This is the accepted version of the journal article: Labeyrie, Vanesse; Renard, Delphine; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Yildiz; [et al.]. «The role of crop diversity in climate change adaptation : insights from local observa- tions to inform decision making in agriculture». Current opinion in environmental sustainability, Vol. 51 (August 2021), p. 15-23. DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2021.01.006 This version is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/264790 under the terms of the license Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343521000166 Manuscript_665e3fa3f5325a0d4eac8283680c7f82 1 Title 2 The role of crop diversity in climate change adaptation: insights from local observations 3 to inform decision making in agriculture 4 5 Authors 6 Vanesse Labeyrie1,2, Delphine Renard3, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas3, Petra Benyei4, Sophie 7 Caillon3, Laura Calvet-Mir4, Stéphanie M. Carrière5, Marilou Demongeot3, Elsa Descamps5, 8 André Braga Junqueira4, Xiaoyue Li4, Jonathan Locqueville3, Giulia Mattalia4,6, Sara 9 Miñarro4, Antoine Morel1,2, Anna Porcuna-Ferrer4, Anna Schlingmann4, Julia Vieira da 10 Cunha Ávila7, Victoria Reyes-García4,8. 11 12 Affiliations 1 13 CIRAD, UPR GREEN, F-34398 Montpellier, France 2 14 GREEN, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France 3 15 CEFE, CNRS, Univ Montpellier, University Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE, IRD, 16 Montpellier, France. 4 17 Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 18 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 5 19 IRD-Montpellier, UMR Governance, Risk, Environment and Development (GRED) 20 Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier Cedex 5 France 6 21 Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics, and Statistics, Ca’ Foscari University 22 of Venice, Via Torino 155, I-30172, Mestre, Venezia, Italy 7 23 Graduate Program in Botany, National Institute of Amazonian Research, Manaus, AM, 24 69067-375, Brazil 8 25 Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), 08010 Barcelona, Spain 26 27 Contributions 28 Corresponding author: Vanesse Labeyrie, vanesse.labeyrie@cirad.fr © 2021 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ 29 First authors (design of the survey): VL and DR 30 Data collection (references review, selection and coding): VL, PB, LCM, ED, ABJ, XL, JL, 31 GM, SM, AM, VP, APF, FR, AS, RSF, JVCA 32 Data analysis: VL, DR, MD, ED, AM 33 Writing: VL, DR, VRG, YA, SC, SMC 34 35 Keywords 36 Crop diversity; Climate Change; Farming; Local Ecological Knowledge; Sustainability 37 38 Highlights 39 ● We review climate-driven changes in crop portfolios reported by farmers. 40 ● We discuss the implications for local calories and nutrient production. 41 ● We document increased cultivation of water-demanding horticultural crops. 42 ● These crops contain less energy but more vitamins than abandoned ones, mainly 43 cereals. 44 ● Farmers’ knowledge is an untapped source of information for climate decision 45 making. 46 47 Abstract 48 Homogenization of crop portfolios from the field to the global scale is raising concerns about 49 agricultural adaptation to climate change. Assessing whether such trends threaten farmers’ 50 long-term adaptive capacity requires a thorough understanding of changes in their crop 51 portfolios, identification of the drivers of change, and the implications such changes have for 52 local nutrition and food production. We reviewed the available literature on farmers’ reports 53 of climate-driven crop changes. Small-scale farmers tend to adopt water-demanding crops, 54 even in areas where models predict that reduced rainfall will reduce yields. The adoption of 55 horticultural cash-crops combined with the abandonment of subsistence cereals modifies 56 farmers’ nutritional inputs in terms of calories and nutrients, potentially undermining their 57 food security. Farmers’ knowledge contributes to understand trends in crop diversity and 58 support the design of strategies for adaptation to climate change. 59 1. Introduction 60 Diversification and modification of crop species and variety portfolios are widespread 61 strategies used by farmers to cope with environmental and socio-economic variability and to 62 adapt to change [1] including climate change [2]. Despite the significance of crop diversity 63 for the ability of agroecosystems to adapt to climate change, existing public policies and 64 development interventions provide limited support for crop diversification [3]. Rather, 65 development policies combined with market demand over the last forty years have led to the 66 general homogenization of crop species and varieties across regions [4], as well as of national 67 and global food supplies [5]. Now, in the face of climate change, crop homogenization is 68 jeopardizing global food security [5] and weakening farmers´ adaptive capacity [2]. The 69 impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be particularly strong in Africa, 70 Southeast Asia, Central America, the Pacific, and the Caribbean [6], where small-scale 71 farmers are already facing pressure due to increasing market globalization, urbanization, and 72 population shifts, all of which impact farmers’ crop portfolios [7,8,9] and household nutrition 73 [10]. 74 Several studies report a global reduction in crop diversity [4,5], but a thorough 75 understanding is needed of how changes in farmers’ crop portfolios are linked to global trends 76 and of the combined effects of climatic and socio-economic factors on these changes. 77 Understanding changes in farmers’ crop portfolios, the interplay between climate and other 78 drivers of change, and the implications for farmers’ food security, nutrition, and income is 79 crucial to inform agricultural decision making, particularly to design viable strategies for 80 long-term adaptation in a rapidly changing world. 81 Local knowledge is a relatively untapped source of information on the impacts of climate 82 change on local communities and their adaptation strategies [11]. Here, drawing on farmers’ 83 reports of observed changes in crop abundance and/or diversity at the level of the species or 84 variety, we describe patterns of climate-related changes in crop diversity and the potential 85 impacts of such changes on farmer’s nutrition. Finally, we discuss how studies on local 86 farmers’ knowledge contribute to crop diversity research and agricultural decision-making in 87 the face of climate change. 88 89 2. Methods 90 We searched scientific literature databases covering the semantic fields of local knowledge 91 and observations, crops, and climate change. We selected 95 articles published in English up 92 to and including 2019, that documented changes in crop diversity reported by farmers and 93 explicitly linked to medium- to long-term climate change (see SI 1 for details). For each 94 reported change, we (i) recorded the geographical location, the corresponding climate zone 95 according to the Köppen-Geiger classification [12,13], and the predominant farming system 96 (i.e., small- or large-scale system) in the area concerned, (ii) coded the trajectory of change at 97 the species or variety level as “an increase in abundance or adoption” (hereafter “adoption”) 98 or “a decrease in abundance or abandonment” (hereafter “abandonment”), (iii) coded climate- 99 related drivers of crop changes based on a classification proposed by [14], and (iv) recorded 100 additional non-climate related drivers of crop change, classifying them in economic, 101 ecological, institutional, and socio-cultural categories. 102 We then classified the documented crops in eight categories: cereals, legumes, tubers, 103 horticultural crops, oilseed, fruit and nuts, service crops (e.g., shade trees), and others (e.g., 104 spices, fodder, and fibers; see SI 2 for details). We calculated the most frequent trajectories of 105 change in each crop category and species and the distribution of perceived drivers of change. 106 Finally, to explore the potential nutritional impacts of the documented crop changes (in terms 107 of total energy, macro- and micronutrients [see SI 1 for the complete list]), we performed 108 two-way ANOVA to compare the nutritional values of adopted and abandoned crop species, 109 using the crop-specific USDA Food and Nutrient database for raw crops [15]. 110 111 3. Results 112 3.1.Geographic and climatic distribution of observations 113 The 95 studies reporting farmers’ observations of climate-related changes in crops we 114 reviewed were conducted in 34 countries, 87% of which were in small-scale farming systems. 115 Only 14% of the studies focused specifically on the impacts of climate change on crops, while 116 the majority (86%) mentioned impacts on crops among other elements affected by climate 117 change (e.g., water availability, natural ecosystems, forests). Our results reveal very uneven 118 geographic and climatic distribution of research aimed at documenting climate-related local 119 observations of changes in crops (Figure 1). Forty-seven percent of the studies were 120 conducted in 20 African countries and 46 in 10 countries in Asia. Europe, North America, 121 Oceania, and Latin America were poorly represented (7%, 4 countries). Furthermore, studies 122 were clustered in specific areas, especially in Southern Asia, where most studies focused on 123 India and Nepal, and in southern, eastern, and western Africa. In terms of climate zones, 33% 124 of the studies were conducted in tropical climates, 27% in temperate climates, and 14% in 125 arid climates, and only two studies in polar climates, where agriculture is a minor activity. 126 Twenty-four percent (n=23) of the studies reported data from more than one site located in 127 different climate zones. 128 129 Figure 1. Top: Geographic and climatic distribution of the case studies analyzed. Bottom: 130 Number of studies per continent and climate zone according to the Köppen-Geiger 131 classification [12,13]. 132 [FIGURE 1 HERE] 133 134 135 3.2. From local to global patterns of changes in crop diversity 136 Out of 428 observations of changes in crop abundance, reports of adoption of species 137 (54%) and varieties (18%) in response to climate change were more common than reports of 138 abandonment of species (23%) or of varieties (5%). Overall, we found reports of changes in 139 the abundance of 113 different species, although 16 species (6 horticultural, 5 cereal, 3 tuber, 140 1 oilseed, and 1 fruit species) accounted for half the observations that mentioned changes in 141 species. 142 At the species level, 38% of the reports of species adoption (n=231) referred to 143 horticultural crops, followed by cereals (14%), legumes (12%) and fruit and nuts (12%). Most 144 reports of species abandonment (n=97) referred to cereals (47%). While studies in Africa 145 reported more cereal adoption than abandonment, the opposite was observed in Asia (Figure 146 2). In Africa, both species abandonment (56%) and adoption (24%) mainly concerned cereals 147 (especially sorghum, maize and pearl millet). Horticultural crops (especially watermelon) also 148 represented a large share of species adoption in Africa (21%), followed by tubers (16%, 149 mainly cassava and sweet potato), and legumes (16 %, especially cowpea). In Asia, 150 abandonment mainly concerned cereals (45%, mainly rice, wheat and maize), and adoption 151 mainly concerned horticultural crops (43%, mainly tomato, cabbage and cauliflower). 152 153 Figure 2. Relative proportion of crop species adopted (right) and abandoned (left) per 154 continent. The x axis shows the number of observations of change in a given species out of 155 the total number of observations for that continent. The main species are displayed in color 156 (i.e., representing more than 3% of the observations at the continent level) and the remaining 157 species are grouped as ‘others’. 158 [FIGURE 2 HERE] 159 160 161 162 The crops that have been adopted have, on average, fewer calories (F = 12.1; P = 163 0.001) and carbohydrates (F = 39.4; P < 0.001) and higher total vitamin (F = 9.8; P = 0.02) 164 contents than crops that have been abandoned (Figure 3, see SI 3 for details). 165 166 Figure 3. Caloric and nutritional content of abandoned crop species (left) and adopted species 167 (right). The violin plot and the dots show the distribution of the crop-specific caloric values, 168 macronutrients, total vitamin and mineral contents, while the green dots represent the average 169 value per trend of crop change. 170 [FIGURE 3 HERE] 171 172 173 174 At the infraspecific level, 150 observations reporting changes in the abundance of 175 varieties were found in 66 studies. More adoptions (79%) than abandonment (21%) of 176 varieties were reported. Cereals were the most frequently reported category (65% of 177 adoptions and 58% of abandonments). The adoption of varieties mainly concerned rice in 178 Asia and maize in Africa. Most of the varieties that were adopted were modern varieties (74% 179 of the observations), whereas most of the varieties that were abandoned were landraces, i.e., 180 local “heirloom” varieties (74%). 181 3.3. The relative role of climate change as a driver of changes in farmers’ crop 182 portfolios 183 The literature refers to climate change as a driver of changes in crop portfolios both in 184 broad and specific terms. In 43% (n=185) of all the observations, researchers broadly reported 185 that farmers attribute changes in their crop portfolio to “climate change” (Figure 4). Among 186 the observations in which climate was mentioned as a specific driver (n=251), changes in 187 precipitation, particularly increased variability, was the most frequently cited climate driver, 188 and appeared in 86% of the reports. Changes in precipitation itself (mean and variability) 189 were reported to drive 36% of the cases in which horticultural crops were adopted, 67% of the 190 cases in which cereals were abandoned, and 50% of the adoption of cereals. Changing 191 temperatures were also reported to drive the adoption of horticultural crops (22%). Cascading 192 effects of climate changes affecting freshwater availability were only reported as a driver in 193 5% of the observations of changes in crop portfolios reported. 194 195 Figure 3: Share of observations of changes in crop portfolios at the species level per crop 196 category and climate-related indicators of change. The x axis represents the number of 197 observations of change in crop species associated with each category of climate-related 198 drivers. Positive and negative values along the x axis indicate crop adoption and 199 abandonment, respectively. 200 [FIGURE 4 HERE] 201 202 203 While our search focused on the role of climate as a driver of changes in crop 204 portfolios, we noted that climate change was often interlinked with other important drivers of 205 change, sometimes acting in synergetic and sometimes in antagonistic ways. Thus, 32% 206 (n=139) of the reports of changes in crop portfolios were also associated with non-climatic 207 drivers. Economic drivers (55%), and particularly increased access to market opportunities, 208 were the most frequently cited co-drivers of changes in crop portfolios. For example, farmers 209 reported that adopting cash crops (e.g., vegetables) helped offset the lower yields of food 210 crops (e.g., cereals), with the pressure of the two drivers acting to change cropping systems 211 (see SI 4 for further details). Some studies also reported that farmers mentioned other 212 environmental changes, such as declining soil fertility and increasing cases of disease, 213 increasing damage caused by pests or predators as co-drivers of changes in crop portfolios 214 (32%). In a few cases (8%) development programs or NGO projects were also mentioned as 215 drivers of changes in crop portfolios. 216 217 4. Discussion 218 Our findings suggest that farmers’ observations are a valuable source of information 219 on climate-related changes in local crop diversity. However, to understand global trends, 220 research should aim to fill two important gaps, namely the strong geographical clustering of 221 studies and the strong focus on small-scale farming systems. Our review showed that 222 available literature is focused on a small number of regions in Asia and Africa where climate 223 change is particularly obvious (e.g., in the Himalayas), and that research on farmers’ 224 knowledge is circumstantial in regions where large-scale farming predominates (e.g. Europe, 225 USA, Australia). Further, our results suggest that in some regions (e.g. Latin America or 226 North Africa), studies focused on local knowledge are probably published in other languages 227 than English. The body of knowledge on climate-related changes in crop diversity would 228 benefit from including areas that are particularly threatened by climate change and where a 229 drastic decrease in crop yield is expected [16] (including arid regions: the Sahel, North Africa 230 and the Middle East), and those where climate change may open up new farming 231 opportunities (Northern Europe) [17,18]. 232 Our results also suggest that an approach based on farmers’ knowledge could provide 233 a complementary perspective to current agricultural research on adaptation to climate change 234 in two important ways. First, current research largely neglects the Southern Hemisphere [19, 235 20]. Second, our review reports on changes to a wide range of crop species, including 236 neglected ones, i.e., species that have been the subject of less research despite their potential 237 for adaptation to climate change [21]. Further study of farmers’ knowledge would 238 complement the limited scope of current agricultural research on the impacts of climate 239 change that is focused on a small number of crops, maize, wheat, rice and soy [19]. 240 The patterns of changes in crop portfolios reviewed here raise concerns for small-scale 241 farmers’ capacity for adaptation to climate change in the long term. We documented the 242 adoption of water-demanding crops (e.g., maize, tomato, watermelon), even in areas where 243 models based on IPCC scenarios predict a decrease in their yield, driven by reduced rainfall 244 [22]. This is particularly the case in Africa [6,23]. The high proportion of reports on non- 245 climate drivers of crop change (i.e., market incentives, development programs) in our search 246 (that itself focused on climate change) suggests that other factors also drive shifts in crop 247 portfolios. In particular, several articles reported that farmers consider the adoption of high- 248 value cash crops, mainly irrigated horticultural crops, as an opportunity to cope with the 249 impacts of climate change on rainfed food crops (e.g, [24,25]). Strategies to cope with the 250 impacts of climate change are supported by technological improvements in local agricultural 251 systems (e.g., access to irrigation) and better access to markets. However, they may also 252 threaten farmers’ adaptive capacity in the long term, as opportunities to cultivate more water- 253 demanding and high-market value crops are likely to shrink under future climatic conditions 254 [26,27]. 255 Our review revealed that species’ adoption concerns a wide range of crop species and 256 categories (i.e., horticultural crops, tubers, legumes). However, these results call for further 257 investigation to assess if changes to local crop portfolios would lead to homogenization at the 258 regional or global scale that would also pose a threat to the resilience of food systems [4,5]. 259 Furthermore, despite this apparent gain in diversity at the species level, we also noted that 260 most of the crops that are adopted are modern varieties and that abandoned crops are local 261 landraces. This trend could reduce intraspecific diversity and shrink the diversity reservoir 262 that is critical for adaptation to climate change [28]. 263 The cropping trends we identified also raise concerns for food security. The crop 264 species that have been adopted (i.e., fruit and vegetables) have lower energy and carbohydrate 265 contents than abandoned crop species (i.e., cereals), but are richer in vitamins that are 266 essential for human health. On the other hand, the fruit and vegetables that are being adopted 267 are often geared towards markets, and these new sources of vitamins may not necessarily 268 benefit smallholders’ nutrition [29]. Conversely, the decline in the cultivation of staple 269 cereals, widely reported for major African cereals like millet or sorghum, could increase 270 farmers’ food and nutrition insecurity by increasing their dependence on imported crops (e.g., 271 rice) of low nutritional quality [30] and that are also subject to market fluctuations [31]. The 272 benefits of commercial horticulture and associated global food trade for smallholder remains 273 highly controversial, and is strongly scale-dependent and context-based [32,33,34]. 274 Our review identified important issues for agricultural decision making, especially for 275 development initiatives aimed at strengthening the capacity of small-scale farmers to adapt to 276 climate change. Rural development actors including national and international development 277 agencies and NGOs promote the development of horticulture in small-scale agriculture (e.g., 278 [35]), but we argue that such recommendations should not be made without prior evaluation 279 of their medium to long term consequences for small-scale farmers food security and adaptive 280 capacity. The dramatic expansion of horticulture is already causing groundwater depletion in 281 some places (e.g., [36]). Rural development actors should consider supporting agricultural 282 water uses that are suited to predicted climate change, and need to be sure that expanding 283 commercial horticulture will benefit smallholders’ livelihoods without jeopardizing their 284 capacity to adapt in the long term. 285 286 5. Conclusion 287 Farmers across the world are reacting to the combined effects of climate and non- 288 climate drivers of change by adjusting their crop portfolios. While such adjustments involve 289 both the adoption and the abandonment of certain crops or landraces, we identified a general 290 trend involving the adoption of water-demanding horticultural crops with little energy 291 content. We argue that this trend may threatens the resilience of local cultivation systems and 292 livelihoods. Our review calls for coordinated interdisciplinary research to fill methodological 293 and geographical gaps that currently limit a thorough understanding of farmers´ responses to 294 climate change [37]. Such collective efforts are urgent, and could represent a unique 295 opportunity to monitor the dynamics of under-researched crops and trends in regions where 296 long-term research is a challenge. Information concerning climate-related changes in crop 297 diversity at the local scale and their co-drivers could help reorient agricultural policies and 298 development programs toward long-term adaptation to climate change. 299 300 6. Acknowledgments 301 This work was conducted in the framework of NetDivA project (ID 1702-022), which was 302 publicly funded through ANR (the French National Research Agency) under the “Programme 303 d’Investissements d’Avenir” reference ANR-10-LABX-001-01 Labex Agro and coordinated 304 by Agropolis Fondation in the frame of I-SITE MUSE (ANR-16-IDEX-0006). Research 305 leading to this paper has also received funding from the European Research Council under an 306 ERC Consolidator Grant (FP7-771056-LICCI) and from another “Programme 307 d’Investissements d’Avenir” grant (17-MPGA-0004). This work contributes to the “María de 308 Maeztu Unit of Excellence” (CEX2019-000940-M). We thank Marina Sabaté Miró, David 309 García del Amo, and Faustine Ruggieri for assistance with coding the climatic zones, Ramin 310 Soleymani-Fard for help in designing the database, and Antoine Doncieux and Vincent 311 Porcher for recommending useful references. We acknowledge the comments of two 312 anonymous reviewers, who helped us considerably improve our manuscript. 313 314 7. References 315 316 1. Lin BB: Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive 317 management for environmental change. BioScience 2011, 61:183–193. 318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4 319 320 2. Altieri MA, Nicholls, CI: The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional 321 agriculture in a changing climate. Clim Change 2017, 140:33–45. 322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y 323 324 3. Pimbert MP, Moeller NI: Absent agroecology aid: on UK agricultural development 325 assistance since 2010. Sustainability 2018, 10:505. http://dx.doi:10.3390/su10020505 326 327 4. Martin AR, Cadotte MW, Isaac ME, Milla R, Vile D, Violle C: Regional and global 328 shifts in crop diversity through the Anthropocene. PloS one 2019, 14:2, e0209788. 329 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209788 330 * Using national scale agricultural data (FAO), the authors found a global trend toward crop 331 diversification during the 1970s-80s period. Although timing and duration of major changes 332 in crop diversity vary across regions, authors found evidence of increased similarity in crop 333 pool grown globally. 334 335 5. Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, Ramirez-Villegas J, Guarino L, Jarvis A, 336 Rieseberg LH, Struik PC: Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the 337 implications for food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014, 111:4001–4006. 338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111 339 340 6. Porter JR, Xie L, Challinor AJ, Cochrane K, Howden SM, Iqbal MM, Lobell DB, 341 Travasso MI: Food security and food production systems. In: Climate Change 2014: 342 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution 343 of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 344 Climate Change. Edyted by Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, 345 Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, 346 MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL. Cambridge University Press; 2014:485-533. 347 348 7. Van Vliet N, et al.: Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation 349 in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Glob Environ Change 2012, 350 22: 418-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.009 351 352 8. Zimmerer KS: Biological diversity in agriculture and global change. Annu Rev 353 Environ Resour 2010, 35:137–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-040309- 354 113840 355 356 9. Aguiar S, Texeira M, Garibaldi LA, Jobbágy EG: Global changes in crop diversity: 357 Trade rather than production enriches supply. Glob Food Secur 2020, 26:100385. 358 http://dx.doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100385 359 360 10. Tilman D, Clark M: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human 361 health. Nature 2014, 515:518–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13959 362 363 11. Reyes‐García V, Fernández‐Llamazares Á, Guèze M, Garcés A, Mallo M, Vila‐ 364 Gómez M, and Vilaseca M: Local indicators of climate change: The potential 365 contribution of local knowledge to climate research. Clim Change 2016, 2:109-124. 366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.374 367 * This analysis highlights the complementarity of fine-grained local knowledge and scientific 368 knowledge on climate change, pleading for bridging both knowledge systems to develop 369 effective adaptation strategies. 370 371 12. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA: Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger 372 climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2007, 11:1633-1644. 373 http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007 374 375 13. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F: World map of the Köppen-Geiger 376 climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 2006, 15:259–263. 377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130 378 379 14. Reyes-García, V. et al. Local Indicators of Climate Change Impacts. Data collection 380 protocol. Figshare 2020, http://dx.doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.11513511.v3 381 382 15. United States Department of Agriculture. National Nutrient Database. https:// 383 ndb.nal.usda.gov/ 2013. 384 385 16. World Bank: World Bank development report 2010: Development and climate 386 change. 2010 387 388 17. Bindi M, Olesen JE: The responses of agriculture in Europe to climate change. 389 Reg Environ Change 2011, 11:151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0173-x 390 391 18. Ergon Å, Seddaiu G, Korhonen P, Virkajärvi P, Bellocchi G, Jørgensen M, Østrem L, 392 Reheul D, Volaire F: How can forage production in Nordic and Mediterranean Europe 393 adapt to the challenges and opportunities arising from climate change? Eur J Agron 394 2018, 92:97–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.016 395 396 19. White JW, Hoogenboom G, Kimball BA, Wall GW: Methodologies for simulating 397 impacts of climate change on crop production. Field Crops Res 2011,124:357–368. 398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.07.001 399 400 20. Beillouin D, Ben-Ari T, Makowski D: Evidence map of crop diversification 401 strategies at the global scale. Environ Res Lett 2019, 14:123001. 402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4449 403 404 21. Chivenge P, Mabhaudhi T, Modi A, Mafongoya P. The Potential Role of Neglected 405 and Underutilised Crop Species as Future Crops under Water Scarce Conditions in 406 Sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015, 12:5685–5711. 407 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120605685 408 409 22. Tripathi A, Tripathi DK, Chauhan DK, Kumar N, Singh GS: Paradigms of climate 410 change impacts on some major food sources of the world: a review on current 411 knowledge and future prospects. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2016, 216:356–373. 412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.034 413 414 23. Pironon S, Etherington TR, Borrell JS, Kühn N, Macias-Fauria M, Ondo I, Tovar C, 415 Wilkin P, Willis KJ: Potential adaptive strategies for 29 sub-Saharan crops under future 416 climate change. Nat Clim Change 2019, 9:758–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019- 417 0585-7 418 419 24. Akinyemi FO: Climate change and variability in Semiarid Palapye, Eastern 420 Botswana: An assessment from smallholder farmers’ perspective. Weather, Clim, and Soc 421 2017, 9:349-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0040.1 422 423 25. Shrestha RP, Nepal N: An assessment by subsistence farmers of the risks to food 424 security attributable to climate change in Makwanpur, Nepal. Food Sec 2016, 8:415-425. 425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0554-1 426 427 26. Schewe J et al.: Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. 428 Proc Natl Acad Sci 2014, 111:3245-3250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222460110 429 430 431 27. Guodaar L, Asante F, Eshun G, Abass K, Afriyie K, Appiah DO, Gyasi R, Atampugre 432 G, Addai P, Kpenekuu F: How do climate change adaptation strategies result in 433 unintended maladaptive outcomes? Perspectives of tomato farmers. Int J Veg Sci 2020, 434 26:15-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19315260.2019.1573393 435 * An ethnographic approach with tomato farmers in Ghana shows that farmers (i) perceive 436 maladaptive impacts of climate variability on tomato production and (ii) report negative 437 outcomes of irrigation as an adaptive strategy. This study interestingly highlights the need to 438 check not only positive but also negative outcomes of adaptation strategies. 439 440 28. Gepts P: Plant genetic resources conservation and utilization. Crop Sci 2006, 46: 441 2278–2292. 442 443 29. Sibhatu KT, Qaim M: Meta-analysis of the association between production 444 diversity, diets, and nutrition in smallholder farm households. Food Policy 2018, 77:1– 445 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.04.013 446 * This meta-analysis revealed that only 20% of studies reviewed showed a consistent positive 447 association between farm-level production diversity and household and individual level 448 dietary diversity. This study interestingly questions the assumption that farm diversification is 449 an effective strategy to improve diets and nutrition for smallholder farmers. 450 451 30. Ka A, Boëtsch G, Macia E: L’alimentation des pasteurs peuls du Sahel. Entre 452 globalisation, désir de «modernité» et risques sanitaires. Cah Nutr Diététique 2020, 55: 453 47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cnd.2019.11.001 454 455 31. D’Amour CB, Anderson W: International trade and the stability of food supplies 456 in the Global South. Environ Res Lett 2020, 15:074005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab832f 457 458 32. Fader M, Gerten D, Krause M, Lucht W, and Cramer W: Spatial decoupling of 459 agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food 460 imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environ Res Lett 2013, 8:014046. 461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014046 462 463 33. Clapp J: Food self-sufficiency: Making sense of it, and when it makes sense. Food 464 policy 2017, 66:88-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.12.001 465 466 34. Kummu M, Kinnunen P, Lehikoinen E, Porkka M, Queiroz C, Röös E, Troell M, Weil 467 C: Interplay of trade and food system resilience: Gains on supply diversity over time at 468 the cost of trade independency. Glob Food Sec 2020, 24:100360. 469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100360 470 471 472 35. Talukder A, Kiess L, Huq N, de Pee S, Darnton-Hill I, Bloem MW: Increasing the 473 production and consumption of vitamin A–rich fruits and vegetables: Lessons learned in 474 taking the Bangladesh homestead gardening programme to a national scale. Food and 475 Nutr Bull 2000, 21:165-172. http://dx.doi:10.1177/156482650002100210 476 477 478 36. Shiferaw B, Reddy VR, Wani SP: Watershed externalities, shifting cropping 479 patterns and groundwater depletion in Indian semi-arid villages: The effect of 480 alternative water pricing policies. Ecol Econ 2008, 67:327-340. 481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.011 482 483 484 37. Labeyrie V, Renard D, Benyei P, Junqueira AB, Li X, Porcher V, Porcuna-Ferrer A, 485 Schlingmann A, Soleymani-Fard R, Reyes-García V: Monitoring crop diversity trends 486 based on local knowledge: a protocol for data collection. Figshare 2020, 487 http://dx.doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.11842566.v4