IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i9p7066-d1130728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enset Production System Diversity across the Southern Ethiopian Highlands

Author

Listed:
  • Guy Blomme

    (The Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, c/o ILRI, Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 5689, Ethiopia)

  • Elizabeth Kearsley

    (BlueGreen, 9120 Melsele, Belgium)

  • Sisay Buta

    (College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa P.O. Box 5, Ethiopia)

  • Alemayehu Chala

    (College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa P.O. Box 5, Ethiopia)

  • Ruhama Kebede

    (Aklilu Lemma Institute of Pathobiology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 1176, Ethiopia)

  • Temesgen Addis

    (E-Nema, Company for Biotechnology and Biological Plant Protection, 24223 Schwentinental, Germany)

  • Zerihun Yemataw

    (Southern Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Hawassa P.O. Box 06, Ethiopia)

Abstract

Enset is a staple crop of the southern Ethiopian highlands. Small-holder farmers cultivate enset as part of mixed subsistence farming systems, in which enset provides substantial food security services. While its cultivation is unique to this region, enset production systems take on many forms, varying with environmental and agronomic conditions, crop diversity and (co-)staples produced, the importance of enset for the household, and socio-economic and cultural differences. Through extensive interviews with 375 households covering 20 communities, along an altitudinal range of 1500 to 3000 masl across the main enset-producing belt, the diversity in enset production systems was assessed. We show that the size of enset-producing land holdings and the overall cultivated farmland decreased with altitude. The economic status of households however drives the proportion of land allocated to enset, with relatively more land (45%) allocated to the cultivation of enset in poorer households compared to medium (38%) and to richer (23%) households. The food crop diversity, with an average of 6.4 different food crop species on a farm (ranging from 2 to 15 crops), did not vary with the wealth status of the households or with altitude. Enset-derived food items were a main component of multiple daily meals for most households, complemented with other crops produced on the farm. Supplemental food purchases mainly included meat and bread products, although the purchasing power of enset-growing households is predominantly low. The co-staples grown varied with altitude, according to crop productive cultivation boundaries. Maize was an important co-staple observed across the entire investigated altitudinal range. At the mid to upper altitudes, wheat and barley often supplemented or substituted maize as the main cereal crop, while at the mid to lower altitudes, teff was produced in addition to maize. Coffee was the main cash crop grown up to altitudes of 2300 m. Root and tuber crops, and legumes had a more moderate importance in these systems. At lower altitudes, yam, sweet potato and taro were the main roots and tubers produced, which shifted to Irish potatoes at the mid to high altitudes. The importance of beans was higher in several high-altitude kebeles. The food crop diversity, combined with livestock rearing are key for the self-reliance of the small-holder subsistence farms. The need for increased enset cultivation was highlighted by the farmers to ensure food availability and food security with population growth. On the other hand, enset cultivation was mainly threatened by Xanthomonas wilt.

Suggested Citation

  • Guy Blomme & Elizabeth Kearsley & Sisay Buta & Alemayehu Chala & Ruhama Kebede & Temesgen Addis & Zerihun Yemataw, 2023. "Enset Production System Diversity across the Southern Ethiopian Highlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7066-:d:1130728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7066/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7066/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    2. Almaz Negash & Anke Niehof, 2004. "The significance of enset culture and biodiversity for rural household food and livelihood security in southwestern Ethiopia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(1), pages 61-71, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    10. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    12. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    13. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    14. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    17. Alexander D. Chapman & Stephen E. Darby & Hoàng M. Hồng & Emma L. Tompkins & Tri P. D. Van, 2016. "Adaptation and development trade-offs: fluvial sediment deposition and the sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 593-608, August.
    18. Rosa, R.D. & Ramos, T.B. & Pereira, L.S., 2016. "The dual Kc approach to assess maize and sweet sorghum transpiration and soil evaporation under saline conditions: Application of the SIMDualKc model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 77-94.
    19. Hristov, Jordan & Clough, Yann & Sahlin, Ullrika & Smith, Henrik G. & Stjernman, Martin & Olsson, Ola & Sahrbacher, Amanda & Brady, Mark V., 2020. "Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” reform on agricultural development, biodiversity, and ecosystem services," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 42(4), pages 716-738.
    20. Xiaolei Geng & Dou Zhang & Chengwei Li & Yanyao Li & Jingling Huang & Xiangrong Wang, 2020. "Application and Comparison of Multiple Models on Agricultural Sustainability Assessments: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7066-:d:1130728. 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.