Paper · 2024 · Diversity

Plant Diversity and Conservation Role of Three Indigenous Agroforestry Systems of Southeastern Rift-Valley Landscapes, Ethiopia

Hafte Mebrahten Tesfay; Janine Oettel; Katharina Lapin; et al.

11
claims
11
verbatim quotes
15
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Woody and non-woody plant species conservation is one of the ecosystem services provided by agroforestry (AF) systems across the agricultural landscapes. Little attention has been paid to assessing the conservation of plant diversity in AF systems. This study was, thus, aimed at investigating plant species diversity, structure, and composition of three AF systems in Gedeo zone of south-eastern rift–valley agricultural landscape of Ethiopia. The study was conducted in three agroforestry systems, namely, enset based, coffee–enset based (C–E based AF), and coffee–fruit trees–enset based (C–Ft–E based AF) agroforestry systems. Twenty farms representative of each AF system were randomly selected, and inventory of the floristic diversity was employed in a 10 m × 10 m sample plot per farm. A total of 52 perennial woody and non-woody plant species belonging to 30 families were recorded. Of all species identified, 33 (63.5%) were native, of which two species, namely Millettia ferruginea (Hochst.) Baker and Erythrina brucei Schweinf., were registered as endemic. The highest proportion of native species was recorded in enset based AF (93.3%), and the least were in C–Ft–E based AF (59%). According to the IUCN Red List and local criteria, 13 species were recorded as being of interest for conservation in all AF systems. The woody species Prunus africana was identified as both vulnerable by IUCN Red List and rare for 25% of species that least occur. The Shannon diversity index and richness showed that C–Ft–E based AF systems were significantly different from the two remaining AF systems. However, the species abundance and evenness did not show significant differences between the three AF systems. In general, retaining such numbers of woody and non-woody perennial plant species richness under the AF systems of the present study underlines their potential for biodiversity conservation.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The systems contained 52 perennial plant species in 30 families.

Taxon
plant speciese0
Outcome
perennial woody and non-woody plant speciese0
Value
52e0

Verbatim

e0

“A total of 52 perennial woody and non-woody plant species belonging to 30 families were recorded.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–891 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thirty-three species, or 63.5%, were native.

Taxon
speciese0
Outcome
nativee0
Value
33 (63.5%)e0

Verbatim

e0

“Of all species identified, 33 (63.5%) were native”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 892–941 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Millettia ferruginea was recorded as endemic.

Taxon
Millettia ferrugineaMillettia ferrugineae0
Outcome
endemice0

Verbatim

e0

“two species, namely Millettia ferruginea (Hochst.) Baker and Erythrina brucei Schweinf., were registered as endemic.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 952–1068 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Erythrina brucei was recorded as endemic.

Taxon
Erythrina bruceiErythrina bruceie0
Outcome
endemice0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Erythrina brucei
Erythrina brucei · Taxonneotrigonia · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“two species, namely Millettia ferruginea (Hochst.) Baker and Erythrina brucei Schweinf., were registered as endemic.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 952–1068 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enset-based agroforestry had the highest native-species proportion, 93.3%.

Taxon
native speciese0
Outcome
proportion of native speciese0
Direction
higheste0
Value
93.3%e0
Setting
enset based AFe0

Verbatim

e0

“The highest proportion of native species was recorded in enset based AF (93.3%), and the least were in C–Ft–E based AF (59%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1069–1194 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Coffee–fruit tree–enset agroforestry had the lowest native-species proportion, 59%.

Taxon
native speciese0
Outcome
proportion of native speciese0
Direction
leaste0
Value
59%e0
Setting
C–Ft–E based AFe0

Verbatim

e0

“The highest proportion of native species was recorded in enset based AF (93.3%), and the least were in C–Ft–E based AF (59%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1069–1194 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thirteen species were of conservation interest.

Taxon
speciese0
Outcome
interest for conservatione0
Value
13 speciese0

Verbatim

e0

“According to the IUCN Red List and local criteria, 13 species were recorded as being of interest for conservation in all AF systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1195–1327 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Prunus africana was assessed as vulnerable and locally rare.

Taxon
Prunus africanaPrunus africanae0
Outcome
vulnerable by IUCN Red List and raree0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus africana
Prunus africana · TaxonSAplants · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The woody species Prunus africana was identified as both vulnerable by IUCN Red List and rare for 25% of species that least occur.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1328–1458 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Coffee–fruit tree–enset systems differed significantly from both others in Shannon diversity and richness.

Taxon
AF systemse0
Outcome
Shannon diversity index and richnesse0
Comparator
two remaining AF systemse0
Setting
C–Ft–E based AF systemse0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The Shannon diversity index and richness showed that C–Ft–E based AF systems were significantly different from the two remaining AF systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1599 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Species abundance and evenness did not differ significantly among systems.

Taxon
speciese0
Outcome
species abundance and evennesse0
Direction
did not show significant differencese0
Setting
three AF systemse0

Verbatim

e0

“the species abundance and evenness did not show significant differences between the three AF systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1609–1710 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors concluded these agroforestry systems have biodiversity conservation potential.

Taxon
plant speciese0
Outcome
potential for biodiversity conservatione0

Verbatim

e0

“retaining such numbers of woody and non-woody perennial plant species richness under the AF systems of the present study underlines their potential for biodiversity conservation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1723–1901 · show in text ↑