Distribution and Regeneration Status of <i>Albizia gummifera</i> and <i>Prunus africana</i> along Agroecology in Agroforestry: The Case of Gombora District, Southern Ethiopia

Beyene Abide, Ermias; Assefa Birru, Tsidkineh

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1843379

International Journal of Forestry Research

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 1843379 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1843379

Distribution and Regeneration Status of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana along Agroecology in Agroforestry: The Case of Gombora District, Southern Ethiopia

Ermias Beyene Abide¹and Tsidkineh Assefa Birru²

Academic Editor: Ranjeet Kumar Mishra

Received06 Aug 2022

Revised18 Jan 2024

Accepted25 Jan 2024

Published01 Feb 2024

Abstract

Empirical evidence on the patterns of the multipurpose trees distribution and regeneration status, which are under threats pressure is necessary for the proper management and conservation of the species. Prunus africana is listed as vulnerable while Albizia gummifera is listed as least concern amongst the multipurpose trees. This study was aimed to investigate the distribution, abundance, density, and regeneration status of Prunus africana and Albizia gummifera along agroecology and farmers’ wealth status in agroforestry. Stratification sampling and equal sampling techniques were employed. A total of 162 quadrats were laid within the randomly selected 54 households’ farms. A nested quadrat size was 20 m × 20 m for enset tree-based homegarden and parklands. For live fencing, a quadrat size was 4 m × 10 m. Abundance, diameter (cm), height (m), and growth habits of both trees were recorded. Density (stems per ha), diameter class (cm), height (m) class of both trees, and mean of growth habit were analyzed and considered. One-way ANOVA analysis and independent t-test were employed for means comparison by using SPSS V. 23.0. A total of 132 individual A. gummifera was recorded along agroecology while a total of 55 individual P. africana was recorded along agroecology. Mean density (stem/ha) of A. gummifera and P. africana showed significant difference between agroecology and farmers’ wealth groups (). A. gummifera and P. africana were sparsely distributed in the enset tree-based homegarden, parklands, and live fencing along agroecology. The overall diameter (cm) class and height (m) class distribution pattern of these tree species were observed as a J-shaped curve. The regeneration status of A. gummifera and P. africana was poor. In conclusion, distribution, abundance, and regeneration status of A. gummifera and P. africana were influenced by agroecology and farmers’ wealth status needing appropriate conservation measures.

1. Introduction

Prunus africana (Hook.f.) kalm from the Rosaceae family and Albizia gummifera (J.F.Gmel.) C.A. Sm. from the Fabaceae family are the multipurpose tree species, which are native to Africa in the Afromontane forests [1, 2]. Prunus africana (Hook.f.) kalm and Albizia gummifera (J.F.Gmel.) C.A. Sm. are the most important multipurpose tree species found in agroforestry practices [3], remnant natural forests, and forests [4]. Nowadays, Prunus africana, and Albizia gummifera are being under threats pressure [4]. For instance, P. africana was one of the IUCN Red List of Threatened species in 2021 [5]. Currently, P. africana is listed as vulnerable tree species https://www.iucnredlist.org/, while Albizia gummifera is listed as least concern tree species [6] accessed on 06 December 2023. Understanding the current regeneration status of P. africana and A. gummifera along agroecology in agroforestry is very important to introduce a sound management practice and conservation approaches.

The multiple benefits obtained from P. africana include traditional medicine from its bark and leaf parts [7], fuelwood, timber, construction materials, and soil and water conservation [8]. The benefits obtained from A. gummifera include gum/resin, tannin, medicine [9], apiculture, timber, ornamental, and soil fertility improvement through nitrogen fixation [10, 11].

Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use systems where trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, vines, etc. are deliberately grown on the same land-management units, i.e., field or plot as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial mixtures or temporal sequence [12]. Farmers have been planting and retaining the multipurpose tree species on their agroforestry land-uses for their benefits [3]. Agroforestry provides habitats for the forest-dependent species including the threatened native as well as exotic tree species [13]. However, the multipurpose tree species are being threatened due to the anthropogenic factors such as logging, selective removal of tree species from the farmlands, overexploitation of tree species, unwise utilization of plant parts [14, 15], agricultural expansion, the socioeconomic factors [16], deforestation [13], and environmental factors including altitude, soil type, and agroclimatic conditions [17, 18]. Hence, generating information about multipurpose woody species distribution patterns and also the population structure along agroclimatic conditions in agroforestry could be helpful for the effective management and implementing conservation strategies of the species [3].

Ethiopia is characterized by the enriched endemic flora and fauna with highly diversified agroecological zones [19]. Farmers are maintaining and retaining the multipurpose woody species on their farmlands in order to get the multiple benefits from them for decades in Ethiopia [20]. For instance, A. gummifera and P. africana are grown by the farmers in agroforestry land-uses of Lemo district, Southern Ethiopia [3]. Farmers have been planting and retaining these tree species in order to satisfy the ever increasing demand for the forest products [8, 21, 22]. In addition, Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana have been scattered in the montane forests, orthodox churches, protected areas, and groves [8, 23, 24]. In general, the integration of forest tree species in the farming systems is an alternative option in order to mitigate deforestation [2, 25, 26].

P. africana and A. gummifera tree species are under the threats pressure in Ethiopia [13], particularly in Southern Ethiopia [27–29] and in the study district of Southern Ethiopia. Having the scientific empirical evidence on the regeneration status of the forest tree species by comparing their seedlings, saplings, and adult trees in agroforestry systems can be necessary for proposing and also applying the various conservation approaches [30, 31]. However, from literature review, we observed that there has been a very limited information on the distribution and regeneration status of vulnerable tree species and least concern tree species by the IUCN Red List of Threatened species along agroecology and farmers’ wealth status in agroforestry. Farmers have been retaining P. africana and A. gummifera tree species on their farms in Gombora district of Southern Ethiopia. But, no previous studies have been done on investigating the patterns of both tree species distribution and regeneration status along agroecology in agroforestry in the Gombora district of Southern Ethiopia. We hypothesized that the distribution, density, and regeneration of A. gummifera and P. africana differ among agroecology, agroforestry practices, and farmers’ wealth status. This research was aimed to analyze and document the distribution, abundance, density, and regeneration status of A. gummifera and P. africana along agroecology, and farmers’ wealth status in agroforestry in the study areas of Southern Ethiopia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Descriptions of the Study Area

The present study was conducted in the Gombora district of Southern Ethiopia. The map of the study district is presented in Figure 1. The district comprised of the highland, midland, and lowland agroecological zones. The soil types of the district are Nitosols and Eutric nitosols. According to the district’s agricultural organization, the land-uses are the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry, live fencing, woodlots, parkland agroforestry practice, grazing lands, plantation forest, and natural forest.

2.2. Sampling Strategy

2.2.1. The Study Site Selection

The study district encompassed a total of 23 kebeles (kebele is the lowest administration unit in Ethiopia). All of 23 kebeles that are found in Gombora district were stratified into the highland (2300–3200 m.a.s.l), the midland (1500–2500 m.a.s.l), and the lowland (500–1500 m.a.s.l) according to Zemede [32], in order to have a representative sample. Subsequently, each stratum kebele was categorized into the two groups as kebeles with the absence of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana trees in the existing agroforestry practices, and kebeles with the presence of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana trees in the existing agroforestry practices. Finally, the two kebeles, namely, Gorta kebele from the midland agroecology and Adeana kebele from the lowland agroecology were randomly selected based on the presence of these tree species in order to have a representative sample of the whole population. The existing agroforestry practices of each randomly selected kebele were characterized as the enset (Ensete ventricosum) tree-based homegarden agroforestry, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing for inventory.

2.2.2. Tree Inventory

The investigation unit for the purpose of this study was the household’s farms, i.e., the existing agroforestry practices (the enset (Ensete ventricosum) tree-based homegarden agroforestry practice, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing) in each randomly selected kebele. In order to have a representative sample and analyze the impact of farmers’ wealth status on the patterns of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana trees distribution and regeneration status across the existing agroforestry practices, the households’ wealth stratification was done. Accordingly, all the households that are found in Gorta kebele from the midland and Adeana kebele from the lowland were stratified into the wealthy, medium, and poor households based on the local wealth stratification criteria such as tropical livestock unit (TLU), land size in hectare (ha), gross annual income, and income from off-farm activity in order to select the target household’s farms for inventory. This was achieved with the help of elders, experts, and the managers of the two kebeles.

An equal sampling technique was employed in order to have a total of 54 households’ farms from the two randomly selected kebeles for inventory. A big nested quadrat size was 20 m × 20 m with the four subplot size of 5 m × 5 m were set up at the four corners for the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practice and parkland agroforestry practice [33], and 100 m length of live fencing was divided into 10 sections at 10 m interval, and one section was randomly selected with the quadrat size of 4 m × 10 m with some modification of approach adopted from Lauriks et al. [34].

A total of n = 162 quadrats from the 54 households’ farms were used for inventory as shown in Table 1.

Tree parameters such as abundance, diameter (cm), height (m), number of matured trees, saplings, and seedlings were recorded within each sampled quadrat. Mature trees were with a diameter of >25 cm, small poles were with the diameter >5–25 cm, saplings were the young trees with a diameter of 2–5 cm, and seedlings were with the diameter size of <2 cm [33]. Hypsometers and calipers were used to measure DBH (cm) and tree height (m), respectively.

2.3. Data Analysis

Before the collected data analysis, the histogram (visual) and skewness Z-values were used in order to ensure the normality test of the collected data, i.e., number of stems per plot/density, diameter class (cm) of individuals per plot, and height (m) of individuals per plot. The histogram of the collected data visually showed that data were normally distributed. In addition to this, text analysis outputs (skewness Z-values) for density, diameter class (cm), and height (m) of trees were 1.73, 1.26, and 0.95, which indicates that data were approximately normally distributed.

2.3.1. Density

The density of woody species was the mostly considered one to estimate structural parameters during the data analysis [3]. Density can be calculated by summing up all stems across all plots, land-uses, and converting into a hectare basis as follows:

2.3.2. Diameter Class Distribution (cm) and Height (m) Distribution Analysis

Diameter class (cm) and height (m) of woody species were among the commonly used structural parameters to be considered during the data analysis. Diameter class (cm) and height (m) of both tree species were categorized into the seven diameter classes as DBH (cm): 1 = 0–15.9, 2 = 16–30.9, 3 = 31–45.9, 4 = 46–60.9, 5 = 61–75.9, 6 = 76–90.9, and 7 = ≥ 91. The height (m) classes are as follows: 1 = <1.3 m, 2 = >1.3 m–5 m, 3 = >5 m–10 m, 4 = >10 m–15 m, 5 = >15 m–20 m, 6 = >20 m–25 m, and 6 = ≥25 m.

Density (stem per plot and per hectare) of P. africana and A. gummifera was calculated in order to investigate the distribution patterns and was subjected to one-way ANOVA least significant difference (LSD) test at across the enset-based homegarden agroforestry practice, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing, and the farmers’ wealth status for comparison. In addition, the independent t-test was used in order to investigate the effect of agroecology on the distribution of P. africana and A. gummifera in the study sites at level using SPSS V. 23.0.

Regeneration status of trees was evaluated in the two agroecological zones by counting the total number of individual stems, and by comparing seedlings and saplings with the matured trees according to Tiwari et al. [35]; Farwig et al. [36]; and diameter class (cm) and height class (m) distribution [3]. Good regeneration, if seedlings > saplings > mature; fair regeneration, if seedlings > or ≤ saplings ≤ mature; poor regeneration, if the species survives only in the sapling stage but no seedlings (saplings may be <, >, or = mature); and if a species is present only in a mature form, it is considered as not regenerating [35].

3. Results

3.1. Abundance of A. gummifera and P. africana along Agroecology

A total of 132 individuals of Albizia gummifera were recorded in 72 quadrats out of 162 quadrats, while a total of 55 individuals of Prunus africana were recorded in 36 quadrats out of 162 quadrats in the study areas. Of 132 trees, 48 individuals of A. gummifera were recorded on the midland while 84 individuals of A. gummifera were recorded on the lowland agroecology. Of 55 individuals of P. africana, 19 individuals of P. africana were recorded on the midland while 36 individuals of P. africana were recorded on the lowland agroecology. The lower number of individuals of both tree species was observed along agroecology indicating poorly regenerated stands in the study areas.

3.2. Distribution of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana Trees

3.2.1. Distribution of A. gummifera and P. africana Trees across Agroforestry Practices and Farmers’ Wealth Status

In the study areas, Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana were recorded in the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practice and live fencing in a smaller density (per hectare (ha)), while parklands composed of the higher mean number of density (stems/ha) of both tree species (Tables 2 and 3). Mean density of A. gummifera and P. africana trees showed a significant difference across the three agroforestry practices at (Tables 2 and 4).

The rich farmers had the higher mean number of density (stems per hectare (ha)) of A. gummifera and P. africana trees within their agroforestry practices than the medium and poor farmers in the study areas (Table 2). Similarly, the higher mean number of density of P. africana tree was recorded on the rich farmers’ agroforestry practices than medium and poor farmers (Table 4). This implies that there were variations of densities of both tree species across farmers’ wealth groups at (Tables 2 and 4).

3.2.2. Distribution of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana Trees along Agroecology

Density (stems per plot and hectare (ha) of A. gummifera and P. africana across the agroecological zones showed a significant difference at (Tables 3 and 5).

The higher mean density of A. gummifera was observed on the lowland agroecology than the midland agroecology (Table 3). Similarly, the higher mean density of P. africana on the lowland agroecology was recorded when compared to the midland agroecology (Table 5). A. gummifera and P. africana trees were distributed sparsely and showed J shape along agroecology.

3.3. Regeneration Pattern of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana Trees

3.3.1. Diameter Classes Distribution and Height Classes’ Distribution of Trees along Agroecology

In the present study, the abundance of A. gummifera trees were presented up to as high as 76–98 cm diameter class, and 7 m and above height class on the midland and lowland agroecology. The overall diameter distribution pattern of A. gummifera was J-shaped curve on the midland and lowland agroecology (Figures 2 and 3). Similarly, the abundance of P. africana trees was found as higher as 76–98 cm diameter class, and 7 m and above height class on the midland and lowland agroecology. The general diameter and height distribution patterns of P. africana were J-shaped curves in two agroecologies (Figures 2 and 3).

3.3.2. Regeneration Pattern of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana Trees along Agroecology

The mean age-classes distribution were seedlings (<2 cm), saplings (>2-5 cm diameter), small poles (>5–25 cm), and mature trees (>25 cm) diameter classes. This is important to understand the mean of age-class distribution to determine the regeneration distribution along agroecology. A. gummifera and Prunus africana both had a low mean density (stems per hectare (ha)) of seedlings, saplings, and small poles, while had a high mean density (stem/ha) of mature individuals (Figures 4 and 5). This implies that regeneration population of both native trees showed J-shaped curve which indicate the abundance of seedlings and saplings are a smaller comparatively to mature trees (saplings and adults) on both studied agroecological areas.

4. Discussion

4.1. Distribution of A. gummifera and P. africana in Agroforestry Practices, Farmers’ Wealth Groups, and Agroecology

Understanding the patterns of the threatened tree species distribution, the regeneration status along agroecology, and the farmers’ wealth groups could be very essential to determine the composition of an agroforestry, and implementing appropriate conservation approaches of the species. The regeneration status of the threatened multipurpose woody species can be affected by environmental factors, and the household’s wealth groups in homegarden agroforestry, life fencing, and parkland agroforestry practice of Lemo district, Southern Ethiopia [3].

A. gummifera and P. africana trees have a wide distribution in Afromontane regions where they provide multiple uses for the people. P. africana is one of the IUCN Red List of Threatened species in 2021 [5], and it is listed as vulnerable tree species currently https://www.iucnredlist.org/. A. gummifera is categorized as least concern [6]. P. africana and A. gummifera have been sparsely scattered across the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practice, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing along agroecology in the study area. The lower abundance of P. africana and A. gummifera was observed along agroecology. This might be due to selective removal of these trees from the farms. This agrees with studies by Yakob et al. [8] and Muluneh et al. [22] who revealed that A. gummifera and P. africana were threatened due to overexploitation and trees removal from homegarden agroforestry practice.

The patterns of Albizia gummifera and Prunus africana distribution across the existing agroforestry practices, i.e., the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing were influenced by agroecology, and the farmers’ wealth groups in the study areas. The mean density of A. gummifera and P. africana trees showed a J-shaped curve indicating poorly regenerated stands of the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing in the study areas. This might be due to the selective cutting of these trees, inclusion of exotic tree species (for instance, inclusion of Grevillea robusta in the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry, inclusion of Cupressuss lusitanica in the live fencing, and inclusion of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus camaldulensis in parkland agroforestry practice), overexploitation, improper management, the ecological conditions, and the requirement of the farmers in the study areas. This is supported by Bijalwan and Dobriyal [30] and Tefera et al. [18] who revealed that selective removal of tree species, farmers’ selection criteria for maintaining trees on their farms, and the ecological variations can be the reasons for poorly regenerated population of the tree species in agroforestry practices.

Parkland agroforestry practice had higher mean of densities distribution (stems/ha) of A. gummifera and P. africana than enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practice and live fencing. This variation could be that farmers are selective, and they control trees densities on the farms based on the species uses. For example, enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practices composed of a smaller density of A. gummifera and P. africana, indicating that farmers mainly cultivate enset crop and other food crops as a source of food in the tree-based homegarden agroforestry. This is in agreement with the finding of Tefera et al. [18] who reported that the lower densities of tree species were recorded in enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practices because farmers mainly grow enset (Enset ventricosum) as a source of food, and farmers are selective to retain trees on their farms [8, 30].

The mean values of density (stems per plot, ha) of P. africana and A. gummifera was the higher on the rich farmers’ agroforestry land-use when compared to the moderate and poor ones. The reasons can be the poorer and medium farmers only focusing on a few cash crops to supplement household income, food crops, and also selective removal of these trees from their farms. This agrees with the study of Crowley [16] and Ermias and Zebene [3] who revealed that wealthier farmers retained relatively more trees on their farms because rich farmers have more resources such as land and other assets to support households. Contradicted by Yakob et al. [8] and Bucagu et al. [10] who reported that more number of stems/ha was found on the poor farmers’ farms indicating the ability of poor farmers to intensively utilize their smaller farms.

The largest number of A. gummifera trees per hectare and P. africana trees per hectare was found on the lowland agroecology comparatively on the midland agroecology. This might be associated with moist and warm climate, the ecological situations, soil type, trees attributes, and planting activities. This is supported by Getahun et al. [26] and Tefera et al. [18] who stressed that farmers accommodated higher number of trees planted on the limited area as ecological condition and favored to grow more number of tree species.

4.2. Regeneration Status of A. gummifera and P. africana Trees along Agroecology

The diameter class (cm) and height (m) distribution of A. gummifera and P. africana trees showed the high number of adult trees and the presence of the lower number of these species at the lower diameter and height classes. These results showed J-shape in studied areas which indicated unstable population structure because the higher presence of the upper diameter class and height class of these tree species were recorded on the midland and lowland in studied areas. The main reasons could be not overexploited by the farmers, retained for a long term, integrated exotic species, and grow crops instead of these trees. This is in agreement with the study by Balemlay and Siraj [31] who revealed that J-shape pattern indicates poor regeneration of trees due to not highly utilized by the local people for various benefits and selective logging of trees. Previous studies by Lejju [33] and Farwig et al. [36] also confirmed that the regeneration of native species under exotic farms was generally low.

Presence of a very few number of seedlings and saplings per hectare (ha) were found in two agroecological zones, while the higher number of adult trees were recorded in two studied agroecological zones indicating poor regeneration. This is consistent with the finding of Tiwari et al. [35] who reported that if seedlings < saplings < adults, there is a poor regeneration status.

5. Conclusions

The patterns of Prunus africana and Albizia gummifera distribution across the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practice, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing, abundance, and density (number of stems per hectare (ha)) along agroecology are very important information for proposing and implementing evidence-based conservation approaches and management strategies of the species. The regeneration status of P. africana and A. gummifera across the farmers’ wealth groups and agroecological zones in the homegarden agroforestry practice, parkland agroforestry practice, and live fencing has not been promising in the study areas. The inclusion of some exotic tree species such as Grevillea robusta in the enset tree-based homegarden agroforestry practice, E. globulus and E. camaldulensis in parkland agroforestry practice, C. lusitanica in live fencing, the selective removal of both trees from the farms, overexploitation, improper tree management, the farmers’ species selection, and the agroclimatic conditions could be the major causes for a rapid depletion of A. gummifera and P. africana tree species along an agroecology and the farmers’ wealth groups in the study areas. As hypothesized, abundance and density (stems per hectare (ha)) of A. gummifera and P. africana did differ across the enset tree-based homegarden, parkland agroforestry practice, live fencing, and the farmers’ wealth groups along an agroecology in the study areas. Diameter class (cm), height class (m), and regeneration status of A. gummifera and P. africana trees differed significantly along an agroecology. The population structure of A. gummifera and P. africana was characterized by high number of mature trees with a poor representation in lower diameter (cm) and height classes (m). This indicates unstable and intermittent population structure of both trees on the midland and lowland agroforestry. The results suggested that A. gummifera and P. africana trees need both ex situ and in situ conservation approaches along agroecology. Further research is required on the biomass, adaptability, and uses of A. gummifera and P. africana at large landscapes.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors have read, revised, and approved the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the field experts for their assistance and the farmers for giving permission to conduct tree inventory on their farmlands.

References

I. Dawson, J. Were, and A. Lengkeek, “Conservation of Prunus africana, an over-exploited African medicinal tree,” Forest genetic resources, vol. 28, no. 28, pp. 27–33, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Stewart, “Effects of bark harvest and other human activity on populations of the African cherry (Prunus africana) on Mount Oku, Cameroon,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 258, no. 7, pp. 1121–1128, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. A. Ermias and A. Zebene, “On-farm tree species diversity and management in semi-arid of Lemo district, Southern Ethiopia,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 96, pp. 1–12, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Rubegeta, F. Makolo, G. Kamatou et al., “The African cherry: a review of the botany, traditional uses, phytochemistry, and biological activities of Prunus africana (Hook. f.) Kalkman,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, vol. 305, Article ID 116004, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Hills and M. Cheek, “Prunus africana the iucn red list of threatened species,” 2021, https://www.iucn.red.list.org/info/categoriescriteria2001.Acessoem.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Hills, Albizia Gummifera The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2019.
K. M. Stewart, The Commercial Bark Harvest of the African Cherry (Prunus Africana) on Mount Oku, Cameroon: Effects on Traditional Uses and Population Dymanics, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2001, Ph.D. Dissertation.
G. Yakob, Z. Asfaw, and S. Zewdie, “Wood production and management of woody species in homegardens agroforestry: the case of smallholder farmers in Gimbo district, south west Ethiopia,” International Journal of Natural Sciences Research, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 165–175, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Orwa, A. Mutua, R. Kindt, R. Jamnadass, and A. Simons, Agroforestree Database: A Tree Reference and Selection Guide. Version 4, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, 2009.
C. Bucagu, B. Vanlauwe, M. T. Van Wijk, and K. E. Giller, “Assessing farmers’ interest in agroforestry in two contrasting agro-ecological zones of Rwanda,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 141–158, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. T. Etafa, “Effect of dominant shade tree species on selected soil physicochemical properties and coffee production in sayyo district, western ethiopia,” Trees, Forests and People, vol. 8, Article ID 100245, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. K. R. Nair, An Introduction to Agroforestry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.
M. Tolera, Z. Asfaw, M. Lemenih, and E. Karltun, “Woody species diversity in a changing landscape in the south-central highlands of Ethiopia,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 128, no. 1-2, pp. 52–58, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Namkoong, T. Boyle, H.-R. Gregorius et al., Testing Criteria and Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of forest Management: Genetic Criteria and Indicators, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 1996.
S. J. Wright, “The future of tropical forests,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1195, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. L. Crowley, Rapid Data Collection Using Wealth Ranking and Other Techniques, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, 1997.
A. M. Gelaw, B. R. Singh, and R. Lal, “Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks under different land uses in a semi-arid watershed in tigray, northern Ethiopia,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 188, pp. 256–263, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tefera, W. Abebe, and B. Teferi, “Woody plants species diversity of home garden agroforestry in three agroecological zones of Dilla Zuria District, Gedeo Zone, Southern Ethiopia,” International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 98–106, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Woldu, S. Edward, A. Demissie, T. Bekele, and G. Haase, “Forests in the vegetation types of ethiopia and their status in the geographical context,” Forest Genetic Resource Conservation: Principles Strategies And Actions, Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Tesfaye, D. Teketay, M. Fetene, and E. Beck, “Regeneration of seven indigenous tree species in a dry Afromontane forest, southern Ethiopia,” Flora-Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants, vol. 205, no. 2, pp. 135–143, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Denu, P. J. Platts, E. Kelbessa, T. W. Gole, and R. Marchant, “The role of traditional coffee management in forest conservation and carbon storage in the Jimma Highlands, Ethiopia,” Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 226–238, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Muluneh, M. T. Feyissa, and T. M. Wolde, “Effect of forest fragmentation and disturbance on diversity and structure of woody species in dry Afromontane forests of northern Ethiopia,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1753–1779, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Tazebew and Z. Asfaw, “Tree species diversity, preference and management in smallholder coffee farms of Western Wellega, Ethiopia,” Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, vol. 8, no. 24, pp. 43–53, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
A. B. Madalcho, J. Szwagrzyk, and T. Solomon, “Woody species diversity and regeneration challenges in ethiopia: review article to identify research gaps,” Trees, Forests and People, vol. 8, Article ID 100224, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. Cunningham, E. Ayuk, S. Franzel, B. Duguma, and C. Asanga, “An economic evaluation of medicinal tree cultivation: Prunus Africana in Cameroon,” People and Plants Working Paper, vol. 10, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Getahun, A. Zebene, and Z. Solomon, “Wood production and management of woody species in homegardens agroforestry: the case of smallholder farmers in gimbo district, south west Ethiopia,” International Journal of Natural Sciences Research, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 165–175, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Mesele, “Trees management and livelihoods in gedeo’s agro forests, ethiopia; a b academic publishers, helsinki university; great britain,” Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 157–168, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Zebene and G. I. Agren, “Farmers’ local knowledge and topsoil properties of agroforestry practices in Sidama, Southern Ethiopia,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 35–48, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Mihretie, S. Schueler, H. Konrad, E. Bekele, and T. Geburek, “Patterns of genetic diversity of Prunus africana in Ethiopia: hot spot but not point of origin for range-wide diversity,” Tree Genetics and Genomes, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 118–213, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bijalwan and M. J. Dobriyal, “Geometry, distribution and regeneration pattern of trees in agroforestry systems along altitude and aspects in the upper yamuna region of uttarakhand himalaya, India,” Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 15–25, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Balemlay and M. Siraj, “Population structure and regeneration status of woody species in kenech forest, southwest Ethiopia,” International Journal of Financial Research, vol. 2021, Article ID 6640285, 14 pages, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Zemede, Conservation and Use of Traditional Vegetables in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1992.
J. B. Lejju, “Ecological recovery of an Afromontane forest in south‐western Uganda,” African Journal of Ecology, vol. 42, no. s1, pp. 64–69, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lauriks, R. DeWulf, S. E. Carter, and A. Niang, “A methodology for the description of border hedges and the analysis of variable influencing their distribution. A case study in Western Kenya,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 44, pp. 69–86, 1999.
View at: Google Scholar
G. P. K. Tiwari, K. Tadele, F. Aramde, and S. C. Tiwari, “Community structure and regeneration potential of shorea robusta forest in subtropical submontane zone of garhwal himalaya, India,” Nature and Science, vol. 8, pp. 70–74, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Farwig, C. Braun, and K. Böhning-Gaese, “Human disturbance reduces genetic diversity of an endangered tropical tree, Prunus africana (Rosaceae),” Conservation Genetics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 317–326, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Ermias Beyene Abide and Tsidkineh Assefa Birru. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

156

Downloads

149

Citations