| Literature DB >> 22146009 |
Dora Velásquez-Milla1, Alejandro Casas, Juan Torres-Guevara, Aldo Cruz-Soriano.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Peruvian Andean region is a main center of plant domestication of the world. There, several tuber species were domesticated and the area lodges one of the most important reservoirs of their varieties and wild relatives. It is also the setting of traditional cultures using and conserving them. However, crop genetic erosion has been reported in the region since several decades ago; therefore, understanding factors influencing both loss and maintenance of crop variation is relevant to design conservation policies. Previous researches have examined factors influencing agrobiodiversity conservation in the region but additional case studies are recognized to be still necessary for a deeper understanding of causes of genetic erosion and for policy design to prevent and remedy it. Our study focused on analyzing (1) variation in richness of traditional varieties of tubers cultivated among households, (2) changes in varieties richness occurred in four consecutive agricultural cycles, and (3) ecological, social, and cultural factors influencing loss and conservation of varieties.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22146009 PMCID: PMC3251544 DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-7-40
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Figure 1The . The photo (by Dora Velásquez, 2008) is from the village of Monte Azul, Kichki, Huánuco, in Sabino Alejo's farm.
Figure 2Study area location. Northern Sierra (Cajamarca). A) Chugzen Watershed, B) Muyoc Watershed, C) Shitamalca Micro-watershed. Central Sierra (Huánuco): Mito Watershed: A) Ragracancha Micro-watershed, B) Guellaymayo Micro-watershed.
Indexes constructed for integrating information of the study, definitions, and scales of values
| INDEX | DEFINITION | SCALE OF VALUES |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 = Total identity | ||
| - | Indicates the number of traditions associated to agriculture (customs, rituals, festivities) recognized, practiced, and transmited by a household head in relation to all traditions associated to agriculture identified in our study. | 0.8 to < 1.0 = Very strong identity |
| - | Indicates the degree of use of the Quechua language by the household: 1 = only Quechua, 0.5 = bilingual (Sapnish-Quechua), y 0 = only Spanish. | 0.6 to < 0. 8 = Strong identity |
| - | Indicates the inverse relation between age at which households' heads started to cultivate native tubers as an independent and the minimum age identified amonh households heads studied. | 0.4 to < 0.6 = Intermediate identity |
| - | Indicates the age at which the household's head learned agriculture (1 = child, 0.5 = teen ager, 0.25 = adult), the proportion of varieties inherited in relation to all varieties documented, the proportion of land area inherited in relation to the maximum area identified, and origin of land cultivated as independent agriculturalist: 1 = inherited; 0.75 = repartición; 0.50 = renting, an 0.25 = buying. | 0.2 to < 0.4 = Weak identity |
| - | Indicates the traditional ways (knowledge, technology, mutual help, seeds, land) that consider necessary to give to children to continue withtraditional agriculture of native tubers, minus the modern ways (education, fertilizer, insecticides) also mentioned. | 0 to < 0.2 = Very weak identity |
| 1.0 = Total traditional management | ||
| - | - | 0.80 a < 1,00 = Very strong traditional management |
| - | ||
| - | ||
| - | - | |
| - | ||
| 1.0 = Total self-sufficiency | ||
| - | Calculated as the monetary value of agricultural production destined to direct consumption by households. | 0.80 a < 1.00 = Very high self-sufficiency |
| - | Calculated as the summatory of monetary value of total agricultural production, salaries and incomes derived of social assistance programs. | 0.20 a < 0.40 = Low self-sufficiency |
| 0.80 a 1.00 (9-11 members) = Very numerous | ||
| 0.80 a 1.00 = Very high | ||
Ecological, technological and socio-economic factors analyzed and their correlation values (r) with richness of farmer varieties.
| Cajamarca | Huánuco | Both regions | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor (independent variable) | Agricultural cycle | Agricultural cycle | Agricultural cycle | ||||||||||||
| 2001-2 | 2002-3 | 2003-4 | 2004-5 | All years | 2001-2 | 2002-3 | 2003-4 | 2004-5 | All years | 2001-2 | 2002-3 | 2003-4 | 2004-5 | All years | |
| Total farms number | -0.093 | -0.108 | -0.143 | -0.035 | -0.026 | -0.146 | -0.146 | -0.240 | -0.239 | -0.249 | -0.018 | -0.024 | 0.036 | 0.089 | 0.077 |
| Farm Extension | 0.131 | 0.519 | 0.735* | 0.616* | 0.443 | 0.175 | 0.174 | 0.234 | 0.252 | 0.200 | 0.164 | 0.396* | 0.433* | 0.457** | 0.302* |
| Parcels Number | 0.480 | 0.866** | 0.962** | 0.926** | 0.840** | 0.342 | 0.349 | 0.521 | 0.428 | 0.460 | 0.169 | -0.003 | -0.056 | -0.042 | 0.143 |
| Native tubers surface 2001-2005 | 0.218 | 0.485 | 0.603* | 0.683* | 0.558 | 0.476 | 0.473 | 0.399 | 0.323 | 0.308 | 0.440* | 0.684** | 0.702** | 0.684** | 0.614** |
| Index of parcels distribution (IPD) | 0.607* | 0.883** | 0.838** | 0.829** | 0.884** | 0.071 | 0.075 | 0.362 | 0.447 | 0.408 | 0.260 | 0.011 | -0.066 | -0.0555 | 0.169 |
| Index of cultural identity (ICI) | 0.113 | 0.432 | 0.598* | 0.702* | 0.483 | -0.170 | -0.173 | -0.244 | -0.181 | -0.203 | 0.174 | 0.444* | 0.451* | 0.311* | 0.166 |
| Index of traditional agricultural management (ITAM) | -0.016 | 0.314 | 0.580* | 0.662* | 0.360 | -0.066 | -0.061 | 0.245 | 0.301 | 0.293 | 0.222 | 0.479** | 0.675** | 0.681** | 0.540** |
| Index of self-sufficiency (ISS) | 0.237 | 0.226 | 0.072 | 0.376 | 0.374 | -0.149 | -0.148 | -0.245 | -0.232 | -0.239 | 0.273* | 0.457** | 0.490** | 0.403* | 0.283* |
| Index of family size (IFS) | 0.353 | 0.674* | 0.706* | 0.862** | 0.658* | 0.022 | 0.021 | -0.183 | -0.248 | -0.238 | -0.012 | -0.067 | -0.033 | 0.028 | 0.104 |
| Index of household labor hand (ILH) | 0.703* | 0.629* | 0.241 | 0.580* | 0.670* | -0.031 | -0.032 | -0.174 | -0.242 | -0.224 | 0.051 | -0.092 | -0.098 | -0.071 | 0.034 |
*indicates significant correlations with 0.01 < p < 0.05; ** indicates significant correlation with p < 0.01.
Data matrix of the variables and indexes used in cluster and principal components analyses
| Variables | Abanto P | Abanto S | Huaccha | Carrera | Rojas | Cabrera | Rosado | Alejo | Aquino | Fernández | Sánchez | Antonio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | H1 | H2 | H3 | H4 | H5 | H6 | |
| Potato varieties richnes | 66 | 133 | 289 | 67 | 57 | 52 | 139 | 154 | 57 | 252 | 111 | 203 |
| Oca varieties richnes | 13 | 16 | 19 | 16 | 17 | 10 | 54 | 41 | 24 | 56 | 28 | 59 |
| Olluco varieties richnes | 7 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 8 | 6 | 18 | 13 | 15 | 25 | 15 | 16 |
| Mashua varieties richnes | 5 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 55 | 19 | 14 | 45 | 13 | 35 |
| Change of environmental conditionsa | 2.75 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 3.75 | 3.5 | 3.63 | 3.63 | 3.75 | 3.75 | 3.63 | 3.88 | 3.75 |
| Farm zonificationc | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Number of farms | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Farm area | 4.5 | 5 | 15 | 12 | 5 | 3.5 | 6 | 50 | 8 | 108 | 28 | 12 |
| Total number of plots | 5 | 5 | 17 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 6 |
| Land area cultivated with native tubers | 1.75 | 1.4 | 6.37 | 1.33 | 1.94 | 3.2 | 4.5 | 6.5 | 3.87 | 8 | 6.02 | 5.55 |
| Number of plots in the low zone | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Number of plots in the middle zone | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Number of plots in the high zone | 5 | 5 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
| Household head languaged | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Household head age learning agriculturee | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Number of varieties received from parents | 9 | 35 | 15 | 35 | 5 | 35 | 90 | 50 | 30 | 50 | 50 | 250 |
| Origin of cultivated landf | 1 | 0.25 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1 | 1 |
| Household head age | 33 | 41 | 48 | 56 | 57 | 36 | 41 | 55 | 56 | 50 | 39 | 29 |
| Age as independent farmer | 25 | 23 | 17 | 23 | 25 | 24 | 22 | 18 | 24 | 22 | 18 | 12 |
| Number of agricultural traditions practiced | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Enhancing children to practice agriculture | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.67 | 0 | 1.33 | 2.33 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Fallow period of land (years) | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 6 |
| Tilling with chakitaqllag | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 |
| Use of not commercial inputs in agriculture | 0.47 | 0.61 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.67 | 1 | 0.57 |
| Traditional seed storageh | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mutual helpi | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Seed search effort | 49 | 48 | 66 | 66 | 20 | 24 | 63 | 0 | 12 | 66 | 12 | 49 |
| Seed getting mechanismsj | 1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.4 |
| Household head's provenancek | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Number of native parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Willingness of staying in the community | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Territorial visionl | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Migration frequency of household head | 1 | 0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Migration of other family members | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | 0 | 0.17 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.5 | 0.56 | 0.86 | 0 | 0 |
| Monetary value of production directed to self-consumption | 316.91 | 1,780.00 | 12,736.40 | 95.2 | 286 | 2,951.75 | 5,395.00 | 5,300.00 | 2,699.30 | 22,255.50 | 6,750.00 | 11,671.25 |
| Income from production selling | 4,809.65 | 6,132.00 | 16,171.60 | 3,221.80 | 2,184.00 | 6,186.75 | 8,555.00 | 4,325.00 | 369.6 | 13,055.00 | 1,904.00 | 5,860.00 |
| Income from hand labor selling | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 787.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,344.00 | 0 |
| Income from governmental subsidies | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,200.00 | 1,200.00 | 1,200.00 | 1,200.00 | 1,200.00 | 1,200.00 |
| Total number of family members | 4 | 6 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 5 |
| Family members at labor age | 2 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 |
| Number of held family members | 4 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| Number of men composing the family | 3 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Number of women composing the family | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 |
a 1 to < 2 = favorable; 2 to < 3 = without change; 3 to < 4 = unfavorable;1 = private; 2 = communal;1 = high zone; 2 = middle and high zones; 3 = middle zone; 4 = middle and low zones; 5 = low zone;1 = Quechua; 2 = Quechua Spanish;1 = child; 0.5 = adolescent; 0.25 = adult;1 = heritage; 0.75 = apportioning; 0.5 = rent/sharing; 0.25 = purchase;1 = raway; 0,5 = pampay; 0 = furrow;1 = coyona, saway; 0 = platforms, nets, sacks;1 = only mutual help; 2 = mutual help and farm workers; 3 = reduced mutual help and farm workers;1 = barter and gift; 0.8 = barter or gift; 0.6 = barter, gift and purchase; 0.4 = purchase and barter or gift; 0.2 = purchase; 0 = anyone;1 = native; 2 = foreign;1 = limited for study; 2 = limited for work; 3 = limited for study and work.
Traditional farmer varieties richness of native tubers from Cajamarca and Huánuco during four agricultural cycles (2001-2005)
| Region/Farmer | Farmer varieties richness | Total varieties richness | Percentage of regional varieties richness | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potato | Oca | Olluco | Mashua | |||
| HUACCHA | 289 | 19 | 14 | 9 | 331 | 65.3 |
| ABANTO, S. | 133 | 16 | 12 | 7 | 168 | 33.1 |
| CARRERA | 67 | 16 | 14 | 6 | 103 | 20.3 |
| ABANTO, P. | 66 | 13 | 7 | 5 | 91 | 17.9 |
| ROJAS | 57 | 17 | 8 | 3 | 85 | 16.8 |
| CABRERA | 52 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 71 | 14.0 |
| RABANAL A., P. | 44 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 65 | 12.8 |
| RABANAL V., J. | 44 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 54 | 10.7 |
| VARGAS | 28 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 52 | 10.3 |
| MARIÑAS | 32 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 47 | 9.3 |
| MUÑOZ | 32 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 39 | 7.7 |
| MARIN | 26 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 39 | 7.7 |
| VÍLCHEZ | 12 | 12 | 2.4 | |||
| FERNÁNDEZ | 252 | 56 | 25 | 45 | 378 | 25.5 |
| NOLASCO, M. | 192 | 53 | 40 | 48 | 333 | 22.5 |
| ANTONIO | 203 | 59 | 16 | 35 | 313 | 21.1 |
| ROSADO | 139 | 54 | 18 | 55 | 266 | 17.9 |
| HILARIO | 177 | 31 | 29 | 17 | 254 | 17.1 |
| GACHA, N. | 160 | 27 | 19 | 28 | 234 | 15.8 |
| ALEJO, S. | 154 | 41 | 13 | 19 | 227 | 15.3 |
| ALEJO, T. | 139 | 42 | 12 | 16 | 209 | 14.1 |
| SÁNCHEZ C., J. | 138 | 15 | 15 | 6 | 174 | 11.7 |
| SÁNCHEZ S., G. | 111 | 28 | 15 | 13 | 167 | 11.3 |
| SÁNCHEZ V, E. | 128 | 13 | 11 | 13 | 165 | 11.1 |
| NOLASCO, A. | 125 | 12 | 7 | 6 | 150 | 10.1 |
| JARA, E. | 108 | 14 | 4 | 3 | 129 | 8.7 |
| GACHA, Z. | 77 | 28 | 10 | 14 | 129 | 8.7 |
| AQUINO | 57 | 24 | 15 | 14 | 110 | 7.4 |
Traditional farmer varieties richness of tubers per agricultural cycle, with number of fields and cultivated area, per household
| Region | Farmer | Number of farmer varieties of tubers | Annual average of richness | Number of fields | Annual average cultivated area | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | Cycle 4 | |||||
| Cajamarca | Huaccha | 167 | 103 | 123 | 183 | 144.00 | 17 | 1.59 |
| Abanto S | 123 | 57 | 23 | 76 | 69.75 | 5 | 0.35 | |
| Carrera | 32 | 45 | 52 | 78 | 51.75 | 7 | 0.33 | |
| Abanto P | 50 | 43 | 41 | 43 | 44.25 | 5 | 0.44 | |
| Rojas | 26 | 36 | 36 | 74 | 43.00 | 5 | 0.49 | |
| Vargas | 40 | 43 | 41.50 | 2 | 0.02 | |||
| Rabanal P | 21 | 31 | 31 | 56 | 34.75 | 6 | 1.44 | |
| Mariñas | 15 | 47 | 31.00 | 3 | 0.55 | |||
| Cabrera | 16 | 28 | 20 | 58 | 30.50 | 4 | 0.80 | |
| Rabanal J | 33 | 17 | 41 | 30.33 | 3 | 0.16 | ||
| Muñoz | 12 | 39 | 25.50 | 2 | 0.36 | |||
| Marín | 22 | 24 | 30 | 25.33 | 3 | 0.33 | ||
| Vilchez | 8 | 7 | 7.50 | 2 | 0.01 | |||
| Huánuco | Fernández | 153 | 154 | 305 | 374 | 246.50 | 6 | 2 |
| Antonio | 157 | 158 | 268 | 290 | 218.25 | 6 | 1.39 | |
| Gacha N | 144 | 144 | 227 | 227 | 185.50 | 9 | 1.53 | |
| Nolasco M | 91 | 153 | 303 | 182.33 | 3 | 1.58 | ||
| Alejo S | 117 | 117 | 189 | 220 | 160.75 | 9 | 1.63 | |
| Alejo T | 81 | 189 | 192 | 154.00 | 3 | 0.84 | ||
| Rosado | 77 | 77 | 193 | 262 | 152.25 | 8 | 1.13 | |
| Hilario | 62 | 72 | 167 | 250 | 137.75 | 6 | 1.63 | |
| Sánchez J | 125 | 126 | 142 | 136 | 132.25 | 7 | 1.22 | |
| Sánchez G | 90 | 90 | 151 | 158 | 122.25 | 9 | 1.51 | |
| Jara | 106 | 106 | 120 | 117 | 112.25 | 8 | 0.9 | |
| Sánchez E | 93 | 93 | 128 | 128 | 110.50 | 5 | 0.9 | |
| Nolasco A | 91 | 91 | 121 | 125 | 107.00 | 7 | 1.55 | |
| Gacha Z | 67 | 67 | 125 | 125 | 96.00 | 6 | 1.41 | |
| Aquino | 53 | 53 | 99 | 108 | 78.25 | 8 | 0.97 | |
Figure 3Distribution of native traditional varieties of potato among farmers. a) Cajamarca b) Huánuco. Production cycles 2001-2005. Categories: very rare, rare, roughly common, common, very common.
Figure 4Annual variation of the traditional varieties of native tubers richness from farmers. A) Cajamarca B) Huánuco. Period 2001-2005.
Wild relatives of native tubers identified, their local names and information on their management and use.
| Scientific name | Peasant name | Management and type of use |
|---|---|---|
| "papa de zorro" | Management: conservation of the "ambulco" (bulb) protecting it from the animals. Type of use: food; seed; sale. | |
| "oca de zorro" | Type of use: health; food; seed; sale. | |
| "olluco de zorro" "sacha olluco" | Management: protecting from animal's consumption. Type of use: health; food; seed; sale. | |
| "mashua de zorro" | ||
| "jupay papa | Type of use: health. | |
| "ogausho" | Type of use: health; food | |
| No fueron colectadas especies | "jupay llutu" | . Type of use: health |
| No fueron colectadas especies | "jupay mashua" | Type of use: health |
Values of variables and indexes analyzed as factors influencing the richness of farmer varieties of tuber species
| FARMER | Total number of farms | Total extent of the farm (ha) | Number of plots cultivated per farm | Area of land cultivated with native tubers 2001-2005 (ha) | Index of Parcel Distribution | Index of Cultural Identity | Index of Traditional Agricultural Management | Index of Self-Sufficiency | Index of Family Size | Index of Household Labor Hand | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPD | ICI | Level | ITAM | Level | ISS | Level | IFS | Level | ILH | Level | ||||||
| Alimarca | ABANTO P | 2 | 4,5 | 5 | 1,8 | 0.29 | 0.18 | Very weak | 0.44 | Middle | 0.06 | Very low | 0.36 | Middle | 0.36 | Small |
| Alimarca | ABANTO S | 2 | 5,0 | 5 | 1,4 | 0.29 | 0.21 | Weak | 0.45 | Middle | 0.22 | Low | 0.55 | Numerous | 0.55 | Middle |
| Trascorral | HUACCHA | 1 | 15,0 | 17 | 6,4 | 1.00 | 0.43 | Middle | 0.63 | Strong | 0,44 | Middle | 1.00 | Very numerous | 1.00 | Very big |
| Patiñico | CARRERA | 3 | 12,0 | 7 | 1,3 | 0.26 | 0.29 | Weak | 0.53 | Middle | 0.03 | Very low | 0.82 | Very numerous | 0.64 | Big |
| Rambrán | ROJAS | 2 | 5,0 | 5 | 1,9 | 0.13 | 0.2 | Weak | 0.48 | Middle | 0.12 | Very low | 0.64 | Numerous | 0.64 | Big |
| Carbón Alto | CABRERA | 1 | 3,5 | 4 | 3,2 | 0.24 | 0.29 | Weak | 0.53 | Middle | 0.32 | Low | 0.36 | Middle | 0.36 | Small |
| Monte Azul | ROSADO | 1 | 6.3 | 8 | 4,5 | 0.37 | 0.4 | Middle | 0.65 | Strong | 0,34 | Low | 0.91 | Very numerous | 0.91 | Very big |
| Monte Azul | ALEJO | 1 | 50 | 9 | 6,5 | 0.41 | 0.69 | Strong | 0.55 | Middle | 0.49 | Middle | 0.73 | Numerous | 0.73 | Big |
| Monte Azul | AQUINO | 1 | 8 | 8 | 3,9 | 0.37 | 0.46 | Middle | 0.62 | Strong | 0.63 | High | 0.91 | Very numerous | 0.91 | Very big |
| Monte Azul | FERNÁNDEZ | 1 | 108 | 6 | 8,0 | 0.27 | 0.49 | Middle | 0.69 | Strong | 0.61 | High | 0.73 | Numerous | 0.73 | Big |
| Huayllacayán | SÁNCHEZ | 2 | 21 | 9 | 6,0 | 0.46 | 0.77 | Strong | 0.59 | Middle | 0.6 | High | 0.36 | Middle | 0.36 | Small |
| San Juan de Tingo | ANTONIO | 2 | 8 | 6 | 5,6 | 0.35 | 0.62 | Strong | 0.66 | Strong | 0.62 | High | 0.45 | Middle | 0.45 | Middle |
Eigenvectors of the most meaningful variables in the first three principal components.
| Variable | Component 1 | Component 2 | Component 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oca varieties richness | 0.00 | 0.33 | |
| Mashua varieties richness | 0.12 | 0.27 | |
| Total farm area | 0.24 | 0.03 | |
| Language of the household head | 0.02 | -0.27 | |
| Tilling using chakitaqlla | 0.01 | 0.02 | |
| Migration of household's members | 0.10 | 0.57 | |
| Monetary value of production directed to self-consumption | 0.43 | 0.04 | |
| Incomes from governmental subsidies | -0.02 | 0.27 | |
| Total number of household's members | 0.16 | 0.08 | |
| Households members at labor age | -0.02 | 0.18 | |
Figure 5Principal Components Analysis of the management of traditional varieties variation of native tubers among traditional farmers. Cajamarca and Huánuco. The farmers with the prefix C are from Cajamarca and those with the prefix H are from Huánuco.
Figure 6Frequency of peasants reasons to cultivate different traditional varieties of native potatoes. According to farmers testimonies from Cajamarca and Huánuco (2008).