ORIGINAL PAPER

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plantrelations in northwestern Ethiopia

Morgan L. Ruelle1,2 & Karim-Aly Kassam1,3& Stephen J. Morreale1

& Zemede Asfaw4& Alison G. Power2 &

Timothy J. Fahey1

Received: 9 March 2018 /Accepted: 4 January 2019 /Published online: 7 February 2019# International Society for Plant Pathology and Springer Nature B.V. 2019

AbstractBased on a case study in the Debark District of northwestern Ethiopia, this article investigates how biocultural diversity providesoptions for food sovereignty. Following a series of semi-structured interviews with 30 farming families in 28 villages, wedescribe farmers’ relations with plants, including 1) consumption, 2) exchange, 3) use within food system activities, 4) otherbenefits, and 5) negative impacts to the food system. Farmers identified 123 plants that play a role within their food system.Although the total number of useful plants is highest for non-domesticated and woody species, the average family named moredomesticated and herbaceous species. Non-domesticated plants are rarely consumed as food or sold at the local market; however,they play important roles in other food system activities. We introduce a new Substitutability Index to estimate the number ofplants available for specific purposes within categories of use and identify strengths and potential vulnerabilities of the Debarkfood system.We conclude that programs and policies to expand farmers’ relations with plant diversity, by promoting useful semi-and non-domesticated species and facilitating knowledge exchange among communities, could expand options for food sover-eignty as a path toward long-term food security.

Keywords Amhara Regional State . Ethnobotany . Human ecology . Smallholder farmers . Substitutability

1 Introduction

Food sovereignty can be described as the right and ability ofcommunities and nations to achieve long-term food securityby determining their own food systems (Patel 2009). Theglobal food sovereignty movement arose in response to neo-liberal trade policies that facilitate the industrialization andglobalization of food systems (Edelman 2013; Wittman et al.2010). Many scholars regard food sovereignty as ideological,

and much research has focused on its political economic di-mensions (e.g. Holt Giménez and Shattuck 2011; McMichael2010; Walsh-Dilley et al. 2016). However, food sovereigntyalso raises pragmatic questions that should be answered withscientific research (Coté 2016; Ruelle et al. 2011). For exam-ple, food sovereignty advocates propose that the ability ofcommunities and nations to determine their own food systemsis enhanced by a combination of biological and cultural diver-sity (e.g. Altieri 2009; La Via Campesina 1996, 2008). Thisway of thinkingmotivated our case study, which focuses on animportant aspect of biocultural diversity - human relationswith plants - to understand how diversity provides optionsfor food sovereignty.

From an ecological perspective, food systems are com-prised of relations between humans, plants, animals, mi-crobes, and the abiotic components of ecosystems. The signif-icance of each organism arises not from a property containedwithin itself, but in its relation to other plants and animals,including human beings (Kassam 2009). By interacting withand learning about other species, humans develop ecologicalrelations that provide alternatives for their food systems indynamic environments. Furthermore, heterogeneity of

* Morgan L. Ruellemruelle@clarku.edu

1 Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY,USA

2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY, USA

3 American Indian and Indigenous Studies Program, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, NY, USA

4 Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, AddisAbaba University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Food Security (2019) 11:183–199https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00888-0

experience among community members gives rise to differ-ences in the ways that individuals relate to biodiversity,expanding the array of options for a range of conditions(Ruelle and Kassam 2011).

By recent estimates, up to 80% of the world’s food isproduced by smallholder farmers (FAO 2014) who areencountering increasing levels of uncertainty due to po-litical instability, market volatility, and climatic variabil-ity (Cooper et al. 2008; Skjeflo 2013; Thornton et al.2014). To anticipate and adapt to these varied chal-lenges, farmers need an array of options, including abroader diversity of plants for their food systems(Frison et al. 2011; Lin 2011). However, many small-holders face pressures from government policies, devel-opment programs, and market forces to commit theirlimited land and labor to fewer crop varieties, and arecompelled to abandon traditional germplasm adapted tothe unique conditions of their fields and pastures(Abbott 2005; Altieri 2009; Thrupp 2000). In addition,the push to increase crop production induces farmingcommunit ies to el iminate the habi tats of non-domesticated plants, many of which are used withinthe food system or contribute to other agroecosystemprocesses (Bharucha and Pretty 2010). Declining biodi-versity in agricultural landscapes could lead to irrevers-ible loss of associated ecological knowledge, underminethe adaptive ingenuity of smallholder farmers, and posea serious threat to the stability and sustainability oflocal food systems as well as global food supplies(Mburu et al. 2016; Zimmerer and de Haan 2017).

Ethiopia is a center of botanic diversity, home to atleast 6000 indigenous vascular plant species, of whichapproximately 10% are endemic (Kelbessa andDemissew 2014). The country has long been recognizedas a center of origin and secondary center of diversityfor numerous food crops of global significance (Harlan1969; Vavilov 1951). Approximately 85% of Ethiopiansare engaged in agriculture, mostly as smallholderfarmers (Conway and Schipper 2011). Currently,Ethiopia is experiencing rapid economic growth, drivenin large part by improvements to transportation andcommunication networks that facilitate access to nation-al and international markets. These changes offer manynew opportunities for Ethiopia’s farming communities.On the other hand, as they gain access to national andinternational markets, farmers are likely to focus theirefforts on fewer crop varieties with high market valuesand eliminate important ecological spaces, including for-ests, fallow lands, and field margins that are habitats foruseful non-domesticated species. There is concern thatthe loss of biodiversity from Ethiopia’s agriculturallandscapes could diminish the ability of farming com-munities to adapt to change (Ambalam 2014).

Through a case study of farming communities in theDebark District of northwestern Ethiopia, this article ad-dresses three questions about farmers’ relations withplants and how they provide options for food sovereign-ty. First, what are the roles of domesticated and non-domesticated plants, both woody and herbaceous spe-cies, in Debark’s food system? In this context, we con-sider five major categories, including 1) consumption,2) exchange, 3) use within other food system activities,4) other agroecological benefits, and 5) negative impactson the food system (Fig. 1). Second, how do farmers’relations with plants differ within communities? UsingWhittaker’s (1960) concepts of alpha, beta, and gammadiversity, we measure the distribution of knowledgeamong households and identify opportunities for knowl-edge exchange. Third, how many plants are available tofarming families that could be used interchangeably forthe same purposes? To assess this, we introduce a newSubstitutability Index that estimates the number ofplants available for the specific uses within each cate-gory. Overall, our analyses identify strengths and poten-tial vulnerabilities in Debark’s food system and serve asa basis to recommend policies and programs to expandoptions for food sovereignty among smallholder farmersfacing rapid change and increasing uncertainty.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Research context

The Debark District is located on the western slopes oft he Semien Moun t a i n s i n t he Nor th Gonde rAdministrative Zone of Amhara Regional State, north-western Ethiopia (Fig. 2). In terms of climatic condi-tions, Debark represents an agroecological zone de-scribed as ‘cool, moist mid-highlands’ (MOARD 2005)found throughout Amhara and parts of Oromia RegionalStates. Our study encompasses 201 km2 in six ruralsub-districts (KEBELES) between 2600 and 3000 m abovesea level. Average monthly temperatures range betweennighttime lows of 2.3 °C in December, and daytimehighs of 23.6 °C in April (WorldClim 2015). Annualrainfall within the study area is highly variable, rangingbetween 600 and 1200 mm per year, following aunimodal distribution, where 90% of the precipitationfalls between mid-May and mid-October (FEWS-NET2014). Soils within the study area are dominated byNitosols (55%), Leptosols (30%), Cambisols (10%) andVertisols (6%) (WLRC 2015). According to the mostrecent national census, the population of the DebarkDistrict is approximately 160,000 individuals, of whom87% live in rural areas of the District and the remaining

184 Ruelle M.L. et al.

13% live within Debark town. Almost all Debark resi-dents speak Amharic as their mother tongue (FDRE-PCC 2008).

The agricultural landscape surrounding Debark is typ-ical of the northern Ethiopian highlands, characterizedby rolling hills and river valleys used for mixed cropand livestock production (Fig. 3). Most land is devotedto rainfed annual field crops, including cereals, legumes,and oilseeds. In irrigated areas along rivers and in gar-dens close to homesteads, farming families plant addi-tional grains, as well as root and vegetable crops. Mosthome gardens include small orchards planted with bothindigenous and introduced trees and shrubs. Grazingareas are concentrated alongside watercourses and otherlow-lying areas. Although the potential vegetation of thestudy area is dry Afromontane forest dominated byJuniperus procera (Friis et al. 2011), most of these for-ests were long ago cleared for agriculture. Indigenoustrees are found around homesteads, in some communalgrazing lands, and in the sacred spaces surroundingEthiopian Orthodox churches (Ruelle et al. 2018).Otherwise, woody vegeta t ion is dominated byEucalyptus globulus, which was introduced to Debarkin the 1940s and is widely planted along roadsides,field boundaries, and as small plantations (Tefera et al.2014).

2.2 Data collection

A series of interviews were conducted with 30 farmingfamilies in 28 villages between July 2011 andMay 2013. Villages and families were selected usingpurposive sampling to represent the spatial extent andaltitudinal range of the study area. Free and informed

oral consent was obtained from participating individualsprior to each interview. Interviews took place in thefront yard or main room of farmers’ homes, or else infields or home gardens where farmers were workingwith plants. Interviews were conducted in Amharic, si-multaneously translated, and recorded as field notes inEnglish. As part of the validation process, they weretranslated back to Amharic and reviewed with partici-pants during a subsequent interview to correct errorsand confirm farmers’ knowledge.

Interviews began with ethnobotanical free-listing(Martin 2004) to generate an inventory of plants withinthe village and surrounding areas. Categorical promptswere used to ensure a complete list, including crops(EHEL), vegetables (ATAKILT), trees (ZAF), shrubs(QUTQUATO), vines (HAREG), weeds (AREM), and grasses(SAR). Following free-listing, the research team askedabout the domestication status of each plant and select-ed a subset of plants for more in-depth investigation.Questions focused on the use of plants as food, sale atthe local market, consumption by domesticated animals,and use in other food system activities.

Scientific names were determined for each of theplants identified by farmers by field observation andcollection of voucher specimens for later determination.The plant names used by farmers were associated withscientific taxa based on field observation and collectionof voucher specimens. Voucher specimens were deposit-ed at the Ethiopian National Herbarium at Addis AbabaUniversity, where they were identified by reference torelevant volumes of the Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea(Edwards et al. 1995, 2000; Hedberg et al. 2003, 2006;Hedberg and Edwards 1989; Tadesse 2004), as well asby comparison with authenticated herbarium specimens.

Fig. 1 Human-plant relationswithin a food system, includingfive major categories of use,benefits, and negative impacts

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 185

Fig. 2 The study area in theDebark District of northernEthiopia, encompassing 201 sq.kilometers in six rural sub-districts, ranging from 2600 to3000 m above sea level

Fig. 3 Typical agricultural landscape in the Debark District of northern Ethiopia (photo credit: Morgan Ruelle)

186 Ruelle M.L. et al.

Scientific names used in the Flora, including familynames, were updated according to Angiosperm GroupPhylogeny III (The Plant List 2013).

2.3 Data analysis

Field notes were analyzed using Atlas.ti (version 6.0,Scientific Software). Codes referring to plant names, as wellas categories of use, benefits and impacts, were identifiedthrough an open iterative coding procedure (Hsieh andShannon 2005). Coded data were used to develop a matrixof plants and specific uses. Human-plant relations were cate-gorized at three levels. First, plants that can be used inter-changeably for the same purpose were determined to servethe same specific use. For example, six plants were said tobe consumed by goats. Second, similar specific uses wereassigned to a minor category of use. In the case of plantsconsumed by goats, these were grouped with the consumptionof plants by other livestock, referred to as ‘forage and fodder’.Third, minor categories were associated with one of the fivemajor categories identified earlier (Fig. 1), in this case ‘use ofplants within food system activities’.

Plant type (either woody or herbaceous) of each spe-cies was obtained from its description in the Flora ofEthiopia and Eritrea (volumes cited above). As for do-mestication status, plants were categorized as domesti-cated if farmers said that they were always planted byhumans (YTEKELAL or YZERAL), and non-domesticated ifsaid to grow on their own (BERASU GIZE BEKEL). In manycases, farmers said that a plant is both planted and ableto grow on its own; these plants were classified assemi-domesticated.

To compare the diversity of plants within and amonghouseholds, we appliedWhittaker’s (1960) measures of alpha,beta, and gamma diversity. Alpha diversity was calculated asthe mean number of plants listed per household, and gammadiversity as the total count of plants listed within the studyarea. Beta diversity was calculated as the ratio of gamma toalpha diversity (β = γ/α), and is therefore indicative of thenumber of plants present within the study area relative to thenumber named by a typical household. Alpha, beta, and gam-ma diversity were calculated for groups of plants according toplant type (herbaceous or woody), domestication status, andcategories of use.

Finally, we developed a new Substitutability Index basedon the number of plants available for the specific uses within aminor category.

Substitutability Index SIð Þ ¼ ∑gi nig

Where ni is the average number of plants listed perhousehold that can be used for specific use i, and g

is the number of specific uses within the minor cate-gory. For example, to calculate SI for the minor cat-egory ‘agricultural tools’ for farmers in Debark, wewould consider seven specific uses of plants for toolsor parts of tools (e.g. a pitchfork, the handle of ascythe, various parts of a plow). Across the studyarea, farmers identified one or more plants that serveeach specific use; for instance, among all farmers sur-veyed, four woody species were used to fashion thehandle of a plow. Each household listed up to four ofthose plants; ni (in this case, 1.7) is the mean numberof those plants listed among all households. We con-sider ni to indicate the number of plants availablebecause farmers were instructed to list all plants intheir village and surrounding areas. Next, we calculat-ed ni for the seven specific uses within the minorcategory, summed all ni values, and divided by thenumber of specific uses within the category (g = 7)to produce the SI value (0.6). Therefore, SI indicatesthe mean number of plants available to the averagehousehold that can be used interchangeably for useswithin the same minor category. An SI value less thanone indicates that some farming households are notable to locate any plant for the specific uses withinthat minor category. Higher SI values indicate thatfamil ies have more options in terms of plantsavailable.

3 Results

3.1 Diversity of plants within the food system

Free-listing with 30 farming families generated a listof 138 local plants. After 25 interviews, the number ofnew plant names had declined to less than one per in-terview, indicating that most of the plants known bylocal farmers had been documented (Fig. 4). Of theseplants, 123 (89%) were described as playing some rolewithin the Debark food system (Appendix Table 3). Inaddition, many plants were said to be useful for otherpurposes, such as medicine or spiritual practice, butthese uses were considered beyond the scope of thestudy and excluded from our analyses. Field observa-tions and examination of voucher specimens showedthat the plants in the food system include 47 botanicalfamilies; the greatest number belong to Poaceae (19),followed by Fabaceae (13) and Asteraceae (10). Most(89) of farmers’ plant names corresponded to a singlebotanical species; 23 refer to multiple species within thesame genus (e.g. MAGET refers to several species ofTrifolium).

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 187

3.2 Plants as food

Overall, farmers named 49 plants that they consume asfood, of which most (63%) are domesticated (Fig. 5). Inrainfed fields, the most common crops are wheat(Triticum spp.), late-maturing barley (Hordeum vulgare),field pea (Pisum sativum), faba bean (Vicia faba), lentil(Lens culinaris), and flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum). Inthe past 10 years, Triticale (× Triticale rimpaui) hasbeen growing in popularity due to its high yields, adapt-ability and usefulness to the local community. In irrigat-ed areas close to streams and rivers, farmers double-crop fast-maturing varieties of barley, Irish potato(Solanum tuberosum), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus), andchickpea (Cicer arietinum). Garlic (Allium sativum), redonion (Allium cepa) , mustard greens (Brassicacarinata), head cabbage (Brassica oleracea), squash

(Cucurbita spp.), beets and chard (Beta vulgaris) arefrequently planted in irrigated areas as well as homegardens.

Debark home gardens usually include a small or-chard, in which the most common woody species isGESHO (Rhamnus prinoides). GESHO leaves and branchesare dried, pounded, and used as the bittering agent (akinto hops) in the production of TELLA, a local beer pro-duced in most homes. A few farmers plant peach(Prunus persica), which was likely introduced fromAsia long ago, and apples (Malus spp.), which cameto Ethiopia more recently. Some indigenous woody spe-cies with edible fruits have been brought into cultivationaround farmers’ homesteads, including QEGA (Rosaabyssinica) and KOSHIM (Dovyalis abyssinica).

Only nine non-domesticated plants were ever men-tioned as food, and these were said to be infrequently

Fig. 5 Number of useful plantsnamed by farmers in the DebarkDistrict of northwestern Ethiopiaaccording to domestication status,plant type, and minor categoriesof use

Fig. 4 Accumulation curve ofplants named by farming familiesin the Debark District ofnorthwestern Ethiopia duringethnobotanical free-listing

188 Ruelle M.L. et al.

consumed by few people. Some non-domesticated foodswere said to be eaten primarily by children while theytend animals, for example the fruits of figs (Ficus sur,SHOLA) and leaves and stems of sorrel (Oxalis spp.,AMICHA MICHO). In other cases, eating non-domesticatedplants may be associated with low social status. Forexample, several Debark farmers said that nettles(Urtica simensis, SAMA) are eaten in more remote com-munities. Nonetheless, these same farmers could de-scribe how to remove their stinging hairs and preparethem as food.

3.3 Exchange of plants

Debark is situated along an important historical trade routeleading from the ancient city of Aksum (approximately250 km to the north) to the medieval capital at Gonder(100 km to the south). Furthermore, Debark is located at theedge of two agroecological zones; five kilometers north of thetown, at a place known as Lemalimo, the road dropsmore than1000 m from the cool highlands to the warmer lowlands.When asked what they purchase from the local market, fam-ilies often mentioned foods that are produced in the lowlandsand transported to the Debark market, including spices andcoffee.

The farmers we interviewed are frequent partici-pants in the Debark market, including families whomust walk several hours to reach the town. The mainmarket occurs on Saturdays, with a second, smallermarket on Wednesdays. All told, 48 plants were re-ported and observed to be sold at the market, includ-ing most of the domesticated plants consumed asfood. Families meet household needs before takingany surplus to market, unless they are forced to sellto obtain cash for urgent needs. Most households re-ported that they consume most of their cereals, pulsesand oilseeds, and tend to sell vegetables and rootcrops. One female farmer remarked that vegetablesare ‘food for city people’ (YEKETEMA SEW MEGIB) be-cause they are expensive.

Semi- and non-domesticated plants are rarely taken tomarket. The only two species said to be sold as foodwere Rosa abyssinica (QEGA), a semi-domesticated shrubwith edible fruits, and Rumex abyssinica (MEKMEKO), anon-domesticated species whose roots are used for tea.Several woody species are sold as construction materialor fuel wood, chief among them Eucalyptus globulus(BAHIR ZAF). Some farmers said they sometimes sellsemi- and non-domesticated grasses as fodder (e.g.Avena sp., GINCH) or thatch (e.g. Loudetia arundinaceae,CHELADA SAR), but these were rarely observed at theDebark market.

3.4 Use of plants in other food system activities

Farmers relate to plants through their domesticated ani-mals. All farmers interviewed keep some combination ofcattle, horses, donkeys, mules, sheep, goats, andchickens, as well as cats, dogs, and bees. In all, 86plants were identified as fodder or forage for domesti-cated animals. Crop residues (GELEBA) are one of themost important fodder sources. The stems and leavesof cereals and legumes are carried from the threshingfloor and piled around the homestead, while other resi-dues are left on fields for animals to forage after theharvest. Few farmers devote land to fodder crops, butsome are planted as intercrops (e.g. Vicia villosa, MENO

GUAYA), and a few woody species are planted as asource of fodder for the dry season (e.g. MENO

QINTEBA, Cytisus prol i ferus) . The use of non-domesticated plants as fodder include hay (DIRKOSH),which is protected during the rainy season, then harvest-ed and stored for the dry season. By contrast, weeds(AREM) are removed from crop fields and fed directlyto animals during the rainy season. Many other non-domesticated plants are consumed by animals in grazingareas; young people are usually responsible for tendinganimals, and therefore learn which plants are preferredby each animal. In addition to fodder and forage forlivestock, farmers who keep bees named 12 honeybeeforage species that are known to be sources of nectarand/or pollen. Finally, farmers rely on local plants as asource of veterinary medicines, including 12 speciesused to treat 15 distinct ailments, mainly gastrointesti-nal, respiratory, and musculoskeletal conditions.

Plants play a particularly important role in the Debark foodsystem through their use as fences. Fences keep livestock andother animals away from crops, demarcate property bound-aries, and enclose private spaces. Fences are also constructedto protect young trees, including non-domesticated speciesthat volunteer within grazing areas and other communalspaces. Dry-stick fences are usually made with Eucalyptusor Acacia abyssinica (GIRAR). Because they are flexible,Eucalyptus branches can be woven between posts as a densewattle, whereas the long, sharp spines of Acacia branchesdeter animals and thieves. Living fences or hedgerows plantedaround homesteads contain high plant diversity, including do-mesticated and semi-domesticated plants. Some commonmembers of living fences are Solanecio gigas (MOGNE

QITEL), an endemic shrub with large leaves that provide densecover, Euphorbia abyssinica (QULQUAL) and Opuntia ficus-indica (YESHEWA QULQUAL), which are both spiny and propa-gate vegetatively. Viny species, including Cucurbita spp.(DUBA), Phytolacca dodecandra (INDOD), and Zehneriascabra (HAREGRESA) are planted or encouraged to grow overfences.

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 189

Nine woody plants, mostly semi-domesticated, areused to make tools necessary for food production. Themost important tool, as indicated by farmers, is the tra-dit ional plow. Except for the iron ploughshare(MARESHA) and two metal loops (WEGEL) that fastenthe side-wings (DIGIR), the plow is constructed fromlocal wood (see also Simoons 1958). Most parts arefashioned from the highly durable wild olive tree,Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata (WEYRA). Farmers saidthat they use Hagenia abyssinica (KOSO) or Ericaarborea (WICHENA) for the side wings and Osyrisquadripartita (QERET) for the wooden pins that attachthe handle to the beam and enable the farmer to setan appropriate plowing depth. Hagenia is also used tomake handles for sickles to cut hay and weeds, Oleabranches are used to make a pitchfork for threshing andwinnowing grains, and Hypericum spp. (AMIJA) branchesare used as winnowing brushes.

Following the harvest, farmers protect their foodstores from humidity, pests, and microbial contaminationin traditional containers fashioned from local materials,including 13 plant species. Traditional containers,known as GOTA, are constructed from mud and cerealstraw. Farmers store smaller-seeded crops – such as teffand flax - in baskets woven from local grasses andreeds. Milk and beer are stored in hollowed out gourds(Lagenaria spp., QEL). Farmers purify storage containerswith smoke from certain plants, typically Rosa. One ofthe most frequently mentioned uses of plants to protectfood stores is that of Crinum abyssinicum (YEJIB

SHENKURT); its fruits are mashed and mixed withINJERA to poison rodents.

Farmers use 24 plant species to build storehouses,kitchens, and other structures necessary for their foodsystem. Various woody plants are selected to constructframes, laths, entryways, dividers, and platforms. Forexample, woody plants with narrower boles are usedas laths, while those with denser wood are preferredfor doorframes. Due to its straight timbers, insect resis-tance, and rapid growth rate, Eucalyptus has recentlybecome the most common construction material.Herbaceous species are also important for construction;cereal straw is mixed with mud and dung to create adaub to plaster over the laths. Although metal roofs areincreasingly popular, many farmers thatch their housesand other buildings with herbaceous plants, includingfive local graminoid species.

All of the farmers we interviewed prepare foodover a three-stone fire. Fuel wood and animal dung,which burns well due to its high plant content, are themost common energy sources for cooking. Althoughwe rarely observed use of charcoal outside the town,farmers reported that trees with dense wood (such as

species of Acacia and Olea) are best for preparing it.Debark’s food traditions include many culinary prac-tices that require local plants. For example, the stickystems and leaves of Galium spp. (ASHEKT, elsewhereASHKIT) are placed on top of cooking potatoes to pre-vent over-boiling, collect dirt, and add flavor. Plantswith large leaves, most often Solanecio gigas, areused in the process of malting barley. Several otherplants are used in a tradition known as YELEMAT

GUZGUAZ; fresh bread or INJERA is placed on theleaves spread within a container and known to imparta subtle, desirable taste. Still other plants are madeinto kitchen implements; for example, Morellasalicifolia (SINICH) is used to fashion a pestle forgrinding coffee.

Aside from consumption as food, plants are used inassociation with meals. The plants used to make bas-kets for storage are also used to weave a MESOB, thetraditional table that has become an international sym-bol of Ethiopian food culture, as well as serving plat-ters (GEBETA). Woody plants are used to make chairsand benches for sitting at meals. Another importantlocal food tradition (GUZGUAZ) is to spread grasses,reeds, and flowers on the floor to decorate the diningarea when hosting guests or celebrating holidays. Stillother plants are used to keep cooking, storage, anddining areas clean; farmers described the use of 16plants for cleaning, including nine species used asbrooms and seven to wash dishes and utensils. Evenafter a meal, farmers use woody plants to clean theirteeth – most often small twigs from the wild olivetree.

3.5 Benefits to the agroecosystem

Although our interviews focused on use, farmers men-tioned several other ways that plants benefit their foodsystem. The role of plants for soil conservation wasfrequently discussed, because Debark farmers are con-cerned that erosion is reducing the area and fertility ofland for crop production. Farmers also discussed howwoody plants keep their landscape cool and moist. Byproviding shade, farmers say that trees increase soilmoisture and promote the growth of grasses and otherherbaceous plants that are forage for their livestock.For these and the many other values associated withtrees, farmers often protect young saplings foundgrowing on their farmland. Farmers’ knowledge of oth-er benefits of plants is revealed through their practice.For example, although no farmer mentioned the role oflegume crops in fixing atmospheric nitrogen, many de-scribed how as cereal yields decline, they rotate moreoften with legumes to restore fertility and productivity,

190 Ruelle M.L. et al.

thereby demonstrating their knowledge of this impor-tant agroecological function, and illustrating how it in-forms their relations with plants.

3.6 Negative impacts

Human relations with plants are shaped by their nega-tive as well as positive impacts on food systems.Farmers referred to many of the non-domesticated her-baceous plants that grow in their fields and gardens asAREM, a category equivalent to ‘weed’ in English.Farmers invest considerable time and energy to removeweeds from their farms. Their negative attitudes towardsome of these plants are reflected in their names; in themost extreme case, AGER ATFA (Galinsoga spp.) means‘ruins the country’. In addition, some plants are knownto be toxic to livestock. For example, farmers keep theiranimals away from Oenanthe palustris (GODIGN), abun-dant along stream banks, because they believe their an-imals might die from consuming it. Still other speciesare known to endanger humans; for instance, the juicefrom fruits of Solanum marginatum is believed to causeblindness.

Interestingly, all the plants said to have negative im-pacts are also known to be useful in some way. Forexample, cornflower (Glebionis segetum, BOREN) is oneof the most frequently listed weeds within the studyarea. While most farmers are frustrated by the prolifer-ation of cornflower because it reduces the yields of theircrops, many have found that its use as fodder increasesthe milk production of their cows. Even toxic plants areuseful; the same Oenanthe that threatens their livestockis used as GUZGUAZ to flavor bread, and the poisonousSolanum marginatum is used to tan hides.

One of the most important examples of farmers’ complexrelations with plants is that of Eucalyptus. Almost all farmersexpressed concern that the proliferation of Eucalyptus is amajor driver of declining soil moisture and lower water levelsin streams and rivers. However, because it grows so quicklyand is useful for fencing, agricultural tools, construction, fuelwood, cleaning implements, nectar, and source of income,farmers either accept or ignore these negative impacts.Farmers reported that Eucalyptus rarely, if ever, propagateson its own, so its dominance is a direct result of planting,and therefore some indication of its value. Furthermore, localgovernment officials promote the use of Eucalyptus by dis-tributing saplings and restricting use of indigenous trees.

3.7 Diversity within and among households

Of 123 useful plants identified by farmers within thestudy area, the average family listed only 31.9 species(Table 1). Although the overall richness (gamma

diversity) of plants listed was highest for non-domesticated species, on average each family listedmore domesticated species. Not surprisingly, the mostcommonly named domesticated plants are the herba-ceous field and garden crops that are the primary focusof farmers’ livelihoods. Therefore, beta diversity (theratio of plant species occurring within the landscape tothe number planted by the average family) was lowestfor these domesticated herbaceous species. By contrast,farmers tended to name fewer of the woody plants re-ported across the study area; beta diversity is highest forwoody non-domesticated species. As will be exploredbelow, such differences indicate that farmers maintainrelations with similar domesticated herbaceous plants,whereas there are greater differences among householdswhen it comes to woody non-domesticated species.

Gamma, alpha, and beta diversity also differed ac-cording to category of use (Table 2). Forage and fodderinclude the highest number of plants, both in terms ofthe total number of species within the study area (86)and the average number per household (21.6), indicatingthat most farmers know more than 20 species that canbe consumed by their domesticated animals. By con-trast, the shortest lists of plants (9 in each category)were generated for agricultural tools and plants usedduring food consumption. On average, farmers listedthe smallest number of plants in the categories for vet-erinary medicine (3.0 per household) and food prepara-tion (2.9 per household). As a result, the ratio of thetotal number listed to the number per household (betadiversity) were high for both veterinary medicine andfood preparation. Beta diversity was also high forforage/fodder and fuel wood, but in those cases due tothe much longer lists of plants (gamma diversity).

3.8 Substitutability

One important value of plant diversity is that multiplespecies can provide alternatives for specific purposes.As a reminder, the Substitutability Index (SI) measuresthe number of plants available for the specific useswithin a minor category of use. The highest SI valueswere observed for exchange, fencing, and fuel wood(Fig. 6), because there are many species that can beused interchangeably for the specific uses within thesecategories, including plants that are widely available andtherefore frequently listed. The SI values for food, for-age and fodder are relatively lower due to specific useswithin these categories that require certain plants. Manyfoods, for example, require ingredients for which thereare few if any substitutes. The SI values for agriculturaltools, storage containers, veterinary medicines, as wellas plants used during food preparation and consumption

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 191

are lowest. Low SI values are due to the combination ofhighly specific uses and low availability of requisitespecies. For example, in the case of veterinary medi-cines, 13 of the 15 ailments described by farmers re-quire a single plant for treatment; many of these plantswere infrequently listed, indicating low availability, andtherefore limited options for this category of use.

4 Discussion

Overall, farmers in the Debark District reported that 123plant species are used within or otherwise benefit theirfood system. A botanical survey of the SemienMountains (Puff and Nemomissa 2005) identified 550indigenous species, of which farmers in the currentstudy named 76, or 14%. Although we lack comparablecase studies from other communities or regions, we

expect that Debark farmers’ knowledge and use of localplant diversity is much higher than in most industrial-ized countries, where knowledge of plants is decliningand the genetic basis of food systems is narrowing(Pilgrim et al. 2008).

Domesticated plants – especially herbaceous speciesthat are consumed as food and sold at market - are thecentral focus of farmers’ time and energy. On average,each household listed more plants within this categorythan any other, and differences among households, asindicated by beta diversity, were lowest. In much ofEthiopia, non-domesticated species are also importantfoods (Addis et al. 2005, 2013; Asfaw 2008; Asfawand Tadesse 2001), and nation-wide inventories of wildedibles have surpassed 400 species (Lulekal et al. 2011;Teketay et al. 2010). In Debark, however, non-domesticated plants are not regarded as an importantfood source and are unlikely to be sold at market. It

Table 1 Diversity of useful plants named by farming families in theDebark District of northwestern Ethiopia according to plant type anddomestication status; α-diversity is the average number of plants named

per household, γ-diversity is the total number listed within the study area,and β-diversity is the ratio of gamma to alpha diversity

Domestication status Plant type γ-diversity: Species count α-diversity: Species/household β-diversity: (γ/α)

Domesticated Herbaceous 35 13.3 2.6

Woody 12 3.6 3.4

Both types 47 16.9 2.8

Semi-domesticated Herbaceous 3 0.5 5.6

Woody 20 5.2 3.8

Both types 23 5.7 4.0

Non-domesticated Herbaceous 33 6.8 4.9

Woody 20 2.5 7.9

Both types 53 9.3 5.7

All plants 123 31.9 3.9

Table 2 Diversity of useful plantsnamed by farming families in theDebark District of northwesternEthiopia according to minorcategories of use; α-diversity isthe average number of plantsnamed per household, γ-diversityis the total number listed withinthe study area, and β-diversity isthe ratio of gamma to alphadiversity

Category of use γ-diversity: Total count α-diversity: Count/household β-diversity: (γ/α)

food 49 17.4 2.8

exchange 48 19.2 2.5

forage/fodder 86 21.6 4.0

veterinary medicine 12 3.0 4.0

fencing 26 8.0 3.2

agricultural tools 9 3.5 2.5

construction 31 9.2 3.4

storage 13 4.9 2.7

fuel wood 26 6.5 4.0

food preparation 16 2.9 5.5

food consumption 9 3.3 2.7

cleaning 16 4.2 3.8

192 Ruelle M.L. et al.

appears likely that, because non-domesticated foodshave been important during hard times, their consump-tion is stigmatized during times of plenty (Guinand andLemessa 2000). Nonetheless, the fact that farmers knowhow to gather and prepare these plants means they arepotential options – albeit less favorable ones – whenthere is food scarcity.

Food sovereignty does not require self-sufficiency; its ad-vocates argue that trade can enhance food security as long ascommunities and nations are able to determine their own traderelations (Burnett and Murphy 2014; Friends of the EarthInternational 2003; Lee 2013). Indeed, through trade withfarmers from nearby lowlands, farmers in Debark have beenable to expand their relations with plants from other agroeco-logical zones, many of which are central to food culture, suchas coffee and chili peppers. Nevertheless, farmers’ participa-tion in markets bears important implications for the health oftheir families. That farmers report selling most of their vege-table crops is worrisome; it appears that high market valuesdisincentivize local consumption by the producer. In 2013, theroad between Debark and Gonder was repaved, reducing thetravel time to the zonal center from 4 h to 1 h and 30 min. Asaccess to national and global markets expands, impacts ondietary diversity are likely to intensify. Further research tomeasure changes in diet related to market participation,coupled with policies that encourage farmers to retain a vari-ety of foods for their own families, may be warranted to pro-tect public health.

Overall, more than twice as many plant species areused within food system activities as are consumed asfood or sold at market. Within each of these categoriesof use, farmers named more semi- and non-domesticated

plants than domesticated species, and woody plantscomprise more than half of those listed. While farmersappear to enjoy multiple options for fencing, fuel wood,forage and fodder, the Substitutability Index shows thatthere are fewer plants available in other categories; thefewest options are available for agricultural tools, stor-age containers, food preparation, food consumption, andveterinary medicines. A lack of alternative plants withinthese categories implies that farmers are less able todetermine those aspects of their food systems.

We recommend two approaches to expand farmers’relations with plants and thereby enhance their optionsfor food sovereignty. First, protecting and promotinguseful semi- and non-domesticated plants within thelandscape would increase the range of alternatives fortheir food system. Focusing on categories of plantswith high beta diversity and low SI values is likelyto provide the greatest benefit. The highest beta diver-sity values were observed for woody non-domesticatedspecies, most of which were rarely listed. Likewise,many of the lowest SI values (e.g. for veterinary med-icines and agricultural tools) are attributable to lowavailability of woody plants. A recent survey ofDebark’s woody plants confirms that most of these spe-cies are exceedingly rare; Eucalyptus comprises morethan 88% of the woody vegetation (Tefera et al.2014). The highest densities of indigenous trees andshrubs are found around Debark’s Ethiopian Orthodoxchurches, where the clergy and lay communities protectand replant woody species as part of sacred space(Ruelle et al. 2018). Church forests could provideloca l ly-adapted seed and roots tock to res tore

Fig. 6 Substitutability Indices(SI) calculated for minor catego-ries of plant use in the DebarkDistrict of northwestern Ethiopia;green indicates multiple optionsavailable (SI >2), yellow indicateslimited options (1 < SI < 2), redindicates a lack of options (SI < 1)

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 193

populations of useful plants in the agricultural land-scape (Aerts et al. 2007; Bongers et al. 2006).Federal and local governments could encourage indige-nous tree planting by promoting rather than prohibitingtheir sustainable use. While restricting the use of indig-enous trees and shrubs is meant to reduce pressure onforests, one of the reasons that farmers tend to plantEucalyptus and other introduced species is that theiruse is unrestricted. Rules meant to protect indigenoustrees may have the unintended consequence of hasten-ing their replacement with exotic species.

A second approach to expanding human-plant rela-tions is via knowledge exchange. Differences in knowl-edge among households indicated by high beta diversityvalues suggest opportunities to exchange informationabout plants among communities, and thereby increasefarmers’ options for their food system. For example, wehosted a conference for the farmers who had participat-ed in our research and distributed a bilingual publicationthat includes detailed descriptions of their uses ofplants. In addition to demonstrating to farmers thewealth of their own ecological knowledge, the bookinspired prolonged discussions about their uses ofplants. Future peer-to-peer exchange activities could beorganized by local extension agents to enrich farmers’ecological knowledge and encourage collaboration,thereby enhancing the relations at the heart of their foodsovereignty. In particular, establishing relations amongsenior farmer-conservators and young farmers may fos-ter innovation.

Our study provides baseline data to monitor changesin the diversity of human-plant relations in Debark, aswell as a replicable methodology for comparable studiesin other communities. The major and minor categoriesused here, Whittaker ’s diversity indices, and theSubstitutability Index can be applied to measurebiocultural diversity and the range of options availablefor the food system. Participatory mapping followed bya vegetation survey would quantify the availability ofuseful plants. Furthermore, longer-term study is neces-sary to measure the impacts of the improved road net-work, increasing market access, and climate change onfarmers’ relations with plants and subsequent impacts onfood security. For example, we anticipate that as farmersgain access to regional markets, many may focus onproducing crops and varieties with high market valuesand may abandon those with climate adaptive traits (e.g.drought resistance). Market opportunities may also in-centivize expansion of crop fields and elimination ofhabitats for useful non-domesticated species; measuringand mapping these changes at the landscape scale wouldempower communities to protect and promote the plantsthey need for their food system.

5 Conclusion

This study of farmers’ relations with plants in the DebarkDistrict of Ethiopia shows that at least 123 species play somerole within the local food system. Domesticated plants areprimary sources of food and income. Although semi- andnon-domesticated species are rarely consumed, they are usedin many other food system activities, including food produc-tion, storage, and preparation. While the average family listeda large proportion of domesticated species named across thestudy area, they listed a smaller fraction of non-domesticatedplants, particularly trees and shrubs, resulting in high betadiversity values. The Substitutability Index indicates that forthe average family, multiple species are available for specificuses as food, exchange, fencing, forage/fodder, and fuel wood.By contrast, households lack options when it comes to veter-inary medicines, agricultural tools, food storage, and foodpreparation. Differences in knowledge about plants indicatedby high beta-diversity values suggest that programs to facili-tate exchange of knowledge among communities could ex-pand farmers’ relations with plants. Moreover, protectionand replanting of rare useful plants might expand farmers’options, especially if they provide alternatives in those cate-gories where options are currently limited. More broadly, ourresearch suggests that biocultural diversity plays a fundamen-tal role in the food sovereignty of smallholder farmers; a di-versity of ecological relations provides these communitieswith options to make decisions about their own food systems.

Acknowledgements We thank the farming families who contributed theirIndigenous ecological knowledge to this research, including farmers fromthe communities of Afaf, Gotit, Dilde, Kidane Mihret, Enkoye Mesq,Derie, Derita, Yekirar, Gana Meda, Dagba, Arba Tensa, Filfilit, Mikara,Koso Mender, Barkayna, Mesqel Aura, Muchache, and Meskelko. Theauthors gratefully acknowledge Amanuel Berhanie, Yohannes Desalegn,and Fekadu Alem for their skill and enthusiasm as field research assis-tants. We express our gratitude to the Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, theEthiopian National Herbarium at Addis Ababa University, Debark Cityand Debark District Administrations for their support. The authors alsothank the editors and four anonymous reviewers who provided construc-tive comments to improve the manuscript. Funding for this research wasprovided by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate ResearchFellowship (DGE-0707428), the Food Systems and Poverty ReductionIntegrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (NSF Award#0903371), a Richard Bradfield Research Award from CornellUniversity, and the Toward Sustainability Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict ofinterest.

Ethical approval All procedures involving human participants were inaccordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or nationalresearch committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its lateramendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was ob-tained from all individual participants included in the study.

194 Ruelle M.L. et al.

Appendix

Table 3 Plants named by Debark farming families during free-listing activities focused on villages and the surrounding landscape

No. Local plantname(s)

Scientific namea Family Free-list %

Hab.b Cult.c Minor categories of use in food system

1 ABESH Trigonella foenum-graecum L. Fabaceae 13% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange2 AGER ATFA Galinsoga spp. Asteraceae 47% H ND forage/fodder3 AJA Triticum dicoccon (Schrank) Schübl. Poaceae 23% H D food, forage/fodder4 AKIYA Hordeum vulgare L. Poaceae 13% H D food, forage/fodder5 ALMIT Discopodium penninervum Hochst. Solanaceae 13% W SD forage/fodder, food prep, cleaning, exchange6 ALUMA Amaranthus spp. Amaranthaceae 7% H ND forage/fodder7 AMICHAMICHO Oxalis spp. Oxalidaceae 3% H ND food8 AMIJA Hypericum spp. Hypericaceae 30% W SD forage/fodder, fencing, agricultural tools, fuel wood, cleaning9 ANFAR Buddleja polystachya Fresen. Scrophulariaceae 7% W SD fencing, cleaning10 APIL Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. Rosaceae 27% W D food11 ARDELIBANOS

TSID

Casuarina cunninghamiana Miq. Casuarinaceae 3% W D forage/fodder, fuel wood

12 ASHEKT Galium spp. Rutaceae 20% H ND forage/fodder, food prep13 ATAT Maytenus obscura (A. Rich.) Cufod. Celastraceae 33% W ND forage/fodder, fencing, construction, fuel wood14 ATER Pisum sativum L. Fabaceae 80% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange15 ATQUARO Nuxia congesta R.Br. ex Fresen. Loganiaceae 3% W ND forage/fodder16 AYDERQE GOMEN Brassica oleracea L. Brassicaceae 7% H D food17 BAHIRZAF Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Myrtaceae 100% W D fencing, agricultural tools, construction, storage, fuel wood, food

consumption, cleaning, exchange18 BAQELA Vicia faba L. Fabaceae 100% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange19 BELGA Hordeum vulgare L. Poaceae 40% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange20 BEQOLO, BAHIR

MASHILA

Zea mays L. Poaceae 10% H D food, forage/fodder

21 BOREN, ABEBEWDESSIE

Glebionis segetum L. Asteraceae 93% H ND forage/fodder

22 BULKA Ricinus communis L. Euphorbiaceae 17% W D forage/fodder, storage, fuel wood, food prep, travel23 CHELADA SAR,

BULA SAR

Loudetia arundinacea (A.Rich)Hochst. ex Steud.

Poaceae 3% H ND construction, exchange

24 CHIVIHA [Ficus thonningii Blume] unknown 3% W D forage/fodder, fencing, cleaning25 DINICH Solanum tuberosum L. Solanaceae 87% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange26 DUBA Cucurbita spp. Cucurbitaceae 27% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange27 EMBES Searsia spp. (syn. Rhus spp.) Anacardiaceae 13% W ND food, forage/fodder, construction, fuel wood28 ENDAWULA Kalanchoe spp. Crassulaceae 3% W SD food prep29 ENQUTATASH,

ADIYO,ADOGE

Bidens spp. Asteraceae 3% H ND forage/fodder

30 ENZORIYA Rubus steudneri Schweinf. Rosaceae 7% W ND food, forage/fodder, construction31 EREYAN Artemisia absinthium L. Asteraceae 3% H D forage/fodder, food consumption32 FERENJI GIRAR Acacia mearnsii De Wild. Fabaceae 23% W D fencing, construction, food prep33 FERENJI TSID Cupressus lusitanicaMill. Cupressaceae 33% W D forage/fodder, fencing, construction, cleaning34 FETO Lepidium sativum L. Brassicaceae 3% H SD food, veterinary medicine35 FEYELEFEJ Clutia abyssinica Jaub. & Spach Euphorbiaceae 13% W ND forage/fodder, cleaning36 GEBS Hordeum vulgare L. Poaceae 90% H D food, forage/fodder, construction, storage, exchange37 GEJEMO SEBER unknown unknown 10% W SD forage/fodder, construction38 GEREMO unknown unknown 3% W ND agricultural tools, fuel wood, exchange39 GESHO Rhamnus prinoides L’Hér. Rhamnaceae 77% W D food, veterinary medicine, food consumption, exchange40 GICHA Cyperus spp. Cyperaceae 17% H ND forage/fodder, food consumption41 GINCH (YEHEL

AND ABBAT)

Avena spp. Poaceae 47% H SD food, forage/fodder, construction, exchange

42 GIRAR

(HABESHA)Acacia abyssinica Benth. Fabaceae 83% W SD forage/fodder, fencing, agricultural tools, construction, fuel wood,

travel43 GITEM Schefflera abyssinica (Hochst. ex

A.Rich.) HarmsAraliaceae 10% W ND forage/fodder

44 GODIGN Oenanthe palustris (Chiov.) C.Norman

Apiaceae 10% H ND forage/fodder, food prep

45 GOMEN

(HABESHA)Brassica carinata A.Braun Brassicaceae 83% H D food, exchange

46 GRAMTA Cyperus fischerianus Schimp. exA.Rich.

Cyperaceae 3% H D forage/fodder, storage, food consumption, exchange

47 GUAYA (MENO) Vicia villosa Roth Fabaceae 3% H D forage/fodder, exchange48 GUAYA (YESEW) Lathyrus sativus L. Fabaceae 23% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange49 HAREGRESA Zehneria scabra Sond. Cucurbitaceae 50% H ND forage/fodder, fencing50 HAYA, KOYA Salix subserrata Willd. Salicaceae 7% W ND forage/fodder, construction51 HIG SAR Phalaris paradoxa L. Poaceae 7% H ND forage/fodder, exchange

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 195

Table 3 (continued)

No. Local plantname(s)

Scientific namea Family Free-list %

Hab.b Cult.c Minor categories of use in food system

52 IMBACHO Rumex nervosus Vahl Polygonaceae 37% W ND forage/fodder, fencing, fuel wood, cleaning53 IMBUAY Solanum marginatum L.f. Solanaceae 40% W ND fencing, storage, travel54 INDOD Phytolacca dodecandra L’Hér. Phytolaccaceae 40% W SD veterinary medicine, exchange55 INKIRDAD Lolium temulentum L. Poaceae 20% H ND food, forage/fodder, exchange56 KAROT Daucus carota L. Apiaceae 37% H D food, exchange57 KITKITA Dodonaea angustifolia L.f. Sapindaceae 10% W ND forage/fodder, construction58 KOK Prunus persica (L.) Stokes Rosaceae 27% W D food, exchange59 KOSHESHELE Echinops spp., Carduus spp., Silybum

spp., Argemone mexicana L.Asteraceae 40% H ND forage/fodder, veterinary medicine, fencing, fuel wood, food prep

60 KOSHIM Dovyalis abyssinica (A.Rich.) Warb. Salicaceae 10% W SD food, forage/fodder, fencing61 KOSO Hagenia abyssinica (Bruce ex Steud.)

J.F.Gmel.Rosaceae 40% W SD forage/fodder, veterinary medicine, fencing, agricultural tools,

construction, fuel wood, exchange62 MAGET Trifolium spp. Fabaceae 33% H ND forage/fodder63 MENO QINTEBA Cytisus proliferus L.f. Fabaceae 20% W D forage/fodder, fuel wood64 MEQMEQO Rumex abyssinicus Jacq. Polygonaceae 10% H ND food, cleaning, exchange65 MERA, YEMEDA

SHENKURT

Allium subhirsutum L.f. Alliaceae 10% H ND forage/fodder

66 MERIE SAR, NECHSAR

Pennisetum glaucifolium Hochst. exA.Rich.

Poaceae 3% H D forage/fodder, construction, exchange

67 MESQEL FERICHE Persicaria nepalensis (Meisn.)Miyabe

Polygonaceae 47% H ND forage/fodder

68 MISELI, YEMEDA

GINCH

Bromus pectinatus Thunb. Poaceae 23% H ND forage/fodder

69 MISIR Lens culinarisMedik. Fabaceae 20% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange70 MOGNE QITEL Solanecio gigas (Vatke) C.Jeffrey Asteraceae 40% W SD fencing, food prep71 MTAFET Allium cepa L.. Alliaceae 17% H D food, exchange72 MUJA SAR Snowdenia polystachya (Fresen.) Pilg. Poaceae 73% H ND forage/fodder73 NECH SHENKURT Allium sativum L. Alliaceae 77% H D food, exchange74 QEBERECHO Echinops spp. Asteraceae 3% W ND veterinary medicine75 QEBERO WETET Euphorbia petitiana A. Rich. Euphorbiaceae 3% W ND food, forage/fodder76 QECHEMO Myrsine africana L. Myrsinaceae 7% W SD food, forage/fodder, construction77 QEGA Rosa abyssinica R.Br. Rosaceae 47% W SD food, forage/fodder, fencing, fuel wood, food prep, cleaning, exchange78 QEL Lagenaria spp. Cucurbitaceae 3% H D storage, food prep, exchange79 QERET Osyris quadripartita Salzm. ex

Decne.Santalaceae 3% W ND forage/fodder, fencing, agricultural tools, fuel wood, exchange

80 QEY SHENKURT Allium cepa L. Alliaceae 57% H D food, exchange81 QEY SIR Beta vulgaris L. Amaranthaceae 40% H D food, exchange82 QOSTA Beta vulgaris L. Amaranthaceae 53% H D food, exchange83 QULIZA Guizotia scabra (Vis.) Chiov. Asteraceae 13% H ND forage/fodder84 QULQUAL Euphorbia abyssinica J.F.Gmel. Euphorbiaceae 20% W SD forage/fodder, veterinary medicine, fencing, construction, storage, fuel

wood, exchange85 QUTINA Verbascum spp. Scrophulariaceae 10% H ND veterinary medicine86 SAMA Urtica simensis Hochst. ex A.Rich. Urticaceae 17% H ND food, forage/fodder87 SELATA Lactuca sativa L. Asteraceae 40% H D food, exchange88 SENDE Triticum spp. Poaceae 100% H D food, forage/fodder, construction, storage, exchange89 SERDO SAR [Cynodon spp.] Poaceae 7% H ND forage/fodder90 SHIMBIRA Cicer arietinum L. Fabaceae 33% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange91 SHOLA Ficus sur Forssk. Moraceae 7% W ND food, forage/fodder, construction, fuel wood92 SHUTENI Vernonia spp. Asteraceae 7% W SD forage/fodder, fencing, construction93 SIMIZA Justicia schimperiana (Hochst. ex

Nees) T. AndersonAcanthaceae 20% W SD forage/fodder, veterinary medicine, fuel wood

94 SINAR, SINARGINCH

Avena spp. Poaceae 3% H D forage/fodder

95 SINICH Morella salicifolia (Hochst. ex A.Rich.) Verdc. & Polhilld

Myricaceae 10% W ND construction, fuel wood, food prep, cleaning, travel, exchange

96 SIRSIRA unknown Poaceae 7% H ND construction97 TEBERA Pittosporum viridiflorum Sims Pittosporaceae 7% W ND forage/fodder98 TEFF Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter Poaceae 37% H D food, forage/fodder, veterinary medicine, construction, storage,

exchange99 TELBA Linum usitatissimum L. Linaceae 57% H D food, forage/fodder, food consumption, exchange100 TELENJ Achyranthes aspera L. Amaranthaceae 7% H ND forage/fodder, veterinary medicine, cleaning, exchange101 TEMBELEL Jasminum abyssinicum Hochst. ex

DC.Oleaceae 7% W ND forage/fodder, fencing, construction, storage, fuel wood, food

consumption102 TEMEJ Hordeum vulgare L. Poaceae 17% H D food, forage/fodder103 TENA ADAM Ruta chalepensis L. Rutaceae 20% W D food, exchange104 TIMATIM Solanum lycopersicum L. Solanaceae 30% H D food, forage/fodder, exchange105 TINJUT Otostegia integrifolia Benth. Lamiaceae 10% W ND forage/fodder, fuel wood, food prep, cleaning106 TIQIL GOMEN Brassica oleracea L. Brassicaceae 60% H D food, exchange107 TOSIGN [Thymus spp.] Lamiaceae 7% H ND food, forage/fodder, food prep, cleaning108 TRIKAL, MOGNO

SENDE

X Triticale rimpaui (Wittm.) Muntz Poaceae 33% H D food, exchange

109 TSEGIE REDA Rosa X Richardii Rehder Rosaceae 10% W D fuel wood

196 Ruelle M.L. et al.

References

Abbott, J. A. (2005). Counting beans: Agrobiodiversity, indigeneity, andagrarian reform. The Professional Geographer, 57(2), 198–212.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.2005.00472.x.

Addis, G., Urga, K., & Dikasso, D. (2005). Ethnobotanical study ofedible wild plants in some selected districts of Ethiopia. HumanEcology, 33(1), 83–118.

Addis, G., Asfaw, Z., &Woldu, Z. (2013). The role of wild and semi-wildedible plants to household food sovereignty in Hamar and Konsocommunities, South Ethiopia. Ethnobotany Research &Applications, 11, 251–271.

Aerts, R., Negussie, A.,Maes,W., November, E., Hermy,M., &Muys, B.(2007). Restoration of dry Afromontane forest using pioneer shrubsas nurse-plants for Olea europaea ssp. cuspidata. RestorationEcology, 15(1), 129–138.

Altieri, M. A. (2009). Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty.Monthly Review, 61(3), 102–113.

Ambalam, K. (2014). Food sovereignty in the era of land grabbing: AnAfrican perspective. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(2),121–132. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v7n2p121.

Asfaw, Z. (2008). The future of wild food plants in southern Ethiopia:Ecosystem conservation coupled with enhancement of the roles ofkey social groups. In International symposium on underutilizedplants for food security, nutrition, income and sustainabledevelopment (Vol. 806, pp. 701–708).

Asfaw, Z., & Tadesse, M. (2001). Prospects for sustainable use and develop-ment of wild food plants in Ethiopia. Economic Botany, 55(1), 47–62.

Bharucha, Z., & Pretty, J. (2010). The roles and values of wild foods inagricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365(1554),2913–2926. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0123.

Bongers, F., Wassie, A., Sterck, F., Bekele, T., & Teketay, D. (2006).Ecological restoration and church forests in northern Ethiopia.Journal of the Drylands, 1(1), 35–44.

Burnett, K., & Murphy, S. (2014). What place for international trade infood sovereignty? Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1065–1084.https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876995.

La Via Campesina. (1996). Food sovereignty: A future without hunger.Declaration of Tlaxcala. http://www.acordinternational.org/silo/files/decfoodsov1996.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2018.

La Via Campesina. (2008). Food Sovereignty for Africa: A Challenge atFingertips. http://viacampesina.net/downloads/PDF/Brochura_em_INGLES.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2018.

Lee, R. P. (2013). The politics of international agri-food policy: dis-courses of trade-oriented food security and food sovereignty.Environmental Politics, 22(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.730266.

Conway, D., & Schipper, E. L. F. (2011). Adaptation to climate change inAfrica: Challenges and opportunities identified from Ethiopia.Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 227–237.

Cooper, P. J. M., Dimes, J., Rao, K. P. C., Shapiro, B., Shiferaw, B., &Twomlow, S. (2008). Coping better with current climatic variabilityin the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: An essentialfirst step in adapting to future climate change? Agriculture,Ecosystems & Environment, 126(1–2), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.007.

Coté, C. (2016). BIndigenizing^ food sovereignty. Revitalizing indige-nous food practices and ecological knowledges in Canada and theUnited States. Humanities, 5(3), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/h5030057.

Edelman, M. (2013). Food sovereignty: Forgotten genealogies and futureregulatory challenges. In Food Sovereignty: A Critical dialogue(Vol. 41, pp. 959–978). New Haven.

Edwards, S., Tadesse, M., & Hedberg, I. (1995). Flora of Ethiopia andEritrea, Volume 2, Part 2: Cannellaceae to Euphorbiaceae. AddisAbaba and Uppsala, Sweden: The National Herbarium, AddisAbaba University and the Department of Systematic Botany,Uppsala University.

Edwards, S., Tadesse, M., Demissew, S., & Hedberg, I. (2000). Flora ofEthiopia and Eritrea, Volume 2, Part 1: Magnoliaceae to

Table 3 (continued)

No. Local plantname(s)

Scientific namea Family Free-list %

Hab.b Cult.c Minor categories of use in food system

110 TSID (HABESHA) Juniperus procera Hochst. ex Endl. Cupressaceae 63% W SD forage/fodder, fencing, construction111 WAJIMA Medicago polymorpha L. Fabaceae 13% H ND forage/fodder112 WARKA Ficus spp. Moraceae 3% W SD food, construction, fuel wood113 WEMBERET Plantago lanceolata L. Plantaginaceae 7% H ND food prep114 WEYRA Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata

(Wall. & G.Don) Cif.Oleaceae 50% W SD forage/fodder, fencing, agricultural tools, construction, storage, fuel

wood, food prep, food consumption, cleaning, exchange115 WICHENA Erica arborea (L.) Ericaceae 23% W ND forage/fodder, fencing, agricultural tools, construction, fuel wood116 WILKIFA Dombeya torrida (J.F.Gmel.) Bamps Sterculiaceae 20% W SD forage/fodder, fencing, agricultural tools, construction, storage, fuel

wood, food prep, food consumption, exchange117 WISHALUT Rumex nepalensis Spreng. Polygonaceae 40% H ND forage/fodder, cleaning118 WOFZER/WOZBER Raphanus raphanistrum L. Brassicaceae 10% H ND forage/fodder119 YEDEMITTSAGUR Polycarpaea corymbosa (L.) Lam. Caryophyllaceae 3% H ND forage/fodder120 YEJIB SHENKURT Crinum abyssinicum Hochst. ex

A.Rich.Amaryllidaceae 3% H ND storage

121 YESEW LUT Malva verticillata L. Malvaceae 10% H ND forage/fodder, construction122 YESHEWA

QULQUAL

Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. Cactaceae 13% W SD food, fencing

123 ZIKITA Calpurnia aurea (Aiton) Benth. Fabaceae 7% W SD forage/fodder, veterinary medicine, fencing, construction, fuel wood

a All scientific names and family associations follow the APG III (The Plant List 2013)bH Herbaceous, W WoodycD Domesticated (always sown or planted), ND non-domesticated (never sown or planted), SD semi-domesticated (both planted and grows on its own)d Synonym: Myrica salicifolia Hochst. ex A. Rich

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 197

Falcourtiaceae. Addis Ababa and Uppsala, Sweden: The NationalHerbarium, Addis Ababa University and the Department ofSystematic Botany, Uppsala University.

FAO. (2014). The State of Food and Agriculture: Innovation in familyfarming (Vol. 34). Rome: 9789251073179.

FDRE-PCC. (2008). Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007Population and Housing Census. Central Statistics Authority.Addis Ababa: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia PopulationCensus Commission.

FEWS-NET. (2014). Famine Early Warning System Network: AfricaData Portal. https://earlywarning.usgs.gov/fews/search/Africa.Accessed 2 September 2014.

Friends of the Earth International. (2003). Trade and People’s FoodSovereignty. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/newfinallowres.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2019.

Friis, I., Demissew, S., & Breugel, P. (2011). Atlas of the potential vege-tation of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press andShewa Press.

Frison, E. A., Cherfas, J., & Hodgkin, T. (2011). Agricultural biodiversityis essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutritionsecurity. Sustainability, 3, 238–253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3010238.

Guinand, Y., & Lemessa, D. (2000). Wild-food plants in southernEthiopia: Reflections on the role of Bfamine-foods^ at a time ofdrought. United Nations Development Programme, EmergenciesUnit for Ethiopia.

Harlan, J. R. (1969). Ethiopia: A center of diversity. Economic Botany,23(4), 309–314.

Hedberg, I., & Edwards, S. (1989). Flora of Ethiopia, Volume 3:Pittosporaceae to Araliaceae. Addis Ababa and Uppsala, Sweden:The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa University and theDepartment of Systematic Botany, Uppsala University.

Hedberg, I., Edwards, S., &Nemomissa, S. (2003).Flora of Ethiopia andEritrea, Volume 4, Part 1: Apiaceae to Dipsacaceae. Addis Ababaand Uppsala, Sweden: The National Herbarium, Addis AbabaUniversity and the Department of Systematic Botany, UppsalaUniversity.

Hedberg, I., Kelbessa, E., Edwards, S., Demissew, S., & Persson, E.(2006). Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volume 5: Gentianaceae toCyclocheilaceae. Addis Ababa and Uppsala, Sweden: The NationalHerbarium, Addis Ababa University and the Department ofSystematic Botany, Uppsala University.

Holt Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes andfood movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation?The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 109–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.538578.

Hsieh, H.-F. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitativecontent analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

Kassam, K.-A. S. (2009). Biocultural diversity and indigenous ways ofknowing: Human ecology in the Arctic. Calgary: University ofCalgary Press.

Kelbessa, E., & Demissew, S. (2014). Diversity of vascular plant taxa ofthe flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Ethiopian Journal of BiologicalSciences, 13(1S), 37–45.

Lin, B. B. (2011). Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification:Adaptive Management for Environmental Change. BioScience,61(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4.

Lulekal, E., Asfaw, Z., Kelbessa, E., & van Damme, P. (2011). Wildedible plants in Ethiopia: A review on their potential to combat foodinsecurity. Afrika Focus, 24(2), 71–121.

Martin, G. (2004). Ethnobotany: A methods manual. New York:Chapman & Hall.

Mburu, S. W., Koskey, G., Kimiti, J. M., Ombori, O., Maingi, J. M., &Njeru, E. M. (2016). Agrobiodiversity conservation enhances foodsecurity in subsistence - based farming systems of eastern Kenya.

Agriculture & Food Security, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0068-2.

McMichael, P. (2010). Food sovereignty in movement: Addressing thetriple crisis. In H. Wittman, A. A. Desmarais, & N. Wiebe (Eds.),Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature & Community (pp.168–185). Oakland: Food First Books.

MOARD. (2005). Major agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. AddisAbaba: Forestry, Land Use, and Soil Conservation Department.

Patel, R. (2009). Food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3),663–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903143079.

Pilgrim, S. E., Cullen, L. C., Smith, D. J., & Pretty, J. (2008). Ecologicalknowledge is lost in wealthier communities and countries.Environmental Science & Technology, 42(4), 1004–1009.

Puff, C., & Nemomissa, S. (2005). Plants of the Simen: A flora of theSimen Mountains and surroundings, northern Ethiopia (ScriptaBo.). Meise: National Botanical Garden of Belgica.

Ruelle, M. L., & Kassam, K.-A. S. (2011). Diversity of plant knowledgeas an adaptive asset: A case study with standing rock elders.Economic Botany, 65(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-011-9168-x.

Ruelle, M. L., Morreale, S. J., & Kassam, K. S. (2011). Practicing foodsovereignty: Spatial analysis of an emergent food system for thestanding rock nation. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, andCommunity Development, 2(1), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.005.

Ruelle, M. L., Kassam, K.-A. S., & Asfaw, Z. (2018). Human ecology ofsacred space: Church forests in the highlands of northwesternEthiopia. Environmental Conservation 45(3), 291–300.

Simoons, F. (1958). The agricultural implements and cutting tools ofBegemder and Semyen, Ethiopia. Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology, 14(4), 386–406.

Skjeflo, S. (2013). Measuring household vulnerability to climate change-why markets matter. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1694–1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.011.

Tadesse, M. (2004). Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Volume 4, Part 2:Asteraceae (Compositae). (I. Hedberg, I. Friis, & S. Edwards,Eds.). Addis Ababa and Uppsala, Sweden: The NationalHerbarium, Addis Ababa University and the Department ofSystematic Botany, Uppsala University.

Tefera, B., Ruelle, M. L., Asfaw, Z., & Tsegay, B. A. (2014).Woody plantdiversity in an Afromontane agricultural landscape (Debark District,northern Ethiopia). Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 23(4), 261–279.https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2014.942709.

Teketay, D., Senbeta, F., Maclachlan, M., Bekele, M., & Barklund, P.(2010). Edible Wild Plants in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. AddisAbaba: University Press.

The Plant List. (2013). Version 1.1. http://www.theplantlist.org. Accessed3 November 2016.

Thornton, P. K., Ericksen, P. J., Herrero, M., & Challinor, A. J. (2014).Climate variability and vulnerability to climate change: A review.Global Change Biology, 20, 3313–3328. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12581.

Thrupp, L. A. (2000). Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security:The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture.International Affairs, 76(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00133.

Vavilov, N. I. (1951). The origin, variation, immunity and breeding ofcultivated plants: Selected writings of N. I. Vavilov. ChronicaBotanica (Vol. 13). Waltham: Chronica Botanica Co.. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1952.00021962004400020016x.

Walsh-Dilley, M., Wolford, W., & McCarthy, J. (2016). Rights for resil-ience: Food sovereignty, power, and resilience in development prac-tice. Ecology and Society, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07981-210111.

198 Ruelle M.L. et al.

Whittaker, R. H. (1960). Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregonand California. Ecological Monographs, 30(3), 279–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943563.

Wittman, H., Desmarais, A., &Wiebe, N. (2010). The origins and poten-tial of food sovereignty. In Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food,Nature & Community (pp. 1–16).

WLRC. (2015). EthioGIS II. Water & Land Resources InformationSystem (WALRIS). Addis Ababa: Water and Land Resource Center.

WorldClim. (2015). WorldClim: Global Climate Data. http://worldclim.org/. Accessed 2 September 2015.

Zimmerer, K. S., & de Haan, S. (2017). Agrobiodiversity and a sustain-able food future. Nature Plants, 3(4), 17047. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.47.

Morgan Ruelle is a Post-DoctoralAssociate in the Department ofEcology & Evolutionary Biologyat Cornell University. He wasrecenty appointed an AssistantProfessor of In te rna t iona lDevelopment, Community &E n v i r o n m e n t a t C l a r kUniversity. He conducts researchon plant diversity, Indigenousecological knowledge, and cli-mate change adaptation in NorthAmerica and Africa.

K a r i m - A l y K a s s a m i sIn terna t ional Professor ofEnvironmental and IndigenousStudies in the Department ofNatural Resources and theAmerican Indian and IndigenousStudies Program at CornellUniversity. He conducts researchwith Indigenous communities inhigh altitudes and high latitudesthat has immediate impact oncommunity agency, adaptation,and resilience.

Stephen Morreale is a conserva-tion ecologist in the Departmentof Natural Resources at CornellUniversity, where he leads severaleducation and research programsand is the Associate Director ofResearch at Cornell’s ArnotForest. His research integratesecological theory and conserva-tion, and is directed toward im-proving resource managementstrategies.

Zemede Asfaw is a Professor inthe Department of Plant Biologyand Biodiversity Management atAddis Ababa University. His re-search focuses on ethnobotany,a g r o b i o d i v e r s i t y , a n dhomegardens. He is currentlyconducting research on the varie-tal diversity of several legumespecies in Ethiopia.

Alison Power is a Professor in theDepar tment of Ecology &Evolutionary Biology and theDepar tmen t o f Sc ience &Technology Studies at CornellUniversity. Her research programfocuses on disease ecology inplant communities as well as theinterface between food security,food systems, and ecosystem ser-vices to and from agricultural sys-tems.

Timothy Fahey is a Professor inthe Depar tment of NaturalResources at Cornell University.His research focuses on forest soilcarbon, nitrogen and phosphorusdynamics, tropical montane forestecosystems and fine root dynam-ics in forests.

Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: a case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia 199