Content uploaded by Vivek Kumar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vivek Kumar on Aug 30, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
++ M. Sc Scholar
# Assistant professor
† Ph. D scholar
‡ Associate Professor
^ Junior Research Fellow
*Corresponding author: E-mail: rajareddynoru@gmail.com;
Cite as: Noru, Raja Sekhar Reddy, Beena Thomas, Shubhangi Kshirsagar Maraskole, Vinutha Patil S, Narinder Panotra,
Janapareddy Rajesh, Aroulradj Karthickraja, and Vivek Kumar. 2024. “Participatory Plant Breeding: A Pathway to Sustainable
and Resilient Agriculture”. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology 27 (8):1293-1306.
https://doi.org/10.9734/jabb/2024/v27i81253.
Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology
Volume 27, Issue 8, Page 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
ISSN: 2394-1081
Participatory Plant Breeding: A
Pathway to Sustainable and Resilient
Agriculture
Raja Sekhar Reddy Noru a++*, Beena Thomas a#,
Shubhangi Kshirsagar Maraskole b#, Vinutha Patil S c†,
Narinder Panotra d‡, Janapareddy Rajesh e++,
Aroulradj Karthickraja f^ and Vivek Kumar g++
a Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Vellayani Department of
Genetics and Plant Breeding Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram -695522, India.
b Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, KHCA Chamorshi, Gadchiroli, India.
c Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, UAS, Raichur, India.
d Institute of Biotechnology, SKUAST Jammu, J&K -180009, India.
e Department of Seed Science & Technology, School of Agriculture and Allied Sciences Enrollment
No: G221340277 Roll No: 22134325010, Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (A Central
University) Address: Srinagar (Garhwal), Uttarakhand – 246174, India.
f Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture & Research Institute, Karaikal - 609 603, India.
g Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture,
Technology and Sciences, Prayagaraj, UP, India.
Authors’ contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. Author BT conceptualized the
review, designed the structure, and contributed substantially to the literature review. Author RSRN
provided expertise in participatory plant breeding methodologies and contributed to synthesizing key
findings. Both authors critically revised the manuscript, contributed to the interpretation of data. Both
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/jabb/2024/v27i81253
Open Peer Review History:
This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers,
peer review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/120609
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1294
Received: 28/05/2024
Accepted: 30/07/2024
Published: 10/08/2024
ABSTRACT
The world faces increasing concerns over climate change's impact on global food security.
Fluctuating climate conditions cause farming uncertainty, leading to food scarcity and higher prices
worldwide. New strategies are crucial for enhancing food production and agricultural resilience.
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) tailors crop varieties to specific ecological contexts, fostering
collaboration between breeders, farmers, and stakeholders. It emphasizes participatory varietal
selection (PVS) and explores long-term stability and genetic diversity implications. PPB involves
the farmers in the selection based on individual and community needs. PPB aims to develop
cultivars better adapted to the diverse growing conditions and preferences of smallholder farmers,
especially in marginal environments and aims to increase crop production, profitability, and
adoption of context-specific varieties, benefiting targeted users and enhancing farmer skills. PPB
advances crop genetics by integrating biotechnology, conventional breeding, marker-assisted
selection (MAS), and organic farming. Our review article recognizes the need for institutional and
policy changes to realize PPB's potential and multidisciplinary activities within PPB drive its
potential to revolutionize crop genetics, promote sustainable production, and reduce hunger.
Keywords: Climate change; food security; participatory plant breeding; genetic diversity; agricultural
resilience.
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent times, changing climate patterns from
year to year have caused uncertainty in farming,
sometimes leading to insufficient food and higher
prices for food worldwide [1]. Climate change
threatens global food security by altering weather
patterns, increasing extreme events, and
disrupting agriculture. Rising temperatures and
changing precipitation reduce crop yields,
destabilizing food supply chains. These impacts
heighten vulnerability in developing regions,
leading to greater hunger and malnutrition.
Climate change endangers global food security
by altering weather, increasing extreme events,
and disrupting agriculture. Higher temperatures
and shifting rainfall reduce crop yields,
destabilizing food supplies. This exacerbates
vulnerability in developing regions, leading to
more hunger and malnutrition. New strategies
are necessary to meet the goals of increased
food production One of the acknowledged factors
involves enhancing genetic diversity within fields,
which leads to improved disease control,
increased resilience to climate fluctuations, and
enhanced ecosystem functionality.
Plant breeding plays a significant role in
developing cultivars with increased yield potential
and improved adaptation to various ecosystems.
Genetic variability, crucial for populations to
adapt to environmental conditions, is often
limited in conventional breeding which prioritizes
genetic uniformity for variety registration and
plant breeder rights. To address this, alternative
breeding methods, like decentralized
approaches, aim to create more diverse varieties
suitable for organic and low-input agriculture.
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) is gaining
prominence [2]. Globally, PPB has been adopted
in 66 countries, spanning both developed and
developing regions. Institutions such as CGIAR
centers, universities, and NGOs have
implemented PPB across 47 crops.
Decentralized breeding focuses on creating
varieties tailored to the unique conditions of
various environments, considering the
interactions between genotype and environment.
This approach involves directly breeding crops
within the specific target environment to enhance
adaptation and performance in those specific
ecological contexts [3]. Varieties created in PPB
programs often show variation, as farmers
prioritize stability and suitability for their local
conditions. While specific studies validate the
stability of mixed varieties, there remains a gap
in our comprehensive understanding of the long-
term stability of evolving populations or mixtures
arising from Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB)
initiatives and their potential associations with
genetic diversity [4].
Review Article
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1295
PPB represents establishing a plant breeding
initiative that partners with diverse stakeholders.
This collaboration involves breeders working
alongside farmers, marketers, processors,
consumers, and policymakers, all with various
interests spanning food security, health, nutrition,
employment, and more. PPB represents a
distinctive approach to plant breeding. It is
particularly suitable when there is a limited
understanding of the traits desired by farmers,
traders, industries, and consumers for their crops
and when conventional market research falls
short in providing these insights. PPB is divided
into two primary types: "farmer-led" and "formal-
led" [5].
In traditional plant breeding (CPB), new varieties
are brought into use without evaluating their
appropriateness for farmers, and the availability
of new varieties usually drives this approach. On
the contrary, Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB)
flips this delivery process, beginning with
farmers' initial approval after a comprehensive
selection cycle. As a result, PPB follows a
demand-driven approach right from the start [6-
8].
Participatory research is seen by many as a
solution to the challenges faced in various
agricultural research programs. Participatory
Plant Breeding (PPB) expects to generate
specifically tailored, relevant, and well-suited
varieties. The objectives of PPB involve
improving crop production and profitability
through the development and broader adoption
of appropriate, often improved, varieties. This
approach aims to provide benefits to a specific
user group or deliberately address the needs of a
broader user community.
Moreover, it aims to augment farmers' abilities to
enhance their selection and seed production
endeavors. Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB)
can incorporate biotechnological approaches and
other traditional plant breeding methods. This
integration leads to heightened biodiversity and
sustainability in the enhancement of crops
[8].
Participatory plant breeding involves various
tasks such as defining breeding goals,
generating genetic diversity, choosing from
diverse populations to develop experimental
varieties, assessing these experimental varieties,
releasing chosen varieties, encouraging the
acceptance of released varieties, and supporting
seed production [7].
2. PARTICIPATORY PLANT BREEDING
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) entails the
establishment of a collaborative plant breeding
initiative involving cooperation among breeders,
farmers, marketers, processors, consumers, and
policymakers. Within the framework of PPB,
there is a cooperative effort between farmers and
researchers, with farmers assuming a primary
role in the planning, executing, and assessing
the breeding materials. PPB is based on the
principle that farmers and professional plant
breeders contribute valuable knowledge and
expertise, synergistically enhancing the plant
breeding process by involving diverse
participants in different breeding stages [5]. PPB
involves farmers in the breeding process to
develop crop varieties suited to specific local
conditions. By integrating traditional knowledge
and scientific methods, PPB creates resilient
crops tailored to diverse ecological contexts.
PPB is a collaborative approach that brings
together breeders, farmers, and other
stakeholders. This partnership leverages diverse
expertise to develop crop varieties that meet
local needs. By involving all parties, PPB
ensures the creation of resilient and well-adapted
crops. This collaborative approach enhances
adaptability and sustainability in agriculture.
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) encompasses
various terms that are often used
interchangeably, such as collaborative plant
breeding (CPB) and farmer participatory
breeding (FPB). The term "participatory" in PPB
signifies that stakeholders can actively contribute
to all significant plant breeding and variety
selection phases.
According to Atlin [9], Participatory Plant
Breeding (PPB) methodologies are becoming
increasingly popular. These encompass farmer-
driven selection, on-farm evaluation, and the
utilization of locally adapted landraces. The
scope and methods of PPB programs vary,
commonly utilizing farmer visual assessment and
phenotypic mass selection for traits governed by
simple genetics. Furthermore, they incorporate
limited replicated yield testing through multiple-
environment trials (MET), a crucial tool in formal
plant breeding.
Bellon [10] found that the historical effectiveness
of the centralized approach to germplasm
improvement is currently leading to a
transformation. In today's context of germplasm
improvement, there is a noticeable shift away
from the long-standing centralized model. This
shift is characterized by the inclusion of
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1296
decentralized local breeding methods, actively
considering the perspectives and requirements of
end users.
According to Merga [11], Participatory Plant
Breeding (PPB) has the potential to boost
production and profitability, improve farmer skills
in selection and seed production, create adapted
germplasm tailored to marginalized user groups,
optimize the cost-effectiveness of breeding
programs, and contribute to the preservation of
biodiversity and germplasm. Rahman [12]
highlighted the importance of Participatory Plant
Breeding (PPB) in enhancing the livelihoods of
subsistence farmers globally, elevating adoption
rates, and establishing a connection with the
practical realities on the ground.
3. GOALS OF PPB
The goals of Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB)
encompass addressing pressing agricultural
challenges while empowering farming
communities. PPB aims to enhance crop
resilience, increase food production, and
promote sustainable agricultural practices
through collaborative efforts between breeders,
farmers, and stakeholders (Fig. 1).
3.1 Kinds of Participation in PPB
Various modes of participation are positions on a
spectrum representing varying degrees of
interaction. Each mode of participation can be
defined by how farmers and plant breeders
engage in establishing goals, making decisions,
sharing accountability for decision-making and
execution, and producing outcomes [13]. In
practical terms, it typically recognizes three
distinct forms of participation: consultative,
characterized by the sharing of information;
collaborative, involving the distribution of tasks;
and collegial, where responsibility, decision-
making, and accountability are shared among
stakeholders [14,15].
3.2 Functional Participation
Plant breeders can customize research for
diverse farmer groups, incorporating insights
from women, men, and varied economic
backgrounds. Farmers contribute crucial input,
assessing trait trade-offs accurately. On-farm
research, managed by researchers, farmers, or
collaboratively, ensures varieties excel in
authentic conditions. Participatory Plant Breeding
(PPB) boosts farmers' adoption of innovations
[7].
Empowering Participation: Elevating farmers'
knowledge and skills enables them to engage in
collaborative breeding initiatives actively and
enhances their proficiency in individual breeding
endeavors.
Fig 1. Goals of PPB
4. GENOTYPE × ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTION EFFECTS
Selected and targeted environments are the same in PPB and different in CPB [16,17]. They found
that the genotype × environment is widely acknowledged as a critical factor in plant breeding and
forms the basis for the adoption of PCI. Nevertheless, there has been limited analysis of the
implications of G × E interaction for developing selection systems incorporating farmer participation
and the full potential of Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB).
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1297
4.1 Participatory Varietal Selection
Engaging partners in on-field testing of finalized
or nearly finalized varieties characterizes
Participatory Variety Selection (PVS), usually
involving a limited group. This process holds a
crucial role in every breeding program, given that
selection is a fundamental activity across all
phases of the breeding process. Consequently,
PVS consistently forms an essential component
of PPB but can also function independently as a
standalone process [12]. Engaging partners in
the concluding phase of a breeding program that
is otherwise not participatory brings about both
notable benefits and drawbacks [2]. Integrating
partners' preferences, post-on-farm trials speed
up adoption as only their favored varieties are
proposed for release. However, seeking partner
opinions late in the program may result in none
aligning with expectations, prompting
consideration for earlier involvement.
Participatory varietal selection effectively
identifies farmer-accepted varieties, addressing
challenges in cultivating outdated types [12].
Additionally, Participatory Variety Selection
(PVS) can function as a preliminary phase,
acting as an exploratory trial to assist partners in
evaluating the level of commitment required for a
fully developed Participatory Plant Breeding
(PPB) program in terms of land and time. As
stated by Ceccarelli [2], PVS can be conducted
using two approaches:
A) Mother Trails: The trials contain several
cultivars (generally 6–10) and a local
check. The design could be led by
researchers, managed by farmers, or
involve inputs from their level. Farmers'
involvement in assessing varieties during
the maturity period of crops is highly
favored in mother trials.
B) Baby Trails: Typically, each farmer is
provided with one or two new cultivars,
which are then compared to local ones or
subjected to numerous trials. A standard
practice involves having 4-5 baby trials
within various mother trials for each
location or village. Farmers carry out the
management, input, and supervision of
these trials. The data collected mainly
relies on perception, with minimal
emphasis on quantitative measures like
yield.
In farmer PVS, the goal is to identify cultivars that
align with farmers' preferences. This involves
defining farmers' criteria, searching for suitable
released and unreleased cultivars, and testing
them in participatory trials managed by farmers
[18]. While farmer-acceptable cultivars have
been found among released varieties, there is a
lack of such cultivars in officially recommended
regional varieties. This limited adoption is due to
resource-constrained farmers not being exposed
to the most suitable options. To boost adoption,
measures like increased farmer participation,
zonal trials to define suitable regions for
preferred cultivars, a more flexible release
system, and easier access to new cultivar seeds
can be implemented [19].
The process of PVS was carried out at the
Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Regional
Research Station, located in Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh, India, from 2001 to 2007. The primary
objective was to discover rice varieties,
genotypes, and breeding accessions with salt
tolerance characteristics. The overarching goal
was to pinpoint high-yielding, versatile, and well-
received rice cultivars suitable for cultivation in
sodic soil conditions, all achieved through active
participation from local farmers [20].
5. PPB CONTRIBUTES TO FARMERS'
RIGHTS IN SEVERAL WAYS
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) supports
farmers' rights by allowing them to shape
technological advancements, leveraging the
traditional knowledge of involved farmers,
influencing decision-making, and fortifying farmer
seed systems [21].
5.1 Steps of PPB
Step 1: Setting criteria to identify target
environments and target users
When establishing criteria, it is beneficial to
prioritize various categories of environments and
users. Ensuring the effectiveness of participatory
research involves meticulously selecting
research objectives, identifying target
environments, and actively involving the pertinent
user communities. Additionally, a systematic
understanding of the various forms of
participation remains essential for selecting
appropriate participatory research techniques
and tools [22]. As per Ceccarelli [3,23], the
primary criteria for farmers' identification can be
categorized into three overarching groups:
• Farmer Characteristics: Characteristics
of farmers span a wide range of elements,
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1298
such as the language they speak, religious
beliefs, ethnicity, age, gender, income
levels, educational background, market
involvement and orientation, participation
in farmer organizations, and the complex
network of relationships among different
groups within the same community and
between communities [3].
• Farmer Expertise: Identifying if farmers
are involved in plant improvement
practices is crucial, as this information is
essential for selecting the most appropriate
breeding approach based on their needs
and circumstances [2].
• Farmer Needs: This includes addressing
diverse farmer needs, risk perceptions,
desired variety traits, and preferences for
specific crop quality attributes.
Understanding constraints like fertilizer
use, crop rotations, and irrigation is crucial.
Identifying farmers' seed supply
preferences impacts their reliance on
personal versus formal sector sources
[3,23].
Step 2: Choice of the target environment and
users
In this stage, potential biases can impact PPB's
success. Critical decisions include choosing
individual or group participation, selecting
experts or representatives for the wider
community, and determining if equity should be
the primary goal in user identification.
Step 3: Choice of Genetic Material
The selection of genetic material for the program
should be discussed with the farmers. Initially,
scientists might find that farmers lack awareness
of the diversity within the crop. In such instances,
we recommend commencing with a diverse set
of genotypes representing a broad range of
diversity. However, in some situations, farmers
possess prior experience with different
germplasm types and may have strong
preferences for specific types.
Step 4: Choice of Parental Material
The selection of parental material is crucial in a
breeding program and is primarily influenced by
the number of target environments and
objectives. It is noteworthy that, similar to
conventional plant breeding (CPB), the parental
material in a Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB)
program is, with few exceptions, the best
material farmers choose in the preceding cycle.
Haugerud [24] found that divergence in the
assessments of new crop varieties between
scientists and farmers does not arise due to a
lack of formal scientific knowledge among
farmers. Instead, it often occurs because
scientists neglect to incorporate farmers'
knowledge and consider their limitations.
Farmers' preferences for cultivars differ based on
factors like farm size, family structure, gender
roles, economic status, and market outlook. The
disparity between scientists' and farmers'
evaluations of new varieties arises from
scientists not tapping into farmers' insights and
accommodating their specific situations.
Step 5: Choice of Breeding Method
In Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB), selecting
breeding methods requires assessing how
farmers manage genetic diversity. The choice of
breeding method is also contingent upon the
preferred genetic structure of the end product,
such as pure lines, mixtures, hybrids, or open-
pollinated varieties.
Step 6: Naming of Varieties
The community should be involved in the naming
process, which may involve using the village
name, the name of a prominent farmer's child, or
symbolic names like peace and unity. The
naming of varieties significantly influences the
sense of ownership and carries legal implications
when officially releasing PPB varieties.
Step 7: Sharing and Disseminating Findings
After consolidating the PPB trial results for each
location, it is essential to disseminate the
information to all stakeholders. This can be
achieved through various means, such as
organizing a field day where participating farmers
explain and present their work, utilizing radio and
television for documentation, conducting
stakeholder meetings to share results, training
participating farmer groups, and creating
descriptive sheets for each farmer's selected
variety.
6. ON-FARM TRIALS
On-farm trials facilitate collaboration between
farmers and researchers in technology
development. In participatory research, ranking
and scoring exercises are expected to assess
farmer preferences for various agricultural
aspects, but they often lack input from numerous
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1299
individual farmers. Gathering opinions from more
farmers is crucial for establishing the
repeatability and generalizability of study
findings. Integrating the ranking of evaluation
criteria with evaluation scores can help generate
broadly applicable results regarding farmers'
overall preferences [14,25]. Active farmer
involvement in on-farm experimental activities is
widely recognized as crucial in evaluating new
technologies for sustainable agriculture in
households with limited resources. These
assessments and more formal evaluations
conducted on experimental plots within farmers'
fields provide a solid basis for formulating
recommendations for new interventions [26,27].
7. PARTICIPATORY PLANT BREEDING
STRATEGIES
of the research institution. However, it is
important to note that this responsibility can vary.
The essential components of the biological
model of plant breeding encompass the
following: genetic variation, environmental
variation, and how it interacts with genetic
variation, as well as the process of crop plant
selection [28,29]. It is essential to differentiate
between the technical procedure of creating
crosses and the strategic choices in selecting
parents and planning the crosses. Making a
cross is purely technical, while parent selection
and cross-design decisions are critical within a
breeding program.
In Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB), most
parental material employed in crosses comprises
the finest breeding material selected from the
prior breeding cycle. With the involvement of
both breeders and farmers in the selection
process, farmers play an active role in deciding
which parents to use in initiating a new breeding
cycle. Multiple selection stages occur in farmers'
fields, where farmers and other stakeholders
actively participate. This process ensures
continuous interaction with the research institute
and involves additional farmers in the PPB
program.
Selection is independently carried out at each
location, often leading to the choice of distinct
entries in different locations. However, it remains
possible to select the same material in different
locations [24]. Farid [30] found that combining
morphological approaches, drone imaging, and
PPB helped select the best corn cultivation
technology package. Frank [31] documented the
genetic diversity of wheat population varieties
and performance stability created through
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB).
8. PPB FOR SELF-POLLINATED CROPS
Farmers cultivate large F2-derived populations in
their fields from single crosses. Selection begins
once selfing progresses, emphasizing high
between-plant heritability. Less productive
populations are swiftly discarded. The selection
spans multiple generations, with many farmers
preferring naturally propagated, well-selected
bulks. These varieties, chosen in on-farm trials,
often outperform later selections by breeders
from the same bulk. Higher participation occurs
with more promising bulks, making collaborative
breeding cost-effective, even without formal
training.
The success of collaborative breeding hinges on
different resource requirements compared to on-
station breeding, making its cost-effectiveness
subject to varying circumstances [32]. It can
enhance the likelihood of selecting segregants
that perform well across diverse environments by
employing techniques that aggregate bulks
selected by different farmers. Furthermore, it is
highly beneficial for the decentralization of
breeding programs. In cases where the pedigree
method is employed for breeding, the selection in
farmer fields can commence with segregating
populations, such as F2-derived F3 families.
Field testing can initiate as early as the F3 bulks
in breeding programs that utilize the bulk-
pedigree method.
In both scenarios, evaluating yields for at least
four consecutive seasons is crucial for informing
farmers' adoption decisions and the variety
release process. Initially intended for small-scale
farmers in developing nations, Participatory Plant
Breeding (PPB) is widely adopted in U.S. organic
breeding projects, backed by literature
supporting its quantitative genetic selection
theory [33].
9. PPB MODEL FOR POPULATION
IMPROVEMENT OF CROSS-
POLLINATED CROPS
The recombination phase generates genetic
variability, typically conducted on a station, while
selection and testing occur in farmers' fields. For
hybrid development, producing inbred varieties in
farmer fields offers the advantage of conducting
selection during the inbreeding process in the
actual production environment, ensuring
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1300
unbiased selection without being affected by field
heterogeneity. Shelton [34] discovered that
modifications in open-pollinated sweet corn
populations employing recurrent selection and
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) demonstrated
notable linear trends in quantitative and
qualitative traits.
10. PPB MODEL FOR VEGETATIVELY
PROPAGATED CROPS
Following the initial crosses, all subsequent
generations are appropriate for testing and
selection in farmers' fields.
10.1 Biotechnology-Assisted PPB
Biotechnology can enhance Participatory Plant
Breeding (PPB) with resource-poor farmers,
creating tools that significantly boost the
efficiency of their breeding endeavors in the field.
Likewise, conducting needs assessments for
Farmer Participatory Breeding (FPB) could
enhance biotechnology research, offering a
crucial reality check to refine its focus on the
requirements of resource-poor farmers.
10.2 Success Stories of Biotechnology-
Assisted PPb
Thro and Spillane [35] proposed a Participatory
Plant Breeding (PPB) initiative utilizing another
culture to introduce rainfed rice in eastern India.
The sequential steps involved in this scheme
commenced with the characterization of parent
varieties, followed by hybridization to generate
F1 progeny through 20-30 crosses.
Subsequently, anther culture produced double
haploids (DH) from F1 and F2. Farmers actively
evaluated the DH, contributing to the overall
performance assessment. The most promising
DH underwent replicated yield trials, marking a
comprehensive approach to integrating PPB with
biotechnological methods to improve and
disseminate rainfed rice varieties in the specified
region.
11. COMBINING PARTICIPATORY
PLANT BREEDING WITH
MOLECULAR MARKER
TECHNOLOGY
Steele [36] researched marker-assisted
backcrossing (MABC), revealing its capability to
generate pure and partial pyramids incorporating
root QTLs and aroma from Azucena into a
Kalinga III genetic background. Bulks were
selected through a modified SLS-MAS approach
for Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB), indicating
the presence of target regions from Azucena.
The PPB products, namely Ashoka 228 and
200F, and their parents and control lines, were
systematically screened for root traits and
flowering time. Notably, the root systems of these
two varieties closely resembled those of the
bulks selected for root QTLs, comprising 40%
IR64 but 9 AFLP markers and 1 SSR from IR64.
The study initially utilized SSRs and SNPs to
screen 44 PPB products from various crosses, all
featuring Kalinga III as one parent. Advanced
lines and bulks, incorporating aroma, were
successfully developed through the combined
use of Marker-assisted selection (MAS) and PPB
methodologies.
12. PARTICIPATORY PLANT BREEDING
AND WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT
In Syria, a six-year study (2006–2011) revealed
the significant role of participatory breeding in
empowering women. A case study involved 12
women from three villages during a PPB program
by ICARDA. Initially, local women's strong
interest led to the appointment of a young female
as part of the PPB team in 2006. Seven women
farmers actively participated in PPB trials,
contributing to evaluation, variety selection,
nomenclature, and conference participation. The
study underscores the crucial empowerment of
women farmers, especially in societies where the
feminization of agricultural labor makes them
critical contributors to small-scale farming
development [3].
13. PARTICIPATORY PLANT BREEDING
ACROSS CONTINENTS
Typically, PPB projects revolve around one or
two national or international breeders and their
teams based at an agricultural research facility.
Support is provided by various extension agents,
farmer paraprofessionals, and personnel from
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [37].
PPB across various continents is shown in
Table 1.
A) Eastern India Rainfed Farming Project:
The Eastern India Rainfed Farming Project
(1995–2005) aimed to assist resource-poor
farmers, constituting 19,000 Chota Nagpur
Plateau region households. The project
employed approaches such as
Participatory Variety Selection (PVS) and
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) to
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1301
Table 1. PPB projects were identified in the United States, Canada, and Europe
Globally, PPB projects across various countries in different crops was observed [39,40,41].
Crop name
Country
Institution(s)
Year initiated
Barley
Italy
Italian Association for Organic Agriculture
2013
Peas
Italy
Italian Research Institute CREA
2013
Buckwheat
United States
Organic Seed Alliance
2014
Cauliflower
France
French National Research Institute INRAE
2014
peas
United States
United States Department of Agriculture/
Agricultural Research Service USDA-ARS
2016
Pepper
United States
Cornell University/Seed Change
2016
Clover, Yellow
Sweet
United States
United States Department of Agriculture/
Agricultural Research Service USDA/ARS
2017
Maize
France
Organic Food and Farming Institute ITAB
2017
Tomato
Italy
Rete Semi Rurali
2018
Buckwheat
France
French National Research Institute INRAE
2018
improve rice farming. PVS entailed farmers
selecting germplasm from diverse
varieties, while PPB concentrated on the
ongoing enhancement of the chosen
varieties identified through PVS.
B) ICRISAT: ICRISAT, established in 1972
and headquartered in Hyderabad, India,
ICRISAT has offices across African
countries like Mali, Nigeria, Niger, and
Kenya. A key goal of ICRISAT is to create
innovative techniques that enhance
research impact on the nutritional and
economic well-being of low-income
individuals. Bridging the gap between
farmers and scientists is a strategic
approach, ensuring research outcomes are
highly relevant to specific farming
communities. Recognizing farmers'
priorities is pivotal for directing research
effectively. Enabling farmers to choose,
adapt, and improve from various options
creates more practical and valuable
agricultural technologies [38].
C) CENESTA: The Centre for Sustainable
Development (CENESTA), headquartered
in Iran, is a non-governmental, non-profit
organization that fosters sustainable
development in indigenous and local
communities. CENESTA collaborates
actively with local communities in Iran,
local and national government agencies,
academic and research institutions, and
non-governmental organizations
(NGOs).
14. ADVANTAGES OF PARTICIPATORY
PLANT BREEDING
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) offers
numerous advantages for agricultural
development and crop improvement (Fig. 2). By
actively involving farmers in breeding, PPB
ensures crop varieties are tailored to local needs
and environmental conditions, enhancing
agricultural resilience and sustainability.
A) saves Time: As per the World
Development Report, Participatory Plant
Breeding (PPB) and plant varietal selection
expedite the varietal development and
dissemination process, reducing the
timeline to 5–7 years. This represents
nearly half the time compared to the 10–15
years typically needed in Conventional
Plant Breeding (CPB) programs.
B) Improving Farmer Seed Systems and
Seed Provision to small-scale Farmers:
Challenges in providing quality seeds to
small-scale farmers include high
production costs and limited adaptability of
cultivars. Farmers' seed management
strategies in western Rajasthan are being
examined in their social and environmental
context. Despite efforts to improve seed
access, success remains limited. However,
cultivars tailored to farmers' needs through
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) offer
new opportunities. A robust seed system
characterized by diversity, high-quality
seeds, efficient distribution, and knowledge
sharing is crucial for sustainable
agriculture [42,43].
C) Enhancement of Biodiversity: Ceccarelli
[44] highlighted the recognition of
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) for its
selection efficiency, increased variety
adoption, farmer empowerment, and social
equity, contrasting it favorably with
Conventional Plant Breeding (CPB).
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1302
Fig. 2. Benefits of PPB
Beyond its traditional association with
organic agriculture, PPB is suggested as a
viable breeding opportunity for
conventional agriculture in light of climate
change. The replacement of varieties in
PPB contributes to increased biodiversity,
as Smith [45] noted, with participatory
methods expected to accelerate the
replacement rate of cultivars, ultimately
leading to a reduction in the average age
of cultivars and promoting more
extraordinary biodiversity over time.
D) Amelioration in Farmers' Conditions:
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) boosts
farmers' organizational and social capital
and individual farmers' knowledge, skills,
and ability to learn and experiment [46].
E) Improves Research Efficiency: During
the ICARDA barley breeding program in
Syria, a case study revealed that breeders
were more efficient in high rainfall
conditions, while farmers were more
efficient in water-deficient conditions. By
the sixth year, Participatory Plant Breeding
(PPB) made certified varieties accessible
[47].
F) Accelerates Adoption: In Syria, farmers
prefer PPB-derived varieties, cultivating
69% more land and achieving a 26%
higher yield than conventional varieties.
15. CHALLENGES OF PPB
Despite significant investments from the public
and private sectors in improving crop varieties,
the utilization of Participatory Plant Breeding
(PPB) is increasing to address cropping system
requirements. However, various challenges
impede the advancement of PPB. These include
securing consistent funding and navigating
regulatory obstacles linked to the commercial
dissemination of PPB-developed varieties [39].
The heightened complexity associated with PPB
further exacerbates these challenges, increasing
time and costs. This complexity involves factors
such as the training of farmers, the need for
earlier and more comprehensive testing of
varieties, a larger quantity of seeds, conducting
trials beyond experimental fields, and the
necessity for diverse manpower to communicate
effectively with farmers, all leading to an inflation
of costs. Despite these challenges, recent
research has shown promising approaches to
overcome them.
16. CASE STUDIES AND SUCCESS
STORIES OF PPB
The case studies and success stories of
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) exemplify its
effectiveness in addressing agricultural
challenges through collaborative efforts.
These real-life examples showcase how PPB
empowers farmers, enhances crop resilience,
and fosters sustainable agricultural practices.
From diverse regions worldwide, these stories
highlight the transformative impact of PPB on
livelihoods and food security, as shown in
Table 2.
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1303
Table 2. PPB in various crops
Crop
Year
Mode of PPB
Varieties
Reference
Rice
2007
Combining Participatory
Plant Breeding (PPB)
with Molecular Marker
Technology
Two varieties were released: Birsa Vikas
Dhan 110 and Birsa Vikas Dhan 109.
[36]
2013
Organic PPB
Jaiva
[48]
Potato
2018
Collaborative PPB
R8, R9, Rpi-blb2, Rpi-cap1, Rpi-chc1,
and Rpi-edn2 lines of potato resistance
against late blight disease
[49]
Tomato
2019
Organic, MAS, PPB
Tomato lines of multiple disease
resistance against Fusarium oxysporum
f.sp. Lycopersici, race 2 (FOL) and
Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato
[8]
Maize
2003
PPB
GDRM-187, released as Gujarat Maize-6
(GM-6) Gujarat state, India.
[50]
2020
Drone Imaging and
PPB
selecting the best corn cultivation variety
technology package.
[30]
Wheat
2020
PPB
Wheat Population Varieties have genetic
diversity and stability
[31]
17. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
Advances in technology will play a pivotal role in
streamlining data collection and sharing among
researchers and farmers. The future of
participatory breeding relies on evaluating a
more comprehensive array of impacts, especially
concerning rural innovation capacity and poverty
reduction. Continued efforts will empower
farmers to actively participate in breeding
decisions and shape the development of crop
varieties. Future endeavors will prioritize
breeding for resilience to climate change and
addressing emerging environmental challenges.
PPB will increasingly align with market demands,
ensuring crop varieties meet consumer
preferences and economic needs. However, this
agricultural breakthrough has had limited
applicability in marginal areas, where breeders
primarily concentrated on homogenous
agroecological and socioeconomic conditions.
18. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, biodiversity loss, climate change,
and global hunger present challenges that
Participatory Plant Breeding (PPB) can address
effectively. PPB emerges as a vital approach
within this framework, emphasizing the critical
role of enhancing genetic diversity in crop fields
to tackle these pressing issues. By collaborating
with diverse technologies like Marker-Assisted
Selection (MAS) and organic farming, PPB
fosters agrobiodiversity and ensures widespread
food access and resilience to climate change.
Despite challenges such as securing funding and
navigating regulatory obstacles, recent research
showcases innovative approaches to overcome
these barriers and maximize the impact of PPB
initiatives. Through integration with advanced
technologies and a steadfast focus on genetic
diversity, PPB holds immense potential to
revolutionize crop genetics and foster
sustainable agricultural practices globally.
Moving forward, prioritizing inclusivity, knowledge
exchange, and empowering farming communities
will ensure our agricultural systems' continued
resilience and adaptability in the face of evolving
environmental and socio-economic pressures.
DISCLAIMER (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)
Author(s) hereby declare that NO generative AI
technologies such as Large Language Models
(ChatGPT, COPILOT, etc) and text-to-image
generators have been used during writing or
editing of manuscripts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RN gratefully acknowledges Mr. karthikeya, Mr.
Vishak R.L., India, and Mr. Bala Subba Reddy,
who have contributed to the manuscript
preparation.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1304
REFERENCES
1. Ray DK, West PC, Clark M, Gerber JS,
Prishchepov AV, Chatterjee S. Climate
change has likely already affected global
food production. PloS One. 2019;14(5):
e0217148.
2. Ceccarelli S. Plant breeding with farmers.
A technical manual; 2012.
3. Ceccarelli S, Grando S, Winge T,
Andersen R. 6 Participatory barley
breeding in Syria. Farmers' Crop Varieties
and Farmers' Rights. 2013;84.
4. Alary V, Lasseur J, Frija A, Gautier D. We
are assessing the sustainability of livestock
socio-ecosystems in the drylands through
indicators. Agric. Sys. 2022;198:103389.
5. Probst K. Farmers as breeders:
Participatory plant breeding. Issue
Papers People and Biodiv 2004. 2004;Part
1.
6. Nelson CD, Boyd G, Rousseau RJ, Crane
BS, Echt CS, Johnsen KH. Participatory
genetic improvement: Longleaf pine. In
South. Silvia. Res. 2015;Conf: 499-501.
7. Bhargav DK, Meena HP, Ppb PPB.
Participatory plant breeding: farmers as
breeders. Popular Kheti. 2014;2(1):7-
14.
8. Campanelli G, Sestili S, Acciarri N,
Montemurro F, Palma D, Leteo F, Beretta
M. Multi-parental advances in generating
inter-cross populations to develop organic
tomato genotypes by participatory plant
breeding. Agron. 2019;9(3):119.
9. Atlin GN, Cooper M, Bjørnstad Å. A
comparison of formal and participatory
breeding approaches using selection
theory. Euphytica. 2001;122:463-475.
10. Bellon MR, Morris ML. Linking global and
local approaches to agricultural technology
development: The role of participatory
plant breeding research in the CGIAR (No.
556-2016-38766); 2002.
11. Merga W. Review on participatory plant
breeding. Int. J. Res. Studies in Agric. Sci.
2017;3(9):7–13.
12. Rahman MA, Thant AA, Win M, Tun MS,
Moet P, Thu AM, et al. Participatory
varietal selection (PVS): A bottom-up
breeding approach helps rice farmers in
the Ayeyarwady Delta, Myanmar.
SABRAO J. Breed & Gen. 2015;47(3).
13. Morris ML, Bellon MR. Participatory plant
breeding research: Opportunities and
challenges for the international crop
improvement system. Euphytica. 2004;
136(1):21-35.
14. Sperling L, Loevinsohn ME, Ntabomvura
B. Rethinking the farmer's role in plant
breeding: Local bean experts and on-
station selection in Rwanda. Exp. Agric.
1993;29(4):509-519.
15. Desclaux D. Participatory plant breeding
methods for organic cereals. In
Proceedings of the workshop on organic
plant breeding strategies and the use of
Molecular Markers. 2005;17–23.
16. Basford KE, Cooper M. Genotype×
environment interactions and some
considerations of their implications for
wheat breeding in Australia This review is
one of a series commissioned by the
Advisory Committee of the J. Aust. J.Agric.
Res. 1998;49(2):153-174.
17. Almekinders CJM, Elings A. Collaboration
of farmers and breeders: Participatory crop
improvement in perspective. Euphytica.
2001;122:425-438.
18. Walker TS. Participatory varietal selection,
participatory plant breeding, varietal
change; 2006.
19. Joshi A, Witcombe JR. Farmer
participatory crop improvement. II.
Participatory varietal selection, a case
study in India. Exp. Agric. 1996;32(4):461–
477.
20. Singh YP, Nayak AK, Sharma DK, Gautam
RK, Singh RK, Singh R, et al. Farmers'
participatory varietal selection: A
sustainable crop improvement approach
for the 21st century. Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems. 2014;38(4):
427–444.
21. Halewood M, Deupmann P, Sthapit BR,
Vernoy R, Ceccarelli S. Participatory Plant
Breeding to Promote Farmer's Rights.
Bioversity Intel; 2007.
22. Ashby JA, Lilja N. Participatory research:
Does it work? Evidence from participatory
plant breeding; 2004.
23. Ceccarelli S, Grando S, Baum M.
Participatory plant breeding in water-
limited environments. Ex. Agric. 2007;
43(4):411-435.
24. Haugerud A, Collinson MP. Plants, genes
and people: Improving the relevance of
plant breeding in Africa. Exp. Agric.
1990;26(3):341-362.
25. Butler LM, Myers J, Nchimbi Msolla S,
Masangye E, Mduruma Z, Mollel N,
Dimosa P. Farmer evaluation of early
generation bean lines in Tanzania:
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1305
Comparing farmers' and scientists' trait
preferences. In CIAT Afr. Workshop Ser.
(CIAT; SACCAR). CIAT, SACCAR;
1995.
26. Kucek LK. Participatory breeding of wheat
for organic production. Cornell University;
2017.
27. Malandrin V, Dvortsin L. Participatory
processes of agroecological innovation in
organic cereal breeding: A case study from
Italy. In Fourth International Scientific
Symp. 2013;719-725.
28. Cleveland DA, Soleri D, Smith SE. Farmer
plant breeding from a biological
perspective: Implications for collaborative
plant breeding. CIMMYT; 1999.
29. Pimbert MP. Participatory research
and on-farm management of
agricultural biodiversity in Europe. IIED;
2011.
30. Farid M, Djufry F, Yassi A, Ansari MF,
Musa Y, Aqil M, et al. Integrated corn
cultivation technology based on drone
morphology, imaging, participatory plant
breeding. J. of Breed. Gen. 2022;54(2):
145.
31. Van Frank G, Rivière P, Pin S, Baltassat
R, Berthellot JF, Caizergues F, et al.
Genetic diversity and stability of
performance of wheat population varieties
developed by participatory breeding.
Sustainability. 2020;12(1):384.
32. Gyawali S, Sunwar S, Subedi M,
Tripathi M, Joshi KD, Witcombe JR.
Collaborative breeding with farmers can be
practical. Field Crops Res. 2007;101(1):
88–95.
33. Shelton AC, Tracy WF. Recurrent
selection and participatory plant breeding
for improvement of two organic open-
pollinated sweet corn (Zea mays L.)
populations. Sustainability. 2015;7(5):
5139–5152.
34. Shelton AC, Tracy WF. Participatory plant
breeding and organic agriculture: A
synergistic model for organic variety
development in the United States.
Elementa. 2016;4:000143.
35. Thro AM, Spillane C. Bitechnology-
assisted participatory plant breeding:
Complement or contradiction. CIAT.
2003;3.
36. Steele, PPB, CPPB. Innovative methods
for rice breeding–combining participatory
plant Breeding (PPB) with Molecular
Marker Technology; 2007.
37. Fukuda WMG, Saad N. Participatory
research in cassava breeding with farmers
in Northeastern Brazil; 2001.
38. Bidinger FR. Farmer participation in pearl
millet research in Namibia. In participatory
plant improvement. Proc Wksp, Chennai,
India. 1998;27-28.
39. Colley MR, Dawson JC, McCluskey C,
Myer JR, Tracy WF, van Bueren EL.
Exploring the emergence of participatory
plant breeding in countries of the Global
North–a review. The J. Agric. Sci.
2021;159(5-6):320-338.
40. McGuire S, Manicad G. Technical and
Institutional Issues in Participatory Plant
Breeding-Done from a perspective of
farmer plant breeding: A global analysis of
issues and current experience. PPB
Monogr; 2003.
41. Riley KW. Decentralized breeding and
selection: a tool to link diversity and
development. Using assortment:
Enhancing and maintaining genetic
resources on-farm, Proc. Workshop.
1996;19–21.
42. Dhamotharan M, Weltzien E, Whitaker ML,
Rattunde HF, W,ers MM, Tyagi LC, et al.
Seed management strategies of farmers in
western Rajasthan in their social and
environmental contexts: Results from a
workshop using new communication
techniques for a dialog between farmers
and scientists. Integrated Systems Project
Support Report. 1997;9.
43. Almekinders CJ, Thiele G, Danial DL. Can
cultivars from participatory plant breeding
improve seed provision to small-scale
farmers? Euphytica. 2007;153:363-372.
44. Ceccarelli S, Grando S. Return to
agrobiodiversity: Participatory plant
breeding. Diversity. 2022;14(2):126-129.
45. Smith M, Weltzien E. Scaling-up in
participatory plant breeding. Encouraging
diversity. Intermediate Technology
Publications. 2000;208–213.
46. Storosko I. Participatory plant breeding in
Canada: The political ecology of
participatory research networks for organic
agriculture (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton
University); 2022.
47. Tiemens-Hulscher M, Lammerts van
Bueren ET, Hutten RCB. Potato: Improving
organic cultivars, including a participatory
approach. Org. Crop Breed. 2012;227-223.
48. Vanaja T, Neema VP, Mammotty KP,
Balakrishnan PC, Jaya Prakash N. The
First High Yielding Saline Tolerant Rice
Noru et al.; J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1293-1306, 2024; Article no.JABB.120609
1306
Variety Suited to the Kadipad Tidal
Farming Ecosystem of Kerala, India and
Suited for Flood Prone and Water Scarce
Environments: Ezhome 1. J.Org. 2015;
2(1):21-31.
49. Keijzer P, Van Bueren EL, Engelen
CJM, Hutten RCB. Breeding late
blight resistant potatoes for organic
farming—A collaborative model of
participatory plant breeding: The Bioimpuls
Project. Potato Res. 2021;14(2):
1-29.
50. Witcombe JR, Joshi A, Goyal SN.
Participatory plant breeding in maize: A
case study from Gujarat, India. Euphytica.
2003;130:413-422.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). This publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for
any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© Copyright (2024): Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/120609
