The Household Context of In Situ Conservation in a Center of Crop Diversity: Self-Reported Practices and Perceptions of Maize and Phaseolus Bean Farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. Interview Questions
2.2.1. Farmer-Reported Maize and Bean Diversity
2.2.2. Interviewee Characteristics and Household Demographics
2.2.3. Maize and Bean Seed Sources and Farming Practices
2.2.4. Use of Maize and Bean Harvests
2.2.5. Attitudes toward Risk, Expectations for the Future
2.3. Analyses
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Farmer-Reported Varietal Diversity in Maize and Bean
3.1.1. Richness (Number of Farmer-Named Varieties)
3.1.2. Proportional Varietal Abundance and Divergence
3.1.3. Maize Planting Population Size and Change
3.2. Interviewee and Household Characteristics
3.3. Maize and Bean Farming Practices
3.3.1. Seed Sources
3.3.2. Growing Environments, Inputs, and Yield Estimates
3.4. Household Use of Maize and Bean Harvests
3.4.1. Household Maize and Bean Consumption
3.4.2. Selling Maize and Bean Harvests
3.5. Farmer Attitudes towards Risk and the Future of Farming
3.5.1. Perceptions of Risk: Harvest Failure, Yield Stability, and New Technology
3.5.2. The Future: Hopes and Beliefs Regarding Farming and the Next Generation
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- ETC Group. Small-Scale Farmers and Peasants Still Feed the World. 31 January 2022; p. 16. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiq3Lrgz5r4AhUFEYgKHcVXDUUQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.etcgroup.org%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2F31-01-2022_small-scale_farmers_and_peasants_still_feed_the_world.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3AJCTVrHMnf9r60KkvZYCb (accessed on 6 June 2022).
- Lowder, S.K.; Sánchez, M.V.; Bertini, R. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Dev. 2021, 142, 105455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, H.; Macías, A. Agrifood Vulnerability and Neoliberal Economic Policies in Mexico. Rev. Agrar. Stud. 2017, 7, 72–105. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i1500e/i1500e00.htm (accessed on 6 June 2022).
- Pacicco, L.; Bodesmo, M.; Torricelli, R.; Negri, V. A methodological approach to identify agro-biodiversity hotspots for priority in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hajjar, R.; Jarvis, D.I.; Gemmill-Herren, B. The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 123, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esteva, G.; Marielle, C. (Eds.) Sin Maíz no Hay País; Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Dirección General de Culturas Populares e Indígenas: Mexico City, Mexico, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Frison, E.A.; IPES-Food. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems. 2016. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwizi7e20Jr4AhXGBt4KHUouBhoQFnoECAYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalagriculture.org%2Ffileadmin%2Ffiles%2Fweltagrarbericht%2FIAASTD-Buch%2F01Reports%2FEmileAFrison-IAASTD-pages-72-77.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sBJqpfeQEIjyhixEdspv5 (accessed on 6 June 2022).
- Lazos, E.; Chauvet, M. Análisis del Contexto Social y Biocultural de las Colectas de Maíces Nativos en México; CONABIO: México City, Mexico, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Jarvis, D.I.; Brown, A.H.D.; Cuong, P.H.; Collado-Panduro, L.; Latournerie-Moreno, L.; Gyawali, S.; Tanto, T.; Sawadogo, M.; Mar, I.; Sadiki, M.; et al. A global perspective of the richness and evenness of traditional crop-variety diversity maintained by farming communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 5326–5331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Netting, R.M. Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1993; p. xxi, 389. [Google Scholar]
- Matsuoka, Y.; Vigouroux, Y.; Goodman, M.M.; Sanchez, G.J.; Buckler, E.; Doebley, J. A single domestication for maize shown by multilocus microsatellite genotyping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 6080–6084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwak, M.; Kami, J.A.; Gepts, P. The putative Mesoamerican domestication center of Phaseolus vulgaris is located in the Lerma–Santiago Basin of Mexico. Crop. Sci. 2009, 49, 554–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerra-García, A.; Suárez-Atilano, M.; Mastretta-Yanes, A.; Delgado-Salinas, A.; Piñero, D. Domestication genomics of the open-pollinated scarlet runner bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vielle-Calzada, J.-P.; Padilla, J. The Mexican Landraces: Description, Classification and Diversity. In Handbook of Maize: Its Biology; Bennetzen, J.L., Hake, S.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 543–561. [Google Scholar]
- Aragón Cuevas, F.; Taba, S.; Hernández-Casillas, J.M.; Figueroa Cárdenas, J.d.D.; Serrano Altamirno, V.; Castro-García, F.H. Catálogo de Maíces Criollos de Oaxaca, Primera ed.; INIFAP-SAGARPA: Oaxaca, Mexico, 2006; p. 343. [Google Scholar]
- CONABIO. Razas de Maíz de México. 2020. Available online: https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/diversidad/alimentos/maices/razas-de-maiz (accessed on 6 June 2022).
- Wellhausen, E.J.; Roberts, L.M.; Hernández, X.E.; Manglesdorf, P.C. Races of Maize in Mexico, English edition of Razas de Maíz en México, 1951 ed.; The Bussey Institution of Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1952; p. 207. [Google Scholar]
- INEGI. Principales Resultados Por Localidad (ITER) del Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. 2013. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi5g-TP8Jr4AhWITGwGHasJCw0QFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inegi.org.mx%2Fcontenidos%2Fprogramas%2Fccpv%2F2010%2Fdoc%2Ffd_iter_2010.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0r9WUPSLOD8fHeN9FjqRct (accessed on 28 February 2022).
- CONAPO. Índice de Marginación a Nivel Localidad 2005. 2005. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi6w6Dv75r4AhU_TWwGHarhD54QFnoECAwQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conapo.gob.mx%2Fwork%2Fmodels%2FCONAPO%2Findices_margina%2Fmarg_local05%2Flibro%2FIndiceMargLoc2005.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1efgV6iB_munIXzNF8YCPW (accessed on 8 February 2022).
- SIAP. Anuario Estadístico de la Producción Agrícola. 2022. Available online: https://nube.siap.gob.mx/cierreagricola/ (accessed on 18 February 2022).
- Rodrigues, R.R.; Shepherd, T.G. Small is beautiful: Climate-change science as if people mattered. PNAS Nexus 2022, 1, pgac009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry, M.B.; Pham, J.L.; Courtois, B.; Billot, C.; Ahmadi, N. Rice genetic diversity at farm and village levels and genetic structure of local varieties reveal need for in situ conservation. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 2007, 54, 1675–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worthington, M.; Soleri, D.; Aragón-Cuevas, F.; Gepts, P. Genetic composition and spatial distribution of farmer-managed Phaseolus bean plantings: An example from a village in Oaxaca, Mexico. Crop. Sci. 2012, 52, 1721–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soleri, D.; Worthington, M.; Aragon-Cuevas, F.; Smith, S.E.; Gepts, P. Farmers’ Varietal Identification in a Reference Sample of Local Phaseolus Species in the Sierra Juarez, Oaxaca, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 2013, 67, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pressoir, G.; Berthaud, J. Patterns of population structure in maize landraces from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca in Mexico. Heredity 2004, 92, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- González, R.J. Zapotec Science: Farming and Food in the Northern Sierra of Oaxaca; University of Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Magurran, A.E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Hamrick, J.L.; Godt, M.J.W. Allozyme diversity in cultivated crops. Crop. Sci. 1997, 37, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardaker, J.B.; Huirne, R.B.M.; Anderson, J.R. Coping with Risk in Agriculture; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1997; p. xi, 274. [Google Scholar]
- Soleri, D.; Cleveland, D.A.; Aragón Cuevas, F.; Ríos Labrada, H.; Fuentes Lopez, M.R.; Sweeney, S.H. Understanding the potential impact of transgenic crops in traditional agriculture: Maize farmers’ perspectives in Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico. Environ. Biosaf. Res. 2005, 4, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soleri, D.; Cleveland, D.A. Scenarios as a tool for eliciting and understanding farmers’ biological knowledge. Field Methods 2005, 17, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soleri, D.; Cleveland, D.A.; Glasgow, G.E.; Sweeney, S.H.; Aragón Cuevas, F.; Ríos Labrada, H.; Fuentes Lopez, M.R. Testing economic assumptions underlying research on transgenic food crops for Third World farmers: Evidence from Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67, 667–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleveland, D.A.; Soleri, D. Rethinking the risk management process for genetically engineered crop varieties in small-scale, traditionally based agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R; PBC: Boston, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Sin maíz no hay país. Campaña Nacional en Defensa de la Soberanía Alimentaria y la Reactivación del Campo Mexicano. Available online: http://www.sinmaiznohaypais.org/ (accessed on 26 June 2018).
- El Espacio Estatal en Defensa del Maíz Nativo de Oaxaca. Espacio Estatal en Defensa del Maíz Nativo de Oaxaca. Available online: https://maiznativodeoaxaca.wordpress.com/ (accessed on 5 October 2021).
- Robson, J.; Klooster, D.; Worthen, H.; Hernández-Díaz, J. Migration and agrarian transformation in Indigenous Mexico. J. Agrar. Chang. 2018, 18, 299–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loarie, S.R.; Duffy, P.B.; Hamilton, H.; Asner, G.P.; Field, C.B.; Ackerly, D.D. The velocity of climate change. Nature 2009, 462, 1052–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serratos, J.A.; Willcox, M.C.; Castillo-González, F. (Eds.) Gene Flow among Maize Landraces, Improved Maize Varieties and Teosinte: Implications for Transgenic Maize; CIMMYT: Mexico, Mexico, 1997; p. xiii, 122. [Google Scholar]
- Quist, D.; Chapela, I.H. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 2001, 414, 541–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleveland, D.A.; Soleri, D.; Aragón Cuevas, F.; Crossa, J.; Gepts, P. Detecting (trans)gene flow to landraces in centers of crop origin: Lessons from the case of maize in Mexico. Environ. Biosaf. Res. 2005, 4, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ortiz-García, S.; Ezcurra, E.; Schoel, B.; Acevedo, F.; Soberón, J.; Snow, A.A. Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 12338–12343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dyer, G.A.; Serratos-Hernández, J.A.; Perales, H.R.; Gepts, P.; Piñeyro-Nelson, A.; Chávez, A.; Salinas-Arreortua, N.; Yúnez-Naude, A.; Taylor, E.; Alvarez-Buylla, E.R. Dispersal of transgenes through maize seed systems in Mexico. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Piñeyro-Nelson, A.; Van Heerwaarden, J.; Perales, H.R.; Serratos-Hernandez, J.A.; Rangel, A.; Hufford, M.B.; Gepts, P.; Garay-Arroyo, A.; Rivera-Bustamante, R.; Alvarez-Buylla, E.R. Transgenes in Mexican maize: Molecular evidence and methodological considerations for GMO detection in landrace populations. Mol. Ecol. 2009, 18, 750–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Serratos-Hernández, J.-A.; Gómez-Olivares, J.-L.; Salinas-Arreortua, N.; Buendía-Rodríguez, E.; Islas-Gutiérrez, F.; de-Ita, A. Transgenic proteins in maize in the Soil Conservation area of Federal District, Mexico. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USDA ERS. Recent Trends in GE Adoption. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/ (accessed on 4 November 2021).
- Saji, H.; Nakajima, N.; Aono, M.; Tamaoki, M.; Kubo, A.; Wakiyama, S.; Hatase, Y.; Nagatsu, M. Monitoring the escape of transgenic oilseed rape around Japanese ports and roadsides. Environ. Biosaf. Res. 2005, 4, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonvecchio Arenas, A.; Fernández-Gaxiola, A.C.; Belausteguigoitia, M.P.; Kaufer-Horwitz, M.; Lizaur, A.B.P.; Dommarco, J.Á.R. (Eds.) Guías Alimentarias y de Actividad Física en Contexto de Sobrepeso y Obesidad en la Población Mexicana [Dietary and Physical Activity Guidelines in the Context of Overweight and Obesity in the MEXICAN Population]; Academia Nacional de Medicina: Mexico City, Mexico, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Keleman, A.; Hellin, J.; Flores, D. Diverse Varieties and Diverse Markets: Scale-related Maize “Profitability Crossover” in the Central Mexican Highlands. Hum. Ecol. 2013, 41, 683–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appendini, K.; Quijada, M.G. Consumption strategies in Mexican rural households: Pursuing food security with quality. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 439–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simmonds, N.W.; Smartt, J. Principles of Crop Improvement, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Science Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1999; p. xii, 412. [Google Scholar]
- Soleri, D.; Cleveland, D.A.; Smith, S.E.; Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S.; Rana, R.B.; Rijal, D.; Ríos Labrada, H. Understanding farmers’ knowledge as the basis for collaboration with plant breeders: Methodological development and examples from ongoing research in Mexico, Syria, Cuba, and Nepal. In Farmers, Scientists and Plant Breeding: Integrating Knowledge and Practice; Cleveland, D.A., Soleri, D., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 19–60. [Google Scholar]
- Dilley, M. Climatic factors affecting annual maize yields in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Int. J. Climatol. 1997, 17, 1549–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jennings, B.H. Foundations of International Agricultural Research; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1988; p. 196. [Google Scholar]
- Guzzon, F.; Arandia Rios, L.W.; Caviedes Cepeda, G.M.; Céspedes Polo, M.; Chavez Cabrera, A.; Muriel Figueroa, J.; Medina Hoyos, A.E.; Jara Calvo, T.W.; Molnar, T.L.; Narro León, L.A.; et al. Conservation and Use of Latin American Maize Diversity: Pillar of Nutrition Security and Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Agronomy 2021, 11, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timberlake, T.P.; Cirtwill, A.R.; Baral, S.C.; Bhusal, D.R.; Devkota, K.; Harris-Fry, H.A.; Kortsch, S.; Myers, S.S.; Roslin, T.; Saville, N.M.; et al. A network approach for managing ecosystem services and improving food and nutrition security on smallholder farms. People Nat. 2022, 4, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novotny, I.P.; Fuentes-Ponce, M.H.; Lopez-Ridaura, S.; Tittonell, P.; Rossing, W.A. Longitudinal analysis of household types and livelihood trajectories in Oaxaca, Mexico. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 81, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Community | Community physical environment 1 | Community social environment, 2010 2 | Municipality population and maize and bean area, yields and per person production, 2010 4,5 | |||||||||||||
Representative elevation (masl) 1 | Mean annual precipitation (mm) 1 | Mean annual evapotranspiration (mm) 1 | Total population of community | Literacy, above 15 years old | Mean years of education | Speak an indigenous language | Index of masculinity (m/100f) | Degree of Marginalization 3 | Total population of municipality | Area rainfed maize, ha | Rainfed maize yields, t ha−1 | Per person annual rainfed maize production, kg | Area rainfed bean, ha | Rainfed bean yields, t ha−1 | Per person annual rainfed bean production, kg | |
Sierra Juárez communities 6 | ||||||||||||||||
A | 2000 | 757 | 1444 | 1479 | 84.3% | 5.19 | 76.3% | 87.99 | High | 1517 | 95 | 1.12 | 70 | 22 | 0.41 | 5.9 |
B | 2040 | 881 | 1502 | 559 | 94.4% | 6.65 | 56.8% | 91.38 | Low | 575 | 51 | 1.13 | 100 | 28 | 0.42 | 20.5 |
C | 2050 | 2012 | 1684 | 791 | 75.4% | 5.67 | 98.3% | 85.41 | High | 2495 | 704 | 1.13 | 319 | 71 | 0.41 | 11.6 |
D | 1950 | 1805 | 1359 | 1684 | 83.4% | 5.41 | 88.6% | 85.44 | High | 5598 | 1110 | 1.12 | 222 | 135 | 0.41 | 9.9 |
Valles Centrales communities 7 | ||||||||||||||||
E | 1500 | 717 | 1876 | 1426 | 75.8% | 4.5 | 0.0% | 94.74 | High | 19,679 | 4916 | 0.95 | 237 | 138 | 0.6 | 4.2 |
F | 1360 | 692 | 1912 | 1294 | 63.7% | 4.09 | 0.7% | 83.31 | High | 1312 | 495 | 1 | 377 | 15 | 0.7 | 8.0 |
G | 1675 | 698 | 1781 | 1852 | 95.5% | 8.76 | 1.8% | 94.46 | Low | 4405 | 800 | 0.99 | 180 | 18 | 0.67 | 2.7 |
H | 1447 | 771 | 1879 | 1094 | 83.0% | 5.69 | 0.3% | 84.58 | Medium | 19,215 | 6196 | 1 | 322 | 700 | 0.79 | 28.8 |
(a) | |||||||||||||||
Region, Community | Proportion of Households Planting Beans | Total Community Richness (Farmer-Named Bean Varieties) | Bean 1 Varieties Household−1 among Those Sowing Bean | ||||||||||||
Richness | Proportional Abundance (SI) | Divergence Estimate 3 | |||||||||||||
Mean | Standard Deviation | Min | Max | Dunn’s Test 2 | |||||||||||
Between regions | * | * | |||||||||||||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 0.90 | 17 | 1.78 * | 0.80 | 0 | 4 | 0.88 | 0.17 | |||||||
San Juan Atepec | 0.92 | 8 | 1.98 | 0.82 | 0 | 4 | a | 0.72 | 0.39 | ||||||
Santa María Jaltianguis | 0.92 | 11 | 1.78 | 0.81 | 0 | 4 | a | 0.82 | 0.37 | ||||||
Asunción Cacalotepec | 0.88 | 7 | 2.05 | 0.76 | 0 | 3 | a | 0.77 | 0.36 | ||||||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 0.88 | 6 | 1.31 | 0.60 | 0 | 3 | b | 0.58 | 0.60 | ||||||
Valles Centrales, all communities | 0.58 | 13 | 1.35 * | 0.62 | 0 | 3 | 0.70 | 0.15 | |||||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 0.35 | 6 | 1.25 | 0.45 | 0 | 2 | w | 0.78 | 0.85 | ||||||
San Agustín Amatengo | 0.63 | 9 | 1.76 | 0.79 | 0 | 3 | x | 0.82 | 0.62 | ||||||
San Andrés Zautla | 0.86 | 6 | 1.14 | 0.42 | 0 | 3 | w | 0.39 | 0.84 | ||||||
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 0.55 | 4 | 1.23 | 0.50 | 0 | 3 | w | 0.37 | 0.71 | ||||||
* Significant difference between units at this level, p < 0.05. 1 Phaseolus spp. only, farmer-named varieties. 2 Units with different letters are significantly different. 3 Community divergence = (community SI − mean household SI)/community SI; regional divergence = (regional SI − mean community SI)/regional SI, following [10]. SI = Simpson’s Index of Heterogeneity, expressed as 1 − D, after [28]. | |||||||||||||||
(b) | |||||||||||||||
Region, Community | Races of Maize Identified in the Community 1 | Proportion of Households Planting Maize | Total Community Richness (Farmer-Named Maize Varieties) | Maize Varieties Household−1 among Those Sowing Maize | |||||||||||
Richness | Proportional Abundance (SI) | Divergence Estimate 3 | |||||||||||||
Mean | Standard Deviation | Min | Max | Dunn’s Test 2 | |||||||||||
Between regions | NS | * | |||||||||||||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 10 | 1.00 | 19 | 1.51 * | 0.67 | 0 | 5 | 0.71 | 0.03 | ||||||
San Juan Atepec | 4 | 1.00 | 8 | 1.27 | 0.45 | 1 | 2 | a | 0.72 | 0.81 | |||||
Santa María Jaltianguis | 3 | 1.00 | 8 | 1.60 | 0.70 | 1 | 3 | ab | 0.71 | 0.64 | |||||
Asunción Cacalotepec | 4 | 1.00 | 10 | 1.50 | 0.77 | 1 | 5 | ab | 0.71 | 0.70 | |||||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 6 | 0.98 | 6 | 1.66 | 0.69 | 0 | 3 | b | 0.62 | 0.51 | |||||
Valles Centrales, all communities | 6 | 1.00 | 14 | 1.23 * | 0.60 | 0 | 5 | 0.55 | 0.20 | ||||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 4 | 1.00 | 7 | 1.24 | 0.52 | 1 | 3 | w | 0.69 | 0.84 | |||||
San Agustín Amatengo | 3 | 1.00 | 9 | 1.38 | 0.80 | 1 | 5 | w | 0.57 | 0.75 | |||||
San Andrés Zautla | 4 | 0.98 | 2 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 1 | x | 0.12 | 0.83 | |||||
Valdeflores Zimatlán 4 | 3 | 1.00 | 7 | 1.27 | 0.68 | 1 | 4 | w | 0.40 | 0.75 | |||||
* Significant difference between units at this level, p < 0.05. NS = not significant. 1 Source [16].2 Units with different letters are significantly different. 3 Community divergence = (community SI − mean household SI)/community SI; regional divergence = (regional SI − mean community SI)/regional SI, following [10]. SI = Simpson’s Index of Heterogeneity, expressed as 1 − D, after [28]. 4 Two Valdeflores households planted four maize varieties: in one household three were modern varieties (MVs), in the other household one was a MV; in both households the others were local maize varieties. | |||||||||||||||
(c) | |||||||||||||||
Region, Community | Maize Sown Household−1 among Those Sowing Maize | ||||||||||||||
Kg Sown Variety−1, 2007 1 | Total Kg Sown, 2007 | Change in Kg Sown, 1987–2007 2 | |||||||||||||
Mean | SD | Min | Max | Dunn’s Test 3 | Mean | SD | Min | Max | Dunn’s Test 3 | Mean | SD | Min | Max | ||
Between regions | * | * | NS | ||||||||||||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 12.37 * | 10.07 | 0.50 | 80 | 17.30 | 13.25 | 0.00 | 84 | NS | −5.15 | 16.28 | −84 | 60 | ||
San Juan Atepec | 15.55 | 10.83 | 0.50 | 52 | a | 19.16 | 12.88 | 0.50 | 52 | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||
Santa María Jaltianguis | 10.35 | 11.30 | 1.33 | 80 | b | 16.22 | 14.07 | 2.00 | 80 | −6.29 | 17.49 | −38 | 60 | ||
Asunción Cacalotepec | 12.24 | 7.94 | 2.00 | 32 | ab | 16.46 | 10.79 | 4.00 | 60 | −2.65 | 8.78 | −28 | 16 | ||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 11.25 | 9.25 | 2.00 | 40 | b | 17.30 | 15.02 | 0.00 | 84 | −6.54 | 20.07 | −84 | 32 | ||
Valles Centrales, all communities | 38.59 * | 33.01 | 1.50 | 156 | 38.41 * | 33.04 | 0.00 | 184 | −8.17 | 32.95 | −164 | 110 | |||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 46.62 | 41.06 | 1.50 | 156 | x | 51.99 | 42.78 | 1.50 | 156 | w | −2.90 | 38.22 | −136 | 110 | |
San Agustín Amatengo | 22.70 | 17.92 | 4.00 | 92 | y | 30.69 | 31.22 | 4.00 | 184 | x | −10.77 | 32.55 | −164 | 60 | |
San Andrés Zautla | 30.38 | 23.30 | 2.00 | 100 | xy | 30.38 | 23.30 | 0.00 | 100 | xy | −15.18 | 30.41 | −140 | 52 | |
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 36.59 | 28.02 | 6.00 | 120 | xy | 41.31 | 28.04 | 6.00 | 120 | wy | −3.73 | 29.84 | −84 | 60 | |
* Significant difference between units at this level, p < 0.05. NS = not significant. NA = not available, see text. 1 Mean number of maize seeds kg−1 across the two regions ranges between 2870–3010, approximately. FAC field notes. 2 Dunn’s Test insignificant at all levels. 3 Units with different letters are significantly different. |
Region, Community | Person Interviewed 1 | Household Composition | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age, Years | Formal Education, Years | Gender, % Female | First Language, % | Total Members | Adult Females | Adult Males | Proportion of Household <15 Years Old | ||||
Zapotec | Mixe | Spanish | |||||||||
Between regions | NS | NS | NS | * | |||||||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | Mean | 54.43 | 4.94 | 40% | 50% | 48.5% | 1.5% | 4.14 | 1.56 | 1.42 | 0.23 |
SD | 15.24 | 2.66 | 1.78 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.23 | |||||
San Juan Atepec | Mean | 55.22 | 4.96 | 38% | 100% | 0% | 0% | 4.20 | 1.49 | 1.45 | 0.25 |
SD | 13.90 | 2.35 | 1.58 | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.24 | |||||
Santa María Jaltianguis | Mean | 55.82 | 5.52 | 39% | 96% | 0% | 4% | 3.96 | 1.48 | 1.42 | 0.21 |
SD | 14.25 | 1.59 | 1.50 | 0.65 | 0.67 | 0.23 | |||||
Asunción Cacalotepec | Mean | 53.46 | 5.02 | 43% | 2% | 98% | 0% | 3.83 | 1.52 | 1.44 | 0.17 |
SD | 16.49 | 3.64 | 2.09 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.20 | |||||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | Mean | 53.16 | 4.29 | 41% | 0% | 98% | 2% | 4.53 | 1.73 | 1.39 | 0.26 |
SD | 16.49 | 2.68 | 1.89 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.22 | |||||
Valles Centrales, all communities | Mean | 58.49 | 4.36 | 41% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4.05 | 1.59 | 1.49 | 0.18 |
SD | 15.58 | 3.42 | 2.17 | 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.20 | |||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | Mean | 57.29 | 4.42 | 41% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4.22 | 1.57 | 1.49 | 0.22 |
SD | 15.79 | 1.98 | 1.90 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 0.21 | |||||
San Agustín Amatengo | Mean | 58.56 | 2.50 | 42% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 3.40 | 1.37 | 1.29 | 0.16 |
SD | 13.76 | 3.11 | 1.87 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.20 | |||||
San Andrés Zautla | Mean | 59.20 | 6.53 | 37% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4.49 | 1.61 | 1.69 | 0.23 |
SD | 18.83 | 3.61 | 2.11 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.21 | |||||
Valdeflores Zimatlán | Mean | 58.87 | 4.37 | 46% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4.11 | 1.80 | 1.51 | 0.12 |
SD | 14.10 | 3.34 | 2.59 | 1.22 | 0.88 | 0.17 |
Region, Community | Among all HHs, Proportion with Migrants to Any Destination, 1997–2007 | Only Among Households (HHs) Sending Labor Migrants, 1997–2007 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Number of Migrants/HH, Any Destination, Count | Migrant Destinations | |||||||||||
Anywhere in Mexico | Anywhere in USA | |||||||||||
Proportion of HHs 2 | Number Migrants/HH | Proportion of HHs 2 | Number Migrants/HH | |||||||||
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 3 | Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 3 | |||||
Between regions | NS | NS | * | NS | * | * | ||||||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 63% * | 2.67 | 1.74 | 62% * | 1.39 * | 1.52 | 54%* | 1.25 * | 1.64 | |||
Males | 1.67 | 1.21 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.06 | 1.16 | ||||||||||
San Juan Atepec | 69% | 2.20 | 1.32 | 66% | 1.26 | 1.29 | a | 51% | 0.94 | 1.14 | b | |
Males | 1.73 | 0.80 | ||||||||||
Females | 0.40 | 0.91 | ||||||||||
Santa María Jaltianguis | 74% | 3.14 | 2.00 | 36% | 0.67 | 1.04 | a | 83% | 2.53 | 2.09 | c | |
Males | 2.00 | 1.50 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.06 | 0.97 | ||||||||||
Asunción Cacalotepec | 60% | 2.86 | 1.55 | 93% | 2.75 | 1.65 | b | 14% | 0.18 | 0.48 | a | |
Males | 1.45 | 1.09 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.45 | 1.27 | ||||||||||
Totontepec Villa deMorelos | 47% | 2.42 | 1.93 | 58% | 1.00 | 1.29 | a | 63% | 0.95 | 0.97 | b | |
Males | 1.42 | 1.02 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.00 | 1.29 | ||||||||||
Valles Centrales, all communities | 66% * | 2.85 | 1.82 | 46% * | 1.20 * | 1.74 | 67% | 1.59 * | 1.68 | |||
Males | 1.74 | 1.16 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.14 | 1.23 | ||||||||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 73% | 2.64 | 1.61 | 51% | 1.34 | 1.75 | w | 66% | 1.20 | 1.23 | w | |
Males | 1.58 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.06 | 1.15 | ||||||||||
San Agustín Amatengo | 75% | 2.46 | 1.52 | 47% | 1.26 | 1.91 | wx | 61% | 1.24 | 1.24 | w | |
Males | 1.67 | 1.13 | ||||||||||
Females | 0.79 | 0.83 | ||||||||||
San Andrés Zautla | 40% | 2.94 | 2.48 | 82% | 2.19 | 1.97 | w | 31% | 0.38 | 0.62 | x | |
Males | 1.61 | 1.50 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.33 | 1.37 | ||||||||||
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 75% | 3.38 | 1.88 | 21% | 0.50 | 1.11 | x | 94% | 2.97 | 2.01 | y | |
Males | 2.00 | 1.15 | ||||||||||
Females | 1.48 | 1.47 |
Region, Community | Maize, % of Households Interviewed | Bean, % of Households Interviewed | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Save and Plant Their Own Seeds | Have Ever Sown Maize Seeds Identified as MVs, 1997–2007 | Have Planted Commercial Maize Purchased as Food from a Store, 1997–2007 | Leave a Maize Volunteer to Grow Near Field | Save and Plant Their Own Seeds | Have Ever Sown Non-Criollo Bean Seeds, 1997–2007 | Have Planted Commercial Bean Purchased as Food from a Store, 1997–2007 | |
Between regions | NS | * | * | * | NS | * | NS |
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 96% * | 12% * | 22% * | 73% * | 94% | 11% * | 20% |
San Juan Atepec | 92% | 12% | 24% | 36% | 96% | 11% | 20% |
Santa María Jaltianguis | 100% | 32% | 34% | 88% | 94% | 22% | 28% |
Asunción Cacalotepec | 92% | 0% | 11% | 77% | 86% | 2% | 24% |
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 100% | 2% | 18% | 92% | 98% | 7% | 10% |
Valles Centrales, all communities | 94% * | 20% * | 10% | 94% * | 91% | 19% * | 15% |
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 96% | 9% | 8% | 88% | 94% | 13% | 11% |
San Agustín Amatengo | 100% | 23% | 6% | 98% | 88% | 6% | 23% |
San Andrés Zautla | 90% | 16% | 17% | 100% | 95% | 17% | 16% |
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 89% | 31% | 9% | 89% | 87% | 40% | 9% |
(a) | |||||||||
Region, Community | Bean Cultivation, Proportion of Farmers Stating They Use Commercial, Agrochemical: | Proportion Using Organic Matter as Fertilizer for Bean | Farmer-Reported Mean Bean Yield Estimate, Kg Harvested/Kg Sown 1,2 | ||||||
Fertilizer | Herbicide | Insecticide | Grain Storage Insecticide | Determinate, Bush-Type Beans | Dunn’s Test 3 | Indeterminate, Vining Beans | |||
Between regions | * | NS | * | * | * | NS | NS | ||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | Mean | 41% * | 12% * | 3% | 19%* | 13% * | 9.7 | 16.1 | |
SD | 12.68 | 7.46 | |||||||
San Juan Atepec | Mean | 20% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 9% | 9.7 | 15.4 | |
SD | 14.48 | 7.45 | |||||||
Santa María Jaltianguis | Mean | 60% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 38% | 9.6 | 18.6 | |
SD | 12.90 | 6.50 | |||||||
Asunción Cacalotepec | Mean | 9% | 23% | 5% | 18% | 2% | 10.9 | 14.3 | |
SD | 7.74 | 4.83 | |||||||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | Mean | 69% | 26% | 6% | 42% | 2% | 6.5 | 16.6 | |
SD | 9.59 | 9.50 | |||||||
Valles Centrales, all communities | Mean | 63% * | 19% * | 41% * | 38% * | 78% * | 16.1 * | 24.7 | |
SD | 5.56 | 13.13 | |||||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | Mean | 97% | 12% | 21% | 41% | 97% | 15.3 | a | 20.9 |
SD | 5.23 | 11.39 | |||||||
San Agustín Amatengo | Mean | 53% | 13% | 38% | 9% | 66% | 13.1 | ab | 31.1 |
SD | 4.94 | 16.12 | |||||||
San Andrés Zautla | Mean | 36% | 6% | 15% | 51% | 76% | 8.2 | b | 1.9 |
SD | 3.25 | 0.45 | |||||||
Valdeflores Zimatlán | Mean | 72% | 52% | 100% | 48% | 72% | 26.8 | a | NA |
SD | 8.56 | NA | |||||||
(b) | |||||||||
Region, Community | Maize Cultivation, Proportion of Farmers Stating They Use Commercial, Agrochemical: | Proportion Using Organic Matter as Fertilizer for Maize | Farmer-Reported Mean Maize Yield Estimate, Kg Harvested/Kg Sown 1 | Dunn’s Test 3 | |||||
Fertilizer | Herbicide | Insecticide | Grain Storage Insecticide | ||||||
Between regions | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | Mean | 50% * | 11% * | 2% | 24% * | 15% * | 46.7 | NS | |
SD | 45.65 | ||||||||
San Juan Atepec | Mean | 50% | 0% | 0% | 18% | 12% | 44.5 | ||
SD | 50.60 | ||||||||
Santa María Jaltianguis | Mean | 67% | 2% | 0% | 8% | 39% | 44.9 | ||
SD | 35.97 | ||||||||
Asunción Cacalotepec | Mean | 10% | 21% | 2% | 19% | 4% | 53.4 | ||
SD | 44.94 | ||||||||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | Mean | 71% | 22% | 4% | 51% | 6% | 44.5 | ||
SD | 51.34 | ||||||||
Valles Centrales, all communities | Mean | 89% * | 18% * | 14% * | 44% * | 76% | 34.4 * | ||
SD | 14.48 | ||||||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | Mean | 96% | 15% | 13% | 44% | 88% | 19.8 | a | |
SD | 7.32 | ||||||||
San Agustín Amatengo | Mean | 94% | 17% | 14% | 26% | 73% | 42.3 | b | |
SD | 16.24 | ||||||||
San Andrés Zautla | Mean | 78% | 2% | 2% | 27% | 78% | 36.5 | b | |
SD | 14.59 | ||||||||
Valdeflores Zimatlán | Mean | 89% | 37% | 26% | 75% | 67% | 38.5 | b | |
SD | 19.30 |
(a) | ||||||||||||||||||
Region, Community | Maize consumption | |||||||||||||||||
Kilograms of Maize/Person/Day | Feed: Food Ratio Animal: Direct Human Household Maize Consumption | Total Daily Household Maize Consumption, Kg | Kilograms of Purchased Tortillas/ Person/Week | Months Household Can Use Their Own Maize Harvest, without Purchasing Maize | ||||||||||||||
Direct Human Consumption 1 | For Household Livestock | |||||||||||||||||
Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 2 | Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 2 | Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 2 | Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 2 | Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 2 | Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 2 | |
Between regions | NS | NS | NS | * | * | * | ||||||||||||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 0.53 | 0.36 | NS | 0.30 * | 0.35 | 0.64 * | 0.82 | 2.91 | 1.64 | NS | 0.40 | 1.05 | 10.61 | 5.59 | ||||
San Juan Atepec | 0.47 | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.30 | ab | 0.77 | 1.18 | ab | 2.81 | 1.41 | 0.34 | 0.95 | a | 9.99 | 2.61 | ab | ||
Santa María Jaltianguis | 0.54 | 0.36 | 0.44 | 0.48 | ab | 0.87 | 0.86 | a | 3.14 | 1.68 | 0.83 | 1.56 | b | 9.45 | 3.04 | a | ||
Asunción Cacalotepec | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.32 | 0.30 | ab | 0.57 | 0.42 | ab | 2.92 | 1.89 | 0.03 | 0.18 | c | 10.66 | 3.26 | b | ||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 0.52 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 0.23 | b | 0.35 | 0.44 | b | 2.78 | 1.59 | 0.39 | 0.87 | a | 12.29 | 9.65 | b | ||
Valles Centrales, all communities | 0.54 * | 0.40 | 0.64 * | 1.17 | 1.19 * | 2.16 | 4.11 * | 3.72 | 2.02 | 3.15 | 9.78 | 6.28 | NS | |||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 0.63 | 0.28 | x | 0.60 | 0.84 | wx | 1.08 | 1.54 | w | 4.47 | 2.64 | wx | 0.91 | 2.23 | w | 9.53 | 7.01 | |
San Agustín Amatengo | 0.67 | 0.45 | x | 0.32 | 0.44 | wy | 0.47 | 0.60 | x | 3.14 | 2.39 | wy | 1.86 | 3.29 | wx | 11.98 | 8.71 | |
San Andrés Zautla | 0.48 | 0.45 | y | 0.36 | 0.67 | y | 0.69 | 1.37 | x | 3.29 | 3.01 | y | 2.42 | 3.31 | xy | 8.86 | 3.24 | |
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 0.40 | 0.31 | y | 1.22 | 1.86 | x | 2.59 | 3.51 | w | 5.45 | 5.40 | x | 2.78 | 3.34 | y | 8.65 | 3.82 | |
(b) | ||||||||||||||||||
Region, Community | Bean Consumption, Kilograms/Person/Day 1,3 | |||||||||||||||||
Mean | SD | Dunn’s Test 2 | ||||||||||||||||
Between regions | * | |||||||||||||||||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 0.073 * | 0.046 | ||||||||||||||||
San Juan Atepec | 0.062 | 0.043 | a | |||||||||||||||
Santa María Jaltianguis | 0.084 | 0.049 | b | |||||||||||||||
Asunción Cacalotepec | 0.085 | 0.054 | bc | |||||||||||||||
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 0.061 | 0.032 | ac | |||||||||||||||
Valles Centrales, all communities | 0.068 * | 0.059 | ||||||||||||||||
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 0.048 | 0.030 | w | |||||||||||||||
San Agustín Amatengo | 0.074 | 0.054 | xy | |||||||||||||||
San Andrés Zautla | 0.053 | 0.026 | wx | |||||||||||||||
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 0.095 | 0.086 | y |
Region, Community | Years of Poor Maize Harvest/10 Years | Yield and Yield Stability: Proportion of Farmers Preferring Stable Variety over High Response Variety | Hypothetical TG Maize Scenario: Proportion of Farmers Preferring Stable Variety When: | Proportion of Farmers Stating Transgenesis per Se Is Negative | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Compared with Seeds of Responsive Variety That Cost 2× More Than Stable Variety Seeds | Seeds of All Varieties Are the Same Price | |||
Between regions | * | NS | NS | * | * | |
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 3.7 | 1.66 | 87% | 97% | 93% | 78% * |
San Juan Atepec | 3.3 | 1.49 | 86% | 100% | 95% | 82% |
Santa María Jaltianguis | 3.8 | 1.52 | 80% | 96% | 94% | 64% |
Asunción Cacalotepec | 4.1 | 1.87 | 94% | 98% | 91% | 89% |
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 3.7 | 1.75 | 90% | 96% | 92% | 78% |
Valles Centrales, all communities | 5.1 | 1.87 | 81% * | 94% | 82% | 59% * |
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 5.3 | 1.60 | 88% | 96% | 89% | 72% |
San Agustín Amatengo | 5.2 | 1.57 | 83% | 90% | 88% | 67% |
San Andrés Zautla | 4.4 | 2.10 | 87% | 98% | 76% | 50% |
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 5.2 | 2.17 | 67% | 91% | 75% | 48% |
Region, Community | Proportion of Households | Farmer Comments, from across Communities | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Who Hope the Next Generation to Be Maize and Bean Farmers | Who Believe the Next Generation Will Be Maize and Bean Farmers | Themes and Examples of Major Reasons for Hoping Youth Will Farm | Themes and Examples of Major Reasons for Believing Youth Will Not Farm | |
Between regions | NS | NS | ||
Sierra Juárez, all communities | 92% | 51% * | Farming is an important tradition, a part of our identity as campesinos | Young people are migrating out of the community and not returning |
San Juan Atepec | 92% | 39% | “venimos de herencia de campesinos” “es la vida del campesino” “para que no se hecha perder lo que hicieron los antiguos, se necesita el campo” | “están en los EEUA, los nietos son diferentes, hablan inglés, algunos nunca han visitado Oaxaca” “ya tienen la visión de irse a los EEUA” |
Santa María Jaltianguis | 96% | 41% | ||
Asunción Cacalotepec | 89% | 64% | Farming is necessary for survival | Preferences for formal education and the work opportunities that might bring |
Totontepec Villa de Morelos | 92% | 61% | “es lo más indispensable que uno puede conocer” “es la fuente del trabajo, tiene la esperanza en el campo” “para que tengan de comer” “comprar maíz y frijol es más difícil ya que no hay dinero para comprar” “siempre tiene de comer, aun en tiempos de escasez” | “la joventud prefiere estudiar” |
Valles Centrales, all communities | 90% * | 45% | Farming offers benefits and pleasures beyond simply surviving | Climate changes are making farming even more difficult than in the past |
Santa Marta Chichihualtepec | 98% | 57% | “para que conservar y que coma sano” “el campo es muy bonito, y la necesidad nos enseña” “porque da cierto tipo de independencia” “el campo me gusta mucho, es mi satisfacción comer lo que cultivo” “esta más tranquilo, respira aire puro, más libre” | “el campo ya no es el mismo, el sol ya esta muy fuerte” “el tiempo ya no es el mismo, ya no hay agua” “como oigo, en el futuro llueve menos” “ya no se saca provecho y no es seguro el campo” |
San Agustín Amatengo | 87% | 42% | ||
San Andrés Zautla | 77% | 36% | ||
Valdeflores Zimatlán | 98% | 44% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Soleri, D.; Aragón Cuevas, F.; Castro García, H.; Cleveland, D.A.; Smith, S.E. The Household Context of In Situ Conservation in a Center of Crop Diversity: Self-Reported Practices and Perceptions of Maize and Phaseolus Bean Farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127148
Soleri D, Aragón Cuevas F, Castro García H, Cleveland DA, Smith SE. The Household Context of In Situ Conservation in a Center of Crop Diversity: Self-Reported Practices and Perceptions of Maize and Phaseolus Bean Farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127148
Chicago/Turabian StyleSoleri, Daniela, Flavio Aragón Cuevas, Humberto Castro García, David A. Cleveland, and Steven E. Smith. 2022. "The Household Context of In Situ Conservation in a Center of Crop Diversity: Self-Reported Practices and Perceptions of Maize and Phaseolus Bean Farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127148
APA StyleSoleri, D., Aragón Cuevas, F., Castro García, H., Cleveland, D. A., & Smith, S. E. (2022). The Household Context of In Situ Conservation in a Center of Crop Diversity: Self-Reported Practices and Perceptions of Maize and Phaseolus Bean Farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico. Sustainability, 14(12), 7148. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127148