Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 192

Home gardens and

in situ conservation of
plant genetic resources
in farming systems
Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens
Workshop, 1719 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany

J.W. Watson and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors

Deutsche
Gesellschaft fr
Technische
Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) GmbH

<www.futureharvest.org>
IPGRI is
a Future Harvest 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, 1719 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). IPGRIs mandate is to
advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present and future generations. IPGRIs
headquarters is based in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, 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 Banana 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, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cte dIvoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt,
Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco,
Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria,
Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda 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 Montenegro), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (F.Y.R.), Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, 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 Forestry Research (CIFOR), Centre
de Coopration Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Dveloppement (CIRAD), Centro Agronmico
Tropical de Investigacin y Enseanza, Costa Rica (CATIE), Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), Technical Centre
for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), European Environmental Agency, European Union, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Food and Fertilizer 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 Technologa (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, 1719 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

Foreword

vi

Introduction
Opening remarks

G. Fischbeck
Home gardensa genetic resources perspective
J. Engels
Home gardens agrobiodiversity: an overview across regions
P.B. Eyzaguirre and J. Watson

1
3
10

Technical contributions
Home gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity

T. Hodgkin
Documentation of plant genetic resources in home gardens
H. Knpffer
Contributions of home gardens to our knowledge on cultivated plant species:
the Mansfeld approach
K. Hammer
Characterizing genetic diversity of home garden crop species:
some examples from the Americas
M. Hoogendijk and D. Williams
Contributions of home gardens agrobiodiversity to development, nutrition and livelihoods
P.B. Eyzaguirre and M. Fernandez

14
19

27
34

41

Project reports
Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources
in farming systemsCuban component

L. Castieiras, Z. Fundora Mayor, T. Shagarodsky, V. Moreno, O. Barrios,


L. Fernndez and R. Cristbal
Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation
in traditional farming systemsGuatemalan component
J. M. Leiva, C. Azurdia, W. Ovando, E. Lpez and H. Ayala
Home gardens and in situ conservation of agrobiodiversityVenezuelan component
C. Quiroz, M. Gutirrez, , D. Rodrguez, D. Prez, J. Ynfante, J. Gmez, T. Prez de Fernandez,
A. Marques and W. Pacheco
Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources
in farming systems in Ghana
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 Vietnam
L.N. Trinh, N.T.N. Hue, N.N. De, N. V. Minh and P.T. Chu

42

56

73

83

97

iv

HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

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

P. Shrestha, R. Gautam, R.B. Rana and B. Sthapit


Home gardens in Ethiopia: some observations and generalizations
Z. Asfaw
Home gardens in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java: a challenge for in situ
conservation of plant genetic resources
O.S. Abdoellah, Parikesit, B. Gunawan and H.Y. Hadikusumah

105
125
140

Working group reports


Plant genetic resources conservation in home gardens: ecosystems and key species

Group A
In situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components
of complementary conservation and use strategies for plant genetic resources
Group B
Documentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens
Group C
Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and
priorities for future work on managing home gardens agrobiodiversity for development
Group A
Group B
Group C

148
151

155

156
158
161

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

B. Vogl-Lukasser and C R. Vogl


Mansfelds Encyclopedia and Database on Agricultural and Horticultural Crops
J. Ochsmann, H. Knpffer, N. Biermann and K. Bachmann
The home garden database and information systemtechnical aspects
V. Afanasyev, J. Ochsmann and H. Knpffer
Home gardens in Kerala as an efficient agroecosystem for conservation
and sustainable management of biodiversity
K. Pushkaran
Ethnobotany of genetic resources in Germanydiversity in city gardens
of immigrants
Th. Gladis

163

165
168
169

171

Summary and recommendations


Conclusions

175

P.B. Eyzaguirre

Appendix I. Workshop Agenda

176

Appendix II. List of Participants

179

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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 fr 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, 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.
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
ecosystem 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

Introduction
Opening remarks
Gerhard Fischbeck
Emeritus Professor of Plant Breeding, 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 plants 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

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

Home gardensa 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 vegetable 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.
IPGRIs mandate is To advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present
and future generations which places IPGRIs 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 agroecosystem. 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 taxonomy, 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.

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 diversitycultural 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 seed, 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

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, costeffectiveness 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 seeds 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 worlds 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 gardeners themselves because they might benefit more directly from new developments in
the agricultural sector that are being disseminated by the extension service.

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 crops 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 gardening
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
vegetables 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

Plant introduction and distribution centre


Home gardens can collectively be regarded as informal plant introduction and distribution
centers, and the permanent contacts between gardensfacilitated through the strong links between
gardens, families, and local marketsas 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, spices
and herbs, medicinal plants. Species such as minor fruits, root and tubers, ornamentals and others
also fall into this category. The types of crops grown and the closeness of the garden to the house and
kitchen 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 Central
America, 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.

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 trees, 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 livestock 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-sectorfunded 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 cant 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

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. 355385 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 fr 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 projects 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, Colombia, 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
tree 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=3050 gardens covers essential biodiversity in home gardens.
Some species were present in most home gardens within a country and even across countries
and regionspeppers, taro or sweet potato, banana and papaya. 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 bananas 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 (914 varieties per ecosystem): Do, Thanh tra, Bien Hoa, Chum, Bi, Ngot, Oi, Nam roi,
Hong, DHNN1, Phuc trach, Chua, Son, Dao.
Banana (Musa spp.) (912 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) (817 varieries): So, Sap, Tim, Ngua, Nuoc, Cao, Ngot, Mung.

12

HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Ghana
Yam: 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 Millet: Pennisetum glaucumi 34 varieties
Guatemala
Zapote/Sapota (Pouteria sapota).
Chillies (Capsicum spp.).
Huisquil/Chayote (Sechium edule).
Cuba
Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus): 16 agro-morphological descriptors, 3 cultivated groups, 1 wild.
Zapote (Pouteria sapota): 11 AMI, no clear varieties.
Chilli (Capsicum): frutescens (1018), chinense (711), annuum (510).
Venezuela
Papaya (Carica papaya): 5.
Avocado (Persea americana): 18, with more variety in size and shape than ex situ
Chilli (Capsicum sp.): 11.
Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris): 14, with disease resistance found in 23.

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 households 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 (Fernaldia
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 eggplants
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 foods 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 peoples
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 agroecosystem 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 flower, 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 areasis 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 sapote 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 wont 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 exploredthe 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 Knpffer
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 (Knpffer 1992, Knpffer 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 (Sttzel 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 (Lalibert et al. 2000, pp.
6163) 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 Len 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 accessionrelated 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 Len (1999), the
Mansfeld (Hanelt and IPK 2001) and the corresponding database (http://mansfeld.ipkgatersleben.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 QCollector (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 (Knpffer 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 (Knpffer and Hammer 1999) which has been
developed by IPK since 1988 (Esquivel et al. 1989, Knpffer 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
(1992)

S. Italy
(1992)

C. and N. Italy
(1999)
(in prep.)

Sardinia
(1997)

Korea

E. Asia
(in prep.)

Albania
(in prep.)

Vietnam
(in prep.)

Taxa

2507

1,044

540

568

375

605

998

433

473

Species

2396

1,029

521

550

364

578

910

418

461
309

Genera

1077

531

298

327

247

378

531

255

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

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 Botany 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 reprogramming 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 genus 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. Castieiras, 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.
131151 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. 215224 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. 229254 in
Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Esquivel, M., L. Castieiras, H. Knpffer and K. Hammer. 1989. A checklist of the cultivated plants of Cuba.
Kulturpflanze 37:211-357.
Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1992. Contemporary traditional agriculturestructure and diversity of the
conuco. Pp. 174192 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. Knpffer, 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. 694702 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. Knpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben.
Esquivel, M., H. Knpffer and K. Hammer. 1992. Inventory of the cultivated plants. Pp. 213454 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. Knpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben.
Gladis, Th., K. Hammer, K. Roose and H. Knpffer. 2001. The contribution of tropical home gardens to in situ
conservation of plant genetic resourcesexamples from Guatemala and Vietnam. Pp. 3548 in Nutzung
genetischer Ressourcenkologischer Wert der Biodiversitt. 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. Knpffer 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. Knpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 2000. Checklists and in-situ conservation
case report from Italy. Pp. 111125 in In situ Conservation Research. Proc. Internat. Conf. 1315 October
1999. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Research Council Secretariat; National Institute of
Agrobiological Resources (NIAR), Tsukuba, Japan.
Hammer, K., H. Knpffer, G. Laghetti and P. Perrino. 1992. Seeds from the Past. A Catalogue of Crop
Germplasm in South Italy and Sicily. Institut fr Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung,
Gatersleben, Germany; Istituto del Germoplasma, Bari, Italy.
Hammer, K., H. Knpffer, 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 fr Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben, eds. (1959DATE)
Mansfelds Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 1st Engl. edn. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Hoang Ho-Dzun, H. Knpffer 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. 1326 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, 24 May 1995, Bonn-Rttgen, 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, 2529 August 1997, Rome, Italy. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Knpffer, H. 1992. The database of cultivated plants of Cuba. Pp. 202212 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. Knpffer, eds.) IPK, Gatersleben, Germany.
Knpffer, H., M. Esquivel and K. Hammer. 1990. DBCPC: a database for the cultivated plants of Cuba. Revista
del Jardin Botnico Nacional, La Habana, Cuba, 11:91-104.
Knpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plants.
Pp. 215224 in Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants: Third International Symposium (S. Andrews, A. C. Leslie
and C. Alexander, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.
Lalibert, 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, 1820 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-periodicumhuntianum. 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. 181194 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. 255285 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. 367417 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, 2830 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. 121129
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 grtnerischer
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.
Sttzel, T. 1995. Integrated information systems for genetic resources conservation in situ and ex situ. Pp. 6973
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, 24 May 1995, Bonn-Rttgen, 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. 577595 in Collecting Plant Genetic
Diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. R. Rao and R. Reid, eds.). CAB International, Wallingford.
Wiersema, J. H. and B. Len. 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
Universitt Gesamthochschule Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Summary
Some results of recent home gardens research are compared with Mansfelds Encyclopedia of
Agricultural and Horticultural Crops edited in 2001. In Mansfelds Encyclopedia, founded by the
eminent taxonomist Rudolf Mansfeld (19011960), 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 Mansfelds Encyclopedia.

Introduction
In 2001, the 100th anniversary of Rudolf Mansfelds 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 Mansfelds 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. Mansfelds 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 (Mller et al. 1989), adding several species to Mansfelds Encyclopedia (Hanelt and IPK, 2001).
But there are still some species that are candidates for a new edition, especially from the groups of
hedge plants and those used for soil erosion 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 Mansfelds Encyclopedia (see Table 2).
Many species of Cuban home garden plants have already been included in Mansfelds
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. 19921994). A new
survey from Cuban home gardens (Castieiras 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 Mansfelds Encyclopedia (Table 5). Most of the new items are medicinal plants, stressing
the importance of this group for Cuban home gardens.

Mansfelds approach
To illustrate Mansfelds approach, let us take one example from the latest edition of Mansfelds
catalogue from the family of Alliaceae (Hanelt and IPK 2001, Hanelt 2001).
In Figure 1, after taxonomic treatment of the genus Allium, 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 Mansfelds approach, which can be translated into
modern terms of biodiversity by including infraspecific diversity (including variability,
ethnobotanical datacommon names, uses, history of cultivation), genetic diversity (including
variability, ethnobotanical datacommon 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 agroforestry 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. 199294). This is by far the largest figure of all investigated areas (see Knpffer and Hammer 1999).
A recent investigation in some selected Cuban home gardens (Castieiras 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

2250

29

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. sr. 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 onion, wild Canada onion, wild garlic; ajo de montaa, 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.
Bulbs and leaves 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 Mansfelds Encyclopedia (Hanelt and IPK 2001).

are not yet listed in Mansfelds 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 Mansfelds
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
Castieiras, L., Z. Fundora, T. Shagarodsky, V. Fuentes, O. Barrios, V. Moreno, P. Sanchez, A. V. Gonzlez, A.
Martinez Fuentes, M. Garcia and A. Martinez. 2000. La conservacin 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.
4674 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. Knpffer, eds.). IPK, Gatersleben,
Germany.
Esquivel, M., H. Knpffer and K. Hammer. 1992. Inventory of cultivated plants, Vol 2, Pp. 213454.
Esquivel, M. and K. Hammer. 1988. The conucoan important refuge of Cuban plant genetic resources.
Kulturpflanze 36:451463.
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 oleraceagroup. 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. Agrarbiodiversitt und Pflanzengenetische Ressourcen Herausforderungund
Lsungsansatz. Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen , vol. 10.
Hammer, K., R. Fritsch, P. Hanelt, H. Knpffer and K. Pistrick. 1995. Collecting by the Institute of Plant Genetics
and Crop Plant Research (IPK) at Gatersleben. Pp. 713725 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. Knpffer, eds. 19921994. y tienen faxones y fabas muy diversos de los
nuestros. Origin, Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources, Vols 13. IPK, Gatersleben,
Germany.
Hanelt, P. and IPK. 2001. Mansfelds 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.
Knpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plant
species. Pp. 215224 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. Vorlufiges Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlich oder grtnerisch kultivierter Pflanzenarten (mit
Ausschlu von Zierpflanzen). Kulturpflanze Reih.
Mller, G. K., A. Bohorquez, O. Quintero and K. Hammer. 1989. Bericht ber 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 19011960. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 48:1.
Schultze-Motel, J., ed. 1986. Rudolf Mansfelds Verzeichnis landwirtschaftlicher und grtnerischer
Kulturpflanzen (ohne Zierpflanzen). 2nd ed. AkademieVerlag, Berlin, Gramany, 1998.
Table 1. Cultivated plants reported results from Colombia (Mller et al. 1989) not yet included in
Mansfelds Encyclopedia (2001)
Species

Family

Group of use

Billia (Aesculus) columbiana

Hippocastanaceae

Hedge plant

Duranta mutisii

Verbenaceae

Hedge plant

Hesperomeles goudotiana

Rosaceae

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

Piperaceae

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. 19921994) not included in
Mansfelds Encyclopedia (2001)
Species

Family

Aeglopsis chevalieri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rubiaceae


Aeschynomene brasiliana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leguminosae
Aeschynomene fascicularis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leguminosae
Aeschynomene paniculata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leguminosae
Annona lutescens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annonaceae
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solanaceae
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
Leucaena 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 Mansfelds
Encyclopedia (2001)
Species
Agave decipiens
Allamanda cathartica
Allium aff. Glandulosum
Ambrosia hispida
Annona salzmannii
Anoda cristata
Ardisia acuminata
Brunfelsia nitida
Cassia ligustrina
Casuarina lepidophloia
Casuarina stricta
Cestrum diurnum
Chrysanthellum americanum
Citrus amblyocarpa
Citrus depressa
Citrus volkameriana
Corchorus siliquosus
Costus spicatus
Dahlia coccinea
Datura cubensis
Diospyros crassinervis
Erechtites hieracifolia
Erythroxylum longipes
Eucalyptus botryoides
Eucalyptus resinifer
Eucalyptus robusta
Eucalyptus saligna
Eugenia aeruginea
Eugenia punicaefolia
Eupatorium ageratifolium
Eupatorium capillifolium
Eupatorium villosum
Exostema caribaeum
Ficus pandurata
Harpullia arborea
Iva cheiranthifolia
Jacaranda coerulea
Jatropha aethiopica
Morinda royoc
Panicum reptans
Parthenium hysterophorus
Passiflora stipulata
Passiflora villosa
Philoxerus vermicularis
Pinus caribaea
Pinus cubensis
Pinus maestrensis
Pinus tropicalis
Plumbago campensis
Plumbago scandens
Psidium salutare
Randia formosa
Ruellia tuberosa
Solanum pseudocapsicum
Tabernaemontana citrifolia
Trichilia glabra
Tulbaghia violaceae
Vernonia menthaefolia
Vitis tiliaefolia
Ximenia coriacea
Zamia angustifolia
Zamia pumila

Family
Agavaceae
Apocynaceae
Liliaceae
Compositae
Annonaceae
Malvaceae
Myrsinaceae
Solanaceae
Leguminosae
Casuarinaceae
Casuarinaceae
Solanaceae
Compositae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Tiliaceae
Zingiberaceae
Compositae
Solanaceae
Ebenaceae
Compositae
Erythroxylceae
Myrtaceae
Myrtaceae
Myrtaceae
Myrtaceae
Myrtaceae
Myrtaceae
Compositae
Compositae
Compositae
Rubiaceae
Moraceae
Sapindaceae
Compositae
Bignoniaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Rubiaceae
Gramineae
Compositae
Passifloraceae
Passifloraceae
Amaranthaceae
Coniferae
Coniferae shade tree
Coniferae
Coniferae
Plumbaginaceae
Plumbaginaceae
Myrtaceae
Rubiaceae
Acanthaceae
Solanaceae
Apocynaceae
Meliaceae
Liliaceae
Compositae
Vitaceae
Olacaceae
Cycadaceae
Cycadaceae

Group of use
Fi.
M.
V., Sp.
M.
Fr.
M.
Fr., living fences
M., magic plant
M.
wind break
wind break
M.
M.
grafting stock
Fr., grafting stock
grafting stock
Fi.
M.
M.
M.
Fr.
M.
magic plant
M.
M., soil erosion control, wind break
M.
M., soil erosion control, wind break
hedge plant
Fr.
M., magic plant
M.
M., magic plant
M.
shade tree
shade tree
M.
shade tree
M.
M.
Fo.
M.
Fr.
Fr.
M.
I., shade tree
I., shade tree
I., shade tree
M.
M.
Fr.
Fr.
M.
M.
M.
M., magic plant
Sp.
M., magic plant
Fr.
Fr., N.
St.
St.

TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

33

Table 4. New crop species in Cuban home gardens observed by Castieiras et al. (2000), in
comparison with Hammer et al. (19921994)
Species
Alpinia purpurata (Vieill.) K. Schum.
Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) Burtt et R.M.Sm.
Capsicum chinense Jacq.
Cordyline fruticosa (L.) Goepp.,
Syn. C. terminalis (L.) Kunth
Critonia hemipteropoda (B.L. Robins.)
R.M. King and H. Robins,
Syn. C. aromatisans (A.P. DC.) R.M. King
Guarea guidonia (L.) Sleumer,
Syn. G. trichiloides Allamand ex L.
Indigofera suffruticosa Mill.
Justicia pectoralis
Jacq. Var. stenophylla Leonard
Mentha snaveolens Ehrh.
Ranvolfia nitida Jacq.
Sansevieria hyacinthoides (L.) Druce,
syn. S. guineensis (L.) Jacq.
Satureja brownie (Sw.) Briq.
Schinus terebinthifolins Raddi
Senna alata (L.) Roxb.

Family
Zingiberaceae
Zingiberaceae
Solanaceae
Asteliaceae

Group of use
M.
M.
Sp.
M.

Composiate

M.

Meliaceae

M:

Leguminosae
Acanthaceae

M.
M.

Labiatae
Apocynaceae
Dracaenaceae

M.
M.
M.

Labiatae
Anacardiaceae
Leguminosae

M.
M.
M.

Source: Hammer et al. (19921994) and Castieiras et al. (2000).

Table 5. New crop species for Mansfelds Encyclopedia (2001) and Hammer et al. (19921994) observed
in Cuban home gardens (Castieiras et al. 2000)
Species
Ambrosia peruviana DC.
Bignonia violacea DC.
Caesalpinia vesicaria Lam.
Gerascanthus gerascanthoides (H.B.K.) Borhidi
Helenium amarum (Rafin.) H. Rock
Pavonia fruticosa Fawcett et Rendle
Prunus occidentalis Sw.
Varronia globosa
Jacq. Subsp. Humilis (Jacq.) Borhidi
Xiphidium coeruleum Aublet
Erythroxylum havanense Jacq.
Fagara martinicen,sis Lam.

Families
Compositae
Bignoniaceae
Leguminosae
Boraginaceae
Compositae
Malvaceae
Rosaceae

Group of use
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.

Boraginaceae
Haemodoraceae
Erythroxylaceae
Rutaceae

M.
M.
M.
M.

Table 6. Crop species reported from Cuba in comparison with recent investigation
(Castieiras et al. 2000)
Reports and studies
Species reported from Cuba (Hammer et al. 19921994)
Recent studies of home gardens (Castieiras et al. 2000)
New species for Cuban home gardens
New for Mansfelds Encyclopedia (2001)

Number of species
1029
182
25
11

Percentage (%)
100
17,7
2,4
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 conservationEUC


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 flavonoids; 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
farmers 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 AFLP and 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. RFLP is 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, RFLP analysis has been used widely to characterize genetic diversity in
many crops such as rice, tomato, 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
farmers field or ex situ under the controlled conditions of an experiment station? Sometimes,
in the case of trees (e.g. Sapotaceae) 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 Projects key research questions, each of the three participating countries
in the Americas (Cuba, Guatemala, and Venezuela) chose 34 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

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
Ex situ, AFLP (planned)

Cuba

Guatemala

In situ, morphological

In situ, morphological

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, reenforce, 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. Twentyseven 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 longterm 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 livelihoodskey 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 systemsCuban component
L. Castieiras, Z. Fundora Mayor, T. Shagarodsky, V. Moreno,
O. Barrios, L. Fernndez and R. Cristbal
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 Castieiras. 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

PlainsSagua-Baracoa

Guaniguanico Cordillera

Guamuhaya Massif

Massif

Annual rainfall (mm)

20002013

12001500

12002448

Temperature range (C)

2324

1926

1623

Related institutions

Sierra del Rosario

Cienfuegos

Alexander von

Biosphere Reserve

Botanical Garden

Humboldt National Park

Ecotourism;

Plantain, banana,

Sustainable harvesting

coffee production

and coffee production

of wood (Pinus forest);

Economic activities

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 gardens 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
Allium chinense ........................................................................................................................................................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.........
Eryngium foetidum.................................................................................................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 regions 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 ............................................................
Cucurbita 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

West
Central
East
West
Central
East
West
Central
East
West
Central
East

% of HG with
Average number of
infraspecific diversity
varieties /100 m2
Musa spp.
92
1.8
92
0.6
93
1.5
Mangifera indica
69
2.4
58
3.5
29
0.6
Phaseolus vulgaris
62
1.8
25
0.6
50
1.5
Saccharum officinarum
77
2.4
8
0.6
50
1.6

Number of
different varieties
22
12
15
9
20
5
7
5
13
8
7
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
Ornamental
Medicinal
Timber for construction
Fruit trees
Seasonings
Vegetables
Living fences
Timber for tool-making
Roots and tubers
Drinks
Grains
Animal feed
Other
(charcoal, wood, insecticides,
fences, flowers for bees, etc.)

West
138
64
24
32
17
9
9
1
8
4
7
3
9
9

Central
127
65
22
33
13
12
8
4
8
5
6
3
10
10

East
87
56
30
21
17
7
8
8
6
5
8
4
4
4

Total
197
114
54
38
25
14
12
11
10
10
9
7
20
20

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 annuumchinensefrutescens 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 farmers 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


cultivar groups of Phaseolus lunatus in home
gardens sampled.

Fig. 5. Number of samples of Phaseolus lunatus


according to the region and cultivar group.

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

Vegetables

Preparation of Sweet Dishes

Lima

Sieva+potato+lima

Mdium and small

Colour

One or more

Form

Rounded and flattened

Size

Big

Colour

White

Form

Flattened

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 corazn de
paloma (doves heart), which had not been
seen since the 19th century in Cuba. A wild
population of the type piqun was also
described, a type previously undetected in

Fig. 7. Distribution of samples among Capsicum species


and regionstotal 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 aj de jardn (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, aj de jardn founded as cultivated types in Cuban home gardens, and the
type corazn 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), mediumsized fruit are processed to make sweet paprika (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

Pickling

Seasoning

Medicinal

Ornamental

Capsicum annuum

Capsicum frutescens

Size

Medium

Pericarp

Thick

Flavour

Sweet

Size

Medium

Pericarp

Thin

Flavour

Hot

Capsicum chinense

Size

Medium

Capsicum frutescens

Pericarp

Thin

Capsicum annuum

Flavour

Sweet-intermediate

Capsicum frutescens

Size

Small

Pericarp

Thin

Flavour

Hot-intermediate

Size

Small

Colour

More than 3

Capsicum annuum

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 marketsparticularly 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 irrigation, chemical and biological fertilizers, 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 areaswest, central and eastas
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 farmers intuition.
The management of the agricultural tasks has little adverse impact on the environment, since in,
general, harvesting, seedbed preparation and weed control 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 cassava, bananas, taro, beans and maize 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
Home garden
From a relative

West (%)
64

Centre (%)
50

East (%)
52

13

28

29

Formal sector

17

11

No information

13

From a neighbour

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
Castieiras, 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.
Castieiras, L., Z. Fundora, T. Shagarodsky, V. Fuentes, O. Barrios, V. Moreno, P. Snchez, A.V. Gonzlez, M.
Garca, A. Martnez-Fuentes and A. Martnez. 2000b. La conservacin 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.
Castieiras, 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 genticos vegetales:
cinco aos de fructfera colaboracin. 25 Aos de Colaboracin Cientfico-Tcnica Cuba RDA 19651990.
Esquivel, M., K. Krieghoff, H. Uranga, L. Waln and K. Hammer. 1989. Collecting plant genetic resources in
Cuba. Report of the third mission, March 1988. Kulturpflanze 37:359-372.
Esquivel, M., H. Knpffer and K. Hammer, 1992. Inventary of Cultivated Plants. Pp. 213454 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. Knpffer, eds.). Institut fr Pflanzengenetik und
Kulturpflanzenforschung. Gatersleben.
Esquivel, M., J.J Prez and L. Castieiras. 1986. Colecta de germoplasma en el Occidente de Cuba. Plant Genetic
Resources Newsletter 66:14-15.
Esquivel, M., L. Castieiras, B. Rodrguez and K. Hammer. 1987. Collecting plant genetic resources in Cuba.
Kulturpflanze 35:367-378.
Esquivel, M., L. Castieiras, 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. Rodrguez 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. Waln 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 systemsGuatemalan component
Jos Miguel Leiva, Csar Azurdia, Werner Ovando, Edn Lpez, 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 systems 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 26C. According to De La Cruz (1982), the ecological zone
corresponds to subtropical thorn forest. The population belongs to ladino and Chort 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 14C to 27C and rainfall varies from 2000 mm to 6000 mm. In this
region, 95% of the population belongs to Mayan groups (Kekch, Mam an Pocomch), and 95% of
the population lives in extreme poverty.

PROJECT REPORTS

57

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
preferences regarding the different plant species A woman in Alta Verapaz harvests Piper 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.

J.M. Leiva, University of San Carlos, Guatemala

Selection criteria for regions and


home gardens

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 tea (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.

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
illnesses in the communities include: Bajlajch (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
(Alarcn 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 regions 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 regions 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

Werner Ovando, University of San Carlos, Guatemala

PROJECT REPORTS

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.
home
gardens
where
found

Main uses

Aripn

Caesalpinia velutina

Arboreal

24

Firewood, wood, posts


Firewood, forage

(Britt & Rose) Standl.


Bastard cedar

Guazuma ulmifolia Lam.

Arboreal

11

Paradise tree

Simarouba glauca DC

Arboreal

Ornamental, timber

Marmelade fruit

Pouteria sapota

Arboreal

Food

Arboreal

Ornamental, timber, fuel

Arboreal

Food

Arboreal

Ornamental, live fences

Arboreal

11

H. Moore & Stearm


Roble de montaa

Bucida macrostachya Standl.

Golden spoon, nance Byrsonima crassifolia (L.) HBK


Manzanote

Pereskia autumnalis
(Eichlam) Rose

Grand cayman

Cordia dentata Poir

Food, live fences, fuel

Mahogany

Swietenia humilis Zuccarini

Arboreal

Ornamental, timber

Cabeza de viejo

Cephalocereus maxonii Rose

Shrub

Food, ornamental,

Calabash

Crescentia alata HBK

Shrub

14

Brazil wood,

Haematoxylon brassiletto Karst

Shrub

Live fences, fuel

Lippia graveolens HBK

Shrub

Food, medicinal

Jatropa curcas L.

Shrub

Medicinal, live fences

live fences, fuel


Medicinal

Pernambuco wood
Mexican sage,
oregano
Physic nut,
purging nut
Century plant

Agave sp.

Herbaceous

Loroco

Fernaldia pandurata

Herbaceous

19

Pitahaya

Hylocereus undatus

Medicinal, live fences


Food

(A. DC.) Woodson


Climbing

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
Pouteria viridis
Annona spp.
Pimenta dioica
Heliocarpus Donnell S.
Cecropia obtusifolia
Pouteria sapota
Chamaedorea elegans
Eringium foetidum
Trema micrantha
Byrsonima crassifolia
Miconia calvescens
Liquidambar styraciflua
Rhus striata
Piper auritum
Dendropanax leptopodus

Use
Food
Food
Shade
Shade
Shade
Food
Ornamental
Spice
Rope, construction
Food
Religious
Timber
Cultural
Spice
Handicraft

Species
Clethra suaveolens
Vernonia mollis
Myrica cerfera
Neurolaena lobata
Polymnia maculata
Acrocomia sp.
Liabum discolor
Cedrela mexicana
Saurauia villosa
Arbutus xalapensis
Litsea glauscescens
Parasicyos sp.
Fuchsia sp.
Diphysa sp.
Baccharis trinervis

Use
Construction
Fuel
Fuel
Medicinal
Fodder
Food
Religious
Timber
Fuel
Fuel
Spice
Soil conservation
Ornamental
Fuel
Medicinal

Fig. 3. Similarity among home gardens from the cold region (nucleuses 16) and the warm region (nucleuses
711), 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 Qech people (9 out 11 home gardens). In the other hand,
nucleus 8 is made up home gardens owned by Pocomch growers (11 out 14 home gardens). The
remaining nucleuses are owned by either Qech growers or Pocomoch 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
Qech

Pocomch

11

14

11

10

11

Fig. 4. Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata) buds.

The role of home gardens in plant


domestication: case of Fernaldia
pandurata (Apocynaceae)
Loroco (Fernaldia pandurata), a species of
Apocynaceae native to Mesoamerica, is
recognized as an important food source in
Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. 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 cooking 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
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
gardens in the semiarid eastern region of Guatemala.
that reason.
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 vines 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 pruning 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, Quich 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

No. of accessions

Locality
Wild population
Cerro San Gil

Home gardens FTN

Home gardens Sacapulas

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

10

13

14

8=26%

1=15%

8=14%

9=15%

3=15%

16=12%

4=13%

6=13%

6=11%

Fruit shapes
Most frequent shapes

Mesocarp colour
YR (Yellow-red)

90%

74%

95%

R (red)

10%

26%

5%

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%

Intensity of YR

PROJECT REPORTS

Fig. 6. Distribution of fruit weight of zapote in home


gardens from FTN, Alta Verapaz, Guatemala.

65

Fig. 7. Distribution of fruit weight of wild zapote


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
Cerro San Gil, Izabal
Outcrossing rate

Home gardens
Sacapulas, Quich

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

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

Allelic frequency:

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
Qeqch culture. The second one is in the central mountains of the province, where the Qechi and
Pocomch 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
Cold

Trait
Weight (g)
Length (cm)

Warm

Mean

Standard
deviation

Range
Minimum

Maximun

320

119

54

1042

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

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%

Lenticels

Spine density

Colour

Type five=13%

Type seven=53%

Type three=13

Type nine=10%

Number of types=16

Number of types=11

Absent=52%

Absent=60%

Very little=24%

Very little=23%

Intermediate =%

Intermediate=11%

Very intense=24%

Very intense=6%

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%

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 ecoregions of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala
Eco-region
Cold region
Frequency
Heterozygosity

Isozyme

Gene

Allele

Esterase

100
101

0.56

100

0.50

101

0.50

100

0.50

101

0.50

100

0.47

101

0.53

100

0.62

101

0.38

100

0.33

101

0.67

SKDH
SOD
MDH
Peroxidase

1
1
1
1

0.44
54%
100%

Warm region
Frequency
Heterozygosity

0.37
100%

0.63

51%

0.29
62%

0.71

46%

0.26
76%

0.74

65%

0.74

51%

0.26
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 27C and mean precipitation of 2300 mm. The 69 families that live in the two communities
(totaling 560 inhabitants) rely on subsistence agriculture 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
Vegetables and herbs
Fruit species
Grains
Spices
Ornamentals
Semi-permanent
Timber-yielding
Medicinal
Forage
Textile
Total value
Value of plants sold
Value of plants for farm consumption

Total
21
25
6
5
10
1
13
7
1
1
90
9363.00
3873.00

Average value per farmer (Q)


0.51.00
0.251.00
2.005.00
2.0010.00

0.51.00
5.0010.00
0.251.00
2.005.00
2.00

%
23
28
7
6
1
14
8
1
1
100

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), pineapple
(Ananas comosus), cloves (Sisigyum sp.), coffee (Coffea arabica), cacao (Teobroma cacao), achiote (Bixa

PROJECT REPORTS

71

orellana), and cardamom (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), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), and pigeon pea (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
name
per year
of measurement
Sechium edule
2700
unit
Calatea spp.
300
bundle
Ananas comosus
250
unit
Manihot esculenta
90
unit
Sisigyum
15
lb
Saccharum officinarum
900
unit
Coffea arabica
150
lb
Teobroma cacao
100
lb
Bixa orellana
350
lb
Elletaria cardamomum
300
lb
Cajanus cajan
300
lb

Average sales
Average value % Consumption % Sales
value (Q)* farm consumption
0.50
0.20
20
80
1.00
0.25
95
5
1.50
0.50
10
90
6.00
1.00
100
10.00
100
1.00
0.50
100
5.00
5.00
20
80
7.00
7.00
40
60
8.00
8.00
40
60
5.00
5.00
100
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
name
per year
of measurement
Musa paradisiaca
200
cluster
Citrus sinensis
135
hundred
Citrus nobilis
36
hundred
Byrsonima crassiflora
48
arroba
Citrus aurantifolia
6
hundred
Cocus nucifera
350
unit

Average sales
Average value % Consumption % Sales
value (Q)
farm consumption
7.50
5.00
40
60
15.00
15.00
20
80
25.00
25.00
20
80
10.00
10.00
10
90
10.00
10.00
20
80
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 orchards 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

1215.9

503.0

172.5

71

29

Total

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
Alarcn N., R.H. 1992. Caracterizacin de la comunidad de Yaje (Leucaena diversifolia Schlecht Bent. en la zona
semirida de El Progreso y Zacapa. Thesis Ing. Agr. Guatemala, Facultad de Agronoma, USAC.
Azurdia, C., H. Ayala, L. Montes. 2000a. Tasa de cruzamiento y estructura gentica de la poblacin 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 gentica de la poblacin silvestre de
zapote (Pouteria sapota) de Sacapulas, Quich. Ciencia y Tecnologa (USAC, Guatemala) (1) 1:27-36.
Azurdia, C., M. Leiva, E. Lpez. 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 7591 in Collecting plant
genetic diversity. Technical Guidelines (L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha and R. Reid, eds). CAB International,
Wallingford, UK.
De la Cruz, R. 1982. Clasificacin de las zonas de vida de Guatemala a nivel de reconocimiento. Guatemala,
INAFOR.
IPGRI. 1977. Diversidad, conservacin y uso sostenible de los recursos genticos de frutales tropicales nativos de
Amrica Tropical. Informe final. Cooperacin Tcnica IPGRI-BID No. ATN/SF-4356 RG. Cali, Colombia.
Tenas, M., E.G. 1994. Caracterizacin de las comunidades de almendro de cerro (Bucida macrostachya Standl.) en la
zona semirida de Zacapa y el Progreso. Tesis Ing. Agr. Guatemala, Facultad de Agronoma, USAC.

PROJECT REPORTS

73

Home gardens and in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity


Venezuelan component
C. Quiroz1, M. Gutirrez2, D. Rodrguez1, D. Prez, J. Ynfante1, J. Gmez1,
T. Prez de Fernandez1, A. Marques2 and W. Pacheco2
1
Foundation for Tropical Alternative Agriculture (FUNDATADI),
Ncleo 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: 0400 m asl
Intermediate zone: 4001500 m asl
High zone: more than 1500 m asl
Central region:
6001200 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 Aj (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 (0.21 ha) compared with 1.540 ha in the surrounding area.
HGs have higher diversity, both interspecific: 9185 species found compared with only 12
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

2283

Andean

Intermediate

318

65123

Andean

Low

165

2382

Central

190

16104

Andean region
In the high altitude zone, 215 species were found, the median range being 2283 species.
In the intermediate zone, 318 species were found, the range being: 65123 species.
In the low altitude zone, 165 species were found, the range being 2382 species.
Central region
In this region 190 species were found, the median range being 16104 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

Intermediate Andean (3)

30

II

Low, some High Andean

16

Common species
Capsicum, Carica,
Citrus & Bouchea prismatica
Capsicum, Carica,
Citrus & Bixa

III

High Andean (3)

IV

Central

16
31.95

Coffea arabica
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

Figs 16: 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
described

Number of
descriptors used

Variables in hierarchical analysis

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

AMAZONIA in situ

Carica

GB CENIAP

GB CENIAP, other collected materials & seed traits

Persea
Phaseolus

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 (Aviln
and Rodrguez 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

15

Lanceolate or Oblongo lanceolate leaves with angular leaf base

II

14

Tall tree. Variable leaf shape.

III

Elliptic leaf with obtuse leaf base

IV

Elliptic-lanceolate leaf with angular base

From perpendicular to obtuse leaf position

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 cuisine 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

Short plants. Sparse pubescent leaf. Wide leaf

II

Wild, green and short plants

III

Intermediate plant growth habit. Sparse tillerin

IV

Intermediate plant growth habit. Narrow leaf

Tall plants. Wide canopy. Erect plant growth habit

VI

Cylindrical and without anthocyanin stem

VII

Dense tillering. Without anthocyanin stem

Cylindrical 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
I

Number of individuals
19

Characters
Monocaulous. Short tree. Narrow and waxed leaf
Flowers grouped into inflorescences

II

III

Monocaulous. Wide stem. Unwaxed and nine-lobed leaf


Monocaulous. Straight denticulated leaf. Isolated flowers

IV

Multicaulous. Isolated flowers. Short internodes

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. Twentyone 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
I

Number of individuals

Characters

High leaf area index

II

High weight of 100 seeds

III

92

Small leaf (low leaf area index)

IV

32

High leaf area index

Short and narrow pods.

VI

Small seed number / pods

VII

Narrow pods

VIII

Early. Wide pods

IX

High weight of 100 seeds. Wide pods

Wide pods

XI

High pod length to width relationship. Early maturity

XII

High seed number/pod. High pod length to width relationship

XIII

Low seed number/pod. Low pod length to width relationship

XIV

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

Long leaf. High pod length to width relationship

II

High weight of 100 seeds

III

High pest incidence. High pest susceptibility. No Rust presence

IV

Green colour

Long pods. High seed number / pod

VI

High yield

VII

High virus susceptibility

VIII

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 households 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,
HGs production destiny and use.

Conclusions
Diversity among HGs varies by region and altitude.
The highest diversity was found at the intermediate zone (6001326 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 situin 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. Rodrguez. 1997. Description and evaluation of Persea collection (Descripcin y evaluacin de
la coleccin 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 Agrcolas de Venezuela). Fundacin Polar. Ministerio de Agricultura y Cra. 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, Taiwn and Tropical Agricultural Center for Training and Research (Centro
Agronmico Tropical de Investigacin y Enseanza), 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 Biologa 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 (0.160.59 hectares) and are
present in urban, peri-urban and rural communities (Owusu et al. 1994). They are generally multistoried 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

Fig. 1. Home gardens surveystudy districts and the vegetation zones in Ghana.

85

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, MarchJuly and SeptemberOctober. 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 29C and 30C. The
corresponding figures for the Guinea and Sudan savannas are 33.6C and 34.5C, respectively. The
mean minimum temperatures are 23.4C and 21.1C for the forest areas and 22.3C 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-Kumbungu district 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
location (region)

Eastern

Western

Northern

Upper East

District

East Akim

New Juaben

Ahanta West

West Dagomba

Tolon-Kumbungu

Bolgatanga

Altitude

600750

550600

100150

500

450550

700

Avg. yearly
temperature (C) 25

25

25

28

28

30

Mean annual
rainfall (mm)

1050

1050

1400

1139

1139

1050

Major soil
types

Sandy clay

Sandy clay
/silty clay

Sandy clay

Sandy clay

Gravelly
sandy clay

Silty clay

Latitude

6.006.30

6.00-6.15

4.254.75

9.159.31

9.1610.15

10.3011.00

Longitude

0.200.55

0.150.25

1.502.15

0.451.00

1.001.15

0.301.00

Major
agricultural
products

Plantain,
maize,
oilpalm, citrus

Plantain,
maize,
oilpalm, citrus

Oil palm,
cocoa
platain

Maize,
yam, millet

Maize,
yam, millet

Millet, sorghum

Demographic data
District
population1

189 007

139 370

90 567

300 931

135 084

225 864

Ethnic groups

Akyem

Akyem,
Asante

Ahanta

Dagomba

Dagomba,
Gonja, Grus

Mamprusi

Religion

Christian,
Traditional

Christian,
Traditional

Christian,
Traditional

Christian,
Moslem

Christian,
Moslem

Christian,
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


1
Data 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

15

4.3

21.3

34.3

610

33.2

37.9

47.0

1115

23.0

31.0

12.4

1620

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 Northern Region are fenced
because of the destruction of crops by domestic animals like goats, sheep and cattle. 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

Locationaround compound

93.0

98.5

97.9

Size of garden (0.11.0 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
mango (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 guava (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 sweet potato (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 gardener in
Kukurantumi also reared snails.

Patrik Ekpe

Species diversity of home gardens

A typical home garden in the western/central region containing


useful plant species, animals (such as goats) and space for social
interaction.

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
the forest eco-zones compared to the savannas
zones. Within the forest agro ecological zones,
the total number of species recorded in home

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

Legumes

Roots and tubers

12

Fruits and nuts

23

Oil crops

Spices

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. coconut),
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,
cooking banana.

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

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 staple food 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 1012. 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

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

0.0

7.0

Table 11. Gender roles in home gardening activities in the Eastern Region
Task
Land preparation

Percentage of farmers who perform tasks


Males

Females

Both N/A

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
Land preparation

Percentage of farmers who perform tasks


Males

Females

Both N/A

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 1012 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

10

2.2

D. Cayenensis

Yellow yam

30

13.3

D. dumetorum

Bitter yam

13.3

D. esculenta

Chinese yam

2.2

D. praehensilis

Kookooase

20

26.7

D. rotundata

White yam

89.1

10

6.9

D. sp.

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 tuber. 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
Abommiensa

Western/Central

Eastern

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

Jamaica

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

100.00

100.0

Total

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
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
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.

Patrik Ekpe, University of Ghana, Legon.

Regions

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. 8093 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
fish-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 pesticides 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, insects, 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 herb 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), canals 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
300400 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 3040 years old
today.
The Nghia dan 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 canal-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 Peoples 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 25 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, 3035 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

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

Ecosystem

Red River Delta

Midlandstropical

Lowlands

Mekong

tropical to subtropical and subtropical

tropical

deltatropical

60

10

XuanPhuong

Altitude (m asl)

South

Mekong Delta

VinhPhu; Tan Binh

80

Avg yearly temperature (C)

26

23.4

26.6

29.5

Mean annual rainfall (mm)

1900

1573.4

1388

15001800

Major soil types

Loam and sandy soil

Bazan

Alluvial clay

Clay

Longitude

10723N

1051010534N

1065510704N

10530-10545

Latitude

215E

19001932E

10701062E

10051020

49862

73767

7200

40604

Land-use data (ha)


Total land
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, orange,

sweet potato, anona

black bean, cassava,

jackfruit, banana,

pomelo, longan,

yam, banana

pomelo, luffa

kumquat,
banana, spinach

Demographic data
Official age

Settled more than

of communes (yrs):

1000 years ago

1000 years

Around 300 years

Around 300
years

time settled
District population

14251

185200

99892

280837

Pop. density (persons/ha)

1.09

2.51

13.9

6.9

Ethnic groups (%)

Religion (%)

Kinh: 89%

Kinh 81%

Kinh 98%

Kinh- 99.7%

Muong: 11%

Tho and Thanh 19%

Khmer

Khmer

and Hoa 2%

and Hoa 0.3%


Buddhist 100%

Buddhist 95%

Animist 4%

Buddhist 98%

Catholic 5%

Buddhist 96%

Ancestor Worship
and Cao Dai 2%

Adapted from Trinh et al. (2001).

PROJECT REPORTS 101

Pablo Eyzaguirre

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 .
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
N. Mountains:

Ecosite

Avg. no. species

Range of species

Avg. garden
2

Avg. no.

(district)

per HG

per ecosite

size (m )

species/ (100 m2)

Nho quan

38.6

2754

1407,9

2.7417

Nghia dan

23.4

1242

2771,7

0.8442

50.3

3678

2822,9

1.7819

53.9

20103

7500

0.7187

subtropical to temperate
C. Midlands:
tropical and subtropical
S. Lowland: Thuan an
typical tropical
Mekong Delta: Chau thanh
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 projects 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.
Pomelothere 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

Fig. 1. Typical home garden structure in Vietnam.

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 petals 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).
Luffain 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

Crops

PRA

Pomelo

1. Dao

(Citrus grandis) 2. My

Varieties in Chau Thanh

PRA

PRA

Baseline

PRA

Baseline

1. Dao

1. NN1

1. Bien Hoa

Bien Hoa

1. Nam roi

1. Nam roi

2. Lai

2. Phuc

2. Chum

Chum

2. Thanh Tra 2. Thanh Tra

3. Chum

4. Doan

4. Doan

Hung

Varieties in Thuan An

Baseline

3. Chum

5. Chua

Varieties in
Nghia Dan

Trach
3. Chua

Hung

4. Son

5. Chua

5. Dao

6. Lai

3. Nam Roi

Nam Roi

3. Bien Hoa

4. Thanh Tra

Thanh Tra

4. Day

5. Do

Oi

5. Ruot do

6. Ngot

Bi

3. Bien Hoa

Hong

7. Oi
8. Bi
9. Hong
Total

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

11. Chua

6. Sap

Sap

6. Ta qua

6. Su

7. Tieu

Tieu

7. Su

8. Ta qua

Ta qua

8. Com

6. Lun

9. Do

9. La

PROJECT REPORTS 103

Total

Luffa

1. Chau

(Luffa cylindrica) 2. Huong

1. Trau

5. Huong

1. Trau

Trau

1. Huong

1. Huong

2. Huong

6. Chau

2. Huong

Huong

2. Khia

2. Khia

3. Dai

3. Khia

3. Khia

3. Khia

Khia

4. Thuong

4. Dai

4. Den

Dai

5. Dai

5. Dai
6. Tay

Total

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

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

7. Sap

7. Ngot

dao xanh

10. Mung

7. Tam
dao tia
Total

Table 5. Role of gender in decision-making on cultivation of species in home gardens


No. Crop species group

Husband (%)

Wife (%)

Both (%)

Starch/c alorie-rich food crops

23

63

14

Cash crops

30

50

20

Fruit trees

67

30

Medicinal plants

29

62

Ornamental plans

76

15

Roots and tubers

20

73

Spice plants

20

75

Vegetable crops

21

72

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 CropsCereals, 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
H, 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, 224 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, 1012 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-BIRD, 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 2622N to 3027N latitudes and 804E to 8812E
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 (20004000
m asl); mid-hills or mountains (15002000 m asl); the Siwalik (3001500 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 Nepals share of worlds 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 backup 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 agro1
2
ecosystems. These are locally termed as bari in the plains and ghar-bari (differentiated from pakho3
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, birds 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 8594% of households rely
entirely on home gardens for a year-round supply of vegetables (Shrestha and Gurung 1997).
Similarly, 5781% 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 flowering plant 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, tamarind, 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 delicacies.
Spices and medicinal plants

Nepalese cuisine uses a variety of spices, and the taste and delicacy 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, ginger, turmeric,
cinnamon, garlic, shallot, onion, fenugreek, coriander 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 pesticide 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 mulch 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 insect 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 (18461950), 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
black pepper 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), rudraksha (Elaeocarpus ganitrus) and a number of ornamental plant
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 kitchen garden, 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 subtropical 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 semicommercial 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 agroecological 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 monoculture 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
peoples 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 multilayered production systems, soil fertility and pest and disease management, plant propagation 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-BIRDs 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, 2426 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. Knpffer. 1992. Preface of editors. Pp. 17 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. Knpffer, 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 horticulture 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, 2426 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, 2426 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 Centers
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, 2426 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
Local name
Vegetables
Armale
Ashgourd
Asparagus
Balsomgourd (Barela)
Bamboo shoots
Beans
Bethe
Bitter gourd
Brinjal (Aubergine)
Bottle gourd
Brocauli
Buckwheat
Cabbage
Carrot
Cauliflower
Cress
Chattel (jhuse karela)
Chayote
Cherry tomato
Chillies
Chive
Cholecha
Coriander
Cowpea
Cucumber
Drumstick
Faba bean
Ginari
Hiude simi
Kholesag
Lahare sag
Lapha sag
Latte
Lude (Thadhiya)
Lettuce
Makai bodi
Neuro
Okra
Oal
Onion
Patuwa sag
Pea
Potato
Pumpkin
Radish
Rayo
Ridgegourd
Sarson
Shallots
Sisnu
Snakegourds
Spinach
Spongegourd
Sweet pepper
Swisschard
Tamato
Tane bodi
Taro
Thotne
Tori
Tree tomato
Turnip
Tusa
Yam

Scientific name

Physiographic regions*
High
Mid/low hills Terai and
mountain and valleys Inner Terai

Allium spp.
Benincasa hispida
Asparagus officinalis
Cyclanthera pedata
Bambusa spp.
Phaseolus spp.
Chenopodium album
Momordica charantia
Solanum melongena
Lagenarium siceraria
Brassica oleracea var. broccoli
Fagopyrum esculentum
Brassica oleracea var. capitata
Daucus carota
B. oleracea var. botrytis
Lepidium sativum
Momordica cochinchinensis
Sechium edule
Lycopersicon spp.
Capsicum annuum
Allium schoenoprasum
Allium spp.
Coriandrum sativum
Vigna spp.
Cucumus sativus
Moringa oleifera
Vicia faba
Amaranthus spp.
Dolichus lablab
Rorippa nasturtiun
Ipomoea muricata
Malva verticillata
Amaranthus spp.
Amaranthus viridis
Lactusa sativa
Vigna spp.
Diplazium spp.
Abelmoschus esculentus
Amorphophallus campanculatus
Allium cepa
Corchorus spp.
Pisum sativum
Solanum tuberosum
Cucurbita moschata
Raphanus sativus
Brassica juncea var. rayo
Luffa acutangula
Brassica compestris var. sarsoon
Allium ascalonicum
Urtica spp.
Trichosanthus anguina
Spinacia oleracea
Luffa cylindrica
Capsicum annuum var. grossum
Beta vulgaris var. cicla
Lycopersicon esculentum
Vigna spp.
Colocasia esculenta
Polygonum spp.
Brassica compestris var. toria
Cyphomendra betacea
Brassica rapa
Arundinaria spp.
Dioscorea spp.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*

Parts used
Leaf/plant
Fruit
Shoot, root
Fruit
Shoot
Fruit
Leaf/plant
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit
Flower
Young plant
Head
Root
Flower
Plant
Fruit
Fruit/root
Fruit
Fruit
Plant
Plant
Leaf
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit
Leaf/plant
Fruit
Plant
Leaf/plant
Leaf/plant
Leaf/plant
Leaf/plant
Leaf/plant
Pod/Fruit
Shoot
Fruit
Root
Bulb/plant
Young plant
Fruit/young plant
Tuber
Fruits/twigs
Root/leaf
Leaf
Fruit
Leaf/twig
Leaf/plant
Twig
Fruit
Leaf/twig
Fruit
Fruit
Leaf
Fruit
Pod/Fruit
Corm/stalk/leaf
Twig
Leaf/plant
Fruit
Root
Shoot
Root

120 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Fruits
Aanta
Ainselu
Almond
Aonla
Apple
Apricot
Bael
Banana
Bettlenut
Chaksi
Chiuri
Coconut
Grape
Guava
Imli (tamarind)
Jackfruit
Gulab jamun
Hairpha
Jujube
Kalojamun
Kaphal
Khajur (date palm)
Kimbu
Lemon
Lime
Litchi
Mango
Papaya
Peach
Pear
Persimmon
Pineapple
Plum
Pomegranate
Pummelo
Sapota
Sarifa
Strawberry
Tasi
Walnut

Crops
Amaranthas
Fingermillet
Foxtail
Maize
Millet
Peanut
Pigeonpea
Potato
Sorghum
Soyabean
Sugarcane
Sweet potato
Tori

*
Rubus spp.
Prunus amygdalus
Emblica officinalis
Malus spp.
Prunus armeniaca
Aegle marmelos
Musa spp.
Areca catechu
Citrus limettoides
Asendra butyracea
Cocos nucifera
Vitis vinifera
Psidium guajava
Tamarindus indica
Artocarpus heterophyllus
Syzygium cuminii

*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*

Zizyphus spp.
Syzygium spp.
Myrica esculenta
Phoenix dactytifera
Morus alba
Citrus limon
C. aurantifolia
Litvhi chinensis
Mangifera indica
Carica papaya
Prunus persica
Pyrus communis
Diaspyros virginiana
Ananus comosus
Prunus domestica
Punica granatum
Citrus maxima
Achras sapota
Annona spp.
Fragaria vesca
Citrus spp.
Juglans regia

Amaranthus spp.
Eleusine coracana
Setaria italica
Zea mays
Pennisetum spp.
Arachis hypogea
Cajanus cajan
Solanum tuberosum
Sorghum bicolor
Glycine max
Saccharum officinarum
Ipomoea batatus
Brassica compestris var. toria

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*

Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Grains
Tubers
Grains
Grains
Stalk
Tubers
Grains

* Physiographic region: 1high mountain, rain-shadow areas above 3000 m asl;


2mid/low hills and valleys, hill environment between 300 and 3000 m asl;
3Inner 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
Local name
Herbs and spices
Bhotelasun
Cardamom
Chillies
Coriander
Cumin
Dalchini
Fennel
Fenugreek
Garlic
Ginger
Jimbu
Jwano
Kohan
Onion
Opium
Perilla
Saffron
Seasame
Shallot
Timur
Turmeric
Medicinals
Babari
Bhang
Bhayakur
Dhaturo
Fennel
Ginger
Githa
Jangali Methi
Jimbu
Kurilo (Asparagus)
Marathi
Opium
Pipla
Pudina
Saffron
Timur
Tulasi
Green manure/pesticides
Ankhitare
Asuro
Bakaino
Banmara
Bardelo
Dhaincha
Khirra
Niger
Padke
Sajiwan
Siplican (Garlic pear)
Siris
Taramandal (Tithonia)
Titepati

Scientific name

Allium spp.
Elettaria cardamomum
Capsicum annuum
Coriandru sativum
Cuminum cyminum
Cinnamomum tamala
Foeniculum vulgare
Trigonnela spp.
Allium sativum
Zinziber officinale
Allium hypsistum
Trachyspermum ammi
Allium cepa
Papayer somniferum
Perilla frutencens
Crocus sativus
Sesamum indicum
Allium ascalonicum
Zanthoxylum armatum
Curcuma longa

Ocimum baislicum
Canabis sativa
Dioscoria detoidea
Datura spp.
Foeniculum vulgare
Zinziber officinale
Dioscorea spp.
Trigonella emodi
Allium hypsistum
Asparagus officinalis
Papayer somniferum
Piper cubeca
Mentha spp.
Crocus sativus
Zanthoxylum armatum
Ocimum sanctum

Walsura trijuga
Adhatoda vasica
Melia azedarach
Eupatorium spp.
Ficus clavata
Sesbania spp.
Sapium insigne
Goizotia abyssinica
Albizzia odoritissima
Origanum vulgare
Crataeva religiosa
Albizzia spp.
Tithonia diversifolia
Artemisia vulgaris

Physiographic regions*
High
Mid/low hills Terai and
mountain
and valleys Inner Terai

*
*

*
*
*

Leaf/bulb
Fruit
Fruit
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Remarks

*
*

Leaf/fruit
Seed
Bark/leaf
Seed
Seed
Bulb/leaf
Rhizome
Leaf
Seed
Bulb/ plant
Seed
Seed
Fruit
Seed
Leaf/plant
Fruit
Rhizome

Leaf/plant
Seed
Root
Seed
Seed
Rhizome
Root
Leaf/seed
Leaf
Root/shoot
Flower/leaf
Seed/fruit nectars
Fruit/root
Leaf/plant
Fruit
Fruit/leaf
Whole plant

122 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Trees/shrubs for fodder


Amriso
Badahar
Bains
Banjh
Barro
Bhotepipal
Chuletro
Dhanyaro
Dudhilo
Faledo
Fasro
Gidari
Gogan
Harro
Jimhar
Kaphal
Kaulo
Khaniyo
Kimbu
Kutmero
Nimaro
Pakhuri
Tanki

Thyosonaleana maxima
Atocarpus lakoocha
Salix babylonica
Quercus glauca
Terminalia oelerica
Ficus spp.
Brassaiosis spp.

*
*

Ficus nemoralis
Erythrina spp.
Grewia optiza
Premna barbata
Saurauria nepalensis
Teminalia chebula
Ficus spp.
Myrica esculenta
Machilus gamblei
Ficus cunia
Morus alba
Litsea polyantha
Ficus roxburghii
Ficus glaberrima
Bauhinia purpurea

Trees/shrubs for other uses


Amala
Andi (castor)
Bael
Bakaino
Dalchini
Drumstick
Fig
Kabro
Kadam
Kapur
Koiralo
Lapsi
Neem
Nigalo
Ritha
Sal
Shilpikan
Simal
Tamabans
Tooni

Emblica officinalis
Ricinus communis
Aegle marmelos
Melia azadirach
Cinnamomum tamala
Mringa oleifera
Ficus carica
Ficus lacor
Anthocephalus cadamba
Cinnamomum camphora
Bauhinia variegata
Spondias axillaris
Azadirachta indica
Arundinaria spp.
Sapindus mukorossi
Shorea robusta
Crataeva unilocularis
Bombax malabaricum
Dendrocalamus spp.
Cedrela toona

Plants of Cultural/ritual value


Bar
Bhimsenpati
Coconut
Dubo
Ginger
Kans grass
Katus
Oal
Pipal
Rudrakhshya
Simrik/Sindoor
Titepati
Tulasi

Ficus bengalensis
Buddleja asiatica
Cocus nucifera
Cynadon dactylone
Zinziber officinale
Saccharum spontenium
Castanopsis spp.
Amorphophallus campanculatus
F. religiosa
Elaeaocarpus ganitrus
Malotus philippinensis
Artimisia vulgaris
Ocimum sanctum

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*

Tree

*
*
*

Fruit
Plant
Plant

*
*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*

Fruit
Seed
Leaf/fruit
Seed/trunk
Bark/leaf
Fruit
Fruit
Shoot
Tree/fruit
Tree
Flower
Fruit
Tree
Shoot
Fruit
Leaf/tree
Shoot
Fruit
Shoot

Fruit
Rhizome
Tree
Tree/fruit
Fruit
Plant
Plant

* Physiographic region: 1high mountain, rain-shadow areas above 3000 m asl;


2mid/low hills and valleys, hill environment between 300 and 3000 m asl;
3Inner 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

Botanical 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/
T. bellerica

Dry fruits roasted in fire and used against coughs and colds
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)


Raye timur
(Zanthoxylum armatum)

Soup of timur is used against diarrhoea and gas formation


Soup of raye timur mixed with jimu, garlic and turmeric is used for
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
garden
1. Bari
Terai (plains)
2. Ghar-bari

Hills

3. Ghoth-bari

Hills

4. Tarkari bari

Terai (plains)

5. Dumna
6. Karesa bari

Inner terrai, midwestern Nepal


Hills and valleys

7. Bagaincha

Hills and valleys

8. Phulbari

Terai (plains)

Location in relation
to house
Composition
Close to house
Vegetable dominant but mixed
with fruits, multipurpose trees and flowers
Close to house
Vegetable dominant but mixed
with fruits, multipurpose trees and flowers
Away from house Vegetable dominant but mixed with fruits,
but close to goth multipurpose trees and flowers
Away from house Largely vegetables with limited number
types of vegetables
Away from house Largely vegetables with limited number
and types of vegetables
Close to house
Mostly vegetables of modern varieties
and seasonal in nature
Close as well as
Mostly fruits of single species but often
away from house mixed few other fruits and vegetables
Close as well as
Mostly fruits of single species but often
away from house mixed few other fruits and vegetables

Structure
More than 3 layers, intensive
and varying size
More than 3 layers, intensive
and varying size
About 3 layers, less intensive
and varying size
Less than 2 layers with and
intensive ground layer
Less than 2 layers with
intensive ground layer
Single layered
Mostly single layered
and less intensive
Mostly single layered
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 countrys 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, Aframomum corrorima, 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 50007000 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 continents 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

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 EnseteXanthosoma, EnseteCoffea,
EnseteBrassica, EnseteXanthosomaSaccharum and
EnseteXanthosomaNicotiana 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
gardens of Kefa, Sidamo and Gurage among
others.

Zenede Asfaw

CASE STUDIES 129

Enset-based home gardens in Welayra, near Sodo town.

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,
Cymbopogon 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 countrys 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

54

Crops cultivated primarily for use in traditional medicine

12

30

16

54

Wild plants used in traditional medicine

14

10

28

Traditional vegetables found in and around home gardens

36

46

Cultivated in home gardens

11

Occur wild in the vicinity of home gardens

29

35

Live fence plants

38

25

64

Crops used in medicine being cultivated for other purposes

Wild/semi-wild useful plants found in the vicinity of home gardens


Total recorded useful plant species

45

47

46

148

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 Fabaceae, the Lamiaceae,
Poaceae, Rubiaceae, Asteraceae and Brassicaceae with more than 10 species each (1117) 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 grasslands. 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 countrys 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

127

74

Cereals

Pulses

14

Roots and tubers

13

Fruits

36

21

Vegetables

30

17

Oils, nuts and sugars

12

Spices and herbs

16

10

Food crops

Remarks
Close to 3/4 of the species are food

plants

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

Fragrance plants

Stimulants/narcotics

Plants used in crafts

10

and implements
Medicinal

Does not include the many species that


are harvested from live fence and nearby
natural environment

Utility plants
Miscellaneous
Total

12

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


In home
In home
In fields
gardens only
gardens and fields
only

Total

Percent of crops
cultivated in
home gardens

25

25

55

91

13

30

52

83

41

17

67

87

30

22

58

90

23

35

89

18

14

39

82

31

13

49

73

10

19

84

15

80

10

12

67

11

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 traditional food
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 Ethiopias 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 bee 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 decisionmaking, 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 garden design
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. 173190 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.920 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.
105114 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. 912 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.
Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knpffer, 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 West Java. Pp. 147148 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. 1337, 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. 153164 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. 2140 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.
1538 in Safeguarding the Genetic Basis of Africas 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. 173194 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 Hainan Island. Pp. 5154 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. 5765 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.
100103 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.
7699 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 BenishangulGumuz 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, 24 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 course 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 Central
Java 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 1970s
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

Presented in International Workshop: Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic
resources in farming systems. 1719 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 familys 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 carbohydrates, 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 anothers 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 monocultures, 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 Wayang 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 cash crop 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 Indonesians 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 sharecropping 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):

n=

NZ 2 p(1 p )
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 211.25. Among dominant species found in home
gardens in Sukapura village were Allium fistulosum (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

Alium fistulosum

37.1

1.7

19.4

Raphanus sativus

8.4

0.1

4.2

Ipomea batatas

7.3

1.1

4.2

Daucus carota

7.6

0.5

4.1

Duranta erecta

2.9

3.2

3.1

Brassica chinensis

5.4

0.1

2.8

Brassica oleracea

4.8

0.1

2.4

Manihot esculenta

1.9

2.3

2.1

Zea mays

3.4

0.4

1.9

Psidium guajava

0.3

3.2

1.8

10

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
Less than 21

<100 m2

Total
21 or more

20.7 (19)

5.4 (5)

100 <200 m

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)

500 <600 m2

1.1 (1)

1.1 (1)

5.4 (5)

10.9 (10)

55.4 (51)

44.6 (41)

600 m2
Total

26.1 (24)

6.5 (6)
2,2 (2)
16.3 (15)
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
combination
of Layer
<100m2
100<200m2

Total
200<300m2

300<400m2

400<500m2

500<600m2 600m2

1.1 (1)

1.1 (1)

A,B

5.4 (5)

A,C

1.1 (1)

1.1 (1)
1.1 (1)

7.6 (7)

2.2 (2)

3.3 (3)

1.1 (1)

1.1 (1)

A,E

19.6 (18)
2.2 (2)

4.3 (4)

1.1 (1)

A,B,C

10.9(10)

10.9(10)

5.4(5)

1.1 (1)
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)

A,B,C,E

2.2(2)

2.2(2)

5.4(5)

1.1(1)

A,B,D,E

1.1(1)

1.1(1)

A,B,C,D,E

2.2(2)

1.1(1)

19.6(18)
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). Thirtyeight 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
Subsistence

Total
Cash crop

No. vegetables

<100 m2

3.3 (3)

2.2(2)

20.7(19

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)

1.1(1)

1.1(1)

2.2(2)

4.3(4)

5.4(5)

6.5(6)

16.3(15)

18.5(17)

22.8(21)

58.7(54)

500 <600 m

600 m2
Total

26.1(24)

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 marketoriented 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 studys 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 cashcrop 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 UniversityBandung, 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 29, 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 Sundanese People 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 29, 1985.

CASE STUDIES 147

Christanty, L, O.S. Abdoellah, G. Martin and J. Iskandar. 1984. Traditional Agroforestry in West Java: The
Pekarangan (Home garden) and Kebun Talun (perennial/annual Rotation) Cropping systems. Working
Paper. EastWest 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 29. 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 Puerto Rico. 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 ManPlants-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 ResearchExtension 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 AWednesday 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 applythe 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
households 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 households 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 countriesplant 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, Durian 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 BWednesday, 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 governments 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, Ghanas 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 waterintensive 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 cant be ignored, but development should be the basis. However, the entry point
should be a specific kind of developmentparticipatory, local development, not just any kind of
development. If you give choices to the farmer, its 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 dont think that weve 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 CWednesday 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 cropscassava)
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 gardensto
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 AThursday 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 Listvarieties 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 factorspositive 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 BThursday 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.
Peoples 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 CThursday 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 whats 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 dont 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 conservationhome 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 were 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
hasnt paid attention.
Benin/Africa-wide
A recent success story on medicinal plants: a workshop two years ago recommended that 20002010
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 courseCommunity 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, Mdling, 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 8501150 mm and
mean annual temperature 4.8-6.9C. 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). Thirtynine 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
Across the region

Until 1970

Today

51

587

Mean per garden

10

42

Source of plants

Until 1970

Today

Predecessor, neighbour

+/25

74

Surrounding ecosystems

+/3

46

Retailers

+/4

133

Miscellaneous

+/19

334

Main uses

Until 1970

Today

Ornamental

+/20

420

Food

+/16

147

Medicinal

+/12

79

Technical

+/4

58

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 Bauerngrten der Gebiete beiderseits des Mittel- und sdlichen
Niederrheins kultivierten Pflanzen. Pp. 109131 in Aus Liebe zur Natur. Stiftung z. Schutze gefhrdeter
Pflanzen 3. Bonn, Germany.
Niklfeld, H. and L.S.-Ehrendorfer. 1999. Rote Liste gefhrdeter Farn- und Bltenpflanzen (Pterido- und
Spermatophyta) sterreichs. Pp. 3351 in Rote Liste gefhrdeter Pflanzen sterreichs (2. Auflage) (Niklfeld
H. ed.). Grne 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

Mansfelds Encyclopedia and World Database of


Agricultural and Horticultural Crops
Jrg Ochsmann1, Helmut Knpffer2, 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 (Mansfelds 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. Bttner, A. Diederichsen, H. Drfelt, R. Fritsch, K. Hammer, P. Hanelt, R. N. Lester, J.G. Hawkes,
J. Heller, C. Jeffrey, J. Keller, G. Krebs, J. Kruse, G. Mller, 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. Schtze, U. Tiemann
Project team for the database:
H. Knpffer, 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

6258

1968

277

265

Genera
Families
Common names

30 165

Languages

ca. 110

References
Images

7 600
ca. 300

Including synonyms.

The BIG-Project
The database development (Ochsmann et al. 1999) is part of IPKs 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 fr Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben (eds.). Mansfelds
Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 6 vols. 1st Engl. ed. Springer, Berlin.
Ochsmann, J., N. Biermann, H. Knpffer and K. Bachmann. 1999: Aufbau einer WWW-Datenbank zu
Mansfelds World Manual of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops (Mansfeld-Verzeichnis, 3. Aufl.). Pp.
5763 in Dokumentation und Informationssysteme im Bereich pflanzengenetischer Ressourcen in
Deutschland, Schriften zu Genetischen Ressourcen Band 12 (F. Begemann, S. Harrer and J. D. Jimnez
Krause, eds.). ZADI, Bonn, Germany.

168 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

The home garden database and


information systemtechnical aspects
Vladimir Afanasyev1,3, Jrg Ochsmann2, Helmut Knpffer1
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, Radzikw,
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 (Knpffer
and Hammer 1999), and links have been established with Mansfelds World Database of
Agricultural and Horticultural Crops (cf. Ochsmann et al. these proceedings) which, in turn, is based
on Mansfelds 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 fr Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben (eds.). Mansfelds
Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 1st Engl. ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Knpffer, H. and K. Hammer. 1999. Agricultural biodiversity: a database for checklists of cultivated plants. Pp.
215224. 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

K. Pushkaran

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 blackpepper 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
from the point of view of
conservation, consumption and
A typical Kerala home garden.

170 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

K. Pushkaran

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
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


Germanydiversity 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, bread 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 zucchini 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 yearsas long as their own population was too low. Many of these guestworkers 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 hedges are tight, the fences full with climbing beans, peas, 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 intercropping and crop rotation
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, leek, 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 greenhouses, 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 meat,
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, parsley, 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 compost 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. 19921994; 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 lowin 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 Biodiversitthier, in Deutschland und anderswo. VEN
Samensurium, Heft 10, S. 22-36.
Hammer, K., M. Esquivel and H. Knpffer, eds. 19921994. 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 1722, 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 sustainable agriculture. 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 Knpffer
12.00 General discussion of key themes
12.15 Presentation of Cuban research results
13.00 Lunch
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 Greenhouse, including a guided tour of Germanys
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 topicsSession 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 databasesOnline 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
Institute of Ecology
Padjadjaran University
JL Sekeloa Selatan
Bandung 40132
West Java
Indonesia
oekan@melsa.net.id
Zemede Asfaw
PO Box 3434
Biology Department
Addis Ababa University, A.A.
Ethiopia
Tel: +251 1 5531 77
Fax: +2511 552350
zerihun.herbarium@telecom
biology.aau@telecom.net.et
Emmanuel O.A. Asibey
CBUD,
Centre for Biological Utilization
and Development
Kumasi, Ghana
PO Box MB 303
Accra
Ghana
Tel: +233 21 60381/2
Fax: +233 21 60137
bamoakoatta@hotmail.com
Helmer Ayala
Falcutad de AgronomiaFAUSAC
Universidad de
San Carlos de Guatemala
Apdo Postal 1545, Zona 12
Ciudad de Guatemala
Edificio T8
Ciudad Universitaria Z1Z
Guatemala
Tel:+ 502 476 9794
Fax: +502 476 9770
hayala@usac.edu.gt

Cesar Azurdia
Falcutad de Agronomia - FAUSAC
Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala
Apdo Postal 1545, Zona 12
Ciudad de Guatemala
Edificio T8
Ciudad Universitaria Z1Z
Guatemala
Tel: +502 476 9794
Fax: +502 476 9770
azurdiac@usac.edu.gt
Andrea Bahr
Gesamthochschule Kassel-Witzenhausen
Norbanstr. 1
D-37213 Witzenhausen
Germany
abahr@wiz.uni-kassel.de
Samuel Odei Bennett-Lartey
Plant Genetic Resources Centre
Bunso
PO Box 7
Ghana
Tel/Fax: +233 81 24124
blartey@homemail.com
Gabriele Blmlein
Centre for Documentation
and Information in Agriculture (ZADI)
Information Centre Genetic Resources (IGR)
Villichgasse 17
53177 Bonn
Germany
Tel: +49.228.9548-209
Fax: ++49.228.9548-220
bluemlein@zadi.de

180 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Leonor Castieiras Alfonso


Instituto de Investigaciones
Fundamentales en
Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT)
Calle 2 esq. 1,
Santiago de las Vegas
C. Habana
Cuba
Tel: +53 683 4039,2323
Fax: +53 7 579014
inifat@ceniai.inf.cu
Nguyen Ngoc DE
Rice research Department
Mekong Delta Farming Systems
Research and Development Institute,
Cantho University, Campus 2
3/2 Street, Cantho City
Cantho
Vietnam
Tel: +84 71 831251
Fax: +84 71 831270
nnde@ctu.edu.vn
Marlene Diekmann
Advisory Service on
Agricultural Research for Development (BEAF)
PO Box 120508
D-53047 Bonn
Germany
Tel.: +49-228-2434865
Fax: +49-228-2434861
Marlene.diekmann@beaf.de
Jan Engels
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI)
Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a
00057 Maccarese
Rome
Italy
Tel: +39 06 6118202
Fax: +39 06 61979661
j.engels@cgiar.org
Pablo Eyzaguirre
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI)
Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a
00057 Maccarese
Rome
Italy
Tel: +39 06 6118267
Fax: +39 06 61979661
p.eyzaguirre@cgiar.org

Maria E. Fernandez
International Support Group (ISG)
National Agrarian University (UNALM)
PO Box R18-067-Lima 18,
Peru
Tel: +51(1)2427524; 3494057
E-Fax: +1(253)660-6044
mefernandez@lamolina.edu.pe
Gerhard Fischbeck
Lehrstuhl fr Pflanzenbau
und Pflanzenzchtung
TU Mnchen
Alte Akademie 12
D-85350 Freising-Weihenstephan
Germany
Fischbeck@weihenstephan.de
fischbeck@wzw.tum.de
Zoila Fundora Mayor
Instituto de Investigaciones
Fundamentales en
Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT)
Calle 2 esq. 1,
Santiago de las Vegas
C. Habana
Cuba
Tel: +53 683 4039,2323
Fax: +53 7 579014
inifat@ceniai.inf.cu
Resham Gautam
LI-BIRD
Mahedrapul Kaski, Pokhara
PO Box 324, Pokhara
Nepal
Tel: +977 61 26834/32912
rglibird@mos.com.np
Thomas Gladis
German Centre for Documentation
and Information in Agriculture
Information Centre for Genetic Resources (IGR)
Villichgasse 17
D-53177 Bonn
Germany
gladis@zadi.de
gladis@wiz.uni-kassel.de

APPENDIX II 181

Margaret Gutirrez
FONAIAP-CENIAP
Apartado 4653
Maracay 2101
Venezuela
Tel: +58 43 47 10 66
recfitog@reacciun.ve
margaretg@cantv.net
Karl Hammer
University of Kassel
Faculty of Agriculture
Department of Agro-Biodiversity
Steinstr. 19
D-37213 Witzenhausen
Germany
Tel: +49 5542 98 0
Fax: +49 5542 98 13 09
khammer@wiz.uni-kassel.de
Oliver Hanschke
Advisory Service on
Agricultural Research for Development
(BEAF)
PO Box 120508
D-53047 Bonn
Germany
Tel.: +49-228-2434866
Fax: +49-228-2434861
Oliver.Hanschke@beaf.de
Joachim Heller
University of Applied Sciences
Faculty of Horticulture & Landscaping
Von Lade Str. 1
D-65366 Geisenheim
Germany
Tel/Fax: +49 6722 980288
j.heller@tbl.fh-weisboden.de
Toby Hodgkin
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI)
Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a
00057 Maccarese
Rome
Italy
Tel: +39 06 61181
Fax: +39 06 61979661
t.hodgkin@cgiar.org

Anne Holl
Institute for Rural Development
University of Gttingen
Waldweg 26
D-37073 Gttingen
Germany
aholl@gwdg.de
Lszl Holly
Director
Institute for Agrobotany
H-2766 Tapioszele,
Hungary
Tel.: +36 (53) 380-070
Fax: +36 (53) 380-072
lholly@agrobot.rcat.hu
Nguyen Thi Ngoc Hue
Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI)
Vandien, Thanhtri, Hanoi
Vietnam
Tel: +84 4 614326 or 84 34
Fax: +84 4 8613937
ntngochue@hn.vnn.vn
ngia@vasi.ac.vn
Annie Huie
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI)
Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a
00057 Maccarese
Rome
Italy
Tel: +39 06 6118285
Fax: +39 06 61979661
a.huie@cgiar.org
Theda Kirchner
DSE/ZEL
Messweg 20
D-37412 Hrden
Germany
Tel: +49 5521-1761
beier-kirchner@t-online.de
Helmut Knpffer
Institute of Plant Genetics and
Crop Plant Research
IPK
Gatersleben
Corrensstr. 3
D-06466 Gatersleben
Germany
knupffer@ipk-gatersleben.de

182 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Zsuzsanna Kollr
Genetic Resources Department
Institute for Agrobotany
H-2766 Tapioszele,
Hungary
Tel: +36 (53) 380-070
Fax: +36 (53) 380-072
zskollar@agrobot.rcat.hu
Barbara Krause
GTZ Project Bosawas
Sustainable Resource Use & Rural development
Biosphere Reserve Bosawas
Managua Projecto Bosawas
MARENA/GTZ
Ap Postal 489
Managua
Nicaragua
Jos Miguel Leiva
Falcutad de AgronomiaFAUSAC
Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala
Apdo Postal 1545, Zona 12
Ciudad de Guatemala
Guatemala
Tel: +502 476 9794
Fax: +502 476 9770
joselp@usac.edu.gt
jmleiva@internetdatelgua.com.gt
Brigitte Maass
Institute for Crop & Animal
Production in the Tropics
University of Gttingen
Grisebachstr. 6
D-37077 Gttingen
Germany
Tel: +49 551 393751
bmaass@gw.dg.de
Larwanou Mahamane
National Institute for Agricultural
Research of Niger (INRAN)
National institute for Agricultural Science
(INRAD)
BP 429 Niamey
Niger
Tel: +227 72 34 34
Fax: +277 72 21 44

Istvn Mr
Institute for Agrobotany
H-2766 Tapioszele,
Hungary
Tel: +36 (53) 380-070
Fax: +36 (53) 380-072
imar@agrobot.rcat.hu
Carol Markwei
Department of Botany
University of Ghana
Legon, Accra
Ghana
Tel: +233 21 501735
Fax: +233 21 500940
cmarkwei@tmdyn.com
Waltraud Michaelis
German Foundation for International
Development
Food and Agriculture Development Centre
DSE/ZEL
Zschortau
Germany
Roch L. Mongbo
Centre Beninois pour lEnvironment et le
Developpement Economique et Social
(CEDBEDES)
02 BP 778
Cotonou
Benin
Tel: +229 304139/966446
Fax: +229 300276
rmongbo@internet.bj
Jrg Ochsmann
Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research
IPK
Corrensstr. 3
D-06466 Gatersleben
Germany
ochsmann@ipk-gatersleben.de
Kesavan N. Pushkaran
Kerala Agricultural University
College of Horticulture
Vellanikkara, Thrissur - 680 656
Kerala
India
Tel: +91 487 370 822
Fax: +91 487 370 019
kauhqr@hub.nic.in

APPENDIX II 183

Trinidad M. Prez de Fernandez


Universidad de los Andes
Nucleo Universitario Rafael Rangel, Trujillo
Av. Medina Angarita, Carmona
Trujillo
Venezuela
Tel/Fax: +58-43 47 10 66
recfitog@reacciun.ve
Trinidad-maria@hotmail.com

Jrgen Schneider
International Affairs Division
Swiss Agency for the Environment Forests and
Landscape,
CH-3003 Berne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 31 322 68 95
juerg.schneider@buwal.admin.ch

Consuelo Quiroz
Universidad de los Andes
entro para la Agricultura Tropical
Alternativa y el Desarollo Integral Trujillo
Trujillo
Venezuela
Tel: +58 272 2360467, 59 272 6721672 (home)
consuelo@cantv.net

Tomas Shagarodsky
Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en
Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT)
Calle 2 esq. 1,
Santiago de las Vegas
C. Habana
Cuba
Tel: +53 683 4039,2323
Fax: +53 7 579014
inifat@ceniai.inf.cu

Vanaja Ramprasad
GREEN Foundation
PO Box 7651
86A Srinatha Nilaya
5th cross, 3rd main, N.S. Palya
BTM Second Stage
Bangalore560 076
India
Tel: +91 080 6783858
Fax: +91 080 6591729
van@vsnl.com

Pratap Kumar Shrestha


LI-BIRD
PO Box 234,
Pokhara, Kaski
Nepal
Tel: +977 61 26834/32912
pslibird@mos.com.np

Ram Rana
LI-BIRD
Mahedrapul Kaski
PO Box 324, Pokhara
Nepal
Tel: +977 61 26834/32912
rblibird@mos.com.np
Katja Roose
Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research
IPK
Corrensstr. 3
D-06466 Gatersleben
Germany
roose@ipk-gatersleben.de

Bhuwon Sthapit
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
Regional Office for Asia, Pacific and Oceania
IPGRI APO (Ouposted in Nepal)
10 Darmashila Buddha Marg
Nadipur Patan, Ward N. 3
Pokhara 3
Nepal
Tel: +977 61 21108
Fax: +977 61 21108
b.sthapit@cgiar.org
Luu Ngoc Trinh
Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute (VASI)
Van Dien, Thanh Tri, Ha Noi
Vietnam
Tel: +84 34 845320
Fax: +84 34 845802
lntrinh@hn.vnn.vn

184 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Raymond Vodouhe
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI)
Office for West and Central Africa
08 BP 0932 Cotonou
Benin
Tel: +229 35 01 88
Fax: +229 35 05 56
r.vodouhe@cgiar.org
Brigitte Vogl-Lukasser
Hamerlinggasse 12
A-2340 Mdling
Austria
Tel/Fax: +02236-45069 (++43-2236-45069)
vogl@edv1.boku.ac.at
Jessica Watson
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI)
Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a
00057 Maccarese
Rome
Italy
Tel: +39 06 6118404
jessicawwatson@yahoo.com
Beate Weiskopf
GTZ
Rural Development Division
Dag-Hmmarskjld-weg 1-5
Postfach 5180
D-65726 Eschborn
Germany
Tel: +49 61 96 79 1432
Beate.weiskopf@gtz.de
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
d.williams@cgiar.org

Wolfgang Zimmermann
German Foundation for International
Development
Food and Agriculture Development Centre
DSE/ZEL
Zschortau
Germany

ISBN 92-9043-517-8

Вам также может понравиться