73

Fruits (6), 342–348 | ISSN 0248-1294 print, 1625-967X online | https://doi.org/10.17660/th2018/73.6.4 | © ISHS 2018 Review article – Thematic Issue Traditional enset [ ventricosum (Welw.) Cheesman]

improvement sucker propagation methods and opportunities for crop Z. Yemataw , K. Tawle 3 1 1 2,a 1 , G. Blomme and K. Jacobsen 23 The Southern Agricultural Research Institute (SARI-Areka), Areka Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 79, Areka, Bioversity International, c/o ILRI, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Royal Museum for Central Africa, Leuvensesteenweg 13, 3080 Tervuren, Belgium Summary Significance of this study Introduction – This review focuses on the enset What is already known on this subject? systems in Ethiopia and explores opportunities • to improve the system. Cultivated enset is predomi- nantly vegetatively propagated by farmers. Repro- Traditional macro-propagation methods, using entire duction of an enset from seed is seldom prac- scaperhizomes level. or rhizome pieces, currently suffice to pro- ticed by farmers and has been reported only from vide the needed enset suckers at farm, village or land- the highlands of Gardula. Seedlings arising from seed What are the new findings? are reported to be less vigorous than the suckers • e.g., obtained through vegetative propagation. Rhizomes when introducing a new enset or coping with from immature , between 2 and 6 years old, severeWhen larger disease quantities or pest impacts, of suckers improved/novel are needed, mi are preferred for the production of suckers. The aver- age number of suckers produced per rhizome ranges this review paper, could offer solutions. - from 40 to 200, depending on soil conditions, culti- cro- and macro-propagation techniques, as listed in var type, size and age of the parent plant, amount of What is the expected impact on horticulture? rainfall, land preparation and time of planting. Tra- • Clean enset planting materials as part of an integrated ditional macro-propagation of enset suckers involves both men and women farmers. Sucker propagation and transplanting activities often contribute to the field and landscape management approach will con- dissemination or maintenance of pests (e.g., the en- tribute to healthier and more resilient systems. set root mealy bug or ) and diseases (e.g., enset bacterial wilt). Conclusion – Macro- and mi- issues de semences seraient moins vigoureuses cro-propagation are useful technologies to improve que les rejets obtenus par multiplication végétative. the efficiency of sucker production and to provide Les rhizomes de plantes immatures, âgées de 2 à 6 clean replacement plants in locations where diseases ans, sont préférés pour la production de rejets. Le have affected plantations or to locally multiply newly nombre moyen de rejets produits par rhizome varie introduced for distribution. de 40 à 200, en fonction du type de sol et de cultivar, de la taille et de l’âge de la plante mère, de la pluvio- Keywords métrie, de la préparation du sol et de la saison de plantation. La macro-propagation traditionnelle des vegetative propagation enset, Ethiopia, macro-propagation, micro-propagation, rejets d’ensète mobilise les agriculteurs, hommes et femmes. Les activités de propagation et de repiquage Résumé des rejets contribuent souvent à la dissémination ou au maintien d’organismes nuisibles (par exemple, la (Welw.) punaise cornéenne ou les nématodes) et de maladies Méthodes de propagation des rejets d’en- (par exemple, le flétrissement bactérien de l’ensète). Conclusion – La macro- et la micro-propagation sont culturale.sète traditionnel [ des technologies utiles pour améliorer l’efficacité de Cheesman]Introduction et opportunités– Cette revue pour se concentre l’amélioration sur les la production de rejets, et pour fournir des plants systèmes semenciers de l’ensète en Ethiopie et ex- sains de remplacement aux endroits où les maladies plore les opportunités pour améliorer le système. ont affecté les plantations ou pour multiplier locale- L’ensète cultivée est principalement multipliée par ment des cultivars nouvellement introduits. voie végétative par les agriculteurs. La reproduction d’un plant d’ensète à partir d’une graine est rarement Mots-clés pratiquée par les producteurs et n’a été signalée que Ensete ventricosum sur les hauts plateaux de Gardula. Les plantules ensète, , Ethiopie, macro-propagation, a micro-propagation, multiplication végétative

Corresponding author: [email protected].

342 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture Yemataw et al

. | Traditional enset sucker propagation methods and opportunities for crop improvement Introduction ceremonies, and an often limited number of enset plants perular farm, food scarcity,households family most or often social harvest obligations enset andbefore annual the The arable Ethiopian highlands, ranging from 1,200 consideredto 3,100 m as a.s.l., one andof the located foremost between centres 35°17’23.56” of origin for andthe 40°23’24.35”E and 5°18’22.38” and 14°09’47.70”N, are plant reaches full maturity and a bunch/fruits with (Triticum Hordeum vulgare), coffee (), vari is developed (Pankhurst, 1996). In addition, enset plants ousdomestication pulses, tef ( ofEragrostis a wide varietytef) and ofenset plants, (Ensete including ventricosum wheat) kochoshould ( preferablyi.e., fermented be harvested starch obtained at or immediately from grated after rhizome, flow- ), barley ( et al. - er emergence to produce optimum quantities and quality of tication of enset is estimated to have arisen in Ethiopia as et al. (Vavilov, 1926; Brandt, 1996; Haile et al., 1996). The domes- real stem and pseudostem leaf sheath tissue) (Tsegaye and in the Struik, 2002; Yemataw , 2014). At the farm-level, propa- acteristicsearly as 10,000 with itsyears close ago relative, (Brandt the ., 1997). The As wild a and gation of enset cultivars is primarily vegetative, through the cultivated Ensete family,ventricosum enset shares many botanical char- production of suckers. In a typical enset farm, the main activities include prepar- of banana, but which produces isno a edible large, fruit. tree-like monocot, ing and planting rhizomes fori.e sucker., plants production, are uprooted, production most of with stiff, semi-erect leaves and a flower that resembles that theof young roots suckersand leaves (Figure are removed 1), subsequent and plants one are or replantedmore steps at of a transplanting of the suckers ( As with wild enset, cultivated enset often produces seed. enset plot, harvesting plants, processing of pseudostem leaf However, cultivated enset is predominantly propagated veg- sheathswider spacing), and rhizomes, final transplanting, and fermentation management and storage of the of maturekocho/ andetatively. are sustainable Traditional invegetative the absence macro-propagation of pests (e.g., the methods enset can rapidly multiply large quantitiese.g., Xanthomonas of planting wilt materials of en i.e starch. This review focuses on the enset sucker propagation root mealy bug) or diseases ( - methods/system ( ., all steps before the first transplanting) plantingset). However, material when using pest/disease-affected traditional propagation plants aremethods. pres- and opportunities to improve the system. This review is based ent in a field, it becomes more difficult to produce healthy on publications, grey literature and reports which were com- in the context of biotic factors and climate change/higher agationpiled by have the Southernbeen researched Agricultural on over Research the past Institute decades, (SARI) and This makes enset farming systems vulnerable, particularlyet al., thisand review Bioversity provides International. a structured Various overview aspects of results of enset and prop rec-

temperatures that could worsen the situation (Brandt light of possible future research endeavours. - 1997; McKnight, 2013). ommendations, and discusses research knowledge gaps in the Propagation by seed is possible, but for reasons of reg-

Figure 1.

Traditional macro-propagation of enset seedlings in a backyard in southern Ethiopia (Source: Guy Blomme).

F VolumeIGURE 1. 73 | Issue 6 | November-December 2018 343

Traditional macro-propagation of enset seedlings in a backyard in southern Ethiopia.

10 Yemataw et al

. | Traditional enset sucker propagation methods and opportunities for crop improvement Propagation by seed Wild enset reproduces through seed, while cultivated et al. ulateRhizomes sucker production.from immature When thevegetative apical stage plants, is left intact, only one shoot will arise (Diro , 1996). landraces are vegetatively multiplied, which over centuries of cultivation might have altered seed morphology (Zerihun Yematawbetween 2et and al. 4 years old, are preferred for the production Yemataw, 2017, pers. commun.). Enset seeds from cultivated of suckers (Bezuneh and Feleke, 1966; Negash, 2001; coat,types which are characterized is hard, impermeable by low germination and contains rates certain (Negash, chem , 2014). The apical meristem is slightly raised/ 2001). This is attributed partly to the structure of the seed grows upward within the pseudostem (3–12 cm for 2–3 - year old plants) and therefore a portion of the pseudostem ical inhibitors which affect germination efficiency, and partly sections(10–20 cm) of musttissues remain situated intact around when theharvesting apical ameristem, rhizome due to the considerable number of so-called empty seeds, for sucker production. This is in order not to remove etlarge al., havewhich a arefar higherseeds containinggermination no rate, embryo as has or been endosperm observed (Ne in- gash, 2001). In contrast, seeds from wild enset types often tissues that can give rise to numerous suckers (Diro 1996). After uprooting the rhizome (sometimes it is left Ethiopia and along the rift valley highlands in eastern Demet- in the ground), the apical meristem and ideally as little as al.ocratic Republic of Congo (Zerihun Yemataw, 2016, pers. possible of the surrounding tissues is removed, making the commun.; Guy Blomme, 2014, pers. commun.). Karlsson center of the pseudostem hollow (Negash, 2001). The hollow (2013) found that germination of mature enset seeds ob- area is refilled with manure, soil, humus and perhaps soft tained from five wild and six cultivated enset plants ranged crushed stones (Simmonds, 1958; Bezuneh and Feleke, 1966; seedfrom lots5–55% of wild depending and cultivated on genotype. origin, In which this study,might thebe dueav- Olmstead, 1974) or the rhizome is split into two or four equal erage germination rate did not differ significantly between parts. The rhizome may be left in the sun or shade for 2–5 days before planting to allow the wounds to heal (Tsegaye to the used landraces and wild genotypes. Overall,et al. time to and Struik, 2002; Bezuneh and Feleke, 1966). Rhizomes or 50% of final germination was 8.5 weeks and no germination rhizome pieces are planted (20–30 cm deep) in loosened occurred after 28 weeks of incubation. Dalbato (2014) soil, often mixed with manure (Diro and Tsegaye, 2012). did not find a positive effect of chemicals, mechanical scar- Field trials demonstrate that the practice of filling the ification, or warm water pre-treatments on germination. In hollow space with clod or manure has no significantet al. effect on assessedcontrast, Diroenset and landraces. Tsegaye (2012) reported an improved ger- sucker production; nor does the practice of leaving a rhizome minationReproduction rate after of scarification, the enset plant which from may seed be is seldomlinked to prac the in the sun for a few days before re-planting (Diro , 1996; Makiso, 1996). Replicated field trials have also shown that - suckers from half and quarter split-rhizomes emerged earlier ticed by farmers (as plants are most often harvested before/ than those from the whole rhizome (Tabogie and Diro, 1992). at flower emergence in order to obtain maximum amounts of TheseOn average observations 22, 76 and might 102 suckers indicate emerged that apical from dominancewhole, half starch). Harvesting at flower emergence prevents relocation and quarter rhizomes, respectively (Tabogie and Diro, 1992). of nutrients from rhizome and stem to the growing inflores- cence. Reproduction via seed has only been reported from of the central meristem is not the only factor involved in racesthe highlands with seedlings of Gardula, obtained which from might seed indicate (which an represent interest suppressing suckers/regulating sucker development on from the farmers to compare vegetative propagated land- enset rhizomes. Early emergence is associated with more vigorous suckers, which promotes success of establishment, new genotypes). However, seedlings obtained from seed are higher and earlier yield. Moreover, failure of suckers to fully less vigorous in terms of speed of growth than the suckers develop is higher in the case of whole rhizome (25%) and obtained from vegetative propagations (Alemu and Sand- lowest for the half rhizome (8%) (Tabogie andi.e. Diro, 1992). limitingford, 1991). factor for enset breeding efforts (Morpurgo et al., Farmers in the Gurage and Wolaita areas are known to The difficulty propagating enset from seeds has been a sort undersized/underdeveloped suckers ( , suckers that are not growing vigorously enough) and replant them in 1996; Zerihun Yemataw, 2017, pers. commun.). The Ethiopi- the Variationsnursery for in further rhizome growth, preparation and eventual are reported field betweenplanting an national research organization (SARI) at its Areka research (Spring, 1996). et al. station, initiated enset breeding efforts in 1999 through the ouscollection use values of landraces (e.g., kocho and, bullawild genotypesamicho as parent). materi- different ethnic groups (Diro , 1996). The ethnic als, with the aim to breed improved enset genotypes for vari- affiliation is a stronger determinant for decision-making Traditional vegetative , propagationfiber and whetherthan the or wealth not farmers category uproot to which the rhizome, the farming and whether household or belongs (Tsegaye and Struik, 2002).et al.Differences are seen in

groundVegetative stem ( i.e. propagation, rhizome, isalso the called primary a ), method with used nodes by not it is split after uprooting (Diro , 1996). For example, farmers to produce enset suckers. Enset has a large under- thefarmers whole of rhizome. the Wolaita, Where the whole Gamo and the are Gofa used, use farmers a split growing buds are not located on the outer surface of the rhi rhizome to produce suckers. Farmers from other areas prefer and internodes. Suckers arise on the rhizome surface. The in situ per sections of the rhizome, and around the apical meristem,- either destroy the apical meristem, but leave the rhizome zome as ‘eyes’ but are found in concentric circles on the up- (Jemjem, Gedeo and some areas of Gofa awrajas), or et al. they first uproot the rhizome, destroy the apical meristem and can be revealed though removal of leaf sheaths layer by eitherand then use replant split therhizome rhizome or (Kambata-Hadiyawhole rhizome preparationand Chebo- ensetlayer fromplants the is rhizomerare due (Diroto the dominance, 1996). ofIn thecontrast apical to mer ba- Gurage areas). Farmers from the Sidamaet al. area and the Ari nana, naturally occurring sucker production of field-grown - methods to produce suckers (Diro , 1996; Yntiso, 1996; istem, which must be destroyed/removed in order to stim- Tsegaye and Struik, 2002).

344 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture Yemataw et al

. | Traditional enset sucker propagation methods and opportunities for crop improvement Karlsson et al. splitting, application of cow manure just next to buried (2014) assessed the effect of rhizome ±89 surviving plants2 are transplanted for a second time to one of two 200 m fields (at 1.5×1.5 m spacing). Two years rhizomes and regular watering on sucker emergence and later (year 4), the ±80 surviving plants2 are transplanted for entiregrowth. than The forfirst split suckers rhizomes, started while emerging a higher at 50 number days after of the third time to one of four 500 m fields (at 2.5×2.5 m rhizome burial. Time to sucker emergence was longer for spacing). The plants are now left to mature for 4 years (year 8) until harvest, and every year, one of these four final fields, suckers were obtained per rhizome when it was split. Less consisting of 80 plants, can be harvested. This system takes rhizomethan 60 for suckers the rhizomes were recorded that were for split entire in two rhizomes, or four pieces. while 8 years to become productive, after which harvesting can between 60 and 140 suckers were most often recorded per be carried out annually. The number of plants in Makiso’s (1976) example is based on the observation that 30–100 Watering decreased average time to sucker appearance and lossenset of plants plants harvested at each transplanting annually supplies phase. the enset needs for resulted in more even sucker emergence and growth. For a 5–6 person household. The example also assumes a 10% example, time to sucker emergence ranged from 60 to 65 Enset cultivar diversity and sucker days for watered rhizomes of the ‘Zerita’ enset cultivar, while production it ranged from 60 to 85 days for non-watered rhizomes. This willis contradictory cause rhizome to rotting. local beliefIn areas which where often extended says thatdroughts it is impossible to water newly buried rhizomes, as this practice Throughout the enset-growing regions, the maintenance toof ensethave more cultivar land, diversity grow more contributes enset significantlyand maintain to more food are common and watering is impossible,et al. it may be preferable and livelihood security, whereby wealthier households tend to bury entire rhizomes, to, as much as possible, utilize the choice of cultivar on multiple criteria including ecological rhizome’s own water. Blomme (2008) reported that adaptation,diversified tolerance cultivars to (Negash, various 2001).diseases, Farmers rate of growth base their and enset rhizomes contain 83% water, while rhizomes used for propagation (sourced from 2 to 4 years old plants) weigh on average around 2–4 kg. The application of cow manure maturity, fibre quality and quantity, quality and quantity of adjacent to rhizomes, to give the emerging suckerset al. quick food yield, ease of work during decortication, size and taste access to nutrients, resulted in a high sucker emergence of rhizome afteret cooking, al. food and fodder quality, medicinal rate and subsequent vigorous growth. Karlsson (2014) attributes (Makiso, 1996; Negash, 2001; Tsegaye and Struik, concluded that vegetative propagation using buried disease- 2002; Yemataw , 2014). burial.free rhizomes in the field results in a large amount of healthy A loss of cultivar diversity has been reported due to and vigorous suckers, ideal for re-planting, 9 months after maintenancedisease encroachment of certain pests (Negash, and diseases, 2001). Propagationsuch as bacterial and transplanting activitiesXanthomonas may aggravate campestris the pv dissemination. musacearum, andthe Tsegaye and Struik (2002) reported that suckers appear Cataenococcus ensete), the root lesion 2–3 months after the rhizome or rhizomeet al. pieces have been nematodewilt caused Pratylenchus by goodeyi buried and remain undisturbed for at least a year before the Meloidogyneenset root mealy bug ( first transplant is carried out. Diro (1996) observed et al., the root-knot that new roots initiate from growing points on the suckers’ sp., mosaic and chlorotic streak viruses (Quimio developing rhizome after transplanting. From 2 to 6 new Effectsand Tessera, of 1996; gender Morpurgo in enset , 1996; sucker Negash, 2001). desiccateroots of 1.5 following to 19 cm transplanting, length can be exceptexpected for 15 the days central after production transplanting (DAT) and about 50 cm at 35 DAT. Leaves transplantingcigar leaf, which since continues their absence to grow does up not to 15affect DAT. the For growth ease The production of suckers consists of a series of of handling, farmers mayet al. remove roots and leaves upon consecutive tasks, whereby some are more gender-specific than others. As a backyard crop, enset is primarily considered of the transplants (Diro , 1996). betweena women’s husband crop (Negash, and wife,2001; as Pankhurst, is the time 1996). of However,planting The number of suckers produced per rhizome ranges decision-making regarding cultivar diversity is shared rainfall,between land 40 and preparation 200, depending and time on soilof planting conditions, (Shambulo cultivar ettype, al. size and age of mother plant rhizome, amount of and(Negash, also contribute 2001). Women with plant are moreharvesting, involved leaf insheath carrying and rhizomesuckers forprocessing, transplanting kocho and manuring the transplants, , 2012). An average enset farming household cultivates men are more involved in propagation, transplanting, between 200 and 400 plants and consumes about 10 to 20 digging the pits (for fermentation storage andof the marketing. harvested Whereas enset), plants annually. So, 1 to 4 parent rhizomes can fulfil the annual requirement for enset planting materials (Bezuneh with males helping during harvest and females responsible and Feleke, 1966; Negash, 2001). and weeding. There is some flexibility in gender-division, Overall, traditional propagation of enset suckers is resource intensive, in terms of space and labour requirement. for transporting manure from the homestead to the field and For example, Makiso (1976, cited in Hiebsch, 1996) noted Suckerfor weeding movement (Olmstead, 1974). and markets that in a typical entire 8-year enset production system, is needed with 4 transplanting steps, with each step taking respectively2 1, 1, 2 and 4 years, an overall surface area of 2,455 m There are very few reports describing sucker markets to harvest2 80 nearly mature enset plants from a space of2 and movement of enset suckers. In Kaffa Shaka, enset suckers 500 m annually. This production system starts with a 5 m of various cultivars are traditionally exchanged together nursery with 5 rhizomes (at 1×1 m spacing), planted at with indigenous knowledge about the crop/cultivars as a year 0. After one year (year 1), the ±100 suckers produced2 communities,means of increasing between cultivar neighbouring diversity villages on farm. and sometimes Exchanges in this nursery are transplanted for the first time to a 50 m are made between neighbours, relatives or kin and within field (at 1.0×0.5 m spacing). After another year (year 2), the

Volume 73 | Issue 6 | November-December 2018 345 Yemataw et al

. | Traditional enset sucker propagation methods and opportunities for crop improvement Conclusion

beyond (Negash, 2001). Rahmato (1996) reports that poor farmers may occasionally sell their young plants to others Traditional macro-propagation methods, using entire who need them for propagation purposes. Woldetensaye rhizomes or rhizome pieces, currently suffice to providee.g., (1997) reported that farmers from Dale Yirgalem district whenthe needed introducing enset suckersa new enset at farm, cultivar village or copingor landscape with severe level. (located higher than 2,100 m in the Sidama zone of the However, when larger quantities of suckers are needed, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region of Ethiopia) produce suckers as a main source of cash income disease or pest impacts, improved/novel micro- and macro- and sucker markets are widely practiced. However, selling inpropagation vitro multiplication techniques, technologies as listed in this and review ongoing paper, breeding could and buying of suckers in Sodo and Butajera districts hardly offer solutions. Current research in Ethiopia on fine-tuning occurs, as planting material is mainly distributed as gifts. In addition, households in these districts are most often self- efforts for improved enset genotypes for various use values Improved/novelsufficient for sucker production. rapid propagation will contribute to a high-quality clean planting material technologies Acknowledgmentssupply system. Several novel methods for rapid propagation of enset

We would like to thank the Directorate General for are found in the literature. Alternative pathways for the Development, Belgium, for funding this research through the rapid propagation of ensetet are al. discussed extensively by Diro Consortium for Improving Agriculture-based Livelihoods in and Van Staden (2004), including zygotic embryo culture Central Africa (CIALCA). We would also like to acknowledge (Bezuneh, 1980; Negash , 2000,et 2001;al. Diro and Van the financial contribution of the CGIAR Research Program etStaden, al. 2003), shoot tip culture (Georgeet al. and Sherrington, on Roots, Tubers and and the CGIAR Fund Donors. 1984; Nehra and Kartha, 1994; Afza , 1996; Morpurgo A special appreciation is due to the Southern Agricultural , 1996; Zeweldu, 1997;et Negashal. , 2000),et and al. callus Research Institute (SARI), the Ethiopian Institute of Mathewculture and et al. somatic embryogenesis (George and Sherrington, Agricultural Research (EIAR) and the Areka Agricultural 1984; Zeweldu, 1997; Afza , 1996; Morpurgo , 1996; Research Centers for providing all necessary facilities/ culture or in ,vitro 2000;) are Mathew useful and technologies Philip, 2003). to provide large Referencessupport to carry out this review. numbersMacro-propagation of replacement and plants micro-propagation where diseases have (syn. reduced tissue Ensete ventricosum buds.Afza, R.,Plant Van Duren,Cell Rep. M., and15 Morpurgo, R. (1996). Regeneration of plantations or to locally multiply desired cultivars for through somatic embryogenesis and adventitious distribution. Makiso (1996) refers to a macro-propagation , 445–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00232073. plantingmethod toin plasticregenerate tubes enset or bags, plants and raisingby cutting them the in rhizome,a growth with leaf bases intact, vertically into small pieces and Alemu, K., and Sandford, S. (1991). Enset in North Omo region. FRP Technical Pamphlet No. 1, Farmers’ Research Project (Addis Ababa, chamber with proper temperature and humidity (20 °C and Ethiopia: FARM Africa), 49 pp. moist medium of soil or any other material). 2 Bezuneh, T. (1980). The morphology of Ensete embryo in vitro These technologies may also help reduce the culture. Ethiopian J. Agric. Sci. , 23–28. vulnerability of enset farming systems in several ways. 20 orFirstly, in vitro in culture) combination enables with conservation, a field gene rapid bank propagation collection, Bezuneh, T., and Feleke, A. (1966). The production and utilization the use of improved micro-propagation (syn. tissue culture of the genus Ensete in Ethiopia. Economic Botany (USA) , 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861927. Relative performance of root and shoot development in Enset and and distribution of clean planting materials (Negash, 2001). Blomme, G., Sebuwufu, G., Addis, T., and Turyagyenda, L.F. (2008). Although no off-types have been reported, a challenge 16 with multiplying enset in vitro is the presence of phenolic east African highland bananas. African Crop Sci. J., Special Issue, compounds which result in extensive blackening, especially Research Advances in Banana and Enset in Eastern Africa (1), at the stage of bringing from field-grown plants 51–57. into culture (Disasa and Diro, 2012). Diro and Van Staden Brandt, S. (1996). A model for the origins and evolution of enset as(2004) a result also of note phenolic that micro-propagation oxidation of explants, of enset necrosis plants and is food production. In Enset-based sustainable agriculture in Ethiopia. theprone formation to various of unwanted problems, callus. including Furthermore, extensive blackeninglow levels Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, Addis of multiple shoot formation are observed from shoot tip Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural Research), p. 34–46. explants, for which the use of cytokinins does not provide Brandt, S.A., Spring, A., Hiebsch, C., McCabe, J.T., Tabogie, E., Diro, M., ofa solution enset cultivars (Diro and for Van tolerance Staden, or2004). resistance Secondly, to pestsimproved and Wolde-Michael, G., Yntiso, G., Shigeta, M., and Tesfaye, S. (1997). The pathogens,micro-propagation as in the facilitatescase of banana the ( usee.g. of rapidet screeningal. of“tree Science), against 66 hunger”. pp. Enset-based agricultural systems in Ethiopia Tripathi et al. (Washington DC, USA: American Association for the Advancement , Dochez , 2000; Sexual propagation: a potential tool for genetic improvement of , 2008). Thirdly, enset breeding may profit from EnseteDalbato, ventricosum A.L., Karlsson,. Proceedings L.M., Tamado, of the T.,International and Mikias, Conference: Y. (2014). improved micro-propagation through somatic hybridization and recombinant DNA techniques applied to callus culture to obtain new genotypes, or by facilitating seed germination “Horticulture in quality and culture of life”, J. Wolf, J. Necasova, and T. (Diro and Van Staden, 2004). Necas, eds. (Lednice). p. 508–513.

346 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture Yemataw et al

. | Traditional enset sucker propagation methods and opportunities for crop improvement . (accessed

Diro, M., and Tsegaye, A. (2012). Research and Development files/11-283_enset_year_2_consolidated_report_2013.pdf Experience on Enset Agronomy. In Enset Research and Development September 29, 2017). Experiences in Ethiopia. Proceedings of Enset National Workshop, 19–20 August 2010, Y. Mohammed, and H. Tariku, eds. (Wolkite, Morpurgo, R., Afza, R., and Novak, F.J. (1996). Biotechnology and Ethiopia), p. 48–63. In vitro regeneration of Ensete enset achievements and perspectives. In Enset-based Sustainable ventricosum Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings from the International 69Diro, M., and Van Staden, J. (2003). Workshop on Enset, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, from zygotic embryos of stored seeds. South Afric. J. Bot. T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute , 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0254-6299(15)30319-7. of Agricultural Research), p. 256–269. Ensete 70 ventricosum Welw. Cheesman) and Its Relation to Household Food Diro, M., and Van Staden, J. (2004). Propagation of Ensete in vitro: Negash, A. (2001). Diversity and Conservation of Enset ( A review. South Afric. J. Bot. , 497–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0254-6299(15)30187-3. and Livelihood Security in South-western Ethiopia. Ph.D. thesis (Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University and Diro, M., Haile, B., and Tabogie, E. (1996). Enset propagation Research Centre), 247 pp. research review. In Enset-based Sustainable Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, Addis Negash, A., Krens, F., Schaart, J., and66 Visser, B. (2001). In vitro Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, conservation of enset under slow-growth conditions. Plant S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (2), 107–111. https://doi. Research), p. 242–250. org/10.1023/A:1010647905508. In vitro regeneration and micropropagation of enset from Southwestern Disasa, T., and Diro, M. (2012). Research experiences on enset Negash, A., Puite, K., Schaart, J., Visser, B., and Krens, F.62 (2000). biotechnology in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of Enset National Workshop, 19–20 August, 2010, Y. Mohammed, and H. Tariku, eds. Ethiopia. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (2), 153–158. (Wolkite, Ethiopia), p. 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026701419739. Radopholus similis. InfoMusaDochez, C., 9 Speijer, P.R., Hartman, J., Vuylsteke, D., and De Waele, D. Nehra, N.S., and Kartha, K.K. (1994). Meristem and shoot tip culture: (2000). Screening hybrids for resistance to Requirements and applications. In Plant Cell and Tissue Culture, , 3–4. I.K. Vasil, and A. Thorpe, eds. (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers), p. 37–70. George, E.F., and Sherrington, P.D. (1984). Plant Propagation by 12 Tissue Culture (Basingstoke, UK: Exegetics Ltd.). Olmstead, J. (1974). The versatile ensete plant: its use in the Gamu highland. J. Ethiopian Stud. , 147–153. Haile, B., Diro, M., and Tabogie, E. (1996). Agronomic research on enset. In Enset-based Sustainable Agriculture in Ethiopia. Pankhurst, A. (1996). Enset as seen in early Ethiopian literature: Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, Addis history and diffusion. In Enset-based Sustainable Agriculture in Ababa, 13–20 December 1993, A. Tsedeke, C. Hiebisch, S.A. Brandt, Ethiopia. Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, and G. Seifu, eds. p. 235–241.Ensete ventricosum Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural Hiebsch, C. (1996). Yield of : A concept. In Enset- Research), p. 69–82. based Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Enset, A. Tsedeke, H. Hiebsch, S. Brandt, and G.M. Siefu, Quimio, A.J., and Tessera, M. (1996). Diseases of Enset. In Enset- eds. (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Institute of Agricultural Research). based Sustainable Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings from Ensete ventricosum (Musaceae). the International Workshop on Enset, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, SeedKarlsson, Sci. andL.M., Technol. Tamado, 41 T., Dalbato, A.L., and Mikias, Y. (2013). Seed 13–20 December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. morphology and germination of Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural Research), p. 188–203. (3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.15258/ sst.2013.41.3.04. Rahmato, D. (1996). Resilience and vulnerability: Enset agriculture in Southern Ethiopia. In Enset-based Sustainable Agriculture in Karlsson, L.M., Dalbato, A.L.,Ensete Tamado, ventricosum T., and Mikias, Y. (2014). Effect Ethiopia. Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, 51of cultivar, traditional corm pre-treatment and watering on sprouting Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, and early growth of enset ( ) suckers. Exper. Agric. S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural , 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479714000246. Research), p. 83–106. In Proceedings of the 6th and potentials of enset (Ensete ventricosum) production: in case of Makiso, T. (1976, cited in Hiebsch, 1996). Study on the yield of enset Shambulo, A., Gecho, Y., and Tora, M. (2012). Diversity, challenges Annual Research Seminar, 12–14 November Mgt. 7 1975 (Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: IAR), p. 246–254. Offa Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Food Sci. and Quality Makiso, T. (1996). Mode of enset propagation. In Enset-based , 24–31. 35 Sustainable Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings from the Simmonds, N.W. (1958). Ensete cultivation in the Southern highlands International Workshop on Enset, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 of Ethiopia: A review. Tropic. Agric. , 302–307. December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural Research), p. 250–255. Spring, A. (1996). Gender issues and farming systems research and . Plant extension in enset agriculture in Ethiopia. In Enset-based Sustainable Mathew, M.M., and Philip, V.J. (2003).72 Somatic embryogenesis Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings from the International versus zygotic embryogenesis in Workshop on Enset, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture , 267–275. https://doi. T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute org/10.1023/A:1022311126043. of Agricultural Research), p. 172–187. Ensete superbum (Roxb: Cheesman). Mathew, M.M., Manuel, 5R., and Philip, V.J. (2000). Callus regeneration Tabogie, E., and Diro, M. (1992). Enset propagation. In Proceedings and somatic embryogenesis in of the Second National Horticultural Workshop, 1–3 December 1992 Indian J. Plant Physiol. , 392–396. (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: IAR). of Enset (Ensete ventricosum McKnight, C. (2013). Integrated pv. Management of Bacterial Wilt musacearum 27Thiele, G. (1999). Informal potato seed systems in the Andes: why are (Welw.)http://ccrp.org/sites/default/ Cheesman) caused by they important and what should we do with them? World Developm. in Ethiopia. Annual , 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00128-4. Report 11/2012–10/2013, 73 p.

Volume 73 | Issue 6 | November-December 2018 347 Yemataw et al

. | Traditional enset sucker propagation methods and opportunities for crop improvement

Tripathi, L., Odipio, J., Tripathi, J.N., and121 Tusiime, G. (2008). A rapid technique for screening banana cultivars for resistance to Xanthomonas wilt. Europ. J. Plant Pathol. , 9–19. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10658-007-9235-4. Ensete ventricosum Tsegaye, A., and Struik, P.C. (2002). Analysis of enset ( ) indigenous 38 production methods and farm-based biodiversity in major enset-growing regions of southern Ethiopia. Exper. Agric. , 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0014479702003046. Vavilov, I. (1926). Studies on the Origin of Cultivated Plants. (Leningrad: Institute of Applied Botanical Plant Breeding). Woldetensaye, A. (1997). Nutrient circulation within enset growing farms in two regions of Ethiopia. In Enset-based Sustainable Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural Research), p. 287–297. Enset (Ensete ventricosum Yemataw, Z., Mohamed, H., Diro, M., Addis, T., and Blomme, G. (2014).61(6), ) clone selection by farmers and their cultural practices in southern Ethiopia. Gen. Res. Crop Evol. 1091–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-014-0093-6. Yntiso, G. (1996). Economic and socio-cultural significance of enset among the Ari of southwestern Ethiopia. In Enset-based Sustainable Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings from the International Workshop on Enset, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia, 13–20 December 1993, T. Abate, C. Hiebsch, S.A. Brandt, and S. Gebremariam, eds. (Institute of Agricultural Research), p. 107–120. and Plantain (Musa In Vitro Methods for PropagationZeweldu, T. (1997).of Enset Comparative (Ensete Tissue Culture Study on Banana spp.) and Development of spp.). Ph.D. thesis (Berlin, Germany: Humboldt University).

Received: Jan. 30, 2018 Accepted: Oct. 19, 2018

348 International Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Horticulture