Field pea diversity and its contribution to farmers' livelihoods in northern Ethiopia

Abstract

Field pea is grown by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia as a source of food, fodder, income, and soil fertility. This study explores intraspecific diversity of field pea and its contribution to farmers' livelihoods in two agroecological zones of South Tigray and South Wollo, northeastern Ethiopia. Interviews were conducted with 168 farming households. The number of varieties and the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) were higher in South Tigray (seven varieties, 0.35 SDI) than South Wollo (two varieties, 0.025 SDI). Farmers in South Tigray plant field pea during two growing seasons, allowing for integration of multiple varieties into their farming systems. The price of one field pea type from South Tigray known as “dekoko” was twice as high as other field pea varieties, most likely due to high demand and relatively low supply. Key informants reported “dekoko” has become less common in their communities, with diseases and pests reported as major production constraints. Multistakeholder collaboration is recommended to enhance the contribution of field pea to Ethiopian farming systems.

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Field pea diversity and its contribution to farmers' livelihoods
in northern Ethiopia
Yirga Gufi
1
| Alemtsehay Tsegay
2
| Morgan L. Ruelle
3
| Kassa Teka
4
|
Sarah Tewolde-Berhan
5
| Alison G. Power
6
1
Climate Science Research Process, The
Ethiopian Environment and Forest Research
Institute, Mekelle Centre, Mekelle, Ethiopia
2
Department of Crop & Horticultural Sciences,
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia
3
Department of International Development,
Community & Environment, Clark University,
Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
4
Department of Land Resources
Management & Environmental Protection,
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia
5
Department of Food Science & Post-Harvest
Technology, Mekelle University, Mekelle,
Ethiopia
6
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary
Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
USA
Correspondence
Morgan L. Ruelle, Department of International
Development, Community & Environment,
Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts,
USA.
Email: mruelle@clarku.edu
Funding information
Collaborative Crop Research Program of the
McKnight Foundation, Grant/Award Number:
15-258
Abstract
Field pea is grown by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia as a source of food, fodder,
income, and soil fertility. This study explores intraspecific diversity of field pea and its
contribution to farmers' livelihoods in two agroecological zones of South Tigray and
South Wollo, northeastern Ethiopia. Interviews were conducted with 168 farming
households. The number of varieties and the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) were
higher in South Tigray (seven varieties, 0.35 SDI) than South Wollo (two varieties,
0.025 SDI). Farmers in South Tigray plant field pea during two growing seasons,
allowing for integration of multiple varieties into their farming systems. The price of
one field pea type from South Tigray known as “DEKOKO”was twice as high as other
field pea varieties, most likely due to high demand and relatively low supply. Key
informants reported “DEKOKO”has become less common in their communities, with
diseases and pests reported as major production constraints. Multistakeholder
collaboration is recommended to enhance the contribution of field pea to Ethiopian
farming systems.
KEYWORDS
agrobiodiversity, crop rotation, farmers' varieties, Pisum sativum, production constraints
1|INTRODUCTION
Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is one of the oldest domesticated food
legume crops, cultivated as early as the 9th millennia BC (Zohary &
Hopf, 1973). The genus Pisum consists of both wild relatives
(P. fulvum Sibth. & Sm. and P. sativum subsp. elatius (M.Bieb.) Asch. &
Graebn.) and cultivated species (Pisum sativum L. and Pisum
abyssinicum A. Braun
1
), all originating in the Mediterranean region, pri-
marily the Middle East (Ellis et al., 2011; Institute of Biodiversity
Conservation [IBC], 2012). As of 2019, field pea was the fourth most
widely produced legume in the world (following common bean, cow-
pea, and chickpea), with cultivated areas covering 7.2 million hectares
(Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2020).
In Ethiopia, field pea is widely grown at middle to high altitudes
(1800 to 3000 m a.s.l) in areas with average annual rainfall of 800 to
1100 mm (Central Statistical Agency [CSA], 2016; Hagedorn, 1984).
Among the legumes produced in Ethiopia, field pea ranks second
(following only faba bean) by volume of production and area coverage.
Received: 5 October 2020 Revised: 11 November 2021 Accepted: 9 February 2022
DOI: 10.1002/leg3.141
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Legume Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Legume Science. 2022;4:e141. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/legumescience 1of13
https://doi.org/10.1002/leg3.141

During the 2016/17 growing season, field pea was cultivated on
216,786 ha, yielding 360,811 tons (CSA, 2016). Although field pea is
an important export crop, garnering foreign currency for the national
economy (Habtamu & Million, 2013), here we will examine its direct
contributions to the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. In addition to
its use as food and source of income, field pea residues are important
feed for domesticated animals (including horses, cattle, and sheep)
and it plays a significant role in maintaining and restoring soil fertility
(Abberton, 2010).
The average yield of field pea in Ethiopia is only 1.66 t ha
1
(CSA, 2016), far below the 4 to 5 t ha
1
achieved in Europe
(Netherlands, France and Belgium). Low productivity has been
attributed to a lack of high-yielding varieties that are resistant to
disease, insect pests and increasingly variable climate conditions
(Smýkal et al., 2012). Plant breeding led by the Ethiopian Institute for
Agricultural Research has resulted in the development and distribution
of numerous new field pea cultivars, most derived through hybridiza-
tion with international sources (Jarso et al., 2006). However, despite
the distribution of these cultivars, the productivity of field pea remains
low. It is not clear if the limited impacts of so-called improved cultivars
should be attributed to low rates of adoption or to lower than expected
yields in the heterogeneous conditions found across Ethiopia.
It is generally believed that the Ethiopian field pea landraces
include valuable genetic diversity based on farmers' selection for advan-
tageous traits across highly heterogeneous landscapes (Keneni
et al., 2007; Singh & Singh, 2015). Although field pea was most likely
domesticated in West Asia, the diversity of field pea varieties found by
Vavilov and others led them to identify Ethiopia as a secondary center
of diversity (Harlan, 1969; Vavilov et al., 1997). Agromorphological
characterization and genetic analyses have confirmed the presence of
high genetic diversity among Ethiopia's field pea landraces (Keneni
et al., 2005,2007; Teshome et al., 2015). Despite this evidence of their
genetic significance, the status of field pea landraces has not been
monitored, nor has their contribution to farmers' livelihoods been
evaluated. Thus, the objectives of this study were as follows:
•To investigate the current status of field pea diversity by
conducting an inventory of local landraces and introduced cultivars
of field pea grown in different sociocultural and agroecological
contexts.
•To assess the significance of field pea diversity to farming commu-
nities by comparing the area planted; planting and harvesting
times; frequency of crop rotation; average yields; and gender roles
in production and use.
•To identify constraints on field pea production and opportunities
to enhance its contributions to farmers' livelihoods.
2|MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 |Study area description
The research was conducted in August 2016 to January 2017 in the
South Tigray administrative zone of the Tigray Region and
FIGURE 1 Map of interview locations in South Tigray and South Wollo, northern Ethiopia
2of13 GUFI ET AL.

neighboring South Wollo administrative zone in the Amhara Region
(Figure 1). Although these zones belong to different regions with dis-
tinct cultural traditions, languages and identities, smallholder farmers
in both areas practice mixed agriculture (production of crops and live-
stock). The most common cereal crops grown in these zones are bar-
ley (Hordeum vulgare), wheat (Triticum sp.), teff (Eragrostis tef), and
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). As for pulses, field pea, lentil (Lens
culinaris), and faba bean (Vicia faba) are most common (CSA, 2016).
2.2 |Study site selection
A multistage sampling method was used to select study communities
and individual farmers. A review of the national agricultural census
(CSA, 2016) revealed that a high percentage farmers in these two
administrative zones produce field pea. Within each zone, districts
known to produce field pea were identified through conversations
with zonal administrators and extension officers. In South Tigray, four
districts were selected: Raya Alamata, Ofla, Enda Mehoni, and Emba.
In South Wollo, three districts were included: Were Illu, Borena, and
Wogidi.
Stratified random sampling was conducted according to four
factors: (i) agroecology, (ii) administrative zone (associated with
culture), (iii) relative wealth, and (iv) gender. The stratification by
agroecology and administrative zones was performed using GIS.
Stratification by relative wealth and gender was conducted during
field work based on the information from subdistrict administrators.
To compare the diversity of legumes according to agroecology
and sociocultural differences, the study focused on two agroecological
classes that are found in both administrative zones; tepid submoist
mid-highlands (SM3) and cool submoist mid-highlands (SM4) were
selected in both South Tigray and South Wollo, resulting in four strata
(Table 1). These agroecological classes are based on a national
classification system defined by thermal zones and length of the
growing season (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
[MoARD], 2005). Using GIS, each subdistrict (known in Amhara as
“kebele”and in Tigray as “tabia”) was assigned to one of the four
strata based on the majority agroecology found within its boundaries.
Three subdistricts were then selected at random from each stratum.
2.3 |Sample size determination and design
Sample size was determined using statistical power analysis based on
the relationships between significance level, power, effect size, and
sample size (Cohen, 1992). By estimating significance level
(alpha =0.05), power (0.8), and effect size (h=0.5), optimal sample
size was estimated using the “pwr”package (Champely, 2020)inR
(version 3.6). Optimum sample size (n) for a binomial distribution was
estimated as 63 households but was increased to 72 per stratum to
account for design effects. Therefore, the total number of sample
households interviewed was 144, including 12 households from each
of the 12 subdistricts.
A list of households growing field pea was obtained from each
subdistrict administration. These lists were stratified by relative
wealth based on participation in a federal safety net program; benefi-
ciaries of that program were classified as low income, non-
beneficiaries as mid- to high-income farmers. Six low income and six
mid- to high-income households were selected at random from each
list. Furthermore, within each relative wealth category, an equal num-
ber of men and women were interviewed by alternating the gender of
the participant as the researchers moved from house to house. To
gain more in-depth information from the most knowledgeable individ-
uals participating in the study, two key informants were selected from
each of the 12 subdistricts (24 key informants in total). These key
informants were identified by subdistrict administrators as men and
women who were particularly knowledgeable about field pea
diversity.
2.4 |Data collection
Primary data were collected using structured and semistructured
interviews. Free and informed oral consent was obtained from all
participants prior to each interview. Interview questions focused on
the name and defining characteristics of each variety, agroecological
distribution, gender roles on the production and management of field
pea, cropping practices, area planted with field pea, planting time,
rotation frequency of the crop, market price, crop yield, and
production constraints. Structured interviews were documented using
Open Data Kit (ODK) on an Android smart phone, uploaded to Kobo
Toolbox (www.kobotoolbox.org) and then downloaded for analysis in
MS Excel and R (version 3.6) using R-Studio (version 1.0.136).
Semistructured interviews were documented using field notes and
compiled in MS Excel for coding and analysis.
2.5 |Data analysis
Descriptive statistical techniques were used to analyze interview data,
to assess the number of varieties per household, market price, gender
roles, rotation frequency, planting time of the crop variety, and use
TABLE 1 Agroecological classification, administrative zones, and subdistricts included in the study areas
Stratum Agroecological class Administrative zone Subdistrict (three per stratum)
1 Tepid submoist mid-highlands (SM3) South Tigray Hayalo, Tahtay Haya, Higumburda
2 South Wollo Wenberet, Tsibet, Simret
3 Cool submoist mid-highlands (SM4) South Tigray Sekashmbra, Tewa, Tungi
4 South Wollo Endiras, Gelamot, Dilfere
GUFI ET AL.3of13

values. Multiple factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted
in R to determine whether (1) the number of field pea varieties per
household differs according to agroecology and/or administrative
zones; (2) the area planted with field pea differs according to agroeco-
logical zone and/or relative wealth of household; and (3) price and
yield differ according to variety, agroecology, and/or administrative
zones. Where ANOVA results were significant (p< 0.05), a post hoc
Tukey test of honest significant differences (HSD) was undertaken to
identify statistically significant pairwise differences.
To compare the varietal richness of field pea within and among
households, we adopted Whittaker's system of alpha, beta, and
gamma diversity (Ruelle, Kassam, et al., 2019; Whittaker, 1960). In this
case, alpha diversity is the average number of field pea varieties per
household and was calculated for each stratum. Gamma diversity was
calculated as the total number of field pea varieties encountered in
each stratum. Finally, beta diversity is the average turnover in varie-
ties from one household to the next and is obtained by dividing
gamma by alpha diversity for each stratum.
The Shannon Diversity Index (Shannon, 1948), which accounts
for evenness as well as richness, was used to compare the diversity of
field pea varieties on farms between administrative zones and agro-
ecological zones, using the area planted as a measure of relative abun-
dance. The Shannon Diversity Index (H0) is calculated as follows:
H0¼X
s
i¼1
piln pi
ðÞ,
where sis the total number of field pea varieties documented on the
farm and p
i
is the relative abundance of the ith field pea variety based
on the area planted by the interviewee during the 2015/2016 grow-
ing season. Although the Shannon Diversity Index is more frequently
used to analyze ecological data, it is also applied to measure intraspe-
cific diversity of crops among farming households (Abera et al., 2020;
Ruelle, Asfaw, et al., 2019).
Participation rates used for gender analysis accounted for the age
and gender groups available within each household. For example, to
calculate the participation rate of female children in planting, one
would divide the number of households reporting that their female
children contribute to that activity by the number of households with
female children.
Finally, analysis of qualitative data obtained from semistructured
interviews with key informants, including the meaning of the name of
the variety (e.g., its origin, colour, size, taste, and nutritious value), pro-
duction management, and primary constraints was conducted by itera-
tive coding of interview data in Excel and cross-tabulating for analysis.
3|RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 |Farmers' varieties of field pea
A total of nine field pea varieties were documented within the study
area, seven in South Tigray and two in South Wollo (Table 2). One of
the varieties encountered in South Tigray was identified as a mixture
of multiple types but is planted, harvested, and used as a single variety
and is therefore analyzed here as such. In both the SM3 and SM4
agroecologies, South Tigray had more varieties (six each) than the
corresponding agroecologies in South Wollo (two and one, respec-
tively). In South Tigray, five varieties (“gotate adi,”“dekik gotate,”
“dekoko,”“tegegnech,”and “hiwshilshal”) were common to both
agroecologies; a unique variety was found in each: “BIRKITU”was found
only in SM3, whereas “CHEBEREYAY GOTATE”only in SM4. In South Wollo,
one local variety (“DALICHA ATER”) was found in both SM3 and SM4
agroecologies, and “NECH ATER”(an improved variety) was limited to
SM3. According to Elders interviewed as key informants in South
Tigray, no varieties of field pea have been lost from their area. How-
ever, in one of the subdistricts in South Wollo (Sekashmbra) two
Elders remembered a variety known as “GROTHMEN ATER”that they had
not seen for 20 to 30 years.
General respondents and key informants classified their field pea
varieties according to seed color, seed size, nutritional value, and matu-
rity time. Some—but not all—of this information is encoded in the local
names for varieties (Table 2). Most local names refer to seed color.
Interestingly, farmers in South Tigray classify and name their varieties
by their seed color, seed size, their locality, and maturity time, while the
two varieties in South Wollo are classified based on seed color only.
A total of 32 germplasm accessions were collected from the study
area, including 23 accessions of the seven varieties from South Tigray
and nine accessions of the two varieties from South Wollo. Key infor-
mants in South Wollo suggested that the lower diversity of field pea
varieties in their communities is due to the lack of “improved”varie-
ties developed by plant breeders at the Ethiopian Institute of Agricul-
tural Research, suggesting that they had not been distributed in the
zone. Indeed, of the seven field pea varieties found in South Tigray,
four were reported as improved types, and another was a mixture that
includes local and improved types, suggesting that varietal diversity
has been enhanced by the distribution of those new cultivars. In any
case, the number of field pea varieties documented in both zones is
relatively low. These results align with the observations of Keneni
et al. (2007) that accessions of field pea from southern Ethiopia are
generally more genetically diverse than those from northern parts of
the country.
Four of the varieties found in South Tigray were planted by more
than one third of farmers. The most popular was “TEGEGNECH”(planted
by 61% of farmers), followed by “GOTATE ADI”(51% of farmers), “DEKOKO”
(47% of farmers) and “DEKIK GOTATE”(38% of farmers). According to
respondents, “TEGEGNECH”and “GOTATE ADI”have higher productivity and
disease resistance than other varieties. “DEKIK GOTATE”and “DEKOKO”
were more common in the SM3 than SM4 agroecology of South
Tigray. Respondents explained that they grow these two varieties dur-
ing the “BELGI”(short rains) because they mature faster than others and
are relatively drought tolerant. By comparison, in South Wollo, one
local variety (“DALICHA ATER”) is common throughout both SM3 and SM4
agroecologies and is planted by 89% of farmers. In both agroecologies,
respondents reported that “DALICHA ATER”is preferred because it resists
disease and tolerates waterlogging.
4of13 GUFI ET AL.

TABLE 2 Varieties (including local landraces and improved cultivars) of field pea identified by farmers in South Tigray and South Wollo zones of northeastern Ethiopia
No. Local name Language Meaning of name Zone District(s) AEZ Status Photograph
1Nech ater Amharic White (color) South Wollo Borena, Wogidi SM3 Improved
2Dalicha ater Amharic Cream (color) South Wollo Borena, Wogidi SM3, SM4 Local
3Keyih gotate,
gotate adi,
abiyi gotate
Tigrigna Red (color), local
(origin), large
(seed size), or
long growing
period
South Tigray Ofla, Endamehoni SM3, SM4 Local
4Dekik gotate Tigrigna Small (seed size) South Tigray Ofla, Endamehoni SM3, SM4 Improved
5Dekoko Tigrigna Tiny (seed size) South Tigray Ofla, Endamehoni SM3, SM4 Local
(Continues)
GUFI ET AL.5of13

TABLE 2 (Continued)
No. Local name Language Meaning of name Zone District(s) AEZ Status Photograph
6Tegegnech Amharic Unknown South Tigray Ofla, Endamehoni SM3, SM4 Improved
7Birkitu Amharic Unknown South Tigray Ofla SM3 Improved
8Hiwshilshal Tigrigna Mixture (of varieties) South Tigray Endamehoni, Ofla SM3, SM4 Mixture of local
and improved
9Chebereyay gotate Tigrigna Gray (color) South Tigray Endamehoni SM4 Local
Note: SM3 refers to the tepid submoist mid-highlands and SM4 to the cool submoist mid-highlands.
6of13 GUFI ET AL.

3.2 |Varietal diversity within and among
households
A majority of farmers in South Wollo reported planting only one
variety of field pea, whereas more than two thirds of farmers in South
Tigray planted more than one, and more than one-third planted three
or four varieties (Figure 2). The average number of varieties cultivated
per year (alpha diversity) was higher in SM3 and SM4 of South Tigray
than in the corresponding agroecologies in South Wollo (Table 3). The
results of a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirm that the
number of varieties grown per household is significantly different
between the two zones (p< 0.0001) but not between agroecologies
(p=0.84). Furthermore, given the high number of varieties available
within both strata in South Tigray, the varietal turnover of the crop
among households (beta diversity) is higher than in South Wollo. In
other words, farmers in South Wollo are limited to growing the same
few varieties, while farmers in South Tigray have more than twice as
many varieties available to them as the typical household grows.
The Shannon Diversity Index was calculated for each farmer
based on the hectares planted to each variety. Similar to alpha
diversity, a two-way ANOVA of the Shannon Diversity Indices found
that the administrative zone was a significant factor (p< 0.0001),
while agroecology was not (p=0.413). The average diversity index
per stratum in South Tigray is 0.37 in SM3 and 0.33 in SM4, whereas
the average in South Wollo is 0.05 in SM3 and 0 in SM4. In South
Wollo, almost all farmers planted only one variety, so their Shannon
Diversity Index was equal to 0, whereas in South Tigray, many farmers
planted more than one variety. Shannon Diversity Indices in South
Tigray sometimes exceeded 1 if the household planted multiple
varieties and relatively similar areas to each variety. Nonetheless,
these results are relatively low. For example, in a comparable study of
common bean varieties, Abera et al. (2020) reported higher Shannon
Diversity Indices; even in one area where only two varieties were
identified.
3.3 |Area planted to field pea according to relative
wealth
Most farmers in Ethiopia measure their fields in “TIMAD,”which is
equivalent to 1/4hectare, the area that can be ploughed by a pair of
oxen in the course of 1 day. Farmers within the study area planted
between one-half “TIMAD”and three “TIMAD”(0.125 to 0.75 ha) of field
pea. On average, low-income farmers planted less (0.25 ha) than mid-
to high-income farmers (0.36 ha). A multifactor ANOVA revealed
significant differences in the area planted according to relative wealth
(p=0.000349), but not agroecology or administrative zone (Table 4).
TABLE 3 Alpha, gamma, and beta diversity of field pea varieties in the four strata
Stratum AEZ Zone Number of households Alpha diversity Gamma diversity Beta diversity
1 SM3 South Tigray 36 2.19 6 2.73
2 SM3 South Wollo 36 1.19 2 1.67
3 SM4 South Tigray 36 2.08 6 2.88
4 SM4 South Wollo 36 1 1 1
Note: SM3 refers to the tepid submoist mid-highlands and SM4 to the cool submoist mid-highlands.
TABLE 4 ANOVA of area planted to
field pea according to administrative
zone, agroecological zone, relative
wealth, and year
Df Sum sq Mean sq Fvalue pvalue
Zone 1 0.004457 0.004457 0.2108 0.6466
Agroecology 1 0.01907 0.01907 0.9018 0.3433
Wealth 1 0.2791 0.2791 13.2 0.0003493***
Year 1 0.09018 0.09018 4.264 0.04011*
Residuals 218 4.611 0.02115 NA NA
***
0.001.
**
0.01.
*
0.05.
FIGURE 2 Number of varieties planted by farmers in select
communities of South Tigray and South Wollo, Ethiopia (n=144)
GUFI ET AL.7of13

3.4 |Planting and harvesting time of field pea
varieties
The main growing season for most crops in northern Ethiopia lasts
from June to September. This rainy season is known as “KIREMTI”in
Tigrigna and “KIREMT”or “MEHER”in Amharic. Field pea varieties grown
during “KIREMTI”are typically planted near the end of June or beginning
of July and harvested in late October to early December, regardless of
zone or agroecology. One exception is “DEKOKO,”which is planted later
than other varieties, from mid-July to early August, because it has a
shorter maturity time. In South Wollo, almost all field pea varieties are
planted during the main growing season, with one exception: in the
SM3 agroecology, some respondents plant ‘NECH ATER’in irrigated fields
in late October to mid-November, after the end of the rainy season,
to be harvested in March or April.
In South Tigray, in both SM3 and SM4 agroecologies, field pea is
also planted during a second, shorter growing season known as “BELGI.”
During “BELGI,”farmers plant field pea starting in late November up to
early March, depending on rainfall. For example, farmers in Ofla and
Endamehoni districts said that the onset of rain during “BELGI”is highly
variable, sometimes coming immediately after they have finished
harvesting crops planted for the main season. In that case, they will
immediately start planting field pea. Otherwise, they will plant it
whenever the rains begin, up until mid-March. Field pea planted dur-
ing the “BELGI”are harvested from early-April to June, depending on
the planting time and maturity time of varieties.
Based on planting and harvesting dates, it is clear that different
varieties have different maturity times. “DEKOKO”has the shortest
maturity times (60–80 days), whereas most other varieties take much
longer to mature (120–160 days). Previous studies have documented
similar maturity times for “DEKOKO,”between 71 and 80 days and con-
firm that it is typically harvested earlier than other varieties
(Gebreegziabher & Tsegay, 2018; Yemane & Skjelvåg, 2003; Yirga &
Tsegay, 2013). The maturity time of other varieties is longer but highly
variable, ranging from 110 to 150 days, depending on the variety,
planting date, and agroecological zone (Habtamu & Million, 2013;
Tadesse et al., 2018).
Human-induced climate change is already requiring farmers to
adapt their planting times and selection of varieties. Climate change
models predict that Ethiopia's short rains will become less reliable
over time (Conway & Schipper, 2011), meaning that farmers in South
Tigray may not be able to plant field pea during the “BELGI.”Further-
more, farmers throughout the country report that in recent years the
main growing season has tended to start later and end earlier, thereby
shortening the growing season. Varieties like “DEKOKO,”which has a
considerably shorter maturity time, will likely fare better than some
improved varieties (e.g., “TEGEGNECH”and “NECH ATER”) that require a long
rainy season. Future plant breeding efforts should focus on develop-
ing varieties that come to maturity in the shortened growing season
and can withstand intermittent drought.
3.5 |Crop rotation of field pea
As in other parts of eastern Africa (Julius, 2014), farmers in the study
area cultivate field pea in upland areas and hilltops, often in light and
stony soils that are unsuitable for other crops. They also grow field
pea on land with low or medium fertility in rotation with cereal crops.
The frequency of crop rotation varies between the two zones, with
farmers in South Tigray tending to rotate field pea with cereals more
frequently than those in South Wollo (Figure 3). In South Tigray, the
majority of farmers (58% in SM3 and 61% in SM4) rotate field pea in a
2-year cycle, that is, plant it every 2 years in the same field. In addi-
tion, some farmers in South Tigray rotate their field pea with a cereal
even faster, by double-cropping with a cereal in a seasonal rotation.
There is some evidence that farmers in South Tigray are rotating field
pea faster than they did in the past; earlier reports indicate that
farmers typically planted the crop after 2 or 3 years of cereal crops
(Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research [EIAR] & Tigray Agricul-
tural Research Institute [TARI], 2011). By contrast, most farmers in
South Wollo plant field pea in the same field every 3 years (86% in
SM3 and 50% in SM4). On the other end of the spectrum, a few
farmers in the SM4 agroecology of South Wollo plant cereals for
3 years before planting field pea (thus, every fourth year).
Farmers rotate field pea for different purposes but mainly to
improve soil fertility and enhance production of the cereals while
reducing the need for fertilizer. As a legume crop, field pea develops
symbiotic relationships with Rhizobia bacteria that fix atmospheric
FIGURE 3 Frequency of field pea rotation
within the crop sequence in South Tigray and
South Wollo, Ethiopia. SM3 refers to the tepid
submoist mid-highlands and SM4 to the cool
submoist mid-highlands
8of13 GUFI ET AL.

nitrogen and make it available to plants through their root systems
(Clark, 2012). Key informants described how field pea restores soil
fertility not only for the current production year but also for the
succeeding 2 to 3 years of production. Crop fields that have been
sown with field pea and are therefore important for next year's cereal
production are called “BESELA”in South Tigray and “IKIR”in South Wollo,
names that refer to their high soil fertility. In addition, rotation with
field pea is used to interrupt pest and diseases cycles. Key informants
explained that rotating cereals with field pea reduces pests and dis-
eases that affect cereals without chemical pesticides. In fact, 97% of
the respondents said they forego use of external chemical inputs such
as fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, resulting in cost savings. Fur-
thermore, as field pea requires minimum tillage, farmers typically
plough their fields only once at the time of sowing, thereby saving
labor for ploughing and weeding.
Farmers' knowledge of field pea is supported by scientific studies.
Elzebroek and Wind (2008) agree that the crop is adapted to many
soil types but grows best on light-textured and well-drained soils. A
relatively shallow root system and high water use efficiency make
field pea an excellent rotational crop with small grains, especially in
arid areas where soil moisture conservation is critical (Clark, 2012).
Studies by Chen et al. (2006) and Habtamu and Million (2013) support
the notion that rotation with peas plays a significant role in soil
fertility restoration and breaks diseases and pest cycles. In general,
Drinkwater et al. (1998) found that without appropriate rotation with
legume crops, soil fertility and biomass production decrease, while
disease, weed and insect infestation increase.
3.6 |Yield of field pea
Farmers' reports of their own yields (converted from local units to
kg ha
1
) were highly variable. A multiple factor ANOVA did not
detect significant differences among the two zones (p=0.789),
agroecologies (p=0.673) or among varieties (p=0.21). However,
there were statistically significant differences in yield between the
2014/15 and 2015/16 growing seasons (p=0.000113). According to
information from key informants, the main reason for yield reduction
in the second year (2015/16) was a shortage of rain and a disease out-
break (identity of the disease is unknown) during the main growing
season. While average yields were consistently lower in 2015/16 than
in 2014/15, the post hoc Tukey test detected significant differences
for only one variety, “DALICHA ATER,”the most widely grown variety in
South Wollo.
Given that farmers are producing field pea under a wide range of
conditions, the analysis of yields was unlikely to detect consistent
differences between varieties. Furthermore, because some varieties
were planted by only one or two farmers, these had to be excluded
from the analysis. Nonetheless, the reported yields for those rare
varieties appear to differ from those that are more widely planted.
The single farmer who planted “CHEBEREYAY GOTATE”(in the SM4
agroecology of South Tigray) reported very high yields in both the
2014/15 and 2015/2016 growing season (between 2300 and
2400 kg ha
1
). By contrast, the few farmers in South Tigray who
planted the varietal mixture “HIWSHILSHAL”reported very low yields
(ranging from 200 to 800 kg ha
1
).
Overall, the yields reported by farmers in the study area, with
averages less than 1 t ha
1
, were far below the national and global
averages (1.66 t ha
1
and 1.7 t ha
1
) (CSA, 2016; Smýkal et al., 2012).
In Europe, that is, in the Netherlands, France, and Belgium, field pea
yields can reach 4 to 5 t ha
1
(Smýkal et al., 2012). Previous studies of
field pea production in South Tigray have reported higher yields
(1.25 t ha
1
) than the current study (1.1 t ha
1
) (EIAR & TARI, 2011).
In any case, there is a significant gap between the potential yield of
the crop and the actual yields (3.2–4tha
1
). One likely reason for
lower yields is that few of the farmers interviewed apply fertilizers to
their legumes. For example, the average yield reported for “DEKOKO”in
South Tigray was 0.77 t ha
1
, whereas a study in which phosphorous
fertilization was applied to “DEKOKO”yielded 1.95 t ha
1
(Yemane &
Skjelvåg, 2003).
3.7 |Use of field pea
Field pea is a staple food as well as a major income earner for most
smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Farmers in both zones grow field pea
for food, fodder, and income generation. Given that almost all
respondents reported using the crop for all three of these purposes,
there was no significant difference between the two cultural groups
(Tigray and Amhara) nor between agroecologies included in the study.
For the most part, Ethiopian farmers tend to prioritize household
consumption, keeping what they need to feed their household before
selling any surplus at the local market. Crop residues (leaves and
stems) are used as animal fodder, especially for equines and cattle. As
mentioned in the preceding section, farmers grow the crop not only
for direct economic benefits but also to improve soil fertility and
reduce diseases and pests.
Field pea has an important market value for rural households. At
the time of data collection, the average prices of field pea varieties
were similar except for “DEKOKO,”which had a significantly higher
market price (pvalue < 0.0001). As reported by others
(Gebreegziabher & Tsegay, 2018; Yemane & Skjelvåg, 2003) the
reported prices of “DEKOKO”in South Tigray averaged 30.7 Ethiopian
Birr kg
1
, nearly twice that of all other varieties in the zone (16.4 Birr
kg
1
) and three to four fold that of cereals (which ranged from 8 to
11 Birr kg
1
). The high price might be explained by relatively low
supply and high demand, based on lower yields and higher nutritional
value than other field pea varieties. In any case, more than 90% of the
farmers who grow “DEKOKO”(all in South Tigray) primarily sell it at the
market and therefore refer to it as a cash crop. The prices of field pea
in South Wollo did not differ by variety; both varieties were similarly
priced to those in South Tigray (16.5 Birr kg
1
). Nonetheless, previous
reports have argued that field pea is a critical source of income for
smallholders in Ethiopia, particularly in South Tigray, due to its
relatively high market value and potential use in value added
products that could be sold at local markets or prepared for export
(EIAR & TARI, 2011; International Food Policy Research Institute
[IFPRI], 2010).
GUFI ET AL.9of13

The value of field pea in general and “DEKOKO”in particular can be
attributed to its nutritional value and its contribution to food culture.
In general, field pea is a nutritious legume, containing up to 35%
protein, and high concentrations of the essential amino acids lysine
and tryptophan (Elzebroek & Wind, 2008). Field pea is often cracked
or ground and added to cereal grain rations; such preparations consist
of approximately 18% to 20% protein (McKay et al., 2003). Due to
their knowledge of its nutritional benefits, local people call “DEKOKO”
the “DORO WET”(chicken stew) of the poor, as reported by the key
informants in this as well as previous studies (Sentayehu, 2009).
Furthermore, key informants in Higumburda, South Tigray, explained
that their community uses “DEKOKO”to prepare a special food known
as “GA'AT”(a kind of porridge), which is fed to underweight children
and lactating women when they need to gain weight. While some
previous studies suggest that “DEKOKO”is a suitable complementary
source of protein for the rural poor (Yemane & Skjelvåg, 2003), further
analyses are necessary to compare its nutritional benefits with those
of other field pea varieties.
3.8 |Gender roles in production and use of
field pea
In both South Tigray and South Wollo, agronomic activities for most
field crops (including field pea) are said to be men's work. However,
respondents in both zones reported that women are involved in many
activities related to field pea (Figure 4). Ploughing and planting were
said to be primarily conducted by men, whereas food preparation was
the sole responsibility of women in both zones. Most of the other
activities are carried out by both genders, with slightly lower
participation rates for women than men, including preparing the soil
for planting (preplanting), weeding, harvesting, threshing, storing, and
marketing. Children (defined as younger than 14 years old) also
contribute to most activities, with the exception of marketing and
seed selection. Some male children assist women with food prepara-
tion in both zones. Elders also participated in many activities, particu-
larly male Elders.
There were a few differences in women's roles related to field
pea between the two zones: women more often participated in
hoeing and collecting fodder in South Wollo than in South Tigray,
whereas they were more often involved in preplanting activities and
seed selection in South Wollo. By comparison, most households
reported that adult men participated in all activities related to field
pea except for food preparation. Similar results were reported in a
parallel survey of households conducted by Berhanu (2017) in Arsi
and Keffa zones of southern Ethiopia, where women also participated
in many of the activities related to field pea. While the current study
documents the participation rate, a more detailed survey might be
able to compare the time invested by different household members in
the various activities and thereby provide a deeper understanding of
the relative workload between male and female household members.
3.9 |Production constraints for field pea
Given the relatively low yields reported by respondents, it is impor-
tant to consider constraints to field pea production, particularly those
factors identified by farmers, to set priorities for research and
FIGURE 4 Gender roles in production and use of field pea in South Tigray and South Wollo, Ethiopia
10 of 13 GUFI ET AL.

development efforts. According to key informants, field pea has been
less commonly planted within the last 5 years, though the explana-
tions for this change vary. Across both agroecologies and cultural
groups, 60% of respondents reported that a major constraint facing
field pea production is disease, followed by 56% who mentioned
insect pests. Other frequently mentioned constraints were low soil
fertility (28%), frost (28%), lack of improved varieties (28%), drought
(24%), and government programs that incentivize planting other crops
(mainly cereals) (21%). The latter, which is administered by local
extension agents, encourages farmers to adopt new cereal varieties
following a ‘cluster’development model; the cluster program in the
study area in South Tigray focuses on wheat, whereas that of South
Wollo focuses on teff. In some subdistricts (Sekashmbra, Tungi, and
Tewa in South Wollo), farmers reported that they are losing their local
varieties of field pea and other crops.
Two other constraints were mentioned by a small number of
farmers. First, a few farmers reported that field pea production is
limited by a shortage of land. Indeed, at a national scale, increased
competition for land, particularly in subdistricts located close to
market towns, has reduced household landholdings across the
country; however, yields (in terms of tons per hectare) appear to be
higher among farmers with smaller landholdings (Paul & wa
Gĩthĩnji, 2018). Nonetheless, having less land means that farmers must
adapt their farming systems and cropping patterns, and may be less
able to rotate their cereal crops with legumes (see also Ruelle, Asfaw,
et al., 2019). Secondly other farmers said that they do not use
fertilizer due to its high cost. Traditionally, field pea and other legumes
are used as a source of soil fertility, and therefore applying fertilizers
to them may be counterintuitive. However, while planting legumes'
relationships with soil biota enhance soil nitrogen, addition of
phosphorous, potassium and sulfur (PKS) may increase both yield
and nutrient content (Yemane & Skjelvåg, 2003). Applying multiple
strategies to enhance soil health (including organic and inorganic
fertilizers) may enhance the productivity of field pea as an important
protein source.
Many of the production constraints listed by farmers are long-
standing concerns. A study conducted by Telaye et al. (1994) and
CSA (2009) also found that field pea yields were limited by disease,
insect pests, poor management practice, frost and low-yielding local
varieties. A more recent study conducted in South Tigray zone and
Raya Kobo District reported similar challenges, including drought,
insect pests, diseases, weed infestation and lack of improved varieties
(EIAR & TARI, 2011). As a result there was a yield reduction by 9.2%
in 2009 as compared to 2008 cropping season (CSA, 2009). The
future of field pea production will depend on the ability of research
and development programs to prioritize and find solutions to these
concerns.
4|CONCLUSION
Interviews with field pea growers in South Tigray and South Wollo
revealed the use of nine varieties, including four local landraces, four
improved cultivars, and one mixture that included both local and
improved germplasm. Varietal diversity was higher in South Tigray,
including a higher number of varieties present (7), a higher number
per household, and a higher Shannon Diversity Index values based on
the area planted to each variety. Differences in varietal richness may
be attributed to the introduction of improved varieties to South Tigray
where four of the seven varieties were developed by the Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research. Importantly, the introduction of
new varieties has led to diversification, rather than loss of local
landraces.
Field pea is an important source of food, fodder, and income in
both South Tigray and South Wollo. However, higher varietal diversity
in South Tigray enables farmers to plant field pea at different times of
year. While most varieties are planted at the beginning of the main
rainy season, “DEKOKO”is planted later due to its short maturity time.
Furthermore, “DEKOKO”was twice as expensive as other field pea
varieties, which farmers attributed to its taste and nutritional value.
Further study is needed to enhance production of this highly adapt-
able and nutritious variety.
Field pea offers multiple benefits and can contribute to sustain-
able agricultural development in Ethiopia. However, the average yield
reported here is far below the national average. Further studies in
other areas may locate landraces with advantageous traits to over-
come the production constraints described by farmers. Participatory
breeding programs are recommended to develop new varieties based
on farmers' diverse needs. Collaboration between farmers, extension
workers, NGOs and research institutions are necessary to enhance
the contribution of field pea to farmers' livelihoods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the McKnight Foundation's
Collaborative Crop Research Program for financial and technical
support through the Legume Diversity Project (CCRP Grant 15-258).
We acknowledge the other members of the Legume Diversity Project
team, namely Zemede Asfaw, Tamado Tana, Asmare Dejen, and
Amsalu Nebiyu for their contributions to research design. We are
indebted to the farmers of South Wollo and South Tigray for their
willingness to share their agroecological knowledge and experience
during interviews, as well as the numerous development agents and
local administrators for assistance during field work. We pray for their
safety and well-being in the midst of the current conflict. We thank
the editors and anonymous reviewers whose thoughtful comments
strengthened this work and for their patience during the review
process.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
YG, MLR, STB, and AGP designed the research protocols; YG
conducted all interviews with farmers; YG, MLR, AT, and KT analyzed
the data; YG wrote the first draft of the manuscript; KT, AT, MLR,
STB, and AGP revised and edited the manuscript.
GUFI ET AL.11 of 13

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
Legume Diversity Project principal investigator, STB, upon reasonable
request.
ORCID
Morgan L. Ruelle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4999-9308
Kassa Teka https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2708-6812
Sarah Tewolde-Berhan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6296-3043
ENDNOTE
1
Until recently, Pisum abyssinicum was considered a subspecies of Pisum
sativum known as var. abyssinicum; it is a unique species independently
developed and cultivated in Ethiopia (IBC, 2012; Yemane &
Skjelvåg, 2003).
REFERENCES
Abberton, M. (2010). Enhancing the role of legumes: Potential and
obstacles. Grassland Carbon Sequestration: Management, Policy and Eco-
nomics,338, 177–187. http://www.fao.org/3/i1880e/i1880e00.htm
Abera, B., Berhane, M., Nebiyu, A., Ruelle, M. L., McAlvay, A., Asfaw, Z.,
Tesfaye, A., & Woldu, Z. (2020). Diversity, use and production of
farmers' varieties of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Fabaceae) in
southwestern and northeastern Ethiopia. Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution,67(2), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-019-
00877-4
Berhanu, M. (2017). Landrace (Farmers' Varieties) Diversity of Field Pea
(Pisum sativum L., Fabaceae) in Arsi Zone of Oromia Region and Kefa
Zone of SNNPR, Ethiopia [MSc thesis, Addis Ababa University].
http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/9286
Champely, S. (2020). pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis (R package
version 1.3-0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=pwr
Chen, C., Miller, P., Muehlbauer, F., Neill, K., Wichman, D., & McPhee, K.
(2006). Winter pea and lentil response to seeding date and micro- and
macro-environments. Agronomy Journal,98(6), 1655–1663. https://
doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0085
Clark, A. (2012). Managing cover crops profitably (3rd ed.). Sustainable
Agriculture Research & Education (SARE).
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112(1), 155–159.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Conway, D., & Schipper, E. L. F. (2011). Adaptation to climate change in
Africa: Challenges and opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global
Environmental Change,21(1), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2010.07.013
CSA. (2009). Area and Production of Crops (Private Peasant Holdings,
Meher season). Agricultural Sample Survey 2008/2009 (2001 E.C.),
2009(December 2008), 27–38.
CSA. (2016). Report on Area and Production of Major Crops (Private
Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). In Agricultural Sample Survey
2015/2016 (2008 E.C.) (Vol. 1, p. 118). Federal Democratic Repubic of
Ethiopia, Central Statistics Agency.
Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P., & Sarrantonio, M. (1998). Legume-based
cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature,
396(6708), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/24376
EIAR. & TARI. (2011). Characterization of Farming Systems and Research
Directions in South Tigray Zone, Tigray Region, Ethiopia [Unpublished
document]. Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR) and
the Tigray Agricultural Research Institute (TARI).
Ellis, T. H. N., Hofer, J. M. I., Timmerman-Vaughan, G. M., Coyne, C. J., &
Hellens, R. P. (2011). Mendel, 150 years on. Trends in Plant Science,
16(11), 590–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2011.06.006
Elzebroek, A. T. G., & Wind, K. (2008). Guide to cultivated plants. CABI.
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845933562.0000
FAO. (2020). FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
Gebreegziabher, B. G., & Tsegay, B. A. (2018). Evaluation of farmers'
knowledge on the rare Abyssinian pea (Pisum sativum var.
Abyssinicum) landraces of Ethiopia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological
Diversity,19(5), 1851–1865. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d190536
Habtamu, S., & Million, F. (2013). Multivariate analysis of some Ethiopian
field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes. International Journal of Genetics
and Molecular Biology,5(6), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.5897/
IJGMB2013.0080
Hagedorn, D. J. (1984). Compendium of pea diseases. American Phytopath-
ological Society.
Harlan, J. R. (1969). Ethiopia: A center of diversity. Economic Botany,23(4),
309–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02860676
IBC. (2012). Ethiopia: Third country report on the state of plant genetic
resources for food and agriculture. Institute of Biodiversity Conservation
(know Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute).
IFPRI. (2010). Pulses value chain in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities
for enhancing exports. (p. 44) [Working Paper]. International Food
Policy Research Institute.
Jarso, M., Wolabu, T., & Keneni, G. (2006). Review of field pea
(Pisumsativum L.) genetics and breeding research in Ethiopia. Food
and Forage Legumes of Ethiopia: Progress and Prospects, 67–79.
Julius, T. (2014). Market analysis of field peas in Uganda[MSc thesis].
Makerere University.
Keneni, G., Jarso, M., & Wolabu, T. (2007). Eco-geographic distribution
and microcenters of genetic diversity in faba bean (Vica Faba L.) and
field pea (Pisum Sativum L.) germplasm collections from Ethiopia. East
African Journal of Sciences,1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4314/eajsci.
v1i1.40336
Keneni, G., Jarso, M., Wolabu, T., & Dino, G. (2005). Extent and pattern of
genetic diversity for morpho-agronomic traits in Ethiopian highland
pulse landraces: I. Field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Genetic Resources and
Crop Evolution,52(5), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-003-
6016-6
McKay, K., Schatz, B., & Endres, G. (2003). Field Pea Production (A-1166
(Revised); p. 8). North Dakota State University Extension. http://
wwww.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu
MoARD. (2005). Major agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. Forestry, Land Use
and Soil Conservation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development.
Paul, M., & wa Gĩthĩnji, M. (2018). Small farms, smaller plots: Land size,
fragmentation, and productivity in Ethiopia. The Journal of Peasant
Studies,45(4), 757–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.
1278365
Ruelle, M. L., Asfaw, Z., Dejen, A., Tewolde-Berhan, S., Nebiyu, A.,
Tana, T., & Power, A. G. (2019). Inter- and intraspecific diversity of
food legumes among households and communities in Ethiopia. PLoS
ONE,14(12), e0227074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0227074
Ruelle, M. L., Kassam, K.-A., Morreale, S. J., Asfaw, Z., Power, A. G., &
Fahey, T. J. (2019). Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: A case
study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia. Food
Security,11, 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00888-0
Sentayehu, A. (2009). Assessment of nutrient contents of different field
pea genotypes (Pisum Sativum L.) in Southwest Ethiopia. Department
of Plant Sciences, Jimma University.
12 of 13 GUFI ET AL.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell
System Technical Journal,27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.
1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
Singh, B. D., & Singh, A. K. (2015). Marker-assisted plant breeding: Principles
and practices. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2316-0
Smýkal, P., Aubert, G., Burstin, J., Coyne, C. J., Ellis, N. T. H., Flavell, A. J.,
Ford, R., Hýbl, M., Macas, J., Neumann, P., McPhee, K. E.,
Redden, R. J., Rubiales, D., Weller, J. L., & Warkentin, T. D. (2012). Pea
(Pisum sativum L.) in the genomic era. Agronomy,2(2), 74–115. https://
doi.org/10.3390/agronomy2020074
Tadesse, A., Atilaw, A., & Bekele, M. (2018). Field pea production guideline.
Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research. http://www.eiar.gov.et/
Telaye, A., Demtsu, B., & Getachew, T. (1994). Genetics and breeding of
field pea. In A. Telaye, G. Bejiga, M. C. Saxena, & M. B. Solh (Eds.),
Cool-season food legumes of Ethiopia: Proceedings of the First National
Cool-season Food Legumes Review Conference, 16–20 December 1993,
Addis Abeba, Ethiopia (pp. 122–137). ICARDA and Institute of Agricul-
tural Research.
Teshome, A., Bryngelsson, T., Dagne, K., & Geleta, M. (2015). Assessment
of genetic diversity in Ethiopian field pea (Pisum sativum L.) accessions
with newly developed EST-SSR markers. BMC Genetics,16(1), 102.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-015-0261-5
Vavilov, N. I., Rodin, L. E., Reznik, S., & Stapleton, P. (1997). Five
continents. IPGRI; VIR.
Whittaker, R. H. (1960). Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon
and California. Ecological Monographs,30(3), 279–338. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1943563
Yemane, A., & Skjelvåg, A. O. (2003). Effects of fertilizer phosphorus on
yield traits of Dekoko (Pisum sativum var. Abyssinicum) under field
conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science,189(1), 14–20.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037X.2003.00595.x
Yirga, H., & Tsegay, D. (2013). Characterization of dekoko (Pisum sativum
var. Abyssinicum) accessions by qualitative traits in the highlands
of Southern Tigray, Ethiopia. African Journal of Plant Science,7(10),
482–487. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJPS2013.1092
Zohary, D., & Hopf, M. (1973). Domestication of pulses in the Old World:
Legumes were companions of wheat and barley when agriculture
began in the Near East. Science,182(4115), 887–894. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.182.4115.887
How to cite this article: Gufi, Y., Tsegay, A., Ruelle, M. L.,
Teka, K., Tewolde-Berhan, S., & Power, A. G. (2022). Field pea
diversity and its contribution to farmers' livelihoods in
northern Ethiopia. Legume Science,4(4), e141. https://doi.org/
10.1002/leg3.141
GUFI ET AL.13 of 13