CIAT Research Online - Accepted Manuscript The Biodiversity of Food and Agriculture (Agrobiodiversity) in the Anthropocene: Research Advances and a Conceptual Framework. Anthropocene The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) believes that open access contributes to its mission of reducing hunger and poverty, and improving human nutrition in the tropics through research aimed at increasing the eco-efficiency of agriculture. CIAT is committed to creating and sharing knowledge and information openly and globally. We do this through collaborative research as well as through the open sharing of our data, tools, and publications. Citation: Zimmerer, Karl S.; de Haan, Stef; Jones, Andrew D.; Creed-Kanashiro, Hilary; Tello, Milka; Carrasco, Miluska; Meza, Krysty; Amaya, Franklin Plasencia; Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S.; Tubbeh, Ramzi & Jiménez Olivencia, Yolanda (2019). The Biodiversity of Food and Agriculture (Agrobiodiversity) in the Anthropocene: Research Advances and a Conceptual Framework. Anthropocene, In press Publisher’s DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100192 Access through CIAT Research Online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99344 Terms: © 2019. CIAT has provided you with this accepted manuscript in line with CIAT’s open access policy and in accordance with the Publisher’s policy on self-archiving. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. You may re-use or share this manuscript as long as you acknowledge the authors by citing the version of the record listed above. You may not change this manuscript in any way or use it commercially. For more information, please contact CIAT Library at CIAT-Library@cgiar.org. Accepted Manuscript Title: The Biodiversity of Food and Agriculture (Agrobiodiversity) in the Anthropocene: Research Advances and a Conceptual Framework Authors: Karl S. Zimmerer, Stef de Haan, Andrew D. Jones, Hilary Creed-Kanashiro, Milka Tello, Miluska Carrasco, Krysty Meza, Franklin Plasencia Amaya, Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia, Ramzi Tubbeh, Yolanda Jime´nez Olivencia PII: S2213-3054(19)30003-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100192 Article Number: 100192 Reference: ANCENE 100192 To appear in: Received date: 21 November 2017 Revised date: 23 January 2019 Accepted date: 27 January 2019 Please cite this article as: Zimmerer KS, de Haan S, Jones AD, Creed-Kanashiro H, Tello M, Carrasco M, Meza K, Amaya FP, Cruz-Garcia GS, Tubbeh R, Olivencia YJ, The Biodiversity of Food and Agriculture (Agrobiodiversity) in the Anthropocene: Research Advances and a Conceptual Framework, Anthropocene (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100192 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. 1 The Biodiversity of Food and Agriculture (Agrobiodiversity) in the Anthropocene: Research Advances and a Conceptual Framework Karl S. Zimmerer1,* ksz2@psu.edu, Stef de Haan2, Andrew D. Jones3, Hilary Creed-Kanashiro4, Milka Tello5, Miluska Carrasco6, Krysty Meza7, Franklin Plasencia Amaya8, Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia9, Ramzi Tubbeh10, Yolanda Jiménez Olivencia11 1Department of Geography; Department of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Economics, and Education; Ecology Program, 302 Walker Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801 2International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT-Hanoi), Pham Van Dong Street, Bac Tu Liem District, Hanoi, Vietnam 3Department of Nutritional Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 4Instituto de Investigación Nutricional (IIN), Av. La Molina 1885, Lima 12, Peru 5Hermilio Valdizán National University (UNHEVAL), Av. Universitaria 601-607- Cayhuayna, Huánuco, Peru 6Instituto de Investigación Nutricional (IIN), Av. La Molina 1885, Lima 12, Peru 7Instituto de Investigación Nutricional (IIN), Av. La Molina 1885, Lima 12, Peru 8Centro Internacional de la Papa (International Potato Center), Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima, Peru 9International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Recta Cali-Palmira, Valle del Cauca, Colombia 10Graduate Student, Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801 11Department of Regional and Physical Geography and the Institute for Regional Development, Universidad de Granada, Calle Rector López Argueta, Granada, Spain *corresponding author: AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 2 Graphical Abstract Highlight Agrobiodiversity depends on new and ongoing complex human-environment interactions Agrobiodiversity knowledge and use in the Anthropocene result in four major themes Ecology, governance, health, and global change constitute these major integrative themes Recent advances and results support the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework (AKF) The AKF advances needed understanding and action in the Anthropocene and vice versa AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 3 Introduction: Agrobiodiversity and the Anthropocene 1.1 Human-Environment Interactions of Biodiversity of Agriculture and Food Systems Agriculture and food systems are prominent drivers of changes in global Earth and socioeconomic systems in the “Anthropocene,” a time of intense human interactions with the planet. Agriculture and food systems are also the recipients of major changes. Amid this coupling, the biodiversity of agriculture and food systems have undergirded the long- term development and spread of agriculture beginning 4,000-7,000 years ago (Fuller et al. 2011; Smith and Zeder 2013). Changes of the modern, industrial period beginning around 1800 (Foley et al. 2013) have subsequently transformed the biodiversity of agriculture and food systems. The human-environment interactions of this biodiversity--- referred to as agrobiodiversity---are increasingly recognized as central in planetary-scale changes involving the environmental and social dimensions of sustainability (Zimmerer and De Haan 2017, 2019). Agrobiodiversity has been overlooked, however, in the major scientific and scholarly advances to-date on the Anthropocene (Ruddiman 2013; Ruddiman and Thomson 2001; Steffen et al. 2011; Zalasiewicz et al. 2017). Addressing this lacuna in understanding of the Anthropocene requires defining the multiple types and scales of agrobiodiversity as a complex, human-interdependent resource system (Table 1, Figure 1; see also Bioversity 2017). It also necessitates recognition that to-date the specific sub-domain of research on agriculture and food in the Anthropocene has emphasized impacts on biogeochemistry, earthworks (e.g. terraces and irrigation), and the traits and biogeography of domestication, together with the ecosystems, landscapes, and resources of agriculture and food systems (e.g. Doolittle 2015; Fuller et al. 2011; Smith and Zeder 2013; Young 2014). Such research, while groundbreaking, has not yet addressed the role of agrobiodiversity, neither in the proposal for a new geologic epoch of the Anthropocene (Zalasiewicz et al. 2017) nor with regard to the general phenomenon of Earth systems dominated by human activity (“anthropocene,” Ruddiman et al. 2015). Similarly, agrobiodiversity is not yet a focus of Anthropocene research related to transformative human changes (social- and political- ecological) at local, national, and global scales (Brondizio et al. 2016). The human-environment interactions of the biodiversity of agriculture and food systems have been integral and are subject to expanding planetary transformations. These interactions include crop and livestock evolution and development, agroecosystem services, and human diets, food, and health (Bioversity International 2017; Jackson et al. 2007; Jarvis et al. 2007; Nabhan 2012, 2016; Willett et al. 2019; Zimmerer and De Haan 2017, 2019). Agrobiodiversity exerts influence on, and is affected by, the factors of environmental and biotic resources (e.g., soil, water, pollinators) together with sociocultural and linguistic practices, development and technologies, and multi-scale institutions and social relations. But agrobiodiversity---including associated sociocultural practices (Table 1, Figure 1)---has declined steeply during the past 100-150 years. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that 75% of crop diversity disappeared between 1900 and 2000 (FAO 1999a, 1999b). For example, only 10% of the 10,000 wheat varieties produced in China in 1949 are now grown, and fewer AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 4 than 5% of the apple types recorded in 1900 are being cultivated in the United States (Gepts 2006). 1.2 Agrobiodiversity, Global Change, Diet and Nutrition, and Domesticated Nature Given the above trends and increasing global climate change and food system transformations, concerns are mounting over the decline, region-scale losses, and extinction of critical agrobiodiversity (Bioversity 2017; Brown and Hodgkin 2015; Brush 1995; Gepts 2006; Gepts et al. 2012; Jarvis et al. 2011; Jarvis et al. 2016; Zimmerer 2010; Zimmerer and de Haan 2017, 2019). The goal of this article is to review representative research to create and utilize a robust framework of the principal knowledge systems. It requires characterizing leading-edge works as well as identifying and conceptualizing the organization of these knowledge systems (e.g., Cash et al. 2003; Clark et al. 2016). The resulting Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework then guides the presentation of new data and the discussion of future research as well as management and policy. We approach the dynamic, broad-based human interactions of agrobiodiversity as fundamentally engaged with the Earth systems of the Anthropocene (Sections 4.1, 4.6). Just a handful of starchy and oil- and sugar-producing crops have dominated diets amid expanded industrial food systems and the Global Nutrition Transition affecting much of the world’s population (Popkin et al. 2012). The massive increases of animal feed production and meat consumption are part of this trend. Global- and national-level institutions and movements addressing malnutrition, the negative health consequences of poor diets (e.g., non-communicable diseases, NCDs), and the associated problems of inadequate access to high-quality foods, especially among the world’s poor, are now among those most active in promoting the use and conservation of agrobiodiversity (Frison et al. 2011; Jacobsen et al. 2015; Johns and Eyzaguirre 2006; Johns et al. 2013; Jones 2017; Khoury et al. 2014; Khoury and Jarvis 2014). The much-awaited, new report of the high-level, EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Health, Planet further elaborates this agenda (Willett et al. 2019). Sections 2.4, 3.3, 4.1, and 4.3 below address these approaches and the new agrobiodiversity-related advances in nutrition and health. Complex human dimensions undergird agrobiodiversity dynamics and make it well suited to the general “anthropocene” term (Sections 1.1 and 4.6). Global concentrations of this biodiversity are deeply embedded in the agriculture and food systems of indigenous and smallholder communities worldwide (Brush 1995; Jarvis et al. 2007; Zimmerer and de Haan 2017). We incorporate a biocultural approach (Bavikatt 2015; Sajeva 2018) to examine diverse community-based management and policy involving agrobiodiversity. It addresses cultural and social identities and movements, stakeholder groups, and social- and political-ecological issues such as biocultural diversity, biocultural heritage, and social power, equity, and justice. Agrobiodiversity analysis, including the biocultural approach, therefore broadens the scope and framing of human-biodiversity interactions in domesticated nature and the anthropogenic biosphere that distinguish Anthropocene ecological investigation (Ellis 2015; Ellis et al. 2012; Kareiva et al. 2007). AC CE PT ED M AN U CR IPT 5 This paper highlights the agrobiodiversity trends of modern, global industrial agri-food systems and such related processes as planetary urbanization. Together with the points introduced in Section 1.1, the expansion of agrobiodiversity concern is reflected in various global institutions, research activities, and initiatives that connect science and scholarship to policy and management (Table 2). Their international scope underscores the global importance and diverse valuation of agrobiodiversity. These interests and works also evidence and argue for the roles of agrobiodiversity as both a human- modified, global Earth environmental system (similar to general biodiversity, climate, or water resources) and as integral to human dimensions (sensu Liverman et al. 2003). The latter demonstrate that the social- and political-ecological dynamics of agrobiodiversity (e.g., transformation, adaptation, resilience, and vulnerability; Sections 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 3.4, 4.2.1, 4.5) are vital to the human dimensions of global agrobiodiversity change and to the issues of equity and justice. 1.3 Overview: Developing the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework The review of representative research in Sections 2.1-2.5.3 characterizes four knowledge themes that function as hubs or nodes of highly active networks. These are: (1) ecology and evolution; (2) governance (including biocultural approaches); (3) food, nutrition, and health; and (4) global environmental and socioeconomic change and transformations (Table 3, Figure 2). Each theme has distinct knowledge assemblages (disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary modes) and corresponding valuation as well as associated management and policy (columns in Table 3). Escalating interest in agrobiodiversity among diverse social and scientific sectors (DeClerck et al. 2011; Delaquis et al. 2018) leads us to examine the potential compatibility of diverse valuations as well as conflicts and frequent contestation. We assemble these themes to construct the proposed Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework. The framework highlights the distinct themes and networks (Figure 2) whose overlap enables cross-theme integration (see below). We then report new results from the Agrobiodiversity, Food, and Nutrition Project in Peru (Section III) to develop future research directions (Section IV) and conclusions (Section V). Reviews to-date have examined the individual themes or sub-themes of agrobiodiversity knowledge but not the fuller scope of both within-theme specialization and cross- thematic integration. Advancing agrobiodiversity science and scholarship as well as policy and management requires meeting the challenges and opportunities posed by these knowledge configurations (illustrated in Figure 1). Review: Research Advances and a Conceptual Framework 2.1 Methods We conducted a guided, systematic analysis of representative publications (Sections 2.1- 2.5.3) including the chronology of agrobiodiversity knowledge (Sections 2.1-2.3.3) and the bibliometric categorization and estimation of research (Figure 3). This methodology led to the identification of a small group of principal knowledge themes. The four themes AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 6 are: ecology and evolution (2.2) governance (2.3), food, nutrition, and health (2.4), and global environmental and socioeconomic changes (2.5). We define “knowledge” broadly to include scientific, scholarly, management, policy, and stakeholder forms of know-how, including biocultural and indigenous knowledge systems. 2.2 Ecology and Evolution Biological, ecosystem, and evolutionary values (and associated economic purposes) that range from genetic resources to agroecosystem goods and services motivate this theme (Table 3). Major early works on crop and livestock evolution, plant geography and genetic resources owed to Darwin, de Candolle, Vavilov and others (e.g., Vavilov 1992). By the 1970s, research was further pioneered in the far-sighted works of biologically trained specialists such as Bennett, Frankel, Harlan, Hawkes, Heiser, Iltis, and numerous others whose works continue to exert influence (e.g., Nabhan 2012). They championed the value of the continued co-evolution of extant crop and livestock diversity as genetic resources amid concerns over global decline (“genetic erosion”). Their works and many others advanced evolutionary and ecological insights that have also encompassed genetics, taxonomy, and biodiversity science. Ecological and evolutionary research on agrobiodiversity has reflected both the long-term human influences on Earth systems and the more recent accelerated impacts. Research has demonstrated the essential values of biodiversity to the ecological, evolutionary, and environmental services of diversified farming in both “traditional” and modern, industrial contexts (Altieri et al. 2015; Bellon et al. 2017; Calvet-Mir et al. 2012a; Jackson et al. 2007, 2012; Jarvis et al. 2007; Kremen et al. 2012; Letourneau et al. 2011; Liebman and Schulte 2015; Lipper et al. 2009). Related research seeks to strengthen crop and livestock agrobiodiversity per se and sustainability through the design of stakeholder involvement in participatory and evolutionary breeding (e.g., Almekinders and Elings 2001, Almekinders et al. 2007; Jones 2014; Murphy et al. 2013). This first knowledge theme requires more robust data on agrobiodiversity occurrence, biogeographic patterns, and population genetics. Systematic comparisons are needed, for example, to design the evolving interplay of ex situ conservation in genebanks at the national and global scales and in situ conservation through the continuation of on-farm production, local and regional consumption, and agroecosystem functioning (De Haan et al. 2010a; De Haan et al. 2013). Genetic and genomic marker technologies as well as new methods such as gap analysis are supplying new advances (Castañeda-Álvarez et al., 2016). Other advances highlight the characterization, estimation, and monitoring of the status and levels of agrobiodiversity at key spatial scales. These scales range from individual farms and fields to communities, landscapes, countries, regions, and the global (Brush and Perales 2007, Jackson et al. 2007; Jarvis et al. 2008; Jarvis et al. 2016; Love and Spaner 2007; Valdivia-Díaz et al. 2015; Zimmerer 1998). Research on this theme increasingly incorporate spatial and data-intensive approaches (Aguilar et al. 2015; De Haan et al. 2016; Hijmans et al. 2016). 2.3 Governance AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 7 Governance of agrobiodiversity refers to policy and legal research as well as wide- ranging biocultural approaches involving initiatives such as seed-system support (Table 3). Legal and policy instruments were already a mainstay of the agrobiodiversity research of Bennett, Frankel, Harlan and others beginning in the mid-twentieth century (Andersen 2013, 2014). Currently, major legal and policy agreements that formally govern agrobiodiversity include the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Convention on Biological Diversity including the 2020 Aichi Targets, the Nagoya Protocol, and the FAO’s Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Jarvis et al. 2007; Marques et al. 2014). Requiring institutional linkages worldwide as well as across multiple geographic scales (Andersen 2013, 2014; see also Young 1999, 2011), these governance approaches are representative of one of the human dimensions of global agrobiodiversity change (Section 2.5; Table 2). 2.3.1 Biocultural Dimensions of Governance Biocultural approaches, defined as integrating the broadly biological and cultural dimensions of human-environment systems, guide the expansion of many local and often community-based initiatives (Brush 1992; Ellen et al. 2012; Graddy 2013; Johns and Sthapit 2004; Plieninger et al. 2018; Richards 1985; Zimmerer 1996, 2015). Stemming from varied knowledge practices involving cultural, linguistic, and landscape variation, these approaches have fueled ongoing projects engaging stakeholders and supporting the valuation and use of agrobiodiversity (Bellon et al. 2015; Jarvis et al. 2011). They tend to engage diverse stakeholder groups that include indigenous and smallholder food producers, consumers, and resource managers (Leclerc and Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge 2011; Orozco-Ramírez et al. 2016; Padoch and Pinedo-Vásquez 2010; Vigouroux et al. 2011; Voeks 2004, 2018; Zimmerer et al. 2015). Women are often especially important to agrobiodiversity use and viability (see also Section 4.3). Biocultural approaches have also focused on the long-term co-evolution of agrobiodiversity and incorporated new scientific advances enabling the consideration of the lengthier time spans of human influences on Earth Systems, as detailed below. Combining techniques such as genetic fingerprinting studies, for example, have yielded time depth and spatial resolution elucidating the agency and accomplishments of Africans and African Americans. Their communities have been responsible for the distinctive West African rice, Oryza glaberimma, and other plants transferred via biocultural pathways across the Atlantic to North and South America (e.g., Richards et al. 2008; van Andel et al. 2016; and related works Carney 1991, 2001, Duvall 2006). In addition, recent stakeholder initiatives are documenting biocultural knowledge that incorporates monitoring and mapping (Table 3, Section 4.3). 2.3.2 Markets, Livelihoods, and Governance Market- and livelihood-based approaches are currently a mainstay of attempts at agrobiodiversity governance. These approaches include the support of economic value AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 8 chain approaches involving indigenous and smallholder producers, retailing and wholesale outlets for agrobiodiversity across urban and rural spaces, identifying and strengthening crop diversification, social corporate responsibility schemes, and payments for ecosystem services (Kantoleon et al. 2008; Lipper et al. 2009; McCord et al. 2015; Narloch et al. 2013; Nordhagen et al. 2017; Smale 2005; Tobin et al. 2016). These approaches extend to the role of innovative restaurants ranging from the profusion of farm-to-table venues to the establishments with celebrity chefs. They also encompass the agrobiodiversity impacts of supply chains, food wholesaling, distribution, and retailing that can incorporate agrobiodiversity to varying extents. The “supermarket revolution” is assumed to have negatively impacted biodiversity in farming and food systems (e.g., McMichael 1994, 2011). 2.3.3 Seed Systems and Governance Seed systems, which also include the propagules of vegetatively reproduced plants, are crucial for the generation and distribution of agrobiodiversity through wide-ranging governance mechanisms. Both market and non-market practice, as well as combined traditional and new cultural practices, are evidenced in agrobiodiversity seed fairs, seed banks, seed networks (including the roles of social networks), and seed saving (Abizaid et al. 2016; Jansen and Villema 2004; Jarvis et al. 2011; Labeyrie et al. 2016; Nazarea 2006; van Etten 2011). Seed exchange is vital to agrobiodiversity conservation and smallholder resilience, including in regions of the Global North such as within Spain (Calvet-Mir et al. 2012b). Finally, the surging work on diverse seed systems has shown the complexity of both predominant “informal” or lower-cost grower sourcing and links to the “formal” sector of seed companies and certified production (Louwaars et al. 2013). This research, which has expanded in the past few decades, includes reviews and comparative studies (Coomes et al. 2015; Pautasso et al. 2013; Zimmerer 2010, 2017a). 2.4 Diet, Nutrition, and Health This third thematic cornerstone has expanded rapidly as a focus area owing to the potential role of agrobiodiversity in addressing the global epidemic of NCDs and micronutrient deficiencies associated with poor diets and reduced food diversity. Global prioritization of food quality and nutritional security (not solely the quantity of food), including the 2030 U.N. Agenda for Sustainable Development, is spurring new interest in agrobiodiversity (Bioversity International 2017; Dwivedi et al. 2013; Dwivedi et al. 2017; FAO and PAR 2011; Frison et al. 2011; HLPE 2017; Khoury et al. 2014; Lachat et al. 2017). Research has focused on the nutrition transition in particular, characterized by the shift in diet toward more highly-processed foods and higher intakes of animal-source foods, as well as fewer traditional grains (Khoury and Jarvis, 2014; Popkin et al. 2012). Agrobiodiversity may play a key role in buffering the homogenizing consequences of this dietary shift (Johns et al. 2013; Jones 2017). Varied lines of research demonstrates the importance of the diversity of foods accessed through spatially extensive market systems (Sibhatu et al. 2013) as well as the value of locally sourced agrobiodiversity. The latter AC CE PT ED M A US CR IPT 9 includes both locally cultivated foods and semi-domesticates as well as uncultivated and wild plants and animals accessed in the local and regional food environments (Berti 2015; Davis 2005; Davis et al. 2004; Jones et al. 2014; Jones 2015; Powell et al. 2015). Combining this sourcing of nutritious food has proven effective in lessening the negative health outcomes of the nutrition transition in general and such specific impacts as obesogenic consequences. 2.5 Global Change Global changes that range from climate to socioeconomic globalization exert increasing influence on agrobiodiversity. Loosely akin to the pressures on the “wild” biodiversity that is central to Anthropocene research and a well-known scientific and policy emphasis (Johnson et al. 2017), the interaction and fate of agrobiodiversity has emerged as a related yet distinct and significant focus (Figure 3; Cleveland 2013; Vandermeer et al. 1998; Zimmerer 2010, 2013; Zimmerer and De Haan 2017). 2.5.1 The Green Revolution and Development Related to Global Change The Green Revolution and its successors globally have incurred impacts on agrobiodiversity that now include newer programs of crop and livestock “improvement,” comparative-advantage and export agriculture, and agricultural intensification in the Global South (e.g., AGRA or the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa; Pingali 2012). The programs have marginalized agrobiodiversity in global “improvement” and commodity development of both the major crops (e.g., wheat; Baranski 2015; Smale 2008) and important regional and local foods including those considered “neglected” or “underutilized” (e.g., millet and sorghum; Baldermann et al. 2016; Bezner Kerr 2014). Most agricultural research has regarded agrobiodiversity as a genetic resource and its loss as an inevitable consequence of modern productivity (Hoisington et al. 1999). Yet, ongoing adjustments, including among smallholder and indigenous groups, also show the innovative persistence and addition of agrobiodiversity, and reveal its emergent properties in complex social-ecological, livelihood systems (McCord et al. 2015; Zimmerer 2013). Results demonstrating the geographically uneven persistence amid Green Revolution impacts (Brookfield 2001; Brush 1992; 2004; Zimmerer 1991a, 1991b, 1996) have buffered the earlier projections of a cataclysmic “genetic wipeout.” Research has also demonstrated the partial compatibility of agrobiodiversity with global crop and livestock development during recent decades (Flachs 2015; Turner and Davidson-Hunt 2016; Zimmerer 2013; Zimmerer and Vanek 2016). Pivotal resource-and culture-based conditions, such as land access and local valuation, can contribute to continued production and consumption of food biodiversity amid increased commodity production. These insights highlight the point that agrobiodiversity is not relegated to relict or vestigial status nor confined to archaic contexts. Instead, it functions and inter- relates in complex current food and agriculture systems as an emergent property across a range of settings and scales that include the global level (Zimmerer 2010, 2013). 2.5.2 Global Climate Change AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 10 Global climate change both undermines agrobiodiversity and potentially strengthens its usefulness. Direct impacts, such as the reduction or shifts of growing habitats, range extents, and resource inputs, can lead to the loss and extinction of agrobiodiversity and impacts on food systems (e.g., Bellon and van Etten 2014; Jarvis et al. 2008; Lipper et al. 2014; Saxena et al. 2016; Zimmerer et al. 2018a). One can anticipate the potential loss and extinction of agrobiodiversity through the specialized development and monoculture- based adoption of genetically uniform varieties and breeds that are “climate resistant”--- often through pest or disease resistance. Conversely, positive impacts are potentially rooted in the capacities of agrobiodiversity to respond to climate change (Bellon et al. 2011; Bellon and van Etten 2014; Challinor et al. 2014; FAO 2015; Hellin et al. 2014; Kotschi 2007; Mercer and Perales 2010; Mijatović et al. 2013). Global environmental changes of soil and water resources are similarly expected to exert complex pressures on agrobiodiversity (Jackson 2007). Methodologically, the investigation of agrobiodiversity in the context of climate variation highlights the utilization and continued innovation of such ecological methods as common garden and reciprocal transplant experimental designs (e.g., Mercer and Perales 2010; Tito et al. 2017; Zimmerer 1991b). 2.5.3 Global Socioeconomic Change Global change also incorporates socioeconomic integration such as urbanization and migration. Research to-date suggests social-ecological processes involving these drivers and their impacts on food and agrobiodiversity that are more complex than initially anticipated (Seto and Ramankutty 2016; Seto and Reenberg 2014; Zimmerer and Vanek 2016). Urbanization, socioeconomic integration, and migration impacts, for example, are often negative owing to such forces as the expanding homogeneity of urban-centered industrial food systems (Khoury et al. 2014; Khoury and Jarvis 2014). Yet recent research has also shown that agrobiodiversity has been recently adopted in urban and peri-urban areas, as well as in other socioeconomically integrated areas, often through the livelihood strategies of migrant households and their networks (Ávila et al. 2017; Lerner and Appendini 2011; Poot-Pool et al. 2015; Wezel and Ohl 2005; Zimmerer 2014; Zimmerer et al. 2018). New Data from the Agrobiodiversity, Food, and Nutrition Field Project in Peru 3.1 Research Overview and Methodology New research results reported here serve to illustrate the four-theme framework of agrobiodiversity (Sections 2.1-2.5.3) and to outline future research (Sections 4.1-4.5.3). The new data derive from the recently concluded Agrobiodiversity, Food, and Nutrition (AFN) Project (2016-2017) in Huánuco in central Peru. Presentation of these new results begins with the agrobiodiversity-related response to global climate change (Section 3.2) in keeping with the emphasis here. Huánuco, which is located at the juncture of the Andes Mountains and the Upper Amazon, stands out as a widely recognized agrobiodiversity hotspot of western South AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 11 America and globally (Malice et al. 2010; Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011; Zimmerer et al. 2018a). This distinction owes to the extremely varied range of its tropical mountain climate and ecology centered on the inter-Andean valley of the upper Río Huallaga and its uplands and Amazonian tributaries (1700-3800 masl), as well as the current and historical agri-food systems of indigenous smallholders. High-agrobiodiversity foods in current use include the multiple local varieties or landraces of Andean maize that diversified and co-evolved extensively after introduction 4,000-5,000 years ago and earlier domestication in Mexico (Grobman et al. 2012; Perry et al. 2006). Multiple species and landraces of Andean potatoes, beans, squash, quinoa, chile peppers, and grain amaranth in addition to many uncultivated and wild plants are also highly important (Halloy et al. 2005; Rodríguez et al. 2017; Torres Guevarra 2017). Approximately 75,000 indigenous, Quechua-speaking smallholders cultivate and consume the majority of agrobiodiversity in Huánuco, while the markets, gardens, and population of urban areas and numerous mestizo (“mixed-race”) smallholders and consumers are also important to agrobiodiversity. In 2017 the AFN Project conducted surveys on food production and diets among the households of indigenous smallholders (n=600), participatory field- and landscape-level agrobiodiversity sampling with stakeholders (n=1522 fields), and completed detailed interviews on agrobiodiversity climate change and agrobiodiversity (n=37). The authors conducted this project in conjunction with the Instituto de Investigación Nutricional (IIN) in Lima. The data presented in Sections 3.2-3.5 derive from each of these methods. Three representative sub-areas of Huánuco with similar elevational ranges of agriculture (noted as masl or meters above sea level) were chosen for research (Quishqui, 1860-4200 masl; Amarillis/Malconga, 1850-4100; Molinos, 1700-4000 masl) were chosen for research. Two hundred agricultural households in each sub-area participated in the in- person multi-module survey questionnaire between April and June 2017. The participatory agrobiodiversity sampling occurred during this same period. Specific application of these surveys and agrobiodiversity sampling has been further detailed (Jones et al. 2018: 1626-1627). The interviews on agrobiodiversity and climate change (n=36) were implemented using a semi-structured format in July 2017. Interviewees were survey participants that cultivated at least one maize field. Equal numbers of households were chosen in each sub-area. The interviews utilized the widely spoken Huánuco dialect of Quechua intermixed with Spanish (Webster et al. 1998). Tabulation techniques were used to estimate basic parameters of the new data (Sections 3.2-3.5; Table 4). 3.2 Global Change Climatic variations in Huánuco in 2016-2017 and preceding years reflect the increasing impact of this global change in the Andes (Tito et al. 2018; Vuille et al. 2003). These trends combine general warming, extended inter-annual drought, and increased intra- annual rainfall variation (Zimmerer et al. 2018a). One potentially common adaptive response to climate change is the upslope shift of maize by 200-300 meters or more that corresponds to increased warming trends at higher elevations in the Andes Mountains (Vuille et al. 2008). This kind of anticipated range shift in response to global climate AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 12 change is rooted in the adaptation of Andean maize including the cold tolerance and phenology of certain Andean maize types (Hufford et al. 2012; Ross-Ibarra et al. 2017) and maize-growing and consuming indigenous smallholders (Perez et al. 2010; Skarbø and VanderMolen 2016). Andean maize adaption is a potentially valuable response to climate change. It requires widespread evaluation and capacity-building since the upslope expansion of warm-season maize could partly offset the eventual loss of growing environments for Andean potatoes and other cold-season crops as the result of climate change. The new data indicate the widespread presence of maize types with suitable adaptive capacity among many of the indigenous, smallholder maize-growers in Huánuco (Table 4, row 1). Contrary to expectations, however, this shift of maize to higher elevations was uncommonly implemented (Table 4, row 2). Future research on adaption, vulnerability, resilience, and potential transformative change is necessary to clarify this issue (Section 4.1). 3.3 Ecology and Evolution New results from the AFN Project estimate biogeographic patterning and the roles of human management among more than fifty food species. These foods include domesticates, semi-domesticates, and wild foods across field and forest landscapes. The data also incorporate information on the occurrence and frequency of hundreds of food varieties that are mostly local types. Twenty-five distinct maize cultivars occurred in 270 sampled fields. This maize agrobiodiversity was distributed evenly among the three sub- areas: Malconga (12 varieties; a peri-urban area); Molinos (14 varieties; an area dominated by specialized commercial potato production supplying the Lima market with the sought-after farmer variety known as papa amarilla or “yellow potato”), and Quishqui (13 varieties, a renowned micro-center of Andean agrobiodiversity within Huánuco; Malice et al. 2010; Velásquez-Milla et al. 2011). This evenness upended our hypothesis of unequal distributions propelled through sub-area differences. Planned analysis of these results in maize and other food species is designed to account for the effects of demographic, livelihood, land use, market, nutrition, and seed-system factors (Sections 4.2, 4.4). 3.4 Governance The new data address agrobiodiversity governance through a major emphasis on the acquisition and provisioning of seed. This data on seed systems places emphasis on socioeconomic, environmental, and geographic components. Since the results vary among crop types, the data reported here pertain to Andean maize, which is the most common high-agrobiodiversity food plant in the sampling. The new data demonstrate the reliance on the informal seed system (acquisition through self-provisioning and purchase or barter from other farmers; 92.2%), rather than the formal system (7.8%) (Table 4, row 5). Limits of the latter may include higher seed prices and the provisioning of a subset of varieties that may be less useful to the surveyed growers. These new data are significant since they indicate the continued reliance on informal seed systems, which is similar not only to other Andean regions of Peru (considered a middle-income country) but also to AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 13 regions in Ethiopia and other low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., Samberg et al. 2013). This persistence is significant for future research outlined in Section 4.5. One additional item of new data concerns the use of biocultural categories among the indigenous smallholders in Huánuco to categorize and manage their maize landraces. The new data indicate that the maize landraces are grouped into two principal biocultural categories based on distinctions of food usage and growing season. These categories are widely recognized locally as gapya jara (for parching or toasting into the food known as kancha) and wansa jara (for preparation as the hominy-type food known as mote). Linguistically, the terms for these biocultural categories of the maize agrobiodiversity of Húanuco are monovalent, meaning they are imbued with the singular meanings mentioned above (Webster et al. 1998: 274, 585). This biocultural distinction may reflect the historical legacy of a pair of distinct indigenous cultural groups in region, referred to as the Serrano and Chupacho peoples. Research has hypothesized that these groups, which are both Quechua-speaking and also significantly distinct, have influenced the evolutionary diversification of Andean maize (Bird 1966, 1984). This point underlies the development of directions for future integrative biocultural and global change research on agrobiodiversity (Section 4.2). 3.5 Diet, Nutrition, and Health Results of the AFN Project emphasize coupled linkages between agrobiodiversity and the diversity of diet, including nutrition-based metrics for demographic and consumer groups (e.g., the Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W) indicator), and metrics of diet quality (e.g., the probability of adequacy of micronutrient intakes) (Jones et al. 2018). In addition, household food insecurity was assessed using the widely used guidelines of the Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale (ELCSA) (ELCSA 2012; Jones et al. 2013, Jones et al. 2018). This module of the AFN’s survey incorporated questions about interviewees’ experiences of inadequate food access stemming from the lack of resources to purchase or otherwise acquire food through such mechanisms as own production or barter. Three dimensions of inadequate household food access were assessed in the module including: 1) anxiety about acquiring food, 2) access to a sufficient quantity of food; and 3) access to adequate quality of food by both adults and children in the household. Results determined that household food insecurity is widespread in Huánuco (85.9%; Table 4, row 4). This food insecurity occurred at levels estimated as mild (64.2%), moderate (18.4%) and severe (3.3%). Similarly, high levels were reported regarding consumption entailing “little diversity” of food, both among household adults (43.8%) and children (35.6%). Report of little diversity in the diets of adults and children, respectively, in the household was associated with lower dietary diversity among women (P<0.05 for reports among adults and P<0.001 for reports among children). Statistically, the different metrics of dietary and nutrient diversity correlated negatively with certain levels of food insecurity. Severe food insecurity negatively associated with both the continuous diet diversity score (i.e., count of food groups recently consumed by index woman in the household) (P < .01) and the MDD-W indicator (i.e., a dichotomous metric AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 14 indicating if the index woman recently consumed 5 or more food groups) (P < .1) (Jones et al. 2018; see also Jones et al. 2013). One significance of these results is application of the Kuznets Curve to agrobiodiversity. Widely utilized in resource and sustainability research and policy-making (Chowdhury and Moran 2012), it generalizes the relations of income or resource access (x-axis) to agrobiodiversity (y-axis) (e.g., Narloch et al. 2013; Omer et al. 2010; Zimmerer 1991a), and also provides potential insight into diet, nutrition, and health. Results here suggest that under extreme poverty and resource deficiency this relationship is inverted with regard to dietary diversity. These results on diet and nutrition, which in turn correspond to agrobiodiversity, offer a concrete example of the relations of biodiversity to both nutrition and health as well as resource-access levels. Modelling these human-system relations of agrobiodiversity is vital to understanding its complex social-ecological interactions (Section 4.2). This modelling promises to advance Anthropocene research relevant to both long-term human interactions with Earth systems and more recent accelerated global change (Section 4.1). Future Research Directions 4.1 The Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework and the Anthropocene A triad of the above results guide development of fruitful directions of future research. First, increased know-how is being situated within each of the thematic cornerstones of the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework as well as integrated across them (visualized in Figure 2), reflecting the combined roles of disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches (Table 3). Second, several specific insights (e.g., sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.5) demonstrate that the understandings of accelerating global environmental and socioeconomic changes must be integrated with the other principal themes of the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework. Third, the future of agrobiodiversity research requires rigorous framing in the distinct time periods relevant to the Anthropocene. As introduced in Section 1.1 and detailed in Table 5, these include: (i) long-term human impacts on Earth (Doolittle 2015; Fuller et al. 2011; Ruddiman 2013; Ruddiman and Thomson 2001; Smith and Zeder 2013; Zalasiewicz et al. 2017); (ii) the modern industrial period of the past two centuries, including the Great Acceleration (Foley et al. 2013; Steffen et al. 2011; Zalasiewicz et al. 2017); and (iii) the general, informally designated era of the earth’s environmental systems dominated by human activities (Ruddiman et al. 2015). 4.2 Agrobiodiversity and Global Change (Adaptive Capacity, Resilience, Vulnerability, and Transformation) Agrobiodiversity research on global change to-date has focused on the adaptive capacity of agroecosystems and landscapes and at the species and intra-species level (e.g., ACRAD 2010; FAO 2015; Jackson et al. 2012; Kotschi 2007; Perez et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2019). Several studies treat the adaptive capacity of maize landraces (Bellon et al. 2017; Hellin 2014; Mercer and Perales 2010; Ross-Ibarra et al. 2017). Significantly less AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 15 is known about the social- and political-ecological processes of vulnerability, resilience, and transformation. These additional dimensions of global change involving biodiversity in land use and food systems are especially important to indigenous and smallholder peoples and community stakeholder-led initiatives as well as urbanized and industrial agri-food complexes (Bellon et al. 2011; Mijatović 2013; Ticktin et al. 2018; Zimmerer 2010, 2013). Integral to agrobiodiversity, these added dimensions (vulnerability, resilience, and transformation) require distinction and must be distinguished from adaptive capacities per se (Table 6). Social- and political-ecological vulnerability analysis is central to agrobiodiversity amid global change, particularly in the assemblages of diverse uses and biocultural rights among groups such as indigenous people and smallholders. This focus needs to develop as a complement to the singular emphasis on adaptation traits per se. It will enhance predictive models of the range shift of high-agrobiodiversity crops and the scenarios of agricultural transformations in response to global change. Global models of climate change in relation to food and nutritional security require these insights and inputs. In Huánuco, Peru, for example, high-agrobiodiversity landraces possess well-suited adaptive capacities but the social- and political-ecological vulnerabilities of growers constrain the extent of the shift in range of the valuable maize crop in response to climate change (section 3.4; Zimmerer et al. 2018a). Hypothetically, these analyses include limitations not determined solely by crop adaptive traits. 4.2.1 Agrobiodiversity Amid the Long-Term Transformations of the Anthropocene Basic insight is needed into the combined diversification and extinction of agrobiodiversity amid major social-ecological transformation in the time periods of the proposed geologic epoch of the Anthropocene. The perspective that human impacts began long ago (Fuller et al. 2011) is vitally important to agrobiodiversity and vice versa due to domestication and early agricultural expansion (4,000-7,000 years ago; Smith and Zeder 2013). Potential agrobiodiversity research is well suited to concepts such as co- evolution and human-environment coupled systems (McKey et al. 2010a, 2010b). Paleoenvironmental and paleobotanical sources in addition to the archaeological sciences will be paramount to uncovering the past interactions of agrobiodiversity with major climate changes, urbanization, and state formation and development. Focused examination of the diverse components of agrobiodiversity amid such transformations promises important new insight on the capacities, limits, and thresholds of agrobiodiversity in the Anthropocene. 4.2.2 Global Technological Change (Transgenic, Gene-Edited, and Mega-Varieties) and Sustainable Intensification The expansion of so-called mega-varieties, including uniform transgenic and genome- edited crops and animal breeds, exerts significant impact on agrobiodiversity. Promoted as global adaptations to respond to biotic stressors and to enhance yields under high-input conditions, their expansion is threatening agrobiodiversity use, environments, and nutrition and diets, especially but not exclusively among smallholders and indigenous AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 16 people (Krishna et al. 2015; Mercer et al. 2012). Actual cause-effect pathways between the transgenic and genome-edited crops and their impacts on the agrobiodiversity of smallholders and others are complex and defy overly simple generalization (Cleveland 2013; Flachs 2015; Krishna et al. 2015). At the same time, alternative approaches to genetic enhancement such as evolutionary breeding and participatory varietal selection have accrued value in certain sectors. The roles of agrobiodiversity need to be investigated amid potentially related global changes such as the debated designs for Sustainable Intensification and Ecological Intensification (Zimmerer 2013; Zimmerer et al. 2015). 4.2.3 Global Food Systems and Commodity Trade Expanded analysis of modern global systems of industrial agriculture, food, and commodity markets is a sine qua non of the determination of the fate of unique region- scale agrobiodiversity (Johns et al. 2013; Khoury et al. 2014). The value of agrobiodiversity to modern, industrial agriculture and food systems stems principally from its utilization as a genetic resource that often entails dispossession from local indigenous and smallholder peoples and their landscapes and cultural practices (Kloppenburg 2005; McMichael 1994, 2011; Montenegro de Wit 2017). New research is required on the reduced yet hypothetically varied levels of agrobiodiversity in modern, industrial and urban supply chains (e.g., diverse retailing ranging from grocers and supermarkets to prepared food services). Variation and changes in supply chains and retail have potentially profound implications for consumer food environments and agrobiodiversity (Glanz et al. 2005; Herforth and Ahmed 2015). Commodity-related research is also needed to inquire into the impacts on agrobiodiversity of other global resource and trade booms (e.g., drugs, minerals, energy), especially where production is located in or near indigenous and smallholder populations. 4.3 Global Markets, Consumer Trends, Development, Nutrition, and Well-Being Complex trends involving agrobiodiversity occur as the result of deeply uneven global development and the associated diverse consumer and culinary groups as well as social movements. This complexity is evident in the persistence of agrobiodiversity utilization among various indigenous people and smallholders (Isakson 2009; Perreault 2005) that are not geographically isolated but rather engage in long-distance economic and environmental interactions (Zimmerer et al. 2018b). This complexity urges future research to focus on the policy-relevant relations of agrobiodiversity to new sociocultural and economic interactions. The latter include the unanticipated, bifurcated relations of lower resource levels to agrobiodiversity among certain individuals, households, and communities (Section 3.5). Previously overlooked inflections in models resembling the Kuznets Curve need to be re-invigorated in conjunction with widespread urbanization, human migration, and alternative and disrupted development trajectories such as refugee movements (Section 2.5.3). Furthermore, the relation of nutritional diversity to food security and resource level (or income) needs to become a focus of further research since it can be either positive or AC CE PT E M AN US CR IPT 17 negative (Bukania et al. 2014). This research in fields such as Feminist Political Ecology will require an emphasis on women who, owing to various rationales, are commonly important in agrobiodiversity-related processes worldwide (Carney 1991; FAO 1999b; Howard 2003; Zimmerer et al. 2015). Finally, new research examines the role of agrobiodiversity in the expanding cultural formulations of human health related to ecological well-being (Caillon et al. 2017; Sterling et al. 2017), such as the “Living Well” social movement that has become globally influential (Zimmerer 2017b). 4.4 Ecology and Evolution: In Situ and Ex Situ Conservation Important research in ecology and evolution illustrates expanded linkages to the themes of global change and biocultural dynamics. The systematic estimation, characterization, and monitoring of biodiversity is expanding through new information and analytical capacities. Major advances are essential to guide agrobiodiversity conservation strategies based on integrated innovations of current systems (in situ conservation) with germplasm collection, banking, and storage (ex situ conservation). Current challenges and debate about the methodologies used to measure agrobiodiversity change (e.g., sampling designs; Brush et al. 2015; Dyer et al. 2014, 2015) have led to a “wake up call for crop conservation science.” More rigorous methodologies and innovative estimation techniques are called for, including stakeholder-based observatories and monitoring (including stakeholder atlases of agrobiodiversity and other knowledge approaches). 4.4.1 Functional Trait Analysis Second in this set is identifying and characterizing agroecosystem functionalities that incorporate biodiversity. The functionalities and services of agrobiodiversity include food and nutrient provision, yield stability, pest- and disease regulation, and various types of mutualist functions (Cardinale et al. 2012; Reiss and Drinkwater 2017). Building these functionalities is a priority of research on the temperate-zone, industrial agriculture of the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Australia---for example, examining hypotheses about the functionality and trade-offs of adding biodiversity to agroecosystems. Significant work has begun to determine these functionalities across field, landscape, and regional scales (Blesh 2018; Liebman and Schulte 2015). In addition, characterizing and utilizing the functional traits of food agrobiodiversity is a promising and important avenue of current and future research (Wood et al. 2015). 4.5 Governance: Evolving Biocultural Dynamics Third is productive integration with expanding biocultural approaches as a node of governance research (Figure 3). Potential agrobiodiversity interactions with ethnic group identities in Huánuco, Peru (Section 3.4) echo recent insight revealing the powerful influence the cultural practices of indigenous groups (Leclerc and Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge 2011; Orozco-Ramírez et al. 2016; Vigouroux et al. 2011; Zimmerer et al. 2018a). The agrobiodiversity analysis undertaken by these biocultural approaches promises to be more fully situated in contexts of rapid global and multi-scale changes that are both environmental and socioeconomic. Similarly, the spaces of agrobiodiversity, AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 18 including territories and landscapes, have been demonstrated to be important (Cassia et al. 2012; Liebman and Schulte 2015; Plieninger et al. 2018; Zimmerer 2017a, 2017b), and are poised for management- and policy-relevant investigation with stakeholders. 4.5.1 Future Governance: U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Goal 2 of the U.N.’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which is to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture,” relates closely to agrobiodiversity (Zimmerer 2017b). This imperative propels new research with stakeholders on sustainable development that is nutritionally sensitive and potentially compatible with transformative global changes (Johns and Eyzaguirre 2005; Johns et al. 2013; Kahane et al. 2013; Loladze 2002; Powell et al. 2015; Zimmerer et al. 2018a). Design desiderata for sustainable development suggest that agrobiodiversity for self-provisioning be combined with significant market specialization. We hypothesize that such combinations can be theoretically and empirically tested to yield policy-relevant insights. The policy strategies such as short and certified supply chains typically advised for advancing socioeconomic development and agrobiodiversity have proven at best only partially effective to-date (Cassia et al. 2012; Mason and Lang 2017; Tobin et al. 2016). 4.5.2 Future Seed Systems and Agrobiodiversity Governance Understanding seed systems is paramount to strengthening the roles of agrobiodiversity in human societies amid accelerating global change. Integrated stakeholder and scientific knowledge and institutions are needed to guide seed security and sovereignty, refugee and post-conflict seed initiatives among marginalized populations (Sperling and McGuire 2010), upgrading quality of informal seed across widespread sectors, promotion of accessible technological advancements and food environments, biosecurity and citizen science approaches (Gildemacher et al., 2012; van Etten 2011; van Etten et al. 2017) (see also Jarvis et al. 2011; McGuire and Sperling 2013; Sperling et al. 2008; Sperling and McGuire 2010, 2012). For example, meta-population structure and gene-flow processes are highly varied in these seed systems, (Badstue et al. 2007; Dyer et al. 2011; Mercer et al. 2012; Zimmerer 1998). We hypothesize that this variation mediates the different levels of vulnerability needed to informed biosecurity and other policies that are scientifically valid and anchored in social analysis. New research is especially needed on the accessibility of seed flows at multiple geographic scales. For example, the connectivity of seed systems and related networks (including social networks, Abizaid et al. 2016; Okry et al. 2016), especially linkages across non-local scales (e.g., Samberg et al. 2013; Zimmerer 2003, 2017a), suggest the interlinking among intermediate scales that can be hypothesized to enhance resilience and potential food sovereignty amid transformative global change (McGuire and Sperling 2013). Better understanding is needed of new social and cultural movements for seed and food sovereignty that are responding to anthropocene conditions. Agrobiodiversity is becoming central to such powerful social movements as Via Campesina, Slow Food, Food First, and FIAN-International as well as international agreements such as the new AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 19 United Nations Declaration on Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas signed in late 2018. Such work must engage the rapidly evolving impacts on agrobiodiversity owing to global and national-level political economies of agriculture, food, industrial, and financial systems (Aistara 2014; Graddy 2013; Kloppenburg 2005; Montenegro de Wit 2017). 4.6 Applications of the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework in the Anthropocene The Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework (Table 3), including the expanded definition (Table 1), are poised for application and refinement to advance scientific understandings, policy, and management. Correspondence to the time periods relevant to the Anthropocene (Table 5) provides results that can be built upon in future research. Moreover, both this framework and the expanded definition (Figures 1 and 2) reflect increased global connectedness. Agrobiodiversity functions as an institutional boundary object both shared and contested among global organizations and movements (e.g., CGIAR centers, Bioversity International) as well as national agencies and local groups (e.g., NGOs, farmer and food groups) (Zimmerer 2015; see also Aistara 2014; Cash et al. 2001; Cash et al. 2003; Clark et al. 2016; Orlove and Caton 2010). Many communities engulfed in transformative global changes interact with these global-scale organizations attempting to strengthen sustainability, nutritional security, and agrobiodiversity (Arce et al. 2016; De Haan et al. 2010; Oyarzun 2013; Sherwood et al. 2013; Willett et al. 2019). Conclusions: The Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework and the Anthropocene 5.1 Global Change, Sustainability, and Food and Nutritional Security The above synthesis of understandings of agrobiodiversity from the perspective of human-environment interactions in the Anthropocene has resulted in the formulation of the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework. Four distinct are central and serve as nodes of highly active knowledge networks: (1) ecology and evolution; (2) governance; (3) diet, nutrition, and health; and (4) global change. The framework successfully guided the presentation of new results from the Agrobiodiversity, Food, and Nutrition Field Project in Peru. Subsequently, the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework proved effective in formulating future research directions. Finally, it elucidates a definition of agrobiodiversity that includes interdependence on multiple human factors and that responds to urgent calls for addressing sustainability issues. Our results demonstrate that agrobiodiversity and closely linked human-environment interactions are complexly related to land use, food, and sociocultural and economic systems amid the global transformation of the Anthropocene. Research demonstrates its viability among changing human systems is partial albeit complex. This viability hinges on the innovative, emergent properties of agrobiodiversity and related human systems amid transformative planetary changes. Many pose major threats and spur agrobiodiversity decline, regional loss, and potential global extinctions. Expanded research on agrobiodiversity interactions with global change has yielded multiple, new insights from both systematic, in-depth analysis as well as integrative approaches. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 20 Integrative approaches to research, management, and policy increasingly recognize the potential compatibility, as well as conflict and contestation, of the knowledge themes of agrobiodiversity. Further analysis of values and practice of knowledge are needed to address high-priority environmental and social of the Anthropocene. Agrobiodiversity is crucial to specific management and policy solutions needed for sustainable development, food and nutritional security, biodiversity conservation, and social equity and justice. Similarly, it undergirds capacities to respond to global challenges of climate change and nutrient pollution. Agrobiodiversity analysis thus evidences special promise in helping to understand and respond to the intensified human interactions with Earth systems and accelerating global changes of the Anthropocene. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to María Mayer de Scurrah and Mary Penny and others at the IIN in Lima and at UNHEVAL in Huánuco for their support and inputs to the AFN field project. Conny Almekinders, Stephen Brush, Judith Carney, Medora Ebersole, Tim Johns, Nieves López Estébanez, Bronwen Powell, Rafael Mata, Karen Seto, Jacob van Etten, Steve Vanek, Yves Vigouroux, and GeoSyntheSES lab members provided helpful inputs to this research in Peru, the United States, and Spain. Our gratitude is extended also to colleagues in the international “Agrobiodiversity in the 21st Century” workshop that was held in Frankfurt in 2015. The Program Organizing Committee gave feedback on the initial formulation of the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework when first proposed in 2013. Gratitude is also expressed to additional members and the communities and individuals associated with collaborative field-, data-, and concept-based research in Spain (2018-2020) and with the 2018-2020 Pursuit group on Urbanization-Agrobiodiversity interactions at SESYNC in Annapolis, Maryland, in addition to the latter’s Agrobiodiversity-Nutrition Pursuit. Funding: A grant from the Daniel and Nina Carasso Foundation funded the AFN research (2016-2017) and a Fulbright Research Fellowship has supported work in Spain (2018- 2020). The National Science Foundation (2008-2013) funded the initial research on agrobiodiversity and global change. References Abizaid, C., Coomes, O.T., Perrault-Archambault, M. 2016. Seed sharing in Amazonian indigenous rain forest communities: A social network analysis in three Achuar Villages, Peru. Hum Ecol 44, 577-594. Aguilar, J., Gramig, G. G., Hendrickson, J.R., Archer, D.W., Forcella, F., Liebig. M. A. 2015. Crop species diversity changes in the United States: 1978–2012. PloS One 10, 1-15. Aistara, G.A. 2014. Authentic anachronisms. Gastro: J Crit Food Stud 14, 7-16. Almekinders, C.J.M., Elings, A. 2001. Collaboration of farmers and breeders: Participatory crop improvement in perspective. Euphytica, 425-438. AC EP TE D M AN U CR IPT 21 Almekinders, C.J., Fresco, L.O. Struik, P. C. 1995. The need to study and manage variation in agro-ecosystems. NJAS-Wagen J Life Sci 43, 127-142. Almekinders, C.J., Thiele, G. Danial, D.L. 2007. Can cultivars from participatory plant breeding improve seed provision to small-scale farmers? Euphytica 153, 363-372. Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., Henao, A., Lana, M.A. 2015. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev 35, 869-890. Andersen, R. 2013. Governing Agrobiodiversity: Plant genetics and developing countries. Ashgate, London. Andersen, R. 2016. Farmers’ rights: Evolution of the international policy debate and national implementation. In: Halewood, M. (Ed.), Farmers’ Crop Varieties and Farmers’ Rights: Challenges in taxonomy and law. Earthscan, Abingdon, pp 129 – 152. ARCAD (Agropolis Resource Center for Crop Conservation, Adaptation and Diversity). 2010. A new open multi-function platform devoted to plant agrobiodiversity. http://agritrop.cirad.fr/558727/ (accessed 15 Sept 2017). Arce, A., Creed-Kanashiro, H., Scurrah, M., Ccanto, R., Olivera, E., Burra, D., De Haan, S. 2016. The challenge of achieving basal energy, iron and zinc provision for home consumption through family farming in the Andes. Agr & Food Sec 5, 23. Ávila, J.V.D.C., Mello, A.S.D., Beretta, M.E., Trevisan, R., Fiaschi, P., Hanazaki, N. 2017. Agrobiodiversity and in situ conservation in Quilombola home gardens with different intensities of urbanization. Acta Bot Bras 31. Badstue, L.B., Bellon, M.R., Berthaud, J., Ramirez, A., Flores, D., Juarez, X. 2007. The dynamics of farmers’ maize seed supply practices in the Central Valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. World Dev 35, 1579-1593. Baldermann, S., Blagojević, L., Frede, K., Klopsch, R., Neugart, S., Neumann, A., Ngwene, B., Norkeweit, J., Schröter, D., Schröter, A., Schweigert, F.J., Wiesner, M., Schreiner, M. 2016. Are neglected plants the food for the future? Crit Rev Plant Sci 35, 106-119. Baranski, M.R. 2015. Wide adaptation of Green Revolution wheat: International roots and the Indian context of a new plant breeding ideal, 1960–1970. Stud Hist Philos Sci C 50, 41-50. Bavikatt, S.K. 2015. Stewarding The Earth: Rethinking property and the emergence of biocultural rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bellon, M.R., Dulloo, E., Sardos, J., Thormann, I., Burdon, J. J. 2017. In‐situ conservation–harnessing natural and human derived evolutionary forces to ensure future crop adaptation. Evol Appl, 10, 965-977. Bellon, M.R., Hodson, D., Hellin, J. 2011. Assessing the vulnerability of traditional maize seed systems in Mexico to climate change. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108, 13432-13437. Bellon, M.R., Gotor, E., Caracciolo, F. 2015. Conserving landraces and improving livelihoods: how to assess the success of on-farm conservation projects? Int J Agr Sust 13, 167-182. Bellon, M.R., van Etten, J. 2014. Climate change and on-farm conservation of crop landraces in centres of diversity. In Plant Genetic Resources and Climate Change, pp. 137-150. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 22 Berti, P.R. 2015. Relationship between production diversity and dietary diversity depends on how number of foods is counted. P Natl Acad Sci USA 112, E5656-E. Bezner Kerr, R. 2014. Lost and found crops: agrobiodiversity, indigenous knowledge, and a feminist political ecology of sorghum and finger millet in northern Malawi. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 104, 577-593. Bharucha, Z. Pretty, J. 2010. The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365, 2913–2926. Bird, R.M. 1966. El maíz y las divisions étnicas en la sierra de Huánuco. Cuadernos de Investigación (Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan) 1: 34-44. Bird, R.M. 1984. The Chupachu/Serrano cultural boundary – Multifaceted and stable. In eds. Browman, D. L., Burger, R. L., Rivera, and M. A. (Eds.), Social and Economic Organization in the Prehispanic Andes. BAR, Oxford, 79-95. Bioversity International. 2017. Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index. Rome: Bioversity International. https://www.bioversityinternational.org/ mainstreaming- agrobiodiversity/ (accessed 15 Sept 2017). Blesh, J. 2018. Functional traits in cover crop mixtures: Biological nitrogen fixation and multifunctionality. J Appl Ecol 55, 38-48. Brondizio, E.S., O’Brien, K., Bai, X., Biermann, F., Steffen, W., Berkhout, F., Cudennec, C., Lemos, M.C., Wolfe, A., Palma-Oliveira, J., Chen, C.T.A., 2016. Re- conceptualizing the Anthropocene: A call for collaboration. Global Environ Chang 39, 318-327. Brookfield, H.C. 2001. Exploring Agrodiversity. Columbia University Press, New York. Brown, A.H., Hodgkin, T. 2015. Indicators of genetic diversity, genetic erosion, and genetic vulnerability for plant genetic resources. In Genetic Diversity and Erosion in Plants, pp. 25-53. Springer International. Brush, S.B. 1992. Reconsidering the green revolution: Diversity and stability in cradle areas of crop domestication. Hu Ecol 20, 145-167. Brush, S.B. 1995. In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Sci 35, 346-354. Brush, S.B., Ed. 2000. Genes in the Field: On-farm conservation of crop diversity. IDRC. Brush, S.B. 2004. Farmers’ Bounty: Locating crop diversity in the contemporary world. Yale University Press, New Haven. Brush, S.B., Bellon, M.R., Hijmans, R.J., Orozco Ramirez, Q., Perales, H.R., van Etten, J. 2015. Assessing maize genetic erosion. P Natl Acad Sci USA 112, E1. Brush, S.B., Perales, H.R. 2007. A maize landscape: Ethnicity and agro-biodiversity in Chiapas Mexico. Agri Ecosys Environ 121, 211-221. Bukania, Z.N., Mwangi, M., Karanja, R.M., Mutisya, R., Kombe, Y., Kaduka, L.U., Johns, T. 2014. Food insecurity and not dietary diversity is a predictor of nutrition status in children within semiarid agro-ecological zones in eastern Kenya. J Nutri Metab, 907153. Caillon, S., Cullman, G., Verschuuren, B., Sterling, E. 2017. Moving beyond the human– nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecol Soc 22, 4. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 23 Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V. 2012a. Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecol Econ 74, 153-160. Calvet-Mir, L., Molina, J., Reyes-García, V. 2012b. Seed exchange as an agrobiodiversity conservation mechanism. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Iberian Peninsula. Ecol Soc 17, 1. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 489, 59-67. Carney, J.A. 1991. Indigenous soil and water management Senegambian rice farming systems. Agri Hu Values 8, 37-48. Carney, J.A. 2001. Black Rice: The African origins of rice cultivation in the Americas. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass. Cash, D.W. 2001. “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: Agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Sci Tech Hu Values 26, 431- 453. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchell, R.B. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100, 8086-8091. Cassia, F., Ugolini, M., Bonfanti, A., Cappellari, C. 2012. The perceptions of Italian farmers’ market shoppers and strategic directions for customer-company-territory interaction (CCTI). Procedia - Soc Behav Sci 58, 1008-1017. Castañeda-Álvarez, N.P., Khoury C.K., Achicanoy, H.A., Bernau, V., Dempewolf, H., Eastwood, R.J., Guarino, L., Harker, R.H., Jarvis, A., Maxted, N., Mueller, J. V., Ramírez-Villegas, J., Sosa, C.C., Struik, P.C., Vincent, H., Toll, J. 2016. Global conservation priorities for crop wild relatives. Nat Plants 2, 1-6. Challinor, A.J., Watson, J., Lobell, D.B., Howden, S.M., Smith, D.R., Chhetri, N. 2014. A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nat Clim Change 4, 287-291. Chowdhury, R.R., Moran, E.F. 2012. Turning the curve: A critical review of Kuznets approaches. Appl Geog 32, 3-11. Clark, W.C., Tomich, T. P., Van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N.M., McNie, E. 2016. Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). P Natl Acad Sci USA 113, 4615-4622. Cleveland, D.A. 2013. Balancing on a Planet: The future of food and agriculture. University of California Press, Berkeley. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2016. What is agricultural biodiversity? https://www.cbd.int/agro/whatis.shtml (accessed 15 Sept 2017). Coomes, O.T., McGuire, S.J., Garine, E., Caillon, S., McKey, D., Demeulenaere, E., Jarvis, D., Aistara, G., Barnaud, A., Clouvel, P., Emperaire, L. 2015. Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy 56, 41-50. Cruz-Garcia, G.S., Struik, P.C. 2015. Spatial and seasonal diversity of wild food plants in home gardens of Northeast Thailand. Econ Bot 69, 99-113. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 24 Davis, A.S., Hill, J.D., Chase, C.A., Johanns, A.M., Liebman, M. 2012. Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PloS One 7, e47149. Davis, D.R. 2005. Trade-offs in agriculture and nutrition. Food Tech 59, 120. Davis, D.R., Epp, M.D., Riordan, H.D. 2004. Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999. J Am Coll Nutr 23, 669–682. Dawson, I.K., Leakey, R., Clement, C.R., Weber, J.C., Cornelius, J.P., Roshetko, J.M., Vinceti, B., Kalinganire, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., Masters, E., Jamnadass, R. 2014. The management of tree genetic resources and the livelihoods of rural communities in the tropics. For Ecol Man 333, 9-21. DeClerck, F.A.J., Fanzo, J., Palm, C., Remans, R. 2011. Ecological approaches to human nutrition. Food Nutr Bull 32, S41-50. Delaquis, E., De Haan, S., Wyckhuys, K.A.G. 2018. On-farm diversity offsets environmental pressures in tropical agroecosystems: A synthetic review for cassava-based systems. Agr Ecosyst Environ 251, 226–235. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J. et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Env Sust 14, 1-16. Doolittle, W.E. 2015. Expedience, impermanence, and unplanned obsolescence: The coming-about of agricultural features and landscapes. In: Isendahl, C., Stump, D. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Ecology and Applied Archaeology, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1-12. Duvall, C.S. 2006. On the origin of the tree Spondias mombin in Africa. J Hist Geog 32, 249-266. Dwivedi, S.L, Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Upadhyaya, H.D., Ortiz, R. 2017. Diversifying food systems in the pursuit of sustainable food production and healthy diets. Trends Plant Sci 22, 842-856. Dwivedi, S.L., Sahrawat, K., Upadhyaya, H., Ortiz, R. 2013. Food, nutrition and agrobiodiversity under global climate change. Adv Agr 120, 1-128. Dyer, G.A., González, C., Lopera, D. C. 2011. Informal “seed” systems and the management of gene flow in traditional agroecosystems: the case of cassava in Cauca, Colombia. PLoS One 6, e29067. Dyer, G.A., López-Feldman, A., Yúnez-Naude, A. Taylor, and J.E. 2014. Genetic erosion in maize’s center of origin. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111 (39): 14094-14099. Dyer, G.A., López-Feldman, A., Yúnez-Naude, A., Taylor, J.E. 2015. Reply to Brush et al.: Wake-up call for crop conservation science. P Natl Acad Sci USA 112 (1): E2. ELCSA (Comité Científico de ELCSA, Escala Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Seguridad Alimentaria). 2012. Manual de uso y aplicación. Chile: Food and Agriculture Organization. Ellen, R., Soselisa, H.L., Wulandari, A.P. 2012. The biocultural history of Manihot esculenta in the Moluccan islands of eastern Indonesia: Assessing evidence for the movement and selection of cassava germplasm. J Ethno 32, 157-184. Ellis, E.C., 2015. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecol Mono 85, 287-331. Ellis, E.C., Antill, E.C., Kreft, H. 2012. All is not loss: Plant biodiversity in the Anthropocene. PloS One 7, e30535. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 25 FAO. 1999a. Background Paper 1: Agricultural Biodiversity. Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land Conference, Maastricht, September 1999. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/mfcal/pdf/bp_1_agb.pdf (accessed 12 October 2015). FAO. 1999b. Women: Users, Preservers and Managers of Agrobiodiversity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid (accessed 12 October 2015). FAO 2010. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (accessed 31 August 2015). FAO. 2015 Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Integration of Genetic Diversity into National Climate Change Adaptation Planning. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a- i4940e.pdf (accessed 15 August 2015). FAO and PAR 2011. Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture: Contributing to food security and sustainability in a changing world. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research (accessed 19 August 2015). Flachs, A. 2015. Persistent agrobiodiversity on genetically modified cotton farms in Telangana, India. J Ethnobiol 35, 406-426. Foley, S.F., Gronenborn, D., Andreae, M.O., Kadereit, J.W., Esper, J., Scholz, D., Pöschl, U., Jacob, D.E., Schöne, B.R., Schreg, R., Vött, A. 2013. The Palaeoanthropocene–The beginnings of anthropogenic environmental change. Anthropocene 3, 83-88. Frankel, O.H., Bennett, E. 1970. Genetic resources. In: eds. Frankel, O. H., Bennett, E. (Eds.), Genetic Resources in Plants-Their exploration and conservation. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp. 7-17. Frison, E.A., Cherfas, J., Hodgkin, T. 2011. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutrition security. Sustainability-Basel 3, 238-253. Fuller, D.Q., Van Etten, J., Manning, K., Castillo, C., Kingwell-Banham, E., Weisskopf, A., Qin, L., Sato, Y.I., Hijmans, R.J. 2011. The contribution of rice agriculture and livestock pastoralism to prehistoric methane levels: An archaeological assessment. Holocene 21, 743-759. GAFF (Global Alliance for the Future of Food). 2016. The Future of Food: Seeds of resilience, a compendium of perspectives on agricultural biodiversity from around the world. https://futureoffood.org/seeds-of-resilience/ (accessed 10 Sept 2017). Gepts, P. 2006. Plant genetic resources conservation and utilization. Crop Sci 46, 2278- 2292. Gepts, P., Famula, T. R., Bettinger, R. L., Brush, S. B., Damania, A. B., McGuire, P. E., and C. O. Qualset, Eds. 2012. Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, evolution, and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridgeshire. Gildemacher, P., C. Leeuwis, P. Demo, P. Kinyae, P. Mundia, M. Nyongesa, Struik, P.C. 2012. Dissecting a successful research-led innovation process: The case of positive seed potato selection in Kenya. Int J Techn Man Sust Dev 11, 67-92. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 26 Glanz, K., Sallis, J.F., Saelens, B.E., Frank, L.D. 2005. Healthy nutrition environments: concepts and measures. Am J Health Prom 19, 330-333. Graddy, T.G. 2013. Regarding biocultural heritage: in situ political ecology of agricultural biodiversity in the Peruvian Andes. Agri Hum Values 30, 587-604. Grobman, A., Bonavia, D., Dillehay, T.D., Piperno, D.R., Iriarte, J., Holst, I., 2012. Preceramic maize from Paredones and Huaca Prieta, Peru. P Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 1755-1759. De Haan, S., Núñez, J., Bonierbale, M., Ghislain, M. 2010a. Multilevel agrobiodiversity and conservation of Andean potatoes in Central Peru. Mtn Res Dev 30, 222-231. De Haan, S., Burgos, G., Arcos, J., Ccanto, R., Scurrah, M., Salas, E., Bonierbale, M. 2010b. Traditional processing of black and white chuño in the Peruvian Andes: Regional variants and effect on the mineral content of native potato cultivars. Econ Bot 64, 217-234. De Haan, S., Núñez, J., Bonierbale, M., Ghislain, M., Van Der Maesen, J. 2013. A simple sequence repeat (SSR) marker comparison of a large in-and ex-situ potato landrace cultivar collection from Peru reaffirms the complementary nature of both conservation strategies. Diversity 5, 505-521. De Haan, S., Polreich, S., Rodriguez, F., Juarez, H., Plasencia, F., Ccanto, R., Alvarez, C., Otondo, A., Sainz, H., Venegas, C., Kalazich, J., 2016. A long-term systematic monitoring framework for on-farm conserved potato landrace diversity. In Maxted, N., Dulloo, M.E., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. (Eds.), Enhancing Crop Genepool Use, CABI, pp. 289-. Halloy, S.R.P., Ortega, R., Yager, K., Seimon, A. 2005. Traditional Andean cultivation systems and implications for sustainable land use. Acta Hortic 670, 31-55. Hellin, J., Bellon, M.R., Hearne, S.J. 2014. Maize landraces and adaptation to climate change in Mexico. J Crop Improv 28, 484-501. Herforth, A., Ahmed, S. 2015. The food environment, its effects on dietary consumption, and potential for measurement within agriculture-nutrition interventions. Food Sec 7, 505-520. Hijmans, R.J., Choe, H., Perlman, J. 2016. Spatiotemporal patterns of field crop diversity in the United States, 1870–2012. Agr Env Let 1, doi:10.2134/ael2016.05.0022. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). 2017. 2nd Note on Critical and Emerging Issues for Food Security and Nutrition.. www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/critical-and-emerging-issues/en/ (accessed 30 Sept 2017). Hoisington, D., Khairallah, M., Reeves, T., Ribaut, J.M., Skovmand, B., Taba, S., Warburton, M. 1999. Plant genetic resources: What can they contribute toward increased crop productivity? P Natl Acad Sci USA 96, 5937-5943. Howard, P.L. 2003. Women and Plants. Gender relations in biodiversity management and conservation. Zed Books, London. Hufford, M.B., Xu, X., Van Heerwaarden, J., Pyhäjärvi, T., Chia, J.M., Cartwright, R.A., Elshire, R.J., Glaubitz, J.C., Guill, K.E., Kaeppler, S.M., Lai, J. 2012. Comparative population genomics of maize domestication and improvement. Nature Gen 44, 808-811. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 27 IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2015. A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IPES-Food 2016. From Uniformity to Diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agricultural systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. www.ipes- food.org/images/Reports/UniformityToDiversity_FullReport.pdf. Isakson, S.R. 2009. No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan highlands. J Peas Stud 36, 725-759. Jacobsen, S.E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S.M., Weiner, J. 2015. Using our agrobiodiversity: Plant-based solutions to feed the world. Agron Sust Dev 35, 1217-1235. Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U., Hodgkin, T. 2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agr Ecosyst Environ 121, 196-210. Jackson, L.E., Pulleman, M.M., Brussaard, L., Bawa, K.S., Brown, G.G., Cardoso, I.M., De Ruiter, P.C., García-Barrios, L., Hollander, A.D., Lavelle, P., Ouédraogo, E. 2012. Social-ecological and regional adaptation of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions. Global Environ Chang 22, 623-639. Jansen, K., Vellema, S., Eds. 2004. Agribusiness and Society: Corporate responses to environmentalism, market opportunities and public regulation. Zed Books, London. Jarvis, A., Lane, A., Hijmans, R.J. 2008. The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives. Agr Ecosyst Environ 126, 13-23. Jarvis, D.I., Brown, A.H., Cuong, P.H., Collado-Panduro, L., Latournerie-Moreno, L., Gyawali, S., Tanto, T., Sawadogo, M., Mar, I., Sadiki, M., Hue, N.T.H. 2008. A global perspective of the richness and evenness of traditional crop-variety diversity maintained by farming communities. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105, 5326- 5331. Jarvis, D. I., Hodgkin, T., Brown, A.H., Tuxill, J., Noriega, I.L., Smale, M., Sthapit, B. 2016. Crop genetic diversity in the field and on the farm: Principles and applications in research practices. Yale University Press, New Haven. Jarvis, D.I., Hodgkin, T., Sthapit, B.R., Fadda, C., Lopez-Noriega, I. 2011. An heuristic framework for identifying multiple ways of supporting the conservation and use of traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production system. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30, 125-176. Jarvis, D. I., Padoch, C., Cooper, H.D., Eds. 2007. Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. Columbia University, New York. Johns, T., Eyzaguirre, P.B. 2006. Linking biodiversity, diet and health in policy and practice. P Nutri Soc 65, 182-189. Johns, T., Powell, B., Maundu, P., Eyzaguirre, P.B. 2013. Agricultural biodiversity as a link between traditional food systems and contemporary development, social integrity and ecological health. J Sci Food Agri 93, 3433-3442. Johns, T., Sthapit, B.R. 2004. Biocultural diversity in the sustainability of developing- country food systems. Food Nutri Bull 25, 143-155. AC CE PT ED AN US RI PT 28 Johnson, C.N., Balmford, A., Brook, B.W., Buettel, J.C., Galetti, M., Guangchun, L., Wilmshurst, J.M. 2017. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356, 270-275. Jones, A.D. 2015. The production diversity of subsistence farms in the Bolivian Andes is associated with the quality of child feeding practices as measured by a validated summary feeding index. Public Health Nutr 18, 329-342. Jones, A.D. 2017. Critical review of the emerging research evidence on agricultural biodiversity, diet diversity, and nutritional status in low-and middle-income countries. Nutri Rev 75, 769-782. Jones, A.D., Creed-Kanashiro, H., Zimmerer, K.S., de Haan, S., Carrasco, M., Mesa, K., Tello, M., Cruz García, G., Tello M., Plasencia Amayo, F. 2018. Farm-level agricultural biodiversity in the Peruvian Andes is associated with greater odds of women achieving a minimally diverse and micronutrient adequate diet. The J Nutr 148, 1625-1637 Jones, A.D., Ngure, F.M., Pelto, G., Young, S.L. 2013. What are we assessing when we measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics. Adv Nutri 4, 481-505. Jones A. D., Shrinivas A., and R. Bezner-Kerr. 2014. Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: Findings from nationally representative data. Food Pol 46, 1-12. Jones, K., Glenna, L.L., Weltzien, E. 2014. Assessing participatory processes and outcomes in agricultural research for development from participants' perspectives. J Rural Stud 35, 91-100. Kahane, R., Hodgkin, T., Jaenicke, H., Hoogendoorn, C., Hermann, M., Hughes, J.D.A., Padulosi, S., Looney, N. 2013. Agrobiodiversity for food security, health and income. Agron Sust Dev 33, 671-693. Kareiva, P., Watts, S., McDonald, R. Boucher, T. 2007. Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316, 1866-1869. Khoury, C.K., Bjorkman, A.D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L.H., Struik, P.C. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 4001- 4006. Khoury, C.K, Jarvis, A. 2014. The changing composition of the global diet: Implications for CGIAR research. CIAT Policy Brief No. 18. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. Cali, Colombia. Kloppenburg, J.R. 2005. First the Seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Second edition. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U. Smale, M., Eds. 2008. Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Economic Development. Routledge, London. Kotschi, J., 2007. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for adapting to climate change. GAIA-Ecol Pers Sci Soc 16, 98-101. Kremen, C., Iles, A., Bacon, C. 2012. Diversified farming systems: An agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol Soc 17, 4. Krishna, V., Qaim, M., Zilberman, D. 2015. Transgenic crops, production risk and agrobiodiversity. Eur Rev Agri Econ 43, 137-164. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 29 Labeyrie, V., Thomas, M., Muthamia, Z.K., Leclerc, C. 2016. Seed exchange networks, ethnicity, and sorghum diversity. P Natl Acad Sci USA 113, 98-103. Lachat, C., Raneri, J.E., Walker Smith, K., Kolsteren, P., Van Damme, P., Verzelen, K., Penafiel, D., Vanhove, W., Kennedy, G., Hunter, D., Oduor Odhiambo, F., Ntandou-Bouzitou, G., De Baets, B., Ratnasekera, D., Ky, H.T., Remans, R., Termote, C. 2017. Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and nutritional quality of diets. P Natl Acad Sci USA 115, 127-132. Leclerc, C., Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge, G. 2011. Social organization of crop genetic diversity. The G×E×S interaction model. Diversity 4, 1-32. Lenné, J. M., Wood, D. 2011. Agrobiodiversity Management for Food Security: A critical review. CABI, Cambridge, MA. Lerner, A.M., Appendini, K., 2011. Dimensions of peri-urban maize production in the Toluca-Atlacomulco Valley, Mexico. J Lat Am Geogr 10, 87-106. Letourneau, D. K., Armbrecht, I., Rivera, B.S., Lerma, J. M., Carmona, E. J., Daza, M.C., Escobar, S., Galindo, V., Gutiérrez, C., López, S.D., Mejía, J.L. 2011. Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol Appl 21, 9-21. Liebman, M., Schulte, L.A. 2015. Enhancing agroecosystem performance and resilience through increased diversification of landscapes and cropping systems. Elementa Sci Anthropocene 3, 41. Lipper, L., Sakuyama, T., Stringer, R., Zilberman, D., Eds. 2009. Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes: Economic policies and poverty reduction in developing countries. Springer, New York. Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B.M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., Caron, P., Cattaneo, A., Garrity, D., Henry, K., Hottle, R. 2014. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat Clim Change 4, 1068-1072. Liverman, D., Yarnal, B., Turner II, B.L. 2003. The human dimensions of global change. In Gaile, G.L., Willmott, C.J. (Eds.), Geography in America at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 267-. Loladze, I. 2002. Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition: Toward globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry? Trends Ecol Evol 17, 457-461. Louwaars, N.P., de Boef, W.S., Edeme, J. 2013. Integrated seed sector development in Africa: A basis for seed policy and law. J Crop Improv 27, 186-214. Love, B., Spaner, D., 2007. Agrobiodiversity: Its value, measurement, and conservation in the context of sustainable agriculture. J Sust Agr 31, 53-82. Malice, M., Bizoux, J.P., Blas, R., Baudoin, J.P. 2010. Genetic diversity of Andean tuber crop species in the in situ microcenter of Huanuco, Peru. Crop Sci 50, 1915-1923. Marques, A., Pereira, H.M., Krug, C., Leadley, P.W., Visconti, P., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Krug, R.M., Alkemade, R., Bellard, C., Cheung, W.W., Christensen, V. 2014. A framework to identify enabling and urgent actions for the 2020 Aichi Targets. Basic Appl Ecol 15, 633-638. Mason, P., Lang, T. 2017. Sustainable Diets: How ecological nutrition can transform consumption and the food system. Routledge, London. McCord, P.F., Cox, M., Schmitt-Harsh, M., Evans, T. 2015. Crop diversification as a smallholder livelihood strategy within semi-arid agricultural systems near Mount Kenya. Land Use Pol 42, 738-750. AC CE PT ED M A US CR IPT 30 McGuire, S., Sperling, L. 2013. Making seed systems more resilient to stress. Global Environ Chang 23, 644-653. McKey, D., Elias, M., Pujol, B., Duputié, A. 2010a. The evolutionary ecology of clonally propagated domesticated plants. New Phytol 186, 318-332. McKey, D., Cavagnaro, T.R., Cliff, J., Gleadow, R. 2010b. Chemical ecology in coupled human and natural systems: people, manioc, multitrophic interactions and global change. Chemoecol 20, 109-133. McMichael, P., Ed., 1994. The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. McMichael, P. 2011. Food system sustainability: Questions of environmental governance in the new world (dis) order. Global Environ Chang,804-812. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute (WRI), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), Washington, DC, USA. Mercer, K.L., Perales, H.R. 2010. Evolutionary response of landraces to climate change in centers of crop diversity. Evol Appl 3, 480-493. Mercer, K.L., Perales, H.R., Wainwright, J.D. 2012. Climate change and the transgenic adaptation strategy: Smallholder livelihoods, climate justice, and maize landraces in Mexico. Global Environ Chang 22, 495-504. Mijatović, D., Van Oudenhoven, F., Eyzaguirre, P. Hodgkin, T. 2013. The role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to climate change: Towards an analytical framework. Int J Agri Sust 11, 95-107. Montenegro de Wit, M. 2017. Stealing into the wild: Conservation science, plant breeding and the makings of new seed enclosures. J Peasant Stud 44, 169-212. Murphy, K.M., Carter, A.H. and S. S. Jones. 2013. Evolutionary breeding and climate change. In: Kole C. (Ed.), Genomics and Breeding for Climate-Resilient Crops, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 377-389. Nabhan, G. P. 2012. Where Our Food Comes From: Retracing Nikolay Vavilov's quest to end famine. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Nabhan, G. P., ed. 2016. Ethnobiology for the Future: Linking cultural and ecological diversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. NAFRI (National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute). 2016. LAO PDR National Agro-biodiversity programme and action plan II (2015-2025). NAFRI, Vientiane. Narloch, U., Pascual, U., Drucker, A.G. 2013. How to achieve fairness in payments for ecosystem services? Insights from agrobiodiversity conservation auctions. Land Use Pol 35, 107-118. Nazarea, V.D. 2006. Cultural Memory and Biodiversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Nordhagen, S., Pascual, U., Drucker, A.G. 2017. Feeding the household, growing the business, or just showing off? Farmers' motivations for crop diversity choices in Papua New Guinea. Ecol Econ 137, 99-109. Omer, A., Pascual, U., Russell, N. 2010. A theoretical model of agrobiodiversity as a supporting service for sustainable agricultural intensification. Ecol Econ 69, 1926-1933. Okry, F., Dalohoun, D.N., Diawara, S., Barry, M.B., Van Mele, P. 2011. Guinea: Networks that work. In: Van Mele, P., Bentley, J., Guéi, R. (Eds.), African Seed AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 31 Enterprises: Sowing the seeds of food security, CABI, Wallingford, U.K., pp.89- 108. Orlove, B., Caton, S.C. 2010. Water sustainability: Anthropological approaches and prospects. Annu Rev Anthrop 39, 401-415. Orozco-Ramírez, Q., Ross-Ibarra, J., Santacruz-Varela, A., Brush, S. 2016. Maize diversity associated with social origin and environmental variation in Southern Mexico. Heredity 116, 477–484 Oyarzun, P.J., Borja, R.M., Sherwood, S., Parra, V. 2013. Making sense of agrobiodiversity, diet, and intensification of smallholder family farming in the highland Andes of Ecuador. Ecol Food Nutri 52, 515-541. Padoch, C., Pinedo-Vásquez, M. 2010. Saving slash‐and‐burn to save biodiversity. Biotropica 42, 550-552. Pautasso, M., Aistara, G., Barnaud, A., Caillon, S., Clouvel, P., Coomes, O.T., Delêtre, M., Demeulenaere, E., De Santis, P., Doring, T., Eloy, L., Emperaire, L., Garine, E., Goldringer, I., Jarvis, D., Joly, H.I., Leclerc, C., Louafi, S., Martin, P., Massol, F., McGuire, S., McKey, D., Padoch, C., Soler, C., Thomas, M., Tramontini, S. 2013. Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review. Agron Sust Dev 33, 151-175. Perez, C., Nicklin, C., Dangles, O., Vanek, S., Sherwood, S., Halloy, S., Garrett, K.A., Forbes, G. 2010. Climate change in the high Andes: Implications and adaptation strategies for small-scale farmers. Int J Envir Cult Econ Soc Sust 6. Perreault, T. 2005. Why chacras (swidden gardens) persist: agrobiodiversity, food security, and cultural identity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Hu Org 327-339. Perrings, C., Jackson, L., Bawa, K., Brussaard, L., Brush, S., Gavin, T., Papa, R., Pascual, U., De Ruiter, P. 2006. Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: saving natural capital without losing interest. Cons Biol 20, 263-264. Perry, L., Sandweiss, D. H., Piperno, D. R., Rademaker, K., Malpass, M. A., Umire, A., De la Vera, P. 2006. Early maize agriculture and interzonal interaction in southern Peru. Nature 440, 76-79. Pingali, P.L., 2012. Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. P Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 12302-12308. Plieninger, T., Kohsaka, R., Bieling, C., Hashimoto, S., Kamiyama, C., Kizos, T., Penker, M., Kieninger, P., Shaw, B.J., Sioen, G.B., Yoshida, Y. 2018. Fostering biocultural diversity in landscapes through place-based food networks: a “solution scan” of European and Japanese models. Sust Sci 13, 219-233. Poot–Pool, W.S., van der Wal, H., Flores–Guido, S., Pat–Fernández, J.M. and and L. Esparza–Olguín. 2015. Home garden agrobiodiversity differentiates along a rural—Peri–urban gradient in Campeche, México. Econ Bot 69, 203-217. Popkin, B.M., Adair, L.S., Ng, S.W. 2012. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutri Rev 70, 3-21. Powell, B., Thilsted, S.H., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C., Sunderland, T., Herforth, A. 2015. Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape. Food Sec 7, 535-554. Reiss, E.R., Drinkwater, L.E. 2017. Cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis of the effect of intraspecific diversity on crop yield. Ecol Appl 28, 62-77. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 32 Reyes-García, V., Huanca, T., Vadez, V., Leonard, W., Wilkie, D. 2006. Cultural, practical, and economic value of wild plants: A quantitative study in the Bolivian Amazon. Econ Bot 60, 62-74. Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and food production in West Africa. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Richards, P., et al. 2008. Seed systems for African food security: Linking molecular genetic analysis and cultivator knowledge in West Africa. Int J Tech Man 45, 196-214. Rodríguez, J.P., Ørting, B., Andreasen, C., Jacobsen, S.E., Sørensen, M, 2017. Trends and drivers of on-farm conservation of the root legume ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa) in Bolivia over the period 1994/96–2012. Genet Resour Crop Evol 1-21. Ross-Ibarra, J., Sawers, R., Hufford, M. B. 2017. Maize diversity and climate change. University of California e-Scholarship Working Papers. http://escholarship.org/content/qt9v4627sv/qt9v4627sv.pdf (accessed August 15, 2017). Ruddiman, W.F. 2013. The anthropocene. Annu Rev Earth Plan Sci 41, 45-68. Ruddiman, W.F., Ellis, E.C., Kaplan, J.O., Fuller, D.Q. 2015. Defining the epoch we live in. Science 348, 38-39. Ruddiman, W.F., Thomson, J.S. 2001. The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH 4 over the last 5000 years. Quat Sci Rev 20, 1769-1777. Sajeva, G. 2018. When Rights Embrace Responsibilities: Biocultural rights and the conservation of environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Samberg, L.H., Shennan, C., Zavaleta, E. 2013. Farmer seed exchange and crop diversity in a changing agricultural landscape in the southern highlands of Ethiopia. Hu Ecol 41, 477-485. Saxena, A.K., Fuentes, X.C., Herbas, R.G., Humphries, D.L. 2016. Indigenous food systems and climate change: Impacts of climatic shifts on the production and processing of native crops in the Bolivian Andes. Front Publ Health 4, 20. Seto, K.C., Ramankutty, N. 2016. Hidden linkages between urbanization and food systems. Science 352, 943-945. Seto, K.C., Reenberg, A., Eds. 2014. Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era. MIT Press, Cambridge. Sherwood, S., Arce, A., Berti, P., Borja, R., Oyarzun, P., Bekkering, E. 2013. Tackling the new materialities: Modern food and counter-movements in Ecuador. Food Pol 41, 1-10. Sibhatu, K.T., Krishna, V.V., Qaim, M. 2013. Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm households. P Natl Acad Sci USA 112, 10657–10662. Skarbø, K., VanderMolen, K., 2016. Maize migration: key crop expands to higher altitudes under climate change in the Andes. Clim Dev 8, 245-255. Smale, M., Ed., 2005. Valuing Crop Biodiversity: On-farm genetic resources and economic change. CABI, Oxfordshire. Smith, B.D., Zeder, M.A. 2013. The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 4, 8-13. Sperling, L., Cooper, H.D., Remington, T. 2008. Moving towards more effective seed aid. The Journal of Development Studies 44, 586-612. Sperling, L., McGuire, S. 2010. Understanding and strengthening informal seed markets. Exper Agri 46, 119-136. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 33 Sperling, L., McGuire, S. 2012. Fatal gaps in seed security strategy. Food Sec 4, 569-579. Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., McNeill, J. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Philos T R Soc A 369, 842-867. Sterling, E.J., Filardi, C., Toomey, A, et al. 2017. Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 1798–1806. Ticktin, T., Quazi, S., Dacks, R., Tora, M., McGuigan, A., Hastings, Z., Naikatini, A., 2018. Linkages between measures of biodiversity and community resilience in Pacific Island agroforests. Cons Biol 32, 1085-1095. Tito, R., Vasconcelos, H.L., Feeley, K. J. 2018. Global climate change increases risk of crop yield losses and food insecurity in the tropical Andes. Global Chang Biol 24, e592–e602. Tobin, D., Bates, R., Brennan, M., Gill, T. 2016. Peru potato potential: Biodiversity conservation and value chain development. Ren Agri Food Syst 33. 19-32. Torres Guevara, J. 2017. Panorama de los recursos genéticos en Perú. In: Casas, A., Torres Guevara, J., Parra-Rondinel, F. (Eds.), Domesticación en el continente americano: Investigación para el manejo sostenible de recursos genéticos en el Nuevo Mundo, Vol. 2, UNALM, Lima, pp. 103-133. Turner, K.L., Davidson-Hunt, I.J. 2016. Tensions and synergies in the Central Valley of Tarija, Bolivia: Commercial viticulture and agrobiodiversity in smallholder farming systems. Agroecol Sust Food Syst 40, 518-552. Valdivia-Díaz, M., Polreich, S., La Torre, M.D.L.Á., De Haan, S. 2015. Local knowledge of native potato (Solanum spp) for long-term monitoring on three Andean communities of Apurimac, Peru. Procedia Environ Sci 29, 64-65. Van Andel, T.R., Meyer, R.S., Aflitos, S.A., Carney, J.A., Veltman, M.A., Copetti, D., Flowers, J.M., Havinga, R.M., Maat, H., Purugganan, M.D., Wing, R.A. 2016. Tracing ancestor rice of Suriname Maroons back to its African origin. Nat Plants 2, 1-5. Vandermeer, J., van Noordwijk, M., Anderson, J., Ong, C., Perfecto, I. 1998. Global change and multi-species agroecosystems: Concepts and issues. Agr Ecosyst Environ 67, 1-22. Van Etten, J. 2011. Crowdsourcing crop improvement in Sub‐Saharan Africa: A proposal for a scalable and inclusive approach to food security. IDS Bull 42, 102-110. Van Etten, J., Fantahun, B., Kidane, Y.G., van de Gevel, J., Gupta, A., Mengistu, D.K., Kiambi, D., Mathur, P.N., Mercado, L., Mittra, S.,lel, M.J., Rosas, J.C., Steinke, J., Suchini, J.G., Zimmerer, K.S. 2016. First experiences with a novel citizen science approach: Crowdsourcing farmers' observations and preferences through on-farm triadic comparisons of technologies (tricot). Exp Agri 1-22 doi:10.1017/S0014479716000739 Vavilov, N.I. 1992. Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants. Tr. D. Löve. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Velásquez-Milla, D., Casas, A., Torres-Guevara, J., Cruz-Soriano, A. 2011. Ecological and socio-cultural factors influencing in situ conservation of crop diversity by traditional Andean households in Peru. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 7, 40. Vigouroux, Y., Barnaud, A., Scarcelli, N., Thuillet, A.C. 2011. Biodiversity, evolution and adaptation of cultivated crops. Compt rend biol 334, 450-457. AC CE PT ED M NU SC RI PT 34 Voeks, R.A. 2004. Disturbance pharmacopoeias: Medicine and myth from the humid tropics. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94, 868-888. Voeks, R.A. 2018. The Ethnobotany of Eden: Rethinking the jungle medicine narrative. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Vuille, M., Bradley, R. S., Werner, M., Keimig, F. 2003. 20th century climate change in the tropical Andes: observations and model results. Climatic Change 59, 1–4. Vuille, M., Francou, B., Wagnon, P., Juen, I., Kaser, G., Mark, B.G., Bradley, R.S. 2008. Climate change and tropical Andean glaciers: Past, present and future. Earth-Sci Rev 89, 79-96. Walsh-Dilley, M., Wolford, W., McCarthy, J. 2016. Rights for resilience: food sovereignty, power, and resilience in development practice. Ecol Soc 21. 1. Webster, D. J., Cayco Zambrano, F., Cayco Villar, T., Ballena Dávila, M. 1998. Rimaycuna Quechua de Huánuco: Ddiccionario del quechua del Huallaga con índices castellano e inglés. Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, Lima, Peru. Wezel, A., Ohl, J. 2005. Does remoteness from urban centres influence plant diversity in homegardens and swidden fields? A case study from the Matsiguenka in the Amazonian rain forest of Peru. Agrofor Syst 65, 241-251. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets. The Lancet https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. Wood, S.A., Karp, D.S., DeClerck, F., Kremen, C., Naeem, S., Palm, C.A. 2015. Functional traits in agriculture: Agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 30, 531-539. Wood, D., Lenné, J.M. 1999. Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, utilization, and management. CABI, New York. Yang, L.N., Pan, Z.C., Zhu, W., Wu, E.J., He, D.C., Yuan, X., Qin, Y.Y., Wang, Y., Chen, R.S., Thrall, P.H., Burdon, J.J. 2019. Enhanced agricultural sustainability through within-species diversification. Nature Sust 2, 46–52. Young, O.R., Ed. 1999. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. MIT Press, Cambridge. Young, K.R. 2014. Biogeography of the Anthropocene: Novel species assemblages. Progr Phys Geogr 38, 664-673. Young, O.R. 2011. Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. P Natl Acad Sci USA 108, 19853-19860. Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C.N., Summerhayes, C.P., Wolfe, A.P., Barnosky, A.D., Cearreta, A., Crutzen, P., Ellis, E., Fairchild, I.J., Gałuszka, A., Haff, P. 2017. The Working Group on the Anthropocene: Summary of evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene 19, 55-60. Zimmerer, K.S. 1991a. Labor shortages and crop diversity in the southern Peruvian sierra. Geogr Rev 81, 414-432. Zimmerer, K.S. 1991b. The regional biogeography of native potato cultivars in highland Peru. J Biogeog 18, 165-178. Zimmerer, K.S. 1996. Changing Fortunes: Biodiversity and peasant livelihoods in the Peruvian Andes. University of California Press, Berkeley. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 35 Zimmerer, K.S. 1998. The ecogeography of Andean potatoes: Versatility in farm regions and fields can aid sustainable development. BioSci 48, 445-454. Zimmerer, K.S. 2003. Geographies of seed networks for food plants and approaches to agrobiodiversity conservation. Soc Natur Resour 16, 583-601. Zimmerer, K.S. 2010. Biological diversity in agriculture and global change. Annu Rev Environ Resourc 35, 137-166. Zimmerer, K.S. 2013. The compatibility of agricultural intensification in a global hotspot of smallholder agrobiodiversity (Bolivia). P Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 2769–2774. Zimmerer, K.S. 2014. Conserving agrobiodiversity amid global change, migration, and nontraditional livelihood networks: The dynamic use of cultural landscape knowledge. Ecol Soc 19, 1-15. Zimmerer, K.S. 2015. Understanding agrobiodiversity and the rise of resilience: Analytic category, boundary concept, or meta-level transition? Resilience 3, 183-198. Zimmerer, K.S. 2017a. A search for food sovereignty: Seeding post-conflict landscapes. ReVista: Harv Rev Lat Am 26, 32-34. Zimmerer, K.S. 2017b. Bridging new sustainable development goals, global agendas, and landscape stewardship: The roles of politics, ethics, and sustainability practice. In: Bieling, C., Plieninger, T. (Eds.), The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship, Cambridge University Press, Cambridgeshire, pp. 311-327. Zimmerer, K.S., Carney, J.A., Vanek, S.J. 2015. Sustainable smallholder intensification in global change? Pivotal spatial interactions, gendered livelihoods, and agrobiodiversity. Curr Opin Env Sust 14, 49-60. Zimmerer, K.S., De Haan, S. 2017. Agrobiodiversity and a sustainable food future. Nat Plants 3, 1-3. DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2017.47. Zimmerer, K.S., De Haan, S., Eds. 2019. Agrobiodiversity: Integrating Knowledge for a Sustainable Future. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Zimmerer, K.S., Jones, A.D., De Haan, S., Creed-Kanashiro, H., Carrasco, M., Mesa, K., Tello, M., Tubbeh, R., Cruz García, G. 2018a. Climate change and food: Challenges and opportunities in tropical mountains and agrobiodiversity hotspots. ReVista: Harv Rev Lat Am 12, 53-57. Zimmerer, K.S., Lambin, E.F., Vanek, S.J. 2018b. Smallholder telecoupling and potential sustainability. Ecol Soc 23, 30. Zimmerer, K.S., Vanek, S.J. 2016. Toward the integrated framework analysis of linkages among agrobiodiversity, livelihood diversification, ecological systems, and potential sustainability amid global change. LAND 5, 10. AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 36 Captions for Tables and Figures Figure 1. Visualization of the Expanded Definition of Agrobiodiversity AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 37 Figure 2. Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework: Themes and Values Figure 3. Estimated Publications in the Principal Themes of Agrobiodiversity Knowledge (Web of Science, 2000-2016) AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 38 AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 39 Table 1. The Multi-Level Definition of Agrobiodiversity Level of Agrobiodiversity Major Definitional Elements (Examples) Other Specifications Food and crop biodiversity per se in addition to intentional biotic interactions in general (Vandermeer et al. 1998; Zimmerer and De Haan 2017, 2019) domesticated and semi- domesticated plants and animals; wild foods (Bharucha and Pretty 2010; Cruz-Garcia and Struik 2015; Reyes-García et al. 2006) species, varieties/landraces, genetic and genomic (including functional traits), functional groups (e.g., for dietary diversity analysis); multiple scales (field, farm, community, landscape, region, global) (Jarvis et al. 2008; Zimmerer 1991b) Associated Biodiversity (Vandermeer et al. 1998) wild relatives of domesticated plants and animals; associated organisms including pollinators, dispersal agents, soil organisms, microbes, and trees (Dawson et al. 2014) species, multiple scales (agroecosystem, landscape, region, global) (Jackson et al. 2007) Sociocultural and Economic Practices and Management (including agrodiversity; Almekinders et al. 1995; Brookfield 2001) sociocultural meanings and economic practices (CBD 2015, Johns et al. 2013), including knowledge, skills, resource management (seeds, land, water, labor), and foodways linguistics of naming and classification; social and cultural relations (e.g., gender, ethnic group, socioeconomic resource level) Institutional Diversity agriculture and development organizations; food and nutrition organizations; climate change and resilience organizations; boundary work and organizations involving the above (Zimmerer 2015; see also Cash et al. 2001; Cash et al. 2003; Clark et al. 2016) community-based resource management (e.g., seed banks); existing seed networks based on social relations; global and international institutions (Bellon et al. 2015; Bioversity International 2017) AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 40 Table 2. Expanding Institutional Interests and Research Monographs (Examples) with Global and Multi-Scale Focus on Agrobiodiversity Table 2. Institutional Interest (Examples) and Research Monographs (Examples) Institutional Interests in Agrobiodiversity (2010- persent) Research Monographs on Agrobiodiversity Agrobiodiversity as genetic resources (FAO 2010), multi-function knowledge platforms (ARCAD 2010); food and agriculture internatioanlly (FAO and PAR 2011) and nationally (e.g., NAFRI 2016), ecosystem services (DIVERSITAS in Jackson et al. 2012; MEA 2005), food system components and impacts (IOM and NRC 2015); agroecological and food systems (IPES Food 2016); seeds and resilience (GAFF 2016); mainstreaming and indexing (Bioversity International 2017), and food security and nutrition (HLPE 2017). Agrobiodiversity research analysis (monograph-scope): Andersen 2013; Brookfield 2001; Brush 2000, 2004; Cleveland 2013; Gepts et al. 2012; Jarvis et al. 2016; Jarvis et al. 2007; Kontoleon et al. 2008; Lenné and Wood 2011; Nabhan 2012, 2016; Richards 1985; Smale 2005; Vavilov 1992; Wood and Lenné 1999; Zimmerer 1996 AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 41 Table 3. Principal Categories of the Agrobiodiversity Knowledge Framework Principal Categories of Agrobiodiversity Knowledge General Description of Values Examples of Relevant Academic Fields and Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Approaches Current Management and Policy Issues Ecology and Evolution (related to agrobiodiversity) Biological Values (broadly evolutionary and ecological, including agroecological) ecology, agroecology, forest ecology, biology, genetics and genetic resources, human ecology, ethnobiology, ecological anthropology, human- environment geography ex situ and in situ coordination; evaluating the degree of agrobiodiversity loss or “genetic erosion” Governance (related to agrobiodiversity) Biocultural and Socioeconomic Values (wide range of culinary, symbolic, social network, and economic and livelihood values) biocultural approaches, ethnobiology, policy, law, food systems, food environments, economics, sociology, political ecology, anthropology, geography, indigenous studies, gender studies, urban studies role of ethnicity in genetic diversity; informal seed system support across multiple scales Diet, Nutrition, and Health (related to agrobiodiversity) Well-Being Values (incorporates diet and nutrition into physical well-being as well as mental health) nutrition, health, public health, food studies, planning, agricultural and development economics, urban studies nutritional security, market integration with possible inflecting of the U- shape curve Global Change and Transformation (related to agrobiodiversity) Adaptive Capacity and Resilience Values (capabilities and vulnerability of responses to global environmental and socioeconomic transformations) social-ecological systems, political ecology, sustainability studies, global studies, ecology, geography, anthropology, sociology capacities of food production and consumption systems amid global change (including adaptation, resilience, vulnerability, and transformation) AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 42 Table 4. Results of the Agrobiodiversity, Food, and Nutrition Project (AFN) in Huánuco, Peru (2015-2017) Variable or Indicator Result Data Source 1. Percentage of households with one or more fields of maize; Percentage of maize- growing households growing Andean maize landraces potentially suited to upslope expansion 69.4%; 86.4% Agricultural production and consumption information in household-level surveys (n=604 households); Interview on agrobiodiversity climate change (n=37 households) 2. Percentage of households that reported the upslope expansion or displacement of cropping 4.5% (household survey); 35.1% (interview) Climate change sub-module in household-level surveys (n=604 households); Interview on climate change (n=37 households) 3. Frequency of maize variety types across three study sub-areas Malconga: 12 Molinos: 14 Quishqui: 13 Participatory field sampling with farmers (n=270 maize fields) 4. Percentage of use of the informal and formal seed systems for Andean maize (see explanation in text) Informal seed system (92.2%); Formal seed system (7.8%) Food production and consumption information in household-level surveys (n=604 households) 5. Percentage of households experiencing food insecurity (mild, moderate, or severe) and potential relations to agrobiodiversity 86.0%; significant negative correlation significant at P values less than .01 and lower of moderate and severe food security with household agrobiodiversity Food production and consumption information in household-level surveys (n=604 households) AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 43 Table 5. Examples of Human-Environment Interactions with Agrobiodiversity in Time Periods Relevant to Anthropocene Research (see Section 4.0) Themes of Agrobio- diversity Long-Term Human Impacts on Earth (4,000 BP – present) Industrial Era (AD 1800 - present) General Phenomenon of Human Interactions Evolution and Ecology Domestication and co- evolution of plant and animal biodiversity with humans Development and spread of crop monocultures, including colonial monocrops and agroindustrial market impacts Human interactions related to food biodiversity, associated agrobiodiversity, and related dimensions Governance Co-evolution of biocultural processes (e.g., linguistics) with agrobiodiversity Legal and policy instruments to address global genetic resources, and markets and political economy for genetic resources that include widespread dispossessions Social-ecological organization and variation of seed systems Diet, Nutrition, and Health Diet, nutrition, and health changes in transitions to early agriculture, both domestication and spread of farming systems Global Nutritional Transition beginning in the late 1900s, including mass-produced foods as cheap dietary staples; differentiation of agri-food systems Interactions of diet, nutrition, and health with social-ecological changes (e.g., agricultural intensification and market growth) Global Change Agrobiodiversity in relation to transformations and shocks of climate (e.g., El Niño climate events) and socioeconomic organization (e.g., urbanization, state development) Development and spread of modern industrial food systems, including environmental and socioeconomic transformations, and the Global Nutritional Transition beginning in mid-late 1900s Agrobiodiversity in relation to widespread social-ecological transformations (e.g., soil degradation) AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT 44 Table 6. Integration of Agrobiodiversity with Concepts of Global Change (Adaptive Capacity, Vulnerability, Resilience, Transformation) Concept General Meaning and Usage Specific Integration with Agrobiodiversity (this research) Outward-Looking Causal Components Integrated with Agrobiodiversity (this research) Adaptive Capacity pre- conditions that enable adaptation ecological characteristics of landraces that enable the agricultural and food adaptations of indigenous smallholders the adaptive capacity of landraces depends on metapopulation processes such as capacity for continued co-evolution with indigenous smallholder cultivators and consumers Vulnerability Precarity owing to marginali- zation limitations on farmer access to seed, land, and water impacts on the use of landraces resource limitations affecting agrobiodiversity use influenced through Resilience capacity of a system to bounce back following shock landrace production and consumption of indigenous smallholders, as well as continued co-evolution, following global change “shocks” movements and flows of people, seed, and information across geographic scales AC CE PT ED M AN US CR IPT