Decision-Making to Diversify Farm Systems for Climate Change Adaptation

Abstract

On-farm diversification is a promising strategy for farmers to adapt to climate change. However, few recommendations exist on how to diversify farm systems in ways that best fit the agroecological and socioeconomic challenges farmers face. Farmers' ability to adopt diversification strategies is often stymied by their aversion to risk, loss of local knowledge, and limited access to agronomic and market information, this is especially the case for smallholders. We outline seven steps on how practitioners and researchers in agricultural development can work with farmers in decision-making about on-farm diversification of cropping, pasture, and agroforestry systems while taking into account these constraints. These seven steps are relevant for all types of farmers but particularly for smallholders in tropical and subtropical regions. It is these farmers who are usually most vulnerable to climate change and who are, subsequently, often the target of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) interventions. Networks of agricultural innovation provide an enabling environment for on-farm diversification. These networks connect farmers and farmer organizations with local, national, or international private companies, public organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and research institutes. These actors can work with farmers to develop diversified production systems incorporating both high-value crops and traditional food production systems. These diversified farm systems with both food and cash crops act as a safety net in the event of price fluctuations or other disruptions to crop value chains. In this way, farmers can adapt their farm systems to climate change in ways that provide greater food security and improved income.

Introduction

On-farm diversification is a promising strategy for farmers to adapt to climate change while also contributing to diverse food production, healthier diets, and a better use of agricultural biodiversity (Vermeulen et al., 2012; Waha et al., 2018; Willett et al., 2019). However, few recommendations exist for farmers, practitioners, and researchers on how to diversify farm systems in ways which best fit the agroecological and socioeconomic challenges that farmers face.

In this paper, we outline seven steps on how to work with farmers in decision-making about on-farm diversification of cropping, pasture, and agroforestry systems (Figure 1). Existing tools to select agroecological practices and plant species for on-farm diversification (Altieri et al., 2015; de Sousa et al., 2019) or to economically optimize crop portfolios (Werners et al., 2011; Knoke et al., 2015) cover different considerations in decision-making on on-farm diversification strategies. These tools are not always linked to farmers' goals and constraints, which are embedded in a range of social, economic, ecological, cultural, and political relationships, and which determine the decisions farmers make about farm management and livelihood options (Gardner and Lewis, 1996; Shiferaw et al., 2009). This paper offers a practical and comprehensive framework, which takes into account these different issues in decision-making about on-farm diversification, and which brings together agroecological, agrobotanical, social, and economic considerations and recommendations.

Figure 1

This decision-making framework is intended for practitioners and researchers in agricultural development. The framework can be used to establish a dialogue with individual farmers or farmer groups to develop on-farm diversification strategies with the use of participatory research approaches, which have proved to be successful approaches in the selection and adoption of new agricultural technologies (Carberry et al., 2002; Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Urwin and Jordan, 2008).

In this framework, we first discuss enabling and disabling factors, which warrant consideration when developing on-farm diversification strategies. Second, we propose straightforward tools and techniques, which can help farmers to select on-farm diversification options. Finally, we explain how researchers, practitioners, and farmers can apply participatory approaches to evaluate on-farm diversification options.

The seven steps are useful for all types of farmer but are particularly relevant to smallholder farmers. Smallholders are often more vulnerable to climate change compared with large-scale farmers and usually face higher risks when adopting new technologies because of lower resource endowments. Smallholder farmers are the main target of interventions, which are collectively known as climate-smart agriculture (CSA). CSA contributes to an increase in global food security and broader development, secondly enhances farmers' ability to adapt to climate change, and finally mitigates greenhouse gas emissions (Lipper et al., 2014). On-farm diversification is a component of CSA, and not only contributes to the realization of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13: Climate Action but also of other SDGs, including SDG 1: No Poverty; SDG 2: Zero Hunger; SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production; and SDG 15 Life on Land.

Approach

The seven steps resulted from the authors' discussions on existing concepts and tools from literature on climate change adaptation and on-farm diversification. These concepts have been presented separately in literature. By connecting these concepts, we establish a practical framework for decision-making to diversify farm systems for climate change adaptation. We focus on tropical and subtropical regions where most smallholders live and work, and on cropping, pasture, and agroforestry systems as principal components of farm systems in these regions. Many examples of crops and traditional production systems in this paper come from Central America and Mexico where each of the authors has over 12 years' work experience complemented by extensive experience from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and South-East Asia. The seven-step decision-making process is applicable to other tropical and subtropical regions.

• Step 1. Defining farmers' goals: Any initiative to work with farmers starts with understanding the goals of the different farm household members, and identifying how on-farm diversification can contribute to these goals (Allen et al., 2011).

• Step 2. Assessment of enabling factors: Enabling factors determine the feasibility and potential of on-farm diversification options. Farmers are more willing to select, evaluate, and implement new diversification strategies in the context of an enabling environment consisting of support from farmer organizations and private and public extension services, and access to credit, insurance, and markets.

• Step 3. Assessment of disabling factors: Successful adoption of on-farm diversification strategies depends on the extent to which farmers have the possibility and are willing to invest in labor, financial capital, and learning new skills.

• Step 4. Assessment of current and future climate-related production risks: On-farm diversification strategies can be tailored to local conditions when farmers, practitioners, and researchers identify the principal climate stresses for current and future agricultural production in their locations (Vermeulen et al., 2013).

• Step 5. Gap analysis of functional diversity in farm systems: Farmers and other actors can identify the need for diversifying their farm systems with new crop functional types, such as cereals with C4 photosynthesis (Lavorel and Garnier, 2002) or the need for new management practices, such as the establishment of shade trees to make farm systems more resilient against climate changes (Altieri et al., 2015).

• Step 6. Selection of on-farm diversification options: Farmers choose crops on the basis of multiple criteria considering their goals, enabling and disabling factors, climate-related production risks, and gaps in functional diversity (Coe et al., 2014).

• Step 7. Evaluation and learning: These activities are part of adaptive management. Farmers continuously evaluate and improve on-farm diversification strategies in dialogue with other farmers, practitioners, and researchers (Allen et al., 2011).

Step 1. Farmers' Goals

Any initiative to work with farmers starts with understanding farmers' goals and identifying how diversification of their farm systems contributes to these goals. Often profit-maximizing approaches, such as Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) are used to determine the optimal number and type of crops or land-use systems to manage production risks for a certain expected return on investment under climate change (Figge, 2004; Werners and Incerti, 2007; Werners et al., 2011). Farmers, especially smallholders, often perceive benefits from on-farm diversification in ways which profit-maximizing approaches do not necessarily capture. When diversifying their farm systems, farmers often define multiple goals, for example, they consider cereals for food security; pulses and vegetables for nutrition; cash crops for increasing income; off-seasons crops and forages for animal production to stabilize income; and finally intercropping and field scattering to reduce production risks (Schroth and Ruf, 2014). Different household members, such as women and men, may have different goals (van de Fliert and Braun, 2002; Chaudhury et al., 2013). Participatory approaches have proved effective in enabling practitioners and researchers to understand the goals of different members of farm households (Mazón et al., 2016; Dumont et al., 2017). Understanding farmers' goals is thus the basis of working with farmers in developing, selecting, evaluating, and implementing on-farm diversification strategies.

Step 2. Enabling Factors

Extension

A particular challenge is that our proposal to work in a participatory way with farmers comes at a time when public extension services have been severely eroded in much of the developing world (Umali-Deininger, 1997; Hellin, 2012). Private extension has increased but there has been a tendency to focus efforts on better-off farmers leaving those in marginal areas with limited services (Hellin, 2012). There are, however, growing examples of innovative extension approaches which include both the public and private sector (Chapman and Tripp, 2003). The transformation from specialized to diversified farm systems can be fostered by agricultural innovation systems (Schut et al., 2014). In the absence of extension and agricultural innovation systems, farmers would need to rely largely on neighboring farmers, farmer organizations, and local knowledge to adapt their farm systems to climate change.

Farmer Organization

The organization of farmers in associations, farmer-to-farmer movements, or other types of social organization can be an effective way to scale practices to diversify farm systems because these organizations are conduits for the dissemination of knowledge and information (Shiferaw et al., 2009; Mier et al., 2018), and allow to establish safety nets for farmers through formal and informal insurance programs (Tucker et al., 2010; Bacon et al., 2014) (Table 1, Examples 1 and 2). Capacity development on good governance and finance makes farmer organizations more competent, efficient, and transparent, and diminishes dependence on external authorities or donors. With these skills, farmer organizations can reduce the risks on “elite capture,” secondly they can access credit from banks and social investors to invest in on-farm diversification, and finally they can connect to networks of agricultural innovation to access markets and external support (Table 1, Example 2). Farmer organizations are thus in principle good partners in selecting, developing, evaluating, and implementing on-farm diversification strategies.

Local Knowledge and Neglected and Underutilized Crops

At least 7,000 food plant species have been documented and these provide a rich basket of crop choices (Padulosi et al., 1999). Many are neglected and underutilized (National Research Council, 1989; Clement, 1999). These species could become important for food security under changing climate conditions because they have evolved during a long history of human selection and fluctuating climate conditions (Mercer and Perales, 2010; Padulosi et al., 2011). Some examples of promising species for diversification and climate change adaptation are provided in Table 2.

Farmers in traditional communities have commonly diversified their farm systems with these crops to manage production risks related to unpredictable weather cycles (Winterhalder et al., 1999; Matsuda, 2013; Altieri et al., 2015). Much of the local knowledge associated with growing neglected and underutilized crops is at risk of extirpation due to changing diets, reduced interest by young people in agriculture, and shifts in production systems under climate change (Padulosi et al., 2011; Khoury et al., 2014). With this loss, farmers have fewer diversification options. This makes them more vulnerable to climate change. Finally, the decline of production and consumption of these neglected and underutilized crops leads to the disappearance of local varieties whose traits for adaptation to climate stresses are not only important to local farmers but also for research and breeding by the global agricultural research community (Table 3, Example 1).

The promotion of these neglected and underutilized crops is complex and requires actions at both the supply side to incite farmers to continue using these crops and demand side to persuade consumers to incorporate these crops in their diets. Here we name three approaches to provide incentives to farmers' use of neglected and underutilized crops to diversify farm systems. First, within each community, commonly a few farmers are knowledge hubs on the management of these neglected and underutilized crops (Altieri and Merrick, 1987; Sthapit et al., 2013). These persons are custodian or lighthouse farmers who merit recognition in society and who can be encouraged to share their knowledge with other farmers as well as with practitioners and researchers. Second, empowerment of women in agriculture increases the options for on-farm diversification because both men and women maintain exclusive and complementary knowledge about crops and farm management (Padulosi et al., 2011). Because female-headed farm systems are not necessary more diverse than male-headed ones (Saenz and Thompson, 2017), it is important to understand the complementary impacts of women and men's choices on the diversification of farm systems (Farnworth et al., 2016). Finally, the identification and development of niche markets and new uses of neglected and underutilized crops can stimulate their production and the maintenance of local knowledge (Table 1, Example 3). There are, hence, several strategies to maintain and use local knowledge on neglected and underutilized crops to promote diversified farm systems.

Getting the Right Variety

Farmers often struggle to find planting material of crops with high potential for on-farm diversification even though appropriate varieties are often available at agricultural institutions or maintained by neighboring farmers (Jarvis et al., 2011). Due to weak formal and informal seed systems, farmers are not always able to access germplasm of appropriate varieties and diversify their farm systems. Farmers can access more varied germplasm when they are better connected to public and private germplasm suppliers (Coomes et al., 2015; Stoilova et al., 2019) and when these suppliers strengthen their germplasm production capacity (Schreinemachers et al., 2017a). The desired type of seed system differs between crop groups and should be defined per crop and region (Louwaars and de Boef, 2012). For example, public-private networks of research institutes and local, national, and international seed companies have proven to be successful to scale the supply of affordable and high-quality vegetable seeds (Schreinemachers et al., 2017a) (Table 1, Examples 4 and 5). Aside from fostering farmers' access to commercial and public germplasm in formal seed systems, farmer communities across the world successfully establish networks to conserve, use, and exchange germplasm of local varieties and associated knowledge (Coomes et al., 2015; Vernooy et al., 2017). The promotion of promising crops to diversify farm systems requires an assessment of the existing formal and informal seed systems to strengthen, where necessary, germplasm quality and supply in collaboration with farmer organizations, NGOs, breeders, genebanks, and private and public suppliers of planting material.

Insurance

Risk aversion on the part of farmers, especially smallholders, is an obstacle to the adoption of new crops, varieties, and novel management practices (Lee, 2005). Weather shocks, such as drought, can trap farm households in poverty because the risk of the shocks limits farmers' willingness and capacity to invest in on-farm diversification strategies (Dick et al., 2011; Carter et al., 2016). For example, fire risk in drought-prone areas limits farmers to diversify farm systems with tree species (Jacobi et al., 2017). As a complement to on-farm diversification, agricultural insurance against yield loss mitigates the risks farmers face and encourages them to diversify their farm systems (Bobojonov et al., 2013).

One approach gaining much attention is index insurance. With index insurance, payouts are based on an index, such as the total seasonal rainfall or average crop yield for a larger area. This index reduces the costs of insuring individual farmers (Bell et al., 2013). Furthermore, the insurance is based on a reliable and independently verifiable index and can be reinsured, allowing insurance companies to transfer part of their risk to international markets (Binswanger-Mkhize, 2012). Index insurance can be bundled with climate-adapted germplasm or cropping systems to encourage farmers to invest in crop productivity (Bobojonov et al., 2013) (Table 1, Example 6).

Index insurance, however, is not a perfect predictor of an individual loss. The difference between the farmers' actual losses and the expected payout is known as basis risk; it may result in a farmer suffering a yield loss, but not receiving a payout, or in a payout without the farmer experiencing any loss (Dick et al., 2011; Miranda and Farrin, 2012).

Whole-farm insurances could be another promising insurance measure to provide farmers an incentive to diversify farm systems (Hart et al., 2006; Turvey, 2012). What whole-farm and index insurances have in common is that combining agricultural insurance with on-farm diversification benefits both farmers and insurance providers. Diversified farm systems can stabilize income and productivity and reduce the risks and corresponding premia of insurance. A recommendation is to develop policies and incentives for innovative insurance services, which support and promote on-farm diversification.

Markets

High-value crops, such as fruit and vegetable species, have been identified as promising crops to diversify farm systems and to increase farmers' net income (Joshi et al., 2004; Pingali, 2007; Birthal et al., 2015). Vegetable species are of special interest because in general they have short rotation cycles and can provide quick and year-round returns (Schreinemachers et al., 2018). Market access may, however, be limited to large-scale farmers as smallholders often lack capital to make investments to convert a semi- or fully-subsistence farm system into a commercial farm system (Pingali, 2007; Eakin et al., 2012). Many high-value crops, such as leafy vegetables, are perishable and this often requires additional investments in post-harvesting and transportation. Finally, smallholders can be particularly vulnerable to fluctuating market prices (Eakin, 2003; Carletto et al., 2010). Linking farmers, especially smallholders, to markets therefore requires support by governments, food processors, and distributors to strengthen post-harvesting facilities, distribution channels, stable production supply, and insurance.

Farmers tend to focus on one or a few crops to meet quality demands. However, a sole focus on one or two high-value cash crops in a farm system can be a risk for food security and livelihoods for individual farm households as well as for local economies (Immink and Alarcon, 1991; Chakrabarti and Kundu, 2009) (Table 3, Examples 2 and 3). Rather than focusing solely on one or two cash crops, farmers may therefore opt to manage several crops and varieties with different production and price risks, to meet food and nutrition security goals, and increase net income (Table 4, Example 1).

Step 3. Disabling Factors

Scale Effects

Scale effects leading to crop and farm specialization may be stronger drivers than those leading to on-farm diversification. Such specialization can occur in the case of commodities where there is a demand for large quantities and where sophisticated and product-specific technical packages drive monocultures. Such can be the case for oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), and soybean (Glycine max). Indeed, for several decades, research and development efforts in the agricultural sector of many countries support technologies, which reinforce scale effects and favor specialization (Griffon, 2006; Pingali, 2012). Agricultural subsidies in countries, such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Zambia support large-scale monocultures rather than diversified production systems (Eakin and Wehbe, 2009; Jacobi et al., 2017; Saenz and Thompson, 2017).

With more research investment and policy support, scalable and economically-feasible diversification practices can be developed. So far, scaling of species mixtures has been successful for pasture and cover crops because these mixtures increase productivity without extra management costs (Bybee-Finley et al., 2018) (Table 4, Example 2). The wide-scale introduction of high-quality seed of vegetable crops to smallholder farmers in Southeast Asia during the last decades is a successful example on how to scale diversification of farm systems with high-value crops (Schreinemachers et al., 2018) (Table 1, Example 4).

Labor Constraints

Any on-farm diversification option should save labor and/or increase and/or stabilize net income to make it an attractive option for climate change adaptation (Lee, 2005). Labor saving is urgent because climate change is predicted to reduce farming labor capacity in tropical regions by up to 50–80% in peak months of heat stress (Dunne et al., 2013; Myers et al., 2017). Diversification with cover crops and shade trees can reduce the labor costs of weed control (Raintree and Warner, 1986; Holt-Giménez, 2006; Liebman and Dyck, 2007) or fertilizer input in the case of cocoa agroforestry systems (Armengot et al., 2016). However, often diversified farm systems require more labor compared with less complex systems (Bacon et al., 2012). This has been the case for diversified rice systems and cocoa systems (Pingali, 1992; Armengot et al., 2016). The introduction of high-value crops, such as fruit and vegetable species could be an alternative diversification strategy to increase or stabilize net income (Joshi et al., 2004). Finally, diversification strategies, which improve on-farm climate conditions, such as the establishment of shade trees can eventually improve labor conditions because while they may require a large initial labor input this tails off substantially after tree establishment.

Farm Size and Land Ownership

Although farm size is thought to be a constraint for diversification, we did not find a clear correlation between farm size and on-farm diversification. As part of a systematic literature review, which included 13 detailed studies, six reported that on-farm diversification increases with farm size; four studies reported no effect; and three studies reported that on-farm diversification reduces with farm size (Table S1). There is thus scant evidence that farm size is an enabling factor or constraint for on-farm diversification. Our recommendations to diversify farms are therefore relevant for different farm sizes.

We found only a few studies, which consider land ownership as a factor in diversification (Lawin and Tamini, 2017; Asante et al., 2018). These studies showed no relationship between land ownership and diversified farms. More research is needed to understand better if there is any relation between these two variables.

Step 4. Current and Future Climate-Related Production Risks

Farmer perceptions of weather cycles and climate change are a good starting point for identifying climate risks. Their knowledge may need to be combined with formal predictions to reduce bias from their recent experiences and to reflect long-term climate trends. Once climate risks are identified, crops, varieties, and management practices can be selected to manage these risks.

Climate models with projections in climate change under different economic and climatic scenarios allow for predictions of climate change impact on crop production for the next decades (Lobell et al., 2008; Baca et al., 2014; de Sousa et al., 2019). The main purpose of these models is to reduce uncertainty in decision-making rather than to give precise predictions (Vermeulen et al., 2013). These models are relevant for planting decisions for both annual and perennial commodities, such as soybean and coffee (Coffea spp.), for which a whole infrastructure needs to be maintained or put in place. Even in the case of the introduction of non-commodities, time may be required to develop seed systems and to develop the capacity of farmers who are interested in growing these crops.

Climate models, which use historic climate trends, help to predict trends in climate stress for shorter time spans compared with the decadal predictions of climate models on the basis of projections in climate change. To be effective, the results of these models have to be communicated clearly to farmers (Pulwarty and Sivakumar, 2014). The Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET), for example, provides rainfall predictions for the next 10–365 days on the basis of high-resolution rainfall and hydrological models (Senay et al., 2015). These predictions allow farmers and other actors in the value chain to anticipate and adjust cropping systems to water scarcity or surplus. High-quality modeling in combination with good communication is thus essential to provide farmers meaningful information about current and future climate risks.

Step 5. Gap Analysis of Functional Diversity in Farm Systems

By filling functional gaps in farm systems, farmers can stabilize and even increase primary productivity of their farm systems under climate change. This occurs via two distinct but linked agroecological mechanisms. First, diversification with crops and varieties, each with a differential response to climate stresses, stabilizes primary productivity in agroecosystems under climate variability. The second mechanism is related to diversification of crops and management practices to foster ecological functions. Ecological functions increase and stabilize primary productivity in farm systems and include climate regulation, water storage, nutrient cycling, and pest regulation. By understanding these two agroecological mechanisms and translating that knowledge into practical recommendations for decision-making, farmers can make informed choices about adapting their farm systems to climate change.

Crop Choices for Differential Responses to Climate Stresses

Spatial diversification stabilizes primary productivity of farm systems under climate variability when crops with differential responses to climate stresses are grown in polycultures or in separate fields. These crops expand together the physiological range to produce a minimum yield under different climate conditions. In addition to physiological range expansion, positive plant interactions and niche complementary further increase and stabilize agricultural productivity (Brookfield, 2001; Malézieux et al., 2009).

When considering polycultures to diversify farm systems in a specific area, local knowledge on crops and management practices provide a rich source of possibilities for rotations, intercropping, and agroforestry systems (Eakin, 2005; Hellin and Dixon, 2008; Isakson, 2009) (Table 4, Example 3). Traditional polyculture systems can fall into disuse because of labor constraints, poor markets, and erosion of local knowledge. It is therefore important to address these economic and cultural constraints in order to maintain and improve traditional systems, and introduce new systems as well.

Crop functional types help to differentiate between crops, which, because of their physiological differences, tolerate different types and different levels of climate stress (Table 2). For polycultures, farmers ideally choose crops, which besides their differentiated tolerance to climate stresses, have complementary traits to reduce competition for similar resources, such as different rooting depths, complementary nutrient requirements, and differential light interception patterns (Brooker et al., 2015). In this way, farmers can minimize competition for light, water, and nutrients between crops, and avoid production and income loss.

The upper temperature ranges for the production of many crops is below 40°C while temperature conditions above 40°C become more prevalent in tropical growing areas (Farooq et al., 2017). Only a limited amount of crops can adapt to temperatures above 40°C, either through short growth seasons or by coping with high temperatures during sensitive development stages, such as pollen development, fruit setting, and grain filling (Wahid et al., 2007; Barnabás et al., 2008). Table 2 gives a few examples of the crops which are reported to be strong candidates for agricultural production under hot conditions. In contrast, low temperatures can cause production risks in mountain areas in tropical and subtropical regions (Table 4, Example 4).

Plant production is principally limited by lack or excess of water. Drought and flooding events have occurred with greater frequency over the past 50 years and the trend is predicted to continue (Lobell et al., 2008). Despite the vulnerability of many plant species to drier conditions (McCord et al., 2015), a wide range of species is adapted to dry conditions in rain-fed systems. Table 2 includes a few examples of species, which are reported to be strong candidates for on-farm diversification of rain-fed systems under increasing drought conditions.

C4-metabolism crops, such as maize (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum spp.) have in general a high water-use efficiency and are better in tolerating water stress compared with C3-metabolism crops, such as wheat (Tritricum spp.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus) because of their more efficient photosynthetic apparatus (Zhang and Kirkham, 1995; Nayyar and Gupta, 2006). This makes C4 crops potential candidates for production under dry and hot conditions, although several C4 crops may be susceptible to water stress because of the wide diversity in C4 plant evolution (Ghannoum, 2009). Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) crops use significantly less water and can grow in higher temperatures compared with C3 and C4 crops. Some CAM crops, such as pineapple (Ananas comosus) are commercial crops. The majority of CAM crops, however, are neglected or underutilized (Mizrahi et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2015).

Tree planting is a common on-farm diversification strategy to improve microclimates after their establishment (Bryan et al., 2009; Meldrum et al., 2018). Native tree species may be preferred candidates for diversification (Table 1, Example 7; Table 2). Since most tree species are wild or at an incipient stages of domestication, some exotic tree species can become invasive, such as the American species Prosopis juliflora in African countries (Richardson, 1998), or can be highly competitive for water, such as Eucalyptus spp. and may outcompete understory crops under drought-stress conditions (Saxena, 1991; German et al., 2006). Native food tree species provide also a reliable food source for farmer households in lean months (Graefe et al., 2012; Bacon et al., 2014) (Table 4, Example 5). Despite their potential importance for food and nutrition security, there is generally a lack of focus on these tree species in people's diets under climate seasonality and inter-annual variability (Rowland et al., 2015).

As periods of drought become longer and more frequent, farmers may need to replace water-competitive shade trees with species, which are less water demanding. The pruning of tree species reduces water stress and allows farmers to manage shade (Bayala et al., 2002) while also providing mulch to conserve soils and retain soil moisture (Hellin et al., 1999).

With respect to water excess, food tree species from tropical floodplains and swamps, such as many palm species, tolerate long periods of waterlogging (Table 2). In a similar line, sugarcane and perennial forage grasses, such as Brachiaria spp., can withstand waterlogging conditions (Cardoso et al., 2013; Gomathi et al., 2014). As with tree species, native forage grasses may be preferred because of the risk that exotic ones become invasive (DiTomaso, 2000).

Many traits related to stress tolerance can be found at variety level. Major advances have been made in breeding to increase drought tolerance of main cereal crops, such as maize (Cairns et al., 2013). Nevertheless, farmers may still want to diversify with drought-tolerant minor cereals and legumes (Table 2). For some cereals, such as maize, landraces could be good choices in strategies of on-farm diversification because they contain high levels of genetic variation, which enable landraces to evolve under the interplay of human selection and climate change (Mercer and Perales, 2010; Vigouroux et al., 2011). Evaluation of these landraces in different environments helps shed light on their potential for climate change adaptation and in breeding strategies in a similar way to the search for climate-adapted durum wheat landraces (Ceccarelli, 2015; Mengistu et al., 2016).

Even though breeders use advanced technologies, such as genomic selection and editing to develop varieties with multiple traits to tolerate climate stresses (Tester and Langridge, 2010; Mousavi-Derazmahalleh et al., 2019), it remains a challenge to stack these traits in single varieties (Mercer and Perales, 2010). Alternatively, a traditional approach is to grow multiple varieties of the same crop to respond to multiple stresses (Jarvis et al., 2008; Matsuda, 2013; Salazar-Barrientos et al., 2016). Farmers can thus diversify their farm systems by growing both multiple crops and varietal mixtures. In the same line, livestock and feed producers may prefer pasturelands, which are both rich in grass species and rich in genotypes because these pasturelands are more productive and recover better after extreme events, compared with less diverse ones in the same biotope (MacDougall et al., 2013; Prieto et al., 2015).

Crop Choices and Management Practices to Foster Ecological Functions

Diversification of farm systems in space and time can foster ecological functions, such as climate regulation, water storage, nutrient cycling, and pest regulation. Farmers may find it useful to use a straightforward checklist of management practices, which foster ecological functions to improve their farm systems (Table 5).

Microclimates can be regulated by tree shade, which buffers against high temperatures above ground and in some cases prevent frost damage (Barradas and Fanjul, 1986; Caramori et al., 1996) (Table 1, Example 2). Forage tree and shrub species, which are planted along field borders, provide a wind-break to maintain moisture levels in agriculture fields (Holt-Giménez, 2002), and are a source of animal fodder in times of drought (Kort, 1988; Tamang et al., 2010). Tree species can therefore be selected for multiple goals in farm systems including for food or fodder production and to maintain ecological functions.

On-farm diversification with cover crops and green manures can improve and conserve soil by building up organic matter, adding nitrogen, improving soil structure, and reducing soil erosion (Cong et al., 2014). As a consequence, soil fertility, infiltration, water holding capacity, and soil moisture can increase, and with that the crops' ability to cope with drought (Erenstein, 2003; Waraich et al., 2011). However, under humid conditions and on poorly drained soils, mulching can cause waterlogging resulting in lower yields (Giller et al., 2009). Some cover crops are competitive for water, and if intercropped, they can reduce the yields of the main crop under water limiting conditions. Therefore, selection of soil-improving intercrops or relay crops, which are water efficient, is important in drought-prone environments. Alternative management options in semi-arid regions include external biomass input from hedgerows or woodlots and establishment of rotation schemes with cover crops.

Crop residue incorporation is an important practice to improve soil quality (Turmel et al., 2015). In mixed cropping and livestock systems, especially in semi-arid areas, trade-offs exist between using residues for fodder or soil cover (Giller et al., 2009). In many areas, however, farmers require these residues for animal feed and in some cases they earn more from selling the residues for feed than they can from the maize they grow (Beuchelt et al., 2015). If farmers leave at least a portion of their residues in their fields, then they provide soil cover and build organic matter (Turmel et al., 2015). Alternative biomass-producing crops and sources of forages and soil cover can be introduced in intercropping, agroforestry, or silvopastoral systems to address these needs.

Holt-Giménez (2002) showed how diversification of Nicaraguan farm systems with agroecological practices, such as soil cover, windbreaks, crop rotation, and alley cropping, protected farmers' fields during extreme weather events compared with farmers' conventional practices (Table 1, Example 1). This evidence suggests that diversification enables farm systems to recover more quickly from extreme weather events compared with uniform farm systems.

Diversification across multiple spatial scales beyond the farm level is thought to further stabilize micro and mesoclimates and make farm systems more resilient against extreme weather events (Kremen et al., 2012). Forest patches surrounding cropping systems and pasturelands may control rainfall distributions and regulate temperatures at meso-level, but more evidence is needed (Teuling et al., 2010; Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015). Preliminary evidence show that farm systems in a diversified landscape indeed recover more quickly from extreme weather events compared with farm systems in uniform landscapes but the finding are not yet conclusive (Philpott et al., 2008; Gil et al., 2017). Monitoring farm systems in areas with extreme weather events will help to collect more data to understand further how diversification at multiple spatial scales makes farms more resilient against extreme weather events.

Caution is needed when introducing a new crop into a farm system since it can be a host of new crop diseases (Marshall, 1977; Anderson et al., 2004). Often, however, it is only a question of time until a pest or disease arrives because of globalized food export and import, and shifting distributions of pest and diseases due to climate change (Shaw and Osborne, 2011; Bebber et al., 2013). On-farm diversification is therefore a good preparation for when these pests or diseases arrive. First, crop diversification may reduce the risk of pest and disease outbreaks related to monoculture host plants (Rosenzweig et al., 2001). Some pests and pathogens, however, use a wide range of host plants, which limits the potential of crop diversification for preventing these outbreaks (Ratnadass et al., 2011). Second, heterogeneity in vegetation and crops obstruct pest movement and provide habitats for natural pest enemies (Avelino et al., 2012). Finally, a wide range of plant species, which repel or attract pests, is available to farmers. By understanding which climate stresses these plant species tolerate, they can be selected for pest control under changing climate conditions (Table 4, Example 6).

Step 6. Selection of On-Farm Diversification Options

To support on-farm diversification, all the relevant information mentioned in steps 1 to 5 can be combined in a decision model, which captures multiple criteria (Figure 2). For many crops no exact information about markets and optimal growing conditions exist. Alternatively, ranking and scaling by a group of persons already provides robust estimates and comparisons (Hubbard, 2014; van Etten et al., 2016). These straightforward scoring approaches help determine which crops, varieties, and management practices are more appropriate for farmers' goals, such as income stability, food security, and/or nutrition; which crops and varieties require more or less labor, and so on. Selected diversification options can be further evaluated on-farm to test how well they fit farmers' realities, goals, and aspirations. The selection of these options can be done in focus-group discussions in farmer communities with farmers, practitioners, and researchers, and by interviewing key persons from farmer communities, as well external actors, which could support farmers in access to markets, germplasm, climate information, credit, or insurance (Schattman et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2016).

Figure 2

Crop options are available for different agroecological zones. In all these zones, legumes and trees are common functional types to diversify farm systems for climate change adaptation (Tables 2, 4). Some studies suggest that a low optimum number of on-farm diversification options for semi-arid agroecological zones (Waha et al., 2018). Therefore, it would be important to maximize the functional diversity in semi-arid regions within a few crops (see Table 2).

Many crops, which are hardy and can tolerate climate stresses, are neglected and underutilized (Table 2). The reality is that most of these crops have limited market opportunities. A selection of the crops with most potential for both climate change adaptation and markets, and targeted and long-term efforts to strengthen both supply of and demand for these selected crops, can help to support farmers to diversify their farms with these crops (Table 1, Examples 3 and 8).

Among high-value crops, vegetable species are commercially interesting for smallholder farmers and easy to incorporate in farm systems. However, we found little research on climate stress tolerance in vegetable species compared with species from other crop groups. Further research is needed to evaluate the response of vegetable species to different climate stresses because these are potentially interesting crops for diversification.

Step 7. Evaluation and Learning

Participatory evaluation is a cost-effective way to evaluate crops, varieties, and management practices despite high transaction costs in communication and information exchange (Almekinders et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2007). For on-farm testing of new crops, varieties, and management practices, home gardens are convenient because farmers traditionally use these places for experimentation (Williams, 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010). After evaluation, farmers can decide if they wish adopt these new options and how best to incorporate them in their farm systems.

For uptake and scaling of diversification measures within communities, it is often advantageous to work initially with the most innovative female and male farmers, such as custodian or lighthouse farmers. They are often the most eager to experiment with diversification options and can subsequently inspire others (Hellin and Dixon, 2008). Researchers and practitioners can foster knowledge exchange between farmers by supporting farmer networks. Women and other vulnerable groups in many countries, would need to be involved in these activities to prevent increase in inequality as a consequence of differential access to information and learning opportunities (Tompkins and Adger, 2004).

Agricultural innovation systems are another form to share knowledge and to encourage learning about on-farm diversification options among farmers, and other private, public, and societal actors in value chains (Schut et al., 2014) (Table 1, Example 9). Feedback and information exchange on crop and variety performance between germplasm suppliers, farmers, and other actors improves site-specific crop and variety recommendations and enhances farmers' access to high-quality germplasm (van Etten et al., 2019).

Discussion

In this paper, we propose seven steps to work with farmers in making choices about the development, selection, evaluation, and implementation of on-farm diversification strategies for climate change adaptation. These steps are based on existing concepts on climate change adaptation, which are often recommended separately. Complementary to existing tools, which recommend agroecological practices (Altieri et al., 2015), select species (de Sousa et al., 2019), or economically optimize crop portfolios (Werners et al., 2011), this decision-making framework brings together agroecological, agrobotanical, social, and economic considerations and recommendations from different disciplines, and links these to farmers' goals and constraints. The framework, coupled with extensive field experience from Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia, offers a practical and comprehensive tool for researchers and practitioners to establish a dialogue with farm households or with farmer groups to develop on-farm diversification strategies.

We argue that the four most essential elements for selection of appropriate on-farm diversification options are: step 1 on understanding farmers' goals, which is the basis of any adaptation plan; step 2 on identifying enabling factors to identify opportunities to support farmers with financial and technical support; step 5 on assessing gaps in functional diversity in farm systems, which need to be filled to adapt farm systems to climate change; and step 6 on the selection of on-farm diversification options to fill these gaps. These four steps would be the minimum needed to work with farmers in the development and selection of viable on-farm diversification options for climate change adaptation.

Practitioners, policy-makers, and farmer organizations who aim to incite farmers to diversify their farm systems in a specific territory, can use the framework as a check box and follow the steps in this framework on the basis of their existing knowledge and with support of local and international research organizations and networks. For example, the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) provides a toolbox to select climate-smart options (https://csa.guide/). Agroecological networks, such as the Community Agroecological Network (CAN), have established guidelines to carry out participatory action research (Méndez et al., 2017).

The framework counts in the lessons learned from successful cases on scaling agroecological practices (Mier et al., 2018). These cases stress the importance to foster farmer organization and external support as two key enabling factors, and to select effective and straightforward agroecological practices. One of the most compelling examples of scaling agroecological practices are agroecological farmer-to-farmer networks in Central America, Mexico, and Cuba (Table 1, Example 1). These networks show the importance of horizontal learning from farmer-to-farmer and through the establishment of dialogues between farmers and other actors (Holt-Giménez, 2006; Morris et al., 2016). Therefore, in addition to the four essential steps mentioned above, step 7 in our decision-framework on evaluation and learning is another important step in the diversification of farm systems.

The framework identifies insurance policies and market access as two additional enabling factors for on-farm diversification, in recognition of farmers' needs for enabling institutional environments to incentivize on-farm changes in crop and land management. Network structures for agricultural innovation for sustainable agriculture link farmer organizations to markets and insurance providers (Schut et al., 2014). We are not aware of successful policies to link insurance products to on-farm diversification, and we recommend policy-makers and practitioners to pilot these combinations.

The framework stresses the importance of understanding the goals of different farm household members and their diverse livelihood options and preferences. This provides the basis on which to establish a dialogue on diversifying farm systems, and allows to consider gender in the selection of diversification strategies. We stress this, because this may not always happen, resulting in a focus on profit-maximization in projects biased to narrow economic objectives or to poor linkage between recommended agroecological practices and the objectives of the different members of farm households.

To ensure that recommended practices align with farmers' economic objectives, we recommend practitioners and researchers to work with farmers in estimating the production costs and economic benefits of their existing farm systems in comparison with more diversified systems. Farmers are likely to determine the optimum extent of on-farm diversification by the balance between the labor input and other management costs associated with diversifying their farm systems, and the benefits from increased and more stable productivity leading to enhanced income and food security as a result of on-farm diversification.

Since labor constraints increase with climate change, it will be important to consider these increased labor costs in cost-benefit analysis and the implementation of diversification strategies. Recommended practices to diversify farm systems under climate change should therefore minimize extra labor, more so because of growing labor-scarcity due to rural-urban migration (Bacud et al., 2019). This fits well to the existing lesson in scaling agroecology to promote effective and straightforward agroecological practices (Holt-Giménez, 2001). When these practices minimize extra labor, then this will help to the successful implementation of diversification measures.

On-farm diversification strategies contribute effectively to CSA and SDG policies, which many governments aim to promote to enhance food security, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development (Lipper et al., 2014; Totin et al., 2018; Willett et al., 2019). On-farm diversification contributes less to climate change mitigation, which is another important component of CSA and SDG 13 on Climate Action. Although several on-farm diversification strategies, such as agroforestry or growing cover crops already address mitigation by sequestering carbon, this is not their primary goal when adapting farm systems to the adverse effects of global climate change. On-farm diversification in integrated CSA strategies should therefore be evaluated for their mitigation potential and when necessary combined with other mitigation strategies.

In some cases, on-farm diversification will not be sufficient to reduce the vulnerability of farmers to climate change (Harvey et al., 2014); on-farm diversification options simply do not save sufficient labor or sufficiently increase or stabilize net income. In these cases, off-farm diversification, such as seasonal labor in the non-agricultural sectors or a permanent exit from agriculture, may be a better option for farmers to adapt to climate change (Hansen et al., 2019).

Conclusions

On-farm diversification is a key component of a range of climate change adaptation and mitigations practices and technologies known collectively as CSA. Poorer farmers are particularly vulnerable to climate change and it is, hence, even more imperative that diversification options address the resources available to them and their aspirations. Increasing resources are being directed at CSA and we suggest following the seven steps presented in this paper as an approach to working with farmers for appropriate on-farm diversification as part of climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. The seven steps provide a framework to identify appropriate diversification options in the context of farmers' agroecological and socio-economic conditions: (step 1) defining farmers' goals; (step 2) assessment of enabling factors; (step 3) assessment of disabling factors; (step 4) assessment of current and future climate-related production risks; (step 5) gap analysis of functional diversity; (step 6) selection of on-farm diversification options; and finally (step 7) evaluation and learning.

Governments often have few economic resources to put in force an agenda for CSA and, hence, network structures for agricultural innovation are vital for sustainable agriculture under climate change. Scale effects often favor monocultures. There are, however, several examples how food and feed demand in combination with adequate germplasm supply enables large numbers of farmers to diverse their farm systems and access markets. A successful example is diversified horticultural systems with high-value fruit and vegetable species for urban markets. Networks of agricultural innovation enable farmers to adopt diversification options by connecting with local, national, and international private companies, farmer organizations, public and private extension services, NGOs, as well as research institutes.

The key is to work with farmers in a participatory way and to prioritize their constraints, aspirations, and opportunities for on-farm diversification. A failure to do so, risks stymieing CSA efforts and ultimately perpetuating the vulnerability of those farmers who are often the target group of CSA. This would also result in CSA falling well short of its potential to contribute meaningfully to several of the SDGs including 13: Climate Action; SDG 1: No Poverty; SDG 2: Zero Hunger; and SDG 15 Life on Land.

References

• 1

  AllenC. R.FontaineJ. J.PopeK. L.GarmestaniA. S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. J. Environ. Manage.92, 1339–1345. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AlmekindersC. J. M.ThieleG.DanialD. L. (2007). Can cultivars from participatory plant breeding improve seed provision to small-scale farmers?Euphytica153, 363–372. 10.1007/s10681-006-9201-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AltieriM. A.MerrickL. C. (1987). In situ conservation of crop genetic resources through maintenance of traditional farming systems. Econ. Bot.41, 86–96. 10.1007/BF02859354

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AltieriM. A.NichollsC. I.HenaoA.LanaM. A. (2015). Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev.35, 869–90. 10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AndersonP. K.CunninghamA. A.PatelN. G.MoralesF. J.EpsteinP. R.DaszakP.et al. (2004). Emerging infectious diseases of plants: pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol.19, 535–544. 10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  ArbaouiM.LinkW. (2008). Effect of hardening on frost tolerance and fatty acid composition of leaves and stems of a set of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes. Euphytica162, 211–219. 10.1007/s10681-007-9521-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ArmengotL.BarbieriP.AndresC.MilzJ.SchneiderM. (2016). Cacao agroforestry systems have higher return on labor compared to full-sun monocultures. Agron. Sustain. Dev.36:70. 10.1007/s13593-016-0406-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AsanteB. O.VillanoR. A.PatrickI. W.BatteseG. E. (2018). Determinants of farm diversification in integrated crop–livestock farming systems in Ghana. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.33, 131–149. 10.1017/S1742170516000545

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AvelinoJ.CristanchoM.GeorgiouS.PabloI.AguilarL.BornemannG.et al. (2015). The coffee rust crises in Colombia and Central America (2008–2013): impacts, plausible causes and proposed solutions. Food Secur.7, 303–321. 10.1007/s12571-015-0446-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AvelinoJ.Romero-GurdiánA.Cruz-CuellarH. F.DeclerckF. A. J. (2012). Landscape context and scale differentially impact coffee leaf rust, coffee berry borer, and coffee root-knot nematodes. Ecol. Appl.22, 584–596. 10.1890/11-0869.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BacaM.LaderachP.HaggarJ.SchrothGOvalleO. (2014). An integrated framework for assessing vulnerability to climate change and developing adaptation strategies for coffee growing families in Mesoamerica. PLoS ONE.9:e88463. 10.1371/journal.pone.0088463

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BaconC. M.GetzC.KrausS.MontenegroM.HollandK. (2012). The social dimensions of sustainability and change in diversified farming systems. Ecol Soc17:41. 10.5751/ES-05226-170441

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BaconC. M.SundstromW. A.Flores GómezM. E.MéndezV. E.SantosR.GoldoftasB.et al. (2014). Explaining the “hungry farmer paradox”: smallholders and fair trade cooperatives navigate seasonality and change in Nicaragua's corn and coffee markets. Glob. Environ. Chang.25, 133–149. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BacudE. S.PuskurR.NhatT.SanderB. O.LuisJ. (2019). Rural outmigration—feminization—agricultural production nexus : case of Vietnam. Migr. Dev.9, 1–25. 10.1080/21632324.2019.1679962

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Bailey-SerresJ.LeeS. C.BrintonE. (2012). Waterproofing crops: effective flooding survival strategies. Plant Physiol.160, 1698–1709. 10.1104/pp.112.208173

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BarnabásB.JägerK.FehérA. (2008). The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ.31:11–38. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01727.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BarradasV. L.FanjulL. (1986). Microclimatic characterization of shaded and opengrown coffee (Coffea arabica L.) plantations in Mexico. Agric. For. Meteorol.38, 101–112. 10.1016/0168-1923(86)90052-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BayalaJ.TeklehaimanotZ.OuedraogoS. J. (2002). Millet production under pruned tree crowns in a parkland system in Burkina Faso. Agrofor. Syst.54, 203–214. 10.1023/A:1016058906682

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  BebberD. P.RamotowskiM. A. T.GurrS. J. (2013). Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nat. Clim. Chang.3, 985–988. 10.1038/nclimate1990

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BellA. R.OsgoodD. E.CookB. I.AnchukaitisK. J.MccarneyG. R.GreeneA. M.et al. (2013). Paleoclimate histories improve access and sustainability in index insurance programs. Glob. Environ. Chang.23, 774–781. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BeltrameD. M. O.OliveiraC. N. S.BorelliT.HunterD.NevesC.De AndradeR.et al. (2016). Diversifying institutional food procurement–opportunities and barriers for integrating biodiversity for food and nutrition in Brazil. Raizes36, 55–69.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BeucheltT. D.Camacho VillaC. T.GöhringL.RodríguezV. M. H.HellinJ.SondeK.et al. (2015). Social and income trade-offs of conservation agriculture practices on crop residue use in Mexico's central highlands. Agric. Syst.134, 61–75. 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.09.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Binswanger-MkhizeH. (2012). Is there too much hype about index-based agricultural insurance?J. Dev. Stud.48, 187–200. 10.1080/00220388.2011.625411

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BirthalP. S.RoyD.NegiD. S. (2015). Assessing the impact of crop diversification on farm poverty in India. World Dev.72, 70–92. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.02.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BobojonovI.Aw-HassanA.SommerR. (2013). Index-based insurance for climate risk management and rural development in Syria. Clim. Dev.6, 166–178. 10.1080/17565529.2013.844676

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BondeauA.SmithP. C.SchaphoffS.ZaehleS.LuchtW.CramerW.et al. (2007). Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Chang. Biol.13, 679–706. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BorchertR. (1994). Soil and stem water storage determine phenology and ditribution of tropical dry forest trees. Ecology75, 1437–1449. 10.2307/1937467

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BozzanoM.JalonenR.ThomasE.LooJ.BoshierD.GalloL.et al. (2014). Genetic Considerations in Ecosystem Restoration Using Native Tree Species. State of the World's Forest Genetic Resources–Thematic Study. Rome: FAO and Bioversity International.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  BrookerR. W.BennettA. E.CongW.-F.et al. (2015). Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol.206, 107–117. 10.1111/nph.13132

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  BrookfieldH. (2001). Exploring Agrodiversity. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 10.7312/broo10232

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  BryanE.DeressaT. T.GbetibouoG. A.RinglerC. (2009). Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy.12, 413–426. 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Bybee-FinleyK.RyanM.Bybee-FinleyK. A.RyanM. R. (2018). Advancing intercropping research and practices in industrialized agricultural landscapes. Agriculture8:80. 10.3390/agriculture8060080

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  CairnsJ. E.CrossaJ.ZaidiP. H.GrudloymaP.SanchezC.ArausJ. L.et al. (2013). Identification of drought, heat, and combined drought and heat tolerant donors in maize. Crop Sci.53, 1335–1346. 10.2135/cropsci2012.09.0545

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  CaramoriP. H.Androcioli FilhoA.LealA. C. (1996). Coffee shade with Mimosa scabrella Benth. for frost protection in southern Brazil. Agrofor. Syst.33, 205–214. 10.1007/BF00055423

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CarberryP. S.HochmanZ.McCownR. L.DalglieshN. P.FoaleM. A.PoultonP. L.et al. (2002). The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers', advisers', researchers' monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation. Agric. Syst.74, 141–177. 10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00025-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  CardosoJ. A.RinconJ.JimenezJ. d. l. C.NogueraD.RaoI. M. (2013). Morpho-anatomical adaptations to waterlogging by germplasm accessions in a tropical forage grass. AoB Plants5:plt047. 10.1093/aobpla/plt047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  CarlettoC.KirkA.WintersP. C.DavisB. (2010). Globalization and smallholders: the adoption, diffusion, and welfare impact of non-traditional export crops in Guatemala. World Dev.38, 814–827. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.02.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  CarterM. R.ChengL.SarrisA. (2016). Where and how index insurance can boost the adoption of improved agricultural technologies. J. Dev. Econ.118, 59–71. 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.08.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  CattivelliL.RizzaF.BadeckF.-W.MazzucotelliE.MastrangeloA. M.FranciaaE.et al. (2008). Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: an integrated view from breeding to genomics. F. Crop Res.105, 1–14. 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  CeccarelliS. (2015). Efficiency of plant breeding. Crop Sci.55:87. 10.2135/cropsci2014.02.0158

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  ChakrabartiS.KunduA. (2009). Rural non-farm economy: a note on the impact of crop-diversification and land-conversion in India. Econ. Polit. Weekly44, 69–75. 10.2307/40278811

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  ChapmanR.TrippR. (2003). Changing Incentives for Agricultural Extension–A Review of Privatised Extension in Practice. London: Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ChaudhuryM.VervoortJ.KristjansonP.EricksenP.AinslieA. (2013). Participatory scenarios as a tool to link science and policy on food security under climate change in East Africa. Reg. Environ. Chang.13, 389–398. 10.1007/s10113-012-0350-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ChengA.MayesS.DalleG.DemissewS.MassaweF. (2017). Diversifying crops for food and nutrition security–a case of teff. Biol. Rev.92, 188–198. 10.1111/brv.12225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  ClementC. R. (1999). 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. I. The relation between domestication and human population decline. Econ. Botany53, 188–202. 10.1007/BF02866498

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  CoeR.SinclairF.BarriosE. (2014). Scaling up agroforestry requires research “in” rather than “for” development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.6, 73–77. 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  CongW.-F.van RuijvenJ.MommerL.De DeynG. B.BerendseF.HofflandE. (2014). Plant species richness promotes soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in grasslands without legumes. J. Ecol.102, 1163–1170. 10.1111/1365-2745.12280

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  CoomesO. T.McGuireS. J.GarineE.CaillonS.McKeyD.DemeulenaereE.et al. (2015). Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy56, 41–50. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  de SousaK.van ZonneveldM.HolmgrenM.KindtR.OrdonezJ. C. (2019). The future of coffee and cocoa agroforestry in a warmer Mesoamerica. Sci. Rep.9:8828. 10.1038/s41598-019-45491-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  DickW.StoppaA.AndersonJ. (2011). Weather Index-Based Insurance in Agricultural Development: A Technical Guide. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  DinssaF. F.HansonP.DuboisT.TenkouanoA.StoilovaT.HughesJ. d'A.et al. (2016). AVRDC–the World Vegetable Center's women-oriented improvement and development strategy for traditional African vegetables in sub-Saharan Africa. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci.81, 91–105. 10.17660/eJHS.2016/81.2.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  DiTomasoJ. M. (2000). Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci.48, 255–265. 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0255:IWIRSI]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DumontE. S.BonhommeS.PagellaT. F.SinclairF. L. (2017). Structured stakeholder engagement leads to development of more diverse and inclusive agroforestry options. Exp. Agric. 55, 1–23. 10.1017/S0014479716000788

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  DunneJ.StoufferR.JohnJ. (2013). Reductions in labour capacity from heat stress under climate warming. Nat. Clim. Chang.3, 563–566. 10.1038/nclimate1827

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  EakinH. (2003). The social vulnerability of irrigated vegetable farming households in Central Puebla. J. Environ. Dev.12, 414–429. 10.1177/1070496503257733

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  EakinH. (2005). Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases from central Mexico. World Dev.33, 1923–1938. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.06.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  EakinH.BenessaiahK.BarreraJ. F.BelloG. M. C.MoralesH. (2012). Livelihoods and landscapes at the threshold of change: disaster and resilience in a Chiapas coffee community. Glob. Environ. Chang.12, 475–488. 10.1007/s10113-011-0263-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  EakinH. C.WehbeM. B. (2009). Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in a resilience framework: two cases from Latin America. Clim Change93, 355–377. 10.1007/s10584-008-9514-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  East-West Seed (2016). 2016. Our Year in Review. Bangkok: East-West Seed.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  EhlersJ. D.HallA. E. (1997). Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.). F. Crop. Res.53, 187–204. 10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00031-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  El-SharkawyM. A. (2007). Physiological characteristics of cassava tolerance to prolonged drought in the tropics: implications for breeding cultivars adapted to seasonally dry and semiarid environments. Br. J. Plant Physiol.19, 257–286. 10.1590/S1677-04202007000400003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  ErensteinO. (2003). Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and sub-tropics: a guide to the development and dissemination of mulching with crop residues and cover crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.100, 17–37. 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00150-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Espitia RangelE.Villaseñor MirH. E.Huerta EspinoJ.Salmerón ZamoraJ. J.González IñiguezR. M.Osorio AlcaláL.et al. (2007). Obsidiana, variedad de avena para la producción de grano y forraje en México. Agric. Técnica en México33, 95–98.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  FarnworthC. R.BaudronF.AnderssonJ. A.MisikoM.BadstueL. B.StirlingC. M.et al. (2016). Gender and conservation agriculture in East and Southern Africa: towards a research agenda. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.14:142–165. 10.1080/14735903.2015.1065602

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  FarooqM.NadeemF.GogoiN.UllahA.AlghamdiS. S.NayyarH.et al. (2017). Heat stress in grain legumes during reproductive and grain-filling phases. Crop. Pasture Sci.68, 985–1005. 10.1071/CP17012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  FelkerP.CannellG. H.ClarkP. R.OsbornJ. F.NashP. (1983). Biomass production of Prosopis species (mesquite), Leucaena, and other leguminous trees grown under heat/drought stress. For. Sci.29: 592–606.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  FiggeF. (2004). Applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv.13, 827–849. 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000011729.93889.34

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  FrescoL.WestphalE. (1988). A hierarchical classification of farm systems. Exp. Agric.24, 399–419. 10.1017/S0014479700100146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  GallopínG. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Chang.16, 293–303. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  GalluzziG.EyzaguirreP.NegriV. (2010). Home gardens: neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodiversity Conserv.19, 3635–3654. 10.1007/s10531-010-9919-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  GardnerK.LewisD. (1996). Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern Challenge. London, UK, Sterling, VA, USA: Pluto Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  GermanL. A.KidaneB.ShemdoeR. (2006). Social and environmental trade-offs in tree species selection: a methodology for identifying niche incompatibilities in agroforestry. Environ. Dev. Sustain.8, 535–552. 10.1007/s10668-006-9054-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  GhannoumO. (2009). C4 photosynthesis and water stress. Ann. Bot.103, 635–644. 10.1093/aob/mcn093

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  GilJ. D. B.CohnA. S.DuncanJ.NewtonP.VermeulenS. (2017). The resilience of integrated agricultural systems to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change8:e461. 10.1002/wcc.461

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  GilbertM.HolbrookN. (2011). Limitations to Crop Diversification for Enhancing the Resilience of Rain-Fed Subsistence Agriculture to Drought. Available online at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working-papers/cid-working-paper-no.-228 (accessed August 8, 2015).

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  GillerK. E.WitterE.CorbeelsM.TittonellP. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics' view. F Crop. Res.114, 23–34. 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.06.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  GliessmanS. R. (2014). Agroecology—The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. 3rd Edn.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis.

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  GolandC. (1993). Agricultural risk management through diversity: field scattering in Cuyo Cuyo, Peru. Cult. Agric.13, 8–13. 10.1525/cuag.1993.13.45-46.8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  GomathiR.Gururaja RaoP. N.ChandranK.SelviA. (2014). Adaptive responses of sugarcane to waterlogging stress: an over view. Sugar Tech17, 325–338. 10.1007/s12355-014-0319-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Gómez-PompaA. (1987). On Maya silviculture. Mex. Stud.3, 1–17. 10.2307/4617029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  GraefeS.DufourD.van ZonneveldM.RodriguezF.GonzalezA. (2012). Peach palm (Bactris gasipaes) in tropical Latin America: implications for biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and human nutrition. Biodiversity Conserv.22, 269–300. 10.1007/s10531-012-0402-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  GrahamP. H.VanceC. P. (2003). Legumes: importance and constraints to greater use. Plant Physiol.131, 872–877. 10.1104/pp.017004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  GreatrexH.HansenJ.GarvinS. (2015). Scaling up Index Insurance for Smallholder Farmers: Recent Evidence and Insights. Copenhagen. Available online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/53101

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  GriffonM. (2006). Nourrir la planète: Pour une révolution Doublement verte. Paris: Odile Jacob.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  GrothmannT.PattA. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change15, 199–213. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  HansenJ. W.HellinJ.RosenstockT.FisherE.CairnsJ.StirlingC. L.et al. (2019). Climate risk management and rural poverty reduction. Agric. Syst.172, 28–46. 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HartC. E.HayesD. J.BabcockB. A. (2006). Insuring eggs in baskets: should the government insure individual risks?Can. J. Agric. Econ.54, 121–137. 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00041.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HarveyC. A.RakotobeZ. L.RaoN. S.DaveR.RazafimahatratraH.RabarijohnR. H.et al. (2014). Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers to agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Phil. Trans. R Soc.369:20130089. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0089

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  HellinJ. (2012). Agricultural extension, collective action and innovation systems: lessons on network brokering from Peru and Mexico. J. Agric. Educ. Ext.18, 141–159. 10.1080/1389224X.2012.655967

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  HellinJ.CoxR.López-RidauraS. (2017). Maize diversity, market access, and poverty reduction in the Western highlands of Guatemala. Mt. Res. Dev.37, 188–197. 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00065.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  HellinJ.DixonJ. (2008). Operationalising participatory research and farmer-to-farmer extension : the Kamayoq in Peru. Dev. Pract.18, 627–632. 10.1080/09614520802181889

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  HellinJ.HigmanS. (2005). Crop diversity and livelihood security in the Andes. Dev. Pract.15, 165–174. 10.1080/09614520500041344

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  HellinJ.WelchezL. A.CherrettI. (1999). The Quezungual system: an indigenous agroforestry system from western Honduras. Agrofor. Syst.46, 229–237. 10.1023/A:1006217201200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  HolmgrenM.StappP.DickmanC. R.GraciaC. A.GrahamS.GutierrezJ.et al. (2006). Extreme climatic events shape arid and semiarid ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ.4, 87–95. 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0087:ECESAA]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  Holt-GiménezE. (2001). Scaling up sustainable agriculture. LEISA Mag.17, 27–29.

  • Google Scholar

• 96

  Holt-GiménezE. (2002). Measuring farmers' agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.93, 87–105. 10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00006-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Holt-GiménezE. (2006). Campesino a campesino: voices from Latin America' s farmer to farmer movement for sustainaible agriculture voices from Latin america' s farmer to farmer. New York, NY: Food first books.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  HubbardD. W. (2014). “Preference and attitudes: The softer side of measurement,” in How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 203–220. Available online at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EAPXAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=hubbard+how+to+measure+anything&ots=Cqcet1CqC7&sig=95gsOZI3RuRzHwu3eqdHOOtnQPs (accessed August 8, 2015).

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  ImminkM. D. C.AlarconJ. A. (1991). Household food security, nutrition, and crop diversification among smallholder farmers in the highlands of Guatemala. Ecol. Food Nutr.25, 287–305. 10.1080/03670244.1991.9991177

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  IsaksonS. R. (2009). No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan highlands. J. Peasant Stud.36, 725–759. 10.1080/03066150903353876

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  IsekiK.TakahashiY.MutoC.NaitoK.TomookaN. (2018). Diversity of drought tolerance in the genus Vigna. Front. Plant Sci.9:729. 10.3389/fpls.2018.00729

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  JacobiJ.RistS.AltieriM. A. (2017). Incentives and disincentives for diversified agroforestry systems from different actors' perspectives in Bolivia. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.15, 365–379. 10.1080/14735903.2017.1332140

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  JarvisD. I.BrownA. H. D.CuongP. H.Latournerie-MorenoL.GyawaliS.TantoT.et al. (2008). A global perspective of the richness and evenness of traditional crop-variety diversity maintained by farming communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.105, 5326–5331. 10.1073/pnas.0803431105

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  JarvisD. I.HodgkinT.SthapitB. R.FaddaC.Lopez-NoriegaI. (2011). An heuristic framework for identifying multiple ways of supporting the conservation and use of traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production system. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.30, 125–176. 10.1080/07352689.2011.554358

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  JoshiP. K.GulatiA.BirthalP. S.TewariL. (2004). Agriculture diversification in South Asia: patterns, determinants and policy implications. Econ. Polit. Wkly.39, 2457–2467.

  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KahnF. (1991). Palms as key swamp forest resources in Amazonia. For. Ecol. Manage.38, 133–142. 10.1016/0378-1127(91)90139-M

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  KhouryC. K.BjorkmanA. D.DempewolfH.Ramirez-VillegasJ.GuarinoL.JarvisA.et al. (2014). Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.111, 4001–4006. 10.1073/pnas.1313490111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  KnokeT.PaulC.HärtlF.CastroL. M.CalvasB.HildebrandtP. (2015). Optimizing agricultural land-use portfolios with scarce data–a non-stochastic model. Ecol. Econ.120, 250–259. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  KortJ. (1988). Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.22–23, 165–90. 10.1016/0167-8809(88)90017-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  KremenC.IlesA.BaconC. (2012). Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc.17:44. 10.5751/ES-05103-170444

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  LavorelS.GarnierE. (2002). Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisting the Holy Grail. Funct. Ecol.16, 545–556. 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  LawinK. G.TaminiL. D. (2017). “Risk preferences and crop diversification amongst smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso,” in Canadian Agricultural Economics Society (Montreal, QC: Canadian Agricultural Economics Society), 1–27. Available online at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/caes17/258058.html (accessed March 16, 2019).

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  LawrenceD.VandecarK. (2015). Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change5, 27–36. 10.1038/nclimate2430

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  LeeD. (2005). Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: issues and policies for developing countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ.87, 1325–1334. 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00826.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  LiebmanM.DyckE. (2007). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl.3, 92–122. 10.2307/1941795

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  LinB. B. (2007). Agroforestry management as an adaptive strategy against potential microclimate extremes in coffee agriculture. Agric. For. Meteorol.144, 85–94. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.12.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  LipperL.ThorntonP.CampbellB. M.BaedekerT.BraimohA.BwalyaM.et al. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change4, 1068–1072. 10.1038/nclimate2437

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  LobellD. B.BurkeM. B.TebaldiC.MastrandreaM. D.FalconW.NaylorR. L. (2008). Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science319, 607–610. 10.1126/science.1152339

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LopesM. S.ArausJ. L.van HeerdenP. D.FoyerC. H. (2011). Enhancing drought tolerance in C4 crops. J. Exp. Bot.62, 3135–3153. 10.1093/jxb/err105

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  LouwaarsN. P.de BoefW. S. (2012). Integrated seed sector development in Africa: a conceptual framework for creating coherence between practices, programs, and policies. J. Crop. Improv.26, 39–59. 10.1080/15427528.2011.611277

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  LowderS. K.SkoetJ.RaneyT. (2016). The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev.87, 16–29. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  MacDougallA. S.McCannK. S.GellnerG.TurkingtonR. (2013). Diversity loss with persistent human disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem collapse. Nature494, 86–89. 10.1038/nature11869

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  MalézieuxE.CrozatY.DuprazC.LauransM.MakowskiD.Ozier-LafontaineH.et al. (2009). Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.29, 43–62. 10.1051/agro:2007057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  MaqboolA.ShafiqS.LakeL. (2010). Radiant frost tolerance in pulse crops—a review. Euphytica172, 1–12. 10.1007/s10681-009-0031-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MarshallD. R. (1977). The advantages and hazards of genetic homogeneity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.287, 1–20. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1977.tb34226.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MatsudaM. (2013). Upland farming systems coping with uncertain rainfall in the central dry zone of Myanmar: how stable is indigenous multiple cropping under semi-arid conditions?Hum. Ecol.41, 927–936. 10.1007/s10745-013-9604-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  MattaR. (2013). Valuing native eating: the modern roots of Peruvian food heritage. Anthropol. Food S8. 10.4000/aof.7361

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MazónN.PeraltaE.MurilloÁ. RRiveraM.GuzmanA.NicklinC.et al. (2016). It's not just the technology, it's the surrounding system: how researchers in Ecuador found ways to make themselves useful to farmers through quinoa and lupin seed systems. Exp. Agric.55, 107–124. 10.1017/S0014479716000442

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  McCordP. F.CoxM.Schmitt-HarshM.EvansT. (2015). Crop diversification as a smallholder livelihood strategy within semi-arid agricultural systems near Mount Kenya. Land use policy42:738–750. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MeldrumG.MijatovićD.RojasW.FloresJ.PintoM.MamaniG.et al. (2018). Climate change and crop diversity: farmers' perceptions and adaptation on the Bolivian Altiplano. Environ. Dev. Sustain.20, 703–730. 10.1007/s10668-016-9906-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  MéndezV.CaswellM.GliessmanS.CohenR. (2017). Integrating agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): lessons from Central America. Sustainability9:705. 10.3390/su9050705

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MengistuD. K.KidaneY. G.CatellaniM.FrascaroliE.FaddaC.PèM. E.et al. (2016). High-density molecular characterization and association mapping in Ethiopian durum wheat landraces reveals high diversity and potential for wheat breeding. Plant Biotechnol. J.14, 1800–1812. 10.1111/pbi.12538

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  MercerK. L.PeralesH. R. (2010). Evolutionary response of landraces to climate change in centers of crop diversity. Evol. Appl.3, 480–493. 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00137.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  MidegaC. A. O.PittcharJ. O.PickettJ. A.HailuG.KhanZ. (2018). A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop Prot.105, 10–15. 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.11.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  MierM.Giménez CachoT.GiraldoO. F.AldasoroM.MoralesH.FergusonG. B.et al. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.42, 637–665. 10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  MirandaM. J.FarrinK. (2012). Index insurance for developing countries. Appl. Econ. Perspect Policy34, 391–427. 10.1093/aepp/pps031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MizrahiY.RavehE.YossovE. (2007). “New fruit crops with high water use efficiency,” in Issues in New Crops and New Uses. eds J. Janick and A. Whipkey (Alexandria, VA: ASHS Press), 216–222.

  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MorrisK.MéndezV.van ZonneveldM.GerliczA. (2016). Agroecology and climate change resilience: in smallholder coffee agroecosystems of Central America. Burlington. Available online at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/78410 (accessed March 11, 2018).

  • Google Scholar

• 139

  Mousavi-DerazmahallehM.BayerP. E.HaneJ. K.ValliyodanB.NguyenH. T.NelsonM. N.et al. (2019). Adapting legume crops to climate change using genomic approaches. Plant Cell Environ.42, 6–19. 10.1111/pce.13203

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  MurgueitioE.CalleZ.UribeF.CalleA.SolorioB. (2011). Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. For. Ecol. Manage261, 1654–1663. 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  MyersS. S.SmithM. R.GuthS.GoldenC. D.VaitlaB.MuellerN. D.et al. (2017). Climate change and global food systems: potential impacts on food security and undernutrition. Annu. Rev. Public Health38, 259–277. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044356

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  NabhanG. (2013). Growing Food in a Hotter, Drier Land: Lessons from Desert Farmers on Adapting to Climate Uncertainty. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 143

  National Research Council (1989). Lost Crops of the Incas: Little known plants of the Andes Promise for Worldwide Cultivation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 144

  NayyarH.GuptaD. (2006). Differential sensitivity of C3 and C4 plants to water deficit stress: association with oxidative stress and antioxidants. Environ. Exp. Bot.58, 106–113. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.06.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  OchiengJ.SchreinemachersP.OgadaM.DinssaF. F.BarnosW.MndigafgH.et al. (2019). Adoption of improved amaranth varieties and good agricultural practices in East Africa. Land Use Policy83, 187–194. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  OrtizC.CardemilL. (2001). Heat-shock responses in two leguminous plants: a comparative study. J. Exp. Bot.52, 1711–1719. 10.1093/jxb/52.361.1711

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  PadulosiS.EyzaquirreP.HodgkinT. (1999). “Challenges and strategies in promoting conservation and use of neglected and underutilized crop species.,” in Perspectives on New Crops and New Uses. ed J. Janick (Alexandria, VA: ASHS Press).

  • Google Scholar

• 148

  PadulosiS.HeywoodV.HunterD.JarvisA. (2011). “Underutilized species and climate change: current status and outlook,” in Crop adaptation to Climate Change, eds S. S. Yadav, R. J. Redden, J. L. Hatfield, H. Lotze-Campen, and A. Hall (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 507–521. 10.1002/9780470960929.ch35

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  PadulosiS.HodgkinT.WilliamsJ.InternationalN. H.-C.WallingfordU. (2002). “Underutilized crops: trends, challenges and opportunities in the 21st century, managing plant genetic diversity,” in Managing Plant Genetic Diversity, eds J. M. M. Engels, V. R. Rao, A. H. D. Brown, and M. T. Jackson (Wallingford: CAB International), 323–338. 10.1079/9780851995229.0323

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  ParolinP. (2009). Submerged in darkness: adaptations to prolonged submergence by woody species of the Amazonian floodplains. Ann. Bot.103, 359–376. 10.1093/aob/mcn216

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  PetersC.VásquezA. (1987). Estudios ecológicos de camu-camu (Myrciaria dubia). I. Producción de frutos en poblaciones naturales. Acta Amaz.17, 161–188. 10.1590/1809-43921987171174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  PhilpottS.LinB.JhaS.BrinesS. (2008). A multi-scale assessment of hurricane impacts on agricultural landscapes based on land use and topographic features. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.128, 12–20. 10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  PingaliP. (1992). Diversifying Asian Rice-Farming Systems: A deterministic Paradigm. Manila. Available online at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.898.1828&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=117 (accessed March 16, 2019).

  • Google Scholar

• 154

  PingaliP. (2007). Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: implications for research and policy. Food Policy32, 281–298. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  PingaliP. (2012). Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.109, 12302–12308. 10.1073/pnas.0912953109

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  PrietoI.ViolleC.BarreP.DurandJ. L.GhesquiereM.LitricoI. (2015). Complementary effects of species and genetic diversity on productivity and stability of sown grasslands. Nat. Plants1:15033. 10.1038/nplants.2015.33

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  PulwartyR. S.SivakumarM. V. K. (2014). Information systems in a changing climate: early warnings and drought risk management. Weather Clim. Extrem.3, 14–21. 10.1016/j.wace.2014.03.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  RaintreeJ. B.WarnerK. (1986). Agroforestry pathways for the intensification of shifting cultivation. Agrofor. Syst.4, 39–54. 10.1007/BF01834701

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  RatnadassA.FernandesP.AvelinoJ.HabibR. (2011). Plant species diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in agroecosystems: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.32, 273–303. 10.1007/s13593-011-0022-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  RichardsonD. M. (1998). Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv. Biol.12, 18–26. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96392.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  RizzaF.PaganiD.StancaA. M.CattivelliL. (2001). Use of chlorophyll fluorescence to evaluate the cold acclimation and freezing tolerance of winter and spring oats. Plant Breed.120, 389–396. 10.1046/j.1439-0523.2001.00635.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  RosenzweigC.IglesiusA.EpsteinP. R.ChivianE. (2001). Climate change and extreme weather events–implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Glob. Change Hum. Heal.2, 90–104. 10.1023/A:1015086831467

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  RowlandD.BlackieR.PowellB.HouriaD.BarbaraV.IckowitzA.et al. (2015). Direct contributions of dry forests to nutrition: a review. Int. For. Rev.17, 45–53. 10.1505/146554815815834804

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  SaenzM.ThompsonE. (2017). Gender and policy roles in farm household diversification in Zambia. World Dev.89, 152–169. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  SairamR. K.KumuthaD.EzhilmathiK.DeshmukhP. S.SrivastavaG. C. (2008). Physiology and biochemistry of waterlogging tolerance in plants. Biol. Plant52, 401–412. 10.1007/s10535-008-0084-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  Salazar-BarrientosL. de L.Magaña-MagañaM. Á.Aguilar-JiménezA. N.Ricalde-PérezM. F. (2016). Factores socioeconómicos asociados al aprovechamiento de la agrobiodiversidad de la milpa en Yucatán. Ecosistemas y Recur. Agropecu.3, 391–400.

  • Google Scholar

• 167

  SaxenaN. C. (1991). Crop losses and their economic implications due to growing of Eucalyptus on field bunds–a pilot study. Agrofor. Syst.16, 231–245. 10.1007/BF00119320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  SchattmanR.MendezE.WestdijkK.CaswellM.ConnerD.KolibaC. J.et al. (2015). “Vermont agricultural resilience in a changing environment: a transdisciplinary and participatory action reseach process,” in Archeology, Ecosystems, and Sustainability, ed N. Benkeblia (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis), 325–346. 10.1201/b17775-17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  SchluterU. B.FurchB.JolyC. A. (1993). Physiological and anatomical adaptations by young Astrocaryum Jauari Mart (Arecaceae) in periodically inundated biotopes of central Amazonia. Biotropica25, 384–396. 10.2307/2388862

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  SchreinemachersP.RaoK. P. C.EasdownW.HansonP.KumarS. (2017a). The contribution of international vegetable breeding to private seed companies in India. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol.64, 1037–1049. 10.1007/s10722-016-0423-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  SchreinemachersP.SequerosT.LukumayP. J. (2017b). International research on vegetable improvement in East and Southern Africa: adoption, impact, and returns. Agric. Econ.48, 707–717. 10.1111/agec.12368

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SchreinemachersP.SimmonsE. B.WopereisM. C. S. (2018). Tapping the economic and nutritional power of vegetables. Glob. Food Sec.16, 36–45. 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.09.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  SchrothG.RufF. (2014). Farmer strategies for tree crop diversification in the humid tropics. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.1, 139–154. 10.1007/s13593-013-0175-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  Schultze-KraftR.RaoI. M.PetersM.ClementsR. J.BaiC.LiuG.et al. (2018). Tropical forage legumes for environmental benefits: an overview. Trop. Grasslands-Forrajes Trop.6:1. 10.17138/TGFT(6)1-14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  SchutM.KlerkxL.RodenburgJ.KayekeJ.AstA.BastiaansL.et al. (2014). RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (part I). A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity. Agric. Syst.132, 1–11. 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  SenayG. B.VelpuriN. M.BohmsS.BuddeM. E.YoungC. J.RowlandJ.et al. (2015). “Drought monitoring and assessment: remote sensing and modeling approaches for the famine early warning systems network,” in Hydro-Meteorological Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, eds. J. F. Shroder, P. Paron, and G. Di Baldassarre (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 233–262. 10.1016/B978-0-12-394846-5.00009-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  ShawM. W.OsborneT. M. (2011). Geographic distribution of plant pathogens in response to climate change. Plant Pathol.60, 31–43. 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02407.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  ShiferawB. A.OkelloJ.ReddyR. V. (2009). Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain.11, 601–619. 10.1007/s10668-007-9132-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  SomarribaE. (1992). Revisiting the past: an essay on agroforestry definition. Agrofor. Syst.19, 233–240. 10.1007/BF00118781

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  SpielmanD. J.EkboirJ.DavisK.OchiengC. M. O. (2008). An innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Syst.98, 1–9. 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  SthapitB.LamersH.RaoR. (2013). Custodian Farmers of Agricultural Biodiversity: Selected Profiles from South and South East Asia. New Delhi: Bioversity International.

  • Google Scholar

• 182

  StoilovaT.van ZonneveldM.RoothaertR.SchreinemachersP. (2019). Connecting genebanks to farmers in East Africa through the distribution of vegetable seed kits. Plant Genet. Resour. Charact. Util. 17, 1–4. 10.1017/S1479262119000017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  SubbaraoG. V.JohansenC.SlinkardA. E.et al. (1995). Strategies for improving drought resistance in grain legumes. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.14:469–523. 10.1080/07352689509701933

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  TamangB.AndreuM. G.RockwoodD. L. (2010). Microclimate patterns on the leeside of single-row tree windbreaks during different weather conditions in Florida farms: implications for improved crop production. Agrofor. Syst.79, 111–122. 10.1007/s10457-010-9280-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  TesterM.LangridgeP. (2010). Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science327, 818–822. 10.1126/science.1183700

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  TeulingA. J.SeneviratneS. I.StöckliR.ReichsteinM.MoorsE.CiaisP.et al. (2010). Contrasting response of European forest and grassland energy exchange to heatwaves. Nat. Geosci.3, 722–727. 10.1038/ngeo950

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  ThomasD. S. G.TwymanC.OsbahrH.HewitsonB. C. (2007). Adaptation to climate change and variability: Farmer responses to intra-seasonal preciptation trends in South Africa. Clim. Change83, 301–322. 10.1007/s10584-006-9205-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  TompkinsE. L.AdgerW. N. (2004). Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change?Ecol. Soc.9, 1–14. 10.5751/ES-00667-090210

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  TotinE.SegnonA.SchutM.AffognonH.ZougmoreR.RosenstockT.et al. (2018). Institutional perspectives of climate-smart agriculture: a systematic literature review. Sustainability10:1990. 10.3390/su10061990

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  TroucheG.HocdéH.Aguirre AcuñaS.Martínez SánchezF.Gutiérrez PalaciosN. (2006). Dinámicas campesinas y fitomejoramiento participativo: el caso de los sorgos blancos en la región norte de Nicaragua. Agron. Mesoam.17:407. 10.15517/am.v17i3.5175

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  TuckerC. M.EakinH.CastellanosE. J. (2010). Perceptions of risk and adaptation: coffee producers, market shocks, and extreme weather in Central America and Mexico. Glob. Environ. Change20, 23–32. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  TurmelM.-S.SperattiA.BaudronF.VerhulstN.GovaertsB.et al. (2015). Crop residue management and soil health: a systems analysis. Agric. Syst.134, 6–16. 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  TurveyC. G. (2012). Whole farm income insurance. J. Risk Insur.79, 515–540. 10.1111/j.1539-6975.2011.01426.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  Umali-DeiningerD. (1997). Public and private agricultural extension: partners or rivals?World Bank Res. Obs.12, 203–224. 10.1093/wbro/12.2.203

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  UrwinK.JordanA. (2008). Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Glob. Environ. Change18, 180–191. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.08.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  van de FliertE.BraunA. R. (2002). Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture : from opportunities to impact. Agric. Hum. Values19, 25–38. 10.1023/A:1015081030682

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  van EttenJ.BezaE.CaldererL.van DuijvebdijkK.FaddaC.FantahunB.et al. (2016). First experiences with a novel farmer citizen science approach: crowdsourcing participatory variety selection through on-farm triadic comparisons of technologies (tricot). Exp. Agric. 55, 1–22. 10.1017/S0014479716000739

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  van EttenJ.de SousaK.AguilarA.AguirrezM. B.CotoA.Dell'AcquaM.et al. (2019). Crop variety management for climate adaptation supported by citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.116, 4194–4199. 10.1073/pnas.1813720116

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  VandermeerJ. (1992). The Ecology of Intercropping. New York, NY: Camebridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 200

  VermeulenS.ChallinorA. J.ThorntonP. K.EriyagamaN.KinyangiJ.LaderachP.et al. (2013). Addressing uncertainty in adaptation planning for agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.110, 8357–8362. 10.1073/pnas.1219441110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  VermeulenS. J.AggarwalP. K.AinslieA.AngeloneC.CampbellB. M. S.AndrewJ.et al. (2012). Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy15, 136–144. 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.09.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  VernooyR.SthapitB.OtienoG.ShresthaP.GuptaA. (2017). The roles of community seed banks in climate change adaption. Dev. Pract.27, 316–327. 10.1080/09614524.2017.1294653

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  VigourouxY.MariacC.de MitaS.PhamJ. L.GérardB.KapranI.et al. (2011). Selection for earlier flowering crop associated with climatic variations in the Sahel. PLoS ONE6:e19563. 10.1371/journal.pone.0019563

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  VohmanE.MonroA. K. (2011). Healthy kids, healthy forests: restoring mayanut agroecosystems for a healthy and prosperous future for neotropical communities. in Contribution of Ecosystem Restoration to the Objectives of the CBD and a Healthy Planet for All People, eds. J. Grekin and J. Mulongoy (Montreal, QC: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity), 104–106.

  • Google Scholar

• 205

  WahaK.van WijkM. T.FritzS.SeeL.ThorntonP. K.WichernJ.et al. (2018). Agricultural diversification as an important strategy for achieving food security in Africa. Glob. Change Biol.24, 3390–3400. 10.1111/gcb.14158

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  WahidA.GelaniS.AshrafM.FooladM. R. (2007). Heat tolerance in plants: an overview. Environ. Exp. Bot.61, 199–223. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.05.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  WaraichE.AhmadR.SaifullahU.AshrafM. Y.Ehsanullahet al. (2011). Role of mineral nutrition in alleviation of drought stress in plants. Aust. J. Crop Sci.5, 764–777.

  • Google Scholar

• 208

  WarburtonH.MartinA. (1999). Local people's knowledge in natural resources research. Socio-economic methodologies for natural resources research. Chatham.

  • Google Scholar

• 209

  WebbM.CharyA.de VriesT. T.DavisS.DykstraM. (2016). Exploring mechanisms of food insecurity in indigenous agricultural communities in Guatemala: a mixed methods study. BMC Nutr.2:55. 10.1186/s40795-016-0091-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  WernersS.ErdélyiÉ.SupitI. (2011). “Use of modern portfolio theory to evaluate diversification of agricultural land use as an adaptation to climate risks in the Tisza river basin,” in Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations, eds. J. D. Ford and L. Berrang-Ford (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 371–383. 10.1007/978-94-007-0567-8_27

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211

  WernersS.IncertiF. (2007). “Diversification of agricultural crops to adapt to climate change in the Guadiana River Basin,” in Proceedings from the International Conference on Climate Change, Hong Kong.

  • Google Scholar

• 212

  WillettW.RockströmJ.LokenB.SpringmannM.LangT.VermeulenS.et al. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet393, 447–492. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  WilliamsD. (2004). “The conservation and evolution of landraces of peanuts and peppers,” in Home Gardens and Agrobiodiversity, eds P. B. Eyzaguirre, and O. Linares (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution), 256–265.

  • Google Scholar

• 214

  WingetM.LambN. H.WheatleyK. K. (2017). Root capital measuring the effects of impact investing on impoverished rural communities. J. Case Stud.35:19.

  • Google Scholar

• 215

  WinterhalderB.LuF.TuckerB. (1999). Risk-senstive adaptive tactics: models and evidence from subsistence studies in biology and anthropology. J. Archaeol. Res.7, 301–348. 10.1007/BF02446047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  WittmanH.BleshJ. (2017). Food sovereignty and fome zero: connecting public food procurement programmes to sustainable rural development in Brazil. J. Agrar. Change17, 81–105. 10.1111/joac.12131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  YadavS. K. (2010). Cold stress tolerance mechanisms in plants. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.30, 515–527. 10.1051/agro/2009050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  YamadaM.HidakaT.FukamachiH. (1996). Heat tolerance in leaves of tropical fruit crops as measured by chlorophyll fluorescence. Sci. Hortic.67, 39–48. 10.1016/S0304-4238(96)00931-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  YangX.CushmanJ. C.BorlandA. M.EdwardsE. J.WullschlegerS. D.TuskanG. A.et al. (2015). A roadmap for research on crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) to enhance sustainable food and bioenergy production in a hotter, drier world. New Phytol.207, 491–504. 10.1111/nph.13393

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  YundaengC.SomtaP.AmkulK.KongjaimunA.KagaA.TomookaN.et al. (2019). Construction of genetic linkage map and genome dissection of domestication-related traits of moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia), a legume crop of arid areas. Mol. Genet. Genom.294, 621–635. 10.1007/s00438-019-01536-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  ZhangJ.KirkhamM. B. (1995). Water relations of water-stressed, split-root C4 (Sorghum bicolor; Poaceae) and C3 (Helianthus annuus; Asteraceae) plants. Am. J. Bot.82, 1220–1229. 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1995.tb12655.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar