Farmer's motivations for growing diverse species and varieties in a semi-arid region of Madagascar

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8036543/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Farmer's motivations for growing diverse species and varieties in a semi-arid region of Madagascar

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8036543/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Understanding and integrating farmers’ knowledge guiding decisions of farmers regarding crops is essential to support actions that align with their needs and practices. Yet, existing studies have examined farmers’ choices of single crops either at the species or the varietal level, leaving both crop basket logics and level-specific differences in motivations largely unexplored. Here we conducted a thematic analysis of 27 semi-structured interviews to examine and compare multiple farmers’ reported motivations for cultivating diversity at the species versus varietal levels in a semi-arid region of southwestern Madagascar. Farmers mobilize distinct rationales depending on the level considered. At the species level, risk mitigation emerges as a key motivation for cultivating diverse crops, but is poorly reported at the varietal level. Diversifying crops is also mainly linked to socio-cultural influences such as peer recognition and status. Economic profitability was rarely emphasized, reflecting heterogeneous views of its role rather than a dominant driver. At the varietal level, farmers diversify to meet complementary needs - for example by combining short-cycle varieties that bridge hunger gaps with longer-cycle, higher-yielding ones. Seed access and intercropping practices considerations were specific to varietal diversity. Food-related motivations were central at both levels, but expressed differently: species diversity secures overall food quantity, whereas varietal diversity enables staggered harvests and continuous food availability across seasons. By illuminating motivations across species and varietal levels for the first time, this study highlights the plurality and complexity of farmers’ perspectives and underscores the need to include them in the growing number of policies, research and action promoting crop basket diversification to enhance resilience in shock-prone areas.

Crop diversity

Agrobiodiversity

Diversification

Farmers’ choice

Farmers’ perspectives

Insurance effect

Droughts, heatwaves, pest outbreaks, and political conflicts are among the increasingly frequent disturbances that undermine already vulnerable agricultural systems in the Global South, threatening crop yields, natural resources, and farmers’ livelihoods (Harvey et al. 2014; Callahan and Mankin 2022; Hadley et al. 2023; Wollburg et al. 2024). However, certain features of small-scale farms, which predominate in these regions, may serve as valuable assets for coping with ongoing changes. One of them is the diversity of crops at both specific and varietal levels grown by farmers (Ricciardi et al. 2018; Ricciardi et al. 2021). Although the relationship between crop diversity and farm outcomes, such as yield, income or food and nutritional security, is context-dependent (Tacconi et al. 2022; Bravo-Peña and Yoder 2024), managing a broad diversity of crop species or varieties tends to be a widespread strategy for smallholders. It help to fulfill multiple needs and secure livelihood (Kahane et al. 2013; Michler and Josephson 2017; Waha et al. 2018; Bellon et al. 2020; Waha et al. 2022), especially in contexts where shocks are frequent (Makate et al. 2022; Makate et al. 2023). Crop diversity has also been shown to stabilize yields over time under increasing climatic variability (Auffhammer and Carleton 2018; Menesch et al. 2023; Renard et al. 2023), and attracts growing attention in agricultural resilience research (Birthal and Hazrana 2019; Bravo-Peña and Yoder 2024). However, farmers’ own perspectives on why they grow a diversity of crops has been given limited attention. Yet, integrating these views is key to designing policies and actions aligned with local expectations and preferences - an often overlooked condition to successfully mobilize crop diversity as a strategy for sustainability and resilience (Zuza et al. 2024).

Farmers’ crop baskets – i.e. the set of different crop species and varieties they combine in their farm - reflect complex decision-making processes shaped by multiple and interrelated factors (Doncieux et al. 2025). Individuals’ objectives, knowledge, values, and assets interact with broader economic, climatic, and sociopolitical environment (Scoones 1998; Cayre et al. 2018; Zimmerer et al. 2019; Tacconi et al. 2024). Yet, agricultural research and support frequently overlook this complexity, relying on assumptions that emphasize only agronomic or economic motivations (Agrawal et al. 2021). The latest IPBES assessment and more recent work on agroecosystems (Demongeot et al. 2022; Porcuna-Ferrer et al. 2023; Doncieux et al. 2025) demonstrate that socially and culturally grounded motivations are also key dimensions of farmer-crop interactions. Enlightening the multiple motivations underpinning farmers’ choices requires moving beyond disciplinary straightjackets. In this context, ethnoecological approaches rooted into interdisciplinary frameworks and emphasizing local knowledge can be particularly well suited to encompass the large set of farmer’s motivations (Vacher and Del Castillo 2023).

Studies examining farmers’ perspectives for cultivating diverse species or varieties highlight their multiplicity. Food-related motives are central at both levels but farmers seek to ensure diverse and healthy diets with species diversity (Nordhagen et al. 2017; Agrawal et al. 2021) while varietal diversity choices often reflect finer distinctions in taste or culinary uses (Caillon and Lanouguère-Bruneau 2005; Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011; Zimmerer 2014; Agrawal et al. 2021). Agronomic concerns - such as adaptation to soil type, slope, water availability, or season - also influence decisions across both levels (Radanielina et al. 2014; Zimmerer 2014; Vacher and Del Castillo 2023). Aesthetic aspects were reported to influence species selection (Nordhagen et al. 2017; Agrawal et al. 2021), and symbolic values - linked to pride, reputation, and farming identity - were reported to shape varietal diversity. For instance, some farmers mix common taro cultivars with rare ones valued as curiosities, ritual, or heritage crops (Caillon and Lanouguère-Bruneau 2005). Risk buffering motivates farmers to cultivate multiple varieties (Yung et al. 1992; Zimmerer 2014; Kilwinger et al. 2020; Vacher and Del Castillo 2023), whereas it is rarely reported by farmers as a priority at the species level, except when promoted by development programs (Nordhagen et al. 2017; Agrawal et al. 2021; Kpienbaareh et al. 2024). Income generation and market opportunities are frequently cited at the species level (Kasem and Thapa 2011; Nordhagen et al. 2017; Agrawal et al. 2021) but less so at the varietal scale, where economic and yield-related goals often drive specialization in one variety. Constraints such as land access and suitability or labor availability are reported as restricting species basket choices.

Research on farmers’ perspectives regarding crop diversity in the Global South offers valuable insights into this complexity but remains fragmented. Most work address species and varietal diversity separately: at the species level, research often focuses on a few main species or diversification ones relative to main species, while at the varietal level, studies tend to target key species in agrobiodiversity hotspots (Radanielina et al. 2014). To our knowledge, no study has compared farmers’ perspectives across these two levels, representing a major gap in the literature. Considering both species and varietal levels offers a more grounded and realistic view of crop diversity as understood by farmers themselves.

In this study, we examine the multiple motivations reported by farmers for cultivating diverse crop species and varieties in a semi-arid region of Madagascar particularly exposed to climatic risks. We aim to compare farmers’ perspectives at the species and varietal levels, hypothesizing, that farmers’ decision logic could differ between them. Adopting an ethnoecological approach based on semi-structured interviews, we take farmers’ viewpoints as a starting point and use the term “motivation” to encompass their values, rules, and knowledge in line with Agrawal et al. (2021). The originality of this work lies in its qualitative depth, providing a detailed understanding of farmers’ own perspectives for cultivating diverse crops species versus varieties.

2.1 Study population and site

This study was conducted in Madagascar, in two fokontany, the smallest administrative unit, within the municipality of Soahazo, located 110 km north of the city of Toliara in the rural district of Toliara II, Atsimo-Andrefana region, in the southwest of the island (Fig. 1). The area is characterized by a semi-arid climate, with an average annual temperature of 25°C and average annual rainfall of 800 mm (SOURCE: Malagasy Meteorological Institute, Analamisampy weather station, 1991–2020 ten-day records). Rainfall is highly variable from year to year, ranging from 600 to 1500 mm (Blanc-Pamard et al. 2005). The rainy season, with high temperatures, lasts from October to March, followed by a dry season from April to September (Fig. 2). Cyclones frequently occur between January and March, and exacerbate food insecurity risks, as illustrated by Cyclone HARUNA in 2013 (Rakotoarimanana et al. 2022; World Bank 2024).

Agriculture in Soahazo is primarily rainfed, and the rearing of zebu cattle and small ruminants is common (Andrianantenaina et al. 2015). The landscape consists of a low-altitude agricultural plain (200–220 m) interspersed with lowlands crossed by temporary watercourses originating from distant highlands (P. Milleville and Blanc Pamard 2007). During the dry season, farmers cultivate recession crops on these flood-prone lands, locally known as baibo or "lower fields", which are characterized by alluvial or sandy soils. Rainfed cultivation occurs closer to the villages (Cabot and Hoerner 1981; Rollin 1997), on tropical ferruginous soils commonly referred to as "red sands" (Sourdat 1972), or “upper fields”. Agricultural systems in the area have undergone several transformations over time, shifting from subsistence crops (cassava, maize, sweet potato, various beans, etc.) to export-oriented monocultures such as lima bean, maize, and cotton before evolving toward a more diversified system combining food and cash crops mainly for locals markets (Poisson 1922; Dandoy 1969; Hoerner and Cabot 1983; Hoerner 1987; Rollin 1997; S. Fauroux 2000; Aubry and Ramaromisy 2003; Andrianantenaina et al. 2015). No crop in the area receives public subsidies, and no extension services or active producer organizations are currently present. This makes it an ideal site to investigate farmers’ motivation for maintaining crop diversity in a context where market forces alone shape crop dynamics (Song et al. 2021).

2.2 Data collection

Qualitative data for this study is based on semi-structured interviews with a total of 27 farmers conducted during a five-month fieldwork period covering the dry season (July–September 2023; 11 interviews) and the rainy season (March–April 2024; 16 interviews). We selected two fokontany with distinct ethnolinguistic origins - one predominantly Masikoro, the other Antandroy - to represent the main socio-cultural groups in the commune of Soahazo. Both fokontany share broadly similar environmental conditions (climate, soils), as well as comparable access to land and markets (2–3 km from the weekly market in Soahazo). However, this situation does not necessarily extend to other fokontany of the commune, where households may face greater distance from the market or more limited access to lowland recession lands. Consequently, the prevalence of farmers’ reported motivation in our survey may not be extrapolated to the entire farming community. Instead, the contribution of this study lies primarily in the qualitative assessment of the diversity of farmers’ point of view regarding crop diversity.

2.3 Participant’s recruitment

Participants were pre-identified based on exhaustive surveys that were conducted previously in the villages selected (Labeyrie and Mariel 2025) and selected in consultation with local authorities. We selected participants to capture a wide range of species basket compositions. We aimed to balance farmers cultivating fewer and more than five species, which is the average crop richness assessed from previous data, and to reflect the diversity of practices in the area. We further ensured that participants reflected a broad range of socio-economic profiles, including gender, age, ethnolinguistic background, and cultivated land area (Table 1). Interviews were discontinued once responses became redundant and no additional information emerged. The heterogeneity of the farmers recruited, combined with the apparent saturation of responses, suggests that our sample was sufficient to capture the main issues that farmers in this context consider relevant when discussing crop diversity.

Table 1
Respondent socio-demographic characteristics
Participant information		No.	Percentage
Gender	Men	19	70.4%
	Women	8	29.6%
Age	18–35	8	29.6%
	35–50	13	48.1%
	> 50	6	22.2%
Ethnicity	Antandroy	14	51.9%
	Masikoro	13	48.1%
No. of species	< 5	12	44.4%
	>=5	15	55.6%
Cultivated areas	0.5-2 ha	13	48.1%
(mean = 3.1 ha)	2–5 ha	8	29.6%
	5–8 ha	6	22.2%

2.4 Interview guide

Interviews, which lasted an average of two hours, were conducted in French by the first author and translated in Malagasy by the third author. With participants’ consent, interviews were recorded. The interview guide was pre-tested in another area of the same commune and subsequently refined.

Our aim was to understand all the farmers’ motivations for cultivating diverse baskets of species and varieties. Analyzing crop baskets at the farm scale is particularly relevant, as this level connects agricultural field management (e.g., spatial organization, environmental interactions) with broader economic, climatic and sociopolitical conditions, as well as individual farmers’ objectives and constraints (Malézieux and Moustier, 2005). For this purpose, we recorded all species and named varieties cultivated in each household during one agricultural year (rainy and dry season), based on a closed list of the 12 main species in the area (i.e., field crop excluding border crop) established from previous surveys in the area (Labeyrie and Mariel 2025). For each species with several cultivated varieties, we first explored why some farmers cultivated only one named variety (n = 19 farmers), while others grew multiple named varieties (n = 24). Each respondent could give more than one motivation. We use named varieties to understand farmers' perceptions of varietal diversity according to (Montenegro de Wit 2016).

Regarding crop species, all interviewed farmers cultivated multiple species (between 2 and 8 species), reflecting the diversity of crop basket in the area. During the interviews, farmers described both the reasons that encourage them to maintain or increase diversity (n = 22) and the constraints or motivations that lead them to restrict it (n = 14). These elements were often discussed spontaneously, regardless of the diversity currently present on the farm.

Questions at both varietal and species levels were kept as simple as possible, such as: “What led you to grow only one or several varieties of this species?” or “What led you to cultivate many different species?”. Follow-up questions were then asked, either building on the respondent’s previous answer or introducing a new prompt to deepen understanding. For example: “We can see that you cultivate X, Y, and Z - what motivated your choice to grow several species/varieties like this?”.

2.5 Data analysis

We analyzed interviews using thematic analysis. All interviews were manually transcribed and pseudonymized by the first and third authors. Coding was conducted using an exploratory and iterative process (Braun and Clarke 2006). Transcripts were imported into the NVivo 14 software and first coded inductively. We distinguished between farmer’s reports for maintaining diverse crop basket and those reflecting crop diversity limitations. We next group codes into subthemes and broader themes. Themes were developed to capture and describe the range of motivations shaping farmers’ views on crop diversity. This coding approach enabled comparing farmers’ perspectives at the species and varietal levels within each theme, addressing the core research question. Inductive approach allows to better fit to farmers perspectives when coding their narratives into themes (Mayring 2000). Those first steps were carried out by the first author alone, to ensure a coherent and situated interpretative voice. Next, preliminary themes were discussed and refined with co-authors based on illustrative narratives, in a reflexive rather than consensual approach (Byrne et al., 2022). Themes were inductively defined collectively, and their labels were aligned with the literature when relevant (Scoones 1998; Hill et al. 2021; Demongeot et al. 2022; Labeyrie et al. 2023; Tacconi et al. 2024). Finally, we described the final set of themes, whereby each theme represents a broad category of farmer motivation. We recorded the number of times each theme was mentioned by participants as an indication of its relative prominence.

3.1 Diversity of species and varieties

Farmers in the study area grow diversified crop species baskets, with a total of 12 field crop species documented in the area, and an average of five species cultivated per farm (mean = 4.96; SD = 1.72). No farmer cultivates a single species: all grow at least two. Among the species recorded, seven are legumes, two are tuber crops, and maize is the only cereal. Cereal and tubers are considered as main dishes, sometimes called “mateza” (literally “that lasts” in the stomach), and legumes are loaka, i.e., side dishes or accompaniment. Most species are both self-consumed and sold, except cotton.

Most species are sown at the beginning of the rainy season, while some are cultivated exclusively during the dry season (Fig. 2). Maize is the only crop grown in both seasons and is the most widespread, cultivated by 96% of households. Cowpea, sweet potato, and lima bean are grown by more than 50% of respondents. Over a quarter of respondents cultivate cassava, mung bean, cotton, tobacco, rice bean or groundnut. In contrast, less than a quarter grow Bambara nut or lablab bean (Fig. 2).

Farmers also cultivate a diversity of named varieties - between one and three for maize (mean = 1.3) and cowpea (mean = 1.5), and between one and five for cassava (mean = 2.1) and sweet potato (mean = 1.7). For maize and cowpea, varieties distinction is primarily based on cycle length, grain color, and whether the plant is a trailing type. Cassava varieties are differentiated by taste - either bitter or sweet - while sweet potato varieties are distinguished by the part of the plant prioritized for harvest: leaves or tubers. For other species such as cotton, tobacco, mung bean, groundnut, Bambara nut, rice bean, and lima bean, farmers cultivate only a single named variety.

3.2 Farmers’ motivation for growing diverse crop species and varieties baskets

We identified nine themes from the thematic analysis of farmers’ motivations for cultivating a diversified crop basket (Table 2). Although farmers mentioned a wide range of motivations, some themes were more frequently cited and commonly shared across respondents. The dominant themes partly differed between motivations at the species and varietal levels. Reports describing limitations to crop diversity were found in all themes except risk mitigation and food provision. In addition, two other themes - financial capital and varietal knowledge - appeared only as factors restricting diversity.

Table 2
Themes and subthemes of farmers’ motivation for cultivating diverse species and varietal baskets among 27 respondents. For each subtheme, the first number indicates mentions related to species diversity and the second to varietal diversity
Themes	No. of Mentions	Sub-themes	Definition
Food provision	12 / 11	Dietary diversity	Diverse and balanced diet, combining main dishes with accompaniment crops
Food provision		Food self-sufficiency	Get sufficient food to meet household need (quantity)
		Year-round food availability	Get a continuous food access throughout all seasons of the year
Risk mitigation	10 / 3	Crop failure	Minimizing the risks of failure (biotic, abiotic, etc.)
Risk mitigation		Price volatility	Reducing the risks linked to price fluctuations
Human capital	3 / 0	Labor time	Staying active throughout the year
Human capital		Family workforce	Availability of labor provided by family members
Natural capital	3 / 0	Land resources	Maximise small plot use or benefit from several sharecropping
		Soil heterogeneity	Benefit of different soil types
Economy	4 / 0	-	Increases income
Social influences	12 / 2	Autonomy	Independence, need for accumulation, habit
		Mimicry	Conforming, imitating or avoiding jealousy
		Heritage	Tradition, transmission from ancestors
Complementary interests	5 / 13	-	Preference for various and complementary attributes
Seeds	0 / 8	Seed access	Multiple sources, distribution, misidentification
Growing conditions	0 / 4	Seasonal activities	Adapting to seasonal activities and heterogeneous landscapes
		Crop assemblage	Virtuous crop associations
		Experimentation	Farm trials
• Food provision

Food-related motivation for cultivating diversified baskets were among the three main themes reported by farmers for both the species and varietal levels, although covering different facets. Farmers frequently mentioned the pursuit of self-sufficiency, achieved through cultivating a diverse basket of species that provides sufficient food to meet household need: “In fact, what I grow is simply what allows my children to live, because I have many of them, and for my children to eat, there must always be something. It’s what I harvest that feeds my children.” (Farmer 4). This objective is closely linked to the pursuit of dietary diversity, ensuring varied meals that particularly combine main dishes and accompaniments, as expressed by one farmer: “If I grow all of this, it’s to make the loaka with maize and cassava, because they’re the crops that go with them [on the plate]” (Farmer 3).

Some farmers also mentioned that staggering of harvests can be achieved through cultivating multiple species, while at the varietal level it appeared as the main - and only food-related - motivation for growing different varieties of the same species. At this level, two distinct motivations were mentioned. The first one was staggering harvests by combining varieties with different cycles, as reported for cowpea and maize: “what’s good when you have two is that the first one matures very early and you can already start eating it. And the other one, which takes longer, means that we’ll have fresh maize again […] So if I can have several varieties like that, then I’m fine, because each time I’ll be able to harvest and eat again.” (Farmer 19). The second strategy involves staggering consumption, by growing varieties that can be eaten fresh alongside others that require drying or that can be stored at home, such as for cassava and sweet potato: “The three varieties are not consumed at the same time. Revinda and Koratsaky are eaten fresh, while Bemandaly is very bitter and can only be eaten after drying, when the bitterness disappears.” (EM.07.CS).

Socio-cultural influence

Socio-cultural influence was frequently mentioned as a motivation for maintaining a diversified species basket, but was rarely cited as a motivation for growing multiple varieties of the same species. This encompasses different aspects, including individual motivation centred on the person or household, such as a need for independence - “having everything at home” (Farmer 23) - or a desire for accumulation: “We are peasants, we are like that. We want to have everything and so we grow everything.” (Farmer 7). Other motivations relate to peers and social belonging, such as imitation after observing others or conforming to common practices: “I cultivate several species because everyone already cultivates several” (Farmer 10). These individual and collective dimensions often intersect, reflecting considerations of social status or dignity, often linked to rivalry: “I see others growing these species and I say to myself, why not me? I start growing them because my goal is not to beg from others. Having cultivated several species prevents me from suffering when I see my neighbour harvesting.” (Farmer 8). Finally, for farmers, cultivating a diversity of species is also an expression of cultural heritage, shaped by similar social dynamics: “We must first remember that agriculture is something that comes from the ancestors. It is not us who started farming. It goes back a long time, and since then, we are used to cultivating as the ancestors did. And even the ancestors, when they farmed, would see someone growing cowpea successfully, and the next year they’d plant cowpea too - and so it went on.” (Farmer 16). In contrast to species-level decisions, social influence plays a minor role in promoting varietal diversity and can also acts as a limiting reason, where the exclusive cultivation of a single variety is maintained through mimicry or personal habit: “We’re just used to growing this variety [...] We don’t think about growing others” (Farmer 7).

Specificity vs complementarity between crop attributes

The theme of complementarity was reported at both species and varietal levels. It reflects farmers’ search for combinations of species or varieties providing distinct yet complementary functions, allowing them to meet multiple needs simultaneously. At the species level, complementarity mainly referred to balancing consumption and sale, as illustrated by one farmer: “It’s good to grow several species. Because if I grow them all, then I have cotton or hyacinth bean, which are for money, and I also have food with maize […] all together, they complete each other.” (Farmer 13).

At the varietal level, complementarity was the main motivation for growing different varieties. The same principle applied across species, though the attributes involved differed, particularly for maize, cassava, cowpea, and sweet potato. For cassava, farmers reported looking for two or three attributes among yields, taste and drought resistance. A farmer growing three varieties explained: “Each of these varieties plays an important role in my life [...] whether for profitability and yield, for food, or for the resistance of cuttings” (Farmer 13). For cowpea and sweet potato, the main distinctions drawn by farmers concern varieties intended for self-consumption (taste, storability, processing potential) versus those intended for sale (market demand, high prices, better transportability). For maize, farmers reported combining recently adopted short-cycle varieties - providing rapid access to food or income - and high-yielding varieties harvested later in the season to which some farmers are attached as they have been cultivated for a long time.

Conversely, cultivating only one variety per species is primarily driven by a strong preference for a single attribute with short cycles (mainly for maize and cowpea) and high yields (mainly maize, sweet potato and cassava) being the most sought-after features, although sometimes competing. Other attributes, including low pesticide requirements, taste, heritage, sale, and resistance, were poorly mentioned as motivations that motivated the cultivation of only one variety. This motivation did not emerge at the species level, as no farmer cultivates a single species.

Risk mitigation

The third most frequent motivation for maintaining diversified species baskets is linked to the natural insurance of diversity, referring to all narratives linking crop diversity to risk reduction. Although commonly mentioned at the species level, it was only rarely reported at the varietal level.

This theme encompassed farmers’ statements highlighting that crop respond differently to two types of perturbation: price volatility and crop failures. In the first case, species or varietal diversity helps to secure a minimum income when market prices fluctuate: “But all these prices are not the same. Sometimes some are worth a lot, other times it is the others that are worth a lot. And I look at what I can sell according to the price it has at that moment. And that is why I need to have everything.” (Farmer 19). At the varietal level, farmers mostly highlighted cowpea varieties’ role in coping with price volatility. The second type of perturbation - crop failures - was mentioned more frequently especially at the species level. Some farmers referred simply to sustaining production: “In any case, everything we do is like a game of rummy. […] It’s good to grow several species, because if one doesn’t yield, another one will.” (Farmer 7); while others emphasized that a diversity of species allows them to secure key outcomes derived from production: “If I grow many crops, some will succeed but others will not. But if some do not succeed, I am sure the others will, and I will have something to eat and something to sell.” (Farmer 17).

Two main outcomes emerged as key to be maintained based on the narratives linked to this theme. First, sustaining both food and income as illustrated by a farmer: “Sometimes cotton doesn’t do well. They [Cassava and maize] are really for food, but you’re forced to sell them because you need money. Life isn’t only about eating - you also need money for other things. So you have to sell them. And to avoid selling them all or too much of them, you need to have other crops.” (Farmer 27). Second, ensuring year-round food supply: “While waiting for lima bean and sweet potato harvest [at the end of the year], I already have corn and cowpea with me […] And for example, if in the end the sweet potato doesn’t do well, I won’t suffer too much because maize and cowpea will sustain me until the lima bean comes.” (Farmer 24). These two outcomes echo motivation previously presented (theme food provision complementarity), supporting the cultivation of a diverse species basket without explicit reference to risk.

Maintaining these two outcomes in the face of perturbations involves complex logics of redundancy between species, some of them having interchangeable roles from farmers’ perspectives and can provide similar outcomes. One farmer stated: “If one species fails, we harvest another that matures at the same time. If I have a problem with the cowpea harvest, the mung bean will be there. But if I don’t cultivate them, it becomes very difficult.” (Farmer 9). Farmers described several redundant species pairs. Due to high climate vulnerability (both drought and flood), cassava, although essential, is increasingly replaced by sweet potato or lablab bean which provide comparable end-of-year harvests and long shelf life. Other redundant pairs include rice bean/lima bean and mung bean/cowpea: all are marketable crops, with mung bean and cowpea bridging the hunger gap early in the rainy season, while rice bean and lima bean secure food and income during the dry season.

Interestingly, farmers displayed highly flexible behaviors in the use of each species, allowing them to always have something to sell and something to eat depending on circumstances. For example, some species can be sold to get more food: “So I planted corn, I planted cotton. If the corn doesn't work, but the cotton works, I'll sell it and buy corn.” (Farmer 18). Conversely, when commercial species fail, surpluses of other crops can be sold to compensate the loss of market-oriented species: “Cotton is only for money - if it doesn’t do well, we don’t eat cotton. So if it fails, I can sell a bit of the other crops I’ve grown and get some money, because cotton is just for my small personal expenses, not for feeding myself. So I can sell the other crops, and that replaces what I could have earned from cotton.” (Farmer 27).

Crop failures are multifaceted and often not explicitly stated. When risks were specified, respondents mentioned pest attacks, inadequate management practices (e.g., late sowing), or erratic rainfall patterns, including drought or excess rain: “That is agriculture - you always have to expect things like that. We cultivate, but sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not work at all. Last year we cultivated, but then the cyclone came and destroyed everything […] the mung bean was completely lost, whereas with cowpea some people could harvest one time.” (Farmer 17).

Other themes

Beyond the most frequently reported themes, farmers’ reports also highlighted less common but significant motivations influencing crop diversity - distinct in their scale specificity (species or variety) and in their nuanced framing as either favouring or limiting crop diversity. Economic motivations were exclusively species-level, while seed access, growing conditions, and knowledge were variety-specific; the three capital-related themes (human, financial, natural) spanned both scales.

Varietal diversity of maize, sweet potato, and cassava is also shaped by seed access, although this theme is not mentioned at the species level. In particular, the need to source planting material from multiple people or places in order to gather enough seed was often mentioned, as illustrated in the following quote: “No one gives me enough, but someone gives me a bit here, someone else a bit there. [...] That’s how I ended up with all these different cassavas” (Farmer 25). Some farmers reported growing several varieties after receiving donations, participating in company-led distributions, or due to misidentification - either through a lack of knowledge or misleading information from seed sellers. Conversely, seed theft or restricted access to planting material can limit varietal diversity as illustrated: “I only finds seed for one variety” (Farmer 5); “I doesn’t know where to find more” (Farmer 22).

Although motivation linked to the cropping system are not mentioned at the species level, it may either favor or limit varietal diversity. Households growing maize over two seasons often rely on multiple varieties, while those cultivating it in a single season tend to favor just one: “The long cycle is planted during the rainy season. Antsaka ora (litteraly it gets tired of the rain), it's a term used to say that it needs a lot of water. On the other hand, the short cycle is during the dry season because we take advantage of the little moisture that remains in the soil to plant it.” (Farmer 5). Some farmers also adapt their varietal choices to specific intercropping strategies, whereas others - limited to a single field - report difficulties managing several varieties within the same plot. Other households’ experiment with different varieties to identify the ones best suited to their farming system.

Economic motivation is less frequently cited by farmers and only at the species level. Four farmers reported that diversifying species improved their income: “If you grow only one species, it doesn’t give enough. But when you grow several, that’s when it gives more, because one brings a bit of money, another brings some too. Together, they make a lot of money.” (Farmer 3). While two others farmers estimated that concentrating on a single cash species cultivated over larger areas could result in greater economic benefits.

Lack of knowledge about the range of locally grown varieties was sometimes mentioned as a factor limiting varietal diversity, but it was not reported at the species level.

Motivations related to financial, natural, and human capital were reported at both species and varietal levels, promoting and limiting diversity at the former, but only limiting it at the latter. Limited financial and material resources (e.g., lack of draft oxen, plows, or hired labor for weeding) were often cited as limiting species diversity. Regarding human capital, physical constraints and time limitations were reported as barriers in both levels, whereas the need to “stay busy” all over the year with farming activities or the availability of a large familial workforce were cited as raison to diversify species. For natural capital, while lack of farmland was sometimes reported as a constraint at both levels, maximizing the use of small plots was seen by others as a driver of species diversification. Sharecropping - especially when involving plots owned by different landowners - was also seen by a farmer as promoting species diversity. Additionally, since each crop requires specific pedoclimatic conditions, two farmers simultaneously report that access to different soil types could either constrain or support species diversity. Fifteen farmers in total cited motivations linked to financial, economic, or natural capital, often alongside other motivations as one farmed noted: “When you cultivate, you’re never sure it will work out. So we grow several - if cassava fails, there’s maize; if maize fails, there’s cowpea; if cowpea fails, there’s mungo, and so on. But what stops us from growing more is that we lack land, we lack resources […] we have to buy pesticides, we have to plow […] and that limits how much we can grow.” (Farmer 25).

It is also important to underline that farmers’ motivations frequently associated different themes, highlighting their interdependences. This was for instance frequently the case for, sociocultural, economic and food-related motivation, as illustrated by the following statement: “Because we have many children and we want to feed them, and with many species, we have everything we desire. We also have everything others have. When I see someone buying clothes, I buy them too. And when I see someone buying a zebu, I buy one too because I have enough harvest to afford it.” (Farmer 7).

This study contributes to improve our understanding of farmer’s motivation to cultivate diverse sets of crops. To our knowledge, our results go beyond previous studies by combining for the first time an analysis of these motivations at both the species and varietal levels, while most studies focus at one of these levels. Combining both levels proved to be particularly insightful as it reveals different motivations favoring or limiting crop diversity at each level. Especially, socio-cultural dynamics and risk mitigation are key topics at species level, whereas complementary needs, seed access issues and cropping calendars are to key to choosing varieties. We discuss these results hereafter, as well as the limits and the prospects raised by our study.

4.1 Diverse motivations shape crop diversity across species and varietal levels

Food-related motivations are central at both levels but differ between the species and varietal scales, broadly consistent with previous studies. At the species level, literature highlights the role of dietary diversity in promoting crop diversity (Nordhagen et al. 2017; Powell et al. 2017). Our results are consistent with this view but emphasize food quantity and availability as primary concerns for food security - over dietary diversity, quality, or timing. At the varietal level, farmers emphasize staggered harvest and consumption periods, whereas previous studies rather link varietal diversification to taste or culinary and processing uses (Radanielina et al. 2014; Agrawal et al. 2021). For example, (Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011) showed that Andean farmers grow different potato cultivars for specific preparations - drying, fermenting, or freeze-drying. In our study, farmers cultivate different cassava and sweet potato varieties mainly to stagger consumption over time, made possible by their distinct processing modes - some consumed fresh, others dried. This practice similarly leads to diversified processing and extended consumption, maintaining a strategic and continuous food reserve as notice for potato (Vacher and Del Castillo 2023). The emphasis on staggered harvests or consumption in this area likely reflects the risk of food shortages during lean seasons, exacerbated by low yields and limited storage facilities (Tojo-Mandaharisoa et al. 2023).

Socio-cultural motivations were mainly reported by farmers at the species level with social mimicry, being a key driver in our study area. As (Guisepelli 2018) argues, following Girard’s theory (Girard 1961; Girard 1972) human relations within a territory are shaped by mimetic dynamics, where individuals are influenced by the gaze and judgment of their peers. As visible features of the landscape, the number and type of cultivated species may thus act as markers of wealth, status, or skill, influencing decisions alongside technical or economic rationales. This echoes Burton's (2004) analysis of the “good farmer”, where visible farming practices serve as symbolic performances through which farmers gain recognition, status, and a sense of belonging within their community. Our results may contrast with the literature, depicting socio-cultural motivations across varieties of a given species, which are less evident in our study site. This contrast may relate to the cultural importance of the considered species which may explain the attention given to varietal diversity. In many cases, research on varietal diversity focuses on cultural keystone species whose importance extends to language, ceremonial or ritual practices within the community and the multiple uses in food, medicine, material uses (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). In these contexts, status-driven behavior, such as cultivating diverse varieties of yam or taro in attractive gardens to demonstrate expertise have been reported (Caillon and Lanouguère-Bruneau 2005; Nordhagen et al. 2017). By contrast, in our study area, livestock production dominates, and ritual and social prestige are more closely tied to zebu numbers and diversity than to that of cultivated plants (Fieloux and Lombard 1987; E. Fauroux 1989).

Growing multiple species or varieties in our study site was largely motivated by the need to meet complementary household needs. This finding aligns with broader literature on the values associated with each species (Demongeot et al. 2022) or variety (Mahon et al. 2016; Macholdt and Honermeier 2017; Labeyrie et al. 2023; Doncieux et al. 2025). Our results show that consumption–sale complementarity is a key objective at the species level, while needs appear more diversified at the varietal level, consistent with existing literature. For example, Bellon et al. (1998) showed that farmers often combine traditional varieties, selected for consumption and valued for taste, with modern ones selected for yield and short cycles. In contrast, in our study the decision to grow only one variety was generally linked to a single targeted benefit, suggesting that varietal diversity decreases when one goal - mainly yield or short cycle - takes precedence over others. This rationale also appears in the literature at both species and varieties levels (Kasem and Thapa 2011; Roesch-McNally et al. 2018), but in our study, it applies only at the varietal scale, as no household cultivated a single species.

One particularly interesting result of our study is about the importance of risk mitigation in farmers’ motivations at the species level. This contrasts with existing literature, which often presents risk buffering as a secondary outcome of species diversification (Nordhagen et al. 2017; Meldrum et al. 2018; Agrawal et al. 2021). Our result can be explained by the increasing impact of extreme weather events, especially cyclones and droughts (Barimalala et al. 2021; Rigden et al. 2024), and associated crop failures (Harvey et al. 2014; Duong et al. 2019) in our study area supporting Nordhagen et al. (2017)’s argument that risk perception intensifies under recurrent climatic shocks. In the absence of irrigation or formal insurance systems (Agrawal et al. 2021), species diversity may thus serve as farmers’ main natural insurance strategy. Conversely, in the literature, risk mitigation is as a central rationale for varietal diversification, exploiting strengths and weakness or ecological “versatility” among varieties (Kilwinger et al. 2020; Vacher and Del Castillo 2023). The limited role of this motivation at the varietal level in our study likely reflects the restricted access to varietal diversity, contrarily to studies conducted in agrobiodiversity hotspots (Caillon and Lanouguère-Bruneau 2005; Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011; Vacher and Del Castillo 2023).

These differences between our study and previous work may suggest that risk management is not tied to the species or varietal level itself, but rather to the availability of multiple plants that can fulfil the same needs. In our case, this form of redundancy appeared at the species level, and was explicitly described by farmers as a risk mitigation strategy to secure key needs. For instance, to shorten the hunger gap, farmers cultivate both cowpea and mung bean - two species serving the same needs - thereby increasing the likelihood that at least one will succeed despite pests or drought. This result echoes Zimmerer’s findings at the varietal level in Bolivian maize systems, where farmers use redundant varieties to sustain two key needs: maturity and culinary use. Because each variety contributes to several preparations and has either similar or staggered growth cycles, combining them creates overlaps - several varieties can be harvested or used at the same time - so that if one fails, others still fulfil the desired function throughout the season (Zimmerer 2014). Together, these findings suggest that redundancy may operate at either the species or varietal level, depending on the diversity available, and that this mechanism enables farmers to secure essential needs and strengthen resilience.

At both species and varietal levels, economic profitability was rarely cited as a motivation for crop diversity and is sometimes even viewed as a constraint. Although the choice to grow a species for income is well documented in the literature (Demongeot et al. 2022), this rationale does not necessarily apply when it comes to the whole crop basket. Those differences likely reflect farmers’ degrees of market dependency and their differing perceptions of the economic performance of diversified systems. In our study, some farmers see diversification to increase income, while others prefer specialization for the same reason, mirroring ongoing debates in literature (Michler and Josephson 2017; Bellon et al. 2020). Those results are also in line with authors showing that economic motivations are not always a priority, even despite wide access to market (Nordhagen, 2017).

Landscape heterogeneity is widely recognized as a key factor shaping crop diversity - across contexts such as Mali, Thailand, and Madagascar - where farmers manage diversity in space and time to optimize the use of distinct ecological units (Bellon et al. 1998; Bazile et al. 2003; Bazile D. 2005; Radanielina et al. 2014; Mariel et al. 2021). In our study, farmers reported adjusting species diversity according to their land capital, particularly by allocating crops to fields with soils suited to specific species. At the varietal level, crop management was linked to seasonal cycles and water constraints: short-cycle varieties were planted in flood-prone areas during the dry season to allow quick rotation, while long-cycle ones were grown in rainfed zones where water scarcity limited crop succession - a pattern also described by Zimmerer et al. (2014).

Regarding cropping decisions, farmers’ reports in our study reveal drivers of varietal diversity that are rarely discussed in the literature and were not observed at the species level. One of them is related to farming practices and specifically how well varieties can be mixed with others in the same field. While intercropping and varietal mixtures are common practices in the study area and in many smallholder systems (Jodha 1980), this aspect is not widely discussed in the literature. These practices may rely on criteria that differ from those commonly mobilized in agronomic research (Cissé et al. 2023). Investigating how farmers assemble and evaluate intercropped species could therefore represent an important direction for future work. Also, we show that seed sourcing practices played a key role in shaping varietal diversity, for which we did not found frequent mentions in the literature (Nordhagen et al. 2017). The fact that farmers frequently source seeds from multiple people to gather enough, resulting in different varieties growing in the field while this was not planned or sought by farmers is also an interesting finding. Restricted access to diverse seeds was specifically identified as a key constraint, reinforcing findings from other contexts, including (Snapp et al. 2019), who showed that a lack of access to seed can lead to the abandonment of certain varieties.

Our study also indicates that cultivating a diverse basket of species and varieties is not always the result of a deliberate strategy based solely on explicit motivation. Except for divergent views on economic profitability or intercropping patterns, most farmers express a desire to grow greater diversity, both in species and varieties, yet numerous constraints limit their capacity to do so. For instance, few cultivated lands can restrict crop diversity. But in some cases, however, these constraints can also represent opportunity and shape the diversity cultivated. For example, access to multiple seed sources and farming on land owned by different landholders can foster diversification as observed in other semi-arid area (Demongeot et al. 2024). In our study area, seed and land access fluctuate considerably from year to year, depending on social relations and land opportunities. Sharecroppers, in particular, must constantly adapt their crop choices to available resources each season. This pattern reflects adaptive responses to assets, constraints, and unforeseen events, echoing (Richards 1993) concept of farmers as active managers of uncertainty.

4.2 Limits and perspectives

This study contributes to improve our understanding of farmer’s motivation to cultivate diverse sets of crops

This study represents a first synthesis of farmers’ motivation to cultivate diverse sets of crops across both species and varietal levels in smallholder systems, providing a basis for future research in other contexts. Similar qualitative studies have been developed in the Global North focusing on species diversity (Meynard et al. 2018; Roesch-McNally et al. 2018; Isbell et al. 2021; Revoyron et al. 2022; Pachoud et al. 2024; Tacconi et al. 2024; Traldi et al. 2024) but remain scarce in the Global South and warrant further investigation, especially in area prone to frequent climatic shocks (Nordhagen et al. 2017). The thematic analysis of farmers’ motivations for crop diversity proved valuable, as it remained grounded in farmers’ viewpoints while enabling a structured synthesis of their perspectives. But this approach inevitably involved some interpretation by the researchers (Braun et al. 2022; Byrne 2022). Regular discussions were held among all co-authors, with more in-depth exchanges between the first and third authors - the latter being Malagasy and responsible for conducting interviews in the local language - to ensure coherence between analytical themes and respondents’ original meanings. Nevertheless, some responses remain open to interpretation. These nuances may partly explain divergences from previous studies - for instance, economic motivations appear less prominent here than in other works (Nordhagen et al. 2017; Doncieux et al. 2022), which could be partly due to differences in analytical framing. Some farmers described staggered harvests as a way to generate income at different times of the year; however, unlike Kasem and Thapa (2011), we linked this as a food-related motive, since income generation was considered secondary to household consumption priorities in this context.

Our study, revealed clear differences between species and varietal-level rationales for maintaining crop diversity. These findings open new perspectives for future research. While farmers in our study associated for example risk management and socio-cultural influences mainly with species diversity - contrary to what is often reported at the varietal level in the literature - such discrepancies may stem from differences in the extent of available diversity. In our case, the limited number of varieties likely encouraged more use-oriented and specific motivations, whereas a broader range of species prompted more general explanations. Further comparative research is needed in contexts where diversity is structured differently - for example, sites with high species diversity but few varieties, or conversely high varietal diversity within few species - to determine whether the contrasts we observe reflect contextual diversity levels or deeper differences in farmers’ decision logic. In particular, replicating such comparison between species and varieties in other environmental contexts would bring a more complete understanding of how farmers envision the contribution of crop diversity at each level for coping with risks.

Our study highlights the plurality of farmers’ perspectives on crop diversity and shows for the first time that distinct rationales operate at the species and varietal levels, while these two scales are often treated separately or merged under the broad notion of “on-farm diversity” (Tacconi et al. 2022). Considering both levels together offer a more grounded understanding of crop diversity management and is therefore essential for research, policy, and development initiatives promoting diversification. These efforts are gaining increasing interest, but present several limitations to which our study contributes. First, diversification programs and research efforts mainly focus on species diversity, often restricted to a few major crops such as rice, maize, and wheat (Hufnagel et al. 2020). Our study adds new insights by highlighting the specific logics underpinning varietal diversification. Second, diversification efforts are also concentrated in a limited number of middle and high income countries (Hufnagel et al. 2020) - for example in India, where farmers reported risk mitigation as marginal (Agrawal et al. 2021). By working in a semi-arid smallholder context exposed to recurrent climate shocks, our study shows that risk mitigation is a central driver of species diversity. This underscores the need to better account for the perspectives of farmers living in high-risk environments, which remain under-considered in current research. Third, diversification initiatives often operate in a top-down manner, with strategies designed externally rather than emerging from farmers’ own reasoning (van der Heijden 2024). By grounding our analysis in farmers’ perspectives, we support calls for more locally grounded and interdisciplinary approaches permitting to better align with farmers’ needs (Cullen et al. 2023; McGuire et al. 2025).

Finally, our results suggest different entry points for action: supporting seed access is particularly relevant to foster varietal diversity, while addressing land, labor, and market constraints is key to sustaining species diversity. This approach can also inform participatory design of diversified cropping systems, plant breeding programs, and local seed initiatives, which should be based on farmers’ preferences and constraints.

Acknowledgements

We extend our sincere gratitude to our colleagues from the Department of Plant Biology and Ecology at the Faculty of Sciences, University of Antananarivo, with special thanks to Dr. Verohanitra M. Rafidison, Dr. Yedidya R. Ratovonamana, and Dr. Francis Veriza from the University of Toliara for their invaluable assistance during fieldwork. We also acknowledge the farmers and local authorities for their generous hospitality and active participation in the research.

Fundings

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under Grant agreement No 101041069 – ARISER.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the research protocol of the project (Labeyrie and Mariel 2025). A permit was obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Madagascar to comply with national regulations governing field research. Prior Informed Consent (PIC) forms were presented to all participants, in line with GDPR regulations and the Nagoya Protocol. The first author also signed the project's internal code of ethics, which addresses issues of consent, confidentiality, respect for individuals, and benefit-sharing with interviewees (Labeyrie and Mariel 2025). Consequently, the names of the fokontany studied are not disclosed in this article.

Consent to participate

Verbal informed consent was obtained prior to the interview with all individual participants in line with the Ethics approval.

Consent for publication

The authors confirm that all the participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable

Availability of data and material

Complete interview transcripts are not publicly available to protect participants’ anonymity.

Authors' contributions

Conceptualization: EM, SMC, DR & VL; Data curation: EM & EAS; Formal analysis: EM, SMC, DR & VL; Funding acquisition: VL; Investigation: EM & EAS; Methodology: EM, SMC, EAS, DR & VL; Project administration: VL; Resources: JJR; Supervision: SMC, DR & VL; Validation: SMC, JJR, DR & VL; Visualization: EM, SMC, DR & VL; Writing – original draft: EM; Writing – review & editing: EM, SMC, EAS, JJR, DR and VL.

Agrawal, Tanvi, Mark Hirons, and Alfred Gathorne-Hardy. 2021. Understanding farmers’ cropping decisions and implications for crop diversity conservation: Insights from Central India. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 3: 100068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100068.
Andrianantenaina, N.O., Dominique Hervé, and R.E. Ranaivoson. 2015. Trajectoires d’évolution des exploitations en bordure de la forêt de Mikea, avant et après l’aire protégée. In Transitions agraires au sud de Madagascar : résilience et viabilité, deux facettes de la conservation : actes du séminaire de synthèse du projet FPPSM, 267–280. Antananarivo: IRD.
Aubry, Christine, and Auguste Ramaromisy. 2003. Typologie d’exploitations agricoles dans un village du front pionnier de la forêt des Mikea (sud-ouest de Madagascar). Cahiers Agricultures 12: 153-165 (1).
Auffhammer, Maximilian, and Tamma A. Carleton. 2018. Regional Crop Diversity and Weather Shocks in India. Asian Development Review 35. World Scientific Publishing Co.: 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1162/adev_a_00116.
Barimalala, R., N. Raholijao, W. Pokam, and C. J. C. Reason. 2021. Potential impacts of 1.5 °C, 2 °C global warming levels on temperature and rainfall over Madagascar. Environmental Research Letters 16. IOP Publishing: 044019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abeb34.
Bazile D., Coulibaly H. 2005. Les réseaux sociaux au secours de l’Etat pour l’approvisionnement en semences des paysans. In Les institutions du développement durable des agricultures du Sud : journées SFER de Montpellier, 7-9 novembre 2005. Paris : SFER, 19 p. Journées SFER 2005 sur les institutions du développement durable des agricultures du Sud, 2005-11-07/2005-11-09,. Montpellier, France: CIRAD.
Bazile, Didier, Mamy Soumaré, Djénéba Dembele, and Cheick Hamala Diakité. 2003. Stratégies paysannes de valorisation de la biodiversité du sorgho. Cas du Mali-sud. In Organisation spatiale et gestion des ressources et des territoires ruraux : actes du colloque international, 25 - 27 février 2003, Montpellier, France. CIRAD.
Bellon, M. R., Bekele Hundie Kotu, Carlo Azzarri, and Francesco Caracciolo. 2020. To diversify or not to diversify, that is the question. Pursuing agricultural development for smallholder farmers in marginal areas of Ghana. World Development 125: 104682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104682.
Bellon, M. R., J. L. Pham, L. S. Sebastian, S. R. Francisco, G. C. Loresto, D. Erasga, P. Sanchez, M. Calibo, G. Abrigo, and S. Quilloy. 1998. Farmers’ Perceptions of Varietal Diversity: Implications for on-Farm Conservation of Rice. In Farmers Gene Banks and Crop Breeding: Economic Analyses of Diversity in Wheat Maize and Rice, ed. Melinda Smale, 95–108. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0011-0_6.
Birthal, Pratap S., and Jaweriah Hazrana. 2019. Crop diversification and resilience of agriculture to climatic shocks: Evidence from India. Agricultural Systems 173: 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.005.
Blanc-Pamard, Chantal, Pierre Milleville, Michel Grouzis, Florent Lasry, and Samuel Razanaka. 2005. Une alliance de disciplines sur une question environnementale : la déforestation en forêt des Mikea (Sud-Ouest de Madagascar). Natures Sciences Sociétés 13: 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss:2005002.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, Virginia, Victoria Clarke, and Nikki Hayfield. 2022. ‘A starting point for your journey, not a map’: Nikki Hayfield in conversation with Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke about thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology 19. Routledge: 424–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1670765.
Bravo-Peña, F., and L. Yoder. 2024. Agrobiodiversity and smallholder resilience: A scoping review. Journal of Environmental Management 351: 119882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119882.
Burton, Rob J.F. 2004. Seeing Through the ‘Good Farmer’s’ Eyes: Towards Developing an Understanding of the Social Symbolic Value of ‘Productivist’ Behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x.
Byrne, David. 2022. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity 56: 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y.
Cabot, Jean, and Jean-Michel Hoerner. 1981. Les sociétés rurales du Sud-Ouest malgache face à l’aménagement. Cahiers d’outre-mer 34: 305–320. https://doi.org/10.3406/caoum.1981.2997.
Caillon, Sophie, and Virginie Lanouguère-Bruneau. 2005. Gestion de l’agrobiodiversité dans un village de Vanua Lava (Vanuatu) : stratégies de sélection et enjeux sociaux. Journal de la Société des Océanistes. Société des Océanistes: 129–148. https://doi.org/10.4000/jso.451.
Callahan, Christopher W., and Justin S. Mankin. 2022. Globally unequal effect of extreme heat on economic growth. Science Advances 8. American Association for the Advancement of Science: eadd3726. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add3726.
Cayre, Patrice, Audrey Michaud, Jean-Pierre Theau, and Cyrille Rigolot. 2018. The Coexistence of Multiple Worldviews in Livestock Farming Drives Agroecological Transition. A Case Study in French Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) Cheese Mountain Areas. Sustainability 10. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041097.
Cissé, Aby, Cathy Clermont-Dauphin, Saïdou N. Sall, Sakmi Gie, Mbane Peasant Groupement, Alihou Ndiaye, Magatte Diouf, et al. 2023. Sahelian smallholders’ varietal mixtures reconcile yield and agrobiodiversity conservation. Basic and Applied Ecology 67: 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2022.12.006.
Cullen, Beth, Katherine A. Snyder, Deborah Rubin, and Hale A. Tufan. 2023. ‘They think we are delaying their outputs’. The challenges of interdisciplinary research: understanding power dynamics between social and biophysical scientists in international crop breeding teams. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7. Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1250709.
Dandoy, Gérard. 1969. Atlas de la région de Manombo-Befandriana sud. Tananarive: O.R.S.T.O.M.
Demongeot, Marilou, Becky Chaplin-Krammer, and Unai Pascual. 2022. IPBES VA Chapter 4 - Literature review on values articulated in agrobiodiversity management. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6502719.
Demongeot, Marilou, Younes Hmimsa, Doyle McKey, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas, and Delphine Renard. 2024. Social strategies to access land influence crop diversity in northwestern Morocco. People and Nature 6: 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10617.
Doncieux, Antoine, Marilou Demongeot, Kenneth Iain MacDonald, Delphine Renard, and Sophie Caillon. 2025. Unpacking farmers’ multiple values in grapevine variety choice. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10718-z.
Doncieux, Antoine, Olivier Yobrégat, Scott Prudham, Sophie Caillon, and Delphine Renard. 2022. Agrobiodiversity dynamics in a French wine-growing region. OENO One 56: 183–199. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.4.5557.
Duong, Thi Tam, Tom Brewer, Jo Luck, and Kerstin Zander. 2019. A Global Review of Farmers’ Perceptions of Agricultural Risks and Risk Management Strategies. Agriculture 9. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9010010.
Fauroux, Emmanuel. 1989. Bœufs et pouvoirs : les éleveurs du sud-ouest et de l’ouest malgaches. Politique africaine 34. Persée - Portail des revues scientifiques en SHS: 63–73. https://doi.org/10.3406/polaf.1989.5273.
Fauroux, Sylvain. 2000. Instabilité des cours du maïs et incertitude en milieu rural : le cas de la déforestation dans la région de Tuléar (Madagascar). Revue Tiers Monde 41: 815–839. https://doi.org/10.3406/tiers.2000.1439.
Fieloux, Michèle, and Jacques Lombard, ed. 1987. Etude des transformations socio-economiques dans le sud-ouest malgache : l’exemple du couloir d’antseva. M.R.S.T.D. & O.R.S.T.O.M. Vol. AOMBE 1. Elevage et Société.
Garibaldi, Ann, and Nancy Turner. 2004. Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for Ecological Conservation and Restoration. Ecology and Society 9. The Resilience Alliance. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00669-090301.
Girard, R. 1961. Mensonge romantique, vérité romanesque. Vol. 1ère. Paris: Grasset et Fasquelle, Pluriel, Hachette Littérature (2008).
Girard, R. 1972. La violence et le sacré. Vol. 1ère. Paris: Grasset et Fasquelle, Pluriel, Hachette Littérature (2008).
Guisepelli, Emmanuel. 2018. Mimétisme des hommes et des territoires. Pour un enrichissement des regards sur les phénomènes géographiques: Annales de géographie N° 721: 307–330. https://doi.org/10.3917/ag.721.0307.
Hadley, Kristie, Stefan Wheat, Heidi Honegger Rogers, Arjun Balakumar, Diana Gonzales-Pacheco, Sarah Shrum Davis, Hanna Linstadt, et al. 2023. Mechanisms underlying food insecurity in the aftermath of climate-related shocks: a systematic review. The Lancet Planetary Health 7. Elsevier: e242–e250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00003-7.
Harvey, Celia A., Zo Lalaina Rakotobe, Nalini S. Rao, Radhika Dave, Hery Razafimahatratra, Rivo Hasinandrianina Rabarijohn, Haingo Rajaofara, and James L. MacKinnon. 2014. Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers to agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369. Royal Society: 20130089. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0089.
van der Heijden, Jeroen. 2024. Unravelling programme success and complex causation in Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D): A systematic and comprehensive literature review. Agricultural Systems 215: 103851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103851.
Hill, Rosemary, Sandra Díaz, Unai Pascual, Marie Stenseke, Zsolt Molnár, and Julia Van Velden. 2021. Nature’s contributions to people: Weaving plural perspectives. One Earth 4: 910–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.06.009.
Hoerner, Jean-Michel. 1987. Le “boom” du coton de 1982 à 1986. In Etude des trasnformations socio-economiques dans le sud-ouest malgache : l’exemple du couloir d’antseva, ed. Michèle Fieloux and Jacques Lombard, M.R.S.T.D. & O.R.S.T.O.M, AOMBE 1:13–25. Elevage et Société.
Hoerner, Jean-Michel, and Jean Cabot. 1983. Les industries de Toliara (Tuléar). Stagnation et mutations. Cahiers d’outre-mer 36: 75–85. https://doi.org/10.3406/caoum.1983.3054.
Hufnagel, Johannes, Moritz Reckling, and Frank Ewert. 2020. Diverse approaches to crop diversification in agricultural research. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40: 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00617-4.
Isbell, Carina, Daniel Tobin, and Travis Reynolds. 2021. Motivations for maintaining crop diversity: Evidence from Vermont’s seed systems. Ecological Economics 189: 107138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107138.
Jodha, N. S. 1980. Intercropping in traditional farming systems. The Journal of Development Studies 16. Routledge: 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388008421770.
Kahane, Rémi, Toby Hodgkin, Hannah Jaenicke, Coosje Hoogendoorn, Michael Hermann, J. D. H. (Dyno) Keatinge, Jacqueline d’Arros Hughes, Stefano Padulosi, and Norman Looney. 2013. Agrobiodiversity for food security, health and income. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33: 671–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0147-8.
Kasem, Sukallaya, and Gopal B. Thapa. 2011. Crop diversification in Thailand: Status, determinants, and effects on income and use of inputs. Land Use Policy 28: 618–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.12.001.
Kilwinger, Fleur Bm, Pricilla Marimo, Anne M Rietveld, Conny Jm Almekinders, and Ynte K Van Dam. 2020. Not only the seed matters: Farmers’ perceptions of sources for banana planting materials in Uganda. Outlook on Agriculture 49: 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727020930731.
Kpienbaareh, Daniel, Kamaldeen Mohammed, Isaac Luginaah, Jinfei Wang, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Esther Lupafya, and Laifolo Dakishoni. 2024. Local actors, farmer decisions and landscape crop diversity in smallholder farming systems: A systems perspective. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 374: 109138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2024.109138.
Labeyrie, Vanesse, Rachel S. Friedman, Sophie Donnet, Ndeye Fatou Faye, Océane Cobelli, Jacopo Baggio, María R. Felipe-Lucia, and Christine Raimond. 2023. Linking seed networks and crop diversity contributions to people: A case study in small-scale farming systems in Sahelian Senegal. Agricultural Systems 211: 103726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103726.
Labeyrie, Vanesse, and Juliette Mariel. 2025. Are seed and information circulation networks related to the crop diversity and resilience of smallholder farms? A study protocol. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17256168.
Macholdt, Janna, and Bernd Honermeier. 2017. Importance of variety choice: Adapting to climate change in organic and conventional farming systems in Germany. Outlook on Agriculture 46. SAGE Publications Ltd: 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727017722420.
Mahon, Niamh, Shawn McGuire, and Md. Mofakkarul Islam. 2016. Why bother with Bere? An investigation into the drivers behind the cultivation of a landrace barley. Journal of Rural Studies 45: 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.017.
Makate, Clifton, Arild Angelsen, Stein Terje Holden, and Ola Tveitereid Westengen. 2022. Crops in crises: Shocks shape smallholders’ diversification in rural Ethiopia. World Development 159: 106054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106054.
Makate, Clifton, Arild Angelsen, Stein Terje Holden, and Ola Tveitereid Westengen. 2023. Evolution of farm-level crop diversification and response to rainfall shocks in smallholder farming: Evidence from Malawi and Tanzania. Ecological Economics 205: 107736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107736.
Mariel, Juliette, Stéphanie M. Carrière, Eric Penot, Pascal Danthu, Verohanitra Rafidison, and Vanesse Labeyrie. 2021. Exploring farmers’ agrobiodiversity management practices and knowledge in clove agroforests of Madagascar. People and Nature 3: 914–928. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10238.
Mayring, Philipp. 2000. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089.
McGuire, Erin, Hanna Ewell, Arwen Bailey, Eva Marina Valencia Leñero, Thi Thu Giang Luu, Janelle Marie Sylvester, Maha Al-Zu’bi, Millicent L. Liani, and Michel Kabirigi. 2025. Breaking biases and building momentum for transforming agricultural research for development practices: recommendations and research opportunities. npj Sustainable Agriculture 3. Nature Publishing Group: 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-024-00044-y.
Meldrum, Gennifer, Dunja Mijatović, Wilfredo Rojas, Juana Flores, Milton Pinto, Grover Mamani, Eleuterio Condori, David Hilaquita, Helga Gruberg, and Stefano Padulosi. 2018. Climate change and crop diversity: farmers’ perceptions and adaptation on the Bolivian Altiplano. Environment, Development and Sustainability 20: 703–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9906-4.
Menesch, Joseph, Cecile Godde, William Venables, Delphine Renard, Anthony Richardson, Oceane Cobelli, and Katharina Waha. 2023. Agricultural diversification for crop yield stability: a smallholder adaptation strategy to climate variability in Ethiopia. Regional Environmental Change 23: 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-02021-y.
Meynard, Jean-Marc, François Charrier, M’hand Fares, Marianne Le Bail, Marie-Benoît Magrini, Aude Charlier, and Antoine Messéan. 2018. Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop diversification in France. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38: 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0535-1.
Michler, Jeffrey D., and Anna L. Josephson. 2017. To Specialize or Diversify: Agricultural Diversity and Poverty Dynamics in Ethiopia. World Development 89: 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.011.
Milleville, P., and C. Blanc Pamard. 2007. La culture pionnière du mais sur abattis-brûlis (Hatsaky) dans le sud-ouest de Madagascar : conduite des systèmes de culture. In Une agronomie à l’oeuvre: pratiques paysannes dans les campagnes du Sud, Pierre Milleville, 59–69. Parcours et paroles. Paris Versailles: Éd. Arguments Éd. Quae.
Montenegro de Wit, Maywa. 2016. Are we losing diversity? Navigating ecological, political, and epistemic dimensions of agrobiodiversity conservation. Agriculture and Human Values 33: 625–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9642-7.
Nordhagen, Stella, Unai Pascual, and Adam G. Drucker. 2017. Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers’ Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea. Ecological Economics 137: 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.025.
Pachoud, Carine, Nicolas Dendoncker, and Sabine Girard. 2024. Identifying visions on agricultural diversification: a first step toward sustainable agrifood transformations in the Bauges. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01513-6.
Poisson, H. 1922. Monographie de la Province de Tulear. In Bulletin économique, Colonie de Madagascar et dépendances. 19ème Année 1. Tananarive: Imprimerie officielle.
Porcuna-Ferrer, Anna, Vanesse Labeyrie, Santiago Alvarez-Fernandez, Laura Calvet-Mir, Ndèye Fatou Faye, Sarah Ouadah, and Victoria Reyes-García. 2023. Crop biocultural traits shape seed networks: Implications for social-ecological resilience in south eastern Senegal. Agricultural Systems 211: 103750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103750.
Powell, Bronwen, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Sera L. Young, and Timothy Johns. 2017. The determinants of dietary diversity and nutrition: ethnonutrition knowledge of local people in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 13. BioMed Central: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-017-0150-2.
Radanielina, T., S. M. Carrière, and G. Serpantié. 2014. Origins, Functions, and Persistence of Crop Biodiversity in the Betsileo Highlands, Madagascar. Economic Botany 68: 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-014-9266-7.
Rakotoarimanana, Zy Misa Harivelo, Zy Harifidy Rakotoarimanana, Moses Glorino Rumambo Pandin, and Christrijogo Sumartono Waloejo. 2022. Analysis of tropical cyclones 2000-2020 in Madagascar. Disaster Advances 15: 13–20. https://doi.org/10.25303/1503da1320.
Renard, Delphine, Lucie Mahaut, and Frederik Noack. 2023. Crop diversity buffers the impact of droughts and high temperatures on food production. Environmental Research Letters 18. IOP Publishing: 045002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acc2d6.
Revoyron, Eva, Marianne Le Bail, Jean-Marc Meynard, Anita Gunnarsson, Marco Seghetti, and Luca Colombo. 2022. Diversity and drivers of crop diversification pathways of European farms. Agricultural Systems 201: 103439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103439.
Ricciardi, Vincent, Zia Mehrabi, Hannah Wittman, Dana James, and Navin Ramankutty. 2021. Higher yields and more biodiversity on smaller farms. Nature Sustainability 4. Nature: 651–657. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00699-2.
Ricciardi, Vincent, Navin Ramankutty, Zia Mehrabi, Larissa Jarvis, and Brenton Chookolingo. 2018. How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security 17: 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002.
Richards, Paul. 1993. Cultivation: knowledge or performance? In An Anthropological Critique of Development. Routledge.
Rigden, Angela, Christopher Golden, Duo Chan, and Peter Huybers. 2024. Climate change linked to drought in Southern Madagascar. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 7. Nature Publishing Group: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-024-00583-8.
Roesch-McNally, Gabrielle E., J. G. Arbuckle, and John C. Tyndall. 2018. Barriers to implementing climate resilient agricultural strategies: The case of crop diversification in the U.S. Corn Belt. Global Environmental Change 48: 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.002.
Rollin, D. 1997. Quelles améliorations pour les systèmes de culture du sud-ouest malgache ? Agriculture et Développement: 57–72.
Scoones, Ian. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods : a framework for analysis.
Snapp, Sieglinde, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Valerie Ota, Dan Kane, Lizzie Shumba, and Laifolo Dakishoni. 2019. Unpacking a crop diversity hotspot: farmer practice and preferences in Northern Malawi. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 17. Taylor & Francis: 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1591657.
Song, Xiaoqing, Xiong Wang, Xinyi Li, Weina Zhang, and Jürgen Scheffran. 2021. Policy-oriented versus market-induced: Factors influencing crop diversity across China. Ecological Economics 190: 107184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107184.
Sourdat, Michel. 1972. Carte pédologique de Antseva à 1/100.000. Notice. OSRTOM.
Tacconi, Francesco, Darcy Lefroy, Katharina Waha, Jonathan Jesus Ojeda, Peat Leith, and Caroline Mohammed. 2024. “Agricultural diversity, farmers’ definitions and uses: The case of Tasmanian farms”. Journal of Rural Studies 108: 103266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103266.
Tacconi, Francesco, Katharina Waha, Jonathan Jesus Ojeda, and Peat Leith. 2022. Drivers and constraints of on-farm diversity. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 42: 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00736-6.
Tojo-Mandaharisoa, Sarah, Narilala Randrianarison, Irmgard Jordan, Christoph Kubitza, Denis Randriamampionona, Harilala Andriamaniraka, Stefan Sieber, Christian Ulrichs, and Jonathan Steinke. 2023. Drivers of food and nutrition security during the lean period in southeastern Madagascar. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 14: 100881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100881.
Traldi, Rebecca, Lauren Asprooth, Emily M. Usher, Kristin Floress, J. Gordon Arbuckle, Megan Baskerville, Sarah P. Church, et al. 2024. “Safer to plant corn and beans”? Navigating the challenges and opportunities of agricultural diversification in the U.S. Corn Belt. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10570-7.
Vacher, Jean-Joinville, and Carmen Del Castillo. 2023. Retour sur une recherche pluridisciplinaire autour de l’agriculture dans les Andes Centrales (altiplano bolivien). Revue d’ethnoécologie. Laboratoire Éco-anthropologie et Ethnobiologie (UMR 7206). https://doi.org/10.4000/ethnoecologie.9834.
Velásquez-Milla, Dora, Alejandro Casas, Juan Torres-Guevara, and Aldo Cruz-Soriano. 2011. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influencing in situ conservation of crop diversity by traditional Andean households in Peru. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7: 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-7-40.
Waha, Katharina, Francesco Accatino, Cecile Godde, Cyrille Rigolot, Jessica Bogard, Joao Pedro Domingues, Elisabetta Gotor, et al. 2022. The benefits and trade-offs of agricultural diversity for food security in low- and middle-income countries: A review of existing knowledge and evidence. Global Food Security 33: 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100645.
Waha, Katharina, Mark T. van Wijk, Steffen Fritz, Linda See, Philip K. Thornton, Jannike Wichern, and Mario Herrero. 2018. Agricultural diversification as an important strategy for achieving food security in Africa. Global Change Biology 24: 3390–3400. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14158.
Wollburg, Philip, Yannick Markhof, Thomas Bentze, and Giulia Ponzini. 2024. Substantial impacts of climate shocks in African smallholder agriculture. Nature Sustainability 7. Nature Publishing Group: 1525–1534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01411-w.
World Bank. 2024. Madagascar - Climate and Health Vulnerability Assessment. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
Yung, Jean-Michel, Jean Zaslavsky, and Jean-Claude Devèze. 1992. Pour une prise en compte des stratégies des producteurs. CIRAD-SAR.
Zimmerer, Karl S. 2014. Conserving agrobiodiversity amid global change, migration, and nontraditional livelihood networks: the dynamic uses of cultural landscape knowledge. Ecology and Society 19. Resilience Alliance Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06316-190201.
Zimmerer, Karl S., Stef de Haan, Andrew D. Jones, Hilary Creed-Kanashiro, Milka Tello, Miluska Carrasco, Krysty Meza, et al. 2019. The biodiversity of food and agriculture (Agrobiodiversity) in the anthropocene: Research advances and conceptual framework. Anthropocene 25: 100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100192.
Zuza, Emmanuel Junior, Kestrel Lambert, Tom Macmillan, Frangton Chiyemura, Yoseph Araya, Vicky Bowskill, Ayomide Oluseye, et al. 2024. Crop species diversity: A key strategy for sustainable food system transformation and climate resilience. Food and Energy Security 13. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: e558. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.558.

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
24 Nov, 2025
Reviewers invited by journal
20 Nov, 2025
Editor invited by journal
18 Nov, 2025
Editor assigned by journal
05 Nov, 2025
First submitted to journal
05 Nov, 2025

You are reading this latest preprint version

Farmer's motivations for growing diverse species and varieties in a semi-arid region of Madagascar

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study population and site

2.2 Data collection

2.3 Participant’s recruitment

2.4 Interview guide

2.5 Data analysis

3 Results

3.1 Diversity of species and varieties

3.2 Farmers’ motivation for growing diverse crop species and varieties baskets

4 Discussion

4.1 Diverse motivations shape crop diversity across species and varietal levels

4.2 Limits and perspectives

5 Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1