International Journal of
Biodiversity and Conservation

  • Abbreviation: Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 2141-243X
  • DOI: 10.5897/IJBC
  • Start Year: 2009
  • Published Articles: 613

Full Length Research Paper

Woody fodder species in three agro-ecological Parklands of Arba Minch Zuria Woreda, Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Aynalem Gochera
  • Aynalem Gochera
  • Department of Natural Resource Management, College of Agricultural Sciences, Arbaminch University, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar
Simon Shibru
  • Simon Shibru
  • Department of Biology, College of Natural Science, Arba Minch University, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar
Yisehak Kechero
  • Yisehak Kechero
  • Department of Animal Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, Arbaminch University, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 09 May 2019
  •  Accepted: 28 August 2019
  •  Published: 31 January 2020

 ABSTRACT

This study was conducted in Arba Minch Zuria Woreda of SNNPR, Ethiopia on Parkland
agroforestry practices in three agro-ecological zones. The objective of the study was to investigate the fodder tree and shrub species composition, richness, diversity and structure. Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions were held. In total, ninety 50 m × 20 m plots were laid and standard procedures were followed. Forty nine woody species belonging to 43 genera and 31 families were identified as fodder species. Fabaceae represented by 7 species and Combertaceae and Moraceae (3 species each) were the most diverse families. Mid altitude (H’=2.98) is more diverse followed by High altitude (H’=2.23) and Low altitude agro-ecology (H’=1.94). Species in the low altitude were densely populated and have large basal area followed by mid altitude and high altitude. The top most important species with highest Importance Value Index (IVI) were Ficus sur (51.90), Ficus sycomorus (46.484) and Mangifera indica (60.161) High altitude, middle altitude and lower altitude, respectively. Generally, in the study area, there were diverse fodder trees and shrubs, all likely sources for farmers to feed livestock. So, there should be strong management and conservation practices to ensure future availability, continuous awareness raising efforts, and further study should be conducted for nutritional evaluation.

 

Key words: Fodder, diversity, Parkland, Arbaminch Zuria Woreda, agroforestry practices.


 INTRODUCTION

It has been reported that status of animal protein deficiency in developing world is caused by shortage of forage (Azim et al., 2011; Gaikwad et al., 2017). This constraint mainly limits the realization for exploitation of the full potential of the livestock resources. If animals are not  properly   fed,   they   cannot   express   their  genetic potential for production and reproduction (Adugna et al., 2012).
 
Fodder tree and shrub are increasingly recognized as an important component of animal feeding; especially as available supplies of protein in many parts of world. Different scholars (Chakeredza  et al., 2007; Abebe et al.,
 
2008; Aynalem and Taye, 2008) studied and published reviews about the importance of these fodder trees and shrubs in different areas at different times.
 
Livestock production provides smallholders with a number of benefits, but it also possesses real threats to the environment, which can be mitigated through agroforestry interventions (Dawson et al., 2014). The production of livestock in East Africa has to date mostly focused on these interventions (Cecchi et al., 2010; Dawson et al., 2014; Baudron et al., 2015).
 
The fodder obtained from trees or shrubs, containing high levels of crude protein, mineral matter and digestibility, are acceptable by the livestock, because of their deep root system; they continue to produce well into the dry season (Dicko and Sikena, 1992; Paterson et al., 1998). They are also considered to be an important contributor to grazing livestock nutrition in rainy areas (Lefroy et al., 1992; Devendra, 1997; Abebe et al., 2008). During the prolonged dry and crop fallow season, farmers traditionally use leaves of indigenous fodder tree species to meet nutritional requirement of grazing or browsing livestock (Lefroy et al., 1992; Otsyina et al., 1999; Gaikwad et al., 2017).
 
Traditional agroforestry practices are common in various parts of Ethiopia like coffee shade tree systems, scattered trees on the farmland (Parkland agroforestry), homegarden, woodlots, farm boundary practices, and trees on grazing land (Endale, 2019).
 
The southern region of Ethiopia is endowed with indigenous agroforestry practices that have evolved over years, and which have enabled maintenance of the region’s greenery, with its magnificent ecological and socio-economic benefits (Tesfaye, 2005; Molla, 2016). The region is known for its diverse and immense biodiversity of resources in different natural and agroforestry settings (Tesfaye, 2005; Mengistu and Asfaw, 2016; Aklilu and Melaku, 2016; Molla, 2016).
 
Tree and shrub resources from natural forests are lost due to agricultural expansion and high human and livestock pressure associated with land degradation and feed shortage (Geist and Lambin, 2002; Feddema et al., 2005; FAO, 2010; DeFries et al., 2010, Chakravarty et al., 2012; Kissinger et al., 2012; Hosonuma et al., 2012; Tadesse and Solomon, 2014). This holds true also for fodder tree and shrub species despite high demand of these species for feeding livestock in the community to get increased products.
 
To cope with such problems, agroforestry is considered as the best solution (Nair, 1993; Bhagwat et al., 2008; Alao and Shuaibu, 2013; Atangana et al., 2013; Atangana et al., 2014).
 
Livestock in the Ethiopian rift valley mainly depend on grazing of natural grasses and crop residues (Belete et al., 2012; Yisehak et al., 2014). As a result, there are issues of sustainability of natural forests and other reservoirs. The Gamo Gofa zone, generally, and Arba Minch Zuria Woreda, particularly, is not exceptional. Traditionally, there are fodder trees and shrubs  grown  in and around farm lands that the livestock can utilize as fodder in the agroforestry practices.
 
The land use systems where there is scattered tree and shrubs in a farmer’s crop field are commonly called Parklands; and agroforestry practice is most traditional in these areas. Despite these convenient tree- and shrub-based agricultural systems, there are no previous reports on fodder tree and shrub species in the Arba Minch Zuria Woreda of the Gamo Gofa zone. So the current study investigated the composition, richness, diversity and structure of woody species, which serve as animal feed, in the three main agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia: highland (2300-3200masl), midland (1500-2300masl) and lowland (500-1500masl).


 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of study area
 
Location and topography
 
The study was conducted in three kebeles namely Chano Mile representing lowland, Dega Ocholo representing midland and Zigiti Merche representing highland of Arba Minch zuria woreda of Gamo, Southern Ethiopia (Figure 1). 
 
 
Arba Minch Zuria is one of the woredas in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region of Ethiopia. A part from the Gamo Gofa Zone located in the Great Rift Valley, Arba Minch Zuria is located roughly between 5°70" -6°21" N latitude and 37° 31"- 37° 67" E longitude. The woreda is found at about 500 km south of Addis Ababa, capital city of Ethiopia.
 
Topography of the woreda is characterized by escarpment and narrow valleys. The slope ranges between 20 and 70% which has resulted in massive soil erosion. The altitude of the woreda lies between 1150 and 3300 masl.
 
The drainage patterns follow the general topographic orientation, so that small rivers rising from Gamo highlands drain to Lake Abaya and Lake Chamo. Among these, Hare and Baso drain to Lake Abaya; whereas Kulfo, Sile and Sego Rivers drain to Lake Chamo (AZWANaRDO, 2016/2017).
 
Climate and soil 
 
Out of 29 kebeles in Arba Minch Zuria Woreda, 10 kebeles (33%) are in lowland, 15 kebeles (53%) are in midland and the remaining 4 kebeles (14%) are in highland agro-ecology (AZWANaRDO, 2017).
 
The average annual temperature of the woreda ranges from 16 to 37°C, varying between July and March. Rainfall distribution in the woreda is bimodal with a long rainy season from the beginning of March to the end of May with maximum rainfall around the month of April (228 mm), and a short rainy season from mid-August to mid-October. The minimum rainfall is recorded in January (18 mm) (AZWANaRDO, 2017).
 
As Mateos (2003) stated, the soils under the forest and the state farm are composed of three main types: Fluvisols, Gleysols and Vertisols. Fluvisols consist of soil materials developed in alluvial deposits and flood plains. Accordingly, it is mainly quaternary volcanic alluvial deposits and lacustrine clay.
 
According to AZWANaRDO (2017), the total land area of the woreda is about 168,172 ha from which 60,605 ha are occupied by settlements, roads, and others, 45,916 ha are arable land, 34,137 ha  are  cropland, 15,163 ha  are  forest  land,  8,450  ha  are  water bodies, 3,563 ha are grazing land, and 338 ha are non-arable land.
 
 
Sampling and data collection
 
Site selection and sampling techniques
 
The study was conducted in three selected kebeles of Arba Minch Zuria Woreda, that is, Chano Mille (1,178-1,233 masl), Dega Ocholo (1,600-2,200 masl) and Zigit Merche (2,220-2,682 masl), each from lowland, midland and highland agro-ecology, respectively. The study kebeles were selected purposively based on their suitability and accessibility for the researcher. Reconnaissance was carried out to get firsthand information about the landuse/land cover types of the area so that sampling plots could be established in appropriate way.
 
To ascertain the Parkland agroforestry practice of each kebele, an inventory was conducted using a transect walk. Thus, along each transect line, the available identified fodder tree and shrub species were inventoried in each of the 50 m × 20 m (1000 m2) sample plots. In total ninety, sample plots (that is, 30 from each kebele) were laid. The distance between each of the transects and plots was 500 and 400 m, respectively. But, areas like roads, stone gorges, and natural forests were not considered. The first plot was selected randomly and subsequent plots were systematically selected. In addition to  these,  an  agricultural  development  expert (DA), focus group discussant (FGD), and key informants (KII) were selected. As a result, one agricultural development expert and four key informants were purposively selected from each kebele. The key informants were the model farmers who were knowledgeable about animal production and fodder tree feeding/farming as an agroforestry practice by adapting techniques used by den Biggelaar (1996). The participants of group discussion were selected by the help of experts (DAs). Specifically, they were drawn from elder farmers and village leaders in each kebele.
 
Data collection method
 
Key informants (knowledgeable model cattle breeders), personal experiences and observation were deployed to identify fodder tree/shrub species in the study area. For the identified fodder trees/shrub species, the local name, part edible by the animals and the type of animals that mostly prefer the species were identified and further confirmed by the FGDs as well. Species identification for common species was done in the field using different plant identification keys as references (Azene, 2007). But for others species, identification was done by an expert botanist in the discipline.
 
All identified fodder tree and shrub species in each plot of the Parkland agroforetsry were counted and recorded. For those tree and    shrub   species   with   DBH   ≥   2.5 cm,   DBH    and   height measurements were taken using tree caliper and clinometer, respectively. Where topography made the height measurement difficult, height was estimated using a graded 5-m tree pole. The altitude of each plot and garden was recorded using GPS. Particular events like experience of planting the fodder species, and fodder foliages collected by farmers were also photographed to complement observations on the ground.
 
Data analysis
 
Diversity, richness and structure
 
Fodder tree and shrub species diversity of parkland agroforestry practices was calculated using Shannon diversity index (H’) (Kent and Coker, 1992). Each of the Shannon diversity index was converted to effective number of species (True diversity) for comparison. The Shannon diversity index is calculated as follows:
 


 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Species composition
 
A total of 49 species belonging to 43 genera and 31 families were identified as fodder trees and shrubs from the three agro-ecologies. The species were also distributed among different families in different proportions. Accordingly, Fabaceae was represented by 7 species; both Combretaceae and Moraceae were represented by 3 species; Anacardiaceae, Boraginaceae, Buddlejaceae, Meliaceae, Myrtaceae, Rubiaceae, Verbenaceae, and Oleaceae were represented by 2 species each; and the rest of the families were represented by one species each. The species reported in   this   study   were   in  agreement  with   the   previous literature in other areas. For instance, species such as Acanthus pubescens, Buddleja polystachya, Celtis africana, Combretum molle, Millettia ferruginea, and Terminalia schimperiana were reported as fodder species from Wolaita zone by Takele et al. (2014).  Annona senegalensis, Acacia albida, Kigelia africana and Terminalia brownii were also reported as important browse species in improvement of livestock feeds in western Bahr El Ghazal State of Sudan by Gaiballa and Lee (2012). Cordia africana, Ehretia cymosa and Vernonia amygdalina were reported as multipurpose fodder trees in Ethiopia by Abebe et al. (2008). Leucaena leucocephala, Azadirachta indica and Psidium guajava were reported as fodder species from the scarcity zone of Maharashtra in India (Gaikwad et al., 2017). Grevillea robusta, Persea americana, Mangifera indica and Carica papaya were reported from Kenya as fodder species by Gachuiri et al. (2017). Most of the species identified in this study were also reported as fodder in different parts of Ethiopia by Azene (2007).
 
Richness
 
The species richness of the fodder tree and shrub were 19, 32 and 19 in lowland, midland and highland, respectively. This shows species richness is higher at midland with an irregular pattern at increasing altitudes. This could be because of suitability of the mid agro-ecology for different species. Besides, this can be explained in terms of fewer disturbances in midland.
 
Diversity
 
In terms of fodder tree and shrub species, Parkland agroforestry of midland (H’ = 2.98, 20 species) is more diverse followed by highland (H’ = 2.23, 9 species) and lowland agro-ecology (H’= 1.94, 7 species). This report is in disagreement with the report by Tesfaye (2005) and Shimono et al. (2010), who reported that species diversity and richness decrease with increasing altitude in a regular trend. However, species richness and diversity were higher in midland followed by Highland and Kola. This could be because species in lowland were dominated by uniform fruit plantations (homogenization) and other fodder species (e.g., M. indica and Cordia africana) unlike that of different remnant and natural regenerating species in addition to suitability of agro-ecology of midland and highland.
 
Structure
 
The structure of Fodder tree and shrub species was analyzed (Appendix 1). Accordingly, fodder tree and shrub   species    in   the   Parklands   of    Lowland   (140 individuals ha-1) were densely populated followed by Midland (114.3 individuals ha-1) and Highland (88.7 individuals ha-1). This result is in agreement with Yirefu et al. (2016). The authors reported that woody species density and richness decreases from lowland to highland. This could be due to the fact that to get maximum benefit of desired product (e.g., fruit) farmers might have accommodated a higher number of tree and shrubs species in Lowland.
 
The species such as V. amygdalina (25.0 individuals ha-1, 28.2%), B. polystachya (20.67 individuals ha-1, 23.3%) and Erythrina brucei (13 individuals ha-1, 14.7%) were abundant fodder tree and shrub species in Highland (Zigit Merche). In Midland (Dega Ocholo) species such as C. africana (16 individuals ha-1, 14%), T. brownii (15.3 individuals ha-1, 13.4%), Rhus vulgaris (12.7 individuals ha-1, 11.08%), and Ficus sur (11.3 individuals ha-1, 9.9%) contributed for more of the total density of the fodder trees and shrub species. Whereas, M. indica (individuals ha-1, 36.43%), C. africana (26. individuals ha-1, 19.05%), and Trichilia emetica (11.7 individuals ha-1, 8.33%) were the most abundant species in Lowland (Chano Mile).
 
The basal areas of the species in Parkland of the respective agro-ecology regions varies from 0.320 m2  ha-1 in Highland, 0.893 m2 ha-1 in Midland to 1.005 m2 ha-1 in Lowland, respectively. The fodder tree and shrub species with the highest basal area in Parkland agroforestry practice of Highland were Ficus sur (0.110 m2 ha-1, 34.45%), C. africana (0.09 m2 ha-1, 28.09%), E. brucei (0.031 m2 ha-1, 9.55%) and Dombeya torrida (0.018 m2 ha-1, 5.68%). Ficus sycomorus (0.385 m2 ha-1, 43.06%), Ficus vasta (0.145 m2 ha-1, 16.25%), P. americana (0.077 m2 ha-1, 8.93%) and F. sur (0.053 m2 ha-1, 5.96%) were the species that contribute highest percent of the total basal area of the species in the Parkland agroforestry of Midland. While F. sycomorus (0.502 m2 ha-1, 50%), K. africana (0.161 m2 ha-1, 16%), A. albida (0.093 m2 ha-1, 9.3%) and Moringa stenopetela (0.047 m2 ha-1, 6.68%) were species that accounted for largest share of total basal area of species in Lowland.
 
The most frequent species in Parkland agroforestry of Highland were V. amygdalina (67%), B. polystachya, E. brucei (50%), F. sur (37%), Galiniera saxifraga and Hibiscus calyphyllus (20%).
 
In Midland, frequent species in Parkland agroforestry were F. sur (56.7%), C. africana (50%), R. vulgaris (40%), T. brownii (30%), Acacia tortilis and H. calyphyllus (23%).
 
The species such as M. indica (90%), C. africana (73%) A. indica (53%), T. emetica (47%), and Moringa stenopetala (40%) were most frequent species in Parkland of lowland.
 
The top most important fodder woody species with highest IVI were F. sur (51.90), F. sycomorus (46.484) and M. indica (60.161) in highland, midland and lowland agroecologies, respectively and species with least value of IVI  were L.  leucocephala, Caesalpinia  decapetala  nd A. senegalensis, respectively in Highland, Midland and Lowland. As Whittaker and Niering, (1975) puts forward, the IVI is an important index for summarizing vegetation characteristics and ranking species for management. Accordingly, species with lower IVI value (more sparse or among least dense) need high conservation effort, while those with higher IVI value require less management attention.


 CONCLUSION

The results of the present study showed that, the Parkland agroforestry practices in Arba Minch Zuria Woreda is rich in woody species, which animals prefer for food (so-called fodder tree and shrubs). About 49 fodder tree and shrub species that belong to 43 genera and 31 families were identified from the aforementioned practice. The midland (Woina dega) had higher species richness and diversity than other agro-ecologies. Density, basal area and abundance of individuals of species decreased lowland (Kola) to highland (Dega) agroecology. This could be due to human interferences and management practices, suitability of agro-ecology and nature of the species. The species with highest values of IVI (e.g., F. sur, F. sycomorus and M. indica) require less conservation effort than species with lower value of IVI (e.g., L. leucocephala, C. decapetala and A. senegalensis). Generally, in the study area, there were diverse fodder trees and shrubs that may be promising for farmers to feed to livestock, while obtaining ecological and socioeconomic merits. Thus, further actions and topics for research are recommended as following. The awareness of the farmers on the utilization and management of this potential species should be continuously advocated, open traditional systems particularly open grazing could significantly result in severe land degradation. Farmers should adopt and feed cut carry feeding system of available species from their crop field. The woreda agriculture and livestock sector should integrate agroforestry in their annual extension plan in general and silvopastoral system, in particular. The role of agroforestry systems and practices for livestock farmers should be acknowledged at the national, regional and even at woreda levels. Further research on nutritional value, propagation, management and interaction of fodder species with annual crops and economic analysis of the species is highly recommended for the study area.


 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. 


 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Arbaminch University is highly acknowledged  for  all  the support.

 



 REFERENCES

Abebe M, Oosting SJ, Fernandez-Rivera S, Van der Zijpp AJ (2008). Multipurpose fodder trees in the Ethiopian highlands: Farmers' preference and relationship of indigenous knowledge of feed value with laboratory indicators. Agricultural Systems 96(1-3):184-194.
Crossref

 

Adugna T, Getnet A, Dirba G, Lemma G, Alemayehu M (2012). Feed resources availability and quality. Livestock Feed Resources in Ethiopia: Challenges, Opportunities and the Need for Transformation. Ethiopian Animal Feeds Industry Association, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 1:37-46.

 
 

Aklilu B, Melaku T (2016). Management of traditional agroforestry practices in Gununo watershed in Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. Forest Research 5(163):2.

 
 

Alao JS, Shuaibu RB (2013). Agroforestry practices and concepts in sustainable land use systems in Nigeria. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry 5(10):156-159.

 
 

Arba Minch zuria woreda agriculture and natural resource development office (AZWANaRDO) (2017). Annual report of the woreda. Arbaminch, Gamo Gofa , SNNPR , Ethiopia.

 
 

Atangana A, Secer A (2013). A note on fractional order derivatives and table of fractional derivatives of some special functions. In Abstract and applied analysis (Vol. 2013). Hindawi.
Crossref

 
 

Atangana A, Khasa D, Chang S, Degrande A, (2014). Agroforestry for soil conservation. In Tropical Agroforestry. Springer, Dordrecht pp. 203-216
Crossref

 
 

Aynalem H, Taye T (2008). The feed values of indigenous multipurpose trees for sheep in Ethiopia: The case of Vernonia amygdalina, Buddleja polystachya and Maesa lanceolata. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20(3):1-7.

 
 

Azene B (2007). Useful trees and shrubs of Ethiopia: identification, propagation andManagement for 17 agro climatic zones. Technical Manual Series No. 6, RELMA in ICRAF Project.The World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

 
 

Azim A, Ghazanfar S, Latif A, Nadeem MA (2011). Nutritional evaluation of some top fodder tree leaves and shrubs of district Chakwal, Pakistan in relation to ruminant's requirements. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 10(1):54-59.
Crossref

 
 

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. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 207:109-118.
Crossref

 
 

Belete S, Hassen A, Assafa T, Ebro A (2012). Identification and nutritive value of potential fodder trees and shrubs in the mid Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Pakistan Agricultural Scientist's Forum 22(4):1126-1132.

 
 

Bhagwat SA, Willis KJ, Birks HJB, Whittaker RJ (2008). Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(5):261-265.
Crossref

 
 

Biggelaar C (1996). Farmer experimentation and innovation: A case study of knowledge generation processing agroforestry system in Rwanda. Nancy Hart (Ed) community forestry case study series 12, FAO, Rome 123:143-150.

 
 

Chakeredza S, Hove L, Akinnifesi FK, Franzel S, Ajayi OC, Sileshi G (2007). Managing fodder trees as a solution to human-livestock food conflicts and their contribution to income generation for smallholder farmers in southern Africa. In Natural Resources Forum 31(4):286-296.
Crossref

 
 

Chakravarty S, Ghosh SK, Suresh CP, Dey AN, Shukla G (2012). Deforestation: causes, effects and control strategies. In Global perspectives on sustainable forest management. IntechOpen. 
Crossref

 
 

Dawson IK, Carsan S, Franzel S, Kindt R, van Breugel P, Graudal L, Lillesø J-PB, Orwa C, Jamnadass R (2014). Agroforestry, livestock, fodder production and climate change adaptation and mitigation in East Africa: issues and options. ICRAF Working Paper No. 178.
Crossref

 
 

Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre. 
Crossref

 
 

DeFries RS, Rudel T, Uriarte M, Hansen M (2010). Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience 3(3):178.
Crossref

 
 

Devendra C (1997). Nutritional potential of fodder trees and shrubs as protein sources in ruminant nutrition. Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for livestock 100:95-113.

 
 

Dicko MS, Sikena LK (1992). Fodder trees and shrubs in range and farming systems in dry tropical Africa. Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for livestock. FAO, Rome pp. 27-41.

 
 

Endale B (2019) Review on Agro-forestry System and Its Contribution in Ethiopia, International Journal of Sustainability Management and Information Technologies 5:8-14.
Crossref

 
 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010: full report. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome.

 
 

Gachuiri AN, Carsan S, Karanja E, Makui P, Kuyah S (2017). Diversity and importance of local fodder tree and shrub resources in mixed farming systems of central Kenya. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 26(3):143-155.
Crossref

 
 

Gaikwad US, Pawar AB, Kadlag AD (2017). Nutritional Status of Fodder Tree Leaves and Shrubs of Scarcity Zone of Maharashtra. Advances in Life Sciences 7(1):11-14.

 
 

Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002). Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation Tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. BioScience 52(2):143-150.
Crossref

 
 

Hosonuma N, Herold M, DeSy V, DeFries RS, Brockhaus M, Verchot L, Angelsen A, Romijn E (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters 7(4):044009.
Crossref

 
 

Kent M, Coker P (1992). Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton P 363.

 
 

Kissinger GM, Herold M, DeSy V (2012). Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation: a synthesis report for REDD+policymakers. Lexeme Consulting.

 
 

Lefroy EC, Dann PR, Wildin JH, Wesley-Smith RN, McGowan AA (1992). Trees and shrubs as sources of fodder in Australia. Agroforestry Systems 20(1-2):117-139.
Crossref

 
 

Leul K, Tamrat B, Sileshi N (2010). Vegetation composition in Hugumbirda-Gratkhassu national forest priority area, South Tigray. Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science 2(2):27-48.
Crossref

 
 

Mata DI, Moreno-Casasola P, Madero-Vega C, Castillo-Campos G, Warner BG (2011). Floristic composition and soil characteristics of tropical freshwater forested wetlands of Veracruz on the coastal plain of the Gulf of Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 262(8):1514-1531.
Crossref

 
 

Molla M (2016). Indigenous Agroforestry Practices in Southern Ethiopia: The Case of Lante, Arba Minch. Open Access Library Journal 3(12):1.
Crossref

 
 

Mengistu B, Asfaw Z (2016). Woody species diversity and structure of agroforestry and adjacent land uses in Dallo Mena district, south-east Ethiopia. Natural Resources 7(10):515-534.
Crossref

 
 

Nair PR (1993). An introduction to agroforestry. Springer Science & Business Media.
Crossref

 
 

Newton A (2007). Forest ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press on Demand. 
Crossref

 
 

Otsyina RM, Norton BW, Djimde M (1999). Fodder trees and shrubs in arid and semi-arid livestock production systems. In XVIII international grassland congress 2:429-438.

 
 

Tadesse A, Solomon A (2014). Assessment of Grazing Land and Livestock Feed Balance in Gummara-Rib Watershed, Ethiopia. Current Agriculture Research Journal 2(2):114-122.
Crossref

 
 

Takele G, Nigatu L, Getachew A (2014). Ecological and Socio-Economic Importance of Indigenous Multipurpose Fodder Trees in Three Districts of Wolayta Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species 2:136.

 
 

Tesfaye A (2005). Diversity in Homegarden Agroforestry Systems of Southern Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

 
 

Whittaker RH, Niering WA (1975). Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona. V. Biomass, production, and diversity along the elevation gradient. Ecology 56(4):771-790.
Crossref

 
 

Yirefu T, Wondawek A, Bogale T (2016). Woody plants species diversity of Homegarden agroforestry in three Agro-ecological zones of Dilla Zuria district, Gedeo zone, southern Ethiopia. Fauna Journal 3:98-106.

 
 

Yisehak K, Geert PJJ (2014). The Impacts of Imbalances of Feed Supply and Requirement on Productivity of Free-Ranging Tropical Livestock Units: Links of Multiple Factors. African Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 6(6):187-197.

 

 




          */?>