Impact of Prosopis juliflora L.

(Fabaceae) on Plant Biodiversity at Alledeghi

Wildlife Reserve and Surrounding Local Community, Ethiopia

Selamnesh Tesfaye Koyira

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June 2015
Impact of Prosopis juliflora L. (Fabaceae) on Plant Biodiversity at Alledeghi
Wildlife Reserve and Surrounding Local Community, Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to

The Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management Presented in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science (Plant
Biology and Biodiversity Management)

Selamnesh Tesfaye Koyira

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June 2015
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE PROGRAMMES

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Selamnesh Tesfaye Koyira entitled impact of
Prosopis juliflora L. (Fabaceae) on Plant Biodiversity at Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve and
Surrounding Local Community and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science (Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management) complies
with the regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to
originality and quality.

Signed by Examining Board:

Name Signature Date

_________________ (Examiner) ______________________ _________________

_________________ (Examiner) ______________________ _________________

Dr. Tamerat Bekele (Advisor) ________________________ _________________

Prof. Ensermu Kelbessa (Advisor) _____________________ _________________

________________ (Chairman) _______________________ _________________

iii
 ABSTRACT
Impact of Prosopis juliflora L. (Fabaceae) on Plant Biodiversity at Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve
and Surrounding Local Community, Ethiopia

Selamnesh Tesfaye Koyira (MSc Thesis)

Addis Ababa University, June 2015

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of Prosopis juliflora on diversity of plant species
found in Alledeghi wildlife Reserve and the surrounding local community. Preferential sampling
method was used to collect vegetation data. Plots were laid from the main road to inside the
reserve following three roads that lead into the reserve. A total of 60 quadrats, each 400 m2,
were established along three lines for woody species data collection. Herbaceous species data
were collected from 1m2 subplots at the four corners and center of the 60 main plots and 5m2
for shrub. Community perception on invasion and impact of P. juliflora was collected
administering questionnaire and semistructured interviews interviewing a total of 80 people. The
results showed that P. juliflora affects density, richness, diversity and evenness of other species.
Higher proportion of respondents indicated that P. juliflora affects negatively their life because
of its low beneficial traits for them. Higher proportion of respondents (87.5 %) put cattle dung as
the main disseminating agent of P. juliflora in to the Reserve. Communities attempted to control
P. juliflora spread in their land by cutting and applying used motor oil to stumps, burning, hand
pulling and both cutting and burning. Nothing was done controlling by utilization in the area;
however management strategies were recommended to minimize the ecological and
socioeconomic impacts of the invasion and to make use of P. juliflora as a valuable resource to
support rural livelihoods in the drylands and at the same time there is a dire need to control the
spread of P. juliflora to new areas.

Key words: Prosopis juliflora, Impact, Dissemination Utilization, Control, Plant diversity

iii
 Acknowledgments

My deepest gratitude goes to my advisors Dr. Tamerat Bekele and Prof Ensermu Kelbessa for
their inspiring guidance, advice and useful comments starting from proposal writing up to the
completion of this work.

I gratefully acknowledge EWCA for facilitating my research work with financial support. I am
also grateful to Allideghi Wildlife Reserve (AWR) staffs who gave me material support and
information regarding the reserve and who allowed me to share their room during my stay in the
reserve. Also I thank Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management and all staff
members of the National Herbarium.

My special thanks go to all informants for their strong supports during data collection. My
sincere thanks go to my friends Wondifraw Nega for his commitment on field work and Zewdie
Kasa for his support for making the map and helping in analysis of the result used by R-
statistical software and Abraham Sileshi for his ideal support .I sincerely acknowledges all my
families who have contribution for my successful completion of this study in one way or another.

iv
 Table of Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ viii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Significance of the study ............................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Objectives of the study.................................................................................................................. 4
1.4.1. General objective .................................................................................................................. 4
1.4.2. Specific objectives ................................................................................................................ 4
1.5. Research questions ........................................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Overview of Prosopis juliflora in general .................................................................................... 6
2.2. Introduction and invasion of Prosopis juliflora in Ethiopia ......................................................... 7
2.3. Biodiversity and socio-economic impact of Prosopis juliflora .................................................... 9
2.3.1. Impacts on biodiversity ......................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2. Socio-economic impact of Prosopis juliflora ....................................................................... 9
2.4. Uses of Prosopis juliflora ........................................................................................................... 10
2.6. Different Prosopis juliflora controlling and management methods............................................ 12
2.6.1. Physical/Mechanical methods ............................................................................................. 12
2.6.2. Chemical methods ............................................................................................................... 13
2.6.3. Biological control................................................................................................................ 13
2.6.4. Fire ...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.6.5. Control through utilization .................................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 15
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................................ 15
3.1. Description of the study area ...................................................................................................... 15
3.1.1. Climate ................................................................................................................................ 16

v
 3.1.2. Soil ...................................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.3. Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 17
3.1.4. Fauna ................................................................................................................................... 17
3.2. Data source and materials ............................................................................................................... 18
3.3. Sampling design and methods of data collection ............................................................................ 18
3.3.1. Reconnaissance survey ....................................................................................................... 18
3.3.2. Sampling design .................................................................................................................. 18
3.3.3. Community perception on invasion and impact of Prosopis juliflora ............................... 19
3.4. Data analysis ................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4.1. Diversity and similarity indices .......................................................................................... 21
3.4.2. Species diversity analysis.................................................................................................... 21
3.4.3. Plant community analysis ................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................................... 23
4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 23
4.1. Plant Community types of the study area ........................................................................................ 23
4.1.1. Prosopis juliflora - Acacia nilotica Community type ......................................................... 25
4.1.2. Xanthium strumarium - Eriochloa fatmensis Community Type ......................................... 26
4.1.3. Setaria verticillata - Prosopis juliflora Community Type .................................................. 26
4.1.4. Blepharis boranensis - Tribulus cistoides Community Type.............................................. 27
4.2. Impact of Prosopis juliflora on plant species diversity and their density ................................... 28
4.2.1. Impact of P. juliflora on density, diversity, richness and evenness of other plant species .... 28
4.2.2. Relation of P. juliflora and Setaria verticillata .................................................................. 32
4.3. Communities‟ perception on P. juliflora invasion and impact ................................................... 33
4.3.1. Socio-demographic characteristics...................................................................................... 33
4.3.2. Introduction of P. juliflora and its disseminating agents .................................................... 34
4.3.3. Negative impacts of P. juliflora in the study community ................................................... 35
4.3.4. Benefits of Prosopis juliflora .............................................................................................. 36
4.3.5. Attitude of individuals about Reserve and affecting factors .............................................. 36
4.3.6. Methods used to control P. juliflora by the community ..................................................... 37
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................................ 39
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 39
5.1. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 39
5.1.1. Plant community types of the study area .................................................................................... 39

vi
 5.1.2. Assessing impact of Prosopis juliflora on plant species diversity and their density
……………………………………………………………………………………39
5.1.2.1. Impact of P. juliflora on density, diversity, richness and evenness of other plant species
…………………………………………………………………………………..39
5.1.2.2. Correlation of P. juliflora and Setaria verticillata ................................................................. 40
5.1.3. Socio-demographic and economic characteristics .............................................................. 41
5.1.4. Assessing the introduction and disseminating agents of P. juliflora in the study area
…………………………………………….……………………………………….41
5.1.5. Assessing negative impacts of Prosopis juliflora in the study community .................... 42
5.1.6. Benefits of Prosopis juliflora .............................................................................................. 43
5.1.7. Assessing the attitude of individuals about Reserve and affecting factors ....................... 44
5.1.8. Methods used to control P. juliflora by the community ..................................................... 44
5.2. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 46
5.3. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 48
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 55

vii
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Ethiopia showing Regional state and the study area ...................................................... 15

Figure 2: Climate diagram of the study area showing mean annual temperature and rainfall. (Source:
NMSA, 2002).............................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 3: Semi-structured interview and discussion with informants ......................................................... 20

Figure 4. Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering using Euclidean distance .............................................. 23

Figure 5: Impact of P.julifora on plant species density ............................................................................. 29

Figure 6: Impact of P. juliflora on species diversity, richness and evenness ............................................. 29

Figure 7: Relative frequency and abundance of P. juliflora and Setaria verticillata ................................ 32

Figure 8: Agents facilitating dissemination of P. juliflora in the study area .............................................. 34

Figure 9 :P. juliflora tolerance of arid conditions and its impressivness .................................................... 35

Figure 10: Importance of Prosopis juliflora by respondent ....................................................................... 36

Figure 11: Factors severely affecting the health of the Reserve ................................................................ 37

Figure 12: Practiced measure taken by pastoral household to eradicate P. juliflora .................................. 38

viii
 List of Tables

Table 1: Synoptic table of species with synoptic value 1 in at least one community type. ...................... 24

Table 2: The top six dominant species of community 1 in terms of relatively higher synoptic values. ..... 25

Table 3: The top six dominant species of Community 2 in terms of relatively higher synoptic values. .... 26

Table 4: The top six dominant species of Community 3 in terms of relatively higher synoptic values. .... 26

Table 5: The top six dominant species of Community 3 in terms of relatively higher synoptic values. .... 27

Table 6: Diversity indeces values of the different communities. ............................................................... 27

Table 7: List of other plant species for each plot ...................................................................................... 30

Table 8: Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents .......................................... 33

Table 9: P. juliflora control measures practiced by pastoral households................................................. 38

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 55

Appendix 2 Synoptic Table ........................................................................................................................ 59

Appendix 3: List of plant species in the study area .................................................................................... 62

ix
List of Acronyms

AAU Addis Ababa University

ANRS Afar National Regional State

AWR Allideghi Widlife Reserve

DM Dry matter (Dry Wight)

EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization

EWCA Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority

FARM-Africa Food and Agriculture Research Management

FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation

GISP Global Invasive Species Program

GPS Geographic Positioning System

HDRA Henry Doubleday Research Association

H2O Hydrogen dioxide

IAS Invasive Alien Species

NMSA National Meteorological Service Agency

WARC Werer Agricultural Research Centre

x
CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Invasive alien species are those that become established in a new environment, and then
proliferate and spread in ways that are destructive to biodiversity and human Interests (GISP,
2004). The spread of invasive alien species (IAS) is now recognized as one of the greatest
threats to the ecological and economic wellbeing of the planet. These species are causing
enormous damage to biodiversity and on agricultural systems we depend on. Health effects on
human beings and animals are increasing and impacts on biodiversity irreversible. Introduced
alien species outcompete, infect or transmit diseases, compete, attack, or hybridize with native
ones (Wittenberg and Cock, 2001).

Invasive alien species have been introduced deliberately and/or accidentally to countries for
various reasons. Some of such species have been proved to be helpful in their new places with
regard to their economic importance, biodiversity aspect, ecological merit, or a combination of
those factors. On the other hand, there are a lot of exotic plant species, which are found to be
harmful after their introduction in different ways. For example: (a) by interfering with rural
livelihood activities; (b) impeding land use systems; and (c) incurring extra costs of
management to their „new home‟ due to the fact that they invade a large amount of land within a
short period of time (Shakleton et al., 2006). Such plant species, in most cases, are declared to
be invasive alien species (IAS) in their new locality.

Ways by which IAS are incorporated into rural livelihoods vary. Shakleton et al. (2006)
discussed the following four pathways, the first is when the rural community accepts the
introduction or they themselves introduce a species because they perceive it as useful. Under
this case, initially it is in controlled condition (e.g. within farming land). The species starts
affecting non-beneficiaries‟ livelihoods when it gets out of control and invades much of the
landscape. The second possibility is where intentional introduction of IAS into an area takes
place and it becomes abundant through time. In this case, the opportunity cost of using scarce
resources may invite the rural people to exploit the introduced species. The exploitation is good
1
for controlling the spread of IAS. The third situation is when the IAS is not introduced on
purpose, but local people have already accepted the presence of IAS and try to make use of it.
The last condition is the existence of IAS, which has no obvious uses for the community. At
initial stage of invasion, the threat may be little. However, the threat becomes more serious
when the scale of invasion increases to the extent of affecting the supply of other ecosystem
goods and livelihood activities of the community. Ecosystem goods, according to Scoones
(1998), are relevant for the sustainability of most rural livelihoods.

Prosopis juliflora is a noxious invasive weed that is native to America ranging from Peru to
Mexico. Currently, it occurs as invasive weed in 25 African countries including Ethiopia (GISP,
2004). According to Pacieezuick et al. (2001), the earliest introductions to Africa in the 19th
century may have been through Senegal, South Africa and Egypt. In Ethiopia, Prosopis juliflora
was introduced and cultivated for shade, timber, forage, food and medicine (Asfaw Hunde and
Thulin, 1989). It escaped cultivation and spread to farmlands, irrigation areas and rangelands.
Prosopis juliflora has now invaded most of the pastoral areas in Afar Regional State. The
success of P. juliflora is largely attributed to the high number of seeds produced and their
efficient dispersal mechanisms (Hailu Shiferaw et al., 2004). Seeds of P. juliflora disperse by
means of flowing water such as rivers and floods, livestock and wild animals. If the seeds fail to
germinate at a particular point in time, they undergo dormancy and remain in the seed bank.
With the destruction of the vegetation cover, the soil will be exposed, that promotes the
germination (GISP, 2004). Currently, P. juliflora poses a threat to indigenous biodiversity
whenever it is established in Ethiopia in general, in the Middle Awash area in particular because
of its weedy and invasive nature, and its allelopathic effect (Samual Getachew, 2012). In this
area, about 30,000 hectares of grasslands, rangelands, water points and croplands are estimated
to be occupied by P. juliflora (Zeray Mehari, 2008).

Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve is located adjacent to Awash National Park, consisting flat
grassland plain with high mountains rising on the eastern border. It is one of few places in
Ethiopia where a huge number of wild ungulates (Beisa Oryx and Soemmering‟s gazelle) are
observed utilizing the grassland plain (Fanuel Kebede, 2012). This Reserve is very unique not
only for supporting substantial number of Soemmering‟s gazelle and Beisa Oryx, but also

2
harbors remnant endangered equid species Equus grevyi. The Ethiopian biggest isolated
population of Grevy‟s zebra occurs in this Reserve (Almaz Kebede, 2009). This wildlife
Reserve possesses more than 31 mammals, 140 bird species and an excellent landscape of
grassland plain. However in this Reserve human encroachment is most pronounced.
Particularly, overgrazing and bush encroachment are being accelerated. Bush encroachment is
becoming a common phenomenon, mainly the invasion of alien invasive species (Prosopis
juliflora).
The invasion by P. juliflora reduces grass availability and stocking density by livestock.
According to Kahi et al. (2009), P. juliflora is also affects plant species biodiversity, total
biomass production under P. juliflora tree shades reduced compared to open areas. This
indicates that P. juliflora tree canopies inhibit production of understory plant species.

The invasion by P. juliflora leads to shrinkage of the rangelands and grasslands and will
therefore threaten the existence of the community. This study would help identify the impact of
Prosopis juliflora over other species and in the Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve. In addition,
knowledge about the factors, which promote the spread of P. juliflora, will enable the
community to apply appropriate management strategy so as to utilize the Reserve resources
sustainably.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

In Ethiopia, the aggressive invasion of Prosopis juliflora in a pastoral area is displacing native
tree species and reducing grazing land (Zeray Mehari, 2008). Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve is
located adjacent to Awash National Park; also around the Reserve P. juliflora causes a serious
threat, which is invading the acacia thickets by well establishing itself in large numbers at the
borders of the Reserve. The invasion by P. juliflora leads to shrinkage of the rangelands and
grasslands and will therefore threaten the existence of the community. This study would help
identify the impact of P. juliflora over other species and in the Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve.
Such knowledge would help have better understanding about the extent of the diversity of the
plant and the rate of expansion and the positive and negative impacts of P. juliflora in the study
local community. In addition, knowledge about the factors, which promote the spread of P.
3
juliflora, will enable the community to apply appropriate conservation strategy so as to utilize
the Reserve resources sustainably.

1.3. Significance of the study

The Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve is one of the richest protected areas in Ethiopia with diverse
and abundant wild ungulates. This area is close to the capital Addis Ababa, with easy access by
a comfortable road, which makes the area high potential for tourism development. Prosopis
juliflora is negatively affecting the grassland plains and it is further expanding to new sites. This
research will generate information regarding how P. juliflora is spreading in to the Reserve and
to show its impact on plant diversity and the local community in the study area, and to
recommend options to control its expansion.

1.4. Objectives of the study

1.4.1. General objective

To assess the impact of Prosopis juliflora on diversity of plant species at Alledeghi Wildlife
Reserve and surrounding local communities.

1.4.2. Specific objectives

 To assess impact of Prosopis juliflora on plant species diversity and their abundance.
 To investigate the introduction of P. juliflora in the study area and factors (possible
causes) that favors the spread of P. juliflora in the Reserve.
 To analyze the benefits and negative impacts of P. juliflora in the study local
community.
 To assess the attitude of the community about the Reserve and factors which affect the
Reserve?
 To fined options that may help for controlling the Reserve from P. juliflora invasion and
for its effective management.

4
 1.5. Research questions

In order to achieve the stated objectives, the study attempted to answer the following research
questions.

1. Is there any impact caused by P. juliflora on vegetation species diversity and abundance?
2. How P. juliflora was introduced in the study area and what are the factors (possible causes)
that promote the spread of P. juliflora in Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve?
3. What are the benefits and challenges faced by the Reserve and local community (living
around the Reserve) because of P. juliflora?
4. Which management options should be employed to control further spreading of P.juliflora?
5. Is there any species that grow in P. juliflora dominated area?

5
CHAPTER TWO

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Overview of Prosopis juliflora in general

Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC, one of the 44 species of Prosopis, is an evergreen leguminous tree,
typical of arid and semi-arid regions belonging to the family Leguminaceae (Fabaceae) and
subfamily Mimosoideae. It belongs to the section Algarobia, series Chilenses, which includes
ten more species and many varieties (Pascienzk et al., 2004). P. juliflora is the only Prosopis
species introduced and recorded in Ethiopia (Lehouerou, 1980). P. juliflora is particularly
closely connected to P. pallida. P. juliflora is a woody stemmed, thorned, evergreen fast
growing shrub or small tree usually up to about 5m tall but occasionally up to 12m under
favorable conditions. It has a deep taproot, growing downwards in search of water tables (down
to 40 m depth), with well-developed lateral roots competing with grasses (Pasiecznik et al.,
2001). The existence of two root systems, a deep tap root to reach ground water and a mat of
surface lateral roots to make use of infrequent rainfall events, puts P. juliflora species firmly in
the category of phreatophytes, but showing a variety of mesophytic and xerophytic
characteristics depending on water availability (Mooney et al., 1977).

P. juliflora leaves have many adaptations to drought, such as the bipinnate, compound leaves
(typical of the Mimosoideae) with 13-25 pairs leaflets arranged on 1 or sometimes 2 pairs of
pendulous rachis. Leaflets are oblong (3-16 mm long x 1.5-3 mm broad) (Heuze et al, 2015;
FAO, 2010). Possession of larger numbers of smaller leaflets is considered to be a response to
high temperatures, being a means of dissipating increased heat loads. In the P. juliflora - P.
pallida complex, the action of the pulvinus (is a joint; like thickening at the base of the plant
leaf or leaflet that facilitates growth) can cause the leaflets to fold, protecting stomata on the
upper leaf surfaces from water loss (Pasiecznik et al., 2001).

Flowers are small, 4-6 mm long, gathered densely together on cylindrical, spike-like
inflorescences known as racemes. They are generally yellow, straw yellow or yellow-white in
color. Flowering may commence in the first or second year under favorable conditions but 3-5
years is common in normal field conditions. Fruits are flattened, curved, indehiscent pods (4
6
mm thick, 1-1.5 cm wide and 15-20 cm long) (Heuze et al., 2015). Pods are straw-colored and
contain a fleshy and sugary mesocarp (Gohl, 1982). Pods are made up of an exocarp, a fleshy
mesocarp, and endocarp segments each containing a single seed, with up to 30 seeds per pod.

The thorns vary in size between individual trees, from large, thick and strong thorns of up to 7.5
cm in length to small and weak ones of less than 0.5 cm in length. Armature consists of cauline,
axillary spines which are geminate and divergent. Spines are straight, multi- or uni- nodal,
solitary, paired or solitary and paired on the same branch. Spines are produced on new growth,
and tend to be largest on strong basal shoots and prominent on young branches. They become
shorter on older stems due to incorporation of spines during wood growth and diameter
increments in the stem and branches, and may become absent on older wood. Trees vary in the
number and size of thorns, which may be absent or not on all branches. Thorns, when present,
can be rare or profuse, long or short, thin or stout, 0.5-7.5 cm long and 2-5 mm in thorn base
diameter (Pasiecznik et al., 2001).

o012…………
It grows in very hot, dry climates, with the temperature up to 48 C and annual
precipitation from 150 to 750 mm. It is found from sea level to 1500m and it can grow in the
variety of soil types including saline and alkaline areas in sandy and rocky soils. The tissue of
P. juliflora is photosynthetically active throughout the year, presenting a wide spread root
system through which the tree fully exploits the available water resources (Pacieezuick et al.,
2001). Its low nutritional requirements and resistance to water deficit give P. juliflora a great
plasticity of response, which allows its wide distribution in arid and semiarid zones in the
tropics.

2.2. Introduction and invasion of Prosopis juliflora in Ethiopia

P. juliflora has been introduced in many parts of the world (Africa, Asia and Australia) during
the last 100-150 years. The species is now established in Africa; including Ethiopia, Kenya,
Eritrea and Sudan (Pasiecznik et al., 2001; Bokrezion, 2008). The plant has been cultivated for
shade, timber, forage, food, and firewood (Pasiecznik et al., 2001; Rezene Fessehaie, 2006).
There is no precise written document why, when, where, and who introduce P. juliflora to
Ethiopia, some believe that Ministry of Agriculture introduced the species during the 1970‟s

7
indiscriminately to both degraded and high quality pastures, including those in the Afar
National Regional State (ANRS), to serve as a shade tree and wind break for plantations, and
for land reclamation (Dubale Admasu, 2008). On the other hand, the local people of Amibara
Wereda of the Afar National Regional State, stated that P. juliflora was introduced by an
English person from Sudan in 1970s through the Middle Awash Irrigation Project (Hailu
Shiferaw et al., 2004; Rezene Fessehaie, 2006) and was planted over a large area of the Middle
Awash rift valley by local people in 1980 as wind break, shade and shelter around their village.
However, contrary to its purpose of introduction, the plant escaped out of control and has
invaded farm lands, pasture lands, range lands, irrigation schemes (Rezene Fessehaie , 2006)
and became causes for many land use/ land cover changes.

The Amibara Wereda of the Afar National Regional State is thought to be the putative starting
point of the spread of P. juliflora in Ethiopia. It represents degraded semi-arid ecosystem. Since
1980s the plant has spread rapidly in all land cover in and the spread of P. juliflora further
continued to Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve.

About half of the seeds, which passed through animal digestive tracts, have the ability to
germinate (Hailu Shiferaw et al., 2004). According to their findings, the maximum germination
percentage was observed on seeds recovered from warthogs (47%) followed by goats (37%).
They also observed up to 2833 seeds recovered from a kilogram of cattle dropping. This shows
the amount and possibility of P. juliflora seeds transportation to far distances within livestock
digestive tracts. On top of this, the seeds can germinate under wide ranges of temperature (20 –
40 0C) and moisture stressed environments (Abiyot Berhanu and Getachew Tesfaye, 2006).
Due to these reasons, P. juliflora has unchecked expansion in the area, so far, there is no survey
made to assess how the invasion is going to the Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve and its impact but
the species has also occupied a number of hectares in the area and is still expanding in the
Reserve. This land is one of few places in Ethiopia where a huge number of wild ungulates
(Beisa Oryx and Soemmering‟s gazelle) are observed utilizing the grassland plain (Fanuel
Kebede, 2012). This Reserve is very unique not only for supporting substantial number of
Soemmering‟s gazelle and Beisaoryx, but also harbours remnant endangered equid species
Equugrevyi. The Ethiopian biggest isolated population of Grevy‟s zebra occurs in this Reserve

8
(Almaz Kebede, 2009) and ecological goods such as traditional medicines, wild fruits. In
addition to Afar and Dire-Dawa regions, currently the species is spreading in arid and semi-arid
parts of Somali, Oromia and Amhara regions and the species is declared to be the country‟s no.
1 invasive plant species (EARO and HADRA, 2005).

2.3. Biodiversity and socio-economic impact of Prosopis juliflora

2.3.1. Impacts on biodiversity

Study on the impact of P. juliflora showed great depressing effect on the number, density and
frequency of the other species, particularly on native vegetation (Abdillahi et al., 2005). It
creates a physical barrier against seedlings of other plant species and make establishment very
difficult. Since its branches are many, dense, and have evergreen leaves, sunlight will not reach
the ground and plants under canopy of P. juliflora will not have enough sunlight that is very
crucial for photosynthesis. Reduced numbers of seedlings of native species have been recorded
under canopy of non- indigenous invaders (Gordon, 1998). This is due to the conversion of
more open stands to closed-canopy systems accompanied by low light, higher humidity, lower
temperatures, and other environmental and biological changes (Hobbs and Mooney, 1986). This
microclimate adjustment leads to decrease in population number and species composition of the
area and also may results in the death of plants under canopy of Prosopis juliflora (Pasiecznik,
2001). As Chaturvedi et al. (1988) indicated the water use efficiency of P. juliflora to be 710
kg H2O/ kg dry matter. With other species, 345 kg H2O/ kg dry matter was estimated for P.
chilensis (Felker et al., 1983). This high level of water use efficiency is related to high
evaporation rate of their leaves. This makes the water table to lower and unable to be reached by
the roots of native plant species and results in displacement of the native species with P.
juliflora taking the place. P. juliflora also release allelochemical substances into the soil which
may disrupt the physiology and mutalistic relations present in the native species (Noor et al.,
1995; Pasiecznik, 2001). This may help P. juliflora to out-compete the local plant species.

2.3.2. Socio-economic impact of Prosopis juliflora

The ecological impact of P. juliflora has been translated into social, economic and political
dimensions in the country. The most important socio-economic impact of P. juliflora is
9
associated with its replacement of pasture lands and native trees of browsing value, which are
the sole sources of feed for the livestock of pastoral communities.

The negative features of P. juliflora are not limited only to its replacement of pastures and farm
lands. It has harmed the wellbeing of local people directly through damages on human and
animal health .Pods contain cytotoxic alkaloids that may cause intoxications to cattle, horses,
sheep and goats in diets containing high levels of pods (>50 %). Problems have been reported in
the USA, Peru and Brazil (Tabosa et al., 2006; Silva et al., 2007; Camera et al., 2009; Assis et
al., 2010). Goats and cattle fed with diets containing 60-90 % and 50-75 % P. juliflora pods
respectively suffered mandibular tremors during chewing due to toxicity to neurons of certain
cranial nerve nuclei (Tabosa et al., 2000; Tabosa et al., 2006). In another series of outbreaks in
Brazil, the main clinical signs were progressive weight loss, dropped jaw, tongue protrusion,
salivation and impaired swallowing (Camara et al., 2009). Neuronal lesions result in difficulties
in chewing; it subsequently causes animal death (Tabosa et al., 2006).

The thorn of P. juliflora causes inflammation when injuries occur. The injury does not heal
easily despite intensive medical treatment (Abiyot Berhanu and Getachew Tesfaye, 2006).
According to Duck (1983), the wood is also known to cause dermatitis when it burns. The thick
P. juliflora thickets have also constrained the mobility of people and blocked access to land,
roads and watering points (Abiyot Berhanu and Getachew Tesfaye, 2006).

2.4. Uses of Prosopis juliflora

Prosopis juliflora has documented merits like improving soil fertility, controlling soil erosion,
stabilizing sand dunes, providing fuel wood and feed/forage for livestock, fencing and for
construction timber and furniture wood (Zeila et al., 2004; Esther and Brent, 2005; Stefen,
2005). However, there are also research findings, which contrast some of the described benefits.

P. juliflora is able to improve the soil in which it is growing by means of biological nitrogen
fixation, leaf litter accumulation, nutrient pumping from deeper soil layers, loosening of a hard
soil structure, stabilizing of loose sands, and an increase of the fauna above and below the

10
ground (Kaushik and Kumar 2003, Kahi et al. (2009), However, Zainal et al. (1988), noted that
litter of P. juliflora reduces soil fertility.

P. juliflora has also been used to shelter agricultural crops from wind and to reduce the
movement of soil and sand. Its leaves contain various chemicals known to affect palability to
livestock, but also suppress the germination and growth of crops, weeds and other trees (Esther
and Brent, 2005).

P. juliflora is reported to produce good quality firewood and charcoal because wood is hard,
burns slowly and has excellent heating properties (Dubale Admasu, 2008 Pasiecznik, 2001).
The mature timber is resistant to pest attack and weathering and thus can be used for furniture
making and other useful purposes especially housing (Pasiecznik, 2001). However, there are
conflicting reports on the quality of the fuel wood. According to Esther and Brent (2005) the
fuel wood is of good quality with high calorific value, whereas report from Kenya claimed that
the fuel wood produced poisonous smoke. They also complained that the wood is soft and easily
attacked by insects, which make the tree unfit for fuel wood and house construction (Nabori et
al., 2007).

P. juliflora pods have been said having high nutritional value and being palatable for livestock
(Paseicznik et al., 2004; Esther and Brent, 2005). Pods have a relatively high nutritional value.

They contain about 10-15 % DM of crude protein, 20-30 % DM (dray mater, dray weight) of
crude fiber and 16-41 % of total sugars (75 % saccharose) (Sawal et al., 2004). Pod composition
is quite variable and pods from India and Africa appear to have lower levels of desirable
carbohydrates and higher levels of unwanted fibre than pods from Peru and Brazil (Pasiecznik
et al., 2001). The sugar content makes them palatable to ruminants, pigs, poultry, equines and
other animals. As Sawal et al. (2004), studies show that cattle rations containing less than 50%
P. juliflora pods lead to no adverse effects on consumption, digestibility, nutrient balance and
animal health (Pasiecznik et al., 2001). But goats and cattle fed with diets containing 60-90%
and 50-75% mesquite pods suffered mandibular tremors during chewing, due to toxicity to
neurons of certain cranial nerve nuclei (Tabosa et al., 2000; Tabosa et al., 2006). In another

11
series of outbreaks in Brazil, the main clinical signs were progressive weight loss, atrophy of
the masseter muscles, dropped jaw, tongue protrusion, difficulties in prehending food, tilting the
head during mastication or rumination, salivation, impaired swallowing, and decreased tone of
the tongue (Camara et al., 2009). Neuronal lesions resulted in difficulties in prehending and
chewing; it subsequently caused feed wastage and death of the animal (Tabosa et al., 2006)
Lower inclusion rates of 15-25 % are recommended in sheep and goats. In all ruminants‟
species, inclusion rates higher than 50-60 % may cause toxicity problems (Silva et al.,
2007; Tabosa et al., 2006; Camara et al., 2009; Assis et al., 2010).

2.5. Cause for invasion of Prosopis juliflora

The success of P. juliflora is largely attributed to the high number of seeds produced and their
efficient dispersal mechanisms (Hailu Shiferaw et al., 2004). In addition, its fast growing
ability, dormant seeds, attractive pods, seeds resistance to browsing, incredible ability of re-
sprouting and fast coppice growth (Hailu Shiferaw et al., 2004), also reported that the life style
of the nomadic local people has helped, seed maintaining viability in the dropping of livestock
and wild animals as the animals eat the pods and travel long distances, disseminating seeds to
new areas through droppings and high water use efficiency contribute to its invasion (Felker et
al., 1983).

2.6. Different Prosopis juliflora controlling and management methods

There are Different methods are studied to control spread P. juliflora According to Pacieezuick
et al. (2001); Belton (2008), there are four kinds of controlling mechanism: mechanical,
chemical, Fire and biological).

2.6.1. Physical/Mechanical methods

Hand pulling - Effective on seedlings and plants up to 20cm or so tall, in light or sandy soil
where the taproot can be completely removed.

12
Cutting – before seed production will prevent further dispersal, but the plants will resprout
from the stump. Cutting is a necessary step when working with large plants, to remove the
above ground portion. Application of herbicide to the freshly cut stump will prevent
resprouting. Methods of cutting include chainsaw for large stemmed plants, or a clearing saw,
handsaw, or loppers, for smaller plants.

Hand-digging – Effective on small infestations, provided all roots can be removed.

Mechanical – control methods such as bulldozing have been used on Mexican thorn in some
countries, however this method creates significant unnecessary ground disturbance and is not
considered appropriate for Ascension.

2.6.2. Chemical methods

Chemical control has supremacy over other control methods due to its quick action and time
saving. Larger trees and shrubs are killed by cutting the stem at ground level and spraying or
painting the freshly cut stumps with suitable herbicide. In India, ammonium sulphamate was
successful in killing P. juliflora trees and as a stump treatment (Panchal and Prabhakar, 1977).
However this method is very expensive and largely unsuccessful in the long term. It has been
accepted that using herbicides, eradication of vegetation‟s are possible but the potential
environmental damage (non-Glycophosphate based herbicides) from widespread use of some
herbicide must also be taken into consideration.

2.6.3. Biological control

Predators or pathogens are used to control the P. juliflora reproduction. In the native range,
bruchid beetles can destroy substantial amounts of P. juliflora seed produced, thus severely
limiting the potential for invasion. For example, according to Lima (1994), the twig girdler
Oncideres limpida attack P. juliflora in Brazil. Biological control also involves animals besides
insects to eat and kill seeds. Prosopis species seeds when passed through the gut of cattle, they
would germinate better. According to Pacieezuick et al. (2001), replacing these livestock with

13
others such as sheep and pigs can prevent the expansion of P. juliflora this is because of the
seeds lose their viability during passing through the gut of these animals.

2.6.4. Fire

Young seedlings are sensitive to fire the slow burning dung generates heat to shrivel up the stem
and damage the stem, which ultimately result in the death of the plant, but older trees become
increasingly protected by thick bark as they mature and will re-sprout rapidly after fire.

2.6.5. Control through utilization

Experiences from America, Asia and Australia have shown that eradication of P. juliflora, by
the different methods, especially the mechanical and chemical ones are highly expensive and
mostly ineffective (HDRA, 2005). Hence, management strategies were recommended to
minimize the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the invasion and to make use of P.
juliflora as a valuable resource to support rural livelihoods in the dry lands (HDRA, 2005;
Mwangi and Swallow, 2005). At the same time there is a dire need to control the spread of P.
juliflora to new areas. In the regional consultation workshop organized by FARM-Africa in
(2004), on P. juliflora control, charcoal production and pod crushing for livestock feeding were
two options endorsed by the stakeholders. Utilization of P. juliflora tree for charcoal by clearing
the stumps is assumed to restore the land, and the collection and crushing of the pods will also
prevent further spread of the invasion to new locations.

14
CHAPTER THREE

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the study area

The Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve was established in the 1960s when most of Ethiopia‟s Wildlife
Protected Areas were designated according to Hillman, (1993). It covers an area of 1,832 km2
and it is located in the Great Rift Valley in the north eastern region of the country between
Longitudes 39030' to 40030' E and Latitudes 8030' to 9030' N. The reserve is about 280 km east
of Addis Ababa. The altitude of the study area is between 800 m and 2400 m above sea level
(WCMC, 1991). The Reserve lies in two regional states namely Afar and Oromia (From the
Afar side is the major wildlife concentration plain called the Alledeghi plain and it is found
within the Amibara Wereda of the Afar Region). The southern and south western mountain part
lies in the Mieso Wereda (District) of the Oromia Region. The boundary, name and the size of
the Reserve areas have changed and there is no recent published (gazette) map.

Figure 1: Map of Ethiopia showing Regional states and the study area

15
 3.1.1. Climate

According to WCMC (1991), Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve is a semi-arid ecosystem with annual
rainfall ranging between 400 and 700mm. As recorded from a10year period data the mean
annual rainfall is 442 mm. July-September is a rainy period (Figure 2), and the mean seasonal
temperature ranges from 14.1 to 39.2oC (NMSA, 2014). Average monthly rainfall recorded in
the area showed that the highest amount of rainfall is received in September. The driest month
in the study area is October with less than 2 mm rainfall.

Figure 2: Climate diagram of the study area showing mean annual temperature and rainfall.
(Source of data: NMSA, 2014)

16
 3.1.2. Soil

According to WARC (2003/2004), there are two soil types and based on FAO/UNESCO
classification they belong to Vertic cambisols and Calcic Cambisol. The pH of the soil is
alkaline and ranges from 8.1 to 9.1. The organic matter (OM) content is low and ranges from
0.5 - 1.9%.

3.1.3. Vegetation

The major vegetation types in and around the Reserve include grasslands, bushland, shrubland,
wooded grassland, shrub grassland, riverine forest and highland forest (Almaz Kebede, 2009).
Chrysopogon plumulosus and Sporobus lusiocladus comprise a relatively high percentage of
herbaceous vegetation on the plains (Almaz Kebede, 2009). The southern, northern, and western
edges of the Reserve are bush-grasslands or shrublands, with Acacia Senegal being the
dominant species and in some parts of the grassland; P. juliflora is becoming the dominant
woody species. The woody plant species in the plains of this Reserve includes Acacia senegal,
A.tortilis, A.mellifera, Balanitis aegyptiaca, Cadaba spp. and Grewia spp. The highland forest
of Mount Asebot include Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Erythrina abyssinica,
Juniperus procera, Olea europaea, Podocarpus falcatus, Rhsu vulgaris and many others.
(Almaz Kebede, 2009).

3.1.4. Fauna

Thirty-one species of mammals have been observed at AWR and the surrounding areas. Most
common large herbivores in the AWR include Oryx, Soemmering‟s Gazelle, Gerenuk, Cheetah,
leopard, lion, Lesser Kudu, Ostrich and many others and (Almaz Kebede, 2009).

17
 3.2. Data source and materials

Different kinds of data have been collected to conduct this study. The data from primary sources
include field data and information using questionnaire from members of the surrounding
community on the other hand, secondary data were obtained from the study area, topographic
maps besides, the published materials including books, journals, research articles and census
reports were reviewed. For sampling plot layout and vegetation data collections plant press,
secateurs, plastic bags, flimsies, clinometers, altimeter, GPS, digital camera were materials
used.

3.3. Sampling design and methods of data collection

3.3.1. Reconnaissance survey

Before actual field data collection was started, a reconnaissance survey was made in September
12-15/2014 in order to obtain an impression on the distribution of P. juliflora.

3.3.2. Sampling design

After reconnaissance survey, the vegetation data collection was made between September 15-
October 15, 2014. The diversity, density and distribution of woody and herbaceous plants in the
study area were investigated by using preferential sampling technique. The extended Braun-
Blanquet and Domain Cover Scales as stated in Kent and Cocker (1992) were used to calculate
the cover abundance values. Species abundance values were converted following the Braun-
Blanquet 1-9 scale as modified by Van der Maarel (2005). In the study area plots were
preferentially laid based on visually observed heterogeneous vegetation. That is, plots were laid
from the main road to the reserve following three roads that lead into the reserve. For each road
followed, twenty plots were taken preferentially. A square quadrat of 20m x 20m (400m2) was
used to sample the vegetation and sub quadrates of and 5mx5m for shrubs and 1mx1m for herbs
were established to calculate respective cover abundance values. A total of 60 plots were taken
for the whole study. In each sample plot, type of species present, and count of saplings and
seedlings were carefully recorded. Plant species in the plots were recorded and the abundance of

18
each species was determined by counting individual members in the plots. Cover /-abundance
values in the large quadrat (one from each corner of the large square quadrate and one at the
center). Both woody plants and herbaceous species were collected, pressed, dried, labeled and
identified using the different volumes of Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea at the National Herbarium
(ETH), Addis Ababa University.

3.3.3. Community perception on invasion and impact of Prosopis juliflora

In order to acquire information on the trend of P. juliflora invasion with respect to causes of the
invasion and its impact, data were collected by administering questionnaire and semi structured
interviews. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used for data collection in the
survey. These included researcher-administered household questionnaire (Appendix 1) with
both open-ended and closed questions. The techniques include semi- structured interviews
(individual and group discussion) and field observation (Martin 1995, Cotton 1996). Interviews
and focal group discussions were held with local community living around the Reserve, Reserve
scouts and key informants regarding introduction, potential problems and beneficial use,
possible causes of encroachment in the study area, trend of livestock introduction to the
Reserve, factors affecting the Reserve and eradication mechanisms. Translators assisted in data
collection. Key informants were selected based on comments and recommendations from elders
and authorities. From key stakeholders such as the Reserve, community members lives around
the reserve (from nearby three kebeles), Wereda (district) Agriculture and FARM-Africa offices
a total of 80 people 60 from kebele or community members and 20 from Reserve, Agriculture
and FARM-Africa offices were selected using systematic random sampling technique. The focal
group discussion was performed with one group. Control measures were evaluated by observing
of previously any practice done in the area.

19
Figure 3: Semi-structured interview and discussion with informants

The quantitative data collected through the household surveys were analyzed using simple
descriptive statistics, such as percentages, frequencies, and means, in the Statistical Package for
Social Science version 13.

3.4. Data analysis

Based on the collected ecological data the status of P. juliflora was examined by computing
density, abundance and frequency using the following equations.

Frequency: the percentage of sampling plots (vegetation registrations) on which a particular

plant species is found.

Frequency = Number of plots in which a species occurs x100

Total number of plot

Relative frequency = Frequency of species x 100

Frequency of all encountered species

Density: number of individual species per unit area.

20
 Density = Number of individuals of species in all sampling unit x 100

Sampled area in hectare

Relative density = Number of individuals of a species x100

Total number of individuals of all species

Abundance: population density of plant species expressed as the number of individuals of a

species per unit area.

Abundance = Number of individuals of a species x100

Total number of individuals of all species

3.4.1. Diversity and similarity indices

Program for R statistical Software version 3.0.2 (R Core Development Team, 2013) following
(Zerihun Woldu, 2012) was used for plant community type and distribution analysis. In the
identification of plant species richness and evenness Shannon Wiener diversity index was taken
in to account to compute following R statistical Software.

3.4.2. Species diversity analysis

Shannon - Wiener (1949) index of species diversity was applied to quantify species diversity and
richness.

H =-(pi ln pi),

Where H is the Shannon- Wiener diversity index, pi is the ratio of a species average to the total
species average, ln the natural logarism to base e (loge)

J = H/Hmax

Where J is the species evenness H Shannon and wiener diversity index and Hmax is lnS, Where
S is the number of species.

21
Equitability or evenness (J) = H/ ln ( )‟S or = H/ max'H

Where:

 H‟=Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index

 H‟max=InS
 S=total number of species in the sample.
 In S= the natural logarithm of the number of species

3.4.3. Plant community analysis

Agglomerative Hierarchical cluster analysis (classification) was made using R statistical

software version 3.0.2. (R Core Development Team, 2013) following (Zerihun Woldu, 2012).
The analysis was based on the abundance of the species (number of individuals).The data
matrix contained 60 plots and 89 plant species collected from the sample plots. The plant
community types were named after two or three dominant species selected using the relative
magnitude of their Synaptic values.

22
CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS

4.1. Plant Community types of the study area

Four plant community types were identified from the hierarchical cluster analysis (Figure 4).
The four communities identified were; Prosopis juliflora - Acacia nilotica (Community type 1),
Xanthium strumarium - Eriochloa fatmensis (Community type 2), Setaria verticillata - Prosopis
juliflora (Community type 3) and Blepharis boranensis - Tribulus cistoides (Community type 4)

Agglomerative Hierarchical Classification

150
100
Dissimilarity

50
0

46
45
44
43
42
13
12
11

14
15
10
16
27
28
49
50
25
26
47
48
51
52
53
54
18
19
21
17
20
22
23
24
34
35
31
30
33
29
32
60
58
59
57
55
56
36
37
39
38
40
41
5
6
2
4
1
3
9

7
8

Sites

Figure 4 . Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering using Euclidean distance

Assigning the Cluster IDs as labels

23
Table 1: Synoptic table of species with synoptic value 1 in at least one community type.

Species Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Abutilon figarianum 0.09 2.30 0.91 2.10
Acacia nilotica 0.42 2.60 0.16 0.05
Acacia oerfota 0.04 0.12 0.08 1.20
Acacia Senegal 0 0.25 0 1.10
Acacia tortilis 0.14 0.25 1.25 0.40
Blepharis boranensis 0 0.12 0.58 3.68
Cadaba rotundifolia 0 0.25 0 1.68
Celosia argentea 0 1.00 0 0
Chrysopogon plumiilosus 0.04 0.25 1.70 2.40
Crotalaria pycnostachya 0 2.60 0.08 0
Dactyloctenium scindicum 0 1.10 0 1.00
Echinochloa colona 0 0 0 1.00
Eriochloa fatmensis 0 4.50 0 0.20
Ipomoea sinensis 0 0.87 2.30 0.80
Justicia.caerulea 0 2.75 2.50 1.26
Leucas stachydiformis 0 1.87 0.08 0
Ocimum forskolei 0.14 1.25 2.17 1.70
Paspalidium geminatum 0 0 1.00 1.26
Prosopis juliflora 8.70 2.60 4.25 0.47
Rostraria cristata 0 1.60 0 0
Ruellia patula 0.09 1.10 0.08 1.00
Setaria verticillata 0 0 6.75 0.89
Solanum dennekense 0.23 0.62 3.58 0.21
Sporobolus festivus 0 0.12 0.25 1.40
Sporobolus nervosus 0 0 0 1.70
Tephrosia linearis 0 1.00 0.08 1.10
Tetrapogon tenellus 0 0 0 2.20
Tragus berteronianusn 0.14 0.62 1.08 2.00
Tribulus cistoides 0 1.50 0.50 2.50
Urochloa trichopus 0 0 0.17 1.30
Xanthium strumarium 0 4.60 0 0

24
Cluster Plots Size %

Community1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,42,43,44,45,46 21 35

Community 2 25,26,27,28,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54 12 20

Community 3 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24 8 13.3

Community 4 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,55,56,57,58,59,60 19 31.6

From the cluster analysis, four community types were identified. One or a combination of
species with relatively higher synoptic values was used to name each community type in the
cluster. Accordingly, the following is a description of the community types identified

4.1.1. Prosopis juliflora - Acacia nilotica Community type

This Community type consisted of 13 species and occurs in areas of high anthropogenic
disturbances such as overgrazing and the areas highly dominated by P.juliflora. The dominant
species (relatively higher synoptic values.) in this community type are P. juliflora and Acacia
nilotica. Even though this community was named as P. juliflora- Acacia nilotic synoptic values
of P. juliflora very high compared to that of Acacia nilotica .The top six dominant species in
community 1 in terms of their synoptic values are listed in Table 3. The cover-abundance values
of other associated species to this community are listed in Appendix 2

Table 2: The top six dominant species of community 1 in terms of relatively higher synoptic
values.

Species Synoptic values

Prosopis juliflora 8.76
Solanum dennekense 0.23
Acacia nilotica 0.42
Acacia tortilis 0.14
Ocimum forskolei 0.14
Tragus berteronianus 0.14

25
 4.1.2. Xanthium strumarium - Eriochloa fatmensis Community Type
This Community is composed of 35 species and also this community occurs in areas of
anthropogenic disturbances such as overgrazing .The top six dominant species in Community 2
in terms of their synoptic values are listed in Table 4. The mean cover-abundance values of
other associated species to this Community are listed in Appendix 2.

Table 3: The top six dominant species of Community 2 in terms of relatively higher synoptic
values.

Species Synoptic values

Xanthium strumarium 4.6
Eriochloa fatmensis 4.5
Justicia caerulea 2.7
Acacia nilotica 2.6
Crotalaria pycnostachya 2.6
Prosopis juliflora 2.6

4.1.3. Setaria verticillata - Prosopis juliflora Community Type

This community consists of 36 species. In this community Setaria verticillata and Prosopis
juliflora are the most dominant. The top six dominant species in community 3 in terms of their
mean cover-abundance values are listed in Table 5. The mean cover abundance values of other
associated species to this community are listed in Appendix 2.

Table 4: The top six dominant species of Community 3 in terms of relatively higher synoptic
values.

Species Synoptic values

Setaria verticillata 6.7
Prosopis juliflora 4.2
Solanum dennekense 3.5
Justicia caerulea 2.5
Ipomoea sinensis 2.3
Ocimum forskolei 2.1
26
 4.1.4. Blepharis boranensis - Tribulus cistoides Community Type

This community is composed of 59 species. The top six dominant species in Community in
terms of their mean cover-abundance value are listed in Table 6. The mean cover abundance
values of other associated species to this Community are listed in Appendix 2.

Table 5: The top six dominant species of Community 3 in terms of relatively higher synoptic
values.

Species Synoptic values

Blepharis boranensis 3.68
Tribulus cistoides 2.52
Chrysopogon plumulosus 2.42
Tetrapogon tenellus 2.21
Abutilon figarianum 2.15
Tragus berteronianus 2.05

The four communities, besides differing in their characteristics species composition, also differ
in diversity measures. Table 7 gives diversity indeces values of the different communities.

Table 6: Diversity indeces values of the different communities.

Diversity
Community Richness Index (H‟) Evenness
1 13 2.38 0.89
2 35 3.48 0.93
3 36 3.47 0.97
4 59 4.07 0.96

27
 4.2. Impact of Prosopis juliflora on plant species diversity and their density
4.2.1. Impact of P. juliflora on density, diversity, richness and evenness of
other plant species

The study assessed the advance of P. juliflora in to the Reserve and its impact on plant species
diversity, density, richness and evenness. The study had three road lines that lead into the
reserve and each contained 20 plots. Each road line was divided in to four groups and each
group contained five plots. Group one contains the first 5 plots, hence group 2 contained the
next five plots and group 3 & 4 placed in five plots interval consecutively. A total of 60 plots
were used to show the advance of P. juliflora in to the Reserve and its impacts on plant species
diversity, density and richness.

(Fig. 5) The first group, which was 9,500m far from the Reserve contained P. juliflora and 26
other plant species and the relative density of P. juliflora is (60.4%) in 0.6 hectares and (45.6
%) for that of all 26 other plant species. The 2nd group was 5,500 m far from the Reserve and
contained P. juliflora and 29 other plant species. In this group the relative density of P. juliflora
is (55.6%) in 0.6 hectares and (49.5 %) for 31 other plant species. The 3rd group was 2,500m far
from Reserve also contained 41 other plant species and the relative density of P. juliflora is
(34.08%) in 0.6 hectare and (65.9%) for the 41 other plant species. The last group comprised
plots inside the Reserve, which contained P. juliflora and 58 other species and the relative
density of P. juliflora is (3.4%) and (96.5 %) for 31 other plant species in 0.6 hectare. (All other
plant species are listed in Table 8). Richness, diversity and evenness increased from outside
towards the Reserve (Fig.6)

28
 120

100
96.6

80
Relative density

65.9
60 51.4 60.4
48.6 45.6
Prosopis juliflora
40 Other plant species
34.1
20

0 3.4
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Distance from the Reserve ( meter)

Figure 5: Impact of P.julifora on plant species density

70

60 61

Richness
50
46 Diversity
Parameters

40
Evenness
30 30
27

20

10 4 3.6
3.2 3

0 0.97 0.94 0.95 0.91

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Distance from the Reserve

Figure 6: Impact of P. juliflora on species diversity, richness and evenness

29
 Table 7: List of other plant species for each plot

Plot
Plot 9500 m Plot 5000 m Plot 2500 m comprised
far from the far from the far from the inside the
NO Other species Reserve Reserve Reserve Reserve

1 Balantis aegyptiaca  
2 Acacia tortilis    
3 Acacia mellifera 
4 Acacia nilotica    
5 Acacia senegal  
6 Setaria verticillata   
7 Abutilon figarianum    
8 Ocimum forskolei    
9 Sporobolus ioclados 
10 Dactyloctenium geminatum 
11 Kedrostis leloja 
12 Urochloa trichopus   
13 Solanum dennekense    
14 Ruellia patula   
15 Paspalidium geminatum   
16 Crotalaria pycnostachya  
17 Justicia caerulea    
18 Hibiscus macranthus   
19 Ipomoea sinensis    
20 Tribulus cistoides    
21 Blepharis boranensis    
22 Eragrostis aspera  
23 Tragus berteronianus    
24 Sporobolus festivus    
25 Chrysopogon plumulosus    
26 Tephrosia linearis   
27 Boerhavia repens  
28 Seddera bagshawei   
29 Acacia oerfota    
30 Cadaba rotundifolia  
31 Cordia sinensis 
32 Tetrapogon tenellus  
33 Dactyloctenium scindicum  

30
 Plot
Plot 9500 m Plot 5000 m Plot 2500 m comprised
far from the far from the far from the inside the
NO Other species Reserve Reserve Reserve Reserve
34 Euclasta condylotricha   
35 Cynodon dactylon  
36 Coelachyrum poiflorum 
37 Grewia tenax  
38 Amaranthus caudatus
39 Sporobolus nervosus  
40 Achyranthes aspera 
41 Ocimum basilicum   
42 Phyllanthus ovalifolius 
43 Echinochloa colona 
44 Dactyloctenium aegyptium 
45 Leucas stachydiformis  
46 Phyllanthus oblongiglans 
47 Amaranthus sparganiocephalus  
48 Parthenium hysterophorus 
49 Murdannia simplex  
50 Eriochloa fatmensis 
51 Aeschynomene abyssinica 
52 Rostraria cristata 
53 Celosia argentea
54 Meineckia phyllanthoides 
55 Polygala obtusissima
56 Kohautia grandiflora
57 Xanthium strumarium 
58 Heliotropium zeylanicum 
59 Brachiria deflexa 
60 Zaleya pentandra 
61 Tetrapogon cenchriformis 
62 Farsetia stenoptera 
63 Brachiaria leersioides 
64 Indigofera colutea 
65 Chloris gayana 
66 Grewia villosa 
67 Lantana camara 
68 Solanum somalense 
69 Solanum melastomoides 
31
 Plot
Plot 9500 m Plot 5000 m Plot 2500 m comprised
far from the far from the far from the inside the
NO Other species Reserve Reserve Reserve Reserve
70 Oreosyce africana 
71 Panicum atrosanguineum 
72 Celosia schweinfurthiana 
73 Prosopis juliflora    

4.2.2. Relation of P. juliflora and Setaria verticillata

Contrary to other plant species Setaria verticillata showed correlation relation with P. juliflora.
As relative frequency and abundance of P .juliflora increase at the same time relative frequancy
and abundance of Setaria verticillata increased.

Figure 7: Relative frequency and abundance of P. juliflora and Setaria verticillata

32
 4.3. Communities’ perception on P. juliflora invasion and impact
4.3.1. Socio-demographic characteristics

In total, 80 respondents from which 60 were interviewed from the community members and 20
from government and non-government offices. Out of these 87.5% were males while 12.5%
were females. From the community members of 66% the occupation was mainly livestock
rearing while 8.7% of them participate in charcoal and other small trade. A small proportion of
the respondents were below the age of 25 years with an overall mean age of 37.5 years and
mean household size was found to be eight (8).

Table 8: Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents

Characteristic Description Frequency Mean

Sex Female 10 12.50

n=80
Male 70 87.50
Age 16-24 12 15.00

25-34 18 22.50

35-44 20 25.00

>45 30 37.50
Occupation Livestock rearing 53 66.25
Trading 7 8.75
n=80 Government 20 25.00
employer
House hold size Mean house hold size 8.00
No. of camel owned None 20 25.00
1-10 11 13.75
11-20 15 18.75
Above 20 34 42.50
No. of cattle owned None 20 25.00
1-10 9 11.25
11-20 15 18.75
Above 20 35 43.75

33
 4.3.2. Introduction of P. juliflora and its disseminating agents

In the study area most of the respondents agreed that P. juliflora was observed in the area in
1970 while some suggested 1983 as a year when invasion was started. Higher proportion of the
respondent from local people stated that P. juliflora was introduced by an English person to
combat desertification. On the other hand, respondents from agricultural and FARM- Africa
offices believe that the Ministry of Agriculture introduced the species during the 1970‟s
indiscriminately to rehabilitate both degraded land and for its high quality pastures to serve as a
shade tree and wind break for plantations, and also for land reclamation. Regarding the
dissemination status of the species in to the Reserve, the survey results indicated that 87.5% of
the respondents put cattle dung, 6.25% flood, 3.75 % wind then 2.5 % human in decreasing
sequence as agent of introduction respectively.

Figure 8: Agents facilitating dissemination of P. juliflora in the study area

34
 4.3.3. Negative impacts of P. juliflora in the study community

The study assessed problems of P. juliflora and identified highly mentioned problems which
are: - reduction of grass lands and grazing lands, health impacts on human and animals,
decreasing biodiversity, invade settlement area, narrowing of footpath and roadside.
Respondents from local community bitter about the nature P. juliflora and they tried to express
its natures like tolerance of arid condition and impressiveness over other plant species as:-

“Whenever there is Dergahria (Prosopis juliflora), grasses will never grow Dergharia grows by avoiding
the growth of the others”. “It does not choose a place to grow, it grow even in concrete”. (Fig 5, A & B)

A B

Figure 9: (A): Picture showing that P. juliflora could grow in extreme adverse condition which could be
impossible to other plant species. (B) P. juliflora dominated areas it is impressive over other species.
(Photo by Selamnesh, 2014)

35
 4.3.4. Benefits of Prosopis juliflora

The socio economic survey identified the following data of uses of P. juliflora in study the area.
66.25 % of respondent‟s puts P. juliflora as harmful, 20% both beneficial and harmful and
13.75 % beneficial. A respondent from the local community totally agreed on its harmfulness
and respondents from agricultural and FARM-African office agreed on its both beneficial and
harmful.

Figure 10: Importance of Prosopis juliflora by respondent

4.3.5. Attitude of individuals about Reserve and affecting factors

The study also served to assess the attitude of the community about the benefit, protection and
factors which are affecting the reserve. Almost all of respondents agreed about the benefit of the
Reserve. But respondents from the local community explained the benefit with respect to their
livestock, it is the only place less invaded by P. juliflora hence it is their future hope for their
livestock grazing land.

36
Factors which are severely affecting the reserve, 66.25% of respondents put encroachment of P.
juliflora, 25% and 9 % of respondents put competition for grazing land and fire wood collection
consecutively.

The respondents have high willingness to protect the Reserve from the invasion of P. juliflora
like other part of the land and mentioned the need of external help as a solution for minimizing
the expansion. Respondents from Agricultural and other offices strongly mentioned immediate
action should have to be taken especially protect the Reserve from entrance of livestock.

Figure 11: Factors severely affecting the health of the Reserve

4.3.6. Methods used to control P. juliflora by the community

Even if the quantity varies, P. juliflora has been found in almost all parts of the study area. Even
though communities could not pull themselves out from the problems they have taken different
measures to secure their livelihoods due to the situation where sole dependency on pastoralism.
The study found out that (37.5%) of the respondents attempted to control P. juliflora spread in
their land by cutting and applying used motor oil to stumps. Both cutting and burning were the

37
next most commonly used techniques reported by 28.75. Burning and hand pulling were
reported by 17.5% and 16.25% of the respondents respectively.

Table 9: P. juliflora control measures practiced by pastoral households

Methods used to control Respondents practiced Respondents in %

control measures
Cutting 30
37.5

Both cutting and burning 23

28.75

Burning 14
17.5

Hand pulling 13
16.25

Respondent; I cut Dergahria (P. juliflora trees) from my homestead and burned it continuously and if he
/she stooped burning the stump starts to regenerate, so kept on burning it until it died and at this time
other specie start to grow .

Figure 12: Practiced measure taken by pastoral household to eradicate P. juliflora (This P. juliflora was
cut and scorched by fire) (Photo by Selamnesh, 2014)

38
CHAPTER FIVE

5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Discussion

5.1.1. Plant community types of the study area

In all observed communities, species with higher synoptic values are those easily observed
repeating themselves in associations. P. juliflora has with higher synoptic values and observed
repeating itself in associations. Community 1 named as Prosopis juliflora- Acacia nilotica but
there is a big difference in synoptic values between P. juliflora and other species belong to this
community. Plots included in Community 1 are those with high anthropogenic disturbances like
overgrazing, and this community covers 35% of plot size and plots in Community 4 have low
disturbance. Of the four community types, community 4 has highest species diversity and
richness with less synoptic values of P. juliflora. Contrary, Community 1 has low diversity and
richness with high synoptic values of P. juliflora. As we go from Community 4 to Community 1
synoptic values of P. juliflora increasing and diversity decreased (Table 6).

5.1.2. Assessing impact of Prosopis juliflora on plant species diversity and their
density
5.1.2.1. Impact of P. juliflora on density, diversity, richness and evenness of
other plant species

The relative density of P. juliflora decreased from outside towards the Reserve and that of other
species contrarily increased (Fig. 10). In areas where P. juliflora was dominant other species
diversity was very low, as comparative study conducted by Keblawy and Rawai (2007), had
also shown the relatively high density of P. juliflora was associated with fewer number of other
plant species. Low plant diversity and its high density indicated its high competitiveness and its
threat to other plant species in the area.

39
Within the Reserve the density of other species was high, which was, because the density of P.
juliflora is less. The number and frequency of other species decreased in plots having high
number of P. juliflora. A study on the impact of P. juliflora showed great depressing effect on
the number, density and frequency of the associated species, particularly on native vegetation
(Abdillahi et al., 2005).

The first fifteen plots were highly dominated by P. juliflora and forming bush. In this area the
probability of finding other species was very low. The last fifteen plots were less density of P.
juliflora. According to Singh et al. (2008), forage grass species have not been observed in P.
juliflora dominated lands, this is because P. juliflora starts branching closer to the ground and
high canopy closure resulted in interference with light and hence the death of under story
vegetation. Also this may be one of the reasons for low plant diversity observed under the P.
juliflora fields

Species richness increased and plots were more even in the Reserve means abundance of
species is less but when we go out from the reserve richness, evenness and diversity decreased
(Fig. 11). And greater evenness is considered to have greater species diversity. Also study
conducted by Singh et al. (2008) showed P. juliflora has a negative impact on plant diversity

5.1.2.2. Correlation of P. juliflora and Setaria verticillata

As the result showed, abundance and frequency of P. juliflora and Setaria verticilata almost
corresponded with each other (Fig 8). Setaria verticillata was recorded in areas where P.
juliflora was dominant. Abundance and frequency decreased at the same time when moving in
to the Reserve and increased towards the outside of the Reserve. This shows that there is
correlation between them. According to Samuel Getachew et al., (2012) P. juliflora contains
allelo-chemicals in its organ parts in various amounts and types. Leaves seem to have greater
inhibitory effects than roots and barks. The effect is also species specific. It could be the reason
why Setaria verticillata is found at higher density under canopy of P. juliflora than other plant
species. Also P. juliflora is able to improve the soil in which it is growing by means of
biological nitrogen fixation, leaf litter accumulation, nutrient pumping from deeper soil layers,

40
loosening of a hard soil structure, stabilizing of loose sands, and an increase of the fauna above
and below the ground (Kaushik and Kumar, 2003).

5.1.3. Socio-demographic and economic characteristics

From the result the majority of respondents are elders this is because they have knowledge and
close contact from the beginning about P. juliflora introduction. The community rely heavily on
livestock as their main source of livelihood (Table 2). Being a pastoral community, there is
heavy dependence on livestock and around 91% of Afar people in Ethiopia are estimated to be
herders (Tadesse Berhe and Yonas Adaye, 2007).

5.1.4. Assessing the introduction and disseminating agents of P. juliflora in the

study area

There is no precise written document why, when, where, and who introduced P. juliflora to the
study area. Different respondents had different perception regarding the origin and introduction
of the species into their environment. Peoples‟ perceptions of invasive species are determined
by whether the species meets their socio-economic needs (Pasiecznik, 2001). Elder respondents
believed that the aim of P. juliflora introduction in to their area was to combat desertification.
Contrary to that belief nowadays in the study area P. juliflora has been observed along
roadsides, bare lands, waterways, grasslands and settlement areas and it is expanding into the
Reserve. Also study by Rezene Fessahaie (2006), indicated that in contrary to its purpose of
introduction, the plant escaped out of control and has invaded farm lands, pasture lands, range
lands, irrigation schemes and caused several land use/ land cover changes.

From the results, cattle dung is the main disseminating agent of P. juliflora into the Reserve
(Fig. 11). The cattle feed on the pods (which is palatable and tasty) and the seeds were
distributing all over the places through their dung. According to Pasiecznik et al. (2001),
animals, both domestic and wild, feed on P. juliflora pods. These animals and flood water are
the major dispersal agents of P. juliflora. Moreover, birds, bats, reptiles and ants that feed on P.
juliflora pods are also expected to contribute for dispersal of the seeds

41
As shown by the socioeconomic data the community almost sole depend on livestock and this
forced them to have high number of livestock, but their pasture land has been invaded by P.
juliflora as a result of which they started to graze their livestock in the Reserve.

5.1.5. Assessing negative impacts of Prosopis juliflora in the study community

Problems associated with P. juliflora were assessed and all of the respondents indicated that P.
juliflora affects negatively their life in different ways. According to Anderson (2005), invasive
species are usually associated with economic, environmental and social losses in introduced
areas and the common problems are reduction of pasturelands, decline in crop yield, loss of
biodiversity, changing water flow, injuries and poisons to livestock and humans and the
formation of impenetrable thickets

All of the respondents claimed that the forage/fodder cover of grazing areas has been reduced in
the past fifteen to twenty years. Due to prolific growth and invasion of P. juliflora on communal
grazing lands that is located around the settlement area, which reduced the amount of pastures
available for local livestock. P. juliflora totally dominated settlement areas, and no grass is
found there and it grew in any kind of soil. It grows on concert, does not need favorable
condition (Fig 9, A &B). This result coincides with previous studies that reported P. juliflora
can grow in a variety of soil types including saline and alkaline areas in sandy and rocky soils
(Pacieezuick et al., 2001). Because of its deep rooting system that consumes much moisture as
well as shading under its thick canopies, P. juliflora discourages grass growth (Esther et al.,
2005). Because of little or no grass on communal land livestock are now more frequently driven
to pastures further in Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve because of this P. juliflora is spreading there
as well. Also a study in Kenya, Maundu et al. (2009), reported that pastoralists move away from
P. juliflora infested areas to seek pastures in distant areas including protected areas, such as
national parks and national reserves, thus spreading P. juliflora through animal droppings.

Killing, injuring and poisoning animals were other mentioned problems by respondents. The
hard seeds of P. juliflora lodge between gums and teeth, leading to inflammation; livestock jaws
are eventually disfigured. According to respondents this plant decreases the quality and quantity
of livestock causing diseases such as twisting of necks, wounds on their skins and hooves and
42
preventing their movement in searching of food and causing death. According to a comparative
study conducted by (Tabosa et al., 2006 ;Maundu et al.,2009),while showed goats and cattle
fed with diets containing 60-90 % and 50-75 % P. juliflora pods respectively suffered
mandibular tremors during chewing due to toxicity to neurons of certain cranial nerve nuclei
and neuronal lesions result in difficulties in chewing ; it subsequently causes animal death .

P. juliflora also injures humans due to strong and poisonous thorns which was cited as a major
problem by respondents. The thorn of P. juliflora causes inflammation when injuries occur. P.
juliflora thorn causes problems on humans ranging from minor infection to hospitalization and
even death in a few cases (Maundu et al., 2009), which confirms what has been observed by the
local people. According to respondents romanced the spines penetrate any type of shoes, and it
is difficult to walk even around their home since thorns cause serious inflammation that may
take a week to subside.

Moreover, most of respondents indicated the negative impacts of P. juliflora invasion on the
biodiversity. Several plant species such as Adado (Balanites aegyiptiaca),Kasalto (Acacia
nilotica) , Mederto (Cordia sinensis) and Acasia senegal, were frequently mentioned among the
indigenous trees, to have been affected by P. juliflora invasion and many useful grass species
that were once found in the area , including Durfu (Chrysopogon plumulosus) and Isisu
(Cymbopogon schoenan ), Malif (Andropogon canaliculatus are now on the verge of extinction.

Respondents also mentioned that P. juliflora invasion of settlement areas and footpaths were
mentioned as a major problem. P. juliflora invasion is very fast and it blocked key paths and
roads used by both humans and livestock, requiring longer walking times to get to a desired
destination similar problems were also faced in P. juliflora dominated areas elsewhere (Esther
and Brent, 2005).

5.1.6. Benefits of Prosopis juliflora

Prosopis juliflora has documented merits like improving soil fertility, controlling soil erosion,
stabilizing sand dunes, providing fuel wood and feed/forage for livestock, fencing and for
construction timber and furniture wood (Zeila et al., 2004; Esther and Brent, 2005). Despite
43
these facts, the proportion of respondents who put P. juliflora as harmful is high (Fig 10.), the
aggregate loss due to P. juliflora far outweighs its benefits for this reason local community
members in the study area can‟t realize even its little use and they are bitter about the
introduction of P. juliflora and they ended their comment by saying  it has no benefit”. This
may be because nothing is done to minimize the spread of the species by utilization it in this
area and very small proportion of respondents who participated in charcoal production and other
respondents from the Reserve and Agricultural offices mentioned some of its benefits as source
of wood for charcoal, local house construction, for fence construction and fuel wood.

5.1.7. Assessing the attitude of individuals about Reserve and affecting

factors

Perception of the community about the benefit of the Reserve vary, the local community
believed that because their communal land invaded by P. juliflora, the Reserve is as the reserve
area for their livestock. On the other hand, respondents from Agricultural and Reserve offices
believed it has economic, social and environmental benefits.

Higher proportion of respondents from local community put encroachment of P. juliflora is

severely affecting the Reserve. On the other hand, respondents from Agricultural and Reserve
offices indicated that nowadays encroachment of P. juliflora is not the major problem of the
Reserve but competition for grazing land is the most severe problem. This is because pastoral
land is highly invaded by P. juliflora and higher number of livestock grazes in the Reserve
further facilitating the spread of P. juliflora and aggravating the problem and also may even put
the sustainability of the Reserve under question mark.

5.1.8. Methods used to control P. juliflora by the community

Cutting and applying used motor oil to stumps which was reported by respondents as an
effective means to control its regeneration. The community of Alfora Kebele tried to remove P.
juliflora by cutting from parts of their area. They successfully cleared it but they could not
control livestock movement and P. juliflora has re-colonized the area. Burning is one of the
methods that have been frequently used by the local people to control the plant but they could

44
not solve the problem as indicated in a study conducted by Abiyot Berhanu and Getachew
Tesfaye (2006), which showed Burning of P. juliflora may kill very small seedlings but it
encourages the copying ability of big stems of P. juliflora. Therefore, it should not be
implemented for all ages of this plant. According to the respondents after cutting continuous
burning would help to discourage the growth of P. juliflora.

The study found out that nothing was done to control the spread of P. juliflora by utilization in
the area. However, experiences from America, Asia and Australia have shown that eradication
of P. juliflora species by the different methods, especially the mechanical and chemical ones are
highly expensive and mostly ineffective (HDRA, 2005). Hence, management strategies were
recommended to minimize the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the invasion and to
make use of species as a valuable resource to support rural livelihoods in the area and at the
same time, control the spread of Prosopis juliflora to new areas. For instance, charcoal
production and crushing pods for animal feed. P. juliflora is a good fodder for livestock during
drought seasons and has no adverse effect on animals if it is used together with other types of
forages (Alder, 1949; Zeraye Mehari, 2008). Utilization of P. juliflora tree for charcoal by
clearing the stumps is assumed to restore the land and become source of income generation for
the local people, and the collection and crushing of the pods will also prevent further spread of
the invasion to new locations. This method becomes so effective if and only if the charcoal
makers remove the plant at least 10cm below the ground (HDRA, 2005; Mwangi and Swallow,
2005).

45
 5.2. Conclusion

Thirty eight years after Prosopis juliflora was introduced into the rangelands of the Amibara
Wereda it has now well established along roadsides, bare lands, waterways, grasslands and
settlement areas and Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve. The present study showed that of P. juliflora
is a strong competitive bush with low beneficial traits for Afar pastoralists and the most
threatening factor hampering the livestock‟s and may be the sustainability of Alledeghi Wildlife
Reserve.

The study result indicated that the major income source for the communities of the study area
is livestock rearing and they have sole dependence on livestock, on the other hand P. juliflora
invaded their communal land. Less invaded area is Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve but nowadays
lack of grass on communal land of the communities forced them to graze their livestock in the
Reserve. As determined thought the study, the main disseminating agents for P. juliflora in
Alledeghi Wildlife Reserve include cattle dung, flood, wind and human.

The invasion of P. juliflora has affected the livelihood of the pastoral community in many ways.
Such as: by reducing pasture availability; invasion of settlement area; poisonous thorn for both
the people and their livestock and posing health hazard on livestock due to the pod; These
effects were found interacting to one another and have become complex to have magnified the
negatives of P. juliflora invasion against the pastoral livelihoods.

The study result indicated that P. juliflora affects the diversity, density and richness of other
species. Low plant diversity and its high density show it‟s highly competitiveness and
threatening other plant species in the area .When comparing plant diversity inside the Reserve ,
border and outside the Reserve, in the outside there is high anthropogenic disturbances
including overgrazing ,besides cattle are the main disseminating agents of P. juliflora and
peculiar features of this species such as tolerance of arid conditions and saline soils, fast
growing, nitrogen-fixing ,rooting abilities, coppicing abilities, ability to stay dormant for longer
time in a media (e.g soil) and germinating during favorable conditions, number of seeds/pod,
sweetness of pods, etc made it grow tremendously and to dominate the area .But inside the
Reserve the density of P. juliflora is less which favors to increase other species diversity. The
46
evidence from this study suggests that P. juliflora invaded parts of the study area, which are
under severe threat of disappearance of other plant species.

The dilemma on the benefit and adverse impact of P. juliflora can be solved by enhancing the
benefits and implementing proper management options. Complete eradication of P. juliflora is
virtually impossible at the current state of management options but it is possible to reduce
further spreading with proper and efficient utilization of the plant.

47
 5.3. Recommendations

In summary, it can be stated that Allidegi Wildlife Reserve is confronted with a serious threat of
habitat conversion due to expansion of P. juliflora problem. The impact of this would be far-
reaching from deterioration of the population of grazing wildlife to total habitat alteration. This
calls for taking appropriate management measures without a significant delay, and in light of
this the following recommendations are made.

- Hand clearing and uprooting of the plants from grazing lands, around the villages, and
from protected lands should be carried out individually or in group.
- Livestock introduction to the Reserve should be controlled so as to preventing further
invasion to new areas.
- The pastoralists should appreciate the system of control by utilization of P. juliflora
hence invasion can be reduced by using crushed pods as a fodder for livestock and
source of income from charcoal production.
- Methods like repeated burning and bush clearing avoiding the usage of mature plants for
fencing, otherwise by removing the ripe pods, should be employed to control the
invading woody species.
- Remove P. juliflora seedlings at the early stage (<1.5 yrs.) and/or apply prescribed fire
under controlled conditions.
- Avoid cutting the plant randomly as it has strong copying ability if proper management
such as repeated clearance is lacking.
- Further study needs to be conducted on the relation between P. juliflora and Setaria
verticillata.
- There is also a need for research on the detailed physiological mechanisms which makes
P. juliflora out-compete over other indigenous species.

48
REFERENCES

Abdillahi A., Aboud P., Kisoyan K. and Coppock D.L. (2005). Agro-pastoralists‟ wrath for the
P. juliflora Tree: The case of the II chamus of baringo district. pastoral risk
management project, Kenya.
Abiyot Berhanu and Getachew Tesfaye (2006). The Prosopis dilemma, Impacts on dry land
biodiversity and some controlling methods. Journal of the Dry lands 2: 158-164.
Alder A.E. (1949). Indigestion from unbalanced Kiawe (Mesquite) and bean diet. Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association 153: 263.
Almaz Kebede (2009). Sustaining the Allideghi grassland of Ethiopia: influence of pastoralism
and vegetation change. Phd Dissertations, Utah University.

Andersson S. (2005). Spread of the introduced tree species Prosopis (Sw.) C in the Lake
Baringo area, Kenya.

Asfaw Hunde and Thulin M. (1989). Mimosoideae. In: Hedberg, I. and Edwards, S. (eds.) Flora
of Ethiopia: Pittosporaceaeto Araliaceae, 3. Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa
and Uppsala University, Sweden.

Assis T.S., Medeiros R.M.T., Riet-Correa F., Galiza G.J.N Dantas A.F.M., Oliveira D.M.
(2010). Plant poisoning diagnosed in ruminants and horses and estimation of the
economical losses in Paraiba. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 30 (1): 13-20.

Belton.T. (2008), Management Strategy for Mexican Thorn (Prosopis juliflora) on Ascension
Island: SAIS Project, RSPB

Bokrezion H. (2008). The ecological and socio-economic role of Prosopis juliflora in Eritrea.
Academic Dissertation, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany. (PhD
report).
Burkhart A. (1976). A mongraph of the genus Prosopis (Leguminosae subfam. Mimosoideae).
(Part 1 and 2). Catalogue of the recognized species of Prosopis. Journal of the
Arnold Arboretum 57: 219-249 and 450-525.

49
Camara A.C.L., Costa N. de A., Riet Correa F., Afonso J.A.B., Dantas A.F.M., Mendonca C.L.
and Souza M.I. (2009). Spontaneous poisoning in cattle by mesquite beans,Prosopis
juliflora (Leg.Mimosoideae) in Pernambuco. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 29 (3): 233-240.

Chaturvedi A. N., Sharma S. C. Andsrivastava R. (1988). Water consumption and biomass

production of some forest tree species. International Tree Crops Journal 5: 71-76.

Cotton C.M. (1996): Ethnobotany: principles and applications. Wiley, J and Sons (eds.)
Chichester, New York: 399.
Dubale Aadmasu. (2008). Invasive Plants and Food Security: the case of Prosopis juliflora in
the Afar region of Ethiopia (Publication, from IUCN.
Duke J.A. (1983). P. juliflora DC. Handbook of energy crops, Unpublished.

EARO and HADRA (2005). Controlling the spread of Prosopis in Ethiopia by its utilisation.
Addis Ababa: Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) and Henry Doubleday
Research Association (HADRA).

EL-Keblawy A. and AL-Rawai A. (2007). Impacts of the invasive exotic Prosopis juliflora
(Sw.) DC. on the native flora and soils of the UAE. Plant Ecol. 190: 23-35.

Esther M. and Brent, S. (2005). Invasion of Prosopis juliflora and local livelihoods: Case study
from the lake Baringo area of Kenya,: World Agroforestry Center: ICRAF Working
paper 3. Nairobi: 66.

Fanuel Kebede (2012). Ecology and Community Based Conservation of the Grevy‟s Zebra
(Equus grevyi) and the African Wild Ass (Equus africanus) in the Afar Region,
Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa: 203.
FAO (2010). Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. FAO.

Felker P., Cannell G. H., Osborn J. F., Clark P. R. and Nash P. (1983). Effects of irrigation on
biomass production of 32 Prosopis (mesquite) accessions. Experimental Agriculture
19:187-198.

GISP (2004). Africa invaded: The growing danger of invasive alien species. Global invasive
species program, Cape Town.
50
Gohl B. (1982). Les aliments du betail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de production etsanté
animale, Roma, Italy.

Gordon D. R. (1998). Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes:

lessons from Florida. Ecol. Appl. 8: 975-89.

Hailu Shiferaw, Demel Teketaye., Sileshi Nemomissa and Fassil Assefa. (2004). Some
biological characteristics that foster the invasion of Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. at
Middle Awash Rift Valley Area, north-eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid
environments 58:134-153.

HDRA (2005). Realistic approaches to the management of Prosopis species in South Africa:
Policy brief.

Heuze V., Tran G., Boval M., Renaudeau D., 2015. Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora). Feedipedia, a
programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/554

Hillman J.C. (1993). A wildlife compendium for Ethiopia. Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation
Organization (EWCO), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 786.
Hobbs R. J. and Mooney H. A. (1986). Community changes following shrub invasion of
grassland Oecologica 70: 508-513.

Kahi C.H., Ngugi R.K., Mureithi S.M., Ng‟ethe J.C., (2009). The Canopy Effects Of Prosopis
Juliflora (Dc.) And Acacia Tortilis(Hayne) Trees On Herbaceous Plants Species
And Soilphysico-Chemical Properties In Njemps Flats, Kenya Tropical And
Subtropical Agroecosystems, 441 – 449.

Kaushik N. and Kumar V. (2003). Khejri (Prosopis cineraria)-based agroforestry system for
arid Haryana, India. Journal of Arid Environments.
Kent, M. and Coker, P. (1992). Vegetation Discription and Analysis: A Practical Approach.
John Willey and Sons. CRC Press, USA and Belhaven Press, London.
Lehouerou, H. (1980). Agroforestry Techniques for Conservation and Improvement of soil
fertility in Arid and Semi-arid Zones.

51
Lima P. C. F. (1994) .Comportamento silvicultural de especies de Prosopis, em Petrolina-PE,
Região Semi-Arida Brasileira. PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Parana, Brazil.
Martin G.J. (1995): Ethnobotany: method manual. World wide fund for nature, chapman and
hall, London: 268.
Maundu. P , Kibet.S , Morimoto.Y , Imbumi.M & Adeka.R (2009) Impact of Prosopis
juliflora on Kenya's semi-arid and arid ecosystems and local livelihoods,
Biodiversity, 10:2-3, 33-50, DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2009.9712842
Mooney H.A., Simpson B.B. and Solbrig O.T. (1977). Phenology, morphology, physiology. In:
Mesquite, Its biology in two desert ecosystems. (Ed.)B. B. Simpson. Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, USA: 26-43.
Mwangi E. and Swallow B. (2005). Invasion of Prosopis and local livelihoods: Case study from
the lake Baringo area of Kenya. ICRAF Working Paper 3. Nairobi, World
Agroforestry Centre.
Nabori.L.C., Saaya.O.J., Nashuru.C., Kakimon.W., Tamar.E., Lemeiguran.R.N., Meiguran.L.S.,
Kakimon.L.S., Lengiyaa.S.S. (2007). Kenya law, in the high court of Kenya At
nairobi (nairobi law courts), Petition 466; 34.
NMSA (2014): National Meteorological Service Agency, ten years mimeographed weather
report, Addis Ababa.
Noor M., Salam U., and Khan M.A. (1995). Allopathic effects of Prosopis juliflora (Swartz). J
Arid Environ. 31: 83–90.

Panchal Y. C. and Shetty P. (1977). Chemical control of Prosopis juliflora (Sw) DC. Paper No.
153. Program and abstracts of papers, weed science conference, Delhi, India.

Pasicznik, NM., PJC, Harris & SJ, Smith. (2004). Tropical Prosopis Species: A Feld Guide.
HDRA, Coventry, UK. ISBN 0 905343 34 4. Kenilworth, UK: HDRA.

Pasiecznik N. M., Felker P., Harris P. J. C., Harsh L. N., Cruz G., Tewari J. C., Cadorer K., and
Maldonado L.J. (2001). The Prosopis juliflora-Prosopis Pallida Complex: A
Monograph. HADRA, Coventry: 172.

R Core Development Team (2013).http://www.cran.r- project.org/bin/windows/base/old/3.0.2.

52
Research Programme. HDRA – the organic organisation. Funded and published by DFID: 162.

Rezene Fessehaie (2006). Challenges and potential of P. juliflora. In: Alien invasive weed and
insect pest: Management and control option (Rezene Fessehaie, Aberra
Tekelemariam, Kemal Ali Mohammed Dawd and Seid Ahemed, eds.). Second
National Workshop on Alien Invasive Weeds and Insect Pest: 53-63.
Samuel Getachew, Sebsebe Demissew and Tadesse Woldemariam (2012). Allelopathic effects
of the invasive prosopis juliflora (sw.) dc. on selected native plant species in middle
awash, southern afar rift of Ethiopia. Management of Biological Invasions 3 (2):
105–114.
Sawal R. K., Ratan R., Yadav S.B.S. (2004). Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) pods as a feed
resource for livestock - A review. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 17 (5): 719-725.
Scoones I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods. A framework for analysis, IDS Working
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Paper 72: 22.
Shackleton C.M., McGarry D., Fourie S., Gambiza J., Shackleton S.E. and Fabricius C. (2006).
Assessing the effects of invasive alien species on rural livelihoods: Caseexample and
a framework from South Africa. Human ecology an interdisciplinary Journal.
Silva A. M. M., Silva, A. R., Pinheiro A.M., Freitas S.R.V.B., Silva V.D.A., Souza C.S.,
Hughes J.B., El-Bacha R.S., Costa M.F.D., Velozo E.S., Tardy M., Costa S.L.,
(2007). Alkaloids from Prosopis juliflora leaves induce glial activation, cytotoxicity
and simulate NO production. Toxicon 49 (5): 601-614.
Singh G. Rathod T.R., Mutha S., Upadhyaya S.and Bala N. (2008). Impact of different tree
species canopy on diversity and production of under storey vegetation in Indian
desert. Tropical Ecology 49 (1): 13–23.
Tabosa I. M., Riet-Correa F., Baross S. S., Summers B. A., Simoes S. V., Medeiros R. M. T.
and Nobre V.M.T. (2006). Neurohistologic and ultrastructural lesions in cattle
experimentally intoxicated with the plant Prosopis juliflora. Vet pathol 43: 695-701.
Tabosa I. M., Souza J. C., Graca D. L., Barbosa-Filho J. M., Almeida R. N., Rie Correa F.
(2000). Neuronal vacuolation of the trigeminal nuclei in goats caused by ingestion of
Prosopis juliflora pods. Vet. Hum. Toxic. 42 (3): 155-158.

53
Tadesse Berhe. and Yonas Adaye. (2007). Afar: The impact of local conflict on regional
stability Pretoria: Institute for security studies: 16.
USFS (2006). Technical Trip Report to EFDR Government.
Van der Maarel (2005). Vegetation Ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Padstow, UK.
Werer Agricultural Research Centre (WARC). 2003. Annual Report 2003/04. WARC, Werer,
Ethiopia.
Wittenberg R. and Cock M.J.W. (2001). Invasive alien species. How to address one of the
greatest threats to biodiversity: A toolkit of best prevention and Management
practices. CAB International, Wallingford.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) (1991). Biodiversity guide to Ethiopia.A
report for the commission of the European Communities, Cambridge.
Zainal A.S., Abdel-Rahim A.M., Abu-Ali R.M., and Radwan S.S. (1988). Antimicrobial
substance(s) in the leaf litter of the xerophyte Prosopis juliflora. Zentralblatt Fur
Mikrobiologie 143: 375-381.
Zeila A. A., Mwangi E., and Swallew B. (2004). Prosopis juliflora: Boon or bane for dryland
agroforestry? A quarterly publication of Eastern and Central Africa Region of the
World Agroforestry Center 1.
Zeray Mehari (2008). Invasion of Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC and rural livelihoods. The Case
of Afar pastoralists at middle Awash area of Ethiopia.MSc. Thesis, Norwegian
University of Life Science, Oslo.
Zerihun Woldu (2012), Environmental and Ecological Data Analysis Basic, Concepts and
Methods. Lambert Academic Publishing.

54
APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Questionnaire

Semi-structured interview concerning Prosopis juliflora in Allideghi wildlife Reserve, Ethiopia.

This questionnaire is prepared to access information for M.Sc. thesis entitled “impact of
Prosopis Juliflora L. (Fabaceae) on Plant Biodiversity and Surrounding Communities: The case
of Allideghi Reserve. The objective of this study is only for research purpose for partial
fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science.

1. Personal information

Age  Sex  Occupation ............... family size 

1.1. If your occupation is farmer what kinds of crops are you cultivated

1.2. If you are cattle rancher no of cattle and goats?

2. What is history of vegetation change looks like in the Reserve from the very beginning

you know?

3. Which of the following factors severely affect the health of the Reserve?

Fire wood collection  - Settlement - Agricultural – encroachment of P. juliflora

Others-

If others, list them............................

If possible try to put from the most severe factor to less one?

4. Is the area where you are living in is the Reserve area?

Yes  No 

If yes, is it being expanding or limited?

5. Is there cultivation activity inside or around the Reserve?

55
 Yes  No 

If yes, is it expanding or halted?

6. Is there any livestock introduction to the Reserve?

Yes  No 

6.1. If yes, could you guess the number and trend being increasing and decreasing?

from time to time?

6.2. What is its intensity from past to present?

6.3. Are the domestic animals mainly grazers or browsers?

7. What types of plant is dominant in the Reserve?

8. Is there grazing land problem for your livestock? Why?

Yes  No 

If yes, what are the reasons........................?

8.1. Do you think that the grazing land in the Reserve is enough for both livestock and

wild animals?

8.2. Don‟t you think that there is a sort of competition b/n the two?

9. Have you ever noticed the plant species disappeared due to the effect of Prosopis juliflora

Yes  No 

If yes, mention them.........................

10. What is the local name of P. juliflora?

11. When was P. juliflora introduced? By who and for what purpose? Do you have

any records of this? Please share with us.

56
12. Please describe the habitat in which much of this species is found, and why you think

this is so.

13. What are the advantage (benefit) and disadvantage of this species?

14. What are the possible causes of the spread of prosopis juliflora in the Reserve?

15. What impacts do these species have on the Reserve?

16. Among the following which one do you think is the most common dispersal mechanism of
encroaching species?

Wind  Animals  Humans  Others 

If possible try to put from the most to less common?

17. What are the problems faced by the grazing animals due to encroaching species?

18. Is there a change in plant species composition due to Prosopis juliflora in the Reserve?

Yes  No 

If yes, what it looks like.........................

19. Has the density/cover of the ground cover around Prosopis juliflora i.e. grasses and

forbs increased or decreased in the past 5-10 years?

20. What are the most serious problems you are facing with this species today? Please

quantify any losses.

21. How did it come to be there? Was it planted? By whom? When? Why? Were you involved?

22. What are your main sources of income? How has the increase/decrease in P. juliflora

affected this income? Please quantify.

23. Has the incidence of P. juliflora affected the availability of other resources that you

57
 Have been using? How?

24. What would you like to be done with regard to the P. juliflora problem?

25. Who do you think should do it? Why?

26. What is you‟re feeling about the importance of the Reserve?

27. What is the benefit you obtain from the Reserve?

28. Is there any eradication mechanism to these encroaching woody species?

Yes  No 

If yes, list them.....................

29. What are the possible mechanisms to prevent the spread of P. juliflora in the Reserve?

30. What do you say about the present status of the reserve regarding encroachment?

31. What should be done to manage good manifestations of the Reserve?

Thank you!!!

58
 Appendix 2 Synoptic Table

Species Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Abutilon figarianum 0.09 2.37 0.91 2.10
Acacia melifera 0.09 0.12 0.41 0.26
Acacia nilotica 0.42 2.62 0.16 0.05
Acacia oerfota 0.04 0.12 0.08 1.20
Acacia Senegal 0 0.25 0.08 1.40
Acacia tortilis 0.14 0.25 1.25 0.40
Achyranthes aspera 0 0 0 0.94
Aeschynomene abyssinica 0 0 0 0.15
Amaranthus caudatus 0 0 0 0.15
Amaranthus sparganiocephalus 0 0.62 0.16 0.15
Balantis aegyptiaca 0.09 0 0 0.36
Balaria proxima 0 0 0 0.05
Blepharis boranensis 0 0.12 0.75 4.20
Boerhavia repens 0 0 0 0.10
Brachiaria leersioides 0 0 0 0.21
Brachiria deflexa 0 0 0 0.89
Cadaba rotundifolia 0 0.25 0 1.68
Celosia argentea 0 1.00 0 0
Celosia schweinfurthiana 0 0 0 0.15
Chloris gayana 0 0 0 0.10
Chrysopogon plumulosus 0.04 0.25 1.66 3.10
Coeuchyrum poiflorum 0 0 0 0.47
Cordia sinensis 0 0 0 0.21
Crotalaria pycnostachya 0 2.62 0.08 0
Cynodon dactylon 0 0 0 0.21
Dactyloctenium aegyptium 0 0 0.33 0
Dactyloctenium geminatum 0 0 0 0.15

59
Dactyloctenium scindicum 0 1.12 0 1.00
Echinochloa colona 0 0 0 1.00
Eragrostis aspera 0 0 0.33 0.89
Eriochloa fatmensis 0 4.50 0 0.21
Euclasta condylotricha 0 0.50 0 0.89
Farsetia stenoptera 0 0 0 0.15
Grewia tenax 0 0 0 0.05
Grewia villosa 0 0 0 0.73
Heliotropium zeylanicum 0 0.12 0 0.47
Hibiscus macranthus 0 0 0.08 0.21
Indigofera colutea 0 0 0 0.15
Ipomoea sinensis 0.09 0.87 2.60 0.84
Justicia.caerulea 0 2.75 2.50 1.26
Kedrostis leloja 0 0 0.08 0
Kohautia grandiflora 0 0.62 0 0
Lantana camara 0 0 0 0.05
Leucas stachydiformis 0 1.87 0.08 0
Meineckia phyllanthoides 0 0.75 0 0
Murdannia simplex 0 0.25 0 0.05
Ocimum basilicum 0 0.62 0.16 0.21
Ocimum forskolei 0.14 1.25 2.16 1.70
Oreosyce africana 0 0 0.50 0
Panicum atrosanguineum 0 0 0.08 0
Parthenium hysterophorus 0 0 0.25 0
Paspalidium geminatum 0 0 1.00 1.26
Phyllanthus oblongiglans 0 0 0.08 0
Phyllanthus ovalifolius 0 0 0.08 0.15
Polygala obtusissima 0 0.25 0 0
Prosopis juliflora 8.76 2.87 4.80 0.47

60
Rostraria.cristata 0 1.62 0 0
Ruellia patula 0.09 1.12 0.08 1.05
Setaria verticillata 0 0 6.75 1.21
Seddera bagshawei 0 0 0.16 0.57
Solanum dennekense 0.23 0.62 3.50 0.21
Solanum melastomoides 0 0 0 0.21
Solanum somalense 0 0 0 0.47
Sporobolus festivus 0 0.12 0.25 1.42
Sporobolus iodados 0 0 0.50 0
Sporobolus nervosus 0 0 0 1.70
Tephrosia linearis 0 1.00 0.08 1.10
Tetrapogon cenchriformis 0 0.62 0 1.10
Tetrapogon tenellus 0 0 0 2.20
Tragus berteronianus 0.14 0.62 1.00 2.30
Tribulus cistoides 0 1.50 0.50 2.50
Urochloa trichopus 0 0 0.25 1.57
Xanthium strumarium 0 4.62 0 0
Zaleya pentandra 0 0 0 0.05

61
 Appendix 3: List of plant species in the study area

No Scientific name Family Growth habit Collection

code

1 Tragus berteronianus Schult. Poaceae Grass S1

2 Paspalidium geminatum (Forssk) Poaceae Grass S2

3 Eriochloa fatmensis (Hochst. & Steud.) W. D. Clayton Poaceae Grass S3

4 Echinochloa colona (L.) Li n k Poaceae Grass S4

5 Brachiaria leersioides (Hochst.) Stapf Poaceae Grass S5

6 Urochloa trichopus (Hochat.) Stapf Poaceae Grass S6

7 Brachiria deflexa (Schumach.) Robyns Poaceae Grass S7

8 Panicum atrosanguineum A. Rich. Poaceae Grass S8

9 Euclasta condylotricha (Hochst. ex St eud.) Stapf Poaceae Grass S9

10 Tetrapogon tenellus (Roxb.) Chiov. Poaceae Grass S10

11 Tetrapogon cenchriformis. (A .Rich.) Clayton Poaceae Grass S11

12 Chloris gayana Kunth Poaceae Grass S12

13 Lintonia nutans Stapf Poaceae Grass S13

14 Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Vign. ex Janchen Poaceae Grass S14

17 Eragrostis aspera (Jacq.) Nees Poaceae Grass S15

18 Eriochloa fatmensis (Hochst. & Steud.) W.D. Clayton Poaceae Grass S16

19 Setaria verticillata (L.) P. Beauv. Poaceae Grass S17

20 Sporobolus iodados (Trin.) Nees Poaceae Grass S18

21 Rostraria cristata ( L. ) Tzvel ev Poaceae Grass S19

22 Dactyloctenium scindicum Boiss. Poaceae Grass S20

23 Dactyloctenium geminatum Hack. Poaceae Grass S21

62
24 Dactyloctenium aegyptium. (L.) Willd. Poaceae Grass S22

25 Chrysopogon plumiilosus Hochst. Poaceae Grass S23

26 Chloris pycnothrix Trin. Poaceae Grass S24

27 Tetrapogon. Cenchriformis (A.Rich.) Clayton Poaceae Grass S25

28 Sporobolus nervosus Hoehst Poaceae Grass S26

29 Sporobolus festivus Hochst. ex A. Rich. Poaceae Grass S27

30 Paspalidium geminatum (Forssk.) Stapf Poaceae Grass S28

31 Coeuchyrum poiflorum Chiov. Poaceae Grass S29

32 Urocbloa Trichopus (Hochat.) Stapf Poaceae Grass S30

33 Justicia ladanoides Lam . Acantaceae Herb S31

34 Blepharis boranensis vollesen Acantaceae Herb S32

35 Dicliptera verticillata Acanthaceae Herb S33

36 Balaria proxima Acanthaceae Shrub B3

37 Justicia caerulea Forssk. Acanthaceae Herb S34

38 Ruellia patula Jacq . Acanthaceae Herb S35

39 Crotalaria pycnostachya Benth. Fabaceae Herb S36

40 Aeschynomene abyssinica (A. Rich.) Vatke Fabaceae Herb S37

41 Tephrosia linearis (Willd.) Pen. Fabaceae Herb S38

42 Acacia tortilis (Forssk.) Bayne Fabaceae Tree S39

43 Acacia melifera (Vahl ) Benth. Fabaceae Tree S40

44 Acacia senegal ( L) Willd. Fabaceae Tree S41

45 Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Del. Fabaceae Tree S42

46 Acacia oerfota (Forssk.) Schweinf. Fabaceae Tree S43

63
47 Indigofera colutea (Burm. f ) Merr. Fabaceae Tree S44

48 Prosopis Juliflora (Sw.)'DC. Fabaceae Tree/Shrub S45

49 Cadaba rotundifolia Forssk. Capparidaceae S46

50 Dobera glabra (Forssk.) Poir. Salvadoraceae Tree S47

51 Balantis aegyptiaca ( L. ) Del. Balanitaceae Tree S48

52 Cordia sinensis Lam. Boraginacea Tree S49

53 Ipomoea sinensis Choisy convolvulaceae Herb S50

54 Ipomoea aquatica . forssk. convolvulaceae Herb S51

55 Seddera bagashawei Rendle convolvulaceae Shrub S52

56 Oreosyce Africana Forssk. Cucurbitaceae Climbing herb B2

57 Kedrostis leloja (forssk.) C. Jeffrey Cucurbitaceae Climbing herb S53

58 Cucumis ficifolius . A. Rich. cucurbitaceae Herb S54

59 Leucas stachydiformis (Hochst. ex Benth.) Briq. Lamiaceae Herb S55

60 Ocimum forskolei Benth. Lamiaceae Herb S56

61 Ocimum basilicum. L. Lamiaceae Herb S57

62 Murdannia simplex (Vahl) Brenan Commelinaceae Herb S58

63 Phyllanthus ovalifolius Forssk. Euphorbeacea Shrub S59

64 Meineckia phyllanthoides Bail. Euphorbiaceae Herb S60

65 Phyllanthus oblongiglans M Gilbert Euphorbiaceae Herb S61

66 Hibiscus macranthus Hochst. exA. Rich. Malvaceae Shrub S62

67 Abutilon figarianum Webb Malvaceae Shrub S63

68 Tribulus cistoides L. Zygophyllaceae Herb S64

69 Grewia tenax (Forssk.) Fiori Tilliaceae Shrub S65

64
70 Grewia villosa Willd. Tilliaceae Shrub S66

71 Heliotropium zeylanicum (Bur m f.) Lam. boraginaceae Herb S67

72 Lantana camara L. Verbenaceae Shrub S68

73 Solanum dennekense Dammer Solanaceae Shrub S69

74 Solanum somalense Franchet . Solanaceae Shrub S70

75 Solanum melastomoides c.u. Wright Solanaceae Shrub S71

76 Conyza aegyptiaca (L.) Dry and ex Ait. Asteraceae Herb S72

77 Xanthium strumarium L. Asteracea Shrub S73

78 Achyranthes aspera L. Amaranthaceae Herb S74

79 Celosia schweinfurthiana Schinz Amaranthaceae Herb S75

80 Pupalia lappaceae (L.) A. Juss. Amarantaceae Herb S76

81 Amaranthus sparganiocephalus TheIl. Amarantaceae Herb S77

82 Celosia. argentea L. Amaranthaceae Herb S78

83 Amaranthus caudatus L. Amaranthaceae Herb S79

84 Zaleya pentandra (L.) Jeffrey Aizoaceae Herb S80

85 Kohautia grandiflora DC. Rubiaceae Herb S81

86 Farsetia stnoptera Hochst. Brassicaceae Herb S82

87 Boerhavia repens L. Nyctoginaceae Herb S83

88 Polygala obtusissima Chod. Polygonaceae Herb S84

89 Parthenium hysterophorus L. Asteraceae Herb B1

65
Declaration

I, the undersigned declare that this Thesis is my original work and it has not been presented in
other universities, colleges or institutes for a degree or other purpose. All sources of the
materials used have been duly acknowledged.

Name: Selamnesh Tesfaye Signature: ______________ Date: ____________

This work has been done under my supervision.

Name: _________________________ Signature: _________________ Date: __________

_________________________ Signature: _________________ Date: __________

66