Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

DIVERSIFOOD Final Congress - Session 4 - Poster presentations


Published on

Monitoring On-Farm Diversity in the United States
by Cathleen McCluskey, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
A modeling approach for on farm crop diversity management
by Abdel Kader Naino Jicka, INRA, France
Management of plant health and crop diversity – a case study
by Stephanie Klaedtke, Univ. de Liège - SEED, Belgium
Conservation and usage of chestnut biodiversity: a case study of partnership research
by Cathy Bouffartigue, INRA, France
Mapping European CSAs’ Practices for Cultivated Biodiversity
by Jocelyn Parot, INRA, France
From Cosmopolitan maize to Identitarian maize: collective management of maize
landraces in France and Italy
by Marianna Fenzi, INRA, France
Governance and organizational models of informal seed systems in Italy
by Riccardo Franciolini, RSR, Italy

Published in: Food
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

DIVERSIFOOD Final Congress - Session 4 - Poster presentations

  1. 1. Management of plant health and crop diversity – a case study Stephanie M. Klaedtke (ITAB, ULiège) François Mélard (ULiège) Véronique Chable (INRA) Pierre M. Stassart (ULiège)
  2. 2. Management of plant health and crop diversity – a case study Objective •  Specifying how a group of seed producers articulate crop diversity and plant health management Methods •  Interdisciplinary combination of field trials, and qualitative inquiry: interviews and participant observation
  3. 3. Main result Plant health is managed in situ and conceived in amidst the interactions between the local environment, the plants and the farming practices. Managementofplanthealthandcropdiversity– acasestudy
  4. 4. • Boundaries of plants and their health are redrawn • In situ management links plant health and crop diversity management • Need to consider plant health at the collective scale TakeHomeMessage Managementofplanthealthandcropdiversity– acasestudy
  5. 5. Conservationandusage ofchestnutdiversity: acasestudyofpartnershipresearch CathyBouffartiguea,TimothéeFlutreb,NathalieCouixa, TeresaBarenechec,LucHarvengtd,LaurentHazarda aAGIR,UniversitédeToulouse,INRA,INPT,INP-EIPURPANCastanetTolosan,France,bINRA,UMRAmélioration GénétiqueetAdaptationdesPlantesméditérranéennesettropicales,F-34060Montpellier,France;cINRA,UMR1332 deBiologieduFruitetPathologie,F-33140,Villenaved'Ornon,France;dGeneticsandBiotechnologyteam,Biotech andAdvancedForestryDepartment,FCBAtechinstitute,CampusRechercheForêt-BoisdePierroton,71route d'Arcachon,33610Cestas,FRANCE
  6. 6. Number of chestnut sampled per geographic area 63 • Considering together the social and biological aspects embedded in the diversity of an underutilized fruit tree species • Partnerships with associations/conservatoires – mostly amateurs • Microsatellites • Interviews and workshops Conservationandusageofchestnutdiversity: acasestudyofpartnershipresearch Sampling sites Objective Methods Whatistheroleofamateurs’practicesandviewsonthe conservationofchestnutdiversity?
  7. 7. Conservationandusageofchestnutdiversity: acasestudyofpartnershipresearch Main result Mostsampledsites havegenotypes belongingto differentclusters CultivatedchestnutisquitediverseinFrance (227allelesin238genotypes,meanofallellesperloci:10.4)
  8. 8. Conservationandusageofchestnutdiversity: acasestudyofpartnershipresearch • • Funders : Fondation de France, Région Occitanie • Research partners : INRA Biogeco, FCBA • Field Partners : ACRC, Rénova, Renouveau de la châtaigne en Hautes- Pyrénées, Paysans du Rance, Vergers d’Antan, Croqueurs de pommes du Limousin, Syndicat des producteurs de châtaignes du Var Islocalchestnutfromhere?
  9. 9. Monitoringon-farmgeneticdiversity offieldcornintheUnitedStates Cathleen McCluskey
  10. 10. Monitoringon-farmgenetic diversityoffieldcornintheU.S. Objective • How do U.S. field corn growers perceive, monitor, and manage crop genetic diversity on their farms? Methods • Conducted a series of in-person interviews with Midwestern corn growers about how they monitor and manage on-farm genetic diversity on their farms.
  11. 11. Monitoringon-farmgenetic diversityoffieldcornintheU.S. Main result • Majority of farmers interviewed rely on seed dealers to make variety decisions and responses varied drastically as to their understanding of what pedigree information they have access to.
  12. 12. Monitoringon-farmgenetic diversityoffieldcornintheU.S. • If farmers do not have access to the genetic background details of their seed and rely on seed dealers’ variety recommendations, who is monitoring and managing on-farm diversity in U.S. fields? • Contact email: • These interviews were funded by a Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems Mini-Grant TakeHomeMessage
  13. 13. Mappingeuropean CSAs’practicesfor CultivatedBiodiversity Jocelyn Parot1, Cathy Bouffartigue2, Charline Ducottet3 1 URGENCI Maison de la vie associative 13400 Aubagne, France;2 AGIR Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INP-EI PURPAN Castanet Tolosan, France; 3 Biodiversité Cultivée et Recherche Participative, UMR Bagap, INRA, Le Rheu, France
  14. 14. MappingeuropeanCSAs’ practicesforCultivated Biodiversity Objective • Are the close partnerships between farmers and consumers a source of social innovation for in-situ management of biodiversity? Methodology • Online survey circulated among URGENCI, network and allies • In-depth semi-directed interviews with identified stakeholders
  15. 15. MappingeuropeanCSAs’ practicesforCultivated Biodiversity Main result • CSAs’ consumer participation in seeds production and conservation is rare • The initiatives on cultivated biodiversity are mostly initiated and done by the farmer(s) Farmer CSA collective decision facilitator of the CSA one member or small group in the CSA Average percentage of stakeholders launching in situ conservation actions for all species
  16. 16. MappingeuropeanCSAs’ practicesforCultivated Biodiversity • What would be the conditions for a stronger involvement of CSAs’ consumers in cultivated biodiversity considerations ? • What would be the benefits of increased consumers' awareness and commitment to the field of in situ conservation ? For consumers themselves? For farmers? For the CSA networks? • • • AdemandofsomeCSAs’consumers,afarmerinitiative
  17. 17. Amodelingapproachforon farmcropdiversitymanagement AbdelKaderNainoJika,MathieuThomas,MatteoPetiti,Riccardo BocciandIsabelleGoldringer
  18. 18. Amodelingapproachforonfarmcrop diversitymanagement Objective Exploretheimpactof differentcommunityseed systemsorganisationmodes, farmers’practicesand environmentalconditionson geneticdiversityand populationadaptationover generations Methods -Scenarioco-constructon withRSR -Simulaton -Outputanalysis 1 2 3
  19. 19. Mainresult Thereisagradualeffect ofselectionongenetic diversityandgenetic differentiationwhen movingfromasingle environmenttothe environmentalgradiant andtothetwoconstrated environment. HS Fst Generatons Amodelingapproachforonfarmcrop diversitymanagement
  20. 20. Themodelingbased approach(CropMetapop) canhelpuscompare severalmanagement strategiesandtoidentify themostinteresting strategyintheshortand mediumterm. • •Acknowledgements: RSR,Diversifood TakeHomeMessage Amodelingapproachforonfarmcrop diversitymanagement
  21. 21. Governanceandorganizational modelsofinnovatineseed systemsinItaly L. Ortolani, B. Bussi, R. Franciolini, M. Petitti, R. Bocci Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtrede mémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrez l'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujours a!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer.
  22. 22. Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché, vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer. Governanceandorganizational models... Objective • Describe participatory processes to strengthen agrobiodiversity management capabilities Methods • Participatory design based on integrated seed system picture
  23. 23. Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée. Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'image avantdelaréinsérer. Governanceandorganizational models... Main result • Describe governance and organizational models of CBM • Acknowledgement and capacity to compare CBM Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaule fichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer. Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveau lefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer.
  24. 24. Impossibled'a!cherl'image.Votreordinateurmanquepeut-êtredemémoirepourouvrirl'imageoul'imageestendommagée.Redémarrezl'ordinateur,puisouvrezànouveaulefichier.Silexrougeesttoujoursa!ché,vousdevrezpeut-êtresupprimerl'imageavantdelaréinsérer. Governanceandorganizational models... • Identify governance models • More case studies • Dynamics in governance
  25. 25. Restoringcultivatedagrobiodiversity: theroleofknowledgegovernance withinpeasantseednetworks AcasestudyonWheatParticipatoryBreeding GroupoftheRSP Armelle Mazé, Aida Calabuig Domenech, Isabelle Goldringer SENAC project – Socio-Ecological Systems in a Changing World
  26. 26. Theselectivenatureofknowledge networksandgovernance. TheWheatParticipatorybreedinggroupoftheRSP Objective How the structure of the network & models of collective action influence knowledge dissemination on landrace varieties • What impact of the institutional environment on • What impact on the network dynamics and participation in a context of growth Methods • IAD2 framework (Ostrom, 2005, 2009) • Network structure • Knowledge systems • Governance and Rules-in- use of the member groups • Network formalization of knowledge exchanges between the groups • Giuliani (2007) on innovative wine clusters
  27. 27. Theroleofknowledgegovernance withinpeasantseedsnetwork Main result • A polycentric and open network covering discontinuous territories • A diversity of rules and models of collective action • With differentiated positions of the groups within the network • The groups with the stronger “knowledge base” are more central • Size of the collection • Type of activity • Level of investment in network seed activities Table2-ThreemainmodelsofcollectivegovernanceofPWBG’scollectivegroups Model1 Specializedconservation-propagation orientedmodelofgovernance Model2 Value-oriented modelof governance Model3– Commonbaselinefor participatory breedingrules Type1-Ptn: Adistributed governancemodel withoutafacilitator Type2GdN:A locallycentralized governancemodel withafacilitator Modelmanagedby anotherorganization (cooperatives, nationalparks,etc.) Modelmanagedbythe nationalnetworkand appliedonavoluntary basis Lessformalizedwith strongerinformal coordinationamong peasants/gardeners;no compensationscheme Moreformalized rules,witha facilitatoranda compensation scheme Formalizedrulesand contractswithaprice systemforderived finalproducts(flour, bread,etc.) Optionalinternalrules (RI)andguidelinesto beusedbyPWBG members;managedby thePWBGfacilitator; Ptn,M,SPT,Trp,AD R-A,Ganj,MSP46, C32 GdN,CTB,ADNAB04,G65allgroupsexceptAB04 andMSP46 Adapted from Calabuig Domenech (2017). The groups dedicated to peasant seeds are in bold, and the core historical groups or individuals are underlined.
  28. 28. Theroleofknowledgegovernance withpeasantseednetworks. • Beyond seed exchanges: recreating a shared knowledge base • Different trade-offs between distributed and locally centralized models depending of the human and financial (facilitator + €€€ ) • Against institutional monocropping: • Maintaining a diversity of models of collective action • A dynamic of mutual learning and hybridization of rules TakeHomeMessage
  29. 29. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize: collectivemanagementofmaizelandraces inFranceandItaly Marianna Fenzi, Laurent Hazard, Nathalie Couix INRA-SAD, UMR 1248 Agir, Toulouse, France.
  30. 30. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize Objective To analyze forms of organization related to maize landraces management. To trace the construction of new connections, narrations, imaginaries on maize culture. To identify motivations, values and limitations related to maize landraces management. Methods France – Italy Comparative analysis based on: • Semi-structured interviews with 47 farmers • 29 in Aquitaine • 18 in Veneto • Observant participation. • Historical research.
  31. 31. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize • Aquitaine: • maize landraces from Latin America and from different European countries • genetic mixing • animal feeding • interest in having their “own seeds”. • Veneto: • local maize form Veneto landraces • conservation "in purity” • use for human food • interest in typicity and commercial valorization. Varieties of maize landraces Main reasons for growing maize landraces
  32. 32. FromCosmopolitanmaizetoIdentitarianmaize • Different and often opposite management strategies between the two maize collectives. These different paths shaped farmers’ approaches to maize conservation and breeding, as well as their attachment to maize. • Acknowledgements: • AgroBioPerigord association • Marano & Sponcio cooperatives • DIVERSIFOOD TakeHomeMessage