Local and indigenous knowledge systems in the Peruvian Andes: turno cultivation in the Campesino communities of Huancachi and Quilcas

Introduction: The Local and Indigenous knowledge systems of campesino communities in Peru reflect the altitudinally diverse and extreme climates of the Andean mountains and support the ancestral system of ‘turno’ cultivation. Adapted over generations alongside local and Indigenous knowledge systems, turnos support biodiversity conservation, food security, climate resilience and cultural continuation. The ability of communities to respond to increasing external threats and maintain autonomous and resilient food systems will depend on their ongoing practice and engagement with the processes through which knowledge is produced, reproduced and adapted. As communities experience increasing climate and development pressures, turno systems of production are eroding, threatening the processes of production, transmission, and adaptation of local and Indigenous knowledge systems.

Methods: This study presents findings from research conducted from June 2023 to March 2024 with the campesino communities of Huancachi and Quilcas, recognized for their native potato biodiversity and continued use of turnos. Using the framework of autopoiesis informed by Relational Systems Thinking, we examined how relationships between culture, worldview, and land embedded in turno cultivation sustain local and Indigenous knowledge systems to understand how these relationships support food security and food sovereignty and identify the impact of environmental change and assimilation pressures on these systems. The study followed a Participatory Action Research approach and a mixed-methods design, including surveys and Focus Group Discussions, and was conducted collaboratively with the communities of Huancachi and Quilcas.

Results: Results highlight the growing influence and impact of external actors on Indigenous lands and resources but demonstrates how social and reciprocal relationships between community members support the production and reproduction of Indigenous knowledge to mediate responses to environmental change and buffer against assimilation pressures.

Discussion: Strengthening the relational foundations of these systems can enhance Indigenous autonomy and self-determination, offering resilience pathways amid external pressures on Indigenous lands and resources. To support ongoing production and reproduction of local and Indigenous knowledge systems, communities require both access and control over land, which will depend on the formation of equitable relationships between communities and external actors. While this study is limited to two Andean communities, results and approach may provide a framework to shape future research and action.

1 Introduction

In the Peruvian Andes, Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LIKS) underpin the traditional food systems of campesino communities, supporting ongoing safeguarding of over 4,000 varieties of native potatoes (Lüttringhaus et al., 2021). Campesino is a social and political designation and way of life defined by ancestral and reciprocal ties to land and territory, governed according to cultural systems, and organized around food production (Alberti and Mayer, 1974; Nuñez, 2001; Mayer, 1979). When controlled and managed by campesino communities according to LIKS, traditional Andean food systems have been shown to support food security, climate adaptation and resilience by enabling communities to leverage ancestral knowledge accumulated over generations based on interaction and relationships with land, to cultivate in marginal mountain environments characterized by steep topography, erosion, and extreme weather (Parraguez-Vergara, 2018; de Haan et al., 2010). At the same time, campesino communities experience the highest levels of poverty and food insecurity in the country (INEI, 2022a), often occupying territories which are highly prone to climate change effects (Zimmerer et al., 2018) and impacted by agricultural, extractive, industrial and urban development (Andreucci and Kallis, 2017); disrupting local and traditional food systems (Betzold and Flesken, 2014).

LIKS are not static, but dynamic and ever-changing, meaning it is not the knowledge itself that is traditional or Indigenous, but the ways that it is produced and reproduced (Battiste and Henderson, 2000). The ability of communities to respond to increasing external threats and maintain autonomous and resilient food systems will depend on their ongoing practice and engagement with the processes through which knowledge is produced, reproduced and adapted.

This paper presents findings from original research conducted from June 2023 to March 2024 with two campesino communities, Huancachi and Quilcas, recognized for their native potato biodiversity stewardship (Dawson et al., 2023), and continued use of ‘turno’ cultivation, an ancestral system shaped by LIKS using communal land management, crop and land rotation and sectoral fallowing (Mayer, 1979). This chapter examines turno systems in Huancachi and Quilcas to understand how internal and external processes facilitate or limit the production, change and reproduction of community knowledge systems, and interpret the impact of these processes on continued turno cultivation. To achieve this aim, first, we present findings from research investigating the practices, meanings, and approaches characterizing these local turno cultivation systems. Second, findings are analyzed to understand and identify how LIKS elements are embodied within food systems. Third, results will be interpreted through the framework of autopoiesis to understand internal and external processes of production and reproduction within LIKS, identifying recommendations for future research and policy. Research was conducted using the Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach understood as a methodology oriented toward change and the collective construction of knowledge; and systems thinking, a framework and methodology for understanding phenomena holistically and uncovering dynamic processes embedded in LIKS (Wright and Meadows, 2008). By conducting in-depth investigation, generating shared learning and opening new lines of understanding rather than validating pre-established hypotheses, this exploratory research not only contributes to the understanding of the specific cases, but opens possibilities for future research and action across similar contexts.

2 LIKS in the Peruvian Andes

In the Peruvian Andes, local and Indigenous food systems represent distinct ways of growing, preparing, storing, and sharing food, shaped by Andean geography, socio-cultural context, local worldviews and value systems (Sarapura, 2013; Huambachano, 2019). Food systems are central to campesino cultural identity, defining duties, social obligations and responsibilities of ‘comuneros’ and their families. ‘Comuneros’ are registered, fee-paying community members who participate in communal activities, collective communal work, and committee decisions (Deere, 1990). Comuneros represent the head of the household. They receive resources including usufruct land which is kept, cultivated and shared within families, but owned by the community (Mayer and Bolton, 1977, p. 495). While traditionally restricted to married men over 18 or widows, in many communities, membership is now also given to woman (Deere, 1990; García Bendezú, 2011).

Knowledge is socially and culturally shared, learned, and adapted through food systems practices and traditions which take place in the chakra, a small plot of land used in cultivation and ritual (Sarapura, 2013; Grillo, 1990), connecting individuals and families to ancestral and evolving patterns of living and worldviews shaped by local environments (Huambachano, 2019; Franco and Horton, 1979; Sarapura, 2013; Parraguez-Vergara, 2018). Andean symbols, cultural reproduction and worldviews are mediated by agriculture (Grillo, 1990) and shaped by experiential learning, perceiving and interacting with the environment through mutually supportive humans and non-human relationships that takes place through food systems practices (Gonzales, 2015). Frequently described as ‘agro-centric’, this ‘cosmovision’ describes a holistic way of knowing and being ‘bestowed by ancestors and endowed by nature’ to influence agricultural production practices (Huambachano, 2019).

In Andean cosmology, food systems incorporate rules and obligations for the respect, relationality and mutual conservation of land or ‘pacha mama’, loosely translating to mother earth (Mamani-Bernabé, 2015). Motivated by values of diversity, reciprocity and relationality between beings, Andean practices and rituals honor and define obligations toward the chakras, pacha mama, and the seeds that give life which are understood as living relations which sustain life and which must also be nurtured (Graddy, 2013; Ishizawa, 2004).

As interconnected concepts embedded within Andean local food systems, the literature illustrates how cultural practices, agro-centric worldviews and relationships with land support the production, reproduction and meaning of these LIKS. By leveraging the systems theory concept of autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1980), and Indigenous Relational Systems Thinking (Goodchild, 2021) this study will systemically investigate how these concepts interact within LIKS to continuously produce, reproduce and adapt knowledge without changing their fundamental identity and character, and identify factors which influence these processes.

2.1 Systems theory and autopoiesis

Systems theory defines systems as cohesive, unified units made of interrelated elements acting in relation to each other and their environment (Senge, 1990; Kirk, 1995; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009), producing functions which are greater than the sum of their parts (Wright and Meadows, 2008, p. 11). Emerging from General Systems Theory (GST; Bertalanffy von Bertalanffy, 1950) systems theory evolved as a holistic as opposed to linear framework for studying the emergent properties of living systems by focusing on interactions between elements, systems and their wider environment (Ali et al., 2022; Monat and Gannon, 2015; Wright and Meadows, 2008; Kirk, 1995). Systems theory came to represent a theoretical framework, interdisciplinary philosophical paradigm and high-level inter-disciplinary language for systems thinkers, underpinning diverse systems thinking approaches for identifying systems elements and how they interact, and understanding the function that this produces which characterizes the system (Wright and Meadows, 2008, p. 59; Monat and Gannon, 2015).

Autopoiesis was developed by Maturana and Varela (1971) to understand how living systems self-produce and reproduce, continuously generating their own components internally, defining their boundaries through the network of interactions between elements, organized according to internally defined processes (Varela et al., 1974; Maturana and Varela, 1980; Luisi, 2003; Dempster, 2000). Through structural coupling and co-evolution with their environments, autopoietic systems autonomously create and recreate the components, boundaries and processes that comprise them (Bianchini, 2023). Autopoietic systems are characterized by their ‘structure’: the ‘actual components and the actual relations’ that constitute a given entity (Mingers, 1995); and their ‘organization’: the ‘set of relations between [the systems] components that define it as a system of a particular class’ (Maturana and Varela, 1980, p. xx; Bianchini, 2023). Differentiated by level of abstraction, organization refers to the concept, associated rules and ‘constitutive mechanism’ which defines the system’s identity and does not change; while structure refers to the tangible, real-world example with specific qualities and configurations that determine environmental interactions, adaptability and resilience (Mingers, 1995). These characteristics determine whether a system is ‘operationally closed’, able to operate on their own internal dynamics, defining their own operations and responses to their environment (Varela et al., 1974). Operationally closed systems still receive inputs from the environment; but inputs are self-selected and processed through the internal network or relationships within the system. There is no inherent value in the external inputs, value is determined by the system according to its organization, which provide instructive interactions and dictate possible change and action within systems (Luisi, 2003). Organizational closure determines the impact and meaning of interactions between systems and their environments providing the reference point for the ‘self’ and defining the boundaries that separate the system from the environment (Luisi, 2003). Autopoietic systems are ‘units of interaction’ between the system and their environment. They cannot be understood independently from the domain they exist within and must continue to interact to survive (Maturana and Varela, 1980). The circular process of interacting, perceiving, understanding, and responding to their environment sustainably and effectively is described by autopoietic theorists as ‘cognition’ (Maturana and Varela, 1971, 1980).

2.2 Relational systems thinking

Developed to understand biological systems like cells or organisms with clear boundaries and elements, applications of autopoiesis to social systems (Luhmann, 1986; Zeleny, 1977) have been critiqued for misrepresenting the framework (Varela, 1992; Mingers, 1995). Because social systems do not have precise boundaries, to apply autopoiesis to LIKS, this framework must be adapted, considering Indigenous relational systems thinking (Goodchild, 2021). Ontologically based in Indigenous relational ontologies which consider humans and non-humans as fundamentally related (Cajete, 2020), relational systems thinking defines knowledge and reality through relational connections (Wilson, 2008). While systems thinking conceptually bridges ‘physical/cognitive complexity’ (Cabrera et al., 2023: 7), relational ontologies understand these as interrelated categories that are not intersecting but co-constituting (Ngara, 2017; Romm, 2024). In the context of LIKS, this perspective recognizes ‘culture’, ‘worldview’, and ‘land’ not as distinct, but co-constituted and inseparable. This perspective aligns with autopoiesis, viewing knowledge as situated in ‘place’ and land (Watts, 2013, p. 22), and shaped by its social, cultural, historical locations (Battiste, 2005; Lin et al., 2020; Deloria, 2023). Like autopoietic systems, LIKS are inseparable from their environments and have co-evolved and reproduced themselves successfully for millennia.

2.3 Conceptual framework

Drawing from both autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1980) based in systems theory (Wright and Meadows, 2008) and relational systems thinking (Goodchild, 2021), this framework examines how LIKS change in response to their environments while maintaining the fundamental qualities or organization that make them ‘Indigenous’. Autopoiesis will be applied to uncover relationships between the relational concepts of culture, worldview and land, and identify internal and external processes that characterize these knowledge systems. These concepts will be treated as co-constitutive, influencing and influenced by each other through dynamic interaction.

• Defined diversely, culture represents a shared, complex medium where society members survive, reproduce, and create material outcomes including identities, subjectivities, societies, peoples, nations and worlds (Oswell, 2009, p. 9). Culture represents the expressions (artifacts, stories, practices, technologies) of this shared medium, and the medium itself (conditions within which expressions emerge, are shared, re-emerge, change).

• Worldviews represent the map of reality (Magnani et al., 2021, p. 2) constituted by entrenched ‘mental lenses’ used by agents to comprehend the world (Olsen et al., 1992 cited in Hart, 2010, p. 2). Formed by individual and group experiences, worldviews shape beliefs, values and judgments, defining ontological perspectives (Goldberg et al., 2018; Nash et al., 2022; Mathez-Stiefel et al., 2007) and imbuing objects with contextual meaning by living in, adapting to, and altering one’s surrounding environment (Magnani et al., 2021).

• The use of ‘Land’ with a capital ‘L’ indicates both geographic space, landscape or geography, and the underlying conceptual principles and relational, experiential ontologies embodied in that space. Following Styres (2017) this chapter will henceforth use ‘Land’ with a capital ‘L’ when referring to this multi-dimensional concept. Simpson (2014) describes Land as dynamic networks of connection formed by the intersection of all aspects of life (landforms, elements, plants, animals, spirits, sounds, thoughts, feelings, ecologies) in one location or experience. Land is not only shaped by local people, knowledge systems, and land-based practices, but also colonial-capitalist structures of power (Daigle, 2016). Given that Land represents the intersection of all aspects of life, we propose that it cannot be separated from the macro-scale social, political, ecological, economic and historic dimensions, including state-level laws and policies, corporate governance and action, market dynamics and colonial legacies.

Using this adapted autopoietic framework (Figure 1), local dimensions of each of these concepts will be examined in Huancachi and Quilcas, identifying the relationships between each concept, and between external systems actors, recognizing that the concepts of culture, worldview, and Land are not separate analytical categories, but mutually re-enforcing. This framework supports the understanding of how specific and localized dimensions (structure) change while maintaining their fundamental characteristics and rules (organization); and how these systems relate to and interact with the environment.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

3 Context

Research was conducted in the Peruvian Highlands with the campesino communities of Quilcas and Huancachi. Both community partners maintain high rates of native potato biodiversity (Devaux et al., 2020) and practice turno cultivation. As autonomously governed organizations with legal rights and status, these campesino communities live and communally control demarcated and ancestral territory based reciprocal ties and communal management of common resources (Alberti and Mayer, 1974; Nuñez, 2001). Community tasks, labor and resources are organized, conducted and shared within and between families (Mayer and Bolton, 1977, p. 495). Families receive usufruct Land to live and cultivate on, as well as turno plots for cultivation, which get divided among children, male and female (Scurrah, 2001). Comuneros are allocated up to 17 turno plots (maximum 1 hectare) to cultivate per year (Nuijten and Rodriguez, 2009; Fernandez-Baca, 2006).

3.1 Turno systems

Turnos are an ancestral system of communal Land management and cultivation using sectoral fallowing, crop and Land rotation, once used widely throughout the Andes, but now significantly less common (Herve et al., 1994; Mayer, 1979). Communal Land in multiple altitudinally diverse productive zones is divided into ‘sectors’ and sub-divided into smaller plots assigned by community assembly to comunero families which manage multiple plots per sector, diversifying climatic risks to reduce risks of loss by diversifying soil types, slopes and altitude (Herve et al., 1994). Typically, one sector per year is cultivated with potatoes while remaining sectors are fallowed and used as communal pasture for grazing, integrating agriculture and livestock (Mayer, 1979; Herve et al., 1994). In both communities, fallow is broken with potatoes, followed by Andean tubers or broad beans, then unseeded fallow (4–5 years) in Huancachi, or maize and broad beans (3–5 years) in Quilcas (Alberto et al., 2022; Vanek et al., 2020). Turnos are typically rain-fed, not irrigated (Mayer, 1979) and associated with cultivation of local native potato and Andean tuber varieties, climate-adapted to mountain environments.

3.2 Identity and indigeneity in the Andes in Peru

Translating literally to ‘peasant’, the designation ‘comunidades campesinas’ was given to rural highland Indigenous and farming communities in Peru during the Agrarian Reform (1969–1979), replacing the racialized term ‘Indian’ and Indigenous in policy with this class-based distinction aimed at addressing stigma and inequality caused by histories of abuse and state injustice (Devine, 1999; Nuijten and Rodriguez, 2009). While largely unsuccessful at addressing inequalities, many Highland communities continue to reject the term ‘Indigenous’ identifying as ‘Campesino/a’ (masculine/feminine) in response to social-political barriers which continue to subjugate state-sanctioned ‘Indians’ (Hall and Du Gay, 1996; Devine, 1999; Gelles, 2010).

Ethnically, many campesinos/as still identify either as Quechua or Mestizo. Quechua is a diverse Indigenous ethnicity and linguistic group concentrated in the Andean highlands of Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador (Funegra, 2011) representing 83.1% of the Indigenous population of Peru (based on mother tongue; INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática), 2007; Planas et al., 2016). Comparatively, one-fifth of the population of Tómas (of which Huancachi is an annex; 19%) and one-third (30.5%) in Quilcas identify as Quechua. These demographics are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1. Demographic information: Huancachi and Quilcas [Source: INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática), 2007 and INEI, 2022a].

Mestizo conversely refers to someone with ‘mixed’ heritage (Stern, 1982) and represents roughly three-quarters (77%) of community members in Huancachi and nearly one-half (64.9%) of community members in Quilcas (INEI, 2022a). Emerging in the colonial period to devalue and erase Indigenous and black cultural heritage and identity, today Mestizo represents more than the ‘plain result of the biological or cultural ‘mixture’ of two [groups]’, but a socially constructed identity that goes beyond ‘racial/cultural mixture’ (la de Cadena, 2005, p. 262) to represent ancestry, socialization, perceived education, residence and cultural practice (de la Cadena, 2000). Representing a sense of belonging to multiple groups at once, people may be both mestizo and Indigenous, embodying rejection of singular ‘Indigenous’ or ‘non-Indigenous’ modes of self-identification (la de Cadena, 2005, p. 284).

3.3 Community context

3.3.1 Quilcas

Quilcas was officially recognized as an Indigenous Community in 1938 (Nuñez, 2001). Located on the ancestral Pre-Incan Quechua Huanca (or Wanka) territory in the Junin Department’s Mantaro Valley, 15 kms from the city of Huancayo, Quilcas covers 7,858 hectares of Land in the Mantaro Valley (Fernandez-Baca, 2006; INEI, 2022a). This productive inter-Andean valley zone [Instituto Geofísico Del Perú (IGP), 2005] spans three Pulgar Vidal (1996, 1941) ecological zones, demarcated by elevation: high ‘Puna’ (3800–4,800 meters above sea level [masl]); intermediate ‘Suni’ (3400–3,800 masl), and low ‘Quechua’ (3200–3,300 masl; Nuñez, 2001; Pradel et al., 2023). Climatic conditions change by altitude, creating variation in land-use, agricultural practices and crop production in this region (Holdridge, 1967; Mayer, 1979). Agriculture in Quilcas is mostly small-scale, subsistence-oriented (Visscher et al., 2023) with mixed agricultural and livestock systems, producing diverse crops according to zone of cultivation (Vanek et al., 2020).

Before the 1960s, nine turnos were cultivated in the Suni by more than 400 comuneros. However, since 1960, Quilcas has lost 2 of its turno sectors and over 55% of its territory, predominantly (51%) in the Puna, both through construction by the open shaft talcum mine in 2001 (300 ha), and predominantly through ‘Proyecto especial de titalación de tierras’ (1996), a law which subdivided previously shared pastureland (Scurrah, 2001). Since then, the population has grown from 2557 (1960) to 4,105 (INEI, 2022b). As a result of population pressure, 780 hectares of turno Lands were converted for residential development, driving conversion of Puna pastureland into turnos (Scurrah, 2001).

3.3.2 Huancachi

Huancachi is located 110 kms from Huancayo, 320 kms from Lima in the Nor-Yauyos Cochas Landscape Reserve (NYCLR), one of two officially protected ‘direct-use protected area’ in Peru established (2001) by the National Protected Areas Department (NPAD) to protect the territory’s ecological and cultural heritage (Pizarro et al., 2022). Huancachi was designated as a ‘comunidades indigena’ in 1927 (Ivey, 1985) and covers 5,000 hectares of Land between 2,760 masl to 3,960 masl across 2 Pulgar Vidal ecological zones, consisting of steep, rugged terrain, and terraced unirrigated fields. Huancachi manages 6 turnos, concentrated around the residential zone, with plots clustered in 6 altitudinal levels, as observed by Alberto et al. (2022) and outlined in Table 2. One sector (Yanahora) was converted into forestland for tourism in 2022. Families assigned plots are maintained consistently, not changed regularly. The number of turno sectors depends on available Land and labor.

Table 2

Table 2. Altitudinal range and number of parcels in Huancachi [Source: Alberto et al., 2022].

The population is 137 (INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática), 2017), with a comunero population of 48. The Yauricocha mine is a key employer, but concerns have been raised about the mine’s Land and water degradation, including the death of thousands of trout (Vargas, 2018). No schools or markets exist in Huancachi, and outmigration to Lima and Huancayo for work and education have caused significant population decline and abandonment of previously cultivated Land as there are too few comuneros to manage it.

4 Methods

This study followed a convergent triangulation mixed-methods design (Creswell, 2003) to triangulate methods and data (Campbell et al., 2020) weighting both qualitative and quantitative data equally but comparing and contrasting findings to find patterns or inconsistencies (Sauro, 2015). Quantitative survey data reveals trends and baseline socio-demographic information, and qualitative data from focus group discussions (FGD) informs understanding of social dynamics, perceptions and meanings (Ivankova and Creswell, 2009). Data was collected concurrently, analyzed separately, and triangulated by comparing and contrasting data, identifying themes and patterns using Thematic Analysis (TA), to ensure comprehensive, balanced results and provide descriptive detail to generalized survey findings (Clarke and Braun, 2017).

4.1 Participatory action research

Research was fully participatory, involving collaboration with project partners and community leaders at every stage. Applying PAR to emphasize experiential knowledge (Cornish, 2023), community collaboration (Lenette, 2022), flatten research hierarchies, and highlight dimensions of power, this iterative approach prioritizes relationship building and trust between research collaborators to amplify community experiences and expertise, and address barriers to participation. Research questions and concepts were co-designed through collaborative discussion shaped by community interests identified in preliminary visits and engagement (Flinders et al., 2016). Research activities were developed with partners, then revised and validated with the community presidents in Huancachi and Quilcas, and community members in Quilcas.

This action-oriented research focuses on addressing key concerns and challenges identified by communities by highlighting subjective experiences, local perceptions and worldviews using visual, group activities to promote inclusion and accessibility regardless of age, education, and literacy (De Oliveira, 2023). Action research is iterative, involving learning, reflection and revision. This study followed a sequential process of data collection, reflection and revision. First, surveys and FGD activities were collected, followed by reflection with Yanapai, and then questions and prompts for final visioning exercises were refined (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Timeline and description of activities.

4.2 Data collection

This study is compliant with the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) and approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board (23–06-002). Research protocols were established and signed by Huancachi and Quilcas before conducting research. Data was collected over 3 months and supported by Grupo Yanapai, a community-focused local NGO with long-standing relationships in both communities and throughout the region; and NPAD which works closely with communities located in the NYCLR. Study participants represent campesino/as or their family members who cultivate native potatoes in each community.

Consent was collected and recorded orally from each participant, and only community members over the age of 18 were included in the study.

4.2.1 Quantitative methods

Quantitative data was collected through a survey representing 58 participants across both communities, including 34 campesino/as in Quilcas and 24 campesinos/as in Huancachi. Of these, women represented 71% (n = 24) in Quilcas and 54% (n = 13) in Huancachi. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 77 years across both communities. In Huancachi (n = 24), 25% of respondents were between 18 and 35 years, 38% were between 36 and 55 years, and 38% were 66 years or older. In Quilcas (n = 34), 9% were aged 18–35, 73% were between 36 and 65, and 18% were 66 or older. Overall, most participants were middle aged or older, reflecting the age structure of active agricultural producers in both communities. Non-response was minimal across survey questions. Six questions relating to planting practices and crop types had between one and three missing responses per community representing <5% of total responses. Percentages reported in the results are calculated from valid responses for each question (Table 4).

Table 4

Table 4. Survey respondent sample.

Study participants self-selected based on their interest in the research topic and participation in native potato production. Long-term collaborative relationships between Grupo Yanapai with community members facilitated outreach and socialization of activities. The survey was constructed collaboratively with Grupo Yanapai, reviewed, revised and validated by three community members, advising on the relevance and clarity of questions.

The structured survey included 19 questions covering household demographics, cultivation and altitudinal variation, food security, and native potato production. The questionnaire was developed in English and translated into locally appropriate Spanish with the help of research assistants from Grupo Yanapai. Surveys were administered orally in Spanish by the researcher and trained enumerators from Grupo Yanapai, typically in respondents’ homes, or the central plaza and market, and lasted roughly 15 min. Quechua language support was available if needed. The full questionnaire (Spanish and Quechua versions) and translation notes are provided in the Supplementary file 1. Surveys were cleaned by identifying contradictory answers and incomplete surveys and removing these responses where applicable. Results were translated back into English by the researcher and validated by Grupo Yanapai.

Survey results were analyzed descriptively using frequency counts and percentages. Percentages were calculated based on valid responses for each question, excluding missing or contradictory answers. For each variable, the proportion of responses in category i was calculated using the formula below, where n_i represents the number of respondents selecting category i, and N_v is the number of valid (non-missing) responses for that question. A worked example is provided as a Appendix 1.

$\mathit{Pi}=\frac{\mathit{ni}}{\mathit{Nv}}\times 100$

The sample sizes varied by community due to different population sizes: 110 comuneros are registered in Quilcas; 48 in Huancachi. Limitations of small sample size were mitigated by triangulating survey results with qualitative data to provide detail and description, contextualizing findings.

4.2.2 Qualitative methods

FGD tools were adapted from PAR approaches designed with indigenous communities in the Andes, and co-designed and conducted in Spanish with Yanapai (Salas and Tillmann, 2022). In small, randomly selected sub-groups, 16 community members in Quilcas and 28 in Huancachi participated in FGD tools 1–4 (Table 5). For the visioning exercise, 17 participants in Quilcas and 21 participants in Huancachi engaged. These groups were based on age: past (Elders, 55+), present (middle-age, 25–55), future (youth, under 25). These tools help to understand and contextualize the conceptual framework concepts of culture, worldview and Land, and to connect these components to turno cultivation by outlining the social, physical and ecological boundaries of these system, revealing flows of power and relationships between systems actors, and identifying aspects of local worldviews. Transcripts from FGDs were translated into English with the support of co-authors and validated by Grupo Yanapai.

• Community Mapping. Participants visually illustrated and mapped their territory, identifying key places and resources for turno production to understand the social, physical and ecological boundaries of the system (Salas and Tillmann, 2022).

• Seasonal Calendar. Using cue cards, participants discuss and describe their social and agricultural activities each month, including biological indicators, festivals, and significance to produce a seasonal calendar revealing a web of connections connecting culture to agriculture (Woodward and Marrfurra McTaggart, 2019).

• Decision-Matrix. Participants discuss and describe the benefits, beneficiaries and actors involved in turno-related activities to identify the priorities, power and influence shaping action within the system (Evans et al., 2006).

• Actor Mapping. Participants identify which people, groups, and organizations are involved in native potato production and whether they are positive (+), negative (−) or neutral, illustrating the social boundaries of the system by producing an actor map (Salas and Tillmann, 2022).

• Visioning Exercise. Participants discuss and identify native potato production and turno use: in the past (~30 years); today; in the future (~20 years) to understand how food systems have changed, and what change they want to (see Chubb, 2025; Sanginga and Chitsike, 2005), illustrating participants’ worldviews, value systems and visions of success for the future.

Table 5

Table 5. Description of focus group discussion activities.

Grupo Yanapai disseminated information regarding the activities and study participants self-selected based on their interest in the research and as self-identified native potato producers and campesino/as. To mitigate the potential biases and promote full participation, facilitators had contextual community knowledge to encourage conversation while ensuring responses were reflective of community experiences. Because participants self-selected based on turno participation and native potato production, all participants had meaningful experiences related to the study.

4.3 Qualitative data analysis

4.3.1 Data coding

Qualitative data was analyzed using the conceptual framework (Figure 1) based in systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968; Wright and Meadows, 2008) and autopoiesis (Maturana and Varela, 1975, 1980), using Thematic Analysis (TA) as a tool to examine meanings behind written or oral talk or text, visual materials, body language, and unspoken communication (Clarke and Braun, 2017; Terry et al., 2017). Analyzed texts include FGD transcripts, visuals, field notes and photos. Audio files were transcribed using transcription software Sonix and translated manually. Texts were reviewed for frequently used keywords or phrases to identify major codes, then re-reviewed to identify codes based on contextual significance. Using descriptive analysis, codes were refined and organized to establish thematic groupings by identifying patterns and connections (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Codes and thematic groupings were categorized under conceptual framework categories, culture, worldview and Land, creating three levels of codes: factors (specific), sub-elements (general), elements (overarching concepts) as visualized in Figure 2. The full coding tree, along with operational definitions and illustrative quotes, is provided in Supplementary file 2 (Codebook). The coding structure was refined collaboratively with research partners to ensure cultural relevance and shared interpretation.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Framework for organization of codes, thematic grouping and concepts.

4.3.2 Interpreting results

Data was interpreted using the framework of autopoiesis to identify relationships of influence and dependence between LIKS factors. These factors and their relationships mutually influence each other to form the system structure and reveal the system organization and identity. ‘Influence’ is defined as the power or capacity to affect another factors’ character, development or behavior (Merriam-Webster, 2025) and is represented by independent variables which are perceived to have an influence on dependent variables (Leatham, 2012). ‘Dependent’ variables exhibit behavior that results from or is determined by, another factor, and which change based on the influence of independent variables (Leatham, 2012). ‘Influence’ and ‘dependence’ are reframed through the conceptual framework of autopoiesis to understand structurally dependent (not linear) cause-and-effect relationships between factors. Cause-and-effect interactions are determined by the system’s structure, composed of its network of connected components.

Using TA, the direction of influence was determined by analyzing the text to identify explicitly described outcomes and outcomes implicitly emerging through the text. As per the study aim, the direction of influence was based on the factors influence in relation to knowledge systems and the ‘contextual dependence’ between factors that emerged as a result of the structure. ‘Contextual dependence’ describes when relationships between two variables (A & B) are dependent on a third variable (C) which is related to the context (Bach, 2012). B depends on A, only if/when C. Although autopoiesis is concerned with the autonomy of systems, it understands self-reproduction in the context of interrelatedness between systems and their environment. By identifying this network of cause-and-effect relationships, this analysis identifies how dependent variables are manifestations of the system’s internal reactions to external perturbations.

4.3.3 Mapping the relationships

Relationships were visually mapped by creating a matrix with all factors listed on the X and Y axes, as illustrated in Table 6. When listed on the X axis, factors are dependent. When listed on the Y axis, factors are independent. When a factor along the Y axis intersected a dependent factor along the X axis, the intersecting cell in the matrix was given a value of ‘1’. The influence of each factor on the Y axis was quantified by calculating the sum of the cells in the row corresponding to that factor. The dependence of each factor (X axis) was quantified by calculating the sum of cells in the column corresponding to that factor. As a result, each factor has a dependent and an independent value (Figure 3).

Table 6

Table 6. Sample of factor matrix—Quilcas.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Method of identifying influence and dependence.

4.4 Quantitative data analysis

Survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify significant patterns. Percentages and averages were calculated to summarize the data, using charts and graphics to visual findings. The survey included 4 open-ended questions which were analyzed to identify themes, text and stories that align with qualitative data, helping to connect with and validate qualitative insights from participants.

Giving priority to qualitative findings, data was triangulated by integrating quantitative data within qualitative findings. This was conducted by analyzing quantitative data based on the themes emerging from qualitative data, to provide in-depth and nuanced understanding of the context and concepts. Both sets of data were compared for consistency and to identify patterns, enriching and validating qualitative findings.

5 Results

Responding to objective 1, this section presents findings and results, investigating local turno cultivation systems in each community, examining and describing the practices, meanings, and approaches characterizing these production systems.

5.1 Production practices and varietal selection by production zone

All survey respondents in both communities produce food for subsistence, consuming 54% of their home harvest on average in Quilcas, and 71% in Huancachi. This represents 71% of household food consumption on average in Quilcas and 65% on average in Huancachi. In Quilcas, respondents were asked which crops they cultivate in the high, medium and low zone. Across these three production zones, native potatoes represent the largest proportion, 15.2% of what they cultivate, followed by maiz (14.9%; Figure 4). In Huancachi, native potatoes represented 17.3% of cultivated crops across all three zones, followed by olluco (16.8%; Figure 5). Figures 4, 5 illustrate the diversity of crops produced for home consumption and distribution across ecological zones. In Quilcas, native potatoes are predominant in the high zone but relatively absent in the low zone, while improved potatoes are common in the medium zone. In Huancachi, native potatoes are significant across all three zones but most common in the high zone. Other Andean tubers (oca, olluco, mashua) are also widely cultivated in the high and low zone while improved potatoes are not as common as native potatoes or other Andean tubers.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Quilcas—crop production by zone.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Huancachi—crop production by zone.

Survey results indicate that production practices and varietal selection of native potatoes correlate to the zone of production where they are cultivated. In Huancachi, native potatoes are only cultivated on communal Land, most often in the high zones (67%), compared to intermediate (38%) and low zones (38%). In Quilcas native potatoes are also grown in household plots but are most commonly cultivated on communal Land in the high-zone (76%) compared to the intermediate (44%) and low (12%) zone. Respondents cultivate 39 native potato varieties on average in Quilcas and 53 varieties in Huancachi. These counts represent the mean number of farmer-recognized varieties cultivated per community. FGD data suggests that because potatoes are planted, stored and eaten in a ‘chaqru’, referring to a mixture of seeds planted together (Ingaruca et al., 2023, p. 14), these numbers may not be exact as, while they reflect the farmer-identified varieties maintained by each family, farmers typically identify varieties by name, color, and taste rather than physically separating and counting each tuber in their storage and fields. In Quilcas, more respondents cultivate improved potatoes in the medium (59%) and low zones (24%) compared to native potatoes. In Huancachi, improved potatoes were planted by fewer respondents in each zone, high (47%), medium (15%), low (46%).

In Quilcas, due to altitudinal differentiation between high and low zones, two distinct production seasons exist, the “campaña chica” (CC) or ‘small season’, and “campaña grande” (CG) or ‘large season’. The first cropping cycle (CC) is shorter and takes place outside of the rainy season (August–January) on irrigated fields growing varieties with shorter growing cycles. The second cycle (CG) is larger and longer, planted in intermediate and high non-irrigated zones in alignment with the rainy, warmer season. In Huancachi there is only one production season, aligning with the CG.

5.2 Influences on production decision-making

Participants indicated that specific planting dates for turno sectors are decided by community assembly according to climatic conditions and ancestral customs. In September, leaders in the communal assembly select the next turno sector based on local predictions, assign family plots, and identify planting and harvesting dates for communal Land. ‘They make that decision, and we have to comply on that date. No one can do what they want individually or as a family’ (Middle aged male, Huancachi).

Traditionally, biological indicators dictated decision making. Following lunar phases to ensure a successful harvest, no cultivation took place during a new or waning moon (‘luna wañu’). ‘Our grandparents knew that if we plant in wañu, there would be no tubers… our potatoes would be all roots’ (Male elder, Quilcas). Following the ‘7 Cabrillos’ constellation (June), campesinos/as predicted harvest quality by the sequence and brightness of stars. Plants and animals also indicate harvest success, including the howling of foxes in October, the presence of Lachoq (an aquatic plant) in January, and large mushrooms (without worms). In both communities, participants commented that this knowledge is being lost as few people learn this knowledge intergenerationally anymore, because of climate change. Stating ‘one minute there will be frost, the next hail, the next rain’ (Male elder, Quilcas), participants expressed that extreme climates were impacting the accuracy of these indicators, limiting their ability to plan, and making planting dates increasingly unpredictable.

Depending on climatic conditions, harvesting occurs between May and June. In July, tubers are sorted by size and quality, with roughly 20% saved for seed (based on survey results—both communities), the largest saved for home consumption, and medium-sized tubers saved to be sold or exchanged in August (depending on surplus). Many commented that women know more about seeds and how to select potatoes compared to men and typically hold this role.

5.3 Community roles and relationships

Community members hold various roles and responsibilities in relation to turno cultivation, shaped by social structures and relationships within and between families. Within families, differentiated roles traditionally based on age and gender support the division of labor including the use of different tools for men and women. Men traditionally use chaquitaclla for digging furrows during volteo while women turn the soil. Called barbecho in Huancachi, this non-invasive tillage method is practiced in February to prepare fallowed Land for cultivation. Because it is highly labor intensive, family members often travel back from cities to take part, and families support each other through this phase, relying on communal work exchange (or ‘Mink’a’) between producer groups and families called ‘huajito’ (Quilcas) or ‘huyai’ (Huancachi). ‘[In the past] there was a custom for all of the landowners to bring food for the people who were working for them…Women would make a big pot of stew and carry it to where men were working to feed the ‘huajitos’ (Elder, woman—Quilcas). Women were responsible for cooking and feeding the workers, preparing patasca, machaco and pushpo for their helpers. As family structures change, social norms and gendered division of labor are changing, impacting family management of household tasks. Participants noted fewer gendered divisions in agricultural roles today, with more women involved in decision-making. ‘There are no limitations. Everyone is allowed to do everything, and women and men share the workload… still, women do more cooking, tending to the house’ (Man, Huancachi).

Comuneros and ‘criadores’ or ‘animal rearers’ also engage in huajito and huyai, exchanging guano (manure) and transportation from llamas for family labor. ‘We supported the owners of the cargueros with work, mostly in the harvest. We also helped to transport the guano. You have to help, to work with the people who have animals and guano’ (Elder, man—Quilcas). During the harvest, comuneros offered ‘fleteo’, a form of payment, to criadores to use their animals to transport potatoes from fields, and shared pachamanca (a local traditional meal) with the fleteros who lent their animals. ‘They carry today, someone else carries tomorrow… Now that is changing’ (Elder, man—Quilcas). In Quilcas, participants in the first FGD (n ≈ 16) acknowledged a long-standing relationship with Agregados Calcáreos but self-reported that mining road construction has influenced animal rearing practices. ‘Because of increased use of cars and opening of roads, very few raise llamas, to transport their harvest in the high zones’ (Man, Quilcas). Questioning, ‘Will the ranchers who raise camelids be replaced?’ participants connected this to other agricultural practices. ‘If the ranchers who raise camelids are replaced with motorcycles or trucks then the fertilizers that we use which conserves our Land will disappear. Then what will we do? Go to commercial stores and buy Urea [commercial fertilizer] and completely destroy our soils? (Man, Quilcas). Although animal rearing was not addressed directly in the survey, the cultivation of improved potatoes—which are typically produced in the Campaña Chica with irrigation and inputs—by 80% of respondents in the zona media is a possible indicator of the growing trend toward chemical use. These observations support the pathway expressed by participants linking road closures, camelid decline, guano substitution and increased fertilizer use.

When communities were less road accessible, ‘trueque’ (bartering) with lower regions supported exchange of guano, meat and potatoes for fruit, other vegetables, materials and seeds. Nowadays, this is uncommon. “In the past it was all bartering, but now there is not very much. Now, if I need something I just buy from you” (Elder, man—Quilcas). Less than half (44%) of respondents in Quilcas practice trueque, compared to one-third (29%) in Huancachi.

5.4 Livestock and animal rearing

Llamas support native potato production in multiple ways, providing guano, transportation, wool and meat. ‘We live together with the llama; we feed on its meat and use its hair’ (Elder, man—Quilcas). In Quilcas in the past, ‘there was a power associated with having llamas because you had access to guano’ (Elder, man—Quilcas). This relationship is reflected in local festivities like Santiago which blends Catholic and Andean spiritual traditions honoring Saint James the apostle and cargueros (alpacas, sheep, cows) by decorating them with ribbons.

Livestock also enables use of Andenes: terraced agricultural fields constructed by the Incas on mountain slopes to support cultivation at high elevation. Given the geographical topography of both communities, ‘it is not going to be possible to use machinery in these parts’ (Elder, man—Huancachi), instead relying on llamas and ancestral tools like the yunta and chaquitaclla to support production where industrial machinery is not suited. Chaquitacllas are regionally specific and adapted to specific local soil and slope conditions. Commenting that these are best suited for local cultivation, ‘we need to preserve these tools because they come from our ancestors’ (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Diverse Chaquitacllas from different regions at Aguapan gathering, 2024.

5.5 Migration and development

Communal work is also critical. ‘We used Huajito back then—which meant there were enough people to do the jobs—like volteo. We had enough manpower back then. Young people do not do this anymore though’ (Elder, man—Huancachi). In Huancachi, out-migration to find work or education has impacted community capacity to plant and cultivate. ‘Now we will be planting almost 1/3 of what was planted in ancient times’ (Elder, man—Huancachi) In Quilcas too, ‘many are choosing to go to the city and are giving up these animals’ (Youth, boy—Quilcas). Because they do not work in the chakra, younger generations lack ancestral knowledge and Quechua fluency. ‘Because we as parents and community members are not taking them to the farm to teach them, the youth of today do not know how the Land is being worked’ (Woman, Huancachi). As a result in Huancachi, Santiago is no longer celebrated because there are too few animals, and in both communities, guano is harder to access.

In Quilcas, while comunero and criadores populations are declining, the lowland population is increasing, threatening cultivation areas. Participants in Quilcas identified increasing ‘privatization of the lowlands’ as titles are granted to non-community members moving into the territory. Others noted ‘Quilcas is filling with cement’ as housing and development expands. ‘Are we going to plant corn on our roofs?’ (Elder, man—Quilcas). Citing community corruption, a middle aged male participant stated, ‘the municipality is not doing anything to protect Quilcas. They are giving our Land to mining companies and building houses. This will also happen in the upper part next year. Even the smart people will have their Land taken’ (Man, Quilcas).

Mining corporations are present in both communities providing employment and supporting local economies, while also negatively impacting Land and water including the Rio Cañete in Huancachi and Rio Viscas in Quilcas. Participants in Huancachi expressed their one-sided relationship with the Crown Mine ‘they only see their goals fulfilled’, while continuing to pollute the Land.

5.6 Soil degradation and input use

In the past, potatoes were planted in uncultivated Land: ‘tierra virgen’ or ‘purun’ (Quechua); without fertilizers or manure. Today, degraded Lands require organic or chemical fertilizers. ‘In the past the Land was fertile, no amendments were needed. Now they need fertilizer everywhere… otherwise there will not be any production’ (Elder, man—Huancachi). ‘[30 years ago] the soils were well rested… now there is pollution, soils are contaminated, and potatoes are no longer planted far apart’ (Elder, woman—Quilcas). ‘Because of the pollution of the environment, we require lots of inputs to be able to produce’ (Woman, Quilcas), with many turning to chemical inputs. Others expressed that agrochemical will decrease the niche-market value of native potatoes, stating, ‘organic fertilizer is our only defense’ (Man, Huancachi). However, ‘because we are getting desperate and we are not informed, it is easier for us to use agrochemicals’ (Elder, man—Huancachi). In Quilcas, while community regulations ban fertilizer use on communal Land, some commented that they are being used by ‘outsiders’. In Huancachi, there is no legislation banning chemical use, but it is frowned upon– and organic fertilizers are the social norm.

5.7 Conflicting values and the commercialization of native potatoes

5.7.1 Market value

In both communities, traditional native potato production costs more, but low market-prices for potatoes disincentives production. ‘We can produce all we want but if we do not have anyone to buy at a good price, then why would we? We spend money on the preparation of the Land, fertilizer, transfer of fertilizer, sowing, hilling, harvesting… so it costs more to produce potatoes than we are offered for them’ (Woman, Huancachi). ‘It is cheaper for me to buy potatoes from my neighbors in the highlands than to produce them myself’ (Woman, Quilcas). ‘How are you going to maintain your varieties if there is no reason to keep producing? Now, we plant almost ⅓ of what was planted in ancient times’ (Male, Huancachi).

Both communities prioritize auto-consumption over selling potatoes because ‘what we have here is not appreciated… our native potatoes are undervalued and we cannot sell for a fair price’ (Woman, Quilcas). ‘Potatoes planted in the Zona Andina are very special. Producing them is not easy’ (Woman, Quilcas). Less than half of participants sell native potatoes in Quilcas (47%) and Huancachi (33%), representing one-quarter (24%) of harvested potatoes in Quilcas as one-fifth (18%) in Huancachi. Producers in Quilcas sell their surplus at local and regional markets, while in Huancachi, no local market exists. Producers travel to Lima or Huancayo to sell their potatoes, where market prices are often too low to recoup expenses, and do not match actual production costs. ‘Our products aren’t valued. There is no trade and no value to our potatoes’ (Woman, Huancachi). The price for some inputs compared with the market price reported by FGD participants is outlined in Table 7. Some support in both communities is provided by organizations like Yanapai and IPC which provide technical support, varietal access and market access, and by Aguapan, a community-led, national association of small-scale potato producers, or ‘native potato guardians’, (Marcelo, President of Aguapan). Aguapan offers representation and advocacy for producers’ rights, benefit sharing, and improved market value and access for native potato producers in Huancavelica, Junin, Lima, Pasco and Huánuco.

Table 7

Table 7. Native potato market costs and values.

5.7.2 Vision of the future

Considering their current challenges, participants were asked to envision the future of native potato production and turno systems. Older participants identified the need for knowledge sharing and youth participation in these systems. ‘If we as parents do not intervene, in 15–20 years there will not be anyone who plants native potatoes. They will be lost because we ourselves are diminishing’ (Woman, Huancachi). ‘We have to spread [our] knowledge through educational institutions–that way it will not be lost.’ (Elder, man—Quilcas). In Quilcas, youth warned, ‘native potatoes will only be around for 15 or 20 more years, because of the changing climates. What is required are reinforcements–other chemicals so that the potatoes can continue to be produced’. In Huancachi, youth commented that ‘in the future, I want to see fertile Lands’. ‘Ancestral knowledge should be valued and respected… This is very important for our conservation. We need to return and rescue some things from the older people, and continue our traditions’ (Youth, boy—Huancachi).

6 Discussion of results

In Huancachi and Quilcas, ancestral practices play a shifting but important role, for community members, turnos, and other production and social systems. These relationships are key to understanding how internal and external processes facilitate or limit the production, change and reproduction of knowledge systems, and what impact this has on the ongoing use of turno systems. Analyzing results through the conceptual framework (Figure 1), this section will respond to the research objectives by investigating internal and external relationships between localized dimensions of culture, worldviews and Land to identify the structure of LIKS in Huancachi and Quilcas, and to understand how characteristics of autopoietic systems—representing the system organization—are exhibited in these systems to impact turno cultivation and knowledge production and reproduction.

6.1 Boundaries

Autopoietic systems are physically open to matter and energy, but autonomous from their environments. By creating their own boundaries of ‘self’ based on their organization, they select which forms of matter they use or interact with meaningfully (Maturana and Varela, 1971, 1980). The structure of LIKS in Huancachi and Quilcas are distinct from other local Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge systems because of the people, practices and places that shape knowledge, which are organized and reproduced within families and the community. Community identities are constructed, practiced and strengthened through cultural practices which characterize communities and define who is involved in LIKS creation and transmission. Within families and communities, different roles, responsibilities and identities emerge with socially defined rules, expectations and obligations informing turno cultivation and facilitating knowledge transfer between people. These roles and responsibilities are socially defined based on social norms like gender. In families, men and women traditionally use different tools and have different tasks in relation to cultivation–for example, women are often responsible for preparing food, sowing and sorting the seeds and holding knowledge of seed selection. Men dig the furrows and break the ground and do heavier labor. Additionally, as Mayer and Bolton (1977) explain, group membership and status as a comunero, which comes with certain communal responsibilities and duties, is limited to heads of household, which are typically men.

Rules, roles and obligations shape group membership and distinguish what it means to be from ‘Quilcas’ and ‘Huancachi’ as compared to other communities. These are relational, not static; as relationships change, roles and boundaries change as well. Relationships between family members shape the knowledge that they hold, share and receive, but as traditional family structures change because of migration, gendered roles have also changed, becoming normal for women to take on more tasks. Somers (1994), p. 607) emphasizes this, arguing for a relational and historical approach to identity study that avoids categorical rigidities and emphasizes ‘the embeddedness of identity in overlapping networks of relations that shift over time and space’. Wilson (2008) describes this in the context of Indigenous ontology explaining that identity is continuously formed through relationships, with people, Land, ancestors and non-humans, stating that ‘you are not you without the relationships that define you’ (2008: 80).

Relationships defining social identities related to turno cultivation include relationships between criadores and comuneros; between families; and within families. These define obligations and exchanges between these groups that facilitate turno cultivation and transmission and production of knowledge. In literature on Andean production systems, Fonseca and Mayer (1988) explain that production occurs through a dynamic set of social relationships within the community and within families (Postigo et al., 2008). On a community level, relationships between comuneros and criadores support cultural systems of communal work; huyai and huajito sustain native potato production and define reciprocal obligations between families and individuals, but these rules and roles are changing as populations decrease and fewer people fill these roles. Familial social norms governing gendered division of labor are also less rigid, partially because there are fewer men and women to fill certain roles. Participants in both communities identified that due to population decline and migration, fewer people are proficient in Quechua and festivals like Santiago no longer take place. These cultural practices which define and redefine individual and community membership and sense of self are shifting, and with them, mechanisms for transmitting and reproducing local and Indigenous Knowledge (Table 8).

Table 8

Table 8. Boundaries—evidence-inference.

6.2 Values

Autopoietic systems are ‘organizationally closed’ meaning that matter and inputs crossing system boundaries have no inherent value until they are given value according to the organization of the system. In Huancachi and Quilcas, local Worldviews define the meaning and value of inputs and practices required for turno cultivation, shaping the trade-offs that individuals, families and communities prioritize when making management decisions.

While cultivating native potatoes in turnos is labor intensive and often not profitable, participants highlighted the importance of conserving soils, native potatoes, ancestral practices and Land over other priorities. Turnos require healthy soils maintained by resting Land and using natural fertilizer, communal labor, communal Land, and locally adapted tools and seed diversity to function. While some goods are accessed monetarily, results suggest that exchanges are not purely transactional; they are embedded in reciprocal relationships and obligations between community members. These informal systems of exchange based in local worldviews are critical to sustainable production.

Values of relationality and reciprocity underpin these social obligations and define the social value of practices and inputs. Distinct from monetary value, practices and inputs are meaningful for their production system role, and for their relationship to other dimensions of production. Despite associated challenges, many campesinos/as make trade-offs that prioritize sustainable native potato production at the expense of profitability, acknowledging that native potatoes produced in turnos are ‘special’ (Quilcas participant). Livestock and animal rearing practices are valued partially for their connection to guano and transportation which are integral to potato production. The value and significance of llamas, animal rearers and guano is inseparable from the importance of native potatoes, the motivation to maintain and conserve native potatoes for future generations, and the obligations that communities have toward the Land including plants, animals and ecosystems.

Formal market economies also have sets of values, distinct yet interconnected with informal networks of exchange. Participants indicated that as fewer criadores produce guano, more commercial fertilizer–organic or chemical–is purchased outside of the community, rupturing informal systems of exchange between potato producers and criadores also limiting the role of animals and criadores in native potato production. When production systems components are supplied externally and not connected to local exchanges, access becomes transactional, and values of reciprocity and relationality embedded in that relationship of exchange may not be expressed.

Participants identified that as values have changed and the health of their Land and soil has degraded, fertilizer is now a requirement. Youth participants identified the dangers of losing ancestral knowledge that supports turno systems but felt that few people are interested in these traditions anymore. As one Elder in Quilcas explained, in the past there was social power associated with having llamas because you had access to guano. As these informal exchanges are shifting, values and priorities are also shifting (Table 9).

Table 9

Table 9. Values—evidence-inference.

6.3 Cognition

Autopoietic systems cannot be understood independently from the domain they exist within and must continue to interact with their environment successfully to survive (Maturana and Varela, 1980). The process of interacting, understanding and responding to the environment is called ‘cognition’ (Maturana and Varela, 1975, 1980). In Huancachi and Quilcas, LIKS are embedded within and informed by Land, continuously adapting to changing environmental contexts. Close ancestral ties with Land and territory underpin ‘Campesino’ as a social and political identity (Devine, 1999; Nuijten and Rodriguez, 2009). Local variation in small-scale, traditional cultivation tools and methods, and unique, locally adapted native potato varieties found in each family and community are influenced by geographies and landscapes communities live on, shaping the unique structures of each community LIKS.

As participants in Quilcas described, in the past, the phases of the moon, signals from plants and animals indicated harvest timing and quality. In both communities, participants explained that as relationships with Land change, these ways of knowing were becoming less common. In Quilcas, increased in-migration of non-community members is driving privatization of lowlands, altering traditional systems of communal Land ownership, impacting community use, access and control over Land. Because non-community members are not governed by communal assembly, fewer people observe the community’s socially defined rules, weakening the obligations that guide collective action, and limiting community legislative power over their territory.

In Huancachi, population decline impacts community management capacity, driving the abandonment of cultivated territory, and shifting land-use patterns including the transition of turno sector Yanahora into forestland for tourism. Landscape degradation and pollution from extractive processes and development (mining, urban development, intensive agriculture) have also changed local landscapes, impacting communities’ ability to cultivate in some areas, or without use of inputs.

These changes have impacted the social-cultural practices and values embedded in local experiences on Land. While increasingly degraded soils require fertilizer use, shifting animal rearing practices have limited access to guano, driving increased chemical input use, and driving increasing use and dependence on formal market participation for input access. This demonstrates not only the loss of communal access and control over Land, but the increasing encroachment of external actors into community actions and decision-making. As community control and access to Land is threatened, capacity to adapt to external pressure and encroachment is limited.

Macro-scale climatic, political, economic and social factors are increasingly present and influential on knowledge systems as they transition from the ‘environment’ to community experiences of Land. By interacting with LIKS while operating outside of community jurisdiction and control, these factors are both internal and external, making LIKS more open and less autonomous. The growing role of external actors on knowledge system processes through increasing influence and interaction with Land limits the autonomy of LIKS to operate according to their own internal dynamics, define their own operations and interpret meaning from their environments.

The autonomy of LIKS is captured by the concept of self-determination, described by Garba et al. (2023) as the right and ability of individuals or groups to make autonomous choices and govern themselves according to their own political, economic, social and cultural goals. Self-determination is limited by threats to community access and control over Land, including macro-scale threats that impact community experiences and relationships with Land by incentivizing non-market forms of exchange, undermining Indigenous values and worldviews, and increasing the dependence and influence of external inputs and actors. This suggests that the ability of LIKS in Huancachi and Quilcas to self-produce and re-produce does not only depend on internal actions, but on the relationships and interactions that these systems have with their environments. The growing pressure and influence of external actors driven by loss of community control over Land impacts this autonomy (Table 10).

Table 10

Table 10. Cognition—evidence-inference.

6.4 Limitations and reflexivity

As a non-local researcher collaborating with Grupo Yanapai, my positionality shaped both the scope and interpretation of this study. Community partners guided the framing of questions, interpretation of Quechua-Spanish translations, and validation of findings. However, differences in linguistic and cultural background, as well as limited time in the field, may have constrained the depth of qualitative engagement. Participation varied across gender and age groups, and not all households responded to survey questions, which may limit representativeness. However, reflexive discussions with co-researchers and iterative feedback from community leaders were used to mitigate these limitations and ensure alignment with local perspectives.

This research was possible because of the long-standing relationships that both communities have formed with other organizations and institutions—most significantly, Grupo Yanapai, IPC and NPAD. While community autonomy remains central to the organization of knowledge and practice, engagement with research and development institutions reflect the interaction, adaptation and exchanges between LIKS and their environment, highlighting how LIKS are self-producing yet continually reshaped through environmental encounters.

7 Conclusion and recommendations

The LIKS that support turno cultivation are a critical source of resilience for campesino communities in the Andes experiencing intensifying climate pressure. As LIKS undergo rapid change, ongoing turno cultivation is threatened, along with the biodiversity, food security, food sovereignty, and resilience they provide for communities. Examining LIKS in Huancachi and Quilcas, this paper interprets how internal and external processes impact ongoing knowledge production and adaptation to identify where greater collaborative and community-led support is needed to address local problems while supporting ongoing knowledge system processes to promote community resilience. Using the framework of autopoiesis, this study identified the ‘structure’ or real-world components and relations in each LIKS to understand what dynamic processes produce different outcomes, challenges and opportunities for communities. To remain autopoietic, the ‘organization’ or rules and identity that characterize LIKS need to remain constant. While differences in contexts produce different LIKS structure, each LIKS should have self-identified boundaries, organizational closure and cognition to remain autonomous, to give meaning to the world, and to continuously interact with their surroundings. By identifying these structural and organizational qualities of LIKS, this study supports the co-construction of localized strategies that support autopoiesis.

While extensive and critical work has been done by the IPC and the Andean Change Alliance supporting livelihoods through smallholder market access, connecting native potato producers with value-chains across Peru (Bernet et al., 2006; Devaux et al., 2009; Thiele et al., 2011), we propose additional efforts to support informal exchange as well, supporting local values and worldviews. While minimal use of agrochemicals may prevent or protect crops from pests and disease, it may also pose long-term risks to agricultural sustainability. For this reason, future policy and research should focus not only on native potato production, but animal rearing and Andean tuber value-chains, promoting social exchange systems that produce and disseminate guano as an organic and culturally sustainable fertilizer. Improving access to education and employment is also critical for youth retention in communities, sustaining intergenerational knowledge transmission and supporting diverse aspirations of community members within and outside of native potato production. At a national and international level, greater government and policy representation is needed to strengthen community autonomy and decision-making power and promote Indigenous rights to self-determination.

While this study identified how internal and external processes facilitate or limit the ongoing production, change and reproduction of LIKS in Huancachi and Quilcas, further research is needed to understand how communities can continue to adapt and preserve their knowledge to support ongoing turno cultivation in the face of intensifying climate change. As many authors identify, knowledge co-creation is key to supporting climate adaptation for Andean highland communities (Beltrán et al., 2024), but how can institutions better support social cohesion and community autonomy and what role might this play in supporting knowledge production and turno systems? How can communities effectively partner with research, development and private actors to co-construct knowledge to enable them to respond to increasing climate challenges, while respecting and maintaining these processes that sustain autopoietic LIKS?

Findings from this paper demonstrate the role of native potatoes in the cultural practices, social identities, worldviews, and relationships with Land that community members in Huancachi and Quilcas hold, illustrating the connection between turno production and LIKS. Results also revealed that to support ongoing production and reproduction of LIKS, communities require more than access to Land; they require control over Land which is assured by the formation of equitable relationships between communities and external actors. As macro-scale influences increasingly shape internal processes, the autonomy and autopoiesis of LIKS is threatened. These results illustrate how turno production systems can be supported by focusing on internal and external relationships held by communities. While this study is limited to two Andean communities, results and approach may provide a framework to shape future research and action.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by University of Guelph Research Ethics Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Author contributions

CP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft. SS-E: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. IN: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. RC: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agri-Business under Grant UG-SI-2022-CC-102183.

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted in partnership with the communities of Quilcas and Huancachi and supported by Grupo Yanapai and the International Potato Center.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1702404/full#supplementary-material

References

Alberti, G., and Mayer, E. (1974). Reciprocity and the social structure of the Andes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Google Scholar

Alberto, X., Gómez, L., and Pérez, R. (2022). Traditional agricultural practices and crop rotation in Andean communities. J. Agroecol. 15, 45–61.

Google Scholar

Ali, T., Buergelt, P. T., Maypilama, E. L., Paton, D., Smith, J. A., and Jehan, N. (2022). Synergy of systems theory and symbolic interactionism: a passageway for non-indigenous researchers that facilitates better understanding indigenous worldviews and knowledges. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 25, 197–212. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1876300

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Andreucci, D., and Kallis, G. (2017). Governmentality, development and the violence of natural resource extraction in Peru. Ecol. Econ. 134, 95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bach, K. (2012). “Context dependence (such as it is)” in The continuum companion to the philosophy of language. eds. M. García-Carpintero and M. Kölbel (London, UK: Continuum International), 153–184.

Google Scholar

Battiste, M. (2005). Indigenous knowledge: foundations for first nations. WINHEC J. 1, 1–17. Available at: https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/winhec/article/view/19251

Google Scholar

Battiste, M., and Henderson, J. Y. (2000). Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage: A global challenge : UBC Press.

Google Scholar

Beltrán, M., Tristán, M. C., Freed, S., and Voss, R. (2024). Peru’s participatory timeline: Actor perspectives on behavioral drivers, agency, and behavior change (agroecology initiative WP5: Activity 2: Technical report). CGIAR—Alliance Bioversity International & CIAT. Available online at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f5035312-43a6-4dbc-9767-696ff2ffff93/content (Accessed on August 10, 2025)

Google Scholar

Bernet, T., Thiele, G., and Zschocke, T. (2006). Participatory market chain approach (PMCA)—User guide. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center (CIP).

Google Scholar

Betzold, C., and Flesken, A. (2014). “Indigenous peoples in international environmental negotiations: evidence from biodiversity and climate change” in International climate change law and policy. eds. O. Quirico and M. Boumghar (Abingdon, UK: Routledge), 63–83.

Google Scholar

Bianchini, F. (2023). Autopoiesis of the artificial: from systems to cognition. Biosystems 230:104936. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104936

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., and Midgley, G. (2023). The four waves of systems thinking. J. Syst. Think. 3, 1–51. doi: 10.54120/jost.000051

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cajete, G. A. (2020). Indigenous science, climate change, and indigenous community building: a framework of foundational perspectives for indigenous community resilience and revitalization. Sustainability 12:9569. doi: 10.3390/su12229569

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campbell, R., Goodman-Williams, R., Feeney, H., and Fehler-Cabral, G. (2020). Assessing triangulation across methodologies, methods, and stakeholder groups: the joys, woes, and politics of interpreting convergent and divergent data. Am. J. Eval. 41, 125–144. doi: 10.1177/1098214018804195

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chubb, L. A. (2025). Methods for the practice of envisioning: collaborative tools for change-orientated research. Int J Qual Methods 24:955. doi: 10.1177/16094069251324955

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clarke, V., and Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 12, 297–298. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cornish, F. (2023). Participatory research in practice: Ethics, power, and methodology. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar

Daigle, M. (2016). Awawanenitakik: the spatial politics of recognition and relational geographies of indigenous self-determination. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 49, 311–333.

Google Scholar

Dawson, T., Juarez, H., Maxted, N., and De Haan, S. (2023). Identifying priority sites for the on-farm conservation of landraces and systematic diversity monitoring through an integrated multi-level hotspot analysis: the case of potatoes in Peru. Front. Conserv. Sci. 4:1130138. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1130138

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de Haan, S., Núñez, J., Bonierbale, M., and Ghislain, M. (2010). Multilevel agrobiodiversity and conservation of Andean potatoes in Central Peru. Mount. Res. Dev. 30, 222–231. doi: 10.1659/mrd-journal-d-10-00020.1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de la Cadena, M. (2000). Indigenous mestizos: The politics of race and culture in Cuzco, Peru, 1919–1991. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Google Scholar

De Oliveira, G. (2023). Participatory action research: a Latin American perspective on social transformation. Soc. Sci. J. 28, 112–134.

Google Scholar

Deere, C. D. (1990). Household and class relations: Peasants and landlords in northern Peru. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Google Scholar

Deloria, V. (2023). God is red: A native view of religion. Berkeley, CA: Fulcrum Publishing.

Google Scholar

Dempster, B. (2000). Sympoietic and autopoietic systems: a new distinction for self-organizing systems. Canadian J. Systems Sci. 26, 3–14.

Google Scholar

Devaux, A., Horton, D., Velasco, C., Thiele, G., López, G., Bernet, T., et al. (2009). Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy 34, 31–38. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Devaux, A., Kromann, P., and Ortiz, O. (2020). Potatoes for sustainable global food security. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:28.

Google Scholar

Devine, J. (1999). The making of an Andean middle class: Identity, class, and schooling in Cuzco, Peru, 1900–1970. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar

Evans, K., de Jong, W., Cronkleton, P., and Sheil, D. (2006). Guide to participatory tools for forest communities. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Google Scholar

Fereday, J., and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods 5, 80–92. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fernandez-Baca, J. (2006). Land tenure and rural development in the Peruvian Andes. Rome, Italy: FAO.

Google Scholar

Flinders, D. J., Noddings, N., and Thornton, S. J. (2016). The curriculum studies reader. New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Fonseca, C., and Mayer, E. (1988). Comunidad y Producción en la Agricultura Andina. Lima: Fomciencias.

Google Scholar

Franco, E., and Horton, D. (1979). Produccion y Utilizacion de la Papa en el Valle del Mantaro – Peru. Lima: Centro Internacional de la Papa. Unidad de Ciencias Sociales. Documento de Trabajo No 1979-1.

Google Scholar

Funegra, G. (2011) “Language and identity: the shifting face of Quechua in Peru.” In Endangered languages: Voices and images, the 15th annual conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages, Quito, Ecuador (pp. 25–32)

Google Scholar

Garba, M., Awang, M., and Tambari, D. (2023). Self-determination and autonomy in indigenous governance: legal perspectives and challenges. Indigenous Rights Rev. 7, 15–34.

Google Scholar

García Bendezú, S. J. (2011) Evaluating the biophysical resource management strategies of the agro-ecosystems in farm communities of the Mantaro Valley, Central Andes of Peru thesis dissertation.

Google Scholar

Gelles, P. H. (2010). “Cultural identity and indigenous water rights in the Andean highlands” in Out of the mainstream. eds. B. van Koppen, M. Giordano, and J. Butterworth (Abingdon, UK: Routledge), 119–144.

Google Scholar

Goldberg, M. H., van der Linden, S., Ballew, M. T., Rosenthal, S. A., and Leiserowitz, A. (2018). The experience of consensus: visualizing scientific agreement on climate change. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5:180473.

Google Scholar

Gonzales, (2015). An indigenous autonomous community-based model for knowledge production in the Peruvian Andes. Lat. Am. Caribb. Ethn. Stud. 10, 107–133. doi: 10.1080/17442222.2015.1034433

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goodchild, M. (2021). Relational systems thinking: that's how change is going to come, from our earth mother. J. Awareness-Based Systems Change 1, 75–103. doi: 10.47061/jabsc.v1i1.577

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Graddy, T. G. (2013). Regarding biocultural heritage: in situ political ecology of agricultural biodiversity in the Peruvian Andes. Agric. Hum. Values 30, 587–602.

Google Scholar

Grillo, E. (1990). ‘Cultura y Agricultura Andina’, in AGRUCO and PRATEC (Eds) Agroecología y saber Andino. Lima: PRATEC.

Google Scholar

Hall, S., and Du Gay, P. (1996). Questions of cultural identity. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Hart, P. (2010). Worldviews in science education. Handbook Res. Sci. Educ. 2, 3–22.

Google Scholar

Herve, D., Flores, M., and Cárdenas, P. (1994). Fallowing systems and crop rotation in the Andean highlands. Mount. Res. Dev. 14, 215–229.

Google Scholar

Holdridge, L. (1967). Life zone ecology. San José, Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center.

Google Scholar

Huambachano, M. (2019). Indigenous food sovereignty: reclaiming food as sacred medicine in Aotearoa New Zealand and Peru. N. Z. J. Ecol. 43, 1–7. doi: 10.20417/nzjecol.43.39

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

INEI (2022a). Informe técnico: Pobreza y desigualdad en el Perú, 2022. Lima, Peru: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática.

Google Scholar

INEI (2022b). Population and agricultural census report 2022. Lima: INEI.

Google Scholar

INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática) (2007). Prueba conceptual. Informe preliminar. Lima: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática.

Google Scholar

INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática) (2017). Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2017. Lima: INEI.

Google Scholar

Ingaruca, D., López, M., and Salazar, T. (2023). Territorial changes and agrarian adaptation in Andean communities. Lat. Am. J. Rural Stud. 19, 78–95.

Google Scholar

Instituto Geofísico Del Perú (IGP) (2005). Diagnóstico de la Cuenca del Mantaro, bajo la visión del Cambio Climático. Lima, Perú: Consejo Nacional del Ambiente (CONAM), 90.

Google Scholar

Ishizawa, J. (2004). “Cosmovisions and environmental governance: the case of in situ conservation of native cultivated plants and their wild relatives in Peru” in Bridging scales and knowledge systems. eds. W. V. Reid, F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrano (Washington, DC: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 207–223.

Google Scholar

Ivankova, N. V., and Creswell, J. W. (2009). “Mixed methods” in Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. eds. J. Heigham and R. A. Croker, vol. 23, 135–161.

Google Scholar

Ivey, P. (1985). Economic and environmental impacts of mining in Peru. Develop. Environ. 6, 189–210.

Google Scholar

Kirk, D. (1995). Hard and soft systems: a common paradigm for operationsmanagement. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 7, 13–16.

Google Scholar

la de Cadena, M. (2005). Are mestizos hybrids? The conceptual politics of Andean identities. J. Lat. Am. Stud. 37, 259–284.

Google Scholar

Leatham, K. R. (2012). Problems identifying independent and dependent variables. Sch. Sci. Math. 112, 349–358. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00155.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lenette, C. (2022). Participatory action research: Ethics and praxis. Bristol: Policy Press.

Google Scholar

Lin, Y.-R., Tomi, P., Huang, H., Lin, C.-H., and Chen, Y. (2020). Situating indigenous resilience: climate change and Tayal’s “millet ark” action in Taiwan. Sustainability 12:10676. doi: 10.3390/su122410676

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. Sociocybernetics Rev. 3, 20–30.

Google Scholar

Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften 90, 49–59. doi: 10.1007/s00114-002-0389-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lüttringhaus, S., Pradel, W., Suarez, V., Manrique-Carpintero, N. C., Anglin, N. L., Ellis, D., et al. (2021). Dynamic guardianship of potato landraces by Andean communities and the genebank of the international potato center. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2:45. doi: 10.1186/s43170-021-00065-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Magnani, N., Malmborg, K., and Paci, F. (2021). Place-based knowledge and indigenous worldviews: understanding cultural resilience. J. Ind. Ecol. 7, 88–102.

Google Scholar

Mamani-Bernabé, M. (2015). Pachamama: feminine divinity in Andean spirituality. J. Lat. Am. Stud. 47, 70–85.

Google Scholar

Mathez-Stiefel, S. L., Boillat, S., and Rist, S. (2007). “Promoting the diversity of worldviews: an ontological approach to biocultural diversity” in Endogenous development and bio-cultural diversity. The interplay of worldviews, globalization and locality. eds. B. Haverkort and S. Rist (Leusden: ETC/COMPAS), 67–81.

Google Scholar

Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J. (1971). Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. Boston Stud. Philos. Sci. 42, 23–49.

Google Scholar

Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J. (1975). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company.

Google Scholar

Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Google Scholar

Mayer, E. (1979). “Land use in the Andes: ecology and agriculture in the Mantaro Valley of Peru” in Social Science Monographs. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Google Scholar

Mayer, E., and Bolton, R. (1977). Andean kinship and marriage. Anthropol. Q. 50, 491–505.

Google Scholar

Merriam-Webster (2025). Influence. Available online at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence (Accessed July 13, 2025).

Google Scholar

Mingers, J. (1995). Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of Autopoiesis. New York, NY: Springer.

Google Scholar

Monat, J. P., and Gannon, T. F. (2015). What is systems thinking? A review of selected literature across disciplines. Syst. Eng. 18, 193–212.

Google Scholar

Nash, K. L., Van Putten, I., Alexander, K. A., Bettiol, S., Cvitanovic, C., Farmery, A. K., et al. (2022). Oceans and society: feedbacks between ocean and human health. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32, 161–187. doi: 10.1007/s11160-021-09669-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ngara, R. (2017). “Multiple voices, multiple paths” in Handbook of research on theoretical perspectives on indigenous knowledge systems in developing countries. ed. P. Ngulube (Hershey, PA: IGI Global), 332–358.

Google Scholar

Nuijten, M., and Rodriguez, L. (2009). Peasants, power and history in Peru: land and indigenous struggles, 1969-2009. J. Peasant Stud. 36, 321–345.

Google Scholar

Nuñez, C. (2001). Autonomy and governance in Andean peasant communities. J. Lat. Am. Stud. 33, 723–751.

Google Scholar

Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., and Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically. San Francisco: Westview Press.

Google Scholar

Oswell, D. (2009). Cultural theory and cultural change. London, UK: Sage.

Google Scholar

Parraguez-Vergara, E. (2018). Food sovereignty and indigenous knowledge in Andean agrobiodiversity conservation. J. Rural. Stud. 62, 87–96.

Google Scholar

Pizarro, G., Quispe, L., and Ramos, F. (2022). Protected areas and indigenous territories: the case of nor-Yauyos Cochas landscape reserve. Conservation Sci. J. 10, 289–312.

Google Scholar

Planas, M. E., Middelkoop, B., Cruzado, V., and Richters, A. (2016). Navigating ethnicity in Peru: a framework for measuring multiple self-identification among indigenous Quechua women. Lat. Am. Caribb. Ethn. Stud. 11, 70–92.

Google Scholar

Postigo, J. C., Young, K. R., and Crews, K. A. (2008). Change and continuity in a pastoralist community in the high Peruvian Andes. Hum. Ecol. 36, 535–551. doi: 10.1007/s10745-008-9186-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pradel, W., Zimmerer, K. S., and Quiroz, R. (2023). Agroecological zones and crop diversification in the Peruvian Andes. Agric. Syst. 205:103621.

Google Scholar

Pulgar Vidal, J. (1941). Las ocho regiones naturales del Perú. Bol. Mus. Nac. Javier Prado 5, 145–160.

Google Scholar

Pulgar Vidal, J. (1996). Geografía del Perú: Las Ocho Regiones Naturales, la Regionalización Transversal, la Sabiduría Ecológica Tradicional. 10th Edn. Lima: Peisa, 302.

Google Scholar

Romm, N. R. (2024). An indigenous relational approach to systemic thinking and being: focus on participatory onto-epistemology. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 37, 811–842. doi: 10.1007/s11213-024-09672-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rotmans, J., and Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 184–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00116.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Salas, L., and Tillmann, E. (2022). Investigación Acción Participativa en los Andes: Teoría y práctica. Buenos Aires: Editorial Sur.

Google Scholar

Sanginga, P. C., and Chitsike, C. (2005). The power of visioning: A handbook for facilitating the development of community action plans (enabling rural innovation guide no. 1). Kampala: International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

Google Scholar

Sarapura, S. L. (2013). Gender and agricultural innovation in peasant production of native potatoes in the Central Andes of Peru (doctoral dissertation, University of Guelph)

Google Scholar

Sauro, J. (2015). Three ways to combine quantitative and qualitative research. Available online at: https://measuringu.com/mixing-methods. (Accessed on 13 October 2017).

Google Scholar

Scurrah, M. (2001). Land use and inheritance in Andean communities. Mount. Res. Dev. 21, 220–229.

Google Scholar

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Google Scholar

Simpson, L. B. (2014). Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation.

Google Scholar

Somers, M. R. (1994). The narrative constitution of identity: a relational and network approach. Theory Soc. 23, 605–649. doi: 10.1007/BF00992905

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stern, S. J. (1982). Peru's Indian peoples and the challenge of Spanish conquest: Huamanga to 1640. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Google Scholar

Styres, S. D. (2017). Pathways for remembering and recognizing indigenous thought in education: Philosophies of iethi'nihstenha ohwentsia'kekha (land). Madison, WI: University of Toronto Press.

Google Scholar

Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., and Braun, V. (2017). “Thematic analysis” in The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology. eds. C. Willig and W. Stainton-Rogers (London: SAGE Publications), 17–37.

Google Scholar

Thiele, G., Devaux, A., Reinoso, I., Pico, H., Montesdeoca, F., Pumisacho, M., et al. (2011). Multi-stakeholder platforms for linking small farmers to value chains: evidence from the Andes. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9, 423–433. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2011.589206

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vanek, S. J., Pincus, L., and Frossard, E. (2020). Crop diversity and soil management in Andean communities: challenges and resilience strategies. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 59–74.

Google Scholar

Varela, F. J. (1992). “Autopoiesis and a biology of intentionality” in Proceedings of the workshop “Autopoiesis and perception” (Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University), 4–14.

Google Scholar

Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., and Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the Organization of Living Systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems 5, 187–196. doi: 10.1016/0303-2647(74)90031-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vargas, P. (2018). Mining, environmental degradation, and community resistance in Huancachi, Peru. Environ. Justice J. 12, 34–49.

Google Scholar

Visscher, P. M., Quispe, W., and Gonzales, M. (2023). Small-scale agriculture and food security in the Mantaro Valley. J. Rural. Stud. 97:102741.

Google Scholar

von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory Br. J. Philos. Sci. 1 134–165.

Google Scholar

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968) General system theory; foundations, development, applications New York G. Braziller

Google Scholar

Watts, V. (2013). Indigenous place-thought and agency amongst humans and non humans (first woman and sky woman go on a European world tour!). Decolonization: Indigeneity, Educ. Society 2, 20–34.

Google Scholar

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

Google Scholar

Woodward, E., and Marrfurra McTaggart, P. (2019). Co-developing indigenous seasonal calendars to support ‘healthy country, healthy people’outcomes. Glob. Health Promot. 26, 26–34. doi: 10.1177/1757975919832241

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wright, D., and Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Google Scholar

Zeleny, M. (1977). Self-organization of living systems: a formal model of autopoiesis. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 4, 13–28.

Google Scholar

Zimmerer, K. S., Jones, A. D., De Haan, S. T. E. F., Creed-Kanashiro, H. I. L. A. R. Y., Carrasco, M., Mesa, K., et al. (2018). Climate change and food. ReVista 18, 53–82.

Google Scholar