The circulation of seed among farmers is central to agrobiodiversity conservation and dynamics. Agrobiodiversity, the diversity of agricultural systems from genes to varieties and crop species, from farming methods to landscape composition, is part of humanity's cultural heritage. Whereas agrobiodiversity conservation has received much attention from researchers and policy makers over the last decades, the methods available to study the role of seed exchange networks in preserving crop biodiversity have only recently begun to be considered. In this overview, we present key concepts, methods, and challenges to better understand seed exchange networks so as to improve the chances that traditional crop varieties (landraces) will be preserved and used sustainably around the world. The available literature suggests that there is insufficient knowledge about the social, cultural, and methodological dimensions of environmental change, including how seed exchange networks will cope with changes in climates, socio-economic factors, and family structures that have supported seed exchange systems to date. Methods available to study the role of seed exchange networks in the preservation and adaptation of crop specific and genetic diversity range from meta-analysis to modelling, from participatory approaches to the development of bio-indicators, from genetic to biogeographical studies, from anthropological and ethnographic research to the use of network theory. We advocate a diversity of approaches, so as to foster the creation of robust and policy-relevant knowledge. Open challenges in the study of the role of seed exchange networks in biodiversity conservation include the development of methods to (i) enhance farmers' participation to decision-making in agro-ecosystems, (ii) integrate ex situ and in situ approaches, (iii) achieve interdisciplinary research collaboration between social and natural scientists, and (iv) use network analysis as a conceptual framework to bridge boundaries among researchers, farmers and policy makers, as well as other stakeholders. (Résumé d'auteur

Several decades of frustrated attempts to prevent fires in the Brazilian Savanna (Cerrado) have led to deleterious ecological and management consequences. In 2014, the first Integrated Fire Management (IFM) programme was launched in three protected areas (PAs). The IFM programme considers local practices, ecological information, management options and aims to create landscape mosaics of different fire histories to conserve biodiversity, reduce the prevalence of late‐dry season (LDS) wildfires, protect fire‐sensitive vegetation and reduce conflicts between PA managers and local communities. The first 3 years of imposed fire management regimes led to 40%–57% reduction in LDS fires, improved dialogue between researchers, managers and local communities, generating fire management learning communities. Synthesis and applications. This Integrated Fire Management programme represents a major advance in Cerrado management and conservation, by actively managing fires and decreasing the proportion of areas burnt by late‐dry season wildfires. It can contribute to PAs’ management in the Cerrado and other South American fire‐prone ecosystems. Long‐term monitoring and research are essential to understand the ecological implications and to improve fire management practices.

Wildfires continue to cause damage to property, livelihoods and environments around the world. Acknowledging that dealing with wildfires has to go beyond fire-fighting, governments in countries with fireprone ecosystems have begun to recognize the multiple perspectives of landscape burning and the need to engage with local communities and their practices. In this perspective, we outline the experiences of Brazil and Venezuela, two countries where fire management has been highly contested, but where there have been recent advances in fire management approaches. Success of these new initiatives have been measured by the reduction in wildfire extent through prescribed burning, and the opening of a dialogue on fire management between government agencies and local communities. Yet, it is clear that further developments in community participation need to take place in order to avoid the appropriation of local knowledge systems by institutions, and to better reflect more equitable fire governance.

No abstract