Pollinator's decline and the REPROCROP project

Both traditional and technical knowledge of farmers regarding the breeding and reproductive systems of their crops are insufficiently assessed at the global level. As far as we know, no other study is directly devoted to perception and beliefs of contemporary farmers regarding plant reproduction.

Quite recently, this subject started to be partially assessed in link with the issue of pollinator declines. At the global scale, this declines began to receive widespread attention in 2006. It has raised concerns regarding potential risks to global food security and economic development. The total economic risk due to pollinator loss and its consequences was estimated to more than USD300 billion per year (Bauer and Wing, 2010). Some regions of the world, such as Africa, could suffer much heavier burdens than others.

Most of studies related to pollinator’s decline are dealing with ecological, biological or phytochemical aspects. Few of these studies are devoted to farmer’s perceptions. In a recent paper defining priorities for research and development in the management of pollination services for agriculture in Africa, the interest of understanding farmer’s perception of plant reproduction is not even mentioned (Gemmill-Herren et al., 2014). In this area, the few studies devoted to farmer’s perceptions are directly focused on pollinators and insecticides. These studies do not assess farmer’s views on the reproduction of their crops.

In Uganda, up to 70% of the interviewed farmers did not understand what pollination meant (Munyuli, 2011). About 90% of them were not aware of the role played by bees in coffee yield increase. Similarly, in Western Kenya, Kasina et al. (2009) showed that most farmers were not aware of the importance of pollination for crop production. In Nepal, all respondents agreed on decreasing of insect pollinators’ population at present as compared to ten years ago (Pudasaini et al., 2016); Majority of respondents (56.67%) perceived that pesticides were the major cause of this decline. The way these Nepalese farmers perceive plant reproduction was not assessed. The mechanism of plant reproduction was probably taught to some of the farmers during the interviews by the surveyors.

A recent study was conducted among lowbush blueberry growers in Maine, USA (Hanes et al., 2015). The questionnaire started by questions such as « How important do you think native bees are for pollinating blueberries? ». When asked how nature benefits their farm, almost half of farmers tagged the “pollination box” of the questionnaires Their real knowledge about plant reproduction was not assessed. Same kind of study was also previously conducted in New Zealand (Sandhu et al, 2007). Although conventional farmers depend heavily on external chemical inputs, they rated key environmental services as very important for their farming. The top five were pollination, soil fertility, food production, soil erosion control and hydrological flow.

Bauer, D. M., & Wing, I. S. (2010). Economic consequences of pollinator declines: a synthesis. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 39(3), 368-383.
Gemmill-Herren, B., Aidoo, K., Kwapong, P., Martins, D., Kinuthia, W., Gikungu, M., & Eardley, C. (2014). Priorities for research and development in the management of pollination services for agriculture in Africa. J Pollination Ecol, 12, 40-51.
Munyuli, T. (2011). Farmers’ perceptions of pollinators’ importance in coffee production in Uganda. Agricultural Sciences, 2(03), 318.
Kasina, J. M., Mburu, J., Kraemer, M., & Holm-Mueller, K. (2009). Economic benefit of crop pollination by bees: a case of Kakamega small-holder farming in western Kenya. Journal of economic entomology, 102(2), 467-473.
Pudasaini, R., Thapa, R. B., & Tiwari, S. (2016). Farmers Perception on Effect of Pesticide on Insect Pollinators at Padampur and Jutpani Vdcs, Chitwan, Nepal. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Biotechnology, 4(1), 64-66.
Hanes, S. P., Collum, K. K., Hoshide, A. K., & Asare, E. (2015). Grower perceptions of native pollinators and pollination strategies in the lowbush blueberry industry. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 30(02), 124-131.
Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., & Cullen, R. (2007). From poachers to gamekeepers: perceptions of farmers towards ecosystem services on arable farmland. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 5(1), 39-50.

A propos des notions de femelle/féminin et mâle/masculin appliquées ou non aux plantes

Dans le dictionnaire français Larousse, le terme "femelle" désigne un individu ou d'un organe animal ou végétal qui appartient au sexe porteur des cellules reproductrices les plus volumineuses. Il qualifie aussi ce sexe. Ce terme est réservé essentiellement aux animaux et aux plantes.

Le mâle est défini comme ce qui appartient ou ce qui est propre au sexe fécondant, porteur de cellules reproductrices plus nombreuses, plus petites et plus mobiles que celles du sexe femelle. Chez les végétaux, il qualifie ou désigne l'organe qui fournit le pollen (plantes à graines) ou les anthérozoïdes (cryptogames), la fleur qui ne porte que des étamines mais pas de pistil, ou encore la plante entière dont les fleurs n'ont que des étamines.

Le dictionnaire français Larousse définit le mot féminin comme ce qui est propre à la femme. Ce terme ne s'applique donc ni aux animaux ni aux plantes. En revanche, le mot "masculin" regroupe tout ce qui appartient ou qui a rapport au mâle ou à l'homme. Le terme "mâle" n'étant pas réservé à l'espèce humaine, le mot "masculin" concerne aussi bien les humains, les animaux que les plantes. Les stéréotypes sociaux occidentaux concernant la féminité et la masculinité ont influé la définition même de ces termes.

In the French Larousse dictionary, the word "femelle" (female) means a person or an animal or a plant organ that belongs to the bearer of the larger sex reproductive cells. It also describes that gender. This term is reserved primarily to animals and plants.
The "male" is defined as that which belongs to or what is proper to the fertilizing gender, carrying many more reproductive cells, smaller and more mobile than those of the female gender. In plants, it qualifies or refers to the organ that supplies the pollen (seed plants) or the antherozoids (cryptogams), the flower that get only stamens but no pistil, or the whole plant whose flowers have only stamens.

French dictionary Larousse defines the word "féminin" (feminine) as that is unique to women. Thus, it does apply neither animals nor plants. However, the word "male" is defined as all that belongs or that relates to male man. The term "mâle" is not reserved to the human species. It concerns both humans, animals and plants. Western social stereotypes about gender are impacting the definition of these terms, as masculinity is related to animal and femininity is not.

Read more at http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/femelle/33206#9tcr63Wwxy3OtXtp.99

A propos des notions et définitions de "mère" et "père"

Mère - mother

Le dictionnaire Français Larousse définit la "mère" de différentes façons. Pour les humains, il s'agit de la femme qui a mis au monde ou qui a adopté un ou plusieurs enfants. Dans ce cas, le concept de maternité dépasse donc la fonction biologique et s'enrichit d'une dimension sociale.  En ce qui concerne les animaux, la mère est définie de façon strictement biologique comme la femelle qui a eu des petits. En arboriculture et agriculture, la mère désigne tout végétal cultivé en vue de la reproduction. Le concept de "mère" s'applique donc aussi aux plantes reproduites de façon asexuée, comme par exemple les clones de bananier.

The French Larousse dictionary defines "mère" (mother) in different ways. For humans, it designates the woman who gave birth to or adopted a child or children. In this case, the concept of maternity therefore exceeds the biological function and is enriched with a social dimension. Regarding animals, the mother is defined strictly organically as the female who had progeny. In Arboriculture and agriculture, the mother refers to any plant grown for breeding. The concept of "mother" thus applies also to asexually propagated plants such as banana clones.

Père - Father

Selon le dictionnaire Français Larousse, le terme père désigne un homme qui a engendré ou qui a adopté un ou plusieurs enfants, ou qui agit comme un père pour d'autres personnes qui lui sont proches. dans ce cas, le concept de paternité ne se restreint pas à la fonction biologique. Il intègre une forte dimension sociale, qui semble plus large encore que celle du concept de maternité. Pour les animaux, il désigne le parent mâle qui a eu une descendance,  selon une conception purement biologique. Le dictionnaire ne fait pas mention de l'utilisation du terme "père" dans le règne végétal. Il y a donc déjà dans la langue française une symbologie implicite qui relie les plantes au sexe féminin. Le terme "père" est cependant utilisé par les scientifiques et les améliorateurs qui réalisent des croisements entre plantes.

According to the French Larousse dictionary, "père" (father) refers to a man who has begotten or adopted one or more children, or who acts as a father to other people close to him. In this case, the concept of paternity largely exceeds the biological function. It incorporates a strong social dimension, which seems even wider than for the concept of motherhood. For animals, it is defined strictly organically as the male parent who had progeny. The dictionary does not consider the term "father" to be used in the plant kingdom. In French language, there is so an implicit symbology which already links plants to the female sex. However, the term "père" is used by scientists and breeders who perform crosses between plants.

Read more at http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/p%C3%A8re/59470#Cym1kV8twM5xUpdj.99

Version finale du questionnaire

La version finale du questionnaire peut être consultée et téléchargée à cette adresse:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1x7R7bGIHorN1hPZENUeXhDeWs

Le questionnaire a été conçu en langue française. Il n'existe pas pour l'instant de traduction en anglais.

The final questionnaire included 14 different sections on various aspects of farmers’ perceptions of their crops (Table 1).The questionnaire was illustrated with many photographs and drawings of the crops and their reproductive organs. When available, real inflorescences, flowers, seednuts and other parts of the plants were also shown to farmers during the interviews. Farmers were asked to explain the function of the crop’s organs as illustrated in the picture plates or shown in real.

Sections of the REPROCROP questionnaire.

Section number		Description
1	A	Recognition of the drawings of the five concerned crops (banana, cassava, cocoa, coconut, and oil palm); respondent’s choice of two crops on which the survey would focus and reasons of these choices.
2	B	Four main crops cultivated; number of cultivated species in the field; time spent farming. Only for each of the two selected crops: agricultural problems encountered, number of varieties known and cultivated; estimated number of varieties existing in the locality (village), in the country and worldwide; presumed origin of these crops. Reasons for farmers’ choices and opinions.
3	C	How do plants reproduce? Are there different ways to explain how plants reproduce? Do all crops reproduce the same way? From whom and how did you obtain the knowledge regarding plant reproduction?
4	D	Concept of maternity and paternity in plants. Only for each of the two crops selected by farmers; and applied to whole plants and several organs: do plants have: no mother and no father; a father and a mother; a mother but no father; a father but no mother; one father and more than one mother; one mother and more than one father; mother and father are the same individual; more than one mother and more than one father; varying number of parents; I don’t know; and other. (with reasons for farmers’ opinions).
5	E	Concept of gender (female or male) applied to plants. Only for each of the two crops selected by farmers; and applied to whole plants and several organs: is the plant: female or male; both female and male; only female; only male; some female and others male; can move from female to male or the reverse during their life; I don’t know; and other. (with reasons for farmers’ opinions).
6	F	Data regarding the interviewee: contact, nationality, matrimonial status, ethnic group, religion, schooling etc. Data regarding the survey: have you, or somebody from your family already been submitted to similar interviews?
7	G	Additional notes for sections 1 to 6.
8	H	Gender and age farmers’ perceptions of agricultural roles. Only on the first crop chosen by farmers, with possible responses: mainly by women; mainly by men; by both women and men, it varies, and I don’t know. Questions applied to: preference for the crop; management of seednuts; plantation; maintenance; harvest; local processing and commercialization.
9	I	Questions regarding the planting material. Only on the first crop chosen by farmers: availability; origin; selling, social exchanges and gifts; easiness of conservation; true-to-type reproduction.
10	J	Questions linked to the history of the crop. Only for the first chosen crop: cultivated or not; do other plants resemble or are of the same family as this crop? Who created the different varieties? etc.
11	K	Questions   linked to agriculture practices and yields. Only for the first chosen crop: levels of crop’s yields, manual labour, financial investment and profitability; earliness and yield stability; susceptibility to pests and diseases; frequency of harvests, consumption and sales.
12	L	Questions linked to social relationships related to the first cited crop: ownership, frequency of thefts, use to delineate land; related taboos; medicinal, poisoning and religious uses, special uses for first harvest, etc.
13	M	Subjective perception of the first crop chosen by farmers: palatable, nourishing, strength and feature of the smell, beauty, strangeness, ritual, dangerousness, etc.
14	N	Additional notes for sections 8 to 13.

Retour à la vue d'ensemble du projet.

Maladie du Jaunissement mortel à Grand Lahou: état d'urgence

En marge du projet, un court film d'alerte a été réalisé sur ce sujet, aussi disponible en version anglaise. il est disponible à cette URL:

http://diversiflora-international.blogspot.com/2016/03/maladie-du-jaunissement-mortel-du.html

Un des sites d'études du projet, Grand Lahou, englobait la zone dans laquelle la maladie du Jaunissement mortel du cocotier était active. La maladie déjà détruit des centaines d'hectares de plantation. Elle réduit à néant les revenus de certains planteurs et cause de graves problèmes sociaux. De nombreux enfants ne sont plus scolarisés faute de moyens...

Ce film a été publié dans un cadre associatif, sous logos de huit institutions publiques ou associatives:

• Agropolis fondation, qui a financé le projet REPROCROP sur un autre sujet mais nous a permis de visiter les zones touchées par la maladie.
• Le FIRCA - Fond Interprofessionnel pour la Recherche et le Conseil Agricoles, qui est la première institution à avoir financé un projet sur la maladie du Jaunissement Mortel en Côte d’Ivoire.
• L’Université Felix Houphouët Boigny de Côte d’Ivoire.
• L’APCC - Asian and Pacific Coconut Community.
• Le LAASSE – Laboratoire de Sociologie économique et d’anthropologie des appartenances symboliques.
• L’IGDP - Institut pour la bonne Gouvernance, le Développement et la Prospective
• L’ALP - Agricole Local Partner
• Et Diversiflora International

Retour à la vue d'ensemble du projet.

Gestion des données: film explicatif

Les 304 enquêtes ont été réalisées par 7 personnes sur 35 journées entre le 24 février et le 17 Avril 2015. Le nombre d’enquêtes par journée varie de 1 à 25, avec un maximum de six enquêteurs (3 femmes et 3 hommes) travaillant simultanément sur le terrain.

Trois enquêtrices (âgées de moins de 35 ans) et 4 enquêteurs (de plus de 35 ans) ont participé au projet. 78% des enquêtes (238) ont été réalisées par les femmes (les deux étudiantes recrutées par le projet et une enquêtrice de l’ONG Agricole local Partner) ; Le nombre d’enquêtes par enquêteur varie de 1 à 93.

Le court film ci-dessous présente l'organisation de la saisie des données. 

Pour des raisons pratiques, la saisie a été organisée dans trois fichiers Excel distincts et de même structure, chacun correspondant à une région d’étude : Grand Lahou, Grand Bassam, Agboville. Ces fichiers servant à la saisie des données ont été conçus par R. Bourdeix avec la contribution des deux étudiantes du projet, Abiba Diarrassouba et Paule Koffi. Ils comprennent chacun 14 feuilles de saisies avec des masques évitant la ressaisie des données de base.

La saisie des données a été réalisée principalement par les deux étudiantes recrutées sur le projet, avec l’aide ponctuelle de deux autres étudiants choisies par elles (Anliou Dahoué et Arthur Fulgence Ganian); cette aide a permis d’accélérer le processus à une période durant laquelle la fin des enquêtes de terrains et la saisie des données se télescopaient.

Les trois fichiers de données par région ont été ensuite transformés en fichiers à feuille unique, puis réunis dans un seul fichier excel: Reprocrop.xlsx