COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF GENDER ROLES IN AGROFORESTRY

MANAGEMENT IN ORLU LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF IMO STATE,

NIGERIA

Irokah, Emmanuel Ekene

(Department of Research and Analyses, PORI Enterprises Nigeria)
Email: emmairokah@gmail.com, porientre@gmail.com

Abstract
The study assessed gender roles in agroforestry management in Orlu Local Government Area of
Imo State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study identified the agroforestry practices used by farmers in
the study area; ascertained the roles of male and female farmers in agroforestry; identified various
uses of agroforestry; and identified constraints militating against involvement in agroforestry.
Agroforestry farmers (150 in numbers) constituted the sample size for the study. Data for the study
were collected using structured questionnaire; presented using frequency, percentage, and mean
score, statistics; and analyses using t-test statistics. Result showed that the average age of the
farmers was 50 years. The majority (59%) of the farmers were male and 49% married. The
respondents were literate, as majority (43%) of them had acquired secondary school education.
Average household size of the farmers was 8 persons. Average farmland of farmers was 3 hectares.
The majority (71%) of the farmers had no access to credit, and (81%) had no contact with
extension agents. The majority (98%) of the farmers practiced taungya system of agroforestry.
However, the highest roles played by men farmers were pruning (98%) and planting (92%) while
that of women farmers were expansion of food crop farm (92%) and marketing of crop products
(89%). Poor access to credit (94%) was the major constraint that militated against agroforestry
in the study area. The hypothesis showed that the roles played by men and women in agroforestry
were statistically different at 5% level of probability. The study recommended that government
should encourage agroforestry farmers via agricultural credit guarantee scheme and development
programmes.

Keywords: Agroforestry, management practices, gender roles.

1
Introduction

One of the challenges facing Nigeria is the production of sufficient food and fiber to meet the
needs of her ever-increasing population. Natural fallows and shifting cultivation have been reduced
beyond the required threshold following the increase in population and land-use pressure. These
have led to land shortages and continuous arable cultivation without fallowing. Because of this,
land does not have enough time to replenish its fertility (Thangata, Hildebrand and Gladwin, 2014).

Attempts to resuscitate land and hence promote yield with the use of chemical fertilizers have
resulted in soil toxicity and environmental pollution. It is imperative to introduce practices that
would not only be an additive to traditional land-use practices, but also ensure the sustainability
of production and social acceptability without damage to the ecosystem (Cheng-Wei et al., 2014).

By and large, agroforestry practices represent such land-use practices thet will offer will positively
influence the ecosystem, and stands as a means of halting the vicious cycle of deforestation, soil
erosion and other environmental problems facing Nigeria. It is one of the sustainable agricultural
practices that uses the principles of natural resource management to replenish soil fertility
(Macaulay, 2014).

Agroforestry is an ancient practice in sub-Saharan Africa where farmers deliberately integrate and
retain trees in their farmland. According to National Agroforestry Center (NAC) (2015),
agroforestry may be defined as a dynamic, ecologically based natural resources management
system that through the integration of trees on farmlands and rangelands diversifies and sustains
production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land users at all levels.
Beliveau et al. (2017) sees agroforestry as the system of farming which combines agriculture with
forestry in a rational approach and maintenance of sustainable production systems on the same
piece of land, either simultaneously or sequentially. Agroforestry can also be referred to all land-
use systems and technologies where woody perennials (like trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.)
are purposely combined on the same unit with herbaceous plants (like crops or pasture) and/or
animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal-sequence. Agroforestry comprises of
trees and crops that increase the medicinal, environmental, and economic value of land with the
much-needed profit and food security. It includes both traditional and modern land-use systems
where trees are managed together with crops and/or animal production systems in agricultural
settings (Rotich et al., 2017).

Agroforestry practices have the potential of improving agricultural land use systems, providing
lasting benefits and alleviating adverse environmental effects at local and global levels. This
technique as practiced in Nigeria has the potentials to address slash and burn agriculture and
anthropocentric (human induced) forces that are responsible for degradation. It provides a tool for
accelerated economic improvement in rural livelihoods in a country where over half of the
population resides in the rural areas (Sahilu, 2017). It can help to ensure sustained productivity of
the natural resource base by enhancing soil fertility, controlling erosion and improving the

2
microclimate of croplands, nutrient recycling, carbon sequestration, bio-drainage, bio-energy and
bio-fuel and providing grazing lands. It is a land use option that increases livelihood security and
reduces vulnerability to climate and environmental change. It is more profitable to farmers than
agriculture or forestry for a particular area of land because it has the potential to provide rural
households with food, fodder, fuel wood and other products. By providing farmers with a means
of producing fuel wood, timber, building poles and other forest products on farmland, agroforestry
can significantly reduce the demand on forests and natural woodlands. It could therefore
supplement forest restoration strategies (Sahilu, 2017).

Improved roles of man and woman in agroforestry practices are necessary for a proper land-use,
which ensures environmental sustainability. Improved agroforestry production cannot be achieved
without the immense involvement or gender participation. ThereThere is need for a developed
agricultural production particularly the agroforestry in order to relieve pressure on natural
resources and ensure sustainable agricultural development. According to Enete and Amusa (2010),
women are key players in the Nigerian agricultural sector, especially within rural communities.
They contribute between 40% and 65% of all hours spent in agricultural production and processing
and undertake 60 to 90% of the rural agricultural product marketing, thus providing more than two
thirds of the workforce in agriculture (Sabo, 2006).

Women play significant roles in agricultural production, processing and marketing in Nigeria
(Enete and Amusa, 2010; Galiè et al., 2013; MuGeDe, 2017; Akter et al., 2017). Available
literature show that men have continued to dominate farm decision making, even in areas where
women are the largest providers of farm labour (Oseni et al., 2013; Alston et al., 2018). Women
have more or less been relegated to playing second fiddle in farm decision making. This could be
counter-productive, because, there is bound to be conflict when women, as key players, carry out
these farm tasks without being part of the decision process, especially when the decisions fail to
recognize their other peculiar household responsibilities.

Previous efforts at estimating gender roles in agriculture have tended to concentrate on evaluating
their empowerment status and contributions to food crop production (Enete and Amusa, 2010;
Malapit and Quisumbing, 2015; Akter et al., 2017; Alston et al., 2018). There has been little or no
farm-level information regarding gender roles in agroforestry, in view of male and female
dominance in cash crop environment like agroforestry households (Umeh; 2011; Buttoud et al.,
2013; Nwosu, 2014). This paper aims to bridge this information gap by comparing the level of
contributions of women and men in agroforestry activities in Orlu, Imo State, Nigeria. The purpose
of the study is to assess the roles played by both men and women farmers in the practice of
agroforestry in Orlu Local Government Area of Imo State, Nigeria.

Hypothesis of the study

Ho; There is no significant difference in the roles played by men and women farmers in
agroforestry management in the study area.

3
Concept of agroforestry

Agroforestry can simply be defined as the practice of growing trees with agricultural crops and/or
livestock on the same piece of land. According to Franzluebbers (2017), agroforestry is the
integration of trees into agricultural systems to aid the management of the agricultural components.
It combines the best attributes of forestry and agriculture, and is one of the most promising
alternatives to the conventional approaches to increase agricultural productivity. Agroforestry
practices can be used in croplands where trees or shrubs are interspersed with annual crops, on
contour strips and boundaries, where multipurpose trees provide numerous products including
poles, fuel, fruits and fodder. It can be practiced on public or shared land where trees can be grown
for wood, fodder, food or cash crops (Bankole et al., 2012).

To be successful, agroforestry practice must be flexible, resilient, sustainable, economically

attractive, and acceptable to local populations. The sustainability and extent of soil productivity
improvement in agroforestry practices depends on many factors including site characteristics, plant
species and cultivar, cropping pattern and management factors. The choice of plant/tree species is
the most important factor to be considered in agroforestry practices. According to Foroughbakhch
and Ngangyo (2017), the choice of tree species to be used for agroforestry should be done after
careful consideration of their adaptability for growth and benefit for rural populace. In other to
achieve this, the tree species must be adaptable to agro climatic conditions (i.e., climate, soils,
slopes, and elevation of farm sites) at the project site where the trees are to be planted. From the
study carried out by Hillbrand et al., (2017), characteristics of trees to be considered suitable for
agroforestry include; high biomass production, high nitrogen fixation, well-developed rooting
system, high nutrient content in biomass, including roots, fast or moderate decay of litter, absence
of toxic substances in foliage or root exudates, and cyclone resistant.

All agroforestry practices should possess three major attributes, which include productivity,
sustainability and adaptability. According to FAO (2013), agroforestry when designed and
implemented correctly, combines the best practices of tree growing and agricultural systems
resulting in the most sustainable use of land.

Its design should therefore strive to maximize positive interactions between trees and other
elements (crops and animals) and minimize negative interactions. Designers should take into
account the land and labour available for adding a tree component to existing farming system and
the tree component's impact on other agricultural and off-farm activities of the target population.
The risks, benefits, and costs associated with planting and managing the tree component should be
considered from the farmers' perspective. In areas where the trees are to be intercropped with food
crops, the likely impact of the tree component on crop yields should also be considered. For
example, if the trees are to be planted or harvested at the same time as crops, the likelihood of
reduced food production and other opportunity costs should be considered. Particular agroforestry
designs depend on landowner’s objectives and can emphasize any combination of timber, row

4
crops, livestock, fruit crop, firewood, wildlife, and recreational habitat. These agroforestry
combinations are distinguished from traditional agriculture or forestry by a few key traits. First,
an agroforestry design is intentionally managed as a whole system with intensive cultural practices
for more than one crop and/or animal. Second, the landowner uses interactions between trees,
crops, and/or animal components to achieve particular objectives while protecting resources (Gold
et al., 2015).

Agroforestry as practiced in Nigeria, includes a homestead farm, with multistoried crops; the top
story of coconut, middle story of citrus, bananas etc. and ground story of ginger, groundnuts,
maize, melon and others. In the southeastern Nigeria compound farm, the tree component includes
oil palm, coconut, kola nut, citrus, mango and guava grown with an under story of cassava, yam,
groundnuts, and vegetables. According to Umeh (2008), the fruit and food tree species for
compound farms in the forest area are either cultivated or semi-wild and protected. They are
planted or retained as farm trees and interpolated with arable crops, in close proximity to the
homestead where they are protected.

Umeh (2011) identified twenty-five tree and shrub species as common woody components of
agroforestry practice in the southeastern zone of Nigeria, which include Dacryodes edulis,
Pterocarpus santalinoides, Vernonia amygdalina, Pterocarpus Soyanxii, Citrus Spp, Musa sp,
Chrysophyllum albidum, Carica papaya, Kola spp, Newbouldia leavis, Irvigia gabonensis,
Treculia africana, Plukenetia conophora and Ocimum gratisimum among others.

Components of agroforestry

1. Tree component of agroforestry

In agroforestry, particular attention is placed on multi-purpose trees or perennial shrubs. The most
important of these trees are the legumes because of their ability to fix nitrogen and thus make it
available to other plants.

5
Table 2. 1: Tree/shrub or woody perennial species component of agroforestry practices

S/No Botanical name Local name English name

1 Pentaclethra macrophylla Ukpaka Oil bean
2 Treculia Africana Ukwa Breadfruit
3 Irvigia spp Ogbono
4 Dacryodes edulis Ube Local Pear
5 Annona muricata Soursop
6 Pterocarpus santalinoides Uturukpa
7 Plukenetia conophora Ukpa
8 Baphia nitida Abosi Camwood
9 Pterocarpus soyauxii Ora/ oha
10 Citrus spp Oroma Orange
11 Musa spp. Unere Plantain/banana
12 Chrysophyllum albidum Udara African star apple
13 Carica papaya Unere ezi Pawpaw
14 Cola acuminate Orji (Igbo) Kola nut
15 Cola nitida Orji (Hausa) Kola nut
16 Eleais guinensis Nkwu Oil palm
17 Chlorophora excels Oji Iroko
18 Newbouldia leavis Ogirisi
19 Mangifera indica Mangoro Mango
20 Psidium guajava Ugiri Guava
21 Irivingia gabonensis Bush mango
22 Garcinia kola Akilu Bitter kola
23 Swietenia macrophylla Mahogany
24 Triplochiton scleroxylon Obeche
25 Oxytenanthera abyssinica Achara /otosi Bamboo
26 Hevea brasiliensis Okwe Rubber tree
27 Dennettia tripetaka Mmimi
28 Moringa oleifera Moringa
29 Azadirachta indica Dogonyaro
30 Xylopia acthiopica Uda
31 Monadora myristica Ehuru
32 Gongronema latifolium Utazi
33 Vernonia amygdalina Onugbu Bitter leaf
34 Ocimum gratisimum Nchanwu Scent leaf
35 Spondias mombin Ichikere
36 Brachystegia sp. Achi
37 Agaricus bisporus Ero Mushroom
38 Gnetum Africana Okazi

Source: Alao and Shuaibu (2011) and Umeh (2011)

6
2. Crop Component of agroforestry

Any crop plant can be used in agroforestry systems. The choice of crop plants in designing such
systems should be based on those crops already produced in a particular region either for
marketing, feeding animals, or for home consumption, or that have great promise for production
in the region. In keeping with the philosophy of agroforestry, however, other values to be
considered in crops selection include proper nutrition, self-sufficiency and soil protection (Motis,
2007; REMA, 2010).

Table 2. 2: Arable crop species component of agroforestry practices

English name Local name Scientific name

Yam Ji Dioscerea Spp
Cassava Akpu Manihot esculenta
Cocoyam Ede Xanthosama sagittifolia,
Culocasia esculenta
Pigeon pea Fiofio Cajanus cajan
Groundnut Opupa/ahuekere Arachis hypogaea
Bambara nut Okpa Vigna subterranea
Maize Oka Zea mays
Cowpea Agwa Vigna unguiculata
Fluted Pumpkin Ugu Telferia occidentalis
Spinach Spinacia oleracea
Water leaf Mborondi Talinum triangulare
Melon Egwusi Cucumis melo
Okra Okwuru Abelmoschus esculentus
Garden egg Anyara Solanum melongena

Source: Umeh (2011)

7
3. Animal component of agroforestry

Any farm animal can be used in agroforestry systems. The choice of animal will be based on the
value the farmer places on animal-derived benefits including income, food, labor, nonfood
products, use of crop residues, and manure.

Table 2. 3: Animal species component of agroforestry practices

English Name Local Name Scientific Name

Goat Ewu Gazella dorcas
Sheep Aturu Ovis aries
Cattle Efi/ ehi Bos taurus
Grass cutter/cane rat Nchi Thryonomys swinderianus
Rabbit Oke oyibo/ Oke bekee Oryctolagus cuniculus
Snail Ejule Achatina achatina
Bee Anu Apis lithohermaea
Fish Azu Oreochromis niloticus

Source: Umeh (2011)

Agroforestry practices in Nigeria

An agroforestry practice denotes a distinctive arrangement of components in space and time. Some
of them include:

1. Multipurpose tree lot

This type of agroforestry involves farmers intentionally leaving few trees on the farms when
clearing the land. The trees commonly left are those of economic importance to the farmers. The
trees are deliberately grown and managed for more than one output. According to Amonum et al.
(2009) multipurpose tree lot may supply food in the form of fruits, nuts, or leaves that can be used
as a vegetable; while at the same time supplying firewood, add nitrogen to the soil, or supply some
other combination of multiple outputs.

2. Taungya system
The taungya system was the main agroforestry method practiced in the forest reserves since 1950
to date and is one of the oldest known agrosilvicultural systems. It is an agroforestry practice
whereby food crops are interplanted with trees in a unit area of land for 2 - 3 years. Food crops
cease to exist on the land when the tree crops close canopy. Obviously, the Igbo of South eastern
Nigeria practice this by planting melon, okra and vegetables under rubber and palm trees. The
system can be considered as another step in the process of transformation from shifting cultivation
to agroforestry. It consists of the simultaneous combination of the two components during the early
stages of forest plantation establishment. Although wood production is the ultimate objective in
the taungya system, the immediate motivation for practicing it is food production.

8
 3. Integrated taungya
According to Yegawal (2018), the integrated taungya aims at invoking the idea of land use practice
whereby the activities on the land are stretched all the year round. These include; thinning, pruning
and other management schedules to the tree crop to reduce the intensity of overstorey shade and
thus allow cultivation of crops. Under the integrated system, when tree canopy is closed, rising of
agricultural crops is substituted by livestock grazing. The application of fertilizer and other soil
management measures are to avoid the deleterious effects commonly associated with the
conventional taungya and the social benefit to farmers is their continued stay on site.

4. Home gardens
The word "home garden" has been used rather loosely to describe diverse practices, from growing
vegetables behind houses to complex multistoried systems. It is a system whereby more than five
crop types are often intercropped on a small farm land with some economic trees as well as
providing food, vegetables, fruits and medicines (Bifarin et al., 2013). It is used here to refer to
intimate association of multipurpose trees and shrubs with annual and perennial crops and,
invariably livestock within the compounds of individual houses, with the whole crop-tree animal
unit being managed by family labour. Home gardens have a long tradition in many tropical
countries. Tropical home gardens consist of an assemblage of plants, which may include trees,
shrubs, vines, and herbaceous plants, growing in or adjacent to a homestead or home compound.
These gardens are planted and maintained by members of the household and their products are
intended primarily for household consumption; the gardens also have considerable ornamental
value, and they provide shade to people and animals. It is more common in the southern and eastern
part of Nigeria. According to the study by Umeh (2011) it was also revealed that more species
were located in home gardens than in farm fields where they provide fuel, income as well as source
of shade and fodder to livestock.

5. Alley cropping
Alley-cropping (also known as alley-farming) was developed during the 1970s at the International
Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) to address the problem of soil depletion on land overused
for traditional shifting cultivation and bush-fallow cultivation. It involves the cultivation of food
crops such as upland rice, maize, yam, cassava, and other crops between rows of fast-growing
leguminous trees or shrubs (Radhakrishnan et al., 2017).

6. Border tree planting

Border planting is used to enhance the aesthetic value of the surroundings, demarcate boundaries,
control water and wind erosion and supplement the supply of food, fodder and fuel wood. They
are strips of trees or other vegetation planted on the edges of fields. It could be used for
intercropping of trees or other woody plantation within farm crops to provide demarcation, or
boundaries. FAO and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2017) reported that the
woody species apart from preventing boundary disputes also provide fuel wood supplies.

9
 7. Windbreaks (Shelterbelt)
Rows of trees grown in bands perpendicular to prevailing winds are called windbreaks or
shelterbelts (Ballesteros-Possu et al., 2017). These rows of trees and/or shrubs on agricultural land
provide ecological goods and services e.g. shelter from the wind, wildlife habitat, carbon
sequestration, filter for dust, noise or odor, and also produce timber and non-timber products.

This practice is utilized as part of a crop and/or livestock operation to enhance production, protect
livestock and control soil erosion. The windbreak protects crops directly by shielding them against
the scouring and drying effect of wind and indirectly by preventing erosion. In addition, soils under
the tree canopy are enriched by micro organic life that thrives in the shade of the tree canopy and
by the nutrients that are added to the soil as the fallen tree leaves decay.

Studies (Giller, 2013; Ballesteros-Possu et al., 2017) have shown that when leguminous species
are used for the windbreak, the nitrogen fixed by the tree roots further enriches the soil. Woody
species used for this purpose include tree varieties that are wind-resistant and have a good ability
to grow in height and branches.

8. Forest farming
Forest farming is the management of forest canopy for the production of specialty products in the
understory. According to Dosskey, et al. (2011) product options such as food (berries, nuts and
mushrooms), botanicals (herbs and medicinal), decorative (floral greenery and dyes), and
handicrafts (basket and woodcraft materials), bee products (honey, bee pollen, beeswax, royal
jelly, etc.), fencepost, firewood, maple syrup etc. can be cultivated using this practice. Forest
overstorey is modified to provide the appropriate understory microclimate but not enough to
greatly interfere with its contributions to wildlife habitat, erosion control, and water filtering. The
forest farming practice emphasizes the fact that both timber and other products can be grown
simultaneously.

9. Riparian forest buffers

This practice involves establishing living filters comprised of trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses along
water systems. These buffers enhance filtration of nutrients from surface run-off and shallow
ground water. Riparian forest buffers protect the water quality of streams and lakes and are an
effective tool for controlling erosion and providing food and cover for wildlife. Decorative woody
floral, berries, native grasses and crops can be incorporated into the buffer. This practice requires
establishing a series of specific zones - native trees, shrubs and grasses to protect the temperature
and clarity of moving water and to keep agricultural chemicals and soil from eroding directly into
stream water.

10. Improved fallow

Improved fallow is an agroforestry practice that has its origins in slash-and-burn agriculture. It
involves planting fast-growing, preferably leguminous woody species during the fallow phase of
shifting cultivation. According to Alavalapati, Mercer and Montambault (2004) the woody species

10
improve soil fertility and may yield economic products. Farmers use improved fallow to accelerate
the process of rehabilitation and thereby shorten the length of their fallow periods. The technology
can be applied to any agricultural land that is not under cultivation in order to accelerate recovery,
increase nutrient reserves, and improve the potential for future productivity on the site.

Benefits of agroforestry practices

Several studies (Harvey and Villalobos, 2007; Jose, 2009; Jacobson and Shiba, 2013; Mercer et
al., 2014) have reported that agroforestry is very profitable to farmers. Agroforestry practices of
all types provide important direct and indirect benefits not only to the farmers who implement
them, but to their communities and the global population as a whole. Some of the benefits are
listed below (Mercer, Frey, and Cubbage, 2014).

1. Enhancing soil fertility (Sanchez, 2002).

2. Soil conservation (Anitta and Sathya, 2012)
3. Enhancing water use efficiency (Chebusit et al. 2017)
4. Microclimate improvement
5. Biodiversity conservation (Atta-Krah, Kindt, Skilton and Amaral, 2004).
6. Bio-drainage (Anitta and Sathya, 2013)
7. Carbon sequestration (Kursten, 2000; IPCC, 2007; Albrecht and Kandji, 2003;
Montagnini and Nair, 2004, Palm, Vosti, Sanchez, and Ericksen, 2005).
8. Agroforestry for bio-fuel and bio-energy production (Anitta and Sathya, 2013; NRCAF,
2007).
9. Agroforestry for food and income (Obasi et al., 2013)
10. Agroforestry as a climate change adaptation strategy (IPPC, 2007; Rao, Verchot and
Laarman, 2007).

Constraints to Agroforestry Practices

1. Lack of advocacy/agricultural policies for agroforestry practices (Powell, 2009).

2. Low awareness of agroforestry practices (Place et al., 2012; Place et al., 2012)
3. Low production knowledge (Powell, 2009).
4. Inadequate research in agroforestry (FAO, 2013)
5. Unquantified economics (Powell, 2009).
6. Poor market information and connections (Kang and Akinnifesi, 2000; FAO, 2013).
7. Labour shortages/labour cost (Kang and Akinnifesi, 2000; Gladwin, Peterson, Phiri and
Uttaro, 2002).
8. Lack of key infrastructure (Powell, 2009)
9. Lack of production materials (Place et al., 2012; FAO, 2013).
10. Land and tree tenure (FAO, 2013).
11. Lack of incentives (Leimona, 2011; Place et al., 2012)
12. Poor and inadequate extension services (Powell, 2009; Banful, Nkonya and Oboh, 2010).

11
 13. Subsidies or support for other land use practices (Kaczan et al., 2013)
14. Socio-cultural factors (Powell, 2009).
15. Lack of coordination between sectors (FAO, 2013).
16. Lack of involvement of farmers during the programme development (Powell, 2009).
17. Low Production due to competition between trees and crops (Kaczan et al., 2013).
18. Long period to obtain the yield of agroforestry (Anitta and Sathya, 2013)
19. Land scarcity (Anitta and Sathya, 2013).

Strategies for Improving Agroforestry Practices

Because so many limiting factors are now known as explained above, strategy can be developed
which should be rooted in existing local practice and promote acceptable agroforestry systems
appropriate to local and physical conditions (DAFF, 2017). Some of these strategies include but
not limited to the following:

1. Promote education and research efforts (National Environmental Research Council, 2002;
Akpabio et al., 2008).
2. Organizing workshop for farmers
3. Encourage local involvement on agroforestry practices
4. Provide financial support and the right climate for income generation (Anitta and Sathya,
2013).
5. Policy reforms (DAFF, 2017)
6. Promote communication between researchers and policy makers (Mwase et al., 2015).
7. Provision of credit facilities (Orisakwe and Agomuo, 2011)
8. Provision of incentives to farmers (Siew, 1989).
9. Promote marketing of farm-grown tree products (Mwase et al., 2015; Mwase et al. 2015)
10. Promoting information to farmers through extension services (Mwase et al., 2015).
11. Strengthening research, extension and farmers’ linkage/communication (Siew, 1989;
Parwada, 2010).
12. Awareness creation (Powell, 2009)
13. Provision of quantifiable economic information (Kang and Akinnifesi, 2000)
14. Minimizing competition between trees and crops

Methodology
The study was conducted in Orlu Local Government Area of Imo state, Nigeria. The area lies
within latitude 5o43’45” N to 5o53’00” N and longitude 7o0’00” E to 7o7’30” E with a population
of 196,600 people (National Bureau of Statistics, 2016).

Orlu communities were identified by the presence of forests and plant life. From the list of
agroforestry farmers compiled in each of the village by extension agent, ten farmers were selected

12
using simple random sampling technique. A total of 150 farmers constituted the sample for the
study.

Data were collected using structured questionnaire complemented with interview schedule while
that of the secondary data sources included.
Data analysis was conducted using t-test.
t = Z
s
where:
Z and s are the functions of the data.

Decision Rule: Reject null hypothesis (Ho) if P-value is less than 0.05 (critical level).

13
 Results and Discussions
Socio-economic characteristics of farmers in the study area

The result of the survey is summarized below;

Table 1: Distribution of Socio-economic characteristics of farmers
Socio-economic characteristics Frequency (f) Percentage (%) Mean (x)
Sex
Male 89 59.3
Female 61 40.7
Age (years)
21-40 26 17.3
41-60 77 51.3 50
61-80 47 31.3
Marital status
Single 14 9.3
Married 73 48.7
Divorced 3 2.0
Widowed 60 40.0
Educational level
No formal education 13 8.7
Primary school attempted 33 22.0
Secondary school attempted 65 43.3
Tertiary 39 26.0
Household size of farmers
1 to 5 26 17.3
6 to 10 51 34.0 8
11 to 15 55 36.7
16 and above 18 12.0
Farm Size (ha):
Less than 1 16 10.7
1 to 2 54 36.0 3
2 to 5 53 35.3
5 and above 27 18.0
Farming Experience (years):
1 to 10 38 25.3
11 to 20 67 44.7 16
21 to 30 34 22.7
31 and above 11 7.3
Access to credit:
Yes 44 29.3
No 106 70.7
Extension visit
No Contact 121 80.7
Once in a month 26 17.3
Twice in a month 3 2.0
Thrice in a month 0 0.0
Four times in a month 0 0.0
Source: Field survey, 2018

14
Types of agroforestry practices used by the farmers

Table 2: Distribution of farmers according to agroforestry practices used in the study area

Agroforestry practice n = 150 Frequency (f) Percent (%)

Taungya system 147 98.0
Agrosilvipastoral 144 96.0
Home gardens 134 89.3
Crop Plantation 120 80.0
Multipurpose trees on cropland 110 73.3
Agrisilviculture 105 70.0
Silviculture 99 66.0
Border planting of trees 93 62.0
Live fencing 78 52.0
Silvipasture 74 49.3
Apiculture 72 48.0
Multipurpose tree lots 68 45.3
Nursery 51 34.0
Alley cropping 27 18.0
Aquaculture 27 18.0
Silviolericulture 14 9.3
Improved tree fallow 3 2.0
Source: Field survey, 2018

15
The roles of male and female farmers in agroforestry

Table 3: Distribution of farmers according to their roles in agroforestry management

Men farmers Women farmers

Roles
f % Ranking f % Ranking
Pruning 87 97.8 1st 45 73.8 5th
Planting/transplanting 82 92.1 2nd 26 42.6 10th
Harvesting of the food crops 80 89.9 3rd 21 34.4 12th
Farm Decision Making 69 77.5 4th 16 26.2 14th
Sourcing for planting materials 61 68.5 5th 32 52.5 7th
Weeding 60 67.4 6th 31 50.8 8th
Thinning 60 67.4 7th 18 29.5 13th
Marketing of food crops (fresh or
57 64.0 8th 49 80.3 3rd
processed)
Processing of harvested crops 56 62.9 9th 43 70.5 6th
Transportation of crop products 46 51.7 10th 13 21.3 15th
Bush clearing and land preparation 44 49.4 11th 10 16.4 17th
Disease Control 44 49.4 12th 54 88.5 2nd
Expansion of the food crop farm 35 39.3 13th 56 91.8 1st
Watering of seedlings 31 34.8 14th 46 75.4 4th
Storage of fresh/processed food crops 18 20.2 15th 43 70.5 6th
Raising seedlings in the nursery 13 14.6 16th 12 19.7 16th
Pest Control 12 13.5 17th 24 39.3 11th
Manuring 4 4.5 18th 30 49.2 9th
*Multiple response n = 89 n = 61
Source: Field survey, 2018

16
Uses of agroforestry

Table 4: Distribution of farmers according to their uses of agroforestry

Uses n = 150 Frequency (f) Percent (%)

Provision of fuel/firewood 150 100
Provision of timber 147 98
Provision of planting materials 144 96
Provision of raw materials 141 94
Provision cash crops 125 83.3
Provision of feed for animals 120 80
Provision of wildlife and meat 119 79.3
Provision of food 116 77.3
Provision of income 114 76
Wind erosion control 102 68
Provision of shade 78 52
Provision of medicinal herbs, leaves and roots 74 49.3
Provision of conducive environment 65 43.3
Tourism 48 32
Soil conservation 18 12

Source: Field survey, 2018

17
Factors militating against the use agroforestry practices in the study area

Table 5: Distribution of farmers according to their perceived constraints that militate against
practice of agroforestry

Constraints n = 61 Frequency (f) Percent (%)

Poor access to credit 141 94.0
Cost of Land 135 90.0
Difficult to control 98 65.3
Inappropriate tools/machines 90 60.0
Severity of Pests and diseases 89 59.3
Poor Extension visits 84 56.0
Cases of Theft 83 55.3
Extensive time of Harvest 74 49.3
Soil infertility 65 43.3
Lack of technical know-how 48 32.0
Severity of practices involved 47 31.3
Labour intensive 38 25.3
Erosion 21 14.0
Unavailability of information 20 13.3
Marketing difficulty 11 7.3

Source: Field survey, 2018

18
Test of Hypothesis

Table 4. 1: t-Test: Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. Mean Std. Error Difference
t df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Roles Equal
variances 9.482 148 .000 4.95 .52205 3.91826 5.98154
assumed
Equal
variances 9.283 119 .000 4.95 .53324 3.89404 6.00575
not assumed

Source: Computer output

Discussions

Result showed that the majority (59%) of the farmers were males and 49% married with mean age
of 50 years (Table 1). This is in line with the findings of Orisakwe et al. (2011); Obasi et al.,
(2012); Oseni et al. (2013) Bifarin et al. (2013) and Akinwalere (2016). The respondents were
literate as majority of them had acquired one form of formal education or the other (Table 1).
According to Okoye, Okorji, and Asumugha (2004), educated farmers adopt innovation more than
farmers with no formal education.

Average household size of the farmers was 8 persons (Table 1). According to Adedayo and
Oluronke (2014) large household is advantageous in farming as labour may be derived from the
members. Average farmland of farmers was 3hectares (Table 1). This is in line with the study of
Oloyede (2017). This could be as a result land fragmentation due to increase in population, leaving
farmers with small farm land.

The majority (45%) of farmers had between 11-20 years of experience (Table 1) which is
consistent with the findings of Nwaobiala, (2014). The majority (71%) of the farmers had no access
to credit (Table 2), and (81%) had no contact with extension agents (Table 3). Similar report has
been given by Oloyede (2017) and Bifarin et al. (2013) noted that regular contact with extension
agents motivates and exposes the farmers to innovations and gives them information on how to
use the technologies.

19
The majority (98%) of the farmers practiced Taungya system of agroforestry (Table 4). Contrary
to the study of Fernandes and Nair (2006) food production is the primary function of most home
gardens and much of what is produced is consumed by the household. However, the highest roles
played by men farmers were pruning and planting while that of women farmers were expansion of
food crop farm and marketing of crop products (Table 5). According to Bifarin et al. (2013), men
are more energetic in agroforestry than women, which could be a reason for their major role
playing in Planting/transplanting, pruning and harvesting.

Survey also showed that the majority of the respondents in the study area obtained firewood
(100%), timber (98%), and planting materials (96%) from agroforestry practices. In a similar study
(Syampungani et al., 2009), providing fuel wood was also one of the major benefits of agroforestry
practices, which accounts for energy of between 70-80% of biomass from trees and shrubs. Poor
access to credit was the major constraint that militate against agroforestry in the study area (Table
6). Contrary to the findings of This is against the finding of Obidike (2011), lack of knowledge
and skill in agroforestry practices was another a major factor that constrain agroforestry farmers.
Analysis showed that significant value for the 2-tailed test (0.000) is less than critical value of
0.05, therefore we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative.

Conclusions

The analyses of the study revealed that there is a difference in the roles played by men and women
farmers in agroforestry.

Again, the difference between roles played by men and women farmers in agroforestry is
statistically significant.

Recommendations

1. Farmers should be engaged in cooperative societies, organisations and thrift savings to boost
their financial support since there is poor access to credit from financial institutions.
2. Government should also encourage farmers by subsidizing farming inputs and providing
credit for farmers.
3. Agroforestry should be encouraged by the state government through agricultural
development programmes in the state by providing free fruit seedlings to the farmers on
yearly basis. This will not only improve the fruit trees available but also help in conserving
the environment particularly at this period of climate change.
4. The three tiers of government should strive to improve the extension-farmer contact so that
more farmers could be reached with innovations. This would enhance food production in the
economy.

20
 References

Adedayo A.G. and Oluronke S. (2014). Farmers' Perception and Adoption of Agroforestry
Practices in Osun State, Nigeria. Forest Res. 3: 127.

Akinwalere, B.O. (2016). Agroforestry Practices among Farmers in South West Nigeria: An
Analysis of Benefits. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, 10(2), 1–9.

Akpabio, I.A., Esu, B.B. and Adedire, M.O. (2008). Gender perception on constraints affecting
agroforestry practices in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Agricultural Journal, 3 (5), 375-381.

Akter, S., Rutsaert, P., Luis, J., Htwe, N. M., San, S. S., Raharjo, B. and Pustika, A. (2017).
Women’s empowerment and gender equity in agriculture: A different perspective from
Southeast Asia. Food Policy, 69, 270–279.

Alao, J.S. and Shuaibu, R.B. (2011). Agroforestry practices and preferential agroforestry trees
among farmers in Lafia Local Government Area, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Waste
Management and Bioresource Technology, 1, 12-20.

Alavalapati, J.R.R., Mercer, D.E. and Montambault, J.R. (2004). Agroforestry systems and
valuation methodologies. Netherlands. Kluwer Academic, P. 1–8.

Albrecht, A. and Kandji, S.T. (2003). Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 99, 15–27.

Alston, M., Clarke, J. and Whittenbury, K. (2018). Contemporary feminist analysis of Australian
farm women in the context of climate changes. Social Sciences, 7(2).

Amonum, J.I., Babalola, F.D. and Agera, S.I.N. (2009). Agroforestry systems in Nigeria: Review
of concepts and practices. Journal of Research in Forestry, Wildlife and Environment,
1(1), 19-30.

Amusa, T.A. (2009). Contributions of women to household production decisions in cocoa based
agro-forestry households of Ekiti State, Nigeria. M.Sc. thesis submitted to the
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Anitta, F.S. and Sathya P.R. (2012). Review on benefits of agroforestry system. International
Journal of Agricultural Science and Research (IJASR), 2(3), 80-91.

Anitta, F.S. and Sathya, P.R. (2013). Review on benefits of agro forestry system. International
Journal of Education and Research, 1(1), 1-12.

Atta-Krah, K., Kindt, R., Skilton, J.N. and Amaral, W. (2004). Managing biological and genetic
diversity in tropical agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 183–194.

Ballesteros-Possu, W., Brandle, J.R. and Schoeneberger, M. (2017). Potential of Windbreak Trees
to Reduce Carbon Emissions by Agricultural Operations in the US. Forests, 8(138), 1-
19.

21
Banful, A., Nkonya, E. and Oboh, V. (2010). Constraints to fertilizer use in Nigeria: Insights from
Agricultural Extension Service, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01010, International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.

Bankole, A.S., Adekoya, A.E. and Nwawe, C.N. (2012). Women’s awareness and utilization of
agroforestry practices in Oluyole Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (IJAERD), 5
(1), 95-103.

Beliveau, A., Lucotte, M., Davidson, R., Paquet, S., Mertens, F., Passos C.J. and Romana, C.A.
(2017). Reduction of soil erosion and mercury losses in agroforestry systems compared
to forests and cultivated fields in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental
Management, 203, 522-532.

Bifarin, J.O., Folayan, A. J. and Omoniyi, L.O. (2013). Assessment of agroforestry practices as a
land use option for sustainable agricultural production in Osun State. Research Journal
of Agricultural and Environmental Management, 2(3), 69–74.

Buttoud, G., Ajayi, O., Detlefsen, G., Place, F. and Torquebiau, E. (2013). Advancing Agroforestry
on the Policy Agenda: A guide for decision-makers, by Agroforestry. Working Paper by
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); 1:37.

Chebusit, J., Testot, J., Kipotich, M., Chepyos, L., Ngereshi, J., Langat, A., Tuei, S., Mosonik, S.,
Ketinga, S., Kiufn, R., Dofich, N., Korir, J., Chepto, J. et al. (2017). Agroforestry systems
in the Upper Mara River Basin. A practical guide for farmers. MaMaSe Practical
agroforestry guide Upper Mara River Basin. Wageningen University and Research; 1-64.

Cheng-Wei, L., Yu, S., Bo-Ching, C. and Hung-Yu, L. (2014). Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizers on
the Growth and Nitrate Content of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Int J. Environ. Res. Public
Health; 11(4): 4427–4440.

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) (2017). Agroforestry Strategy

Framework for South Africa. Institute of Natural Resources NPC; 1-39.

Dosskey, M.G., Bentrup, G. and Schoeneberger, M. (2011). A role for agroforestry in forest
restoration in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley. Journal of Forestry, 5 (3), 48- 55.
http://dx.doi.org 0.5849/jof. 10-061.

Enete, A. A., and Amusa, T. A. (2010). Contribution of Men and Women to Farming Decisions in
Cocoa based Agroforestry Housholds of Ekiti State, Nigeria. Tropicultura, 28(2), 77–83.

FAO and UNHCR (2017). Rapid Woodfuel Assessment: 2017 baseline for the Bidibidi settlement,
Uganda. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and
Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2010). Global forest resources assessment, 2010 –
Main report. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome, Italy.

22
Foroughbakhch, R. and Ngangyo, H.M. (2017). Fodder Yielding under Canopy of Woody Species
of the Thorn Scrub in the Northeast of Mexico. Chronicle of Bioresource Management;
1(2): 071-074

Franzluebbers, Alan (2017). Silvopasture: Integrating Agriculture and Forestry. Agroforestry

Research. Centre for Environmental Farming System (CEFS). Available at:
www.cefs.ncsu.edu

Galiè, A., Jiggins, J. and Struik, P. C. (2013). Women’s identity as farmers: A case study from ten
households in Syria. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 64–65, 25–33.

Giller, K.E. (2013). Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems. ISBN: 9780851994178.

Gold, M., Hemmelgarn, H. and Mori, G. (2015). Training Manual for Applied Agroforestry
Practices – 2015 Edition. University of Missouri, Center for Agroforestry 203 ABNR,
Columbia, Mo 65211

Harvey, C.A., and Villalobos, J.A.G. (2007). Agroforestry systems conserve species-rich but
modified assemblages of tropical birds and bats. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(8),
2257-2292.

Hillbrand, A., Borelli, S., Conigliaro, M. and Olivier, A. (2017). Agroforestry for landscape
restoration. Exploring the potential of agroforestry to enhance the sustainability and
resilience of degraded landscapes. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations; 1-28.

Iwuji, M., Ibe, C., Njoku, J., Anyanwu, S., Amangabara, G., Ac-Chukwuocha, N. and Ukaegbu,
K. (2017). Analysis of Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in Orlu, Nigeria. Asian
Journal of Environment and Ecology, 4(1): 1–10.

Jacobson, M. and Shiba, K. (2013). Extent of Agroforestry Extension Programs in the United
States. Journal of Extension. 51 (4).

Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview.
Agroforestry Systems, 76(1), 1-10.

Kaczan, D., Arslan, A. and Lipper, L. (2013). Climate-Smart Agriculture? A review of current
practice of agroforestry and conservation agriculture in Malawi and Zambia. ESA
Working Paper No. 13-07

Kang, B.T. and Akinnifesi, F.K. (2000). Agroforestry as alternative land-use production systems
for the tropic. Natural Resources Forum, 24, 137- 151.

Kursten, E. (2000). Fuelwood production in agroforestry systems for sustainable land use and CO2
mitigation. Ecological Engineering, 16, 69–72.

Leimona, B. (2011). Fairly efficient or efficiently fair: success factors and constraints of payment
and reward schemes for environmental services in Asia. Ph.D Thesis, Graduate School of

23
 Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment, Wageningen University,
Netherlands.

Macaulay, B.M. (2014). Land degradation in Northern Nigeria: The impacts and implications of
human-related and climatic factors. African Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology; 8(5): 267-273.

Malapit, H.J.L. and Quisumbing, A.R. (2015). What dimensions of women’s empowerment in
agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana? Food Policy, 52, 54–63.

Mercer, D.E., Frey, G.E. and Cubbage, F.W. (2014). Economics of Agroforestry. In: Kant S. and
Alavalapati, J.R.R. (eds.). Handbook of Forest Economics. Earthscan from Routledge.
New York. 188-209.

Montagnini, F. and Nair, P.K.R. (2004). Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental

benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst, 6, 1281–295.

Motis, T. (2007). Agroforestry Principles. Echo Technical Note, 1–11.

MuGeDe, S.M. (2017). The Role of Rural Women in Agriculture. Republic of Mozambique:
Women, Gender and Development, Southern Africa World Farmers’ Organization
(WFO).

Mwase, W., Sefasi, A., Njoloma, J., Nyoka, B.I., Manduwa, D. and Nyaika, J. (2015). Factors
Affecting Adoption of Agroforestry and Evergreen Agriculture in Southern Africa.
Environment and Natural Resources Research; 5(2); ISSN 1927-0488 E-ISSN 1927-
0496.

National Agroforestry Center (2015). USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC). Archived from
the original on 19 August 2015.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2016). Population Projection, Official Gazette, legal notice
on publication of the breakdown of population development in Imo. City Population.
Available online at: https://www.citypopulation.de.

NRCAF (2007). Perspective Plan – Vision 2025, NRCAF, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh.

Nwosu, P. (2014). An extemporaneous overview of Imo state agricultural policies and

development. The Leader News Online. Retrieved from
http://www.theleaderassumpta.com/2014/07/18/anextemporaneous-overview-of-
imostate-agricultural-policies-and-development/

Obasi, P. C., Henri-Ukoha, A., Ukewuihe, I. S. and Chidiebere-Mark, N. M. (2013). Factors

Affecting Agricultural Productivity among Arable Crop Farmers in Imo State, Nigeria.
American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 3(2), 443-454.

24
Oloyede, A.O. (2017). Determinants of Agroforestry Innovations Adoption among Small-Scale
Farmers in Nigeria: An Agricultural Innovation System Approach. Ilorin: University of
Ilorin, Nigeria. 1-14.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development/Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations (OECD/FAO) (Eds.) (2016). Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Prospects and challenges for the next decade. Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025, 181, 59–
93.

Oseni, G., Goldstein, M. and Utah, A. (2013). Gender Dimensions in Nigerian Agriculture. African
Region Gender Practice, (6), 1–4.

Palm, C.A., Vosti, S.A., Sanchez, P.A. and Ericksen, P.J. (eds.) (2005). Slash and Burn: The
Search for Alternatives. A Collaborative Publication by the Alternatives to Slash and
Burn Consortium, the World Agroforestry Centre, The Earth Institute at Columbia
University and The Center for Natural Resources Policy Analysis at the University of
California, Davis, Columbia University Press: New York.

Parwada, C., Gadzirayi, C.T., Muriritirwa, W.T. and Mwenye, D. (2010). Adoption of agroforestry
technologies among smallholder farmers: A case of Zimbabwe. Journal of Development
and Agricultural Economics, 2 (10), 351-358

Place, F., Ajayi, O.C., Torquebiau, E., Detlefsen, G., Gauthier, M. and Buttoud, G. (2012).
Improved policies for facilitating the adoption of agroforestry. Agroforestry for
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – Science and Practic, 6, 114-126.

Powell, G.W. (2009). British Columbia Agroforestry Industry Strategic Plan 2009 – 2013.
Prepared for: Agroforestry Management Committee Federation of BC
WoodlotAssociations. Agroforestry British Columbia. 1-51

Radhakrishnan, R., Hashem, A. and Abd-Allah, E.F. (2017). Bacillus: A Biological Tool for Crop
Improvement through Bio-Molecular Changes in Adverse Environments. Frontiers in
Physiology; 8: 667.

Rao, K.P.C., Verchot, L.V. and Laarman, J. (2007). Adaptation to Climate Change through
Sustainable Management and Development of Agroforestry Systems. An open Access
Journal, 4 (1), 1-30. Published by ICRISAT.

Rotich, J., Sirmah, P., Mengich, E. and Odwor, P.O. (2017). Agroforestry trees in Kapsaret, Kenya:
Socio-economic perspectives influencing availability, preference and utilization.
International Journal of Agroforestry and Silviculture; 5(5):315-325. ISSN 2375-1096.

Sabo, E. (2006). Participatory assessment of the impact of women in agriculture programme of

Borno, Nigeria. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 44, 1-2, 52-56.

Sahilu M.G. (2017). Agroforestry homegardens in Ethiopia: rural livelihoods in transition.

Doctoral thesis, Department of Agricultural Management. Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.

25
Sanchez, P.A. (2002). Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science, 295, 2019–2020.

Thangata, P.H., Hildebrand, P.E. and Gladwin, C.H. (2014). Modeling Agroforestry Adoption and
Household Decision Making in Malawi. African Studies Quarterly; 6(1&2): 1-23.

Umeh, G.N. (2008). Identification of Indigenous Knowledge in Agroforestry Practices among

Farmers in Southeast, Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(1):
148 – 157.

Umeh, G.N. (2011). Distribution of agroforestry species in the Southeast Nigeria. Journal of
Agricultural Science, 4(3), 5-9.

Wikipedia contributors (2018). Orlu, Imo. Available online at: http://www.wikipedia.com.

Yegawal, B. (2018). Analysis of Agroforestry Practices in Katsina State, Nigeria. Academia; 1-

239. Retrieved 05 July, 2018 from: http://www.academia.edu.

26