Next Article in Journal
Species Diversity Has a Positive Interrelationship with Aboveground Biomass and a Mismatch with Productivity in a Subtropical Broadleaf Forest on the Wuyi Mountains, China
Previous Article in Journal
A Phylogenetic Re-Evaluation of the Stenakrine Opecoelids (Trematoda, Digenea: Opecoeloidea) with Some Taxonomic Novelties
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ecological and Hydrological Indicators of Climate Change Observed by Dryland Communities of Malipati in Chiredzi, Zimbabwe
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/d14110950
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Research Status and Trends of Agrobiodiversity and Traditional Knowledge Based on Bibliometric Analysis (1992–Mid-2022)

by
Yiling Liu
,
Xiaodong Ren
* and
Fengqiong Lu
School of Karst Science, State Engineering Technology Institute for Karst Desertification Control, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang 550001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(11), 950; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14110950
Submission received: 9 August 2022 / Revised: 22 October 2022 / Accepted: 3 November 2022 / Published: 5 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Human Dimension of Biodiversity Protection)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditional knowledge is a favored research area in agrobiodiversity conservation at home and abroad, and plays a vital role in the sustainable use of ecosystems, livelihood support, and food security. In this paper, the WoS Core Collection was used as the data source to statistically analyze the literature on the topic of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research. The results show the following: (1) The number of articles published in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research has been increasing annually. (2) The United States is the most influential country in this field of research, and other leading countries include India, Mexico, Germany, and Italy. (3) The existing research is mainly in the field of natural science, and the Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine is the most crucial journal in terms of the number of articles published. (4) Neither authors nor institutional collaboration networks have formed a close transnational collaboration network. (5) Popular research in this area includes the conservation of local varieties, agricultural landscape changes, livelihood support, and agroforestry systems. (6) In addition to the ongoing focus on natural ecological aspects of research, future research will focus more on cultural and social benefits. Finally, we propose to enhance the exploration of quantitative analysis research methods, strengthen interdisciplinary research exchanges, expand the breadth of disciplinary research, strengthen stakeholder cooperation, and promote the construction of relevant policies and regulations.

1. Introduction

Agrobiodiversity concerns the wild, semi-domesticated, and domesticated species of plants and animals associated with food and agricultural production that are artificially constructed, managed, and used, along with the agroecosystems and agricultural landscapes formed by multiple species, which are the result of the interaction between nature and human society and play important roles in socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, and food security aspects [1,2,3]. International organizations such as the IDRC define agrobiodiversity as biodiversity related to food and production, including the diversity of plants, animals, and microorganisms in terms of genes, species, and ecosystems [4,5]. Thus, for research purposes, agrobiodiversity can be divided into four components: agricultural genetic diversity, agricultural species diversity, agroecosystem diversity, and agricultural landscape diversity. The importance of agrobiodiversity as a branch of biodiversity cannot be overstated. However, for a long time, various factors—such as policy influence, technology, economic development, global climate change, and the development of modern agriculture—have caused drastic reductions in agrobiodiversity. Especially in areas where agricultural industry is the main focus, agrobiodiversity is more vulnerable to the impacts of social and environmental changes. Therefore, how to conserve agrobiodiversity has become the focus of many scholars’ research.
Traditional knowledge (TK), also known as indigenous knowledge, is defined by the CBD as any indigenous knowledge, innovation, custom, or local community tradition that is important in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and related practices [6]. The impact of indigenous traditional knowledge on agrobiodiversity has long been of interest to many scholars. The impact of indigenous traditional knowledge on agrobiodiversity was noted by some scholars as early as the 19th century, and they approached the issue more from an ethnobotanical perspective [7]. Later, as research intensified and interdisciplinary exchanges increased, more and more scholars expanded their research perspectives to include different angles. Traditional sustainable agroecosystems inherited by farmers throughout history, while adapting to the local socioeconomic culture, also possess extremely high adaptive capacity, stability, and sustainability in response to extreme weather, helping them to meet their survival needs in harsh environments [8,9,10]. Numerous studies have shown that traditional agricultural systems and specific indigenous methods of maintaining soil fertility and crop management, along with local traditional sociocultural and religious rituals, have saved many of the threatened but most economically valuable conventional crop varieties and preserved the genetic diversity of local species [11,12,13,14]. Agrobiodiversity in traditional farming landscapes in some regions contributes significantly to food and nutrition security, and local ecological knowledge contributes to the role of agroecosystems in ecological restoration [15,16]. Numerous studies have proven that traditional knowledge has positive implications for the conservation of agrobiodiversity which, in turn, protects traditional knowledge [17].
The world is paying more and more attention to the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, and publications on this topic are gradually increasing in number. However, to the best of our knowledge, no relevant bibliometric-analysis-based review papers address agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. More scholars use bibliometric analysis and visualization analysis software to analyze issues related to agricultural biodiversity or traditional knowledge research. Malapane used VOSviewer to study the development of indigenous knowledge in Africa for over 30 years [18]. Ritter examined Brazilian ethnobotany by assessing research priorities, regions, and current issues [19]. Liu analyzed research themes, evolutionary processes, and future trends in agroecosystems [20]. Therefore, in order to better understand the current research status and development trends in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, this paper uses bibliometric analysis to identify the major research countries, research institutions, popular journals, and representative scholars in this field, and to discover the research themes in this field, in order to provide suggestions and opinions for the development of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.

2. Data Sources and Research Methods

2.1. Data Sources

The ISI Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) is an authoritative and high-impact database of journals, books, and international academic collections in various disciplines, including the natural sciences, social sciences, biomedical sciences, engineering and technology, and arts and humanities. Therefore, we selected the WOSCC database as the fundamental data source and used the advanced search function in the database with the search formula TS = (“agricultural genetic diversity” or “agro-ecosystem diversity” or “agrobiodiversity” or “agricultural landscape diversity” or “agricultural species diversity”) AND TS = (“traditional ecological knowledge” or “traditional knowledge” or “local cultural practices” or “indigenous knowledge” or “local knowledge”). The search time frame started from 1 January 1992 and ended on 1 August 2022. In order to clarify the documentary data for better analysis, we selected “Article” in “Document Types” and “English” for “Languages”. As a result, we identified 689 documents. We imported 689 documents into EndNote to exclude duplicates, leaving 688 documents. Then, to filter out irrelevant literature, two researchers independently read the titles, keywords, and abstracts to eliminate literature on topics unrelated to agrobiodiversity or traditional knowledge. For example, if an article had only agrobiodiversity content but no TK-related content, it was excluded from the screening process. Finally, we were left with 419 publications (Figure 1).

2.2. Research Methods

2.2.1. Tools

Bibliometrics uses the quantitative analysis of academic literature to understand the structure and trends of global developments in research fields and the impacts of authors, institutions, and countries on international research output [21,22]. VOSviewer is a free JAVA-based software developed by van Eck and Waltman of The Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 2009. VOSviewer can reduce the overlap of nodes and labels when performing scientific knowledge mapping representations and more clearly express the relationships between scientific topics. Citespace is a scientific literature analysis tool jointly developed by Dr.Chenmei Chen of the School of Information Science and Technology at Radisson University and the WISE Lab at the Dalian University of Technology. CiteSpace has apparent advantages for sorting out the evolution of research in a field [23]. Therefore, we used VOSviewer and CiteSpace software for visualization and analysis. In the VOSviewer network visualization diagram, the greater the importance of an item, the larger its labels and nodes; the links between objects represent their relevance, with thicker lines representing stronger relevance, and the color of the items representing the cluster to which they belong [24].

2.2.2. Research Methodology

This study was based on literature data from the WoSCC. Firstly, Excel was used to conduct a preliminary statistical analysis of the annual numbers of publications, countries of publication, publication disciplines, prominent authors, and research institutions in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research according to the literature analysis search function of WoS. After that, we exported the obtained literature data from the WoSCC database in txt format and used the VOSviewer version 1.6.18 software to draw the visualization maps of collaboration networks among the countries, authors, and institutions with the most publications, along with keyword clustering with regard to the research area. The software CiteSpace version 6.1.R2 was used to map the keywords’ time-zone view and the keywords with the most robust citation bursts. Finally, the mapping analysis reflected the research hotspots, development trends, and current situation in agricultural biodiversity and traditional knowledge research (Figure 1).

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Analysis of the Time of Publication

The annual distribution of the literature on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge is shown in Figure 2, and the overall trend can be divided into three stages. Publications on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge included in the WoSCC database have appeared since 1992, but until 2008, the body of literature in this field was relatively small, with no more than 10 articles per year, and was in its early stage of embryonic development. This may be due to the fact that the topic of traditional knowledge was not formally raised until 1992, when the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. From 2008 to 2016, the overall research showed a fluctuating upward trend. After 2016, the number of relevant publications rose significantly and at a fast rate, and the number of publications peaked in 2021. Although the overall number of publications on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge is relatively low, this field is in a rapid stage of development, with the amount of relevant literature growing significantly and the field receiving increasing attention.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Analysis of the Different Countries of Publication

A search of the WoSCC found that a total of 96 countries or regions participated in the research on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. The top 10 countries in terms of numbers of articles published are shown in Table 1, which mainly consists of two parts: the first part includes some developed countries in Europe and the United States, with significant scientific research strength, while the second part comprises developing countries with rich biodiversity resources, such as Mexico, India, Brazil, and China. The top five countries in terms of numbers of published papers were the United States, India, Mexico, Germany, and Italy, and these five countries accounted for 58.95% of the total documents. Among them, the number of American papers was as high as 80, accounting for 19.09% of the total publications, and with as many as 3510 citations. The United States is a solid and influential country in this field of research. Although Spain, Brazil, and Canada were not in the top positions in terms of the numbers of articles published, they were in the top three in terms of average citations per article, at 69.83, 59.69, and 58.54, respectively, indicating the importance of these countries in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research. In terms of the numbers of articles published in the last three years, Italy was the leader, accounting for 51.28%, having given greater attention to this field in recent years.
Figure 3 shows the mapping of international collaborations in countries with 10 or more publications. The size of the circles in the graph represents the frequency of cooperation between countries; the larger the circle, the more frequently the country cooperates with other countries; the thicker the lines between countries, the more intense the cooperation. The United States is at the center of a global network of international collaboration, maintaining a high frequency of cooperation with other countries—particularly Mexico, China, Italy, and India. Germany is the second most active country, cooperating more frequently with the UK and India. The active cooperation between the various countries not only promotes progress in research on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, but also increases the scientific capacity of each country [20].

3.2.2. Analysis of Subject Categories and Publishing Journals

In the WoSCC subject classification, the literature in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research covers a total of 58 related disciplines, and the existing research is mainly focused on the natural sciences, with the top five disciplines being environmental sciences, biodiversity conservation, ecology, environmental studies, and plant sciences, in that order. Research in humanities and social sciences also occupies a significant proportion, mainly involving anthropology and sociology.
The 419 retrieved articles were published in 213 journals, and the analysis of the top 10 journals in terms of the number of articles published showed that the disciplines published in the current literature were mainly agronomy, ecology, ethnobotany, and humanities and social sciences. The Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine is the journal with the highest number of articles in this field, accounting for 8.83% of the total literature, and mainly contains articles on humanities, society, nature, food, and health. The second-ranked journal, Sustainability, focuses on human environmental, cultural, economic, and social sustainability. The third-ranked journal, Biodiversity and Conservation, publishes articles about biodiversity, its conservation, and its sustainable use. The journal with the highest number of citations per article is Agroforestry Systems—a journal on agroforestry systems. Agricultural Ecosystems Environment—a journal that focuses on agroecological sciences—has the highest impact factor among the top 10 journals in the last five years, at 7.088, indicating that this journal has a strong influence on the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research (Table 2).

3.2.3. Analysis of the Most Prominent Authors

The top three authors with the highest numbers of publications were A. Casas, Z. Asfaw, and K.S. Zimmerer, from the Autonomous University of Mexico, Hawassa University, and the University of Pennsylvania, respectively. Asfaw was also the author with the highest number of citations per article (Table 3). An analysis of the literature published by these three authors revealed that Casas’ research indicates that indigenous cultures are essential to ensuring the conservation and management of traditional ecological agroforestry systems and agrobiodiversity [25,26,27]. Meanwhile, Asfaw focuses more on ethnobotany to investigate and analyze the diversity of medicinal plants and major cereals in the Ethiopian region, suggesting the positive role of traditional knowledge with respect to local varieties and plant diversity [28,29,30]. Zimmerer’s research focuses on the exploration of agrobiodiversity, arguing that current agrobiodiversity is closely linked to the global society and knowledge systems [31], and explores the production and consumption of agrobiodiversity by indigenous and smallholder farmers [32]. All three researchers come from disciplines in the natural sciences, and their research focuses on ethnobotany, agroforestry ecosystems, and biodiversity conservation.
Authors with three or more articles were retained to map the network of collaborative relationships between authors. The diagram shows that the collaborative network among authors is characterized by overall fragmentation and partial clustering, with most of the international authors lacking connections and not forming transnational collaborative networks. For example, A. Santoro and M. Agnoletti are both from the University of Florence, Italy, while R.K. Maikhuri and S. Nautiyal are both from India. It can be concluded that in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research, collaboration between authors is typically manifested as an internal collaboration between the same countries or institutions in geographically adjacent locations (Figure 4).

3.2.4. Analysis of Major Issuing Institutions

The top three research institutions in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge are Bioversity International (15), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (15), and the Autonomous University of Mexico (13). These three institutions are also the top three institutions in terms of total citations, led by the Autonomous University of Mexico with 627, followed by the Bioversity International with 546 and Chinese Academy of Sciences with 259 (Table 4). We included institutions with more than five published articles. Moreover, with the default settings of VOSviewer, we omitted some articles with more than 25 collaborating institutions to avoid bias in the network graph. Finally, the co-occurrence map of major research institutions and the cooperative relationships between institutions in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research was generated. Figure 5 shows that there are more frequent exchanges between the International Center for Biodiversity, Cornell University, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. However, most of the institutions are not connected. In general, the international interinstitutional collaboration network is similar to the author collaboration network, and interinstitutional collaboration is infrequent and has not yet formed a close cross-border collaboration network.

3.3. Analysis of Research Hotspots

3.3.1. The Most Frequently Used Keywords

Keywords can reflect the author’s summary and refinement of the article, and high-frequency keywords and the centrality of keywords are important for the judgment of research hotspots and trends in the research field [23,33]. In this review, we analyzed 419 articles with a total of 2244 keywords. However, most of the keywords appeared only once, so we retained 60 keywords that appeared more than 10 times and combined some keywords with similar meanings, such as “medicinal-plants” and “medicinal plants”, “landscapes” and “landscapes”, etc., resulting in 54 keywords. The keywords that appeared more than 20 times are listed in Table 5; “Occurrences” represents the number of times that the keyword appeared, and “Total link strength” represents the number of times that the keyword co-occurred with other keywords, i.e., link strength.
After excluding the search terms, the top 10 most frequent keywords were “conservation”, “diversity”, “management “, “landscapes”, “ecosystem service”, “ethnobotany “, “food security “, “biodiversity conservation”, “systems”, and “genetic diversity”. The keywords with the highest numbers of occurrences and the greatest connection intensity were related to biodiversity conservation, which is the study of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. Moreover, due to the current international demand, biodiversity conservation remains an important direction for research. It is worth noting that among the 54 keywords, “Mexico” was the only regional keyword that appeared, with 12 occurrences, indicating that much research in this field is carried out in Mexico.

3.3.2. Research Priorities in Agrobiodiversity and Traditional Knowledge

Keyword clustering, on the other hand, can visualize the association between keywords and further reflect the literature’s key themes. VOSviewer generates a keyword clustering map, as shown in Figure 6. A total of five prominent keyword clusters are formed in the figure, and clusters 1–5 are represented by red, green, blue, purple, and yellow, respectively. We organized the keywords into these five clusters to derive five main research directions corresponding to the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research.
(1)
Cluster 1: Conservation of landraces
Cluster 1, represented by the color red, is the largest in the figure and is related to the conservation of local varieties. This cluster has 22 keywords, mainly related to conservation measures (e.g., “home gardens”, “in situ conservation”), genetic diversity (e.g., “genetic diversity”, “landraces”, “crop diversity”), and farmers’ practices (e.g., “farmers ““domestication”, “cultivation”).
The loss of local varieties along with their historical origin and cultural traditions directly threatens agricultural biodiversity, so it is often necessary to apply conservation measures both in situ and ex situ [34,35,36]. Generally, landraces are relocated and collected in different botanical gardens or gene banks for ex situ protection [7]. Species are preserved by various means; nevertheless, their evolutionary capacity and adaptability are not enhanced, the associated traditional farming knowledge is not maintained, and they rapidly disappear in indigenous areas [36,37]. In situ conservation has received close international attention to ensure that landraces can continuously adapt and evolve in the environment. Expanding the diversity of agricultural landscapes has become the primary means of in situ conservation. Expanding agricultural landscape diversity has become the primary means of in situ conservation; taking home gardens as an example, M. Vlkova demonstrated that species diversity and richness are influenced by the size of home gardens, cultural identity, and traditional agricultural techniques [28,38]. Crop exchange and seed sharing among farmers in family gardens are conducive to crop dispersal, maintaining agricultural diversity, and improving farming systems’ resilience [39,40]. W. Assefa and V. Caballero-Serran found in their research that the importance and contribution of women to the conservation of agricultural biodiversity—as the prominent persons responsible for seed storage, processing, and exchange—were underestimated in the scientific field [41,42].
In situ conservation of landraces is closely related to farmers, and requiring farmers to participate in local conservation is also regarded as an essential conservation strategy [43]. However, in the development of agriculture, modern crops will inevitably replace traditional crops—especially when the pursuit of higher economic returns is the farmers’ goal. Although the incentive policies widely adopted by various countries to encourage farmers to cultivate traditional crops have certain effects, they cannot solve this problem of the fundamental motivation of farmers. Therefore, how to combine agricultural biodiversity with local economic and social development to develop and industrialize traditional crops, how to achieve offsite protection and in situ protection more effectively, and how to establish a perfect system for the protection of local varieties are the key research topics at present.
(2)
Cluster 2 and Cluster 5: Agricultural landscape change
Cluster 2 is represented by the color green, while Cluster 5 is represented by the color purple. Both of these clusters are related to agricultural landscape changes. They contain a total of 17 keywords, mainly including biodiversity (e.g., “biodiversity”, “biodiversity conservation”), land-use changes (e.g., “land-use”, “agricultural intensification”), the impact of landscape changes (e.g., “ecosystem services “, “species richness”, “habitat”), and cultural landscapes (e.g., “community”, “biocultural diversity”, “cultural landscapes”) vocabulary.
Studies have shown that biodiversity is closely related to the heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes, which positively affects agricultural regions’ biodiversity [44,45]. However, in recent years, with the intensification of human activities in agricultural land, traditional land use has changed, agricultural intensification has become increasingly intensive, and agricultural landscapes have been subjected to pressure from land-use changes [46]. Agricultural intensification has led to the consolidation and expansion of fields to form homogeneous and simple agricultural landscapes [47]. This has led to the fragmentation of natural habitats and loss of biodiversity in traditional agroecosystems. In the meantime, replacing traditional crop varieties during agricultural intensification has resulted in the loss of traditional crop genes [48,49,50,51]. In addition, agricultural intensification has changed the traditional agricultural landscape, causing the loss of many cultural and traditional practices, along with the biocultural diversity associated with them [52]. Therefore, there is a growing concern about reducing the negative impacts of human activities in agricultural landscapes on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. Some argue that rural communities worldwide have created and maintained traditional agricultural landscapes through their traditional management practices and traditional, low-intensity agroforestry land use, creating a diverse mosaic of species-rich habitats [53], enhancing the heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes, and offering potential value for biodiversity [54]. Farmers using traditional farming methods can conserve biodiversity by maintaining traditional varieties and a diverse landscape structure [55].
Scholars support the role of traditional knowledge in enhancing agricultural landscapes’ heterogeneity, but in modern agricultural development, traditional land use will be inevitably abandoned, and land will be intensively managed. Therefore, combining modern and traditional agricultural management practices, exploring new paths of compatible intensive land use and agrobiodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes has become a focus of attention.
(3)
Cluster 3: Livelihood support
Cluster 3 is represented by the color blue and is related to the livelihood support category. This cluster contains eight keywords, mainly including agriculture (e.g., “agriculture”, “agroecology”, “sustainable agriculture “) and factors affecting livelihoods (e.g., “intensification”, “climate-change”, “food sovereignty”).
In the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research, most of the international research on livelihood support has focused on developing countries with rich biodiversity and less developed economies, where livelihoods and food security are more vulnerable to threats, and traditional knowledge plays an important role [56]. S.C. Shen’s survey of China’s ethnic minority regions found that rich agricultural resources and agrobiodiversity are critical to maintaining local livelihoods and traditional cultures. He proposed that sustainable conservation measures based on local communities should be used to protect agrobiodiversity [57]. Some scholars believe that combining modern agricultural science with traditional knowledge systems can conserve agrobiodiversity while enhancing food security and ensuring agricultural production, livelihoods, and ecology [58,59]. Lahmar et al., developed agricultural conservation techniques for specific areas based on farmers’ knowledge and traditional local technologies [60,61]. Some studies have shown that ecological agriculture can optimize the design of local agricultural systems based on local people’s traditional knowledge and culture, which positively impacts the environment, and all ecological agriculture plays an essential role in sustainable agricultural development [3,62,63]. Environmental change is an essential factor affecting livelihoods and food security, and traditional knowledge plays a vital role in the response of orthodox communities to environmental change. The traditional ecological and climatic knowledge formed and accumulated by the residents of indigenous communities through long-term interaction with the environment helps them to better sustain their survival and development [64,65].
Current research on livelihood support at the micro level includes studies on the genetic diversity of local crops, seed systems, insect resources, etc. [66,67,68]. This perspective reflects on traditional agriculture, climate change, sustainable agricultural development, and other issues [69,70,71]. Due to climate change, uneven development among regional countries, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, food security and food sovereignty in some countries and regions have been significantly impacted. Food production is one of the most significant challenges of our time, and the importance of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge for livelihoods and food production will continue to be an essential research direction in the future.
(4)
Agroforestry systems
Cluster 4 is represented by the color yellow and is related to agroforestry ecosystem functions. This cluster contains seven keywords, mainly including agroforestry systems (e.g., “systems”, “agroforestry”), functions (e.g., “resilience “, “adaptation”, “sustainability”), and traditional knowledge (e.g., “local knowledge”, “ecological knowledge”).
Agroforestry systems are complex agroecosystems. The research in this area focuses on the role and impact of indigenous traditional knowledge on agroforestry systems. Some scholars have demonstrated the potential of traditional agroforestry systems for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem benefits by comparing species richness and diversification approaches in traditional and non-traditional agroforestry systems [55,63,72]. Traditional agroforestry management practices of farmers were found to produce various products and ecological benefits and increase socioecological resilience [73]. On the other hand, Moreno-Calles identified the importance of local traditional ecological knowledge and management techniques for managing and restoring progressively homogenized complex agroforestry systems [25]. Parrotta argues that traditional forest knowledge and agricultural landscape management practices of indigenous and local communities can help to respond and adapt to climate change effectively, suggesting that traditional knowledge and practices of communities should be considered in policy development [74]. Many studies have been conducted to theoretically validate the importance of agroforestry systems based on farmers’ traditional management knowledge for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation [75]. Therefore, in the future, we should focus more on understanding traditional agroecosystems from a multidisciplinary perspective and combining farmers with government departments and research institutions to develop reasonable regional policies to promote the dynamic management of dynamic agroecosystems and the conservation of biodiversity.

3.3.3. Keyword Evolution Trend Analysis

The “burst keywords” in CiteSpace represent the words that appear significantly more frequently in a certain period, indicating that there are a large number of studies related to these keywords in this period of time, while also indicating the changes in the research hotspots [76]. The keyword time-zone view is the keyword’s performance on the time axis, and the position of the node where the keyword is located is the time of the first appearance of the keyword. The node size indicates the number of times that the keyword appeared during the study period—the larger the node, the more times the keyword appeared. The line between nodes represents the co-occurrence of the keyword. Combining the emergent words with the time-zone diagram shows the development and changes in the study topic in a specific period.
We imported the primary literature data into CiteSpace and filtered out 15 burst keywords to obtain Figure 7. By combining the keyword time-zone maps in Figure 7 and Figure 8, we can roughly divide the keyword evolution trends in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research into three stages.
The first stage was the nascent stage (1992–2008). Since the number of publications was low before 2008, the keywords for mutations in this phase started in 2002 with “genetic erosion”, followed by “on-farm conservation” and “farmers knowledge”, whose research topics are related to the varietal diversity of cultivated species. Scholars in different regions noted the genetic erosion of traditional crops and the loss of crop diversity across regions, emphasizing the urgency and importance of conserving crop genetic resources [77,78]. To address this issue, research has focused on the keywords “species richness”, “in situ conservation”, and “traditional ecological knowledge”. The practical knowledge of farmers and the positive contribution of farm conservation to local varieties were identified [29,79]. This phase of research focused on the conservation of agricultural genetic resources. It is worth noting that although the number of articles published during this period was not large, many keywords with high frequency and importance began to appear, such as “management”, “agricultural landscape”, “systems”, “Landscape”, “system”, “agricultural intensification”, and “impact”; although these keywords were not the main content of this period of research, they laid the foundations for later developments.
The second phase was the slow development phase (2009–2016). The mutation terms in this period shifted from agricultural genetic resources to traditional knowledge, with functions related to the conservation of biodiversity. At the same time, the keywords “climate change”, “food security”, “cultural landscape”, “sustainable agriculture”, and “cultural landscape” appeared for the first time in this period. These keywords are all related to cultural and social benefits. This indicates that the research themes of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge were integrated, the research themes were gradually diversified, and the research system was initially established. From the time-zone map, we can see that the research content of this phase developed further than the previous phase as the research on the conservation of cultivated species’ diversity deepened. The research was centered on the keywords “home garden”, “landrace”, and “genetic diversity”, from the call for in situ conservation to the analysis of specific conservation cases [80,81]. In addition to agroecosystems (the keywords “ecosystem service”, “agroforestry”, “agroforestry system”, “plant”, “medicinal plant”), land-use changes (the keywords “land use”, “intensification”, “sustainable agriculture”, “productivity”) were also a research focus at this stage. The research was mainly conducted by adopting structured and semi-structured interviews, species richness surveys, and sampling surveys of plant communities in the area. Moreover, quantitative and qualitative studies were combined to analyze and investigate many cases [82,83,84]. Traditional ecological knowledge and traditional agricultural management practices were verified to be able to enhance biodiversity and landscape heterogeneity, which are conducive to ecological resilience [54,73]. All in all, the research methods and themes were more diverse in this phase, with the main emphasis on the study of ecological benefits.
The third stage was the rapid development stage (2017–mid-2022). As the integration of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research deepens, scholars are beginning to explore new areas while further deepening basic research. The burst keywords “climate change”, “intensification”, “food”, “security”, and “impact” in this period suggest that research on livelihood support has received substantially more attention as global environmental changes and the demand for food production have increased. Most of the studies focus on the keywords “food system” and “food sovereignty”, and most explore the contribution of farmers’ choices and indigenous knowledge systems to food sovereignty and climate change from the perspective of peasant agriculture. They have proposed approaches to food security by developing ecological agriculture, promoting the dissemination of economically valuable local varieties, and facilitating communication between communities [85,86,87]. The burst keyword “cultural landscape” and the keywords “cultural heritage”, “women”, and “region” appearing in the time-zone map during this period reflect the diversification of research perspectives and scales, as well as the increase in interdisciplinary research. Furthermore, we can see that the burst intensity of the keywords “climate change”, “impact”, and “food” will continue beyond 2022. In addition to natural ecological research, the study of cultural and social benefits will receive long-term attention and be a hotspot for future research.

4. Discussion

To further promote research in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, based on the results of the present review, the following aspects should also be focused on in the future:
(1)
In the current research field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, scholars more often explore the management role of traditional knowledge and its impact and contribution to agrobiodiversity through qualitative research methods, such as small agricultural system management cases and structured interviews, which lack scientific objectivity. There is a need to explore more quantitative research methods, expand research perspectives, and develop innovative research methods so that traditional knowledge in the local context can be connected with modern technology.
(2)
The current research mainly focuses on natural science and ecology, and most of it is conducted in agroecosystems. However, the conservation of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge is also related to local policies, indigenous peoples’ willingness to preserve and pass on their knowledge, community development, and other social and human factors, so it is necessary to strengthen interdisciplinary research exchanges on the basis of the existing foundation and further expand the scope of disciplinary research in this field.
(3)
Capacity building for agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge conservation cannot be limited to local communities and indigenous peoples—it also requires cooperation with research organizations, governments, and other stakeholders to achieve more stable development. In addition, as the attention and importance assigned to agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge increases, future research will focus on the development of relevant policies and regulations, as well as the assessment of the impacts and conservation results of the existing policies, in order to adjust the implementation of policies and further improve regional sustainable development.

5. Summary

In this paper, based on the 419 papers retrieved from the WoSCC database from 1992 to 2022 on the topic of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, we analyzed the development trends and research hotspots of the field by using the bibliometric analysis method with the help of the WoSCC literature analysis function and the data visualization analysis function of VOSviewer software. It was found that the number of articles on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge has been increasing year by year during the search period, and the development momentum is good. Internationally, developed countries and countries with rich biodiversity resources are the main driving force of research in this field. The USA is the center of the global collaborative network of countries, with the highest total citations, and other highly active countries include India, Mexico, Germany, and Italy. In terms of highly productive authors and research institutions, A. Casas, Z. Asfaw, and K.S. Zimmerer have a strong influence in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge. Among the research institutions, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Bioversity International, and Cornell University have relatively close cooperation with other institutions. However, both the authors’ collaboration network and the institutional collaboration network reflect the characteristics of close ties within small clusters but a lack of international collaboration. The subject classification of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge mainly focuses on the natural sciences, with some involvement of the humanities and social sciences. Among the leading journals, the Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine has published the most articles, while Agriculture Ecosystems Environment has the highest impact factor. The most popular keywords based on keyword statistics were found to be related to the conservation of biodiversity, which has been the purpose of research in this field. Further cluster analysis of the keywords revealed that the main research themes in the current research field include four areas: conservation of local species, agricultural landscape changes, livelihood support, and agroforestry systems. Moreover, the trend analysis of keywords showed that with the integration and deepening of research on agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge, research hotspots will focus more on topics related to cultural and social benefits in the future, in addition to the natural ecological aspects that have been the focus of research to date. Finally, suggestions were made to enhance the exploration of quantitative analysis research methods, strengthen interdisciplinary research exchanges, expand the breadth of disciplinary research, strengthen stakeholder cooperation, and promote the construction of relevant policies and regulations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L.; methodology, Y.L.; software, Y.L.; validation, Y.L. and F.L.; formal analysis, Y.L.; investigation, Y.L. and F.L.; resources, Y.L. and F.L.; data curation, Y.L. and F.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.L. and F.L.; visualization, Y.L.; supervision, X.R.; project administration, X.R.; funding acquisition, X.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brookfield, H.; Stocking, M. Agrodiversity: Definition, description and design. Glob. Environ. Change 1999, 9, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guo, H.J.; Padoch, C.; Fu, Y.N.; Cheng, A.G.; Dao, Z.N. Agrobiodiversity Assessment and In–situ Conservation. Plant Divers. 2000, S1, 27–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  3. Thrupp, L.A. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. Int. Aff. 2000, 76, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zhou, Y.T. The Using of Agro-Biodiversity and Shaping of Playroom for Peasants’ Choices—A Case Study in Huabian Village ff Guizhou Province; China Agricultural University: Beijing, China, 2015; pp. 7–10. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  5. Steglich, M.; Peters, K.J. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodiversity: A Source Book; CIPUPWARD. GTZ; Bonn, Germany, 2004; pp. iii–v. Available online: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/67219 (accessed on 9 August 2022).
  6. Jasmine, B.; Singh, Y.; Onial, M.; Mathur, V.B. Traditional knowledge systems in India for biodiversity conservation. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2016, 15, 304–312. [Google Scholar]
  7. Veteto, J.R.; Skarbø, K. Sowing the Seeds: Anthropological Contributions to Agrobiodiversity Studies. Cult. Agric. 2009, 31, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Singh, R.K.; Sureja, A. Indigenous knowledge and sustainable agricultural resources management under rainfed agro-ecosystem. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2018, 7, 642–654. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yang, Y.B.; Xia, J.X.; Feng, J.C.; Guo, L.; Shi, S.; Xue, D.Y. Water resource management in the Hani Rice Terraces agro-ecosystem from an ethnoecological perspective. Acta Ecol. Sinica. 2018, 38, 3291–3299. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  10. Lin, H.Y.; Wen, Y.; Yang, X.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, G. Ethnoecology Analysis of Miao Ethnic Group’s Climate-Smart Agriculture Practices in Wumeng Mountain. J. Minzu Univ. China 2019, 28, 13–20. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  11. Negi, V.S.; Maikhuri, R.K. Socio-Ecological and Religious Perspective of Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Issues, Concern and Priority for Sustainable Agriculture, Central Himalaya. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 491–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wood, D.; Lenne, J.M. The conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm: Questioning the emerging paradigm. Biodivers. Conserv. 1997, 6, 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Senda, T.; Tominaga, T. Genetic Diversity of Darnel (Lolium temulentum L.) in Malo, Ethiopia Depends on Traditional Farming Systems. Econ. Bot. 2004, 58, 568–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Y.J.; Wang, Y.L.; Sun, X.D.; Caiji, Z.M.; Yang, J.B.; Cui, D.; Cao, G.L.; Ma, X.D.; Han, B.; Xue, D.Y.; et al. Influence of ethnic traditional cultures on genetic diversity of rice landraces under on-farm conservation in southwest China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Pandey, D.K.; Adhiguru, P.; Momin, K.C.; Kumar, P. Agrobiodiversity and agroecological practices in ‘jhumscape’ of the Eastern Himalayas: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2349–2372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tarbox, B.C.; Swisher, M.; Calle, Z.; Wilson, C.H.; Flory, S.L. Luke Flory. Decline in local ecological knowledge in the Colombian Andes may constrain silvopastoral tree diversity. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 892–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ma, N.; Yang, L.; Min, Q.W.; Bai, K.Y.; Li, W.H. The Significance of Traditional Culture for Agricultural Biodiversity—Experiences from GIAHS. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 453–461. [Google Scholar]
  18. Malapane, O.L.; Musakwa, W.; Chanza, N.; Radinger-Peer, V. Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Indigenous Knowledge from a Comparative African Perspective: 1990–2020. Land 2022, 11, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ritter, M.R.; Silva, T.C.; Araujo, E.D. Albuquerque, UP. Bibliometric analysis of ethnobotanical research in Brazil (1988–2013). Acta Botânica Brasílica 2015, 29, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Liu, W.J.; Wang, J.S.; Li, C.; Chen, B.X.; Sun, Y.F. Using Bibliometric Analysis to Understand the Recent Progress in Agroecosystem Services Research. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cobo, M.J.; Lopez-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study Among Tools. Journal of the American Society for Information. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1382–1402. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mishra, M.; Sudarsan, D.; Santos, C.A.G.; Pattnaik, N.; Kar, D.; Baral, K.; Pattnaik, N. An overview of research on natural resources and indigenous communities: A bibliometric analysis based on Scopus database (1979–2020). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, X.Q.; Zhang, Y.Y.; Zhao, X.Z.; Rui, Y. Research Progress and Enlightenment of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: Bibliometric Analysis Based on 1990–2020 Web of Science Core Collection Literatures. Hum. Geogr. 2021, 36, 91–101. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  24. Van Nunen, K.; Li, J.; Reniers, G.; Ponnet, K. Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Saf. Sci. 2018, 108, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Casas, A.; Garcia-Frapolli, E.; Torres-Garcia, I. Traditional agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and “chichipera” cactus forest in the arid Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: Their management and role in people’s subsistence. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 84, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moreno-Calles, A.; Casas, A.; Blancas, J.; Torres, I.; Masera, O.; Caballero, J.; Garcia-Barrios, L.; Perez-Negron, E.; Rangel-Landa, S. Agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation in arid zones: The case of the Tehuacan Valley, Central Mexico. Agrofor. Syst. 2010, 80, 315–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Velasquez-Milla, D.; Casas, A.; Torres-Guevara, J.; Cruz-Soriano, A. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influencing in situ conservation of crop diversity by traditional Andean households in Peru. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2011, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Lulekal, E.; Asfaw, Z.; Kelbessa, E.; Van Damme, P. Ethnomedicinal study of plants used for human ailments in Ankober District, North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2013, 9, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Chekole, G.; Asfaw, Z.; Kelbessa, E. Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in the environs of Tara-gedam and Amba remnant forests of Libo Kemkem District, northwest Ethiopia. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2015, 11, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Geleta, M.; Asfaw, Z.; Bekele, E.; Teshome, A. Edible oil crops and their integration with the major cereals in North Shewa and South Welo, Central Highlands of Ethiopia: An ethnobotanical perspective. Hereditas 2002, 137, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zimmerer, K.S.; Cordova-Aguilar, H.; Olmo, R.M.; Olivencia, Y.J.; Vanek, S.J. Mountain Ecology, Remoteness, and the Rise of Agrobiodiversity: Tracing the Geographic Spaces of Human–Environment Knowledge. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2017, 107, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zimmerer, K.S.; Vaca, H.L.R.; Sahonero, M.T.H. Entanglements of agrobiodiversity-food amid cascading migration, coca conflicts, and water development (Bolivia, 1990–2013). Geoforum 2022, 128, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fang, R.X.; Wang, X.Q.; Bai, C.; Yan, W.H.; Yang, Q.S.; Li, W.Y.; Gao, L. Knowledge mapping of the research on the Convention on Biological Diversity: Based on bibliometrics analysis of CiteSpace. Biodivers. Sci. 2021, 29, 1718–1726. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meilleur, B.A.; Hodgkin, T. In situ conservation of crop wild relatives: Status and trends. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 663–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dulloo, M.E.; Hunter, D.; Borelli, T. Ex Situ and In Situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity: Major Advances and Research Needs. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2021, 38, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
  36. Heywood, V.; Casas, A.; Ford-Lloyd, B.; Kell, S.; Maxted, N. Conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 121, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hammer, K.; Arrowsmith, N.; Gladis, T. Agrobiodiversity with emphasis on plant genetic resources. Sci. Nat. 2003, 90, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vlkova, M.; Polesny, Z.; Verner, V.; Banout, J.; Dvorak, M.; Havlik, J.; Lojka, B.; Ehl, P.; Krausova, J. Ethnobotanical knowledge and agrobiodiversity in subsistence farming: Case study of home gardens in Phong My commune, central Vietnam. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2011, 58, 629–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aguilar-Stoen, M.; Moe, S.R.; Camargo-Ricalde, S.L. Home Gardens Sustain Crop Diversity and Improve Farm Resilience in Candelaria Loxicha, Oaxaca, Mexico. Hum. Ecol. 2009, 37, 55–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Abizaid, C.; Coomes, O.T.; Perrault-Archambault, M. Seed Sharing in Amazonian Indigenous Rain Forest Communities: A Social Network Analysis in three Achuar Villages, Peru. Hum. Ecol. 2016, 44, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Assefa, W.; Kewessa, G.; Datiko, D. Agrobiodiversity and gender: The role of women in farm diversification among smallholder farmers in Sinana district, Southeastern Ethiopia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2329–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Caballero-Serrano, V.; McLaren, B.; Carrasco, J.C.; Alday, J.G.; Fiallos, L.; Amigo, J.; Onaindia, M. Traditional ecological knowledge and medicinal plant diversity in Ecuadorian Amazon home gardens. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Maxted, N.; Guarino, L.; Myer, L.; Chiwona, E.A. Towards a methodology for on-farm conservation of plant genetic resources. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2002, 49, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Väli, Ü.; Mirski, P.; Sein, G.; Abel, U.; Tõnisalu, G.; Sellis, U. Movement patterns of an avian generalist predator indicate functional heterogeneity in agricultural landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 1667–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Birkhofer, K.; Andersson, G.; Bengtsson, J.; Bommarco, R.; Dänhardt, J.; Ekbom, B.; Ekroos, J.; Hahn, T.; Hedlund, K.; Jönsson, A.; et al. Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape complexity gradient. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 218, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Izakovicova, Z.; Spulerova, J.; Raniak, A. The Development of the Slovak Agricultural Landscape in a Changing World. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Benton, T.G.; Vickery, J.A.; Wilson, J.D. Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Landis, A.D. Ecology-Applied Ecology; Researchers from Michigan State University Report Recent Findings in Applied Ecology (Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services). Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2017, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  49. Brunetti, I.; Tidball, M.; Couvet, D. Relationship between biodiversity and agricultural production. Nat. Resour. Model. 2019, 32, e12204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fischer, C.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T. Mixed effects of landscape complexity and farming practice on weed seed removal. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 13, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, B.R.; Zhu, Y.Y.; Wang, Y.Y. The current status and perspectives of on-farm conservation of crop genetic diversity. Biodivers. Sci. 2002, 4, 409–415. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  52. De Pasquale, G.; Livia, S. Biocultural diversity in the traditional landscape of Vallecorsa. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2373–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guadilla-Sáez, S.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; Reyes-García, V. The role of traditional management practices in shaping a diverse habitat mosaic in a mountain region of Northern Spain. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Santoro, A.; Venturi, M.; Ben Maachia, S.; Benyahia, F.; Corrieri, F.; Piras, F.; Agnoletti, M. Agroforestry Heritage Systems as Agrobiodiversity Hotspots. The Case of the Mountain Oases of Tunisia. Sustainability 2007, 12, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ding, L.B.; Ma, N.; Wang, G.P.; He, S.Y.; Min, Q.W. Visual analysis of hotspots and emerging trends in traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity. Biodivers. Sci. 2019, 27, 716–727. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  57. Shen, S.C.; Xu, G.F.; Li, D.Y.; Clements, D.R.; Zhang, F.D.; Jin, G.M..; Wu, J.Y.; Wei, P.F.; Lin, S.; Xue, D.Y. Agrobiodiversity and in situ conservation in ethnic minority communities of Xishuangbanna in Yunnan Province, Southwest China. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2017, 13, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Altieri, M.A.; Funes-Monzote, F.R.; Petersen, P. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Sabar, B.; Midya, D.K. Intersecting Knowledge With Landscape: Indigenous Agriculture, Sustainable Food Production and Response to Climate Change-A Case Study of Chuktia Bhunjia Tribe of Odisha, India. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lahmar, R.; Bationo, B.A.; Dan Lamso, N.; Guéro, Y.; Tittonell, P. Tailoring conservation agriculture technologies to West Africa semi-arid zones: Building on traditional local practices for soil restoration. Field Crops Res. 2012, 132, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Segnon, A.; Achigan-Dako, E.; Gaoue, O.; Ahanchédé, A. Farmer’s Knowledge and Perception of Diversified Farming Systems in Sub-Humid and Semi-Arid Areas in Benin. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6573–6592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology in the tropics: Achieving a balance between land use and preservation. Environ. Manag. 1992, 16, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vallejo-Ramos, M.; Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Casas, A. TEK and biodiversity management in agroforestry systems of different socio-ecological contexts of the Tehuacan Valley. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Soriano, M.A.; Diwa, J.; Herath, S. Local perceptions of climate change and adaptation needs in the Ifugao Rice Terraces (Northern Philippines). J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 1455–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yuan, N.N.; Xue, D.Y.; Peng, Y. The Roles of Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity Conservation for Li Ethnic People in Hainan Island of China. J. Minzu Univ. China 2011, 20, 30–33. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  66. van Andel, T.; Veltman, M.; Bertin, A.; Maat, H.; Polime, T..; Lambers, D.H.R..; Awie, J.T..; De Boer, H.J.; Manzanilla, V. Hidden Rice Diversity in the Guianas. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Toledo-Hernandez, M.; Denmead, L.H.; Clough, Y.; Raffiudin, R.; Tscharntke, T. Cultural homegarden management practices mediate arthropod communities in Indonesia. J. Insect Conserv. 2016, 20, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sthapit, B.; Rana, R.; Eyzaguirre, P.; Jarvis, D. The value of plant genetic diversity to resource-poor farmers in Nepal and Vietnam. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2008, 6, 148–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pautasso, M.; Aistara, G.; Barnaud, A.; Caillon, S.; Clouvel, P.; Coomes, O.T.; Delêtre, M.; Demeulenaere, E.; de Santis, P.; Döring, T.; et al. Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Prus, B.; Uruszczak, M.; Hernik, J. Arguments based on biocultural diversity to cease abandonment of traditional agricultural systems: Lessons from Poland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2021. (prepublish). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Villanueva, A.B.; Halewood, M.; Noriega, I.L. Agricultural Biodiversity in Climate Change Adaptation Planning. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Falkowski, T.B.; Vazquez-Perez, J.R.; Chankin, A.; Campos-Beltran, A.Y.; Rangel-Salazar, J.L.; Cohen, J.B.; Diemont, S.A.W. Assessing avian diversity and community composition along a successional gradient in traditional Lacandon Maya agro-forests. Biotropica 2020, 52, 1242–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gebru, B.M.; Wang, S.W.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, W.K. Socio-Ecological Niche and Factors Affecting Agroforestry Practice Adoption in Different Agroecologies of Southern Tigray, Ethiopia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Parrotta, J.A.; Agnoletti, M. Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge and Climate Change. In Traditional Forest-related Knowledge; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 491–533. [Google Scholar]
  75. Marentes, M.A.H.; Venturi, M.; Scaramuzzi, S.; Focacci, M.; Santoro, A. Traditional forest-related knowledge and agrobiodiversity preservation: The case of the chagras in the Indigenous Reserve of Monochoa (Colombia). Biodivers. Conserv. 2021, 31, 2243–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lyu, X.; Peng, W.L.; Yu, W.; Xin, Z.F.; Niu, S.D.; Qu, Y. Sustainable intensification to coordinate agricultural efficiency and environmental protection: A systematic review based on metrological visualization. J. Land Use Sci. 2021, 16, 313–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Peroni, N.; Hanazaki, N. Current and lost diversity of cultivated varieties, especially cassava, under swidden cultivation systems in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 92, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Park, Y.J.; Dixit, A.; Ma, K.H.; Kang, J.H.; Rao, V.R.; Cho, E.G. On-farm Conservation Strategy to Ensure Crop Genetic Diversity in Changing Agro-ecosystems in the Republic of Korea. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2005, 191, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Anchirinah, V.M.; Yiridoe, E.K.; Bennett-Lartey, S.O. Enhancing Sustainable Production and Genetic Resource Conservation of Bambara Groundnut: A Survey of Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge Systems. Outlook Agric. 2001, 30, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Salako, V.K.; Fandohan, B.; Kassa, B.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Idohou, A.F.R.; Gbedomon, R.C.; Chakeredza, S.; Dulloo, M.E.; Glele Kakaï, R. Home gardens: An assessment of their biodiversity and potential contribution to conservation of threatened species and crop wild relatives in Benin. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2013, 61, 313–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mahon, N.; McGuire, S.; Islam, M.M. Why bother with Bere? An investigation into the drivers behind the cultivation of a landrace barley. J. Rural. Stud. 2016, 45, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Calvo-Iglesias, M.S.; Crecente-Maseda, R.; Fra-Paleo, U. Exploring farmer’s knowledge as a source of information on past and present cultural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Diemont, S.A.W.; Martin, J.F. Lacandon Maya ecosystem management: Sustainable design for subsistence and environmental restoration. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 254–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Nainggolan, D.; Termansen, M.; Reed, M.S.; Cebollero, E.D.; Hubacek, K. Farmer typology, future scenarios and the implications for ecosystem service provision: A case study from south-eastern Spain. Reg. Environ. Change 2011, 13, 601–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Temudo, M.P. Planting Knowledge, Harvesting Agro-Biodiversity: A Case Study of Southern Guinea-Bissau Rice Farming. Hum. Ecol. 2011, 39, 309–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Vasconcelos, A.C.F.; Bonatti, M.; Schlindwein, S.L.; D’Agostini, L.R.; Homem, L.R.; Nelson, R. Landraces as an adaptation strategy to climate change for smallholders in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ruelle, M.L.; Kassam, K.-A.; Morreale, S.J.; Asfaw, Z.; Power, A.G.; Fahey, T.J. Biocultural diversity and food sovereignty: A case study of human-plant relations in northwestern Ethiopia. Food Secur. 2019, 11, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 14 00950 g001 550
Figure 1. General flowchart of bibliometric analysis.
Figure 1. General flowchart of bibliometric analysis.
Diversity 14 00950 g001
Diversity 14 00950 g002 550
Figure 2. The number of papers published in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge from 1992 to mid-2022.
Figure 2. The number of papers published in the field of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge from 1992 to mid-2022.
Diversity 14 00950 g002
Diversity 14 00950 g003 550
Figure 3. The collaboration network of countries about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Figure 3. The collaboration network of countries about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Diversity 14 00950 g003
Diversity 14 00950 g004 550
Figure 4. The collaboration network of authors about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Figure 4. The collaboration network of authors about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Diversity 14 00950 g004
Diversity 14 00950 g005 550
Figure 5. The collaboration network of institutions about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Figure 5. The collaboration network of institutions about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Diversity 14 00950 g005
Diversity 14 00950 g006 550
Figure 6. Co-citation knowledge map of keywords about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Figure 6. Co-citation knowledge map of keywords about the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge.
Diversity 14 00950 g006
Diversity 14 00950 g007 550
Figure 7. Top 15 keywords with the strongest citation bursts of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge from 1992 to mid-2022.
Figure 7. Top 15 keywords with the strongest citation bursts of agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge from 1992 to mid-2022.
Diversity 14 00950 g007
Diversity 14 00950 g008 550
Figure 8. The keywords time-zone view of the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge from 1992 to mid-2022.
Figure 8. The keywords time-zone view of the agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge from 1992 to mid-2022.
Diversity 14 00950 g008
Table
Table 1. Top 10 countries or regions in the number of publications.
Table 1. Top 10 countries or regions in the number of publications.
Country or RegionTPPercentageTCAverage Citation per
Article		Proportion of Publications in Recent
Three Years
USA8019.09%351044.4330.00%
India4510.74%177439.4226.67%
Mexico4410.50%217849.5027.27%
Germany399.31%188248.2630.77%
Italy399.31%184647.3351.28%
France368.59%183350.9233.33%
China296.92%151952.3841.38%
Canada286.68%163958.547.14%
Brazil266.21%155259.6930.77%
Spain235.49%160669.8326.09%
TP: the number of publications; TC: the total number of citations.
Table
Table 2. Top 10 journals in a number of publications.
Table 2. Top 10 journals in a number of publications.
JournalPercentageAverage Citation per
Article		Five-Year Impact
Factor
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine8.83%15.704.404
Sustainability4.77%6.504.089
Biodiversity and Conservation3.34%7.004.416
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution2.86%14.921.864
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems2.39%4.003.213
Agroforestry Systems2.39%46.002.627
Agriculture Ecosystems Environment2.15%37.897.088
Human Ecology2.15%26.672.728
Journal of Ethnobiology2.15%2.892.005
Ecology and Society1.91%39.136.486
Table
Table 3. Top 12 authors in a number of publications.
Table 3. Top 12 authors in a number of publications.
AuthorNumber of PapersAverage Citation per
Article
Casas A1014.30
Asfaw Z8160.75
Zimmerer KS724.29
Reyes-garcia V614.17
Long CL527.00
Maikhuri RK517.40
Moreno-calles AI513.40
Rao KS513.20
Santoro A55.00
Singh RK511.00
Van Etten J57.00
Venturi M53.20
Table
Table 4. Top 12 institutions in a number of publications.
Table 4. Top 12 institutions in a number of publications.
InstitutionNumber of PapersAverage Citation per
Article
Chinese Academy of Sciences15259
Bioversity International15546
Autonomous University of Mexico13627
Cornell University9174
Minzu University of China9164
Pennsylvania State University9191
CIRAD895
University of Florence827
Abomey-Callaway University777
Autonomous University of Barcelona797
Table
Table 5. High frequency keywords in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research.
Table 5. High frequency keywords in agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge research.
KeywordsOccurrencesTotal Link StrengthKeywordsOccurrencesTotal Link Strength
biodiversity113462home gardens27133
diversity112409resilience25120
conservation112441agriculture25108
agrobiodiversity105383landraces2387
management83358agroforestry23103
knowledge49209indigenous knowledge2384
land-use49206dynamics2298
ecosystem
services		47194medicinal plants2177
ethnobotany41157local knowledge2178
food security41164sustainability2184
traditional knowledge38143community2177
biodiversity
conservation		31117forest2185
systems31140landscapes2079
traditional
ecological knowledge		31127species richness2077
genetic diversity28112
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Y.; Ren, X.; Lu, F. Research Status and Trends of Agrobiodiversity and Traditional Knowledge Based on Bibliometric Analysis (1992–Mid-2022). Diversity 2022, 14, 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14110950

AMA Style

Liu Y, Ren X, Lu F. Research Status and Trends of Agrobiodiversity and Traditional Knowledge Based on Bibliometric Analysis (1992–Mid-2022). Diversity. 2022; 14(11):950. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14110950

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Yiling, Xiaodong Ren, and Fengqiong Lu. 2022. "Research Status and Trends of Agrobiodiversity and Traditional Knowledge Based on Bibliometric Analysis (1992–Mid-2022)" Diversity 14, no. 11: 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14110950

APA Style

Liu, Y., Ren, X., & Lu, F. (2022). Research Status and Trends of Agrobiodiversity and Traditional Knowledge Based on Bibliometric Analysis (1992–Mid-2022). Diversity, 14(11), 950. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14110950

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop