Household Economy and Homegarden Plants Composition, Diversity and Utilization in Rural Villages of Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu , India

e- ISSN: 2394 -5532 General Impact Factor (GIF): 0.875 p- ISSN: 2394 -823X Scientific Journal Impact Factor: 1.205 International Journal of Applied And Pure Science and Agriculture www.ijapsa.com

HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY AND HOMEGARDEN PLANTS COMPOSITION, DIVERSITY AND UTILIZATION IN RURAL VILLAGES OF KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU , INDIA. *NEELAMEGAM 1, R., MUTHU, B 2., ANCY, E.S 3., RAMANI, M 4., SINDHU PRATHIBA, N 5., THANGASUTHA , G 6., MOHAMMED IRSATH, J 7., P.G. Department of Botany & Research Centre, S.T. HinHindudu College, Nagercoil -629002, Kanykumari District, Tamil Nadu, India. *Corresponding Author: Dr. R. Neelamegam, Associate Professor.

Abstract The results of present study on homegarden floristic structure, composition, use and household economy in the 6 rural villages (Ariyaperumalvilai, Azhagiapandiapuram, Elankadai, Maravank udiyiruppu, Thandanayagankonam ) of Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, reveals that 95 plant species belongs to 8 2 genera and 46 families were identified from 215 homegardens located in the study areas of six villages; Homegardens selected for the study were classified into four types as hutted home, tiled home, terraced home and storied home; Total area of household surveyed from all six villages was 50,020.02m 2; the total area of homegardens studied in six villages was 17953.80m 2; Among the home gardens surveyed, 62.33% in overall study area were fenced with a maximum of 97.50% fenced home gardens found in Ariyaperumalvilai area a s compared to others; Out of 95 plant species recorded 78 were cultivated, 14 were wild and 3were both cultivated as well as wild. Of these, 33 shrubs, 31 trees, 18 herbs and 13 climbers; Most of the home gardens plants are possess multilayered plants and that are mostly ornamental and multipurpose plants; Smaller gardens possessed by people of lower economic level are dominated by annual crops while larger home gardens possessed by people o f higher economic level are dominated by perennial trees for commercial purpose and plants for beautification; Maximum 35 plants were used as whole plant by the households as compared to other plant parts used; Based on use category, the plants from overal l homegardens have been classified into 26-ornamental, 2 1-vegetable and multipurpose plants of each , 18-edible, 7- medicinal, 1-fuel and furniture use plant of each and 15-plant species were commonly found in all the 6 village homegardens. The diversity ind ices estimated for overall homegarden plants as H’=1.561, (Shannon -Winner diversity), Species Richness (R=25.868), Species Evenness (E=0.789), Simpson’s Diversity Index (λ=0.059) and Diversity Index (DI =0.022). Among the study area, maximum SWI (H’=1.543) and Species Richness (R=22.703) was noted in Ariyaperumalvilai while the Species Evenness (E=0.879) in Thandanayagankonam, the Simpson’s Diversity Index ( λ=0.119) and the Diversity Index (DI=0.093) was also noted.

Keywords: Homegarden, Plant diversity, Rural homegarden , Village homegarden , Kanyakumari District.

I. INTRODUCTION

Homegardens are typically populated by a wide variety of plants, varying from small herbs to tall trees. It comprises soil, crop, weed, pathogen and insect sub -systems, which transform solar energy, water, nutrients, labour and other input into food, feed, fuel, fibre and pharmaceuticals [1] . These gardens are not only important sources of food, fodder, fuel, International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture (IJAPSA) Volume 02, Issue 1, [January - 2016] e-ISSN: 2394-5532, p-ISSN: 2394-823X medicines, spices, construction materials, ornamentals and income in many countries around the world, but are also an important means for in situ conservation of a wide range of plant genetic resources. Homegardens are dynamic in their evolution, composition and uses. Their structure, composition, species and varietal diversity have been influenced by the changes in socio-economic circumstances and cultural values of the users of these gardens. Research on homegardens has been gaining interest in recent years for their potential as models of economically efficient and ecologically sustainable agro-forestry systems [2, 3, 4]. They emphasize the importance of preserving homegardens as key elements in the conservation and generation of diversity in agricultural species. The present study was aimed to collect information related to household economy and homegarden flora in order to understand the socio-economic conditions of the household, the impact of socioeconomic conditions on the maintenance of homegarden species, composition, use and diversity of homegarden plants in rural areas.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS Homegarden survey was conducted from December 2013 to March, 2014 by field visits in the study area during the study period. We carried out the homegarden survey in 215 HGs located in six villages located in and around Nagercoil, Kanyakumari. • Ariyaperumalvilai (8°6’57”N, 77°28’28”E)- 40HGs, Puthalam panchayat, Kanyakumari district; • Azhagiapandiapuram (8°18’19”N, 77°26’39”E)-39HGs, Thovalai Taluka, Kanyakumari District; • Elankadai (8°9’47”N, 77°26’26”E)-30HGs, Nagerkoil town panchayat, Kanyakumari District; • Maravankudiyiruppu (8°8’31”N 77°24’53”E)-32HGs, Nagerkoil town panchayat, Kanyakumari District; • Thandanayagankonam (8°6’23”N, 77°27’15”E)-32HGs, Theoor town panchayat, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District; and • Thengamputhoor (8°13’3”N, 77°29’44”E)-42HGs, Kanyakumari District. The houses in which the data collected were categorized into four types based on their nature –as hutted, tiled, and terraced and storied which are fenced or non-fenced in the study area. Households were identified as sampling units for the survey. Questionnaire was prepared to collect various information from the households (respondents) related to home gardening. For this, the actual respondent of the household was identified as one who involved in most of the decision making in the agricultural (home garden) related matters. In some cases, the interview was conducted more than one member as well. Finally the filled questionnaires were checked to confirm the competence and quality of the information collected. The filled questionnaires were thoroughly checked and numerical coding of the filled questionnaires for the data entry and calculations of various parameters was done. The family members of the home gardens were interviewed to gather data about the area of the garden, number of plant species, use of plants, their income, growth pattern of each species and species names were recorded for all useful plants except weeds. The plants were identified [5, 6], after the data collected in the study area was presented in the tabular column for further analysis. The recorded plant species have been arranged alphabetically for each species the binominal comes first followed by the local name and the family, life forms, growth conditions, useful parts and their utilization are included (Table 6). The collected data were analysed for dtermining various diversity indices like Shannon-Weiner Species

Diversity Index [7, 8], Simpson’s Diversity Index [9], Species Evenness Index and Species Richness Index [10, 11] and Diversity Index [12] by using standard methods.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. House Type Homegarden survey was carried, out in six villages, in four types of house categories such as hutted house, tiled house, terraced house, storied houses which includes fenced or non-fenced. Out of 215 houses surveyed in the study area, 33.95% were storied, 30.23% were tiled, 26.51% were terraced and 9.30 % were hutted. In Elankadai village, most of the houses (76.67%) were tiled (Table 1), while it was storied in Maravankudiyiruppu (59.37%), Thengampudur (45.23%) and Ariyaperumalvilai (32.50%); and terraced in Thandanayankonum (43.75%) and Azhagiyapandipuram (42.03%) villages. In the study area, it was noted that most (62.33%) of the houses, 134 out of 215 surveyed were fenced (Table 1) and the remaining were non-fenced. Among the study area, Ariyaperumalvilai village occupy 97.50% of fenced houses as compared to other villages while non-fenced houses were more in Thengampudur village as compared to others.

3.2. Socio-Economic Conditions of Households 3.2.1. Family size The family size of homegardens surveyed in six villages indicates that the number of family members exists in the range between 2 to 6. Most (48.84%) of the families (105 out of 215) have 4 members in the six study area. Among the study area, a maximum of 62.50% families having 4 members in Ariyaperumalvilai and it was 37.50% families in Thandanayagankonam.

3.2.2. Educational status The educational level of family members recorded in 6 villages and the data reveals that a total of 57.26% of the respondents has above 10 th level formal education while it was 36.47% at <10 th level of formal education and 6.27% of respondents showed illiteracy without having any formal education. Maravankudiyiruppu village has the highest rate of illiteracy with 9.85% of respondents having no formal education than other areas. About

49.04% respondents has up to 10 th level of formal education in Thandanayagankonam and about 82.91% above 10 th level of formal education was noted among the respondent of Elankadai village (Table 3).

3.2.3. Annual income of households In the overall study area of six villages, most of the households (60.93%) comes under the annual income range of < Rs. 50,000/-, with a maximum of 77.50% in Ariyaperumalvilai village as compared to other villages (Table 4).

3.2.4. Homegarden expenditure For homegarden maintenance, the overall annual expenditure is up to Rs. 1000/- for most (84.65%) of the households noted in all villages. On the other hand, only 4.65% of the households spent Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10,000/- for homegarden maintenance (Table 5). 4. Household Size The total household area surveyed in 6 villages was 50,020.02m 2 with a maximum area of 18,859.02m 2 in Thengampudur village and it was minimum (5,038.47m 2) in Elankadai village. The overall average household study area is 8336.67m 2. In all the six villages, the household area ranged from 60.71m 2 to 1214.10m 2 with an overall average of 91.06m 2 to 644.15m 2 (Table 9). 5. Homegarden Size The total area of homegardens surveyed in 6 villages was about 17953.80m 2 with an average HG area of 2992.30m 2. It was noted that the overall homegarden size ranged from 10.12m 2 to 526.11m 2 with an average area ranged from 18.55m 2 to 320.39m 2. The average HG area was noted maximum (121.89m 2) in Thengampudur village while it was least (48.06m 2) in Ariyaperumalvilai village. The overall average study area is 82.23m 2 (Table 9).

6. Status of Homegarden Plants Although there is a range of different approaches to describe the amount of plant diversity present in the homegardens, numbers of local plants present in the homegardens provide an obvious starting point in determining the amount of diversity [13] (Hodgkin, 2002). A total of 95 species of 82 genera belonging to 46 families (Table 6 & 8) have been taxonomically verified and identified as distinct species (Table 6). Detailed species list is presented in Table 6 along with common name of the plant species, family name, plant type (habit), growth condition (wild/potted), nature of growth (wild/cultivated), useful part, uses and source of homegarden recorded. Homegardens were commonly with three layers of plants, but sometimes with four or more layers. The upper most layers consist of trees and therefore were a perennial layer. The species commonly found here were Cocous nucifera, Mangifera indica, Moringa oleifera, Azadirachta indica, and Psidium guajava . Immediately below this layer, occur both annual and perennial (fruit yielding and ornamental) plants like Murraya koenigii, Ixora coccinea, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Rosa sps., Carica papaya, Annona squamosa, Tecoma stans, and Mirabilis jalapa . The third layer consists of herb species and next to this layer the climbers form as fourth layer (Table 6). The data presented in Table 7 indicate the distribution pattern of homegarden plants in the homegardens of 6 villages surveyed. The total number of individuals of all species was recorded as 4303 individuals with an average of 45.29 individuals per species in the overall homegardens. Among the 6 villages, Ariyaperumalvillai village shows maximum number of individuals (989nos) with an average of 14.33nos/species, whereas in Elankadai village it minimum (407nos) with an average of 10.71nos/species. Among plants noted in the homegardens of 6 villages, Cocos nucifera shows maximum number of individuals in 180 HGs and is followed by Rosa species in 140 HGs as compared to other species (Table 7). Thengampuduoor village shows maximum number of C. nucifera individuals (249) in 29 HGs and in Ariyaperumalvilai village it was 160 individuals in 33 HGs as compared to other village HGs. The total number of species (95) recorded in the overall homegardens (215) of six villages was differed (Table 8 and 9). The total number of species recorded in the homegardens of Ariyaperumalvilai was higher (69 species in 40HGs) than that of Thengampudur (54 species in 42HGs, Thandanayagankonam (50species in 32HGs), Azhagiyapandipuram (44species in 39HGs), Maravankudiyiruppu (43species in 32HGs) and Elankadai (38species in 30HGs). These species also belong to a wide range of families. In Ariyaperumalvilai homegardens, a total of 38 families with 63 genera were represented, whereas the other villages show less in numbers (Table 8 and 9). The range of species number recorded in the homegardens of overall study area was 3 to 20species with an overall average no of 3.83 to 13.50 species. The mean number of species per homegarden in the overall study area noted was 7.18species, with a maximum of 8.44species in Thandanayagankonam village and it was least (5.52species/HG) in Thengampudur village (Table 9).

Number of individuals per species in the homegardens surveyed was recorded and the data are present in table 9. Among the study area, the homegardens of Ariyaperumalvilai 39 species showed <10 individuals as compared to other areas with an overall average of 26.17species. The total number of individuals in all the species recorded is higher (989 individuals of 69 species) in the home gardens of Ariyaperumalvilai with an overall average of 717.17 individuals of all species (Table 9). The range of individuals per species was noted up to a maximum of 246 individuals in a single species in the homegardens of Thengampudur (Table 8 and 9). The overall average of individuals per species is up to 141.17 individuals. It was also noted that the overall mean range of number of individuals of all species per homegarden is about 6.83-47.67 individuals/species with a maximum range (12 to 74nos.) of individuals/species in Ariyaperumalvilai and Azhagiyapandipurum, respectively (Table 9). The average number of individuals in all species per homegarden was maximum (24.73%) in Ariyaperumalvilai as compared to other study area with an average of 19.80individuals in all species per homegarden (Table 9). Homegarden plants recorded in six villages were compared for their similarity between the study area and the results are presented in table 10. Out of 95 species recorded in the study areas, 16 species were noted in all the six villages while 14 species recorded in 5 villages, 11species noted in 4 villages, another 11species found in 3 villages and 12 species in 2 villages. However, certain species found only one area and not the others. About 13 species found only in Ariyaperumalvilai, 8 species in Thandanayagankonam, 7 species in Elankadai, 2 species in Thengampudur and one species in Azhagiyapandipuram village (Table 10).

7. Composition and Utilization of Homegarden Plants Diversity is selected according to the requirements of the families (at species level) and the homegarden often contain a large number of individuals for certain species that are commonly utilized by the households. Management activities are carried out with minimal ecological cost, due to the low utilization chemical product. Species found in homegardens of the study area are used for primary and secondary needs of the household. The proportion of plant species recorded from the study areas categorized based on life forms, growing condition (earthen/potted), growth type (cultivated/wild), useful parts and uses and are compared (Table 11). All the plants recorded are categorized into four plant types –trees, shrubs, herbs and climber. Of these, shrubs and trees occupy more in number in all the study areas with a maximum of 34.38% shrubs, 32.29% trees as overall. Similarly most of the plant species (79.17%) recorded in the overall homegardens was growing as earthen plants with a range of 72.46% (in Ariyaperumalvilai) to 82% (in Thandanayagankonam). Among the homegarden plants, 81.16% to 84.21% were cultivated whereas 7.41% to 14.49% were wild types. Based on the useful parts of plant, the plants were categorized as 35.42% whole plant use, 31.25% fruit use, and 14.58% leaf used plants. Based on uses by the households, the overall homegarden plants were categorized (Table 11) as ornamental purposes (27.08%), vegetable purposes (22.92%), multipurpose uses (21.88%), as edible (directly consumed) uses (18.75%) and medicine purposes (7.29%). 8. Diversity of Homegarden Plants Various diversity indices of HG plants surveyed in the study villages were assessed and the data presented in Table 12. In the overall homegardens, the Shannon-Winner species diversity index was noted as H’= 1.561 and is high in Ariyaperumalvilai (H’=1.543) and less (H’=1.327) in Elankadai village. The Simpsons diversity index in the overall homegardens of study area was estimated as λ=0.059 and is maximum ( λ=0.119) in Thengampudur village than other villages (Table 12). The species richness in the overall homegardens was noted as R=25.868 and it was high in Ariyaperumalvilai (R=22.703) and less (R=14.178) in Elangadai village. Similarly, the species evenness of the plant species in the overall homegardens was calculated as E=0.789 with a maximum (E=0.879) in Thandanayagankonum village.

Agriculture, the main source of employment, is facing three challenges –to ensure food security, reduce poverty and promote sustainable management of natural resources. Homegardens are integral part of the farming system. Home gardens are an important resource for food security in many countries. The major benefits from home garden are better nutrition for household members; they receive income and meet socio-cultural needs. Along with these benefit, they help to reduce environmental pollution and soil erosion and to conserve the agro-biodiversity. In this study, 95 species recorded from overall 215 homegardens includes 17,953.80m 2 total HG area from six villages and the plants collected belongs to 46 families and 82 genera containing 4303 individuals. Similar HG studies were

@IJAPSA-2016, All rights Reserved 22 International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture (IJAPSA) Volume 02, Issue 1, [January - 2016] e-ISSN: 2394-5532, p-ISSN: 2394-823X also reported earlier in India [14-19]. The number of plant species is related to the size of the homegarden surveyed and may be influenced by a number of factors as reported by various workers [14, 17-19]. Homegarden plants show complex structures, both vertically and horizontally. Vertical stratification is a common structure among homegardens throughout the tropics [20, 21]. The vertical structure composed of three to four layers based on the height and plant types [2]. In this study it was noted that the HG plants were found as 4 layered as reported earlier [2, 16-18]. The wide range of species found in homegardens adds their ecological efficiency in terms of use of physical and chemical resources [22, 23]. In the present study, it was noted that the shrubs are the dominant life form in the overall HGs survey in six villages. However, in most of the villages trees are the dominant life form, as compared to other life forms. Earlier reports indicate that the herbs were the dominant life form [19]. It was also noted that there is no specific pattern of planting in the HGs of study area as noted in the earlier studies [17-19]. The structure of the HGs may be determined by the species diversity of the plants present in each homegarden [24]. The number of local plants present in the HGs provides an obvious starting point in determining the amount of diversity [13]. The Shannon-Winner species diversity index (SWI) varies widely in tropical homegardens and is reported to ranges from 0.93 to 3.00 [20] and from 0.69 to 4.4.01 [25]. In this study, the SWI is found within the above range (H’=1.326 to H’=1.543) and this may be due to diverse agro-geographical conditions in the rural area creating different microenvironments suitable for diverse species to maintain in condition and limitation option available for the households to grow different homegarden species as suggested by Abishar Subedi et al . [26]. According to Saikia et al . [15] high diversity and low concentration of dominance in different homegarden categories may be due to the variations in anthropogenic pressure in different homegardens with increase in household size, more varieties in species composition were also reported by Das and Das [14]. This suggests that the households maintain a diverse group of plants to fulfill their regular needs regardless of the homegarden size. Diversity is selected according to the requirements of the families and the homegardens often contain a large number of individuals for certain species that are commonly utilized by the households. The home garden studies must be carried out with the aim of creating awareness regarding the maintenance of home gardens to fulfill their own needs and conservation of genetic diversity in rural areas and it may also make the opportunity to mobilize home garden resources for development of poor rural communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors thank to the Management Authorities, the Principal, S.T Hindu College, and the HOD, Department of Botany and Research Centre, S.T. Hindu College, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, India for providing necessary facilities and encouragement.

BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Fresco, L.O. and Westphal, E. 1988. A hierarchical classification of farm systems. Expl. Agric., 24 : 399- 419. [2] Fernandes, E.C.M. and Nair, P.K.R. 1986. An evaluation of the structure and function of tropical homegardens. Agricultural Systems, 21 : 279-310. [3] Budowski, G. 1990. Homegardens in Tropical America: a review. In: Landauer, K., & Brazil, M., (eds), tropical Homegardens. United Nation’s University Press, Tokyo, pp. 3-8. [4] Smith, N.J.H. 1996. Homegardens as a spring board for agroforestry Development in Amazonia. International Tree Crops Journal, 9: 11-30. [5] Gamble, J.S. 1928. Flora of Presidency of Madras, 3 Volumes. Allered and Son Limited, London.

[6] Gamble, J.S. and Fischer, C.E.C. 1957. Flora of Presidency of Madras. Vol 1-111 (Repr.ed.). Botanical Survey of India, Culcutta. [7] Shannon, C.F. and Wiener, W. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of communication. University of llnois Press, Urbana, p. 117, [8] Kunwar, R.M. and Sharma, S.P. 2004. Quantitative analysis of tree species in two community forests of Dolpa district, mid-east Nepal. Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 2(3): 23-28. [9] Krebs, C.J. 1999. Ecological Methodology. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, USA, pp. 620. [10] Margalef, T. 1958. Temporal succession and spatial heterogeneity in Phytoplankton. In: Buzatti Traverso (ED.) Perspective in Marine Biology. University of California Press, Berkeley, 323-347. [11] Alam, M.S. and Masum K.M. 2005. Status of homestead biodiversity in the offshore island of Bangladesh. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 1(3): 246-253. [12] Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology . W.B. Saunders and Co. Philadelphia. 574pp. [13] Hodgkin, T. 2002. Home gardens and maintenance of genetic diversity. In: Watson, J.W., & Eyzaguirre, P.B. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshops: Contribution of home gardens to In situ Conservation of plant genetic resources, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany, International Plant Genetic Resources, Rome. [14] Das, T. and Das, A.K. 2005. Inventorying plant biodiversity in homegardens: A case study in Barak valley, Assam, North East India. Current Science, 89 : 155-163. [15] Saikia, P., Choudhury, B.I. and Khan, M. 2012. Floristic composition and plant utilization pattern in homegardens of Upper Assam, India. Tropical Ecology, 53 (1): 105-118. [16] Zimic, I., Saikia, P. and Khan, M.I. 2012. Comparative study on homegardens of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh in terms of species diversity and plant utilization pattern. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(3): 611-618. [17] Neelamegam, R., Mathevan Pillai, V., Mary Anishal Priyanka, A. and Roselin, S. 2015a. Status and composition of home garden plants in rural and urban areas in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India. Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences, 3(8): 656-667. [18] Neelamegam, R., Roselin, S., Mary Anishal Priyanka, A. and Mathevan Pillai, V. 2015b. Diversity indices of homegarden plants in rural and urban areas in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India. Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences, 3(9): 752-761. [19] Neelamegam, R., Premkumar, K.B., Ancel Sowmiya, S. and Fathima Sabana, A.R. 2015c. Floristic composition and diversity assessment of homegarden plants in a rural village, Swamithoppe, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India. Scholars Academic Journal of Biosciences, 3(11): 901-913. [20] Karyono. 1990. Home Gardens in Java. Their Structure and Function. In: Landauer, K., & Brazil, M. (eds). Tropical Home Gardens. The United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, p.138-146. [21] Gillespie, A.R., Knudson, D.M. and Geilfus, F. 1993. The structure of four homegardens in the Petén, Guatemala. Agroforestry Systems, 24 : 157-170. [22] Wiersum, K.F. 1982. Tree gardening and taungyc in Java: Example of agroforestry techniques in the humid tropics . Agroforestry system, 1: 53-70. [23] Blanckaert, I., Swennen, R.L., Paredes Flores, M., Rosas Lopez, R. and Lira Saade, R. 2004. Floristic composition, plant uses and management practices in homegardens of San Rafael Coxcatan, valley of Tehuacan-Cuicatlan, Mexico. Journal of Arid Environment, 57 : 39-62. [24] Eichemberg, M.T., Maria Christina, de MeoAmorozo, e Leila Cunha de Moura. 2009. Species composition and plant use in old urban home gardens in Ris Claro, southeast of Brazil. Acta bot Bras, 23 (4): 1057-1075. [25] Tynsong, H. and Tiwari, B.K. 2010. Plant diversity in the homegardens and their significance in the livelihoods of War Khasi community of Meghalaya, Northeast India. Journal of Biodiversity, 1(1): 1-11. [26] Abishkar Subedi, Rojee Suwa, Resham Gautam, Sharmila Sunwar and Pratap Shrestha. 2004. Status and composition of plant genetic diversity in Nepalese Home Gardens. In: Home Gardens in Nepal: Proceeding of a workshop (eds.) 2006, Hautam, R., Sthapit, B.R., & Shrestha, P.K., Pokhara, Nepal. *******