Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Bio
ecog
eog
raph
ical
and
so
cioec
ono
mic
fac
tors
shap
ing o
n f
arm
gen
etic
res
ou
rces
of
sorg
hu
m
(So
rghum
bic
olo
r (L
.) M
oen
ch)
in t
he
cen
tre
of
div
ersi
ty,
Eth
iop
ia
Fir
ew M
ekbib
Hara
maya
U
niv
ersi
ty,
P.O
. B
ox
138,
Dir
e D
aw
a,
Eth
iopia
. N
orw
egia
n
Ad
dre
ss:
Norw
egia
n U
niv
ersi
ty o
f L
ife
Sci
ence
s, D
epart
men
t of
Pla
nt
and E
nvi
ronm
enta
l Sci
ence
s,
P.
O.
Box
5503,
N-1
432,
Aas,
Norw
ay.
Cu
rren
t corr
esp
on
din
g a
dd
ress
: P
. O
. B
ox 4
85
cod
e 1250, A
dd
is A
bab
a,E
thio
pia
. E
: fi
rew
mek
bib
@ya
hoo.c
om
Ab
stra
ct
Eth
iopia
is
cite
d a
s one
of
the
centr
es o
f so
rghum
div
ersi
ty.
In o
rder
to a
sses
s th
e on f
arm
gen
etic
re
sourc
es
man
agem
ent
of
sorg
hum
var
ious
rese
arch
m
etho
dolo
gie
s w
ere
emplo
yed
. T
hes
e w
ere
focu
s gro
up
inte
rvie
ws
wit
h
360
farm
ers,
key
in
form
ant
inte
rvie
ws
wit
h 6
0 f
arm
ers
and d
evel
opm
ent
agen
ts a
nd s
emi-
stru
cture
d i
nte
rvie
ws
wit
h
250 f
arm
ers.
Bes
ides
, a
div
ersi
ty f
air
was
done
wit
h o
ver
1200 f
arm
ers.
For
quan
tify
ing
on f
arm
div
ersi
ty,
dir
ect
on f
arm
monit
ori
ng a
nd p
arti
cipat
ion w
ith 1
20 f
arm
ers
wer
e
mad
e. Q
uan
tifi
cati
on o
f var
ieta
l div
ersi
ty p
er f
arm
was
counte
d b
y a
par
tici
pat
ory
zig
zag
sam
pli
ng
in
the
dia
gon
al
dir
ecti
on
of
the
plo
t w
ith
the
farm
er
and
all
enco
unte
red
var
ieti
es w
ere
counte
d.
Soil
sam
ple
s w
ere
taken
fro
m 1
20 f
arm
s an
d w
ere
subje
cted
to
anal
yse
s o
f so
il p
H,
P,
avai
lable
nit
rogen
, org
anic
mat
ter,
and
ex
chan
gea
ble
pota
ssiu
m.
Alt
itude
and
oth
er
rela
ted
clim
atic
dat
a w
ere
coll
ecte
d.
The
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es
conse
rved
by f
arm
ers
ranged
fro
m o
ne
to t
wen
ty p
er f
arm
and t
his
is
affe
cted
by s
oci
o-
econom
ic a
nd
bio
ph
ysi
cal
fact
ors
. T
he
mea
n n
um
ber
of
8.3
and
6.3
var
ieti
es w
ere
gro
wn
by O
rom
o a
nd A
mhara
far
mer
s, r
esp
ecti
vel
y.
The
min
imum
and m
axim
um
ran
ge
did
not
var
y
for
both
et
hnic
gro
ups.
T
her
e w
as
no
signif
ican
t dif
fere
nce
in
th
e num
ber
of
var
ieti
es h
eld b
y v
ario
us
wea
lth g
roups.
Wit
h r
espec
t to
far
m s
ize
as e
xpla
ined
by t
he
quad
rati
c m
odel
, it
sig
nif
ican
tly a
ccounte
d a
nd p
redic
ted f
or
the
var
iati
on
in t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es.
The
role
of
soil
pH
, P
, av
aila
ble
nit
rogen
, o
rgan
ic m
atte
r, a
nd e
xch
angea
ble
pota
ssiu
m o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty i
s des
crib
ed.
P w
as a
posi
tive
lim
itin
g f
acto
r fo
r
var
ieta
l div
ersi
ty.
As
to t
he
effe
ct o
f cr
op
eco
log
y, th
ere
wer
e m
ore
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es i
n
the
inte
rmed
iate
alt
itudes
than
in t
he
low
land
and h
ighla
nd.
Both
the
qu
adra
tic
and l
inea
r
equat
ion
expre
ssed
th
at
dis
tance
fr
om
th
e ho
use
an
d
tow
n
show
ed
non-s
ignif
ican
t
rela
tionsh
ip t
o t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es p
lante
d p
er f
arm
. V
arie
tal
mix
ture
is
one
of
the
stra
tegie
s use
d b
y th
e fa
rmer
s fo
r im
pro
ved
on
fa
rm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
anag
emen
t.
Far
mer
s’
under
lyin
g
pri
nci
ple
s fo
r co
nse
rvin
g
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
is
des
crib
ed.
Thre
e
model
s dev
eloped
, nam
ely;
Bio
eco
geo
gra
phic
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
odel
, F
arm
er i
nduce
d
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
odel
and F
arm
er-c
um
-bio
eco
geo
gra
phic
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
odel
are
expla
inin
g t
he
pro
cess
es s
hap
ing o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty o
f so
rghum
in E
thio
pia
.
Key
W
ord
s:
bio
ph
ysi
cal
fact
ors
, ce
ntr
e of
div
ersi
ty,
Eth
iopia
, fa
rmer
var
ieti
es,
ger
mpla
sm, gen
etic
div
ersi
ty,
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
odel
, so
cio-e
conom
ic f
acto
rs, on f
arm
The
Unit
ed
Nat
ions
Conven
tion
on
Bio
logic
al
Div
ersi
ty
(UN
EP
1992)
def
ines
bio
div
ersi
ty
as
‘th
e va
riabil
ity
am
ong
livi
ng
org
anis
ms
from
all
so
urc
es,
incl
udin
g
terr
estr
ial,
m
ari
ne
and
the
ecolo
gic
al
com
ple
xes
of
whic
h
they
are
part
.’
Agro
-
bio
div
ersi
ty e
nco
mp
asse
s th
e var
iety
and v
aria
bil
ity o
f pla
nts
, an
imal
s, m
icro
-org
anis
ms
at g
enet
ic,
spec
ies
and e
cosy
stem
lev
el w
hic
h a
re n
eces
sary
to s
ust
ain k
ey f
unct
ions
in
the
agro
-eco
syst
em,
its
stru
cture
and p
roce
sses
for,
and i
n s
upport
of,
food p
roduct
ion
and fo
od se
curi
ty (F
AO
1999).
F
ood
se
curi
ty an
d bio
div
ersi
ty ar
e th
e m
ost
obvio
us
curr
ent
chal
len
ges
of
the
centu
ry (
Wil
kes
1988).
Agro
-bio
div
ersi
ty h
as s
pat
ial,
tem
pora
l,
and sc
ale
dim
ensi
ons
espec
iall
y at
ag
ro-e
cosy
stem
le
vel
s. T
hes
e ag
ro-e
cosy
stem
s ar
e
det
erm
ined
b
y
thre
e se
ts
of
fact
ors
, nam
ely
the
gen
etic
re
sourc
es,
the
ph
ysi
cal
envir
onm
ent,
and h
um
an m
anag
emen
t pra
ctic
es.
T
he
Eth
iopia
n r
egio
n i
s ch
arac
teri
sed b
y a
wid
e ra
nge
of
agro
-cli
mat
ic c
on
dit
ions,
whic
h a
ccount
for
the
enorm
ous
reso
urc
es o
f ag
ro-b
iodiv
ersi
ty t
hat
ex
ist
in t
he
countr
y
(Wore
de
1992
). T
he
mo
st i
mport
ant
of
thes
e re
sourc
es i
s th
e im
men
se g
enet
ic d
iver
sity
of
the
var
ious
crop p
lants
in t
he
countr
y.
The
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty a
re c
onta
ined
in t
radit
ional
var
ieti
es a
nd m
oder
n c
ult
ivar
s, a
s w
ell
as c
rop w
ild r
elat
ives
and o
ther
wil
d s
pec
ies
E
thio
pia
is
iden
tifi
ed a
s one
of
the
eight
gen
e ce
ntr
es o
f cr
ops
(Vav
ilov
1951).
Man
y c
rops
such
as
Tef
(E
ragro
stis
tef
), N
oog (
Guiz
oti
a a
bys
sinic
a),
Ges
ho (
Rham
us
pri
noid
es),
Ense
t (E
nse
t ve
ntr
icosu
m),
Coff
ee (
Coff
ee a
rabic
a)
and K
hat
(Chata
eduli
s)
are
suppose
d t
o h
ave
ori
gin
ated
in E
thio
pia
(H
arla
n 1
969).
Vav
ilov (
1951
) in
dic
ated
that
about
38 s
pec
ies
are
con
nec
ted w
ith E
thio
pia
as
pri
mar
y o
r se
cond
ary g
ene
centr
e. C
rops
whic
h
dev
eloped
w
ide
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
in
Eth
iopia
in
clude
cere
als
such
as
bar
ley,
sorg
hum
, duru
m
whea
t,
tef,
fi
nger
m
ille
t,
pea
rl
mil
let;
oil
cr
ops
such
as
E
thio
pia
n
must
ard,
noog,
linse
ed,
sesa
me,
sa
fflo
wer
; an
d
puls
es
such
as
fa
ba
bea
n,
fiel
d
pea
,
chic
kpea
, le
nti
l, c
ow
pea
, fe
nu
gre
ek, an
d g
rass
pea
.
D
ogget
t (1
988)
sugges
ted th
at so
rghum
is
dom
esti
cate
d an
d ori
gin
ated
in
th
e
Nort
h-E
ast
quad
rant
of
Afr
ica,
most
lik
ely i
n t
he
Eth
iopia
n-S
udan
bord
er.
The
pre
sence
of
wil
d s
org
hum
s an
d t
hei
r cu
ltiv
ated
form
s an
d t
hei
r ec
oty
pe
dif
fere
nti
atio
n o
f so
rghu
m
into
dif
fere
nt
race
s an
d th
eir
pre
sen
ce in
dif
fere
nt
par
ts o
f th
e co
untr
y su
pport
s th
at
Eth
iopia
on a
rea
of
1,4
68
,070 h
a w
ith a
tota
l p
rod
uct
ion o
f 2,1
73,5
98 M
t (C
SA
2006)
and
worl
dw
ide
on 4
3,7
27,3
53ha
wit
h a
tota
l pro
duct
ion o
f 58,8
84,4
25 M
t (F
AO
2005).
In
vie
w
of
the
enorm
ous
div
ersi
ty,
var
ious
ger
mpla
sm
coll
ecti
ons
hav
e bee
n
mad
e.
Thes
e co
llec
tion
s hav
e bee
n
char
acte
rise
d
and
eval
uat
ed
at
the
Inst
itute
fo
r
Bio
div
ersi
ty C
onse
rvat
ion an
d R
esea
rch (I
BC
R),
E
thio
pia
an
d dif
fere
nt
nat
ional
an
d
inte
rnat
ional
res
earc
h c
entr
es i
n a
nd o
uts
ide
the
countr
y,
whic
h h
as r
esult
ed i
n i
den
tify
ing
des
irab
le a
cces
sions
wit
h u
sefu
l tr
aits
for
dir
ect
use
or
cross
ing p
rogra
mm
es (
Geb
rekid
an
and K
ebed
e 1977).
C
rop o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty i
s a
funct
ion o
f so
cio-c
ult
ura
l, e
conom
ic,
ph
ysi
cal
and b
iolo
gic
al f
acto
rs. T
he
trem
endous
inte
rpla
y o
f th
ese
fact
ors
shap
es a
nd a
ffec
ts e
xte
nt
and p
rev
alen
ce o
f on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty i
n v
ario
us
crops
(Haw
kes
19
83;
Her
nan
dez
1993;
Bru
sh 2
000;
Gas
ton 2
000;
Zim
mer
er 1
991).
D
espit
e th
e fa
ct t
hat
Eth
iopia
is
endow
ed w
ith v
ast
pro
duct
ion a
nd d
iver
sity
of
sorg
hum
en
han
ced
by
farm
ers’
am
azin
g
con
trib
uti
on,
sorg
hum
do
mes
tica
tion
and
dev
elopm
ent,
fa
ctors
af
fect
ing
on
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
has
not
bee
n
studie
d
exhau
stiv
ely i
n t
he
regio
n.
How
to q
uan
tify
on
far
m g
enet
ic d
iver
sity
? W
hat
is
the
lev
el
of
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty? W
hat
are
the
bio
-ph
ysi
cal
fact
ors
aff
ecti
ng t
he
regio
nal
sorg
hum
div
ersi
ty?
What
ar
e th
e so
cio-e
cono
mic
fa
ctors
af
fect
ing
on
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty? W
hat
m
odal
itie
s ca
n be
sugges
ted fo
r th
e pro
cess
an
d fa
ctors
sh
apin
g th
e
pre
val
ent
on
far
m g
enet
ic d
iver
sity
? H
ence
, th
e o
bje
ctiv
es o
f th
is s
tud
y w
ere
to a
sses
s (i
)
the
level
and
quan
tity
of
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty,
(ii)
fac
tors
aff
ecti
ng o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty, an
d (
iii)
to s
ugges
t m
odel
s sh
apin
g o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
Eas
tern
Eth
iopia
(F
ig 1
) has
bee
n s
elec
ted
for
the
foll
ow
ing r
easo
ns:
(i)
sorg
hum
is
the
firs
t fo
od c
rop i
n t
he
regio
n i
n a
rea,
pro
duct
ion a
nd i
mport
ance
, (i
i) t
he
regio
n i
s one
of
the
mic
ro-c
entr
es o
f div
ersi
ty f
or
sorg
hum
and,
hen
ce,
idea
l si
tes
for
stu
dyin
g o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
anag
emen
t, (
iii)
the
pro
du
ctio
n o
f so
rghum
in t
he
div
erse
eco
logie
s
(alt
itude,
rai
nfa
ll,
soil
typ
e, l
andsc
ape
etc.
,) h
elps
to a
sses
s th
e div
ersi
ty m
anag
emen
t
ver
sus
envir
onm
enta
l fa
ctors
, (i
v)
the
div
erse
soci
al,
cult
ura
l an
d e
con
om
ic c
ondit
ions
pre
val
ent
in
the
regio
n
hel
ps
to
tap
th
e In
dig
enous
Tec
hnic
al
Kno
wle
dge
(IT
K)
asso
ciat
ed w
ith t
he
cro
p a
nd,
(v)
ther
e is
a
div
erse
cr
oppin
g s
yst
em,
nam
ely,
mono-
croppin
g,
inte
rcro
ppin
g as
soci
ated
w
ith puls
es an
d oth
er ce
real
s, al
ley-c
roppin
g w
ith
dif
fere
nt
per
ennia
l cr
ops,
whic
h n
eed a
de
fact
o d
iver
sity
to f
it i
nto
the
dif
fere
nt
croppin
g
syst
em.
Fig
.1.
In o
rder
to
as
sess
fa
rmer
s’ m
anag
emen
t of
on
fa
rm gen
etic
div
ersi
ty,
surv
ey
rese
arch
was
und
erta
ken
. T
hes
e w
ere,
fo
cuse
d g
roup i
nte
rvie
ws
wit
h 3
60 f
arm
ers;
on
farm
monit
ori
ng a
nd p
arti
cipat
ion w
ith 1
20 f
arm
ers;
key
info
rman
t in
terv
iew
s w
ith 6
0
farm
ers
and d
evel
opm
ent
agen
ts, an
d s
emi-
stru
ctu
red i
nte
rvie
ws
wit
h 2
50 f
arm
ers.
D
iver
sity
fai
r w
as o
ne
of
the
tools
em
plo
yed
fo
r as
sess
ing a
nd i
nven
tory
ing o
n
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
This
was
done
around p
hysi
olo
gic
al m
aturi
ty o
f th
e cr
op.
An
aver
age
of
50 f
arm
ers
par
tici
pat
ed i
n t
he
24 o
f th
e div
ersi
ty f
airs
i.e
., a
tota
l of
1200
farm
ers.
Both
wom
en a
nd m
en b
rought
all
the
var
ieti
es g
row
n i
n t
hei
r fi
eld
to t
he
fair
and
dis
cuss
ed p
reval
ence
, dis
trib
uti
on a
nd i
mport
ance
of
each
var
iety
.
In
ord
er t
o q
uan
tify
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty,
in a
ll t
he
dir
ectl
y m
onit
ore
d f
arm
s a
par
tici
pat
ory
zig
zag s
ampli
ng i
n t
he
dia
gon
al d
irec
tion o
f th
e plo
t w
as m
ade
wit
h t
he
12
0
dir
ectl
y o
n f
arm
monit
ore
d f
arm
ers.
All
en
counte
red v
arie
ties
wer
e co
unte
d.
For
var
ieti
es
in t
he
fiel
d t
hat
wer
e not
enco
unte
red i
n t
he
cours
e of
monit
ori
ng,
dis
cuss
ion w
as m
ade
wit
h t
he
farm
er.
This
is
nee
ded
bec
ause
of
the
var
iati
on i
n t
he
typ
e of
var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re
gro
wn
over
th
e fi
eld.
Sam
ple
s w
ere
then
ta
ken
fr
om
ea
ch
var
iety
fo
r on
stat
ion
asse
ssm
ent
of
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty f
or
both
quan
tita
tive
and q
ual
itat
ive
trai
ts.
sele
cted
ran
dom
ly w
ith c
rop h
isto
ry o
f hav
ing s
org
hum
mono-c
roppin
g f
or
at l
east
tw
o
yea
rs.
A s
oil
sam
pli
ng a
uger
was
use
d t
o c
oll
ect
surf
ace
soil
sam
ple
s (d
epth
: 0-3
0 c
m-
plo
w l
ayer
) ar
ound c
rop
ph
ysi
olo
gic
al m
aturi
ty.
Sam
ple
s (3
-5)
wer
e ta
ken
fro
m v
ario
us
repre
senta
tive
poin
ts (u
p to
5)
of
the
farm
plo
ts an
d w
ere
com
posi
ted
(b
ulk
ed).
T
he
sam
ple
s w
ere
air-
dri
ed a
nd s
ieved
in 2
mm
and 1
mm
sie
ves
for
soil
tex
ture
usi
ng t
he
pip
ette
met
hod;
Soil
pH
was
mea
sure
d i
n w
ater
at
a ra
tio o
f 1:1
; av
aila
ble
phosp
horu
s (P
)
usi
ng
the
Meh
lich
m
ethod
(1960);
av
aila
ble
nit
rogen
(N
H4+-N
an
d
No
3- N
) usi
ng
Bre
mn
er m
ethod (
1960);
org
anic
mat
ter
usi
ng B
lack
and W
alkey m
eth
od (
1947),
and
exch
angea
ble
pota
ssiu
m (
K)
in f
lam
e photo
met
er a
fter
lea
chin
g w
ith N
H4O
Ac.
C
lim
atic
dat
a of
rain
fall
and t
emper
ature
for
Har
amaya,
Ger
awa
and D
ire
Daw
a
was
obta
ined
fro
m H
aram
aya
Univ
. w
eath
er s
tati
on,
Nat
ional
met
erolo
gy o
rgan
izat
ion
and D
ire
Daw
a o
ffic
e of
the
Bu
reau
of
Agri
cult
ure
res
pec
tivel
y.
Alt
itude
of
the
site
s
wer
e m
easu
red w
ith G
PS
and a
ltim
eter
.
Coll
ecte
d d
ata
wer
e su
bje
cted
to d
escr
ipti
ve
stat
isti
cs,
anal
ysi
s of
var
iance
, lo
g-
linea
r re
gre
ssio
n,
clust
er,
and d
iscr
imin
ant
anal
ysi
s usi
ng S
TA
TS
TIC
A,
SP
SS
ver
sion 1
0
and M
INIT
AB
Ver
. 14 s
tati
stic
al s
oft
war
es.
Res
ult
s a
nd
dis
cuss
ion
On f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
Gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
is
usu
ally
th
ou
ght
of
as
the
amount
of
gen
etic
v
aria
bil
ity
amon
g
indiv
idual
s of
a var
iety
or
popula
tions
of
spec
ies
(Bro
wn,
1983).
Th
e gen
etic
div
ersi
ty o
n
farm
in e
aste
rn E
thio
pia
is
hig
hly
dic
tate
d b
y s
oci
al,
cult
ura
l, e
conom
ic,
bio
logic
al a
nd
envir
onm
enta
l fa
ctors
. T
hes
e fa
ctors
var
ied c
onsi
der
ably
acr
oss
the
stud
y s
ites
, w
hic
h
infl
uen
ced t
he
typ
e of
de
fact
o p
reval
ent
div
ersi
ty i
n e
ach s
ites
. A
s R
ao a
nd H
odgkin
(2002)
indic
ated
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty c
an b
e se
en a
s a
def
ence
agai
nst
pro
ble
ms
cause
d b
y
gen
etic
vuln
erab
ilit
y.
Far
mer
s hav
e buil
t th
is d
efen
ce i
nto
Far
mer
Var
ieti
es (
FV
s) o
ver
yea
rs
and
hen
ce
it
is
esse
nti
al
to
har
nes
s th
ese
def
ence
m
ech
anis
ms
into
Im
pro
ved
Var
ieti
es (
IVs)
. G
enet
ic d
iver
sity
is
the
farm
ers’
bas
is f
or
surv
ival
and
adap
tati
on.
It
cate
rs f
or
com
ple
x, div
erse
, an
d r
isk p
rone
envir
onm
ents
in t
he
regio
n.
T
he
level
and t
ype
of
div
ersi
ty,
as m
easu
red i
n t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es p
er f
arm
,
var
ied f
rom
on
e F
arm
ers’
Ass
oci
atio
n (
FA
) in
to a
noth
er w
ithin
one
wer
eda
and
am
on
g
the
wer
edas
(T
able
1).
This
is
bec
ause
of
the
var
iati
on i
n t
he
afore
men
tioned
fac
tors
.
Ther
e w
as s
ignif
ican
t v
aria
tion f
or
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty a
cross
FA
. T
he
mea
n r
ange
of
div
ersi
ty i
s fr
om
1 t
o 2
0.
The
hig
hes
t m
ean n
um
ber
per
wer
eda
level
was
obse
rved
fo
r
Ale
maya
(11.3
5)
and t
he
low
est
was
for
Hir
na
hig
hla
nd (
5.6
5).
Tab
le 1
H
ow
ever
, as
to t
he
div
ersi
ty a
t co
mm
unit
y,
FA
lev
el,
it i
s m
uch
lar
ger
than
the
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es o
wn
ed b
y i
ndiv
idual
far
mer
s in
the
com
munit
y.
This
may
su
gges
t
that
ther
e is
a v
aria
tion i
n t
he
type
of
var
ieti
es g
row
n b
y e
ach f
arm
er.
Ev
en t
he
max
imum
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es o
wn
ed b
y t
he
farm
ers
fall
s sh
ort
of
the
vil
lage
tota
l. I
n t
his
stu
dy t
en
farm
ers
per
vil
lage
wer
e se
lect
ed i
n o
rder
to q
uan
tify
vil
lage
lev
el d
iver
sity
.
F
arm
ers
do r
ank t
hei
r var
ieti
es d
iffe
rentl
y f
or
level
of
div
ersi
ty,
mult
iple
val
ue,
stab
ilit
y a
nd a
rea
cov
erag
e (T
able
2).
The
var
ieti
es i
den
tifi
ed b
y r
ankin
g v
arie
d b
oth
by
wer
eda a
nd e
colo
gy.
In D
ire
Daw
a (B
ishan
Bih
e, F
A),
Bab
ile
(Kit
to F
A),
Ale
may
a, a
nd
Gir
awa
the
var
ieti
es r
ated
for
div
ersi
ty,
mult
iple
val
ue,
sta
bil
ity a
nd a
rea
cover
age
wee
The
rankin
g p
oin
ts a
t tw
o i
ssues
: fi
rst,
the
nee
d t
o f
ocu
s at
spec
ific
(lo
cal)
adap
tati
on
bre
edin
g a
nd t
o m
ake
a sp
ecif
ic r
ecom
men
dat
ion
and,
seco
nd,
the
smal
lest
envir
onm
ent
and s
oci
o-e
conom
ic u
nit
for
gen
etic
res
ourc
es c
oll
ecti
on a
nd d
iver
sity
anal
ysi
s sh
ould
be
the
Far
mer
s A
ssoci
atio
n.
. T
ab
le 2
.
Farm
ers’
rati
ng o
f on f
arm
vari
abil
ity
Far
mer
s co
nsi
der
so
rgh
um
not
just
as
so
rghu
m
per
se
but
more
th
an
that
, as
‘a
monum
ent’
or
‘a m
ounta
in’
wit
h a
lot
of
asso
ciat
ed m
emori
es a
nd a
nec
dote
s (M
ekbib
2007a)
.
F
arm
ers
hav
e ra
ted t
he
pre
val
ent
on f
arm
div
ersi
ty a
s hig
h (
6%
), m
ediu
m (
38.8
%)
and l
ow
(55.2
%).
Bas
ed o
n t
he
resu
lts
of
sem
i-st
ruct
ure
d i
nte
rvie
ws,
far
mer
s w
ere
in
nee
d o
f m
ore
div
ersi
ty.
Pro
bab
ly,
this
em
anat
ed f
rom
an u
nd
er-e
stim
atio
n o
f on
far
m
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty i
n t
he
FA
, w
ered
a or
at r
egio
nal
lev
el.
As
it c
an b
e se
en i
n T
able
1,
the
ran
ge
of
var
ieti
es g
row
n b
y i
ndiv
idual
far
mer
s in
one
farm
ers
asso
ciat
ion v
arie
d v
ery
much
as
com
par
ed t
o t
he
mea
n n
um
ber
gro
wn i
n e
ach F
A.
Hen
ce,
two
sce
nar
ios
are
evid
ent
her
e: t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es g
row
n b
y a
n i
ndiv
idual
far
mer
can
be
gre
ater
than
the
mea
n num
ber
av
aila
ble
in
th
e co
mm
unit
y or
the
tota
l hold
ing of
the
num
ber
o
f
var
ieti
es p
rese
nt
in t
he
com
munit
y w
ill
be
norm
ally
gre
ater
than
an
y o
f th
e in
div
idual
hold
ings.
Bas
ed o
n t
he
typ
e of
var
ieti
es,
ver
y c
om
monly
the
type
of
var
ieti
es i
s m
ore
in
the
com
munit
y t
han
in t
he
indiv
idual
s. I
n b
oth
cas
es,
ther
e is
fre
ely a
vai
lab
le d
iver
sity
fo
r
the
farm
ers
to u
se.
This
infr
a-sp
ecif
ic o
n f
arm
sorg
hum
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty r
esult
s fr
om
the
inte
rpla
y b
etw
een d
eman
d a
nd s
upply
for
the
div
ersi
ty a
t th
e in
div
idual
and c
om
munit
y
level
.T
his
dem
and ar
ises
fr
om
fa
rmer
s’ div
erse
in
tere
sts
and co
nce
rns
that
in
clude:
var
ious
gro
win
g e
nvir
on
men
ts,
copin
g w
ith p
rod
uct
ion r
isks,
mult
iple
nee
ds,
bio
tic
and
abio
tic
stre
ss (
Mek
bib
20
06).
B
ased
on t
he
qual
itat
ive
asse
ssm
ent,
far
mer
s in
dic
ated
that
they
hav
e ‘e
nough
’
var
ieti
es o
n f
arm
. H
ow
ever
, if
th
ey g
et a
dif
fere
nt
var
iety
they w
ould
lik
e to
hav
e it
as
a
com
ponen
t to
the
exis
ting v
arie
tal
port
foli
o.
They d
o m
ainta
in t
hei
r var
ieti
es i
nte
nti
onal
ly
2007b).
The
choic
e of
var
ieti
es c
an b
e se
en a
s a
pro
cess
by w
hic
h f
arm
ers
asse
mble
var
ious
bundle
s of
trai
ts t
o s
uit
spec
ific
pro
duct
ion c
ondit
ions,
consu
mpti
on p
refe
ren
ces,
or
mar
ket
ing r
equir
emen
ts.
Eff
ect
of
wea
lth a
nd e
thnic
gro
up o
n o
n-f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
The
two d
om
inan
t et
hnic
gro
ups
enco
unte
red i
n t
he
cours
e o
f on f
arm
monit
ori
ng w
ere
Oro
mo a
nd A
mhara
far
mer
s, o
f w
hic
h O
rom
o c
om
pri
ses
85.8
% a
nd A
mhara
com
pri
ses
less
than
14.2
%.
Ther
e w
as a
sig
nif
ican
t dif
fere
nce
(p>
0.0
5)
in t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es
hel
d b
y t
he
two e
thnic
gro
ups.
The
mea
n n
um
ber
of
8.3
and 6
.3 v
arie
ties
wer
e gro
wn b
y
Oro
mo a
nd
Am
hara
far
mer
s re
spec
tivel
y.
It i
s a
com
mon s
cenar
io t
hat
ind
igen
ous
peo
ple
conse
rve
more
var
ieti
es t
han
im
mig
rate
d o
nes
. T
he
min
imum
and m
axim
um
ran
ge
did
not
var
y f
or
both
eth
nic
gro
ups.
Even
, th
ere
was
no s
ignif
ican
t dif
fere
nce
in t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es h
eld b
y v
ario
us
wea
lth g
roups.
This
is
not
in a
gre
emen
t w
ith w
hat
Bel
lon
(1996)
has
sugges
ted.
Th
e la
rges
t div
ersi
ty i
s not
eith
er w
ith r
ich f
arm
ers.
How
ever
, th
ere
wer
e dif
fere
nce
s in
typ
es o
f v
arie
ties
am
ong f
arm
ers
dep
endin
g o
n s
pec
ific
so
rghum
gro
win
g c
ondit
ions.
The
mea
n n
um
ber
was
8.4
5,
7.9
4 a
nd 7
.80 f
or
rich
, av
erag
e an
d p
oor
farm
ers
resp
ecti
vel
y.
Even
th
ough th
ere
was
a
signif
ican
t v
aria
tion in
th
e la
nd si
ze
hold
ings
amon
g r
ich (
11.4
2 t
imm
ad),
aver
age
(6.2
1 t
imm
ad)
and p
oor
(3.8
7 t
imm
ad),
this
was
not
refl
ecte
d i
n t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es g
row
n.
1 h
a am
ounts
to 8
tim
mad
. T
his
findin
g i
s in
dis
agre
emen
t w
ith H
ernan
dez
(1993
) fi
ndin
gs
in m
aize
in M
exic
o w
her
e an
inver
se
rela
tionsh
ip
exis
ted
bet
wee
n
gen
etic
v
aria
tion
of
crops
and
the
econom
ic
reso
urc
es
of
farm
ers.
H
ence
, ru
ral
peo
ple
w
ith
lim
ited
fi
nan
cial
re
sourc
es
typic
ally
mai
nta
in a
gre
ater
div
ersi
ty o
f cr
ops
and v
arie
ties
than
more
mar
ket
-ori
ente
d o
per
ators
,
as i
n t
he
case
of
bea
n g
row
ers
in M
exic
o.
Eco
-geo
gra
phic
al
(bio
-phys
ical
and a
gro
-cli
mati
c) f
act
ors
aff
ecti
ng d
iver
sity
Ther
e ar
e m
any b
iolo
gic
al,
clim
atic
and p
hysi
cal
fact
ors
that
aff
ecte
d o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty i
n e
aste
rn E
thio
pia
. T
hes
e w
ere
farm
siz
e, y
ield
, al
titu
de,
rai
nfa
ll,
tem
per
ature
the
indiv
idual
and
inte
ract
ion e
ffec
ts o
f th
ese
fact
ors
. T
he
mea
n,
min
imum
, m
axim
um
and r
ange
val
ues
of
the
var
ious
eco-g
eogra
phic
al a
nd s
oci
o-e
conom
ic f
acto
rs a
re s
how
n
in T
able
3. D
etai
ls o
f th
e ro
le o
f ea
ch f
acto
r ar
e dis
cuss
ed u
nder
eac
h s
ub-h
eadin
g.
Tab
le 3
.
1. E
ffec
t of
farm
siz
e (p
lot)
on d
iver
sity
As
the
var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re i
s a
trad
itio
n o
f th
e so
rghum
far
min
g s
yst
em i
n E
thio
pia
, th
e
num
ber
of
nam
ed v
arie
ties
gro
wn i
s use
d t
o q
uan
tify
on f
arm
div
ersi
ty.
Sim
pso
n v
ari
etal
div
ersi
ty
could
not
be
mad
e bec
ause
it
w
as
ver
y
dif
ficu
lt
to
pro
po
rtio
nat
e th
e ar
ea
allo
cate
d t
o t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es g
row
n o
n f
arm
T
he
ran
ge
of
farm
siz
e sa
mple
d r
anged
fro
m 2
tim
mad (
0.2
5 h
a) t
o 2
4 t
imm
ad (
3
ha)
(T
able
3).
It
var
ied f
rom
the
low
land t
o t
he
hig
hla
nd.
The
size
was
ver
y l
arge
in t
he
low
land b
ut
it b
ecam
e le
ss i
n s
ize
in t
he
hig
hla
nds
bec
ause
of
hig
her
popu
lati
on d
ensi
ty
in th
e la
tter
. F
arm
si
ze-d
iver
sity
re
lati
on cu
rve
(Fig
2
) in
dic
ates
th
at th
e num
ber
o
f
var
ieti
es i
ncr
ease
d t
o a
cer
tain
lev
el t
hen
it
curv
ed d
ow
n.
How
ever
, th
ere
was
a v
aria
tion
in
the
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es
gro
wn
by
indiv
idual
fa
rmer
s.
Com
monly
th
ere
is
hig
her
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es i
n t
he
com
munit
y i
n t
he
FA
than
in t
he
han
ds
of
indiv
idual
far
mer
s.
Few
ex
cepti
onal
far
mer
s re
tain
ed m
ost
of
the
var
ieti
es g
row
n i
n t
he
com
munit
y.
Fig
. 2
.
T
he
quad
rati
c m
odel
ex
pla
ined
the
rela
tionsh
ip b
etw
een p
lot
size
and n
um
ber
of
var
ieti
es p
rop
erly
. T
he
plo
t si
ze s
ignif
ican
tly a
cco
unte
d a
nd p
redic
ted
for
the
var
iati
on i
n
the
num
ber
o
f var
ieti
es.
How
ever
, th
e li
nea
r m
odel
did
not
expla
in th
e re
lati
onsh
ip
signif
ican
tly.
H
awkes
(1983)
indic
ated
that
a s
mal
ler
area
in t
radit
ional
cro
ps
redu
ces
div
ersi
ty.
How
ever
, as
long a
s so
me
area
s co
nti
nue
to b
e pla
nte
d i
n F
Vs,
the
rela
tionsh
ip b
etw
een
area
and
div
ersi
ty i
s co
mpli
cate
d b
y t
he
popula
tion s
truct
ure
of
FV
s an
d b
y t
he
role
of
consc
ious
(art
ific
ial)
sel
ecti
on n
ot
by p
lot
size
per
se.
On t
he
oth
er h
and,
Tes
hom
e et
al.
(1999)
show
ed t
hat
the
div
ersi
ty o
f th
e sm
alle
st f
ield
appro
ach
ed t
hat
of
the
larg
est
ones
.
The
sam
e pat
tern
was
als
o o
bse
rved
in e
aste
rn E
thio
pia
. T
he
over
all
size
of
a fa
rm i
s not
div
ersi
ty
(Tab
le
5),
w
hic
h
agre
ed
wit
h
the
findin
gs
of
Bru
sh
(1992).
T
his
viv
idly
indic
ated
that
are
a-div
ersi
ty r
elat
ionsh
ip i
n c
rops
is c
om
pli
cate
d b
y c
onsc
ious
sele
ctio
n
and m
anag
emen
t of
crop
popula
tions.
Hen
ce m
any m
ore
fac
tors
bes
ides
var
iety
num
ber
are
nee
ded
to e
xpla
in t
he
pat
tern
of
rela
tionsh
ip.
2. Soil
phys
ico-c
hem
ical
pro
per
ty a
nd d
iver
sity
rel
ati
onsh
ip
The
on f
arm
sorg
hum
div
ersi
ty,
both
in n
um
ber
and t
yp
e, a
ffec
ts n
utr
ient
cycl
ing a
nd
uti
liza
tion.
The
pre
sence
of
man
y v
arie
ties
in a
par
ticu
lar
fiel
d i
s as
soci
ated
wit
h e
ffic
ient
uti
liza
tion
of
reso
urc
es.
This
is
bec
ause
o
f th
e var
iati
on
in
gro
wth
, phen
olo
gy
and
dev
elopm
ent
of
the
mix
ed v
arie
ties
. H
ence
, w
ith i
ncr
ease
d n
um
ber
of
var
ieti
es t
her
e m
ust
be
tota
lly l
ess
nutr
ient
avai
lable
thou
gh i
t m
ight
var
y f
rom
spot
to s
pot
bec
ause
of
the
var
iati
on o
f var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re c
om
ponen
ts i
n t
he
fiel
ds.
Sim
ilar
ly l
each
ing o
f nutr
ients
wil
l
be
ver
y le
ss as
w
e in
crea
se th
e num
ber
of
mix
ed var
ieti
es.
Far
mer
s hav
e note
d th
e
var
iati
on a
mon
g v
arie
ties
for
nutr
ient
upta
ke,
for
exam
ple
, F
endis
ha h
as b
een r
ated
by
the
farm
ers
as ‘
the
hea
vy n
utr
ient
min
er’
com
par
ed t
o t
he
oth
er v
arie
ties
. In
gen
eral
, in
east
ern
Eth
iopia
, th
e div
ersi
ty o
f so
rghum
gro
ws
on t
he
ran
ge
of
soil
types
hav
ing v
ario
us
level
s of
pH
, O
rgan
ic M
atte
r, S
ilt,
Cla
y,
San
d,
N,
P a
nd K
. T
her
e is
a v
aria
tion f
or
silt
,
sand, N
H4
+N
, K
and O
M (
Tab
le 4
).
Tab
le 4
.
pH
Man
y so
il p
roper
ties
an
d pro
cess
es ar
e af
fect
ed b
y so
il pH
, bec
ause
o
f th
is Ja
ckso
n
(1956)
indic
ated
that
soil
pH
is
the
most
im
port
ant
soil
chem
ical
pro
per
ty.
Most
pla
nts
gro
w b
est
in s
oil
s w
ith a
sli
ghtl
y a
cidic
rea
ctio
n (
6.0
-7.0
). T
he
pH
ran
ge
in t
he
stud
y a
rea
amounte
d fr
om
6.0
to
7.9
(T
able
3).
In
th
is pH
ra
nge,
nea
rly al
l pla
nt
nutr
ients
ar
e
avai
lable
in o
pti
mal
am
ounts
for
pla
nt
gro
wth
.
Sorg
hum
tole
rate
s a
pH
ran
ge
of
5.5
to 8
.5 a
nd a
lso s
om
e deg
ree
of
sali
nit
y,
alkal
init
y
and p
oor
dra
inag
e (D
ogget
t1988).
In e
aste
rn E
thio
pia
it
gro
ws
on h
eav
y,
dee
p-c
rack
ing
dif
fere
nce
am
on
g
the
dif
fere
nt
ecolo
gic
al
gro
ups
for
pH
ra
nge
wher
e th
e hig
hla
nd,
inte
rmed
iate
, an
d l
ow
lan
d h
as a
pH
of
6.8
5,
7.1
4 a
nd 6
.89 r
espec
tivel
y (
Tab
le 4
). I
n t
his
stud
y,
the
low
est
pH
val
ue
obta
ined
is
6.
The
inte
rmed
iate
bei
ng m
ore
alk
alin
e th
an t
he
oth
er tw
o ec
olo
gie
s. N
ever
thel
ess,
th
e m
ean ra
nge
is w
ithin
th
at of
the
sorg
hum
pH
requir
emen
t. T
he
pH
is
posi
tivel
y c
orr
elat
ed w
ith P
(0.2
55),
N (
NH
4-N
) (-
0.2
73*)
and
N0
3 –
N(-
0.3
17*)
but
not
wit
h d
iver
sity
(T
able
5).
Ava
ilable
Nit
rogen
Avai
lable
nit
rogen
mea
sure
d i
n a
mm
oniu
m a
nd n
itra
te f
orm
ran
ged
fro
m 4
to 2
9 a
nd 8
to
90 p
pm
res
pec
tivel
y (
Tab
le 3
). T
his
wid
e ra
nge
of
val
ues
is
due
to t
he
var
iati
on i
n t
he
amount
of
org
anic
mat
ter,
whic
h u
pon m
iner
aliz
atio
n g
ive
to N
itro
gen
and v
aria
tion i
n
fert
ilit
y m
anag
emen
t an
d c
roppin
g s
yst
ems.
The
avai
lable
nit
rogen
in t
he
amm
oniu
m
form
, but
not
in t
he
nit
rate
form
, is
sig
nif
ican
tly d
iffe
rent
in t
he
var
ious
ecolo
gie
s (T
able
4)
wher
e w
e hav
e th
e hig
hes
t in
the
hig
hla
nds
foll
ow
ed b
y i
nte
rmed
iate
and t
hen
in t
he
low
lands.
This
corr
espo
nds
to t
he
amount
of
bio
mas
s pro
duct
ion i
n t
he
sam
e.
Nit
rogen
was
neg
ativ
ely c
orr
elat
ed w
ith p
H.
N i
ncr
ease
s w
ith o
rgan
ic m
atte
r co
nte
nt
and h
ence
org
anic
m
atte
r is
co
rrel
ated
w
ith
N
(NH
4)
(0.4
09*)
and
N0
3
(0.3
97*)
but
not
wit
h
div
ersi
ty (
Tab
le 5
).
Pota
ssiu
m (
exch
an
gea
ble
)
The
val
ues
obta
ined
her
e ra
nges
fr
om
0.1
04
to
2.5
9
(meq
/100
gm
so
il)
(Tab
le
3).
How
ever
, lo
w K
does
no
t m
ean t
hat
the
low
am
ount
of
K b
ut
it c
an b
e as
soci
ated
wit
h C
a
and M
g. T
her
e w
as s
ignif
ican
tly h
igh
er v
aria
tion f
or
K i
n t
he
hig
hla
nd a
s co
mpar
ed t
o t
he
inte
rmed
iate
and t
he
low
land (
Tab
le 4
). H
ence
, m
ore
K f
erti
liza
tion i
s re
quir
ed i
n t
he
sam
e. P
ota
ssiu
m is
neg
ativ
ely co
rrel
ated
(-
0.3
84*)
wit
h num
ber
of
var
ieti
es but
it is
posi
tivel
y c
orr
elat
ed w
ith
alt
itude
(0.2
56*)
and N
itro
gen
(N
H4)
(0.3
68*
) (T
able
5).
The
P c
onte
nt
var
ies
fro
m s
oil
to s
oil
and r
egio
n t
o r
egio
n. O
n a
ver
age,
th
e to
tal
P c
onte
nt
in s
urf
ace
soil
s ra
nges
fro
m 5
0 t
o 8
0 m
g p
/100g (
Ste
ven
son 1
986).
A P
hosp
horu
s co
nte
nt
of
50m
g/1
00
g i
s eq
uiv
alen
t to
1120 k
g p
/ha.
In t
he
sam
ple
d s
ites
, th
e av
aila
ble
P r
anged
from
nil
to 7
8 p
pm
(T
able
3).
This
sho
wed
th
e w
ide
ran
ge
of
avai
lable
P.
Ther
e is
a
var
iati
on i
n t
he
P a
vai
labil
ity i
n t
he
low
lands,
inte
rmed
iate
and h
ighla
nds.
P i
s m
ore
avai
lable
both
in t
he
inte
rmed
iate
than
in t
he
hig
hla
nds
and l
ow
land o
nes
(T
able
4).
The
most
appro
pri
ate
level
dep
ends
on t
he
typ
e of
var
ieti
es a
nd s
oil
s. T
he
low
lev
el o
f P
requir
es a
ppli
cati
on o
f P
bas
ed f
erti
lize
rs s
uch
as
DA
P.
Hen
ce,
more
P f
erti
liza
tion i
s
nee
ded
in
both
hig
hla
nds
and
low
lands.
P
is
posi
tivel
y
corr
elat
ed
wit
h
num
ber
o
f
var
ieti
es (
0.2
40*),
dis
tan
ce f
rom
tow
n (
0.3
88),
sil
t (0
.184*)
and p
H (
0.2
55*
) (T
able
5).
Org
an
ic m
att
er
In g
ener
al,
the
dec
om
po
sed f
ract
ion o
f so
il o
rgan
ic m
atte
r or
the
hum
us
in t
he
regio
n
ran
ged
fr
om
0.5
7%
to
10.0
5%
(T
able
3)
and
the
mea
n
org
anic
m
atte
r co
nte
nt
for
hig
hla
nds,
inte
rmed
iate
and l
ow
lands
is 4
.45%
, 4.5
6%
and 2
.16%
res
pec
tivel
y (
Tab
le 4
).
The
low
org
anic
mat
ter
in t
he
low
lands
is d
ue
to h
igh m
iner
alis
atio
n r
ates
as
a re
sult
of
hig
h t
emper
ature
. H
ence
, m
ore
appli
cati
on o
f in
org
anic
and
org
anic
fer
tili
zers
to e
nri
ch
the
org
anic
mat
ter
conte
nt
of
sorg
hum
gro
win
g s
oil
s is
im
per
ativ
e in
par
ticu
lar
in t
he
low
lands.
Org
anic
mat
ter
is p
osi
tivel
y c
orr
elat
ed w
ith a
ltit
ude
(0.3
97*),
sil
t (0
.257*),
NH
4 (
0.4
09*),
K (
0.2
12*
), N
03 (
0.3
97)
and n
egat
ivel
y c
orr
elat
ed w
ith f
arm
dis
tance
fro
m
the
tow
n (
-0.3
35*)
(Tab
le 5
).
Soil
tex
ture
San
d,
silt
and c
lay r
anged
fro
m 1
% t
o 7
4%
, 14%
to 5
2%
and 1
1%
to 6
8%
res
pec
tivel
y
(Tab
le 3
). S
and a
nd s
ilt
but
not
clay
fra
ctio
n o
f so
rghum
gro
win
g s
oil
s is
sig
nif
ican
tly
dif
fere
nt
in t
he
thre
e ec
olo
gie
s (T
able
4).
The
sand f
ract
ion i
s m
ore
in t
he
low
lands
and
silt
pro
port
ion i
s hig
h i
n t
he
inte
rmed
iate
alt
itudes
. H
ence
, th
e so
il t
extu
re i
s m
ore
coar
se
in t
he
low
lands
and h
eav
y i
n t
he
inte
rmed
iate
and
hig
h a
ltit
ude
area
s. C
lay i
s neg
ativ
ely
corr
elat
ed w
ith s
ilt
(-0.4
57*).
Sil
t is
corr
elat
ed w
ith a
ltit
ude
(0.1
93*).
San
d i
s co
rrel
ated
wit
h p
lot
size
(0.2
43*),
alt
itude
(-0.3
79*),
cla
y (
-0.6
08*)
and s
ilt
(-0.3
37*)
(Tab
le 5
).
Eff
ect
of
alt
itude
on d
iver
sity
Alt
itude
is a
pro
xy v
aria
ble
for
croppin
g s
yst
ems,
rai
nfa
ll,
and t
emper
ature
, th
us
it a
ffec
ts
crop gro
wth
an
d dev
elo
pm
ent.
A
ltit
ude
has
an
im
pac
t on div
ersi
ty in
E
thio
pia
. T
he
alti
tude
of
the
sam
ple
d s
ites
ran
ged
fro
m 1
190 t
o 2
530 m
asl
(T
able
3).
The
low
est
div
ersi
ty o
ccurr
ed i
n t
he
hig
hla
nd a
nd l
ow
land;
wher
e th
e hig
hes
t w
as i
n t
he
inte
rmed
iate
(Fig
3).
Fig
. 3.
U
nli
ke
the
glo
bal
tre
nd,
wher
e so
rghum
is
gro
wn
in t
he
dry
low
lands,
in e
aste
rn
Eth
iopia
it
is a
lso p
artl
y g
row
n u
pto
3000
m a
sl w
hic
h i
s th
e hig
hes
t al
titu
de
sorg
hum
is
gro
win
g in
th
e w
orl
d an
d is
re
port
ed fo
r th
e fi
rst
tim
e. T
he
hig
h al
titu
de
chai
ns
of
mounta
ins
in e
aste
rn E
thio
pia
are
wh
ere
cold
-tole
rant
sorg
hum
s ar
e ex
tensi
vel
y g
row
n.
In
vie
w o
f th
is s
org
hum
div
ersi
ty d
id n
ot
dec
line
expec
ting t
hat
sorg
hum
is
a C
4 p
lant
and
gro
ws
less
in l
ow
tem
per
ature
are
as.
This
is
not
a su
rpri
sing s
cen
ario
to b
e en
counte
red i
n
the
centr
e o
f div
ersi
ty.
S
org
hum
var
ieti
es s
uch
as
Mer
tura
sse,
Geb
abe,
Chef
fere
, F
endis
ha,
Shef
fere
an
d
Chiq
uer
e ar
e dom
inan
t var
ieti
es g
row
n i
n t
his
cold
chai
n o
f m
ounta
ins
(Mek
bib
2006a)
.
The
reas
on w
hy s
org
hum
div
ersi
ty i
s lo
wer
in t
he
low
lands
is b
ecau
se t
he
gen
etic
bas
e o
f
low
land s
org
hum
is
nar
row
in E
thio
pia
(G
ebre
kid
an,
1981).
It
is a
ssum
ed i
n t
his
stu
dy
that
so
rghum
m
oved
fr
om
th
e in
term
edia
te
to
both
hig
hla
nd
and
low
lands
thro
ugh
ecoty
pe
dif
fere
nti
atio
n (
Mek
bib
2007b).
Ther
e is
a h
igher
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es i
n t
he
inte
rmed
iate
al
titu
des
as
co
mpar
ed
to
the
oth
ers.
T
his
m
ight
be
attr
ibute
d
to
the
avai
labil
ity o
f en
erg
y a
nd w
ater
at
the
sam
e ti
me
in w
hic
h c
ase
ener
gy i
s li
mit
ed i
n t
he
hig
hla
nds
and
w
ater
is
sc
anty
in
th
e lo
wla
nds
(Gas
ton 2000).
A
ltit
ude
is neg
ativ
ely
corr
elat
ed w
ith y
ield
(-0
.195*),
dis
tance
fro
m t
ow
n (
-0.2
94*),
and
san
d (
-0.3
79*).
It
is
posi
tivel
y c
orr
elat
ed w
ith s
ilt
(0.1
93*),
NH
4 (
0.4
65*),
K (
0.2
56*)
and o
rgan
ic m
atte
r
(0.3
97*)
(Tab
le 8
and 5
).
Div
ersi
ty i
s al
so a
funct
ion o
f cl
imat
e (r
ainfa
ll a
nd t
emper
ature
) (T
able
6).
The
clim
atic
fact
or
is s
ignif
ied i
n d
escr
ibin
g b
ioec
ogeo
gra
phic
al m
odal
ity o
f div
ersi
ty.
The
more
the
clim
ate
is c
onduci
ve,
th
e m
ore
the
div
ersi
ty i
s. I
n t
he
conte
xt
of
east
ern E
thio
pia
, th
e
inte
rmed
iate
alt
itude
is t
he
conduci
ve
ecolo
gy f
or
sorg
hum
pro
duct
ion.
For
inst
ance
, in
the
inte
rmed
iate
alt
itude,
Ale
maya,
rai
nfa
ll a
nd t
emper
ature
is
so c
ondu
cive
that
hig
h
num
ber
s of
var
ieti
es w
ere
pre
val
ent
on f
arm
. A
s in
dic
ated
in M
ekbib
(2007a)
, ag
ricu
lture
ther
eby s
org
hum
far
min
g m
ov
ed f
rom
the
inte
rmed
iate
to t
he
hig
hla
nd
and l
ow
lands.
Num
ber
of
var
ieti
es w
as c
orr
elat
ed w
ith a
nnual
rai
nfa
ll (
0.8
97),
min
imum
tem
per
ature
(-
0.9
39*),
m
axim
um
te
mper
ature
(-
0.7
81)
and
aver
age
tem
per
ature
(-
0.8
83).
B
ut
this
indic
ates
th
at fa
voura
ble
so
rghum
gro
win
g en
vir
onm
ent
should
not
incl
ude
ver
y lo
w
tem
per
ature
, th
is
is
du
e to
th
e ph
ysi
olo
gic
al
char
acte
rist
ics
of
sorg
hum
. T
his
is
corr
obora
ted b
y hig
h le
vel
of
on fa
rm gen
etic
div
ersi
ty in
th
e in
term
edia
te al
titu
des
com
par
ed w
ith o
ther
eco
logie
s.
Tab
le 6
.
5.E
ffec
t of
farm
dis
tance
on d
iver
sity
The
farm
dis
tance
fro
m t
he
house
and m
arket
wer
e 0.0
05 t
o 2
0 k
m a
nd 0
.01 t
o 2
1 k
m
resp
ecti
vel
y (
Tab
le 4
). F
arm
dis
tance
and
yie
ld w
ere
rela
ted.
Th
e yie
ld i
s ver
y h
igh
fo
r
farm
ers
nea
r to
the
house
as
farm
plo
ts d
o r
ecei
ve
good m
anag
emen
t, b
ut
the
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es d
id n
ot
var
y b
etw
een t
hose
who a
re f
ar a
nd t
hose
who a
re n
ear
to b
oth
the
house
and t
he
mar
ket
.
B
oth
the
quad
rati
c an
d l
inea
r eq
uat
ion e
xpre
ssed
that
dis
tance
fro
m t
he
ho
use
and
the
tow
n s
how
ed n
on-s
ignif
ican
t re
lati
onsh
ip t
o t
he
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es p
lante
d p
er f
arm
.
Far
m d
ista
nce
fro
m t
he
house
was
corr
elat
ed w
ith
plo
t si
ze (
0.1
42*).
Far
m d
ista
nce
fro
m
the
mar
ket
was
co
rrel
ated
wit
h p
lot
size
(0.2
03*),
alt
itude
(-0.2
94*),
yie
ld (
0.2
24*)
and
org
anic
mat
ter
(-0.3
35*)
(Tab
le 5
).
Var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re i
s des
crib
ed a
s one
of
the
import
ant
met
hods
for
man
agem
ent
of
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
As
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
anag
emen
t m
ethod,
it c
uts
acr
oss
most
of
the
farm
ers
and c
rop e
colo
gie
s. W
hen
sel
ecti
ons
are
mad
e b
y t
he
farm
ers,
in p
arti
cula
r th
ose
who
do
mas
s se
lect
ion
(both
si
mple
an
d
modif
ied)
and
bulk
se
lect
ion,
the
var
ieta
l
port
foli
o i
s m
anag
ed a
ccord
ingly
form
one
crop
pin
g s
easo
n i
nto
anoth
er.
This
var
ieta
l
port
foli
o i
s dic
tate
d b
y fa
rmer
nee
ds
and
pre
vai
ling b
io-p
hysi
cal
and s
oci
o-e
conom
ic
envir
onm
ents
. T
he
var
ieta
l port
foli
o v
arie
d i
n t
he
hig
hla
nds,
mid
lands,
and l
ow
lands.
It
var
ied
also
ac
ross
fa
rmer
s in
th
e sa
me
com
munit
y.
Even
if
so
met
imes
th
e ty
pe
of
var
ieti
es
pre
sent
in
the
farm
ing
com
munit
y
are
the
sam
e,
the
pro
port
ion
of
each
com
ponen
t var
ied b
y t
he
indiv
idual
far
mer
s.
The
cult
ure
of
gro
win
g v
arie
tal
mix
ture
s is
one
of
the
import
ant
fact
ors
for
impro
ved
cro
p e
volu
tion.
Cro
p e
volu
tion o
f th
e cu
ltiv
ated
sorg
hum
is
linked
to t
he
mix
ture
of
spec
ies
and g
enoty
pes
whic
h p
rom
ote
s h
ybri
dis
atio
n
and
cross
ing
amon
g
the
dif
fere
nt
typ
es.
Bes
ides
het
ero
gen
eous
fiel
ds,
fa
rmer
s d
o
mai
nta
in a
lso m
ore
unif
orm
pla
nti
ngs.
The
var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re,
in E
thio
pia
, as
on fa
rm gen
etic
div
ersi
ty m
anag
emen
t m
easu
re
bes
tow
s th
e fo
llow
ing b
enef
its:
1.
It a
llow
s gen
e fl
ow
thro
ugh i
ntr
ogre
ssio
n a
mong c
ult
ivat
ed s
org
hum
rac
es
2.
It a
llow
s gen
e fl
ow
thro
ugh i
ntr
ogre
ssio
n b
etw
een c
ult
ivat
ed a
nd w
ild p
lants
. T
his
can b
e w
itnes
sed b
y t
he
pre
sence
of
‘shat
ter
can
e’ H
arc
hate
e (K
eelo
or
Fo
ol)
–a
w
ild
X c
ult
ivat
ed c
ross
in m
ost
far
mer
s fi
elds.
3.
Red
uce
s pes
t an
d
dis
ease
ep
idem
ics
ther
eby
reduce
s gen
etic
vuln
erab
ilit
y
and
pro
mote
s st
abil
ity
4.
Confe
rs r
esis
tance
fo
r ab
ioti
c st
ress
es,
ther
eby m
ainta
ins
the
var
iety
th
at c
ould
be
wip
ed o
ut
in m
ono-v
arie
tal
croppin
g d
ue
to d
isea
se a
nd p
est
epid
emic
s.
5.
It m
ainta
ins
the
tem
pora
l an
d s
pat
ial
div
ersi
ty t
her
eby r
edu
ces
gen
etic
vuln
erab
ilit
y
over
tim
e an
d s
pac
e
var
ieta
l m
ixtu
res
in t
he
var
ious
ecolo
gic
al a
nd c
roppin
g s
yst
ems
nic
hes
. T
he
rugged
and u
ndula
ting m
ounta
ins
and g
org
es r
educe
gen
e fl
ow
but
pro
mote
geo
gra
phic
al
isola
tion a
nd g
enoty
pic
dif
fere
nti
atio
n.
This
is
a gen
e is
ola
tion,
whic
h r
esult
s in
the
gen
etic
dif
fere
nti
atio
n t
her
eby c
reat
ing s
pat
iall
y d
iver
sifi
ed s
ets
of
var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re.
7.
Var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re i
s one
of
the
stra
tegie
s fo
r re
sist
ing g
enet
ic e
rosi
on a
t var
ieta
l, g
ene
or
DN
A l
evel
. E
ven
if
a var
iety
is
lost
fro
m t
he
var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re t
he
gen
e or
a p
art
of
the
gen
etic
mak
eup o
f th
e var
iety
lost
can
be
foun
d w
ith o
ther
var
ieti
es i
n t
he
var
ieta
l
mix
ture
. O
ut-
cross
ing se
ems
to be
a st
rate
gy fo
r so
rghum
bet
ter
to re
sist
gen
etic
erosi
on
since
a
whole
ra
nge
of
gen
es
wil
l be
nat
ura
lly
spre
ad
thro
ugh
out
the
popula
tion a
nd h
ence
it
mig
ht
be
dif
ficu
lt t
o s
ay g
enet
ic e
rosi
on h
as o
ccurr
ed a
t th
e
gen
e le
vel
. H
ow
ever
, th
is n
eeds
to b
e ver
ifie
d b
y m
ole
cula
r dat
a.
8.
It m
eets
th
e m
ult
i-nee
d of
the
farm
ers
that
em
anat
es fr
om
in
fra-
spec
ific
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty. M
ult
ivari
ate
An
aly
sis:
Clu
ster
, P
CA
an
d D
iscr
imin
an
t A
naly
sis
Pri
nci
pal
Com
pon
ent
An
aly
sis
T
he
bio
logic
al v
alues
of
the
pri
nci
pal
com
ponen
ts a
re e
xpla
ined
in T
able
8.
PC
1
is ex
pla
ined
m
ore
b
y K
an
d S
and.
PC
2 is
ex
pla
ined
m
ore
b
y P
, pH
an
d num
ber
of
var
ieti
es.
PC
3 i
s ex
pla
ined
more
by f
arm
dis
tan
ce f
rom
the
house
and m
arket
. P
C4 b
y
clay a
nd s
ilt.
PC
5 b
y y
ield
, plo
t si
ze a
nd a
ltit
ude.
Tab
le 7
.
T
he
PC
1,
PC
2,
PC
3,
PC
4 a
nd P
C5 e
xpla
in 3
4.8
%,
19.9
%,
16.4
%,
9.7
1%
and
7.2
4%
res
pec
tivel
y o
f th
e over
all
var
iance
(T
able
7).
All
the
five
pri
nci
pal
com
ponen
ts
toget
her
ex
pla
in 8
8%
of
the
over
all
var
ian
ce w
hil
e th
e re
mai
nin
g p
rin
cipal
com
ponen
ts
expla
in t
he
rest
of
12%
of
the
over
all
var
iance
. T
his
is
also
par
tly e
xpla
ined
by t
he
gra
ph
of
the
Eig
en v
alues
wher
e th
e fi
ve
pri
nci
pal
com
ponen
ts e
labora
te m
ost
of
the
var
iati
on
in t
he
sam
ple
d o
n f
arm
sit
es (
Fig
4).
the
var
iable
s (T
able
5)
wher
e num
ber
of
var
ieti
es,
P a
nd p
H a
re a
round t
he
sam
e re
gio
n,
whil
e yie
ld,
dis
tance
fro
m t
he
mar
ket
and p
lot
size
are
the
oth
er g
roups;
and a
ltit
ude,
org
anic
mat
ter
and n
itro
gen
are
als
o r
elat
ed.
Fig
. 4.
Tab
le 8
.
Fig
. 5.
Clu
ster
an
aly
sis
Clu
ster
ing t
he
12 F
As,
bas
ed o
n t
he
fact
ors
shap
ing d
iver
sity
, fr
om
fiv
e w
ered
as h
as
resu
lted
in t
hei
r usu
al e
xpec
ted e
colo
gic
al g
roupin
g (
Fig
6).
Wit
h t
he
exce
pti
on o
f C
hef
fe
FA
fro
m t
he
inte
rmed
iate
alt
itude
was
clu
ster
ed i
nto
the
hig
hla
nd F
A g
roup,
all
the
oth
er
FA
s ar
e cl
assi
fied
wit
hin
thei
r ec
olo
gic
al d
om
ains.
This
is
expec
ted b
ecau
se C
hef
fe F
A i
s
close
r to
the
hig
h a
ltit
ude
ecolo
gy.
Fig
. 6.
Dis
crim
inan
t A
naly
sis
The
clas
sifi
cati
on o
f th
e on f
arm
sam
ple
d s
ites
into
hig
hla
nd,
inte
rmed
iate
and l
ow
land
(Fig
7)
was
90.8
% c
orr
ect
(Tab
le 9
). H
ence
futu
re g
enet
ic r
esourc
es m
anag
emen
t re
late
d
studie
s hav
e to
foll
ow
eco
logic
ally
bas
ed s
ampli
ng s
trat
egy.
Fig
. 7.
Tab
le 9
.
Modali
ties
for
expla
inin
g t
he
fact
ors
th
at
shape
on
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
The
div
ersi
ty,
as q
uan
tifi
ed b
y t
he
tota
l num
ber
of
var
ieti
es p
er f
arm
, ex
pre
sses
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty w
hic
h m
ay r
efer
to a
ny o
f th
e fo
llow
ing:
ave
rage
div
ersi
ty (
the
div
ersi
ty
among
cult
ivar
s gro
wn
in
an
y
spec
ifie
d
regio
n
unw
eighte
d
by
the
cult
ivar
ar
eas)
,
tem
pora
l div
ersi
ty(�
-div
ersi
ty)(
a m
easu
re of
chan
ge
in div
ersi
ty
over
ti
me)
, sp
ati
al
(the
tota
l div
ersi
ty a
vai
lable
as
gen
etic
res
ourc
es t
o p
lant
bre
eder
s, e
x si
tu a
nd i
n s
itu,
and
in p
rim
ary,
seco
ndar
y a
nd t
erti
ary g
ene
pools
) (H
arla
n a
nd d
eWet
1971).
The
larg
est
gen
epool
is f
ound i
n t
he
sile
ntl
y s
hri
nkin
g l
and
race
s an
d f
olk
var
ieti
es o
f in
dig
enous
and
pea
sant
agri
cult
ure
(B
rush
et
al.
1981).
By t
he
sam
e to
ken
, in
crea
sin
gly
, th
e ce
ntr
es o
f
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty f
or
cro
p p
lants
hav
e bec
om
e th
e m
ega-
gen
e ban
k s
eed
sto
rage
faci
liti
es
(Wil
kes
1988).
Thes
e w
ere
also
evid
ent
in e
aste
rn E
thio
pia
.
A
s in
dic
ated
abov
e a
con
sider
able
lev
el o
f div
ersi
ty p
revai
ls o
n f
arm
. W
hy i
s th
is
div
ersi
ty
pre
sent?
W
hat
is
th
e der
ivin
g
forc
e beh
ind
for
the
pre
val
ence
of
on
farm
div
ersi
ty? I
s th
e div
ersi
ty p
reval
ence
for
its
ow
n s
ake
of
div
ersi
ty o
nly
? Is
it
nat
ure
-
dri
ven
or
farm
ers-
infl
uen
ced o
r both
? W
hat
conce
pt
can e
xpla
in t
he
pat
tern
of
on f
arm
div
ersi
ty? I
t is
ver
y e
asy t
o a
sk t
his
ques
tion,
but
it i
s not
ver
y s
imple
to a
nsw
er.
The
model
s in
dic
ated
bel
ow
hav
e b
een
su
gges
ted in
ord
er to
an
swer
th
e af
ore
men
tioned
ques
tions.
T
he
enorm
ous
on f
arm
sorg
hum
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty p
rese
nt
in e
aste
rn E
thio
pia
can
be
expla
ined
b
y
thre
e m
odal
itie
s su
gges
ted.
Thes
e th
ree
model
s ar
e th
e fi
rst
com
pre
hen
sive
model
s ev
er s
ugges
ted t
o d
escr
ibe
suff
icie
ntl
y t
he
pro
cess
of
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
1.
Bio
-eco
-geo
gra
ph
ic d
ivers
ity
model
: th
is m
odel
ex
pla
ins
that
the
div
ersi
ty p
rese
nt
in
east
ern E
thio
pia
is
due
to t
he
fact
that
sorg
hum
is
gro
wn i
n d
iver
se e
colo
gic
al a
nd
geo
gra
phic
ran
ges
and t
he
in-b
uil
t bio
logic
al n
ature
of
the
crop.
Eco
logic
ally
, it
span
s
from
the
dry
low
lands
of
Dir
e D
awa,
Mei
sso a
nd D
arola
bu t
o t
he
cool
hig
h r
ainfa
ll
hig
hla
nds
of
Gir
awa
and
Hir
na
and t
his
has
res
ult
ed i
n t
he
pre
sence
of
var
ious
race
s,
hybri
d r
aces
, ec
oty
pes
and v
arie
ties
. T
he
dif
fere
nti
atio
n o
f ra
ces
over
alt
itudes
and
clin
al var
iati
on o
f tr
aits
over
ec
olo
gic
al ra
nges
ar
e ca
sted
b
y m
ult
itudes
of
eco-
geo
gra
phic
fac
tors
(M
ekbib
2007 a
,c).
In t
he
wid
er c
onte
xt
of
sorg
hum
cu
ltiv
atio
n i
n
Eth
iopia
, th
e m
icro
-cen
tres
are
par
tly d
ue
to t
he
var
ious
eco
-geo
gra
phic
fac
tors
. T
his
model
ex
pla
ins
the
pre
sence
of
div
ersi
ty t
hro
ugh v
ario
us
bio
-eco
-geo
gra
phic
fac
tors
;
nam
ely,
rain
fall
, te
mper
ature
, L
GP
(L
ength
of
Gro
win
g P
erio
d),
ed
aph
ic fa
ctors
,
win
d f
or
intr
ogre
ssio
n,
the
topogra
ph
y f
or
gen
e is
ola
tion a
nd d
iffe
renti
atio
n.
Hen
ce,
the
on
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
pre
sent
in
the
regio
n
is
par
tly
expla
ined
b
y
eco-
embodie
s al
l th
e nat
ura
l ca
use
s (s
pat
ial
scal
e an
d b
iolo
gic
al c
har
acte
rist
ics
of
the
crop)
of
div
ersi
ty.
The
signif
ican
t var
iati
on f
or
nu
mber
of
var
ieti
es a
cross
eco
logic
al
ran
ges
and F
As
(Tab
le 1
) is
par
tly e
xpla
ined
by t
he
eco-g
eogra
phic
div
ersi
ty m
odel
.
Intr
ogre
ssio
n,
gen
e fl
ow
and g
ene
isola
tion a
re s
om
e of
bio
logic
al m
ech
anis
m o
f th
e
crop c
ouple
d w
ith e
co-g
eogra
phic
al f
acto
rs t
hat
shap
es o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
This
is
in a
gre
emen
t w
ith H
awk
es (
1983
) w
ho i
ndic
ated
that
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty w
ithin
most
if
not
all
cult
ivat
ed
crops
is
pre
sum
ed
to
hav
e ar
isen
as
th
e re
sult
o
f
hybri
dis
atio
n
and
intr
ogre
ssio
n
amon
g
cult
ivat
ed
and
wil
d
spec
ies.
T
he
rugged
topogra
ph
y,
the
undula
ting h
ills
and
val
ley b
ott
om
s in
the
regio
n h
as r
esult
ed i
n t
he
enhan
cem
ent
of
on
fa
rm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
Th
e ec
o-g
eogra
phic
al
appro
aches
fo
r
mole
cula
r, bio
chem
ical
, an
d m
orp
holo
gic
al div
ersi
ty has
b
een st
udie
d on var
ious
crops
in g
ener
al a
nd s
org
hum
in p
arti
cula
r (A
ldri
ch e
t al
.1992;
Deu
et
al.
1994;
Appa
Rao
et
al. 1996;
Dje
et
al.
1998;
Ayan
a an
d B
ekel
e 2000).
2.
Farm
er i
ndu
ced g
enet
ic d
iver
sity
model
: th
is m
odel
incl
udes
all
the
hum
an f
acto
rs
resp
onsi
ble
fo
r se
lect
ion,
pro
duct
ion,
stora
ge
and
uti
liza
tion
of
sorg
hum
as
an
enhan
cin
g f
acto
r fo
r th
e pre
sence
of
div
ersi
ty o
n f
arm
. T
he
pre
sence
of
a w
ide
ran
ge
of
Eth
nic
gro
ups
(Oro
mo,
Am
hara
, Som
ali
, A
rogoba),
cu
ltura
l an
d so
cial
fa
ctors
conti
nuousl
y
shap
es
and
enhan
ces
the
pre
val
ent
on
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
The
gro
win
g o
f so
rghum
in v
ario
us
croppin
g s
yst
ems
is a
lso o
ne
of
the
fact
ors
shap
ing o
n
farm
div
ersi
ty.
The
sele
ctio
n,
pro
duct
ion a
nd u
se o
f var
ieta
l m
ixtu
res
in t
he
farm
als
o
par
tly e
xpla
in t
he
role
far
mer
s pla
y i
n t
he
div
ersi
ty m
anag
emen
t. T
he
det
ail
of
seed
sele
ctio
n, pro
duct
ion, st
ora
ge
and u
tili
zati
on i
n m
odula
ting, ch
angin
g a
nd d
irec
ting o
n
farm
div
ersi
ty i
s des
crib
ed (
Mek
bib
2007b).
The
ran
ge
of
var
iati
ons
on t
he
typ
e an
d
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es a
cro
ss i
ndiv
idual
far
mer
s an
d c
om
munit
ies
is p
artl
y e
xpla
ined
by
the
var
iati
on a
mong f
arm
ers
in t
he
man
agem
ent
of
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
This
is
also
corr
obora
ted b
y t
he
spat
ial
dif
fere
nti
atio
n o
f div
erse
tax
a at
the
mic
ro-c
entr
e
level
s due
to f
arm
ers’
man
agem
ent.
model
s do p
artl
y p
lay a
role
indiv
idual
ly i
n s
hap
ing d
iver
sity
, an
d t
oget
her
they
pla
y a
signif
ican
t ro
le i
n t
he
regio
n a
s so
rghum
evolu
tion i
s st
ill
in t
he
han
d o
f th
e fa
rmer
s.
How
ever
, none
of
the
above
model
s in
iso
lati
on e
xpla
ins
suff
icie
ntl
y t
he
pre
val
ence
of
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
Both
nat
ura
l an
d h
um
an f
acto
rs i
n t
he
dynam
ic a
nd
conti
nuous
com
bin
atio
ns
are
resp
onsi
ble
to e
xpla
in t
he
pre
sence
of
on f
arm
div
ersi
ty.
The
role
of
farm
er-c
um
-nat
ura
l se
lect
ion i
n f
arm
er b
reed
ing i
s dis
cuss
ed i
n M
ekbib
(2006).
In
rea
l te
rms,
it
is v
ery d
iffi
cult
to s
ingle
out
the
role
hum
an v
ersu
s nat
ura
l
fact
ors
pla
ys
in i
sola
tion
hen
ce a
con
cert
ed i
nfl
uen
ce o
f th
e tw
o m
odel
s ex
pla
ins
the
over
all
pro
cess
sh
apin
g
on
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
Th
e ro
le
of
hum
an-b
io-e
co-
geo
gra
phic
fac
tors
on s
hap
ing d
iver
sity
hav
e b
een i
ndic
ated
at
var
ious
level
of
area
l
unit
s su
ch a
s a
single
house
hold
(B
rush
et
al.
19
81),
eth
nic
gro
up (
Alc
orn
1984)
and
conti
nen
tal
asse
mbla
ges
of
the
peo
ple
(S
auer
195
2).
In s
um
, th
e poss
ible
rea
sons
that
ex
pla
in t
he
afore
men
tioned
model
s fo
r th
e pre
sence
of
on f
arm
div
ersi
ty i
n E
thio
pia
are
:
1.
The
long h
isto
ry o
f cu
ltiv
atio
n o
f so
rghum
in E
thio
pia
that
dat
es b
ack a
s ea
rly a
s 4 t
o
6B
C (
Phil
ipso
n, 2000).
2.
The
gro
win
g o
f so
rghu
m i
n v
ario
us
ecolo
gie
s an
d t
opogra
phie
s h
as r
esult
ed i
n t
he
gen
etic
dif
fere
nti
atio
n
and
eco-t
ypin
g
ther
eby
to
div
erse
var
iabil
ity
on
th
e fa
rm
(Mek
bib
, 2007b)
3.
The
exis
tence
of
man
y
ethnic
/tri
bal
(c
lose
r to
80)
and
soci
al
gro
up
s gro
win
g
sorg
hum
s dic
tate
s th
e nee
d t
o h
ave
cert
ain t
ypes
that
cat
ers
the
nee
d f
or
each
of
them
(Mek
bib
, 2007b)
4.
Intr
ogre
ssio
n a
mon
g w
ild a
nd c
ult
ivat
ed t
ypes
an
d a
mong d
iffe
rent
race
s o
f so
rghum
5.
The
var
ious
trad
itio
nal
cro
ppin
g s
yst
ems
har
bou
r var
ious
type
of
var
iabil
ity o
n f
arm
.
Thes
e var
ious
croppin
g s
yst
ems
are
not
only
mai
nta
inin
g b
ut
they
are
als
o s
tabil
izin
g
the
on f
arm
div
ersi
ty (
Mek
bib
1997, 2002, 2003, 2006).
In
co
ncl
usi
on,
farm
ers’
ap
pre
ciat
ion of
div
ersi
ty is
co
nsi
der
ably
hig
h an
d th
is
mom
entu
m h
as t
o b
e m
ainta
ined
thro
ugh v
ario
us
enco
ura
gin
g m
easu
res.
On t
he
contr
ary
to b
e in
form
ed t
hat
the
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty i
s not
as l
ow
as
they u
se t
o t
hin
k.
M
ost
of
the
morp
holo
gic
al d
iver
sity
stu
dy t
akes
only
the
crop a
spec
t. H
ow
ever
,
atte
mpts
hav
e to
be
mad
e to
hav
e in
tegra
ted s
oil
, cl
imat
e an
d p
lant
div
ersi
ty s
tud
y f
or
get
tin
g t
he
holi
stic
pic
ture
for
on f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty d
istr
ibuti
on.
T
he
fact
ors
that
shap
ed o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty i
n t
he
regio
n a
re m
odel
led i
n t
he
thre
e ca
tegori
es.
Thes
e m
odel
s ex
pound v
ery w
ell
the
pro
cess
es s
hap
ing o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
This
stu
dy s
how
ed a
ver
y c
om
pre
hen
sive
des
crip
tion o
f th
e m
ost
im
port
ant
fact
ors
sh
apin
g
on
farm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty.
Hen
ce,
for
inte
gra
ted
gen
etic
re
sou
rces
man
agem
ent,
enh
ance
men
t an
d u
tili
zati
on, th
e fa
ctors
nee
d t
o b
e co
nsi
der
ed a
ccord
ingly
.
I th
ank
the
farm
ers
of
Eth
iopia
fo
r th
eir
par
tici
pat
ion
and
shar
ing
thei
r id
eas
and
know
ledge
on th
e dif
fere
nt
aspec
ts of
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty st
ud
y.
I am
gra
tefu
l fo
r th
e
rese
arch
and f
ield
ass
ista
nts
that
ass
iste
d i
n t
he
inte
rvie
ws
wit
h f
arm
ers
as w
ell
as f
ield
and l
abora
tory
work
. T
han
ks
go
als
o t
o v
ario
us
NG
Os
and G
Os
who h
ave
hel
ped
an
d
assi
sted
the
var
ious
asp
ects
of
the
fiel
dw
ork
. T
his
res
earc
h w
as s
upport
ed b
y C
onsu
ltat
ive
Gro
up
for
Inte
rnat
ional
A
gri
cult
ura
l R
esea
rch
(C
GIA
R)
Par
tici
pat
ory
R
esea
rch
and
Gen
der
An
alysi
s (P
RG
A)
Sm
all
Gra
nt
Pro
gra
m a
nd t
he
Norw
egia
n g
over
nm
ent.
Du
e
than
ks
go
es t
o b
oth
for
fundin
g t
he
pro
ject
. T
he
var
ious
support
pro
vid
ed b
y A
lem
aya
Univ
ersi
ty f
or
the
rese
arch
work
in E
thio
pia
is
appre
ciat
ed.
I am
gra
tefu
l to
coll
eagu
es
who h
ave
read
an
d c
om
men
ted o
n t
he
dra
ft m
anusc
ript.
RE
FE
RE
NC
ES
1.
Alc
orn
J.B
. 1984. H
aust
ec M
ayan
eth
nobota
ny.
Univ
. T
exas
Pre
ss, B
erk
eley
.
2.
Ald
rich
P
.R.,
Doeb
ley
J.,
Sch
ertz
K
.F.
and
Ste
c.
A.
1992.
Pat
tern
s of
allo
zym
e
var
iati
ons
in c
ult
ivat
ed a
nd w
ild S
org
hum
bic
olo
r. T
heo
r. A
ppl.
Gen
et. 85:2
93-3
02
3.
Appa
Rao
S
.,
Pra
sada
Rao
K
.E.,
Men
ges
ha,
M
.H.
and
Gopal
R
edd
y.
V.
1996.
Morp
holo
gic
al d
iver
sity
in s
org
hum
ger
mpla
sm f
rom
India
. G
enet
ic R
eso
urc
es a
nd
Cro
p E
volu
tion 4
3:5
59-5
67
4.
Ayan
a, A
. an
d B
ekel
e. E
. 2000.
Geo
gra
phic
al p
atte
rns
of
morp
holo
gic
al v
aria
tions
in
sorg
hum
ger
mpla
sm f
rom
Eth
iopia
and E
ritr
ea. E
uph
yti
ca 1
15:9
1-1
04
5.
Bel
lon,
M.R
. 1996.
Th
e d
ynam
ics
of
crop
in
fra-
spec
ific
div
ersi
ty:
a co
nce
ptu
al
fram
ewo
rk a
t th
e fa
rmer
lev
el. E
conom
ic B
ota
ny 5
0:2
6-3
9
6.
Bla
ck I
.A.
and W
alkey.
A.
1947.
A c
riti
cal
met
hod f
or
det
erm
inin
g o
rgan
ic c
arbon i
n
soil
s, e
ffec
ts o
f var
iati
on i
n d
iges
tion c
ondit
ions
of
org
anic
soil
s co
nst
ituen
ts.
Soil
Sci
ence
63:2
51-2
64
7.
Bre
mn
er J
.M.
1960.
Det
erm
inat
ion o
f nit
rogen
in s
oil
by t
he
Kje
ldhal
met
hod.
J.
Agri
. S
ci. 55:1
1-3
3
Bot.
37(1
):4-1
2.
9.
Bru
sh S
.B.
1992.
Far
mer
s’ r
ights
and
gen
etic
conse
rvat
ion i
n t
radit
ion
al f
arm
ing
syst
ems.
Worl
d D
evel
op
men
t 20:1
617-1
630
10.B
rush
S.
2000.
The
issu
es o
f in
sit
u c
onse
rvat
ion o
f cr
op
gen
etic
res
ourc
es.
PP
: 3-2
8.
In
(Ed.
Bru
sh S
,: G
enes
in t
he
fiel
d:
on f
arm
conse
rvat
ion o
f cr
op d
iver
sity
. IP
GR
I
and I
DR
C,
Lew
is P
ubli
sher
s)
11.B
rush
S.B
., C
arn
ey H
. an
d H
uam
an.
Z.
1981. D
yn
amic
s of
And
ean p
ota
to a
gri
cult
ure
.
Eco
nom
ic B
ota
ny 3
5:
70
-88
12.B
row
n
A.H
.D.
and
Wei
r B
.S.
1983.
Mea
suri
ng
gen
etic
v
aria
bil
ity
in
pla
nt
popula
tions.
In:
Tan
ksl
ey,
S.D
. an
d T
.J.
Ort
on,
(eds)
Iso
zym
es i
n P
lant
gen
etic
s an
d
bre
edin
g, P
art
A. A
mst
erdam
, N
ether
lands:
Els
evie
r
13.C
entr
al
Sta
tist
ical
A
uth
ori
ty
(Fed
eral
D
emocr
atic
R
epubli
c of
Eth
iopia
).
2006.
A
gri
cult
ura
l S
ample
Surv
ey.
Volu
me
IV. R
epo
rt o
n l
and u
tili
zati
on.
14.D
eu M
., G
onza
lez-
de-
Leo
n J
.C.
Gla
szm
ann J
., D
egre
mont
J.,
Chan
tere
au C
., L
anau
d
and H
amm
on.
P.
1994.
RF
LP
div
ersi
ty i
n c
ult
ivat
ed s
org
hum
in r
elat
ion t
o r
acia
l
dif
fere
nti
atio
n. T
heo
r. A
ppl.
Gen
et. 88:8
38-8
44
15.D
je Y
., A
ter,
M., L
efeb
vre
C., a
nd V
ekem
ans.
X.
1998.
Pat
tern
s of
morp
holo
gic
al
and
allo
zym
e var
iati
on
in
sorg
hum
la
ndra
ces
of
Nort
hw
este
rn
Moro
cco.
Gen
etic
Res
ourc
es a
nd C
rop E
volu
tion. 45:5
41-5
48
16.D
ogget
t,
H.
1988.
Sorg
hum
. L
on
gm
an.
2n
d
ed.
Gre
en
Co.
Ltd
. L
ondo
n.
512
pp
Ehre
nfi
eld..1988
17.F
AO
.1999.
Sust
ainin
g a
gri
cult
ura
l bio
div
ersi
ty a
nd a
gro
-eco
logic
al f
unct
ion.
Rom
e:
Food
and
Agri
cult
ure
org
anis
atio
n
of
the
Unit
ed
Nat
ion
(htt
p::
ww
w.f
ao.o
rg/W
AIC
NE
T/
FA
OIN
FO
/ S
US
TD
EV
/ E
pdir
ect/
Epre
00
63.h
tm)
18.F
AO
. 1998. T
he
stat
e of
the
worl
d’s
pla
nt
gen
etic
res
ourc
es f
or
food a
nd a
gri
cult
ure
19.F
AO
ST
AT
. 2005.
FA
O s
tati
stic
al d
ata
bas
e fo
r fo
od c
rops
20.G
ebre
kid
an B
. 1981.
Sal
ient
feat
ure
s of
the
sorg
hum
b
reed
ing st
rate
gie
s use
d in
Eth
iopia
. E
th. J.
of
Agri
c. S
cien
ces
3(2
):97-1
04
21.G
ebre
kid
an
B.
and
Keb
ede
Y.
1977.
Eth
iopia
n
sorg
hum
im
pro
vem
ent
pro
ject
.
Pro
gre
ssR
eport
No.5
. A
ddis
Abab
a U
niv
ersi
ty.
23.H
arla
n J
.R. 1969. E
thio
pia
: A
cen
tre
of
div
ersi
ty.
Eco
n. B
ot.
23:3
09-3
14.
24.H
arla
n J.
R. 1975. O
ur
van
ishin
g g
enet
ic r
esou
rces
. S
cien
ce 1
88:6
18-6
21
25.H
arla
n J
.R.
1992.
Cro
ps
and M
an.
Am
eric
an S
oci
ety o
f A
gro
nom
y a
nd C
rop S
cien
ce
Soci
ety o
f A
mer
ica.
Mad
ison, W
I.
26.H
arla
n J
.R.
and d
e W
et.
J.M
.J.
1971.
Tow
ard
a r
atio
nal
cla
ssif
icat
ion o
f cu
ltiv
ated
pla
nts
. T
axon 2
0:5
09-5
17
27.H
arm
sen G
.W.
and K
ole
nbra
nder
G.J
. 1965.
So
il i
norg
anic
nit
rogen
. P
p:4
3-9
2.
In:
Soil
nit
rogen
, W
.V.
Bar
tholo
mew
and F
.E.
Cla
rk (
eds)
. A
gro
nom
y S
erie
s N
o.
10.
Am
. S
oc.
Agro
nom
y,
Inc.
, P
ubl.
, M
adis
on, W
I.
28.H
awkes
J.G
. 1983.
The
div
ersi
ty o
f cr
op p
lants
. C
ambri
dge,
MA
: H
arvar
d U
niv
ersi
ty
Pre
ss.
29.H
ernan
dez
. X
.E.,.
1993.
Gen
etic
res
ourc
es o
f pri
mit
ive
var
ieti
es o
f M
esoam
eric
a, Z
ea
spp.,
Phea
solu
s sp
p.,
Capsi
cum
sp
p.,
Cucu
rbit
a
spp.
In:
Surv
ey
of
crop
gen
etic
reso
urc
es i
n t
hei
r ce
nte
rs o
f div
ersi
ty,
Fir
st R
eport
. F
rankel
, O
.H., e
d.
Rom
e: F
ood
and A
gri
cult
ura
l O
rgan
izat
ion o
f th
e U
N. pp:
76-8
6
30.Ja
ckso
n M
.L.
1956.
Soil
C
hem
ical
A
nal
ysi
s. D
ept.
of
Soil
s, U
niv
. of
Wis
consi
n,
Mad
ison, W
I.
31.K
ebed
e Y
. 1993.
The
role
of
Eth
iopia
n s
org
hum
ger
mpla
sm r
esourc
es i
n t
he
nat
ional
bre
edin
g p
rogra
m.
In:
Pla
nt
Gen
etic
res
ourc
es o
f E
thio
pia
(ed
. B
y E
ngel
s et
al.
,) p
p:
315-3
22
32.M
ehli
ch
A.
1960.
Char
ge
char
acte
risa
tion
of
soil
s.
Tra
ns.
In
t.
Soil
S
ci.
Conf.
,
Mad
ison, W
I, V
ol
II/I
II:2
92-3
02
33.M
ekbib
F
. 1997.
Far
mer
par
tici
pat
ory
var
iety
sel
ecti
on i
n b
eans.
Ex
pt.
Agri
.33:3
99-
408
34.M
ekbib
F
. 2002.
Sim
ult
aneo
us
sele
ctio
n
for
yie
ld
and
stab
ilit
y.
Journ
al
of
Agri
cult
ura
l S
cien
ces
(Cam
bri
dge
Univ
ersi
ty)
13
8:2
49-2
53
35.M
ekbib
F
. 2003. Y
ield
sta
bil
ity i
n c
om
mon b
ean (
Phase
olu
s vu
lgari
s L
.) g
enoty
pes
.
E
uph
yti
ca 1
30:1
47
-153
Moen
ch)
in
Eth
iopia
: F
olk
nom
encl
ature
, cl
assi
fica
tion
and
crit
eria
. Jo
urn
al
of
Eth
nobio
logy a
nd E
thno
med
icin
e, (
In p
ress
)
37.M
ekbib
F.
2007b.
Far
mer
see
d s
yst
em o
f so
rghu
m (
Sorg
hum
bic
olo
r L
. (M
oen
ch)
in
centr
e of
div
ersi
ty,
Eth
iopia
: I.
see
d s
ourc
es,
dis
trib
uti
on,
and n
etw
ork
ing.
Journ
al o
f
New
See
ds
(In p
ress
)
38.M
ekbib
F.
2007c.
Far
mer
see
d s
yst
em o
f so
rghu
m (
Sorg
hum
bic
olo
r L
. (M
oen
ch)
in
centr
e of
div
ersi
ty,
Eth
iopia
: II
. se
ed q
ual
ity,
stora
ge,
pro
tect
ion a
nd
sec
uri
ty.
Journ
al
of
New
See
ds
(In p
ress
)
39.M
ekbib
F.
2007d.
Far
mer
s’ b
reed
ing o
f m
ult
ipu
rpose
sorg
hum
(Sorg
hu
m b
icolo
r L
.
(Moen
ch)
in
Eth
iopia
: var
ieta
l m
ixtu
re,
eco
type
dif
fere
nti
atio
n
and
sele
ctio
n
effi
cien
cy. Jo
urn
al o
f N
ew S
eeds
(In p
ress
)
40.M
ekbib
F
. 2006.
Far
mer
an
d
form
al
bre
edin
g
of
sorg
hum
(S
org
hum
bic
olo
r L
.
(Moen
ch)
and t
he
impli
cati
ons
for
inte
gra
ted p
lan
t bre
edin
g. E
uph
yti
ca 1
52:1
63-1
76.
41.P
rasa
da
Rao
K
.E., M
enges
ha
M.H
. an
d R
edd
y V
.G.
1989.
Inte
rnat
ion
al use
of
a
sorg
hum
ger
mpla
sm
coll
ecti
on.
In:
Th
e use
o
f pla
nt
gen
etic
re
sourc
es.
(ed.
By
Bro
wn, A
.H.D
., M
arsh
all,
D.R
., F
rank
el, O
.H a
nd W
illi
ams,
J.T
.)
42.R
ao V
.R.
and H
od
gkin
T.
2002.
Gen
etic
div
ersi
ty a
nd c
onse
rvat
ion o
f p
lant
gen
etic
reso
urc
es. P
lant
Cel
l, T
issu
e an
d O
rgan
Cult
ure
. 6
8:1
-19
43.S
auer
. C
.O.
1952.
Agri
cult
ura
l ori
gin
s an
d d
isper
sals
. T
he
Am
eric
an G
eogra
phic
al
Soci
ety, W
ashin
gto
n, D
.C.
44.S
teven
son
F.J
. 1986.
Cycl
es
of
Soil
, ca
rbon,
nit
rogen
, phosp
horu
s,
sulf
ur
and
mic
ronutr
ients
. Jo
hn W
iley
and S
ons,
New
Yo
rk,
NY
.
45.T
an.
K.H
. 1996.
Soil
sam
pli
ng p
repar
atio
n a
nd a
nal
ysi
s. T
he
Univ
ersi
ty o
f G
eorg
ia,
Ath
ens.
Mar
cel
Dek
ker
, In
c.
46.T
eshom
e A
.,
Torr
ance
J.
K.,
Fah
rig
L.,
Lam
ber
t J.
D.
and
Arn
ason
J.
T.
1999.
Mai
nte
nan
ce o
f so
rghum
(S
org
hum
bic
olo
r, P
oae
cea)
lan
dra
ce d
iver
sity
by f
arm
ers’
sele
ctio
n i
n E
thio
pia
. E
conom
ic B
ota
ny 5
3:7
9-8
9
47.U
NE
P-U
nit
ed
Nat
ions
Envir
onm
enta
l P
rogra
m.
1992.
Rio
D
ecla
rati
on,
Worl
d
Confe
rence
on
Envir
on
men
t an
d
Dev
elopm
ent,
U
nit
ed
Nat
ions
Envir
onm
enta
l
Pro
gra
m, B
razi
l.
Chro
n. B
ot.
13:3
7-3
9
49.W
ilkes
G.
1988.
Pla
nt
gen
etic
res
ourc
es o
ver
th
ousa
nds
of
yea
rs:
from
a h
andfu
l o
f
seed
to
th
e cr
op-s
pec
ific
m
ega-
gen
e ban
k.
In
seed
s an
d
sover
eign
ty,
ed.
J.
Klo
ppen
burg
, pp. 68-8
9.
Durh
am, N
C:
Duke
Univ
ersi
ty P
ress
.
50.W
ore
de
M
. 1992.
Eth
iopia
: a
gen
e b
ank
wo
rkin
g
wit
h
farm
ers.
P
p.
78-9
4.
in
Gro
win
g
div
ersi
ty (
D.
Cooper
, V
ellv
e, R
and
Hobbel
ink,
H.
eds.
). I
nte
rmed
iate
Tec
hnolo
gy P
ubli
cati
ons.
London.
51.W
alkey
A
. 1947.
A c
riti
cal
exam
inat
ion o
f a
rapid
met
hod f
or
det
erm
inin
g o
rgan
ic
carb
on
in
soil
s.
Eff
ect
of
var
iati
ons
in
dig
esti
on
condit
ions
and
inorg
anic
so
il
const
ituen
ts. S
oil
Sci
.63:
251-2
63
52.Z
imm
erer
K
.S.
and
Douch
es
D.S
. 1991.
Geo
gra
phic
al
appro
ach
es
to
crop
conse
rvat
ion:
the
par
titi
onin
g
of
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
in
Andea
n
pota
to.
Eco
nom
ic
Bota
ny. 45(2
): 1
76-1
89
Fig
.1.
Posi
tion a
nd m
ap o
f th
e st
ud
y s
ite
in E
thio
pia
. D
etai
l w
ered
a m
ap o
f th
e st
ud
y
regio
n.
Tab
le 1
. R
ange
and m
ean
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es a
s af
fect
ed b
y e
colo
gy a
nd p
lot
size
Sit
es (
Wer
eda)
E
colo
gy
Tota
l
plo
t si
ze*†
Ran
ge
of
num
ber
of
var
ieti
es
Mea
n n
um
ber
of
var
ieti
es
Dir
e D
awa
Low
land
7.9
0
7-1
9
7.6
0
Bab
ile
Low
land
5.0
5
1-1
2
6.9
5
Ale
maya
Inte
rmed
iate
5.0
0
5-2
0
11.3
5
Hir
na
(I)
Inte
rmed
iate
5.2
8
5-1
2
8.3
0
Hir
na
(H)
Hig
hla
nd
8.7
5
5-1
5
5.6
5
Gir
awa
Hig
hla
nd
11.1
3
2-1
1
8.3
0
*=
Sig
nif
ican
t at
5%
and N
S=
Non S
ignif
ican
t at
5%
; †plo
t si
ze i
s in
tim
mad. 1ha=
8 t
imm
ad
Tab
le 2
. O
n f
arm
rat
ing o
f fa
rmer
s’ v
arie
ty f
or
div
ersi
ty, M
ult
iple
val
ue,
sta
bil
ity,
and
area
cover
age
Sit
es
FA
E
colo
gy
Div
ersi
ty
Mult
iple
val
ue
Sta
bil
ity
Are
a
cover
age
Dir
e D
awa
Ase
leso
L
ow
land
Je
ldi
Jeld
i Shash
emen
e Je
ldi
Bis
han
Bih
e L
ow
land
M
uyr
a
Muyr
a
Muyr
a
Muyr
a
Bab
ile
Lik
ale
Low
land
C
ham
me
Bull
o
Bull
o
Bull
o
Kit
to
Low
land
B
ull
o
Bull
o
Bull
o
Bull
o
Ale
maya
Dan
gag
o
Inte
rmed
iate
F
endis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Inte
rmed
iate
F
endis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Hir
na
(I)
Bel
ena
Inte
rmed
iate
W
eger
e G
ebabe
Chef
fere
G
ebabe
Chef
fe
Inte
rmed
iate
D
asl
ee
Chef
fere
C
hef
fere
C
hef
fere
Hir
na
(H)
Ades
H
ighla
nd
F
echee
F
echee
G
ebabe
Geb
abe
Burk
aGudin
a H
ighla
nd
F
endis
ha
Fen
dis
ha
Geb
abe
Fen
dis
ha
Gir
awa
Len
cha
Hig
hla
nd
M
uyr
a
Muyr
a
Muyr
a
Muyr
a
Hundola
fto
H
ighla
nd
C
hef
fere
C
hef
fere
C
hef
fere
C
hef
fere
I=In
term
edia
te E
colo
gy;
H=
Hig
hla
nd E
colo
gy
Fac
tors
M
in.
Max
. M
ean
Std
. D
ev
Num
ber
of
var
ieti
es
•H
ighla
nd
•In
term
edia
te
•L
ow
land
1
5
2
12
20
15
6.9
8
9.8
3
7.2
8
2.8
8
3.3
7
2.5
1
Plo
t si
ze (
tim
mad)
2
24
7.1
8
4.0
5
Alt
itude
(m a
sl)
1190
2530
1965
364
Far
m d
ista
nce
(km
)
•H
ouse
•M
arket
0.0
05
0.0
1
20
21
0.6
3
8.7
8
2.1
1
5.1
6
San
d (
%)
1.0
0
74.0
016.8
39.5
1
Sil
t (%
) 14.0
052.0
034.0
99.2
2
Cla
y (
%)
11.0
068.0
050.3
210.1
9
pH
(1:1
) 6.0
0
7.9
0
6.9
6
0.4
4
NH
4 -N
(ppm
) 4.0
0
29.0
014.0
56.0
2
No
3-N
(ppm
) 8.0
0
90.0
020.8
512.7
6
P (
ppm
) 0.0
0
78.0
024.3
816.0
3
K (
meq
/100 g
m s
oil
) 0.1
04
2.5
9
0.5
4
0.4
1
Org
anic
Mat
ter
(%)
0.5
7
10.0
53.7
6
2.2
6
plo
t siz
e
30
20
10
0
sqrt(no. of varieties)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0 .5
Observ
ed
Lin
ear
Quadra
tic
Fig
. 2
. E
ffec
t o
f p
lot
size
on
nu
mb
er o
f v
ari
etie
s. Q
ua
dra
tic
mo
del
: sq
rt
(no.
of
va
r.)=
2.3
4+
0.1
19p
lot-
0.0
06
plo
t2. R
2=
0.0
99 a
nd
sig
nif
ica
nt
at
1%
.
altitu
de
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
sqrt (no. of var)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0 .5
Observ
ed
Lin
ear
Quadra
tic
Fig
. 3.
Eff
ect
of
alt
itu
de
on
th
e n
um
ber
of
va
rieti
es o
n f
arm
.S
qrt
(d
iver
sity
) =
-1
.81
+0
.05
alt
-0.0
000
1 a
lt2 R
2=
0.0
99.
Lin
ear
an
d q
ua
dra
tic
term
s are
sig
nif
ican
t a
t 1
%. T
he
lin
ear
mo
del
did
no
t ex
pre
ss s
ign
ific
an
tly
rel
ati
on
ship
bet
wee
n a
ltit
ud
e a
nd
div
ersi
ty.
Tab
le 4
. M
ean v
aria
tion o
f so
il p
roper
ty b
y e
colo
gy
E
colo
gy
Cla
y (
%)
(NS
)
Sil
t*
(%)
San
d*
(%
)
pH
*
(1:1
)
Phosp
horu
s
in p
pm
(N
S)
NH
4+
-N
(ppm
)*
K (
meq
/
100 g
m
soil
)*
N0
3-N
in
ppm
(NS
)
OM
(*)
(%
)
Soil
tex
ture
gro
up†
Hig
hla
nd
52.0
3
36.5
011.6
5
6.8
5
sl.
acid
ic
23.6
8
18.7
0
0.7
7
23.1
8
4.4
5
Cla
y t
o C
lay
loam
Inte
rmed
iate
47.7
5
38.4
516.7
3
7.1
4
sl.
alkal
ine
28.2
0
12.6
8
0.4
2
18.7
8
4.5
6
Cla
y L
oam
Low
land
51.2
4
26.7
622.5
4
6.8
9
sl.
acid
ic
21.0
3
10.5
1
0.4
1
20.6
0
2.1
6
Cla
y l
oam
to
San
dy C
lay
NS
=non s
ignif
ican
t at
5%
and *=
signif
ican
t at
5%
; †
-acc
ord
ing t
o s
oil
tex
ture
tri
angle
. A
ctual
ly,
this
must
be
done
by F
A f
or
pre
cisi
on. It
is
pro
vid
ed h
ere
as a
n i
nfo
rmat
ion.
31
Tab
le 5
.P
ears
on c
orr
elat
ions
for
the
fact
ors
aff
ecti
ng o
n f
arm
gen
etic
div
ersi
ty
N
o.
of
var
Plo
t si
ze
Alt
itu
de
Yie
ld
Dis
t.
ho
use
Dis
t.
tow
n
Cla
y
Sil
t S
and
pH
P
N
H4
K
No
3
OM
No
. o
f v
ar
x
Plo
t si
ze
-0.0
53
x
Alt
itu
de
-0.0
36
-0.4
50
*
x
Yie
ld
-0.0
20
0.6
16
*
-0.1
95
*
x
Dis
t. h
ou
se
0.1
19
0.1
42
*
-014
9
-0.0
82
x
Dis
t. t
ow
n
0.0
79
0.2
03
*
-0.2
94
*
0.2
24
*
0.1
09
x
Cla
y
-0.0
24
0.0
30
0.1
41
0.0
86
0.1
05
0.1
12
x
Sil
t 0
.11
2
-0.2
05
0.1
93
*
-0.0
83
-0.0
45
0.1
09
-0.4
57
*
x
San
d
0.0
02
0.2
43
*
-0.3
79
*
-0.0
04
-0.0
98
-0.1
12
-0.6
08
*
-0.3
37
*
x
pH
0
.15
8
0.1
10
-0.0
29
0.1
53
-0.0
70
0.2
16
*
-0.0
49
0.2
25
*
-0.0
02
x
P
0
.240
*
0.0
15
-0.0
17
0.1
02
0.0
39
0.3
88
*
-0.0
03
0.1
84
*
-0.0
76
0.2
55
*
x
NH
4
-.0
.279
*
-0.2
99
*
0.4
65
*
-0.1
78
-0.0
55
-0.3
69
*
0.0
12
0.1
31
-0.2
32
-0.2
73
*
-0.1
47
x
K
-0.3
84
*
-0.1
41
0.2
56
*
-0.0
62
-0.0
64
-0.1
15
0.0
02
0.1
03
-0.1
70
0.0
19
-0.0
59
0.3
68
*
X
N0
3
-0.0
94
-0.1
25
*
0.1
36
-015
1
-0.0
54
-0.1
24
0.1
10
0.0
8
-0.2
91
*
-0.3
17
*
-0.1
01
0.6
91
*
0.3
09
*
X
OM
-0
.01
2
-0.3
44
0.3
97
*
-012
1
-013
8
-0.3
35
*
-0.1
90
0.2
57
*
-0.0
77
-0.3
01
-0.1
66
0.4
09
*
0.2
12
*
0.3
97
*
X
*si
gnif
ican
t at
5%
Wer
edas
M
ean
annual
rain
fall
Mea
n a
nnual
tem
per
ature
Mea
n n
o. of
var
ieti
es
Min
M
ax
Ave
Ale
maya
Lon
g t
erm
*
880
10.9
23.2
17.1
11.3
5
Yea
r 2000
713.3
9.2
7
24.0
3
16.6
8
Dir
e D
awa
(Ase
leso
)
Lon
g t
erm
**
576
18.2
31.3
24.8
7.6
0
Yea
r 2000
471.1
15.1
9
25.7
9
20.4
9
Gir
awa
Lon
g t
erm
**
1108.5
12.5
22.5
17.5
8.3
0
Yea
r 2000
1075.8
10.0
25.6
17.8
**L
ong-t
erm
aver
age
Tab
le 7
. E
igen
val
ues
of
the
corr
elat
ion m
atri
x a
nd t
he
pro
port
ion a
nd t
ota
l of
var
ian
ce
expla
ined
by t
he
five
larg
est
pri
nci
pal
com
ponen
ts
Pri
nci
pal
Com
ponen
ts
Eig
en v
alues
% t
ota
l
Var
iance
Cum
ula
tive
Eig
en v
alues
Cum
ula
tive.
%
PC
1
5.2
3
34.8
0
5.2
3
34.8
4
PC
2
2.9
9
19.9
7
8.2
2
54.8
0
PC
3
2.4
5
16.3
5
10.6
7
71.1
6
PC
4
1.4
6
9.7
2
12.1
3
80.8
8
PC
5
1.0
9
7.2
4
13.2
2
88.1
2
Tab
le 8
. E
igen
vec
tors
of
the
pri
nci
pal
com
ponen
ts r
epre
senti
ng a
lin
ear
com
bin
atio
n o
f
the
ori
gin
al v
aria
ble
s b
ased
on t
he
mea
n d
ata.
Fac
tors
P
C1
PC
2
PC
3
PC
4
PC
5
Plo
t si
ze
-0.5
68
0.0
62
0.1
10
0.0
75
-0.7
79
Alt
itude
0.5
95
-0.0
98
-0.4
76
0.1
75
0.5
46
Yie
ld
-0.0
15
-0.1
39
0.1
81
0.1
60
-0.8
12
Dis
t. h
ouse
-0.0
32
0.1
29
0.9
52
0.1
51
0.0
15
Dis
t. m
ark
0.0
51
-0.3
92
0.7
72
0.0
30
-0.4
33
Cla
y
0.2
75
-0.1
04
0.0
91
0.9
17
-0.2
21
Sil
t 0.4
76
-0.3
50
-0.1
14
-0.7
52
0.0
18
San
d
-0.8
73
0.2
96
-0.0
03
-0.2
54
0.0
85
pH
0.0
17
-0.7
89
0.0
34
-0.1
51
-0.2
70
P
0.1
86
-0.8
91
0.2
06
-0.0
62
-0.0
87
NH
4-N
0.7
42
0.4
84
-0.1
43
-0.0
38
0.3
84
K
0.7
88
0.3
74
0.0
89
-0.1
45
0.3
36
NO
3-N
0.1
93
0.4
56
0.2
89
0.5
31
0.5
46
OM
0.3
69
0.2
60
-0.4
73
-0.1
91
0.4
29
No. V
ar.
-0.3
15
-0.8
51
-0.1
28
0.0
75
0.1
59
Ex
pl.
Var
3.2
23
3.2
15
2.1
91
1.9
30
2.6
58
Pro
p.T
otl
0.2
15
0.2
14
0.1
46
0.1
29
0.1
77
Fig
. 4. P
lot
of
Eig
enval
ues
. N
um
ber
of
Eig
env
alues
Val
ue
seee
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
01
23
45
67
89
10
11
12
13
14
Prin
cip
al C
om
pon
ent
1
Prin
cip
al C
om
pon
ent
2
Plo
t siz
e
Altitude
Yie
ld
Dis
t. h
ouse
Dis
t. m
ark
et
Cla
y
Silt
Sand
pH
P
NH
4-N K
NO
3-N
Org
anic
Matt
er
No.
Var.
-1.0
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
1.0
-1.0
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
1.0
1.4
Fig
. 5. P
lot
of
P
C 1
and
PC
2 f
or
var
ious
fact
ors
aff
ecti
ng d
iver
sity
.
Fig
. 6. C
lust
er
an
aly
sis
of
on
farm
mon
itored
12 F
As
of
the
six w
ered
as
.
Lin
ka
ge
Dis
tan
ce
by C
om
ple
te L
inka
ge m
eth
od
K
ITT
O
L
IKA
LE
BIS
HA
NB
HE
AS
EL
ES
O
FE
ND
ISH
A
DA
NG
AG
O
B
EL
EN
A
L
EN
CH
A
C
HE
FF
E
BU
KA
GU
DIN
A
HU
ND
OL
AF
TO
AD
ES
02
00
40
06
00
80
01
00
01
20
0
Hig
hla
nd
clu
ste
r
Inte
rme
dia
te a
ltitu
de c
luste
r
Lo
wla
nd
clu
ste
r
Tab
le 9. C
lass
ific
atio
n r
esult
s of
the
sam
ple
s of
on f
arm
monit
ore
d f
arm
ers
usi
ng
dis
crim
inan
t an
alysi
s
Eco
logic
al r
egio
ns
Pre
dic
ted G
roup M
ember
ship
T
ota
l
Hig
hla
nd
Inte
rmed
iate
Low
land
Ori
gin
al
Count
Hig
hla
nd
38
2
0
40
Inte
rmed
iate
8
32
0
40
Low
land
0
1
39
40
%
Hig
hla
nd
95.0
5.0
.0
100.0
Inte
rmed
iate
20.0
80.0
.0
100.0
Low
land
.0
2.5
97.5
100.0
90.8
% o
f orig
inal g
rouped c
ases c
orr
ectly c
lassifie
d.
Function 1
64
20
-2-4
-6
Function 2
4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
Gro
up C
entr
oid
s
Low
land
Inte
rmedia
te
Hig
hla
nd
3
2
1
Fig
. 7. D
iscri
min
an
t an
aly
sis
of
the
sam
ple
d s
ites
by a
ltit
ud
e fo
r so
il p
rop
erty
an
d o
n
farm
gen
eti
c d
iver
sity
.
