Farmer preferred traits and genotype choices in Solanum aethiopicum L., Shum group

Abstract

Background
Solanum aethiopicum L. is a nutrient dense African indigenous vegetable. However, advancement of its improved varieties that can increase productivity, household income, and food security has not been prioritized. Further still, studies on some of the crops that have been worked have indicated that it is not a guarantee that the improved varieties will be accepted by the end users and therefore there is need to identify and profile what genotypes are of interest to farmers and their preferred traits through inclusive participatory evaluations.

Methodology
Farmer participatory evaluations were conducted to profile farmers’ traits of interest and preferred genotypes. A total of 24 genotypes were established in three replications in 6 farms in 3 districts; Wakiso, Mukono, and Luwero as these are the major producing districts of the vegetable in Uganda. A total of 177 sex-disaggregated farmers were engaged in scoring the genotypes for pest, disease and drought tolerance, general appeal, leaf yield, leaf texture, and seed yield for best 10 genotypes under each variable.

Results
Non-significant differences in trait (p > 0.05) and genotype preferences (p > 0.05) were obtained between men and women. The most desired farmer traits were seed and leaf yield, followed by pest and disease resistance. The overall preferred genotype in terms of disease and pest resistance, leaf yield, leaf texture, and seed yield were E12 followed by E11.

Conclusion
Gender does not seem to influence farmer choices for the S. aethiopicum, Shum group, indicating an opportunity for single variety prototype advancement by breeders and dissemination by seed companies.

Full text

R E S E A R C H Open Access
Farmer preferred traits and genotype
choices in Solanum aethiopicum L., Shum
group
Brenda Nakyewa
1
, Godfrey Sseremba
1*
, Nahamya Pamela Kabod
1
, Moses Rwothtimutung
1
, Tadeo Kyebalyenda
1
,
Kenneth Waholi
1
, Ruth Buteme
1
, Mildred Julian Nakanwangi
1
, Gerard Bishop
2*
and Elizabeth Balyejusa Kizito
1*
Abstract
Background: Solanum aethiopicum L. is a nutrient dense African indigenous vegetable. However, advancement of
its improved varieties that can increase productivity, household income, and food security has not been prioritized.
Further still, studies on some of the crops that have been worked have indicated that it is not a guarantee that the
improved varieties will be accepted by the end users and therefore there is need to identify and profile what
genotypes are of interest to farmers and their preferred traits through inclusive participatory evaluations.
Methodology: Farmer participatory evaluations were conducted to profile farmers’traits of interest and preferred
genotypes. A total of 24 genotypes were established in three replications in 6 farms in 3 districts; Wakiso, Mukono,
and Luwero as these are the major producing districts of the vegetable in Uganda. A total of 177 sex-disaggregated
farmers were engaged in scoring the genotypes for pest, disease and drought tolerance, general appeal, leaf yield,
leaf texture, and seed yield for best 10 genotypes under each variable.
Results: Non-significant differences in trait (p> 0.05) and genotype preferences (p> 0.05) were obtained between
men and women. The most desired farmer traits were seed and leaf yield, followed by pest and disease resistance.
The overall preferred genotype in terms of disease and pest resistance, leaf yield, leaf texture, and seed yield were
E12 followed by E11.
Conclusion: Gender does not seem to influence farmer choices for the S.aethiopicum, Shum group, indicating an
opportunity for single variety prototype advancement by breeders and dissemination by seed companies.
Keywords: African indigenous vegetables, Farmer trait preferences, Variety adoption
Background
African eggplant (Solanum aethiopicum L.) [1] is classi-
fied into four morphological groups based on use
namely Gilo, Shum, Kumba, and Aculeatum [2,3]. Gilo
and Shum are cultivated for their fruits and leaves, re-
spectively. Kumba is cultivated for both fruits and leaves
while Aculeatum is ornamental. The Gilo group is glo-
bally cultivated while Shum is most common in Uganda
[4], Nigeria, and Cameroon. In Uganda, the Shum group
is locally known as ‘Nakati’where it earns livelihood to
over 4,000,000 people in urban and peri-urban areas. In
this study, we focused on the Shum group (leafy type)
which is culturally, nutritionally, and economically inte-
grated with several communities in Uganda; and the
crop has in previous studies been referred to as African
eggplant Shum, Solanum aethiopicum Shum, S.aethiopi-
cum Shum or simply Shum by Sseremba et al. [5–8]
© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the
data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
* Correspondence: gsseremba16@gmail.com;Gerard.Bishop@niab.com;
lkizito08@gmail.com
1
Department of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science and
Technology, Uganda Christian University Mukono, P.O. Box 4, Mukono,
Uganda
2
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, East Malling Research, Kent, UK
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-021-00455-y
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

who suggested this naming based on works of Adeniji
et al. [2,3]. To emphasize, the Shum group being a leafy
vegetable, is cultivated for its leaves which are used as a
necessary accompaniment to staple foods in Africa con-
tributing a rarely appreciated food and nutrition security
especially for vulnerable populations [9,10]. S. aethiopi-
cum is much appreciated bitter flavor which is preferred
for sauce to go with banana cake (matoke) in Buganda.
Culturally, it is associated with widely held beliefs in
marriage ceremonies.
S. aethiopicum being an AIV has received less atten-
tion in research and productivity is low. Among the
causes of low productivity include drought susceptibility
[5,6], pests and diseases, limited access and availability
of quality seed, and high post-harvest deterioration [11,
12]. Development and advancement of improved var-
ieties can increase productivity, household income, and
food security [13]. For example, improved potato var-
ieties in Nepal yielded more than the local varieties (15.4
ton/ha and 13.1 ton//ha) [14,15]. However, it is not al-
ways obvious that farmers will adopt the improved var-
ieties; therefore, it is important to engage them as end
users during the variety development and evaluation
process [16].
A number of factors may account for a low adoption
of new varieties; this is because the interests of the
breeders or researchers may not match famers’prefer-
ences since they are always multivariate in nature [17].
For example, when improved potato varieties that are
tolerant to diseases and highly yielding were developed
in Ethiopia, the adoption rate was only 23% and this was
probably because yield was not the only trait of prefer-
ence by farmers [18]. While there is ready market for S.
aethiopicum, farmers may not necessarily or rapidly
adopt improved varieties unless fronted genotypes meet
market’s interests [14,19]. Further, the major variety se-
lection criteria for vegetable breeders are pest and dis-
ease resistance, yield and taste preference; however,
these are non-exhaustive and may not be applicable to
understand location specific preferences [20]. This sce-
nario creates a challenge to breeders to always work with
the end users right from definition of breeding goals
through variety development and testing as well as feed-
back [20,21].
Participatory variety evaluations (PVE) bring together
in a field setting to rank traits of importance such as
yield, quality traits, resistance to pest, and disease resist-
ance [20]. PVEs enable breeders have a deeper under-
standing of traits that are relevant to both the farmers
for informing breeding goals [22,23]. PVEs underpin
optimistic changes in farmers’perceptions and willing-
ness to adopt the new varieties as their subjective prefer-
ences for instance in relation to gender for the specific
characteristics maybe considered during the breeding
process [24]. Considering gender in PVE or gender dis-
aggregated participatory plant breeding is also key in
order to take care of the varied preferences [25]. For ex-
ample, when evaluating millet varieties in Botswana,
women’s traits of interest were yield, early maturity and
ease of hand harvesting while men only considered yield
and quality of the straw [24]. Kolech et al. [20] also
noted that, when evaluating potato varieties in Ethiopia,
men participants were more concerned with market re-
lated traits while women attached importance to suit-
ability of sequential harvesting. Limited information is
available for S. aethiopicum, Shum group on farmer pre-
ferred traits and genotypes. This study therefore focused
on identifying preferred leaf morphological traits and
profiling S. aethiopicum, Shum group genotypes pre-
ferred by the farmers. The research questions asked were
(i) which S. aethiopicum, Shum group genotypes meet
farmer expectations and why? (ii) What are the farmers’
S. aethiopicum, Shum group preferred traits and why?
Materials and methods
Study area and target population
The study was conducted in central Uganda in the dis-
tricts of Wakiso (longitude 00
o
24′N, Latitude 32
o
32′E),
Luwero (longitude 00
o
50′N, Latitude 32
o
30′E), and
Mukono (longitude 00
o
20′N, Latitude 32
o
45’E). The
three districts were selected because they are the leading
S.aethiopicum producing areas in Uganda [19]. This
area is dominated by the Baganda tribe. All the areas re-
ceive bimodal rainfall with rain peaks in months of
March and November. The study purposively selected
small-scale farmers who typically grow S.aethiopicum as
a vegetable or seed or both. S.aethiopicum in Uganda is
typically grown by small scale farmers whose holdings
average 2 acres.
Study design
A mixed methods approach was used to get genotype
preferences from the different African eggplant farmers.
Quantitative data was collected by farmers physically
evaluating plots with different genotypes. Qualitative
data was then collected sex disaggregated focus group
discussions to get the elaborations for the farmers’traits
of preference [26].
Sampling method and sample size
Multistage sampling was used in the study. Purposive
sampling was used to obtain the leading districts and
farmer groups in each district for S.aethiopicum, Shum
group vegetable production. Cluster sampling was then
applied whereby commercial farmers (both men and
women) were separately selected from each farmer
group to participate in the study. A total of 177 farmers
participated in the evaluation process. Six key
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 2 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

informants (a man and a woman from each district) who
were lead commercial farmers were purposively selected
and six sex disaggregated focus group discussions were
conducted (two from each location).
Field layout and planting
Six fields per district with three replications were used
to grow 24 different S. aethiopicum Shum group geno-
types. The study genotypes have previously been de-
scribed for morphological distinctiveness by Sseremba
[12]. Each plot per field had four rows with a spacing of
60 cm between rows and 30 cm within rows. Evaluations
were made on the two middle rows. Fields in Wakiso
and Luwero were planted in August 2019 while that in
Mukono was planted in November 2019, due to relative
differences in onset of the rains for planting.
Data collection
Genotype selections
At vegetative stage of crop growth between the seventh
and eighth week after planting, the farmers were en-
gaged in individual selection by ranking their best ten
performing genotypes out of 24. Ranking was based on
farmer perceptions of damage by pests and disease, leaf
yield, general appeal, drought resilience, and seed yield.
Field participatory evaluation sessions were guided by
researchers and consisted of 10 farmers per group. Each
group evaluated all plots, and thereafter they were disag-
gregated by gender to form new focus group discussions
over their selections.
Farmers traits of preference
Sex disaggregated focus group discussions of not more
than 10 participants were conducted (2 per location) to
get an in-depth understanding of farmer preferences to
get farmers traits of interest in S. aethiopicum. Farmers
mentioned important traits for fresh leaf produce and
for seed. Information on how they decide during selec-
tion was also picked. Further, two key informant inter-
views of lead farmers (a man and a woman) per
location were also conducted. A lead farmer in this
study was one who had grown the vegetable every year
for at least 10 years. Farmers mentioned the key traits
they use to identify their ideal Nakati vegetable. They
also identified common pests and diseases that attack S.
aethiopicum and how they were controlling them. The
traits were then grouped into vegetable production and
market preferences. Vegetable production traits in-
cluded pest and disease resistance, drought tolerance
while market preferences included general appeal, leaf
yield, and leaf texture.
Data analysis
Farmer genotype preferences
Scores made by the individual farmers on disease resist-
ance, pest resistance, drought tolerance, general appeal,
leaf yield, leaf texture, and seed yield were entered in
MS-Excel (2016) and exported to GenStat 12th edition
for Ftest on farmer preferences at 5% significance level.
Mean squares of farmer scores were computed to get re-
lationships and interactions between location, gender,
and genotype. Cross tabulations were then used to get
variety preferences per location and overall preferences.
The overall mean of the six attributes was computed
and the overall (average) preference score of a given
genotype was estimated. The best ten farmers’overall
genotype preferences were got by getting the mean of
the first and second scores for each parameter and then
getting the mean of means. Using the overall mean, then
10 best ranked (scored) genotypes were considered.
Farmers traits of preference
Qualitative data was recorded verbatim, transcribed, and
coded. Themes on traits of preference were used to
identify traits preferred by men and those preferred by
women. Themes on traits for vegetable production, seed
production, market preferences, and common pests and
diseases were also made.
Results
Participant characteristics
Seventy-nine farmers from Luwero district (39 men and
40 women), 38 from Wakiso (15 men and 23 women),
and 60 from Mukono (19 men and 41 women) partici-
pated in the study (Fig. 1). Participants mentioned that
S. aethiopicum is a nutritious sauce that is prepared even
on ceremonial functions. “Although we have other vege-
tables, S. aethiopicum is the most fronted side sauce on
functions such as graduation parties and wedding cere-
monies.”Male key informant—Mukono.
Farmers’genotype preferences
Location, gender, and genotype effects
There was a very highly significant difference between
genotypes (p< 0.01) for all parameter preferences, and
location by genotype preferences (p< 0.001) (Table 1).
Choices between men and women, however, were non-
significant (p> 0.05). As detailed in Table 3, E12
emerged the overall most preferred by participants (30
participants) followed by E11 (24 participants), E15 (19
participants), E9 and E18 (14 participants), E1 (13 partic-
ipants), E4 and E2 (12 participants), E7H and E14GP (11
participants).
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 3 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Location specific preferences
In Luwero District, E12 emerged the most preferred for
being disease resistant (Table 2), pest resistant, highest
leaf yield, and favorable leaf texture, while E11 was
scored as most vigorous and E5 was the highest seed
yielding genotype. The overall most highly scored geno-
type in Luwero District was E12 followed by E11 as
shown in Table 2. In Wakiso District, E1 was scored the
most disease resistant genotype. E6 was the most pest
resistant, E12 was ranked the most vigorous, E12 was
the most leaf yielding, favorable leaf texture was E12,
and the highest scored genotype for seed yield was E2.
The overall most preferred genotype in Wakiso District
was E12 followed by E1, E2, and E4. In Mukono District,
E12 was the most scored as a disease resistant genotype,
E15 was scored the most pest resistant, E11 was the
most vigorous, and E12, E11, and E18 were scored the
most leaf yielding. For texture preference, E12 was the
most scored and E15 was scored the most seed yielding
genotype. The overall preferred genotype in Mukono
District was E12 followed by 15 and E11.
Genotype selections per trait
Disease resistance score For disease resistance, partici-
pants scored E12 as the most resistant followed by E11,
E1, E18, E15 and E9, E4, E14GP, E7H, and E2 as number
10. Under the second-choice score, the best genotypes
were E12, E15, E11, E4, E18 and E1, E2, E9, E14GP, and
E7H. Getting the mean of the first and second scores,
E12 became the most disease resistant followed by E11,
E15, E1, E18, E4, E9, E2, E14GP, and E7H took the tenth
position (Table 3).
Fig. 1 Number of participants per district
Table 1 Mean squares of farmer scores for the different variables considered among genotypes across test locations
Source of variation d.f DRS PRS PVS LYS LPS SYS
Location (L) 2 2.45 1.10 2.21 0.24 1.11 0.72
Gender (S) 1 2.08 0.19 11.44 8.90 0.16 0.06
Genotype (G) 23 34.97*** 26.42*** 62.38*** 35.50*** 27.99*** 19.46***
L × S 2 1.43 1.17 2.63 0.68 1.47 0.45
L × G 46 18.48*** 16.18*** 17.37*** 16.55*** 14.76*** 22.21***
S × G 23 9.61 8.07 9.47 6.27 10.12 4.79
L × S × G 46 7.52 8.62 6.48 8.65 8.91 5.82
Error 2702 7.84 7.76 7.70 7.86 7.92 7.95
DRS disease resistance score, PRS pest resistance score, PVS general appeal score, LYS leaf yield score, LPS leaf preference score, SYS seed yield score
***Significance at 0.01 error margin
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 4 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Pest resistance score E12 was ranked number 1 by 30
participants as being the most pest tolerant, followed by
E15, E11, E7H, E9, E18 and E1, E14GP, and E4 and E2.
Under the second choice, E11 and E15 were second best
followed by E12, E18, E7H, E14GP, E1, E2, E9, and E4
was the tenth. Considering the mean for the first and
second scores, E12 was ranked the most persistent
followed by E15, E11, E7H, E18, E9 and E14GP, E1, E2
and E4 score the tenth position.
General appeal (plant vigor score) Genotypes with the
highest scores were E12 (58 participants) followed by
E11, E15, E6 and E7H, E9, E4, E19, and E3H and E3S.
Under second choice score, the best genotypes were
E11, E15, E12, E18, E7H, E14GP, E9, E2, E4, and lastly
E1. The mean score of the two scores ranked E11 as the
best vigorous followed by E12, E15, E7H, E9 and E18, E4
and E14GP and E1 as the tenth preferred genotype.
Leaf yield score E12 received the highest score as the
best choice for the highest leaf yield (58 participants)
followed by E11, E18, E9, E4, E7H, E14GP (11 partici-
pants), E15, E1, and E2. For the second choice, E11 re-
ceived the highest score (29 participants) followed by
E15, E12, E1, E18, E2, E14GP, and E9, E4, E7H. Taking
mean scores, E12 emerged most selected (34 partici-
pants) followed by E11, E15and E18, E9, E1, E14GP, E4
and E7H, and E2.
Leaf texture preference scores Genotypes that received
the highest number of participants that scored them as
best were E12 (35 participants) followed by E11, E9, E15,
E14GP, E1, E7H and E4, E18 and E2. Under the second-
choice score, the best scored genotypes were E12 (30
participants), E15, E11 and E9, E4, E18 and E2, E1, E7H)
and E14GP. The mean score of the two scores ranked
E12 as the most preferred followed by E11, E15, E9,
E14GP, E4, E1 (11 participants), E18 and E2, and E7H
was scored tenth.
Seed yield scores The E2 genotype received the highest
number of participants that scored it as the best seed
yielding variety (15 participants). This was followed by
E12 and E18, E15 and E1, E4, E7H, E14GP, E9, E11). For
genotypes that were ranked as the second-choice score,
E2 received the highest number of participants (23 par-
ticipants), followed by E1, E9 and E4, E14GP and E15,
E11 and E12, E7H, and E18. Getting the mean of the
first and second scores, E2 received the highest number
of participants (19 participants) followed by E2, E4, E9,
E15, E12 (13 participants), E14GP, E18, E11, and E7H.
Ranking of important traits by farmers in S. aethiopicum
Shum group
During the focus group discussion, a list of leaf mor-
phological traits was mentioned that included leaf
size, number of leaves, general appeal, damage by pest
and disease, time. Thirty-five per cent of the farmers
preferred a genotype with high seed yield in S. aethio-
picum Shum group production (Fig. 2). These found
it more profitable to grow for seed rather than for
vegetable leaf in the market. “Although the seed mar-
ketisstilllow,Ipreferagenotypethatgivesmore
seed yield because the profit from seed is more than
Table 2 Farmers’genotype preferences based on selected plant
attributes at Luwero, Wakiso, and Luwero districts in Uganda
Geno name Disease Pest Vigor LYS LPS SYS Overall
Luwero
E12 20 14 19 19 13 7 15
E11 14 11 20 17 11 4 13
E15 12 10 12 8 10 5 9
E9 10 7 6 4 10 5 7
E7H 6 8 10 5 7 4 6
E14GP 8 6 4 7 5 4 5
E3S 5 7 9 5 4 4 5
E19 9 6 4 7 5 1 5
E5 1 6 2 4 3 17 5
E18 6 5 7 5 4 3 5
Wakiso
E12 4 3 10 8 9 3 6
E1 13 6 2 2 5 4 5
E2 5 5 4 2 4 9 5
E4 7 3 5 4 3 6 5
E11 5 3 9 4 4 2 4
E6 1 7 7 5 3 3 4
E18 8 2 2 4 2 3 3
E20 0 1 6 6 4 3 3
E3S 2 1 5 5 4 2 3
E14GP 1 3 5 2 4 3 3
Mukono
E12 12 9 11 8 11 3 9
E15 6 10 10 6 6 7 7
E11 7 8 13 8 6 2 7
E18 7 8 5 8 4 5 6
E13 8 5 4 7 6 3 5
E14G 6 5 5 6 4 6 5
E3H 5 7 6 7 4 4 5
E8 6 8 4 5 5 5 5
E9 3 3 5 6 6 7 5
E16 3 6 4 4 7 5 5
LYS leaf yield score, LPS leaf preference score, SYS seed yield score
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 5 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the vegetable.”—male key informant, Mukono. For
this reason, these farmers selected vegetables that
were highly branching or that grew tall. The potential
for high seed yield perceived as the more the branch-
ing,themorefruitsborne.“We prefer the branched
variety that grows tall because it gives more seed
yield”—women FGD Luwero. 23.5% of the farmers
grew the vegetables for leaf production and leaf yield
was important. They mentioned that highly branching
genotypes and plant height were important traits in
selecting such vegetable lines. “We prefer a variety
that gives so many branches and grows tall because
the more the branches, the more the leaves and the
more income.”—women FGD, Mukono.
This was followed by pest resistance (11.8%). “When
pests attack the plant, they eat leaves and stalks and
they do not grow again reducing leaf and seed
yield.”—female key informant, Mukono. Furthermore,
“Management of the pests is expensive and therefore
we get low profits.”—men FGD, Wakiso. Farmers also
mentioned that seed which is infested does not ger-
minate. “Seed that affected by fruit rot does not ger-
minate and once a buyer takes, they will never buy
from you again.”—female FGD, Wakiso. Furthermore,
infested vegetables are also not bought on the market.
Common pests mentioned by participants included
maggots, grasshoppers, lady bird beetle, cut worm,
aphids, monkeys, spider web, caterpillar, and mites.
Participants (7.8%) also liked disease resistant geno-
types since diseases affect the quantity and quality of the
yield. Common diseases mentioned by farmers that
attacked S. aethiopicum included fruit rot, wilt, and leaf
spot. Participants (7.8%) liked S. aethiopicum Shum with
a good taste (the one that is not bitter).
Early maturity was also a trait mentioned by partici-
pants (5.9%). They preferred a variety that takes a
shorter time to mature (6 weeks for the vegetable and 12
weeks for seed). Farmers (3.9%) also liked a genotype
that takes a short time (3 to 4 min) to get ready when
cooked.
Table 3 Overall performance of all evaluated genotypes based on average number of farmers choosing a genotype as their first
and second priority in respect to selected plant attributes
Genotype Disease Pest Vigor Leaf yield Leaf texture Seed yield Overall
1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean 1 2 Mean
E12 44 27 36 30 20 25 58 22 40 49 19 34 35 30 33 14 11 13 30
E11 26 24 25 18 25 22 47 35 41 27 29 28 25 16 21 4 11 8 24
E15 20 26 23 20 25 23 19 24 22 10 21 16 17 20 19 12 13 13 19
E9 20 13 17 16 9 13 14 11 13 13 11 12 20 16 18 7 19 13 14
E18 22 17 20 13 14 14 7 19 13 17 15 16 7 12 10 14 6 10 14
E1 24 17 21 13 11 12 7 6 7 7 17 12 12 10 11 12 21 17 13
E4 16 19 18 9 8 9 13 7 10 11 11 11 8 13 11 10 19 15 12
E2 11 16 14 9 10 10 8 10 9 6 14 10 7 12 10 15 23 19 12
E20 5 10 8 6 8 7 8 13 11 15 13 14 15 8 12 12 19 16 11
E3S 8 11 10 9 8 9 11 22 17 16 11 14 9 12 11 6 11 9 11
E14GP 13 10 12 11 14 13 8 12 10 11 13 12 13 8 11 8 13 11 11
E7H 127 10 171416 151515 111111 8 9 9 9 7 8 11
E19 8 18 13 10 11 11 12 6 9 13 11 12 8 8 8 16 10 13 11
E5 635 12911 555 677 91010 321926 10
E10 7 10 9 4 12 8 8 8 8 10 9 10 12 8 10 19 14 17 10
E8 11 8 10 14 11 13 5 9 7 11 13 12 7 9 8 13 13 13 10
E13 10 16 13 7 10 9 5 12 9 10 10 10 8 12 10 8 8 8 10
E14G 8 5 7 9 7 8 5 10 8 13 11 12 5 9 7 12 11 12 9
E3H 9 7 8 101111 111212 111011 123 8 5 4 5 9
E6 8 7 8 161114 151113 4 139 5 5 5 9 4 7 9
E7S 555 767 3117 777 846 181617 8
Local check 3 2 3 12 9 11 4 5 5 8 5 7 5 11 8 18 12 15 8
E16 6 7 7 7 14 11 4 6 5 9 8 9 7 11 9 10 7 9 8
E17GP 7 7 7 6 9 8 10 9 10 7 8 8 7 9 8 8 6 7 8
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 6 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Figure 2also indicates that drought tolerance was
among the traits which farmers wished to have (3.9%).
“One of the major constraints to S. aethiopicum produc-
tion is drought and this has greatly affected yield be-
cause the general appeal is poor.”—men FGD, Mukono.
To women, irrigation was a burden, “the water sources
are far and so irrigation is a very big challenge to us and
therefore we shall be glad to get a genotype that is
drought resistant.”—women FGD, Wakiso.
Discussion
Farmers genotypes of preference
E12 had the highest score for diseases and pest tolerance,
vigor, leaf yield, and leaf texture. This genotype showed
no sign of disease and pest infestation in all farmer fields.
Whereas E12 had the best rank, an earlier sensory taste by
consumers gave a feedback that the genotype is bitter (un-
published data). It is perceived to be culturally degrading
to beneficiaries and unethical issue by researchers to ad-
vance a non-palatable, poor taste, or low-quality food item
in society. This consequently leaves us with options to for-
ward E11 and E15 as the farmers’choices. The criteria on
taste- and visual-based choice presents a disconnect be-
tween consumer and farmer goals. During key informant
interviews, other traits such as cooking time and time to
maturity emerged to be of interest by the farmers. Com-
mon diseases mentioned by farmers that attacked S.
aethiopicum were not differing from findings by Dinssa
et al. [25] on common pests for S. aethiopicum. Partici-
pants mentioned that pests affect the yield and quality of
both the vegetable and seed.
Farmer preferred traits
Seed yield came out as the most important trait as it
was mentioned by majority of the participants. Partic-
ipants mentioned that they preferred a genotype that
gave high seed yield because growing for seed was
more profitable than the vegetable. Preference for
seed yield created another need for seed market link-
ages. Farmers also preferred genotypes that gave
many branches and grew tall since many branches
yield more fruits and hence much seed. This is cor-
roborated by findings of Jameson and Song [27]who
reported that branching had a positive correlation
with seed yield. Abady et al. [28]andBanlaetal.[29]
studies on farmer ground nut trait preferences in
Ethiopia and Togo, respectively, also indicated a posi-
tive correlation of branching with seed yield.
Farmers also preferred a genotype that yields many
and wide leaves as this would be the best for commercial
vegetable production. This relates to Adeniji and Aloyce
[30] and Diallo et al. [31] findings on farmer preferences
for Ethiopian mustard and sorghum in Ethiopia and
Mali, respectively. The vegetable market also prefers
wide leaves [19] and therefore farmers prefer a variety
that will have a ready market.
The disease and pest resistance traits were liked be-
cause pests affect the quality of the vegetable leaves,
hence attracting low prices. Farmers also incur a lot
of expenses managing the pests and diseases cumulat-
ing on the cost of production. This trait is similar to
the characteristics preferred by Sorghum farmers in
Zimbabwe [32].
Fig. 2 Relative preference of different S.aethiopicum traits by farmers
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 7 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Farmers’preference for drought tolerant genotypes
was because drought lessens the vigor of the plant affect-
ing its yield [4,5]. This is in agreement with farmer
traits of preference for rice varieties in Kenya [33]. The
finding also relates to farmer preferences for ground nut
and cowpea varieties in Togo and Namibia [29,34]. To
women, drought is a major challenge because they find
it hard to fetch water for irrigation since most of the
fields are not near sources of water.
Taste was also a desired trait because the market pre-
fers mild bitter taste (tasty or good taste) genotypes and
imperatively farmers like the trait since they produce for
the market. Farmers are also the first market for the veg-
etables and therefore preferred a genotype with a good
taste [35]. In addition to that, a soft genotype was pre-
ferred by farmers because it takes a short time to cook.
Conclusion
There were no differences in traits and genotypes of S.
aethiopicum, Shum group preferred by men and women.
The most considered farmer traits are seed and leaf
yield, followed by pest and diseases resistance. The over-
all preferred genotype in terms of disease and pest resist-
ance, leaf yield, leaf texture, and seed yield were E12
followed by E11. Whereas E12 emerged the best overall
based on visual scores, its taste may not be liked by con-
sumers. Aside from E12, the most preferred genotype
was the green genotype (E11) for market and the purple
genotype (E15) for personal consumption. This shows a
mismatch between consumer and farmer preferences
hence a need for a keener understanding of perceptions
across the value chain. Thus, sensory evaluations should
always accompany visual observations because genotypes
excelling for physical/visual attributes may not meet the
sensory preferences.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13002-021-00455-y.
Additional file 1. Initial conditional approval.
Additional file 2. Final approval.
Additional file 3. Copy of farmers consent form.
Additional file 4. Study tools.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to farmers who participated in the evaluations for their time,
knowledge and information. Special thanks also go the Ms. Aisha Atine for
her support in the set up and maintenance of the field trials and during the
data collection process. The mixed methods strategy opted was based on
skills gained during a short course on ‘Gender-Responsive Responsive
Researchers Equipped for Agricultural Transformation (GREAT)’organized by
Makerere University and Cornell University with funding from Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. This study was funded by the Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) GCRF SASSA initiative grant
number BB/R020655/1.
Authors’contributions
BN participated in designing the data collection tools, collecting data,
analysis and drafting of the manuscript. GS contributed in setting up the
trials, designing the data collection tools, analysis, and writing the
manuscript. NPK set out the field trials, participated in the data collection
process and drafting the manuscript. MR, TK, and KW were involved in
setting out trials, supervised their management, collected and did data entry.
RB participated in setting up the trials and drafting of the manuscript. MJN
did the general administration and supervision of the study and also
contributed in drafting the manuscript. GB and EBK conceived the study,
participated in its designed and coordination, and helped to design the
manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The study was funded by BBSRC GCRF SASSA initiative, grant no. BB/
R020655/1.
Availability of data and materials
The data can be availed on request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study protocols were approved by Uganda Christian University Research
Ethical Committee (UCU REC) chaired by Professor Peter Waiswa. Further,
consent was sought from farmers who volunteered their information. The
initial condition approval (S1) and final approval (S2) letters from UCUREC, as
well as copy of farmer’s consent form (S3) and study tools (S4) are included
as supplementary files.
Consent for publication
Not applicable since the study only involved adults and no other person’s
data was used.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 29 August 2020 Accepted: 25 March 2021
References
1. Lester RN. Taxonomy of scarlet eggplants, Solanum aethiopicum L. Acta
Hortic. 1986;182:125–32.
2. Adeniji OT, Kusolwa PM, Reuben SO. Genetic diversity among accessions of
Solanum aethiopicum L. groups based on morpho-agronomic traits. Plant
Genet Res. 2012;10(3):177.
3. Adeniji OT, Kusolwa P, Reuben SW. Morphological descriptors and micro
satellite diversity among scarlet eggplant groups. Afr Crop Sci J. 2013;21(1):
37–49.
4. Sseremba G, Kabod NP, Katwijukye Kasharu A, Nkalubo Jaggwe J, Masanza
M, Balyejusa KE. Diversity and distribution of African indigenous vegetable
species in Uganda. Int J Biodivers Conserv. 2017;9(11):334–41.
5. Sseremba G, Tongoona P, Eleblu JS, Danquah EY, Kaweesi T, Baguma Y,
et al. Stability of Solanum aethiopicum Shum accessions under varied water
deficit stress levels and identification of pertinent breeding traits for
resistance to water shortage. Euphytica. 2018;214(1):1–11.
6. Sseremba G, Tongoona P, Eleblu J, Danquah EY, Kizito EB. Heritability of
drought resistance in Solanum aethiopicum Shum group and combining
ability of genotypes for drought tolerance and recovery. Sci Hortic. 2018;
240:213–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.06.028.
7. Sseremba G, Tongoona P, Eleblu JS, Danquah EY, Kizito EB. Linear
discriminant analysis of structure within African eggplant ‘Shum’. Afr Crop
Sci J. 2018;26(1):37–48. https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v26i1.3.
8. Sseremba G, Tongoona P, Yaw Eleblu JS, Yirenkyi Danquah E, Kabod NP,
Balyejusa KE. Morphological distinctiveness between Solanum aethiopicum
Shum group and its progenitor. J Plant Breed Crop Sci. 2017;9(8):118–29.
9. Apolot MG, Acham H, Ssozi J, Namutebi A, Masanza M, Jagwe J, et al.
Postharvest practices along supply chains of Solanum aethiopicum (shum)
and Amaranthus lividus (linn) leafy vegetables in Wakiso and Kampala
Districts, Uganda. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2020;20(3):15978–91.
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 8 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

10. Dweba TP, Mearns MA. Conserving indigenous knowledge as the key to the
current and future use of traditional vegetables. Int J Inf Manag. 2011;31(6):
564–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.02.009.
11. Ojiewo C, Tenkouano A, Hughes JD, Keatinge JD. Diversifying diets: using
indigenous vegetables to improve profitability, nutrition and health in
Africa. Diversifying food and diets: Using agricultural biodiversity to improve
nutrition and health. Earthscan. 2013;1:291–302.
12. Sseremba G. Genetic Diversity and breeding of Solanum aethiopicum Shum
group for drought tolerance. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghana). 2019.
13. Cernansky R. Super vegetables: long overlooked in parts of Africa,
indigenous greens are now capturing attention for their nutritional and
environmental benefits. Nature. 2015;522(7555):149–52.
14. Diouf M, Gueye M, Samb PI. Participatory varietal selection and agronomic
evaluation of African eggplant and roselle varieties in Mali. Eur Sci J. 2017;
13(30):327–40. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n30p327.
15. Kafle B, Shah P. Adoption of improved potato varieties in Nepal: a case of
Bara District. J Agric Sci. 2012;7(1):14–22.
16. Danial D, Parlevliet J, Almekinders C, Thiele G. Farmers’participation and
breeding for durable disease resistance in the Andean region. Euphytica.
2007;153(3):385–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9165-9.
17. Vom Brocke K, Trouche G, Weltzien E, Barro-Kondombo CP, Gozé E,
Chantereau J. Participatory variety development for sorghum in Burkina
Faso: Farmers’selection and farmers’criteria. Field Crop Res. 2010;119(1):
183–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.07.005.
18. Kolech SA, Halseth D, De Jong W, Perry K, Wolfe D, Tiruneh FM, et al. Potato
variety diversity, determinants and implications for potato breeding strategy
in Ethiopia. Am J Potato Res. 2015;92(5):551–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12230-015-9467-3.
19. Kasharu AK, Kizito EB, Masanza M, Namutebi JJ. Quantifying physical and
economic losses of African indigenous vegetable Solanum aethiopicum along
the commercial supply value chain. J Econ Sustain Dev. 2019;10(2):67–77.
20. Kolech SA, De Jong W, Perry K, Halseth D, Mengistu F. Participatory variety
selection: a tool to understand farmers′potato variety selection criteria.
Open Agric. 2017;2(1):453–63.
21. Van Etten J, Beza E, Calderer L, Van Duijvendijk K, Fadda C, Fantahun B, et al.
First experiences with a novel farmer citizen science approach:
crowdsourcing participatory variety selection through on-farm triadic
comparisons of technologies (tricot). Exp Agric. 2019;55(S1):275–96. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0014479716000739.
22. Soleri D, Cleveland DA. Farmers’genetic perceptions regarding their crop
populations: An example with maize in the Central Valleys of Oaxaca,
Mexico. Econ Bot. 2001;55(1):106–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02864550.
23. Teeken B, Olaosebikan O, Haleegoah J, Oladejo E, Madu T, Bello A, et al.
Cassava trait preferences of men and women farmers in Nigeria:
implications for breeding. Econ Bot. 2018;72(3):263–77. https://doi.org/10.1
007/s12231-018-9421-7.
24. Christinck A, Weltzien E, Rattunde F, Ashby J. Gender differentiation of
farmer preferences for varietal traits in crop improvement: evidence and
issues: CGIAR System Management Office and International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); 2017.
25. Dinssa FF, Hanson P, Dubois T, Tenkouano A, Stoilova T, Hughes JD, et al.
AVRDC—The World Vegetable Center’s women-oriented improvement and
development strategy for traditional African vegetables in sub-Saharan
Africa. Eur J Hortic Sci. 2016;81(2):91–105. https://doi.org/10.17660/eJHS.201
6/81.2.3.
26. Mudege NN, Mdege N, Abidin PE, Bhatasara S. The role of gender norms in
access to agricultural training in Chikwawa and Phalombe, Malawi. Gend
Place Cult. 2017;24(12):1689–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.13
83363.
27. Jameson PE, Song J. Cytokinin: a key driver of seed yield. J Exp Bot. 2016;
67(3):593–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv461.
28. Abady S, Shimelis H, Janila P. Farmers’perceived constraints to groundnut
production, their variety choice and preferred traits in eastern Ethiopia:
implications for drought-tolerance breeding. J Crop Improv. 2019;33(4):505–
21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2019.1625836.
29. Banla EM, Dzidzienyo DK, Beatrice IE, Offei SK, Tongoona P, Desmae H.
Groundnut production constraints and farmers’trait preferences: a pre-
breeding study in Togo. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018;14(1):1–4.
30. Adeniji OT, Aloyce A. Participatory identification of agronomic and leaf
quality traits in Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) genotypes in
Tanzania. Agric Biol J N Am. 2014;5(6):245–51.
31. Diallo C, Isaacs K, Gracen V, Touré A, Weltzien Rattunde E, Danquah EY, et al.
Learning from farmers to improve sorghum breeding objectives and
adoption in Mali. J Crop Improv. 2018;32(6):829–46. https://doi.org/10.1
080/15427528.2018.1531800.
32. Mativavarira M, Mwenje E, Van Rooyen A, Jumbo BM, Sisito G, Dimes J. On-
farm Evaluation of sweet sorghum cultivars in Zimbabwe using
participatory approaches to understand farmers’trait preferences and
cropping systems. Unpublished.
33. Musila RN, Sibiya J, Derera J, Kimani JM, Tongoona P, Danda K. Farmers’
perceptions of, and preferred traits in, rice varieties in the Coastal Region of
Kenya and their implications for breeding. J Int Cooper Agric Dev. 2018;16:
20–30.
34. Horn L, Shimelis H, Laing M. Participatory appraisal of production
constraints, preferred traits and farming system of cowpea in the northern
Namibia: implications for breeding. Legum Res. 2015;38(5):691–700.
35. Kamga RT, Kouamé C, Atangana AR, Chagomoka T, Ndango R. Nutritional
evaluation of five African indigenous vegetables. J Hortic Res. 2013;21(1):99–106.
Publisher’sNote
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Nakyewa et al. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine (2021) 17:27 Page 9 of 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com