Participatory agroecological practices: linking biodiversity, soil health, and farmer agency for sustainable crop protection in smallholder systems in Ghana

Abstract

Background:

Global food production faces unprecedented challenges. Rapid population growth drives surging demand. Crop losses from pests, diseases, and weeds cause severe and escalating economic harm. Synthetic chemical inputs impose high ecological and health costs. Agroecology offers a science-based pathway to sustainable food systems. However, empirical evidence on participatory agroecological management within sub-Saharan African smallholder contexts remains limited, necessitating context-specific, qualitative research into ecosystem-based alternatives for resilient agriculture.

Methods:

This qualitative study applied the Ecosystem Services Framework within a participatory seven-step framework. Intervention steps included initial assessment, diversification, soil health enhancement, habitat creation, monitoring, iterative data collection, and dissemination. Thirty (n = 30) food-crop farmers in Ghana’s Bosome Freho District participated. Data were collected from January to July 2022 through semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and field observations. Thematic analysis identified patterns and evaluated perceived strategy effectiveness across all domains.

Results:

All findings reported here are based on qualitative farmer perceptions and researcher field observations rather than on controlled quantitative measurements. Participants reported reductions in pest, disease, and weed incidence across five documented outcome domains. Participants perceived improvements in crop vigor, yield, and quality across cultivated food crops. Soil enrichment was associated with farmer perceptions of improved soil biological activity and reduced weed germination pressure. Companion planting was perceived to disrupt pest cycles and reduce chemical intervention frequency. Beneficial-organism habitats were observed to attract predatory arthropod populations, supporting biological control. Integrated protocols were reported by farmers to reduce synthetic chemical dependency. Farmer satisfaction was assessed through structured interview questions at the end of the intervention; 90.5% of male and 88.9% of female participants expressed satisfaction with the agroecological approach. Longitudinal testimonial data, gathered across three interview rounds, suggested practical feasibility, adaptive capacity, and perceived livelihood benefits across gender and agroecological zones.

Conclusion:

Qualitative evidence from this exploratory study suggests that agroecological strategies showed promise within the participating smallholder systems. Structured participatory engagement and capacity building appeared to be important enabling conditions. Ecosystem-based pest management was perceived as feasible and farmer-validated within this specific context. Farmer testimonials, interpreted longitudinally, suggest that the intervention generated not only perceived ecological benefits but behavioral change and community-level knowledge diffusion. These findings are exploratory and context-specific; scaling will require further investment in extension, supportive policy, gender-responsive programming, and longitudinal quantitative monitoring to confirm and build upon the outcomes observed.

1 Introduction

Pest, disease, and weed pressure remain one of the most economically consequential constraints on global crop production. Plant diseases alone inflict annual losses of approximately US$220 billion; insect pests account for around US$70 billion, and weeds cause losses estimated between 20 and 40% of average yields worldwide (IPPC Secretariat, 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Ristaino et al., 2021). In smallholder farming systems across sub-Saharan Africa, these pressures are compounded by limited access to extension services, high input costs, and land-use conditions that amplify pest and disease cycles (Adusei et al., 2026; McKenzie and Williams, 2015). Conventional responses have centered on synthetic chemical inputs; however, less than 0.1% of applied pesticides reach their intended targets, while the remainder contaminates non-target environments (Kumar et al., 2025). Chronic pesticide exposure has been linked to biodiversity loss, disrupted pollinator populations, and a range of human health risks (Zhou et al., 2025; Lykogianni et al., 2021). The repeated use of herbicides with the same mode of action has further accelerated the emergence of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes, undermining the long-term effectiveness of chemical management (Ghanizadeh et al., 2021).

Agroecology has emerged as a science-based response to these limitations. Originally conceived as the integrative study of food systems in their ecological, economic, and social dimensions, agroecology has evolved into both a scientific discipline and a set of farm-level practices grounded in ecological design (Adriaensens et al., 2025; Llanos Puga et al., 2025; Tataridas et al., 2025). Its central premise is that agricultural systems function best when managed as interconnected socio-ecological systems. These systems can develop natural self-regulating capacities that reduce dependence on external inputs by considering soil organisms, pest interactions, crop diversity, and farmers’ knowledge together (Altieri et al., 2012; Martey et al., 2024). Crop diversification through intercropping, companion planting, and rotation disrupts pest cycles by masking host-plant signals and supporting natural enemies (Finch and Collier, 2000; Raseduzzaman and Jensen, 2017). Soil health enhancement through organic amendments stimulates microbial diversity and antagonistic activity, thereby suppressing soil-borne pathogens (Xu et al., 2025; Stefan et al., 2021). Habitat creation for beneficial organisms activates biological pest regulation by sustaining predatory arthropod populations at ecologically meaningful densities (Baker et al., 2020).

The evidence base for agroecology is not, however, without tension. A key strand of the literature highlights genuine trade-offs: diversified farming systems can require higher labor inputs, and yield reductions during the initial transition from monoculture are well documented (Muller et al., 2017; Debuschewitz and Sanders, 2022). The absence of market premiums for ecologically produced crops can render agroecological transitions economically marginal for resource-constrained smallholders. Critics further question whether agroecological systems can meet global food demand at scale (Sheahan et al., 2017). Proponents argue that the perceived cost advantage of chemical-intensive farming declines when broader economic factors are considered. These include the hidden costs of pesticide use, such as environmental cleanup, biodiversity loss, and the decline of essential ecosystem services (Bourguet and Guillemaud, 2016; van der Ploeg et al., 2019). These differing perspectives highlight the importance of empirical research that examines agroecological interventions beyond their ecological outcomes. Such studies should also assess farmers’ perceptions of practicality, barriers to adoption, and the livelihood impacts within specific socio-ecological contexts.

This study is grounded in the Ecosystem Services Framework (ESF), which provides a participatory agroecological lens for understanding the multifunctional benefits of biodiversity and ecological design in agricultural landscapes (Bassignana et al., 2025; Tamburini et al., 2020). The ESF operates through three analytically distinct but interconnected pathways. The biodiversity–ecosystem function pathway posits that increasing biological diversity across trophic levels enhances agricultural stability and productivity through functional redundancy (Isbell et al., 2011). The regulating-services pathway identifies ecological processes, pest suppression, nutrient cycling, and pollination as direct substitutes for chemical inputs (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). The social-ecological feedback pathway recognizes that ecosystem services are co-produced through farmers’ knowledge, decisions, and institutional arrangements (Llanos Puga et al., 2025; Tataridas et al., 2025). Each of these pathways directly informed the design of the seven-step participatory framework deployed in this study. The diversification and soil-health components (Steps 2 and 3) focused on enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem regulating services. Habitat creation (Step 4) and integrated pest management monitoring (Step 5) supported the regulating-services pathway by strengthening natural pest control processes. Meanwhile, participatory assessment, continuous data collection, and knowledge-sharing activities (Steps 1, 6, and 7) were intended to strengthen the social-ecological feedback pathway through farmer engagement and adaptive learning.

Despite accumulating evidence in support of agroecological pest management, three specific gaps persist in the empirical literature. First, most evaluations of agroecological interventions have been conducted under controlled experimental conditions or in agricultural contexts that differ substantially from the smallholder, rain-fed, forest-zone systems common in rural West Africa (Adusei et al., 2026). Participatory, longitudinal studies that track farmers’ experiences, adoption dynamics, and perceived outcomes over a full cycle of agroecological intervention in this context remain scarce. Second, the integration of the Ecosystem Services Framework as an analytical lens within qualitative participatory smallholder studies is limited. Few studies have explicitly traced how ESF pathways translate into observed farm-level outcomes within qualitative research designs (Bassignana et al., 2025). Third, farmer-led ecological monitoring, in which farmers serve not merely as informants but as active co-designers and observers of intervention outcomes, is rarely documented in sub-Saharan African smallholder systems (Prajapati et al., 2025; Weddle and Oliveira, 2024).

This study was conducted in the Bosome Freho District of Ghana, an agrarian district representative of smallholder forest-zone farming systems across West Africa, to address these gaps. The study pursued four explicit research questions: (i) What baseline pest management challenges and farming contexts characterize smallholder farms in the Bosome Freho District? (ii) How do farmers perceive the ecological effectiveness of diversification, soil-health enhancement, and beneficial-organism habitat creation as pest management strategies? (iii) What levels of satisfaction, capacity building, and expressed adoption intent emerge among farmers who participate in a structured agroecological intervention? (iv) Which knowledge-sharing and dissemination mechanisms are most conducive to community-level uptake of agroecological practices?

2 Theoretical framework

This study is grounded in the Ecosystem Services Framework (ESF), as conceptualized within agroecological scholarship (Bassignana et al., 2025; Farfan and Wall, 2022; Isbell et al., 2011; Mathias et al., 2020; Tamburini et al., 2020). The ESF provides a systems-level lens through which the multifunctional benefits of biodiversity and ecological design in agricultural landscapes can be understood, measured, and communicated. It posits that healthy, biodiverse ecosystems provide a wide range of services, including provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting functions (Bassignana et al., 2025; Farfan and Wall, 2022; Tamburini et al., 2020). Human well-being, including food security and agricultural livelihoods, ultimately depends on these services.

Within the agroecological context, the ESF operates through three analytically distinct yet interacting pathways. First, the biodiversity–ecosystem function pathway suggests that increasing biological diversity across multiple trophic levels strengthens agricultural systems. This diversity ranges from soil microbes and arthropods to crop species. It enhances both the stability and productivity of these systems by expanding functional redundancy (Bassignana et al., 2025; Isbell et al., 2011; Stefan et al., 2021). Second, the regulating-services pathway emphasizes ecological processes that naturally support crop productivity. These include pest control by natural enemies, nutrient cycling through soil organisms, and pollination, all of which can reduce dependence on chemical inputs or replace them altogether (Martey et al., 2024; Reganold and Wachter, 2016; Tamburini et al., 2020). Third, the social-ecological feedback pathway recognizes that ecosystem services are actively managed rather than passively received. Farmers’ knowledge, decision-making processes, and institutional arrangements are therefore central to agroecological transitions. As a result, the sustainability of these transitions depends not only on ecological design but also on human agency, local participation, and the capacity to adapt to changing conditions (Bassignana et al., 2025; Llanos Puga et al., 2025; Tataridas et al., 2025).

The ESF was chosen as the analytical lens for this study for several reasons. It accommodates the multidimensional nature of agroecological interventions, including soil health, pest regulation, biodiversity, and farmer empowerment, within a single coherent framework rather than fragmenting analysis across disciplinary silos. It provides a vocabulary for articulating the mechanisms through which diversification and soil-health enhancement translate into pest and disease suppression. It also emphasizes the importance of farmer knowledge and participatory engagement as essential conditions for realizing ecosystem services, which aligns closely with the study’s qualitative, participatory methodology. Throughout the analysis and discussion, findings are interpreted using these three pathways to assess how effectively the seven-step intervention activated ecosystem-service mechanisms and produced the outcomes anticipated by the framework.

3 Methodology

3.1 Study area

The Bosome Freho District, located within the rural forest ecological zone of Ghana’s Ashanti Region, was selected as the study site due to its agrarian significance and socio-demographic homogeneity. It is also representative of smallholder farming conditions common across rural sub-Saharan Africa. The district is one of 43 Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) within the Ashanti Region (Ministry of Food and Agriculture, n.d.). Its administrative capital, Asiwa, lies in the southeastern portion of the district (Figure 1). The district is bounded to the north by the Bosomtwe and Ejisu-Juaben Municipalities and to the east by the Asante Akim South District. It is further bordered by the Adansi South and Birim North Districts to the south, and the Bekwai Municipal and Adansi North Districts to the west. Spanning approximately 630 square kilometres, the district is positioned between latitudes 6°00′N and 6°26′N and longitudes 1°00′W and 1°30′W, accounting for roughly 2.6% of the Ashanti Region’s total land area of 24,389 square kilometers (Ministry of Food and Agriculture, n.d.).

Figure 1

According to census data, the Bosome Freho District comprises 12,923 households, of which 81.6% are engaged in agricultural activities, underscoring the district’s agrarian centrality. The remaining 18.4% constitute non-agricultural households, contributing to the socio-economic diversity of the community (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). In this context, agriculture is not simply an economic activity but the structural foundation of livelihoods. This demographic reality makes the district an appropriate setting for examining interventions designed to transform pest, disease, and weed management practices within smallholder systems (Rodenburg et al., 2016).

3.2 Research design

This study adopted a qualitative, participatory research design. The design enabled in-depth exploration of farmer experiences and agroecological outcomes (Weddle and Oliveira, 2024). Qualitative approaches are appropriate for understanding complex socio-ecological systems. They capture contextual differences that quantitative methods may overlook. The participatory dimension ensured farmer agency throughout the research process. Farmers were not passive subjects but active co-investigators (Gourguet et al., 2021; Miao et al., 2025). This approach aligns with agroecological principles emphasizing farmer knowledge and local innovation. The design facilitated iterative learning and adaptation during the intervention period.

Researcher positionality and bias mitigation were explicitly managed throughout the study (Zahle, 2025). The lead researcher maintained a reflexive journal from the outset, recording personal assumptions, evolving interpretations, and any perceived influence on participant responses. To minimize researcher-induced bias during participatory activities, farmers were encouraged to share their views first and guide the direction of focus group discussions. Researchers only provided interpretive input after participants had expressed their perspectives and priorities. Findings were validated through member checking. A representative group of five participants reviewed the emerging themes during the mid-point and final evaluation stages to confirm that the interpretations accurately reflected their experiences and perspectives. These strategies do not eliminate researcher influence in participatory design, but they make that influence transparent and subject to ongoing critical reflection (Creswell, 2009).

3.3 Sampling and research participants

A purposive sampling strategy was employed to select thirty food-crop farmers as research participants from the communities of Ampento, Beposo, and Ampaha. The criteria for selecting research participants included active engagement in food-crop production, permanent residency within one of the three target communities, and sufficient practical experience to provide informed insights into local agricultural practices. Purposive sampling enables researchers to target individuals possessing the knowledge, experience, and contextual diversity most relevant to the study’s objectives (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011; Patton, 2002).

The three communities were selected purposively to represent distinct agroecological and socio-economic conditions within the Bosome Freho District. Ampento was selected because of its proximity to commercial farming operations, which exposed resident farmers to high pest-resistance pressure associated with intensive agrochemical use. Beposo was selected for its mountainous and hilly terrain, representing smallholder systems characterized by topographic variation and more traditional mixed-cropping practices. Ampaha was selected as a close-knit farming community where active traditional knowledge exchange and community-based agricultural practices prevailed. Together, these three communities provided a purposively heterogeneous cross-section of smallholder conditions in the study district.

Participants were purposively selected to represent a variety of farming practices, including conventional monocropping, intercropping, and mixed cropping systems. This diversity helped capture a broad range of pest management experiences and challenges across different agricultural settings. The resulting sample comprised 21 male and 9 female participants, aged between 28 and 60 years, with educational attainment ranging from no formal education to high school.

It is important to acknowledge that a sample of thirty farmers from three communities within a single district constitutes a small sample size that limits external validity and generalizability. This study should therefore be understood as an exploratory qualitative case study. The findings are not presented as evidence of broad agroecological effectiveness across diverse contexts, but as contextually grounded insights into farmer perceptions and experiences within a specific smallholder setting. Further research using larger samples, control groups, and mixed-methods designs is needed to establish the generalizability of the patterns identified here.

3.4 Data collection instruments

Three primary data collection instruments were employed. Semi-structured interview guides enabled systematic yet flexible farmer conversations (De Paoli, 2023). Questions addressed pest, disease, and weed management practices, challenges, and agroecological knowledge. Focus group discussion protocols facilitated collective reflection and peer learning (Geampana and Perrotta, 2024). Field observation checklists documented crop health, pest incidence, and ecosystem indicators. These instruments were pilot-tested with three farmers. Adjustments ensured cultural appropriateness and clarity. The instruments complemented each other, capturing individual experiences and group dynamics.

3.5 Data collection procedure

Data collection followed a structured sequence over seven months (from January 2022 to July 2022). Initial baseline interviews established farmer profiles and existing practices. Participatory workshops introduced agroecological concepts and co-designed interventions. Bi-weekly field visits monitored implementation and documented observations. Mid-intervention focus groups assessed progress and challenges. Final interviews evaluated outcomes and satisfaction. All interviews were conducted in Twi, the local language. Sessions lasted 45–90 min. Field notes were recorded immediately after each visit. Audio recordings were made with farmer’s consent. Researchers maintained reflexive journals throughout the process.

It should be noted that the study combined research data collection with the implementation of interventions. This design is inherent to participatory action research but introduces the risk of researcher bias, in that farmers may perceive social desirability pressure to report positive outcomes. The bias-mitigation strategies described in Section 3.2, including reflexive journaling, facilitation protocols that positioned farmers as primary speakers, and member checking, were employed to manage this risk (Zahle, 2025). Readers should interpret all ecological and agronomic outcomes reported in Section 4 as farmer perceptions and qualitative field observations rather than as independently verified empirical measurements.

3.6 Data analysis

Audio recordings from the study were first transcribed verbatim and then translated into English to ensure clarity and accessibility. The resulting transcripts were analyzed using a rigorous thematic analysis approach, following a structured six-phase process (Wutich et al., 2024). Researchers immersed themselves in the data through repeated reading to gain a deep understanding. Initial codes were generated inductively, reflecting patterns emerging directly from the participants’ responses (Ali et al., 2025). These codes were subsequently grouped into candidate themes, which were carefully reviewed against the coded extracts and the full dataset. Themes were clearly defined, named, and refined. The final analysis integrated these themes with the theoretical framework, and field observation data were used to cross-verify and validate the interview findings, enhancing the study’s overall credibility.

To ensure coding reliability and validity, the following procedures were employed. First, two independent coders, the lead researcher and a research collaborator, each coded a 20% random sample of transcripts separately before comparing outputs. Areas of disagreement were discussed until consensus was reached, and the agreed codebook was then applied to the remaining transcripts. Second, thematic codes were triangulated across multiple data sources. Interview data, focus group discussions, and field observations were first analyzed independently and then compared systematically to identify areas of agreement and divergence. Third, as described above, member checking was used at two points during analysis to confirm that emerging thematic interpretations reflected participant experiences. These procedures strengthen the credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative findings, though they cannot substitute for quantitative validation or replicated experimental designs.

3.7 Participatory seven-step framework

The intervention followed a systematic seven-step agroecological framework. It was designed to combine participatory engagement with progressive ecological intensification over seven months. Each step is built upon the preceding one, creating a cumulative trajectory from baseline assessment through to knowledge dissemination. The framework is summarized in Table 1.

3.7.1 Step 1: initial assessment and participatory engagement

The intervention began with participatory workshops where farmers shared their experiences with pests, disease, and weed management. Farmers identified their most pressing challenges and collaboratively defined the scope of the intervention. This phase served a dual function: it constituted the baseline data-collection exercise. It also simultaneously established the relational foundation, trust, shared purpose, and mutual learning upon which subsequent steps depended. Detailed biographical and farming-context data were recorded for each participant, as presented in Table 2.

3.7.2 Step 2: agroecosystem diversification

Diversification strategies were co-designed with farmers through close consultation, ensuring that interventions were tailored to each participant’s specific agroecological conditions. Crop rotation schedules were developed to break pest and disease cycles across growing seasons. Intercropping and companion planting systems were established, with maize grown alongside cowpea, stylosanthes, and mucuna to combine grain production with nitrogen fixation and ground cover. Peppers were paired with cucumbers, and plantains with sweet potatoes, exploiting complementary growth forms and pest-deterrent properties. The selection of plant pairs was guided by both ecological logic and farmer preference, reflecting the social-ecological feedback pathway of the ESF.

3.7.3 Step 3: soil health enhancement

Soil health improvement was followed as a foundational strategy for long-term pest and disease suppression. Compost was systematically prepared and applied to all cultivated plots; mulch was laid to conserve moisture, regulate soil temperature, and suppress weed germination. Cover cropping was integrated into rotation schedules to maintain soil biological activity during fallow periods. Tillage was minimized where feasible to protect soil structure and the microbial communities residing within it. These practices were applied uniformly across all participating farms to ensure consistency in the intervention and facilitate meaningful comparison of outcomes.

3.7.4 Step 4: beneficial organism habitat creation

Habitat creation for beneficial organisms constituted the fourth phase of the intervention. Sunflowers were intentionally planted around the perimeters of cultivated plots to attract pollinators and predatory arthropods. Existing native flowering plants and woody vegetation were deliberately preserved rather than cleared, providing refugia for natural enemies of crop pests. Farmers were educated on the ecological role of these organisms as natural regulators of pest populations and on the importance of maintaining habitat complexity at the landscape scale. This educational component sought to transform farmers’ mental models. It encouraged a shift from viewing pest control as dependent on chemical application to understanding ecological balance as the primary mechanism of pest regulation.

3.7.5 Step 5: monitoring and integrated decision-making

The fifth step embedded structured monitoring into farming practice. Farmers, working alongside researchers, conducted regular field scouting to detect early signs of pest, disease, and weed pressure. Pheromone traps and yellow sticky traps were deployed to monitor insect-pest populations. When intervention was necessary, an IPM decision hierarchy was applied. Cultural measures, such as crop rotation and resistant varieties, were implemented first. Biological controls, including natural predators and biopesticides, served as the second line of defense, while agro-chemical intervention, limited to neem-based biopesticides, was reserved as a last resort. Records of pest occurrences, environmental conditions, and management actions were maintained to inform adaptive decision-making throughout the intervention.

3.7.6 Step 6: data collection and iterative analysis

Qualitative data was collected through three complementary methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the thirty participating farmers to elicit their perceptions of the intervention’s impact on crop health, yield, quality, and livelihood. Focus group discussions, conducted separately for male and female farmers to facilitate candid expression, explored collective experiences, challenges, and emergent learning. Direct field observations were carried out by researchers at regular intervals to document observable changes in pest incidence, soil condition, crop performance, and biodiversity indicators. Data was transcribed, coded thematically, and analyzed iteratively to identify patterns and refine strategies in real time (Creswell, 2009).

3.7.7 Step 7: knowledge dissemination and scaling

The final step focused on extending the benefits of the intervention beyond the initial thirty participants. Educational resources were prepared and shared. Workshops were organized to highlight successful practices and farmer testimonials. Field demonstrations were conducted to allow neighboring farmers to observe outcomes directly. Throughout the intervention, participating farmers served not only as subjects but as co-producers of knowledge, sharing their experiences and insights in a collaborative learning environment. This approach was designed to generate the social networks and shared understanding necessary for sustained, community-level adoption of agroecological practices.

3.8 Farmer biographical and contextual profiles

Table 2 presents the demographic, educational, farming-practice, and contextual profiles of all thirty participating farmers. These data provide the baseline against which the intervention’s effects were assessed. It also highlights the diversity of farming conditions within which agroecological strategies were implemented.

Several patterns emerge from the baseline data. Male farmers constituted the majority (n = 21) and predominantly engaged in conventional monoculture farming, relying heavily on synthetic chemicals for pest and weed control. This group reported pest resistance and low soil fertility as their most frequent challenges. These issues were particularly pronounced among those whose plots lay in proximity to commercial farming operations. Female farmers were numerically fewer (n = 9). However, they exhibited a markedly different profile. They were more likely to practice intercropping or mixed cropping, use minimal synthetic inputs, and tend to operate within close-knit farming communities where traditional knowledge was actively shared. Their primary challenges centered on soil degradation and pest outbreaks. The sample was deliberately heterogeneous in terms of age, education, farming practice, and local context. This approach ensured that the intervention’s outcomes could be evaluated across a realistic range of smallholder conditions.

4 Results

4.1 Overview of intervention outcomes

The seven-step agroecological intervention produced a range of outcomes across ecological, agronomic, and social dimensions as perceived by farmers and observed by researchers during field visits. It is important to note that all outcomes reported in this section are based on qualitative farmer perceptions, elicited through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, and on researcher field observations. No controlled experimental measurements, soil laboratory analyses, or quantitative pest counts were conducted. Outcomes should therefore be interpreted as indicative of farmer-perceived change rather than as independently verified ecological measurements. A summary of outcomes is presented in Table 3.

Farmer satisfaction percentages in Table 3 were derived from structured Likert-scale questions embedded in the final round of semi-structured interviews, in which participants were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with each intervention component on a scale from ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very dissatisfied.’ The percentages represent the proportion of participants in each gender group who selected ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ for the respective components. This operationalisation is acknowledged as a self-report measure subject to social desirability effects; the figures should be interpreted as indicators of perceived acceptability rather than as objective outcome measures.

4.2 Ecological and agronomic outcomes

4.2.1 Pest and disease incidence

Across participating farms, farmers reported reductions in pest outbreak frequency and disease incidence over the intervention period. These reports are based on farmers’ qualitative assessments rather than on systematic pest counts or monitoring data. Farms that adopted companion planting and intercropping were described by their operators as experiencing noticeably fewer pest infestations compared with baseline conditions. The introduction of natural-enemy habitat through sunflower planting and vegetation preservation was associated, in farmers’ accounts, with an observable increase in predatory arthropod populations. Biopesticide application, limited to neem-based treatments, was required on only a few farms, at intervals farmers described as substantially less frequent than their pre-intervention chemical schedules.

Farmers using three or more companion species reported higher perceived pest suppression. Mixed-crop plots were described as showing fewer visible pest infestations compared to monoculture conditions at baseline. Disease incidence was perceived as especially reduced on plots where cover crops were integrated. Farmers in hilly and mountainous zones reported some of the most notable improvements. Although these accounts were consistent among participants, the lack of control plots and standardized monitoring procedures make it difficult to rule out other contributing factors. Seasonal changes and variations in rainfall during the seven months may also have influenced the reported outcomes.

4.2.2 Soil health and microbial activity

Systematic application of compost and mulch across all plots produced perceptible improvements in soil structure and moisture retention over the seven-month intervention period. Farmers reported that soil became notably easier to work and that plant growth was more vigorous, particularly in the early weeks following transplanting. Formal soil laboratory analyses were beyond the scope of this qualitative study; no soil samples were collected or analyzed. The improvements described in this section are based entirely on farmer perceptions and researcher visual field observations.

Several farmers noted that weed germination has declined significantly after mulch was applied. The physical barrier blocked light from reaching weed seeds at the soil surface. Farmers estimated that hand-weeding labor decreased by approximately one-third. This reduction freed labor time for other farm management tasks. Soil color change, from pale sandy to darker humus-rich material, was visually observable on most plots by the third month. Cover cropping during fallow intervals further suppressed weed regrowth and prevented topsoil erosion. Reduced tillage preserved the structural integrity of microbial habitats within the soil profile. Together, these soil-health practices created a self-reinforcing cycle of biological activity and productivity. These qualitative observations are consistent with patterns documented in the broader soil science literature and are presented here as farmer-perceived and researcher-observed indicators that warrant future quantitative investigation.

4.2.3 Crop vigor, yield, and quality

Farmers reported noticeable improvements in crop vigor across a range of food crops, including maize, peppers, plantains, and sweet potatoes. These improvements manifested as healthier foliage, reduced wilting, more consistent fruit set, and, in farmers’ assessments, improved market quality. Yield gains were not formally quantified through controlled field measurements in this qualitative study. However, participating farmers consistently reported increases in productivity as a direct consequence of the combined soil-health and diversification interventions. Yield gains were not formally quantified through controlled field measurements; all yield-related findings are based on farmers’ self-reported comparisons with their baseline conditions.

Maize showed particularly marked improvements in ear formation and kernel fill. Farmers attributed this to improved nitrogen availability from legume companion planting. Pepper yields improved in both quantity and marketable size. Reduced disease pressure meant fewer culls at harvest time. Plantain plots under diversified management produced healthier ratoon crops. Sweet potato vines covered the ground more effectively. This groundcover suppressed weeds while producing larger, more uniform tubers. Female farmers, who predominantly practiced intercropping, reported some of the most consistent improvements in product quality. These quality gains carried direct economic benefits, as produce sold at higher prices in local markets. The improvements in crop quality were corroborated by field observations conducted at harvest time.

4.2.4 Biodiversity and beneficial organism activity

The habitat-creation interventions of Step 4 generated observable shifts in on-farm biodiversity over the seven months. Sunflowers planted around plot perimeters attracted a range of beneficial insects, including hoverflies, parasitic wasps, and predatory beetles. Farmers on plots with preserved native vegetation consistently reported higher levels of natural enemy activity compared with those on plots where peripheral vegetation had previously been cleared. This observation aligns with the foundational principles of conservation biological control, which holds that landscape heterogeneity is a prerequisite for sustaining predatory arthropod populations at densities sufficient to exert meaningful pest regulation.

Pollinator activity also increased noticeably on plots adjacent to flowering companion species. Several farmers noted improved fruit set on pepper and plantain crops, which they attributed to more frequent bee and butterfly visitation. Below ground, farmers on compost-amended plots described increased earthworm populations and changes in soil texture consistent with enhanced faunal activity. The convergence of above-ground and below-ground biodiversity gains represents one of the most ecologically significant outcomes of the intervention. It confirms that the seven-step framework activated biodiversity benefits across multiple trophic levels simultaneously. These observations were qualitative in nature and were not accompanied by formal biodiversity surveys, species counts, or soil macrofauna sampling. They are reported as farmer-perceived and researcher-observed indicators, not as measured ecological outcomes.

4.2.5 Reduction in chemical dependency

One of the most practically significant outcomes of the intervention was the substantial reduction in synthetic chemical use across participating farms. Before the intervention, the majority of participants, particularly those farming in proximity to commercial operations, relied on synthetic pesticides and herbicides as their primary management tools. These inputs were often applied on prophylactic schedules, regardless of observed pest pressure. By the midpoint of the intervention, most farmers in the study had transitioned to the IPM decision hierarchy introduced in Step 5. They deployed cultural and biological controls first and reserved chemical intervention only when monitoring confirmed it was warranted.

Neem-based biopesticide application, the sole chemical intervention sanctioned under the IPM protocol, was required by only a minority of participants, and at frequencies substantially below pre-intervention baselines. Several farmers reported eliminating synthetic pesticide expenditure during the latter months of the intervention. These input reductions carry direct economic implications. Reduced spending on synthetic chemicals contributed to improved farm-level profitability without corresponding yield losses, challenging the assumption that chemical reduction necessarily entails productivity trade-offs. These input reductions are based on farmer self-reports and have not been independently verified through purchase records or agrochemical expenditure data. The shift from prophylactic to reactive management nonetheless represents a potentially significant behavioral change with implications for long-term resistance management and ecosystem health.

4.3 Farmer satisfaction and qualitative testimony

4.3.1 Overall satisfaction rates and longitudinal trajectory

Farmer satisfaction constituted a primary outcome measure, given the study’s qualitative design and its emphasis on the social-ecological feedback pathway. As described in Section 4.1, satisfaction rates were assessed through structured Likert-scale questions in the final interview round. Overall, 90.5% of male participants and 88.9% of female participants expressed satisfaction or strong satisfaction with the agroecological approach. These figures were corroborated by qualitative testimony collected during focus group discussions.

Testimonial data were collected across three formal interview rounds. The baseline round took place in January and February 2022, establishing initial perceptions and expectations. A mid-intervention round was conducted in April and May 2022, capturing responses after ecological interventions had begun to produce observable results. The final evaluation round occurred in June and July 2022, after the full seven-step cycle was complete. This design enables an analysis of how farmer perceptions evolved throughout the intervention rather than capturing a single-point assessment. Early responses were cautiously optimistic, with many farmers expressing interest while reserving judgments pending observable outcomes. By mid-intervention, confidence in the agroecological approach had grown measurably, as ecological changes on farms became visible. Final testimonies reflected conviction, practical mastery, and a clear intent to sustain the practices adopted. This progression mirrors the social-ecological feedback pathway described in the ESF and confirms that participatory engagement over time deepens both understanding and commitment in ways that shorter or single-contact interventions cannot replicate.

4.3.2 Male farmer perspectives

Male farmer testimonies across all three rounds converged on four recurring themes: pest and disease reduction, yield improvement, reduced chemical expenditure, and enhanced understanding of ecological processes. Farmer ID 4, who had previously relied on chemical pesticides as his primary management tool, reported a noticeable improvement in crop health following the adoption of organic methods. He described the reduction in pest incidence as both impressive and practically meaningful. Farmer ID 10 highlighted the economic benefits, noting that the agroecological strategies improved his yield without the heavy pesticide costs he had previously incurred. He expressed considerable satisfaction with this balance. Farmer ID 19 emphasized the sustainability logic, stating that the focus on long-term farm management had helped him control pests effectively. He added that this approach maintained the productive capacity of his land. Farmer ID 30 reflected on the broader cognitive shift facilitated by the intervention, observing that it opened new perspectives on pest control. He noted that the approach integrated naturally with his existing farming methods, highlighting an additive rather than disruptive experience of the agroecological transition. Collectively, these testimonies reflect progression from initial reliance on chemical inputs toward an ecologically informed, confidence-based approach to farm management.

4.3.3 Female farmer perspectives

Female farmer testimonies reflected ecological and economic benefits and were notable for the consistency with which soil health and product quality featured as primary concerns. Farmer ID 2, whose baseline challenge centered on soil degradation, reported that the new practices had proved beneficial in maintaining soil health and that improved crop quality was already visible in her fields. This response maps directly onto the principal challenge she identified at baseline, confirming that the intervention addressed felt needs rather than imposing externally defined solutions. Farmer ID 14 expressed optimism about future harvests following improvements in soil condition, describing the organic approach as encouraging and expressing satisfaction with how it had transformed the productive capacity of her plots. Farmer ID 17 confirmed reduced pest incidence alongside improved yields, attributing these gains directly to the strategies shared through the study. Farmer ID 26 specifically valued the chemical-free dimension of the management approach, describing the provision of sustainable pest management methods as insightful and practically empowering. The female testimonial record indicates that the intervention resonated strongly with farmers who had already adopted diversified practices. These farmers reported experiencing more direct benefits from improvements in soil health. This pattern has implications for how agroecological extension efforts are targeted and scaled.

Taken together, these testimonies reveal a convergence of ecological benefit, economic improvement, and enhanced agency among participating farmers. The high satisfaction rates and the detailed qualitative accounts suggest that participants viewed the intervention as practical and relevant. It was perceived not as a theoretical exercise, but as a tangible transformation of farming conditions.

5 Discussion

The findings of this study are interpreted through three analytical pathways within the Ecosystem Services Framework. These include the biodiversity–ecosystem function pathway, the regulating services pathway, and the social–ecological feedback pathway. The interpretation follows these three interconnected dimensions. This structured analysis enables a systematic assessment of the mechanisms through which the seven-step intervention produced its observed outcomes. Throughout this discussion, the findings are evaluated not only in relation to existing literature but also in terms of how they expand, refine, or challenge previous research. Confounding factors and alternative explanations for the observed outcomes are also considered.

5.1 The biodiversity–ecosystem-function pathway

The ESF predicts that increasing biological diversity at multiple trophic levels enhances the stability, productivity, and self-regulating capacity of agricultural ecosystems (Isbell et al., 2011; Stefan et al., 2021). The diversification interventions implemented in Steps 2 and 4 of the frameworks directly targeted this pathway. Companion planting and intercropping increased above-ground plant diversity within the production system. According to established theory, this diversity disrupts the chemical signaling channels that pest insects use to locate host plants (Finch and Collier, 2000). It also creates structural complexity that supports and favors natural enemies (Mihrete and Mihretu, 2025). The field-level observations in this study showed reduced pest outbreak frequency on polyculture plots. They also documented increased predatory arthropod abundance in habitat-enriched areas. These observations align with the mechanisms predicted in existing theory.

Below ground, the soil-health interventions of Step 3 operated through a complementary but distinct channel. Organic matter addition stimulates microbial biomass and diversity, reshaping community composition in ways that favor antagonistic organisms capable of suppressing plant pathogens (Xu et al., 2025). Stefan et al. (2021) provided empirical evidence that crop diversity reshapes soil microbial communities in ways that enhance productivity. Similarly, Cappelli et al. (2022) synthesized research showing that plant biodiversity promotes sustainability both directly and through below-ground ecological processes. The integration of above-ground diversification and below-ground soil enrichment in this study resulted in multi-trophic biodiversity enhancement. This outcome aligns with the core prediction of the Ecosystem Services Framework that diversity promotes functional stability.

However, the causal attribution of these outcomes warrants caution. The study did not include control plots managed conventionally alongside intervention plots. Nor were ecological conditions, including seasonal rainfall, temperature variation, and ambient pest pressure, systematically measured or controlled for across the seven-month study period. It is plausible that favourable seasonal conditions during the 2022 growing period contributed independently to the improved crop performance and reduced pest pressure reported by farmers. The consistency of farmer-perceived improvements across different agroecological zones and farming contexts does provide some inferential support for an intervention effect, but this inference cannot be confirmed without controlled experimental evidence.

The key finding from this pathway is that above-ground and below-ground diversification operate as interconnected strategies rather than independent interventions. Their combined effect is synergistic, producing outcomes that exceed the sum of their individual contributions. Farms that combined companion planting with compost application recorded the most substantial reductions in pest pressure. This result aligns with the meta-analytical findings of Raseduzzaman and Jensen (2017), which show that intercropping enhances yield stability more consistently than crop diversification or soil management practiced independently. This convergence strengthens confidence that the observed benefits are attributable to the ecological mechanisms identified rather than to contextual confounds. The practical implication is clear: agroecological interventions are most effective when they address multiple trophic levels simultaneously, rather than concentrating on a single management domain.

Farmer testimonies corroborate these findings at the experiential level. Farmer ID 9 (Male, April 2022) described the “transformation of my maize-cowpea intercropped plots as complete, noting that pests had become far fewer”. He also observed that “the plants seemed to protect each other”, a lay observation that corresponds closely with the chemical-signal disruption mechanism documented by Finch and Collier (2000). Farmer ID 8 (Female, April 2022) reported that “natural predators appeared on my plots and controlled pests more effectively than any spray”. Adding that “my farm felt alive again”, language that captures not only the practical outcome of increased biological control but the broader ecological transformation that the ESF’s biodiversity-ecosystem-function pathway predicts. These accounts, gathered mid-intervention, confirm that the ecological mechanisms were both perceptible and meaningful to farmers within the study timeframe. They also show that farmers’ experiential observations aligned closely with the theoretical predictions of the framework.

5.2 The regulating-services pathway

The regulating-services pathway of the ESF identifies specific ecological processes, including pest suppression, nutrient cycling, and pollination, as direct contributors to crop productivity. These processes can substitute for external chemical or mechanical inputs (Reganold and Wachter, 2016; Tamburini et al., 2020). This study’s results provide field-level evidence for the activation of two regulating services in particular: biological pest control and natural nutrient cycling.

Biological pest control was activated through the habitat-creation interventions of Step 4 and the biopesticide protocols of Step 5. The deliberate planting of flowering species and the preservation of native vegetation created the landscape-scale heterogeneity that natural enemies require for overwintering, reproduction, and dispersal (Baker et al., 2020; Mazaheri et al., 2006). The observed increase in predatory arthropod populations is consistent with the prediction that habitat management provides a more durable and ecologically coherent pest-regulation mechanism. This approach is generally more effective than relying on chemical substitution (Ayilara et al., 2023). The use of neem-based biopesticide as a last-resort intervention further highlights the regulating-services logic. Rather than replacing ecological pest regulation with a synthetic analogue, the IPM protocol preserved biological control as the primary mechanism and applied biopesticides only when that mechanism proved insufficient. This decision hierarchy explicitly prioritizes the ecological pathway (Ayilara et al., 2023; Borges et al., 2021).

An important alternative explanation for the perceived decline in pest pressure should be considered. The structured monitoring and early detection practices introduced in Step 5 may have played a significant role in reducing pest damage, even independent of the ecological interventions themselves. When farmers begin systematically scouting fields for early pest signs, they intervene earlier and more precisely, which reduces damage regardless of any change in actual pest population levels. Disentangling the contribution of ecological mechanisms from the contribution of improved monitoring behavior is not possible within this qualitative design and should be a priority for future research.

Natural nutrient cycling was activated through the soil-health interventions. Compost addition introduced organic substrates that are decomposed by soil microorganisms, releasing nutrients in forms available to plants. This process, well documented in the long-term studies of McGill et al. (1986) and Rasmussen et al. (1989), reduces dependence on synthetic fertilizers. It also contributes to soil carbon sequestration, providing a co-benefit with implications for climate-change mitigation. The farmer reports of enhanced plant vigour and improved crop quality are consistent with improved nutrient availability mediated through biological decomposition rather than chemical application.

The regulating-services findings in this study align closely with the literature on agroecological nutrient cycling and biological pest regulation (Saba, 2025). They also extend this literature to a sub-Saharan smallholder context, which is underrepresented in global agroecological research. Ebenso et al. (2022) demonstrated that nature-based approaches that intentionally enhance ecological complexity improve food security. These approaches also support wildlife populations, which are essential for natural regulation. This finding is directly mirrored in this study’s observations of increased predatory arthropod activity following habitat creation.

The contribution of this study is to demonstrate that such outcomes are achievable beyond peri-urban or formally managed landscapes. It can also be realized in dispersed smallholder systems characterized by resource constraints and variable management capacity. Farmer testimonies highlight the regulating-services pathway at the experiential level. Farmer ID 6 (Male, May 2022) described “how sunflowers planted around my plots attracted wasps and bees”. Following this, “caterpillar damage dropped sharply, and I used neem spray only twice across the entire season”. This marked a dramatic reduction from pre-intervention baselines and directly demonstrated how habitat-mediated biological control can substitute for chemical intervention. Farmer ID 14 (Female, May 2022) reported that “compost application made my soil dark and soft”. She also noted that “my pepper plants grew taller and stronger, and that root disease was almost completely gone” by mid-season. These observations confirm that the nutrient cycling and pathogen suppression mechanisms documented by McGill et al. (1986), Rasmussen et al. (1989), and Widmer and Abawi (2002) operate in this smallholder context.

5.3 The social-ecological feedback pathway

The third pathway of the ESF, the social-ecological feedback pathway, emphasizes the active role of farming communities. It recognizes that ecosystem services are not passively received but co-produced through farmers’ knowledge, decisions, and practices. This process is shaped by the institutional arrangements that govern agricultural landscapes (Llanos Puga et al., 2025; Tataridas et al., 2025). This pathway is perhaps the most vital for understanding not merely whether agroecological strategies can work, but whether they can be sustained, scaled, and adapted over time.

The participatory design of the seven-step framework was explicitly structured to activate this pathway. Steps 1 and 7, initial assessment and knowledge dissemination, bookended the intervention with participatory engagement. This approach ensured that farmers were involved not merely as passive recipients of technical instruction, but as co-designers and co-disseminators of knowledge. The focus group discussions and farmer interviews that constituted Step 6 provided a formal feedback loop through which the research team and farmers jointly assessed outcomes and refined strategies. The high satisfaction rates (90.5% male, 88.9% female) and the qualitative testimony’s emphasis on practical applicability and perceived empowerment indicate that this social-ecological feedback mechanism operated effectively.

It is important to acknowledge that the high satisfaction rates may have been influenced in part by the participatory nature of the process itself. Farmers who worked closely with researchers over the seven months and became invested in the project outcomes may have been more likely to provide positive evaluations. This represents a form of participation-induced response bias that should be considered when interpreting the satisfaction data (Zahle, 2025).

The gendered dimension of farmer engagement merits particular attention. Female farmers, who constituted 30% of the sample and disproportionately practiced intercropping and mixed cropping at baseline, reported high satisfaction rates of 88.9%. This finding suggests that the intervention was perceived as relevant and beneficial across gender lines. The fact that female farmers were more likely to have adopted diversified farming practices before the intervention is noteworthy. It raises the question of whether pre-existing ecological knowledge, often transmitted through informal, community-based channels, predisposes certain farmer groups toward agroecological adoption.

Farmer ID 30’s testimony, “The research opened new perspectives on pest control. It’s practical and fits well with my farming methods” encapsulates the social-ecological feedback mechanism in microcosms. The language of ‘new perspectives’ and ‘fits well’ suggests that the intervention was not experienced as an imposition of external knowledge. Rather, it acted as a catalytic addition to an existing knowledge system, enabling farmers to make more informed and ecologically grounded decisions within their own farming contexts. This outcome is precisely what the ESF’s social-ecological feedback pathway predicts as the condition for sustained agroecological transformation.

The social-ecological feedback pathway findings in this study are consistent with the broader participatory agroecology literature while providing rare evidence from a West African smallholder context. Tataridas et al. (2025) argued that agroecology thrives only when farmers are engaged as knowledge producers and co-designers rather than as passive recipients of technical instruction. The seven-step framework operationalized this principle through its iterative design. The satisfaction data confirms that this principle was translated effectively into practice. Bajwa and Kogan (2002) similarly documented the centrality of farmer decision-making capacity to IPM success. This study extends that finding by demonstrating that such capacity is not simply transferred but built cumulatively through structured and iterative engagement. Farmer testimonies explain how this pathway was experienced at the farm level. Farmer ID 13 (Male, June 2022) described how “the workshops changed the way I think about farming. I now observe my fields before deciding whether to spray”, a single change that saved him considerable money across the season. This testimony captures the decision-making transformation predicted by the social-ecological feedback pathway (Bassignana et al., 2025; Mathias et al., 2020). Farmers shifted from habitual, input-based management to observation-informed adaptive management. Farmer ID 20 (Female, June 2022) described “learning to keep weekly pest records that helped her decide when to act and when to wait”, adding “I felt more in control of my own farm”. This sense of agency, of informed autonomy over management decisions, is precisely the social-ecological outcome that distinguishes participatory agroecology from technology-transfer extension models (Prajapati et al., 2025).

5.4 Ecosystem services as integrative mechanisms

Considered holistically, the three ESF pathways operated synergistically in this study. Above-ground crop diversification enhanced biodiversity and disrupted pest cycles. Below-ground soil enrichment stimulated microbial activity and natural nutrient cycling. Habitat creation for beneficial organisms activated biological pest regulation. Participatory engagement generated the farmer knowledge, motivation, and adaptive capacity necessary to design, implement, and sustain these interventions over time. The convergence of ecological outcomes, including reduced pest and disease incidence, improved soil health, and enhanced crop performance, occurred alongside high farmer satisfaction and expressed intent to continue and expand adoption. This suggests a mutually reinforcing dynamic in which multiple mechanisms operated simultaneously to shape observed outcomes.

This synthesis also explains the relative contributions of different intervention components. While each step of the seven-step framework addressed a distinct ecological or social mechanism, the outcomes observed were attributable to their cumulative and interacting effects. Diversification alone, without soil-health enhancement, would have generated limited pest suppression in degraded soils. Soil improvement, without diversification, would have lacked the above-ground ecological architecture necessary for biological control. And both ecological interventions, without the participatory engagement and knowledge dissemination of Steps 1, 6, and 7, would have remained one-off experiments rather than the beginnings of a sustained transformation. The integrated, multi-step design of the framework was therefore essential to the outcomes achieved. This finding is consistent with the holistic, system-level logic that defines agroecology (Llanos Puga et al., 2025; Tataridas et al., 2025). However, the absence of quantitative baseline and endline measurements, control plots, and long-term monitoring means that this finding remains prospective rather than conclusive. The study design cannot isolate the relative contributions of individual intervention components or confirm that outcomes would persist beyond the seven months.

Crop rotation, deployed as both a diversification tactic in Step 2 and a monitoring-informed management decision in Step 5, deserves particular attention within this synthesis. Javid et al. (2025) documented the capacity of crop rotation to foster ecological niches for antagonistic microorganisms. McGill et al. (1986) and Rasmussen et al. (1989) demonstrated that long-term rotational management increases both soil microbial biomass and populations of beneficial species. In the context of this study, crop rotation served as a dual function. It disrupted the life cycles of soil-borne pathogens and pest organisms that would otherwise accumulate under monoculture. It also created the temporal heterogeneity within which soil biological communities could diversify and mature. The observed improvements in crop vigor and the reduction in disease incidence on rotated plots are consistent with these documented mechanisms. They reinforce the conclusion that rotation is not merely a yield-management technique, but an ecological intervention with cascading benefits across multiple ecosystem-service pathways.

Several confounding factors beyond seasonal variation should also be considered. One possible influence is the researcher presence effect, where farmers may have adopted more intensive management practices simply because they knew they were being observed, commonly referred to as the Hawthorne effect. Additionally, the seven-step framework was delivered as an integrated whole; it is not possible from this study design to attribute outcomes to specific intervention components. The relatively short time horizon of seven months is also insufficient to evaluate soil recovery trajectories or the durability of pest suppression under natural pest-population cycles. These limitations should inform the design of follow-up studies.

The study’s findings further contribute to the ongoing debate concerning the trade-offs between organic and conventional systems. Adusei (2020) and Debuschewitz and Sanders (2022) have highlighted the productivity costs that organic transitions can impose in the short term. Muller et al. (2017) and Sheahan et al. (2017) have debated the capacity of organic systems to meet global food demand at scale. The results reported here, including improved crop performance, reduced input costs, and high farmer satisfaction within a smallholder context, suggest that these trade-offs are neither inevitable nor permanent. Participatory agroecological interventions can therefore achieve productivity gains while simultaneously advancing ecological and social objectives.

The synthesis findings of this study are consistent with, and in several respects advance, the existing literature on integrated agroecological interventions. Llanos Puga et al. (2025) and Tataridas et al. (2025) argued that agroecology thrives as a practice precisely when it combines ecological design with social engagement. This study provides empirical support for that argument in the context of Ghanaian smallholder farming, where both the ecological challenges and the social conditions of adoption are particularly demanding. Van der Ploeg et al. (2019) demonstrated that agroecological systems generate increased farm income when the full range of provisioning and regulating services is considered. The cost reductions and quality improvements reported by farmers in this study are consistent with that finding, and extending it to a resource-constrained context not represented in the European evidence base. The results further challenge the position advanced by Muller et al. (2017) that organic and agroecological transitions impose unavoidable productivity costs. The combination of ecological improvement and farmer-reported yield gains in this study suggests that such costs are not universal. They are also not inevitable when transitions are managed through participatory, ecologically informed frameworks rather than through input substitution alone.

Farmer accounts from the final evaluation round highlight the integrative experience of the intervention. Farmer ID 16 (Male, July 2022) described how “each step built upon the one before it, with better soil making diversification work more effectively. The combined result transformed my farm in ways I had not anticipated”. This testimony captures the emergent, nonlinear logic of systems-level agroecological change. Farmer ID 23 (Female, July 2022) acknowledged initial doubt but described how “my mid-season results spoke for themselves.” She also noted, “I now teach my neighbors the same methods.” This provides evidence that the social-learning and knowledge-diffusion mechanisms embedded in Step 7 generated adoption effects extending beyond the original thirty research participants.

6 Implications

6.1 Implications for agricultural extension and participatory approaches

The most directly supported implication of this study’s findings concerns the design and delivery of participatory agricultural extension. The social-ecological feedback pathway demonstrated in this study underscores the centrality of iterative, farmer-centered extension services in agroecological transitions. The participatory workshop model employed in Steps 1 and 7 engaged farmers as knowledge co-producers rather than passive recipients, proving effective in generating both understanding and expressed motivation. Extension programs seeking to replicate this model should emphasize continuous and iterative engagement over longer periods. They should also pay close attention to gender dynamics, recognize the distinct knowledge and experiences of male and female farmers, and promote peer-learning networks that continue beyond the formal intervention period.

The knowledge-dissemination approaches used in Step 7, such as educational materials, workshops, and field demonstrations, indicate that the benefits of agroecological interventions can extend beyond direct participants. These benefits may spread through social networks and shared learning within farming communities. This propagation effect has significant implications for the cost-effectiveness of extension investment. However, the study cannot quantify the extent of this diffusion effect, and further research is needed to assess whether and at what rate neighboring farmers adopt practices observed during demonstrations.

6.2 Implications for agricultural policy

The exploratory findings from this study point to several potentially important policy directions. However, given the context-specific and qualitative nature of the evidence, these implications should be viewed as areas for further examination rather than as definitive policy recommendations. The findings indicate that incorporating agroecological principles into national extension curricula could strengthen pest management strategies in smallholder farming systems. In particular, participatory pest management and farmer-led ecological monitoring may promote approaches that are more context-specific and validated by farmers’ own experiences. Regulatory frameworks that facilitate access to biopesticides while ensuring smallholder usability would complement the IPM decision hierarchies that farmers found effective in this study. Policy investments in participatory, farmer-co-designed research trials in sub-Saharan African contexts would help build the quantitative evidence base needed to move beyond the exploratory findings reported here.

6.3 Implications for climate change adaptation

Climate change poses a compounding threat to smallholder food security in sub-Saharan Africa (Adusei et al., 2026). Rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns are expected to intensify pest and disease pressure while reducing yield predictability (IPPC Secretariat, 2021). Agroecological diversification addresses this threat through multiple channels: polyculture systems exhibit greater yield stability under variable conditions (Bowles et al., 2020; Raseduzzaman and Jensen, 2017), and soil-health enhancement improves water-holding capacity (Sisouvanh et al., 2021). The participatory nature of the seven-step framework also built the knowledge and monitoring capacity that may support adaptive management in the face of changing conditions. These climate-adaptation implications remain speculative within the study’s seven-month timeframe and should be evaluated through longer-term, mixed-methods research.

7 Limitations

This study is subject to several substantive limitations that materially shape the interpretation of findings and should be stated clearly. First, the qualitative design did not permit formal quantification of yield changes, pest-population dynamics, or soil-health parameters through controlled field measurements. The agronomic and ecological outcomes reported in Section 4 are based entirely on farmer perceptions and researcher field observations rather than on replicated experimental data with statistical validation. Causal inferences about the effectiveness of specific intervention components are therefore not supportable from this study design alone.

Second, the study did not include control plots or conventionally managed farms that could be compared alongside the agroecological intervention plots during the intervention period. As a result, the observed changes cannot be clearly attributed solely to the interventions. Natural seasonal variation, weather variability, and the general effect of increased management attention (the Hawthorne effect) represent plausible alternative or contributing explanations for the outcomes reported. Future studies should incorporate paired plot designs or randomised controlled trials to isolate intervention effects.

Third, the sample size of thirty farmers from three communities within a single district is small and limits external validity. This study should be understood as an exploratory qualitative case study, not as evidence of broad agroecological effectiveness across diverse smallholder contexts. Generalizability to other districts, regions, or bioclimatic zones cannot be assumed without further empirical examination across different contexts.

Fourth, the seven-month intervention period was insufficient to capture the full trajectory of soil microbial recovery, pest-resistance dynamics, or long-term yield effects. Soil biological communities require extended periods, often measured in years, to undergo the compositional shifts associated with sustained organic management (McGill et al., 1986; Rasmussen et al., 1989). Long-term monitoring studies of at least three to five years would be needed to evaluate whether the perceived improvements reported here are sustained and deepened over time.

Fifth, potential selection bias in farmer satisfaction reporting should be acknowledged. Participants who chose to enroll and remained actively involved throughout the seven months may have been more inclined to view the intervention positively. Their assessments could have been influenced by their interest in the study, close interaction with the research team, or previous exposure to agroecological concepts. This bias cannot be fully controlled within the study design; independently administered follow-up surveys would provide a more robust assessment of sustained adoption and satisfaction.

Finally, the study was conducted within a single district in Ghana. The ecological and socio-economic conditions of the Bosome Freho District generally reflect those found in humid-forest smallholder farming systems across West Africa. In addition, the study’s grounding in the ESF provides a basis for making cautious comparisons to similar contexts. However, this inference requires empirical validation in other settings.

8 Conclusion

This study provides exploratory qualitative evidence that agroecological strategies, when implemented through a structured, participatory seven-step framework, were perceived by farmers to reduce pest, disease, and weed pressures. Participants also reported improvements in crop health, product quality, and livelihood conditions within smallholder farming systems in the Bosome Freho District of Ghana. All findings are based on farmer perceptions and researcher field observations. No controlled quantitative measurements were undertaken, and the study design does not allow for causal conclusions about the effectiveness of specific intervention components.

The ESF provided analytical architecture through which the perceived mechanisms of these outcomes were interpreted. Three interacting pathways were identified. The biodiversity-ecosystem-function pathway, targeted through crop diversification and soil enrichment, was associated with perceived ecological self-regulation and natural nutrient cycling. The regulating-services pathway, targeted through habitat creation and integrated pest management protocols, appeared to enable biological pest suppression and reduce chemical dependency. The social-ecological feedback pathway, activated through participatory workshops and knowledge dissemination, generated the farmer knowledge, motivation, and adaptive capacity that appeared necessary for sustained engagement beyond the intervention period.

High levels of expressed satisfaction were reported among both male (90.5%) and female (88.9%) participants. As a self-reported measure, these responses may be influenced by social desirability bias. However, the results suggest that the intervention was perceived as practically relevant and applicable within existing farming systems. The specificity of farmer testimony regarding practical improvements in crop performance and livelihood conditions further supports the perceived value of the approach.

These findings are exploratory and context-specific. They do not constitute evidence that agroecological strategies can be straightforwardly scaled or that they will deliver the same outcomes across different agroecological zones, farming contexts, or seasons. The study’s strongest contribution relates to participatory extension design. The iterative, farmer-centered, multi-step approach appeared to enhance ecological understanding, strengthen adaptive management capacity, and increase expressed motivation for continued adoption among participants. These findings suggest promising effects that warrant further examination using more rigorous quantitative and mixed-methods research designs.

For policymakers and extension practitioners, the most strongly supported evidence from this study highlights the importance of investing in participatory and iterative extension models. Such approaches engage smallholder farmers as co-designers of agroecological interventions rather than as passive recipients of technical advice. Whether the ecological and economic gains perceived by farmers in this study are sustained over longer time horizons, and whether they can be replicated across broader contexts, remains an open empirical question that future research should address.

References

• 1

  AdriaensensJ.DesseinJ.AdamJ. (2025). Science as a territory in dispute: an analysis of power and paradigms in the conceptualization of agroecology. Agric. Hum. Values42, 1757–1771. doi: 10.1007/s10460-025-10723-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AduseiF. Y. (2020). Investigating the factors that affect the adoption of organic agriculture in Asokwa. Kumasi Metropolis. Int. J. Agric. Ext.8, 163–172. doi: 10.33687/ijae.008.03.3310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AduseiF. Y.Agyemang-DuahW.AkowuahY. A.AdebayoB. O. (2026). Cultivating resilience: localized insights into climate impacts and gendered adaptation strategies in smallholder farming in Ghana. Front. Clim.7:1727893. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2025.1727893

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AliM.MaM.MuneebM.WongG. K. W. (2025). Mapping contemporary AI-education intersections and developing an integrated convergence framework: a bibliometric-driven and inductive content analysis. Metrics2:23. doi: 10.3390/metrics2040023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AltieriM. A.Funes-MonzoteF. R.PetersenP. (2012). Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev.32, 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AyilaraM. S.AdelekeB. S.AkinolaS. A.FayoseC. A.AdeyemiU. T.GbadegesinL. A.et al. (2023). Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: a case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides. Front. Microbiol.14:1040901. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1040901,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BajwaW. I.KoganM. (2002). Compendium of IPM Definitions (CID): What is IPM and how is it defined in the worldwide literature? IPPC Publication No. 998. Corvallis, OR: Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC), Oregon State University, 1–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BakerB. P.GreenT. A.LokerA. J. (2020). Biological control and integrated pest management in organic and conventional systems. Biol. Control140:104095. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BassignanaC. F.BrunoV.MiglioriniP. (2025). A novel framework for assessing ecosystem services through agroecological practices. Front. Agron.7:1648022. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2025.1648022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BorgesS.AlkassabA. T.CollisonE.HinarejosS.JonesB.McVeyE.et al. (2021). Overview of the testing and assessment of effects of microbial pesticides on bees. Apidologie52, 1256–1277. doi: 10.1007/s13592-021-00900-0,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BourguetD.GuillemaudT. (2016). The hidden and external costs of pesticide use. Sustain. Agric. Rev.19, 35–120. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26777-7_2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BowlesT. M.MooshammerM.SocolarY.CalderónF.CavigelliM. A.CulmanS. W.et al. (2020). Long-term evidence shows that crop-rotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth2, 284–293. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.02.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CappelliS. L.Domeignoz-HortaL. A.LoaizaV.LaineA. L. (2022). Plant biodiversity promotes sustainable agriculture directly and via belowground effects. Trends Plant Sci.27, 674–687. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2022.02.003,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  De PaoliS. (2023). Performing an inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with a large language model. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev.42, 997–1019. doi: 10.1177/08944393231220483

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DebuschewitzE.SandersJ. (2022). Environmental impacts of organic agriculture and the controversial scientific debates. Org. Agric.12, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s13165-021-00381-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  EbensoB.OtuA.GiustiA.CousinP.AdetimirinV.RazafindralamboH.et al. (2022). Nature-based one health approaches to urban agriculture can deliver food and nutrition security. Front. Nutr.9:773746. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.773746,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FarfanM. A.WallD. H. (2022). “Biodiversity”, in Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment, 2nd Edn. (Elsevier), 251–257. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822974-3.00072-0,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FinchS.CollierR. H. (2000). Host-plant selection by insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl.96, 91–102. doi: 10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00684.x,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GeampanaA.PerrottaM. (2024). Using interview excerpts to facilitate focus group discussion. Qual. Res.25, 130–146. doi: 10.1177/14687941241234283,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Ghana Statistical Service. (2014). 2010 population and housing census: district analytical report – Bosome Freho District. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service. Available online at: https://www2.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010_District_Report/Ashanti/BOSOME_FREHO.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GhanizadehH.LiF.HeL.HarringtonK. C. (2021). Characterization of clopyralid resistance in lawn burweed. PLoS One16:e0253934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253934,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GourguetS.MarzloffM. P.BacherC.BoudryP.CugierP.DambacherJ. M.et al. (2021). Participatory qualitative modeling to assess the sustainability of a coastal socio-ecological system. Front. Ecol. Evol.9:635857. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.635857

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  IsbellF.CalcagnoV.HectorA.ConnollyJ.HarpoleW. S.ReichP. B.et al. (2011). High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature477, 199–202. doi: 10.1038/nature10282,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  JavidM.JavaidM.SajidF. (2025). “Global action plan for agricultural diversification for achieving zero hunger,” in Crop Biofortification: Biotechnological Approaches for Achieving Nutritional Security under Changing Climate, eds. Shah, A. N., Fiaz, S., Aslam, M., Iqbal, J., and Qayyum, A. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.), 145–156. doi: 10.1002/9781394273270

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  KumarA.BhopleB. S.JeganathanJ. (2025). Balancing food security and environmental health: the dual challenge of pesticide use in India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.32, 4949–4956. doi: 10.1007/s11356-025-36009-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  KumarV.SinghM.SinghA.SinghS.KumarA. (2021). Mycoherbicide control strategy: concept, constraints, and advancements. Biopesticides Int.17, 29–40. Available online at: https://connectjournals.com/02196.2021.17.29

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Llanos PugaC. M.DesseinJ.AdriaensensJ. (2025). Exploring the contribution of public policies to the scaling up of agroecology in Peru. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food31, 63–90. doi: 10.48416/ijsaf.v31i2.657

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  LykogianniM.BempelouE.KaramaounaF.AliferisK. A. (2021). Do pesticides promote or hinder sustainability in agriculture?Sci. Total Environ.795:148625. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148625

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  MarteyE.EtwireP. M.KuwornuJ. K. M.SurajM. M. (2024). Micro-level welfare effects of integrated soil fertility management in northern Ghana. J. Clean. Prod.482:144224. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144224

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  MathiasJ. D.AnderiesJ. M.BaggioJ.HodbodJ.HuetS.JanssenM. A.et al. (2020). Exploring non-linear transition pathways in social-ecological systems. Sci. Rep.10:4136. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59713-w,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  MazaheriD.MadaniA.OveysiM. (2006). Assessing the land equivalent ratio (LER) of two corn varieties intercropping. J. Cent. Eur. Agric.7, 359–364.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  McGillW. B.CannonK. R.RobertsonJ. A.CookF. D. (1986). Dynamics of soil microbial biomass and water-soluble organic C in Breton L after 5 years of cropping. Can. J. Soil Sci.66, 1–19. doi: 10.4141/cjss86-001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  McKenzieF. C.WilliamsJ. (2015). Sustainable food production: constraints, challenges and choices by 2050. Food Secur.7, 221–233. doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0441-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  MiaoX.YinI. Z.ZhangH.SiuK. W. M. (2025). Participatory research methods and tools for promoting children's psychological well-being. Appl. Res. Qual. Life20, 1629–1664. doi: 10.1007/s11482-025-10490-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  MihreteT. B.MihretuF. B. (2025). Crop diversification for ensuring sustainable agriculture, risk management and food security. Glob. Chall.9:2400267. doi: 10.1002/gch2.202400267,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Ministry of Food and Agriculture. (n.d.). National agricultural vision: Bosome Freho District Directorate. Accra, Ghana: Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Available online at: https://mofa.gov.gh/site/sports/districtdirectorates/ashanti-region/159-bosome-freho

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  MullerA.SchaderC.el-Hage ScialabbaN.BrüggemannJ.IsenseeA.ErbK. H.et al. (2017). Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun.8:1290. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd Edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  PrajapatiC. S.PriyaN. K.BishnoiS.VishwakarmaS. K.BuvaneswariK.ShastriS.et al. (2025). The role of participatory approaches in modern agricultural extension. J. Exp. Agric. Int.47, 204–222. doi: 10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i23281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  RaseduzzamanM.JensenE. S. (2017). Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron.91, 25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  RasmussenP. E.CollinsH. P.SmileyR. W. (1989). Long-term Management Effects on soil Productivity and crop Yield in semi-arid Regions of Eastern Oregon. Station Bulletin No. 675. Corvallis, OR: USDA Agricultural Research Service and Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ReganoldJ. P.WachterJ. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants2:15221. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2015.221,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  RistainoJ. B.AndersonP. K.BebberD. P.BraumanK. A.CunniffeN. J.FedoroffN. V.et al. (2021). The persistent threat of emerging plant disease pandemics to global food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA118:e2022239118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022239118,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  RodenburgJ.DemontM.ZwartS. J.BastiaansL. (2016). Parasitic weed incidence and related economic losses in rice in Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.235, 306–317. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.10.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  SabaA. (2025). “Agriculture and ecosystem services,” in Legal Implications of Results-based agri-Environmental and Climate Commitments in the EU CAP, vol. 4 (Cham: Springer), 11–42. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-82540-8_2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  SecretariatI. P. P. C. (2021). Scientific Review of the impact of Climate change on plant Pests. Rome: FAO.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  SheahanM.BarrettC. B.GoldvaleC. (2017). Human health and pesticide use in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Econ.48, 27–41. doi: 10.1111/agec.12384

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  SisouvanhP.Trelo-gesV.Isarangkool Na AyutthayaS.PierretA.NunanN.SilveraN.et al. (2021). Can organic amendments improve soil physical characteristics and increase maize performances in contrasting soil water regimes?Agriculture11:132. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11020132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  StefanL.HartmannM.EngbersenN.SixJ.SchöbC. (2021). Positive effects of crop diversity on productivity driven by changes in soil microbial composition. Front. Microbiol.12:660749. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.660749,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  TamburiniG.BommarcoR.WangerT. C.KremenC.van der HeijdenM. G. A.LiebmanM.et al. (2020). Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci. Adv.6:eaba1715. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba1715,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  TataridasA.AnastasiM.Vieites-ÁlvarezY.López-GonzálezD.Campillo-CoraC.GiustiA.et al. (2025). EU-funded research to advance agroecological weed management in Europe, Part I: vision. Open Res. Eur.5:211. doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.20296.1,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  van der PloegJ. D.BarjolleD.BruilJ.BrunoriG.Costa MadureiraL. M.DesseinJ.et al. (2019). The economic potential of agroecology: empirical evidence from Europe. J. Rural. Stud.71, 46–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.08.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  WeddleH.OliveiraG. (2024). Imagining new possibilities through participatory qualitative methods. Int J Qual Methods23:16094069241301983. doi: 10.1177/16094069241301983

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  WidmerT. L.AbawiG. S. (2002). Relationship between levels of cyanide in sudangrass hybrids incorporated into soil and suppression of Meloidogyne hapla. J. Nematol.34, 16–22,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  WutichA.BeresfordM.BernardH. R. (2024). Sample sizes for 10 types of qualitative data analysis: an integrative review, empirical guidance, and next steps. Int J Qual Methods23:16094069241296206. doi: 10.1177/16094069241296206

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  XuJ.LiY.LiL. (2025). A comprehensive review of the effects of organic amendments on soil health and fertility: mechanisms, greenhouse gas emissions, and implications for sustainable agriculture. Agronomy15:2705. doi: 10.3390/agronomy15122705

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  ZahleJ. (2025). Bias and debiasing strategies in qualitative data collection. Philos. Sci.92, 606–623. doi: 10.1017/psa.2024.70

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  ZhouW.LiM.AchalV. (2025). A comprehensive review on environmental and human health impacts of chemical pesticide usage. Emerg. Contam.11:100410. doi: 10.1016/j.emcon.2024.100410,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar