Para PDF Tesis con Figuras en Word.p65 - Farmers' Rights website

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.5: Species distribution of the in-situ collections (2003-04 / 2004-05) for farmer family subpopulations and the overall regional population In-situ N Species Distribution (%) collection number (*) Undet. Gon Stn Juz Cha Adg Tbr Cur ISC-1 171 1.8 34.5 1.8 1.2 15.8 44.4 0.0 0.6 ISC-2 154 55.2 3.9 1.9 0.0 11.7 27.3 0.0 0.0 ISC-3 147 41.5 4.8 2.7 0.0 15.6 34.0 1.4 0.0 ISC-4 156 36.5 3.8 2.6 1.3 22.4 33.3 0.0 0.0 ISC-5 193 18.1 8.3 0.5 0.0 13.5 59.1 0.5 0.0 ISC-6 58 15.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 20.7 53.4 0.0 0.0 ISC-7 73 15.1 9.6 2.7 0.0 28.8 39.7 4.1 0.0 ISC-8 55 7.3 5.5 3.6 0.0 10.9 72.7 0.0 0.0 ISC-9 90 66.7 1.1 2.2 0.0 5.6 24.4 0.0 0.0 ISC-10 97 5.2 26.8 7.2 0.0 24.7 33.0 2.1 1.0 ISC-11 89 0.0 20.2 7.9 2.2 25.8 42.7 0.0 1.1 ISC-12 79 1.3 16.5 8.9 0.0 12.7 58.2 0.0 2.5 ISC-13 100 2.0 19.0 10.0 3.0 11.0 53.0 0.0 2.0 ISC-14 33 0.0 27.3 9.1 0.0 15.2 48.5 0.0 0.0 ISC-15 32 31.3 25.0 9.4 0.0 21.9 3.1 6.3 3.1 ISC-16 72 0.0 33.3 4.2 1.4 29.2 30.6 0.0 1.4 ISC-17 28 10.7 25.0 3.6 0.0 46.4 10.7 3.6 0.0 ISC-18 43 0.0 14.0 11.6 4.7 20.9 44.2 2.3 2.3 ISC-19 39 5.1 17.9 15.4 0.0 28.2 30.8 0.0 2.6 ISC-20 59 0.0 16.9 5.1 1.7 16.9 54.2 3.4 1.7 ISC-21 172 5.8 16.9 14.0 0.0 15.7 47.7 0.0 0.0 ISC-22 55 0.0 9.1 25.5 0.0 14.5 49.1 1.8 0.0 ISC-23 99 2.0 12.1 9.1 2.0 25.3 46.5 0.0 3.0 ISC-24 67 0.0 16.4 3.0 4.5 23.9 49.3 0.0 3.0 ISC-25 37 0.0 27.0 5.4 0.0 32.4 32.4 2.7 0.0 ISC-26 103 2.9 22.3 11.7 0.0 31.1 32.0 0.0 0.0 ISC-27 50 0.0 12.0 10.0 0.0 30.0 46.0 2.0 0.0 ISC-28 51 0.0 21.6 2.0 0.0 17.6 58.8 0.0 0.0 ISC-29 23 0.0 21.7 17.4 0.0 21.7 17.4 17.4 4.3 ISC-30 87 59.8 2.3 3.4 2.3 10.3 19.5 1.1 1.1 Total 2,512 16.5 14.8 6.1 0.8 18.9 41.3 0.9 0.8 * Undet = undetermined; Gon = S. goniocalyx (2n=2x=24); Stn = S. stenotomum (2n=2x=24); Juz = S. juzepczukii (2n=3x=36); Cha = S. chaucha (2n=3x=36); Adg = S. tuberosum subsp. andigena (2n=4x=48); Tbr = S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum (2n=4x=48), of hybrid origin; Cur = S. curtilobum (2n=5x=60) S. ajanhuiri was not encountered in Huancavelica; this is in accordance with previous reports from potato collectors. Two collection trips were undertaken in 2005 to search specifically for S. phureja, but it was never encountered even though it has been collected in the lower inter- Andean and eastern valleys in the past (Ochoa, 2003, p. 56-57). Older farmer also reported the past presence of S. phureja, vernacularly known as “chaucha”, in fields below 3,400 m of altitude. 46 Potato diversity at height: Multiple dimensions of farmer-driven in-situ conservation in the Andes
Figure 2.2: Fully determined species distribution (2003-04 & 2004-05) for farmer community subpopulations and the overall regional population Total (2097) Communities & total sample size Comm unities & total sam ple Allato (n=363) Pongos Grande (n=232) Libertadores (n=161) Dos de Mayo (n=221) Pucara (n=335) Villa Hermosa (n=606) Tupac Amaru (n=62) Huayta Corral (n=117) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Distribution (%) S. goniocalyx S. stenotomum S. juzepczukii S. chaucha S. tuberosum subsp. andigena S. tuberosum subsp. tuberosum S. curtilobum 2.3.2 Morphological diversity of in-situ collections Similarity analysis, dendrogram construction, cophenetic analysis and matrix correlations calculations (Mantel tests) were conducted for morphologically characterized populations at the following scales: a. farmer family subpopulations (38), b. community subpopulations (8), c. overall regional population (1). The number of unique cultivars, morphotypes and pure duplicates within morphologically characterized cultivar (sub)populations was established. Here unique cultivars are defined as accessions with no pairs at < 75.0% similarity for the farmer family (38) and community subpopulations (8); these are represented in each dendrogram by a similarity coefficient higher than the coefficient limit (table 2.6). The total regional population (1) was dissected more rigidly considering accessions as unique cultivars when having no pairs at < 66.7% and < 58.3% similarity (comparison at two defined coefficient limits). Morphotypes are defined as accessions belonging to a cluster at = 75% similarity; these are represented in the dendrogram by a similarity coefficient lower or equal to the coefficient limit. The coefficient limit was calculated at 75% similarity for each dendrogram in order to separate unique cultivars from morphotypes. Pure duplicates are accessions with one or more equal pairs at a coefficient of 0.00 (100% similarity). Accessions considered morphotypes or pure duplicates have one or more pairs with numerous or all morphological character states in common. Only one accession of a subcluster of morphotypes or duplicates represents a unique cultivar. Results at the scale of farmer family subpopulations show that appreciable morphological diversity exists within potato cultivar pools managed by individual households (table 2.6). These selected and morphologically characterized subpopulations contained a minimum of 13 and a maximum of 160 unique cultivars per subpopulation. No pure duplicates were found within the farmer family subpopulations. Yet, 25 out of a total of 38 morphologically characterized farmer family subpopulations contained between 1 to 33 accessions classified as morphotypes. These Potato diversity at height: Multiple dimensions of farmer-driven in-situ conservation in the Andes 47
Page 1 and 2: Potato Diversity at Height: multipl
Page 3 and 4: Potato diversity at height: Multipl
Page 5 and 6: Potato diversity at height: Multipl
Page 7 and 8: to Andean farmers and their legacy
Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents List of Tables 15
Page 11 and 12: 4 Annual spatial management of pota
Page 13 and 14: 8.2.2 Folk descriptors and nomencla
Page 15 and 16: List of Tables Table 1.1: Basic cha
Page 17 and 18: Table 4.16: Means of the cumulative
Page 19 and 20: List of Figures Figure 1.1: Locatio
Page 21 and 22: List of Boxes Box 5.1: The case of
Page 23 and 24: 1. Stef de Haan¹ Introduction ¹ I
Page 25 and 26: agrobiodiversity classification can
Page 27 and 28: 6. What is the role of potato and i
Page 29 and 30: 1.4.8 Ethnobotanical inquiry Folk t
Page 31 and 32: the department of Huancavelica and
Page 33 and 34: infraspecific diversity exist. Betw
Page 35 and 36: 2. Species, morphological and molec
Page 37 and 38: Since Bukasov (1939) first counted
Page 39 and 40: Table 2.2: Potato cultivar collecti
Page 41 and 42: (DIST), Sequential Agglomerative Hi
Page 43 and 44: 2.3 Results 2.3.1 Species diversity
Page 45: Figure 2.1: Fully determined ploidy
Page 49 and 50: Relatively high numbers of morphoty
Page 51 and 52: Figure 2.3: Unweighted Neighbor Joi
Page 53 and 54: Table 2.11: Number and percentage o
Page 55 and 56: Table 2.15: A comparisons of morpho
Page 57 and 58: S. goniocalyx and S. stenotomum rep
Page 59 and 60: 3. Indigenous biosystematics of And
Page 61 and 62: Table 3.1 compares and contrasts fo
Page 63 and 64: categories of Quechua cultivators a
Page 65 and 66: seems to be extremely rare 9 . Othe
Page 67 and 68: description was done with the Inter
Page 69 and 70: were shown a regional fixed sample
Page 71: more widely distributed wild specie
Page 74 and 75: Figure 3.5: UPGMA dendrogram (DIST
Page 76 and 77: elonging to each of the folk specif
Page 78 and 79: 3.3.2 Folk descriptors Informants u
Page 80 and 81: Farmers used a total average repert
Page 82 and 83: 3.3.3 Nomenclature Consistency of c
Page 84 and 85: Figure 3.16: The relative regional
Page 86 and 87: (supplement for chewing coca leafs)
Page 88 and 89: categories) or environmental fit (c
Page 90 and 91: and indirect primary cultivar names
Page 92 and 93: 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 Agroecosyste
Page 94 and 95: Table 4.1: The general geographic d
Page 96 and 97:
Table 4.3: Cultivars included in th
Page 98 and 99:
Table 4.4: Potato labor calendar fo
Page 100 and 101:
manage a yearly average of 4.9 (±
Page 102 and 103:
Table 4.9: Number of potato cultiva
Page 104 and 105:
Figure 4.3: Average number of culti
Page 106 and 107:
cultivars except Puqya, Manwa and S
Page 108 and 109:
Table 4.12: Basic soil characterist
Page 110 and 111:
Table 4.14: Additive main effect an
Page 112 and 113:
Table 4.16: Means of the cumulative
Page 114 and 115:
4.4 Discussion and conclusions Annu
Page 116 and 117:
116 Potato diversity at height: Mul
Page 118 and 119:
to maintain viable populations. Via
Page 120 and 121:
Table 5.1: Sample sizes obtained wi
Page 122 and 123:
When mapping the yearly cropping ar
Page 124 and 125:
predominantly dedicate fields exclu
Page 126 and 127:
Table 5.7: Characteristics of the 1
Page 128 and 129:
Box 5.2: The case of the survival o
Page 130 and 131:
A second innovation allows family-a
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Farmer seed
Page 136 and 137:
Regular daily and weekly rural mark
Page 138 and 139:
Figure 6.1: Map of the localities w
Page 140 and 141:
Table 6.1: Number of seed lots kept
Page 142 and 143:
Potato Virus Y (PVY) is also transm
Page 144 and 145:
Family members and farmers, as well
Page 146 and 147:
from Junín was appreciable with an
Page 148 and 149:
Table 6.11: Details of individual s
Page 150 and 151:
An average of 21.1% of participants
Page 152 and 153:
High levels of yield reduction toge
Page 154 and 155:
Table 6.15: Relative importance (*)
Page 156 and 157:
Table 6.17: Number and type of cult
Page 158 and 159:
native-floury potato cultivars rath
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Results suggest that in-situ conser
Page 164 and 165:
2001, 74.4% of the total population
Page 166 and 167:
Additionally, the composition of 9
Page 168 and 169:
7.2.3 Cultural connotations Researc
Page 170 and 171:
Table 7.6: Dry matter, gross energy
Page 172 and 173:
these cultivars can not be consider
Page 174 and 175:
7.3.2 Dietary intake The surveyed m
Page 176 and 177:
Table 7.10: Average daily energy, p
Page 178 and 179:
Table 7.12: Coverage of the total f
Page 180 and 181:
soup were commonly associated with
Page 182 and 183:
Food system interventions aimed to
Page 184 and 185:
communities. The bitter cultivated
Page 186 and 187:
8.3 Annual spatial patterns of cons
Page 188 and 189:
more efficient through inclusion of
Page 190 and 191:
8.6.2 Dietary intake and nutrition
Page 192 and 193:
References Alcorn, J.B. 1995. Ethno
Page 194 and 195:
Bourliaud, J., Herve, D., Morlon, P
Page 196 and 197:
D’Altroy, T.N. 2000. Andean land
Page 198 and 199:
Gauch, H.G. 1990. Full and reduced
Page 200 and 201:
Huang, X.Q., Wolf, M., Ganal, M.V.,
Page 202 and 203:
McGuire, S. 2005. Getting Genes: re
Page 204 and 205:
Rojas, I. 1998. Origen y Expansión
Page 206 and 207:
Vargas, C. 1936. El Solanum tuberos
Page 208 and 209:
Abbreviations Adg = Solanum tuberos
Page 210 and 211:
TEK = Traditional Environmental Kno
Page 212 and 213:
Camote sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas
Page 214 and 215:
Palta cultivar group (potato), flat
Page 216 and 217:
Tumbay cultivar group (potato) Tupa
Page 218 and 219:
Appendices Appendix I. Formal morph
Page 220 and 221:
Distribution 0) absent, 1) eyes, 2)
Page 222 and 223:
Appendix III. Vernacular names of w
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix IV. Vernacular names in Qu
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix VI. Basic information of s
Page 228 and 229:
Appendix VIII. Fields affected, dam
Page 230 and 231:
Summary In-situ conservation Two ty
Page 232 and 233:
30-year time-span (1975-2005) of tr
Page 234 and 235:
Resumen Conservación in-situ Se pu
Page 236 and 237:
una consecuencia directa de la adap
Page 238 and 239:
Samenvatting In-situ conservering T
Page 240 and 241:
gesuggereerd dat boeren jaarlijks d
Page 242 and 243:
Acknowledgements Interdisciplinary
Page 244 and 245:
De Haan, S., Bonierbale, M., Ghisla
show all

Para PDF Tesis con Figuras en Word.p65 - Farmers' Rights website

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?