presentaion by musana s. bernard
TRANSCRIPT
Drivers of on farm tree diversity contribute to climate change
mitigation, adaptation and resilience
By: Musana S. Bernard, Ndayamabaje J.D., Ndoli A., Mukuralinda A., Safari D., Mbonigaba J.J.
Outline• Problem statement• Land cover changes facts• Forest degradation risk factors• How on farm tree diversity impacts climate resilience • Methodology• Species present in the study area• Results of the Regression analysis• Discussion• Relations between feeding systems, feeds and feeds costs• Conclusion and recommendation
Problem statement• Considering the last 100 years landscapes history, an impressive
biodiversity erosion in tree stratum has dramatically change the availability of high value wood, wild fruits, medicinal plants and cultural plants.• Fortunately since 1986 a consciousness of endangered species has develop
a philosophy of Agroforestry that can be considered at some extend as a transition toward recovering some of the important products and services (Konig, 1992; Kalinganire, 1996; Oksanen, 1997; Dixon,2003)• AF have moved slowly due to poor understand socio-economic drivers and
institutionals barriers to adoption (Mukuralinda et al.,2015; Bucagu et al.,2013)
4
Land cover changes factsCareful interpretation of biomass based indicators (NDVI is important)• Loss in NDVI (biomass) in forest area is degradation/deforestation• Gain in NDVI (biomass) in savanna ecosystems could be again degradation due to bush
encroachment
Forest degradation risk factors
Meta-analysis of Geist & Lambin 2004: “Our results show that desertification is driven by a limited suite of recurrent core variables”
How on farm tree diversity impacts climate resilience • Tree diversity as indicator of tree adoption• Tree diversity and agro-ecology• Diversity of trees and sustainability of wood production• Diversity of trees and soil biota diversity (Barrios,2014)• Diversity of trees and overall agri-system diversity (Barrios,2014)• Biodiversity and agriculture
Methodology• 145 farmers have been interview (10-30 farmers/sectors) in 2 Districts • The relationship of key household characteristic with the management of trees and
Diversity of trees in the• farm has been investigated from household level information. 42 regressions have
been conducted using linear model (Gaussian model) and quasi-binomial regression using the generalized linear model following the algorithm of the glm package in R. The details of the regression and the pseudo – R2 and the R syntax used are presented in appendix of the report. To simplify the Interpretation results are presented in 3 group regressions:• Regression Analysis of Tree Diversity• Regression Analysis of Tree management • Regression analysis for Tree management and Diversity
Selected sites: Gatsibo District
Selected sites: Bugesera district
Results
Species present in the study area
Mangifera Indica
Grevillea robusta
Persea americana
Citrus SP
Carica Papaya
Eucalyptus SP
Markhamia Lutea
Citrus Lemon
Citrus Sinensis
Calliandra
11%
9%
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%• 90% of the top tree
species in the east are exotic species• Markhamia lutea is the
first indigenous species present in farmer’s land
Results of the Regression analysis• The 3 regression were constructed from logistic regression that has a
dependent or independent variables numerical (continuous) or categorical variables (discrete variables). • The first type having quantitative dependent variable, it has been
presented in tabular format and discussed. The covariate type of response and qualitative response are too complex to assist decision making because it needs definitions of Dummy variables and complex transformation.
R2(1) Intercept
Variables
Coeff T value P value Coeff T value P value
SUBCOUNTY 0.086.01639 13.782 <2e-16
***Nyamata -2.91639 -2.507 0.0133 *
Rweru -3.01639 -2.478 0.0144 *
security5.1296 15.448 <2e-16
***Yes 1.6620 2.134 0.0347 *
month_secured -Qtt 0.005.15901 7.477 6.98e-12
***0.04161 0.451 0.655ns
tenure 0.04 ns ns
Training 0.173.5098 7.86 8.45e-13
***Yes 2.9796 5.372 3.08e-07 ***
Distancet-Qtt na6.22082 13.319 <2e-16
***0.07178 1.221 0.228(ns)
Livestock 0.043.88 5.67 7.62e-08
***Yes 1.8867 2.508 0.0133 *
Income source 0.47 5.00 10.701 <2.00E-16***
(income,1,11)* 2 3.495 0.000484***
(income,1,2)* 4.667 7.737 1.57E-14*** (income,1,2,5)* 1 1.888 0.059225. (income,1,3,6)* 4.667 7.737 1.57E-14*** (income,1,6)* -1.333 -2.21 0.02718* (income,6,11)* -3 -5.243 1.74E-07***
Results of the Regression analysis (2)
R2(1) Intercept
Variables
Income source + Average income(RWF)-
Qtt
0.50 9.97
22.849 < 2e-16 (income,1,11)*-3.062 -5.722 1.22E-08***
(income,1,2,3)*-5.366 -10.82 < 2e-16*** (income,1,2,3,11)*-5.592 -11.065 < 2e-16*** (income,1,2,5)*-4.058 -8.192 4.66E-08*** (income,1,2,7)*-5.023 -9.727 < 2e-16*** (income,1,2,7,11)*-5.385 -9.552 < 2e-16*** (income,1,3)*-5.549 -10.375 < 2e-16*** (income,1,6)*-6.61 -11.488 < 2e-16*** (income,1,7)*-5.487 -11.703 < 2e-16*** (income,2,7)*-6.093 -10.3 < 2e-16*** (income,6,11)*-8.13 -15.132 < 2e-16*** (income,7)*-6.278 -13.518 < 2e-16*** (incomerwf)*0.000001118 2.361 0.018303*
Results of the Regression analysis (3)
- Most of farmers interviewed have income that is below 300,000 RWF;
- The number of income does not explain the diversity but diversity above 10 tree species are seen where farmers have more than one source of income
• Income is not clearly related diversity
Discussion
Discussion(2)• e.g. Nyamata Revenue and Diversity not correlated:
Despite high revenue Nyamata has a reduced diversity in general
• There is trend of number of income has a diversity
• Location and diversity indicates that in Nyamata and Rweru sectors, there is a reduction of almost 50% of tree diversity. • It has also been observed that for area with 5month of food security
the diversity reaches 6 species and for 10 month it reaches 7 species. • Land tenure was found not significantly correlated with tree diversity• Training on Natural regeneration was significantly correlated to
diversity (3 species than the non-trained)• Development of livestock may induce increase of diversity
• More than 50% of the variability of on farm tree diversity could be explained by the details of income sources and average annual income.• Among farmers who rely on tree products : Farmers who have
addition income such as wages, salaries or casual labor tend to reduce the tree diversity; while those who depend more on their products from their farms (food products) owned the highest tree diversity. • The group with the highest diversity has at least 6 species on average.
Farmers with livestock have 48% more species diversity compared to those who does not have livestock.
Relations between feeding systems, feeds and feeds costs
Conclusion and Recommendations:• More detailed typology of
farmer is needed to achieved both increase tree coverage and tree diversity (location-accessibility, income source, income, livestock activities and feed availability)• More Training is need to natural
regenerate trees on farm
• Diversifying on-farm income through integrated crop-livestock systems would increase the adoption of more tree species. • Specialization of tree value chain
is crucial to increase diversity on farm particularly for farmer are more interested on tree products and services
Thank you