Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF
Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF
Impacts of human use on the forest vegetation5 IMPACTS OF HUMAN USE ON THE STRUCTURE AND SPECIESCOMPOSITION OF THE YAYU FOREST5.1 IntroductionApart from their function as reservoirs of biodiversity, forests provide differentecosystem services; forests also provide human beings with many goods and servicesfor livelihood. The use of forests and forest products dates back several centuries inhuman history. For instance, some 30,000 – 40,000 years ago, people in New Guineawere thinning forest trees to increase natural stands of Taro, bananas and Yam(Wiersum 1997). Still today, millions of people living in and around the forestenvironment in the tropics depend on forests to a large extent (Byron and Arnold 1999).Forests are sources of food, fuel wood, timber, construction wood, and the like.Depending on the cultural background and the management objectives, localcommunities in different parts of the world have developed different indigenousmanagement practices and perceptions of forests. For some communities, forests areimportant not only for subsistence, but also for their spiritual life, which may influencethe way they manage the forest (Byron and Arnold 1999). In any case, people modifythe floristic composition and structure of forest during the process of use in order to getthe best of goods and services (Wiersum 1997; Bakes 2001; Straede et al. 2002). Theindigenous management practices may include several activities such as conservingsome patches of forest, sparing or planting desirable species, introducing new species,eliminating competing species, thinning to protect the forest from fire, mulching,stimulating fruit production, etc. (Wiersum 1997). Such forest management by localcommunities was sustainable and contributed greatly to the conservation of biodiversityand protection of the environment (Bakes 2001; Long and Zhou 2001).In Ethiopia, people mainly depend on forests for fuel wood, constructionwood, timber, honey production and grazing. However, the level of dependency andmode of management varies from place to place, depending on the type of product takenfrom the forest. In the montane rain forest areas of SW Ethiopia, where coffee (Coffeaarabica) occurs naturally, the local communities living in and around the foresttraditionally manage the forest for coffee production. Coffee production is an importantland use in the tropics (Perfecto et al. 1996). In most parts of the tropics, the practice ofcoffee production is not older than two to three hundred years (Marano-Vega et al.67
Impacts of human use on the forest vegetation2002), when forests were first cleared for plantations. In Ethiopia, however, the traditionof using and producing coffee is older than 2000 years (Luxner 2001). The traditionalcoffee production system in SW Ethiopia differs from that in the rest of the world sinceit mainly depends on the naturally regenerating coffee populations, where coffee treesare indigenous to the montane rain forests.The local communities have traditional coffee production systems of differentmanagement intensities in the rain forest. In general, three production systems can berecognized: (a) undisturbed forest, which only involves harvesting of coffee; (b) semiforest,which involves thinning out trees and shrubs competing with coffee in the lowerstorey as well as the large trees in the canopy layer, and (c) Semi-forest plantations,which involve modification of the forest vegetation in the same way as semi-forest, butinclude planting of coffee (Demel 1999). Semi-forest-plantations in the area are smallscale,about 1-2 ha in size, and established by converting old semi-forest system touniform aged coffee stand. The coffee seedlings used for planting in the semi-forestplantationscome either from the natural forests, or seedlings of traditional or moderncultivars raised in nurseries (Tadesse et al. 2001). Areas managed as semi-forestsystems are often converted into semi-forest-plantations after several years ofproduction. Coffee production from these traditional management systems is the mainsource of livelihood for more than 60% of the local population in the coffee-growingmontane rain forest areas of SW Ethiopia (Tafesse 1996). The traditional managementpractices obviously affect both the structure and species composition of the forest.Therefore, they may have an important long-term implication for the conservation offorest biodiversity and the wild coffee populations. Besides impacts directly influencingthe species composition, the alteration of the structure of populations may affect thegenetic diversity of forest trees and of Coffea arabica.All the above-mentioned traditional coffee production systems are found inYayu forest, SW Ethiopia. This offers a great opportunity to study the vegetation of thedifferent management systems, and to evaluate the systems from conservation and useaspects. The main research questions in this study are: How do different managementintensities of the forest for coffee production affect the vegetation in terms of speciescomposition and structure? Which species or species groups disappear in the managedforests? Which species affected by the management may require restoration? What is68
- Page 24 and 25: Current state of knowledgekapakata,
- Page 26 and 27: Current state of knowledgecultivars
- Page 28 and 29: Current state of knowledgehomegarde
- Page 30 and 31: Current state of knowledgeseeded pl
- Page 32 and 33: Current state of knowledgeHailu, un
- Page 34 and 35: Current state of knowledgeraces are
- Page 36 and 37: Description of the study area and s
- Page 38 and 39: Description of the study area and s
- Page 40 and 41: Description of the study area and s
- Page 42 and 43: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 44 and 45: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 46 and 47: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 48 and 49: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 50 and 51: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 52 and 53: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 54 and 55: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 56 and 57: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 58 and 59: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 60 and 61: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 62 and 63: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 64 and 65: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 66 and 67: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 68 and 69: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 70 and 71: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 72 and 73: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
- Page 76 and 77: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 78 and 79: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 80 and 81: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 82 and 83: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 84 and 85: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 86 and 87: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 88 and 89: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 90 and 91: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 92 and 93: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 94 and 95: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 96 and 97: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 98 and 99: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 100 and 101: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 102 and 103: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 104 and 105: Impacts of human use on the forest
- Page 106 and 107: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 108 and 109: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 110 and 111: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 112 and 113: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 114 and 115: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 116 and 117: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 118 and 119: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 120 and 121: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
- Page 122 and 123: Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
Impacts of human use on the forest vegetation5 IMPACTS OF HUMAN USE ON THE STRUCTURE AND SPECIESCOMPOSITION OF THE YAYU FOREST5.1 IntroductionApart from their function as reservoirs of biodiversity, forests provide differentecosystem services; forests also provide human beings with many goods <strong>and</strong> servicesfor livelihood. The use of forests <strong>and</strong> forest products dates back several centuries inhuman history. For instance, some 30,000 – 40,000 years ago, people in New Guineawere thinning forest trees to increase natural st<strong>and</strong>s of Taro, bananas <strong>and</strong> Yam(Wiersum 1997). Still today, millions of people living in <strong>and</strong> around the forestenvironment in the tropics depend on forests to a large extent (Byron <strong>and</strong> Arnold 1999).Forests are sources of food, fuel wood, timber, construction wood, <strong>and</strong> the like.Depending on the cultural background <strong>and</strong> the management objectives, localcommunities in different parts of the world have developed different indigenousmanagement practices <strong>and</strong> perceptions of forests. For some communities, forests areimportant not only for subsistence, but also for their spiritual life, which may influencethe way they manage the forest (Byron <strong>and</strong> Arnold 1999). In any case, people modifythe floristic composition <strong>and</strong> structure of forest during the process of use in order to getthe best of goods <strong>and</strong> services (Wiersum 1997; Bakes 2001; Straede et al. 2002). Theindigenous management practices may include several activities such as conservingsome patches of forest, sparing or planting desirable species, introducing new species,eliminating competing species, thinning to protect the forest from fire, mulching,stimulating fruit production, etc. (Wiersum 1997). Such forest management by localcommunities was sustainable <strong>and</strong> contributed greatly to the conservation of biodiversity<strong>and</strong> protection of the environment (Bakes 2001; Long <strong>and</strong> Zhou 2001).In Ethiopia, people mainly depend on forests for fuel wood, constructionwood, timber, honey production <strong>and</strong> grazing. However, the level of dependency <strong>and</strong>mode of management varies from place to place, depending on the type of product takenfrom the forest. In the montane rain forest areas of SW Ethiopia, where coffee (Coffeaarabica) occurs naturally, the local communities living in <strong>and</strong> around the foresttraditionally manage the forest for coffee production. Coffee production is an importantl<strong>and</strong> use in the tropics (Perfecto et al. 1996). In most parts of the tropics, the practice ofcoffee production is not older than two to three hundred years (Marano-Vega et al.67