HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY

published: 07 April 2020

doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00032

Decision-Making to Diversify Farm

Systems for Climate Change
Adaptation
Maarten van Zonneveld 1,2*, Marie-Soleil Turmel 2,3 and Jon Hellin 4
1
World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan, 2 Bioversity International, Costa Rica Office, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 3 Catholic
Relief Services, Baltimore, MD, United States, 4 Sustainable Impact Platform, International Rice Research Institute, Los
Baños, Philippines

On-farm diversification is a promising strategy for farmers to adapt to climate change.

However, few recommendations exist on how to diversify farm systems in ways that
best fit the agroecological and socioeconomic challenges farmers face. Farmers’ ability
to adopt diversification strategies is often stymied by their aversion to risk, loss of local
knowledge, and limited access to agronomic and market information, this is especially
the case for smallholders. We outline seven steps on how practitioners and researchers
in agricultural development can work with farmers in decision-making about on-farm
diversification of cropping, pasture, and agroforestry systems while taking into account
these constraints. These seven steps are relevant for all types of farmers but particularly
for smallholders in tropical and subtropical regions. It is these farmers who are usually
Edited by:
Timothy Bowles, most vulnerable to climate change and who are, subsequently, often the target of
University of California, Berkeley, climate-smart agriculture (CSA) interventions. Networks of agricultural innovation provide
United States
an enabling environment for on-farm diversification. These networks connect farmers
Reviewed by:
Paul Wilson, and farmer organizations with local, national, or international private companies, public
University of Nottingham, organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and research institutes. These
United Kingdom
actors can work with farmers to develop diversified production systems incorporating
David Rose,
University of Reading, United Kingdom both high-value crops and traditional food production systems. These diversified farm
*Correspondence: systems with both food and cash crops act as a safety net in the event of price
Maarten van Zonneveld fluctuations or other disruptions to crop value chains. In this way, farmers can adapt
[email protected]
their farm systems to climate change in ways that provide greater food security and
Specialty section: improved income.
This article was submitted to
Keywords: on-farm diversification, agroecosystem diversification, climate-smart agriculture, climate variability,
Agroecology and Ecosystem Services,
crop diversification, diversified farming systems, participatory research, risk management
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems

Received: 12 September 2019

Accepted: 02 March 2020
INTRODUCTION
Published: 07 April 2020
On-farm diversification is a promising strategy for farmers to adapt to climate change while also
Citation: contributing to diverse food production, healthier diets, and a better use of agricultural biodiversity
van Zonneveld M, Turmel M-S and
(Vermeulen et al., 2012; Waha et al., 2018; Willett et al., 2019). However, few recommendations exist
Hellin J (2020) Decision-Making to
Diversify Farm Systems for Climate
for farmers, practitioners, and researchers on how to diversify farm systems in ways which best fit
Change Adaptation. the agroecological and socioeconomic challenges that farmers face.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:32. In this paper, we outline seven steps on how to work with farmers in decision-making about
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00032 on-farm diversification of cropping, pasture, and agroforestry systems (Figure 1). Existing tools

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 1 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

FIGURE 1 | Decision-making framework to develop, select, evaluate, and implement on-farm diversification strategies for climate change adaptation. We propose
seven steps for practitioners and researchers to work with farmers in decision-making. Steps 1–5 help farmers and other actors to collect information to select
on-farm diversification options in step 6. After the selection of on-farm diversification options, farmers can evaluate them in step 7 and implement or adjust them or
replace them by other on-farm diversification options. This is reflected in a feedback loop between step 6 and 7. The arrows indicate which steps influence other steps
in the decision-making framework.

to select agroecological practices and plant species for on-farm The seven steps are useful for all types of farmer but are
diversification (Altieri et al., 2015; de Sousa et al., 2019) or to particularly relevant to smallholder farmers. Smallholders are
economically optimize crop portfolios (Werners et al., 2011; often more vulnerable to climate change compared with large-
Knoke et al., 2015) cover different considerations in decision- scale farmers and usually face higher risks when adopting
making on on-farm diversification strategies. These tools are new technologies because of lower resource endowments.
not always linked to farmers’ goals and constraints, which are Smallholder farmers are the main target of interventions, which
embedded in a range of social, economic, ecological, cultural, are collectively known as climate-smart agriculture (CSA). CSA
and political relationships, and which determine the decisions contributes to an increase in global food security and broader
farmers make about farm management and livelihood options development, secondly enhances farmers’ ability to adapt to
(Gardner and Lewis, 1996; Shiferaw et al., 2009). This paper climate change, and finally mitigates greenhouse gas emissions
offers a practical and comprehensive framework, which takes into (Lipper et al., 2014). On-farm diversification is a component
account these different issues in decision-making about on-farm of CSA, and not only contributes to the realization of the
diversification, and which brings together agroecological, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13: Climate Action but
agrobotanical, social, and economic considerations also of other SDGs, including SDG 1: No Poverty; SDG 2: Zero
and recommendations. Hunger; SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production; and
This decision-making framework is intended for practitioners SDG 15 Life on Land.
and researchers in agricultural development. The framework can
be used to establish a dialogue with individual farmers or farmer APPROACH
groups to develop on-farm diversification strategies with the
use of participatory research approaches, which have proved to The seven steps resulted from the authors’ discussions on
be successful approaches in the selection and adoption of new existing concepts and tools from literature on climate change
agricultural technologies (Carberry et al., 2002; Grothmann and adaptation and on-farm diversification. These concepts have
Patt, 2005; Urwin and Jordan, 2008). been presented separately in literature. By connecting these
In this framework, we first discuss enabling and disabling concepts, we establish a practical framework for decision-making
factors, which warrant consideration when developing to diversify farm systems for climate change adaptation. We focus
on-farm diversification strategies. Second, we propose on tropical and subtropical regions where most smallholders live
straightforward tools and techniques, which can help and work, and on cropping, pasture, and agroforestry systems as
farmers to select on-farm diversification options. Finally, principal components of farm systems in these regions. Many
we explain how researchers, practitioners, and farmers examples of crops and traditional production systems in this
can apply participatory approaches to evaluate on-farm paper come from Central America and Mexico where each of
diversification options. the authors has over 12 years’ work experience complemented

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 2 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

by extensive experience from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, farmers often define multiple goals, for example, they consider
and South-East Asia. The seven-step decision-making process is cereals for food security; pulses and vegetables for nutrition; cash
applicable to other tropical and subtropical regions. crops for increasing income; off-seasons crops and forages for
animal production to stabilize income; and finally intercropping
Step 1. Defining farmers’ goals: Any initiative to work
and field scattering to reduce production risks (Schroth and
with farmers starts with understanding the goals of the
Ruf, 2014). Different household members, such as women and
different farm household members, and identifying how on-
men, may have different goals (van de Fliert and Braun, 2002;
farm diversification can contribute to these goals (Allen et al.,
Chaudhury et al., 2013). Participatory approaches have proved
2011).
effective in enabling practitioners and researchers to understand
Step 2. Assessment of enabling factors: Enabling
the goals of different members of farm households (Mazón et al.,
factors determine the feasibility and potential of on-farm
2016; Dumont et al., 2017). Understanding farmers’ goals is
diversification options. Farmers are more willing to select,
thus the basis of working with farmers in developing, selecting,
evaluate, and implement new diversification strategies in the
evaluating, and implementing on-farm diversification strategies.
context of an enabling environment consisting of support
from farmer organizations and private and public extension
services, and access to credit, insurance, and markets. STEP 2. ENABLING FACTORS
Step 3. Assessment of disabling factors: Successful adoption
Extension
of on-farm diversification strategies depends on the extent to
A particular challenge is that our proposal to work in a
which farmers have the possibility and are willing to invest in
participatory way with farmers comes at a time when public
labor, financial capital, and learning new skills.
extension services have been severely eroded in much of the
Step 4. Assessment of current and future climate-related
developing world (Umali-Deininger, 1997; Hellin, 2012). Private
production risks: On-farm diversification strategies can be
extension has increased but there has been a tendency to focus
tailored to local conditions when farmers, practitioners,
efforts on better-off farmers leaving those in marginal areas
and researchers identify the principal climate stresses for
with limited services (Hellin, 2012). There are, however, growing
current and future agricultural production in their locations
examples of innovative extension approaches which include both
(Vermeulen et al., 2013).
the public and private sector (Chapman and Tripp, 2003). The
Step 5. Gap analysis of functional diversity in farm systems:
transformation from specialized to diversified farm systems can
Farmers and other actors can identify the need for diversifying
be fostered by agricultural innovation systems (Schut et al., 2014).
their farm systems with new crop functional types, such as
In the absence of extension and agricultural innovation systems,
cereals with C4 photosynthesis (Lavorel and Garnier, 2002)
farmers would need to rely largely on neighboring farmers,
or the need for new management practices, such as the
farmer organizations, and local knowledge to adapt their farm
establishment of shade trees to make farm systems more
systems to climate change.
resilient against climate changes (Altieri et al., 2015).
Step 6. Selection of on-farm diversification options: Farmers Farmer Organization
choose crops on the basis of multiple criteria considering The organization of farmers in associations, farmer-to-farmer
their goals, enabling and disabling factors, climate-related movements, or other types of social organization can be
production risks, and gaps in functional diversity (Coe et al., an effective way to scale practices to diversify farm systems
2014). because these organizations are conduits for the dissemination
Step 7. Evaluation and learning: These activities are part of knowledge and information (Shiferaw et al., 2009; Mier et al.,
of adaptive management. Farmers continuously evaluate and 2018), and allow to establish safety nets for farmers through
improve on-farm diversification strategies in dialogue with formal and informal insurance programs (Tucker et al., 2010;
other farmers, practitioners, and researchers (Allen et al., Bacon et al., 2014) (Table 1, Examples 1 and 2). Capacity
2011). development on good governance and finance makes farmer
organizations more competent, efficient, and transparent, and
STEP 1. FARMERS’ GOALS diminishes dependence on external authorities or donors. With
these skills, farmer organizations can reduce the risks on “elite
Any initiative to work with farmers starts with understanding capture,” secondly they can access credit from banks and social
farmers’ goals and identifying how diversification of their farm investors to invest in on-farm diversification, and finally they can
systems contributes to these goals. Often profit-maximizing connect to networks of agricultural innovation to access markets
approaches, such as Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) are and external support (Table 1, Example 2). Farmer organizations
used to determine the optimal number and type of crops or are thus in principle good partners in selecting, developing,
land-use systems to manage production risks for a certain evaluating, and implementing on-farm diversification strategies.
expected return on investment under climate change (Figge,
2004; Werners and Incerti, 2007; Werners et al., 2011). Farmers, Local Knowledge and Neglected and
especially smallholders, often perceive benefits from on-farm Underutilized Crops
diversification in ways which profit-maximizing approaches do At least 7,000 food plant species have been documented and these
not necessarily capture. When diversifying their farm systems, provide a rich basket of crop choices (Padulosi et al., 1999). Many

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 3 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

TABLE 1 | Examples of successful societal, public and private initiatives to support farmers in diversifying their farm systems.

Example 1: Over several decades, agroecological farmer-to-farmer networks in Central America, Mexico, and Cuba have reached ten-thousands of farmers (Mier et al.,
2018). These networks introduced straightforward agroecological practices enhanced by local experimentation, farmer-to-farmer learning, and training and promotion
of farmer extension workers (Holt-Giménez, 2002; Mier et al., 2018). These agroecological practices include the introduction of cover crops and green manures, such
as velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) and jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis), which reduce the sensitivity of farm soils and productivity to hurricane and flooding exposure
(Holt-Giménez, 2001, 2002).
Example 2: Smallholder coffee farmers who are members of associations in Guatemala and Nicaragua have been able to access training on and inputs for agroecological
practices, access formal and informal safety nets, and export coffee (Coffea arabica) at a premium price (Bacon et al., 2014; Morris et al., 2016; Winget et al., 2017).
Among agroecological practices, shade tree species, such as cocoashade (Gliricia sepium) and salmwood (Cordia alliodora), are commonly used to stabilize above
ground temperatures in Mesoamerican coffee systems (Lin, 2007).
Example 3: Associations of gastronomy and avant-garde chefs in Peru have promoted a cuisine with neglected and underutilized crops to a wider public, including
native Capsicum peppers, native potatoes, and local fruit species (Hellin and Higman, 2005; Matta, 2013).
Example 4: The vegetable seed company East-West Seed successfully scaled and diversified the production of vegetables in Southeast Asia and other regions. East-
West Seed produces seeds of 60 crops and 1,000 varieties to support diverse vegetable farm systems. As part of their seed sales, East-West Seed sold 25 million
one-dollar seed packs, which are accessible to smallholders (East-West Seed, 2016). In 2019, East-West Seed received the World Food Prize in recognition of their
impact in creating sustainable economic opportunities for small farmers around the world over the last four decades.
Example 5: In Kenya and Tanzania, national and international agricultural research organizations, local and international seed companies, governmental and farmer
organizations collaborate in a network to promote variety and seed system development of traditional African vegetables, such as African eggplant (Solanum aethiopicum),
leafy nightshade (Solanum scabrum), and spider plant (Cleome gynandra) (Dinssa et al., 2016; Stoilova et al., 2019). One of the most-promising traditional vegetables in
East Africa is leafy amaranth (Amaranthus spp.), a hardy and nutritious C4 crop. In 2017, about 231,000 farmers in Kenya and Tanzania increased their yield by growing
improved amaranth varieties. These varieties are developed, distributed, and commercialized through this network in response to increased urban demand for leafy
amaranth in East Africa (Ochieng et al., 2019).
Example 6: An example of where index insurance can enhance on-farm diversification is in Ethiopia. The World Food Program (WFP), Oxfam, and partners have initiated
the R4 Rural Resilience Initiative. The initiative includes insurance as part of a larger climate-change adjustment program, which includes tree-planting and soil and water
conservation. The program uses the work-for-assets model, enabling farmers to accumulate individual and/or group savings, which provide a “risk reserve.” The initiative
added an insurance component. In return for their work, farmers get access to an insurance scheme (Greatrex et al., 2015).
Example 7: Participatory prioritization and capacity building enhanced farmer uptake of native tree species in Costa Rica, Colombia, and Mexico where cattle ranchers
successfully have implemented climate-resilient silvopastoral systems with native tree species (Murgueitio et al., 2011; Bozzano et al., 2014).
Example 8: In Brazil, governmental organizations, NGOs, and agricultural research institutes have collaborated to advocate for policies to promote the consumption of
native foods. This has led to the publication of a national ordinance which officially recognizes the nutritional value of more than 60 native food plants (Beltrame et al.,
2016). This has led to the inclusion of these species in subnational and local programs of school feeding food procurement. Farmers who participate in these programs
can diversify their farms with nutritious food plants because the mediated food-procurement market provides an incentive to do so (Wittman and Blesh, 2017).
Example 9: An example of these agricultural innovation systems are consortia of research institutes and seed companies, which provide farmers with affordable seeds
of improved vegetable lines and as a conduit for feedback between seed suppliers and farmers (Schreinemachers et al., 2017b; Ochieng et al., 2019).

are neglected and underutilized (National Research Council, The promotion of these neglected and underutilized crops
1989; Clement, 1999). These species could become important is complex and requires actions at both the supply side to
for food security under changing climate conditions because incite farmers to continue using these crops and demand side
they have evolved during a long history of human selection to persuade consumers to incorporate these crops in their diets.
and fluctuating climate conditions (Mercer and Perales, 2010; Here we name three approaches to provide incentives to farmers’
Padulosi et al., 2011). Some examples of promising species for use of neglected and underutilized crops to diversify farm
diversification and climate change adaptation are provided in systems. First, within each community, commonly a few farmers
Table 2. are knowledge hubs on the management of these neglected and
Farmers in traditional communities have commonly underutilized crops (Altieri and Merrick, 1987; Sthapit et al.,
diversified their farm systems with these crops to manage 2013). These persons are custodian or lighthouse farmers who
production risks related to unpredictable weather cycles merit recognition in society and who can be encouraged to share
(Winterhalder et al., 1999; Matsuda, 2013; Altieri et al., their knowledge with other farmers as well as with practitioners
2015). Much of the local knowledge associated with growing and researchers. Second, empowerment of women in agriculture
neglected and underutilized crops is at risk of extirpation increases the options for on-farm diversification because both
due to changing diets, reduced interest by young people in men and women maintain exclusive and complementary
agriculture, and shifts in production systems under climate knowledge about crops and farm management (Padulosi et al.,
change (Padulosi et al., 2011; Khoury et al., 2014). With 2011). Because female-headed farm systems are not necessary
this loss, farmers have fewer diversification options. This more diverse than male-headed ones (Saenz and Thompson,
makes them more vulnerable to climate change. Finally, the 2017), it is important to understand the complementary impacts
decline of production and consumption of these neglected of women and men’s choices on the diversification of farm
and underutilized crops leads to the disappearance of local systems (Farnworth et al., 2016). Finally, the identification and
varieties whose traits for adaptation to climate stresses are development of niche markets and new uses of neglected and
not only important to local farmers but also for research and underutilized crops can stimulate their production and the
breeding by the global agricultural research community (Table 3, maintenance of local knowledge (Table 1, Example 3). There are,
Example 1). hence, several strategies to maintain and use local knowledge

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 4 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

TABLE 2 | Crop functional types and crop examples to diversify in response to various climate stresses.

Climate Crop functional type Trait examples Crop examples References

stress

Drought and Dryland hardwood Deep root architecture, Mesquite (Prosopis spp.), glassywood Borchert, 1994; Holmgren et al.,
water scarcity trees phenological drought escape, (Astronium graveolens) 2006; Nabhan, 2013
deciduous
Tropical dryland Water storage, deep root Hog plum (Spondias spp.), pochote Borchert, 1994
lightwood trees architecture, phenological (Pachira fendleri), baobab (Adansonia
drought escape, deciduous digitata)
C4 perennial forage C4 photosynthesis, deep root Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) Cattivelli et al., 2008; Lopes et al.,
grasses architecture 2011
Crassulacean Acid CAM metabolism, deep root Nopal (Opuntia ficus-indica), maguey and Yang et al., 2015
Metabolism (CAM) architecture, phenological other agaves (Agave spp.), pitayas
crops drought escape, water storage (Echinocereus spp., Stenocereus spp.
Hylocereus undatus)
C4 cereals C4 metabolism, deep root Maize (Zea mays), sorghum (Sorghum Lopes et al., 2011; Cheng et al., 2017
architecture, phenological bicolor), teff (Eragrostis tef)
drought escape
Legumes Phenological drought escape, Chick pea (Cicer arietinum), cowpea Subbarao et al., 1995; Ehlers and
water use efficiency, deep root (Vigna unguiculata), mungbean (V. radiata), Hall, 1997; Graham and Vance, 2003;
structure moth bean (V. aconitifolia) Iseki et al., 2018; Yundaeng et al.,
2019
Tropical root crops Stomatal control, shift in leaf Cassava (Manihot esculenta) Bondeau et al., 2007; El-Sharkawy,
size, recovery of photosynthesis 2007
Flooding and Tropical floodplain trees Dormancy and periodic growth, Camu-camu (Mycriara dubia), acupari Peters and Vásquez, 1987; Parolin,
waterlogging and shrubs xeromorphic leave traits, starch (Garcinia brasiliensis) 2009
storage in roots
Aquatic grasses (forage Root aeration, elongation growth Rice (Oryza spp.) brachiaria grasses (B. Sairam et al., 2008; Bailey-Serres
and grains) response humidicola), teff, sorghum et al., 2012; Cardoso et al., 2013
Swamp palms Dormancy and periodic growth, Aguaje palm (Mauritia flexuosa), Kahn, 1991; Schluter et al., 1993
root aerenchyma chambirilla (Astrocaryum jauari)
Heat Tropical leguminous Changes in concentrations of Mesquite, cocoashade (Gliricia sepium) Felker et al., 1983; Ortiz and
trees regulatory proteins Cardemil, 2001; Nabhan, 2013
CAM crops Not found Pineapple (Ananas comosus) Yamada et al., 1996; Yang et al., 2015
C4 cereals Not found Maize Wahid et al., 2007
Tropical Legumes Heat escape, stabilizing Cowpea, moth bean, yard-long bean Ehlers and Hall, 1997; Wahid et al.,
mechanisms of cell membrane (Vinga unguiculata group sesquipedalis) 2007; Yundaeng et al., 2019
integrity, improved pod set under
hot conditions
Palms Not found Cocos (Cocos nucifera), date (Phoenix Yamada et al., 1996; Nabhan, 2013
dactylifera)
Frost Temperate cereals Hardening Oats (Avena sativa) Rizza et al., 2001; Yadav, 2010
Temperate legumes Hardening Faba bean (Vicia faba) Arbaoui and Link, 2008

This list is not exhaustive and just provide some crop examples per crop functional type.

on neglected and underutilized crops to promote diversified Stoilova et al., 2019) and when these suppliers strengthen their
farm systems. germplasm production capacity (Schreinemachers et al., 2017a).
The desired type of seed system differs between crop groups
Getting the Right Variety and should be defined per crop and region (Louwaars and de
Farmers often struggle to find planting material of crops Boef, 2012). For example, public-private networks of research
with high potential for on-farm diversification even though institutes and local, national, and international seed companies
appropriate varieties are often available at agricultural have proven to be successful to scale the supply of affordable
institutions or maintained by neighboring farmers (Jarvis and high-quality vegetable seeds (Schreinemachers et al., 2017a)
et al., 2011). Due to weak formal and informal seed systems, (Table 1, Examples 4 and 5). Aside from fostering farmers’ access
farmers are not always able to access germplasm of appropriate to commercial and public germplasm in formal seed systems,
varieties and diversify their farm systems. Farmers can access farmer communities across the world successfully establish
more varied germplasm when they are better connected to networks to conserve, use, and exchange germplasm of local
public and private germplasm suppliers (Coomes et al., 2015; varieties and associated knowledge (Coomes et al., 2015; Vernooy

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 5 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

TABLE 3 | Examples of on-farm diversification constraints related to market dynamics.

Example 1: In the central highlands of Mexico, farmers traditionally intercrop maize (Zea mays) and common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with maguey (Agave atrovirens), a
neglected crop, which is adapted to dry conditions because of its Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) photosynthetic apparatus. Production of aguamiel from maguey,
a natural sweetener and raw material for production of a traditionally fermented beverage, can provide an additional source of income (Eakin, 2005). In recent years,
the demand for aguamiel has decreased as consumer preferences have changed. Without a market, farmers have largely stopped growing maguey and increasingly
they grow only maize and common beans. This puts them in a vulnerable position as both crops are more susceptible to drought, frost and hail damage compared with
maguey.
Example 2: In 2012 and 2013, many Mesoamerican coffee smallholder families suffered from hunger because coffee rust wiped out their coffee crop (Coffea arabica).
Coffee rust thrived because of the interplay of poor management as a result of low coffee prices and unfavorable temperatures (Avelino et al., 2015). Many coffee farmers
received technical and monetary support because of their affiliation to cooperatives and fair-trade schemes. While these safety nets helped many farmers to compensate
for income loss and to manage coffee rust, these safety nets were not sufficient to protect all farmers and farm laborers (Morris et al., 2016). In addition, to further sustain
food security, farmer organizations in Nicaragua have established grain banks for Central American smallholder coffee producers who suffer seasonal hunger (Bacon
et al., 2014). Food insecurity was highest in households of coffee laborers without alternative income sources and coffee smallholder families who had abandoned or
reduced the areas dedicated to traditional food crops (Avelino et al., 2015). Farmers’ safety nets can be strengthened when these are combined with technical and
financial support to diversify farm systems with food crops for subsistence and income generation from local markets. Farm laborers are the most vulnerable because
they lack land for food production and would need to diversify their income sources with other off-farm activities.
Example 3: Nutrition of some households In the western highlands of Guatemala has declined when farmers started to grow exclusively high-value vegetable crops
for export markets (Webb et al., 2016). Some of these vegetable farmers stopped growing or consuming nutrient-rich crops from traditional diversified farm systems
characterized by Milpa system of maize, common beans, and associated crops. High-value crops may require large investments in fertilizer and other inputs; financial
pressures may encourage producers to invest in commercial production, abandon traditional agriculture, and consume low-quality processed food (Webb et al.,
2016). More research is required to understand when and how the replacement of food by cash crops affects the nutrition status of farm household members.

et al., 2017). The promotion of promising crops to diversify Whole-farm insurances could be another promising
farm systems requires an assessment of the existing formal and insurance measure to provide farmers an incentive to
informal seed systems to strengthen, where necessary, germplasm diversify farm systems (Hart et al., 2006; Turvey, 2012).
quality and supply in collaboration with farmer organizations, What whole-farm and index insurances have in common is that
NGOs, breeders, genebanks, and private and public suppliers of combining agricultural insurance with on-farm diversification
planting material. benefits both farmers and insurance providers. Diversified
farm systems can stabilize income and productivity and
Insurance reduce the risks and corresponding premia of insurance. A
Risk aversion on the part of farmers, especially smallholders, is recommendation is to develop policies and incentives for
an obstacle to the adoption of new crops, varieties, and novel innovative insurance services, which support and promote
management practices (Lee, 2005). Weather shocks, such as on-farm diversification.
drought, can trap farm households in poverty because the risk
of the shocks limits farmers’ willingness and capacity to invest Markets
in on-farm diversification strategies (Dick et al., 2011; Carter High-value crops, such as fruit and vegetable species, have been
et al., 2016). For example, fire risk in drought-prone areas limits identified as promising crops to diversify farm systems and to
farmers to diversify farm systems with tree species (Jacobi et al., increase farmers’ net income (Joshi et al., 2004; Pingali, 2007;
2017). As a complement to on-farm diversification, agricultural Birthal et al., 2015). Vegetable species are of special interest
insurance against yield loss mitigates the risks farmers face and because in general they have short rotation cycles and can
encourages them to diversify their farm systems (Bobojonov provide quick and year-round returns (Schreinemachers et al.,
et al., 2013). 2018). Market access may, however, be limited to large-scale
One approach gaining much attention is index insurance. farmers as smallholders often lack capital to make investments
With index insurance, payouts are based on an index, such as to convert a semi- or fully-subsistence farm system into a
the total seasonal rainfall or average crop yield for a larger area. commercial farm system (Pingali, 2007; Eakin et al., 2012). Many
This index reduces the costs of insuring individual farmers (Bell high-value crops, such as leafy vegetables, are perishable and
et al., 2013). Furthermore, the insurance is based on a reliable and this often requires additional investments in post-harvesting
independently verifiable index and can be reinsured, allowing and transportation. Finally, smallholders can be particularly
insurance companies to transfer part of their risk to international vulnerable to fluctuating market prices (Eakin, 2003; Carletto
markets (Binswanger-Mkhize, 2012). Index insurance can be et al., 2010). Linking farmers, especially smallholders, to
bundled with climate-adapted germplasm or cropping systems markets therefore requires support by governments, food
to encourage farmers to invest in crop productivity (Bobojonov processors, and distributors to strengthen post-harvesting
et al., 2013) (Table 1, Example 6). facilities, distribution channels, stable production supply,
Index insurance, however, is not a perfect predictor of an and insurance.
individual loss. The difference between the farmers’ actual losses Farmers tend to focus on one or a few crops to meet quality
and the expected payout is known as basis risk; it may result in demands. However, a sole focus on one or two high-value cash
a farmer suffering a yield loss, but not receiving a payout, or in crops in a farm system can be a risk for food security and
a payout without the farmer experiencing any loss (Dick et al., livelihoods for individual farm households as well as for local
2011; Miranda and Farrin, 2012). economies (Immink and Alarcon, 1991; Chakrabarti and Kundu,

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 6 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

2009) (Table 3, Examples 2 and 3). Rather than focusing solely Farm Size and Land Ownership
on one or two cash crops, farmers may therefore opt to manage Although farm size is thought to be a constraint for
several crops and varieties with different production and price diversification, we did not find a clear correlation between
risks, to meet food and nutrition security goals, and increase net farm size and on-farm diversification. As part of a systematic
income (Table 4, Example 1). literature review, which included 13 detailed studies, six reported
that on-farm diversification increases with farm size; four studies
STEP 3. DISABLING FACTORS reported no effect; and three studies reported that on-farm
diversification reduces with farm size (Table S1). There is
Scale Effects thus scant evidence that farm size is an enabling factor or
Scale effects leading to crop and farm specialization may be constraint for on-farm diversification. Our recommendations
stronger drivers than those leading to on-farm diversification. to diversify farms are therefore relevant for different
Such specialization can occur in the case of commodities where farm sizes.
there is a demand for large quantities and where sophisticated We found only a few studies, which consider land ownership
and product-specific technical packages drive monocultures. as a factor in diversification (Lawin and Tamini, 2017; Asante
Such can be the case for oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), sugarcane et al., 2018). These studies showed no relationship between
(Saccharum officinarum), and soybean (Glycine max). Indeed, land ownership and diversified farms. More research is needed
for several decades, research and development efforts in the to understand better if there is any relation between these
agricultural sector of many countries support technologies, two variables.
which reinforce scale effects and favor specialization (Griffon,
2006; Pingali, 2012). Agricultural subsidies in countries, such as
Mexico, Bolivia, and Zambia support large-scale monocultures STEP 4. CURRENT AND FUTURE
rather than diversified production systems (Eakin and Wehbe, CLIMATE-RELATED PRODUCTION RISKS
2009; Jacobi et al., 2017; Saenz and Thompson, 2017).
With more research investment and policy support, scalable Farmer perceptions of weather cycles and climate change
and economically-feasible diversification practices can be are a good starting point for identifying climate risks. Their
developed. So far, scaling of species mixtures has been successful knowledge may need to be combined with formal predictions
for pasture and cover crops because these mixtures increase to reduce bias from their recent experiences and to reflect long-
productivity without extra management costs (Bybee-Finley term climate trends. Once climate risks are identified, crops,
et al., 2018) (Table 4, Example 2). The wide-scale introduction varieties, and management practices can be selected to manage
of high-quality seed of vegetable crops to smallholder farmers in these risks.
Southeast Asia during the last decades is a successful example Climate models with projections in climate change under
on how to scale diversification of farm systems with high-value different economic and climatic scenarios allow for predictions of
crops (Schreinemachers et al., 2018) (Table 1, Example 4). climate change impact on crop production for the next decades
(Lobell et al., 2008; Baca et al., 2014; de Sousa et al., 2019).
Labor Constraints The main purpose of these models is to reduce uncertainty
Any on-farm diversification option should save labor and/or in decision-making rather than to give precise predictions
increase and/or stabilize net income to make it an attractive (Vermeulen et al., 2013). These models are relevant for planting
option for climate change adaptation (Lee, 2005). Labor saving decisions for both annual and perennial commodities, such as
is urgent because climate change is predicted to reduce farming soybean and coffee (Coffea spp.), for which a whole infrastructure
labor capacity in tropical regions by up to 50–80% in peak needs to be maintained or put in place. Even in the case of
months of heat stress (Dunne et al., 2013; Myers et al., 2017). the introduction of non-commodities, time may be required to
Diversification with cover crops and shade trees can reduce develop seed systems and to develop the capacity of farmers who
the labor costs of weed control (Raintree and Warner, 1986; are interested in growing these crops.
Holt-Giménez, 2006; Liebman and Dyck, 2007) or fertilizer Climate models, which use historic climate trends, help to
input in the case of cocoa agroforestry systems (Armengot predict trends in climate stress for shorter time spans compared
et al., 2016). However, often diversified farm systems require with the decadal predictions of climate models on the basis of
more labor compared with less complex systems (Bacon projections in climate change. To be effective, the results of these
et al., 2012). This has been the case for diversified rice models have to be communicated clearly to farmers (Pulwarty
systems and cocoa systems (Pingali, 1992; Armengot et al., and Sivakumar, 2014). The Famine Early Warning Systems
2016). The introduction of high-value crops, such as fruit Network (FEWS NET), for example, provides rainfall predictions
and vegetable species could be an alternative diversification for the next 10–365 days on the basis of high-resolution rainfall
strategy to increase or stabilize net income (Joshi et al., and hydrological models (Senay et al., 2015). These predictions
2004). Finally, diversification strategies, which improve on-farm allow farmers and other actors in the value chain to anticipate
climate conditions, such as the establishment of shade trees can and adjust cropping systems to water scarcity or surplus. High-
eventually improve labor conditions because while they may quality modeling in combination with good communication is
require a large initial labor input this tails off substantially after thus essential to provide farmers meaningful information about
tree establishment. current and future climate risks.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 7 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

TABLE 4 | Successful examples of diversified cropping, pasture, and agroforestry systems.

Example 1: In the semi-arid regions of Myanmar, farmers manage a diversified cropping system with cash crops, such as cotton (Gossypium spp.) and sesame
(Sesamum indicum), and food crops, such as rice (Oryza spp.), pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), and mungbean (Vigna radiata) (Matsuda, 2013). This diversified farm system
provides multiple income and subsistence sources under uncertain weather conditions.
Example 2: Species mixtures have a high potential to diversify pasture lands because the diversification of sowing material does not substantially increase labor costs
for a farmer and will increase and stabilize productivity. Pot experiments show that diversified pasture lands with multiple genotypes and multiple species increase the
stability and productivity for meat and milk production under climate variability (Prieto et al., 2015). Legumes have a high potential to augment the functional trait diversity
of tropical pastures (Schultze-Kraft et al., 2018). A large range of legume crops is available for different tropical agroecological zones (Schultze-Kraft et al., 2018).
Example 3: The traditional Milpa system with maize (Zea mays), common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), squash (Cucurbita spp.), and other crops is still an important
cropping system in Mexico and Central America for the food security of many smallholder farmers (Isakson, 2009; Salazar-Barrientos et al., 2016). The Milpa system
can be combined with growing export cash crops, such as coffee to get a diversified farm system, which meets multiple farmers’ goals related to income and food
security (Morris et al., 2016). The Milpa system combines different functional traits including C4 cereals and legumes. The system rotates maize and beans and can be
adapted to different climate conditions using different types of varieties and different types of rotation systems (Trouche et al., 2006). Several crops can be intercropped
with maize, such as cucurbits (Salazar-Barrientos et al., 2016). When climate conditions are too dry for maize, this crop can be replaced by sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)
(Trouche et al., 2006).
Example 4: In the high-altitude regions of central Mexico, late season frost is a major threat to maize production. Changing climate has resulted in the late arrival of
spring rains, a delay to the planting date and an increase in the risk of late season frost. Mexican farmers in these frost-prone areas minimize risk by diversifying their
production area with more frost tolerant crops, such as oats (Avena sativa) and fava beans (Vicia faba) (Espitia Rangel et al., 2007; Maqbool et al., 2010). Maize is still
the preferred crop and has a high market demand, so farmers tend to adjust the crop area based on the planting date; the later the planting date, the smaller the area
planted with maize and the greater the area planted to a crop with higher frost tolerance (Eakin, 2005).
Example 5: In the dry corridor of Central America and Yucatan peninsula, fruit trees provide a safety net in the dry season. Indigenous communities traditionally relied
on Maya nut (Brosimum alicastrum) and other food tree species to cope with failed harvests in dry years (Gómez-Pompa, 1987). These trees were removed from the
landscape to make way for more intensive farming practices. Different seed sources of Maya nut have now been identified for replanting in home gardens for food
security in times of drought and to have a reliable forage supply for cattle (Vohman and Monro, 2011).
Example 6: In East Africa, a drought-tolerant legume crop, desmodium (Desmodium intortum) has been tested successfully as an intercrop to repel stemborer moths
from C4 maize-production systems in combination with the perennial C4 grass Brachiaria cv mulato which is planted in field borders to attract this pest (Midega et al.,
2018).

STEP 5. GAP ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL practices provide a rich source of possibilities for rotations,
DIVERSITY IN FARM SYSTEMS intercropping, and agroforestry systems (Eakin, 2005; Hellin and
Dixon, 2008; Isakson, 2009) (Table 4, Example 3). Traditional
By filling functional gaps in farm systems, farmers can stabilize polyculture systems can fall into disuse because of labor
and even increase primary productivity of their farm systems constraints, poor markets, and erosion of local knowledge. It
under climate change. This occurs via two distinct but linked is therefore important to address these economic and cultural
agroecological mechanisms. First, diversification with crops and constraints in order to maintain and improve traditional systems,
varieties, each with a differential response to climate stresses, and introduce new systems as well.
stabilizes primary productivity in agroecosystems under climate Crop functional types help to differentiate between crops,
variability. The second mechanism is related to diversification of which, because of their physiological differences, tolerate
crops and management practices to foster ecological functions. different types and different levels of climate stress (Table 2). For
Ecological functions increase and stabilize primary productivity polycultures, farmers ideally choose crops, which besides their
in farm systems and include climate regulation, water storage, differentiated tolerance to climate stresses, have complementary
nutrient cycling, and pest regulation. By understanding these traits to reduce competition for similar resources, such as
two agroecological mechanisms and translating that knowledge different rooting depths, complementary nutrient requirements,
into practical recommendations for decision-making, farmers and differential light interception patterns (Brooker et al.,
can make informed choices about adapting their farm systems to 2015). In this way, farmers can minimize competition for light,
climate change. water, and nutrients between crops, and avoid production and
income loss.
The upper temperature ranges for the production of many
Crop Choices for Differential Responses to crops is below 40◦ C while temperature conditions above 40◦ C
Climate Stresses become more prevalent in tropical growing areas (Farooq et al.,
Spatial diversification stabilizes primary productivity of farm 2017). Only a limited amount of crops can adapt to temperatures
systems under climate variability when crops with differential above 40◦ C, either through short growth seasons or by coping
responses to climate stresses are grown in polycultures or in with high temperatures during sensitive development stages,
separate fields. These crops expand together the physiological such as pollen development, fruit setting, and grain filling (Wahid
range to produce a minimum yield under different climate et al., 2007; Barnabás et al., 2008). Table 2 gives a few examples
conditions. In addition to physiological range expansion, positive of the crops which are reported to be strong candidates for
plant interactions and niche complementary further increase and agricultural production under hot conditions. In contrast, low
stabilize agricultural productivity (Brookfield, 2001; Malézieux temperatures can cause production risks in mountain areas in
et al., 2009). tropical and subtropical regions (Table 4, Example 4).
When considering polycultures to diversify farm systems Plant production is principally limited by lack or excess of
in a specific area, local knowledge on crops and management water. Drought and flooding events have occurred with greater

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 8 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

frequency over the past 50 years and the trend is predicted to some cereals, such as maize, landraces could be good choices in
continue (Lobell et al., 2008). Despite the vulnerability of many strategies of on-farm diversification because they contain high
plant species to drier conditions (McCord et al., 2015), a wide levels of genetic variation, which enable landraces to evolve under
range of species is adapted to dry conditions in rain-fed systems. the interplay of human selection and climate change (Mercer
Table 2 includes a few examples of species, which are reported and Perales, 2010; Vigouroux et al., 2011). Evaluation of these
to be strong candidates for on-farm diversification of rain-fed landraces in different environments helps shed light on their
systems under increasing drought conditions. potential for climate change adaptation and in breeding strategies
C4-metabolism crops, such as maize (Zea mays) and sorghum in a similar way to the search for climate-adapted durum wheat
(Sorghum spp.) have in general a high water-use efficiency and are landraces (Ceccarelli, 2015; Mengistu et al., 2016).
better in tolerating water stress compared with C3-metabolism Even though breeders use advanced technologies, such as
crops, such as wheat (Tritricum spp.) and sunflower (Helianthus genomic selection and editing to develop varieties with multiple
annuus) because of their more efficient photosynthetic apparatus traits to tolerate climate stresses (Tester and Langridge, 2010;
(Zhang and Kirkham, 1995; Nayyar and Gupta, 2006). This Mousavi-Derazmahalleh et al., 2019), it remains a challenge to
makes C4 crops potential candidates for production under dry stack these traits in single varieties (Mercer and Perales, 2010).
and hot conditions, although several C4 crops may be susceptible Alternatively, a traditional approach is to grow multiple varieties
to water stress because of the wide diversity in C4 plant evolution of the same crop to respond to multiple stresses (Jarvis et al., 2008;
(Ghannoum, 2009). Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) crops Matsuda, 2013; Salazar-Barrientos et al., 2016). Farmers can thus
use significantly less water and can grow in higher temperatures diversify their farm systems by growing both multiple crops and
compared with C3 and C4 crops. Some CAM crops, such as varietal mixtures. In the same line, livestock and feed producers
pineapple (Ananas comosus) are commercial crops. The majority may prefer pasturelands, which are both rich in grass species and
of CAM crops, however, are neglected or underutilized (Mizrahi rich in genotypes because these pasturelands are more productive
et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2015). and recover better after extreme events, compared with less
Tree planting is a common on-farm diversification strategy diverse ones in the same biotope (MacDougall et al., 2013; Prieto
to improve microclimates after their establishment (Bryan et al., et al., 2015).
2009; Meldrum et al., 2018). Native tree species may be preferred
candidates for diversification (Table 1, Example 7; Table 2).
Since most tree species are wild or at an incipient stages of Crop Choices and Management Practices
domestication, some exotic tree species can become invasive, to Foster Ecological Functions
such as the American species Prosopis juliflora in African Diversification of farm systems in space and time can foster
countries (Richardson, 1998), or can be highly competitive for ecological functions, such as climate regulation, water storage,
water, such as Eucalyptus spp. and may outcompete understory nutrient cycling, and pest regulation. Farmers may find it useful
crops under drought-stress conditions (Saxena, 1991; German to use a straightforward checklist of management practices,
et al., 2006). Native food tree species provide also a reliable food which foster ecological functions to improve their farm systems
source for farmer households in lean months (Graefe et al., 2012; (Table 5).
Bacon et al., 2014) (Table 4, Example 5). Despite their potential Microclimates can be regulated by tree shade, which buffers
importance for food and nutrition security, there is generally a against high temperatures above ground and in some cases
lack of focus on these tree species in people’s diets under climate prevent frost damage (Barradas and Fanjul, 1986; Caramori et al.,
seasonality and inter-annual variability (Rowland et al., 2015). 1996) (Table 1, Example 2). Forage tree and shrub species, which
As periods of drought become longer and more frequent, are planted along field borders, provide a wind-break to maintain
farmers may need to replace water-competitive shade trees with moisture levels in agriculture fields (Holt-Giménez, 2002), and
species, which are less water demanding. The pruning of tree are a source of animal fodder in times of drought (Kort, 1988;
species reduces water stress and allows farmers to manage shade Tamang et al., 2010). Tree species can therefore be selected for
(Bayala et al., 2002) while also providing mulch to conserve soils multiple goals in farm systems including for food or fodder
and retain soil moisture (Hellin et al., 1999). production and to maintain ecological functions.
With respect to water excess, food tree species from tropical On-farm diversification with cover crops and green manures
floodplains and swamps, such as many palm species, tolerate long can improve and conserve soil by building up organic matter,
periods of waterlogging (Table 2). In a similar line, sugarcane and adding nitrogen, improving soil structure, and reducing soil
perennial forage grasses, such as Brachiaria spp., can withstand erosion (Cong et al., 2014). As a consequence, soil fertility,
waterlogging conditions (Cardoso et al., 2013; Gomathi et al., infiltration, water holding capacity, and soil moisture can
2014). As with tree species, native forage grasses may be preferred increase, and with that the crops’ ability to cope with drought
because of the risk that exotic ones become invasive (DiTomaso, (Erenstein, 2003; Waraich et al., 2011). However, under humid
2000). conditions and on poorly drained soils, mulching can cause
Many traits related to stress tolerance can be found at variety waterlogging resulting in lower yields (Giller et al., 2009). Some
level. Major advances have been made in breeding to increase cover crops are competitive for water, and if intercropped, they
drought tolerance of main cereal crops, such as maize (Cairns can reduce the yields of the main crop under water limiting
et al., 2013). Nevertheless, farmers may still want to diversify conditions. Therefore, selection of soil-improving intercrops
with drought-tolerant minor cereals and legumes (Table 2). For or relay crops, which are water efficient, is important in

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 9 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

TABLE 5 | Diversification strategies to maintain or include ecological functions in farm systems.

Ecological function Climate related stress Mechanism Functional types Diversification strategy

Microclimate regulation and Excess heat Block solar radiation, Shade producing plants, Plant trees to increase canopy density
shade provision cooling trees and shrubs
Disturbance regulation Strong winds, typhoon Physical wind break Trees and shrubs, coastal Place of hedgerows and wind breaks
mangroves
Water regulation Excess water, extreme rain Improved soil structure and Deep rooting plants, trees
events drainage and shrubs
Soil retention Extreme wind and rain Physical soil stabilization, Shrubs, trees, grasses, and Used as living barriers in sloping land
events protection of soil surface cover crops and soil cover in annual systems
Soil formation and nutrient Drought, cold-associated Improved soil structure and Biomass-producing crops, Residue retention and reduced tillage,
cycling hydric stress nutrient retention leguminous plants intercropping, relay cropping, pruning
leguminous trees
Biological regulation Shifts in pest and disease Habitat diversification, Crop/pest specific Intercropping, planting in field borders
ranges and pressures predator habitat provision,
trap crops, microclimate
management

drought-prone environments. Alternative management options multiple spatial scales makes farms more resilient against extreme
in semi-arid regions include external biomass input from weather events.
hedgerows or woodlots and establishment of rotation schemes Caution is needed when introducing a new crop into a farm
with cover crops. system since it can be a host of new crop diseases (Marshall, 1977;
Crop residue incorporation is an important practice to Anderson et al., 2004). Often, however, it is only a question of
improve soil quality (Turmel et al., 2015). In mixed cropping time until a pest or disease arrives because of globalized food
and livestock systems, especially in semi-arid areas, trade-offs export and import, and shifting distributions of pest and diseases
exist between using residues for fodder or soil cover (Giller due to climate change (Shaw and Osborne, 2011; Bebber et al.,
et al., 2009). In many areas, however, farmers require these 2013). On-farm diversification is therefore a good preparation
residues for animal feed and in some cases they earn more for when these pests or diseases arrive. First, crop diversification
from selling the residues for feed than they can from the maize may reduce the risk of pest and disease outbreaks related
they grow (Beuchelt et al., 2015). If farmers leave at least a to monoculture host plants (Rosenzweig et al., 2001). Some
portion of their residues in their fields, then they provide soil pests and pathogens, however, use a wide range of host plants,
cover and build organic matter (Turmel et al., 2015). Alternative which limits the potential of crop diversification for preventing
biomass-producing crops and sources of forages and soil cover these outbreaks (Ratnadass et al., 2011). Second, heterogeneity
can be introduced in intercropping, agroforestry, or silvopastoral in vegetation and crops obstruct pest movement and provide
systems to address these needs. habitats for natural pest enemies (Avelino et al., 2012). Finally,
Holt-Giménez (2002) showed how diversification of a wide range of plant species, which repel or attract pests, is
Nicaraguan farm systems with agroecological practices, available to farmers. By understanding which climate stresses
such as soil cover, windbreaks, crop rotation, and alley these plant species tolerate, they can be selected for pest control
cropping, protected farmers’ fields during extreme weather under changing climate conditions (Table 4, Example 6).
events compared with farmers’ conventional practices (Table 1,
Example 1). This evidence suggests that diversification enables STEP 6. SELECTION OF ON-FARM
farm systems to recover more quickly from extreme weather
DIVERSIFICATION OPTIONS
events compared with uniform farm systems.
Diversification across multiple spatial scales beyond the farm To support on-farm diversification, all the relevant information
level is thought to further stabilize micro and mesoclimates and mentioned in steps 1 to 5 can be combined in a decision
make farm systems more resilient against extreme weather events model, which captures multiple criteria (Figure 2). For many
(Kremen et al., 2012). Forest patches surrounding cropping crops no exact information about markets and optimal growing
systems and pasturelands may control rainfall distributions and conditions exist. Alternatively, ranking and scaling by a group
regulate temperatures at meso-level, but more evidence is needed of persons already provides robust estimates and comparisons
(Teuling et al., 2010; Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015). Preliminary (Hubbard, 2014; van Etten et al., 2016). These straightforward
evidence show that farm systems in a diversified landscape indeed scoring approaches help determine which crops, varieties, and
recover more quickly from extreme weather events compared management practices are more appropriate for farmers’ goals,
with farm systems in uniform landscapes but the finding are not such as income stability, food security, and/or nutrition; which
yet conclusive (Philpott et al., 2008; Gil et al., 2017). Monitoring crops and varieties require more or less labor, and so on.
farm systems in areas with extreme weather events will help to Selected diversification options can be further evaluated on-farm
collect more data to understand further how diversification at to test how well they fit farmers’ realities, goals, and aspirations.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 10 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

FIGURE 2 | Decision model to select crops and management practices for on-farm diversification. The existing enabling factors as defined in step 2 determine the
availability of crop choices. Crops can be chosen using multiple criteria in function of the farmers’ goals defined in step 1; disabling factors defined in step 3; climate
stresses defined in step 4; and a gap analysis of functional diversity in step 5.

The selection of these options can be done in focus-group of vegetable species to different climate stresses because these are
discussions in farmer communities with farmers, practitioners, potentially interesting crops for diversification.
and researchers, and by interviewing key persons from farmer
communities, as well external actors, which could support STEP 7. EVALUATION AND LEARNING
farmers in access to markets, germplasm, climate information,
credit, or insurance (Schattman et al., 2015; Morris et al., Participatory evaluation is a cost-effective way to evaluate crops,
2016). varieties, and management practices despite high transaction
Crop options are available for different agroecological zones. costs in communication and information exchange (Almekinders
In all these zones, legumes and trees are common functional types et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2007). For on-farm testing of new
to diversify farm systems for climate change adaptation (Tables 2, crops, varieties, and management practices, home gardens are
4). Some studies suggest that a low optimum number of on-farm convenient because farmers traditionally use these places for
diversification options for semi-arid agroecological zones (Waha experimentation (Williams, 2004; Galluzzi et al., 2010). After
et al., 2018). Therefore, it would be important to maximize the evaluation, farmers can decide if they wish adopt these new
functional diversity in semi-arid regions within a few crops (see options and how best to incorporate them in their farm systems.
Table 2). For uptake and scaling of diversification measures within
Many crops, which are hardy and can tolerate climate stresses, communities, it is often advantageous to work initially with the
are neglected and underutilized (Table 2). The reality is that most most innovative female and male farmers, such as custodian or
of these crops have limited market opportunities. A selection of lighthouse farmers. They are often the most eager to experiment
the crops with most potential for both climate change adaptation with diversification options and can subsequently inspire others
and markets, and targeted and long-term efforts to strengthen (Hellin and Dixon, 2008). Researchers and practitioners can
both supply of and demand for these selected crops, can help to foster knowledge exchange between farmers by supporting
support farmers to diversify their farms with these crops (Table 1, farmer networks. Women and other vulnerable groups in many
Examples 3 and 8). countries, would need to be involved in these activities to prevent
Among high-value crops, vegetable species are commercially increase in inequality as a consequence of differential access to
interesting for smallholder farmers and easy to incorporate in information and learning opportunities (Tompkins and Adger,
farm systems. However, we found little research on climate stress 2004).
tolerance in vegetable species compared with species from other Agricultural innovation systems are another form to
crop groups. Further research is needed to evaluate the response share knowledge and to encourage learning about on-farm

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 11 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

diversification options among farmers, and other private, most compelling examples of scaling agroecological practices are
public, and societal actors in value chains (Schut et al., 2014) agroecological farmer-to-farmer networks in Central America,
(Table 1, Example 9). Feedback and information exchange on Mexico, and Cuba (Table 1, Example 1). These networks show
crop and variety performance between germplasm suppliers, the importance of horizontal learning from farmer-to-farmer
farmers, and other actors improves site-specific crop and variety and through the establishment of dialogues between farmers and
recommendations and enhances farmers’ access to high-quality other actors (Holt-Giménez, 2006; Morris et al., 2016). Therefore,
germplasm (van Etten et al., 2019). in addition to the four essential steps mentioned above, step 7
in our decision-framework on evaluation and learning is another
important step in the diversification of farm systems.
DISCUSSION The framework identifies insurance policies and market access
as two additional enabling factors for on-farm diversification,
In this paper, we propose seven steps to work with farmers in in recognition of farmers’ needs for enabling institutional
making choices about the development, selection, evaluation, and environments to incentivize on-farm changes in crop and land
implementation of on-farm diversification strategies for climate management. Network structures for agricultural innovation
change adaptation. These steps are based on existing concepts for sustainable agriculture link farmer organizations to markets
on climate change adaptation, which are often recommended and insurance providers (Schut et al., 2014). We are not
separately. Complementary to existing tools, which recommend aware of successful policies to link insurance products to on-
agroecological practices (Altieri et al., 2015), select species (de farm diversification, and we recommend policy-makers and
Sousa et al., 2019), or economically optimize crop portfolios practitioners to pilot these combinations.
(Werners et al., 2011), this decision-making framework brings The framework stresses the importance of understanding the
together agroecological, agrobotanical, social, and economic goals of different farm household members and their diverse
considerations and recommendations from different disciplines, livelihood options and preferences. This provides the basis on
and links these to farmers’ goals and constraints. The framework, which to establish a dialogue on diversifying farm systems, and
coupled with extensive field experience from Latin America, Sub- allows to consider gender in the selection of diversification
Saharan Africa, and Asia, offers a practical and comprehensive strategies. We stress this, because this may not always happen,
tool for researchers and practitioners to establish a dialogue resulting in a focus on profit-maximization in projects biased
with farm households or with farmer groups to develop on-farm to narrow economic objectives or to poor linkage between
diversification strategies. recommended agroecological practices and the objectives of the
We argue that the four most essential elements for selection different members of farm households.
of appropriate on-farm diversification options are: step 1 To ensure that recommended practices align with farmers’
on understanding farmers’ goals, which is the basis of any economic objectives, we recommend practitioners and
adaptation plan; step 2 on identifying enabling factors to identify researchers to work with farmers in estimating the production
opportunities to support farmers with financial and technical costs and economic benefits of their existing farm systems in
support; step 5 on assessing gaps in functional diversity in comparison with more diversified systems. Farmers are likely to
farm systems, which need to be filled to adapt farm systems determine the optimum extent of on-farm diversification by the
to climate change; and step 6 on the selection of on-farm balance between the labor input and other management costs
diversification options to fill these gaps. These four steps would be associated with diversifying their farm systems, and the benefits
the minimum needed to work with farmers in the development from increased and more stable productivity leading to enhanced
and selection of viable on-farm diversification options for climate income and food security as a result of on-farm diversification.
change adaptation. Since labor constraints increase with climate change, it will be
Practitioners, policy-makers, and farmer organizations who important to consider these increased labor costs in cost-benefit
aim to incite farmers to diversify their farm systems in a analysis and the implementation of diversification strategies.
specific territory, can use the framework as a check box and Recommended practices to diversify farm systems under climate
follow the steps in this framework on the basis of their change should therefore minimize extra labor, more so because of
existing knowledge and with support of local and international growing labor-scarcity due to rural-urban migration (Bacud et al.,
research organizations and networks. For example, the CGIAR 2019). This fits well to the existing lesson in scaling agroecology
Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food to promote effective and straightforward agroecological practices
Security (CCAFS) provides a toolbox to select climate-smart (Holt-Giménez, 2001). When these practices minimize extra
options (https://csa.guide/). Agroecological networks, such as the labor, then this will help to the successful implementation of
Community Agroecological Network (CAN), have established diversification measures.
guidelines to carry out participatory action research (Méndez On-farm diversification strategies contribute effectively to
et al., 2017). CSA and SDG policies, which many governments aim to
The framework counts in the lessons learned from successful promote to enhance food security, climate change adaptation,
cases on scaling agroecological practices (Mier et al., 2018). and sustainable development (Lipper et al., 2014; Totin et al.,
These cases stress the importance to foster farmer organization 2018; Willett et al., 2019). On-farm diversification contributes
and external support as two key enabling factors, and to select less to climate change mitigation, which is another important
effective and straightforward agroecological practices. One of the component of CSA and SDG 13 on Climate Action. Although

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 12 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

several on-farm diversification strategies, such as agroforestry or diversification options by connecting with local, national,
growing cover crops already address mitigation by sequestering and international private companies, farmer organizations,
carbon, this is not their primary goal when adapting farm public and private extension services, NGOs, as well as
systems to the adverse effects of global climate change. On- research institutes.
farm diversification in integrated CSA strategies should therefore The key is to work with farmers in a participatory way and
be evaluated for their mitigation potential and when necessary to prioritize their constraints, aspirations, and opportunities for
combined with other mitigation strategies. on-farm diversification. A failure to do so, risks stymieing CSA
In some cases, on-farm diversification will not be sufficient efforts and ultimately perpetuating the vulnerability of those
to reduce the vulnerability of farmers to climate change (Harvey farmers who are often the target group of CSA. This would also
et al., 2014); on-farm diversification options simply do not save result in CSA falling well short of its potential to contribute
sufficient labor or sufficiently increase or stabilize net income. meaningfully to several of the SDGs including 13: Climate Action;
In these cases, off-farm diversification, such as seasonal labor in SDG 1: No Poverty; SDG 2: Zero Hunger; and SDG 15 Life
the non-agricultural sectors or a permanent exit from agriculture, on Land.
may be a better option for farmers to adapt to climate change
(Hansen et al., 2019). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

CONCLUSIONS All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual
contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
On-farm diversification is a key component of a range of climate
change adaptation and mitigations practices and technologies FUNDING
known collectively as CSA. Poorer farmers are particularly
vulnerable to climate change and it is, hence, even more This study was supported by Hivos, the Central American
imperative that diversification options address the resources research platform on Production and Conservation in
available to them and their aspirations. Increasing resources Partnership (PCP) and the CGIAR Research Programs
are being directed at CSA and we suggest following the seven Humidtropics, and Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
steps presented in this paper as an approach to working with Security (CCAFS), with support from CGIAR Fund and
farmers for appropriate on-farm diversification as part of climate Donors. Funding for the World Vegetable Center’s general
change adaptation and mitigation efforts. The seven steps provide research activities was provided by core donors: Republic
a framework to identify appropriate diversification options of China (Taiwan), UK aid from the UK government,
in the context of farmers’ agroecological and socio-economic United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
conditions: (step 1) defining farmers’ goals; (step 2) assessment Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
of enabling factors; (step 3) assessment of disabling factors; (step (ACIAR), the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
4) assessment of current and future climate-related production and Development of Germany, Thailand, Philippines, Korea,
risks; (step 5) gap analysis of functional diversity; (step 6) and Japan.
selection of on-farm diversification options; and finally (step 7)
evaluation and learning. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Governments often have few economic resources to put in
force an agenda for CSA and, hence, network structures for We thank Abigail Fallot from CIRAD, the editor, and the
agricultural innovation are vital for sustainable agriculture under two reviewers for valuable comments in the development of
climate change. Scale effects often favor monocultures. There this paper.
are, however, several examples how food and feed demand
in combination with adequate germplasm supply enables large SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
numbers of farmers to diverse their farm systems and access
markets. A successful example is diversified horticultural systems The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
with high-value fruit and vegetable species for urban markets. online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.
Networks of agricultural innovation enable farmers to adopt 2020.00032/full#supplementary-material

REFERENCES Altieri, M. A., and Merrick, L. C. (1987). In situ conservation of crop genetic
resources through maintenance of traditional farming systems. Econ. Bot. 41,
Allen, C. R., Fontaine, J. J., Pope, K. L., and Garmestani, A. 86–96. doi: 10.1007/BF02859354
S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. J. Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., and Lana, M. A. (2015).
Environ. Manage. 92, 1339–1345. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming
11.019 systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 869–90. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-
Almekinders, C. J. M., Thiele, G., and Danial, D. L. (2007). Can cultivars from 0285-2
participatory plant breeding improve seed provision to small-scale farmers? Anderson, P. K., Cunningham, A. A., Patel, N. G., Morales, F. J., Epstein, P.
Euphytica 153, 363–372. doi: 10.1007/s10681-006-9201-9 R., Daszak, P., et al. (2004). Emerging infectious diseases of plants: pathogen

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 13 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, Birthal, P. S., Roy, D., and Negi, D. S. (2015). Assessing the impact of
535–544. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.021 crop diversification on farm poverty in India. World Dev. 72, 70–92.
Arbaoui, M., and Link, W. (2008). Effect of hardening on frost tolerance and doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.02.015
fatty acid composition of leaves and stems of a set of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) Bobojonov, I., Aw-Hassan, A., and Sommer, R. (2013). Index-based
genotypes. Euphytica 162, 211–219. doi: 10.1007/s10681-007-9521-4 insurance for climate risk management and rural development
Armengot, L., Barbieri, P., Andres, C., Milz, J., Schneider, M. (2016). Cacao in Syria. Clim. Dev. 6, 166–178. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2013.84
agroforestry systems have higher return on labor compared to full-sun 4676
monocultures. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36:70. doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-0406-6 Bondeau, A., Smith, P. C., Schaphoff, S., Zaehle, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W.,
Asante, B. O., Villano, R. A., Patrick, I. W., and Battese, G. E. (2018). Determinants et al. (2007). Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century
of farm diversification in integrated crop–livestock farming systems in global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13, 679–706.
Ghana. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 33, 131–149. doi: 10.1017/S17421705160 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x
00545 Borchert, R. (1994). Soil and stem water storage determine phenology
Avelino, J., Cristancho, M., Georgiou, S., Pablo, I., Aguilar, L., Bornemann, G., et al. and ditribution of tropical dry forest trees. Ecology 75, 1437–1449.
(2015). The coffee rust crises in Colombia and Central America (2008–2013): doi: 10.2307/1937467
impacts, plausible causes and proposed solutions. Food Secur. 7, 303–321. Bozzano, M., Jalonen, R., Thomas, E., Loo, J., Boshier, D., Gallo, L., et al. (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0446-9 Genetic Considerations in Ecosystem Restoration Using Native Tree Species.
Avelino, J., Romero-Gurdián, A., Cruz-Cuellar, H. F., and Declerck, F. A. J. State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources–Thematic Study. Rome: FAO and
(2012). Landscape context and scale differentially impact coffee leaf rust, Bioversity International.
coffee berry borer, and coffee root-knot nematodes. Ecol. Appl. 22, 584–596. Brooker, R. W., Bennett, A. E., Cong, W.-F., et al. (2015). Improving intercropping:
doi: 10.1890/11-0869.1 a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol.
Baca, M., Laderach, P., Haggar, J., Schroth G, Ovalle O. (2014). An integrated 206, 107–117. doi: 10.1111/nph.13132
framework for assessing vulnerability to climate change and developing Brookfield, H. (2001). Exploring Agrodiversity. New York, NY: Columbia
adaptation strategies for coffee growing families in Mesoamerica. PLoS ONE. University Press. doi: 10.7312/broo10232
9:e88463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088463 Bryan, E., Deressa, T. T., Gbetibouo, G. A., and Ringler, C. (2009). Adaptation to
Bacon, C. M., Getz, C., Kraus, S., Montenegro, M., and Holland, K. (2012). The climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ.
social dimensions of sustainability and change in diversified farming systems. Sci. Policy. 12, 413–426. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.002
Ecol Soc 17:41. doi: 10.5751/ES-05226-170441 Bybee-Finley, K., Ryan, M., Bybee-Finley, K. A., and Ryan, M. R. (2018). Advancing
Bacon, C. M., Sundstrom, W. A., Flores Gómez, M. E., Méndez, V. E., Santos, intercropping research and practices in industrialized agricultural landscapes.
R., Goldoftas, B., et al. (2014). Explaining the “hungry farmer paradox”: Agriculture 8:80. doi: 10.3390/agriculture8060080
smallholders and fair trade cooperatives navigate seasonality and change in Cairns, J. E., Crossa, J., Zaidi, P. H., Grudloyma, P., Sanchez, C., Araus, J. L., et al.
Nicaragua’s corn and coffee markets. Glob. Environ. Chang. 25, 133–149. (2013). Identification of drought, heat, and combined drought and heat tolerant
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.005 donors in maize. Crop Sci. 53, 1335–1346. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2012.09.0545
Bacud, E. S., Puskur, R., Nhat, T., Sander, B. O., Luis, J. (2019). Rural Caramori, P. H., Androcioli Filho, A., and Leal, A. C. (1996). Coffee shade with
outmigration—feminization—agricultural production nexus : case of Vietnam. Mimosa scabrella Benth. for frost protection in southern Brazil. Agrofor. Syst. 33,
Migr. Dev. 9, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/21632324.2019.1679962 205–214. doi: 10.1007/BF00055423
Bailey-Serres, J., Lee, S. C., and Brinton, E. (2012). Waterproofing crops: Carberry, P. S., Hochman, Z., McCown, R. L., Dalgliesh, N. P., Foale,
effective flooding survival strategies. Plant Physiol. 160, 1698–1709. M. A., Poulton, P. L., et al. (2002). The FARMSCAPE approach to
doi: 10.1104/pp.112.208173 decision support: farmers’, advisers’, researchers’ monitoring, simulation,
Barnabás, B., Jäger, K., and Fehér, A. (2008). The effect of drought and heat communication and performance evaluation. Agric. Syst. 74, 141–177.
stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ. 31: 11–38. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00025-2
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01727.x Cardoso, J. A., Rincon, J., and Jimenez, J. d. l. C., Noguera, D., and
Barradas, V. L., and Fanjul, L. (1986). Microclimatic characterization Rao, I. M. (2013). Morpho-anatomical adaptations to waterlogging by
of shaded and opengrown coffee (Coffea arabica L.) plantations in germplasm accessions in a tropical forage grass. AoB Plants 5:plt047.
Mexico. Agric. For. Meteorol. 38, 101–112. doi: 10.1016/0168-1923(86)9 doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plt047
0052-3 Carletto, C., Kirk, A., Winters, P. C., and Davis, B. (2010). Globalization
Bayala, J., Teklehaimanot, Z., and Ouedraogo, S. J. (2002). Millet production under and smallholders: the adoption, diffusion, and welfare impact of
pruned tree crowns in a parkland system in Burkina Faso. Agrofor. Syst. 54, non-traditional export crops in Guatemala. World Dev. 38, 814–827.
203–214. doi: 10.1023/A:1016058906682 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.02.017
Bebber, D. P., Ramotowski, M. A. T., and Gurr, S. J. (2013). Crop pests and Carter, M. R., Cheng, L., and Sarris, A. (2016). Where and how index insurance
pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 985–988. can boost the adoption of improved agricultural technologies. J. Dev. Econ. 118,
doi: 10.1038/nclimate1990 59–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.08.008
Bell, A. R., Osgood, D. E., Cook, B. I., Anchukaitis, K. J., Mccarney, G. R., Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badeck, F.-W., Mazzucotelli, E., Mastrangelo, A. M.,
Greene, A. M., et al. (2013). Paleoclimate histories improve access and Franciaa, E., et al. (2008). Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants:
sustainability in index insurance programs. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 774–781. an integrated view from breeding to genomics. F. Crop Res. 105, 1–14.
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.004
Beltrame, D. M. O., Oliveira, C. N. S., Borelli, T., Hunter, D., Neves, C., Ceccarelli, S. (2015). Efficiency of plant breeding. Crop Sci. 55: 87.
De Andrade, R. et al. (2016). Diversifying institutional food procurement– doi: 10.2135/cropsci2014.02.0158
opportunities and barriers for integrating biodiversity for food and nutrition Chakrabarti, S., and Kundu, A. (2009). Rural non-farm economy: a note on the
in Brazil. Raizes 36, 55–69. impact of crop-diversification and land-conversion in India. Econ. Polit. Weekly
Beuchelt, T. D., Camacho Villa, C. T., Göhring, L., Rodríguez, V. M. 44, 69–75. doi: 10.2307/40278811
H., Hellin, J., Sonde, K., et al. (2015). Social and income trade-offs Chapman, R., and Tripp, R. (2003). Changing Incentives for Agricultural Extension–
of conservation agriculture practices on crop residue use in Mexico’s A Review of Privatised Extension in Practice. London: Agricultural Research and
central highlands. Agric. Syst. 134, 61–75. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014. Extension Network Paper.
09.003 Chaudhury, M., Vervoort, J., Kristjanson, P., Ericksen, P., Ainslie, A. (2013).
Binswanger-Mkhize, H. (2012). Is there too much hype about Participatory scenarios as a tool to link science and policy on food security
index-based agricultural insurance? J. Dev. Stud. 48, 187–200. under climate change in East Africa. Reg. Environ. Chang. 13, 389–398.
doi: 10.1080/00220388.2011.625411 doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-0350-1

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 14 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

Cheng, A., Mayes, S., Dalle, G., Demissew, S., Massawe, F. (2017). Diversifying Southern Africa: towards a research agenda. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 14: 142–165.
crops for food and nutrition security–a case of teff. Biol. Rev. 92, 188–198. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2015.1065602
doi: 10.1111/brv.12225 Farooq, M., Nadeem, F., Gogoi, N., Ullah, A., Alghamdi, S. S., Nayyar, H., et al.
Clement, C. R. (1999). 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. (2017). Heat stress in grain legumes during reproductive and grain-filling
I. The relation between domestication and human population decline. Econ. phases. Crop. Pasture Sci. 68, 985–1005. doi: 10.1071/CP17012
Botany 53, 188–202. doi: 10.1007/BF02866498 Felker, P., Cannell, G. H., Clark, P. R., Osborn, J. F., Nash, P. (1983). Biomass
Coe, R., Sinclair, F., and Barrios, E. (2014). Scaling up agroforestry requires production of Prosopis species (mesquite), Leucaena, and other leguminous
research “in” rather than “for” development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 6, trees grown under heat/drought stress. For. Sci. 29: 592–606.
73–77. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.013 Figge, F. (2004). Applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 13,
Cong, W.-F., van Ruijven, J., Mommer, L., De Deyn, G. B., Berendse, F., 827–849. doi: 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000011729.93889.34
Hoffland, E. (2014). Plant species richness promotes soil carbon and Fresco, L., and Westphal, E. (1988). A hierarchical classification of farm systems.
nitrogen stocks in grasslands without legumes. J. Ecol. 102, 1163–1170. Exp. Agric. 24, 399–419. doi: 10.1017/S0014479700100146
doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12280 Gallopín, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience,
Coomes, O. T., McGuire, S. J., Garine, E., Caillon, S., McKey, D., Demeulenaere, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16, 293–303.
E., et al. (2015). Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004
to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy 56, 41–50. Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P., and Negri, V. (2010). Home gardens: neglected
doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.07.008 hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodiversity Conserv. 19,
de Sousa, K., van Zonneveld, M., Holmgren, M., Kindt, R., and Ordonez, J. C. 3635–3654. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9919-5
(2019). The future of coffee and cocoa agroforestry in a warmer Mesoamerica. Gardner, K., and Lewis, D. (1996). Anthropology, Development and the Post-
Sci. Rep. 9:8828. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45491-7 Modern Challenge. London, UK, Sterling, VA, USA: Pluto Press.
Dick, W., Stoppa, A., Anderson, J. (2011). Weather Index-Based Insurance in German, L. A., Kidane, B., and Shemdoe, R. (2006). Social and environmental
Agricultural Development: A Technical Guide. Rome, Italy: International Fund trade-offs in tree species selection: a methodology for identifying niche
for Agricultural Development (IFAD). incompatibilities in agroforestry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 8, 535–552.
Dinssa, F. F., Hanson, P., Dubois, T., Tenkouano, A., Stoilova, T., Hughes, doi: 10.1007/s10668-006-9054-3
J. d’A., et al. (2016). AVRDC–the World Vegetable Center’s women- Ghannoum, O. (2009). C4 photosynthesis and water stress. Ann. Bot. 103, 635–644.
oriented improvement and development strategy for traditional African doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn093
vegetables in sub-Saharan Africa. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 81, 91–105. Gil, J. D. B., Cohn, A. S., Duncan, J., Newton, P., Vermeulen, S. (2017). The
doi: 10.17660/eJHS.2016/81.2.3 resilience of integrated agricultural systems to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip.
DiTomaso, J. M. (2000). Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, Rev. Clim. Change 8:e461. doi: 10.1002/wcc.461
and management. Weed Sci. 48, 255–265. doi: 10.1614/0043- Gilbert, M., and Holbrook, N. (2011). Limitations to Crop Diversification for
1745(2000)048[0255:IWIRSI]2.0.CO;2 Enhancing the Resilience of Rain-Fed Subsistence Agriculture to Drought.
Dumont, E. S., Bonhomme, S., Pagella, T. F., and Sinclair, F. L. (2017). Structured Available online at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/
stakeholder engagement leads to development of more diverse and inclusive faculty-working-papers/cid-working-paper-no.-228 (accessed August 8,
agroforestry options. Exp. Agric. 55, 1–23. doi: 10.1017/S0014479716000788 2015).
Dunne, J., Stouffer, R., and John, J. (2013). Reductions in labour capacity Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., and Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation
from heat stress under climate warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 563–566. agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. F Crop. Res.
doi: 10.1038/nclimate1827 114, 23–34. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.06.017
Eakin, H. (2003). The social vulnerability of irrigated vegetable Gliessman, S. R. (2014). Agroecology—The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. 3rd
farming households in Central Puebla. J. Environ. Dev. 12, 414–429. Edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis.
doi: 10.1177/1070496503257733 Goland, C. (1993). Agricultural risk management through diversity: field scattering
Eakin, H. (2005). Institutional change, climate risk, and rural in Cuyo Cuyo, Peru. Cult. Agric. 13, 8–13. doi: 10.1525/cuag.1993.13.45-46.8
vulnerability: cases from central Mexico. World Dev. 33, 1923–1938. Gomathi, R., Gururaja Rao, P. N., Chandran, K., and Selvi, A. (2014). Adaptive
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.06.005 responses of sugarcane to waterlogging stress: an over view. Sugar Tech 17,
Eakin, H., Benessaiah, K., Barrera, J. F., Bello, G. M. C., Morales, H. 325–338. doi: 10.1007/s12355-014-0319-0
(2012). Livelihoods and landscapes at the threshold of change: disaster and Gómez-Pompa, A. (1987). On Maya silviculture. Mex. Stud. 3, 1–17.
resilience in a Chiapas coffee community. Glob. Environ. Chang. 12, 475–488. doi: 10.2307/4617029
doi: 10.1007/s10113-011-0263-4 Graefe, S., Dufour, D., van Zonneveld, M., Rodriguez, F., and Gonzalez, A. (2012).
Eakin, H. C., and Wehbe, M. B. (2009). Linking local vulnerability to system Peach palm (Bactris gasipaes) in tropical Latin America: implications for
sustainability in a resilience framework: two cases from Latin America. Clim biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and human nutrition.
Change 93, 355–377. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9514-x Biodiversity Conserv. 22, 269–300. doi: 10.1007/s10531-012-0402-3
East-West Seed (2016). 2016. Our Year in Review. Bangkok: East-West Seed. Graham, P. H., and Vance, C. P. (2003). Legumes: importance and constraints to
Ehlers, J. D., and Hall, A. E. (1997). Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. greater use. Plant Physiol. 131, 872–877. doi: 10.1104/pp.017004
Walp.). F. Crop. Res. 53, 187–204. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00 Greatrex, H., Hansen, J., Garvin, S. (2015). Scaling up Index Insurance for
031-2 Smallholder Farmers: Recent Evidence and Insights. Copenhagen. Available
El-Sharkawy, M. A. (2007). Physiological characteristics of cassava tolerance to online at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/53101
prolonged drought in the tropics: implications for breeding cultivars adapted Griffon, M. (2006). Nourrir la planète: Pour une révolution Doublement verte. Paris:
to seasonally dry and semiarid environments. Br. J. Plant Physiol. 19, 257–286. Odile Jacob.
doi: 10.1590/S1677-04202007000400003 Grothmann, T., and Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the
Erenstein, O. (2003). Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 15,
sub-tropics: a guide to the development and dissemination of mulching 199–213. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002
with crop residues and cover crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 100, 17–37. Hansen, J. W., Hellin, J., Rosenstock, T., Fisher, E., Cairns, J., Stirling, C. L. et al.
doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00150-6 (2019). Climate risk management and rural poverty reduction. Agric. Syst. 172,
Espitia Rangel, E., Villaseñor Mir, H. E., Huerta Espino, J., Salmerón Zamora, J. 28–46. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.019
J., González Iñiguez, R. M., Osorio Alcalá, L., et al. (2007). Obsidiana, variedad Hart, C. E., Hayes, D. J., and Babcock, B. A. (2006). Insuring eggs in baskets:
de avena para la producción de grano y forraje en México. Agric. Técnica en should the government insure individual risks? Can. J. Agric. Econ. 54, 121–137.
México 33, 95–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2006.00041.x
Farnworth, C. R., Baudron, F., Andersson, J. A., Misiko, M., Badstue, L. B., Harvey, C. A., Rakotobe, Z. L., Rao, N. S., Dave, R., Razafimahatratra, H.,
Stirling, C. M., et al. (2016). Gender and conservation agriculture in East and Rabarijohn, R. H., et al. (2014). Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 15 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

to agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Phil. Trans. R Soc. the implications for food security. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 4001–4006.
369:20130089. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0089 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313490111
Hellin, J. (2012). Agricultural extension, collective action and innovation Knoke, T., Paul, C., Härtl, F., Castro, L. M., Calvas, B., and Hildebrandt, P. (2015).
systems: lessons on network brokering from Peru and Mexico. Optimizing agricultural land-use portfolios with scarce data–a non-stochastic
J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 18, 141–159. doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2012.6 model. Ecol. Econ. 120, 250–259. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.021
55967 Kort, J. (1988). Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agric. Ecosyst.
Hellin, J., Cox, R., and López-Ridaura, S. (2017). Maize diversity, market Environ. 22–23, 165–90. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(88)90017-5
access, and poverty reduction in the Western highlands of Guatemala. Kremen, C., Iles, A., and Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified farming systems: an
Mt. Res. Dev. 37, 188–197. doi: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-0 agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture.
0065.1 Ecol. Soc. 17:44. doi: 10.5751/ES-05103-170444
Hellin, J., and Dixon, J. (2008). Operationalising participatory research and Lavorel, S., and Garnier, E. (2002). Predicting changes in community composition
farmer-to-farmer extension : the Kamayoq in Peru. Dev. Pract. 18, 627–632. and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisting the Holy Grail. Funct.
doi: 10.1080/09614520802181889 Ecol. 16, 545–556. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x
Hellin, J., and Higman, S. (2005). Crop diversity and livelihood security in the Lawin, K. G., and Tamini, L. D. (2017). “Risk preferences and crop diversification
Andes. Dev. Pract. 15, 165–174. doi: 10.1080/09614520500041344 amongst smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso,” in Canadian Agricultural
Hellin, J., Welchez, L. A., and Cherrett, I. (1999). The Quezungual system: an Economics Society (Montreal, QC: Canadian Agricultural Economics Society),
indigenous agroforestry system from western Honduras. Agrofor. Syst. 46, 1–27. Available online at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/caes17/258058.html
229–237. doi: 10.1023/A:1006217201200 (accessed March 16, 2019).
Holmgren, M., Stapp, P., Dickman, C. R., Gracia, C. A., Graham, S., Lawrence, D., and Vandecar, K. (2015). Effects of tropical deforestation on climate
Gutierrez, J., et al. (2006). Extreme climatic events shape arid and and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 27–36. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2430
semiarid ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 87–95. doi: 10.1890/1540- Lee, D. (2005). Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: issues
9295(2006)004[0087:ECESAA]2.0.CO;2 and policies for developing countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87, 1325–1334.
Holt-Giménez, E. (2001). Scaling up sustainable agriculture. LEISA Mag. 17, 27–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00826.x
Holt-Giménez, E. (2002). Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Liebman, M., and Dyck, E. (2007). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for
Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3, 92–122. doi: 10.2307/1941795
land management impact monitoring. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93, 87–105. Lin, B. B. (2007). Agroforestry management as an adaptive strategy against
doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00006-3 potential microclimate extremes in coffee agriculture. Agric. For. Meteorol. 144,
Holt-Giménez, E. (2006). Campesino a campesino: voices from Latin America’ 85–94. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.12.009
s farmer to farmer movement for sustainaible agriculture voices from Latin Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M.,
america’ s farmer to farmer. New York, NY: Food first books. et al. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4,
Hubbard, D. W. (2014). “Preference and attitudes: The softer side of 1068–1072. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2437
measurement,” in How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Lobell, D. B., Burke, M. B., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandrea, M. D., Falcon, W., and Naylor,
Business (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 203–220. Available online at: R. L. (2008). Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EAPXAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd& 2030. Science 319, 607–610. doi: 10.1126/science.1152339
pg=PA175&dq=hubbard+how+to+measure+anything&ots=Cqcet1CqC7& Lopes, M. S., Araus, J. L., van Heerden, P. D., and Foyer, C. H. (2011).
sig=95gsOZI3RuRzHwu3eqdHOOtnQPs (accessed August 8, 2015). Enhancing drought tolerance in C4 crops. J. Exp. Bot. 62, 3135–3153.
Immink, M. D. C., and Alarcon, J. A. (1991). Household food security, nutrition, doi: 10.1093/jxb/err105
and crop diversification among smallholder farmers in the highlands of Louwaars, N. P., and de Boef, W. S. (2012). Integrated seed sector
Guatemala. Ecol. Food Nutr. 25, 287–305. doi: 10.1080/03670244.1991.99 development in Africa: a conceptual framework for creating coherence
91177 between practices, programs, and policies. J. Crop. Improv. 26, 39–59.
Isakson, S. R. (2009). No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, doi: 10.1080/15427528.2011.611277
food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J., and Raney, T. (2016). The number, size, and distribution of
in the Guatemalan highlands. J. Peasant Stud. 36, 725–759. farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29.
doi: 10.1080/03066150903353876 doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041
Iseki, K., Takahashi, Y., Muto, C., Naito, K., Tomooka, N. (2018). Diversity MacDougall, A. S., McCann, K. S., Gellner, G., and Turkington, R. (2013). Diversity
of drought tolerance in the genus Vigna. Front. Plant Sci. 9:729. loss with persistent human disturbance increases vulnerability to ecosystem
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00729 collapse. Nature 494, 86–89. doi: 10.1038/nature11869
Jacobi, J., Rist, S., and Altieri, M. A. (2017). Incentives and disincentives Malézieux, E., Crozat, Y., Dupraz, C., Laurans, M., Makowski, D., Ozier-
for diversified agroforestry systems from different actors’ perspectives in Lafontaine, H., et al. (2009). Mixing plant species in cropping systems:
Bolivia. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 365–379. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2017.13 concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 43–62.
32140 doi: 10.1051/agro:2007057
Jarvis, D. I., Brown, A. H. D., Cuong, P. H., Latournerie-Moreno, L., Gyawali, S., Maqbool, A., Shafiq, S., and Lake, L. (2010). Radiant frost tolerance in pulse
Tanto, T., et al. (2008). A global perspective of the richness and evenness of crops—a review. Euphytica 172, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10681-009-0031-4
traditional crop-variety diversity maintained by farming communities. Proc. Marshall, D. R. (1977). The advantages and hazards of genetic homogeneity. Ann.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 105, 5326–5331. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803431105 N. Y. Acad. Sci. 287, 1–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1977.tb34226.x
Jarvis, D. I., Hodgkin, T., Sthapit, B. R., Fadda, C., and Lopez-Noriega, Matsuda, M. (2013). Upland farming systems coping with uncertain rainfall in the
I. (2011). An heuristic framework for identifying multiple ways of central dry zone of Myanmar: how stable is indigenous multiple cropping under
supporting the conservation and use of traditional crop varieties within semi-arid conditions? Hum. Ecol. 41, 927–936. doi: 10.1007/s10745-013-9
the agricultural production system. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30, 125–176. 604-x
doi: 10.1080/07352689.2011.554358 Matta, R. (2013). Valuing native eating: the modern roots of Peruvian food
Joshi, P. K., Gulati, A., Birthal, P. S., and Tewari, L. (2004). Agriculture heritage. Anthropol. Food S8. doi: 10.4000/aof.7361
diversification in South Asia: patterns, determinants and policy implications. Mazón, N., Peralta, E., Murillo, Á. R, Rivera, M., Guzman, A., Nicklin, C.,
Econ. Polit. Wkly. 39, 2457–2467. et al. (2016). It’s not just the technology, it’s the surrounding system:
Kahn, F. (1991). Palms as key swamp forest resources in Amazonia. how researchers in Ecuador found ways to make themselves useful to
For. Ecol. Manage. 38, 133–142. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(91) farmers through quinoa and lupin seed systems. Exp. Agric. 55, 107–124.
90139-M doi: 10.1017/S0014479716000442
Khoury, C. K., Bjorkman, A. D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, McCord, P. F., Cox, M., Schmitt-Harsh, M., and Evans, T. (2015). Crop
L., Jarvis, A. et al. (2014). Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and diversification as a smallholder livelihood strategy within semi-arid

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 16 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

agricultural systems near Mount Kenya. Land use policy 42: 738–750. century, managing plant genetic diversity,” in Managing Plant Genetic Diversity,
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.012 eds J. M. M. Engels, V. R. Rao, A. H. D. Brown, and M. T. Jackson (Wallingford:
Meldrum, G., Mijatović, D., Rojas, W., Flores, J., Pinto, M., Mamani, G., CAB International), 323–338. doi: 10.1079/9780851995229.0323
et al. (2018). Climate change and crop diversity: farmers’ perceptions and Parolin, P. (2009). Submerged in darkness: adaptations to prolonged submergence
adaptation on the Bolivian Altiplano. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 20, 703–730. by woody species of the Amazonian floodplains. Ann. Bot. 103, 359–376.
doi: 10.1007/s10668-016-9906-4 doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn216
Méndez, V., Caswell, M., Gliessman, S., and Cohen, R. (2017). Integrating Peters, C., and Vásquez, A. (1987). Estudios ecológicos de camu-camu (Myrciaria
agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): lessons from Central dubia). I. Producción de frutos en poblaciones naturales. Acta Amaz. 17,
America. Sustainability 9:705. doi: 10.3390/su9050705 161–188. doi: 10.1590/1809-43921987171174
Mengistu, D. K., Kidane, Y. G., Catellani, M., Frascaroli, E., Fadda, C., Pè, M. E., Philpott, S., Lin, B., Jha, S., and Brines, S. (2008). A multi-scale assessment
et al. (2016). High-density molecular characterization and association mapping of hurricane impacts on agricultural landscapes based on land
in Ethiopian durum wheat landraces reveals high diversity and potential for use and topographic features. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 128, 12–20.
wheat breeding. Plant Biotechnol. J. 14, 1800–1812. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12538 doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.016
Mercer, K. L., and Perales, H. R. (2010). Evolutionary response of landraces Pingali, P. (1992). Diversifying Asian Rice-Farming Systems: A deterministic
to climate change in centers of crop diversity. Evol. Appl. 3, 480–493. Paradigm. Manila. Available online at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00137.x download?doi=10.1.1.898.1828&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=117 (accessed
Midega, C. A. O., Pittchar, J. O., Pickett, J. A., Hailu, G., and Khan, Z. March 16, 2019).
(2018). A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Pingali, P. (2007). Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of
Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop Prot. 105, food systems: implications for research and policy. Food Policy 32, 281–298.
10–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.11.003 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.08.001
Mier, M., Giménez Cacho, T., Giraldo, O. F., Aldasoro, M., Morales, Pingali, P. (2012). Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl.
H., Ferguson, G. B., et al. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: key Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 12302–12308. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912953109
drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42, 637–665. Prieto, I., Violle, C., Barre, P., Durand, J. L., Ghesquiere, M., and Litrico, I. (2015).
doi: 10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313 Complementary effects of species and genetic diversity on productivity and
Miranda, M. J., and Farrin, K. (2012). Index insurance for developing countries. stability of sown grasslands. Nat. Plants 1:15033. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2015.33
Appl. Econ. Perspect Policy 34, 391–427. doi: 10.1093/aepp/pps031 Pulwarty, R. S., and Sivakumar, M. V. K. (2014). Information systems in a changing
Mizrahi, Y., Raveh, E., and Yossov, E. (2007). “New fruit crops with high water use climate: early warnings and drought risk management. Weather Clim. Extrem.
efficiency,” in Issues in New Crops and New Uses. eds J. Janick and A. Whipkey 3, 14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.wace.2014.03.005
(Alexandria, VA: ASHS Press), 216–222. Raintree, J. B., and Warner, K. (1986). Agroforestry pathways for the intensification
Morris, K., Méndez, V., van Zonneveld, M., and Gerlicz, A. (2016). Agroecology of shifting cultivation. Agrofor. Syst. 4, 39–54. doi: 10.1007/BF01834701
and climate change resilience: in smallholder coffee agroecosystems of Central Ratnadass, A., Fernandes, P., Avelino, J., and Habib, R. (2011). Plant
America. Burlington. Available online at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/ species diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and
10568/78410 (accessed March 11, 2018). diseases in agroecosystems: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 273–303.
Mousavi-Derazmahalleh, M., Bayer, P. E., Hane, J. K., Valliyodan, B., Nguyen, H. doi: 10.1007/s13593-011-0022-4
T., Nelson, M. N., et al. (2019). Adapting legume crops to climate change using Richardson, D. M. (1998). Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conserv. Biol. 12, 18–26.
genomic approaches. Plant Cell Environ. 42, 6–19. doi: 10.1111/pce.13203 doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96392.x
Murgueitio, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., and Solorio, B. (2011). Native trees Rizza, F., Pagani, D., Stanca, A. M., and Cattivelli, L. (2001). Use of
and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. chlorophyll fluorescence to evaluate the cold acclimation and freezing
For. Ecol. Manage 261, 1654–1663. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.027 tolerance of winter and spring oats. Plant Breed. 120, 389–396.
Myers, S. S., Smith, M. R., Guth, S., Golden, C. D., Vaitla, B., Mueller, N. D., doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0523.2001.00635.x
et al. (2017). Climate change and global food systems: potential impacts on Rosenzweig, C., Iglesius, A., Epstein, P. R., and Chivian, E. (2001). Climate change
food security and undernutrition. Annu. Rev. Public Health 38, 259–277. and extreme weather events–implications for food production, plant diseases,
doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044356 and pests. Glob. Change Hum. Heal. 2, 90–104. doi: 10.1023/A:1015086831467
Nabhan, G. (2013). Growing Food in a Hotter, Drier Land: Lessons from Desert Rowland, D., Blackie, R., Powell, B., Houria, D., Barbara, V., Ickowitz, A., et al.
Farmers on Adapting to Climate Uncertainty. White River Junction: Chelsea (2015). Direct contributions of dry forests to nutrition: a review. Int. For. Rev.
Green Publishing. 17, 45–53. doi: 10.1505/146554815815834804
National Research Council (1989). Lost Crops of the Incas: Little known plants Saenz, M., and Thompson, E. (2017). Gender and policy roles in
of the Andes Promise for Worldwide Cultivation. Washington, DC: National farm household diversification in Zambia. World Dev. 89, 152–169.
Academy Press. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.007
Nayyar, H., and Gupta, D. (2006). Differential sensitivity of C3 and C4 plants to Sairam, R. K., Kumutha, D., Ezhilmathi, K., Deshmukh, P. S., and Srivastava, G. C.
water deficit stress: association with oxidative stress and antioxidants. Environ. (2008). Physiology and biochemistry of waterlogging tolerance in plants. Biol.
Exp. Bot. 58, 106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.06.021 Plant 52, 401–412. doi: 10.1007/s10535-008-0084-6
Ochieng, J., Schreinemachers, P., Ogada, M., Dinssa, F. F., Barnos, W., Salazar-Barrientos, L. de L., Magaña-Magaña, M. Á., Aguilar-Jiménez, A. N.,
Mndigafg, H., et al. (2019). Adoption of improved amaranth varieties and and Ricalde-Pérez, M. F. (2016). Factores socioeconómicos asociados al
good agricultural practices in East Africa. Land Use Policy 83, 187–194. aprovechamiento de la agrobiodiversidad de la milpa en Yucatán. Ecosistemas
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.002 y Recur. Agropecu. 3, 391–400.
Ortiz, C., and Cardemil, L. (2001). Heat-shock responses in two leguminous plants: Saxena, N. C. (1991). Crop losses and their economic implications due to
a comparative study. J. Exp. Bot. 52, 1711–1719. doi: 10.1093/jxb/52.361.1711 growing of Eucalyptus on field bunds–a pilot study. Agrofor. Syst. 16, 231–245.
Padulosi, S., Eyzaquirre, P., and Hodgkin, T. (1999). “Challenges and strategies in doi: 10.1007/BF00119320
promoting conservation and use of neglected and underutilized crop species.,” Schattman, R., Mendez, E., Westdijk, K., Caswell, M., Conner, D., Koliba, C.
in Perspectives on New Crops and New Uses. ed J. Janick (Alexandria, VA: J., et al. (2015). “Vermont agricultural resilience in a changing environment:
ASHS Press). a transdisciplinary and participatory action reseach process,” in Archeology,
Padulosi, S., Heywood, V., Hunter, D., and Jarvis, A. (2011). “Underutilized species Ecosystems, and Sustainability, ed N. Benkeblia (Boca Raton, FL: CRC
and climate change: current status and outlook,” in Crop adaptation to Climate Press/Taylor and Francis), 325–346. doi: 10.1201/b17775-17
Change, eds S. S. Yadav, R. J. Redden, J. L. Hatfield, H. Lotze-Campen, and A. Schluter, U. B., Furch, B., and Joly, C. A. (1993). Physiological and
Hall (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 507–521. doi: 10.1002/9780470960929.ch35 anatomical adaptations by young Astrocaryum Jauari Mart (Arecaceae) in
Padulosi, S., Hodgkin, T., Williams, J., International, N. H.-C., and Wallingford, U. periodically inundated biotopes of central Amazonia. Biotropica 25, 384–396.
(2002). “Underutilized crops: trends, challenges and opportunities in the 21st doi: 10.2307/2388862

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 17 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

Schreinemachers, P., Rao, K. P. C., Easdown, W., Hanson, P., and Kumar, Trouche, G., Hocdé, H., Aguirre Acuña, S., Martínez Sánchez, F., and Gutiérrez
S. (2017a). The contribution of international vegetable breeding to private Palacios, N. (2006). Dinámicas campesinas y fitomejoramiento participativo: el
seed companies in India. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 64, 1037–1049. caso de los sorgos blancos en la región norte de Nicaragua. Agron. Mesoam.
doi: 10.1007/s10722-016-0423-y 17:407. doi: 10.15517/am.v17i3.5175
Schreinemachers, P., Sequeros, T., and Lukumay, P. J. (2017b). International Tucker, C. M., Eakin, H., and Castellanos, E. J. (2010). Perceptions of risk
research on vegetable improvement in East and Southern Africa: adoption, and adaptation: coffee producers, market shocks, and extreme weather
impact, and returns. Agric. Econ. 48, 707–717. doi: 10.1111/agec.12368 in Central America and Mexico. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 23–32.
Schreinemachers, P., Simmons, E. B., and Wopereis, M. C. S. (2018). Tapping doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.006
the economic and nutritional power of vegetables. Glob. Food Sec. 16, 36–45. Turmel, M.-S., Speratti, A., Baudron, F., Verhulst, N., and Govaerts, B., et al.
doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.09.005 (2015). Crop residue management and soil health: a systems analysis. Agric.
Schroth, G., and Ruf, F. (2014). Farmer strategies for tree crop diversification Syst. 134, 6–16. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.009
in the humid tropics. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 1, 139–154. Turvey, C. G. (2012). Whole farm income insurance. J. Risk Insur. 79, 515–540.
doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0175-4 doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6975.2011.01426.x
Schultze-Kraft, R., Rao, I. M., Peters, M., Clements, R. J., Bai, C., Liu, G., et al. Umali-Deininger, D. (1997). Public and private agricultural extension: partners or
(2018). Tropical forage legumes for environmental benefits: an overview. Trop. rivals? World Bank Res. Obs. 12, 203–224. doi: 10.1093/wbro/12.2.203
Grasslands-Forrajes Trop. 6:1. doi: 10.17138/TGFT(6)1-14 Urwin, K., and Jordan, A. (2008). Does public policy support or
Schut, M., Klerkx, L., Rodenburg, J., Kayeke, J., Ast, A., Bastiaans, L., et al. undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across
(2014). RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (part I). different scales of governance. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 180–191.
A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.08.002
capacity. Agric. Syst. 132, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.009 van de Fliert, E., and Braun, A. R. (2002). Conceptualizing integrative, farmer
Senay, G. B., Velpuri, N. M., Bohms, S., Budde, M. E., Young, C. J., participatory research for sustainable agriculture : from opportunities to
Rowland, J., et al. (2015). “Drought monitoring and assessment: remote impact. Agric. Hum. Values 19, 25–38. doi: 10.1023/A:1015081030682
sensing and modeling approaches for the famine early warning systems van Etten, J., Beza, E., Calderer, L., van Duijvebdijk, K., Fadda, C., Fantahun,
network,” in Hydro-Meteorological Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, eds. J. F. B., et al. (2016). First experiences with a novel farmer citizen science
Shroder, P. Paron, and G. Di Baldassarre (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 233–262. approach: crowdsourcing participatory variety selection through on-
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394846-5.00009-6 farm triadic comparisons of technologies (tricot). Exp. Agric. 55, 1–22.
Shaw, M. W., and Osborne, T. M. (2011). Geographic distribution of doi: 10.1017/S0014479716000739
plant pathogens in response to climate change. Plant Pathol. 60, 31–43. van Etten, J., de Sousa, K., Aguilar, A., Aguirrez, M. B., Coto, A., Dell’Acqua,
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02407.x M. et al. (2019). Crop variety management for climate adaptation supported
Shiferaw, B. A., Okello, J., and Reddy, R. V. (2009). Adoption and adaptation by citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 4194–4199.
of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: doi: 10.1073/pnas.1813720116
reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 11, 601–619. Vandermeer, J. (1992). The Ecology of Intercropping. New York, NY: Camebridge
doi: 10.1007/s10668-007-9132-1 University Press.
Somarriba, E. (1992). Revisiting the past: an essay on agroforestry definition. Vermeulen, S., Challinor, A. J., Thornton, P. K., Eriyagama, N., Kinyangi,
Agrofor. Syst. 19, 233–240. doi: 10.1007/BF00118781 J., Laderach, P., et al. (2013). Addressing uncertainty in adaptation
Spielman, D. J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., and Ochieng, C. M. O. (2008). An innovation planning for agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 8357–8362.
systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219441110
sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Syst. 98, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.004 Vermeulen, S. J., Aggarwal, P. K., Ainslie, A., Angelone, C., Campbell, B.
Sthapit, B., Lamers, H., and Rao, R. (2013). Custodian Farmers of Agricultural M. S. Andrew, J., et al. (2012). Options for support to agriculture and
Biodiversity: Selected Profiles from South and South East Asia. New Delhi: food security under climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 15, 136–144.
Bioversity International. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.09.003
Stoilova, T., van Zonneveld, M., Roothaert, R., and Schreinemachers, P. Vernooy, R., Sthapit, B., Otieno, G., Shrestha, P., and Gupta, A. (2017). The roles
(2019). Connecting genebanks to farmers in East Africa through the of community seed banks in climate change adaption. Dev. Pract. 27, 316–327.
distribution of vegetable seed kits. Plant Genet. Resour. Charact. Util. 17, 1–4. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2017.1294653
doi: 10.1017/S1479262119000017 Vigouroux, Y., Mariac, C., de Mita, S., Pham, J. L., Gérard, B., Kapran, I., et al.
Subbarao, G. V., Johansen, C., Slinkard, A. E., et al. (1995). Strategies for improving (2011). Selection for earlier flowering crop associated with climatic variations
drought resistance in grain legumes. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 14: 469–523. in the Sahel. PLoS ONE 6:e19563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019563
doi: 10.1080/07352689509701933 Vohman, E., and Monro, A. K. (2011). Healthy kids, healthy forests: restoring
Tamang, B., Andreu, M. G., and Rockwood, D. L. (2010). Microclimate patterns on mayanut agroecosystems for a healthy and prosperous future for neotropical
the leeside of single-row tree windbreaks during different weather conditions communities. in Contribution of Ecosystem Restoration to the Objectives
in Florida farms: implications for improved crop production. Agrofor. Syst. 79, of the CBD and a Healthy Planet for All People, eds. J. Grekin and
111–122. doi: 10.1007/s10457-010-9280-4 J. Mulongoy (Montreal, QC: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Tester, M., and Langridge, P. (2010). Breeding technologies to increase Diversity), 104–106.
crop production in a changing world. Science 327, 818–822. Waha, K., van Wijk, M. T., Fritz, S., See, L., Thornton, P. K. Wichern, J., et al.
doi: 10.1126/science.1183700 (2018). Agricultural diversification as an important strategy for achieving food
Teuling, A. J., Seneviratne, S. I., Stöckli, R., Reichstein, M., Moors, E., Ciais, P., et al. security in Africa. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3390–3400. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14158
(2010). Contrasting response of European forest and grassland energy exchange Wahid, A., Gelani, S., Ashraf, M., and Foolad, M. R. (2007). Heat
to heatwaves. Nat. Geosci. 3, 722–727. doi: 10.1038/ngeo950 tolerance in plants: an overview. Environ. Exp. Bot. 61, 199–223.
Thomas, D. S. G., Twyman, C., Osbahr, H., and Hewitson, B. C. (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.05.011
Adaptation to climate change and variability: Farmer responses to intra- Waraich, E., Ahmad, R., Saifullah, U., Ashraf, M. Y., Ehsanullah, et al. (2011). Role
seasonal preciptation trends in South Africa. Clim. Change 83, 301–322. of mineral nutrition in alleviation of drought stress in plants. Aust. J. Crop Sci.
doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9205-4 5, 764–777.
Tompkins, E. L., and Adger, W. N. (2004). Does adaptive management of Warburton, H., and Martin, A. (1999). Local people’s knowledge in natural resources
natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc. 9, 1–14. research. Socio-economic methodologies for natural resources research. Chatham.
doi: 10.5751/ES-00667-090210 Webb, M., Chary, A., de Vries, T. T., Davis, S., and Dykstra, M. (2016).
Totin, E., Segnon, A., Schut, M., Affognon, H., Zougmore, R., Rosenstock, T., et al. Exploring mechanisms of food insecurity in indigenous agricultural
(2018). Institutional perspectives of climate-smart agriculture: a systematic communities in Guatemala: a mixed methods study. BMC Nutr. 2:55.
literature review. Sustainability 10:1990. doi: 10.3390/su10061990 doi: 10.1186/s40795-016-0091-5

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 18 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

Werners, S., Erdélyi, É., and Supit, I. (2011). “Use of modern portfolio theory to Yamada, M., Hidaka, T., and Fukamachi, H. (1996). Heat tolerance in leaves of
evaluate diversification of agricultural land use as an adaptation to climate risks tropical fruit crops as measured by chlorophyll fluorescence. Sci. Hortic. 67,
in the Tisza river basin,” in Climate Change Adaptation in Developed Nations, 39–48. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4238(96)00931-4
eds. J. D. Ford and L. Berrang-Ford (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), Yang, X., Cushman, J. C., Borland, A. M., Edwards, E. J., Wullschleger, S. D.,
371–383. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0567-8_27 Tuskan, G.A., et al. (2015). A roadmap for research on crassulacean acid
Werners, S., and Incerti, F. (2007). “Diversification of agricultural crops to adapt metabolism (CAM) to enhance sustainable food and bioenergy production in a
to climate change in the Guadiana River Basin,” in Proceedings from the hotter, drier world. New Phytol. 207, 491–504. doi: 10.1111/nph.13393
International Conference on Climate Change, Hong Kong. Yundaeng, C., Somta, P., Amkul, K., Kongjaimun, A., Kaga, A., Tomooka, N.,
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, et al. (2019). Construction of genetic linkage map and genome dissection of
S., et al. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet commission domestication-related traits of moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia), a legume crop of
on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492. arid areas. Mol. Genet. Genom. 294, 621–635. doi: 10.1007/s00438-019-01536-0
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 Zhang, J., and Kirkham, M. B. (1995). Water relations of water-stressed, split-root
Williams, D. (2004). “The conservation and evolution of landraces of peanuts and C4 (Sorghum bicolor; Poaceae) and C3 (Helianthus annuus; Asteraceae) plants.
peppers,” in Home Gardens and Agrobiodiversity, eds P. B. Eyzaguirre, and O. Am. J. Bot. 82, 1220–1229. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1995.tb12655.x
Linares (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution), 256–265.
Winget, M., Lamb, N. H., and Wheatley, K. K. (2017). Root capital measuring Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
the effects of impact investing on impoverished rural communities. J. Case absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Stud. 35:19. potential conflict of interest.
Winterhalder, B., Lu, F., and Tucker, B. (1999). Risk-senstive adaptive tactics:
models and evidence from subsistence studies in biology and anthropology. J. Copyright © 2020 van Zonneveld, Turmel and Hellin. This is an open-access article
Archaeol. Res. 7, 301–348. doi: 10.1007/BF02446047 distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
Wittman, H., and Blesh, J. (2017). Food sovereignty and fome zero: connecting The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
public food procurement programmes to sustainable rural development in original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
Brazil. J. Agrar. Change 17, 81–105. doi: 10.1111/joac.12131 publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
Yadav, S. K. (2010). Cold stress tolerance mechanisms in plants. A review. Agron. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
Sustain. Dev. 30, 515–527. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009050 terms.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 19 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32

van Zonneveld et al. Diversify Farms for Climate Change Adaptation

GLOSSARY Modern Portfolio Theory: Optimization technique to

determine optimal number and type of crops or land-use systems
Agricultural innovation system or network: A network of to manage production risks for specific expected returns on
actors including researchers, input suppliers, extension agents, investment under climate change. In MPT, risks are defined as
farmers, traders, processors, and other actors who are engaged the variance in returns to expected production or gross margin
in the creation and use of knowledge relevant to agricultural across years.
production and marketing (Spielman et al., 2008). Polyculture: Multiple cropping systems, such as
Agroecosystem: A site or integrated region of agricultural intercropping systems and multistrata systems.
production understood as an ecosystem with organisms, such Resilience: The amount of change a system can undergo and
as crop plant individuals, populations of crops, communities of still remain within the same domain of attraction (Gallopín,
polycultures, and ecosystems as farms or watersheds (Gliessman, 2006). This is related to the extent that farmers can adapt their
2014). farming systems to climate change (Eakin et al., 2012).
On-farm diversification refers to the incorporation of Smallholders: Farmers who own small-based plots of land
species, plant varieties or breeds, and management practices on which they grow subsistence crops and one or two cash
and land-use systems in farm systems in space and time crops and generally rely principally on family labor. Smallholders
through a range of spatial practices, such as polycultures, generally have <2 ha of land in production but farm-size is
agroforestry systems, field scattering, and hedgerows; and context-specific. In the western highlands of Guatemala many
temporal diversification through crop rotations (Somarriba, farm households have access to land well below 2 ha (Hellin
1992; Vandermeer, 1992; Goland, 1993; Brookfield, 2001; et al., 2017) while in parts of Brazil a smallholder farmer may
Liebman and Dyck, 2007; Kremen et al., 2012). own up to 50 ha. Smallholders often have limited marketing,
Crop functional type: Practical ecological approach to storage, and processing capacity. The average annual income
group crops with similar traits and responses to changes in for commercial smallholder production in generally below 5,000
environmental factors (Lavorel and Garnier, 2002; Bondeau et al., USD/year (Lowder et al., 2016).
2007; Gilbert and Holbrook, 2011). Neglected and underutilized crops: Neglected crops may
Farm system: A decision-making unit comprising the farm be globally distributed, but tend to occupy special niches
household, cropping, agroforestry, and/or livestock systems, in the local ecology and in production and consumption
which transforms land, capital, and labor into useful products, systems. While these crops continue to be maintained by socio-
which can be consumed or sold (adjusted from Fresco and cultural preferences and use practices, they remain inadequately
Westphal, 1988). characterized and neglected by research and conservation. Many
Germplasm: Living tissue from which new plants can be underutilized crops were once more widely grown but have fallen
grown, such as seeds, meristem, or pollen. into disuse for a variety of agronomic, genetic, economic and
Index insurance: Payouts are based on an index (such as the cultural factors. Farmers and consumers are using these crops less
total seasonal rainfall or average crop yield for a larger area) and because these crops are in some way not competitive with other
this reduces the costs of insuring farmers (Bell et al., 2013). crops in the same agricultural environment (Padulosi et al., 2002).
Local knowledge: A collection of certainties and experiences, These crops include food and forage tree species and any other
which relate to a system of concepts, beliefs, and perceptions, agricultural plant species; they are also known as minor, orphan,
which people hold about their environment. This includes the underexploited, underdeveloped, lost, new, novel, promising,
way people observe and measure their surroundings, how they alternative, local, traditional, or niche crops.
solve problems and validate new information. It includes the Whole farm insurance: A single insurance, which covers
processes whereby knowledge is generated, stored, applied, and the covariate risk of jointly produced farm crop and livestock
transmitted to others (Warburton and Martin, 1999). enterprises (Turvey, 2012).

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 20 April 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 32