Environmental Management

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 26–43 | Cite as

“Tinni” Rice (Oryza rufipogon Griff.) Production: An Integrated Sociocultural Agroecosystem in Eastern Uttar Pradesh of India

  • Ranjay K. Singh
  • Nancy J. Turner
  • C. B. Pandey
Article

Abstract

This study reports how Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and informal cultural institutions have conserved key varieties of the wildgrowing rice, ‘tinni’ (red rice, or brownbeard rice, Oriza rufipogon Griff.), within the Bhar community of eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. The study was conducted, using conventional and participatory methods, in 10 purposively selected Bhar villages. Two distinct varieties of tinni (‘tinni patali’ and ‘tinni moti’) with differing habitats and phenotypic characters were identified. Seven microecosystems (Kari, Badaila, Chammo, Karmol, Bhainsiki, Bhainsala and Khodailia) were found to support these varieties in differing proportions. Tinni rice can withstand more extreme weather conditions (the highest as well as lowest temperatures and rainfall regimes) than the ‘genetically improved’ varieties of rice (Oriza sativa L.) grown in the region. Both tinni varieties are important bioresources for the Bhar’s subsistence livelihoods, and they use distinctive conservation approaches in their maintenance. Bhar women are the main custodians of tinni rice agrobiodiversity, conserving tinni through an institution called Sajha. Democratic decision-making at meetings organized by village elders determines the market price of the tinni varieties. Overall, the indigenous institutions and women’s participation seem to have provided safeguards from excessive exploitation of tinni rice varieties. The maintenance of tinni through cultural knowledge and institutions serves as an example of the importance of locally maintained crop varieties in contributing to people’s resilience and food security in times of rapid social and environmental change.

Keywords

Tinni Oryza rufipogon Bhar community Agricultural biodiversity Gender roles Traditional ecological knowledge Conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all of the Bhar community members, including village schoolteachers, extension workers, and other resource persons, who were integral part of this study and allowed us to learn with them during the course of 6 years. The authors are grateful to A. K. Sureja for constructive inputs to this article. The financial award obtained from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, India, for outstanding contribution in the field of indigenous technological knowledge in agriculture, through which this study was conducted, is deeply appreciated. Identification of plants by R. C. Srivastava, Botanical Survey of India, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, India is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Agrawal A (2005) Environmentality: technologies of government and the making of subjects. Duke University Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4):629–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal A, Ribot JC (1999) Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas 33:473–505Google Scholar
  4. Alcorn JB (1997) Indigenous resource management systems. In: Borrini-Feyerabend G (ed) Beyond fences: seeking social sustainability in conservation. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, pp 120–1130Google Scholar
  5. Alcorn JB, Bamba J, Masiun S, Natalia I, Royo A (2003) Keeping ecological resilience afloat in cross-scale turbulence: an indigenous social movement navigates change in Indonesia. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 299–327Google Scholar
  6. Altieri MA (1995) Agro-ecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. West View Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  7. Altieri MA (2001) Agriculture traditional. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity, vol 1. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 109–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashenafi ZT, Leader-Williams N (2005) Indigenous common property resource management in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Human Ecology 33(4):539–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5):1692–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkes F, Turner NJ (2006) Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Human Ecology 34(4):479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Application 10(5):1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers R (1994) Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. IDS working paper no. 2. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambers R (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, OKGoogle Scholar
  14. Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Feeny D, Berkes F, McCay BJ, Acheson JM (1990) The tragedy of the commons: twenty years later. Human Ecology 18:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari MF (2003) Protecting biodiversity and indigenous people/local communities rights: the challenge in South East Asia. IUCN: theme on indigenous/local communities, equity and protected areas (TILCEPA). In: Langton M, Rhea ZA, Ayre M, Pope J (eds) Composite report on the status and trends regarding the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities, regional report: Australia, Asia and the Middle East. UNEP Secretariat, Montreal, pp 29–110Google Scholar
  17. Gupta AK (2002) Empowering conservators of biodiversity and associated knowledge systems: an intellectual property based framework. Working paper no. 202-05-02. Indian Institute of Management, AhmedabadGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt FL (2005) The catch-22 of conservation: indigenous peoples, biologists, and cultural change. Human Ecology 33(2):199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunn ES, Johnson D, Russell P, Thornton TF (2003) Huna Tlingit traditional environmental knowledge, conservation, and the management of a “wilderness” park. Current Anthropology 44:S79–S103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kerlinger FN, Lee HB (1999) Foundations of behavioral research. Harcourt College Publishers, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Khush GS (1997) Origin, dispersal, cultivation and variation of rice. Plant Molecular Biology 35:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laird SA (2002) Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: equitable partnership in practice. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Langton MZ, Rhea A, Ayre M, Pope J (2003) Composite report on the status and trends regarding the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities—regional report: Australia, Asia and the Middle East. UNEP Secretariat, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  24. Maffi L, Woodley E (2010) Biocultural diversity conservation: a global source book. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohony OC (1985) Sensory analysis of foods: statistical methods and procedure. Marcel Dekker, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  26. MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) (2002) Rural and tribal woman in agrobiodiversity conservation. An Indian case study. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. http://www.scribd.com/doc/30809339/Rural-and-Tribal-Women-in-Agrobiodiversity-Conservation. Accessed August 2010
  27. Mukherjee TK, Singh RK, Srivastava RC (2009) Traditional knowledge systems, intellectual property rights and their relevance for sustainable development. Current Science 97(5):616–617Google Scholar
  28. Ostrom E (1991) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Padmanabhan MA (2005) Institutional innovations towards gender equity in agrobiodiversity management: collective action in Kerala, South India. CAPRI working paper no. 39. Environment and Production Technology Division, CGIAR Systemwide Programme on Collective Action and Property Rights, Secretariat, International Food Policy Research Institute Washington, DC. http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/CAPRIWP39.pdf. Accessed August 2010
  30. Piggot JR (1988) Sensory analysis of foods. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY, pp 124–137Google Scholar
  31. Pimbert MP, Thompson J, Vorley WT, Fox T, Kanji N, Tacoli C (2001) Global restructuring, agro-food systems and livelihoods. International Institute for Environment and Development, Gatekeeper Series, 100, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Poggenpoel M, Myburgh CPH, van der Linde CH (2001) Qualitative research strategies as prerequisite for quantitative strategies. Education 122(2):408–413Google Scholar
  33. Pretty JN (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23:1247–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pretty JN (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302:1912–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pretty JN, Vodouhe SD (1997) Using rapid or participatory rural appraisal. In: Swanson BE, Bentz RP, Sofranko AJ (eds) Improving agricultural extension: a reference manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/W5830E/w5830e08.htm. Accessed March 2005
  36. Rai M (2000) A perspective for developing action programme for sustaining productivity of rice-wheat systems in the Indo-Gangetic plains. In: CYMMIT (ed) Developing an action programme for farm level impact in rice-wheat systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains. Rice-Wheat Consortium Paper Series, Rice-Wheat Consortium for Indo-Gangetic Plains, New Delhi, India, pp 48–56Google Scholar
  37. Ram T, Majumder ND, Mishra B (2006) Dhanrasi, a new lowland rice variety with Oryza rufi pogon genes for improving yield potential and resistance to biotic stresses. International Rice Research Notes 13(1):13–14Google Scholar
  38. Ramphele M (2004) Women’s indigenous knowledge: building bridges between the traditional and modern. In: World Bank (ed) Indigenous knowledge: local pathways to global development. Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Learning, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 13–17Google Scholar
  39. Rathor R, Gaur VS, Kaushik RP, Chauhan RS (2005) Oryza rufipogon: a possible source of novel resistance specificities against rice blast (Magnaporthe grisea). Current Science 89(3):443–447Google Scholar
  40. Ritchie J, Lewis J (2003) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. SAGE, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  41. Singh RK (2003a) Indigenous paddy variety (Bhandai) grown by resource poor farmers. In: Das P, Das SK, Mishra A, Arya HPS, Ratan RPS, Rani G (eds) Inventory of indigenous technical knowledge in agriculture: Document II, DIPA, ICAR, New Delhi, India, pp 132Google Scholar
  42. Singh RK (2003b) State of traditional knowledge of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. In: Langton M, Rhea ZM, Ayre M, Pope J (eds) Composite report on the status and trends regarding the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities. Regional Report: Australia, Asia and the Middle East. UNEP Secretariat, Montreal, pp 132–133Google Scholar
  43. Singh RK (2004) Conserving diversity and culture: Pem Dolma. Honey Bee 15(3):12–13Google Scholar
  44. Singh RK (2008) Implications of previous informed consent for the conservators of indigenous biological diversity of northeast India. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 7(4):655–665Google Scholar
  45. Singh RK (2010) Conservation of wild rice ‘tinni’ (Oryza rufipogon) by the Bhar community in India: we have the approach and skill to conserve our cultural resource base. Paper presented as part of invited lecture for series of Lansdowne Distinguished Professor 2010 at School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, BC, Canada, May 4, 2010Google Scholar
  46. Singh RK, Sharma LN (2004) Indicants of economic status of soybean farmers. Indian Journal of Extension Education 3 & 4:98–100Google Scholar
  47. Singh RK, Singh D (2004) Indigenous approach to the sustainable conservation of agrobiodiversity: learning from the Bhar community. Indigenous Knowledge World Wide 2:3Google Scholar
  48. Singh RK, Srivastava RC (2010) Grassroots biodiversity conservators of Arunachal Pradesh: national recognition and reward. Current Science 99(2):162Google Scholar
  49. Singh RK, Sureja AK (2006) Community knowledge and sustainable natural resources management: learning from Monpa tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. T. D.: The Journal of Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 2(1):73–102Google Scholar
  50. Singh RK, Women A (2010) Biocultural knowledge systems of tribes of eastern Himalaya. NISCAIR, CSIR, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  51. Singh RK, Sureja AK, Turner NJ (2007) Food and cultural values of hidden harvests in livelihood of Adi tribe of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Extension Education 2(3):30–35Google Scholar
  52. Som RK (1996) Practical sampling techniques. Marcel Dekker, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  53. Song ZP, Xu X, Wang B, Chen JK, Lu BR (2003) Genetic diversity in northernmost Oryza rufipogon Griff. Population estimated by SSR markers. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics 107(8):1492–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Song ZP, Li B, Chen JK, Lu BR (2005) Genetic diversity and conservation of common wild rice (Oryza rufipogon) in China. Plant Species Biology 20(2):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner NJ (2005) Earth’s blanket: traditional teachings for sustainable living. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner NJ, Berkes F (2006) Coming to understanding: developing conservation through incremental learning in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology 34:495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turner NJ, Clifton H (2009) It’s so different today: climate change and indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change 19(2):180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. United Sate Department of Agriculture (2007) ORRU–Oryza rufipogon, invasive and noxious weeds, Weeds of United States. http://plants.gov/java/invasiveOne. Accessed July 2010
  59. Wilmot A (2010) Designing sampling strategies for qualitative social research: with particular reference to the Office for National Statistics’ Qualitative Respondent Register. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/services/dcm/downloads/AW_Sampling.pdf. Accessed August 2010

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranjay K. Singh
    • 1
  • Nancy J. Turner
    • 2
  • C. B. Pandey
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Technology Evaluation and TransferCentral Soil Salinity Research InstituteKarnalIndia
  2. 2.School of Environmental StudiesUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Soil and Crop ManagementCentral Soil Salinity Research InstituteKarnalIndia

Personalised recommendations