No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The co-creation of knowledge is gaining recognition and use within the science, practice, and movement of agroecology. Knowledge co-creation fosters participatory learning and development, which differs from passive knowledge sharing. This approach can bridge the real and perceived gaps across diverse forms of knowledge, including what is often distinguished as farmers’ traditional, Indigenous, tacit, or local knowledge and experts’ scientific, western, or generalizable knowledge. Formal academic documentation of processes and outcomes related to knowledge co-creation is limited; therefore, we bring in examples of published research, drawing from fields of agroecology, participatory action research, and science and technology studies, along with a firsthand farmer perspective on co-creation. Combined, these frameworks offer insight into the potential benefits of knowledge co-creation in agroecology. Many of these challenges, such as navigating power dynamics, may be addressed through mindful research and community practices, including strong communication and transparent expectations and goals. Co-creation processes have traditionally and continually taken place between farmers and throughout communities without academic acknowledgment and/or interpretation of such. We reinstate the invaluable role of farmer-centered inquiry, understanding, and application, which offer benefits to individual farmers and their extended communities of practice and research, in addition to holding spiritual and cultural significance. The co-creation of knowledge in agroecology presents a compelling, adaptive approach and outcome for the increasingly complex challenges facing farmers and the agrifood system.

The impacts of climate change are already affecting the production and profitability of agricultural systems, and these trends are expected to continue in the future. Without support from ecosystem functions, an agricultural system designed exclusively to maximize short-term production is vulnerable to extreme weather events such as droughts and floods. This results in high costs for farmers and ultimately for society at large, in economic and ecological terms. Complex agroecosystems that maximize biological interactions and conserve soil are better protected from extreme events, and thus are overall more resilient to climate change. This paper reviews the evidence demonstrating greater resilience on farms that maximize diversity, build soil organic matter, and incorporate other agroecological or 'sustainable' practices. We then discuss the current water crisis in California in the context of the vulnerability of our current agricultural systems to climate change, highlighting this as an opportunity to redirect agricultural policies and economic incentives. The projected increase in the frequency and intensity of climate extremes calls for policies that are concerned not only with present crises, but that also encourage a new culture of forward-thinking practices around land and water use. We highlight France's new Law for the Future of Agriculture, Food and Forestry as an example of national policy supporting agroecology. Applying an agroecological approach to increase resilience will enable the U.S. to tackle the twin challenges of food production and increasing climatic unpredictability. Data accessibility statement All publicly available data used in this manuscript is cited in References section.

This research analyzes farmers' motivations for conventional management of subsistence food crops, in contrast to organic management of coffee destined for export. Semistructured interviews, focus groups, and financial analyses were conducted with farmers from a small organic coffee cooperative in western El Salvador. We sought to identify what factors have motivated peasant farmers to manage subsistence crops, primarily maize and beans, with agrochemicals. We found that a combination of environmental, economic, social and political factors have driven agricultural management decisions. The environmental requirements of coffee are distinct, where coffee in a diverse shaded agroecosystem responds better to low-input management than maize grown on steep slopes in nutrient-poor soil. In addition, there are no direct economic incentives for subsistence farmers to manage food crops organically, while the benefit of a price premium does exist for organic coffee. Finally, institutional support for agriculture encourages organic production for export crops and generally overlooks subsistence farming. Our data show that half of the farmers lost money on their food plots, with agrochemicals representing the largest cost. This research suggests that small-scale

No abstract