Abstract
There has been an increasing interest in fodder trees and their potential to help the rural poor. However, few studies have addressed the ecological impacts of fodder tree harvesting. We investigated the species harvested and the techniques used, and the effects of fodder harvesting on (1) species’ populations and (2) forest carbon stocks in three montane forests in Kenya. Focus-group discussions were organized in 36 villages to determine which species were harvested and with which techniques. Field observations were made on vegetation plots: stem diameter, tree height, species and extent of harvest were recorded. Carbon stocks were calculated using an allometric equation with (1) observed height of harvested trees, and (2) potential height estimated with a power model, and results were compared. Eight tree species were commonly harvested for fodder using different techniques (some branches, main stem, most branches except stem apex). Fodder harvesting (together with other uses for some species) negatively affected one species populations ( Olea europaea ), it did not negatively affect four ( Drypetes gerrardii, Gymnosporia heterophylla, Pavetta gardeniifolia, Xymalos monospora ), and more information is needed for three species ( Olea capensis , Prunus africana, Rinorea convallarioides ). Fodder harvesting did not significantly reduce forest carbon stocks, suggesting that local communities could continue using these fodder trees if a carbon project is established. Among the fodder species studied, X. monospor a could be used in reforestation programs, as it has multiple uses and can withstand severe pruning. Although our study is only a snapshot, it is a baseline which can be used to monitor changes in fodder harvesting and its impacts related to increasing droughts in northern Kenya and increasing human populations.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Eight tree species were commonly harvested for fodder.
Verbatim
e0“increasing interest in fodder trees”
e1“Eight tree species were commonly harvested for fodder using different techniques”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder harvesting negatively affected the population of Olea europaea.
- Taxon
- Olea europaea
Olea europaeae0 - Treatment
- Fodder harvestinge0
- Outcome
- species populationse0
- Direction
- negatively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fodder harvesting (together with other uses for some species) negatively affected one species populations ( Olea europaea )”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder harvesting did not negatively affect the population of Drypetes gerrardii.
- Taxon
- Drypetes gerrardii
Drypetes gerrardiie1 - Treatment
- Fodder harvestinge0
- Outcome
- species populationse0
- Direction
- did not negatively affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fodder harvesting (together with other uses for some species) negatively affected one species populations ( Olea europaea )”
e1“it did not negatively affect four ( Drypetes gerrardii, Gymnosporia heterophylla, Pavetta gardeniifolia, Xymalos monospora )”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder harvesting did not negatively affect the population of Gymnosporia heterophylla.
- Taxon
- Gymnosporia heterophylla
Gymnosporia heterophyllae1 - Treatment
- Fodder harvestinge0
- Outcome
- species populationse0
- Direction
- did not negatively affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fodder harvesting (together with other uses for some species) negatively affected one species populations ( Olea europaea )”
e1“it did not negatively affect four ( Drypetes gerrardii, Gymnosporia heterophylla, Pavetta gardeniifolia, Xymalos monospora )”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder harvesting did not negatively affect the population of Pavetta gardeniifolia.
- Taxon
- Pavetta gardeniifolia
Pavetta gardeniifoliae1 - Treatment
- Fodder harvestinge0
- Outcome
- species populationse0
- Direction
- did not negatively affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fodder harvesting (together with other uses for some species) negatively affected one species populations ( Olea europaea )”
e1“it did not negatively affect four ( Drypetes gerrardii, Gymnosporia heterophylla, Pavetta gardeniifolia, Xymalos monospora )”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder harvesting did not negatively affect the population of Xymalos monospora.
- Taxon
- Xymalos monospora
Xymalos monosporae1 - Treatment
- Fodder harvestinge0
- Outcome
- species populationse0
- Direction
- did not negatively affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fodder harvesting (together with other uses for some species) negatively affected one species populations ( Olea europaea )”
e1“it did not negatively affect four ( Drypetes gerrardii, Gymnosporia heterophylla, Pavetta gardeniifolia, Xymalos monospora )”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodder harvesting did not significantly reduce forest carbon stocks.
- Taxon
- fodder treese0
- Treatment
- Fodder harvestinge1
- Outcome
- forest carbon stockse1
- Direction
- did not significantly reducee1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“increasing interest in fodder trees”
e1“Fodder harvesting did not significantly reduce forest carbon stocks”
Claim · model-written summary
Local communities could continue using these fodder trees if a carbon project is established.
Verbatim
e0“increasing interest in fodder trees”
e1“suggesting that local communities could continue using these fodder trees if a carbon project is established”
Claim · model-written summary
Xymalos monospora could be used in reforestation programs.
Verbatim
e0“X. monospor a could be used in reforestation programs, as it has multiple uses and can withstand severe pruning”