A readily accessible agricultural plant production system that is close to a home is a home garden. The purpose of this study was to record how different plant species are used in household gardens and how they are managed in the Goba District. Information was gathered from informants chosen on the advice of local development agents and elders in the community. Seventy-one home garden owners were chosen for the detailed study and data collecting on gardens. Out of the fifteen kebeles in the Goba District, the five kebeles were chosen at random. Observation, semi-structured interviews, preference rating, direct matrix ranking, and paired comparison were the methods used to gather ethno botanical data. Data analysis techniques included the use of ethno botanical data collecting, descriptive statistical approaches including densities, frequencies, relative frequencies, relative densities, Shannon, and Wiener index for species diversity. Thirty-one families comprising 67 plant species in all were gathered and identified. Of the 67 plant species that were gathered, 37 (or 55%) were herbaceous, 16 (or 24%) were tree species, 19% (or shrubby), and 2% were climbers. The majority of homes have a home garden, indicating that farmers value gardening and that it affects both household food security and revenue generating. Concerned institutions should promote the involvement of the local population and the growth of awareness through instruction or training on the sustainable use and management of plant resources.
Research Article
Ethnobotanical Study of Homegarden Plants Species Diversity and Uses in Goba District Bale Zone of Oromia Region, Ethiopia
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3950435/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
Version 1
posted
You are reading this older preprint version
Ethno botany
Home garden
Indigenous knowledge
Management practice
A wide number of academic fields are involved in the study of the interactions between humans, plants, and the environment, which is referred to as ethno botany (Martin, 1995; Cotton, 1996).Indigenous people have been using and managing plants for millennia, and they have accumulated unique knowledge about these resources. According to study of Cotton (1996) claims that Christopher Columbus launched the field of ethno botany in 1492 when he brought tobacco, maize, spices, and other useful plants from Cuba to Europe. At the same time, other immigrants from the New World recorded the food, medicine, and other useful plants of the Inca, Maya, and Aztec peoples.
The primary purposes of ethno botanical studies are to record, examine, and propagate information about the relationship between human society and biodiversity, as well as how biodiversity is valued in various societies and how human activity affects it. This further demonstrates the dynamic and interactive nature of ethno botany as a subject of research. According to Martin (1995), experts from a variety of fields, including linguists, economic botanists, pharmacologists, plant taxonomists, plant ecologists, anthropologists, and others, are required to participate in ethno botanical studies in order to obtain more accurate and comprehensive data about plants and plant use. Ethno botany uses such multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary methodologies to collect and record indigenous botanical knowledge, cultural practices, the use and management of botanical resources, and the discovery of plant benefits.
According to Purvis and Hector (2000), species diversity is essentially a multidimensional notion that encompasses species richness, abundance, and evenness. Since species are the basic building blocks of biological structure, even slight changes in species variety can have an impact on the activities and services provided by ecosystems (You et al., 2009). The concept of species diversity involves two components, several species in a community or plots (species richness) and relative abundance within the sample or community (species evenness) (Kent, 2012). The two components may be examined separately or combined in some form of an index like the Shannon diversity index.
Home gardens (HGs) are production system of diverse crop plants, which is easily accessible and adjacent to household (Sunwar et al., 2006).Home gardens are most adaptable landraces, varieties and rare for endangered species that have been kept conserved (Regassa, 2016). They are traditional farming practices characterized by the complexity of their species diversity and conservation, structure and multiple functions (Amberber et al., 2014; Yakobet al., 2014).
Home gardens have the following advantages: they can produce food all year round, reduce the risk of production failure due to a high species diversity, increase resource productivity over time, expand the quantity and caliber of labor used on the farm, offer output flexibility, and provide alternative production (Senanayakeet al., 2009). Home garden crops represent a supplementary source of food and privileged basis for nutritional quality in rural households. They can also become a source of income. They are helpful to cope with shortage periods and failures of staple crops. The crop diversity that home gardens typically or potentially hold can provide a wide range of resources, such as nutritious foods, marketable products, firewood, herbs, spices, and medicinal plants.
The home garden agro ecosystem is one of the major production systems that were developed during Ethiopian’s early agricultural life (Bekele, 2017). Gradually, it became a common practice and plants collected from the natural ecosystem were cultivated together in the home garden (Seta et al., 2013). The composition of home garden plants may comprise ornamental, fruits, food crops, vegetables, medicinal, spices, fodder, building materials and fuel woods (Regassa, 2016). Households can achieve their livelihood goals in a variety of ways using home gardens, and each household can decide for themselves what mix of home garden production—consumption, trade, and sale—best suits its life plan. The quantity of goods generated in home gardens not only has various advantages but also considerably raises the family's standard of living. Both food and income crops can be grown in home gardens to benefit the household (Hoogerbuugge and Fresco, 1993).
Around the world, people use a wide variety of wild plant species for food, medicine, clothing, housing, fuel, fiber, generating revenue, and meeting their cultural and spiritual needs (Zemede Asfaw, 2001). The loss of cultural variety, including traditional knowledge as a result of unchecked grazing, drought, agricultural growth, firewood, charcoal, urbanization, and construction, can be further described as one of the threatened factors (Kloos, 1976; Mirutse Giday et al., 2003). Plants grown in home gardens face challenges from both natural and man-made sources. Plants in home gardens face risks from human activity such as improper conservation, fuel needs, and population growth that happens too quickly. Similarly, frequent droughts, bush fires, illnesses, and pest outbreaks are examples of natural causes (Ensermu Kelbessa et al., 1992).
Kumar and Tiwari's (2017) study states that the variety of plants found in home gardens varies depending on the location. Mekonen et al. (2014) discovered 69 species in the Jabithenan District of North Western Ethiopia, which were divided into 40 groups, while Semu (2018) discovered 78 plant species in Kombolcha Town, Eastern Harar. Similarly, 62 plant species belonging to 35 families were identified in the Misha District in Southern Ethiopia's Hadiya Zone (Wolde michael et al., 2018). Apart from the information held by the indigenous people, the bulk of plant species variety is disappearing due to factors caused by humans. For the indigenous inhabitants of the Goba District, traditional house gardening offers nothing in the way of managing and conserving plant species, and there has been little thorough study done on plant species in home gardens. Therefore, the study's primary goal was (1) to assess diversity of plant species in home garden of the district along with their uses (2) To document plant species grow in home gardens used for various purposes (3) To identify the threat on plant species grown in home garden፣(4)To study management practices of home gardens by local people in Goba district.
Goba District is situated 444 kilometers southeast of Addis Ababa and 12 kilometers south of Robe, the Bale Zone's capital. The area is roughly located between 6030'34" north _ 7010'59'' north and 39040'42'' east _ 40010'52'' east. According to the Goba District Statistical Bureau (2007) E.C., Goba District is located in a somewhat southerly direction. Its borders are Sinana District to the south, Dallo and Berbere District to the north, Dinsho District to the east, and Sinana District to the west.
The fieldwork was done between January and May of 2022, and the study was conducted in the Goba District. Three visits were made to each location, including the reconnaissance survey. Observation, a comprehensive plant inventory, semi-structured interviews, free listing, preference ranking, and direct matrix ranking were the methods employed. During the data collection phase, the interview was conducted in Afan Oromo, which is a translation of English. Seventy-one home gardeners were chosen in total. Out of the fifteen kebeles in the Goba District, the five kebeles were chosen at random. Interviews with household heads were conducted on various topics during the various house visits: Types of uses for plants in gardens: home gardeners' favorite beneficial plant species, planting, consumption, revenue they receive, and advantages
To determine the representative sample size from the total population size of 2793 that is the total households of five kebeles, the following sample size determination formula was used using confidence level of 95% (Kathari, 2004).
$$n= \frac{Z2\left(pq\right)\left(N\right))}{e2\left(N-1\right)+ Z2\left(p*q\right)}$$
The households were randomly selected from five kebeles with the number selected proportionate to the size of each kebele using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) calculation
The samples from each kebeles reflect total household numbers as shown in Table 1.
| Name of Kebele | Number of Households | Sample Size(home garden) |
|---|---|---|
| Waltayi Azira | 373 | 10 |
| Alloshe Tilo | 759 | 19 |
| Ititu Sura | 576 | 15 |
| Waltayi Tosha | 407 | 10 |
| Ashuta | 678 | 17 |
| Total | 2793 | 71 |
| Source: (Sample Survey CSA, 2021) | ||
Descriptive statistical techniques, including densities, frequencies, relative frequencies, relative densities, and the species diversity index (Shannon and Wiener, 1949), were employed to analyze the data obtained from ethno botanical data collection. The data were collected in sample plots measuring 10 m × 10 m (100 m2) in 71 home gardens, one from each randomly selected study site.
The distribution of a species across the stands is described by frequency. The percentage of plots or quadrants in a sample region that contain a particular species is calculated to identify it (Martin, 1995). \(F=\frac{Quadratinwhichaspeciesoccurs}{Totalnumberofquadratsinthesample}\)x 100
Relative frequency is the number of occurrences of a species, as a percentage of the total occurrences of all species (Martin, 1995).
\(Relativefrequency=\frac{Frequencyofaspeciesinthesample}{Totalfrequencyofallspeciesinthesample}\) x 100
Frequency and relative frequency was calculated for plants having the highest frequency occurrence and having marketed values in 71 home gardens of the study area.
Density is the average number of individuals of a species on a unit area basis. It is closely related to abundance but more useful in estimating the importance of a species (Martin, 1995).
$$Density=\frac{Numberofindividualsinthesample}{Totalareaofthesample\left(\text{m}2\right)}$$
The most often used diversity indicator in plant communities is the Shannon-Weiner Index, which takes a maximum value when all species are present in equal abundance and a value of zero when there is only one species in a community (Shannon and Wiener, 1949).Using this index and the frequency of species as the input source, the diversity of each site was determined. The following formula was used to determine the Shannon Diversity Index (H'):
H’ = -\(\sum _{i=1}^{S}PilnPi\)
Where, S = total number of species, Pi = is the proportion of each species in the sample.
ln = log base n. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_logarithm
3.1. Descriptive Analysis of Demographic Information
Of those surveyed, 52% were women, and 48% were men. Since females are typically involved in plant conservation, it is known that household sex has an impact on the management of plant species in home gardens.In vital statistics, censuses, and surveys, age is a key demographic characteristic that serves as the main foundation for demographic classification (URT,2005c).In terms of age, the majority of participants were within the 46–55 age range (Table 1)
|
Variables |
Sex |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age |
25—35 years |
M |
6 |
16.9 |
|
F |
6 |
|||
|
36—45 years |
M |
8 |
25.4 |
|
|
F |
10 |
|||
|
46—55 years |
M |
11 |
31.0 |
|
|
F |
11 |
|||
|
Above 56 years |
M |
9 |
26.7 |
|
|
F |
10 |
|||
|
Educational Level |
Illiterate |
M |
4 |
15.49 |
|
F |
7 |
|||
|
Primary(1–4) |
M |
6 |
21.12 |
|
|
F |
9 |
|||
|
Junior (5–8) |
M |
4 |
14.08 |
|
|
F |
6 |
|||
|
Secondary(9–12) |
M |
12 |
29.57 |
|
|
F |
9 |
|||
|
Above high school |
M |
10 |
19.71 |
|
|
F |
4 |
|||
3.2. Management Practices of Home gardens in Goba District
"Eddo" is the local term for "home garden" in the research area. The locals have created a basic framework for household gardens that is quite flexible and diverse, making it easier to produce the main needs for survival. In the home gardens of the Goba District, several management approaches are used, which explains their traditional expertise. Their traditional gardens now have a high diversity of plant species because to these initiatives. The study area's home gardens have a variety of plants that are chosen based on the family's needs and tastes. In order to meet their short- or long-term needs, the majority of plant species in the research region were grown legally in gardens and used as food sources and commercial products.
Some of the home garden owners in the study region claim that most of them produce vegetables by getting water and watering their plants at least once a week during the rainy season of the year and during periods of water scarcity. According to what several home garden owners have said, maintaining the ecological system and making the garden sustainable are all benefits of continual plant production. To make organic fertilizer and manures, household wastes (kitchen wastes and ashes), agricultural leftovers, and weeds from home gardens were combined.
One may see open spaces in home gardens that were either semi-enclosed or fenced. The more commonly observed management approach involved live fences with trees and bushes to keep home garden plants safe from predators. In several places, residential gardens are fenced in together with crop fields. The family members divided up the work in order to manage the household gardens. Women play more roles than men, as was noted during the survey and discussed with informants. When it came to weeding, watering, and planting, for example, women were more involved than men were in certain situations (e.g. fence). There is evidence in the literature that men are more adept at pruning and hard labor, such as clearing land, than women are at hoeing, weeding, and harvesting. This is supported by Tchatat et al. (1996) in Cameroon, Regalement et al. (1994) in Tanzania, and Bennett et al. (2004) in Ghana. The majority of elderly people's time was spent tending to their home gardens in the study region. Instead of using the removed weeds to prepare compost, some gardeners pulled the weeds, including the roots, to burn or place in pits. The practice of certain gardeners to regularly weep and burn the trash layer contributed to the degradation of the soil quality.
3.3 Diversity of Species in Home gardens
A vast range of plants, from tiny herbs to towering trees, are commonly found in home gardens. 67 plant species, grouped into 31families, were identified from 71 home gardens that were surveyed during this study. With seven species, Poaceae is the most prominent family according to the family wise distribution. With six species, Solanaceae and Febaceae are the second dominant family; Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, and Rosaceae are the third dominant family with five species each.
|
Family name |
Data collection area/ kebeles/ |
Frequency |
Rank |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alloshe |
Ititu sura |
Waltayi Aziza |
Waltayi Tosha |
Ashuta |
|||
|
Acanthaeae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Anacardiaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Amaryllidaceae |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
||
|
Arecaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Apiaceae |
1 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|||
|
Asteraceae |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
|
Brassicaceae |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
|
Cactaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Casuarinaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Celastraceae |
1 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|||
|
Cucurbitaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Cupressaceae |
1 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|||
|
Chenopodiaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Cyperaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Eurphorbiaceae |
1 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|||
|
Fabaceae |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
|
Lamiaceae |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
||
|
Lauraceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Moraceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Musaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Myrtaceae |
1 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
|||
|
Oleaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Phytolaccaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Poaceae |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
|
Rhamnaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Rosaceae |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
|
Rutaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Solanaceae |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
|
Urticaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Verbenaceae |
1 |
1 |
6 |
||||
|
Total |
19 |
13 |
11 |
9 |
15 |
67 |
|
The results shown in Graph 3 show that Alloshe had the highest Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H') of useful plant species (H' = 2.94), followed by Ashuta (H' = 3.71), Ititu Sura (H' = 2.64), Waltayi Azira (H' = 2.48), and Waltayi Tosha (H' = 2.30) (Table 5).In terms of species behavior, among the 67 plant species that were collected, 37 were herbaceous (or 55% of the species), 16 were tree species (or 24%), 13 were shrub species (19%), and 1 was a climber (or 2%). Table 3.In a similar vein, Tefera Mekonen (2010) documented the same instance while researching the habitat species in Sebeta Hawas' home garden agro diverse in the Oromia Region. Waltayi Tosha home gardens had the lowest diversity index value, indicating that just a small number of plant species were common.
|
Study Site |
Species Richness |
Shannon diversity Index |
Plant Types |
Number of plants |
Percentage (%) |
Uses of plant |
Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Waltayi Azira |
12 |
2.48 |
Herbs |
37 |
55% |
Medicinal |
34% |
|
Alloshe |
19 |
2.94 |
Trees |
16 |
24% |
Food |
31% |
|
Ititu Sura |
14 |
2.64 |
Shrubs |
13 |
19% |
Other uses |
35% |
|
Waltayi Tosha |
10 |
2.30 |
Climber |
1 |
2% |
||
|
Ashuta |
15 |
2.71 |
In the research region, home gardens consist of various types of trees, shrubs, herbs, climbing plants, and food crops. Top tree species used by the locals for building, fencing, firewood, and other purposes are Cupressus lusitanica Mill, Juniperus procera Hochst. Ex Endl, Eucalyptus globulus Labill, Erythrina brucei Schweinf, and Eucalypyus camaldulensis Dehnh.Food sources include Vicia faba L., Zea mays L., Solanum tuberosum L., and Brassica oleracea L.; medications include Ruta chalepensis, Lippia adoensis varadoensis, and Rhamnus ptinoides. As indicated in table 2 the documented plant species show that 34% of the plants were medical, 31% were food, and the remaining 35% were all other plants. Zemede A. et al. (1995) reported a similar outcome, observing in home gardens a wide variety of species (162), of which 78% were food crops. During the survey, typical garden crops (52%) were documented, followed by traditional field crops (22%) and those grown in both configurations (27%).
3.4. Nutrition supply from home gardens
The study area is home to grown food-producing plants that are accessible throughout the year. However, during the major rainy season, which runs from May to October, there are greater quantities of nutrient-supplying home garden items available. According to what informants said throughout the interview process, families that garden at home and have expertise growing a variety of plants are unaware of the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables. Thus, it's important to raise awareness and educate people about the nutritional advantages of growing food in a home garden. There are additional plant species that the locals frequently use as food and medicine (nutraceuticals) as a means of preparing to treat health issues and Table 3 presents a paired comparison of five nutraceutical plants as stated by key informants.
According to key informants, the five commonly consumed food crops were chosen by consensus and by identifying the species that are most frequently encountered. Each species' ratings based on the preferences of the informants were totaled and graded. As a result, Brassica oleraceae (score 3) was the least favored food crop, whereas Allium sativum L (ranked first, score 36) was the most (Table 4).Nutritional value of food served as the basis for this preference value.
Table 4 presents paired comparisons for five specific nutraceutical species found in the study area's home gardens.
Orders |
Species name |
Respondents |
1 |
Allium sativum L |
8 |
|
MalussyluestrisMill. |
6 |
|
2 |
Allium sativum.L. |
10 |
|
Solanumtuberosum L |
4 |
|
3 |
Allium sativum L. |
7 |
|
Viciafaba L. |
7 |
|
4 |
Allium sativum |
11 |
|
Brassica oleraceae |
3 |
|
5 |
M.syluestris miller |
6 |
|
S.tuberosum L |
8 |
|
6 |
M. syluestris Miller |
6 |
|
Viciafaba L. |
8 |
|
7 |
Malussyluestris miller |
13 |
|
Brassica oleraceae |
1 |
|
8 |
SolanumtuberosumL. |
8 |
|
Vicia faba |
6 |
|
9 |
S.tuberosum |
13 |
|
B. oleraceae |
1 |
|
10 |
Vicia.faba |
12 |
|
Brassica. Oleraceae |
2 |
Table 5 Total scores and ranks of table 4
3.5. Preference ranking home garden species
Table 6 enumerates the plant species that are commonly found in home gardens within the study area, exhibit local demand, and are utilized in the data analysis's preference ranking. The range of plant species available for home gardens in the study area greatly enhanced the nutritional and economic status of the residents. The seven most typically used species of home garden plants were selected by consensus among key informants, as they were also the most frequently reported species. The informants' scores for each species were added up and assigned a grade depending on their preferences. Consequently, Allium sativum was ranked #1 while Juniperus procera was the least preferred species among plants for home gardens.
|
Species name |
Total respondents |
Rank |
Remark |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Allium sativumL. |
88 |
1 |
|
|
Vicia faba L. |
81 |
2 |
|
|
Solanum tuberosum L. |
80 |
3 |
|
|
Brassica oleraceaL. |
52 |
4 |
|
|
Daucus carota L. |
47 |
5 |
|
|
Eucalyptus globulus Labill. |
23 |
6 |
|
|
Juniperus procera Hochst.exEndl. |
20 |
7 |
3.4. Direct matrix ranking
Seven tree species were found in sampling home gardens; these species serve a variety of purposes, such as construction, medicine, fencing, shade, and furniture. Based on the chosen use criteria of each plant, as described during the ethno botanical data collection, a direct matrix ranking was calculated for these species. Table 7 presents the entire results of fourteen key informants, summing together the scores of each plant.
The species were selected based on the consensus of informants. As a result, Cupresus lustanica was the least desired multipurpose plant species, with a total score of 413, placing it first, followed by E. camadulensis, which came in second with a total score of 400. The greatest scores went to E. globules for construction and medicine, E. camaldulensis for the fence and firewood, and J. procera for furnishings. This result is consistent with the findings of Nair et al. (2018), who demonstrated the vast species diversity seen in gardens. These species include food crops, ornamentals, fruit trees, medicinal plants, multipurpose trees, and fodder species, and they serve a range of ecosystem services. Persia americana and Mangifera indica are two examples of fruit trees that are predominantly used for food, according to Ewuketu (2014). This is especially true during difficult drought conditions. They serve as a sign of the farmers' reliance on HGAF for both cash income and food in North Western Ethiopia.
|
Species name |
Uses of tree plant species |
Rank |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Const Ruction |
Medicine |
Shade |
Fire wood |
Furniture |
Fence |
Total |
||
|
Eucalyptus globules Labill |
71 |
70 |
68 |
69 |
67 |
68 |
413 |
1 |
|
Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh |
70 |
59 |
68 |
70 |
64 |
70 |
400 |
2 |
|
Olea europaea L. Subsp cuspidat (wall,exG,Don)cif ‘’L’’divicotore |
68 |
54 |
66 |
69 |
68 |
69 |
394 |
3 |
|
Juniperus procera Hochst. ex Endle |
70 |
54 |
68 |
61 |
70 |
70 |
393 |
4 |
|
Cupresus lusitanica Mill. abyssinica(Cupresulusitanic Mill. |
62 |
56 |
63 |
56 |
69 |
56 |
362 |
5 |
3.4.2. Frequency, Relative frequency and Density
The species with the highest densities were determined to be Daucuscarota (0.69 m2), A. sativum (0.401 m2), and Vicia faba (0.325 m2). B. oleraceae showed the highest frequency (88.73) and relative frequency (14.79). According to Graph 5, A. sativum exhibited the second-highest frequency (80.28) and relative frequency (13.37). According to Megabit Beyene et al. (2018), the home gardens in Dobina Enkonti (λ = 0.226) were dominated by a smaller number of species than those in Baruda (λ = 0.095), Baphirina Mata (λ = 0.095), Bulen 01 (λ = 0.096), and Morana Ekosaki (λ = 0.137).
|
Species name |
Frequency |
Relative frequency |
Density |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Brassica oleraceae L. |
88.73 |
14.79 |
0.177 |
|
Allium sativum |
80.28 |
13.37 |
0.401 |
|
Vicia faba L. |
73.23 |
12.21 |
0.325 |
|
Solanum tuberosum L |
69 |
11.5 |
0.144 |
|
Zea Mays |
63.38 |
10.55 |
0.242 |
|
Allium porrum L. |
60.56 |
10.09 |
0.100 |
|
Daucus.carota |
45.07 |
7.50 |
0.69 |
|
Rosmarinum offlicinalish L. |
38.02 |
6.33 |
0.015 |
|
Total |
518.27 |
86.34 |
2.094 |
|
Collection Number |
Scientific names |
Family |
Local name |
Habit |
Part of use |
Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
035 |
Justicia schimperiana T.Anderson |
Acanthaeae |
Sensela |
Herb |
Leaf |
Spice, medicine |
|
021 |
Schinus molle L. |
Anacardiaceae |
Qunde barbare |
Tree |
Seed |
Medicine,spice |
|
018 |
Daucuscarota L. |
Apiaceae |
Kaarota |
Herb |
Root |
Food |
|
028 |
Allium cepa L. |
Amaryllidaceae |
Shinkurt diima |
Herb |
Bulb |
Spice, |
|
042 |
A.porrum L. |
Amaryllidaceae |
Alangalle |
Herb |
Root |
Spice |
|
05 |
A. sativumL. |
Amaryllidaceae |
Qullubii adii |
Herb |
Bulb |
Medicine, spice |
|
049 |
Coriandrum sativum L. |
Apiaceae |
Dimbilal |
Herb |
Seed |
Spice |
|
059 |
Phoenix reclinata Jacq |
Arecaceae |
Zenbaba |
Tree |
Leaf |
shade,ornamental |
|
052 |
Guizotiascabra (vis.) Chiov. |
Astraceae |
Hadaa |
Herb |
Leaf.,flower |
Ornamental,forage |
|
043 |
Artemisia absinthium L. |
Asteraceae |
Arritii |
Herb |
Leaf |
Ornamental, medicine |
|
065 |
Helianthus annuus L |
Asteraceae |
Suf |
Herb |
Seed |
Food |
|
066 |
Lactuca saltiva L. |
Asteraceae |
Selata |
Herb |
Leaf |
Food |
|
09 |
Vernonia amygdalina Del |
Asteraceae |
Ebbicha |
Shurb |
Leaf,stem |
Forage,medicine,fence |
|
045 |
Brassica oleraceae L. var. Capitata |
Brassicaceae |
Goommana maramaa |
Herb |
Leaf |
Food |
|
046 |
Brassica carinataA.Broun |
Brassicaceae |
Yeguaro gomen |
Herb |
Leaf |
Food |
|
017 |
Brassica oleraceae L. |
Brassicaceae |
Goommana guraacha |
Herb |
Leaf |
Food |
|
011 |
Brassica rapa L. |
Brassicaceae |
Qosxaa |
Herb |
Leaf |
Food, |
|
029 |
Lepidium sativumL. |
Brassicaceae |
Fetto |
Herb |
Seed |
Medicine |
|
030 |
Casuarina equisetifolia L. |
Casuarinaceae |
Shewshawe |
Tree |
Leaf |
Pleasure,fence |
|
060 |
Opuntia ficus-indica(L.) Mill. |
Cactaceae |
Qulqaal |
Shurb |
Fruit |
Food,fence |
|
012 |
Catha edulis (Vahl). Forssk .ex Endl |
Celastraceae |
Caatii |
Shrub |
Leaf |
Stimulant |
|
015 |
Maytenus senegalensis(Lam.)Exell |
Celastraceae |
Kombolcha |
Shrub |
Leaf,stem |
Fence,fire wood |
|
032 |
Juniperus proceraHochst. Ex Endl. |
Cupressaceae |
Hindhesa Habasha |
Tree |
Stem |
Fence, fire wood, shade, furniture |
|
023 |
Cucurbita pepoL. |
Cucurbitaceae |
Dubbaa |
Climber |
Fruit,seed |
Food,medicine |
|
031 |
Cupressus lusitanisca Mill. |
Cupressaceae |
Hindheessa faranijji |
Tree |
Leaf,stem |
Fence,construction,furniture,fire wood |
|
044 |
Beta vulgaris L. |
Chenopodiaceae |
Hundee diimaa |
Herb |
Root |
Food |
|
050 |
Cyperus squarrosus L. |
Cyperaceae |
Ketema |
Herb |
Leaf |
Pleaure,Shade |
|
051 |
Euphorbia abyssinica J.F.Gmel. |
Eurporbiaceae |
Adamii |
Tree |
Stem |
Fence |
|
04 |
Ricinus communis L. |
Eurphorbiaceae |
Qobboo |
Tree |
Fruit |
Medicine,shade,fence |
|
047 |
Calpurnia aurea (Ait.) Benth. |
Fabaceae |
Ceekaa |
Shrub |
Leaf,Stem |
Medicine,fence |
|
01 |
Erythrina bruceiSchweinf. |
Fabaceae |
Walensaa |
Tree |
Stem |
Fence,shade,fire wood |
|
057 |
Pisum sativum L. |
Fabaceae |
Atera |
Herb |
Seed |
Food |
|
053 |
Trigonellafoenum-graecumL. |
Fabaceae |
Abish |
Herb |
Seed |
Food,Spice,medicine |
|
02 |
Vicia faba L. |
Fabaceae |
Baqqella |
Herb |
Seed,leaf |
Food,forage |
|
019 |
Ocimum basilicum L. |
Lamiaceae |
Besobila |
Herb |
Seed |
Spice |
|
038 |
Ocimum lamiifolium Hochst.ex Benth |
Lamiaceae |
Damakese |
Shrub |
Leaf |
Medicine |
|
058 |
Persea americanaL. |
Lauraceae |
Abukado |
Tree |
Fruit |
Food,shade |
|
056 |
Rosmarinus offlcinalis L. |
Lamiaceae |
Siga-metibesha |
Herb |
Leaf |
Spice |
|
062 |
Morus alba L. |
Moraceae |
Gora |
Herb |
Fruit |
Food,fence |
|
027 |
Enset ventricosum(Wolw) Cheesman |
Musaceae |
Warqee |
Herb |
Leaf |
Shades,for making of bread Forage |
|
016 |
Eucalyptus globulus Labill |
Myrtaceae |
Baargamo adii |
Tree |
Leaf,stem |
Medicine,fence,shade,construction, furniture, fire wood |
|
033 |
E.camaldulensis Dehnh |
Myrtaceae |
Baargamo diima |
Tree |
Leaf,stem |
Fence,shade,fire wood |
|
010 |
Olea europaea L.subsp.cuspidata (Wall. & G.Don) Cif. |
Oleaceae |
Ejersa |
Tree |
Leaf.stem,root |
Shade,fence |
|
067 |
Phytolacca dodecandra L. |
Phytolaccaceae |
Endod |
Shurb |
Leaf |
Medicine |
|
013 |
Zea maysL. |
Poaceae |
Boqqolloo |
Herb |
Seed,leaf |
Food,forage |
|
061 |
Pennisetum puppureum Schumach |
Poaceae |
Elephant grass |
Herb |
Leaf |
Forage |
|
064 |
Hordeum vulgare L. |
Poaceae |
Garbuu |
Herb |
Seed,leaf |
Food,forage |
|
037 |
Cymbopogon citratus Stapf |
Poaceae |
Tej sar |
Herb |
Leaf |
Medicine,ornamental,spice |
|
039 |
Cynodondactylon (L.)Pers. |
Poaceae |
Sardoo |
Herb |
Leaf |
Forage |
|
08 |
Arundo donax L. |
Poaceae |
Shamboko |
Herb |
Stem |
Fence |
|
034 |
Arachne racemosaOhwi |
Poaceae |
Coqorsa |
Herb |
Leaf |
Forage |
|
06 |
Rhamnus prinoides L Herit |
Rhamnaceae |
Geeshoo |
Shurb |
Leaf,seed |
Medicine |
|
063 |
Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. |
Rosaceae |
Apple |
Tree |
Fruit |
Food |
|
07 |
Prunus persica(L.) Batsch |
Rosaceae |
Kookii |
Shrub |
Fruit |
Food,Shade |
|
025 |
Rosa abyssinica R.Br. |
Rosaceae |
Qaga |
Shrub |
Fruit |
Food,fence |
|
022 |
Rosa hybridaHort. |
Rosaceae |
Tsigereda |
Shurb |
Flower |
Shade,ornamental |
|
055 |
Ruta chalepensisL. |
Rutaceae |
Tena-adam |
Shurb |
Leaf,seed |
Spice,medicine |
|
014 |
Hagenia abyssinica (Bruce) J.F.Gmel. |
Rosaceae |
Heexoo |
Tree |
Stem,fruit |
Medicine |
|
026 |
Nicotiana tabacumL. |
Solanaceae |
Timboo |
Herb |
Leaf |
Medicine,forage |
|
020 |
Solanum lycopersicum L. |
Solanaceae |
Timatim |
Herb |
Fruit |
Food |
|
03 |
Solanum tuberosum L. |
Solanaceae |
Dinnicha |
Herb |
Root |
Food,spice |
|
054 |
Solanum incanum L. |
Solanaceae |
Hiddii loonii |
Shrub |
Leaf |
Medicine, |
|
024 |
Capsicum annuum L. |
Solanaceae |
Yefereng qara |
Herb |
Fruit |
Medicine,Spice |
|
048 |
C.frutescens L. |
Solanaceae |
Qaaraa |
Herb |
Fruit |
Medicine,Spice |
|
040 |
Urticasimensis Hochst.exA.Rich. |
Urticaceae |
Sammaa |
Herb |
Leaf |
Medicine |
|
036 |
Lippia abyssinicavar Cufod. |
Verbenaceae |
Kusaye |
Shurb |
Flower,leaf |
Spice |
The study's findings are presented in Table 5. Twenty-eight (20.8%) had forage value, seventeen (25.3%) had fence value, fifteen (22.3%) had shade value, and twenty-three (34.3%) had medicinal value of the 67 plant species selected for home gardens. The remaining species were utilized as building materials, furniture, stimulant, firewood, and ornamental wood, in that order. This outcome supports the research done by Nair et al. (2018), who showed how diverse a wide range of species may be found in gardens. These species provide a variety of ecosystem services and include food crops, ornamentals, fruit trees, medicinal plants, multipurpose trees, and fodder species.
|
Uses of parts of home garden plants |
Frequency |
Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
|
Medicine |
23 |
34.3% |
|
Food |
21 |
31.3% |
|
Fence |
17 |
25.3% |
|
Spice |
15 |
22.3% |
|
Shade |
14 |
20.8% |
|
Forage |
8 |
11.9% |
|
Fire wood |
6 |
8.9% |
|
Ornamental |
5 |
7.4% |
|
Furniture |
3 |
4.4% |
|
Construction |
2 |
2.9% |
|
Stimulant |
1 |
1.49% |
4.5. Threats to Home garden plant Species in the Study area
The semi-structured interview report identified the following as the primary obstacles to home gardens in the study area: lack of market linkage (16.9%), monoculture farming (36.6%), shortage of farmland (26.7%), lack of awareness (12.6%), and shortage of human power (8.43%). Rata Regesa (2016), in contrast to this study, found that the primary obstacles to home gardens were a lack of expertise on plant breeding (66.7%), a shortage of seeds and planting supplies (63.3%), a lack of an agricultural support system (57.5%), and a lack of awareness (55%).
|
Treats of home garden |
Respondents |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Frequency |
Percentage(%) |
Rank |
|
|
Monoculture farming |
26 |
36.6% |
1 |
|
Shortage of farm land |
19 |
26.7% |
2 |
|
Market linkage |
12 |
16.9% |
3 |
|
Lack of awareness |
9 |
12.67% |
4 |
|
Shortage of human power |
6 |
8.45% |
5 |
|
Total |
71 |
||
.6. The Source of Home garden plant Species
As the results in Table 12 demonstrate, among the 71 home garden owners (households), the sources of home garden plant species were, in the study area of Goba District, 29 (40.8%) local market, 22 (30.9%) neighbors (relatives), 13 (18.3%) inheritance from family, and 7 (9.85%) from government (non-government). Rata Regasa (2016) indicated that the primary sources of planting materials for home gardeners in the study were the market (45%), home gardens (20.83%), and relatives (16.67%). The least reliable sources of planting supplies are the agricultural office and national and international NGOs, which supports the findings of our study.
|
Source of home gardens |
Respondents |
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Frequency |
Percentage (%) |
Rank |
|
|
Local market |
29 |
40.8% |
1 |
|
Neighbors (relatives) |
22 |
30.9% |
2 |
|
Inheritance from family |
13 |
18.3% |
3 |
|
Government/non government |
7 |
9.85% |
4 |
|
Total |
71 |
||
4.1. Conclusions
Most tropical nations have widespread practices of home gardens, which are essential for providing food, fuel wood, construction materials, livestock feed, and revenue for homes in a variety of ways. This study aimed to record plant species used in home gardens and their management practices in order to evaluate the financial benefits that home gardens provide to households in the Goba area, South-East Ethiopia. Using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) calculation, five kebeles in the District Alloshe, Waltayi Aziza, Waltayi Tosha, Ashuta, and Ititu Sura were randomly chosen from among the five kebeles. The number of selected kebeles was proportionate to the size of each kebele.
Semi-structured interviews and field visits were used to collect data from 71 home gardens from each randomly chosen site for the study area. The sample plots were 10 m × 10 m (100 m2) in size. A total of 67 plant species, spread over 31 families, were identified in the research area based on a survey of plant species diversity in 71 household gardens. Table 5 shows that Alloshe had the highest Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H') at 2.94, whereas Waltayi Tosha had the lowest diversity index at 2.30.
In the study area of Goba District, the results showed that, out of 71 home garden owners (households), the sources of home garden plant species were 29 (40.8%) local market, 22 (30.9%) neighbors (relatives), 13 (18.3%) inheritance from family, and 7 (9.85%) from government (non-government).
The sustainability of home gardens is increased when a multispecies agro-system is managed to meet household financial and subsistence demands. Nonetheless, plant diversity in the home gardens in the research area is influenced by a number of factors, including garden size, cultural and personal preferences, and seasonal variations. As a result, careful management of the plant species in home gardens has a significant potential to conserve biodiversity, enhance food security, and support ecosystem services inside the garden. A home garden is an integral part of the larger farming system. The majority of homes have a garden, indicating that farmers value gardening and that it affects both household food security and revenue generation. The primary goals of home gardens, especially in rural areas, are money generating and sustenance production.
The multi-species agro-system's management to meet the The semi-structured interview report identified the following as the primary obstacles to home gardens in the study area: lack of market linkage (16.9%), monoculture farming (36.6%), shortage of farmland (26.7%), lack of awareness (12.6%), and shortage of human power (8.43%).
Overall, the research on home gardens revealed that they maintain ecological and plant diversity while serving as an essential source of income for subsistence economies. They also help many rural households that are situated in isolated areas, frequently cut off from markets and contemporary production centers, to become self-sufficient.
4.2. Recommendations
The study's key conclusions are as follows:
-
Promote home gardening for ecological interventions (growing spices, medicinal plants, and other multipurpose species) and plant biodiversity conservation and management; Identify and support suitable cash and subsistence crops for increasing home garden productivity without compromising the garden's structure and functionality.
-
It is important to include gardeners as active participants in the process of creating a comprehensive strategy to preserve and improve home gardens' sustainability while also protecting their agro biodiversity.
-
Concerned institutions should promote the involvement of the local population and the growth of awareness through instruction or training on the sustainable use and management of plant resources.
-
The Goba administration ought to put a lot of effort into encouraging youths to participate in the intensification of home gardens for farming as an alternate course of action.
Author Contribution
Mr. Benti Ofga wrote the main manuscript text, collecting data, preparation of methodology etcMr. Mohammedaman Hussien edited the article, prepared figure and Bibilography.
- Alexiades, M. (1996).Colle5.cting ethno botanical data.An introduction to basic concepts and techniques. In: (Alexiades, M. and Sheldon J.W.eds.).Selected Guideline for ethno botanical research: A Field Manual, pp.58-94.The New York.Botanica Garden, U.S.A.
- Amberber M, Argaw M, Zemede A (2014). The role of homegardens for in situ conservation of plant biodiversity in Holeta Town, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 6(1):8-16.
- Balick M.J., Cox P.A. (1996). Plants, people and Culture: Science of Ethnobotany New York, USA.
- Bekele TA (2017). Home-Garden Agro-Forestry Practices and Its Contribution to Rural Livelihood in Dawro Zone Essera District. Journal of Environment and Earth Science 7(5):88-96.
- Boncodin, R., Campilan, D., and Prain, G. (2000).“Dynamics in tropical homegardens”. In: Urban Agriculture Magazine, 1(1):19-20.
- Brownrigg, (1985).Homegardening in International development: What the literature shows. League for International Food Education.Washington D .C. 55Pp.
- Buchmann C (2009). Cuban home gardens and their role in socialecological resilience. Hum. Ecol. 37:705-721.
- Bye R.A. (1985). Botanical perspectives of ethnobotany of the Greater South West Econ Bota39 (4):375-386.
- C.R.KATHARI. (2004), Statistic for management first edition.
- Caron, C.M. (1995). The role of non-timber forest product in household food procurement strategies: profile of a Sri Lankan village. Agroforest System 32: 99-117.
- Cotton, C.M. (1996). Ethnobotany: Principle and Applications. John Wiley Sons Ltd Chichester, England.
- Eibl, B., Nozzi, D., Fernandez, R., Kozzarik, J.C., Lupi, A., Montagnini, F. and Nozzi, D.(2000). Agroforestry system with Hex Paraguarinsis (American holly or Yerbamate) native timber trees on small farm in Misiones, Argentina, Agroforestry System 48:1-8.
- FAO (2001).Assessment of the World Food Security Situation. Committee on Food Security, Twenty-seventh Session, documents no CFS: 2001/2. FAO.
- Griaule M. (1930). Le lives, de recettes dun dabtaraabyssinien, Paris Institute of de ethnology
- Hochegger, K. (1998). Farming like the Forest - Traditional Home Garden Systems in Sri Lanka.MargrafVerlag, Weikersheim, Germany, 203 pp.
- Hoogerbrugge, I. and Fresco, L.O. (1993).Homegarden system: Agricultural characteristics andchallenges. International Institute for Environment and Development GaxekeeperSeries No. 39.
- Jaccard P (1912). The distribution of the flora of the alpine zone.NewPhytol. 11(2):37-50.
- Jose, D. and Shanmugaratnam, N. (1993). Traditional homegardens of Kerala: a sustainable human ecosystem. Agroforestry Systems 24:203-213 Systems 24: 187-201.
- Kent, M. (2012).Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A practical approach. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 414 p.
- Kiss, L., MoenchPfanner, R. and Bloem, M.W. (2001). Food based strategies. Can they play a Role in Poverty Alleviation? Food and Nutrition Bulletin.): 63-102.
- Kumar V, Tiwari A (2017). Importance of Tropical Homegardens Agroforestry System. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6(9):1002-1019.
- Landauer, K and Brazil, M. (1990). Tropical homegardens : Selected papers from an international workshop held at the institute of ecology, Padjadjaran University, Banding, Indonesia 2-9 December 1985). United Natons University Press, Tokyo.
- Langenheim J.H., Thiemann K.U. (1982). Plant Biology and its Relations to Human Affairs. University of California Santa Cruz, New York. Pp:12-45
- MathewosA.,Sebsebe D., Zemede A. (2013). Indigenous Knowledge on Management of Home Gardens and Plants in Loma AndGenaBosaDistricts (Weredas) Of Dawuro Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Plant Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Utilization And Environmental Protection. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) 10 (1): 63–99.
- Marsh, R. (1998). Building on Traditional Gardening to improve Household Food Security.Food Nutrition and Agriculture No. 20, Food and Agriculture Organization.
- Martin, G.J. (1995). Ethnobotany: A method Manual. Chapman and Hall, London. 265-270.
- McKinney ML (2002).Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation.BioScience 52(10):883-890.
- Mekonnen EL, Asfaw Z, Zewudie S (2014). Plant species diversity of homegarden agroforestry in Jabithenan District, North-Western Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 6(4):301-307.
- Nair, P.K.R. (1989). Agroforestry system in the Tropics Kulwer, Dordncht, 664P.
- Nair, P.K.R. (1993). An introduction to agroforestery.Kluwer Academic Publisher London.
- Ninez, V. (1987). Household Gardens: Theoretical and Policy Considerations. Agricultural Systems. 23: 167-186.
- Oduol, P.A. and Aluma J.R.W. (1990).The banana (Musa spp.) - Coffee robusta: traditional agroforestry system of Uganda. Agroforestry Systems 11: 213-226.
- On, T.V., Quyen, D., Bich, L.D., Jones, B., Wunder, J., and Russel-Smith, J. (2001).A survey of medicinal plants in Ba Vi National Park, Vietnam: methodology and implications for conservation and sustainable use. Biological Conservation 97: 295-304.
- Padoch, C. and Jong, W. (1991). The house gardens of Santa Rosa: diversity and variability in an Amazonian agricultural system. Economic Botany 45: 166-175.
- Regassa R (2016). Useful plant species diversity in homegardens and its contribution to household food security in Hawassa city, Ethiopia. African Journal of Plant Science 10(10):211-233.
- Rugalema, G.H., Okting'ati A and Johnson FH.(1994). Thehomegarden agroforestry systems of Bukobadistrict, North-Western Tanzania. Agroforestry Systems 26:53-64
- Scartezzini, P. and Speroni, E.( 2000). Review on some plants of Indian traditional medicinewith antioxidant activity. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 71: 23-43.
- Semu AA (2018). The Study of Home garden Agro biodiversity, Practices of homegardening and Its Role for In-situ Conservation of Plant Biodiversity in Eastern Hararghe, Kombolcha Town Oromia Regional State Ethiopia. Open Journal of Forestry 8:229-246.
- Senanayake RL, Sangakkara UR, Pushpakumara DKNG, Stamp P (2009).Vegetation composition and ecological benefits of home gardens in the Meegahakiula region of Sri Lanka. Trop. Agric. Res. 21:1-9.
- Seta T, Sebsebe D, Zemede A (2013).Homegardens of Wolayta, Southern Ethiopia: An ethnobotanical profile. Academic Journal of Medicinal Plants 1(1):014-030.
- Sunwar S, Thornstrom CG, Subdeb A, Bystrom M (2006). Homegardens in western Nepal: opportunities and challenges for onfarm management of agro-biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 15:42114238.
- Swamianthan, M.S. (1996). Sustainable agriculture towards food security.KonarkpublicationPvt Ltd., Dhlhi
- Tho Seeth, Chachnov, S. and Surinov, A. (1998). Russian poverty: Mudding Though Economic Transmission with Garden plots World Development 9 (26): 1611-1623
- Vogl, C.R., Vogl-Lukraser, B. and Caballero, J. (2002).Home gardens of Maya Migrants in the district of Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico: Implications for sustainable rural development. pp. 1-12. In: Stepp J.R., Wyndham, F.S. and Zarger, R.K. (eds), Ethno biology and Bio cultural Diversity, University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
- Woldemichael G, Chimdessa M, Abebe A (2018). Species Diversity and Use of Home gardens in Misha District, Hadiya Zone of SNNPRS,Ethiopia. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 2(7):118-129.
- Yakob G, Asfaw Z, Zewdie S (2014). Homegardens Agroforestry: The Case of Smallholder Farmers in Gimbo District,South West Ethiopia. International Journal of Science and Research 2(10):165-175.
- Yamane,T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1967.
- ZemedeAsfaw and Zerihun Woldu (1997).Crop association of home gardens in Walayta and Gurage in Southern Ethiopia. SINET: Ethiop. J. Sci., 20 (1):73-90.
No competing interests reported.