sustainability
Article
Wheat Production in Drought-Prone Agro-Ecologies in Ethiopia:
Diagnostic Assessment of Farmers’ Practices and Sustainable
Coping Mechanisms and the Role of Improved Cultivars
Yared Belete 1,2, *, Hussein Shimelis 1
Citation: Belete, Y.; Shimelis, H.;
Laing, M. Wheat Production in
Drought-Prone Agro-Ecologies in
Ethiopia: Diagnostic Assessment of
Farmers’ Practices and Sustainable
Coping Mechanisms and the Role of
Improved Cultivars. Sustainability
2022, 14, 7579. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14137579
Academic Editor: Roberto Mancinelli
Received: 26 April 2022
Accepted: 27 May 2022
Published: 22 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137579
and Mark Laing 1
1 African Centre for Crop Improvement, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01,
Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa; shimelish@ukzn.ac.za (H.S.); laing@ukzn.ac.za (M.L.)
2 Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 2003, Ethiopia
* Correspondence: yaredsemahegnb@gmail.com; Tel.: +251-904-605701
Abstract: Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is traditionally cultivated under drought-affected and low-
input agro-ecologies in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia. Wheat productivity in these agro-
systems is considerably low (<2.4 t/ha) due to climate change-induced drought and heat stress, a
lack of modern production technologies, including climate-smart varieties, and an array of biotic and
abiotic factors. The objective of this study was to determine the potential of wheat production in
drought-prone agro-ecologies and to assess farmers’ practices and sustainable coping mechanisms
and the role of improved cultivars in Ethiopia. A participatory rural appraisal (PRA) study was
conducted involving 170 randomly selected wheat farmers in the drier areas of Arsi Zone of the
Oromia Regional State. Results showed that wheat and tef (Eragrostis tef Zucc.) and barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.) were the most widely grown cereal crops in the study areas as the primary food source
and cash income. Yield losses varying from 63.1 to 73.8% were reported by farmers due to drought
stress occurring mainly during grain filling stage. The majority of the respondent farmers (>50%)
planted wheat in early July using the broadcasting method. Their land was of medium fertility,
and the application of inorganic fertilizer was suboptimal. Due to crop failures by intense drought
conditions in the study areas, above 50% of the respondent farmers had not expressed coping
strategies against drought stress except resorting to government food aid. However, about 22% of the
respondent farmers reported improved agronomic practices, such as the cultivation of early maturing
wheat varieties and soil and water conservation methods as sustainable solutions to mitigate against
drought. Therefore, current and future wheat breeding in Ethiopia should target drought and heat
stress tolerance and adaptive crop traits as ideal coping strategies under low input agriculture systems
for sustainable wheat production and productivity.
Keywords: coping mechanisms of drought; diagnostic assessment; farmers’ production practices;
participatory rural appraisal; sustainable wheat production
1. Introduction
Bread wheat (Tiriticum aestivum L., 2n = 6 x = 42) is an important commodity crop
for local, regional and global food security. In Ethiopia, wheat ranks second after maize
(Zea mays L.) in total production and third after tef and maize in the cultivated area [1].
Wheat provides about 15% of the national caloric intake [2]. Ethiopia is ranked first in
wheat production in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) followed by South Africa [3]. However, its
average productivity of 2.4 t ha−1 is lower than 6.7, 3.5, and 3.0 t ha−1 reported in Egypt,
South Africa, and Kenya, respectively [2]. Ethiopia still imports wheat to meet the growing
local demand due to population growth, the emergence of agro-processors, urbanization,
and increased household income [4,5].
A number of biotic, abiotic, and socio-economic factors cause low wheat production
and productivity in SSA, including Ethiopia. The challenges vary from one environment
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 2 of 10

to another due to variable climatic factors spanning from low lying areas at sea level
to uplands around 4570 m above sea level [6]. In Ethiopia, the major wheat-producing
areas are concentrated mainly at high potential environments ranging from mid-altitude
(1900 to 2300 m above sea level) to high altitude (2300 to 2700 m above sea level), which
have high and reliable rainfall. Because of climate change induced by global warming,
drought stress is becoming a recurrent threat, including high potential production regions.
The major wheat producing areas in Ethiopia include Bale and Arsi (situated in Oromia
Region), Hadiya and Kenbata (Southern Nations and Nationalities and Peoples Region)
and East Gojam and North Shoa (Amhara Region) [5].
Developing improved wheat varieties that are adapted to drought stress conditions
will improve wheat production under smallholder farming systems in dryland agriculture.
Dryland areas are characterized by low input production systems and complex and highly
heterogeneous environments, making research and development interventions challenging.
Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is a multi-disciplinary research tool that involves several
stakeholders in a value chain [7], and thus allow for analysis and interpretation of their
production constraints and the formulation of possible intervention strategies. The PRA will
help actors in the value chain, including researchers, to understand better the challenges faced
by the farmers and their technology selection criteria and develop projects accordingly [8].
Engaging farmers through a PRA to identify their challenges and needs will assist in developing
technologies, including improved cultivars that meet farmers’ expectations and are adapted to
their production environments [8–10]. Developing improved production technologies relevant
to the farmers will improve adoption rates [7,11–14], thereby increasing household income
and improving the food security of smallholder farmers [4,15]. Hence, the objective of this
study was to determine the potential of wheat production in drought-prone agro-ecologies
and assess farmers’ practices and sustainable coping mechanisms and the role of improved
cultivars in Ethiopia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Areas
The study was conducted in the Arsi zone in Ethiopia’s Oromia regional state during
the 2018 cropping season. The region is known as one of the major wheat-producing areas
in the country. Three districts (Sire, Dodota, and Hetosa) were purposively selected for this
study (Figure 1 and Table 1). The two districts, Sire and Hetosa, were among the top wheat-
producing areas [16]. Dodota and Sire districts (previously known as Dodota Sire district)
were among the most drought-affected districts, where up to 95% of farmers harvest was
lost due to prolonged drought conditions [17], whereas Hetosa district is among the highest
potential areas of wheat production where agriculture is relatively well-mechanized, and
infrastructure for input access relatively exists. However, this district is also partially
characterized by moisture stressed areas, according to the Bureau of Agriculture and
Natural Resources (BOANR) staff of the district and personal observations.

2.2. Sampling and Data Collection Procedure

The study used a multistage random sampling method (Figure 2). At the first stage of
sampling, the major wheat producing region, zone, and three districts from this zone were
selected based on primary data collected from the Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency
and using secondary data as described in the Section 2.1. Secondly, two villages (locally
referred to as “Kebeles”) from each district were selected, making a total of six villages for
the study. Villages accessible to the main roads and that produce wheat under dryland
system were selected. At the third stage of sampling, 23–31 households from each village
were randomly selected, resulting in a total of 170 household respondents out of which
13.5% were female-headed households (Figure 2).
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 3 of 10

Figure 1. Map of the study areas in Ethiopia [18].

Figure 1. Map of the study areas in Ethiopia [18].

Table 1. Climatic and geographic descriptions of the study areas.

Table 1. Climatic and geographic descriptions of the study areas.
◦
Altitude
Geographic Geographic Rainfall Temperatute
Temperatute ( C) (°C)
District Village District Village
Altitude (masl) Rainfall (mm)
(masl)
Coordinates Coordinates (mm)
Min Min MaxMax
Koloba Bele Koloba Bele
7◦ 200 000 N 7°20′0″ N
Sire Sire 1000–2500 1000–2500 500 500
15 15 30 30
Ebseta Eduga Ebseta Eduga◦ 260 000 E
39 39°26′0″ E
Dodota Alem Dodota Alem
8◦ 140 6000 N 8°14′60″ N
Dodota Dodota
1400–2500 1400–2500
39◦ 190 6000 E
1000 1000
20 20 25 25
Amigna Dabesa Amigna Dabesa 39°19′60″ E
Anole Salan Anole Salan
8◦ 040 6000 N 8°04′60″ N
Hetosa Hetosa
1500–4170
39◦ 140 601500–4170
00 E 1000 1000
14 14 27 27
Deyea Debeso Deyea Debeso 39°14′60″ E
masl,meter
masl, meter above
above seasea level;
level; mm,mm, millimeter;
millimeter; min, minimum;
min, minimum; max, maximum.
max, maximum.

A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from respondent

2.2. Sampling
farmers basedand Data Collection
on their Procedurewheat production experience. Enumerators were
previous season’s
The study
researchers, used a multistage
technicians, random
and agriculture sampling
extension method
staff, (Figure
and they 2).well
are all At the firstof
aware stage
the
of sampling, the
questionnaire. major
The wheat
primary producing
data region, on
were collected zone,
wheatandproduction
three districts
andfrom
otherthis zone
sectors
were
of selected based on activity,
livelihood/economic primaryand datathe
collected
relative from the Ethiopian
importance of wheatCentral Statistical
production was
Agency and
compared using
with secondary
other major cropsdata as described
production, in the major
farmers’ Section 2.1. Secondly,
production twoofvillages
practice wheat
(locally
and referred
related crops,toand
as “Kebeles”)
the impact from each district
of drought werefarmers’
stress and selected,coping
making a total ofThe
strategies. six
villages for thewas
questionnaire study. Villagesbased
amended accessible
on thetopre-tested
the main roads
sample andofthat
fiveproduce
respondentwheat under
farmers.
dryland
Local system were
languages selected.
(Oromiffa andAt the thirdwere
Amharic) stage of sampling,
used during the 23–31 households
interview from
with the helpeach
of
village
local were and
people randomly selected,
agricultural resulting
extension in stationed
staff a total of 170 household
in the respectiverespondents out of
areas. Designed
which 13.5%
checklist and were female-headed
key informants suchhouseholds (Figure 2). office leaders, agricultural ex-
as district agricultural
tension officers, village agricultural extension officers, and village leaders were involved
in collecting secondary data on the cropping system, cropping calendar, and impact of
drought in the farming community. In addition, a transect walk across the village was
made to visualize and appreciate the cropping system and weather conditions of the areas.
The respective districts’ BOANR offices also provided the quantitative data that further
described the study areas regarding altitude, geographic position, rainfall pattern, annual
rainfall, and temperature.
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2022,
2022, 14, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
7579 4 of 11 4 of 10

Figure
Figure 2. Stages
2. Stages ofofsampling
sampling showing
showing the
theselected
selectedregion, zone,
region, districts,
zone, villages,
districts, and number
villages, of
and number of
households (HH).
households (HH).

A Analysis
2.3. Data semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from respondent
farmers basedanalyses
Statistical on their previous
such asseason’s wheat
frequency, production experience.
percentages, chi-square, Enumerators were
and Kruskal–Wallis
researchers, technicians, and agriculture extension staff, and they are all well aware of the
H tests were employed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version
questionnaire. The primary data were collected on wheat production and other sectors of
24 [19]. Relationships among variables were examined through frequency, percentages,
livelihood/economic activity, and the relative importance of wheat production was
chi-square, and Kruskal–Wallis H test values within and between districts to make the
compared with other major crops production, farmers’ major production practice of
necessary
wheat and related and
contracts crops,discern
and theconclusions.
impact of drought stress and farmers’ coping strategies.
The questionnaire was amended based on the pre-tested sample of five respondent
3. Results
farmers. Local languages (Oromiffa and Amharic) were used during the interview with
3.1.the
Wheat
help Production andand
of local people Other Sectors ofextension
agricultural Economicstaff
Activity in theinStudy
stationed Areas areas.
the respective
Designed checklist
The wealth status and
of key informants
smallholder such as
farmers candistrict agricultural office
be a determining factorleaders,
in adopting
agricultural
improved extensiontechnologies,
agricultural officers, village agricultural
including extension
improved officers, The
cultivars. and Chi-square
village leaders
analysis
were involved
showed in collecting
that sources of incomesecondary data ondiffered
significantly the cropping
(X2 =system,
28.185;cropping
p = 0.013)calendar,
between the
and impact of drought in the farming community. In addition, a transect walk across the
studied districts (Table 2). Trading of the produce of field crops was the major source of
village was made to visualize and appreciate the cropping system and weather conditions
income for all the respondents in the study areas, with bread wheat being the predominant
of the areas. The respective districts’ BOANR offices also provided the quantitative data
field crop and a major income earner. The respondent farmers explained that the income
that further described the study areas regarding altitude, geographic position, rainfall
generated
pattern, from
annual trading wheat
rainfall, is used for various purposes such as paying children’s school
and temperature.
fees, purchasing fertilizers, and buying other foodstuffs, among others (data not shown).
The2.3. Data
sale Analysis produce was also an important source of income, although practiced
of vegetable
on a relatively
Statisticalsmall scale
analyses compared
such to field
as frequency, crops, explaining
percentages, chi-square,its
andlower contribution to
Kruskal–Wallis
H tests were employed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24
household income. The farmers in the study areas also practiced animal husbandry, rearing
[19]. Relationships among variables were examined through frequency, percentages, chi-
smaller livestock such as goats, sheep, and chickens to complement their income derived
fromsquare, and Kruskal–Wallis
field crops. H test
Larger livestock suchvalues within
as cattle and between
and donkeys weredistricts to make
reared for the
other purposes
necessary contracts and discern conclusions.
such as a source of draught power and means of transport of goods and water. The majority
of the farmers cited the prevalence of diseases as a major constraint to cattle rearing in the
areas. During drought years and crop failure, the farmers are usually forced to sell off the
larger livestock, even the oxen that provide the key draught power, to survive (data not
presented). This implies that the livelihood of the farmers in the areas primarily depends
on rainfed crop production. Small shops that sell day-to-day wares, water fetching, and
labor hire were the other sources of income for the farmers in the study areas.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 5 of 10

Table 2. Sources of income of the households in the study areas.

Districts Degrees of
Descriptions X 2 -Value p-Value
Sire Dodota Hetosa Freedom
Sources of income
Field crops 54 (100) 58 (100) 58 (100)
Vegetables 19 (35.2) 58 (100) -
Fruits 3 (5.6) - -
Livestock 39 (72.2) 56 (96.6) 23 (39.7)
14 28.1 0.013
Mini-shop 2 (3.7) - 2 (3.4)
Water fetching - 5 (8.6) 2 (3.4)
Labour hire - 1 (1.7) 4 (6.9)
Others 3 (5.6) 2 (3.4) 6 (10.3)
(-) indicates no response. Values outside and inside the bracket indicate the frequency and proportion of
respondent farmers in percentage, respectively; the proportion of respondent farmers in each district could be
more than 100% due to having more than one source of income.

3.2. The Relative Importance of Wheat and Other Major Crops Production
All the farmers in Sire and 96.6% of the Dodota and Hetosa districts considered wheat
production their most crucial income source (Table 3). In the Sire and Hetosa districts, the
adaptability of wheat was the next important characteristic according to more than 91% of
the respondents, whereas 96.6% of the respondents in the Dodota District considered the
quality of straw for animal feed to be more important than adaptability. Adaptation and
high yield were considered to be more important than disease tolerance, early maturity,
and waterlogging tolerance in all the districts. The most important crop in all the study
areas was wheat, followed by tef, barley, maize, garlic, onion, and haricot bean (Table 4).
Wheat production was the lowest in Sire District compared to the Hetosa and Dodota
districts, with the average area under cultivation of 0.5, 1.1, and 1.5 ha, respectively. Tef
was cultivated more extensively in Sire District, with a mean of 1.2 ha compared to 0.5 ha
for wheat. Wheat productivity in all the districts was relatively the same, with an average
of 2.4 t ha−1 (Table 4).

Table 3. The relative importance of bread wheat in the study areas.

Districts
Kruskal-
Importance Sire Dodota Hetosa
Wallis
Medium Medium Medium Test
High (%) Low (%) High (%) Low (%) High (%) Low (%)
(%) (%) (%)
Food 90.7 9.3 - 75.9 20.7 3.4 89.7 8.6 1.7 0.042 *
Feed 90.7 9.3 - 96.6 3.4 - 84.5 10.3 5.2 0.019 *
Income
100 - - 96.6 3.4 - 96.6 3.4 - 0.388 ns
generation
Water
logging- 50 20.4 29.6 32.8 3.4 63.8 24.1 3.4 72.4 0.000 **
tolerance
Pest-
55.6 25.9 18.5 27.6 15.5 56.9 36.2 17.2 46.6 0.000 **
tolerance
Disease-
57.4 24.1 18.5 32.8 15.5 51.7 50 15.5 34.5 0.003 **
tolerance
Early
68.5 14.8 16.7 53.4 17.2 29.3 58.6 20.7 20.7 0.217 ns
maturity
Yield 68.5 25.9 5.6 56.9 29.3 13.8 74.1 17.2 8.6 0.128 ns
Adaptation
(drought
92.6 7.4 - 84.5 15.5 - 91.4 8.6 - 0.318 ns
and heat-
stresses)
Crop
63 37 - 62.1 37.9 - 75.9 22.4 1.7 0.249 ns
rotation
*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ns , non-significant; (-), no response.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 6 of 10

Table 4. Major crops grown and their productivity in studied regions.

Cultivated Area (ha) Productivity (t ha−1 )

Crops Districts DF F-Value Districts DF F-Value
Sire Dodota Hetosa Sire Dodota Hetosa
Wheat
Mean 0.446 1.448 1.112 2.576 2.323 2.417
SD 0.31 1.082 0.752 2 22.423 ** 1.459 1.03 0.892 2 0.689 ns
SE 0.042 0.142 0.099 0.2 0.135 0.117
Tef
Mean 1.243 0.487 0.278 1.443 0.857 0.918
SD 0.947 0.826 0.324 2 12.294 ** 0.598 0.512 0.423 2 17.921 **
SE 0.129 0.108 0.043 0.081 0.08 0.07
Maize
Mean 0.12 0.231 0.083 3.924 3.068 1.729
SD 0.149 0.265 0.113 2 7.641 ** 2.967 3.468 1.237 2 3.907 *
SE 0.02 0.035 0.015 0.542 0.563 0.253
Barley
Mean 0.064 0.519 0.364 2.9 2.334 2.304
SD 0.161 0.372 0.268 2 7.991 ** 2.165 0.902 1.011 2 1.525 ns
SE 0.022 0.049 0.035 0.579 0.126 0.146
Garlic and onion
Mean 0.039 0.125 0.041 27.467 10.45 8.209
SD 0.093 0.232 0.089 2 1.196 ns 19.025 7.021 4.159 2 12.475 **
SE 0.013 0.03 0.012 5.492 1.351 1.254
Haricot bean
Mean 0.049 0.052 0.033 2.454 1.067 1.868
SD 0.104 0.102 0.079 2 0.245 ns 2.325 0.751 1.649 2 2.449 ns
SE 0.014 0.013 0.01 0.645 0.194 0.497
DF, degree of freedom; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; *, p < 0.01; **, p < 0.05, ns , non-significant.

3.3. Farmers’ Major Production Practice of Wheat and Related Crops

The time of planting was mostly in the month of July in all the districts, although there
were some significant differences among farmers across different districts (X2 = 25.099;
p = 0.005) (Table 5). The majority of respondent farmers in Sire (72.2%) and Hetosa (56.9%)
planted wheat at the beginning of July. In Dodota, a similar proportion of farmers planted
in early July (46.6%) or late June to early July (43.1%). The farmers across districts exhibited
significant differences in planting (X2 = 34.658; p = 0.000) and weeding (X2 = 25.326;
p = 0.000) methods they followed. The majority (>80%) of farmers in Dodota and Hetosa
districts planted their wheat using the broadcast method, while both broadcasting (46.3%)
and row planting (37%) were used extensively in the Sire District. The majority (more than
70%) of farmers in each of the districts described their soil fertility status as medium and
that they applied mostly inorganic fertilizers. About 40% of farmers in the Dodota District
used both inorganic and organic fertilizers compared to 34.5 and 24.1% in Hetosa and Sire
districts, respectively. Almost all of the respondents (more than 95%) followed a wheat/tef
or barley rotation system. A combination of chemical and manual weeding was practiced
widely by more than 77% in each district.

3.4. The Impact of Drought Stress and Farmers’ Coping Strategies

The respondents indicated that moisture stress occurred mostly during seedling emer-
gence and crop grain-filling stages of the wheat (Table 6). The occurrence of drought
stress at the seedling emergence stage commonly coincided with the late onset of rain in
the areas, as indicated by respondents. Moisture stress reduced yields ranging between
63.1 and 73.8% within the studied regions. Compared to optimum conditions, the yield was
the lowest in Dodota with a mean of 0.8 t ha−1 , followed by Sire (0.9 t ha−1 ) and Hetosa
(1.2 t ha−1 ) under drought-stressed conditions (Table 7).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 7 of 10

Table 5. Crop management practices followed by the respondent farmers in the study areas.

Districts Degrees of
Descriptions X 2 -Value p-Value
Sire Dodota Hetosa Freedom
Planting time
Mid-June 1 (1.9) - 1 (1.7)
Late June - 6 (10.3) 9 (15.5)
Early July 39 (72.2) 27 (46.6) 33 (56.9)
Late June to
10 (18.5) 25 (43.1) 14 (24.1)
early July 10 25.099 0.005
Late June to
2 (3.7) - -
mid-July
Early July to
2 (3.7) - 1 (1.7)
mid-July
Planting Method
Row planting 9 (16.7) - 1 (1.7)
Hand
25 (46.3) 47 (81.0) 52 (89.7)
broadcasting
4 34.658 0.000
Both row and
hand 20 (37.0) 11 (19.0) 5 (8.6)
broadcasting
Fertility status of the land
High 6 (11.1) 5 (8.6) 3 (5.2)
Medium 42 (77.8) 41 (70.7) 45 (77.6) 4 3.051 0.549
Low 6 (11.1) 12 (20.7) 10 (17.2)
Fertiliser type used
Inorganic 41 (75.9) 34 (58.6) 37 (63.8)
Organic - - 1 (1.7)
4 5.782 0.216
Both inorganic
13 (24.1) 24 (41.4) 20 (34.5)
and organic
Crop rotation
Yes 54 (100) 57 (98.3) 56 (96.6)
2 1.919 0.383
No - 1 (1.7) 2 (3.4)
Weeding
Hand weeding 8 (14.8) 1 (1.7) -
Chemical 1 (1.9) 12 (20.7) 4 (6.9)
Both hand and 4 25.326 0.000
chemical 45 (83.3) 45 (77.6) 54 (93.1)
weeding
(-) indicates no response. Values outside and inside the bracket indicate the frequency and proportion of
respondent farmers in percentage, respectively.

Table 6. Moisture-stress prevailing at different growing stages indicated by respondent farmers in

the study areas.

Districts Degrees of
Description X 2.5 Value p-Value
Sire Dodota Hetosa Freedom
Stages
Emergence 17 (31.5) 26 (44.8) 21 (36.2)
Tillering 2 (3.7) 2 (3.4) 1 (1.7)
Heading 10 (18.5) 6 (10.3) 5 (8.6) 8 9.044 0.339
Grain filling 23 (42.6) 21 (36.2) 23 (39.7)
Any stage 2 (3.7) 3 (5.2) 8 (13.8)
Values outside and inside the bracket indicate the frequency and proportion of respondent farmers in percent-
age, respectively.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 8 of 10

Table 7. Impact of drought on yield (t ha−1 ) of bread wheat in the study areas.

Districts Degrees of
Condition F-Value
Sire Dodota Hetosa Freedom
Optimum
Mean 2.889 3.172 3.359
SD 1.029 1.231 0.988 2 2.627 ns
SE 0.14 0.162 0.13
Drought-stress
Mean 0.848 0.826 1.241
SD 0.468 0.523 0.619 2 10.678 **
SE 0.064 0.069 0.081
SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; **, p < 0.01; ns , non-significant.

The chi-square analysis showed that respondents among districts used significantly
different (X2 = 25.3; p = 0.000) coping mechanisms against moisture stress (Table 8). The
lack of options and dependence on government food aid during drought years were
significantly high in Sire and Dodota, with 51.9 and 58.6% of the respondents confirming
that they lacked coping strategies to reduce the impact of drought stress. Early maturing
varieties were the most widely used coping strategy by 35.2, 32.8, and 29.3% of respondents
in Sire, Hetosa, and Dodota districts, respectively. The dependence on government food aid
was significantly lower in Hetosa, with only 25.9% of the respondents confirming receipt of
the aid. The farmers in Hetosa also used other methods such as soil and water conservation
and replacing wheat with other relatively drought-tolerant crops.

Table 8. Farmers’ coping mechanisms against drought-stress.

Districts Degrees of
Description X 2 -Value p-Value
Sire Dodota Hetosa Freedom
Coping mechanism
Growing early
maturing bread 19 (35.2) 17 (29.3) 19 (32.8)
wheat varieties
Replacing
wheat with
other drought- 6 (11.1) 2 (3.4) 11 (19)
tolerant 6 25.3 0.0
crops
Soil and water
1 (1.9) 5 (8.6) 13 (22.4)
conservation
No option
except
28 (51.9) 34 (58.6) 15 (25.9)
government
food aid
Values outside and inside the bracket indicate the frequency and proportion in percentage, respectively.

4. Discussion
In Ethiopia, wheat breeding for drought-stressed environments should target incorpo-
rating farmers’ preferred traits and drought tolerance under low input agriculture systems.
This will ensure sustainable wheat production and productivity in the country. The present
study enables agronomists and breeders to gain insight into farmers’ bread wheat produc-
tion practices and the challenges pertinent to their production systems, especially under
drought-stress environments where research and development effort is relatively low. Crop
production was the most important source of income among the surveyed districts. Farmers
in the study areas owned farm size ranged between 0.0 and 6.0 hectares with a mean value
of 1.9. Wheat, tef, and barley were found to be the main crops cultivated in the study areas.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 9 of 10

The majority of the farmers planted wheat in early July using the broadcasting method.
However, differences in farming practices between high and low potential environments
are common due to differences in production risk, and the adoption of the most appropriate
planting method [20]. Most of the farmers (75.3%) mentioned that their land was of medium
fertility and depended on inorganic fertilizer applications, although the application rates
were sub-optimal (data not presented). Gebreselassie et al. [5] and Kebede et al. [21] also
found that inorganic fertilizers were used sparingly by smallholder farmers, implying that
the provision of fertilizers in addition to improved varieties could boost the production
and productivity of wheat in the study areas.
Wheat production was influenced by its relative importance in income generation,
food and feed production, and adaptability to the environment. While the importance of
wheat as a food source for humans is well documented [2], the respondents also mentioned
the use of wheat straw as feed for livestock from the crop residue, agreeing with Bekele
et al. [22]. Respondent farmers ranked drought (moisture-stress) as the most important
production constraint, followed by disease (rust), the high cost of fertilizer, and heat-stress.
As most respondent farmers indicated, drought stress at the grain filling stage was the most
commonly occurring, followed by seedling emergency and heading stages. The drought
stress impacts on wheat yield production in the study areas could be explained by about
63–74% yield reduction. Severe moisture stress occurred at the grain filling stage in tef, and
yield reduction was estimated at 36.7–60.3 per cent [23].
The majority of the respondent farmers had no coping strategies against drought
except government food aid, implying an urgent need to develop holistic and multi-faceted
approaches to mitigate against drought. This includes developing and adopting improved
varieties and agricultural practices and alternative crops and cropping systems for income
generation. Among the improved agronomic practices, the growing of early maturing
varieties, and soil and water conservation activities are being practiced by some of the
farmers in the study areas.

5. Conclusions
This study proved the hypothesis that there were different farmers’ practices and
drought coping mechanisms of bread wheat production in drought-prone areas. Drought-
stress accounted for up to 74% yield losses in all the study areas. Drought occurs mainly at
grain filling stage of the crop. Therefore, developing drought-tolerant wheat cultivars and
farmers’ preferred traits can be a sustainable strategy in dryland farming systems.

Author Contributions: We designed the study and wrote the manuscript; Y.B. collected and analyzed
the data and drafted the manuscript; H.S. reviewed and edited the manuscript; M.L. edited the
manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The study was funded by Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) through
African Centre for Crop Improvement (ACCI).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to farmers of the study zone who made this participatory rural
appraisal study possible. The bureau of agriculture staff at district level, development agents, and
Holetta research centre are also gratefully acknowledged. Due thanks goes also to the Alliance for a
Green Revolution in Africa for funding this research through the African Centre for Crop Improvement.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7579 10 of 10

References
1. CSA. Area and Production of Crops in the Main Season; Statistical Bulletin; Central Statistical Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 2020.
2. Minot, N.; Warner, J.; Lemma, S.; Kassa, L.; Gashaw, A.; Rashid, S. The Wheat Supply Chain in Ethiopia: Patterns, Trends, and Policy
Options; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
3. Tadesse, W.; Bishaw, Z.; Assefa, S. Wheat production and breeding in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities in the
face of climate change. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 11, 696–715. [CrossRef]
4. Shiferaw, B.; Kassie, M.; Jaleta, M.; Yirga, C. Adoption of improved wheat and impacts on household food security in Ethiopia.
Food Policy 2014, 44, 272–284. [CrossRef]
5. Gebreselassie, S.; Mekbib, G.H.; Matthias, K. The Wheat Sector in Ethiopia: Current Status and Key Challenges for Future Value
Chain Development; ZEF Working Paper No. 160. 2017. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com (accessed on 21 June 2019).
6. Tadesse, W.; Solh, M.; Braun, H.J.; Oweis, T.; Baum, M. Approaches and Strategies for Sustainable Wheat Production; International
Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA): Beirut, Lebanon, 2016.
7. Tongoona, P.; Danqah, A.; Danqah, E.Y. Understanding clients’ needs. In The Business of Plant Breeding: Market-Led Approaches to
New Variety Design in Africa; Persley, G.J., Anthony, M.V., Eds.; CABI: London, UK, 2017; pp. 63–84.
8. Halewood, M.; Deupmann, P.; Sthapit, B.; Vernooy, R.; Ceccarelli, S. Participatory Plant Breeding to Promote Farmers’ Rights;
Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 2007.
9. Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S.; Baum, M. Participatory plant breeding in water-limited environments. Exp. Agric. 2007, 43, 411–435.
[CrossRef]
10. Li, J.; Edith, T.; Buerenc, L.; Huang, K.; Qin, L.; Song, Y. The potential of participatory hybrid breeding. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2013,
11, 234–251. [CrossRef]
11. Vernooy, R.; Stanley, B. Breeding better barley-together: A New Way to Work with Farmers in Dry Areas: Seeds That Give; Participatory
Plant Breeding Case Study Series; International Development Research Centre, IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003.
12. Witcombe, J.R.; Joshi, K.D.; Gyawali, S.A.; Musa, M.; Johansen, C.; Virk, D.S.; Sthapit, B.R. Participatory plant breeding is better
described as highly client-oriented plant breeding. I. Four indicators of client-orientation in plant breeding. Exp. Agric. 2005,
41, 299–319. [CrossRef]
13. Joshi, K.D.; Musa, A.M.; Johansen, C.; Gyawali, S.; Harris, D.; Witcombe, J.R. Highly client oriented breeding, using local
preferences and selection, produces widely adapted rice varieties. Field Crops Res. 2006, 100, 107–116. [CrossRef]
14. Ceccarelli, S.; Guimarães, E.P.; Weltzien, E. Plant Breeding and Farmer Participation; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2009.
15. Asfaw, S.; Shiferaw, B.; Simtowe, F.; Lipper, L. Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from
Tanzania and Ethiopia. Food Policy 2012, 37, 283–295. [CrossRef]
16. Warner, J.; Tim, S.; Leulsegged, K. Woreda-Level Crop Production Rankings in Ethiopia: A Pooled Data Approach; International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
17. Piguet, F. Assessment Field Trip to Arsi Zone (Oromiya Region); Field Assessment Mission, 7–10 April and 15–17 April; UN-EUE:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2003.
18. Semahegn, Y.; Shimelis, H.; Laing, M.; Mathew, I. Farmers’ preferred traits and perceived production constraints of bread wheat
under drought-prone agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2021, 10, 18. [CrossRef]
19. Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS). SPSS for Windows Release 24.0, SPSS Inc. 1989–2016; IBM Company: Armonk, NY,
USA, 2016.
20. Abate, G.T.; de Brauw, A.; Minot, N.; Bernard, T. The Impact of the Use of New Technologies on Farmers Wheat Yields in Ethiopia:
Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
21. Kebede, D.; Ketema, M.; Dechassa, N.; Hundessa, F. Determinants of adoption of wheat production technology package by
smallholder farmers: Evidences from Eastern Ethiopia. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2017, 5, 267–274. [CrossRef]
22. Bekele, A.; Nigussie, D.; Judith, F.; Assefa, K.; Geleti, D. Farmer Innovation: An Approach for Narrowing a Gap between Research,
Extension and Farmers in Ethiopia; Crop Science Society of Ethiopia (CSSE): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
23. Abraha, M.T. Breeding tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] for Drought Tolerance in Northern Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 2016.