Abstract:
A study was conducted in Dikicha Kebele, Miyo District, Borana Zone of Southern Ethiopia, to 
compare woody species diversity, uses, and regeneration status, and soil organic carbon of 
conserved and non -conserved adjacent sub-watersheds. In each sub-watersheds, four transect 
lines were systematically laid parallel to each other at 200 m interval. Ten nested sample plots 
were established at interval of 50m along each transect lines. The main plots had 30m X 30m 
while sub-plots had 5m X 5m. Key Informants (herders, elders, and experts) were selected 
purposively to identify the uses of encountered woody species. Local name was identified, height 
and diameters were measured for woody species. Five composite soil samples were taken, four 
from the corners and one from the center of sub-plots. Shannon-Wiener (H’) and Simpson (1-D) 
diversity indices were computed for woody species diversity and evenness. Similarities between 
the two sub-watersheds were calculated by Sorensen’s Similarity Coefficient (SSC). Mean 
comparison and one-way ANOVA were computed by R version 3.6.1 software. A total of 51 
woody species representing 23 families were identified across the two studied sub-watersheds. 
Out of the total 51 species, 32(62.7%) were common to both sub-watersheds, while 13 (25.5%) 
and 6(11.8%) were unique to the conserved and non-conserved, respectively. Comparison of 
total woody species richness showed a significant difference (P<0.05). Sorensen’s similarity 
coefficient (SSC) showed moderate (0.77) similarity between sub-watersheds. The regeneration 
status of both sub-watersheds was fair as seedlings> saplings< adults. Total organic carbon 
stocks of conserved sub-watershed (348.64 t C ha-1
) was higher compared to non-conserved sub watersheds (316.05 t C ha-1
). Watershed conservation with SWC plays important role in
diversity and valuable woody species protection and improve regenerations and soil organic 
carbon storage. Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) practices should be adopted in different 
scales of land managements