Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hcslb Total loading time: 0.463 Render date: 2023-02-01T22:52:41.181Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Farmer Participatory Crop Improvement. I. Varietal Selection and Breeding Methods and Their Impact on Biodiversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

J. R. Witcombe*
Affiliation:
Centre for Arid Zone Studies, University of Wales Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK
A. Joshi
Affiliation:
Krishak Bharati Cooperative Indo British Rainfed Farming Project (KRIBP), Dahod, Gujarat, 389151, India
K. D. Joshi
Affiliation:
Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, PO Box 1, Pokhara, Nepal
B. R. Sthapit
Affiliation:
Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, PO Box 1, Pokhara, Nepal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Summary

Farmer participatory approaches for the identification or breeding of improved crop cultivars can be usefully categorized into participatory varietal selection (PVS) and participatory plant breeding (PPB). Various PVS and PPB methods are reviewed. PVS is a more rapid and cost-effective way of identifying farmer-preferred cultivars if a suitable choice of cultivars exists. If this is impossible, then the more resource-consuming PPB is required. PPB can use, as parents, cultivars that were identified in successful PVS programmes. Compared with conventional plant breeding, PPB is more likely to produce farmer-acceptable products, particularly for marginal environments. The impact of farmer participatory research on biodiversity is considered. The long-term effect of PVS is to increase biodiversity, but where indigenous variability is high it can also reduce it. PPB has a greater effect on increasing biodiversity although its impact may be limited to smaller areas. PPB can be a dynamic form of in situ genetic conservation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Browning, J. A. & Frey, K. J. (1981). The multiline concept in theory and practice. In Strategies for the Control of Cereal Disease. (Eds Jenkyn, J. F. and Plumb, R. T.). Oxford: Blackwcll Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. (1989). Institutions and practical change. Reversals, institutions and change. In Farmer First, 181195 (Eds Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. A.). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromwell, E. & Wiggins, S. (1993). Performance assessment. In Sowing Beyond the State. NCOs and Seed Supply in Developing Countries, 8199. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
Frey, K. J., Browning, J. A. & Simons, M. D. (1977). Management systems for host genes to control disease loss. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 287:255274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galt, D. L. (1989). Joining FSR to commodity programme breeding efforts earlier: increasing plant breeding efficiency in Nepal. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network: Network Paper 8. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. & Witcombe, J. R. (1996). Farmer participatory crop improvement. II. Participatory varietal selection, a case study in India. Experimental Agriculture 32:469485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, K. D., Rana, R. B., Subedi, M., Kadayat, K. B. & Sthapit, B. R. (1996). Addressing diversity through farmer participatory variety testing and dissemination approach: A case study of chaite rice in the western hills of Nepal. In Using Diversity. Enhancing and Maintaining Genetic Resources on Farm. Proceedings of a workshop held on 19–21 June 1995, New Delhi, India, 158175. (Eds Sperling, L. and Loevinsohn, M. L.). New Delhi, India: International Development Research Centre (in press).Google Scholar
Lopez, P. B. (1994). A new plant disease: uniformity. Ceres 26:4147.Google Scholar
Maurya, D. M., Bottrall, A., & Farrington, J. (1988). Improved livelihoods, genetic diversity and farmers' participation: a strategy for rice-breeding in rainfed areas of India. Experimental Agriculture 24:311320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priestley, R. H. & Bayles, R. A. (1980). Varietal diversification as a means of reducing the spread of cereal diseases in the United Kingdom. Journal of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany 15:205214.Google Scholar
Salazar, R. (1992). MASIPAG: alternative community rice breeding in the Philippines. Appropriate Technology 18:2021.Google Scholar
Sperling, L., Loevinsohn, M. E. & Ntabomvra, B. (1993). Rethinking the farmers role in plant breeding: local bean experts and on-station selection in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture 29:509519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sthapit, B. R., Joshi, K. D. & Witcombe, J. R. (1996). Farmer participatory crop improvement. III. Participatory plant breeding, a case study of rice in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture 32:487504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thakur, R. (1995). Prioritization and development of breeding strategics for rainfcd lowlands: a critical appraisal. In Proceedings of the IRRI Conference 1995. Fragile Lives in Fragile Ecosystems, 817824. Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI. (in press).Google Scholar
Virk, D. S., Packwood, A. J. P. & Witcombe, J. R. (1996). Plant breeding, varietal testing and popularisation, and research linkages. Paper presented at ODA/ICAR workshop on Reorganising Research for Rainfed Farming. CRIDA, Hyderabad, 11–15th September 1995. (in press).Google Scholar
WeltzienR., E. R., E., Whitaker, M. L. & Dhamotharan, M. (1996). Diagnostic methods for breeding pearl millet with farmers in Rajasthan. In Enhancing and Maintaining Genetic Resources on Farm. Proceedings of a workshop held on 19–21 June 1995, New Delhi, India, 127139. (Eds Sperling, L. and Loevinsohn, M. L.). New Delhi, India: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
Witcombe, J. R. (1989). Variability in the yield of pearl millet hybrids and varieties in India and Pakistan. In Variability in Grain Yields. Implications for Agricultural Research and Policy in Developing Countries, 206220 (Eds Anderson, J. R. and Hazell, P. B. R.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. In association with the International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Wolfe, M. S. (1990). Intra-crop diversification: disease yield and quality. In Crop Protection in Organic and Low Input Agriculture-Options for Reducing Chemical Usage, 105114. British Crop Protection Council Monograph 45. Farnham, Surrey: BCPC.Google Scholar
Worede, M. & Mckbib, H. (1993). Linking genetic resource conservation to fanners in Ethiopia. In Cultivating Knowledge. Genetic Diversity, Farmer Experimentation and Crop Research, 7884 (Eds de Boef, W., Amanor, K. and Wellard, K.). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
117
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Farmer Participatory Crop Improvement. I. Varietal Selection and Breeding Methods and Their Impact on Biodiversity
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Farmer Participatory Crop Improvement. I. Varietal Selection and Breeding Methods and Their Impact on Biodiversity
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Farmer Participatory Crop Improvement. I. Varietal Selection and Breeding Methods and Their Impact on Biodiversity
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *