Population structure of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L) on farm … · 2015. 3. 7. · 1 Population structure of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L) on farm and in wild habitats in semi

1

Population structure of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L) on farm and in wild

habitats in semi arid-arid agroecologies in Kenya

P. Nyadoi1,2, J. Obua2, A.B. Temu, 3 R. Jamnadass3

1Conservation Consult and Research Company Uganda Limited, P.O.Box 7412 Kampala Uganda 2Depeartment of Forest Biology and Ecosystems Management, Makerere University, P.O.Box 7062 Uganda, 3World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF, P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya.

Corresponding author email:[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Website: www.conservationconsultandresearch.co.ug Tel +256779250961, +256414530539

Word counts Abstract: 278 All including figures and tables: 5861

2

Abstract

In East Africa, despite recognised tamarind declines and the threat this posed to sustainability of

its livelihood benefits, no long term conservation strategies had yet been identified for

implementation. The major constraint has been lack of knowledge on the species population

structure. The objective of our study was to generate knowledge on tamarind population structure

in different habitats. With prior knowledge that tamarind adapts well over diverse ecologies, we

hypothesized given similar human interventions its population structure or density within growth

stages would equal (1) in an agroecology (a) within habitats (b) among different habitats and (2)

between agroecologies in similar habitats. Inventory of tamarind in 124 randomly sampled plots

from on farm, woodlands and riverbanks in Livestock Millet agroecological zone 4 (LM4) and

LM5 in Tharaka district in Kenya revealed 243 mature tamarind, 63 juveniles and 71 seedlings.

Analyses of the data using MS Excel and PAST software revealed that mature tamarind density

was higher in riverbanks (3.24) than on farm (1.06) and 0.30 in woodlands of LM5 and 3.5, 0.80,

0.95 respectively in LM4. Population structure had higher (P<0.05) density of mature tamarind

(1.06) compared to seedling (0.26) and juveniles (0.16) on farm, 0.30, 0.00, 3.00 in woodlands,

3.5, 2.4, 0.00 in riverbanks respectively in LM4, 0.80:0.28:0.63 on farm, 0.95:0.00:0.00 in

woodlands and 3.24:0.29:0.41 in riverbanks respectively in LM5. Evidently, tamarind

enrichment planting and protection in woodlands and riverbanks and, density enhancement on

farm will be needed to enable long term conservation. Similar tamarind density within growth

stages in similar habitats between LM4 and LM5 exhibited also show that the species could do

well in similar tropical agroecologies. This is also additional knowledge on its adaptability.

Key words; Tamarind, wild habitats, conservation, agroecologies, populations

3

Introduction

Widespread in the tropics Tamarindus indica L is a multipurpose tree species native to East

Africa (Nyadoi et al., 2010). Its fruits, seeds, leaves and wood are consumed domestically and

used on industrial scale for making drugs, drinks, spices, dyes and wood products (Gunasena and

Hughes, 2000;El-sidig et al., 2006). In East Africa, the species was earmarked for product

development to support livelihoods (Bromley and Njuguna, 1992; Nyadoi, 2005; Jama et al.,

2005). Tamarind population in East Africa is declining (Mouki et al., 2000; FAO, 2004),

therefore its livelihood benefits sustainability can only be guaranteed if conservation

interventions are done. However no such interventions were yet being implemented because

conservation needs and strategies required for the different populations remained unknown.

Detailed knowledge of tamarind population structure in its different habitats required to help

elucidate needs and strategies required for long term conservation of the species was lacking.

Past studies which reported population declines for tamarind in East Africa were exploratory and

or based on historic maps and farmer perceptions (Muoki et al., 2000; FAO, 2004). Because of

lack of specific focus on populations, findings of these studies were inconclusive and limited for

identifying specific conservation needs and guidelines for tamarind in its different habitats.

Having been prioritised for product development to support livelihoods in East Africa, there was

need for inventory of tamarind populations in its different habitats to help generate knowledge on

population structure required to determine needs and strategies for conservation. Systematic

conservation of tamarind in habitats is important to secure sustainability of its livelihood benefits

and hence the rationale for our study of tamarind populations in different habitats in Tharaka.

4

Materials and methods

Study area

Tharaka (Figure 1) is a semi arid – arid district in Eastern Kenya, composed of four different

agroecological zones (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983) in all of which tamarind grows and is widely

utilized for livelihoods (Bromley and Njuguna, 1992). The four agroecological zones of Tharaka

differ in rainfall and soil fertility as follows; the LM3 and LM4 have fertile soils and receive

about 1000 mm of annual rainfall with 25%-45% lost to evapo-transpiration. The LM5 and LM6

have poor soil fertility and annual rainfall of about 400 mm with 15%-45% loss to evapo-

transpiration (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983). Rainfall in the district is bimodal, first season begins

is March d ends in May and the second in October-December while temperatures range from

23.2-25.30C and the soils largely gneisses and granites (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983).

Fig 1 Map of Kenya showing location of Tharaka and tamarind population sampled in the district

KA M A G U N A

KA T H A N G AC H IN I

MA U T H IN I

T W A N T H A N J U

K A M W A T H U

K A N J O R O

K A M A R AN D I

N KA R IN I

KA G U M A

T U N Y AI

C H IAK A R IG A

G IT U M A

IR U N D U N I

IBO T E

T U R IM A

KA M A N Y A K I

N T O R O N I

R U KE N Y A

K IT H IN O

KA T H U U R AN KO N D I

G A K U R U N G U

KA R O C H O

KIT H IG IR I

KA M A T U N G U

MA T A K IR I

KA N Y U R U

MU K O T H IM A

KE R E R IA

M A R IM A N T I

K IR A N G AR E

R U KU R IN I

T U M B U R A

MW A N Y A N I

K A T H A N G AC H IN I

0°15

' 0°15'

0°00

' 0°00'

38°00'

38°00'

38°15'

38°15'

N

T H A R A K A D IS T R IC T

5

Stratification and inventory

In data collection for testing the hypotheses on tamarind population structure pursued in this

study, LM3 and LM4 were considered as LM4 agroecological zone while LM5 and LM6 were

considered as LM5 because of their similar ecological conditions. The sampling units within

these agroecologies were then on farm (farmlands characterized by presence of a homestead and

owners-farmers or farmer household members) and wild (woodland and river banks) habitats.

Sampling on farm

The location in which tamarind is left to grow on farm is dependent on farmer’s choice therefore

we considered the whole on farm (in hectares) per farmer as a plot (in our calculations the

average on farm size in Tharaka was 2.4 hectares and this was also in line with literature in the

district). To establish the first plot for tamarind inventory on farm, we randomly selected the first

on farm we encountered but this was done at a distance ≥ 500 m away from an agroecology and

or different habitat boundary. Consequent on farm were sampled at systematic intervals of 2 km

apart. Where we found nobody to attend to us or the place had no on farm, we moved to the

immediate next on farm available. The 2 km intervals between on farm sampling were

maintained because on farm habitats cover the most part of the area of Tharaka district. In total,

we sampled 38 on farm from LM4 and 27 from LM5 in altitude positions ranging from 300 to

over 900 m above sea level.

Sampling in riverbanks

We identified major rivers from the district map and stored their geographic position coordinates

in the Geographic Position Systems (GPS) equipment (Garmin model 3, USA), prior to field visit

6

and later navigated the points in the field. We also sampled seasonal rivers we encountered in the

field and recorded their position coordinates. Like on farm, we sampled the first river at a

distance ≥ 500 m away from an agroecology or different habitat boundary. Once at the bank of

the sampled river, one side of the river course was chosen randomly and tamarind inventoried in

a transect (500 m by 10 m = 10000 m2 = 1 hectare) from both banks of the river. Selection of the

river course direction sampled in consequent riverbanks was systematic left, right pattern. No

specific distance intervals were maintained between rivers sampled and all major rivers and as

many seasonal rivers as we encountered in the district were inventoried. Some of the rivers flow

through on farm or woodland habitats and for such we considered the transect width to represent

riverbank habitat. We measured the length and width of transects in the riverbanks using our

paces rather than length tapes as tape measurement was difficult in most cases because of

vegetation and nature of bankscape. That is some rivers were flowing down hill in woodlands,

others had straight and others curving banks. In total we sampled tamarind along banks of 15

rivers in LM4 and 12 in LM5.

Sampling in woodlands

Similar to riverbanks, prior to field visit, we overlaid grids over prior indentified major

woodlands (forests) in Tharaka topographic map and selected sampling points randomly at 500

m intervals along the grids. We then stored the position coordinates of selected sampling points

in the GPS equipment. In the field, we navigated and collected data on tamarind in the prior

selected sampling plots in the woodlands. Like we did for on farm and in riverbanks, we also

maintained 500 m distance away from the agroecology/different habitat boundary in selection of

the first sample plot for tamarind in woodlands. Once we located the grid point selected for

7

tamarind sampling in woodlands, we established 18 m radius circular plots (0.1 hectare) as unit

for tamarind data collection. Circular plots were used in order to minimize boundary delineation

errors in thick woodland vegetation. Additionally, we also sampled woodlands we found in the

district but which we had not prior identified in the topographic map. For these not prior

identified woodlands, we sampled, we recorded the sampled points position coordinates using

our GPS equipment. In total, we sampled 13 woodlands plots in LM4 and 19 in LM5.

Tamarind population data collection in habitats

We recorded the sampled habitat type, site name, GPS equipment read site altitude, latitude and

longitudes in predesigned data capture sheets. We then counted mature tamarind (diameter at

breast height at 1.3m above ground ≥ 5 cm or if less this diameter but tree has sign reproductive

stage e.g. flowering or fruiting), juveniles (height ≤ 1.3 m with no signs of near reproductive

stage–flowering) and seedlings (recently recruited plant) we found in the sampled plots and

recorded them in our data capture sheets.

Data analysis

To determine the population structure of tamarind, we calculated densities of mature tamarind,

juveniles and seedlings per plot per habitat in LM4 and LM5 from the counts data. We used

densities instead of counts in order to standardize the data for statistical analysis (minimize errors

which would arise from sample size differences due to nature of habitats and habitat plot sizes).

We then performed one way analyses of variance on tamarind densities and interpreted generated

P values to infer on our preset hypotheses on the species population structure. Commonly used in

species natural population studies, ANOVA explores variations in populations at multiple levels

8

within an analysis and dataset (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995) and therefore was appropriate for our

investigation of tamarind population structure at the different levels (within and among different

habitats and LM4 and LM5 agroecological zones). We performed the statistical analyses using

MS Excel and the Paleontological Statistical soft ware (PAST) developed by Hammer and

Harper (Hammer and Harper, 2005). We used altitudes, latitudes, longitudinal coordinates of

sampled plots to map studied populations of tamarind in Tharaka district (Figure 1), using

ArcView GIS soft ware package (ESRI, 2002).

9

Results

Summary of data collected for tamarind population structure analysis

A total of 243 mature tamarind, 71 seedlings and 63 juveniles were recorded from 124 plots

sampled in LM4 and LM5 on farm, riverbanks and woodlands situated in altitudes ranging from

300 to over 900 m above sea level. Total area of Tharaka (Figure 1) inventoried was 144

hectares in LM4 (127 being on-farms, 15 riverbanks and 2 in woodlands) and 59 hectares was

covered (40 hectares on farms, 12 riverbanks and 7 woodlands) in LM5.

Tamarind population structure in different habitats within agroecological zones

In LM5 on farm, the mean density of mature tamarind was 0.8 (standard error, 0.17, standard

deviation, 0.88), that of seedlings was 0.28 (standard error, 0.1, standard deviation, 0.84) and

juveniles 0.63 with a standard error 0.63 and standard deviation, 1.66 (Table1, all tables

referred to in this results section are in appendix). In woodlands, the mature tamarind density

mean was 0.95 (standard error, 0.66, standard deviation 3.01), seedlings and juveniles were

absent (Table 2). In riverbanks, mean density of mature tamarind was 3.24 (standard error, 0.89,

standard deviation 3.67), the seedlings 0.29 (standard error, 0.17, standard deviation 0.69) and

juveniles 0.41 with standard error 0.26 and 1.06 standard deviation (Table 3). The population

structure of tamarind contained similar mean density of mature individuals, seedlings and

juveniles (P=0.25) on farm and in woodlands (P=0.13) while mature individuals density were

higher than seedlings and juvenile (P=0.004) in riverbanks (Table 7). In LM4, the mean density

of mature tamarind on farm was 1.06 (standard error, 0.17, standard deviation, 1.05), seedlings

0.26 (standard error 0.14, standard deviation, 0.87) and juveniles 0.16 with a standard error of

0.05 and 0.32 standard deviation (Table 4). In woodlands, mean densities were 0.30 (standard

10

error 0.21, standard deviation 0.67) for mature tamarind, 3.00 with a standard error of 2.13 and

6.75 standard deviation for juveniles and no seedlings (Table 5). No juveniles were recorded in

riverbanks, while the mean densities were 3.50 (standard error 0.75, standard deviation 2.37) for

mature tamarind and 2.40 (standard error, 2.09, standard deviation 6.06) for seedlings (Table 6).

The population structure of tamarind contained low density of seedlings and juveniles compared

to mature individuals on farm (P=4.63E-06), in woodlands there were no seedlings and mature

individuals and juvenile densities were similarly (P>0.5) low in riverbanks (Table 7).

Tamarind mature trees, seedlings and juveniles among habitats within agroecological zones

Within LM4 habitats, the mean density of mature tamarind significantly differed (P=1.52E-06)

among the different habitats, higher (3.50) in riverbanks than on farm (1.06) and 0.30 in

woodlands (Table 8). Seedling density was similar among the different habitats (P=0.08) while

juveniles differed significantly (P=0.01), higher (3.00) in woodlands than on farm (0.16) and

absent in riverbanks (Table 9). In LM5, mature tamarind density differed significantly (P= 0.007)

among habitats, higher (3.24) in riverbanks compared to 0.95 (woodlands) and 0.80 on farm

(Table 8). Seedlings and juveniles densities were similar (P>0.05) among habitats (Table 8).

Mature tamarind, seedlings and juveniles between LM4 and LM5 similar habitats

Between LM4 and LM5, the mean density of mature tamarind was similar in similar habitats i.e.

P=0.3 (on farm), 0.5 (woodlands) and 0.8 in riverbanks (Table 9), the seedling were similar on

farm (P= 0.9), riverbanks (P=0.1) and absent in woodlands (Table 8) while, juveniles were

similar on farm (P=0.09), riverbanks (P=0.23) but differed (P=0.046) between woodlands, where

they were absent in LM4 (Table 9).

11

Discussion and conclusions

The results of this study show that although tamarind grows in similar densities between LM4

and LM5, the regeneration (juveniles and seedlings) densities is general low and in some cases

missing in wild (woodlands, riverbanks) habitats. Species need to have adequately high

abundances of individuals in its reproductive stages (mature, juveniles and seedlings) in habitats

in order to resist extinction and ensure continuity under population disturbance factors (Seydack,

1995; Peters, 1996). For tamarind, although on farm populations have all reproductive stages

represented, their densities are low and therefore continuity threatened. The population structure

exhibited however provide evidence that farmers have undertaken some conservation measures

already therefore given incentives like product markets and germplasm (Ahlback, 1995;

Sanchez, 1995; Nyadoi, 2005) they will easily conserve more individuals. For long term

conservation of species, population connectivity at landscape level is prerequisite (Margules and

Pressey, 2000). Consequently, conservation of tamarind on farm alone will not lead to

sustainability of its populations if those in the wild become depleted.

It is evident that tamarind face eminent depletion from the wild (riverbanks and woodlands) as

reflected in the absence of seedling and or juveniles in its population structure in these habitats.

Several factors may have caused the observed absence of juveniles and or seedlings in wild

habitats in Tharaka and these need to be identified in future research. Elsewhere, tamarind

germination was observed to improve with seed pretreatment (Maseno, 1994), in East Africa, it

germinates easily naturally therefore germination unlikely to influence population structure. In

Tharaka, bush burning, livestock trampling and grazing and, resource harvesting from woodlands

and riverbanks are largely open access. Tamarind juveniles are for exampled harvested for

12

making walking sticks which are marketed to traders from Mombasa (Nyadoi, 2005). Bush

burning done to encourage fresh pasture for livestock is routinely carried out in the wild habitats

by cattle keepers in Tharaka (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983) and these practices likely limited

growth and even removed tamarind juveniles and seedlings. These practices and their impacts on

tamarind populations will likely continue and increase with human population growth in future

since they are part of the people’s livelihood strategies. Population declines for tamarind in wild

habitats is thus likely to continue to depletion unless enrichment planting and protection

measures are immediately undertaken. Sustainability of wild habitat populations of tamarind

alongside conservation on farm is critical to enable species continuity at landscape level,

essentially needed to achieve long term conservation.

The results of this study also revealed that tamarind grows in similar density in LM4 and LM5

despite that these two agroecological zones differ in soil fertility and rainfall (Jaetzold and

Schmidt, 1983). For development applications, this finding means that tamarind is suitable and

could be promoted for conservation and product development to support livelihoods in Tharaka

and elsewhere in similar tropical agroecologies. It also adds quantitative evidence to support

knowledge on tamarind adaptation described (El-sidig et al., 2006) in its monograph.

13

Acknowledgement

We thank the International START Secretariat (START), Third World Organisation for Women

in Science (TWOWS), and African Network for Agriculture, Forestry and Environment

Education (ANAFE) for funding. We acknowledge and appreciate the research methodology and

GIS mapping technical support received from Wim Buysse and George Aike (both formerly of

World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF research support and GIS unit). We are grateful to Andrew

Botta (Director of Meru herbs project) for the field host support and to all the farmers in Tharaka

who offered their farms, time and information for our study and our Research assistants, David

Njeru and Samuel. We thank Professor NM Nayar for his review inputs which helped us improve

this manuscript.

14

References

Ahlback, A.J (1995). Mobilizing Rural People in Tanzania to Tree Planting: Why and How. Ambio

24(5), 340-10.

Bromley, T and Njuguna, M (1992). Use and management of indigenous trees and plants by the people

of Tharaka, Meru. The Compiled Proceedings of two Workshops held in Marimanti, Tharaka

with Traditional healers and Pastoralists and Circumcisers. Unpublished.

El-Siddig, K., Gunasena, H.P.M., Prasad, B.A., Pushpakumara, D.K.N.G., Ramana, K.V.R., Vijayanand,

P., and Williams, J.T (2006). Tamarind, Tamarindus indica. (Eds.J.T. Williams., R.W. Smith and

Z. Dunsiger) Southampton Centre for Underutilised Crops, Southampton, UK.

ESRI (1992-2002). ArcView Geographic Information Systems, Version 3.2a. 1992-2002.

Environmental Systems Research Institute. 380 New York Street. 3 Redlands, California

FAO (2004). Forest Genetic Resources. United Nations, Rome.

Gunasena, H.P.M. and A. Hughes (2000). Tamarind Tamarindus indica L. Fruits for the Future (Eds)

Hughes, A., N. Hag and R.W. Smith. International Centre for Underutilized Crops.

Hammer Ø and Harper, D A T (2005). PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education

and data analysis, version 1.37. Oslo, Norway.

Jaetzold, R and Schmidt, H (1983). Farm Management Handbook of Kenya, Vol. 11 Natural Conditions

and Farm Management Information – Vol. 11/C eastern Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya.

Jama, B., Oginasako, Z., Simitu P (2005). Utilisation and Commercialization of dryland indigenous fruit

tree species to improve livelihoods in East and Central Africa. Proceedings of a Regional

15

Workshop, KEFRI Kitui Kenya June 20-24th 2005. ICRAF-ECA, ECA Working, 2005, World

Agroforestry Center. Paper No.7

Margules, R C and Pressey, L R (2000). Systematic Conservation Planning. Nature, 405: 243-253.

Maseno, M (1994). Effect of pretreatment on germination process of asam (Tamarindus indica L.)

seeds. Bulletin of penelitian-Hitan, 563:33-42.

Muoki, B.O., B.Owuor, I. Dawson and J.M. Were (2000). The potentials of Indigenous fruit trees.

Results of a survey in Kitui district, Kenya. Agroforestry Today 12:13-16.

Nyadoi, P., Jamnadass, R ., Okori, P., Okullo, J.B.L., Obua, J., Magogo Nassoro., Haji Saleh.,

Pushpakumara, D.K.N.G., Roshetko, J., Kalinganire, A., Muchugi, A., Temu, A.B., Fluch, S.,

and Burg, K (2010). Tamarindus indica tropical populations genetic structure. Gene Conserve 9

(37):152 – 166.

Nyadoi, P (2005). Population Structure and Socio-Economic Importance of Tamarindus indica in

Tharaka District, Eastern Kenya. M.Sc. Thesis. Makerere University, Uganda.110pp.

Peters, C.M (1996). Observations on the sustainable exploitation of non timber tropical forests products.

In: Ruiz Perez, M. and Arnold, J.E.M (eds) Current Issues in non-timber forest products

research, 19-39. Cifor - ODA, Bagor, Indonesia.

Sanchez, P.A (1995). Science in agroforestry, Agroforestry Systems 30:5-55.

Seydack, H.W.A (1995).Unconventional approach to timber yield regulation for multi aged, multi

species forest. Fundamental considerations. Forest Ecology and Management 1-14.

Sokal, R R and Rohlf, J. F (1995). The principles and practice of statistics in biological research/ Robert

R. Sokal and F. James Rohlf –3rd Ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. 887pp.

16

17

Appendix

Table 1 Density of tamarind in mature, seedling and juvenile stages on farms in LM5 in Tharaka Sampled sub location,

on farms in LM5

Number of

mature tamarind

Number of

mature tamarind per

hectare

Number of

seedlings

Number of seedlings

per hectare

Number of

Juveniles

Number of juveniles

per hectare

Gatunga 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Gatunga 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Gatunga 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Gatunga 3 1.25 0 0.00 0 0.00

Gatunga 0 0.00 5 2.08 0 0.00

Gatunga 0 0.00 9 3.75 0 0.00

Gatunga 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Gatunga 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Materi 4 1.67 0 0.00 0 0.00

Materi 8 3.33 0 0.00 0 0.00

Materi 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Materi 4 1.67 0 0.00 0 0.00

Nyakijeru 0 0.00 4 1.67 0 0.00

Nyakijeru 2 0.83 0 0.00 4 1.67

Nkareni 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Nkareni 0 0.00 0 0.00 20 8.33

Tubui 5 2.08 0 0.00 6 2.50

Tubui 2 0.83 0 0.00 3 1.25

Tubui 3 1.25 0 0.00 1 0.42

Tubui 7 2.92 0 0.00 2 0.83

Tubui 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 2.08

Kirangare 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kirangare 1 0.42 0 0.00 1 0.42

Kirangare 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kirangare 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kirangare 1 0.42 1 0.42 0 0.00

Kirangare 3 1.25 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kirangare 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Descriptive statistics

Mean 1.93 0.80 0.68 0.28 1.50 0.63

Standard Error 0.40 0.17 0.38 0.16 0.75 0.31

Standard Deviation 2.11 0.88 2.02 0.84 3.99 1.66

Sample Variance 4.44 0.77 4.08 0.71 15.89 2.76

Sum 54.00 22.50 19.00 7.92 42.00 17.50

18

Table 2 Density of tamarind in mature, seedling and juvenile stages in woodlands in LM5 in Tharaka Woodlands/forests plots

sampled in LM5

Number of mature

tamarind

Number of mature

tamarind per hectare

Number of

seedlings

Number of seedlings

per hectare

Number of

Juveniles

Number of juveniles

per hectare

Ntugi forest lower slope 0 0 0 0 0 0







Kierera forest lower slope 1 10 0 0 0 0



Kierera forest hilltop 0 0 0 0 0 0




Gikingo forest lower slope 0 0 0 0 0 0



Gikingo forest hilltop 0 0 0 0 0 0


Gikingo forest hilltop 0 0 0 0 0 0



Mean 0.10 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Standard Error 0.07 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Sample Variance 0.09 9.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sum 2.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19

Table 3 Density of tamarind in mature, seedling and juvenile stages in riverbanks of LM5 in Tharaka Sub locations from which riverbanks

were sampled for tamarind

Number of

mature tamarind

Number of mature


Number of

seedlings

Number of seedlings

per hectare

Number

of Juveniles

Number of

juveniles per hectare

Materi 1 1 0 0 0 0

Gituma 7 7 0 0 1 1

Gatunga 13 13 2 2 4 4

Kirangare 2 2 0 0 0 0

Kirangare 2 2 0 0 0 0

Kathangachin 5 5 0 0 0 0

Mauthini 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mauthini 3 3 2 2 0 0

Nkareni 7 7 0 0 2 2

Nyakijeru 4 4 0 0 0 0

Tubui 1 1 0 0 0 0

Tubui 1 1 0 0 0 0

Utirini 8 8 1 1 0 0

Kamaguna 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kamaguna 1 1 0 0 0 0

Twanthanju 0 0 0 0 0 0

Twanthanju 0 0 0 0 0 0


Mean 3.24 3.24 0.29 0.29 0.41 0.41

Standard Error 0.89 0.89 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26


Sample Variance 13.44 13.44 0.47 0.47 1.13 1.13

Sum 55.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00

20

Table 4 Density of tamarind in mature, seedling and juvenile stages on farms in LM4 in Tharaka Sub locations/on farm

sampled in LM4

Number of mature

tamarind

Number of mature


Number of

seedlings

Number of seedlings

per hectare

Number of

Juveniles

Number of juveniles per

hectare in Lm4 on farm

Chakariga 4 1.67 6 2.50 0 0.00

Chakariga 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Chakariga 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Chakariga 0 0.00 6 2.50 0 0.00

Chakariga 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Tunyai 3 1.25 0 0.00 0 0.00

Tunyai 7 2.92 0 0.00 0 0.00

Tunyai 6 2.50 0 0.00 0 0.00

Tunyai 11 4.58 0 0.00 2 0.83

Tunyai 0 0.00 1 0.42 0 0.00

Tunyai 7 2.92 0 0.00 0 0.00

Tunyai 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 2 0.83 0 0.00 2 0.83

Kithino 3 1.25 10 4.17 1 0.42

Kithino 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 1.25

Kithino 4 1.67 0 0.00 1 0.42

Kithino 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 1 0.42 0 0.00 2 0.83

Kithino 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 5 2.08 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 3 1.25 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 3 1.25 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 5 2.08 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Kithino 4 1.67 0 0.00 1 0.42 Nkondi 3 1.25 0 0.00 1 0.42

Nkondi 6 2.50 0 0.00 0 0.00

Nkondi 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Nkondi 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Matakiri 2 0.83 0 0.00 0 0.00

Matakiri 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Matakiri 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00

Matakiri 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Matakiri 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Matakiri 1 0.42 0 0.00 1 0.42

Matakiri 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00


21

Mean 2.54 1.06 0.62 0.26 0.38 0.16

Standard Error 0.41 0.17 0.35 0.14 0.12 0.05


Sample Variance 6.31 1.10 4.41 0.77 0.58 0.10

Sum 94.00 39.17 23.00 9.58 14.00 5.83

Table 5 Density of tamarind in mature, seedling and juvenile stages in woodlands of LM4 in Tharaka Forest/woodlands sampled in

sub location in LM4

Number of

mature trees

Number of

mature trees

per hectare

Number of

seedlings

Number of

seedlings per

hectare

Number of

Juveniles

Number of

juveniles per

hectare

Ntugi forest lower slope in Rukenya 2 2 0 0 0 20






Kierera forest hilltop in Kamarandi 1 1 0 0 0 10

Kierera forest lower slope in Kamarandi 0 0 0 0 0 0




Mean 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0 3.00

Standard Error 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 0 2.13

Standard Deviation 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0 6.75

Sample Variance 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.00 0 45.56

Sum 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 30.00

22

Table 6 Density of tamarind in mature, seedling and juvenile stages in riverbanks of LM4 in Tharaka River banks sampled in

Sub locations in LM4

Number of

mature tamarind

Number of mature


Number of

seedlings

Number of seedlings

per hectare

Number of

Juveniles

Number of juveniles

per hectare

Rukenya 4 4 0 0 0 0

Kamarandi 5 5 21 21 0 0

Chakariga 2 2 0 0 0 0

Gituma 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ntoroni 6 6 0 0 0 0

Tunyai 3 3 0 0 0 0

Kithino 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kithino 3 3 0 0 0 0

Kithino 5 5 3 3 0 0

Turima 7 7 0 0 0 0


Mean 3.50 3.50 2.40 2.40 0.00 0.00

Standard Error 0.75 0.75 2.09 2.09 0.00 0.00


Sample Variance 5.61 5.61 43.60 43.60 0.00 0.00

Sum 35.00 35.00 24.00 24.00 0.00 0.00

23

Table 7 within agroecological zones, tamarind population structure in Tharaka Sample scale Units variables Statistical indices Levene’s test of

homogeneity of

variance

Turkey’s pairwise comparison

Agroecological

zone

habitat source of

variation

Sum of

squares

df mean

square

F p(same) p(same) Q/P

(Same)

mature

trees

seedlings juveniles

LM4 On farm between groups 18.03 2 9.01 13.79 *4.63E-06 0.0002 mature trees 0.002 0.0001

within groups 70.59 108 0.65 seedlings 6.02 0.85

Totals 88.62 110 juveniles 6.78 0.76

woodlands between groups 54.6 2 27.30 1.78 0.19 0.0005 mature trees 0.98 0.29



riverbanks between groups 64.07 2 32.03 1.95 0.16 0.03 mature trees 0.82 0.15



LM5 On farm between groups 3.93 2 1.96 1.391 0.25 0.22 mature trees 0.23 0.84



woodlands between groups 12.69 2 6.35 2.11 0.13 0.0001 mature trees 0.19 0.19

within groups 180.95 60 3.02 seedlings 2.51 1

Totals 193.65 62 juveniles 2.51 0

riverbanks between groups 94.27 2 47.14 9.40 *0.0003 2.84E-06 mature trees 0.0012 0.002



* P values significant for differences between tamarind variables being compared

24

Table 8 Within agroecological zones, same growth stage , tamarind density among different habitats in Tharaka Sample scale Units variables Statistical

indices

Levene’s

test of

homogeneity

of variance


Agroecological

zone

growth stages of

tamarind

different

habitats

Sum of

squares

df mean

square

F p(same) p(same) Q/P

(Same)

mature

trees

seedlings juveniles

0n farm woodland riverbank

LM4 mature tamarind trees between groups 60.38 2 30.19 17.34 *1.52E-06 0.0002 On farm 0.31 0.0002

within groups 94.02 54 1.74 woodland 2.09 0.0001

Totals 154.40 56 riverbank 6.73 8.82

Seedlings between groups 40.29 2 20.15 2.59 0.08 0.0002 On farm 0.97 0.13



juveniles between groups 68.39 2 34.19 4.46 *0.02 1.11E-08 on farm 0.03 0.99



LM5 mature tamarind trees between groups 71.02 2 35.51 5.37 *0.01 0.001 on farm 0.98 0.01



Seedlings between groups 1.18 2 0.59 1.39 0.25 0.003 on farm 0.34 0.99



juveniles between groups 4.73 2 2.36 1.61 0.21 0.01 On farm 0.22 0.84




25

Table 9 Between agroecological zones, same tamarind growth stage, density between similar habitats in Tharaka Sample

scale

Units variables Statistical indices Levene’s test

homogeneity

of variance


F and T

test

Agroecolog

ical zone

Tamarind

growth stage

in similar

habitats

source of

variation

different

agroecolog

ies similar

habitats

Sum of

squares

df mean

square

F P

(same)

p(same) Q/P (Same) On farm

LM4

0n farm

LM5

LM4 LM5

LM4 and LM5

mature trees on farm

between groups

1.04 1 1.04 1.08 0.30 0.31 On farm LM4 0.3018 N 37 28

within groups

60.21 63 On farm LM5 1.47 Mean 1.05 0.80

Totals 61.24 64 variance 1.09 0.77

F 1.42

P 0.35

t 1.04

P 0.30

Woodland LM4

Woodland LM5

mature trees in woodlands

between groups

2.88 1 2.88 0.45 0.51 0.12 woodland LM4

0.57 N 10 21

within groups

185.05 29 6.38 woodland LM5

0.95 Mean 0.3 0.95

Totals 187.94 30 variance 0.46 9.05

F 19.86

P 7.40E-05

t -0.67

P 0.35

t unequal variance

-0.95

p 0.66

riverbank LM4

riverbank LM5

N 10 17

mature trees in riverbanks

between groups

0.44 1 0.44 0.04 0.84 0.19 Riverbank LM4

0.84 Mean 3.5 3.23

within groups

265.56 25 10.62 Riverbank LM5

0.29 variance 5.61 13.44

Totals 27 26 F 2.39

P 0.19

t 0.20

P 0.84

t unequal variance

0.23

26

p 0.816

on farm LM4

on farm LM5

N 37 28

seedlings on farms

between groups

0.01 1 0.01 0.01 0.91 0.90 on farm LM4 0.91 Mean 0.26 0.28

within groups

46.69 63 0.74 on farm LM5 0.16 variance 0.77 0.71

Totals 46.7 64 F 1.08

P 0.84

t -0.11

P 0.91

t unequal variance

-0.11

p 0.95

seedlings in woodlands

between groups

within groups

Totals

riverbank LM4

Riverbank LM4

N 10 17

seedlings in riverbanks

between groups

27.92 1 27.92 1.75 0.19 0.01 Riverbank LM4

0.19 Mean 2.4 0.29

within groups

399.93 25 15.99 Riverbank LM5

1.87 variance 43.6 0.47

Totals 427.85 26 F 92.65

P 8.68E-12

t 1.32

P 0.19

t unequal variance

1.01

p 0.11

LM4 LM5

on farm LM4

on farm LM4

N 37 28

juveniles on farm

between groups

3.48 1 3.48 2.81 0.09 0.004 on farm LM4 0.09 Mean 0.16 0.63

within groups

78.01 63 1.24 on farm LM5 2.37 variance 0.09 2.76

Totals 81.49 64 F 27.64

P 1.77E-16

t -1.68

P 0.09

t unequal variance

-1.469

p 0.05

27

woodland LM4

woodland LM4

N

juveniles in woodlands

between groups

60.97 1 60.97 4.31 *0.05 2.40E-05 woodland LM4

0.05 Mean

within groups

410 29 14.14 woodland LM5

2.94 variance

Totals 470.97 30 F

P

t

P

t unequal variance

p

riverbank LM4

riverbank LM4

N

juveniles in riverbanks

between groups

1.07 1 1.07 1.47 0.24 0.01 riverbank LM4

0.24 Mean

within groups

18.12 25 0.72 riverbank LM5

1.72 variance

Totals 19.19 26 F

P

t

P

t unequal variance

p


Documents

Population structure of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L) on farm … · 2015. 3. 7. · 1 Population structure of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L) on farm and in wild habitats in semi