Evaluation of farmers’ socio-economic conditions and their influence on agrobiodiversity in Gharaviz area

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity is a fundamental part of any ecosystem, and it enables the  provision of goods and services (MEA, 2005; Pimm et al., 1995). Agro-biodiversity refers to the diversity of biota (living organisms) that is either inherent or cultivated in the agricultural context (Wood, Lenne, 1999). Research has also determined that agrobiodiversity provides the necessary conditions for agricultural sustainability (Cleveland et al., 1999).

Agrobiodiversity is fundamental in food production systems (Brush, 2004), but it also holds aesthetic and cultural values for human societies (Nabhan, 1989). The benefits of biodiversity to an ecosystem are numerous: improving yield, supporting high yield or pest resistant genotypes (Qualset, Shands, 2005), mixing cultivated genotypes (Zhu et al., 2000), using cover residuals (Jackson  et  al., 2004) or by mixed cultivation (Vandermeer  et  al., 2002), facilitating insect habitats that serve as biological pest control (Tscharntke  et  al., 2005; Altieri, Nicholls, 2003), and hosting leguminous species that serve to increase the nitrogen content of the soil (Drinkwater et al., 1998).

Genetic erosion is reported in many crops due to monoculture and other unsustainable farming operations (Baudry, 1989; Burel, Baudry, 1995; Stocking, 2001). Ample research has reported on the  importance of biodiversity for increasing crop yield within sustainable production systems in agriculture (Alme-kinders  et  al., 1995; Collins, Qualset, 1998; Altieri, 1999; Gliessman, 2007).

Research implies that implementation of processes associated with social and natural capital are a  high priority to enable protection of biodiversity (Uphoff, Wijayaratna, 2000; Pretty, Smith, 2004; Katz, 2000; Rodriguez, Pascual, 2004). In general, there have been fewer studies in Iran regarding the importance of biodiversity (Khoshbakht  et  al.,2009; Hashemi et al., 2009; Khoshbakht et al., 2006; Koocheki  et  al., 2008; Malakmohammadi et al., 2010).

Khoshbakht  et  al. (2006) evaluated relations between agroecology and home garden socio-economic aspects in Savadkouh area located at Mazandaran province. Rababah and Al-Qudah (2004) investigated determinant socio-economic factors of biodiversity in Ajlun province in Jordan. Willemen et al. (2007) dealt with some environmental and socio-economic indices effective on genetic erosion and biodiversity of Cassava in Amazon forest in Peru, while Rana et al. (2007) studied the impact of socio-economic factors on the management of rice cultivar diversity in Nepal.

To date, there have not been any investigations on biodiversity in the  area examined in this study. The  principal goal for conducting this research was to evaluate farmers’ conditions in terms of socio-economic factors in relation to agrobiodiversity in Gharaviz area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study area was located in western Iran (Fig. 1). Seven villages in the area were evaluated in the study: three of these villages were located within the non-hunting region of Gharaviz and four villages were in the surrounding area (Table 1). The climate in the area has warm summers and mild winters. Mean annual rainfall was measured at 420 mm and the mean temperature was about 20°C.

Information for the  study was collected during farm visits and questionnaires given to the farmers and experts in the area. The questionnaire included questions on species cultivated, areas of land under cultivation, and on the socio-economic conditions of the families such as farmer’s age, gender, the level of education, experience, household size, and percentages of the sources of income. Interviews were conducted with at least 30% of heads of households; in less populated rural areas, a high percentage of farmers in the region were interviewed. Data analysis was done with EXCEL and SAS software packages. In order to assess the relationship between quantitative data, the Pearson correlation test and Spearman correlation in SAS software were applied.

Biodiversity indices including Species richness, Shannon-Wiener, Simpson dominance and Evenness were calculated for all studied farms with specific software, Ecological Methodology. These indices compared the means for each village.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Farmers’ socio-economic conditions

1. Age of the head of household

The average age of farmers in villages was over 50 years, the  main reason for this being that young people were generally unwilling to continue their involvement in agriculture and farming activities due to low income in the agricultural sector. Farmers also reported that most of the young people had chosen jobs different from those of their fathers. Davari (2010) reported that farmers’ average age was determined as over 50 years because the youth had moved to cities. Evaluations for the average age of farmers in the examined villages showed that heads of households in Gharaviz had the highest (59 years) and those in Golamkabod olia had the  lowest (50.8 years) means of the  average age. It can therefore be concluded that the farmers in Golamkabod olia were younger than those in Gharaviz (Table 2).

The largest percentage of people aged over 60 years in a village was recorded in Gharaviz, and the highest percentage of people aged below 30 years in a village was recorded in Gharebolagh.

There was a  negative correlation between the age of the farmers and literacy of the head of household (r = –0.625^**): it can probably be explained by a  lack of education facilities in the past. Research by Gauchan et al. (2005) reported significant differences between evaluations for an age group and the level of education, showing that aged farmers were mostly uneducated. There was a  direct and significant relationship between this parameter and the household size. According to these evaluations, older heads of household had larger families, showing that they had produced more children.

2. Gender of farmers

The parameter of the  gender of farmers determined that there were some women heads of households in the  villages of Dastak and Golamkabod sofla; women made up 37.5% of heads of household in the  village of Gharaviz. This village recorded the highest percentage of women heads of household that were also involved in farming operations. In other villages, all heads of households were men. In the  Gharaviz area, the  number of women farmers was higher than in other villages and most had become involved in farming activities following the  death of a  spouse, so they generally had only low-level farming experience (Table 2).

Comparison of the means determining gender indicated a significant difference between all villages (32.42**) and Gharaviz villages (10.64**), but the  difference between marginal villages (3.4^ns) was not significant. This means that there was no difference between marginal villages in terms of gender. There was also a significant correlation between gender and the use of modified seeds (r = 0.007**), demonstrating the impact of gender on the use of modified seeds, but their type and the outcome were not recognized.

3. Experience of heads of household

The average level of farming and cultivation experience of the farmers in the village of Ghare bolagh (35 years) was much higher than that of others, and the farmers of the Gharaviz country side had the least experience (24 years) among the  studied villages (Table 2). A  comparison of the  means of the  farmers’ experience indicated no significant difference between villages. The  correlation between farmer’s experience and the  number of family members working on the farm (r = 0.17*) was significant: reports showed that longer farming experience led to more members of a  family being involved in farming operations.

4. Literacy of heads of household

Literacy was evaluated in terms of four levels; illiterate, unfinished secondary education, secondary education, and academic education. A number of farmers had unfinished secondary education (about 32%). Rostami (2011) conducted a study in the Ghalajeh region and reported that 45% of the farmers had unfinished secondary education. Among the examined villages, 65% of farmers in Gharaviz village were uneducated, and as such were the least educated; the farmers of Gharebolagh had the highest level of education. Farmers of Gharaviz, Golamkabod olia, and Rikhak did not have academic education. The level of farmers’ education can have an impact on the diversity of crops. Neighbouring villages had better conditions in terms of the level of education than those located within the Gharaviz region (Table 2).

Comparison of the data from the villages in terms of education indicated significant differences between all villages (16.43*). There was also a  significant difference within Gharaviz (6.68^*), but there was no significant difference among marginal villages (1.65^ns), namely, there was no considerable difference between marginal villages in terms of evaluations for education (Fig. 2).

Correlation between the level of education and the number of members in a farmer’s family (r  =  –0.196*) was negative and significant, indicating that a  higher level of education of a farmer corresponded to fewer family members that continued to work on the  farm and showing that family members had other vocations. There was a  significant correlation between cultivation (r  =  0.026*) and the  use of harvesting tools (r  =  0.002**). Investigation showed that more educated families displayed a higher tendency to buy and use tools for cultivation and harvesting.

5. Household size

The means for family size in villages showed close correlation in the  study. The  least and highest numbers of people in a  family were 12 and two, respectively (Table  2). In the  village of Gharaviz, 50% of families had three to six members on average. The  highest average of the number of members of a family was observed in Gharebolagh village (seven people), and the  village of Rikhak (4.5 people) had the least populated families. The large numbers of members of a family in some villages indicated that they still followed some traditional customs.

The  correlation between the  size of family and the  percentage of income obtained from ranching operations (r  =  0.221**) was significant, indicating that in larger families a higher portion of the  household income came from farming, but its correlation to the  percentage of family income from cultivation (r = –0.263**) was negative and significant, indicating that larger families had proportionately less household income from cultivation. In other words, farming accounted for a bigger contribution to the household income than cultivation in larger families.

6. Sources of subsistence of farming households

This section of the questionnaire was related to the various ways that farming families sourced their subsistence income. Farmers were asked to state the  contribution to their subsistence needs made by animal husbandry, cultivation, horticultural and other jobs as a percentage of their total annual income (Fig. 3).

6.1. Income from animal husbandry

On average, animal husbandry accounted for about 20% of farmers’ income in all regions and was identified as the main source of income after cultivation. Among the  seven studied villages, the farmers of Gharebolagh had the lowest percentage of their income from animal husbandry compared to that of other villages, indicating that animal husbandry in that village did not provide a good source of income. In the villages of Gharaviz, Golamkabod olia, Dastak, and Golamkabod sofla, 75% of families sourced from 0 to 50% of their income from husbandry. Gharebolagh (2.85%) had the lowest percentage of income from animal husbandry, while the highest percentage was observed in the village of Dastak (27.5%), where animal husbandry was beneficial and most of its inhabitants tended to cultivation followed by livestock.

There was a  significant difference among the seven villages (17.74*) in terms of the contribution of husbandry to providing for subsistence needs of families. There was a negative and strong significant correlation between the contributions of animal husbandry and cultivation (–0.853**).

6.2. Income from agronomic activities

Among all studied villages, cultivation was the most important occupation among agricultural activities. On average, cultivation accounted for 75% of farmers’ income in the  studied villages. However, Rostami (2011) reported that cultivation contributed 52% to farmers’ income in Ghalajeh, this report confirms the  importance of cultivation in the  village. About 75% of farming families in the villages of Zarinjob, Rikhak, and Gharebolagh had income from commodities that accounted for 70% of total income. In the  villages of Gharaviz, Dastak, Golamkabod olia, and Sofla, more than 50% of the  total income in 75% of families was from cultivation. Davari (2010) reported on the importance of cultivation in Varamin compared to other sources of income. On average, cultivation contributed 60% to income in all villages, which shows that cultivation was identified as the main source of income in these areas. This was more apparent in marginal villages compared to those in the Gharaviz region.

There was a significant difference in the means between the percentages of income from cultivation among marginal villages at the probability level of 99%. Its relation to the  application of chemical fertilizers (0.296**) and modified seed consumption was significant and positive, which shows that increased income from the cultivation section led to an increased use of chemical fertilizers and modified seeds.

6.3. Income from horticultural activities

In terms of providing for inhabitants’ income, the  contribution of horticultural activity in the  studied area was lower. In the  village of Gharebolagh, 10–30% of total income was accounted for by horticultural activities of 50% of inhabitants. Also in Dastak, the contribution of horticultural activities to income was between 10 and 40%, which catered for 25% of a family’s demands. In other villages, the  contribution of horticultural activities was smaller or nonexistent. In Gharebolagh and Dastak, the contribution of horticultural activities to income was 12% and 7.5% on average, respectively. It was zero per cent in the village of Gharaviz. In rural areas, a  comparison of the  means indicated a significant difference among the seven villages (40.7**), the  villages within Gharaviz region (10.55**), and marginal villages (19.53**), which showed that the villages varied in terms of the percentage of income from horticultural activities in meeting financial demands.

6.4. Income from other sources

Other sources that added to the income of farming families did not make a considerable contribution. In the village of Gharaviz and some other villages, contributions to a  family’s subsistence needs were met by horticultural activities and cultivation. In the  village of Golamkabod olia, other sectors did not amount to a percentage of farmers’ subsistence. On average, Gharebolagh had the highest (6%) contribution compared to the villages of Golamkabod olia, Gharaviz, and Dastak with 0, 1, and 1.5%, respectively.

Factors affecting agrobiodiversity

The correlation between the gender of the head of household and the evenness index (r = 0.19*) was significant: the  families supervised by women had a  higher value on this index and the evenness of cultivated yields increased or, in other terms, women tended to cultivate mixed crops in similar scales (Table 3).

The correlation of farmers’ literacy level on the evenness index (r = –0.181*) was negatively significant, which means that a  higher level of education resulted in a lower value of the evenness index and the evenness of cultivated crops (Table 3). Malakmohammadi et al. (2010) reported that there was a  significant correlation between the literacy level of the head of household and the number of cultivars and species. Farmers with a high level of education generally tended to have more diverse yields because of better awareness (Winters et al., 2006).

Correlation between the household size and the Shannon-Wiener index (r = 0.193*) was positive and significant: as the family size increased, the index value also increased. In other words, larger families had higher values of the  Shannon-Wiener index. This increased index value indicated increased crop diversity in farms. Its relation to the evenness index (r = 0.267*) also was significant, and larger families had higher values for crop diversity, such that the area occupied by species on the farm was equal. Also, there was a  significant correlation between Simpson dominance index and household size (r = –0.214*) (Table 3). This was true in respect of inverse correlation between dominance and evenness. Larger families had lower values on this index indicating that one or some species reduced dominance. Hashemi et al. (2009) observed a  significant relation between species richness and the  household size. Benin  et  al. (2004) reported a  significant relationship between agricultural yield diversity and the number of members of a family working on the farm.

There was a  significant correlation between cultivation contribution in providing for families subsistence and the indices of Shannon-Wiener (r = –0.179*), evenness (r = –0.179*), and Simpson dominance (r = 0.183*) (Table 3). Families with lower income from farming had a stronger tendency to monocultural agricultural systems and cultivation of few cost-effective crops. As a result, on the values of the Shannon index decreased, and and those of the Simpson index increased. Species richness was affected by income and cultivation to meet a  family’s subsistence needs. Saxena  et  al. (2005) stated that dealing with cultivation operations to increase income led to deterioration of biodiversity.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study present a clear indication of the conditions of agrobiodiversity and socio-economics in the study area. To obtain useful knowledge about conditions and increasing agrobiodiversity in a  region, the  sustainability of the agricultural system will be ensured. The  results showed that since the  socio-economic conditions of the people in rural areas have an effect on crop biodiversity, these contributing factors can be applied to maintaining and increasing biodiversity in the area. The results of environmental and socio-economic factors indicate that biodiversity is affected by biotic and abiotic factors. For instance, such factors as gender, education level, family size, and the amount of contribution made by cultivation to a farming family’s income are effective on species diversity. Evaluation of farmer’s economic conditions in this area showed that the farmers in the villages of Rikhak, Zarinjob, and Gharebolagh had better conditions than others. Most farmers depended on income from cultivation for subsistence, so cultivation was the main source of income for inhabitants in the region.

References

1. Almekinders  CJM, Fresc  LO, Struik  PC. The  need to study and manage variation in agro-ecosystems. NJAS 1995; 43: 127–42.
2. Altieri  MA. The  ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1999; 74: 19–31.
3. Altieri MA, Nicholls CI. Soil fertility management and insect pests: harmonizing soil and plant health in agroecosystems. Soil Till Res. 2003; 72: 203–11.
4. Baudry  J. Interactions between agricultural and ecological systems at landscape level. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1989; 27: 119–30.
5. Benin S, Smale M, Pender J, Gebremedhin B, Ehui  S. The  economic determinants of ceral crop diversity on farms in the Ethiopan highlands. Agric Econ. 2004; 31: 196–208.
6. Brush SB. Farmers’ bounty: locating crop diversity in the contemporary world. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2004. 352 p.
7. Burel  F, Baudry  J. Species biodiversity in changing agricultural landscapes: A case study in the Pays d’Auge, France. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1995; 55: 193–200.
8. Cleveland DA, Soleri D, Smith E. Farmer plant breeding from a biological perspective: implications for collaborative plant breeding. Mexico: CIMMYT; 1999.
9. Collins  WW, Qualset  CO. Biodiversity in agroecosystems. Advances in Agroecology Series. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1998. 334 p.
10. Davari  A. Assessing the  trend and causes of genetic erosion of vegetables in Varamin County. Master’s thesis; Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. 2010.
11. Drinkwater  LE, Wagoner  P, Sarrantoni  MO. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature. 1998; 396: 262–5.
12. Gauchan  D, Smale  M, Maxted  N, Cole  M, Sthapit  BR, Jarvis  D, Upadhyay  MP. Socioeconomic and agroecological determinants of conserving diversity on-farm: the case of rice genetic resources in Nepal. J Nep Agric Res Counc. 2005; 6: 89–98.
13. Gliessman  SR. Agroecology: The  ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2007. 408 p.
14. Hashemi  F. Evalution of plant agrobiodiversity; a case study of Basht district-Gachsaran County. Master’s thesis; Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. 2009.
15. Hashemi F, Khoshbakht K, Mahdavi Damghani A, Veisi H, Liaghati H. A quantitative assessment of plant agrobiodiversity threats – a case study of Gachsaran. Environ Sci. 2009; 4: 161–70.
16. Jackson  LE, Ramirez  I, Yokota  R, Fennimore SA, Koike ST, Henderson D, Chaney WE, Caldero´n FJ, Klonsky K. On-farm assessment of organic matter and tillage management on vegetable yield, soil, weeds, pests, and economics in California. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2004; 103: 443–63.
17. Katz  EG. Social capital and natural capital: a comparative analysis of land tenure and natural resources. Land Economics. 2000; 76: 114–33.
18. Khoshbakht  K, Hammer  K, Amini  S. Interdisciplinary analysis of homegardens in Savadkouh/Iran: Plant uses and socioeconomic aspects. JFAE 2006; 2: 277–82.
19. Khoshbakht  K, Rezaei  AK, Kambouzia  J, Mahdavi  Damghani  A. Agro-biological and socio-economic diversity of homegardens in fereydan region of Esfahan, Iran. In: Processing international conferance Tropentag, Hamburg, Oct 6–8, 2009: 85–6.
20. Koocheki A, Nassiri M, Glissman S, Zarea A. Agrobiodiversity of field crops: a case study for Iran. J Sustain Agr. 2008; 32: 95–122.
21. Malakmohammadi I, Heidarian N, Shbanali-Fami  H, Atri  Samiee  A. Gender analysis of factors influencing agro-biodiversity conservation in Dinvar, Kermanshah province, Iran. Int J Sust Dev. 2010; 2: 27–33.
22. MEA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment synthesis report, Malaysia and U.S. 2005.
23. Nabhan GP. Enduring Seeds: Native American agriculture and wild plant conservation. San Francisco: North Point Press; 1989. 225 p.
24. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gitleman JL, Brooks TM. The  future of biodiversity. Science. 1995; 269(5222): 347–50.
25. Pretty  J, Smith  D. Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Biol Cons. 2004; 18: 631–38.
26. Qualset CO, Shands H. Safeguarding the  future of U.S. agriculture: The need to conserve threatened collections of crop diversity worldwide. University of California Genetic Resources Conservation Program. 2005. 57 p.
27. Rababah  M, Al-Qudah  H. Socio-economic factors determining on-farm agricultural biodiversity in Ajlun Governorate. Dirasat Agric Sci. 2004; 3: 373–79.
28. Rana RB, Garforth Ch, Sthapit B, Jarvis D. Influence of socio-economic and cultural factors in rise varietal diversity management on-farm in Nepal. Agric Human Values. 2007; 24: 461–72.
29. Rodrı´guez LC, Pascual U. Land clearance and social capital in mountain agro-ecosystems: the  case of Opuntia scrubland in Ayacucho. Peru Ecological Economy. 2004; 49: 243–52.
30. Rostami R. Evaluation of influencing on agro-biodiversity and crop wild relatives; a case study of Ghalaje protected area. Master’s thesis; Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. 2011.
31. Saxena KG, Maikhuri RK, Rao KS. Change in agricultural biodiversity: implications for sustainable livelihood in the Himalaya. JMS 2005; 2: 23–31.
32. Stocking  M. Agrobiodiversity: A  positive means of addressing land degradation and sustainable rural livelihoods. In: Conacher AJ, editor. Land degradation. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001. 1–16 p.
33. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies  C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecological Letter. 2005; 8: 857–74.
34. Uphoff  N, Wijayaratna  CM. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the  productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Dev. 2000; 28: 1875–90.
35. Vandermeer J, Lawrence D, Symstad A, Hobbie  S. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, editors. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 157–68.
36. Willemen  L, Scheldman  X, Cabellos  V, Salazar SR, Guarino L. Spatial patterns of diversity and genetic erosion of traditional cassava in the Peruvian Amazon: An evaluation of socioeconomic and environmental indicators. Genet Resour Crop Evalution. 2007; 54: 1599–612.
37. Winters  P, Cavatassi  R, Lipper  L. Sowing the seeds of social relation: the role of social capital in crop diversity. ESA working paper No. 06–16. Food and agriculture organization, Rome. 2006.
38. Wood D, Lenne JM. Agro-biodiversity: characterization, utilization, and management. New York: CABI Publishing; 1999. 490 p.
39. Zhu YY, Chen H, Fan J, Wang Y, Li Y, Chen J, Fan J. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature. 2000; 406: 718–22.

^* Corresponding author. Email: asgariashkan6@gmail.com

Ashkan Asgari, Korous Khoshbakht, Saeid Soufizadeh

ŪKININKŲ SOCIOEKONOMINĖS PADĖTIES ĮVERTINIMAS IR JOS POVEIKIS AGROBIO-ĮVAIROVEI GHARAVIZO RAJONE