Perceptions of agrodiversity and seed-saving practices in the northern Andes of Ecuador

Abstract

Background: As concerns about agrodiversity loss and its impact on food security increase, interest in seed-saving practices and motivations has risen, especially in regions characterized by ancestral farming. Agroecology practitioners in the northern Andes of Ecuador (n = 65) participated in this study to describe (1) the dynamics of intergenerational agrodiversity, (2) perceptions of relevance of the crops they grow, (3) criteria for characterizing the differences between conventional and non-conventional seeds, and (4) their seed-saving practices.

Methods: This exploratory study incorporated a community-based participatory research approach using mixed methods. We conducted (1) a timeline mapping for exploring the dynamics of intergenerational agrodiversity and (2) structured interviews to explore the perception of relevance of crops grown to identify criteria for characterizing conventional and non-conventional seeds and for identifying seed-saving practices. We computed ranks and frequencies from free listing data derived from the interviews to detect the most salient patterns for crop diversity and seed-saving practices. A principal component analysis was performed to illustrate crops distribution within the study area.

Results and discussion: Based on the timeline-mapping tool, we found that participants perceive an intergenerational loss of agrodiversity. Data derived from free listing determined that salient crops differ in each location of the study area, mostly due to geographic (altitude, climate), market factors, and crop management limitations. Responses from open-ended interview questions revealed that farmers discriminate conventional from non-conventional seeds using yield, adaptation to local conditions, pest tolerance, taste, and crop management as criteria. Analysis of free listing data determined that the most salient reported practices related to seed saving were soil fertility management, seed selection, safe seed storage, tilling and rowing, and weeding.

Conclusions: This study contributes to raising awareness of intergenerational agrodiversity loss and replacement with modern crops. We found the relevance of crops and practices is subject to cultural and environmental context, and few agricultural practices are exclusively used for seed saving. Further, farmers clearly discriminate conventional from non-conventional seeds based on advantages and disadvantages, cultural motivation, and produce destination. The community-based participatory approach resulted in positive engagement from participants and promoted commitment from farmers to preserve agrodiversity and support practices at the community level.

Keywords: Agroecology; Community-based participatory research; Conventional and non-conventional seeds; Food security and sovereignty; Intergenerational agrodiversity loss; Sustainable agriculture.

Fig. 1

Study area including the localities of Puéllaro, Perucho, Chavezpamba, Atahualpa, and Minas and La Esperanza and Cayambe

Fig. 2

Intergenerational agrodiversity of crops among the past (grandparents, A), the present (us, B) and the hopes for the future (grandchildren, C) in three areas of Ecuador’s northern Andes. Black depicts grandparents’ agrodiversity, and gray depicts newer acquisitions

Fig. 3

The most salient crops. Average rank (1 to 10) versus frequency. a All samples (n = 65); only crops with a frequency > 5% were included. b Farmers from Perucho and Puéllaro (n = 19); only crops with a frequency > 5% were included. c Farmers from La Esperanza (n = 14); only crops with a frequency > 5% were included in the figure. The right bottom represents the most salient crops and the left upper the lesser salient crops

Fig. 4

Principal components analysis (PCA) for 65 farmers included in this study based on the most relevant crops for their farms. The farmers with the prefix P are from Perucho and Puéllaro, K from Cayambe, E from La Esperanza, A from Atahualpa and Chavezpamba, and M from Minas

Fig. 5

The destination of the produce from CS and NCS

Fig. 6

Criteria for discriminating between CS and NCS based on 60 farmers’ response

Fig. 7

Ways in which NCS are better than CS. A total number of 21 attributes were identified. Only the criteria with a frequency ≥ 5 are represented in this figure

Fig. 8

The most important seed-saving practices in the study area

Fig. 9

The extent to which the following factors (climate, available technology, market, personal knowledge, community organization, and local/national regulations) prevent or encourage the implementation of the seed-saving practices mentioned in question 7