Farmers’ perceptions of pollinators’ importance in coffee production in Uganda

doi:10.4236/as.2011.23043

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.2, No.3, 318-333 (2011)

doi:10.4236/as.2011.23043

Agricultural Sciences

Farmers’ perceptions of pollinators’ importance in

coffee production in Uganda

Théodore Munyuli1,2*

1Department of Biology, National Center for Research in Natural Sciences, CRSN-Lwiro, D.S. Bukavu, Kivu, Democratic Republic

of the Congo

2Department of Envir o n me n t a nd Natural Resource E c o nomics; Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences;

Namasagali Campus; Busitema University; Tororo, eastern Uganda; *Corresponding author:

tmunyuli@nres.busitema.ac.ug, tmunyuli@gmail.com, tmunyuli@yahoo.com

Received 30 April 2011; revised 26 June 2011; accepted 29 July 2011.

ABSTRACT

Coffee (Coffea canephora) is the principal cash

crop and the country’s largest agricultural for-

eign revenue earner in Uganda. Previous sur-

veys confirmed that coffee grown in central

Uganda was largely depending on bee pollina-

tion to set fruit set. Despite its high contribution

to the economics of agricultural sector in U-

ganda and despite its great dependency to bees

for fruit set, it is not clear if small-scale farmers

are aware of the importance of managing farm-

landscapes for pollination services conserva-

tion to increase coffee yield. The aim of this

study was to assess farmers’ perceptions and

knowledge of the importance of pollinators and

pollination services conservation for coffee

production enhancement. The main hypothesis

was that small-scale coffee growers were not

aware of the relevance of pollination services

for coffee production. Farmers’ surveys were

conducted in coffee-banana farming systems in

central Uganda.

It was found in this study that more than 90%

of interviewed farmers were not aware of the

role played by bees in coffee yield increase.

Farmers were not willing to manage their lands

to protect pollination services, particularly be-

cause they considered pollination service as an

unsolicited “free service”, or as a “public good”.

Farmers were not aware of the role of semi-

natural habitats serving as reservoir (hiding

points) for pollinators in the surrounding of

coffee fields. However, they were aware of some

ecosystem services delivered in the coffee-

banana farming system such as planting shad-

ing trees. Only 3.3% of respondents believed

that placing beehives in coffee farms could in-

crease the yield. The study recommended the

increase of the awareness of small-scale coffee

growers on the importance of pollinators to in-

crease coffee production.

It is recommended that future management of

pollination services are built on improving

farmers’ indigenous knowledge and on ade-

quate understanding of the ecology of the local

pollinator species. There is a need to broadly

scale-up best field, habitat and landscape man-

agement strategies and practices that are

friendly to coffee pollinators in rural landscapes

of Uganda

Keywords: Coffee Production; Ecosystem Service s

Delivered in Farmlands; Pollinating Services;

Farmers’ Perceptions of Pollinators; Pollinators

Conservation; Pollinator-Friendly

Farming practices; Uganda

1. INTRODUCTION

Coffee (Coffea arabica and C. canephora) is an im-

portant commercial crop. It is the second most traded

global commodity by developing nations after oil [1].

Coffee is an important cash crop in Uganda because the

tree crop is the principal cash crop and the country’s

largest agricultural foreign revenue earner [2].

At the farmer level, coffee remains an important

source of income since its production accounts for over

10% of total income of the farmer [2]. At the national

level, income from coffee currently contributes around

20% - 26% of Uganda’s export earnings [2] In 1999,

coffee exports totaled 150,000 mt (2.5 million bags of 60

kg) representing US$125.316 million in foreign ex-

change earnings. Exports by value for Uganda coffee is

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

319319

of 398 million $USD in 2009 (Presidential press of 31

December 2010).

The improvement of coffee yield quality and quantity

at farm level remains importantly an area that requires

encouragement as part of national strategy to increase

the production of coffee in Uganda. Thus, improvement

and stability of co ffee productivity are very important in

the Uganda national economy. However the improve-

ment needs the understanding of farmers’ perceptions

and knowledge of po llinators and po llination services for

coffee production among other key production and

management factors to consider. It is important to collect

such information since any management and technology

that can be scaled-up to improve coffee production has

to be implemented by small scale growers.

There are many ecosystem services that are delivered

in agricultural landscapes and pollination service is one

of them. It may be difficult for farmers to invest in the

conservation of ecosystem services w ithout knowing and

being convinced of their importance. Farmers can not

consider managing their lands for the conservation of

ecosystem services delivered by pollinator biod iversity if

they are not aware or convinced of the importance of

these services for their livelihoods.

In Sub-Saharan Africa and in Uganda, farmers’ per-

ceptions and awareness about the role of pollinators in

coffee production remain largely un-documented. Yet,

such information is necessary for developing suitable

management plans to conserve agro-ecosystems and

services delivered in and from these agro-ecosystems for

coffee productivity stability and improvement. Informa-

tion about indigenous knowledge’s and perceptions of

pollination serv ices is necessary to be incorporated in the

design of management strategies for increasing and

maintaining pollination services for the stability of the

yield of coffee and other pollinator-dependent crops and

for on-farm biodiversity conservation .

Pollination is a service nature provides that is mostly

taken for granted, and very little is done to improve or

maintain this natural serv ice [3]. However, pollinatio n is

an ecosystem service that is key to food security [4-6].

Pollinators are essential for many vegetable, fruit and

seed based crops including coffee that are grown in

Uganda and in Sub-Sahara Africa. Good agricultural

environmental health is fundamental to sustainable

farming [3]. For pollen-limited crops, promoting polli-

nation services is a mean of increasing their productivity

without resorting to expensive agricultural inputs such as

pesticides and herbicides. Indeed, pollination services

are most likely underpinning productivity in many Sub-

Saharan grown crops without farmers even recognizing

it [6].

Globally, the con tribution of pollinators for increasing

genetic diversity, adaptation, seed set or crop production,

crop quality and natural regeneration of wild and culti-

vated crops species has been highlighted and the need to

conserve pollinators h as been stressed worldwide [7-11].

Yet the public’ knowledge of the role of pollinators re-

mains poorly documented or not documented at all, es-

pecially in Sub-Saharan Africa [2] including Uganda,

where farmers grow crops with high degree of vulner-

ability to future pollinators decline [2]. Conducting an

interview survey seems to be an important step in infor-

mation generation for policy-makers concerned with

issues related to conciliate on-farm pollinator biodiver-

sity conservation and promotion of agriculture moderni-

zation that is aiming at increasing agriculture production

and thereby increasing household annual income and

employment opportunity of the farmers.

Hence, the relevance of assessing specific knowledge

by farmers on pollinator importance for coffee crop

yields increase, agriculture, wild biodiversity and agro-

biodiversity conservation.

The understanding of farmers’ perceptions of pollina-

tor importance in coffee production can help in devel-

oping strategies to reduce on the negative attitudes and

influence the change of attitudes and opinions towards

the adoption of environmentally friendly farming prac-

tices by farmers.

The objective of this study was to document farmers’

knowledge and perceptions of the importance of ecosys-

tem services delivered in farmlands and of pollinators

for coffee yield increase and stability. It was hypothe-

sized that “small-scale coffee growers were not aware of

coffee pollinators and perceive these as not important in

coffee production because “granted by the nature”. Be-

cause most managers of coffee farms (from central

Uganda) are aged (50 - 70 years) male farmers, and that

female farmers play a secondary role, it was therefore

hypothesized that the knowledge of pollination by farm-

ers would be linked to the gender and age of the farmer.

Since most coffee growers have small land area, it was

expected that the size of the coffee farm would influence

the knowledge of pollination. It was also predicted that

the knowledge of pollination would be linked to the

level of education since in most schools in Uganda; stu-

dents get to learn pollination issues. These expectations

combined to various others were tested by carrying out

an analysis on most probable factors explaining such

knowledge among small scale coffee growers from cen-

tral Uganda.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Survey Area and Sites

This study survey w as conducted in the banana-coffee

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

320

system of Lake Victoria Arc in central Uganda (Figure

1). This system is based on the production of banana

(Musa sp.), (mainly cooking and dessert types) as the

main food crop and coffee, mainly Coffea robusta, as the

main cash crop. Food production is mainly condu cted by

small scale less-resourced farmers. The coffee-banana

system covers the districts of Jinja, Iganga Mukono,

Mityana, Luwero, Rakai, Masaka, Wakiso, Kampala,

Mpigi, Mubende, Mukono, Kamuli, Mabira districts of

central Uganda. The Lake Victoria Arc, central Uganda,

is characterized by ferrisoils with high to medium fertil-

ity level, and receives on average 1000 - 1700 mm of

rains on a bimodal pattern (rainy seasons: March-May,

September-November; dry to semi-dry seasons: June-

August, December-February) with 22˚C - 28˚C and 60%

- 75% of temperature and relative humidity respectively.

The area is characterized by the prevalence of high rains

although the rainfall amounts and patterns are unpre-

dictable.

The study zone belong to the Lake Victoria phyto-

chorion, with shrubs of Acacia spp, legume trees, melli-

ferous plant species, Papyrus and palms ranging from 2

to 15 m high dominating the remnant secondary vegeta-

tion. Several food and cash crops are grown, mainly

cassava (Manihot esculentum L.), Sweetpotato, ( Ipo-

moea batatus, L.), maize (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolus

vulgarus L.), groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.); tomato

(Lycopersicon esculentum), watermelon (Citrullus lana-

tus), pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata), cucumber (Cucu-

mis sativus), melon (Cucumis melo); chilies (Capsicum

spp.); and several other fruits, vegetables and horticul-

tural crops (cabbage, onion etc., egg plants, sim-sim, etc.).

The majority of these crops are grown in small-scale

monoculture and or polyculture fields that are integrated

into the coffee-banana agroforest production systems

where coffee and banana ar e the heading co rp s . Coffee is

the cash crop of economic importance at national level,

mainly produced in this region, while banana is the main

staple food crop [2]. However, some large monocultures

and Estates of industrial crops (tea, sugar, and coffee)

Figure 1. Location of sites (per district) in which the survey on farmers’ perceptions of pollinator importance to coffee pro-

duction was conducted in the coffee-banana farming systems area around Lake Victoria in Uganda.

Openly accessible at

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

321321

are found in the study zone. Traditional agroforestry

systems with multipurpose tree species such as avocado

(Persea americana), papaya (Carica papaya), mango

(Mangifera indica L.), jackfruit, citrus trees, anonas

(Annona spp.). These tree species are mainta ined in sim-

ple and complex traditional agroforestry systems, indi-

cating the diversity of farming systems in the landscapes.

Lantana camara L., an invasive species, and several

tropical flowering plant species are often found on

farmlands and in home gardens.

Rural central Uganda is mosaic landscape where “is-

lands” of natural habitats (forest fragments, forest fal-

lows, forest reserves, wetlands) are found scattered

within agricultu ral matrices dominated by lin ear and no-

linear features of semi-natural habitats (fallows, hedge-

rows, grasslands, cattle pastures) that are displayed as

field boundaries of the diversity of small-scale fields.

Compared to other regions (districts) of Uganda, the

area is also characterized by high demographic pressure,

limited access to arable lands, continuous cultivation and

over-exploited lands. Central Uganda is characterized by

different population densities from two main tribes (Ba-

ganda and Basoga): very high (400 - 500 pers/km2), high

(200 - 400 pers/km2), medium (100 - 200 pers/km2) and

low (50 - 100 pers/km2). The region has benefited much

with some of the interventio ns (agricultural technologies

dissemination) deployed by PMA (Plan for moderniza-

tion of agriculture) actors and partners interested in

socio-economic transformation and sustainable devel-

opment of agricultural sector in Ugan da.

Different study sites were intentionally selected b ased

on assumptive criteria of drivers that may potentially be

responsible for differences in knowledge of pollinator

communities by local people across different localities

found within the study zone. A total of 26 sites (Figure 1)

was selected to represent a range of habitats types of

varying degrees of anthropogenic disturbances, and

management intensities (Figure 1) These included hu-

man population densities; farm management practices,

cultivation intensities (traditional small-scale farms ver-

sus large and intensely managed plantations or estates);

natural and semi-natural habitats, gradient of vegetation

complexity and structures (strata) found within and be-

tween agricultural fields. Two to four sites (1 km2 each

site) were selected per district. The different surveys

conducted were grouped into clusters using human

population density as a surrogate measure of agricultural

intensity [2]

2.2. Surveys on Farmers’ Knowledge

Ecosystem Services, Pollination

Services, Pollinators and Their

Importance in Coffee Production

Interviews started with group discussions with local

coffee farmers selected from all the administrative units

of the study area. The group discussions were followed

by detailed household interv iews. For these interviews, a

stratified random sample of coffee growers was selected

involving abo ut 17% of the village coffee growers in the

study area.

A total of 120 farmers (60 males and 60 females) were

interviewed from 26 study sites (Figure 1) to document

their knowledge of valuable ecosystem services deliv-

ered in coffee-banana farming system and to document

their knowledge and perception of coffee pollinators and

their importance to coffee production. In each stud y site,

4 farmers (two males and two females) engaged in cof-

fee growing and productions were selected for the inter-

views. Interviews were conducted as recommended [12-

14]. Interviews were conducted during coffee blooming

seasons (June-August 2007 and November 2007 to

March 2008). The farmers were randomly selected from

the study sites selected per district using lists of coffee

farmers obtained from local council chairpersons.

Prior to conduct formal interviews on the importance

of pollinators for coffee, a questionnaire was submitted

to farmers and aimed at assessing the level of apprecia-

tion and knowledge of different valuable ecosystem ser-

vices delivered in the coffee-banana farming systems.

There exist a number of ecosystem services delivered in

rural landscapes .The pre-survey concentrated on eco-

system services that are relevant and likely to be deliv-

ered in the coffee-banana farming systems of central

Uganda. Selected ecosystem services likely to be deliv-

ered in the coffee-banana farming system are presented

in Table 1.

To assess the level of knowledge of farmers of these

ecosystem services and to understand how farmers ap-

preciate these ecosystem services for their livelihood

improvement, each ecosystem service was presented to a

farmer as statement relating its importance in the agro-

ecosystem. The researcher provided sufficient explana-

tion to the farmer about the role, function and impor-

tance of that ecosystem service in the agro-ecosystem.

After explanation, each farmer was requested to state

whether he agreed, disagreed or nether agreed/disagreed

with the statement. Farmers who responded that they

agreed are those believed to be aware of the value of that

ecosystem service.

A formal interview followed shortly after collecting

data during the preli minary interview. During the formal

interview, farmers were interviewed using a pre-tested

structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was filled

using face to face interviews. All interviews and discus-

sion with farmers were conducted in the main local lan-

guage (Luganda) either at the farmer’s home or in the

coffee-banana field where such fields were within 1 km

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

322

Table 1. Type of statements on valuable ecosystem services delivered in coffee-banana farming systems in central Uganda.

No Supporting services

1 Soil structure and fertil ity is important to be maintained to increase crops yields

2 Nutrient cycling maintains soil fertility through mediation of microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes) that enhance soil fertility by liber-

ating nutrients from detrital organic matter

3 Bacteria enhance nitrogen availability through the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere, thus contributing t o better yield of legume crops

4 Non-crop plant products (organic matter, cow dung) are keys to soil fertility since they can replenish nutrients to agricultural land during fallow

periods.

5 Conservation tillage can contribute to increase soil fertility and crop yields

6 Upstream soil erosion control contribute to high crop yields

Regulating services

7 Some insects contribute to better yields of my crops

8 Ground beetles provide dung burial services and decompose wastes thereby recycling nitrogen and contributing to enhance soil fertility.

9 Ground beetle, ladybeetles, spiders, ladybugs, mantis, syrphid flies, and wasps, and lacewings reduce crop pest, thereby contributing to bette

yield of your cr ops

10 The harvest can be reduced to nil if stingless bees, honeybees and other wild bees do not visit the flowers of crops (stimulant/vegetable/legume/

fruit) they grow

11 Moths, butterflies, flies visit ation to crops help to get better yield for most of crops we gr ow

12 Sunbirds, bats visitations to flowers of crops like coffee contribute to higher fruit set; in addition, they reduce/eat crop pests (e.g. coffee berries

borers)

13 Growing in mixture many crop varieties (landraces) increases resistance of your crops to disease attacks; thereby contributing to better yields o

your crops

14 Increasing a high cover of trees on farm contribute to high rainfall in my village

15 Polyculture systems contribute to the stabilization of temperature and precipitation regime s (cont ribute to the reduction of frequency and severity

of extreme weather, droughts, flo ods, etc.) than monocultures in the village

16 Favorable, suitable and stable climate with sufficient rains can be obtained if we plant many trees in the village

17 Cutting or clearing all forests and semi-natural habitats around my gardens can contribute to high yield loss

18 Keeping a large amount of forested habitats help in getting clean purified water downstream(at the bottom of hill/mountains) and reduce soil

erosion in the village.

19 Planting shading trees along coffee farms can contribute to increase coffee yield

20 Sun coffee yield better than shaded coffee

Provisioning services

21 Great harvests (crop production) and food we eat can not be obtained without participation of insects, micro-organisms, birds in the production

systems

Non-marketed services

22 Aesthetic and beautiful landscapes obtained in the village thr o u g h t r e e p l a n t i n g c a n con t r i bu t e t o your health and long life

from a farmer’s homestead and the farmer was willing to

be interviewed on site. The researcher visited every re-

spondent’s coffee field in order to verify some of their

responses.

Interviews were conducted in order to collect neces-

sary information that could help to understand the level

of knowledge of farmers about pollinators and pollina-

tion mechanisms. The survey questionnaire comprised

two main parts. The first section sought general socio-

demographic information about respondents, including

age, gender, household income, gender labour in coffee

production, marital status, number of children and for-

mal education. The second section gathered information

relating to respondents’ knowledge of coffee pollination

and perception of the importance of pollin ators to coffee

yield and other crops.

Specifically, farmers were asked to i) describe their

understanding of pollination, ii) identify and differenti-

ate between wild bees, honeybees and insect pests iii)

mention the role of bees and other pollinators in coffee

fruit set, iv) identify nesting habitats of different wild

bee species that visit coffee flowers, and v) comment on

the effects of pesticides application on honeybees and

other pollinators in fields. Photographs of insect pests

and different kind of pollinators were presented to re-

spondents to help in identification of different species of

insects visiting coffee flowers.

2.3. Data Analysis

The survey data were encoded, entered into a spread-

sheet and checked prior to analysis. Cross-tabulation

with selected variables, percentages and means were

undertaken using pivot table in Microsoft Excel 2003.

Percentages were based on either the total number of

respondents or total responses, details of which are pro-

vided in the respective text or tables. Chi-square test was

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

323323

used to determine the effects of farmers’ socio-demo-

graphic profiles on their knowledge and perceptions of

pollinators and their roles in coffee production. Chi-

square test was also used to identify significant differ-

ence in response of males and females in the agreement

of statements proposed about the importance of differen-

tiate ecosystem services delivered in farmlands. All sta-

tistical analyses (chi-square) were conducted using

Minitab 15, English Version.

A logistic regression analysis was conducted to de-

termine most important factors that could probably have

influenced knowledg e of pollination by farmers. Logistic

regression allows one to predict a discrete outcome from

a set of independent variables that may be continuous,

discrete, and dichotomous, or a mix of any of these. The

dependent variable in this case, the knowledge of polli-

nation, had binary values, i.e., yes or no response.

3. RESULTS

3.1. General Perception of Types of

Valuable Ecosystem Services Delivered

in the Coffee-Banana Farming Systems

in Central Uganda

Interviewed farmers (males and females) in the sam-

ple were mostly aged (50 - 70 years). Respondents de-

clared that farming was the main source of their income.

In addition, majority of these farmers declared that their

annual incomes came from coffee farming activities and

that they have almost no off-farm incomes. Declared

farm incomes were in general low (<US $ 1500 - 2500

per annum) but the family incomes were higher when

farmers owned big land of coffee.

Various statements (Table2) explaining the impor-

tance of different ecosystem services delivered in farm-

lands were read and explained to farmers. The purpose

was to identify if farmers knew or were aware of the

value of these ecosystem services and if they were could

to care for their preservation. In relationship to coffee

pollination, ecology and management for yield increase,

statements 10, 11, 12, 19 and 20 (Ta b le 2 ) were mixed

among other statements and set to identify if farmers

acknowledge the value of these ecosystem services de-

livered in coffee-banana farming system.

When asked if they believed that “harvests can be re-

duced to nil if stingless bees, honeybees and other wild

bees do not visit the flowers of crops they grow”, 45

(75%) of males and 37 (61.7%) of female respondents

disagreed with the statement number 10. However, there

was no significant difference in the disagreement in rela-

Ta b l e 2 . Farmers’ attitudes and knowledge and awareness of important ecosystem services delivered in coffee-banana agroforestry

systems. (Do you agree/disagree with the statement?: Number of farmers agreeing/disagreeing with statement). Total number of in-

terviewed: 120 (60 females and 60 males). Significance levels of chi-square test: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001, ns = not

significant, NT = not test conducted.

Number of statements on

types of ecosyst em ser-

vices DS = Disagree AG = Agree NAD = Neither

Agree/Disagree Dominant perception

(% of farmers)

Male Female (



²-test) Male Female(



²-test) Male Female(



²-test) Male Female

(



²-test)

Supporting services Ch-Sq Ch-Sq Ch-Sq Ch-Sq

1 19 10 2.79 ns 40 49 0.91 ns1 1 0.00 ns AG (66.7) AG (81.7)1.51 ns

2 5 8 0.69 ns 5 7 0.34 ns40 4 5 0.29 ns NAD (66.7) NAD (75.0)0.49 ns

3 10 12 0.18 ns 15 3 8.11 ns35 45 1.25 ns NAD (58.3) NAD (75.0)2.07 ns

4 0 0 NT 45 50 0.36 ns15 10 1.00 ns AG (75.0) AG (91.0)1.53 ns

5 0 0 NT 6 0 6.11 **54 60 0.32 ns NAD (90.0) NAD (100.0)0.52 ns

6 40 45 0.29 ns 5 10 1.66 ns15 5 5.00 ** DA (66.7) DA (75.0)0.49 ns

Regulating services

7 2 4 0.66 ns 1 5 2.66 ns47 5 1 0.16 ns NAD (78.3) NAD (85.0)0.27 ns

8 12 10 0.18 ns 28 34 0.58 ns20 16 0.46 * AG (46.7) AG (56.7)0.98 ns

9 19 10 2.79 ns 11 45 20.65 ***30 5 17.87 ***AG (75.0) NAD (50.0)5.14*

10 45 37 0.78 ns 10 13 0.39 ns5 10 1.66 ns DS (75.0) DS (61.7) 1.23 ns

11 25 5 3.31 * * 5 10 1.66 ns30 4 5 3.11 ns NAD (75.0) NAD (50.0)5.41 *

12 35 40 0.33 ns 5 13 3.56 **20 7 6.35 ns DS (58.3) D S (66.7) 0.56 ns

13 10 4 2.5 ns 15 46 15.75 ***35 1 32.11 ***AG (76.7) NAD (58.3)2.46 ns

14 2 4 0.66 ns 35 56 4.85 **17 0 17.0 ***AG (93.3) AG (58.3)8.76 **

15 10 4 2.57 ns 34 26 1.05 ns16 30 4.26 * AG (56.7) NAD (50.0)0.41 ns

16 4 0 4.12 * 45 55 1.00 ns10 5 1.66 ns AG (41.7) AG (91.7)18.75**

17 2 43 37.5 ** 3 17 9.87 ***25 0 25.0 ***NAD (66.7) NAD (75.0)0.49 ns

18 12 5 2.89 ns 40 55 2.37 ns18 0 18.00 ***AG ( 58 .3) AG (91.7)7.45**

19 7 3 1.69 ns 53 49 1.98 ns0 8 14.1 ** AG (83.3) AG (8 1.7)3.31 ns

20 30 35 1.98 ns 7 13 0.38 ns23 12 3.46 ns DS (50.0) DS (5 8.3) 0.65 ns

Provisioning services

21 5 5 0.00 ns 10 15 1.00 ns45 40 0.29 ns NAD (75.0) NAD (66.7)0.49 ns

Non-marketed services

22 0 0 NT 40 34 0.48 ns20 26 0.78 s AG (66.7) AG (56. 7)0.84 ns

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

324

tionship to gender (



²-test, P > 0.05). This result indi-

cated that the majority of respondents did not perceive

the contribution of wild bees, stingless bees and honey-

bees in boosting their crop harvests including coffee. In

other words, farmers were not aware of the value of

ecosystem services delivered by bees to their crops.

Only few farmers were aware of the key role played by

pollination services for coffee. As indicated in Ta b l e 2,

most respondents hold the view that the presence or ab-

sence of stingless bees on coffee flowers has no impact

on coffee fruit set and yield. Not only that farmers did

not know the role of bees but the role played by other

pollinators (moths, butterflies, flies) to h elp crops getting

better yields for most of crops they grow remain largely

unknown . In fact 75% of males and 50% of female re-

spondents neither agreed nor disagreed with statement

number 11, meaning that they were not sure or certain,

probably the information was new to them.

Similarly, most farmers (58.3% of males and 66.7% of

females respondents) disagreed equally (



²-test, P > 0.05)

with the statement number 12 (Ta ble 2) indicating that

“sunbirds and bats visitations to flowers of crops like

coffee could lead to higher fruit set of coffee through

reduction by eating crop pests (e.g. coffee berries borers)

and throug h pollination of coffee flowers”.

When asked if “planting shading trees along coffee

farms could contribute to increased coffee yield”, 53

(83.3%) of males and 49 (81.7%) of females respondents

agreed with the statement 19 although there was no sig-

nificant difference related to the gender (



²-test, P >

0.05). However, there was a significant difference (



²-

test = 14.1, P < 0.001) between men and women who

neither agreed/disagreed that planting shading trees

along coffee farms could contribute to increase coffee

yields.

“Coffee being a male crop” in central Uganda, some 8

female farmers were not sure of if shading of coffee

trees could increase coffee yield, whereas most men

agreed that shading can increase coffee yield in the pro-

portion of 10 to 35%. When asked if sun coffee could

yield better than shade coffee, most (50%) males and

females (58.3%) disagreed with the statement 20 (Table

2), meaning that they believed that shading coffee could

lead to better yield better than sun coffee (Table 2).

3.2. Farmers Perceptions of Importance of

Pollinators for Coffee

Up to 70% of farmers did not understand what polli-

nation meant (Table 3). The proportion (%) of respon-

dents who did not know what attract massively insects

(bees) to coffee blossoms flowers was high but statisti-

cally (P > 0.05) similar between men (72%) and women

(73%).

Farmers were unable to separate and distinguish hon-

eybees from all other bee species and pest species.

Around 25% of respondents knew honeybees and stin-

gless bees. Women (33.3%) had higher understanding

(



²-test, 1df = 5.6, P < 0.05) of honeybees and stingless

bees than did men (16.7%). Only 8.2% of men could

recognize that among the different kinds of insects pre-

sented to them were pollinators or natural enemies. In

addition, women knew honey as the only benefit from

honeybees (Table 3). Up to 41% of the respondents

perceived that these insects (flower-visitor insects shown

to them) are just there and will always bee there. The

majority of respondents (35.8%) were not aware of any

ecological services performed by insects in thei r gard ens.

Almost (35%) of respondents stated that the majority of

these insects presented to them were pests or just playing

with coffee flowers but actually not harmful or benefi-

cial to coffee (Table 3).

According to farmers, pollination service is “un-so-

licited” services or a “free service” or a “public good”.

Small-scale farmers do not feel the need for managing

their farms for the provision of a “public good”

The majority (90%) of the respondents were not aware

of the role played by pollin ators in coffee yield and pro-

duction (Table 3 ) althou gh a high number of bee species

visited coffee flowers during blooming seasons (Table

3). Hence, they did not perceive that coffee needs bees to

produce. Significantly higher percentage of men (50%)

than percentage of females (11.7%) perceived that bees

were not important for coffee fruit set (



²-test, 1df =

23.8, P < 0.0001). Most farmers (65%) believed that

coffee can still produce even if th e flowers were not vis-

ited by bees.

Most of the respondents (75%) did not know where

wild bees constructed their nests. Farmers had no idea of

the role of semi-natural habitats as reservoir for pollina-

tors in the surrounding of coffee fields. All respondents

knew the importance of pesticides in pest/weed man-

agement, although some of them frequently said they

had no means to buy them. For those who could afford

buying these pesticides, 95% of them were not aware if

pesticides could kill b ees including honeybees (Table 3).

When asked if they believed that placing hives in coffee

gardens could increase coffee fruit set and yield, only

3.3% of respondents believed that hives in coffee farms

could increase coffee yield; majority of the respondents

believed that beehives have no impact on yield of coffee

and other crops they grow (Table 3).

3.3. Factors Determining Knowledge of

Pollination by Farmers

During discussion with farmers, compared to females,

male respondents frequently offered an explanation and

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

325325

Table 3. General knowledge and perception of farmers about the role of pollinators (bees) In coffee pollination and yield increase.

Gender Number of respondents(%)

Variables Males % Males Females % Females



²-test All respondents All (%)

(A): Respondents knowledge of insect groups frequently seen visiting coffee blossoms (flowers)

1. Apini-Meliponini 10 16.7 20 33.3 5.6 * 30 25.0

2. Ceratinini-Megachilini 0 0.0 0 0.0 NT 0 0.0

3. Anthophorini-Xyloc opini 2 3.3 2 3.3 NT 4 3.3

4. Honeybee (Apini) + Pests 2 3.3 0 0.0 3.3 ns 2 1.7

5. Honey bees + non-pests 25 41.7 6 10.0 19.4 *** 31 25.8

6. Butterflies/Moths 2 3.3 9 15.0 7.4 ** 11 9.2

7. Wasps/Ant s 0 0.0 4 6.7 6.7 * 4 3.3

8. Flies 7 11.7 2 3.3 4.6 * 9 7.5

9.Halictini-Eucerini 0 0.0 0 0.0 NT 0 0.0

10. Thrips/Beetles 3 5.0 3 5.0 NT 6 5.0

11. Other pests 4 6.7 4 6.7 NT 8 6.7

12. Do not know 5 8.3 10 16.7 2.8 ns 15 12.5

(B): Respondents knowledge of insect group mostly damaging coffee crop and other cultivated staple plants

1. Honeybees 0 0.0 0 0.0 NT 0 0.0

2. Butterflies 1 1.7 9 15.0 10.7 ** 10 8.3

3. Wasps 15 25.0 1 1.7 20.4 *** 16 13.3

4. Flies 24 40.0 15 25.0 3.5 ns 39 32.5

5. Beetles 0 0.0 0 0.0 NT 0 0.0

6. Ants/thrips 10 16.7 20 33.3 5.6 * 30 25.0

7. Other Pests 4 6.7 0 0.0 6.7 * 4 3.3

8. Do not know 5 8.3 15 25.0 8.4 ** 20 16.7

(C): Are you aware that some insects listed above as flower visitors/pests of coffee crops are beneficial

(e.g. as food, predators, parasitoids, pollinate crops, or make the soil to be more fertile and productive)?

1. None is beneficial 20 33.3 10 16.7 5.6 * 30 25.0

2. They are pests 12 20.0 30 50.0 12.9 *** 42 35.0

3. I do not know 23 38.3 20 33.3 0.4 ns 43 35.8

4. Some are beneficial 5 8.3 0 0.0 8.3 ** 5 4.2

(D): What do you t h ink attract bees/insects on your crop flowers? Do they just come play on coffee flowers?

1. The smell of flowers 0 0.0 10 16.7 16.7*** 10 8.3

2. Nectar/pollen 5 8.3 0 0.0 8.3 ** 5 4.2

3. Resting/shelter 2 3.3 5 8.3 2.1 ns 7 5.8

4. Do not known 43 71.7 44 73.3 1.6 ns 87 72.5

5. Others reasons 10 16.7 1 1.7 12.3 *** 11 9.2

(F): Do you think bees and or other pollinato r s may play important role in coffee fruit set and yield increase?

1. Yes it very Important 5 8.3 1 1.7 4.5 * 6 5.0

2. Not importa nt at all 30 50.0 7 11.7 23.8 *** 37 30.8

3. They are just there 20 33.3 30 50.0 3.3 ns 50 41.7

4. Do not know 5 8.3 22 36.7 17.8*** 27

22.5

(H): Knowledge of wild bee nesting sites: where do you think bees you see visiting your coffee flowers sleep?

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

326

1. Tree branches 0 0.0 2 3.3 3.3 ns 2 1.7

2. Dead wood 0 0.0 0 0.0 NT 0 0.0

3. House walls/kraals 5 8.3 10 16.7 2.8 ns 15 12.5

4. Grounds (in the soil) 0 0.0 0 0.0 NT 0 0.0

5. Termite mounds 10 16.7 3 5.0 6.3 * 13 10.8

6. Do not known 45 75.0 45 75.0 2.2 ns 90 75.0

(G): Knowledge of effects of herbicides/insecticides: are you aware that they do killing honeybees/wild bees?

1. Herbicides 1 1.7 0 0.0 NT 1 0.8

3 Insecticides 4 6.7 1 1.7 3.1 ns 5 4.2

3. Do not know 55 91.7 59 98.3 0.24 ns 114 95.0

(K): Do you believe that placing beehives in your field can increase your coffee yield in addition to the honey?

1. Do not believe 45 75.0 0 0.0 75 *** 45 37.5

2. I believe 2 3.3 2 3.3 NT 4 3.3

3. Do not know 13 21.7 58 96.7 47.6 *** 71 59.2

(L): Which factor you think play a very significant role for flowers to turn into higher fruit set & coffee yield?

1. Rains + soil fertility 20 33.3 35 58.3 6.8 ** 55 45.8

2. Wind (+ “God”) 1 1.7 0 0.0 NT 1 0.8

3. Coffee varieties 9 15.0 5 8.3 1.9 ns 14 11.7

4. Management 15 25.0 20 33.3 1.2 ns 35 29.2

5. Uncertain 15 25.0 0 0.0 25 *** 15 12.5

Significance levels of chi-square test: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001, ns = not significant, NT = not test cond u cted

definition of the world “pollination”. Because the pro-

portion of males and females who knew how pollinators

were important in crop yield increase was low and gen-

der biased, the researcher though that such information

could not be acquired in the traditional fashion of

knowledge transmission. Therefore, several factors were

suspected to likely contributing to po llination knowledg e.

Around 12 factors (Table 4) were selected as important

drivers of such knowledge. In order to explore their ef-

fects, data was collected such as for each variable, two

values could be obtained (1 = Yes, 0 = No). These fac-

tors included, age, gender, level of education, exposure

to extension service etc.

Several hypotheses were therefore constructed for se-

lecting variables to in clude in the model acco rding to the

objective of the study which was to determine the level

of knowledge of pollination and pollination mechanisms

and its importance to crop productivity among small-

scale holders.

For example, education was chosen as an independent

factor as it was hypothesized that people who spent

much time at school are likely to be aware of what is

pollination because they may have learnt it from school

or they do reading or listening to radio or watch televi-

sions. Age, gender and farming experience were also

seen as likely factors influencing the knowledge of pol-

Table 4. Description of the respondent variables selected for

logit regression as they were suspected to influence the knowl-

edge of the farmers of pollination.

1. Age of t h e farmer [(1 = (>40 years); 0 = (<35 years)]

2. Number of years already spent farming coffee (1 = >15 years; 0 = <

10 years)

3. Gender of the respondent (1 = Male; 0 = Female).

4. Contact with extension services (1 = Yes; 0 = No) as potential

sources of information about pollination

5. Higher capacity of differentiating honeybees from wild bee species

visiting coffee flowers (1 = Yes; 0 = No)

6. Higher capability of differentiating a wild bee from a pest on a cof-

fee flowers ( 1 = Yes; 0 = No)

7. Acquired basic primary and or secondary education (1 = Yes; 0 =

No)

8. Mode of acquisition of the coffee field or farm (1 = planted all my

coffee field myself; 0 = inherited)

9. Source of main agricultural household income (1 = coffee produc-

tion, 0=other cro p s ) for farmers who were not engaged in off-farm

income generating activities

10. Engaged in farming a cash crop that require hand pollination such

as Vanilla crop ( 1 = Yes, 0 = No)

11. Size of the coffee farm [1 = large (> 5 ha), 0 = small (0.1 - 2 ha)]

12. General attitude: Believing( ag reeing) on the importance of main-

taining a significant proportion (> 20% of total field) or protecting

hedgerows/fallows/forests i n t h e v icinity of coffee fields for yield

increase [(1 = strongly agree, 0 = strongly disagree)]

lination. It was also assumed that knowledge of nectar/

pollen collection by bees on coffee flowers could be a

prerequisite to knowledge about pollination. It was also

thought that respondents who had regular contact with

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

327327

extensions services could be able to know what the word

pollination meant because extension workers are well

trained in pollination issues and therefore assumed that

they may bring such information to farmers.

Van illa is a cash crop that is well cultivated in central

Uganda, and it involves hand pollination. No farmer is

aware that small megachild bees do pollinating Vanilla

crop in coffee-banana farming system in Uganda.

Therefore, farmers who grew Vanilla were likely to

know what pollination was because they are always in-

volved in hand pollination business. The number of

years already spent farming coffee was judged to be an

important factor since farmers who grow coffee tend to

have or seek for general information about coffee grow-

ing and productivity maintenance over times. These

farmers regularly visit the national agricultural research

institutes of Uganda (NARO) where scientists are likely

to be able to communicate to them the word pollination.

The mode of acquisition of the farm was judged to be

important since farmers who inherited coffee fields had

different knowledge of the coffee productivity enhance-

ment from those who planted their coffee fields them-

selves. For example, farmers who made their own plan-

tations are also those who planted coffee colonel varie-

ties that they personally went to buy from agricultural

research institutes that are involv ed in breeding of coffee

for higher yield and resistance to diseases. Also farmers

who earned more cash from coffee sales were suspected

to have general knowledge of pollination compared to

those who do not consider coffee farming as a lucrative

business. It was also considered that believing th at main-

taining a significant proportion (>20% of total field) or

protecting natural and semi-natural habitats (hedgerows,

fallows, forests, etc.) in the vicinity of coffee fields can

contribute to coffee yield increase was an importan t fac-

tor to influence knowledge of pollinatio n and care about

pollination serv ices.

The above listed (Table 4) variables were tested for

their significant effects under multiple logistic regression

models in Minitab15 English version. Significant factors

(P < 0.05) likely influencing knowledge of pollination

by interviewed small scale coffee growers are presented

in Table 5.

It would be expected that respondents who were aged

(50 - 70 years) or those who had acquired basic educa-

tion (primary and or secondary education) to be more

likely to know the world pollination. Surprisingly, re-

spondents who had past several years (>15 years) grow-

ing coffee and those who established themselves their

coffee plantations or and those who had regular contact

with extension services were statistically (P < 0.01)

likely to explain what pollination meant (Table 5).

These findings confirmed the fact that extension services

were well equipped with pollination information such as

they could be able to pass it to farmers. Advocating for

management of pollination serv ices for crop prod uctivity

enhancement should preferably be addressed by taking

into consideration th e contribution of extension serv ices.

Also extension services should target aged (50 - 70

years), educated and adult farmers when delivering key

messages related to pollination services con servation for

coffee productivity enhance ment.

The above listed (described) variables were tested for

their significant effects under multiple logistic.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. Perceptions of Value of Ecosystem

Services Delivered in Farmlands

In this study a difference in environmental attitudes

between males and female respondents was observed.

Respondents showed a high degree of awareness and

Table 5. Binary logistic multiple regression showing the relationship between the knowledge of pollination (two values for the re-

sponse: 1 = farmers with some vague information, 2 = farmers with no information at all of what pollination means) versus (re-

gressed on) on various 12 factors (predictors) listed in Table 4.

Logit regression values o f factors determining respondents knowledge of coffee pollination in central Uganda

Predictors Coef SE Coef Z P

Constant –4.68429 0.751583 –6.23 0.000

1. Age of the farmer 1.27765 0.761506 1.68 0.093

2. Gender of the respondent 0.0000 0.0000

3 .Years of coffee farming 1.92975 0.713664 2.70 0.007

4 .Regular contact with extension services 3.20043 0.826989 3.87 0.000

5. Differentiating honeybees from wild bees 0.0000 0.0000

6. Differentiating a wild bee from a pest 0.0000 0.0000

7. Acquired basic primary and or seco n da ry education 0.0000 0.0000

8. Mode of acquisiti o n of the coffee field 2.52434 0.606878 4.16 0.000

9. Source of household income 0.0000 0.0000

10. Growing cash crop requiring han d pollination 0.0000 0.0000

11. Size of the coffee farm 0.0000 0.0000

12. Maintaining semi-natural habi tats in vicinity of fields 0.0000 0.0000

Log-Likelihood = – 52.417; G = 116.748, df = 4, P-Value = 0.000, R2 = 0.56

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

328

sensitivity regarding to some ecosystem services deliv-

ered in the coffee-banana farming systems. The majority

of the respondents felt and agreed that some ecosystem

services and functions were important in their crop pro-

duction systems.

Compared to males, female respondents showed the

acceptance of soil fertility restoration concept as a basic

component of coffee production enhancement in central

Uganda. Regarding male respondents’ attitude about

micro-organism services, 70% agreed micro-organisms

had no positive effects on soil fertility. Few male re-

spondents knew exactly the role played by micro-or-

ganisms in soil fertility replenishment, even when they

exactly knew the details of agroforstry trees in increas-

ing soil fertility. The lack of awareness of the role played

by micro-organisms by males may due to the fact that

such knowledge was not transmitted to them by their

grand parents. Most indigenous knowledge bout soil is

acquired traditionally or by experience. This observation

(low knowledge of the role played by micro-organisms

in soil fertility) indicated the need for more training and

exposure of farmers on technical aspects related on soil

fertility enhancement.

In this study, it was observed that farmers had a fa-

vorable attitude towards increasing on-farm trees cover

based on indigenous trees. Farmers also recognized the

need for planting trees to provide shade to coffee. A

greater majority of the respondents agreed that shading

coffee can increase coffee yield although males had a

positive attitude of shading regime compared to female

respondents. While majority of males farmers acknowl-

edge the va lue of shading trees for coffee yield incre ase,

female farmers were of opinions that growing shading

trees along aside coffee plantations does not necessarily

increase coffee yield at all. On the contrast, males had a

contemporary view of shading coffee, they valued the

shading regime of increasing coffee yield and associated

crops since they agreed that shade contributed to in-

crease coffee yield by at least 10% - 35% [2]. Therefore,

planting shading trees alongside coffee plantations had

positive attitudes about the value of the service for cof-

fee.

Female respondents further strongly agreed that both

planting trees and maintaining high fertility of soils

could increase significantly coffee yield. The difference

between males and females in the effects of shading re-

gimes on coffee crop yield increase may be due to the

gender segregation in labour for different activities re-

lated to coffee farm management. Coffee is generally a

“male crop.” Women are mainly involved in coffee berry

harvests and coffee seed drying. Hence women have

little time to invest and und erstand factors that may help

in boosting coffee.

The implication of these observations (difference in

knowledge of the effect of shading regime on coffee

yield) is that policy makers and extension services

agents should put more emphasis on the importance of

shading coffee to increase the yield. It is important that

extension services raise the level of knowledge of both

males and females about the different tree species to be

planted to provide shade to coffee and associated crops.

Shade contribute to the increment of coffee yield by fa-

voring several other factors directly involved in yield

increase such as attracting a diverse and rich bee fauna.

Also, it has been evidenced that coffee plantations

grown under good shading regime attract efficient polli-

nator species. Most social bees (stingless bees) forage

better and deliver pollination services to coffee trees

located in farms with at least 10% to 50% shade cover

[2].

It this study, a variety of beliefs about value of differ-

ent pollination services delivered in farmlands among

male and female respondents was observed. For example,

male participants had strong agreement regarding the

importance of rain (not pollination) in coffee production

boosting. Most respondents disagreed that pollinators

were important for coffee fruit set and yield increase,

although young farmers remained neutral about this is-

sue. This observation for strengthening information de-

livery by extension services about which crops rely on

pollinators to set fruit seeds and what to do to maintain

pollinators nearby fields.

Regarding the contribution of birds and bats to coffee

pollination, it was observed in this study that most re-

spondents disagreed that these seed dispersal agents

would enhance and contribute to coffee fruit set. Farm-

ers perceived that sunbirds and bats were of no value for

coffee production in Uganda. However, most farmers

agreed that honey bees could contribute to coffee yield.

The lack of knowledge of role played by bats and birds

in pollination was expected since farmers have no inter-

ests in observing the benefits these animals bring on

farms. In most cases, birds are perceived by farmers as

crop pests in Uganda. The lack of knowledge of the

beneficial services from bats and bats calls for increasing

education of farmers about identification, management

and conservation of seed dispersal agents and related

ecosystem services agents (agro-ecosystem engineers)

To summarize, rainfalls, soil fertility and shading re-

gimes were hereby identified as accepted by most farm-

ers as key concepts in natural resources management for

coffee production boosting although other factors may

be important such as pollination. Such observation and

attitudes of farmers are normal in the tropics. In fact, the

tropical environmental of Sub-Saharan Africa, most

farmers present significant differences in economic, so-

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

329329

cial and environmental attitudes ([2] and such situation

has implication in the management of environmental

services for crop yield stability, income generation and

livelihood improvements. Policy makers and extension

services need to develop strategies to increase the

knowledge among farmers of the role and value of dif-

ferent ecosystem services in crop productivity enhance-

ment including coffee.

4.2. Farmers’ Knowledge of Pollinators’

Importance for Coffee Yield Increase

In this study, it was hypoth esized that small scale cof-

fee growers were not aware of the importance of polli-

nators for co ffee production.

The results confirmed the hypothesis. In fact it was

observed that more than 90% of small-scale farmers

were not aware of the value of pollination services to

coffee and to other crops they grow. Similar observations

were highlighted by Kasina et al. [15] who observed that

most farmers in Kakamega region (Western Kenya) were

not aware of the importance of pollination for crop pro-

duction.

Findings from the surveys highlighted the fact that

many farmers lump pollinators together with others in-

sect pests, and do not explicitly manage their farms to

conserve them, although pollinators substantially con-

tribute to coffee yield increase at no direct cost to the

farmer.

Knowledge of the role o f pollinato rs in coffee produc-

tion remains poor in central Uganda. Farmers have very

limited knowledge on pollination and pollinators; they

often take pollinators for granted. Most farmers said

“these insects are just there, they are part of creation and

nature but they do not need to do something to protect

them because these insects will always be there”. Farm-

ers said they did not need to care about these small in-

sects seen visiting coffee flowers, because they think

these small insects are just there resting but they are not

harmful neither beneficial to coffee flowers. Most farm-

ers believed that the presence or absence of these insects

on coffee flowers does not stop coffee to set fruit. Also

farmers believe that coffee fruit set depends largely on

shade, fertility and moisture levels and on control of

pests and diseases. Farmers who sprayed herbicides to

control weeds did not believe that herbicides had nega-

tive impact on bees. Previous studies highlighted the fact

that small scale farmers (average yield: 600 - 2400

kg/ha/year) growing coffee (shading regime: 10% - 70%)

with a moderated plant density (450 - 1567 trees/ha)

used on average 3 to 10 liters of herbicides ha/year [2].

This amount is a high compared to what is recom-

mended (0.5 to 1.5 ha/year in Uganda) and it is index to

predict at which level pollinators are exposed to herbi-

cides in central Uganda, particularly in regions where

farmers are interested in using herbicides to control

weeds instead of hand-weeding [2]. The reason for

which some farmers preferred using herbicide that hand-

hoe weeding were not known but probably this could be

attributed to the type of extension services they receive .

The major contingent of coffee flower pollinators be-

longed to the Apoidea group. Other prominent floral

visitors comprise species of Diptera, Lepidoptera and

Coleoptera. Neither the dependent nor the famous floral

visitors are well known by small-scale coffee growers.

In fact, coffee is reliant to wild bees but farmers are not

aware of the role played by these wild bees. Similarly,

butterflies are observed flying within coffee trees but

farmers believe they are doing nothing (harmful or bene-

ficial) to coffee flowers. In fact respondents indicated

that honeybee was a frequent visitor of coffee; they were

also able to identify and recognize butterflies as vagrant

species in the field; however, no farmer could identify

how beneficial butterflies may be for coffee in central

Uganda. In contrast, farmers know some butterfly spe-

cies as pests of some crop species like Ipomoea batatus.

This finding suggest that efforts should be but in place

by extension services to educate small-scale farmers to

appreciate and know different pollinating agents of their

important crops like coffee. Extension services should

work hard to increase appreciation of the beneficial as-

pects of some on-farm based animals like butterflies to

increase the involvement and commitment of farmers in

the conservation of on-farm biodiversity for livelihood

improvements in rural areas.

Farmers were not capable of distinguishing different

stingless bee species that occur in their area. Farmers

were also not aware that stingless bees played significant

role for coffee to produce higher and quality yields. The

only bee species that was recognized by farmers was

honeybee although majority of farmers perceived that

honeybees were just there but their presence or absence

could not influence coffee fruit set. Some farmers be-

lieved that honeybees collect nectar from coffee but they

are not involved in coffee reproduction process.

Field observations and surveys indicated that the

overall basic knowledge by farmers of eusocial bees (A.

mellifera, Hypotrigona gribodoi and Axestotrigona fer-

ruginea) that occur in coffee fields was mainly related to

their continued utilization for honey (from honeybees

and stingless bees) and other hive products. Cultural

value (in terms of utility) plays a significant role in folk

knowledge of Apoidea communities by farmers. For

example, in Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Ghana,

Kenya, etc farmers know different bee species in the

Meliponini group [9]. They also know nesting sites (and

structures) of different meliponini bees. Some have de-

veloped advanced traditional methods for rearing these

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

330

species for the production of honey. Hence, meliponi-

culture [16] as a lucrative activity for farmers need to be

promoted worldwide based on indigenous knowledge of

local communities not only for providing income from

sale of hive products (honey) but also as a reliable

source of pollination of crops su ch as coffee, particularly

in over-cultivated regions where nesting sites have been

degraded in disfavor of establishment of wild ground

nesting bee communities that are important crop polli-

nators in the tropics.

Knowledge of pollination is expected from most

farmers of central Uganda. However, it seems that the

knowledge does not depend on the level of education

and more particularly on the age. Central Uganda is in-

habited by people of “Bagan da” ethnic group . In Ugand a,

the level of knowledge of pollination seems to be asso-

ciated with the tribe and the agro-ecological zone. While

Baganda people have little knowledge of pollination

(probably because they live on relatively fertile land

where most of crops can yield with less inputs), human

communities living in most other ecological zones of

Uganda have a good knowledge of pollination. In fact,

during a study conducted in western part of Uganda

(Munyuli 2011, unpublished data), it was realized that

communities (Bakiga, Bafumbira and Batwa) living in

the mountainous region bordering Bwindi Impenetrable

forest and Mgahinga Gorilla forest national parks were

aware of the value pollinators. Most farmers interviewed

from that region new how to manage their lands to care

for pollinators (wild and managed bees). Farmers from

that region had 5 to 15 beehives each while in central

Uganda few farmers (<20% - 30%) own beehives. Bee-

keeping is not a common farming practice in central

Uganda whereas in western part of the region, it is one

of the lucrative activities providing income to farmers.

Hence, knowledge of pollination by bees is advanced in

west part of the country.

Additionally Baganda people were incapable of dif-

ferentiating bees from other insects. Batwa people had

local names for different species of stingless bees [17].

Different stingless bee species (Ebihura in batwa lan-

guage) have distinct names according to Batwa nomen-

clature: Maranga (Hypotrigoa gribodoi), Obwiza (Meli-

ponula ferruginea), Obugashu (Meliponula bocandei),

Obuzagali (Meliponula lendliana) and Obuganza (Ple-

beina hildebandti). It was there after assumed that the

high level of knowledge pollinator species and pollina-

tion by human communities from western part of

Uganda may be linked to the fact that their agricultural

systems is largely depending on inputs including polli-

nation and fertilizers. Overall, the increase in level of

knowledge of pollination by farmers seems following a

gradient from the edge of Lake Victoria to Western part

of the country.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Differences in perceptions and knowledge of pollina-

tion constitute a major obstacle in farmer–researcher

cooperation and collaboration which is necessary for

sustainable management of pollination services in rural

farmlands.

The aim of this study was to understand knowledge

and perceptions of the importance of pollinators and

pollination services in coffee production. Farmers’ per-

ceptions were investigated in order to harness their

knowledge in the participatory development of conser-

vation strategies of pollination services. Perception of

pollination involved both in scientific and spiritual con-

ceptual frameworks were identified. Findings indicated

that farmers’ awareness of pollinator importance in cof-

fee yield increase was extremely low and gender biased

with males having high knowledge than females.

One of the greatest challenges for the conservation of

Apoidea fauna in farmlands of central Uganda is the

great ignorance of the role played by bees in crop pro-

duction enhancement including coffee. Ironically, small

scale farmers in central Uganda are involved in all ac-

tivities related to the destruction and conservation of

natural resources. Obviously, farmers can play signifi-

cant role in the conservation of bees if they are made

aware of the importance of bees to the improvement of

their livelihood and sustainability of their agricultural

systems.

African farmers are aware of insects as pests but not

as important factor in the agricultural productivity. Bees

are taken for granted by farmers, just like the air and the

light. However, the “free pollination service” provided

by “God” to human survival is irreplaceable and it will

be difficult for scientists to find a technology that can

replace it in the nature.

In Uganda, many people and farmers believe that if

there is a yield loss, it will be attributed to anything but

not to pollination deficit. However, conservation of pol-

linators is a key for sustainable agriculture development

in Africa. Much of crops grown in Africa owe their pro-

duction to bee pollination activities. African green revo-

lution will not work without paying great attention to

pollinators in the plant breeding programs (Dr Muo

Kasina, Personal communication).

Findings from this study also indicated that, that more

than 90% of the farmers were not aware of the role

played by bees in the increase of coffee yield. As it was

also observed in Kenya [12,15], small-scale farmers in

central Uganda were not willing to manage their lands to

protect pollinator s because not only that they were igno-

rant, but, they also considered pollination as an unsolic-

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

331331

ited “free service”, or as a “public good”. Most farmers

considered that coffee could still produce with or with-

out receiving visits from bees. In contrast to the views

and perceptions of the farmers, pollination experiments

conducted from 30 coffees showed that the economic

value of pollination services delivered to coffee ap-

proximated US $ 650/ha/year on average [2]. At the na-

tional level, the to tal economic value of coffee produced

in Uganda is on average of US$214 million from half

million hectares dedicated to coffee production, and ap-

proximately 60% (US $ 149 million) of this economic

value is attributable to pollination services delivered by

bees to coffee in Uganda [2]. This is the evidence that

coffee needed pollinators in central Uganda. Crop polli-

nation by bees and other animals is an essential ecosys-

tem service in Uganda. At the national scale, pollination

services may have been estimated to be equivalent of

>16% - 25% of the market value of agricultural produc-

tion.

Few small-scale coffee growers were selected and in-

vited to short discussions of whether bees increase cof-

fee yield or not. As previously highlighted, majority of

these farmers said they do not think bees are important

for coffee fruit set. Consequently, coffee trees were se-

lected and bagged to exclude pollinators. Farmers were

asked to take care of the pollination experiments. The

un-bagging process (Plate 1) was run in their presence

during the first blooming season (July-August 2007)

when farmers witnessed that bagged flowers had no fruit

whereas un-bagged flowers that were regularly visited

by bees did set fruits.

During experiments conducted in November-De-

cember 2007 in the same coffee fields, the researcher

found that farmers were now fencing (using traditional

materials and native trees) termite mounds to protect

stingless bees nesting in termite mounds (Plate 2) be-

Plate 1. On-farm coffee pollination experiment showing un-

bagged and bagged coffee branches.

Plate 2. Termite mounds being protected by farmers to favour

bees pollinating crops nearby.

cause they were told during the first blooming season

(July-August 2007) by the researcher that these features

(termite mounds) were used as habitats by various wild

bees such as meliponini bees that pollinate their crops.

When the researcher was setting experiments during the

second blooming period, farmers were now asking for

information about wild bees, where they live and what

they eat and how to protect them in order to increase

coffee yield.

In this study it was found that pollination knowledge

was shaped by a wide range of social, cultural, educa-

tional and individual attitudinal characteristics of re-

spondents. It was also found that age, level of education,

gender, general knowledge of importance of protecting

natural and semi-natur al habitats in the vicinity of coffee

fields for coffee yield increase played no important role

on pollination knowledge by interviewed farmers. Con-

trastingly, the number of years passed farming coffee or

the degree of contact with extension services were iden-

tified in the logistic model as most striking factors. In

other words, knowledge of pollination by farmers was

likely to occur in areas where they had access to regular

extension service advices. Also, farmers who inherited

their plantations and those who planted themselves their

plantations were likely to know the word pollination.

Therefore, it was recommended that these few factors

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

332

that were identified, be taken into consideration to be

successful during awareness campaigns aiming at raising

farmers’ knowledge of the importance of conserving

pollinators for coffee yield increase.

Overall, it is important to increase the awaren ess of all

small-scale coffee producers of the importance of con-

serving pollinators within the farm landscape to increase

coffee production. The role of extension services was

found to significantly improve respondents’ knowledge

of pollination, and hence the extension service institu-

tions of Uganda should increase and be empowered.

This will help in enhancing information provision to the

farmers through, e.g., fr equent visits, making bulletin s or

using other channels such as radio or television. World

wide, it has been observed that extension services have a

significant impact on the learning process of farmers.

There is also a need for extension services to inform

farmers about the diversity and management of bee-food

plants in the farm-landscape. There is a need to revise

and incorporate in the school curriculum new concepts

such as pollination such as young people; especially

those leaving in rural areas are informed about the im-

portance of pollinators and pollination services.

Understanding farmers’ perceptions and motivations

is of significant importance in relation to environmental

services conservation. This can allow for gaining insight

into the complex systemic interactions between natural

processes, management policies, and local people de-

pending on the environmental services (or resources).

Ecosystem services such as pollinatio n service are aspect

of the environment that relate closely to human liveli-

hoods and that can be used to convince the public that

biodiversity is not only wild animals that may damage

their crops, but also creatures that live on their farms and

that can help to sustain crop production. Further public

awareness programs on ecosystem services such as pol-

lination are highly needed While aiming at understand

how farmers view the contribution of pollinators coffee

yield, most farmers were saying that “either bees visit or

not coffee flowers, fruit will still come provided that

rains is here”. The reasons behind these thinking were

not given. Although farmers depend on farming incomes

from coffee, the recorded opinions of most farmers were

that there was no need to care for the service. However,

pollination service remain critical to all farmers since

pollination is directly required for most crop s they grow.

If the ecosystem surrounding farmlands is healthy farm-

ers will usually receive adequate pollination. Therefore,

they need to raise their awareness about the value of

investing in the conservation of this vital service. It is

important to make farmers to be aware of that the work

of bees is irreplaceable, hence the need for them to get

involved in farming practices that are important in con-

serving service provided by pollin ato rs to cash crops lik e

coffee.

Raising the awaren ess of bees and pollinators for cof-

fee production is important in Uganda since the govern-

ment of Uganda earn several millions per annum from

exports and sales of coffee beans. Therefore, policy

aiming at improving coffee yield through management

and conservation of pollination services, should advo-

cate for increase of awareness and knowledge of polli-

nators (their natural history, their food and habitats re-

quirements, their activities, behaviour, interaction with

crops) and their importance for crop productivity en-

hancement. Policy and incentives should be put in place

to increase the adoption and implementation by farmers

of pollinator-friendly farming practices. This call for

educational campaigns to advise farmers on best farm

management options for in field maintenance and in-

crease of diversity and density of bees. For example,

farmers should be informed on better moment for utiliz-

ing pesticides if they need to apply such as their applica-

tion do not erode bee fauna.

There is a need to develop and disseminate (scale-up)

field, habitat and landscape management strategies that

are pollinator-friendly to guarantee nesting areas, floral

resources availability for coffee pollinators in central

Uganda. Among other pollinator-friendly farming prac-

tices is the reduction or full avoidance of the use of pes-

ticides while managing pests during main blooming pe-

riods of coffee.

It is there recommended to small-scale coffee farmers

from central Uganda to adopt and preserve at least 20%

of their land uncultivated (un-cropped areas) as pollina-

tor reservoir to make coffee production system remain

ecologically and economically sound and viable on a

long-term basis. There is a need for local commun ities to

get involved in sustainable management of semi-natural

and natural habitats on farm landscapes to protect polli-

nators. Appropriate management of un-cropped areas to

encourage wild pollinators may prove to be a cost-ef-

fective means of maximizing crop yield. With land

shortage, it is recommended to farmers to adopt multi-

purpose agroforestry systems that take into account the

needs and requirements of pollinators in terms of nesting

and floral resources offered by agroforestry tree species

found on-farm. Forest remnant tree species and other

indigenous tree species found on-farm offer several

nesting opportunities to bees. Farmers should adopt

farming practices that promote the ecological intensifi-

cation of agricultural production rather than promoting

chemical intensification of crop production. Therefore,

avoiding the destruction of stamps, wooden materials

and eradication of these remnant tree species in the land-

scape should be avoided by farmers. Instead, it is rec-

T. Munyuli / Agricultural Science 2 (2011) 318-333

333333

ommended to increase the area covered by on-farm trees

and semi-natural habitats without jeopardizing the land

productivity.

Openly accessible at

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to Darwin Initiative (Defra, UK; project reference:

14 - 032; project title: Conserving biodiversity in modernized farm

landscapes in Uganda) for funding a project that supported this study

in Uganda. Mr. Maurice Mutabazi (research assistant) is acknowledged

for his assistance in the field. All my gratitude to Dr Juliet Vickery, Dr

Phil Atkinson, Prof Derek Pomeroy (scientific advisors and project

coordinators) and to both Dr Simon Potts and Professor Philip Nyeko

(scientific supervisors of the work). The warm and kind collaboration

of other project staffs is very acknowledged, mainly Geoffrey Akule,

Achillis Byaruhanga and David Mushabe (Nature Uganda), Annet

Nakeyune and Olivia Nantaba (Uganda wildlife Society) and Professor

Frank Kansiime (Deputy Principal of the college of agriculture and

environmental sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda).

REFERENCES

[1] Philpott, S.M., and Dietsch, T. (2003) Coffee and con-

servation: A global context and the value of farmer in-

volvement. Conservation Biology, 17, 1844-1846.

doi: 10 .1111 /j .1 523 -1739.2003.00150.x

[2] Munyuli, T.M.B. (2010) Pollinator biodiversity and eco-

nomic value of pollination services in Uganda. Ph.D dis-

sertation, Makerere University, Kampala, 431.

[3] Priti and Sihag, R.C. (1997) Diversity, visitation, fre-

quency, foraging behaviour and pollinating efficiency of

insect pollinators visiting cauliflower (Brassica oleracea

L. var. botrytis cv. Hazipur Local) blossoms. Indian Bee

Journal, 59, 230-237.

[4] Gallai, N., Salles, J-M., Settele, J. and Vaissière, B.E.

(2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world

agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological

Economics, 68, 810-821.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014

[5] Gikungu, M.W. (2006) Bee diversity and some aspects of

their ecological interactions with plants in a successional

tropical community. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

Bonn, 201.

[6] Abrol, D. P. (1991) Conservation of pollinators for pro-

motion of agricultural production in India. Journal of

Animal Morphology & Physiology, 38,123-139.

[7] Gordon, J.R., Balkwill, K. and Gemmill, B (2004) Afri-

can pollination studies: Where are the gaps? International

Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 24, 5-28.

doi: 10 .1111 /j .1 461 -0248.2008.01157.x

[8] Klein, A.-M., Vaissiere, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-De-

wenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., and Tscha-

rntke, T. (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing

landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of Royal society

of London, 274, 30 3- 31 3.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3721

[9] Kasina, J.M., Mburu, J., Kraemer, M. and Holm-Mueller,

J. (2009a) Economic benefit of crop pollination by bees:

A case of kakamega small-holder farming in Western

Kenya. Journal of Economic Entomology, 102, 467-473.

doi:10.1603/029.102.0201

[10] Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I. Cunning-

ham, S.A., Kremen, C., Bogdanski, A., Gemmill-Herren,

B., Greenleaf, S.S., Klein, A-M., Mayfield, M.M., Mo-

randin, L.A., Ochieng, A. and Viana, B.F. (2008) Land-

scape effects on crop pollination services: Are there gen-

eral patterns? Ecology Letters, 11, 499-515.

doi: 10 .1111 /j .1 461 -0248.2008.01157.x

[11] Munyuli, T.M.B. (2011) Factors governing flower visita-

tion patterns and quality of pollination services delivered

by social and solitary bee species to coffee in central

Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, (In press).

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2011.01284.x

[12] Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-

Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts,

S.G., Roulston, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vazquez, P.,

Winfree, R., Adams, L., Crone, E.E., Greenleaf, S.S.,

Keitt, T.H., Klein, A.-M., Regetz, J. and Ricketts, T.H.

(2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services pro-

duced by mobile organisms: A conceptual framework for

effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters, 10, 299-231.

doi: 10 .1111 /j .1 461 -0248.2007.01018.x

[13] Jasra, A.W. and Rafi, M.A. (2005) Cash crop farming in

the northern Pakistan: The importance of pollinator di-

versity and managed pollination in apricots Final survey

report for FAO.

[14] Sharma, H.K. (2004) Report on cash crops farming in the

Himalayas: The importance of pollinators and pollination

in vegetable seed production in Kullu Valley of Himachal

Pradesh. India Final report submitted to FAO and Inter-

national Centre for Integrated Mountain Development-

Kathmandu, Nepal.

[15] Kasina, M., Kraemer, M., Martius, C. and Wittmann, D.

(2009b) Farmers’ knowledge of bees and their natural

history in Kakamega district. Kenya. Journal of Apicul-

tural Research and Bee World, 48, 126-133.

doi:10.3896/IBRA.1.48.2.07

[16] Cortopassi-Laurino, M., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L., Roubik,

D.V., Dollin, A., Heard, T., Aguilard, I., Venturieri, C.G.,

Eardleay, C. and Nogueira-Neto, P. (2006) Global meli-

poni culture: Challenges and opportunities. Apidologie,

37, 275-292. doi:10.1051/apido:2006027

[17] Byarugaba, D. (2004) Stingless bees (hymenoptera, api-

dae) of Bwindi impenetrable forest, Uganda and Aba-

yanda indigenous knowledge. International Journal of

tropical Insect Science, 24, 117-121.

doi:10.1079/IJT20048