Comparative analysis of morphological and farmers' cognitive diversity in yams landraces (Dioscorea spp.) from southern Ethiopia

Simple item page
cg.coverage.countryEthiopia
cg.coverage.iso3166-alpha2ET
cg.coverage.regionAfrica
cg.coverage.regionEastern Africa
cg.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.11248/jsta.55.28en
cg.isijournalISI Journalen
cg.issn1882-8469en
cg.journalTropical Agriculture and Developmenten
cg.reviewStatusPeer Reviewen
cg.subject.ciatGENETIC RESOURCESen
cg.subject.ciatBIODIVERSITYen
dc.contributor.authorTamiru, M.en
dc.contributor.authorBecker, H.C.en
dc.contributor.authorMaass, Brigitte L.en
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-24T08:41:53Zen
dc.date.available2014-09-24T08:41:53Zen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/43278
dc.titleComparative analysis of morphological and farmers' cognitive diversity in yams landraces (Dioscorea spp.) from southern Ethiopiaen
dcterms.abstractNeglected by research and development, knowledge of the genetic diversity in Ethiopian yams is found mainly with the local farmers. The local yam classification system in Southern Ethiopia was studied through individual and key informant interviews. Data collected include attributes/traits of each landrace used in the folk taxonomy. Local farmers recognize two major categories of yams: ‘hatuma boye’ (‘male’ yam) and ‘macha boye’ (‘female’ yam). This categorization has no reference to the reproductive biology of the plant. “Female” yams mature early and produce tubers of excellent quality, but are less vigorous in growth compared to ‘male’ yams and yield poorly under sub-optimal conditions. Whereas, ‘male’ yams mature late, grow vigorously and are tolerant to drought. Individual landraces are further identified based on variations in maturity time, morphological and/or growth attributes. Eighty-two yam accessions collected from Gedeo, Sidama, Wolayita and Gamo-Gofa zones were characterized using 42 qualitative morphological variables. Cluster and principal component analyses gave seven distinct groups, revealing that the overall structure of morphological diversity is consistent with farmers’ classification. Nevertheless, no clear morphological variations were observed between some differently named landraces. Few landraces known by the same vernacular name were also morphologically distinct. This study demonstrated the existence of a well-defined local classification system and a wide variability among the accessions studied. It also revealed the need for detailed phylogenetic studies to determine the species identity of the accessions studied and broaden the knowledge base of Ethiopian yams.en
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
dcterms.issued2011
dcterms.languageen
dcterms.subjectgenetic resourcesen
dcterms.subjectdioscoreaen
dcterms.subjectyamsen
dcterms.subjectfarmersen
dcterms.subjectvarietiesen
dcterms.subjectland varietiesen
dcterms.subjectrecursos genéticosen
dcterms.subjectnumero de cabezasen
dcterms.subjectagricultoresen
dcterms.subjectvariedadesen
dcterms.subjectvariedades indígenasen
dcterms.subjectetiopiaen
dcterms.typeJournal Article

Files

Collections

CIAT Articles in Journals