International Journal of Horticulture, 2025, Vol.15, No.5, 257-266 http://hortherbpublisher.com/index.php/ijh 262 3.6 Adaptation strategies and innovation Different adaptation strategies are adopted by the farmer to reduce climate change impact and to increase production (Table 6). The survey revealed that polyhouse use, training, and topworking (69.64%) were the most widely adopted practices, reflecting farmers’ preference for modern orchard management. Adoption of new apple varieties (32.14%) and high-density planting (30.35%) was also notable, while lentil/mustard replacing wheat (23.21%) and peach/nut introduction (16.07%) were less common. Overall, farmers prioritized technological improvements over diversification. Table 6 Adoption of new crops, varieties, and adaptation practices Practice/Variety Percentage (%) Ranking New apple varieties 32.14 II Lentil/Mustard replacing wheat 23.21 IV High-density planting/polyhouse 30.35 III Peach/Nut introduction 16.07 V Polyhouse/Training/Topworking 69.64 I 3.7 Medicinal plant collection and climate impacts As seen in Table 7, 85.71% of total households collect medicinal plants, with Yarshagumba (Ophiocordyceps sinensis) being the most collected species (58%). 85% of herbs collectors reported changes in plant availability, either in quantity or location. This indicates that climate change is also impacting non-agricultural livelihoods by altering local biodiversity and increasing the labour required for collection. Table 7 Medicinal plant collection and availability Variable Percentage (%) Collect medicinal plants 85.71 Main species -Yarshagumba (Ophiocordyceps sinensis) 58.33 Change in availability 85.41 3.8 Migration patterns and economic implications The survey showed that migration was universal (100%) among farm households, with most family members migrating to Kathmandu (53.57%), followed by Surkhet (26.78%) and Nepalgunj (19.65%). Migration was mainly temporary (69.64%), while seasonal migration (30.35%) was less common. The primary reason for migration was education and market opportunities (76.78%), whereas lack of jobs (23.22%) was a secondary driver. Regarding its impact on household income, 46.42% reported a reduction, 30.35% an increase, and 23.23% no change, indicating that migration had mixed economic effects across households (Table 8). Table 8 Migration patterns Variable Response Percentage (%) Migration in the family Yes 100 Place of migration Kathmandu 53.57 Surkhet 26.78 Nepalgunj 19.65 Type Temporary 69.64 Seasonal 30.35 Reason Education/Market 76.78 Lack of a job 23.22 Effect on income Reduced 46.42 Increased 30.35 Constant 23.23 3.9 Support systems and gaps Table 9 shows that 77% of households received some form of support—mainly subsidies, training, and inputs such as polyhouses or seeds. Adaptation practices were used by 71.42%, but all respondents (100%) emphasised
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==