REGISTRO DOI: 10.69849/revistaft/ni10202501311405
Ordilena Ferreira de Miranda1; João Batista Moreira Gomes2; Diego Câmara Sales3; Jorge Emídio de Carvalho Soares4
Abstract
A participatory plant breeding (PPB) initiative for tucumã palm (Astrocaryum aculeatum G. Meyer) was conducted with smallholder farmers in Central Amazon, Brazil. The research evaluated growth parameters, development characteristics, and fruit quality in two distinct plantations over a 12-year period, involving 276 palms. Significant differences in growth parameters were observed for diameter at breast height (26.8 ± 3.2 cm vs 23.4 ± 2.8 cm), total height (8.9 ± 0.8 m vs 8.1 ± 0.7 m), and crown diameter (6.4 ± 0.9 m vs 5.8 ± 0.8 m). The result revealed that the management from the beginning of a tucumã plantation plays an important role in the development of this palm and is crucial for the establishment of plantations with fruit of superior quantity and quality and contributes to better plant health conditions. The participatory selection process identified superior genotypes based on fruit quality traits, with considerable variation in pulp percentage and fruit weight. This collaborative approach between researchers and smallholder farmers provided valuable insights for tucumã breeding, combining traditional knowledge with scientific methodology. Thus, the results demonstrate the potential of the PPB approach as a tool for developing superior tucumã varieties while maintaining genetic diversity and adapting to local conditions.
Keywords: Genotypes; traditional knowledge; Amazon palms.
1. Introduction
Participatory plant breeding (PPB) represents a fundamental strategy for developing locally adapted varieties while preserving genetic diversity, especially in regions where traditional agricultural systems predominate [1–3]. This approach has shown relevance for an underutilized native species with high economic potential, such as tucumã (A. aculeatum), an emblematic palm deeply embedded in the socio-biodiversity of traditional populations and indigenous peoples of the Amazon [4,5].
The distribution and abundance of tucumã in the Amazon forest have been historically influenced by ancient populations and continue to be shaped by current communities through traditional management practices [6]. Its economic importance primarily stems from fruit pulp exploitation, which has evolved from a local consumption product to gain significant prominence in the regional market. This scale transition demonstrates the species’ potential for participatory breeding programs aimed at optimizing productive characteristics while maintaining local adaptability [7].
Tucumã fruit commercialization has transcended local boundaries to reach markets throughout the Central Amazon region, with the pulp being incorporated into value-added products that even reaching premium markets in major urban centers across the country 37 [8,9]. This growth in demand has not been matched by proportional development in production systems, creating an opportunity for technological interventions that respect and incorporate traditional knowledge [10].
Current tucumã production, based primarily on extractivism and management of naturally occurring individuals after slash-and-burn agriculture, proves insufficient to meet growing commercial demand [6]. However, this productive limitation, rather than representing just a bottleneck, highlights the species’ potential as a socio-biodiversity product with high added value and income generation capacity for Amazonian smallholder farmers, provided appropriate breeding and management strategies are developed [11].
Traditional knowledge about tucumã selection and propagation, although valuable, has proven insufficient for establishing successful commercial plantations, mainly due tolimitations in seedling production techniques and high variability in fruit quantity and quality among individuals [12]. This reality emphasizes the need for an approach that systematically integrates scientific knowledge with farmers’ practices and preferences, aiming to develop participatory breeding methodologies that enhance productive results [13]. Participatory approaches integrating scientific and traditional knowledge offer promising solutions for genetic improvement while fostering biodiversity preservation and local economic growth [14].
Participatory plant breeding integrates the expertise of farmers and researchers to create crop varieties tailored to local ecological conditions. This collaborative approach enhances biodiversity, while improving resilience to biotic and abiotic stresses. Oliveira [15] emphasize that PPB is crucial to mitigate genetic erosion and promote food security, particularly in marginalized farming systems. Such practices highlight the essential role of agrobiodiversity in sustaining agroecosystems. Given this context, the present study was developed to evaluate the morphological and productive development of two tucumã plantations under participatory management over 12 years, identifying superior characteristics for selection through the integration of traditional knowledge with scientific methods. Additionally, we sought to develop a framework for participatory breeding applicable to tucumã palm and to other native perennial species, contributing to the construction of an agricultural development model that combines biodiversity conservation, traditional knowledge, and economic viability [16].
Our work, based on scientific analysis and empirical evidence centered on a participatory approach, has promoted valuable insights for future PPB efforts for tucumã that can improve the social and economic conditions of Amazonian farmers. However, demonstrated the importance of long-term research and the integration of traditional and scientific knowledge to assess the impact of management practices on tucumã development and productivity.
The success of this participatory breeding initiative demonstrates the value of collaboration between researchers and farmers in developing superior tucumã varieties adapted to local conditions and with desirable traits for the market.
2. Materials and Methods
The implementation of PPB involves structured phases, including collaborative goal setting, field selection of interesting trees and dissemination of finalized cultivars. Decentralized breeding empowers local farmers by aligning breeding objectives with their specific ecological and socioeconomic contexts [17]. Advanced scientific techniques, such as markerassisted selection and multi-environment trials, can be integral to PPB. These methodologies ensure the development of stable, high-performing varieties that meet farmer and consumer needs [15]. By integrating traditional knowledge with modern science, PPB fosters adaptive and sustainable agricultural practices.
2.1 Study Sites and Experimental Design
The study was conducted in two smallholder farms, in Rio Preto da Eva (2° 41′S, 59° 42′W) and Manacapuru (3° 18’S, 60° 37′ W), both with similar climatic characteristics similar, located in Central Amazon, Brazil (3°8’S, 60°1’W), from 2005 to 2017. The region is characterized by tropical humid climate of the Köppen classification [18], with mean annual rainfall of 2,300 mm and average temperature of 26.7°C. Soils are classified as dystrophic Yellow Latosol with medium texture [19].
The experimental areas, designated as Farmer-1 and Farmer-2 plantation, were established in 2005 following participatory selection protocols adapted from Schroth et al. [6]. Each plantation was maintained under similar environmental conditions typical of traditional agroforestry systems in the Amazon region [20]. A total of 276 tucumã palms were evaluated throughout the study period, comprising 149 plants in the Farmer 1 plantation and 127 in the Farmer 2 plantation.
2.2 Visual Phytosanitary conditions and Environmental Interactions
The plant vigor was assessed through green leaf counting and systematic photographic documentation and phytosanitary using a six-point scale (0-5) using an adapted protocol of Blair et al. [21] where:
0: Dead or missing plants
1: Critical condition with severe problems
2: Poor condition with significant health issues
3: Moderate condition with visible but not severe problems
4: Healthy plants with minor issues
5: Very healthy plants with optimal development
Crown health considers the vigor of the leaves and leaflets and does not take into account senescent leaves in the lower crown [22]. The crown diameter measurements in two directions (in-row and perpendicular to planting rows) were taken to support the health analysis. On the stem, the bark condition was evaluated on a four-point scale (0-3) following [6]. The termite presence and associated damage of the bark were assessed and considered:
– Presence without external nests (0-4 scale)
– Attack severity with visible nests (0-4 scale)
– Nest characterization (height, size classification, color)
2.3 Growth and Development Assessments
Diameter at breast height (DBH) was measured using a digital caliper (precision 0.1 mm), while total height and stem height were determined using a Vertex IV hypsometer (Haglöf, Sweden). Crown diameter measurements were made in two directions (in-row and perpendicular to planting rows).
Plant vigor was assessed through green leaf counting, launching the spear leaf, and systematic photographic documentation. while bark condition was evaluated on a four-point scale (0-3) considering Termite presence and associated damage were assessed and including:
– Presence without external nests (0-4 scale)
– Attack severity with visible nests (0-4 scale)
2.4 Productive Development Assessment
Fruit production was evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative parameters [6]. The methodology included:
– Number of fruit bunches per palm
– Bunch size classification (small, medium, large)
– Fruit quantity evaluation (0-4 scale)
– Fruit quality assessment (1-5 scale)
2.5 Data Collection and Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.1.0 [23], with the packages ’lme4’ for mixed models and ’agricolae’ for mean comparisons following [24]. The significance level was set at p < 0.05 for all analyses.
2.6 Breeding Framework for Tucumã Palm
The participatory breeding framework developed for A. aculeatum integrated three interconnected components: Farmer Knowledge Selection Criteria (FKSC), Technical Research Methods (TRM), and the Integrated Research Process (IRP) (Figure 1). This tripartite structure was designed to systematically combine traditional knowledge with scientific methodologies while maintaining genetic diversity [17].
2.7 Framework Components
2.7.1 Farmer Knowledge Selection Criteria (FKSC)
The FKSC component embodies generations of empirical knowledge regarding tucumã palm cultivation. This knowledge base encompasses critical selection parameters including fruit characteristics, growth patterns, and environmental adaptation indicators.
The FKSC component incorporated generations of empirical knowledge regarding tucumã cultivation and selection, documented through semi-structured interviews and conversation circles with small farmers. Key selection parameters included:
– Fruit characteristics (size, pulp content, flavor)
– Growth patterns and vegetative vigor
– Environmental adaptation indicators
– Traditional management practices
2.7.2 Technical Research Methods (TRM)
The TRM component introduces systematic evaluation protocols and quantitative measurements essential for breeding program validation. This includes standardized morphological assessments, production metrics, and statistical design and analysis methods. Technical research provides the framework with reproducible evaluation criteria and enables objective comparison of genetic materials in a plantation and across different environments and time periods.
The TRM component established standardized protocols for:
– Morphological assessment
– Production metrics quantification
– Statistical design and analysis methods
– Genetic diversity monitoring [25].
2.7.3 Integrated Research Process (IRP)
The IRP serves as the central integration mechanism where FKSC and TRM converge through structured interaction protocols. This component facilitates the transformation of qualitative farmer observations into measurable selection criteria while simultaneously adapting scientific protocols to incorporate traditional knowledge effectively. The IRP implements a continuous feedback loop system where selection outcomes inform subsequent breeding decisions through both traditional and technical perspectives.
The IRP served as the central integration mechanism where FKSC and TRM converged through:
– Structured interaction protocols
– Translation of qualitative farmer observations into measurable criteria
– Adaptation of scientific protocols to incorporate traditional knowledge
– Continuous feedback-loop system
The interaction between these components occurs through specific pathways designed to maximize knowledge transfer while maintaining scientific rigor. FKSC inputs flow into the IRP through formalized documentation of selection criteria and regular evaluation sessions with participating farmers. Simultaneously, TRM contributes through systematic data collection and analysis protocols. These interactions generate a comprehensive selection methodology that combines traditional wisdom with scientific validation.
The framework’s effectiveness derives from the synergistic interaction between its components, where each element strengthens the others through continuous feedback and validation. This interaction creates a robust selection system that effectively identifies superior genotypes while maintaining genetic diversity and local adaptation characteristics. The framework’s architecture ensures that both traditional knowledge and scientific methodology contribute both to the breeding process, resulting in improved selection accuracy and enhanced genetic gain.
2.7.4 Framework Implementation
The implementation process followed four sequential phases that involved initial assessment, selection process, validation and integration and scaling:
Phase 1: Initial Assessment (Years 1-2)
– Selection of matrices and farmers interested in participating in the research.
– Documentation of local selection practices
– Establishment of baseline genetic diversity metrics
– Development of participatory evaluation protocols Phase 2: Selection Process (Years 3-6)
– Implementation of farmer-led selection criteria
– Technical evaluation of selected individuals
– Documentation of selection rationale Phase 3: Validation (Years 7-9)
– Performance evaluation of selected materials
– Genetic diversity assessment
– Refinement of selection criteria
Phase 4: Integration and Scaling (Years 10-12)
– Development of multiplication strategies
– Knowledge transfer protocols
2.8 Framework Evaluation
The effectiveness of the breeding framework was assessed through multiple criteria [26].
1. Technical Metrics
– Genetic gain in target traits
– Maintenance of genetic diversity
– Selection response efficiency
2. Participatory Indicator
– Farmer satisfaction levels
– Knowledge exchange effectiveness
– Farmer adoption rates
3. System Sustainability
– Resource use efficiency
– Local capacity development
– Adoption rates by farmers
2.9 Data Integration and Analysis
Data collection and analysis followed a mixed-methods approach [26,27]:
Quantitative data: morphological measurements, production metrics, statistical analysis, genetic diversity indices;
Qualitative data: farmer preferences, traditional knowledge, selection criteria Integration methods: multicriteria decision analysis, participatory ranking techniques;
The framework’s effectiveness was evaluated using both parametric and non-parametric statistical methods, with special attention to the interaction between traditional and technical selection criteria.
3. Results and discussion
The integration of the FKSC with IRP through the formalized documentation of the selection criteria and regular evaluation of the plantations and the TRM with systematic data collection and analysis protocols. These interactions result in a comprehensive selection methodology that combines traditional wisdom with scientific validation. Given that the nature of the participatory approach to plant breeding has an impact on the results [26], we chose an approach for this study that would have the least impact on the results.
3.1 Growth Performance and Plant Development
Growth analysis of tucumã palms over the 12-year evaluation period revealed significant differences between the two plantations. The Farmer 1 plantation consistently demonstrated superior development across all measured parameters. Diameter at breast height (DBH) averaged 26.8 ± 3.2 cm in Farmer 1 plantation compared to 23.4 ± 2.8 cm in Farmer 2 plantation, representing a 14.5% difference between sites (p < 0.05). This variation in trunk development suggests better establishment conditions and growth response in the Farmer 1 plantation. Total height measurements followed a similar pattern, with palms in the Farmer 1 plantation reaching greater vertical development (8.9 ± 0.8 m) compared to those in Farmer 2 plantation (8.1 ± 0.7 m). Although the tucumã palm adapts well to degraded areas and soil [28], but this characteristic, combined with a general lack of knowledge about the biology of the tucumã palm, can lead to overconfidence in its ability to grow and develop, as is the case with other palm species [21].
The crown diameter was a key indicator of plant vigor and productive potential of A. aculeatum, as seen for other evergreen species [29] and also showed significant differences, with Farmer 1 plantation’s palms developing broader crowns (6.4 ± 0.9 m versus 5.8 ± 0.8 m). The number of green leaves per palm, an important parameter of photosynthetic capacity that affects the overall productivity of the plant [22], was significantly higher in the Farmer 1 plantation (9.2 ± 2.1) than in the Farmer 2 plantation (7.8 ± 2.3), suggesting this variable as an indicator of the productive potential of tucumã.
Annual growth rates showed distinct patterns between plantations throughout the evaluation period. Initial growth rates during the first four years were higher in both sites but particularly pronounced in Farmer 1 plantation (2.8 ± 0.3 cm/year versus 2.4 ± 0.2 cm/year for DBH). Growth rates gradually decreased over time in both plantations but maintained significantly different patterns, with final measurements showing 1.9 ± 0.2 cm/year in Farmer 1 versus 1.6 ± 0.2 cm/year in Farmer 2 plantation (Table 1).
Vertical growth followed similar patterns, with total height measurements showing consistent differences between plantations. Palms in Farmer 1 plantation achieved greater heights (8.9 ± 0.8 m) compared to that Farmer 2 plantation (8.1 ± 0.7 m), representing a 9.9% difference.
Table 1. Growth parameters of tucumã palm in two plantations after 12 years of evaluation (2005-2017).
Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Values represent means ± standard deviation.
This height advantage, combined with superior DBH development, indicates better overall growing conditions and resource allocation in the Farmer 1 plantation. Crown architecture analysis revealed significant differences in both size and structure. The crown diameter in Farmer 1 plantation averaged 6.4 ± 0.9 m, exceeding the Farmer 2 plantation average of 5.8 ± 0.8 m by 10.3%. The number of green leaves per palm, a critical parameter for photosynthetic capacity and potential productivity, showed even more pronounced differences, with Farmer 1 plantation palms maintaining an average of 9.2 ± 2.1 leaves compared to 7.8 ± 2.3 in Farmer 2 plantation, representing a 17.9% of difference. The results suggest a positive correlation between crown diameter and number of leaves with total growth rate and DBH, as these characteristics are directly related to plant vigor [22].
Annual growth rates exhibited distinct temporal patterns between plantations. During the initial establishment phase (first four years), both plantations showed accelerated growth, with Farmer 1 plantation demonstrating superior DBH increment rates (2.8 ± 0.3 cm/year versus 2.4 ± 0.2 cm/year). This early growth advantage was maintained throughout the study period, though growth rates gradually declined in both plantations as expected for palm species approaching maturity [30].
The comparative dendrometric analysis (Figure 2), demonstrates significant morphological variations between the two A. aculeatum plantings evaluated at 12 years of age.
Figure 2. Comparative analysis of dendrometric parameters between two Astrocaryum aculeatum plantations in Central Amazon, Brazil (2005-2017). Bars represent mean values (± standard deviation) for diameter at breast height (DBH), total height, and crown diameter. Different letters indicate significant differences between plantations according to Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Sample size: Farmer 1 plantation n = 149; Farmer 2 plantation n = 127.
Growth rate analysis indicates three distinct developmental phases (Figure 3):
1. Rapid initial growth (years 0-4): characterized by maximum annual increment
2. Intermediate growth (years 4-8): showing moderate but sustained diameter expansion
3. Stabilization phase (years 8-12): exhibiting reduced but continued growth.
Figure 3. Growth patterns of Astrocaryum aculeatum diameter at breast height (DBH) in two participatory breeding plantations over 12 years. Values represent means at each evaluation period (Farmer 1 plantation: n = 149; Farmer 2 plantation: n = 127). Significant differences between plantations were observed at all evaluation points (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Initial differences in growth rates were maintained throughout the evaluation period, with Farmer 1 plantation showing consistently superior development.
The sustained superiority of the Farmer 1 plantation in growth parameters at all stages of development suggests a significant influence of early management practices on long-term performance. Statistical analysis using repeated measures ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test confirmed the significance of the differences observed between the plantations at all assessment points (p < 0.05, n = 149 for Farmer 1, n = 127 for Farmer 2), demonstrating the long-term implications of early growth advantages on tucumã development, as has been observed in other palm species [31].
The superior development observed in certain parameters in the Farmer 1 plantation can serve as a reference for optimizing cultivation practices in future plantations.
3.2 Plant Health and Environmental Interactions
Visual phytosanitary evaluations revealed better overall plant health conditions in the Farmer 1 plantation, with a mean health score of 4.2 compared to 3.8 in Farmer 2 plantation. The presence of termites and their impact varied between plantations, with Farmer 1 showing lower infestation rates and better plant response to pest pressure. Pest pressure, particularly from termites, showed significant variation between sites. Termite presence was more prevalent in the Farmer 2 plantation, affecting 27.6% of palms compared to 18.4% in the Farmer 1 plantation. The severity of termite damage, assessed through both visible nest occurrence and bark condition, also differed significantly. Termite nests were observed in 19.8% of palms in Farmer 2 plantation versus 12.3% in Farmer 1 plantation, with corresponding differences in bark damage scores (1.2 ± 0.5 versus 0.8 ± 0.4, respectively).
The use of crown vigor and the termite damage scale have been shown to be visual parameters that successfully address the visual assessment of tucumã palm health [22], since live crown size and crown quality correspond to plant vigor, while the presence of termites can be associated with the type of management in the plantation area [32]. Therefore, assessment of the health and environmental interactions can contribute to management decisions and can also be used as a predictor of tucumã palm mortality. The results highlight the importance of the use of health assessment and growth parameters that can be used to guide management strategies for tucumã palm.
Bark condition assessments indicated better trunk health in Farmer 1 plantation, potentially contributing to improved overall plant performance. The bark is known to protect against insect attacks [33] promoting resistance to physical and structural damage to the stem [34]. Damage to the bark caused by termite attack resulted in a cavity in the trunk of most attacked plants. We suggest further studies on this subject, given that our results indicate that this damage may be directly related to the productivity and longevity of the tucumã palm, which implies economic loss to the crop.
Environmental interactions, particularly competition effects from surrounding vegetation, demonstrated varying impacts on palm development. The Farmer 2 plantation showed higher competition pressure scores (1.8 ± 0.7) compared to the Farmer 1 plantation (1.2 ± 0.6), reflecting differences in vegetation management practices between sites. These competition effects were particularly evident in the spatial distribution of plant performance, where Farmer 2 border plants showed distinct growth patterns compared to those in central areas. These results show that management decisions can have impact on the vigor and productivity of tucumã plantations, as observed in oil palm plantations [35,36].
The relationship between plant health and environmental factors revealed interesting patterns. Palms with higher health scores generally exhibited better resistance to pest pressure and showed more robust growth (Table 2). This relationship was more pronounced in the Farmer 1 plantation, where better overall plant health appeared to contribute to enhanced palm tucumã resilience.
Table 2. Phytosanitary and environmental interaction parameters of tucumã palm plantations after 12 years.
Values represent means ± standard deviation where applicable. Significant at 5% probability level
Detailed phytosanitary evaluations revealed substantial differences in plant health conditions between the two plantations. The Farmer 1 plantation maintained consistently better plant health throughout the study period, with a mean health score of 4.2 ± 0.6 compared to 3.8 ± 0.7 in the Farmer 2 plantation (p < 0.05). Distribution analysis of health scores showed that 42% of palms in the Farmer 1 plantation achieved the highest score (5), while only 32% reached this level in the Farmer 2 plantation.
3.3 Fruit production and quality between plantations
The fruit production analysis revealed significant differences between the two plantations, reflecting the cumulative effects of growth conditions and management practices. The proportion of fruit-bearing palms showed a marked difference between sites, with 68.4% of trees producing fruits in the Farmer 1 plantation compared to 52.7% in the Farmer 2 plantation (p < 0.05) (Figure 4).
This substantial difference in reproductive success indicates better overall growing conditions and resource allocation in the Farmer 1 plantation. While the variation in fruit characteristics suggests that there is considerable genetic diversity within the studied population and that participatory selection of matrices offers opportunities to establish tucumã plantations with superior genotypes.
Figure 4. Fruit production of tucumã progenies in two participatory breeding plantations. The values represent the averages in the evaluation of each planting.
Although Farmer 1 plantation has been favored by the nutrients used for vegetable production in the first years, which will have contributed to both vegetative growth and fruit production [22], the correlation between vegetative development parameters and fruit production characteristics indicates that early growth performance may be a useful predictor of future productive potential.
Flower abortion was observed in all the plantations and, as the basic physiological processes underlying the production of palm fruit are not well-understood [37], we propose in-depth eco-physiological studies that can capture the effects of flower abortion on fruit production in tucumã.
Fruit quality parameters showed considerable variation within and between plantations. The number of fruit bunches per palm and their size follow the same response. Palms in the Farmer 1 plantation produced more bunches per tree (2.8 ± 0.9) compared to those in Farmer 2 plantation (2.1 ± 0.8). Quality assessments revealed superior fruit characteristics in the Farmer 1 plantation, with higher mean quality scores (4.2 ± 0.5 versus 3.8 ± 0.6) and more favorable fiber content ratings (0.4 ± 0.2 versus 0.6 ± 0.3).
Table 3. Fruit quality parameters of tucumã palm in two plantations after 12 years of evaluation
Values represent means ± standard deviation. Quality score: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent. Fiber and oil content: 0 = low, 2 = high. CV = coefficient of variation.
Fruit quality parameters demonstrated considerable variation both within and between plantations. Mean fruit weight in the Farmer 1 plantation (83.8 ± 12.4 g) was significantly higher than in the Farmer 2 plantation (76.5 ± 10.8 g), with individual fruits ranging from 36 to 109 g across both sites. This wide range in fruit size represents valuable genetic diversity for selective breeding programs. Pulp percentage, a crucial parameter for commercial value, averaged 29.2 ± 4.4% in Farmer 1 plantation versus 25.6 ± 3.9% in Farmer 2 plantation, with exceptional individuals reaching up to 36% pulp content. In breeding programs for this species, fruit with a high pulp content is a priority [38].
Correlation analysis between vegetative development and fruit production parameters revealed significant relationships. Palms with larger DBH and crown diameter generally produced more fruit bunches and showed better fruit quality characteristics. This relationship was particularly evident in the Farmer 1 plantation, where superior vegetative growth led to enhanced productive performance. The temporal analysis of fruit production indicated that palms began bearing fruits at different ages between plantations, with an average of 5.8 to 6.4 years.
The considerable variation observed in fruit characteristics, particularly in weight and pulp percentage, suggests significant potential for genetic improvement through selective breeding through farmer selection. Genotypes with high fruit yield [6], good pulp consistency and good taste can be selected Individuals combining superior vegetative growth with high fruit quality characteristics can provide valuable germplasm for future breeding programs.
3.4 Implications for Participatory Tucumã Breeding
Participatory breeding plant for family farming essentially takes into account socio-economic, cultural and environmental issues, based on the farmer’s own selection, combined with the management of biotic and abiotic factors. These factors offer best possibilities to increase selection intensity and selection gain [16]. However, we didn’t limit our efforts to technical challenges but focused this case on improving farmers’ knowledge and skills.
The comprehensive evaluation of tucumã palm performance on PPB in two different plantations over twelve years has provided valuable insights for participatory breeding strategies, although lower experimental errors and higher heritability can be obtained on research stations [2]. The marked differences in growth, health and production parameters between the plantations highlight the importance of integrating local knowledge with scientific methods into breeding programs. Choice of a species that is part of the local bioeconomy, the clarity of the research objectives, and the form of participation established for each stakeholder played a fundamental role in the results achieved.
Farmers’ expertise in identifying superior phenotypes under local conditions provided essential insights into adaptive traits that may not be immediately apparent using conventional scientific evaluation methods. For example, farmer varieties can indicate cases where the selection index used by researchers does not match the farmer’s weighing of preferences. In this way the PPB strategy with farmers in the Amazon proved to be effective for tucumã. One of the reasons lies in the adoption of genotypes produced by participatory selection of the mother plants, where the criteria for choice were defined by the farmers based on consumer preference. The economic responses of the productivity of these genotypes are directly associated with the price of tucumã fruit or pulp and can generate benefits that can be widely shared by producers and consumers [39] . However, the first economic returns for this species begin after the fifth year of planting, so the acceptance of genotypes is directly linked to maintaining the commitment of farmers to researchers and is therefore a key factor in PPB studies with tucumã. The challenge now is to promote strategies to improve efficiency and continuity in plantation management in order to increase the positive impact of vegetative and phytosanitary parameters, such as crown vigor and trunk health, on tucumã productivity.
The marked differences in plant performance highlight the critical importance of initial establishment practices and ongoing management. We suggest that documenting and incorporating local management practices into breeding protocols is essential for program success. These management practices include specific approaches to seedling selection and handling, planting timing and technique [38,40], invasive plant management – use of the area before and after planting for other crops – organic matter management, pest monitoring and control and improving farmers’ knowledge and capacity. Our results show that successful participatory breeding must take into account both quantitative performance metrics and farmers’ experiential understanding of local conditions. The collaborative evaluation process helped to identify key selection criteria that combine farmers’ practical knowledge with technical parameters, as detailed in Table 4.
Table 4. Selection criteria integration in participatory tucumã palm breeding.
Criteria developed through collaborative evaluation between farmers and researchers
The significant variation observed in key traits provides substantial potential for genetic improvement. Fruit characteristics showed particularly promising diversity in natural variation, combined with the differential responses to management practices between plantations. This suggests that participatory selection can identify superior genotypes while maintaining genetic diversity.
The study revealed several critical factors for successful participatory breeding programs. First, the importance of local adaptation was evident in the superior performance of certain genotypes under specific management conditions. The Farmer 1 plantation gave consistently better results across multiple parameters, suggesting that documenting and incorporating local management practices into breeding protocols is essential. Second, the variation in fruit quality characteristics indicates that selection criteria must balance multiple objectives, including production quantity, quality parameters, and adaptation to local conditions.
Our conclusions are based on long-term empirical evidence and scientific analysis whose participatory approach has fostered valuable material for future PPB efforts for tucumã that can improve the social and economic conditions of Amazonian farmers. The success of this initiative highlights the importance of long-term commitment and genuine collaboration between researchers and farmers. The economic benefits generated by plant breeding are positive and large [39,41]. This study’s approach of integrating traditional knowledge with scientific methods has created a robust framework for genetic improvement that addresses both productivity and adaptation goals. Future efforts to improve tucumã should continue to emphasize this collaborative approach, expand the network of participating farmers, and maintain rigorous evaluation protocols with Amazonian farmers.
4. Conclusions
The evaluation of A. aculeatum in two different plantations over twelve years demonstrated the importance of longterm research and the integration of traditional and scientific knowledge to assess the impact of management practices on tucumã development and productivity.
Farmers’ participation in the evaluation process has been fundamental in identifying selection criteria that combine practical knowledge with technical parameters such as plant vigor, high production, fruit size and quality. The management from the beginning of a tucumã plantation plays an important role in the development of this palm and is crucial for the establishment of plantations with fruit of superior quantity and quality and contributes to better plant health conditions.
Vegetative growth parameters have a strong correlation with fruit production. In addition, the variation found in fruit characteristics within the same plantation reveals genetic diversity that provides opportunities for selecting superior genotypes with desirable traits. Together, they can be an effective strategy for increasing productivity in tucumã plantations.
The success of this participatory breeding initiative demonstrates the value of collaboration between researchers and farmers in developing superior tucumã varieties adapted to local conditions and with desirable traits for the market. Continued breeding efforts, with an emphasis on the participatory approach and the integration of traditional knowledge with scientific methods, are important for the sustainability of the tucumã production chain in the Amazon region.
References
1. Dawson, J. C.; Murphy, K. M.; Jones, S. S. Decentralized Selection and Participatory Approaches in Plant Breeding for LowInput Systems. Euphytica 2008, 160 (2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10681-007-9533-0/METRICS.
2. Ceccarelli, S. Efficiency of Plant Breeding. Crop Sci. 2015, 55 (1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.2135/CROPSCI2014.02.0158.
3. Colley, M. R.; Dawson, J. C.; Mccluskey, C.; Myers, J. R.; Tracy, W. F.; Lammerts Van Bueren, E. T. Exploring the Emergence of Participatory Plant Breeding in Countries of the Global North-a Review. J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 159, 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859621000782.
4. Viana, S. A. Systemic Studies in the Genus Astrocaryum (Arecaceae), Focusing on A. Aculeatum and A. Murumuru Complexes. Phytotaxa 2022, 543, 1–120.
5. Clement, C. R. A Center of Crop Genetic Diversity in Western Amazonia. BioScience 1989, 39 (9), 624–631. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311092.
6. Schrot, G.; Mota, M. S. S.; Lopes, R.; Freitas, A. F. de. Extractive Use, Management and in Situ Domestication of a Weedy Palm, Astrocaryum Tucumã, in the Central Amazon. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 1 (3), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.026.
7. Ramos, S. L. F.; De Macêdo, J. L. V.; Lopes, M. T. G.; Batista, J. S.; Formiga, K. M.; Da Silva, P. P.; Saulo-Machado, A. C.; Veasey, E. A. Microsatellite Loci for Tucumã of Amazonas (Astrocaryum Aculeatum) and Amplification in Other Arecaceae. Am. J. Bot. 2012, 99 (12). https://doi.org/10.3732/AJB.1100607.
8. Kanh, F.; Moussa, F. Economic Importance of Astrocaryum Aculeatum (Palmae) In Central Brazilian Amazonia. Acta Botánica Venezuélica 1999, 22 (1), 237–245.
9. Sagrillo, M. R.; Garcia, L. F. M.; De Souza Filho, O. C.; Duarte, M. M. M. F.; Ribeiro, E. E.; Cadoná, F. C.; Da Cruz, I. B. M. Tucumã Fruit Extracts (Astrocaryum Aculeatum Meyer) Decrease Cytotoxic Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide on Human Lymphocytes. Food Chem. 2015, 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.067.
10. Costa, J. R. da; Leeuwen, J. van; Costa, J. A. Tucumã-Do-Amazonas. Astrocaryum Tucumã Martius. In Frutíferas e Plantas Úteis; Shanley, P., Medina Carrasco, G., Eds.; [CIFOR]: Belém, 2005; Vol. 1, pp 215–220.
11. Gentil, D. F. D. O.; Ferreira, S. A. N. Morfologia Da Plântula Em Desenvolvimento de Astrocaryum Aculeatum Meyer (Arecaceae). Acta Amaz. 2005, 35 (3), 337–342.
12. Ferreira, S. A. do N.; Gentil, D. F. de O. Extração, Embebição e Germinação de Sementes de Tucumã (Astrocaryum Aculeatum). Acta Amaz. 2006, 36 (2), 141–146.
13. Machado, A. T.; Machado, C. T. de T.; Nass, L. L. Manejo Da Diversidade Genética e Melhoramento Participativo de Milho Em Sistemas Agroecológicos Genetic Diversity Management and Maize Participatory Breeding under Agroecological Systems. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia. 2011, pp 127–136.
14. Ellwanger, J. H.; Nobre, C. A.; Chies, J. A. B. Brazilian Biodiversity as a Source of Power and Sustainable Development: A Neglected Opportunity. Sustain. 2023 Vol 15 Page 482 2022, 15 (1), 482. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU15010482.
15. Oliveira, V. de S.; Marchiori, J. J. de P.; Ferreira, L. de S.; Tognere, J.; Holtz, A. M.; Ferreira, T. C.; Vargens, F. N.; Bolsoni, E. Z.; Carriço, E.; Magnani, B. de O.; Scárdua, M. D. Genetic Improvement Methods with an Agroecological Approach for Plant Breeding. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2023, 35 (21), 316–324. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i213978.
16. Almekinders, C. J. M.; Elings, A. Collaboration of Farmers and Breeders: Participatory Crop Improvement in Perspective. Euphytica 2001, 122 (3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017968717875/METRICS.
17. Noru, R. S. R.; Beena, T.; Maraskole, S. K.; Patil, V. S.; Panotra, N.; Rajesh, J.; Karthickraja, A.; Kumar, V. Participatory Plant Breeding: A Pathway to Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture. J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol. 2024, 27 (8), 1293–1306. https://doi.org/10.9734/JABB/2024/V27I81253.
18. Alvares, C. A.; Stape, J. L.; Sentelhas, P. C.; de Moraes Gonçalves, J. L.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s Climate Classification Map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 2013, 22 (6), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507.
19. Dos Santos, H. D.; Jacomine, P. T.; Dos Anjos, L. H. C.; De Oliveira, V. Á.; Lumbreras, J. F.; Coelho, M. R.; Cunha, T. J. F. Brazilian Soil Classification System.; 2018.
20. Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; Gorman, K. Climate Change Adaptation through Agroforestry: Opportunities and Gaps. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2023, 60, 101244. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2022.101244.
21. Blair, S. A.; Koeser, A. K.; Knox, G. W.; Roman, L. A.; Thetford, M. Visual Health Assessments for Palms. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.017.
22. Saavedra-Romero, L. de L.; Alvarado-Rosales, D.; Almaraz-Sánchez, A.; Quezada-Salinas, A.; García-Díaz, S. E.; ArandaOcampo, S.; Ortiz-García, C. F.; Equihua-Martínez, A.; López-Buenfil, J. A. Health Condition of Palm Trees of Mexico City, with an Emphasis on “Crowns.” Open J. Agric. Res. 2023, 3 (1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.31586/ojar.2023.690.
23. R Development Core Team, R.; R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Lang. Environ. Stat. Comput. 2014, 0 (2.11.1), 409. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7.
24. Rogers, S.; Taylor, J. A Comparison of Linear Mixed Model Packages in R for Analysis of Plant Breeding Experiments; 2020. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23701.06881.
25. Costa, J. A.; Duarte, A. P. Metodologia Para Manejo Comunitário de Tucumã Na Amazônia Brasileira. Rev. Bras. Agroecol. 2005, 1, 1359–1362.
26. Sperling, L.; Ashby, J. A.; Smith, M. E.; Weltzien, E.; Mcguire, & S. A Framework for Analyzing Participatory Plant Breeding Approaches and Results; 2001; Vol. 122, pp 439–450.
27. Weltzien, E.; Christinck, A. Participatory Plant Breeding: Building on Farmers’ Knowledge and Innovation Capacity. Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science. 2019, pp 373–394.
28. Macêdo, J. L. V.; Ramos, S. L. F.; Lopes, M. T. G.; Costa, J. R. da; Leeuwen, J. van; Lima, R. M. B. de; Silva, P. P. da. Tucumã-Do-Amazonas. In Palmeiras Nativas do Brasil; Lopes, R., Marcelo, M., Callari, R., Barbieri, L., Eds.; EMBRAPA: Brasília -DF, 2015; pp 363–393.
29. Barbosa, L. O.; Finger, C. A. G.; Costa, E. A.; Campoe, O. C.; Schons, C. T. Using Crown Characterisation Variables as Indicators of the Vigour, Competition and Growth of Brazilian Pine. South. For. J. For. Sci. 2021, 83 (4), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2021.1978825.
30. Kumar, B. M.; Kunhamu, T. K. Nature-Based Solutions in Agriculture: A Review of the Coconut (Cocos Nucifera L.)-Based Farming Systems in Kerala, “the Land of Coconut Trees.” Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NBSJ.2022.100012.
31. Legros, S.; Mialet-Serra, I.; Caliman, J. P.; Siregar, F. A.; Clément-Vidal, A.; Dingkuhn, M. Phenology and Growth Adjustments of Oil Palm (Elaeis Guineensis) to Photoperiod and Climate Variability. Ann Bot 2009, 104 (6), 1171–1182. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp214.
32. Ackerman, I. L.; Constantino, R.; Gauch, H. G.; Lehmann, J.; Riha, S. J.; Fernandes, E. C. M. Termite (Insecta: Isoptera) Species Composition in a Primary Rain Forest and Agroforests in Central Amazonia. Biotropica 2009, 41 (2), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-7429.2008.00479.X.
33. Cysneiros, V. C.; Scipioni, M. C.; Allen, C. D. Modeling Bark Thickness and Probability of Trunk Cavity Occurrence Relative to Tree Size in Araucaria Angustifolia Trees. Trees – Struct. Funct. 2024, 38 (4), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00468024-02531-8/FIGURES/5.
34. Almeida, V. B.; Silva, J. N. M.; Steinbrenner, M. K. A. Impacto Da Ocorrência de Árvores Ocas No Rendimento Da Colheita de Madeira Na Floresta Nacional de Saracá-Taquera, Pará. Pesqui. Florest. Bras. 2022, 42. https://doi.org/10.4336/2022.pfb.42e201902058.
35. Luke, S. H.; Purnomo, D.; Advento, A. D.; Aryawan, A. A. K.; Naim, M.; Pikstein, R. N.; Ps, S.; Rambe, T. D. S.; Soeprapto; Caliman, J. P.; Snaddon, J. L.; Foster, W. A.; Turner, E. C. Effects of Understory Vegetation Management on Plant Communities in Oil Palm Plantations in Sumatra, Indonesia. Front. For. Glob. Change 2019, 2, 455797. https://doi.org/10.3389/FFGC.2019.00033/BIBTEX.
36. Corrêa, L. de J.; da Silva, L. C.; Mariguele, K. H. Parâmetros Genéticos de Uma População de Astrocaryum Aculeatum Meyer de Ocorrência Natural Em Área de Pastagem Em Roraima-Brasil. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía. 2020, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.24215/16699513e049.
37. Woittiez, L. S.; van Wijk, M. T.; Slingerland, M.; van Noordwijk, M.; Giller, K. E. Yield Gaps in Oil Palm: A Quantitative Review of Contributing Factors. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 83, 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2016.11.002.
38. Morris, M. L.; Heisey, P. W. Estimating the Benefits of Plant Breeding Research: Methodological Issues and Practical Challenges. Agric. Econ. 2003, 29 (3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1574-0862.2003.TB00161.X.
39. Morris, M. L.; Dubin, H. J.; Pokhrel, T. Returns to Wheat Breeding Research in Nepal. Agric. Econ. 1994, 10 (3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1574-0862.1994.TB00308.X.
40. Van Leeuwen, J. Melhoramento participativo de espécies agroflorestais: uma proposta para a pupunheira (Bactris gasipaes) para a produção de fruto. In Alternativa agroflorestal na Amazônia em transformação; Porro, R., Ed.; Embrapa Informação Tecnológica: Brasília, 2009; pp 805–825.
41. Salazar, R.; Manicad, G.; Dohar, A.; Visser, B. Participatory Plant Breeding: Human Development and Social Reform. Farmers Plant Breed. 2019, 161–177. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507335-11.
1 Researcher of the Biodiversity Coordination, National Institute of Amazonian Research. Amazonas, Brazil; ordilena@inpa.gov.br
2 Researcher of the Coordination of technology and innovation, National Institute of Amazonian Research. Amazonas, Brazil.
3 Technologist of the Coordination of Technology and innovation, National Institute of Amazonian Research. Amazonas, Brazil
4 Professor of the Technical Education Department, Federal Institute of Amazonas. Amazonas, Brazil.