Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa smallholder organizations in the Peruvian high Andes

Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa... The intensification of crop production is widely recognized to negatively affect the agrobiodiversity in smallholder systems. This trend can also be observed in Quinoa production systems, where few varieties are commercialized while maintaining traditional varieties of quinoa remains a key agricultural activity in the high-Andes landscape. In recent decades, the “boom” of quinoa production has given rise to national projects intended to ensure that farmers benefit from their agricultural herit- age, including the development of a collective trademark. However, little is known about the opinions of smallholder farm- ers regarding quinoa varieties cultivation, farming practices, market choices, or the development of a collective trademark as a tool to safeguard a position in the booming international quinoa market. To address these questions, we developed our research in three villages in the Puno region of Peru, quinoa’s center of origin. We applied a novel combination of partici- patory methods: the Q methodology to interpret the perceptions of smallholder quinoa farmers concerning the activities that are important on their farms, and the Four-Square Analysis workshops to explore quinoa biodiversity management. The results of our Q-analysis revealed three types of opinions emerging among farmers: (Type 1) Conservationist, (Type 2) Intensification sustainer, and (Type 3) Collaboration seeker. Type 1 assigns importance to maintaining and promoting quinoa biodiversity through collective practices and markets. Type 2 focuses on developing export-oriented production based on certified and improved varieties, combined with efficient ways of storing quinoa. Type 3 appears to value the collective aspects of organizations and cooperation among stakeholders. According to the results of the Four-Square Analysis, most landraces of quinoa are threatened by genetic erosion, as they are cultivated in situ in small plots and on few farms. Our results are an important baseline for further project development for biodiversity conservation in situ and market inclusion engaging local communities. Keywords Agroecology · Cultivated biodiversity · Multi-method approach · Farmers’ viewpoints · Neglected and underutilized species · Chenopodium quinoa Willd 1 Introduction * Federico Andreotti federico.andreotti@wur.nl Smallholder farmers produce more than 30% of the global food supply (Ricciardi et al. 2018), while maintaining its Laboratory of Geo-information Science and Remote genetic diversity (Fanzo 2017; Dardonville et al. 2020). Of Sensing, Wageningen University & Research, the approximately 30,000 species of edible plants present on 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 2 earth, only around 7000 have ever been cultivated or used for CIRAD, UMR SENS, F-34398 Montpellier, France human consumption, and only 150 are commercially culti- UMR SENS, CIRAD, IRD, Univ Paul Valery Montpellier 3, vated and marketed (Esquinas-Alcàzar 2005; Li & Siddique Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France 2018). Hundreds of neglected and under-utilized species Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University (NUS) mainly grown by smallholder farmers as subsistence & Research, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, crops are at risk of extinction (Li & Siddique 2018; Wezel The Netherlands 5 et al. 2020). In recent decades, a few NUS have attracted Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen global interest, leading to the transformation of these crops University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 42 Page 2 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. from “traditional foods” into “superfoods” that appeal to sites (Koohafkan and Cruz 2011). One of the program’s health-conscious Western consumers such as quinoa, teff, objectives is to foster the dynamic conservation of land- and minor millets (McDonell 2021; Andreotti et al. 2022). scapes, including the cultivation of local crops, caring for One of the most studied NUS that has generated sudden socio-cultural traditions, and ensuring the sustainability global demand is quinoa (Alandia et al. 2020). of economic goods and environmental resources. Within Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) was domesticated the GIAHS program, however, the “Andean Agriculture” more than 7000 years ago on the shores of Titicaca Lake in pilot project was effective only at the institutional level the Peruvian and Bolivian high Andes (Bazile et al. 2016). (for example on the promotion of the Andean countries Quinoa gained global importance due to its excellent-quality tourism). Local communities were not involved in elabo- proteins and vitamins (Repo-Carrasco et al. 2003; Navruz- rating the initial draft memorandum (GEF 2016). Drawing Varli & Sanlier 2016), as well as to its tolerance of abiotic lessons from the Peru GIAHS pilot project, other GIAHS stresses (Ruiz et al. 2014; Murphy et al. 2016) and its pro- projects have aimed to foster the inclusion of smallholder motion by local and global institutions. The United Nations farmers from the outset of projects (Winkel et al. 2014). promoted the potential of quinoa during the International Over the past decade, many NGOs and research insti- Year of Quinoa in 2013 (IYQ-2013) (Bazile et al. 2015). tutes have been rethinking the role of quinoa in the Andes, From 2009 to 2013, Peru, the world’s leading quinoa pro- promoting an array of projects focusing on the organiza- ducer, experienced a ten-fold increase in its quinoa exports tional needs of local smallholder farmers (Winkel et al. and a four-fold increase in prices (MINAGRI 2014). This 2014; Bazile et al. 2016). One result of these efforts is a production and price increment (“boom”) of quinoa in Peru participatory approach, which aims to foster the organiza- was followed by a rapid decrease in prices (“bust”) (Alandia tion of smallholder farmers to develop a common label for et al. 2020; Andreotti et al. 2022). quinoa, alternative to third party certification such as fair - In 2015, quinoa prices started to decline in response to trade or organic labelling: the collective trademark (CT). changes in national and global production (Alandia et al. A CT is a participatory label, for which farmers jointly 2020; McDonell 2021). As a result, smallholder quinoa pro- decide on common rules for the production and market of ducers in the Peruvian high Andes increased their yield by quinoa. Such a label can be used for market niche products adopting a few certified varieties of quinoa, thus abandon- such as traditional varieties in local and global markets ing their landraces (traditional varieties) for varieties that (Deleixhe 2018; Cuéllar-Padilla & Ganuza-Fernandez were better suited to the attributes preferred by the global 2018). While the development of a CT has been identified market, i.e., large, white grains. Traditional varieties are as a possible option for Andean quinoa farmers, there have still kept in seedbanks, farms, and grown in the wild in the been no ongoing efforts to monitor the implementation communities around Lake Titicaca (Mujica and Jacobsen process and farmers’ opinions in adopting such a label. 2006; Tapia et al. 2014; Fagandini et al. 2020). Neverthe- Throughout the world, smallholder farmers’ organiza- less, intensification negatively impacted the biodiversity of tions and the United Nations projections have envisioned smallholder systems, as it reduced the number of cultivated CT and participatory labelling initiatives as a way for varieties of quinoa—both certified and landraces at farm and farmers’ organizations to position and reaffirm their local landscape level (Huanca et al. 2015; Winkel et al. 2016). products (Binder & Vogl 2018; Loconto & Hatanaka The loss of genetic diversity in quinoa has environmental 2018). In the high Andes, Peruvian farmers envision the and social consequences at the farm level. As environmental CT as a possibility for highlighting the practices, knowl- consequences, quinoa is becoming less resilient to climate edge, and values that distinguish their farming systems change, as well as to new pests and diseases (Mujica and from those of other quinoa producers around the world Jacobsen 2006). Although cultural value continues to be (Bazile et al. 2021). These distinctive aspects include the associated with the cultivation of quinoa and the specific biodiversity of Andean quinoa (Argumedo 2008; David- roles of women and men in preserving quinoa landraces, son-Hunt et  al. 2012; Gavin et  al. 2015) and the local the availability of the landraces is decreasing (Fuentes et al. agroecological practices that are used in its cultivation 2012). Local and global projects have tried to support small- (Bedoya-Perales et al. 2018; Cotula et al. 2019) (Fig. 1). holder farmers in their efforts to maintain this biodiversity Such practices include collective crop rotations based on (Fagandini et al. 2020). the community calendar (so-called Aynokas systems), Since 2011, the Peruvian high Andes region has been minimum tillage, using animal manures to improve soil included in the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage fertility, conserving local agrobiodiversity through com- Systems (GIAHS) program (Koohafkan and Cruz 2011), munity seed banks (Fagandini 2019). To date, no studies an official initiative of the United Nations Food and Agri- have examined the process of developing a CT in the high culture Organization (FAO), which aims to promote public Andes in order to maintain quinoa biodiversity and pro- awareness and global recognition of agricultural heritage mote market access. 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 3 of 15 42 concerning crop and varietal diversity among smallholder farmers with an in situ conservation perspective (Grum et al. 2003; Legneaux et al. 2021). This method also entails both quantitative and qualitative components. It has been widely used by researchers and NGOs to generate inventories of crops—including specific species and landraces—in devel- oping countries (Grum et al. 2003; Kilwinger et al. 2019). A landrace is a taxonomic rank used to define groups of organisms of the same species that share similar character- istics (Zeven 1998). A landrace is a domesticated, locally adapted traditional variety of a species of plant that has been developed over time, through adaptation to its natural and cultural environment of agriculture. The quinoa landraces of the farmers participating in our study are considered tradi- tional varieties, as the farmers manage their seed lots each year, passing them from generation to generation. These Fig. 1 Aynokas landscape in Huancarani, Puno, Peru. In the picture landraces do not possess the characteristic of homogeneity, are shown several plots that follow collective crop rotations based on the community calendar. Credit: Federico Andreotti. which is the main criterion for the certification of varieties based on national and international seed legislation (Bazile et al. 2016): (i) landraces are distinguished from cultivars, Any investigation of the process of developing a CT (ii) and modern varieties are distinguished from conven- should include the participation of smallholder-farmers’ tional plant breeding. organizations (Loconto & Hatanaka 2018). Using par- In this study, we explored farmers’ perceptions on the ticipatory research approaches that foster inclusion can be importance of quinoa diversity and the associated current applied to characterize the opinions of smallholder farmers on-farm quinoa diversity management. We applied participa- and to explore local crop diversity (Lagneaux et al. 2021; tory approaches to foster the inclusion of a broad range of Andreotti et al. 2022). The most commonly applied methods actors and to characterize the opinions of smallholder farm- for exploring the perspectives of farmers are questionnaires ers on agricultural practices and the market. We initiated this and interviews. Other methods involve the application of participatory research for studying the process of developing tools for creating an interface that facilitates and fosters the a CT exploring farmers’ interest in adopting a CT in relation inclusion of the participants. These methods include seri- to their opinions on farm and agrobiodiversity management. ous games (Speelman et al. 2019; Andreotti et al. 2020), In doing so, we involved smallholder farmers’ organizations backcasting workshops (van Vliet & Kok 2015), interactive in the high Peruvian Andes. We also addressed the following design (Romera et al. 2020), and the Q methodology (Ding- research question: kuhn et al. 2020). For collecting information on cultivated biodiversity in situ, a variety of methods can be applied. One Which are the opinions of smallholder farmers regarding that has proven successful in facilitating the gathering of quinoa varieties cultivation, farming practices, market such information within an inclusive setting is that of Four- choices, and the development of a collective trademark? Square Analysis (4SqA) (Lagneaux et al. 2021). The visual Q methodology has been applied for the pur- pose of examining the opinions and values of smallholder 2 Materials and methods farmers (Pereira et al. 2016; Alexander et al. 2018; Ding- kuhn et al. 2020; Leonhardt et al. 2021). The method pro- 2.1 The study site: the Puno region in the high vides a representation of “opinion types” existing within Andes a given group. A combination of qualitative and quantita- tive techniques, the method was first developed and applied The Puno region in the “Altiplano” area of Peru was selected within the discipline of psychology (Stephenson 1935). In as a case study. It is located in the center of the area where recent decades, it has been used widely in several fields, quinoa originated (Vavilov et al. 1992), and it is character- including environmental sustainability research (Accastello ized by high, diverse production of quinoa (Fagandini 2019). et al. 2019; Sneegas et al. 2020). In this region, more than 120 quinoa landraces are regu- The 4SqA method has been applied to focus-group work- larly cultivated as subsistence crops by smallholder farmers shops conducted for the purpose of exploring the knowl- (Fagandini et al. 2020). Referred to as “desert puna,” this edge and management practices of smallholder farmers agroecological zone is located at an altitude of 3900 to 4300 1 3 42 Page 4 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. m, and it is covered by grass and steppes (Morlon 1992; members. In Village A, there is an association of farmers Fries & Tapia 2007; Mazoyer & Roudart 2017). within a traditional farmers’ collective known as an Aynoka. Within the desert puna in the Puno region, we selected The association provides agronomic and marketing support three quinoa-growing areas surrounding the three main cities from farmer to farmer, in addition to the collective own- and markets of the region: Puno, Ilave, and Juliaca (Fig. 2). ership of a tractor. The Aynoka promotes communal labor With the help of local institutions and researchers, we subse- in the village and organizes collective planning concern- quently selected three villages in which smallholder-farmers’ ing land-use and crop-rotation choices, with varieties being organizations were actively facilitating the production of and maintained at the individual level. Village B has an active market for quinoa: Huancarani (Village A), Rinconada (Vil- community of farmers based on individual households, with lage B), and Pilhuani (Village C). a primary focus on producing crops for the subsistence and All three villages are located in desert puna zones, which a secondary objective of selling on the market. Village C is are characterized by an arid environment (Table 1). Rainfall part of a larger farmers’ cooperative, which promotes the is seasonal, and most of the annual rainfall (90%) is spread processing of quinoa at the local level. Compared to the over a single wet season, which usually starts in September other two villages, it has a more direct link to the national and ends in April or May, followed by a dry season with lit- market and the associated possibilities to commercialize tle or no rainfall (Lavado Casimiro et al. 2013). Knowledge quinoa for exports. and local technologies concerning the maintenance and man- In each of the three villages, the agricultural work cycle is agement of water is currently deteriorating or fading away divided into stages, starting with plowing the field to prepare (Verzijl & Quispe 2013). Each of the villages has a small- the soil for good seed germination and plant establishment holder-farmers’ organization with fewer than 30 household (supplementary information about the farming systems is Fig. 2 Study site location: study villages (red dots); main cities (white dots); Puno region (red border). 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 5 of 15 42 Table 1 Characteristics of the villages, including location, climate, agricultural seasons, and the ethnicity and organization of the households. Huancarani, Village A Rinconada, Village B Pilhuani, Village C Location (16°08′S 69°38′W) (15°56′S 69°51′W) (15°18′S 70°04′W) Agroecological zone Puna Id Id Altitude 3900 m Id Id Average annual temperature 5–8 °C Id Id Precipitation 700–1000 mm Id Id Wet season One single rainy season, September– Id Id April/May Dry season May–September Id Id Growing season quinoa September–April Id Id Harvest season quinoa April–June Id Id Distance from the city 8.4 km from Ilave 26.3 km from Puno 24.3 km from Juliaca Total number of households 78 households 56 households 62 households Ethnicity Aymara Aymara Quechua Language(s) Aymara and Spanish Aymara and Spanish Quechua and Spanish Organization Farmers’ organisation and traditional Farmers community: family agri- Farmers’ cooperative (in-situ product farmers’ collective (Aynokas) cultural systems processing and market orientation). Total number of households 25 households participate in the 27 households are quinoa producers 29 households participate in the farmers’ association. cooperative. provided in Appendix A). Although plowing was tradition- sharing their own perspectives, while the 4SqA focused at ally done with animals, it is now commonly done with trac- the farmers organization level, connecting multiple farmers, tors for agricultural plots that are located in the plains. In and providing an overall illustration of the state of quinoa addition to plowing, other agricultural activities include the biodiversity. sowing, weeding, and terracing of plots. Most of the quinoa landraces are harvested between April and June (Fagandini 2.3 Assessing the perspectives of the farmers et al. 2020). In general, quinoa harvesting consists of three processes: swathing, threshing, and storing (which involves The visual Q methodology was used to assess farmers’ opin- drying and cleaning) (Aguilar & Jacobsen 2003). Each of ions about the future of their farming systems. This semi- the three villages also has a variety of animals, including quantitative method allowed us to identify different “opin- alpacas, llamas, donkeys, sheep, cows, chickens, and pigs, ion types” comparing individual perspectives (Zabala et al. some of which are kept mainly for meat and wool pro- 2018). We evaluated those perspectives by analyzing how duction. The animals’ manure is applied to the soil when farmers ranked pictures and keywords (so-called items) in rotating crops in order to maintain the fertility of the soil. relation to their farming systems. The results of QM there- The most widely cultivated crops in the villages are qui- fore allowed us to highlight agreements or disagreements of noa, alfalfa, amaranth, barley, fava beans, oats, maize, and opinions among the farmers of the three smallholder organi- potatoes. zations that participate to this research. In QM, the items in a given set (i.e., a “Q-set”) are ranked 2.2 Methods in order of importance or agreement. The items in the Q- set (i.e., statements, keywords, and/or pictures) depict the We employed two participatory methods, one at the indi- opinions of the participants with regard to a specific issue. vidual and the other on the collective level to answer our The ranking operation (i.e., the “Q-sort”) follows a semi- research questions: visual Q methodology (QM) for indi- normal distribution, in which most of the items are ranked vidual representations and Four-Square Analysis (4SqA), as “neutral,” with a few items ranked as “most important” based on a focus-group approach (Fig. 3). We applied the or “least important” (Fig. 4). The statistical interpretation of QM to explore the perspectives of individual farmers with the level of importance is based on the associated value of regard to farming practices, quinoa market choices, and the the quasi-normal distribution, with different values in each development of a collective trademark. The 4SqA was used column. Starting from the right, the values are distributed as to identify the quinoa landraces and improved and certi- follows: +3 (“most important;” one item), +2 (two items), fied varieties that are cultivated by the farmers. The QM +1 (five items), 0 (“neutral;” five items), −1 (three items), focused on the farm level, engaging farmers individually in −2 (two items), and −3 (“least important;” one item). 1 3 42 Page 6 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. Fig. 3 Overview of research objectives and methods. Fig. 4 Q-sort semi-normal distribution. We used a visual Q-set consisting of pictures and key- the future of the farm and what is not, focusing on quinoa words to facilitate the inclusion of Andean Peruvian farmers varieties cultivation, farming practices, market choices, and with a broad range of literacy. In all, 16 pictures and key- the development of a collective trademark. Such a “learning words were first tested for clarity and possible interpreta- from the future” approach has shown to enlighten transition tions with local stakeholders and farmers, and then further pathway when re-thinking current challenges in the food employed to illustrate different farming practices and market system (Valencia et al. 2022). choices that the smallholder famers used to improve their The selection of keywords and pictures used to build the farming systems (Fig.  5). The overall question presented Q-set was based on recent studies on rural development in Spanish, and here translated in English to initiate the conducted with Andean smallholder farmers in the Puno exercise was “How important is this activity/component for region (Carimentrand et  al. 2015; Bedoya-Perales et  al. the future of your farm?” Thanks to this question we col- 2018; Bellemare et al. 2018). After we identified the key lected individual opinion ranking on what is important for words for the Q-set, the first author took the pictures while 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 7 of 15 42 Fig. 5 Q-set keywords and corresponding pictures. Picture 5 was adapted from Latorre Farfàn (2014). Picture 15 displays the logos of USDA organic and the European Organic Certification. The rest of the pictures were taken by the first author. conducting fieldwork in the Puno region (September–Octo- process. In the first step, they were asked to sort the items ber 2019) and picture found in the literature (i.e., Farfán into three piles: (i) most important, (ii) least important, and et al. 2017). Keywords and pictures were combined to create (iii) neutral. Second, they were asked to place the items onto the first Q -set. The keywords were translated from English the pyramid board (Fig. 4), starting with the most and least into Spanish with support from a local translator. A trial important items, and only then proceeding to place the neu- was conducted with local and international researchers, tral items in the empty spots. Third, if needed, they were technicians, students, NGO members, and farmer leaders to asked to re-consider the level of importance of the items and establish whether the Q-set was representative of and com- reposition them to fill all of the spots available in the pyra- prehensible to farmers. mid. Once a participant confirmed the position of each item, The participants were individually invited to rank the the results were noted. The process ended with a debrief- keywords and pictures (16 items in total) in a three-step ing session focusing on the participant’s reasoning for the 1 3 42 Page 8 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. choices and feedback on the experience. On average, the were cultivated at the farm level. The farmers were further Q-sort and debriefing session took one hour per participant. asked to locate each of the quinoa varieties on a two-dimen- The researcher conducted the Q-sorts in Spanish with sional plane. One axis representing the approximate com- individual farmers in Spanish in October and November bined surface area over which a specific quinoa variety was 2019. For each village, the leader provided a list of house- grown (Small plots versus Large plots) and the other axis holds belonging to a farmers’ organizations that were active representing an estimation of the number of households cul- in quinoa production: a farmers’ association in Huancarani, tivating that variety (Few farms versus Many farms) (Fig. 6). a farmers’ community in Rinconada, and a farmers’ coopera- By doing so, we established which varieties were at risk of tive in Pilhuani. In all, 36 farmers agreed to participate in the genetic erosion, if placed in small plots and few farms or if Q-sort and to take part in our study (Table 2). they were common in the community if cultivated in small The outcomes of the Q-sort from the three villages or large plots in many farms. We applied this participatory were analyzed using the Q-method function in the R soft- method as a focus group exercise to facilitate the exchange ware package (Zabala 2014). Throughout the analysis, we among the participants. Allowing such a horizontal space for assessed three types of opinions. These types were based on significantly similar item rankings. We confirmed the three opinion types based on our own judgments and under- standing of the topic, as well as on relevant literature. We analyzed the three opinion types using varimax factor rota- tion (Zabala 2014). Each participant was assigned to one of the three types according to a significant loading (p < 0.05). With these results, we further assessed the items that pointed to consensus or disagreement among the participants and explored trends in the opinions. Following Accastello et al. (2019), we present our results using a spider diagram highlighting the preferences of the participants with regard to the Q-set items. 2.3.1 Exploring the cultivation of quinoa biodiversity Four-Square Analysis (4SqA) was used to explore the knowledge and management of crop diversity among a group of farmers located in the same landscape at the village level (Grum et al. 2003). The analysis took the form of participa- tory focus-group workshops, in which participants listed all crops (species and varieties) known to them and provided Fig. 6 Representation of the Four-Square Analysis: The horizon- collective answers to specific questions related to them. In tal axis represents the size of the area on which a crop is cultivated our case study, we asked the participants which quinoa varie- (small plots versus large plots), and the vertical axis represents the ties (cultivars and landraces to cover all quinoa biodiversity) number of households cultivating it (few farms versus many farms). Table 2 Descriptive information Huancarani, Vil- Rinconada, Vil- Pilhuani, on the smallholder farmers lage A lage B Village C participating in the Q-sort: number of participants, age, Total number of participants 12 12 12 use of organic or conventional Men (number of people) 8 4 8 quinoa-production practices, Women (number of people) 4 8 4 and whether they sold quinoa to the local market or to retailers. Average age (years) 50.6 57,8 54.8 Youngest (years) 19 39 42 Oldest (years) 77 78 68 Quinoa organic production (number of people) 12 6 12 Quinoa conventional production (number of people) 0 6 0 Quinoa sold to the local market (number of people) 9 12 7 Quinoa sold to retailers (number of people) 10 0 12 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 9 of 15 42 dialogue fostered the exchange concerning farmers’ knowl- (production and market), encompassing the use of cer- edge and values on the different quinoa varieties. tified and improved varieties and of efficient systems We applied this method to gain insight into how farmers for storing quinoa for market export. Being prepared to manage and assign value to quinoa biodiversity. In each vil- fulfill market requirements (in terms of both quantity lage, one 4SqA focus-group workshop was organized, with and quality) is apparently a priority for them. a minimum of six farmers, representing the biodiversity of 3. Collaboration seeker: Farmers within this archetype the farms in the village (Table 3). The leader of the farmer value the collective aspects of organization (social and organization was asked to invite people in the village to professional) over the concrete aspects of quinoa cultiva- participate in the focus groups. The number of participants tion and production. They apparently assign the greatest varied according to the availability of the farmers. importance to social organization and reliance on other The focus groups were organized between late October stakeholders. 2019 and mid-December 2019. All of the workshops were conducted in Spanish and held at a location chosen by the Out of a total of 36 participants, 14 belong to Opinion participants (e.g., a school or another common meeting Type 1, 11 to Opinion Type 2, and three to Opinion Type place). Each workshop lasted an average of 1.5 h. First, the 3. The opinions of three participants did not fit into any of participants were asked to list all the quinoa varieties that the three opinion types (additional information about the they knew and that were currently cultivated in the village. participants is presented in Appendix B). Second, they provided collective answers to questions relat- The cluster for Opinion Type 1 had the highest number ing to the characteristics of the quinoa varieties, including of men (10), with the highest number of women (6) being the traditional names of the landraces or commercial name in the cluster for Opinion Type 2. The smallest cluster was for certified cultivars, and the main attributes for its cultiva- for Opinion Type 3, which consisted of four women and tion and uses. They subsequently answered questions related one man. On average, the age of the participants in the three to the management and value of the quinoa varieties. Third, groups were similar (54–57 years), with both the youngest the participants were asked to group the varieties that were (28 years) and oldest (78 years) participants in Cluster 2. For cultivated in their village along the 4SqA axes. all three clusters, the highest level of education completed was secondary school, with the smallest share of each clus- ter not having had access to school (e.g., four participants 3 Results in Cluster 1 had not had access to school). The majority of farmers in all three clusters used organic practices to pro- 3.1 Assessment of the farmer perspectives duce quinoa. The participants in Cluster 1 sold quinoa to retailers (10) and local markets (12), while those in the other We used the QM results to explore the perceptions of small- clusters sold only to local markets. holder farmers with regard to farming practices, market The three clusters clearly reflected the various opinions choices, and the development of a collective trademark. with regard to the most important items. The participants in Based on the results of this analysis, our own judgement the cluster reflecting Opinion Type 1 expressed the strong- and understanding of the topic, and relevant literature, we est agreement concerning the importance of the cultivation developed three archetypes, which are defined as follows: of quinoa biodiversity (Item 8; factor array score: +3). For those in the cluster reflecting Opinion Type 2, the most 1. Conservationist: Farmers within this archetype value the important aspect was the possibility of storing quinoa (Item biocultural heritage aspects of maintaining and promot- 9; +3), with Opinion Type 3 assigning the greatest impor- ing quinoa biodiversity over export market outcomes. tance to the export of quinoa (Item 10; +3). The three clus- 2. Intensification sustainer: Farmers within this archetype ters also shared similar opinions concerning the utilization assign importance to concrete aspects of technology of pesticide (Item 5). This practice was considered of least importance in Opinion Types 1 and 2 (−3); sharing seeds (Item 4) was of least importance in Opinion Type 3 (−3; see Fig. 7). Table 3 Distribution of participants in the 4SqA focus-group work- shops in the three villages studied. 3.2 Exploring quinoa biodiversity Huancarani, Rinconada, Pilhuani, Village A Village B Village C In all, the participating farmers listed 21 quinoa varieties Total number of participants 6 10 17 during the 4SqA workshops (additional information on Men (number of people) 3 8 7 the names of the varieties collected during the workshops Women (number of people) 3 2 10 is presented in Appendix C). The farmers in Village A 1 3 42 Page 10 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. Fig. 7 Spider diagram of item rankings for each opinion type. The black line indicates Opinion Type 1, the green line indicates Opinion Type 2, and the orange line indicates Opinion Type 3. Each ring of the diagram represents the importance value (from −3 to +3) assigned to each item. (Huancarani) identified 12 varieties, including many local Our results showed strong usage of certified and improved varieties: Kankolla, REAL Salcedo INIA, Koito, Vitulla, varieties that are cultivated in large plots by many farmers, Choclito, Pasankalla, Misa, Hara, Ayrampu, Chulpi, and as in Village C. Based on the information we gathered, most Janki. They also classified cañihua as a quinoa variety, even of the local quinoa landraces are threatened by genetic ero- though it is another species from the same family identified sion, as they are cultivated in situ in small plots and on few by botanists as Chenopodium pallidicaule Aellen. Most of farms. This was the case in all three villages (Fig. 8). The the farmers in Village A reported having grown the modern names of the landraces differ somewhat across the village, variety REAL Salcedo INIA from National Public Research as each village used different names to designate traditional (first introduced by the local university) for many years. varieties of quinoa. According to the respondents, this variety is more resistant to changing climatic conditions. The farmers’ openness to newer varieties does not mean that they neglected the more 4 Discussion indigenous varieties. On the contrary, indigenous varieties are now being reintroduced more than in previous years. In 4.1 Reflection and perspectives on the Q Village B (Rinconada), the farmers listed 10 different varie - methodology ties of quinoa: Quinoa Blanca, Cheveka, Vitulla, Sajama, Blanca de July, Kankolla Rosada, Kancolla Blanca, Hara, As indicated in previous studies (Hamadou et  al. 2016; and Koito. These farmers also classie fi d cañihua as a quinoa Pereira et al. 2016; Alexander et al. 2018), the Q methodol- variety. The participating farmers classified all of the varie- ogy can be a powerful tool for interpreting the perspectives ties as local varieties or landraces, which had been cultivated of local communities that are facing the dynamics of com- “since ancient times.” They did not classify any of the varie- plex socioecological systems. ties as having been introduced more recently. In Village C The total number of participants in the current study was (Pilhuani), the farmers identified 13 varieties of quinoa that 36. Our sample provided a good reflection of the diversity they cultivated, including two landraces of cañihua: Koito, of farmers’ organizations in the Puno region, as it included REAL Salcedo INIA, Kankolla, Sajama, Rosada, Cañihua, a farmers’ association, a farmers’ community, and a farmers’ Cañihua Amarilla, Cañihua Plomo, Pasankalla, Chulpi, cooperative. Several previous studies have generated relevant Ayrampu, Amarilla, and Choclo Taraquiña (Appendix B). typologies with a similar number of participants. Examples 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 11 of 15 42 Fig. 8 Overall results of the Four-Square Analysis workshops in each village. Each value shows in the squares express the number of quinoa varieties cultivated in a given village. No quinoa varieties were listed under the Four-Square category of “large plots/few farms”. include Hamadou et al. (2016) with 20 participants, Pereira three emergent viewpoints, they share similarities as well, et al. (2016) with 26 participants, Langston et al. (2019) which point to potential common ground for establishing with 34 participants, and Alexander et al. (2018) with 35 cooperation among farming communities (Hamadou et al. participants. With a total of 36 participants, our sample was 2016; Tschopp et al. 2018; Tomich et al. 2019). thus within the acceptable parameters for QM. In our study, we applied QM with farmers individually, 4.2.1 Agricultural practices in order to guarantee their active participation. We combine this with the 4SqA workshops to explore the biodiversity Agroecological and organic agriculture practices aim to be cultivated within the community. Similar approaches have self-sustaining, reducing external inputs and managing soil been applied effectively within other research contexts for as a living organism, while encouraging optimum yield (as small-group collective activities (e.g., educational activities; opposed to maximum yield), crop diversification, and bio - see Pruslow et al. 2012) or for democratic endeavors (Bil- logical and environmental measures for controlling pests, lard 1999). Reflecting on our own experience, we agree with diseases, and weeds, along with the use of slow-release fer- Berthet et al. (2016) that a proper understanding of local tilizers, such as manure (Altieri et al. 1989; Wezel 2020). perspectives is likely to require the involvement of multiple These principles reflect the perspectives of all three opinion stakeholders. types with regard to pesticide utilization, and those of Opin- ion Types 1 and 2 with regard to the integration of animals 4.2 Opinion types within the agricultural system. Most of the participants were not particularly interested The findings of our study point to three perspectives on qui- in the use of pesticides, and this aspect was identified as noa biodiversity emerging among the farmers (as producers being of the least importance for Opinion Types 1 and 2. of quinoa): Conservationist (Opinion Type 1), Intensifica - In contrast to Bedoya-Perales et al. (2018), who describe tion sustainer (Opinion Type 2), and Collaboration seeker “the emergence of difficult-to-control pests” due to the (Opinion Type 3). Farmers adhering to Opinion Type 1 expansion of land acreage in traditional systems in the Puno assign greater importance to maintaining and promoting region after the quinoa boom, our results hint to the poten- quinoa biodiversity through collective practices and mar- tial for valorization of more traditional knowledge in order kets than they do to the export of quinoa. This is in contrast to achieve a more agroecological and organic method of to those adhering to Opinion Type 2, who focus on pos- production. sibilities for developing export-oriented production based The farmers adhering to Opinion Types 1 and 2 regarded on certified and improved varieties, combined with efficient the integration of animals within the farming system as ways of storing quinoa in order to fulfill the quality and important for the activities relating to their livelihood. The quantity demands of retailers. Farmers adhering to Opinion value of animal manure, meat, and fiber has previously been Type 3 appear to value the collective aspects of organiza- highlighted by Kerssen (2015) as essential to the ecologi- tions and cooperation among stakeholders more highly than cal balance between crops and animals. Animal husbandry they do the concrete agronomic aspects of quinoa cultiva- (including sheep, alpacas, cows, llamas, poultry, and pigs) is tion and production. Despite the differences between these also a way to achieve food security and to diversify products 1 3 42 Page 12 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. (e.g., meat and dairy) designated for the local market launched in 2016 within the Ecuadorean Ministry of Agri- (Agüero García 2014). culture, with all of the 28 farmers’ organizations involved (Chevarria Lazo & Bazile 2017). In addition to opening up 4.2.2 Quinoa biodiversity and breeding programs the dialogue between the main producers of quinoa in South America, this professional network aims to identify ways to We observed common ground between farmers adhering improve the regulation system in order to optimize the man- to Opinion Types 1 and 2 with regard to the importance agement of genetic resources. The process of improving this of certified and improved quinoa seeds. This result echoes regulation system will entail in-depth dialogue among all the findings of Carimentrand et  al. (2015), who demon- stakeholders involved in managing the genetic resources of strate that the international and urban demands for large, quinoa. As highlighted by Chevarria et al. (2015), no single uniform grains encourage producers to sow improved qui- solution is adapted to all situations from which the creation noa varieties. The results of our 4SqA workshops point to a of collective trademarks might arise, thus suggesting the strong usage of certified and improved varieties, which are need to develop a new framework aimed at integrating the cultivated in large areas by many households in Village C, diverse perspectives concerning the management of quinoa’s which correspond to Opinion Type 2. On the other hand, genetic resources (Bazile 2021). most quinoa landraces are produced in small areas by few households. This result provides a clear signal for the risk of biodiversity loss due to climatic conditions and/or neglect 5 Conclusions by farmers. These results are corroborated by previous stud- ies, including one by Fuentes et al. (2012), who report that Within the context of maintaining agrobiodiversity, small- households with larger areas tend to ignore more traditional holder farmer organizations play a pivotal role for cultivating varieties in favor of certified and improved varieties. local varieties through traditional practices; exploring farm- Several participatory breeding programs, some of which ers’ perspectives on the future can reveal winning and dis- require payments to a local conservation group (Scott et al. ruptive strategies to maintain agrobiodiversity encompassing 2018), have been developed with the objective of using novel farming and market practices. In this article, we pre- in situ cultivation and the creation of local community seed sent the results of a study in which we applied two participa- banks to bridging these two perspectives (Salazar-Tortosa tory methods to characterize the perspectives of smallholder et al. 2019; Ceccarelli & Grando 2020). As reported by Gal- farmers with regard to farming practices, market choices, luzzi and López Noriega (2014), a breeding program was and the development of a collective trademark. The study developed for five under-utilized crops to improve perfor - further involved an exploration of the genetic resources that mance and promote their continued conservation and use are cultivated in situ by smallholder farmers. We developed in local communities of the Peruvian Andes. Their results our research focusing on three villages in the Puno region highlight the important role that the participatory breeding of Peru. We applied a visual Q methodology to interpret program played in achieving a balance between improving the opinions of smallholder quinoa farmers concerning the yield and maintaining genetic diversity, thus clearing the relative importance of specific activities within the context path for the development of a new model of agrobiodiversity of their farms, and we conducted Four-Square Analysis conservation (Murphy et al 2016). workshops to explore quinoa biodiversity. We identified three types of opinion emerging among the farmers: (Type 4.2.3 Perspectives on a collective trademark and market 1) Conservationist, (Type 2) Intensification sustainer, and choices (Type 3) Collaboration seeker. Farmers adhering to Opinion Type 1 assign greater importance to maintaining and pro- In addition to its importance to plant-breeding activities, moting quinoa biodiversity through collective practices and participation can play a crucial role in realizing the potential local markets. This contrasts with those adhering to Opinion market innovation highlighted by Opinion Types 1 and 2: the Type 2, who focus on possibilities for developing export-ori- collective trademark. This initiative is in line with UN pro- ented production based on certified and improved varieties, jects fostering collective trademarks and participatory label- combined with efficient ways of storing quinoa in order to ling to position and reaffirm traditional products within local fulfill the quality and quantity demands of retailers. Farmers and international markets (Binder & Vogl 2018; Loconto & adhering to Opinion Type 3 appear to value the collective Hatanaka 2018). With this objective, the FAO launched an aspects of organizations and cooperation among stakehold- initiative during the Fifth Quinoa World Congress in 2015, ers more highly than they do the concrete agronomic aspects involving producers’ associations from Ecuador, Bolivia, of quinoa cultivation and production. According to the 4SqA Chile, Argentina, and Peru. The initiative aimed to assem- results, most quinoa landraces are threatened by genetic ero- ble the Andean Network of Quinoa Producers, which was sion as they are only cultivated in small plots and on a few 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 13 of 15 42 Consent for publication The authors confirm that all the participants farms. The novel combination of methods presented allows gave their informed consent to participate in the study. to develop opinion types based on individual and collective perspectives concerning practices for maintaining agrobio- Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. diversity. Such an approach has the potential to be used in other cases where smallholder farmer organizations need to Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- explore pathways to foster agrobiodiverse futures. We fur- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long ther concluded that the two participatory research methods as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, applied in this study facilitated the inclusion of smallholder provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes farmers in the research process. In particular, the usage of a were made. The images or other third party material in this article are visual support (e.g., the pictures used in the Q methodology) included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in facilitated the participation of smallholder farmers during the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not our research. As we have demonstrated, engaging small- permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will holder farmers through participatory research methods can need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a generate insightful perspectives on exploring farmers’ per- copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . spectives on the future. Our approach and results contribute to the literature by monitoring the implementation process and farmers’ opinions in adopting a collective trademark in References relation to farm and agrobiodiversity management. Accastello C, Bieniasz A, Blaško R, Lula M, Pszenny D, Sallustio Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- L, Speelman EN (2019) Conflicting demands on the natural tary material available at https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s13593- 023- 00891-y . resources in Northern Sweden: a participatory scenario devel- opment study J Environ Assess Policy Manag 21(03):1950017. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the inhabitants of https:// doi. org/ 10. 1142/ S1464 33321 95001 70 the communities of Huancarani, Rinconada, and Pilhuani in the Puno Agüero Garcia, A. M. 2014. Quinoa producers and quinoa exports: region for their hospitality and participation in this study. We are grate- implications for local consumption in the Southern high- ful to Angel Mujica, Mario Tapia, Marco Chevarria Lazo, Jose Manuel lands (Doctoral dissertation, Master’s Thesis. Erasmus Mundus Prieto, Gladys Nelida Sosa Maquera, and Edgar Pinto Mayta for their Programme. Wageningen University, The Netherlands). help in developing and testing the methodology applied in this study Aguilar PC , Jacobsen SE.  2003 Cultivation of quinoa on the Peru- and in establishing connections with the farmers’ communities. We vian Altiplano Food Rev Int 19 1–2 31 41 https:// doi. org/ 10. would like to thank Francesca Fagandini Ruiz for her support to map- 1081/ FRI- 12001 8866 ping the study site location.We would like to express our thanks to Alandia, G., Rodriguez, J. P., Jacobsen, S. E., Bazile, D., Condori, Arnold Bregt for his support and helpful advice in the final drafting of B. 2020. Global expansion of quinoa and challenges for the the article. We would like to thank Carl Timler for teaching the WUR- Andean region. Glob Food Sec, 26, 100429 https:// doi. org/ 10. SESAM program team how to use the Q methodology. 1016/j. gfs. 2020. 100429 Alexander KS, Parry L, Thammavong P, Sacklokham S, Pasouvang Authors' contributions Conceptualization: A. F., S. E., B. D., and N. C. S, Connell JG, Case P (2018) Rice farming systems in Southern M.; methodology: A. F., and N. C. M.; data analysis: A. F.; investiga- Lao PDR: Interpreting farmers’ agricultural production deci- tion: A. F., and N. C. M.; writing original draft, A. F.; writing-review sions using Q methodology. Agric Syst 160(1):10. https:// doi. and editing: A. F.; S. E., B. D., and N. C. M.; visuals: A. F. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2017. 10. 018 Altieri MA (1989) Agroecology: A new research and development Funding This study was co-financed by CIRAD, the Occitanie paradigm for world agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27(1– Region, and the WUR-SESAM program, which was funded by the 4):37–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0167- 8809(89) 90070-4 WUR-INREF. Andreotti F, Speelman EN, Van den Meersche K, Allinne C (2020) Combining participatory games and backcasting to support Data availability The integrity of the data used in this study are collective scenario evaluation: an action research approach for included in it and in the appendix. sustainable agroforestry landscape management. Sustain Sci 15(5):1383–1399. https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s11625- 020- 00829-3 Code availability The software used for the Q analysis is “Ken-Q Andreotti, F., Bazile, D., Biaggi, C., Callo-Concha, D., Jacquet, J., Analysis,” an open source web application for Q Methodology Jemal, O. M., & Van Noordwijk, M. (2022). When neglected (Version 1.0.7). species gain global interest: Lessons learned from quinoa’s boom and bust for teff and minor millet. Glob Food Sec,  32, 100613. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2022. 100613 Declarations Argumedo A (2008) The Potato Park, Peru: conserving agrobio- diversity in an Andean indigenous biocultural heritage area. Ethical approval This research was conducted according to the Neth- Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values 1:45–58 erlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2018 and its later Bazile D. (ed.), Bertero H.D. (ed.), Nieto C. (ed.). 2015. State of the amendments. art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. Santiago, Chile : FAO & CIRAD, 603 p. Consent to participate All the research participants gave their informed Bazile D, Jacobsen SE, Verniau A (2016) The global expansion of consent to participate in this study. quinoa: trends and limits. Front Plant Sci 7:622. https://doi. or g/ 10. 3389/ fpls. 2016. 00622 1 3 42 Page 14 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. Bazile D. 2021. Preserving local knowledge on Chenopodium Qui- a coastal mountainous site of the Philippines. J Environ Man- noa Willd. in the Andes in the context of market globalization. age, 264, 110461. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. jen vman. 2020. 110461 Anthropol Archaeol, 4 (1): p. 573-574. https://doi. or g/10. 31031/ Esquinas-Alcázar J (2005) Protecting crop genetic diversity for food AAOA. 2021. 04. 000597 security: political, ethical and technical challenges. Nat Rev Genet Bedoya-Perales NS, Pumi G, Mujica A, Talamini E, DomingosPad- 6(12):946–953. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nrg17 29 ula A (2018) Quinoa expansion in Peru and its implications for Fagandini R., F. 2019. Distribution des parents sauvages du quinoa land use management. Sustainability 10(2):532. https://d oi.o rg/ cultivé en lien avec les pratiques et usages des communautés 10. 3390/ su100 20532 andines dans la région de Puno au Pérou (Doctoral dissertation, Bellemare MF, Fajardo-Gonzalez J, Gitter SR (2018) Foods and fads: ED ABIES AgroParisTech, France). the welfare impacts of rising quinoa prices in Peru. World Dev Fagandini, R. F., Bazile, D., Drucker, A. G., Tapia, M., & Chura, E. 112:163–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2018. 07. 012 2020. Geographical distribution of quinoa crop wild relatives in Berthet ET, Barnaud C, Girard N, Labatut J, Martin G (2016) How the Peruvian Andes: a participatory mapping initiative. Environ to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of partici- Dev Sustain, 1-22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10668- 020- 00875-y patory design methods. J Environ Plan Manag 59(2):280–301. Fanzo J (2017) From big to small: the significance of smallholder farms https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09640 568. 2015. 10096 27 in the global food system. Lancet Planet. Health 1(1):e15–e16. Billard S (1999) How Q methodology can be democratized. Fem https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2542- 5196(17) 30011-6 Psychol 9(3):357–366 Farfán, J. P. L., Kristensen, I. S., & Jacobsen, S. E. 2017. Is quinoa Binder N, Vogl CR (2018) Participatory guarantee systems in Peru: cultivation on the coastal desert of Peru sustainable? A case study two case studies in lima and apurímac and the role of capacity from Majes, Arequipa (Doctoral dissertation, Master Thesis in building in the food chain. Sustainability 10(12):4644. https:// Agro Environmental Management. Aarhus University. Depart- doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su101 24644 ment of agroecology, Denmark, p 78). Carimentrand, A., Baudoin, A., Lacroix, P., Bazile, D., & Chia, E. Fries, A. M., & Tapia, M. E. 2007. Guía de campo de los cultivos 2015. Quinoa trade in Andean countries: opportunities and chal- andinos. FAO, ANPE-PERÚ. lenges for family. In: Bazile Didier (ed.), Bertero Hector Daniel Fuentes FF, Bazile D, Bhargava A, Martinez EA (2012) Implications (ed.), Nieto Carlos (ed.). State of the art report on quinoa around of farmers’ seed exchanges for on-farm conservation of quinoa, as the world in 2013. Santiago, Chile: FAO; CIRAD, p. 330-342. revealed by its genetic diversity in Chile. J Agric Sci 150(6):702. Ceccarelli S, Grando S (2020) Participatory plant breeding: who did https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0021 85961 20000 56 it, who does it and where? Exp Agric 56(1):1–11. https://doi. or g/ Galluzzi G, López Noriega I (2014) Conservation and use of genetic 10. 1017/ S0014 47971 90001 27 resources of underutilized crops in the Americas—a continental Chevarria-Lazo, M., Bazile, D., Dessauw, D., Louafi, S., Trommet- analysis. Sustainability 6(2):980–1017. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ter, M., & Hocdé, H. 2015. Quinoa and the exchange of genetic su602 0980 resources: improving the regulation systems. In: Bazile Didier Gavin MC, McCarter J, Mead A, Berkes F, Stepp JR, Peterson D, (ed.), Bertero Hector Daniel (ed.), Nieto Carlos (ed.). State of the Tang R (2015) Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. Santiago, Chile: Trends Ecol Evol 30(3):140–145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tree. FAO, p. 83-105.2014. 12. 005 Chevarria Lazo, M. A., & Bazile, D. 2017. Oportunidades para una GEF, Global Environmental Facility, 2016. Project executive summary. marca colectiva" Quinua Andina" perspectivas desde la Red Council Work Program Inclusion under the GEF Trust Fund. Andina de productores de quínua de Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Grum, M., Gyasi, E. A., Osei, C., & Kranjac-Berisavljevic, G. 2003. Ecuador y Perú. In: VI Congreso Mundial de la Quinua y III Sim- Evaluation of best practices for landrace conservation: farmer posio Internacional de Granos Andinos, Peru 2017: Resumenes. evaluation. https:// hdl. handle. net/ 10568/ 104791 Puno: MINAGRI, p. 126-126. Congreso Mundial de la Quinua. 6, Hamadou I, Moula N, Siddo S, Issa M, Marichatou H, Leroy P, 2017-03-21/2017-03-24, Puno (Pérou). http://r eposi torio.m inagr i. Antoine-Moussiaux N (2016) Mapping stakeholder viewpoints in gob. pe/ handle/ MINAG RI/ 226 biodiversity management: an application in Niger using Q meth- Cotula L, Anseeuw W, Baldinelli GM (2019) Between promising odology. Biodivers Conserv 25(10):1973–1986. https:// doi. org/ advances and deepening concerns: a bottom-up review of trends 10. 1007/ s10531- 016- 1175-x in land governance 2015–2018. Land 8(7):106. https:// doi. org/ Huanca DEV, Boada M, Araca L, Vargas W, Vargas R (2015) Agro- 10. 3390/ land8 070106 biodiversidad y economía de la quinua (Chenopodium quinoa) en Cuéllar-Padilla M, Ganuza-Fernandez E (2018) We don’t want to be comunidades aymaras de la cuenca del Titicaca. Idesia (Arica) officially certified! Reasons and implications of the participatory 33(4):81–87. https://doi. or g/10. 4067/ S0718- 34292 01500 04000 11 guarantee systems. Sustainability 10(4):1142. https:// doi. org/ 10. Kerssen TM (2015) Food sovereignty and the quinoa boom: chal- 3390/ su100 41142 lenges to sustainable re-peasantisation in the southern Altiplano Dardonville, M., Urruty, N., Bockstaller, C., & Therond, O. 2020. of Bolivia. Third World Q 36(3):489–507. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ Influence of diversity and intensification level on vulnerability, 01436 597. 2015. 10029 92 resilience and robustness of agricultural systems. Agric Syst, 184, Kilwinger FBM, Rietveld AM, Groot JC, Almekinders CJ (2019) 102913. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102913 Culturally embedded practices of managing banana diversity and Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Turner, K. L., Mead, A. T. P., Cabrera-Lopez, planting material in central Uganda. J Crop Improv 33(4):456– J., Bolton, R., Idrobo, C. J., ... & Robson, J. P. 2012. Biocultural 477. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15427 528. 2019. 16108 22 design: a new conceptual framework for sustainable development Koohafkan P, Cruz MJD (2011) Conservation and adaptive man- in rural indigenous and local communities. S.A.P.I. EN. S., (5.2). agement of globally important agricultural heritage systems Deleixhe M (2018) Conclusion: is the governance of the com- (GIAHS). J Resour Ecol 2(1):22–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3969/j. mons a model for a new global governance? In The Commons issn. 1674- 764x. 2011. 01. 004 and a New Global Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing Lagneaux E, Andreotti F, Neher CM (2021) Correction to: Cacao, 10(4337/9781788118514):00024 copoazu and macambo: Exploring Theobroma diversity in small- Dingkuhn, E. L., Wezel, A., Bianchi, F. J., Groot, J. C., Wagner, A., holder agroforestry systems of the Peruvian Amazon. Agrofor Syst 95:1369. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10457- 021- 00642-6 Yap, H. T., & Schulte, R. P. 2020. A multi-method approach for the integrative assessment of soil functions: application on 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 15 of 15 42 Langston, J. D., McIntyre, R., Falconer, K., Sunderland, T., Van Noord- Scott JA, Kondla NG, Emmel JF, Davenport KE, Mattoon SO, Fisher wijk, M., & Boedhihartono, A. K. 2019. Discourses mapped MS, Royer RA (2018) Case 3709–Conservation of the usage of by Q-method show governance constraints motivate landscape names of western North American Hesperia comma-group sub- approaches in Indonesia. PLoS One, 14(1), e0211221. https://doi. species (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae) through designation of neo- org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02112 21 types for Pamphila colorado Scudder, 1874, Pamphila manitoba LavadoCasimiro WS, Labat D, Ronchail J, Espinoza JC, Guyot JL Scudder, 1874, Pamphila cabelus Edwards, 1881, Pamphila har- (2013) Trends in rainfall and temperature in the Peruvian Ama- palus Edwards, 1881. P Bull zool nomencl 75(1):88–121. https:// zon-Andes basin over the last 40 years (1965–2007). Hydrol Pro-doi. org/ 10. 21805/ bzn. v75. a025 cess 27(20):2944–2957. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hyp. 9418 Sneegas G (2020) Making the case for critical Q methodology. Prof Geogr Leonhardt, H., Braito, M., & Uehleke, R. 2021. Combining the best of 72(1):78–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00330 124. 2019. 15982 71 two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based Speelman EN, Rodela R, Doddema M, Ligtenberg A (2019) Seri- farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental ous gaming as a tool to facilitate inclusive business; a review of scheme uptake. Agric Human Values, 1-16. https:// doi. org/ 10. untapped potential. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 41:31–37. https:// 1007/ s10460- 021- 10242-wdoi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2019. 09. 010 Li, X., & Siddique, K. H. 2018. Future smart food.  Rediscovering Stephenson, W. 1935. Correlating persons instead of tests. Character & hidden treasures of neglected and underutilized species for Zero Personality; A Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies. Hunger in Asia, Bangkok. Tapia, G., and Elwany, A. 2014. A review on process monitoring Loconto A, Hatanaka M (2018) Participatory guarantee systems: alter- and control in metal-based additive manufacturing. J Manuf Sci native ways of defining, measuring, and assessing ‘sustainability.’ Eng, 136(6). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1115/1. 40285 40 Sociol Ruralis 58(2):412–432. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/ sor u.12187 Tomich TP, Lidder P, Coley M, Gollin D, Meinzen-Dick R, Webb P, Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. 2017. Histoire des agricultures du monde. Carberry P (2019) Food and agricultural innovation pathways for Du néolithique à la crise contemporaine. Média Diffusion. prosperity. Agric Syst 172:1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. McDonell, E. 2021. Commercializing the “Lost Crop of the Inca”: 2018. 01. 002 quinoa and the politics of agrobiodiversity in “traditional” crop Tschopp, M., Bieri, S., & Rist, S. 2018. Quinoa and production rules: commercialization. In Andean Foodways (pp. 383-406). Springer, how are cooperatives contributing to governance of natural Cham. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 51629-1_ 15 resources. Int J Commons, 12(1). https://doi. or g/10. 18352/ i jc.826 Morlon, P. 1992. Comprendre l'agriculture paysanne dans les Andes Valencia V, Bennett EM, Altieri M, Nicholls C, Schrijver AP, Schulte Centrales (Pérou-Bolivie). Editions Quae. RP (2022) Learning from the future: mainstreaming disruptive Mujica A, Jacobsen SE (2006) La quinua (Chenopodium quinoa solutions for the transition to sustainable food systems. Environ Willd.) y sus parientes silvestres. Bótanica económica de los Res Lett 17(5):051002. https://doi. or g/10. 1088/ 1748- 9326/ ac6ad9 Andes Centrales 32:449–457 van Vliet M, Kok K (2015) Combining backcasting and exploratory Murphy KM, Bazile D, Kellogg J, Rahmanian M (2016) Development scenarios to develop robust water strategies in face of uncertain of a worldwide consortium on evolutionary participatory breed- futures. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20(1):43–74. https://d oi. ing in quinoa. Front Plant Sci 7:608. https://doi. or g/10. 3389/ fpls. org/ 10. 1007/ s11027- 013- 9479-6 2016. 00608 Vavilov NI, Vavylov MI, Vavílov NÍ, Dorofeev VF (1992) Origin and Navruz-Varli S, Sanlier N (2016) Nutritional and health benefits of geography of cultivated plants. Cambridge University Press quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J Cereal Sci 69:371–376. Verzijl A, Quispe SG (2013) The system nobody sees: irrigated wet- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcs. 2016. 05. 004 land management and alpaca herding in the Peruvian Andes. Mt Pereira MA, Fairweather JR, Woodford KB, Nuthall PL (2016) Assess- Res Dev 33(3):280–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1659/ MRD- JOURN ing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commer-AL-D- 12- 00123.1 cial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology. Agric Wezel A, Herren BG, Kerr RB, Barrios E, Gonçalves ALR, Sin- Syst 144:1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2016. 01. 004 clair F (2020) Agroecological principles and elements and their Pruslow, J. T., & Owl, R. R. 2012. Demonstrating the application of Q implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A methodology for fieldwork reporting in experiential education. J review. Agron Sustain Dev 40(6):1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ Exp Educ, 35(2), 375-392. s13593- 020- 00646-z Repo-Carrasco R, Espinoza C, Jacobsen SE (2003) Nutritional value Winkel T, Flores RÁ, Bertero D, Cruz P, del Castillo C, Joffre R, Ton- and use of the Andean crops quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and acca LS (2014) Calling for a reappraisal of the impact of quinoa kañiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule). Food Rev Int 19(1–2):179– expansion on agricultural sustainability in the Andean highlands. 189. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1081/ FRI- 12001 8884 Idesia 32(4):95–100 Ricciardi A, Ryan R (2018) Invasive species denialism revisited: Winkel, T., Bommel, P., Chevarría-Lazo, M., Cortes, G., Del Castillo, response to Sagoff. Biol Invasions 20(10):2731–2738. https:// C., Gasselin, P., & Joffre, R. 2016. Panarchy of an indigenous doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10530- 018- 1753-9 agroecosystem in the globalized market: The quinoa production Romera AJ, Bos AP, Neal M, Eastwood CR, Chapman D, McWilliam in the Bolivian Altiplano. Glob Environ Change,  39, 195-204. W, Clinton PW (2020) Designing future dairy systems for New https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2016. 05. 007 Zealand using reflexive interactive design. Agric Syst 181:102818. Zabala A (2014) qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102818 using Q methodology. R Journal 6(2):163 Ruiz KB, Biondi S, Oses R, Acuña-Rodríguez IS, Antognoni F, Mar- Zabala A, Sandbrook C, Mukherjee N (2018) When and how to use Q tinez-Mosqueira EA, Coulibaly A, Canahua-Murillo A, Pinto M, methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Zurita A, Bazile D, Jacobsen SE, Molina Montenegro M (2014) Conserv Biol 32(5):1185–1194. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 111/c obi.1 3123 Quinoa biodiversity and sustainability for food security under Zeven AC (1998) Landraces: a review of definitions and classifica- climate change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 34(2):349–359. tions. Euphytica 104(2):127–139. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 2 3 / A : https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13593- 013- 0195-010186 83119 237 SalazarTortosa D, Saladin B, Zimmermann NE, Castro J, de Casas RR (2019) The evolution of seed dispersal is associated with envi- Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to ronmental heterogeneity in Pinus. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 41:125464. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ppees. 2019. 125464 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agronomy for Sustainable Development Springer Journals

Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa smallholder organizations in the Peruvian high Andes

Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/exploring-farmers-perspectives-on-agrobiodiversity-management-future-ca8RwyGrzI

References (48)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
ISSN
1774-0746
eISSN
1773-0155
DOI
10.1007/s13593-023-00891-y
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The intensification of crop production is widely recognized to negatively affect the agrobiodiversity in smallholder systems. This trend can also be observed in Quinoa production systems, where few varieties are commercialized while maintaining traditional varieties of quinoa remains a key agricultural activity in the high-Andes landscape. In recent decades, the “boom” of quinoa production has given rise to national projects intended to ensure that farmers benefit from their agricultural herit- age, including the development of a collective trademark. However, little is known about the opinions of smallholder farm- ers regarding quinoa varieties cultivation, farming practices, market choices, or the development of a collective trademark as a tool to safeguard a position in the booming international quinoa market. To address these questions, we developed our research in three villages in the Puno region of Peru, quinoa’s center of origin. We applied a novel combination of partici- patory methods: the Q methodology to interpret the perceptions of smallholder quinoa farmers concerning the activities that are important on their farms, and the Four-Square Analysis workshops to explore quinoa biodiversity management. The results of our Q-analysis revealed three types of opinions emerging among farmers: (Type 1) Conservationist, (Type 2) Intensification sustainer, and (Type 3) Collaboration seeker. Type 1 assigns importance to maintaining and promoting quinoa biodiversity through collective practices and markets. Type 2 focuses on developing export-oriented production based on certified and improved varieties, combined with efficient ways of storing quinoa. Type 3 appears to value the collective aspects of organizations and cooperation among stakeholders. According to the results of the Four-Square Analysis, most landraces of quinoa are threatened by genetic erosion, as they are cultivated in situ in small plots and on few farms. Our results are an important baseline for further project development for biodiversity conservation in situ and market inclusion engaging local communities. Keywords Agroecology · Cultivated biodiversity · Multi-method approach · Farmers’ viewpoints · Neglected and underutilized species · Chenopodium quinoa Willd 1 Introduction * Federico Andreotti federico.andreotti@wur.nl Smallholder farmers produce more than 30% of the global food supply (Ricciardi et al. 2018), while maintaining its Laboratory of Geo-information Science and Remote genetic diversity (Fanzo 2017; Dardonville et al. 2020). Of Sensing, Wageningen University & Research, the approximately 30,000 species of edible plants present on 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands 2 earth, only around 7000 have ever been cultivated or used for CIRAD, UMR SENS, F-34398 Montpellier, France human consumption, and only 150 are commercially culti- UMR SENS, CIRAD, IRD, Univ Paul Valery Montpellier 3, vated and marketed (Esquinas-Alcàzar 2005; Li & Siddique Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France 2018). Hundreds of neglected and under-utilized species Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University (NUS) mainly grown by smallholder farmers as subsistence & Research, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, crops are at risk of extinction (Li & Siddique 2018; Wezel The Netherlands 5 et al. 2020). In recent decades, a few NUS have attracted Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen global interest, leading to the transformation of these crops University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 42 Page 2 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. from “traditional foods” into “superfoods” that appeal to sites (Koohafkan and Cruz 2011). One of the program’s health-conscious Western consumers such as quinoa, teff, objectives is to foster the dynamic conservation of land- and minor millets (McDonell 2021; Andreotti et al. 2022). scapes, including the cultivation of local crops, caring for One of the most studied NUS that has generated sudden socio-cultural traditions, and ensuring the sustainability global demand is quinoa (Alandia et al. 2020). of economic goods and environmental resources. Within Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) was domesticated the GIAHS program, however, the “Andean Agriculture” more than 7000 years ago on the shores of Titicaca Lake in pilot project was effective only at the institutional level the Peruvian and Bolivian high Andes (Bazile et al. 2016). (for example on the promotion of the Andean countries Quinoa gained global importance due to its excellent-quality tourism). Local communities were not involved in elabo- proteins and vitamins (Repo-Carrasco et al. 2003; Navruz- rating the initial draft memorandum (GEF 2016). Drawing Varli & Sanlier 2016), as well as to its tolerance of abiotic lessons from the Peru GIAHS pilot project, other GIAHS stresses (Ruiz et al. 2014; Murphy et al. 2016) and its pro- projects have aimed to foster the inclusion of smallholder motion by local and global institutions. The United Nations farmers from the outset of projects (Winkel et al. 2014). promoted the potential of quinoa during the International Over the past decade, many NGOs and research insti- Year of Quinoa in 2013 (IYQ-2013) (Bazile et al. 2015). tutes have been rethinking the role of quinoa in the Andes, From 2009 to 2013, Peru, the world’s leading quinoa pro- promoting an array of projects focusing on the organiza- ducer, experienced a ten-fold increase in its quinoa exports tional needs of local smallholder farmers (Winkel et al. and a four-fold increase in prices (MINAGRI 2014). This 2014; Bazile et al. 2016). One result of these efforts is a production and price increment (“boom”) of quinoa in Peru participatory approach, which aims to foster the organiza- was followed by a rapid decrease in prices (“bust”) (Alandia tion of smallholder farmers to develop a common label for et al. 2020; Andreotti et al. 2022). quinoa, alternative to third party certification such as fair - In 2015, quinoa prices started to decline in response to trade or organic labelling: the collective trademark (CT). changes in national and global production (Alandia et al. A CT is a participatory label, for which farmers jointly 2020; McDonell 2021). As a result, smallholder quinoa pro- decide on common rules for the production and market of ducers in the Peruvian high Andes increased their yield by quinoa. Such a label can be used for market niche products adopting a few certified varieties of quinoa, thus abandon- such as traditional varieties in local and global markets ing their landraces (traditional varieties) for varieties that (Deleixhe 2018; Cuéllar-Padilla & Ganuza-Fernandez were better suited to the attributes preferred by the global 2018). While the development of a CT has been identified market, i.e., large, white grains. Traditional varieties are as a possible option for Andean quinoa farmers, there have still kept in seedbanks, farms, and grown in the wild in the been no ongoing efforts to monitor the implementation communities around Lake Titicaca (Mujica and Jacobsen process and farmers’ opinions in adopting such a label. 2006; Tapia et al. 2014; Fagandini et al. 2020). Neverthe- Throughout the world, smallholder farmers’ organiza- less, intensification negatively impacted the biodiversity of tions and the United Nations projections have envisioned smallholder systems, as it reduced the number of cultivated CT and participatory labelling initiatives as a way for varieties of quinoa—both certified and landraces at farm and farmers’ organizations to position and reaffirm their local landscape level (Huanca et al. 2015; Winkel et al. 2016). products (Binder & Vogl 2018; Loconto & Hatanaka The loss of genetic diversity in quinoa has environmental 2018). In the high Andes, Peruvian farmers envision the and social consequences at the farm level. As environmental CT as a possibility for highlighting the practices, knowl- consequences, quinoa is becoming less resilient to climate edge, and values that distinguish their farming systems change, as well as to new pests and diseases (Mujica and from those of other quinoa producers around the world Jacobsen 2006). Although cultural value continues to be (Bazile et al. 2021). These distinctive aspects include the associated with the cultivation of quinoa and the specific biodiversity of Andean quinoa (Argumedo 2008; David- roles of women and men in preserving quinoa landraces, son-Hunt et  al. 2012; Gavin et  al. 2015) and the local the availability of the landraces is decreasing (Fuentes et al. agroecological practices that are used in its cultivation 2012). Local and global projects have tried to support small- (Bedoya-Perales et al. 2018; Cotula et al. 2019) (Fig. 1). holder farmers in their efforts to maintain this biodiversity Such practices include collective crop rotations based on (Fagandini et al. 2020). the community calendar (so-called Aynokas systems), Since 2011, the Peruvian high Andes region has been minimum tillage, using animal manures to improve soil included in the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage fertility, conserving local agrobiodiversity through com- Systems (GIAHS) program (Koohafkan and Cruz 2011), munity seed banks (Fagandini 2019). To date, no studies an official initiative of the United Nations Food and Agri- have examined the process of developing a CT in the high culture Organization (FAO), which aims to promote public Andes in order to maintain quinoa biodiversity and pro- awareness and global recognition of agricultural heritage mote market access. 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 3 of 15 42 concerning crop and varietal diversity among smallholder farmers with an in situ conservation perspective (Grum et al. 2003; Legneaux et al. 2021). This method also entails both quantitative and qualitative components. It has been widely used by researchers and NGOs to generate inventories of crops—including specific species and landraces—in devel- oping countries (Grum et al. 2003; Kilwinger et al. 2019). A landrace is a taxonomic rank used to define groups of organisms of the same species that share similar character- istics (Zeven 1998). A landrace is a domesticated, locally adapted traditional variety of a species of plant that has been developed over time, through adaptation to its natural and cultural environment of agriculture. The quinoa landraces of the farmers participating in our study are considered tradi- tional varieties, as the farmers manage their seed lots each year, passing them from generation to generation. These Fig. 1 Aynokas landscape in Huancarani, Puno, Peru. In the picture landraces do not possess the characteristic of homogeneity, are shown several plots that follow collective crop rotations based on the community calendar. Credit: Federico Andreotti. which is the main criterion for the certification of varieties based on national and international seed legislation (Bazile et al. 2016): (i) landraces are distinguished from cultivars, Any investigation of the process of developing a CT (ii) and modern varieties are distinguished from conven- should include the participation of smallholder-farmers’ tional plant breeding. organizations (Loconto & Hatanaka 2018). Using par- In this study, we explored farmers’ perceptions on the ticipatory research approaches that foster inclusion can be importance of quinoa diversity and the associated current applied to characterize the opinions of smallholder farmers on-farm quinoa diversity management. We applied participa- and to explore local crop diversity (Lagneaux et al. 2021; tory approaches to foster the inclusion of a broad range of Andreotti et al. 2022). The most commonly applied methods actors and to characterize the opinions of smallholder farm- for exploring the perspectives of farmers are questionnaires ers on agricultural practices and the market. We initiated this and interviews. Other methods involve the application of participatory research for studying the process of developing tools for creating an interface that facilitates and fosters the a CT exploring farmers’ interest in adopting a CT in relation inclusion of the participants. These methods include seri- to their opinions on farm and agrobiodiversity management. ous games (Speelman et al. 2019; Andreotti et al. 2020), In doing so, we involved smallholder farmers’ organizations backcasting workshops (van Vliet & Kok 2015), interactive in the high Peruvian Andes. We also addressed the following design (Romera et al. 2020), and the Q methodology (Ding- research question: kuhn et al. 2020). For collecting information on cultivated biodiversity in situ, a variety of methods can be applied. One Which are the opinions of smallholder farmers regarding that has proven successful in facilitating the gathering of quinoa varieties cultivation, farming practices, market such information within an inclusive setting is that of Four- choices, and the development of a collective trademark? Square Analysis (4SqA) (Lagneaux et al. 2021). The visual Q methodology has been applied for the pur- pose of examining the opinions and values of smallholder 2 Materials and methods farmers (Pereira et al. 2016; Alexander et al. 2018; Ding- kuhn et al. 2020; Leonhardt et al. 2021). The method pro- 2.1 The study site: the Puno region in the high vides a representation of “opinion types” existing within Andes a given group. A combination of qualitative and quantita- tive techniques, the method was first developed and applied The Puno region in the “Altiplano” area of Peru was selected within the discipline of psychology (Stephenson 1935). In as a case study. It is located in the center of the area where recent decades, it has been used widely in several fields, quinoa originated (Vavilov et al. 1992), and it is character- including environmental sustainability research (Accastello ized by high, diverse production of quinoa (Fagandini 2019). et al. 2019; Sneegas et al. 2020). In this region, more than 120 quinoa landraces are regu- The 4SqA method has been applied to focus-group work- larly cultivated as subsistence crops by smallholder farmers shops conducted for the purpose of exploring the knowl- (Fagandini et al. 2020). Referred to as “desert puna,” this edge and management practices of smallholder farmers agroecological zone is located at an altitude of 3900 to 4300 1 3 42 Page 4 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. m, and it is covered by grass and steppes (Morlon 1992; members. In Village A, there is an association of farmers Fries & Tapia 2007; Mazoyer & Roudart 2017). within a traditional farmers’ collective known as an Aynoka. Within the desert puna in the Puno region, we selected The association provides agronomic and marketing support three quinoa-growing areas surrounding the three main cities from farmer to farmer, in addition to the collective own- and markets of the region: Puno, Ilave, and Juliaca (Fig. 2). ership of a tractor. The Aynoka promotes communal labor With the help of local institutions and researchers, we subse- in the village and organizes collective planning concern- quently selected three villages in which smallholder-farmers’ ing land-use and crop-rotation choices, with varieties being organizations were actively facilitating the production of and maintained at the individual level. Village B has an active market for quinoa: Huancarani (Village A), Rinconada (Vil- community of farmers based on individual households, with lage B), and Pilhuani (Village C). a primary focus on producing crops for the subsistence and All three villages are located in desert puna zones, which a secondary objective of selling on the market. Village C is are characterized by an arid environment (Table 1). Rainfall part of a larger farmers’ cooperative, which promotes the is seasonal, and most of the annual rainfall (90%) is spread processing of quinoa at the local level. Compared to the over a single wet season, which usually starts in September other two villages, it has a more direct link to the national and ends in April or May, followed by a dry season with lit- market and the associated possibilities to commercialize tle or no rainfall (Lavado Casimiro et al. 2013). Knowledge quinoa for exports. and local technologies concerning the maintenance and man- In each of the three villages, the agricultural work cycle is agement of water is currently deteriorating or fading away divided into stages, starting with plowing the field to prepare (Verzijl & Quispe 2013). Each of the villages has a small- the soil for good seed germination and plant establishment holder-farmers’ organization with fewer than 30 household (supplementary information about the farming systems is Fig. 2 Study site location: study villages (red dots); main cities (white dots); Puno region (red border). 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 5 of 15 42 Table 1 Characteristics of the villages, including location, climate, agricultural seasons, and the ethnicity and organization of the households. Huancarani, Village A Rinconada, Village B Pilhuani, Village C Location (16°08′S 69°38′W) (15°56′S 69°51′W) (15°18′S 70°04′W) Agroecological zone Puna Id Id Altitude 3900 m Id Id Average annual temperature 5–8 °C Id Id Precipitation 700–1000 mm Id Id Wet season One single rainy season, September– Id Id April/May Dry season May–September Id Id Growing season quinoa September–April Id Id Harvest season quinoa April–June Id Id Distance from the city 8.4 km from Ilave 26.3 km from Puno 24.3 km from Juliaca Total number of households 78 households 56 households 62 households Ethnicity Aymara Aymara Quechua Language(s) Aymara and Spanish Aymara and Spanish Quechua and Spanish Organization Farmers’ organisation and traditional Farmers community: family agri- Farmers’ cooperative (in-situ product farmers’ collective (Aynokas) cultural systems processing and market orientation). Total number of households 25 households participate in the 27 households are quinoa producers 29 households participate in the farmers’ association. cooperative. provided in Appendix A). Although plowing was tradition- sharing their own perspectives, while the 4SqA focused at ally done with animals, it is now commonly done with trac- the farmers organization level, connecting multiple farmers, tors for agricultural plots that are located in the plains. In and providing an overall illustration of the state of quinoa addition to plowing, other agricultural activities include the biodiversity. sowing, weeding, and terracing of plots. Most of the quinoa landraces are harvested between April and June (Fagandini 2.3 Assessing the perspectives of the farmers et al. 2020). In general, quinoa harvesting consists of three processes: swathing, threshing, and storing (which involves The visual Q methodology was used to assess farmers’ opin- drying and cleaning) (Aguilar & Jacobsen 2003). Each of ions about the future of their farming systems. This semi- the three villages also has a variety of animals, including quantitative method allowed us to identify different “opin- alpacas, llamas, donkeys, sheep, cows, chickens, and pigs, ion types” comparing individual perspectives (Zabala et al. some of which are kept mainly for meat and wool pro- 2018). We evaluated those perspectives by analyzing how duction. The animals’ manure is applied to the soil when farmers ranked pictures and keywords (so-called items) in rotating crops in order to maintain the fertility of the soil. relation to their farming systems. The results of QM there- The most widely cultivated crops in the villages are qui- fore allowed us to highlight agreements or disagreements of noa, alfalfa, amaranth, barley, fava beans, oats, maize, and opinions among the farmers of the three smallholder organi- potatoes. zations that participate to this research. In QM, the items in a given set (i.e., a “Q-set”) are ranked 2.2 Methods in order of importance or agreement. The items in the Q- set (i.e., statements, keywords, and/or pictures) depict the We employed two participatory methods, one at the indi- opinions of the participants with regard to a specific issue. vidual and the other on the collective level to answer our The ranking operation (i.e., the “Q-sort”) follows a semi- research questions: visual Q methodology (QM) for indi- normal distribution, in which most of the items are ranked vidual representations and Four-Square Analysis (4SqA), as “neutral,” with a few items ranked as “most important” based on a focus-group approach (Fig. 3). We applied the or “least important” (Fig. 4). The statistical interpretation of QM to explore the perspectives of individual farmers with the level of importance is based on the associated value of regard to farming practices, quinoa market choices, and the the quasi-normal distribution, with different values in each development of a collective trademark. The 4SqA was used column. Starting from the right, the values are distributed as to identify the quinoa landraces and improved and certi- follows: +3 (“most important;” one item), +2 (two items), fied varieties that are cultivated by the farmers. The QM +1 (five items), 0 (“neutral;” five items), −1 (three items), focused on the farm level, engaging farmers individually in −2 (two items), and −3 (“least important;” one item). 1 3 42 Page 6 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. Fig. 3 Overview of research objectives and methods. Fig. 4 Q-sort semi-normal distribution. We used a visual Q-set consisting of pictures and key- the future of the farm and what is not, focusing on quinoa words to facilitate the inclusion of Andean Peruvian farmers varieties cultivation, farming practices, market choices, and with a broad range of literacy. In all, 16 pictures and key- the development of a collective trademark. Such a “learning words were first tested for clarity and possible interpreta- from the future” approach has shown to enlighten transition tions with local stakeholders and farmers, and then further pathway when re-thinking current challenges in the food employed to illustrate different farming practices and market system (Valencia et al. 2022). choices that the smallholder famers used to improve their The selection of keywords and pictures used to build the farming systems (Fig.  5). The overall question presented Q-set was based on recent studies on rural development in Spanish, and here translated in English to initiate the conducted with Andean smallholder farmers in the Puno exercise was “How important is this activity/component for region (Carimentrand et  al. 2015; Bedoya-Perales et  al. the future of your farm?” Thanks to this question we col- 2018; Bellemare et al. 2018). After we identified the key lected individual opinion ranking on what is important for words for the Q-set, the first author took the pictures while 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 7 of 15 42 Fig. 5 Q-set keywords and corresponding pictures. Picture 5 was adapted from Latorre Farfàn (2014). Picture 15 displays the logos of USDA organic and the European Organic Certification. The rest of the pictures were taken by the first author. conducting fieldwork in the Puno region (September–Octo- process. In the first step, they were asked to sort the items ber 2019) and picture found in the literature (i.e., Farfán into three piles: (i) most important, (ii) least important, and et al. 2017). Keywords and pictures were combined to create (iii) neutral. Second, they were asked to place the items onto the first Q -set. The keywords were translated from English the pyramid board (Fig. 4), starting with the most and least into Spanish with support from a local translator. A trial important items, and only then proceeding to place the neu- was conducted with local and international researchers, tral items in the empty spots. Third, if needed, they were technicians, students, NGO members, and farmer leaders to asked to re-consider the level of importance of the items and establish whether the Q-set was representative of and com- reposition them to fill all of the spots available in the pyra- prehensible to farmers. mid. Once a participant confirmed the position of each item, The participants were individually invited to rank the the results were noted. The process ended with a debrief- keywords and pictures (16 items in total) in a three-step ing session focusing on the participant’s reasoning for the 1 3 42 Page 8 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. choices and feedback on the experience. On average, the were cultivated at the farm level. The farmers were further Q-sort and debriefing session took one hour per participant. asked to locate each of the quinoa varieties on a two-dimen- The researcher conducted the Q-sorts in Spanish with sional plane. One axis representing the approximate com- individual farmers in Spanish in October and November bined surface area over which a specific quinoa variety was 2019. For each village, the leader provided a list of house- grown (Small plots versus Large plots) and the other axis holds belonging to a farmers’ organizations that were active representing an estimation of the number of households cul- in quinoa production: a farmers’ association in Huancarani, tivating that variety (Few farms versus Many farms) (Fig. 6). a farmers’ community in Rinconada, and a farmers’ coopera- By doing so, we established which varieties were at risk of tive in Pilhuani. In all, 36 farmers agreed to participate in the genetic erosion, if placed in small plots and few farms or if Q-sort and to take part in our study (Table 2). they were common in the community if cultivated in small The outcomes of the Q-sort from the three villages or large plots in many farms. We applied this participatory were analyzed using the Q-method function in the R soft- method as a focus group exercise to facilitate the exchange ware package (Zabala 2014). Throughout the analysis, we among the participants. Allowing such a horizontal space for assessed three types of opinions. These types were based on significantly similar item rankings. We confirmed the three opinion types based on our own judgments and under- standing of the topic, as well as on relevant literature. We analyzed the three opinion types using varimax factor rota- tion (Zabala 2014). Each participant was assigned to one of the three types according to a significant loading (p < 0.05). With these results, we further assessed the items that pointed to consensus or disagreement among the participants and explored trends in the opinions. Following Accastello et al. (2019), we present our results using a spider diagram highlighting the preferences of the participants with regard to the Q-set items. 2.3.1 Exploring the cultivation of quinoa biodiversity Four-Square Analysis (4SqA) was used to explore the knowledge and management of crop diversity among a group of farmers located in the same landscape at the village level (Grum et al. 2003). The analysis took the form of participa- tory focus-group workshops, in which participants listed all crops (species and varieties) known to them and provided Fig. 6 Representation of the Four-Square Analysis: The horizon- collective answers to specific questions related to them. In tal axis represents the size of the area on which a crop is cultivated our case study, we asked the participants which quinoa varie- (small plots versus large plots), and the vertical axis represents the ties (cultivars and landraces to cover all quinoa biodiversity) number of households cultivating it (few farms versus many farms). Table 2 Descriptive information Huancarani, Vil- Rinconada, Vil- Pilhuani, on the smallholder farmers lage A lage B Village C participating in the Q-sort: number of participants, age, Total number of participants 12 12 12 use of organic or conventional Men (number of people) 8 4 8 quinoa-production practices, Women (number of people) 4 8 4 and whether they sold quinoa to the local market or to retailers. Average age (years) 50.6 57,8 54.8 Youngest (years) 19 39 42 Oldest (years) 77 78 68 Quinoa organic production (number of people) 12 6 12 Quinoa conventional production (number of people) 0 6 0 Quinoa sold to the local market (number of people) 9 12 7 Quinoa sold to retailers (number of people) 10 0 12 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 9 of 15 42 dialogue fostered the exchange concerning farmers’ knowl- (production and market), encompassing the use of cer- edge and values on the different quinoa varieties. tified and improved varieties and of efficient systems We applied this method to gain insight into how farmers for storing quinoa for market export. Being prepared to manage and assign value to quinoa biodiversity. In each vil- fulfill market requirements (in terms of both quantity lage, one 4SqA focus-group workshop was organized, with and quality) is apparently a priority for them. a minimum of six farmers, representing the biodiversity of 3. Collaboration seeker: Farmers within this archetype the farms in the village (Table 3). The leader of the farmer value the collective aspects of organization (social and organization was asked to invite people in the village to professional) over the concrete aspects of quinoa cultiva- participate in the focus groups. The number of participants tion and production. They apparently assign the greatest varied according to the availability of the farmers. importance to social organization and reliance on other The focus groups were organized between late October stakeholders. 2019 and mid-December 2019. All of the workshops were conducted in Spanish and held at a location chosen by the Out of a total of 36 participants, 14 belong to Opinion participants (e.g., a school or another common meeting Type 1, 11 to Opinion Type 2, and three to Opinion Type place). Each workshop lasted an average of 1.5 h. First, the 3. The opinions of three participants did not fit into any of participants were asked to list all the quinoa varieties that the three opinion types (additional information about the they knew and that were currently cultivated in the village. participants is presented in Appendix B). Second, they provided collective answers to questions relat- The cluster for Opinion Type 1 had the highest number ing to the characteristics of the quinoa varieties, including of men (10), with the highest number of women (6) being the traditional names of the landraces or commercial name in the cluster for Opinion Type 2. The smallest cluster was for certified cultivars, and the main attributes for its cultiva- for Opinion Type 3, which consisted of four women and tion and uses. They subsequently answered questions related one man. On average, the age of the participants in the three to the management and value of the quinoa varieties. Third, groups were similar (54–57 years), with both the youngest the participants were asked to group the varieties that were (28 years) and oldest (78 years) participants in Cluster 2. For cultivated in their village along the 4SqA axes. all three clusters, the highest level of education completed was secondary school, with the smallest share of each clus- ter not having had access to school (e.g., four participants 3 Results in Cluster 1 had not had access to school). The majority of farmers in all three clusters used organic practices to pro- 3.1 Assessment of the farmer perspectives duce quinoa. The participants in Cluster 1 sold quinoa to retailers (10) and local markets (12), while those in the other We used the QM results to explore the perceptions of small- clusters sold only to local markets. holder farmers with regard to farming practices, market The three clusters clearly reflected the various opinions choices, and the development of a collective trademark. with regard to the most important items. The participants in Based on the results of this analysis, our own judgement the cluster reflecting Opinion Type 1 expressed the strong- and understanding of the topic, and relevant literature, we est agreement concerning the importance of the cultivation developed three archetypes, which are defined as follows: of quinoa biodiversity (Item 8; factor array score: +3). For those in the cluster reflecting Opinion Type 2, the most 1. Conservationist: Farmers within this archetype value the important aspect was the possibility of storing quinoa (Item biocultural heritage aspects of maintaining and promot- 9; +3), with Opinion Type 3 assigning the greatest impor- ing quinoa biodiversity over export market outcomes. tance to the export of quinoa (Item 10; +3). The three clus- 2. Intensification sustainer: Farmers within this archetype ters also shared similar opinions concerning the utilization assign importance to concrete aspects of technology of pesticide (Item 5). This practice was considered of least importance in Opinion Types 1 and 2 (−3); sharing seeds (Item 4) was of least importance in Opinion Type 3 (−3; see Fig. 7). Table 3 Distribution of participants in the 4SqA focus-group work- shops in the three villages studied. 3.2 Exploring quinoa biodiversity Huancarani, Rinconada, Pilhuani, Village A Village B Village C In all, the participating farmers listed 21 quinoa varieties Total number of participants 6 10 17 during the 4SqA workshops (additional information on Men (number of people) 3 8 7 the names of the varieties collected during the workshops Women (number of people) 3 2 10 is presented in Appendix C). The farmers in Village A 1 3 42 Page 10 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. Fig. 7 Spider diagram of item rankings for each opinion type. The black line indicates Opinion Type 1, the green line indicates Opinion Type 2, and the orange line indicates Opinion Type 3. Each ring of the diagram represents the importance value (from −3 to +3) assigned to each item. (Huancarani) identified 12 varieties, including many local Our results showed strong usage of certified and improved varieties: Kankolla, REAL Salcedo INIA, Koito, Vitulla, varieties that are cultivated in large plots by many farmers, Choclito, Pasankalla, Misa, Hara, Ayrampu, Chulpi, and as in Village C. Based on the information we gathered, most Janki. They also classified cañihua as a quinoa variety, even of the local quinoa landraces are threatened by genetic ero- though it is another species from the same family identified sion, as they are cultivated in situ in small plots and on few by botanists as Chenopodium pallidicaule Aellen. Most of farms. This was the case in all three villages (Fig. 8). The the farmers in Village A reported having grown the modern names of the landraces differ somewhat across the village, variety REAL Salcedo INIA from National Public Research as each village used different names to designate traditional (first introduced by the local university) for many years. varieties of quinoa. According to the respondents, this variety is more resistant to changing climatic conditions. The farmers’ openness to newer varieties does not mean that they neglected the more 4 Discussion indigenous varieties. On the contrary, indigenous varieties are now being reintroduced more than in previous years. In 4.1 Reflection and perspectives on the Q Village B (Rinconada), the farmers listed 10 different varie - methodology ties of quinoa: Quinoa Blanca, Cheveka, Vitulla, Sajama, Blanca de July, Kankolla Rosada, Kancolla Blanca, Hara, As indicated in previous studies (Hamadou et  al. 2016; and Koito. These farmers also classie fi d cañihua as a quinoa Pereira et al. 2016; Alexander et al. 2018), the Q methodol- variety. The participating farmers classified all of the varie- ogy can be a powerful tool for interpreting the perspectives ties as local varieties or landraces, which had been cultivated of local communities that are facing the dynamics of com- “since ancient times.” They did not classify any of the varie- plex socioecological systems. ties as having been introduced more recently. In Village C The total number of participants in the current study was (Pilhuani), the farmers identified 13 varieties of quinoa that 36. Our sample provided a good reflection of the diversity they cultivated, including two landraces of cañihua: Koito, of farmers’ organizations in the Puno region, as it included REAL Salcedo INIA, Kankolla, Sajama, Rosada, Cañihua, a farmers’ association, a farmers’ community, and a farmers’ Cañihua Amarilla, Cañihua Plomo, Pasankalla, Chulpi, cooperative. Several previous studies have generated relevant Ayrampu, Amarilla, and Choclo Taraquiña (Appendix B). typologies with a similar number of participants. Examples 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 11 of 15 42 Fig. 8 Overall results of the Four-Square Analysis workshops in each village. Each value shows in the squares express the number of quinoa varieties cultivated in a given village. No quinoa varieties were listed under the Four-Square category of “large plots/few farms”. include Hamadou et al. (2016) with 20 participants, Pereira three emergent viewpoints, they share similarities as well, et al. (2016) with 26 participants, Langston et al. (2019) which point to potential common ground for establishing with 34 participants, and Alexander et al. (2018) with 35 cooperation among farming communities (Hamadou et al. participants. With a total of 36 participants, our sample was 2016; Tschopp et al. 2018; Tomich et al. 2019). thus within the acceptable parameters for QM. In our study, we applied QM with farmers individually, 4.2.1 Agricultural practices in order to guarantee their active participation. We combine this with the 4SqA workshops to explore the biodiversity Agroecological and organic agriculture practices aim to be cultivated within the community. Similar approaches have self-sustaining, reducing external inputs and managing soil been applied effectively within other research contexts for as a living organism, while encouraging optimum yield (as small-group collective activities (e.g., educational activities; opposed to maximum yield), crop diversification, and bio - see Pruslow et al. 2012) or for democratic endeavors (Bil- logical and environmental measures for controlling pests, lard 1999). Reflecting on our own experience, we agree with diseases, and weeds, along with the use of slow-release fer- Berthet et al. (2016) that a proper understanding of local tilizers, such as manure (Altieri et al. 1989; Wezel 2020). perspectives is likely to require the involvement of multiple These principles reflect the perspectives of all three opinion stakeholders. types with regard to pesticide utilization, and those of Opin- ion Types 1 and 2 with regard to the integration of animals 4.2 Opinion types within the agricultural system. Most of the participants were not particularly interested The findings of our study point to three perspectives on qui- in the use of pesticides, and this aspect was identified as noa biodiversity emerging among the farmers (as producers being of the least importance for Opinion Types 1 and 2. of quinoa): Conservationist (Opinion Type 1), Intensifica - In contrast to Bedoya-Perales et al. (2018), who describe tion sustainer (Opinion Type 2), and Collaboration seeker “the emergence of difficult-to-control pests” due to the (Opinion Type 3). Farmers adhering to Opinion Type 1 expansion of land acreage in traditional systems in the Puno assign greater importance to maintaining and promoting region after the quinoa boom, our results hint to the poten- quinoa biodiversity through collective practices and mar- tial for valorization of more traditional knowledge in order kets than they do to the export of quinoa. This is in contrast to achieve a more agroecological and organic method of to those adhering to Opinion Type 2, who focus on pos- production. sibilities for developing export-oriented production based The farmers adhering to Opinion Types 1 and 2 regarded on certified and improved varieties, combined with efficient the integration of animals within the farming system as ways of storing quinoa in order to fulfill the quality and important for the activities relating to their livelihood. The quantity demands of retailers. Farmers adhering to Opinion value of animal manure, meat, and fiber has previously been Type 3 appear to value the collective aspects of organiza- highlighted by Kerssen (2015) as essential to the ecologi- tions and cooperation among stakeholders more highly than cal balance between crops and animals. Animal husbandry they do the concrete agronomic aspects of quinoa cultiva- (including sheep, alpacas, cows, llamas, poultry, and pigs) is tion and production. Despite the differences between these also a way to achieve food security and to diversify products 1 3 42 Page 12 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. (e.g., meat and dairy) designated for the local market launched in 2016 within the Ecuadorean Ministry of Agri- (Agüero García 2014). culture, with all of the 28 farmers’ organizations involved (Chevarria Lazo & Bazile 2017). In addition to opening up 4.2.2 Quinoa biodiversity and breeding programs the dialogue between the main producers of quinoa in South America, this professional network aims to identify ways to We observed common ground between farmers adhering improve the regulation system in order to optimize the man- to Opinion Types 1 and 2 with regard to the importance agement of genetic resources. The process of improving this of certified and improved quinoa seeds. This result echoes regulation system will entail in-depth dialogue among all the findings of Carimentrand et  al. (2015), who demon- stakeholders involved in managing the genetic resources of strate that the international and urban demands for large, quinoa. As highlighted by Chevarria et al. (2015), no single uniform grains encourage producers to sow improved qui- solution is adapted to all situations from which the creation noa varieties. The results of our 4SqA workshops point to a of collective trademarks might arise, thus suggesting the strong usage of certified and improved varieties, which are need to develop a new framework aimed at integrating the cultivated in large areas by many households in Village C, diverse perspectives concerning the management of quinoa’s which correspond to Opinion Type 2. On the other hand, genetic resources (Bazile 2021). most quinoa landraces are produced in small areas by few households. This result provides a clear signal for the risk of biodiversity loss due to climatic conditions and/or neglect 5 Conclusions by farmers. These results are corroborated by previous stud- ies, including one by Fuentes et al. (2012), who report that Within the context of maintaining agrobiodiversity, small- households with larger areas tend to ignore more traditional holder farmer organizations play a pivotal role for cultivating varieties in favor of certified and improved varieties. local varieties through traditional practices; exploring farm- Several participatory breeding programs, some of which ers’ perspectives on the future can reveal winning and dis- require payments to a local conservation group (Scott et al. ruptive strategies to maintain agrobiodiversity encompassing 2018), have been developed with the objective of using novel farming and market practices. In this article, we pre- in situ cultivation and the creation of local community seed sent the results of a study in which we applied two participa- banks to bridging these two perspectives (Salazar-Tortosa tory methods to characterize the perspectives of smallholder et al. 2019; Ceccarelli & Grando 2020). As reported by Gal- farmers with regard to farming practices, market choices, luzzi and López Noriega (2014), a breeding program was and the development of a collective trademark. The study developed for five under-utilized crops to improve perfor - further involved an exploration of the genetic resources that mance and promote their continued conservation and use are cultivated in situ by smallholder farmers. We developed in local communities of the Peruvian Andes. Their results our research focusing on three villages in the Puno region highlight the important role that the participatory breeding of Peru. We applied a visual Q methodology to interpret program played in achieving a balance between improving the opinions of smallholder quinoa farmers concerning the yield and maintaining genetic diversity, thus clearing the relative importance of specific activities within the context path for the development of a new model of agrobiodiversity of their farms, and we conducted Four-Square Analysis conservation (Murphy et al 2016). workshops to explore quinoa biodiversity. We identified three types of opinion emerging among the farmers: (Type 4.2.3 Perspectives on a collective trademark and market 1) Conservationist, (Type 2) Intensification sustainer, and choices (Type 3) Collaboration seeker. Farmers adhering to Opinion Type 1 assign greater importance to maintaining and pro- In addition to its importance to plant-breeding activities, moting quinoa biodiversity through collective practices and participation can play a crucial role in realizing the potential local markets. This contrasts with those adhering to Opinion market innovation highlighted by Opinion Types 1 and 2: the Type 2, who focus on possibilities for developing export-ori- collective trademark. This initiative is in line with UN pro- ented production based on certified and improved varieties, jects fostering collective trademarks and participatory label- combined with efficient ways of storing quinoa in order to ling to position and reaffirm traditional products within local fulfill the quality and quantity demands of retailers. Farmers and international markets (Binder & Vogl 2018; Loconto & adhering to Opinion Type 3 appear to value the collective Hatanaka 2018). With this objective, the FAO launched an aspects of organizations and cooperation among stakehold- initiative during the Fifth Quinoa World Congress in 2015, ers more highly than they do the concrete agronomic aspects involving producers’ associations from Ecuador, Bolivia, of quinoa cultivation and production. According to the 4SqA Chile, Argentina, and Peru. The initiative aimed to assem- results, most quinoa landraces are threatened by genetic ero- ble the Andean Network of Quinoa Producers, which was sion as they are only cultivated in small plots and on a few 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 13 of 15 42 Consent for publication The authors confirm that all the participants farms. The novel combination of methods presented allows gave their informed consent to participate in the study. to develop opinion types based on individual and collective perspectives concerning practices for maintaining agrobio- Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. diversity. Such an approach has the potential to be used in other cases where smallholder farmer organizations need to Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- explore pathways to foster agrobiodiverse futures. We fur- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long ther concluded that the two participatory research methods as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, applied in this study facilitated the inclusion of smallholder provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes farmers in the research process. In particular, the usage of a were made. The images or other third party material in this article are visual support (e.g., the pictures used in the Q methodology) included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in facilitated the participation of smallholder farmers during the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not our research. As we have demonstrated, engaging small- permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will holder farmers through participatory research methods can need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a generate insightful perspectives on exploring farmers’ per- copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . spectives on the future. Our approach and results contribute to the literature by monitoring the implementation process and farmers’ opinions in adopting a collective trademark in References relation to farm and agrobiodiversity management. Accastello C, Bieniasz A, Blaško R, Lula M, Pszenny D, Sallustio Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen- L, Speelman EN (2019) Conflicting demands on the natural tary material available at https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s13593- 023- 00891-y . resources in Northern Sweden: a participatory scenario devel- opment study J Environ Assess Policy Manag 21(03):1950017. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the inhabitants of https:// doi. org/ 10. 1142/ S1464 33321 95001 70 the communities of Huancarani, Rinconada, and Pilhuani in the Puno Agüero Garcia, A. M. 2014. Quinoa producers and quinoa exports: region for their hospitality and participation in this study. We are grate- implications for local consumption in the Southern high- ful to Angel Mujica, Mario Tapia, Marco Chevarria Lazo, Jose Manuel lands (Doctoral dissertation, Master’s Thesis. Erasmus Mundus Prieto, Gladys Nelida Sosa Maquera, and Edgar Pinto Mayta for their Programme. Wageningen University, The Netherlands). help in developing and testing the methodology applied in this study Aguilar PC , Jacobsen SE.  2003 Cultivation of quinoa on the Peru- and in establishing connections with the farmers’ communities. We vian Altiplano Food Rev Int 19 1–2 31 41 https:// doi. org/ 10. would like to thank Francesca Fagandini Ruiz for her support to map- 1081/ FRI- 12001 8866 ping the study site location.We would like to express our thanks to Alandia, G., Rodriguez, J. P., Jacobsen, S. E., Bazile, D., Condori, Arnold Bregt for his support and helpful advice in the final drafting of B. 2020. Global expansion of quinoa and challenges for the the article. We would like to thank Carl Timler for teaching the WUR- Andean region. Glob Food Sec, 26, 100429 https:// doi. org/ 10. SESAM program team how to use the Q methodology. 1016/j. gfs. 2020. 100429 Alexander KS, Parry L, Thammavong P, Sacklokham S, Pasouvang Authors' contributions Conceptualization: A. F., S. E., B. D., and N. C. S, Connell JG, Case P (2018) Rice farming systems in Southern M.; methodology: A. F., and N. C. M.; data analysis: A. F.; investiga- Lao PDR: Interpreting farmers’ agricultural production deci- tion: A. F., and N. C. M.; writing original draft, A. F.; writing-review sions using Q methodology. Agric Syst 160(1):10. https:// doi. and editing: A. F.; S. E., B. D., and N. C. M.; visuals: A. F. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2017. 10. 018 Altieri MA (1989) Agroecology: A new research and development Funding This study was co-financed by CIRAD, the Occitanie paradigm for world agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27(1– Region, and the WUR-SESAM program, which was funded by the 4):37–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0167- 8809(89) 90070-4 WUR-INREF. Andreotti F, Speelman EN, Van den Meersche K, Allinne C (2020) Combining participatory games and backcasting to support Data availability The integrity of the data used in this study are collective scenario evaluation: an action research approach for included in it and in the appendix. sustainable agroforestry landscape management. Sustain Sci 15(5):1383–1399. https://doi. or g/10. 1007/ s11625- 020- 00829-3 Code availability The software used for the Q analysis is “Ken-Q Andreotti, F., Bazile, D., Biaggi, C., Callo-Concha, D., Jacquet, J., Analysis,” an open source web application for Q Methodology Jemal, O. M., & Van Noordwijk, M. (2022). When neglected (Version 1.0.7). species gain global interest: Lessons learned from quinoa’s boom and bust for teff and minor millet. Glob Food Sec,  32, 100613. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2022. 100613 Declarations Argumedo A (2008) The Potato Park, Peru: conserving agrobio- diversity in an Andean indigenous biocultural heritage area. Ethical approval This research was conducted according to the Neth- Protected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values 1:45–58 erlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2018 and its later Bazile D. (ed.), Bertero H.D. (ed.), Nieto C. (ed.). 2015. State of the amendments. art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. Santiago, Chile : FAO & CIRAD, 603 p. Consent to participate All the research participants gave their informed Bazile D, Jacobsen SE, Verniau A (2016) The global expansion of consent to participate in this study. quinoa: trends and limits. Front Plant Sci 7:622. https://doi. or g/ 10. 3389/ fpls. 2016. 00622 1 3 42 Page 14 of 15 F. Andreotti et al. Bazile D. 2021. Preserving local knowledge on Chenopodium Qui- a coastal mountainous site of the Philippines. J Environ Man- noa Willd. in the Andes in the context of market globalization. age, 264, 110461. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. jen vman. 2020. 110461 Anthropol Archaeol, 4 (1): p. 573-574. https://doi. or g/10. 31031/ Esquinas-Alcázar J (2005) Protecting crop genetic diversity for food AAOA. 2021. 04. 000597 security: political, ethical and technical challenges. Nat Rev Genet Bedoya-Perales NS, Pumi G, Mujica A, Talamini E, DomingosPad- 6(12):946–953. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nrg17 29 ula A (2018) Quinoa expansion in Peru and its implications for Fagandini R., F. 2019. Distribution des parents sauvages du quinoa land use management. Sustainability 10(2):532. https://d oi.o rg/ cultivé en lien avec les pratiques et usages des communautés 10. 3390/ su100 20532 andines dans la région de Puno au Pérou (Doctoral dissertation, Bellemare MF, Fajardo-Gonzalez J, Gitter SR (2018) Foods and fads: ED ABIES AgroParisTech, France). the welfare impacts of rising quinoa prices in Peru. World Dev Fagandini, R. F., Bazile, D., Drucker, A. G., Tapia, M., & Chura, E. 112:163–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. world dev. 2018. 07. 012 2020. Geographical distribution of quinoa crop wild relatives in Berthet ET, Barnaud C, Girard N, Labatut J, Martin G (2016) How the Peruvian Andes: a participatory mapping initiative. Environ to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of partici- Dev Sustain, 1-22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10668- 020- 00875-y patory design methods. J Environ Plan Manag 59(2):280–301. Fanzo J (2017) From big to small: the significance of smallholder farms https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09640 568. 2015. 10096 27 in the global food system. Lancet Planet. Health 1(1):e15–e16. Billard S (1999) How Q methodology can be democratized. Fem https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S2542- 5196(17) 30011-6 Psychol 9(3):357–366 Farfán, J. P. L., Kristensen, I. S., & Jacobsen, S. E. 2017. Is quinoa Binder N, Vogl CR (2018) Participatory guarantee systems in Peru: cultivation on the coastal desert of Peru sustainable? A case study two case studies in lima and apurímac and the role of capacity from Majes, Arequipa (Doctoral dissertation, Master Thesis in building in the food chain. Sustainability 10(12):4644. https:// Agro Environmental Management. Aarhus University. Depart- doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su101 24644 ment of agroecology, Denmark, p 78). Carimentrand, A., Baudoin, A., Lacroix, P., Bazile, D., & Chia, E. Fries, A. M., & Tapia, M. E. 2007. Guía de campo de los cultivos 2015. Quinoa trade in Andean countries: opportunities and chal- andinos. FAO, ANPE-PERÚ. lenges for family. In: Bazile Didier (ed.), Bertero Hector Daniel Fuentes FF, Bazile D, Bhargava A, Martinez EA (2012) Implications (ed.), Nieto Carlos (ed.). State of the art report on quinoa around of farmers’ seed exchanges for on-farm conservation of quinoa, as the world in 2013. Santiago, Chile: FAO; CIRAD, p. 330-342. revealed by its genetic diversity in Chile. J Agric Sci 150(6):702. Ceccarelli S, Grando S (2020) Participatory plant breeding: who did https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0021 85961 20000 56 it, who does it and where? Exp Agric 56(1):1–11. https://doi. or g/ Galluzzi G, López Noriega I (2014) Conservation and use of genetic 10. 1017/ S0014 47971 90001 27 resources of underutilized crops in the Americas—a continental Chevarria-Lazo, M., Bazile, D., Dessauw, D., Louafi, S., Trommet- analysis. Sustainability 6(2):980–1017. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ter, M., & Hocdé, H. 2015. Quinoa and the exchange of genetic su602 0980 resources: improving the regulation systems. In: Bazile Didier Gavin MC, McCarter J, Mead A, Berkes F, Stepp JR, Peterson D, (ed.), Bertero Hector Daniel (ed.), Nieto Carlos (ed.). State of the Tang R (2015) Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. art report on quinoa around the world in 2013. Santiago, Chile: Trends Ecol Evol 30(3):140–145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tree. FAO, p. 83-105.2014. 12. 005 Chevarria Lazo, M. A., & Bazile, D. 2017. Oportunidades para una GEF, Global Environmental Facility, 2016. Project executive summary. marca colectiva" Quinua Andina" perspectivas desde la Red Council Work Program Inclusion under the GEF Trust Fund. Andina de productores de quínua de Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Grum, M., Gyasi, E. A., Osei, C., & Kranjac-Berisavljevic, G. 2003. Ecuador y Perú. In: VI Congreso Mundial de la Quinua y III Sim- Evaluation of best practices for landrace conservation: farmer posio Internacional de Granos Andinos, Peru 2017: Resumenes. evaluation. https:// hdl. handle. net/ 10568/ 104791 Puno: MINAGRI, p. 126-126. Congreso Mundial de la Quinua. 6, Hamadou I, Moula N, Siddo S, Issa M, Marichatou H, Leroy P, 2017-03-21/2017-03-24, Puno (Pérou). http://r eposi torio.m inagr i. Antoine-Moussiaux N (2016) Mapping stakeholder viewpoints in gob. pe/ handle/ MINAG RI/ 226 biodiversity management: an application in Niger using Q meth- Cotula L, Anseeuw W, Baldinelli GM (2019) Between promising odology. Biodivers Conserv 25(10):1973–1986. https:// doi. org/ advances and deepening concerns: a bottom-up review of trends 10. 1007/ s10531- 016- 1175-x in land governance 2015–2018. Land 8(7):106. https:// doi. org/ Huanca DEV, Boada M, Araca L, Vargas W, Vargas R (2015) Agro- 10. 3390/ land8 070106 biodiversidad y economía de la quinua (Chenopodium quinoa) en Cuéllar-Padilla M, Ganuza-Fernandez E (2018) We don’t want to be comunidades aymaras de la cuenca del Titicaca. Idesia (Arica) officially certified! Reasons and implications of the participatory 33(4):81–87. https://doi. or g/10. 4067/ S0718- 34292 01500 04000 11 guarantee systems. Sustainability 10(4):1142. https:// doi. org/ 10. Kerssen TM (2015) Food sovereignty and the quinoa boom: chal- 3390/ su100 41142 lenges to sustainable re-peasantisation in the southern Altiplano Dardonville, M., Urruty, N., Bockstaller, C., & Therond, O. 2020. of Bolivia. Third World Q 36(3):489–507. https://doi. or g/10. 1080/ Influence of diversity and intensification level on vulnerability, 01436 597. 2015. 10029 92 resilience and robustness of agricultural systems. Agric Syst, 184, Kilwinger FBM, Rietveld AM, Groot JC, Almekinders CJ (2019) 102913. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102913 Culturally embedded practices of managing banana diversity and Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Turner, K. L., Mead, A. T. P., Cabrera-Lopez, planting material in central Uganda. J Crop Improv 33(4):456– J., Bolton, R., Idrobo, C. J., ... & Robson, J. P. 2012. Biocultural 477. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15427 528. 2019. 16108 22 design: a new conceptual framework for sustainable development Koohafkan P, Cruz MJD (2011) Conservation and adaptive man- in rural indigenous and local communities. S.A.P.I. EN. S., (5.2). agement of globally important agricultural heritage systems Deleixhe M (2018) Conclusion: is the governance of the com- (GIAHS). J Resour Ecol 2(1):22–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3969/j. mons a model for a new global governance? In The Commons issn. 1674- 764x. 2011. 01. 004 and a New Global Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing Lagneaux E, Andreotti F, Neher CM (2021) Correction to: Cacao, 10(4337/9781788118514):00024 copoazu and macambo: Exploring Theobroma diversity in small- Dingkuhn, E. L., Wezel, A., Bianchi, F. J., Groot, J. C., Wagner, A., holder agroforestry systems of the Peruvian Amazon. Agrofor Syst 95:1369. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10457- 021- 00642-6 Yap, H. T., & Schulte, R. P. 2020. A multi-method approach for the integrative assessment of soil functions: application on 1 3 Exploring farmers’ perspectives on agrobiodiversity management: future options for quinoa… Page 15 of 15 42 Langston, J. D., McIntyre, R., Falconer, K., Sunderland, T., Van Noord- Scott JA, Kondla NG, Emmel JF, Davenport KE, Mattoon SO, Fisher wijk, M., & Boedhihartono, A. K. 2019. Discourses mapped MS, Royer RA (2018) Case 3709–Conservation of the usage of by Q-method show governance constraints motivate landscape names of western North American Hesperia comma-group sub- approaches in Indonesia. PLoS One, 14(1), e0211221. https://doi. species (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae) through designation of neo- org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02112 21 types for Pamphila colorado Scudder, 1874, Pamphila manitoba LavadoCasimiro WS, Labat D, Ronchail J, Espinoza JC, Guyot JL Scudder, 1874, Pamphila cabelus Edwards, 1881, Pamphila har- (2013) Trends in rainfall and temperature in the Peruvian Ama- palus Edwards, 1881. P Bull zool nomencl 75(1):88–121. https:// zon-Andes basin over the last 40 years (1965–2007). Hydrol Pro-doi. org/ 10. 21805/ bzn. v75. a025 cess 27(20):2944–2957. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hyp. 9418 Sneegas G (2020) Making the case for critical Q methodology. Prof Geogr Leonhardt, H., Braito, M., & Uehleke, R. 2021. Combining the best of 72(1):78–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00330 124. 2019. 15982 71 two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based Speelman EN, Rodela R, Doddema M, Ligtenberg A (2019) Seri- farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental ous gaming as a tool to facilitate inclusive business; a review of scheme uptake. Agric Human Values, 1-16. https:// doi. org/ 10. untapped potential. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 41:31–37. https:// 1007/ s10460- 021- 10242-wdoi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2019. 09. 010 Li, X., & Siddique, K. H. 2018. Future smart food.  Rediscovering Stephenson, W. 1935. Correlating persons instead of tests. Character & hidden treasures of neglected and underutilized species for Zero Personality; A Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies. Hunger in Asia, Bangkok. Tapia, G., and Elwany, A. 2014. A review on process monitoring Loconto A, Hatanaka M (2018) Participatory guarantee systems: alter- and control in metal-based additive manufacturing. J Manuf Sci native ways of defining, measuring, and assessing ‘sustainability.’ Eng, 136(6). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1115/1. 40285 40 Sociol Ruralis 58(2):412–432. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/ sor u.12187 Tomich TP, Lidder P, Coley M, Gollin D, Meinzen-Dick R, Webb P, Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. 2017. Histoire des agricultures du monde. Carberry P (2019) Food and agricultural innovation pathways for Du néolithique à la crise contemporaine. Média Diffusion. prosperity. Agric Syst 172:1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. McDonell, E. 2021. Commercializing the “Lost Crop of the Inca”: 2018. 01. 002 quinoa and the politics of agrobiodiversity in “traditional” crop Tschopp, M., Bieri, S., & Rist, S. 2018. Quinoa and production rules: commercialization. In Andean Foodways (pp. 383-406). Springer, how are cooperatives contributing to governance of natural Cham. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 51629-1_ 15 resources. Int J Commons, 12(1). https://doi. or g/10. 18352/ i jc.826 Morlon, P. 1992. Comprendre l'agriculture paysanne dans les Andes Valencia V, Bennett EM, Altieri M, Nicholls C, Schrijver AP, Schulte Centrales (Pérou-Bolivie). Editions Quae. RP (2022) Learning from the future: mainstreaming disruptive Mujica A, Jacobsen SE (2006) La quinua (Chenopodium quinoa solutions for the transition to sustainable food systems. Environ Willd.) y sus parientes silvestres. Bótanica económica de los Res Lett 17(5):051002. https://doi. or g/10. 1088/ 1748- 9326/ ac6ad9 Andes Centrales 32:449–457 van Vliet M, Kok K (2015) Combining backcasting and exploratory Murphy KM, Bazile D, Kellogg J, Rahmanian M (2016) Development scenarios to develop robust water strategies in face of uncertain of a worldwide consortium on evolutionary participatory breed- futures. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20(1):43–74. https://d oi. ing in quinoa. Front Plant Sci 7:608. https://doi. or g/10. 3389/ fpls. org/ 10. 1007/ s11027- 013- 9479-6 2016. 00608 Vavilov NI, Vavylov MI, Vavílov NÍ, Dorofeev VF (1992) Origin and Navruz-Varli S, Sanlier N (2016) Nutritional and health benefits of geography of cultivated plants. Cambridge University Press quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J Cereal Sci 69:371–376. Verzijl A, Quispe SG (2013) The system nobody sees: irrigated wet- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcs. 2016. 05. 004 land management and alpaca herding in the Peruvian Andes. Mt Pereira MA, Fairweather JR, Woodford KB, Nuthall PL (2016) Assess- Res Dev 33(3):280–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1659/ MRD- JOURN ing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commer-AL-D- 12- 00123.1 cial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology. Agric Wezel A, Herren BG, Kerr RB, Barrios E, Gonçalves ALR, Sin- Syst 144:1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2016. 01. 004 clair F (2020) Agroecological principles and elements and their Pruslow, J. T., & Owl, R. R. 2012. Demonstrating the application of Q implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A methodology for fieldwork reporting in experiential education. J review. Agron Sustain Dev 40(6):1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ Exp Educ, 35(2), 375-392. s13593- 020- 00646-z Repo-Carrasco R, Espinoza C, Jacobsen SE (2003) Nutritional value Winkel T, Flores RÁ, Bertero D, Cruz P, del Castillo C, Joffre R, Ton- and use of the Andean crops quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and acca LS (2014) Calling for a reappraisal of the impact of quinoa kañiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule). Food Rev Int 19(1–2):179– expansion on agricultural sustainability in the Andean highlands. 189. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1081/ FRI- 12001 8884 Idesia 32(4):95–100 Ricciardi A, Ryan R (2018) Invasive species denialism revisited: Winkel, T., Bommel, P., Chevarría-Lazo, M., Cortes, G., Del Castillo, response to Sagoff. Biol Invasions 20(10):2731–2738. https:// C., Gasselin, P., & Joffre, R. 2016. Panarchy of an indigenous doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10530- 018- 1753-9 agroecosystem in the globalized market: The quinoa production Romera AJ, Bos AP, Neal M, Eastwood CR, Chapman D, McWilliam in the Bolivian Altiplano. Glob Environ Change,  39, 195-204. W, Clinton PW (2020) Designing future dairy systems for New https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2016. 05. 007 Zealand using reflexive interactive design. Agric Syst 181:102818. Zabala A (2014) qmethod: a package to explore human perspectives https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102818 using Q methodology. R Journal 6(2):163 Ruiz KB, Biondi S, Oses R, Acuña-Rodríguez IS, Antognoni F, Mar- Zabala A, Sandbrook C, Mukherjee N (2018) When and how to use Q tinez-Mosqueira EA, Coulibaly A, Canahua-Murillo A, Pinto M, methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Zurita A, Bazile D, Jacobsen SE, Molina Montenegro M (2014) Conserv Biol 32(5):1185–1194. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 111/c obi.1 3123 Quinoa biodiversity and sustainability for food security under Zeven AC (1998) Landraces: a review of definitions and classifica- climate change. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 34(2):349–359. tions. Euphytica 104(2):127–139. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 2 3 / A : https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13593- 013- 0195-010186 83119 237 SalazarTortosa D, Saladin B, Zimmermann NE, Castro J, de Casas RR (2019) The evolution of seed dispersal is associated with envi- Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to ronmental heterogeneity in Pinus. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 41:125464. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ppees. 2019. 125464 1 3

Journal

Agronomy for Sustainable Development – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 1, 2023

Keywords: Agroecology; Cultivated biodiversity; Multi-method approach; Farmers’ viewpoints; Neglected and underutilized species; Chenopodium quinoa Willd

There are no references for this article.