preservation of traditional management practices at...

Master en Estudios Ambientales

Especialidad de Medio Natural

Módulos de investigación: 40436, 40437, 40438

Instituto de Ciencia y Tecología Ambiental (ICTA)

UAB

Preservation of Traditional Management Practices at

Homegardens in Central Asturias: A Comparison between

Local and Migrant Farmers

HUMAN ECOLOGY JOURNAL

Directora de Investigación: Dra. Victoria Reyes García

Grupo de Investigación Laboratorio de Etnoecología ICTA

MIGUEL GERARDO OCHOA TOVAR

Septiembre, 2008

DESCRIPCIÓN DE LAS TARÉAS REALIZADAS

El presente trabajo se realizó dentro del laboratorio de Etnoecología del Instituto de Ciencia

y Tecnología Ambiental (ICTA) de la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Podría dividir

el trabajo en tres fases principales. La primera fase, consistió, por una parte en realizar

investigación bibliográfica y por otra en la participación y asistencia a cursos, talleres y

pláticas relacionados con tópicos referentes a las Ciencias Sociales que sirvieron como base

al marco teórico y metodológico de mi trabajo. La segunda fase consistió directamente en

el trabajo de campo, en la que colabore con la Universidad de Oviedo en apoyo a una

estudiante de doctorado en la realización de entrevistas estructuradas y semi-estructuradas a

hortelanos en la zona central de Asturias, durante los meses de Junio a Agosto de 2008,

como parte del proyecto “Huertos en la Península Ibérica”. Esta colaboración permitió la

obtención de datos para este trabajo. Finalmente, la tercera fase consistió en el análisis de

datos y estructuración del trabajo escrito.

El proyecto “Huertos en la Península Ibérica”, del cual forma parte mi investigación, es un

proyecto multi-disciplinario que integra la participación multi-institucional en tres distintas

áreas de la Península Ibérica, como lo son Los Pirineos Catalanes, La Sierra Norte de

Madrid y la Cuenca de río Nalón en Asturias. El Objetivo principal de este proyecto es:

Estudiar la importancia de los huertos domésticos en 1) la conservación de la biodiversidad

y, en particular, de la agrobiodiversidad, y 2) la preservación, la transmisión, y la

innovación del saber popular sobre plantas.

Dentro de este marco, mi investigación consistió específicamente en evaluar las similitudes

y diferencias en el uso de prácticas de manejo tradicional en los huertos caseros entre

hortelanos locales e inmigrantes (considerando a inmigrantes tanto a extranjeros como a

nacionales procedentes de otras comunidades autónomas) para evaluar el efecto de los

movimientos migratorios sobre el medio ambiente local y establecer si los hortelanos

locales e inmigrantes hacen uso un uso del ambiente de forma diferente como una primera

aproximación en el entendimiento de la importancia de las técnicas de agricultura

tradicionales para la conservación in situ de los recursos fitogéneticos.

Preservation of Traditional Management Practices at Homegardens in Central

Asturias: A Comparison between Local and Migrant Farmers

Ochoa-Tovar Miguel Gerardo

ABSTRACT

On-farm conservation of plant genetic resources is mainly practiced on small farms

considering the traditional knowledge and practical skills of the farmers. The aim of this

paper is to study the differences and similarities between local and migrant farmers for

homegardens management in Central Asturias (Spain). During July and August (2008), in

56 homegardens belonging to 41 informants, interviews were carried to construct a list of

currently used traditional management practices and rate their importance. Similarities were

tested with categorical principal component analysis. Data shows no differences between

farmers, with the exception of the manual control of plants´ plagues and diseases. This

study suggests an adoption of local practices is given by migrant farmers as an adaptive

response to ecological, economic and social factors. More ethnobiology studies are need in

European homegardens for further improve our understanding of the importance of the folk

traditional knowledge in the PGRs and cultural preservation.

INTRODUCTION

Plant genetic resources (PGR), defined here as the plants or parts of plants which are

capable of generative or vegetative propagation with actual or potential value and include

landraces, wild relatives, and special genetic stocks that have been developed by farmers

over generations are important for agricultural development and sustainable production

(FAO 1994). PGR support food security of several livelihoods around the world and

contribute to environment protection. Many of the currently available PGRs have been the

result of conscious or unconscious human interventions (Vellvé 1992). Farmer’s selection

has created new and improved crops (i.e., more productive, or adapted to local climate, soil,

landscape, and traditions) (Dhillon et al. 2004). The importance of conservation of

agricultural PGRs, or agrobiodiversity, for future global food security is to guarantee the

availability of biodiversity for farmers, breeders, and researchers. But for effective genetic

conservation, the preservation of cultural systems that created the PGRs is as important as

the conservation on agricultural resources. Farmers´ knowledge and skills are important for

conservation because domesticated crops were shaped by traditional knowledge and their

uses within these systems, and they can only evolve within them (King & Eyzaguirre

1999).

There are two approaches of PGR conservation: ex-situ and in-situ conservation. Ex-situ

conservation consists in the storage of genetic resources outside their natural habitat, in

identified gene banks (Dhillon et al. 2004). Although the approach might help in

preserving endangered species, for example, the approach has several shortcomings. For

example, genetic resources conserved ex-situ remains static, without further interactions

with the different elements of their environment. Furthermore, ex-situ conservation is only

adequate for genetic resources, not for ecosystems or natural habitats. In contrast, in situ

conservation consists in the maintenance of species’ populations in their natural

surroundings, whether as an uncultivated plant or as part of farmers´ fields (Maxted et al.

1997), and thus involves not only the conservation of genetic resources, but also the

conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats In-situ conservation involves a) the active

and long-term conservation of natural wild populations by the location, management, and

monitoring of their genetic diversity (Hawkes et al. 2002), and b) on-farm conservation,

characterized for the sustainable management of the genetic diversity of locally developed

traditional crop varieties along with associated wild and weedy species or forms within

traditional agricultural, horticultural or agri-silvicultural cultivation systems. Furthermore,

in-situ conservation considers the traditional knowledge and practical skills of the farmers

as an integral element of the conservation effort (Long et al. 2000). Briefly, although ex-

situ and in-situ conservation can be considered complementary approaches for conservation

of agricultural diversity, in-situ conservation has the advantage to provide a natural

laboratory for evolution processes to gradually continue with the fostering of new and more

adapted species increasing diversity through social requirements and ecogeographical

adaptation.

In Europe, as elsewhere, on-farm, or in situ, conservation of PGRs is mainly practiced on

small farms traditionally growing landraces or commercially obsolete cultivars (Stehno

2006). Several studies have shown the importance of homegardens in on-farm conservation

of PGRs (e.g. Birol et al. 2005; Gauchan et al. 2005; Maxted et al. 2002; Negri et al. 2000;

Negri and Tosti 2002) and in the social dynamics related to the transmission of knowledge

related to PGRs (e.g. Atran et al. 2002; Vogl et al. 2002; Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser 2003).

Moreover, the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR

2007) has noticed the richness of agricultural diversity specifically remaining in European

homegardens. According to the ECPGR, the diversity of crop genetic resources in

European homegardens is higher than expected. But nowadays homegardens in Europe are

a very fragile type of agro-ecosystems. New opportunities, such as the widespread

availability of commercial species, and constraints such as the increasing age of farmers,

the lack of willingness of the new generations to adopt the older farming systems and crops,

or the arrival of new populations to rural areas negatively influence the on-farm

conservation of PGR in Europe (Stehno 2006).

Most previous research on homegardens has focused on the gardens of farmers that have

lived a long time in the studied area (e.g. Caballero 1992; Stuart 1993; Hetterschijt 2001;

Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser 2003; Das and Kumar Das 2005), thus generating information on

the management and composition of homegardens from communities with long experience

with their local environment (Vogl et al. 2002). Despite the worldwide importance of

migration and its potential impact for the ecosystem, few studies focus on migrants or on

populations cultivators without traditional experience with the site-specific management of

the new inhabited area (Kleinman et al. 1995). Furthermore, the scant research in the topic

provides contradictory findings. Some researchers have found that, many decades after

migration, descendants from migrant populations behave differently in the same physical

environment than groups with long history of adaptation to the local environment (Atran et

al. 1999; Atran et al. 2002), and that migrants are one of the causes of environmental

degradation (Pichón and Uquillas 1999). But studies in Southern México suggest that

farmers who migrate to a new ecological environment quickly learn locally adopted

techniques from local farmers (De Vos 1992; Alcorn and Toledo 2000; Vogl et al. 2002).

In this paper, I study the differences and similarities between local and migrant farmers

regarding homegardens management. For the case study, I use primary information

collected among farmers with homegardens in Central Asturias (Spain). Homegardens in

Spain present an ideal case to evaluate the transformation, or adoption, of local homegarden

management practices by migrant farmers for two reasons. First, Spain is the country in the

European Community (EC) with the greatest concentration and diversity of extensive

agricultural systems (Díaz del Cañizo et al. 1998). Second, Spain is the EC´s country with

more continuity, persistence, and intensity in migratory flows (INE 2007).

This research is important for two reasons. First, results from this research contribute to the

debate of the environmental effects of migrant populations. This study will help clarify

whether local and migrant farmers manage the same environment in different ways, as a

first approach to understand the importance of traditional farming techniques for in situ

conservation. Second, this research contributes to basic knowledge about crop diversity in

Asturias. Asturias is one of the most biodiverse regions in Spain (INE 2007), yet few

studies focus on the constraints that can affect the development of in situ conservation of

genetic resources in the region. . Furthermore, Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser (2003) and Negri

(2007) have noticed that the lack on scientific research on homegardens in temperate

climates, compared with tropical ones, is alarming if we consider their importance in

conserving Europe´s crop diversity heritage.

Some geographical and historical aspects of Central Asturias

Central Asturias is a region located at northwest Spain, being part of the Autonomous

Community of “Principado de Asturias” (42° 53’ and 43°42’ north latitude) (Figure 1).

Asturias corresponds to the “humid Iberia” (Rivas-Martínez 1987), characterized by the

buffer effect of the ocean which prevent abrupt temperature changes given place to soft

winters and fresh summers. Rainfall in the area is high, without dry season, and with

abundant clouds due to “barrier effect” of the mountains. Annual mean temperatures, in the

study area, range from 17.3-7.5 °C, respectively, and the annual mean precipitation for the

area is 1066 mm (Ninyerola et al. 2005).

Homegardens have historically been part of the agricultural systems in Central Asturias,

and have mainly been oriented for peasant-like families´ subsistence (Rodríguez and

Menéndez 2005). Until the mid 20th century, farming in Central Asturias was strongly

based on cereal cultivation (e.g. Triticum spelta, Secale cereal, Panicum milliaceum), fruit

trees (e.g. Malus domestica, Prunus domestica) and vegetables (e.g. Brassica oleracea,

Phseolus vulgaris) (Bosque-Maurel and Vilá-Valentí 1990). Work on farm was done

manually, and soil fertilization was done with locally produced manure taking advantage of

the surrounding resources. Agricultural systems in Central Asturias have changed during

the second mid of the 20th century. Many factors that took place in the first mid of the 20th

century have undermined the traditional agricultural and social organization of the region,

including the introduction of new competitive crops (e.g. Zea mays, Solanum tuberosum)

(Bosque-Maurel and Vilá-Valentí 1990), the strong polarization of the industrial and

mining economic activities, the stagnation of growth population, and the strong migration

flows (Rodríguez and Menéndez 2005).

(FIGURE1 HERE)

Important economic activities for the region not long ago, like the cereal cultivation, have

been almost totally disappeared. Fruit trees and vegetable are still cultivated, but their

importance and extend is reduced. Today almost all of agricultural land is abandoned,

covered with meadows and pastures. The maintenance of some activity of the primary

sector in the region might be a consequence of the implementation of new processes of

rural development in Central Asturias, to recover the region from the industrial crisis in the

70´s by increasing the activities linked to the recovery of local traditional culture and by

reinforcing the relations between urban and rural areas (Rodríguez and Menéndez 2005).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Field work took place during the months of July and August of 2008 in Central Asturias,

Spain. This study was done in the context of the project “Homegardens in the Iberian

Peninsula”, whose main objective is to study the importance of homegardens in 1)

biodiversity conservation, particularly in agrobiodiversity, and 2) the preservation,

transmission and innovation in local agricultural knowledge.

Definitions

For the purpose of this paper, I use the term local to refer to people who was born and grew

up in Asturias, whether in the current village or residency or not. The term migrant refers to

people who was born and grew –at least partially- in any other place, whether in other

region of Spain or in another country. I use the term traditional management practices to

refer to the customary ways of using resources that have survived for a long time in the

region. Presumably traditional management practices embody a prolonged empiric

experience and constitute an intimate knowledge of the environment that allows effective

production processes and make the best use of the local environment. Finally, the term

homegarden refers to low scale agricultural production systems with low economic returns,

multi-layered and located near households, maintained by family members based in their

local knowledge and resources (Ruonavaara 1996). In my case study, homegardens are not

primarily market-oriented, and are also characterized by a low capital investment and the

simplicity of the technologies employed.

Sample

Research was conducted among 56 homegardens belonging to 41 informants in 10 villages

in Central Asturias. Village selection was based on theoretical and practical criteria using a

multi-layered sampling, so the 10 selected villages were representative of the

environmental and socioeconomic variability of the region. Village selection also followed

two practical criteria to facilitate transport across sites. Specifically, I selected villages with

1) a widespread existence of homegardens; and with 2) proximity between homegardens

(e.g. in the same municipality). Within selected villages, I used purposive samples for the

selection of homegardens and farmers to create representative groups in each village (e.g.

irrigated and non-irrigated homegardens, neo-rural and traditional homegardens) and

between farmers (e.g. age, gender, origin). After the selection of homegardens, a first visit

was done to select the farmer or main person responsible of each homegarden, following

the characteristics mentioned above. We considered the main person responsible for the

homegarden, as the farmer who realized most of the work on the homegarden and took

decisions about its management. Participation was voluntary, and farmer’s availability to

participate in the research was assessed during the first visit. The 56 homegardens used in

this study are located in the Spanish Mountain Agriculture Zone (Rodríguez & Menéndez

2005), between 0 and 400 m above sea level. The average size of homegardens is 0.05 ha

approximately. About 20% of the farmers with cultivated homegardens were interviewed in

each village. Local farmers constituted the 68% of the total sample and migrant farmers the

32%. Total sample was composed by 27 male farmers and 14 female farmers with an

average of 8 years of education. Farmers ranged between 30 and 87 years of age (mean=

67.5 years).

Data collection

Data was collected in two phases. During the first phase, I conducted informal interviews

with 15 local farmers of the sample, to get information about agro-ecological knowledge

and folk management practices at homegardens. I used the information from informal

interviews to construct a list of currently used traditional management practices at

homegardens in Central Asturias. Based in the observations done by Vogl and Vogl-

Lukasser (2003), I used three main features for the selection of the practices that were

included in the second phase: 1) simplicity of the tools employed; 2) low investment; and

3) use of natural local resources.

During the second phase, I conducted structured interviews with the main responsible of the

selected homegardens. The structured questionnaire included basic socio-demographic

information on the farmer (i.e., age, sex, education, place of origin), and a rating of the five

selected homegarden management practices. Specifically, in the socio-demographic

questionnaire I asked about the place of origin of the farmer, to create a variable “Origin”

that was coded 1 if the farmer was local and 2 if the farmer was migrant. For the rating

task, I asked each informant, to rate with a five point scale (0=“not at all important” to

4=“very important”) the five management practices identified (Handwerker 2002). All

informants rated the practices as “very important” or “not at all important”. Therefore, for

further analysis I created a binary variable that took the value of 1 for “not at all important”

and 2 for “very important”.

Data analysis

Raw data were stored in an Access database (Microsoft Office package) and subsequently

analyzed with SPSS (version 15.0) for Windows (SPSS 2006). To identifying similarities

and differences between the local and migrant farmers´ ratings, I used a generalization of

principal component analysis known as categorical principal component analysis

(CATPCA), which allows, one to simultaneously assess and reduce the dimensionality of

data from categorical variables. CATPCA can fit qualitative or categorical variables that

describe the person in a limited number of categories (Linting et al 2007). Categorical

variables are quantified using optimal scaling resulting in optimal principal components for

the transformed variables (Meulman and Heiser 2005). In CATPCA dimensions correspond

to components (that is, an analysis with two dimensions results in two-component

analysis), and object scores correspond to component scores. The variance accounted for in

each dimension for each variable separately is equal to the squared component loading, and

the component loading itself is the correlation between the transformed variable and a

principal component (given by the object scores) in a particular dimension (Linting et al

2007).

In contrast to linear PCA, CATPCA can handle variables of different analysis levels

(nominal, ordinal and numerical) simultaneously and can deal with non-linear relationships

between variables (Linting et al. 2006). An important application of CATPCA is the

evaluation of the preferences over a group of elements among groups of people to establish

similarities or differences between them (Meulman and Heiser 2005), the analysis intended

here.

In the analysis presented here, the categorical data resulting from the ranting exercise were

measured at an ordinal scale and analyzed in a two-component model using CATPCA.

Specifically, the five main practices ranted by farmers were my analysis variables; the

variable “Origin” was selected as a labeling variable, this is that the variable has no

influence on the analysis, but is fitted in the solution of scatterplots to see its relation with

the other variables (Linting et al. 2007) .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Traditional management of homegardens in Central Asturias

The function of traditional management at homegardens in Central Asturias is twofold, a

mechanism for PGRs preservation and the modification and creation of landscapes,

conferring natural and cultural diversity to the region (Biber-Klemm and Cottier 2006). The

interruption of the diversification and expansion of the agrarian production after the

Spanish Civil War and the migratory flows in the region have impacted in different ways

the traditional agricultural model (Rodríguez & Menéndez 2005). Practices like the use of

manure as main source of soil fertilization, the use of simple tools like the hoes, spades or

forks or weeding by hand have been preserved in the Asturian´s traditional agrarian model

among local and migrant farmers. Modern commercial agriculture practices such as the use

of chemical fertilizers or rotary cultivators or tractors for working the soil are scarcely used.

The use of manure for fertilization represents a very effective and cheap management

practice. The manure generally comes from farm´s own cattle, sheep or horses, although

sometimes is interchanged among farmers. Fertilization with manure is still used by the

82.9% of the farmers interviewed (Table 1), or 56.1% and 26.8% of locals and migrants

respectively. Weeding by hand, even when it is very laborious, is also a very cheap

practice. Simple tools such as hoes or the very same hand are used. This is a very

homogeneous practice among farmers, 97.6 % of the total sample agreed in the importance

of this practice at homegarden (Table 1). Commercially available synthetic or biological

pesticides to combat diseases and pest, a very expensive and harmful practice to the

environment , is equally used by local and migrant farmers. Only a few farmers (26.8 % of

the total sample) eliminate pest and diseases by hand, removing the affected part of the

plant or the whole plant (Table 1). Soil cultivation is done generally by hand, using very

simple tools like hoes, spades or forks. Tools are locally built or repaired from old ones.

Since homegardens in the area are usually small, this could influence the preference of this

practice among farmers. Only 26.9% of the farmers use motor driven equipment (tractor or

rotary cultivators) to cultivate the soil (Table 1). Outside seedling is widely used among

farmers (80.5% of the total sample). This practice does not require any investment and

enhance the relation between plant and environment. The use of greenhouse for seedling is

not widely spread, probably because the elevated costs of implementation and maintenance.

Only 19.5% of the interviewed farmers consider that inside seedling (in greenhouses) is

very important.

As mentioned above, manual weeding is a very common practice among farmers. Almost

the 100% of the informants rated it as “very important”. Due to its homogeneity and the

relative small value for the extraction communalities (.511) presented for by the

components in the pre-tests with PCA. WEEDING practice did not fit with the structure of

the other practices. For this reason I excluded this variable for further analysis.

(TABLE1 HERE)

Categorical Principal Component Analysis

Results from a CATPCA of the four traditional management practices considered, shows

that more than half of the total variance (68.91%) is explained by the first two dimensions

of the model, suggesting that the model fits the data (Meulman and Heiser 2005). The first

dimension´s eigenvalue was 1.620 explaining the 40.50 % of the total variance, whereas the

second dimension´s eigenvalue was 1.137 which explained 28.41 % of the variance in the

data. The Cronbach´s alpha, based on the total eigenvalue, was .850 indicating the

reliability of the procedure.

Based on farmers´ ratings, Figure 2 shows that local and migrant farmers use the four

practices indifferently. Practices do not show to be influenced to each other (e.g. practicing

SEEDLING does not tell us if the practice PLAGUES is done or not). However, MANURE

and SOIL practices, apparently, are directly associated in their use. In other words, if any

single farmer is practicing MANURE, probably he or she will not be practicing SOIL.

Furthermore, the practice of SEEDLING shows a strong contrast with the other three

practices with respect to dimension 1, due to its high positive component loading (Figure

2). MANURE and SOIL are the two practices more correlated in dimension 2, but in

opposite directions, revealing a contrast between these two practices while having little

relation with the practice PLAGUES (Figure 2).

(FIGURE2 HERE)

Both considered that the traditional practices MANURE, SOIL and SEEDLING are “very

important” for management of homegarden. Nonetheless, the practice PLAGUES results to

be “not at all important” for the two groups. We can appreciate this more clearly in Figure

3, where the up and down plots correspond to the analysis of migrant and local farmers

respectively. Figure 3 shows that the representation of the ranking “very important” (2) for

the variables MANURE, SOIL and SEEDLING is relatively close to the origin. This

closeness indicates that these practices are not notably different among the group (Meulman

and Heiser 2005), suggesting that both local and migrant farmers consider those three

practices as very important. We can also detect some similarities between local and

immigrant farmers in relation to their scores along the two dimensions (Table 2). These

scores are useful for detecting outliers, similarities between groups (as in this study) or

revealing some special patterns (Meulman and Heiser 2005).

(FIGURE3 HERE)

In Table 2, similar scores along a dimension indicate a similarity between farmers with

respect to that dimension. In contrast, dissimilar scores indicate a difference for the

specified dimension (Meulman and Heiser 2005).

(TABLE2 HERE)

We can see several sub-groups in Table 2 composed by farmers with similar scores for both

dimensions. But surprisingly, those groups are mixed with farmers and migrants,

suggesting no significant differences between the two populations (Figure 4). This tendency

shows that the use of any of the traditional management practices selected have the same

rating of importance and is not directly related with the farmers´ origin. Some farmers may

have been using a specific set of practices, different from others, without necessarily being

using all the available practices, in function of their personal interests (e.g. more crop

production, more plant diversity at homegarden), that finally became collective interests

corresponding to a specific social-environmental context in a single homogeneous group .

(FIGURE4 HERE)

Although the sample configured as an equal group, we can do inferences in the relations

between farmers and the practices. Combining the plot of component loadings for the

practices (Figure 2) and the farmers´ scores plot (Figure 4) we can construct a farmers´

biplot (Figure 5). The vector (lines) of a practices points into the direction of the highest

category (“very important” in this case) of the variable. As mentioned above, the practices

MANURE and SOIL are contrasting in relation with dimension 2. This means that farmers

with large negative score in dimension 2 do not use manure as soil fertilizer. This is the

case of the group with three L located at the right down corner of the plot. By the other

hand, the farmers located near MANURE´s highest category do not use simple tools for

working the soil, but motor driven equipment.

On the other hand, the practice PLAGUES is mainly related with the second dimension, but

does not present contrast with another practice, so all the farmers located near or below

zero with respect to dimension 2 will be using commercially pesticides (73.2%). This

suggests that this traditional management practice, in particular, could be getting lost in

Central Asturias. In contrast the practice SEEDLING is related with the first dimension and

contrast with the rest of practices. Figure 5 shows a unique local farmer located near

SEEDLING´s highest category, suggesting that does not use any of the three traditional

management practices left. As I mentioned before a specific group, even when it is part of a

bigger common group, could be acting in function of collective specific group interests.

These interests could be influencing the preference over one or another set of practices.

This will depend of the cultural histories and cultural ideas of a group of persons behaving

differently in a same physical environment (Atran et al. 1999; Atran et al. 2002;

Handwerker 2002)

(FIGURE 5 HERE)

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that in Central Asturias there is no difference in the use of traditional

management practices between local and migrant farmers, with the exception of the manual

control of crop plagues and diseases. Local farmers continue to use manual control of crops

and plagues whereas migrant farmers do not consider this practice as important. . Modern

innovations in farming systems have not impacted strongly in the studied area. In Central

Asturias, as in other places (Fernandes and Nair 1986; Landauer and Brazil 1990;

Torquebiau 1992; Vogl et al. 2002; Vogl and Vogl-Lukasser 2003), traditional management

practices seem to be stronger than agricultural innovations because their easy access and

lower investments. Further and more complex analysis could not be run because my sample

and the number of practices selected were very small. The inclusion of more practices and a

bigger sample could give stronger evidence in the use of local traditional practices between

local and migrant farmers.

Results from this study suggest that local practices might be adopted by migrant farmers as

an adaptive response to the local ecological, economic, and social factors, as it has also

been suggested in previous research (Vogl et al 2002). The maintenance of traditional

management practices in a specific region could be an indicator of local PGRs preservation.

Data also showed that one of the practices selected for this study (manual control of plants´

plagues and diseases) could be getting lost. This may response to many factors. One of

them could be the increasing age of farmers and the lack of willingness of the new

generations to adopt the older farming systems and crops favoring the cultural erosion.

Another cause could be the change of interests among groups of farmers, for example a

change from a subsistence system to a market oriented system that requires more

investment in order to generate more production. Furthermore, poor policies and the lack of

scientific research in this field contribute to hinder the recognition of the work of local

people who still maintain the agro-ecosystems and the migrant people that adopt the local

practices in order to give continuity to the high agrobiodiversity inherited by locals.

To develop effective strategies and consistent policies for Europe’s rich crop diversity

heritage, more ethnobiology studies are need in European homegardens. This research will

further improve our understanding of the importance of the folk traditional knowledge in

the PGRs and cultural preservation in these systems and the mechanisms involved in the

maintenance or loss of genetic varieties and management practices associated to them.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank the farmers who shared their homegardens with us and provided information on

their knowledge on gardening. I thank Victoria Reyes García (Institute of Science and

Environmental Technologies, Autonomous University of Barcelona) who supported the

realization and production of this paper. Juan José Lastra (Department of Organisms and

Systems, University of Oviedo) for his academic support in the work field. Sara Vila Diez

(Department of Organisms and Systems, University of Oviedo) for her friendship,

comments and work field support. Research was funded by a Marie Curie Grant (MIRG-

CT-2006-036532) and by a grant from the Programa de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades

del Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Spain. (SEJ2007-60873/SOCI).

REFERENCES

Acerbi, A. and D. Parisi. 2006. Cultural transmission between and within generations.

Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(1): 9.

Alcorn, J.B. and V.M. Toledo. 2000. Resilient resources management in Mexico´s forest

ecosystems: The contribution of property rights. In Berkes, F. and C. Folke (editors).

Linking Social and Ecological Systems Management Practices and Social Mechanisms of

Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press.

Atran, S., D. Medin, N. Ross, E. Lynch, J. Coley, E. Ucan Ek´ and V. Vapnarsky. 1999.

Folkecology and commons management in the Maya lowlands. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science, U.S.A. 96: 7598-7603.

Atran, S., D. Medin, N. Ross, E. Lynch, V. Vapnarsky, E. Ucan Ek´, J. Coley, C. Timura

and M. Baran. 2002. Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons: A

garden experiment in the Maya lowlands, 1991-2001. Current Anthropology 43(3): 421-

451.

Berkes, F. and S. LaRochelle. 2003. Traditional ecological knowledge and practice for

edible wild plants: Biodiversity use by the Rarámuri in the Sierra Tarahumara, México.

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 10: 361-375.

Birol, E., G. Bela and M. Smale. 2005. The role of homegardens in promoting multi-

functional agriculture in Hungary. The Agricultural Economics Society and the European

Association of Agricultural Economist 4(3): 14-21.

Bosque-Maruel, J. and J. Vilá-Valentí. 1990. Geografía de España: Galicia, Asturias,

Cantabria. Barcelona, Spain. Planeta Editorial.

Caballero, J. 1992. Maya homegardens: Past, present and future. Etnoecología 1(1): 35-54.

Das, T. and A.K. Das. 2005. Inventorying plant biodiversity in homegardens: A case study

in Barak Valley, Assam, North East India. Current Science 89(1): 155-163.

De Vos, J. 1992. Una selva herida de muerte. Historia reciente de la Selva Lacandona. In

Vasquéz-Sanchéz and Ramos-Olmos (editors). Reserva de la Biosfera Montes Azules,

Selva Lacandona: Investigación para su Conservación. Publicaciones Especiales Ecosfera

No. 1. Centro de Estudios para la Conservación de los Recursos Naturales. San Cristóbal de

las Casas, Chiapas, México.

Dhillon, B.S., R.P. Dua, P. Brahmi and I.S. Bisht. 2004. On-farm conservation of plant

genetic resources for food and agriculture. Current Science 87(5): 557-559.

Díaz del Cañizo, M.A., G. Guzman- Casado, J. Soriano-Niebla and N. Alvarez- Febles.

1998. “Recuperación de variedades tradicionales locales de cultivos y del conocimiento a

ellas asociado, para su conservación, uso y manejo, en las comarcas de Antequera (Málaga)

y Estepa (Sevilla),” Paper presented at the 3rd Congress of The Spanish Society of

Ecological Agriculture. Valencia, Spain.

FAO.1994. Informe sobre el estado de los recursos fitogenéticos en el mundo. FAO. Rome,

Italy.

Fernandes, E.C.M. and P.K.R. Nair. 1986. An evaluation of the structure and function of

tropical homegardens. Internacional Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF).

Nairobi, Kenya

Gauchan, D., M. Smale, N. Maxted, M. Cole, B.R. Sthapit, D. Jarvis and M. Upadhyay.

2005. Socioeconomic and agroecological determinants of conserving diversity on-farm:

The case of rice genetic resources. Nepal Agriculture Research Journal 6: 89-98.

Gimeno-García H., R. González-Lera and G. Guzman-Casado. 2006. “El manejo

tradicional de las huertas en la provincia de Granada. Estudios de caso de la Vega de

Granada y del parque natural de Castril.” Paper presented at the 7th Congress of The

Spanish Society of Ecological Agriculture. Zaragoza, Spain.

Handwerker, W.P. 2002. The construct validity of cultures: Cultural diversity, culture

theory, and a method for ethnography. American an Anthropologist 104(1): 106-122.

Hawkes, J.G., N. Maxted and B.V. Ford-Lloyd. 2002. The ex situ conservation of plant

genetic resources. Kluwer Academic. Dordrecht, Nederland.

Hetterschijt, T. 2001. Our daily realities: A feminist perspective on agrobiodiversity in

urban organic homegardens in Lima, Peru. MSc thesis. Wageningen University.

IPGRI. 2000. Annual Report 1999. International Genetic Resoures Institute. Rome, Italy.

Kalish, M.L., T.L. Griffiths and S. Lewandowsky. 2007. Iterated learning: Intergenerational

knowledge transmission reveals inductive biases. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14(2):

288-294.

Khamaganova, E. 2005. “Traditional indigenous knowledge: local view,” Paper presented

at the United Nations International Workshop on Traditional Knowledge. Panama City,

Panama.

King, A.B. and P.B. Eyzaguirre. 1999. Intellectual property rights and agricultural

biodiversity: Literature addressing the suitability of IPR for the protection of indigenous

resources. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 41-49.

Kleinman, P.J.A., D. Pimentel and R.B. Bryant. 1995. The ecological sustainability of

slash-and-burn agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 52: 235-249.

Marínez-Balleste, A., C. Martorell, and J. Caballero. 2006. Cultural ecological

sustainability? The effect of cultural change on sabal palm management among the lowland

Maya of México. Ecology and Society 11(2): 27.

Maxted, N., L. Guarino, L. Myer and E.A. Chiwona. 2002. Towards a methodology for on-

farm conservation of plant genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 49:

31-46.

Meulman, J.J. and W.J. Heiser. 2005. SPSS Program Categories. SPSS Inc. Chicago,

U.S.A.

Negri, V., H. Becker, J. Onnela, A. Sartoria, S. Strajero and B. Laliberté. 2000. “A first

inventory of on-farm conservation and management activities in Europe including some

examples of cooperation between the formal and informal sector,” Paper presented at the

Report of the European Cooperative Programme of Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) in

situ/on-farm Conservation Network Task Forces Meeting. Perugia, Italy.

Negri, V. and N. Tosti. 2002. Phaseolus genetic diversity maintained on farm in Central

Italy. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 49: 511-520.

Ninyerola, M., X. Pons and J.M. Roure. 2005. Atlas climático digital de la Península

Ibérica. Metodología y aplicaciones en bioclimatología y geobotánica. Universidad

Autónoma de Barcelona. Bellaterra, España.

Noriero-Escalante, L. 2007. The importance of include cultural and social perspective in

the processes of rural developments, as premises to revaluate the traditional knowledge. Ra

Ximhai 3(2): 343-364.

Pichon, F.J. and J.E. Uquillas. 1999. Rural poverty alleviation and improved natural

resource management through participatory technology development in Latin America´s

risk-probe areas. In Pichon, F.J., J.E. Uquillas and J. Frechione (editors). Traditional and

Modern Natural Resource Management in Latin America. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Rivas-Martínez, S. 1987. Memoria del mapa de series de vegetación de España. ICONA.

Madrid, España.

Rodríguez, F. and R. Menéndez. 2005. Geografía de Asturias. Barcelona, Spain. Ariel

Editorial.

Ruonavaara, D. 1996. Traditional household gardens of the Peten, Guatemala. MsC. Thesis.

Michigan State University.

SPSS.2006. Statistical Package for Social Science version 15.0 for Windows. SPSS Inc.

Chicago, U.S.A.

Stehno, Z. 2006. “Report of a task force on on-farm conservation and management,”

Presented at the Second Meeting of the European Cooperative Programme of Plant Genetic

Resources (ECPGR). Stegelitz, Germany.

Stuart, J.W.1993.Contribution of dooryard gardens to contemporary Yucatecan Maya

subsistence. In Amo-Rodríguez, S. et al. (editors). Biótica Nueva Época 1. Publicación de

Gestión de Ecosistemas, A.C. México D.F.

Torquebiau, E. 1992. Are tropical agroforestry homegardens sustainable? Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment 41: 189-207.

Usher, P.J. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and

management. The Artic Institute of North America 53(2): 183-193.

Vellvé, R. 1992. Saving the seed genetic diversity and European agriculture. GRAIN.

London, England.

Vogl, C.R., B. Vogl-Lukasser and J. Caballero. 2002. Homegardens of maya migrants in

the district of Palenque, Chiapas, México: Implications for sustainable rural development.

In Stepp, J.R., F.S. Wyndham and R.K. Zarger (editors). Ethnobiology and Biocultural

Diversity. p 631-647. University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.

Vogl, C.R. and B. Vogl-Lukasser. 2003. Tradition, dynamics and sustainability of plant

species composition and management in homegardens on organic and non-organic small

scale farms in Alpine Eastern Tyrol, Austria. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 21:

349-366.

Vogl, C.R., B. Vogl-Lukaser and R.K. Puri. 2004. Tools and methods for data collection in

ethnobotanical studies of homegardens. Field methods 16(3): 285-306.

Vogl, C.R., L. Kilcher and H. Schmidt. 2005. Are standars and regulations of organic

farming moving away from small farmers´ knowledge? Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

26(1): 5-26.

ILLUSTRATIONS´ CAPTIONS

TABLE1. Selected practices in the traditional management and count and percentage of

ratings for local and migrant farmers for each practice.

TABLE2. List of farmers´ scores on dimension 1 and 2 labeled by farmers´ origin, local

(L) and migrant (M).

FIGURE1. Geographical location of Autonomous Community of “Principado de

Asturias.”

FIGURE2. Plot of component loadings on the first and second dimension.

FIGURE3. Joint plot category points based on farmers´ ratings (1= “not at all important”

and 2= “very important”) over the practices. For immigrant (upper plot) and local (down

plot) farmers.

FIGURE4. Farmers´ scores plot labeled by farmers´ origin (n=41), local (L) and migrant

(M), for first and second dimension.

FIGURE5. Biplot of objects of loading components for practices and farmers´ scores plot

on first and second dimension.

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE1

Traditional management practices selected Rating Origin n=41

Total L M

Soil fertilization with manure (MANURE)

1 (not at all important) Count 5 2 7 % total 12.2% 4.9% 17.1%

2 (very important) Count 23 11 34 % total 56.1% 26.8% 82.9%

Total Count 28 13 41 % total 68.3% 31.7% 100.0%

Manual weeding (WEEDING)




Manual control of plants´ plagues and diseases (PLAGUES)




Working the soil manually, using simple tools (SOIL)




Outside seedling (SEEDLING)

1 (not at all important) Count 6 2 8

% total 14.6% 4.9% 19.5%

2 (very important) Count 22 11 33

% total 53.7% 26.8% 80.5%


TABLE1

Dimension 11.00.50.0-0.5-1.0

Dim

ensi

on 2

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

SEEDLING

SOIL

PLAGUES

MANURE

SEEDLING

SOIL

PLAGUES

MANURE

FIGURE2

FIGURE3

Dimension 1 1.51.00.50.0-0.5-1.0-1.5

1

0

-1

-2

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

SOILSEEDLING PLAGUESMANURE

Dimension 110-1 -2

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

2

1

2

1

21

2

1

SOILSEEDLING PLAGUESMANURE

Dimension 2

Dimension 2

Origin Dimension

Origin Dimension

1 2 1 2 L 1.557 0.324 M 0.285 -0.178 L 1.245 -1.438 L 0.285 -0.178 L 1.245 -1.438 L 0.285 -0.178 L 1.245 -1.438 M 0.285 -0.178 L 1.245 -1.438 M 0.285 -0.178 M 1.245 -1.438 L 0.285 -0.178 M 1.245 -1.438 L -0.560 1.787 L 0.598 1.584 M -0.859 -0.623 M 0.598 1.584 L -0.859 -0.623 L 0.598 1.584 M -0.859 -0.623 L 0.598 1.584 L -0.859 -0.623 L 0.598 1.584 L -0.859 -0.623 L 0.598 1.584 L -0.859 -0.623 L 0.598 1.584 L -0.872 0.025 L 0.598 1.584 L -0.872 0.025 M 0.285 -0.178 M -1.704 1.342 L 0.285 -0.178 L -2.017 -0.420 M 0.285 -0.178 L -2.017 -0.420 L 0.285 -0.178 L -2.017 -0.420 M 0.285 -0.178 M -2.017 -0.420 L 0.285 -0.178

TABLE2

FIGURE4

FIGURE5

preservation of traditional management practices at...

Documents