Table 2.
Family richness of forage species based on local agro-pastoralists’ citations in the study region.
| No | Family name | Species richness | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Poaceae | 37 | 19.07 |
| 2 | Fabaceae | 34 | 17.53 |
| 3 | Malvaceae | 11 | 5.67 |
| 4 | Combretaceae | 8 | 4.12 |
| 5 | Rubiaceae | 8 | 4.12 |
| 6 | Cyperaceae | 7 | 3.61 |
| 7 | Euphorbiaceae | 7 | 3.61 |
| 8 | Moraceae | 6 | 3.09 |
| 9 | Amaranthaceae | 5 | 2.58 |
| 10 | Anacardiaceae | 5 | 2.58 |
| 11 | Asteraceae | 4 | 2.06 |
| 12 | Capparaceae | 4 | 2.06 |
| 13 | Meliaceae | 4 | 2.06 |
| 14 | Bombacaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 15 | Lamiaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 16 | Rutaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 17 | Solanaceae | 3 | 1.55 |
| 18 | Commelinaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 19 | Convolvulaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 20 | Cucurbitaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 21 | Musaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 22 | Pedaliaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 23 | Sterculiaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 24 | Verbenaceae | 2 | 1.03 |
| 25 | Acanthaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 26 | Aizoaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 27 | Annonaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 28 | Apocynaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 29 | Arecaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 30 | Asclepiadaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 31 | Balanitaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 32 | Bignoniaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 33 | Cannabaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 34 | Caricaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 35 | Celastraceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 36 | Dioscoceaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 37 | Ebenaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 38 | Icacinaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 39 | Loganiaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 40 | Loranthaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 41 | Lythraceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 42 | Moringaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 43 | Myrtaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 44 | Nyctaginaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 45 | Olacaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 46 | Opiliaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 47 | Polygalaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 48 | Rhamnaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 49 | Sapindaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 50 | Sapotaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 51 | Scrophulariaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| 52 | Simaroubaceae | 1 | 0.52 |
| Total | 194 | 100 |