Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE
12- November-11
INTRODUCTION
Background and Justification
(Woldegabriel, 2002)
12- November-11
INTRODUCTION ..
As times & fashions change, new spp. emerge, old
are
INTRODUCTION ..
Wrong trees for wrong place, in towns (Costello,
1993; Bradshaw et al., 1995; Harris et al., 1999).
This
Objectives
12- November-11
12- November-11
Methods
12- November-11
The
type
12- November-11
Cross
sectional
area:
Is
the
diameter
squared
&
Location
class(%):
12- November-11
Simple
random
sampling
(sample
110,
comprises 5% )
Data collection
Secondary data: reviewed first
Primary
data:
(survey,
Key
Data analysis
Descriptive(qualitative /quantitative)
12- November-11
informant
Species distribution
A total 336 trees, 39 spp., under 31 families
Among 13 of them (33%) were edible fruit, 22 (56%)
ornamental trees, & others.
Results
Results.
and Disc.
12- November-11
Ornamental trees
C.equisetifo
lia
C.citrinu
s
C.lusitani
ca
12- November-11
S.nilotica
T.catap
a
A.exels
a
M.azedara
ch
M.indic
a
P.reclina
ta
H.rosasinesis
J.mimo
sifolia
Tree value
Table 4: Values of 11 trees, analyzed using the formula
method
components
Scientific Name
Phoenix reclinata
CSA
(m2)
0.068
CV
SC
(birr /m2) (%)
4.563
1
CC LC
(%) (%)
0.8 1
Melia azedarach
0.070
4.677
0.8 0.8
Spathodea nilotica
0.080
5.380
0.8 0.6
Hibiscus rosa-sinesis
Terminalia catappa
Jacaranda mimosifolia
Casuarina
equisetifolia
Araucaria excelsa
Cupressus lusitanica
Mangifera indica
Callistemon citrinus
0.049
0.028
0.071
0.032
3.290
1.903
4.777
2.144
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.4
TV
(birr)
0.24
8
0.21
0
0.20
7
0.046
0.024
0.024
0.015
0.017
0.020
0.017
0.020
1.106
1.327
1.139
1.347
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.012
0.010
0.005
0.004
12- November-11
high value
C. citrinus has lower value than others b/c 40% rate,
60%
location
&
60%
state
of
health
undervalued(0.004)
All multiple factor values of tree differences were
12- November-11 at 5% level
MSc Thesis
Forestry
significant
in .....Urban
the city
landscape
followed by
Spathodea nilotica, (58%)
12- November-11
Species
Respondents (R1-R8)
R R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
1
Melia azedarach
8 7 7
7
8 8
Phoenix reclinata 8 8 7
7
6 8
Spathodea nilotica 6 7 7
7
8 8
Araucaria excelsa 5 6 7
5
3 2
Terminalia
6 5 7
6
5 6
catappa
Cupressus
6 5 4
6
4 5
lusitanica
Casuarina
5 4 5
5
4 5
equisetifolia
Hibiscus rosa4 5 2
4
5 5
sinesis
12- November-11
Jacaranda
2MSc Thesis
3 .....Urban
3
3Forestry
4 5
To Ra
R7 R8 tal nk
8
8
7
7
6
8
7
8
3
5
61
59
58
48
46
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40 6th
37 7th
34 8th
29 9th
(82.5%),
shade
(81.5%),
fencing
12- November-11
pedestrian
12- November-11
Lack of awareness
Lack of space
Poor silviculture
management
Shortage of seed/seedlings
35
Lack of skilled manpower
35
Conflict with infrastructure
34
Free grazing
33
Uniformity of the species
21
Wrong tree selection
18
Policy issue
16
Lack of budget
14
Lack of responsible
13
person/org.
12- November-11size at maturity
MSc Thesis .....Urban10
Forestry
Maximum
32.1
32.1
31.8
30.3
19.3
16.5
14.5
12.7
11.8
9.3
Conclusion
12- November-11
Recommendation
participation
private
sectors
&
in mitigating climate
12- November-11