Home and in situ conservation of genetic resources in farming systems

Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop, 17–19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany J.W. Watson and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

IPGRI is a Future Centre supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Home gardens and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems

Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop, 17–19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany J.W. Watson and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors ii HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an autonomous international scientific organization, supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). IPGRI’s mandate is to advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present and future generations. IPGRI’s headquarters is based in Maccarese, near Rome, , with offices in another 19 countries worldwide. The Institute operates through three programmes: (1) the Plant Genetic Resources Programme, (2) the CGIAR Genetic Resources Support Programme and (3) the International Network for the Improvement of and Plantain (INIBAP). The international status of IPGRI is conferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January 2001, had been signed and ratified by the Governments of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, , , Burkina Faso, Cameroon, , , Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, , Egypt, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, , , Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, , Poland, , Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine. In 2000 financial support for the Research Agenda of IPGRI was provided by the Governments of Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, F.R. Yugoslavia (Serbia and ), Finland, , Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, , Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (F.Y.R.), Malta, , the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, , , Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the UK and the USA and by the African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Center for Development Research (ZEF), Center for Research (CIFOR), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Costa Rica (CATIE), Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), European Environmental Agency, European Union, and Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Food and Technology Center for the Asia and Pacific Region (FFTC), Future Harvest, Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), Instituto Colombiano para el Desarollo de la Cienca y la Technología (COLCIENCIAS), Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), International Association for the Promotion of Cooperation with Scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (INTAS), International Development Research Centre (IDRC), International Foundation for Science (IFS), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), National Geographic Society, Natural Resources Institute (NRI), Programme on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PGRA), Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology (FONTAGRO), Rockefeller Foundation, Taiwan Banana Research Institute (TBRI), Technova, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNDP Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UNEP Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Vlaamse Vereiniging voor Ontwikkelingssasamenwerking en Technische Bijstand (VVOB) and the World Bank. The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI or the CGIAR concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only for information.

Citation: Watson, J.W. and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors. 2002. Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop: Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems, 17–19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.

ISBN 92-9043-517-8

IPGRI Via dei Tre Denari 472/a 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino) Rome, Italy

© International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 2002 CONTENTS iii

Contents

Acknowledgements v

Foreword vi

Introduction Opening remarks 1 G. Fischbeck Home gardens—a genetic resources perspective 3 J. Engels Home gardens agrobiodiversity: an overview across regions 10 P.B. Eyzaguirre and J. Watson

Technical contributions Home gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity 14 T. Hodgkin Documentation of plant genetic resources in home gardens 19 H. Knüpffer Contributions of home gardens to our knowledge on cultivated plant : the Mansfeld approach 27 K. Hammer Characterizing genetic diversity of home species: 34 some examples from the Americas M. Hoogendijk and D. Williams Contributions of home gardens agrobiodiversity to development, nutrition and livelihoods 41 P.B. Eyzaguirre and M. Fernandez

Project reports Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources 42 in farming systems—Cuban component L. Castiñeiras, Z. Fundora Mayor, T. Shagarodsky, V. Moreno, O. Barrios, L. Fernández and R. Cristóbal Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation 56 in traditional farming systems—Guatemalan component J. M. Leiva, C. Azurdia, W. Ovando, E. López and H. Ayala Home gardens and in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity—Venezuelan component 73 C. Quiroz, M. Gutiérrez, , D. Rodríguez, D. Pérez, J. Ynfante, J. Gámez, T. Pérez de Fernandez, A. Marques and W. Pacheco Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources 83 in farming systems in S.O. Bennett-Lartey, G.S. Ayernor, C.M. Markwei, I.K. Asante, D.K. Abbiw, S.K. Boateng, V. M. Anchirinah and P. Ekpe Role of home gardens in the conservation of plant genetic resources in 97 L.N. Trinh, N.T.N. Hue, N.N. De, N. V. Minh and P.T. Chu iv HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Case studies Home gardens in Nepal: status and scope for research and development 105 P. Shrestha, R. Gautam, R.B. Rana and B. Sthapit Home gardens in Ethiopia: some observations and generalizations 125 Z. Asfaw Home gardens in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West : a challenge for in situ 140 conservation of plant genetic resources O.S. Abdoellah, Parikesit, B. Gunawan and H.Y. Hadikusumah

Working group reports Plant genetic resources conservation in home gardens: and key species 148 Group A In situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components 151 of complementary conservation and use strategies for plant genetic resources Group B Documentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens 155 Group C Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and priorities for future work on managing home gardens’ agrobiodiversity for development Group A 156 Group B 158 Group C 161

Poster presentations Temperate home gardens of small alpine farmers in Eastern Tyrol (Austria): 163 their value for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity B. Vogl-Lukasser and C R. Vogl Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia and Database on Agricultural and Horticultural 165 J. Ochsmann, H. Knüpffer, N. Biermann and K. Bachmann The home garden database and information system—technical aspects 168 V. Afanasyev, J. Ochsmann and H. Knüpffer Home gardens in Kerala as an efficient agroecosystem for conservation 169 and sustainable management of biodiversity K. Pushkaran Ethnobotany of genetic resources in Germany—diversity in city gardens 171 of immigrants Th. Gladis

Summary and recommendations Conclusions 175 P.B. Eyzaguirre

Appendix I. Workshop Agenda 176

Appendix II. List of Participants 179 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

Acknowledgements

The Home Gardens Workshop documented in these Proceedings was made possible by the conceptual guidance, financial and logistical support of the German Foundation for International Development (DSE). In particular, Eckard Hehne, Wolfgang Zimmermann, Theda Kirchner, and Waltraude Michaelis should be singled out for their contributions in assuring the high quality and partnership that was achieved at this event. DSE was first involved in identifying home garden agrobiodiversity as an important issue for in situ conservation at an earlier workshop in Bonn in 1995 and we are grateful for their long-term support. In addition, the contributions of the University of Kassel, Witzenhausen and of the International Centre for Advanced Training at Witzenhausen (IBZW) to the organization of the Workshop are duly acknowledged. We are grateful that our research partners and scientists from several institutions in Germany and around the world were able to participate; their contributions greatly enriched the discussion. We also thank the team that produced this volume, in particular Annie Huie for compiling the manuscript. The funding for the research phase of the Home Gardens Project was provided by the Federal Ministry for Economic Co-Operation and Development (BMZ) through the Deutche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) and implemented by the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). vi HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Foreword

The roots of this Home Gardens Workshop go back to at an earlier meeting organized by the German Foundation for International Development (DSE) and its Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL) in Bonn, Germany in 1995 to identify priority issues for conservation and use of plant genetic resources in developing countries. IPGRI and various German partners considered a range of problems that developing countries face in managing and conserving plant genetic resources. The meeting also suggested priorities and strategies to increase the contribution of agrobiodiversity and genetic resources to food security and economic development of the rural poor and established a joint priority research agenda. Home gardens, a globally distributed system managed by rural households to maintain and utilise plant diversity, were highlighted as an important system for in situ conservation strategies. Focusing on home gardens was also an opportunity to show how agrobiodiversity contributes to better livelihoods for the rural poor and increases productivity in ecosystems. In 1998, the priorities established at the aforementioned DSE in situ workshop were put into practice in partnership with genetic resources scientists and institutions in developing countries with the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit). A three-year IPGRI research project on agrobiodiversity in home gardens has been implemented in partnership with national plant genetic resources programmes in five countries: Ghana, Vietnam, , and . The Institute of Plant and Crop Plant Research (IPK-Gatersleben) has served as the partner German institution working in the areas of genetic resources documentation and characterization. The results of the Home Garden Project presented in these Workshop Proceedings contribute to national and global strategies for including home gardens as a distinct and important component of in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The national and comparative studies have also begun to establish a clear link between home garden diversity and household livelihoods and food security. IPGRI will continue to build the global research partnerships that provide national programmes and local organizations with the tools to include genetic resources management at the household and levels in national biodiversity conservation and development strategies and policies. We thank the many institutions, communities, and individuals that have contributed to the research on home gardens genetic resources and Germany for its financial support of the Workshop and the research activities.

Geoffrey Hawtin, PhD Director General, IPGRI INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction Opening remarks

Gerhard Fischbeck Emeritus Professor of , University of Munich-Weihenstephan

The purpose of this international workshop is to address the topic ‘Contribution of Home Gardens to the In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems’. As a former university professor of Agronomy and Plant Breeding and one of the early Board members of IBPGR (now IPGRI), I have been interested and engaged in plant genetic resources work for quite some time. Many of the readers will know about, or may even have participated in, the ‘Fourth International FAO Conference on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture’ that was held in Leipzig in 1996. At this occasion, the status of plant genetic resources was reviewed on a worldwide basis and significant gaps, inherent risks, and tremendous costs became clearly apparent, confounding a conservation strategy mainly focused on ex situ gene bank conservation of plant genetic resources. It was not difficult to conclude that opportunities for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources deserved much more interest than they had received before; even more so, since the erosion of genetic diversity in cultivated did not proceed with the speed and intensity that had been feared during the early phases of the Green Revolution. Apparently, there are structures and/or conditions in developing countries that support the maintenance of diversity within traditional crop species depending on the needs and preferences of rural communities. Inevitably, such forms of in situ conservation contain dynamic possibilities for genetic change. Such elements may result in adaptive changes in gene frequencies without much danger of loss of genetic diversity; these may even contain positive aspects from a breeders view. In contrast, depending on the size and structure of the population as well as differences in the mating and propagation system for a species, it is also possible that genetic drift will occur, which can result in sizable losses in genetic diversity from the original gene pool. IPGRI and GTZ were among the first research and donor organizations to initiate a pilot project to study the role of home gardens in genetic diversity conservation, and I am very glad to serve as chairman to this Second International Home Gardens Workshop, convened to derive conclusions from the preceding three-year research project. Besides delegations from the five countries participating directly in the project, the attendance of colleagues from at least 10 more countries demonstrates the increasing worldwide interest in assessing home garden diversity. Experts from IPGRI, IPK Gatersleben and the University of Kassel are also attending, among which I want to mention personally Prof. Hammer, who pioneered the scientific interest in home gardens. The combination of country research partners, home garden experts from around the world, and representatives from international research and development institutions will hopefully provide opportunities for broad-based discussions. This workshop intends to concentrate more on technical than on scientific questions. Within a frame of more general lectures related to principles of in situ conservation and home garden characteristics, the first objective of this workshop is to provide a summary of the Home Gardens Project results obtained by the five participating countries during their three-year research phase. These results form the experimental basis upon which any of the other objectives of the workshop need to be based. The second objective still concentrates on the individual country results but, in addition, calls for the country teams to elucidate from their results in situ conservation issues and to present ideas for management systems that suit conservation purposes. Results and ideas from country reports together with principles demonstrated in the framework lectures will form the basis for the third objective: to provide guidelines for extended efforts in the 2 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

utilization of home garden potential for in situ conservation. This objective will be achieved with inputs from all participants and aims at formulating project follow-up actions and more general recommendations that include relevant ties with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). To this end, several working groups have been formed to discuss major issues and conclusions, as well as to formulate proposals for follow-up actions that will hopefully emanate from this workshop. In this way, the publication of the proceedings of this workshop may form a milestone in expanding the interest in home gardens and increasing their utilization for in situ conservation. INTRODUCTION 3

Home gardens—a genetic resources perspective

Jan Engels International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

Introduction The importance of home gardens in the production of food, medicine and other useful products for human beings is widely recognized; consequently, regular attempts to improve the productivity of this widespread agro-ecosystem have usually been initiated with specific objectives in mind. The importance of the contribution of home gardens to the improvement of the nutritional status of rural and urban families and the increase of production in the tropics are two examples of previous home garden research. The realization that this ‘farming’ system is also an important reservoir of unique genetic diversity has more recently led to initiatives to study this system more carefully in order to obtain a better understanding of the role of home gardens in the management and conservation of genetic diversity in situ. This overview paper is intended to assess how different aspects related to genetic diversity management may contribute to or have an influence on the in situ conservation of agro-biodiversity in home gardens from a genetic resources perspective. However, before starting this assessment it would be advantageous to provide some information on the general ‘philosophical’ context in which this home garden research is being implemented at IPGRI. IPGRI’s mandate is “To advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present and future generations” which places IPGRI’s programmatic work clearly in the development context. This aspect is further underlined in its mission statement: “To encourage, support and undertake activities to improve the management of genetic resources worldwide so as to help eradicate poverty, increase food security and protect the environment. IPGRI focuses on the conservation and use of genetic resources important to developing countries and has an explicit commitment to specific crops” (IPGRI 1999). Conservation efforts can only be based on a sustainable footing if and when the targeted genetic diversity is utilized. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is not only important to understand the genetic diversity as such, but also its role in agro-ecosystems as well as the role and function of human beings in the management of genetic diversity. Only a holistic research approach, actively involving all the relevant ‘stakeholders’ in a participatory manner and examining all components of the agroecosystem that influence diversity management will lead to meaningful results. Closely related to the agroecosystem approach, it will be important to place the conservation in a wider context in order to achieve a sustainable conservation effort; all possible options and methods available should be considered to conserve the genetic diversity within the home garden agro- ecosystem. Good links with national conservation programmes will be as important as a close collaboration with other supporting research activities in the country or region, incorporating disciplines such as plant , plant breeding, nutrition, socio-economic and policy aspects. Through a better understanding of the role of farmers and their families as the producers of garden products, it will be possible to improve the management of genetic diversity in home gardens, resulting in a better and more sustainable production combined with the maintenance of a high level of genetic diversity. Targeted and well-planned ‘interventions’ from the outside, i.e. the introduction of new crops, improved varieties and/or of specific characteristics that are missing in a given home garden system can further strengthen the importance of this production system and allow a natural link between conservation and development. In the following, the different approaches to conservation will be examined followed by a brief treatment of ways and means to encourage an increase of genetic diversity within home gardens. Than we will have a closer look at the important aspects of home gardens from a plant genetic resources perspective and, finally draw a few conclusions. 4 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Approaches to conservation

Agroecosystem approach Home gardens can be regarded as microenvironments within the agroecosystem that preserve the function and resilience of the larger ecosystem. It is important to think of these microenvironments in the aggregate when determining optimum conservation units for a conservation strategy, for instance when selecting gardens, deciding on the number to be included in a conservation strategy, determining population sizes of plant species, etc. Home gardens as an ecosystem contain multiple levels of diversity, including cultural, genetic and agronomic diversity. They are valued for different reasons, for instance: one can distinguish an intrinsic value related to its aesthetic value, religious value, etc.; an ecosystem value as mentioned before; and a value in its contribution to livelihoods. Closely related to these different types of value is the fact that genetic diversity managed by people has a close and direct linkage with the cultural diversity. Therefore, while purposefully conserving one aspect of diversity, it is impossible to avoid considering the others. One important element of this genetic diversity–cultural complex is the indigenous knowledge that is entirely interwoven with these two components. It is an integral and essential part of the genetic diversity, and consequently, the diversity can only be used as a genetic resource if both the biological and the information/knowledge components are available. From a genetic and agronomic diversity point of view, it is often the strong influence of human beings managing the gardens that leads to increased diversity. As will be discussed below, home gardens are important centers of experimentation, plant introduction, and crop improvement as well as refuges for unique genetic diversity. The latter diversity exists at the “ecosystem” level (i.e. the wider ecological environment within a geographic region in which individual gardens exist), the species level and within species levels. It is especially the genetic diversity in the two last levels that is of interest for conservation efforts.

Holistic conservation approach In broad terms, one can divide genetic conservation into two approaches. One approach deals with genetic diversity occurring in its natural environment, e.g. the plant, animal and microbial diversity in natural habitats and the crop, animal and wild relatives in farmers’ fields and their surroundings. This form of conservation is called in situ. The other approach, the most common method for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), is to collect the genetic diversity from its natural surrounding or from research programmes and store the , vegetative parts or even the entire plant in a man-made infrastructure, i.e. a genebank. This way of conserving genetic diversity is called ex situ conservation. In view of the fact that each of these broad conservation approaches mentioned above can be subdivided into more specific methods, largely developed to deal with the specific biological requirements of the material to be conserved, it will be important to carefully consider these requirements in order to choose the most suitable ones. Besides the fact that each of these methods is suitable for specific types of biological material, they possess also other strengths and weaknesses that one needs to consider when conserving genetic resources. These considerations may include the duration of the conservation exercise, the access to the conserved material, administrative and political issues, questions of ownership and sovereignty, among other questions. Therefore, when searching for the best method, it will be relatively easy to see how two or more methods should be used in combination in order to fit these variables and, thus, to provide for the most effective and efficient conservation strategy. The right combination of conservation methods can significantly increase the total genetic diversity conserved, its security, accessibility, and cost-efficiency. In selecting the appropriate conservation methods it is important to take a holistic view of the overall objectives of the conservation effort and to place it in a wider context, whenever possible, as part of a development process. INTRODUCTION 5

While the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emphasizes the in situ approach to conservation, it views both in situ and ex situ conservation as complementary. In the case of both plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture, ex situ conservation has been the customary practice to date. Germplasm collections are maintained in genebanks and are, thus, readily accessible for use in plant and animal improvement programmes. This perspective has now broadened to take account of the role of in situ conservation, which allows the process of crop evolution and adaptation to continue. In situ and ex situ methods are thus increasingly viewed as mutually supportive options available for conserving different elements of a given genepool to include traditional and modern crop varieties as well as animal breeds, wild relatives and genetic stocks. Selection of the appropriate method should be based on a range of criteria, including: the biological nature of the species in question; the practicality and feasibility of the particular method chosen (which depends on the availability of the necessary infrastructure and the necessary human and financial resources); and the efficiency, cost- effectiveness and security afforded by its application. In many instances, the development of appropriate complementary conservation strategies requires further research to define the criteria, refine the method and test its application for a range of genepools and situations. An important aspect to consider in linking in situ and ex situ components in the conservation strategy is the dynamic nature of the former and the static, but potentially more secure approach, of the latter. In the case of crop plants, selection of the appropriate ex situ method (seed, pollen, in vitro, field, DNA conservation) will depend largely on the biological nature of the germplasm material. Wherever possible, preference is given to the storage of orthodox under low temperature and seed moisture content regimes as this method is best researched, easy to apply and relatively cheap. If the species in question does not produce orthodox seeds or is propagated vegetatively, the material can be maintained either in field genebanks or as tissue in reagents tubes, i.e. in vitro. Alternatively, pollen can also be considered for storage. Such ex situ efforts can be complemented by approaches such as on-farm management of the valuable genetic diversity inherent in traditional crop varieties and landraces and in situ conservation of their wild relatives in protected areas. Engels and Wood (1999) provide more details of the individual methods, including the pros and cons. Thus, with growing recognition that sustainable and adequate conservation of the world’s genetic resources cannot be achieved through any single approach or method, complementary strategies are increasingly being adopted by conservation programmes around the world. Moreover, in recognition that lasting conservation efforts of any kind can only be achieved through the active participation of all stakeholders, both national and international conservation efforts are increasingly being integrated into broader development objectives and processes. Details of organizational and institutional aspects of conservation activities at the national and international level can be found in Spillane et al. (1999).

Linking conservation with development In complementary conservation, it is important to give due consideration to the utilization of the germplasm conserved, either by the household using the resource as the foundation for food production, or by the plant breeder in improvement efforts. It will be important that home garden material is made available for research as a basis for the improvement process. Therefore, establishing links between local communities that depend on home gardens and the formal research and conservation system is an essential pre-condition for increasing the benefits of managing diversity within home gardens. Another related aspect is the establishment of linkages with extension services, as part of a wider collaboration between home garden farmers on the one side and the research and conservation systems on the other. Such a link will be essential to the research community, providing the means to inform them of the needs and problems that occur at the grassroots level; it would also be essential to the home themselves because they might benefit more directly from new developments in the agricultural sector that are being disseminated by the extension service. 6 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Another dimension of linking the home garden community with the outer world is the involvement of the public and private sectors as well as civil society in the conservation and development projects. This will ensure that the aforementioned needs of home garden owners can be voiced, and that influence can be asserted where and when it is necessary on their behalf.

Encouraging/facilitating the increase of genetic diversity To maintain genetic diversity at the species and within species level, it is important to continue the process of evolution through farmer selection within crop diversity to obtain suitable types under the prevailing conditions, ensuring the crop’s ability to adapt to changing conditions or requirements. It is also widely accepted that genetic diversity within a farming system provides more crop stability in terms of yield security and encourages more sustainable production methods, because the dependency on outside-farm inputs is much lower. Therefore, especially in marginal environments where the predictability of growing conditions is low, the use of more genetic diversity tends to be beneficial to the people. It is assumed that this very situation is also applicable to home garden production. However, in order to ensure the long-term and broad-based suitability of the genetic diversity management and conservation practices in home gardens, it will be indispensable to create awareness of the role and importance of genetic diversity in production systems as well as in crop evolution at large. In particular, the relationship between crop evolution and the role of the individual is important to understand. In order to further strengthen the genetic base of the crops grown and bred within the gardens, it is important to facilitate access to species and varietal diversity in communities, introducing specific characteristics in particular crops according to the local needs. A close link with the national genetic resources programme will be beneficial. Organizing diversity fairs and demonstration plots are two of many more approaches that will facilitate the creation of awareness and the exchange of genetic diversity and management/use practices among the owners of individual gardens. A related activity is the creation of opportunities to market the produce of the gardens in order to generate additional income for households.

Important aspects of home gardens from a plant genetic resource perspective

Plant domestication Plant domestication most likely began around the dwellings of human settlements. The immediate area around the homestead offers increased availability of water, better soil fertility due to organic waste inputs, and easier protection of the crop against animals (Harlan, 1975). Facilitated by the close interaction between humans and plants within a home garden setting, many new crops have been developed in home gardens. This process continues, especially in parts of the world where there is still ample plant diversity available and where a ‘natural’ link between gardens and nature exist. Very diverse selection pressures, such as significant differences in micro-environments and a continuous flow of germplasm between gardens, affect the evolution of crop species, especially of and other minor crops. Human selection of plant diversity within the genepool is one of the driving forces of crop evolution, a process that is being fueled by the availability and creation of genetic variability. As the process of plant domestication and crop evolution is ongoing it can be expected that continuously new germplasm will develop. Consequently, home gardens contain unique and rare genetic diversity that has evolved or be developed locally and that is of interest not only to the developers but also to the conservationists within a given country as well as internationally. INTRODUCTION 7

Plant introduction and distribution centre Home gardens can collectively be regarded as informal ‘plant introduction and distribution’ centers, and the permanent contacts between gardens—facilitated through the strong links between gardens, families, and local markets—as well as the great diversity in individual gardens lead to continuous germplasm and information exchange among them. These activities are of critical importance for plant domestication and crop evolution and also give rise to a dynamic situation in which new and unique genetic diversity can evolve. Wherever the home garden is linked to a farm it has been regularly observed that the home garden plays the role of a nursery where seedlings and plantlets are produced for transplanting, diseased plants are nurtured, and vegetatively propagated material is multiplied.

Experimentation centre Closely linked to some of the aforementioned points the garden is also a place for experimentation and even fundamental research. The ground breaking genetic research of the monk Gregor Mendel during the 19th century in the Tjech Republic was done in the home garden of the monastery and resulted in the formulation of the genetic laws that, among other advances, greatly facilitated plant breeding! Experimentation with growing new species and varieties is a well-known aspect of home gardens and is in fact an important contribution to crop improvement and evolution. Human curiosity is an important factor that stimulates experimentation and encourages rare plants to be introduced, grown and used. Information sharing on plant production increases the efficiency of experimentation and builds on experiences of others.

Important production centre Home gardens are the logical production system for crop plants that are eaten fresh, used on a daily basis, consumed only in small quantities, or that need specific attention such as vegetables, and , medicinal plants. Species such as minor fruits, root and , ornamentals and others also fall into this category. The types of crops grown and the closeness of the garden to the house and assure that home gardens contribute significantly to food security, especially because they are an important source of micro-nutrients and vitamins, and therefore play a critical role in the nutritional balance of the human diet. From a plant genetic resources perspective, it is obvious that that the home garden is an important location for the cultivation of so-called neglected and underutilized species (neglected from a research perspective and underutilized from a broader economic perspective). Such species have so far not received much attention from conservationists, botanists and agronomists, and they are significantly under-represented in genebanks. Therefore, integrating home gardens into a national conservation strategy would most likely lead to increased research, better conservation and to a strengthened basis for the improvement of these species.

Refuge for genetic diversity As already mentioned, home gardens are a ‘window’ for introduction of, and experimentation with, genetic diversity. Consequently, they harbour significant amounts of genetic diversity, partly unique and sometimes rare. This diversity exists both at the species and within species (or varietal) level and tends to be greater in tropical gardens. In order to provide a possibility for comparison, the author counted the species and varietal diversity in the home garden of a friend in the central part of Germany (i.e. Heidelberg). A total of 12 crop/species groups and 105 species and varieties were counted in an area of approximately 750 square meters. From my own observations in , East Asia and southern Ethiopia it can be concluded that the genetic diversity at the variety level within a garden is relatively limited but between gardens within a local community this diversity is high or very high. In contrast, the diversity at the species level in temperate gardens is relatively high within a garden and more limited between gardens within a given community. 8 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Therefore, when planning a conservation strategy it is important to duly consider these aspects. Sometimes the site of the house itself is selected based on the presence of particular wild tropical fruit , so the home garden then becomes a refuge for them. It was observed in Central America that in several instances the location of the house was determined by the presence of one or more wanted fruit trees in the forest not only for its fruits but also for shade. Therefore, in areas with relatively recent human settlement, matured fruit trees of indigenous species frequently represent the original genotypes of a naturally distributed and usually non-domesticated species.

Home gardens and cultural heritage As previously mentioned, there exists a close relationship between a home garden and the culture of the surrounding community, and in fact the two are completely interwoven. One very striking aspect, related to the traditions of a family as part of a larger community, is the key role of women in managing the garden and utilizing its produce, either in her own kitchen or by selling it in the market. Strong links can be observed between culinary and botanic diversity, and a good understanding of both aspects is important to proper conservation management. The inclusion of women in the conservation strategy is obvious and needs to be given due attention during the preparatory and implementation phases. Another dimension of the close relationship between house, garden and family is the role the home garden plays in terms of security. The garden is frequently part of the protected area around the homestead, which often includes a fence in order to keep children and in and others out, thus also protecting genetic diversity.

Linking home gardens to research or extension The absence of formal or informal links between the home gardens on the one side and the national research and extension service on the other does not allow this important production system to benefit from the outcome of research or from the services of the extension system. Furthermore, the problems encountered within home gardens are neither addressed by public- or private-sector- funded research nor is the production of food in any way reflected in the national statistics. This situation leads to a continued neglect of the home gardens, excluding them from national or regional conservation efforts, and requiring due attention and improvement. Another consequence of this situation is that, without information on home gardens and links to the national system, they can’t be a factor in the development or implementation of new legislation or policy, a situation that could easily result in laws and policies that are not beneficial for the home garden system. One example of a possible negative consequence is the introduction of plant variety protection law in many developing countries that typically results in national seed laws that are rather restrictive to the flow of seed and planting material. For instance, in Europe it is not permissible to exchange bigger quantities of seed or planting material when the material is not registered as a protected variety. The latter can only be done when the material is sufficiently uniform, stable and distinct as well as having a proven use value. These requirements can hardly be achieved for the small numbers of plants that are grown in gardens and that will not be commercialized. Therefore, such a policy could have a negative impact on the flow of germplasm and, thus, possibly undermine the home garden system.

Linkages with the marketplace The market place plays an important social and economic role in many rural areas of the world. Within the context of home gardens and from a genetic diversity perspective, the marketplace is crucial in facilitating the exchange of germplasm among the members of a community as well as between communities. We have already seen how important such exchange is for crop evolution and improvement as well as for the continued and sustainable production of food in the home gardens, even if the exchange of genetic diversity may be restricted to the local market. The market can also INTRODUCTION 9

be an important entrance point for new crops or varieties and, in this way, can link the individual garden to a larger network. Another aspect of the marketplace is the opportunity to sell or barter the surplus produce of the garden, thus generating additional income for the family. The fact that women typically market the surplus produce has the advantage that the exchange of genetic diversity is driven by the needs of the housewife and, consequently, may reflect important needs such as food security. Furthermore, the additional income will more likely benefit the family and/or contribute to a more balanced diet (Talukder et al. 2000); therefore, the agrobiodiversity present in home gardens has important development as well as conservation contributions.

Conclusions Home gardens are an important production system of food and other essential products, harbouring unique and sometimes rare genetic diversity of our crop plants and some of their wild relatives. In addition, as centers of experimentation, species domestication, crop improvement as well as of plant introduction and exchange they deserve the highest possible attention in genetic resource conservation and use programmes. • Home gardens provide a unique opportunity to clearly explain and demonstrate the importance of genetic diversity for crop improvement and evolution as well as the relevance of linking conservation of agro-biodiversity with development. • Home gardens are an important agro-ecosystem that provides national programmes and IPGRI with unique opportunities to study conservation efforts in a holistic sense, in particular to develop complementary conservation strategies. • It is important to link conservation efforts in home gardens with national programmes and, thus, allow the necessary integration of the home garden system in the national research and extension system. • More targeted research support is needed to utilize the opportunities that home gardens offer to food security and agro-biodiversity conservation.

References Engels, J.M.M. and D. Wood. 1999. Conservation of agrobiodiversity. Pp. 355–385 in Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, Utilization, and Management (Wood and Lenne, eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Harlan, J.R. 1975. Crops and man. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. IPGRI, 1999. Diversity for development. The new strategy of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Spillane, C., J. Engels, H. Fassil, L. Withers and D. Cooper. 1999. Strengthening national programmes for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: planning and coordination. Issues in Genetic Resources no. 8. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Talukder, A., L. Kiess, N. Huq, S. de Pee, I. Darnton-Hill and M.W. Bloem. 2000. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 21(2):165-172. 10 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Home gardens and agrobiodiversity: an overview across regions

Pablo Eyzaguirre and Jessica Watson International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

Biodiversity conservation and development in home gardens Home gardens are microenvironments containing high levels of species and genetic diversity within larger farming systems. These gardens are not only important sources of food, fodder, fuel, medicines, spices, construction materials and income in many countries around the world, but are also important for in situ conservation of a wide range of plant genetic resources. Home gardens are dynamic systems; their structure, composition, and species and cultivar diversity are influenced by changes in the socioeconomic circumstances and cultural values of the households that maintain these gardens. Understanding the factors and decision-making patterns that affect the management of home gardens is crucial for including home gardens as a strategic component of in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The conservation of agrobiodiversity is inseparable from the sustainable use of plant genetic resources in agriculture. Thus agrobiodiversity conservation is both a goal and a means to secure the livelihoods and well being of farming communities in poorer regions of the developing world. Home gardens are clear examples of diversity rich production systems that serve both a development and a conservation function. In order to strengthen this link between biodiversity conservation and development, IPGRI received the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) to carry out a three-year research project on plant genetic resources in home gardens. This project has been implemented in partnership with national plant genetic resources programmes in five countries, Ghana, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, and Venezuela. The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK-Gatersleben) has served as the partner German institution working in the areas of genetic resources documentation and characterization. Based on the results that are emerging, the project is providing a framework for including home gardens as a distinct and important component of in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The case studies have also begun to establish a clear link between home garden diversity and household livelihoods and food security. The chapters that follow contain important research findings that should also be assessed in a development perspective. This is particularly important in light of the project’s overall goal, to “promote the development of tropical farming communities through the conservation and use of diversity in home gardens”. In light of this goal, several research objectives were elaborated and agreed at the First International Home gardens and Agrobiodiversity Workshop in Cali, , in September of 1999. These research objectives are to: • document genetic diversity in home gardens and the ecological, socio-cultural, and economic factors that govern its distribution and maintenance • develop methods to include home garden systems in national agrobiodiversity strategies and programmes • develop strategies for home gardens linked to ecosystem conservation, livelihoods, and cultural values.

The results of the studies have clearly met the first two objectives and as the project moves towards completion, several activities are planned with policy-makers, communities and other development and conservation agencies to mainstream the results of the studies into national conservation and development programmes. In order to assess how the various national studies have addressed the objectives, this presentation reviews the coordinated steps that were carried out across the five countries. INTRODUCTION 11

Sampling home gardens and key species The first step was to establish a common set of sampling procedures to assess how much crop and diversity home gardens maintain and what would be the best ways to monitor this diversity as part of national strategies for agrobiodiversity conservation. The key factor in the analysis was to consider the home garden as a niche or sub-system within a larger agro-ecosystem. No single garden or even type of garden could be considered as a conservation unit without referring first to the larger farm and ecosystem in which it is located. The sampling strategy was also designed to look at the dynamics of home garden systems within and among ecosystems. In each country a set of sites were selected to reflect the farming systems and ecologies of the more important agroecological zones that also contained significant biological diversity. These sites then were surveyed to select a sample of home gardens for monitoring and in-depth study. The following points were applied in identifying the sites and sample sizes. • Sites selected reflect major agroecological zones (AEZ) in each country. • Broad site survey of home garden diversity to identify ‘typical’ gardens per AEZ. • Unrepresentative (newly established or commercial vegetable plots) gardens eliminated. • Key informants help select representative gardens. • Final selected sample per site n=30–50 gardens covers essential biodiversity in home gardens.

Some species were present in most home gardens within a country and even across countries and regions—peppers, or sweet , banana and . For these there were unique varieties found in home gardens and in several cases the home garden serves as the germplasm bank or source for planting material or where new types are developed and introduced. These ‘key home garden species’ merited in-depth genetic diversity study. In order to select the key home garden species with high diversity the following selection criteria were applied: • the species has unique varieties found in home gardens • there are significant levels of varietal diversity of the species • households attach sociocultural importance to the species • the species is economically important both for consumption and/or sale.

The species were then characterized using agromorphological traits and descriptors, as well as ethnobotanical diversity indicators based on farmers’ local taxonomy and local germplasm management systems. In some cases the national teams were able to use DNA markers to measure the genetic diversity of one key species in the home garden and compare it with the diversity that has been already measured and maintained in ex situ genebanks. Genetic diversity in key species is linked to unique uses even for crops that are widely distributed and present both in large stands or fields and in home gardens. For example, Vietnamese home gardens were an important source of banana diversity even though banana is also an important commercial and plantation crop. The home garden cultivars were distinctive and used for special purposes such as dried and pickled for medicinal uses, and green bananas used ceremonially (Tet shrine). The key species in home gardens of the five countries are listed below. The number of farmer varieties is being evaluated to confirm their uniqueness.

Vietnam • Pomelo (9–14 varieties per ecosystem): Do, Thanh tra, Bien Hoa, Chum, Bi, Ngot, Oi, Nam roi, Hong, DHNN1, Phuc trach, Chua, Son, Dao. • Banana (Musa spp.) (9–12 varieties): Xiem, Su, Gia, Hot, Cau, Samp, Tieu, Ta qua, Do, Ngu, Lan, Chua. • Luffa (Luffa cylindrical) (6 varieties): Trau, Huong, Khia, Dai, Den, Tay. •Taro (Colocasia esculenta) (8–17 varieries): So, Sap, Tim, Ngua, Nuoc, Cao, Ngot, Mung. 12 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Ghana • : Dioscorea alata (4), rotundata (15), praehensilis (1), cayenensis (1), bulbifera (2), dumetorum (1), esculenta (1), burkiliana (1), one wild species • Plantain: Musa spp. 15 local varieties • Pearl : Pennisetum glaucumi 3–4 varieties

Guatemala • Zapote/Sapota ( sapota). • Chillies (Capsicum spp.). • Huisquil/Chayote (Sechium edule).

Cuba • Lima (Phaseolus lunatus): 16 agro-morphological descriptors, 3 cultivated groups, 1 wild. • Zapote (): 11 AMI, no clear varieties. • Chilli (Capsicum): frutescens (10–18), chinense (7–11), annuum (5–10).

Venezuela • Papaya (Carica papaya): 5. • Avocado (Persea americana): 18, with more variety in size and shape than ex situ • Chilli (Capsicum sp.): 11. • (Phaseolus vulgaris): 14, with disease resistance found in 2–3.

Conservation value of home gardens The case studies analysed the various ways that home gardens contribute to biodiversity, at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels. At the ecosystem level, the home garden provides a complex microenvironment that links more complex natural ecosystems with agricultural systems. It has been noted that home gardens mimic the natural structure of forest systems, with the crucial difference that nearly all the species found in a home garden are used. Thus a valuable conservation role for home gardens is as a sustainable use system within or around protected forest areas. This function was well studied and confirmed in Cuba, and could apply to other countries where natural forests are important sources of income and are also being threatened with overexploitation of outright conversion. Biodiversity conservation in home gardens can be linked to protected areas very successfully according to these studies. Home gardens are often the focal point of a household’s social interactions within the family and with visitors. One of the important functions that home gardens perform is to keep knowledge of varieties and uses of diversity alive from generation to generation. In home gardens children and visitors can learn from the family experts in different types of diversity and its uses. These can be nutritional, commercial, aesthetic, and spiritual. Home gardens in all the countries served as refuges for the ‘heirloom crop varieties’ that were valued and maintained in the family but had little place in commercial markets. Households were also able to exchange their home garden varieties as part of the social visits. Sharing and exchanging plant genetic resources are common features of visits between households. In several countries and ecosystems the home garden was where germplasm from the wild was brought under cultivation. This complex ecosystem close to the house where plants can be closely observed and managed makes it a convenient site for traditional plant experimentation and domestication. For some of the root crops such as taro and yams, ruderal material from the wild is continually brought under cultivation in home gardens to renew the vigour of the germplasm for planting in larger fields. Some home garden species that exist in both cultivated and uncultivated forms are also income earners. The study in Guatemala focused attention on loroco ( pandurata), a wild species that is also cultivated and widely commercialized as a vegetable for use in INTRODUCTION 13

tamales, the production being almost entirely from home gardens. Similarly varieties of and peppers appear in both cultivated and uncultivated forms in home gardens. Ecosystem services that home gardens provide to the larger agricultural systems and the health and well being of the household were often noted in the interviews with farmers. The home gardens provided protected and enriched environments for varieties that may have been more susceptible to biotic and abiotic stresses in the fields. Among the services they provided were soil enrichment, improved water retention, a habitat for pollinators. Home gardens are a good example of how humans cause niche differentiation that can increase the total productivity of agroecosystems. The five national studies were able to bring the diversity analyses at the different levels together and link it to development actions and policy. This forms the basis of in situ conservation strategies that give prominence to the contribution of home gardens. The specific elements for implementing that strategy are first, to identify those species and varieties that are best conserved in home garden based on the following features: • Occurring only in gardens. • Being replaced by improved varieties. • Undergoing process of domestication. • Wild species or variety whose environment is threatened. • Identify possible links to ex situ conservation in genebanks particularly for rare crop varieties. In situ conservation in genebanks as several of the studies described.

The second element in that strategy is to develop a sampling and monitoring strategy for genetic resources that are typical and mainly found in home gardens. Several of the countries were able to identify empirically the optimal number of gardens and their linkages to each other and surrounding ecosystems as the basis for a monitoring strategy that is cost effective and builds upon the existing institutions in both nature conservation, local community development and agricultural research and extension. These low cost sampling approaches are best suited to the conditions of tropical developing countries. In addition, links to ex situ conservation programmes in genebanks were particularly valuable in targeting the varieties and zones where home gardens complement in situ conservation in crop fields and in genebanks. The role of formal genetic resources programmes in the work of in situ conservation was variable across countries. It was clear however that home garden biodiversity could benefit from formal links to genetic resource conservation programmes. Home gardens are increasingly institutionalized in Cuba as the key element in the national in situ conservation strategy. In Vietnam, the focus on home gardens has helped to further a growing understanding of the complementarity between ex situ and in situ conservation in Vietnam. In Guatemala, home gardens agrobiodiversity is best maintained and developed as part of a broad based strategy linking to community development associations and NGOs. In Ghana, building policy support and public awareness of agrobiodiversity and the need to conserve it was achieved by linking home gardens to traditional and income opportunities for rural households. In Venezuela, the conucos, or home garden can be closely linked to growing support for traditional foods and ecological agriculture. In sum, the home garden proved to be a natural and easy way to focus attention on the role of agrobiodiversity in food security and healthy environments. Because the garden is close to home, we were able to bring these agrobiodiversity issues to people’s attention in a humane and understandable way. 14 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Technical contributions Home gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity

Toby Hodgkin International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

Summary Home gardens contribute to the conservation of biodiversity at the ecosystem, species and within species levels. They provide complex, multi-layered environments in which farmers can maintain large numbers of useful plant species over many years. They may also provide a basis for the maintenance in situ of significant amounts of intra-specific (genetic) diversity of useful plant species. The maintenance of genetic diversity in home gardens will depend on farmer management, the environmental characteristics of the garden and species biology. The amount and distribution of the genetic diversity of different characters (e.g. agromorphological, biochemical or molecular), within and between gardens, will also vary with the characters measured and the ways in which each is affected by farmer management, environment and species biology. Understanding the ways in which farmers manage planting materials, maintain identifiable populations and varieties, and exchange or mix materials will be especially important to analysing and understanding observed patterns of diversity. From a conservation perspective, key concerns of those investigating the maintenance of genetic diversity in home gardens have included the small population sizes maintained by farmers, the relatively high levels of selection intensity that may be practiced and the vulnerability of individual garden populations to random events causing loss of whole populations. Determining the contribution that home gardens can make to in situ conservation requires an understanding of the amount and distribution of genetic diversity of different species in home gardens and of the ways in which selection, gene flow and other processes affect its maintenance over time. This understanding needs to be integrated with an analysis of farmer management practices and of the needs and objectives of the home garden owners.

Introduction Home gardens have characteristics that present particular challenges and opportunities for those interested in the maintenance of genetic diversity within production systems. They are complex, multi-storeyed environments with very high species diversity and a wide range of very varied ecological micro-niches (Eyzaguirre, this volume). They are clearly important targets for agro- ecosystem conservation, in that they provide a wide range of ecological benefits and services and a valuable set of products for the rural poor. They are also important in the conservation of useful plant species since they contain very large numbers of species which are often absent or disappearing from other production systems (e.g. Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba, Castineiras et al. this volume) or have yet to be introduced to agriculture (e.g. Fernaldia pandurata in Guatemala, J. M. Leiva et al. this volume). The role of home gardens in the conservation of within species variation (genetic diversity) is less obvious. Population sizes of most home garden crops are extremely small, varying from a few individuals to, at most, a few hundred plants. The materials are often ephemeral, frequently being lost by the owners and having to be reintroduced. These, and other factors, would seem to mitigate against home gardens playing a significant part in conservation of intra-specific diversity. In this paper, I hope to provide an overview of some of the issues involved in determining the role of home gardens in conserving crop diversity from a genetic diversity perspective.

Conservation and production Crop diversity is maintained in home gardens when it meets producers’ needs. It may be maintained over long periods, and in this sense, it may be said to be conserved in situ. However, conservation is TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 15

rarely (if ever) the actual objective. Farmers who maintain diversity do so because they find it useful. Thus, any evaluation of in situ conservation of crop diversity in home gardens has to place the desired conservation objectives (the amount of diversity maintained, the duration of maintenance etc.) in the context of farmers’ production objectives. Three groups of interacting factors will affect the maintenance of crop genetic diversity in home gardens: the biological characteristics of the crops; the way in which farmers manage the production and reproduction of the material; and, the way in which environmental factors affect crop production. Reproductive biology, and the way in which planting material is maintained, will be among the most significant biological characteristics. Outbreeders and inbreeders often have markedly different amounts of diversity in local cultivars, with hotspots of high diversity in some inbreeders (Schoen and Brown 1991). The patterns of diversity distribution are also usually very different, as is also the case for clonally propagated crops such as Musa or taro. Farmer management determines what is sown, what planted, the size of the population and what is saved for future seed. Farmers provide the major sources for the effects of selection and gene flow on diversity. The environment provides another major source of the effects of selection. Temperature, moisture availability, day length, biotic and abiotic stresses will all have an impact of gene frequency and on the nature and amount of diversity maintained within a crop population.

In trying to determine how home gardens can best contribute to conservation, it is necessary to understand the ways in which environment, crop biology and farmer management are affecting the extent and distribution of genetic diversity. This involves determining what diversity is maintained by farmers, where and when it is maintained, and how and by whom. It also involves exploring why farmers choose to maintain the cultivars they do, in the ways that they do. The next sections of this paper consider some aspects of determining the amount, distribution and maintenance of diversity that are particularly relevant to home gardens.

The amount of genetic diversity There is a range of different approaches to describing the amount of genetic diversity present in a crop in a home garden or group of home gardens. Whichever methods are used, the three most important features that are measured are the richness, evenness and distinctness of the characteristics. Richness is a measure of the number of different types, while evenness describes their distribution within and between the different populations (cultivars, home gardens, areas etc.). Distinctness provides useful additional information on how different the types are and can be particularly important for assessing whether some populations or areas have unique types. Richness, evenness and distinctness can, with suitable adjustments, be measured using almost any characters, which seem to be biologically or genetically meaningful. A first approach might be simply to record the numbers of local cultivars and the extent to which the same ones occur in different home gardens. Further studies might determine differences with respect to important morphological traits (e.g. seed colour, root flesh colour, plant height) or performance traits (yield, stress or disease resistance etc.). The trouble with agromorphological measures is often that their expression depends, at least in part, on the environment and that they do not provide a completely accurate picture of genetic differences. For this reason, studies of biochemical differences (isozymes) can be useful or molecular markers can be used (see also Frankel et al. 1995, Karp et al. 1997, Jarvis et al. 2000). Numbers and identities of local cultivars present in home gardens provide an obvious starting point to determining the amount of diversity. However, some caution may be needed in analysing such data. The names given by farmers may be different for the same local cultivar or the same for different cultivars. This has been demonstrated in specific farming situations but similar information for home gardens is lacking. It may be more difficult to obtain a clear classification of local cultivars and their identities in home garden production systems than it is in other farming systems. Sizes of populations are much smaller and cultivar identity may be more personalized or more casual. There 16 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

is evidence from farming situations that, even when names differ, farmers recognize the same important distinguishing attributes between local cultivars. In such cases, these characters can be used to establish identities and determine numbers and patterns of distribution of local cultivars, providing that the analysis frameworks developed for traditional farming situations are valid for home garden systems. Analysis of many morphological and performance related traits is frequently used to determine variation in home garden materials and to compare local cultivars from different gardens, communities or areas. For some traits, which show little variation with environment, it may be possible to do this, using measures taken in home gardens. In other cases, trials on a single site will be needed and collection of planting material will be required. This may be difficult for some crops such as taro where only one or two plants of each type are maintained in any garden. Where quantitative traits are analysed (time to , height) measures such as coefficient of variation will give an estimate of richness. Using multivariate statistics it may be possible to detect quite distinct patterns of variation and combinations of traits in specific areas or communities, which can significantly help understanding how evenness and distinctness are expressed in the crop. Molecular markers are increasingly used to investigate genetic diversity distribution and they are increasingly replacing the use of isozymes (although the latter remain useful, functional and inexpensive). Molecular markers such as RAPDs can give inconsistent results (Karp et al. 1997) while other approaches (AFLPs, microsatellites) require more investment or more expertise. However, they may be especially useful when only small amounts of material can be obtained and they certainly give very substantial amounts of information on patterns of neutral diversity. The information obtained in this way can begin to answer some important conservation related questions. If all farmers or communities maintain the same diversity, it may be less important, which ones continue to grow local cultivars while if some have unique varieties their continued interest in these cultivars may be very important. Information on gene flow can indicate that there is significant exchange of materials between farmers and communities and that we have a meta-population of the crop. This would indicate that the small size in any one garden is not necessarily a conservation constraint. In contrast, evidence of genetic drift or of significant bottlenecks in some local materials may suggest that they are very vulnerable and may need additional ex situ conservation measures or multiplication.

The distribution of diversity In analysing diversity, the way it is distributed - between local cultivars, between cultivars in different gardens, between communities and areas—is as important as the simple description of the amount of diversity. Again, the information can come from local cultivar numbers and identities, agromorphological characters or molecular markers. It can also be linked with ways of analysing geographical information such as DIVA (Hijmans et al. 2001). One important question is the extent to which local cultivars in home gardens, or the genetic characters they possess are unique. Does the same variation exist in the wild? Or in other production systems? Thus, a semi-cultivated tree species such as may occur also in the wild but the types maintained in home gardens may have unique flavour, maturity or yield traits. Since the species is unlikely to be maintained on any scale in ex situ collections, home gardens may be the only reasonable way of maintaining the traits and diversity found. Similarly, the types of Capsicum maintained in home gardens may be quite different from those grown for commercial production and provide unique flavour, quality, season or other characteristics. Answering these questions will require that the diversity found in home gardens is compared with that found from other sources such as samples from the wild or ex situ collections. The way in which diversity is partitioned within and between home gardens, communities or areas, provides the necessary information for determining not only where diversity is maintained but also who maintains it and how. Do certain farmers or certain areas tend to maintain higher levels of TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 17

diversity and if so why? Because of their production environment, or for other reasons? The answers to these questions are important for the information they can give on the ways in which conservation particular objectives might be achieved. They can help identify unique diversity and the reasons it continues to exist in some home gardens. This can lead to identifying measures to promote maintenance or situations where continued in situ maintenance is unlikely. Preliminary evidence suggests that there are substantial differences in distribution of crops. Thus, home gardens can often maintain many more local cultivars of some crops than might be found in larger scale production systems (e.g. Capsicum) or can maintain specific types that are not grown on a larger scale. Some crops such as lima bean in Cuba or sponge gourd in Nepal are only grown in home gardens and are unique to that production system. However, there is much less information on how these differences are reflected in terms of genetic diversity. Whether the alleles and traits in home garden populations are very substantially different or whether they also occur in other production systems but at different frequencies or in different combinations. In understanding the patterns of diversity found in home garden cultivars it may be important to understand why specific local cultivars are being grown in the garden. Is it for convenience? Because it is new? Because it won’t grow anywhere else? The answers to these questions will affect both the amounts and types of diversity found.

The maintenance of diversity From a conservation perspective, the population sizes of a local cultivar in a home garden are usually well below that which would be desirable. Even for the most important crops there will seldom be more than a few hundred plants, even of a relatively important legume, and often population sizes will be below 10. There are two interacting elements that need to be explored—the way in which farmers maintain such small populations and the genetic implications of the small populations themselves Most farmers are likely to save their own seed or planting material over longer or shorter periods. Since populations are small, this is likely to be a fairly unstable process and seasons in which particular types can no longer be maintained are likely to occur quite frequently. However, there have certainly been situations where farmers have maintained special types for many decades and some of the crops are themselves very long lived. While short maintenance periods may appear to make the conservation of material very unstable this may not be the case. It depends on the way farmers meet their needs for new or replacement materials and the extent to which communities or even regions maintain a common range of materials that are exchanged or passed on. The information that is needed to determine whether this is the case can come from a variety of sources. The processes of maintenance and the genetic consequences of different practices have not been studied to any great extent. Some kind of selection process will be involved in choosing what plants will provide future planting material. A very substantial reduction in population size may also occur. The planting material will usually be stored in some way and may lose viability during this process. It may be mixed with materials from other sources so as to permit gene flow to occur.

Conclusions Home gardens seem to provide environments in which part of the genetic diversity of many crop species can be maintained. The important questions that need to be answered from a conservation perspective relate to the amount and character of that diversity and to the ways in which it changes over time. Answering these questions requires the planned investigation of the amount and distribution of genetic diversity. Analysis of richness, evenness and distinctness can provide information both on the amount and distribution of diversity present and on the portion that is unique to local home gardens. Ideally these studies will include information from both 18 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

agromorphological characters and molecular markers but even a study of the number and distribution of cultivars can provide useful information. Together with information on the amount and distribution of diversity, it will be increasingly important to try and understand the genetic consequences of the maintenance procedures used by farmers. This will provide the necessary information on the significance of random or stochastic events in the maintenance of local populations and cultivars. It will also allow us to determine what are the genetic diversity consequences of the small apparent size of most home garden populations and whether we are in fact dealing with meta-populations of some type. Home gardens are dynamic production systems in which farmers probably make changes every season that affect the cultivars grown, the sizes of populations and the characteristics of the materials. Their contribution to conservation is dynamic and ensures the maintenance of adapted materials, which provide direct benefits to the owners and to the users of home garden products. The genetic diversity maintained is part of this contribution and can also make a further contribution to wider conservation objectives.

References Frankel, O. H., A.H.D. Brown and J.J. Burdon. 1995. The Conservation of Plant Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, UK. Hijmans, R.J., L. Guarino, M. Cruz and E. Rojas, E. 2001. GIS software for PGR research: 1. DIVA-GIS. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 127:15-19. Jarvis, D.I., L. Myer, H. Klemick, L. Guarino, M. Smale, A.H.D, Brown, M. Sadiki, B. Sthapit and T. Hodgkin. 2000. A Training Guide for In Situ Conservation On-farm. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Karp, A., S. Kresovich, K.V. Bhat, W.G. Ayad and T. Hodgkin. 1997. Molecular tools in plant genetic resources conservation: a guide to the technologies. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 2. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Schoen, D.J. and A.H.D. Brown. 1991. Intraspecific variation in population gene diversity and effective population size correlates with the mating system. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 88:4494-97. TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 19

Documentation of plant genetic resources in home gardens

Helmut Knüpffer Genebank Department, Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany

Introduction Home gardens often contain a significant part of the crop plant biodiversity in tropical countries. Compared to other agricultural or horticultural ecosystems, home gardens are very species-rich, and they are an ecosystem well suited for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources (cf., e.g. Esquivel and Hammer 1992, 1994). There is often no clear border between wild plants and cultivated plants. The IPGRI project ‘The contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems’ is aimed at investigating the possible role of home gardens in preserving plant genetic resources and at producing an overview of the inter- and infraspecific diversity of cultivated plants in five selected tropical countries, namely, Cuba, Ghana, Guatemala, Venezuela and Vietnam, as an example for the situation in the tropics worldwide. National teams were investigating the species cultivated in selected home gardens in selected regions of these countries. One of the aims was to compile species lists of the countries involved, cross-referenced with available information on the taxonomy, vernacular names, distribution, uses and other aspects of the species. The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) in Gatersleben, Germany, started to develop a database for the cultivated plant species diversity data compiled by the national project teams. The ‘Database for Checklists of Cultivated Plants’ (Knüpffer 1992, Knüpffer and Hammer 1999, Hammer et al. 2000) was taken as the basis for the documentation system development. This system and its present situation are described in the present paper.

Background Following the Rio Conference in 1992, in situ conservation began to receive increasing attention. It became obvious that documentation of PGR in in situ agroecosystems needed new approaches, and IPGRI soon declared its readiness to take a lead in this field: “Meeting the information needs of in situ conservation work will require a substantial programme to consider both what information is needed and how it can best be maintained and used” (Iwanaga 1995). In 1995, information systems for in situ conservation did not exist (Stützel 1995). The concepts had thus to be developed on the basis of ex situ collection documentation systems, but additional descriptors would need to be developed. Brockhaus and Oetmann (1996) proposed a system of descriptors for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources, based on a comparison with ex situ descriptors. A number of actual approaches to document in situ conservation are reported by Jarvis and Hodgkin (1998). In Appendix II of this report, various data collecting forms are reproduced which can be used as a basis for developing such a descriptor list. An IPGRI workshop (Laliberté et al. 2000, pp. 61–63) addressed the need for descriptors for the documentation of on-farm conservation and management. Thormann et al. (1999) divided the information necessary for the development of conservation strategies for wild plant species into four categories, which apply also for the conservation of PGR in home gardens: 1. species information including taxonomy, biology, conservation, distribution and use 2. size and type of protected areas 3. physical environment of species’ distribution areas 4. organizations and resource people. 20 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

In the database for the home garden project, we deal only with the first category of information. Data sources for species-related information are usually organized in the form of species checklists for various purposes (e.g. Hammer 1990) or databases with the scientific name as primary entry point. For the conservation of PGR in home gardens, correctly determined species are an indispensable prerequisite and a key to relevant information from other sources. As Thormann et al. (1999) point out, “using the correct taxonomic name is essential to obtain appropriate information on a species”. They list a number of Internet sources of different scope with species-related information. The ‘Species 2000’ checklist of “all known species of plants” and other organisms, and the previous edition of the ‘Mansfeld’ (Schultze-Motel 1986) covering cultivated plant species worldwide are explicitly mentioned. Other sources for cultivated plants information are the taxonomic database of the USDA Genetic Resources Information Network (GRIN, http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/searchgrin.html) or its printed version (Wiersema and León 1999). Such sources need to be used to verify the correct scientific name, synonyms, vernacular names and species authors. For correctly documenting species, authors and taxonomic literature references, standards have been published for authors (Brummitt and Powell 1992), journal abbreviations (Lawrence et al. 1968, Bridson and Smith 1991) and books (Stafley and Cowan 1976 et seq.). Thormann et al. (1999) note that although a variety of information sources is available for ex situ collections, “information on on-farm and in situ conservation is not as readily available and other research tools have to be used such as bibliographic research and contact with relevant organizations” (cf. also Brockhaus and Oetmann 1996). One of the few published examples of in situ conservation documentation systems is the system SICOIS developed by the Cuban genebank within the frame of the home garden project (Alonso et al. 2000). Besides taxon- and accession- related information, this system is also designed to accommodate anthropological and site-related information. With regard to the plant uses, Thormann et al. (1999) state: “Taking account of the use aspects of plants can contribute to finding the most appropriate way to conserve a particular species (conservation through use), and a number of sources for such information are mentioned. For cultivated plants, and particularly those in home gardens, Wiersema and León (1999), the ‘Mansfeld’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001) and the corresponding database (http://mansfeld.ipk- gatersleben.de), and various checklists of cultivated plants (e.g. Esquivel et al. 1992 for Cuba) are such sources. Thormann et al. (1999) also compiled a list of information sources for in situ conservation with emphasis on on-line sources accessible via the Internet. They provide a number of links useful for the documentation of PGR conservation in home gardens.

Documentation of plant genetic resources collecting Documenting plant genetic resources in home gardens is very similar to collecting plant genetic resources in home gardens (especially if it is part of a multi-crop collecting mission; cf. Hammer et al. 1995); the major difference being that plant material is not actually collected. Various publications exist which describe aspects of recording and documenting information during collecting missions, and much of this information can be applied for the home garden documentation as well if the term ‘collecting’ is replaced by ‘survey’ or ‘exploration’. A number of relevant reviews can be found in Guarino et al. (1995). Perry and Bettencourt (1995) suggest that before conducting a collecting mission, information should be gathered well in advance about existing material of the target species in ex situ germplasm collections. It is necessary to get “general information on any relevant past collecting mission”, and any past survey of home gardens, correspondingly. Collecting reports are usually found in journal publications, less frequently they can be derived from germplasm databases. An overview of published information on the natural and human environment, with a view on germplasm collecting, was given by Auricht et al. (1995). The need of correct taxonomic TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 21

identification is stressed by Maxted and Crust (1995), and tools to this aim are described. Bibliographic databases relevant for plant collectors have been reviewed by Dearing and Guarino (1995). The methodology for eco-geographical surveys described by Maxted et al. (1995) can also be applied for species diversity surveys in home gardens. Moss and Guarino (1995) provide information on the data items to be collected in the field, and the methods and equipment to be applied. The overview includes data categories related to collecting, sample identification (botanical determination), collecting site data, etc. Software for data recording on a notebook computer during collecting missions, such as Q- Collector (Clennett 1999) or the ‘IPGRI Collecting Form Management System’ (Toll 1995) could also be adapted to the needs of inventorying species occurring in particular home gardens. This would lead to a standardised approach in recording data, and the research team would be reminded to collect as complete as possible information with regard to the descriptors agreed upon in advance. These software tools are aimed at avoiding typing errors, and they have the advantage that the survey information is already computerised at the time when the team returns to its headquarter. After the field work, the information gathered needs to be processed (Toll 1995). The basic procedures to be followed do also apply to home garden inventory data: 1. sorting and checking the forms (data collection sheets) 2. completing the forms 3. adding information from reference sources 4. checking the botanical names and local words (e.g. vernacular names recorded) 5. computerization of the data.

Objectives of the home garden database The main aim is to develop a web-searchable database documenting the species and infraspecific diversity found in selected home gardens of the five countries involved. It is not intended to include anthropological or site-related information at the present stage. The project database will be based on, and linked to the existing database for checklists of cultivated plants (Knüpffer and Hammer, 1999) and the Mansfeld Database which provides information on the taxonomy, nomenclature, common names in many languages, the distribution and uses of 6100 cultivated plant species world-wide. The database for checklists of cultivated plants (Knüpffer and Hammer 1999) which has been developed by IPK since 1988 (Esquivel et al. 1989, Knüpffer et al. 1990) is the basis for the home garden project database. It contains the same data elements as the projected home garden database.

Database for checklists of cultivated plants The checklist database was initially developed with the aim to collect information about cultivated plant species in various countries, and to produce manuscripts for country-specific species checklists. A summary of the present contents, including also the data from the home garden project registered so far, is given in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Number of species per country in the database for checklists of cultivated plants Country Number of species Publication Cuba 1 029 Esquivel et al. (1992) Korea 605 Hoang et al. (1997) East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) 996 in preparation Albania 433 in preparation Italy 665 Hammer et al. (1992) for South Italy and Sicily; Hammer et al. (1999) for Central and North Italy; Sardinia in preparation Vietnam 461 in preparation (home garden project) 22 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 2. Summary of contents of the database for checklists of cultivated plants (as of mid 2001) Total Cuba S. Italy C. and N. Italy Sardinia Korea E. Asia Albania Vietnam (1992) (1992) (1999) (in prep.) (1997) (in prep.) (in prep.) (in prep.) Taxa 2507 1,044 540 568 375 605 998 433 473 Species 2396 1,029 521 550 364 578 910 418 461 Genera 1077 531 298 327 247 378 531 255 309 Families 180 117 86 92 80 111 142 82 96 Synonyms 1468 729 348 344 250 497 684 225 173 Vernacular names 18886 1669 2981 10802 2420 714 2904 264 464 References 716 198 309 341 265 32 66 6 73 For references of published checklists, see Table 1. Figures for countries ‘in preparation’ are still incomplete.

The following information items are included in the checklists database: • taxonomy and nomenclature (accepted names and synonyms, including authors and place of publication, plant family) • vernacular names, including indication of the language or dialect • geographical information (distribution, own observations, collections) • plant uses and plant parts used (abbreviated) • narrative text (information on the history, diversity, breeding, wild relatives, taxonomic and nomenclatural remarks, etc.) • editorial notes (information for the compilers of the database, not intended for publication), • literature references. For the plant uses and the plant parts used, a list of abbreviations was developed. This will be harmonized with the ‘Economic Standard’ (Cook 1995, currently under revision) of the International Working Group on Taxonomic Databases (TDWG).

Information sources for the home gardens database Sources of information are mainly the project reports provided by the national teams, but published (e.g. Nguyen et al. 1995, Le and Nguyen 1999, Hodel et al. 1997 for Vietnam; Esquivel et al. 1992 for Cuba) and unpublished reports (e.g. Roose 2001 for Vietnam) as well as electronically available data are also taken into account. During the compilation, the scientific plant names provided by the national teams will be verified and standardized using cross-references to other databases and sources.

Information included For each species the home gardens database will include: 1. Taxonomy and nomenclature information (accepted name, authors and place of publication, important synonyms, plant family). 2. Ethnobotanical information (vernacular names in local languages, possibly including dialects; multiple plant uses and plant parts used). 3. References to the sources of information (e.g. project reports, publications). 4. HTML documents providing details on the infraspecific variation of selected crops (e.g. cultivar groups, farmers’ varieties, their principal uses, morphological description). 5. Images (colour photographs or slides) of plants. 6. Links to relevant other databases that provide additional information about the species, e.g. the Mansfeld database. Information on items (1) to (5) above has to be provided by the project partners. The taxonomy and nomenclature will be verified and complemented by IPK and its co-operators. IPK will also establish links and cross-references with other relevant databases that provide additional information about the species. TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 23

It was agreed at the final project workshop that detailed data, such as ‘which species occurs in which home garden’, and the exact locations of the home gardens (e.g. GIS coordinates, country maps with home garden locations), would not be made freely accessible on-line. This sensitive information should not be released to the public without consent of the people concerned, first the owners of the respective gardens, and second the national teams. The national teams should decide themselves whether they publish such information in scientific journals or newsletters, besides the project reports.

Operation of the home gardens database The collation of data from reports from the participating countries, and data entry and editing is being done locally at IPK, whereas the database will be searchable from any site with Internet access. It is planned to fully integrate the home gardens database in the IPK germplasm documentation system, sharing the taxonomic information (taxonomic core) with other in-house databases (e.g. the IPK germplasm accessions database, the Mansfeld database; cf. scheme in Ochsmann et al., these proceedings).

Expected outputs The main product of the database will be an inventory of the cultivated plant species in home gardens of the five countries in Africa, South East Asia, and tropical America. The second product is a web-searchable database on cultivated plant species in these home gardens. For a few key species selected by the national teams and the project management, information about the infraspecific diversity will be linked to the database entries for the respective species.

Present situation For the purpose of the project, the checklists database has been re-designed and re-programmed in order to accommodate the information from the home garden project countries. A prototype of a web-searchable database was developed (cf. Afanasyev et al., these proceedings). Data entry has started for Vietnam, based on available reports. Country reports from the project have been investigated with respect to information relevant for the database. It is intended to complete the data entry, including the taxonomic verification, for the country species lists within the project period. This needs to be accomplished in permanent communication with the project partners. The Web database prototype needs to be improved, and the database be linked to the Mansfeld database. Several representatives from associated project partner countries (e.g. Ethiopia and Nepal) expressed their interest that their data be included in the database. All data on scientific names need to be verified by taxonomists, to ensure consistency of naming across the whole database.

Conclusions and outlook Country-specific in-depth investigations such as those carried out in the present IPGRI project on home gardens, are known to add information about cultivated plant species not formerly included in worldwide enumerations of agricultural and horticultural crops such as the new ‘Mansfeld’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001). This has recently been demonstrated by Hammer (these proceedings) even for such a well-studied country as Cuba (Esquivel et al. 1992). As a result of the work within the project, it was realized that the documentation component of the project was under-funded. It would have been desirable to have a full-time scientist position available during the whole project period, for the database development (including the re- programming of the existing database, the establishment and testing of the web database), the coordination of the documentation aspects, and the communication with the project teams, the project management and the taxonomists, as well as for cross-linking with other sources. Neither the development of a standardized descriptor list for the whole home garden project, nor its 24 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

implementation in a sophisticated database have been possible. For any future project on studying the species diversity in tropical agro-ecosystems, especially home gardens, it is, therefore, recommended that a full-time scientist be employed for database development and the coordination of the information flow. From investigations of the reports provided by the national teams it is obvious that plant taxonomic skills are needed. It is recommended that plant taxonomists become part of each national team. Often the reports provide only the name of the plants, whereas the species is omitted or given as ‘sp.’. In some cases, only vernacular names of the plants were reported. Such information is of little use for the project as a whole, because it is impossible to judge which species is meant, if the scientific name is not provided. The literature review on documentation of in situ and on-farm conservation of PGR has shown that much needs still to be done to achieve a similarly good situation as in the documentation of ex situ collections. In future projects on home gardens and in situ/on-farm conservation, more emphasis (and funds) need to be paid to documentation. Lists and databases of species cultivated in home gardens in tropical countries can serve as a starting point for compiling national floras of cultivated plant species.

References Alonso Lanza, J. L., L. Castiñeiras, Z. Fundora Mayor and T. Shagarodsky. 2000. Development of a documentation system for the in situ conservation of cultivated plant genetic resources. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter. 121:62-63. Auricht, G. C., R. Reid and L. Guarino. 1995. Published information on the natural and human environment. Pp. 131–151 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Bridson, G. D. R. and E. R. Smith. 1991. Botanico-periodicum-huntianum/supplementum. Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Pittsburgh, USA. Brockhaus, R. and A. Oetmann. 1996: Aspects of the documentation of in situ conservation measures of genetic resources. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 108:1-16. Brummitt, R. K. and C. E. Powell. 1992. Authors of plant names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Clennett, C. 1999: Q-Collector: development of a portable database for expeditions by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Pp. 215–224 in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslie and C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Cook. F. E. M. 1995. Economic botany data collection standard. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Dearing, J. A. and L Guarino. 1995. Bibliographic databases for plant germplasm collectors. Pp. 229–254 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Esquivel, M., L. Castiñeiras, H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1989. A checklist of the cultivated plants of Cuba. Kulturpflanze 37:211-357. Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1992. Contemporary traditional agriculture—structure and diversity of the “conuco”. Pp. 174–192 in “... y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...”—Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, vol. 1 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben, Germany. Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1994. The “conuco”: a perspective environment for the evolution and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. Pp. 694–702 in “... y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...”—Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, vol. 3 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben. Esquivel, M., H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1992. Inventory of the cultivated plants. Pp. 213–454 in “...y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...”—Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, vol. 2 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben. Gladis, Th., K. Hammer, K. Roose and H. Knüpffer. 2001. The contribution of tropical home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources—examples from Guatemala and Vietnam. Pp. 35–48 in Nutzung genetischer Ressourcen—ökologischer Wert der Biodiversität. Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen (K. Hammer and Th. Gladis, eds.). ZADI/IGR, Bonn, Germany. TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 25

Guarino, L., V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds. 1995. Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Hammer, K. 1990. Botanical checklists prove useful in research programmes on cultivated plants. Diversity 6 (3-4): 31-34. Hammer, K., R. Fritsch, P. Hanelt, H. Knüpffer and K. Pistrick. 1995. Collecting by the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) at Gatersleben. Pp. 713-725 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Hammer, K., T. Gladis, H. Knüpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 2000. Checklists and in-situ conservation— case report from Italy. Pp. 111–125 in In situ Conservation Research. Proc. Internat. Conf. 13–15 October 1999. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Research Council Secretariat; National Institute of Agrobiological Resources (NIAR), Tsukuba, Japan. Hammer, K., H. Knüpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 1992. Seeds from the Past. A Catalogue of Crop Germplasm in South Italy and Sicily. Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung, Gatersleben, Germany; Istituto del Germoplasma, Bari, Italy. Hammer, K., H. Knüpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 1999. Seeds from the Past. A Catalogue of Crop Germplasm in Central and North Italy. IPK, Gatersleben; Germplasm Institute of C.N.R., Bari, Italy. Hanelt, P. and Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben, eds. (1959DATE) Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 1st Engl. edn. Springer, , Germany. Hoang Ho-Dzun, H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1997. Additional notes to the checklist of Korean cultivated plants (5). Consolidated summary and indexes. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 44: 349-391. Iwanaga, M. 1995. IPGRI strategy for in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity. Pp. 13–26 in In situ conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in developing countries. Report of a DSE/ATSAF/IPGRI Workshop, 2–4 May 1995, Bonn-Röttgen, Germany (J. M. M. Engels, ed.). IPGRI, Rome, Italy; DSE, Feldafing, Germany. Jarvis, D. I. and T. Hodgkin, eds. 1998. Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm. Options for data collecting and analysis. Proceedings of a workshop to develop tools and procedures for in situ conservation on-farm, 25–29 August 1997, Rome, Italy. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Knüpffer, H. 1992. The database of cultivated plants of Cuba. Pp. 202–212 in “...y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...”—Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, vol. 1 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.) IPK, Gatersleben, Germany. Knüpffer, H., M. Esquivel and K. Hammer. 1990. DBCPC: a database for the cultivated plants of Cuba. Revista del Jardin Botánico Nacional, La Habana, Cuba, 11:91-104. Knüpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plants. Pp. 215–224 in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslie and C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Laliberté, B., L. Maggioni, N. Maxted and V. Negri, compilers. 2000. ECP/GR In Situ and On-farm Conservation Network. Report of a joint meeting of a Task Force on Wild Species Conservation in Genetic Reserves and a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management, 18–20 May 2000, Isola Polvese, Italy. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Lawrence, G. H. M., A. F. G. Buchheim, G. S. Daniels and H. Dolezal, eds. 1968. Botanico-periodicum- huntianum. Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Pittsburgh, USA. Le Van Truyen and Nguyen Gia Chan, 1999. Selected Medicinal Plants in Vietnam. Science and Technology Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam. Maxted, N. and R. Crust, 1995: Aids to taxonomic identification. Pp. 181–194 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Maxted, N., M. W. van Slageren and J. R. Rihan. 1995. Ecogeographic surveys. Pp. 255–285 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Moss, H. and L. Guarino. 1995. Gathering and recording data in the field. Pp. 367–417 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Nguyen Huu Nghia, Nguyen Dank Khoi, Tran Dinh Long, Dau Quoc Anh, K. W. Riley, V. R. Rao and P. Quek, eds.). 1995. Plant Genetic Resources in Vietnam. Proc. Natl Workshop ‘Strengthening of plant genetic resources programme in Vietnam’, Hanoi, 28–30 March 1995. Agriculture Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam. 26 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Perry, M. C. and E. Bettencourt. 1995. Sources of information on existing germplasm collections. Pp. 121–129 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.).. CAB International, Wallingford. Roose, K. 2001. Tropical home gardens in Vietnam. A contribution to maintain biodiversity and develop new ornamentals for the temperate region. Diploma thesis, Humbold University, Berlin, Germany. Schultze-Motel, J., ed. 1986, Rudolf Mansfelds Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlicher und gärtnerischer Kulturpflanzen (ohne Zierpflanzen). Akademie-Verlag Berlin/Springer, Berlin, Germany. Stafleu, F. A. and R. S. Cowan. 1976 et seq. Taxonomic literature, ed. 2 and its Supplements. Reg. Veg. 125 et al. Stützel, T. 1995. Integrated information systems for genetic resources conservation in situ and ex situ. Pp. 69–73 in In situ conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in developing countries. Report of a DSE/ATSAF/IPGRI workshop, 2–4 May 1995, Bonn-Röttgen, Germany (J.M.M. Engels, ed.). IPGRI, Rome, Itay and DSE, Feldafing, Germany. Thormann, I., D. I. Jarvis, J. A. Dearing and T. Hodgkin. 1999. Internationally available information sources for the development of in situ conservation strategies for wild species useful for food and agriculture. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter. 118:38-50. Toll, J. 1995; Processing of germplasm, associated material and data. Pp. 577–595 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford. Wiersema, J. H. and B. León. 1999. World Economic Plants: A Standard Reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 27

Contributions of home gardens to our knowledge of cultivated plant species: the Mansfeld approach

Karl Hammer Universität Gesamthochschule Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Summary Some results of recent home gardens research are compared with ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ edited in 2001. In ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’, founded by the eminent taxonomist Rudolf Mansfeld (1901–1960), the species level of diversity is specially considered. In this respect, recent home garden inventories are an important source for new information. This is demonstrated by examples from Cuba, Columbia and southern Vietnam. Genetic and ecosystem diversity are well-established aspects in agricultural and horticultural research. Species diversity is a relatively new aspect of study for crop plants, especially in connection with underutilized and neglected crops. Important input from home garden inventories should be expected for future editions of ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’.

Introduction In 2001, the 100th anniversary of Rudolf Mansfeld´s birthday was celebrated (see Pistrick and Hammer 2001). His most important book on crop plants appeared in 1959 shortly before his death in 1960: an annotated catalogue of the crop plants of the world excluding ornamental and forestry species (Mansfeld 1959). The book consists of one volume and comprises 1430 species. The second edition of Mansfeld’s catalogue, compiled by staff members of the Gatersleben institute, appeared in 1986 in four volumes and contained 4000 species (ed. Schultze-Motel 1986). The new species were added from Gatersleben field studies during missions for the collection of plant genetic resources in the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s (Hammer et al. 1995). The third edition of this book, created by staff members of the Gatersleben Institute together with an international team of scientists, appeared in 2001 in six volumes containing more than 6000 species (eds. Hanelt and IPK 2001). Part of the new information on species came from exploratory plant genetic resources work. Collecting missions changed more and more to agrobiodiversity exploration work (Hammer 1998). Proposals and strategies for on-farm conservation were developed from these studies at an early date, e.g. for hulled wheats in Italy (Perrino and Hammer 1984). Even stronger input was derived from work performed in tropical areas, and an early publication stressed the importance of on-farm conservation using the example of the Cuban ‘conucos’ (Esquivel and Hammer 1988).

Species diversity Intraspecific diversity is an important part of the biodiversity concept. Whereas intraspecific diversity for wild plants has been and continues to be well documented, for crop plants there have been only a few such approaches. Mansfeld´s approach is a real systematic input in this respect. When considering this aspect, the particular importance of Latin American home gardens can be demonstrated using some details from our own research. A special study was carried out in Colombia in 1988 (Müller et al. 1989), adding several species to Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia (Hanelt and IPK, 2001). But there are still some species that are candidates for a new edition, especially from the groups of plants and those used for control (Table 1). Our studies in Cuba supported the information gathered from Colombia. Quite often we found species in home gardens which before we had observed in special collections. Therefore, these plants could also be candidates for a new edition of ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’ (see Table 2). Many species of Cuban home garden plants have already been included in ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’. Sixty-two species (see Table 3) are still absent for different reasons and should be also 28 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

considered as good candidates for a new edition. The results of a country survey of Cuba indicate the importance of home gardens for conserving species diversity in crop plants, at least in part, because the results have been taken preferentially from home gardens (Hammer et al. 1992–1994). A new survey from Cuban home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) confirmed the earlier results. There have not only been new species recorded in comparison with the earlier studies (see Table 4) but also with respect to ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia‘ (Table 5). Most of the new items are medicinal plants, stressing the importance of this group for Cuban home gardens.

Mansfeld´s approach To illustrate Mansfeld’s approach, let us take one example from the latest edition of Mansfeld´s catalogue from the family of Alliaceae (Hanelt and IPK 2001, Hanelt 2001). In Figure 1, after taxonomic treatment of the genus , indication of important literature for the genus and a sub-generic classification, the species accepted name and synonyms are listed. This specific approach is the basis for the whole treatment. The variability of the species is shortly characterized. Common names are presented. The area of natural distribution is indicated. The cultivation area is described. Uses are indicated. The history of cultivation is mentioned. Finally short references are cited. Two of them are the source for cultivation in Cuba (Esquivel and Hammer 1992a, Esquivel et al. 1992). The others refer to the botany, use, distribution etc. of the wild plants. The presented scheme is characteristic of Mansfeld´s approach, which can be translated into modern terms of biodiversity by including infraspecific diversity (including variability, ethnobotanical data—common names, uses, history of cultivation), genetic diversity (including variability, ethnobotanical data—common names, uses, history of cultivation) and ecosystem diversity (natural distribution, cultivation area).

Genetic diversity Agronomists and horticulturists have rich experience in developing and exploring the genetic diversity of crop plants. In the beginning, morphological variation was investigated, and now increasingly molecular methods are applied. For important crop plants, extensive infraspecific classifications based on morphologic, geographic or ecologic items, or a combination of them, have been created by N. I. Vavilov and his school (Flaksberger 1935). These excellent studies of genetic biodiversity are largely forgotten and neglected and there are only a few recent examples of such work (Gladis and Hammer 2001). For underutilized and neglected crops such systems are usually not yet available (Hammer et al. 2001).

Ecosystem diversity Tropical home gardens are excellent demonstrations of the importance of ecosystem diversity for the evolution and conservation of plant genetic resources (Esquivel and Hammer 1988, 1992). Together with larger systems, they provide the best conditions for ecosystem diversity for cultivated plants.

Conclusions Ongoing work on tropical home gardens shows that new items will be detected in all levels of biodiversity. Crop species diversity needs special attention because research, as has been shown above, was neglected for crop plants. After intensive studies in Cuba covering a large part of the island, 1029 species of crop plants have been found, a majority of them in home gardens (Hammer et al. 1992–94). This is by far the largest figure of all investigated areas (see Knüpffer and Hammer 1999). A recent investigation in some selected Cuban home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) led to interesting results with respect to species diversity (see Table 6). From 182 species that could be included in our evaluation, 25 crop species have not been reported before from Cuba and 11 species TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 29

2250 Alliaceae

Alliaceae

Allium L., Sp. Pl.(1753) 294 et Gen. Pl. ed. 5 (1754) 143. Cepa Mill., Gard. Dict. Abridg. 4th ed., 1 (1754) art. Cepa; Porrum Mill., l.c., art. Porrum; Moenchia Medik. in Hist. et Comment. Acad. Elect. Sci. 6 (1790) 493 non Ehrh. (1788); Moly Moench, Methodus (1794) 286; Ascalonicum Renault, Fl. Dep. Orne (1804) 33; Schoenoprasum Kunth. Nov. gen. sp. 1 (1816) ed. fol. 219, ed. quart. 277; Ophioscorodon Wallr., Sched. Crit. (1822) 129; Nectarascordum Lindley in Bot. Reg. 22 (1836) t. 1913; Phyllodolon Salisb., Gen. pl. (1866) 90; Schoenissa Salisb., l.c., 91; Scorodon (Koch) Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Bot. Linn. Lyon, n. sér. 17 (1869) 160 ; Rhizirideum (G. Don ex Koch) Fourr., l.c., 160; Molium (G. Don ex Koch) Fourr., l.c., 150; Validallium Small, Fl. Southeast U.S. (1903) 264. Type: Allium sativum L. Ref.: Hanelt et al. 1992, 359 pp.; Messiaen 1993, 230 pp.; Rabinowitch & Brewster 1-3. 1990.

subg. Amerallium Traub

sect. Amerallium (Traub) Kamelin

Allium canadense L., Sp. Pl. (1753) 1195. Allium mutabile Michaux, Fl. Bor.-Am. 1 (1803) 195; A. continuum Small, Fl. Southeast U.S. (1903) 263. Variable species, variants sometimes separated as own species. Canada , wild Canada onion, wild ; ajo de montaña, ajo porro (Cuba, names ambiguous, used also for other species). Widespread in temperate North America east of 103rd meridian. As a wild vegetable formerly often collected by Indian tribes and European settlers. Cultivated in house-gardens in Cuba, scattered from the south to western parts of the island. and used as vegetable. History of introduction unknown. Perhaps also taxonomic derivatives of the species cultivated in Cuba.

Ref.: Dore 1964, 1; Esquivel & Hammer 1992, 43; Esquivel et al. 1992, 213 ; Ownbey & Aase 1955, 1.

Fig. 1. Example from ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001).

are not yet listed in ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia.’ Considering these data, we have to conclude that there are many yet undetected species remaining in Cuba, even in areas which have been well studied before. We are far away from having ‘complete’ inventories. Studying new areas may result in big surprises, such as in the home gardens of southern Vietnam (Hodel et al. 1999). A first survey resulted in more than 300 new crop species for ‘Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia’. From these and other results we can conclude that home garden inventories are still in an early phase of development and continuing efforts are needed. 30 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

References Castiñeiras, L., Z. Fundora, T. Shagarodsky, V. Fuentes, O. Barrios, V. Moreno, P. Sanchez, A. V. González, A. Martinez – Fuentes, M. Garcia and A. Martinez. 2000. La conservación in situ de la variabilidad de plantas de cultivo en dos localidades de Cuba. Revista Jard. Bot. Nac. 21:25-45. Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1992a. Native food plants and the American influence in Cuban agriculture. Pp. 46–74 in ‘… y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros…’, Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, Vol. 1 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben, Germany. Esquivel, M., H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer. 1992. Inventory of cultivated plants, Vol 2, Pp. 213–454. Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1988. The ‘conuco’—an important refuge of Cuban plant genetic resources. Kulturpflanze 36:451–463. Flaksberger, C. A. 1935. Wheat. In Flora of Cultivated Plants (E. V. Wulff, ed.). State Agricultural Publishing Co., Moscow and St Petersburg, Russia. Gladis, Th. and K. Hammer. 2001. Nomenclatural notes on the Brassica oleracea—group. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 48:7-11. Hammer, K., J. Heller and J. Engels. 2001. Monographs on underutilized and neglected crops. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 48:3-5. Hammer, K. 1998. Agrarbiodiversität und Pflanzengenetische Ressourcen Herausforderung—und Lösungsansatz. Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen , vol. 10. Hammer, K., R. Fritsch, P. Hanelt, H. Knüpffer and K. Pistrick. 1995. Collecting by the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) at Gatersleben. Pp. 713–725 in Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity, Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds. 1992–1994. ‘… y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros…’. Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, Vols 1–3. IPK, Gatersleben, Germany. Hanelt, P. and IPK. 2001. Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops.. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Hodel, U., M. Gessler, H. H. Cai, V.V. Thoan, N.V. Ha, N.X. Thu and T. Ba. 1999. In situ conservation of plant genetic resources in home gardens of southern Vietnam. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Knüpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plant species. Pp. 215–224 in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslie and C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Mansfeld, R. 1959. Vorläufiges Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlich oder gärtnerisch kultivierter Pflanzenarten (mit Ausschluß von Zierpflanzen). Kulturpflanze Reih. Müller, G. K., A. Bohorquez, O. Quintero and K. Hammer. 1989. Bericht über eine Reise in Kolumbien 1988 Zur Sammlung pflanzlicher genetischer Ressourcen. Kulturpflanze 37:373-390. Perrino, P. and K. Hammer. 1984. The farro: further information on its cultivation in Italy, utilization and conservation. Genetica agraria 38:303 – 311. Pistrick, K. and K. Hammer. 2001. Rudolf Mansfeld 1901–1960. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 48:1. Schultze-Motel, J., ed. 1986. Rudolf Mansfelds Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlicher und gärtnerischer Kulturpflanzen (ohne Zierpflanzen). 2nd ed. Akademie–Verlag, Berlin, Gramany, 1998.

Table 1. Cultivated plants reported results from Colombia (Müller et al. 1989) not yet included in Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia (2001) Species Family Group of use Billia () columbiana Hippocastanaceae Hedge plant mutisii Hedge plant Hesperomeles goudotiana Hedge plant Oplismenus burmannii Gramineae « coberturas nobles » - soil erosion control Panicum laxum Gramineae « coberturas nobles » - soil erosion control Panicum trichoides Gramineae « coberturas nobles » - soil erosion control Peperonia subspathulata Aromatic plant Tecoma mollis Bignoniaceae Hedge plant Weinmannia tomentosa Cunoniaceae Hedge plant TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 31

Table 2. Plant species found in Cuban special collections (Hammer et al. 1992–1994) not included in Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia (2001) Species Family Aeglopsis chevalieri ...... Rubiaceae Aeschynomene brasiliana ...... Leguminosae Aeschynomene fascicularis...... Leguminosae Aeschynomene paniculata ...... Leguminosae lutescens ...... Atalantia ceylanica ...... Rutaceae Atalantia citroides ...... Rutaceae Bothriochloa macera...... Gramineae Brachiaria nigropedata ...... Gramineae Brachypodium sylvaticum ...... Gramineae Callipedium spicigerum ...... Gramineae Centrosema arenarium ...... Leguminosae Centrosema schottii ...... Leguminosae Chloris bahiensis ...... Gramineae Chloris barbata ...... Gramineae Chloris petraea ...... Gramineae Citrus tachibana ...... Rutaceae Citrustaiwanica ...... Rutaceae Citrus webberi ...... Rutaceae Crotalaria atrorubens ...... Leguminosae Datura leichhardtii...... Desmodium cinerascens...... Leguminosae Desmodium hassleri ...... Leguminosae Desmodium obtusum ...... Leguminosae Digitaria macroblephara ...... Gramineae Dipteryx panamensis...... Leguminosae Eugenia coronata ...... Myrtaceae Eugenia guabiju ...... Myrtaceae Feroniella oblata ...... Rutaceae Ficus capensis ...... Moraceae Galactia spiciformis...... Leguminosae Hordelymus europaeus...... Gramineae Laburnum alpinum ...... Leguminosae Lathyrus niger...... Leguminosae Leptochloa obtusifolia...... Gramineae greggii ...... Leguminosae Leucaena macrophylla ...... Leguminosae Leucaena retusa ...... Leguminosae Leucaena shannonii ...... Leguminosae Maackia amurensis ...... Leguminosae Macroptilium bracteatum ...... Leguminosae Macroptilium martii ...... Leguminosae Melica uniflora ...... Gramineae Myrciaria floribunda ...... Myrtaceae Neptunia plena ...... Leguminosae Pamburus missionis ...... Rutaceae Paspalum paniculatum ...... Gramineae Paspalum regnellii...... Gramineae Setaria tenax...... Gramineae Sorindeia juglandifolia...... Anacardiaceae Stephania rotundata ...... Menispermaceae Swinglea glutinosa ...... Rutaceae Syzygium acuminatissimum ...... Myrtaceae Syzygium grande ...... Myrtaceae Syzygium lineatum ...... Myrtaceae Syzygium punctatum ...... Myrtaceae Syzygium syzigioides ...... Myrtaceae Tephrosia cinerea ...... Leguminosae Tetrastigma harmandi ...... Vitaceae Uniola virgata ...... Gramineae Uvaria rufa ...... Annonaceae Vigna ambacensis...... Leguminosae Zornia brasiliensis ...... Leguminosae 32 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 3. Cuban crop plants reported by Hammer et al. (1992-1994) not yet included in Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia (2001) Species Family Group of use decipiens Agavaceae Fi. Allamanda cathartica M. Allium aff. Glandulosum Liliaceae V., Sp. Ambrosia hispida Compositae M. Annona salzmannii Annonaceae Fr. Anoda cristata Malvaceae M. Ardisia acuminata Myrsinaceae Fr., living fences Brunfelsia nitida Solanaceae M., magic plant Cassia ligustrina Leguminosae M. Casuarina lepidophloia Casuarinaceae wind break Casuarina stricta Casuarinaceae wind break Cestrum diurnum Solanaceae M. Chrysanthellum americanum Compositae M. Citrus amblyocarpa Rutaceae grafting stock Citrus depressa Rutaceae Fr., grafting stock Citrus volkameriana Rutaceae grafting stock Corchorus siliquosus Tiliaceae Fi. Costus spicatus Zingiberaceae M. Dahlia coccinea Compositae M. Datura cubensis Solanaceae M. Diospyros crassinervis Ebenaceae Fr. Erechtites hieracifolia Compositae M. Erythroxylum longipes Erythroxylceae magic plant Eucalyptus botryoides Myrtaceae M. Eucalyptus resinifer Myrtaceae M., soil erosion control, wind break Eucalyptus robusta Myrtaceae M. Eucalyptus saligna Myrtaceae M., soil erosion control, wind break Eugenia aeruginea Myrtaceae hedge plant Eugenia punicaefolia Myrtaceae Fr. ageratifolium Compositae M., magic plant Eupatorium capillifolium Compositae M. Eupatorium villosum Compositae M., magic plant Exostema caribaeum Rubiaceae M. Ficus pandurata Moraceae shade tree Harpullia arborea shade tree Iva cheiranthifolia Compositae M. Jacaranda coerulea Bignoniaceae shade tree Jatropha aethiopica Euphorbiaceae M. Morinda royoc Rubiaceae M. Panicum reptans Gramineae Fo. Parthenium hysterophorus Compositae M. Passiflora stipulata Passifloraceae Fr. Passiflora villosa Passifloraceae Fr. Philoxerus vermicularis Amaranthaceae M. Pinus caribaea Coniferae I., shade tree Pinus cubensis Coniferae shade tree Pinus maestrensis Coniferae I., shade tree Pinus tropicalis Coniferae I., shade tree Plumbago campensis Plumbaginaceae M. Plumbago scandens Plumbaginaceae M. Psidium salutare Myrtaceae Fr. Randia formosa Rubiaceae Fr. Ruellia tuberosa Acanthaceae M. Solanum pseudocapsicum Solanaceae M. Tabernaemontana citrifolia Apocynaceae M. Trichilia glabra Meliaceae M., magic plant Tulbaghia violaceae Liliaceae Sp. Vernonia menthaefolia Compositae M., magic plant Vitis tiliaefolia Vitaceae Fr. Ximenia coriacea Olacaceae Fr., N. Zamia angustifolia Cycadaceae St. Zamia pumila Cycadaceae St. TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 33

Table 4. New crop species in Cuban home gardens observed by Castiñeiras et al. (2000), in comparison with Hammer et al. (1992–1994) Species Family Group of use Alpinia purpurata (Vieill.) K. Schum. Zingiberaceae M. Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) Burtt et R.M.Sm. Zingiberaceae M. Capsicum chinense Jacq. Solanaceae Sp. Cordyline fruticosa (L.) Goepp., Asteliaceae M. Syn. C. terminalis (L.) Kunth Critonia hemipteropoda (B.L. Robins.) Composiate M. R.M. King and H. Robins, Syn. C. aromatisans (A.P. DC.) R.M. King Guarea guidonia (L.) Sleumer, Meliaceae M: Syn. G. trichiloides Allamand ex L. Indigofera suffruticosa Mill. Leguminosae M. Justicia pectoralis Acanthaceae M. Jacq. Var. stenophylla Leonard snaveolens Ehrh. Labiatae M. Ranvolfia nitida Jacq. Apocynaceae M. Sansevieria hyacinthoides (L.) Druce, Dracaenaceae M. syn. S. guineensis (L.) Jacq. brownie (Sw.) Briq. Labiatae M. Schinus terebinthifolins Raddi Anacardiaceae M. Senna alata (L.) Roxb. Leguminosae M. Source: Hammer et al. (1992–1994) and Castiñeiras et al. (2000).

Table 5. New crop species for Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia (2001) and Hammer et al. (1992–1994) observed in Cuban home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) Species Families Group of use Ambrosia peruviana DC. Compositae M. Bignonia violacea DC. Bignoniaceae M. Caesalpinia vesicaria Lam. Leguminosae M. Gerascanthus gerascanthoides (H.B.K.) Borhidi M. Helenium amarum (Rafin.) H. Rock Compositae M. Pavonia fruticosa Fawcett et Rendle Malvaceae M. occidentalis Sw. Rosaceae M. Varronia globosa Jacq. Subsp. Humilis (Jacq.) Borhidi Boraginaceae M. Xiphidium coeruleum Aublet Haemodoraceae M. Erythroxylum havanense Jacq. Erythroxylaceae M. Fagara martinicen,sis Lam. Rutaceae M.

Table 6. Crop species reported from Cuba in comparison with recent investigation (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) Reports and studies Number of species Percentage (%) Species reported from Cuba (Hammer et al. 1992–1994) 1029 100 Recent studies of home gardens (Castiñeiras et al. 2000) 182 17,7 New species for Cuban home gardens 25 2,4 New for ‘Mansfeld´s Encyclopedia’ (2001) 11 1,0 34 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Characterizing the genetic diversity of home garden crops: some examples from the Americas

Michiel Hoogendijk and David E. Williams International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

Introduction The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of available methods for characterizing the genetic diversity of crop species cultivated in home gardens. The different approaches are briefly explained and the relative merits and drawbacks of each are discussed with respect to the interpretation, analysis and application of research results from the genetic diversity studies conducted by the countries participating in the global Home Gardens Project. The results of genetic diversity studies using different approaches can be used to propose scientifically based recommendations for strategies and future actions that best promote the conservation and use of unique crop genetic resources in home gardens.

Focus of study Biodiversity is defined, studied and managed at three levels, i.e. Ecosystem Diversity, Species Diversity and Genetic Diversity. Each of these three levels is relevant to the study and promotion of home gardens (HGs) as loci for agrobiodiversity conservation and use. The ecosystem approach to HGs, or more specifically the AGRO-ecosystem approach, is important for assessing the microenvironments that occur within the HGs themselves, a unique feature compared to the surrounding landscape. At the level of species diversity, quite a large number of studies already exist that describe the floristic richness of home garden systems, and their contributions to cultural identity, and to economy, nutrition and health at the household level. The central focus of the Home Gardens Project goes beyond ecosystem and species diversity to the level of genetic diversity, i.e. diversity within species and specifically within a few selected crop species. The novel approach of the project is to determine the role that infra-specific crop genetic diversity in HGs plays not only in food security and rural livelihoods, but especially, in plant genetic resources (PGR) conservation.

This paper focuses on the methods available for quantifying the role played by HGs in the conservation of infra-specific plant genetic diversity. The central research questions of the project are: • How much genetic diversity is conserved within each species in HGs? • How does this genetic diversity compare or contrast with that in the landscape as a whole? • How much and which part of the genetic diversity conserved in HGs is unique?

The effective unit of conservation—EUC From a conservation standpoint, one of the important outputs of the project is to develop a methodology for determining the effective unit of conservation (EUC) for plant genetic resources maintained in home gardens. The EUC gives an indication of the minimum physical space necessary for maintaining the genetic integrity of a plant population. It can be expressed in various ways, such as number of homegardens in a given area, number of villages including all homegardens, a number of villages including a limited number of homegardens, a (sub-)region, etc.

The variables that must be quantified in order to determine the EUC for a HG crop include: • degree and distribution of diversity • reproductive biology TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 35

• effective population size • management practices • geneflow among cultivars with wild populations • threat of genetic erosion.

Obviously, the EUC may differ among species, and this information can then be compiled to determine EUCs for suites of crops conserved within the home garden context. By determining the EUC for a particular HG crop or crops, appropriate recommendations can then be made by National Programmes for incorporating HGs into complementary conservation strategies that include in situ and on-farm as well as ex situ components.

Methods for characterizing crop genetic diversity in HGs To answer these questions and to determine the EUC, we need to characterize and quantify the genetic diversity found in home gardens. There are four contrasting methods available that we can use to measure genetic diversity: 1. Farmers’ perceptions & folk classification. This is an indication of the variability within a crop as seen through the eyes of the farmer, often focused on uses and common names; 2. Morphological characterization. This is a measurement of phenotypic variability scored by using standardized morphological descriptors, usually in a ‘common garden’ setting but occasionally in situ for environmentally stable characters; 3. Biochemical characterization. These techniques measure variability found in the plants’ secondary compounds, such as seed storage proteins, isozymes, and ; and 4. Molecular characterization. These techniques measure genetic variability directly at the level of the DNA molecule.

Farmers’ perceptions and folk classification The farmer is typically the first source of information that the researcher has regarding the amount and kind of genetic diversity present in a given HG. The diversity perceived by the farmer is often reflected in the common names that are applied to the different varieties they recognize. Names are often derived from particular characteristics of the material, such as distinctive morphological of agronomic traits, place of origin or special uses. Moreover, these names may form part of an informal but nonetheless structured classification scheme or ‘folk taxonomy’ that may reflect or at least provide some insight into what may be relationships among varieties. In any case, it is important to carefully explore and document farmers’ perceptions of diversity because it provides an entry point into the body of detailed knowledge held by farmers, who probably know more than anyone else about the material to be studied. It is also important to document the farmer’s perception of a local variety because that is not only the unit of diversity that the farmer recognizes but is also the unit that he or she actually manages and conserves. Besides providing clues for genetic affinities and distance, folk classification systems can be revealing in terms of the uses, cultural value, nutritional qualities, and culinary importance of the different varieties. Farmer named varieties and classification systems can also provide valuable indications for selecting an appropriate, more in-depth characterization method. Some pitfalls that one should be aware of when studying farmer-named varieties include issues of consistency and comparability of the names used. It is not uncommon to encounter different names for what is in fact genetically similar material, or conversely, the same name used for different varieties. The oral nature of the data often results in inconsistencies in data collection and analysis that can cause difficulties later in data comparability at many levels. However, participatory methodologies do exist which allow researchers to document this kind of farmer knowledge with relative accuracy and efficiency. 36 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Morphological characterization The application of morphological descriptor lists is the simplest of the formal, standardized, repeatable methods of measuring crop genetic diversity. Some of the main advantages of conducting morphological characterization are that published descriptor lists are readily available for most major crop species, it can be carried out in situ (i.e. on-farm), it is relatively inexpensive, and it is relatively easy to carry out. Morphological characterization is a highly recommended first step that should be made before more in-depth biochemical or molecular studies are attempted. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the characterization results can identify a few key or ‘minimum’ descriptors that effectively account for the majority of the diversity observed, saving time and effort for future characterization efforts. This approach has been used successfully for characterizing sapote (Pouteria sapota) by project partners in Guatemala and Cuba. Some of the drawbacks of this method include the difficulty to take environmental influences into account in case of quantitative characters. Depending on the environmental heterogeneity of the home gardens studied, the researcher could decide to characterize a limited number of environmentally stable, i.e. qualitative descriptors such as fruit or flower characteristics. Another drawback is that descriptor lists for many neglected and underutilized crops, whose diversity is typically conserved in HGs, are still unavailable.

Biochemical characterization Biochemical characterization most frequently involves conducting gel electrophoresis on easily extracted proteins such as isozymes, seed storage proteins, flavonoids, and others. Though sometimes more expensive than morphological characterization, such studies are relatively simple to conduct, relatively inexpensive with regard to extraction, reagents and laboratory equipment required in comparison to molecular methods, and the results obtained have excellent comparability and repeatability. One of the great advantages of biochemical characterization methods is that they are capable of detecting different alleles. Co-dominant markers such as isozymes, enable the researcher to determine allelic frequencies and thereby directly measure genetic diversity. Allelic frequency is extremely important information for population genetics studies, for example, to determine the effective population size. In case appropriate protocols are not available for the species investigated, existing protocols for related or similar species may be adapted. Disadvantages of biochemical characterization include the fact that few detection systems are available, that they detect relatively few polymorphic loci and therefore are not very useful for some crop species such as peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and chayote (Sechium edule).

Molecular characterization Molecular characterization detects variation directly at the DNA level. There are several groups of techniques currently available. The most frequently employed include RFLP, RAPD, AFLP, STMS (sequence-tagged microsatellites), and sequencing. Each technique has its own particular advantages and drawbacks in terms of their applicability for different research objectives. When choosing an appropriate technique, there are aspects that should be taken into account, such as the degree of comparability between experiments, the cost and availability of reagents and equipment, the availability of crop-specific protocols and technical expertise. Depending on the research questions, another consideration may be whether it is of importance to detect co-dominance. Some techniques, such as RAPD and AFLP, do not detect co-dominance and therefore cannot measure allelic frequency. While AFLPand RAPD are both suitable for some diversity studies, it should be noted that the results obtained with RAPD are not always comparable between laboratories and sometimes even between experiments. RFLPis an excellent non-random technique, but rather expensive. Microsatellites, also known as SSRs, require specific TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 37

primers that can be costly, and are not yet available for many species, particularly neglected and underutilized crops. Gene sequencing and genome mapping is a wonderfully detailed characterization of the DNA molecule, base pair by base pair, but the excessive investment of time and resources required to conduct such work remains far beyond the capacity of most national programmes.

Choosing the most appropriate method Each method has its particular advantages and drawbacks. The methods may be used individually or in complement to each other, according to their respective appropriateness for a specific crop and farming community, as well as the availability of the resources and expertise required to implement them. Though the best method is the one that will achieve the research objectives with the least expenditure of time and resources, rarely will there be a single choice of a suitable technique. A range of options is much more common, and each should be carefully evaluated before committing limited time and resources to any one of them. The thing to keep foremost in mind when selecting the best characterization method should always be the research objective and the ability of a particular method to address that objective:

1. Outcome with different techniques. Do different methods give similar results in terms of the research objective? Will the different methods provide complementary data, redundant data, or provide confirmation of existing data? 2. Direct vs. indirect measures of genetic diversity. As they do not detect diversity at the level where it is born (i.e. DNA), farmers’ perception/folk classification, morphological characterization and biochemical characterization are considered indirect measures of genetic diversity. Though molecular characterization does go to that level, one or more of the former may already satisfactorily answer the research questions. 3. Neutral vs. non-neutral markers. Many biochemical and molecular markers are known as ‘neutral’, meaning that any polymorphisms observed among accessions are assumed not to be the result of selection. This is an assumption clearly impossible to make for the kind of visually obvious, mainly qualitative traits which farmers use to distinguish landraces or which are the province of conventional morphological characterization. The nature of the research hypotheses will determine which type of markers is the most appropriate: neutral markers will generally give a more general, overall view of genetic variation than other markers, but in some cases it will be variation in adaptive traits that will be of most interest to the researcher, in which case neutral markers may not be useful. 4. Polymorphism. Does the method detect sufficient variation or polymorphism in the study species? Different techniques have been shown to be more effective than others for different species. For example, RFLPanalysis has been used widely to characterize genetic diversity in many crops such as , , beans and fruit trees among many others, but this same technique detects very little polymorphism in peanut, a crop for which agromorphological descriptors have proven far more useful for characterizing genetic variation.

However, the decision will also be based on practical considerations:

1. Particular species’ characteristics. What characteristics does the study species possess that can affect the use of the various characterization methods? For example, fruit trees in the genus Pouteria, produce a thick latex that makes isozyme analysis difficult. Other characteristics to be considered include plant habit (e.g. perennial trees, herbaceous annuals), reproductive biology (e.g. inbreeders, outcrossers, clonally propagated), seed physiology (orthodox, recalcitrant, viviparous) that may require that some techniques be rejected in favor of others that are more effective. 38 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

2. Logistic concerns. What is the availability of adequate laboratory facilities, reagents and other materials, equipment, trained personnel, etc., or are there any budgetary requirements? Also, the materials to be characterized sometimes come from remote areas, with consequences for the maintenance and transportation of the material in optimal condition. For example, will DNA extraction from large fruit trees be possible in the field and, if so, will it be possible to transport the extractions to the lab without them deteriorating? Another important concern in morphological characterization is whether to carry it out in situ in the farmer’s field or ex situ under the controlled conditions of an experiment station? Sometimes, in the case of trees (e.g. ) or certain herbaceous crops (e.g. Sechium), it is impractical or impossible to do ex situ characterization, requiring that other, less precise but still valid alternative methods be considered. 3. Availability of methodologies for the species investigated. For many crops present in home gardens, morphological descriptor lists may not be available, or protocols for molecular methods may not have been developed yet. 4. Novelty. The newest, most sophisticated, or most expensive technique is not necessarily the best option. When considering a complicated or costly new technique, it should always be evaluated whether or not the added difficulty and/or expense is justified by the result

Selecting the most appropriate characterization methodology should be done on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the before mentioned.

Back to the research questions We do not characterize the genetic diversity in HG crops for its own sake but to answer the key research questions posed at the beginning of the project. After choosing the appropriate characterization technique and carrying out the characterization itself, it is then time to see what can be said about this research, based on the data generated, and contribute information that will help determine the effective unit of conservation.

Target crops in the Americas and characterization methods used To find an answer on the Project’s key research questions, each of the three participating countries in the Americas (Cuba, Guatemala, and Venezuela) chose 3–4 ‘target’ crops to focus on during the second project year for in-depth studies of diversity, frequency, distribution, and use (see Table 1).

Table 1. Species selected for in-depth studies in project countries in the Americas, and the methodologies applied either in or ex situ Genus Venezuela Cuba Guatemala Phaseolus Ex situ, morphological In situ, morphological – Carica In situ, morphological –– Persea In situ, morphological –– Pouteria – In situ, morphological In situ, morphological Ex situ, AFLP (on-going) Ex situ, AFLP (planned) Capsicum In situ, morphological In situ, morphological In situ, morphological Ex situ, AFLP (planned) Ex situ, AFLP (planned) Ex situ, morphological (planned) Ex situ, AFLP (planned) Sechium – – In situ, morphological Ex situ, isozymes Ex situ, AFLP (Costa Rica) TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 39

Most of the diversity studies of HG target crop conducted to date in the Americas have been based on morphological characterization. This was a function of the relative practicality, suitability of this method for achieving the research objectives, and budgetary reasons. As might be expected, a combination of in situ and ex situ morphological characterizations has given mixed results with limited comparability between studies, thereby reducing the strength of the conclusions. For this reason, there remains a need to identify additional techniques and use them to conduct complementary characterization studies (e.g. biochemical and molecular) to confirm, re- enforce, or possibly reject previous findings.

Case studies from the Americas Some examples of how this was accomplished with some of the target crops studied in the Americas are briefly outlined below.

Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba The lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus), called frijol caballero in Cuba, is a typical HG crop. It has practically no commercial value, yet it is widely grown in HGs and plays an important role in the local diet. The plants cultivated in home gardens grow in close proximity to interbreeding wild and weedy populations, with which geneflow almost certainly occurs. Agromorphological characterization of the diversity was done in situ, based primarily on seed morphology. Representative HGs were studied in each of the three eco-regions of the island (Western, Central, and Eastern). The highest levels of diversity were found in the Western and Central eco-regions. The diversity of Phaseolus lunatus encountered in the Eastern region was relatively low. Based upon the data recovered from the study, the Effective Unit of Conservation for Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba was determined to be the selected project HGs in the Western and Central regions of the country. The diversity encountered in the Cuban HGs was compared with available characterization data on the ex situ germplasm collection. The comparison revealed that there are unique materials being conserved in HGs. Moreover, the HGs have become the sole sanctuary for much of the genetic diversity of this native crop in Cuba: originally the ex situ collection had an almost complete national coverage, but after some unfortunate losses currently very few samples are still available.

Pouteria spp. in Guatemala Zapotes (Pouteria spp.) are native fruit trees common to HGs in Guatemala. Their genetic diversity was measured using in situ morphological characterization and ex situ isozyme characterization. A morphological descriptor list was developed for this study. Following their characterization, Principal Components Analysis of the descriptor results showed that certain fruit characters are particularly useful for detecting zapote diversity. This finding allowed the Cuban team to use a modified, shorter and more effective descriptor list to characterize their Pouteria populations. Typically, only a few zapote trees, which are allogamous (outbreeders), are present in a single HG. Therefore, the effective breeding population must include many HGs in a village and possibly also materials outside HGs. The genetic diversity of the trees cultivated in HGs was compared with the diversity measured in a stand of wild zapote trees growing in a protected area. It was found that the genetic composition of the cultivated and wild populations differed significantly. Therefore, it was decided that the Effective Unit of Conservation should include selected HGs in each eco-region (at least two), as well as the wild population studied in protected area.

Phaseolus vulgaris in Venezuela The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is a common HG crop in Venezuela and was chosen as a focal crop for the project. Despite a general preference for black seeded beans, it was shown that farmers also conserved other seed colors and certain varieties they believed to be disease resistant. Twenty- seven accessions of HG beans were characterized ex situ using agromorphological descriptors. The 40 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

results were then compared with those from the characterization of the national collection of 1200 accessions obtained from other regions and sources. The same descriptors and multivariate analysis were applied to all the materials. Significant diversity was detected in the HG materials, especially with regard to seed color and disease resistance. The HG beans included unique materials that were not represented in the national collection. Based on these findings, the Venezuelan researchers determined that the Optimal Unit(s) of Conservation for Phaseolus vulgaris would be one village, including approximately 25 HGs, in each eco-region in the country.

Applying the results The data obtained from studying HG genetic diversity can be directly applied to reinforcing the long- term contribution that HGs can make to the conservation of crop genetic resources. These data can also be used to increase the benefits that the farmers themselves derive from managing that diversity. From the conservation perspective, we seek to answer some key questions. The answers to these answers can then form the basis of recommendations for future conservation actions, such as the determination of Optimal Units of Conservation. Once the EUCs are determined, appropriate steps can be taken to recognize and incorporate EUCs into the national PGR conservation strategies, as an on-farm conservation method complementary with existing ex situ efforts. The answers to the key research questions posed at the beginning of this paper can be used to demonstrate the importance of HGs in plant genetic resources conservation and use on-farm, and can enable National Programmes to develop scientifically based recommendations for including HGs in national PGR conservation strategies. By recognizing, enhancing and promoting the important conservation role of HGs, farmers, breeders, and society in general will all be better served by the unique genetic resources maintained on-farm in these special agroecosystems.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Cesar Azurdia, Toby Hodgkin, Luigi Guarino, Carmen de Vicente and colleagues from the Cuban, Guatemalan and Venezuelan project teams for their valuable input to this paper. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 41

Contributions of home gardens to development, nutrition and livelihoods—key questions

Pablo Eyzaguirre1 and Maria Fernandez2 1 IPGRI, Rome Italy 2 International Support Group. UNALM, Lima, Peru

Understanding household dynamics and responsibilities in managing home garden resources by households • Who owns the gardens? • Who decides what gets planted? • Who keeps the germplasm? • Who decides what to sell and how to use the money?

Answers will vary according to culture, household cycle and species. • Many home garden species are medicinals. Would the household be able to obtain health services if not for the HG? • Many species are traditional vegetables. Are they nutritionally better and preferred over introduced species? • Are there key home garden species rich in diversity that can also be income earners? • How does seed and germplasm management in home gardens contribute to overall farm productivity? • How do home gardens contribute to human and plant health? • How have home gardens been used in previous development programmes? Do they consider home garden diversity as the starting point? • Are the home gardens that are ‘hot spots’ for agrobiodiversity included in development activities? Should they be? Will home garden development threaten diversity?

Recommendations • Reinforce socioeconomic information to improve capacity of farmer communities to manage and maintain home garden diversity • Understand management processes and farmer visions for health, quality of life, food security. • Make use of action research to support farmers’ processes of conservation and use over time.

Focus on: • Learning mode among farmers, scientists and across regions. • Increase farmer-conservationist social recognition and self esteem (seed fairs, eco-tourism, published folk taxonomies). • Ensure visibility of home gardens as conservation areas (policy).

Future project strategy: networking and public awareness and implementing the methods • Use diverse methods to complement, confirm and reinforce research findings. • Make methods available for household resource management and risk aversion strategies. • Transfer knowledge, skills across between communities and across formal and informal institutions. • Consolidate partnerships among the stakeholders at national levels. 42 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Project reports Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems—Cuban component

L. Castiñeiras, Z. Fundora Mayor, T. Shagarodsky, V. Moreno, O. Barrios, L. Fernández and R. Cristóbal Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical “Alejandro de Humboldt” (INIFAT), Boyeros, Cuba

Abstract There are several factors that influence the composition of the species and infraspecific diversity in Cuban home gardens, or ‘conucos’. Aspects such as culture, climate, socioeconomic status and politics are the main influences on the diversity present in home gardens. Among the most important aspects are human actions and decisions. Conucos were surveyed in the three major geographic regions of Cuba. In all regions the coexistence of wild species and weeds have been noted growing together with cultivated varieties, as in the case of Capsicum frutescens. In many cases the wild or weedy varieties are at first ‘tolerated’ and then, if found useful, ‘managed’ to a certain degree. It can be seen that approximately 50% of the species and/or cultivars originate outside the home gardens. Interviews conducted with farmers confirm the ample exchange of genetic materials between the gardens and its surroundings. The most frequent source of germplasm is from close family and neighbours, and to a lesser extent from the formal sector (Ministry of Agriculture or scientific institutions). Once the reproductive material has been obtained, the farmers show great interest in reproducing their own seed (in approximately 80% of the cases). The remainder correspond to those types which self-seed (weeds), or which are useful wild species, or which must be bought because seed can not be reproduced in our country, such as cabbage (Brassica oleracea) or beetroot (Beta vulgaris). Climatic factors, such as prolonged droughts, hurricanes and strong winds can prevent flowering and destroy crop populations. Home garden owners with high levels of education tend to cultivate a greater number of species, suggesting that farmers are capable of perceiving greater benefit in managing a greater number of species. Cuban farmers easily adopt new technologies and new species or varieties. There is also a positive tendency in the relationship between increased time dedicated to home garden care and the total number of managed species; increased labor also tends to increase the number of categories of use. Pests and diseases sometimes cause farmers to change the composition of the managed diversity, especially when they are causing serious crop damage. One example is the case of Thrips palmi, which attacks a wide range of species that are of importance to the household. Finally, agrarian and environmental policies can affect the dynamics of the Cuban ‘conuco’, either by promoting or constraining the presence of wide diversity in the home garden. Despite policies that have not favored crop genetic diversity in field crops, diversity in Cuban home gardens remains quite stable over time, because they are essential to the livelihood of the owners.

Selection of the study areas The Home Gardens project was founded on a firm base of knowledge about Cuban home gardens accumulated by numerous expeditions and publications by Esquivel, as well as a regular programme of collection missions by INIFAT, led by Castiñeiras. They provided the basis of analysis and the later selection of the specific study areas. The study sites selected included Cuban pre-mountainous, mountainous and plains areas (Fig.1). The pre-mountainous and mountainous zones contained more diversity, and the plains home gardens contained less diversity because they were often used for extensive production of sugar cane or for livestock-rearing. PROJECT REPORTS 43

Fig. 1. Home gardens areas under in situ conservation in Cuba.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study zones Characteristic West Central East Ecosystem Mountainous— Pre-mountainous— Plains—Sagua-Baracoa Guaniguanico Cordillera Guamuhaya Massif Massif Annual rainfall (mm) 2000–2013 1200–1500 1200–2448 Temperature range (ºC) 23–24 19–26 16–23 Related institutions Sierra del Rosario Cienfuegos Alexander von Biosphere Reserve Humboldt National Park Economic activities Ecotourism; Plantain, banana, Sustainable harvesting production and coffee production of wood (Pinus forest); coffee production

107 home gardens were visited and explored. Interviews were conducted with at least one family member per home garden, usually the owner. Of the initial gardens surveyed: 38 were chosen for continued study, representing 35.5% of the gardens visited. The distribution of these gardens was 13 in the western region, 12 in the central region and 13 in the eastern region.

Selection criteria • The number of cultivated species (fruit trees, viands, vegetables, medicinal plants, etc.) with >30 species preferred. • The presence of local/traditional varieties. • Principal source of seed acquisition, with preference for those that reproduce their own seed. • Size and composition of the family, with preference given to marriages with children, increasing the likelihood of stable succession of ownership for the garden. • The use of the garden’s produce, with preference given to home consumption. • The length of time since the establishment of the garden, preferably more than 20 years. • No current land disputes in progress.

Species diversity

Table 2. Results of the inventory of species present in the gardens selected Region West Central East Total Species 320 315 258 508 Genera 235 237 204 352 Families 91 90 82 108 44 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Of the species inventoried, 80%, correspond to cultivated species (Table 2). The remaining species are wild species, and are used for different purposes. Diversity was highest in the Western region, with 320 species recorded, and lowest in the Eastern region, where 258 species were recorded. The Eastern zone is the plains area in Cuba, where gardens tend to be more commercialized in than in the West and Central regions. Gardens there may contain less diversity because of use for production of sugar cane or for commercial rearing of livestock. Table 3 lists the most commonly observed species in home gardens. It includes both the species found in all home gardens in a region (100%) and those found in 80% of the home gardens surveyed.

Table 3. Species observed in the majority of home gardens surveyed Species 100% frequency 80% frequency West Central East West Central East ...... X...... Annona muricata...... X ...... Annona reticulata ...... X ...... X...... Artocarpus communis ...... X ...... Citrus aurantium...... X ...... X...... Citrus sinensis...... X...... X...... Cocos nucifera...... X ...... Coffea arabica...... X ...... X ...... X...... Curcurbita moschata...... X...... Dioscorea alata...... X...... ...... X ...... Gliricidia sepium ...... X...... Ipomea batatas...... X...... Lippia alba ...... X...... Mangifera indica ...... X...... X ...... X...... Manihot esculenta...... X ...... Melicoccus bijugatus ...... X ...... Musa spp...... X ...... X ...... X ...... Persea americana...... X ...... X...... Phaseolus vulgaris ...... X ...... X ...... X...... Plectranthus amboinicus ...... X...... Pouteria sapota...... X ...... Psidium guajava ...... X ...... X ...... Saccharum officinarum...... X...... X...... Xanthosoma sagittifolium ...... X ...... Zea mays ...... X ......

Based on Table 3, we can highlight the percentage of species that are common between the regions studied, and those found in all regions. Figure 2 shows that 20.4% of species were common between the West and Central regions, but only 4.5% and 5.3% of species are common between West-East and Central-East, respectively. However, 24.3% of species were common between all the regions studied. This can be partially explained by the fact that the Mountainous and Fig. 2. Percentage of species common to the areas studied. PROJECT REPORTS 45

Pre-mountainous zones (the West and Central regions) were more similar ecologically than the Plains, or Eastern region. Also, the Eastern region’s method of production is more intensive and less species-rich than the other two regions, which may contribute to the fact that the West and Central regions had more in common with each other than either did with the Eastern region. Twenty-three crops were found to harbor significant infraspecific variability, differing from region to region. Cowpea (Cajanus cajan), Capsicum annuum, and Yam (Dioscorea spp.) exhibited important levels of variability in the East. Infraspecific variety in the West and Central regions overlapped greatly, but in general these results suggest that the diversity utilized by the families in the home gardens is distributed to be common to all the regions selected.

Table 4. Crops reported as having greater infraspecific variability by the farmer Crop West Central East Cajanus cajan ...... X...... Capsicum annuum ...... X...... Citrus sinensis...... X...... X...... Coffea arabica...... X...... X ...... X...... Colocasia esculenta ...... X...... X ...... moschata ...... X ...... Dioscorea alata...... X...... Hibiscus rosa-sinensis ...... X...... X ...... Ipomea batatas...... X...... Lycopersicon esculentum...... X...... Mangifera indica...... X...... X ...... Manihot esculenta ...... X ...... Musa spp...... X...... X ...... X...... Persea americana...... X...... X ...... Phaseolus lunatus...... X ...... X...... Phaseolus vulgaris ...... X...... X...... Portulaca grandiflora ...... X ...... X...... Psidium guajava ...... X...... X ...... X...... Saccharum officinarum...... X...... X...... Spondias purpurea ...... X ...... Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculata...... X ...... Xanthosoma sagittifolium...... X...... X...... Zea mays...... X...... X ...... X......

These conclusions are important to bear in mind when determining minimum units of in situ conservation for plant genetic resources in Cuba.

Farmer perception of diversity In general, farmer perceptions are based upon: • the morphology of the different parts of the plant, in particular those utilized • possible origin • status of the cultivar • vigour of the plants • sponsoring institution when dealing with a modern clone • morphological comparison with other species • length of the crop cycle • quality of the part of the plant utilized. 46 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 5. Examples of the infraspecific variability of some species based on the perception of the farmer Area % of HG with Average number of Number of infraspecific diversity varieties /100 m2 different varieties Musa spp. West 92 1.8 22 Central 92 0.6 12 East 93 1.5 15 Mangifera indica West 69 2.4 9 Central 58 3.5 20 East 29 0.6 5 Phaseolus vulgaris West 62 1.8 7 Central 25 0.6 5 East 50 1.5 13 Saccharum officinarum West 77 2.4 8 Central 8 0.6 7 East 50 1.6 12

The high number of cultivars found for each key species strongly suggests the coexistence of traditional and modern cultivars in Cuban home gardens (Figures 4 and 5). If this coexistance is sustainable, which it appears to be, it would show that traditional cultivars are still maintained even after the introduction of modern varieties. This supports the potential of home gardens to conserve specific threatened diversity in situ.

Utilization of home garden plants

Management of diversity through use Diversity is selected according to the requirements of the family (at the species and varietal level). For some crops, the infraspecific diversity is considerable, but the number of individuals per species or variety is small. For crops that give greater economic benefit to the families in rural areas, home gardens often contain a large number of individuals per species or variety. Management activities are carried out with minimal ecological cost, due to the low utilization of chemical products.

Table 6. Utilization of home garden plants in the different study zones Use West Central East Total Ornamental 138 127 87 197 Medicinal 64 65 56 114 Timber for construction 24 22 30 54 Fruit trees 32 33 21 38 Seasonings 17 13 17 25 Vegetables 9 12 7 14 Living fences 9 8 8 12 Timber for tool-making 1 4 8 11 Roots and tubers 8 8 6 10 Drinks 4 5 5 10 Grains 7 6 8 9 Animal feed 3 3 4 7 Other 9 10 4 20 (charcoal, wood, insecticides, 9 10 4 20 fences, for , etc.) PROJECT REPORTS 47

Key species

Selection of species Pouteria sapota Ex situ conservation in Cuba is extremely limited for Pouteria sapota. The species is conserved in situ in or near home gardens, often with trees of great age. No previous work exists on the variability of this species in the country.

Phaseolus lunatus This species is grown only in home gardens, and used primarily for home consumption. Ex situ conservation of Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba has been lacking. Widespread diversity has been observed, including three cultivar groups reported for the species, and types with wild characteristics collected as weeds.

Capsicum spp. The Capsicum annuum–chinense–frutescens complex is present in Cuba, with cultivated types, wild types, and intermediates between these forms. An ex situ collection exists in Cuba, which is correctly maintained and documented. These species are conserved in the home gardens for various purposes, primarily for home consumption.

Morphological diversity of key species Pouteria sapota Forty-two trees were studied: 30 trees in the west and 12 trees in the east. Characterization was based upon 11 characters of the fruit and seeds. Wide diversity in forms was observed, especially for: • the average weight of the fruit • seed length • number of seeds per fruit • thickness of the mesocarp and pericarp.

Cuba is not the centre of diversity for Pouteria sapota, which lies in Latin America, but variability exists and should not be ignored. Its diversity in Cuba may be especially important because it exhibits several features not found in Latin American Pouteria, so Cuba may be a secondary centre of diversity (Fig. 3). Pouteria sapota has a wide distribution of harvest times in Cuba, with the highest frequency in the months of April, May and June, and a range that varies from March to July, differing from Latin America.

Fig. 3. Distribution of cultivars of Pouteria sapota related to components 1 and 3. 48 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Diversity is more evident in the west than in the east of the country, and could be associated with attempts to promote the development of elite fruits of high quality. No ex situ collections for Pouteria sapota exist in Cuba. There are only a few isolated examples in botanical gardens and private collections, which are severely threatened by genetic erosion. This collection could be rescued by collecting materials from the home gardens of farmers involved in the project, and used to create a further source of income for the family. The farmer’s perception of varieties is not entirely clear for the species, but these are the most common characteristics used to distinguish them: • the phenological distribution of harvest and productivity • the morphological characteristics of the fruit • characteristics of quality. This analysis implies that it is necessary to rescue the most outstanding classes, in order to include them in programmes of fruit tree reproduction. In situ conservation strategies should be developed for the species. It is also important to work on clearly identifying and communicating the species’ characteristics within the farming communities.

Phaseolus lunatus Fifty-three populations were studied from the western, central and eastern regions of Cuba. Eleven morphological characteristics of the seed were determined. A wide diversity of forms was observed, especially for size, weight, and the relation between them. The beans had characteristic primary colour markings in white, red and cream. The most frequent secondary colour was brown. In addition, black and red were found. It was not possible to differentiate a defined pattern of variability between the regions of study. The different cultivar groups maintain the same pattern throughout the Island. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the distribution of the accessions of Phaseolus lunatus characterized in situ in the home gardens according to their infraspecific classification. The greatest variability in P. lunatus was observed in the central and eastern regions of the country, where the traditional knowledge of the crop is much greater than in the western region. Unfortunately, due to the loss of the ex situ collection, it is not possible to use the collections to complement one another in the conservation of P. lunatus in Cuba. Figure 6 shows that the germplasm conserved in situ in home gardens covers the range of diversity formerly conserved ex situ in genebanks. The ex situ collection has been lost; however, a large part of the variability that has been lost could be rescued, by also conserving the germplasm maintained by the farmers in home gardens in ex situ collections. This confirms the importance of maintaining both in situ and ex situ conservation mechanisms as complementary strategies.

Fig. 4. Percentage of samples representing different Fig. 5. Number of samples of Phaseolus lunatus cultivar groups of Phaseolus lunatus in home according to the region and cultivar group. gardens sampled. PROJECT REPORTS 49

Fig. 6. Results of the Principal Component Analysis of the accessions of Phaseolus lunatus characterized in in situ and ex situ conditions.

Table 7. The farmers’ perception (PF) of the infraspecific diversity and its relationship with the perception of the scientist (PS) Consumption purpose (PF/PS) Cultivar group (PS) Seed characteristics (PS/PF) Grains Sieva+potato Size Médium and small Colour One or more Form Rounded and flattened Vegetables Lima Size Big Colour White Form Flattened Preparation of Sweet Dishes Sieva+potato+lima Size All Colour White Form Rounded and flattened Living fence Sieva+potato+lima Size+colour+form All

Capsicum spp. Eighty-five populations were investigated, and 25 descriptors of the plant, flower and the fruit were identified. The main species encountered were annuum, chinense, and frutescens. C. annuum was rarely found in the western region, and C. chinense rarely in the east (Fig. 7). Interesting types included rediscovering a wild population of the type ‘corazón de paloma’ (dove’s heart), which had not been seen since the 19th century in Cuba. A wild population of the type ‘piquín’ was also Fig. 7. Distribution of samples among Capsicum species described, a type previously undetected in and regions—total number of accessions evaluated. 50 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Fig. 8. Simple factorial correspondance for in situ and ex situ collections of Capsicum spp.

Cuba. The taxonomic status of the ‘ají de jardín’ (garden pepper) has been identified as Capsicum annuum. It is possible to appreciate that the diversity conserved in situ is representative of that conserved ex situ (Fig. 8). The accessions within the groups formed are very similar, except for four types ´tarro de chivo’, ‘chile blanco´, ají de jardín’ founded as cultivated types in Cuban home gardens, and the type ´corazón de paloma´, a wild type found in the ‘tumbas’ (disturbed areas). These types have consequently been added to the Genebank collection due to their high probability of genetic erosion. In the case of wild C. frutescens it is possible that the materials should not express all characteristics during the regeneration at ex situ conditions, which suggests that both collections should be used as complementary conservation strategies of the gene pool of this crop in Cuba. With reference to the differentiation of the different forms within the species, the perception of the scientist coincides with that of the farmer, and is defined by the purpose of consumption, fundamentally based on the morphological characteristics of the fruit, such as size, colour and thickness of the pericarp, although other characteristics are also taken into account, such as fruit flavour (Table 8). Large fruit types are consumed as a fresh vegetable (roasted or filled), medium- sized fruit are processed to make sweet (dried), or ground for the preparation of puree, hot/spicy medium-sized fruit with fine pericarps are used in the preparation of pickles (encurtido), medium-sized fruit with a sweet-intermediate flavour and thin pericarp are used as seasoning, small fruit for medicines, and small, colourful fruit as ornamentals. It must be emphasized that in Cuba there is no tradition of eating the spicy fruits, as in other countries of the Mesoamerican region (Mexico, Guatemala etc.). PROJECT REPORTS 51

Table 8. Perception of the infraspecific diversity of the farmer (PF) and its relation to that of the scientist (PS) Consumption purpose (PF+PS) Species (PS) Characteristics of the fruit (PF+PS) Fresh vegetable Capsicum annuum Size Big Pericarp Thick Flavour Sweet Industrial and/or home processing Capsicum annuum Size Medium Pericarp Thick Flavour Sweet Pickling Capsicum frutescens Size Medium Pericarp Thin Flavour Hot Seasoning Capsicum chinense Size Medium Capsicum frutescens Pericarp Thin Capsicum annuum Flavour Sweet-intermediate Medicinal Capsicum frutescens Size Small Pericarp Thin Flavour Hot-intermediate Ornamental Capsicum annuum Size Small Colour More than 3

Market for key species Pouteria sapota This species, sapote, abounds in the markets between May and July, although it can be found throughout the year. The sale price of the fruits is relatively high, although it varies depending upon the size and scarcity of the product. The greatest production for sapote is between the months of November and March in Guatemala but the periods in which the Cuban cultivars develop correspond to those when no fruit is produced in the Central American region.

Phaseolus lunatus This species is not commercialized in Cuba; outside the environs of the home garden it is difficult to find, even in the local markets. Over the period of one year it has been observed only twice in the market, being sold as a common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris).

Capsicum spp. The species C. chinense and C. frutescens are rarely found in the markets—particularly the latter (used in Cuba medicinally, for seasoning or for pickling). C. annuum is often seen, however. The potential use offered by the Capsicum complex is not fully taken advantage of, and very little of the diversity present in the gardens of the rural areas of Cuba reaches the population as a whole.

Socioeconomic studies: the sustainability of the home garden

Diversity of biological resources (inter and intraspecific diversity)—elements taken into account Technical management consists of artificial , chemical and biological , soil analysis and origin of reproductive material. Socioeconomic influences include family composition, number of people to benefit from the gardens’ produce, income received from the products of the garden, and social aspects which influence stability (close sources of employment, etc.). External factors that affect home gardens are accessibility, quality of the household infrastructure, access to basic social services, credit opportunities and access to the markets (number of species referred to as dedicated for sale, and opportunities for commercialization). 52 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Home gardens studied are sustainable agricultural systems, with their own specific characteristics, and that in the case of Cuba can be grouped into three general areas—west, central and east—as three large nuclei of agricultural, historical and cultural diversity. The proportion of species used only for home consumption is high. The variability of the key species is distributed (although not uniformly) throughout the three study regions. The best environmental health (soil fertility and management, adequate and dynamic management of the different species within the system, attention to the garden, no nearby sources of pollution, etc.) is shown in the home gardens located in the protected areas or in the buffer zone (western and eastern areas) In the central region a tendency was observed towards the use of advanced cultivars in place of traditional cultivars; a smaller proportion of infraspecific diversity was perceived by the farmers; there are also fewer useful animals and increased technical management of irrigation, perhaps because some of the gardens of the central region are located in areas of greater urbanization. The income from the produce of the gardens indicates a reasonable profit for the families, in terms of the current earning power of the country, but little is reinvested in the management of the garden as such. In the majority of the gardens studied, soil fertility is normal (although in the central region it is lower) and there is little general use of the agroecological techniques of soil conservation. When these are used it is mainly due to the farmer’s intuition. The management of the agricultural tasks has little adverse impact on the environment, since in, general, harvesting, seedbed preparation and are all carried out manually. The majority of the species are managed without irrigation and most either use organic fertilizer, or simply use none at all. A combination of threats can be seen, regarding the adoption of new technologies and improved varieties, as well as the options available (with greater economic benefits) for farmers in other sectors of the national economy. For some species, the application of chemical fertilizers can damage the environment. In this aspect substantial improvement could be achieved with intensive and systematic training.

Table 9. The relationship between topographic, climatic and edaphic factors and diversity Altitude Number of fruit trees – 0.51 Roots and tubers 0.45 Medicinal species 0.37 Grain species 0.35 Stimulant/drink species 0.26 Seasonings 0.41

As altitude increases, it is colder, with heavier mists and less sunlight. For this reason, it is an unsuitable climate for fruit trees, and there is a negative correlation between altitude and fruit trees species managed by farmers (r=–0.51), due to the presence of mists at high elevations. Altitude, however, has a positive effect on roots and tubers (r=0.45), medicinal species (r=0.37), grains (r=0.35) and seasonings (r=0.41) due to the high rainfall that occurs in those home gardens. No defined tendency was observed in the total number of species in relation to altitude. Sociocultural and economic factors PROJECT REPORTS 53

Level of education The Cuban government guarantees access to the educational system for the entire population, and has established schooling until the 9th grade as obligatory. • The children of farmers were able to study subjects unrelated to agricultural activities, although a percentage still came to work in the agricultural sector. • Certain halting and reversion of this process has been seen, favoured by the adoption of specific agrarian State policies of land distribution, and the stimulus represented by better prices for agricultural produce in the markets. • Relationship between the level of education of the owner of the garden, and the number and composition of species, showed a low but positive correlation (r=0.24). • The Cuban farmer easily accommodates new technologies, new species or new varieties, which in itself proves of interest, and could also be related to a higher level of education, or to more available information.

Time dedicated to the care and maintenance of gardens No relationship was seen between this factor and the number of total species, nor in any specific category of use; however, a positive relationship was seen with the greatest number of categories of different uses in the garden (r=0.22). This suggests that maintaining the garden and making it produce a greater quantity of species with different uses leads not only to a greater possibility of satisfying the needs of the inhabitants of the garden, but also to greater opportunities for commercialization: a new process of diversification of production and consumption habits.

Farmer workshops in the regions studied To favour these meetings, and to allow the exchange of conservation practices and methods, in addition to the exchange of seeds of different species and varieties, has been one of the aims of the project. In each region awareness has been raised about conserving the diversity of cultivated species, with the scientific, political and educational authorities regarding the role of said conservation in the sustainability of the different agricultural systems and the complementary nature of the in situ conservation of cultivated plants with the conservation of wild species. Conservation of diversity has been encouraged by means of stimuli aimed at increasing the farmers’ understanding of the role of the home garden in the food security of the family, the community and the region.

Description of the Cuban home garden The Cuban home garden of the rural areas is characterized as being a dynamic agricultural ecosystem, where a high level of diversity can be seen in useful species, be they cultivated or wild. The rural Cuban home garden occupies a relatively small space and almost always surrounds the house, although in some cases the area of the garden moves from one part of the land to another every so often (approximately every three years), in search of rejuvenated soil, leaving the previous area fallow for the future. The ornamental garden is almost always located in the anterior part and at one of the sides of the house (also some species of fruits, medicinal and seasoning plants). Other species for feeding the family are distributed a little further away from the house, in a system of continuous rotation, depending upon the size of the property. The structure of the Cuban home garden varies depending upon the topography, but always maintains all the strata of vegetation (subterranean, herbaceous, bushes and trees), with cultivated species, weeds and wild species being characteristic of each strata, although the cultivated species constitute the greatest proportion. 54 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Generally , bananas, taro, beans and are the important crops, which demonstrates attachment to a specific food culture, where the viands and the grains hold a central role in the family economy. They occupy greater areas within the garden, due to the need for larger amounts for feeding the family. The fruits have an important role in providing vitamins and minerals, as a substitute for vegetables. The presence of other species is influenced by historical factors; such is the case of coffee, which is also of economic importance for the State, and commercial coffee production is found in the mountainous zones. One of the most important factors which in the dynamic influences the composition of species and/or varieties within the species in the Cuban home garden, is Man himself. Aspects such as culture, climate, socioeconomic status and politics are the main influences on the diversity present in home gardens. Among the most important aspects are human actions and decisions.

Table 11. Germplasm sources in Cuban home gardens Category West (%) Centre (%) East (%) Home garden 64 50 52 From a relative 3 3 4 From a neighbour 13 28 29 Formal sector 6 17 11 No information 13 2 4

Coexistence of wild species and/or weeds together with the cultigen (the presence of traditional cultivars with wild relatives) is also tolerated, or even valued. Approximately 50% of the species and/or cultivars originate outside the home garden; the interviews confirm the ample exchange of materials between the garden and its surroundings. Frequently they obtain plants from close family and neighbours, and to a lesser extent plants are acquired in the formal sector. Once the reproductive material has been obtained, the farmer shows great interest in reproducing his own seed (approximately in 80% of the cases)

Aspects which demonstrate the sustainability of the home garden The management of a wide diversity of wild and cultivated species, with different uses; management of a considerable infraspecific diversity, with traditional varieties and practices (taking into account landscape, soil and seed production). The home garden contributes substantially to the subsistence of the home. When the location is fairly inaccessible, the family depends almost entirely on the produce from the garden. Normally a much greater number of people benefit from the produce of the garden than merely those who live there.

Conclusions The three regions studied in the country (west, central and east) may be considered as Minimum Effective Units of In Situ Conservation for Plant Genetic Resources in Cuban Home Gardens. It is evident that, for a crop, there is a need for the methods of in situ and ex situ conservation to be complementary . The home gardens linked to the protected areas offer greater possibilities for the in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity. The prevailing political and administrative infrastructure in Cuba has facilitated the development of the project, in addition linking INIFAT with other centres of investigation, teaching and administration. The response of the farmers to participate in the project and to continue maintaining the connection with the investigators has been very positive. PROJECT REPORTS 55

References Castiñeiras, L., Z. Fundora, S. Pico and E. Salinas. 2000a. The use of home gardens as a component of the national estrategy for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Cuba: a pilot study. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 123:9-18. Castiñeiras, L., Z. Fundora, T. Shagarodsky, V. Fuentes, O. Barrios, V. Moreno, P. Sánchez, A.V. González, M. García, A. Martínez-Fuentes and A. Martínez. 2000b. La conservación in situ de la variabilidad de las plantas de cultivo en dos localidades de Cuba. Rev. Jar. Bot. Nac. Vol. XXI No.1:25-45. Castiñeiras, L., M. Esquivel, T. Gladis and K. Hammer. 1994. New variation of Phaseolus L. in Cuba. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 99:38-40. Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1988. The conuco, an important refuge of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources. Kulturpflanze 36:451-463. Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1990. El programa INIFAT-ZIGuk en el campo de recursos genéticos vegetales: cinco años de fructífera colaboración. 25 Años de Colaboración Científico-Técnica Cuba – RDA 1965–1990. Esquivel, M., K. Krieghoff, H. Uranga, L. Walón and K. Hammer. 1989. Collecting plant genetic resources in Cuba. Report of the third mission, March 1988. Kulturpflanze 37:359-372. Esquivel, M., H. Knüpffer and K. Hammer, 1992. Inventary of Cultivated Plants. Pp. 213–454 in “...y tienen faxoes y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros...” Origin, evolution and diversity of Cuban Plan Genetic Resources. Vol. 2 (K. Hammer, M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung. Gatersleben. Esquivel, M., J.J Pérez and L. Castiñeiras. 1986. Colecta de germoplasma en el Occidente de Cuba. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 66:14-15. Esquivel, M., L. Castiñeiras, B. Rodríguez and K. Hammer. 1987. Collecting plant genetic resources in Cuba. Kulturpflanze 35:367-378. Esquivel, M., L. Castiñeiras, T. Gradis and K. Hammer. 1994. The 8th joint collecting mission INIFAT-IPK to Central Cuba. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 99:20-24. Esquivel, M., T. Shagarodsky and K. Hammer. 1990. Collecting plant genetic resources in Cuba. Report on the fourth mission, March 1989. Kulturpflanze 38:345-362. Esquivel, M., T. Shagarodsky, K. Krieghhhoff, B. Rodríguez and K. Hammer, 1988. Collecting plant genetic resources in Cuba. Report of the second mission, 1986. Kulturpflanze 36:437-449. Esquivel, M., T. Shagarodsky, L. Walón and M. Caraballo. 1991. Collecting in the central province of Cuba. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 83/84:19-21. 56 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Contributions of home gardens to in situ conservation in traditional farming systems—Guatemalan component

José Miguel Leiva, César Azurdia, Werner Ovando, Edín López, Helmer Ayala Faculty of Agronomy (FAUSAC), University of San Carlos, Guatemala

Introduction As an agroforestry system practiced by farmers in Guatemala, home gardens play an important role in the ecological, social and economic dimensions of rural communities. Its importance as a system is based on the complex interactions it supports over time and which contribute to the sustainability of the system’s production. The sustainability of this agroforestry system is also important for the conservation of plant genetic resources in home gardens. However, the crucial conservation role of home gardens has not been taken into account. For this reason, the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) with the support of the German Agency for International Cooperation (GTZ) has been carrying out a global project on the “Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems.” This project has a span of three years (1999 to 2001) and five countries are involved (Ghana, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and Guatemala). In Guatemala, the study was conducted by the Research Institute of the Agronomy School, San Carlos University. The study areas were in two regions of contrasting weather and culture: the Alta Verapaz province in the north and the semiarid region in the eastern part of the country. At these two sites, 118 home gardens were characterized in which 500 plant species were identified. An important group of the useful species in home gardens also grew wild in nearby forests, and some of these species had been moved into gardens when they became threatened in their native habitat. Key species were selected and studied in-depth through molecular characterization techniques. Additionally, studies on the role that home gardens play in the household economy were pursued. This report presents the most important results obtained during the three-year period of research. It contributes to the basic body of knowledge needed as a first step towards developing a global plan for the use and conservation of plant genetic resources in home gardens.

Home garden structure and composition Description of the study areas

Semiarid region The semiarid region of Guatemala, covering 924 km2 in the eastern districts of El Progreso, Zacapa, and Chiquimula, is characterized by poverty, with almost 80% of the population in this region living in extreme poverty. The region has a dry climate with annual average precipitation of 700 mm and annual average temperature of 26°C. According to De La Cruz (1982), the ecological zone corresponds to subtropical thorn forest. The population belongs to ‘ladino’ and Chortí groups.

Alta Verapaz Region The Alta Verapaz province, located in the northern part of the country, covers 8686 km2 (8% of the national area) and its altitude varies from 20 metres above sea level (m asl) to 1200 m asl. Weather varies according to the altitude; the lowlands are hot and humid and the mountains are cold and humid. Temperature ranges from 14°C to 27°C and rainfall varies from 2000 mm to 6000 mm. In this region, 95% of the population belongs to Mayan groups (K´ekchí, Mam an Pocomchí), and 95% of the population lives in extreme poverty. PROJECT REPORTS 57

Selection criteria for regions and home gardens The main criteria used to select regions and home gardens were the contrasting native groups as well as the different agroecological zones in terms of climate, vegetation and soils. Home gardens were selected according to random preferential sampling and the number of new species in each additional surveyed home garden was the key factor used to establish the number of home gardens studied.

Species inventory

Semiarid region Overall, 47 home gardens were surveyed. Farmers were interviewed to determine the structure and composition of home gardens, to ascertain their J.M. Leiva, University of San Carlos, Guatemala preferences regarding the different plant species A woman in Alta Verapaz nigrum, or black found in home gardens, to analyse gender-related pepper, an edible species found in home gardens of the region. aspects of home garden management, and to determine the uses given to plant species. Family home gardens ranged in size from 0.009 to 0.25 hectares. Most home gardens are rectangular in shape, but some are irregular. Semiarid home gardens harbor a diversity of plants, totaling 276 species and cultivars that are distributed in 85 botanical families. They have a vertical 4-strata structure; 44% of the species were found in the herbaceous stratum, 28% in the shrub stratum, 20% in the arboreal stratum, and 8% were climbing plants.

Alta Verapaz region In this region, 414 useful plant species were identified in 297 genera and 103 families. This total was made up of 279 and 251 species from the warm and cold parts of the region, respectively. Additionally, 116 species were found in common between the regions (28% of the total species reported from the study area). Environmental conditions, marketing possibilities, and local uses are the most important factors that define home garden structure and composition. The outstanding species are those used as food, medicinal, ornamental and cultural aspects. People of both genders were found to be involved with the work and men seemed to invest more time than women. Men are the most important decision-makers in the selection and management of commercial crops while women have more decision power for root crops, vegetables, spices, and medicinal plants. Based on use of the goods, home garden were classified as subsistence or commercial home gardens. These agroecosystems are important repositories of wild species where they are both conserved and under the process of domestication.

Categories of useful plants In the semiarid region, the plants found most frequently in home gardens are Solanum americanum (54%), Citrus aurantifolia (83%), Manguifera indica (78%), and Fernaldia pandurata (67%). These species are important for household food security as well as being highly marketed in the region and therefore represent an income for families throughout the year. Depending on the farmers’ ethno-botanical knowledge, plants are used for multiple purposes and this defines the way a species is distributed in the home garden. Overall, 53% of the plants found in home gardens serve as ornamental plants and are located near the dwellings; 47% of the plants are used as food, mainly fruits, vegetables, spices, and stems and roots. However, fodder species were also important in home gardens, and on average 10 different species from gardens were used for animal feed. 58 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Fig. 1. Categories of plant use for species grown in home gardens in the semiarid region of Guatemala.

Figure 1 illustrates the categories of use of plants found in home gardens. Some plants have multiple uses, for example: wormseed or Mexican (Chenopodium ambrosoides L.) is used as food and also as a deparasitizing agent; the fruit of tecomate or jicaro (Crescentia alata HBK) has medicinal uses and its wood is used as firewood; the fruit of bastard cedar (Guazuma ulmifolia Lam) has medicinal uses and its wood is used as firewood and for fence posts. Species found in home gardens from the Alta Verapaz zone are used for primary and secondary needs of the household. It is not surprising that most of the useful plants are used for food, medicine and ornament (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Categories of plant use for species grown in the home gardens of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. PROJECT REPORTS 59

Species also have important uses for cultural purposes or as sources of firewood and construction materials. The largest number of species were used primarily for food: in the lowland region of Alta Verapaz, 126 species were used for food (45% of the total species in the region) and 96 species in the mountainous region (38% of the total species). The food category is composed of species that produce mainly fruits and vegetables. Fruit is the most important product in home gardens from the lowland region, but vegetables are the most important products in the mountainous region because part of the produce is used at the household level and surpluses are sold in local markets. Traditional medicines are commonly used by people in Alta Verapaz because they do not have free and easy access to Western medicine and they retain rich knowledge of the uses of indigenous medicinal plants. For these reasons, 26% and 33% of the species in the lowland region and mountainous region respectively were reported to have medicinal uses. Frequent Werner Ovando, University of San Carlos, Guatemala Werner illnesses in the communities include: Bajlajché (Catophena chiapensis) a medicinal plant found in gastrointestinal, respiratory, and dermic Alta Verapaz home gardens. diseases; malaria; diabetes; fever; bone injuries; and snake bites. Other illnesses are particular to the community and depend on the beliefs of the people, and are often related to witchcraft. Most of the medicinal plants in home gardens are native (65% and 60% in the lowland and mountainous regions, respectively).

Home gardens and in situ conservation in the regions Of the species and cultivars found in home gardens of the semiarid region of Guatemala, 52% are native species; these are often species that can be found in the surrounding natural ecosystem (Alarcón 1992, Tenas 1994). Home gardens do play a role in in situ protection and conservation of plant species that are threatened or endangered, as well as playing an important role in food security. For example, at the level of the arboreal stratum of home gardens, Caesalpinia velutina is a native timber-yielding species that is found in the region’s natural vegetation. This species was also found in 45% of the home gardens surveyed and farmers use it to obtain firewood and as posts for the farmstead. Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata) is another interesting case, which has been reported by Azurdia et al. (2000). Although it grows wild in the region’s natural ecosystem, it has been domesticated by farmers and introduced into home gardens in a cultivated form. There is high demand for the flower of the loroco and it is prepared as food in different ways. This species has frequently been introduced into home gardens because it represents an important source of income for the family. In a study carried out in 40 home gardens in Ciudad Vieja in Guatemala, Standford (1990) found that garden composition varies depending on the socioeconomic conditions of farmers and is dynamic over time. These results support those of Gessler et al. (1998), who found that home gardens are important in biodiversity maintenance as refuges for many endangered species. Home gardens are therefore important for the survival and conservation of locally used species and 60 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

varieties. Table 1 lists higher plant species that form part of the natural vegetation and are conserved in situ in multi-purpose home gardens.

Table 1. Plant species found in natural vegetation that are conserved in situ in home gardens of the semiarid region of Guatemala Common name Scientific name Stratum No. Main uses home gardens where found ‘Aripín’ Caesalpinia velutina Arboreal 24 Firewood, wood, posts (Britt & Rose) Standl. Bastard cedar Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. Arboreal 11 Firewood, forage Paradise tree Simarouba glauca DC Arboreal 7 Ornamental, timber Marmelade fruit Pouteria sapota Arboreal 5 Food H. Moore & Stearm ‘Roble de montaña’ Bucida macrostachya Standl. Arboreal 2 Ornamental, timber, fuel Golden spoon, nance Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) HBK Arboreal 4 Food ‘Manzanote’ Pereskia autumnalis Arboreal 3 Ornamental, live fences (Eichlam) Rose Grand cayman dentata Poir Arboreal 11 Food, live fences, fuel Mahogany Swietenia humilis Zuccarini Arboreal 1 Ornamental, timber ‘Cabeza de viejo’ Cephalocereus maxonii Rose Shrub 2 Food, ornamental, live fences, fuel Calabash Crescentia alata HBK Shrub 14 Medicinal Brazil wood, Haematoxylon brassiletto Karst Shrub 6 Live fences, fuel Pernambuco wood Mexican sage, Lippia graveolens HBK Shrub 5 Food, medicinal Physic nut, Jatropa curcas L. Shrub 9 Medicinal, live fences purging nut Century plant Agave sp. Herbaceous 7 Medicinal, live fences Loroco Fernaldia pandurata Herbaceous 19 Food (A. DC.) Woodson Pitahaya Hylocereus undatus Climbing 3 Food, ornamental, live fences (Haworth) Britt. & Rose in Briton

In the Alta Verapaz region, where there is increasingly limited access to the forest due to deforestation and land tenure change, farmers may use their home garden to grow plants they used to gather from the wild. Home gardens may therefore act as an important site for the survival and conservation of species that are in the process of losing their natural habitat. Some useful wild species are still gathered in their native habitat; however, if they are important, it is common to find them growing in home gardens particularly if the species are not available in the market. The species inventory done in home gardens of the cold region indicated that they are repositories of species growing in the natural forest (Table 2). These data support the idea that home gardens could be important for in situ conservation of wild species whose habitat is threatened, as well as for species in the process of domestication. PROJECT REPORTS 61

Table 2. Plant species of the natural forest found in home gardens of the cold region from Alta Verapaz province, Guatemala Species Use Species Use Pouteria viridis Food Clethra suaveolens Construction Annona spp. Food Vernonia mollis Fuel Pimenta dioica Shade Myrica cerífera Fuel Heliocarpus Donnell S. Shade Neurolaena lobata Medicinal Cecropia obtusifolia Shade Polymnia maculata Fodder Pouteria sapota Food Acrocomia sp. Food Chamaedorea elegans Ornamental Liabum discolor Religious Eringium foetidum Cedrela mexicana Timber Trema micrantha Rope, construction Saurauia villosa Fuel Byrsonima crassifolia Food Arbutus xalapensis Fuel Miconia calvescens Religious Litsea glauscescens Spice Liquidambar styraciflua Timber Parasicyos sp. Soil conservation Rhus striata Cultural Fuchsia sp. Ornamental Spice Diphysa sp. Fuel Dendropanax leptopodus Handicraft Baccharis trinervis Medicinal

Fig. 3. Similarity among home gardens from the cold region (nucleuses 1–6) and the warm region (nucleuses 7–11), Alta Verapaz province, Guatemala. 62 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Relationship between home garden composition, environment and culture Home gardens are extremely diverse as a result of differences in the geophysical environment as well as in the objectives of the home garden growers. For this reason, a combined cluster analysis was performed using data from the warm and cold home gardens in the Alta Verapaz region to determine whether the environment is a determining factor in home garden composition. Results displayed in Fig. 3 show that there is a striking separation between home gardens in the warm region and home gardens in the cold region, and climate exerts a definite influence on home garden composition. Further studies conducted in cold region home gardens clarify the role that culture plays in home garden composition (Table 3). It can be seen on one hand that nucleus 7 is made up by home gardens managed mainly by Q´echí people (9 out 11 home gardens). In the other hand, nucleus 8 is made up home gardens owned by Pocomchí growers (11 out 14 home gardens). The remaining nucleuses are owned by either Q´echí growers or Pocomochí growers. Home gardens do clearly seem to be divided along cultural lines; therefore, one can say that both culture and environment play an important role in home garden composition.

Table 3. Relationship between home gardens from the cold region and culture. Information obtained from phenogram shown in Fig. 6 Nucleus number Total home gardens Ethnic Group Q´echí Pocomchí 71192 814311 9101 10 4 0 4 11 1 1 0

The role of home gardens in plant domestication: case of Fernaldia pandurata (Apocynaceae) Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata), a species of Apocynaceae native to , is recognized as an important food source in Guatemala, and . The demand for this species has been steadily increasing over the last few years motivated by high consumption at the national and international levels. Loroco displays high versatility in its uses, and both its buds and flowers are utilized for in a variety of ways (Fig. 4). Cultivation of loroco is thus an attractive proposition for production in this region. Demand is satisfied in part with products obtained by gathering from the wild, but also by production in home gardens, and a few cultivated fields; however, there is still more scope for production. The species is undergoing a process of domestication in which farmers favor its growth as an acceptable weed in open habitats, but also introduce it into home Fig. 4. Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata) buds. garden cultivation. The final step in PROJECT REPORTS 63

domestication comes with cultivation through monocropping, which has already begun in some areas. Loroco is an important component of home gardens in the semiarid eastern part of the country, where it is specially handled to increase its productivity (Fig.5). A total of 36 of 46 home gardens (67.4%) surveyed in this area contained Loroco. F. pandurata is the most common species of loroco found; however, an additional closely related species (F. brachypharnynx) was found in five home gardens. Farmers in the region know that F. pandurata produces more flowers than F. brachypharnynx, and favour the former for Fig. 5. Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata) growing in home that reason. gardens in the semiarid eastern region of Guatemala. The number of individuals of loroco found in the home gardens varies depending on the final use of the plant. When the flowers are used in home consumption, plants are few, and are usually grown as climbing on trees. Conversely, when production is for the market, many plants are cultivated with the application of irrigation water, fertilizer, and increased labor because of and the adding of stakes to aid the climbing process. The seeds planted in home gardens are gathered from wild populations, from other home gardens, or from cultivated areas. They are encouraged through the management practices mentioned, in contrast to wild population, which are often threatened. Additionally, the distribution of the species has been increased due to the expansion of its cultivation in home gardens located outside its native region.

Genetic diversity in key species

Case of Pouteria sapota Zapote (P. sapota) is a tropical fruit tree species native to Mesoamerica where it is widely cultivated. Its delicious sweet fruits are consumed throughout the region and it may be regarded as an attractive alternative crop for agricultural diversification in the region since the demand for zapote has been increasing in both national and international markets. The highest level of genetic diversity of zapote occurs in Mesoamerica (IPGRI 1977) and it is therefore important to promote the sustainable management in this region of these genetic resources, including both conservation and utilization. The wild populations of this species thrive in the humid subtropical forests of Guatemala which cover parts of the southern and northern areas of the country. Cultivated zapote can be found in home gardens located in the ecological regions mentioned above as well as in home gardens located in the hotter and drier southeastern region of the country. In recent years, commercial plantations of zapote have been established in the southern part of Guatemala. The first part of the research on home gardens focused on studying the structure and composition of home gardens. This basic information generated the basis for selecting some key species upon which detailed genetic diversity studies would be done. Zapote is found in 60% of the home gardens in the warm region of the northern part of the Alta Verapaz province. For this reason, zapote was chosen for in-depth study as the key species representative of the tree stratum in Guatemala home gardens. Intraspecific studies in zapote were conducted by measuring and comparing the genetic diversity present in the zapote trees growing in home gardens from two areas and a wild 64 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

population. Zapote diversity from home gardens in the warm region of Alta Verapaz province (FTN) was compared to that from the home gardens of Sacapulas, Quiché province, and also with the wild zapote population found in the natural reserve ‘Cerro San Gil’ in Izabal province. Isozyme studies conducted on the last two mentioned populations were compared. When the quantitative traits reported in fruits of trees from home gardens were compared with the ones from the wild population, it became evident that accessions from the home gardens of the FTN are more similar to those growing in the wild than to those growing in home gardens in Sacapulas (Table 4). The accessions from Sacapulas differ from the other two populations in that their fruits are heavier, larger, and contain fewer of seeds, yet and have a higher percentage of germinated seed at fruit ripening. Home gardens in the FTN are relatively young since they were established during the colonization of the area in the 1970s. However, many of the trees present in home gardens are spared remnants of the original vegetation (including zapote trees). Because home gardens from FTN and the wild zapote populations of Cerro San Gil are in the same ecological region, it is not surprising that the zapote fruits from both sites are not clearly differentiated. In contrast, the home gardens in Sacapulas were originally established around 300 years ago, thus, it allows one to assume that this zapote population has been subjected to a more intensive process of human selection and domestication. Additionally, the original zapote germplasm used to establish the Sacapulas home gardens was brought from another region, producing an initial reduction in the genetic pool of the Sacapulas zapote population. Home gardens from FTN are focused primarily on producing food for home consumption, while the Sacapulas home gardens are devoted largely to commercial production. For this reason, the domestication force is more intensive in the latter.

Table 4. Quantitative and qualitative traits of zapote fruits from different localities Character Locality Wild population Home gardens FTN Home gardens Sacapulas Cerro San Gil No. of accessions 50 47 57 Weight (g) 332 324 426 Length (cm) 9.98 10.32 11.57 Wide (cm) 7.58 7.56 8.06 Seed weight (g) 43.77 52.85 50.72 Seed germinated (%) 4.85 20.19 61.45 Seeds/fruit 1.33 1.31 1.25 Fruit shapes 10 13 14 Most frequent shapes 8=26% 1=15% 8=14% 9=15% 3=15% 16=12% 4=13% 6=13% 6=11% Mesocarp colour YR (Yellow-red) 90% 74% 95% R (red) 10% 26% 5% Intensity of YR 2.5=27% 2.5=40% 2.5=35% 1.25=22% 1.25=23% 1.25=24% 6.25=22% 5.0=23% 5.0=17% PROJECT REPORTS 65

Fig. 6. Distribution of fruit weight of zapote in home Fig. 7. Distribution of fruit weight of wild zapote gardens from FTN, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. growing at Cerro San Gil, Izabal, Guatemala.

The distribution of fruit weight in home gardens from the TNT was skewed, with tendency towards the existence of more fruit with weight close to the mean (Fig. 6). It is probable that farmers have been selecting fruits of greater weight so weights in both extremes of a typical natural distribution cannot be seen. The distribution of fruit weight from the wild population at Cerro San Gil, however, follows a normal distribution quite closely (Fig. 7). These results could allow one to conclude that normal distribution of the fruit weight is the result of mainly the action of natural selection or no selection at all, while at the home garden level strong human selection is taking place. Based on this information, for conservation purposes, it is suggested to select home gardens that contain trees with different types of fruit that are distributed throughout the range of the studied region. Furthermore, the natural reserve may conserve the high genetic diversity present in the wild populations. Home gardens in Sacapulas are not isolated; on the contrary, they are a continuous unit in sufficient proximity to one another so that the zapote trees create what can be considered a true population. Such conditions allow one to make a comparison with the wild population of Cerro San Gil. This distribution of home gardens contrasts with home gardens from FTN which are located in widely separated localities. Thus, characterization information generated using biochemical markers (isozymes) reveals some of the differences between the cultivated population in the Sacapulas home gardens and the wild population of Cerro San Gil. Analysis of the population genetics parameters displayed in Table 5 indicate that these populations are quite different. Their outcrossing rates are clearly different, and as a result, key factors like genetic variability within families and between families, heterozygosity and allelic frequencies also differ between the two populations. It was already mentioned that the original germplasm sample in Sacapulas home gardens was small and that they have been under intensive human management for a long time. It may be assumed that reduction of the genetic base (bottleneck) and strong human selection should be taken into account as important factors responsible for the distinct genetic characteristics of the zapotes encountered in the Sacapulas home gardens. 66 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 5. Mean outcrossing rate and Nei diversity components in zapote populations from two localities Locality Wild population Home gardens Cerro San Gil, Izabal† Sacapulas, Quiché‡

Outcrossing rate 99% 70% Hs (mean genetic diversity within populations) 0.46 0.41 Dst (total gene diversity between populations) 0.06 0.1 Gst (coefficient of gene differentiation) 0.11 0.28 Heterozygosity in progeny 0.76 0.48 Allelic frequency: SKDH1-1 0.029 0.33 SKDH1-2 0.483 0.42 SKDH1-3 0.488 0.25 EST1-1 0.523 0.56 EST1-2 0.477 0.44 EST2-1 0.569 0.67 EST2-2 0.431 0.33 ADH1-1 0.367 0.46 ADH1-2 0.633 0.49 ADH1-3 0.000 0.0 Source: †Azurdia et al. (2000a); ‡Azurdia et al. (2000b).

In situ conservation of the wild zapote population at Cerro San Gil can alleviate in part the necessity of conserving the genetic variability of this tropical tree fruit species ex situ. However, the conserved genetic variability range could be even wider since it was shown that the genetic variability harboured in home gardens is different, especially the present in the Sacapulas home gardens. To decide what home gardens should be selected for conservation purposes in Sacapulas, variation in plant morphology and isoenzymes should both be taken into account. We have demonstrated that the wild population at Cerro San Hill is quite distinct from the populations of zapote cultivated in home gardens. For this reason, it is important to conserve these genetic resources in both protected areas and in home gardens. The number of home gardens that should be selected to conserve the optimum level of genetic diversity is still unknown, and further research such as genetic diversity studies based on molecular markers is needed to determine optimum conservation units.

Case of Sechium edule Huisquil or chayote (Sechium edule (Jacq.) Swartz) is a cucurbit crop native to Mesoamerica, where it is widely distributed. The greatest genetic diversity of this species is found in southern Mexico and Guatemala, where both wild huisquil and its wild relative (Sechium compositum (J.D. Smith) C. Jeffrey) are also found (Newstrom 1991). Mesoamerican cultures have made varied uses of different parts of the plant, including the fruits, portions of the young tender shoots, and the underground storage roots. Field cultivation of Sechium edule is not as common in Guatemala as it is in Mexico and Costa Rica. However, there are some regions where commercial plantations have been established. Most of the huisquil found in the main markets of major cities comes from such fields. In the rural areas, it is a common home garden plant and each family possesses its own varieties, which are normally reproduced from seed. As discussed previously, two contrasting regions (different culture and ecological conditions) were studied in Alta Verapaz province in the north of the country. The first region comprises the PROJECT REPORTS 67

northern part of the province, covered with humid sub-tropical hot forest and inhabited by the Q´eqchí culture. The second one is in the central mountains of the province, where the Q´echi and Pocomchí cultures inhabit a humid sub-tropical cold forest. Huisquil is present in 52% of the home gardens surveyed in the first region and 100% of the home gardens studied in the second region. For this reason, huisquil was selected as key species to conduct genetic diversity research. Apparently, there is more genetic diversity in the warm region than in the cold region. The first region contained Sechium edule varieties with more diverse fruit shapes (16 different shapes) compared to the cold region (only 11 shapes). Furthermore, the most common fruit shapes observed in the cold region are not the most common reported in the warm region. In the cold region, fruits are heavier and greener, with a high spine density (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 6. Variation in fruit quantitative traits of 128 samples of huisquil from two regions in Alta Verapaz Region Trait Mean Standard Range deviation Minimum Maximun Cold Weight (g) 320 119 54 1042 Length (cm) 10.90 3.67 4.80 25.80 Width (cm) 7.82 1.73 4.10 14.90 Thickness (cm) 6.62 1.23 3.80 8.90 Warm Weight (g) 248 76.30 99 427 Length (cm) 11.79 2.54 5.50 18.56 Width (cm) 6.30 0.74 4.50 7.80 Thickness (cm) 5.25 0.73 3.93 7.50

Table 7. Variation in fruit qualitative traits of huisquil accessions from two regions in Alta Verapaz Trait Warm region Cold region Shape Type six=13% Type eight=53% Type five=13% Type seven=53% Type three=13 Type nine=10% Number of types=16 Number of types=11 Lenticels Absent=52% Absent=60% Very little=24% Very little=23% Intermediate =% Intermediate=11% Very intense=24% Very intense=6% Spine density Type one=26% Type one=19% Type three=18% Type three=17% Type five=30% Type five=17% Type seven=21% Type seven=25% Type nine=5% Type nine=22% Colour Whitish=8% Whitish=9% Light green=58% Light green=2% Green=21% Green=42% Dark green=13% Dark green=47%

Composition and species richness in home gardens are defined by many factors. Home gardens in remote areas are more oriented towards subsistence production whereas ones in areas closer to major cities focus more on commercial production. For instance, Azurdia, Leiva and Lopez (2001) pointed out that in the warm region of Alta Verapaz, the production of the home garden is intended primarily for home consumption. Conversely, production of home gardens in the cold region is basically sold in local and regional markets due to the existence of more developed roads and cities. Thus, in the latter region the fruits of huisquil tend to have characteristics required by the market. 68 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Fig. 8. ‘Guisquil’ (Sechium edule) fruit weight in home gardens from the warm region of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala.

As a result, the genetic materials have more uniform fruits (shape type eight, green or dark green). On the other hand, the absence of a selective force by the market at the home consumption level in the warm region has led to increased variety in fruit phenotypes. Since it is quite difficult to determine the recommended population size to conserve huisquil genetic resources in the home gardens of individuals, conservation efforts should be focused on studying the genetic diversity present at the eco-regional level. The distribution of fruit weight in home gardens from the warm region showed that it closely follows a Normal distribution (Fig. 8), whereas home gardens of the cold region showed a skewed distribution in fruit weight, with a tendency towards fruits with weight less than the mean (Fig. 9), probably to standardize them for

Fig. 9. ‘Guisquil’ (Sechium edule) fruit weight in home gardens from the cold region of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala. PROJECT REPORTS 69

market production. Differences between home garden populations in different environments could be the result of considerable differences in selection pressures due to distinct micro-climatic, edaphic, biotic and management conditions. Results presented in Fig. 8 could allow one to conclude that Normal distribution of the fruit weight in the warm region of Alta Verapaz is mainly the result of natural selection or no selection at all. On the other hand, in the cold region strong human selection is taking place. It has been already been mentioned that most of the home gardens from the cold region are of the commercial type, which means that huisquil growing there need to have fruits with characteristics required by the market. Based on this information, for conservation purposes it is suggested to select home gardens that contain plants with different types of fruits to represent the genetic variability found in home garden systems in each eco-region. Brown and Marshal (1977) indicate that at least 50 sites in each eco-region could be taken into account. At this point, it is clear that there are different levels of huisquil diversity in Alta Verapaz: within home gardens, among home gardens, among localities, and also between eco-regions. Thus, each in situ conservation unit must be made of home gardens from the same eco-region. The number of home gardens that must be selected in each eco-region is under discussion and it is clear that more research on quantity and distribution of genetic diversity is required. Both population structure and the breeding system have key roles in determining the pattern of the genetic diversity present in a species and the evolutionary changes likely to happen in a given selection regime. Indeed, the study of polymorphism for marker genes such as isozymes or DNA markers is often the best way of measuring these forces. Information generated by the research on isozyme markers currently under way in our institution could give a clear picture of the ‘guisquil’ (huisquil) genetic diversity found in home gardens in Alta Verapaza (Table 8). Low allelic richness has been found which suggests genetic drift from bottlenecks in population size that have happened recently. Addtitionally, high levels of heterozygosity point to outbreeding. In general, it look like that both eco-regions harbour different ‘guisquil’ genetic diversity. Thus, high population divergence indicates isolation. In the end, this information will be crucial for designing in situ conservation methodologies at the home garden level.

Table 8. Some components of the genetic structure of populations of Sechium edule from two eco- regions of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala

Eco-region Cold region Warm region Isozyme Gene Allele Frequency Heterozygosity Frequency Heterozygosity Esterase 1 100 0.44 –– 101 0.56 54% –– 2 100 0.50 –– 101 0.50 100% –– SKDH 1 100 0.50 0.37 101 0.50 100% 0.63 51% SOD 1 100 0.47 0.29 101 0.53 62% 0.71 46% MDH 1 100 0.62 0.26 101 0.38 76% 0.74 51% Peroxidase 1 100 0.33 0.26 101 0.67 65% 0.74 51% 70 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Socioeconomic study

Role of the home garden in family economy This section of the Guatemala Home Gardens project was carried out from July 2000 to April 2001 in two communities that belong to the North Maya Association, ‘Trece Aguas’ and ‘El Tamarindo’, both located in Chisec, Alta Verapaz. These results are not complete because the nature of this research requires that data be gathered over at least one year. The study mainly aimed to determine the degree of contribution of home gardens to the farmers’ livelihoods. The communities are located 500 m above sea level in warm subtropical humid rainforest, with an average temperature of 27°C and mean precipitation of 2300 mm. The 69 families that live in the two communities (totaling 560 inhabitants) rely on based on the production of maize and beans, but maintain home gardens as an alternative source of food. In addition, 95% of families are living in extreme poverty, 40% are literate, technical assistance as well as medical assistance by NGOs and the government are scarce. Based on the monthly movement of produce from home gardens, the categories of plants that are most important for the family economy are: a. Annual plants: usually crops considered useful for farmers, for example, edible plants, medicinal plants, and beneficial weeds. b. Fruit trees: fruits of arboreal species planted specifically by farmers, including some commercial species and some wild species introduced by farmers. c. Other species: timber-yielding species, forages, medicinal plants, fiber-producing plants, and spices. Ninety different plant species were recorded in the two communities during the 10 months of the study. These species were grouped into 10 categories of plants that are marketed at the local and regional levels. Of the 90 species, 21 (mainly vegetables, herbs, fruit trees, grains, and spices) are destined for sale and part for family consumption (Table 9). However, the plants that are consumed mainly during times of food or work shortages, when families do not have basic foodstuffs such as maize and beans, were not quantified. More precise information, however, is being collected in the region.

Table 9. Summary of values of different categories of plants found in home gardens in two communities of the North Mayan Association (Chisec, Alta Verapaz) Category of plant Total Average value per farmer (Q)† % Vegetables and herbs 21 0.5–1.00 23 Fruit species 25 0.25–1.00 28 Grains 6 2.00–5.00 7 Spices 5 2.00–10.00 6 Ornamentals 10 – Semi-permanent 1 0.5–1.00 1 Timber-yielding 13 5.00–10.00 14 Medicinal 7 0.25–1.00 8 Forage 1 2.00–5.00 1 Textile 1 2.00 1 Total value 90 100 Value of plants sold 9363.00 Value of plants for farm consumption 3873.00

†Exchange rate (at time of writing) Q. 7.70 =US$1.00

The average production of the 10 home gardens of the two communities are presented in Tables 10 and 11. The main crops marketed are chayote or custard marrow (Sechium edule), (Ananas comosus), (Sisigyum sp.), coffee (Coffea arabica), cacao (Teobroma cacao), achiote (Bixa PROJECT REPORTS 71

orellana), and (Elletaria cadamomum). Farmers destine more than 60% of the produce of these crops for sale. Farmers consume all the harvest of crops such as arrowroot (Calatea spp.), cassava (Manihot esculenta), (Saccharum officinarum), and pigeon (Cajanus cajan) (Table 10). More than 60% of the harvest of all fruit species are sold, while only 10% are consumed by the family (Table 11). Because of the added value of products for sale, their prices are slightly higher than those of products for farm consumption. The basis to estimate the contribution of the home garden to farmer economy was that a rural family in this region needs the minimum amount of money for survival of US$ 78 per month to cover household expenditures (sugar, clothes, school supplies, etc.). This money must come from selling labor or from agricultural production. The main crops produced, maize and beans, are cultivated on nearby land. Maize yields are 100 lb/’cuerda’ (1 cuerda =0.06 ha) and bean yields, 50 lb/’cuerda’. These figures are very low compared with the national averages (400 lb/’cuerda’ for maize and 300 lb for beans). Farmers have no access to credit with financial institutions and technical assistance provided by the government and by the private sector is extremely limited. This situation, together with the extremely low level of investment in agricultural production (labour, chemicals, tools, etc.), accounts for low crop yields obtained by farmers. Farmers report an increasing demand for agricultural products but the lack of fertile farmland is, by far, the greatest limitation to increased agricultural productivity.

Table 10. Average production and value of each crop found in home gardens in two communities of Chisec, Alta Verapaz Scientific Average production Local unit Average sales Average value % Consumption % Sales name per year of measurement value (Q)* farm consumption Sechium edule 2700 unit 0.50 0.20 20 80 Calatea spp. 300 bundle 1.00 0.25 95 5 Ananas comosus 250 unit 1.50 0.50 10 90 Manihot esculenta 90 unit 6.00 1.00 100 Sisigyum 15 lb 10.00 100 Saccharum officinarum 900 unit 1.00 0.50 100 Coffea arabica 150 lb 5.00 5.00 20 80 Teobroma cacao 100 lb 7.00 7.00 40 60 Bixa orellana 350 lb 8.00 8.00 40 60 Elletaria cardamomum 300 lb 5.00 5.00 100 Cajanus cajan 300 lb 1.00 1.00 100

Table 11. Average value of fruit trees found in home gardens of two communities of Chisec, Alta Verapaz Scientific Average production Local unit Average sales Average value % Consumption % Sales name per year of measurement value (Q)† farm consumption Musa paradisiaca 200 cluster 7.50 5.00 40 60 Citrus sinensis 135 hundred 15.00 15.00 20 80 Citrus nobilis 36 hundred 25.00 25.00 20 80 Byrsonima crassiflora 48 arroba 10.00 10.00 10 90 Citrus aurantifolia 6 hundred 10.00 10.00 20 80 Cocus nucifera 350 unit 1.00 1.00 20 80

†Exchange rate (at time of writing) Q. 7.70 =US$1.00

Income obtained from the sale of products from the 10 home gardens totaled US$1215.90, and income from farm consumption was US$502.90. The average annual income (AAI) per home garden is US$105.50 from the sale of crops and US$66.40 from the sale of fruits. Of the crops harvested, 66% is distributed for sale and 34% for farm consumption; in the case of fruit trees, 78% are for sale and 22% for farm consumption (Table 12). Using the previously indicated minimum amount of money for surviving as reference, we are talking about US$935.00 per year. The average annual income (AAI) 72 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

from the sale and farm consumption of home garden products is US$172.50. Therefore a home garden accounts for 18% of the family economy in terms of generation of agricultural products. This amount is an extra income for farmers that is used to satisfy other family needs. The home garden accordingly constitutes a ‘savings bank’ which the farmer can access year-round.

Table 12. Income per sale of home garden products in two communities of Chisec, Alta Verapaz Category Income/sale Income/farm Average income Sales Farm consumption (US$) consumption (US$) (US$) (%) (%) Crops 696.6 358.2 105.5 66 34 Fruit trees 519.5 144.8 66.4 78 22 Total 1215.9 503.0 172.5 71 29

Future work

Additional recommended research • Similar studies in other regions of the country. • Similar studies at Mesoamerica level. This activity will be pursued by the Mesoamerican Plant Genetic Resources Network (REMERFI). • Genetic diversity studies (molecular markers) on ‘key species’. • Continue in-depth socioeconomic studies (commercialization, added value of native products, etc.). • Plant genetic resource appraisement in home gardens. • Relationship between home gardens and traditional agricultural systems of the farmers.

Short-term tasks • National Workshop with local development organizations (NGOs, government and farmers) to disseminate the results of the research project and to encourage efforts for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in both home gardens and on-farm. • To follow up the national workshop with projects involving NGOs, government and farmers. • To implement a pilot agro-ecoturism project in two communities of the Mayan Association of the North, Chisec, Alta Verapaz.

References

Alarcón N., R.H. 1992. Caracterización de la comunidad de Yaje (Leucaena diversifolia Schlecht Bent. en la zona semiárida de El Progreso y Zacapa. Thesis Ing. Agr. Guatemala, Facultad de Agronomía, USAC. Azurdia, C., H. Ayala, L. Montes. 2000a. Tasa de cruzamiento y estructura genética de la población silvestre de zapote (Pouteria sapota) del Cerro San Gil, Izabal. Documento de trabajo. IPGRI-FAUSAC. Azurdia, C., H. Ayala, L. Guarino. 2000b. Tasa de cruzamiento y estructura genética de la población silvestre de zapote (Pouteria sapota) de Sacapulas, Quiché. Ciencia y Tecnología (USAC, Guatemala) (1) 1:27-36. Azurdia, C., M. Leiva, E. López. 2001. Contribution of Home Gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources.II. Alta Verapaz case, Guatemala. Working document. FAUSAC, IPGRI. Brown, A.H.D., D.R. Marshal. 1995. A basic sampling strategy: theory and practice. Pp 75–91 in Collecting plant genetic diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha and R. Reid, eds). CAB International, Wallingford, UK. De la Cruz, R. 1982. Clasificación de las zonas de vida de Guatemala a nivel de reconocimiento. Guatemala, INAFOR. IPGRI. 1977. Diversidad, conservación y uso sostenible de los recursos genéticos de frutales tropicales nativos de América Tropical. Informe final. Cooperación Técnica IPGRI-BID No. ATN/SF-4356 RG. Cali, Colombia. Tenas, M., E.G. 1994. Caracterización de las comunidades de almendro de cerro (Bucida macrostachya Standl.) en la zona semiárida de Zacapa y el Progreso. Tesis Ing. Agr. Guatemala, Facultad de Agronomía, USAC. PROJECT REPORTS 73

Home gardens and in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity— Venezuelan component

C. Quiroz1, M. Gutiérrez2, D. Rodríguez1, D. Pérez, J. Ynfante1, J. Gámez1, T. Pérez de Fernandez1, A. Marques2 and W. Pacheco2 1 Foundation for Tropical Alternative Agriculture (FUNDATADI), Núcleo ‘Rafael Rangel’, Trujillo, Estado Trujillo, Venezuela 2 National Institute for Agricultural Research (INIA). Maracay, Estado Aragua, Venezuela

Selection of home gardens More than 150 home gardens were visited, of these 30 were selected in the Andean region and 10 in the Central region. At the end of the study 36 gardens were still part of the project as four discontinued participation in the study.

The selection of these HGs was based in the following criteria: • presence of high number of species. • gardens established for over five years • products from the HGs oriented mainly for subsistence purposes. • willingness of owner to collaborate with the project.

Ecozones studied

Andean region Three altitudinal zones were studied: • Low zone: 0–400 m asl • Intermediate zone: 400–1500 m asl • High zone: more than 1500 m asl

Central region: 600–1200 m asl

Key species selection: The major criteria used for the key species selection were: • presence in the majority of HGs • representing one of the stratums • presence of high infraspecific variability • important from a nutritional point of view • traditional local species.

The selected species were: (a) Low stratus Caraota (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Ají (Capsicum sp.)

(b) Intermediate stratus Lechosa (Carica papaya)

(c) High stratus Aguacate (Persea americana). 74 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Comparison between home gardens and larger agroecosystems When the HGs and the larger agroecosystems were compared, it was found that:

• HGs are smaller in size (0.2–1 ha) compared with 1.5–40 ha in the surrounding area. • HGs have higher diversity, both interspecific: 9–185 species found compared with only 1–2 species in the surrounding area and intraspecific, for example in the genus Phaseolus it was found 4 varieties compared with 1 in the surrounding area. • HGs have a vertical structure represented mainly by trees, shrubs, annual and perennial crops, herbs, ornamental, spices and medicinal plants. • Species found in HGs are generally of a multi-use nature compared with monouse (e.g. commercial) found in the species of the surrounding area. • HGs are located near the household. • HGs have lower technology input. • HGs products are used mainly for subsistence purposes.

General diversity found in home gardens During the study of 36 home gardens a total of 101 plant families; 362 plant genera, and 591 species were identified.

Diversity found by zone Table 1 shows the number of species found in each zone for the Andean and Central regions with their respective range of species.

Table 1. Plant diversity in each zone Region Zone Species Species Andean High altitude 215 22–83 Andean Intermediate 318 65–123 Andean Low 165 23–82 Central – 190 16–104

Andean region • In the high altitude zone, 215 species were found, the median range being 22–83 species. • In the intermediate zone, 318 species were found, the range being: 65–123 species. • In the low altitude zone, 165 species were found, the range being 23–82 species.

Central region • In this region 190 species were found, the median range being 16–104 species.

Classification dendrogram of HGs according to the number of species found A hierarchical ascending analysis was carried out to investigate whether there is any relationship among the HGs studied regarding the number of species found in each of them and the common species among them. Four groups of HGs were formed (Fig. 1). As can be seen, the groups of HGs that were formed coincide in general with the ecozones where they are located (Table 2). Table 2 also shows the number of home gardens included/class and for each zone, the average of species/class and the common species to all of the home gardens/group. PROJECT REPORTS 75

Fig. 1. Classification dendrogram of 36 home gardens according to the number of species found.1

Table 2. Home gardens species diversity study

CLASS HG No. Zone Average of species/class Common species I 9 Intermediate Andean (–3) 30 Capsicum, Carica, Citrus & Bouchea prismatica II 9 Low, some High Andean 16 Capsicum, Carica, Citrus & Bixa III 9 High Andean (–3) 16 Coffea arabica IV 9 Central 31.95 Musa, Phaseolus, Coffea & Annona

Geneflow It can be said that at the community level there are two major mechanisms for the flow of genes: ‘trueque’ (exchange of materials). This mechanism is used for example with Phaseolus. Another important method of flow is local sales; this mechanism is used for example with Phaseolus and Persea. It was found that there is a larger geneflow in the following cases: • when the species has mainly a subsistence purpose (e.g. Phaseolus, Persea, Xanthosoma sagittifolium, Manihot asculenta, Musa spp.). • when the species has commercial importance (e.g. Phaseolus, Persea, Musa spp.). • when the species are introduced as new ones for experimentation (e.g. Phaseolus, Dioscorea bulbifera, Casimiroa edulis, Pouteria sapota).

Morphological characterization of key species The morphologic characterization in all the key species was done using a group of selected IPGRI descriptors. The number of samples described, the descriptors used and variables included in the hierarchical analysis are listed in Table 3. For Carica, Capsicum and Persea the characterization was made in situ. For the genus Phaseolus some seed samples were collected from the HGs and they were

1 Figs 1–6: original colour versions and accompanying data available from authors. 76 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

characterized ex situ at the National Center for Agricultural Research (CENIAP) located in Maracay, Aragua state. In order to study the diversity in genus Phaseolus and Persea comparisons were made between the information obtained from this study and the available information existing from ex situ collections. In the Carica case, since there was not data available to make comparisons, the diversity maintained in our studied HGs was compared with published information coming from research made in HGs at the Amazona state, Venezuela (Table 4).

Table 3. Number of samples described, descriptors used and variables included in the hierarchical analysis Key species Number of samples Number of Variables in hierarchical analysis described descriptors used Capsicum 44 47 18 Carica 31 63 19 Persea 31 65 15 Phaseolus 21 40 28

Table 4. Key species descriptions and comparisons Key species In situ Ex situ Comparisons Capsicum x — AMAZONIA in situ Carica x —— Persea x X GB CENIAP Phaseolus — X GB CENIAP, other collected materials & seed traits

Morphological characters cluster analysis The diversity analysis was made using multivariate statistical methods such as the main components analysis, ascending hierarchical classification and categories distribution according to percentage for

Fig. 2. Persea americana (in situ description) ascendent hierarchical classification. PROJECT REPORTS 77

the mono variable analysis cases. A hierarchical ascending analysis was done for each key species in order to know the genetic diversity maintained in the HGs and in this way to be able to compare it with the variability found in ex situ conditions. This analysis allowed us to form groups of materials with particular characteristics for each key species.

Persea americana genetic diversity maintained in situ Persea americana is widely distributed and very popular as a food in Venezuela where farmers name the varieties by the shape and characteristics of the fruits. Such as Table 3 shows, 31 avocado trees were characterized (25 from the Andean zone and 16 from the Central one), 65 morphological descriptors included in the IPGRI descriptor list (IPGRI 1995) and the Venezuelan collection (Avilán and Rodríguez 1997) were used. The results of the ascending hierarchical classification analysis grouped the individuals into four classes such it is shown in the dendrogram of Fig. 2. Table 5 shows a brief description of the relevant characters that determine each group, and the number of individuals per class.

Table 5. Persea americana classes maintained in situ Class Number of individuals Characters I 15 Lanceolate or Oblongo – lanceolate leaves with angular base II 14 Tall tree. Variable leaf shape. From perpendicular to obtuse leaf position III 8 Elliptic leaf with obtuse leaf base IV 4 Elliptic-lanceolate leaf with angular base

It is important to mention that although the Persea americana sample for in situ characterization was relatively small, there was variability in the majority of the studied characters, especially for fruit characteristics. Since those characterized materials from the home gardens are not represented in the ex situ Venezuelan collection, it could be said that the contribution to the ex situ collection could be relevant.

Capsicum spp genetic diversity in situ maintained This species was the most frequently found in the Andean and Central regions. It has a great usage on the traditional Venezuelan because of its qualities for spicing and seasoning. There were found diverse types that differ in colour, fruit size and shape, growth habit and plant height. In the study, there were 44 individuals characterized using 65 descriptors (IPGRI et al. 1995), but only 18 variables entered in the analysis (Table 3). The results of the analysis show that seven groups of Capsicum were found (Fig. 3). In Table 6 it can be seen a summary description of the main characters that distinguish each group, and the number of individuals per group.

Table 6. Capsicum spp. classes maintained in situ Class Number of individuals Characters I 3 Short plants. Sparse pubescent leaf. Wide leaf II 5 Wild, green and short plants III 3 Intermediate plant growth habit. Sparse tillerin IV 7 Intermediate plant growth habit. Narrow leaf V 3 Tall plants. Wide canopy. Erect plant growth habit Cylindrical stem VI 7 Cylindrical and without anthocyanin stem VII 7 Dense tillering. Without anthocyanin stem 78 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Fig. 3. Capsicum spp. in situ description morphological characters cluster analysis.

In Venezuela, the Capsicum germplasm bank is still being developed; subsequently, there is no information available. However, the variability found in this study was compared with other in situ characterizations from indigenous communities found at the Amazonas state, Venezuela (Villalba 1999).

Carica papaya genetic diversity maintained in situ Carica papaya is a fruit widely distributed and great economic importance in our country due to its high yields, nutritional value, and permanent production along the year round. It was found that farmers identify varierities mainly by fruit characteristics. The hierarchical analysis was performed on 31 samples using 19 descriptors (IBPGR 1988), as it is shown is Table 3. As a result, five grupos or classes of Carica were found (Fig. 4). Table 7 shows the relevant characters that distinguish each class, and the number of samples per class. Even though the sample size was relatively small, variability was evident for almost all the characters included in the multivariate and univariate analysis. Unfortunately, there was no data from other Carica characterizations with which to make comparisons.

Table 7. Carica papaya classes maintained in situ Class Number of individuals Characters I 19 Monocaulous. Short tree. Narrow and waxed leaf Flowers grouped into II 2 Monocaulous. Wide stem. Unwaxed and nine-lobed leaf III 2 Monocaulous. Straight denticulated leaf. Isolated flowers IV 2 Multicaulous. Isolated flowers. Short internodes V 15 Monocaulous. Thin trunk. Flowers grouped into inflorescences PROJECT REPORTS 79

Fig. 4. Carica papaya in situ description morphological characters cluster analysis.

Phaseolus vulgaris genetic diversity maintained in situ This species is very important for farmers’ food security in Venezuela. The criteria used by farmers to differentiate among varieties are: growth habit, pod colour, seed characteristics and life cycle. Twenty- one samples maintained in situ were collected and characterized ex situ at the CENIAP experimental station in Maracay, Aragua State. As Table 3 shows, the variability of these materials was compared with 151 entries from the CENIAP germplasm bank, and 18 materials collected in different sites at the Central zone. 40 characters that included morphological attributes, yield, and pest and disease resistant were taken into account. There were performed a principal component analysis and a hierarchical ascending classification for 18 of the morphological characters. Results from the analyses for the CENIAP germplasm bank showed that 14 classes were formed using the 10 more important characters (Fig. 5). In Table 8, it can be seen the number of individuals per class and the characters that best describe each class.

Fig. 5. Dendrogram of Phaseolus vulgaris morphological variables from 151 materials ex situ maintained at CENIAP genebank. 80 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 8. Phaseolus vulgaris classification of 151 entries in the CENIAP Germplasm Bank Class Number of individuals Characters I 1 High leaf area index II 2 High weight of 100 seeds III 92 Small leaf (low leaf area index) IV 32 High leaf area index V 1 Short and narrow pods. VI 4 Small seed number / pods VII 1 Narrow pods VIII 4 Early. Wide pods IX 2 High weight of 100 seeds. Wide pods X 3 Wide pods XI 1 High pod length to width relationship. Early maturity XII 1 High seed number/pod. High pod length to width relationship XIII 2 Low seed number/pod. Low pod length to width relationship XIV 2 Long pods

All of the characters used in the analyses were important which indicates that exists variability for those characteristics in the ex situ maintained materials. For the particular case of the 21 collected materials in the HG studied, an analysis including the 18 evaluated characters was made. As a result, 9 classes were produced which are presented in Fig. 6. Table 9, shows the number of samples per class and the main characters for each class.

Table 9. Phaseolus vulgaris materials classification maintained in situ Class Number of individuals Characters I 1 Long leaf. High pod length to width relationship II 1 High weight of 100 seeds III 1 High pest incidence. High pest susceptibility. No Rust presence IV 1 Green colour V 1 Long pods. High seed number / pod VI 2 High yield VII 1 High virus susceptibility VIII 8 Long life cycle. Big leaf area IX 10 High pod number/plant

Relationship between diversity and some socioeconomic factors In the HGs studies, it was found that there is a relationship between diversity found and certain socioeconomic factors, such as:

• There is greater diversity in HGs owned by older farmers. • There is greater diversity in households where there is a larger number of family members. • There is greater diversity in gardens where the household’s only income source is the home garden. • There is greater diversity in households where there is a larger number of family members. • There is greater diversity in the longest established HGs. • There is greater diversity in larger HGs. • There is greater diversity in HGs where access is difficult, either due to the poor condition of the road or when transportation is lacking. PROJECT REPORTS 81

Fig. 6. Dendrogram of Phaseolus vulgaris materials maintained in situ.

In the HGs studies, it was found that there seems to be no relationship between the diversity found and the following socioeconomic factors: schooling, household type, land tenure situation, HG’s production destiny and use.

Conclusions • Diversity among HGs varies by region and altitude. • The highest diversity was found at the intermediate zone (600–1326 m asl). • Greater diversity was found in: older, larger subsistence-use HGs with difficult access, larger number of family members available as labour to help in the HG, with older owner and in those households whose income comes only from HGs. • Larger geneflow was found in the following species: ° Phaseolus: where the main geneflow mechanism used was the trueque (exchange) and also because its use was mainly for subsistence and/or local sales. It has also commercial importance. Another reason found for its large geneflow was the experimentation, i.e. when new varieties are introduced in the area, people use to distribute them among friends and relatives. ° Persea: it has importance for subsistence and also as a commercial product (local sales). ° Musa: it has importance for subsistence and also as a commercial product (local sales). ° Xanthosoma: it has importance mainly as a subsistence crop. • The variability found in the key species was as follows: ° Capsicum: varibility was found for fruit colour and form. Variability was also found for stem pubescence. ° Carica: variability was found in all the characters. ° Persea: variability was found for fruit colour and size. ° Phaseolus: variability was found for virus and other diseases susceptibility. Variability was also found for seed colour. 82 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Proposed strategies • In order to be able to incorporate the HGs as a complementary strategy for in situ conservation programs some recommendations are made: • Recommend to the national PGR conservation programs the inclusion of in situ complementary strategies for: Phaseolus, Persea and Carica. • Inform the biological diversity national office (MARNR) about these results. • Creation of promotional programs to increase the use and conservation of local varieties. • Creation of Extension Service (since in our country there is not such service) and include in their agenda the in situ conservation in HGs. • Implement inter and intra institutional coordination. Inclusion of curricula and extra curricula components related to PGR conservation (ex situ–in situ) into the agricultural related careers programs. • Inform and motivate organized groups, at the community level and to promote with them different activies related to PGR conservation: e.g. seed fairs and contests.

References Avilan, L. and M. Rodríguez. 1997. Description and evaluation of Persea collection (Descripción y evaluación de la colección de aguacates) (Persea spp.) CENIAP. Maracay. National Fund for Agricultural Research (Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias) – IICA/CREA. PROCIANDINO/FRUTHEX. Avilan Rovira, Justo and Herbert M. Eder. 1986. Venezuelan Agricultural Systems and Regions (Sistemas y Regiones Agrícolas de Venezuela). Fundación Polar. Ministerio de Agricultura y Cría. Caracas, Venezuela. IBPGR.1988. Descriptors for Papaya. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy. IPGRI. 1995. Descriptors for Avocado. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Rome, Italy. IPGRI, AVRDC and CATIE. 1995 Capsicum Descriptors (Descriptores para Capsicum) (Capsicum spp.) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Rome, Italy; Asian Center for Vegetables Research and Development, Taipei, Taiwán and Tropical Agricultural Center for Training and Research (Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza), Turrialba, Costa Rica. Villalba, J.C. 1999. Aji Cultivars (Capsicum spp.) in indigenous Home Gardens (‘conucos’) near the Puerto Ayacucho region, Amazonas state, Venezuela. Memorias del Instituto de Biología Experimental. 2:57-60. PROJECT REPORTS 83

Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources farming systems in Ghana

S.O. Bennett-Lartey, G.S. Ayernor, Carol M. Markwei, I.K. Asante, D.K. Abbiw, S.K. Boateng, V. M. Anchirinah and P. Ekpe Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Bunso, Ghana

Background Home gardens have been recognized as important sources of biodiversity, income and food, especially for low-income households (Gessler et al. 1996). Most projects on home gardens have sought to increase and diversify production mainly to improve the nutritional status of low-income households (FAO 1988). In May, 1995 a workshop organized jointly by the German Foundation for International Development (DSE), Council for Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Research (ASTAF), and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) on in situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in developing countries concluded that home gardens could play a role in in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. In October 1998 IPGRI organized a workshop on ‘Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems’. This global workshop brought together researchers from five countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America and addressed specific questions, such as the definition of home garden to be adopted, the methodology to be used and the preparation of work plans and protocols for implementing the project. The home garden definition developed at the workshop was: ‘A multi-story, multi-species, multi-use small scale land-use system in particular ecosystems that are for the immediate needs of household members primarily as regards their food, health, fuel and spiritual requirements.’

Introduction Home gardens occur in all the agroecological zones of Ghana and are a long-established tradition. The Basel missionaries are credited with being the leaders in the establishment of the tradition of home gardens. These gardens around homesteads contain fruit trees, vegetables and other crops. Asare et al. (1990) in their studies on home gardens in the humid tropical forests of Ghana separated the home gardens they surveyed into three categories. • extensive multi-storied home garden with livestock • intensive multi-storied home garden • extensive home garden practicing mixed cropping.

The criteria for classification were not however clearly defined. Owusu et al. (1994) classified home gardens based on their structural characteristics such as: • presence or absence of trees or woody perennial crops • number of vertical canopy strata • intensity of management of the garden i.e. application of fertilizer, organic manure or irrigation of crops in the garden.

They defined four categories of home gardens, namely: • The extensively managed multi-storied home gardens with tree crops. • Plants in this type of garden were randomly spaced. • Intensively managed multi-storied home gardens with tree crops. This type of garden differs from the first type in that crops receive greater attention and are generally readily marketable e.g. avocado pear and pineapple. 84 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

• Extensively managed multi-storied home gardens, without trees, which are essentially similar in characteristic to mixed crop farms. • Intensively managed single-story home gardens that generally consist of pure stands of marketable non-native vegetables.

They found that home gardens in Ghana are generally small in size (0.16–0.59 hectares) and are present in urban, peri-urban and rural communities (Owusu et al. 1994). They are generally multi- storied and multi-purpose. Forty-seven tree species and thirty-four crop species were identified in the home gardens studied by these authors. The tree species identified generally reflected those that occurred in the particular ecosystem, e.g. baobab (Adansonia digitata) was found in home gardens of the Northern savannah but not in the forest zone, whilst oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) commonly found in home gardens in the forest zone was absent in the gardens of the Northern savannah. Although there are a number of publications on crop, medicinal and woody plants in Ghana (Irvine 1930, 1961; Dokosi 1969; Abbiw 1990), the only publication readily available on home gardens in Ghana is that by Owusu et al. (1994). It is likely that most of the work done may either be unpublished or in grey literature. In the work done by both Asare et al. (1990) and Owusu et al. (1994) the question of the usefulness of home gardens as components of in situ conservation systems for indigenous crops as well as infra-specific variations in the crops grown in home gardens were not addressed. The current study is seeking to address both these questions.

Objectives The objectives of this study are to: • Document species and intra-species diversity in home gardens (HG) and the biological, cultural, and socio-economic factors that govern its distribution and maintenance. • Develop methods for including HG systems in a national program of in situ conservation. • Develop ‘conservation through use’ strategies in the national plant genetic resources (PGR) programme.

Methodology Informal (rapid rural appraisal) and formal studies of plants in home gardens were carried out. The rapid rural appraisal was aimed at mapping out important areas of home garden cultivation within the country and also to identify various forms of cultivation and hence capture as much variation as possible. It involved informal discussion with farmers, extension officers and other key informants within the areas visited. Random stops were made in villages/towns to assess home garden production practices using a checklist. Based on the result of the rapid rural appraisal, 4 regions/agroecological zones were selected: Upper East (Sudan savannah), Northern (Guinea savannah), Eastern (moist semi-deciduous), Western (evergreen forest) and Central (moist semi-deciduous) (Table 1; Fig. 1). Project sites and home gardens were randomly selected from lists of districts and villages/towns within them. For the formal survey, a complete list of villages stratified into urban, peri-urban and rural areas was compiled. A total of five settlements/villages/towns per district were then randomly selected and surveyed. A complete list of home garden farmers was compiled from the villages and 10 farmers per village were then randomly selected. Pre-tested questionnaires were then administered to those sampled for the study of the socio-economics of the HGs. From species inventories developed for the various agroecological zones, three crops were selected for a detailed study. The criteria used for the selection of the crops were: importance to home economy, prevalence in home gardens and importance in national food and nutrition. The crops selected were plantain (Musa sp.), yam (Dioscorea spp.) and millet (Pennisetum glaucum). The detailed studies were carried out in five home gardens per town. PROJECT REPORTS 85

Fig. 1. Home gardens survey—study districts and the vegetation zones in Ghana. 86 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

A minimum descriptor list was developed from IPGRI published descriptors for Musa sp., Dioscorea spp. and Pennisetum glaucum and used to characterize the selected crop species and the cultivars found within the species in situ in the home gardens.

Table 1. Agroecological zones, political regions and districts selected for the study of home gardens Agroecological zone Region District Moist semi-deciduous forest Eastern East Akim, New Juaben Moist evergreen/Southern Western/Central Ahanta West, Cape Coast, Marginal forest Sekondi-Takoradi, Agona Guinea Savannah Northern West Dagomba, Tolon Kumbungu Sudan Savannah Upper East Bolgatanga, Bongo

Analysis Scored characters were analysed using SPSS to determine genetic diversity within the selected species.

Results and discussion

General description of study sites Climate The areas of study fall into two humidity zones. Mean relative humidity for the rainforest, moist semi-deciduous forest and Guinea savannah are greater than 60% whilst that for the Sudan savannah is about 40%. The rainfall level and distribution throughout the year separates the study areas into three groups. The high rainfall areas are the two forest zones, with mean annual rainfall of 1700 mm and 1200 mm for the rainforest and moist semi-deciduous forest, respectively. These areas also have a bimodal pattern of rainfall, March–July and September–October. In the Guinea savannah mean annual rainfall is 1100 mm whilst that of the Sudan savannah is 1000 mm (Table 2). The savannah areas have a single rainy season from July to October. The mean maximum temperatures also vary, increasing as one moves from the forest zones into the northern savannah zones. In the rainforest zones maximum temperatures fall between 29°C and 30°C. The corresponding figures for the Guinea and Sudan are 33.6°C and 34.5°C, respectively. The mean minimum temperatures are 23.4°C and 21.1°C for the forest areas and 22.3°C for the savannas.

Soil types of survey areas The soil in the rainforest is largely ferric cresol and acidic in nature. In the moist semi-deciduous forest the major soil type is also ferric cresol (Table 2). In both these forest zones the soils are mainly sandy clay in texture. In the savannah, soils in the West Dagomba district are similar to those of the forest in class and texture, however the other districts in the savannas have different soil types. In the Tolon- of the Guinea savannah, the soil is classified as Dystric Plinthosol and is a gravelly sandy clay soil. The Bolgatanga district of the Sudan savannah has a Gleyic Lixisol, which is silty clay in texture.

Average household size of home garden families The results of the average household size of farm families in the study area are summarized in Table 3. Modal household size is between 6 and 10 in all the areas studied. However, the Northern and Upper East Regions also had substantial percentage of households with sizes ranging from 11 to 20 members. PROJECT REPORTS 87

Table 2. General descriptive data of sampled Ghanaian home garden sites Geographical Eastern Western Northern Upper East location (region)

District East Akim New Juaben Ahanta West West Dagomba Tolon-Kumbungu Bolgatanga

Altitude† 600–750 550–600 100–150 500 450–550 700

Avg. yearly temperature (°C)‡ 25 25 25 28 28 30

Mean annual rainfall (mm)‡ 1050 1050 1400 1139 1139 1050

Major soil Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay Sandy clay Gravelly Silty clay types§ /silty clay sandy clay

Latitude 6.00–6.30 6.00-–6.15 4.25–4.75 9.15–9.31 9.16–10.15 10.30–11.00

Longitude 0.20–0.55 0.15–0.25 1.50–2.15 0.45–1.00 1.00–1.15 0.30–1.00

Major Plantain, Plantain, Oil palm, Maize, Maize, Millet, agricultural maize, maize, cocoa yam, millet yam, millet products oilpalm, citrus oilpalm, citrus platain¶

Demographic data

District population1 189 007 139 370 90 567 300 931 135 084 225 864

Ethnic groups Akyem Akyem, Ahanta Dagomba†† Dagomba, Mamprusi†† Asante Gonja, Grus††

Religion Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Christian, Traditional Traditional Traditional Moslem Moslem Moslem

†Data from topographical map obtained from the Survey Department ‡Data from Meteorological Services Department, Ghana §From Soil Map of Ghana, FAO 1990 ¶Data from PPME 1Data from 2000 population and Housing Census (Provisional Results), Ghana Statistical Service, August, 2000. ††Dickson and Benneh (1988).

Table 3. Sizes of families surveyed in the study areas Household size Percentage of farmers No. individuals Northern Upper East Eastern 1–5 4.3 21.3 34.3 6–10 33.2 37.9 47.0 11–15 23.0 31.0 12.4 16–20 17.4 6.9 4.2

Characteristics of home gardens In Table 4 it can generally be seen that home garden fields are small, with most of them (>70%) falling in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 hectares. Though home gardens are increasingly becoming important as a means of supplementing household food requirements, urbanization and increasing pressure on limited land around the compound have all contributed to the small sizes noted. Over 90% of all home garden fields were planted around the compound. This is because of the convenience the home gardeners expect from their gardens (close proximity of food source). 88 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Quite a substantial proportion of home garden fields (47.8%) in the are fenced because of the destruction of crops by domestic animals like goats, and . In the Northern, Upper East and Eastern Regions however, more than 50% of home gardens were not fenced (Table 4).

Table 4. Characteristics of home gardens Percentage of farmers Northern Upper East Eastern Enclosure —not fenced 52.2 74.2 75.5 Location—around compound 93.0 98.5 97.9 Size of garden (0.1–1.0 hectares) 83.7 – 77.6 Land tenure system 95.8 87.0 87.8 (own/family)

Land tenure system In all three regions, over 80% of home gardeners owned the land they used for the garden (Table 4). This ownership leads to home garden system stability, and therefore gardeners can put in more effort to maintain the gardens without fear of uncertain tenure.

Structure of home gardens In the forest ecological zones, both the rainforest and moist semi-deciduous forests, home gardens were multi-storied, commonly containing three layers but sometimes with four. The uppermost canopy consisted of trees and therefore was a perennial layer. Species commonly found here were (Mangifera indica), oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), Indian almond (Terminalia catapa) and avocado pear (Persea Americana). Immediately below this layer occur both annual and perennial species. The commonest and most important species are plantain (Musa spp.), an annual, and perennial fruit trees such as citrus, sour sop (Annona muricata), sweet apple (Annona squamosa), pawpaw (Carica papaya) and (Psidium guajava). The third story consists of vegetables such as egg plant (Solanum spp.), amaranthus (Amaranthus spp.), cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium), root crops, yam (Dioscorea spp.), cassava (Manihot esculenta) and medicinal plants (e.g. Solanum torvum, Ocimum gratissimum, O. canum). The lowest storey consisted of species that were 20 cm or less in height, for instance Indian heliotrope (Heliotropium indicum) and creeping plants such as (Ipomoea batatas). The density of plants in these gardens also varied, with some having closely associated plants while other gardens had widely spaced plants. Animal rearing was part of the activities of some home gardens. The most common animals reared were poultry and/or goats. Some home gardens also rear cattle, as seen in Kukurantumi, Osiem and Nkronso. A home in Kukurantumi also reared snails.

Species diversity of home gardens The total number of species recorded in the home garden survey differed for the various agroecological zones in the study. Generally the total number of species recorded was higher in

Patrik Ekpe the forest eco-zones compared to the savannas A typical home garden in the western/central region containing zones. Within the forest agro ecological zones, useful plant species, animals (such as goats) and space for social the total number of species recorded in home interaction. PROJECT REPORTS 89

gardens in the moist semi-deciduous forest was higher than that of the rainforest: 104 and 93 species respectively for the two zones. These species also belonged to a wide range of families. In the moist semi-deciduous forest, a total of 36 families are represented whereas 37 families are represented in the home gardens surveyed in the rainforest (Table 5). Within the savannah agroecological zones 51 species from 29 families were recorded for the Guinea savannah whilst home gardens in the Sudan savannah had the least number of species; a total of 40 species belonging to 28 families were recorded (Table 5). Detailed species lists can be found in forthcoming publications.

Table 5. Total number of species identified in gardens in the different agroecological zones Regions surveyed Eastern Western/Central Northern Upper East Number of species 104 93 51 40 Number of families 36 37 29 28

Use categories of species in home gardens Species found in home gardens were used for different purposes (Table 6). Among species used for food there were cereals (4), legumes (7), root and tubers (12), fruit and nuts (23), oil crops (3), spices (8) and vegetables (18). Thirty (30) species used medicinally were identified. Other species were used for hedging, ornamental purposes and for shade.

Table 6. Total number of species per use category Use category Cereals 4 Legumes† 7 Roots and tubers 12 Fruits and nuts 23 Oil crops 3 Spices 8 Medicinal plants 30 Vegetables 18

Germplasm found in home gardens come from different ecosystems depending on the utility of the species. Food crops come from four main sources: other home gardens, farms, the market, and research institutions (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Geneflow within the home garden system. 90 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Local varieties of oil crops and fruit trees have their immediate origin in the market (e.g. ), or the gardens of friends, relatives or acquaintances (e.g. mango, avocado pear, sour sop, guava) or from plants growing in farmers’ fields (e.g. oil palm). Plants whose origin is the market may originate either from home gardens or farmers’ fields. Such species may also be from another nearby village or town. This is possible because of the way that market days operate in rural communities. In this arrangement, big markets that are scattered in different villages have particular days on which they operate, and often people from other villages with wares to sell will congregate in the market that is in operation to carry out their business. Thus a fruit or oil crop bought from the market on market day may originate from another village. This results in gene flow not only between gardens or farms within a particular village but also between these systems in different villages. Home gardens also contained varieties of species e.g. citrus and oil palm, which originated from research institutions. A few species e.g. Spondias mombin, Chrysophyllum albidum and some wild yam species can also be brought in from the natural ecosystem since the fruits or tubers are often harvested from the wild. Gene flow for cereals, root and tubers and vegetables can be among home gardens, between markets and home gardens, farmers’ fields and home gardens or research institutions and home gardens (e.g. early maturing cassava). Germplasm for medicinal plants and fuel wood largely comes from the natural ecosystem into home gardens, although there is also some movement between home gardens. Solanum torvum and Ocimum gratissimum are examples of species whose germplasm movement is both among home gardens, and between home gardens and the natural ecosystems.

Importance of home gardens as conservation units • HGs together as a unit, contain the highest population of some under-utilized fruit species. They are also conservation sites for these species. Examples: Annona muricata (Sour sop), Annona squamosa (sweet sop), Spondias mombin, Psidium guajava (guava), Persea americanum (avocado pear), Mangifera indica (mango). • HGs are in situ conservation sites for indigenous varieties of some of our crops. Examples: Elaeis guineensis (oil palm), Cocos nucifera (coconut), Pennisteum spp. (millet), Sorghum bicolour (sorghum), Dioscorea spp. (yam). • HGs are sites for the domestication of wild varieties of some species. Examples: Dioscorea spp. ‘Ahabayere’, Heliotropium indicum, Senna alata, S. occidentalis. • HGs are trial sites for new varieties of some crops and hence can be considered as entry point for new varieties of crops into our agricultural system. Examples: Different plantain cultivars: double bunch, triple bunch, ‘oniaba’, ‘esakro’, ‘esamienu’, ‘osoboaso’, ‘nyeretia apantu’, .

Social and demographic profile of respondents

Table 7. Gender of home gardeners sampled Gender Percentage of farmers by region Northern Upper East Eastern Males 88.7 86.8 42.3 Females 11.3 13.2 57.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Education The educational status of farmers in the study areas varied widely (Table 8). The Northern Region (NR) has the highest rate of illiteracy with 84.3% of respondents having no formal education at all. This is followed by the Upper East Region (UER) 63.6%, with the lowest being Eastern Region (32.3%). In the Northern Region (12.9%) of respondents had up to 10 years of formal education PROJECT REPORTS 91

whilst 31.9% in the UER and 52.0% in the Eastern Region had the same number of years of education. The Eastern Region had 15.7% of respondents with more than 10 years of education, whilst in the Northern Region and Upper East Region less than 5% of respondents had the same number of years of education.

Table 8. Formal educational status of home gardeners Educational status Percentage of farmers by region Northern Upper East Eastern No formal education 84.3 63.6 32.3 Up to 10 years 12.9 31.9 52.0 Above 10 years 2.8 4.5 15.7

In the Upper East Region, 85.5% of households consumed all the produce obtained from their home gardens (Table 9). The corresponding figures for the Northern and the Eastern Regions were 60.0% and 49.0% respectively. The fact that people in the Upper East consumed almost all their home garden produce is not surprising since this region is noted for its high population density and hence highly fragmented land ownership. Most farmers have to plant the major staples like millet and sorghum on their home garden fields, which normally turn out to be the only field available to most households.

Table 9. Percentage of produce from home gardens sold by farmers in the study areas Proportion of produce (%) Percentage of farmers by region Northern Upper East Eastern 0 60.0 85.5 49.0 10 4.3 4.8 0.0 20 5.7 0.0 3.9 30 11.4 0.0 0.0 40 12.8 3.2 2.0 50 1.4 4.8 5.9 60 2.0 0.0 0.0 70 2.4 1.7 3.9 80 0.0 0.0 7.8 90 0.0 0.0 15.7 100 0.0 0.0 9.8 Cannot tell 0.0 0.0 2.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Household food security is therefore a major problem in this region. Of households in the Northern Region, 35.6% sold between 10% and 50% of their home garden produce, which was mainly maize. Maize is both a cash and crop in this area. In the Eastern Region where plantain is the major crop sold, 11.8% of households sold between 20% and 50%, 27.4% sold between 60% and 90% with 9.8% selling all their plantain. With better management and less theft cases, home garden plantains could easily become more marketable than those from bush fields. In both the Northern and Eastern Regions, some home gardeners obtain monetary value from the produce of their home gardens.

Gender roles in home gardening The roles played by the different genders in home garden activities are shown in Tables 10–12. This study sought to identify roles played by the different genders in home garden production systems in the study areas. 92 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 10. Gender roles in home gardening activities in the Northern Region Task Percentage of farmers who perform tasks Males Females Both N/A Land preparation 97.2 1.4 1.4 0.0 Planting 21.1 4.2 73.3 1.4 Weeding 55.9 6.4 37.7 0.0 Sale of produce 70.5 19.7 2.8 7.0

Table 11. Gender roles in home gardening activities in the Eastern Region Task Percentage of farmers who perform tasks Males Females Both N/A Land preparation 44.2 15.8 38.9 1.1 Planting 28.1 22.9 49.0 0.0 Weeding 35.4 21.9 39.6 3.1 Harvesting 27.7 20.3 44.5 7.7 Sale of produce 1.1 11.8 43.0 44

Table 12. Gender roles in home gardening activities in the Upper East Region Task Percentage of farmers who perform tasks Males Females Both N/A Land preparation 11.8 2.9 83.8 1.5 Planting 0.0 29.4 70.6 0.0 Weeding 1.4 8.7 89.9 0.0 Harvesting 0.0 10.4 88.1 1.5 Sale of produce 0.0 38.3 5.0 56.7

The role played by men and women in agricultural activities varies from region to region and between different ethnic groups within the same region. Such roles are related to the culture (historical and contemporary) of the people concerned. From Tables 10–12 it can be seen that land preparation, weeding and sale of produce are carried out mainly by males in the Northern Region. In the Eastern Region land preparation is carried out mostly by males, whilst weeding and sale of produce are functions of both genders. In the Upper East Region, land preparation and weeding are carried out by the both genders. However in the few cases where produce is sold, this is done by females. In all regions planting is carried out by both genders.

Major reason for increase in cultivation of home gardens Table 13 shows the reasons why the cultivation of home gardens is increasing. The major reason given was the provision of food and income in all the study areas. Another reason given was the convenience of their location around the home.

Table 13. Major reason for the increase in the cultivation of home gardens within the study areas Reason Percentage of farmers mentioning reason Northern Upper East Eastern Convenience 38.0 0.0 12.1 Food and income 47.7 80.0 82.8 Cannot tell 14.3 0.0 3.4 Other 0.0 20.0 1.7 PROJECT REPORTS 93

Major yam species found in home gardens Results of the study on yam varieties in the surveyed home gardens are presented in Tables 14 and 15. Table 14 shows the most common species of yam in home gardens in the study areas. In the Northern Region, D. rotundata was the major yam species planted in home gardens (89.1%) followed by D. alata (10.9%). Only these two yam species were encountered in the Northern Region. That not withstanding, there were many varieties within D. rotundata found in the region (Table 15). The Eastern Region had the highest number of yam species. The major species found in this region is D. alata (28.8%) followed by D. praehensilis (26.7%). In contrast, D. rotundata was found in only 6.9% of home gardens in the Eastern Region. Other species found are D. bulbifera, D. cayenensis, D. dumetorum, D. esculenta and some unidentified species (‘Ahabayere’ and ‘Twetwamantwa’)

Table 14. Dioscorea spp. (yam species) found in home gardens in the study areas Species Common name Northern Western/Central Eastern D. alata Water yam 10.9 30 28.8 D. bulbifera Aerial yam 0 10 2.2 D. Cayenensis Yellow yam 0 30 13.3 D. dumetorum Bitter yam 0 0 13.3 D. esculenta Chinese yam 0 0 2.2 D. praehensilis ‘Kookooase’ 0 20 26.7 D. rotundata White yam 89.1 10 6.9 D. sp. 0 0 2.2 Total 100 100 100

In the Western/Central Regions, D. cayenensis, D. alata and D. praehensilis were the major species encountered in home gardens. Farmers preferred D. cayenensis and D. alata over D. rotundata. D. bulbifera and D. rotundata were also encountered. Table 15 shows the varieties of the Dioscorea rotundata found in home gardens in the Northern Region. In the Northern Region, the varieties of yam sold were usually staked and yielded one cylindrical . The most popular cultivars sold in Northern were ‘Kpono’, ‘Laboko’ and ‘Chenchito’. The varieties that were not usually sold were mostly not staked. This allows the farmer to harvest few to many small tubers per mound.

Table 15. Infra-specific diversity of D. rotundata in the Northern Region Varieties usually sold Varieties not sold Bayere Fago Chenchito Foole Chiamba Genkanga Kpono Kangbarina Krukrunga Kplense Laboko Prenkpele Nyule and Shaawa Zuglanbo

Diversity of plantains in home gardens Plantain was studied in-depth only in the Eastern, Western and Central Regions because it occurred more commonly in home gardens and is a major part of the diet of the people in these regions. In general in southern Ghana, the sight of plantain in and around towns and villages indicated the presence of a home garden. There were more varieties of plantain in home gardens in the Eastern Region than in the Western/Central Regions. The most common plantain variety found in home gardens was ‘Apantu’, a false horn plantain. This was followed in frequency by ‘Apem’, a French plantain. This is not surprising since ‘Apantu’ is used to prepare ‘fufu’, a staple food of the local people in the regions 94 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

covered. ‘Apem’ is used to prepare “ampesi”, another staple food of the people in the regions where the studies were carried out. ‘Apantu’ is early maturing, while ‘apem’ takes longer to mature, though the latter commands a higher price because of the many hands it has (groups of fingers attached at the same point). ‘Abommiensa’ and ‘borede sebo’, all false horn plantains, and ‘nyeretia’, a French plantain, were not common in the home gardens studied. The Eastern Region had the highest number of plantain varieties (10) (Table 16). This contrasts with five noted in the Western/Central Regions. The differences that exist among the plantain varieties were at levels of bunching and finger characteristics and the colour of pseudostem. Three main bunching characteristics were identified: a single bunch, double bunch (‘Abomienu’) and triple bunch (‘Abomiensa’). These belong to the false horn group.

Table 16. Diversity in plantain varieties in the Eastern and Western/Central Regions Percentage by region Local name of plantain Western/Central Eastern Abommiensa 0.0 2.4 Apantu 69.7 38.1 Apem 18.2 21.4 Borede Sebo 0.0 2.4 Borede wuio 0.0 4.8 Essammiensa 0.0 2.4 Eassammienu 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 Kwadu brode 6.1 0.0 Nyretia apantu 0.0 4.8 Nyretia 3.0 0.0 Onniaba 0.0 7.1 Osoboaso 0.0 14.3 Total 100.00 100.0

At the finger level, ‘Apem’ has more slender fingers with more fingers per bunch than ‘Apantu’. The fruits of ‘Apem’ are more compact on the bunch than ‘Apantu”. The “Nyeretia types have shorter fingers and hence the name ‘Nyeretia’, which is the local name for dwarfs. Table 16 also gives the local names of plantain varieties in home gardens in the areas studied. The number of hands on a bunch in the “Apantu” group varied. There were those with only one hand (‘Esakro’), two hands (‘Esamienu’) whilst a third group had three hands (‘Esamiensa’). Most of the plantain varieties had greenish or greenish-purple pseudostems. In contrast, the ‘Brode wio’ varieties observed had very dark purple pseudostems and petioles.

Diversity in pearl millet Table 17 indicates that millet is cultivated more in the Upper East Region than in the Northern Region. Millet is a crop that is quite drought resistant. The Upper East Region is in the Sudan savannah zone where rainfall is less than in the Northern Region (Guinea savannah zone). Millet is a crop that suited the climatic conditions in the Sudan savannah of Ghana. Home garden owners in the Northern Region planted more Sorghum bicolor (sorghum) and Zea mays (maize) as grains in their gardens than Pennisetum glaucum. PROJECT REPORTS 95

Table 17. Millet occurrence in home gardens in the Northern and Upper East Regions Regions Percentage Northern 37 Upper East 63 Total 100.0

Two main varieties of pearl millet were identified in the study areas, early and late. The early millet took 3 months to mature. Most of these were found in the Upper East Region, where the rainfall duration for the year is shorter than in the Northern Region. The prevalence of millet in this region is due to its importance in the local diet.

Conclusions • There were gender differences of home gardens in the areas surveyed. In the Guinea Savannah (Northern Region) and the Sudan Savannah (Upper Eastern Region) zones, the majority of home gardeners were males, while in the moist Patrik Ekpe, University of Ghana, Legon. semi deciduous (Eastern Region) zone, A northern home garden containing millet, yam and a mango tree. the majority were females. • The majority of home gardeners in the zones were full time farmers. • Most home gardens were not fenced or hedged. • Most respondents in home gardens surveys in the three zones did not sell their produce but consumed it. However in the case of plantain some families sold part of their produced and got an estimated income of about 800 000 Cedis (US$1=7000 Cedis). • The moist semi-deciduous zone (Eastern Region) had the highest diversity of yam and plantain. • There was a greater occurrence and diversity of pearl millet in the Sudan Savannah than in the Guinea Savannah.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all who helped to make this study a success. Our special thanks go to the Officer in Charge and the staff of the Agricultural Research Station at Okumaning (Kade) for the assistance they gave us in connection with the in-depth studies of plantains. We are grateful to Mr Opoku-Agyeman of the Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Bunso for his help in the in-depth studies of yams. We also wish to thank Mr Michael Asiedu of the Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Bunso for the analysis of data on the key species studies. We greatly appreciate the cooperation of the owners of the home gardens surveyed. Finally, we would like to express our profound gratitude to the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) and the German government (donors) for making this study possible. 96 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

References Abbiw, D. 1990. Useful plants of Ghana. Intermediate Technology Publications. London and The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Asare, E. O., S.K. Oppong and K. Twum-Ampofo. 1990. Home gardens in humid tropics of Ghana. Pp. 80–93 in Tropical Home Gardens (K. Landauer and M. Brazil, eds.). UNU Press, Tokyo, Japan. Dickson, K.B. and G. Benneh. 1988. A New Geography of Ghana, Revised Edition, Longman, Harlow, UK. Dokosi, O.B. 1969. Some herbs used in the traditional system of healing diseases in Ghana. Ghana J. Sci. 9(2): 119-130. Gessler, M., U. Hodel and P. Eyzaguirre. 1996. Home gardens and agrobiodiversity: current state of knowledge with reference to relevant literature. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Irvine, F.R. 1930. Plants of the Gold Coast. OUP, London, UK. Anonymous. 1961. Woody plants of Ghana. OUP, London, UK. Owusu, J.G.K., S.J. Quarshie-Sam, K.A. Nkyi and S. K. Oppong. 1994. Indigenous African food crops and useful plants, their preparations for food and home gardens in Ghana. UNU/INRA Natural Resources Survey Series No. B1. PROJECT REPORTS 97

Role of home gardens in the conservation of plant genetic resources in Vietnam

Luu Ngoc Trinh1, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Hue2, Nguyen Ngoc De3, Nguyen Van Minh4 and Phan Thi Chu5 1 Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI), Hanoi, Vietnam 2 VASI, Hanoi, Vietnam 3 Cantho University, Cantho, Vietnam 4 Oil Plant Institute, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 5 Phu Quy Fruit Crop Research Centre, Nghia quang, Vietnam

Introduction Aspects of home gardens in Vietnam There is a proverb in the Vietnamese language: “Benefits are generated first from home ponds through -breeding, second from home gardening, and third from field cultivation”. Home gardens, known in Vietnamese as ‘vuon nha’ have a long tradition in Vietnam. They are linked closely to the livelihood of Vietnamese farmers, especially those that are poor. The total area of home gardens in Vietnam was estimated at approximately 200 000 ha, or around 4.0% of the total area under agricultural production. Home garden area is lowest in the Red River Delta, with the average size 150 m2 and largest in the Central Plateau (West Highland) with the average size 0.5 ha. In 1997, home gardens, home ponds and home husbandry contributed 30% of the total agricultural production. Today home gardens receive increasing attention as a method of generating income and improving material and cultural living standards.

Importance of home gardens Home gardens help ensure food security for rural people, in particular for poor farmers. Home gardens can be considered to be a buffer maintaining the sustainability of rural livelihoods (Eyzaguirre et al. 2001). Home gardens assist in protecting the environment. A major part of the vegetables and fruits circulating in local markets are produced in home gardens. Their produce is ‘clean’ because there is almost no use of in gardening, contributing to environmental protection as well as public health. Home gardens take on the character of the surrounding ecological system, and provide a place where plants, animals, , microorganisms and soil and air media mutually interact to maintain the agroecological balance. They effectively protect soil from erosion. Home gardens prevent job deficits in rural areas. They can provide year-round work, using the farmers’ spare time but giving high value to a working day. Gardening is a recreational job, but can also generate high income. Gardening gives people jobs in rural areas while it allows them to leave the uncertainties of high-input agriculture. Home gardens support the process of economic development and modernization but do not increase urbanization. Home gardens have great economic potential. Production of litchi and longan in home gardens Northern Vietnam generates high income for farmers. In 1996, Vietnam exported US$120 million of cashew, all produced in home gardens.

Plant genetic resources in home gardens of Vietnam Home gardens in Northern Vietnam are characterized by having three groups of plant genetic resources: tropical, subtropical and temperate. Regarding the origin of the crop species and their varieties cultivated in home gardens, there are three categories: traditional plants, introduced plants already adapted and introduced plants under the process of domestication. 98 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Genetic erosion is extremely rare in home gardens. However, genetic erosion occurs in larger, intensively cultivated home gardens in areas oriented towards market production. There are numerous crop species cultivated only in home gardens, and not found in farm fields. These include valuable species of fruit trees, medicinal plants, beverage plants, ornamental plants, spices and tropical vegetables. The value of plant genetic resource conservation is high in sustainable intensive home gardens, intermediate in sustainable extensive gardens and low in those oriented towards market production (Trinh 1997, 1998). Since early 1996, the National Plant Genetic Resources Programme of Vietnam has been studying the subject of plant genetic resource conservation in home gardens. An important part of this study is an inventory of plant species and varieties found in home gardens. The resulting inventory of crop genetic resources in home gardens in three ecosystems (lowland coastal areas, highland and mountainous areas) is presented in this report. In those tables, plant species are listed in eight groups according to their economic importance: Fruit Crops, Vegetable Crops, Spice Crops, Medicinal Plants, Food Crops, Animal Food Crops, Wood and Made-Handicraft Plant, and Ornamental Plants.

Structure of Vietnamese home gardens Figure 1 shows the common structure of Vietnamese home garden. In Vietnam, houses are typically oriented to the South, especially in Northern Vietnam, where climatic conditions favour this arrangement. In the summer, a fresh cool wind comes from the south and in the winter a cold wind comes from the north, so the house is protected. In Southern Vietnam, houses are often oriented facing a road or waterway. An open space in front of the house with ornamentals and flowers is often placed on the household shrine. Medicinal and species are often located on the edge of the open porch area for easy access. Fruit trees are mostly located behind the house, with a few choice species in the front which additionally provide shade to the cleared porch area. In larger back or side area of the lowland garden (especially in the Mekong Delta), are dug to create raised beds for drainage in the rainy season and facilitate water supply in the dry season so that diverse types of crop species can be accommodated into small niches. Taro, chilli or mint can be planted under the fruit tree canopy layer. The ditches can also be used to provide a wet environment for species with high water need. In the Mekong Delta, home gardens are often connected with rice fields behind them. Bamboo often provides a side or back border of home garden, with cacti commonly used as a lower, front fence for the yard (Hodel et al. 1999; Tu Giay 1993). Types of home garden are diverse; however, they can be classified into general categories based on primary production systems, crop composition, and the structure of home gardens: • home gardens with fruit trees (e.g. South Vietnam) • home gardens with pond and covered livestock areas (e.g. Red river delta and Central Vietnam) • home gardens with vegetables (e.g. Red river delta and Central Vietnam) • home gardens with forest trees (e.g. Northern mountainous area).

Implementation of the project ‘Contribution of home gardens to the conservation of agrobiodiversity in ecosystems’ in Vietnam

Selection of macrosites Vietnam has seven agro-ecosystems. It was planned to implement the project in four of them: one in the north, one in the central region, one in the southeast and one in the southwest. Criteria of site selection included: • diverse agroecosystems, in terms of species and genetic diversity as well as horizontal and vertical heterogeneity • cultural and socioeconomic diversity PROJECT REPORTS 99

• importance of home gardens for livelihoods and community • perceived threat to traditional structure and composition of home gardens due to market forces and/or policy changes • existence of indigenous knowledge, skills and traditions in managing home garden system • community interest and cooperation • capacity of local research institutions • accessibility.

The criteria used in Vietnam are designed to capture the range of socio-economic, cultural and agroecological variability within the country. Four sites were chosen which reflect variations in demography and ethnicity, access to markets, distance from natural ecosystems, and environmental limitations (water availability, soil fertility, etc.). Nho quan was chosen as a site for northern Vietnam because of the already-established research links in the community, its accessibility to Hanoi (a two to three hour drive on paved roads), and its rich PGR diversity. The site is located in the transition between the mountain and the lowland area of the Red River Delta, and therefore includes species from both ecozones. This transition manifests itself in a landscape consisting of islands of limestone jutting above flat expanses of rice fields. The Red River Delta has been under cultivation for over 4000 years, and the home garden tradition in this area is 300–400 years old according to some estimates. Home garden area is small and they are cultivated intensively. In Nho quan, however, as in most places in Vietnam, the continuity of the home garden tradition was broken by war, and only rarely does one find a home garden more than 30–40 years old today. The Nghia site is representative of the ecozone of north-central Vietnam. Located 300 km to the south of Hanoi, its climate differs from that of the Nho quan; winter is the same, but summer is influenced by hot, dry winds from Laos. It is the home gardens site highest in elevation, in the midlands of Vietnam. This site is farthest from an urban center, and closest to natural forests. Many households surveyed at this site belong to the Tho and Thanh ethnic minorities, providing both a cultural and economic contrast to the other sites, who are predominantly Kinh and tend to have higher incomes. The district of Thuan an is located in the south-eastern basin, with a typically tropical climate with high temperatures year-round. The villages surveyed fall in the suburbs of Ho Chi Minh City, and are experiencing the effects of urbanization, nearby industrialization, and outmigration of young members of the community. Fruit tree diversity at the site is high. The district of Chau thanh is reached by a boat ride or drive of more than an hour from the city of Cantho, and is representative of the south-western basin of the Mekong Delta. It is a -based community located in the heart of the Mekong Delta. The families in this community have a rich gardening tradition, cultivating multi-story home gardens in which diversity was found to be high. The area is renowned for its Citrus production and most home gardens in the area tend to be larger than in other parts of Vietnam, with fruit orchards as their primary production system. A checklist questionnaire was carried out in November – December 1998 for up to 60 households at each site. When researchers first entered the villages, they discussed household selection with the district People’s Committee to structure the sample into different groups based on home garden size, diversity, household demographics, and age of home garden. Some households were excluded: those with very small gardens (less than 100 m2); those whose home garden was not productive for large parts of the year, and therefore did not fit with the working definition of a home garden for the project; or those who were newcomers to the area (had lived in the village only 2–5 years). The researchers then used key informants in the village (such as the headman) to select households with the most diversity and knowledge of gardening in order to provide a sample of the processes, interaction, and uses of plants in home garden management. Eventually, 30–35 households representing home gardens in their communities were selected for a more in-depth household survey. Researchers then confirmed 100 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

whether households selected by this method were suitable for the project and excluded outlier households, those not representative of the community in general. For instance, a household was rejected if it did not have a home garden, if the family recently moved to the area, if the household had skewed demographics (e.g. contained only an elderly couple). A household sample was then chosen, n=30 (n=35 at Thuan an). A baseline survey containing information on land use, home garden area, number of species grown, household ethnicity, education, yearly household income breakdown, labour and capital investment in HG per year was carried out through 1999. A second survey entitled ‘Crop species and their varieties cultivated in HG’ was completed in 2000, in which species were classified into five groups according to ecological structure and stories within the garden (Roots and Tubers, Shrubs and Climbers, etc). An inventory of PGR was compiled from the survey with supplemental information in farmer interviews. The survey focused on uses of HG plants, sources of germplasm, commercialization and also included a distribution and transect map of the household (Trinh et al. 2001).

Table 1. Descriptive general data of Vietnamese home garden sites (from District-level data) Geographical location North Central South Mekong Delta Province Ninh binh Nghe an Binh duong Can tho District Nho quan Nghia dan Thuan an Chau thanh Commune Phu Son; Nghia Quang Binh Nhan; Nhon Nghia XuanPhuong VinhPhu; Tan Binh Ecosystem Red River Delta Midlands—tropical Lowlands Mekong —tropical to subtropical and subtropical —tropical delta—tropical Altitude (m asl) 60 80 10 1 Avg yearly temperature (°C) 26 23.4 26.6 29.5 Mean annual rainfall (mm) 1900 1573.4 1388 1500–1800 Major soil types Loam and sandy soil Bazan Alluvial clay Clay Longitude 107°23’N 105°10’–105°34’N 106°55’–107°04’N 105°30’-105°45’ Latitude 21°5’E19°00’–19°32’E10°70’–10°62’E10°05’–10°20’ Land-use data (ha) Total land 49862 73767 7200 40604 Total agric. land 15623 25476 4489 35512 Area under rice 6525 3400 1838 20635 Area under non-rice crops 1285 7300 2651 14877 Forest plantation 8098 3455 135 83 Natural forest 5606 10414 425 – Major agricultural products Rice, corn, Rice, citrus, Rice, coconut, Rice, , sweet potato, anona black bean, cassava, , banana, pomelo, longan, yam, banana pomelo, luffa kumquat, banana, spinach Demographic data Official age Settled more than 1000 years Around 300 years Around 300 of communes (yrs): 1000 years ago years time settled District population 14251 185200 99892 280837 Pop. density (persons/ha) 1.09 2.51 13.9 6.9 Ethnic groups (%) Kinh: 89% Kinh 81% Kinh 98% Kinh- 99.7% Muong: 11% Tho and Thanh 19% Khmer Khmer and Hoa 2% and Hoa 0.3% Religion (%) Buddhist 95% Animist 4% Buddhist 98% Buddhist 100% Catholic 5% Buddhist 96% Ancestor Worship and Cao Dai 2% Adapted from Trinh et al. (2001). PROJECT REPORTS 101

Genetic diversity in Vietnamese home gardens Home gardens contain the most diversity in medicinal plants, followed by vegetables and fruit trees. Survey results also show that larger gardens tend to contain a greater number of species when compared to other home gardens; however, small gardens provide a higher number of species per unit of land area. The Mekong Delta has the largest home gardens in Vietnam, and the home gardens in this area contain a higher overall number of species. Home gardens in the Nho Quan site, however, contain a higher 2 number of species per 100 m . Pablo Eyzaguirre A home gardener showing varieties of taro, banana, pomelo and sweet potato in her home garden. Taro, banana and pomelo were chosen as key species for in-depth analysis.

Table 2. Average plant diversity at each site Region Ecosite Avg. no. species Range of species Avg. garden Avg. no. (district) per HG per ecosite size (m2) species/ (100 m2) N. Mountains: Nho quan 38.6 27–54 1407,9 2.7417 subtropical to temperate C. Midlands: Nghia dan 23.4 12–42 2771,7 0.8442 tropical and subtropical S. Lowland: Thuan an 50.3 36–78 2822,9 1.7819 typical tropical Mekong Delta: Chau thanh 53.9 20–103 7500 0.7187 typical tropical Adapted from Trinh et al. (2001).

Key species research Several key species cultivated in home gardens of Vietnam have been studied since the second year of the project’s implementation. Selection of key species was based on the following six criteria: • wide distribution in home gardens throughout the country • endemic to Vietnam • infraspecific genetic diversity • importance to farmer household livelihood • strong cultural connection and probability it will be maintained • multiple uses for plant parts. Four crops representative of traditional Vietnamese home garden composition and food culture were selected as key species: banana, pomelo, taro and tania, and luffa. Main descriptions of them are:

Banana (Musa spp.) is one of the leading fruit crop species of Vietnam. Banana is cultivated in almost every home garden in Vietnam. Ten species of the genus Musa are found in Vietnam, of which eight are cultivated in home gardens. Banana is used as fruit, staple food, vegetable and animal feed. Leaf and fibre of banana are important materials in daily use by the farmer. Pomelo—there exist in Vietnam two pomelo species, Citrus paradisi and C. maxima. Pomelo is one of five important fruits used by the Vietnamese at Tet, the New Year celebration and religious 102 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

ceremony. Famously delicious varieties of pomelo are cultivated in Vietnamese home gardens such as Buoi Doan Hung and Buoi Dien in the North, Buoi Phuc Trach and Buoi Huong Tra in the Central region, and Buoi Bien Hoa and Buoi Nam Roi in the South. Besides their primary use as a fruit, the pomelo leaf is used as medicine and as an excellent method for washing hair, and pomelo flower are currently used by some farmers to produce perfume. Taro and Tania. In Vietnam, taro has three species, Colocasia esculenta and C. antiquorum, of which the corm is used as food, and C. gigantean which is considered a valuable vegetable. Tania has two species: Xanthosoma sagittfolium and X. nigrum, both used as food and as a vegetable. Both Taro and Tania are important sources of animal feed (Zhu et al. 2000). Fig. 1. Typical home garden structure in Vietnam. Luffa—in Vietnam, luffa has two species. Luffa cylindrica is cultivated throughout the country and L. anguiculata is cultivated only in midland and mountain areas. Luffa is a favourite vegetable of in Vietnamese culture.

Table 4. Varietal diversity of key species in home gardens at 4 ecosites in Vietnam (He 1991) Target Varieties in Nho Quan Varieties in Varieties in Thuan An Varieties in Chau Thanh Nghia Dan Crops PRA Baseline PRA PRA Baseline PRA Baseline Pomelo 1. Dao 1. Dao 1. NN1 1. Bien Hoa Bien Hoa 1. Nam roi 1. Nam roi (Citrus grandis) 2. My 2. Lai 2. Phuc 2. Chum Chum 2. Thanh Tra 2. Thanh Tra 3. Chum 3. Chum Trach 3. Nam Roi Nam Roi 3. Bien Hoa 3. Bien Hoa 4. Doan 4. Doan 3. Chua 4. Thanh Tra Thanh Tra 4. Day Hung Hung 4. Son Hong 5. Chua 5. Chua 5. Dao 5. Do Oi 5. Ruot do 6. Lai 6. Ngot Bi 7. Oi 8. Bi 9. Hong Total 6 5 5 9 7 5 3 Banana 1. Teu 1. Tieu 6. Tieu 1. Xiem Xiem 1. Xiem 1. Xiem (Musa spp.) 2. Hot 2. Hot 7. Da Huong 2. Su Su 2. Cao 2. Cao 3. Tay 3. Tay 8. Cao 3. Gia Gia 3. Gia cui 3. Gia cui 4. Rung 4. Mat 9. Ngu 4. Hot Hot 4. Gia lun 4. Hot 5. Canh 5. Lun 10. Lan 5. Cau Cau 5. Hot 5. Com 6. Lun 11. Chua 6. Sap Sap 6. Ta qua 6. Su 7. Tieu Tieu 7. Su 8. Ta qua Ta qua 8. Com 9. Do 9. La PROJECT REPORTS 103

Total 6 5 6 9 8 9 6 Luffa 1. Chau 1. Trau 5. Huong 1. Trau Trau 1. Huong 1. Huong (Luffa cylindrica) 2. Huong 2. Huong 6. Chau 2. Huong Huong 2. Khia 2. Khia 3. Khia 3. Khia 3. Khia Khia 3. Dai 4. Thuong 4. Dai 4. Den Dai 5. Dai 5. Dai 6. Tay Total 7 4 2 6 4 3 2 Taro 1. Nuoc tia 1. Nuoc tia 8. So 1. So So 1. Cao 1. Cao (Colocasia 2. Nuoc Trang 2. Nuoc Trang 9. Ngua 2. Sap Sap 2. Say 2. Say esculenta, 3. Ngan ngay 3. Lui 10. Mung 3. Tim Tim 3. Ngot 3. Ngot Xanthosoma 4. Lui 4. Doc mung 4. Ngua Ngua 4. Nuoc 4. Nuoc sagittifolium ) 5. Doc mung 5. Tam dao xanh 5. Nuoc Nuoc 5. Sap 5. Sap 6. Tam 6. Tam dao tia 6. Cao Ngot dao xanh 7. Sap 7. Ngot 7. Tam dao tia Total 7 6 4 7 6 5 5

Table 5. Role of gender in decision-making on cultivation of species in home gardens No. Crop species group Husband (%) Wife (%) Both (%) 1 Starch/c alorie-rich food crops 23 63 14 2 Cash crops 30 50 20 3 Fruit trees 67 30 3 4 Medicinal plants 29 62 9 5 Ornamental plans 76 15 9 6 Roots and tubers 20 73 7 7 Spice plants 20 75 5 8 Vegetable crops 21 72 7

Role of home gardens in the strategy for plant genetic resource conservation in Vietnam Through the assessment of agrobiodiversity and inventory of crop genetic resources conducted by this project, it is clearly seen that the home gardens of Vietnam contain important biodiversity. Home gardens are an ideal method of conserving plant genetic resources in situ because the number of crop species grown in home gardens is much more than that in farmers’ fields and genetic erosion is rare in the home garden farming system. Home gardens are safe refuges for numerous crop species. The strategy of plant genetic resource conservation in Vietnam formulated by the NPGR Program is as follows: 1. Annual Food Crops—Cereals, Legumes, Tubers and Oil Seed Crops. Approach: ex situ conservation in genebanks, complemented with on-farm conservation. 2. Vegetable and Spice Crops Approach: Combination of two methods, ex situ conservation in genebank and in situ conservation in home gardens. 3. Perennial Fruit Crops Approach: In situ conservation, in fields and home gardens, as well as concentrated plantations managed by the formal sector. 4. Perennial Industrial Crops Approach: In situ conservation in concentrated plantations, complemented by home gardens. 104 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

5. Animal Food Crops Approach: In situ conservation in home gardens and on farms. 6. Medicinal Plants Approach: Ex situ conservation in seed genebanks, field genebanks and in situ conservation in home gardens In order to establish the in situ conservation of crop genetic resources in home gardens as a stable method and to strengthen its efficiency, first there should be promotion of the study of the ethnobotany of home garden crops to widen the understanding of the utilization of crop genetic resources already conserved in this special kind of ecosystem (Trinh 1997, 1998).

Proposed plan for future research Based on the above analysis, some issues should be further studied: 1. Assessment and documentation of indigenous knowledge on the use of local genetic diversity. 2. Study of the dynamic processes of PGR evolution under home garden management for establishing proper strategies of genetic diversity conservation and development. 3. Study of socio-economic aspects of gardening with emphasis on the link between home garden and livelihood and gender issues. 4. Contribution to home garden diversity and adding value through PPB/PVS.

References Eyzaguirre, P., G.J. Martin and S. Barrow (eds). 2001. Growing Diversity, Conserving Plant Genetic Resources. People and Plants Handbook #7. UNESCO/WWF/IPGRI. Friis-Hansen, E. and B. Sthapit, eds. 2000. Participatory Approaches to the Conservation and Use of PGR Management. IPGRI, Rome, Italy Hé, P.H. 1991. The Plants of Vietnam. Mekong Printing, Santa Ana, USA. (in Vietnamese). Hodel, U., M. Gessler, H.H. Cai, V.V. Thoan, N.V. Ha, N.X. Thu and T. Ba. 1999. In situ conservation of plant genetic resources in home gardens of southern Vietnam. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Rocheleau, D. E. 1989. Gender Division of Work, Resources, and Rewards in Agroforestry Systems. Second Kenya National Seminar on Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. Trinh L.N. 1997. Crop Genetic Resources Diversity in Indochina and Available Approaches for Its Conservation. In Plant Genetic Resources Characterization and Evaluation, New Approaches for Improved Use of Plant Genetic Resources. Proceeding of the 4th MAFF Workshop on Genetic Resources, Tsukuba, Japan, 22–4 October 1996. Trinh, L.N. 1998. Crop genetic resources in home gardens of Vietnam and issues of their in situ conservation. Paper presented at the Implementation Meeting of the Global Project ‘he contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems’, Cali, Colombia, October 1998. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Trinh, L.N., J.W. Watson, N.N. Hue, N.N. De, N.V. Minh, P. Chu, B.R. Sthapit and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 2001. Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Development in Vietnamese Home Gardens. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. In press. Tu Giay. 1993. ECO-VAC Systems. Hanoi, Vietnam. Zhu, D., P.B. Eyzaguirre, M. Zhou, L. Sears and G. Liu (eds.). 2000. Proceedings of the Symposium of Ethnobotanical and Genetic Study of Taro in China: Approaches for the Conservation and Use of Taro Genetic Resources, 10–12 November 1998, Laiyang Agricultural College, Laiyang, Shangdong, China. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. CASE STUDIES 105

Case studies Home gardens in Nepal: status and scope for research and development

Pratap Shrestha1, Resham Gautam1, Ram Bahadur Rana1 and Bhuwon Sthapit2 1 LI-, Pokhara, Nepal 2 IPGRI-APO, Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Abstract The paper presents the status of home gardens in Nepal. It analyses the research and development issues necessary for home gardens to be included as a strategy for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources and improving family nutrition and income of rural people. The analysis is based on observation of home gardens in different parts of the country and a review of the limited studies available to date. Home gardens in Nepal play an important role in meeting household requirements of food, medicine, fodder, firewood and timber. There is rich diversity in the type, composition and structure of Nepalese home gardens, and this diversity is influenced by a number of social and ecological factors. The report highlights the gross lack of scientific information about home gardens in the country and emphasises the urgent need for a systematic research to generate information upon which future strategies for home gardens in Nepal can be based.

Background Nepal is a mountainous country located between 26°22’N to 30°27’N latitudes and 80°4’E to 88°12’E longitudes. It extends from the Indo-gangetic plains (called terai) in the South with an altitude of about 60 m asl to Mount Everest, the highest peak of the world, in the North. The country is divided into five ecological regions: the Himalayas (above 4000 m asl); high hills or mountains (2000–4000 m asl); mid-hills or mountains (1500–2000 m asl); the Siwalik (300–1500 m asl); and the Terai (below 300 m asl). The climatic conditions vary sharply from tropical (South) to freezing alpine (North) across these ecological regions. The extreme variation in altitude, complex topography, climatic conditions, socio-cultural composition of the communities and farming practices have evolved immense diversity in natural flora and fauna as well as in cultivated crop species. The richness in the bio-diversity of the country can be estimated from the fact that Nepal’s share of world’s flowering plants exceeds 2% while its land area comprises no more than 0.1 percent of the total world area (Ryman 1992). Nearly 81% of the people in the country rely on agriculture for their livelihood (CBS 1999). The farming is largely subsistence-oriented. Farmers are predominantly small holders with an average holding of less than 1 hectare of cultivated land (CBS 1999). Coupled with a large family size (5.6 persons per household) and low productivity of the food crops (less than 2 t/ha for major cereals), majority of the farming households experience food deficit during the year. These farmers adopt a variety of coping strategies, including collecting wild and uncultivated foods during the deficit months (LI-BIRD, 1999). Home gardens, with their intensive and multiple uses, provide a good back- up system for these households and thus is an integral and important component of the Nepalese farming system. Home gardens are equally important for the other (non-deficit) households in supplementing family nutrition, providing quality food and meeting other household requirements. Home gardens in Nepal are valued for their aesthetics, and are regarded as symbol of wealth and social prestige. These gardens also serve as good reservoirs for a wide range of plant species and an excellent means of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity. Broadly, the term ‘home garden’ refers to the traditional land use practices around a homestead where several species of plants are planted and maintained by members of the household and their products are intended primarily for household consumption. The concept of home gardens in Nepal 106 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

is, however, not quite clear and often overlaps with the environment found in the surrounding agro- 1 2 ecosystems. These are locally termed as bari in the plains and ghar-bari (differentiated from pakho- 3 4 bari and khar-bari representing larger production systems) in the hills. They consist of a number of distinct and diverse components or sub-systems carefully integrated to maximise space use, production and other household benefits. These home gardens are land use systems, which involve the management of multipurpose trees, shrubs, annual and perennial agricultural crops, spices, herbs and medicinal plants, and animals on the same land units in a spatial or temporal sequence. Home gardens provide good ecological and social conditions for understanding and contributing to in situ conservation of diversity and evolution of plant genetic resources (Hammer et al. 1992). Earlier research (IPGRI 1998) has already confirmed the importance of home gardens in on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity. Despite these realisations, very little research has been done to look into inter- and intra-species diversity, and the potential role of home gardens as viable conservation units within farming systems. Similarly, the ecological and social factors, which have bearing on the dynamics (changes in size, structure, composition and uses) of home gardens, have not been well understood. The contribution of home gardens in meeting family nutrition and supplementing family income is also not well established. For these reasons, it has been difficult to include home gardens as a useful strategy for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Nepal and similar South Asian countries. Based on the authors’ own observation and experiences along with the limited literature available, this paper explores the importance of the home gardens in the livelihoods of the people and its contribution to the conservation of plant genetic resources in Nepal.

Importance of home gardens in Nepal Although a detailed study on the role of home gardens is still lacking, the following points illustrate its importance and uses in Nepal.

Home gardens as a source of livelihood Food security, nutrition and cash income In rural areas of Nepal, which contain about 90% of the total population (CBS 1999), home gardens are one of the important sources of food and supply most of the household requirements of vegetables and fruits. Home gardens are also maintained in urban areas in different forms and sizes and contribute to the daily supply of vegetables and fruits; however, information on this system is almost non-existent. A survey in the western hills of Nepal shows that 85–94% of households rely entirely on home gardens for a year-round supply of vegetables (Shrestha and Gurung 1997). Similarly, 57–81% households have fruit trees in their home garden. The variety of annual and perennial crops and vegetables grown in these gardens provide a secure supply of fresh produce throughout the year and meet the food and nutritional requirements of the family (Table 1). Maize grown in home gardens is harvested and eaten green to supplement the declining stock of the old harvest. Similarly, corm of taro, yam and phul tarul (a with edible yam-like roots), and potato are supplemented with staple cereals to prolong their availability in the family. In the hills, many seasonal uncultivated vegetables also supplement the staple food, for example: githa, bhyakur (Dioscorea deltoidea), lude (Amaranthus vividis), niuro (Dryopteris spp.), jaluka (a wild taro), and sisnu (Urtica ardens). The home garden food and vegetable species also have multiple uses and multiple harvest times, and this year-round availability helps diversify sources and types of micronutrients in the daily diet. For example, pumpkin (Cucurbita muschata) is used for its tender shoot, flower and fruits; chayote (Sechium edule) is used for its tender shoot, fruits and yam-like roots; and taro (Colocassia esculenta) is used for its leaf, petiole, corm and cormels. Similarly, home gardens also provide a number of green leafy vegetables, which are rich in micronutrients (Agte et al. 2000). Home garden crops, vegetables and fruits are largely grown organically and therefore provide safe and healthy food for household CASE STUDIES 107

consumption. In the terai (plain) region of Nepal and in hill areas with market access, people also sell vegetables and fruits grown in their home garden to supplement their cash income. These commonly include pumpkin, sponge gourd (Luffa cylindrica), bottle gourd, cucumber, chayote, taro, oal (Amorphophallus campanulatus) and amaranthus along with other vegetables; and guava, mango, litchi, banana, pineapple, badahar (Artocarpus lakoocha), amala, bayar, jackfruit, , peach, plum and many other fruits (see Table 1).

Trees for food, fodder, firewood and timber A variety of trees are found integrated within a majority of the home gardens in Nepal (Table 2). This is more common in the terai and middle hills than in the high hills. These trees usually have multiple uses and provide food, fodder, firewood and timber for household uses. Because livestock are an integral part of the farming systems and are generally kept within homestead, fodder trees have special place in home gardens, especially in the middle hills. The twigs and branches of fodder trees left after the leaves have been eaten are used as firewood for household cooking. Timber and firewood trees, however, are limited in type and number. Home garden trees are also commonly used as support for trailing vines of a number of vegetables (beans, yams, chayote, gourds, pumpkin, cucumber etc.). They provide a variety of foods such as flower buds, e.g. koiralo (Bauhinia variegata); leaf buds such as kavro (Ficus lacor) and siplican (Crataeva religiosa); vegetables like drumstick (Moringa oleifera) and katahar (Artocarpus heterophyllus); and fruits such as badahar (Artocarpus lakoocha), kimbu (Morus spp.) and kaphal (Myrica esculenta). These products are used to prepare special Nepali cuisine and are considered great .

Spices and medicinal plants uses a variety of spices, and the taste and of Nepali food depends on the use of a proper mix of a number of important spices. Spicy food is always regarded as the pride and prestige of a household. For this reason, a number of spices, such as chili, , , , garlic, , onion, , and timur (Xanthoxylum armatum) among others are often found Nepalese home gardens (Table 2). Similarly, people also keep a number of medicinal plants in their home garden for their day-to-day household uses because they often have very poor access to modern medicines and medical facilities (Tables 2 and 3). Of these, tulsi (Ocimum sanctum), babari (Ocinum basilicum), marathi, pudina (Mentha spicate), ginger, timur and bojo (Acorus calamus) are commonly used to cure colds, coughs and stomach disorders. Rawolfolia serpentine, traditionally used to cure snakebites, is carefully maintained in home gardens in different parts of Nepal. Traditional healers (dhami and jhakri) and medical practitioners (vaidya) tend to maintain a range of medicinal plants in their home gardens and use them in their treatments.

Green manure and crops Home gardens, especially in the middle hills, contain a number of plant species used for green manure to improve soil fertility and for natural pest control for crop and storage pests (Table 2). Asuro (Adhatoda visica), titepati (Artemisia vulgaris), khirro (Sapium insinge) and Ankhitare (Walsura trijuga) are common green manure crops planted on the boundaries of home gardens as live fences and are also used as green inside the garden and rice nursery. The leaves and stem of Titepati; the leaves, bark and seeds of bakaino (Melia azadirach) and neem (Azadirachta indica); the fruit of timur; and the rhizomes of bojo: these are all used to control a variety of crop and storage pests. Since a majority of farmers use very little or no chemical fertilizers and pesticides in their home gardens, these plant species play an important role in maintaining soil fertility and controlling pests.

Cultural and religious use Home gardens are the domain of a number of plant species that are closely linked with the culture and religion of the particular community in different parts of the country. A study by Gurung and 108 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Vaidya (1998) in the western hills of Nepal has established a relationship between food culture and the diversity of plant species maintained in the home garden. Nigalo (Drepanostachyum spp.), tusa (young bamboo shoots) and bamboo tama (fermented young shoot) are important delicacies for hill people. These plans are, however, rarely used for food in terai region because they are regarded as precious construction materials. Newars (a dominant ethnic group) in the Kathmandu valley specifically maintain Cholecha (Allium spp.), black soybean, garlic, shallot, chamsur (Lepidium sativum) and red turnip in their home gardens because these plants are commonly used in cultural ceremonies and feasts. Hill people in Eastern and Western Nepal tend to keep broad leaf mustard, garlic, tree tomato (Cyphomendra betacea), cherry tomatoes, chayote and radish in their home gardens because they are important parts of their food culture. On the other hand, oal, drumstick, lapha sag and patuwa sag (leafy vegetables) are delicacies of terai people. Banana, sugarcane and ginger are carefully maintained in the home garden in terai because they are specifically required for the chhat festival (one of the most important religious ceremonies). Similarly, food prepared from oal is necessary for one of the many local ceremony in the Eastern terai, and therefore it is a commonly grown vegetable in terai home gardens. Nepal is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country and its people are deeply religious. There are many plant species in home gardens that are largely kept for their religious value. For example, besides the medicinal value of tulasi (Ocimum sanctum), it is regarded as a sacred plant (an incarnation of the god Vishnu), and therefore is planted on a specially built structure called a matha and worshipped and watered daily. Dubo (Cynadon dactylone) is another species required for daily puja (worship) and other religious occasions. Many home gardeners in terai keep bel (Aegle marmelos) for its leaves, which are given as a special offering to the god Shiva. Many households, especially in urban areas, have now also started to plant pipal (Ficus religiosa), also regarded as incarnation of god Vishnu, for their daily worship. Brahmin and Chhetri ethnic groups are very particular about having these plant species in their home gardens.

Space for introduction, domestication and experimentation Home gardens are found to provide space for the introduction of new species and the domestication of wild plants. They also serve as experimental plots, where people breed new varieties of crops and test different management practices out of curiosity, as a hobby, or to satisfy family needs and suit the microenvironment of their home garden. Rana bagaincha (palace gardens) are the classical example of the introduction of new plant species in home gardens (Kaini 1995; Pandey 1995). During the Rana regime (1846–1950), Rana rulers introduced a number of new fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants as well as new varieties into their palace gardens in Kathmandu and in other parts of Nepal. The same is seen in the home gardens and phulbari (orchards) of big landlords (previously called jamindar). Similarly, people who are frequent travellers to different parts of the country, or to India and other parts of the world, have introduced a number of new species of fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal plants. Coffee, tea, cardamom, avocado, cashew nut and different varieties of grapes are some examples of such introduction in the hills, while coconut, betel nut, and were introduced to the terai. A variety of fodder trees, cinnamon, marathi, sal (Shorea robusta) and lapsi (Choerospondias axillaris) are some examples of domestication in home gardens. Home gardens, in this way, appear to have served as a good venue for introducing, enhancing and maintaining a wide range of genetic diversity on-farm.

Space for maintenance of unique plant species and varieties Home gardens have often been a place for the maintenance of unique plant species in the community, either introduced or underutilized species. Quantitative information is not available, but our observations and anecdotal reports show a number of such cases. Madale kankro (a large cucumber specially used for making pickles) and dalle kankro (an oval-shaped cucumber); basaune ghiraula (an aromatic sponge gourd) (Pandey et al. 2001); jire khursani (a small hot chilli); koira (a local CASE STUDIES 109

turnip variety) (Lohar et al. 1993); and thulo cauli (a large, green local cauliflower) are some such cases. Rana palace gardens, discussed earlier, contain a number of these. Home gardens, therefore, play an important role in the conservation of unique/rare plant species, which are not found in the larger eco-system and are on the verge of extinction.

Improving the homestead environment Some of the tree and plant species are specifically planted in the home garden to improve the environment around the homestead. These include ashoka (Saraca indica), neem, kadam (Anthocephalus kadamba), gulmohar (Delonix regia), ( ganitrus) and a number of species (both trees and shrubs). These trees provide shade and clean air for the homestead, and beautify the surroundings. Ashoka, neem and tulasi are also believed to repel insects from the homestead. Shade trees are a more common feature in the homesteads of terai than in the hills.

Symbol of social status and pride Home gardens in Nepal have always been a symbol of social status. Size, composition of species, attractive layout and cleanliness are the key features of home gardens the owner takes pride in. Wealthy families have bigger home gardens, a larger number of unique plant species, and greater diversity (Rana et al. 2000a) than poor families. Rana palace gardens in and around the Kathmandu valley and the large home gardens and bagaincha (fruit orchards) of jamindar (landlords) were purposely designed to reflect their status through their size and diversity. Home gardens, therefore, can reflect social values and the fact that they are prized in Nepal has contributed to their wide diversity and continued maintenance.

Contribution to the conservation of plant genetic resources The points discussed above clearly indicate that home gardens play an important role in the conservation of plant genetic resources, serving as a refuge to a number of plant species, particularly those not widely grown in the larger agroecosystem.

Types and features of home gardens in Nepal Information on detailed typology, species diversity and other features of home gardens in Nepal is not well documented. Our observations indicate that there is diversity in the types of home gardens in Nepal as we travel from east to west and south to north in the country. Diversity is also observed in the composition and structure of these home gardens. Based on our own observations and the limited literature available, an attempt is made here to characterise Nepalese home gardens.

Types of Nepalese home gardens Different types of home gardens generally observed in various parts of Nepal are listed in Table 4. This home garden typology is derived from the terms people locally use to refer to the home gardens and the related structures, and is largely based on the location (in relation to the house) and composition of these gardens. If we stick to the generally accepted definition of home garden, (i.e. a fenced or protected area around homestead where crops, vegetables, fruits, medicinal, spices, fodder and other plant species are intensively integrated), then only bari and ghar-bari truly represent home gardens in Nepal. However, other types also show some features and uses of home gardens and, therefore, are described here as variants of home gardens. Bari, in terai and ghar-bari, literally meaning a fenced area around house, is the most common type of home garden in Nepal. These home gardens are maintained around the homestead and are generally fenced to keep livestock away from the area. Goth-bari, literally meaning a fenced area around the goth (animal shed), is an imitation of ghar-bari in the hills. People who do not have enough space around their house keep their animals near the cultivated land at a convenient distance away from family home. The goth-bari is the area also used for growing a number of 110 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

vegetables, fruits and fodder trees. Tarkari bari, literally meaning a fenced vegetable-growing area, is maintained by farmers of Koiri ethnic group, who are traditionally engaged into commercial vegetable farming in the terai region of Eastern Nepal. Tarkari bari is generally located away from home but close to the village for ease of supervision and is usually maintained when the bari home garden is very small in size. Dumna, locally meaning upland, is similar to tarkari bari and is maintained by farmers of Tharu ethnic community in mid- to far-Western Nepal. Dumna is also located away from home generally on an upland portion of the rice field. The area is not fenced, and rice and other crops surrounding it act as fence to keep off the animals. Karesa bari, literally meaning a garden located behind house and also termed as ‘’, is an introduced terminology used by development agencies (both government and I/NGOs) to refer to an area allocated separately within the homestead for year-round vegetable production. It is, therefore, a sub-system of a home garden where seasonal and mostly modern and exotic varieties of vegetables are promoted with the primary objective of meeting the nutritional requirements of the family. Bagaincha in the valleys and hills and phulbari in terai and inner terai region are basically fruit orchards, which may be located close to the homestead or away from the home but near the village. Rana bagaincha in the Kathmandu valley and suntala bagaincha (orange orchards) in the middle hills are examples of bagaincha. Mango orchards in terai are an example of phulbari. Bagaincha and phulbari that are located close to or inside the homestead have many features of bari and ghar-bari and can be regarded as fruit-dominant home gardens.

Features of Nepalese home gardens

Composition Common types of Nepalese home gardens such as bari and ghar-bari are largely vegetable-dominant, with many types and varieties of vegetables integrated with spices, medicinal plants, fruits and multipurpose trees of various types. These home gardens have great diversity in plant species with multiple uses and are purposely maintained to meet the diverse needs of the family (Table 1). Our survey of 29 households in Kaski district of Western Nepal shows that on an average people maintain about 14 species of vegetables, 5 species of fruit and 5 species of fodder trees in their home gardens. Although commercial vegetables and their varieties are increasingly finding their way into them, maintenance of indigenous vegetables and their varieties is still a striking feature of Nepalese home gardens. Another interesting feature of home gardens is a preference for a large number of perennial vegetables, such as yam, taro, chayote, drumstick, tree tomato, as well as vegetable varieties of aubergine, taro, tomatoes, chilies and the vegetatively-propagated thulo cauli. Integration of fodder tree species is a unique feature of hill home gardens, while in terai home gardens a large number of fruit and shade tree species can be found. The species composition of goth-bari gardens is more or less similar to bari/ghar-bari home gardens but is less intensive, for instance it contains less species diversity and is planted less densely. Tarkari bari and dumna are similar in composition to each other, consisting of annual and perennial vegetables with none or very few trees on the boundary. Similarly, bagaincha and phulbari are basically fruit gardens dominated by a single fruit species, for example orange in hill bagaincha and mango in terai phulbari. Intra-species diversity however, does exist in these gardens. The Rana bagaincha in Kathmandu valley consists of a variety of fruits, and many mango phulbaris in terai consist of a diversity of other trees, such as jackfruit, badahar, jamun, sapota (Achras sapota) and coconut.

Structural features The high species diversity in bari/ghar-bari is structured into multi-layered systems of home gardens. The varieties of species found in these home gardens are systematically arranged in close association with each other in more than three layers utilising the vertical space. Tall trees tend to be placed along the boundary of the home garden to serve as a live fence boundary and to avoid shade in bulk CASE STUDIES 111

of the garden. Farmers have good knowledge of the compatibility of different home garden species and experience in orient them in symbiotic relationships. The features of plant species in the different layers are given below.

• Top layer: containing large fruit trees (such as mango, jackfruit, jamun, guava, pear, peach etc.), fodder trees and other multipurpose trees. • Middle layer: containing shrub-like species of fruits (papaya, banana, citrus etc.), vegetables (tree tomato, drumstick, cassava etc.), and climbers (gourds, yam, chayote, cucumber, pumpkin, beans etc.). • Lower layer: consisting mostly of vegetables (okra, chillies, aubergine, cauliflower, taro etc.), spices (ginger, turmeric, coriander etc.), and herbs (tulasi, babari, marathi etc.). • Ground layer: consisting of creepers (sweetpotato, lahare sag, etc.), root crops (radish, turnip, carrot, etc.) and spices (coriander, marathi, etc.)

The number of species and diversity decreases as one moves from lower layer to top layer, and this is purposefully and carefully done to avoid competition for light and nutrients. Tarkari bari, dumna and karesa bari are home garden varieties that contain fewer layers; they mostly have ground and lower layers. In very few instances they can reach the middle layer with fruit trees like papaya, guava and banana. Bagaincha and phulbari generally have a top layer with a weakly integrated middle layer. These gardens, however, when established within the homestead, have all four layers as in bari/ghar-bari home gardens.

Management features Intensive care and management are common features of all types of home gardens, except for bagaincha and phulbari. Since home gardens are located around the home, family members are able to give more attention and care to the plants grown there. Home gardens often receive a heavy application of animal manure and the soil is more fertile than in the larger agro-ecosystem. Lohar et al. (1993) have estimated that farmers in the Western hills of Nepal use more than 50 t/ha of animal manure in the home garden. Leaf litters, crop by-products, and ash from the kitchen are also used to add fertility to home garden soil. Home gardens in Nepal are generally managed in a low external-input system and, therefore, production is largely organic. The use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides is extremely rare Home garden produce, therefore, is healthy and safe. Even those farmers who grow commercial vegetables have been seen to grow organic vegetables in their home gardens for family consumption in various parts of Nepal. The seeds and planting materials of home garden species are maintained to a large extent by the owners of the home gardens themselves (Rana et al. 1998, Shrestha 1998). The seeds and planting materials brought from outside are obtained largely through exchange within the community or region (Shrestha 1998, Subedi et al. 2001). Our own observation and a limited study (Rana et al. 1998, Baniya et al. 2001) show that farmers experiment with the selection of seeds and planting materials and even go as far as breeding (selection from naturally created variation as well as crossing ) to generate diversity in the existing stock of home garden species. Diversity in chillie varieties in home gardena is a result of such processes. The owners of home gardens also have very specific knowledge and experience on selection techniques for seeds and planting materials. Baniya et al. (2001) have found that farmers use different methods for the selection of planting material for different varieties of taro (i.e. use different plant parts). Women are generally the custodians of home garden and devote much of their time in care and management of the home garden. Men also contribute to the maintenance of home gardens and they have been seen as more important in the introduction of new diversity in these gardens. It is also commonly observed that men tend to introduce exotic commercial fruit trees into the home garden 112 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

whereas women prefer to maintain traditional vegetables and other plant species that are required in the kitchen on regular basis. Gender relations within the home garden are, however, a matter of future study.

Use features Home garden plant species have diverse and multiple uses and are maintained to meet household requirements for food, vegetables, spices, medicines, fodder, firewood, timber, and a number of other uses. Home garden production systems are, therefore, subsistence-oriented and plant species are carefully selected to distribute their availability throughout the year as well as to satisfy taste and food habits. However, in communities which have market access, home garden production is often semi-commercial and part of the produce is sold to the market to supplement the cash income of the family. In such home gardens, commercial vegetables, fruits and spices dominate the area, often gradually displacing the indigenous species (Rana et al. 1998). Urban home gardens, however, should not be taken as synonymous with semi-commercial home gardens. Urban home gardens represent different home garden systems but resemble rural home gardens in many respects. While the details of this system are yet to be researched, it has been observed that urban home gardens maintain many indigenous plant species that are not commonly available in the market.

Factors affecting the composition and structure of Nepalese home gardens Our observations show a considerable variation in the composition and structure of home gardens in Nepal. Some major factors causing this variation are discussed below.

Agroecology The agroecology of a particular region and location has been found to influence species composition and their structural layout in the home gardens to a great extent. For example, tropical plant species, such as mango, coconut, papaya and oal are common in the home gardens in terai region while sub- tropical to temperate species, such as peach, pear, chayote are common in the composition of hill home gardens. The number of vertical layers in the home gardens decreases with the increase in altitude to provide more light and heat to the lower-layer species. The home gardens in high hills have none or very few high trees whereas terai home gardens have dense tree layers.

Wealth status A number of studies indicate that wealthy/rich households maintain more diversity in their home gardens than poor households (Rana et al. 2000a,b). The wealthier households have bigger home gardens, have greater mobility and access to new genetic materials and are motivated to create diversity for the attached social prestige. The fact that diversity in the home garden has strong positive correlation to the size of the home garden has also been reported from a number of countries (IPGRI 1998).

Ethnicity and food culture Ethnicity and food culture in Nepal are closely associated and this in turn has also been observed to influence the choice of plant species in the home gardens. Tasi (a citrus species) and cholecha are found in Newars gardens; bhote lasun (a garlic variety) and rayo sag (broad leaf mustard) are commonly planted by highlanders; and oal and lapha sag (Malva verticillata) and patuwa sag (Corchorus spp.) are culturally valuable for terai families and are commonly found in their home gardens. Similarly, tulsi is always kept for its religious and medicinal values in the home gardens of Brahmin and Chhetri households.

Gender It was generally observed that women play an important role in the management of home gardens as well as in the introduction and maintenance of plant diversity. Women are primarily responsible CASE STUDIES 113

for the daily preparation of food for the family, and decide what to prepare and how to prepare it, so they exert a large influence on the composition and structure of home gardens. Women have also been found to introduce diversity in home gardens by bringing new plant species from their parental home. Gender roles, however, also depend on the ethnic and cultural background of the gardener; for instance, in terai ethnic communities men play equally important roles in the management and introduction of new diversity into the home gardens (Subedi et al. 2001).

Information on use value It has been observed that when people come to know more about a species that is new to them, they are more interested in its introduction into their home gardens. This has been found to be more common with spices and medicinal plants. The increasing introduction of neem tree in many parts of lower hills is a good example. This has also encouraged domestication of some medicinal plants otherwise only found in the wild. People have also been found to keep a number of varieties of certain species for their different use values. This is quite commonly found in the case of taro (Rijal et al. 2001).

Mobility and exposure Increased mobility, exposure and access to new places and information have been observed to influence the composition of the home gardens in Nepal. Rana palace gardens are example of this. Subedi, et al. (2001) have found that nodal farmers, who have contact with outside communities, are more likely to maintain higher plant diversity. Similarly, lahures (people working in the Indian and British Gurkha army) have introduced a number of exotic plant species into their home gardens. Farmers’ study tours have been increasingly organised by development agencies, which also helps farmers to increase home garden plant diversity. Mobility has usually promoted the introduction of new and unique plant species into the home gardens in many communities.

Migration Migration is another factor that has helped introduce new plant species into an area and increase home garden diversity. Because of food habits and use association, people carry a variety of plant species when they migrate to new area. In the Chitwan (inner terai) valley, which has a high concentration of migrants from all over Nepal, people have introduced a wide range of new plant species into their home gardens. Food crops like buckwheat, niger and a number of fodder trees and green manure crops (such as asuro in Chitwan, bhote lasun in lower hills and broad leaf mustard in terai) are good examples of this. If these plant species survive in the new environment, then it also find their ways to the home gardens of other people in the community.

Market access Market access encourages people in peri-urban areas and close to roads to maintain semi- commercial home gardens. In such home gardens, plant species composition is influenced by market demands. For example, seasonal commercial vegetables, like cauliflower, cabbage, okra, radish and beans are more common in such home gardens while perennial vegetables are characteristic of traditional home gardens. Similarly, there is less integration of fruit trees and the overall structure is less layered with an emphasis on short duration, high input vegetables. The diversity in such home gardens is also low and declining (Rana et al. 1998). It has also been observed that commercialisation of home gardens has also eroded indigenous management practices and associated knowledge. Market access, however, can also lead to promotion and conservation of indigenous plant species, especially in urban home gardens, where these are not easily available in the market. The latter aspect needs verification from empirical study.

Access to development activities The composition and structure of home gardens in Nepal are also increasingly being influenced by 114 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

development activities targeted to improve family nutrition through kitchen garden programmes and/or an increase family income from gardening in market-accessible areas. These programmes have largely been focused on year-round production of seasonal vegetables with strong bias towards modern and exotic vegetables and their varieties, often undermining the role and value of traditional vegetables. Although such development activities have increased vegetable diversity of home gardens in rural areas, sustainability of the system has suffered due to poor network of seed supply. In cases of commercial production, it has reduced genetic diversity of the traditional home gardens. Similarly, there is none or very little consideration given to the introduction of fruits and other multipurpose trees and plant species into the gardens and, therefore, these development activities have largely promoted single layered home gardens.

Research and development issues in Nepalese home gardens Despite a large contribution to sustaining the livelihood of rural people and the conservation of a wide range of plant genetic resources, home gardens in Nepal are a highly neglected area of research and development. As a result, home gardens have not been seriously considered in the research and development agenda of both formal and informal institutions charged with biodiversity conservation or development objectives. So far, it has not even been considered as a subject of scientific research and because home gardens have never been included in national agricultural production statistics, their contribution to food security has been highly devalued. In this context, some relevant research and development issues, related to Nepalese home gardens, are discussed herein.

Research issues Scientific information on home garden systems in Nepal is grossly lacking and this has imposed a big hindrance in including home gardens in national strategies for food security, improved family nutrition and conservation of plant genetic resources. Concerted efforts, therefore, are urgently required to document characteristic features and types, structure and composition, species and varietal diversity, and the ecological and social setting of home gardens. Exploration of the following research questions would help in refining strategies for conservation and development through home gardens.

Do home gardens retain varietal and species diversity which are not commonly found in the larger agro-ecosystem? The answer to this question is vital in deciding whether home gardens can be considered as useful units for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. A study in the Western hills of Nepal by Rijal et al. (2001) showed that more than 20 varieties of taro are maintained collectively in the home gardens in a community. A majority of these varieties are maintained in a small area while two of them, namely hatipau and khari varieties, which have multiple uses and market value, are grown in a large area usually outside home garden. Similarly, in case of sponge gourd only one or two varieties are grown per household but at community level four to five varieties have been maintained (Pandey et al. 2001). The social network within community plays a role in the exchange of information and genetic materials, and this enhances in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in the community (Subedi et al. 2001). These preliminary studies show that a conservation strategy utilizing home gardens is possible if considered at the community level.

How do the ecological factors influence orientation, structure and composition of home gardens? To a large extent, the ecological factors such as soil, climate, stress and abundance of crop species set limits to the occurrence and diversity of crop species. The effect of these factors on the structure, composition, and orientation of the species and varietal diversity in home gardens in different agro- ecological zones needs to be explored and compared. The differences in the distribution of diversity that have evolved as result of these factors and are maintained in home gardens needs to be assessed. CASE STUDIES 115

How do the socio-economic factors, including food culture and migration, affect structure and composition of species and varietal diversity in home gardens? Socioeconomic factors have large influence on the behaviour and decisions of the managers of home gardens. Gessler et al. (1998) have documented a number of factors, such as labour availability, level of on-farm returns, off-farm employment and migration that have influence on home garden species and varietal diversity. Understanding farmers’ socio-economic circumstances and decision-making patterns are, therefore, crucial in designing in situ conservation activities. Wealth distribution, ethnicity, profession, consumption preferences, and the market are key factors that must be understood in order to assess when and how people value and maintain genetic diversity in their home garden.

How do commercialization, crop introduction and improvement affect species and varietal diversity in home gardens? In majority of cases, commercialization has promoted crop production leading to decreased genetic diversity in the production systems. However, crop introduction and improvement may have positive or negative impacts on the species and varietal diversity in a locality. New crops may introduce new diversity in the system but at the same time if these are more profitable and productive, they may marginalize traditional and less productive varieties. It is, therefore, important to know how commercialization, crop introduction and improvement affect species and varietal diversity in home gardens.

What targeted development interventions enhance home garden biodiversity and improve family nutrition and income? The maintenance of biodiversity in home gardens reflects farmers’ multiple objectives that may have food/nutritional, income, medicinal, aesthetic and other values. It is now increasingly being recognized that home gardens are the main source of micronutrients for the family, especially for women and children in rural areas of Nepal. However, the role of traditional home gardens as a provider of micronutrients to the family and its link with the conservation of plant genetic resources is not well understood. A majority of development interventions are seen to conflict with enhancing home garden biodiversity, but if carefully designed, these can support farmers’ propensity to maintain and enhance biodiversity in their home gardens.

Development issues Although home gardens have never been a priority area in the national strategies for agricultural development in Nepal, development agencies (both government and non-government) have often used them to push their family nutrition and income-generating programmes. Such programmes, however, have been the victims of classical development mentality and top-down approach. The following development anomalies have often been observed.

Conflict in species selection The nutrition-targeted development programmes tend to promote indiscriminate introduction of exotic and/or improved species and varieties of vegetables without a proper understanding people’s needs and their systems of home garden management. These species are mostly short-lived (very seasonal) and have a single use as opposed to gardeners’ preference for perennial types with multiple uses. For example, gardeners often opt for perennial chilli, aubergine, tomatoes and amaranthus over seasonal ones so that they provide a continuous supply throughout the year. Traditionally, people have been careful in including a number of vegetable species in their home gardens that have food processing and long-duration storage value, such as pumpkin, chayote, taro, ash gourd etc. The processed and stored foods are then used in dry seasons when there are very little vegetables in the home garden. This aspect has been completely ignored in planning home garden 116 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

development strategies. Similarly, development programmes have mostly been focusing on vegetables, while traditional home gardens equally value other plant species such as spices, medicinal plants, fruits and other multipurpose trees. Such development interventions not only have the potential to reduce home garden biodiversity but also to narrow the micronutrient base of the traditional home gardens.

Conflict in management requirements The vegetable and other plant species introduced to home gardens through most of the development agencies often require external inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, while local home garden species thrive well with local resources, i.e. animal manure and locally made organic pesticides available at the disposal of the household. Also, it is difficult to produce seeds from many of the introduced species (especially those which are hybrids), and this makes them depend continuously on external sources of seed, which is not easily or cheaply accessible to rural people. This gradually reduces their control over seed at the household level. The traditional home garden species, in contrast, are easy to seed; also many vegetable species are perennial and some, such as chilli, aubergine and tomatoes have been selected to perform well in perennial management. Some unique seed management practices, such as vegetative propagation for thulo cauli (a local cauliflower variety) and variety-specific propagation techniques in taro have also been developed. Many traditional home garden species are also a result of continuous selection, adaptation and local breeding. Most of the development programmes have been unable to recognize these aspects, and instead in most instances have been killing such innovations. Similarly, many traditional home gardens use management practices (such as multi-layer system) maximize space use, and increase and diversify production. Many of the introduced species have failed to adapt to such management regimes.

Conflict in knowledge systems Many new plant species and varieties promoted through development programmes require new management knowledge, and the resulting knowledge gap has often been one of the reasons for failure of such programmes. People practising traditional home gardening, on the other hand, have a vast wealth of knowledge about the use of different plant species, species compatibility in multi- layered production systems, soil fertility and pest and disease management, and seed management techniques, and storage and food processing methods. Despite this, farmers’ indigenous knowledge and practices are rarely given due consideration in formulating such development programmes. Such development programmes have contributed to the erosion of indigenous home garden knowledge and eventually to the genetic erosion of many traditional home garden species. The development strategies for home gardens, therefore, need to be redefined in order to combine livelihood goals with the goals of conservation. The new development interventions should build on traditional knowledge and practices to compliment the richness of the traditional home garden system. LI-BIRD’s initial experiences from a number of programmes indicate that such strategies have a positive impact on both development and the conservation of agro-biodiversity (Joshi et al. 1997). A holistic approach needs to be adopted to capitalize on use value, strengthen seed supply system and increase access to information and germplasm. Experiences from in situ crop conservation work show that community mobilization through various means is a useful strategy to link development and conservation objectives. A definite strategy, however, will only emerge after a systematic study of such cases. The last question under the research issues section is critical to the formulation of development strategy for home garden and, therefore, should be central to any future study in Nepal.

Conclusions Home gardens are an important component of the farming system in Nepal, and contribute significantly to sustaining livelihood through improved food security and family nutrition. They CASE STUDIES 117

represent an important reservoir of diversity of plant species and have immensely contributed to the maintenance, promotion and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. However, these home gardens have long remained a neglected area for research and development, and very limited information exists on them. A scientific study of home garden systems in Nepal is, therefore, urgently required. Such a study will contribute in three ways: (a) provide a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying traditional home garden systems and point out areas of further research; (b) chalk out development strategies and development actions that would further enrich the traditional home garden system; and (c) inform planners and policy-makers with the information necessary to include home gardens in national development and conservation strategy. Such information will also contribute to the on-going global debate on whether home gardens are a useful strategy for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources.

Acknowledgement We are grateful to Dr Anil Subedi, Executive Director, LI-BIRD and Dr Pablo Eyzaguirre, Senior Social Scientist, IPGRI for encouraging us to write this paper. We are also thankful to DSE, Germany for supporting our participation in the workshop.

References Agte, V.V., K.V. Tarwadi, S. Mengale and S.A. Chiplonkar. 2000. Potential of traditionally cooked green leafy vegetables as natural sources for supplementation of eight micronutrients in vegetarian diets. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 13:885-891. Baniya, B.K., A. Subedi, R.B. Rana, R.K. Tiwari and P. Chaudhary. 2001. Planting material management of taro in Kaski Districts of Nepal. Paper presented at the First National Workshop on ‘Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April, 2001, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal. CBS. 1999. Statistical Year Books of Nepal. Centre Bureau of Statistic, Kathmandu Nepal. Gessler, M., U. Hodel and P., Eyzaguirre. 1998. Home gardens and agrobiodiversity: Current state of knowledge with reference to relevant literatures. Discussion paper. IPGRI, Rome. Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer. 1992. Preface of editors. Pp. 1–7 in “…y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros…’ Origin, evolution and diversity of Cuban Plant Genetics Resources. Vol. 1. (K. Hammer, M., Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds.). Institut fur Pflanzengentik und Kulturpflansenforschung, Gatersleben, Germany. IPGRI. 1998. Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems. An unpublished project proposal. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Joshi, K.D., M. Subedi, R.B. Rana, K.B. Kadayat and B.R. Sthapit. 1997. Enhancing on-farm varietal diversity through participatory variety selection: a case of Chaite rice in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture 33:1-10. Kaini, B.R. 1995. Status of fruit plant genetic resources in Nepal. In Plant Genetic Resources: Nepalese Perspectives (M.P. Upadhyaya, H.K. Sainju, B.K. Baniya and M.S. Bista, eds.). Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Kathmandu, Nepal/IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Kandel, D.D. and M.P. Wagley. 1999. Some salient indigenous technology practice for eatershed management in Nepal. FAO/HMGN. LI-BIRD. 1999. Developing baseline census profile of foster child families and assessing domain-wise situation to support future deveclopment interventions by PLAN Makawanpur: main report Cluster II (draft). A consultancy report. LI-BIRD, Nepal. Lohar, D.P., B.R. Roka, B. Adhikari, L.K. Amatya, T.B. Subedi, G.B. Gurung, S.R. Ghimire, R.B. Rana, D.K. Saraf and B.K. Dhakal. 1993. Survey on indigenous in Baglung and Syangja districts. LARC Working paper No. 93/18. Lumle Agricultural Research Center, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal. Manandhar, N.P. 1989. Useful wild plants of Nepal. Nepal Research Centre Publication No. 14. Botanical Survey and Harbarium, Godawari, Nepal. Pandey, I.P. 1994. Indigenous methods of sustainable vegetable production in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. RAPA publication: 1994/29. 118 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Pandey, Y.R., D.K. Rijal and MP Upadhyay. 2001. In situ characterization of morphological traits of sponge gourd at Begnas ecosite, Kaski, Nepal. Paper presented at the First National Workshop on ‘Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April, 2001, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal. Pratap, T. and B.R. Sthapit, eds.. 1998. Managing agrobiodiversity: farmers’ changing perspectives and institutional responses in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Rajbhandary, T.K., N.R. Joshi,T. Shrestha, S.K.G. Joshi and B. Acharya. 1995. Medicinal plants of Nepal for Ayurvedic drugs. MoFSC, HMGN, Nepal. Rana, R.B., K.D. Joshi and D.P. Lohar. 1998. On-farm conservation of indigenous vegetables by strengthening community based seed banking in Seti River Valley, Pokhara, Nepal. LI-BIRD Technical Paper No. 3. Local initiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Pokhara Nepal. Rana R.B., D.K. Rijal, D. Gauchan, B.R. Sthapit, A. Subedi, M.P. Upadhyay, Y.R. Pandey and D.I. Jarvis. 2000a. In situ Crop Conservation: findings of agro-ecological, crop diversity and socio-economic baseline surveys of Begnas eco-site, Kaski, Nepal. NP Working Paper no. 2/2000. NARC/LI-BIRD, Nepal/IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Rana, R.B., P.K. Shrestha, D.K. Rijal, A Subedi and B.R. Sthapit. 2000b. Understanding farmers’ knowledge systems and decision-making: participatory techniques for rapid biodiversity assessment and intensive data plots in Nepal. In Participatory approaches to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources (Esbern Friis-Hansen and Bhuwon Sthapit, eds.). IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Rijal D.K, R.B. Rana, B.R. Sthapit and D.I. Jarvis. 2001. The use of taro local varieties in contrasting production systems in Nepal: I. Extent and distribution of taro varieties. Paper presented at the First National Workshop on ‘Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April, 2001, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal. Ryman, J.C. 1992. Worldwatch paper 108. Shrestha, P.K. and T.B. Gurung. 1997. Baseline survey report of Lumle Agricultural Research Center’s horticulture outreach research sites. LARC Working paper No. 97/42. Lumle Agricultural Research Center, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal. Shrestha, P.K. 1998. Gene, gender and generation: role of traditional seed supply systems in on-farm biodiversity conservation in Nepal. In Managing agrobiodiversity: Farmers’ changing perspectives and institutional responses in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region (T. Pratap and B.R. Sthapit, eds.). International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Sthapit, B.R. 2000. Extent and distribution of species diversity in Nepalese homegardens. Unpublished report. Subedi, A., P. Chaudhary, B.K. Baniya, R.B. Rana, D.K. Rijal, R.K. Tiwari and B.R. Sthapit. 2001. Who maintains crop genetic diversity and how? Implications for on-farm conservation and participatory plant breeding. Paper presented at the First National Workshop on ‘Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm’, 24–26 April, 2001, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal. CASE STUDIES 119

Table 1. Distribution of vegetables, fruits and staple food crops species in home gardens in three contrasting physiographic regions of Nepal

Physiographic regions* Local name Scientific name High Mid/low hills Terai and mountain and valleys Inner Terai Parts used Vegetables Armale Allium spp. * Leaf/plant Ashgourd Benincasa hispida * * Fruit Asparagus Asparagus officinalis * Shoot, root Balsomgourd (Barela) Cyclanthera pedata * Fruit Bamboo shoots Bambusa spp. * Shoot Beans Phaseolus spp. * * Fruit Bethe Chenopodium album * * Leaf/plant Bitter gourd Momordica charantia * * * Fruit Brinjal (Aubergine) Solanum melongena * * Fruit Bottle gourd Lagenarium siceraria * Fruit Brocauli Brassica oleracea var. broccoli * * Flower Buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum * * Young plant Cabbage Brassica oleracea var. capitata * * * Head Carrot Daucus carota * * * Root Cauliflower B. oleracea var. botrytis * * * Flower Cress Lepidium sativum * * * Plant Chattel (jhuse karela) Momordica cochinchinensis * Fruit Chayote Sechium edule * * * Fruit/root Cherry tomato Lycopersicon spp. * Fruit Chillies Capsicum annuum * * Fruit Chive Allium schoenoprasum * Plant Cholecha Allium spp. * Plant Coriander Coriandrum sativum * * Leaf Cowpea Vigna spp. * * Fruit Cucumber Cucumus sativus * * Fruit Drumstick Moringa oleifera * * Fruit Faba bean Vicia faba * Fruit Ginari Amaranthus spp. * * Leaf/plant Hiude simi Dolichus lablab * * Fruit Kholesag Rorippa nasturtiun * Plant Lahare sag Ipomoea muricata * Leaf/plant Lapha sag Malva verticillata * * Leaf/plant Latte Amaranthus spp. * * Leaf/plant Lude (Thadhiya) Amaranthus viridis * Leaf/plant Lettuce Lactusa sativa * Leaf/plant Makai bodi Vigna spp. * Pod/Fruit Neuro Diplazium spp. * Shoot Okra Abelmoschus esculentus * Fruit Oal Amorphophallus campanculatus * * Root Onion Allium cepa * /plant Patuwa sag Corchorus spp. * * Young plant Pea Pisum sativum * * * Fruit/young plant Potato Solanum tuberosum * * Tuber Pumpkin Cucurbita moschata * * * Fruits/twigs Radish Raphanus sativus * * * Root/leaf Rayo var. rayo * * Leaf Ridgegourd Luffa acutangula * * Fruit Sarson Brassica compestris var. sarsoon * Leaf/twig Allium ascalonicum * * Leaf/plant Sisnu Urtica spp. * Twig Snakegourds Trichosanthus anguina * * Fruit Spinach Spinacia oleracea * * Leaf/twig Spongegourd Luffa cylindrica * * Fruit Sweet pepper Capsicum annuum var. grossum Fruit Swisschard Beta vulgaris var. cicla * * Leaf Tamato Lycopersicon esculentum * * * Fruit Tane bodi Vigna spp. * Pod/Fruit Taro Colocasia esculenta * * Corm/stalk/leaf Thotne Polygonum spp. * * Twig Tori Brassica compestris var. toria * * Leaf/plant Tree tomato Cyphomendra betacea * Fruit Turnip Brassica rapa * * * Root Tusa Arundinaria spp. * Shoot Yam Dioscorea spp. * * Root 120 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Fruits Aanta * Ainselu Rubus spp. * Almond Prunus amygdalus * Aonla Emblica officinalis * Apple Malus spp. * Apricot Prunus armeniaca * Bael Aegle marmelos * Banana Musa spp. * * Bettlenut Areca catechu * Chaksi Citrus limettoides * Chiuri Asendra butyracea * Coconut Cocos nucifera * Grape Vitis vinifera * * Guava Psidium guajava * * Imli (tamarind) Tamarindus indica * Jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus * * Gulab jamun Syzygium cuminii * Hairpha * Jujube Zizyphus spp. * Kalojamun Syzygium spp. * Kaphal Myrica esculenta * Khajur (date palm) Phoenix dactytifera * Kimbu Morus alba * Lemon Citrus limon * Lime C. aurantifolia * Litchi Litvhi chinensis * Mango Mangifera indica * Papaya Carica papaya * * Peach Prunus persica * Pear Pyrus communis * Persimmon Diaspyros virginiana * Pineapple Ananus comosus * Plum Prunus domestica * Punica granatum * Pummelo Citrus maxima * Sapota Achras sapota * Sarifa Annona spp. * Strawberry Fragaria vesca * * Tasi Citrus spp. * Walnut Juglans regia * *

Crops Amaranthas Amaranthus spp. * Grains Fingermillet Eleusine coracana * Grains Foxtail Setaria italica * Grains Maize Zea mays * * * Grains Millet Pennisetum spp. * * Grains Peanut Arachis hypogea Grains Pigeonpea Cajanus cajan * * Grains Potato Solanum tuberosum * * * Tubers Sorghum Sorghum bicolor * Grains Soyabean Glycine max * * Grains Sugarcane Saccharum officinarum * Stalk Sweet potato Ipomoea batatus * Tubers Tori Brassica compestris var. toria * * Grains

* Physiographic region: 1—high mountain, rain-shadow areas above 3000 m asl; 2—mid/low hills and valleys, hill environment between 300 and 3000 m asl; 3—Inner Terai and Terai, plain environment below 300 m asl.

Source: modified from Sthapit, B.R. (2000). Extent and distribution of species diversity in Nepalese homegardens. Unpublished report. CASE STUDIES 121

Table 2. Distribution of herbs and spices, medicinal, fodder and other multipurpose trees species in home gardens in three contrasting physiographic regions of Nepal

Physiographic regions* Local name Scientific name High Mid/low hills Terai and mountain and valleys Inner Terai Remarks

Herbs and spices Leaf/bulb Bhotelasun Allium spp. * Fruit Cardamom Elettaria cardamomum * Fruit Chillies Capsicum annuum * * * Coriander Coriandru sativum * * Leaf/fruit Cuminum cyminum * Seed Dalchini Cinnamomum tamala * Bark/leaf Foeniculum vulgare * Seed Fenugreek Trigonnela spp. * * * Seed Garlic Allium sativum * * Bulb/leaf Ginger Zinziber officinale * * Rhizome Allium hypsistum * * Leaf Jwano Trachyspermum ammi * Seed Kohan * Onion Allium cepa * * Bulb/ plant Opium Papayer somniferum * Seed Perilla frutencens * Seed Crocus sativus * Fruit Seasame Sesamum indicum * * Seed Shallot Allium ascalonicum * Leaf/plant Timur Zanthoxylum armatum * Fruit Turmeric Curcuma longa * Rhizome

Medicinals Babari Ocimum baislicum * * Leaf/plant Bhang Canabis sativa * Seed Bhayakur Dioscoria detoidea * Root Dhaturo Datura spp. * * Seed Fennel Foeniculum vulgare * * Seed Ginger Zinziber officinale * * Rhizome Githa Dioscorea spp. * Root Jangali Methi Trigonella emodi * Leaf/seed Jimbu Allium hypsistum * Leaf Kurilo (Asparagus) Asparagus officinalis * Root/shoot Marathi * Flower/leaf Opium Papayer somniferum * Seed/fruit nectars Pipla Piper cubeca * * Fruit/root Pudina Mentha spp. * * Leaf/plant Saffron Crocus sativus * Fruit Timur Zanthoxylum armatum * * Fruit/leaf Tulasi Ocimum sanctum * * Whole plant

Green manure/pesticides Ankhitare Walsura trijuga * Asuro Adhatoda vasica * Bakaino Melia azedarach * Banmara Eupatorium spp. * Bardelo Ficus clavata * * Dhaincha Sesbania spp. * Khirra Sapium insigne * * Niger Goizotia abyssinica Padke Albizzia odoritissima * Sajiwan Origanum vulgare * Siplican (Garlic pear) Crataeva religiosa * Siris Albizzia spp. * Taramandal (Tithonia) Tithonia diversifolia * Titepati Artemisia vulgaris * 122 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Trees/shrubs for fodder Amriso Thyosonaleana maxima * Badahar Atocarpus lakoocha * Bains Salix babylonica * * Banjh Quercus glauca * Barro Terminalia oelerica * Bhotepipal Ficus spp. * Chuletro Brassaiosis spp. * * Dhanyaro * Dudhilo Ficus nemoralis * Faledo Erythrina spp. * Fasro Grewia optiza * Gidari Premna barbata * Gogan Saurauria nepalensis * Harro Teminalia chebula * Jimhar Ficus spp. * Kaphal Myrica esculenta * Kaulo Machilus gamblei * Khaniyo Ficus cunia * Kimbu Morus alba * Kutmero Litsea polyantha * Nimaro Ficus roxburghii * Pakhuri Ficus glaberrima * Tanki Bauhinia purpurea *

Trees/shrubs for other uses Amala Emblica officinalis * Fruit Andi (castor) Ricinus communis * Seed Bael Aegle marmelos * Leaf/fruit Bakaino Melia azadirach * * Seed/trunk Dalchini Cinnamomum tamala * Bark/leaf Drumstick Mringa oleifera * Fruit Fig Ficus carica * Fruit Kabro Ficus lacor * Shoot Kadam Anthocephalus cadamba * Tree/fruit Kapur * Tree Koiralo Bauhinia variegata * Flower Lapsi Spondias axillaris * Fruit Neem Azadirachta indica * Tree Nigalo Arundinaria spp. * Shoot Ritha Sapindus mukorossi * Fruit Sal Shorea robusta * Leaf/tree Shilpikan Crataeva unilocularis * Shoot Simal Bombax malabaricum * Fruit Tamabans Dendrocalamus spp. * Shoot Tooni Cedrela toona *

Plants of Cultural/ritual value Bar Ficus bengalensis Bhimsenpati Buddleja asiatica * * Tree Coconut Cocus nucifera * Dubo Cynadon dactylone * Fruit Ginger Zinziber officinale * * Plant Kans grass Saccharum spontenium * Plant Katus Castanopsis spp. * Oal Amorphophallus campanculatus * Fruit Pipal F. religiosa * Rhizome Rudrakhshya Elaeaocarpus ganitrus * * Tree Simrik/Sindoor Malotus philippinensis * Tree/fruit Titepati Artimisia vulgaris * Fruit Tulasi Ocimum sanctum * Plant * * Plant

* Physiographic region: 1—high mountain, rain-shadow areas above 3000 m asl; 2—mid/low hills and valleys, hill environment between 300 and 3000 m asl; 3—Inner Terai and Terai, plain environment below 300 m asl.

Source: modified from Sthapit, B.R. (2000). Extent and distribution of species diversity in Nepalese homegardens. Unpublished report. CASE STUDIES 123

Table 3. Some selected home garden species used for traditional medicines in Nepal Local name Medicinal value reported Asuro Adhodata vasica • Used to prepare expectorant and antispasmodic medicine used in chronic bronchitis and asthma; also as an anthelminthic, applied over fresh wounds, rheumatic joints and inflammatory swellings

Bojho Acorus calamus • The rhizome is roasted in fire and used to treat dry coughs • Promotes memory longevity and good voice • Clear sinuses • Use for piles, constipation, colic pains, epilepsy, urine disorders, infections etc. • Use as an insecticide against pests in food storage

Harro/barro Terminalia chebula/ • Dry fruits roasted in fire and used against coughs and colds T. bellerica • Tonic, laxative • When half ripe it has purgative value whereas when fully ripe it has astringent value; kernel has narcotic value

Koiralo Bauhinia variegata • Juice of flower is used to treat dysentery and diarrhoea

Neem Azadirachta indica • Twigs used for tooth brush • Leaves used as repellent against rice moth • Juice of neem leaves mixed with salt and black pepper to cure intestinal worms • Juice and oil extracts used for venereal and skin diseases, jaundice, malaria, dysentery and diarrhoea • Neem seed oil used for sprains, toothache and earache • Neem trees repel mosquitoes from the garden • Antidotal and diuretic value

Sajiwan Jatropha curcas • Extracts used for mud borne disease between legs and fingers during paddy transplanting • Used as tooth brush • Lamp oil

Sattuwa Paris polyphylla • Juice extract from root is used against poison and gas formation

Sisnu Utrica spp. • Bark is used to treat gout • Juice of leaf mixed with curd to treat blood dysentery • A decoction of leaves useful for treating sexual diseases, such as gonorrhoea

Soph Foeniculum vulgare (Fennel) • Stimulant • Vermicide • Aromatic and anti-inflammatory

Timur Sil timur (Litsea citrata) • Soup of timur is used against diarrhoea and gas formation Raye timur • Soup of raye timur mixed with jimu, garlic and turmeric is used for (Zanthoxylum armatum) gastric treatment

Tulasi Ocimum basilicum • Leaves used for various kinds of fever, bronchitis, stomachic and gastric disorders in children, and earache • A mosquito repellent • Stimulating expectorant

Source: Rajbhandary et al. (1995), Manandhar (1989), Kandel and Wagley (1999) Tej Pratap and Sthapit (1999). 124 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 4. Types of home gardens reported in different parts of Nepal

Types of home Eco-region Location in relation garden to house Composition Structure 1. Bari Terai (plains) Close to house Vegetable dominant but mixed More than 3 layers, intensive with fruits, multipurpose trees and flowers and varying size 2. Ghar-bari Hills Close to house Vegetable dominant but mixed More than 3 layers, intensive with fruits, multipurpose trees and flowers and varying size 3. Ghoth-bari Hills Away from house Vegetable dominant but mixed with fruits, About 3 layers, less intensive but close to goth multipurpose trees and flowers and varying size 4. Tarkari bari Terai (plains) Away from house Largely vegetables with limited number Less than 2 layers with and types of vegetables intensive ground layer 5. Dumna Inner terrai, mid- Away from house Largely vegetables with limited number Less than 2 layers with western Nepal and types of vegetables intensive ground layer 6. Karesa bari Hills and valleys Close to house Mostly vegetables of modern varieties Single layered and seasonal in nature 7. Bagaincha Hills and valleys Close as well as Mostly fruits of single species but often Mostly single layered away from house mixed few other fruits and vegetables and less intensive 8. Phulbari Terai (plains) Close as well as Mostly fruits of single species but often Mostly single layered away from house mixed few other fruits and vegetables and less intensive CASE STUDIES 125

Home gardens in Ethiopia: some observations and generalizations

Zemede Asfaw Department of Biology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Abstract Large concentrations of the useful plants found in Ethiopia are located in home gardens. Emerging research perspectives and applications of ethnobotanical methodology are beginning to highlight the subtle merits of traditional home gardens. The home garden agroecosystem in the country maintains a wide range of taxa of perennial and annual crop plants. In a countrywide survey, 172 species were found under cultivation in home gardens, of which about 52% were considered typical home garden species while 28% were cultivated both in home gardens and crop fields. Some typical field crops (e.g. saccharine sorghum, sweet varieties of maize eaten unripe, broad- and thick-leaved Ethiopian kale used as a leafy vegetable, climbing varieties of beans, perennial climbing types of Capsicum annuum) have special varieties that are normally cultivated only in home gardens. In another study undertaken in the southwest, a total of 112 species were recorded of which 85% were encountered in home gardens and more than three-quarters were food crops. The species diversity in well-managed climax home gardens is very high, and up to 60 different species were recovered from each home garden studied. In the structure of such home gardens, up to four circles of fairly different crop combinations are found. Circles closer to the house, on average, have more species per unit area while those in the outer areas have fewer species but higher populations of each species. Despite pressures from modernization and population growth, the benefits of home gardens for crop production, biodiversity conservation, food security and human nutrition are being increasingly applauded. The enset-related home gardens of Ethiopia, with Ensete ventricosum as the key species of the agroecosystem, maintain a far higher number of species than other types of agricultural production and they have profound importance for peoples’ livelihoods. The role of these home gardens in the in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity and the associated wild/weedy crop relatives, as well as the maintenance of indigenous knowledge is significant and warrants priority attention. Comparative studies in different locations within the enset-growing zones, employing quantitative ethnobotanical methods, socioeconomic studies of the farming system as well as full-scale studies of the key species would help to bring out the specific characteristics and comparative advantages of each cluster of home gardens found under the Ethiopian system.

Introduction Ethiopia is a country of diverse agroecologies with a long history of agriculture. It is an important world centre of domesticated plants and a primary centre of diversification for many important crops (Harlan 1969). Four main food production systems, namely the plough and cereal culture of the north and central parts, the hoe and enset complex of the south and southwest, the shifting cultivation of the southwest and the pastoral complex of the lowlands have evolved during the long history of agricultural production in the country (Westphal 1975). The country’s rich crop resources that originated through domestication, introduction and adaptation have traditionally been conserved in situ in crop fields and home gardens. The importance of the latter in maintaining a significant proportion of the crop genetic diversity in the country has recently been realized. Home gardens are commonly referred to as backyard gardens, compound farms, kitchen-gardens, homestead farms, house-gardens, mixed-gardens and the like. This agroecosystem constitutes a traditional farming system charged with crop production while simultaneously conserving significant crop biodiversity (agrobiodiversity) on-farm (Brownrigg 1985, Soleri and Cleveland 1989, Christanty 1990, Fernandes and Nair 1990, Marten 1990, Okigbo, 1990, Wojtkowski 1993, Nguyen 1995, Power and Flecker 1996, Gesseler et al. 1996, 1997, Godbole 1998, Wang 1998). Home gardens 126 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

serve critical functions in fulfilling community and household needs ranging from food provision and food security to augmenting family nutritional status, ensuring primary healthcare, income generation and fulfilling other utility functions. Its importance for in situ conservation of the valuable agrobiodiversity and the sustainability of the surrounding ecosystem is being evaluated. In ecological terms, home gardens are viewed as managed ecosystems (Power and Flecker 1996, Gesseler et al. 1997) with dynamic interplay between the biotic, abiotic and socio-cultural factors. Considerable knowledge about the general characteristics and significance of Ethiopian home gardens has been documented (Westphal 1975, Okigbo 1990, Zemede Asfaw and Ayele Nigatu 1995, Zemede Asfaw 1997a, Zemede Asfaw and Zerihun Woldu 1997, Feleke Weldeyes 2000). These works have shown that many indigenous crops, as well as others introduced from different parts of the world, are cultivated in home gardens. Spontaneous populations of some home garden crops (e.g. Ensete ventricosum, Coffea arabica, , Piper capense, Passiflora edulis, Solanum dasyphyllum) occur in the surrounding natural ecosystems. Further studies are necessary to explore the specific types of Ethiopian home gardens, as determined by environmental or cultural factors. The concept of the home garden itself is far from being understood. The last few decades have witnessed a world-wide increase in the emphasis on home gardens, showing the importance of their actual and potential values in the provision of food, medicine and other household necessities (Benneh 1974, Torquebiau 1992) and conservation of plant genetic diversity (UNICEF 1982, Brownrigg 1985, Caballero 1992, Okigbo 1994, Godbole 1998). Limited studies have focused on the evolution of home gardens, which supposed that they arose from shifting cultivation to overcome resource constraints and to ascertain rights to land resources (Fernandes and Nair 1990, Rico-Gray et al. 1990, Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993). The perceived threat of genetic erosion to plant resources for food and agriculture could be arrested by ensuring the worth of home gardens, because they ensure conservation of useful plants through continued use. This paper essentially summarizes data on home gardens in Ethiopia that have been accumulating over the last decade through different research projects, including: general publications on Ethiopian home gardens (Zemede Asfaw and Nigatu 1995; Zemede Asfaw 1997a), crop associations in home gardens (Zemede Asfaw and Woldu 1997), specific aspects of traditional vegetables in and around home gardens (Zemede Asfaw 1997b,c), their role in the provision of traditional medicinal plants (Zemede Asfaw 1998), ethnobotanical studies (Zemede Asfaw 1999a, b), home garden biodiversity (Zemede Asfaw 2000), wild food plants (Zemede Asfaw and Tadesse 2001) and origin and evolution of home gardens in Ethiopia (Zemede Asfaw 2001). The paper, using data collected during different years at different places, puts more emphasis on the contributions of Ethiopian home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources and suggests priority research areas. The main characteristics, plant composition and overall status of the home garden agroecosystem in Ethiopia are presented with the aim of understanding its importance for in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity and to draw attention to its further study and enhancement.

Research on Ethiopian home gardens The home garden agroecosystem was studied by Westphal (1975) in his pioneering work on agricultural systems in Ethiopia. Okigbo (1990) applied the term ‘home garden’ to the farming system and gave a brief description of Sidamo home gardens in southern Ethiopia on the basis of the information provided by Westphal. A questionnaire/interview-based survey of Ethiopian home gardens, covering most of the geographical and ecological areas of the country, was undertaken in the early 1990s to describe the main characteristics of home gardens as well as plant composition and other aspects. This was followed by a study of crop association, traditional vegetables, traditional medicinal plants and the ethnobotany of lesser-known cultural groups. For these studies, data were collected through field observation, plant collection, herbarium studies, discussion with household members and key informants, administration of semi-structured interviews and data collection forms, questioning elderly garden owners about unique and rare crops and practices, tracing garden CASE STUDIES 127

crops through market surveys of garden products, seeds and seedlings of garden crops, tracking rare species/varieties using children of the village, and home garden sketching and photographing. An ethnobotanical approach is being combined with botanical investigation of home gardens in Ethiopia. The Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research has an on-farm conservation project in southwest Ethiopia, which is not explicitly focused on the home garden agroecosystem, but is linked through the conservation of farmer varieties/clones of some crops in the agroecosystem. This activity is still on-going, but a wider and more interdisciplinary programme is required in order to undertake more rigorous data collection and analysis of home gardens in the country. Multidisciplinary and participatory approaches are necessary in order to generate quantified and disaggregated data on home gardens. The studies must also focus on the key home garden species that largely determine the management and existence of the system.

History, origin and evolution of Ethiopian home gardens There is no direct evidence as to when people began the practice of home gardening in Ethiopia. However, a long history is postulated based on the antiquity of agriculture, crop composition, oral literature and rich vernacular designations in different local languages. Patches of wild enset/false banana (Ensete venricosum) observed in some parts of western Ethiopia have been interpreted by some as possible relics/descendants of home garden plants of ancient settlements abandoned long ago. The history of home gardening in Ethiopia is believed to have been linked with the beginning of agriculture in the country, which dates back 5000–7000 years (Ehret 1979, Brandt 1984). Over the millennia of agricultural history, home gardens have embraced many important species of plants from different corners of the country and the globe. Ethiopian home gardens are unique in their architecture, crop mix and the key (dominant) species, which include a significant number of indigenous crop taxa and some that are truly endemic (e.g. Coffea arabica, Ensete ventricosum, Coccinia abyssinica, Brassica carinata, Plectranthus edulis and many other lesser-known species). The presence of enset and other restricted-range crops makes Ethiopian home gardens unique and assures their reliance on indigenous crops and management practices. Due to the presence of these rare species as well as its unique structure, Ethiopian home gardens require national and global attention. Over and above its importance in the supply of household needs, it is a place for the generation and maintenance of valuable biological diversity and its associated cultural heritage. This heritage is revealed in the depth of local peoples’ indigenous knowledge, practices, and skills. In Ethiopia, home gardens come into existence under different modes of initiation, influenced by biotic, abiotic, socio-economic and cultural factors. In central Ethiopia, farmers establish their living quarters outside the farming area, usually in a highly degraded and overgrazed area. The home garden is then gradually composed starting with ruderals and annual herbaceous crops, and then gradually introducing the seedlings of perennial tree crops. Thorny shrubs and small trees are encouraged to grow on the perimeter, ultimately producing a compound with a fence rendered tight by the profuse growth of thorny shrubs and other live plants. The house, animal pens, beehives, grain stores and the plots for different crops are sited in their appropriate places. The animal shelter is shifted to a new site periodically and the manure-enriched plot claimed for gardening. Soil fertility indicator species start appearing spontaneously on the rubbish heaps that accumulate at certain spots and other such places. The space allotted to perennial garden crops increases from year to year as the garden heads towards maturity/climax. The housing area with the garden may be shifted to a new site leaving the well-developed soil for the major field crops. Such home gardens have a limited history, but since households move to new sites with their original seed and planting materials, the germplasm is maintained. Farmers even move with their known and cherished germplasm when they move to other as was documented for Africans in the Americas (Esquivel and Hammer 1992). In the forested areas of southwestern Ethiopia, home gardens are started in the forest. Traditionally people consult knowledgeable elders who visually identify a suitable area and give 128 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

consent. Selective clearing of the forest is undertaken while leaving useful species such as coffee, Rhamnus, Aframomum, Piper and many shade trees like Cordia and Milettia, which will be parts of the future home garden and live fence plants. The house is constructed in a suitable area, the garden is fenced, and gradually crops are introduced from old houses, neighbours or the market. In a short time the garden develops to maturity with diverse species composition and phenological classes. The key species, usually Ensete ventricosum, comes to dominance soon. Home gardens undergo dynamic successional changes, and attain relative stability at the climax stage of the home garden for the particular agroecosystem. The different stages are distinguishable by the extent of plant diversity and species composition, phenological variation, intensity of agricultural activities and diversity of functions. Hence, home gardens come into existence and evolve over time and space, influenced by biophysical and agroclimatic regimes, growing conditions, and the management practices. They exhibit parallel developmental patterns to those of the adjacent natural ecosystems. Observations elsewhere have shown that home gardens originate, develop gradually and undergo subtle changes towards maturity and relative stability at their climax stages where their productivity also reaches climax (Fernandes and Nair 1990, Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993). In a study investigating successional stages of home gardens in central and southwestern Ethiopia, it was found that 5%, 20% and 75% of the home gardens were found at the pioneer, intermediate and climax stages, respectively (Zemede Asfaw 2001). When abandoned, home gardens leave traces for years after the homes are removed from the site. The field observations and discussions held with farmers clearly indicate that home gardening is a flourishing system in Ethiopia. Recently, its recognized value in food security and agricultural sustainability is leading to its expansion to adjacent areas. It is observed that enset cultivation is expanding towards the northeastern and northwestern fringes of its range. There are, however, potential threats to the agroecosystem and the culturally and economically important crops. Historical sources show that the crop enjoyed wide distribution in Ethiopia, including in the north, but later shrunk to a narrower area in the south having been pushed out by expansion of the cereal culture and the associated sociocultural shifts.

Types of Ethiopian home gardens A large proportion of the cultivated plants and domestic animal species of the country are maintained in home gardens, traditionally known by different vernacular names. A very common vernacular equivalent for the term home garden is yeguaro-ersha (Amharic language) and another is eddo (Oromic language) in eastern Ethiopia. The former term literally means the backyard farm while at the same time indicating the closeness of the cultivation plot to the house. The latter term alludes to the preclusive and private nature of the holding. In parts of central Ethiopia, the vernacular equivalent term for the home garden is guaro while in the Kefa language the equivalent term is daaddegoyo. Common locations for gardens in relation to the house in Ethiopia are backyards (48%), front yards (26%), side yards (13%) and those that almost encircle the house (13%). Various combinations of these types exist as back and sides, back and one side, front and sides, etc. In many rural villages where home gardening is well developed, the space in front of the house is with a clean green meadow as a family resting and socializing place. In some areas, fences confine gardens while in others they merge with crop fields and may be fenced together. The home garden area, which has variable shapes and sizes, includes the living house, animal houses, grain stores, drying places, and plots of garden species. It is usually fenced and the fence is frequently reinforced by multipurpose live tree and shrub species. Common garden sizes range from about 100 m2 to more that 2000 m2, but in extreme cases, sizes as low as 20 m2 and as high as 6000 m2 have been recorded. Larger gardens, approaching the upper limit, are more frequent in the southwest. When crop composition is considered, the gardens are typically of the mixed type. Major types could be distinguished on the basis of the major crops or key species, such as in the enset-related home gardens, widespread in parts of southern and central Ethiopia. In such gardens, enset occurs with many other crops CASE STUDIES 129

in different combinations including a variety of root/tuber crops, coffee, chat, and different vegetables and spices. Application of a vegetation classification model in home gardens around Bonga town in southwestern Ethiopia (Feleke Woldeyes 2000) produced plant associations identifiable as Ensete–Xanthosoma, Ensete–Coffea, Ensete–Brassica, Ensete–Xanthosoma–Saccharum and Ensete–Xanthosoma–Nicotiana communities. This shows the key position of Ensete ventricosum in these home gardens as a dominant species in all the ‘vegetation formations’ found in this area. It is further noted that the enset-related home gardens show variations in the different zones of its occurrence as could be seen by comparing home Zenede Asfaw gardens of Kefa, Sidamo and Gurage among Enset-based home gardens in Welayra, near Sodo town. others.

Home garden structure and patterns of crop arrangement Through years of experimentation, the local people in different agroecological zones have developed a general home garden structure with considerable diversity and flexibility that facilitates production of the major livelihood necessities. They have managed to select crops that are co-adapted and those that give aggregated benefits. They have designed the home gardens to allow optimal harvest of solar energy through the strategy of fitting phenological classes and life forms together in space and time, and through niche diversification techniques. If only dietary criteria are considered, each home garden portrays a kind of nutritional calculus (cf. Marten 1990) wherein starchy, proteinaceous, oil bearing, leafy and other categories of crops are proportionately mixed to serve its primary home use function (Zemede Asfaw and Woldu 1997). This is a cultural heritage passed from generation to generation through action and word of mouth. While there is a general pattern, each garden is unique in its spatial and temporal structure, crop mix and arrangement, and overall design. The spatial and temporal arrangement of crops in these home gardens is complex, further broadening the dimensions for analysis of the biological diversity. The traditional home gardening practice is a system for production with in-built mechanisms for in situ conservation of the agrobiodiversity and the associated wild flora (Power and Fleckler 1996, Gesseler et al. 1997, Zemede Asfaw 1997a). As regards the main determinants of the biotic change and variation, literature sources (e.g. Fernandes and Nair 1990, Padoch and Jong 1991, Jose and Shanmugaratnam 1993) agree on ecological (soil, altitude, water, etc.), personal (preferences, interest, knowledge, etc.), socio-cultural and economic (household needs, gender, market, social groups, wealth status, etc.), and political factors (land use system, marketing policies, conservation policies, agricultural support systems, etc.). Although the crops in home gardens appear to be arranged in a kind of chaotic random pattern, a general structure could be drawn for the sake of comprehension and modelling. The overall crop arrangement has stability while being dynamic with respect to the presence and developmental stages of perennial species and seasonal shifts in the kind, positions and amount of the herbaceous annual crop species. Some crops are always planted in regular patterns, while others are planted wherever space is available. In the drier parts of eastern Ethiopia, chat (Catha edulis), coffee, citrus and banana are usually planted in the depressions of rows of ridged or terraced grounds made to accumulate enough water for deep-rooted perennial species, while the smaller crops like potato, sweet potato, groundnut, chillies, onion, garlic, maize, cabbage, and many other vegetables and spices are planted on the permanent ridges of soil. Nurseries are also prepared for raising seedlings of chillies, coffee, 130 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

cabbage, and other species for later transplanting. When the garden is located adjacent to a stream, the section next to the stream is usually planted with banana, sugarcane, citrus and other perennial crops requiring more water. Perennial tree crops, notably citruses, are planted far apart while the space in between is used for lower crops. During the early periods of growth, the space between tree crops is used for growing low crops of different herbaceous species and the density of such crops is synchronized with the horizontal and vertical expansion of the perennial tree crops. Changes are observed with the age of the garden and the seasonal cycles. In most gardens, some crops (e.g. Arundinaria alpina, Arundo donax, Otostegia integrifolia, and Rhamnus prinoides) are planted on the inside margins next to the fence and others (e.g. Agave spp.) on the outer margins as reinforcements for fences. The vines of bottle gourds, climbing beans, pumpkins, cherry tomatoes, and the perennial Capsicum annuum are arranged to climb on fences. This usually makes the garden fence and the thatched-house almost indistinguishable from one other, particularly from the back. Bottle gourds and pumpkins are usually planted in the section of the garden that is very close to the animal pens because of their high fertilizer requirements. Tall and robust garden crops (e.g. giant trees, bamboos, enset) are usually kept towards the outer end of the garden so that they also serve as a layer of fence to protect the more delicate and cherished crops. As one goes away from the house, garden crops tend to gradually increase in vertical height, making their inspection easier. However, there is usually a mixing of tall, medium-sized, low, and younger stages of larger plants. The pattern is varied from garden to garden, and suggests a near-random chaotic arrangement, but upon closer observation, some individual crops reveal a regular aggregated patchy pattern as an empirical practice of niche diversification and mixing of compatible crops. The general pattern within the mature home garden of the southwest shows that, on the average, plant size successively increases with distance from the house and biological diversity is highest near homes and reduces further out becoming almost a single species at the extreme end of the garden. A cross-sectional transect made by going from the back of the house to the end of the garden shows zonation of crops. There is a small circle immediately behind the house in a special horizon mostly containing many low species within a relatively small area. Some species such as Ruta chalepensis, citratus, ocimum basilicum, Foeniculum vulgare, Astemisia afra are concentrated in this zone, and are usually represented by only one or two individuals in the entire garden and hence many species are maintained in a small space. The next two zones account for about 90% of the species in the entire home garden while the last circle has only a few species, but a larger populations of each species in the wider area. Moving away from the house, the circumference and the area of the circles increase, merging into more extensive plots of one or two species at the far end. In a mature home garden, where a total of 50 species were recorded, 10, 22, 25 and 4 species were found in the first, second, third and fourth circles, respectively. The number of species generally decreases when moving from the house to the far end of the garden while the number of individuals of a species reduces in the reverse direction. This pattern follows the pattern reported for cultivated landscapes in Africa (Okigbo 1994) with more useful plants being sited close to homes. The small circle maintaining more species per unit area contains spices, medicinal plants, vegetables, fragrance plants and others, which are mostly for home consumption. Being aromatic plants, they give good odour to the environment of the house, in addition to their primary use in food preparation and healthcare. This part of the home garden is the domain of women, who take responsibility for the propagation, management, harvesting, and use of the material including selling it at market or giving excess produce to friends and relatives. They can also be easily accessed for instant use as herbs, fresh vegetables, condiments, etc. The outer circle, on the other hand, is dominated by enset, which forms a circular grove around the house completely enclosing it. People believe that the enset grove of an able farmer will be thick enough to make the house invisible from far away. The grove also retains the smoke from the house in the garden to repel insects and fumigate the living environment and keep away insect pests. Some species maintained as thick live fences (Pycnostachys abyssinica) also emit a fragrance that is believed to repel insects. CASE STUDIES 131

Plant composition in Ethiopian home gardens Ethiopian home gardens collectively maintain a larger proportion of the country’s useful plants. This diversity can be seen under the three main categories of garden crops, live fence species, useful wild and semi-wild plants and wild/weedy crop relatives found within and in the immediate vicinity of the home garden environment (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of species of useful plants found in and around home gardens in Ethiopia Category of useful plants Number of species Herbs Shrubs Trees Climbers Total and trailers Crops purposely cultivated in home gardens 88 47 37 17 172 Traditional medicinal plants found in and around home gardens 37 38 19 3 54 • Crops cultivated primarily for use in traditional medicine 3 8 1 – 12 • Crops used in medicine being cultivated for other purposes 30 16 8 2 54 • Wild plants used in traditional medicine 4 14 10 1 28 Traditional vegetables found in and around home gardens 4 6 36 2 46 • Cultivated in home gardens 1 3 7 2 11 • Occur wild in the vicinity of home gardens 3 3 29 – 35 Live fence plants 0 38 25 1 64 Wild/semi-wild useful plants found in the vicinity of home gardens 45 47 46 6 148 Total recorded useful plant species 135 146 123 25 412 Many introduced ornamentals are not recorded, and multipurpose species have been recounted in multiple categories.

When the live fence, shade species and the useful wild/semi-wild species found close to the home gardens are added to the conventional crops, the real magnitude of the species diversity of the home gardens emerges. A complete list of the useful plants of the home garden environment in Ethiopia is not available, partly because the surveys are not yet complete and the flora of Ethiopia is not well enough known to facilitate their authentic identification.

Crop diversity in Ethiopian home gardens The home garden agroecosystem is an important system for the maintenance of agrobiodiversity beyond its primary function in crop production, household food security and nutrition. It is an important area for effectively implementing programmes geared towards biodiversity conservation, food security and sustainable development. Not less than 172 crop species distributed in 121 genera and 50 plant families have been recorded in Ethiopian home gardens (Zemede Asfaw 1997a). The , the Lamiaceae, , Rubiaceae, and Brassicaceae with more than 10 species each (11–17) exhibited the highest species diversity in Ethiopian home gardens. Some home gardens produce a significant amount of the food needed by the family in addition to minor and supplementary products. The role of the home garden in household food security is illustrated by the fact that about 90% of their produce is used for home consumption, and that harvesting takes place on a continuous basis when the material is needed. The integrity of the agroecosystem relies on the natural plant reservoir found in forests, woodlands and . Some crops of the home garden are at home in the forests (e.g. Coffea arabica, Aframomum corrorima, Passiflora edulis, Piper capense, Rhamnus prinoides, Psidium guajava). The wild relatives of many crops are found in the forests and wastelands, providing another pool of genetic resources for crop improvement. Crops being moved from the forest to the home garden enter a process of domestication, while those moving from home garden to forest undergo a process which has been referred to as de-domestication (Esquivel and Hammer 1992). Traditional home gardens are important platforms for conservation of plant agrobiodiversity on-farm because they are centres of accumulation for a wide range of useful plant taxa. Few individuals of many species are cultivated in each home garden under complex mixed cropping systems. The system 132 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

maintains its integrity through traditional reuse and recycling of household and farm refuse, which in part accounts for its sustainability. Increased emphasis is being placed on inventorizing the agrobiodiversity and on ethnobotanic documentation of the entire home garden agroecosystem in many tropical and subtropical countries of Africa, Asia and South and Central America (Millat-e-Mustafa 1998). The limited studies undertaken to date on Ethiopian home gardens have shown that the agroecosystem maintains a sizable amount of the country’s agricultural biodiversity (Zemede Asfaw 1997a, 2000). The home gardens are widely distributed throughout the country and are home to a range of taxa of cultivated perennial and annual crop species and varieties. They harbor rare species or varieties of cultivated plants as well as those that are being grown on an experimental basis. In a countrywide survey (Zemede Asfaw 1997a), 52% of a total of 172 crops species found in home gardens were categorized as typical garden species, 28% were seen to be common both in home gardens and fields while 20% were typical field crops that are occasionally found in home gardens in the study area or have special varieties grown in home gardens. Examples of the latter include juicy (saccharine) sorghum, popping sorghum, fast maturing and sweet types of maize, robust, thick-stemmed and large and thick leaved Brassica carinata, the perennial Capsicum annuum and climbing types of Phaseolus and other legumes. About 74% of the crops documented in home gardens were categorized as food crops while the remaining 26% were non-food crops, showing the importance of home gardens in supplying food to the household (see Table 2).

Table 2. Number of species of crops in Ethiopian home gardens in the different horticultural (use) categories Crop category Number of species Percentage of total Remarks Food crops 127 74 Close to 3/4 of the species are food plants Cereals 6 3 Pulses 14 8 Roots and tubers 13 8 Fruits 36 21 Vegetables 30 17 Oils, nuts and sugars 12 7 Spices and herbs 16 10 Many of these are also used in traditional medicine Non-food crops 45 26 About 1/4 of the species cover non-food necessities of households Non-food oil crops 3 2 Fragrance plants 6 3 Stimulants/narcotics 2 1 Plants used in crafts 9 5 and implements Medicinal 10 6 Does not include the many species that are harvested from live fence and nearby natural environment Utility plants 3 2 Miscellaneous 12 7 Total 172 100.00

Out of 112 species of crops found growing in southern and southwestern Ethiopia, 69 (62%) were recorded in home gardens only, 26 (23%) both in home gardens and crop fields and 17 (15%) in fields only. In most parts, about 85% of the cultivated species are encountered under cultivation in home gardens, about 50% always in home gardens and about 35% in home gardens and fields (Table 3). CASE STUDIES 133

Table 3. Number of crop species and place of their cultivation as seen in eleven study sites in southern, western and southwestern Ethiopia Site Number of distinct crop species cultivated Percent of crops In home In home In fields Total cultivated in gardens only gardens and fields only home gardens

1 25 25 5 55 91 2 13 30 9 52 83 3 41 17 9 67 87 4 30 22 6 58 90 5238 4 3589 6 18 14 7 39 82 7 31 5 13 49 73 8106 3 1984 9 6 6 3 15 80 10 5 3 4 12 67 11 5 7 0 12 100 Total 50 35 15 100 85

A study conducted in southwestern Ethiopia showed that farmers prefer some crops to others in their home gardens based on their use values, adaptability, cultural significance and other reasons. Accordingly, the top ten most preferred plants in the order of preference were, as identified by farmers: Ensete ventricosum, Xanthosoma sagittifolium, Coffea arabica, Brassica carinata, Colocasia esculenta, Cucurbita pepo, Capsicum annuum, Dioscorea cayenensis-rotundata complex, Saccharum officinarum and Coccinia abyssinica. The evidence indicates that the key species in almost all of the home gardens in this area is Ensete ventricosum.

Vegetable and spice crops in Ethiopian home gardens Ethiopia has a long tradition of using spices, condiments, additives and herbs in its culture. The peoples of Ethiopia have been very keen in incorporating and integrating new crops into the existing farming complex and into traditional food preparation. In this process the home garden has played important and key roles. Ethiopians have successfully integrated introduced food crops like potato and hot pepper into their original dishes, often creating new ones. They have successfully maintained many introduced species in home gardens along with indigenous ones, leading to their integration and acquired cultural significance in Ethiopia’s diverse and unique food preparation and eating habits. In Table 1 the number of cultivated (11) and wild (35) species of vegetables that have wider usage in the country as vegetables are given. Likewise spices and condiments also make a significant proportion of home garden plants. About a dozen species of cherished spices used in foods including some that occur in the natural ecosystems (Aframomum corrorima, Piper capense) have been recorded. Vegetables and spices account for about 27% of the home garden species and with the non-food aromatic plants the share of this category is substantial (Table 2).

Medicinal plants in Ethiopian home gardens Many species of garden crops have multiple uses. A survey performed (Zemede Asfaw 1997a) showed that about 6% of the species of home garden crops are primarily cultivated for medicinal use (Table 1). However, there are other garden crops that are purposely grown for their medicinal use on occasions (e.g. many spice crops) and those that are usually grown for other purposes but used in traditional healthcare. Studies in different areas (Zemede Asfaw 1998) have shown that the share of medicinal plants in the home garden is much more. It must be noted that the medicinal use of some 134 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

home garden species is restricted to some communities while use of others is more universal in the country and beyond. It is further noted that while the main garden crops within the same agroecological region are generally common, those cultivated as traditional medicinal, live fence and shade plants vary considerably from household to household. The bulk of the medicinally used plants are also used as food and this may reflect the intertwined function of the home garden for food production and as a health care delivery system.

Plants maintained as home garden live fence and shade trees Home gardens are sometimes bound by natural barriers such as rivers, gorges or mounds. However, they are generally fenced with dry wood material and sometimes with stone. In other cases, live plants (very often thorny shrubs) are grown or used as reinforcements. In rural villages, home garden fences almost always contain live plants which provide additional benefits to families as food, medicine, material for construction, farm and household implements and cordage. Many of these can be traced back to the natural vegetation before the living quarter was established, while others are either planted purposely or encouraged and protected when they grow by themselves. About 64 species of shrubs and trees distributed in 54 genera and 36 families are maintained as live fence and shade plants (Table 1). Common live fence species that also give edible fruits include Rosa abyssinica, Carissa edulis, Opuntia ficus-indica, Dovyalis abyssinica, Ziziphus spina-christi, Rubus spp. and many others (see Zemede Asfaw and Mesfin Tadesse 2001). Phytolacca dodecandra and Adhatoda schimperiana are commonly encountered as live fence plants. The former is used in traditional medicine and as traditional detergent while the latter is used as fodder during the dry season. In the drylands, the usual live fence species are Euphorbia spp. (e.g. E. abyssinica, E. tirucalli), Ziziphus spp., Agave spp., Acacia spp. and others. In rural areas the live plants of the fence may have been planted intentionally from stubs and cuttings pressed into the soil to strengthen the fence, or they may have been encouraged after they sprouted from the soil seed bank, or they may be a remnant of the original natural vegetation.

Useful wild/semi-wild plants in the vicinity of home gardens There are many plants that are used by communities which originate as weeds in the environs of home gardens. Taking the main ones alone, about 148 species constituting about equal proportions of herbs, shrubs and trees (Table 1) have been recorded during several field trips. These are used for various purposes including as food during times of stress when others are not available, or for medicines and other uses. Many grass species, perennials and annuals that frequently grow in home gardens are also used for various purposes including erosion control, as fodder plants, as forage, fumigation material, thatch, etc. The value of home gardens in maintaining the biodiversity of useful plants could be extrapolated from its habitat/niche diversification, diversity of the community of useful plants, the number of crop taxa in individual gardens and in the entire agroecosystem. One way of quantifying this diversity is to assess the taxonomic diversity. Many of home garden species also exhibit variability below the species level, and the genetic diversity is also anticipated to be high. The home garden environment is a repository and a place for the evolution of new diversity of useful plants. This merit alone would put it high on the agenda of use and conservation of plant genetic resources. To conserve crop biodiversity in the country, home gardens provide an important avenue because about 85% of the crops and many crop relatives and wild useful plants are maintained in it. Many taxonomic groups, horticultural categories and different growth forms are cultivated in home gardens along with those that are known to be economically and culturally very important to local communities. The crops include cereals, fruits, vegetables, oils, pulses, roots/tubers, medicines, spices, condiments, fragrances, fumigants, crafts/implements, dyes, utility, ornamentals and others. Some crops are obligate home garden crops, while others are considered facultative home garden crops as they are also grown in fields in some parts of the country. CASE STUDIES 135

To assure the diversity and quality of their choices, farmers maintain a startling array of species and varieties in their home gardens. They select and conserve diversity based on clear agromorphologic characters that they can identify visually and relate with some nutritional, adaptational and other attributes. The diversity exhibited at the species and varietal levels is very critical to ensure in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm in farmers’ home gardens, and analysis of home garden diversity at this level (based on species as well as varieties) is important.

Indigenous management of home gardens in Ethiopia The home garden agroecosystem is an important traditional agricultural system in Ethiopia, which is operated through the active use of indigenous knowledge, practices and skills. The limited ethnobotanic approaches to date focused on Ethiopian home gardens are gradually bringing to light the complexity of management practices when farming families with a strong focus on home gardening are studied. Normal management assists the gradual evolution of home gardens to the climax stage, where higher productivity is possible in a complex ecology where species richness and intensive land use are prominent features. The highly complex structure of the home garden architecture as well as the patterning of plant categories in it has been designed and developed by indigenous skills and practices. The home gardening culture has developed a general structure with considerable diversity and flexibility that allows owners to produce crops of their choice. The home garden preserves ethnobotanical knowledge and cultural history through preservation of the characteristic agricultural features, crops and crop combinations on-farm. Owners of home gardens manage and direct much of the development process for the home garden. The home garden generally follows what might be called an open-door strategy in giving and receiving new crops and varieties. Germplasm is received and given out freely to relatives, friends, neighbours and acquaintances. Conversely, households also have traditional ways of restricting/discouraging the uncontrolled transfer of planting materials (germplasm) from home gardens, since the norm is to secure permission from the family. Such customary rules and norms would need to be respected in the interest of property rights and equity on a larger scale. The large majority of home gardens are owned by individual families with the head of the family (the father or the mother) being in charge of the overall management. To manage the garden space and the plants, the male family head is usually responsible for designing the structure, identifying appropriate locations for positioning the major crops, and monitoring and strongly influencing the structure and the direction of home garden development. The contribution of men is more important in large gardens and gardens dominated by Chat, coffee, banana and enset which require more arduous work. Women have a major share in home garden management, though it usually remains undercover because of the culture, which keeps women in the background and men at the forefront. With the exception of heavy duties, women take part in most activities. The cultural relations are not amenable for generating gender-disaggregated data, but in some activities they are the sole actors and this is obvious to people who have grown up in farming communities. Women manage minor plants like vegetables, spices and medicines. Excess produce from home gardens is sold on roadsides or at nearby markets by women and sometimes children. The income generated from minor crops like cabbage, spices, etc. goes to women. When women are in a situation where they are the head family, as is the case when the husband travels, they take care of many of the home garden activities. Home garden crops are usually harvested on continuous bases when the need is felt and the role of women in this is very significant. Women in ENSET-dominated areas form cooperative workforces to assist each other with the heavy work of ENSET harvesting and processing. On issues of decision- making, the collectivist approach is significant because the family head often generates ideas, which are then amended and enriched by household members. 136 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Children work in home gardens and also get instant supplementary food from it. Some fruits and other edible parts are for instant use, others are good for eating after briefly being cooked in pits under soil, or roasted directly on the fire. These foods are very delicious and nutritious and therefore when children feel that they have not had enough food, they often harvest the wild or edible raw foods of the home garden, which provide them with supplementary food. The contribution of home gardens is considered high in terms of providing vitamins and minerals for a balanced diet. Estimating the total production of a home garden is a difficult task partly because harvesting takes place on a continuous basis and also that the produce is not normally measured. Historically, landlords did not have legal grounds to tax home garden produce. Instead, taxation of the home garden space is covered within the tax paid for the residential place. Whether there is production or not in the home garden, the family pays the same amount of residential tax every year and therefore producing more in the home garden means an overall increase in resources. Assessment of the value of home gardens must include contribution to household food supply and household food security among others. The value of home gardens in food security is well acknowledged in the long history of Ethiopia, particularly during years of food shortage.

Threats to Ethiopian home gardens Although it has been sustainable for centuries, the home garden agroecosystem is under threat due to environmental degradation, replacement of traditional crops/varieties, change of and architecture facilitated by population pressures and the monoculture ‘syndrome’ of modern agriculture as well as cultural dilution and shifting. The culturally and economically valued crops are threatened by incoming crops. The fast expansion of Xanthosoma sagittifolium is seen by farmers to be a potential threat to enset. Concern about biodiversity conservation and utilization will be delusive without proper attention to traditional systems (Altieri and Merrick 1987). In the knowledge domain under which home gardens evolved and continue to operate become defunct, biodiversity conservation will be threatened because they maintain the bulk of the useful botanical biodiversity in Ethiopia and contribute significantly to the livelihood of the people.

What are the needs of Ethiopian home gardens? The workforce involved in agricultural development needs to be fully aware of the production and conservation worth of the home garden agroecosystem. Development-oriented projects focusing on promotion, enhancement and socioeconomic assessment and cultural documentation should be implemented in Ethiopia. Research in the major cultures and localities should help to bring more quantitative data that will help to scientifically prove the merits of the system. Ethnobotanical and agroecological documentation of home gardens and key home garden species should be undertaken in the major parts. A checklist of the crops, varieties and threatened taxa must be prepared. Ethnobotanical information on the key species must then be used to build a scientific database and classification of farmers’ varieties/clones. Development options should help to direct the evolution of home gardens. Parallel activities involving the scientific study of home gardens on the one hand and development-oriented work on the other must be undertaken in a coordinated and integrated manner.

Conclusion Home gardens will continue to develop and intensify and this is a continuing and flourishing tradition despite pressures from different angles. Along with the growing challenges to develop home gardens, halting the ecological degradation of the environment to maintain the rich reservoir of biodiversity needs to be viewed in terms of its positive biological and social dividends. The agricultural development strategy would need to understand the farming system and try to direct home garden evolution rather than to change it. One of the drawbacks concerning generalizations on species diversity and ecosystem processes of managed ecosystems, among which home gardens CASE STUDIES 137

are included, is linked with the assertion that most species are alien to the ecosystem, and therefore lack sufficient evolutionary history. However, under the Ethiopian home garden conditions, some of the perennial species of the home gardens are actually species claimed from the natural vegetation or those growing from the soil seed bank. Still other species are indigenous crops that have been annexed from the natural vegetation during different times of domestication while others are along the wild/semi-wild/domesticated continuum. Key species of the home garden should be studied in detail to recover their associated indigenous knowledge through application of relevant qualitative and quantitative methods. It is important that the future of home gardens is seen in conjunction with the conservation of surrounding forests. This is because the natural reservoirs of these home gardens are the forests. They enrich the diversity of the garden flora with useful plants taken into cultivation by households and through geneflow between cultivated and wild relatives. Home gardens are refuges for useful species becoming less and less common in the natural environment. For crops that have returned to the wilderness, the surrounding natural environment is the standing reservoir for gene flow and hybridization. To maintain the geneflow between home gardens and the natural forests, both should be conserved in a stable state. Traditional home gardens have been repeatedly shown to be a sustainable farming system. They offer a means of combating the ecological crisis that is unfolding bit by bit. The home garden agroecosystem in Ethiopia could be transformed into a self-contained future agroforestry complex through enhancement and further intensification, and skilful inclusion of biogas generation, fishponds, and mushroom cultivation wherever and whenever conditions permit. The reputed nutritional calculus of farmers exhibited in their management of home gardens must be allowed to progress further to encompass other hitherto marginalized goals. It is important therefore to direct more attention to home gardens as place where the organic link between production and conservation is still maintained. Thus conservation of crop genetic resources will be addressed through use of the farming system and the plants it nurtures. Although the general features of Ethiopian home gardens are known, the need to argue conservation cases with quantified data has become more acute. Such data is needed for sound comparative assessment of home gardens in different agroecological and socio-cultural settings in order to generate worthwhile recommendations that facilitate development- and conservation-oriented programmes.

References Altieri, M. A. and L.C. Merrick. 1987. In situ conservation of crop genetic resources through maintenance of traditional farming systems. Economic Botany 41(1):86-96. Benneh, G. 1974. The ecology of peasant farming systems in Ghana (1). Environment in Africa. Environment and Regional Planning Research Bulletin 1(1):35-49, Dakar, Senegal. Brandt, S. A. 1984. New perspectives on the origins of food production in Ethiopia. Pp. 173–190 in From Hunters to Farmers: the causes and consequences of food production in Africa (J. Desmond Clark and Steven A. Brandt, eds.). University of California Press, Berkeley, USA. Brownrigg, L. 1985. Home gardening in International Development. League for International Food Education. Washington, DC, USA. Caballero, J. 1992. Maya home gardens: past, present, future. Ethnoecologia 1(1):35-54. Christanty, L. 1990. Home gardens in tropical Asia with special reference to Indonesia. Pp.9–20 in Tropical Home gardens, (Landauer, K. and Brazil, M., eds.). UNU, Tokyo, Japan. Ehret, C. 1979. On the Antiquity of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Journal of African History 20:161-177. Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1992. The Cuban home garden,’Conucos’: a perspective environment for evolution and in-situ conservation of plant genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 39 (1):9-22. Feleke Woldeyes 2000. A study on the biodiversity management in Daaaddegoyo (traditional home gardens) by Kaficho people of Bonga area (southwestern Ethiopia): An ethnobotanical approach. MSc thesis, Biology Department, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Fernandes, E. and R. Nair. 1990. An evolution of the structure and function of tropical home gardens. Pp. 105–114 in K. Landauer and M. Brazil (eds.). Tropical Home Gardens, The UNU Press, Tokyo, Japan. 138 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Gesseler, M. Hodel, U. and P. Eyzaguirre. 1996. Home Gardens and Agrobiodiversity: current state of knowledge with reference to the relevant literature. Discussion paper. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Gesseler, M., U. Hodel, H.H. Cai, V.V. Thoan, N.V. Ha, N.X. Thu and T. Ba. 1997. In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources (PGR) in Home Gardens of Southern Vietnam. IPGRI/APO. Serdang, Malaysia. Godbole, A. 1998. Home Gardens: Traditional Systems for Maintenance of Biodiversity. Pp. 9–12 in Applied Ethnobotany in Management-Traditional Home gardens (A. Rastogi, A. Godbole and S. Pei, eds.). International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal. Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds. 1992. Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, Volume 2. Gatersleben, Germany. Harlan, J.R. 1969. Ethiopia: A Centre of Diversity. Econ. Bot. 23:309-314. Jose, D. and N. Shanmugaratnam. 1993. Traditional home gardens of Kerala: a sustainable human ecosystem. Agroforestry Systems 24: 203-213. Marten, G.G. 1990. A nutritional calculus for home-garden design: Case study from . Pp. 147–148 in Tropical Home Gardens (K. Landauer and M. Brazil, eds.). UNU, Tokyo. Millat-e-Mustafa, M. 1998. Overview of research in home garden systems. Pp. 13–37, in Applied Ethnobotany in Natural Resource Management-Traditional Home gardens (A. Rastogi, A. Godbole and S. Pei, eds.). International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal. Nguyen, X.Q. 1995. Home-garden systems in Vietnam. Pp. 153–164 in Conserving Biodiversity Outside Protected Areas: The role of traditional agroecosystems (Patricia Halliday and D.A. Gilmour eds.). IUCN, Gland. Okigbo B. N. 1990. Home Gardens in Tropical Africa. Pp. 21–40 in Tropical Home Gardens (K. Landauer and M. Brazil, eds.). UNU, Tokyo, Japan. Okigbo, B.N. 1994. Conservation and use of germplasm in African traditional agriculture and use systems. Pp. 15–38 in Safeguarding the Genetic Basis of Africa’s Traditional Crops. (A. Putter, ed.). CTA, The Netherlands/IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Padoch, C. and de Jong, W. 1991. The house garden of Santa Rosa: diversity and variability in an Amazonian agricultural system. Econ. Bot. 45:166-175. Power, A.G. and A.S. Flecker. 1996. The Role of Biodiversity in Tropical Managed Ecosystems. Pp. 173–194 in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Processes in Tropical Forests (Gordon H. Orians, Rudolfo Dirzo and J.Hall Cushman, eds.). Ecological Studies 122, Springer, Berlin, Germany. Rico-Gray, V., J.R. Garcia-Franco, A. Chemas, A. Puch. and P. Sima. 1990. Species composition, similarity and structure of Mayan home gardens in Tixpeual and Tixacaltuyub, Yucatan, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 44 (4):470-487. Soleri, D. and D.A. Cleveland. 1989. Dryland household gardens in development. Arid Lands Newsletter 29:5-10. Torquebiau, E. 1992. Are tropical agroforestry home gardens sustainable? Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 41(2):189-207. UNICEF. 1982. Home gardens Handbook. Biodiversity guide for Ethiopia. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Euphytica 96:1-2. Wang, Y.K. 1998. The impact of migrating mountain farming communities on agrobiodiversity: a case study of the Li minority nationality in the mountains of Island. Pp. 51–54 in Managing Agrobiodiversity: Farmers changing perspectives and institutional responses in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region (T. Partap and B. Staphit, eds.). International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. Westphal, E. 1975. Agricultural Systems in Ethiopia. Agric. Res. Rep. 826. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Wojtkowski, P.A. 1993. Towards an understanding of tropical home gardens. Agroforestry Systems 24(2):215-222. Zemede Asfaw. 1997a. The Indigenous Food Plants, Food Preparations from Indigenous Crop and Home Gardens in Ethiopia. Research Report to UNU. Zemede Asfaw. 1997b. Conservation and use of traditional vegetation in Ethiopia. Pp. 57–65 in Proceedings of the IPGRI International Workshop on genetic resources of traditional vegetables in Africa. IPGRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Zemede Asfaw. 1997c. Ethiopian traditional vegetables: synopsis of situation and desirable steps ahead. Pp. 100–103 in Proceedings of the Workshop on African Indigenous Vegetables. NRI and IPGRI, Limbe, Cameroon. Zemede Asfaw. 1998. The role of home gardens in the production and conservation of medicinal plants. Pp. 76–99 in Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia, Proceedings of the National Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in Ethiopia. IBCR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. CASE STUDIES 139

Zemede Asfaw. 1999a. Ethnobotany of nations, nationalities and peoples in Gambella. P. 172 in Benishangul- Gumuz and Southern Regions of Ethiopia. A Research Report submitted to the Research and Publications Office of Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa. Zemede Asfaw. 1999b. How they cope in the Ethiopian drylands: Indigenous modes of living that evolved under uncertainties of the arid and semi-arid Ethiopian rift system. Dryland Biodiversity, Biannual Newsletter of the Research Programme on Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity, Issue No. 3: Zemede Asfaw. 2000. Home garden Biodiversity in Ethiopia. P. 137 in Abstract Paper of the International Conference: Ethiopia: a Biodiversity Challenge, 2–4 February, Addis Ababa. The Biological Society of Ethiopia and The Linnean Society of London, UK. Zemede Asfaw. 2001. Origin and evolution of rural home gardens in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea (I. Friis and O. Ryding, eds.). Danke Videnskabers Selsk 54:273-286 (in press). Zemede Asfaw and Ayele Nigatu. 1995. Home Gardens in Ethiopia: Characteristics and Plant Diversity, Sinet: Ethiop. J. Sci., 18(2):235-266. Zemede Asfaw and Mesfin Tadesse. 2001. Prospects for sustainable use and development of wild food plants in Ethiopia. Econ. Bot. 55(1):47-62. Zemede Asfaw and Zerihun Woldu. 1997. Crop associations of home-gardens in Welayta and Gurage in Southern Ethiopia. SINET: Ethiop. J. Sci. 20(1):73-90. 140 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Home gardens in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java: a challenge for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources1

Oekan S. Abdoellah, Parikesit, Budhi Gunawan and Herri Y. Hadikusumah Institute of Ecology and Dept Anthropology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract Home gardens, especially in rural areas, are usually cultivated with a mixture of annual and perennial plants that can be harvested on a daily or seasonal basis. Although the structure of home gardens varies from region to region, home gardens are characterized by their diversity of species composition. Many species are represented by several varieties, some only partly domesticated. Home gardening is a sustainable production system which has been practiced for centuries, and its multiple use products contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the nutritional and income needs of the household. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the structure and function of home gardens in the of rapid economic development in Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java. The study revisited the assumption that home gardens are entities which contribute to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in the farming system. By doing this, we are hoping to improve our knowledge of the structure and function of home gardens in relation to their multidimensional social, economic, ecological, and cultural dynamics. The findings of the present study suggest that in situ conservation in home gardens in Upper Citarum Watershed would likely face great challenges.

Introduction Home gardens are commonly found in many parts of Indonesia. It has been suggested that is the Indonesian centre of origin of the home garden in its present highly developed form (Terra 1954). Traditional home gardens have received special attention in Indonesia since the 1970’s when the Institute of Ecology in Padjadjaran University discussed the role of home gardens in rural development. Home gardens are defined as a land use system whose structure resembles a forest and it combines the natural architecture of a forest with species fulfilling the social, economic and cultural needs of the people (Soemarwoto and Christanty 1985). Home gardens are a component of rural ecosystem that has been used for centuries by the villagers. Home gardens, especially in the rural areas, are typically cultivated with a mixture of annual and perennial plants that can be harvested on a daily or seasonal basis with a wide variety of plants. In a single home garden in a village in the Upper Citarum Watershed, 56 species were found; in a hamlet of 351 households in the same area, 602 species were recorded (Karyono 1981). Many species are represented by several varieties, some only partly domesticated. In Citarum Watershed, 34 banana varieties were recorded (Abdoellah 977). The fruit of some bananas (e.g. ambon and susu) are eaten as dessert, and others are supplementary staples or used for wrapping leaves. According to Soemarwoto and Conway (1992), farmers clearly recognized the long-erm importance of the genetic diversity in their home gardens. The structure of home gardens varies from place to place according to local physical circumstances, ecological characteristics, social, economic and cultural factors (Abdoellah 1985; Christanty, 1985; Kryono 1985). The high diversity of plant species in the home gardens and mixture of annuals and perennials of different heights results in a complex horizontal and vertical structure. The multi-layered plant canopy proves to be beneficial in the utilization of sunlight and in water and soil conservation (Filius 1982; Wiersum 1982; Brownrigg 1985). Home gardens have several functions that are not only economic, but also have social and cultural, aesthetical, and ecological functions (Kimber 1973; Abdoellah 1985; Soemarwoto and

1 Presented in International Workshop: Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems. 17–19 July , 2001, Witzenhausen, Germany. CASE STUDIES 141

Soemarwoto 1985; Buldowsky 1990; Soemarwoto and Conway 1992). The multiple use products of home gardens contribute significantly to the fulfillment of the various needs (such as nutritional and income) of the household (Kimber, 1966; Abdoellah et al. 1978; Soemarwoto and Soemarwoto 1979; Abdoellah 1980, 1985; Christanty 1985; Karyono 1985; Michon and Mary 1994). Income derived from home gardens ranges from 0.8% to 54% of the family’s total income (Stoler 1975 and many others). The economic significance of home garden depends on whether it is for subsistence or commercial production. This in turn depends on the size of home garden, the distance to the nearest market, and the demand for the particular produce grown (Abdoellah 1985). The diversity of plants in a home garden is beneficial from nutritional point of view. Home gardens can provide sources of supplementary vegetable protein and are readily available sources of , vitamins, and minerals (Abdoellah and Marten 1984; Abdoellah 1985). Many home garden plants serve as important sources of non-food necessities such as fuelwood and building materials. Apart from the economic function described above, home gardens in rural areas also have an important role from a social perspective (Abdoellah 1985). For many rural people, the home garden is an important place for socializing. Many products of home gardens are shared freely between neighbours. Many species in the home garden are believed to have a magical value or to serve as weather indicators. The home garden is also important as a status symbol; those who do not have their own home garden and build their houses in another’s garden are considered poor. Many authors pointed out that home gardening is a sustainable production system, which has been practiced for many centuries. Some authors (e.g. Harlan, 1975; Ruthenberg 1976 in Brownrigg 1985) classified the home garden as a separate and unique type of agricultural production system. Self-sufficiency and the capability to avoid dependency on imported inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides are among the most distinct characteristics of traditional home gardens. Some authors described them as an ‘autonomous’ system. In the course of rapid development in the agricultural sector and market pressure, commercialization and new technologies have been pressing major changes upon the agroecosystem (Abdoellah 1985). Some villagers are already shifting the species in their home gardens to fulfil the need for more cash as consumer goods become available. The introduction of commercial crops into the home garden system is a potential source of structural and functional change. The home garden may become dominated by only a few plant species; some have even become , with the dominant plant species made up of cash crops such as vegetables in high demand in city markets. It should be pointed out, however, the shifting will be likely to occur only if accessibility, climatic and edaphic factors are favourable. This paper tries to examine the structure and function of home gardens in Upper Ciatrum Watershed area in the course of rapid economic development. In this connection the following key questions are addressed: Is the generalization of home garden as a sustainable production system still relevant under new economic circumstances? Will in situ conservation prevail in the course of current and future agricultural development? Do rural people still maintain the ‘old’ structure of home gardens in the course of rapid development in agricultural sector and market pressure? The paper is based on a multidisciplinary study conducted in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java, Indonesia. The main objective of the present study is to revisit the ‘traditional’ assumption that home gardens as an entity can contribute to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems. By doing this, we are hoping to increase our understanding of the structure and function of home gardens in relation with multidimensional social, economic, ecological, and cultural factors.

Methods Study site With its total catchment area approximately 6000 km2, the Citarum Watershed crosses seven districts, and its main river, the Citarum, runs approximately 350 km northward from Mount to the 142 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Java Sea. This watershed, particularly in the upper part, is experiencing rapid development in the agricultural sector since the 1970s following the Green Revolution. This development has resulted in major changes to the agricultural landscape, tending towards homogenization (Gunawan et al., manuscript under review). Sukapura village in the Upper Citarum Watershed was selected as the study site, which is about 1250 m asl. Sukapura is situated about 30 km southeast of Bandung municipality. An asphalt road connects the village to Majalaya subdistrict, a centre of textile industry. Having accessibility to Majalaya and Bandung, the villagers can easily market their agricultural products. The total area of Sukapura village is about 187 hectares. The majority of the area is comprised of agricultural lands (consisting of gardens and mixed gardens, 163.5 ha) and settlement areas (5.05 ha) that belong to the local people. In 1994, the population of Sukapura village was 8815 peoples consisting of 2117 families. In the year of 2000, the population in Sukapura had increased significantly to 11 763 people, consisting of 3433 families. The increasing population in the year 2000 is mostly due to migration back to villages, especially during Indonesian’s economic crisis. Many people who had previously worked in the cities, together with their families, moved back into the village. Having no land in the village, many of them built houses in the home gardens of their relatives (numpang). The majority of the families in Sukapura rely on agricultural resources, though most of them are landless. From the survey conducted in the present study, only 36.4% of families own agricultural land. The majority of the landless families depend for their livelihood on working as farm laborers. In the past, some of them were sharecroppers for landowners but since commercial crops have come to dominate the agricultural sector, the system is no longer applied and a leasing system has become the most common system for land cultivation.

Sampling design In the present study, interviews using questionnaires were performed with respondents. Apart from that, vegetation survey was conducted to obtain the composition and structure of home garden.

Sample selection The number of home garden samples was determined using the following formula (Lynch et al. 1974):

NZ 2 p(1− p) n = Nd 2 + Z 2 p(1− p) where: n=number of samples N=number of households in the study village Z=the value of normal variable (1.96) for a reliability level of 0.95 p=the highest possible proportion (0.5) d= sampling error (0.1)

Based on the above formula, 92 households were randomly selected for interviews and a vegetation survey.

Vegetation survey In the vegetation survey, the following data were recorded from the sampled home gardens: name of species, number of individuals for each species, number of layers based on plant height, plant category (based on its main use), trunk diameter at breast height (only for trees). Vegetable category was further differentiated into cash crop and subsistence. Apart from that, data concerning land utilization in home garden for nursery and/or cash crop production were also recorded. CASE STUDIES 143

Results The total number of species found in all sampled home gardens in Sukapura was 195 species. The average number of species per home garden was 21±1.25. Among dominant species found in home gardens in Sukapura village were (green onion), Raphanus sativus (radish), Ipomoea batatas (sweet potatoes), and Daucus carota (carrots). Green onion had a much higher value of Summed Dominant Ratio (19.4%) compared with the other three species (Table 1).

Table 1. Summed dominant ratios (SDR, in%) of some plant species found in home gardens of Sukapura village No Botanical name RD RF SDR 1 Alium fistulosum 37.1 1.7 19.4 2 Raphanus sativus 8.4 0.1 4.2 3 Ipomea batatas 7.3 1.1 4.2 4 Daucus carota 7.6 0.5 4.1 5 Duranta erecta 2.9 3.2 3.1 6 Brassica chinensis 5.4 0.1 2.8 7 Brassica oleracea 4.8 0.1 2.4 8 Manihot esculenta 1.9 2.3 2.1 9 Zea mays 3.4 0.4 1.9 10 Psidium guajava 0.3 3.2 1.8 Note: RD=relative density; RF=relative frequency; SDR=summed dominant ratio.

The present study indicated that the correlation between the number of species and the size of home garden was low (r=0.29). About 5% of home garden with size less than 100 m2 had more than 21 species, whereas 35.2% of larger home gardens (more than 100 m2) had less than 21 species (Table 2). Whereas correlation between number of categories and home garden size was also low, i.e. r=0.24. If the sampled home gardens were differentiated into two categories, i.e. home gardens located in rice fields and non-rice field areas, the number of species did not differ significantly between the categories (r=0.06).

Table 2. Number of species in different categories of home garden size in Sukapura village (in %) Home garden size Number of species Total Less than 21 21 or more <100 m2 20.7 (19) 5.4 (5) 26.1 (24) 100– <200 m2 12.0 (11) 12.0 (11) 23.9 (22) 200– <300 m2 8.7 (8) 5.4 (5) 14.1 (13) 300– <400 m2 4.3 (4) 6.5 (6) 10.9 (10) 400– <500 m2 3.3 (3) 3.3. (3) 6.5 (6) 500– <600 m2 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) 2,2 (2) ≥600 m2 5.4 (5) 10.9 (10) 16.3 (15) Total 55.4 (51) 44.6 (41) 100 (92) Note: numbers in parentheses are the number of samples.

In terms of growth form, the majority of plants grown in home gardens of Sukapura village are small herbaceous plants; there were 94 herbaceous plants, 56 shrubs, and 45 tree species in sampled home gardens. The limited size of home gardens in this village inhibits the ability to grow big trees. The present study indicated that 38% of sampled home gardens had only three vegetation strata of no more than 5 m in height. Only 14.2% have an upper layer, i.e., more than 10 m in height (Table 3). 144 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Table 3. Number and combination of vegetation layers in relation with categories of home gardens size (in %) No. and Home garden size Total combination of Layer <100m2 100–<200m2 200–<300m2 300–<400m2 400–<500m2 500–<600m2 ≥ 600m2

A 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) C 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) A,B 5.4 (5) 7.6 (7) 2.2 (2) 3.3 (3) 1.1 (1) 19.6 (18) A,C 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) 2.2 (2) 4.3 (4) A,E 1.1 (1) 1.1 (1) A,B,C 10.9(10) 10.9(10) 5.4(5) 3.3 (3) 7.6(7) 38.0(35) A,B,E 1.1(1) 1.1(1) A,C,D 1.1(1) 1.1(1) A,B,C,D 5.4(5) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 5.4(5) 19.6(18) A,B,C,E 1.1(1) 1.1(1) A,B,D,E 1.1(1) 1.1(1) A,B,C,D,E 2.2(2) 1.1(1) 2.2(2) 2.2(2) 3.3(3) 10.9(10) Notes: numbers in parentheses are the number of samples. Layer A=<1 m high; Layer B=between 1 and <2 m high; Layer C=between 2 and 5 m high; Layer D=between 5 and <10 m high; Layer E=≥10 m high.

Based on their main use, there were 9 plant categories found in all sampled home gardens; namely, ornamental, vegetables, fruit, food, aromatic, medicinals, spices, building material, and fuelwood. The majority of sampled home gardens, i.e. 77.2%, had more than 3 plant categories. Only 2.2% had all plant categories found in the study site. About 41.3% of sampled home gardens were planted with vegetables, in which 22.8% of the total samples were planted with cash crops such as carrots and green onion. This figure suggests a tendency towards using home gardens for commercial purposes regardless of size (Table 4). Thirty- eight percent of the sampled households that used home gardens for commercial purposes did not own land or have access to agricultural land other than home gardens.

Table 4. The presence of vegetables categorized as subsistence and cash crop in home garden of Sukapura village (in %) Home garden size Vegetable category Total Subsistence Cash crop No. vegetables <100 m2 3.3 (3) 2.2(2) 20.7(19 26.1(24) 100– <200 m2 3.3(3) 6.5(6) 14.2(13) 23.9(22) 200– <300 m2 3.3(3) 2.2(2) 8.7(8) 14.1(13) 300– <400 m2 3.3(3) 2.2(2) 5.4(5) 10.9(10) 400– <500 m2 1.1(1) 3.3(3) 2.2(2) 6.5(6) 500– <600 m2 1.1(1) 1.1(1) 2.2(2) ≥600 m2 4.3(4) 5.4(5) 6.5(6) 16.3(15) Total 18.5(17) 22.8(21) 58.7(54) 100(92)

Discussion The total number of species found in all sampled home gardens in Sukapura did not significantly differ from that found in the previous studies conducted in the lower part of Citarum watershed (e.g. Abdoellah 1980, 1982; Karyono, 1981; Christanty et al. 1984). The average number of plant species CASE STUDIES 145

per home garden in the present study site was slightly lower. However, the dominant species in the present and the previous studies were very much different. In the present study village, the dominant species found in home gardens were cash crops, similar to those cultivated in larger areas in cash crop gardens. This suggested that home gardens in Sukapura were used for more market- oriented production purposes. This led to more intensive management practices on the part of the owners, such as increased watering and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. It is believed that the number of home gardeners in Sukapura village practicing cash crop cultivation is in actuality much higher than the present study’s finding due to the rotation system, a common pattern of land utilization in home gardens. In this system, several crops other than cash crops are cultivated in a cyclical pattern, so during the period of a year the number of farmers found to grow a cash crop vegetable such as sweet potato, for example, would be lower than the number of farmers growing sweet potato over the entire rotational period. Some owners have been changing the function of their home gardens to support different types of land use, for instance cash crop gardens which are economically more promising. In other words, home gardens have become part of other production systems. The villagers use home gardens as nurseries and/or for growing cash crops. The domination of a few species is also altering the function of the home garden. Cash crop introduction produces a different structural pattern of vegetation cover in home gardens in response to the changes in physical and ecological characteristics, an excellent example of how social, economic and cultural factors can translate into ecological realities in home gardens (Abdoellah 1985, Karyono 1985, Christanty 1986). Intensification of home gardens and domination of particular species have resulted in the reduction of the number plant species, which in turn has caused the elimination or reduction of the multiple functions of the home garden. One of the major factors causing the tendency of structural change in home garden vegetation in the present study site, other than bioclimatic factors such as altitude, was rapid development in cash- crop gardens. Thus, socio-economics and cultural factors play a crucial role in the structure and function of home gardens. The gross income from commercialized home gardens may be higher, but cash crops also need higher energy inputs in the form of fertilizers and pesticides (Abdoellah 1985). However, ecological and economic risks involved in planting home gardens with few plant species were also great (see also Abdoellah 1985 and Christanty 1990). In this condition, the ‘autonomy’ of the home garden system is questionable. Increased commercialization will likely affect the sustainability of production system in home gardens. In the present study site, the number of species did not differ significantly between home gardens located in ricefields and non-ricefields areas. This result was not consistent with that obtained from previous studies conducted by Abdoelah et al. (1978), Karyono (1981) and Christanty et al. (1984) in the lower part of Citarum Watershed. In their studies, the number of species found in ricefields area was lower than that in non-ricefields. The inconsistency might be due to different climatic and edaphic factors between upper and lower parts. In the upper part, these two factors favoured the local farmers’ intensification of their agricultural land, including home gardens. Low correlation between the number of species and the size of home gardens in the present study village suggested that the latter factor was not the main factor affecting species diversity. The structure and composition of home gardens is likely to be dependent on the gardeners’ choice of species needed to fulfil their cultural, nutritional, social, and economic needs. Unlike rural areas located at lower altitude, the structure of home gardens in the present study site was characterized by lower numbers of levels in vertical plant structure and lower diversity of plant species. Lower structural diversity found in the present study site was somewhat different with that pointed out by Fernandes and Nair (1990). They found that the usual number of vertical canopy strata in home gardens in Java was 5 strata (see also Michon 1983 and Soemarwoto et al. 1985). In the present study site, some home gardens were dominated by only few plant species occupying the lower layers; as described above, some had even become monocultures, with the dominant species comprising cash crop species such as vegetables usually found in the lowest layer (less than 1 m height). 146 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

The information presented above suggests role of home gardens as a stable method of in situ conservation has become challenging. Efforts to encourage people to take into account the ecological role of home gardens in the course of intensive agricultural development would not be an easy task, because the villagers are convinced that planting cash crops in home gardens is more profitable than conserving ‘traditional’ home gardens which possess higher diversity of genetic resources. The phenomenon in the present study site is likely occurring in other areas that have similar influences from market pressure, agricultural development and socio-economic conditions. In this regards, reconstruction of home gardens for the purpose of in situ conservation would likely be possible in areas where the intensity of influences from the above factors is not considerable. On the other hand, under the present conditions in which the size of home gardens in general tend to decrease, it is necessary to consider that in situ conservation is undertaken in the context of home garden, as a compound, not as an individual, unit.

Conclusion The contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation is uncertain in the face of intensive agricultural development and market pressure combined with favourable bioclimatic and edaphic factors. The findings of the present study suggest that home gardens in the Upper Citarum Watershed are under the influence of the above factors in which an ‘invasion’ of introduced species has changed the overall structural pattern and functions of traditional home gardens. In this regard, reconstruction of home gardens as a sustainable production system is a necessity to ensure in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in the Upper Citarum Watershed.

Acknowledgements The present study was partly funded by the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science and the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University. The authors would like to thank our students: Luppy Handinata, Deyna Handiyana, Dendi Muhamad, and Fazar R. Zulkarnaen for their assistance during the fieldwork.

References Abdoellah, Oekan. 1977. Distribution of fruit trees in home gardens in the Citarum River Basin, West Java. Unpublished thesis. Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Padjadjaran University- Bandung, Indonesia (Indonesian). Abdoellah, Oekan. 1985. Home gardens in Java and Their Future Development. Paper Presented in the International Workshop on Tropical Home gardens. Held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung-Indonesia. December 2–9, 1985. Abdoellah, Oekan. 1982. Home garden Plant Structure of Bantar Kalong Javanese Village, Pananjung Pangandaran, West Java. Unpublished paper. Abdoellah, Oekan. 1980. Structure of Home garden of Javanese and in Bantarkalong, Pangandaran, West Java. Department of Biology, Padjadajaran University-Bandung (in Indonesian). Abdoellah, Oekan and G.G. Marten. 1984. Production of Human Nutrients from Home garden, Upland Field (Kebun), and Ricefield Agricultural Systems in the Jatigede Area, West Java. Workin Paper, East West Center, Honolulu. Abdoellah, Oekan; H. Isnawan; Hadikusumah; Karyono. 1978. Structure of Home garden in Selajambe and Pananjung, West Java. Paper Presented at the Seminar on The Ecology of Home gardens II. Institute of Ecology, Bandung (in Indonesian). Brownrigg, L. 1985. Home gardening in the International Development, What the Literature Shows. The L.I.F.E.. Washington, DC, USA. Budowski, G. 1990. Home gardens in Tropical America: A Review. In Tropical Home gardens (K. Landaeur and Mark Brazil eds.). United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan. Christanty, Linda, 1985. Home gardens in Tropical Asia, with Special Reference to Indonesia. Paper Presented in International Workshop on Tropical Home gardens. Held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung-Indonesia. December 2–9, 1985. CASE STUDIES 147

Christanty, L, O.S. Abdoellah, G. Martin and J. Iskandar. 1984. Traditional Agroforestry in West Java: The (Home garden) and Kebun Talun (perennial/annual Rotation) Cropping systems. Working Paper. East–West Center, Honolulu. Christanty, L. and J. Iskandar. 1982. Soil Fertility and Nutrition Cycling in Traditional Agriculture Systems in West Java, Indonesia. Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University-Bandung. Gunawan, B., Parikesit, and O.S. Abdoellah. (Manuscript under review). Biodiversity in the Upper Citarum River Basin, West Java. In Biodiversity and Society in Southeast Asia: Case Studies of the Interface between Nature and Culture (Michael Dove, Percy E. Sajise, and Amity A. Doolittleeds.). Filius, A.M. 1982. Economic Aspects of Agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 1:29-39. Karyono. 1985. Home gardens in Java: their Structure and Function. Paper Presented in International Workshop on Tropical Home gardens. Held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung-Indonesia, December 2–9. 1985. Karyono. 1981. Structure of Home gardens in the Rural Area of Citarum Watershed, West Java (in Indonesian, with English summary). PhD thesis, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia. Kimber, C.T. 1973. Spatial Patterning in the Dooryard Gardens of . Geographical Review 63 (1): 6-26. Kimber, C.T. 1966. Dooryard Gardens of Martinique. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 28: 97-118. Michon, G. and F. Mary. 1992. Conversion of traditional village gardens and new economic strategies of rural households in the area og Bogor, Indonesia. Agroforestry System 25: 31-58 Soemarwoto, O and I. Soemarwoto. 1979. The Village Home garden: A Traditional Integrated System of Man- Plants-Animals. International Conference on Human Environment: Methods and Strategies for Integrated Development, Arlon-Belgium. Soemarwoto, O., and G. R. Conway. 1992. The Javanese home garden. Journal for Farming Systems Research- Extension 2 (3): 95-118. Stoler, A. 1975. Garden Use and Household Consumption Pattern in Javanese Village. PhD dissertation, Columbia University. Terra, G.T.A. 1954. Mixed-garden horticulture in Java. Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography 4: 33-43. Thaman, R.R. 1990. Mixed Home Gardening in the Pacific Islands: Present Status and Future Prospects. In Tropical Home gardens (K. Landaeur and Mark Brazil eds.). United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan. Wiersum. 1982. Tree Gardening and Taungya in Java: Examples of Agroforestry Techniques in the Humid Tropics. Agroforestry Systems 1:53-70. 148 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Working group reports

PGR conservation in home gardens: ecosystems and key species

Group A—Wednesday July 19, 2001

Key species in home gardens • Definition: a species that occurs in large numbers of home gardens and is ‘key’ for management of the home garden ecosystem • It is a species of cultural value. • Often several types/varieties are present. • It makes a livelihood contribution to the household. • Is the species found only in home gardens, or also in other ecosystems? • Special types are kept in the home garden, such as those requiring more care or to produce disease-free germplasm. • The keystone concept may apply—the species may be linked to the presence of many other home garden species. • An agroecological perspective is important in key species studies. • Healthy niche-ecological practices • One plant may be enough per household depending on use. • Use of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) with farmers can help determine what they find important about the key species, and why they maintain it.

Home garden management for stability Management • Home garden management is linked to the effect of gender and varies according to species. • Its management is influenced by the interest of the farmers. • Home garden management depends on the indigenous knowledge of the community and the household’s partners. • Tenure is important. • Division of labour is often split along gender lines. • Increased access to the natural ecosystem sometimes decreases the overt management of home gardens (with a blurring of the home garden/forest border). • The structure and composition of the home garden depends on a household’s composition and needs: cultural, economic, health, etc. These may determine the management practices. • Species composition affects management and stability. • Germplasm management and seed system exchange for home garden species is important • New varieties are often incorporated.

Stability • Nodal farmers and social networks provide stability. • Home gardens are not static: how does change affect stability? • Is stability measured over time or is it a snapshot? • Home gardens are used for experimentation and innovation. • There are methods of seed exchange and germplasm management that can contribute to stability. • There is continuity of ‘traditional’ or ‘typical’ home gardens in terms of species and varietal diversity. • New species are incorporated, and the home garden should be an adaptable system, but overall the system is stable. WORKING GROUP REPORTS 149

• Certain alleles may be lost, but when this happens another will be introduced into the system to take its place, so there is overall stability in the home garden ecosystem, and genetic diversity is maintained. • The scale is very important: stability measured at the home garden or national level may be different. • Ability of households to manage their own seed and germplasm for home gardens increases stability. • The more variability of a species that is conserved, the more sustainable. • Stability in home gardens does not exclude change in the genetic diversity of species. • Richness is important (in both species and varieties). • Age of the family of home garden affects stability. • Presence of traditional cultivars and varieties which are maintained enhances stability.

Change • The balance of annuals vs. perennials can change. • Traditional home gardens are changing due to commercialization or new market forces. • Generational change can pose a threat. • Dynamic changes in home garden species and varieties are good for the overall farming system. • Changes in climatic conditions can cause changes in home gardens. • Developmental interventions can have positive or negative affects. • Specific interests of farmers direct change in home gardens.

Bottlenecks/constraints • Land tenure problems, changes in land use, and population density and fragmentation of farms and home gardens can be barriers to conservation. • Increasing immigration to cities where young people can have better opportunities for education or work can hinder the transmission of traditional knowledge and decrease the labor available for gardens. • Home gardens are linked to traditional food culture and cultural change can affect their diversity. • Infrastructure and family growth are two threats to the stability of home gardens. • The generation gap in the use of plant species for different purposes affects the composition of home gardens. • Commercialization, market forces and development can sometimes negatively impact home gardens. • National policy on PGR and Land Use can be a constraint.

Rare and threatened species in home gardens • Threatened species definition: found in few home gardens, with few plants per area, with possible loss of associated knowledge (e.g. some taro varieties). • How many rare or little-known species were found in home gardens? • Some endangered plant species are unknown to younger generations. • Example: Rawelfolia serpentine and most of the medicinal plants. • Certain rare plants used by tribal groups for their medicinal properties are being lost and need to be documented. • Specific/peculiar species are maintained by certain home gardeners for family, personal, cultural, religious, or medicinal reasons. • Useful wild plants from vanishing habitats are threatened. • Overharvesting of food and medicinal plants can occur. • There are beneficial effects of increased species diversity within specific agroecosystems. 150 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

• National flora is not yet well-known in some countries—plant inventories need to be carried out for the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). • Can the home gardens study lead to indicators for threatened species?

Red list for cultivated home garden species • Orchid: Lycaste spp. (Guatemala) • Trees in Guatemala: Swietenia macrophyla, Cedrela odorata, Vochysia guatemalensis • Several varieties of banana (Musa spp.) for wrapping leaves; additional staple varieties. • Garcinia aristata (endemic tree used as a medicinal and for wood) • Nepal: Supari mango, Rayo (B. compeshis var Rayo), Chaksi (Cibus sinensis) • Vietnam: Mentha arvensis, sp., Rice bean Vigna sp., Luffa acutangrila, Hermolema sp., Citrus aurantifolia, Solanum undatum, Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk • Capsicum frutescens (wild and semi-wild) • Phaseolus lunatus (wild types because few individuals are found per population, and the species itself is not frequently found) • Some yam species (Dioscorea spp.) • It is important to maintain wild forms in the home garden agro-ecosystem.

Home garden species are listed with frequencies of occurrence in home gardens How can we to use this information? • For Biodiversity Inventories • A ‘Red List’ of threatened species (including their frequencies) will be important for policymaker awareness, to describe where species are rare, and also to compare with historical records of frequencies • Establish links to botanical conservationists and funds. • How will communities benefit? • Generate information on how to use the biodiversity. • Facilitate Community Biodiversity Registers.

Use home gardens as a way to have agrobiodiversity included in national biodiversity strategies What are the steps? Top-down approach • Propose a national project to integrate home gardens into the National PGR (Plant Genetic Resource)System. • Link to protected areas, with home gardens as a buffer zone (Cuba, India). • Man-made ecosystems harbour important diversity. • Vietnam has PGR Conservation policy that includes home gardens, and has organized a national-level seminar to disseminate results to scientific bodies and development organizations. • Nepal needs to reach policy-makers. • National investment must be encouraged in home gardens.

Bottom-up approach • Return data to communities in ways they understand. • Encourage local management groups. • Increase the value of home gardening in the eyes of the community. • Target not only plant genetic resources but also the home garden ecosystem that maintains them. • Organize community groups at the sites. • Mobilize farmers and gardening associations. WORKING GROUP REPORTS 151

In situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components of complementary conservation and use strategies for plant genetic resources

Group B—Wednesday, July 18, 2001

The following is a representation of the flow of group discussion and the main points raised by many different group members, but does not record the exact words of the group participants.

The emphasis for this question is on the complementarity between ex situ and in situ methods of conservation, and the means and ways to involve farmers/housewives/families wherever possible. First we can take a look at the existing institutional framework and take stock of countries’ work so far. Have we contributed actively to conservation? What has been achieved? We can look at the examples from the countries now, before focusing on what we want in the future. How does our research relate to the government’s strategies for conservation?

Does the institutional framework in countries currently include home gardens? Cuba A political structure in Cuba exists to protect flora/fauna through national parks and reserves. From the beginning of the project, we tried to connect families with home gardens living around the protected areas to the park management, linking the home gardens research with the conservation strategy for the country. The botanical staff working in protected areas should connect themselves with families surrounding their reserve, and Cuba is working towards that. INIFAT, which is running the home garden project research in Cuba, works under a mandate to conserve biodiversity. In the future, we want to make a proposal to the Ministry of Science and Technology to include home gardens officially in the protected areas, as a buffer zone.

Benin No formal biodiversity management occurs through home gardens.

Venezuela There is no formal connection to national institutions, except comparisons by the Home Gardens research team with ex situ collections. No formal in situ conservation as of now has begun in Venezuela. There is no national policy on in situ as such, but members of the research team work in the official institution charged with protecting diversity in Venezuela, so perhaps possible linkages exist for the future. Venezuela just signed the CBD, an important first step.

Ghana As of now, there is no in situ or home garden conservation as such in Ghana. Protected areas are established, as they have been in almost all countries in West Africa. Farmers are conserving landraces in home gardens for different reasons on their own. However, the national plant genetic resource programme in Ghana is a partner in this project. A workshop was held to exchange information from the project with other country institutions, with attendance from the representatives of Ministers, Ghana’s official link to the CBD, university professors, etc. There is a National Commission on Biodiversity, but it has no formal links with the project yet. Currently in W. Africa, not many distinctions are recognized between conservation in situ, on farm, and in home gardens. 152 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Nepal No national in situ program has been implemented, but research is being done on in situ conservation and a formal project is under way with IPGRI and other partners. They have come to the conclusion that one must include home gardens in the in situ strategy in order to conserve certain species that are not found in the larger farming system.

Niger A 1995 survey for collected germplasm of agricultural crops cultivated specifically in home gardens, and these collections are in the national genebank system. Women and men in villages have many local species for various uses, and therefore conserve these species by planting them every year and using them for various things. National strategies also include in situ conservation officially, on paper.

Vietnam Plant species are unique to home gardens and different from those found in farms. Genetic diversity at the national level is managed by VASI, the Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute. Officially, home gardens have been included as an ecosystem in which diversity exists, and is being protected. Policy is currently missing to support gardening, however. Gardening is important in environmental protection. The country has a policy of development through “leaving farming without leaving the rural” and HG fit this exactly.

Hungary The research to this point in Hungary has shown home gardens at large over time to be very stable, and it is estimated that the contribute up to 25-30% of the entire agricultural production of Hungary. However, it is a form of in situ conservation that is very difficult to formalize.

Questions Do we know what is there? What is the management dimension to the existing production system to qualify it as a conservation strategy? Do we need a sampling method, inventory, monitoring? How is it being threatened? What about changes in home gardens over time?

Cuba Collecting missions from home gardens 8 years ago were placed into ex situ collections, and these were compared with collections today from home gardens during this research project. The in situ home garden diversity seemed to cover the range of diversity present in the ex situ collection. Of course, this depends very much on the species. Some are being lost, but the diversity of our key species seem to be covered in situ. Sometimes water is a problem, and limits the diversity of water- intensive plants. Remote gardens may be more diverse because they need to grow everything they require for survival.

Note: many of the ex situ collections in Latin America were originally collected from home gardens. How much diversity has already been collected?

Threats to home garden diversity (factually based) • Lack of knowledge of home gardens as conservation units • Population growth • Tendency of young to leave the culture/tradition • Outmigration of youth from rural areas to urban areas (extreme rural poverty) WORKING GROUP REPORTS 153

• Changing local diets • Reduced interest of farmers • Development interventions biased towards modern species • Lifestyle changes • Non-monitored interaction of local and regional markets • Lack of local awareness on the importance of biodiversity

General solutions • Add value to PGR conserved in home gardens by promotion/marketing • How to add value? Adding value can sometimes reduces biodiversity. • Increased access to information • Increased access to germplasm for communities/farmers • HG management techniques • Seed conservation/cultural techniques • Adding value to products by marketing/processing/other uses • Take stock and promote nutritional values of local diet • Formal acknowledgement of importance of home gardens • Formation of associations of home gardeners • Linking home gardens to national policies on conservation • Improvement of use

Solutions at the national level • Raise awareness • Add value to plant genetic resources conserved in home gardens through promotion/marketing • How to add value without losing diversity? • Formal acknowledgement of the importance of home gardens • Germplasm access from national genebanks • Linking of home gardens to national policies on conservation • Include home gardens as a curriculum component in agriculture-related careers • Link conservation strategies to extension services • Home garden management techniques: seed conservation/cultural techniques • Raise Awareness • Increased access to information • Increased access to germplasm for communities/farmers • Take stock and promote nutritional value of local diet, local species • Include curriculum component in agriculture-related careers • Link conservation strategies to extension services

Local/community level • Raise Awareness • Increased access to information • Increased access to germplasm for communities/farmers • Take stock and promote nutritional value of local diet, local species • Formation of home garden associations • Include curriculum component in agriculture-related careers • Link conservation strategies to extension services • Home garden management techniques —Seed conservation/cultural techniques 154 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Home gardens and action research It is important that research teams on home gardens be interdisciplinary, including agronomists, socioeconomists, botanists, geneticists, etc. Projects must focus not only on gathering information, but also have a development component. Depending to what extent home gardens are used as a strategy for increased income, development could compromise diversity. Some types of development might lead to environmental degradation, but we need to get closer to the people to find out about what their vision of development is. One way to balance research and a focus on development could be through Action Research. Action research is looking for paths for development through research. It is important that the entry point is development; conservation is also important and can’t be ignored, but development should be the basis. However, the entry point should be a specific kind of development—participatory, local development, not just any kind of development. If you give choices to the farmer, it’s not always true that development leads to decreased biodiversity. It is poverty that often leads to environmental destruction. For instance, poor farmers cut the trees and sell them at market in Niger. Poverty alleviation is essential in Africa, as in other parts of the world, if you want to have conservation. One way may be to add value to home garden resources so that they are worth something for the farmer. This can be tricky when thinking about how to implement this from the national level, because in many countries, they are seen as mutually exclusive. There are separate committees for Biodiversity and for Development; where do home gardens fit? Home gardens have been used as production systems in development projects before for food security, nutrition, income, but not for diversity conservation. How can we link development and agrobiodiversity? In revaluing traditional food systems, this project makes a big breakthrough from looking at cabbages, radishes, etc. to focusing on herbs, medicinals, traditional food crops, etc. I don’t think that we’ve looked at food security, though, and that would lead into an Action Research strategy perfectly. Some topics for action research can include food security, nutrition, income, risk management, gender studies, eating habits, and health. WORKING GROUP REPORTS 155

Documentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens

Group C—Wednesday July 18, 2001

Data exist that do show significant diversity is maintained in home gardens It has been conclusively demonstrated that significant diversity occurs within home gardens at the ecosystem, species and infra-species levels. More work needs to be done to document infraspecific diversity of key crops. • How much more characterization is necessary for a given crop, or for additional crops? • Case studies for different breeding systems need to be analyzed and systematized. Can indicator species be identified? Gaps exist (e.g. clonal crops—cassava) • Recommend that future studies be conducted and methodologies developed on processes and factors that influence the stability and dynamics of in situ conservation in home gardens—to guide monitoring activities and national policies. • On the operational level there is need to: i. Decide what to do to turn home gardens into conservation units, e.g. we may need information on more species ii. We need information on farmer decision-making regarding management of different species in gardens. iii. More information needed regarding infraspecific variation of selected species. Confirmation of the info available with other methods.

Necessary: Optimum Units of Conservation (OUC) • The population size in question must be defined. • Definition must be species-specific. • Uniqueness of species or complementarity to ex situ units should be of paramount consideration in developing OUCs

No common documentation system existed for the countries in the study • Problem of data quality, i.e. correct plant names, partially because of the interdisciplinary nature of the project teams. • Problems with IPR over data exist, especially confusion over what data should be released. • Standardization is needed for the information requirements, because there is not a common documentation system across countries. • Cross-project sharing of information and methods would be helpful, one of the main objectives of the Workshop.

Minimum requirements to be achieved: • Species list from national teams with author and publications • Scientific (family, genus, species, varieties), English, local names • Plant uses/parts used • Cross-links should exist between home garden lists and Mansfield lists • Photographs can be included.

Decide what data should be distributed nationally or internationally Intellectual Property Rights of country researchers are of paramount importance. No data should be published in the database that should not be accessible to all Internet users. 156 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and priorities for future work on managing home gardens’ agrobiodiversity for development

Group A—Thursday July 19th, 2001

Plans and steps to include home garden systems in national biodiversity strategies Key challenge • Biodiversity policy ignores human-managed ecosystems. • We must sensitize policy makers about home gardens.

Actions and options • Institutionalize the home garden concept as a unit of conservation. • Education, not only at policy level, but for other stakeholders as well. • Recognize local communities involved in home gardening. • Consider the in situ conservation in households as one special part of national in situ conservation strategies.

Steps • Return data to community in ways they can use. • Support communities in understanding the value of home gardening. • Organize seed fairs for home gardens. • Encourage networking between home gardens. • Present the home garden project results at a national-level seminar. • Compile home garden species in community biodiversity registries. • Train extension agencies about home gardens. • Set up an ‘Original’ Seed List—varieties referenced by simplified DUS. • Stimulate community pride and value in home garden ownership. • Start with the community in planning home garden conservation; take a bottom-up approach. • Carry out exchange visits/traveling seminars between home gardeners. • Motivate local institutions to exchange plant genetic resources. • Increase public awareness at all levels.

Some points of leverage • Use development agencies as an entry point. • Influence and work with them to include diversity in their strategies. • Integrate the role of home gardens into the development of the community, especially in densely populated regions/ecosystems.

Can we make use of home garden species lists to identify threatened species and varieties for the various ecozones on a ‘red list’ for crops and related species? • National teams have surveyed and compiled lists of HG species, their frequency and distribution in home gardens. • We can use this info for National Biodiversity Registers. • Establish links to universities, botanical gardens, and conservation agencies working on threatened or rare species to feed information into the system. • Help compile a ‘Red List’ for species, cultivated and wild, found in home gardens on their frequency, uses and history. Use ‘Red list’ in a positive, not negative way, encouraging communities to produce a certain species, etc. WORKING GROUP REPORTS 157

• Communities can use knowledge of ‘Red List’ species to motivate propagation, community biodiversity registers, etc.

Can we identify key socioeconomic processes that affect changes in biodiversity in home gardens? Processes and factors–positive and negative • Migration • Land tenure/ownership (Vietnam) • Market forces, e.g. Loroco in Guatemala • Agricultural policy • Access to markets/information/germplasm • Infrastructure development (may lead to habitat change) • Population pressure • Development interventions • Economic transformations

Household dynamics • Age and size of household • Educational level • Wealth status • Ownership • Food culture • Mobility

Biodiversity monitoring • Normally, people monitor plants, not people, but this would be a new strategy to include these socioeconomic factors in fundamental monitoring strategy. • What are the indicators? It is important to define for the monitors. • Policy must take care to maintain the process, and not freeze it for the monitoring. • Make communities and policy-makers more aware. 158 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and priorities for future work on managing home gardens agrobiodiversity for development

Working Group B—Thursday July 19th, 2001

How can we incorporate home garden biodiversity conservation work and perspectives into national programs and projects (national agrobiodiversity strategies)? Public awareness • Raise awareness with a public relations campaign on home gardens from a holistic perspective. • People’s awareness of home gardens as reservoir of biodiversity and the basis of livelihood for many people. • Create awareness of advantages of gardening and disadvantages of not, supported by practical instruction. • Create awareness among decision-makers on importance of home gardens for development concerns and in situ conservation of plant. • Provide clear definitions of the home garden concept within in situ conservation strategy.

Education • Include home gardens in university curriculum for agriculture-related careers. • Establish model home gardens at schools.

Reinforcing social, economic, and political recognition • Stimulate local biodiversity through home garden fairs. • Certification procedure from an official institution. • Put value on home garden conservation work of farmers from the outside (ecotourism). • Make work of ‘conservationist farmers’ visible and get them represented on genetic resource committees. • Bring home gardener stakeholders in position to play major roles.

Strategic information flow • Show links to: food security, agricultural production, environment, health. • Report on the importance of home garden agrobiodiversity in the livelihood of people. • Report the fact that many crop species are uniquely cultivated in home gardens. • Highlight the contribution of home gardens to food security, health, and the economy through seminars. • Provide information on the nutritional value of traditional home garden species. • Document farmers’ knowledge and experiences on the use and management of home garden species. • Make the present place of home gardens in national projects and programmes more visible. • Compile and publish all development-related contributions of home gardens.

Targeted action research • Include home gardens in the national research agenda. • Establish multi-disciplinary research teams and include managers of genetic diversity/farmers. • Design collaborative projects for home garden conservation to support farmers in better management and conservation of home gardens. WORKING GROUP REPORTS 159

• Collect statistics on and with home garden stakeholders. • Conduct (action) research on home garden-related topics to demonstrate specific points. • Look for complementation of in situ and ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources. • Identify units of conservation and monitoring for threatened home garden species.

Extension • Include home garden biodiversity conservation into the extension agenda (links with education).

Within the national agrobiodiversity strategies, what are the steps that we need to follow so that home gardens can be mainstreamed as an important issue? Supra-national • Formulate a statement on the importance of home gardens for PGRFA conservation for SBSTTA meeting, submit for inclusion in the CBD. • Include home garden conservation in the National Strategy and Action Plan for Biological Diversity for each country. • Ensure that home gardens are properly mentioned in other conventions.

Institutionalization • Include home gardens’ biodiversity conservation into the extension agenda. • Include home gardens as mandated working area in national development, extension and research programmes. • Create a national home garden ‘Red List’. • Explicit mention of home gardens as a source in the national genebank record. • Include home gardens in national production and conservation statistics. • Create in situ strategy if none is present. • Promulgate laws and regulations with regard to the conservation of local home garden species. • Link with protected areas, e.g. home gardens as buffer zones. • Create positions at the regional and national level for community supervision of home garden diversity. • Establish mechanisms for supply and/or exchange of home garden species and varieties. • Include the private sector within a specific political frame.

Governance/representation • Submit proposals to include home gardens in the national strategies of the Ministry of Science and Technology. • Seek dialogue with relevant ministries on home garden importance. • Create a specific working group on home gardens. • Put home gardens on the Agenda of the CBD Implementation Committees. • Secure a seat on the national biodiversity committee representing home garden interests. • Create a new professional body to lobby for home gardens. • Create a ‘board of directors’ for home garden issues.

How can we strengthen the link with NGOs and civil society (CS) institutions? Partnerships • Create support and recognition for home garden farmer alliances. • Set up committees to bring together groups to discuss relevant home garden issues. • Make NGOs and civil society representatives members of home garden working groups. • Target collaborators in NGOs and other civil society groups concerned with biodiversity. 160 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

• Give priority to GO-NGO collaborative programme-projects.

Recognition/visibility • Make visible NGOs and CS contributions to home gardens. • Assess the actual involvement of NGO-CS in activities relevant to a home garden-biodiversity perspective. • Value NGO achievement on home garden issues. • Identify home garden experience in the NGO sphere.

Collaborative strategies • Organize a national workshop with all stakeholders on how to link/facilitate dialogue. • Organize non-formal educational programs where farmers can participate. • Target NGOs and CSOs in public awareness-raising strategies. • Organize workshops where NGOs and members of communities participate together. • Initiate study tours between home gardens in different areas (between NGOs or farmers). • Tailor research findings and strategic information to needs of diverse groups. WORKING GROUP REPORTS 161

Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and priorities for future work on managing home gardens’ agrobiodiversity for development

Group C—Thursday July 19, 2001

Can we provide guidance and tools to monitor agrobiodiversity at specific and intraspecific levels? Information collected can be used to develop monitoring strategies for national programs at the intraspecific level. Monitoring should be at the home garden level to assess the viability of species and the pressures (economic, etc.) that are impacting their stability.

Monitoring • Actual methods used in project can be a blueprint for monitoring protocol. • Biodiversity registers should be kept at the community level, making it easier for farmers to monitor what’s been lost. • Identify key indicators or variables to be monitored. • Can cooperate with global and national experts.

Protocols • Create guidelines for extension officers for target crops focused on the optimum conservation units (OUC). • Scheduled periodic visits to OUCs. • Simple questionnaires. • Database for findings. • Protocols for different situations, with comparability. • When genetic erosion has been detected, it may be useful to have another protocol for response.

Would this be possible? It might be expensive; perhaps we should highlight training for local communities to monitor their own biodiversity with help from extension officers. There are methodologies to bring together PGR, communities and extension workers, such as diversity fairs. We have to choose. Even for non-literate people, you can create an atlas of biodiversity with pictures etc. so people can identify and monitor their own biodiversity.

What plans can be made to have home gardens included in national agrobiodiversity strategies? • Create awareness at the policy-maker level about home gardens by providing justification to policy-makers for including home gardens in national PGR strategies. • The international arena is very important because national ministers are required to be there, but they often don’t have to come to the national workshops. • Home gardens must be included in the national biodiversity strategies, and home garden monitoring protocol can be used if already in place. Biodiversity corridors and other reserves should take home gardens into account. • Create networks of home gardens that will partner with institutions involved in national biodiversity conservation for monitoring and the development of targeted genetic resources. Partners can meet to define their roles, functions, and responsibilities. Home gardeners should be regarded as partners. • Link with educational institutions for sustainability and inclusion in curriculum. • Include home gardens in development programs (ecotourism etc). 162 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

• Formal recognition for home gardens in national PGR conservation effort/strategy. • Demonstrate how these research results can be used as a means of developing gains for the community. • Link national seed plans with home gardens for seed conservation—home gardeners can be taught how to maintain and store seeds as seed banks against the national ex situ collections.

Guatemala The home gardens research team has contacted the Ministry of the Environment and they were asked to prepare a poster; the government is interested. Also, CARE-Guatemala, a local NGO, is interested in using this research to deepen and expand their home garden projects.

Cuba A formal proposal has been submitted to the government to linked home gardens with protected areas.

Ghana A recent national workshop included members of government from various ministries. We have plans to invite TV crew to make a documentary film on home gardens for a weekly biodiversity show.

Ethiopia At a recent international workshop, ‘Ethiopia and its Biodiversity Challenge’, a paper was presented on home gardens, and we’re hoping home gardens will be included in the national strategy now being formulated.

Indonesia We recommended inclusion of home gardens in national strategies 20 years ago, but the government hasn’t paid attention.

Benin/Africa-wide A recent success story on medicinal plants: a workshop two years ago recommended that 2000–2010 be declared the ‘Decade of Medicinal Plants for Africa’. This has been recently adopted. Medicinal plants are a very important component of home gardens, and are not usually found to be so abundant or unique elsewhere.

Vietnam First, we think public awareness to show simple cases would be instructive, such as organizing Diversity Fairs. Then a National or Regional Workshop is another way to raise awareness at the national level, and present the science to policy-makers. The next step would be including home gardens into the national strategy for agrobiodiversity. In Nepal, they include information on biodiversity in the curriculum in the local schools. But in Cantho University, for agronomy students we just have one course—Community Biodiversity. I would like to integrate home gardens and biodiversity conservation into the curriculum. POSTER PRESENTATIONS 163

Poster presentations Temperate home gardens of small alpine farmers in Eastern Tyrol (Austria): their value for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity

Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser1 and Christian R. Vogl2 1 Hamerlinggasse 12, Mödling, Austria 2 Institute for Organic Farming, University for Agricultural Sciences, Vienna, Austria

Introduction Eastern Tyrol (Lienz district) is characterized by a high proportion of mountain areas in a multifunctional cultural and natural landscape. Farmers manage and protect a sensitive and threatened environment. Home gardens are an integral part of this cultural landscape. This poster presents selected elements of the dynamic development of East-Tyrolean home gardens over the past 70 years with a focus on the management of plant biodiversity.

Study area and methods Eastern Tyrol is located in the Eastern Alps of Austria. Annual precipitation is 850–1150 mm and mean annual temperature 4.8-6.9°C. In 1997 and 1998, 196 home gardens on farms (elevation between 600 and 1600 m asl) were surveyed. Each year, the occurrence and abundance of cultivated plant species were recorded. Ethnobotanical interviews were carried out with each of the women responsible for these gardens. In addition, 27 elderly women and men were interviewed on the management of farms in recent history.

Results

Recent history Subsistence farming was primarily based on the cultivation of field vegetables, cereals, fibre crops, alpine hay meadows and grazing grounds along with a wide array of animal species until the 1970s. Herb gardens provided a small number of species used as spices, medical herbs and plants with symbolic or religious value (Table 1).

Home garden dynamics Since the 1970s, cultivation of field vegetables, cereals and fibre crops has been in decline. In a parallel process, women, who are responsible for gardening, have actively enriched diversity in gardens (Table 1). Species have been introduced not only from the surrounding agroecosystems, where biodiversity is eroding, but also from natural ecosystems or market. In addition, women retained the species and varieties traditionally grown in herb gardens. As a consequence, a remarkable increase in the number of species grown in the gardens has been observed (mean 42; total 587).

Endangered natural and cultivated species Seventy-nine species found in the gardens are endangered and are registered on the Austrian Red List of endangered ferns and flowering plants (as defined in Niklfeld and A Schratt-E. 1999). Thirty- nine cultivated species can be classified according to Lohmeyer (1981; for Germany) as crops in danger of decline. In Austria a list for endangered cultivated species does not exist. Nevertheless traditional species and varieties are in danger of disappearing throughout the region, especially several field vegetables which only survive in gardens. Gardens therefore serve as areas for propagation and conservation of traditional garden crops and field crops. Propagation in home garden also occurs for species newly introduced to the region. 164 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Conclusion Farmers have access to the global market and are to a lesser or greater extent involved in the mainstream economy. In contrast, garden output has an increasing importance in subsistence. Garden produce is not usually commercialized. Only barter or gifts to family and neighbours can be observed. The motivations for women to value and maintain home garden activities are: enhancing self-sufficiency, the pleasure of working in the garden, and maintaining traditional culture.Market integration does not imply reduced diversity in gardens. Farmers’ wives stress that they manage gardens because they are able to know exactly where and how produce was grown and because they can harvest the crop immediately before it is used. Gardeners choose species with characteristics that respond to the wide array of needs of the family for customs, nutrition and other purposes. Diversity of garden species has actively been enriched to meet these purposes. Gardens in Eastern Tyrol can be seen not only as a place of importance for the conservation of traditional farming techniques and the alpine landscape, but also for experiments, innovation and for the in situ conservation of certain plant genetic resources.

Table 1. Occurrence, source and use of plant species (n=587) in East-Tyrolean home gardens (n=196) Number of species Occurrence Until 1970 Today Across the region 51 587 Mean per garden 10 42 Source of plants Until 1970 Today Predecessor, neighbour +/–25 74 Surrounding ecosystems +/–346 Retailers +/–4 133 Miscellaneous† +/–19 334 Main uses Until 1970 Today Ornamental +/–20 420‡ Food +/–16 147 Medicinal +/–12 79 Technical +/–458 †For certain species, different women might have different sources. ‡The area allocated for ornamentals amounts to approximately 15% of each garden.

References Lohmeyer, W. 1981. Liste der schon vor 1900 in Bauerngärten der Gebiete beiderseits des Mittel- und südlichen Niederrheins kultivierten Pflanzen. Pp. 109–131 in Aus Liebe zur Natur. Stiftung z. Schutze gefährdeter Pflanzen 3. Bonn, Germany. Niklfeld, H. and L.S.-Ehrendorfer. 1999. Rote Liste gefährdeter Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Pterido- und Spermatophyta) Österreichs. Pp. 33–51 in Rote Liste gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs (2. Auflage) (Niklfeld H. ed.). Grüne Reihe des BMUJF, 10. Vogl-Lukasser, B. and C. R. Vogl. 2001. Home gardens of Small Farmers in the Alpine Region of Osttirol (Austria): an Example for Bridges Built and Building Bridges. Paper, 30 of May 2001, Conference Building Bridges with Traditional Knowledge, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Vogl-Lukasser, B., C. R. Vogl and H. B.-Nordenkampf. 2002. Homegarden composition on small peasant farms in the Alpine regions of Osttirol (Austria) and their role in sustainable rural development. (J.R. Stepp, F.S. Wyndham and R.K. Zarger, eds.) POSTER PRESENTATIONS 165

Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia and World Database of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops

Jörg Ochsmann1, Helmut Knüpffer2, Norbert Biermann2, Konrad Bachmann1 1 Research Group Experimental Taxonomy and 2 Research Group Genebank Documentation, Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany

History Rudolf Mansfeld was the first head of the Gatersleben Genebank and Taxonomy department. In 1959 he published his ‘preliminary catalogue’ of cultivated crops. Whereas this work was mainly done by himself, the second edition (1986) was already created by a team of authors. The recent first English edition (‘Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ by Hanelt and Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research 2001) was compiled and written by 20 authors.

Access to the database

Free access (names and taxonomy only): http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/mansfeld/

Beta User (latest versions, password-protected, free of charge): http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/mfbeta/

Access via project BIG (free access, German search interface): http://www.big-flora.de

Information on the book edition: http://www.springer.de/mansfeld/

Editorial

Editors (book issue) P. Hanelt and IPK Gatersleben

20 Authors: R. Büttner, A. Diederichsen, H. Dörfelt, R. Fritsch, K. Hammer, P. Hanelt, R. N. Lester, J.G. Hawkes, J. Heller, C. Jeffrey, J. Keller, G. Krebs, J. Kruse, G. Müller, G. Natho, J. Ochsmann, K. Pistrick, W. Reisser, C.-E. Specht, H.E. Weber

Technical assistance (book edition): H. Ballhausen, A. Frahn, B. Fritsch, S. Golla, A. Kilian, K. Roose, G. Schütze, U. Tiemann

Project team for the database: H. Knüpffer, K. Bachmann, J. Ochsmann, N. Biermann

Topics covered by database • Accepted name • Synonyms • Taxonomic remarks 166 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

• Common names • Distribution (wild + cultivated) • Plant uses • Wild relatives • Cultivation history • Domestication • Bibliographical references • Images (Topics printed in bold will be freely available from the database)

Database statistics

Total† Accepted Scientific names 36 718 9796 Species 25 721 6117 Genera 6258 1968 Families 277 265 Common names 30 165 Languages ca. 110 References 7 600 Images ca. 300 †Including synonyms.

The BIG-Project The database development (Ochsmann et al. 1999) is part of IPK’s contribution to the project ‘Federal Information System on Genetic Resources’ (BIG) (http://www.big-flora.de/), which involves four partner institutions, coordinated by the German Centre for Documentation and Information in Agriculture (ZADI). The project is funded by the German Ministry of Research and Technology (BMBF) and includes, besides the Mansfeld database, also information on plant genetic resources accessions of genebanks in Germany, botanical gardens, floristic mapping of the German flora, and other PGR-related data sets. Through a common search interface at ZADI it is possible to interrogate these heterogeneous databases simultaneously, for example, by scientific or common names of plants.

Future prospects Links with other databases at IPK, such as: • Passport data of accessions • Evaluation data • Inclusion of taxonomic monographs • Country checklists • IPGRI Homegardens Project • Inclusion of more image data • Indexing of plants by uses • Online updating tools for the Mansfeld database POSTER PRESENTATIONS 167

References Hanelt, P. and Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben (eds.). Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 6 vols. 1st Engl. ed. Springer, Berlin. Ochsmann, J., N. Biermann, H. Knüpffer and K. Bachmann. 1999: Aufbau einer WWW-Datenbank zu ‘Mansfeld’s World Manual of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ (Mansfeld-Verzeichnis, 3. Aufl.). Pp. 57–63 in Dokumentation und Informationssysteme im Bereich pflanzengenetischer Ressourcen in Deutschland, Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen Band 12 (F. Begemann, S. Harrer and J. D. Jiménez Krause, eds.). ZADI, Bonn, Germany. 168 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

The home garden database and information system—technical aspects

Vladimir Afanasyev1,3, Jörg Ochsmann2, Helmut Knüpffer1 1 Research Group Genebank Documentation and 2 Research Group Experimental Taxonomy, Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany 3 National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzików, Poland

General information The database documents the species and infra-specific diversity found in selected home gardens of the five tropical countries participating in the project, i.e. Cuba, Guatemala, Venezuela, Ghana, and Vietnam. Its present structure is based on the “Database for checklists of cultivated plants” (Knüpffer and Hammer 1999), and links have been established with ‘Mansfeld’s World Database of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ (cf. Ochsmann et al. these proceedings) which, in turn, is based on ‘Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001).

Contents of the database • Taxonomy and nomenclature information • Ethnobotanical information • Occurrence of each species in home gardens in the country • Ethnobotanical information • Reference to the sources of information • Verbal descriptions • Links to other databases (Mansfeld, GRIN, NCBI)

Hardware Siemens Primergy 270 (Pentium II/350 mHz)

Software Windows NT 4.0 Cluster IIS 4.0 (Webserver) Visual FoxPro 6.0 AFP

References Hanelt, P. and Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben (eds.). Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 1st Engl. ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Knüpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plants. Pp. 215–224. in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslie and C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. POSTER PRESENTATIONS 169

Home gardens in Kerala as an efficient agroecosystem for conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity

K. Pushkaran Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Kerala, India

The home garden system is practised extensively in many tropical countries. Home gardening is especially highly evolved, specialized and popular in the state of Kerala, located in the southwest corner of the Indian peninsula. Kerala is often considered to be the land of home gardens and the natural beauty of the region to a great extent depends on this system. On the basis of topographic features, Kerala can be divided into the lowlands, midlands and highlands with a variety of soil types and divergent vegetation. The heavy rainfall provides a humid climate and abundant natural water resources. Farming in Kerala has certain unique characteristics and practices due to the peculiar physiographical features, sociocultural factors and very low per capita land availability. The home garden system is a well-evolved land use system usually integrating humans, crops and livestock. Home gardens in Kerala effectively and efficiently combine a very high level of cropping intensity with multistoried levels integrating different factors of production. In some cases, fish culture and duck rearing are also seen. Usually the cropping system is perennial-based. Often agroforestry species are also included, in which case home gardens can be treated as an agroforestry system with a livestock component. More efficient utilization of vertical as well as horizontal levels of the soil and atmosphere is achieved, all based on the resources and requirements of the family and the society. The system has a role in food security and protects the environment through effective organic recycling. The size of home gardens varies widely, from larger joint-family home gardens covering hectares to the currently widespread small nuclear-family home gardens. The crop varieties/types and combinations encountered vary widely within home gardens depending upon many factors. Besides geophysical and climactic considerations, a number of social, cultural and religious factors influence the agrobiodiversity present in a home garden. The agrobiodiversity utilized by the home garden farmer also depends on the local knowledge systems. A crop and varietal mixture of coconut, fruits, pepper, vegetables, tubers, ornamentals, spices, agroforestry species, medicinal plants, pulses, among others, are commonly found in the home gardens of Kerala. A home garden farmer interested in mango may have a wide collection of mango varieties and types along with other crops of his choice. A traditional Ayurvedic physician will have a rich collection of medicinal plants. One conventional black- pepper farmer will be eager to have as much variability of that crop as possible in his home garden. Above all, the fact that the home garden farming system has evolved over hundreds of years in Kerala has great significance

K. Pushkaran from the point of view of A typical Kerala home garden. conservation, consumption and 170 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

management of biodiversity. Let us examine the case of the conservation and sustainable management of banana biodiversity in the home garden farming system. Peninsular India in general, and Kerala in particular, is an area of great diversity for both banana and plantain cultivars, both domesticated varieties and wild relatives. They belong to different genomic groups like AA, AB, BB, AAA, AAB and ABB, and include table and culinary varieties as K. Pushkaran well as, dual- and multi-purpose A sacred grove, or ‘kavu’, in Kerala. Some genetic resources in Kerala are protected varieties, and types for special because of their link to a particular deity. requirements. A few choice cultivars from the remote past are still grown if they satisfy a specific requirement of an individual home garden farmer as a grower and consumer. It is interesting to note that much intra-clonal variability is also seen in most of the popular clones. Banana and plantain cultivation in home garden farming systems ranges from: rainfed to irrigated; level land to steep hill slopes; at sea level to high ranges; wetlands to uplands; nutrient-rich soil to poor soil; open to shaded areas; without ratooning to prolonged ratooning; as the sole crop or in mixed cropping systems. There are also specific cultivars of bananas used for ceremonies and religious functions as well as those believed to have medicinal properties. Also, some varieties are grown to harvest their leaves for various household uses. In each home garden, depending upon the requirements of the farmer, a few banana types are being conserved and managed. Thus all the home gardens taken collectively maintain and even improve banana and plantain biodiversity in a sustainable manner through the involvement of the community. Likewise, one can perceive that the biodiversity of many other important regional crops is being effectively conserved in the home garden system. Complementary to the home garden system, many pockets of natural flora scattered throughout the state are preserved almost in the original natural condition. Such sites are sacred groves, locally known as ‘Kavu’. They are invariably linked with religious beliefs in particular gods and goddesses, so that their protection is intertwined with ancient traditions. The sacred groves serve as microcentres for in situ biodiversity conservation based on the spiritual values of local people. The deep links between humans and nature in Kerala are protected to a great extent through home gardens as well as sacred groves. However, many changes have crept into these systems recently due to a variety of reasons, creating negative effects. The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute is invited to initiate a critical analysis of the home garden farming system and sacred groves to evaluate their uses for sustainable biodiversity conservation and development. POSTER PRESENTATIONS 171

Ethnobotany of genetic resources in Germany—diversity in city gardens of immigrants

Thomas Gladis University GhK, Witzenhausen, Germany

Introduction Before settled agriculture, people collected, dried and stored fruits and seeds from edible wild plants to survive hard seasons such as winter. Since its very beginning, agriculture contributed to connecting people with the ground they were living from. All circumstances of their life (their living standards, rites, and traditions) changed during the agricultural revolution in prehistory. Permanent use of land resulted in property rights systems and the defense of territories. The houses became more solid, but social differentiation between self-sustaining families within the society was low. There was no specialisation at that time. Later on, impoverished and landless people had to go where chances to work arose, comparable to seasonal workers as we know them nowadays. During the ongoing differentiation processes, farmers always tried to remain on their land but unlimited expansion was not possible, so some children of farmers had to migrate or take on other professions. Many social conflicts could not be solved peacefully, so people had to leave, and after new periods of migration they started to settle in other places again. People took seeds and plants with them as victuals and gifts or to trade and exchange material. We can reconstruct the migration routes of people as well as the routes of their preferred animals and plants. Cultivated plants and domestic animals are part of the inalienable goods of human cultural heritage. Among other cultural goods, seeds and animals were captured by the conquistadors during wars and farmers became slaves, losing their freedom, families and social networks. After contact with the Americas, many cultivated plants entered the Old World, such as corn (Zea mays), garden bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), potatoes, pumpkin, squash, tomatoes, and tobacco. Alfalfa, barley, cabbages, wheat, and others ‘migrated’ in the opposite direction. Even wild plants were transferred, some intentionally, others unintentionally. Some escaped from Botanical Gardens and established themselves very well in new growing localities in Europe, e.g. the neophytic species Robinia pseudoacacia L., Senecio inaequidens DC. and Solidago canadensis L.

Migrants When the Romans occupied southern German territories along the Rhine River, they tried to establish their own system to subdue the local population and to integrate it later on step-by-step. This process is called Romanisation. The Romans brought their language and culture to the north, including such new crops as spelt, wheat, wine, fruit, and fodder legumes. The Germans had animals only and had just started developing agriculture (Seidl 1995). During the occupation period, Roman soldiers founded families here, on the other side of the Alps, and not all German slaves returned to the North after being released. Both sides adopted and integrated elements and crops of the foreign culture into their own cultural system. The same process happens thousands of years later: the Italian preferences for special vegetables of American origin are well known, as the examples of peppers, tomatoes and illustrate. After World War II, the reestablishment of the economy of the destroyed and divided Germany was achieved with help of guest-workers from many different countries. Germany planned to host them for a couple of years—as long as their own population was too low. Many of these guest- workers preferred to stay in Germany afterwards, for a longer period or permanently. They took their families, wives and children with them and feel at home here now. They go back to their home countries as visitors and guests during vacation and holidays, some of them several times per year. The communication between the German population and the immigrants increases from generation to generation, and many children speak their mother tongue as well as German fluently. At the very 172 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

beginning, the German market did not provide for the cultural demands of the immigrants (their special food, clothing, etc). Immigrant groups started to provide these things for themselves very soon, and there are more and more Germans now accepting the more broad and colourful products offered by immigrant traders. There are many different regions of the world and many nationalities represented in the city gardens of Bonn, for instance. Eastern and western European immigrants dominate, followed by those from western and southern Asia and northern Africa. Gardens from the Americas and Africa were not the focus of these studies. Many people come from Turkey, Palestine, Morocco, Italy, Romania and from the former Soviet Union.

Gardens In the example of the southern border of the former German capital of Bonn, gardens of immigrant families were visited and checked regarding their content of rare and less-known cultivated plants (Gladis 1999). The cultural differences between German and foreign people in neighbourhoods are obvious. Within the town, representative and ornamental gardens dominate but at the border, where more immigrant families live, more and more gardens are used to produce vegetables, fruits, spices, and as a place to relax and spend spare time. Many of the immigrant families, some of whom originate from countries in the centres of genetic diversity for particular crops, described by Vavilov (1926), prefer to spend as much time as possible in these gardens. They live in self made-cabins, grow their crops, cook tea, prepare and consume their food, invite friends, neighbours and the whole extended family several times per year. The are tight, the fences full with climbing beans, , pumpkins. Water is a limiting factor in the gardens. Rainwater is collected and sparsely applied to the crops. It is relatively easy to distinguish between conventional plant varieties and imported seeds. The local varieties of immigrants are not homogenous, have lower yields, and each family has material with morphologically distinct characters for different uses. Seed growing is commonly observed. In some cases the gardens contain plants which are yet not officially reported to occur in the territory of Germany.

Growing techniques and plants Some of the home garden areas are used jointly by several families. There are no hedges nor fences between these separate gardens, or paths between the ‘beds’. To get the maximum yield from as many plant species as possible, the gardeners apply a system of and throughout the year. There is scarcely ever open soil except some weeks during wintertime. Depending on the size and position of the gardens, the people dig manually or plough with larger machines. As early as possible, broad beans (Vicia faba L.) are sown, and between the rows other crops are later sown, e.g. potatoes. Squash and pumpkin cover the same ground at the end of the growing season. This enables the people to have up to three harvests per year from one piece of land. Yellow-eared corn land races (Zea mays L.) are frequently grown together with climbing and runner beans, cucumbers, and pepper (Capsicum spp.), beet, , kale and lettuce (for harvesting of seed). If the plants do not get enough light, the corn plants are partially defoliated. The sowing is not usually done in regular lines or rows, but more frequently in lots. Tender species are initially covered with refuse plant material, in addition to old parts of clothing or spreads during cold and rainy days. Sowing these crops indoors or in self-made , such as German gardeners do, is less popular but necessary for tomatoes (against Phytophthora-infestations), melons and eggplants (Solanum melongena L.). In some years, the eggplants do not grow well outdoors because of climatic factors. The gardeners continue growing and selecting early ripening types and thus try to adapt the crop to the new environmental conditions. The intraspecific diversity is extremely high in garden beans. It seems to be the most important vegetable species found in immigrant gardens. They have two common uses: the young fruits are consumed as vegetables, and the ripe seeds are used as a widespread protein source. Many special POSTER PRESENTATIONS 173

landraces exist in Bonn originating from different cultures and countries. These landraces are exchanged between gardeners, then individually selected and carefully propagated. Bushy types are rarely found, because they are thought to be less tasty. In some cases even the runner bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.) is used as dry bean, but only rarely and in small quantities. For seed growing of bi- and perennial crops, the selected individual plants flower for several seasons. The selected plant remains and bears seed as long as it lives. A typical example for this technique is the so-called black kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. viridis L.). The large blue-green or reddish leaves are used to prepare special leaf rolls, stuffed with a mixture containing minced , rice, onion, garlic, hot pepper and further spices. From poppy (Papaver somniferum L.), unfilled pink- or violet-flowering landraces with spontaneously opening capsules were cultivated until 1999. At the moment, the ornamental, filled red-flowering peony poppies from seed markets are preferred. Even from this variety the seeds may be used as condiment or to prepare sweets. Intensive soil treatment (e.g. watering) and daily picking in the garden is mainly performed by females. The water supply to the soil is regulated by these treatments along with the fact that the soil is often completely covered by plants. In dry years, the soil is protected from becoming encrusted and cracking. In extremely wet seasons, the crops are surrounded by shallow moats. The water can flow slowly away without eroding the soil, and through frequent picking, fresh air is provided to the roots. They do not rot and the plants can grow well. Some of the plants are grown in monocultures, e.g. coriander, , chickpea. Some grow in rows (cucumber, egg plant, fenugreek), where others are sown or planted to fill gaps (garden orache, Atriplex hortensis L.). Some plants surround the cabins (ornamentals, some frequently used spices) or are grown alone (artichoke, manioc). The harvest follows the cycle of fast-growing neighbour plants like pumpkins; other rules are to cut as little as possible if these plants or plant parts are not used at the moment but would bear edible leaf or fruit. Chemical plant protection and manure is scarcely applied. Some of the immigrants use or dried and pulverized plant material instead of artificial fertilizers. It is not possible to define general rules for immigrant home gardens because the gardeners come from different nations and often have very distinct personal preferences. Most of them have one or sometimes several gardens to provide their families with fruits, vegetables and spices year-round. Self-sufficiency is their main aim, and some even keep animals like chicken and sheep in their gardens (Hammer et al. 1992–1994; Arrowsmith et al. 1998).

Summary and future prospects In the example of Bonn, the former capital of Germany, typical gardens of immigrant families were visited and periodically checked regarding their plant composition and cultivation techniques. Interactions of people from different regions promote their integration into the German society. Families manage their own gardens in order to have enough traditional food, making them independent of the market. The more that immigrants live and work in an area, the more arable land is used for gardens. The rents for leasing are very low—in contrast to the price of soil. Limitations to gardening do not exist other than the time and energy of the people. The immigrants contribute actively to increasing the diversity of cultivated plants in Germany by farming, gardening, and trading their native germplasm. They influence the markets by selecting specific species and varieties (see Hammer et al. 2001). People from Asia and Russia often establish special shops with exotic food and spices, or species which were used by Germans in former times and which are neglected crops here today (e.g. buckwheat, Fagopyrum spp.; cranberries, Vaccinium spp.). These exotic or forgotten foods become more and more interesting for German consumers as well. 174 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

References Arrowsmith, N., Th. Gladis and A. Kanzler. 1998. Collecting in northeastern Austria, 1997. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 113:35-37. Gladis, Th. 1999. Kulturelle Vielfalt und Biodiversität—hier, in Deutschland und anderswo. VEN Samensurium, Heft 10, S. 22-36. Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knüpffer, eds. 1992–1994. “… y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros …” Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources. Gatersleben, Germany. Hammer, K., Th. Gladis and A. Diederichsen. 2001. In-situ- and on-farm-management of plant genetic resources. Crop Science Congress, Hamburg, Germany, August 17–22, 2000. Seidl, A. 1995.: Deutsche Agrargeschichte. Schriftenr. FH Weihenstephan SWF 3, 366 S. Vavilov, N.I. 1926. Geographical regularities in the distribution of the genes of cultivated plants. Bull. appl. Bot. Gen. i Sel. 17,3 (Russian), 411-428 (Engl. summary). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 175

Summary and recommendations Conclusions

Pablo B. Eyzaguirre International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

We entered into homegardens research that had been underway for several decades and attempted to enrich it by adding a biodiversity perspective and value. We hope that by documenting this additional stream of benefits that homegardens provide, it will build support for further research and development of home gardens as biodiversity assets for rural communities and society at large. The five country case studies, Guatemala, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam and Ghana, that were carried out with funding by the German government produced detailed documentation of how farmers create homegardens to manage agrobiodiversity in multipurpose, multistory systems to fulfill their needs. Companion pilot studies using a similar methodology in Ethiopia and Nepal confirmed the importance of home gardens as active breeding grounds and secure havens of biodiversity in agriculture. The chapters in these proceedings are particularly useful for the rich detail and scientific rigour they bring to the study of home gardens. The questions of what diversity and how is it maintained have been squarely addressed. The other salient issue of how use of genetic resources contributes to their conservation has also been addressed. The scientific work and discussions presented in this volume will be followed by several national publications to reach the respective research and development actors in each country. There will also be additional scientific publications in journals and books on botany, ethnobotany, genetic resources, agriculture, agroforestry and ecology. The communication that follows upon this work will be aimed at policy-makers, development workers and the communities that actually maintain homegarden diversity. Based on the findings presented here, we have set the stage for two follow up strategies. First is to apply the methods that the scientists and farmers in the five countries have developed together to other countries so that they can assess and monitor the agrobiodiversity maintained in homegarden systems. Second is to use these results of these assessments and studies to include homegardens as components of national biodiversity conservation and development strategies. Because homegardens are essential components of both biodiversity conservation and livelihood strategies, the key stakeholders will be the farming communities. In several instances, the participatory research approaches used in the studies can be adapted to empower communities to seek greater support and recognition of their contributions to national biodiversity and . At the same time communities have every right to expect that assets managed as part of home garden diversity can be made more valuable. In some cases there will be home garden diversity fairs, or ecotourism opportunities to enable farmers to derive greater income from diversity rich homegardens. In other cases there is a need for technical support to increase the quality and supply of germplasm for farmers that seek to maintain and further develop traditional species and varieties in their home gardens. The teams in the various countries made important and highly visible steps to give due recognition and ownership. These measures ranged from certificates acknowledging farmers and local communities as equal partners in the research, national workshops with home gardeners to channel support to their endeavors and to open new market opportunities for their products. In other cases the cultural aspect of home gardens as spaces that not only preserve biodiversity but also food culture and ritual was central and given high recognition and respect. The public awareness of home garden biodiversity was greatly increased. Television programmes in Ghana, visits by leading policy-makers from the Ministry of Environment in Guatemala, the support of national home garden associations in Vietnam, are among a few of the measures taken thus far and that will continue as homegardens assume an important place in biodiversity, nutrition and livelihood strategies. It is not difficult to envisage a ‘Year of the Home Garden’ as an awareness-raising step that can reach the hearts and home of nearly all rural and peri-urban families. 176 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Appendix I Workshop Agenda

Tuesday, July 17th 2001

8.00 Registration of visitors and guests

9.00 (Chairman: Dr Karl Hammer) Official opening by Dr Wolfgang Zimmermann, Director of ZEL Dr Spatz, Dean of Faculty of Agriculture, University of Kassel Representative of GTZ/BEAF Introduction of the Workshop by Prof. Dr Fischbeck

10.00 Home gardens: a genetic resources perspective, Dr Jan Engels, IPGRI

10.15 Coffee break

10.15 (Chairman: Dr Engels) Home gardens: food security, livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation. Dr Pablo Eyzaguirre Home gardens and genetic diversity in ecosystems. Dr Toby Hodgkin

11.30 Documentation of genetic resources in home gardens. Dr Helmut Knüpffer

12.00 General discussion of key themes

12.15 Presentation of Cuban research results

13.00

14.00 (Chairman: Representative of the Vietnam team) Presentation of Guatemalan research results

14.45 Presentation of Venezuelan research results

15.30 Presentation of Ghanaian research results

16.15 Coffee break

16.45 Presentation of Vietnamese research results

17.30 Close session

19.00 Evening event in the , including a guided tour of Germany’s ‘Largest Tropical Home Gardens’ (snacks provided) APPENDIX I 177

Wednesday, July 18th 2001

9.00 Characterizing genetic diversity of key home garden species Dr David Williams

9.45 Plenary discussion of Agrobiodiversity ecosystem and genetic diversity management issues across countries. Moderator: Dr Theda Kirchner

10.30 Coffee break

11.00 Working groups on thematic topics—Session 1

Group A: PGR conservation in home gardens: Ecosystems and key species

Group B: In situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components of complementary conservation strategies for plant genetic resources

Group C: Documentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Report of the three working groups with plenary discussion

16.00 Coffee break

16.30 Implications for countries outside the project: Nepal and Ethiopia

17.30 Close session

19.00 Dinner

Thursday, July 19th 2001

9.00 (Chairman: Dr Eyzaguirre) Contributions of homegardens to our knowledge on cultivated plant species: the Mansfeld approach. Prof. K. Hammer

Documenting plant genetic resources in home gardens: contributions to national and global databases—Online presentation. J. Ochsmann, H. Knupffer, V. Afanasyev, K. Roose

10.00 Contributions of home garden agrobiodiversity to development, nutrition, and household livelihoods. P. Eyzaguirre 178 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

10.30 Working groups. Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and priorities for future work on managing home gardens agrobiodiversity for development

11.00 Coffee break (Chairman: representative of the Cuban Team) Working Groups continue 13.00 Lunch

(Chairman:Dr Engels) Presentation of working group results; Plenary discussion of home gardens as a global conservation and development strategy for diverse and sustainable ecosystems and livelihoods future priorities and partners

15.30 Evaluation

16.30 Coffee break

17.00 Official closing of the workshop

19.30 Farewell dinner and party APPENDIX II 179

Appendix II

List of participants

Oekan S. Abdoellah Cesar Azurdia Institute of Ecology Falcutad de Agronomia - FAUSAC Padjadjaran University Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala JL Sekeloa Selatan Apdo Postal 1545, Zona 12 Bandung 40132 Ciudad de Guatemala West Java Edificio T8 Indonesia Ciudad Universitaria Z1Z [email protected] Guatemala Tel: +502 476 9794 Zemede Asfaw Fax: +502 476 9770 PO Box 3434 [email protected] Biology Department Addis Ababa University, A.A. Andrea Bahr Ethiopia Gesamthochschule Kassel-Witzenhausen Tel: +251 1 5531 77 Norbanstr. 1 Fax: +2511 552350 D-37213 Witzenhausen zerihun.herbarium@telecom Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Emmanuel O.A. Asibey Samuel Odei Bennett-Lartey CBUD, Plant Genetic Resources Centre Centre for Biological Utilization Bunso and Development PO Box 7 Kumasi, Ghana Ghana PO Box MB 303 Tel/Fax: +233 81 24124 Accra [email protected] Ghana Tel: +233 21 60381/2 Gabriele Blümlein Fax: +233 21 60137 Centre for Documentation [email protected] and Information in Agriculture (ZADI) Information Centre Genetic Resources (IGR) Helmer Ayala Villichgasse 17 Falcutad de Agronomia—FAUSAC 53177 Bonn Universidad de Germany San Carlos de Guatemala Tel: +49.228.9548-209 Apdo Postal 1545, Zona 12 Fax: ++49.228.9548-220 Ciudad de Guatemala [email protected] Edificio T8 Ciudad Universitaria Z1Z Guatemala Tel:+ 502 476 9794 Fax: +502 476 9770 [email protected] 180 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Leonor Castiñeiras Alfonso Maria E. Fernandez Instituto de Investigaciones International Support Group (ISG) Fundamentales en National Agrarian University (UNALM) Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT) PO Box R18-067-Lima 18, Calle 2 esq. 1, Peru Santiago de las Vegas Tel: +51(1)2427524; 3494057 C. Habana E-Fax: +1(253)660-6044 Cuba [email protected] Tel: +53 683 4039,2323 Fax: +53 7 579014 Gerhard Fischbeck [email protected] Lehrstuhl für Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzüchtung Nguyen Ngoc DE TU München Rice research Department Alte Akademie 12 Mekong Delta Farming Systems D-85350 Freising-Weihenstephan Research and Development Institute, Germany Cantho University, Campus 2 [email protected] 3/2 Street, Cantho City [email protected] Cantho Vietnam Zoila Fundora Mayor Tel: +84 71 831251 Instituto de Investigaciones Fax: +84 71 831270 Fundamentales en [email protected] Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT) Calle 2 esq. 1, Marlene Diekmann Santiago de las Vegas Advisory Service on C. Habana Agricultural Research for Development (BEAF) Cuba PO Box 120508 Tel: +53 683 4039,2323 D-53047 Bonn Fax: +53 7 579014 Germany [email protected] Tel.: +49-228-2434865 Fax: +49-228-2434861 Resham Gautam [email protected] LI-BIRD Mahedrapul Kaski, Pokhara Jan Engels PO Box 324, Pokhara International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Nepal (IPGRI) Tel: +977 61 26834/32912 Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a [email protected] 00057 Maccarese Rome Thomas Gladis Italy German Centre for Documentation Tel: +39 06 6118202 and Information in Agriculture Fax: +39 06 61979661 Information Centre for Genetic Resources (IGR) [email protected] Villichgasse 17 D-53177 Bonn Pablo Eyzaguirre Germany International Plant Genetic Resources Institute [email protected] (IPGRI) [email protected] Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a 00057 Maccarese Rome Italy Tel: +39 06 6118267 Fax: +39 06 61979661 [email protected] APPENDIX II 181

Margaret Gutiérrez Anne Holl FONAIAP-CENIAP Institute for Rural Development Apartado 4653 University of Göttingen Maracay 2101 Waldweg 26 Venezuela D-37073 Göttingen Tel: +58 43 47 10 66 Germany [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] László Holly Karl Hammer Director University of Kassel Institute for Agrobotany Faculty of Agriculture H-2766 Tapioszele, Department of Agro-Biodiversity Hungary Steinstr. 19 Tel.: +36 (53) 380-070 D-37213 Witzenhausen Fax: +36 (53) 380-072 Germany [email protected] Tel: +49 5542 98 0 Fax: +49 5542 98 13 09 Nguyen Thi Ngoc Hue [email protected] Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI) Vandien, Thanhtri, Hanoi Oliver Hanschke Vietnam Advisory Service on Tel: +84 4 614326 or 84 34 Agricultural Research for Development Fax: +84 4 8613937 (BEAF) [email protected] PO Box 120508 [email protected] D-53047 Bonn Germany Annie Huie Tel.: +49-228-2434866 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Fax: +49-228-2434861 (IPGRI) [email protected] Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a 00057 Maccarese Joachim Heller Rome University of Applied Sciences Italy Faculty of Horticulture & Landscaping Tel: +39 06 6118285 Von Lade Str. 1 Fax: +39 06 61979661 D-65366 Geisenheim [email protected] Germany Tel/Fax: +49 6722 980288 Theda Kirchner [email protected] DSE/ZEL Messweg 20 Toby Hodgkin D-37412 Hörden International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Germany (IPGRI) Tel: +49 5521-1761 Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a [email protected] 00057 Maccarese Rome Helmut Knüpffer Italy Institute of Plant Genetics and Tel: +39 06 61181 Crop Plant Research Fax: +39 06 61979661 IPK [email protected] Gatersleben Corrensstr. 3 D-06466 Gatersleben Germany [email protected] 182 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Zsuzsanna Kollár István Már Genetic Resources Department Institute for Agrobotany Institute for Agrobotany H-2766 Tapioszele, H-2766 Tapioszele, Hungary Hungary Tel: +36 (53) 380-070 Tel: +36 (53) 380-070 Fax: +36 (53) 380-072 Fax: +36 (53) 380-072 [email protected] [email protected] Carol Markwei Barbara Krause Department of Botany GTZ Project Bosawas University of Ghana Sustainable Resource Use & Rural development Legon, Accra Biosphere Reserve Bosawas Ghana Managua Projecto Bosawas Tel: +233 21 501735 MARENA/GTZ Fax: +233 21 500940 Ap Postal 489 [email protected] Managua Waltraud Michaelis German Foundation for International José Miguel Leiva Development— Falcutad de Agronomia—FAUSAC Food and Agriculture Development Centre Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala DSE/ZEL Apdo Postal 1545, Zona 12 Zschortau Ciudad de Guatemala Germany Guatemala Tel: +502 476 9794 Roch L. Mongbo Fax: +502 476 9770 Centre Beninois pour l’Environment et le [email protected] Developpement Economique et Social [email protected] (CEDBEDES) 02 BP 778 Brigitte Maass Cotonou Institute for Crop & Animal Benin Production in the Tropics Tel: +229 304139/966446 University of Göttingen Fax: +229 300276 Grisebachstr. 6 [email protected] D-37077 Göttingen Germany Jörg Ochsmann Tel: +49 551 393751 Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research [email protected] IPK Corrensstr. 3 Larwanou Mahamane D-06466 Gatersleben National Institute for Agricultural Germany Research of Niger (INRAN) [email protected] National institute for Agricultural Science (INRAD) Kesavan N. Pushkaran BP 429 Niamey Kerala Agricultural University Niger College of Horticulture Tel: +227 72 34 34 Vellanikkara, Thrissur - 680 656 Fax: +277 72 21 44 Kerala India Tel: +91 487 370 822 Fax: +91 487 370 019 [email protected] APPENDIX II 183

Trinidad M. Pérez de Fernandez Jürgen Schneider Universidad de los Andes International Affairs Division Nucleo Universitario Rafael Rangel, Trujillo Swiss Agency for the Environment Forests and Av. Medina Angarita, Carmona Landscape, Trujillo CH-3003 Berne Venezuela Switzerland Tel/Fax: +58-43 47 10 66 Tel: +41 31 322 68 95 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Tomas Shagarodsky Consuelo Quiroz Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Universidad de los Andes Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT) entro para la Agricultura Tropical Calle 2 esq. 1, Alternativa y el Desarollo Integral Trujillo Santiago de las Vegas Trujillo C. Habana Venezuela Cuba Tel: +58 272 2360467, 59 272 6721672 (home) Tel: +53 683 4039,2323 [email protected] Fax: +53 7 579014 [email protected] Vanaja Ramprasad GREEN Foundation PO Box 7651 Pratap Kumar Shrestha 86A Srinatha Nilaya LI-BIRD 5th cross, 3rd main, N.S. Palya PO Box 234, BTM Second Stage Pokhara, Kaski Bangalore—560 076 Nepal India Tel: +977 61 26834/32912 Tel: +91 080 6783858 [email protected] Fax: +91 080 6591729 [email protected] Bhuwon Sthapit International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Ram Rana Regional Office for Asia, Pacific and Oceania LI-BIRD IPGRI APO (Ouposted in Nepal) Mahedrapul Kaski 10 Darmashila Buddha Marg PO Box 324, Pokhara Nadipur Patan, Ward N. 3 Nepal Pokhara 3 Tel: +977 61 26834/32912 Nepal [email protected] Tel: +977 61 21108 Fax: +977 61 21108 Katja Roose [email protected] Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research IPK Luu Ngoc Trinh Corrensstr. 3 Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI) D-06466 Gatersleben Van Dien, Thanh Tri, Ha Noi Germany Vietnam [email protected] Tel: +84 34 845320 Fax: +84 34 845802 [email protected] 184 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Raymond Vodouhe Wolfgang Zimmermann International Plant Genetic Resources Institute German Foundation for International (IPGRI) Development Office for West and Central Africa Food and Agriculture Development Centre 08 BP 0932 Cotonou DSE/ZEL Benin Zschortau Tel: +229 35 01 88 Germany Fax: +229 35 05 56 [email protected]

Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser Hamerlinggasse 12 A-2340 Mödling Austria Tel/Fax: +02236-45069 (++43-2236-45069) [email protected]

Jessica Watson International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a 00057 Maccarese Rome Italy Tel: +39 06 6118404 [email protected]

Beate Weiskopf GTZ Rural Development Division Dag-Hämmarskjöld-weg 1-5 Postfach 5180 D-65726 Eschborn Germany Tel: +49 61 96 79 1432 [email protected]

David E. Williams International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Regional Office for Americas c/o CIAT A:A: 6713 Cali Colombia Tel: +57 2 445 0048/49 Fax: +57 2 445 0096 [email protected] ISBN 92-9043-517-8