, Volume 136, Issue 1, pp 21–35 | Cite as

Participatory plant breeding research: Opportunities and challenges for the international crop improvement system

  • Michael L. Morris
  • Mauricio R. Bellon


This paper describes the current state of international plant breeding research and explains why the centralized global approach to germplasm improvement that was so successful in the past is today being transformed by the incorporation of decentralized local breeding methods designed to better incorporate the perspective of end users into the varietal development process. It describes international breeding efforts for major crops and identifies factors that have contributed to the success of the international breeding system; discusses shortcomings of the global approach to plant breeding and explains why future successes will depend critically on researchers' ability to incorporate the knowledge and preferences of technology users; reviews a number of farmer participatory research methods that are currently being tested by plant breeding programs throughout the developing world; describes synergies that can potentially be achieved by linking centralized global and decentralized local breeding models; and discusses technical, economic, and institutional challenges that will have to be overcome to integrate end user-based participatory approaches into the international plant breeding system.

agricultural research CGIAR genetic resources participatory research plant breeding research methods 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agbola, F.W., T.G. Kelley, M.J. Bent & P. Parthasarathy Rao, 2002. Eliciting and valuing market preferences with traditional food crops: The case of chickpea in India. Int Food & AgribussManag Rev 5: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almekinders, C.J.M. & A. Elings, 2001. Collaboration of farmers and breeders: participatory crop improvement in perspective. Euphytica 122: 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlin, G.N., M. Cooper & Å Bjø rnstad, 2001. A comparison of formal and participatory breeding approaches using selection theory. Euphytica 122: 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baidu-Forson, F. Waliyar & B.R. Ntare, 1997. Farmer preferences for socioeconomic and technical interventions in groundnut production system in Niger: Conjoint and ordered probit analyses. Agric Syst 54: 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bänziger, M. & M. Cooper, 2001. Breeding for low input conditions and consequences for participatory plant breeding: examples from tropical maize and wheat. Euphytica 122: 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellon, M.R., 2001. Participatory Research Methods for Technology Evaluation: A Manual for Scientists Working with Farmers. Mexico, D.F., CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  7. Berg, T., 1995. Devolution of plant breeding. In: L. Sperling & M. Loevinsohn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop Using Diversity: Enhancing and Maintaining Genetic Resources On-Farm, pp. 116–126. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  8. Byerlee, D. & G. Traxler, 1996. The Role of Technology Spillovers and Economies of Size in the Efficient Design of Agricultural Research Systems. Presented at the Conference Global International Science Policy for the Twenty-First Century, Melbourne, Australia, 26–28 August.Google Scholar
  9. Byerlee, D., 1994. Modern Varieties, Productivity, and Sustainability: Recent Experiences and Emerging Challenges. Mexico, D.F., CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  10. Ceccarelli, S., E. Bailey, S. Grando & R. Tutwiler, 1997. Decentralized, participatory plant breeding: A link between formal plant breeding and small farmers. In: New Frontiers in Participatory Research and Gender Analysis: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development, pp. 65–74. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
  11. Ceccarelli, S., S. Grando, R. Tutwiler, J. Baha, A.M. Martini, H. Salahieh, A. Goodchild & M. Michael, 2000. A methodological study on participatory barley breeding I. Selection Phase. Euphytica 111: 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CIMMYT, 2000. CIMMYT-Zimbabwe: 2000 Research Highlights. Harare Zimbabwe, CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  13. Coe, R., 2002. Analyzing ranking and rating data from participatory on-farm trials. In M.R. Bellon & J. Reeves (Eds.), Quantitative Analysis of Data from Participatory Methods in Plant Breeding, pp. 44–65. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
  14. Courtois, B., B. Bartholome, D. Chaudhary, G. McLaren, C.H. Misra, N.P. Mandal, S. Pandey, T. Paris, C. Piggin, K. Prasad, A.T. Roy, R.K. Sahu, V.N. Sahu, S. Sarkarung, S.K. Sharma, A. Singh, H.N. Singh, O.N. Singh, N.K. Singh, R.K. Singh, R.K. Singh, S. Singh, P.K. Sinha, B.V.S. Sisodia & R. Takhur, 2001. Comparing farmers and breeders rankings in varietal selection for low-input environments: A case study of rainfed rice in eastern India. Euphytica 122: 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evenson, R. & D. Gollin (Eds.), 2003. Impact of the CGIAR on international crop genetic improvement. Wallingford, UK, CABI.Google Scholar
  16. Franzel, S.R., R. Coe, F. Cooper, F. Place & S.J. Scherr, 2001. Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Syst 69: 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi, A. & J.R. Witcombe, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement II. Participatory varietal selection, a case of India. Expl Agric 32: 461–477.Google Scholar
  18. Joshi, K.D., B.R. Sthapit & J.R. Witcombe, 2001. How narrowly adapted are the products of decentralised breeding? The spread of rice varieties from a participatory plant breeding programme in Nepal. Euphytica 122: 589–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kornegay, J., J.A. Beltran & J. Ashby, 1996. Farmer selections within segregating populations of common bean in Colombia. In: P. Eyzaguirre & M. Iwanaga (Eds.), Participatory Plant Breeding: Proceedings of a Workshop on Participatory Plant Breeding, pp. 151–159. International Plant Genetic Resource Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  20. Lilja, N. & A. Aw-Hassan, 2003. Benefits and Costs of Participatory Barley Breeding in Syria. A background paper to a poster presented at the 25th International Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economics (IAAE), Durban, South Africa 16–22 August 2003.Google Scholar
  21. Lipton, M. & R. Longhurst, 1989. New Seeds and Poor People. Johns Hopkins, London and Baltimore.Google Scholar
  22. Machado, A.T. & M.S. Fernandes, 2001. Participatory maize breeding for low nitrogen tolerance. Euphytica 122: 567–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maredia, M.K. & D. Byerlee (Eds.), 1999. The Global Wheat Improvement System: Prospects for Enhancing Efficiency in the Presence of Spillovers. CIMMYT Research Report No. 5. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
  24. McGuire, S., G. Manicad & L. Sperling, 1999. Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding-done from a perspective of farmer plant breeding. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation Working Document 2.Google Scholar
  25. Morris, M.L. (Ed.), 1998. Maize Seed Industries in Developing Countries. Lynne Rienner and CIMMYT, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  26. Morris, M.L. & P.L. Heisey, 2003. Estimating the benefits of plant breeding research: methodological issues and practical challenges. Agric Econ J Int Assoc Agric Econ 29: 241–252.Google Scholar
  27. Pandey, S. & S. Rajataserrekul, 1999. Economics of plant breeding: the value of shorter breeding cycles for rice in Northeast Thailand. Field Crops Res 64: 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qualset, C.O., A.B. Damania, A.C.A. Zanatta & S.B. Brush, 1997. Locally based crop plant conservation. In: N. Maxted, B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkers (Eds.), Plant Genetic Conservation: The in situ Approach, pp. 160–175. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, M.E., F. Castillo G. & F. Gó mez, 2001. Participatory plant breeding with maize in Mexico and Honduras. Euphytica 122: 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snapp, S., 2002. Quantifying farmer evaluation of technologies: The mother and baby trial design. In: M.R. Bellon & J. Reeves (Eds.), Quantitative Analysis of Data from Participatory Methods in Plant Breeding, pp. 9–16. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
  31. Sperling, L., J.A. Ashby, M.E. Smith, E. Weltzien & S. McGuire, 2001. A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results. Euphytica 122: 439-450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sperling, L., M.E. Loevinsohn & B. Ntabomvura, 1993. Rethinking the farmer's role in plant breeding: local bean experts and onstation selection in Rwanda. Expl Agric 29: 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Traxler, G. & P.L. Pingali, 1999. International Collaboration in Crop Improvement Research: Current Status and Future Prospects. Economics Program Working Paper99-11. CIMMYT, Mexico, D.F.Google Scholar
  34. Tripp, R., 1997. New Seed and Old Laws: Regulatory Reform and the Diversification of National Seed Systems. Overseas Development Institute, London.Google Scholar
  35. van Eeuwijk, F.A., M. Cooper, I.H. DeLacy, S. Ceccarelli & S. Grando, 2001. Some vocabulary and grammar for the analysis of multi-environment trials, as applied to the analysis of FPB and PPB trials. Euphytica 122: 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Oosterom, E.J., M.L. Whitaker & E. Weltzien, 1996. Integrating genotype by environment interaction analysis, characterization of drought patterns, and farmer preferences to identify adaptive plant traits for pearl millet. In: M. Cooper & G.L. Hammer (Eds.), Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement, pp. 383–402. CABI, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Weltzien, E., M.E. Smith, L.S. Meitzner & L. Sperling, 2000. Technical and institutional issues in participatory plant breeding-from the perspective of formal plant breeding. An analysis of issues, results, and current experience. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation Working Document 3.Google Scholar
  38. Witcombe, J.R. & D.S. Virk, 2001. Number of crosses and population size for participatory and classical plant breeding. Euphytica 122: 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi, K.D. Joshi & B.R. Sthapit, 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement I: Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Expl Agric 32: 445–460.Google Scholar
  40. Witcombe, J.R., K.D. Joshi, R.B. Rana & D.S. Virk, 2001. Increasing genetic diversity by participatory varietal selection in high potential production systems in Nepal and India. Euphytica 122: 575–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Witcombe, J.R., A. Joshi & S.N. Goyal, 2003. Participatory plant breeding in maize: a case study from Gujurat, India. Euphytica 130: 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael L. Morris
    • 1
  • Mauricio R. Bellon
    • 1
  1. 1.Economics Program, International Maize and Wheat ImprovementCenter (CIMMYT)Mexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations