Characteristics of respondents
The general characteristics related with agroforestry practice of household respondents distributed by Sex, Age, Marital status, Family size education status and experience of farming system were stated (Table 1).
A total of 299 households including, the majority respondents about 91.6% were male whereas 8.4% were Female. This implies that majority of household head in agroforestry practice in zones were male and low number of females observed at studies.
The majority of the household heads were between 31–40 years age group (31.4%), followed by age group 20–30 years age group (23.7%) and 42–52, 53–63 and above 63 years which in percent 21.1%, 15.4% and 8.4% respectively. From the result conclude that, the household interviewed about agroforestry practice were dominated by working group and the farmers in study area were comparatively medium age group. The smallest portion of age group was above 63 years old.
The marital status of the household head shows that the married respondents share the majority percentage (96%), followed by a single and divorced constitute 2% and 2% respectively.
About 55.9% household respondents had range between 5–8 members of families while, 30.1% respondents had range between 1–4 members of families and remain respondents (14%) had above 8 family members.
Concerning to education status, the higher (76.9%) respondents are educated while, 23.1% of respondents were uneducated. From educated respondents 56.6% of respondents educated levels were above grade four (4). The majority of the respondents (57.9%) had above 24 years’ experience farming system (Table 1).
Table 1
Characteristics of the sample household at study area
Category | Variables | Buno Bedele Zone N (%) | Ilu Abba Bora Zone N (%) | Overall N (%) |
Sex | Male | 141(94) | 133(89.3) | 274(91.6) |
Female | 9(6) | 16(10.7) | 25(8.4) |
Age class | 20–30 | 35(23.3) | 36(24.2 ) | 71(23.7) |
31–40 | 46(30.7) | 48(32.2) | 94(31.4) |
42–52 | 36(24) | 27(18.1) | 63(21.1) |
53–63 | 25(16.7) | 21(14.1) | 46(15.4) |
> 63 | 8(5.3) | 17(11.4) | 25(8.4) |
Marital status | Single | 4(2.7) | 2(1.3) | 6(2) |
Married | 144(96) | 143(96) | 287(96) |
Divorced | 2(1.3) | 4(2.7) | 6(2) |
Family size | 1–4 | 48(32) | 42(28.2) | 90(30.1) |
5–8 | 83(55.3) | 84(56.4) | 167(55.9) |
> 8 | 19(12.7) | 23(15.4) | 42(14) |
Education | Illiterate | 36(24) | 33(22.1) | 69(23.1) |
Grade 1–4 | 34(22.7) | 27(18.1) | 61(20.4) |
Grade 5–8 | 51(34) | 61(40.9) | 112(37.5) |
Grade 9–12 | 28(18.7) | 26(17.4) | 54(18.1) |
Diploma | 1(0.7) | 2(1.3) | 3(1) |
Experience of farming | 1–5 years | 3(2) | 7(4.7) | 10(3.3) |
6–14 years | 22(14.7) | 29(19.5) | 51(17.1) |
15–24 years | 39(26) | 26(17.4) | 65(21.7) |
> 24 years | 86(57.3) | 87(58.4) | 173(57.9) |
Source: Households survey; April, 2021 |
Agroforestry practice in study area
Based on the results of study ten (10) agroforestry practices were identified, and documented for study area. Like ways, in Ethiopia, smallholder farmers practice various agroforestry practices depending on the socioeconomic and biophysical conditions were explained (Jamala et al., 2013; Abrham et al., 2016; Iiyama et al., 2017). The result showed that, among the identified agroforestry practice homegardens, is the most dominated (96%) agroforestry practice followed, by Coffee based agroforestry practice (91.3%), fruit trees based agroforestry practice (86.6%), Woodlot (65.6%), windbreak/Shelterbelts (62.5%), trees on rangelands (57.2%), life fencing(53.8%), parkland agroforestry(43.1%), taungya(26.4%), and alley (16.7%) cropping respectively (Table 2). The identified agroforestry practice in both zones (Buno Bedele and Ilu Abba Bora) almost in similar status.
As the respondent’s reason out why the homegardens agroforestry practice widely practiced in study area is because of this practice simplicity for management, especially for keeping from wild animals and it consists of multipurpose trees, fruit trees and livestock in around home of households and get diversity outputs from it.
The second major respondents (91.3%) were participated in Coffee based agroforestry practice because the area is suitable for coffee production and households get most income from it.
From exist agroforestry practice at study area Alley cropping is the least percentage (16.7%) at both zone. In contrast in East Hararghe parkland agroforestry (58%), followed by alley cropping as hedge row intercropping (33%), homegardens (22%), multipurpose trees on farmland (19%), live fence/boundary tree planting (18%), and wind breaks (4%) were identified (Musa et al., 2022). In this report alley cropping the second dominant agroforestry practice. In similarly based on the findings of the study in Arba Minch Zuriya district of Gamo Gofa Zone, homegardens, intercropping and livestock production were identified to be the major agroforestry practices of the area, the dominant being the homegardens practice (Alemu, 2016). In these finding similar with study area home garden agroforestry practice the dominated one.
Table 2
.Types of existing agroforestry practice in study area
Agroforestry practice | Respondents % |
Buno Bedele | Ilu Abba Bora | Overall |
Homegardens Coffee based agroforestry practice | 98 87.3 | 94 95.3 | 96 91.3 |
Fruit trees based agroforestry Practice | 76.7 | 96.6 | 86.6 |
Woodlot | 66 | 65.1 | 65.6 |
Windbreak/Shelterbelts | 76.7 | 48.3 | 62.5 |
Trees on Rang land | 60.7 | 53.7 | 57.2 |
Life Fencing | 38 | 69.8 | 53.8 |
Parkland agroforestry practice | 40 | 46.3 | 43.1 |
Taungya | 28 | 24.8 | 26.4 |
Alley cropping | 13.3 | 20.1 | 16.7 |
Source: Households survey; April, 2021 |
Homegardens
is one of dominant identified agroforestry practice in the study area. Homegardens are categorized by being practiced around home and composed of a high diversity of plants and an important source of diversified products used for household. Fruit (Avocado, Banana, Mango, Orange, Guava custard Apply and enset), Maize, Chat, Coffee Cardamom, livestock were cultivated in study area of homegardens practice. Albizia gummifera, Cordia africana, Varnonia amygdalina and Ricinus communis were the most exist trees species in homegardens at study areas.
Coffee based agroforestry practice
It was second major agroforestry practice identified at study areas. The farmers of study areas were cultivated coffee under diverse shade trees. Albizia gummifera, Acacia spp, Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus and Sesbania sesban were the most trees used for coffee shade in study area.
Fruit trees based agroforestry Practice
This practice widely existing at farmers of at study areas and it has a role in household family by given multiple benefits. As respondents reply fruit trees had contribution for theirs live by provide income generation, reduce food security and also used for shade service. Avocado, Banana, Mango, Orange, Guava and Custard apple were the most dominate fruit trees dispersed through crop land, pasture and near home at study area.
Woodlot
It was practiced by farmers at study area by planting tree on a small-scale as land use practices, for their income and construction service. Eucalyptus spp, Grevillea robusta and Pinus patula trees species were the most preferred for woodlot agroforestry practice at study area.
Windbreak/Shelterbelts
its lines of trees or shrubs whose main aim is the reduction of wind speed and also this practice existing at study area. Eucalyptus spp, Grevillea robusta, Juniperus procera and fruits like Avocado and Mango species were planted in line and used as wind break at study area.
Trees on rang land
is scattered trees in rangeland and beneficial in providing shade for livestock. At study area the trees/shrubs dispersed on grazing land mostly found in nature. Grevillea robusta and Pinus patula trees species were planted dispersed on range land at study area.
Life fencing
is widespread agroforestry in practice trees/shrubs area established to determine of plot of land such as homegardens and farmland. It was served at study area for protection wild animals and cattle from crops and used for soil conservation. Erythrina brucei and Capparis tomentosa tree species were most used as a live fence at study area. Azena (2007) stated that, Erythrina brucei used for firewood, medicine, fodder, beforage, mulch, nitrogen fixation, soil conservation and life fence, also Capparis tomentosa used for firewood, medicine, life fence and fencing material.
Parkland agroforestry practice
This practice involves the growing of individual trees and shrubs in scattered in the farmland, while field crops are grown under the trees/shrubs. Some of the naturally grown tree species includes Cordia africana, Acacia spp, Ficus vasta and Croton macrostachyus Syzygium guineense Albezia gumufera and Prunus africana were dispersed on farm land at study area.
Taungya practice: is trees planting; growing agricultural crops for 1–3 years, until the shade of trees become too dense. At study area the farmers exercised this practice by using Cardamom crop under Grevillea robusta and pinus patula plantation and it’s used for purposely used land and rise income.
Alley cropping
is one of an important agroforestry practice in which legumes trees species planted in row and crops again planted between of hedgerow trees species and high organic biomass produced from the pruning’s of hedgerow species and build soil organic matter constituted with beneficial soil nutrients. From identified agroforestry practice at study area this practice was the least percentage at both zones. Banana Mango and avocado are use around home as alley cropping trees/shrubs with maize crop at study are.
Major common trees at study area
In identified agroforestry practice or on farm land most trees are naturally exist and some of them are planted by farmers. Albizia gummifera, Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Eucalyptus spp, Grevillea robusta, Acacia spp, Sapium ellipticum and Varnonia amygdalina, Juniperus procera, Ficus vasta, Syzygium guineense, Podocarpus facaltus and Prunus africana were most common trees at study area (Table 3).These common trees are multipurpose trees so its provide two or more benefits for farmers. All common trees exist at study area were used for improve soil fertility and for shade except Eucalyptus spp and Juniperus procera (Table 3). As response of respondents Cordia africana is the best trees for timber at the area. According to Ebisa and Abdela (2017), stated that Albizia gummifera, Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus and Vernonia amygdalina are popular in smallholder coffee farms in Ethiopia for coffee shade.
Table 3
Major common trees on the study area
Tree species | Local name | Uses of trees for: | Respondents % |
Buno Bedele | Ilu Abba Bora | Total |
Cordia africana | Waddeessa | Soil fertility/shade/construction/timber | 64.7 | 71.1 | 67.9 |
Croton macrostachyus | Bakkannisa | Soil fertility/shade/construction/medicinal | 54.7 | 71.8 | 63.2 |
Eucalyptus spp | Bargamoo | construction/income | 44.7 | 62.4 | 53.5 |
Ficus vasta | Qiltuu | Soil fertility/shade | 6 | 22.1 | 14 |
Grevillea robusta | Giravilaa | Soil fertility/shade/construction/timber | 44.7 | 39.6 | 42.1 |
Juniperus procera | Gaattiraa | timber | 16.7 | 12.1 | 14.4 |
Podocarpus facaltus | Birbirsa | Soil fertility/shade/construction/timber | 14 | 0.7 | 7.4 |
Prunus africana | Hoomii | Soil fertility/shade/medicinal/timber | 8.7 | 6 | 7.4 |
Sapium ellipticum | Bosoqa | Soil fertility/shade/construction/timber | 3.3 | 26.2 | 14.7 |
Syzygium guineense | Baddeessa | Soil fertility/shade/construction/timber | 12.7 | 4.7 | 8.7 |
Varnonia amygdalina | Eebicha | Soil fertility/shade/medicinal | 12.7 | 16.8 | 14.7 |
Acacia spp | Laaftoo/Sondi | Soil fertility/shade/construction | 41.3 | 24.2 | 32.8 |
Albizia gummifera | Ambabbeessa | Soilfertility/shade/construction/medicinal | 70.7 | 85.9 | 78.2 |
Source: Households survey; April, 2021 |
Tree species most preferred in field by Farmers
The farmers were not equal desired trees in the field, they preferred one rather than other based on the contribution of trees through their experience. This contribution defined by finding of this survey (Table 3). Based on these, Albizia gummifera, Cordia africana, Grevillea robusta, Acacia spp, Eucalyptus spp, Croton macrostachyus, and Varnonia amygdalina were most preferred trees by farmers in field at study area respectively (Fig. 2). Eucalyptus tree species was planted on uncultivated land as woodland used commercialized to extra cash income for the household economy. This same line with (Endale, 2017) Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Cupressus lusitanica tree species are the most trained tree, which more preferred for woodlot agroforestry practice around Jimma town.
Trees planted by farmers at study area
As survey results the most common trees at study area were regenerated by nature and widely adopted by farmers as dominant on agricultural land and the farmers managed these trees within agroforestry practice. However some multipurpose trees were planted by farmers on their land and managed in different indigenous management within agroforestry practices. The result showed that, among the identified planted trees by farmers at study area are Eucalyptus spp and Grevillea robusta, are the most dominated one followed, by Cordia africana, Juniperus procera, Albizia gummifera, Varnonia amygdalina, Sesbania sesban, Croton macrostachyus, Acacia spp, Ricinus communis and Pinus patula respectively (Table 4).
Table 4
List of some trees Planted by farmers on the area
Tree species | Local Name | Respondents % |
Buno Bedele | Ilu Abba Bora | Over all |
Cordia africana | Waddeessa | 30.7 | 20.1 | 25.4 |
Croton macrostachyus | Bakkannisa | 3.3 | 4 | 3.7 |
Eucalyptus spp | Baargamoo | 56.7 | 75.2 | 65.9 |
Grevillea robusta | Giravila | 64 | 59.1 | 61.5 |
Juniperus procera | Gaattiraa | 24 | 26.2 | 25.1 |
Pinus patula | Pachula | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1 |
Ricinus communis | Qobboo | 2,7 | nil | 1.3 |
Sesbania sesban | sasbaaniyaa | 8 | 3.4 | 5.7 |
Varnonia amygdalina | Eebicha | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.4 |
Acacia spp | Soondii/Laaftoo | 4.7 | 0.7 | 2.7 |
Albizia gummifera | Ambabbeessa | 11.3 | 8.1 | 9.7 |
Source: Households survey; April, 2021 |
Major fruit trees/shrubs, crops and livestock at study area
In the survey results the farmers at study area were participated in different agroforestry practice and fruit trees/shrubs, crops and livestock were the component of these practice. The results indicated that among the fruit trees/shrubs Avocado (91.3%), Banana (79.6%) and Mango (61.9%) were the most dominant fruit trees/shrubs, while Maize (95%), Coffee (91.3%), Teff (76.6%), Chat (65.9%) and Sorghum (52.8%) were the most dominant crops and Cow ,Oxen, Calve, Chicken, sheep ,Goat, Donkey and Horse were the most dominant livestock at study area respectively (Table 5). Coffee and Chat were the major cash crops respectively for study area. Although, FAO (2013) mention that agroforestry is a form of sustainable land use systems that integrates trees with crops or animal husbandry to initiate an agro ecological succession.
Table 5
Major fruit trees/shrubs, crops and livestock at study area
Category | Respondents % |
Buno Bedele | Ilu Abba Bora | Overall |
Fruit trees/shrubs | | | |
Mango | 57.3 | 66 | 61.9 |
Banana | 67.3 | 92 | 79.6 |
Orange | 18 | 34 | 26.1 |
Lemon | 8 | 15.3 | 11.7 |
Avocado | 90.7 | 92 | 91.3 |
Papaya | 20 | 16.7 | 18.4 |
Apple | 13.3 | 9.3 | 11 |
pineapple | 5.3 | 10 | 7.4 |
Guava | 21.3 | 17.3 | 19.1 |
Custard Apple | 20.7 | 16 | 18.1 |
Citron | 3.3 | 4.7 | 4 |
Cashmere | 10 | 6 | 8 |
Crops | | | |
Maize | 90.7 | 99.3 | 95 |
Haricot bean | 4.7 | 30.1 | 17.4 |
Teff | 82 | 71.1 | 76.6 |
Fingermilet | 19.3 | 22.8 | 21.1 |
Sorghum | 31.3 | 74.8 | 52.8 |
Coffee | 87.3 | 95.3 | 91.3 |
Chat | 77.3 | 54.4 | 65.9 |
Hot pepper | 2 | 14.1 | 8 |
Barely | 24 | 6.7 | 15.4 |
Wheat | 20.7 | 15.4 | 18.1 |
Fabien | 9.3 | 10.7 | 10 |
Field pea | 4.7 | 4 | 4.3 |
Livestock | | | |
Oxen | 83.3 | 79.9 | 81.6 |
Cow | 86.7 | 83.2 | 84.9 |
Chicken | 64.7 | 89.9 | 70.2 |
Sheep | 38 | 51 | 44.5 |
Goat | 34.7 | 12.8 | 23.7 |
Calve | 75.3 | 65.8 | 70.6 |
Donkey | 17.3 | 12.8 | 15.1 |
Horse | 6.7 | 20.8 | 13.7 |
Source: Households survey; April, 2021 |
Farmer’s perceptions about agroforestry
The result showed that farmers in study area widely participated in agroforestry on their farmland and around home. Majority of respondents were strongly agreed with the agroforestry practices on; increase farm income, improve soil fertility and conserved soil and water, saved time on collecting fodder and fuel wood from the forest and improve the natural condition (Table 6). This response revealed that agroforestry helps the farmers in increasing farm income and reduce the risk regarding to food and fodder, fuel wood and climate change. Based on respondent’s reply most household had good perceptions and approach for agroforestry practice at study area. The results of this study similar with the finding of Alemayehu et al. (2021), the farmers had positive perception on agroforestry practices and they know very well on its utilities for income diversification, improvement of soil quality, fuel, construction materials, food, and feed, provision of shade, accessibility and ecological value could be understood from the given inquiry parameters.
Table 6
Farmer’s perception about agroforestry practice at study area
| Respondents % |
Statements | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Agroforestry practices | Increased farm income | 59.9 | 37.1 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0 |
Increased soil fertility & conserved soil & water | 69.2 | 30.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Reduced chances of complete crop failure | 43.1 | 48.2 | 7.4 | 1.3 | 0 |
Saved time on collecting fodder and fuel wood from the forest | 64.2 | 33.1 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0 |
Took a long time to get income | 45.5 | 45.8 | 7.1 | 1.7 | 0 |
Sustain/improve the natural condition | 65.6 | 33.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0 |
Preferred trees in farmland increase crop productivity | 49.8 | 45.2 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Trees in farmland used as windbreak, &increase soil fertility& crop production. | 64.4 | 34.6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Source: Households survey; April, 2021, 1 = strongly agree, 2 = Agree, Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = strongly Disagree |
Major constraints and importance to agroforestry practices at study area
Survey results showed that the study area was potential of agroforestry practices. The finding revealed that, among the identified importance of agroforestry at study area increasing income of household, regulate climate of the area, shading importance, add soil fertility, purpose for food and fodder, properly using the land, for construction, fuel wood and timber were the major opportunities of agroforestry respectively (Table 7). In similarly agroforestry practices are considered as one of the major source of food and income to meet the needs and the wellbeing of the rural community (Galhena et al., 2013).
On other side, impacts of wild animals, Insect pest and disease, competition trees with crop (i.e. shading effect), shortage of land for tree planting, lack of capital, lack of knowledge, taking long time for profit and lack of seed accessibility and shortage of labor are the main constraints in agroforestry practices respectively at study area (Table 8).
Table 7
.Major importance to agroforestry practice at study area
Importance | Respondents % |
Buno Bedele | Ilu Abba Bora |
Properly using the land | 29.5 | 24.5 |
Add income | 51.4 | 55.2 |
Shading importance | 37.7 | 28.7 |
Regulated climates | 48.6 | 52.4 |
Timber | 9.6 | 14.7 |
Construction | 28.1 | 16.8 |
Fuel wood | 15.8 | 18.2 |
Add soil fertility | 52.1 | 23.8 |
Food and livestock feed | 24.7 | 37.1 |
Save time | 3.4 | nil |
Source: Households survey; April, 2022 |
Table 8
Major constraints to agroforestry practice at study area
Constraints | Respondents % |
Buno Bedele | Ilu Abba Bora |
Shortage of land for tree planting | 4.4 | 9.9 |
Take long time for profit | 9.7 | nil |
Lack of capital | 6.2 | 4.4 |
Insect pest and disease | 25.7 | 19.8 |
Impacts of arboreal animals | 45.1 | 54.9 |
Lack of seed accessibility | 9.7 | nil |
Lack of knowledge | 8.8 | 1.1 |
Shortage of labor | 1.8 | 7.7 |
Competition trees with crop (i.e. shading effect) | 19.5 | 11.0 |
Source: Households survey; April, 2021 |
Trends of each value over last ten years
The result showed that fruit trees and agroforestry practice were increase at study area over last ten years. As the respondent’s reason out why it’s increased the farmers get awareness about tree planting and maintains of natural resource. Whereas Honey production, Animal husbandry and crop production were decreased respectively (Fig. 3). The crop production was decrease because shortage of agricultural land, lack of oxen for plough farm land and increasing agricultural input costs. Therefore the farmers practically participated in planting Coffee, fruit trees and Eucalyptus instead of crops production.