EVALUATION OF COFFEE (Coffea arabica L.

) PRODUCTION AND
SELECTED SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES UNDER
CORDIA AFRICANA AND ERYTHRINA ABYSSINICA TREES IN
ARSI GOLELCHA DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA

MSc THESIS

ALEMAYEHU DIRIBA

FEBRUARY, 2017
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA

Evaluation of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Production and Selected Soil

Physicochemical Properties under Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica
Trees in Arsi Golelcha District, Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Natural Resource Management and

Environmental Sciences Postgraduate Program Directorate
In Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGROFORESTRY

By

Alemayehu Diriba Roba

February, 2017
Haramaya University, Haramaya

ii
 POST GRADUATE DIRECTORATE
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
We hereby certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis entitled “Evaluation of Coffee
(Coffea arabica L.) Production and selected Soil physicochemical properties under
Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica Trees in Arsi Golelcha District, Ethiopia”
prepared under our guidance Alemayehu Diriba. We recommend that it be submitted as
fulfilling the Thesis requirement.

Muktar Mohammed (PhD) _______________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Lisanewerk Nigatu (PhD) ______________ ______________

Co-Advisor Signature Date

As members of the Board of Examiners of the MSc Thesis Open Defense Examination, we
certify that we have read and evaluated the Thesis prepared by Alemayehu Diriba and
examined the candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the
requirement for the degree of Master of Agroforestry.

_____________________ ______________ ______________

Chairperson Signature Date

_____________________ _____________ _____________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

_____________________ ______________ ____________

External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the Thesis is contingent upon the submission of its final
copy to the Council of Post Graduate Directorate (CPGD) through the candidate’s Graduate
Council (PGC).

iii
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis script to my Father Diriba Roba and all our family including my
respected wife for their care, love and put forward joint venture in the success of my life.

iv
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
With my signature below, I declare and affirm that this thesis is my own work. I have
followed all ethical and technical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection,
data analysis and compilation of this thesis. Any academic matter that is included in the thesis
has been given recognition from first to last citation.

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for MSc degree at the
Haramaya University. The thesis is deposited at the Haramaya University library and available
to borrower under the rule of library. I seriously declare that this thesis has not been
submitted to any other institution everywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma
or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis may be made without special permission provided that
accurate and complete acknowledgment of the source is made. Request for authorization for
extended citation or imitation of this thesis in whole or in part may be allowanced by the head
of the School or Department when in his or her judgment for proposed use of the material is,
in the interests of scholarship. In all other illustrations, however, consent must be acquired
from the instigator of the thesis.

Name: Alemayehu Diriba Signature: ___________

Date of Submission: February, 2017

v
School: Natural Resources Management and Environmental Sciences

Department: Agroforestry

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born in Baqayisa/ Shanan Kolu District, Oromia, Eastern Ethiopia, on
December 19, 1980. He attended primary education in Micheta Primary School, and
secondary and preparatory education, at Mechara Secondary and preparatory school. After
he successfully passed the Ethiopian School Leaving Certificate Examination (ESLCE), then
he joined Assosa Technical vocational Training College and obtained Diploma with Natural
Resource Management in 2004. Soon after his graduation, he was employed by Oromia
Agriculture Research Institute and he had been working as member of the Agroforestry
Research Team in Mechara Agriculture Research Center.

Then after, he joined Haramaya University and obtained Bachelor of Science (BSc.) degree in
Natural Resources Management in 2011. Following graduation, he had been working in
Mechara Agriculture Research Center until he joined Haramaya University in September
2014 to pursue his Graduate Studies in Agroforestry Program, School of Natural Resource
Management and Environmental Sciences.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My genuine thanks goes to my advisor Dr Muktar Mohammed and Dr. Lisanewerk Nigatu,
who conscientiously helped me in every step of my work, for their guidance and sharing me
their valuable time, perceptive comments and helpful advice throughout my work. Their
guidance regarding the structure of proposal and thesis, starting from the beginning of the
work, has helped me greatly in the organization of the work.

The special thanks to Dr. Wasu Mohammed who has helped me in data analysis and
arrangement of the result. Heartfelt thanks goes to Mechara Agricultural Research Center
(MARC) as well as technical and administrative staff members who have been directly or
indirectly contributed to the success of this work. I am thankful more than ever to the center
director of MARC, Mr. Eshetu Ararso who has been always encouraging me and alleviating
any short coming moment at the study and other facilities during my research time. You
deserve great thanks Eshetu! I would also like to thanks Mr. Wasihun Gizaw, Mr. Wezir
Mohammed, Mr. Mekite Yami, Mr. Girma Alemayyo, and Mr. Nibrete Abite for their
support and assistance in the field during survey, coffee and soil sample collection, and on top
of data transportation towards finale analysis areas.

I am thankful to Haramaya University in advance and Soil Laboratory staff members

particularly, Mrs. Sinidu Goshu, Mrs. Sintayehu Abebaw and Mr.Kasahun Asifaw as well as

vii
to Jimma Agricultural Research center in general and coffee cuppers and processing team of
JARC mainly, Mr. Mikru Tesfa for providing me with a desire facility in my bequest coffee
quality test success. The outstanding thanks goes to my respected wife Mrs. Wolansa
Mekonien, and ordinary thanks to my entire neighbors and on top of friends specially, Mr.
Abdela Usmael, Mr. Usmael Mohammed, Mr. Shanene Haile and others who have been
donated me their inspire and moral encourage.

Lastly, I am very much indebted to Oromia Agricultural Research Institute for giving me the
chance to pursue my post graduate studies and provision of necessary financial support
during course and thesis work.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AC Acidity of Cup Test
AMF Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AV.P Available Phosphorus
BD Bulk Density
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
cm3 Cubic centimeter
CV Coefficient of Variance
EX.K Exchangeable Potassium
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GLM General Linear Model
ha Hectare
HU Haramaya University
Kg Kilogram
LSD Least Significant Difference
m Meter

vii
 masl Meters Above Sea Level
mm Millimeter
MVD Mean Value Difference
PA Peasant Association
RCBD Randomize Completely Block Design
SAS Statistical Analysis System
STD Standard Deviation
TN Total Nitrogen

Table of Contents Page

DEDICATION iv
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR v
ix
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS viii
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xv
LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX xvi
ABSTRACT xviii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background and Justification 1
1.2. Objective 4
1.2.1. General objective:
4
1.2.2. Specific objectives:
4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1. Effect of Shade Trees in Biological and Physicochemical Properties of the Soil
5
2.2. Influence of Shade Trees on Nutrient Cycling in the Soil 5
2.3. Shade Tree and Soil Nutrient Balance 6
2.4. Influence of Shade trees in Soil Nutrient Availability 7
2.5. Association of Soil Properties and Coffee Yield 8
2.6. Physical Health and Productivity of Coffee Plants under the Shade 9
2.7. Biochemical Effect of Shade Trees on Organoleptic Coffee Quality 10
2.8. Socio-Economic Value and Productivity of Coffee Shade 12
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 13
3.1. Description of the Study Area 13
3.1.1. Location
13
3.1.2. Climate and Rain fall
14
3.1.3. Land use/land cover
15
3.2. Site Selection 15
3.3. Reconnaissance Survey and Farmer’s Field Selection 15
3.4. Data to be collected 15
3.5. Sampling and Processing Techniques 16
3.5.1. Farmers selection
16
3.5.2. Coffee Shade Trees Selection
16
3.5.3. Soil sampling
iii
 16
3.5.4. Soil sample processing
17
3.5.5. Counting coffee density under the canopy of shade tree
17
3.5.6. Coffee beans sampling
18
3.5.7. Coffee cherries drying process
18
3.5.8. Coffee beans' Sample process
19
3.5.8.1. Screen size of coffee beans 19
3.5.8.2. Raw coffee quality grade evaluation 19
3.5.8.3. Aroma and cup quality grade evaluation 19
3.6. Sample Procedure and Experimental Design 20
3.7. Data Analysis 21
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 22
4.1. Coffee Shade Value with Agroforestry System in Golelcha District 22
4.1.1. Farmers’ response on coffee shade value in the district
22
4.1.2. Coffee plantation and farmers’ problem
23
4.2. Effect of Shade Trees on Physicochemical Properties of the Soil 25
4.2.1. Effects of shade trees on soil physical properties
25
4.2.1.1. Soil texture 25
4.2.1.2. Bulk density 28
4.2.2. Effects of shade trees on chemical properties of the soil
28
4.2.2.1. Soil pH 28
4.2.2.2. Organic Carbon 30
4.2.2.3. Total nitrogen contents 31
4.2.2.4. Available phosphorus 32
4.2.2.5. Cation exchange capacity 33
4.2.2.6. Exchangeable potassium 34
4.3. Effect of Shade Tree Species and Distance from Tree Trunk on Coffee
Production 35
4.3.1. Physical coffee production in yield aspects
35
4.3.1.1. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in
Branch/coffee plant 35
4.3.1.2. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in number of
iv
 node /coffee branch 36
4.3.1.3. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in
number of coffee fruits /node 38
4.3.1.4. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in all
coffee fruits /coffee plant 39
4.3.1.5. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in 1000
seed weight 40
4.3.1.6. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in dry
yield weight/ coffee plant in kg 41
4.3.1.7. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in clean
coffee yield /hectare 43
4.3.1.8. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in screen
size of coffee beans 44
4.3.1.9. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in shape
and make of coffee beans 45
4.3.1.10. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in color
of coffee beans 46
4.4. Coffee Production in Quality Aspects 47
4.4.1. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in aromatic
intensity of coffee beans 47
4.4.2. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in aromatic
quality of coffee beans 48
4.4.3. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in acidity of
coffee beans 49
4.4.4. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in astringency of
coffee beans 50
4.4.5. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in bitterness of
coffee beans 51
4.4.6.Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in body of coffee
beans 52
4.4.7. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in flavor of
coffee beans 53
4.4.8. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in overall quality
of coffee beans 54
4.5. Combined Correlation and regression between Soil and Coffee Parameters 55
4.6. Coffee Grading Based on Raw and Cup Quality Evolution 58
4.6.1. Raw coffee quality evaluation
58
4.6.2. Cup quality evaluation
58
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60
6. REFERENCES 63
v
7. APPENDIXES 73
8. QUESTIONNAIRES 89

LIST OF TABLES
Table pag
e
Table 1. Summary of Reconnaissance survey result at Laftorifenso and Jingadibu PA 24

Table 2. Influence of tree species and distance from the trunk in silt soil 27
Table 3. Influence of tree species and distance from the trunk in soil Bulk Density 28
Table 4. Influence of shade tree’s canopy and distance from tree trunk at soil pH 29
Table 5. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in soil organic carbon 31
Table 6. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in soil Nitrogen 32
Table 7. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in available of
Phosphorus 33
Table 8. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in CEC of the soil 34
Table 9. Influence tree species and distance from tree trunk in availability of
exchangeable potassium 35
Table 10. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in available of
branch/coffee plant the 36
Table 11. Influence of tree species and distance from shade tree trunks in number of
node /coffee branch 38
Table 12. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk, in number of coffee
fruits /node 39
Table 13. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk, in number of all coffee
fruits /coffee plant 40
Table 14. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk, in 1000 seed weight with gm 41

Table 15. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk, in dry yield weight/ coffee
Plant with kg 43
Table 16. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk, the clean coffee yield
/hectare in tone 44

vi
 Table 17. Influence of Shade tree Species and distance from tree trunk, the screen size
45
percentage
Table 18. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk, in number of
shape and make and make percentage 46
Table 19. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk, color percentage 47
Table 20. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk, in aromatic
intensity percentage 48
Table 21. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in aromatic
quality percentage 49

List of tables (Continued …)

Table Pag
e
Table 22. Influence of shade tree and distance from tree trunk ,in acidity of cup coffee 50
percentage
Table 23. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk, in astringency 51
percentage
Table 24. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk, in bitterness 52
percentage
Table 25. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk, the body in 53
percentage
Table 26. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in flavor of coffee 54
beans
Table 27. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in overall quality 55
percentage
Table 28. Standard parameters and their respective values used for unwashed coffee that
raw quality evaluation as JARC (2008) standard 58
Table 29. Standard parameters and their respective values used for unwashed coffee that
cup and aroma evaluation as JARC (2008) standard 59

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1. Study area map of Arsi Golelcha district 13
Figure 2. Rain fall and Temperature data of Arsi Golelcha District, 2015 GC 14
Figure 3. Seven years (2009-2015) Rain fall data of Arsi Golelcha District 14

viii
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX
Appendix Table Page

Appendix table 1. Mean values of physicochemical property of the soil as influenced

by distance from the trunk under the shade tree and out of shade tree effect in coffee 73
fields at the study PAs,
Appendix table 2. Mean values of physicochemical property of soil parameters
beneath the canopy of Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica trees, and in the
nearby open area in coffee fields at Golelcha District 74
Appendix table 3. Significance level of F value in soil parameters with respect to
distance from the tree trunks and tree species in Golelcha District (Combined analysis 75
of variance across PAs).
Appendix table 4. Comparisons between shade trees effect as well as between
shaded and unshaded effect in the value of soil parameters at t-Test (0.5) 76
significance level
Appendix table 5. Mean values of coffee productivity as influenced by distance from
the trunk under the shade and out of shade tree effect in coffee fields at Laftorifenso
PA, Golelcha District 77
Appendix table 6. Mean value of coffee productivity as influenced by distance from
the trunk under the shade and out of shade tree effect in coffee fields at JingadibuPA
in Golelcha District 79
Appendix table 7. Mean values of coffee productivity beneath the canopy of Cordia
africana and Erythrina abyssinica trees, and in the nearby open area at coffee fields
of study area 81
Appendix table 8. Significance level of F values in coffee parameters with respect to
the distance from shade tree trunk and tree species in study area (Combined analysis
of variance across PAs) 82
Appendix table 9. Comparisons between shade trees effect as well as between
shaded and unshaded effect in the value of coffee parameters at t-Test (0.5)
significance levels at the study area 83
Appendix table 10. Regression and Correlation Coefficients of Laftorifenso PA in
combination of soil and coffee parameters 86
Appendix table 11. Regression and Correlation Coefficients at Jingadibu PA with
combination of soil and coffee parameters 87
Appendix table 12. Scale of raw and cup quality attributes for grading purpose 88
Appendix table 13. Questioners 89
Appendix table 14. Questioners 91
Appendix table 15. Questioners 91

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Figure Page

Appendix figure 1. The Physical yield of coffee plant had been recorded
and dried then taken to JAR for quality analysis 93
Appendix figure 2. The Coffee beans had been processed for row and cup
quality attribute by JARC cup liquor panelist 94
Appendix figure 3. The Soil sample was taken from farmers’ field under
selected soil parameters coffee Shade tree species and had been taken to
HU soil laboratory, and then had been analyzed 95

Evaluation of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Production and Selected Soil Physicochemical
Properties under Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica Trees in Arsi Golelcha
District, Ethiopia
ABSTRACT
Coffee plantation with shade trees is important to improve soil health, increase coffee
production, sustain and restore agroecology and nature based agroforestry practices. The
study was conducted on farmers’ fields in Golelcha District of East Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. The
study was intended to evaluate the influence of coffee shade trees on growth performance,
yield and quality of coffee (Coffea arabica L.), to characterize selected soil physicochemical

x
properties under the canopy of coffee shade trees and to get best coffee shade trees and
appropriate distance of coffee seedling plantation area in which away from shade tree
trunks. Key informants and household interviews were used to get imperative information
from three age categories, i.e. from old farmers, middle age farmers and young farmers.
Randomized complete block design on three farmers’ fields as a replication in each PAs
were used for data collection. A total of 48 circular samples were taken for both treatments’
parameters, under both coffee shade tree species at the distance of 1m, 3m, 6 m and 25m
away from shade tree trunk including unshaded zone. The two widely grown indigenous
coffee shade tree species in the area were Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica. Even
though farmers’ preference focused on Cordia africana tree based on its utility, the best
results were recorded under Erythrina abyssinica tree. The outcome had a significant value
at (p<0.05) and highly significance value at (p<0.01) between and within the treatments.
Analysis of regression was taken to evaluate difference between treatments’ parameters.
Positive and negative relationship of soil and coffee parameters were tested by Pearson’s
correlation coefficient. Statistically significant comparison differences were observed
between shaded and unshaded as well as within shaded effect based on both parameters
across PAs. Integration of shade in coffee farming system created creditable promising in
producing organic coffee. Shade utility was also adopted as ecologically sustainable,
economically viable and socially acceptable practice. The second distance layer (3m) away
from shade tree trunks illustrated the highest mean value across PAs in most parameters.
Almost all the given coffee and soil parameters’ value increased significantly under the tree
canopy than in the open area in both PAs showing decreasing trend with increasing distance
from the tree trunk. Average result of both PAs' coffee; the greater value of branch/coffee
plant; 13%, and 19%, all fruits/ coffee plant; 5,060 and 9,740, thousand seed weight; 23%
and 41%, clean coffee yield/ ha in qtl; 3.25% and 6.1%, screen size of coffee beans; 9.1%
and 7.7%, shape and make of beans; 1.08 and 1.085, aromatic intensity; 0.47 and 0.035,
aromatic quality; 0.38 and 0.33, acidity; 0.5 and 0.5 and body of coffee beans; 0.53 and
0.57 than open areas were detected under the canopies of Cordia africana and Erythrina
abyssinica shade trees, respectively. Average result of both PAs' soil; the greater value of
pH 44%, and 54%, OC; 60.5% and 92%, TN; 40% and 50.5%, CEC; 68.75% and 87%, ex.
K; 13.5% and 14%, silt; 22.65% and 27.5% than open area were detected under the
canopies of Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica, respectively. The best shade tree was
Erythrina abyssinica and the recommended distance of coffee seedling plantation area away
from shade tree trunk was 3m. Generally, the vital signal of the treatment’s means
difference were indicated between shaded and unshaded rather than within shaded means
variation at most treatments’ parameters.
Keywords: Coffee-based agroforestry system, Coffee shade value, Soil fertility ascription
and Coffee quality attributions.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and Justification

In many parts of the world, small scale coffee growers use multi-purpose trees as a shade,
shelterbelt and windbreaks to prevent coffee plants from excessive sun and high temperatures

ix
(Travis and Idol, 2010). Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) is the most important agricultural shade
lover goods and half of world's people take it in daily life process that more than 400 billion
cups of coffee are consumed each year (Illy E, 2002). The value of coffee for producers'
country about $ 14 billion annual income generator and more than 18 countries, including
Ethiopia, export coffee product to more than 165 countries providing a livelihood for an
estimate of 100 million people around the world (ICO, 2001).

In African continent; among 25 coffee producers country, Ethiopia is the first largest
producer and the fifth of the world after Brazil, Vetinam, Indonesia and Colombia based on
agroforestry system (AfDB, 2010). In addition, more than 50 developing countries are
earning 25 % of their foreign exchange from coffee (CTA, 1999; ITC, 2002). In Ethiopia,
about 25 % of the total populations of the country are dependent on production, processing,
distribution and export of coffee. It accounts for more than 25 % of the GNP, 40% of the
total export earnings, 25 % of the employment opportunity for both rural and urban dwellers,
and 10 % of the total government revenue GDP (CTA, 1999; MoARD, 2008). Coffee grows
at various altitudes, ranging from 550 to 2750 meter above sea level (m a.s.l). However,
Arabica is best thrives and produced between altitudes of 1300 and 1800 meter above sea
level ( m a.s.l) with annual rainfall amount ranging from 550 to 2500 mm with an ideal
minimum and maximum air temperatures of 15 and 25 0c (CTA, 1999; Bayetta, 2001).

Coffee production with shade is one of the best instances of agroforestry practices of organic
farming system in Ethiopia. It is a worldwide issue given attention to sustain and restore
nature. Organic agriculture promotes acceptability of production and sustainability of natural
resource utilization so that ecological and economical contribution of shade tree in coffee
production based on agroforestry practice to be taken as the best example of organic coffee
(Mark, 2005). This organic agriculture could be gained by application of nature with nature
for nature and it has been reflecting carbon sequestration which can be‘sold’to developed
nations to pay compensation for developing countries as a shade advantage (Mejia, 2007).

The Shade tree improve soil nutrient, genetic resource of Coffea arabica, biodiversity and
 0

ecological management strategy. Additionally, it has potential to improve production,

conserve water, prevent soil degradation, restore soil microorganism, diversify income
opportunity and sustain ecosystem service (Gole et al., 2002). Arabica Coffea is
self-pollinator and a heavy flower initiator plant species. So as to develop such heavy flower
to fruit rapidly, it needs high carbohydrate, shelter and other essential soil nutrient unless and
other-wise roots damage leaves abscise and branch dies back to the petiole (Yunianto, 1986).
Shade trees also play great role in taking up the leached nutrient in which outside the reach of
the coffee plants’ root and recycling nutrient on top soil through litter fall (Tanlm, 2003).

The Shade has a great advantage on coffee value for price determine and quality analysis
therefore, worldwide influence in coffee price directly coincide with its quality. There are so
many factors to be coffee quality attributer rather than management, genetic and
geographical location such as post harvesting, pre-harvesting and processing condition are
also an influential factors (Mohammedsani, 2014). Internal pressure of coffee shade utility
value for coffee producer countries to stabilize environmental impact and diversify the system
from insecure mono-cropping to secure poly-cropping economy, and change the high input
for ‘green revolution’ in national production system (Promecafe, 1995). Shade enables coffee
berries to be matured with better bean filling in merit attribute of coffee quality such as bean
size, aroma, flavor, odor, acidity, etc (Muschler, 2001). Shade trees enable coffee plants to
develop periscarp and perisperm tissue, vital syntheses of sucrose and phosphate enzymes in
which higher peak of action in developing endosperm bandannas are detected for mature
coffee beans which is being improve organoleptic coffee quality (Steiman,2003; Geromele et
al., 2008).

Accordingly, shade tree reduced the vapor pressure between the interior of the leaf and the
atmosphere to minimize high leaf temperature (Chege, 2011). Since coffee had been found
the forest, it naturally needs shade for sustained production of coffee yield and for its overall
health (Ferrell and Cockerill, 2012). Shade tree improves coffee production moderately for a
long period of time and it reduces evapotranspiration that favor condition of microorganism
activation to endure drought without adverse effects of micro climate adoption to the nearby
crops (Kim et al., 2004) as compared to fully sun grown coffee plants. Coffee shade tree has
direct and indirect economic and ecological benefits to farmers. As direct benefit, shade trees
offer farmers like food, fodder, and shelter as well as income generation. Recreating the
 0

plants’ natural habitat in the lower and middle strata, optimizing excessive light, reducing
frost, favoring environmental ecology, improving biodiversity and creating antagonistic
condition for pests, diseases and a variety of predatory animals are the trees indirect benefits
(Beer et al., 1998).

However, population number is increasing; it is creating cultivable land shortage. As many

coffee grower farmers, by abandoning their traditional coffee growing system, have begun
integrating food crops with coffee plants without shade tree. This lately adapted system made
farmers expose their coffee plants to intensive use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides,
herbicides and fungicides which resulted in coffee plants; over bearing problem and branch
dieback (Oman, 2001). Coffee production without shade caused by farmers’ is in East
Ethiopia, especially on coffee farm in Hararghe zones’ (McARC, 2005).

Cultivable land shortage has been rising is the main problem of the district as population size
increasing, so the land owners have owned a small piece of land. The limited cultivable land
enable the farmers merely alternative to use coffee plantation with shade trees on what they
have had at all specific farm land considerately rather than cereal crop utilize which is needed
extensive farm land. The farmers adopted with intensive utility of coffee production by means
of shade tree request on specific farm land. The intensive utilities of shade trees are reflected
as if natural forest at coffee farm land only. In the contrary, mountainous areas which were
out of coffee plantation, along the border of “Arbagugu Terara” (Laftorifenso, Tulluqararo,
Bibirsa qunne, culul ciriqisa etc. PAs) have been continuing deforestation problem, as the
people shift to hilly side for their livelihood dependency.

The district was selected for this study based on the fact that, it is one of the major organic
coffee producer based on the shade trees effect. Therefore; the study was carried out in order
to evaluate the effect of shade tree on coffee (Coffea arabica) production and
physicochemical property of the soil under selected shade tree species in the district based on
agroforestry practice. In doing so, importance of the study was indicated the following
points: (a) to fill the gap of local practice with scientific implication and encourage
indigenous knowledge concerning to coffee shade tree utilization and species selection (b) to
magnify understanding of government and other stockholders towards certification approach
and (c) to be a base-line study for further scientific research extension to promote the
recommended technologies for other coffee growers area, specially Western and Eastern
 6

Hararghe Districts which are coffee

producers without shade tree. Generally, the study was accompanied based on the following
objectives.

1.2. Objective
1.2.1. General objective:
The main focus of the study was: to identify the effect of shade trees on agroforestry practice
in coffee production and soil nutrient improvements in the study area
1.2.2. Specific objectives:
1) To characterize selected soil physicochemical properties under the canopy of
coffee shade trees
2) To evaluate the influence of coffee shade trees on growth performance, yield and
quality of coffee (Coffea arabica L.)
3) To get best coffee shade trees and appropriate distance of coffee seedling
plantation area in which away from shade tree trunks
 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Effect of Shade Trees in Biological and Physicochemical

Properties of the Soil

The influence of shade tree plays a great role with different soil management systems in
which physical, chemical and biological properties of a given soil is prerequisite to safeguard
them before they go out of production (Wakene and Heluf, 2003). Soil organic matter
content increases with time under agroforestry systems of coffee production which has an
important influence on soil physical and chemical characteristics, soil fertility status, plant
nutrition and biological activity in the soil (Brady and Weil, 2002).

The Shade trees do have many positive ameliorative effects in the soil such as increasing
inputs, reducing losses, improving soil physical properties and improving soil chemical
process. Thus shade trees influence soil development by altering the physical and chemical
properties of the soil beneath their canopy and this can be noticed by comparing soil
properties under the canopy of individual trees with those in the surrounding without the tree
cover. Shade trees help to preserve the fertility of the soil through the return of organic
matter and the fixation of nitrogen. Soil properties, including the quantity and quality of Soil
Organic Carbon stocks, are influenced by the complex interactions of climate, soil type,
management and tree species (Lal, 2005). Any attribute of shade trees that influences the
quantity, location, or decomposability of debris inputs can influence soil properties by
affecting the quantity and turnover of soil organic carbon (Ewel, 2006).

The capacity of tree to maintain or improve soil is shown by the high fertility status and
closed nutrient cycling under natural forest, the restoration of fertility under forest fallow in
shifting cultivation, and the experience of recovery forestry and agroforestry under tree as the
influence of shade. Tree improves soil fertility, reduce losses from the soil and get better soil
physical and chemical condition (Schroth et al., 2001).

2.2. Influence of Shade Trees on Nutrient Cycling in the Soil

Most aspects of nutrient cycling are directly affected by the choice of shade tree species.
 2

Shade tree species differ significantly in aboveground biomass productivity, rate of biomass
decomposition and fine root biomass productivity (Palm, 1995). Shade trees have a higher
input of organic materials to the soil compared to unshaded coffee cropping systems and
these trees increase recycling of nutrients within the system (Oelbermann et al., 2006).
Organic Carbon in the soil surface about 30 cm depth, which is most liable to change
positively or negatively as a result of management, or climate change is estimated about twice
the quantity of C currently in CO2 of the atmosphere (Powlson et al., 2011).

In Ethiopia, various types of shade trees in agroforestry-based coffee plants and forest coffee
have been reported by Wubet et al. (2003); Asfaw (2003) to form associations with certain
beneficial soil fungi, e.g. arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). More precisely, coffee bushes
under some shade trees, mainly leguminous, in both natural coffee forest and agroforestry
based coffee are associated with higher numbers of (AMF) spores than those of under
non-leguminous shade trees which is used to facilitate micro biology of the soil. Tree
legumes predominate as understory trees, both in natural coffee forests and agroforestry
based coffee with shade trees for the best coffee production (Taye, 2001).

The reduction of nutrient leaching and recycling of subsoil nutrients by deep-rooting trees
can improve the availability of nutrient in the system and reduce negative environmental
impact as the influence of shade (Schroth et al., 2001). The most important functions of
shade trees are tackling runoff and reducing soil erosion, maintaining soil organic matter and
physicochemical property of the soil, increasing nutrient inputs through nitrogen fixation that
uptake from deep soil horizons and promoting more closed nutrient cycling (Young, 2009).

2.3. Shade Tree and Soil Nutrient Balance

Nitrogen fixing legume trees are most commonly used as shade trees for the best coffee
production. These legume trees improve the nitrogen status of the soil and nitrogen nutrition.
They also provide higher yields of associated tree crops. For instance, biological nitrogen
fixation of legume shade trees can reach about 60 kg of nitrogen ha–1 yr–1. Thus, the use of
nitrogen fixer legume trees, which can be taken as organic agriculture, is a more relevant
alternative in smallholder plantations without artificial fertilizer application (Beer, J, 1998).

Nutrient cycling, especially N is thoroughly linked with soil OC cycling and moreover, N
 3

losses decline with increasing shade tree biomass, i.e., as tree density increases; so does plant
N demand, which provides a sink for added N. In other words, nutrient balance in the soil
takes place due to the influence of shade trees (Weil and Magdoff, 2004). Systems with high
shade tree species and functional diversity have an increased capacity to retain and balance
nutrients due to greater number of opportunities to capture nutrients. Besides, composition
of shade trees has a direct relationship with soil nutrient balance. On the other hand, declining
trend of tree species diversity in coffee Agroforesty is likely to have some bearing on the
nutrient imbalance observed in coffee estates (Tilman et al., 1996). In addition, the presence
of shade tree helps to reduce the vertical hydrological flux as the deep and extensive network
of shade tree roots utilize more water (Seyfried and Rao, 1991). The imbalance of nutrient in
the soil makes nutrient contents being less or greater than the recommended ranges Coffee
Board (2012).

2.4. Influence of Shade trees in Soil Nutrient Availability

Soil organic matter, soil pH, electric conductivity, total nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
were higher with mean value in shaded zone even though statistically had not significant
(Siles et al., 2010). Shaded system has relatively better chemical properties in total nitrogen,
total carbon, potassium, cation exchange capacity, soil organic matter and soil pH higher
than sun coffee farms (Bosselmann et al., 2009). Inversely available phosphorous, potassium,
and cation exchange capacity were analyzed to be higher in open coffee areas; whereas, total
nitrogen, total organic carbon were higher in shaded areas of top soil (Souza et al., 2012).
Lower soil pH had found defiantly from shaded areas of coffee farm was reported by (Siles et
al., 2010; Souza et al., 2012). As some of the soil chemical properties increasing in the
shaded coffee farms, coffee yield also raising accordingly. Therefore, existing shade trees are
contributing positively through improving the top soil chemical and physical property thereby
affecting the production was reported by (Coffee Board. 2012; Kufa et al., 2011).

The variation of soil temperature was observed under the shade, which was mainly caused by
the ability of shaded soil to stabilize the local thermal balance of moisture (Kufa et al., 2007;
Siles et al., 2010; Bote and Struik, 2012).In Ethiopia, A. schimperiana, M. ferruginea, A.
abyssinica, E. abyssinica, Calpurinea subdecondra and C. africana were seemed suitable
coffee shade trees reported by (Kufa et al., 2011). Accordingly, C. macrostachyus was found
the most contributing tree from the current study area. Whereas it was estimated to be higher
 4

under the shade of A. abyssinica was found by (Kufa et al., 2007).

According to earlier finding of Aerts et al. (2011) in south west Ethiopia was shown among
the shade tree species, there is significant difference in available phosphorus, available
potassium, and Soil pH. Whereas, there is no significant difference in per cent total nitrogen,
per cent organic matter, electric conductivity, and soil moisture content. The higher value of
nitrogen (0.48%), organic matter (9.70%), avai. p (10.20 ppm), soil pH (6.25), electric
conductivity (0.16), soil moisture content (3.242) were found under C. macrostachyus and
higher value of available k (4.98cmol(+)/kg) was found under C. africana and higher pH, per
cent N and C under M. ferruginea; higher Cation exchange capacity and potassium under C.
macrostachyus; higher phosphorus under acacia gummifera, respectively was reported by
(Kufa et al., 2011).

A growing body of evidence has demonstrated that tree species can differ in their influence
on soil properties. In particular, differences between nitrogen fixing and non-nitrogen fixing
species, between gymnosperms and angiosperms, and between native and exotic species by
which influence coffee production was reported by (Kaye et al., 2002).

2.5. Association of Soil Properties and Coffee Yield

Tree crop interactions in coffee farm affect coffee production from above or below ground
effect through resource sharing. There was identified significant positive correlation between
coffee and soil parameters (Aerts et al. (2011).

Their relationship can be discussed as coffee yield is more influenced by soil environmental
amelioration formed by shade trees than soil macronutrients (N, P and K) added. Coffee
production has linear relationship with soil pH. As soil acidity increases, coffee yield
decreases. Earlier study conducted by Aerts et al. (2011) confirms the direct relationship of
coffee yield or weight with soil acidity. Similarly, as top soil moisture content increases
coffee yield also increases. The influence of top soil plant nutrients on coffee yield is not
linear. However, it was observed that higher coffee yield in areas having relatively higher per
cent of total nitrogen, 0rganic matter, and available phosphorus. The roles of coffee agro
ecosystems in contributing massive leaf litter input stimulate organic matter turnover and
decreasing soil erosion had been addressed by (Brady and Weil, 2002). Coffee with shade
 5

systems can aid by increasing the C sequestration of agro ecosystems through the use of plant
biomass and soil organic matter. Coffee agro ecosystems store significant amounts of carbon
in aboveground woody biomass of shade trees, the litter layer and soil organic matter
compared with unshaded, and thus act as potential carbon sinks (Albrecht and Kandji, 2003).

Decreasing soil organic matter contents indicate loss of Cation exchange capacity and
organically bound nutrients, destabilization of the soil structure and reduced soil biological
activity. Soil OC is one of the most complex and heterogeneous components of soils that is
considered as an important attribute of soil quality (or soil health) due to the various
functions of microbial and faunal habitat, total stability, relocate ability, water retention and
hydraulic properties as shade effect present in the area (Hayn, 2008; Weil and Magdoff,
2004).

Coffee with shade was as a source of soil quality and coffee productivity. This is to say that
evaluation of coffee plantation in soil OC and the average yield data, over eight sample
estates from the years 1999 to 2011, obtained by coffee board (2012) were indicated that
association of soil properties and coffee production. Soil OC has two main functions: a) it
helps in the provision of ecosystem services and b) it helps in increasing productivity of
coffee based on shade value. What is more, the literature available on the subject confirms
that an increase in soil OC has in general a positive impact on agricultural production. Hence,
the increase in average yield in coffee observed in the sample estates can be attributed to the
increasing trend in soil OC observed in most of the years, through the influence of shade
trees checked by Coffee Board (2012).

2.6. Physical Health and Productivity of Coffee Plants under the

Shade
The relative importance of different effects on shade trees availability at branch/coffee plant,
number of node/coffee/branch, coffee fruit/node, all coffee fruits/plant, dry and clean yield /
plant was observed even though shade is strongly affected by site conditions and shade tree
species. Yield potential, competition for water, pest/disease incidence and site conditions
were fundamental issues in the argument over the use of shade trees in coffee plantations
(Beer et al., 1998).
 6

The major physiological benefits that coffee receives from shade trees can be placed into two
main categories, both associated with reduced plant stress. The first benefit is related to
amelioration of climatic and site conditions through: (i) reduction of air and soil temperature
extremes (heat at lower elevations and cold at higher elevations), (ii) reduction of wind
speeds, (iii) buffering of humidity and soil moisture availability. The second physiological
benefit is an increase in the quantity and quality of favorable transmitted light and hence
avoidance of over-bearing in coffee fruit, and nutritional balances, life expectancy,
organoleptic quality, controlling of branch dieback and over all physiological fitness of coffee
production (Beer et al., 1998).

Coffee yield may decrease with increasing shading because of (i) lower whole-tree carbon
assimilation under excessive shading, (ii) greater stimulus to vegetative rather than flower
buds and (iii) fewer nodes formed per branch and flower buds at existing nodes. If the
number of nodes is the key component of coffee production, yields should then decline with
increased shading. Shaded coffee tends to flower and produce a good crop each year,
whereas under unshaded plantation conditions, the crop tends to alternate between years with
heavy flowering and light flowering leading to a biennial production trend. Then after which
environmental degradation, particularly via soil erosion and pesticide residues became
seriously problem that reduce productivity and/or environmental quality, and frequently
replanted, branch dieback and pruned plantations since unshaded coffee bushes have a
shorter life expectancy than shaded bushes. On the other hand, the main physiological
drawback is competition, especially when excessive shade is used. If high agrochemical
applications are feasible, for example when crop prices are high and environmental issues are
not considered, maximum attainable yields per hectare are often higher without shade with
short life span (Beer et al., 1998).

Furthermore, the shade led to a significant reduction in sucrose content and to an increase in
reducing sugars at higher altitude (Bayetta, 2001). In pericarp and perisperm tissues, higher
activities of sucrose syntheses and sucrose phosphate syntheses were sensed at maturation in
the shade compared with full sun and that both enzymes had higher activities in developing
endosperm under shade than in full sun (Geromel et al., 2008). Coffee without shade has
high yield for a short life span and show instability but, case of coffee under shade has
sustainable yield and its biomass stay for a long period of time. The fact that, shade resulted
in heavier and larger coffee beans mainly caused by its effect on temperature and the duration
 7

of the ripening period reported by (Bioscience, 2014).

2.7. Biochemical Effect of Shade Trees on Organoleptic Coffee

Quality

Shade has vital role in enable full size of coffee beans which is enhances coffee quality,
interims of biochemical composition, including the contents of caffeine, oil and chlorogenic
acid and the taste of finished products. Coffee products are therefore better under shade than
in systems without shade trees. At medium altitudes, there is higher fruit loads and reduced
bean size owing to carbohydrate competition among berries during bean filling. These results
exposed to incomplete bean maturation and explained the higher bitterness and astringency of
the coffee beverage that contains a higher sucrose and chlorogenic acid contents which
reduced organoleptic quality, in unshaded beans than shaded beans (Morais et al., 2006).

In pericarp and perisperm tissues, higher activities of sucrose syntheses and sucrose
phosphate syntheses were detected at maturation in the shade compared with full sun and
that both enzymes had higher peaks of activities in developing endosperm under shade than in
full sun was reported by (Geromel et al., 2008). Shade was also found to mitigate negative
attributes in coffee quality like bitterness and astringency while positive attributes like acidity
were found to be significantly higher in shade grown beans (Bosselmann et al., 2009).

Shade improves the appearance of green and roasted coffee beans as well as the acidity and
body of the brew by promoting slower and balanced filling and uniform ripening of berries.
The balanced filling and uniform ripening of berries improves organoleptic result thus are cup
and raw quality attributer. Higher sucrose, chlorogenic acid and trigonelline contents in
sun-grown beans pointed towards incomplete bean maturation accounted for the higher
bitterness and astringency of the coffee beverage. Likewise, open shade grown coffee gives
higher fruit loads that can reduce bean size owing to carbohydrate competition among berries
during bean filling. Furthermore, sensory attributes were influenced negatively and physical
attributes were influenced positively by shade trees depending on altitude. For example, in
higher altitudes shade had a negative effect on fragrance, acidity, body, sweetness and
preference of the beverage, while no effect was found on the physical quality of the coffee
beans. Assessment of coffee quality determined organoleptically by panels of experienced
coffee tasters based on the level of acidity, body, aromatic intensity, aromatic quality,
 8

astringency, bitterness and flavor of the brew (Agwanda, 1999 and Yigzaw, 2005).

In the coffee industry, sensory evaluation is required to ascertain over all product quality
along with the reliability of the quality over time and in varying process condition. The tool
commonly put to use is a panel of assessors (professional cup tasters) who are trained,
experienced tasters and have the vocabulary to describe the desirable and undesirable
attributes of the beverage (Kauff man, 2005).

Flavor is the simultaneous sensation in the test of aroma and taste. Coffee aroma is composed
of the gaseous natural chemical components of roasted and brewed coffee beans, which
escape as gases or vapors after the coffee grounds are brewed. The smell of the ground
roasted coffee before water is added some times gives fragrance. As the fragrance is emitted,
the tester can smell the aroma, evaluate the body and perceive the taste and flavors. The
process of sensing odors is called olfaction, which is the simultaneous sensation of four basic
tastes: sweet, salt, sour and bitter (Muschler, 2001).

Color is the visual appearance of the brew which is the direct result of the degree of
caramelization of the sugars in the bean during roasting. Acidity indicates the bitter or acidic
balance and the presence of a sweet caramelic aftertaste. The acid content in a brew is also
greatly dependent upon the degree of roast, type of roaster, and brewing method. In addition
to phonologic type of coffee beans observed, shade increased organic concentration in coffee
cherries which is conducive for organoleptic results (Muschler, 2001).

The aroma of a coffee is responsible for all flavor attributes other than the mouth feel. Sweet,
salt, bitter, and sour taste attributes are perceived by the tongue. Aroma is perceived by two
different mechanisms. It can either be sensed nasally via smelling the coffee through the nose
or retro nasally. Retro nasal perception occurs when the coffee is either presents in the mouth
or has been swallowed and aromatic volatile compounds drift upward in to the nasal passage.
Body is synonymous with mouth feel or linked with density and viscosity or thickness of the
brew. It is the physical properties of the beverage that results in the tactile sensations
perceived on the skin in the mouth during and after ingestion. Flavor indicates smell of the
liquor either by direct inhaling of the vapors arising from the cup or nasal perception of the
volatile substance evolving in the mouth. The flavor obtained in a coffee cup is the result of
multiple aromatic compounds present in the coffee (Petracco, 2000). Dark roast enhance the
 9

body while light roast emphasizes acidity (ITC, 2002). High acidity gives better quality and
more intense aroma to the beverage of coffee at pH of 4.9 to 5.2 which is the preferred range
for a ‘good’ cup of coffee (Yigzaw, 2005).

2.8. Socio-Economic Value and Productivity of Coffee Shade

Empirical evidence shows that many Ethiopian coffee producer farmers have eco-friendly
farms. The farmers’ long experience of planting coffee shade trees have contributed to
improve of soil fertility, suppression of weed and discouraging of coffee parasitic worms.
Moreover, shade trees are alternative means of income via carbon sequestration, production
of fuel wood, timber, fodder, shelter, asiatic value, habitat for birds, wind break,
construction, labor opportunity, fresh air, conducive weather condition, source of organic
materials, sustainability of coffee production and quality yield. Coffee with shade is
agroforestry system that socially more acceptable economically more viable and
environmentally more sustainable than growing coffee without shad (Diriba et al, 2011). A
great role of shade tree is timber production which has a low management costs and it
considered as a ‘saving account’ that can be realized at times of low prices or failure of the
underlying crop yields (Calvo and Platen, 1996).
 10

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1. Location

According to Oromia livelihood profile (2006), Golelcha (figure 1) is one of the Districts
found in Arsi Zone, Oromia Regional state of Ethiopia. It is located 307 km south east of
Addis Ababa Ethiopia’s capital city. The geographical coordinate of the area is between

08°00’0” and 08°37’00” N and 40°00’00” and 40°29’00” E.

39°50'0" 4 0°0'0 " 40°10'0" 40°20'0" 40°30'0"

8 °4 0 '0 "
E E E E E

¯
Golelcha PAs’ map N

Michet
! a

8 °3 0 '0 "
N
Ti mug
! a

8 °2 0 '0 "
N
1

Chancho
!

Gololch
!
8 °1 0 '0 "
a

Lafto Rifenso 8°0'0"

kebele
Jinga Dibu N
Kebele
Golelcha_Roa
d
Gololcha
1:187,16
39°50'0"River 4 0°0'0 " 40°10'0" 40°20'0" 40°30'0"
E E E E E

Figure 1 Study area map of Arsi Golelcha district (Source: Ethio-GIS lab in Haramaya
University)
 11

3.1.2. Climate and Rain fall

The study district experiences mean annual and monthly minimum and maximum temperature of

15 and 27°C, respectively and receives mean annual and monthly rainfall (figure 2) is 550 mm in
the year of 2015 crop season. The seven years data of mean annual and monthly rainfall (figure
3) in the district are 703 mm minimum in the year of 2012 and 1486 mm maximum in the year of
2013 respectively which characterize the area having a bimodal rainfall type.

Figure 2. Rain fall and Temperature data of Arsi Golelcha District, 2015 GC
 12

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 3. Seven years (2009-2015) Rain fall data of Arsi Golelcha District (Source:
Metrology station of Arsi Golelcha District)

3.1.3. Land use/land cover

Coffee is one of the main crops in the district. Khat and fruits are important cash crops. Out of
the total area of the district, 20.6% is arable or cultivable, 21.7% is for pasture, 27% is covered
with forest and shrubs, and the remaining 30.7% is considered swampy, mountainous or
otherwise unusable. Golelcha has an estimated population density of 94.7 people per square
kilometer. From a total area of 1,818.120 square kilometers, the general soil of the district
cambi-sol which is the best for agricultural purpose (Oromia livelihood Profile, 2006).

3.2. Site Selection

The study was conducted in Golelcha District at two PA (Mine Golelcha/Jingadibu and
Baqayisa/ Laftorifenso). From the selected PA, three villages were assigned from each PA. Then
 13

the study was under taken on three farmer’s field from each village. To do this procedure, simple
reconnaissance survey was applied in order to select villages and farmer’s field for further
analysis.

3.3. Reconnaissance Survey and Farmer’s Field Selection

After the reconnaissance survey had been processed, three farmers’ field were selected in each
PA as replication based on its quality which was the best of all with different physical observation
for all study purposes in each village across PAs. The farmer’s field was taken, as a
representative across PAs over location with similar management practice; elevation and slope
were considered for both unshaded and shaded coffee plantations.

3.4. Data to be collected

Recognisance survey results were collected. Data of coffee density under each shade tree species
based on canopy coverage were counted. Data of coffee production: physical coffee yields,
Screen size of coffee beans, raw coffee quality, aroma and cup quality were collected. The data
of selected physicochemical properties of soil samples were identified after laboratory analysis.

3.5. Sampling and Processing Techniques

3.5.1. Farmers selection

The result of the reconnaissance survey was based on farmers’ age category (15-25, 25- 45 and
>45 age). The farmers responded to the subject concerning to coffee shade utility related to
environmental and ecological condition. Exposure of farm land coverage versus mountainous
area and the relative abundance of coffee shade tree in the district were identified. Six farmers
were assigned for each age category as respondent in each village, those (18 farmers from each
PA and 36 farmers across PAs) were taken differently, and they responded the subject that “the
condition of tree coverage at mountainous versus farm land area” during 15-25 years old of each
respondent in order to answer the queries (Table 1) based on the questioners.
 14

3.5.2. Coffee Shade Trees Selection

Targeted shade tree species (Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica) having dbh ≥20cm size,
height of ≥5m length, and the shaded and unshaded coffee plantation, which have similar branch
and crown on the same gradient and elevation seven to ten years old and ≥ 3m height were
selected purposively from three villages and three farmers’ fields as replication for each PA.

3.5.3. Soil sampling

To take soil samples; circumstance of the shade tree, optimum level of shade effect and distance
from the shade tree trunk for each shade tree species were considered in order to compare
coffee production under shaded and unshaded following (Ebsa, 2014; Bargali et al.,2009)
procedure. Three distance layers were engaged under one coffee shade tree species that (1, 3 and
6m) away from the shade tree trunk under the canopy and >25m away from shade tree trunk out
of the canopy. Each distance was separately taken as a plot which had a circumstance on its
contour line from four directions (north, south, west and east). Soil sample of (0.25kg) each was
collected from each sample layers with 0-30cm soil depth and one core of bulk soil were taken
from each distance layer of shaded effect and out of shaded effect areas. Then, each soil sample
tagged and merged to be one composite sample of disturbed soil and one core sample of
undisturbed bulk soil from each layer were collected. Three composite samples and three core
samples of soil under canopy effect and one composite sample and one core sample of soil
outside of the canopy effect for each shade tree species were taken. The soil samples were
eighteen composites and eighteen core samples under both shade tree species effect and six
composites and six core samples out of shade tree effect from three farmer’s field, respectively.
Overall, twenty-four composite samples and twenty-four core samples of soil from one PA, and
forty-eight composite samples and forty-eight core samples of soil were collected from two PAs
(Appendix Figure 3).

3.5.4. Soil sample processing

Effect of soil physical and chemical properties on coffee parameters had been computed. The soil
samples were analyzed based on chemical and physical properties of a given soil at Haramaya
 15

University in soil laboratory center. Among the soil physical properties; soil particle size
distribution was analyzed using the Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Bouyoucos, 1962) after
dispersing the soils with sodium hexameter phosphate (NaPO3). Soil bulk density, from

undisturbed soil sample, was determined using the core method after drying the soil samples in an
oven at 105°C to a constant weight (Black, 1965 and Heritege, 1986). The core sampled soils
were oven dried and the bulk density (BD) was calculated by dividing the mass of the oven dry

soil (g) by the respective volume (cm3) as it exists naturally under field conditions.

The following soil chemical properties were analyzed for this study; organic carbon of the soils
was determined following the wet digestion method as described by Walkley and Black (1934)
while percentage organic matter of the soils was determined by multiplying the percent organic
carbon value by 1.724. Total nitrogen (N) was determined using micro-kjeldahl digestion,
distillation and titration procedure as described by Sahlemedhin and Taye (2000). Available
phosphorus was determined using spectrophotometer after extraction of the soil samples with
0.5M sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) solution at pH 8.5 following the Olsen extraction method

(Olsen et al., 1982). Soil (pH) was measured potentiometrically in the supernatant suspension of
a 1:2.5 soil to water ratio using a pH meter (Thomas, 1996). For the determination of CEC, the
soil samples were leached with 1N ammonium acetate solution and washed with ethanol (97%)
to remove excess salt followed by leaching with sodium chloride to displace the adsorbed
(NH+4). The quantity of ammonia was then measured by distillation and taken as CEC of the soil
Chapman (1965); Rhoades (1982). Exchangeable potassium (K) was determined from the extract
of 1M ammonium acetate at pH 7.0 with flame photometry instrument (Appendix Figure 3).

3.5.5. Counting coffee density under the canopy of shade tree

Number of coffee plant under each shade tree species, with nearly equal canopy influence, were
counted and compared. The canopy coverage over coffee plant based on its management and age
(middle age to matured age), were considered. Six to eight coffee plants under each shade tree’s
canopy coverage were observed.
 16

3.5.6. Coffee beans sampling

Coffee plants which originated under shade influence and spread over the three distance layers,
that are 1, 3 and 6m away from the shade tree trunk and those which originated out of shade
influence 25m away from the trunk were selected respectively. Thus were four coffee plants in all
(West, East North and South) direction of coffee plating areas at each distance layer (1, 3 and
6m) away from the shade tree trunk, and four unshaded coffee plants, 25m away from shade
effects were purposively selected and assigned for sample collection (Appendix Figure 1).

The coffee trees were selected based on canopy coverage of the shade tree and proportionality of
coffee bean with equal range of all shade trees to count and measure coffee beans. Then, six
coffee branches were selected and marked from the lower, middle and upper stick branch from
west and east directions for each sample coffee plants at each distance layer. The sampled
branches were counted and the number of fruits per node per branch were identified, which had
been used to estimates yields of coffee/plant and yield of coffee/ha. 5 kg of fully ripe coffee
cherry beans were collected from one layer and taken to be as one coffee sample from each
distance layer (Siles et al., 2010; Bote and Struik, 2011). The same procedure was followed for
both shade tree species on each farmer’s fields that eight coffee bean samples from one
replication/ farmers’ field under both shade tree species and twenty-four coffee bean samples
from three farmers’ field in one PA, and over all forty-eight coffee bean samples were collected
across PAs, respectively. The harvested coffee bean was dried until a constant moisture content
of 12%. Dry coffee beans were weighted using digital measuring balance on basis of 1000 seed
weight from shaded and unshaded coffee plants under each shade tree species from each study
area of farmers’ field in each distance layers from each coffee bean samples (Siles et al., 2010;
Bote and Struik, 2011) (Appendix Figure 1).

3.5.7. Coffee cherries drying process

The oldest and simplest method producing' natural' coffee is ‘sun drying’ that has been adopted
throughout all coffee growing areas in Ethiopia, and in Arsi Golelcha this system was the only
processing method. The cherries were spread out evenly on mesh wire to dry in the sun. Each
sample cherries were dried until the recommended moisture content of 11-12% was attained.
 17

Then after, the sample cherries were hulled with mortar as farmers have been practicing carefully
and cleaned. Finally, the green coffee beans were labeled and packed in transparent polyethylene
bags where berries stabilize their moisture content and quality attribute. The packed dry coffee
bean was then transported to Jimma Agricultural Research Center for determination of the coffee
quality (Appendix Figure 1).

3.5.8. Coffee beans' Sample process

The packed and collected samples were prepared using proper method of processing and
arbitrary code (identity letter) was assigned to secure unbiased judgment. The packed dry coffee
bean samples were transferred to coffee quality laboratory at Jimma Agriculture Research Center
to evaluate the quality, based on the physical, raw, aroma and cup attributes (Appendix Figure
2).

3.5.8.1. Screen size of coffee beans

Bean sizes were determined by conventional screen analysis of perforated plate screen sizes of 14
with respective whole diameter of 5.55mm (Wintgens, 2004). 300g of each coffee samples were
replicated three times and measured using digital beam balance.

The coffee beans were graded by ‘size using standard screen’ that have different screen size, with
‘round holes’ as defined by (ISO, 1991). The normal sizes of coffee beans were remained over
the screen in order to determine their normality percentage while undervalued and broken beans
were separated from each sample. Finally, the defect count percentage was recorded as per
national fixed standard (JARC, 2008) shown in (Appendix Figure 2).

3.5.8.2. Raw coffee quality grade evaluation

During physical quality analysis; 300g of green bean was used for each sample for their qualities
attribute such as ‘shape and make’, color and odor. These quality attributes were measured
according to the Ethiopian standard (ES, 2001; ECX, 2009). Based on raw quality parameters’
grading was done in account of 40% as per (JARC 2008) and shown in (Table 28) and
(Appendix Figure 2).
 18

3.5.8.3. Aroma and cup quality grade evaluation

Three cups per treatment in three replications were prepared for each tasting session. The cup
quality had been carried out by a panel of Jimma Agricultural Research Center panelist who
formed a team of trained, experienced and certified quality Graders and Cuppers in order to get
aroma and cup quality values in account of 60%. In this case, three experienced tasters
participated in a panel to evaluate coffee bean samples’ aroma and taste characteristics of each
treatment of coffee brew involving olfaction, gestation, and mouth feel sensation. For each
sample using the round soup spoon raise six to eight cc of liquid to just in front of the mouth and
forcefully slurp the liquid. Aroma was evaluated by sensation. The aroma was obtained from
gasses that brewed coffee released.

The released gasses were inhaled through the nose by sniffing and briskly/quickly aspiring, the
coffee. In this way, spread evenly over the entire surface of the tongue. Sensory evaluation was
done using the following quality criteria in scale range of (AI, AQ, AC, AS, BI, BD, FL and
OAQ) value that shown in (Appendix Table 12). Based on these measures, a scale comprising
point that ranged from 1-15 was used. The least point on the scale is (0) corresponding to the
total absence and the highest point is (15) corresponding to the presence of decisive factor in the
given scales of raw and cup quality attributers (Appendix Table 12).

The sensation was obtained from the gases released from roasted and ground coffee beans as
aromatic compounds. In order to evaluate sample of ground coffee quality, the gasses were
inhaled through the nose with sniffing/smelling aroma and the inhaling process revealed the
nature of coffee bean taste /typicity such as floral, moca, spicy, etc. (Appendix Figure 2).

3.6. Sample Procedure and Experimental Design

The design was arranged with factorials in (RCBD) for soil samples’ and coffee samples’
parameters by three replications for each treatment. Two shade tree species and four distance
layers under each shade tree were taken as treatments of the study. Soil sample parameters:
physical properties (texture and bulk density) and Chemical properties (pH, Total Nitrogen,
available Phosphorous, Exchangeable potassium (K), Organic carbon, and Captions Exchange
 19

Capacity) were used. For coffee sample parameters: coffee density under shade, coffee yield,
coffee weight and coffee quality such as physical bean characteristics, raw quality (color, shape
and make, and odor) brewing analyses (cup quality) were utilized.

3.7. Data Analysis

The collected data from key informant and household interviews were summarized in narrative
form that presented and analyzed descriptively. Coffee density under the shade canopy and
physical coffee production, coffee quality aspect and soil parameters were compared between
shaded and open areas effect as well as between shade tree species effect. After laboratory
processing, the results of coffee parameters were analyzed by statistical software in order to get
mean value difference. The result of Coffee quality (raw and cup quality) were summed up and
the total values of each treatment was graded statistically. Generally, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was done to determine differences among the mean of the treatments (between tree
species and between shaded and unshaded parts of the results) with respect to selected soil
physicochemical properties and coffee parameters through SAS software program (SAS, 2002
v.9.1) following the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure.

The means that showed significant differences in F-test were separated by least significant
difference (LSD) at (0.05 and 0.01) level, which used to multiple comparison procedures (Zar,
1996). Simple correlations and regression analysis were used to reveal the relationships and
variance between selected soil parameters and coffee productions’ parameters based on canopy
effect versus open area for each shade tree species, respectively. Interaction and combination
effect of the treatments’ parameters were identified across PAs. The mean value of significant
comparison at t-Test (0.05) was computed between shaded and unshaded, and between shade
tree species effect of treatments’ parameters based on the distance layers.
 20

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Coffee Shade Value with Agroforestry System in Golelcha District
4.1.1. Farmers’ response on coffee shade value in the district

Farmers in different age categories responded to the question, what was the condition of tree
coverage at mountainous area was like, the respondents answered the following. ‘Decreasing
condition,’ was given by the first age category, ‘Medium condition’, was given by the second age
category and ‘Increasing condition’ was given by the third age category. Concerning to what was
the condition of tree coverage on farm lands like; again the respondents answered the questions
saying the following. ‘Increasing condition’, was given by the first age category, ‘Increasing
condition’ was given by the second age category and ‘Decreasing condition’ was given by the
third age category during 15-25 years old of each respondent respectively (Table 1).

These results indicated that the third age category (elder) when they were young, there was no
deforestation at mountainous area while deforestation was at farm land area. The opposite of the
third age category’s answerers were responded by the first age category of respondents that
there was deforestation at mountainous area while there was no deforestation at farm land area,
these idea reflect the present condition of Golelcha District.

The second age group respondents’ thought were similar to the first age group respondents’
thought and opposite of the third age group respondents’ idea on the ‘condition of farm land tree
coverage’ during their 15-25 years old but the ‘condition of mountainous tree coverage ‘area
was not share neither the first nor the third age group respondents’ idea. Based on this
respondents’ idea, before 25-30 years, the ‘condition of tree coverage at mountainous’ area in
Arsi Golelcha District was ‘medium condition’ but not normal that means as deforestation of
mountainous area have been starting before 30 years time while the condition of tree coverage at
farmland area also has been starting before 30 years time. The third respondents’ idea was
interpreted with the real situation of the district, that it gave us a constructive inspiration on the
role of coffee shade tree to enable the farm land to be taken as regular natural forest in steady of
mountainous area before. According to description of Arsi Golelcha district with (Oromia
 21

livelihood profile, 2006), there is a problem of farm land shortage due to over population. This
idea is true as to be understood from the respondents’ answerer and the existing stipulation.
Anon (2001) reported, four types of coffee production system in Ethiopia: forest coffee (10%),
semi forest coffee (35%), garden coffee (50%) and plantation coffee (5%). Arsi Golelcha District
employed garden coffee production system by small scale coffee growers. As a shortage of farm
land in the district, farmers use multi-purpose utility of coffee shade tree for their livelihood
dependency through coffee production thereby as fuel wood, feed, furniture, windbreak and
shelter of coffee plant in specific farm land rather than cereal crops utilize which needs extensive
farm lands.

4.1.2. Coffee plantation and farmers’ problem

Average lands holding by the first age categories were 0.15ha for cereal crops and 0.35ha for
coffee production. Average land holdings by the second age categories were 0.4 for cereal crops
and 0.7 ha for coffee production. Average land holdings by the third age categories were 0.2ha
for cereal crops and 0.65ha for coffee production at JingadibuPA while at Laftorifenso PA,
average land holding by the first age categories were 0.125ha for cereal crops and 0.25ha for
coffee production. Average lands holding by the second age categories were 0.25ha for cereal
crops and 0.75ha for coffee production. Average lands holding by the third age categories were
0.125ha for cereal crops and 0.6ha for coffee production (Table 1). This result implies that at
both PA, there is severe of farm land problems for both coffee and cereal crops across PAs.

The most familiar coffee shade trees at the district are Cordia africana followed by Erythrina
abyssinica and Acacia Senegal, it sues as timber, fodders, fuels, etc. at both PA, respectively.
Almost all farmers accounted 96% of coffee shade users and 3.5% without any shade users were
observed in Laftorifenso PA. In JingadibuPA, thus 94% coffee shade users, 5.6 % without any
shade tree users were identified. So farmers used Cordia africana shad tree is 48%, Erythrina
abyssinica shade tree is 27.3% and other shade tree is 25 % in Laftorifenso PA. In Jingadibu PA,
farmers used Cordia africana shade tree is 50%, Erythrina abyssinica shade is 30% other shade
tree is 20 % (Table 1). As a result of this, 90% of the farm land in the district was covered by
coffee plantation with shade tree application. The respondents have been truly reflecting that
even if the rainfall intensity is increasing at farmland rather than mountainous area occasionally.
 22

On the contrary side, mountainous area exposed to deforestation since the farmers have been
shifting to hilly side for their livelihood dependency. Generally, the farmers have to be used the
best agroforestry practice based on the value of shade tree for coffee plantation as well as for
other utility on what they have had a limited farm land with the recommended technology.
 23

Tree Tree Average Average land Coffee with Coffee Cordia Erythrina Other shade
No. of farmers coverage at coverage at land holding holding for shade without shade users shade users tree users for
With age farm land protected for coffee in cereals in ha users% shade for coffee% for coffee % coffee %
during area during ha users%
15-25years 15-25years
old of old of LPA JPA LPA JPA LPA JPA LPA JPA LPA JPA LPA JPA LPA JPA
Respondents respondents

1rst Age 6farmers Increasing Decreasing 0.35 0.2 0.15 0.125 97 98 3 2 60 48 23 26 17 26

<25year 5
2sndAge 6 farmers Increasing Medium 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.25 93 96 7 4 50 50 35 31 15 19
<45year 5
3rdAge 6 farmers Decreasing Increasing 0.65 0.6 0.2 0.125 93 95 7 5 40 46 32 25 28 29
<65year
Average - - 0.6 0.5 0.25 0.16 94 96 5.6 3.6 96 48 3.6 27.3 20 25
Table 1 Summary of Reconnaissance survey result at Laftorifenso and Jingadibu PA
*LPA=Laftorifenso PA, JPA=Jingadibu PA
 24

4.2. Effect of Shade Trees on Physicochemical Properties of the Soil

4.2.1. Effects of shade trees on soil physical properties
4.2.1.1. Soil texture

Commonly, the mean value of interaction effect between shade tree species as well as between
and within distance layers under both shade tree species on available of most treatments’
parameters showed significant (p<0.05) and highly significant (p<0.01) difference across PAs for
all a given soil properties (Appendix Table 3). The combined analysis of variance effect between
PAs on the availability of each treatments’ parameter also showed highly significance difference
(p<0.01) on a given soil properties (Appendix Table 4). The value of t-Test (0.05) significance
comparisons ware observed between both shade trees effect as well as between each shade trees’
effect and unshaded effect on selected soil properties across PAs (Appendix Table 4).

The present study indicated that the mean value of silt particles under shade tree was greater than
that of soil in open area in both PAs (Table 3). The highest value of silt content under both shade

trees canopy zone was recorded at the 1st distance layer in JingadibuPA, while in Laftorifenso

PA, the highest value of silt content was observed under the 2nd distance layers under both shade
trees. The other soil textures were not observed significant difference rather than silt contents
that availability of silt particle showed significant difference (P<0.05) between distance layers and
shade tree species (Appendix Table 1).

As the size of mineral particle in a soil was readily subjected to change due to shade tree effect,
textural class of a given soil makes its own general picture of the soil physical property and
textural class (Prasada and Power, 1997) it shows that (Table 3). The results that different from
the present study were reported by Abebe et al. (2001); Tadesse et al. (2001); Kamara and
Haque (1992) about soil textures due to shade effect, there was no significant difference under
and outside the canopy of Faidherbia albida, Milletia ferrugenia and Cordia africana trees,
respectively in Ethiopia.

Hassen (2010) had reported a similar finding to this study that was in contrast of sand and clay
but the silt content under the tree canopy zone of Erythrina abyssinica and Faidherbia albida was
 25

higher than that of open area by 21, 15 and 10%, at 0.5, 1.5 and 3m distance respectively. These
variations may be credited to increase biological activity which might have enhanced weathering
process and favorable moisture provision under the tree canopy. The soil under the shade has
high soil micro-organisms and decomposers which may enhance soil silt contents. The other soil
particles didn’t show more significant difference under and outside the shade effect. Sand and
clay particles can be changed duo to parent materials condition rather than simple effect within a
short period of time such shade effects.
 26

Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA
Treatments
Tree Distance Sand% Clay% Silt% Textura Sand% Clay% Silt% Textural
l class class
Mean±Std Mean±Std
1m 58.7±1.76 28.3±1.81 13± 2.09 SCL 74±1.51 9.5±1.01 16.5±0.92 SL
Cordia africana 3m 58±1.76 28±1.72 14±1.11 SCL 75.2±1.46 9.6±0.84 15.2± 0.92 SL
6m 58.6± 1.41 28.2±1.45 13.2±0.35 SCL 75.4±0.75 9.8±0.74 14.8± 0.77 SL

Without-T 25m 59.3±1.93 28.4± 2.07 12.3±2.17 SCL 74.5±0.75 10.4±0.46 15.1± 0.50 SL

Erythrina 1m 58.7±1.35 27.7 ± 0.88 13.6±0.83 SCL 74±1.37 9.8±1.16 16.2±1.13 SL

byssinica
3m 58±1.56 28±1.07 14 ±1.32 SCL 75.4± 1.32 9.7± 0.99 14.9±1.13 SL
6m 59.2±1.21 28.1± 0.80 12.7±0.56 SCL 75.2±0.61 10.4±0.89 14.4±0.98 SL
Without-T 25m 59.4± 1.73 27.8± 1.42 12.8± 2.38 SCL 75.3± 0.61 10.4±0.61 14.3± 0.71 SL

LSD (0.05) 1.6 1.7 1.3 - 1.3 0.9 0.8 -

CV (%) 2.3 5 7 - 1.4 7.2 4.8 -
Table 2 Influence of tree species and distance from the trunk on soil texture contents (%)
*SCL=sandy clay loam, SL=sandy loam*
 27

4.2.1.2. Bulk density

The bulk density of the soil was significantly (p<0.05) affected with tree species by the distance
from the tree trunk within both PAs. The lowest mean value of bulk density was under Cordia
africana and Erythrina abyssinica shade tree species than out of shade effect. Nevertheless the

highest mean value of bulk density was at 4th layer; which was out of shade effect across PAs.

In general, the bulk density of the soil increased significantly with the distance away from the
shade tree trunks (Table 4). Similar report was given by Tadesse et al. (2001) and Abebe (2001)
under the canopy of Millettia ferruginea tree species effect; bulk density of soil was less than
open areas. The reason for the higher bulk density with increasing distance from the tree trunk
might be due to higher organic matter accumulation, resulting in lower bulk density. However;
the results of all BD shown in the treatments were found under very low rate, relatively there
was a variation between shaded and unshaded effect based on FAO (2006a) soil rating
description.

Table 3. Influence of tree species and distance from the trunk on soil Bulk Density (gcm-3)

Treatments. Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m). Mean±Std Mean±Std
Cordia africana 1m 0.61 ±0.04 0.56 ±0.05
3m 0.53 ±0.03 0.53±0.04
6m 0.54 ±0.04 0.53± 0.05
Without-T 25m 0.63 ±0.04 0.60± 0.03
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 0.55 ±0.05 0.53 ±0.05
3m 0.52 ± 0.02 0.50 ±0.05
6m 0.54 ± 0.02 0.50± 0.06
Without-T 25m 0.61 ±0.02 0.57 ±0.04
LSD (0.05) 0.04 0.05
CV (%) 6.4 7.2
4.2.2. Effects of shade trees on chemical properties of the soil

4.2.2.1. Soil pH

In this study, the mean value of soil pH was higher under selected shade tree canopies than that
of soil in open field across PAs. Under the canopy of both shade tree species, the highest mean
 28

value of soil pH was observed at 1rst distance layer in JingadibuPA (Table 5). In Laftorifenso
PA, the highest mean value of soil pH was observed under the canopy of Cordia africana shade

tree at 2nd layer, while under shade tree canopies, it was observed at the 1rst distance layer, and
the least mean value of soil pH was observed in open area across PAs (Table 4). Probability level
of soil pH mean value showed highly significant difference (P<0.01) between shade trees species
effect and significance differences (P<0.05) between shaded and unshaded soil effect in both PAs
(Appendix Tables 1).

This study’s result was in line with the result reported by Havlin et al. (1999) where in
Laftorifenso PA, the pH value of soil on a given parameter was ranged from strongly acidic to
moderately acidic, whereas in Jingadibu PA, the result was from moderately acidic to slightly
acidic. This value was within the range of optimum soil pH for crop production (Table 4).

The investigation of soil pH under tree canopy versus open area has been reported by different
researchers at different areas. According to Tekaligh (1999), for example the soil was moderately
acidic with mean pH 5.3-5.9 under canopy and very strongly acidic in open area with mean of pH
5.1. Abebe et al. (2001) reported that soil pH decreased with the distance from the tree trunk
significantly under Cordia africana tree in Bako area. Similarly, Kamara and Haque (1992)
reported a significant variation in soil pH horizontally under Faidherbia albida tree canopies.

In contrast to this, Jiregna et al. (2005) reported that there was no significant difference in soil
pH under the canopies of Cordia africana and Croton macrostachyus compared to the open
area. They are not reported that disproved the idea that lower soil pH value had been found
defiantly from shaded areas of the coffee farms (Siles et al., 2010; Souza et al., 2012).

Table 4. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk on soil pH value

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species. Distance (m) Mean±Std Mean±Std
Cordia 1m 5.31 ±0.34 6.50± 0.22
3m 5.67 ±0.34 6.40 ±0.22
Africana
6m 5.57 ±0.38 6.32 ±0.20
Without-T 25m 5.18 ±0.39 5.89 ±0.12
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 5.79 ±0.31 6.62 ±0.20
 29

3m 5.55 ±0.18 6.52 ± 0.20

6m 5.45 ± 0.22 6.45±0.18
Without-T 25m 5.05 ±0.23 6.01±0.10
LSD (0.05) 0.3 0.2
CV (%) 4.7 2
4.2.2.2. Organic Carbon

Organic carbon content of the soil under the canopy zone as well as in open area of both PAs
showed significant difference (p<0.05) between distance layers and highly significant difference
(p<0.01) between shade tree species in Laftorifenso PA, whereas in Jingadibu PA, a highly
significant difference (p<0.01) was observed between distance layers as well as between shade
tree species effect (Appendixes Tables 1) The highest mean value of organic carbon was

observed under both shade tree species at 2nd layer but the least mean value was in the open soil
across PAs (Table 5).

This result was confirmed with the result of Nyberg and Högberg (1995); Tadesse et al. (2000);
Abebe et al. (2001); Kamara and Haque (1992) and Zebene et al. (2007). In contrast, Landon
(1991) reported that organic carbon content of the soil both under the canopy zone and in open
area was rated very low.

A slow but sure significant reduction in soil organic carbon was observed with increased distance

away from the tree trunk starting from 2nd detachment interval towards open area with the

exception of the 1rst detachment interval which had less organic carbon content than the 2nd

detachment interval with regardless of the tree species and sites (Table 5). The variation of

organic carbon content along distance from the 2nd layer towards an open area was quite
reasonable as the higher contents of organic carbon under the tree canopies was due to higher

accumulation of the litter falls and dead roots from the tree but in the case of the 1rst layer’s

distance of organic carbon contents was less than the 2nd layer across PAs. This result
materialize may be due to lateral roots influence which was found in the nearest circumstance of
shade tree trunk. As a result of this, organic carbon contents might be utilized highly by a dense
lateral roots.
 30

Table 5. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in soil OC (%)

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species. Distance (m) Mean±Std Mean±Std
Cordia africana 1m 2.20 ± 0.09 3.09± 0.20
3m 3.00 ±0.37 3.33±0.43
6m 2.74 ±0.14 2.90 ±0.33
Without-T 25m 2.17 ±0.14 3.09± 0.20
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 2.96 ±0.27 3.39 ±0.29
3m 3.13 ± 0.40 3.62 ± 0.52
6m 2.87 ±0.18 3.20±0.41
Without-T 25m 2.30 ±0.18 2.50 ±0.25
LSD (0.05) 0.3 0.2
CV (%) 8.5 6

4.2.2.3. Total nitrogen contents

Mean value of total nitrogen content showed highly significant difference (P<0.01) between
shade tree species and between distance layers across PAs. Total nitrogen concentration under
the canopy of Erythrina abyssinica at all the three distances was higher than that of Cordia
africana across PAs (Appendix Table 1). The highest value of total nitrogen concentration was
observed at the second layer and the least value of total nitrogen was also found at open area
across PAs respectively (Table 6).

Significant variation in total nitrogen between shade tree canopies and open area was also
reported by different authors. Tadesse et al. (2001) noted that total nitrogen decrease with
 31

distance from Millettia ferruginea tree. Similarly, Yeshanew et al. (1999) and Abebe et al.
(2001) reported that total nitrogen content was significantly higher under the canopy relative to
the control under Croton macrostachyus and Cordia africana, respectively. The total nitrogen
content for both canopy zone and open area rated medium according to (Landon, 1991).

Generally, the variation between shaded and unshaded mean value of total nitrogen might be due
to high accumulation of organic matter under the tree canopy and fixation of atmospheric
nitrogen with the tree species.

Table 6. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in soil total N (%)

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species. Distance (m) Mean±Std Mean±Std
Cordia africana 1m 0.21 ±0.02 0.25± 0.02
3m 0.27 ±0.02 0.27 ±0.02
6m 0.25 ±0.02 0.25 ±0.03
Without-T 25m 0.21 ±0.03 0.21±0.02

Erythrina abyssinica 1m 0.26 ±0.02 0.26±0.02

3m 0.28 ±0.02 0.28 ±0.02
6m 0.26 ±0.02 0.26 ±0.03
Without-T 25m 0.22 ± 0.02 0.22 ±0.02

LSD (0.05) 0.02 0.02

CV (%) 8.5 8
4.2.2.4. Available phosphorus

The results of this study revealed that availability of phosphorus in both areas under both shade
tree species canopy and horizontal distance starting from the first layers to the end layers (open
area) with a stepwise increasing outcomes available P (Table 7). Available phosphorus content
showed highly significant difference (P<0.01) between shade tree species and between distance
layers effect across PAs (Appendix Table 1). The highest mean value of phosphorus availability

was observed in open area but the least value of phosphorus availability was noted at the 1rst
 32

layers under both shade tree species across PAs, respectively (Table 7).

This result coincide with Powlsn (2011) finding that the variation between shaded and unshaded
effect might be resulted in increased fixation by Iron and Aluminum oxides, destabilization of the
soil structure and reduced soil biological activity. In the contrary, Kho et al. (2001) reported that
the phosphorus availability in the soil was estimated to be almost 30% higher under Faidherbia
albida tree canopy than open field. A Similar report by Souza et al. (2012) that the phosphorous
availability under coffee shade tree was higher than that of open coffee areas.

The increment of horizontal variation from tree trunk to the open area may be due to less and
less mobility of the phosphorus available in the soil and it may be long lasting characteristics
before changes to other forms which need high source of decomposers in addition to lateral root
characteristics.

Table 7. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in P (PPM) availability
Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA
Tree. Dist Mean±Std Mean±Std
Cordia africana 1m 20.21 ±1.24 19.50± 1.04
3m 16.99 ± 3.47 19.58 ±1.22
6m 19.32 ± 2.51 21.20± 1.46
Without-T 25m 20.94 ± 2.04 24.25± 0.73
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 17.55 ± 2.53 20.49 ±1.35
3m 18.98 ± 3.00 20.57± 1.52
6m 21.30 ±2.04 22.19± 1.77
Without-T 25m 22.93 ± 1.58 25.24 ±1.04
LSD (0.05) 0.8 0.4
CV (%) 3.6 1.6
4.2.2.5. Cation exchange capacity

The result of CEC showed a highly significant difference (P<0.01) between shade tree species
and between distance layers across PAs correspondingly (Appendix Table 1). The highest mean

value of CEC was observed at the 2nd distance layer away from both shade tree trunks and the
least mean value of CEC was also noted in the open area across PAs (Table 8).

According to Landon (1991) report, the Cation exchange capacity of the soil under the canopy
 33

was very higher than that of the samples from the open area. The other findings were reported by
Abebe et al. (2001), Tadesse et al. (2001) and Yeshanew et al. (1998) under Cordia africana,
Millettia ferruginea, and Croton macrostachyus, respectively, showed that CEC had significant
increments under the tree canopy compared to outside the canopy area.

Under both shade tree species across PAs, as compared to open area significant decrease in the

values of CEC was seen starting from the 2nd layer distance towards an open area. This was
quite reasonable perhaps due to higher organic matter accumulation under the tree canopies than
the open fields. This implies that, the release of more cat ions to the soil through mineralization
effect with increasing negative charges in the soil. As the amount of organic matter in the soil
increased, the total negative charge in the soil increased which in turn increased the CEC of the
soil; this relationship was also observed in the present study.

Table 8. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in CEC (meq/100g) of the
soil

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species. Distance (m) Mean±Std Mean±Std

Cordia africana 1m 19 ±1.37 25.58± 4.24

3m 30.67 ± 4.04 29.63 ±3.42
6m 28.02 ±2.46 24.63±3.79
Without-T 25m 20.27 ±2.13 18.13 ±2.64

Erythrina abyssinica 1m 26.20 ± 2.01 27.88 ±3.81

3m 28.70 ± 2.69 31.93± 2.99
6m 26.05 ±1.11 26.93± 3.36
Without-T 25m 18.30 ± 0.78 20.43±2.21

LSD (0.05) 1.9 0.9

CV (%) 6.7 3
 34

4.2.2.6. Exchangeable potassium

The result showed a highly significant variation (p<0.01) in exchangeable potassium as it is

affected by both shade tree species and distance layers across PAs (Appendix Table 1). The

highest mean value of exchangeable potassium was indicated at the 2nd layer under both shade
trees effect and the least mean value of exchangeable potassium was designated in the open area
across PAs respectively (Table 9).

The mean value of exchangeable potassium at 3m and 6m away from the shade tree trunk under
Cordia africana canopy exceeded that of the exchange in open area by 0.2 and 0.1cmol (+)/kg,
while the mean value under Erythrina abyssinica canopy was greater than in the open area by
0.17, 0.19 and 0.1cmol (+)/kg in Laftorifenso PA. Similarly; in JingadibuPA, the value of
exchangeable potassium at the same distance, under Cordia africana canopy was greater than
the one in open area with 0.17, 0.18 and 0.1 cmol (+)/kg and under Erythrina abyssinica it was
better than the open area with 0.18, 0.19 and 0.11cmol (+)/kg respectively.

On the other hand, the exchangeable potassium content of both canopy zone and open area was
rated high according to (Landon 1991) investigation which was in contrast to this study.

Table 9. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in Exchangeable K (cmol
(+)/kg) value

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species. Distance (m) Mean±Std Mean±Std
Cordia africana 1m 0.45 ±0.04 0.63±0.04
3m 0.64 ±0.03 0.64±0.04
6m 0.55 ± 0.08 0.56 ±0.05
Without-T 25m 0.45 ±0.03 0.46 ±0.06
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 0.58 ±0.10 0.63±0.06
3m 0.60 ±0.08 0.64 ±0.07
6m 0.51 ±0.12 0.56 ±0.08
Without-T 25m 0.41 ±0.07 0.45 ±0.08
 35

LSD (0.05) 0.06 0.06

CV (%) 10 8.7

4.3. Effect of Shade Tree Species and Distance from Tree Trunk on
Coffee Production
4.3.1. Physical coffee production in yield aspects

4.3.1.1. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in Branch/coffee plant

Commonly, Interaction effect showed highly significant difference (P<0.01) between shade tree
species as well as between and within distance effect across PAs and combined analysis of
variance between PA showed highly significance difference (P<0.01) for almost all on the results
of coffee’s parameters likewise across PAs (Appendix Table 7). Significant comparisons at t-Test
(0.05) level observed between both shaded coffee’s effect, and also significant comparison
between both shaded and unshaded coffee’s effect for almost all coffee parameters likewise
across PAs (Appendix Table 8).

The result of branch/coffee plant under the shade tree canopy showed highly significant variation
(P<0.01) between shade tree species and between distance layers effect in Laftorifenso PA. In
Jingadibu PA, on the contrary, available branch/coffee plant showed highly significance variation
(P<0.01) between shade tree species and significance variation (P<0.05) between distance layers,
correspondingly (Appendixes Table 4 and 5).

The highest mean value of branch /coffee plant was observed at the 2nd distance layer under both
shade tree species effect but the least mean value of branch/coffee plant was seen under unshaded
coffee plants in JingadibuPA (Table 10). In Laftorifenso PA, the highest mean value of

branch/coffee plant was observed at the 3rd distance layer under Cordia africana shade tree

effect, while under Erythrina abyssinica shade tree effect, it was at the 2nd distance layer. The
least mean value of branch/coffee plant was at unshaded coffee plant (Table 10).

However; the variation on available branch/coffee plant in the given distances from the shade tree
trunks under the canopies were visible between shaded and unshaded branches of coffee plant
 36

due to a higher content of organic matter under the tree canopies than in the open area as higher
addition of the litter falls, dead roots from the shade trees accumulated under the canopies. The
vital point to be considered in this result was the effect of shade tree influencing normality of
coffee branches from branch dieback disease, over bearing of fruits and long life expectancy of
coffee plants that comes from unfavorable micro and macro climatic condition (Tanlm, 2003).

Table 10. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in branch/coffee plant

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean* + Std Mean*+ Std
Cordia africana 1m 141 ±0.33 179±1.12
3m 150 ±0.38 182±0.68
6m 151±0.25 177±0.46
Without-T 25m 137 ±0.24 151±0.52
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 152 ±0.32 186±1.15
3m 153 ±0.37 189±0.71
6m 150 ±0.23 184±0.48
Without-T 25m 139 ±0.23 165±0.55
LSD (0.05) 0.3 0.7
CV (%) 1.7 3.2
*A=Available of branch per coffee plant: It was found by counting the sampled coffee branch*
4.3.1.2. Influence of tree species and distance from tree trunk in number of node
/coffee branch

In this study, the available number of node /coffee branch was observed to have a highly
significant difference (p<0.01) between tree species and between distance layers from shade
trees’ trunk towards open area across PAs (Appendixes Table 3 and 4).

The highest value on the number of node /coffee branch in a given parameter was found at 2nd
distance layer under both shade trees species, whereas the lowest value of the number of

node/coffee branch found at the 4th distance layer, which was out of shade tree influence in

JingadibuPA. In Laftorifenso PA, the highest value of node/coffee branch was observed at 2nd
distance layer under Cordia africana shade tree, while under Erythrina abyssinica shade tree,

the highest value of a given treatments’ parameter was displayed at 2nd and 3rd distance layers,
and the lowest value of treatments’ parameter was displayed at the end distance layer that was
 37

out of shade trees’ influence (Table 11).

Different researchers suggested the following idea, pertaining to coffee productivities. For
example, Cannell (1975) suggested that close spacing of coffee bushes resulted in mutual shading
that may inhibit floral initiation at existing nodes on coffee branches. Castillo and López (1966),
and Jaramillo and Valencia (1980) reported fewer coffee flowers under shade than in full
sunlight. Using artificial shade treatments, Montoya et al. (1961) found significant increases in
the number of node per coffee branch and flower buds per node as sunlight level was increased.
Montoya et al. (1961) also reported a significant positive correlation between the increases in the
number of node per branch and yield per bush.

In general, the variation in available number of node /coffee branch between shaded and
unshaded part of coffee plant was fairly reasonable as the higher contents of organic matter under
the tree canopies due to higher accumulation of the litter falls, dead roots from the shade tree and
protected from unfavorable micro and macro climatic condition to the shaded coffee plants.
However; variation within distance under the shade tree canopy, might be because of shade
concentration effect in which a recommended shade optimize transmission of light intensity
unless and other wise, extreme abundance of shade utilization creates avoidance of bearing in
coffee fruit as well as overall physiological fitness in coffee production (Beer et al., 1998).

Table 11. Influence of shade tree species and distance from shade tree trunk in number of node
/coffee branch
 38

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance(m) Mean *+ Std Mean* + Std
Cordia africana 1m 13±2.87 9 ±1.21
3m 15 ±1.83 11±1.41
6m 14 ±1.75 10±0.66
Without-T 25m 12 ±1.75 9 ±0.92
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 15 ±1.92 10±1.48
3m 16 ± 0.88 12±1.68
6m 16 ± 0.80 11±0.93
Without-T 25m 12 ±0.80 9±1.19
LSD ( 0.05 ) 1.4 0.8
CV (%) 8.6 6
*B=The number of node per coffee branch: it was found by counting number of node
/branch
4.3.1.3. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in number of coffee
fruits /node

The available number of coffee fruit /node showed highly significant difference (p<0.01) between
shade tree species and between distance layers from shade trees trunk in Laftorifenso PA, where
as in Jingadibu PA, it showed highly significant difference (p<0.01) between shade tree species
only. The highest value on available number of coffee fruits /node was observed under both

shade trees’ canopy at the 2nd distance layer, while the lowest value on available number of
coffee fruits /node was observed at the end distance of the layers in unshaded coffee plant in
Laftorifenso PA. In JingadibuPA, the highest value of the given treatments’ parameter was

displayed at the 2nd and the 3rd distance layers under both shade trees’ influence while the
lowest value of the parameter was observed at the end distance layer in unshaded coffee plant
(Table 12).

Cannell (1975) stated that the most important component of yield is the number of nodes formed.
Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that, because both the number of nodes formed and the
number of fruit set at each node can be affected by light levels, shading on good site can directly
reduce coffee yields even when all other growth factors are favorable.
 39

Table 12. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in number of coffee fruits
/node
Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA
Tree species Distance(m) Mean*+ Std Mean* + Std
Cordia africana 1m 14 ±1.21 12 ±1.14
3m 16 ± 0.66 13±0.43
6m 15 ±0.66 13±1.57
Without-T 25m 13 ± 0.66 10.3±0.84
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 15 ±0.80 13±1.41
3m 16±0.25 14±0.71
6m 15 ±0.25 14±1.85
Without-T 25m 13 ±0.25 11±1.12
LSD (0.05) 0.6 1.3
CV (%) 3.2 8.8
*C=number of fruit/node: it was found by counting number of fruits /node

4.3.1.4. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in all coffee fruits
/coffee plant

In this study, the available number of all coffee fruit /coffee plant revealed highly significance
(p<0.01) differences between shade tree species and between distance layers’ effect across PAs.
The highest mean value of all coffee fruits /coffee plant was seen under both shade trees’ canopy

at the 2nd distance layers, while the lowest mean value was seen at the end distance layers in
unshaded coffee plants across PAs (Table 13).

Various researches conducted previously at different places came up with results that are
somewhat related ideas to the present study. These related ideas narrate to thoughts that higher
shade density had a negative effect on coffee yield. Unshaded coffee needed higher input and it
gave more yield than shaded plantations with the same management for a short sustain (Fournier,
1988; Chamorro et al., 1994). Nevertheless, trials in Costa Rica shaded coffee production
yielded greater productivity than unshaded one that had been given the same management
(ICAFE, 1989; Ramírez, 1993; Machado, 1959). However, shading by Calliandra species. was
 40

reduced the yield by about 30% compared to the unshaded plots. In another experiment
Machado (1999) indicated that production of unshaded treatment for Bourbon also revealed
much lesser degree than shaded treatments but production of unshaded coffee plots diminished
from year to year. However, some studies had demonstrated that higher yields can be obtained
from intensively managed unshaded coffee but the results were inconsistent, probably because of
widely varying site conditions and management. When comparing shaded versus unshaded coffee
or comparing different shade species, a group of factors vary rather than just the factor ‘species
(Somarriba et al., 1996).

In this study, the variation in available “all coffee fruits /coffee plant” with distance from the
shade trees canopy was quite logical as a result of the above reasons. Beside, another point to be
considered was, shade make a coffee to persist coffee fruit bearing condition with sustainable
manner.

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean* + Std Mean* + Std
Cordia africana 1m 28,380 ±8.69 21,500±5.4
3m 33,850 ±5.89 25,800±4.6
6m 31,620 ±5.20 23,100±4.4
Without-T 25m 21,870±4.66 15,600±2.8
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 33,240 ±6.24 26,000±5
3m 38,710 ±3.43 30,300±4.2
6m 36,480 ±2.74 27,600±3.9
Without-T 25m 26,730 ±2.20 20,200±2.3
LSD (0.05 ) 3.7 1.8
CV (%) 10.6 6.8
Table 13. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in all coffee fruits /coffee
plant value
*D=all coffee fruits/coffee plant: it was found that, d=AxBxC
4.3.1.5. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in 1000 seed weight

The study revealed that available ‘1000 seed weight in gm’ showed highly significance difference
(p<0.01) between shade tree species, while significance difference (p<0.05) observed between
distance interval away from the shade tree trunks across PAs. The highest mean value of 1000

seed weight in gram was observed at the 1srt and 3rd distance layers under both shade trees
species’ influence, while the lowest mean value of the given parameters also observed at the end
 41

distance layers across PAs, respectively (Table 14).

According to Ebisa (2014) report, there was an observed relatively higher coffee weight (g/1000
bean) in shaded zone than in unshaded zone of coffee farms even if the difference was not
statistically significant. Finding of Geromel et al. (2008) indicated that coffee weight was
significantly higher in shade zone. Earlier study of Muleta et al. (2011) from south west Ethiopia
was also confirmed higher coffee yield from shade grown. Contrarily, coffee bean yield was
reported to be relatively higher in unshaded coffee zone (Bote and Struik, 2011).

The variation in available 1000 seed weight in gm with distance difference from shade tree trunk
towards open area was inversely relationship with ‘all coffee fruit /coffee plant’ results. For

example, the 2nd distance layer of shaded coffees’ result was showed the highest yield of /coffee

plant than the 1srt and 3rd distance layers’ coffee results under both shade tree species across
PAs. This happen may be due to the highest bearing of coffee fruit consumed the highest amount
of nutrient availability from the soil in order to nourish its fruits. Therefore, 1000 seed weight of
highest coffee fruit yielder distance was showed the least 1000 seed weight results (Table 14).

Table 14. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk, 1000 seed weight in gm

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean* + Std Mean* + Std
Cordia africana 1m 441 ±1.98 444±1.78
3m 438 ±1.62 440±1.34
6m 441± 0.94 444±1.39
Without-T 25m 404.1 ±0.74 417±0.63
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 457± 1.81 468±1.96
3m 454 ±1.45 464±1.52
6m 457 ±0.77 468±1.58
Without-T 25m 420 ±0.57 441±0.82
LSD (0.05 ) 1.1 0.7
CV (%) 2.1 1.3

*E=thousand seed weight in g: it was found by measuring 1000 seed of dry coffee fruits
 42

4.3.1.6. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in dry yield weight/
coffee plant in kg

The rate on available of ‘dry yield weight/ coffee plant in kg’ observed highly significance
difference (p<0.01) between shade tree species and significance difference (p<0.05) observed
between distance layers from the shade tree trunk towards open area (p<0.05) in Laftorifenso
PA. In Jingadibu PA, available of dry yield weight/ coffee plant in kg showed highly significance
difference (p<0.01) between shade tree species and between distance layers away from the tree
trunks to open areas.

The highest mean value of dry yield weight/coffee plant in kg was observed under both shade

trees species effect at the 2nd distance layers, while the lowest mean value of the given
parameter was displayed at the end distance layers in unshaded coffee plants across PAs (Table
15). More or less the variation under the shade trees indicated the recommended distance of

coffee plants to be planted that is, the 2nd distance layer away from the shade tree trunks.

Therefore, coffee plants to be planted have to be at 2nd distance layer unless and other wise, if
less than 3m or greater than 3m distance away from the shade tree trunks, the expected yields
became decreased (Table 15). In this result to be estimated is, above ground or below ground
biomass of shad tree effect. So that to identify such problems, it needs farther research
investigation rather than physiochemical property of the soil under the shade tree canopy.

Despite the common belief that coffee produced under shade was higher quality that reported by
Willey (1975).The report pointed out that although light may cause decrease etiolating and
changes in leaf morphology and the chemical constituent of fruits. The report was concluded that
shade could be affected the value of a vegetative products mainly and considerably on coffee
beans weight effects. According to Hernández (1995) reported that even though insignificant
differences between bean sizes of shaded and unshaded coffee plots; during two consecutive
years of experiment, the conversion factor for dried beans per unit weight of green cherries under
shaded coffee was greater than unshaded one. The other investigation accounted by Guyot et al.
(1996) was, shade have positive effects on coffee bean weight and the chemical parameters
which determine quality because shade enable coffee beans made slow ripening.
 43

Generally, the shade intensity affected directly on the available of physiological health of coffee
plants such as coffee beans, branch, leaves etc.

Table 15. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in dry yield weight/ coffee
plant in kg value

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean* + Std Mean* + Std
Cordia africana 1m 13±4.14 10±2.6
3m 15±2.86 11±2.42
6m 14±2.37 10±2.24
Without-T 25m 9± 1.89 7±1.05
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 15 ±3.17 12 ±2.52
3m 18 ±1.89 14±2.34
6m 17 ±1.40 13±2.17
Without-T 25m 12 ±0.92 9 ±0.97
LSD (0.05 ) 1.7 0.8
CV (%) 11.4 6.9
*F=Dry yield of /coffee plant in kg: it was found, F=DxE÷1000

4.3.1.7. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in clean coffee yield
/hectare
The available of clean coffee yield /hectare in ton value observed highly significant difference
(p<0.01) between shade tree species across PAs and significant difference (P<0.05) observed
between distance layers only in Laftorifenso PA. In Jingadibu PA, highly significant difference
(p<0.01) observed between shad tree species and between distance (Appendixes Table 4 and 5).
The result of this study was based on the conversion factor of red cherries for dried beans per
 44

unit weight of green cherries in the available clean coffee yield /hectare in qtl that showed in
(value=0.417 is conversion factor of red cherries to clean coffee). The highest mean value

of a given treatments’ parameters was observed at the 2nd distances layers under both shade
trees species, while the lowest mean value of a given treatments’ parameter was also observed at
the end distance layers across PAs (Table 16).

The mean value difference, in available of clean coffee yield /hectare in qtl, between treatments
effect was displayed sensibly with logic of dry yield weight/ coffee plant in kg by reasonable
hypothesis of conversion factor. The reasonable suggestion was taken based on the yield had
been gained by correction factors in (Table 16) results. According to Hernández (1995) report
specified that the conversion factor for dried beans per unit weight of green cherries was 0.6%
higher under shaded than open one, which translated in to an additional 44 kg ha–1 of processed
coffee.

Table 16. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in clean coffee yield in ton
/hectare

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean* + Std Mean* + Std
Cordia africana 1m 1.4 ± 4.59 1.0 ±0.279
3m 1.6 ±3.29 1.2±0.251
6m 1.5 ±2.52 1.1±0.239
Without-T 25m 1.0 ±2.33 0.7±0.123
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 1.7 ±3.62 1.3±0.261
3m 1.9 ± 2.32 1.5±0.234
6m 1.8± 1.54 1.4±0.221
Without-T 25m 1.3 ±1.35 1.0±0.105
LSD ( 0.05 ) 2.1 0.8
CV (%) 12.6 6.2
*G=clean coffee yield/ha in ton: that, G= F x 2.6 x 0.417- thus (2.6 value is conversion factor
of dry cherries to red cherries and 0.417 value is conversion factor of red cherries to clean
coffee)*

4.3.1.8. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in screen size of coffee
beans
The mean value on available coffee fruits’ ‘screen size’ observed a highly significant difference
(p<0.01) between shade tree species effect and between distance layers’ effect only in
 45

Laftorifenso PA (Appendix Table 5). The highest mean value on the given treatment’s parameter

was displayed at 1rst distance layer under both shade trees species, while the lowest mean value
on the given parameter was displayed at the end distance layer in unshaded coffee plants in
Laftorifenso PA. In Jingadibu PA, the highest mean value on the given parameter was equally
displayed under both shade trees effect at all distance layers but the lowest mean value on the
given parameter was observed at the end distance layer away from the shade trees trunk in
unshaded coffee plants (Table 17).

Coffee bean size is unified criteria for conducting coffee business within the international market
which based on physiological fitness of coffee fruit through main factors such as management,
shade and species and geographical varies (Agwanda et al. 2003). Similarly, bold and medium
bean size has a particular importance for roasters, as uniform bean size could be produced
uniform roast (Yigzaw, 2005; EAFCA, 2008). Additionally, Barel and Jacquet (1994) supported
that roasting uneven sized beans cannot produce uniform roast, because of the smallest tend to
burn and the largest tend to be under-roasted. Thus, this trend to be reduced final quality of the
brew.

According to Hernández (1995) reported that insignificant differences between bean sizes of
shaded and unshaded coffee. In the contrast, the other investigation accounted by Guyot et al.
(1996) was, shade have positive effects on coffee bean size.

Generally, the result of this study was showed that the shade to be a significant value for coffee
beans’ size under the comparison of shaded coffee versus unshaded coffee plants in the study
area (Table 17) and its rate was based on (Appendix Table 12).

Table 17. Influence of Shade tree Species and distance from tree trunk in screen size of coffee
beans in (%)

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean + Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 0.95 ±0.03 0.9±0.02
3m 0.93 ±0.03 0.9±0.01
6m 0.92± 0.03 0.9±0.01
Without-T 25m 0.86 ±0.01 0.8±0.01
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 0.92 ± 0.03 0.9±0.01
3m 0.90± 0.03 0.9±0.01
 46

6m 0.89±0.03 0.9±0.01
Without-T 25m 0.84± 0.02 0.8±0.01
LSD (0.05 ) 0.01 0.01
CV (%) 1.1 1.3

4.3.1.9. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in shape and make of
coffee beans

In this study, the mean value of treatments observed to have significant difference (P<0.05)
between shade tree species effect across PAs in the availability of shape and make of raw coffee
quality test. The highest mean value of the given treatments’ parameter was observed under

Erythrina abyssinica shade tree influence at the 2nd layer and the lowest mean value of the given
treatments’ parameter was displayed at the end distance layer away from the shade tree trunk in
unshaded coffee plants across PAs but under Cordia africana shade tree’s effect without mean
difference was displayed between shaded and unshaded effect only in Laftorifenso PA (Table 18).

According to Bote and Struik (2011), research report, shaded coffee resulted in heavier and
larger coffee beans and a good "shape and make” than unshaded coffee fruits, mainly due to its
effect on temperature and the duration of the ripening period. This research report, confirmed
with the present study, under both shade tree species’ effect with distance intervals and its rate
was based on (Appendix Table 12).

Table 18. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in shape and make of
coffee beans value

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean±Std Mean±Std
Cordia africana 1m 12 ±0.83 12±0.3
3m 13 ±0.77 13±0.4
6m 12 ± 0.57 12±0.4
Without-T 25m 12± 0.61 12±0.3
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 12± 0.71 13±0.3
3m 12± 0.64 13±0.4
6m 12 ±0.44 13±0.4
Without-T 25m 12± 0.48 12 ±0.3
LSD (0.05 ) 0.7 0.2
 47

CV (%) 4.8 1.6

"Scale of Shape and make:- v. good=15; Good =12; Fair good=10; Average=8; Mixed =6;
Small =4"

4.3.1.10. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in color of coffee
beans

The mean value of treatments indicated significant difference (P<0.05) between shade tree
species and between and within distance layers away from shade tree trunks to open areas’ effect
on the availability of color at raw coffee quality test across PAs. The highest mean value on the

treatments’ parameter was observed at the 2nd distance layer under both shade trees species in
Laftorifenso PA, while the lowest mean value of the given treatments’ parameters was observed
in unshaded coffee plants. In JingadibuPA, the highest mean value was observed under both

shade trees species at the 2nd and the 3rd distance layers, while the lowest mean value on the
given parameter was observed at the end distance layers in unshaded coffee plants.

Color is the visual appearance of the brewed cup of coffee. Ones’ aspect of visual appearance
indicates color and the direct effect of caramelization power of the sugar beans based on roasting
degree. The roasting degree also depends on the size and ‘shape and make’ of green coffee
beans. So the shade may have an influence on color availability indirectly hence and Categories
of the rate of results were found under the rooted in (Appendix Table 12) .

Table 19. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in color of coffee beans
value

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA

Tree species distance (m) Mean+ Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 12.31±0.25 12.2±0.23
3m 12.41±0.26 12.3±0.22
6m 12.11±0.39 12.3±0.28
Without-T 25m 11.83±0.24 11.6±0.11
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 12.13±0.35 12.3±0.29
3m 12.23±0.36 12.4±0.27
6m 11.93 ±0.49 12.4±0.33
Without-T 25m 11.65 ±0.34 11.7±0.16
LSD (0.05 ) 0.3 0.3
CV (%) 2.3 1.8
 48

"Scale of Color:-Bluish =15; Grayish =12; Greenish =10; Coated =8; Faded=6; White =4"

4.4. Coffee Production in Quality Aspects

4.4.1. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in aromatic
intensity of coffee beans
The mean value of treatments showed significant difference (P<0.05) between shade tree species
and between and within distance layers of shaded versus unshaded areas’ effect in the availability
of aromatic intensity at cup coffee quality test across PAs. The highest mean value of aromatic

intensity was observed under both shade trees species at the 2nd distance layers across PAs,
while the lowest mean value of the given parameters was also displayed at the end distance layer
in unshaded coffee plants across PAs (Table 20).

The mean value of treatments showed significant difference (P<0.05) between shade tree species
and between and within distance layers of shaded versus unshaded areas’ effect in the availability
of aromatic intensity at cup coffee quality test across PAs. The highest mean value of aromatic

intensity was observed under both shade trees species at the 2nd distance layers across PAs,
while the lowest mean value of the given parameters was also displayed at the end distance layer
in unshaded coffee plants across PAs (Table 20).

Aromatic intensity, the gaseous natural chemical components of roasted and brewed coffee is
given off when coffee is roasted and brewed. Aroma is a responsible for all coffee flavor
attributes. The shade may have indirect effect on availability of aromatic intensity. According to
results’ discussion was stated at different tables in this study, the shade trees have a direct and
indirect effect on coffee production through the process with buffering the physiological part of
coffee plants, from natural phenomenon. Thereby the coffee beans made uniform bean size due to
indirect effect of shade trees. The rate of parameter was based on (Appendix Table 12).

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Mean + Jingadibu PA

Tree species Distance(m) Std Mean + Std
Cordia 1m 4.08±0.22 3.87±0.3
africana 3m 4.15±0.15 4.09±0.2
6m 4.05±0.10 3.92±0.2
Without-T 25m 3.78±0.19 3.62±0.1
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 4.06±0.17 3.92±0.4
3m 4.13±0.10 4.14±0.3
 49

6m 4.03±0.06 3.97±0.3
Without-T 25m 3.76±0.14 3.67±0.2
LSD (0.05 ) 0.2 0.3
CV (%) 4 6
Table 20. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in aromatic intensity of
coffee beans value
"Scale of Aromatic intensity:-V. strong=5; strong=4; medium=3; light=2; V. light=1;Nil=0

4.4.2. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in aromatic quality
of coffee beans

The mean value of treatment observed to have significant difference (P<0.05) between shade tree
species, and between as well as within distance layers away from the shade tree trunks towards
open area under both shade tree species across PAs (Appendixes Table 5 and 6).

The highest mean value of treatment was recorded from the 2nd distance layer under both shade
trees species, while the lowest mean value of the given treatments’ parameter was recorded at
the end distance layers in unshaded coffee fruits across PAs (Table 21). Aromatic quality
indicates smell of the liquor sensed either by direct inhaling of the vapors arising from the cup or
by nasal perception of volatile substance evolving in the mouth found as multiple aromatic

compounds’ quality. The 2nd distance layer of coffee beans’ result designated to have typicity
values of the given parameter to be ‘slightly moca and spice’ perfume by professional cup liquor
panelist of (JARC, 2008) group (Table 30) and the rate of parameter was referred on (Appendix
Table 12) .

Table 21. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in aromatic quality of
coffee beans value
Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA
Tree species Distance (m) Mean + Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 3.98 ±0.24 4.22±0.09
3m 4.13± 0.25 4.27±0.06
6m 3.78 ±0.29 4.17±0.14
Without-T 25m 3.73 ±0.22 3.72±0.13
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 3.98± 0.23 4.18±0.1
3m 4.13 ±0.24 4.23±0.07
6m 3.78± 0.28 4.13±0.15
 50

Without-T 25m 3.73 ±0.21 3.68±0.14

LSD (0.05 ) 0.2 0.1
CV (%) 4.1 2.8
"Scale of Aromatic quality :- excellent=5; v.good=4; good=3; regular=2; Bad=1; Nil =0"

4.4.3. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in acidity of coffee
beans

The mean value of treatment effect observed to be significant difference (P<0.05) between shade
tree species, and between as well as within distance layers away from shade tree trunk towards
open area, in the availability of acidity at cup coffee quality test across PAs (Appendixes Table 5

and 6). The highest mean value of acidity was recorded at the 1rst distance layer under both
shade tree species, while the lowest mean value of the given parameter observed under the end
distance layers in unshaded coffee plants across PAs (Table 23).

Lower soil pH and high acidity of cup coffee had reported defiantly from shaded areas of the
coffee farm than open areas (Siles et al., 2010; Souza et al., 2012). According to Agawanda
(1999), acidity of coffee cup tests are reliable and suitable quality attributes that can be used as
selection criteria for the genetic improvement of the overall liquor quality had got from shaded
coffee beans than unshaded beans.

In contrast, the result of soil analysis parameters in this study indicated that when distance from
the tree trunk under shade increased linearly; it increased the value of soil pH starting from the

2nd layer (Table 5). This result implies that pH value was higher under the shade, likewise the
value of acidity percentage in cup quality test also higher than open area (Table 23). This relation
may be, due to high pH value under the shade, which influences acidity of coffee bean cup quality
test under the canopies. Acidity indicates the bitter or acidic balance that a sweet caramelic after
taste which could be affected by roast degree and phonology of coffee fruit that means shade
may have indirect effect on coffee cup quality test and its rate was based on (Appendix Table
12).

Table 22. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in acidity of coffee beans
value
 51

Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu-PA

Tree species Distance (m) Mean + Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 7.23±0.38 7.5±0.24
3m 6.98±0.32 7.3±0.09
6m 6.88±0.32 7.2±0.16
Without-T 25m 6.63±0.31 6.8±0.13
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 7.17±0.26 7.6±0.38
3m 6.92±0.20 7.3±0.23
6m 6.82±0.20 7.3±0.29
Without-T 25m 6.57±0.19 6.9±0.26
LSD (0.05 ) 0.2 0.2
CV (%) 2.9 2.3
"Scale of Acidity Pointed=10; M. pointed=8; Medium =6; Light =4; Lacking=2;Nil=0"

4.4.4. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in astringency of
coffee beans

The mean value of treatment observed to have significant difference (P<0.05) between shad trees
species on the availability of astringency at coffee cup quality test only in Laftorifenso PA.
However, the mean value of treatments effect of distances layers away from shade tree trunks
under both shade tree species had no significant difference (P>0.05).

The highest mean value of unshaded effect was greater than shaded ones under both shade tree

species at 1rst, 2nd and 3rd layers by 0.22%, 0.17% and 0.22% in Laftorifenso PA. In Jingadibu
PA, the mean value of unshaded effect was higher than shaded one by 0.4%, 0.3% and 0.3%
under Cordia africana shade tree, while under Erythrina abyssinica shade tree effect, the mean
value was higher by 0.5%, 0.4% and 0.4% respectively (Table 23).

The higher content of bitterness and astringency of the coffee beverage due to higher content of
sucrose and chlorogenic acid in a green coffee beans based on its size and ripping paired. This
chlorogenic acid is reduced to organoleptic quality especially under unshaded bean than shaded
ones (Morais et al., 2006). Shade tree play a great role in producing heavier and larger coffee
beans size which is depends on temperature effect and the duration of ripening period to have
quality physiological fitness of coffee beans (Siebert, 2002). So in this study the higher value of
astringency was observed under unshaded part of coffee plants (Table 23) and the rate of
 52

parameter was submitted by (Appendix Table 12) scale rages.

Table 23. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in astringency of coffee
beans value
Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA
Tree species Distance (m)
Mean + Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 4.26 ±0.17 4.2±0.2
3m 4.31 ±0.23 4.3±0.3
6m 4.26 ±0.17 4.3±0.2
Without-T 25m 4.48 ±0.17 4.6±0.1
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 4.08 ±0.09 4.2±0.2
3m 4.13 ±0.15 4.3±0.2
6m 4.08 ±0.09 4.3±0.1
Without-T 25m 4.30 ±0.09 4.7±0.1
LSD (0.05) 0.2 0.2
CV (%) 3 3.8
"Scale of Astringency:-Nil =5; V.ligh t=4; Light=3; Medium=2;Strong =1;V.strong=0"

4.4.5. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in bitterness of
coffee beans

The mean value of treatments effect did not show significant difference (P>0.05) in the
availability of bitterness at the given treatments’ parameter between shade tree species and
distance layers only in Laftorifenso PA. In JingadibuPA, the mean value of treatments showed
significant difference (P<0.05) between shade tree species and between as well as within distance
layers in the availability of bitterness effect (Appendixes Table 5 Table 6).

The highest mean value of treatment observed at the 1rst and the 2nd distance layers under both
shade tree species in JingadibuPA, while equally rated at every distance layers under both shade
trees species effect in Laftorifenso PA. The lowest mean value of the given parameter was
observed at open areas across PAs (Table 24). In Jingadibu PA, the mean value of treatment was

exceeded than that of open areas’ result at 1rst, 2nd and 3rd distance layer, beneath Cordia
africana and Erythrina abyssinica shade tree effect by 0.4%, 0.4% and 0.3%, and 0.5%, 0.5%
and 0.3% respectively (Table 24).

The higher content of bitterness of the coffee beverage due to higher content of sucrose and
 53

chlorogenic acid in a green coffee beans based on its size and ripping paired. This chlorogenic
acid optimally influences organoleptic quality especially under unshaded than shaded ones
(Morais et al., 2006). In this study, the highest value of bitterness was observed under the shade
tree effect, than that of unshaded coffee beans quality. This may be due to its size and ripping
paired beside other factors (Table 24) and the rate of parameter was submitted by (Appendix
Table 12) scale rages.

Table 24. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in bitterness of coffee
beans value
Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA
Trees species distance(m) Mean+Std Mean+Std
Cordia africana 1m 4.58 ±0.22 4.6±0.14
3m 4.56±0.21 4.6±0.13
6m 4.58±0.22 4.5±0.13
Without-T 25m 4.38 ±0.15 4.2±0.02
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 4.60±0.16 4.6±0.14
3m 4.58 ±0.15 4.6±0.14
6m 4.60±0.16 4.4±0.12
Without-T 25m 4.50 ±0.09 4.1±0.03
LSD ( 0.05 ) 0.2 0.1
CV (%) 4 1.4
"Scale of Bitterness:-Nil =5; V. light=4; Light=3; medium=2; Strong=1; V. strong=0"

4.4.6. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in body of coffee
beans

The mean value of treatment effect had no significant difference (P>0.05) in the availability of
body at cup coffee quality test between shade tree species effect and between as well as within
distance layers away from both shade tree trunks towards open area in Laftorifenso PA
(Appendix Table 5). In JingadibuPA, the mean value of treatment effect to have significant
difference (P<0.05) in the availability of body at cup coffee quality test between shade tree
species effect and between as well as within distance layers away from both shade tree trunks
towards open area (Appendix Table 6). The highest mean value of treatments’ parameter was

observed under both shade tree species at the 2nd distance layers, while the lowest mean value
was observed at the end distance layer away from both shade tree trunks in open beans at
 54

JingadibuPA (Table 25). Available of body in a cup of coffee quality test indicates viscosity or
thickness of coffee brewed. It is the physical property of beverage that the result in tactile
sensations perceived on the skin in the mouth during and after ingestion based on beans quality
(JARC, 2008).

According to Agawanda (1999), body of coffee cup tests are reliable and suitable quality
attributes that can be used as selection criteria for the genetic improvement of the overall liquor
quality had got from shaded coffee beans than unshaded beans. Shade alter directly and indirectly
organoleptic result in coffee quality aspect beside to other factors that dark roast enhance the
body while light roast emphasize acidity (Muschler, 2001; ITC, 2002). The study was also
confirmed the above ideas that the higher mean value of the given treatments’ parameter was
observed under the shaded coffee plants’ beans (Table 25) and the rate of parameter was
submitted by (Appendix Table 12) scale rages.

Table 25. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in body of coffee beans
value
Treatments Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA
Tree species Distance (m) Mean + Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 7.12 ±0.20 7.21±0.25
3m 7.12± 0.21 7.33±0.29
6m 7.17± 0.24 7.16±0.24
Without-T 25m 6.57± 0.12 6.68±0.18
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 7.12 ±0.16 7.34±0.31
3m 7.12 ±0.16 7.47±0.35
6m 7.17 ±0.20 7.29±0.3
Without-T 25m 6.57 ±0.08 6.82±0.24
LSD (0.05) 0.2 0.3
CV (%) 2.6 3.4
"Scale of Body (10%):-Full =10, Medium full =8, medium=6, Light =4, V.light=2, Nil =0"

4.4.7. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in flavor of coffee
beans

The mean value of treatments indicated significant difference (P<0.05) in the availability of flavor
at cup of coffee test between shade tree species and between as well as within distances layers
away from shade tree trunks versus open areas’ effect across PAs (Appendixes Table 5 and 6).
 55

The mean value of flavor at cup quality test that influenced by distance under both shade tree

canopy was higher than that of open area at the 1rst, 2nd and 3rd distance layer by 0.8%, 0.7%
and 0.9% in Laftorifenso PA. In Jingadibu PA, the mean value of the given treatment was
influenced by distance under the canopy, greater than open area by 0.3%, 0.4% and 0.5%, under
Cordia africana shade and 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4% under Erythrina abyssinica shade effect (Table
26).

Flavor is the simultaneous sensation in the test of aroma and taste. Coffee aroma is composed of
the gaseous natural chemical components of roasted and brewed coffee beans, which escape as
vapors after the coffee grounds are brewed. The perfume of the ground roasted coffee before
water is added, it gives fragrance/aroma and one can smell the aroma, evaluate the body then
perceive the taste and flavors (Muschler, 2001). The higher mean value of treatments’ parameter
was observed under the shade, while the lowest mean value was observed under unshaded coffee
plants under both shade tree species across PAs (Table 26) may be due to indirect effect of shade
and the rate of parameter was submitted by (Appendix Table 12) scale rages.

Table 26. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in flavor of coffee beans
Treatments Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA
Tree species Distance (m) Mean + Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 7.20 ±0.25 7.1±0.3
3m 7.14± 0.20 7.2±0.3
6m 7.34 ±0.42 7.3±0.3
Without-T 25m 6.44 ±0.24 6.8±0.2
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 7.09 ±0.11 7.2±0.2
3m 7.03 ±0.06 7.3±0.2
6m 7.23 ±0.28 7.4±0.2
Without-T 25m 6.33 ±0.10 7±0.2
LSD (0.05 ) 0.3 0.2
CV (%) 3.2 2.6
“Scale of Flavor (10%):-V.good=10, Good =8, Average =6, Fair =4, Bad=2, Nil=0 "
4.4.8. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in overall quality
of coffee beans

The mean value of treatments observed highly significant difference (P<0.01) between shade tree
species effect on availability of ‘overall quality’ of cup coffee test across PAs (Appendixes Table
5 and 6). The mean value of treatment observed significant difference (P<0.05) between and
 56

within distance layers away from shade tree trunk to open area effect on availability of the given
treatments’ parameter across PAs (Appendixes Table 5 and 6). The highest mean value of the

given treatments observed at the 2nd distance layers under both shade tree species effect across
PAs, while the lowest mean value of the given treatments was also observed at the end distance
layers in which unshaded coffee beans across PAs (Table 27).

The total quality of coffee, based on overall quality attributes was used to determine quality
potential (Muschler, 2001). The higher value of the given treatments’ parameter was observed
under the shade trees effect under both shade tree species across PAs, the lowest value of the
given parameter was observed in unshaded areas (Table 27). This happen may be due to the
above reasons that were stated similarly in the quality attributer parameters and the rate of
parameter was submitted by (Appendix Table 12) scale rages.

Table 27. Influence of shade tree species and distance from tree trunk in overall quality of coffee
beans value
Treatments Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA
Tree species Distance (m) Mean + Std Mean + Std
Cordia africana 1m 7.02 ±0.29 7.1±0.39
3m 7.21 ± 0.19 7.7±0.3
6m 7.06± 0.36 7.3±0.34
Without-T 25m 6.36±0.24 6.9±0.39
Erythrina abyssinica 1m 6.98 ± 0.12 7.2±0.25
3m 7.17± 0.02 7.5±0.17
6m 7.02± 0.19 7.1±0.2
Without-T 25m 6.32 ±0.07 6.9±0.25
LSD (0.05 ) 0.2 0.3
CV (%) 3 3.7
"Scale of Overall cup quality (10%): Excellent=10, v.good =8, Good=6, Regular=4, Bad =2,
unacceptable=0"

4.5. Combined Correlation and regression between Soil and Coffee

Parameters

In this study, association of parameters in the treatment was examined based on Pearson
correlation Coefficient procedure. The selected soil’s parameters, positively and negatively
significant and highly significant correlated with coffee parameters at (p<0.05 and p<0.01) level
 57

was observed as stated in the (Appendixes Table 10 and 11).

Thus, soil pH, organic carbon, available of phosphorus, cation exchange capacity of the soil, total
nitrogen, silt in the soil, bulk density and exchangeable potassium were positively and
significantly in horizontal distance correlated with branch/coffee plant, number of node/coffee
branch, coffee fruit/node, thousand seed weight, dry yield of coffee/plant, clean coffee/hectare,
screen% of green coffee, shape and make, color of green coffee fruit, odor of green coffee fruit,
aromatic intensity of cup test, aromatic quality of cup test, acidity of cup test, astringency of
rousted coffee, bitterness of cup test, body of coffee beverage , flavor of coffee beverage and
overall quality of coffee beverage across PAs, except bitterness which was coffee’s parameter did
not correlated with any of selected soil parameters in JingadibuPA. The results allocated with r-
value in (p<0.05):-for significant correlation, (p<0.01), for highly significant correlation and
(p>0.05):-for non significant correlation (Appendixes Table 10 and 11). This relationship
indicated that association of soil parameters with coffee parameters based on the effect of both
shade tree species and distance layers away from the shade tree trunk under the canopy.

Similarly, the selected soil’s parameters, positively significant regression with coffee parameters
at (p<0.05) and positively and highly significant regression with coffee parameters at (p<0.01)
level was observed as stated in the (Appendixes Table 10 and 11).

Thus, soil pH, organic carbon, available of phosphorus, cation exchange capacity of the soil, total
nitrogen, silt in the soil, bulk density and exchangeable potassium were positively and
significantly in horizontal distance regretted with branch/coffee plant, number of node/coffee
branch, coffee fruit/node, thousand seed weight, dry yield of coffee/plant, clean coffee/hectare,
screen% of green coffee, shape and make, color of green coffee fruit, odor of green coffee fruit,
aromatic intensity of cup test, aromatic quality of cup test, acidity of cup test, astringency of
rousted coffee, bitterness of cup test, body of coffee beverage , flavor of coffee beverage and
overall quality of coffee beverage across PAs respectively except bitterness which was coffee’s
parameter did not correlated with any of selected soil parameters in JingadibuPA. The results

allocated with R2- value for significant regression (p<0.05 and p<0.01) for significant regression
and for no regression (p>0.05) shown in (Appendixes Table 10 and 11). The regression indicated
 58

that the variation percentage between soil parameters and coffee parameters based on the effect
of both shade tree species and distance layers away from the shade trunk under the canopy across
PAs respectively (Appendixes Table 10 and 11).

Interaction of tree crops affects coffee production from above or below ground resource sharing
was expressed by (Aerts et al., 2011). Their relationship can be discussed as coffee production is
more influenced with soil environmental amelioration formed by shade trees than soil
macronutrients (N, P and K) added. Coffee production has linear relationship with soil pH. As
soil acidity increases, coffee production decreases. Earlier study confirms the direct relationship
of coffee yield or weight with soil acidity was reported by (Aerts et al., 2011). Similarly, as top
soil moisture content increases coffee production also increases. The influence of top soil plant
nutrients on coffee production is not linear. However, there was observed higher coffee yield in
areas having relatively higher percent of total nitrogen, organic matter, and available Phosphorus
but available potassium was not influential because as potassium found highest in the soil while
coffee yield found less and this examination was reported by (Aerts et al., 2011).

According to Adugnaw et al. (2015) investigation, positively significant correlation at (p<0.05)

level between soil and coffee quality parameters that CEC correlated with flavor and overall
coffee quality, soil pH correlated with hundred bean weights, Mg correlated with over all coffee
quality. However, N was negatively correlated with body of coffee beans. Other chemical soil
properties K, Ca, Fe, P, EC, and OC content did not show significant correlations with all coffee
quality attributes. Similarly, moisture content, aroma, and fruity quality attributes did not show
significant correlations with any of the soil chemical properties. Using multiple regression
analysis, Beer, j. (1992) was detected such a direct negative effect of increased shade tree density
on coffee berry production, in addition to the indirect effect on yield associated with reduced
shade growth.

Generally in this study, positively the significant correlation between soil and coffee parameters
in horizontal axis were organic carbon, cation exchange capacity and total nitrogen in the soil.
These soil parameters showed more positively and significantly associated with almost all of
coffee parameters whereas bulk density of the soil was negatively associated with most part of
 59

coffee parameters, respectively (Appendixes Table 10 and 11). The value of significant
correlation between main treatments based on the availability of shade trees’ effect for
improvement of physicochemical property of the soil and coffee (Coffea arabica L.) production
across PAs.

4.6. Coffee Grading Based on Raw and Cup Quality Evolution

4.6.1. Raw coffee quality evaluation

The raw coffee quality evaluation based on their "shape and make", color and odor were
computed along with the set of (ES, 2001; ECX, 2009). The highest mean value of raw quality

analysis was found from the 2nd distance layer in the given parameters, relatively. The
summation of parameters were given its grading value as per (JARC, 2008) with 40%
accounting shown as (Table 28) bellow.

Table 28. Standard parameters and their respective values used for unwashed coffee that raw
quality evaluation values as per (JARC, 2008) standard

Treatments Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA

Tree Distance Sm Col. O d . TRQ Sm Col. O d . T RQ
15% 15% 10% 40% 15% 15% 10%
40%
.Cordia africana 1m 12.0 12.3 10.00 12.0 12.3 10.0 34.3
0 0 34.3 0 0 0
3m 13.0 12.6 10.00 12.3 12.3 10.0 34.6
0 0 35.6 0 0 0
6m 12.2 12.2 10.00 12.0 12.0 10.0 34
0 0 34.4 0 0 0
Without-T 25m 11.5 11.3 10.00 11.5 11.0 10.0 32.5
0 0 32.8 0 0 0
E r y t h r i n a 1m 11.8 12.2 10.00 12.8 12.0 10.0 34.8
abyssinica 0 0 34 0 0 0
3m 12.6 12.3 10.00 13.3 12.6 10.0 35.9
0 0 34.9 0 0 0
6m 11.8 11.5 10.00 13.0 12.6 10.0 35.6
0 0 33.3 0 0 0
Without-T 25m 11.5 11.3 10.00 11.4 11.0 10.0 32.4
0 0 32.8 7 0 0 7
 60

"Sm =shape and make; Col.=color; Od=odor; TRQ=Total raw quality.

4.6.2. Cup quality evaluation

The highest mean value of aroma and cup quality analysis value of a given parameters was

found from the 2nd distance layer as were found in other parameters. Each quality attribute,
after laboratory processing was subjected to statistical descriptive analysis, which was based
on treatment effect. The total of raw quality (40%) and aroma and cup quality (60%)
summation value was used for final quality grading judgment in accounting of (100%) based
on (ES, 2001; ECX, 2009) procedure as per (JARC, 2008) shown in (Table 28 and 29).

The highest quality grade range and typicity sense of ‘moca’ and ‘spice of a given quality

attributer parameters were observed at the 2nd distance layer under both shade tree effect
across PAs.
 61
Table 29. Standard parameters and their respective values used for unwashed coffee that cup and aroma evaluation values as per (JARC, 2008)
standard
Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA
Treatments AI AQ AC AS BI BO FL OA TCP 100% AI AQ AC AS BI BO FL OAQ TCP 100
Q Q Q %
Tre Dist 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 60% 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 10% 10% 10% 60%
e
Cor. 1m 4.10 4.00 7.60 4.30 4.60 7.00 7.04 6.75 45.39 79.69 3.80 4.20 7.50 4.00 4.50 7.00 6.90 6.80 44.70 79.0

afri 3m 4.20 4.30 7.00 4.50 4.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 45.50 81.10 4.00 4.30 7.20 4.30 4.63 7.70 7.00 7.20 45.83 80.9
can
a 6m 4.00 3.60 6.60 4.30 4.60 7.40 7.80 7.60 45.90 80.30 4.00 4.20 7.20 4.30 4.60 7.30 7.30 7.80 46.70 80.7
wt/t 25m 3.50 3.50 6.20 4.60 4.20 6.00 5.60 5.60 39.20 72.00 3.30 3.20 6.30 5.00 4.60 6.20 6.50 6.50 41.60 774.
00
Ert. 1m 4.00 4.00 7.20 4.00 4.60 7.20 7.20 7.09 45.29 79.29 3.80 4.20 8.00 4.30 4.60 7.50 7.20 7.20 46.80 81.6
aby
ssin 3m 4.20 4.30 6.80 4.00 4.60 7.20 7.00 7.00 45.10 80.00 4.50 4.30 7.20 4.30 4.60 7.80 7.50 7.30 47.50 83.4
ica 6m 4.00 3.60 6.80 4.00 4.60 7.00 7.00 7.00 44.00 77.3 3.80 4.00 7.00 4.30 4.60 7.00 7.60 7.50 45.80 81.4
3.40 3.50 6.20 4.60 4.20 6.00 5.60 5.60 39.10 71.9 3.30 3.20 6.30 5.00 4.60 6.20 6.50 6.50 41.60 774.
00
Wt/t 25m

"Cor= Cordia africana; Ert=Erythrina abyssinica; wt/t= without shade tree; TCPQ=Total cup quality"
"AI=Aromatic intensity; AQ=Aromatic quality; AC=acidity; AS=astringency; BI=bitterness; BD=body; FL=flavors; OAQ= overall quality;
TCPQ=total cup quality"
"The first grade coffee sample was determined as slightly moca and slightly spice flavors as per (JARC, 2008)".
"After the raw and cup quality values summed the grade range will be: 1rst grade =81-100%, 2nd grade =63-80%, 3rd grade =50-62%, 4th grade
=31-
49%"
 62

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Ethiopia is agricultural dependent based on seasonal rain fall chancellor. The pressure from
rapidly growing human population has been directly and indirectly shrinking welfare natural
resources. Deliberate growing of shade trees on farmlands, it is an agroforestry practice, to
sustain environmental biodiversity, production and well ecological condition. However, fertility
of soil and coffee productivity under this system has not been comprehensively evaluated and
properly documented. Indigenous coffee shade tree species, namely ‘Erythrina abyssinica and
Cordia africana’ were carried out on six farmers’ field across PAs in order to investigate the
given treatments’ parameters. Key informants and relevant households were used based on their
age group. The information obtained from the survey, included problem identification and
specially deforestation at mountainous area and afforestation of farm-lands.

In the implementation of shade trees, Erythrina abyssinica was found to have higher significant
value than Cordia africana shade tree with almost all soil and coffee parameters from a given
results; however the dominance of the species in the coffee farm was mainly because of its
economic value, farmers preferred Cordia africana rather than ecological services. It covered
about 60% and 48% of farm-land in Laftorifenso and JingadibuPA while Erythrina abyssinica
covered about 23% and 26% of farm-land in Laftorifenso and JingadibuPA, respectively.

The combined significant regression and correlation of soil with coffee parameters in horizontal
axis were shown. Organic carbon in the soil is more positively and significantly associated than
the other constraint with almost all of coffee parameters followed by total nitrogen. On the
contrary, bulk density is negatively associated with greater part of coffee parameters. These
consequences illustrate the value of organic carbon and total nitrogen in the soil is a vital factor
for almost all of coffee parameters under shaded effect. Bulk density is also another main aspect
of consideration which has an influential factor over a given constraint especially under unshaded
effect of coffee and soil across PAs.

With the exception of available phosphorous and bulk density, all soil properties increased
significantly under the tree canopy than in the open area in both PAs showing decreasing trend
with increasing distance from the tree trunk. However, significant differences in all selected soil
 63

physicochemical properties were observed between tree species as well as between distance layers across
PAs (Appendixes Table 1, 2 and 3).

Almost all the given coffee parameters’ value increased significantly under the tree canopy than
in the open area in both PA showing decreasing trend with increasing distance from the tree
trunk. The study also revealed that the fertility of the soil gradually decreased as the distance

away from the shade tree trunks increased starting from the 2nd layer due to the inputs from

Erythrina abyssinica and Cordia africana tree species. In the 2nd layer, the litters of trees
provided were maintained and the organic matter produced as a result continued to accumulate

under the canopy. The nearest and the farthest layers’ result was indicated less than the 2nd layer
in most parameters of treatments. The variation of layers’ outcomes may be due to accumulation
of litter falls intensity as the distance increased from the shade tree trunks and capability of lateral
roots consumed the litter falls as the distance decreasing from the shade tree trunks.

In a conclusion, Golelcha’s District coffee farm land features deserved a certification as farmers’
integration of coffee with shade can lead to be initiator of sustainable agriculture, organic coffee
producer and promoter of climatic resilience. It needs such a certification because it can show
how other farmers can be resilience to climate change and improved their livelihoods and because
the practice can provide substantial ecosystem services. Many writers expressed their views that
certification approach should be advanced for organic coffee growers and fair traders had to be
provided different price premium which can be offer farmers distinct economic incentives so that
farmers can have a unique ecological standards in order to sustain progressively (Calo and Wise
2005; Raynolds et al ., 2007; Bacon et al ., 2008). Coffee obviously has the highest share in a
country such as Ethiopia’s GDP and coffee growers should be motivated and their
environmentally friendly practice or technology need to be demonstrated to farmers in other
district of Hararghe or part of Ethiopia.

Successively across PAs, in almost all parameters, the best results were at the 2nd layer (3m)
away from the shade tree trunks. This layer was designated to have better effect than the other
layers under both coffee and soil parameters. Based on the investigated effect of treatments, it
can be recommended that remarkable distance of coffee seedling plating area is 3m away from
 64

the shade tree trunks under both shade tree species. However, Cordia africana was prevalent
shade tree over most part of coffee fields. The empirical data obtained thus, confirms that the
best result was found in most parameters of coffee production and physicochemical property of
the soil under Erythrina abyssinica shade tree species across PAs. Therefore, Erythrina
abyssinica shade tree was the more recommended than Cordia africana shade tree based on the
given results.

Convenience of shade tree which was currently being practiced in the area significantly improved
coffee production, soil fertility and livelihood of the people. Therefore, the trees integration in
the farming system is valuable and should be promoted by relevant stakeholders to be regarded
as exemplar for farmers in neighboring districts who had been producing coffee without shade.
This practice should be promoted in most districts of Hararghe that where coffee farmlands
nearly wiped out and have been replacing with Khat. Although the present study indicated that a
substantial contribution of coffee shade trees to soil property and coffee production
improvement, this could not be an end in itself. Much more research work needs to be done in
the following hesitation area of research potential:

The further study should be conducted on nutrient dynamics under the canopy effect to
determine when branch have to be pollarded for off-site uses or in situ soil conservation
activities. Determinations of Erythrina abyssinica feeding habit (crude proteins and total
digestible nutrients) have to be identified for sustainable animal production. Studies regarding the
micro floral population associated with coffee shade trees such as Rhyzobia species and
mycorrhizal fungal associations are of principal importance as the soil improvement under the
tree strength if being correlated with them. The root architectures of tree and photosynthesis
variation needs better investigation due to shade intensity effect.
 65

6. REFERENCES

Abebe Yadessa., Itanna. F., Olso, M. 2001. Contribution of indigenous trees to soil
properties: the case of scattered trees of Cordia africana Lam. in croplands of
western Oromia. Ethiopian. J Nat. Resource 3(2):245–270.

Adugnaw Mintesnot, Nigussie Dechassa and Ali Mohammed. 2015. Association of arabica
coffee quality attributes with selected soil chemical properties: East African Journal
of Sciences (2015) Volume 9 (2) 73-84

Aerts, R., Hundera, K., Berecha, G., Gijbels, P., Baeten, M., Mechelena, M., Hermy, M.,
Muys, B. and Honnay, O. 2011. Semi-forest coffee cultivation and the conservation
of Ethiopian Afromontane rainforest fragments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 261:1034-1041.

Agwanda, C.O. 1999. Flavor an ideal selection criterion for the genetic improvement of

liquor quality in arabica coffee. In: the proceedings of 18th International Scientific
Colloquium on Coffee, (pp.383-389), Helsinki, Finland.

Agwanda, C.O., Baradat, P., Eskes, A.B., Cilas, C. and Charrier, A. 2003. Selection for
bean and liquor qualities within related hybrids of arabica coffee in multi local field
trials. Kenya, Nairobi- Euphytica, 131: 1-14.

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

Anon. 2001. Coffee Processing. Coffee Research Organization, p1- 10, USA.

Barely, M. and Jacquit, M. 1994. Coffee quality. Its case, appreciation and improvement
England, London. In: volume 12(a).
 66

Bayetta, B. 2001. Arabica coffee breeding for yield and resistance to coffee berry disease
(Colletotricum kahawah sp.), Doctoral Thesis, Imperial College Wye University,
London.

Beer, J., Muschler, R., Kass, D. and Somarriba, E. 1998. Shade management in coffee and
cacao plantations. In: Agroforestry Systems 38:139-164. England.

Beer, JW. 1992. Production and competitive effects of the shade trees Cordia alliodora and
Erythrina poeppigiana in an agroforestry system with Coffea arabica. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Oxford, Oxford, England.

Beer, JW.1988. Litter production and nutrient cycling in coffee (Coffea arabica/cacao
plantation profile). England.

Bioscience. 2014(a). Shade coffee update on Disappearing Refuge for Biodiversity. Oxford
University US: Bioscience journal, 64:416-428.

Blake, G.R. 1965. Bulk density. In: C.A. Black (ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Argon.
Port I, No. 9, America society. Agronomist. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
pp.374-379.

Bosselmann, A. S., Dons, K., Oberthur, T., Olsen, C. S., Ræbild, A. and Usma, H. 2009.
The influence of shade trees on coffee quality in smallholder coffee agroforestry
systems in Southern Colombia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 129(3):
253-260.

Bote, AD. and Struik, P.C. 2011. Effect of shade on growth, production and quality of
coffee (Coffea arabica) in Ethiopia. Journal of Horticulture & Forestry
3(11):336-341.

Bouyoucos, G.J. 1962. Hydrometer method improvement for making particle size analysis
of soils. Open journal of soil science. Agronomy, 54: 179-186.
 67

Brady, N.C. and R.R,Weil. 2002. Nature and Properties of Soils. 13th ed. NewYork,
USA.

Calvo, G. and Platen. H. 1996. Cacao-laurel-plátano. Costosy beneficios financieros. Serie

Técnical Informe Técnico. No.264.CATIE, Turrialba, CostaRica.

Cannell, MGR. 1975. Crop physiological aspects of coffee bean yield in USA. a review.
Jour. Coffee Res5: 7–20.

Castillo, ZJ. and López, AR. 1966. Nota sobre el efecto de la intensidad de la luz en la
floración del cafeto. Journal of Horticultural science.

Chamorro, G., Gallo, A. and Lopez, R. 1994. Evaluación económica del sistema
agroforestal caféa sociado con nogal and fertilization upon growth differentiation
balance in Coffea arabica L. USA and Brazil: Island press. Cenicafé 45(4): 164
–170:

Chapman, H.D. 1965. Cation exchange capacity by ammonium saturation. pp 891-901. In:
Black, C.A. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Agronomy part II, No. 9. American
society of agronomy. Madison, WI, USA.

Chege, M.K. 2011. Adapting coffee farming to climate change. Low productivity and
climate change hampering farmers, Coffee Quarterly,16 (2011)9pp.

Coffee Board. 2012. Database on Coffee: Market Intelligence & Statistical Unit Coffee
Board. URL: www.indiacoffee.org.

CTA. 1999. Coffee and Tea Authority of Ethiopia: Cradle of the Wonder Bean Coffea
arabica (Abyssinia). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

EAFCA. 2008. Eastern African Fine Coffee Association, Know your cup: Trainers’ guide.
FineCoffeesBulletin,6(4),Kampala,Uganda.Retrievedfrom:http://www.eafca.org/do
wnloads/newsletters/Vol06_Issue04.pdfnon. (October25, 2014).
 68

Ewel, J. 2006. Species and rotation frequency influence soil nitrogen in simplified tropical
plant communities in USA. Forest ecosystem management Ecol. Appl. 351–360

FAO. 2006a. World reference base for soil resources. A

frameworkfor, international
classification correlation and communication: ISSN 0532-0488. USA.

Ferrell, J. and Cockerill, K. 2012. Closing coffee production loops with waste to ethanol in
Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Energy for Sustainable Development 16(1): 44-50.

Fournier, LA.1988. El cultivo del cafeto (Coffea arabica L.):un enfoque agronómico y
ecofisiológico. Agronomía Costarricense 12(1):131–146.In UK.

Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J.W. 1982. Particle Size Analysis. In: A. Kiute (Ed.) Methods of

Soil analysis Part I. (2nd Ed.), Vol. 9. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, Pp.
383–411.

Geromel, C., Ferreira, L., Davrieux, F. and Guyot, B. 2008. Effects of shade on the
development and sugar metabolism of coffee fruits. Plant Physiology and
Biochemistry, 46: 569-579. In: Juo ASR (Ed) Agriculture and the Environment:
Bridging Food Production and Environmental Protection in Developing Countries,
Pp 117–138. Amer. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. 60. Madison, USA.

Gole, Tm., Denich, M., Demel,T. and Vlek, PLG. 2002. Human Impactson Coffee arabica
Genetic Pools in Ethiopia and the Need for its Insitu Conservation. In: Managing
Plant Genetic Diversity, Rao, R.,A. Brown and M.Jackson (Eds.). CAB
International and IPGRI, pp:237.

Guyot, B., Gueule, D., Manez, JC., Perriot, JJ., Giron, J. and Villain, L. 1996. Influence
altitude diombragesurla qualite deos caféa arabica in Italy. Plantations, recherche,
developpement (Juillet-Aout): 272–283.

Hassen Nesro. 2010. Farmers’ perception and soil fertility status under coffee shade trees
 69

of Daro Labu Woreda, West Hararge zone, Ethiopia. Research Theses pg(48-49).

Havlin, J.L., Beaton, J.D., Tisdale, S.L. and Nilson,W.L. 1999. Soil Fertility and Fertilizer:
An Introduction to Nutrient Management. 6th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle.

Hernández, OR. 1995. Rendimiento y análisis financiero del sistema agroforestal café
(Coffea arabica cv caturra) con poró (Erythrina poeppigiana) bajo diferentes
densidades de laurel (Cordia alliodora). MSc Thesis, CATIE. Costa Rica pg76-98.

ICAFE. 1989. Informe Anual de Labores. Programa Cooperative. Instituto del Café de.
pg22-29. CostaRica.

ICO. 2002. International Coffee Organization. The Global Coffee Crisis: A Threat to
Sustainable Development. URL: www.ico.org.

ICO. 2014. International Coffee Organization. Available: http://www. ico.org.

Idol, T. and Youkhana, A. 2010. Managing Shade Trees for Coffee Can Benefit the Soil.
Hānai‘Ai / The food Provider. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human
Resources, University of Hawai, Manoa.

Illy E. 2002. The complexity of coffee. Scientific American 286 (6): 86–91. [ITC]
International Trade Centre. 2012. The Coffee Exporter’s Guide, 3rded. ITC.

International Coffee Organization, 2001. The Global Coffee Crisis: A Threat to Sustainable
Development, URL: www.ico.org.

ITC. 2002. Coffee an exporter's guide. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO.

Geneva.pp(45-56).

Jaramillo, A. and Valencia, G. 1980. Los elementos climáticos y el desarrollo de Coffea

arabica. Costerica

JARC. 2008. Raw and Cup coffee quality grader and tester of certified team. At Jimma
Agricultural Research Center(2008).
 70

Jiregna, G., Rozanov, A. and Negasha, L. 2005. Trees on farms and their contribution to
soil fertility parameters in Bedessa, Estern Ethiopia. Biol Fertil 42:66–71.

Kamara and Haque. 1992. Kamara CS, Haque I. 1992. Faidherbia albida and its effects on
Ethiopian highland Vertisoils. Agroforest Syst 18:17–29.

Kauffman, G.B. 2005. Ourevery day cup of coffee: the chemistry behind its magic. in USA.
Journal of Chemical Education,82(8):24-43.

Kaye, J.P., Binkley, X Zou. and Parrotta, J.A. 2002. Non-labile 15nitrogen retention
beneath three tree species in a tropical plantation. Soil Sci. Soc.Am. J. 66:612–619.

Kho, R.M., Yocouba, B., Yaye, M. and L. Ikatam. 2001. Separating the Effect of Trees on
crops: the case Faidherbia albida and millet in Niger. 52: 219-238

Kim, J.K., Odeny, D.A. and Mithamo, M.W. 2004. Influence of shade on soils and coffee
yields. Coffee Research Foundation. In: Ruiru, Kenya.

Kufa, T., Yilma, A., Shimber, T., Netsere, A., Taye, E. 2007. Muleta, D., Assefa, F.,
Nemomissa, S., and Granhall, U. 2011. Socioeconomic benefits of shade trees in
coffee production systems in Bonga and Yayu hurumu districts, southwestern
Ethiopia: Farmers’ perceptions. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences
1:39-56.

Lal, R. 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestration for ecol. Manage, in USA. Nationa
acadamy of science-220:242–258.

Landon, J.R. (ed) .1991. Booker tropical soil manual: a handbook for soil survey and
agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Paperback edition. Booker
Tate Ltd: Hong Kong.

Likassa Ebisa. 2014. Effect of Dominant Shade Trees on Coffee Production in Manasibu
District, West Ethiopia. Journal of Science, technology and arts.
 71

Machado, A.1999. Estado actual de las investigaciones sobre el usodela sombra enlos
cafetales in USA. Cenicafé 10(1): 5–15.

Mark, J. 2005. Shade grown coffee and bird friendly coffee: [Accessed, 24, January,
2006].that http://www.thenibble.com/REVIEWS/nutri/matter/organic-coffee4.asp

McARC. 2005. West and East Hararghe farming characteristics. Mechara Agricultural
Research Center (unpublished).pg 1:3.

Mejia, T. November 7, 2007. Farmers Growing Organic Coffee to Overcome the Coffee
Crisis: USA. Coffee profile handout.

MoARD. 2008. Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development. Sustainable Production

and Supply of fine Arabica Coffee to the World. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Mohamedsani Amin. 2014. Effect of harvesting and Postharvest Processing Methods on

The Quality of A Hararghe Coffee (Coffea Arabica L.) Genotype in Mechara,
Eastern Ethiopia. Msc. Thesis pg(42-64).

Montoya, LA., Sylvain, PG. and Amana, R.1961. Effect of light intensity and nitrogen in.
Vetinam: with vol-3.

Morais, H., Caramori, P., Ribeiro, AM., Gomes. JC. and Koguishi, MS. 2006.
Microclimatic characterization and productivity of coffee plants grown under shade
of pigeon pea in Southern Brazil. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 41:5. 763-770.

Muleta, D., Assefa, F., Nemomissa, S. and Granhall, U. 2011. Socioeconomic benefits of
shade trees in coffee production systems in Bonga and Yayu hurumu districts,
southwestern Ethiopia: Farmers’ perceptions. Ethiopian Journal of Education and
Sciences 1:39-56.

Muschler, RG. 2001. Shade improves coffee quality in a sub-optimal coffee-zone of

Costerica. Agroforestry Syst.,51(2):131–139. Naturalness for organic plant
breeding and propagation in Costerica. NJAS- Wageningen and J. Life
 72

Sci.,52(1):85-95.

Nair, PKR., Kang, BT. and Kass, DCL. 1995. Nutrient Cycling and Soil Erosion Control in
Agroforestry Systems. Netherland . press pp(46-67).

Nyberg, G. and Högberg, P. 1995. Effects of young agroforestry trees on soils in on-farm
situations in western Kenya. Agrofor. Syst 32:45–52.

Oelbermann, M., Voroney, R.P., Kass, D.C.L., Schlonvoigt, A.M. 2006. Soil carbon and
nitrogen dynamics using Table isotopes in 19- and 10-year-old tropical agroforestry
systems. Geoderma 130 (3–4), 356–367.

Olsen, S.R. and Sommers, LE. 1982. Phosphorus. In: Page, A.L., R.H. Miller and D.R.
Keeney (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis Part II. Agronomy Monograph No. 9.
American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisc, Pp 403-430.

Osman, M. 2001. Rain fall and its erosivity in Ethiopia with special consideration of the
central highlands.-Bonner Bodenkundl.Abh.,37,249S. Bonn.

Palm, CA. 1995. Contribution of agroforestry trees to nutrient requirements of

intercropped plants. Agroforestry system. 30: 105–124.

Petracco, M. 2000. Organoleptic properties of Espresso coffee as influenced by coffee

botanicalvarieties.In:Sera,T.,Soccol,C.R.,Pandey,A.&Roussos,S.(eds),CoffeeBiotec
hnology and Quality,(pp.347-355), Kluwer academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Powlson, D.S. and gurg, J .2011. Soil organic carbon sequestration, sustainable agriculture
and ecosystem services in France. Policy review 36 (2011), S72-S87

Prasada, R. and Power, J.F. 1997. Soil Fertility Management for Sustainable Agriculture in
Oklahoma State Univ.USA. Lewis Publisher, CRC Press, LLC.356p.

Ramírez, LG. 1993. Producción de café (Coffea arabica) bajo diferentes niveles de
fertilización conysinsombrade Erythrina poeppigiana (Walpers) O.F. Cook. In
 73

Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association, Paia, Hawaii, USA. Westley S B and Powell MH
(eds) Erythrina in the New and Old Worlds, pp 121–124.

Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Cation Exchange Capacity. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keeney,
D.R. (Eds.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part2. Chemical and Microbiological
Properties. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Soil Science Society of America.
Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, Pp 149 – 157.

Sahele Medhin Sertsedingl and Taye Bekele, 2000. Procedures for Soil and Plant
Analysis. National Soil Research Center, EARO Technical Paper No. 74, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

SAS. 2002. Statistical Analysis Systems SAS/STAT User’s Guide Version 9 Cary NC:SAS
Institute Inc. USA.

Schroth, G.J., Lehmann, M. L., Rodrgues, R. and Barrios, E. 2001. Plant- Soil Interactions
in Multi-Strata Agrorestry in the Humid Tropics: (3rd) Published Dordrecht.
Netherlands.

Seyfried, M.S., Rao, P.S.C. 1991. Nutrient leaching from two contrasting cropping systems
in the humid tropics. Trop. Agric. 68, 9–18.

Siebert, SF. 2002. From shade- to sun-grown perennial crops in Sulawesi, Indonesia:
Implications for biodiversity conservation and soil fertility. Kluwer Academic
Publisher. the Netherlands. Biodivers. Conserv.,11(11):1889 –1902.

Siles, P., Harm, JM. and Vaast, P. 2010. Effects of Inga densi flora on the microclimate of
coffee (Coffee arabica L.) and overall biomass under optimal growing conditions in
Costa Rica.AgroforestrySystems78:269-286.

Somarriba, E. Beer, J. and Bonnemann, A. 1996. Arboles leguminosos y maderables como

sombra para cacao: el concepto. Serie Técnica Informe Técnico: No 274. CATIE,
Turrialba, Costa Rica.
 74

Souza, N.H., Goedea, G.M., Brussaard, L., Cardoso, M.I., Duarteb, M., Gomes, C.,
Pulleman, M. 2012. Protective shade, tree diversity and soil properties in coffee
agroforestry systems in the Atlantic Rainforest biome. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 146:179-196.

Steiman, S. 2003. Shade vs. Sun Coffee: A review P Microsoft internet explorer.
www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/1290/basics. htm (January, 2006).

Tadesse H., Negash, L. and Olsson, M. 2001. Millettia ferruginea from South Ethiopia:
Impact on Soil fertility and Maize Growth. Ethiop. J. Agro-forestry sys 46: 9-15.

Tan, lam. 2003: Improvement of coffee quality and sustainability of coffee production pp(a)
project. Agricultural product joint stock company: in Vietnam.

Taye, E. 2001. Report on Woody Plant Inventory of Yayu National Forestry Priority Area.
IBCR/GT. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Thomas, G.W. 1996. Soil pH and Soil acidity. In D.L. Sparks (ed) Methods of Soil
Analysis: Part3 Chemical Methods SSS A Inc., ASA Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, :in
(2013) Journal of soil science and plant nutrition Pp475-490.

Ven, Der. and Vossen, A.M. 2005. A Critical analysis of the agronomic and economic
Sustainability of Organic Coffee Production in Netherland. Experimental
Agriculture, 41(4)

Wakene Negassa and Heluf Gebrekidan. 2003. The Impact of Different Land Use Systems
on Soil Quality of western Ethiopia Alfisols. In: A Paper Presented on an
International Research on Food Security, natural Resource Management and Rural
Poverty Reduction. Through Research for Development and transformation Trop.
Entage 2004 (5-7).

Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of the Digestion method for determining
soil organic matter and a proposed chromic acid titration method. USA
 75

environmental Soil Sci. 37: 29-38.

Weil, RR. and Magdoff, F. 2004. Significance of soil organic matter to soil quality and
health. In: Wei RR, Magdoff F (eds) SOM in sustainable agriculture. CRC press,
Florida, pp 1–43

Willey, RW. 1975. The Use of Shade in Coffee, Cocoa and Tea. Journal of Horticult Abstr
45(12).

Wintgens, J.N. (ed). 2004. Coffee: Growing, Processing, Sustainable Production. A guide
for growers, traders and researchers. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH and Co.KGaA,
Weinheim. Germany.

Wubet, T., Kottke, I., Teketay, D. & Oberwinkler, F. 2003. Mycorrhizal Status of Trees in
Indigenous Dry Afromontane Forests of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology & Management
179, 387-399.

Yeshanew Ashagrie, Tekalign Mamo, and Mats Olsson. 1998. Changes in Some Soil
Chemical Properties under Scattered C. Macrostachyus Trees in the Traditional
Agroforestry System in North-Western Ethiopia. EJNR 1 (2): 215-233.

Yigzaw, D. 2005. Assessment of cup quality, morphological, biochemical and molecular

diversity of (C.arabica L.) genotypes of Ethiopia. PhD thesis: University Free
State.p.97.

Young, A. 2009. Effect of Trees in Soil. Overstory # 61 E-Journal @

www.agroforestry.net . Accessed on 12/6/2009.420pp. agro forestry systems, 51:
131-139.

Yunianto, YD. 1986. Over bearing dieback on arabica coffee. J. Pel. Parkebu, 2(2):60-65.

Zar, JH. 1996. Biostatical Analysis (3rd Ed.). Prentice-Hall International, Inc., USA.

Zebene Asfaw and Göran I. Ågren. 2007. Farmers’ local knowledge and topsoil properties
 76

of agroforestry practices in sidama, s Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems71: 35-48.

77
 78

7. APPENDIXES

Appendix Table 1. Mean values for physicochemical property of the soil as influenced by
distance from the trunk of Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica shade trees in coffee fields
at Laftorifenso and Jingadibu PA, Golelcha District
S o i l Trees 1m 3m 6m Open area
parameters LPA JPA LPA JPA LPA JPA LPA JPA
pH C. africana 5.31 6.50 5.67 6.40 5.57 6.32 5.18 5.89
E. abyssinica 5.79 6.62 5.55 6.52 5.45 6.45 5.05 6.01

Mean* 5.55 a 6.56a 5.61b 6.46b 5.51 b 6.38b 5.11c 5.95c

OC (%) C. africana 2.20 3.09 3.00 3.33 2.74 2.90 2.17 2.21
E. abyssinica 2.96 3.39 3.13 3.62 2.87 3.20 2.30 2.50

Mean* 2.58 b 3.24b 3.07 a 2.81b 3.05c 2.23c 2.35d

3.47a
Av.P (ppm) C. africana 20.21 19.50 16.99 19.58 19.32 21.20 20.94 24.25
E. abyssinica 17.55 20.49 18.98 20.57 21.30 22.19 22.93 25.24

Mean* 18.9 c 20.00c 17.98d 20.08c 20.31b 21.70 21.93a 24.74a

b
C E C C. africana 18.50 25.58 30.67 29.63 28.02 24.63 20.27 18.13
(meq/100g)
E. abyssinica 26.20 27.88 28.70 31.93 26.05 26.93 18.30 20.43

Mean* 22.35b 26.73 29.68a 30.78 27.03b 25.78c 19.28c 19.28 d

b a
N (%) C. africana 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.21
E. abyssinica 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.22

Mean* 0.24b 0.25b 0.27a 0.28 a 0.25b 0.26 b 0.21c 0.22c

Exch.K C. africana 0.45 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.55 0.56 0.45 0.46
(cmol(+)/kg E. abyssinica 0.58 0.63 0.60 0.64 0.51 0.56 0.41 0.45

Mean* 0.52 b 0.63a 0.62a 0.64a 0.53b 0.56b 0.43c 0.45c

SILT (%) C. africana 13.25 15.25 16.42 15.25 16.17 14.25 13.17 12.50
E. abyssinica 16.42 15.08 16.42 15.08 16.17 14.08 13.17 12.33

Mean* 14.83a 15.17a 16.42 15.17 16.17a 14.17 13.17 12.42c

a a b b
Bd (gcm-3) C. africana 0.63 0.56 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.61 0.60
E. abyssinica 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.61 0.57
 79

Mean* 0.59b 0.54 b 0.52c 0.51 c 0.54c 0.51c 0.61a 0.59 a

" Letters that 'a'; 'b' ;'c' and 'd' refers significance difference at (p<0.05) and (p<0.01) level in
horizontal direction based on shade tree and distance effect, and similar letters are indicated
non-significance difference at a given level" and ' C. africana =Cordia africana; E.
abyssinica=Erythrina abyssinica '
" *= mean value; pH=soil pH; OC=organic carbon; Av. P=available phosphorus;
CEC=Cation exchange capacity; Bd=bulk density; Exch. k=exchangeable potassium;
LPA=Laftorifenso PA and Jingadibu PA"
 80

Appendix Table 2: Mean values for physicochemical property of the soil parameters beneath the canopy of Cordia africana and
Erythrina abyssinica trees, and in the nearby open area in coffee fields of Arsi Golelcha.

Soil parameters Canopy zone Open area mean PA mean Grand

Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA Laftorifens Jingadibu Laftorifens Jingadibu mean
Cor Ert Cor Ert o PA PA o PA PA

pH 5.52 5.60 6.41 6.53 5.10 5.95 6.01 6.47 5.95

OC(%) 2.65 2.99 3.11 3.40 2.20 2.35 3.05 3.26 2.88
Av.P( ppm) 18.84 19.28 20.10 21.10 21.90 24.75 19.69 20.60 20.78
CEC(meq/100g) 25.73 26.98 26.60 29.00 19.30 19.28 26.79 27.80 25.19
TN(%) 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.25
Exch.K(cmol(+)/kg 0.55 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.43 0.46 0.59 0.61 0.55
SILT(%) 15.28 16.33 14.92 14.75 13.17 12.50 15.63 14.84 14.68
Bd (gcm-3) 0.56 0.54 0.54 0.51 0.60 0.59 0.54 0.53 0.55
“Ert.=Erythrina abyssinica; Cor=Cordia africana; PA=peasant association, pH=soil pH, OC=organic carbon, Av. P=available
phosphorus, CEC=Cation exchange capacity, Bd=bulk density and Exch. k=exchangeable potassium, and TN=total nitrogen”
 81
Appendix Table 3: Significance level of F value for different soil parameters with respect to distance from the tree trunks and tree species in
Golelcha District (Combined analysis of variance across PAs).
Soil parameters Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA P A Interaction effect
effect
Tree Distance Interaction T r e e Distance Interaction Tree* PA Distance Tree *
effect effect Effect effect Effect effect * PA Dist. *PA
effect
effect effect
pH 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
OC(%) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Av.P( ppm) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
CEC(meq/100g) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TN(%) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Exch.K(cmol(+)/kg 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
SILT(%) 0.0001 0.0001 0.008 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Bd (gcm-3) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

“The normal number which has not ns is significance and highly significance difference ” and “PA=peasant association; pH=soil pH;
OC=organic carbon; Av.P=available phosphorus; CEC=Cation exchange capacity; Bd=bulk density and Exch. k=exchangeable potassium
and TN=total nitrogen”
 82
Appendix Table 4: Comparisons between shade tree effect as well as between shaded and unshaded effect in the value of soil parameters at
t-Test (0.05) significance level indicated by *** in Laftorifenso and JingadibuPA respectively
S o i l Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA
parameters T r e e Difference T r e e Difference
Between Means 95% Confidence Limits Compariso B e t w e e n 95%Confidence Limits
Comparison n Means
pH cor – ert 0.2500 -0.0004 0.5004ns ert – cor 0.24667 0.11920 0.37414***
cor – not 0.8133 0.2534 1.3733*** ert – not 1.16111 1.01859 1.30363***
ert – not 0.5633 0.0034 1.1233*** cor – not 0.91444 0.77193 1.05696***
OC (%) cor – ert 0.2567 0.0399 0.4734*** ert – cor 0.58667 0.41848 0.75486***
cor – not 1.2533 0.7686 1.7380*** ert – not 2.09667 1.90862 2.28471***
ert – not 1.5100 1.0253 1.9947*** cor – not 1.51000 1.32196 1.69804***
Av.P (ppm) not – ert 4.8800 3.2589 6.5011*** not – ert 7.3067 6.9092 7.7041***
not – cor 8.8533 7.2323 10.4744*** not – cor 9.2900 8.8925 9.6875***
ert – cor 3.9733 3.2484 4.6983*** ert – cor 1.9833 1.6278 2.3388***
C E C cor – ert 3.9333 2.3571 5.5095*** ert – cor 4.6000 3.8921 5.3079***
(meq/100g) cor – not 19.5333 16.0088 23.0578*** ert – not 19.2667 18.4752 20.0581***
ert – not 15.6000 12.0755 19.1245*** cor – not 14.6667 13.8752 15.4581***
N (%) ert – cor 0.010000 -0.009917 0.029917ns ert – cor 0.017778 -0.001310 0.036866ns
ert – not 0.136667 0.092130 0.181203*** ert – not 0.100000 0.078659 0.121341**
*
cor – not 0.126667 0.082130 0.171203*** cor – not 0.082222 0.060881 0.103563**
*
Exch.K cor – ert 0.08778 0.03620 0.13935*** cor – ert 0.00333 -0.04211 0.04877ns
(cmol(+)/kg cor – not 0.34778 0.23246 0.46310*** cor – not 0.31000 0.25920 0.36080***
ert – not 0.26000 0.14468 0.37532*** ert – not 0.30667 0.25586 0.35747***
SILT (%) cor – ert 0.0000 -1.0492 1.0492ns cor – ert 0.3333 -0.3069 0.9736ns
cor – not 0.6667 -1.6793 3.0127ns cor – not 5.0000 4.2842 5.7158***
ert – not 0.6667 -1.6793 3.0127ns ert – not 4.6667 3.9509 5.3825***

Bd (gcm-3) not – cor 0.11000 0.02843 0.19157*** not – cor 0.09500 0.05089 0.13911***
not – ert 0.11333 0.03176 0.19490*** not – ert 0.15500 0.11089 0.19911***
cor – ert 0.00333 -0.03315 0.03981ns cor – ert 0.06000 0.02054 0.09946***
“The normal number which has not 'ns' is significance and highly significance difference ” and “PA=peasant association; pH=soil pH;
 83

OC= organic carbon; Av. P=available phosphorus; CEC=Cation exchange capacity; Bd=bulk density ; Exch. k=exchangeable
potassium;TN=total nitrogen”; “ert=Erythrina abyssinica shade tree, cor= Cordia africana shade tree and not =Without shade”
 84

Appendix Table 5: Mean values for different coffee productivity as influenced by distance from
the trunk of Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica shade trees in coffee fields at
Laftorifenso PA, Golelcha District, East Arsi zone.
Treatments Distance from shade tree trunks Open area
1m 3m 6m MVD
Brnch in no. C. africana 140 150 151 147 137
E . 152 154 153 153 139
abyssinica

Mean* 146b 152a 152a 150 138c

Nfpnd in no. C. africana 13 15 14 14 12
E . 15 16 16 16 13
abyssinica

Mean* 14ab 15ª 15ª 15 12c

Ftpnd in no. C. africana 14.00 16.00 15.00 14.67 13.00
E . 15.00 16.00 15.00 15.33 13.00
abyssinica

Mean* 15b 16a 15b 5.00 13c

Alfrt in no. C. africana 28380 33850 31620 31,283 21870
E . 33240 38710 36480 36,143 26730
abyssinica

Mean* 30810c 36280a 34050b 33,713 26730d

Sdwt in no. C. africana 440 447 440 442.33 400
E . 457 454 456 455.67 420
abyssinica

Mean* 448.5a 450.5a 448a 449.00 410b

Dycpt in no. C. africana 13.00 15.00 14.00 14.00 9.00
E . 15.00 17.00 17.00 16.33 12.00
abyssinica

Mean* 14.00c 16.00a 15.50b 15.17 10.22d

Clnc in no. C. africana 1.40 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.00
E . 1.600 1.90 1.80 1.77 1.30
abyssinica

Mean* 1.50c 1.75a 1.65b 1.63 1.10d

Scrn in % C. africana 95.00 93.00 92.00 93.33 86
 85

E . 92.00 90.00 89.00 90.33 84

abyssinica

Mean* 93.50a 91.50b 90.50c 91.83 85d

Sm in % C. africana 12 13 12 12.33 11
E . 12 12 12 12.00 11
abyssinica

Mean* 12b 13a 12b 12.17 11c

Col in % C. africana 12 13 12 12.3 11
E . 12 12 12 12 11
abyssinica

Mean* 12b 13a 12b 12 11c

Odr in % C. africana 10 10 10 10 10
E . 10 10 10 10 10
abyssinica

Mean* Mean* 10a 10a 10 10a

Appendix Table 5: continued------

AI in % C. africana 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.13 3.78
E. abyssinica 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.23 3.1

Mean* 3.6b 4.5a 3.7b 3.68 3.44c

AQ in % C. africana 4 4.1 3.78 3.96 3.73
E. abyssinica 4 4.1 3.78 3.96 3.73

Mean* 4b 4.1a 3.78c 3.96 3.73c

Ac in % C. africana 7.2 7 6.8 7 6.6
E. abyssinica 7.2 7 6.8 7 6.5

Mean* 7.2a 7b 6.8b 7 6.55c

AS in % C. africana 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.23 4.5
E. abyssinica 4 4 4 4.00 4.3

Mean* 4.1b 4.15b 4.1b 4.12 4.4a

BI in % C. africana 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.43 4.6
E. abyssinica 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.57 4.5

Mean* 4.55a 4.5a 4.45a 4.50 4.5a

 86

BO in % C. africana 7.00 7.30 7.10 7.13 6.60

E. abyssinica 7.10 7.20 7.10 7.13 6.60

Mean* 7.05a 7.25a 7.10a 7.13 6.60b

FL in % C. africana 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.23 6.4
E. abyssinica 7 7.4 7.2 7.20 6.3

Mean* 7.1ab 7.35a 7.2b 7.22 6.35c

OAQ in % C. africana 7 7.4 7.2 7.2 6.4
E. abyssinica 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.3 6.4

Mean* 7.1b 7.45a 7.2b 7.25 6.4c

" C. africana =Cordia africana; E. abyssinica=Erythrina abyssinica ; Letters that 'a'; 'b' ;'c'
and 'd' refers significance difference at (p<0.05) and (p<0.01) level in horizontal direction
based on shade tree and distance effect and similar letters are indicated non-significance
difference at a given level"

“Brnch=branch/coffee plant; Nfnd=number of node/coffee branch,; Frtprnd= coffee

fruit/node, Sdwt=thousand seed weight; Dycpt=dry yield of coffee/plant; Clnc =clean
coffee/hectare; scrnsz=screen size of green coffee; Sm=shape and make; Co=color of green
coffee fruit; AI =aromatic intensity of cup test; AQ=aromatic quality of cup test; Ac=acidity of
cup test; AS=astringency of brewed coffee; BI=bitterness of cup test; Bo=body of coffee
beverage ; FL=flavor of coffee beverage; OAQ=overall quality of coffee beverage and
No.=number”

Appendix Table 6: Mean values for different coffee productivity as influenced by distance from
the trunk of Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica shade trees in coffee fields at
JingadibuPA, Golelcha District, Arsi zone.

C o f f e e Shade tree Under tree canopy distance interval Open area

parameters species 1m 3m 6m MVD
Brnch in no. C. africana 179 182 177 179.33 158
E. abyssinica 186 189 184 186.33 165

Mean* 183b 186a 181b 182.83 162c

Nfpnd in no. C. africana 9.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 9.00
E. abyssinica 10.00 12.00 11.00 11.00 9.00
 87

Mean* 10c 12a 11b 10.50 9.00c

Ftpnd in no. C. africana 12.00 13.00 13.00 12.67 10.00
E. abyssinica 13.00 14.00 14.00 13.67 11.00

Mean* 13a 14a 14a 13.17 11b

Alfrt in no. C. africana 21,500.00 25,800.00 23,100.00 23,466.67 15,600.00
E. abyssinica 26,000.00 30,300.00 27,600.00 27,966.67 20,200.00

Mean* 23,750c 28,050a 25,350b 25,716.67 17,900d

Sdwt in no. C. africana 444.00 440.00 444.00 442.67 417.00
E. abyssinica 468.00 464.00 468.00 466.67 441.00

Mean* 456a 452a 456a 454.67 429b

Dycpt in no. C. africana 10.00 11.00 10.00 1.03 0.70
E. abyssinica 12.00 14.00 13.00 1.30 0.90

Mean* 11c 13a 12b 1.17 0.8d

Clnc in no. C. africana 1.00 1.20 1.10 11.00 7.00
E. abyssinica 1.30 1.50 1.40 14.00 10.00

Mean* 1.2c 1.4 a 1.3b 12.50 9d

Scrn in % C. africana 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80
E. abyssinica 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80

Mean* 0.90a 0.90a 0.90a 0.90 0.80b

Sm in % C. africana 12.00 13.00 12.00 12.33 11.00
E. abyssinica 12.00 13.00 13.00 12.67 12.00

Mean* 12b 13a 13a 12.50 12b

Col in % C. africana 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 11.00
E. abyssinica 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 11.00

Mean* 12 a 12a 12a 12.00 11b

Odr in % C. africana 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
E. abyssinica 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

Mean* 10a 10a 10a 10.00 10a

AI in % C. africana 3.90 4.00 3.90 3.93 3.70
E. abyssinica 3.85 4.00 3.90b 3.92 3.65c

Mean* 3.88b 4a 3.90b 3.93 3.68c

 88

Appendix Table 6: Continued …

C o f f e e Shade tree Under tree canopy distance interval Open area
parameters species 1m 3m 6m MVD
AQ in % C.africana 4.20 4.30 4.20 4.23 3.70
E.abyssinic 4.10 4.20 4.10 4.13 3.70
a
Mean* 4.15ab 4.25a 4.15b 4.18 3.70c
Ac in % C.africana 7.50 7.30 7.20 7.33 6.80
E.abyssinic 7.60 7.30 7.30 7.40 6.90
a
Mean* 7.55a 7.30b 7.25b 7.37 6.85c
AS in % C.africana 4.20 4.30 4.30 4.27 4.60
E.abyssinic 4.20 4.30 4.30 4.27 4.70
a
Mean* 4.20b 4.30b 4.30b 4.27 4.65a
BI in % C.africana 4.60 4.60 4.50 4.57 4.20
E.abyssinic 4.60 4.60 4.40 4.53 4.10
a
Mean* 4.60a 4.60a 4.45b 4.55 4.15c
BO in % C.africana 7.20 7.30 7.20 7.23 6.60
E.abyssinic 7.30 7.40 7.20 7.30 6.80
a
Mean* 7.25b 7.4a 7.20b 7.27 6.70c
FL in % C.africana 7.10 7.20 7.30 7.20 6.80
E.abyssinic 7.20 7.40 7.40 7.33 7.00
a
Mean* 7.15b 7.30ab 7.35a 7.27 6.90c
OAQ in % C.africana 7.10 7.70 7.30 7.37 6.90
E.abyssinic 7.20 7.50 7.10 7.27 7.00
a
Mean* 7.15b 7.60a 7.20b 7.32 6.95c

“" C. africana =Cordia africana; E. abyssinica=Erythrina abyssinica; Letters that 'a'; 'b' ;'c'
and 'd' refers significance difference at (p<0.05) and (p<0.01) level in horizontal direction
based on shade tree and distance effect and similar letters are indicated non-significance
difference at a given level"
“Brnc =branch/coffee plant; Nfnd=number of node/coffee branch; Frtprnd= coffee fruit/node;
Sdwt=thousand seed weight; Dycpt=dry yield of coffee/plant, Clnc =clean coffee/hectare;
Scrnsz=screen size of green coffee; Sm=shape and make; Co=color of green coffee fruit,
Od=odor of green coffee fruit; AI=aromatic intensity of cup test; AQ=aromatic quality of cup
test; Ac=acidity of cup test; AS=astringency of brewed coffee; BI=bitterness of cup test;
 89

Bo=body of coffee beverage ; FL=flavor of coffee beverage and OAQ=overall quality of coffee
beverage”.
"Erythrina=Erythrina abyssinica shade tree; Cordia=Cordia africana shade tree;
Without-T=coffee without shade and no. =number"
 90

Appendix Table 7: Mean values of coffee productivity beneath the canopy of Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica
trees, and in the nearby open area at coffee fields of the site

Coffee Canopy zone- PA of: Open area- : PA mean Grand

parametrs Laftorifenso Jingadhibu Laftorifenso Jingadibu Laftorifens Jinga mean
Cord Ertr Cord Ertr
PA PA o PA dibu PA
Brnch in no. 147.00 153.00 179.33 186.33 138.00 161.50 146.00 175.72 160.86

Nfpnd in no. 14.00 16.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 9.00 14.00 10.00 12.00
Ftpnd in no. 14.67 15.33 12.67 13.67 13.00 10.50 14.33 12.28 13.31

Alfrt in no. 31,283 36,143 23,467 27,967 26,730 17,900 31,386 23,111 27,248

Sdwt in no. 442.33 455.67 442.67 467 410.00 429.00 436.00 446.11 441.06

Dycpt in no. 14.00 16.33 10.33 13.00 10.22 8.00 13.52 10.44 11.98

Clnc in no. 1.50 1.77 1.10 1.40 1.10 0.85 1.46 1.12 1.29
Scrnsz in %. 93.33 90.33 90 90 85.00 0.80 89.55 87 45.21

Sm in %. 12.33 12.00 12.33 12.67 11.00 11.50 11.78 12.17 11.97

Co in % 12.30 12.00 12.00 12.00 11.00 11.00 11.77 11.67 11.72

Od in % 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

AI in% 4.13 3.23 3.90 3.93 3.44 3.65 3.60 3.83 3.71

AQ in % 3.96 3.96 4.23 4.13 3.73 3.70 3.88 4.02 3.95

 91

Ac in % 7.00 7.00 7.33 7.40 6.55 6.85 6.85 7.19 7.02

AS in % 4.23 4.00 4.27 4.27 4.40 4.65 4.21 4.40 4.30

BI in % 4.43 4.57 4.57 4.53 4.50 4.15 4.50 4.42 4.46

Bo in % 7.13 7.13 7.23 7.30 6.60 6.70 6.95 7.08 7.02

FL in % 7.23 7.20 7.20 7.33 6.35 6.90 6.93 7.14 7.04

OAQ in % 7.20 7.30 7.37 7.27 6.40 6.95 6.97 7.20 7.08

"Brach=branch/coffee plant; Nfnd=number of node/coffee branch; Frtprnd= coffee fruit/node; Sdwt=thousand seed weight;
Dycpt=dry yield of coffee/plant; Clnc =clean coffee/hectare; scrnsz= screen size of green coffee; Sm=shape and make;co=color of
green coffee fruit; Od=odor of green coffee fruit; AI=aromatic intensity of cup test; AQ=aromatic quality of cup test; Ac=acidity
of cup test; AS=astringency of brewed coffee; BI=bitterness of cup test; Bo=body of coffee beverage; FL=flavor of coffee beverage
; OAQ=overall quality of coffee beverage and no.=number”
 92
Coffee Laftorifenso PA Jingadibu PA PA Interaction effect
parameters Tree Distance Interaction Tree Distance Interactio effect tree effect Distance Tree
effect effect effect n effect * PA effect* effect*
effect effect
effect PA Distance
effect effect*PA
effect
Brnch in no. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Nfpnd in no. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Ftpnd in no. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Alfrt in no. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Sdwt in no. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Dycpt in no. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Clnc in no. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Scrnsz in %. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Sm in %. 0.05 0.008 0.05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Co in % 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Od in % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AI in% 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
AQ in % 0.01 0.01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Ac in % 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
AS in % 0.0001 0.004 0.0001 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
BI in % 0.0004 0.001 0.02 0.7 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Bo in % 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
FL in % 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
OAQ in % 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Appendix Table 8: Significance level of F values in coffee parameters with respect to the distance from shade tree trunk and tree species at
Golelcha District (Combined analysis of variance across PAs).

Appendix Table 9: Comparisons between shade trees effect as well as between shaded and unshaded effect in the value of coffee parameters
 93
at t-Test (0.05) significance levels at the study area indicated by ***
Coffee parameters Tree Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA
Comparison Diff. b/n Means 95% Confidence Limits Diff. b/n Means 95% Confidence Limits
Brnch in no. Ert----- Cor 0.5000 0.2594 0.7406*** 1.4000 0.8531 1.9469***

Ert----- not 3.0000 2.7310 3.2690*** 5.0000 4.3886 5.6114***

Cor---- not 2.5000 2.2310 2.7690*** 3.6000 2.9886 4.2114***

Nfnd in no. Ert----- Cor 3.3333 2.1791 4.4875*** 1.5556 0.9243 2.1868***

Ert----- not 6.3333 5.0429 7.6238*** 2.5556 1.8498 3.2613***

Cor---- not 3.0000 1.7096 4.2904*** 1.0000 0.2942 1.7058***

Ftpnd in no. Ert----- Cor 0.6667 0.2140 1.1194*** 2.00 0.9545 3.0455***

Ert-----not 3.3333 2.8272 3.8395*** 6.00 4.8311 7.1689***

Cor---- not 2.6667 2.1605 3.1728*** 4.00 2.8311 5.1689***

Alfrt in no. Ert----- Cor 9.727 6.681 12.774*** 9.0646 7.5851 10.5440***

Ert----- not 23.699 20.292 27.105*** 20.1473 18.4933 21.8014***

Cor---- not 13.971 10.565 17.378*** 11.0828 9.4287 12.7368***

Sdwt in no. Ert----- Cor 3.1778 2.2674 4.0881*** 4.8000 4.2202 5.3798***

Ert----- not 8.7333 7.7155 9.7511*** 7.5667 6.9185 8.2149***

Cor---- not 5.5556 4.5378 6.5734**** 2.7667 2.1185 3.4149***

 94
Dycpt in no. Ert----- Cor 5.3889 3.9598 6.8180*** 5.3667 4.6909 6.0424***

Ert----- not 12.2778 10.6800 13.8756*** 10.1944 9.4390 10.9499***

Cor---- not 6.8889 5.2911 8.4867*** 4.8278 4.0723 5.5833***

Clnc in no. Ert----- Cor 0.5878 0.4171 0.7584*** 0.5667 0.5015 0.6319***

Ert----- not 13.1722 11.2644 15.0801*** 11.1056 10.3765 11.8346***

Cor---- not 7.2944 5.3866 9.2023*** 5.4389 4.7099 6.1679***

Scrnsz in % Ert----- Cor 0.056667 0.04706 0.066270*** 0.003333 -0.007984 0.014651ns

3
Ert----- not 0.166667 0.15593 0.177404*** 0.080000 0.067346 0.092654***
0
Cor---- not 0.110000 0.09926 0.120737*** 0.083333 0.070680 0.095987***
3
Sm in % Ert----- Cor 0.3333 -0.2366 0.9033ns 0.93333 0.74016 1.12651***

Ert----- not 0.5667 -0.0706 1.2039ns 1.55000 1.33402 1.76598***

 95
Appendix Table 9. Continued …
Coffee parameters Tree Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA
Comparison Diff. b/n Means 95% Confidence Limits Diff. b/n Means 95% Confidence Limits
Cor---- not 0.9000 0.2628 1.5372*** 0.61667 0.40069 0.83265***
Co in % Ert----- 0.3667 0.0913 0.6420*** 0.2000 -0.0183 0.4183ns
Cor
Ert----- not 0.7000 0.3921 1.0079*** 1.4000 1.1559 1.6441***

Cor---- not 1.0667 0.7588 1.3745*** 1.2000 0.9559 1.4441***

AI in % Ert----- 0.03333 -0.1210 0.18769ns 0.1000 -0.1297 0.3297ns

Cor 2
Ert----- not 0.61667 0.44409 0.78924*** 0.7333 0.4765 0.9902***

Cor---- not 0.65000 0.47743 0.823*** 0.6333 0.3765 0.8902***

AQ in % Ert----- 0.00000 -0.1568 0.157ns 0.06667 -0.04422 0.17756ns

Cor 2
Ert----- not 0.46667 0.29133 0.642*** 0.96667 0.84269 1.09065***

Cor---- not 0.46667 0.2913 0.642*** 1.03333 0.90935 1.15731***

Ac in % Ert----- 0.13333 -0.0587 0.325ns 0.10000 -0.06165 0.26165ns

Cor 4
Ert----- not 0.73333 0.51859 0.948*** 1.10000 0.91927 1.28073***

Cor---- not 0.86667 0.65193 1.081*** 1.00000 0.81927 1.18073***

As in % Ert----- 0.36667 0.2386 0.495*** 0.10000 -0.06479 0.26479ns

Cor
Ert----- not 0.60000 0.456 0.743*** 0.70000 0.51576 0.88424***

Cor---- not 0.23333 0.09017 0.376*** 0.80000 0.61576 0.98424***

 96
BI in % Ert----- 0.03333 -0.1405 0.207ns 0.02222 -0.04224 0.08669ns
Cor 3
Ert----- not 0.40000 0.20561 0.594*** 0.00000 -0.07208 0.07208***

Cor---- not 0.36667 0.17228 0.561*** 0.02222 -0.04985 0.09430***

Bo in % Ert----- 0.00000 -0.1753 0.175ns 0.2667 0.0325 0.5008ns

Cor 3
Ert----- not 1.13333 0.93730 1.329*** 1.2333 0.9716 1.4951***

Cor---- not 1.13333 0.93730 1.329*** 0.9667 0.7049 1.2284***

FL in % Ert----- 0.2133 0.0009 0.426*** 0.36556 0.18437 0.54675***

Cor
Ert----- not 1.4667 1.229 1.754*** 0.93333 0.73076 1.13591***

Cor---- not 1.6800 1.4425 1.9175*** 0.56778 0.36520 0.77035***

 97

Appendix Table 9. Continued …

Coffee parameters Tree Laftorifenso PA JingadibuPA
Comparison Diff. b/n Means 95% Confidence Limits Diff. b/n Means 95% Confidence Limits
OAQ in% E r t - - - - - 0.2133 0.0009 0.4258ns 0.0667 -0.1904 0.3238ns
Cor
Ert----- not 1.43111 1.20989 1.65234*** 0.8333 0.5459 1.1208***

Cor---- not 1.51667 1.29544 1.73789*** 0.7667 0.4792 1.0541***

 98

“The normal number which has not 'ns' is significance and highly significance difference; Brnc =branch/coffee plant; Nfnd=number
of node/coffee branch; Frtprnd= coffee fruit/node; Sdwt=thousand seed weight; Dycpt=dry yield of coffee/plant; Clnc =clean
coffee/hectare; scrnsz=screen size of green coffee; Sm=shape and make; Co=color of green coffee fruit; Od=odor of green coffee
fruit; AI=aromatic intensity of cup test; AQ=aromatic quality of cup test; Ac=acidity of cup test; AS=astringency of brewed coffee;
BI=bitterness of cup test; Bo=body of coffee beverage ; FL=flavor of coffee beverage ;OAQ=overall quality of coffee beverage
No.=number”.
 99
Appendix Table 10: Regression and Correlation Coefficients of Laftorifenso PA with combination of soil and coffee parameters.

Brnch Nfnd Ntpnd Alfrt Sdwt Dycpt Clnc Snsz SM Co in AI in AQ AC in AS in BI in BO in FL in OAQ in

in No. in No. in No. in No. in in No. in No. in % in % % % in % % % % % % %
No.
pH-r 0.68b ns 0.43b ns 0.60b ns ns 0.89a ns 0.66b 0.74a 0.63b 0.88a -0.43b 0.62b 0.72a 0.66b 0.63b

R2 0.44b ns Ns ns ns ns ns 0.45b ns 0.40b 0.52b 0.37b 0.76a ns ns 0.44b 0.35b ns

OC –r 0.91a 0.77a 0.86a 0.85a 0.87a 0.86a 0.86a 0.73a 0.45 0.76a 0.83a 0.76a 0.68b -0.63b 0.73b 0.90a 0.80a 0.82a

R2 0.82a 0.57b 0.72a 0.70a 0.75a 0.72a 0.45b 0.57b ns 0.55b 0.67b 0.55b 0.43b ns 0.51b 0.76a 0.57b 0.62b
P –r -0.55b -ns -ns -ns -0.45 -ns -ns -0.91a -ns -0.78a -0.68b -0.68 -0.88a ns -0.45b -0.59b -0.58b -0.53b
b b
R2 ns ns 0.59b 0.49b ns ns ns ns ns 0.59b 0.43b 0.44b 0.76a ns ns ns ns ns
CEC 0.89b 0.61b 0.84a 0.72a 0.72a 0.71a 0.70b 0.90a 0.63b 0.82a 0.84a 0.70b 0.71a -0.43b 0.67b 0.85a 0.84a 0.85a
–r
R2 0.71a 0.34b ns 0.49b 0.49b 0.47b 0.46b 0.79a ns 0.65a 0.68a 0.46b 0.48b ns 0.42b 0.66b 0.64a 0.71a

TN-r 0.85a 0.74a 0.83a 0.80a 0.81a 0.80a 0.81a 0.73a 0.63b 0.71a 0.76a 0.78a 0.68b -0.53b 0.72a 0.83a 0.74a 0.80a

R2 0.70a 0.52b 0.68b 0.62b 0.63b 0.61b 0.62b 0.51b ns 0.48b 0.55b 0.58b 0.43b ns 0.49b 0.66b 0.50b 0.70a
Silt-r -0.85a 0.55b 0.72a ns 0.75a 0.67b 0.65b 0.78a ns 0.70a 0.68b 0.48b 0.61b -0.65b 0.57b 0.77a 0.76a 0.77a
r2 0.60b 0.27b 0.49b 0.39b 0.54b 0.42b 0.39b ns ns 0.46b 0.44b ns 0.34b 0.39b ns 0.50b 0.50b 0.60b
BD-r -0.85a -0.76a -0.86a -0.82a -0.70 -0.79a -0.80a -0.72a -ns -0.62b -0.88a -0.54 ns 0.62b ns -0.82a -0.78a -0.81a
a b
R2 0.64b 0.56b 0.72a 0.65b 0.61b 0.46b 0.60b 0.49b ns ns 0.75a ns ns 0.36b ns 0.62b 0.54b 0.64b

Exch_ -0.85a 0.46b 0.68b 0.58b 0.66b 0.59b 0.59b 0.89a 0.48b 0.92a 0.78a 0.74a 0.78a ns 0.64b 0.78a 0.77a 0.75a
K–r
R2 0.56b ns 0.44b ns 0.41b ns ns 0.77a ns 0.83a 0.59b 0.52b 0.58b ns 0.38b 0.55b 0.54b 0.56b

"b=significance difference at (p<0.05) level and a= highly significance difference at (p<0.01) level; r=correlation, R2=Regression”; “pH=soil
pH; OC=
organic carbon; Av.P=available phosphorus; CEC=Cation exchange capacity; BD=bulk density and Exch.k=exchangeable potassium.” “Brnc
=
branch/coffee plant; Nfnd=number of node/coffee branch; Frtprnd= coffee fruit/node; Sdwt=thousand seed weight; Dycpt=dry yield of
coffee/plant; Clnc =clean coffee/hectare; Scrnsz=screen size of green coffee; Sm=shape and make; Co=color of green coffee fruit; Od=odor of
green coffee fruit; AI=aromatic intensity of cup test; AQ=aromatic quality of cup test; Ac=acidity of cup test; AS=astringency of brewed coffee;
BI=bitterness of cup test; Bo=body of coffee beverage ; FL=flavor of coffee beverage and OAQ=overall quality of coffee beverage.”
 100

Appendix Table 11: Regression and Correlation Coefficients at Jingadibu PA with combination of soil and coffee parameters
Brnch Nfnd Ntpnd Alfrt Sdwt Dycpt Clnc Snsz SM in Co in AI in AQ AC AS in BIi BO FL in OAQ
in No. in No. in No. in No. in No. in No. in No. in % % % % in % in % % n% in % % in %
pH-r 0.91a 0.45b 0.83a 0.80a 0.81a 0.79a 0.80a 0.87a 0.76a 0.85a 0.72a 0.89a 0.92a -0.79 ns 0.86a 0.75a 0.59b
a
R2 0.82a ns 0.67b 0.61b 0.64b 0.74a ns ns ns 0.71a 0.49b 0.77a ns 0.60b ns 0.73a 0.54b ns
Oc –r 0.92a 0.70a 0.78a 0.90a 0.78a 0.89a 0.90a 0.86a 0.87a 0.92a 0.83a 0.88a 0.75a -0.77 -ns 0.91a 0.75a 0.55b
a
R2 0.84a 0.47b 0.58b ns 0.58b 0.78a 0.79a 0.71a 0.74a 0.82a 0.67b ns 0.54b 0.57b ns 0.81a 0.54b ns
Av.P –r -0.82a -ns -0.63b -0.63 -0.50b 0.56b -0.60 -0.87a -0.53 -0.78 -0.69 -0.94 -0.87 0.85a ns -0.81 -0.52 -0.50b
b b a a b a a a b
R2 0.65b ns 0.37b 0.38b ns 0.31b ns 0.73a ns 0.59b 0.44b 0.87a 0.74a 0.71a ns 0.64b ns ns
CEC-r 0.94a 0.77a 0.77a 0.93a 0.74a 0.90a 0.91a 0.87a 0.84a 0.87a 0.82a 0.88a 0.72a -0.70 ns 0.90a 0.72a 0.578b
a
R2 0.88a 0.57b 0.57b ns 0.51b 0.79a 0.81a 0.75a 0.69b 0.75a 0.65b 0.76a 0.49b 0.47b ns 0.80a 0.49b ns
TN –r 0.68b 0.75a 0.85a 0.66b 0.83a 0.81a 0.88a 0.84a 0.92a 0.79a 0.86a 0.59b -0.76 ns 0.82a 0.75a 0.61b
0.84a a
R2 ns 0.44b 0.54b 0.71a 0.40b 0.66b 0.67b 0.76a 0.68b 0.84a 0.60b 0.72a ns 0.55b ns 0.65b 0.54b ns
Silt-r 0.88a 0.48b 0.70b 0.73a 0.60b 0.69b 0.70a 0.87a 0.62b 0.80a 0.77a 0.93a 0.89a -0.85 ns 0.85a 0.60b 0.55b
a
R2 0.76a ns 0.45b 0.51b nsNs 0.45b 0.46b 0.75a ns 0.62b 0.56b 0.86a 0.78a 0.71a ns 0.71a ns ns
BD –r -0.83a -0.70 -0.73a -0.86 -0.76a -0.85a -0.86 -0.72a -0.77 -0.69 -0.70 -0.72 -0.56 0.51b ns -0.80 -0.7a -0.70a
a a a a b a a b a
R2 0.67b 0.47b 0.51b 0.72a 0.56b 0.71a 0.72a 0.48b 0.57b 0.44b 0.47b 0.49b ns ns ns 0.61b 0.53b 0.46b
Exch.K 0.87a 0.53b 0.64b 0.73a 0.61b 0.69b 0.71a 0.81a 0.63b 0.79a 0.76a 0.89a 0.87a -0.78 ns 0.59b 0.45b
–r b 0.88a
R2 0.75a ns 0.38b 0.51b ns 0.45b 0.48b 0.67b ns 0.60b 0.55b 0.77a 0.7a 0.58b ns 0.77a ns ns

"b'=significance difference at (p<0.05) level and 'a'= highly significance difference at (p<0.01) level; r=correlation, R2=Regression” No.=number
“pH=soil pH; OC=organic carbon; Av.P=available phosphorus; CEC=Cation exchange capacity; BD=bulk density and Exch.k=exchangeable
potassium”
“Brnc =branch/coffee plant; Nfnd=number of node/coffee branch; Frtprnd= coffee fruit/node; Sdwt=thousand seed weight; Dycpt=dry yield of
coffee/plant; Clnc =clean coffee/hectare; scrnsz= screen size of green coffee; Sm=shape and make; Co=color of green coffee fruit; Od=odor of
green coffee fruit; AI=aromatic intensity of cup test; AQ=aromatic quality of cup test; Ac=acidity of cup test; AS=astringency of brewed coffee;
BI=bitterness of cup test; Bo=body of coffee beverage ; FL=flavor of coffee beverage and OAQ=overall quality of coffee beverage”.
 101

Appendix Table 12: Scale of raw and cup quality attributes for grading purpose

Scale and Raw quality value from 40% Scale and cup quality value from 60%
Shape and Color Odor (10) Aromatic Aromatic Acidity (10) Astringency B itterness Body (10) Flavor (10) Over all
make (15) (15) quality (5) intensity (5) (5) (5) quality
quality pt quality Pt quality pt Quality p quality p Quality pt Quality Pt Quality p Quality Pt Quality Pt Quality
t t t
v.good 1 Bluish 1 Clean 1 Excellen 5 V.stron 5 Pointed 1 Nil 5 Nil 5 Full 1 V.good 1 Excellent
5 5 0 t g 0 0 0
Good 1 Grayish 1 F a i r 8 v.good 4 strong 4 M.pointe 8 V.light 4 V.light 4 M.full 8 Good 8 v.good
2 2 clean d
F a i r 1 Greenis 1 Trace 6 Good 3 medium 3 Medium 6 Light 3 Light 3 Mediu 6 Average 6 Good
good 0 h 0 m
Averag 8 Coated 8 Light 4 Regular 2 light 2 Light 4 Medium 2 Mediu 2 Light 4 Fair 4 Regular
e m
Mixed 6 Faded 6 Moderat 2 Bad 1 V.light 1 Lacking c 2 Strong 1 Strong 1 V.light 2 Bad 2 Bad
e
Small 4 White 4 Strong 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 V.strong 0 V.stron 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 unaccept
g able

"Typicity is an after taste aromatic quality that could be wine, moca, fruity, spicy and flora over all standard is evaluated based on
the other attributes (Aromatic Quality, Acidity, Body and Flavour)" "m. =medium; v. =very; pt=point"
 102

8. QUESTIONNAIRES

Title: Evaluation of Coffee (Coffea arabica) Production and selected physicochemical

property of Soil under Cordia africana and Erythrina abyssinica trees in Arsi Golelcha
District, Oromiya, Ethiopia.

Enumerator’s Name____________________________________

Date of interview_____________________________

Section One: General Information

1) Name of the District____________________

2) Name of Peasant Association (Kebele) _________________
3) Name of Village___________________________
4) Name of the interviewee_____________________________
5) Sex and age of interviewee
Appendix Table 13: Questioners
-Age category Me Fe
12 farmers <25 Years old, Who can be describe his environmental
condition yet.
12 farmers <45) Years old, Who can be describe his environmental
condition yet.
12 farmers <65) Years old, Who can be describe his environmental
condition yet.
Total 36 farmers

6) Educational level of interviewed farmer: a) Illiterate b) Primary school c) Secondary

school
7) What is the primary source of the income of the family?
8) Farming, b) livestock husbandry, c) other________________
9) Average land holding of the interviewed farmer

9).1. For cultivation in ha (local unit) ___________________

 103

9).2. For grazing in ha (local unit) _______________________________

9).3. For Plantation (Area covered by trees) in ha (local unit) _______

9).4. for coffee plantation

10) What is the distance of the nearest market center in km/hrs? ______________

Section Two: on farm trees and coffee shade trees (related to bio-physical)

1) Is there tree on your farm land? a) Yes, b) no

2) If yes, what is the trend of tree coverage in your farm land till now? a) Increasing, b)
decreasing, c) no change

a) Increasing (factors)_____________________________________________

b) Decreasing (factors) _____________________________________________

3) What is the trend of tree coverage now days in your mountainous areas?

a) Increasing(factors)______________________________________

b) decreasing(factors)_______________________________________

4) Have you used coffee with shade? a, yes b, no.

5) List the type of shade tree Species on your coffee farm land?

6) What is the extra use of shade trees on your coffee farm land?

a) Soil conservation against soil erosion, b) Soil fertility enhancement

c) Fodder for animals (cut & carry), d) for fuel wood and other wood requirements, e)
wind break (shelter belt, f) Boundary demarcation.

g) For human food production, h) for other purposes___________________

 6

7) Have you managed shade trees available on your farm? a) Yes, b) no

*. If the answer for Q-7 is yes, what type of management?

Appendix Table 14: Questioners

Management Practiced O n Season (dry/wet
? (yes/no) which season)
species
Pollarding
Thinning
Pruning
R o o t
pruning
Other

8) Have you practiced intercropping with coffee plantation? a) Yes, b) No

9) If yes, what type of crop and in what stage of coffee plantation?

Appendix Table 15: Questioners

cereal crop pulse and F o r a g e At young of coffee Through the life of
oil crop species coffee

10) What are your sources of seedlings?, a) Your own nursery, b) Government Nursery

c) Local seedling dealers, d) Market at distance, e) Natural regeneration, f) Others_

11) What are the problems with regard to shade tree planting and management?
 6

a) Lack of seedling and seeds, b) Low survival rate of planted seedlings.

c) Lack of species that are needed by the local people.
d) Lack of water and of planting sites e) Ownership problems
f) Others_________________?

12) List tree/shrub species you want/intend to plant and planting in your coffee farm?

13) Select the more you prefer coffee shade tree, why? __________________

14) Do you think there is soil fertility difference under the canopy of tree and outside the
canopy? ____________________.

15) What do you feel about the weather inside your farm under tree or Agroforestry
System? as compared to open land?, (Cooler, warmer, medium).

16) Why farmers are preferred shade to coffee plantation?

17) What is your perception about coffee shade trees effects for local climate and
Agroecology?

18) Do you know the main reason that farmers used shade for coffee plantation? in this
district than neighbor district?----------------------------

19) What is the role of shade trees for coffee production?

20) Do you know the best distance of coffee plantation away from the shade tree trunks?

21) In what distance do you plant coffee plantation that away from the shade tree
trunks?

Thank you!
 6

Appendix figure 1: Physical yield of coffee plant had been recorded and dried
then taken to JARC for quality analysis

When Coffee branches were selected and the beans were harvested from farmer’s field
under selected coffee shade tree species, and dried, recorded, packed then had been
going to JARC for further quality analysis issue.
 6

Appendix figure 2: Dried Coffee beans were processed starting from the initial
testing steps of row quality analysis to an end of cup quality analysis.

When dried Coffee beans were processed starting from the initial testing steps of row
quality analysis to an end of cup quality analysis by JARC cup liquors panelist.
 7

Appendix Figure 3: The process of Soil sample taken from farmers’ field and taken
HU soil laboratory for further analyzetion.

When Soil sample was taken from farmers’ field under selected coffee shade tree
species and had been taken to HU soil laboratory then soil parameters were
 6

analyzed.