ICRAF (2000), ICRAF (2006). Worldwide deem that agroforestry give various ecosystem services through providing diversification of household need in addition to cultural service such as agro-tourisms, aesthetic values, demonstrations and educations. Principally, agroforestry affords amendable services such as soil conservation, watershed management, pest control and carbons sink. In so doing that, it gives higher contribution to the mitigation of global climate change Jose and Bardhan (2012).

In developing country especially Africa, rapid population growth, decline in per capita food production and environmental degradation are the main problems. Consequently, the need for intensification of agricultural productions coupled with population growth. Then the farmer force to expand the cultivation to hilly and marginal area Asfaw and Ågren (2007). This result aggravates the degradation and unsustainability of natural resource. In relation to this, agroforestry practice can be the only option to condense pressure on leftover natural forest as off deforestation and sustain biodiversity Kang and Akinnifesib (2000), Gustavo et al. (2004).

 The tropical region has many traditional agroforestry practices such as scattered tree on crop field, homestead tree planting and multistory home garden Nair (1993). There are three common classification of agroforestry system (forms, structures and arrangements). Under the forms of agroforestry system classification are agro-silvo-cultural (crops + trees), silvo-pasture (trees + animals) and agro-silvo-pastoral (crop + trees + animals) systems Nair (1985). Under the structure of agroforestry system classification are crops under tree cover and multi-strata agroforestry. Under the arrangement of agroforestry system classifications are animal agroforestry, sequential agroforestry and minor agroforestry technique. Agroforestry practice in the tropic and sub-tropic is probably as old as agriculture itself Torquebiau (2000), McNeely and Schroth (2006).  

In Ethiopia, the integration of tree and shrub into agriculture emerged many years ago (Edmond et al. 2000). In ancient time, the cultivation of domesticated and wild fruit tree was concentrated in monasteries and isolated churches as major source of food for the nuns, monks, hermits and warriors Gustavo et al. (2004). The historical development of agriculture in the country monitored the human expenditure time past and therefore much elder in northern Ethiopia than other parts. Numerous agroforestry systems are practiced in diverse part of the country. One of the first-born native agroforestry systems is the preservation of scattered trees (Faidherbia albida) on farmland of rift valley and highland of eastern Ethiopia. Example: farmers of southern Ethiopia preserve Cordia africana and Millettia ferruginea for upholding soil fertility on Enset-coffee based agroforestry isometrics Abebe (2005), Asfaw and Ågren (2007) . Coffee in agroforestry system can be referred as a good example in the Arsi zone Gololcha and Shenen Kolu districts, which are cultured under the shade of vestige native trees, such as Cordia africana, Erythrina abyssinica and Acacia abyssinica Alemayehu et al. (2017).

Most part of Ethiopian arable land is degraded because of soil erosion dominance. This might be due to no vegetation cover and topography of area thus usually prone to soil erosion. Therefore, agroforestry is the only solutions to reverse the situation in order to meet the multiple demands of forest and tree in sustain form to safe the remaining forest resource and renovate land degradation. Generally, integration of trees into the farm has to be adapted as biological soil and water conservation for livelihood diversification to meet multiple demands of farmer through agro-forestry practice thereby to mitigate global climate change Pandey (2002).

Now a day to resilience global climate changes that implementation of the desire agroforestry practices is to be as a mono option.  So, assessment of traditional information of indigenous people is significant. Understanding of the prevailing agriculture scheme is the starting point for development of farming system. The intervention of agricultural development, in the past failed because of giving insufficient consideration to traditional information Miller and Nair (2006). Therefore, the recommended agroforestry practices have to be informed on the way for researchers, farmers and policymakers to understand the effectiveness of the trees/shrubs on the existing agroforestry practices. Even though the study could be implemented in west Hararghe zone on three districts; would not provide adequate information with evenly understanding of traditional agroforestry practices.

There are several customary agroforestry practices in different agro-ecological region of west Hararghe zone, but they are not well studied and documented based on the report of Yusuf et al. (2020). Assessing of information as well as identifying of constraint and opportunity on the existing agroforestry practices is essential for agroforestry research and advance work in the study areas. In so doing that the study aimed to assess the indigenous agro-forestry practice in the study area and to highlight opportunities and constraints of the agro-forestry practice for sustainable agricultural production alternatively. Furthermore, to assess potential of agro-forestry practices through examining the existing practices with the context of identifying the best practices in the farming system providing to be positive harmony for similar agroecology of the study area.

 

1.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVE

To assess the existing agroforestry practices in West Hararghe Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia.

 

1.2. Specific objectives

·           To assess and identify potentials, constraints, opportunities, perception of farmers as well as preference of tree /shrub species in the existing agro-forestry practices.

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Description of the study area

Oda Bultum woreda is found in West Hararghe Zone, Oromiya Regional State. It is located in the eastern part of the country, 362km from Addis Ababa and 37km from Chiro. Bedessa town serves as the main administrative center of Oda Bultum woreda. Livelihood of woreda based on rain-fed and mixed farming system that constituting about 90%, and agro-pastoralism estimated at 10%. Maize, sorghum, teff, wheat and barley are the major food crops while chat, coffee and pepper are the most important cash crops. The mean annual rainfall is 950mm-1053mm, with maximum and minimum temperature is 28.82⁰c and 12.51⁰c, respectively.

Boke district is one of the districts of West Hararghe zone. The dominant cash crops are coffee and Kchat manufacture. It is situated at 391 km East of Addis Ababa and about 69 km south of Chiro that is capital town of west Hararghe zone. The district obtains an average annual rainfall of 850 mm and average temperature is 20°C. It shares borders with Chiro district in the west and north, Oda Bultum district in the south and Shenen dhugo district in the East. The district is found within 1300 to 2400 m above sea level. Similarly, Hancar district is one of the districts found in West Hararghe zone. It is situated in the eastern part of the country, 352km from Addis Ababa and about 100km from Chiro. Altitude range of Hancar district is 1400-3000m aslv. Mean annual rainfall is 800mmto 2000mm, and with maximum and minimum temperature of the district is about 29.5⁰c and 10⁰c, respectively (Oromia livelihood profile, 2006).

Figure 1 Data of average Temperature and annual mean Rainfall of Hancar, Odabultum and Boke districts, 2020

 

Figure 2 Map of the study districts

 

2.2. Selection of the Study Area

For the intended purpose, three districts, three kebele from each district and fourteen farmers from each kebele were selected to conduct the survey based on agro ecology and altitude range that from low land, mid land and highland of agro ecologies zones. The data was collected based on household survey carried out in districts of the West Hararghe zone in Oromia region, Ethiopia.

 

 

 

 

2.3. Sample procedure and sample Size

The survey was carried out in Western Hararghe Zone. To select district and Kebele, a purposive sampling method was applied based on the objectives of the activity. Accordingly, three districts were selected purposefully based on their exposure to agro-forestry practices, having considerable diversity in terms of agro-ecological zones and their experiences of agro-forestry practices. Then, from each district, three kebele were chosen randomly, based on similar criteria as mentioned above. The farm households for interview were selected randomly from the sample kebele.

Finally, from each kebele of one district that fourteen farmers were selected randomly and a total of 121 households for the intended purpose. Fruit full data was collected from 121 households with semi-structured questionnaires concerning to consistent of agroforestry practice by individual farmers’ interview. The inquiry guide checklist was supplied for each individual and focus group discussions to capture the data from semi-structured questionnaires including farming characteristics of the study area, which are mainly serving in agroforestry practice.

 

2.4. Method of Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews from the selected individual farmers, focus group discussions and personal observations was implemented to generate primary data pertaining to the existing agro-forestry systems and practices in the study area. The survey from household was implemented to collect data on general socio-economic characteristics of sample households and to know facts about the household, their experience in agro-forestry practice, reasons for their participation in agro-forestry practices, indigenous knowledge on agroforestry practice and constraints and opportunities they faced.

The major source of data was gained from sample households and focus group discussions to get preliminary information about the agro-forestry practices, prevailing opportunities and constraints in implementing agro-forestry practices with key informants (DAs, community leaders), elders and experienced farmers by means of checklist and questions with the intention of explore information pertaining with agro-forestry practices in the study area.

 

2.5. The collected Data

The input of all inquiries from each individual and focus group checklists’ data/ feedback, including the plant species occurs that were mainly serving in agroforestry system, perception of farmers on agroforestry utilities, opportunities and constraints, and also the types of agroforestry practices in the study area were collected for further analysis.

 

2.6. Method of Data Analysis

The recorded data was coded and entered into the computer. Quantitative data was analyzed by using descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentages in order to describe the event as it was. On the other hand, qualitative data was analyzed through narration and description.

Finally, the available data was compiled using Statistical software (SPSS) version 20. Qualitative data that obtains from interview and discussion was analyzed and described through concepts and opinions, by sorting out, grouping and organizing in the field that to supplement the survey result. In general, the data was managed and analyzed by descriptive analysis and narration.

 

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Characteristics of Household Samples

The result of this study indicated that the existing agroforestry practices have been done by men due to cultural value of the country. Thus, out of the total respondents, 121 (96.3%) of them were male, while the rest 4 (3.3%) of them were female. The survey result showed that only 43% of the respondents were educated, while 57% were uneducated. With regards to the experience of farming status that below 25 years of the respondents were 11.6%; while above 25 years of the respondents were 88.4% (Table 1).  This means that the respondents were native to the study area. The idea reflected nativness of respondent was 98.3%; while 0.8% newcomers to the study area.  The eminences to main problem of farmland were soil erosion, soil fertility, drought, disease and water logging that with 13.2%, 33.1%, 28.1%, 11.6 % and 6.6 % observed, respectively.        The other standing points of main problem of the respondents on farming system were shortage of farmland with 71.1%, capita with 8.3 %, labor with 2.5% and input problem with 16.5% observed (Table 1). Agro ecological zone of the study areas is high land of Hancar district with 33.1 % coverage, midland of Odabultum district with 33.9% coverage and low land of Boke district with 33.1% coverage perceived (Table 1).

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Socio-economic characteristics of the offenders
	Variables	Values
No		Indicator	Frequency	Percentage (%)
1	Gender of household	Male	117	96.7
		Female	4	3.3
		Total	121	100
2	Education level of household	Educated	69	57
		Un educated	52	43
		Total	121	100
3	Experience of farming system	Below 25 years	14	11.6
		Above 25 years	107	88.4
		Total	121	100
4	Presences	Native	119	98.3
		Newcomers	1	0.8
		Total	121	100
5	Main Problem of Farmland	Soil erosion	16	13.2
		Soil fertility	40	33.1
		Drought	34	28.1
		Weed	7	5.8
		Disease	14	11.6
		Waterlogging	8	6.6
		Total	121	100
6	Main Problem of Farming system	Land size	26	71.1
		Capital	10	8.3
		Labor	3	2.5
		Input	20	16.5
		Total	121	100
7	Respondents with Districts	Hancar	40	33.1
		Odabultum	41	33.9
		Boke	40	33.1
		Total	121	100
8	Respondents with Agro ecological zone	Lowland (<1500)	40	33.1
		Midland (1500-2300)	41	33.9
		Total	121	100
Source: Survey Result, 2020/21

 

3.2. Reason of Farmer Implementing Agroforestry Practices

Small holder farmers in the study area have a great awareness about the benefit of traditional agroforestry practice. Most of the respondents believed that traditional agroforestry practices had a vital role to enhance the overall productivity of farmlands. The major reason and benefit of planting and retention of woody species in farmland as agroforestry practices in the study area used for household consumption, environmental services and ecological balance through multidimensional delivery. Additionally, the use and service of woody species in farmlands are as food, feed, fuel, income, construction, shade and soil fertility improvement. So, the farmers in the study area have been adapting diversified uses and services from retained and planted trees/shrubs species in their farmlands.

In the results, the three top and the highest percentage observation of woody species that have been retaining and planting in farmland across districts with the specific uses are Catha Edulis, Coffea and Cordia Africana (Table 2). The result of this study in line with the findings of  Yusuf et al. (2020), that asserted trees/shrubs species were deliberately retained and/or planted in farmlands have served the people for supplying food, fodder, income generation, wood, shade and environmental services.

Generally, the study had reflected that smallholder farmers of western Hararghe zone have well perceived and identified the implementation and value of trees/shrubs species from the existing agroforestry practices. Thus, each of the tree/shrub species had own benefits to sustain livelihood of the societies.

Table 2 The Type of Trees/Shrubs and their uses in Agroforestry practices across districts
Districts	Scientific name	Local Name	uses of trees/shrubs for:	Frqncy.	(%.)
Boke	1-Catha Edulis	Jima	Chewing/Feed/Income/Fuel	37	14.2
	2- Coffea	Buna	Drinking/Income	37	14.2
	3- Cordia Africana	Weddessa	Shade/Timber/Income/Fuel	28	10.7
	4- Mangifera Indica	Maango	Food/Income/Shade	24	9.2
	5-Papaya	Paapaayyaa	Food/Income/Shade	16	6.1
	6-Moringa	Shiferaw	Food/Feed/Medicinal Plant	12	4.6
	7-Ficus Sycomorus	Harbu	Shade/Timber/Fuel	11	4.2
	8-Terminalia Brownie	Berensa,	Shade/Timber/Fuel	11	4.2
	9-Acaciaalbida	Garbi	Shade/Timber/Fuel	10	3.8
	10-Olia Africana	Ejarsa	Shade/Fuel	9	3.4
	11-Sesbania Sesban	Enchini, Harcha	Shade/Feed/Fuel	9	3.4
	12-Vernonia Amygdalina	Ebicha	Feed/Fuel/Medicinal Plant	9	3.4
	13-Ziziphus Mucronata	Qurqura	Shade/Feed/Fuel	9	3.4
	14-Shugerken	Shankora	Food/feed/Income	7	2.7
	15-Maesa Lanceolata	Abayi	Shade/Fuel	6	2.3
	16-Otostegia Integrifolia	Tingiti	Medicinal Plant	6	2.3
	17-Podocarpus Falcatus	Bibirsaa	Shade/Timber	4	1.5
	18-Melia Azedarach	Muka Kinin	Shade/Feed/Fuel	3	1.1
	19-Musa Acuminate	Werqe	Shade/Food/Feed	3	1.1
	20--Orange	Birtukana	Food/Shade	3	1.1
	21-Mimusops Kummel	Mito	Shade/Food/Fuel	3	1.1
	22-Sitress Limen	Xuxxo	Food/Shade	2	0.8
	23-Tamarindus Indica	Roka	Shade/Fuel	2	0.8
Sub-total				261	100
Hancar	1-Catha Edulis	Jima	Chewing/Feed/Income/Fuel	50	20.4
	2-Cordia Africana	Waddesa	Shade/Timber/Income/Fuel	40	16.3
	3-Coffea	Buna	Drinking/Income	33	13.5
	4-Acacia albida	Garbi	Shade/Timber/Fuel	30	12.2
	5-Casimiroa Edulis	Kasamiro	Food/Shade/Fuel	18	7.3
	6-Mangifera Indica	Maango	Food/Income/Shade	17	6.9
	7- Caesarian Cunninghamiana	Shewshawe	Shade /Fuel	10	4.1
	8-Persea Americana	Avocado	Shade/Food/Fuel	9	3.7
	9- Shugerken	shankora	Food/feed/Income	7	2.9
	10-Albizia Schimpeiana	Muka Arba	Shade/Fuel	6	2.4
	11-Annona Senegalensis	Komate,Gishxa	Shade/Food/Fuel	6	2.4
	12-Casuarina Equisetifolia	Shuwshuwe	Shade/Timber/Fuel	5	2
	13-Combretum Molle	Bika	Shade/ Food/Feed/Fuel	5	2
	14-Acacia Senegal	Saphensa, Garbi Dima	Shade/Fuel	3	1.2
	15-Acacia Tortolis	Tedecha	Shade/Fuel	2	0.8
	16-Cactus	Tinii	Food/Feed	2	0.8
	17--Melia Azedarach	Muka Kinin	Shade/Feed/Fuel	2	0.8
Sub-total				245	100
Odabultum	1-Catha Edulis	Jima	Chewing/Feed/Income/Fuel	90	29.6
	2-Coffea	Buna	Drinking/Income	59	19.4
	3-- Cordia Africana	Waddesa	Shade/Timber/Income/Fuel	38	12.5
	4- Acacia albida	Garbi	Shade/Fuel	30	9.9
	5- Eucalyptus	Bahargamo	Constriction/Income/Fuel	18	5.9
	6--Gravilia Robusta	Gravilia	Shade/Timber/Income/Fuel	18	5.9
	7-Erythrina Abyssinica	Walensu	Shade/Feed/Fuel	10	3.3
	8--Juniperus Procera	gaantra	Shade/Timber/Fuel	9	3
	9-Balanites Aegyptiaca	Bedena, Baddano	Shade/Timber/Fuel	8	2.6
	10--Ehretia Cymosa	Ulaga,	Shade/Fuel	6	2
	11-Elephant Grass	Shankora Hori	Feed	6	2
	12-Croton Macrostachyus	Bakanisa	Shade/Fuel	5	1.6
	13-Mangifera Indica	maango	Food/Income/Shade	2	0.7
	14-Rhus Natalensis	Debobosso	Shade/Fuel	2	0.7
	15-Tamarindus Indica	Roka	Shade/Fuel	2	0.7
	16-Ziziphus Mucronata	qurqura	Shade/Feed/Fuel	1	0.3
Sub-total				304	100
Grand Total				810	100

 

3.3. Perception of farmers about Agroforestry

 The current practices of smallholder farmers on the existing agroforestry practices into their farm plots were recorded through informant interviews. Of 121 respondents; 70 informants with (57.9%) replied “strongly agree”; while 2 informants with (1.7%) replied “Neural “perception that “an agroforestry practice increase farm income” (Table 3). So, the proportion of smallholder farmers with a positive attitude to existing agroforestry practices on their farmland is significantly higher than those who were not clearly and openly optimistic (Table 3). Similarly, 76 informants with 62.8% replayed “agree”: that “agroforestry practices reduce the chance of completely crop faille” (Table 3). This response reflected that agroforestry practice help farmers to meet their basic need and minimize the risk of the production system’s total failure. The result of this study in line with  ICRAF (2006) that, Agroforestry practice has reduced the probabilities of comprehensive crop disappointment. Based the respondent’s idea; they had awareness and positive attitude based on a given arrogances inquiry of the existing agroforestry practices (Table 3). Generally, the farmers had positive perception on agroforestry practices in the study area and they know very well on its utilities for income diversification, improvement of soil quality, fuel, construction materials, food, and feed, provision of shade, accessibility and ecological value etc, could be understood from the given inquiry parameters (Table 3).

 

 

        

Table 3 Perception of farmers on Existing Agroforestry Practices
Attitude of respondents to Agroforestry practices			Perception value of respondents across district
		Degree of perception		Ancar		Odabultum		Boke		Grand Total
				Frequency	Per (%)	Frequency	Per (%)	Frequency	Per (%)	Frequency	Per (%)
1	Does an agroforestry practice increase farm income	-Strongly Agree		24	60	20	48.8	26	65	70	57.9
		-Agree		16	40	21	51.2	12	30	49	40.4
		-Neutral		0	0	0	0	2	5	2	1.7
		-Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
2	Does an agroforestry practice improve soil fertility and soil and water conserve	-Strongly Agree		4	10	20	48.8	17	42.5	41	33.8
		-Agree		1	2.5	17	41.5	22	55	40	33.0
		-Neutral		15	37.5	2	4.9	0	0	17	14.1
		-Disagree		19	47.5	1	2.4	1	2.5	21	17.5
		-Strongly Disagree		1	2.5	1	2.4	0	0	2	1.6
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
3	Does an agroforestry practice reduce the chance of completely crop faille	-Strongly Agree		14	35	9	22	15	37.5	38	31.5
		-Agree		26	65	27	65.9	23	57.5	76	62.8
		-Neutral		0	0	5	12.2	2	5	7	5.7
		-Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
4	Does agroforestry practice save time on collecting fodder and fuel wood	-Strongly Agree		5	12.5	9	22	15	37.5	29	24
		-Agree		30	75	27	65.9	20	50	77	63.6
		-Neutral		1	2.5	5	12.2	2	5	8	6.6
		-Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
5	Does an agroforestry practice take a long time to get income	-Strongly Agree		7	17.5	8	19.5	14	35	29	24
		-Agree		26	65	25	61	21	52.5	72	59.5
		-Neutral		2	5	3	7.3	2	5	7	5.8
		-Disagree		1	2.5	1	2.4	1	2.5	3	2.5
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
6	Does an agroforestry practice maintain weather condition	-Strongly Agree		18	45	13	31.7	17	42.5	48	39.7
		-Agree		22	55	22	53.7	18	45	62	51.2
		-Neutral		0	0	1	2.4	1	2.5	2	1.6
		-Disagree		0	0	1	2.4	1	2.5	2	1.6
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	0	0	1	2.5	1	0.8
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
7	Does an agroforestry practice sustain bio-diversities conservation	-Strongly Agree		12	30	9	22	12	30	33	27.3
		-Agree		24	60	29	70.7	23	57.5	76	62.7
		-Neutral		4	10	2	4.9	5	12.5	11	9.1
		-Disagree		0	0	1	2.4	0	0	1	0.8
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
8	Does an agroforestry practice sustain hydrologic cycling	-Strongly Agree		13	32.5	11	26.8	15	37.5	39	32.3
		-Agree		20	50	22	53.7	21	52.5	63	52.1
		-Neutral		3	7.5	5	12.2	2	5	10	8.2
		-Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	3	7.3	0	0	3	2.4
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
9	Does an agroforestry practice the option to save deforestation	-Strongly Agree		19	47.5	17	41.5	21	52.5	57	47.2
		-Agree		16	40	18	43.9	16	40	50	41.3
		-Neutral		1	2.5	1	2.4	1	2.5	3	2.5
		-Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	1	2.4	0	0	1	0.8
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
10	Do you think tree production in farm land minimize deforestation	-Strongly Agree		34	85	33	80.5	34	85	101	83.5
		-Agree		3	7.5	5	12.2	3	7.5	11	9.1
		-Neutral		3	7.5	3	7.3	3	7.5	9	7.4
		-Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Strongly Disagree		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		-Total		40	100	41	100	40	100	121	100
Source: Survey Result, 2020/21

    

 

                 

3.4. Trends of Agroforestry practices

The major trends of agro forestry practice involved in the study area were identified (Table 4). Similar to other parts of Ethiopia, the following existing agroforestry system and the special practices of the study areas were identified. The effect of the study exposed that, among the different existing traditional of agroforestry practices; the trend of parkland agroforestry practice in the past 10 years duration across the districts was indicated increasing scenario. So over all in average increasing with 83.5%, decreasing with 12.4% and no change with 4.1% were recorded (Table 4).

Trend of home garden agroforestry practice was observed in Hancar with 87.5% increasing, 5% decreasing and 7.5% no change; whereas in Odabultum district 82,2% increasing, 17.5% decreasing and 0% no change, while 87.5% increasing, 12.5% decreasing and 5% no change was recorded in Boke district that with an average value of 86% increasing and 11.5% decreasing observed (Table 4). Trends of alley cropping agroforestry practice in Hancar inquired 97.5% increasing, 2.5% decreasing and 0% no change, and in Odabultum district 82.9% increasing, 17.1% decreasing and 0% no change; while in Boke district 87.5% increasing, 12.5% decreasing and 0% no change was recorded and also with an average value was 89.3% increasing and 10.7% decreasing was observed (Table 4). Almost all in both Hararghe zones; alley cropping practice is the most familiar than other existing Agroforestry practices. For instance, Trends of Kchat plantation in alley practice was 97.5% increasing, 2.5% decreasing and 0% no change was recorded in Hancar district, while 85.4% was increase, 14.6% decrease and no change was 0% recorded in Odabultum district; whereas 92.5% was increasing, 7.5% was decreasing and 0% was no change recorded in Boke district; and with an average value of districts for Kchat plantation was 91.8% increasing, 8.2% was decreasing was observed (Table 4).

On the other side, in alley practice; the trend of coffee plantation was contrary of Kchat plantation across the district that means Kchat plantation is dominating and replacing Coffee plantation almost in all Hararghe districts surprisingly (Table 4). However, it makes subjective imperfection of human mind; Hararghe farmers are very sensitive to Kchat plantation for their livelihood dependency thereby used for soil and water conservation purpose.

Generally, the study result implies that domination of Kchat plantation across the districts is increasing scenarios extremely.

Table 4 Trend values of Existing Agroforestry Practices across the districts in the past 10 years
Trend of Existing Agroforestry Practices in the last 10 years			Trend value of respondents across district
		Degree of Trends		Hancar			Odabultum		Boke		Grand total
				Freq uency	Per (%)	Freq uency		Per (%)	Freq uency	Per (%)	Freq uency	Per (%)
1	Trend of tree planting   in the last 10 years	Increasing		35	87.5		27	65.9	33	82.5	95	78.6
		Decreasing		4	10		9	22	5	12.5	18	14.8
		No change		1	2.5		6	14.6	2	5	9	7.4
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
2	Trend of home garden agroforestry practice in the last 10 years	Increasing		35	87.5		34	82.9	35	87.5	104	86
		Decreasing		2	5		7	17.1	5	12.5	14	11.5
		No change		3	7.5		0	0	0	0	3	2.5
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
3	Trend of parkland agroforestry practice in the last 10 years	Increasing		33	82.5		33	80.5	35	87.5	101	83.5
		Decreasing		7	17.5		3	7.3	5	12.5	15	12.4
		No change		0	0		5	12.2	0	0	5	4.1
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
4	Trend of woodlot in the last 10 years	Increasing		16	40		14	34.1	21	52.5	51	42.2
		Decreasing		12	30		27	65.9	19	47.5	58	47.8
		No change		12	30		0	0	0	0	12	10
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
5	Trend of alley croping in the last 10 years	Increasing		39	97.5		34	82.9	35	87.5	108	89.3
		Decreasing		1	2.5		7	17.1	5	12.5	13	10.7
		No change		0	0		0	0	0	0	0	0
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
	Trend of coffee production in the last 10	Increasing		10	25		8	19.5	3	7.5	21	17.3
		Decreasing		23	57.5		25	61	30	75	78	64.5
		No change		7	17.5		8	19.5	7	17.5	22	18.2
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
	Trend of kchat production in the last 10 year	Increasing		39	97.5		35	85.4	37	92.5	111	91.8
		Decreasing		1	2.5		6	14.6	3	7.5	10	8.2
		No change		0	0		0	0	0	0	0	0
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
6	Trend of animal diversity in the last 10 year	Increasing		29	72.5		7	17.1	38	95	74	61.5
		Decreasing		11	27.5		34	82.9	2	5	47	38.5
		No change		0	0		0	0	0	0	0	0
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
7	Trend of honey production in the last 10 years	Increasing		1	2.5		1	2.4	1	2.5	3	2.5
		Decreasing		38	95		40	97.6	37	92.5	115	95
		No change		1	2.5		0	0	2	5	3	2.5
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100
8	Trend of animal feed usage in the last 10 years	Increasing		18	45		20	48.8	18	45	56	46.3
		Decreasing		10	25		12	29.3	11	27.5	33	27.3
		No change		12	30		9	22	11	27.5	32	26.5
		Total		40	100		41	100	40	100	121	100

 

 

 

3.5. Opportunities and constraints of existing agroforestry practice for the farmers

The result showed that as the result becomes uncommon; farmers change their survival strategy either by travelling to productive areas or by differentiating agroforestry practices. Agroforestry practices such as fodder, fuel wood, livestock and crops on the same land unites. Therefore, admirable opportunities for introducing amended agroforestry practices; so that there is a need to provide improved provenances of fruit and multipurpose trees/shrubs species. The farmers appreciate trees on their farmland fo improving soil fertility. The farmers of the study areas have to be given appreciation and promotion for their bests is the best opportunity of the practice.

Major constraints and barrier to adapt agroforestry practices are shortage of farmland for silvicultural practices with 43.8%, lack of understanding with 24.8%, computation with crops with 20.7%, Hosts for arboreal animals with 4.1%, over shading problem with 2.5%, Computation available nutrients and moisture with 1.7% and Cause of disease with 2.5% were observed (Table 5). Agroforestry practices are needed optimum farmland size with related extent in order to compensate the observed constraints. On the contrary, the best opportunities of agroforestry practices are observed in the study that enable the farmers to be used multidimensional utilities was recorded by highest percentage of respondents’ responses with (26.1%) followed by shade delivery values   with (14.3%) was indicated (Table 5).

 Generally, necessary to inspire the wisely implementation of agroforestry practices enable to convince and engage in the opposite of the constraints on existing agroforestry practices.

Table 5  Major constraints and opportunities of the study area in Agroforestry practices
Major opportunity of agroforestry practice in the study areas
Lists of opportunities	Frequency	Percent (%)
Multipurpose Utilities	31	26.1
Shading value	17	14.3
Climate Balance	8	6.7
Wind break	8	6.7
Feed and food	7	5.9
Add Soil Fertility	6	5
Income diversification	5	4.2
Save Time To Collect	3	2.5
Soil and Water Conservation	3	2.5
Fuel	2	1.7
For construction	2	1.7
Seedling source	2	1.7
Environmental Wall Fare	1	0.8
Wood accessibility from farm	1	0.8
Total	119	100
Major Constraints of agroforestry practice in the study areas
Lists of constraints	Frequency	Percent (%)
Shortage of farmland	53	43.8
Lack of understanding	30	24.8
Competition With Crops	25	20.7
Hosts for arboreal animals	5	4.1
Over Shading problem	3	2.5
Computation available nutrients and moisture	2	1.7
Couse of Disease	3	2.5
Total	121	100

                                                                   

Figure 3 Agroforestry practices of the study area

 

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1. Conclusion

The active involvement of farmers on traditional agroforestry practices showed that they have to be given awareness creation on their traditional practices for their livelihood progress. The customary knowledge of agroforestry system and practice management actuality applied in the study site should have to get gratitude and promoted. Farmers identified and used the number of multipurpose trees/shrubs species with consideration of various degree values. Therefore, traditional, agroforestry practice could be the best option to improve farmer’s livelihood in study site based on multidimensional utilities could be mentioned in the above tables.

Among the major concerning point of existing traditional of agroforestry practices, “trends of parkland agroforestry practice, Trends of home garden agroforestry practice and Trends of alley cropping agroforestry practice within the past 10 years ago indicated increasing scenario in all of the study districts. Nevertheless, Kchat makes subjective imperfection of human mind, it has been increasing alarming rate that in the Trends of alley cropping agroforestry practice. This indicated that the increment of trend of Kchat plantation caused distraction of coffee plantation within the past 10 years ago across districts had been observed from the study areas.

 

 

 

 

4.2. Recommendations

Existing and customary of agroforestry practices were observed and identified. However, improved and introduced a new agroforestry system is needed.  Research should be explored the local species that could be of interested to the farmers and needs bringing new technologies with expected awareness creation in addition to the existing agroforestry practices. The best existing practices such as usefulness of botanical, ecological knowledge and management practices should be promoted for other interested farmers.

Generally, as a recommendation; farmers need to be provided with the opposite of their constraints and encouraged their opportunities in agroforestry practices to be implemented on farms progressively. Agroforestry practices are needed optimum farmland size with the related extent in order to compensate the observed constraints. Therefore, appropriate planting of improved multipurpose trees/shrubs with identified usage and management techniques need to be developed and extended to farmers through trained of training for more progressive desire.

However, same agroforestry practices of the study area observed improper value of human mind, whereas proper value of income to the societies. For instance, increment and domination of Kchat instead of coffee; makes subjective imperfection of human mind; but it has highest income charge for the societies, and this is consequently contradiction values. So, for this kind of contradiction value; to be made socially acceptable and economically assuredeble; the farmers should be given training and awareness creation though compare and contrast of negative and positive effect of Kchat plantation based on consideration of social, economic and ecological values.

Hence it is necessary to carryout agroforestry trials in relation to intercropping designs, spacing, planting techniques, improved multipurpose trees/shrubs species and awareness creation should be given for farmers though training. The study suggested that the dominant woody species effect on crop productivity didn’t see. Therefore, the existing agroforestry practices’ effect on crop productivity of per plot has to be observed for the way forward.

 

REFERENCES

Abebe T, (2005). Diversity in home garden agroforestry systems in Southern Ethiopia -PhD thesis Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Alemayehu D, Muktar M. and Lisanewerk N, (2017). Evaluation of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) physical yield aspect under the canopy of Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica Shade Trees effect in Arsi Golelcha District, Ethiopia.

Asfaw, Z. and Ågren, G.I. (2007). Farmers' local knowledge and topsoil properties of agroforestry practices in Sidama, southern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems 71 :35−48. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9087-0

Gustavo SG, Fonseca AB da, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, (2004). Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Island Press, USA, pp. 537.

Husen Yusuf, Alemeyehu Beyene, Muktar Reshad, Mangistu Teshoma, (2020). Assessment of Traditional Agroforestry Practices, Benefits and Constraints: The Case of West Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State, South-eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Sciences. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jps.20200805.18      

ICRAF, (2000). Paths to prosperity through agroforestry. ICRAF's corporate strategy, 2001-2010. Nairobi : International Centre for Research in Agroforestry.

Jose, S. &Bardhan, S, (2012). Agroforestry for biomass production and carbon sequestration : an overview. Agroforestry Systems 86 :105-1 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9573-x

Kang BT, Akinnifesib, FK, (2000). Agroforestry as alternative land-use production systems for the tropics. Natural Resources Forum 24, pp. 137-151. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2000.tb00938.x

McNeely, J.A. and Schroth, G, (2006). Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation- traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Biodiversity and Conservation Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-2087-3

Miller, R. P., and Nair, P. K. R. (2006). Indigenous agroforestry systems in Amazonia : from prehistory to today. Agroforestry Systems 66, 151-164. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-6074-1

Nair, P.K.R, (1985). Classification of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 3(2) :97−128. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122638

Nair, PKR, (1993). An introduction to agroforestry. Kluwer Academic publisher with cooperation ICRAF : Dordrecht, London. p. 489.

Pandey, D.N, (2002). Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Climate policy 2 : 367−377. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-3062(02)00025-6

Torquebiau, E.F, (2000). A renewed perspective on agroforestry concepts and classification -Life Sciences 323 :1009−1017. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0764-4469(00)01239-7

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), (2006). Agroforestry for improved livelihood and Natural resources conservation. An Agroforestry Policy Brief. Kenya, Nairobi