Determinants of survival and growth of tree lucerne (Chamaecytisus palmensis) in the crop-livestock farming systems of the Ethiopian highlands

  • Kindu Mekonnen
  • Wellington Jogo
  • Melkamu Bezabih
  • Annet Mulema
  • Peter Thorne


The performance, expansion and contribution of tree lucerne has not reached to its full potential due to a number of factors. An action on-farm research was conducted with men and women farm households to (a) compare survival and growth of tree lucerne across contrasting sites and growing niches, and (b) identify the key determinants of tree lucerne survival and growth on farms in the crop-livestock systems. The research was conducted in eight research kebeles (the smallest administrative unit in the country) of the four Africa RISING (Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation) project sites. Eight farmer research groups (FRGs) were formed in consultation with the group members. Each FRG consisted of 25–30 men and women farmers representing a range of social groups. Each farmer participating in the research received on average 50 seedlings. A total of 253 farmers participated in the research. After planting, data on survival, growth, root collar diameter and management were collected at 9 months using simple field monitoring tools. A total of ten sample plants were selected from the field of each farmer who planted tree lucerne, and these were labelled for continuous growth measurements. The on-farm research measurement was supplemented by cross-sectional survey data collected from a sample of FRG member households in the eight research kebeles. A combination of descriptive statistics, multivariate statistical techniques and econometric models were used for data analysis. The results of the study show that percentage survival on-farm were significantly higher for tree lucerne planted in backyards than those planted in outfields and for middle-resource class households. Household size, access to reliable water supply, and management factors—including fencing and watering planted-seedlings, mulching during dry periods, clean spot weeding and applying organic fertilizers—significantly enhanced survival and growth of tree lucerne in the planting sites.


Fodder Farm typology Action research Tree management Niches Tree lucerne 



This research was undertaken with support from Africa RISING, a program financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the United States Government’s Feed the Future Initiative. The content is solely the responsibility of the author/s and does not necessarily represent the official views of USAID or the US Government or that of the Africa RISING program. Africa RISING is aligned with research programs of the CGIAR. The authors would like to thank the site and assistant coordinators, local partners, farmers from the four Africa RISING sites, ILRI managing editor, ILRI-Africa RISING research communication specialist and CIP data processing expert for their support during the on-farm research and data organization. We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.


  1. Abate D, Belete S, Wegi T, Usman S, Wamatu J, Duncan A (2012) Characterization of the livestock production systems and the potential of feed-based interventions for improving livestock productivity in Sinana district, Bale highlands, Ethiopia. International Livestock research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, p 24Google Scholar
  2. Adegbidi HG, Briggs RD, Volk TA, White EH, Abrahamson LP (2003) Effect of organic amendments and slow-release nitrogen fertilizer on willow biomass production and soil chemical characteristics. Biomass Bioenerg 25:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allcock KG, Hik DS (2004) Survival, growth, and escape from herbivory are determined by habitat and herbivore species for three Australian woodland plants. Oecologia 138:231–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Azene B, Birnie A, Tengnas B (1993) Useful trees and shrubs for Ethiopia: identification, propagation and management for agricultural and pastoral communities. Swedish International Development Authority, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum C (2008) Stata Tip 63: modelling proportions. Stata J 8(2):299–303Google Scholar
  6. Bidogeza J, Berentsen PB, De Graaff J, Oude Lansink AGJ (2009) A typology of farm households for the Umutara Province in Rwanda. J Food Sec 1:321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanco-García A, Lindig-Cisneros R (2005) Incorporating restoration in sustainable forestry management: using pine-bark mulch to improve native species establishment on tephra deposits. Restor Ecol 13(4):703–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cao S, Chen L, Liu Z, Wang G (2008) A new tree-planting technique to improve tree survival and growth on steep and arid land in the Loess Plateau of China. J Arid Environ 72:1374–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis-Jones J, Kindu M, Solomon G, Schulz S (2013) Challenges and opportunities to the intensification of farming systems in the highlands of Ethiopia: results of participatory community analysis. International Potato Center (CIP) and Nairobi, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Kenya, pp report 166. International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, CIP and NairobiGoogle Scholar
  10. Field A (2005) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS: and sex, drugs and rock n roll. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallani S, Krishnan R, Woodridge JM (2015) Applications of fractional response model to the study of bounded dependent variables in the accounting research. Working paper 16-016. Harvard Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  12. Getnet A (1998) Biomass yield, botanical fractions and quality of tagasaste, (Chamaecytisus palmensis) as affected by harvesting interval in the highlands of Ethiopia. Agrofor Syst 42(13–23):1998Google Scholar
  13. Getnet A, Kijora C, Aemiro K, Seyoum B, Peters KJ (2008) Evaluation of tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) forage as a substitute for concentrate in diets of sheep. Livest Sci 114:296–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Getnet A, Kijora C, Aemiro K, Sonder K, Peters KJ (2012) Effect of pre-feeding forage treatments, harvesting stage, and animal type on preference of tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis). Agrofor Syst 84:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greene W (2003) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Education International, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  16. Homann-Kee Tui S, Adekunle A, Lundy M, Tucker J, Birachi E, Schut M, Klerkx L, Ballantyne PG, Duncan AJ, Cadilhon J, Mundy P (2013). What are innovation platforms? Innovation platforms practice. Brief 1. Nairobi, Kenya. Accessed 7 July 2016
  17. IBM Corp (2013) IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. IBM Corp, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  18. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (2003) Farmer research group dynamics in eastern Africa. Highlights, No. 8, Kampala, UgandaGoogle Scholar
  19. Kindu M, Glatzel G, Berhane K, Mehari A, Kassahun B, Mesfin T (2008) Processes, lessons and challenges from participatory tree species selection, planting and management research in the highland Vertisol areas of central Ethiopia. For Trees Livelihoods 18:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kindu M, Glatzel G, Sieghardt M (2009a) Assessments of fodder values of 3 indigenous and 1 exotic woody plant species in the highlands of central Ethiopia. Mt Res Dev 29(2):135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kindu M, Glatzel G, Sieghardt M (2009b) Soil properties under selected homestead grown indigenous tree and shrub species in the highland areas of central Ethiopia. East Afr J Sci 3(1):9–17Google Scholar
  22. Larcheveque M, Desrochers A, Larocque GR (2011) Comparison of manure compost and mineral fertilizer for hybrid poplar plantation establishment on boreal heavy clay soils. Ann For Sci 8:849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mahapatra AK, Mitchell CP (2001) Classifying tree planters and none planters in a subsistence farming system using a discriminant analytical approach. Agrofor Syst 52:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mekoya A, Oosting SJ, Fernandez-Rivera S, Van der Zijpp AJ (2008a) Multipurpose fodder trees in the Ethiopian highlands: farmers’ preference and relationship of indigenous knowledge of feed value with laboratory indicators. Agr Syst 96:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mekoya A, Simon J, Oosting O, Fernandez-Rivera S, Akke J, Zijpp V (2008b) Farmers’ perceptions about exotic multipurpose fodder trees and constraints to their adoption. Agrofor Syst 73:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry of Agriculture (2000) Agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia on 1:2,000,000 scale. Natural Resource Management and Regulatory Department, MoA, Addis AbabaGoogle Scholar
  27. Mulugeta S, Kindu M (2013) Tree and shrub species integration in the crop-livestock farming system. Afr Crop Sci J 21:647–656Google Scholar
  28. Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Simons A (2009) Agroforestree database: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. Accessed 14 Nov 2015
  29. Ovalle C, Longeri L, Aronson J, Herrera A, Avendano J (1996) N2 fixation, nodule efficiency and biomass accumulation after two years in Chilean legume trees and Tagasaste (Chamaecytisus proliferus) sub sp. palmensis. Plant Soil 179:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pagliai M, Guidi G, La Marca M, Giachetti M, Lucamante G (1981) Effect of sewage sludges and composts on soil porosity and aggregation. J Environ Qual 10:556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Papke LE, Wooldridge JM (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (K) plan participation rates. J Appl Econom 11(6):619–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sagor R (2000) Guiding school improvement with action research. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria. Accessed 8 July 2016
  33. Sharma NK, Singh PN, Tyagi PC, Mohan SC (1998) Effect of leucaena mulch on soil-water use and wheat yield. Agr Water Manage 35:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharma AR, Singh R, Dhyani SK, Dube RK (2010) Moisture conservation and nitrogen recycling through legume mulching in rainfed maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 87:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sood KK, Mitchell CP (2009) Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 75:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software: release 13. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  37. Struve DK (2009) Tree establishment: a review of some of the factors affecting transplant survival and establishment. Arboric Urban For 35(1):10–13Google Scholar
  38. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of ruminants. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  39. Zenebe G, Alemu M, Rahel D, Samuel A, Meseret MK (2013) Crop-livestock inter-linkages and climate change implications for Ethiopia’s agriculture: a ricardian approach. Environment for Development/Discussion Paper Series EfD DP 13-14. Accessed 12 Nov 2015

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kindu Mekonnen
    • 1
  • Wellington Jogo
    • 2
  • Melkamu Bezabih
    • 1
  • Annet Mulema
    • 1
  • Peter Thorne
    • 1
  1. 1.International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)Addis AbabaEthiopia
  2. 2.International Potato Center (CIP)Addis AbabaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations