IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v9y2019i3p48-d211715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of Major Farming Systems: A Case Study in Yayo Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Mezgebu Senbeto Duguma

    (Agroforestry, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bako 03, Ethiopia)

  • Debela Hunde Feyssa

    (Natural Resources Management, Jimma University; Jimma 307, Ethiopia)

  • Lisa Biber-Freudenberger

    (Center for Development Research, Bonn University, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

Farming systems, with their concerns of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and productivity and production issues towards progress in human needs, wellbeing, and sustainable development, are challenging in most biosphere reserves. In this study, we assess the levels and trends of the agro-biodiversity and ecosystem services of different farming systems in the Yayo Biosphere Reserve in Ethiopia. Interviews with a total of 120 farmers, 16 key informants, and 12 focal group discussions (FDGs) were conducted, and species composition was assessed based on data collected on ten plots per major farming system. Result indicate that four farming systems, namely homegardens (HG), plantation coffee (PC), semi-forest coffee (SFC), and annual crop production (CP) systems, can be identified. Shannon and Evenness indices were highest in the HG system (H′ = 3.14, E = 0.8), and lowest in the CP system (H′ = 0.71, E = 0.18). Additionally, more diversified and relatively less cultivated farming systems provide more ecosystem services, and land users tend to practice less diversified farming systems in order to increase food supply at the expense of other ecosystem services. Therefore, this study recommends that diversified farming systems need to be considered to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce their negative tradeoffs.

Suggested Citation

  • Mezgebu Senbeto Duguma & Debela Hunde Feyssa & Lisa Biber-Freudenberger, 2019. "Agricultural Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of Major Farming Systems: A Case Study in Yayo Coffee Forest Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Ethiopia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:3:p:48-:d:211715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/3/48/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/3/48/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prip, Christian, 2018. "The Convention on Biological Diversity as a legal framework for safeguarding ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 199-204.
    2. Burkhard, Benjamin & Müller, Anja & Müller, Felix & Grescho, Volker & Anh, Quynh & Arida, Gertrudo & Bustamante, Jesus Victor (Jappan) & Van Chien, Ho & Heong, K.L. & Escalada, Monina & Marquez, Leona, 2015. "Land cover-based ecosystem service assessment of irrigated rice cropping systems in southeast Asia—An explorative study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 76-87.
    3. Muhamad, Dendi & Okubo, Satoru & Harashina, Koji & Parikesit, & Gunawan, Budhi & Takeuchi, Kazuhiko, 2014. "Living close to forests enhances people׳s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 197-206.
    4. Gatzweiler, Franz W. & Reichhuber, Anke & Hein, Lars, 2007. "Why financial incentives can destroy economically valuable biodiversity in Ethiopia," Discussion Papers 7119, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Md Mustiafiz Al Mamun & Sohee Minsun Kim, 2020. "Stakeholder analysis matrix for buffer zone management in the peri-urban area of Chittagong, Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 5503-5520, August.
    2. Abera, Wuletawu & Tamene, Lulseged & Kassawmar, Tibebu & Mulatu, Kalkidan & Kassa, Habtemariam & Verchot, Louis & Quintero, Marcela, 2021. "Impacts of land use and land cover dynamics on ecosystem services in the Yayo coffee forest biosphere reserve, southwestern Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shoyama, Kikuko & Kamiyama, Chiho & Morimoto, Junko & Ooba, Makoto & Okuro, Toshiya, 2017. "A review of modeling approaches for ecosystem services assessment in the Asian region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 316-328.
    2. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Ahammad, Ronju & Stacey, Natasha & Sunderland, Terry, 2021. "Analysis of forest-related policies for supporting ecosystem services-based forest management in Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    5. Patricia Esteve-Guirao & Mercedes Jaén García & Isabel Banos-González, 2019. "The Interdependences between Sustainability and Their Lifestyle That Pre-Service Teachers Establish When Addressing Socio-Ecological Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    7. Ahammad, Ronju & Stacey, Natasha & Sunderland, Terry C.H., 2019. "Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 87-98.
    8. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    9. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    10. Blasiak, Robert, 2015. "Balloon effects reshaping global fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 18-20.
    11. Ria Jhoanna C. Ducusin & Maria Victoria O. Espaldon & Carmelita M. Rebancos & Lucille Elna P. Guzman, 2019. "Vulnerability assessment of climate change impacts on a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) in the Philippines: the case of Batad Rice Terraces, Banaue, Ifugao, Philippines," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 395-421, April.
    12. Luo, Xiangyu & Jiang, Peng & Yang, Jingyi & Jin, Jing & Yang, Jun, 2021. "Simulating PM2.5 removal in an urban ecosystem based on the social-ecological model framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    13. Ramos, Alya & Jujnovsky, Julieta & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía, 2018. "The relevance of stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 85-95.
    14. Wilhelm, Jennifer A. & Smith, Richard G. & Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina & Hurley, Stephanie, 2020. "Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. Burke, Thomas & Whyatt, J. Duncan & Rowland, Clare & Blackburn, G. Alan & Abbatt, Jon, 2020. "The influence of land cover data on farm-scale valuations of natural capital," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    16. Feurer, Melanie & Rueff, Henri & Celio, Enrico & Heinimann, Andreas & Blaser, Juergen & Htun, Aung Myin & Zaehringer, Julie Gwendolin, 2021. "Regional scale mapping of ecosystem services supply, demand, flow and mismatches in Southern Myanmar," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    17. Chen, Wanxu & Chi, Guangqing & Li, Jiangfeng, 2020. "The spatial aspect of ecosystem services balance and its determinants," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. Zhang, Wei & Kato, Edward & Bhandary, Prapti & Nkonya, Ephraim & Ibrahim, Hassan Ishaq & Agbonlahor, Mure & Ibrahim, Hussaini Yusuf & Cox, Cindy, 2016. "Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 150-160.
    19. Fortnam, M. & Brown, K. & Chaigneau, T. & Crona, B. & Daw, T.M. & Gonçalves, D. & Hicks, C. & Revmatas, M. & Sandbrook, C. & Schulte-Herbruggen, B., 2019. "The Gendered Nature of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 312-325.
    20. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:3:p:48-:d:211715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.