrom the wild or ex situ collections.

The way in which diversity is partitioned within and between home gardens, communities orareas, provides the necessary information for determining not only where diversity is maintained butalso who maintains it and how. Do certain farmers or certain areas tend to maintain higher levels of


diversity and if so why? Because of their production environment, or for other reasons? The answersto these questions are important for the information they can give on the ways in which conservationparticular objectives might be achieved. They can help identify unique diversity and the reasons itcontinues to exist in some home gardens. This can lead to identifying measures to promotemaintenance or situations where continued in situ maintenance is unlikely.

Preliminary evidence suggests that there are substantial differences in distribution of crops. Thus,home gardens can often maintain many more local cultivars of some crops than might be found inlarger scale production systems (e.g. Capsicum) or can maintain specific types that are not grown ona larger scale. Some crops such as lima bean in Cuba or sponge gourd in Nepal are only grown inhome gardens and are unique to that production system. However, there is much less information onhow these differences are reflected in terms of genetic diversity. Whether the alleles and traits in homegarden populations are very substantially different or whether they also occur in other productionsystems but at different frequencies or in different combinations.

In understanding the patterns of diversity found in home garden cultivars it may be important tounderstand why specific local cultivars are being grown in the garden. Is it for convenience? Becauseit is new? Because it won’t grow anywhere else? The answers to these questions will affect both theamounts and types of diversity found.

The maintenance of diversityFrom a conservation perspective, the population sizes of a local cultivar in a home garden are usuallywell below that which would be desirable. Even for the most important crops there will seldom bemore than a few hundred plants, even of a relatively important legume, and often population sizeswill be below 10. There are two interacting elements that need to be explored—the way in whichfarmers maintain such small populations and the genetic implications of the small populationsthemselves

Most farmers are likely to save their own seed or planting material over longer or shorter periods.Since populations are small, this is likely to be a fairly unstable process and seasons in whichparticular types can no longer be maintained are likely to occur quite frequently. However, there havecertainly been situations where farmers have maintained special types for many decades and some ofthe crops are themselves very long lived.

While short maintenance periods may appear to make the conservation of material very unstablethis may not be the case. It depends on the way farmers meet their needs for new or replacementmaterials and the extent to which communities or even regions maintain a common range of materialsthat are exchanged or passed on. The information that is needed to determine whether this is the casecan come from a variety of sources.

The processes of maintenance and the genetic consequences of different practices have not beenstudied to any great extent. Some kind of selection process will be involved in choosing what plantswill provide future planting material. A very substantial reduction in population size may also occur.The planting material will usually be stored in some way and may lose viability during this process.It may be mixed with materials from other sources so as to permit gene flow to occur.

Conclusions Home gardens seem to provide environments in which part of the genetic diversity of many cropspecies can be maintained. The important questions that need to be answered from a conservationperspective relate to the amount and character of that diversity and to the ways in which it changesover time. Answering these questions requires the planned investigation of the amount anddistribution of genetic diversity. Analysis of richness, evenness and distinctness can provideinformation both on the amount and distribution of diversity present and on the portion that isunique to local home gardens. Ideally these studies will include information from both


agromorphological characters and molecular markers but even a study of the number anddistribution of cultivars can provide useful information.

Together with information on the amount and distribution of diversity, it will be increasinglyimportant to try and understand the genetic consequences of the maintenance procedures used byfarmers. This will provide the necessary information on the significance of random or stochasticevents in the maintenance of local populations and cultivars. It will also allow us to determine whatare the genetic diversity consequences of the small apparent size of most home garden populationsand whether we are in fact dealing with meta-populations of some type.

Home gardens are dynamic production systems in which farmers probably make changes everyseason that affect the cultivars grown, the sizes of populations and the characteristics of the materials.Their contribution to conservation is dynamic and ensures the maintenance of adapted materials,which provide direct benefits to the owners and to the users of home garden products. The geneticdiversity maintained is part of this contribution and can also make a further contribution to widerconservation objectives.

ReferencesFrankel, O. H., A.H.D. Brown and J.J. Burdon. 1995. The Conservation of Plant Biodiversity. Cambridge

University Press, UK.Hijmans, R.J., L. Guarino, M. Cruz and E. Rojas, E. 2001. GIS software for PGR research: 1. DIVA-GIS. Plant

Genetic Resources Newsletter 127:15-19.Jarvis, D.I., L. Myer, H. Klemick, L. Guarino, M. Smale, A.H.D, Brown, M. Sadiki, B. Sthapit and T. Hodgkin.

2000. A Training Guide for In Situ Conservation On-farm. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.Karp, A., S. Kresovich, K.V. Bhat, W.G. Ayad and T. Hodgkin. 1997. Molecular tools in plant genetic resources

conservation: a guide to the technologies. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 2. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.Schoen, D.J. and A.H.D. Brown. 1991. Intraspecific variation in population gene diversity and effective

population size correlates with the mating system. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 88:4494-97.


Documentation of plant genetic resources in home gardens

Helmut KnüpfferGenebank Department, Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK),Gatersleben, Germany

IntroductionHome gardens often contain a significant part of the crop plant biodiversity in tropical countries.Compared to other agricultural or horticultural ecosystems, home gardens are very species-rich, andthey are an ecosystem well suited for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources (cf., e.g. Esquiveland Hammer 1992, 1994). There is often no clear border between wild plants and cultivated plants.

The IPGRI project ‘The contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant geneticresources in farming systems’ is aimed at investigating the possible role of home gardens inpreserving plant genetic resources and at producing an overview of the inter- and infraspecificdiversity of cultivated plants in five selected tropical countries, namely, Cuba, Ghana, Guatemala,Venezuela and Vietnam, as an example for the situation in the tropics worldwide. National teamswere investigating the species cultivated in selected home gardens in selected regions of thesecountries. One of the aims was to compile species lists of the countries involved, cross-referenced withavailable information on the taxonomy, vernacular names, distribution, uses and other aspects of thespecies.

The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) in Gatersleben, Germany, started todevelop a database for the cultivated plant species diversity data compiled by the national projectteams. The ‘Database for Checklists of Cultivated Plants’ (Knüpffer 1992, Knüpffer and Hammer 1999,Hammer et al. 2000) was taken as the basis for the documentation system development. This systemand its present situation are described in the present paper.

BackgroundFollowing the Rio Conference in 1992, in situ conservation began to receive increasing attention. Itbecame obvious that documentation of PGR in in situ agroecosystems needed new approaches, andIPGRI soon declared its readiness to take a lead in this field: “Meeting the information needs of in situconservation work will require a substantial programme to consider both what information is neededand how it can best be maintained and used” (Iwanaga 1995). In 1995, information systems for in situconservation did not exist (Stützel 1995). The concepts had thus to be developed on the basis of ex situcollection documentation systems, but additional descriptors would need to be developed. Brockhausand Oetmann (1996) proposed a system of descriptors for in situ conservation of plant geneticresources, based on a comparison with ex situ descriptors.

A number of actual approaches to document in situ conservation are reported by Jarvis andHodgkin (1998). In Appendix II of this report, various data collecting forms are reproduced which canbe used as a basis for developing such a descriptor list. An IPGRI workshop (Laliberté et al. 2000, pp.61–63) addressed the need for descriptors for the documentation of on-farm conservation andmanagement.

Thormann et al. (1999) divided the information necessary for the development of conservationstrategies for wild plant species into four categories, which apply also for the conservation of PGR inhome gardens:

1. species information including taxonomy, biology, conservation, distribution and use2. size and type of protected areas3. physical environment of species’ distribution areas4. organizations and resource people.


In the database for the home garden project, we deal only with the first category of information.Data sources for species-related information are usually organized in the form of species checklists forvarious purposes (e.g. Hammer 1990) or databases with the scientific name as primary entry point.For the conservation of PGR in home gardens, correctly determined species are an indispensableprerequisite and a key to relevant information from other sources. As Thormann et al. (1999) point out,“using the correct taxonomic name is essential to obtain appropriate information on a species”. Theylist a number of Internet sources of different scope with species-related information. The ‘Species2000’ checklist of “all known species of plants” and other organisms, and the previous edition of the‘Mansfeld’ (Schultze-Motel 1986) covering cultivated plant species worldwide are explicitlymentioned. Other sources for cultivated plants information are the taxonomic database of the USDAGenetic Resources Information Network (GRIN, http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/searchgrin.html) orits printed version (Wiersema and León 1999). Such sources need to be used to verify the correctscientific name, synonyms, vernacular names and species authors. For correctly documenting species,authors and taxonomic literature references, standards have been published for authors (Brummittand Powell 1992), journal abbreviations (Lawrence et al. 1968, Bridson and Smith 1991) and books(Stafley and Cowan 1976 et seq.).

Thormann et al. (1999) note that although a variety of information sources is available for ex situcollections, “information on on-farm and in situ conservation is not as readily available and otherresearch tools have to be used such as bibliographic research and contact with relevantorganizations” (cf. also Brockhaus and Oetmann 1996). One of the few published examples of in situconservation documentation systems is the system SICOIS developed by the Cuban genebankwithin the frame of the home garden project (Alonso et al. 2000). Besides taxon- and accession-related information, this system is also designed to accommodate anthropological and site-relatedinformation.

With regard to the plant uses, Thormann et al. (1999) state: “Taking account of the use aspects ofplants can contribute to finding the most appropriate way to conserve a particular species(conservation through use), and a number of sources for such information are mentioned. Forcultivated plants, and particularly those in home gardens, Wiersema and León (1999), the‘Mansfeld’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001) and the corresponding database (http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de), and various checklists of cultivated plants (e.g. Esquivel et al. 1992 for Cuba) aresuch sources.

Thormann et al. (1999) also compiled a list of information sources for in situ conservation withemphasis on on-line sources accessible via the Internet. They provide a number of links useful forthe documentation of PGR conservation in home gardens.

Documentation of plant genetic resources collectingDocumenting plant genetic resources in home gardens is very similar to collecting plant geneticresources in home gardens (especially if it is part of a multi-crop collecting mission; cf. Hammer etal. 1995); the major difference being that plant material is not actually collected. Variouspublications exist which describe aspects of recording and documenting information duringcollecting missions, and much of this information can be applied for the home gardendocumentation as well if the term ‘collecting’ is replaced by ‘survey’ or ‘exploration’. A number ofrelevant reviews can be found in Guarino et al. (1995).

Perry and Bettencourt (1995) suggest that before conducting a collecting mission, informationshould be gathered well in advance about existing material of the target species in ex situgermplasm collections. It is necessary to get “general information on any relevant past collectingmission”, and any past survey of home gardens, correspondingly. Collecting reports are usuallyfound in journal publications, less frequently they can be derived from germplasm databases. Anoverview of published information on the natural and human environment, with a view ongermplasm collecting, was given by Auricht et al. (1995). The need of correct taxonomic


identification is stressed by Maxted and Crust (1995), and tools to this aim are described.Bibliographic databases relevant for plant collectors have been reviewed by Dearing and Guarino(1995). The methodology for eco-geographical surveys described by Maxted et al. (1995) can also beapplied for species diversity surveys in home gardens. Moss and Guarino (1995) provideinformation on the data items to be collected in the field, and the methods and equipment to beapplied. The overview includes data categories related to collecting, sample identification(botanical determination), collecting site data, etc.

Software for data recording on a notebook computer during collecting missions, such as Q-Collector (Clennett 1999) or the ‘IPGRI Collecting Form Management System’ (Toll 1995) could alsobe adapted to the needs of inventorying species occurring in particular home gardens. This wouldlead to a standardised approach in recording data, and the research team would be reminded tocollect as complete as possible information with regard to the descriptors agreed upon in advance.These software tools are aimed at avoiding typing errors, and they have the advantage that thesurvey information is already computerised at the time when the team returns to its headquarter.

After the field work, the information gathered needs to be processed (Toll 1995). The basicprocedures to be followed do also apply to home garden inventory data:

1. sorting and checking the forms (data collection sheets)2. completing the forms3. adding information from reference sources4. checking the botanical names and local words (e.g. vernacular names recorded)5. computerization of the data.

Objectives of the home garden databaseThe main aim is to develop a web-searchable database documenting the species and infraspecificdiversity found in selected home gardens of the five countries involved. It is not intended toinclude anthropological or site-related information at the present stage. The project database willbe based on, and linked to the existing database for checklists of cultivated plants (Knüpffer andHammer, 1999) and the Mansfeld Database which provides information on the taxonomy,nomenclature, common names in many languages, the distribution and uses of 6100 cultivatedplant species world-wide.

The database for checklists of cultivated plants (Knüpffer and Hammer 1999) which has beendeveloped by IPK since 1988 (Esquivel et al. 1989, Knüpffer et al. 1990) is the basis for the homegarden project database. It contains the same data elements as the projected home garden database.

Database for checklists of cultivated plantsThe checklist database was initially developed with the aim to collect information about

cultivated plant species in various countries, and to produce manuscripts for country-specificspecies checklists. A summary of the present contents, including also the data from the homegarden project registered so far, is given in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Number of species per country in the database for checklists of cultivated plantsCountry Number of species Publication

Cuba 1 029 Esquivel et al. (1992)

Korea 605 Hoang et al. (1997)

East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) 996 in preparation

Albania 433 in preparation

Italy 665 Hammer et al. (1992) for South Italy and Sicily;

Hammer et al. (1999) for Central and North Italy;

Sardinia in preparation

Vietnam 461 in preparation (home garden project)


Table 2. Summary of contents of the database for checklists of cultivated plants (as of mid 2001)

Total Cuba S. Italy C. and N. Italy Sardinia Korea E. Asia Albania Vietnam(1992) (1992) (1999) (in prep.) (1997) (in prep.) (in prep.) (in prep.)

Taxa 2507 1,044 540 568 375 605 998 433 473

Species 2396 1,029 521 550 364 578 910 418 461

Genera 1077 531 298 327 247 378 531 255 309

Families 180 117 86 92 80 111 142 82 96

Synonyms 1468 729 348 344 250 497 684 225 173

Vernacular names 18886 1669 2981 10802 2420 714 2904 264 464

References 716 198 309 341 265 32 66 6 73

For references of published checklists, see Table 1. Figures for countries ‘in preparation’ are still incomplete.

The following information items are included in the checklists database:• taxonomy and nomenclature (accepted names and synonyms, including authors and place of

publication, plant family)• vernacular names, including indication of the language or dialect• geographical information (distribution, own observations, collections)• plant uses and plant parts used (abbreviated)• narrative text (information on the history, diversity, breeding, wild relatives, taxonomic and

nomenclatural remarks, etc.)• editorial notes (information for the compilers of the database, not intended for publication),• literature references.For the plant uses and the plant parts used, a list of abbreviations was developed. This will be

harmonized with the ‘Economic Botany Standard’ (Cook 1995, currently under revision) of theInternational Working Group on Taxonomic Databases (TDWG).

Information sources for the home gardens databaseSources of information are mainly the project reports provided by the national teams, but published (e.g.Nguyen et al. 1995, Le and Nguyen 1999, Hodel et al. 1997 for Vietnam; Esquivel et al. 1992 for Cuba) andunpublished reports (e.g. Roose 2001 for Vietnam) as well as electronically available data are also takeninto account. During the compilation, the scientific plant names provided by the national teams will beverified and standardized using cross-references to other databases and sources.

Information includedFor each species the home gardens database will include:

1. Taxonomy and nomenclature information (accepted name, authors and place of publication,important synonyms, plant family).

2. Ethnobotanical information (vernacular names in local languages, possibly including dialects;multiple plant uses and plant parts used).

3. References to the sources of information (e.g. project reports, publications).4. HTML documents providing details on the infraspecific variation of selected crops (e.g. cultivar

groups, farmers’ varieties, their principal uses, morphological description).5. Images (colour photographs or slides) of plants.6. Links to relevant other databases that provide additional information about the species, e.g. the

Mansfeld database.Information on items (1) to (5) above has to be provided by the project partners. The taxonomy andnomenclature will be verified and complemented by IPK and its co-operators. IPK will also establishlinks and cross-references with other relevant databases that provide additional information aboutthe species.


It was agreed at the final project workshop that detailed data, such as ‘which species occurs inwhich home garden’, and the exact locations of the home gardens (e.g. GIS coordinates, countrymaps with home garden locations), would not be made freely accessible on-line. This sensitiveinformation should not be released to the public without consent of the people concerned, first theowners of the respective gardens, and second the national teams. The national teams should decidethemselves whether they publish such information in scientific journals or newsletters, besides theproject reports.

Operation of the home gardens databaseThe collation of data from reports from the participating countries, and data entry and editing isbeing done locally at IPK, whereas the database will be searchable from any site with Internet access.It is planned to fully integrate the home gardens database in the IPK germplasm documentationsystem, sharing the taxonomic information (taxonomic core) with other in-house databases (e.g. theIPK germplasm accessions database, the Mansfeld database; cf. scheme in Ochsmann et al., theseproceedings).

Expected outputsThe main product of the database will be an inventory of the cultivated plant species in homegardens of the five countries in Africa, South East Asia, and tropical America. The second product isa web-searchable database on cultivated plant species in these home gardens. For a few key speciesselected by the national teams and the project management, information about the infraspecificdiversity will be linked to the database entries for the respective species.

Present situationFor the purpose of the project, the checklists database has been re-designed and re-programmed inorder to accommodate the information from the home garden project countries. A prototype of aweb-searchable database was developed (cf. Afanasyev et al., these proceedings). Data entry hasstarted for Vietnam, based on available reports.

Country reports from the project have been investigated with respect to information relevant forthe database. It is intended to complete the data entry, including the taxonomic verification, for thecountry species lists within the project period. This needs to be accomplished in permanentcommunication with the project partners.

The Web database prototype needs to be improved, and the database be linked to the Mansfelddatabase. Several representatives from associated project partner countries (e.g. Ethiopia and Nepal)expressed their interest that their data be included in the database. All data on scientific names needto be verified by taxonomists, to ensure consistency of naming across the whole database.

Conclusions and outlookCountry-specific in-depth investigations such as those carried out in the present IPGRI project onhome gardens, are known to add information about cultivated plant species not formerly includedin worldwide enumerations of agricultural and horticultural crops such as the new ‘Mansfeld’(Hanelt and IPK 2001). This has recently been demonstrated by Hammer (these proceedings) evenfor such a well-studied country as Cuba (Esquivel et al. 1992).

As a result of the work within the project, it was realized that the documentation component ofthe project was under-funded. It would have been desirable to have a full-time scientist positionavailable during the whole project period, for the database development (including the re-programming of the existing database, the establishment and testing of the web database), thecoordination of the documentation aspects, and the communication with the project teams, theproject management and the taxonomists, as well as for cross-linking with other sources. Neither thedevelopment of a standardized descriptor list for the whole home garden project, nor its


implementation in a sophisticated database have been possible.For any future project on studying the species diversity in tropical agro-ecosystems, especially

home gardens, it is, therefore, recommended that a full-time scientist be employed for databasedevelopment and the coordination of the information flow.

From investigations of the reports provided by the national teams it is obvious that planttaxonomic skills are needed. It is recommended that plant taxonomists become part of each nationalteam. Often the reports provide only the genus name of the plants, whereas the species is omitted orgiven as ‘sp.’. In some cases, only vernacular names of the plants were reported. Such information isof little use for the project as a whole, because it is impossible to judge which species is meant, if thescientific name is not provided.

The literature review on documentation of in situ and on-farm conservation of PGR has shownthat much needs still to be done to achieve a similarly good situation as in the documentation of exsitu collections. In future projects on home gardens and in situ/on-farm conservation, moreemphasis (and funds) need to be paid to documentation.

Lists and databases of species cultivated in home gardens in tropical countries can serve as astarting point for compiling national floras of cultivated plant species.

ReferencesAlonso Lanza, J. L., L. Castiñeiras, Z. Fundora Mayor and T. Shagarodsky. 2000. Development of a

documentation system for the in situ conservation of cultivated plant genetic resources. Plant GeneticResources Newsletter. 121:62-63.

Auricht, G. C., R. Reid and L. Guarino. 1995. Published information on the natural and human environment. Pp.131–151 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.).CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Bridson, G. D. R. and E. R. Smith. 1991. Botanico-periodicum-huntianum/supplementum. Hunt Institute forBotanical Documentation, Pittsburgh, USA.

Brockhaus, R. and A. Oetmann. 1996: Aspects of the documentation of in situ conservation measures of geneticresources. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 108:1-16.

Brummitt, R. K. and C. E. Powell. 1992. Authors of plant names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Clennett, C. 1999: Q-Collector: development of a portable database for expeditions by the Royal Botanic

Gardens, Kew. Pp. 215–224 in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews,A. C. Leslie and C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.

Cook. F. E. M. 1995. Economic botany data collection standard. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.Dearing, J. A. and L Guarino. 1995. Bibliographic databases for plant germplasm collectors. Pp. 229–254 in

Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CABInternational, Wallingford, UK.

Esquivel, M., L. Castiñeiras, H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1989. A checklist of the cultivated plants of Cuba.Kulturpflanze 37:211-357.

Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1992. Contemporary traditional agriculture—structure and diversity of the“conuco”. Pp. 174–192 in “... y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...”—Origin, Evolutionand Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, vol. 1 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK,Gatersleben, Germany.

Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1994. The “conuco”: a perspective environment for the evolution and in situconservation of plant genetic resources. Pp. 694–702 in “... y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de losnuestros...”—Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, vol. 3 (K. Hammer, M.Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben.

Esquivel, M., H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1992. Inventory of the cultivated plants. Pp. 213–454 in “...y tienenfaxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...”—Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant GeneticResources, vol. 2 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben.

Gladis, Th., K. Hammer, K. Roose and H. Knüpffer. 2001. The contribution of tropical home gardens to in situconservation of plant genetic resources—examples from Guatemala and Vietnam. Pp. 35–48 in Nutzunggenetischer Ressourcen—ökologischer Wert der Biodiversität. Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen (K. Hammer and Th. Gladis, eds.). ZADI/IGR, Bonn, Germany.



Guarino, L., V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds. 1995. Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines. CABInternational, Wallingford, UK.

Hammer, K. 1990. Botanical checklists prove useful in research programmes on cultivated plants. Diversity 6 (3-4): 31-34.

Hammer, K., R. Fritsch, P. Hanelt, H. Knüpffer and K. Pistrick. 1995. Collecting by the Institute of PlantGenetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) at Gatersleben. Pp. 713-725 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity.Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Hammer, K., T. Gladis, H. Knüpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 2000. Checklists and in-situ conservation—case report from Italy. Pp. 111–125 in In situ Conservation Research. Proc. Internat. Conf. 13–15 October1999. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Research Council Secretariat; National Institute ofAgrobiological Resources (NIAR), Tsukuba, Japan.

Hammer, K., H. Knüpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 1992. Seeds from the Past. A Catalogue of CropGermplasm in South Italy and Sicily. Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung,Gatersleben, Germany; Istituto del Germoplasma, Bari, Italy.

Hammer, K., H. Knüpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 1999. Seeds from the Past. A Catalogue of CropGermplasm in Central and North Italy. IPK, Gatersleben; Germplasm Institute of C.N.R., Bari, Italy.

Hanelt, P. and Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben, eds. (1959DATE)Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 1st Engl. edn. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Hoang Ho-Dzun, H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1997. Additional notes to the checklist of Korean cultivatedplants (5). Consolidated summary and indexes. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 44: 349-391.

Iwanaga, M. 1995. IPGRI strategy for in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity. Pp. 13–26 in In situconservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in developingcountries. Report of a DSE/ATSAF/IPGRI Workshop, 2–4 May 1995, Bonn-Röttgen, Germany (J. M. M.Engels, ed.). IPGRI, Rome, Italy; DSE, Feldafing, Germany.

Jarvis, D. I. and T. Hodgkin, eds. 1998. Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agriculturalbiodiversity on-farm. Options for data collecting and analysis. Proceedings of a workshop to develop toolsand procedures for in situ conservation on-farm, 25–29 August 1997, Rome, Italy. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Knüpffer, H. 1992. The database of cultivated plants of Cuba. Pp. 202–212 in “...y tienen faxones y fabas muydiversos de los nuestros...”—Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, vol. 1 (K.Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.) IPK, Gatersleben, Germany.

Knüpffer, H., M. Esquivel and K. Hammer. 1990. DBCPC: a database for the cultivated plants of Cuba. Revistadel Jardin Botánico Nacional, La Habana, Cuba, 11:91-104.

Knüpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plants.Pp. 215–224 in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslieand C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.

Laliberté, B., L. Maggioni, N. Maxted and V. Negri, compilers. 2000. ECP/GR In Situ and On-farmConservation Network. Report of a joint meeting of a Task Force on Wild Species Conservation in GeneticReserves and a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management, 18–20 May 2000, Isola Polvese,Italy. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Lawrence, G. H. M., A. F. G. Buchheim, G. S. Daniels and H. Dolezal, eds. 1968. Botanico-periodicum-huntianum. Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Pittsburgh, USA.

Le Van Truyen and Nguyen Gia Chan, 1999. Selected Medicinal Plants in Vietnam. Science and TechnologyPublishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Maxted, N. and R. Crust, 1995: Aids to taxonomic identification. Pp. 181–194 in Collecting Plant GeneticDiversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Maxted, N., M. W. van Slageren and J. R. Rihan. 1995. Ecogeographic surveys. Pp. 255–285 in Collecting PlantGenetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International,Wallingford, UK.

Moss, H. and L. Guarino. 1995. Gathering and recording data in the field. Pp. 367–417 in Collecting PlantGenetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International,Wallingford, UK.

Nguyen Huu Nghia, Nguyen Dank Khoi, Tran Dinh Long, Dau Quoc Anh, K. W. Riley, V. R. Rao and P. Quek,eds.). 1995. Plant Genetic Resources in Vietnam. Proc. Natl Workshop ‘Strengthening of plant geneticresources programme in Vietnam’, Hanoi, 28–30 March 1995. Agriculture Publishing House, Hanoi,Vietnam.

Perry, M. C. and E. Bettencourt. 1995. Sources of information on existing germplasm collections. Pp. 121–129in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.).. CABInternational, Wallingford.

Roose, K. 2001. Tropical home gardens in Vietnam. A contribution to maintain biodiversity and develop newornamentals for the temperate region. Diploma thesis, Humbold University, Berlin, Germany.

Schultze-Motel, J., ed. 1986, Rudolf Mansfelds Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlicher und gärtnerischerKulturpflanzen (ohne Zierpflanzen). Akademie-Verlag Berlin/Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Stafleu, F. A. and R. S. Cowan. 1976 et seq. Taxonomic literature, ed. 2 and its Supplements. Reg. Veg. 125 et al.Stützel, T. 1995. Integrated information systems for genetic resources conservation in situ and ex situ. Pp. 69–73

in In situ conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in developingcountries. Report of a DSE/ATSAF/IPGRI workshop, 2–4 May 1995, Bonn-Röttgen, Germany (J.M.M.Engels, ed.). IPGRI, Rome, Itay and DSE, Feldafing, Germany.

Thormann, I., D. I. Jarvis, J. A. Dearing and T. Hodgkin. 1999. Internationally available information sources forthe development of in situ conservation strategies for wild species useful for food and agriculture. PlantGenetic Resources Newsletter. 118:38-50.

Toll, J. 1995; Processing of germplasm, associated material and data. Pp. 577–595 in Collecting Plant GeneticDiversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford.

Wiersema, J. H. and B. León. 1999. World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,USA.


Contributions of home gardens to our knowledge of cultivated plantspecies: the Mansfeld approach

Karl HammerUniversität Gesamthochschule Kassel, Kassel, Germany

SummarySome results of recent home gardens research are compared with ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia ofAgricultural and Horticultural Crops’ edited in 2001. In ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’, founded by theeminent taxonomist Rudolf Mansfeld (1901–1960), the species level of diversity is speciallyconsidered. In this respect, recent home garden inventories are an important source for newinformation. This is demonstrated by examples from Cuba, Columbia and southern Vietnam. Geneticand ecosystem diversity are well-established aspects in agricultural and horticultural research.

Species diversity is a relatively new aspect of study for crop plants, especially in connection withunderutilized and neglected crops. Important input from home garden inventories should beexpected for future editions of ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’.

IntroductionIn 2001, the 100th anniversary of Rudolf Mansfeld´s birthday was celebrated (see Pistrick andHammer 2001). His most important book on crop plants appeared in 1959 shortly before his death in1960: an annotated catalogue of the crop plants of the world excluding ornamental and forestryspecies (Mansfeld 1959). The book consists of one volume and comprises 1430 species.

The second edition of Mansfeld’s catalogue, compiled by staff members of the Gaterslebeninstitute, appeared in 1986 in four volumes and contained 4000 species (ed. Schultze-Motel 1986). Thenew species were added from Gatersleben field studies during missions for the collection of plantgenetic resources in the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s (Hammer et al. 1995).

The third edition of this book, created by staff members of the Gatersleben Institute together withan international team of scientists, appeared in 2001 in six volumes containing more than 6000 species(eds. Hanelt and IPK 2001). Part of the new information on species came from exploratory plantgenetic resources work. Collecting missions changed more and more to agrobiodiversity explorationwork (Hammer 1998). Proposals and strategies for on-farm conservation were developed from thesestudies at an early date, e.g. for hulled wheats in Italy (Perrino and Hammer 1984). Even strongerinput was derived from work performed in tropical areas, and an early publication stressed theimportance of on-farm conservation using the example of the Cuban ‘conucos’ (Esquivel andHammer 1988).

Species diversity Intraspecific diversity is an important part of the biodiversity concept. Whereas intraspecific diversityfor wild plants has been and continues to be well documented, for crop plants there have been onlya few such approaches. Mansfeld´s approach is a real systematic input in this respect.

When considering this aspect, the particular importance of Latin American home gardens can bedemonstrated using some details from our own research. A special study was carried out in Colombiain 1988 (Müller et al. 1989), adding several species to Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia (Hanelt and IPK, 2001).But there are still some species that are candidates for a new edition, especially from the groups ofhedge plants and those used for soil erosion control (Table 1). Our studies in Cuba supported theinformation gathered from Colombia. Quite often we found species in home gardens which before wehad observed in special collections. Therefore, these plants could also be candidates for a new editionof ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’ (see Table 2).

Many species of Cuban home garden plants have already been included in ‘Mansfeld´sEncyclopedia’. Sixty-two species (see Table 3) are still absent for different reasons and should be also


considered as good candidates for a new edition. The results of a country survey of Cuba indicate theimportance of home gardens for conserving species diversity in crop plants, at least in part, becausethe results have been taken preferentially from home gardens (Hammer et al. 1992–1994). A newsurvey from Cuban home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) confirmed the earlier results. There havenot only been new species recorded in comparison with the earlier studies (see Table 4) but also withrespect to ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia‘ (Table 5). Most of the new items are medicinal plants, stressingthe importance of this group for Cuban home gardens.

Mansfeld´s approachTo illustrate Mansfeld’s approach, let us take one example from the latest edition of Mansfeld´scatalogue from the family of Alliaceae (Hanelt and IPK 2001, Hanelt 2001).

In Figure 1, after taxonomic treatment of the genus Allium, indication of important literature forthe genus and a sub-generic classification, the species accepted name and synonyms are listed. Thisspecific approach is the basis for the whole treatment.

The variability of the species is shortly characterized. Common names are presented. The area ofnatural distribution is indicated. The cultivation area is described. Uses are indicated. The history ofcultivation is mentioned. Finally short references are cited. Two of them are the source for cultivationin Cuba (Esquivel and Hammer 1992a, Esquivel et al. 1992). The others refer to the botany, use,distribution etc. of the wild plants.

The presented scheme is characteristic of Mansfeld´s approach, which can be translated intomodern terms of biodiversity by including infraspecific diversity (including variability,ethnobotanical data—common names, uses, history of cultivation), genetic diversity (includingvariability, ethnobotanical data—common names, uses, history of cultivation) and ecosystemdiversity (natural distribution, cultivation area).

Genetic diversityAgronomists and horticulturists have rich experience in developing and exploring the geneticdiversity of crop plants. In the beginning, morphological variation was investigated, and nowincreasingly molecular methods are applied. For important crop plants, extensive infraspecificclassifications based on morphologic, geographic or ecologic items, or a combination of them, havebeen created by N. I. Vavilov and his school (Flaksberger 1935). These excellent studies of geneticbiodiversity are largely forgotten and neglected and there are only a few recent examples of suchwork (Gladis and Hammer 2001). For underutilized and neglected crops such systems are usually notyet available (Hammer et al. 2001).

Ecosystem diversityTropical home gardens are excellent demonstrations of the importance of ecosystem diversity for theevolution and conservation of plant genetic resources (Esquivel and Hammer 1988, 1992). Togetherwith larger agroforestry systems, they provide the best conditions for ecosystem diversity forcultivated plants.

ConclusionsOngoing work on tropical home gardens shows that new items will be detected in all levels ofbiodiversity. Crop species diversity needs special attention because research, as has been shownabove, was neglected for crop plants. After intensive studies in Cuba covering a large part of theisland, 1029 species of crop plants have been found, a majority of them in home gardens (Hammer etal. 1992–94). This is by far the largest figure of all investigated areas (see Knüpffer and Hammer 1999).

A recent investigation in some selected Cuban home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) led tointeresting results with respect to species diversity (see Table 6). From 182 species that could beincluded in our evaluation, 25 crop species have not been reported before from Cuba and 11 species



2250 Alliaceae

Alliaceae

Allium L., Sp. Pl.(1753) 294 et Gen. Pl. ed. 5 (1754) 143.Cepa Mill., Gard. Dict. Abridg. 4th ed., 1 (1754) art. Cepa; Porrum Mill., l.c., art. Porrum;Moenchia Medik. in Hist. et Comment. Acad. Elect. Sci. 6 (1790) 493 non Ehrh. (1788); MolyMoench, Methodus (1794) 286; Ascalonicum Renault, Fl. Dep. Orne (1804) 33;Schoenoprasum Kunth. Nov. gen. sp. 1 (1816) ed. fol. 219, ed. quart. 277; OphioscorodonWallr., Sched. Crit. (1822) 129; Nectarascordum Lindley in Bot. Reg. 22 (1836) t. 1913;Phyllodolon Salisb., Gen. pl. (1866) 90; Schoenissa Salisb., l.c., 91; Scorodon (Koch) Fourr.in Ann. Soc. Bot. Linn. Lyon, n. sér. 17 (1869) 160 ; Rhizirideum (G. Don ex Koch) Fourr.,l.c., 160; Molium (G. Don ex Koch) Fourr., l.c., 150; Validallium Small, Fl. Southeast U.S.(1903) 264.

Type: Allium sativum L.

Ref.: Hanelt et al. 1992, 359 pp.; Messiaen 1993, 230 pp.; Rabinowitch & Brewster 1-3. 1990.

subg. Amerallium Traub

sect. Amerallium (Traub) Kamelin

Allium canadense L., Sp. Pl. (1753) 1195.Allium mutabile Michaux, Fl. Bor.-Am. 1 (1803) 195; A. continuum Small, Fl. Southeast U.S.(1903) 263.

Variable species, variants sometimes separated as own species.

Canada onion, wild Canada onion, wild garlic; ajo de montaña, ajo porro (Cuba, namesambiguous, used also for other species).

Widespread in temperate North America east of 103rd meridian.

As a wild vegetable formerly often collected by Indian tribes and European settlers.Cultivated in house-gardens in Cuba, scattered from the south to western parts of the island.Bulbs and leaves used as vegetable. History of introduction unknown. Perhaps also taxonomicderivatives of the species cultivated in Cuba.

Ref.: Dore 1964, 1; Esquivel & Hammer 1992, 43; Esquivel et al. 1992, 213 ; Ownbey & Aase1955, 1.

Fig. 1. Example from ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001).

are not yet listed in ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia.’ Considering these data, we have to conclude that thereare many yet undetected species remaining in Cuba, even in areas which have been well studiedbefore. We are far away from having ‘complete’ inventories.

Studying new areas may result in big surprises, such as in the home gardens of southern Vietnam(Hodel et al. 1999). A first survey resulted in more than 300 new crop species for ‘Mansfeld’sEncyclopedia’. From these and other results we can conclude that home garden inventories are still inan early phase of development and continuing efforts are needed.

ReferencesCastiñeiras, L., Z. Fundora, T. Shagarodsky, V. Fuentes, O. Barrios, V. Moreno, P. Sanchez, A. V. González, A.

Martinez – Fuentes, M. Garcia and A. Martinez. 2000. La conservación in situ de la variabilidad de plantasde cultivo en dos localidades de Cuba. Revista Jard. Bot. Nac. 21:25-45.

Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1992a. Native food plants and the American influence in Cuban agriculture. Pp.46–74 in ‘… y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros…’, Origin, Evolution and Diversity ofCuban Plant Genetic Resources, Vol. 1 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben,Germany.

Esquivel, M., H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1992. Inventory of cultivated plants, Vol 2, Pp. 213–454.Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1988. The ‘conuco’—an important refuge of Cuban plant genetic resources.

Kulturpflanze 36:451–463.Flaksberger, C. A. 1935. Wheat. In Flora of Cultivated Plants (E. V. Wulff, ed.). State Agricultural Publishing

Co., Moscow and St Petersburg, Russia.Gladis, Th. and K. Hammer. 2001. Nomenclatural notes on the Brassica oleracea—group. Genet. Resour. Crop

Evol. 48:7-11.Hammer, K., J. Heller and J. Engels. 2001. Monographs on underutilized and neglected crops. Genet. Resour.

Crop Evol. 48:3-5.Hammer, K. 1998. Agrarbiodiversität und Pflanzengenetische Ressourcen Herausforderung—und

Lösungsansatz. Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen , vol. 10.Hammer, K., R. Fritsch, P. Hanelt, H. Knüpffer and K. Pistrick. 1995. Collecting by the Institute of Plant Genetics

and Crop Plant Research (IPK) at Gatersleben. Pp. 713–725 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity, TechnicalGuidelines (L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds. 1992–1994. ‘… y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de losnuestros…’. Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, Vols 1–3. IPK, Gatersleben,Germany.

Hanelt, P. and IPK. 2001. Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops.. Springer, Berlin,Germany.

Hodel, U., M. Gessler, H. H. Cai, V.V. Thoan, N.V. Ha, N.X. Thu and T. Ba. 1999. In situ conservation of plantgenetic resources in home gardens of southern Vietnam. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Knüpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plantspecies. Pp. 215–224 in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslie and C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.

Mansfeld, R. 1959. Vorläufiges Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlich oder gärtnerisch kultivierter Pflanzenarten (mitAusschluß von Zierpflanzen). Kulturpflanze Reih.

Müller, G. K., A. Bohorquez, O. Quintero and K. Hammer. 1989. Bericht über eine Reise in Kolumbien 1988Zur Sammlung pflanzlicher genetischer Ressourcen. Kulturpflanze 37:373-390.

Perrino, P. and K. Hammer. 1984. The farro: further information on its cultivation in Italy, utilization andconservation. Genetica agraria 38:303 – 311.

Pistrick, K. and K. Hammer. 2001. Rudolf Mansfeld 1901–1960. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 48:1. Schultze-Motel, J., ed. 1986. Rudolf Mansfelds Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlicher und gärtnerischer

Kulturpflanzen (ohne Zierpflanzen). 2nd ed. Akademie–Verlag, Berlin, Gramany, 1998.

Table 1. Cultivated plants reported results from Colombia (Müller et al. 1989) not yet included inMansfeld´s Encyclopedia (2001)

Species Family Group of use

Billia (Aesculus) columbiana Hippocastanaceae Hedge plant

Duranta mutisii Verbenaceae Hedge plant

Hesperomeles goudotiana Rosaceae Hedge plant

Oplismenus burmannii Gramineae « coberturas nobles » - soil erosion control

Panicum laxum Gramineae « coberturas nobles » - soil erosion control

Panicum trichoides Gramineae « coberturas nobles » - soil erosion control

Peperonia subspathulata Piperaceae Aromatic plant

Tecoma mollis Bignoniaceae Hedge plant

Weinmannia tomentosa Cunoniaceae Hedge plant


Table 2. Plant species found in Cuban special collections (Hammer et al. 1992–1994) not included inMansfeld´s Encyclopedia (2001)

Species Family

Aeglopsis chevalieri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RubiaceaeAeschynomene brasiliana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeAeschynomene fascicularis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeAeschynomene paniculata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeAnnona lutescens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AnnonaceaeAtalantia ceylanica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaeAtalantia citroides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaeBothriochloa macera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeBrachiaria nigropedata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeBrachypodium sylvaticum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeCallipedium spicigerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeCentrosema arenarium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeCentrosema schottii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeChloris bahiensis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeChloris barbata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeChloris petraea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeCitrus tachibana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaeCitrustaiwanica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaeCitrus webberi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaeCrotalaria atrorubens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeDatura leichhardtii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SolanaceaeDesmodium cinerascens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeDesmodium hassleri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeDesmodium obtusum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeDigitaria macroblephara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeDipteryx panamensis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeEugenia coronata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeEugenia guabiju . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeFeroniella oblata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaeFicus capensis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MoraceaeGalactia spiciformis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeHordelymus europaeus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeLaburnum alpinum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeLathyrus niger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeLeptochloa obtusifolia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeLeucaena greggii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeLeucaena macrophylla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeLeucaena retusa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeLeucaena shannonii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeMaackia amurensis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeMacroptilium bracteatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeMacroptilium martii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeMelica uniflora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeMyrciaria floribunda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeNeptunia plena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaePamburus missionis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaePaspalum paniculatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaePaspalum regnellii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeSetaria tenax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeSorindeia juglandifolia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AnacardiaceaeStephania rotundata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MenispermaceaeSwinglea glutinosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RutaceaeSyzygium acuminatissimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeSyzygium grande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeSyzygium lineatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeSyzygium punctatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeSyzygium syzigioides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MyrtaceaeTephrosia cinerea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeTetrastigma harmandi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VitaceaeUniola virgata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GramineaeUvaria rufa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AnnonaceaeVigna ambacensis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LeguminosaeZornia brasiliensis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leguminosae


Table 3. Cuban crop plants reported by Hammer et al. (1992-1994) not yet included in Mansfeld´sEncyclopedia (2001)

Species Family Group of useAgave decipiens Agavaceae Fi.Allamanda cathartica Apocynaceae M.Allium aff. Glandulosum Liliaceae V., Sp.Ambrosia hispida Compositae M.Annona salzmannii Annonaceae Fr.Anoda cristata Malvaceae M.Ardisia acuminata Myrsinaceae Fr., living fencesBrunfelsia nitida Solanaceae M., magic plantCassia ligustrina Leguminosae M.Casuarina lepidophloia Casuarinaceae wind breakCasuarina stricta Casuarinaceae wind breakCestrum diurnum Solanaceae M.Chrysanthellum americanum Compositae M.Citrus amblyocarpa Rutaceae grafting stockCitrus depressa Rutaceae Fr., grafting stockCitrus volkameriana Rutaceae grafting stockCorchorus siliquosus Tiliaceae Fi.Costus spicatus Zingiberaceae M.Dahlia coccinea Compositae M.Datura cubensis Solanaceae M.Diospyros crassinervis Ebenaceae Fr.Erechtites hieracifolia Compositae M.Erythroxylum longipes Erythroxylceae magic plantEucalyptus botryoides Myrtaceae M.Eucalyptus resinifer Myrtaceae M., soil erosion control, wind breakEucalyptus robusta Myrtaceae M.Eucalyptus saligna Myrtaceae M., soil erosion control, wind breakEugenia aeruginea Myrtaceae hedge plantEugenia punicaefolia Myrtaceae Fr.Eupatorium ageratifolium Compositae M., magic plantEupatorium capillifolium Compositae M.Eupatorium villosum Compositae M., magic plantExostema caribaeum Rubiaceae M.Ficus pandurata Moraceae shade treeHarpullia arborea Sapindaceae shade treeIva cheiranthifolia Compositae M.Jacaranda coerulea Bignoniaceae shade treeJatropha aethiopica Euphorbiaceae M.Morinda royoc Rubiaceae M.Panicum reptans Gramineae Fo.Parthenium hysterophorus Compositae M.Passiflora stipulata Passifloraceae Fr.Passiflora villosa Passifloraceae Fr.Philoxerus vermicularis Amaranthaceae M.Pinus caribaea Coniferae I., shade treePinus cubensis Coniferae shade treePinus maestrensis Coniferae I., shade treePinus tropicalis Coniferae I., shade treePlumbago campensis Plumbaginaceae M.Plumbago scandens Plumbaginaceae M.Psidium salutare Myrtaceae Fr.Randia formosa Rubiaceae Fr.Ruellia tuberosa Acanthaceae M.Solanum pseudocapsicum Solanaceae M.Tabernaemontana citrifolia Apocynaceae M.Trichilia glabra Meliaceae M., magic plantTulbaghia violaceae Liliaceae Sp.Vernonia menthaefolia Compositae M., magic plantVitis tiliaefolia Vitaceae Fr.Ximenia coriacea Olacaceae Fr., N.Zamia angustifolia Cycadaceae St.Zamia pumila Cycadaceae St.


Table 4. New crop species in Cuban home gardens observed by Castiñeiras et al. (2000), incomparison with Hammer et al. (1992–1994)

Species Family Group of useAlpinia purpurata (Vieill.) K. Schum. Zingiberaceae M.Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) Burtt et R.M.Sm. Zingiberaceae M.Capsicum chinense Jacq. Solanaceae Sp.Cordyline fruticosa (L.) Goepp., Asteliaceae M.Syn. C. terminalis (L.) KunthCritonia hemipteropoda (B.L. Robins.) Composiate M.R.M. King and H. Robins,Syn. C. aromatisans (A.P. DC.) R.M. KingGuarea guidonia (L.) Sleumer, Meliaceae M:Syn. G. trichiloides Allamand ex L.Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. Leguminosae M.Justicia pectoralis Acanthaceae M.Jacq. Var. stenophylla LeonardMentha snaveolens Ehrh. Labiatae M.Ranvolfia nitida Jacq. Apocynaceae M.Sansevieria hyacinthoides (L.) Druce, Dracaenaceae M.syn. S. guineensis (L.) Jacq.Satureja brownie (Sw.) Briq. Labiatae M.Schinus terebinthifolins Raddi Anacardiaceae M.Senna alata (L.) Roxb. Leguminosae M.

Source: Hammer et al. (1992–1994) and Castiñeiras et al. (2000).

Table 5. New crop species for Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia (2001) and Hammer et al. (1992–1994) observedin Cuban home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000)

Species Families Group of useAmbrosia peruviana DC. Compositae M.Bignonia violacea DC. Bignoniaceae M.Caesalpinia vesicaria Lam. Leguminosae M.Gerascanthus gerascanthoides (H.B.K.) Borhidi Boraginaceae M.Helenium amarum (Rafin.) H. Rock Compositae M.Pavonia fruticosa Fawcett et Rendle Malvaceae M.Prunus occidentalis Sw. Rosaceae M.Varronia globosaJacq. Subsp. Humilis (Jacq.) Borhidi Boraginaceae M.Xiphidium coeruleum Aublet Haemodoraceae M.Erythroxylum havanense Jacq. Erythroxylaceae M.Fagara martinicen,sis Lam. Rutaceae M.

Table 6. Crop species reported from Cuba in comparison with recent investigation(Castiñeiras et al. 2000)

Reports and studies Number of species Percentage (%)Species reported from Cuba (Hammer et al. 1992–1994) 1029 100Recent studies of home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) 182 17,7New species for Cuban home gardens 25 2,4New for ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’ (2001) 11 1,0


Characterizing the genetic diversity of home garden crops: some examples from the Americas

Michiel Hoogendijk and David E. WilliamsInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

IntroductionThe objective of this paper is to provide an overview of available methods for characterizing thegenetic diversity of crop species cultivated in home gardens. The different approaches are brieflyexplained and the relative merits and drawbacks of each are discussed with respect to theinterpretation, analysis and application of research results from the genetic diversity studiesconducted by the countries participating in the global Home Gardens Project. The results of geneticdiversity studies using different approaches can be used to propose scientifically basedrecommendations for strategies and future actions that best promote the conservation and use ofunique crop genetic resources in home gardens.

Focus of studyBiodiversity is defined, studied and managed at three levels, i.e. Ecosystem Diversity, SpeciesDiversity and Genetic Diversity. Each of these three levels is relevant to the study and promotionof home gardens (HGs) as loci for agrobiodiversity conservation and use.

The ecosystem approach to HGs, or more specifically the AGRO-ecosystem approach, isimportant for assessing the microenvironments that occur within the HGs themselves, a uniquefeature compared to the surrounding landscape.

At the level of species diversity, quite a large number of studies already exist that describe thefloristic richness of home garden systems, and their contributions to cultural identity, and toeconomy, nutrition and health at the household level.

The central focus of the Home Gardens Project goes beyond ecosystem and species diversity tothe level of genetic diversity, i.e. diversity within species and specifically within a few selected cropspecies. The novel approach of the project is to determine the role that infra-specific crop geneticdiversity in HGs plays not only in food security and rural livelihoods, but especially, in plantgenetic resources (PGR) conservation.

This paper focuses on the methods available for quantifying the role played by HGs in theconservation of infra-specific plant genetic diversity. The central research questions of the projectare:

• How much genetic diversity is conserved within each species in HGs?• How does this genetic diversity compare or contrast with that in the landscape as a whole?• How much and which part of the genetic diversity conserved in HGs is unique?

The effective unit of conservation—EUCFrom a conservation standpoint, one of the important outputs of the project is to develop amethodology for determining the effective unit of conservation (EUC) for plant genetic resourcesmaintained in home gardens. The EUC gives an indication of the minimum physical spacenecessary for maintaining the genetic integrity of a plant population. It can be expressed in variousways, such as number of homegardens in a given area, number of villages including allhomegardens, a number of villages including a limited number of homegardens, a (sub-)region, etc.

The variables that must be quantified in order to determine the EUC for a HG crop include: • degree and distribution of diversity • reproductive biology



• effective population size • management practices • geneflow among cultivars with wild populations • threat of genetic erosion.

Obviously, the EUC may differ among species, and this information can then be compiled todetermine EUCs for suites of crops conserved within the home garden context. By determining theEUC for a particular HG crop or crops, appropriate recommendations can then be made byNational Programmes for incorporating HGs into complementary conservation strategies thatinclude in situ and on-farm as well as ex situ components.

Methods for characterizing crop genetic diversity in HGs To answer these questions and to determine the EUC, we need to characterize and quantify thegenetic diversity found in home gardens. There are four contrasting methods available that we canuse to measure genetic diversity:

1. Farmers’ perceptions & folk classification. This is an indication of the variability within acrop as seen through the eyes of the farmer, often focused on uses and common names;

2. Morphological characterization. This is a measurement of phenotypic variability scored byusing standardized morphological descriptors, usually in a ‘common garden’ setting butoccasionally in situ for environmentally stable characters;

3. Biochemical characterization. These techniques measure variability found in the plants’secondary compounds, such as seed storage proteins, isozymes, and flavonoids; and

4. Molecular characterization. These techniques measure genetic variability directly at the levelof the DNA molecule.

Farmers’ perceptions and folk classificationThe farmer is typically the first source of information that the researcher has regarding the amountand kind of genetic diversity present in a given HG. The diversity perceived by the farmer is oftenreflected in the common names that are applied to the different varieties they recognize.

Names are often derived from particular characteristics of the material, such as distinctivemorphological of agronomic traits, place of origin or special uses. Moreover, these names may formpart of an informal but nonetheless structured classification scheme or ‘folk taxonomy’ that mayreflect or at least provide some insight into what may be relationships among varieties. In any case,it is important to carefully explore and document farmers’ perceptions of diversity because itprovides an entry point into the body of detailed knowledge held by farmers, who probably knowmore than anyone else about the material to be studied. It is also important to document thefarmer’s perception of a local variety because that is not only the unit of diversity that the farmerrecognizes but is also the unit that he or she actually manages and conserves. Besides providingclues for genetic affinities and distance, folk classification systems can be revealing in terms of theuses, cultural value, nutritional qualities, and culinary importance of the different varieties. Farmernamed varieties and classification systems can also provide valuable indications for selecting anappropriate, more in-depth characterization method.

Some pitfalls that one should be aware of when studying farmer-named varieties include issuesof consistency and comparability of the names used. It is not uncommon to encounter differentnames for what is in fact genetically similar material, or conversely, the same name used fordifferent varieties. The oral nature of the data often results in inconsistencies in data collection andanalysis that can cause difficulties later in data comparability at many levels. However,participatory methodologies do exist which allow researchers to document this kind of farmerknowledge with relative accuracy and efficiency.

Morphological characterizationThe application of morphological descriptor lists is the simplest of the formal, standardized,repeatable methods of measuring crop genetic diversity. Some of the main advantages of conductingmorphological characterization are that published descriptor lists are readily available for most majorcrop species, it can be carried out in situ (i.e. on-farm), it is relatively inexpensive, and it is relativelyeasy to carry out.

Morphological characterization is a highly recommended first step that should be made beforemore in-depth biochemical or molecular studies are attempted. Principal Components Analysis(PCA) of the characterization results can identify a few key or ‘minimum’ descriptors that effectivelyaccount for the majority of the diversity observed, saving time and effort for future characterizationefforts. This approach has been used successfully for characterizing sapote (Pouteria sapota) by projectpartners in Guatemala and Cuba.

Some of the drawbacks of this method include the difficulty to take environmental influences intoaccount in case of quantitative characters. Depending on the environmental heterogeneity of thehome gardens studied, the researcher could decide to characterize a limited number ofenvironmentally stable, i.e. qualitative descriptors such as fruit or flower characteristics. Anotherdrawback is that descriptor lists for many neglected and underutilized crops, whose diversity istypically conserved in HGs, are still unavailable.

Biochemical characterizationBiochemical characterization most frequently involves conducting gel electrophoresis on easilyextracted proteins such as isozymes, seed storage proteins, flavonoids, and others. Though sometimesmore expensive than morphological characterization, such studies are relatively simple to conduct,relatively inexpensive with regard to extraction, reagents and laboratory equipment required incomparison to molecular methods, and the results obtained have excellent comparability andrepeatability.

One of the great advantages of biochemical characterization methods is that they are capable ofdetecting different alleles. Co-dominant markers such as isozymes, enable the researcher to determineallelic frequencies and thereby directly measure genetic diversity. Allelic frequency is extremelyimportant information for population genetics studies, for example, to determine the effectivepopulation size. In case appropriate protocols are not available for the species investigated, existingprotocols for related or similar species may be adapted.

Disadvantages of biochemical characterization include the fact that few detection systems areavailable, that they detect relatively few polymorphic loci and therefore are not very useful for somecrop species such as peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and chayote (Sechium edule).

Molecular characterizationMolecular characterization detects variation directly at the DNA level. There are several groups oftechniques currently available. The most frequently employed include RFLP, RAPD, AFLP, STMS(sequence-tagged microsatellites), and sequencing. Each technique has its own particular advantagesand drawbacks in terms of their applicability for different research objectives. When choosing anappropriate technique, there are aspects that should be taken into account, such as the degree ofcomparability between experiments, the cost and availability of reagents and equipment, theavailability of crop-specific protocols and technical expertise.

Depending on the research questions, another consideration may be whether it is of importanceto detect co-dominance. Some techniques, such as RAPD and AFLP, do not detect co-dominanceand therefore cannot measure allelic frequency. While AFLP and RAPD are both suitable for somediversity studies, it should be noted that the results obtained with RAPD are not alwayscomparable between laboratories and sometimes even between experiments. RFLP is an excellentnon-random technique, but rather expensive. Microsatellites, also known as SSRs, require specific


primers that can be costly, and are not yet available for many species, particularly neglected andunderutilized crops. Gene sequencing and genome mapping is a wonderfully detailedcharacterization of the DNA molecule, base pair by base pair, but the excessive investment of timeand resources required to conduct such work remains far beyond the capacity of most nationalprogrammes.

Choosing the most appropriate methodEach method has its particular advantages and drawbacks. The methods may be used individually orin complement to each other, according to their respective appropriateness for a specific crop andfarming community, as well as the availability of the resources and expertise required to implementthem. Though the best method is the one that will achieve the research objectives with the leastexpenditure of time and resources, rarely will there be a single choice of a suitable technique. A rangeof options is much more common, and each should be carefully evaluated before committing limitedtime and resources to any one of them.

The thing to keep foremost in mind when selecting the best characterization method shouldalways be the research objective and the ability of a particular method to address that objective:

1. Outcome with different techniques. Do different methods give similar results in terms of theresearch objective? Will the different methods provide complementary data, redundant data,or provide confirmation of existing data?

2. Direct vs. indirect measures of genetic diversity. As they do not detect diversity at the levelwhere it is born (i.e. DNA), farmers’ perception/folk classification, morphologicalcharacterization and biochemical characterization are considered indirect measures of geneticdiversity. Though molecular characterization does go to that level, one or more of the formermay already satisfactorily answer the research questions.

3. Neutral vs. non-neutral markers. Many biochemical and molecular markers are known as‘neutral’, meaning that any polymorphisms observed among accessions are assumed not tobe the result of selection. This is an assumption clearly impossible to make for the kind ofvisually obvious, mainly qualitative traits which farmers use to distinguish landraces orwhich are the province of conventional morphological characterization. The nature of theresearch hypotheses will determine which type of markers is the most appropriate: neutralmarkers will generally give a more general, overall view of genetic variation than othermarkers, but in some cases it will be variation in adaptive traits that will be of most interestto the researcher, in which case neutral markers may not be useful.

4. Polymorphism. Does the method detect sufficient variation or polymorphism in the studyspecies? Different techniques have been shown to be more effective than others for differentspecies. For example, RFLP analysis has been used widely to characterize genetic diversity inmany crops such as rice, tomato, beans and fruit trees among many others, but this sametechnique detects very little polymorphism in peanut, a crop for which agromorphologicaldescriptors have proven far more useful for characterizing genetic variation.

However, the decision will also be based on practical considerations:

1. Particular species’ characteristics. What characteristics does the study species possess thatcan affect the use of the various characterization methods? For example, fruit trees in thegenus Pouteria, produce a thick latex that makes isozyme analysis difficult. Othercharacteristics to be considered include plant habit (e.g. perennial trees, herbaceous annuals),reproductive biology (e.g. inbreeders, outcrossers, clonally propagated), seed physiology(orthodox, recalcitrant, viviparous) that may require that some techniques be rejected in favorof others that are more effective.


2. Logistic concerns. What is the availability of adequate laboratory facilities, reagents andother materials, equipment, trained personnel, etc., or are there any budgetary requirements?Also, the materials to be characterized sometimes come from remote areas, withconsequences for the maintenance and transportation of the material in optimal condition.For example, will DNA extraction from large fruit trees be possible in the field and, if so, willit be possible to transport the extractions to the lab without them deteriorating? Anotherimportant concern in morphological characterization is whether to carry it out in situ in thefarmer’s field or ex situ under the controlled conditions of an experiment station? Sometimes,in the case of trees (e.g. Sapotaceae) or certain herbaceous crops (e.g. Sechium), it is impracticalor impossible to do ex situ characterization, requiring that other, less precise but still validalternative methods be considered.

3. Availability of methodologies for the species investigated. For many crops present in homegardens, morphological descriptor lists may not be available, or protocols for molecularmethods may not have been developed yet.

4. Novelty. The newest, most sophisticated, or most expensive technique is not necessarily thebest option. When considering a complicated or costly new technique, it should always beevaluated whether or not the added difficulty and/or expense is justified by the result

Selecting the most appropriate characterization methodology should be done on a case-by-casebasis, taking into account all the before mentioned.

Back to the research questionsWe do not characterize the genetic diversity in HG crops for its own sake but to answer the keyresearch questions posed at the beginning of the project. After choosing the appropriatecharacterization technique and carrying out the characterization itself, it is then time to see whatcan be said about this research, based on the data generated, and contribute information that willhelp determine the effective unit of conservation.

Target crops in the Americas and characterization methods usedTo find an answer on the Project’s key research questions, each of the three participating countriesin the Americas (Cuba, Guatemala, and Venezuela) chose 3–4 ‘target’ crops to focus on during thesecond project year for in-depth studies of diversity, frequency, distribution, and use (see Table 1).

Table 1. Species selected for in-depth studies in project countries in the Americas, and themethodologies applied either in or ex situ

Genus Venezuela Cuba Guatemala

Phaseolus Ex situ, morphological In situ, morphological –

Carica In situ, morphological – –

Persea In situ, morphological – –

Pouteria – In situ, morphological In situ, morphological

Ex situ, AFLP (on-going) Ex situ, AFLP (planned)

Capsicum In situ, morphological In situ, morphological In situ, morphological

Ex situ, AFLP (planned) Ex situ, AFLP (planned) Ex situ, morphological

(planned)

Ex situ, AFLP (planned)

Sechium – – In situ, morphological

Ex situ, isozymes

Ex situ, AFLP (Costa Rica)


Most of the diversity studies of HG target crop conducted to date in the Americas have been basedon morphological characterization. This was a function of the relative practicality, suitability of thismethod for achieving the research objectives, and budgetary reasons.

As might be expected, a combination of in situ and ex situ morphological characterizations hasgiven mixed results with limited comparability between studies, thereby reducing the strength of theconclusions. For this reason, there remains a need to identify additional techniques and use them toconduct complementary characterization studies (e.g. biochemical and molecular) to confirm, re-enforce, or possibly reject previous findings.

Case studies from the Americas Some examples of how this was accomplished with some of the target crops studied in the Americasare briefly outlined below.

Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba The lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus), called frijol caballero in Cuba, is a typical HG crop. It has practicallyno commercial value, yet it is widely grown in HGs and plays an important role in the local diet. Theplants cultivated in home gardens grow in close proximity to interbreeding wild and weedypopulations, with which geneflow almost certainly occurs. Agromorphological characterization of thediversity was done in situ, based primarily on seed morphology.

Representative HGs were studied in each of the three eco-regions of the island (Western, Central,and Eastern). The highest levels of diversity were found in the Western and Central eco-regions. Thediversity of Phaseolus lunatus encountered in the Eastern region was relatively low. Based upon thedata recovered from the study, the Effective Unit of Conservation for Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba wasdetermined to be the selected project HGs in the Western and Central regions of the country.

The diversity encountered in the Cuban HGs was compared with available characterization dataon the ex situ germplasm collection. The comparison revealed that there are unique materials beingconserved in HGs. Moreover, the HGs have become the sole sanctuary for much of the geneticdiversity of this native crop in Cuba: originally the ex situ collection had an almost complete nationalcoverage, but after some unfortunate losses currently very few samples are still available.

Pouteria spp. in GuatemalaZapotes (Pouteria spp.) are native fruit trees common to HGs in Guatemala. Their genetic diversitywas measured using in situ morphological characterization and ex situ isozyme characterization. Amorphological descriptor list was developed for this study. Following their characterization, PrincipalComponents Analysis of the descriptor results showed that certain fruit characters are particularlyuseful for detecting zapote diversity. This finding allowed the Cuban team to use a modified, shorterand more effective descriptor list to characterize their Pouteria populations. Typically, only a fewzapote trees, which are allogamous (outbreeders), are present in a single HG. Therefore, the effectivebreeding population must include many HGs in a village and possibly also materials outside HGs.

The genetic diversity of the trees cultivated in HGs was compared with the diversity measured ina stand of wild zapote trees growing in a protected area. It was found that the genetic composition ofthe cultivated and wild populations differed significantly. Therefore, it was decided that the EffectiveUnit of Conservation should include selected HGs in each eco-region (at least two), as well as the wildpopulation studied in protected area.

Phaseolus vulgaris in VenezuelaThe common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is a common HG crop in Venezuela and was chosen as a focalcrop for the project. Despite a general preference for black seeded beans, it was shown that farmersalso conserved other seed colors and certain varieties they believed to be disease resistant. Twenty-seven accessions of HG beans were characterized ex situ using agromorphological descriptors. The


results were then compared with those from the characterization of the national collection of 1200accessions obtained from other regions and sources. The same descriptors and multivariate analysiswere applied to all the materials. Significant diversity was detected in the HG materials, especiallywith regard to seed color and disease resistance. The HG beans included unique materials that werenot represented in the national collection. Based on these findings, the Venezuelan researchersdetermined that the Optimal Unit(s) of Conservation for Phaseolus vulgaris would be one village,including approximately 25 HGs, in each eco-region in the country.

Applying the resultsThe data obtained from studying HG genetic diversity can be directly applied to reinforcing the long-term contribution that HGs can make to the conservation of crop genetic resources. These data canalso be used to increase the benefits that the farmers themselves derive from managing that diversity.From the conservation perspective, we seek to answer some key questions. The answers to theseanswers can then form the basis of recommendations for future conservation actions, such as thedetermination of Optimal Units of Conservation. Once the EUCs are determined, appropriate stepscan be taken to recognize and incorporate EUCs into the national PGR conservation strategies, as anon-farm conservation method complementary with existing ex situ efforts.

The answers to the key research questions posed at the beginning of this paper can be used todemonstrate the importance of HGs in plant genetic resources conservation and use on-farm, and canenable National Programmes to develop scientifically based recommendations for including HGs innational PGR conservation strategies. By recognizing, enhancing and promoting the importantconservation role of HGs, farmers, breeders, and society in general will all be better served by theunique genetic resources maintained on-farm in these special agroecosystems.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank Cesar Azurdia, Toby Hodgkin, Luigi Guarino, Carmen de Vicente and

colleagues from the Cuban, Guatemalan and Venezuelan project teams for their valuable input to thispaper. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.


Contributions of home gardens to development, nutrition and livelihoods—key questions

Pablo Eyzaguirre1 and Maria Fernandez2

1 IPGRI, Rome Italy2 International Support Group. UNALM, Lima, Peru

Understanding household dynamics and responsibilities in managing homegarden resources by households

• Who owns the gardens?• Who decides what gets planted?• Who keeps the germplasm?• Who decides what to sell and how to use the money?

Answers will vary according to culture, household cycle and species.• Many home garden species are medicinals. Would the household be able to obtain health

services if not for the HG? • Many species are traditional vegetables. Are they nutritionally better and preferred over

introduced species? • Are there key home garden species rich in diversity that can also be income earners? • How does seed and germplasm management in home gardens contribute to overall farm

productivity? • How do home gardens contribute to human and plant health?• How have home gardens been used in previous development programmes? Do they consider

home garden diversity as the starting point?• Are the home gardens that are ‘hot spots’ for agrobiodiversity included in development

activities? Should they be? Will home garden development threaten diversity?

Recommendations• Reinforce socioeconomic information to improve capacity of farmer communities to manage

and maintain home garden diversity• Understand management processes and farmer visions for health, quality of life, food security.• Make use of action research to support farmers’ processes of conservation and use over time.

Focus on:• Learning mode among farmers, scientists and across regions.• Increase farmer-conservationist social recognition and self esteem (seed fairs, eco-tourism,

published folk taxonomies).• Ensure visibility of home gardens as conservation areas (policy).

Future project strategy: networking and public awareness and implementing themethods

• Use diverse methods to complement, confirm and reinforce research findings.• Make methods available for household resource management and risk aversion strategies.• Transfer knowledge, skills across between communities and across formal and informal

institutions. • Consolidate partnerships among the stakeholders at national levels.



Project reports

Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant geneticresources in farming systems—Cuban component

L. Castiñeiras, Z. Fundora Mayor, T. Shagarodsky, V. Moreno,O. Barrios, L. Fernández and R. Cristóbal

Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical“Alejandro de Humboldt” (INIFAT), Boyeros, Cuba

AbstractThere are several factors that influence the composition of the species and infraspecific diversity inCuban home gardens, or ‘conucos’. Aspects such as culture, climate, socioeconomic status andpolitics are the main influences on the diversity present in home gardens. Among the mostimportant aspects are human actions and decisions. Conucos were surveyed in the three majorgeographic regions of Cuba. In all regions the coexistence of wild species and weeds have beennoted growing together with cultivated varieties, as in the case of Capsicum frutescens. In many casesthe wild or weedy varieties are at first ‘tolerated’ and then, if found useful, ‘managed’ to a certaindegree. It can be seen that approximately 50% of the species and/or cultivars originate outside thehome gardens. Interviews conducted with farmers confirm the ample exchange of genetic materialsbetween the gardens and its surroundings. The most frequent source of germplasm is from closefamily and neighbours, and to a lesser extent from the formal sector (Ministry of Agriculture orscientific institutions). Once the reproductive material has been obtained, the farmers show greatinterest in reproducing their own seed (in approximately 80% of the cases). The remaindercorrespond to those types which self-seed (weeds), or which are useful wild species, or which mustbe bought because seed can not be reproduced in our country, such as cabbage (Brassica oleracea) orbeetroot (Beta vulgaris). Climatic factors, such as prolonged droughts, hurricanes and strong windscan prevent flowering and destroy crop populations. Home garden owners with high levels ofeducation tend to cultivate a greater number of species, suggesting that farmers are capable ofperceiving greater benefit in managing a greater number of species. Cuban farmers easily adoptnew technologies and new species or varieties. There is also a positive tendency in the relationshipbetween increased time dedicated to home garden care and the total number of managed species;increased labor also tends to increase the number of categories of use. Pests and diseases sometimescause farmers to change the composition of the managed diversity, especially when they arecausing serious crop damage. One example is the case of Thrips palmi, which attacks a wide rangeof species that are of importance to the household. Finally, agrarian and environmental policies canaffect the dynamics of the Cuban ‘conuco’, either by promoting or constraining the presence ofwide diversity in the home garden. Despite policies that have not favored crop genetic diversity infield crops, diversity in Cuban home gardens remains quite stable over time, because they areessential to the livelihood of the owners.

Selection of the study areasThe Home Gardens project was founded on a firm base of knowledge about Cuban home gardensaccumulated by numerous expeditions and publications by Esquivel, as well as a regular programmeof collection missions by INIFAT, led by Castiñeiras. They provided the basis of analysis and the laterselection of the specific study areas.

The study sites selected included Cuban pre-mountainous, mountainous and plains areas (Fig.1).The pre-mountainous and mountainous zones contained more diversity, and the plains home gardenscontained less diversity because they were often used for extensive production of sugar cane or forlivestock-rearing.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study zonesCharacteristic West Central East

Ecosystem Mountainous— Pre-mountainous— Plains—Sagua-Baracoa

Guaniguanico Cordillera Guamuhaya Massif Massif

Annual rainfall (mm) 2000–2013 1200–1500 1200–2448

Temperature range (ºC) 23–24 19–26 16–23

Related institutions Sierra del Rosario Cienfuegos Alexander von

Biosphere Reserve Botanical Garden Humboldt National Park

Economic activities Ecotourism; Plantain, banana, Sustainable harvesting

coffee production and coffee production of wood (Pinus forest);

coffee production

107 home gardens were visited and explored. Interviews were conducted with at least one familymember per home garden, usually the owner. Of the initial gardens surveyed: 38 were chosen forcontinued study, representing 35.5% of the gardens visited. The distribution of these gardens was 13in the western region, 12 in the central region and 13 in the eastern region.

Selection criteria• The number of cultivated species (fruit trees, viands, vegetables, medicinal plants, etc.) with >30

species preferred.• The presence of local/traditional varieties.• Principal source of seed acquisition, with preference for those that reproduce their own seed.• Size and composition of the family, with preference given to marriages with children, increasing

the likelihood of stable succession of ownership for the garden.• The use of the garden’s produce, with preference given to home consumption.• The length of time since the establishment of the garden, preferably more than 20 years.• No current land disputes in progress.

Species diversity

Table 2. Results of the inventory of species present in the gardens selectedRegion West Central East Total

Species 320 315 258 508

Genera 235 237 204 352

Families 91 90 82 108

PROJECT REPORTS 43

Fig. 1. Home gardens areas under in situ conservation in Cuba.

Of the species inventoried, 80%, correspond to cultivated species (Table 2). The remaining species arewild species, and are used for different purposes. Diversity was highest in the Western region, with320 species recorded, and lowest in the Eastern region, where 258 species were recorded. The Easternzone is the plains area in Cuba, where gardens tend to be more commercialized in than in the Westand Central regions. Gardens there may contain less diversity because of use for production of sugarcane or for commercial rearing of livestock. Table 3 lists the most commonly observed species inhome gardens. It includes both the species found in all home gardens in a region (100%) and thosefound in 80% of the home gardens surveyed.

Table 3. Species observed in the majority of home gardens surveyedSpecies 100% frequency 80% frequency

West Central East West Central EastAllium chinense ........................................................................................................................................................X.........Annona muricata....................................................................................................X ...........................................................Annona reticulata ......................X ...................................................................................................X..................................Artocarpus communis ...........................................................................................X ...........................................................Citrus aurantium..............................................................................................................................X ......................X.........Citrus sinensis........................................................................................................X................................................X.........Cocos nucifera.......................................................................................................X ...........................................................Coffea arabica...........................X ...................................................................................................X ......................X.........Curcurbita moschata ................................................................................................................................................X.........Dioscorea alata.........................................................................................................................................................X.........Eryngium foetidum.................................................................................................X ...........................................................Gliricidia sepium .......................................................................................................................................................X.........Ipomea batatas.........................................................................................................................................................X.........Lippia alba ................................................................................................................................................................X.........Mangifera indica ....................................................................................................X.......................X ......................X.........Manihot esculenta..................................................................................................X ...........................................................Melicoccus bijugatus .............................................................................................X ...........................................................Musa spp. .................................X ......................X .......................X .....................................................................................Persea americana............................................................................................................................X ......................X.........Phaseolus vulgaris ....................X ...................................................................................................X ......................X.........Plectranthus amboinicus ..........................................................................................................................................X.........Pouteria sapota......................................................................................................X ...........................................................Psidium guajava ........................X ................................................X .....................................................................................Saccharum officinarum..........................................................................................X................................................X.........Xanthosoma sagittifolium ......................................................................................X ...........................................................Zea mays ..................................................................................................................................................................X .......

Based on Table 3, we can highlight thepercentage of species that are commonbetween the regions studied, and thosefound in all regions. Figure 2 shows that20.4% of species were common betweenthe West and Central regions, but only4.5% and 5.3% of species are commonbetween West-East and Central-East,respectively. However, 24.3% of specieswere common between all the regionsstudied. This can be partially explainedby the fact that the Mountainous and


Fig. 2. Percentage of species common to the areas studied.

Pre-mountainous zones (the West and Central regions) were more similar ecologically than thePlains, or Eastern region. Also, the Eastern region’s method of production is more intensive and lessspecies-rich than the other two regions, which may contribute to the fact that the West and Centralregions had more in common with each other than either did with the Eastern region.

Twenty-three crops were found to harbor significant infraspecific variability, differing fromregion to region. Cowpea (Cajanus cajan), Capsicum annuum, and Yam (Dioscorea spp.) exhibitedimportant levels of variability in the East. Infraspecific variety in the West and Central regionsoverlapped greatly, but in general these results suggest that the diversity utilized by the families inthe home gardens is distributed to be common to all the regions selected.

Table 4. Crops reported as having greater infraspecific variability by the farmerCrop West Central East

Cajanus cajan ...........................................................................................................................................................X..........

Capsicum annuum ...................................................................................................................................................X..........

Citrus sinensis ....................................................X....................................................................................................X..........

Coffea arabica....................................................X.................................................X ................................................X..........

Colocasia esculenta ...........................................X.................................................X ............................................................

Cucurbita moschata ..........................................X................................................................................................................

Dioscorea alata.........................................................................................................................................................X..........

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis .......................................X.................................................X ............................................................

Ipomea batatas.........................................................................................................................................................X..........

Lycopersicon esculentum.........................................................................................................................................X..........

Mangifera indica.................................................X.................................................X ............................................................

Manihot esculenta .................................................................................................X ............................................................

Musa spp. ..........................................................X.................................................X ................................................X..........

Persea americana...............................................X.................................................X ............................................................

Phaseolus lunatus..................................................................................................X ................................................X..........

Phaseolus vulgaris .............................................X....................................................................................................X..........

Portulaca grandiflora ............................................................................................X ................................................X..........

Psidium guajava ................................................X.................................................X ................................................X..........

Saccharum officinarum......................................X....................................................................................................X..........

Spondias purpurea ............................................X................................................................................................................

Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculata...................................................................X ............................................................

Xanthosoma sagittifolium...................................X....................................................................................................X..........

Zea mays............................................................X.................................................X ................................................X..........

These conclusions are important to bear in mind when determining minimum units of in situconservation for plant genetic resources in Cuba.

Farmer perception of diversityIn general, farmer perceptions are based upon:

• the morphology of the different parts of the plant, in particular those utilized• possible origin• status of the cultivar• vigour of the plants• sponsoring institution when dealing with a modern clone• morphological comparison with other species• length of the crop cycle• quality of the part of the plant utilized.

PROJECT REPORTS 45

Table 5. Examples of the infraspecific variability of some species based on the perception of the farmer

Area % of HG with Average number of Number ofinfraspecific diversity varieties /100 m2 different varieties

Musa spp.West 92 1.8 22Central 92 0.6 12East 93 1.5 15

Mangifera indicaWest 69 2.4 9Central 58 3.5 20East 29 0.6 5

Phaseolus vulgarisWest 62 1.8 7Central 25 0.6 5East 50 1.5 13

Saccharum officinarumWest 77 2.4 8Central 8 0.6 7 East 50 1.6 12

The high number of cultivars found for each key species strongly suggests the coexistence oftraditional and modern cultivars in Cuban home gardens (Figures 4 and 5). If this coexistance issustainable, which it appears to be, it would show that traditional cultivars are still maintained evenafter the introduction of modern varieties. This supports the potential of home gardens to conservespecific threatened diversity in situ.

Utilization of home garden plants

Management of diversity through useDiversity is selected according to the requirements of the family (at the species and varietal level).For some crops, the infraspecific diversity is considerable, but the number of individuals perspecies or variety is small. For crops that give greater economic benefit to the families in rural areas,home gardens often contain a large number of individuals per species or variety. Managementactivities are carried out with minimal ecological cost, due to the low utilization of chemicalproducts.

Table 6. Utilization of home garden plants in the different study zonesUse West Central East TotalOrnamental 138 127 87 197Medicinal 64 65 56 114Timber for construction 24 22 30 54Fruit trees 32 33 21 38Seasonings 17 13 17 25Vegetables 9 12 7 14Living fences 9 8 8 12Timber for tool-making 1 4 8 11Roots and tubers 8 8 6 10Drinks 4 5 5 10Grains 7 6 8 9Animal feed 3 3 4 7Other 9 10 4 20 (charcoal, wood, insecticides, 9 10 4 20fences, flowers for bees, etc.)


Key species

Selection of speciesPouteria sapotaEx situ conservation in Cuba is extremely limited for Pouteria sapota. The species is conserved in situ inor near home gardens, often with trees of great age. No previous work exists on the variability of thisspecies in the country.

Phaseolus lunatusThis species is grown only in home gardens, and used primarily for home consumption. Ex situconservation of Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba has been lacking. Widespread diversity has been observed,including three cultivar groups reported for the species, and types with wild characteristics collected asweeds.

Capsicum spp.The Capsicum annuum–chinense–frutescens complex is present in Cuba, with cultivated types, wild types,and intermediates between these forms. An ex situ collection exists in Cuba, which is correctlymaintained and documented. These species are conserved in the home gardens for various purposes,primarily for home consumption.

Morphological diversity of key species Pouteria sapotaForty-two trees were studied: 30 trees in the west and 12 trees in the east. Characterization was basedupon 11 characters of the fruit and seeds. Wide diversity in forms was observed, especially for:

• the average weight of the fruit • seed length • number of seeds per fruit • thickness of the mesocarp and pericarp.

Cuba is not the centre of diversity for Pouteria sapota, which lies in Latin America, but variability existsand should not be ignored. Its diversity in Cuba may be especially important because it exhibits severalfeatures not found in Latin American Pouteria, so Cuba may be a secondary centre of diversity (Fig. 3).Pouteria sapota has a wide distribution of harvest times in Cuba, with the highest frequency in the monthsof April, May and June, and a range that varies from March to July, differing from Latin America.

PROJECT REPORTS 47

Fig. 3. Distribution of cultivars of Pouteria sapota related to components 1 and 3.

Diversity is more evident in the west than in the east of the country, and could be associated withattempts to promote the development of elite fruits of high quality. No ex situ collections for Pouteriasapota exist in Cuba. There are only a few isolated examples in botanical gardens and privatecollections, which are severely threatened by genetic erosion. This collection could be rescued bycollecting materials from the home gardens of farmers involved in the project, and used to create afurther source of income for the family.

The farmer’s perception of varieties is not entirely clear for the species, but these are the mostcommon characteristics used to distinguish them:

• the phenological distribution of harvest and productivity• the morphological characteristics of the fruit• characteristics of quality. This analysis implies that it is necessary to rescue the most outstanding classes, in order to include

them in programmes of fruit tree reproduction. In situ conservation strategies should be developedfor the species. It is also important to work on clearly identifying and communicating the species’characteristics within the farming communities.

Phaseolus lunatusFifty-three populations were studied from the western, central and eastern regions of Cuba. Elevenmorphological characteristics of the seed were determined.

A wide diversity of forms was observed, especially for size, weight, and the relation between them.The beans had characteristic primary colour markings in white, red and cream. The most frequentsecondary colour was brown. In addition, black and red were found.

It was not possible to differentiate a defined pattern of variability between the regions of study. Thedifferent cultivar groups maintain the same pattern throughout the Island.

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the distribution of the accessions of Phaseolus lunatus characterized in situin the home gardens according to their infraspecific classification.

The greatest variability in P. lunatus was observed in the central and eastern regions of the country,where the traditional knowledge of the crop is much greater than in the western region. Unfortunately,due to the loss of the ex situ collection, it is not possible to use the collections to complement oneanother in the conservation of P. lunatus in Cuba.

Figure 6 shows that the germplasm conserved in situ in home gardens covers the range of diversityformerly conserved ex situ in genebanks. The ex situ collection has been lost; however, a large part ofthe variability that has been lost could be rescued, by also conserving the germplasm maintained bythe farmers in home gardens in ex situ collections. This confirms the importance of maintaining both insitu and ex situ conservation mechanisms as complementary strategies.


Fig. 4. Percentage of samples representing differentcultivar groups of Phaseolus lunatus in homegardens sampled.

Fig. 5. Number of samples of Phaseolus lunatusaccording to the region and cultivar group.

Table 7. The farmers’ perception (PF) of the infraspecific diversity and its relationship with the perceptionof the scientist (PS)

Consumption purpose (PF/PS) Cultivar group (PS) Seed characteristics (PS/PF)

Grains Sieva+potato Size Médium and small

Colour One or more

Form Rounded and flattened

Vegetables Lima Size Big

Colour White

Form Flattened

Preparation of Sweet Dishes Sieva+potato+lima Size All

Colour White

Form Rounded and flattened

Living fence

Sieva+potato+lima

Size+colour+form All

Capsicum spp.Eighty-five populations were investigated,and 25 descriptors of the plant, flower andthe fruit were identified. The main speciesencountered were annuum, chinense, andfrutescens. C. annuum was rarely found inthe western region, and C. chinense rarelyin the east (Fig. 7).

Interesting types included rediscoveringa wild population of the type ‘corazón depaloma’ (dove’s heart), which had not beenseen since the 19th century in Cuba. A wildpopulation of the type ‘piquín’ was alsodescribed, a type previously undetected in

PROJECT REPORTS 49

Fig. 7. Distribution of samples among Capsicum speciesand regions—total number of accessions evaluated.

Fig. 6. Results of the Principal Component Analysis of the accessions of Phaseolus lunatus characterizedin in situ and ex situ conditions.

Cuba. The taxonomic status of the ‘ají de jardín’ (garden pepper) has been identified as Capsicum annuum.It is possible to appreciate that the diversity conserved in situ is representative of that conserved

ex situ (Fig. 8). The accessions within the groups formed are very similar, except for four types ´tarrode chivo’, ‘chile blanco´, ají de jardín’ founded as cultivated types in Cuban home gardens, and thetype ´corazón de paloma´, a wild type found in the ‘tumbas’ (disturbed areas).

These types have consequently been added to the Genebank collection due to their highprobability of genetic erosion.

In the case of wild C. frutescens it is possible that the materials should not express allcharacteristics during the regeneration at ex situ conditions, which suggests that both collectionsshould be used as complementary conservation strategies of the gene pool of this crop in Cuba.

With reference to the differentiation of the different forms within the species, the perception ofthe scientist coincides with that of the farmer, and is defined by the purpose of consumption,fundamentally based on the morphological characteristics of the fruit, such as size, colour andthickness of the pericarp, although other characteristics are also taken into account, such as fruitflavour (Table 8). Large fruit types are consumed as a fresh vegetable (roasted or filled), medium-sized fruit are processed to make sweet paprika (dried), or ground for the preparation of puree,hot/spicy medium-sized fruit with fine pericarps are used in the preparation of pickles (encurtido),medium-sized fruit with a sweet-intermediate flavour and thin pericarp are used as seasoning,small fruit for medicines, and small, colourful fruit as ornamentals. It must be emphasized that inCuba there is no tradition of eating the spicy fruits, as in other countries of the Mesoamericanregion (Mexico, Guatemala etc.).


Fig. 8. Simple factorial correspondance for in situ and ex situ collections of Capsicum spp.

Table 8. Perception of the infraspecific diversity of the farmer (PF) and its relation to that of the scientist (PS)Consumption purpose (PF+PS) Species (PS) Characteristics of the fruit (PF+PS)

Fresh vegetable Capsicum annuum Size Big

Pericarp Thick

Flavour Sweet

Industrial and/or home processing Capsicum annuum Size Medium

Pericarp Thick

Flavour Sweet

Pickling Capsicum frutescens Size Medium

Pericarp Thin

Flavour Hot

Seasoning Capsicum chinense Size Medium

Capsicum frutescens Pericarp Thin

Capsicum annuum Flavour Sweet-intermediate

Medicinal Capsicum frutescens Size Small

Pericarp Thin

Flavour Hot-intermediate

Ornamental Capsicum annuum Size Small

Colour More than 3

Market for key speciesPouteria sapotaThis species, sapote, abounds in the markets between May and July, although it can be foundthroughout the year. The sale price of the fruits is relatively high, although it varies depending uponthe size and scarcity of the product. The greatest production for sapote is between the months ofNovember and March in Guatemala but the periods in which the Cuban cultivars develop correspondto those when no fruit is produced in the Central American region.

Phaseolus lunatusThis species is not commercialized in Cuba; outside the environs of the home garden it is difficult tofind, even in the local markets. Over the period of one year it has been observed only twice in themarket, being sold as a common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris).

Capsicum spp.The species C. chinense and C. frutescens are rarely found in the markets—particularly the latter (usedin Cuba medicinally, for seasoning or for pickling). C. annuum is often seen, however. The potentialuse offered by the Capsicum complex is not fully taken advantage of, and very little of the diversitypresent in the gardens of the rural areas of Cuba reaches the population as a whole.

Socioeconomic studies: the sustainability of the home garden

Diversity of biological resources(inter and intraspecific diversity)—elements taken into accountTechnical management consists of artificial irrigation, chemical and biological fertilizers, soilanalysis and origin of reproductive material. Socioeconomic influences include family composition,number of people to benefit from the gardens’ produce, income received from the products of thegarden, and social aspects which influence stability (close sources of employment, etc.).

External factors that affect home gardens are accessibility, quality of the householdinfrastructure, access to basic social services, credit opportunities and access to the markets(number of species referred to as dedicated for sale, and opportunities for commercialization).

PROJECT REPORTS 51

Home gardens studied are sustainable agricultural systems, with their own specific characteristics,and that in the case of Cuba can be grouped into three general areas—west, central and east—asthree large nuclei of agricultural, historical and cultural diversity.

The proportion of species used only for home consumption is high. The variability of the keyspecies is distributed (although not uniformly) throughout the three study regions.

The best environmental health (soil fertility and management, adequate and dynamicmanagement of the different species within the system, attention to the garden, no nearby sourcesof pollution, etc.) is shown in the home gardens located in the protected areas or in the buffer zone(western and eastern areas)

In the central region a tendency was observed towards the use of advanced cultivars in place oftraditional cultivars; a smaller proportion of infraspecific diversity was perceived by the farmers;there are also fewer useful animals and increased technical management of irrigation, perhapsbecause some of the gardens of the central region are located in areas of greater urbanization.

The income from the produce of the gardens indicates a reasonable profit for the families, interms of the current earning power of the country, but little is reinvested in the management of thegarden as such.

In the majority of the gardens studied, soil fertility is normal (although in the central region it islower) and there is little general use of the agroecological techniques of soil conservation. Whenthese are used it is mainly due to the farmer’s intuition.

The management of the agricultural tasks has little adverse impact on the environment, since in,general, harvesting, seedbed preparation and weed control are all carried out manually. Themajority of the species are managed without irrigation and most either use organic fertilizer, orsimply use none at all.

A combination of threats can be seen, regarding the adoption of new technologies and improvedvarieties, as well as the options available (with greater economic benefits) for farmers in othersectors of the national economy.

For some species, the application of chemical fertilizers can damage the environment. In thisaspect substantial improvement could be achieved with intensive and systematic training.

Table 9. The relationship between topographic, climatic and edaphic factors and diversityAltitude

Number of fruit trees – 0.51

Roots and tubers 0.45

Medicinal species 0.37

Grain species 0.35

Stimulant/drink species 0.26

Seasonings 0.41

As altitude increases, it is colder, with heavier mists and less sunlight. For this reason, it is anunsuitable climate for fruit trees, and there is a negative correlation between altitude and fruit treesspecies managed by farmers (r=–0.51), due to the presence of mists at high elevations. Altitude,however, has a positive effect on roots and tubers (r=0.45), medicinal species (r=0.37), grains(r=0.35) and seasonings (r=0.41) due to the high rainfall that occurs in those home gardens. Nodefined tendency was observed in the total number of species in relation to altitude.Sociocultural and economic factors


Level of educationThe Cuban government guarantees access to the educational system for the entire population, andhas established schooling until the 9th grade as obligatory.

• The children of farmers were able to study subjects unrelated to agricultural activities, althougha percentage still came to work in the agricultural sector.

• Certain halting and reversion of this process has been seen, favoured by the adoption of specificagrarian State policies of land distribution, and the stimulus represented by better prices foragricultural produce in the markets.

• Relationship between the level of education of the owner of the garden, and the number andcomposition of species, showed a low but positive correlation (r=0.24).

• The Cuban farmer easily accommodates new technologies, new species or new varieties, whichin itself proves of interest, and could also be related to a higher level of education, or to moreavailable information.

Time dedicated to the care and maintenance of gardensNo relationship was seen between this factor and the number of total species, nor in any specificcategory of use; however, a positive relationship was seen with the greatest number of categories ofdifferent uses in the garden (r=0.22). This suggests that maintaining the garden and making it producea greater quantity of species with different uses leads not only to a greater possibility of satisfying theneeds of the inhabitants of the garden, but also to greater opportunities for commercialization: a newprocess of diversification of production and consumption habits.

Farmer workshops in the regions studiedTo favour these meetings, and to allow the exchange of conservation practices and methods, inaddition to the exchange of seeds of different species and varieties, has been one of the aims of theproject.

In each region awareness has been raised about conserving the diversity of cultivated species, withthe scientific, political and educational authorities regarding the role of said conservation in thesustainability of the different agricultural systems and the complementary nature of the in situconservation of cultivated plants with the conservation of wild species.

Conservation of diversity has been encouraged by means of stimuli aimed at increasing thefarmers’ understanding of the role of the home garden in the food security of the family, thecommunity and the region.

Description of the Cuban home gardenThe Cuban home garden of the rural areas is characterized as being a dynamic agricultural ecosystem,where a high level of diversity can be seen in useful species, be they cultivated or wild.

The rural Cuban home garden occupies a relatively small space and almost always surrounds thehouse, although in some cases the area of the garden moves from one part of the land to another everyso often (approximately every three years), in search of rejuvenated soil, leaving the previous areafallow for the future.

The ornamental garden is almost always located in the anterior part and at one of the sides of thehouse (also some species of fruits, medicinal and seasoning plants). Other species for feeding thefamily are distributed a little further away from the house, in a system of continuous rotation,depending upon the size of the property. The structure of the Cuban home garden varies dependingupon the topography, but always maintains all the strata of vegetation (subterranean, herbaceous,bushes and trees), with cultivated species, weeds and wild species being characteristic of each strata,although the cultivated species constitute the greatest proportion.

PROJECT REPORTS 53

Generally cassava, bananas, taro, beans and maize are the important crops, which demonstratesattachment to a specific food culture, where the viands and the grains hold a central role in the familyeconomy. They occupy greater areas within the garden, due to the need for larger amounts for feedingthe family. The fruits have an important role in providing vitamins and minerals, as a substitute forvegetables.

The presence of other species is influenced by historical factors; such is the case of coffee, which isalso of economic importance for the State, and commercial coffee production is found in themountainous zones.

One of the most important factors which in the dynamic influences the composition of species and/or varietieswithin the species in the Cuban home garden, is Man himself. Aspects such as culture, climate,socioeconomic status and politics are the main influences on the diversity present in home gardens.Among the most important aspects are human actions and decisions.

Table 11. Germplasm sources in Cuban home gardensCategory West (%) Centre (%) East (%)

Home garden 64 50 52

From a relative 3 3 4

From a neighbour 13 28 29

Formal sector 6 17 11

No information 13 2 4

Coexistence of wild species and/or weeds together with the cultigen (the presence of traditionalcultivars with wild relatives) is also tolerated, or even valued.

Approximately 50% of the species and/or cultivars originate outside the home garden; theinterviews confirm the ample exchange of materials between the garden and its surroundings.Frequently they obtain plants from close family and neighbours, and to a lesser extent plants areacquired in the formal sector. Once the reproductive material has been obtained, the farmer showsgreat interest in reproducing his own seed (approximately in 80% of the cases)

Aspects which demonstrate the sustainability of the home gardenThe management of a wide diversity of wild and cultivated species, with different uses;management of a considerable infraspecific diversity, with traditional varieties and practices (takinginto account landscape, soil and seed production).

The home garden contributes substantially to the subsistence of the home. When the location isfairly inaccessible, the family depends almost entirely on the produce from the garden. Normally amuch greater number of people benefit from the produce of the garden than merely those who livethere.

ConclusionsThe three regions studied in the country (west, central and east) may be considered as MinimumEffective Units of In Situ Conservation for Plant Genetic Resources in Cuban Home Gardens.

It is evident that, for a crop, there is a need for the methods of in situ and ex situ conservation to becomplementary .

The home gardens linked to the protected areas offer greater possibilities for the in situconservation of agricultural biodiversity.

The prevailing political and administrative infrastructure in Cuba has facilitated the developmentof the project, in addition linking INIFAT with other centres of investigation, teaching andadministration.

The response of the farmers to participate in the project and to continue maintaining theconnection with the investigators has been very positive.


PROJECT REPORTS 55

ReferencesCastiñeiras, L., Z. Fundora, S. Pico and E. Salinas. 2000a. The use of home gardens as a component of the

national estrategy for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Cuba: a pilot study. Plant GeneticResources Newsletter 123:9-18.

Castiñeiras, L., Z. Fundora, T. Shagarodsky, V. Fuentes, O. Barrios, V. Moreno, P. Sánchez, A.V. González, M.García, A. Martínez-Fuentes and A. Martínez. 2000b. La conservación in situ de la variabilidad de las plantasde cultivo en dos localidades de Cuba. Rev. Jar. Bot. Nac. Vol. XXI No.1:25-45.

Castiñeiras, L., M. Esquivel, T. Gladis and K. Hammer. 1994. New variation of Phaseolus L. in Cuba. PlantGenetic Resources Newsletter 99:38-40.

Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1988. The conuco, an important refuge of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources.Kulturpflanze 36:451-463.

Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1990. El programa INIFAT-ZIGuk en el campo de recursos genéticos vegetales:cinco años de fructífera colaboración. 25 Años de Colaboración Científico-Técnica Cuba – RDA 1965–1990.

Esquivel, M., K. Krieghoff, H. Uranga, L. Walón and K. Hammer. 1989. Collecting plant genetic resources inCuba. Report of the third mission, March 1988. Kulturpflanze 37:359-372.

Esquivel, M., H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer, 1992. Inventary of Cultivated Plants. Pp. 213–454 in “...y tienenfaxoes y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...” Origin, evolution and diversity of Cuban Plan GeneticResources. Vol. 2 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). Institut für Pflanzengenetik undKulturpflanzenforschung. Gatersleben.

Esquivel, M., J.J Pérez and L. Castiñeiras. 1986. Colecta de germoplasma en el Occidente de Cuba. Plant GeneticResources Newsletter 66:14-15.

Esquivel, M., L. Castiñeiras, B. Rodríguez and K. Hammer. 1987. Collecting plant genetic resources in Cuba.Kulturpflanze 35:367-378.

Esquivel, M., L. Castiñeiras, T. Gradis and K. Hammer. 1994. The 8th joint collecting mission INIFAT-IPK toCentral Cuba. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 99:20-24.

Esquivel, M., T. Shagarodsky and K. Hammer. 1990. Collecting plant genetic resources in Cuba. Report on thefourth mission, March 1989. Kulturpflanze 38:345-362.

Esquivel, M., T. Shagarodsky, K. Krieghhhoff, B. Rodríguez and K. Hammer, 1988. Collecting plant geneticresources in Cuba. Report of the second mission, 1986. Kulturpflanze 36:437-449.

Esquivel, M., T. Shagarodsky, L. Walón and M. Caraballo. 1991. Collecting in the central province of Cuba. PlantGenetic Resources Newsletter 83/84:19-21.

Contributions of home gardens to in situ conservation in traditionalfarming systems—Guatemalan component

José Miguel Leiva, César Azurdia, Werner Ovando, Edín López, Helmer AyalaFaculty of Agronomy (FAUSAC), University of San Carlos, Guatemala

IntroductionAs an agroforestry system practiced by farmers in Guatemala, home gardens play an important

role in the ecological, social and economic dimensions of rural communities. Its importance as asystem is based on the complex interactions it supports over time and which contribute to thesustainability of the system’s production. The sustainability of this agroforestry system is alsoimportant for the conservation of plant genetic resources in home gardens. However, the crucialconservation role of home gardens has not been taken into account. For this reason, theInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) with the support of the German Agency forInternational Cooperation (GTZ) has been carrying out a global project on the “Contribution ofhome gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems.” This projecthas a span of three years (1999 to 2001) and five countries are involved (Ghana, Cuba, Vietnam,Venezuela, and Guatemala).

In Guatemala, the study was conducted by the Research Institute of the Agronomy School, SanCarlos University. The study areas were in two regions of contrasting weather and culture: the AltaVerapaz province in the north and the semiarid region in the eastern part of the country. At thesetwo sites, 118 home gardens were characterized in which 500 plant species were identified. Animportant group of the useful species in home gardens also grew wild in nearby forests, and someof these species had been moved into gardens when they became threatened in their native habitat.Key species were selected and studied in-depth through molecular characterization techniques.Additionally, studies on the role that home gardens play in the household economy were pursued.

This report presents the most important results obtained during the three-year period ofresearch. It contributes to the basic body of knowledge needed as a first step towards developing aglobal plan for the use and conservation of plant genetic resources in home gardens.

Home garden structure and compositionDescription of the study areas

Semiarid regionThe semiarid region of Guatemala, covering 924 km2 in the eastern districts of El Progreso, Zacapa,and Chiquimula, is characterized by poverty, with almost 80% of the population in this regionliving in extreme poverty. The region has a dry climate with annual average precipitation of 700mm and annual average temperature of 26°C. According to De La Cruz (1982), the ecological zonecorresponds to subtropical thorn forest. The population belongs to ‘ladino’ and Chortí groups.

Alta Verapaz RegionThe Alta Verapaz province, located in the northern part of the country, covers 8686 km2 (8% of thenational area) and its altitude varies from 20 metres above sea level (m asl) to 1200 m asl. Weathervaries according to the altitude; the lowlands are hot and humid and the mountains are cold andhumid. Temperature ranges from 14°C to 27°C and rainfall varies from 2000 mm to 6000 mm. In thisregion, 95% of the population belongs to Mayan groups (K´ekchí, Mam an Pocomchí), and 95% ofthe population lives in extreme poverty.


Selection criteria for regions and home gardensThe main criteria used to select regions andhome gardens were the contrasting nativegroups as well as the different agroecologicalzones in terms of climate, vegetation and soils.Home gardens were selected according torandom preferential sampling and the numberof new species in each additional surveyedhome garden was the key factor used toestablish the number of home gardens studied.

Species inventory

Semiarid regionOverall, 47 home gardens were surveyed. Farmerswere interviewed to determine the structure andcomposition of home gardens, to ascertain theirpreferences regarding the different plant speciesfound in home gardens, to analyse gender-relatedaspects of home garden management, and todetermine the uses given to plant species. Family home gardens ranged in size from 0.009 to 0.25hectares. Most home gardens are rectangular in shape, but some are irregular. Semiarid home gardensharbor a diversity of plants, totaling 276 species and cultivars that are distributed in 85 botanicalfamilies. They have a vertical 4-strata structure; 44% of the species were found in the herbaceousstratum, 28% in the shrub stratum, 20% in the arboreal stratum, and 8% were climbing plants.

Alta Verapaz regionIn this region, 414 useful plant species were identified in 297 genera and 103 families. This total wasmade up of 279 and 251 species from the warm and cold parts of the region, respectively. Additionally,116 species were found in common between the regions (28% of the total species reported from the studyarea). Environmental conditions, marketing possibilities, and local uses are the most important factorsthat define home garden structure and composition. The outstanding species are those used as food,medicinal, ornamental and cultural aspects. People of both genders were found to be involved with thework and men seemed to invest more time than women. Men are the most important decision-makersin the selection and management of commercial crops while women have more decision power for rootcrops, vegetables, spices, and medicinal plants. Based on use of the goods, home garden were classifiedas subsistence or commercial home gardens. These agroecosystems are important repositories of wildspecies where they are both conserved and under the process of domestication.

Categories of useful plants In the semiarid region, the plants found most frequently in home gardens are Solanum americanum(54%), Citrus aurantifolia (83%), Manguifera indica (78%), and Fernaldia pandurata (67%). These species areimportant for household food security as well as being highly marketed in the region and thereforerepresent an income for families throughout the year. Depending on the farmers’ ethno-botanicalknowledge, plants are used for multiple purposes and this defines the way a species is distributed in thehome garden. Overall, 53% of the plants found in home gardens serve as ornamental plants and arelocated near the dwellings; 47% of the plants are used as food, mainly fruits, vegetables, spices, andstems and roots. However, fodder species were also important in home gardens, and on average 10different species from gardens were used for animal feed.

PROJECT REPORTS 57

A woman in Alta Verapaz harvests Piper nigrum, or blackpepper, an edible species found in home gardens of the region.

J.M

. Lei

va, U

nive

rsity

of

San

Car

los,

Gua

tem

ala

Figure 1 illustrates the categories of use of plants found in home gardens. Some plants havemultiple uses, for example: wormseed or Mexican tea (Chenopodium ambrosoides L.) is used as foodand also as a deparasitizing agent; the fruit of tecomate or jicaro (Crescentia alata HBK) hasmedicinal uses and its wood is used as firewood; the fruit of bastard cedar (Guazuma ulmifolia Lam)has medicinal uses and its wood is used as firewood and for fence posts.

Species found in home gardens from the Alta Verapaz zone are used for primary and secondaryneeds of the household. It is not surprising that most of the useful plants are used for food,medicine and ornament (Fig. 2).


Fig. 1. Categories of plant use for species grown in home gardens in the semiarid region of Guatemala.

Fig. 2. Categories of plant use for species grown in the home gardens of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala.

Species also have important uses for culturalpurposes or as sources of firewood andconstruction materials. The largest number ofspecies were used primarily for food: in thelowland region of Alta Verapaz, 126 specieswere used for food (45% of the total species inthe region) and 96 species in the mountainousregion (38% of the total species). The foodcategory is composed of species that producemainly fruits and vegetables. Fruit is the mostimportant product in home gardens from thelowland region, but vegetables are the mostimportant products in the mountainous regionbecause part of the produce is used at thehousehold level and surpluses are sold in localmarkets.

Traditional medicines are commonly used bypeople in Alta Verapaz because they do nothave free and easy access to Western medicineand they retain rich knowledge of the uses ofindigenous medicinal plants. For these reasons,26% and 33% of the species in the lowlandregion and mountainous region respectivelywere reported to have medicinal uses. Frequentillnesses in the communities include:gastrointestinal, respiratory, and dermicdiseases; malaria; diabetes; fever; bone injuries;and snake bites. Other illnesses are particular to the community and depend on the beliefs of thepeople, and are often related to witchcraft. Most of the medicinal plants in home gardens are native(65% and 60% in the lowland and mountainous regions, respectively).

Home gardens and in situ conservation in the regionsOf the species and cultivars found in home gardens of the semiarid region of Guatemala, 52% arenative species; these are often species that can be found in the surrounding natural ecosystem(Alarcón 1992, Tenas 1994).

Home gardens do play a role in in situ protection and conservation of plant species that arethreatened or endangered, as well as playing an important role in food security. For example, at thelevel of the arboreal stratum of home gardens, Caesalpinia velutina is a native timber-yielding speciesthat is found in the region’s natural vegetation. This species was also found in 45% of the homegardens surveyed and farmers use it to obtain firewood and as posts for the farmstead. Loroco(Fernaldia pandurata) is another interesting case, which has been reported by Azurdia et al. (2000).Although it grows wild in the region’s natural ecosystem, it has been domesticated by farmers andintroduced into home gardens in a cultivated form. There is high demand for the flower of theloroco and it is prepared as food in different ways. This species has frequently been introduced intohome gardens because it represents an important source of income for the family.

In a study carried out in 40 home gardens in Ciudad Vieja in Guatemala, Standford (1990) foundthat garden composition varies depending on the socioeconomic conditions of farmers and isdynamic over time. These results support those of Gessler et al. (1998), who found that homegardens are important in biodiversity maintenance as refuges for many endangered species. Homegardens are therefore important for the survival and conservation of locally used species and

PROJECT REPORTS 59

Bajlajché (Catophena chiapensis) a medicinal plant found inAlta Verapaz home gardens.

Wer

ner

Ova

ndo,

Uni

vers

ity o

f S

an C

arlo

s, G

uate

mal

a

varieties. Table 1 lists higher plant species that form part of the natural vegetation and areconserved in situ in multi-purpose home gardens.

Table 1. Plant species found in natural vegetation that are conserved in situ in home gardens of thesemiarid region of Guatemala

Common name Scientific name Stratum No. Main useshomegardens wherefound

‘Aripín’ Caesalpinia velutina Arboreal 24 Firewood, wood, posts

(Britt & Rose) Standl.

Bastard cedar Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. Arboreal 11 Firewood, forage

Paradise tree Simarouba glauca DC Arboreal 7 Ornamental, timber

Marmelade fruit Pouteria sapota Arboreal 5 Food

H. Moore & Stearm

‘Roble de montaña’ Bucida macrostachya Standl. Arboreal 2 Ornamental, timber, fuel

Golden spoon, nance Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) HBK Arboreal 4 Food

‘Manzanote’ Pereskia autumnalis Arboreal 3 Ornamental, live fences

(Eichlam) Rose

Grand cayman Cordia dentata Poir Arboreal 11 Food, live fences, fuel

Mahogany Swietenia humilis Zuccarini Arboreal 1 Ornamental, timber

‘Cabeza de viejo’ Cephalocereus maxonii Rose Shrub 2 Food, ornamental,

live fences, fuel

Calabash Crescentia alata HBK Shrub 14 Medicinal

Brazil wood, Haematoxylon brassiletto Karst Shrub 6 Live fences, fuel

Pernambuco wood

Mexican sage, Lippia graveolens HBK Shrub 5 Food, medicinal

oregano

Physic nut, Jatropa curcas L. Shrub 9 Medicinal, live fences

purging nut

Century plant Agave sp. Herbaceous 7 Medicinal, live fences

Loroco Fernaldia pandurata Herbaceous 19 Food

(A. DC.) Woodson

Pitahaya Hylocereus undatus Climbing 3 Food, ornamental, live fences

(Haworth) Britt. & Rose in Briton

In the Alta Verapaz region, where there is increasingly limited access to the forest due todeforestation and land tenure change, farmers may use their home garden to grow plants they usedto gather from the wild. Home gardens may therefore act as an important site for the survival andconservation of species that are in the process of losing their natural habitat. Some useful wildspecies are still gathered in their native habitat; however, if they are important, it is common to findthem growing in home gardens particularly if the species are not available in the market. The speciesinventory done in home gardens of the cold region indicated that they are repositories of speciesgrowing in the natural forest (Table 2). These data support the idea that home gardens could beimportant for in situ conservation of wild species whose habitat is threatened, as well as for speciesin the process of domestication.


Table 2. Plant species of the natural forest found in home gardens of the cold region from Alta Verapazprovince, Guatemala

Species Use Species UsePouteria viridis Food Clethra suaveolens ConstructionAnnona spp. Food Vernonia mollis FuelPimenta dioica Shade Myrica cerífera FuelHeliocarpus Donnell S. Shade Neurolaena lobata MedicinalCecropia obtusifolia Shade Polymnia maculata FodderPouteria sapota Food Acrocomia sp. FoodChamaedorea elegans Ornamental Liabum discolor Religious Eringium foetidum Spice Cedrela mexicana TimberTrema micrantha Rope, construction Saurauia villosa FuelByrsonima crassifolia Food Arbutus xalapensis FuelMiconia calvescens Religious Litsea glauscescens SpiceLiquidambar styraciflua Timber Parasicyos sp. Soil conservationRhus striata Cultural Fuchsia sp. Ornamental Piper auritum Spice Diphysa sp. FuelDendropanax leptopodus Handicraft Baccharis trinervis Medicinal

PROJECT REPORTS 61

Fig. 3. Similarity among home gardens from the cold region (nucleuses 1–6) and the warm region (nucleuses7–11), Alta Verapaz province, Guatemala.

Relationship between home garden composition, environment and cultureHome gardens are extremely diverse as a result of differences in the geophysical environment as wellas in the objectives of the home garden growers. For this reason, a combined cluster analysis wasperformed using data from the warm and cold home gardens in the Alta Verapaz region todetermine whether the environment is a determining factor in home garden composition. Resultsdisplayed in Fig. 3 show that there is a striking separation between home gardens in the warm regionand home gardens in the cold region, and climate exerts a definite influence on home gardencomposition. Further studies conducted in cold region home gardens clarify the role that cultureplays in home garden composition (Table 3). It can be seen on one hand that nucleus 7 is made upby home gardens managed mainly by Qéchí people (9 out 11 home gardens). In the other hand,nucleus 8 is made up home gardens owned by Pocomchí growers (11 out 14 home gardens). Theremaining nucleuses are owned by either Qéchí growers or Pocomochí growers. Home gardens doclearly seem to be divided along cultural lines; therefore, one can say that both culture andenvironment play an important role in home garden composition.

Table 3. Relationship between home gardens from the cold region and culture. Information obtained fromphenogram shown in Fig. 6

Nucleus number Total home gardens Ethnic Group

Qéchí Pocomchí

7 11 9 2

8 14 3 11

9 1 0 1

10 4 0 4

11 1 1 0

The role of home gardens in plantdomestication: case of Fernaldiapandurata (Apocynaceae)Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata), a species ofApocynaceae native to Mesoamerica, isrecognized as an important food source inGuatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Thedemand for this species has been steadilyincreasing over the last few years motivated byhigh consumption at the national andinternational levels. Loroco displays highversatility in its uses, and both its buds andflowers are utilized for cooking in a variety ofways (Fig. 4). Cultivation of loroco is thus anattractive proposition for production in thisregion. Demand is satisfied in part withproducts obtained by gathering from the wild,but also by production in home gardens, and afew cultivated fields; however, there is stillmore scope for production. The species isundergoing a process of domestication in whichfarmers favor its growth as an acceptable weedin open habitats, but also introduce it into homegarden cultivation. The final step in


Fig. 4. Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata) buds.

domestication comes with cultivationthrough monocropping, which has alreadybegun in some areas.

Loroco is an important component ofhome gardens in the semiarid eastern part ofthe country, where it is specially handled toincrease its productivity (Fig.5). A total of 36of 46 home gardens (67.4%) surveyed in thisarea contained Loroco. F. pandurata is themost common species of loroco found;however, an additional closely relatedspecies (F. brachypharnynx) was found in fivehome gardens. Farmers in the region knowthat F. pandurata produces more flowers thanF. brachypharnynx, and favour the former forthat reason.

The number of individuals of lorocofound in the home gardens varies depending on the final use of the plant. When the flowers areused in home consumption, plants are few, and are usually grown as vines climbing on trees.Conversely, when production is for the market, many plants are cultivated with the application ofirrigation water, fertilizer, and increased labor because of pruning and the adding of stakes to aidthe climbing process. The seeds planted in home gardens are gathered from wild populations, fromother home gardens, or from cultivated areas. They are encouraged through the managementpractices mentioned, in contrast to wild population, which are often threatened. Additionally, thedistribution of the species has been increased due to the expansion of its cultivation in homegardens located outside its native region.

Genetic diversity in key species

Case of Pouteria sapotaZapote (P. sapota) is a tropical fruit tree species native to Mesoamerica where it is widely cultivated.Its delicious sweet fruits are consumed throughout the region and it may be regarded as anattractive alternative crop for agricultural diversification in the region since the demand for zapotehas been increasing in both national and international markets. The highest level of geneticdiversity of zapote occurs in Mesoamerica (IPGRI 1977) and it is therefore important to promote thesustainable management in this region of these genetic resources, including both conservation andutilization.

The wild populations of this species thrive in the humid subtropical forests of Guatemala whichcover parts of the southern and northern areas of the country. Cultivated zapote can be found inhome gardens located in the ecological regions mentioned above as well as in home gardens locatedin the hotter and drier southeastern region of the country. In recent years, commercial plantationsof zapote have been established in the southern part of Guatemala.

The first part of the research on home gardens focused on studying the structure andcomposition of home gardens. This basic information generated the basis for selecting some keyspecies upon which detailed genetic diversity studies would be done. Zapote is found in 60% of thehome gardens in the warm region of the northern part of the Alta Verapaz province. For this reason,zapote was chosen for in-depth study as the key species representative of the tree stratum inGuatemala home gardens.

Intraspecific studies in zapote were conducted by measuring and comparing the geneticdiversity present in the zapote trees growing in home gardens from two areas and a wild

PROJECT REPORTS 63

Fig. 5. Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata) growing in homegardens in the semiarid eastern region of Guatemala.

population. Zapote diversity from home gardens in the warm region of Alta Verapaz province(FTN) was compared to that from the home gardens of Sacapulas, Quiché province, and also withthe wild zapote population found in the natural reserve ‘Cerro San Gil’ in Izabal province. Isozymestudies conducted on the last two mentioned populations were compared.

When the quantitative traits reported in fruits of trees from home gardens were compared withthe ones from the wild population, it became evident that accessions from the home gardens of theFTN are more similar to those growing in the wild than to those growing in home gardens inSacapulas (Table 4). The accessions from Sacapulas differ from the other two populations in thattheir fruits are heavier, larger, and contain fewer of seeds, yet and have a higher percentage ofgerminated seed at fruit ripening. Home gardens in the FTN are relatively young since they wereestablished during the colonization of the area in the 1970s. However, many of the trees present inhome gardens are spared remnants of the original vegetation (including zapote trees). Becausehome gardens from FTN and the wild zapote populations of Cerro San Gil are in the sameecological region, it is not surprising that the zapote fruits from both sites are not clearlydifferentiated. In contrast, the home gardens in Sacapulas were originally established around 300years ago, thus, it allows one to assume that this zapote population has been subjected to a moreintensive process of human selection and domestication. Additionally, the original zapotegermplasm used to establish the Sacapulas home gardens was brought from another region,producing an initial reduction in the genetic pool of the Sacapulas zapote population. Homegardens from FTN are focused primarily on producing food for home consumption, while theSacapulas home gardens are devoted largely to commercial production. For this reason, thedomestication force is more intensive in the latter.

Table 4. Quantitative and qualitative traits of zapote fruits from different localities

Character Locality Wild population Home gardens FTN Home gardens SacapulasCerro San Gil

No. of accessions 50 47 57

Weight (g) 332 324 426

Length (cm) 9.98 10.32 11.57

Wide (cm) 7.58 7.56 8.06

Seed weight (g) 43.77 52.85 50.72

Seed germinated (%) 4.85 20.19 61.45

Seeds/fruit 1.33 1.31 1.25

Fruit shapes 10 13 14

Most frequent shapes 8=26% 1=15% 8=14%

9=15% 3=15% 16=12%

4=13% 6=13% 6=11%

Mesocarp colour

YR (Yellow-red) 90% 74% 95%

R (red) 10% 26% 5%

Intensity of YR 2.5=27% 2.5=40% 2.5=35%

1.25=22% 1.25=23% 1.25=24%

6.25=22% 5.0=23% 5.0=17%


The distribution of fruit weight in home gardens from the TNT was skewed, with tendency towardsthe existence of more fruit with weight close to the mean (Fig. 6). It is probable that farmers have beenselecting fruits of greater weight so weights in both extremes of a typical natural distribution cannot beseen. The distribution of fruit weight from the wild population at Cerro San Gil, however, follows anormal distribution quite closely (Fig. 7). These results could allow one to conclude that normaldistribution of the fruit weight is the result of mainly the action of natural selection or no selection at all,while at the home garden level strong human selection is taking place. Based on this information, forconservation purposes, it is suggested to select home gardens that contain trees with different types offruit that are distributed throughout the range of the studied region. Furthermore, the natural reservemay conserve the high genetic diversity present in the wild populations.

Home gardens in Sacapulas are not isolated; on the contrary, they are a continuous unit insufficient proximity to one another so that the zapote trees create what can be considered a truepopulation. Such conditions allow one to make a comparison with the wild population of Cerro SanGil. This distribution of home gardens contrasts with home gardens from FTN which are located inwidely separated localities. Thus, characterization information generated using biochemical markers(isozymes) reveals some of the differences between the cultivated population in the Sacapulas homegardens and the wild population of Cerro San Gil. Analysis of the population genetics parametersdisplayed in Table 5 indicate that these populations are quite different. Their outcrossing rates areclearly different, and as a result, key factors like genetic variability within families and betweenfamilies, heterozygosity and allelic frequencies also differ between the two populations. It wasalready mentioned that the original germplasm sample in Sacapulas home gardens was small andthat they have been under intensive human management for a long time. It may be assumed thatreduction of the genetic base (bottleneck) and strong human selection should be taken into accountas important factors responsible for the distinct genetic characteristics of the zapotes encountered inthe Sacapulas home gardens.

PROJECT REPORTS 65

Fig. 7. Distribution of fruit weight of wild zapotegrowing at Cerro San Gil, Izabal, Guatemala.

Fig. 6. Distribution of fruit weight of zapote in homegardens from FTN, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala.

Table 5. Mean outcrossing rate and Nei diversity components in zapote populations from two localities

Locality Wild population Home gardens Cerro San Gil, Izabal† Sacapulas, Quiché‡

Outcrossing rate 99% 70%

Hs (mean genetic diversity within populations) 0.46 0.41

Dst (total gene diversity between populations) 0.06 0.1

Gst (coefficient of gene differentiation) 0.11 0.28

Heterozygosity in progeny 0.76 0.48

Allelic frequency:

SKDH1-1 0.029 0.33

SKDH1-2 0.483 0.42

SKDH1-3 0.488 0.25

EST1-1 0.523 0.56

EST1-2 0.477 0.44

EST2-1 0.569 0.67

EST2-2 0.431 0.33

ADH1-1 0.367 0.46

ADH1-2 0.633 0.49

ADH1-3 0.000 0.0

Source:†Azurdia et al. (2000a); ‡Azurdia et al. (2000b).

In situ conservation of the wild zapote population at Cerro San Gil can alleviate in part thenecessity of conserving the genetic variability of this tropical tree fruit species ex situ. However, theconserved genetic variability range could be even wider since it was shown that the geneticvariability harboured in home gardens is different, especially the present in the Sacapulas homegardens. To decide what home gardens should be selected for conservation purposes in Sacapulas,variation in plant morphology and isoenzymes should both be taken into account.

We have demonstrated that the wild population at Cerro San Hill is quite distinct from thepopulations of zapote cultivated in home gardens. For this reason, it is important to conserve thesegenetic resources in both protected areas and in home gardens. The number of home gardens thatshould be selected to conserve the optimum level of genetic diversity is still unknown, and furtherresearch such as genetic diversity studies based on molecular markers is needed to determineoptimum conservation units.

Case of Sechium eduleHuisquil or chayote (Sechium edule (Jacq.) Swartz) is a cucurbit crop native to Mesoamerica, where itis widely distributed. The greatest genetic diversity of this species is found in southern Mexico andGuatemala, where both wild huisquil and its wild relative (Sechium compositum (J.D. Smith) C.Jeffrey) are also found (Newstrom 1991). Mesoamerican cultures have made varied uses of differentparts of the plant, including the fruits, portions of the young tender shoots, and the undergroundstorage roots.

Field cultivation of Sechium edule is not as common in Guatemala as it is in Mexico and Costa Rica.However, there are some regions where commercial plantations have been established. Most of thehuisquil found in the main markets of major cities comes from such fields. In the rural areas, it is acommon home garden plant and each family possesses its own varieties, which are normallyreproduced from seed.

As discussed previously, two contrasting regions (different culture and ecological conditions)were studied in Alta Verapaz province in the north of the country. The first region comprises the


northern part of the province, covered with humid sub-tropical hot forest and inhabited by theQ´eqchí culture. The second one is in the central mountains of the province, where the Q´echi andPocomchí cultures inhabit a humid sub-tropical cold forest. Huisquil is present in 52% of the homegardens surveyed in the first region and 100% of the home gardens studied in the second region. Forthis reason, huisquil was selected as key species to conduct genetic diversity research.

Apparently, there is more genetic diversity in the warm region than in the cold region. The firstregion contained Sechium edule varieties with more diverse fruit shapes (16 different shapes)compared to the cold region (only 11 shapes). Furthermore, the most common fruit shapes observedin the cold region are not the most common reported in the warm region. In the cold region, fruitsare heavier and greener, with a high spine density (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 6. Variation in fruit quantitative traits of 128 samples of huisquil from two regions in Alta VerapazRegion Trait Mean Standard Range

deviation Minimum Maximun

Cold Weight (g) 320 119 54 1042

Length (cm) 10.90 3.67 4.80 25.80

Width (cm) 7.82 1.73 4.10 14.90

Thickness (cm) 6.62 1.23 3.80 8.90

Warm Weight (g) 248 76.30 99 427

Length (cm) 11.79 2.54 5.50 18.56

Width (cm) 6.30 0.74 4.50 7.80

Thickness (cm) 5.25 0.73 3.93 7.50

Table 7. Variation in fruit qualitative traits of huisquil accessions from two regions in Alta VerapazTrait Warm region Cold region

Shape Type six=13% Type eight=53%

Type five=13% Type seven=53%

Type three=13 Type nine=10%

Number of types=16 Number of types=11

Lenticels Absent=52% Absent=60%

Very little=24% Very little=23%

Intermediate =% Intermediate=11%

Very intense=24% Very intense=6%

Spine density Type one=26% Type one=19%

Type three=18% Type three=17%

Type five=30% Type five=17%

Type seven=21% Type seven=25%

Type nine=5% Type nine=22%

Colour Whitish=8% Whitish=9%

Light green=58% Light green=2%

Green=21% Green=42%

Dark green=13% Dark green=47%

Composition and species richness in home gardens are defined by many factors. Home gardensin remote areas are more oriented towards subsistence production whereas ones in areas closer tomajor cities focus more on commercial production. For instance, Azurdia, Leiva and Lopez (2001)pointed out that in the warm region of Alta Verapaz, the production of the home garden is intendedprimarily for home consumption. Conversely, production of home gardens in the cold region isbasically sold in local and regional markets due to the existence of more developed roads and cities.Thus, in the latter region the fruits of huisquil tend to have characteristics required by the market.

PROJECT REPORTS 67

As a result, the genetic materials have more uniform fruits (shape type eight, green or dark green).On the other hand, the absence of a selective force by the market at the home consumption level inthe warm region has led to increased variety in fruit phenotypes.

Since it is quite difficult to determine the recommended population size to conserve huisquilgenetic resources in the home gardens of individuals, conservation efforts should be focused onstudying the genetic diversity present at the eco-regional level. The distribution of fruit weight inhome gardens from the warm region showed that it closely follows a Normal distribution (Fig. 8),whereas home gardens of the cold region showed a skewed distribution in fruit weight, with atendency towards fruits with weight less than the mean (Fig. 9), probably to standardize them for


Fig. 9. ‘Guisquil’ (Sechium edule) fruit weight in home gardens from the coldregion of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala.

Fig. 8. ‘Guisquil’ (Sechium edule) fruit weight in home gardens from the warmregion of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala.

market production. Differences between home garden populations in different environments couldbe the result of considerable differences in selection pressures due to distinct micro-climatic,edaphic, biotic and management conditions.

Results presented in Fig. 8 could allow one to conclude that Normal distribution of the fruitweight in the warm region of Alta Verapaz is mainly the result of natural selection or no selectionat all. On the other hand, in the cold region strong human selection is taking place. It has beenalready been mentioned that most of the home gardens from the cold region are of the commercialtype, which means that huisquil growing there need to have fruits with characteristics required bythe market. Based on this information, for conservation purposes it is suggested to select homegardens that contain plants with different types of fruits to represent the genetic variability foundin home garden systems in each eco-region. Brown and Marshal (1977) indicate that at least 50 sitesin each eco-region could be taken into account. At this point, it is clear that there are different levelsof huisquil diversity in Alta Verapaz: within home gardens, among home gardens, among localities,and also between eco-regions. Thus, each in situ conservation unit must be made of home gardensfrom the same eco-region. The number of home gardens that must be selected in each eco-region isunder discussion and it is clear that more research on quantity and distribution of genetic diversityis required.

Both population structure and the breeding system have key roles in determining the pattern ofthe genetic diversity present in a species and the evolutionary changes likely to happen in a givenselection regime. Indeed, the study of polymorphism for marker genes such as isozymes or DNAmarkers is often the best way of measuring these forces.

Information generated by the research on isozyme markers currently under way in ourinstitution could give a clear picture of the ‘guisquil’ (huisquil) genetic diversity found in homegardens in Alta Verapaza (Table 8). Low allelic richness has been found which suggests genetic driftfrom bottlenecks in population size that have happened recently. Addtitionally, high levels ofheterozygosity point to outbreeding. In general, it look like that both eco-regions harbour different‘guisquil’ genetic diversity. Thus, high population divergence indicates isolation. In the end, thisinformation will be crucial for designing in situ conservation methodologies at the home gardenlevel.

Table 8. Some components of the genetic structure of populations of Sechium edule from two eco-regions of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala

Eco-regionCold region Warm region

Isozyme Gene Allele Frequency Heterozygosity Frequency Heterozygosity

Esterase 1 100 0.44 – –

101 0.56 54% – –

2 100 0.50 – –

101 0.50 100% – –

SKDH 1 100 0.50 0.37

101 0.50 100% 0.63 51%

SOD 1 100 0.47 0.29

101 0.53 62% 0.71 46%

MDH 1 100 0.62 0.26

101 0.38 76% 0.74 51%

Peroxidase 1 100 0.33 0.26

101 0.67 65% 0.74 51%

PROJECT REPORTS 69

Socioeconomic study

Role of the home garden in family economyThis section of the Guatemala Home Gardens project was carried out from July 2000 to April 2001in two communities that belong to the North Maya Association, ‘Trece Aguas’ and ‘El Tamarindo’,both located in Chisec, Alta Verapaz. These results are not complete because the nature of thisresearch requires that data be gathered over at least one year. The study mainly aimed to determinethe degree of contribution of home gardens to the farmers’ livelihoods. The communities arelocated 500 m above sea level in warm subtropical humid rainforest, with an average temperatureof 27°C and mean precipitation of 2300 mm. The 69 families that live in the two communities(totaling 560 inhabitants) rely on subsistence agriculture based on the production of maize andbeans, but maintain home gardens as an alternative source of food. In addition, 95% of families areliving in extreme poverty, 40% are literate, technical assistance as well as medical assistance byNGOs and the government are scarce.

Based on the monthly movement of produce from home gardens, the categories of plants thatare most important for the family economy are:

a. Annual plants: usually crops considered useful for farmers, for example, edible plants,medicinal plants, and beneficial weeds.

b. Fruit trees: fruits of arboreal species planted specifically by farmers, including somecommercial species and some wild species introduced by farmers.

c. Other species: timber-yielding species, forages, medicinal plants, fiber-producing plants, andspices.

Ninety different plant species were recorded in the two communities during the 10 months of thestudy. These species were grouped into 10 categories of plants that are marketed at the local andregional levels. Of the 90 species, 21 (mainly vegetables, herbs, fruit trees, grains, and spices) aredestined for sale and part for family consumption (Table 9). However, the plants that are consumedmainly during times of food or work shortages, when families do not have basic foodstuffs such asmaize and beans, were not quantified. More precise information, however, is being collected in theregion.

Table 9. Summary of values of different categories of plants found in home gardens in two communitiesof the North Mayan Association (Chisec, Alta Verapaz)

Category of plant Total Average value per farmer (Q)† %Vegetables and herbs 21 0.5–1.00 23Fruit species 25 0.25–1.00 28Grains 6 2.00–5.00 7Spices 5 2.00–10.00 6Ornamentals 10 –Semi-permanent 1 0.5–1.00 1Timber-yielding 13 5.00–10.00 14Medicinal 7 0.25–1.00 8Forage 1 2.00–5.00 1Textile 1 2.00 1Total value 90 100Value of plants sold 9363.00Value of plants for farm consumption 3873.00

†Exchange rate (at time of writing) Q. 7.70 =US$1.00

The average production of the 10 home gardens of the two communities are presented in Tables10 and 11. The main crops marketed are chayote or custard marrow (Sechium edule), pineapple(Ananas comosus), cloves (Sisigyum sp.), coffee (Coffea arabica), cacao (Teobroma cacao), achiote (Bixa


orellana), and cardamom (Elletaria cadamomum). Farmers destine more than 60% of the produce ofthese crops for sale. Farmers consume all the harvest of crops such as arrowroot (Calatea spp.),cassava (Manihot esculenta), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) (Table10). More than 60% of the harvest of all fruit species are sold, while only 10% are consumed by thefamily (Table 11). Because of the added value of products for sale, their prices are slightly higher thanthose of products for farm consumption.

The basis to estimate the contribution of the home garden to farmer economy was that a ruralfamily in this region needs the minimum amount of money for survival of US$ 78 per month to coverhousehold expenditures (sugar, clothes, school supplies, etc.). This money must come from sellinglabor or from agricultural production. The main crops produced, maize and beans, are cultivated onnearby land. Maize yields are 100 lb/’cuerda’ (1 cuerda =0.06 ha) and bean yields, 50 lb/’cuerda’.These figures are very low compared with the national averages (400 lb/’cuerda’ for maize and 300lb for beans). Farmers have no access to credit with financial institutions and technical assistanceprovided by the government and by the private sector is extremely limited. This situation, togetherwith the extremely low level of investment in agricultural production (labour, chemicals, tools, etc.),accounts for low crop yields obtained by farmers. Farmers report an increasing demand foragricultural products but the lack of fertile farmland is, by far, the greatest limitation to increasedagricultural productivity.

Table 10. Average production and value of each crop found in home gardens in two communities ofChisec, Alta Verapaz

Scientific Average production Local unit Average sales Average value % Consumption % Salesname per year of measurement value (Q)* farm consumptionSechium edule 2700 unit 0.50 0.20 20 80

Calatea spp. 300 bundle 1.00 0.25 95 5

Ananas comosus 250 unit 1.50 0.50 10 90

Manihot esculenta 90 unit 6.00 1.00 100

Sisigyum 15 lb 10.00 100

Saccharum officinarum 900 unit 1.00 0.50 100

Coffea arabica 150 lb 5.00 5.00 20 80

Teobroma cacao 100 lb 7.00 7.00 40 60

Bixa orellana 350 lb 8.00 8.00 40 60

Elletaria cardamomum 300 lb 5.00 5.00 100

Cajanus cajan 300 lb 1.00 1.00 100

Table 11. Average value of fruit trees found in home gardens of two communities of Chisec, Alta VerapazScientific Average production Local unit Average sales Average value % Consumption % Salesname per year of measurement value (Q)† farm consumptionMusa paradisiaca 200 cluster 7.50 5.00 40 60Citrus sinensis 135 hundred 15.00 15.00 20 80Citrus nobilis 36 hundred 25.00 25.00 20 80Byrsonima crassiflora 48 arroba 10.00 10.00 10 90Citrus aurantifolia 6 hundred 10.00 10.00 20 80Cocus nucifera 350 unit 1.00 1.00 20 80

†Exchange rate (at time of writing) Q. 7.70 =US$1.00

Income obtained from the sale of products from the 10 home gardens orchards totaled US$1215.90,and income from farm consumption was US$502.90. The average annual income (AAI) per homegarden is US$105.50 from the sale of crops and US$66.40 from the sale of fruits. Of the crops harvested,66% is distributed for sale and 34% for farm consumption; in the case of fruit trees, 78% are for sale and22% for farm consumption (Table 12). Using the previously indicated minimum amount of money forsurviving as reference, we are talking about US$935.00 per year. The average annual income (AAI)

PROJECT REPORTS 71

from the sale and farm consumption of home garden products is US$172.50. Therefore a home gardenaccounts for 18% of the family economy in terms of generation of agricultural products. This amountis an extra income for farmers that is used to satisfy other family needs. The home garden accordinglyconstitutes a ‘savings bank’ which the farmer can access year-round.

Table 12. Income per sale of home garden products in two communities of Chisec, Alta VerapazCategory Income/sale Income/farm Average income Sales Farm consumption

(US$) consumption (US$) (US$) (%) (%)

Crops 696.6 358.2 105.5 66 34

Fruit trees 519.5 144.8 66.4 78 22

Total 1215.9 503.0 172.5 71 29

Future work

Additional recommended research• Similar studies in other regions of the country.• Similar studies at Mesoamerica level. This activity will be pursued by the Mesoamerican Plant

Genetic Resources Network (REMERFI).• Genetic diversity studies (molecular markers) on ‘key species’.• Continue in-depth socioeconomic studies (commercialization, added value of native

products, etc.).• Plant genetic resource appraisement in home gardens.• Relationship between home gardens and traditional agricultural systems of the farmers.

Short-term tasks• National Workshop with local development organizations (NGOs, government and farmers) to

disseminate the results of the research project and to encourage efforts for in situ conservation ofplant genetic resources in both home gardens and on-farm.

• To follow up the national workshop with projects involving NGOs, government and farmers.• To implement a pilot agro-ecoturism project in two communities of the Mayan Association of the

North, Chisec, Alta Verapaz.

References

Alarcón N., R.H. 1992. Caracterización de la comunidad de Yaje (Leucaena diversifolia Schlecht Bent. en la zonasemiárida de El Progreso y Zacapa. Thesis Ing. Agr. Guatemala, Facultad de Agronomía, USAC.

Azurdia, C., H. Ayala, L. Montes. 2000a. Tasa de cruzamiento y estructura genética de la población silvestre dezapote (Pouteria sapota) del Cerro San Gil, Izabal. Documento de trabajo. IPGRI-FAUSAC.

Azurdia, C., H. Ayala, L. Guarino. 2000b. Tasa de cruzamiento y estructura genética de la población silvestre dezapote (Pouteria sapota) de Sacapulas, Quiché. Ciencia y Tecnología (USAC, Guatemala) (1) 1:27-36.

Azurdia, C., M. Leiva, E. López. 2001. Contribution of Home Gardens to in situ conservation of plant geneticresources.II. Alta Verapaz case, Guatemala. Working document. FAUSAC, IPGRI.

Brown, A.H.D., D.R. Marshal. 1995. A basic sampling strategy: theory and practice. Pp 75–91 in Collecting plantgenetic diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha and R. Reid, eds). CAB International,Wallingford, UK.

De la Cruz, R. 1982. Clasificación de las zonas de vida de Guatemala a nivel de reconocimiento. Guatemala,INAFOR.

IPGRI. 1977. Diversidad, conservación y uso sostenible de los recursos genéticos de frutales tropicales nativos deAmérica Tropical. Informe final. Cooperación Técnica IPGRI-BID No. ATN/SF-4356 RG. Cali, Colombia.

Tenas, M., E.G. 1994. Caracterización de las comunidades de almendro de cerro (Bucida macrostachya Standl.) en lazona semiárida de Zacapa y el Progreso. Tesis Ing. Agr. Guatemala, Facultad de Agronomía, USAC.


Home gardens and in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity—Venezuelan component

C. Quiroz1, M. Gutiérrez2, D. Rodríguez1, D. Pérez, J. Ynfante1, J. Gámez1, T. Pérez de Fernandez1, A. Marques2 and W. Pacheco2

1 Foundation for Tropical Alternative Agriculture (FUNDATADI),Núcleo ‘Rafael Rangel’, Trujillo, Estado Trujillo, Venezuela

2 National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA). Maracay, Estado Aragua, Venezuela

Selection of home gardensMore than 150 home gardens were visited, of these 30 were selected in the Andean region and 10 inthe Central region. At the end of the study 36 gardens were still part of the project as fourdiscontinued participation in the study.

The selection of these HGs was based in the following criteria:• presence of high number of species.• gardens established for over five years • products from the HGs oriented mainly for subsistence purposes.• willingness of owner to collaborate with the project.

Ecozones studied

Andean regionThree altitudinal zones were studied:

• Low zone: 0–400 m asl• Intermediate zone: 400–1500 m asl• High zone: more than 1500 m asl

Central region:600–1200 m asl

Key species selection:The major criteria used for the key species selection were:

• presence in the majority of HGs• representing one of the stratums• presence of high infraspecific variability • important from a nutritional point of view• traditional local species.

The selected species were:(a) Low stratus Caraota (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Ají (Capsicum sp.)

(b) Intermediate stratusLechosa (Carica papaya)

(c) High stratusAguacate (Persea americana).

PROJECT REPORTS 73

Comparison between home gardens and larger agroecosystemsWhen the HGs and the larger agroecosystems were compared, it was found that:

• HGs are smaller in size (0.2–1 ha) compared with 1.5–40 ha in the surrounding area.• HGs have higher diversity, both interspecific: 9–185 species found compared with only 1–2

species in the surrounding area and intraspecific, for example in the genus Phaseolus it wasfound 4 varieties compared with 1 in the surrounding area.

• HGs have a vertical structure represented mainly by trees, shrubs, annual and perennial crops,herbs, ornamental, spices and medicinal plants.

• Species found in HGs are generally of a multi-use nature compared with monouse (e.g.commercial) found in the species of the surrounding area.

• HGs are located near the household.• HGs have lower technology input.• HGs products are used mainly for subsistence purposes.

General diversity found in home gardensDuring the study of 36 home gardens a total of 101 plant families; 362 plant genera, and 591 specieswere identified.

Diversity found by zoneTable 1 shows the number of species found in each zone for the Andean and Central regions withtheir respective range of species.

Table 1. Plant diversity in each zoneRegion Zone Species Species

Andean High altitude 215 22–83

Andean Intermediate 318 65–123

Andean Low 165 23–82

Central – 190 16–104

Andean region• In the high altitude zone, 215 species were found, the median range being 22–83 species. • In the intermediate zone, 318 species were found, the range being: 65–123 species. • In the low altitude zone, 165 species were found, the range being 23–82 species.

Central region• In this region 190 species were found, the median range being 16–104 species.

Classification dendrogram of HGs according to the number of species foundA hierarchical ascending analysis was carried out to investigate whether there is any relationshipamong the HGs studied regarding the number of species found in each of them and the commonspecies among them. Four groups of HGs were formed (Fig. 1). As can be seen, the groups of HGsthat were formed coincide in general with the ecozones where they are located (Table 2). Table 2 alsoshows the number of home gardens included/class and for each zone, the average of species/classand the common species to all of the home gardens/group.


Table 2. Home gardens species diversity study

CLASS HG No. Zone Average of species/class Common species

I 9 Intermediate Andean (–3) 30 Capsicum, Carica,

Citrus & Bouchea prismatica

II 9 Low, some High Andean 16 Capsicum, Carica,

Citrus & Bixa

III 9 High Andean (–3) 16 Coffea arabica

IV 9 Central 31.95 Musa, Phaseolus,

Coffea & Annona

GeneflowIt can be said that at the community level there are two major mechanisms for the flow of genes:‘trueque’ (exchange of materials). This mechanism is used for example with Phaseolus. Anotherimportant method of flow is local sales; this mechanism is used for example with Phaseolus andPersea. It was found that there is a larger geneflow in the following cases:

• when the species has mainly a subsistence purpose (e.g. Phaseolus, Persea, Xanthosomasagittifolium, Manihot asculenta, Musa spp.).

• when the species has commercial importance (e.g. Phaseolus, Persea, Musa spp.).• when the species are introduced as new ones for experimentation (e.g. Phaseolus, Dioscorea

bulbifera, Casimiroa edulis, Pouteria sapota).

Morphological characterization of key speciesThe morphologic characterization in all the key species was done using a group of selected IPGRIdescriptors. The number of samples described, the descriptors used and variables included in thehierarchical analysis are listed in Table 3. For Carica, Capsicum and Persea the characterization wasmade in situ. For the genus Phaseolus some seed samples were collected from the HGs and they were

PROJECT REPORTS 75

Fig. 1. Classification dendrogram of 36 home gardens according to the number of species found.1

1 Figs 1–6: original colour versions and accompanying data available from authors.

characterized ex situ at the National Center for Agricultural Research (CENIAP) located in Maracay,Aragua state. In order to study the diversity in genus Phaseolus and Persea comparisons were madebetween the information obtained from this study and the available information existing from ex situcollections. In the Carica case, since there was not data available to make comparisons, the diversitymaintained in our studied HGs was compared with published information coming from researchmade in HGs at the Amazona state, Venezuela (Table 4).

Table 3. Number of samples described, descriptors used and variables included in the hierarchical analysisKey species Number of samples Number of Variables in hierarchical analysis

described descriptors used

Capsicum 44 47 18

Carica 31 63 19

Persea 31 65 15

Phaseolus 21 40 28

Table 4. Key species descriptions and comparisonsKey species In situ Ex situ Comparisons

Capsicum x — AMAZONIA in situ

Carica x — —

Persea x X GB CENIAP

Phaseolus — X GB CENIAP, other collected materials & seed traits

Morphological characters cluster analysisThe diversity analysis was made using multivariate statistical methods such as the main componentsanalysis, ascending hierarchical classification and categories distribution according to percentage for


Fig. 2. Persea americana (in situ description) ascendent hierarchical classification.

the mono variable analysis cases. A hierarchical ascending analysis was done for each key species inorder to know the genetic diversity maintained in the HGs and in this way to be able to compare itwith the variability found in ex situ conditions. This analysis allowed us to form groups of materialswith particular characteristics for each key species.

Persea americana genetic diversity maintained in situPersea americana is widely distributed and very popular as a food in Venezuela where farmers namethe varieties by the shape and characteristics of the fruits. Such as Table 3 shows, 31 avocado treeswere characterized (25 from the Andean zone and 16 from the Central one), 65 morphologicaldescriptors included in the IPGRI descriptor list (IPGRI 1995) and the Venezuelan collection (Avilánand Rodríguez 1997) were used. The results of the ascending hierarchical classification analysisgrouped the individuals into four classes such it is shown in the dendrogram of Fig. 2. Table 5 showsa brief description of the relevant characters that determine each group, and the number ofindividuals per class.

Table 5. Persea americana classes maintained in situ Class Number of individuals Characters

I 15 Lanceolate or Oblongo – lanceolate leaves with angular leaf base

II 14 Tall tree. Variable leaf shape.

From perpendicular to obtuse leaf position

III 8 Elliptic leaf with obtuse leaf base

IV 4 Elliptic-lanceolate leaf with angular base

It is important to mention that although the Persea americana sample for in situ characterizationwas relatively small, there was variability in the majority of the studied characters, especially forfruit characteristics. Since those characterized materials from the home gardens are not representedin the ex situ Venezuelan collection, it could be said that the contribution to the ex situ collectioncould be relevant.

Capsicum spp genetic diversity in situ maintainedThis species was the most frequently found in the Andean and Central regions. It has a great usageon the traditional Venezuelan cuisine because of its qualities for spicing and seasoning. There werefound diverse types that differ in colour, fruit size and shape, growth habit and plant height. In thestudy, there were 44 individuals characterized using 65 descriptors (IPGRI et al. 1995), but only 18variables entered in the analysis (Table 3). The results of the analysis show that seven groups ofCapsicum were found (Fig. 3). In Table 6 it can be seen a summary description of the main charactersthat distinguish each group, and the number of individuals per group.

Table 6. Capsicum spp. classes maintained in situ Class Number of individuals Characters

I 3 Short plants. Sparse pubescent leaf. Wide leaf

II 5 Wild, green and short plants

III 3 Intermediate plant growth habit. Sparse tillerin

IV 7 Intermediate plant growth habit. Narrow leaf

V 3 Tall plants. Wide canopy. Erect plant growth habit

Cylindrical stem

VI 7 Cylindrical and without anthocyanin stem

VII 7 Dense tillering. Without anthocyanin stem

PROJECT REPORTS 77

In Venezuela, the Capsicum germplasm bank is still being developed; subsequently, there is noinformation available. However, the variability found in this study was compared with other insitu characterizations from indigenous communities found at the Amazonas state, Venezuela(Villalba 1999).

Carica papaya genetic diversity maintained in situ Carica papaya is a fruit widely distributed and great economic importance in our country due to itshigh yields, nutritional value, and permanent production along the year round. It was found thatfarmers identify varierities mainly by fruit characteristics. The hierarchical analysis was performedon 31 samples using 19 descriptors (IBPGR 1988), as it is shown is Table 3. As a result, five gruposor classes of Carica were found (Fig. 4). Table 7 shows the relevant characters that distinguish eachclass, and the number of samples per class. Even though the sample size was relatively small,variability was evident for almost all the characters included in the multivariate and univariateanalysis. Unfortunately, there was no data from other Carica characterizations with which to makecomparisons.

Table 7. Carica papaya classes maintained in situClass Number of individuals Characters

I 19 Monocaulous. Short tree. Narrow and waxed leaf

Flowers grouped into inflorescences

II 2 Monocaulous. Wide stem. Unwaxed and nine-lobed leaf

III 2 Monocaulous. Straight denticulated leaf. Isolated flowers

IV 2 Multicaulous. Isolated flowers. Short internodes

V 15 Monocaulous. Thin trunk. Flowers grouped into inflorescences


Fig. 3. Capsicum spp. in situ description morphological characters cluster analysis.

Phaseolus vulgaris genetic diversity maintained in situ This species is very important for farmers’ food security in Venezuela. The criteria used by farmers todifferentiate among varieties are: growth habit, pod colour, seed characteristics and life cycle. Twenty-one samples maintained in situ were collected and characterized ex situ at the CENIAP experimentalstation in Maracay, Aragua State. As Table 3 shows, the variability of these materials was compared with151 entries from the CENIAP germplasm bank, and 18 materials collected in different sites at the Centralzone. 40 characters that included morphological attributes, yield, and pest and disease resistant weretaken into account. There were performed a principal component analysis and a hierarchical ascendingclassification for 18 of the morphological characters. Results from the analyses for the CENIAPgermplasm bank showed that 14 classes were formed using the 10 more important characters (Fig. 5). InTable 8, it can be seen the number of individuals per class and the characters that best describe each class.

PROJECT REPORTS 79

Fig. 4. Carica papaya in situ description morphological characters cluster analysis.

Fig. 5. Dendrogram of Phaseolus vulgaris morphological variables from 151 materials ex situ maintained atCENIAP genebank.

Table 8. Phaseolus vulgaris classification of 151 entries in the CENIAP Germplasm BankClass Number of individuals Characters

I 1 High leaf area index

II 2 High weight of 100 seeds

III 92 Small leaf (low leaf area index)

IV 32 High leaf area index

V 1 Short and narrow pods.

VI 4 Small seed number / pods

VII 1 Narrow pods

VIII 4 Early. Wide pods

IX 2 High weight of 100 seeds. Wide pods

X 3 Wide pods

XI 1 High pod length to width relationship. Early maturity

XII 1 High seed number/pod. High pod length to width relationship

XIII 2 Low seed number/pod. Low pod length to width relationship

XIV 2 Long pods

All of the characters used in the analyses were important which indicates that exists variabilityfor those characteristics in the ex situ maintained materials.

For the particular case of the 21 collected materials in the HG studied, an analysis including the18 evaluated characters was made. As a result, 9 classes were produced which are presented in Fig.6. Table 9, shows the number of samples per class and the main characters for each class.

Table 9. Phaseolus vulgaris materials classification maintained in situ Class Number of individuals Characters

I 1 Long leaf. High pod length to width relationship

II 1 High weight of 100 seeds

III 1 High pest incidence. High pest susceptibility. No Rust presence

IV 1 Green colour

V 1 Long pods. High seed number / pod

VI 2 High yield

VII 1 High virus susceptibility

VIII 8 Long life cycle. Big leaf area

IX 10 High pod number/plant

Relationship between diversity and some socioeconomic factorsIn the HGs studies, it was found that there is a relationship between diversity found and certainsocioeconomic factors, such as:

• There is greater diversity in HGs owned by older farmers.• There is greater diversity in households where there is a larger number of family members. • There is greater diversity in gardens where the household’s only income source is the

home garden. • There is greater diversity in households where there is a larger number of family members.• There is greater diversity in the longest established HGs.• There is greater diversity in larger HGs. • There is greater diversity in HGs where access is difficult, either due to the poor condition of

the road or when transportation is lacking.


In the HGs studies, it was found that there seems to be no relationship between the diversityfound and the following socioeconomic factors: schooling, household type, land tenure situation,HG’s production destiny and use.

Conclusions• Diversity among HGs varies by region and altitude.• The highest diversity was found at the intermediate zone (600–1326 m asl).• Greater diversity was found in: older, larger subsistence-use HGs with difficult access, larger

number of family members available as labour to help in the HG, with older owner and inthose households whose income comes only from HGs.

• Larger geneflow was found in the following species:° Phaseolus: where the main geneflow mechanism used was the trueque (exchange) and also

because its use was mainly for subsistence and/or local sales. It has also commercialimportance. Another reason found for its large geneflow was the experimentation, i.e. whennew varieties are introduced in the area, people use to distribute them among friends andrelatives.

° Persea: it has importance for subsistence and also as a commercial product (local sales).° Musa: it has importance for subsistence and also as a commercial product (local sales).° Xanthosoma: it has importance mainly as a subsistence crop.

• The variability found in the key species was as follows:° Capsicum: varibility was found for fruit colour and form. Variability was also found for stem

pubescence.° Carica: variability was found in all the characters. ° Persea: variability was found for fruit colour and size.° Phaseolus: variability was found for virus and other diseases susceptibility. Variability was

also found for seed colour.

PROJECT REPORTS 81

Fig. 6. Dendrogram of Phaseolus vulgaris materials maintained in situ.

Proposed strategies• In order to be able to incorporate the HGs as a complementary strategy for in situ conservation

programs some recommendations are made: • Recommend to the national PGR conservation programs the inclusion of in situ

complementary strategies for: Phaseolus, Persea and Carica.• Inform the biological diversity national office (MARNR) about these results.• Creation of promotional programs to increase the use and conservation of local varieties.• Creation of Extension Service (since in our country there is not such service) and include in

their agenda the in situ conservation in HGs. • Implement inter and intra institutional coordination. Inclusion of curricula and extra curricula

components related to PGR conservation (ex situ–in situ) into the agricultural related careersprograms.

• Inform and motivate organized groups, at the community level and to promote with themdifferent activies related to PGR conservation: e.g. seed fairs and contests.

ReferencesAvilan, L. and M. Rodríguez. 1997. Description and evaluation of Persea collection (Descripción y evaluación de

la colección de aguacates) (Persea spp.) CENIAP. Maracay. National Fund for Agricultural Research (FondoNacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias) – IICA/CREA. PROCIANDINO/FRUTHEX.

Avilan Rovira, Justo and Herbert M. Eder. 1986. Venezuelan Agricultural Systems and Regions (Sistemas yRegiones Agrícolas de Venezuela). Fundación Polar. Ministerio de Agricultura y Cría. Caracas, Venezuela.

IBPGR.1988. Descriptors for Papaya. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy.IPGRI. 1995. Descriptors for Avocado. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Rome, Italy.IPGRI, AVRDC and CATIE. 1995 Capsicum Descriptors (Descriptores para Capsicum) (Capsicum spp.)

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Rome, Italy; Asian Center for Vegetables Research andDevelopment, Taipei, Taiwán and Tropical Agricultural Center for Training and Research (CentroAgronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza), Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Villalba, J.C. 1999. Aji Cultivars (Capsicum spp.) in indigenous Home Gardens (‘conucos’) near the PuertoAyacucho region, Amazonas state, Venezuela. Memorias del Instituto de Biología Experimental. 2:57-60.


Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant geneticresources farming systems in Ghana

S.O. Bennett-Lartey, G.S. Ayernor, Carol M. Markwei, I.K. Asante, D.K. Abbiw, S.K. Boateng,V. M. Anchirinah and P. Ekpe

Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Bunso, Ghana

BackgroundHome gardens have been recognized as important sources of biodiversity, income and food,especially for low-income households (Gessler et al. 1996). Most projects on home gardens havesought to increase and diversify production mainly to improve the nutritional status of low-incomehouseholds (FAO 1988). In May, 1995 a workshop organized jointly by the German Foundation forInternational Development (DSE), Council for Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Research(ASTAF), and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) on in situ conservation ofplant genetic resources for food and agriculture in developing countries concluded that homegardens could play a role in in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity.

In October 1998 IPGRI organized a workshop on ‘Contribution of home gardens to in situconservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems’. This global workshop brought togetherresearchers from five countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and addressed specific questions,such as the definition of home garden to be adopted, the methodology to be used and thepreparation of work plans and protocols for implementing the project. The home garden definitiondeveloped at the workshop was: ‘A multi-story, multi-species, multi-use small scale land-usesystem in particular ecosystems that are for the immediate needs of household members primarilyas regards their food, health, fuel and spiritual requirements.’

IntroductionHome gardens occur in all the agroecological zones of Ghana and are a long-established tradition.The Basel missionaries are credited with being the leaders in the establishment of the tradition ofhome gardens. These gardens around homesteads contain fruit trees, vegetables and other crops.Asare et al. (1990) in their studies on home gardens in the humid tropical forests of Ghana separatedthe home gardens they surveyed into three categories.

• extensive multi-storied home garden with livestock• intensive multi-storied home garden• extensive home garden practicing mixed cropping.

The criteria for classification were not however clearly defined.Owusu et al. (1994) classified home gardens based on their structural characteristics such as:• presence or absence of trees or woody perennial crops• number of vertical canopy strata• intensity of management of the garden i.e. application of fertilizer, organic manure or

irrigation of crops in the garden.

They defined four categories of home gardens, namely:• The extensively managed multi-storied home gardens with tree crops. • Plants in this type of garden were randomly spaced.• Intensively managed multi-storied home gardens with tree crops. This type of garden differs

from the first type in that crops receive greater attention and are generally readily marketablee.g. avocado pear and pineapple.

PROJECT REPORTS 83

• Extensively managed multi-storied home gardens, without trees, which are essentiallysimilar in characteristic to mixed crop farms.

• Intensively managed single-story home gardens that generally consist of pure stands ofmarketable non-native vegetables.

They found that home gardens in Ghana are generally small in size (0.16–0.59 hectares) and arepresent in urban, peri-urban and rural communities (Owusu et al. 1994). They are generally multi-storied and multi-purpose. Forty-seven tree species and thirty-four crop species were identified inthe home gardens studied by these authors. The tree species identified generally reflected those thatoccurred in the particular ecosystem, e.g. baobab (Adansonia digitata) was found in home gardens ofthe Northern savannah but not in the forest zone, whilst oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) commonlyfound in home gardens in the forest zone was absent in the gardens of the Northern savannah.Although there are a number of publications on crop, medicinal and woody plants in Ghana (Irvine1930, 1961; Dokosi 1969; Abbiw 1990), the only publication readily available on home gardens inGhana is that by Owusu et al. (1994). It is likely that most of the work done may either beunpublished or in grey literature.

In the work done by both Asare et al. (1990) and Owusu et al. (1994) the question of the usefulnessof home gardens as components of in situ conservation systems for indigenous crops as well asinfra-specific variations in the crops grown in home gardens were not addressed. The current studyis seeking to address both these questions.

ObjectivesThe objectives of this study are to:

• Document species and intra-species diversity in home gardens (HG) and the biological,cultural, and socio-economic factors that govern its distribution and maintenance.

• Develop methods for including HG systems in a national program of in situ conservation.• Develop ‘conservation through use’ strategies in the national plant genetic resources (PGR)

programme.

MethodologyInformal (rapid rural appraisal) and formal studies of plants in home gardens were carried out. Therapid rural appraisal was aimed at mapping out important areas of home garden cultivation withinthe country and also to identify various forms of cultivation and hence capture as much variationas possible. It involved informal discussion with farmers, extension officers and other keyinformants within the areas visited. Random stops were made in villages/towns to assess homegarden production practices using a checklist.

Based on the result of the rapid rural appraisal, 4 regions/agroecological zones were selected:Upper East (Sudan savannah), Northern (Guinea savannah), Eastern (moist semi-deciduous),Western (evergreen forest) and Central (moist semi-deciduous) (Table 1; Fig. 1). Project sites andhome gardens were randomly selected from lists of districts and villages/towns within them. Forthe formal survey, a complete list of villages stratified into urban, peri-urban and rural areas wascompiled. A total of five settlements/villages/towns per district were then randomly selected andsurveyed. A complete list of home garden farmers was compiled from the villages and 10 farmersper village were then randomly selected. Pre-tested questionnaires were then administered to thosesampled for the study of the socio-economics of the HGs. From species inventories developed forthe various agroecological zones, three crops were selected for a detailed study. The criteria usedfor the selection of the crops were: importance to home economy, prevalence in home gardens andimportance in national food and nutrition. The crops selected were plantain (Musa sp.), yam(Dioscorea spp.) and millet (Pennisetum glaucum). The detailed studies were carried out in five homegardens per town.


PROJECT REPORTS 85

Fig. 1. Home gardens survey—study districts and the vegetation zones in Ghana.

A minimum descriptor list was developed from IPGRI published descriptors for Musa sp.,Dioscorea spp. and Pennisetum glaucum and used to characterize the selected crop species and thecultivars found within the species in situ in the home gardens.

Table 1. Agroecological zones, political regions and districts selected for the study of home gardensAgroecological zone Region District

Moist semi-deciduous forest Eastern East Akim, New Juaben

Moist evergreen/Southern Western/Central Ahanta West, Cape Coast,

Marginal forest Sekondi-Takoradi, Agona

Guinea Savannah Northern West Dagomba, Tolon Kumbungu

Sudan Savannah Upper East Bolgatanga, Bongo

AnalysisScored characters were analysed using SPSS to determine genetic diversity within the selectedspecies.

Results and discussion

General description of study sitesClimateThe areas of study fall into two humidity zones. Mean relative humidity for the rainforest, moistsemi-deciduous forest and Guinea savannah are greater than 60% whilst that for the Sudansavannah is about 40%. The rainfall level and distribution throughout the year separates the studyareas into three groups. The high rainfall areas are the two forest zones, with mean annual rainfallof 1700 mm and 1200 mm for the rainforest and moist semi-deciduous forest, respectively. Theseareas also have a bimodal pattern of rainfall, March–July and September–October. In the Guineasavannah mean annual rainfall is 1100 mm whilst that of the Sudan savannah is 1000 mm (Table 2).The savannah areas have a single rainy season from July to October. The mean maximumtemperatures also vary, increasing as one moves from the forest zones into the northern savannahzones. In the rainforest zones maximum temperatures fall between 29°C and 30°C. Thecorresponding figures for the Guinea and Sudan savannas are 33.6°C and 34.5°C, respectively. Themean minimum temperatures are 23.4°C and 21.1°C for the forest areas and 22.3°C for thesavannas.

Soil types of survey areasThe soil in the rainforest is largely ferric cresol and acidic in nature. In the moist semi-deciduousforest the major soil type is also ferric cresol (Table 2). In both these forest zones the soils are mainlysandy clay in texture. In the savannah, soils in the West Dagomba district are similar to those of theforest in class and texture, however the other districts in the savannas have different soil types. Inthe Tolon-Kumbungu district of the Guinea savannah, the soil is classified as Dystric Plinthosol andis a gravelly sandy clay soil. The Bolgatanga district of the Sudan savannah has a Gleyic Lixisol,which is silty clay in texture.

Average household size of home garden families The results of the average household size of farm families in the study area are summarized in Table3. Modal household size is between 6 and 10 in all the areas studied. However, the Northern andUpper East Regions also had substantial percentage of households with sizes ranging from 11 to 20members.


Table 2. General descriptive data of sampled Ghanaian home garden sitesGeographical Eastern Western Northern Upper Eastlocation (region)

District East Akim New Juaben Ahanta West West Dagomba Tolon-Kumbungu Bolgatanga

Altitude† 600–750 550–600 100–150 500 450–550 700

Avg. yearlytemperature (°C)‡ 25 25 25 28 28 30

Mean annualrainfall (mm)‡ 1050 1050 1400 1139 1139 1050

Major soil Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay Gravelly Silty claytypes§ /silty clay sandy clay

Latitude 6.00–6.30 6.00-–6.15 4.25–4.75 9.15–9.31 9.16–10.15 10.30–11.00

Longitude 0.20–0.55 0.15–0.25 1.50–2.15 0.45–1.00 1.00–1.15 0.30–1.00

Major Plantain, Plantain, Oil palm, Maize, Maize, Millet, sorghumagricultural maize, maize, cocoa yam, millet yam, milletproducts oilpalm, citrus oilpalm, citrus platain¶

Demographic data

District population1 189 007 139 370 90 567 300 931 135 084 225 864

Ethnic groups Akyem Akyem, Ahanta Dagomba†† Dagomba, Mamprusi††

Asante Gonja, Grus††

Religion Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Traditional Traditional Traditional Moslem Moslem Moslem

†Data from topographical map obtained from the Survey Department‡Data from Meteorological Services Department, Ghana§From Soil Map of Ghana, FAO 1990¶Data from PPME1Data from 2000 population and Housing Census (Provisional Results), Ghana Statistical Service, August, 2000.††Dickson and Benneh (1988).

Table 3. Sizes of families surveyed in the study areasHousehold size Percentage of farmers

No. individuals Northern Upper East Eastern

1–5 4.3 21.3 34.3

6–10 33.2 37.9 47.0

11–15 23.0 31.0 12.4

16–20 17.4 6.9 4.2

Characteristics of home gardensIn Table 4 it can generally be seen that home garden fields are small, with most of them (>70%)falling in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 hectares. Though home gardens are increasingly becoming importantas a means of supplementing household food requirements, urbanization and increasing pressure on limited land around the compound have all contributed to the small sizes noted. Over 90% of allhome garden fields were planted around the compound. This is because of the convenience thehome gardeners expect from their gardens (close proximity of food source).

PROJECT REPORTS 87

Quite a substantial proportion of home garden fields (47.8%) in the Northern Region are fencedbecause of the destruction of crops by domestic animals like goats, sheep and cattle. In the Northern,Upper East and Eastern Regions however, more than 50% of home gardens were not fenced (Table 4).

Table 4. Characteristics of home gardensPercentage of farmers

Northern Upper East Eastern

Enclosure —not fenced 52.2 74.2 75.5

Location—around compound 93.0 98.5 97.9

Size of garden (0.1–1.0 hectares) 83.7 – 77.6

Land tenure system 95.8 87.0 87.8

(own/family)

Land tenure systemIn all three regions, over 80% of home gardeners owned the land they used for the garden (Table 4).This ownership leads to home garden system stability, and therefore gardeners can put in more effortto maintain the gardens without fear of uncertain tenure.

Structure of home gardensIn the forest ecological zones, both the rainforest and moist semi-deciduous forests, home gardenswere multi-storied, commonly containing three layers but sometimes with four. The uppermostcanopy consisted of trees and therefore was a perennial layer. Species commonly found here weremango (Mangifera indica), oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), Indian almond (Terminalia catapa) and avocadopear (Persea Americana). Immediately below this layer occur both annual and perennial species. Thecommonest and most important species are plantain (Musa spp.), an annual, and perennial fruit treessuch as citrus, sour sop (Annona muricata), sweet apple (Annona squamosa), pawpaw (Carica papaya)and guava (Psidium guajava). The third story consists of vegetables such as egg plant (Solanum spp.),amaranthus (Amaranthus spp.), cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium), root crops, yam (Dioscorea spp.),cassava (Manihot esculenta) and medicinal plants (e.g. Solanum torvum, Ocimum gratissimum, O.canum). The lowest storey consisted of species that were 20 cm or less in height, for instance Indianheliotrope (Heliotropium indicum) and creeping plants such as sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). The

density of plants in these gardens also varied,with some having closely associated plantswhile other gardens had widely spaced plants.

Animal rearing was part of the activities ofsome home gardens. The most common animalsreared were poultry and/or goats. Some homegardens also rear cattle, as seen in Kukurantumi,Osiem and Nkronso. A home gardener inKukurantumi also reared snails.

Species diversity of home gardensThe total number of species recorded in thehome garden survey differed for the variousagroecological zones in the study. Generally thetotal number of species recorded was higher inthe forest eco-zones compared to the savannaszones. Within the forest agro ecological zones,the total number of species recorded in home


A typical home garden in the western/central region containinguseful plant species, animals (such as goats) and space for socialinteraction.

Pat

rik E

kpe

gardens in the moist semi-deciduous forest was higher than that of the rainforest: 104 and 93 speciesrespectively for the two zones. These species also belonged to a wide range of families. In the moistsemi-deciduous forest, a total of 36 families are represented whereas 37 families are represented inthe home gardens surveyed in the rainforest (Table 5). Within the savannah agroecological zones 51species from 29 families were recorded for the Guinea savannah whilst home gardens in the Sudansavannah had the least number of species; a total of 40 species belonging to 28 families wererecorded (Table 5). Detailed species lists can be found in forthcoming publications.

Table 5. Total number of species identified in gardens in the different agroecological zonesRegions surveyed

Eastern Western/Central Northern Upper East

Number of species 104 93 51 40

Number of families 36 37 29 28

Use categories of species in home gardens Species found in home gardens were used for different purposes (Table 6). Among species used forfood there were cereals (4), legumes (7), root and tubers (12), fruit and nuts (23), oil crops (3), spices(8) and vegetables (18). Thirty (30) species used medicinally were identified. Other species were usedfor hedging, ornamental purposes and for shade.

Table 6. Total number of species per use categoryUse category

Cereals 4

Legumes† 7

Roots and tubers 12

Fruits and nuts 23

Oil crops 3

Spices 8

Medicinal plants 30

Vegetables 18

Germplasm found in home gardens come from different ecosystems depending on the utility of thespecies. Food crops come from four main sources: other home gardens, farms, the market, andresearch institutions (Fig. 2).

PROJECT REPORTS 89

Fig. 2. Geneflow within thehome garden system.

Local varieties of oil crops and fruit trees have their immediate origin in the market (e.g. coconut),or the gardens of friends, relatives or acquaintances (e.g. mango, avocado pear, sour sop, guava) orfrom plants growing in farmers’ fields (e.g. oil palm). Plants whose origin is the market mayoriginate either from home gardens or farmers’ fields. Such species may also be from another nearbyvillage or town. This is possible because of the way that market days operate in rural communities.In this arrangement, big markets that are scattered in different villages have particular days onwhich they operate, and often people from other villages with wares to sell will congregate in themarket that is in operation to carry out their business. Thus a fruit or oil crop bought from the marketon market day may originate from another village. This results in gene flow not only betweengardens or farms within a particular village but also between these systems in different villages.Home gardens also contained varieties of species e.g. citrus and oil palm, which originated fromresearch institutions. A few species e.g. Spondias mombin, Chrysophyllum albidum and some wild yamspecies can also be brought in from the natural ecosystem since the fruits or tubers are oftenharvested from the wild. Gene flow for cereals, root and tubers and vegetables can be among homegardens, between markets and home gardens, farmers’ fields and home gardens or researchinstitutions and home gardens (e.g. early maturing cassava).

Germplasm for medicinal plants and fuel wood largely comes from the natural ecosystem intohome gardens, although there is also some movement between home gardens. Solanum torvum andOcimum gratissimum are examples of species whose germplasm movement is both among homegardens, and between home gardens and the natural ecosystems.

Importance of home gardens as conservation units• HGs together as a unit, contain the highest population of some under-utilized fruit species.

They are also conservation sites for these species. Examples: Annona muricata (Sour sop),Annona squamosa (sweet sop), Spondias mombin, Psidium guajava (guava), Persea americanum(avocado pear), Mangifera indica (mango).

• HGs are in situ conservation sites for indigenous varieties of some of our crops. Examples:Elaeis guineensis (oil palm), Cocos nucifera (coconut), Pennisteum spp. (millet), Sorghum bicolour(sorghum), Dioscorea spp. (yam).

• HGs are sites for the domestication of wild varieties of some species. Examples: Dioscorea spp.‘Ahabayere’, Heliotropium indicum, Senna alata, S. occidentalis.

• HGs are trial sites for new varieties of some crops and hence can be considered as entry pointfor new varieties of crops into our agricultural system. Examples: Different plantain cultivars:double bunch, triple bunch, ‘oniaba’, ‘esakro’, ‘esamienu’, ‘osoboaso’, ‘nyeretia apantu’,cooking banana.

Social and demographic profile of respondents

Table 7. Gender of home gardeners sampledGender Percentage of farmers by region


Males 88.7 86.8 42.3

Females 11.3 13.2 57.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

EducationThe educational status of farmers in the study areas varied widely (Table 8). The Northern Region(NR) has the highest rate of illiteracy with 84.3% of respondents having no formal education at all.This is followed by the Upper East Region (UER) 63.6%, with the lowest being Eastern Region(32.3%). In the Northern Region (12.9%) of respondents had up to 10 years of formal education


whilst 31.9% in the UER and 52.0% in the Eastern Region had the same number of years of education.The Eastern Region had 15.7% of respondents with more than 10 years of education, whilst in theNorthern Region and Upper East Region less than 5% of respondents had the same number of yearsof education.

Table 8. Formal educational status of home gardenersEducational status Percentage of farmers by region


No formal education 84.3 63.6 32.3

Up to 10 years 12.9 31.9 52.0

Above 10 years 2.8 4.5 15.7

In the Upper East Region, 85.5% of households consumed all the produce obtained from their homegardens (Table 9). The corresponding figures for the Northern and the Eastern Regions were 60.0%and 49.0% respectively. The fact that people in the Upper East consumed almost all their homegarden produce is not surprising since this region is noted for its high population density and hencehighly fragmented land ownership. Most farmers have to plant the major staples like millet andsorghum on their home garden fields, which normally turn out to be the only field available to mosthouseholds.

Table 9. Percentage of produce from home gardens sold by farmers in the study areasProportion of produce (%) Percentage of farmers by region


0 60.0 85.5 49.0

10 4.3 4.8 0.0

20 5.7 0.0 3.9

30 11.4 0.0 0.0

40 12.8 3.2 2.0

50 1.4 4.8 5.9

60 2.0 0.0 0.0

70 2.4 1.7 3.9

80 0.0 0.0 7.8

90 0.0 0.0 15.7

100 0.0 0.0 9.8

Cannot tell 0.0 0.0 2.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Household food security is therefore a major problem in this region. Of households in the NorthernRegion, 35.6% sold between 10% and 50% of their home garden produce, which was mainly maize.Maize is both a cash and staple food crop in this area. In the Eastern Region where plantain is themajor crop sold, 11.8% of households sold between 20% and 50%, 27.4% sold between 60% and 90%with 9.8% selling all their plantain. With better management and less theft cases, home gardenplantains could easily become more marketable than those from bush fields. In both the Northernand Eastern Regions, some home gardeners obtain monetary value from the produce of their homegardens.

Gender roles in home gardening The roles played by the different genders in home garden activities are shown in Tables 10–12. Thisstudy sought to identify roles played by the different genders in home garden production systemsin the study areas.

PROJECT REPORTS 91

Table 10. Gender roles in home gardening activities in the Northern RegionTask Percentage of farmers who perform tasks

Males Females Both N/A

Land preparation 97.2 1.4 1.4 0.0

Planting 21.1 4.2 73.3 1.4

Weeding 55.9 6.4 37.7 0.0

Sale of produce 70.5 19.7 2.8 7.0

Table 11. Gender roles in home gardening activities in the Eastern RegionTask Percentage of farmers who perform tasks



Planting 28.1 22.9 49.0 0.0

Weeding 35.4 21.9 39.6 3.1

Harvesting 27.7 20.3 44.5 7.7

Sale of produce 1.1 11.8 43.0 44

Table 12. Gender roles in home gardening activities in the Upper East RegionTask Percentage of farmers who perform tasks



Planting 0.0 29.4 70.6 0.0

Weeding 1.4 8.7 89.9 0.0

Harvesting 0.0 10.4 88.1 1.5

Sale of produce 0.0 38.3 5.0 56.7

The role played by men and women in agricultural activities varies from region to region andbetween different ethnic groups within the same region. Such roles are related to the culture(historical and contemporary) of the people concerned. From Tables 10–12 it can be seen that landpreparation, weeding and sale of produce are carried out mainly by males in the Northern Region.In the Eastern Region land preparation is carried out mostly by males, whilst weeding and sale ofproduce are functions of both genders. In the Upper East Region, land preparation and weeding arecarried out by the both genders. However in the few cases where produce is sold, this is done byfemales. In all regions planting is carried out by both genders.

Major reason for increase in cultivation of home gardensTable 13 shows the reasons why the cultivation of home gardens is increasing. The major reasongiven was the provision of food and income in all the study areas. Another reason given was theconvenience of their location around the home.

Table 13. Major reason for the increase in the cultivation of home gardens within the study areasReason Percentage of farmers mentioning reason


Convenience 38.0 0.0 12.1

Food and income 47.7 80.0 82.8

Cannot tell 14.3 0.0 3.4

Other 0.0 20.0 1.7


Major yam species found in home gardensResults of the study on yam varieties in the surveyed home gardens are presented in Tables 14 and15. Table 14 shows the most common species of yam in home gardens in the study areas. In theNorthern Region, D. rotundata was the major yam species planted in home gardens (89.1%) followedby D. alata (10.9%). Only these two yam species were encountered in the Northern Region. That notwithstanding, there were many varieties within D. rotundata found in the region (Table 15). TheEastern Region had the highest number of yam species. The major species found in this region is D.alata (28.8%) followed by D. praehensilis (26.7%). In contrast, D. rotundata was found in only 6.9% ofhome gardens in the Eastern Region. Other species found are D. bulbifera, D. cayenensis, D.dumetorum, D. esculenta and some unidentified species (‘Ahabayere’ and ‘Twetwamantwa’)

Table 14. Dioscorea spp. (yam species) found in home gardens in the study areasSpecies Common name Northern Western/Central Eastern

D. alata Water yam 10.9 30 28.8

D. bulbifera Aerial yam 0 10 2.2

D. Cayenensis Yellow yam 0 30 13.3

D. dumetorum Bitter yam 0 0 13.3

D. esculenta Chinese yam 0 0 2.2

D. praehensilis ‘Kookooase’ 0 20 26.7

D. rotundata White yam 89.1 10 6.9

D. sp. 0 0 2.2

Total 100 100 100

In the Western/Central Regions, D. cayenensis, D. alata and D. praehensilis were the major speciesencountered in home gardens. Farmers preferred D. cayenensis and D. alata over D. rotundata. D.bulbifera and D. rotundata were also encountered. Table 15 shows the varieties of the Dioscorearotundata found in home gardens in the Northern Region. In the Northern Region, the varieties ofyam sold were usually staked and yielded one cylindrical tuber. The most popular cultivars sold inNorthern were ‘Kpono’, ‘Laboko’ and ‘Chenchito’. The varieties that were not usually sold weremostly not staked. This allows the farmer to harvest few to many small tubers per mound.

Table 15. Infra-specific diversity of D. rotundata in the Northern RegionVarieties usually sold Varieties not sold

Bayere Fago

Chenchito Foole

Chiamba Genkanga

Kpono Kangbarina

Krukrunga Kplense

Laboko Prenkpele

Nyule and Shaawa Zuglanbo

Diversity of plantains in home gardensPlantain was studied in-depth only in the Eastern, Western and Central Regions because it occurredmore commonly in home gardens and is a major part of the diet of the people in these regions. Ingeneral in southern Ghana, the sight of plantain in and around towns and villages indicated thepresence of a home garden.

There were more varieties of plantain in home gardens in the Eastern Region than in theWestern/Central Regions. The most common plantain variety found in home gardens was ‘Apantu’,a false horn plantain. This was followed in frequency by ‘Apem’, a French plantain. This is notsurprising since ‘Apantu’ is used to prepare ‘fufu’, a staple food of the local people in the regions

PROJECT REPORTS 93

covered. ‘Apem’ is used to prepare “ampesi”, another staple food of the people in the regions wherethe studies were carried out. ‘Apantu’ is early maturing, while ‘apem’ takes longer to mature,though the latter commands a higher price because of the many hands it has (groups of fingersattached at the same point). ‘Abommiensa’ and ‘borede sebo’, all false horn plantains, and ‘nyeretia’,a French plantain, were not common in the home gardens studied. The Eastern Region had thehighest number of plantain varieties (10) (Table 16). This contrasts with five noted in theWestern/Central Regions. The differences that exist among the plantain varieties were at levels ofbunching and finger characteristics and the colour of pseudostem. Three main bunchingcharacteristics were identified: a single bunch, double bunch (‘Abomienu’) and triple bunch(‘Abomiensa’). These belong to the false horn group.

Table 16. Diversity in plantain varieties in the Eastern and Western/Central RegionsPercentage by region

Local name of plantain Western/Central Eastern

Abommiensa 0.0 2.4

Apantu 69.7 38.1

Apem 18.2 21.4

Borede Sebo 0.0 2.4

Borede wuio 0.0 4.8

Essammiensa 0.0 2.4

Eassammienu 3.0 0.0

Jamaica 0.0 2.4

Kwadu brode 6.1 0.0

Nyretia apantu 0.0 4.8

Nyretia 3.0 0.0

Onniaba 0.0 7.1

Osoboaso 0.0 14.3

Total 100.00 100.0

At the finger level, ‘Apem’ has more slender fingers with more fingers per bunch than ‘Apantu’. Thefruits of ‘Apem’ are more compact on the bunch than ‘Apantu”. The “Nyeretia types have shorterfingers and hence the name ‘Nyeretia’, which is the local name for dwarfs. Table 16 also gives thelocal names of plantain varieties in home gardens in the areas studied. The number of hands on abunch in the “Apantu” group varied. There were those with only one hand (‘Esakro’), two hands(‘Esamienu’) whilst a third group had three hands (‘Esamiensa’). Most of the plantain varieties hadgreenish or greenish-purple pseudostems. In contrast, the ‘Brode wio’ varieties observed had verydark purple pseudostems and petioles.

Diversity in pearl milletTable 17 indicates that millet is cultivated more in the Upper East Region than in the NorthernRegion. Millet is a crop that is quite drought resistant. The Upper East Region is in the Sudansavannah zone where rainfall is less than in the Northern Region (Guinea savannah zone). Millet isa crop that suited the climatic conditions in the Sudan savannah of Ghana. Home garden owners inthe Northern Region planted more Sorghum bicolor (sorghum) and Zea mays (maize) as grains in theirgardens than Pennisetum glaucum.


Table 17. Millet occurrence in home gardens in the Northern and Upper East Regions

Regions Percentage

Northern 37

Upper East 63

Total 100.0

Two main varieties of pearl millet wereidentified in the study areas, early and late.

The early millet took 3 months to mature.Most of these were found in the Upper EastRegion, where the rainfall duration for the yearis shorter than in the Northern Region. Theprevalence of millet in this region is due to itsimportance in the local diet.

Conclusions• There were gender differences of home

gardens in the areas surveyed. In theGuinea Savannah (Northern Region) andthe Sudan Savannah (Upper EasternRegion) zones, the majority of homegardeners were males, while in the moistsemi deciduous (Eastern Region) zone,the majority were females.

• The majority of home gardeners in the zones were full time farmers.• Most home gardens were not fenced or hedged.• Most respondents in home gardens surveys in the three zones did not sell their produce but

consumed it. However in the case of plantain some families sold part of their produced andgot an estimated income of about 800 000 Cedis (US$1=7000 Cedis).

• The moist semi-deciduous zone (Eastern Region) had the highest diversity of yam andplantain.

• There was a greater occurrence and diversity of pearl millet in the Sudan Savannah than in theGuinea Savannah.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank all who helped to make this study a success. Our special thanks goto the Officer in Charge and the staff of the Agricultural Research Station at Okumaning (Kade) forthe assistance they gave us in connection with the in-depth studies of plantains. We are grateful toMr Opoku-Agyeman of the Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Bunso for his help in the in-depthstudies of yams. We also wish to thank Mr Michael Asiedu of the Plant Genetic Resources Centre,Bunso for the analysis of data on the key species studies. We greatly appreciate the cooperation ofthe owners of the home gardens surveyed.

Finally, we would like to express our profound gratitude to the International Plant GeneticResources Institute (IPGRI) and the German government (donors) for making this study possible.

PROJECT REPORTS 95

A northern home garden containing millet, yam and a mango tree.

Pat

rik E

kpe,

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

hana

, Leg

on.

ReferencesAbbiw, D. 1990. Useful plants of Ghana. Intermediate Technology Publications. London and The Royal Botanic

Gardens, Kew, UK.Asare, E. O., S.K. Oppong and K. Twum-Ampofo. 1990. Home gardens in humid tropics of Ghana. Pp. 80–93 in

Tropical Home Gardens (K. Landauer and M. Brazil, eds.). UNU Press, Tokyo, Japan.Dickson, K.B. and G. Benneh. 1988. A New Geography of Ghana, Revised Edition, Longman, Harlow, UK.Dokosi, O.B. 1969. Some herbs used in the traditional system of healing diseases in Ghana. Ghana J. Sci. 9(2):

119-130.Gessler, M., U. Hodel and P. Eyzaguirre. 1996. Home gardens and agrobiodiversity: current state of knowledge

with reference to relevant literature. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.Irvine, F.R. 1930. Plants of the Gold Coast. OUP, London, UK.Anonymous. 1961. Woody plants of Ghana. OUP, London, UK.Owusu, J.G.K., S.J. Quarshie-Sam, K.A. Nkyi and S. K. Oppong. 1994. Indigenous African food crops and useful

plants, their preparations for food and home gardens in Ghana. UNU/INRA Natural Resources SurveySeries No. B1.


Role of home gardens in the conservation of plant genetic resources in Vietnam

Luu Ngoc Trinh1, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Hue2, Nguyen Ngoc De3, Nguyen Van Minh4 and Phan Thi Chu5

1 Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI), Hanoi, Vietnam2 VASI, Hanoi, Vietnam3 Cantho University, Cantho, Vietnam4 Oil Plant Institute, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam5 Phu Quy Fruit Crop Research Centre, Nghia quang, Vietnam

IntroductionAspects of home gardens in VietnamThere is a proverb in the Vietnamese language: “Benefits are generated first from home ponds throughfish-breeding, second from home gardening, and third from field cultivation”. Home gardens, known inVietnamese as ‘vuon nha’ have a long tradition in Vietnam. They are linked closely to the livelihoodof Vietnamese farmers, especially those that are poor. The total area of home gardens in Vietnamwas estimated at approximately 200 000 ha, or around 4.0% of the total area under agriculturalproduction. Home garden area is lowest in the Red River Delta, with the average size 150 m2 andlargest in the Central Plateau (West Highland) with the average size 0.5 ha. In 1997, home gardens,home ponds and home husbandry contributed 30% of the total agricultural production. Todayhome gardens receive increasing attention as a method of generating income and improvingmaterial and cultural living standards.

Importance of home gardensHome gardens help ensure food security for rural people, in particular for poor farmers. Homegardens can be considered to be a buffer maintaining the sustainability of rural livelihoods(Eyzaguirre et al. 2001).

Home gardens assist in protecting the environment. A major part of the vegetables and fruitscirculating in local markets are produced in home gardens. Their produce is ‘clean’ because thereis almost no use of pesticides in gardening, contributing to environmental protection as well aspublic health. Home gardens take on the character of the surrounding ecological system, andprovide a place where plants, animals, insects, microorganisms and soil and air media mutuallyinteract to maintain the agroecological balance. They effectively protect soil from erosion.

Home gardens prevent job deficits in rural areas. They can provide year-round work, using thefarmers’ spare time but giving high value to a working day. Gardening is a recreational job, but canalso generate high income. Gardening gives people jobs in rural areas while it allows them to leavethe uncertainties of high-input agriculture. Home gardens support the process of economicdevelopment and modernization but do not increase urbanization.

Home gardens have great economic potential. Production of litchi and longan in home gardensNorthern Vietnam generates high income for farmers. In 1996, Vietnam exported US$120 million ofcashew, all produced in home gardens.

Plant genetic resources in home gardens of VietnamHome gardens in Northern Vietnam are characterized by having three groups of plant geneticresources: tropical, subtropical and temperate.

Regarding the origin of the crop species and their varieties cultivated in home gardens, there arethree categories: traditional plants, introduced plants already adapted and introduced plants under theprocess of domestication.

PROJECT REPORTS 97

Genetic erosion is extremely rare in home gardens. However, genetic erosion occurs in larger,intensively cultivated home gardens in areas oriented towards market production. There are numerouscrop species cultivated only in home gardens, and not found in farm fields. These include valuablespecies of fruit trees, medicinal plants, beverage plants, ornamental plants, spices and tropicalvegetables.

The value of plant genetic resource conservation is high in sustainable intensive home gardens,intermediate in sustainable extensive gardens and low in those oriented towards market production(Trinh 1997, 1998).

Since early 1996, the National Plant Genetic Resources Programme of Vietnam has been studyingthe subject of plant genetic resource conservation in home gardens. An important part of this study isan inventory of plant species and varieties found in home gardens. The resulting inventory of cropgenetic resources in home gardens in three ecosystems (lowland coastal areas, highland andmountainous areas) is presented in this report. In those tables, plant species are listed in eight groupsaccording to their economic importance: Fruit Crops, Vegetable Crops, Spice Crops, Medicinal Plants,Food Crops, Animal Food Crops, Wood and Made-Handicraft Plant, and Ornamental Plants.

Structure of Vietnamese home gardensFigure 1 shows the common structure of Vietnamese home garden. In Vietnam, houses are typicallyoriented to the South, especially in Northern Vietnam, where climatic conditions favour thisarrangement. In the summer, a fresh cool wind comes from the south and in the winter a cold windcomes from the north, so the house is protected. In Southern Vietnam, houses are often oriented facinga road or waterway.

An open space in front of the house with ornamentals and flowers is often placed on the householdshrine. Medicinal and herb species are often located on the edge of the open porch area for easy access.Fruit trees are mostly located behind the house, with a few choice species in the front whichadditionally provide shade to the cleared porch area. In larger back or side area of the lowland garden(especially in the Mekong Delta), canals are dug to create raised beds for drainage in the rainy seasonand facilitate water supply in the dry season so that diverse types of crop species can beaccommodated into small niches. Taro, chilli or mint can be planted under the fruit tree canopy layer.The ditches can also be used to provide a wet environment for species with high water need. In theMekong Delta, home gardens are often connected with rice fields behind them. Bamboo often providesa side or back border of home garden, with cacti commonly used as a lower, front fence for the yard(Hodel et al. 1999; Tu Giay 1993).

Types of home garden are diverse; however, they can be classified into general categories based onprimary production systems, crop composition, and the structure of home gardens:

• home gardens with fruit trees (e.g. South Vietnam)• home gardens with pond and covered livestock areas (e.g. Red river delta and Central Vietnam)• home gardens with vegetables (e.g. Red river delta and Central Vietnam)• home gardens with forest trees (e.g. Northern mountainous area).

Implementation of the project ‘Contribution of home gardens to the conservation ofagrobiodiversity in ecosystems’ in Vietnam

Selection of macrositesVietnam has seven agro-ecosystems. It was planned to implement the project in four of them: one inthe north, one in the central region, one in the southeast and one in the southwest. Criteria of siteselection included:

• diverse agroecosystems, in terms of species and genetic diversity as well as horizontal andvertical heterogeneity

• cultural and socioeconomic diversity


• importance of home gardens for livelihoods and community• perceived threat to traditional structure and composition of home gardens due to market forces

and/or policy changes• existence of indigenous knowledge, skills and traditions in managing home garden system• community interest and cooperation• capacity of local research institutions• accessibility.

The criteria used in Vietnam are designed to capture the range of socio-economic, cultural andagroecological variability within the country. Four sites were chosen which reflect variations indemography and ethnicity, access to markets, distance from natural ecosystems, and environmentallimitations (water availability, soil fertility, etc.).

Nho quan was chosen as a site for northern Vietnam because of the already-established researchlinks in the community, its accessibility to Hanoi (a two to three hour drive on paved roads), and itsrich PGR diversity. The site is located in the transition between the mountain and the lowland area ofthe Red River Delta, and therefore includes species from both ecozones. This transition manifests itselfin a landscape consisting of islands of limestone jutting above flat expanses of rice fields. The Red RiverDelta has been under cultivation for over 4000 years, and the home garden tradition in this area is300–400 years old according to some estimates. Home garden area is small and they are cultivatedintensively. In Nho quan, however, as in most places in Vietnam, the continuity of the home gardentradition was broken by war, and only rarely does one find a home garden more than 30–40 years oldtoday.

The Nghia dan site is representative of the ecozone of north-central Vietnam. Located 300 km to thesouth of Hanoi, its climate differs from that of the Nho quan; winter is the same, but summer isinfluenced by hot, dry winds from Laos. It is the home gardens site highest in elevation, in themidlands of Vietnam. This site is farthest from an urban center, and closest to natural forests. Manyhouseholds surveyed at this site belong to the Tho and Thanh ethnic minorities, providing both acultural and economic contrast to the other sites, who are predominantly Kinh and tend to have higherincomes.

The district of Thuan an is located in the south-eastern basin, with a typically tropical climate withhigh temperatures year-round. The villages surveyed fall in the suburbs of Ho Chi Minh City, and areexperiencing the effects of urbanization, nearby industrialization, and outmigration of young membersof the community. Fruit tree diversity at the site is high.

The district of Chau thanh is reached by a boat ride or drive of more than an hour from the city ofCantho, and is representative of the south-western basin of the Mekong Delta. It is a canal-basedcommunity located in the heart of the Mekong Delta. The families in this community have a richgardening tradition, cultivating multi-story home gardens in which diversity was found to be high.The area is renowned for its Citrus production and most home gardens in the area tend to be largerthan in other parts of Vietnam, with fruit orchards as their primary production system.

A checklist questionnaire was carried out in November – December 1998 for up to 60 households ateach site. When researchers first entered the villages, they discussed household selection with thedistrict People’s Committee to structure the sample into different groups based on home garden size,diversity, household demographics, and age of home garden. Some households were excluded: thosewith very small gardens (less than 100 m2); those whose home garden was not productive for largeparts of the year, and therefore did not fit with the working definition of a home garden for the project;or those who were newcomers to the area (had lived in the village only 2–5 years). The researchers thenused key informants in the village (such as the headman) to select households with the most diversityand knowledge of gardening in order to provide a sample of the processes, interaction, and uses ofplants in home garden management. Eventually, 30–35 households representing home gardens in theircommunities were selected for a more in-depth household survey. Researchers then confirmed

PROJECT REPORTS 99

whether households selected by this method were suitable for the project and excluded outlierhouseholds, those not representative of the community in general. For instance, a household wasrejected if it did not have a home garden, if the family recently moved to the area, if the household hadskewed demographics (e.g. contained only an elderly couple). A household sample was then chosen,n=30 (n=35 at Thuan an). A baseline survey containing information on land use, home garden area,number of species grown, household ethnicity, education, yearly household income breakdown,labour and capital investment in HG per year was carried out through 1999. A second survey entitled‘Crop species and their varieties cultivated in HG’ was completed in 2000, in which species wereclassified into five groups according to ecological structure and stories within the garden (Roots andTubers, Shrubs and Climbers, etc). An inventory of PGR was compiled from the survey withsupplemental information in farmer interviews. The survey focused on uses of HG plants, sources ofgermplasm, commercialization and also included a distribution and transect map of the household(Trinh et al. 2001).

Table 1. Descriptive general data of Vietnamese home garden sites (from District-level data)Geographical location North Central South Mekong Delta

Province Ninh binh Nghe an Binh duong Can tho

District Nho quan Nghia dan Thuan an Chau thanh

Commune Phu Son; Nghia Quang Binh Nhan; Nhon Nghia

XuanPhuong VinhPhu; Tan Binh

Ecosystem Red River Delta Midlands—tropical Lowlands Mekong

—tropical to subtropical and subtropical —tropical delta—tropical

Altitude (m asl) 60 80 10 1

Avg yearly temperature (°C) 26 23.4 26.6 29.5

Mean annual rainfall (mm) 1900 1573.4 1388 1500–1800

Major soil types Loam and sandy soil Bazan Alluvial clay Clay

Longitude 107°23’N 105°10’–105°34’N 106°55’–107°04’N 105°30’-105°45’

Latitude 21°5’E 19°00’–19°32’E 10°70’–10°62’E 10°05’–10°20’

Land-use data (ha)

Total land 49862 73767 7200 40604

Total agric. land 15623 25476 4489 35512

Area under rice 6525 3400 1838 20635

Area under non-rice crops 1285 7300 2651 14877

Forest plantation 8098 3455 135 83

Natural forest 5606 10414 425 –

Major agricultural products Rice, corn, Rice, citrus, Rice, coconut, Rice, orange,

sweet potato, anona black bean, cassava, jackfruit, banana, pomelo, longan,

yam, banana pomelo, luffa kumquat,

banana, spinach

Demographic data

Official age Settled more than 1000 years Around 300 years Around 300

of communes (yrs): 1000 years ago years

time settled

District population 14251 185200 99892 280837

Pop. density (persons/ha) 1.09 2.51 13.9 6.9

Ethnic groups (%) Kinh: 89% Kinh 81% Kinh 98% Kinh- 99.7%

Muong: 11% Tho and Thanh 19% Khmer Khmer

and Hoa 2% and Hoa 0.3%

Religion (%) Buddhist 95% Animist 4% Buddhist 98% Buddhist 100%

Catholic 5% Buddhist 96% Ancestor Worship

and Cao Dai 2%

Adapted from Trinh et al. (2001).


Genetic diversity in Vietnamese home gardensHome gardens contain the most diversity inmedicinal plants, followed by vegetables andfruit trees. Survey results also show that largergardens tend to contain a greater number ofspecies when compared to other home gardens;however, small gardens provide a higher numberof species per unit of land area. The MekongDelta has the largest home gardens in Vietnam,and the home gardens in this area contain ahigher overall number of species. Home gardensin the Nho Quan site, however, contain a highernumber of species per 100 m

2.

Table 2. Average plant diversity at each siteRegion Ecosite Avg. no. species Range of species Avg. garden Avg. no.

(district) per HG per ecosite size (m2) species/ (100 m2)

N. Mountains: Nho quan 38.6 27–54 1407,9 2.7417

subtropical to temperate

C. Midlands: Nghia dan 23.4 12–42 2771,7 0.8442

tropical and subtropical

S. Lowland: Thuan an 50.3 36–78 2822,9 1.7819

typical tropical

Mekong Delta: Chau thanh 53.9 20–103 7500 0.7187

typical tropical

Adapted from Trinh et al. (2001).

Key species researchSeveral key species cultivated in home gardens of Vietnam have been studied since the second year ofthe project’s implementation. Selection of key species was based on the following six criteria:

• wide distribution in home gardens throughout the country• endemic to Vietnam• infraspecific genetic diversity• importance to farmer household livelihood• strong cultural connection and probability it will be maintained• multiple uses for plant parts. Four crops representative of traditional Vietnamese home garden composition and food culture

were selected as key species: banana, pomelo, taro and tania, and luffa. Main descriptions of them are:

Banana (Musa spp.) is one of the leading fruit crop species of Vietnam. Banana is cultivated inalmost every home garden in Vietnam. Ten species of the genus Musa are found in Vietnam, ofwhich eight are cultivated in home gardens. Banana is used as fruit, staple food, vegetable andanimal feed. Leaf and fibre of banana are important materials in daily use by the farmer. Pomelo—there exist in Vietnam two pomelo species, Citrus paradisi and C. maxima. Pomelo is oneof five important fruits used by the Vietnamese at Tet, the New Year celebration and religious

PROJECT REPORTS 101

A home gardener showing varieties of taro, banana, pomelo andsweet potato in her home garden. Taro, banana and pomelo werechosen as key species for in-depth analysis.

Pab

lo E

yzag

uirr

e

ceremony. Famously delicious varieties ofpomelo are cultivated in Vietnamese homegardens such as Buoi Doan Hung and BuoiDien in the North, Buoi Phuc Trach and BuoiHuong Tra in the Central region, and Buoi BienHoa and Buoi Nam Roi in the South. Besidestheir primary use as a fruit, the pomelo leaf isused as medicine and as an excellent methodfor washing hair, and pomelo flower petals arecurrently used by some farmers to produceperfume.Taro and Tania. In Vietnam, taro has threespecies, Colocasia esculenta and C. antiquorum, ofwhich the corm is used as food, and C. giganteanwhich is considered a valuable vegetable. Taniahas two species: Xanthosoma sagittfolium and X.nigrum, both used as food and as a vegetable.Both Taro and Tania are important sources ofanimal feed (Zhu et al. 2000).Luffa—in Vietnam, luffa has two species. Luffacylindrica is cultivated throughout the countryand L. anguiculata is cultivated only in midlandand mountain areas. Luffa is a favouritevegetable of in Vietnamese culture.

Table 4. Varietal diversity of key species in home gardens at 4 ecosites in Vietnam (He 1991)Target Varieties in Nho Quan Varieties in Varieties in Thuan An Varieties in Chau Thanh

Nghia Dan

Crops PRA Baseline PRA PRA Baseline PRA Baseline

Pomelo 1. Dao 1. Dao 1. NN1 1. Bien Hoa Bien Hoa 1. Nam roi 1. Nam roi

(Citrus grandis) 2. My 2. Lai 2. Phuc 2. Chum Chum 2. Thanh Tra 2. Thanh Tra

3. Chum 3. Chum Trach 3. Nam Roi Nam Roi 3. Bien Hoa 3. Bien Hoa

4. Doan 4. Doan 3. Chua 4. Thanh Tra Thanh Tra 4. Day

Hung Hung 4. Son Hong

5. Chua 5. Chua 5. Dao 5. Do Oi 5. Ruot do

6. Lai 6. Ngot Bi

7. Oi

8. Bi

9. Hong

Total 6 5 5 9 7 5 3

Banana 1. Teu 1. Tieu 6. Tieu 1. Xiem Xiem 1. Xiem 1. Xiem

(Musa spp.) 2. Hot 2. Hot 7. Da Huong 2. Su Su 2. Cao 2. Cao

3. Tay 3. Tay 8. Cao 3. Gia Gia 3. Gia cui 3. Gia cui

4. Rung 4. Mat 9. Ngu 4. Hot Hot 4. Gia lun 4. Hot

5. Canh 5. Lun 10. Lan 5. Cau Cau 5. Hot 5. Com

6. Lun 11. Chua 6. Sap Sap 6. Ta qua 6. Su

7. Tieu Tieu 7. Su

8. Ta qua Ta qua 8. Com

9. Do 9. La


Fig. 1. Typical home garden structure in Vietnam.

Total 6 5 6 9 8 9 6

Luffa 1. Chau 1. Trau 5. Huong 1. Trau Trau 1. Huong 1. Huong

(Luffa cylindrica) 2. Huong 2. Huong 6. Chau 2. Huong Huong 2. Khia 2. Khia

3. Khia 3. Khia 3. Khia Khia 3. Dai

4. Thuong 4. Dai 4. Den Dai

5. Dai 5. Dai

6. Tay

Total 7 4 2 6 4 3 2

Taro 1. Nuoc tia 1. Nuoc tia 8. So 1. So So 1. Cao 1. Cao

(Colocasia 2. Nuoc Trang 2. Nuoc Trang 9. Ngua 2. Sap Sap 2. Say 2. Say

esculenta, 3. Ngan ngay 3. Lui 10. Mung 3. Tim Tim 3. Ngot 3. Ngot

Xanthosoma 4. Lui 4. Doc mung 4. Ngua Ngua 4. Nuoc 4. Nuoc

sagittifolium ) 5. Doc mung 5. Tam dao xanh 5. Nuoc Nuoc 5. Sap 5. Sap

6. Tam 6. Tam dao tia 6. Cao Ngot

dao xanh 7. Sap 7. Ngot

7. Tam

dao tia

Total 7 6 4 7 6 5 5

Table 5. Role of gender in decision-making on cultivation of species in home gardensNo. Crop species group Husband (%) Wife (%) Both (%)

1 Starch/c alorie-rich food crops 23 63 14

2 Cash crops 30 50 20

3 Fruit trees 67 30 3

4 Medicinal plants 29 62 9

5 Ornamental plans 76 15 9

6 Roots and tubers 20 73 7

7 Spice plants 20 75 5

8 Vegetable crops 21 72 7

Role of home gardens in the strategy for plant geneticresource conservation in VietnamThrough the assessment of agrobiodiversity and inventory of crop genetic resources conducted by thisproject, it is clearly seen that the home gardens of Vietnam contain important biodiversity. Homegardens are an ideal method of conserving plant genetic resources in situ because the number of cropspecies grown in home gardens is much more than that in farmers’ fields and genetic erosion is rare inthe home garden farming system. Home gardens are safe refuges for numerous crop species. Thestrategy of plant genetic resource conservation in Vietnam formulated by the NPGR Program is asfollows:

1. Annual Food Crops—Cereals, Legumes, Tubers and Oil Seed Crops.Approach: ex situ conservation in genebanks, complemented with on-farm conservation.

2. Vegetable and Spice CropsApproach: Combination of two methods, ex situ conservation in genebank and in situconservation in home gardens.

3. Perennial Fruit CropsApproach: In situ conservation, in fields and home gardens, as well as concentrated plantationsmanaged by the formal sector.

4. Perennial Industrial CropsApproach: In situ conservation in concentrated plantations, complemented by home gardens.

PROJECT REPORTS 103

5. Animal Food CropsApproach: In situ conservation in home gardens and on farms.

6. Medicinal PlantsApproach: Ex situ conservation in seed genebanks, field genebanks and in situ conservation inhome gardens

In order to establish the in situ conservation of crop genetic resources in home gardens as a stablemethod and to strengthen its efficiency, first there should be promotion of the study of the ethnobotanyof home garden crops to widen the understanding of the utilization of crop genetic resources alreadyconserved in this special kind of ecosystem (Trinh 1997, 1998).

Proposed plan for future researchBased on the above analysis, some issues should be further studied:

1. Assessment and documentation of indigenous knowledge on the use of local genetic diversity.2. Study of the dynamic processes of PGR evolution under home garden management for

establishing proper strategies of genetic diversity conservation and development.3. Study of socio-economic aspects of gardening with emphasis on the link between home garden

and livelihood and gender issues.4. Contribution to home garden diversity and adding value through PPB/PVS.

ReferencesEyzaguirre, P., G.J. Martin and S. Barrow (eds). 2001. Growing Diversity, Conserving Plant Genetic Resources.

People and Plants Handbook #7. UNESCO/WWF/IPGRI.Friis-Hansen, E. and B. Sthapit, eds. 2000. Participatory Approaches to the Conservation and Use of PGR

Management. IPGRI, Rome, ItalyHé, P.H. 1991. The Plants of Vietnam. Mekong Printing, Santa Ana, USA. (in Vietnamese).Hodel, U., M. Gessler, H.H. Cai, V.V. Thoan, N.V. Ha, N.X. Thu and T. Ba. 1999. In situ conservation of plant

genetic resources in home gardens of southern Vietnam. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.Rocheleau, D. E. 1989. Gender Division of Work, Resources, and Rewards in Agroforestry Systems. Second

Kenya National Seminar on Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.Trinh L.N. 1997. Crop Genetic Resources Diversity in Indochina and Available Approaches for Its Conservation. In Plant Genetic Resources Characterization and Evaluation, New Approaches for Improved

Use of Plant Genetic Resources. Proceeding of the 4th MAFF Workshop on Genetic Resources, Tsukuba,Japan, 22–4 October 1996.

Trinh, L.N. 1998. Crop genetic resources in home gardens of Vietnam and issues of their in situ conservation.Paper presented at the Implementation Meeting of the Global Project ‘he contribution of home gardens to insitu conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems’, Cali, Colombia, October 1998. IPGRI, Rome,Italy.

Trinh, L.N., J.W. Watson, N.N. Hue, N.N. De, N.V. Minh, P. Chu, B.R. Sthapit and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 2001.Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Development in Vietnamese Home Gardens. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment. In press.

Tu Giay. 1993. ECO-VAC Systems. Hanoi, Vietnam.Zhu, D., P.B. Eyzaguirre, M. Zhou, L. Sears and G. Liu (eds.). 2000. Proceedings of the Symposium of

Ethnobotanical and Genetic Study of Taro in China: Approaches for the Conservation and Use of TaroGenetic Resources, 10–12 November 1998, Laiyang Agricultural College, Laiyang, Shangdong, China. IPGRI,Rome, Italy.


CASE STUDIES 105

Case studies

Home gardens in Nepal: status and scope for research and development

Pratap Shrestha1, Resham Gautam1, Ram Bahadur Rana1 and Bhuwon Sthapit2

1 LI-BIRD, Pokhara, Nepal2 IPGRI-APO, Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

AbstractThe paper presents the status of home gardens in Nepal. It analyses the research and developmentissues necessary for home gardens to be included as a strategy for in situ conservation of plantgenetic resources and improving family nutrition and income of rural people. The analysis is basedon observation of home gardens in different parts of the country and a review of the limited studiesavailable to date. Home gardens in Nepal play an important role in meeting household requirementsof food, medicine, fodder, firewood and timber. There is rich diversity in the type, composition andstructure of Nepalese home gardens, and this diversity is influenced by a number of social andecological factors. The report highlights the gross lack of scientific information about home gardensin the country and emphasises the urgent need for a systematic research to generate informationupon which future strategies for home gardens in Nepal can be based.

BackgroundNepal is a mountainous country located between 26°22’N to 30°27’N latitudes and 80°4’E to 88°12’Elongitudes. It extends from the Indo-gangetic plains (called terai) in the South with an altitude ofabout 60 m asl to Mount Everest, the highest peak of the world, in the North. The country is dividedinto five ecological regions: the Himalayas (above 4000 m asl); high hills or mountains (2000–4000m asl); mid-hills or mountains (1500–2000 m asl); the Siwalik (300–1500 m asl); and the Terai (below300 m asl). The climatic conditions vary sharply from tropical (South) to freezing alpine (North)across these ecological regions. The extreme variation in altitude, complex topography, climaticconditions, socio-cultural composition of the communities and farming practices have evolvedimmense diversity in natural flora and fauna as well as in cultivated crop species. The richness in thebio-diversity of the country can be estimated from the fact that Nepal’s share of world’s floweringplants exceeds 2% while its land area comprises no more than 0.1 percent of the total world area(Ryman 1992).

Nearly 81% of the people in the country rely on agriculture for their livelihood (CBS 1999). Thefarming is largely subsistence-oriented. Farmers are predominantly small holders with an averageholding of less than 1 hectare of cultivated land (CBS 1999). Coupled with a large family size (5.6persons per household) and low productivity of the food crops (less than 2 t/ha for major cereals),majority of the farming households experience food deficit during the year. These farmers adopt avariety of coping strategies, including collecting wild and uncultivated foods during the deficitmonths (LI-BIRD, 1999). Home gardens, with their intensive and multiple uses, provide a good back-up system for these households and thus is an integral and important component of the Nepalesefarming system. Home gardens are equally important for the other (non-deficit) households insupplementing family nutrition, providing quality food and meeting other household requirements.Home gardens in Nepal are valued for their aesthetics, and are regarded as symbol of wealth andsocial prestige. These gardens also serve as good reservoirs for a wide range of plant species and anexcellent means of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

Broadly, the term ‘home garden’ refers to the traditional land use practices around a homesteadwhere several species of plants are planted and maintained by members of the household and theirproducts are intended primarily for household consumption. The concept of home gardens in Nepal


is, however, not quite clear and often overlaps with the environment found in the surrounding agro-ecosystems. These are locally termed as bari

1in the plains and ghar-bari

2(differentiated from pakho-

bari3

and khar-bari4

representing larger production systems) in the hills. They consist of a number ofdistinct and diverse components or sub-systems carefully integrated to maximise space use,production and other household benefits. These home gardens are land use systems, which involvethe management of multipurpose trees, shrubs, annual and perennial agricultural crops, spices,herbs and medicinal plants, birds and animals on the same land units in a spatial or temporalsequence.

Home gardens provide good ecological and social conditions for understanding and contributingto in situ conservation of diversity and evolution of plant genetic resources (Hammer et al. 1992).Earlier research (IPGRI 1998) has already confirmed the importance of home gardens in on-farmconservation of agricultural biodiversity. Despite these realisations, very little research has beendone to look into inter- and intra-species diversity, and the potential role of home gardens as viableconservation units within farming systems. Similarly, the ecological and social factors, which havebearing on the dynamics (changes in size, structure, composition and uses) of home gardens, havenot been well understood. The contribution of home gardens in meeting family nutrition andsupplementing family income is also not well established. For these reasons, it has been difficult toinclude home gardens as a useful strategy for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Nepaland similar South Asian countries. Based on the authors’ own observation and experiences alongwith the limited literature available, this paper explores the importance of the home gardens in thelivelihoods of the people and its contribution to the conservation of plant genetic resources in Nepal.

Importance of home gardens in NepalAlthough a detailed study on the role of home gardens is still lacking, the following points illustrateits importance and uses in Nepal.

Home gardens as a source of livelihoodFood security, nutrition and cash incomeIn rural areas of Nepal, which contain about 90% of the total population (CBS 1999), home gardensare one of the important sources of food and supply most of the household requirements ofvegetables and fruits. Home gardens are also maintained in urban areas in different forms and sizesand contribute to the daily supply of vegetables and fruits; however, information on this system isalmost non-existent. A survey in the western hills of Nepal shows that 85–94% of households relyentirely on home gardens for a year-round supply of vegetables (Shrestha and Gurung 1997).Similarly, 57–81% households have fruit trees in their home garden. The variety of annual andperennial crops and vegetables grown in these gardens provide a secure supply of fresh producethroughout the year and meet the food and nutritional requirements of the family (Table 1). Maizegrown in home gardens is harvested and eaten green to supplement the declining stock of the oldharvest. Similarly, corm of taro, yam and phul tarul (a flowering plant with edible yam-like roots),and potato are supplemented with staple cereals to prolong their availability in the family. In thehills, many seasonal uncultivated vegetables also supplement the staple food, for example: githa,bhyakur (Dioscorea deltoidea), lude (Amaranthus vividis), niuro (Dryopteris spp.), jaluka (a wild taro), andsisnu (Urtica ardens).

The home garden food and vegetable species also have multiple uses and multiple harvest times,and this year-round availability helps diversify sources and types of micronutrients in the daily diet.For example, pumpkin (Cucurbita muschata) is used for its tender shoot, flower and fruits; chayote(Sechium edule) is used for its tender shoot, fruits and yam-like roots; and taro (Colocassia esculenta) isused for its leaf, petiole, corm and cormels. Similarly, home gardens also provide a number of greenleafy vegetables, which are rich in micronutrients (Agte et al. 2000). Home garden crops, vegetablesand fruits are largely grown organically and therefore provide safe and healthy food for household

consumption. In the terai (plain) region of Nepal and in hill areas with market access, people also sellvegetables and fruits grown in their home garden to supplement their cash income. These commonlyinclude pumpkin, sponge gourd (Luffa cylindrica), bottle gourd, cucumber, chayote, taro, oal(Amorphophallus campanulatus) and amaranthus along with other vegetables; and guava, mango,litchi, banana, pineapple, badahar (Artocarpus lakoocha), amala, bayar, jackfruit, tamarind, peach,plum and many other fruits (see Table 1).

Trees for food, fodder, firewood and timberA variety of trees are found integrated within a majority of the home gardens in Nepal (Table 2). Thisis more common in the terai and middle hills than in the high hills. These trees usually have multipleuses and provide food, fodder, firewood and timber for household uses. Because livestock are anintegral part of the farming systems and are generally kept within homestead, fodder trees havespecial place in home gardens, especially in the middle hills. The twigs and branches of fodder treesleft after the leaves have been eaten are used as firewood for household cooking. Timber andfirewood trees, however, are limited in type and number. Home garden trees are also commonlyused as support for trailing vines of a number of vegetables (beans, yams, chayote, gourds,pumpkin, cucumber etc.). They provide a variety of foods such as flower buds, e.g. koiralo (Bauhiniavariegata); leaf buds such as kavro (Ficus lacor) and siplican (Crataeva religiosa); vegetables likedrumstick (Moringa oleifera) and katahar (Artocarpus heterophyllus); and fruits such as badahar(Artocarpus lakoocha), kimbu (Morus spp.) and kaphal (Myrica esculenta). These products are used toprepare special Nepali cuisine and are considered great delicacies.

Spices and medicinal plantsNepalese cuisine uses a variety of spices, and the taste and delicacy of Nepali food depends on theuse of a proper mix of a number of important spices. Spicy food is always regarded as the pride andprestige of a household. For this reason, a number of spices, such as chili, ginger, turmeric,cinnamon, garlic, shallot, onion, fenugreek, coriander and timur (Xanthoxylum armatum) amongothers are often found Nepalese home gardens (Table 2). Similarly, people also keep a number ofmedicinal plants in their home garden for their day-to-day household uses because they often havevery poor access to modern medicines and medical facilities (Tables 2 and 3). Of these, tulsi (Ocimumsanctum), babari (Ocinum basilicum), marathi, pudina (Mentha spicate), ginger, timur and bojo (Acoruscalamus) are commonly used to cure colds, coughs and stomach disorders. Rawolfolia serpentine,traditionally used to cure snakebites, is carefully maintained in home gardens in different parts ofNepal. Traditional healers (dhami and jhakri) and medical practitioners (vaidya) tend to maintain arange of medicinal plants in their home gardens and use them in their treatments.

Green manure and pesticide cropsHome gardens, especially in the middle hills, contain a number of plant species used for greenmanure to improve soil fertility and for natural pest control for crop and storage pests (Table 2).Asuro (Adhatoda visica), titepati (Artemisia vulgaris), khirro (Sapium insinge) and Ankhitare (Walsuratrijuga) are common green manure crops planted on the boundaries of home gardens as live fencesand are also used as green mulch inside the garden and rice nursery. The leaves and stem of Titepati;the leaves, bark and seeds of bakaino (Melia azadirach) and neem (Azadirachta indica); the fruit of timur;and the rhizomes of bojo: these are all used to control a variety of crop and storage pests. Since amajority of farmers use very little or no chemical fertilizers and pesticides in their home gardens,these plant species play an important role in maintaining soil fertility and controlling insect pests.

Cultural and religious useHome gardens are the domain of a number of plant species that are closely linked with the cultureand religion of the particular community in different parts of the country. A study by Gurung and

CASE STUDIES 107

Vaidya (1998) in the western hills of Nepal has established a relationship between food culture andthe diversity of plant species maintained in the home garden. Nigalo (Drepanostachyum spp.), tusa(young bamboo shoots) and bamboo tama (fermented young shoot) are important delicacies for hillpeople. These plans are, however, rarely used for food in terai region because they are regarded asprecious construction materials. Newars (a dominant ethnic group) in the Kathmandu valleyspecifically maintain Cholecha (Allium spp.), black soybean, garlic, shallot, chamsur (Lepidium sativum)and red turnip in their home gardens because these plants are commonly used in culturalceremonies and feasts. Hill people in Eastern and Western Nepal tend to keep broad leaf mustard,garlic, tree tomato (Cyphomendra betacea), cherry tomatoes, chayote and radish in their home gardensbecause they are important parts of their food culture. On the other hand, oal, drumstick, lapha sagand patuwa sag (leafy vegetables) are delicacies of terai people. Banana, sugarcane and ginger arecarefully maintained in the home garden in terai because they are specifically required for the chhatfestival (one of the most important religious ceremonies). Similarly, food prepared from oal isnecessary for one of the many local ceremony in the Eastern terai, and therefore it is a commonlygrown vegetable in terai home gardens.

Nepal is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country and its people are deeply religious. There aremany plant species in home gardens that are largely kept for their religious value. For example,besides the medicinal value of tulasi (Ocimum sanctum), it is regarded as a sacred plant (anincarnation of the god Vishnu), and therefore is planted on a specially built structure called a mathaand worshipped and watered daily. Dubo (Cynadon dactylone) is another species required for dailypuja (worship) and other religious occasions. Many home gardeners in terai keep bel (Aegle marmelos)for its leaves, which are given as a special offering to the god Shiva. Many households, especially inurban areas, have now also started to plant pipal (Ficus religiosa), also regarded as incarnation of godVishnu, for their daily worship. Brahmin and Chhetri ethnic groups are very particular about havingthese plant species in their home gardens.

Space for introduction, domestication and experimentationHome gardens are found to provide space for the introduction of new species and the domesticationof wild plants. They also serve as experimental plots, where people breed new varieties of crops andtest different management practices out of curiosity, as a hobby, or to satisfy family needs and suitthe microenvironment of their home garden. Rana bagaincha (palace gardens) are the classicalexample of the introduction of new plant species in home gardens (Kaini 1995; Pandey 1995). Duringthe Rana regime (1846–1950), Rana rulers introduced a number of new fruits, vegetables andornamental plants as well as new varieties into their palace gardens in Kathmandu and in other partsof Nepal. The same is seen in the home gardens and phulbari (orchards) of big landlords (previouslycalled jamindar). Similarly, people who are frequent travellers to different parts of the country, or toIndia and other parts of the world, have introduced a number of new species of fruits, vegetables,spices, flowers and medicinal plants. Coffee, tea, cardamom, avocado, cashew nut and differentvarieties of grapes are some examples of such introduction in the hills, while coconut, betel nut, andblack pepper were introduced to the terai. A variety of fodder trees, cinnamon, marathi, sal (Shorearobusta) and lapsi (Choerospondias axillaris) are some examples of domestication in home gardens.Home gardens, in this way, appear to have served as a good venue for introducing, enhancing andmaintaining a wide range of genetic diversity on-farm.

Space for maintenance of unique plant species and varietiesHome gardens have often been a place for the maintenance of unique plant species in thecommunity, either introduced or underutilized species. Quantitative information is not available,but our observations and anecdotal reports show a number of such cases. Madale kankro (a largecucumber specially used for making pickles) and dalle kankro (an oval-shaped cucumber); basauneghiraula (an aromatic sponge gourd) (Pandey et al. 2001); jire khursani (a small hot chilli); koira (a local


turnip variety) (Lohar et al. 1993); and thulo cauli (a large, green local cauliflower) are some suchcases. Rana palace gardens, discussed earlier, contain a number of these. Home gardens, therefore,play an important role in the conservation of unique/rare plant species, which are not found in thelarger eco-system and are on the verge of extinction.

Improving the homestead environmentSome of the tree and plant species are specifically planted in the home garden to improve theenvironment around the homestead. These include ashoka (Saraca indica), neem, kadam (Anthocephaluskadamba), gulmohar (Delonix regia), rudraksha (Elaeocarpus ganitrus) and a number of ornamental plantspecies (both trees and shrubs). These trees provide shade and clean air for the homestead, andbeautify the surroundings. Ashoka, neem and tulasi are also believed to repel insects from thehomestead. Shade trees are a more common feature in the homesteads of terai than in the hills.

Symbol of social status and prideHome gardens in Nepal have always been a symbol of social status. Size, composition of species,attractive layout and cleanliness are the key features of home gardens the owner takes pride in.Wealthy families have bigger home gardens, a larger number of unique plant species, and greaterdiversity (Rana et al. 2000a) than poor families. Rana palace gardens in and around the Kathmanduvalley and the large home gardens and bagaincha (fruit orchards) of jamindar (landlords) werepurposely designed to reflect their status through their size and diversity. Home gardens, therefore,can reflect social values and the fact that they are prized in Nepal has contributed to their widediversity and continued maintenance.

Contribution to the conservation of plant genetic resourcesThe points discussed above clearly indicate that home gardens play an important role in theconservation of plant genetic resources, serving as a refuge to a number of plant species, particularlythose not widely grown in the larger agroecosystem.

Types and features of home gardens in NepalInformation on detailed typology, species diversity and other features of home gardens in Nepal isnot well documented. Our observations indicate that there is diversity in the types of home gardensin Nepal as we travel from east to west and south to north in the country. Diversity is also observedin the composition and structure of these home gardens. Based on our own observations and thelimited literature available, an attempt is made here to characterise Nepalese home gardens.

Types of Nepalese home gardensDifferent types of home gardens generally observed in various parts of Nepal are listed in Table 4.This home garden typology is derived from the terms people locally use to refer to the home gardensand the related structures, and is largely based on the location (in relation to the house) andcomposition of these gardens. If we stick to the generally accepted definition of home garden, (i.e. afenced or protected area around homestead where crops, vegetables, fruits, medicinal, spices, fodderand other plant species are intensively integrated), then only bari and ghar-bari truly represent homegardens in Nepal. However, other types also show some features and uses of home gardens and,therefore, are described here as variants of home gardens.

Bari, in terai and ghar-bari, literally meaning a fenced area around house, is the most common typeof home garden in Nepal. These home gardens are maintained around the homestead and aregenerally fenced to keep livestock away from the area. Goth-bari, literally meaning a fenced areaaround the goth (animal shed), is an imitation of ghar-bari in the hills. People who do not haveenough space around their house keep their animals near the cultivated land at a convenientdistance away from family home. The goth-bari is the area also used for growing a number of

CASE STUDIES 109

vegetables, fruits and fodder trees. Tarkari bari, literally meaning a fenced vegetable-growing area, ismaintained by farmers of Koiri ethnic group, who are traditionally engaged into commercialvegetable farming in the terai region of Eastern Nepal. Tarkari bari is generally located away fromhome but close to the village for ease of supervision and is usually maintained when the bari homegarden is very small in size. Dumna, locally meaning upland, is similar to tarkari bari and ismaintained by farmers of Tharu ethnic community in mid- to far-Western Nepal. Dumna is alsolocated away from home generally on an upland portion of the rice field. The area is not fenced, andrice and other crops surrounding it act as fence to keep off the animals. Karesa bari, literally meaninga garden located behind house and also termed as ‘kitchen garden’, is an introduced terminologyused by development agencies (both government and I/NGOs) to refer to an area allocatedseparately within the homestead for year-round vegetable production. It is, therefore, a sub-systemof a home garden where seasonal and mostly modern and exotic varieties of vegetables arepromoted with the primary objective of meeting the nutritional requirements of the family.

Bagaincha in the valleys and hills and phulbari in terai and inner terai region are basically fruitorchards, which may be located close to the homestead or away from the home but near the village.Rana bagaincha in the Kathmandu valley and suntala bagaincha (orange orchards) in the middle hillsare examples of bagaincha. Mango orchards in terai are an example of phulbari. Bagaincha and phulbarithat are located close to or inside the homestead have many features of bari and ghar-bari and can beregarded as fruit-dominant home gardens.

Features of Nepalese home gardens

CompositionCommon types of Nepalese home gardens such as bari and ghar-bari are largely vegetable-dominant,with many types and varieties of vegetables integrated with spices, medicinal plants, fruits andmultipurpose trees of various types. These home gardens have great diversity in plant species withmultiple uses and are purposely maintained to meet the diverse needs of the family (Table 1). Oursurvey of 29 households in Kaski district of Western Nepal shows that on an average peoplemaintain about 14 species of vegetables, 5 species of fruit and 5 species of fodder trees in their homegardens. Although commercial vegetables and their varieties are increasingly finding their way intothem, maintenance of indigenous vegetables and their varieties is still a striking feature of Nepalesehome gardens. Another interesting feature of home gardens is a preference for a large number ofperennial vegetables, such as yam, taro, chayote, drumstick, tree tomato, as well as vegetablevarieties of aubergine, taro, tomatoes, chilies and the vegetatively-propagated thulo cauli. Integrationof fodder tree species is a unique feature of hill home gardens, while in terai home gardens a largenumber of fruit and shade tree species can be found.

The species composition of goth-bari gardens is more or less similar to bari/ghar-bari home gardensbut is less intensive, for instance it contains less species diversity and is planted less densely. Tarkaribari and dumna are similar in composition to each other, consisting of annual and perennial vegetableswith none or very few trees on the boundary. Similarly, bagaincha and phulbari are basically fruitgardens dominated by a single fruit species, for example orange in hill bagaincha and mango in teraiphulbari. Intra-species diversity however, does exist in these gardens. The Rana bagaincha inKathmandu valley consists of a variety of fruits, and many mango phulbaris in terai consist of adiversity of other trees, such as jackfruit, badahar, jamun, sapota (Achras sapota) and coconut.

Structural featuresThe high species diversity in bari/ghar-bari is structured into multi-layered systems of home gardens.The varieties of species found in these home gardens are systematically arranged in close associationwith each other in more than three layers utilising the vertical space. Tall trees tend to be placedalong the boundary of the home garden to serve as a live fence boundary and to avoid shade in bulk


of the garden. Farmers have good knowledge of the compatibility of different home garden speciesand experience in orient them in symbiotic relationships. The features of plant species in the differentlayers are given below.

• Top layer: containing large fruit trees (such as mango, jackfruit, jamun, guava, pear, peachetc.), fodder trees and other multipurpose trees.

• Middle layer: containing shrub-like species of fruits (papaya, banana, citrus etc.), vegetables(tree tomato, drumstick, cassava etc.), and climbers (gourds, yam, chayote, cucumber,pumpkin, beans etc.).

• Lower layer: consisting mostly of vegetables (okra, chillies, aubergine, cauliflower, taro etc.),spices (ginger, turmeric, coriander etc.), and herbs (tulasi, babari, marathi etc.).

• Ground layer: consisting of creepers (sweetpotato, lahare sag, etc.), root crops (radish, turnip,carrot, etc.) and spices (coriander, marathi, etc.)

The number of species and diversity decreases as one moves from lower layer to top layer, andthis is purposefully and carefully done to avoid competition for light and nutrients. Tarkari bari,dumna and karesa bari are home garden varieties that contain fewer layers; they mostly have groundand lower layers. In very few instances they can reach the middle layer with fruit trees like papaya,guava and banana. Bagaincha and phulbari generally have a top layer with a weakly integratedmiddle layer. These gardens, however, when established within the homestead, have all four layersas in bari/ghar-bari home gardens.

Management featuresIntensive care and management are common features of all types of home gardens, except forbagaincha and phulbari. Since home gardens are located around the home, family members are ableto give more attention and care to the plants grown there. Home gardens often receive a heavyapplication of animal manure and the soil is more fertile than in the larger agro-ecosystem. Lohar etal. (1993) have estimated that farmers in the Western hills of Nepal use more than 50 t/ha of animalmanure in the home garden. Leaf litters, crop by-products, and ash from the kitchen are also used toadd fertility to home garden soil.

Home gardens in Nepal are generally managed in a low external-input system and, therefore,production is largely organic. The use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is extremely rare Homegarden produce, therefore, is healthy and safe. Even those farmers who grow commercial vegetableshave been seen to grow organic vegetables in their home gardens for family consumption in variousparts of Nepal.

The seeds and planting materials of home garden species are maintained to a large extent by theowners of the home gardens themselves (Rana et al. 1998, Shrestha 1998). The seeds and plantingmaterials brought from outside are obtained largely through exchange within the community orregion (Shrestha 1998, Subedi et al. 2001). Our own observation and a limited study (Rana et al. 1998,Baniya et al. 2001) show that farmers experiment with the selection of seeds and planting materialsand even go as far as breeding (selection from naturally created variation as well as crossing ) togenerate diversity in the existing stock of home garden species. Diversity in chillie varieties in homegardena is a result of such processes. The owners of home gardens also have very specific knowledgeand experience on selection techniques for seeds and planting materials. Baniya et al. (2001) havefound that farmers use different methods for the selection of planting material for different varietiesof taro (i.e. use different plant parts).

Women are generally the custodians of home garden and devote much of their time in care andmanagement of the home garden. Men also contribute to the maintenance of home gardens and theyhave been seen as more important in the introduction of new diversity in these gardens. It is alsocommonly observed that men tend to introduce exotic commercial fruit trees into the home garden

CASE STUDIES 111

whereas women prefer to maintain traditional vegetables and other plant species that are requiredin the kitchen on regular basis. Gender relations within the home garden are, however, a matter offuture study.

Use featuresHome garden plant species have diverse and multiple uses and are maintained to meet householdrequirements for food, vegetables, spices, medicines, fodder, firewood, timber, and a number ofother uses. Home garden production systems are, therefore, subsistence-oriented and plant speciesare carefully selected to distribute their availability throughout the year as well as to satisfy taste andfood habits. However, in communities which have market access, home garden production is oftensemi-commercial and part of the produce is sold to the market to supplement the cash income of thefamily. In such home gardens, commercial vegetables, fruits and spices dominate the area, oftengradually displacing the indigenous species (Rana et al. 1998). Urban home gardens, however,should not be taken as synonymous with semi-commercial home gardens. Urban home gardensrepresent different home garden systems but resemble rural home gardens in many respects. Whilethe details of this system are yet to be researched, it has been observed that urban home gardensmaintain many indigenous plant species that are not commonly available in the market.

Factors affecting the composition and structure of Nepalese home gardensOur observations show a considerable variation in the composition and structure of home gardensin Nepal. Some major factors causing this variation are discussed below.

AgroecologyThe agroecology of a particular region and location has been found to influence species compositionand their structural layout in the home gardens to a great extent. For example, tropical plant species,such as mango, coconut, papaya and oal are common in the home gardens in terai region while sub-tropical to temperate species, such as peach, pear, chayote are common in the composition of hillhome gardens. The number of vertical layers in the home gardens decreases with the increase inaltitude to provide more light and heat to the lower-layer species. The home gardens in high hillshave none or very few high trees whereas terai home gardens have dense tree layers.

Wealth statusA number of studies indicate that wealthy/rich households maintain more diversity in their homegardens than poor households (Rana et al. 2000a,b). The wealthier households have bigger homegardens, have greater mobility and access to new genetic materials and are motivated to create diversityfor the attached social prestige. The fact that diversity in the home garden has strong positive correlationto the size of the home garden has also been reported from a number of countries (IPGRI 1998).

Ethnicity and food cultureEthnicity and food culture in Nepal are closely associated and this in turn has also been observed toinfluence the choice of plant species in the home gardens. Tasi (a citrus species) and cholecha arefound in Newars gardens; bhote lasun (a garlic variety) and rayo sag (broad leaf mustard) arecommonly planted by highlanders; and oal and lapha sag (Malva verticillata) and patuwa sag (Corchorusspp.) are culturally valuable for terai families and are commonly found in their home gardens.Similarly, tulsi is always kept for its religious and medicinal values in the home gardens of Brahminand Chhetri households.

GenderIt was generally observed that women play an important role in the management of home gardensas well as in the introduction and maintenance of plant diversity. Women are primarily responsible


for the daily preparation of food for the family, and decide what to prepare and how to prepare it,so they exert a large influence on the composition and structure of home gardens. Women have alsobeen found to introduce diversity in home gardens by bringing new plant species from their parentalhome. Gender roles, however, also depend on the ethnic and cultural background of the gardener;for instance, in terai ethnic communities men play equally important roles in the management andintroduction of new diversity into the home gardens (Subedi et al. 2001).

Information on use valueIt has been observed that when people come to know more about a species that is new to them, theyare more interested in its introduction into their home gardens. This has been found to be morecommon with spices and medicinal plants. The increasing introduction of neem tree in many parts oflower hills is a good example. This has also encouraged domestication of some medicinal plantsotherwise only found in the wild. People have also been found to keep a number of varieties of certainspecies for their different use values. This is quite commonly found in the case of taro (Rijal et al. 2001).

Mobility and exposureIncreased mobility, exposure and access to new places and information have been observed toinfluence the composition of the home gardens in Nepal. Rana palace gardens are example of this.Subedi, et al. (2001) have found that nodal farmers, who have contact with outside communities, aremore likely to maintain higher plant diversity. Similarly, lahures (people working in the Indian andBritish Gurkha army) have introduced a number of exotic plant species into their home gardens.Farmers’ study tours have been increasingly organised by development agencies, which also helpsfarmers to increase home garden plant diversity. Mobility has usually promoted the introduction ofnew and unique plant species into the home gardens in many communities.

MigrationMigration is another factor that has helped introduce new plant species into an area and increasehome garden diversity. Because of food habits and use association, people carry a variety of plantspecies when they migrate to new area. In the Chitwan (inner terai) valley, which has a highconcentration of migrants from all over Nepal, people have introduced a wide range of new plantspecies into their home gardens. Food crops like buckwheat, niger and a number of fodder trees andgreen manure crops (such as asuro in Chitwan, bhote lasun in lower hills and broad leaf mustard interai) are good examples of this. If these plant species survive in the new environment, then it alsofind their ways to the home gardens of other people in the community.

Market accessMarket access encourages people in peri-urban areas and close to roads to maintain semi-commercial home gardens. In such home gardens, plant species composition is influenced by marketdemands. For example, seasonal commercial vegetables, like cauliflower, cabbage, okra, radish andbeans are more common in such home gardens while perennial vegetables are characteristic oftraditional home gardens. Similarly, there is less integration of fruit trees and the overall structure isless layered with an emphasis on short duration, high input vegetables. The diversity in such homegardens is also low and declining (Rana et al. 1998). It has also been observed that commercialisationof home gardens has also eroded indigenous management practices and associated knowledge.Market access, however, can also lead to promotion and conservation of indigenous plant species,especially in urban home gardens, where these are not easily available in the market. The latteraspect needs verification from empirical study.

Access to development activitiesThe composition and structure of home gardens in Nepal are also increasingly being influenced by

CASE STUDIES 113

development activities targeted to improve family nutrition through kitchen garden programmesand/or an increase family income from gardening in market-accessible areas. These programmeshave largely been focused on year-round production of seasonal vegetables with strong bias towardsmodern and exotic vegetables and their varieties, often undermining the role and value of traditionalvegetables. Although such development activities have increased vegetable diversity of homegardens in rural areas, sustainability of the system has suffered due to poor network of seed supply.In cases of commercial production, it has reduced genetic diversity of the traditional home gardens.Similarly, there is none or very little consideration given to the introduction of fruits and othermultipurpose trees and plant species into the gardens and, therefore, these development activitieshave largely promoted single layered home gardens.

Research and development issues in Nepalese home gardensDespite a large contribution to sustaining the livelihood of rural people and the conservation of awide range of plant genetic resources, home gardens in Nepal are a highly neglected area of researchand development. As a result, home gardens have not been seriously considered in the research anddevelopment agenda of both formal and informal institutions charged with biodiversity conservationor development objectives. So far, it has not even been considered as a subject of scientific researchand because home gardens have never been included in national agricultural production statistics,their contribution to food security has been highly devalued. In this context, some relevant researchand development issues, related to Nepalese home gardens, are discussed herein.

Research issuesScientific information on home garden systems in Nepal is grossly lacking and this has imposed a bighindrance in including home gardens in national strategies for food security, improved family nutritionand conservation of plant genetic resources. Concerted efforts, therefore, are urgently required todocument characteristic features and types, structure and composition, species and varietal diversity,and the ecological and social setting of home gardens. Exploration of the following research questionswould help in refining strategies for conservation and development through home gardens.

Do home gardens retain varietal and species diversity which are not commonly found in thelarger agro-ecosystem?The answer to this question is vital in deciding whether home gardens can be considered as usefulunits for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. A study in the Western hills of Nepal by Rijalet al. (2001) showed that more than 20 varieties of taro are maintained collectively in the homegardens in a community. A majority of these varieties are maintained in a small area while two ofthem, namely hatipau and khari varieties, which have multiple uses and market value, are grown ina large area usually outside home garden. Similarly, in case of sponge gourd only one or twovarieties are grown per household but at community level four to five varieties have beenmaintained (Pandey et al. 2001). The social network within community plays a role in the exchangeof information and genetic materials, and this enhances in situ conservation of plant geneticresources in the community (Subedi et al. 2001). These preliminary studies show that a conservationstrategy utilizing home gardens is possible if considered at the community level.

How do the ecological factors influence orientation, structure and composition of home gardens?To a large extent, the ecological factors such as soil, climate, stress and abundance of crop species setlimits to the occurrence and diversity of crop species. The effect of these factors on the structure,composition, and orientation of the species and varietal diversity in home gardens in different agro-ecological zones needs to be explored and compared. The differences in the distribution of diversitythat have evolved as result of these factors and are maintained in home gardens needs to be assessed.


How do the socio-economic factors, including food culture and migration, affect structure andcomposition of species and varietal diversity in home gardens?Socioeconomic factors have large influence on the behaviour and decisions of the managers of homegardens. Gessler et al. (1998) have documented a number of factors, such as labour availability, levelof on-farm returns, off-farm employment and migration that have influence on home garden speciesand varietal diversity. Understanding farmers’ socio-economic circumstances and decision-makingpatterns are, therefore, crucial in designing in situ conservation activities. Wealth distribution,ethnicity, profession, consumption preferences, and the market are key factors that must beunderstood in order to assess when and how people value and maintain genetic diversity in theirhome garden.

How do commercialization, crop introduction and improvement affect species and varietaldiversity in home gardens?In majority of cases, commercialization has promoted monoculture crop production leading todecreased genetic diversity in the production systems. However, crop introduction andimprovement may have positive or negative impacts on the species and varietal diversity in alocality. New crops may introduce new diversity in the system but at the same time if these are moreprofitable and productive, they may marginalize traditional and less productive varieties. It is,therefore, important to know how commercialization, crop introduction and improvement affectspecies and varietal diversity in home gardens.

What targeted development interventions enhance home garden biodiversity and improve familynutrition and income?The maintenance of biodiversity in home gardens reflects farmers’ multiple objectives that may havefood/nutritional, income, medicinal, aesthetic and other values. It is now increasingly beingrecognized that home gardens are the main source of micronutrients for the family, especially forwomen and children in rural areas of Nepal. However, the role of traditional home gardens as aprovider of micronutrients to the family and its link with the conservation of plant genetic resourcesis not well understood. A majority of development interventions are seen to conflict with enhancinghome garden biodiversity, but if carefully designed, these can support farmers’ propensity tomaintain and enhance biodiversity in their home gardens.

Development issuesAlthough home gardens have never been a priority area in the national strategies for agriculturaldevelopment in Nepal, development agencies (both government and non-government) have oftenused them to push their family nutrition and income-generating programmes. Such programmes,however, have been the victims of classical development mentality and top-down approach. Thefollowing development anomalies have often been observed.

Conflict in species selectionThe nutrition-targeted development programmes tend to promote indiscriminate introduction ofexotic and/or improved species and varieties of vegetables without a proper understandingpeople’s needs and their systems of home garden management. These species are mostly short-lived(very seasonal) and have a single use as opposed to gardeners’ preference for perennial types withmultiple uses. For example, gardeners often opt for perennial chilli, aubergine, tomatoes andamaranthus over seasonal ones so that they provide a continuous supply throughout the year.Traditionally, people have been careful in including a number of vegetable species in their homegardens that have food processing and long-duration storage value, such as pumpkin, chayote, taro,ash gourd etc. The processed and stored foods are then used in dry seasons when there are very littlevegetables in the home garden. This aspect has been completely ignored in planning home garden

CASE STUDIES 115

development strategies. Similarly, development programmes have mostly been focusing onvegetables, while traditional home gardens equally value other plant species such as spices,medicinal plants, fruits and other multipurpose trees. Such development interventions not only havethe potential to reduce home garden biodiversity but also to narrow the micronutrient base of thetraditional home gardens.

Conflict in management requirementsThe vegetable and other plant species introduced to home gardens through most of the developmentagencies often require external inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, while local homegarden species thrive well with local resources, i.e. animal manure and locally made organic pesticidesavailable at the disposal of the household. Also, it is difficult to produce seeds from many of theintroduced species (especially those which are hybrids), and this makes them depend continuously onexternal sources of seed, which is not easily or cheaply accessible to rural people. This gradually reducestheir control over seed at the household level. The traditional home garden species, in contrast, are easyto seed; also many vegetable species are perennial and some, such as chilli, aubergine and tomatoeshave been selected to perform well in perennial management. Some unique seed management practices,such as vegetative propagation for thulo cauli (a local cauliflower variety) and variety-specificpropagation techniques in taro have also been developed. Many traditional home garden species arealso a result of continuous selection, adaptation and local breeding. Most of the developmentprogrammes have been unable to recognize these aspects, and instead in most instances have beenkilling such innovations. Similarly, many traditional home gardens use management practices (such asmulti-layer system) maximize space use, and increase and diversify production. Many of the introducedspecies have failed to adapt to such management regimes.

Conflict in knowledge systemsMany new plant species and varieties promoted through development programmes require newmanagement knowledge, and the resulting knowledge gap has often been one of the reasons forfailure of such programmes. People practising traditional home gardening, on the other hand, havea vast wealth of knowledge about the use of different plant species, species compatibility in multi-layered production systems, soil fertility and pest and disease management, plant propagation andseed management techniques, and storage and food processing methods. Despite this, farmers’indigenous knowledge and practices are rarely given due consideration in formulating suchdevelopment programmes. Such development programmes have contributed to the erosion ofindigenous home garden knowledge and eventually to the genetic erosion of many traditional homegarden species.

The development strategies for home gardens, therefore, need to be redefined in order to combinelivelihood goals with the goals of conservation. The new development interventions should build ontraditional knowledge and practices to compliment the richness of the traditional home garden system.LI-BIRD’s initial experiences from a number of programmes indicate that such strategies have a positiveimpact on both development and the conservation of agro-biodiversity (Joshi et al. 1997). A holisticapproach needs to be adopted to capitalize on use value, strengthen seed supply system and increaseaccess to information and germplasm. Experiences from in situ crop conservation work show thatcommunity mobilization through various means is a useful strategy to link development andconservation objectives. A definite strategy, however, will only emerge after a systematic study of suchcases. The last question under the research issues section is critical to the formulation of developmentstrategy for home garden and, therefore, should be central to any future study in Nepal.

ConclusionsHome gardens are an important component of the farming system in Nepal, and contributesignificantly to sustaining livelihood through improved food security and family nutrition. They


represent an important reservoir of diversity of plant species and have immensely contributed to themaintenance, promotion and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. However, these homegardens have long remained a neglected area for research and development, and very limitedinformation exists on them. A scientific study of home garden systems in Nepal is, therefore,urgently required. Such a study will contribute in three ways: (a) provide a better understanding ofthe mechanisms underlying traditional home garden systems and point out areas of further research;(b) chalk out development strategies and development actions that would further enrich thetraditional home garden system; and (c) inform planners and policy-makers with the informationnecessary to include home gardens in national development and conservation strategy. Suchinformation will also contribute to the on-going global debate on whether home gardens are a usefulstrategy for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources.

AcknowledgementWe are grateful to Dr Anil Subedi, Executive Director, LI-BIRD and Dr Pablo Eyzaguirre, SeniorSocial Scientist, IPGRI for encouraging us to write this paper. We are also thankful to DSE, Germanyfor supporting our participation in the workshop.

ReferencesAgte, V.V., K.V. Tarwadi, S. Mengale and S.A. Chiplonkar. 2000. Potential of traditionally cooked green leafy

vegetables as natural sources for supplementation of eight micronutrients in vegetarian diets. Journal ofFood Composition and Analysis, 13:885-891.

Baniya, B.K., A. Subedi, R.B. Rana, R.K. Tiwari and P. Chaudhary. 2001. Planting material management of taroin Kaski Districts of Nepal. Paper presented at the First National Workshop on ‘Strengthening the scientificbasis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April, 2001, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.

CBS. 1999. Statistical Year Books of Nepal. Centre Bureau of Statistic, Kathmandu Nepal.Gessler, M., U. Hodel and P., Eyzaguirre. 1998. Home gardens and agrobiodiversity: Current state of knowledge

with reference to relevant literatures. Discussion paper. IPGRI, Rome.Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer. 1992. Preface of editors. Pp. 1–7 in “…y tienen faxones y fabas muy

diversos de los nuestros…’ Origin, evolution and diversity of Cuban Plant Genetics Resources. Vol. 1. (K.Hammer, M., Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). Institut fur Pflanzengentik und Kulturpflansenforschung,Gatersleben, Germany.

IPGRI. 1998. Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems.An unpublished project proposal. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Joshi, K.D., M. Subedi, R.B. Rana, K.B. Kadayat and B.R. Sthapit. 1997. Enhancing on-farm varietal diversitythrough participatory variety selection: a case of Chaite rice in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture 33:1-10.

Kaini, B.R. 1995. Status of fruit plant genetic resources in Nepal. In Plant Genetic Resources: NepalesePerspectives (M.P. Upadhyaya, H.K. Sainju, B.K. Baniya and M.S. Bista, eds.). Nepal Agricultural ResearchCouncil (NARC), Kathmandu, Nepal/IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Kandel, D.D. and M.P. Wagley. 1999. Some salient indigenous technology practice for eatershed management inNepal. FAO/HMGN.

LI-BIRD. 1999. Developing baseline census profile of foster child families and assessing domain-wise situationto support future deveclopment interventions by PLAN Makawanpur: main report Cluster II (draft). Aconsultancy report. LI-BIRD, Nepal.

Lohar, D.P., B.R. Roka, B. Adhikari, L.K. Amatya, T.B. Subedi, G.B. Gurung, S.R. Ghimire, R.B. Rana, D.K. Sarafand B.K. Dhakal. 1993. Survey on indigenous horticulture in Baglung and Syangja districts. LARC Workingpaper No. 93/18. Lumle Agricultural Research Center, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.

Manandhar, N.P. 1989. Useful wild plants of Nepal. Nepal Research Centre Publication No. 14. Botanical Surveyand Harbarium, Godawari, Nepal.

Pandey, I.P. 1994. Indigenous methods of sustainable vegetable production in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal.RAPA publication: 1994/29.

CASE STUDIES 117

Pandey, Y.R., D.K. Rijal and MP Upadhyay. 2001. In situ characterization of morphological traits of sponge gourdat Begnas ecosite, Kaski, Nepal. Paper presented at the First National Workshop on ‘Strengthening thescientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April, 2001, Lumle, Kaski,Nepal.

Pratap, T. and B.R. Sthapit, eds.. 1998. Managing agrobiodiversity: farmers’ changing perspectives andinstitutional responses in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. International Centre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (ICIMOD) and IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Rajbhandary, T.K., N.R. Joshi,T. Shrestha, S.K.G. Joshi and B. Acharya. 1995. Medicinal plants of Nepal forAyurvedic drugs. MoFSC, HMGN, Nepal.

Rana, R.B., K.D. Joshi and D.P. Lohar. 1998. On-farm conservation of indigenous vegetables by strengtheningcommunity based seed banking in Seti River Valley, Pokhara, Nepal. LI-BIRD Technical Paper No. 3. Localinitiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara Nepal.

Rana R.B., D.K. Rijal, D. Gauchan, B.R. Sthapit, A. Subedi, M.P. Upadhyay, Y.R. Pandey and D.I. Jarvis. 2000a. Insitu Crop Conservation: findings of agro-ecological, crop diversity and socio-economic baseline surveys ofBegnas eco-site, Kaski, Nepal. NP Working Paper no. 2/2000. NARC/LI-BIRD, Nepal/IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Rana, R.B., P.K. Shrestha, D.K. Rijal, A Subedi and B.R. Sthapit. 2000b. Understanding farmers’ knowledgesystems and decision-making: participatory techniques for rapid biodiversity assessment and intensive dataplots in Nepal. In Participatory approaches to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources (EsbernFriis-Hansen and Bhuwon Sthapit, eds.). IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Rijal D.K, R.B. Rana, B.R. Sthapit and D.I. Jarvis. 2001. The use of taro local varieties in contrasting productionsystems in Nepal: I. Extent and distribution of taro varieties. Paper presented at the First National Workshopon ‘Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April,2001, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.

Ryman, J.C. 1992. Worldwatch paper 108.Shrestha, P.K. and T.B. Gurung. 1997. Baseline survey report of Lumle Agricultural Research Center’s

horticulture outreach research sites. LARC Working paper No. 97/42. Lumle Agricultural Research Center,Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.

Shrestha, P.K. 1998. Gene, gender and generation: role of traditional seed supply systems in on-farm biodiversityconservation in Nepal. In Managing agrobiodiversity: Farmers’ changing perspectives and institutionalresponses in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region (T. Pratap and B.R. Sthapit, eds.). International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Sthapit, B.R. 2000. Extent and distribution of species diversity in Nepalese homegardens. Unpublished report.Subedi, A., P. Chaudhary, B.K. Baniya, R.B. Rana, D.K. Rijal, R.K. Tiwari and B.R. Sthapit. 2001. Who maintains

crop genetic diversity and how? Implications for on-farm conservation and participatory plant breeding.Paper presented at the First National Workshop on ‘Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservationof agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April, 2001, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.


CASE STUDIES 119

Table 1. Distribution of vegetables, fruits and staple food crops species in home gardens in threecontrasting physiographic regions of Nepal

Physiographic regions*Local name Scientific name High Mid/low hills Terai and

mountain and valleys Inner Terai Parts used

VegetablesArmaleAshgourdAsparagusBalsomgourd (Barela)Bamboo shootsBeansBetheBitter gourdBrinjal (Aubergine)Bottle gourdBrocauliBuckwheatCabbageCarrotCauliflowerCressChattel (jhuse karela)ChayoteCherry tomatoChilliesChiveCholecha CorianderCowpeaCucumberDrumstickFaba beanGinariHiude simiKholesagLahare sagLapha sagLatteLude (Thadhiya)LettuceMakai bodiNeuroOkraOalOnionPatuwa sagPeaPotatoPumpkinRadishRayoRidgegourdSarsonShallotsSisnuSnakegourdsSpinachSpongegourdSweet pepperSwisschardTamatoTane bodiTaroThotneToriTree tomatoTurnipTusaYam

Allium spp.Benincasa hispidaAsparagus officinalisCyclanthera pedataBambusa spp.Phaseolus spp.Chenopodium albumMomordica charantiaSolanum melongenaLagenarium sicerariaBrassica oleracea var. broccoliFagopyrum esculentumBrassica oleracea var. capitataDaucus carotaB. oleracea var. botrytis Lepidium sativumMomordica cochinchinensisSechium eduleLycopersicon spp.Capsicum annuumAllium schoenoprasumAllium spp.Coriandrum sativumVigna spp.Cucumus sativusMoringa oleiferaVicia fabaAmaranthus spp.Dolichus lablabRorippa nasturtiunIpomoea muricataMalva verticillataAmaranthus spp.Amaranthus viridisLactusa sativaVigna spp.Diplazium spp.Abelmoschus esculentusAmorphophallus campanculatusAllium cepaCorchorus spp.Pisum sativumSolanum tuberosumCucurbita moschataRaphanus sativusBrassica juncea var. rayoLuffa acutangulaBrassica compestris var. sarsoonAllium ascalonicumUrtica spp.Trichosanthus anguinaSpinacia oleraceaLuffa cylindricaCapsicum annuum var. grossumBeta vulgaris var. ciclaLycopersicon esculentumVigna spp.Colocasia esculentaPolygonum spp.Brassica compestris var. toriaCyphomendra betaceaBrassica rapaArundinaria spp.Dioscorea spp.

Leaf/plantFruitShoot, rootFruitShootFruitLeaf/plantFruitFruitFruitFlowerYoung plantHeadRootFlowerPlantFruitFruit/rootFruitFruitPlantPlantLeafFruitFruitFruitFruitLeaf/plantFruitPlantLeaf/plantLeaf/plantLeaf/plantLeaf/plantLeaf/plantPod/FruitShootFruitRootBulb/plantYoung plantFruit/young plantTuberFruits/twigsRoot/leafLeafFruitLeaf/twigLeaf/plantTwigFruitLeaf/twigFruitFruitLeafFruitPod/FruitCorm/stalk/leafTwigLeaf/plantFruitRootShootRoot

*

*

**

*****

*

*

*

***

*

**

**

*

*

****

**

**************

*

***

******

*

*****

*******

***

*****

*

******

****

*

*

*******

***

**********

***

*

*

*

*

*


FruitsAantaAinseluAlmondAonla AppleApricotBaelBananaBettlenutChaksiChiuriCoconutGrapeGuavaImli (tamarind)JackfruitGulab jamunHairphaJujubeKalojamunKaphalKhajur (date palm)KimbuLemonLimeLitchiMangoPapayaPeachPearPersimmonPineapplePlumPomegranatePummeloSapotaSarifaStrawberryTasiWalnut

Rubus spp.Prunus amygdalusEmblica officinalisMalus spp.Prunus armeniacaAegle marmelosMusa spp.Areca catechuCitrus limettoidesAsendra butyraceaCocos nuciferaVitis viniferaPsidium guajavaTamarindus indicaArtocarpus heterophyllusSyzygium cuminii

Zizyphus spp.Syzygium spp.Myrica esculentaPhoenix dactytiferaMorus albaCitrus limonC. aurantifoliaLitvhi chinensisMangifera indicaCarica papayaPrunus persicaPyrus communisDiaspyros virginianaAnanus comosusPrunus domesticaPunica granatumCitrus maximaAchras sapotaAnnona spp.Fragaria vescaCitrus spp.Juglans regia

CropsAmaranthasFingermilletFoxtail MaizeMilletPeanutPigeonpeaPotatoSorghumSoyabeanSugarcaneSweet potatoTori

Amaranthus spp.Eleusine coracanaSetaria italicaZea maysPennisetum spp.Arachis hypogeaCajanus cajanSolanum tuberosumSorghum bicolorGlycine maxSaccharum officinarumIpomoea batatusBrassica compestris var. toria

GrainsGrainsGrainsGrainsGrainsGrainsGrainsTubersGrainsGrainsStalkTubersGrains

*

**

*

*

*

*

**

**

**

*

*

***

****

*

*

***

*

*

***

*****

*

*

*

***

*

*

**

*

***

*

*

*

*

**

****

*

**

***

* Physiographic region: 1—high mountain, rain-shadow areas above 3000 m asl;2—mid/low hills and valleys, hill environment between 300 and 3000 m asl;3—Inner Terai and Terai, plain environment below 300 m asl.

Source: modified from Sthapit, B.R. (2000). Extent and distribution of species diversity in Nepalese homegardens. Unpublished report.

CASE STUDIES 121

Physiographic regions*Local name Scientific name High Mid/low hills Terai and

mountain and valleys Inner Terai Remarks

Herbs and spicesBhotelasunCardamomChilliesCorianderCuminDalchiniFennelFenugreekGarlicGingerJimbuJwanoKohanOnionOpiumPerillaSaffronSeasameShallotTimurTurmeric

Allium spp.Elettaria cardamomumCapsicum annuumCoriandru sativumCuminum cyminumCinnamomum tamalaFoeniculum vulgareTrigonnela spp.Allium sativumZinziber officinaleAllium hypsistumTrachyspermum ammi

Allium cepaPapayer somniferumPerilla frutencensCrocus sativusSesamum indicumAllium ascalonicumZanthoxylum armatumCurcuma longa

MedicinalsBabariBhangBhayakurDhaturoFennelGingerGithaJangali Methi Jimbu Kurilo (Asparagus)MarathiOpiumPiplaPudinaSaffronTimurTulasi

Ocimum baislicumCanabis sativaDioscoria detoideaDatura spp.Foeniculum vulgareZinziber officinaleDioscorea spp.Trigonella emodiAllium hypsistumAsparagus officinalis

Papayer somniferumPiper cubecaMentha spp.Crocus sativusZanthoxylum armatumOcimum sanctum

Green manure/pesticidesAnkhitareAsuroBakainoBanmaraBardeloDhaincha Khirra NigerPadke Sajiwan Siplican (Garlic pear)Siris Taramandal (Tithonia)Titepati

Walsura trijugaAdhatoda vasicaMelia azedarachEupatorium spp.Ficus clavata Sesbania spp.Sapium insigneGoizotia abyssinicaAlbizzia odoritissimaOriganum vulgare Crataeva religiosaAlbizzia spp.Tithonia diversifoliaArtemisia vulgaris

**

**

*

**

*

***

*

***

*

*

****

***

**

****

*

**

*

**

**

****

**

**

**

*

****

**

*

*******

******

*

*

Leaf/bulbFruitFruit

Leaf/fruitSeedBark/leafSeedSeedBulb/leafRhizomeLeafSeed

Bulb/ plantSeedSeedFruitSeedLeaf/plantFruitRhizome

Leaf/plantSeedRootSeedSeedRhizomeRootLeaf/seedLeafRoot/shootFlower/leafSeed/fruit nectarsFruit/rootLeaf/plantFruitFruit/leafWhole plant

Table 2. Distribution of herbs and spices, medicinal, fodder and other multipurpose trees species inhome gardens in three contrasting physiographic regions of Nepal


Trees/shrubs for fodderAmriso BadaharBainsBanjhBarroBhotepipalChuletroDhanyaroDudhiloFaledoFasroGidariGoganHarroJimhar KaphalKauloKhaniyoKimbuKutmeroNimaroPakhuriTanki

Thyosonaleana maximaAtocarpus lakoochaSalix babylonicaQuercus glaucaTerminalia oelericaFicus spp.Brassaiosis spp.

Ficus nemoralisErythrina spp.Grewia optizaPremna barbataSaurauria nepalensisTeminalia chebulaFicus spp.Myrica esculentaMachilus gambleiFicus cuniaMorus albaLitsea polyanthaFicus roxburghiiFicus glaberrimaBauhinia purpurea

Trees/shrubs for other usesAmalaAndi (castor)BaelBakainoDalchiniDrumstickFigKabroKadamKapurKoiraloLapsiNeemNigaloRithaSalShilpikan SimalTamabansTooni

Emblica officinalisRicinus communisAegle marmelosMelia azadirachCinnamomum tamalaMringa oleiferaFicus caricaFicus lacorAnthocephalus cadambaCinnamomum camphoraBauhinia variegataSpondias axillarisAzadirachta indicaArundinaria spp.Sapindus mukorossiShorea robustaCrataeva unilocularisBombax malabaricumDendrocalamus spp.Cedrela toona

Plants of Cultural/ritual valueBarBhimsenpatiCoconutDuboGingerKans grassKatusOalPipalRudrakhshyaSimrik/SindoorTitepatiTulasi

Ficus bengalensisBuddleja asiaticaCocus nuciferaCynadon dactyloneZinziber officinaleSaccharum sponteniumCastanopsis spp.Amorphophallus campanculatusF. religiosaElaeaocarpus ganitrusMalotus philippinensisArtimisia vulgarisOcimum sanctum

*

**

*****

********

********

*

*

**

**

***

**

****

***

*

*

*

*

**

*

**

**

**

*

***

**

*

*

Tree

FruitPlantPlant

FruitRhizomeTreeTree/fruitFruitPlantPlant

Fruit SeedLeaf/fruitSeed/trunkBark/leafFruitFruitShootTree/fruitTreeFlowerFruitTreeShootFruitLeaf/treeShootFruitShoot

* Physiographic region: 1—high mountain, rain-shadow areas above 3000 m asl;2—mid/low hills and valleys, hill environment between 300 and 3000 m asl;3—Inner Terai and Terai, plain environment below 300 m asl.

Source: modified from Sthapit, B.R. (2000). Extent and distribution of species diversity in Nepalese homegardens. Unpublished report.

CASE STUDIES 123

Asuro Adhodata vasica

Local name Botanical name Medicinal value reported

Bojho Acorus calamus

Harro/barro Terminalia chebula/ T. bellerica

Koiralo Bauhinia variegata

Neem Azadirachta indica

Sajiwan Jatropha curcas

Sattuwa Paris polyphylla

Sisnu Utrica spp.

Soph Foeniculum vulgare (Fennel)

Timur Sil timur (Litsea citrata)Raye timur (Zanthoxylum armatum)

Tulasi Ocimum basilicum

• Used to prepare expectorant and antispasmodic medicine used inchronic bronchitis and asthma; also as an anthelminthic, appliedover fresh wounds, rheumatic joints and inflammatory swellings

• The rhizome is roasted in fire and used to treat dry coughs• Promotes memory longevity and good voice• Clear sinuses• Use for piles, constipation, colic pains, epilepsy, urine disorders,

infections etc.• Use as an insecticide against pests in food storage

• Dry fruits roasted in fire and used against coughs and colds• Tonic, laxative• When half ripe it has purgative value whereas when fully ripe it has

astringent value; kernel has narcotic value

• Juice of flower is used to treat dysentery and diarrhoea

• Twigs used for tooth brush• Leaves used as repellent against rice moth• Juice of neem leaves mixed with salt and black pepper to cure

intestinal worms• Juice and oil extracts used for venereal and skin diseases,

jaundice, malaria, dysentery and diarrhoea• Neem seed oil used for sprains, toothache and earache• Neem trees repel mosquitoes from the garden• Antidotal and diuretic value

• Extracts used for mud borne disease between legs and fingersduring paddy transplanting

• Used as tooth brush• Lamp oil

• Juice extract from root is used against poison and gas formation

• Bark is used to treat gout• Juice of leaf mixed with curd to treat blood dysentery• A decoction of leaves useful for treating sexual diseases, such as

gonorrhoea

• Stimulant• Vermicide• Aromatic and anti-inflammatory

• Soup of timur is used against diarrhoea and gas formation• Soup of raye timur mixed with jimu, garlic and turmeric is used for

gastric treatment

• Leaves used for various kinds of fever, bronchitis, stomachic andgastric disorders in children, and earache

• A mosquito repellent• Stimulating expectorant

Table 3. Some selected home garden species used for traditional medicines in Nepal

Source: Rajbhandary et al. (1995), Manandhar (1989), Kandel and Wagley (1999) Tej Pratap and Sthapit (1999).


Table 4. Types of home gardens reported in different parts of Nepal

Types of home Eco-region Location in relation garden to house Composition Structure

1. Bari Terai (plains) Close to house Vegetable dominant but mixed More than 3 layers, intensive

with fruits, multipurpose trees and flowers and varying size

2. Ghar-bari Hills Close to house Vegetable dominant but mixed More than 3 layers, intensive

with fruits, multipurpose trees and flowers and varying size

3. Ghoth-bari Hills Away from house Vegetable dominant but mixed with fruits, About 3 layers, less intensive

but close to goth multipurpose trees and flowers and varying size

4. Tarkari bari Terai (plains) Away from house Largely vegetables with limited number Less than 2 layers with and

types of vegetables intensive ground layer

5. Dumna Inner terrai, mid- Away from house Largely vegetables with limited number Less than 2 layers with

western Nepal and types of vegetables intensive ground layer

6. Karesa bari Hills and valleys Close to house Mostly vegetables of modern varieties Single layered

and seasonal in nature

7. Bagaincha Hills and valleys Close as well as Mostly fruits of single species but often Mostly single layered

away from house mixed few other fruits and vegetables and less intensive

8. Phulbari Terai (plains) Close as well as Mostly fruits of single species but often Mostly single layered

away from house mixed few other fruits and vegetables and less intensive

Home gardens in Ethiopia: some observations and generalizations

Zemede Asfaw Department of Biology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

AbstractLarge concentrations of the useful plants found in Ethiopia are located in home gardens. Emergingresearch perspectives and applications of ethnobotanical methodology are beginning to highlight thesubtle merits of traditional home gardens. The home garden agroecosystem in the country maintainsa wide range of taxa of perennial and annual crop plants. In a countrywide survey, 172 species werefound under cultivation in home gardens, of which about 52% were considered typical home gardenspecies while 28% were cultivated both in home gardens and crop fields. Some typical field crops(e.g. saccharine sorghum, sweet varieties of maize eaten unripe, broad- and thick-leaved Ethiopiankale used as a leafy vegetable, climbing varieties of beans, perennial climbing types of Capsicumannuum) have special varieties that are normally cultivated only in home gardens. In another studyundertaken in the southwest, a total of 112 species were recorded of which 85% were encountered inhome gardens and more than three-quarters were food crops. The species diversity in well-managedclimax home gardens is very high, and up to 60 different species were recovered from each homegarden studied. In the structure of such home gardens, up to four circles of fairly different cropcombinations are found. Circles closer to the house, on average, have more species per unit areawhile those in the outer areas have fewer species but higher populations of each species. Despitepressures from modernization and population growth, the benefits of home gardens for cropproduction, biodiversity conservation, food security and human nutrition are being increasinglyapplauded. The enset-related home gardens of Ethiopia, with Ensete ventricosum as the key species ofthe agroecosystem, maintain a far higher number of species than other types of agriculturalproduction and they have profound importance for peoples’ livelihoods. The role of these homegardens in the in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity and the associated wild/weedy crop relatives,as well as the maintenance of indigenous knowledge is significant and warrants priority attention.Comparative studies in different locations within the enset-growing zones, employing quantitativeethnobotanical methods, socioeconomic studies of the farming system as well as full-scale studies ofthe key species would help to bring out the specific characteristics and comparative advantages ofeach cluster of home gardens found under the Ethiopian system.

IntroductionEthiopia is a country of diverse agroecologies with a long history of agriculture. It is an importantworld centre of domesticated plants and a primary centre of diversification for many importantcrops (Harlan 1969). Four main food production systems, namely the plough and cereal culture ofthe north and central parts, the hoe and enset complex of the south and southwest, the shiftingcultivation of the southwest and the pastoral complex of the lowlands have evolved during the longhistory of agricultural production in the country (Westphal 1975). The country’s rich crop resourcesthat originated through domestication, introduction and adaptation have traditionally beenconserved in situ in crop fields and home gardens. The importance of the latter in maintaining asignificant proportion of the crop genetic diversity in the country has recently been realized. Homegardens are commonly referred to as backyard gardens, compound farms, kitchen-gardens,homestead farms, house-gardens, mixed-gardens and the like. This agroecosystem constitutes atraditional farming system charged with crop production while simultaneously conservingsignificant crop biodiversity (agrobiodiversity) on-farm (Brownrigg 1985, Soleri and Cleveland 1989,Christanty 1990, Fernandes and Nair 1990, Marten 1990, Okigbo, 1990, Wojtkowski 1993, Nguyen1995, Power and Flecker 1996, Gesseler et al. 1996, 1997, Godbole 1998, Wang 1998). Home gardens

CASE STUDIES 125

serve critical functions in fulfilling community and household needs ranging from food provisionand food security to augmenting family nutritional status, ensuring primary healthcare, incomegeneration and fulfilling other utility functions. Its importance for in situ conservation of thevaluable agrobiodiversity and the sustainability of the surrounding ecosystem is being evaluated. Inecological terms, home gardens are viewed as managed ecosystems (Power and Flecker 1996,Gesseler et al. 1997) with dynamic interplay between the biotic, abiotic and socio-cultural factors.

Considerable knowledge about the general characteristics and significance of Ethiopian homegardens has been documented (Westphal 1975, Okigbo 1990, Zemede Asfaw and Ayele Nigatu 1995,Zemede Asfaw 1997a, Zemede Asfaw and Zerihun Woldu 1997, Feleke Weldeyes 2000). These workshave shown that many indigenous crops, as well as others introduced from different parts of theworld, are cultivated in home gardens. Spontaneous populations of some home garden crops (e.g.Ensete ventricosum, Coffea arabica, Aframomum corrorima, Piper capense, Passiflora edulis, Solanumdasyphyllum) occur in the surrounding natural ecosystems. Further studies are necessary to explorethe specific types of Ethiopian home gardens, as determined by environmental or cultural factors.The concept of the home garden itself is far from being understood.

The last few decades have witnessed a world-wide increase in the emphasis on home gardens,showing the importance of their actual and potential values in the provision of food, medicine andother household necessities (Benneh 1974, Torquebiau 1992) and conservation of plant genetic diversity(UNICEF 1982, Brownrigg 1985, Caballero 1992, Okigbo 1994, Godbole 1998). Limited studies havefocused on the evolution of home gardens, which supposed that they arose from shifting cultivation toovercome resource constraints and to ascertain rights to land resources (Fernandes and Nair 1990,Rico-Gray et al. 1990, Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993). The perceived threat of genetic erosion to plantresources for food and agriculture could be arrested by ensuring the worth of home gardens, becausethey ensure conservation of useful plants through continued use.

This paper essentially summarizes data on home gardens in Ethiopia that have beenaccumulating over the last decade through different research projects, including: generalpublications on Ethiopian home gardens (Zemede Asfaw and Nigatu 1995; Zemede Asfaw 1997a),crop associations in home gardens (Zemede Asfaw and Woldu 1997), specific aspects of traditionalvegetables in and around home gardens (Zemede Asfaw 1997b,c), their role in the provision oftraditional medicinal plants (Zemede Asfaw 1998), ethnobotanical studies (Zemede Asfaw 1999a, b),home garden biodiversity (Zemede Asfaw 2000), wild food plants (Zemede Asfaw and Tadesse 2001)and origin and evolution of home gardens in Ethiopia (Zemede Asfaw 2001). The paper, using datacollected during different years at different places, puts more emphasis on the contributions ofEthiopian home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources and suggests priorityresearch areas. The main characteristics, plant composition and overall status of the home gardenagroecosystem in Ethiopia are presented with the aim of understanding its importance for in situconservation of agrobiodiversity and to draw attention to its further study and enhancement.

Research on Ethiopian home gardens The home garden agroecosystem was studied by Westphal (1975) in his pioneering work onagricultural systems in Ethiopia. Okigbo (1990) applied the term ‘home garden’ to the farmingsystem and gave a brief description of Sidamo home gardens in southern Ethiopia on the basis of theinformation provided by Westphal. A questionnaire/interview-based survey of Ethiopian homegardens, covering most of the geographical and ecological areas of the country, was undertaken inthe early 1990s to describe the main characteristics of home gardens as well as plant composition andother aspects. This was followed by a study of crop association, traditional vegetables, traditionalmedicinal plants and the ethnobotany of lesser-known cultural groups. For these studies, data werecollected through field observation, plant collection, herbarium studies, discussion with householdmembers and key informants, administration of semi-structured interviews and data collectionforms, questioning elderly garden owners about unique and rare crops and practices, tracing garden


crops through market surveys of garden products, seeds and seedlings of garden crops, tracking rarespecies/varieties using children of the village, and home garden sketching and photographing. Anethnobotanical approach is being combined with botanical investigation of home gardens inEthiopia. The Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research has an on-farm conservationproject in southwest Ethiopia, which is not explicitly focused on the home garden agroecosystem,but is linked through the conservation of farmer varieties/clones of some crops in theagroecosystem. This activity is still on-going, but a wider and more interdisciplinary programme isrequired in order to undertake more rigorous data collection and analysis of home gardens in thecountry. Multidisciplinary and participatory approaches are necessary in order to generatequantified and disaggregated data on home gardens. The studies must also focus on the key homegarden species that largely determine the management and existence of the system.

History, origin and evolution of Ethiopian home gardensThere is no direct evidence as to when people began the practice of home gardening in Ethiopia.However, a long history is postulated based on the antiquity of agriculture, crop composition, oralliterature and rich vernacular designations in different local languages. Patches of wild enset/falsebanana (Ensete venricosum) observed in some parts of western Ethiopia have been interpreted bysome as possible relics/descendants of home garden plants of ancient settlements abandoned longago. The history of home gardening in Ethiopia is believed to have been linked with the beginningof agriculture in the country, which dates back 5000–7000 years (Ehret 1979, Brandt 1984). Over themillennia of agricultural history, home gardens have embraced many important species of plantsfrom different corners of the country and the globe. Ethiopian home gardens are unique in theirarchitecture, crop mix and the key (dominant) species, which include a significant number ofindigenous crop taxa and some that are truly endemic (e.g. Coffea arabica, Ensete ventricosum, Cocciniaabyssinica, Brassica carinata, Plectranthus edulis and many other lesser-known species). The presenceof enset and other restricted-range crops makes Ethiopian home gardens unique and assures theirreliance on indigenous crops and management practices. Due to the presence of these rare species aswell as its unique structure, Ethiopian home gardens require national and global attention. Over andabove its importance in the supply of household needs, it is a place for the generation andmaintenance of valuable biological diversity and its associated cultural heritage. This heritage isrevealed in the depth of local peoples’ indigenous knowledge, practices, and skills.

In Ethiopia, home gardens come into existence under different modes of initiation, influenced bybiotic, abiotic, socio-economic and cultural factors. In central Ethiopia, farmers establish their livingquarters outside the farming area, usually in a highly degraded and overgrazed area. The homegarden is then gradually composed starting with ruderals and annual herbaceous crops, and thengradually introducing the seedlings of perennial tree crops. Thorny shrubs and small trees areencouraged to grow on the perimeter, ultimately producing a compound with a fence rendered tightby the profuse growth of thorny shrubs and other live plants. The house, animal pens, beehives,grain stores and the plots for different crops are sited in their appropriate places. The animal shelteris shifted to a new site periodically and the manure-enriched plot claimed for gardening. Soil fertilityindicator species start appearing spontaneously on the rubbish heaps that accumulate at certainspots and other such places. The space allotted to perennial garden crops increases from year to yearas the garden heads towards maturity/climax. The housing area with the garden may be shifted toa new site leaving the well-developed soil for the major field crops. Such home gardens have alimited history, but since households move to new sites with their original seed and plantingmaterials, the germplasm is maintained. Farmers even move with their known and cherishedgermplasm when they move to other continents as was documented for Africans in the Americas(Esquivel and Hammer 1992).

In the forested areas of southwestern Ethiopia, home gardens are started in the forest.Traditionally people consult knowledgeable elders who visually identify a suitable area and give

CASE STUDIES 127

consent. Selective clearing of the forest is undertaken while leaving useful species such as coffee,Rhamnus, Aframomum, Piper and many shade trees like Cordia and Milettia, which will be parts of thefuture home garden and live fence plants. The house is constructed in a suitable area, the garden isfenced, and gradually crops are introduced from old houses, neighbours or the market. In a shorttime the garden develops to maturity with diverse species composition and phenological classes.The key species, usually Ensete ventricosum, comes to dominance soon.

Home gardens undergo dynamic successional changes, and attain relative stability at the climaxstage of the home garden for the particular agroecosystem. The different stages are distinguishableby the extent of plant diversity and species composition, phenological variation, intensity ofagricultural activities and diversity of functions. Hence, home gardens come into existence andevolve over time and space, influenced by biophysical and agroclimatic regimes, growingconditions, and the management practices. They exhibit parallel developmental patterns to those ofthe adjacent natural ecosystems. Observations elsewhere have shown that home gardens originate,develop gradually and undergo subtle changes towards maturity and relative stability at theirclimax stages where their productivity also reaches climax (Fernandes and Nair 1990, Jose andShanmugaratnam 1993). In a study investigating successional stages of home gardens in central andsouthwestern Ethiopia, it was found that 5%, 20% and 75% of the home gardens were found at thepioneer, intermediate and climax stages, respectively (Zemede Asfaw 2001). When abandoned,home gardens leave traces for years after the homes are removed from the site.

The field observations and discussions held with farmers clearly indicate that home gardening isa flourishing system in Ethiopia. Recently, its recognized value in food security and agriculturalsustainability is leading to its expansion to adjacent areas. It is observed that enset cultivation isexpanding towards the northeastern and northwestern fringes of its range. There are, however,potential threats to the agroecosystem and the culturally and economically important crops.Historical sources show that the crop enjoyed wide distribution in Ethiopia, including in the north,but later shrunk to a narrower area in the south having been pushed out by expansion of the cerealculture and the associated sociocultural shifts.

Types of Ethiopian home gardensA large proportion of the cultivated plants and domestic animal species of the country are maintainedin home gardens, traditionally known by different vernacular names. A very common vernacularequivalent for the term home garden is yeguaro-ersha (Amharic language) and another is eddo (Oromiclanguage) in eastern Ethiopia. The former term literally means the backyard farm while at the sametime indicating the closeness of the cultivation plot to the house. The latter term alludes to thepreclusive and private nature of the holding. In parts of central Ethiopia, the vernacular equivalentterm for the home garden is guaro while in the Kefa language the equivalent term is daaddegoyo.

Common locations for gardens in relation to the house in Ethiopia are backyards (48%), frontyards (26%), side yards (13%) and those that almost encircle the house (13%). Various combinationsof these types exist as back and sides, back and one side, front and sides, etc. In many rural villageswhere home gardening is well developed, the space in front of the house is with a clean greenmeadow as a family resting and socializing place. In some areas, fences confine gardens while inothers they merge with crop fields and may be fenced together.

The home garden area, which has variable shapes and sizes, includes the living house, animal houses,grain stores, drying places, and plots of garden species. It is usually fenced and the fence is frequentlyreinforced by multipurpose live tree and shrub species. Common garden sizes range from about 100 m2

to more that 2000 m2, but in extreme cases, sizes as low as 20 m2 and as high as 6000 m2 have beenrecorded. Larger gardens, approaching the upper limit, are more frequent in the southwest. When cropcomposition is considered, the gardens are typically of the mixed type. Major types could bedistinguished on the basis of the major crops or key species, such as in the enset-related home gardens,widespread in parts of southern and central Ethiopia. In such gardens, enset occurs with many other crops


in different combinations including a variety ofroot/tuber crops, coffee, chat, and differentvegetables and spices. Application of a vegetationclassification model in home gardens aroundBonga town in southwestern Ethiopia (FelekeWoldeyes 2000) produced plant associationsidentifiable as Ensete–Xanthosoma, Ensete–Coffea,Ensete–Brassica, Ensete–Xanthosoma–Saccharum andEnsete–Xanthosoma–Nicotiana communities. Thisshows the key position of Ensete ventricosum inthese home gardens as a dominant species in allthe ‘vegetation formations’ found in this area. It isfurther noted that the enset-related home gardensshow variations in the different zones of itsoccurrence as could be seen by comparing homegardens of Kefa, Sidamo and Gurage amongothers.

Home garden structure and patterns of crop arrangementThrough years of experimentation, the local people in different agroecological zones have developeda general home garden structure with considerable diversity and flexibility that facilitates productionof the major livelihood necessities. They have managed to select crops that are co-adapted and thosethat give aggregated benefits. They have designed the home gardens to allow optimal harvest of solarenergy through the strategy of fitting phenological classes and life forms together in space and time,and through niche diversification techniques. If only dietary criteria are considered, each home gardenportrays a kind of nutritional calculus (cf. Marten 1990) wherein starchy, proteinaceous, oil bearing,leafy and other categories of crops are proportionately mixed to serve its primary home use function(Zemede Asfaw and Woldu 1997). This is a cultural heritage passed from generation to generationthrough action and word of mouth. While there is a general pattern, each garden is unique in its spatialand temporal structure, crop mix and arrangement, and overall design. The spatial and temporalarrangement of crops in these home gardens is complex, further broadening the dimensions foranalysis of the biological diversity. The traditional home gardening practice is a system for productionwith in-built mechanisms for in situ conservation of the agrobiodiversity and the associated wild flora(Power and Fleckler 1996, Gesseler et al. 1997, Zemede Asfaw 1997a). As regards the main determinantsof the biotic change and variation, literature sources (e.g. Fernandes and Nair 1990, Padoch and Jong1991, Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993) agree on ecological (soil, altitude, water, etc.), personal(preferences, interest, knowledge, etc.), socio-cultural and economic (household needs, gender, market,social groups, wealth status, etc.), and political factors (land use system, marketing policies,conservation policies, agricultural support systems, etc.).

Although the crops in home gardens appear to be arranged in a kind of chaotic random pattern,a general structure could be drawn for the sake of comprehension and modelling. The overall croparrangement has stability while being dynamic with respect to the presence and developmentalstages of perennial species and seasonal shifts in the kind, positions and amount of the herbaceousannual crop species.

Some crops are always planted in regular patterns, while others are planted wherever space isavailable. In the drier parts of eastern Ethiopia, chat (Catha edulis), coffee, citrus and banana areusually planted in the depressions of rows of ridged or terraced grounds made to accumulateenough water for deep-rooted perennial species, while the smaller crops like potato, sweet potato,groundnut, chillies, onion, garlic, maize, cabbage, and many other vegetables and spices are plantedon the permanent ridges of soil. Nurseries are also prepared for raising seedlings of chillies, coffee,

CASE STUDIES 129

Enset-based home gardens in Welayra, near Sodo town.

Zen

ede

Asf

aw

cabbage, and other species for later transplanting. When the garden is located adjacent to a stream,the section next to the stream is usually planted with banana, sugarcane, citrus and other perennialcrops requiring more water. Perennial tree crops, notably citruses, are planted far apart while thespace in between is used for lower crops. During the early periods of growth, the space between treecrops is used for growing low crops of different herbaceous species and the density of such crops issynchronized with the horizontal and vertical expansion of the perennial tree crops. Changes areobserved with the age of the garden and the seasonal cycles. In most gardens, some crops (e.g.Arundinaria alpina, Arundo donax, Otostegia integrifolia, and Rhamnus prinoides) are planted on theinside margins next to the fence and others (e.g. Agave spp.) on the outer margins as reinforcementsfor fences. The vines of bottle gourds, climbing beans, pumpkins, cherry tomatoes, and the perennialCapsicum annuum are arranged to climb on fences. This usually makes the garden fence and thethatched-house almost indistinguishable from one other, particularly from the back. Bottle gourdsand pumpkins are usually planted in the section of the garden that is very close to the animal pensbecause of their high fertilizer requirements. Tall and robust garden crops (e.g. giant trees, bamboos,enset) are usually kept towards the outer end of the garden so that they also serve as a layer of fenceto protect the more delicate and cherished crops. As one goes away from the house, garden cropstend to gradually increase in vertical height, making their inspection easier. However, there isusually a mixing of tall, medium-sized, low, and younger stages of larger plants. The pattern isvaried from garden to garden, and suggests a near-random chaotic arrangement, but upon closerobservation, some individual crops reveal a regular aggregated patchy pattern as an empiricalpractice of niche diversification and mixing of compatible crops.

The general pattern within the mature home garden of the southwest shows that, on the average,plant size successively increases with distance from the house and biological diversity is highest nearhomes and reduces further out becoming almost a single species at the extreme end of the garden.A cross-sectional transect made by going from the back of the house to the end of the garden showszonation of crops. There is a small circle immediately behind the house in a special horizon mostlycontaining many low species within a relatively small area. Some species such as Ruta chalepensis,Cymbopogon citratus, ocimum basilicum, Foeniculum vulgare, Astemisia afra are concentrated in thiszone, and are usually represented by only one or two individuals in the entire garden and hencemany species are maintained in a small space. The next two zones account for about 90% of thespecies in the entire home garden while the last circle has only a few species, but a larger populationsof each species in the wider area. Moving away from the house, the circumference and the area ofthe circles increase, merging into more extensive plots of one or two species at the far end. In amature home garden, where a total of 50 species were recorded, 10, 22, 25 and 4 species were foundin the first, second, third and fourth circles, respectively. The number of species generally decreaseswhen moving from the house to the far end of the garden while the number of individuals of aspecies reduces in the reverse direction. This pattern follows the pattern reported for cultivatedlandscapes in Africa (Okigbo 1994) with more useful plants being sited close to homes.

The small circle maintaining more species per unit area contains spices, medicinal plants,vegetables, fragrance plants and others, which are mostly for home consumption. Being aromaticplants, they give good odour to the environment of the house, in addition to their primary use infood preparation and healthcare. This part of the home garden is the domain of women, who takeresponsibility for the propagation, management, harvesting, and use of the material includingselling it at market or giving excess produce to friends and relatives. They can also be easily accessedfor instant use as herbs, fresh vegetables, condiments, etc. The outer circle, on the other hand, isdominated by enset, which forms a circular grove around the house completely enclosing it. Peoplebelieve that the enset grove of an able farmer will be thick enough to make the house invisible fromfar away. The grove also retains the smoke from the house in the garden to repel insects and fumigatethe living environment and keep away insect pests. Some species maintained as thick live fences(Pycnostachys abyssinica) also emit a fragrance that is believed to repel insects.


Plant composition in Ethiopian home gardensEthiopian home gardens collectively maintain a larger proportion of the country’s useful plants. Thisdiversity can be seen under the three main categories of garden crops, live fence species, useful wildand semi-wild plants and wild/weedy crop relatives found within and in the immediate vicinity ofthe home garden environment (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of species of useful plants found in and around home gardens in Ethiopia

Category of useful plants Number of speciesHerbs Shrubs Trees Climbers Total

and trailers

Crops purposely cultivated in home gardens 88 47 37 17 172

Traditional medicinal plants found in and around home gardens 37 38 19 3 54

• Crops cultivated primarily for use in traditional medicine 3 8 1 – 12

• Crops used in medicine being cultivated for other purposes 30 16 8 2 54

• Wild plants used in traditional medicine 4 14 10 1 28

Traditional vegetables found in and around home gardens 4 6 36 2 46

• Cultivated in home gardens 1 3 7 2 11

• Occur wild in the vicinity of home gardens 3 3 29 – 35

Live fence plants 0 38 25 1 64

Wild/semi-wild useful plants found in the vicinity of home gardens 45 47 46 6 148

Total recorded useful plant species 135 146 123 25 412

Many introduced ornamentals are not recorded, and multipurpose species have been recounted in multiple categories.

When the live fence, shade species and the useful wild/semi-wild species found close to the homegardens are added to the conventional crops, the real magnitude of the species diversity of the homegardens emerges. A complete list of the useful plants of the home garden environment in Ethiopia isnot available, partly because the surveys are not yet complete and the flora of Ethiopia is not wellenough known to facilitate their authentic identification.

Crop diversity in Ethiopian home gardensThe home garden agroecosystem is an important system for the maintenance of agrobiodiversity beyondits primary function in crop production, household food security and nutrition. It is an important area foreffectively implementing programmes geared towards biodiversity conservation, food security andsustainable development. Not less than 172 crop species distributed in 121 genera and 50 plant familieshave been recorded in Ethiopian home gardens (Zemede Asfaw 1997a). The Fabaceae, the Lamiaceae,Poaceae, Rubiaceae, Asteraceae and Brassicaceae with more than 10 species each (11–17) exhibited thehighest species diversity in Ethiopian home gardens. Some home gardens produce a significant amountof the food needed by the family in addition to minor and supplementary products.

The role of the home garden in household food security is illustrated by the fact that about 90% oftheir produce is used for home consumption, and that harvesting takes place on a continuous basiswhen the material is needed. The integrity of the agroecosystem relies on the natural plant reservoirfound in forests, woodlands and grasslands. Some crops of the home garden are at home in the forests(e.g. Coffea arabica, Aframomum corrorima, Passiflora edulis, Piper capense, Rhamnus prinoides, Psidiumguajava). The wild relatives of many crops are found in the forests and wastelands, providing anotherpool of genetic resources for crop improvement. Crops being moved from the forest to the homegarden enter a process of domestication, while those moving from home garden to forest undergo aprocess which has been referred to as de-domestication (Esquivel and Hammer 1992).

Traditional home gardens are important platforms for conservation of plant agrobiodiversity on-farmbecause they are centres of accumulation for a wide range of useful plant taxa. Few individuals of manyspecies are cultivated in each home garden under complex mixed cropping systems. The system

CASE STUDIES 131

maintains its integrity through traditional reuse and recycling of household and farm refuse, which inpart accounts for its sustainability. Increased emphasis is being placed on inventorizing theagrobiodiversity and on ethnobotanic documentation of the entire home garden agroecosystem in manytropical and subtropical countries of Africa, Asia and South and Central America (Millat-e-Mustafa 1998).

The limited studies undertaken to date on Ethiopian home gardens have shown that theagroecosystem maintains a sizable amount of the country’s agricultural biodiversity (Zemede Asfaw1997a, 2000). The home gardens are widely distributed throughout the country and are home to arange of taxa of cultivated perennial and annual crop species and varieties. They harbor rare speciesor varieties of cultivated plants as well as those that are being grown on an experimental basis. In acountrywide survey (Zemede Asfaw 1997a), 52% of a total of 172 crops species found in homegardens were categorized as typical garden species, 28% were seen to be common both in homegardens and fields while 20% were typical field crops that are occasionally found in home gardensin the study area or have special varieties grown in home gardens. Examples of the latter includejuicy (saccharine) sorghum, popping sorghum, fast maturing and sweet types of maize, robust,thick-stemmed and large and thick leaved Brassica carinata, the perennial Capsicum annuum andclimbing types of Phaseolus and other legumes. About 74% of the crops documented in home gardenswere categorized as food crops while the remaining 26% were non-food crops, showing theimportance of home gardens in supplying food to the household (see Table 2).

Table 2. Number of species of crops in Ethiopian home gardens in the different horticultural (use)categories

Crop category Number of species Percentage of total Remarks

Food crops 127 74 Close to 3/4 of the species are food

plants

Cereals 6 3

Pulses 14 8

Roots and tubers 13 8

Fruits 36 21

Vegetables 30 17

Oils, nuts and sugars 12 7

Spices and herbs 16 10 Many of these are also used

in traditional medicine

Non-food crops 45 26 About 1/4 of the species cover non-food

necessities of households

Non-food oil crops 3 2

Fragrance plants 6 3

Stimulants/narcotics 2 1

Plants used in crafts 9 5

and implements

Medicinal 10 6 Does not include the many species that

are harvested from live fence and nearby

natural environment

Utility plants 3 2

Miscellaneous 12 7

Total 172 100.00

Out of 112 species of crops found growing in southern and southwestern Ethiopia, 69 (62%) wererecorded in home gardens only, 26 (23%) both in home gardens and crop fields and 17 (15%) in fieldsonly. In most parts, about 85% of the cultivated species are encountered under cultivation in homegardens, about 50% always in home gardens and about 35% in home gardens and fields (Table 3).


Table 3. Number of crop species and place of their cultivation as seen in eleven study sites in southern,western and southwestern Ethiopia

Site Number of distinct crop species cultivated Percent of cropsIn home In home In fields Total cultivated in

gardens only gardens and fields only home gardens

1 25 25 5 55 91

2 13 30 9 52 83

3 41 17 9 67 87

4 30 22 6 58 90

5 23 8 4 35 89

6 18 14 7 39 82

7 31 5 13 49 73

8 10 6 3 19 84

9 6 6 3 15 80

10 5 3 4 12 67

11 5 7 0 12 100

Total 50 35 15 100 85

A study conducted in southwestern Ethiopia showed that farmers prefer some crops to others intheir home gardens based on their use values, adaptability, cultural significance and other reasons.Accordingly, the top ten most preferred plants in the order of preference were, as identified byfarmers: Ensete ventricosum, Xanthosoma sagittifolium, Coffea arabica, Brassica carinata, Colocasiaesculenta, Cucurbita pepo, Capsicum annuum, Dioscorea cayenensis-rotundata complex, Saccharumofficinarum and Coccinia abyssinica. The evidence indicates that the key species in almost all of thehome gardens in this area is Ensete ventricosum.

Vegetable and spice crops in Ethiopian home gardensEthiopia has a long tradition of using spices, condiments, additives and herbs in its traditional foodculture. The peoples of Ethiopia have been very keen in incorporating and integrating new cropsinto the existing farming complex and into traditional food preparation. In this process the homegarden has played important and key roles. Ethiopians have successfully integrated introduced foodcrops like potato and hot pepper into their original dishes, often creating new ones. They havesuccessfully maintained many introduced species in home gardens along with indigenous ones,leading to their integration and acquired cultural significance in Ethiopia’s diverse and unique foodpreparation and eating habits. In Table 1 the number of cultivated (11) and wild (35) species ofvegetables that have wider usage in the country as vegetables are given. Likewise spices andcondiments also make a significant proportion of home garden plants. About a dozen species ofcherished spices used in foods including some that occur in the natural ecosystems (Aframomumcorrorima, Piper capense) have been recorded. Vegetables and spices account for about 27% of thehome garden species and with the non-food aromatic plants the share of this category is substantial(Table 2).

Medicinal plants in Ethiopian home gardensMany species of garden crops have multiple uses. A survey performed (Zemede Asfaw 1997a)showed that about 6% of the species of home garden crops are primarily cultivated for medicinal use(Table 1). However, there are other garden crops that are purposely grown for their medicinal use onoccasions (e.g. many spice crops) and those that are usually grown for other purposes but used intraditional healthcare. Studies in different areas (Zemede Asfaw 1998) have shown that the share ofmedicinal plants in the home garden is much more. It must be noted that the medicinal use of some

CASE STUDIES 133

home garden species is restricted to some communities while use of others is more universal in thecountry and beyond. It is further noted that while the main garden crops within the sameagroecological region are generally common, those cultivated as traditional medicinal, live fence andshade plants vary considerably from household to household. The bulk of the medicinally usedplants are also used as food and this may reflect the intertwined function of the home garden forfood production and as a health care delivery system.

Plants maintained as home garden live fence and shade treesHome gardens are sometimes bound by natural barriers such as rivers, gorges or mounds. However,they are generally fenced with dry wood material and sometimes with stone. In other cases, liveplants (very often thorny shrubs) are grown or used as reinforcements. In rural villages, homegarden fences almost always contain live plants which provide additional benefits to families asfood, medicine, material for construction, farm and household implements and cordage. Many ofthese can be traced back to the natural vegetation before the living quarter was established, whileothers are either planted purposely or encouraged and protected when they grow by themselves.About 64 species of shrubs and trees distributed in 54 genera and 36 families are maintained as livefence and shade plants (Table 1).

Common live fence species that also give edible fruits include Rosa abyssinica, Carissa edulis, Opuntiaficus-indica, Dovyalis abyssinica, Ziziphus spina-christi, Rubus spp. and many others (see Zemede Asfawand Mesfin Tadesse 2001). Phytolacca dodecandra and Adhatoda schimperiana are commonly encounteredas live fence plants. The former is used in traditional medicine and as traditional detergent while thelatter is used as fodder during the dry season. In the drylands, the usual live fence species are Euphorbiaspp. (e.g. E. abyssinica, E. tirucalli), Ziziphus spp., Agave spp., Acacia spp. and others. In rural areas the liveplants of the fence may have been planted intentionally from stubs and cuttings pressed into the soil tostrengthen the fence, or they may have been encouraged after they sprouted from the soil seed bank, orthey may be a remnant of the original natural vegetation.

Useful wild/semi-wild plants in the vicinity of home gardensThere are many plants that are used by communities which originate as weeds in the environs ofhome gardens. Taking the main ones alone, about 148 species constituting about equal proportionsof herbs, shrubs and trees (Table 1) have been recorded during several field trips. These are used forvarious purposes including as food during times of stress when others are not available, or formedicines and other uses. Many grass species, perennials and annuals that frequently grow in homegardens are also used for various purposes including erosion control, as fodder plants, as bee forage,fumigation material, thatch, etc.

The value of home gardens in maintaining the biodiversity of useful plants could be extrapolatedfrom its habitat/niche diversification, diversity of the community of useful plants, the number ofcrop taxa in individual gardens and in the entire agroecosystem. One way of quantifying thisdiversity is to assess the taxonomic diversity. Many of home garden species also exhibit variabilitybelow the species level, and the genetic diversity is also anticipated to be high. The home gardenenvironment is a repository and a place for the evolution of new diversity of useful plants. This meritalone would put it high on the agenda of use and conservation of plant genetic resources.

To conserve crop biodiversity in the country, home gardens provide an important avenue becauseabout 85% of the crops and many crop relatives and wild useful plants are maintained in it. Manytaxonomic groups, horticultural categories and different growth forms are cultivated in homegardens along with those that are known to be economically and culturally very important to localcommunities. The crops include cereals, fruits, vegetables, oils, pulses, roots/tubers, medicines,spices, condiments, fragrances, fumigants, crafts/implements, dyes, utility, ornamentals and others.Some crops are obligate home garden crops, while others are considered facultative home gardencrops as they are also grown in fields in some parts of the country.


To assure the diversity and quality of their choices, farmers maintain a startling array of speciesand varieties in their home gardens. They select and conserve diversity based on clearagromorphologic characters that they can identify visually and relate with some nutritional,adaptational and other attributes. The diversity exhibited at the species and varietal levels is verycritical to ensure in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm in farmers’ home gardens,and analysis of home garden diversity at this level (based on species as well as varieties) isimportant.

Indigenous management of home gardens in EthiopiaThe home garden agroecosystem is an important traditional agricultural system in Ethiopia, whichis operated through the active use of indigenous knowledge, practices and skills. The limitedethnobotanic approaches to date focused on Ethiopian home gardens are gradually bringing to lightthe complexity of management practices when farming families with a strong focus on homegardening are studied. Normal management assists the gradual evolution of home gardens to theclimax stage, where higher productivity is possible in a complex ecology where species richness andintensive land use are prominent features.

The highly complex structure of the home garden architecture as well as the patterning of plantcategories in it has been designed and developed by indigenous skills and practices. The homegardening culture has developed a general structure with considerable diversity and flexibility thatallows owners to produce crops of their choice. The home garden preserves ethnobotanicalknowledge and cultural history through preservation of the characteristic agricultural features,crops and crop combinations on-farm. Owners of home gardens manage and direct much of thedevelopment process for the home garden. The home garden generally follows what might be calledan open-door strategy in giving and receiving new crops and varieties. Germplasm is received andgiven out freely to relatives, friends, neighbours and acquaintances. Conversely, households alsohave traditional ways of restricting/discouraging the uncontrolled transfer of planting materials(germplasm) from home gardens, since the norm is to secure permission from the family. Suchcustomary rules and norms would need to be respected in the interest of property rights and equityon a larger scale.

The large majority of home gardens are owned by individual families with the head of the family(the father or the mother) being in charge of the overall management. To manage the garden spaceand the plants, the male family head is usually responsible for designing the structure, identifyingappropriate locations for positioning the major crops, and monitoring and strongly influencing thestructure and the direction of home garden development. The contribution of men is more importantin large gardens and gardens dominated by Chat, coffee, banana and enset which require morearduous work.

Women have a major share in home garden management, though it usually remains undercoverbecause of the culture, which keeps women in the background and men at the forefront. With theexception of heavy duties, women take part in most activities. The cultural relations are notamenable for generating gender-disaggregated data, but in some activities they are the sole actorsand this is obvious to people who have grown up in farming communities. Women manage minorplants like vegetables, spices and medicines. Excess produce from home gardens is sold on roadsidesor at nearby markets by women and sometimes children. The income generated from minor cropslike cabbage, spices, etc. goes to women. When women are in a situation where they are the headfamily, as is the case when the husband travels, they take care of many of the home garden activities.Home garden crops are usually harvested on continuous bases when the need is felt and the role ofwomen in this is very significant. Women in ENSET-dominated areas form cooperative workforcesto assist each other with the heavy work of ENSET harvesting and processing. On issues of decision-making, the collectivist approach is significant because the family head often generates ideas, whichare then amended and enriched by household members.

CASE STUDIES 135

Children work in home gardens and also get instant supplementary food from it. Some fruits andother edible parts are for instant use, others are good for eating after briefly being cooked in pitsunder soil, or roasted directly on the fire. These foods are very delicious and nutritious and thereforewhen children feel that they have not had enough food, they often harvest the wild or edible rawfoods of the home garden, which provide them with supplementary food. The contribution of homegardens is considered high in terms of providing vitamins and minerals for a balanced diet.

Estimating the total production of a home garden is a difficult task partly because harvestingtakes place on a continuous basis and also that the produce is not normally measured. Historically,landlords did not have legal grounds to tax home garden produce. Instead, taxation of the homegarden space is covered within the tax paid for the residential place. Whether there is production ornot in the home garden, the family pays the same amount of residential tax every year and thereforeproducing more in the home garden means an overall increase in resources. Assessment of the valueof home gardens must include contribution to household food supply and household food securityamong others. The value of home gardens in food security is well acknowledged in the long historyof Ethiopia, particularly during years of food shortage.

Threats to Ethiopian home gardensAlthough it has been sustainable for centuries, the home garden agroecosystem is under threat dueto environmental degradation, replacement of traditional crops/varieties, change of garden designand architecture facilitated by population pressures and the monoculture ‘syndrome’ of modernagriculture as well as cultural dilution and shifting. The culturally and economically valued cropsare threatened by incoming crops. The fast expansion of Xanthosoma sagittifolium is seen by farmersto be a potential threat to enset. Concern about biodiversity conservation and utilization will bedelusive without proper attention to traditional systems (Altieri and Merrick 1987). In theknowledge domain under which home gardens evolved and continue to operate become defunct,biodiversity conservation will be threatened because they maintain the bulk of the useful botanicalbiodiversity in Ethiopia and contribute significantly to the livelihood of the people.

What are the needs of Ethiopian home gardens?The workforce involved in agricultural development needs to be fully aware of the production andconservation worth of the home garden agroecosystem. Development-oriented projects focusing onpromotion, enhancement and socioeconomic assessment and cultural documentation should beimplemented in Ethiopia. Research in the major cultures and localities should help to bring morequantitative data that will help to scientifically prove the merits of the system. Ethnobotanical andagroecological documentation of home gardens and key home garden species should be undertakenin the major parts. A checklist of the crops, varieties and threatened taxa must be prepared.Ethnobotanical information on the key species must then be used to build a scientific database andclassification of farmers’ varieties/clones. Development options should help to direct the evolutionof home gardens. Parallel activities involving the scientific study of home gardens on the one handand development-oriented work on the other must be undertaken in a coordinated and integratedmanner.

ConclusionHome gardens will continue to develop and intensify and this is a continuing and flourishingtradition despite pressures from different angles. Along with the growing challenges to develophome gardens, halting the ecological degradation of the environment to maintain the rich reservoirof biodiversity needs to be viewed in terms of its positive biological and social dividends. Theagricultural development strategy would need to understand the farming system and try to directhome garden evolution rather than to change it. One of the drawbacks concerning generalizationson species diversity and ecosystem processes of managed ecosystems, among which home gardens


are included, is linked with the assertion that most species are alien to the ecosystem, and thereforelack sufficient evolutionary history. However, under the Ethiopian home garden conditions, some ofthe perennial species of the home gardens are actually species claimed from the natural vegetationor those growing from the soil seed bank. Still other species are indigenous crops that have beenannexed from the natural vegetation during different times of domestication while others are alongthe wild/semi-wild/domesticated continuum.

Key species of the home garden should be studied in detail to recover their associated indigenousknowledge through application of relevant qualitative and quantitative methods. It is important thatthe future of home gardens is seen in conjunction with the conservation of surrounding forests. Thisis because the natural reservoirs of these home gardens are the forests. They enrich the diversity ofthe garden flora with useful plants taken into cultivation by households and through geneflowbetween cultivated and wild relatives. Home gardens are refuges for useful species becoming lessand less common in the natural environment. For crops that have returned to the wilderness, thesurrounding natural environment is the standing reservoir for gene flow and hybridization. Tomaintain the geneflow between home gardens and the natural forests, both should be conserved ina stable state.

Traditional home gardens have been repeatedly shown to be a sustainable farming system. Theyoffer a means of combating the ecological crisis that is unfolding bit by bit. The home gardenagroecosystem in Ethiopia could be transformed into a self-contained future agroforestry complexthrough enhancement and further intensification, and skilful inclusion of biogas generation,fishponds, and mushroom cultivation wherever and whenever conditions permit. The reputednutritional calculus of farmers exhibited in their management of home gardens must be allowed toprogress further to encompass other hitherto marginalized goals. It is important therefore to directmore attention to home gardens as place where the organic link between production andconservation is still maintained. Thus conservation of crop genetic resources will be addressedthrough use of the farming system and the plants it nurtures. Although the general features ofEthiopian home gardens are known, the need to argue conservation cases with quantified data hasbecome more acute. Such data is needed for sound comparative assessment of home gardens indifferent agroecological and socio-cultural settings in order to generate worthwhilerecommendations that facilitate development- and conservation-oriented programmes.

ReferencesAltieri, M. A. and L.C. Merrick. 1987. In situ conservation of crop genetic resources through maintenance of

traditional farming systems. Economic Botany 41(1):86-96.Benneh, G. 1974. The ecology of peasant farming systems in Ghana (1). Environment in Africa. Environment and

Regional Planning Research Bulletin 1(1):35-49, Dakar, Senegal. Brandt, S. A. 1984. New perspectives on the origins of food production in Ethiopia. Pp. 173–190 in From Hunters

to Farmers: the causes and consequences of food production in Africa (J. Desmond Clark and Steven A.Brandt, eds.). University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.

Brownrigg, L. 1985. Home gardening in International Development. League for International Food Education.Washington, DC, USA.

Caballero, J. 1992. Maya home gardens: past, present, future. Ethnoecologia 1(1):35-54.Christanty, L. 1990. Home gardens in tropical Asia with special reference to Indonesia. Pp.9–20 in Tropical Home

gardens, (Landauer, K. and Brazil, M., eds.). UNU, Tokyo, Japan.Ehret, C. 1979. On the Antiquity of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Journal of African History 20:161-177.Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1992. The Cuban home garden,’Conucos’: a perspective environment for evolution

and in-situ conservation of plant genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 39 (1):9-22.Feleke Woldeyes 2000. A study on the biodiversity management in Daaaddegoyo (traditional home gardens) by

Kaficho people of Bonga area (southwestern Ethiopia): An ethnobotanical approach. MSc thesis, BiologyDepartment, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Fernandes, E. and R. Nair. 1990. An evolution of the structure and function of tropical home gardens. Pp.105–114 in K. Landauer and M. Brazil (eds.). Tropical Home Gardens, The UNU Press, Tokyo, Japan.

CASE STUDIES 137

Gesseler, M. Hodel, U. and P. Eyzaguirre. 1996. Home Gardens and Agrobiodiversity: current state ofknowledge with reference to the relevant literature. Discussion paper. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Gesseler, M., U. Hodel, H.H. Cai, V.V. Thoan, N.V. Ha, N.X. Thu and T. Ba. 1997. In Situ Conservation of PlantGenetic Resources (PGR) in Home Gardens of Southern Vietnam. IPGRI/APO. Serdang, Malaysia.

Godbole, A. 1998. Home Gardens: Traditional Systems for Maintenance of Biodiversity. Pp. 9–12 in AppliedEthnobotany in Natural Resource Management-Traditional Home gardens (A. Rastogi, A. Godbole and S.Pei, eds.). International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds. 1992. Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant GeneticResources, Volume 2. Gatersleben, Germany.

Harlan, J.R. 1969. Ethiopia: A Centre of Diversity. Econ. Bot. 23:309-314.Jose, D. and N. Shanmugaratnam. 1993. Traditional home gardens of Kerala: a sustainable human ecosystem.

Agroforestry Systems 24: 203-213.Marten, G.G. 1990. A nutritional calculus for home-garden design: Case study from West Java. Pp. 147–148 in

Tropical Home Gardens (K. Landauer and M. Brazil, eds.). UNU, Tokyo.Millat-e-Mustafa, M. 1998. Overview of research in home garden systems. Pp. 13–37, in Applied Ethnobotany in

Natural Resource Management-Traditional Home gardens (A. Rastogi, A. Godbole and S. Pei, eds.).International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Nguyen, X.Q. 1995. Home-garden systems in Vietnam. Pp. 153–164 in Conserving Biodiversity OutsideProtected Areas: The role of traditional agroecosystems (Patricia Halliday and D.A. Gilmour eds.). IUCN,Gland.

Okigbo B. N. 1990. Home Gardens in Tropical Africa. Pp. 21–40 in Tropical Home Gardens (K. Landauer and M.Brazil, eds.). UNU, Tokyo, Japan.

Okigbo, B.N. 1994. Conservation and use of germplasm in African traditional agriculture and use systems. Pp.15–38 in Safeguarding the Genetic Basis of Africa’s Traditional Crops. (A. Putter, ed.). CTA, TheNetherlands/IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Padoch, C. and de Jong, W. 1991. The house garden of Santa Rosa: diversity and variability in an Amazonianagricultural system. Econ. Bot. 45:166-175.

Power, A.G. and A.S. Flecker. 1996. The Role of Biodiversity in Tropical Managed Ecosystems. Pp. 173–194 inBiodiversity and Ecosystem Processes in Tropical Forests (Gordon H. Orians, Rudolfo Dirzo and J.HallCushman, eds.). Ecological Studies 122, Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Rico-Gray, V., J.R. Garcia-Franco, A. Chemas, A. Puch. and P. Sima. 1990. Species composition, similarity andstructure of Mayan home gardens in Tixpeual and Tixacaltuyub, Yucatan, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 44 (4):470-487.

Soleri, D. and D.A. Cleveland. 1989. Dryland household gardens in development. Arid Lands Newsletter29:5-10.

Torquebiau, E. 1992. Are tropical agroforestry home gardens sustainable? Agricultural Ecosystems andEnvironment 41(2):189-207.

UNICEF. 1982. Home gardens Handbook. Biodiversity guide for Ethiopia. World Conservation MonitoringCentre, Cambridge, UK. Euphytica 96:1-2.

Wang, Y.K. 1998. The impact of migrating mountain farming communities on agrobiodiversity: a case study ofthe Li minority nationality in the mountains of Hainan Island. Pp. 51–54 in Managing Agrobiodiversity:Farmers changing perspectives and institutional responses in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region (T. Partapand B. Staphit, eds.). International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.

Westphal, E. 1975. Agricultural Systems in Ethiopia. Agric. Res. Rep. 826. Wageningen, The Netherlands.Wojtkowski, P.A. 1993. Towards an understanding of tropical home gardens. Agroforestry Systems 24(2):215-222.Zemede Asfaw. 1997a. The Indigenous Food Plants, Food Preparations from Indigenous Crop and Home

Gardens in Ethiopia. Research Report to UNU.Zemede Asfaw. 1997b. Conservation and use of traditional vegetation in Ethiopia. Pp. 57–65 in Proceedings of

the IPGRI International Workshop on genetic resources of traditional vegetables in Africa. IPGRI, Nairobi,Kenya.

Zemede Asfaw. 1997c. Ethiopian traditional vegetables: synopsis of situation and desirable steps ahead. Pp.100–103 in Proceedings of the Workshop on African Indigenous Vegetables. NRI and IPGRI, Limbe,Cameroon.

Zemede Asfaw. 1998. The role of home gardens in the production and conservation of medicinal plants. Pp.76–99 in Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia, Proceedings of the NationalWorkshop on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia. IBCR, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia.


Zemede Asfaw. 1999a. Ethnobotany of nations, nationalities and peoples in Gambella. P. 172 in Benishangul-Gumuz and Southern Regions of Ethiopia. A Research Report submitted to the Research and PublicationsOffice of Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

Zemede Asfaw. 1999b. How they cope in the Ethiopian drylands: Indigenous modes of living that evolvedunder uncertainties of the arid and semi-arid Ethiopian rift system. Dryland Biodiversity, BiannualNewsletter of the Research Programme on Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity, Issue No. 3:

Zemede Asfaw. 2000. Home garden Biodiversity in Ethiopia. P. 137 in Abstract Paper of the InternationalConference: Ethiopia: a Biodiversity Challenge, 2–4 February, Addis Ababa. The Biological Society ofEthiopia and The Linnean Society of London, UK.

Zemede Asfaw. 2001. Origin and evolution of rural home gardens in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the ThirdInternational Symposium on the Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea (I. Friis and O. Ryding, eds.). DankeVidenskabers Selsk 54:273-286 (in press).

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 Mesfin Tadesse. 2001. Prospects for sustainable use and development of wild food plants inEthiopia. Econ. Bot. 55(1):47-62.

Zemede Asfaw and Zerihun Woldu. 1997. Crop associations of home-gardens in Welayta and Gurage inSouthern Ethiopia. SINET: Ethiop. J. Sci. 20(1):73-90.

CASE STUDIES 139

Home gardens in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java: achallenge for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources1

Oekan S. Abdoellah, Parikesit, Budhi Gunawan and Herri Y. HadikusumahInstitute of Ecology and Dept Anthropology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia

AbstractHome gardens, especially in rural areas, are usually cultivated with a mixture of annual and perennialplants that can be harvested on a daily or seasonal basis. Although the structure of home gardensvaries from region to region, home gardens are characterized by their diversity of speciescomposition. Many species are represented by several varieties, some only partly domesticated.Home gardening is a sustainable production system which has been practiced for centuries, and itsmultiple use products contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the nutritional and income needs ofthe household. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the structure and function of homegardens in the course of rapid economic development in Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java. Thestudy revisited the assumption that home gardens are entities which contribute to in situ conservationof plant genetic resources in the farming system. By doing this, we are hoping to improve ourknowledge of the structure and function of home gardens in relation to their multidimensional social,economic, ecological, and cultural dynamics. The findings of the present study suggest that in situconservation in home gardens in Upper Citarum Watershed would likely face great challenges.

IntroductionHome gardens are commonly found in many parts of Indonesia. It has been suggested that CentralJava is the Indonesian centre of origin of the home garden in its present highly developed form(Terra 1954). Traditional home gardens have received special attention in Indonesia since the 1970’swhen the Institute of Ecology in Padjadjaran University discussed the role of home gardens in ruraldevelopment. Home gardens are defined as a land use system whose structure resembles a forestand it combines the natural architecture of a forest with species fulfilling the social, economic andcultural needs of the people (Soemarwoto and Christanty 1985). Home gardens are a component ofrural ecosystem that has been used for centuries by the villagers. Home gardens, especially in therural areas, are typically cultivated with a mixture of annual and perennial plants that can beharvested on a daily or seasonal basis with a wide variety of plants. In a single home garden in avillage in the Upper Citarum Watershed, 56 species were found; in a hamlet of 351 households in thesame area, 602 species were recorded (Karyono 1981).

Many species are represented by several varieties, some only partly domesticated. In CitarumWatershed, 34 banana varieties were recorded (Abdoellah 977). The fruit of some bananas (e.g. ambonand susu) are eaten as dessert, and others are supplementary staples or used for wrapping leaves.According to Soemarwoto and Conway (1992), farmers clearly recognized the long-erm importanceof the genetic diversity in their home gardens.

The structure of home gardens varies from place to place according to local physicalcircumstances, ecological characteristics, social, economic and cultural factors (Abdoellah 1985;Christanty, 1985; Kryono 1985). The high diversity of plant species in the home gardens and mixtureof annuals and perennials of different heights results in a complex horizontal and vertical structure.The multi-layered plant canopy proves to be beneficial in the utilization of sunlight and in water andsoil conservation (Filius 1982; Wiersum 1982; Brownrigg 1985).

Home gardens have several functions that are not only economic, but also have social andcultural, aesthetical, and ecological functions (Kimber 1973; Abdoellah 1985; Soemarwoto and


1Presented in International Workshop: Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant geneticresources in farming systems. 17–19 July , 2001, Witzenhausen, Germany.

Soemarwoto 1985; Buldowsky 1990; Soemarwoto and Conway 1992). The multiple use products ofhome gardens contribute significantly to the fulfillment of the various needs (such as nutritional andincome) of the household (Kimber, 1966; Abdoellah et al. 1978; Soemarwoto and Soemarwoto 1979;Abdoellah 1980, 1985; Christanty 1985; Karyono 1985; Michon and Mary 1994). Income derived fromhome gardens ranges from 0.8% to 54% of the family’s total income (Stoler 1975 and many others).The economic significance of home garden depends on whether it is for subsistence or commercialproduction. This in turn depends on the size of home garden, the distance to the nearest market, andthe demand for the particular produce grown (Abdoellah 1985).

The diversity of plants in a home garden is beneficial from nutritional point of view. Homegardens can provide sources of supplementary vegetable protein and are readily available sourcesof carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals (Abdoellah and Marten 1984; Abdoellah 1985). Many homegarden plants serve as important sources of non-food necessities such as fuelwood and buildingmaterials.

Apart from the economic function described above, home gardens in rural areas also have animportant role from a social perspective (Abdoellah 1985). For many rural people, the home gardenis an important place for socializing. Many products of home gardens are shared freely betweenneighbours. Many species in the home garden are believed to have a magical value or to serve asweather indicators. The home garden is also important as a status symbol; those who do not havetheir own home garden and build their houses in another’s garden are considered poor.

Many authors pointed out that home gardening is a sustainable production system, which hasbeen practiced for many centuries. Some authors (e.g. Harlan, 1975; Ruthenberg 1976 in Brownrigg1985) classified the home garden as a separate and unique type of agricultural production system.Self-sufficiency and the capability to avoid dependency on imported inputs such as chemicalfertilizers and pesticides are among the most distinct characteristics of traditional home gardens.Some authors described them as an ‘autonomous’ system.

In the course of rapid development in the agricultural sector and market pressure,commercialization and new technologies have been pressing major changes upon the agroecosystem(Abdoellah 1985). Some villagers are already shifting the species in their home gardens to fulfil theneed for more cash as consumer goods become available. The introduction of commercial crops intothe home garden system is a potential source of structural and functional change. The home gardenmay become dominated by only a few plant species; some have even become monocultures, with thedominant plant species made up of cash crops such as vegetables in high demand in city markets. Itshould be pointed out, however, the shifting will be likely to occur only if accessibility, climatic andedaphic factors are favourable.

This paper tries to examine the structure and function of home gardens in Upper CiatrumWatershed area in the course of rapid economic development. In this connection the following keyquestions are addressed: Is the generalization of home garden as a sustainable production systemstill relevant under new economic circumstances? Will in situ conservation prevail in the course ofcurrent and future agricultural development? Do rural people still maintain the ‘old’ structure ofhome gardens in the course of rapid development in agricultural sector and market pressure?

The paper is based on a multidisciplinary study conducted in the Upper Citarum Watershed,West Java, Indonesia. The main objective of the present study is to revisit the ‘traditional’ assumptionthat home gardens as an entity can contribute to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources infarming systems. By doing this, we are hoping to increase our understanding of the structure andfunction of home gardens in relation with multidimensional social, economic, ecological, andcultural factors.

MethodsStudy siteWith its total catchment area approximately 6000 km2, the Citarum Watershed crosses seven districts,and its main river, the Citarum, runs approximately 350 km northward from Mount Wayang to the

CASE STUDIES 141

Java Sea. This watershed, particularly in the upper part, is experiencing rapid development in theagricultural sector since the 1970s following the Green Revolution. This development has resulted inmajor changes to the agricultural landscape, tending towards homogenization (Gunawan et al.,manuscript under review).

Sukapura village in the Upper Citarum Watershed was selected as the study site, which is about1250 m asl. Sukapura is situated about 30 km southeast of Bandung municipality. An asphalt roadconnects the village to Majalaya subdistrict, a centre of textile industry. Having accessibility toMajalaya and Bandung, the villagers can easily market their agricultural products.

The total area of Sukapura village is about 187 hectares. The majority of the area is comprised ofagricultural lands (consisting of cash crop gardens and mixed gardens, 163.5 ha) and settlementareas (5.05 ha) that belong to the local people. In 1994, the population of Sukapura village was 8815peoples consisting of 2117 families. In the year of 2000, the population in Sukapura had increasedsignificantly to 11 763 people, consisting of 3433 families. The increasing population in the year 2000is mostly due to migration back to villages, especially during Indonesian’s economic crisis. Manypeople who had previously worked in the cities, together with their families, moved back into thevillage. Having no land in the village, many of them built houses in the home gardens of theirrelatives (numpang).

The majority of the families in Sukapura rely on agricultural resources, though most of them arelandless. From the survey conducted in the present study, only 36.4% of families own agriculturalland. The majority of the landless families depend for their livelihood on working as farm laborers.In the past, some of them were sharecroppers for landowners but since commercial crops have cometo dominate the agricultural sector, the sharecropping system is no longer applied and a leasingsystem has become the most common system for land cultivation.

Sampling designIn the present study, interviews using questionnaires were performed with respondents. Apart fromthat, vegetation survey was conducted to obtain the composition and structure of home garden.

Sample selectionThe number of home garden samples was determined using the following formula (Lynch et al. 1974):

where:n=number of samplesN=number of households in the study villageZ=the value of normal variable (1.96) for a reliability level of 0.95p=the highest possible proportion (0.5)d= sampling error (0.1)

Based on the above formula, 92 households were randomly selected for interviews and a vegetationsurvey.

Vegetation surveyIn the vegetation survey, the following data were recorded from the sampled home gardens: nameof species, number of individuals for each species, number of layers based on plant height, plantcategory (based on its main use), trunk diameter at breast height (only for trees). Vegetable categorywas further differentiated into cash crop and subsistence. Apart from that, data concerning landutilization in home garden for nursery and/or cash crop production were also recorded.

)1(

)1(22

2

ppZNd

ppNZn

−+−=


Results The total number of species found in all sampled home gardens in Sukapura was 195 species. Theaverage number of species per home garden was 21±1.25. Among dominant species found in homegardens in Sukapura village were Allium fistulosum (green onion), Raphanus sativus (radish), Ipomoeabatatas (sweet potatoes), and Daucus carota (carrots). Green onion had a much higher value ofSummed Dominant Ratio (19.4%) compared with the other three species (Table 1).

Table 1. Summed dominant ratios (SDR, in%) of some plant species found in home gardens of Sukapuravillage

No Botanical name RD RF SDR

1 Alium fistulosum 37.1 1.7 19.4

2 Raphanus sativus 8.4 0.1 4.2

3 Ipomea batatas 7.3 1.1 4.2

4 Daucus carota 7.6 0.5 4.1

5 Duranta erecta 2.9 3.2 3.1

6 Brassica chinensis 5.4 0.1 2.8

7 Brassica oleracea 4.8 0.1 2.4

8 Manihot esculenta 1.9 2.3 2.1

9 Zea mays 3.4 0.4 1.9

10 Psidium guajava 0.3 3.2 1.8

Note: RD=relative density; RF=relative frequency; SDR=summed dominant ratio.

The present study indicated that the correlation between the number of species and the size of homegarden was low (r=0.29). About 5% of home garden with size less than 100 m2 had more than 21species, whereas 35.2% of larger home gardens (more than 100 m2) had less than 21 species (Table 2).Whereas correlation between number of categories and home garden size was also low, i.e. r=0.24. Ifthe sampled home gardens were differentiated into two categories, i.e. home gardens located in ricefields and non-rice field areas, the number of species did not differ significantly between the categories(r=0.06).

Table 2. Number of species in different categories of home garden size in Sukapura village (in %)Home garden size Number of species Total

Less than 21 21 or more

<100 m2 20.7 (19) 5.4 (5) 26.1 (24)

100– <200 m2 12.0 (11) 12.0 (11) 23.9 (22)

200– <300 m2 8.7 (8) 5.4 (5) 14.1 (13)

300– <400 m2 4.3 (4) 6.5 (6) 10.9 (10)

400– <500 m2 3.3 (3) 3.3. (3) 6.5 (6)

500– <600 m2 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) 2,2 (2)

≥≥600 m2 5.4 (5) 10.9 (10) 16.3 (15)

Total 55.4 (51) 44.6 (41) 100 (92)

Note: numbers in parentheses are the number of samples.

In terms of growth form, the majority of plants grown in home gardens of Sukapura village aresmall herbaceous plants; there were 94 herbaceous plants, 56 shrubs, and 45 tree species insampled home gardens. The limited size of home gardens in this village inhibits the ability to growbig trees. The present study indicated that 38% of sampled home gardens had only threevegetation strata of no more than 5 m in height. Only 14.2% have an upper layer, i.e., more than10 m in height (Table 3).

CASE STUDIES 143

Table 3. Number and combination of vegetation layers in relation with categories of home gardens size (in %)

No. and Home garden size Totalcombination of Layer <100m2 100–<200m2 200–<300m2 300–<400m2 400–<500m2 500–<600m2 ≥ 600m2

A 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1)

C 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1)

A,B 5.4 (5) 7.6 (7) 2.2 (2) 3.3 (3) 1.1 (1) 19.6 (18)

A,C 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) 2.2 (2) 4.3 (4)

A,E 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1)

A,B,C 10.9(10) 10.9(10) 5.4(5) 3.3 (3) 7.6(7) 38.0(35)

A,B,E 1.1(1) 1.1(1)

A,C,D 1.1(1) 1.1(1)

A,B,C,D 5.4(5) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 5.4(5) 19.6(18)

A,B,C,E 1.1(1) 1.1(1)

A,B,D,E 1.1(1) 1.1(1)

A,B,C,D,E 2.2(2) 1.1(1) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 3.3(3) 10.9(10)

Notes: numbers in parentheses are the number of samples.

Layer A=<1 m high; Layer B=between 1 and <2 m high; Layer C=between 2 and 5 m high; Layer D=between 5

and <10 m high; Layer E=≥≥10 m high.

Based on their main use, there were 9 plant categories found in all sampled home gardens;namely, ornamental, vegetables, fruit, food, aromatic, medicinals, spices, building material, andfuelwood. The majority of sampled home gardens, i.e. 77.2%, had more than 3 plant categories. Only2.2% had all plant categories found in the study site.

About 41.3% of sampled home gardens were planted with vegetables, in which 22.8% of the totalsamples were planted with cash crops such as carrots and green onion. This figure suggests atendency towards using home gardens for commercial purposes regardless of size (Table 4). Thirty-eight percent of the sampled households that used home gardens for commercial purposes did notown land or have access to agricultural land other than home gardens.

Table 4. The presence of vegetables categorized as subsistence and cash crop in home garden ofSukapura village (in %)

Home garden size Vegetable category Total

Subsistence Cash crop No. vegetables

<100 m2 3.3 (3) 2.2(2) 20.7(19 26.1(24)

100– <200 m2 3.3(3) 6.5(6) 14.2(13) 23.9(22)

200– <300 m2 3.3(3) 2.2(2) 8.7(8) 14.1(13)

300– <400 m2 3.3(3) 2.2(2) 5.4(5) 10.9(10)

400– <500 m2 1.1(1) 3.3(3) 2.2(2) 6.5(6)

500– <600 m2 1.1(1) 1.1(1) 2.2(2)

≥≥600 m2 4.3(4) 5.4(5) 6.5(6) 16.3(15)

Total 18.5(17) 22.8(21) 58.7(54) 100(92)

DiscussionThe total number of species found in all sampled home gardens in Sukapura did not significantlydiffer from that found in the previous studies conducted in the lower part of Citarum watershed (e.g.Abdoellah 1980, 1982; Karyono, 1981; Christanty et al. 1984). The average number of plant species


per home garden in the present study site was slightly lower. However, the dominant species in thepresent and the previous studies were very much different. In the present study village, thedominant species found in home gardens were cash crops, similar to those cultivated in larger areasin cash crop gardens. This suggested that home gardens in Sukapura were used for more market-oriented production purposes. This led to more intensive management practices on the part of theowners, such as increased watering and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

It is believed that the number of home gardeners in Sukapura village practicing cash cropcultivation is in actuality much higher than the present study’s finding due to the rotation system, acommon pattern of land utilization in home gardens. In this system, several crops other than cashcrops are cultivated in a cyclical pattern, so during the period of a year the number of farmers foundto grow a cash crop vegetable such as sweet potato, for example, would be lower than the numberof farmers growing sweet potato over the entire rotational period.

Some owners have been changing the function of their home gardens to support different types ofland use, for instance cash crop gardens which are economically more promising. In other words, homegardens have become part of other production systems. The villagers use home gardens as nurseriesand/or for growing cash crops. The domination of a few species is also altering the function of the homegarden. Cash crop introduction produces a different structural pattern of vegetation cover in homegardens in response to the changes in physical and ecological characteristics, an excellent example ofhow social, economic and cultural factors can translate into ecological realities in home gardens(Abdoellah 1985, Karyono 1985, Christanty 1986). Intensification of home gardens and domination ofparticular species have resulted in the reduction of the number plant species, which in turn has causedthe elimination or reduction of the multiple functions of the home garden.

One of the major factors causing the tendency of structural change in home garden vegetation inthe present study site, other than bioclimatic factors such as altitude, was rapid development in cash-crop gardens. Thus, socio-economics and cultural factors play a crucial role in the structure andfunction of home gardens. The gross income from commercialized home gardens may be higher, butcash crops also need higher energy inputs in the form of fertilizers and pesticides (Abdoellah 1985).However, ecological and economic risks involved in planting home gardens with few plant specieswere also great (see also Abdoellah 1985 and Christanty 1990). In this condition, the ‘autonomy’ ofthe home garden system is questionable. Increased commercialization will likely affect thesustainability of production system in home gardens.

In the present study site, the number of species did not differ significantly between home gardenslocated in ricefields and non-ricefields areas. This result was not consistent with that obtained fromprevious studies conducted by Abdoelah et al. (1978), Karyono (1981) and Christanty et al. (1984) inthe lower part of Citarum Watershed. In their studies, the number of species found in ricefields areawas lower than that in non-ricefields. The inconsistency might be due to different climatic andedaphic factors between upper and lower parts. In the upper part, these two factors favoured thelocal farmers’ intensification of their agricultural land, including home gardens.

Low correlation between the number of species and the size of home gardens in the present studyvillage suggested that the latter factor was not the main factor affecting species diversity. Thestructure and composition of home gardens is likely to be dependent on the gardeners’ choice ofspecies needed to fulfil their cultural, nutritional, social, and economic needs.

Unlike rural areas located at lower altitude, the structure of home gardens in the present study sitewas characterized by lower numbers of levels in vertical plant structure and lower diversity of plantspecies. Lower structural diversity found in the present study site was somewhat different with thatpointed out by Fernandes and Nair (1990). They found that the usual number of vertical canopy stratain home gardens in Java was 5 strata (see also Michon 1983 and Soemarwoto et al. 1985). In the presentstudy site, some home gardens were dominated by only few plant species occupying the lower layers;as described above, some had even become monocultures, with the dominant species comprising cashcrop species such as vegetables usually found in the lowest layer (less than 1 m height).

CASE STUDIES 145

The information presented above suggests role of home gardens as a stable method of in situconservation has become challenging. Efforts to encourage people to take into account the ecologicalrole of home gardens in the course of intensive agricultural development would not be an easy task,because the villagers are convinced that planting cash crops in home gardens is more profitable thanconserving ‘traditional’ home gardens which possess higher diversity of genetic resources.

The phenomenon in the present study site is likely occurring in other areas that have similarinfluences from market pressure, agricultural development and socio-economic conditions. In thisregards, reconstruction of home gardens for the purpose of in situ conservation would likely bepossible in areas where the intensity of influences from the above factors is not considerable. On theother hand, under the present conditions in which the size of home gardens in general tend todecrease, it is necessary to consider that in situ conservation is undertaken in the context of homegarden, as a compound, not as an individual, unit.

ConclusionThe contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation is uncertain in the face of intensiveagricultural development and market pressure combined with favourable bioclimatic and edaphicfactors. The findings of the present study suggest that home gardens in the Upper CitarumWatershed are under the influence of the above factors in which an ‘invasion’ of introduced specieshas changed the overall structural pattern and functions of traditional home gardens. In this regard,reconstruction of home gardens as a sustainable production system is a necessity to ensure in situconservation of plant genetic resources in the Upper Citarum Watershed.

AcknowledgementsThe present study was partly funded by the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science and theInstitute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University. The authors would like to thank our students: LuppyHandinata, Deyna Handiyana, Dendi Muhamad, and Fazar R. Zulkarnaen for their assistanceduring the fieldwork.

ReferencesAbdoellah, Oekan. 1977. Distribution of fruit trees in home gardens in the Citarum River Basin, West Java.

Unpublished thesis. Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Padjadjaran University-Bandung, Indonesia (Indonesian).

Abdoellah, Oekan. 1985. Home gardens in Java and Their Future Development. Paper Presented in theInternational Workshop on Tropical Home gardens. Held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University,Bandung-Indonesia. December 2–9, 1985.

Abdoellah, Oekan. 1982. Home garden Plant Structure of Bantar Kalong Javanese Village, PananjungPangandaran, West Java. Unpublished paper.

Abdoellah, Oekan. 1980. Structure of Home garden of Javanese and Sundanese People in Bantarkalong,Pangandaran, West Java. Department of Biology, Padjadajaran University-Bandung (in Indonesian).

Abdoellah, Oekan and G.G. Marten. 1984. Production of Human Nutrients from Home garden, Upland Field(Kebun), and Ricefield Agricultural Systems in the Jatigede Area, West Java. Workin Paper, East West Center,Honolulu.

Abdoellah, Oekan; H. Isnawan; Hadikusumah; Karyono. 1978. Structure of Home garden in Selajambe andPananjung, West Java. Paper Presented at the Seminar on The Ecology of Home gardens II. Institute ofEcology, Bandung (in Indonesian).

Brownrigg, L. 1985. Home gardening in the International Development, What the Literature Shows. The L.I.F.E..Washington, DC, USA.

Budowski, G. 1990. Home gardens in Tropical America: A Review. In Tropical Home gardens (K. Landaeur andMark Brazil eds.). United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.

Christanty, Linda, 1985. Home gardens in Tropical Asia, with Special Reference to Indonesia. Paper Presented inInternational Workshop on Tropical Home gardens. Held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University,Bandung-Indonesia. December 2–9, 1985.


Christanty, L, O.S. Abdoellah, G. Martin and J. Iskandar. 1984. Traditional Agroforestry in West Java: ThePekarangan (Home garden) and Kebun Talun (perennial/annual Rotation) Cropping systems. WorkingPaper. East–West Center, Honolulu.

Christanty, L. and J. Iskandar. 1982. Soil Fertility and Nutrition Cycling in Traditional Agriculture Systems inWest Java, Indonesia. Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University-Bandung.

Gunawan, B., Parikesit, and O.S. Abdoellah. (Manuscript under review). Biodiversity in the Upper CitarumRiver Basin, West Java. In Biodiversity and Society in Southeast Asia: Case Studies of the Interface betweenNature and Culture (Michael Dove, Percy E. Sajise, and Amity A. Doolittleeds.).

Filius, A.M. 1982. Economic Aspects of Agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 1:29-39. Karyono. 1985. Home gardens in Java: their Structure and Function. Paper Presented in International Workshop

on Tropical Home gardens. Held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung-Indonesia,December 2–9. 1985.

Karyono. 1981. Structure of Home gardens in the Rural Area of Citarum Watershed, West Java (in Indonesian,with English summary). PhD thesis, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.

Kimber, C.T. 1973. Spatial Patterning in the Dooryard Gardens of Puerto Rico. Geographical Review 63 (1): 6-26.Kimber, C.T. 1966. Dooryard Gardens of Martinique. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers

28: 97-118. Michon, G. and F. Mary. 1992. Conversion of traditional village gardens and new economic strategies of rural

households in the area og Bogor, Indonesia. Agroforestry System 25: 31-58Soemarwoto, O and I. Soemarwoto. 1979. The Village Home garden: A Traditional Integrated System of Man-

Plants-Animals. International Conference on Human Environment: Methods and Strategies for IntegratedDevelopment, Arlon-Belgium.

Soemarwoto, O., and G. R. Conway. 1992. The Javanese home garden. Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 2 (3): 95-118.

Stoler, A. 1975. Garden Use and Household Consumption Pattern in Javanese Village. PhD dissertation,Columbia University.

Terra, G.T.A. 1954. Mixed-garden horticulture in Java. Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography 4: 33-43.Thaman, R.R. 1990. Mixed Home Gardening in the Pacific Islands: Present Status and Future Prospects.

In Tropical Home gardens (K. Landaeur and Mark Brazil eds.). United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.Wiersum. 1982. Tree Gardening and Taungya in Java: Examples of Agroforestry Techniques in the Humid

Tropics. Agroforestry Systems 1:53-70.

CASE STUDIES 147

Working group reports

PGR conservation in home gardens: ecosystems and key species

Group A—Wednesday July 19, 2001

Key species in home gardens • Definition: a species that occurs in large numbers of home gardens and is ‘key’ for management

of the home garden ecosystem• It is a species of cultural value.• Often several types/varieties are present.• It makes a livelihood contribution to the household. • Is the species found only in home gardens, or also in other ecosystems?• Special types are kept in the home garden, such as those requiring more care or to produce

disease-free germplasm.• The keystone concept may apply—the species may be linked to the presence of many other home

garden species.• An agroecological perspective is important in key species studies.• Healthy niche-ecological practices• One plant may be enough per household depending on use.• Use of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) with farmers can help determine what they find

important about the key species, and why they maintain it.

Home garden management for stability Management

• Home garden management is linked to the effect of gender and varies according to species.• Its management is influenced by the interest of the farmers.• Home garden management depends on the indigenous knowledge of the community and the

household’s partners.• Tenure is important.• Division of labour is often split along gender lines.• Increased access to the natural ecosystem sometimes decreases the overt management of home

gardens (with a blurring of the home garden/forest border).• The structure and composition of the home garden depends on a household’s composition and

needs: cultural, economic, health, etc. These may determine the management practices.• Species composition affects management and stability.• Germplasm management and seed system exchange for home garden species is important • New varieties are often incorporated.

Stability• Nodal farmers and social networks provide stability.• Home gardens are not static: how does change affect stability?• Is stability measured over time or is it a snapshot?• Home gardens are used for experimentation and innovation.• There are methods of seed exchange and germplasm management that can contribute to stability.• There is continuity of ‘traditional’ or ‘typical’ home gardens in terms of species and varietal

diversity.• New species are incorporated, and the home garden should be an adaptable system, but overall

the system is stable.


WORKING GROUP REPORTS 149

• Certain alleles may be lost, but when this happens another will be introduced into the system totake its place, so there is overall stability in the home garden ecosystem, and genetic diversity ismaintained.

• The scale is very important: stability measured at the home garden or national level may bedifferent.

• Ability of households to manage their own seed and germplasm for home gardens increasesstability.

• The more variability of a species that is conserved, the more sustainable.• Stability in home gardens does not exclude change in the genetic diversity of species.• Richness is important (in both species and varieties).• Age of the family of home garden affects stability.• Presence of traditional cultivars and varieties which are maintained enhances stability.

Change• The balance of annuals vs. perennials can change.• Traditional home gardens are changing due to commercialization or new market forces.• Generational change can pose a threat.• Dynamic changes in home garden species and varieties are good for the overall farming system.• Changes in climatic conditions can cause changes in home gardens.• Developmental interventions can have positive or negative affects.• Specific interests of farmers direct change in home gardens.

Bottlenecks/constraints • Land tenure problems, changes in land use, and population density and fragmentation of farms

and home gardens can be barriers to conservation.• Increasing immigration to cities where young people can have better opportunities for education

or work can hinder the transmission of traditional knowledge and decrease the labor availablefor gardens.

• Home gardens are linked to traditional food culture and cultural change can affect theirdiversity.

• Infrastructure and family growth are two threats to the stability of home gardens.• The generation gap in the use of plant species for different purposes affects the composition of

home gardens.• Commercialization, market forces and development can sometimes negatively impact home

gardens. • National policy on PGR and Land Use can be a constraint.

Rare and threatened species in home gardens• Threatened species definition: found in few home gardens, with few plants per area, with

possible loss of associated knowledge (e.g. some taro varieties). • How many rare or little-known species were found in home gardens? • Some endangered plant species are unknown to younger generations.• Example: Rawelfolia serpentine and most of the medicinal plants. • Certain rare plants used by tribal groups for their medicinal properties are being lost and need

to be documented. • Specific/peculiar species are maintained by certain home gardeners for family, personal,

cultural, religious, or medicinal reasons.• Useful wild plants from vanishing habitats are threatened.• Overharvesting of food and medicinal plants can occur.• There are beneficial effects of increased species diversity within specific agroecosystems.

• National flora is not yet well-known in some countries—plant inventories need to be carried outfor the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity).

• Can the home gardens study lead to indicators for threatened species?

Red list for cultivated home garden species • Orchid: Lycaste spp. (Guatemala)• Trees in Guatemala: Swietenia macrophyla, Cedrela odorata, Vochysia guatemalensis• Several varieties of banana (Musa spp.) for wrapping leaves; additional staple varieties.• Garcinia aristata (endemic tree used as a medicinal and for wood)• Nepal: Supari mango, Rayo (B. compeshis var Rayo), Chaksi (Cibus sinensis)• Vietnam: Mentha arvensis, Durian sp., Rice bean Vigna sp., Luffa acutangrila, Hermolema sp., Citrus

aurantifolia, Solanum undatum, Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk• Capsicum frutescens (wild and semi-wild)• Phaseolus lunatus (wild types because few individuals are found per population, and the species

itself is not frequently found)• Some yam species (Dioscorea spp.)• It is important to maintain wild forms in the home garden agro-ecosystem.

Home garden species are listed with frequencies of occurrence in home gardensHow can we to use this information?

• For Biodiversity Inventories• A ‘Red List’ of threatened species (including their frequencies) will be important for policymaker

awareness, to describe where species are rare, and also to compare with historical records offrequencies

• Establish links to botanical conservationists and funds.• How will communities benefit?• Generate information on how to use the biodiversity.• Facilitate Community Biodiversity Registers.

Use home gardens as a way to have agrobiodiversity included in nationalbiodiversity strategiesWhat are the steps?Top-down approach

• Propose a national project to integrate home gardens into the National PGR (Plant GeneticResource)System.

• Link to protected areas, with home gardens as a buffer zone (Cuba, India).• Man-made ecosystems harbour important diversity.• Vietnam has PGR Conservation policy that includes home gardens, and has organized a

national-level seminar to disseminate results to scientific bodies and development organizations.• Nepal needs to reach policy-makers.• National investment must be encouraged in home gardens.

Bottom-up approach• Return data to communities in ways they understand.• Encourage local management groups.• Increase the value of home gardening in the eyes of the community.• Target not only plant genetic resources but also the home garden ecosystem that maintains them.• Organize community groups at the sites.• Mobilize farmers and gardening associations.


In situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components ofcomplementary conservation and use strategies for plant genetic resources

Group B—Wednesday, July 18, 2001

The following is a representation of the flow of group discussion and the main points raised by many differentgroup members, but does not record the exact words of the group participants.

The emphasis for this question is on the complementarity between ex situ and in situ methods ofconservation, and the means and ways to involve farmers/housewives/families wherever possible.First we can take a look at the existing institutional framework and take stock of countries’ work sofar. Have we contributed actively to conservation? What has been achieved? We can look at theexamples from the countries now, before focusing on what we want in the future. How does ourresearch relate to the government’s strategies for conservation?

Does the institutional framework in countries currently include home gardens? CubaA political structure in Cuba exists to protect flora/fauna through national parks and reserves. Fromthe beginning of the project, we tried to connect families with home gardens living around theprotected areas to the park management, linking the home gardens research with the conservationstrategy for the country. The botanical staff working in protected areas should connect themselveswith families surrounding their reserve, and Cuba is working towards that. INIFAT, which isrunning the home garden project research in Cuba, works under a mandate to conserve biodiversity.In the future, we want to make a proposal to the Ministry of Science and Technology to include homegardens officially in the protected areas, as a buffer zone.

BeninNo formal biodiversity management occurs through home gardens.

VenezuelaThere is no formal connection to national institutions, except comparisons by the Home Gardensresearch team with ex situ collections. No formal in situ conservation as of now has begun inVenezuela. There is no national policy on in situ as such, but members of the research team work inthe official institution charged with protecting diversity in Venezuela, so perhaps possible linkagesexist for the future. Venezuela just signed the CBD, an important first step.

Ghana As of now, there is no in situ or home garden conservation as such in Ghana. Protected areas areestablished, as they have been in almost all countries in West Africa. Farmers are conservinglandraces in home gardens for different reasons on their own. However, the national plant geneticresource programme in Ghana is a partner in this project. A workshop was held to exchangeinformation from the project with other country institutions, with attendance from therepresentatives of Ministers, Ghana’s official link to the CBD, university professors, etc. There is aNational Commission on Biodiversity, but it has no formal links with the project yet. Currently in W.Africa, not many distinctions are recognized between conservation in situ, on farm, and in homegardens.


Nepal No national in situ program has been implemented, but research is being done on in situconservation and a formal project is under way with IPGRI and other partners. They have come tothe conclusion that one must include home gardens in the in situ strategy in order to conserve certainspecies that are not found in the larger farming system.

Niger A 1995 survey for collected germplasm of agricultural crops cultivated specifically in home gardens,and these collections are in the national genebank system. Women and men in villages have manylocal species for various uses, and therefore conserve these species by planting them every year andusing them for various things. National strategies also include in situ conservation officially, onpaper.

Vietnam Plant species are unique to home gardens and different from those found in farms. Genetic diversityat the national level is managed by VASI, the Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute. Officially, homegardens have been included as an ecosystem in which diversity exists, and is being protected. Policyis currently missing to support gardening, however. Gardening is important in environmentalprotection. The country has a policy of development through “leaving farming without leaving therural” and HG fit this exactly.

HungaryThe research to this point in Hungary has shown home gardens at large over time to be very stable,and it is estimated that the contribute up to 25-30% of the entire agricultural production of Hungary.However, it is a form of in situ conservation that is very difficult to formalize.

QuestionsDo we know what is there? What is the management dimension to the existing production systemto qualify it as a conservation strategy? Do we need a sampling method, inventory, monitoring?How is it being threatened? What about changes in home gardens over time?

CubaCollecting missions from home gardens 8 years ago were placed into ex situ collections, and thesewere compared with collections today from home gardens during this research project. The in situhome garden diversity seemed to cover the range of diversity present in the ex situ collection. Ofcourse, this depends very much on the species. Some are being lost, but the diversity of our keyspecies seem to be covered in situ. Sometimes water is a problem, and limits the diversity of water-intensive plants. Remote gardens may be more diverse because they need to grow everything theyrequire for survival.

Note: many of the ex situ collections in Latin America were originally collected from home gardens.How much diversity has already been collected?

Threats to home garden diversity (factually based)• Lack of knowledge of home gardens as conservation units• Population growth• Tendency of young to leave the culture/tradition• Outmigration of youth from rural areas to urban areas (extreme rural poverty)


• Changing local diets• Reduced interest of farmers• Development interventions biased towards modern species• Lifestyle changes • Non-monitored interaction of local and regional markets• Lack of local awareness on the importance of biodiversity

General solutions• Add value to PGR conserved in home gardens by promotion/marketing• How to add value? Adding value can sometimes reduces biodiversity.• Increased access to information• Increased access to germplasm for communities/farmers• HG management techniques• Seed conservation/cultural techniques• Adding value to products by marketing/processing/other uses• Take stock and promote nutritional values of local diet• Formal acknowledgement of importance of home gardens• Formation of associations of home gardeners• Linking home gardens to national policies on conservation• Improvement of use

Solutions at the national level• Raise awareness • Add value to plant genetic resources conserved in home gardens through

promotion/marketing• How to add value without losing diversity? • Formal acknowledgement of the importance of home gardens• Germplasm access from national genebanks• Linking of home gardens to national policies on conservation• Include home gardens as a curriculum component in agriculture-related careers• Link conservation strategies to extension services• Home garden management techniques: seed conservation/cultural techniques• Raise Awareness• Increased access to information• Increased access to germplasm for communities/farmers • Take stock and promote nutritional value of local diet, local species • Include curriculum component in agriculture-related careers• Link conservation strategies to extension services

Local/community level• Raise Awareness• Increased access to information• Increased access to germplasm for communities/farmers • Take stock and promote nutritional value of local diet, local species • Formation of home garden associations • Include curriculum component in agriculture-related careers• Link conservation strategies to extension services• Home garden management techniques —Seed conservation/cultural techniques


Home gardens and action researchIt is important that research teams on home gardens be interdisciplinary, including agronomists,socioeconomists, botanists, geneticists, etc. Projects must focus not only on gathering information,but also have a development component. Depending to what extent home gardens are used as astrategy for increased income, development could compromise diversity. Some types ofdevelopment might lead to environmental degradation, but we need to get closer to the people tofind out about what their vision of development is. One way to balance research and a focus ondevelopment could be through Action Research. Action research is looking for paths fordevelopment through research. It is important that the entry point is development; conservation isalso important and can’t be ignored, but development should be the basis. However, the entry pointshould be a specific kind of development—participatory, local development, not just any kind ofdevelopment. If you give choices to the farmer, it’s not always true that development leads todecreased biodiversity. It is poverty that often leads to environmental destruction. For instance, poorfarmers cut the trees and sell them at market in Niger. Poverty alleviation is essential in Africa, as inother parts of the world, if you want to have conservation. One way may be to add value to homegarden resources so that they are worth something for the farmer. This can be tricky when thinkingabout how to implement this from the national level, because in many countries, they are seen asmutually exclusive. There are separate committees for Biodiversity and for Development; where dohome gardens fit?

Home gardens have been used as production systems in development projects before forfood security, nutrition, income, but not for diversity conservation. How can we link developmentand agrobiodiversity? In revaluing traditional food systems, this project makes a big breakthroughfrom looking at cabbages, radishes, etc. to focusing on herbs, medicinals, traditional food crops, etc.I don’t think that we’ve looked at food security, though, and that would lead into an Action Researchstrategy perfectly. Some topics for action research can include food security, nutrition, income, riskmanagement, gender studies, eating habits, and health.


Documentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens

Group C—Wednesday July 18, 2001

Data exist that do show significant diversity is maintained in home gardensIt has been conclusively demonstrated that significant diversity occurs within home gardens at theecosystem, species and infra-species levels. More work needs to be done to document infraspecificdiversity of key crops.

• How much more characterization is necessary for a given crop, or for additional crops?• Case studies for different breeding systems need to be analyzed and systematized. Can

indicator species be identified? Gaps exist (e.g. clonal crops—cassava)• Recommend that future studies be conducted and methodologies developed on processes and

factors that influence the stability and dynamics of in situ conservation in home gardens—toguide monitoring activities and national policies.

• On the operational level there is need to:i. Decide what to do to turn home gardens into conservation units, e.g. we may need

information on more speciesii. We need information on farmer decision-making regarding management of different

species in gardens.iii. More information needed regarding infraspecific variation of selected species.

Confirmation of the info available with other methods.

Necessary: Optimum Units of Conservation (OUC)• The population size in question must be defined.• Definition must be species-specific.• Uniqueness of species or complementarity to ex situ units should be of paramount

consideration in developing OUCs

No common documentation system existed for the countries in the study• Problem of data quality, i.e. correct plant names, partially because of the interdisciplinary

nature of the project teams.• Problems with IPR over data exist, especially confusion over what data should be released.• Standardization is needed for the information requirements, because there is not a common

documentation system across countries.• Cross-project sharing of information and methods would be helpful, one of the main objectives

of the Workshop.

Minimum requirements to be achieved:• Species list from national teams with author and publications• Scientific (family, genus, species, varieties), English, local names• Plant uses/parts used• Cross-links should exist between home garden lists and Mansfield lists• Photographs can be included.

Decide what data should be distributed nationally or internationally Intellectual Property Rights of country researchers are of paramount importance. No data should bepublished in the database that should not be accessible to all Internet users.


Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and priorities for future work on managing home gardens’ agrobiodiversity for development

Group A—Thursday July 19th, 2001

Plans and steps to include home garden systems in national biodiversitystrategiesKey challenge

• Biodiversity policy ignores human-managed ecosystems.• We must sensitize policy makers about home gardens.

Actions and options• Institutionalize the home garden concept as a unit of conservation.• Education, not only at policy level, but for other stakeholders as well.• Recognize local communities involved in home gardening.• Consider the in situ conservation in households as one special part of national in situ

conservation strategies.

Steps• Return data to community in ways they can use.• Support communities in understanding the value of home gardening.• Organize seed fairs for home gardens.• Encourage networking between home gardens.• Present the home garden project results at a national-level seminar.• Compile home garden species in community biodiversity registries.• Train extension agencies about home gardens.• Set up an ‘Original’ Seed List—varieties referenced by simplified DUS.• Stimulate community pride and value in home garden ownership.• Start with the community in planning home garden conservation; take a bottom-up approach.• Carry out exchange visits/traveling seminars between home gardeners.• Motivate local institutions to exchange plant genetic resources.• Increase public awareness at all levels.

Some points of leverage• Use development agencies as an entry point.• Influence and work with them to include diversity in their strategies.• Integrate the role of home gardens into the development of the community, especially in

densely populated regions/ecosystems.

Can we make use of home garden species lists to identify threatened species andvarieties for the various ecozones on a ‘red list’ for crops and related species?

• National teams have surveyed and compiled lists of HG species, their frequency anddistribution in home gardens.

• We can use this info for National Biodiversity Registers.• Establish links to universities, botanical gardens, and conservation agencies working on

threatened or rare species to feed information into the system.• Help compile a ‘Red List’ for species, cultivated and wild, found in home gardens on their

frequency, uses and history. Use ‘Red list’ in a positive, not negative way, encouragingcommunities to produce a certain species, etc.


• Communities can use knowledge of ‘Red List’ species to motivate propagation, communitybiodiversity registers, etc.

Can we identify key socioeconomic processes that affect changes in biodiversity in home gardens?Processes and factors–positive and negative

• Migration• Land tenure/ownership (Vietnam)• Market forces, e.g. Loroco in Guatemala• Agricultural policy • Access to markets/information/germplasm• Infrastructure development (may lead to habitat change)• Population pressure• Development interventions• Economic transformations

Household dynamics• Age and size of household• Educational level• Wealth status• Ownership• Food culture• Mobility

Biodiversity monitoring• Normally, people monitor plants, not people, but this would be a new strategy to include these

socioeconomic factors in fundamental monitoring strategy.• What are the indicators? It is important to define for the monitors.• Policy must take care to maintain the process, and not freeze it for the monitoring.• Make communities and policy-makers more aware.


Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and priorities for future work on managing home gardensagrobiodiversity for development

Working Group B—Thursday July 19th, 2001

How can we incorporate home garden biodiversity conservation work andperspectives into national programs and projects (national agrobiodiversitystrategies)? Public awareness

• Raise awareness with a public relations campaign on home gardens from a holisticperspective.

• People’s awareness of home gardens as reservoir of biodiversity and the basis of livelihood formany people.

• Create awareness of advantages of gardening and disadvantages of not, supported bypractical instruction.

• Create awareness among decision-makers on importance of home gardens for developmentconcerns and in situ conservation of plant.

• Provide clear definitions of the home garden concept within in situ conservation strategy.

Education• Include home gardens in university curriculum for agriculture-related careers. • Establish model home gardens at schools.

Reinforcing social, economic, and political recognition • Stimulate local biodiversity through home garden fairs.• Certification procedure from an official institution.• Put value on home garden conservation work of farmers from the outside (ecotourism).• Make work of ‘conservationist farmers’ visible and get them represented on genetic resource

committees.• Bring home gardener stakeholders in position to play major roles.

Strategic information flow• Show links to: food security, agricultural production, environment, health.• Report on the importance of home garden agrobiodiversity in the livelihood of people.• Report the fact that many crop species are uniquely cultivated in home gardens.• Highlight the contribution of home gardens to food security, health, and the economy through

seminars.• Provide information on the nutritional value of traditional home garden species.• Document farmers’ knowledge and experiences on the use and management of home garden

species.• Make the present place of home gardens in national projects and programmes more visible.• Compile and publish all development-related contributions of home gardens.

Targeted action research• Include home gardens in the national research agenda.• Establish multi-disciplinary research teams and include managers of genetic

diversity/farmers.• Design collaborative projects for home garden conservation to support farmers in better

management and conservation of home gardens.


• Collect statistics on and with home garden stakeholders.• Conduct (action) research on home garden-related topics to demonstrate specific points.• Look for complementation of in situ and ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources.• Identify units of conservation and monitoring for threatened home garden species.

Extension• Include home garden biodiversity conservation into the extension agenda (links with

education).

Within the national agrobiodiversity strategies, what are the steps that we need to follow so that home gardens can be mainstreamed as an important issue?Supra-national

• Formulate a statement on the importance of home gardens for PGRFA conservation forSBSTTA meeting, submit for inclusion in the CBD.

• Include home garden conservation in the National Strategy and Action Plan for BiologicalDiversity for each country.

• Ensure that home gardens are properly mentioned in other conventions.

Institutionalization • Include home gardens’ biodiversity conservation into the extension agenda. • Include home gardens as mandated working area in national development, extension and

research programmes.• Create a national home garden ‘Red List’. • Explicit mention of home gardens as a source in the national genebank record.• Include home gardens in national production and conservation statistics. • Create in situ strategy if none is present.• Promulgate laws and regulations with regard to the conservation of local home garden species.• Link with protected areas, e.g. home gardens as buffer zones.• Create positions at the regional and national level for community supervision of home garden

diversity.• Establish mechanisms for supply and/or exchange of home garden species and varieties.• Include the private sector within a specific political frame.

Governance/representation • Submit proposals to include home gardens in the national strategies of the Ministry of Science

and Technology.• Seek dialogue with relevant ministries on home garden importance.• Create a specific working group on home gardens. • Put home gardens on the Agenda of the CBD Implementation Committees.• Secure a seat on the national biodiversity committee representing home garden interests. • Create a new professional body to lobby for home gardens. • Create a ‘board of directors’ for home garden issues.

How can we strengthen the link with NGOs and civil society (CS) institutions? Partnerships

• Create support and recognition for home garden farmer alliances.• Set up committees to bring together groups to discuss relevant home garden issues.• Make NGOs and civil society representatives members of home garden working groups.• Target collaborators in NGOs and other civil society groups concerned with biodiversity.


• Give priority to GO-NGO collaborative programme-projects.

Recognition/visibility • Make visible NGOs and CS contributions to home gardens.• Assess the actual involvement of NGO-CS in activities relevant to a home garden-biodiversity

perspective. • Value NGO achievement on home garden issues.• Identify home garden experience in the NGO sphere.

Collaborative strategies • Organize a national workshop with all stakeholders on how to link/facilitate dialogue.• Organize non-formal educational programs where farmers can participate.• Target NGOs and CSOs in public awareness-raising strategies.• Organize workshops where NGOs and members of communities participate together.• Initiate study tours between home gardens in different areas (between NGOs or farmers).• Tailor research findings and strategic information to needs of diverse groups.


Mainstreaming contributions from the project:follow-up actions and priorities for future work onmanaging home gardens’ agrobiodiversity for development

Group C—Thursday July 19, 2001

Can we provide guidance and tools to monitor agrobiodiversity at specific andintraspecific levels? Information collected can be used to develop monitoring strategies for national programs at theintraspecific level. Monitoring should be at the home garden level to assess the viability of speciesand the pressures (economic, etc.) that are impacting their stability.

Monitoring• Actual methods used in project can be a blueprint for monitoring protocol.• Biodiversity registers should be kept at the community level, making it easier for farmers to

monitor what’s been lost.• Identify key indicators or variables to be monitored.• Can cooperate with global and national experts.

Protocols• Create guidelines for extension officers for target crops focused on the optimum conservation

units (OUC).• Scheduled periodic visits to OUCs.• Simple questionnaires.• Database for findings.• Protocols for different situations, with comparability. • When genetic erosion has been detected, it may be useful to have another protocol for

response.

Would this be possible? It might be expensive; perhaps we should highlight training for localcommunities to monitor their own biodiversity with help from extension officers. There aremethodologies to bring together PGR, communities and extension workers, such as diversity fairs.We have to choose. Even for non-literate people, you can create an atlas of biodiversity with picturesetc. so people can identify and monitor their own biodiversity.

What plans can be made to have home gardens included in nationalagrobiodiversity strategies?

• Create awareness at the policy-maker level about home gardens by providing justification topolicy-makers for including home gardens in national PGR strategies.

• The international arena is very important because national ministers are required to be there,but they often don’t have to come to the national workshops.

• Home gardens must be included in the national biodiversity strategies, and home gardenmonitoring protocol can be used if already in place. Biodiversity corridors and other reservesshould take home gardens into account.

• Create networks of home gardens that will partner with institutions involved in nationalbiodiversity conservation for monitoring and the development of targeted genetic resources.Partners can meet to define their roles, functions, and responsibilities. Home gardeners shouldbe regarded as partners.

• Link with educational institutions for sustainability and inclusion in curriculum.• Include home gardens in development programs (ecotourism etc).


• Formal recognition for home gardens in national PGR conservation effort/strategy.• Demonstrate how these research results can be used as a means of developing gains for the

community.• Link national seed plans with home gardens for seed conservation—home gardeners can be

taught how to maintain and store seeds as seed banks against the national ex situ collections.

GuatemalaThe home gardens research team has contacted the Ministry of the Environment and they wereasked to prepare a poster; the government is interested. Also, CARE-Guatemala, a local NGO, isinterested in using this research to deepen and expand their home garden projects.

CubaA formal proposal has been submitted to the government to linked home gardens with protectedareas.

GhanaA recent national workshop included members of government from various ministries. We haveplans to invite TV crew to make a documentary film on home gardens for a weekly biodiversityshow.

EthiopiaAt a recent international workshop, ‘Ethiopia and its Biodiversity Challenge’, a paper was presentedon home gardens, and we’re hoping home gardens will be included in the national strategy nowbeing formulated.

IndonesiaWe recommended inclusion of home gardens in national strategies 20 years ago, but the governmenthasn’t paid attention.

Benin/Africa-wideA recent success story on medicinal plants: a workshop two years ago recommended that 2000–2010be declared the ‘Decade of Medicinal Plants for Africa’. This has been recently adopted. Medicinalplants are a very important component of home gardens, and are not usually found to be soabundant or unique elsewhere.

Vietnam First, we think public awareness to show simple cases would be instructive, such as organizingDiversity Fairs. Then a National or Regional Workshop is another way to raise awareness at thenational level, and present the science to policy-makers. The next step would be including homegardens into the national strategy for agrobiodiversity. In Nepal, they include information onbiodiversity in the curriculum in the local schools. But in Cantho University, for agronomy studentswe just have one course—Community Biodiversity. I would like to integrate home gardens andbiodiversity conservation into the curriculum.


Poster presentations

Temperate home gardens of small alpine farmers in Eastern Tyrol(Austria): their value for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity

Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser1 and Christian R. Vogl2

1 Hamerlinggasse 12, Mödling, Austria2 Institute for Organic Farming, University for Agricultural Sciences, Vienna, Austria

IntroductionEastern Tyrol (Lienz district) is characterized by a high proportion of mountain areas in amultifunctional cultural and natural landscape. Farmers manage and protect a sensitive andthreatened environment. Home gardens are an integral part of this cultural landscape. This posterpresents selected elements of the dynamic development of East-Tyrolean home gardens over the past70 years with a focus on the management of plant biodiversity.

Study area and methodsEastern Tyrol is located in the Eastern Alps of Austria. Annual precipitation is 850–1150 mm andmean annual temperature 4.8-6.9°C. In 1997 and 1998, 196 home gardens on farms (elevationbetween 600 and 1600 m asl) were surveyed. Each year, the occurrence and abundance of cultivatedplant species were recorded. Ethnobotanical interviews were carried out with each of the womenresponsible for these gardens. In addition, 27 elderly women and men were interviewed on themanagement of farms in recent history.

Results

Recent history Subsistence farming was primarily based on the cultivation of field vegetables, cereals, fibre crops,alpine hay meadows and grazing grounds along with a wide array of animal species until the 1970s.Herb gardens provided a small number of species used as spices, medical herbs and plants withsymbolic or religious value (Table 1).

Home garden dynamics Since the 1970s, cultivation of field vegetables, cereals and fibre crops has been in decline. In aparallel process, women, who are responsible for gardening, have actively enriched diversity ingardens (Table 1). Species have been introduced not only from the surrounding agroecosystems,where biodiversity is eroding, but also from natural ecosystems or market. In addition, womenretained the species and varieties traditionally grown in herb gardens. As a consequence, aremarkable increase in the number of species grown in the gardens has been observed (mean 42;total 587).

Endangered natural and cultivated speciesSeventy-nine species found in the gardens are endangered and are registered on the Austrian RedList of endangered ferns and flowering plants (as defined in Niklfeld and A Schratt-E. 1999). Thirty-nine cultivated species can be classified according to Lohmeyer (1981; for Germany) as crops indanger of decline. In Austria a list for endangered cultivated species does not exist. Neverthelesstraditional species and varieties are in danger of disappearing throughout the region, especiallyseveral field vegetables which only survive in gardens. Gardens therefore serve as areas forpropagation and conservation of traditional garden crops and field crops. Propagation in homegarden also occurs for species newly introduced to the region.

POSTER PRESENTATIONS 163

ConclusionFarmers have access to the global market and are to a lesser or greater extent involved in themainstream economy. In contrast, garden output has an increasing importance in subsistence.Garden produce is not usually commercialized. Only barter or gifts to family and neighbours can beobserved. The motivations for women to value and maintain home garden activities are: enhancingself-sufficiency, the pleasure of working in the garden, and maintaining traditional culture.Marketintegration does not imply reduced diversity in gardens. Farmers’ wives stress that they managegardens because they are able to know exactly where and how produce was grown and because theycan harvest the crop immediately before it is used. Gardeners choose species with characteristics thatrespond to the wide array of needs of the family for customs, nutrition and other purposes. Diversityof garden species has actively been enriched to meet these purposes. Gardens in Eastern Tyrol canbe seen not only as a place of importance for the conservation of traditional farming techniques andthe alpine landscape, but also for experiments, innovation and for the in situ conservation of certainplant genetic resources.

Table 1. Occurrence, source and use of plant species (n=587) in East-Tyrolean home gardens (n=196)Number of species

Occurrence Until 1970 Today

Across the region 51 587

Mean per garden 10 42

Source of plants Until 1970 Today

Predecessor, neighbour +/–25 74

Surrounding ecosystems +/–3 46

Retailers +/–4 133

Miscellaneous† +/–19 334

Main uses Until 1970 Today

Ornamental +/–20 420‡

Food +/–16 147

Medicinal +/–12 79

Technical +/–4 58†For certain species, different women might have different sources.‡The area allocated for ornamentals amounts to approximately 15% of each garden.

ReferencesLohmeyer, W. 1981. Liste der schon vor 1900 in Bauerngärten der Gebiete beiderseits des Mittel- und südlichen

Niederrheins kultivierten Pflanzen. Pp. 109–131 in Aus Liebe zur Natur. Stiftung z. Schutze gefährdeterPflanzen 3. Bonn, Germany.

Niklfeld, H. and L.S.-Ehrendorfer. 1999. Rote Liste gefährdeter Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Pterido- undSpermatophyta) Österreichs. Pp. 33–51 in Rote Liste gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs (2. Auflage) (NiklfeldH. ed.). Grüne Reihe des BMUJF, 10.

Vogl-Lukasser, B. and C. R. Vogl. 2001. Home gardens of Small Farmers in the Alpine Region of Osttirol(Austria): an Example for Bridges Built and Building Bridges. Paper, 30 of May 2001, Conference BuildingBridges with Traditional Knowledge, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Vogl-Lukasser, B., C. R. Vogl and H. B.-Nordenkampf. 2002. Homegarden composition on small peasant farmsin the Alpine regions of Osttirol (Austria) and their role in sustainable rural development. (J.R. Stepp, F.S.Wyndham and R.K. Zarger, eds.)


Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia and World Database of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops

Jörg Ochsmann1, Helmut Knüpffer2, Norbert Biermann2, Konrad Bachmann1

1 Research Group Experimental Taxonomy and2 Research Group Genebank Documentation, Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK),

Gatersleben, Germany

HistoryRudolf Mansfeld was the first head of the Gatersleben Genebank and Taxonomy department. In 1959he published his ‘preliminary catalogue’ of cultivated crops. Whereas this work was mainly done byhimself, the second edition (1986) was already created by a team of authors. The recent first Englishedition (‘Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ by Hanelt and Instituteof Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research 2001) was compiled and written by 20 authors.

Access to the database

Free access (names and taxonomy only):http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/mansfeld/

Beta User (latest versions, password-protected, free of charge):http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/mfbeta/

Access via project BIG (free access, German search interface):http://www.big-flora.de

Information on the book edition:http://www.springer.de/mansfeld/

Editorial

Editors (book issue)P. Hanelt and IPK Gatersleben

20 Authors:R. Büttner, A. Diederichsen, H. Dörfelt, R. Fritsch, K. Hammer, P. Hanelt, R. N. Lester, J.G. Hawkes,J. Heller, C. Jeffrey, J. Keller, G. Krebs, J. Kruse, G. Müller, G. Natho, J. Ochsmann, K. Pistrick, W.Reisser, C.-E. Specht, H.E. Weber

Technical assistance (book edition):H. Ballhausen, A. Frahn, B. Fritsch, S. Golla, A. Kilian, K. Roose, G. Schütze, U. Tiemann

Project team for the database:H. Knüpffer, K. Bachmann, J. Ochsmann, N. Biermann

Topics covered by database• Accepted name• Synonyms• Taxonomic remarks


• Common names• Distribution (wild + cultivated)• Plant uses• Wild relatives• Cultivation history• Domestication• Bibliographical references• Images(Topics printed in bold will be freely available from the database)

Database statistics

Total† Accepted

Scientific names 36 718 9796

Species 25 721 6117

Genera 6258 1968

Families 277 265

Common names 30 165

Languages ca. 110

References 7 600

Images ca. 300†Including synonyms.

The BIG-ProjectThe database development (Ochsmann et al. 1999) is part of IPK’s contribution to the project ‘FederalInformation System on Genetic Resources’ (BIG) (http://www.big-flora.de/), which involves fourpartner institutions, coordinated by the German Centre for Documentation and Information inAgriculture (ZADI). The project is funded by the German Ministry of Research and Technology(BMBF) and includes, besides the Mansfeld database, also information on plant genetic resourcesaccessions of genebanks in Germany, botanical gardens, floristic mapping of the German flora, andother PGR-related data sets. Through a common search interface at ZADI it is possible to interrogatethese heterogeneous databases simultaneously, for example, by scientific or common names ofplants.

Future prospects Links with other databases at IPK, such as:

• Passport data of accessions• Evaluation data• Inclusion of taxonomic monographs• Country checklists• IPGRI Homegardens Project• Inclusion of more image data• Indexing of plants by uses• Online updating tools for the Mansfeld database


ReferencesHanelt, P. and Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben (eds.). Mansfeld’s

Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 6 vols. 1st Engl. ed. Springer, Berlin.Ochsmann, J., N. Biermann, H. Knüpffer and K. Bachmann. 1999: Aufbau einer WWW-Datenbank zu

‘Mansfeld’s World Manual of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ (Mansfeld-Verzeichnis, 3. Aufl.). Pp.57–63 in Dokumentation und Informationssysteme im Bereich pflanzengenetischer Ressourcen inDeutschland, Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen Band 12 (F. Begemann, S. Harrer and J. D. JiménezKrause, eds.). ZADI, Bonn, Germany.


The home garden database and information system—technical aspects

Vladimir Afanasyev1,3, Jörg Ochsmann2, Helmut Knüpffer1

1 Research Group Genebank Documentation and2 Research Group Experimental Taxonomy, Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK),

Gatersleben, Germany3 National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzików,

Poland

General informationThe database documents the species and infra-specific diversity found in selected home gardens ofthe five tropical countries participating in the project, i.e. Cuba, Guatemala, Venezuela, Ghana, andVietnam. Its present structure is based on the “Database for checklists of cultivated plants” (Knüpfferand Hammer 1999), and links have been established with ‘Mansfeld’s World Database ofAgricultural and Horticultural Crops’ (cf. Ochsmann et al. these proceedings) which, in turn, is basedon ‘Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001).

Contents of the database• Taxonomy and nomenclature information• Ethnobotanical information• Occurrence of each species in home gardens in the country• Ethnobotanical information• Reference to the sources of information• Verbal descriptions• Links to other databases (Mansfeld, GRIN, NCBI)

HardwareSiemens Primergy 270 (Pentium II/350 mHz)

SoftwareWindows NT 4.0 ClusterIIS 4.0 (Webserver)Visual FoxPro 6.0AFP

ReferencesHanelt, P. and Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben (eds.). Mansfeld’s

Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 1st Engl. ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany.Knüpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plants. Pp.

215–224. in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslie andC. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.


Home gardens in Kerala as an efficient agroecosystem forconservation and sustainable management of biodiversity

K. PushkaranKerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Kerala, India

The home garden system is practised extensively in many tropical countries. Home gardening isespecially highly evolved, specialized and popular in the state of Kerala, located in the southwestcorner of the Indian peninsula. Kerala is often considered to be the land of home gardens and thenatural beauty of the region to a great extent depends on this system.

On the basis of topographic features, Kerala can be divided into the lowlands, midlands andhighlands with a variety of soil types and divergent vegetation. The heavy rainfall provides a humidclimate and abundant natural water resources. Farming in Kerala has certain unique characteristicsand practices due to the peculiar physiographical features, sociocultural factors and very low percapita land availability.

The home garden system is a well-evolved land use system usually integrating humans, cropsand livestock. Home gardens in Kerala effectively and efficiently combine a very high level ofcropping intensity with multistoried levels integrating different factors of production. In some cases,fish culture and duck rearing are also seen. Usually the cropping system is perennial-based. Oftenagroforestry species are also included, in which case home gardens can be treated as an agroforestrysystem with a livestock component. More efficient utilization of vertical as well as horizontal levelsof the soil and atmosphere is achieved, all based on the resources and requirements of the family andthe society. The system has a role in food security and protects the environment through effectiveorganic recycling.

The size of home gardens varies widely, from larger joint-family home gardens covering hectaresto the currently widespread small nuclear-family home gardens. The crop varieties/types andcombinations encountered vary widely within home gardens depending upon many factors. Besidesgeophysical and climactic considerations, a number of social, cultural and religious factors influencethe agrobiodiversity present in a home garden. The agrobiodiversity utilized by the home gardenfarmer also depends on the local knowledge systems. A crop and varietal mixture of coconut, fruits,pepper, vegetables, tubers, ornamentals, spices, agroforestry species, medicinal plants, pulses,among others, are commonly found in the home gardens of Kerala. A home garden farmer interested

in mango may have a widecollection of mango varieties andtypes along with other crops ofhis choice. A traditionalAyurvedic physician will have arich collection of medicinalplants. One conventional black-pepper farmer will be eager tohave as much variability of thatcrop as possible in his homegarden.

Above all, the fact that thehome garden farming system hasevolved over hundreds of yearsin Kerala has great significancefrom the point of view ofconservation, consumption and


A typical Kerala home garden.

K. P

ushk

aran

management of biodiversity. Letus examine the case of theconservation and sustainablemanagement of bananabiodiversity in the home gardenfarming system. Peninsular Indiain general, and Kerala inparticular, is an area of greatdiversity for both banana andplantain cultivars, bothdomesticated varieties and wildrelatives. They belong to differentgenomic groups like AA, AB, BB,AAA, AAB and ABB, and includetable and culinary varieties aswell as, dual- and multi-purposevarieties, and types for specialrequirements. A few choicecultivars from the remote past are still grown if they satisfy a specific requirement of an individualhome garden farmer as a grower and consumer. It is interesting to note that much intra-clonalvariability is also seen in most of the popular clones. Banana and plantain cultivation in homegarden farming systems ranges from: rainfed to irrigated; level land to steep hill slopes; at sea levelto high ranges; wetlands to uplands; nutrient-rich soil to poor soil; open to shaded areas; withoutratooning to prolonged ratooning; as the sole crop or in mixed cropping systems. There are alsospecific cultivars of bananas used for ceremonies and religious functions as well as those believed tohave medicinal properties. Also, some varieties are grown to harvest their leaves for varioushousehold uses. In each home garden, depending upon the requirements of the farmer, a few bananatypes are being conserved and managed. Thus all the home gardens taken collectively maintain andeven improve banana and plantain biodiversity in a sustainable manner through the involvement ofthe community. Likewise, one can perceive that the biodiversity of many other important regionalcrops is being effectively conserved in the home garden system.

Complementary to the home garden system, many pockets of natural flora scattered throughoutthe state are preserved almost in the original natural condition. Such sites are sacred groves, locallyknown as ‘Kavu’. They are invariably linked with religious beliefs in particular gods and goddesses,so that their protection is intertwined with ancient traditions. The sacred groves serve asmicrocentres for in situ biodiversity conservation based on the spiritual values of local people.

The deep links between humans and nature in Kerala are protected to a great extent throughhome gardens as well as sacred groves. However, many changes have crept into these systemsrecently due to a variety of reasons, creating negative effects. The International Plant GeneticResources Institute is invited to initiate a critical analysis of the home garden farming system andsacred groves to evaluate their uses for sustainable biodiversity conservation and development.


A sacred grove, or ‘kavu’, in Kerala. Some genetic resources in Kerala are protectedbecause of their link to a particular deity.

K. P

ushk

aran

Ethnobotany of genetic resources in Germany—diversity in city gardens of immigrants

Thomas GladisUniversity GhK, Witzenhausen, Germany

IntroductionBefore settled agriculture, people collected, dried and stored fruits and seeds from edible wild plantsto survive hard seasons such as winter. Since its very beginning, agriculture contributed toconnecting people with the ground they were living from. All circumstances of their life (their livingstandards, rites, and traditions) changed during the agricultural revolution in prehistory. Permanentuse of land resulted in property rights systems and the defense of territories. The houses becamemore solid, but social differentiation between self-sustaining families within the society was low.There was no specialisation at that time. Later on, impoverished and landless people had to gowhere chances to work arose, comparable to seasonal workers as we know them nowadays.

During the ongoing differentiation processes, farmers always tried to remain on their land butunlimited expansion was not possible, so some children of farmers had to migrate or take on otherprofessions. Many social conflicts could not be solved peacefully, so people had to leave, and afternew periods of migration they started to settle in other places again.

People took seeds and plants with them as victuals and gifts or to trade and exchange material.We can reconstruct the migration routes of people as well as the routes of their preferred animals andplants. Cultivated plants and domestic animals are part of the inalienable goods of human culturalheritage. Among other cultural goods, seeds and animals were captured by the conquistadorsduring wars and farmers became slaves, losing their freedom, families and social networks. Aftercontact with the Americas, many cultivated plants entered the Old World, such as corn (Zea mays),garden bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), potatoes, pumpkin, squash, tomatoes, and tobacco. Alfalfa, barley,cabbages, wheat, and others ‘migrated’ in the opposite direction. Even wild plants were transferred,some intentionally, others unintentionally. Some escaped from Botanical Gardens and establishedthemselves very well in new growing localities in Europe, e.g. the neophytic species Robiniapseudoacacia L., Senecio inaequidens DC. and Solidago canadensis L.

MigrantsWhen the Romans occupied southern German territories along the Rhine River, they tried toestablish their own system to subdue the local population and to integrate it later on step-by-step.This process is called Romanisation. The Romans brought their language and culture to the north,including such new crops as spelt, bread wheat, wine, fruit, and fodder legumes. The Germans hadanimals only and had just started developing agriculture (Seidl 1995). During the occupation period,Roman soldiers founded families here, on the other side of the Alps, and not all German slavesreturned to the North after being released. Both sides adopted and integrated elements and crops ofthe foreign culture into their own cultural system. The same process happens thousands of yearslater: the Italian preferences for special vegetables of American origin are well known, as theexamples of peppers, tomatoes and zucchini illustrate.

After World War II, the reestablishment of the economy of the destroyed and divided Germanywas achieved with help of guest-workers from many different countries. Germany planned to hostthem for a couple of years—as long as their own population was too low. Many of these guest-workers preferred to stay in Germany afterwards, for a longer period or permanently. They tooktheir families, wives and children with them and feel at home here now. They go back to their homecountries as visitors and guests during vacation and holidays, some of them several times per year.The communication between the German population and the immigrants increases from generationto generation, and many children speak their mother tongue as well as German fluently. At the very


beginning, the German market did not provide for the cultural demands of the immigrants (theirspecial food, clothing, etc). Immigrant groups started to provide these things for themselves verysoon, and there are more and more Germans now accepting the more broad and colourful productsoffered by immigrant traders. There are many different regions of the world and many nationalitiesrepresented in the city gardens of Bonn, for instance. Eastern and western European immigrantsdominate, followed by those from western and southern Asia and northern Africa. Gardens from theAmericas and Africa were not the focus of these studies. Many people come from Turkey, Palestine,Morocco, Italy, Romania and from the former Soviet Union.

GardensIn the example of the southern border of the former German capital of Bonn, gardens of immigrantfamilies were visited and checked regarding their content of rare and less-known cultivated plants(Gladis 1999). The cultural differences between German and foreign people in neighbourhoods areobvious. Within the town, representative and ornamental gardens dominate but at the border, wheremore immigrant families live, more and more gardens are used to produce vegetables, fruits, spices,and as a place to relax and spend spare time. Many of the immigrant families, some of whomoriginate from countries in the centres of genetic diversity for particular crops, described by Vavilov(1926), prefer to spend as much time as possible in these gardens. They live in self made-cabins, growtheir crops, cook tea, prepare and consume their food, invite friends, neighbours and the wholeextended family several times per year.

The hedges are tight, the fences full with climbing beans, peas, pumpkins. Water is a limitingfactor in the gardens. Rainwater is collected and sparsely applied to the crops. It is relatively easy todistinguish between conventional plant varieties and imported seeds. The local varieties ofimmigrants are not homogenous, have lower yields, and each family has material withmorphologically distinct characters for different uses. Seed growing is commonly observed. In somecases the gardens contain plants which are yet not officially reported to occur in the territory ofGermany.

Growing techniques and plantsSome of the home garden areas are used jointly by several families. There are no hedges nor fencesbetween these separate gardens, or paths between the ‘beds’. To get the maximum yield from asmany plant species as possible, the gardeners apply a system of intercropping and crop rotationthroughout the year. There is scarcely ever open soil except some weeks during wintertime.Depending on the size and position of the gardens, the people dig manually or plough with largermachines. As early as possible, broad beans (Vicia faba L.) are sown, and between the rows othercrops are later sown, e.g. potatoes. Squash and pumpkin cover the same ground at the end of thegrowing season. This enables the people to have up to three harvests per year from one piece of land.Yellow-eared corn land races (Zea mays L.) are frequently grown together with climbing and runnerbeans, cucumbers, and pepper (Capsicum spp.), beet, leek, kale and lettuce (for harvesting of seed).If the plants do not get enough light, the corn plants are partially defoliated. The sowing is notusually done in regular lines or rows, but more frequently in lots. Tender species are initially coveredwith refuse plant material, in addition to old parts of clothing or spreads during cold and rainy days.Sowing these crops indoors or in self-made greenhouses, such as German gardeners do, is lesspopular but necessary for tomatoes (against Phytophthora-infestations), melons and eggplants(Solanum melongena L.). In some years, the eggplants do not grow well outdoors because of climaticfactors. The gardeners continue growing and selecting early ripening types and thus try to adapt thecrop to the new environmental conditions.

The intraspecific diversity is extremely high in garden beans. It seems to be the most importantvegetable species found in immigrant gardens. They have two common uses: the young fruits areconsumed as vegetables, and the ripe seeds are used as a widespread protein source. Many special


landraces exist in Bonn originating from different cultures and countries. These landraces areexchanged between gardeners, then individually selected and carefully propagated. Bushy types arerarely found, because they are thought to be less tasty. In some cases even the runner bean (Phaseoluscoccineus L.) is used as dry bean, but only rarely and in small quantities.

For seed growing of bi- and perennial crops, the selected individual plants flower for severalseasons. The selected plant remains and bears seed as long as it lives. A typical example for thistechnique is the so-called black kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. viridis L.). The large blue-green orreddish leaves are used to prepare special leaf rolls, stuffed with a mixture containing minced meat,rice, onion, garlic, hot pepper and further spices.

From poppy (Papaver somniferum L.), unfilled pink- or violet-flowering landraces withspontaneously opening capsules were cultivated until 1999. At the moment, the ornamental, filledred-flowering peony poppies from seed markets are preferred. Even from this variety the seeds maybe used as condiment or to prepare sweets.

Intensive soil treatment (e.g. watering) and daily picking in the garden is mainly performed byfemales. The water supply to the soil is regulated by these treatments along with the fact that the soilis often completely covered by plants. In dry years, the soil is protected from becoming encrustedand cracking. In extremely wet seasons, the crops are surrounded by shallow moats. The water canflow slowly away without eroding the soil, and through frequent picking, fresh air is provided to theroots. They do not rot and the plants can grow well.

Some of the plants are grown in monocultures, e.g. coriander, parsley, chickpea. Some grow inrows (cucumber, egg plant, fenugreek), where others are sown or planted to fill gaps (garden orache,Atriplex hortensis L.). Some plants surround the cabins (ornamentals, some frequently used spices) orare grown alone (artichoke, manioc). The harvest follows the cycle of fast-growing neighbour plantslike pumpkins; other rules are to cut as little as possible if these plants or plant parts are not used atthe moment but would bear edible leaf or fruit. Chemical plant protection and manure is scarcelyapplied. Some of the immigrants use compost or dried and pulverized plant material instead ofartificial fertilizers.

It is not possible to define general rules for immigrant home gardens because the gardeners comefrom different nations and often have very distinct personal preferences. Most of them have one orsometimes several gardens to provide their families with fruits, vegetables and spices year-round.Self-sufficiency is their main aim, and some even keep animals like chicken and sheep in theirgardens (Hammer et al. 1992–1994; Arrowsmith et al. 1998).

Summary and future prospectsIn the example of Bonn, the former capital of Germany, typical gardens of immigrant families werevisited and periodically checked regarding their plant composition and cultivation techniques.Interactions of people from different regions promote their integration into the German society.Families manage their own gardens in order to have enough traditional food, making themindependent of the market. The more that immigrants live and work in an area, the more arable landis used for gardens. The rents for leasing are very low—in contrast to the price of soil. Limitations togardening do not exist other than the time and energy of the people.

The immigrants contribute actively to increasing the diversity of cultivated plants in Germanyby farming, gardening, and trading their native germplasm. They influence the markets byselecting specific species and varieties (see Hammer et al. 2001). People from Asia and Russia oftenestablish special shops with exotic food and spices, or species which were used by Germans informer times and which are neglected crops here today (e.g. buckwheat, Fagopyrum spp.;cranberries, Vaccinium spp.). These exotic or forgotten foods become more and more interesting forGerman consumers as well.


ReferencesArrowsmith, N., Th. Gladis and A. Kanzler. 1998. Collecting in northeastern Austria, 1997. Plant Genetic

Resources Newsletter 113:35-37.Gladis, Th. 1999. Kulturelle Vielfalt und Biodiversität—hier, in Deutschland und anderswo. VEN

Samensurium, Heft 10, S. 22-36.Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds. 1992–1994. “… y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los

nuestros …” Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources. Gatersleben, Germany.Hammer, K., Th. Gladis and A. Diederichsen. 2001. In-situ- and on-farm-management of plant genetic

resources. Crop Science Congress, Hamburg, Germany, August 17–22, 2000.Seidl, A. 1995.: Deutsche Agrargeschichte. Schriftenr. FH Weihenstephan SWF 3, 366 S.Vavilov, N.I. 1926. Geographical regularities in the distribution of the genes of cultivated plants. Bull. appl. Bot.

Gen. i Sel. 17,3 (Russian), 411-428 (Engl. summary).


Summary and recommendations

Conclusions

Pablo B. EyzaguirreInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

We entered into homegardens research that had been underway for several decades and attempted toenrich it by adding a biodiversity perspective and value. We hope that by documenting this additionalstream of benefits that homegardens provide, it will build support for further research and developmentof home gardens as biodiversity assets for rural communities and society at large. The five country casestudies, Guatemala, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam and Ghana, that were carried out with funding by theGerman government produced detailed documentation of how farmers create homegardens to manageagrobiodiversity in multipurpose, multistory systems to fulfill their needs. Companion pilot studiesusing a similar methodology in Ethiopia and Nepal confirmed the importance of home gardens as activebreeding grounds and secure havens of biodiversity in agriculture.

The chapters in these proceedings are particularly useful for the rich detail and scientific rigour theybring to the study of home gardens. The questions of what diversity and how is it maintained have beensquarely addressed. The other salient issue of how use of genetic resources contributes to theirconservation has also been addressed. The scientific work and discussions presented in this volume willbe followed by several national publications to reach the respective research and development actors ineach country. There will also be additional scientific publications in journals and books on botany,ethnobotany, genetic resources, agriculture, agroforestry and ecology. The communication that followsupon this work will be aimed at policy-makers, development workers and the communities thatactually maintain homegarden diversity.

Based on the findings presented here, we have set the stage for two follow up strategies. First is toapply the methods that the scientists and farmers in the five countries have developed together to othercountries so that they can assess and monitor the agrobiodiversity maintained in homegarden systems.Second is to use these results of these assessments and studies to include homegardens as componentsof national biodiversity conservation and development strategies. Because homegardens are essentialcomponents of both biodiversity conservation and livelihood strategies, the key stakeholders will be thefarming communities. In several instances, the participatory research approaches used in the studies canbe adapted to empower communities to seek greater support and recognition of their contributions tonational biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. At the same time communities have every right toexpect that assets managed as part of home garden diversity can be made more valuable. In some casesthere will be home garden diversity fairs, or ecotourism opportunities to enable farmers to derivegreater income from diversity rich homegardens. In other cases there is a need for technical support toincrease the quality and supply of germplasm for farmers that seek to maintain and further developtraditional species and varieties in their home gardens.

The teams in the various countries made important and highly visible steps to give duerecognition and ownership. These measures ranged from certificates acknowledging farmers andlocal communities as equal partners in the research, national workshops with home gardeners tochannel support to their endeavors and to open new market opportunities for their products. Inother cases the cultural aspect of home gardens as spaces that not only preserve biodiversity but alsofood culture and ritual was central and given high recognition and respect. The public awareness ofhome garden biodiversity was greatly increased. Television programmes in Ghana, visits by leadingpolicy-makers from the Ministry of Environment in Guatemala, the support of national home gardenassociations in Vietnam, are among a few of the measures taken thus far and that will continue ashomegardens assume an important place in biodiversity, nutrition and livelihood strategies. It is notdifficult to envisage a ‘Year of the Home Garden’ as an awareness-raising step that can reach thehearts and home of nearly all rural and peri-urban families.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 175


Appendix I

Workshop Agenda

Tuesday, July 17th 2001

8.00 Registration of visitors and guests

9.00 (Chairman: Dr Karl Hammer)Official opening by Dr Wolfgang Zimmermann, Director of ZELDr Spatz, Dean of Faculty of Agriculture, University of KasselRepresentative of GTZ/BEAFIntroduction of the Workshop by Prof. Dr Fischbeck

10.00 Home gardens: a genetic resources perspective, Dr Jan Engels, IPGRI

10.15 Coffee break

10.15 (Chairman: Dr Engels) Home gardens: food security, livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation.Dr Pablo EyzaguirreHome gardens and genetic diversity in ecosystems. Dr Toby Hodgkin

11.30 Documentation of genetic resources in home gardens. Dr Helmut Knüpffer

12.00 General discussion of key themes

12.15 Presentation of Cuban research results

13.00 Lunch

14.00 (Chairman: Representative of the Vietnam team) Presentation of Guatemalan research results

14.45 Presentation of Venezuelan research results

15.30 Presentation of Ghanaian research results

16.15 Coffee break

16.45 Presentation of Vietnamese research results

17.30 Close session

19.00 Evening event in the Greenhouse, including a guided tour of Germany’s ‘Largest Tropical Home Gardens’ (snacks provided)

APPENDIX I 177

Wednesday, July 18th 2001

9.00 Characterizing genetic diversity of key home garden speciesDr David Williams

9.45 Plenary discussion of Agrobiodiversity ecosystem and genetic diversity management issues across countries.Moderator: Dr Theda Kirchner

10.30 Coffee break

11.00 Working groups on thematic topics—Session 1

Group A: PGR conservation in home gardens: Ecosystems and key species

Group B: In situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components of complementary conservation strategies for plant genetic resources

Group C: Documentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Report of the three working groups with plenary discussion

16.00 Coffee break

16.30 Implications for countries outside the project: Nepal and Ethiopia

17.30 Close session

19.00 Dinner

Thursday, July 19th 2001

9.00 (Chairman: Dr Eyzaguirre)Contributions of homegardens to our knowledge on cultivated plant species:the Mansfeld approach.Prof. K. Hammer

Documenting plant genetic resources in home gardens: contributions to nationaland global databases—Online presentation.

J. Ochsmann, H. Knupffer, V. Afanasyev, K. Roose

10.00 Contributions of home garden agrobiodiversity to development, nutrition,and household livelihoods.P. Eyzaguirre

10.30 Working groups.Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions andpriorities for future work on managing home gardens agrobiodiversity for development

11.00 Coffee break (Chairman: representative of the Cuban Team) Working Groups continue

13.00 Lunch

(Chairman:Dr Engels)Presentation of working group results;Plenary discussion of home gardens as a global conservation and development strategyfor diverse and sustainable ecosystems and livelihoods future priorities and partners

15.30 Evaluation

16.30 Coffee break

17.00 Official closing of the workshop

19.30 Farewell dinner and party


APPENDIX II 179

Appendix II

List of participants

Oekan S. AbdoellahInstitute of Ecology Padjadjaran UniversityJL Sekeloa SelatanBandung 40132West [email protected]

Zemede AsfawPO Box 3434Biology DepartmentAddis Ababa University, A.A.EthiopiaTel: +251 1 5531 77Fax: +2511 [email protected]@telecom.net.et

Emmanuel O.A. Asibey CBUD, Centre for Biological Utilizationand Development Kumasi, Ghana PO Box MB 303AccraGhanaTel: +233 21 60381/2Fax: +233 21 [email protected]

Helmer Ayala Falcutad de Agronomia—FAUSACUniversidad de San Carlos de GuatemalaApdo Postal 1545, Zona 12Ciudad de GuatemalaEdificio T8 Ciudad Universitaria Z1ZGuatemalaTel:+ 502 476 9794Fax: +502 476 [email protected]

Cesar AzurdiaFalcutad de Agronomia - FAUSACUniversidad de San Carlos de GuatemalaApdo Postal 1545, Zona 12Ciudad de GuatemalaEdificio T8 Ciudad Universitaria Z1ZGuatemalaTel: +502 476 9794Fax: +502 476 [email protected]

Andrea Bahr Gesamthochschule Kassel-WitzenhausenNorbanstr. 1D-37213 [email protected]

Samuel Odei Bennett-Lartey Plant Genetic Resources CentreBunso PO Box 7GhanaTel/Fax: +233 81 [email protected]

Gabriele Blümlein Centre for Documentation and Information in Agriculture (ZADI)Information Centre Genetic Resources (IGR)Villichgasse 1753177 BonnGermany Tel: +49.228.9548-209Fax: [email protected]


Leonor Castiñeiras AlfonsoInstituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT)Calle 2 esq. 1, Santiago de las VegasC. HabanaCubaTel: +53 683 4039,2323Fax: +53 7 [email protected]

Nguyen Ngoc DE Rice research DepartmentMekong Delta Farming Systems Research and Development Institute,Cantho University, Campus 23/2 Street, Cantho CityCanthoVietnamTel: +84 71 831251Fax: +84 71 [email protected]

Marlene Diekmann Advisory Service on Agricultural Research for Development (BEAF)PO Box 120508D-53047 BonnGermanyTel.: +49-228-2434865Fax: [email protected]

Jan Engels International Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRomeItalyTel: +39 06 6118202Fax: +39 06 [email protected]

Pablo EyzaguirreInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRomeItalyTel: +39 06 6118267Fax: +39 06 [email protected]

Maria E. Fernandez International Support Group (ISG)National Agrarian University (UNALM)PO Box R18-067-Lima 18, PeruTel: +51(1)2427524; 3494057E-Fax: +1(253)[email protected]

Gerhard Fischbeck Lehrstuhl für Pflanzenbau und PflanzenzüchtungTU MünchenAlte Akademie 12D-85350 [email protected]@wzw.tum.de

Zoila Fundora MayorInstituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales enAgricultura Tropical (INIFAT)Calle 2 esq. 1, Santiago de las VegasC. HabanaCubaTel: +53 683 4039,2323Fax: +53 7 [email protected]

Resham Gautam LI-BIRDMahedrapul Kaski, Pokhara PO Box 324, PokharaNepalTel: +977 61 26834/[email protected]

Thomas Gladis German Centre for Documentation and Information in AgricultureInformation Centre for Genetic Resources (IGR)Villichgasse 17D-53177 Bonn [email protected]@wiz.uni-kassel.de

APPENDIX II 181

Margaret GutiérrezFONAIAP-CENIAPApartado 4653Maracay 2101Venezuela Tel: +58 43 47 10 [email protected]@cantv.net

Karl Hammer University of KasselFaculty of AgricultureDepartment of Agro-Biodiversity Steinstr. 19D-37213 WitzenhausenGermanyTel: +49 5542 98 0 Fax: +49 5542 98 13 [email protected]

Oliver Hanschke Advisory Service on Agricultural Research for Development(BEAF)PO Box 120508D-53047 BonnGermanyTel.: +49-228-2434866Fax: [email protected]

Joachim Heller University of Applied SciencesFaculty of Horticulture & LandscapingVon Lade Str. 1 D-65366 GeisenheimGermanyTel/Fax: +49 6722 [email protected]

Toby HodgkinInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRomeItalyTel: +39 06 61181Fax: +39 06 [email protected]

Anne Holl Institute for Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Göttingen Waldweg 26D-37073 Gö[email protected]

László HollyDirectorInstitute for AgrobotanyH-2766 Tapioszele,HungaryTel.: +36 (53) 380-070Fax: +36 (53) [email protected]

Nguyen Thi Ngoc HueVietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI)Vandien, Thanhtri, Hanoi VietnamTel: +84 4 614326 or 84 34 Fax: +84 4 [email protected]@vasi.ac.vn

Annie HuieInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRomeItalyTel: +39 06 6118285Fax: +39 06 [email protected]

Theda KirchnerDSE/ZELMessweg 20D-37412 HördenGermanyTel: +49 [email protected]

Helmut Knüpffer Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant ResearchIPKGaterslebenCorrensstr. 3D-06466 [email protected]


Zsuzsanna KollárGenetic Resources DepartmentInstitute for AgrobotanyH-2766 Tapioszele,HungaryTel: +36 (53) 380-070Fax: +36 (53) [email protected]

Barbara Krause GTZ Project BosawasSustainable Resource Use & Rural developmentBiosphere Reserve BosawasManagua Projecto BosawasMARENA/GTZAp Postal 489ManaguaNicaragua

José Miguel Leiva Falcutad de Agronomia—FAUSACUniversidad de San Carlos de GuatemalaApdo Postal 1545, Zona 12Ciudad de GuatemalaGuatemalaTel: +502 476 9794Fax: +502 476 [email protected]@internetdatelgua.com.gt

Brigitte MaassInstitute for Crop & Animal Production in the TropicsUniversity of Göttingen Grisebachstr. 6D-37077 GöttingenGermanyTel: +49 551 [email protected]

Larwanou MahamaneNational Institute for Agricultural Research of Niger (INRAN)National institute for Agricultural Science(INRAD)BP 429 NiameyNiger Tel: +227 72 34 34Fax: +277 72 21 44

István MárInstitute for AgrobotanyH-2766 Tapioszele,HungaryTel: +36 (53) 380-070Fax: +36 (53) [email protected]

Carol Markwei Department of BotanyUniversity of GhanaLegon, Accra GhanaTel: +233 21 501735Fax: +233 21 [email protected]

Waltraud Michaelis German Foundation for InternationalDevelopment—Food and Agriculture Development CentreDSE/ZELZschortau Germany

Roch L. Mongbo Centre Beninois pour l’Environment et leDeveloppement Economique et Social(CEDBEDES) 02 BP 778Cotonou BeninTel: +229 304139/966446Fax: +229 [email protected]

Jörg OchsmannInstitute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant ResearchIPKCorrensstr. 3D-06466 [email protected]

Kesavan N. PushkaranKerala Agricultural UniversityCollege of HorticultureVellanikkara, Thrissur - 680 656KeralaIndiaTel: +91 487 370 822Fax: +91 487 370 [email protected]

APPENDIX II 183

Trinidad M. Pérez de Fernandez Universidad de los AndesNucleo Universitario Rafael Rangel, Trujillo Av. Medina Angarita, CarmonaTrujilloVenezuelaTel/Fax: +58-43 47 10 [email protected]@hotmail.com

Consuelo Quiroz Universidad de los Andesentro para la Agricultura Tropical Alternativa y el Desarollo Integral TrujilloTrujilloVenezuela Tel: +58 272 2360467, 59 272 6721672 (home)[email protected]

Vanaja Ramprasad GREEN FoundationPO Box 765186A Srinatha Nilaya5th cross, 3rd main, N.S. PalyaBTM Second StageBangalore—560 076IndiaTel: +91 080 6783858Fax: +91 080 [email protected]

Ram RanaLI-BIRDMahedrapul Kaski PO Box 324, Pokhara NepalTel: +977 61 26834/[email protected]

Katja RooseInstitute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant ResearchIPKCorrensstr. 3D-06466 [email protected]

Jürgen Schneider International Affairs DivisionSwiss Agency for the Environment Forests andLandscape,CH-3003 Berne SwitzerlandTel: +41 31 322 68 [email protected]

Tomas ShagarodskyInstituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales enAgricultura Tropical (INIFAT)Calle 2 esq. 1, Santiago de las VegasC. HabanaCubaTel: +53 683 4039,2323Fax: +53 7 [email protected]

Pratap Kumar Shrestha LI-BIRDPO Box 234, Pokhara, KaskiNepalTel: +977 61 26834/[email protected]

Bhuwon Sthapit International Plant Genetic Resources InstituteRegional Office for Asia, Pacific and OceaniaIPGRI APO (Ouposted in Nepal)10 Darmashila Buddha MargNadipur Patan, Ward N. 3Pokhara 3NepalTel: +977 61 21108Fax: +977 61 [email protected]

Luu Ngoc Trinh Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI)Van Dien, Thanh Tri, Ha Noi VietnamTel: +84 34 845320Fax: +84 34 845802 [email protected]


Raymond VodouheInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)Office for West and Central Africa 08 BP 0932 CotonouBeninTel: +229 35 01 88Fax: +229 35 05 [email protected]

Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser Hamerlinggasse 12A-2340 MödlingAustriaTel/Fax: +02236-45069 (++43-2236-45069)[email protected]

Jessica Watson International Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRomeItalyTel: +39 06 [email protected]

Beate WeiskopfGTZRural Development DivisionDag-Hämmarskjöld-weg 1-5Postfach 5180D-65726 EschbornGermanyTel: +49 61 96 79 [email protected]

David E. WilliamsInternational Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)Regional Office for Americas c/o CIATA:A: 6713CaliColombiaTel: +57 2 445 0048/49Fax: +57 2 445 [email protected]

Wolfgang Zimmermann German Foundation for InternationalDevelopment Food and Agriculture Development CentreDSE/ZELZschortau Germany

ISBN 92-9043-517-8

home gardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic ...€¦ · plant genetic resources in...

Documents