Rev.

The study FCAuse

and UNCUYO. 2019. 51(1):
of traditional 337-350.inISSN
knowledge (en línea) 1853-8665.
agroecological contexts

The study and use of traditional knowledge in

agroecological contexts

Estudio y uso del conocimiento tradicional en contextos

agroecológicos

Carolina Alzate 1, Frédéric Mertens 1, Myriam Fillion 2, Aviram Rozin 3

Originales: Recepción: 30/06/2018 - Aceptación: 03/10/2018

Abstract
La agroecología en perspectiva
de los aspectos socioculturales

The importance of researching and maintaining traditional knowledge is a concern

within contemporary academic debates and public policies. Scientist of different disciplines
have recognized this importance, indicating this is a broader interdisciplinary issue. Specifi-
cally, within the field of agroecological science, the concept of traditional knowledge is basic
to the analysis of agroecosystems. This essay aims to analyze, within scientific papers, the
approaches to traditional knowledge through agroecological studies. First, insights from
traditional knowledge studies in socio-ecological systems are presented as a wider view.
Secondly, papers that illustrate agroecological approach to traditional knowledge and the
usage of participative research methodologies are systematically reviewed to the forward
development of five propositions: 1) traditional knowledge dynamics, 2) importance of
traditional knowledge and professional’s ethics, 3) methodologies used for traditional
knowledge gathering, 4) subjects of study in agroecological and traditional knowledge
studies and 5) the integration of traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge.

Keywords
traditional knowledge • agroecology • participative methodologies • socio-ecological
systems • knowledge integration

1 Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Universidade de Brasília. Brasília. Brasil.

[email protected]
2 Université Téluq. Montreal. Canadá.
3 Sadhana Forest. Auroville. India.

Tomo 51 • N° 1 • 2019 337

 Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A.

Resumen

La importancia de investigar y preservar el conocimiento tradicional es una preocu-

pación dentro de los debates académicos contemporáneos y para los hacedores de políticas
públicas. Científicos de diferentes disciplinas han reconocido esta importancia, indicando
que este es un tema interdisciplinario más amplio. Específicamente, dentro del campo de
la ciencia agroecológica, el concepto de conocimiento tradicional es básico para el análisis
de los agroecosistemas. Este ensayo pretende analizar, dentro de los artículos científicos,
los enfoques del conocimiento tradicional a través de estudios agroecológicos. En primer
lugar, las ideas de los estudios del conocimiento tradicional en sistemas socio ecológicos
se presentan como una visión más amplia. En segundo lugar, los artículos que ilustran el
enfoque agroecológico del conocimiento tradicional y el uso de metodologías de investi-
gación participativa son revisados ​​sistemáticamente para el desarrollo de cinco proposi-
ciones: 1) dinámica del conocimiento tradicional, 2) importancia del conocimiento tradi-
cional y ética profesional, 3) metodologías utilizadas para la recopilación de conocimiento,
4) temas abordados en estudios de conocimiento agroecológico y tradicional y 5) la inte-
gración del conocimiento tradicional con el conocimiento científico.

Palabras clave
conocimiento tradicional • metodologías participativas • agroecología • sistemas socio-
ecológicos • integración del conocimiento

Introduction

Recent studies, especially those that use the methodology of participative investigations
with agricultural communities, recognize the importance of traditional knowledge and the
local knowledge of stakeholders. In some cases, this is the focus of the studies (51). In other
cases it is an element of the participative methodologies in agricultural (or agroecological
investigations) and it is used to integrate stakeholders into a larger view. This approach
is taken for a several reasons. One is an intention in the academic community to place
local actors as active members of the investigation. The purpose here is to accomplish
not only an academic result for science but also to provide a management tool for
improving communities.
Another possible reason is the concern of traditional knowledge maintenance. Recent
reports evidence that it is at risk, increasingly threatened by the spread of globalization
(42). Degradation of traditional knowledge is not only a critical concern for scientific
knowledge, which could be enriched by it, but is especially a problem as it is a foundation
for local management strategies. In diverse locations, these strategies are important for
shaping both local livelihoods and the trajectory of local biodiversity (42).
There are several expressions that refer to the concepts studied in this text. Some
authors conceive some of these differently than others and grant specific characteristics to
each one. ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ (IK) and ‘Traditional Knowledge’ (TK) are expressions
that describe knowledge specific to a given culture or society (59). For the purposes of
this paper, we have decided to clarify and simplify the analyses by treating ‘Traditional
Knowledge’ (TK) as synonymous with related terms (e.g. Indigenous Knowledge, Local
Knowledge). Various authors (e.g. Bali and Kofinas, 2014) have defined these related
expressions with the purpose of theoretically clarifying its source and the contexts in which
they are used. It is important to note this simplification does not intend to devalue the
academic effort in conceptualizing and differentiating these terms.
Another expression suitable for being introduced here is ‘Traditional Ecological
Knowledge’ (TEK). This refers to people’s cumulative nonscientific body of knowledge,
beliefs, and practices. It describes local ecosystems and their management that has evolved
through social learning and adaptive processes handed down through generations by
cultural transmission (11, 13, 50). Here, we will treat it as immersed in TK which is a
wider umbrella.

Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias 338

 The study and use of traditional knowledge in agroecological contexts

Even though the concept of TK is in somewhat amorphous, it is usually linked with the
diverse relations between humans and nature. This is a cumulative body of knowledge that
includes practices and beliefs that have evolved over time and passed on through the gener-
ations by cultural transmission. Hence, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is both
cumulative and dynamic. It has a base in experience, but an experience that is modified
over time by adaptation to change (11). These concepts usually include general notions of
interactions between people and the natural world, as well as the environmental connec-
tions that happen in specific localities (30).
The agroecological perspective possesses the potential to guide the study of such
connections. Evidence affirming this perspective can be found in numerous peasant initia-
tives requiring them to apply new knowledge and technologies in a coordinated strategy.
These initiatives are essentially agroecological science and TK systems (5). It is precisely
the agroecological perspective that has the potential to study these complex connections
between peasant initiatives, TK, local environments and the general interaction between
man and nature.
We sought to answer the question: what are the existing approaches to TK in agro-
ecological studies? The objective in answering this question is to understand the existing
linkages between agroecological contexts, TK, and the participative methodologies used in
these reported cases.
This essay was written as follows: firstly, literature from socio-ecological system studies
and their relationship toward TK or TEK were analyzed. These various perspectives are
necessary for understanding the possibilities of TK. This is done in order to draw attention
to the contribution these wider visions make in the study of this subject. Afterwards, the
available and reported works in indexed journals that relate TK, participative methodol-
ogies and agroecological studies were systematically reviewed. We analyzed TK as a study
object in the indexed papers, considering not only the agroecological approach but also
examining underlying assumptions from a range of perspectives.
From this wider view, it is possible to deduce five principal linkages in agroecological
approaches in the 11 papers selected in the systematic review presented in the results.

Materials and Methods

The methodological strategy used has both of qualitative and quantitative nature.
First, insights from traditional knowledge studies in socio-ecological systems are brought
to discussion to achieved a wider view. Secondly, a systematic review is developed where
papers that illustrate agroecological approach to traditional knowledge and the usage of
participative research methodologies are analyzed.

Using the socio-ecological systems approach to study traditional knowledge

The starting point in our analyses will be to look at several conclusions by diverse
authors and scientists. These conclusions point toward Agroecology as a whole-systems
approach to agriculture and food system development, an approach based on TK (34). As
such, it must be viewed as immersed in social-ecological systems. We will look at what
these authors have to say about the relation between TEK, social and ecological resilience,
and how these interactions effect socio-ecological systems.
Resilience, as defined by Berkes et al. (2000), is understood as the capacity to recover
after disturbance, absorb stress, internalize it, and transcend it. To be resilient, rural soci-
eties must have the ability to buffer disturbances with agro-ecological methods adopted
from and disseminated through self-organization and collective action (57). Berkes et al.
(2000) analyze the role of TEK in ecological resilience by monitoring the responses to and
management of ecosystem processes. Resilience was found to be related to traditional or
local practices of ecosystem management. This can be viewed from various categories, such
as multiple species management, resource rotation, succession management, landscape
patchiness management, and others. These practices, identified and listed by Berkes et al.
(2000), are consistent with agroecological principles as well.

Tomo 51 • N° 1 • 2019 339

 Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A.

Such strategies to enhance ecological resilience are essential, not just to the natural
surroundings, but also to social resilience. Defined by Nicholls and Altieri (2012), social
resilience is the ability of groups or communities to adapt to external social, political, or
environmental stresses. Both resiliencies would imply social mechanisms (50). These
mechanisms were also identified by Berkes et al. (2000). They include items such as:
adaptations for the generation, accumulation, and transmission of knowledge; local insti-
tutions and rules for social regulation; internalization of traditional practices; and devel-
opment of cultural values. Some authors found the use of TEK contributed to an increase
in survival chances by traditional communities by offering an understanding on how to
adapt to changes in complex systems (e.g. Gómez-Baggethun, et al. 2013). These authors
argued through case studies in Africa, Asia, America and Europe, that one of the main ways
which TEK contributes to building resilience in socio-ecological systems is by promoting
bio-cultural diversity.
Bohensky and Maru (2011) also posited two relevant premises of resilience theory in
the reviewed literature. These concern knowledge integration and social-ecological system
resilience. The first one is TK (the authors used the expression ‘Indigenous Knowledge’)
can enhance resilience of social-ecological systems because it has the ability to deal
with complexity and uncertainty. This is due to its being an accumulation of experience,
learning, and adaptation developed through intergenerational transmission. The second is
combining of knowledge systems can enhance resilience of social-ecological systems. This
is the case despite the many academic doubts whether TK or TEK can be brought into the
realm of science. Most studies appraise resilience in a theoretical level rather than a more
practical one.
Social-ecological resilience, according to Bohensky and Maru (2011) will depend on,
among other things, adaptive learning which requires maintaining the web of relationships
of people and places. In this way, the experience of change and successful adaptations can
be captured. And through community debate and decision-making processes these changes
can be embedded in the culture (12, 27). Folke (2014) also states principles for building
adaptive capacity in socio-ecological systems: learning to live with change and uncertainty,
nurturing diversity for reorganization and renewal, combining different types of knowledge
for learning, and creating opportunity for self-organization. In this way TEK and shared
systems of beliefs may facilitate collective responses to crises and may contribute to the
long term maintenance of resilience in social–ecological systems (35).
Efforts in integrating TEK in land and resource management and also in decision making,
in the search for socio-ecological resilience, are not new. According to Ellis (2005) this issue
has been prominent in the academic discourse for about 20 years. There are evidences
published about processes that don´t incorporate TEK in decision-making, studding the
influence of contextual factors in the adoption of unsustainable agricultural models (15).
Because of its connection with environmental sustainability and social improvements, there
is a tendency of analyzing, systemizing, and incorporating TEK into environmental decision
making processes. This usually happens in two directions: the “top-down” approach, which
includes methods based on the recognition of TEK by institutions of authority that leads to
the development of rules for the use of this knowledge. The other direction is “bottom up”
where the capacity of aboriginal people to bring traditional knowledge to influence policies,
procedures of governance, and changes in regulation is recognized (31). According to the
author they are not mutually exclusive.
Knowledge of resource and ecosystem dynamics and management practices exists
among communities that interact with ecosystems (32). It has become important to under-
stand and combine it with other knowledge systems in matters of improving management
and governance of complex adaptive systems. Folke (2014) lists some objectives suggested
by studies of this combinations: promotion of participatory processes, creation of new
information, improving use of existing knowledge, developing indicators of change and
resilience for monitoring ecosystem dynamics, and developing social responses for dealing
with uncertainty and change, to mention a few. Biodiversity for conservation is another
example of an issue included in these several existing studies (36, 50). However, this is not
identified as a practice. Rather it is a consequence of many traditional management systems.

Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias 340

 The study and use of traditional knowledge in agroecological contexts

The importance of understanding and promoting diverse cultural foundations of

resource management and restoration and the potential of combining different knowledge
systems in the context of social–ecological systems, is highlighted by diverse authors
(32, 50, 58). Four mechanisms through which TEK could result in positive adaptation in
community-based conservation contexts are: indigenous people elaboration of knowledge
about ecosystems by testing it iteratively; transmission and guarding of knowledge at the
local level; the relation between interpretation of ecosystem change and traditional cere-
monies which contributes to cultural internalization of conservation rules; and such rules
being the basis of flexible decision making.
An example of the last mechanism mentioned is from Ghimire, McKey et al. (2004) who
point to the heterogeneity and complexity of TEK in relation to its practical and institutional
context in the management of Himalayan medicinal plants. Another example of the way in
which TEK strengthens community resilience was reported by E Gómez-Baggethun et al.
(2013) using case studies about global environmental change.
Indigenous groups offer this alternative knowledge and perspectives based on their
own locally developed practices of resource use (13). Such empirical experiences and the
theoretical bases mentioned suggest that despite the tendency of worldwide TEK erosion
(36), it persists in valuable cases. Moreover, not only does it persist but it has also been
shown by the cited authors that it is basic for traditional communities in attaining socio-
ecological resilience. Papers from some study cases link agroecology specifically with TK or
TEK. These studies were reviewed and afterwards five links where analyzed.

Systematic review
A systematic review was made about TEK, agroecology and participative research
methods. The research and selection were made by the adaptation of the Cochran Manual for
medical systematic reviews proposed by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
reviews and Meta-Analyses) (43). The search path used in the databases is shown:
(traditional knowledge OR native knowledge OR local knowledge OR indigenous knowledge
OR community knowledge) AND (agroecology OR sustainable agriculture OR organic
agriculture OR biological agriculture OR ecological agriculture OR healthy agriculture OR
organic production OR multifaceted agriculture OR sustaining agriculture OR multifunctional
agriculture OR urban agriculture OR conservation agriculture) AND (participatory research
methods OR participatory research OR participatory methods OR community-based
participatory research)
Date ranges: until August 2015
The databases were chosen for being interdisciplinary and with widen information
cover. The choice finally yielded a result of 11 articles viable for analyzing in order to
answer the objective question (figure 1, page 342).

Data
The information collected from each one of the 11 papers was organized as shown
in table 1.
After the review of the chosen papers was made, five aspects were specifically analyzed
from these literature: 1) traditional knowledge dynamics, 2) importance of traditional
knowledge and professional’s ethics, 3) methodologies used for Traditional Knowledge
gathering, 4) subjects of study in agroecological and traditional knowledge studies and 5)
the integration of traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge.

Table 1. Information gathered from the selected papers.

Tabla 1. Información obtenida de los artículos seleccionados.
Participative
Agroecology Location of
Títle Authors TEK aproach research Content Journal/year
aproaches the research
methods used

Tomo 51 • N° 1 • 2019 341

 Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A.

DATABASES
Scopus: On�ile: Science direct: Web of Science: Others:
n=21 n= 14 n= 7 n= 9 n= 22
Total identi�ied n= 73

Exclusion of duplicates
n=48

Sieve with abstract readings Eligible criteria

technical: the text is being original and

published in a journal peer review
scienti�ic: articles that include the words “knowledge”
and “particip* research” in the abstract
Excluded by criteria
x=30
n=18
Selected papers for complete review Exclusion criteria
scienti�ic: issues and cases that have not to do with
agriculture
scienti�ic: issues and cases that do not take into
account agroecology
Excluded by criteria
x=3
n=11
Included studies for analyses

Figure 1. Selection steps in the systematic review.

Figura 1. Pasos para la selección de artículos.

Results

Traditional knowledge dynamics

The study of TEK began with the study of species identifications and classification. Later
it dealt with people’s understandings of ecological processes and their relationships with
the environment (11). According to Berkes, Colding, and Folke (2000), the analysis of many
TEK systems show the following components: local observational knowledge of species and
environmental phenomena, people’s practices in the way they carry out their resource use
activities, and finally a component of belief that deals with how people relate to ecosystems.
This means TEK is a knowledge-practice-belief complex (11). In the studied papers, some
of these components are immersed in the agroecological analyses.
The component of observation and experimentation is structural for the development
of TK about adaptation strategies for facing agricultural systems constrains. TEK’s trans-
mission implies a dynamic nature that is never static. This can be corroborated in the liter-
ature analyzed. According to Dahlberg (1994) the interaction with local biota in ancient
practices, shaped socio-ecological systems in landscapes of food production. Observation
lead to the knowledge of how to raise particular plants and allowed the evolution of agro-
biodiversity in particular geographical areas (26). Species developed by communities
over long-term periods converse with environmental dynamics and cultivation practices
resulting in a base of knowledge (4).
There is a clear tendency in these papers to find additional social components of TEK
transmission that are consistent with the nature of agroecological studies. TEK is commonly
conceived as inheritable from generation to generation. As such, it is a form of evolu-
tionary ideas and practices that have been cost energy independent (52). Actually, what
gives potential and strength to local knowledge as a tool for conserving natural resources
and agroecological knowledge is experience. It is experience through times and genera-
tions of confronting diverse situations coupled with the fact of farmers living in complex
ecosystems that demanded a wider understand of biological processes that has resulted in
this knowledge (6).

Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias 342

 The study and use of traditional knowledge in agroecological contexts

TEK and knowledge transmission are also explained as dynamic processes immersed
in specific networks were they are enriched and transformed. Network studies that map
sources of knowledge in a certain communities and explain its complexity support this
contention (6). The role and leadership of different actors in the network is also analyzed
in means of knowledge transmission. It was noticed how very few farmers acted as sources
of knowledge. This could be due to knowledge hierarchies in the communities or even by a
lack of belief in the legitimacy of farmer’s knowledge and its supposed opposition to scien-
tific knowledge. The first is also assumed to be akin to common sense, which is viewed
as closed and nonsystematic knowledge. By this judgment, expert knowledge tends to be
privileged over farmers’ knowledge in agricultural practices (2). These assumptions of
TEK lead to understanding it as immersed in unequal social relations that conflict with its
production and interpretation.
One of the studies discusses this matter of power involved in social knowledge dynamics,
showing how it has affected knowledge vision for both professionals and farmers. This
vision of knowledge sees it as more like a commodity rather than a relationship. It affects
the way it has been delivered, contributing to the “top Down” model (25) as already high-
lighted in the previous section. This same study reports alternative views where there
were attempts to defend a more horizontal construction of knowledge and learning as an
adaptive and iterative process, e.g. Roth (2004). This model documents innovations in TEK
resulting from careful experimentation through experience and systematic observation.
These efforts of constructing more horizontal studies and looking at their results in terms
of benefits obtained by communities and by scientists, are a clear tendency in agroeco-
logical studies. It is not just confined to the reports analyzed here.

Importance of traditional knowledge and professional ethics

The reasons these two issues are discussed in the same section responds to the question
of the pertinence of “rescuing” TK by scientists. This question is generally answered with
arguments about its importance. That way, authors indirectly state the dilemma of inter-
vening or not intervening in TK processes in the communities.
The importance of TK, specifically TEK, lies in its being a source of ideas for under-
standing local environments in a creative and grounded way (11). McCarter et al. (2014) cite
from diverse authors other various reasons: It represents detailed ecological information,
strengthens management strategies, raises adaptive capacity to environmental variability,
and its active support can improve people-centered resource governance approaches. The
analyzed studies enrich this list with more specific possible applications.
Another issue these studies point to is how TK’s base is at risk. However, the social and
ecological changes that have put TK at risk are also generating increased interest in this kind
of knowledge (42). Several arguments backup the idea that risk is a problem to be solved.
One goal of its preservation, it is suggested, is the enhancement of the quality of life of
traditional communities that produce and conserve that knowledge (52). For that matter,
the same author assumes that unless professionals take it into account, they will not be able
to offer sustainable bases to traditional agricultural communities.
Several other works that we analyzed also gave attention to the researcher’s role in
evaluating and transforming science’s path toward the production of knowledge about
agriculture. In addition, the institutional role of universities is also questioned. In general,
they have not shown enough concern for the community´s social processes and knowledge.
Universities are charged with the responsibility of working with local knowledge without
displacing it, and providing a useful contribution to agroecology science. This responsi-
bility would include paying more attention to the particularities and idiosyncrasies of
farmers’ land instead of applying recipes and formulas that generalize production systems.
This way it would be feasible to understand the micro-scale variations within farmer envi-
ronments (24).
One of the most cited reasons for rescuing and studying TK dynamics is the need to
find a more sustainable agriculture to counteract the negative environmental impacts of
monoculture, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Ecological designs of agroecosystems
demand knowledge of how biology can regulate itself. Not only will this knowledge allow
more innovative answers, but more successful social projects can be achieved with greater
social acceptance (41).

Tomo 51 • N° 1 • 2019 343

 Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A.

Another big issue found in the study of TK is the urgent need for conservation, a need
to which TK can contribute. Efforts in this matter demand new alliances among actors like
“conservation biologists, agroecologists, agronomists, farmers, indigenous peoples, rural
social movements, foresters, social scientists, and land managers” (22) for the achievement
of an interdisciplinary approach able to construct efficient landscape, biodiversity conser-
vation and sustainable livelihood policies.
According to Barthel, et al. (2013) few studies have analyzed the methods, opportu-
nities, and challenges of maintaining and revitalize TK systems. Nevertheless, the authors
tend to recommend it (10, 42). The papers analyzed suggest this as well, but their focus is a
search for TK instead of its maintenance and revitalization.
It is important to cite other valuable reasons why TK is clearly needed. Although not
mentioned in agroecological approaches to TK in the studies analyzed, it is actually inherently
related to agroecological science. TK in a substantial number of traditional societies main-
tains a high level of human health, sustains natural resources in good condition (in most of
the cases), and offers a diverse set of institutional solutions for ecological sustainability (10).
The list of reasons of TEK importance grows: conservation of rare species, protected
areas and ecological processes (13); development planning and environmental assessment
(12); designing adaptation strategies to change (e.g. climate change) based on experimen-
tation and knowledge coproduction (14, 16); maintenance of qualities of traditional food
systems that support traditional communities (37).

Methodologies used for Traditional Knowledge gathering

All the studies analyzed use qualitative approaches, specifically participation methodol-
ogies. Some of them use quantitative methodologies as well. According to Singh and Sureja
(2008) the qualitative approach is the most appropriate in the case of studying traditional
knowledge systems and natural resources.
It is important to clarify that participatory methodologies was adopted here as a gener-
alist concept which can be found in literature under a number of titles as: Participatory
Research approaches, Farmer-back-to-Farmer, Farmer-First, People Centered Agriculture
Improvement, Rapid Rural Appraisal, Agroecosystem Analysis, farmer participatory strat-
egies, and others (29).
Most of the studies aimed at finding TK through participative methodologies. For this
matter, personal interviews were always a starting point and choosing the interviewees
was an essential part of the process. This choice was made according to the study scope,
time available for the research, chain referrals and information gathered from previously
contacted community organizations. The existence of these community based farmer orga-
nizations can greatly facilitate scientist’s participation in the research (29).
Different knowledge gathering methodologies are reported as being taken into account.
These include things such as interactions with peasants, analytical interviews, semi- struc-
tured interviews, free list questionnaires, multi-stakeholders' approach, and schools founda-
tions for knowledge interchange between farmers and professionals (38). The last one is for
the purpose of making agricultural knowledge more horizontal rather than top-down (41).
One methodology used was having the farmers classify different factors such as soil,
crop rotations, combinations, and others. The most common classification was of soil, and
they were positively correlated with topographical features or fertility characteristics (54).
Generally, those classifications are correlated with some biological or chemical aspect.
Various works also map knowledge flows (where the TK of farmers came from). It is
observed and related that knowledge is affected by factors like gender, age, leadership and
others (6). Geographic Information System (GIS) is a tool that helps researchers under-
stand how local and scientific knowledge is linked spatially. It was reported to have been
used in three of the case studies (18, 24, 41). This methodology seems to give a good basis
for analyzing traditional knowledge dynamics, described in the previous section.
Another cited benefit of participatory evaluation is the capacity of explaining discrep-
ancies between suitability prognoses provided by the method and actual land use. This
revealed some big differences between farmer and expert land suitability assessment (24).
Application of participatory research action to the field of agroecology is another benefit
to this approach. Diverse cases were taken from previous studies of the community-based
participatory approach and applied in action-oriented research all over the world (25).

Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias 344

 The study and use of traditional knowledge in agroecological contexts

According to the studies in general, participation-based research can provide additional

possibilities for agroecology where it can assume a cultural and political dimension. Specif-
ically, it allows the co-production of new cross-cultural knowledge. This is a basic aspect of
the agroecological approach due to its interdisciplinary nature (25).
Other tools brought by diverse disciplines or areas, like those studying socio-ecological
systems, can enrich agroecological studies and the study of TK. These other tools and
methodologies, not found in the studies analyzed are: effective documentation of TK that
provides long-term baseline information about the past and contemporary social and
ecological conditions (13); future scenarios and theater performance to communicate
scientific knowledge to communities (16); oral history interviews (20); directed work with
elders (28); creation of databases with historical archives of communities (35); making
collaborative field projects and analytical workshops (23); participant observation and
focus group discussions (46).
Gathering TK presents an inherent requirement for academic investigation due to
its interdisciplinary nature. Specifically, this is the need to integrate methodologies
from different disciplines. Given the tendency of specialization in our occidental view of
knowledge, the use of social science methods to gather biological data becomes a difficult
task. Additionally, Bali and Kofinas (2014) point out some other difficulties at reaching
TEK like the fact that it is passed on as an oral tradition in stories attached to people and
events over generations. Also contemporary local knowledge is usually shared as stories
describing personal experiences. These personal experiences are often not contextualized
in scientific interpretations. These authors used participatory videography, in which the
community creates its own film in the attempt of facing those difficulties.

Subjects of study in agroecological and traditional knowledge studies

Most of the studies report farmer’s methods of production, crop combinations and fertility.
They asked farmers to evaluate these aspects. Gender is a particular aspect that was reported
in some studies, but it wasn’t a factor considered by farmers (52).
As mentioned, soil was repeatedly a factor studied in TK in the papers analyzed. Other
important and repetitive aspects described were farmers’ adaptive practices for cropping
systems, perception of farmers about climate variability and collective water management,
biodynamic agricultural adaptations, adaptive practices for disease and pest management,
and others. Climate and soil TK were found to be consistent with recorded climate and soil
data from the regions studied.
Indigenous pest management knowledge is site-specific and should be the basis for
developing integrated pest management (IPM) techniques (1). Other results of studying TK
are suggestive of alternatives to modern technology. This points to designing agricultural
models less dependent on western science and its outputs and is more community based
(9). According to Toledo (2013), it is also important to mention examinations of biodi-
versity based on TEK: the correlation between biological richness and cultural diversity on
geopolitical and biogeographic terms; importance of indigenous communities in biomass
appropriation; the overlap between indigenous territories and the world's remaining areas
of high biodiversity; and the importance of indigenous views, knowledge, and practices in
biodiversity conservation, as already highlighted in a previous section.
It could be said that special attention has been paid to economic/traditional crop vari-
eties, but not as much attention has been paid in searching for plants and animals that
have food value, or medicinal plants, etc. harvested from the wild. Some other socio-
ecological uses found in TEK and gathered in studies (besides the studies analyzed) are:
forest use practices (20); composition and management of historical species (21); tradi-
tional monitoring methods for sustainable customary wildlife harvests (44); providing
historical and contemporary baseline information, suggestions of stewardship techniques,
improved conservation planning and practice, resolution of management disputes; inter-
relation between all of the above and marine ecology (55); ecological restoration infor-
mation (59); socio-ecological manipulation of biodiversity for coping with uncertainties
in the environment and global change; control of soil water regimes and hydrology; soil
fertility management through soil biological processes; and for efficient organic residue
management. And finally TEK as a socio-ecological tool integrates ethical, cultural, spir-
itual, and religious belief systems that focus on sacred elements for communities (47).

Tomo 51 • N° 1 • 2019 345

 Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A.

Integration of Traditional Knowledge with Scientific Knowledge

First of all, in any scientific study which aims understanding TK there is an imper-
ative need for contextualization. Fortunately, Reid et al. (2006) assure us that this need is
receiving more attention with time. Other imperative needs of scientists are the capacity to
determine the pertinence of intervening, incorporating or integrating scientific knowledge
in the loci studied (16), as already highlighted in a previous section.
In the papers reviewed, we observed that TK and scientific knowledge are often
compared. Both share the same objects of knowledge but differ in methodologies and,
according to the papers, also differ in values. This means that both types of knowledge
present different priorities and interests. E.g. scientific methods use a deductive approach
which doesn’t always achieve a satisfactory prediction of land productivity (24).
One of the papers reported a study concerning the kinds of educational training needed
if professionals are to succeed in incorporating sustainability knowledge in agricultural
faculties. Specifically, integrating TK with technical knowledge was one of the needs found
(3). That necessity goes both ways.
Yet, TK and community skills of crop management, agronomic manipulations, and natural
resource management are not fully appreciated and recognized by some researchers (54),
especially in agronomical disciplines.
Another deficiency pointed out by looking at the non-integration of knowledge, is the
lack of a reference for the guidance of traditional communities that are trying to adopt
new technologies or new management practices. Professionals have the advantage of domi-
nating standardized and systematic methods for assessing new technologies. On the other
hand, it often happens that the assumptions used in expert evaluations aren´t feasible. In
this matter, farmers’ knowledge has the advantage of possibly understanding better the
variations of various phenomena (e.g. climate) as they are in direct and constant contact
with the environment (24). This means that farmers’ own production and transmission
of knowledge gains some empirical legitimacy due to their constant experience and use of
land systems on a day to day basis.
Lyon (2011) explains how scientific knowledge is limited by temporal and spatial
constraints in its application. In contrast, TK doesn´t seek a static solution but looks for
adaptability. The scientific community tends to seek knowledge that can be generalized.
Nevertheless, conventional knowledge and TK systems could complement each other (60).
Regarding using GIS as a tool for TEK studies, Bryan (2009) calls attention to existing
colonizing tendencies inherent in the standardization of cartographic and digital technol-
ogies used to map indigenous territories and knowledge. The author argues that indigenous
mapping should search for an alternative to the colonial geographical understanding of the
world. That task would be possible only by “negotiating” limits of both kinds of knowledge.
The invitation from these studies is to attend to the need for integration of both forms
of knowledge. To this end, it is essential to develop a language in which farmers and land
resource professionals can understand each other. Cools et al. (2003) reported studies on
linking local and scientific soil knowledge in Nigeria, in Peru, and in New Mexico, but little
work has been done in West Asia and North Africa. All these studies make an attempt to link
both farmer and expert knowledge (24).
According to Leitgeb et al. (2014) in studies about Cuba it was concluded that the
government's commitment to social participation in knowledge development is a basic
prerequisite. This kind of commitment is need to facilitate effective integration of farmers'
experiments and innovation.
Literature in socio-ecological systems and TK offer wide analyses contributing an
important component in the integration of both kinds of knowledge. Not all these contri-
butions can be cited in this text, but the characteristics, similarities and complementarity
between TK and scientific knowledge can be identified as useful tools for agroecological
science to face the challenge of integrating both.

Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias 346

 The study and use of traditional knowledge in agroecological contexts

Conclusions

Traditional knowledge is a multidisciplinary matter that is now being studied by varied

disciplines through various methodologies. Here, agroecological approaches to TK were
searched, and the wider linkages between this discipline and the concept of TK were analyzed.
Understanding TK transmission in agroecological studies is a useful tool for accompa-
nying socio-ecological processes that happen in the agroecosystem. The nature of its trans-
mission can be understood from socio-ecological theories and the concept of resilience.
Agroecological science by adopting TK as objects of study, has inherently built a theo-
retical and ethical position of “rescuing” TK for the clear purposes of enriching its sources
and enhancing resilience. Authors analyzed in this text have lighted the construction of a
theoretical framework that vison this objective.
Participative methodologies showed potential to answer questions demanded of
research by providing a tool that assures a method sufficiently extensive in scope to be
incorporated into any trans-disciplinary science. This does not assume that other nature
methodologies could not be used, indeed it would be necessary to inquire for method-
ological strategies in the Social and Human sciences such as anthropology and sociology
to know better the production and reproduction of TK. Suggestions were given of other
applicable methodologies for enriching agroecological analyses.
Integration of knowledge and the preservation of TK sources in traditional communities
is a dual demand of researchers and practitioners. As the field has advanced in the study
of this area it has become clear there is a broader demand for society and academia to give
this area greater attention and priority, especially thanks to the risk of losing TK sources in
traditional communities threatened with disappearance.
Agroecology has the theoretical and practical bases for giving shape to TK research. The
analyzed studies demonstrate the importance of this kind of knowledge for actual agroeco-
logical projects, biodiversity and social cohesion.

References

1. Abate, T.; Van Huis, A.; Ampofo, J. K.; Van Huis, A. 2000. Pest management strategies in traditional
agriculture: an african perspective. Annual Review of Entomology. 45: 631.
2. Agrawal, A. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social
Science Journal. 54(173): 287-98.
3. Alibaygi, A.; Pouya, M. 2011. Needs assessment of senior agricultural students regarding
sustainability knowledge. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 6(31): 6542-46.
4. Altieri, M. A.; Masera, O. 1993. Sustainable rural development in latin america: building from the
bottom-up. ecological economics. 7(2): 93-121. Available in: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/092180099390049C.
5. Altieri, M. A.; Toledo, V. M. 2011. The agroecological revolution in latin america: rescuing nature,
ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies
38(3): 587-612.
6. Arora, S. 2012. Farmers’ participation in knowledge circulation and the promotion of agroecological
methods in South India. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 36(2): 207-35. Available in:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10440046.2011.620231 (November 14,
2014).
7. Bali, A.; Kofinas, G. P. 2014. Voices of the caribou people: a participatory videography method to
document and share local knowledge from the North American human-rangifer systems.
Ecological Economics 19(2).
8. Barthel, S.; Crumley, C. L.; Svedin, U. 2013. Biocultural refugia: combating the erosion of diversity
in landscapes of food production. Ecology and Society. 18(4). Available in: http://www.
scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84884913034&partnerID=40&md5=1725eb
ee0490e6e62dfd91270a678aee.
9. Bebbington, A. 2001. Indigenous knowledge and technology. In ed. Neil J SmelserPaul B B
T-International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences Baltes. Oxford:
Pergamon. 7289-92. Available in: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
B0080430767041838.
10. Becker, C. D.; Ghimire, K. 2003. Synergy Between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation
science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology. 8(1): 1. Available
in: http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss1/art1.
11. Berkes, F. 2012. Sacred Ecology. 3rd ed. ed. Routledge. Nova York.

Tomo 51 • N° 1 • 2019 347

 Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A.

12. Berkes, F.; Folke, C.; Gadgil, M. 1995. Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience ans
sustainability. Biodiversity conservation: Problems and Policies, eds. Charles Perrings.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. 281-99.
13. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive
management. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1251. Available in: http://www.jstor.org/st
able/2641280?origin=crossref.
14. Berkes, F.; Jolly, D. 2001. Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian
Western arctic community. Conservation ecology. 5(2): 18. Available in: http://www.
consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18.
15. Blandi, M. L.; Rigotto, R. M.; Sarandón, S. J. 2018. Influencia de factores contextuales en la
adopción de modelos de agricultura insustentables. La incorporación del invernáculo en
agricultores platenses. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional
de Cuyo. Mendoza. Argentina. 50(1): 203-216.
16. Bohensky, E. L.; Maru, Y. 2011. Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we
learned from a decade of international literature on ‘Integration’? Ecology and Society.
16(4): 6. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406.
17. Boillat, S.; Berkes, F. 2013. Perception and interpretation of climate change among quechua farmers
of bolivia: indigenous knowledge as a resource for adaptive. Ecology and society. 18(4).
18. Brunner, A. C.; Park, S. J.; Ruecker, G. R.; Vlek, P. L. G. 2008. Erosion modelling approach to
simulate the effect of land management options on soil loss by considering catenary soil
development and farmers perception. Land Degradation & Development. 19(6): 623-35.
19. Bryan, J. 2009. Where would we be without them? knowledge, space and power in indigenous
politics. 41(1): 24-32. Available in: Futures. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0016328708001110.
20. Bürgi, M.; Gimmi, U.; Stuber, M. 2013. Assessing traditional knowledge on forest uses to understand
forest ecosystem dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management. 289: 115-22. Available in:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112712006093 (October 2, 2014).
21. Celentano, D.; Celentano, D.; Rousseau, G.; Engel, V.; Faҫanha, C.; de Oliveira, E.; Gomes de Moura,
E. 2014. Perceptions of environmental change and use of traditional knowledge to plan
riparian forest restoration with relocated communities in Alcântara, Eastern Amazon.
Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine. 10(1): 11. http://www.pubmedcentral.
nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4120938&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
(November 14, 2014).
22. Chazdon, R. L.; Chazdon, R.; Harvey, C.; Komar, O.; Griffith, D.; Ferguson, B.; Martinez-Ramoz, M.;
Morales, H.; Nigh, R.; Soto-Pinto, L.; Van Breugel, M.; Philpott, S. 2009. Beyond Reserves:
A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Modified Tropical Landscapes.
Biotropica. 41(2): 142-53. Available in: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.
url?eid=2-s2.0-61549121006&partnerID=40&md5=188b03d7bb8b4da4808315aa7fb5
694f.
23. Consulting, H.; River, E.; Huntington, H. P. 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science:
methods and applications. ecological applications. 10(5): 1270-74.
24. Cools, N. E. De Pauw; Deckers, J. 2003. Towards an integration of conventional land evaluation
methods and farmers’ soil suitability assessment: a case study in Northwestern Syria.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 95(1): 327-42.
25. Cuéllar-Padilla, M.; Calle-Collado, A. 2011. Can we find solutions with people? Participatory
action research with small organic producers in Andalusia. Journal of Rural Studies.
27(4): 372-83. Available in: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0743016711000805 (August 18, 2014).
26. Dahlberg, K. A. 1994. A transition from agriculture to regenerative food systems. Futures.
26(2): 170-79.
27. Davidson-hunt, I.; Berkes, F. 2003. Learning as you journey: anishinaabe perception of social-
ecological environments and adaptive learning. Conservation Ecology. 8(1): 5. Available
in: http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss1/art5.
28. Davidson-hunt, I.; Idrobo, J.; Pengelly, R.; Sylvester, O. 2013. Anishinaabe adaptation to
environmental change in northwestern ontario: a case study in knowledge coproduction
for nontimber forest products. Ecology and Society. 18(4).
29. Dlott, J.; Altieri, M.; Masumoto, M. 1994. Exploring the theory and practice of participatory
research in us sustainable agriculture: a case study in insect pest management. Journal of
the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. 11(2): 126-39.
30. Drew, J. A. 2005. Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation. Conservation
Biology. 19(4): 1286-93.
31. Ellis, S. C. 2005. Meaningful consideration? a review of traditional knowledge in environmental
decision making. 58(1): 66-77. Available in: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40512668
(December 1, 2014).
32. Folke, C. 2014. Traditional knowledge in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 9(3): 7.
Available in: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/.
33. Ghimire, S. K.; McKey, D.; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y. 2004. Heterogeneity in ethnoecological
knowledge and management of medicinal plants in the Himalayas of Nepal: implications
for Conservation. Ecology and Society. 9(3): 6.

Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias 348

 The study and use of traditional knowledge in agroecological contexts

34. Gliessman, S. 1992. Agroecology in the tropics: achieving a balance between land use and
preservation. Environmental Management. 16(6): 681–89. Available in: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/BF02645658.
35. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Reyes-García, V.; Olsson, P.; Montes, C. 2012. Traditional ecological
knowledge and community resilience to environmental extremes: a case study in Doñana,
SW Spain. Global Environmental Change. 22(3): 640-50. Available in: http://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378012000246 (July 9, 2014).
36. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Corbera, E.; Reyes-García, V. 2013. Traditional ecological knowledge and
global environmental change: research findings and policy implications. Ecology and
Society. 18(4).
37. Kuhnlein, H. V.; Receveur, O. 1996. Dietary change and traditional food systems of indigenous
peoples. Annual review of nutrition. 16: 417.
38. Leitgeb, F.; Funes-Monzote, F. R.; Kummer, S.; Vogl, C. R. 2011. Contribution of farmers’ experiments
and innovations to cuba’s agricultural innovation system. renewable agriculture and food
systems. 26(4): 354-67. Available in: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-
s2.0-80855163596&partnerID=40&md5=0fccb29ec6fc24d957f033618d85932e.
39. Leitgeb, F.; Kummer, S.; Funes-Monzote, F. R.; Vogl, C. R. 2014. Farmers’ experiments in Cuba.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 29(1): 48-64. Available in: http://www.scopus.
com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84897852425&partnerID=40&md5=c549174211ce
e35a677f8452152380c8.
40. Lyon, A.; Bell, M. M.; Gratton, C.; Jackson, R. 2011. Farming without a Recipe: Wisconsin Graziers
and new directions for Agricultural Science. Journal of Rural Studies. 27(4): 384-93.
Available in: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074301671100026X
(September 10, 2014).
41. Malézieux, E. 2012. Designing cropping systems from nature. Agronomy for Sustainable
development. 32(1): 15-29. Available in: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.
url?eid=2-s2.0-84857857787&partnerID=40&md5=caa39395c301cc048799c031068f2
17b.
42. McCarter, J.; Gavin, M.; Bareleo, S.; Love, M. 2014. The Challenges of maintaining indigenous
ecological knowledge. Ecology and Society. 19(3). Available in: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss3/art39/.
43. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PloS Medicine. 6(7). Available in: http://www.
plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
44. Moller, H.; Berkes, F; Lyver, P. O.; Kislalioglu, M. 2004. Combining science and traditional ecological
knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society. 9(3): 2.
Available in: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2.
45. Nicholls, C. I.; Altieri, M. A. 2012. Agro-ecological approaches to enhance resilience. Farming
Matters (June): 14-17.
46. Oteros-Rozas, E.; Ontillera-Sánchez, R.; Sanosa, P.; Gómez Baggethun, E.; Reyes García, V.;
González, J. 2013. Traditional Ecological Knowledge among Transhumant Pastoralists
in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society. 18(3). Available in: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art33/.
47. Ramakrishnan, P. S. 2001. Ethnobiology. In ed. Neil J SmelserPaul B B T - International Encyclopedia
of the Social & Behavioral Sciences Baltes. Oxford: Pergamon, 4846-52. Available in:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767041796.
48. Reid, W.; Berkes, F.; Wilbanks, T.; Capistrano, D. 2006. Bridging scales and knowledge systems
concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Washington, D. C. USA: Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/Bridging.aspx.
49. Roth, R. 2004. Spatial organization of environmental knowledge: conservation conflicts in the
inhabited forest of Northern. Ecology and Society. 9(3): 5. Available in: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art5.
50. Ruiz-Mallen, I.; Corbera, E. 2013. Community-based conservation and traditional ecological
knowledge: implications for social-ecological resilience. Ecology and Society. 18(4): 12.
51. Sánchez-Toledano, B. I.; Kallas, Z.; Gil, J. M. 2017. Importancia de los objetivos sociales, ambientales
y económicos de los agricultores en la adopción de maíz mejorado en Chiapas, México.
Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Mendoza.
Argentina. 49(2): 269-287.
52. Singh, R. K.; Sureja, A. K. 2008. Indigenous knowledge and sustainable agricultural resources
management under rainfed agro-ecosystem. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge.
Tradit. Knowl. 7(4): 642–54.
53. Singh, R. K.; Kumar, S.; Jat, H.; Singh, A; Raju, R.; Sharma, D. 2014a. Adaptation in rice-wheat based
sodic agroecosystems: a case study on climate resilient farmers’ practices. Indian Journal
of Traditional Knowledge. Tradit. Knowl. 13(2): 377-89.
54. Singh, R. K.; Singh, A.; Pandey, C. B. 2014b. Agro-biodiversity in rice-wheat-based agroecosystems of
Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India: implications for conservation and sustainable management.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 21(1): 46-59.
Available in: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84896715786&par
tnerID=40&md5=ca2758853dd6d676acea9b27fe8a81ad.

Tomo 51 • N° 1 • 2019 349

 Alzate, C.; Mertens, F.; Fillion, M.; Rozin, A.

55. Thornton, T. F.; Scheer, A. M. 2012. Collaborative engagement of local and traditional knowledge
and science in marine environments: a review. Ecology and Society. 17(3): 8.
56. Toledo, V. M. 2013. Indigenous peoples and biodiversity. In ed. Simon A B T-Encyclopedia of
Biodiversity (Second Edition) Levin. Waltham: Academic Press. 269-78. Available in:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123847195002999.
57. Tompkins, E. L.; Adger, N. 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance
resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society. 9(2): 10. Available in: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/.
58. Turner, N. J.; Boelscher Ignace, M.; Ignace, R. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and Wisdom
of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1275-87.
59. Uprety, Y.; Bergeron, Y.; Doyon, F.; Boucher, J. 2012. Contribution of traditional knowledge to
ecological restoration: practices and applications. Ecoscience. 19(3): 225-37. Available in:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2980/19-3-3530 (November 13, 2014).
60. Wanzala, W. 2012. A survey of the management of livestock ticks and other aspects of animal
ethno health in Bukusu Community, Western Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural
Development. 24(10). Available in: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-
s2.0-84867447739&partnerID=40&md5=fe924346b94ac55352561c01b1f7b8aa.
61. Warren, D. M.; Rajasekaran, B. 1993. Putting local knowledge to good use. International Agricultural
Development. 13(4): 8-10.

Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias 350