Homestead is an area adjoining a household, where a diversified combination of perennial and annual plant species are cultivated, often in association with livestock farming, and mostly maintained by household members for the sustenance of food supply and livelihood (Mekonen
The homestead resources management and utilization approach are widespread in Asia, particularly in India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangladesh (Kumar
Furthermore, over two-thirds of the total land of Bangladesh is suitable for agricultural activities and homestead areas account for more than three-quarters of all agroforestry activities (Zaman
Sandwip is Chittagong’s sole offshore island, which is frequently hit by tropical cyclones and storm surges of varied strengths, as well as abnormally high tides, and saltwater intrusion (Paul & Rahman, 2006). Households are shrinking in size and shape as a result of land erosion caused by rivers, population expansion, and industrialization. Thus, it is vital to understand the present status of homestead resource diversity and management practices of Sandwip. Here, each household’s primary livestock component was poultry, followed by goats, cattle, buffalo, and sheep (Alam & Masum, 2005). In addition, because of transportation difficulties with the mainland, people of the offshore island heavily depend on their homestead products. Although several studies were conducted in Bangladesh on homestead forests (Alam & Sarker, 2011; Alam
The study was conducted at Sandwip Upazila of Chittagong district in Bangladesh (Figure 1). Sandwip Upazila is an island with an area of 762.42 square kilometers and a total population of 292,773 (BBS, 2012).
The soil is composed of newly formed Meghna estuary floodplain alluvial soil. The maximum and minimum mean temperature is 31.6°C and 25.4°C, respectively, and the average annual rainfall of 3600 mm (Alam & Masum, 2005). Also, the main crops of this area are paddy, potato betel leaf, sugarcane, coconut, nut, palm, and different forms of vegetables.
Out of 15 unions in Sandwip Upazilla, two unions named Maitbhanga and Sarikait were selected using stratified sampling. From each union, one village was chosen following the same sampling procedure, resulting in a total of two villages: Sarikait and Maitbhanga. Here, due to restrictions on movement during COVID-19, collection of the data was limited within two unions and this study design was prepared accordingly. Also, from the reconnaissance survey, it was understood that the species pattern of the Upazila is somehow the same for the homestead area. Here, one union Sarikait is comparatively close to the sea compared to another union Maitbhanga. The size of a household’s homestead was utilized as the basis for stratification. The homestead sizes of the study area were classified into three groups: small, medium, and large. The sizes of small, medium and large homesteads were 0.05–0.14 ha, 0.15–0.20 ha, and >0.20 ha, respectively.
A reconnaissance survey was conducted to understand the overall situation of different homestead resources of the study area before the collection of final data. The survey was carried out through a well-defined semi-structured questionnaire. Data or information about the demography of the respondent, income from the household, the status of present homestead resources, and their management of the selected sites were recorded. The data collection was done from December 2020 to February 2021.
A total of 90 households were surveyed, and 45 from each group (i.e. 20 small, 15 medium, and 10 large household groups from each village) were selected to represent the existing scenario. Here, random sampling was followed to conduct the household surveys. All field data were gathered through in-person interviews with household heads specifically from each family. After interviewing the respondents, a physical observation was done by visiting the plots and counting tree species at each homestead, attempting to relate and corroborate with the responses of respondents about the names and number of species.
The collected data were organized by using Microsoft Excel 2013. Before analyzing data, a double check was done to ensure the accuracy of the data. After that, both Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software were used to analyze the data following the objectives of this study. Here, species composition, relative density, occurrence frequency, diversity index, and distribution evenness are important attributes for determining the diversity status. The structural characteristics of a tree stand in a homestead were analyzed using various formulae in terms of relative density, the occurrence of tree species, and tree density (Alam & Sarker, 2011). Tree species diversity in the selected homesteads was calculated through the Shannon-Wiener Index of Diversity (Michael, 1990) and Index of Evenness, (E) (Magurran, 1988). Equations of indices are given below,
The Shannon-Wiener Index of Diversity, H = -∑ Pi* lnPi
Where, H = Index of species diversity, Pi = No. of individuals of one species / Total no. of individuals in the samples.
Species Diversity Index, D = S/N
Where, D = Diversity index, S = Total number of species, N = Total number of individuals.
Species Richness Index, R = (S-1)/ log N
Where, R = Species richness index, S = Total no. of species, N = Total no. of individuals of all the species.
Species Evenness Index, E=H/LogS
Where, E = Species evenness index, H= Shannon-Wiener index for diversity, S = Total no. of species.
In the case of the diversity and dominance index of tree species in homesteads, it is observed that the data obtained from the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (3.32) showed a higher value which represents more diversity (Table 1). But the index of dominance value for the fruit and timber species of the study area was 0.06 which represents less dominancy of the tree species. The calculated value of the Species Richness Index was 14.12 which represents more richness of tree species and the total number of individuals distributed among all possible tree species.
Diversity and density analysis of the fruit and timber species in Sandwip Upazila.
Parameters | Total | Based on union | |
---|---|---|---|
Maitbhanga | Sarikait | ||
No. of species (S) | 57 | 57 | 57 |
No. of individuals (N) | 9255 | 4833 | 4422 |
Shannon-Wiener Index of Diversity (H) | 3.32 | 3.30 | 3.32 |
Diversity Index (D) | 0.006 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
Index of Dominance (ID) | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 |
Species Richness Index (R) | 14.12 | 15.20 | 15.36 |
Species Evenness Index (E) | 1.89 | 1.88 | 1.89 |
In addition, a similar number of species (57) was found in both the Maithbhanga and Sarikait unions, while a higher number of total individuals was found in the Maitbhanga union than in Sarikait. In the case of the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, Diversity Index, Species Richness, and Evenness Index the associated value was higher for the Sarikait union, representing more diversity than in the Maitbhanga union.
A total of 17 vegetable species were found to be grown on a homestead several times around the year of which 3 species (
Vegetable species found in the homesteads of Sandwip Upazila.
All year | Summer vegetable | Winter vegetable Spices | Spices |
---|---|---|---|
- | - | ||
- | - | - | |
- | - | - | |
- | - | - |
Besides, three exotic timber species i.e. akashmoni (
In terms of tree species in the homesteads, 57 tree species under 28 different families consisting of timber, fruits, fuel wood, and multi-purpose tree species were identified, while multi-purpose tree species provide different kinds of resources like timber, fruits, fuel wood, etc. (Table 3). Among all of the families, the majority (n=9) of the tree species were from the Leguminosae family, and the identified second largest (n=5) family was Rutaceae.
Families with number of Species observed in the study area.
SI. | Family name | No. of species (n) |
---|---|---|
1 | Anacardiaceae | 3 |
2 | Annonaceae | 4 |
3 | Arecaceae | 2 |
4 | Averrhoaceae | 1 |
5 | Caricaceae | 1 |
6 | Casuarinaceae | 1 |
7 | Combretaceae | 2 |
8 | Dilleniaceae | 1 |
9 | Ebenaceae | 1 |
10 | Elaeocarpaceae | 1 |
11 | Euphorbiaceae | 2 |
12 | Leguminosae | 9 |
13 | Guttiferae | 1 |
14 | Lamiaceae | 1 |
15 | Lythraceae | 1 |
16 | Malvaceae | 1 |
17 | Meliaceae | 2 |
18 | Mimosaceae | 1 |
19 | Moraceae | 3 |
20 | Moringaceae | 1 |
21 | Musaceae | 1 |
22 | Myrtaceae | 4 |
23 | Oxalidaceae | 1 |
24 | Rhamnaceae | 1 |
25 | Rosaceae | 1 |
26 | Rubiaceae | 1 |
27 | Rutaceae | 5 |
28 | Sapindaceae | 1 |
On the other hand, among 57 tree species, 49% were fruit species (Figure 2). Most of the homestead respondents concentrate on fruit species because of their subsistence and cash need. Next to fruit species people focus on fuel wood (18%) for their daily basis cooking purposes. The least percentage of species were observed as medicinal species (3%).
The category of large farms contained the greatest number of fruit and timber species (n=49), while the category of small farms contained the lowest number of species (n=36).
Among the different kinds of fruit tree species, the frequency of fruit species supari (
Fruit and timber species of homesteads and their uses, occurrence, and density.
Local name | Scientific name | Family | Major uses | Total | Based on union | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Maitbhanga (%) | Sarikait (%) | ||||||||
F (%) | RD (%) | F | RD | F | RD | ||||
Supari | Annonaceae | Fruit | 98.89 | 14.18 | 100 | 15.64 | 97.78 | 12.57 | |
Narikel | Arecaceae | Fruit, fuel wood | 96.67 | 9.68 | 95.56 | 9.21 | 97.78 | 10.20 | |
Raintree/ fulkoroi | Leguminosae | Timber, fuel wood | 93.33 | 9.11 | 97.78 | 9.00 | 86.67 | 9.23 | |
Am | Anacardiaceae | Fruit, timber | 93.33 | 6.85 | 93.33 | 6.52 | 93.33 | 7.21 | |
Silkoroi/ sadakoroi | Leguminosae | Timber, fuel wood | 72.22 | 6.14 | 73.33 | 5.94 | 71.11 | 6.35 | |
Kala koroi/ sherish | Leguminosae | Timber | 62.22 | 4.04 | 51.11 | 3.91 | 73.33 | 4.18 | |
Akashmoni | Leguminosae | Timber | 74.44 | 3.77 | 71.11 | 3.41 | 77.78 | 4.16 | |
Mahagoni | Meliaceae | Timber | 84.44 | 3.37 | 84.44 | 3.50 | 84.44 | 3.23 | |
Kathal | Moraceae | Fruit, fodder, Timber | 78.89 | 3.12 | 77.78 | 2.67 | 80.00 | 3.62 | |
Papaya | Caricaceae | Fruit | 84.44 | 3.10 | 84.44 | 2.79 | 84.44 | 3.44 | |
Kola | Musaceae | Fruit | 48.89 | 2.27 | 48.89 | 2.23 | 48.89 | 2.31 | |
Peyara | Myrtaceae | Fruit | 82.22 | 2.19 | 84. .00 | 1.97 | 82.80 | 2.44 | |
Tentul | Leguminosae | Fruit, fuel wood | 84.44 | 2.00 | 82.22 | 1.97 | 86.67 | 2.04 | |
Kafla | - | - | Fuel wood, fence | 74.44 | 1.84 | 77.78 | 1.90 | 71.11 | 1.76 |
Mandar | Leguminosae | Fuel wood, fence | 75.55 | 1.78 | 75.56 | 1.68 | 75.56 | 1.90 | |
Gojom | - | - | Fuel wood | 66.67 | 1.73 | 62.22 | 1.76 | 71.11 | 1.70 |
Boroi | Rhamnaceae | Fruit, fuel wood, fence | 75.56 | 1.69 | 77.78 | 2.69 | 73.33 | 0.59 | |
Pundal | - | - | Fuel wood | 66.66 | 1.62 | 66.67 | 1.63 | 66.67 | 1.61 |
Gab | Ebenaceae | Fruit, pole | 62.22 | 1.55 | 53.33 | 1.78 | 71.11 | 1.29 | |
Amra | Anacardiaceae | Fruit | 52.22 | 1.38 | 53.33 | 1.34 | 51.11 | 1.42 | |
Gamar | Lamiaceae | Timber | 28.89 | 1.33 | 31.11 | 1.37 | 26.67 | 1.29 | |
Jam | Myrtaceae | Fruit, timber | 66.67 | 1.24 | 75.56 | 1.20 | 57.78 | 1.29 | |
Lebu | Rutaceae | Fruit | 74.44 | 1.21 | 75.56 | 1.43 | 73.33 | 0.97 | |
Dumur | Moraceae | Fruit, fuel wood | 74.44 | 1.21 | 73.33 | 1.34 | 75.56 | 1.06 | |
Badam | Combretaceae | Fruit, fuel wood | 74.44 | 1.06 | 75.56 | 1.03 | 73.33 | 1.09 | |
Tal | Annonaceae | Fruit, pole | 51.11 | 0.95 | 53.33 | 0.97 | 48.89 | 0.93 | |
Simul | Malvaceae | Cotton, fuel wood, timber | 53.33 | 0.95 | 53.33 | 0.95 | 53.33 | 0.95 | |
Bhadi | Anacardiaceae | Fuelwood | 36.67 | 0.93 | 37.78 | 0.93 | 35.56 | 0.93 | |
Khejur | Arecaceae | Fruit, fence | 35.56 | 0.80 | 35.56 | 0.72 | 35.56 | 0.88 | |
Kamranga | Oxalidaceae | Fruit | 42.22 | 0.76 | 46.67 | 0.79 | 37.78 | 0.72 | |
Jambura | Rutaceae | Fruit | 35.56 | 0.68 | 37.78 | 0.62 | 33.33 | 0.75 | |
Dewa | Moraceae | Fruit | 26.67 | 0.61 | 28.89 | 0.46 | 24.44 | 0.77 | |
Litchi | Sapindaceae | Fruit | 38.89 | 0.57 | 40.00 | 0.54 | 37.78 | 0.61 | |
Neem | Meliaceae | Medicinal | 51.11 | 0.53 | 51.11 | 0.56 | 51.11 | 0.50 | |
Bandarlathi | Leguminosae | Timber, fuel wood | 15.56 | 0.43 | 17.78 | 0.41 | 13.33 | 0.45 | |
Amloki | Euphorbiaceae | Fruit | 31.11 | 0.42 | 31.11 | 0.43 | 31.11 | 0.41 | |
Jamrul | Myrtaceae | Fruit | 33.33 | 0.41 | 35.56 | 0.39 | 31.11 | 0.43 | |
Jhau | Casuarinaceae | Fuel wood | 13.33 | 0.38 | 11.11 | 0.29 | 15.56 | 0.47 | |
Kodom | Rubiaceae | Fuel wood | 26.67 | 0.37 | 24.44 | 0.35 | 28.89 | 0.38 | |
Belumbo | Averrhoaceae | Fruit | 32.22 | 0.35 | 33.33 | 0.33 | 31.11 | 0.36 | |
Jalpai | Elaeocarpaceae | Fruit | 28.89 | 0.30 | 31.11 | 0.31 | 26.67 | 0.30 | |
Bel | Rutaceae | Fruit | 26.67 | 0.30 | 26.67 | 0.29 | 26.67 | 0.32 | |
Arboroi | Euphorbiaceae | Fruit, fuel wood | 28.89 | 0.30 | 26.67 | 0.29 | 31.11 | 0.32 | |
Babla | Mimosaceae | Fuel wood, fence | 18.89 | 0.30 | 20.00 | 0.31 | 17.78 | 0.29 | |
Krishnochura | Leguminosae | Fuelwood | 24.44 | 0.27 | 24.44 | 0.27 | 24.44 | 0.27 | |
Dalim | Lythraceae | Fruit | 21.11 | 0.26 | 22.22 | 0.25 | 20.00 | 0.27 | |
Sofeda | Annonaceae | Fruit | 17.78 | 0.22 | 17.78 | 0.27 | 17.78 | 0.23 | |
Ata | Annonaceae | Fruit | 18.89 | 0.22 | 17.78 | 0.21 | 20.00 | 0.23 | |
Sajna | Moringaceae | Fruit, fuel wood | 11.11 | 0.18 | 11.11 | 0.21 | 11.11 | 0.16 | |
Arjun | Combretaceae | Medicinal | 13.33 | 0.17 | 13.33 | 0.17 | 13.33 | 0.18 | |
Kau | Guttiferae | Fruit | 16.67 | 0.16 | 17.78 | 0.17 | 15.56 | 0.16 | |
Sissoo | Leguminosae | Timber, fodder | 14.44 | 0.16 | 15.56 | 0.17 | 13.33 | 0.16 | |
Chalta | Dilleniaceae | Fruit | 15.56 | 0.15 | 13.33 | 0.12 | 17.78 | 0.18 | |
Kodbel | Rutaceae | Fruit | 13.33 | 0.13 | 8.89 | 0.10 | 17.78 | 0.16 | |
Malta | Rutaceae | Fruit | 11.11 | 0.13 | 11.11 | 0.12 | 11.11 | 0.14 | |
Apple | Rosaceae | Fruit | 7.78 | 0.08 | 6.67 | 0.06 | 8.89 | 0.09 | |
Golabjam | Myrtaceae | Fruit | 6.67 | 0.08 | 8.89 | 0.08 | 4.44 | 0.07 |
Furthermore, among the identified 10 medicinal species in homestead, leaf, oil, and seed of neem (
Medicinal species found in the homesteads of Sandwip Upazila.
Name | Scientific name | Use |
---|---|---|
Neem | Leaf, oil, seeds relieve skin problems; liver tonic, blood purifier | |
Arjun | Bark as heart tonic | |
Thankuni | Whole plant as memory booster, blood purifier | |
Basok | Leaf as cough remover | |
Tulsi | Leaf, flower good for heart, blood, lungs, and cough | |
Pudina | Leaf for increasing digestion, preventing cold | |
Sajna | Fruit, leaf for controlling blood pressure, preventing stroke | |
Papaya | Fruit for curing ulcers, preventing cancer | |
Lemon | Fruit, leaf for reducing cholesterol, as blood purifier, and for reducing vomiting | |
Ginger | Rhizome, leaf for reducing nausea, sickness and vomiting |
Moreover, am (
Types of crops with major tree species in Sandwip Upazila.
Tree species | Vegetables grown under trees | Creeper Vegetables Grown Using Trees as Trails |
---|---|---|
Am | Aroids, amaranthus, spinach, turmeric, ginger | Bitter guard, sponge gourd |
Kathal | Pineapple, chili, turmeric, aroids | Country bean, ribbed gourd |
Koroi | Aroids | - |
Narikel | Aroids, spinach, turmeric | - |
Mahogany | Spinach, ginger | Country bean, yam |
Supari | Turmeric, pineapple | Yam, country bean |
The total annual average income of the small households was 13,457 Bangladeshi taka (BDT) and the large households’ total annual average income was 24,700 BDT (Table 7). The maximum income of the households came from selling timber, while the second highest income of different farm categories was generated from selling the fishes.
Distribution of income of homestead (BDT/ year) according to farm category.
Category of household | Timber species (BDT) | Fuel (BDT) | Fruit (BDT) | Bamboo (BDT) | Fish (BDT) | Total (BDT) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Small | 4287 | 1183.66 | 2533.34 | 1149 | 4304 | 13457 |
Medium | 5313 | 2179 | 3750 | 1940 | 4375 | 17557 |
Large | 7750 | 3489 | 4500 | 2465 | 6500 | 24700 |
Average (Tk) | 5783.33 | 2283.88 | 3594.45 | 1851.33 | 5059.66 | 55714 |
Here, BDT = Bangladeshi Taka
Among the entire respondents, the majority of the households (45.56%) addressed getting timber, fuel, and fruit as their purpose, while 42.23% of the households planted trees to get timber and fruit (Figure 3).
In the case of interest of respondents to plant new trees in their homestead, it was observed that the majority of the people prioritized fruit species (82.22%) as a top priority, while timber (77.78%), fuel (52.22%) vegetables (47.77%), medicinal plant (29.55%), spice (13.5%) were considered based on their choice.
The majority of the site selection decisions are taken by females (34%) for planting purposes. Moreover, 27% and 39% of site selection decisions were taken by male and female participants, respectively. Also, plantation (31.11%) and fertilization (50%) were done by the male (Table 8).
List of activities for management of homesteads by people.
Activities | Gender involvement (%) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | Both (male & female) | Both (male & children) | Both (female & children) | Children | Others | |
Seedling collection | 30 | 13.33 | 40 | 16.66 | - | - | - |
Planting | 31.11 | 22.22 | 20 | 17.77 | 8.88 | - | - |
Watering | 22.22 | 38.88 | 33.33 | 5.55 | - | - | - |
Weeding | 20 | 33.33 | 16.66 | 8.88 | 13.33 | 7.77 | - |
Fertilizing | 50 | 11.11 | 13.33 | 15.55 | 10 | - | - |
Thinning | 13.33 | 11.11 | 16.66 | 17.77 | 13.33 | 15.55 | 12.23 |
Pruning | 12.23 | 10 | 13.33 | 20 | 14.44 | 8.88 | 22.22 |
Harvesting | 23.23 | 13.33 | 15.55 | 38.8 | 5.55 | 3.33 | - |
Most of the respondents (52%) purchased their planting materials from the market (Table 9). The common planting materials were seeds, seedlings, and vegetative propagules, while the farmers prefer seedlings mostly because of their availability and better survivability.
Source of planting materials/ seedlings.
Aspects | Response (%) | |
---|---|---|
Sources | Market/private nursery | 52% |
Govt. nursery | 14% | |
Homestead forest | 22% | |
Neighbours, relatives, and others | 12% |
Types of planting materials/ Knowledge on reasons for use and non-use | ||
---|---|---|
Item | Reason for use | Reason for non-use |
Seed | Easy to grow, easily available | Lower survival rate, more damage, prone to insect attack |
Seedlings | Better survival rate, less damage, costly | Not readily available |
Vegetative propagules | Better survivability, easily available, Growth is fast | Costly |
Protection measures of trees in homestead | ||
---|---|---|
Protection measures are taken for protecting planting seedlings | Yes | 71.11% |
No | 28,89% |
Moreover, 71.11% of the household took various measures such as fencing, binding with a hard stick, regular observation, etc. to protect seedlings planted in the homestead, while 28.89% of the household were reported to take no measures for protecting the planted seedling.
In the case of the fertilizer used in homesteads, 32% of the respondents said that they have used a chemical fertilizer in their homestead to improve soil fertility followed by cow dung (27%), household residue (27%), and a small amount used (14%) all the fertilizer.
On the other hand, the study revealed some common problems faced by the house owners in home gardening. Damages caused by animals were the most significant obstacle for farmers while planting and growing trees (50%) (Figure 4).
Homestead depicts the combination of different groups or species of trees, shrubs, including vegetables within the periphery of an individual house, which is fully managed by the family members (Fernandes & Nair, 1986). Homestead is one of the most important production areas of different resources in Bangladesh, which provides a significant contribution to the group of people with low economic status (Miah & Hussain, 2010). Following the aspects of the importance of homestead resources, this study covered the diversity and management of homestead resources in Sandwip Upazila, Chittagong, Bangladesh. The findings revealed that the number of plant species (excluding vegetable species) in this study area was 57 under 28 families, which indicates the homestead has a moderately high diversity and species richness, which is higher than the findings of Abedin & Quddus (1990). They were found in homesteads of Tangail district (52 spp.), Ishurdi (34 spp.), Jessore (28 spp.), Patuakhali (20 spp.), Rajshahi (28 spp.), and Rangpur (21 spp.), respectively. Besides, in a study conducted in different regions of the country, Millat-e-Mustafa (1997a) found 92 species of perennial plants.
Furthermore, in the case of diversity and density of fruit and timber species, the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index is higher than the Index of Dominance, indicating less dominance of the tree species with greater diversity in the home garden. The computed value of the Species Richness Index also specifies a greater diversity of tree species and a more even distribution of the total number of individual trees across all tree species. This result is consistent with those of a few studies with similar objectives. This index was reported to be 3.33 by Millat-e-Mustafa (1997a) and 3.16 by Nath
Moreover, eleven vegetables were found under the direct shade of trees or as a creeper in association with trees. Under the trees, various shade-tolerant and/ or shade-requiring plants, such as ginger (
Furthermore, among all species, fruit species comprised the highest percentage (42%). Here, supari (
Farmers derive benefits from homesteads in various ways as they use homestead resources as a “reserve bank” for food and income. It was discovered that the annual average income of the small households was 13457 BDT and the large households’ annual average income was 24700 BDT. The maximum income of the households comes from selling timber. The income from trees for the small farm categories was substantially lower than the income from trees for the other farm categories. Smaller farms had fewer trees and less land devoted to tree production, which contributed to a lower income from tree products. This observation conforms with Zaman
Most households (82.2%) preferred largely food or fruit species for planting due to monetary incentives and family demands, and this conclusion is supported by the findings of Masum
The respondents were found to use cow dung, household residue, and chemical fertilizer on their land to maintain soil fertility. In tree planting and management work male participation was (52.08%) slightly higher than that of females, however, females actively took part in the development and care of home gardens. As the area of homesteads was near female working areas it was easy for them to look after it compared to men. The site selection decision for planting purposes was mostly taken by female (34%) members and less by male members (27%). Women play the most active role in maintaining homesteads. Although men performed heavier tasks at home gardens, such as planting, thinning, and fertilization in homestead management, women and children performed lighter work, such as weeding and watering.
The majority of the respondents (60%) had given an emphasized economic value. Here, 23.33% of the respondents mentioned combined economic and ecological value and only 16.67% of the respondents were aware of the economic, ecological, and medicinal value of what home garden should be conserved. As a strategy for maintaining ecological balance and a source of medicinal plants, the majority of the respondents assessed the home garden as “least significant“. Consequently, it appears that there is still a shortage of understanding in these two areas since Roy
Due to the lack of better management techniques and high-quality varieties, the traditional maintenance system of homestead gardens in the study area was characterized by a low level of cultural practices. Typically, farmers rely on plants that grow naturally inside their homestead’s perimeter. In addition, a review of the present management regime revealed that cultivators lack scientific knowledge. The vast majority of household owners still adhere to traditional homestead management approaches, while just a few have adopted modern practices. Agriculturalists, ecologists, biologists, and economists must communicate and interact across disciplines to protect homestead resources, identify and implement appropriate evaluation methodologies for sustainable management, and increase profits from the homestead. A greater understanding of agro-biodiversity as natural capital for delivering ecosystem goods and services is required. This knowledge will assist in increasing agricultural output and encouraging forestry (Swift
In terms of plant management and utilization, Bangladesh homestead forestry practices are following conventional methods and need improvement. Findings reveal that homesteads provide tangible benefits, such as fruit, fuel wood, and food materials with some income. There was enough unused land in the homesteads, which were relatively safe from flood and other threats. The land can be used for tree-growing purposes with desirable species. Producing various nutritious foods around the house may be a sensible way to provide adequate food to the household members. Thus, selective plantation of fruit species around the home garden can greatly influence the promotion of proper nutrition. It is evident from the study that farmers possess extensive indigenous knowledge related to several aspects of homestead forestry management. Farmers are mostly concerned about improving the growth of fruit trees in their home gardens. There is still immense scope to improve technologies for species selection, clonal propagation, species interaction, soil management, etc. To achieve a stable ecological balance and sustainable productivity of the homesteads, the proper initiative should be reintroduced along with the rare indigenous fruit trees and careful management of homesteads.
The following recommendations may be made to improve the status of homestead biodiversity:
Proper training and motivation of both male and female members of the family for better management of homestead forestry.
Distribute seedlings that have the potential to grow in homestead conditions.
Promoting awareness on the need for community forestry and planting of more indigenous tree species on homestead land.
Detail analysis of the tree crop interaction is needed for the selection of appropriate species.
Combined application of indigenous and scientific knowledge.
Identifying and introducing shade-tolerant crops and vegetables for growing under trees.