Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tftl20

Download by: [213.55.115.118] Date: 06 January 2017, At: 00:56

Forests, Trees and Livelihoods

ISSN: 1472-8028 (Print) 2164-3075 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20

Farmland tree species diversity and spatialdistribution pattern in semi-arid East Shewa,Ethiopia

Yemenzwork Endale, Abayneh Derero, Mekuria Argaw & Catherine Muthuri

To cite this article: Yemenzwork Endale, Abayneh Derero, Mekuria Argaw & Catherine Muthuri(2016): Farmland tree species diversity and spatial distribution pattern in semi-arid East Shewa,Ethiopia, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2016.1266971

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2016.1266971

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup

Published online: 25 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Forests, trees and LiveLihoods, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2016.1266971

Farmland tree species diversity and spatial distribution pattern in semi-arid East Shewa, Ethiopia

Yemenzwork Endalea, Abayneh Dererob, Mekuria Argawc and Catherine Muthurid

aMinistry of agriculture and natural resources, addis ababa, ethiopia; bCentral ethiopia environment and Forest research Center, ethiopian environment and Forest research institute, addis ababa, ethiopia; cCenter for environmental science, addis ababa University, addis ababa, ethiopia; dWorld agroforestry Centre (iCraF), nairobi, Kenya

ABSTRACTInformation on tree species occurring in farming systems in semi-arid agroecologies is critical for sustainable land management, biodiversity conservation and informing food security interventions. The aim of the study was to characterize the species composition, diversity, structure and spatial distribution patterns of trees in the semi-arid East Shewa Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia. A survey of 172 land parcels with a total area of 76.09 ha, and belonging to 100 randomly selected farm households was conducted in 5 semi-arid sites in East Shewa. A total of 77 tree species belonging to 32 families were identified, and the Fabaceae were the dominant group. Trees were distributed differently in the four identified land uses (homesteads, line plantings, in crop lands and woodlots). Tree diversity was the highest in line plantings and the lowest in woodlots with the Shannon diversity index of 3.1 and 1.8, respectively. The majority (70%) of the species were native, whereas the remaining 30% were exotic. The average number of tree species per parcel was 4.7 ranging from treeless condition to 36 tree species in an exceptional farm condition. The height and diameter at breast height of the 6066 recorded individuals (2 m and above) ranged from 2 to 25 m and from 1 to 86 cm, respectively. The species Acacia tortilis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Acacia senegal were the three dominant species in the system. Correlation analysis revealed that land-holding size had significant positive relationships with tree species abundance and basal area, but not with species richness. Interventions are suggested for increasing the currently very low tree cover through planting and managing natural regeneration for improved farming system resilience in the face of climate change.

Introduction

Drylands globally constitute about 41% of the landmass (Safriel & Adeel 2005). Their proportion out of the landmass of Ethiopia is estimated to be around 70% (Yeo 2014).

© 2016 the author(s). Published by informa UK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group.this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution-nonCommercial-noderivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

KEYWORDSagroforestry; dry land; homestead; inventory; land use category; parkland; regeneration; rift valley

CONTACT abayneh derero abaynehdd@yahoo.com

OPEN ACCESS

2 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

In the Central Rift Valley within the East Shewa Zone, the natural vegetation is mainly made up of Acacia-dominated woodland, a highly fragile ecosystem adapted to semi-arid conditions with erratic rainfall, growing on a complex and vulnerable hydrological system (Hengsdijk & Jansen 2006). The Acacia dominated woodland has been under immense pres-sure in the last few decades due mainly to the high demand for crop production, which has triggered dramatic land use and land cover changes (Garedew et al. 2009). As it stands, most of the farmlands in the landscape have some level of remnant and naturally regenerating trees, and the landscape may be considered as a mix of homestead and parkland agroforestry system. Important crops such as teff, wheat and maize are produced, and livestock freely roam and graze during the dry season. The livestock production system in the area provides smallholders with a number of benefits, but it also poses real threat to the environment, which can be mitigated through methods such as farmland exclosure (Baudron et al. 2015).

Agroforestry systems provide various goods and services including enhancement of car-bon storage and organic matter, conservation of above and below ground biodiversity, improvement of soil fertility and structure and enhancement of water infiltration (Sanchez et al. 1997; Garrity et al. 2010; Tanga et al. 2014). Farmers in the Central Rift Valley give high priority to utilities from tangible goods such as firewood, timber and fruits, but they also value multiple ecosystem services provided by the trees (Iiyama et al. 2016).

Trade-offs linked to the competition between trees and crops for light, nutrients and water should be managed through proper species–site matching, silviculture and tree man-agement. Local knowledge surveys conducted in the area indicate that farmers can balance the reduction in crop yields with the various products and services that they get from the trees (Ataa-Asantewaa 2013).

Generally, improving the tree cover in these farming systems through both natural regeneration and planting is crucially needed to reverse the continued degradation of the ecosystem, increase resilience and improve local people’s livelihood. Diversifying the com-position of farm tree species also enhances the stability and productivity of agro-ecosystems (Kindt & Coe 2005) and combines the objectives of attaining gains in food security and in conservation of biodiversity (Atta-Krah et al. 2004; Garrity 2004).

In this study, our objective was to assess the existing tree species diversity and spatial patterns associated to farmlands in the semi-arid East Shewa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. More specifically, we assessed at household level the diversity, structure and spatial distribution pattern of trees in the different land use categories extending from the homestead to the various farm parcels. We hypothesized that homestead areas harbour the highest tree species diversity since farmers tend to plant trees mainly in areas around their home. We also hypothesized that tree species diversity is influenced by land-holding size, because farmers with large land holdings have more opportunities to plant and retain different tree species than farmers with small land holdings.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

The study was conducted in five woredas (districts) located within the Central Rift Valley, in the East Shewa Zone (Figure 1) which lies between 38°57′ and 39°32′ E and between 7°12′ and 9°14′N. The average altitude is 1600 m asl. Mid-highlands (1500–2300 m asl) constitute about 61% of the area, whereas the remaining parts of the zone are lowlands and highlands covering about 39%.

FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS 3

According to data from the two meteorological stations located in the area (Adama, between the Boset and the Lume districts; Ziway, in the Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha District), the climate is characterized by a six-month rainy season between April and September, and a six-month dry season between October and March. The mean annual temperature is 21 °C and the mean annual rainfall is 750–900 mm.

According to the zonal Statistics and Information Center, the major land uses are cultivation land (45%), bush and forest land (16%), grazing land (9%), water bodies (5%) and settlement (25%). The major types of soil may be categorized into Andosols, Vertisols, Cambisols, Regosols, Luvisols, Phaeozems and Fluvisols. Natural vegetation combines Acacia woodland and savan-nah. Across the Zone, grain crop and livestock farming are dominant, whereas in areas adja-cent to the Rift Valley lakes and rivers, irrigated vegetable farming and horticulture are practiced. Pastoralism is more common towards the north-eastern, more arid, areas. Within the grain–livestock areas, the combination of crop and trees shows some variation: teff–wheat with Faidherbia albida to maize–beans–sorghum with Acacia tortilis across the north–south transect, and teff–wheat with F. albida to teff–maize–sorghum with A. tortilis across the west–east transect, while the livestock system is commonly communal/free grazing of animals.

Research design

The five woredas were selected purposively to represent the observed diversity in tree–crop systems. In each woreda, we selected a single kebele (the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia) as representative of the local warm lowlands (‘kolla’) agroecological conditions. The selected Woreda/Kebele were Boset/Sara Areda, Lume/Ejersa Joro, Bora/Berta Sami,

Figure 1. Map of the selected five semi-arid sites in east shewa Zone, oromia, ethiopia.

4 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

Dugda/Jewe Bofo and Adamitulu Jido Kombolcha/Gerbi Widena Borommo. The sites are hereafter referred to as Boset, Lume, Bora, Dugda and Adamitulu Jido Kombolcha (hereafter called ATJK) following the Woreda names.

The tree inventory work was nested on the farmland area owned by the households that were surveyed for socio-economic characterization of the selected sites by Iiyama et al. (2016). In each site, a total of 20 households were selected randomly. Among these house-holds, 4 were selected randomly for a complete inventory of all existing trees and shrubs on all parcels owned by the household. In the remaining, 16 households, inventories were made only on the main homestead parcels. For this study all the parcels of land belonging to the sampled households and recorded on farmers’ land certificates were considered. Homestead was defined as the nearest farm parcel to the house including its front, back and side yards. It may have small crop fields inside and it is managed by family members, who use manure rather than artificial fertilizer. Farthest farm plots are those parcels outside of the homestead, which, among others, include the farmer’s main crop production area.

Data collection

All trees in each parcel of land were identified and recorded. Identification included both local and scientific name and was carried out in the field with the help of a field guide book (Bekele 2007). In addition, voucher specimens were prepared for all plant species that were recorded in the field, and deposited at the National Herbarium, Addis Ababa University.

In addition to homestead, four land use categories were identified as potentially harbour-ing trees: woodlot (area dedicated to small-scale production of wood), trees/shrubs in line (hedgerow, live fences, boundary planting), crop land (tree/shrub mixed with annual crops) and grazing land (area allocated for grazing in which crop is not grown and in which scattered trees can be found).

For each tree and shrub with a height greater than or equal to two metres, the number of stems was counted, diameter at breast height (DBH) and height were measured. In addi-tion, in crop land, the crown of each tree (i.e. lengths of the longest spread from edge to edge across the crown and of the longest spread perpendicular to the first cross section through the central mass of the crown) was measured to estimate the canopy cover of trees in crop land. Finally, trees with a height lower than 1 m (hereafter called ‘seedlings’) and trees with a height between 1 and 2 m (hereafter called ‘saplings’) were counted across all the parcels.

Further, the area of the surveyed farmlands, as reported in the land certificates issued to each farmer by the administration, was recorded. In addition, the area of each land use category was measured to make realistic comparisons on diversity and abundance among the land use categories identified in the study area.

Data analysis

Data were organized using spreadsheets and the Biodiversity. R software was used exten-sively for the diversity analysis. Density of individuals (trees, saplings and seedlings), species richness, Shannon diversity index and evenness were computed across sites and land use categories. Since grazing land was represented by a very few samples, it was not further considered during comparative analysis of the land use categories.

FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS 5

The standard diversity indices, Shannon and Wiener (H’), evenness (E) and Simpson (1-D) (Magurran 2004) were computed in Biodiversity.R. In order to express the difference in spe-cies composition or the ecological distance between samples, we used the Bray–Curtis dis-tance (Bray & Curtis 1957), which varies from 0 (composition identical) to 1 (no species in common).The species matrix was here square root transformed to reduce the influence of the dominant species in the analysis (Kindt & Coe 2005). In addition, rarefaction curves, here defined as the statistical expectation of the number of species in a survey as a function of the accumulated number of individuals (Colwell 2009), were constructed for each land use category using EstimateS (Colwell 2013).

Further, the relative values of density and dominance (basal area) for each species in the landscape were computed as the percentage of individual values to the total values for comparing the ecological significance of each species (Lamprecht 1989). In addition, average crown size, average crown area and total crown area per ha were computed for each species encountered in the crop land use category. Furthermore, the overall population structure was analysed through construction of frequency distribution of all the individuals encoun-tered in arbitrarily assigned diameter and height classes. Six diameter classes and four height classes were recognized arbitrarily.

Finally, Spearman correlation analysis was carried out in SPSS 20 between land-holding size and tree parameters (abundance, basal area and richness).

Results

Tree species abundance, diversity and composition across the major land use categories.

The land use categories, their major tree species and the purposes of each land use practice are presented in Table 1.

The 100 households sampled own a mean land area of 2.73 ha (±2.15 ha) distributed over 4(±2) land parcels on average. The sampling strategy we used allowed us to effectively sample 27.9% (76.09 ha) of their land-holding area and 43.5% (172) of their land parcels. In each parcel, one or more land use categories were identified, and in total there were 102 homestead, 88 crop land, 65 line planting (64 boundary planting and 1 hedgerow), 15

Table 1. List of land use categories and their characteristic features in the five semi-arid sites in east shewa.

No. Land use practices Major tree species Purpose of integrating trees1. homestead Acacia tortilis, Jatropha curcas, Croton macros-

tachyus, Melia azedarach, Acacia senegalFor shade, income, animal feed, fire

wood, construction material2. Line planting Schinus molle, Jatropha curcas, Ricinus communis

Acacia tortilis, Cajanus cajan, Sesbania sesban, Prunus persica

For fencing and making boundary between farm plots, animal feed, fire wood, food and income

3. Woodlot Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia senegal, Acacia tortilis, Balanites aegyptiaca

For income, fire wood, construction material

4. Crop land Acacia tortilis, Balanites aegyptiaca, Acacia senegal, Croton macrostachyus, Acacia albida, Ziziphus mucronata

For soil and water conservation, soil fertility improvement, shading, fire wood, income, construction material

5. Grazing land Balanites aegyptiaca, Acacia tortilis income, animal feed, fire wood, construction material

6 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

woodlot and 3 grazing land plots (Table 2). About 42% of the homesteads had small crop fields in their area.

A total of 77 woody plant species representing 32 families were identified and recorded in all the 172 parcels (i.e. on the above-listed 273 land use plots). Of all the species identified 26% belonged to the Fabaceae family, 7.8% to Capparidaceae and 7.7 to Euphorbiaceae, and these were the three dominant woody plant families in the landscape.

Among the total number of species, only 30% were exotic, while the remaining 70% were indigenous (Appendix 1). Of all the species, A. tortilis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Acacia senegal were the most abundant tree species with 13.8, 10.7 and 6.7 individuals per ha, respectively (Figure 2).

As indicated above, a high tree species diversity (i.e. a total of 77 species) was recorded in farmlands of the study area when the data were pooled together. The tree density varied from 55 trees per ha in ATJK to 100 trees per ha in Dugda, while species richness varied from 25 in ATJK to 56 in Dugda (Table 3).

The average number of tree species per parcel over the 172 parcels sampled was 4.7 (±4.4) ranging from a treeless condition in one homestead and nine crop lands to 36 species in one of the homesteads. Tree density, species richness and diversity were different among the different land use categories (Table 2). Average tree density was 80 trees per ha, but it varied across the land uses, from 19 trees per ha on crop land to 1216 trees per ha in line plantings. The highest values of density, species richness, Shannon and Simpson diversity

Table 2.  tree density and tree species diversity among the different land use categories in the five semi-arid farmland sites sampled in the east shewa Zone, in decreasing order of diversity.

an = number of plots belonging to the category.

NoLand use

category (n)aNo. of HHs

Total area (ha)

No. of trees per ha

Species richness

Shannon diversity

indexEvenness

index

Simpson diversity

(1-D)1 Line planting (n = 65) 55 1.22 1216 (±61) 48 3.1 0.46 0.942 homestead (n = 102) 100 15.07 132 (±30) 62 3.05 0.34 0.923 Crop land (n = 88) 50 55.63 19 (±14) 37 2.43 0.31 0.854 Grazing land (n = 3) 3 0.56 115 (±13) 10 1.9 0.67 0.815 Woodlot (n = 15) 13 3.61 415 (±79) 29 1.8 0.21 0.726 total (n = 273) 100 76.09 80 (±77) 77 3.12 0.29 0.92

Figure 2. rank abundance curve of all species in five semi-arid sites in east shewa Zone.

FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS 7

indices, were recorded in homesteads and line plantings. This was confirmed by the rarefac-tion curves which show the steepest slopes for these two land uses (Figure 3).

Out of the 6066 individual trees encountered in our samples, about 56% were established through natural regeneration and the remaining 44% were established through planting. Most trees in line planting (66%) and woodlot (56%) were planted while most trees in grazing land (100%), in crop land (94%) and homestead (61%) were naturally regenerated (Appendix 1).

According to the Bray–Curtis distance matrix, the ecological distance between any two land use categories varied from 0.47 to 0.77 (Table 4). The crop land and homestead land use categories showed the least distance and thus the highest similarity.

Table 3. tree species abundance, richness, evenness and diversity in the five semi-arid farmland sites sampled in east shewa Zone, in decreasing order of diversity.

notes: n = number of farm parcels, atJK = adamitulu Jido Kombolcha.

No. Site name AbundanceTotal sampled

area (ha)Number of

trees/ha Richness EvennessShannon diversity

Simpson diversity

(1-D)1 dugda (n = 34) 1610 16.169 100 56 0.386 3.08 0.932 Bora (n = 35) 2130 23.363 91 47 0.306 2.67 0.883 Lume (n = 36) 772 13.288 58 25 0.369 2.22 0.834 Boset (n = 29) 706 7.894 89 31 0.303 2.24 0.795 atJK (n = 38) 848 15.376 55 25 0.205 1.64 0.72 total (n = 172) 6066 76.09 80 77 0.287 3.1 0.93

Figure 3. rarefaction curves comparing species among land use categories in five semi-arid sites in east shewa Zone.

Table 4. Bray–Curtis distance between land use categories (based on tree species abundance) in five semi-arid farmland sites in the east shewa Zone.

Land use category Line planting Homestead Crop landhomestead 0.549Crop land 0.721 0.471Woodlot 0.766 0.643 0.562

8 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

Trees in crop land

Ten different crops were found cultivated on the sampled parcels of crop land. The most abundant were maize and teff with 45.9 and 32.2% of the total area surveyed, respectively. The other eight crops encountered were: common bean, wheat cabbage, haricot bean, pea, barley, cow pea, potato, pigeon pea and lablab bean.

Trees in crop land parcels had an average crown spread of 3.1 (±1.4) m, and an average canopy area of 9.1 (±7.3) m2. The average tree density was 19 trees per ha of crop land, and the average canopy area density was 230.7 m2 per ha. It implies that the percentage of the crop land under tree canopy cover was only 2.3%. A. tortilis (6 m) and Cordia africana (5.5 m) trees had the highest average crown spread, with an average crown area of 28.2 and 23.5 m2, respectively (Table 5). However, C. africana was anecdotic in cropland with only three trees in our whole sample, and thus A. tortilis is by far the most important tree in the crop land landscape with a total crown area of 123.5 m2 per ha

Population structure and regeneration status of trees

The overall diameter distribution pattern of trees with height 2 m and above was an inverse J shape with 30.8 individuals per ha (about 39%) found in the first lower DBH class, while the remaining 49 individuals per ha (61.4%) were distributed in the remaining four DBH classes. Similarly, the distribution of heights was an inverse J shape where 51.6 individuals/ha (about 64% of the individuals) had height of 2–5 m, and the remaining 29 trees per ha (about 36%) were distributed over the rest of the classes (Figure 4).

The analysis of basal area and density per species showed that A. tortilis, E. camaldulensis and A. senegal were the three most important species structurally in the farm landscapes studied (Table 6).

The regeneration population in the surveyed farmland landscape was composed of a total of 1094 seedlings and 1560 saplings, which implies an average regeneration density of around 35 young trees per ha. From the total 76 recorded tree species 25 species had seedlings and 34 species had saplings (Table 7). From naturally regenerated plants A. tortilis and Croton macrostachyus followed by A. senegal, Balanites aegyptiaca and Dichrostachys

Table 5. average crown spread, average crown area and total crown area of trees on crop land in five semi-arid sites in east shewa Zone, in descending order of aCa.

notes: aCs = average crown spread, aCa = average crown area per tree, tCa = total crown area per ha.

No Species  Abundance Average density ACS (m) ACA (m2) TCA (m2)/ha1 Acacia tortilis 333 4.38 5.99 28.21 123.482 Acacia senegal 120 1.58 4.99 19.55 30.833 Ziziphus mucronata 66 0.87 5.2 21.24 18.424 Balanites aegyptiaca 123 1.62 3.51 9.67 15.625 Faidherbia albida 71 0.93 3.96 12.32 11.56 Croton macrostachyus 72 0.95 3.22 8.17 7.737 Dichrostachys cinerea 52 0.68 3.11 7.61 5.28 Acacia seyal 16 0.21 4.07 12.98 2.739 Acacia abyssinica 19 0.25 3.64 10.38 2.5910 Ficus sycomorus 9 0.12 5.09 20.34 2.4111 other 152 2 73.16 191.29 10.2 total 115.94 341.76 230.71

FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS 9

cinerea had relatively high regeneration capacity even with the presence of disturbance by farmers during land preparation and other activities. On the other hand, Jatropha curcas and E. camaldulensis both had a high number of newly planted individuals.

Figure 4. tree height and diameter structure in five semi-arid sites in east shewa Zone.

Table 6. List of the top 15 dominant tree species, in decreasing order of relative density and basal area.

No. Species nameDensity

(trees/ha)Relative

density (A)Basal area

Relative basal area (B)

Relative density and basal area (A + B)

1 Acacia tortilis 13.8 17.31 37.58 24.14 41.452 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 10.74 13.47 41.38 26.58 40.053 Acacia senegal 6.75 8.47 10.21 6.56 15.034 Croton macrostachyus 4.77 5.98 5.32 3.42 9.45 Balanites aegyptiaca 4.18 5.24 6.41 4.12 9.366 Melia azedarach 3.99 5.01 4.36 2.8 7.817 Sesbania sesban 2.68 3.36 5.99 3.85 7.218 Schinus molle 2.47 3.1 4.71 3.02 6.129 Faidherbia albida 1.33 1.67 6.07 3.9 5.5610 Jatropha curcas 4.18 5.24 0.31 0.2 5.4411 Cajanus cajan 2.02 2.54 4.34 2.79 5.3212 Ricinus communis 1.96 2.46 4.23 2.72 5.1813 Dichrostachys cinerea 2.33 2.92 3.09 1.99 4.914 Acacia etbaica 1.43 1.8 2.98 1.91 3.7115 Ziziphus mucronata 1.67 2.09 2.49 1.6 3.6916 other 15.41 19.34 16.18 10.39 29.73 total 79.71 100 155.66 100 200

Table 7. density (number of individuals/ha) of the regeneration population of tree species (seedlings and saplings of native and exotic tree species) in the five study sites and its relative proportion to the total regeneration population in east shewa.

No. SpeciesDensity of seedlings

Density of saplings

Density of regeneration population

Relative proportion (%)

1 Acacia tortilis 6.3 3.1 9.4 27.12 Croton macrostachyus 2.2 3.7 5.8 16.73 Jatropha curcas 0.1 3.3 3.4 9.84 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 1.4 1.2 2.6 7.45 Acacia senegal 1.2 1.3 2.5 7.06 Cajanus cajan 0.0 2.0 2.0 5.77 Balanites aegyptiaca 0.7 0.9 1.6 4.68 Sesbania sesban 0.4 0.6 1.0 3.09 Dichrostachys cinerea 0.4 0.6 1.0 2.810 Schinus molle 0.3 0.7 1.0 2.811 other 1.3 3.3 4.6 13.1 total 14.4 20.5 34.9

10 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

Is land-holding size correlated to tree parameters?

Tree species diversity seems to be influenced by land-holding size. The investigated farmers owned various farm sizes; most farmers (59%) have less than 0.5 ha, whereas the remaining 22, 10 and 9% farmers have landholdings between 0.5 and 1 ha, 1–2 ha, and more than 2 ha, respectively. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that land-holding size had significant (p < 0.05), positive relationships with abundance and basal area, but not with species richness.

Discussion

The fact that A. tortilis and A. senegal are the most abundant species in our sample is in agreement with Iiyama et al. (2016) which reported A. tortilis as the most abundant species in farmers’ fields. It is also partly in agreement with earlier reports in the Central Rift valley area (Abate et al. 1998; Woldu et al. 1999) where our results show that E. camaldulensis is becoming one of the abundant species in the landscape.

The species richness, 77 tree species on 76 ha, was low when compared to a similar exten-sive study in the Mount Kenya area that found 297 tree species on 60 ha of smallholders’ farms (Lengkeek et al. 2005). However, this difference in richness may be attributed to site characteristics, including climate and predominant land use: the slopes of Mount Kenya have a much more humid climate than the semi-arid Oromia, and the main land use of the farms is coffee agroforests, which are characterized by a very high density of multipurpose trees (average density of non-coffee trees: 1048 trees ha−1) in addition to coffee trees. Negash et al. (2012) argued that indigenous agroforestry systems should be recognized as a valid option for maintaining native woody species which populations in the wild are threat-ened in the south-eastern Rift Valley escarpment in Ethiopia. The 77 tree species found managed in our sample of farmlands give credence to this argument, as they clearly show the importance of farm landscapes in species preservation in the semi-arid areas of the Rift Valley.

In this study, we have reported and also depicted in the rarefaction curves that there are differences in species richness among the different land use categories. Duguma and Hager (2010) also reported significant difference in species richness and abundance among land use practices in the central highlands of Ethiopia. The highest diversity in homesteads and line plantings may be due to the short distance from home (and consequently better care) and to a more active tree management than in crop lands. The crop lands face immense pressure from the open grazing, which hampers tree establishment and regrowth in the area. The unusually high tree diversity and low density in the woodlots was due to the fact that some of them were patches of remnant woodlands.

The low Bray–Curtis distance between crop land and homestead was perhaps due to the presence of similar numbers of trees of the dominant Acacia species, specifically A. tortilis (408 and 333) and A. senegal (115 and 120) in the homestead and crop land, respectively. Further, the existence of crop land plots within 42% of the homestead areas could have contributed to the high similarity between the two land use categories.

The mode of regeneration reported here is in agreement with the findings of Iiyama et al. (2016) who reported that farmers in the Rift Valley use farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR) as the principal strategy of tree establishment.

FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS 11

The fact that some of the trees in crop lands have large canopies could have a negative impact on crop production unless the trees have a facilitation role. However, a local knowl-edge study in the area found out that farmers retain trees with large crowns such as A. tortilis since they value their other multiple uses even if it would mean lower crop production (Ataa-Asantewaa 2013). Some farmers in the study area tried to manage trees in the crop lands by pollarding tree branches in order to save crops from competition for light as well as utilize the branches for other uses like fencing. Besides the tree management to reduce competition with crops, the very low level of tree canopy cover in crop land indicates that there is probably ample room to increase the current level of tree cover, either through FMNR or planting, which could help improve the productivity and resilience of the system simultaneously.

The overall population structure in the study area was characterized by a large population of small trees, which could be related to a large shrub population and to a large population of young trees. Such patterns of community structure have been reported for different types of populations such as in natural forests (e.g. Fashing et al. 2004), and in agriculture fallows (e.g. Kalaba et al. 2013) in various parts of the globe. They are generally interpreted as a sign of relatively good health of the ecosystem.

However, the ratio of the adult trees to the regeneration population (saplings and seed-lings) at community level stands at 80:35. This means that in a hectare of land there are 80 individuals with height 2 m and above, and there are 35 with height less than 2 m. A closer look at the first class in the height structure (i.e. 2–5 m) shows that there are close to 51 individuals in this class. Although farmland is not a forest, planned intervention may be needed for boosting the establishment of trees through managing natural regeneration and/or planting, and for handling the issue of free grazing which leads to extensive / unsustainable browsing, especially during the dry season.

The significant positive relationship between land-holding size and both the number of trees and basal area on the farm means that small farms have less trees than large farms, and this is probably due to land limitation. These findings are in agreement with Duguma and Hager (2010) who found that land-holding size is one of the important socio-economic factors that significantly influence possession of shrub stems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. The lack of significant relationship between land-holding size and species richness may be explained by the fact that species diversity is concentrated in homestead (62 species) which represents only a minor area of the sampled farmlands (20%), while crop land which represents the major part of the sampled farmlands (73%) harbours much less species (37). It also could be explained by the limited availability of good quality and diversified planting material suitable for crop land.

Conclusion

The study has highlighted the tree species composition, diversity, abundance, population structures, canopy size and regeneration conditions across four land use categories in five semi-arid sites. The overall landscape is predominantly characterized by diverse tree species found in higher density in homesteads and line plantings, and scattered in parkland agro-forestry systems where they are integrated with crop production and grazing management. The species composition is dominated by native species which are retained or regenerated naturally, and to some extent planted by farmers. However, farmers are also planting exotic

12 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

species with an important economic role such as E. camaldulensis, which is becoming one of the dominant tree species in the landscape. Land-holding size differences contributed significantly to the marked differences in species abundance and basal area. As hypothesized tree species diversity was the highest close to the home (homestead area and line plantings). However, against our hypothesis, diversity (species richness) was not affected by land-holding size. The low tree density in crop lands and the low regeneration population in the landscape may require targeted intervention to increase tree cover in the area through FMNR or plant-ing of suitable trees so as to improve the resilience of the farming system in the face of climate change. Providing quality seedlings of various tree species suitable for the area would sub-stantially increase farmers’ range of options for planting. The challenge of water scarcity and free grazing practice which is predominant in this area needs also to be addressed in order to enhance survival of newly planted tree seedlings and naturally regenerating ones.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to ICRAF Ethiopia office for the facilitation of this work. Our special thanks go to all farmers and development agents who participated in this study and provided relevant information. We are also grateful to Mr Mindaye Teshome for his help in producing the rarefaction curves. We are very greatly indebted to the anonymous reviewers and Dr Hubert de Foresta for the critical review, corrections and suggestions given for improvement of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) under the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) [32016112 ACIAR 1014.12254NBR] Trees for Food Security Project.

References

Abate A, Fetene M, Woldu Z. 1998. Investigations on canopy features of three indigenous woodland tree species of Ethiopia. SINET Ethiop J Sci. 21:113–132.

Ataa-Asantewaa M. 2013. Local knowledge of farmers on farm tree management, East Shewa Zone, Ethiopia [dissertation]. Bangor, ME: Bangor University.

Atta-Krah K, Kindt R, Skilton JN, Amaral W. 2004. Managing biological and genetic diversity in tropical agroforestry. Agrofor Syst. 61:183–194.

Baudron F, Mamo A, Tirfessa D, Argaw M. 2015. Impact of farmland exclosure on the productivity and sustainability of a mixed crop-livestock system in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 207:109–118.

Bekele A. 2007. Useful trees and shrubs for Ethiopia: identification, propagation and management for 17 agro climatic zones. Nairobi: World Agroforestry, Centre East Africa Region.

Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An ordination of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monograph. 27:325–349.

Colwell RK. 2009. Biodiversity: concepts, patterns, and measurement. In: Levin SA, editor. The Princeton guide to ecology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; p. 257–263.

Colwell RK. 2013. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9 [Internet]. Available from: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates.

FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS 13

Duguma LA, Hager H. 2010. Woody plants diversity and possession, and their future prospects in small-scale tree and shrub growing in agricultural landscapes in central highlands of Ethiopia. Small Scale For. 9:153–174.

Fashing PJ, Forrestel A, Scully C, Cords M. 2004. Long-term tree population dynamics and their implications for the conservation of the Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biodivers Conserv. 13:753–771.

Garedew E, Sandewall M, Söderberg U, Campbell BM. 2009. Land-use and land-cover dynamics in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environ Manage. 44:683–694.

Garrity D. 2004. Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. Agrofor Syst. 61:5–17.

Garrity D, Akinnifesi F, Ajayi O, Weldesemayat S, Mowo J, Kalinganire A, Larwanou M, Bayala J. 2010. Evergreen agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Sec. 2:197–214.

Hengsdijk H, Jansen H. 2006. Agricultural development in the Central Ethiopian Rift Valley: a desk-study on water-related issues and knowledge to support a policy dialogue. Wageningen: Plant Research International B.V.

Iiyama M, Derero A, Kelemu K, Muthuri C, Kinuthia R, Ayenkulu E, Kiptot E, Hadgu K, Mowo J, Sinclair FL. 2016. Understanding patterns of tree adoption on farms in semi-arid and sub-humid Ethiopia. Agrofor Syst. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9926-y.

Kalaba FK, Quinn CH, Dougill AJ, Vinya R. 2013. Floristic composition, species diversity and carbon storage in charcoal and agriculture fallows and management implications in Miombo woodlands of Zambia. Forest Ecol Manag. 304:99–109.

Kindt R, Coe R. 2005. Tree diversity analysis: a manual and software for some common statistical methods for biodiversity and ecological analysis. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

Lamprecht H. 1989. Silviculture in the tropics. Tropical forest ecosystems and their tree species - possibilities and methods for their long-term utilization. Eschborn: GTZ; p. 296.

Lengkeek AG, Kindt R, van der Maesen LJG, Simons AJ, van Oijen DCC. 2005. Tree density and germplasm source in agroforestry ecosystems in Meru, Mount Kenya. Genet Res Crop Evol. 52:709–721.

Magurran AE. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Blackwell; p. 256.Negash M, Yirdaw E, Luukkanen O. 2012. Potential of indigenous multistrata agroforests for maintaining

native floristic diversity in the South-Eastern Rift valley escarpment, Ethiopia. Agrofor Syst. 85:9–28.Safriel U, Adeel Z. 2005. Dryland systems. In: Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, editors. Ecosystems and human

well-being, current state and trends, Vol. 1. Washington (DC): Island Press; p. 625–658.Sanchez P, Buresh R, Leakey R. 1997. Trees, soils, and food security. Phil Trans R Soc London Biol.

352:949–961.Tanga AA, Erenso TF, Lemma B. 2014. Effects of three tree species on microclimate and soil amelioration

in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. J Soil Sci Environ Manage. 5:62–71.Woldu Z, Fetene M, Abate A. 1999. Vegetation under different tree species in Acacia woodland in the

Rift Valley of Ethiopia. SINET Ethiop J Sci. 22:237–254.Yeo D. 2014. Thinking to practice: applying complexity the water-food-energy nexus in global drylands:

bridging science and policy. Barcelona: Barcelona Centre for International Affairs.

14 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

App

endi

x 1.

 Lis

t of p

lant

spe

cies

, orig

in, e

stab

lishm

ent m

odes

and

num

ber o

f ind

ivid

uals

enc

ount

ered

in d

iffer

ent l

and

use

cate

gorie

s in

five

sem

i-arid

site

s in

Eas

t She

wa

Zone

.

No

Spec

ies

Vern

acul

ar n

ame

Orig

inFa

mily

EMH

SCL

GL

LPW

LD

ensi

ty1

Acac

ia a

byss

inic

aLa

fto

(or)

nFa

bace

aer

619

06

00.

412

Acac

ia b

revi

spic

aQ

wen

tr (G

ora)

(or)

nFa

bace

aer

10

024

00.

333

Acac

ia e

tbai

cad

odot

a (o

r)n

Faba

ceae

r44

268

427

1.43

4Ac

acia

nilo

tica

Kore

dim

o/Ka

sale

(or)

nFa

bace

aer

711

00

20.

265

Acac

ia sa

ligna

akac

hasa

ligna

(or)

eFa

bace

aeP

330

020

100.

836

Acac

ia se

nega

lKe

rtet

a (s

aban

sa) (

or)

nFa

bace

aer

115

120

319

257

6.76

7Ac

acia

seya

lW

achu

(or)

nFa

bace

aer

716

03

00.

348

Acac

ia to

rtili

ste

dech

a (o

r)n

Faba

ceae

r40

833

316

8820

513

.89

Acok

anth

era

schi

mpe

riQ

arar

o(o

r)n

apoc

ynac

eae

r0

40

00

0.05

10Al

bizi

a co

riaria

Muk

a-ar

ba(o

r)n

Faba

ceae

P0

02

00.

0311

Albi

zia

gum

mife

raM

uka-

arba

(or)

nFa

bace

aeP

20

00

00.

0312

Azad

irach

ta in

dica

nim

i (o

r)

eM

elia

ceae

P3

00

70

0.13

13Ba

lani

tes a

egyp

tiaca

Bede

na (o

r)

nBa

lani

tace

aer

5012

319

3789

4.18

14Bo

scia

salic

ifolia

Qal

qual

cha(

or)

n

Capp

alid

acea

er

40

03

00.

0915

Bosc

ia se

nega

lens

isLe

nqua

ta (a

mh)

nCa

ppal

idac

eae

r4

01

80

0.17

16Ca

daba

farin

ose

aren

gaba

((o

r))

nCa

ppar

idac

eae

r8

00

00

0.11

17Ca

janu

s caj

anYe

rgib

ater

(am

h)e

Faba

ceae

P1

110

142

02.

0218

Calo

trop

is pr

ocer

aQ

imbo

(Fal

fala

adal

) (o

r)

nas

clep

iada

ceae

r0

00

20

0.03

19Ca

lpur

nia

aure

a Ce

ka, C

ekat

a (o

r)n

Faba

ceae

r62

20

44

0.95

20Ca

ppar

is to

men

tosa

Gum

ero/

Gor

a (o

r)

nCa

ppar

idac

eae

r2

00

00

0.03

21Ca

rica

papa

yaPa

paya

(am

h)n

Caric

acea

eP

211

00

10.

322

Caris

sa sp

inar

umag

amsa

(or)

n

apoc

ynac

eae

r26

20

124

0.58

23Ca

simiro

a ed

ulis

Kaza

mor

a (o

r)

eru

tace

aeP

20

00

00.

0324

Casu

arin

a eq

uise

tifol

iash

ewsh

ewe

(am

h)

eCa

suar

inac

eae

P3

00

01

0.05

25Ce

ltis a

fric

ana

Met

okom

a (o

r)

nU

lmac

eae

r2

00

10

0.04

26Co

mm

ipho

ra co

nfus

ah

ames

sa (h

amec

ha) (

or)

n

Burs

erac

eae

r0

10

110

0.16

27Co

rdia

afr

ican

aW

ades

sa (o

r)

nBo

ragi

nace

aer/

P14

30

23

0.29

28Co

rdia

mon

oica

Men

ero(

min

tiro)

(or)

n

Bora

gina

ceae

r1

00

00

0.01

29Cr

oton

mac

rost

achy

usBa

kani

ssa

(or)

n

euph

orbi

acea

er

202

725

6717

4.77

30D

elon

ix re

gia

dire

daw

azaf

(am

h)e

Faba

ceae

P2

00

00

0.03

31D

ichr

osta

chy

scin

erea

hat

te (G

eto)

(or)

nFa

bace

aeP

5852

227

382.

3332

Dod

onae

a vi

scos

aet

acha

(or)

n

sapi

ndac

eae

P3

00

05

0.11

33D

ovya

lis a

byss

inic

aKo

shim

(am

h)

nFl

acou

rtia

ceae

P4

00

30

0.09

34Eh

retia

cym

osa

Ula

ga (o

r)n

Bora

gina

ceae

r/P

2410

02

30.

5135

Eryt

hrin

a ab

yssin

ica

Wel

enis

u (o

r)

nFa

bace

aer

03

00

00.

0436

Euca

lypt

us ca

mal

dule

nsis

Keyi

bahe

rzaf

(am

h)

eM

yrta

ceae

P41

60

5971

110

.74

FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS 15

37Eu

phor

bia

tiruc

alli

anno

(or)

n

euph

orbi

acea

er/

P28

00

20

0.39

38Fa

idhe

rbia

alb

ida

Ger

bi (o

r)n

Faba

ceae

r/P

2071

03

71.

3339

Ficu

s syc

omor

uso

da (o

r)

nM

orac

eae

r0

90

00

0.12

40G

erw

ia v

elut

ina

har

ores

a (o

r)

nti

liace

aer

22

03

00.

0941

Gos

sypi

um a

rbor

etum

tit (

amh)

nM

anac

eae

P5

00

00

0.07

42G

revi

llea

robu

sta

Gre

vila

(am

h)

ePr

otea

ceae

P3

00

09

0.16

43G

rew

ia m

ollis

dris

a (o

r)

nti

liace

aer

01

00

00.

0144

Jaca

rand

a m

imos

ifolia

Yete

bmen

jaza

f (am

h)

eBi

gnon

iace

aeP

150

012

20

1.8

45Ja

trop

ha cu

rcas

ayid

erke

(am

h)e

euph

orbi

acea

eP

210

00

108

04.

1846

Just

icia

schi

mep

riana

tum

uga

nac

anth

acea

er/

P0

00

680

0.89

47La

nnea

schi

mpe

rian

derk

o (o

r)

nan

acar

diac

eae

r0

20

00

0.03

48La

ntan

a ca

mar

aYe

wof

qolo

(am

h)e

verb

enac

eae

r25

00

880

1.49

49Le

ucae

na le

ucoc

epha

laLu

kina

(or)

e

Faba

ceae

P34

10

312

0.89

50M

aeru

a an

gole

nsis

der

gu (o

r)n

Capp

arid

acea

er

02

00

00.

0351

Man

gife

ra in

dica

Man

go (a

mh/

or)

ean

acar

diac

eae

P0

00

02

0.03

52M

ayte

nus a

rbut

ifolia

Kom

bolc

ha (o

r)

nCe

last

race

aer

12

00

00.

0453

Mel

ia a

zeda

rach

nim

i (o

r)e

Mel

iace

aeP

192

130

4851

454

Mor

inga

ole

ifera

shife

raw

(am

h)

eM

orin

gace

aeP

72

01

100.

2655

Mor

us a

lba

Yefe

renj

iinjo

ri (a

mh)

e

Mor

acea

eP

23

01

00.

0856

Ole

a eu

ropa

ea ss

p. cu

spid

ata

ejer

ssa

(or)

n

ole

acea

er/

P3

10

10

0.07

57O

syris

qua

drip

artit

eG

ale

korm

a (o

r)

nsa

ntal

acea

er

00

00

80.

1158

Park

inso

nia

acul

eata

Ye-e

yeru

sale

mes

hoh

(am

h)e

Faba

ceae

P2

00

60

0.11

59Ph

ylla

nthu

s ova

lifol

ius

egri

(or)

neu

phor

biac

eae

r7

00

00

0.09

60Pr

unus

per

sica

Kock

(am

h)

ero

sace

aeP

00

021

00.

2861

Psid

ium

gua

java

Zeitu

na (a

mh)

eM

yrta

ceae

P2

00

30

0.07

62Rh

amnu

s prin

oide

sG

esho

(or)

n

rham

nace

aeP

40

00

00.

0563

Rhus

nat

alen

sisd

ebob

essa

(or)

n

anac

ardi

acea

er

350

710

00.

6864

Rici

nus c

omm

unis

Qob

o (o

r)

eeu

phor

biac

eae

r/P

542

093

01.

9665

Ritc

hiea

alb

ersii

Chub

eter

ie (o

r)

nCa

ppal

idac

eae

r4

01

41

0.13

66Ro

sa a

byss

inic

aG

ora

(or)

n

rosa

ceae

r1

00

20

0.04

67Sc

hinu

s mol

let’

our-

Berb

erie

(am

h)

ean

acar

diac

eae

P56

30

122

72.

4768

Scol

opia

thei

folia

Buni

ty (o

r)n

Flac

ourt

iace

aeP

01

00

00.

0169

Senn

a di

dym

obot

rya

asen

emek

a (o

r)

nFa

bace

aer

220

00

00.

2970

Senn

a sia

mea

Yefe

renj

idig

ita (a

mh)

eFa

bace

aeP

40

06

00.

1371

Sesb

ania

sesb

ansu

span

ia (o

r)

nFa

bace

aeP

2912

015

58

2.68

72Sp

atho

dea

nilo

tica

Yech

akan

ebel

bal (

amh)

nBi

gnon

iace

aeP

20

00

00.

0373

Syna

deni

um co

mya

ctum

Yego

maz

af (a

mh)

eeu

phor

biac

eae

P3

00

00

0.04

74Ve

rnon

ia a

myg

dalin

aeb

icha

(or)

n

aste

race

aeP

60

00

80.

18

(Con

tinue

d)

16 Y. ENDALE ET AL.

No

Spec

ies

Vern

acul

ar n

ame

Orig

inFa

mily

EMH

SCL

GL

LPW

LD

ensi

ty75

Zizi

phus

ham

urBu

lech

a (o

r)

nrh

amna

ceae

P20

250

100

0.72

76Zi

ziph

us m

aurit

ania

Qur

qura

(nim

ora)

(or)

n

rham

nace

aer

00

00

10.

0177

Zizi

phus

muc

rona

taQ

urqu

ra (o

r)

nrh

amna

ceae

r27

662

266

1.67

tota

l19

8510

3364

1487

1497

80r

(%)

60.6

593

.71

100

33.7

644

.49

P (%

)39

.35

6.29

66

.24

55.5

1

not

es: n

 = n

ativ

e, e

 = e

xotic

, eM

 = e

stab

lishm

ent m

ode,

r =

 nat

ural

ly r

egen

erat

ed, P

 = P

lant

ed, o

r = o

rom

ifa, a

mh 

= a

mha

ric, h

s =

 hom

este

ad, C

L Cr

op la

nd, G

L =

 Gra

zing

land

, LP 

= L

ine

plan

ting,

W

L =

 Woo

dlot

, den

sity

 = n

umbe

r of i

ndiv

idua

ls/h

a.

Appe

ndix

1. (

Cont

inue

d)