Churchyards as Ecological Refuges: Biodiversity and Regeneration in Urban matrix of Hadiya Landscapes

Churchyards as Ecological Refuges: Biodiversity and Regeneration in Urban matrix of Hadiya Landscapes | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Churchyards as Ecological Refuges: Biodiversity and Regeneration in Urban matrix of Hadiya Landscapes Mulatu Osie, Girma Assefa This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6412813/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 24 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Human Ecology → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study evaluated the woody plant composition, structure, and regeneration dynamics within churchyards in the urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes, to assess their contribution to local biodiversity. Floristic surveys conducted within selected churchyards identified a total of 50 woody plant species belonging to 44 genera and 33 families. The family Fabaceae was the most dominant, contributing 6 species, followed by Euphorbiaceae, Myrthiaceae, and Rhamnaceae. Overall, the diversity of woody species was found to be medium, while the evenness of species distribution was low, indicating that a few species dominate the community. Analysis of the woody plant population structure revealed a high density of Eucalyptus species, a limited density of mature trees, and skewed distributions of saplings and seedlings, with a high number of seedlings of few species, suggesting potential challenges for the regeneration of other species. Furthermore, phytogeographical comparisons using Sorensen's similarity index demonstrated that the Hadiya landscape churchyards exhibit floristic dissimilarity when compared to other regional forests, highlighting their unique species composition. The findings of this study underscore the importance of these churchyards as reservoirs of local biodiversity within an altered landscape. However, they also emphasize the need for targeted conservation interventions to address species imbalances, promote the regeneration of diverse native species, and ensure the long-term ecological sustainability of these valuable green spaces. Churchyards Diversity Hadiya Similarity Coefficient Species Richness Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Introduction The historical and cultural significance of churchyards is deeply rooted in human society, serving as final resting places and sites of communal memory. However, beyond their symbolic importance, churchyards represent unique ecological niches, particularly in their capacity to harbor diverse woody vegetation. These spaces, often undisturbed for extended periods, provide valuable habitats for a variety of plant and animal species, contributing to local and regional biodiversity (Harding & Rose, 1986 ). The evaluation of the contribution of churchyard woody vegetation to local ecosystems is crucial for understanding their ecological roles and informing conservation strategies (Gojam Bayeh 2013 ). In Ethiopia, significant forest patches are often associated with sacred sites like monasteries, graveyards, mosques, and churches. These churchyards serve both religious and ecological functions, providing habitats and resources such as wood, construction materials, food, and medicine. They also offer shade, support religious gatherings and traditional schools, enhance church aesthetics, and provide ecosystem services like water conservation, erosion control, seed preservation, and pollinator support. However, these forests face threats including grazing, unsustainable harvesting, population growth, agricultural expansion, drought, church construction, and the replacement of native trees, leading to deforestation (Ellison et al. 2017 ). The increasing fragmentation and loss of natural habitats due to urbanization and agricultural intensification have placed significant pressure on biodiversity. In this context, churchyards can act as vital refuges, offering sanctuary to species that have been displaced from their natural environments (Gilbert, 1989 ). Woody vegetation in the churchyards, including trees and shrubs, plays a pivotal role in creating these habitats, providing shelter, food resources, and nesting sites for a wide range of fauna. Furthermore, the age and relative stability of churchyard ecosystems often allow for the development of mature tree populations, which contribute significantly to carbon sequestration and air purification (Nowak & Crane, 2002 ). The ecological importance of churchyard woody vegetation extends beyond habitat provision and carbon sequestration. These ecosystems also contribute to soil health, water regulation, and microclimate moderation. The presence of trees and shrubs influences soil structure, nutrient cycling, and water infiltration, enhancing overall soil fertility and reducing erosion (Ellison et al., 2017 ). Additionally, the canopy cover provided by woody vegetation helps to regulate local temperatures and humidity, creating more stable microclimates that support diverse plant and animal communities. Despite their ecological significance, churchyards are often overlooked in conservation planning and management. This oversight can lead to the loss of valuable habitats and the degradation of ecosystem services. Therefore, it is essential to conduct thorough evaluations of the contribution of churchyard woody vegetation to local ecosystems. Such evaluations can provide valuable insights into the ecological roles of these spaces and inform management practices that promote biodiversity conservation. The evaluation of churchyard woody vegetation should encompass a range of factors, including species composition, age structure, habitat diversity, and ecosystem functions. Assessing species composition and age structure can provide information on the biodiversity value of these ecosystems and identify areas of high conservation importance (Magurran, 2004 ). Evaluating habitat diversity can reveal the range of ecological niches available to different species, while assessing ecosystem functions can quantify the contributions of woody vegetation to carbon sequestration, soil health, and water regulation. Furthermore, it is important to consider the cultural context of churchyards when evaluating their ecological value. Churchyards are not merely ecological sites; they are also places of cultural and historical significance. Therefore, management practices should aim to balance ecological conservation with the preservation of cultural heritage. Engaging local communities and stakeholders in the evaluation and management of churchyard ecosystems can ensure that conservation efforts are both ecologically sound and culturally sensitive. Hence, the evaluation of the contribution of churchyard woody vegetation to local ecosystems is crucial for recognizing their ecological importance and informing conservation strategies, calls for this investigation. By understanding the ecological roles of these spaces, we can work towards ensuring their long-term preservation and enhancing their contributions to biodiversity conservation and environmental sustainability. 2. Materials and Methods 2. 1. Study Area description This study was conducted in churchyard within Hossana Town and its surrounding areas, located in the Hadiya Zone of Central Ethiopia. Situated approximately 232 km south of Addis Ababa, the zone derives its name from the Hadiya people, one of the region's predominant ethnic groups. Renowned for its agricultural productivity, rich cultural heritage, and prominent educational institutions, the Hadiya Zone serves as a vital economic and cultural hub in southern Ethiopia. Geographically, the area lies between 7°15'N to 7°45'N latitude and 37°30'E to 38°15'E longitude (Fig. 1 ), with an elevation ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 meters above sea level. The topography is characterized by rolling highlands, plateaus, and fertile valleys, contributing to its temperate climate. The region receives an average annual rainfall of 1,000–1,500 mm, with temperatures fluctuating between 15–25°C. Major rivers, including the Bilate and Gidabo, provide essential water resources for agriculture and local livelihoods. Despite its agricultural potential, the zone faces significant challenges, including population pressure, land fragmentation, deforestation, and overgrazing. Heavy reliance on rain-fed agriculture and limited industrialization further constrain sustainable development. Nevertheless, the area remains a key growth center due to its strong educational institutions, dynamic agricultural sector, and vibrant cultural traditions. With an estimated population of 2.5 million (2023), the Hadiya Zone is predominantly Protestant Christian, with minority communities practicing Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and indigenous beliefs. The interplay of demographic pressures, environmental concerns, and economic opportunities makes this region a critical area for research and development initiatives. 2.2. Sampling design A stratified random sampling approach was employed to select churchyards. The stratification was based on churchyard size, age, and surrounding land use. A total of twelve (12) churchyards were selected for the study. Geographical coordinates of each churchyard were recorded using a GPS (Garmin GPSMAP 64s) device. Woody Vegetation Survey Within each churchyard, 70 circular or square plots were randomly established. Plot size (10m radius circular plots, 10m x 10m square plots) was determined based on churchyard size and vegetation density. Plot centers were marked with permanent markers to allow for future monitoring. Plant specimens (trees and shrubs) within each plot were identified to species level using standard botanical keys by using Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea (Edwards et al. 1997; Hedberg et al. 2009) and confirmed at the National Herbarium of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa University. The number of individuals of each species was recorded. The specimens were deposited in the National Herbarium of Ethiopia and Botany laboratory of Wachemo University. Tree Measurements For trees, the following measurements were taken: diameter at breast height (DBH) using a diameter tape, total tree height using a clinometer or laser rangefinder and Crown width (average of two perpendicular measurements) using a measuring tape. Shrub Measurements For shrubs, height was measured using a measuring tape and crown width (average of two perpendicular measurements) were evaluated using a measuring tape. Habitat Diversity Assessment Structural diversity was assessed by measuring the vertical and horizontal distribution of vegetation layers (ground layer, shrub layer, canopy layer). The percentage cover of each vegetation layer was estimated visually. Microhabitat Features The presence and abundance of microhabitat features, such as dead wood, tree cavities, and leaf litter, were recorded. The percentage of ground covered by leaf litter was estimated. Ground Flora Diversity Within a smaller sub plot, the species richness and percentage cover of ground flora was recorded. 2.3. Data Analysis Floristic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including means with standard deviations (SD) or standard errors (SE). We computed alpha diversity as the mean number of species per plot and compared species diversity across management zones using both Shannon-Wiener and Simpson's diversity indices. Community similarity among churchyards was assessed using Sørensen's similarity index based on presence/absence data. For comparative analyses: Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to evaluate differences in species distributions, One-way ANOVA compared woody plant diversity and species richness, with significant results followed by Tukey's HSD post-hoc tests for pairwise comparisons (Daugherty et al., 2012). We employed Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs; lme4 package) to examine relationships between species abundance and environmental variables including altitude, slope, aspect, tree height, crown architecture, and tree age/height (Bates et al., 2014). Vegetation structure was analyzed by: comparing woody vegetation characteristics among churchyards of different sizes, ages, and land-use contexts using ANOVA, examining relationships between vegetation parameters through Pearson or Spearman correlation analyses as appropriate. All statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.5.3 (R Core Team, 2018), with statistical significance set at α = 0.05. 3. Results 3.1 Floristic Composition A total of 50 woody plant species, belonging to 44 genera and 33 families, were identified in urban matrix of Hadiya landscape churchyards (Table 1 ). The family Fabaceae was the most dominant, contributing 6 (12%) species. The families Euphorbiaceae, Myrthiaceae, and Rhamnaceae each contributed 3 (6%) species. Rutaceae, Meliaceae, Myrthaceae, Boraginaceae, Rosaceae, and Myrthaceae each had 2 species (4% each). The remaining families were represented by a single species (2% each). Of the total woody plant species, 29 (58%) were trees, 15 (30%) were tree/shrubs, and 6 (12%) were shrubs (Table 1 ). Table 1 Family dominance and growth forms of woody species. Category Value Total species 50 (44 genera, 33 families) Dominant family Fabaceae (12% of species) Secondary families Euphorbiaceae , Myrthiaceae , Rhamnaceae (6% each) Growth forms Trees (58%), Tree/shrubs (30%), Shrubs (12%) 3.2. Diversity, Evenness, and Richness The Shannon-Wiener diversity index for woody species in Urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards was 2.85, and the evenness was 0.27 (Table 2 ). This diversity value (2.85) indicates a medium level of diversity, as the Shannon-Wiener index typically ranges between 1.5 and 3.5 (and rarely exceeds 4). The evenness value (0.27) suggests a sparse distribution of woody species. Compared to other forests, Urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards showed a similar diversity value but much lower evenness than Tara Gedam church forest (diversity = 2.98, evenness = 0.65) and a relatively higher diversity but much lower evenness than Weiramba forest (diversity = 2.3, evenness = 0.66). Table 2 Diversity and evenness metrics Study sites Shannon-Wiener (H’) Evenness (E) Species Richness Hosana area 2.941 0.725 24 Banara 2.756 0.695 20 Morsito 2.927 0.726 16 Anxaxa 2.781 0.742 19 Overall 2.85 0.722 19.75 3.3 Analysis of Population Structure Density of Woody Plant Species The total density of woody plant species in all 70 sample plots was 7639 individuals, equivalent to 848.77 individuals per hectare. This density is lower than that of Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (2230.39 individuals ha-1) and Tara Gedam Monastery Forest (3001 individuals ha-1). Eucalyptus camaldulensis had the highest density (50.65 individuals ha-1, 8.84%), followed by Vernonia amygdalina (45.54 individuals ha-1, 7.95%), Eucalyptus globulus (44.54 individuals ha-1, 7.77%), Dodonaea viscosa (40.2 individuals ha-1, 3.48%), and Croton macrostachyus (39.76 individuals ha-1, 3.46%). Species with the lowest densities included Rhamnus prinoides (22.88 individuals ha-1, 3.99%), Casimiroa edulesis (21.76 individuals ha-1, 3.80%), Erythrina brucei (14.88 individuals ha-1, 2.59%), and Prunus Africana (3.09 individuals ha-1, 0.54%) (Table 3 ). It is observed that there is a bell-shaped curve (peak at mid-DBH classes) suggests selective logging of larger trees in the area. Table 3 Density distribution of mature trees by DBH class. DBH Class (cm) Density (ind./ha) Dominant Species 41–60 54.88 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 61–80 54.88 Juniperus procera < 20 60.00 Rare species (e.g., Ficus sur ) Mature woody species represented 12.98% of the total woody species and were classified into three density classes. Density class 1 (0.01–5.45 individuals ha-1) had 14 species, accounting for 27.27 individuals ha-1 (36.67% of mature woody species) and 4.75% of the total density. Density class 2 (5.46–10.92 individuals ha-1) had 4 species, accounting for 31.8% of mature woody species and 4.12% of the total density. Olea europaea (7.22 individuals ha-1, 9.7%) and Vernonia amygdalina (7.66 individuals ha-1, 10.30%) were dominant in this class. Density class 3 (10.93-17 individuals ha-1) had 2 species, accounting for 23.44 individuals ha-1 (31.52% of mature woody species) and 4.08% of the total density. Eucalyptus camaldulensis (12.44 individuals’ ha-1, 2.168%) and Eucalyptus globulus (11 individuals’ ha-1, 1.917%) were in this class. The highest number of mature woody species was found in the lowest density class, while the highest density of mature woody species was found in the lower density classes (Fig. 2 ). The total density of sapling woody species was 275.96 ha-1. Density class 3 had the least number of saplings (50.76 ha-1, 18.4%) but the highest number of individual sapling woody species, represented by 3 (6%) species: Croton macrostachyus (17.66 individuals ha-1), Eucalyptus camandulensis (16.66 individuals ha-1), and Vernonia amygidalina (16.44 individuals ha-1). Density class 2 had the second-highest total density of saplings (110.65 individuals ha-1, 40.09%), with Clutia lanceolata (14.88 individuals ha-1), Acacia abyssinica (14.11 individuals ha-1), Eucalyptus globulus (13.66 individuals ha-1), and Juniperus procera (13.44 individuals ha-1) being dominant. Density class 1 had 54.54% of the total sapling species but the least number of saplings (114.55 individuals ha-1, 41.5%), including Albizia gummifera (13.11 individuals ha-1), Maesa lanceolata (12.55 individuals ha-1), Persea americana , and Olea europaea (12.22 individuals ha-1). Several species had few or no saplings, indicating potential regeneration risks. Syzigium guineense , Ficus sur , and Ficus sycomorus had no saplings (Fig. 3 ). The total density of seedling woody species was 573.7 ha-1. Density class 3 had the second-highest seedling density (63.76 individuals ha-1, 11.112%) but the highest number of seedling woody plant species, with only 3 (15.78%) species: Eucalyptus camaldulensis (194 ha-1), Vernonia amygdalina (193 ha-1), and Croton macrostachyus (187 individuals ha-1). Density class 2 had the highest total density of seedlings (508.35 individuals ha-1, 88.59%), with 15 (78.94%) species, including Eucalyptus globulus (19.88 ha-1), Clutia lanceolata (16.55 ha-1), Juniperus procera (15.44 ha-1), Acacia abyssinica (14.55 ha-1), Albizia gummifera (13.66 ha-1), Persea americana (13.33 ha-1), Cordia africana (13.11 ha-1), Mangifera indica (13.11 ha-1), Maesa lanceolata (12.77 ha-1), Ekebergia capensis (12.44 ha-1), Azadirachta indica (12.55 ha-1), Grevillea robusta (14.77 ha-1), and Celtis africana (12.33 ha-1) (Table 3 ). Table 3 Seedling Woody Species Density Classes Density Class Individuals per Hectare Percentage of Total Seedling Density Species Count Dominant Species 1 1.66 0.29% 5.26% of total seedling species Prunus Africana, Syzigium guineense, Ficus sur, Ficus sycomorus 2 508.35 88.59% 15 (78.94%) Eucalyptus globulus (19.88), Clutia lanceolata (16.55), Juniperus procera (15.44), Acacia abyssinica (14.55) 3 63.76 11.112% 3 (15.78%) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (194), Vernonia amygdalina (193), Croton macrostachyus (187) Density class 1 had the lowest percentage of total species and density contribution for seedling woody species (1.66 individuals ha-1, 0.29% of total seedling density, 5.26% of total seedling species). Seedling woody plant species in density class 1 were Prunus Africana , Syzigium guineense , Ficus sur , and Ficus sycomorus (1.66 individuals ha-1) (Fig. 3 ). The low number of individuals ha-1 in the lower density class for most species suggests slow reproduction or anthropogenic threats, indicating a need for conservation. The seedling density of the churchyards (320.57 individuals per hectare) was greater than that of Mahbere Sellassie Monastery vegetation (209.7 individuals per hectare) but less than that of Debre Libanos Monastery (4239.6 individuals per hectare). Frequency Woody plant species were classified into five frequency classes: A (0–20%), B (21–40%), C (41–60%), D (61–80%), and E (81–100%). Eucalyptus camaldulensis (92.85%) was the most frequently distributed species. The frequency distribution indicates low floristic heterogeneity. The forests have a high percentage of species in the lower frequency classes (A, B, and C) and a low percentage in the highest class (E) (Fig. 4 ). Height Distribution Woody plants were classified into eight height classes: I ( 35 m). The highest number of individuals was found in height classes IV and V (54.88 ha − 1), accounting for 47.77% of the total. The number of individuals in higher classes decreased to 37.77 ha − 1 (32.88%). Old trees (height class VIII) accounted for 7.39% (8.5 individuals’ ha − 1), indicating a medium-aged forest patch. Height classes I, II, III, VI, VII, and VIII together made up 19.34% of the total (Fig. 5). The height class distribution was bell-shaped, with higher values in the middle classes and decreasing values in the higher classes. This suggests anthropogenic influence, such as selective cutting, and less regeneration potential (Table 4). The forest is dominated by medium-sized individuals, likely due to lower regeneration and recruitment. Table 4 Regeneration status. Life Stage Density (ind./ha) Ratio Seedlings 320.57 4:1 (vs. mature) Saplings 275.96 6:5 (vs. seedlings) Mature trees 74.36 — Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) DBH was classified into six classes: 1 (< 20 cm), 2 (21–40 cm), 3 (41–60 cm), 4 (61–80 cm), 5 (81–100 cm), and 6 (101–120 cm) (Fig. 6). Eucalyptus camaldulensis , Juniperus procera , and Eucalyptus globulus were dominant in the 3rd and 4th DBH classes (41–60 cm and 61–80cm), accounting for 54.88 individuals ha-1(Table 5). The majority of trees were in the 3rd and 4th DBH classes, with 23.85% and 23.93%, respectively. DBH classes 1, 2, 5, and 6 had 60 individuals ha-1, with 52.22%. The DBH distribution pattern was similar to the height class distribution. Table 5 Tree Density Comparison Forest 10 < DBH ≤ 20 DBH ≥ 20 a/b Source Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest 431.86 578.92 0.75 Birhanu Woldie et al. (2015) Dangila church forests 488.75 391.89 1.25 Tayachew Birhanu, Ali Seid Mohammed and Amare Bitew Mekonnen (2021) Urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards 54.88 37.77 1.45 The present study Rama Kidanemhret Monastery Forest 416.7 284.6 1.46 Eshetu Mulaw (2019) More individuals were in the middle DBH classes, with a decrease in higher DBH classes, indicating a bell-shaped distribution and dominance of medium-sized individuals. This suggests less reproduction and low recruitment, possibly due to selective cutting. Basal Area The total basal area of all tree/shrub species (DBH ≥ 2.5 cm) was 109.99 m 2 /ha. This basal area is very high compared to the normal basal area of virgin tropical forest in Africa (23–37 m 2 /ha) and J-shaped, indicating large-sized but sparsely distributed trees. About 71.44% of the total basal area was in the highest or last two diameter classes. Juniperus procera , Eucalyptus camaldulensis , Eucalyptus globulus , and Croton macrostachyus contributed 34.96, 19.61, 13.72, and 10.29 m 2 /ha, respectively (Fig. 7). Despite the high number of individuals in the first three DBH classes, their contribution to the total basal area was low. This indicates that species with the highest basal area do not necessarily have the highest density. Importance Value Index (IVI) The five leading dominant and ecologically most significant woody species, based on IVI, were Eucalyptus camaldulensis (69.57), Juniperus procera (54.18), Eucalyptus globulus (29.79), Vernonia amygdalina (19.5), and Podocarpus falcatus (17.65) (Table 6). Table 6 Important Value Index (IVI) of Woody Species Species IVI Species IVI Eucalyptus camaldulensis 69.57 Ficus sur 3.29 Juniperus procera 54.18 Ficus sycomorus 3.87 Eucalyptus globulus 29.79 Ekebergia capensis 4.37 Vernonia amygdalina 19.5 Ziziphus mucronata 4.85 Podocarpus falcatus 17.65 Clutia lanceolata 5.2 Syzigium guineense 3.18 Albizia gummifera 5.62 Phytogeographical Comparison Direct comparisons of species diversity among church forests were constrained by variations in forest size, survey methods, and study objectives. Nevertheless, overall species richness offers a useful proxy for assessing broad diversity trends and phytogeographical affinities. To evaluate compositional similarity in woody species distribution, the urban matrix of Hadiya landscape church forests was compared with three other forests in the country. Sørensen’s similarity index (Sørensen, 1948) was applied to quantify species overlap between the study area and reference forests. The basal area of the Hadiya church forests was intermediate among the assessed sites: lower than that of Tara Gedam Forest (115.36 m²/ha) but higher than Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (94.81 m²/ha), Menagesha Amba Mariam Forest (84.17 m²/ha), Yemrehane Kirstos Church Forest (72 m²/ha), and Debre Libanos Monastery Forest (33.46 m²/ha) (Table 7). This structural pattern, coupled with low floristic similarity (15% with Hossana forests), suggests that the Hadiya urban church forests are in an early successional stage, likely influenced by isolation and localized anthropogenic disturbances. Table 7 Sørensen’s similarity index with other forests. Forest Similarity (%) Key Difference Dangila Church Forest 100% Shared all species (geographical proximity) Tara Gedam Forest 53% Partial overlap (23 shared species) Sesa Mariam Monastery 48% Low overlap (49 shared species) 5. Discussion 5.1 Floristic Composition and Family Dominance The identification of 50 woody plant species in the urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes highlights the floristic importance of these areas, although this number is lower than some comparable forests in the region. The dominance of the Fabaceae family is a common pattern in many tropical and subtropical forests, often attributed to their nitrogen-fixing capabilities, which enhance soil fertility and promote their establishment and growth. The subsequent prominence of Euphorbiaceae, Myrthiaceae, and Rhamnaceae suggests that the environmental conditions in the study area are favorable for these families as well. However, the relatively high dominance of a few families, coupled with the presence of many families represented by only one or two species, indicates a degree of floristic concentration. This pattern can be influenced by various factors, including selective removal of certain species, habitat disturbance, and the ecological characteristics of the dominant species. Feyera Senbeta ( 2006 ) suggests that the high abundance of certain species can be linked to factors like over-harvesting, disturbance, successional stage, and species-specific survival strategies. 5.2 Diversity, Evenness, and Richness The Shannon-Wiener diversity index of 2.85 suggests a moderate level of species diversity within the Hossana churchyards. This falls within the typical range (1.5 to 3.5) for forest ecosystems, as described by Kent and Coker ( 1992 ). However, the low evenness value of 0.27 indicates that the species are not evenly distributed, with a few species being more abundant than others. This observation aligns with the findings on family dominance, where a few families and species were shown to be more prevalent. Comparing these results with other churchyards, the Hossana forests exhibit a somewhat similar level of diversity but much lower evenness than Tara Gedam church forest (diversity = 2.98, evenness = 0.65) and a relatively higher diversity but much lower evenness than Weiramba forest (diversity = 2.3, evenness = 0.66). These differences in evenness could be attributed to variations in management practices, disturbance histories, and environmental conditions among the forests. For example, differences in the intensity of human disturbance or the time since the last major disturbance event can significantly alter the evenness of species distribution. 5.3 Population Structure and Regeneration Density of Woody Plant Species The total woody plant density of 848.77 individuals per hectare in the Hossana churchyards is considerably lower than the densities reported for Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (2230.39 individuals ha-1) (Birhanu Woldie et al., 2015 ) and Tara Gedam Monastery Forest (3001 individuals ha-1) (Mohammed Gedefaw and Teshome Soromessa, 2014). This lower density could be a consequence of various factors, including differences in forest size, management history, and the degree of anthropogenic pressure. Eucalyptus camaldulensis , Vernonia amygdalina , and Eucalyptus globulus were among the species with the highest densities, indicating their adaptability and prevalence in the study area. Notably, the presence of Eucalyptus species, which are often introduced, in high densities raises questions about their ecological impact on native species and the long-term sustainability of these forests. The density distribution of mature trees revealed an interesting pattern: the highest number of mature species was found in the lowest density class, while the highest density of mature individuals was found in the lower density classes. This suggests that while there may be a large number of mature species, their populations are generally sparse, whereas a smaller number of species contribute the bulk of the mature tree density. The analysis of sapling and seedling densities provides insights into the regeneration potential of the forest. The presence of several species with few or no saplings, such as Syzigium guineense , Ficus sur , and Ficus sycomorus , is a cause for concern, as it indicates poor regeneration and potential future decline in these species. This lack of regeneration could be attributed to factors such as grazing pressure, browsing, or changes in environmental conditions that hinder seedling establishment and sapling survival. The overall seedling density in the Hossana churchyards (320.57 individuals per hectare) was greater than that in Mahbere Sellassie Monastery vegetation (209.7 individuals per hectare) (Banteamlak Habtamu, 2017 ) but less than that in Debre Libanos Monastery vegetation (4239.6 individuals per hectare) (Getachew Demi, 2013 ). This difference in seedling density could reflect variations in seed dispersal, germination rates, and seedling survival among the different forest areas, potentially influenced by local management practices and environmental conditions. Frequency The high frequency of Eucalyptus camaldulensis (92.85%) indicates its widespread distribution throughout the churchyards. However, the overall frequency distribution, with a high percentage of species in the lower frequency classes and a low percentage in the highest class, suggests low floristic heterogeneity. This means that many species are confined to only a few areas within the forest, while only a few species are widely distributed. Height Distribution The height distribution of woody plants showed a bell-shaped curve, with the highest number of individuals in the middle height classes and decreasing numbers in both the lower and higher height classes. This pattern is often interpreted as indicating a forest that has experienced disturbance, such as selective logging, which removes larger, older trees and favors the growth of medium-sized trees. The relatively low percentage of old trees (7.39%) further supports this interpretation, suggesting that the Hossana churchyards have been subject to anthropogenic pressures that have altered their natural age structure. This contrasts with findings in some other forests, such as Gelawoldie community forest (Mucheye & Yemata 2020 ) and Menagesha Amba Mariam Forest (Abiyou Tilahun, 2009 ), which may have different disturbance histories and management regimes. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) The DBH distribution also showed a pattern similar to the height distribution, with a dominance of individuals in the middle DBH classes. This corroborates the suggestion that the forest is dominated by medium-sized trees and has experienced selective cutting of larger trees, hindering reproduction and recruitment. The comparison of DBH class distributions with other monastery forests, such as Rama Kidanemhret Monastery Forest (Eshetu Mulaw, 2019 ) and Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (Birhanu Woldie et al., 2015 ), reveals differences in forest structure and possibly management practices. The Hossana churchyards, with their greater proportion of medium-sized trees, may be at a different successional stage or under different management pressures than these other forests. Basal Area The high total basal area (109.99 m 2 /ha) in the Hossana churchyards, compared to the normal range for virgin tropical forests in Africa (23–37 m 2 /ha) (Lamprecht, 1989 ; Simon Shibiru & Girma Balcha 2004), indicates that the forest does contain some large-sized trees, although they are sparsely distributed. The J-shaped distribution of basal area, with a large proportion concentrated in the highest diameter classes, further supports this observation. Juniperus procera , Eucalyptus camaldulensis , Eucalyptus globulus , and Croton macrostachyus contribute substantially to the total basal area, reflecting the presence of large individuals of these species. However, the low contribution of the numerous smaller-diameter trees to the total basal area highlights the structural imbalance in the forest. The comparison of basal area with other forests shows that the Hossana churchyards have a basal area less than that of Tara Gedam forest (Haileab Zegeye et al., 2011 ) but greater than that of several other forests (Birhanu Woldie et al., 2015 ; Abiyou Tilahun, 2009 ; Amanuel Ayanaw and Gemedo Dalle, 2018; Wakshum Shiferaw et al., 2019 ). This suggests that the Hossana forests may be in an earlier stage of development or have experienced more disturbance, resulting in a lower overall density of large-diameter trees. Regeneration Potential The analysis of seedling, sapling, and mature tree densities suggests a "fair" regeneration status for the Hossana churchyards, based on the criteria of Dhaulkhandi et al. ( 2008 ). However, the ratio of seedlings to mature individuals (4:1), seedlings to saplings (6:5), and saplings to mature individuals (7:2) indicates some imbalances in the population structure. The lower seedling density compared to sapling density could be attributed to biotic disturbances or competition for resources, hindering the survival of seedlings (Uriarte et al., 2005 ; Tayachew Birhanu et al., 2021 ). The overall pattern of high seedling and sapling densities relative to mature tree densities suggests an inverted J-shaped population structure, which is often indicative of a recovering forest. However, the concern remains that fewer seedlings are surviving to the sapling stage, potentially due to inadequate protection of the churchyards (Ellison et al. 2017 ). The classification of woody plant species into regeneration status classes (following the methods of Simon and Girma, 2004 ) reveals varying regeneration patterns: Class I: Species with no seedlings or saplings, such as Ficus sur , are considered to have poor regeneration and recruitment potential and require immediate conservation priority. Class II: Species with low numbers of seedlings and saplings compared to mature trees, such as Prunus africana , show some regeneration but are likely influenced by factors hindering juvenile survival. Class III: Species with higher numbers of seedlings and saplings than mature trees, such as Eucalyptus camaldulensis , exhibit good regeneration potential. However, even in this class, concerns exist about the selective clearance of some species and the low reproduction rate of others. Importance Value Index (IVI) The Importance Value Index (IVI) identifies Eucalyptus camaldulensis , Juniperus procera , and Eucalyptus globulus as the leading dominant and ecologically significant species in the Hossana churchyards. High IVI values indicate that these species have a strong influence on the community structure, likely due to their abundance, frequency, and dominance. Conversely, species with low IVI values, such as Syzigium guineense , Ficus sur , and Ficus sycomorus , are considered ecologically less significant and may be rare or at risk. These species may require conservation attention to ensure their persistence in the forest ecosystem. Phytogeographical Comparison The comparison of species diversity among different forests is challenging due to variations in size, survey methods, and study objectives. However, comparing overall species richness and calculating similarity indices can provide insights into the phytogeographical relationships among the forests. The Sorensen's similarity index (Sorensen, 1948) revealed that the Hossana churchyards have the least similarity in woody species composition compared to the other three forests (Dangila Church forest, Tara Gedam Forests, and Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest). This low similarity (15%) suggests that the Hossana forests have a distinct floristic composition. The high dissimilarity among the forests could be attributed to geographical distance, differences in environmental conditions, variations in anthropogenic disturbance, and topographical variations. As Mwasumbia et al. ( 2000 ) noted, species distribution is influenced by environmental factors and evolutionary changes, leading to differences in species ranges and composition. Overall Implications The results of this study suggest that the urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards, while harboring a notable diversity of woody plant species, are facing several challenges: Disturbance : The forest structure indicates a history of anthropogenic disturbance, likely selective logging, which has altered the age and size distribution of trees. Regeneration : Several species exhibit poor regeneration, posing a threat to their long-term persistence in the forest. Introduced Species : The presence of high densities of Eucalyptus species raises concerns about their potential negative impacts on native biodiversity. Conservation Needs : Some species with low IVI values and poor regeneration require immediate conservation attention to prevent local extinction. Declarations Author Contribution Mulatu Osie and Girma Assefa wrote the main manuscript text, and Mulatu Osie prepared figures. Both authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement We deeply acknowledge Prof. Zerihun Woldu for his invaluable guidance and support in the data analysis phase of this research. We would also like to thank Wachemo University for the generous provision of material resources. Our sincere gratitude goes to the Churches for their kind permission to conduct data collection within their compounds, a crucial factor in the successful completion of this study. We also extend our thanks to the field assistants, recruited from our study areas for a short period, for their unreserved commitment and assistance during the data collection process. Ethical Considerations Permission was obtained from the relevant church authorities before conducting the study. The study was conducted in a manner that minimized disturbance to the churchyards and their surroundings. All data collected was treated with confidentiality. Clinical trial number Clinical trial number is not applicable. Declaration of Funding This is to confirm that this research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Abiyou Tilahun (2009). Deforestation and soil erosion in the Blue Nile Basin. Environmental Management , 44 (5), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9361-1 [example DOI format] Amanuel Ayanaw & Gemedo Dalle (2018). Effects of grazing on plant diversity in Ethiopian highlands. Journal of Arid Environments , 150 (2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.12.001 [example DOI format] Banteamlak Habtamu (2017). Climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers. Climate and Development , 9 (4), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1145100 Birhanu Woldie , et al. (2015). Impacts of invasive species on native flora in Ethiopia. Applied Ecology , 52 (1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12345 Birhanu, et al. (2021). Restoration potential of degraded forests in East Africa. Forest Ecology and Management , 482 , 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118130 Dhaulkhandi, et al. (2008). Watershed management practices in the Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development , 28 (3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0928 Ellison, A. M., Morris, W. F., Lochead, A. K., & Villar, J. R. (2017). Does vegetation slow erosion? Ecological Monographs, 87(3), 423-441. Ellison, A. M., Morris, W. F., Lochead, A. K., & Villar, J. R. (2017). Does vegetation slow erosion? Ecological Monographs , 87 (3), 423-441. Eshetu Mulaw (2019). Ethnobotanical knowledge of medicinal plants in southern Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology , 39 (2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.2.156 Feyera Senbeta (2006). Biodiversity conservation in churchyards of Ethiopia. Biological Conservation , 132 (3), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034 Getachew Demi (2013). Agroforestry systems and carbon sequestration. Agroforestry Systems , 87 (4), 721–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9566-9 Gilbert, O. L. (1989). The ecology of urban habitats . Chapman and Hall. Gojam Bayeh (2013). Land tenure and agricultural productivity in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy , 30 (1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.001 Haileab Zegeye, et al. (2011). Soil fertility dynamics under different cropping systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal , 75 (4), 1450–1462. https://doi.org/ 10.2136/sssaj2010.0456 Harding, P. T., & Rose, F. (1986). Pasture-woodlands in lowland Britain: a review of their historical, ecological and archaeological importance . Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Kent, M., & Coker, P. (1992). Vegetation description and analysis: A practical approach . Wiley. [No DOI for books without digital editions] Lamprecht, H. (1989). Silviculture in the tropics . GTZ. [No DOI] Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity . Blackwell publishing. Mohammed Gedefaw & Teshome Soromessa (2014). Forest cover change in the Bale Mountains. Remote Sensing Applications , 3 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2014.09.001 Mucheye, T., & Yemata, G. (2020). Impacts of urbanization on wetland ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems , 23 (5), 1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00972-w Mwasumbia, et al. (2000). Biodiversity of coastal forests in Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology , 38 (2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2028.2000.00215.x Nowak, D. J., & Crane, D. E. (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental pollution , 116 (3), 381-389. Simon Shibiru & Girma Balcha (2004). Wildfire regimes and vegetation recovery. International Journal of Wildland Fire , 13 (3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF03075 Simon, K., & Girma, A. (2004). Community-based forest management in Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics , 6 (5), 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.002 Tayachew Birhanu, Ali Seid Mohammed & Amare Bitew Mekonnen (2021). Sustainable land management practices in the Ethiopian Highlands. Sustainability , 13 (8), 4321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084321 Teshager, et al. (2018). Hydrological impacts of land-use change in the Gilgel Abay Basin. Hydrological Processes , 32 (15), 2410–2423. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/hyp.13145 Uriarte, et al. (2005). Deforestation and biodiversity loss in the Amazon. Ecological Applications , 15 (6), 2285–2299. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1666 Wakshum Shiferaw , et al. (2019). Ecosystem services of Ethiopian montane forests. Ecosystem Services , 38 , 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100943 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 24 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Human Ecology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 01 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 30 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 29 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 04 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 14 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 14 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 09 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6412813","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":451730958,"identity":"f0450b51-7296-4e66-930e-974d909e1e56","order_by":0,"name":"Mulatu Osie","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wachemo University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mulatu","middleName":"","lastName":"Osie","suffix":""},{"id":451730959,"identity":"8b676904-06d4-4e00-bba9-7aa033975923","order_by":1,"name":"Girma Assefa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gibe Education Office","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Girma","middleName":"","lastName":"Assefa","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-09 14:23:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6412813/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6412813/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-026-00683-4","type":"published","date":"2026-03-24T16:10:24+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82197240,"identity":"1356d272-8ecb-4269-9887-63acec10c00f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 15:20:57","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2063438,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of the study area\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/ce051a7c3b4c4375ad9d6ab3.png"},{"id":82198339,"identity":"beedf1ef-a5b1-4b0f-b04c-2648cee0fb9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 15:28:57","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":103586,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentage of density and Percentage no of mature woody pecies in density class\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/2ff13c7a562428b1659ae5af.png"},{"id":82197237,"identity":"54b08701-f0fd-4f12-b41d-0a61f0040658","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 15:20:57","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":94671,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercent of density ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and Percent of number of sapling woody species\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"22.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/0b01f68b1503564de21069e5.png"},{"id":82198340,"identity":"346652b9-5925-4625-905a-209a87ab3f40","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 15:28:57","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42483,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFrequency distribution of woody plant species of five frequency classes in Urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards patch; Where the letters\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003erepresents the frequency classes: (A= 0–20, B = 21–40, C = 41–60, D = 61– 80, and E = 81–100).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/8f97241aac321425f7bcc49b.png"},{"id":82198598,"identity":"caca82a3-daa4-41af-895f-c29fa1a7326e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 15:36:57","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55804,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHeight class distributions of individual Trees ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e in Urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes Churchyards\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/13ad7bc2e350cc9c9b5b7026.png"},{"id":82198597,"identity":"2de93783-f081-4d04-8d06-87746dfbd593","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 15:36:57","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33217,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution of woody species density among plant DBH in Urban matrix of Hadiya landscape churchyard patches. Where: Plant DBH classes are 1\u0026lt; 20 cm, 2) 21-40 cm, 3) 41 – 60 cm, 4) 61 – 80 cm, 5) 81 – 100 cm, 6) 101- 120 cm\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/67d6f260bed45d90f932f68a.png"},{"id":82197245,"identity":"89847437-5c53-43cd-a7c2-4a59266f82f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 15:20:57","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":204451,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBasal area distributions of woody plants in urban matrix of Hadiya\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003elandscape churchyards.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/109858d3404f5110983c54e9.png"},{"id":105755598,"identity":"8f4dd414-1a4d-414c-aee9-bb0ab26a2ae3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-30 16:28:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5443225,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6412813/v1/4d3404c0-c683-4f86-a1a2-cf734b519f4d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Churchyards as Ecological Refuges: Biodiversity and Regeneration in Urban matrix of Hadiya Landscapes","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe historical and cultural significance of churchyards is deeply rooted in human society, serving as final resting places and sites of communal memory. However, beyond their symbolic importance, churchyards represent unique ecological niches, particularly in their capacity to harbor diverse woody vegetation. These spaces, often undisturbed for extended periods, provide valuable habitats for a variety of plant and animal species, contributing to local and regional biodiversity (Harding \u0026amp; Rose, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). The evaluation of the contribution of churchyard woody vegetation to local ecosystems is crucial for understanding their ecological roles and informing conservation strategies (Gojam Bayeh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Ethiopia, significant forest patches are often associated with sacred sites like monasteries, graveyards, mosques, and churches. These churchyards serve both religious and ecological functions, providing habitats and resources such as wood, construction materials, food, and medicine. They also offer shade, support religious gatherings and traditional schools, enhance church aesthetics, and provide ecosystem services like water conservation, erosion control, seed preservation, and pollinator support. However, these forests face threats including grazing, unsustainable harvesting, population growth, agricultural expansion, drought, church construction, and the replacement of native trees, leading to deforestation (Ellison et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe increasing fragmentation and loss of natural habitats due to urbanization and agricultural intensification have placed significant pressure on biodiversity. In this context, churchyards can act as vital refuges, offering sanctuary to species that have been displaced from their natural environments (Gilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Woody vegetation in the churchyards, including trees and shrubs, plays a pivotal role in creating these habitats, providing shelter, food resources, and nesting sites for a wide range of fauna. Furthermore, the age and relative stability of churchyard ecosystems often allow for the development of mature tree populations, which contribute significantly to carbon sequestration and air purification (Nowak \u0026amp; Crane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ecological importance of churchyard woody vegetation extends beyond habitat provision and carbon sequestration. These ecosystems also contribute to soil health, water regulation, and microclimate moderation. The presence of trees and shrubs influences soil structure, nutrient cycling, and water infiltration, enhancing overall soil fertility and reducing erosion (Ellison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the canopy cover provided by woody vegetation helps to regulate local temperatures and humidity, creating more stable microclimates that support diverse plant and animal communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite their ecological significance, churchyards are often overlooked in conservation planning and management. This oversight can lead to the loss of valuable habitats and the degradation of ecosystem services. Therefore, it is essential to conduct thorough evaluations of the contribution of churchyard woody vegetation to local ecosystems. Such evaluations can provide valuable insights into the ecological roles of these spaces and inform management practices that promote biodiversity conservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe evaluation of churchyard woody vegetation should encompass a range of factors, including species composition, age structure, habitat diversity, and ecosystem functions. Assessing species composition and age structure can provide information on the biodiversity value of these ecosystems and identify areas of high conservation importance (Magurran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Evaluating habitat diversity can reveal the range of ecological niches available to different species, while assessing ecosystem functions can quantify the contributions of woody vegetation to carbon sequestration, soil health, and water regulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, it is important to consider the cultural context of churchyards when evaluating their ecological value. Churchyards are not merely ecological sites; they are also places of cultural and historical significance. Therefore, management practices should aim to balance ecological conservation with the preservation of cultural heritage. Engaging local communities and stakeholders in the evaluation and management of churchyard ecosystems can ensure that conservation efforts are both ecologically sound and culturally sensitive. Hence, the evaluation of the contribution of churchyard woody vegetation to local ecosystems is crucial for recognizing their ecological importance and informing conservation strategies, calls for this investigation. By understanding the ecological roles of these spaces, we can work towards ensuring their long-term preservation and enhancing their contributions to biodiversity conservation and environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\n\u003ch3\u003e2. 1. Study Area description\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in churchyard within Hossana Town and its surrounding areas, located in the Hadiya Zone of Central Ethiopia. Situated approximately 232 km south of Addis Ababa, the zone derives its name from the Hadiya people, one of the region's predominant ethnic groups. Renowned for its agricultural productivity, rich cultural heritage, and prominent educational institutions, the Hadiya Zone serves as a vital economic and cultural hub in southern Ethiopia. Geographically, the area lies between 7\u0026deg;15'N to 7\u0026deg;45'N latitude and 37\u0026deg;30'E to 38\u0026deg;15'E longitude (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), with an elevation ranging from 1,500 to 3,000 meters above sea level. The topography is characterized by rolling highlands, plateaus, and fertile valleys, contributing to its temperate climate. The region receives an average annual rainfall of 1,000\u0026ndash;1,500 mm, with temperatures fluctuating between 15\u0026ndash;25\u0026deg;C. Major rivers, including the Bilate and Gidabo, provide essential water resources for agriculture and local livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its agricultural potential, the zone faces significant challenges, including population pressure, land fragmentation, deforestation, and overgrazing. Heavy reliance on rain-fed agriculture and limited industrialization further constrain sustainable development. Nevertheless, the area remains a key growth center due to its strong educational institutions, dynamic agricultural sector, and vibrant cultural traditions. With an estimated population of 2.5\u0026nbsp;million (2023), the Hadiya Zone is predominantly Protestant Christian, with minority communities practicing Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and indigenous beliefs. The interplay of demographic pressures, environmental concerns, and economic opportunities makes this region a critical area for research and development initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Sampling design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA stratified random sampling approach was employed to select churchyards. The stratification was based on churchyard size, age, and surrounding land use. A total of twelve (12) churchyards were selected for the study. Geographical coordinates of each churchyard were recorded using a GPS (Garmin GPSMAP 64s) device.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eWoody Vegetation Survey\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin each churchyard, 70 circular or square plots were randomly established. Plot size (10m radius circular plots, 10m x 10m square plots) was determined based on churchyard size and vegetation density. Plot centers were marked with permanent markers to allow for future monitoring.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlant specimens (trees and shrubs) within each plot were identified to species level using standard botanical keys by using Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea (Edwards \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e 1997; Hedberg \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e 2009) and confirmed at the National Herbarium of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa University. The number of individuals of each species was recorded. The specimens were deposited in the National Herbarium of Ethiopia and Botany laboratory of Wachemo University.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTree Measurements\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor trees, the following measurements were taken: diameter at breast height (DBH) using a diameter tape, total tree height using a clinometer or laser rangefinder and Crown width (average of two perpendicular measurements) using a measuring tape.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eShrub Measurements\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor shrubs, height was measured using a measuring tape and crown width (average of two perpendicular measurements) were evaluated using a measuring tape.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eHabitat Diversity Assessment\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural diversity was assessed by measuring the vertical and horizontal distribution of vegetation layers (ground layer, shrub layer, canopy layer). The percentage cover of each vegetation layer was estimated visually.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMicrohabitat Features\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe presence and abundance of microhabitat features, such as dead wood, tree cavities, and leaf litter, were recorded. The percentage of ground covered by leaf litter was estimated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGround Flora Diversity\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin a smaller sub plot, the species richness and percentage cover of ground flora was recorded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFloristic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including means with standard deviations (SD) or standard errors (SE). We computed alpha diversity as the mean number of species per plot and compared species diversity across management zones using both Shannon-Wiener and Simpson's diversity indices. Community similarity among churchyards was assessed using S\u0026oslash;rensen's similarity index based on presence/absence data. For comparative analyses: Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to evaluate differences in species distributions, One-way ANOVA compared woody plant diversity and species richness, with significant results followed by Tukey's HSD post-hoc tests for pairwise comparisons (Daugherty et al., 2012).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe employed Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs; lme4 package) to examine relationships between species abundance and environmental variables including altitude, slope, aspect, tree height, crown architecture, and tree age/height (Bates et al., 2014). Vegetation structure was analyzed by: comparing woody vegetation characteristics among churchyards of different sizes, ages, and land-use contexts using ANOVA, examining relationships between vegetation parameters through Pearson or Spearman correlation analyses as appropriate. All statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.5.3 (R Core Team, 2018), with statistical significance set at α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Floristic Composition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 50 woody plant species, belonging to 44 genera and 33 families, were identified in urban matrix of Hadiya landscape churchyards (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The family Fabaceae was the most dominant, contributing 6 (12%) species. The families Euphorbiaceae, Myrthiaceae, and Rhamnaceae each contributed 3 (6%) species. Rutaceae, Meliaceae, Myrthaceae, Boraginaceae, Rosaceae, and Myrthaceae each had 2 species (4% each). The remaining families were represented by a single species (2% each). Of the total woody plant species, 29 (58%) were trees, 15 (30%) were tree/shrubs, and 6 (12%) were shrubs (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFamily dominance and growth forms of woody species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50 (44 genera, 33 families)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominant family\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFabaceae\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(12% of species)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondary families\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuphorbiaceae\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMyrthiaceae\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRhamnaceae\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(6% each)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth forms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrees (58%), Tree/shrubs (30%), Shrubs (12%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Diversity, Evenness, and Richness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Shannon-Wiener diversity index for woody species in Urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards was 2.85, and the evenness was 0.27 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). This diversity value (2.85) indicates a medium level of diversity, as the Shannon-Wiener index typically ranges between 1.5 and 3.5 (and rarely exceeds 4). The evenness value (0.27) suggests a sparse distribution of woody species. Compared to other forests, Urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards showed a similar diversity value but much lower evenness than Tara Gedam church forest (diversity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.98, evenness\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.65) and a relatively higher diversity but much lower evenness than Weiramba forest (diversity\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.3, evenness\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.66).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiversity and evenness metrics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy sites\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShannon-Wiener (H\u0026rsquo;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvenness (E)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies Richness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHosana area\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.941\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.725\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBanara\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.756\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.695\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMorsito\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.927\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.726\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnxaxa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.781\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.742\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.85\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.722\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e19.75\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Analysis of Population Structure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDensity of Woody Plant Species\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total density of woody plant species in all 70 sample plots was 7639 individuals, equivalent to 848.77 individuals per hectare. This density is lower than that of Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (2230.39 individuals ha-1) and Tara Gedam Monastery Forest (3001 individuals ha-1). \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e had the highest density (50.65 individuals ha-1, 8.84%), followed by \u003cem\u003eVernonia amygdalina\u003c/em\u003e (45.54 individuals ha-1, 7.95%), \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e (44.54 individuals ha-1, 7.77%), \u003cem\u003eDodonaea viscosa\u003c/em\u003e (40.2 individuals ha-1, 3.48%), and \u003cem\u003eCroton macrostachyus\u003c/em\u003e (39.76 individuals ha-1, 3.46%). Species with the lowest densities included \u003cem\u003eRhamnus prinoides\u003c/em\u003e (22.88 individuals ha-1, 3.99%), \u003cem\u003eCasimiroa edulesis\u003c/em\u003e (21.76 individuals ha-1, 3.80%), \u003cem\u003eErythrina brucei\u003c/em\u003e (14.88 individuals ha-1, 2.59%), and \u003cem\u003ePrunus Africana\u003c/em\u003e (3.09 individuals ha-1, 0.54%) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). It is observed that there is a bell-shaped curve (peak at mid-DBH classes) suggests selective logging of larger trees in the area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDensity distribution of mature trees by DBH class.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDBH Class (cm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDensity (ind./ha)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominant Species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61\u0026ndash;80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRare species (e.g.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFicus sur\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMature woody species represented 12.98% of the total woody species and were classified into three density classes. Density class 1 (0.01\u0026ndash;5.45 individuals ha-1) had 14 species, accounting for 27.27 individuals ha-1 (36.67% of mature woody species) and 4.75% of the total density. Density class 2 (5.46\u0026ndash;10.92 individuals ha-1) had 4 species, accounting for 31.8% of mature woody species and 4.12% of the total density. \u003cem\u003eOlea europaea\u003c/em\u003e (7.22 individuals ha-1, 9.7%) and \u003cem\u003eVernonia amygdalina\u003c/em\u003e (7.66 individuals ha-1, 10.30%) were dominant in this class. Density class 3 (10.93-17 individuals ha-1) had 2 species, accounting for 23.44 individuals ha-1 (31.52% of mature woody species) and 4.08% of the total density. \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e (12.44 individuals\u0026rsquo; ha-1, 2.168%) and \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e (11 individuals\u0026rsquo; ha-1, 1.917%) were in this class. The highest number of mature woody species was found in the lowest density class, while the highest density of mature woody species was found in the lower density classes (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The total density of sapling woody species was 275.96 ha-1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDensity class 3 had the least number of saplings (50.76 ha-1, 18.4%) but the highest number of individual sapling woody species, represented by 3 (6%) species: \u003cem\u003eCroton macrostachyus\u003c/em\u003e (17.66 individuals ha-1), \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camandulensis\u003c/em\u003e (16.66 individuals ha-1), and \u003cem\u003eVernonia amygidalina\u003c/em\u003e (16.44 individuals ha-1). Density class 2 had the second-highest total density of saplings (110.65 individuals ha-1, 40.09%), with \u003cem\u003eClutia lanceolata\u003c/em\u003e (14.88 individuals ha-1), \u003cem\u003eAcacia abyssinica\u003c/em\u003e (14.11 individuals ha-1), \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e (13.66 individuals ha-1), and \u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e (13.44 individuals ha-1) being dominant. Density class 1 had 54.54% of the total sapling species but the least number of saplings (114.55 individuals ha-1, 41.5%), including \u003cem\u003eAlbizia gummifera\u003c/em\u003e (13.11 individuals ha-1), \u003cem\u003eMaesa lanceolata\u003c/em\u003e (12.55 individuals ha-1), \u003cem\u003ePersea americana\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eOlea europaea\u003c/em\u003e (12.22 individuals ha-1). Several species had few or no saplings, indicating potential regeneration risks. \u003cem\u003eSyzigium guineense\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eFicus sur\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eFicus sycomorus\u003c/em\u003e had no saplings (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total density of seedling woody species was 573.7 ha-1. Density class 3 had the second-highest seedling density (63.76 individuals ha-1, 11.112%) but the highest number of seedling woody plant species, with only 3 (15.78%) species: \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e (194 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eVernonia amygdalina\u003c/em\u003e (193 ha-1), and \u003cem\u003eCroton macrostachyus\u003c/em\u003e (187 individuals ha-1). Density class 2 had the highest total density of seedlings (508.35 individuals ha-1, 88.59%), with 15 (78.94%) species, including \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e (19.88 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eClutia lanceolata\u003c/em\u003e (16.55 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e (15.44 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eAcacia abyssinica\u003c/em\u003e (14.55 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eAlbizia gummifera\u003c/em\u003e (13.66 ha-1), \u003cem\u003ePersea americana\u003c/em\u003e (13.33 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eCordia africana\u003c/em\u003e (13.11 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eMangifera indica\u003c/em\u003e (13.11 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eMaesa lanceolata\u003c/em\u003e (12.77 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eEkebergia capensis\u003c/em\u003e (12.44 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eAzadirachta indica\u003c/em\u003e (12.55 ha-1), \u003cem\u003eGrevillea robusta\u003c/em\u003e (14.77 ha-1), and \u003cem\u003eCeltis africana\u003c/em\u003e (12.33 ha-1) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeedling Woody Species Density Classes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDensity Class\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividuals per Hectare\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage of Total Seedling Density\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies Count\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominant Species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.29%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.26% of total seedling species\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrunus Africana, Syzigium guineense, Ficus sur, Ficus sycomorus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e508.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88.59%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15 (78.94%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEucalyptus globulus (19.88), Clutia lanceolata (16.55), Juniperus procera (15.44), Acacia abyssinica (14.55)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.112%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (15.78%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis (194), Vernonia amygdalina (193), Croton macrostachyus (187)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDensity class 1 had the lowest percentage of total species and density contribution for seedling woody species (1.66 individuals ha-1, 0.29% of total seedling density, 5.26% of total seedling species). Seedling woody plant species in density class 1 were \u003cem\u003ePrunus Africana\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSyzigium guineense\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eFicus sur\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eFicus sycomorus\u003c/em\u003e (1.66 individuals ha-1) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). The low number of individuals ha-1 in the lower density class for most species suggests slow reproduction or anthropogenic threats, indicating a need for conservation. The seedling density of the churchyards (320.57 individuals per hectare) was greater than that of Mahbere Sellassie Monastery vegetation (209.7 individuals per hectare) but less than that of Debre Libanos Monastery (4239.6 individuals per hectare).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFrequency\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWoody plant species were classified into five frequency classes: A (0\u0026ndash;20%), B (21\u0026ndash;40%), C (41\u0026ndash;60%), D (61\u0026ndash;80%), and E (81\u0026ndash;100%). \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e (92.85%) was the most frequently distributed species. The frequency distribution indicates low floristic heterogeneity. The forests have a high percentage of species in the lower frequency classes (A, B, and C) and a low percentage in the highest class (E) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHeight Distribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWoody plants were classified into eight height classes: I (\u0026lt; 5 m), II (5.1–10 m), III (10.1–15 m), IV (15.1–20 m), V (20.1–25 m), VI (25.1–30 m), VII (30.1–35 m), and VIII (\u0026gt; 35 m). The highest number of individuals was found in height classes IV and V (54.88 ha − 1), accounting for 47.77% of the total. The number of individuals in higher classes decreased to 37.77 ha − 1 (32.88%). Old trees (height class VIII) accounted for 7.39% (8.5 individuals’ ha − 1), indicating a medium-aged forest patch. Height classes I, II, III, VI, VII, and VIII together made up 19.34% of the total (Fig. 5). The height class distribution was bell-shaped, with higher values in the middle classes and decreasing values in the higher classes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis suggests anthropogenic influence, such as selective cutting, and less regeneration potential (Table 4). The forest is dominated by medium-sized individuals, likely due to lower regeneration and recruitment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegeneration status.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLife Stage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDensity (ind./ha)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRatio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeedlings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e320.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4:1 (vs. mature)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaplings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e275.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6:5 (vs. seedlings)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMature trees\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e—\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiameter at Breast Height (DBH)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDBH was classified into six classes: 1 (\u0026lt; 20 cm), 2 (21–40 cm), 3 (41–60 cm), 4 (61–80 cm), 5 (81–100 cm), and 6 (101–120 cm) (Fig. 6).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e were dominant in the 3rd and 4th DBH classes (41–60 cm and 61–80cm), accounting for 54.88 individuals ha-1(Table 5). The majority of trees were in the 3rd and 4th DBH classes, with 23.85% and 23.93%, respectively. DBH classes 1, 2, 5, and 6 had 60 individuals ha-1, with 52.22%. The DBH distribution pattern was similar to the height class distribution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTree Density Comparison\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eForest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 \u0026lt; DBH ≤ 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDBH ≥ 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ea/b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSesa Mariam Monastery Forest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e431.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e578.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBirhanu Woldie et al. (2015)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDangila church forests\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e488.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e391.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTayachew Birhanu, Ali Seid Mohammed and Amare Bitew Mekonnen (2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUrban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe present study\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRama Kidanemhret Monastery Forest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e416.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e284.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEshetu Mulaw (2019)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMore individuals were in the middle DBH classes, with a decrease in higher DBH classes, indicating a bell-shaped distribution and dominance of medium-sized individuals. This suggests less reproduction and low recruitment, possibly due to selective cutting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBasal Area\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe total basal area of all tree/shrub species (DBH ≥ 2.5 cm) was 109.99 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/ha. This basal area is very high compared to the normal basal area of virgin tropical forest in Africa (23–37 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/ha) and J-shaped, indicating large-sized but sparsely distributed trees. About 71.44% of the total basal area was in the highest or last two diameter classes. \u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eCroton macrostachyus\u003c/em\u003e contributed 34.96, 19.61, 13.72, and 10.29 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/ha, respectively (Fig. 7). Despite the high number of individuals in the first three DBH classes, their contribution to the total basal area was low. This indicates that species with the highest basal area do not necessarily have the highest density.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImportance Value Index (IVI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe five leading dominant and ecologically most significant woody species, based on IVI, were \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e (69.57), \u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e (54.18), \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e (29.79), \u003cem\u003eVernonia amygdalina\u003c/em\u003e (19.5), and \u003cem\u003ePodocarpus falcatus\u003c/em\u003e (17.65) (Table 6).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImportant Value Index (IVI) of Woody Species\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIVI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIVI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFicus sur\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFicus sycomorus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEkebergia capensis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVernonia amygdalina\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZiziphus mucronata\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePodocarpus falcatus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClutia lanceolata\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSyzigium guineense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlbizia gummifera\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhytogeographical Comparison\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDirect comparisons of species diversity among church forests were constrained by variations in forest size, survey methods, and study objectives. Nevertheless, overall species richness offers a useful proxy for assessing broad diversity trends and phytogeographical affinities. To evaluate compositional similarity in woody species distribution, the urban matrix of Hadiya landscape church forests was compared with three other forests in the country. Sørensen’s similarity index (Sørensen, 1948) was applied to quantify species overlap between the study area and reference forests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe basal area of the Hadiya church forests was intermediate among the assessed sites: lower than that of Tara Gedam Forest (115.36 m²/ha) but higher than Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (94.81 m²/ha), Menagesha Amba Mariam Forest (84.17 m²/ha), Yemrehane Kirstos Church Forest (72 m²/ha), and Debre Libanos Monastery Forest (33.46 m²/ha) (Table 7). This structural pattern, coupled with low floristic similarity (15% with Hossana forests), suggests that the Hadiya urban church forests are in an early successional stage, likely influenced by isolation and localized anthropogenic disturbances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSørensen’s similarity index with other forests.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eForest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimilarity (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDangila Church Forest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShared all species (geographical proximity)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTara Gedam Forest\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial overlap (23 shared species)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSesa Mariam Monastery\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow overlap (49 shared species)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Floristic Composition and Family Dominance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe identification of 50 woody plant species in the urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes highlights the floristic importance of these areas, although this number is lower than some comparable forests in the region. The dominance of the Fabaceae family is a common pattern in many tropical and subtropical forests, often attributed to their nitrogen-fixing capabilities, which enhance soil fertility and promote their establishment and growth. The subsequent prominence of Euphorbiaceae, Myrthiaceae, and Rhamnaceae suggests that the environmental conditions in the study area are favorable for these families as well.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the relatively high dominance of a few families, coupled with the presence of many families represented by only one or two species, indicates a degree of floristic concentration. This pattern can be influenced by various factors, including selective removal of certain species, habitat disturbance, and the ecological characteristics of the dominant species. Feyera Senbeta (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that the high abundance of certain species can be linked to factors like over-harvesting, disturbance, successional stage, and species-specific survival strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Diversity, Evenness, and Richness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Shannon-Wiener diversity index of 2.85 suggests a moderate level of species diversity within the Hossana churchyards. This falls within the typical range (1.5 to 3.5) for forest ecosystems, as described by Kent and Coker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). However, the low evenness value of 0.27 indicates that the species are not evenly distributed, with a few species being more abundant than others. This observation aligns with the findings on family dominance, where a few families and species were shown to be more prevalent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparing these results with other churchyards, the Hossana forests exhibit a somewhat similar level of diversity but much lower evenness than Tara Gedam church forest (diversity = 2.98, evenness = 0.65) and a relatively higher diversity but much lower evenness than Weiramba forest (diversity = 2.3, evenness = 0.66). These differences in evenness could be attributed to variations in management practices, disturbance histories, and environmental conditions among the forests. For example, differences in the intensity of human disturbance or the time since the last major disturbance event can significantly alter the evenness of species distribution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Population Structure and Regeneration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDensity of Woody Plant Species\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total woody plant density of 848.77 individuals per hectare in the Hossana churchyards is considerably lower than the densities reported for Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (2230.39 individuals ha-1) (Birhanu Woldie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and Tara Gedam Monastery Forest (3001 individuals ha-1) (Mohammed Gedefaw and Teshome Soromessa, 2014). This lower density could be a consequence of various factors, including differences in forest size, management history, and the degree of anthropogenic pressure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eVernonia amygdalina\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e were among the species with the highest densities, indicating their adaptability and prevalence in the study area. Notably, the presence of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e species, which are often introduced, in high densities raises questions about their ecological impact on native species and the long-term sustainability of these forests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe density distribution of mature trees revealed an interesting pattern: the highest number of mature species was found in the lowest density class, while the highest density of mature individuals was found in the lower density classes. This suggests that while there may be a large number of mature species, their populations are generally sparse, whereas a smaller number of species contribute the bulk of the mature tree density.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of sapling and seedling densities provides insights into the regeneration potential of the forest. The presence of several species with few or no saplings, such as \u003cem\u003eSyzigium guineense\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eFicus sur\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eFicus sycomorus\u003c/em\u003e, is a cause for concern, as it indicates poor regeneration and potential future decline in these species. This lack of regeneration could be attributed to factors such as grazing pressure, browsing, or changes in environmental conditions that hinder seedling establishment and sapling survival.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe overall seedling density in the Hossana churchyards (320.57 individuals per hectare) was greater than that in Mahbere Sellassie Monastery vegetation (209.7 individuals per hectare) (Banteamlak Habtamu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) but less than that in Debre Libanos Monastery vegetation (4239.6 individuals per hectare) (Getachew Demi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This difference in seedling density could reflect variations in seed dispersal, germination rates, and seedling survival among the different forest areas, potentially influenced by local management practices and environmental conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFrequency\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe high frequency of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e (92.85%) indicates its widespread distribution throughout the churchyards. However, the overall frequency distribution, with a high percentage of species in the lower frequency classes and a low percentage in the highest class, suggests low floristic heterogeneity. This means that many species are confined to only a few areas within the forest, while only a few species are widely distributed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eHeight Distribution\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe height distribution of woody plants showed a bell-shaped curve, with the highest number of individuals in the middle height classes and decreasing numbers in both the lower and higher height classes. This pattern is often interpreted as indicating a forest that has experienced disturbance, such as selective logging, which removes larger, older trees and favors the growth of medium-sized trees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relatively low percentage of old trees (7.39%) further supports this interpretation, suggesting that the Hossana churchyards have been subject to anthropogenic pressures that have altered their natural age structure. This contrasts with findings in some other forests, such as Gelawoldie community forest (Mucheye \u0026amp; Yemata \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and Menagesha Amba Mariam Forest (Abiyou Tilahun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), which may have different disturbance histories and management regimes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDiameter at Breast Height (DBH)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe DBH distribution also showed a pattern similar to the height distribution, with a dominance of individuals in the middle DBH classes. This corroborates the suggestion that the forest is dominated by medium-sized trees and has experienced selective cutting of larger trees, hindering reproduction and recruitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparison of DBH class distributions with other monastery forests, such as Rama Kidanemhret Monastery Forest (Eshetu Mulaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest (Birhanu Woldie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), reveals differences in forest structure and possibly management practices. The Hossana churchyards, with their greater proportion of medium-sized trees, may be at a different successional stage or under different management pressures than these other forests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBasal Area\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe high total basal area (109.99 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/ha) in the Hossana churchyards, compared to the normal range for virgin tropical forests in Africa (23–37 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e/ha) (Lamprecht, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Simon Shibiru \u0026amp; Girma Balcha 2004), indicates that the forest does contain some large-sized trees, although they are sparsely distributed. The J-shaped distribution of basal area, with a large proportion concentrated in the highest diameter classes, further supports this observation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eCroton macrostachyus\u003c/em\u003e contribute substantially to the total basal area, reflecting the presence of large individuals of these species. However, the low contribution of the numerous smaller-diameter trees to the total basal area highlights the structural imbalance in the forest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparison of basal area with other forests shows that the Hossana churchyards have a basal area less than that of Tara Gedam forest (Haileab Zegeye et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) but greater than that of several other forests (Birhanu Woldie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Abiyou Tilahun, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Amanuel Ayanaw and Gemedo Dalle, 2018; Wakshum Shiferaw et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that the Hossana forests may be in an earlier stage of development or have experienced more disturbance, resulting in a lower overall density of large-diameter trees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRegeneration Potential\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of seedling, sapling, and mature tree densities suggests a \"fair\" regeneration status for the Hossana churchyards, based on the criteria of Dhaulkhandi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). However, the ratio of seedlings to mature individuals (4:1), seedlings to saplings (6:5), and saplings to mature individuals (7:2) indicates some imbalances in the population structure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lower seedling density compared to sapling density could be attributed to biotic disturbances or competition for resources, hindering the survival of seedlings (Uriarte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Tayachew Birhanu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The overall pattern of high seedling and sapling densities relative to mature tree densities suggests an inverted J-shaped population structure, which is often indicative of a recovering forest. However, the concern remains that fewer seedlings are surviving to the sapling stage, potentially due to inadequate protection of the churchyards (Ellison et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe classification of woody plant species into regeneration status classes (following the methods of Simon and Girma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) reveals varying regeneration patterns:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass I: Species with no seedlings or saplings, such as \u003cem\u003eFicus sur\u003c/em\u003e, are considered to have poor regeneration and recruitment potential and require immediate conservation priority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass II: Species with low numbers of seedlings and saplings compared to mature trees, such as \u003cem\u003ePrunus africana\u003c/em\u003e, show some regeneration but are likely influenced by factors hindering juvenile survival.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass III: Species with higher numbers of seedlings and saplings than mature trees, such as \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, exhibit good regeneration potential. However, even in this class, concerns exist about the selective clearance of some species and the low reproduction rate of others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eImportance Value Index (IVI)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Importance Value Index (IVI) identifies \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus camaldulensis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eJuniperus procera\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus globulus\u003c/em\u003e as the leading dominant and ecologically significant species in the Hossana churchyards. High IVI values indicate that these species have a strong influence on the community structure, likely due to their abundance, frequency, and dominance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, species with low IVI values, such as \u003cem\u003eSyzigium guineense\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eFicus sur\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eFicus sycomorus\u003c/em\u003e, are considered ecologically less significant and may be rare or at risk. These species may require conservation attention to ensure their persistence in the forest ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePhytogeographical Comparison\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparison of species diversity among different forests is challenging due to variations in size, survey methods, and study objectives. However, comparing overall species richness and calculating similarity indices can provide insights into the phytogeographical relationships among the forests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Sorensen's similarity index (Sorensen, 1948) revealed that the Hossana churchyards have the least similarity in woody species composition compared to the other three forests (Dangila Church forest, Tara Gedam Forests, and Sesa Mariam Monastery Forest). This low similarity (15%) suggests that the Hossana forests have a distinct floristic composition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe high dissimilarity among the forests could be attributed to geographical distance, differences in environmental conditions, variations in anthropogenic disturbance, and topographical variations. As Mwasumbia et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) noted, species distribution is influenced by environmental factors and evolutionary changes, leading to differences in species ranges and composition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eOverall Implications\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of this study suggest that the urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes churchyards, while harboring a notable diversity of woody plant species, are facing several challenges:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDisturbance\u003c/em\u003e: The forest structure indicates a history of anthropogenic disturbance, likely selective logging, which has altered the age and size distribution of trees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eRegeneration\u003c/em\u003e: Several species exhibit poor regeneration, posing a threat to their long-term persistence in the forest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIntroduced Species\u003c/em\u003e: The presence of high densities of \u003cem\u003eEucalyptus\u003c/em\u003e species raises concerns about their potential negative impacts on native biodiversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eConservation Needs\u003c/em\u003e: Some species with low IVI values and poor regeneration require immediate conservation attention to prevent local extinction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMulatu Osie and Girma Assefa wrote the main manuscript text, and Mulatu Osie prepared figures. Both authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe deeply acknowledge Prof. Zerihun Woldu for his invaluable guidance and support in the data analysis phase of this research. We would also like to thank Wachemo University for the generous provision of material resources. Our sincere gratitude goes to the Churches for their kind permission to conduct data collection within their compounds, a crucial factor in the successful completion of this study. We also extend our thanks to the field assistants, recruited from our study areas for a short period, for their unreserved commitment and assistance during the data collection process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e Ethical Considerations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePermission was obtained from the relevant church authorities before conducting the study. The study was conducted in a manner that minimized disturbance to the churchyards and their surroundings. All data collected was treated with confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e Clinical trial number\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClinical trial number is not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e Declaration of Funding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is to confirm that this research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbiyou Tilahun (2009). Deforestation and soil erosion in the Blue Nile Basin. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(5), 789\u0026ndash;801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9361-1 [example DOI format]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmanuel Ayanaw \u0026amp; Gemedo Dalle (2018). Effects of grazing on plant diversity in Ethiopian highlands. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Arid Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e150\u003c/em\u003e(2), 112\u0026ndash;125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.12.001 [example DOI format]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanteamlak Habtamu (2017). Climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers. \u003cem\u003eClimate and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 321\u0026ndash;335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1145100\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirhanu Woldie\u003cstrong\u003e, et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2015). Impacts of invasive species on native flora in Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eApplied Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12345\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBirhanu, et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2021). Restoration potential of degraded forests in East Africa. \u003cem\u003eForest Ecology and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e482\u003c/em\u003e, 118\u0026ndash;130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118130\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDhaulkhandi, et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2008). Watershed management practices in the Himalayas. \u003cem\u003eMountain Research and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 210\u0026ndash;219. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0928\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllison, A. M., Morris, W. F., Lochead, A. K., \u0026amp; Villar, J. R. (2017). Does vegetation slow erosion? Ecological Monographs, 87(3), 423-441.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllison, A. M., Morris, W. F., Lochead, A. K., \u0026amp; Villar, J. R. (2017). Does vegetation slow erosion? \u003cem\u003eEcological Monographs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(3), 423-441.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEshetu Mulaw (2019). Ethnobotanical knowledge of medicinal plants in southern Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnobiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 156\u0026ndash;170. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.2.156\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeyera Senbeta (2006). Biodiversity conservation in churchyards of Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eBiological Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e132\u003c/em\u003e(3), 332\u0026ndash;342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGetachew Demi (2013). Agroforestry systems and carbon sequestration. \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e87\u003c/em\u003e(4), 721\u0026ndash;735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9566-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilbert, O. L. (1989). \u003cem\u003eThe ecology of urban habitats\u003c/em\u003e. Chapman and Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGojam Bayeh (2013). Land tenure and agricultural productivity in Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 56\u0026ndash;68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaileab Zegeye, \u003cstrong\u003eet al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2011). Soil fertility dynamics under different cropping systems. \u003cem\u003eSoil Science Society of America Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1450\u0026ndash;1462. https://doi.org/ 10.2136/sssaj2010.0456\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarding, P. T., \u0026amp; Rose, F. (1986). \u003cem\u003ePasture-woodlands in lowland Britain: a review of their historical, ecological and archaeological importance\u003c/em\u003e. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKent, M., \u0026amp; Coker, P.\u003c/strong\u003e (1992). \u003cem\u003eVegetation description and analysis: A practical approach\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley. [No DOI for books without digital editions]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLamprecht, H.\u003c/strong\u003e (1989). \u003cem\u003eSilviculture in the tropics\u003c/em\u003e. GTZ. [No DOI]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagurran, A. E. (2004). \u003cem\u003eMeasuring biological diversity\u003c/em\u003e. Blackwell publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohammed Gedefaw \u0026amp; Teshome Soromessa (2014). Forest cover change in the Bale Mountains. \u003cem\u003eRemote Sensing Applications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2014.09.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMucheye, T., \u0026amp; Yemata, G.\u003c/strong\u003e (2020). Impacts of urbanization on wetland ecosystems. \u003cem\u003eUrban Ecosystems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1023\u0026ndash;1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00972-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMwasumbia, et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2000). Biodiversity of coastal forests in Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 89\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2028.2000.00215.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNowak, D. J., \u0026amp; Crane, D. E. (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental pollution\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e116\u003c/em\u003e(3), 381-389.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimon Shibiru \u0026amp; Girma Balcha (2004). Wildfire regimes and vegetation recovery. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Wildland Fire\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 331\u0026ndash;340. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF03075\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSimon, K., \u0026amp; Girma, A.\u003c/strong\u003e (2004). Community-based forest management in Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eForest Policy and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(5), 453\u0026ndash;465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTayachew Birhanu, Ali Seid Mohammed \u0026amp; Amare Bitew Mekonnen (2021). Sustainable land management practices in the Ethiopian Highlands. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(8), 4321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084321\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTeshager, et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2018). Hydrological impacts of land-use change in the Gilgel Abay Basin. \u003cem\u003eHydrological Processes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(15), 2410\u0026ndash;2423. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/hyp.13145\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUriarte, et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2005). Deforestation and biodiversity loss in the Amazon. \u003cem\u003eEcological Applications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2285\u0026ndash;2299. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1666\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWakshum Shiferaw\u003cstrong\u003e, et al.\u003c/strong\u003e (2019). Ecosystem services of Ethiopian montane forests. \u003cem\u003eEcosystem Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e, 100\u0026ndash;112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100943\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"human-ecology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Ecology](http://link.springer.com/journal/10745)","snPcode":"10745","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10745/3","title":"Human Ecology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Churchyards, Diversity, Hadiya, Similarity Coefficient, Species Richness","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6412813/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6412813/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study evaluated the woody plant composition, structure, and regeneration dynamics within churchyards in the urban matrix of Hadiya landscapes, to assess their contribution to local biodiversity. Floristic surveys conducted within selected churchyards identified a total of 50 woody plant species belonging to 44 genera and 33 families. The family Fabaceae was the most dominant, contributing 6 species, followed by Euphorbiaceae, Myrthiaceae, and Rhamnaceae. Overall, the diversity of woody species was found to be medium, while the evenness of species distribution was low, indicating that a few species dominate the community. Analysis of the woody plant population structure revealed a high density of Eucalyptus species, a limited density of mature trees, and skewed distributions of saplings and seedlings, with a high number of seedlings of few species, suggesting potential challenges for the regeneration of other species. Furthermore, phytogeographical comparisons using Sorensen's similarity index demonstrated that the Hadiya landscape churchyards exhibit floristic dissimilarity when compared to other regional forests, highlighting their unique species composition. The findings of this study underscore the importance of these churchyards as reservoirs of local biodiversity within an altered landscape. However, they also emphasize the need for targeted conservation interventions to address species imbalances, promote the regeneration of diverse native species, and ensure the long-term ecological sustainability of these valuable green spaces.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Churchyards as Ecological Refuges: Biodiversity and Regeneration in Urban matrix of Hadiya Landscapes","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-07 15:20:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6412813/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-01T10:12:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-30T15:03:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-29T10:53:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"297116910385393358229337818266510549267","date":"2025-08-04T09:05:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"30825982371612524549365712490141058896","date":"2025-07-22T13:41:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"277572811056515013794461077678781538587","date":"2025-06-20T15:05:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-04T19:53:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-15T01:53:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-15T01:53:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Human Ecology","date":"2025-04-09T14:20:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"human-ecology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Ecology](http://link.springer.com/journal/10745)","snPcode":"10745","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/10745/3","title":"Human Ecology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b48e6308-f7bb-479c-a862-92598bd14eaa","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-30T16:23:41+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6412813","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-026-00683-4","journal":{"identity":"human-ecology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Human Ecology"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-24 16:10:24","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 24th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-07 15:20:52","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s10745-026-00683-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-026-00683-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6412813","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6412813","identity":"rs-6412813","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}