Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems E-ISSN: 1870-0462 [email protected] Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán México

Polanco-Echeverry, Diana Nayibe; Álvarez-Salas, Lizeth Marelly; Ríos-Osorio, Leonardo Alberto PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR RESEARCH INTO THE SOCIOECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE OF AGROECOSYSTEMS Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, vol. 18, núm. 2, 2015, pp. 207-219 Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán Mérida, Yucatán, México

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=93941388001

How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 18 (2015): 207 - 219

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR RESEARCH INTO THE SOCIOECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE OF AGROECOSYSTEMS

[PROPUESTA METODOLÓGICA PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA RESILIENCIA SOCIOECOLÓGICA DE LOS AGROECOSISTEMAS]

Diana Nayibe Polanco-Echeverry*, Lizeth Marelly Álvarez-Salas, Leonardo Alberto Ríos-Osorio

School of Microbiology, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín – Colombia. Email: [email protected], Tel. (574) 2195492 *Corresponding author

SUMMARY RESUMEN

Agroecology proposes a new epistemological and La agroecología propone un nuevo paradigma methodological paradigm to understand the reality of epistemológico y metodológico para entender la farming and production systems that are in realidad de los sistemas de producción agropecuarios turn nature-society systems. The research questions que son a su vez sistemas naturaleza-sociedad. Las around these have traditionally been resolved from preguntas de investigación en torno a estos, se han two methodological approaches: quantitative and resuelto tradicionalmente desde dos enfoques qualitative. Although each complements the other, metodológicos: cuantitativo y cualitativo. Si bien there have not been sufficient approximations from a cada enfoque reconoce en el otro su perspective that would integrate them. A holistic, complementariedad, no existen suficientes transdisciplinary agroecological proposal should aproximaciones desde una perspectiva que los transcend the theoretical discourse and become integre. La propuesta agroecológica holística y practical trough research aiming to understand the transdisciplinaria, debe trascender el discurso teórico socio-ecological relationships in the agroecosystems, y ponerse práctica a través de investigaciones que report the complex phenomena arising from such permitan entender las relaciones socioecológicas de relationships and prepared detailed diagnostics from a los agroecosistemas, dar cuenta de fenómenos systemic point of view. Reflections are presented here complejos que resultan de dichas interacciones y on the traditional methodological approaches to hacer un diagnóstico detallado de la realidad desde un and new proposals that respond to the enfoque sistémico. Aquí se presentan reflexiones epistemological approach of the agroecological sobre los abordajes metodológicos tradicionales de la discourse. agroecología y nuevas propuestas que respondan al enfoque epistemológico del discurso agroecológico. Key words: agroecology; agroecological approach; systemic approach; socioecological relationships; Palabras clave: agroecología; enfoque complex systems. agroecológico; enfoque sistémico; relaciones socioecológicas; sistemas complejos.

INTRODUCTION by man. This characteristic allows them to be classified as open ‘complex’ systems. According to Research in the farming and livestock sector has been Morin (1994), systemic theory establishes the notion oriented towards the search for solutions to isolated of a system, ‘this is not seen as a discrete elemental problems of production (Francis et al., 2008) or to unit, but rather as a complex unit, an ‘entirety’ that understanding particular social situations in the field. cannot be reduced to the “sum” of its constitutive Consequently, the methodologies used to develop parts’. It is therefore necessary to place oneself in a these studies have been defined as a function of the transdisciplinary level that simultaneously allows particular discipline of the researcher or as a response understanding of the material nature of the study to the need to obtain information that provides object, the types and complexities of the phenomena solutions to these questions. However, farming and of association and the organization of the system livestock systems are in turn natural systems modified itself.

207 Polanco-Echeverry et al., 2015

In this sense, complex systems should be observed In this article it is proposed to describe a basic and studied with an epistemological approach that methodolgy to analyze problems in agroecology, with permits an understanding of their complexity and some experiences of its application in two multiple dimensions. As a transdisciplicinary science, investigative exercises from the systemic agroecology has the socioecological resilience of agroecological approach: the first of these was agroecosystems as its object of study. This is suggested to understand whether plant especies supported by an epistemological base that provides endemic to the Darién region could promote food the theoretical and practical basis to achieve a holistic sovereignty strategies and the second to identify the and systemic analysis of the innate phenomena of dynamic relationships among components of the farming and livestock production systems (Salas et cattle ranching system in the alluvial fan of Ibagué, al., 2012; Álvarez et al., 2014). Tolima (Colombia) that influence the behaviour of ticks as an essential attribute of this system. Because of the above, the methodological strategies should be consistent with the complexity of the Theoretical and methodological constructs system studied; this allows both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the phenomena to be Morin (1994) explained how reality is organized into tackled (Hernandez-Sampieri et al., 2010). While it is different levels of complexity. Thus, the physical necessary to obtain both qualitative and quantitative level is less complex than the biological one and both information, this does not constitute a solution to the are less complex than the socioecological level which methodological barriers to answering the research encompasses them. Thus the greater the complexity, questions or prove agroecological hypotheses. the greater the degree of integration of realities of different natures. According to Salas et al. (2012), In order to verify the orientation methodology of despite recent developments, research on the natural agroecology, a search was carried out of the literature sciences is still circumscribed to the physical and between July and October of 2013 with a view to biological levels of reality; this only makes sense if defining the methodological approaches used by the processes are studied in isolation. However, the agroecological researchers. Masters and doctoral problems of insustainability of the planet are theses were analyzed, as well as articles published in manifested in a level of higher complexity, such as high impact scientific journals in scientific databases: the socioecological one. This author suggests that EBSCO, DIALNET, SCOPUS, SCIENCEDIRECT ‘socioecological interactions, which traditionally and SPRINGERLINK. This document only includes have been omitted by the classical sciences, have some of the articles in this review, with the objective played such an important role in the problems of of illustrating the principal approaches and themes in insustainability that their omission would signify the agroecology. Based on the studies evaluated four perpetuation of problems which the science of methodological tendencies were found that tackled [referring to this as a science which questions related to the area: quantitative, qualitative, examines complexity] aims to resolve’ (Salas et al., mixed methods and to a lesser extent, studies with a 2012). systemic approach, oriented towards comprehension of the object of agroecological study, i.e., the Next, four different ways to approach research on socioecological resilience of agroecosystems. environmental and agricultural problems from an agroecological perspective are presented: quantitative, In general, the distinct holistic and integrative qualitative, combined or mixed methods such as the approach of a transdiscipline is not reflected in frameworks of evaluation of sustainability and agroecological studies. This may be due to three methodologies for complexity (see Table 1). factors: first, there is no consensus about the object of agroecological study that orients research; second, it The first methodological approach is the quantitative has not been explored in more detail in a reflection on one. This emphasizes the biophysical dimension of the epistemological approach; and third there remains the system, with biodiversity as a strategy for the a need to identify adequate research tools to link regulation of pests and diseases, allowing a better agroecological discourse and theory coherently with adaptation (Altieri, 2009). Thus, biodiversity is one of scientific investigations in this area (Gómez et al., the most relevant themes in the area (Moonen and 2013). Bàrberi, 2008)

208 Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 18 (2015): 207 - 219

Table 1. Approaches in agroecological research.

Research Level of Aspects of agricultural systems Achievements and limitations Approach reality Biodiversity, agro-biodiversity, eco-systemic Generate sufficient information to design more services, energy efficiency, biological control, sustainable agroecosystems.

fertilization, allelopathy, intercropping, efficient

microorganisms, sustainable ranching systems Search for strategies to increase yield and (agroforestry), maintenance and fertility of the soil, quality of crops through adequate husbandry.

ysical

Ph soil microbiology, animal integration, maintenance

Biological

Quantitative of the microbiota. Do not transcend understanding towards socioecological interactions.

Altieri et al. 2012; Martínez et al. 2013; Altieri 1983; Ponti et al. 2007; Colvin and Gliessman 2012; Nicholls et al. 2000; Liere et al. 2012; Zapata et al. 2009; Soto et al. 2002; Posada et al. 2013; Patiño and Sánchez 2012; Hilimire et al. 2013.

Indigenous cosmovision linked to the production of Participative studies. food, knowledge of soil usage, concept of ‘weeds’, historic agroecosystem transformation processes, Generate knowledge necessary to define the attitude of peasants to biodiversity, experimentation actions, which favour transformations on the

and rural innovation, effects of technology transfer, way to an integrated development. social movements campesinos agroecological,

strategies of resilience of systems to climate Do not go beyond understanding of

Social

Biological

Qualitative change, socioeconomic impacts of the introduction socioecological interactions. of genetically modified seeds, impact of participative strategies of education and research on rural transformation processes.

Morales and Perfecto 2000; Barrera and Toledo 2005; Chacon and Gliessman 1982; Arístide, 2010; Junge et al. 2009; Leitgeb et al. 2014; Cáceres 2011; Rosset and Martínez 2012; Márquez and Funes 2013; Jacobson 2013; Mackenzie et al. 2012; Lilja and Bellon 2008; Duveskog 2013; Zuluaga 2011.

Ecological studies on biodiversity, management of Tries to understand the complexity of the systems, ways of life, cooperativism, rural system. development and ecological managment of resources, management of agroforestal systems, Analytical tools and epistemological

tion of tion of

econometric models, genetic diversity, maps and approaches do not permit analysis of

agricultural landscapes, plant variety and adequate socioecological relationships.

evalua

management of the soil, management of energy,

effects on health of carbon smoke, impacts of Analysis of the agroecosystem is partial and

Physical biocombustibles, indicators of sustainability, descriptive sustainability agroecological indicators of environmental and Do not go beyond understanding of social resistence, MESMIS programme (Marco socioecological interactions.

Socioecological Biological

framework framework for para la Evaluation de Systems de Management Incorporando Indicators de Sustentabilidad). Combined or mixed methods as the Combinedmixed the or as methods Wickings and Grandy 2013; Sales et al. 2013; Mielgo et al. 2001; Wolff 2010; Van Dusen 2000; Astier et al. 2010; Masera et al. 2005; Riojas et al. 2011; Skutsch et al. 2011; Fernández and Woodhouse 2008; Astier et al. 2012.

Development of models for sustainable , Methodologies have still not been described for management and design de agroecological systems, its replication. production syndromes, adaptation and management

of natural resources for ecotourism, effect of Processes and levels of process and analysis are subsidies on rural production. studied, allowing an understanding of

complexity.

Physical

Systemic

Biological

Socioecological Approach the socioecological relationships of the system.

Saifi and Drake 2008; Marquardt 2008; Lombardi 2009; Lovell et al. 2010; Vandermeer and Perfecto 2012; García et al. 2008; Ortiz and Cerutti 2008.

209 Polanco-Echeverry et al., 2015

According to the research question raised from the methodological terms with a heterogeneous approach biophysical approach, researchers employ multiple allows the complexity of the system to be understood methodologies. These involve comparative that to some extent. Nevertheless, the strategies are experiments, with treatments and repetitions, in which unable to establish sociological relationships, rather the variance of the experimental error can be than merely describe the components of the estimated. Studies are also developed by comparative agroecosystem. observation for which no experiment is designed in strict terms, although groups of individuals or In order to overcome the difficulties described circumstances are generated that are classified as previously, methodologies have been developed treatments. In both cases the studies are performed based on the theory of complex systems. Here, within spatial scales such as a laboratory, greenhouse, agroecology is seen as a science of complexity, crop field, , countryside, region or country, and making reference to complex thought which ‘seeks, at within temporal scales as transversal and longitudinal the same time, to distinguish – but without dividing - studies. The research questions developed are as and to bind’ (Morin, 1994). This perspective allows heterogenous as the disciplinary bases of the agroecology to distance itself from the Cartesian researchers themselves. These seek to resolve paradigm that simplifies, reduces and fragements the technico-productive matters which are circumscribed object of study. Agroecology defines itself as a to the biophysical sphere and may include economic science that approaches its object of study from a aspects of the system. complex epistemological approach.

On the other hand, social sciences and specifically Systems of farming and livestock production are rural and anthropology have studied certain included within the systems denominated nature– sociocultural components important for agriculture, society, which are open systems in permanent contact from the application of qualitative methodological with their surroundings (León, 2012; Malpartida and tools such as ethnography, interviews (structured, Lavanderos, 1995). Therefore, they are a subsystem semi-structured, in-depth), inquiry through the use of of a hierarchically greater system, as is the case of a focus groups, social cartography and discourse rural district, municipality, region and even a country. analysis. One of the most significant theoretical As open systems, they establish energy flows, contributions have been made by the ethnoscientific materials and information with the surroundings to field, preoccupied by the manner in which societies which they belong. Analysis of the productive system name and order elements of their environment, should therefore be done in its own context, that is, by emphasizing the cognitive aspects in the processes of analyzing the surrounding conditions (García, 2006). perception and thought, supporting this through Complex systems are at the same time adaptive by linguistic studies in particular (Turbay, 2004). nature (Maldonado, 2003). This allows them to react to diverse internal or external circumstances and thus Alternatively, methods which combine qualitative and the phenomena of the system should be observed and quantitative or mixed strategies, such as frameworks analyzed from their temporal and spatial dimensions to evaluate sustainability, have been applied in or scales. Their components and attributes are the agroecology as a response to its definition as: ‘the essential characteristics without which the system application of ecological concepts and principles to could not exist, which is why it has the same level of the design and management of sustainable food equivalence. For this reason changes in its attributes systems’ (Gliessman et al., 2007) presenting a new may affect the entire system positively or negatively. perspective in the field of studies of agriculture and Based on the theoretical elements described ranching. The understanding of sustainability as an previously we now present two research proposals agroecosystem quality is a recent area of research; developed from the approach of complexity, as a Caporal et al. (2006) define agroecology as a science form of clarifying the idea of an agroecological whose object is to contribute to the management and science with methodological approximations that are design of sustainable agroecosystems and contribute more consistent with the epistemological postulates to prospective multidimensional analysis, taking into defined by agroecology. account economic, social, environmental, cultural, political and ethical factors. Methodological proposal

Accordingly to León (2009), descriptive and In these two examples of agroecological comparative agroecology tries to classify, describe investigations the complex systems approach is and analyze the regulations or emergent qualities applied to analysis of socioecological resilience in an arising from the increasing complexity of agroecosystem. To initiate the research process six agroecosystems in processes of agroecological methodological phases were established, which conversion. Here, research is addressed in should be included in all agroecological studies:

210 Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 18 (2015): 207 - 219

 Phase 1. Agroecological description of the to their ontological nature (economic, desired study phenomenon. institutional, ecological or social).  Phase 2. Focus the view of the phenomenon from  Phase 5. Validation of the model with the a concept or central process on which work will community in which the research is performed. be done, structured from agroecology. This is the  Phase 6. Application of the proposed strategy in process of reference around which the system is association with the community. This phase can structured as an organized totality and without be carried out by two methodological routes: the which it loses identity. A theoretical description first consists of establishing a conversion system of this concept is included here, with the methods as the final goal of the agroecological research, and indicators for its analysis. It is important to or in the second instance, establish a system of clarify that although this concept may have been monitoring and evaluation of the system analyzed described previously an updated vision of this which will give an account of the processes of concept should be presented from agroecological transformation in relation to time. This phase principles in the research to be developed. shows of one of the principal characteristics of  Phase 3. Reconsideration of the central process agroecological science, supported in the defined from the concept developed in Phase 2. paradigm of post-normal science (Funtowicz and This process has traditionally been performed Ravetz, 2000), science for decision-making, not from agroecology with a Cartesian view of the only to know the reality but to contribute to its phenomenon; it is thus necessary to transcend transformation. and reconstruct it from a complex perspective of agroecosystem dynamics. Examples of studies developed under this  Phase 4. Modelling of the production system approach from the central process and description of the dynamics of the system to understand how this Starting from this basic methodology, we aim to process functions. The methodological tools understand two phenomena of the different reality, required are introduced in this phase. Aspects i.e., the survey of promising food plants as a local that García (2006) suggests for modelling can be strategy to attain food sovereignty in San Francisco considered here, such as: de Asís, Acandí, Chocó; and the dynamic (1) Definition of the limits of the system to be relationships between components of the cattle investigated: complex systems lack precise ranching systems that influence the behaviour of ticks limits, however for research purposes as an essential attribute of these systems in the ‘determinants’ are evaluated, these being Alluvial fan of Ibagué, Tolima. Although the two everything that affects the system. The first methodological proposals were designed with the determinant is the temporal scale of the objective of describing and understanding two analysis, where fieldwork findings contrast phenomena in the two different systems and with the with previous investigations in the area and particularities of each researcher, both try to answer verifiable local histories from secondary research questions in relation to the complexity of sources. The second determinant is spatial these systems. and defined from the general objective of the research. Approximations to a systemic study of food (2) Determination of the principal elements of sovereignty in the settlement of San Francisco de the system and structure within the complex Asís, Acandí, Chocó system. Fundamental elements to be identified included the history and This research was carried out in a locality on the conformation of the system as well as the Caribbean coast of the Colombian Darién. This region dynamics of its transformation. is both a geographical and cultural frontier, (3) Definition of the relationships of first, characterized as humid tropical forest with high rates second and third level processes linked with of biodiversity, offset by the high anthropic pressure the principal process: the first level includes placed on its natural resources. The principal those components that directly and locally objective of this research was to identify promising affect the central process. In the second level food plants as an alternative to consolidate local are included the metaprocesses that affect processes of food sovereignty. The analysis required a the components of the first level; these are of transdisciplinary systemic approach (Ríos and Mesa, regional or national order. The third level 2009), taking into consideration factors such as includes international or global aspects that ecological conditions, knowledge of promising food influence both the first and second levels. plants, land use, institutions, socioeconomic (4) Classification of the subsystems which give characteristics of the population and exogenous rise to the processes and elements according programmes.

211 Polanco-Echeverry et al., 2015

The ethnographic fieldwork was carried out over a food plants were analyzed within the municipality of period of six months, which allowed the researcher to Acandí (Chocó); and consolidated with local food learn about the subjects’ customs, ways of life and sovereignty strategies. how they perceived their reality. The particularities of human groups were analyzed through observation of To delimit the system the central process was their daily activities (Guber, 2007), related to the identified from the research question: Are promising environment; discourses on ethnobotanic knowledge, food plants (plantas promisorias de uso alimenticio - forms of appropiation and conservation strategies PPUA) and local production strategies e.g. agricultura were recorded. The study of food plants was carried and fishing sufficient to attain food sovereignty? Here out with ethnobotanic methods, revealing the extent ‘food sovereignty’ is taken as a starting point based of local knowledge, agricultural practices (Alexiades on the definition suggested by the Vía Campesina: 1996) and processes of culinary transformation. ‘Food sovereignty is the right of peoples, were surveyed using techniques developed for communities and countries to establish their own socioeconomic and environmental studies in tropical agricultural, fishing, food and land use policies, forests (Turbay, 2004). The promising food plants which are ecologically, socially, economically and were identified and collected using standardized culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances. taxonomic methods (Martin, 1995). Bromatological This includes the fundamental right to food and the analysis provided data from 19 plants and 2 edible resources necessary to produce it, which means that fungi on the following nutritional parameters: (a) all peoples have the right to a healthy, nutritious and water content by loss of humidity through drying culturally appropriate diet, and the capacity to (Egan 1991); (b) total ash or mineral content; (c) total maintain themselves and their societies’ (Schejtman fats; (d) total protein; (e) total carbohydrates; (f) and Chiriboga, 2009). This organization emphasizes caloric contribution to the sum of its components two elements: autonomy for the formulation of (ICONTEC, 1994). Quality of water for human policies and the universal right to food (Schejtman consumption was also analyzed, obeying the premise and Chiriboga, 2009). The spatial and temporal limits that quality and access to water are fundamental to were subsequently established. The principal developing the concept of food sovereignty. For this, elements of the system and the structure within the physicochemical analysis was performed with complex system were then identified. A fundamental photometric methods and microbiological analysis element for identification of the system is the history using the techniques described in Rice et al. (2012), of the settlement, which gave rise to the endorsed by the Colombian Ministry of Social understanding of the current structure of land tenure Protection. and the effects of law 70 dealing with specific rights of the Afrocolombian population (Congreso de Data Analysis Colombia, 1993); formation of the settlement; dynamics in the transformation of the ecological The interviews were transcribed, systematized and knowledge and changes in the local economies. ordered into six categories for analysis using the Finally, the first, second and third level relationships ATLAS TI 6.0 program, defined as: (1) Local linked with the principal process (García, 2006) were knowledge associated with the PPUA (subcategories: established. The system suggested for this research is ethnobotany, ethnoecology, ethnoagriculture). (2) illustrated in Figure. 1. Environmental factors (3) Local economy including cattle ranching, fishing, tourism and the dynamics Analysis of this complex system starts from the associated with cocaine exportation. (4) Social subcategory ‘promising plants’, which was enriched aspects (5) Social movements and political with the analytical contribution of the ethnobotanical, organizations. (6) Tenure, use of and access to the ethnoecological and ethnoagricultural aspects, as well land constituted as an emergent category. as tenure and access to land, armed conflict, local economy, local human groups, history of the In general, definition of the systems is an associated settlement; this in turn allowed the system indispensable element of studies that use system- of agricultural production to be characterised. based approaches. The agroecosystem was specified Bromatological analyses applied to the promising as the settlement of San Francisco de Asís, the place food plants allowed quantification of the nutritional where the socioecological relationships related to the and calorific contributions of these species, with a use, knowledge and practices surrounding promising view to validating notions of satiety and depletion.

212 Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 18 (2015): 207 - 219

Figure 1. System of promising food plants and food sovereignty in San Francisco de Asís

The effects of the second level processes on silvopastoral systems and conventional production sovereignty were subsequently analyzed. These systems with emphasis on populations of include: ecological changes, cattle ranching, armed Rhipicephalus microplus ticks’ is presented, conflict, anti-drug policies, local economy, laws on developed in the municipalities of Piedras and land tenure such as ley 70; and other social aspects Alvarado, in the region known as the alluvial fan of such as: education, family structure, local human Ibagué. Here ranches with silvopastoral intensive groups, social movements, political organization and systems (SSPi) and conventional systems of ranching health system. These findings were complemented by were selected, according to the criteria of the a bibliographical analysis of agriculture in Colombia Ranching Committee of Tolima and the National during the last 25 years, drug trafficking, ley 70 on Federation of Cattle Ranchers (FEDEGAN). The collective land ownership of Afrocolombians and the objective of this project was to characterize from the sociohistory of the Urabá Antioqueño region agroecological approach the dynamic relationships intimately linked to the study zone. Finally, the third between the components of these ranching systems level components which affected the agroecosystem that influence the behaviour of ticks (R. microplus) as were analyzed by studying local perceptions and an essential attribute of these extoparasites. review of the literature. Mixed production systems such as SSPi and Proposed methodology to analyze the dynamic conventional systems of cattle ranching are complex, relationships between the components of the multidimensional and related with their surroundings. ranching system in the Alluvial fan of Ibagué, These agroecosystems are structurally and Tolima (Colombia) which influence the behaviour functionally complex, due to the interactions that are of ticks as an essential attribute of these established between the ecological and sociocultural exoparasites processes. These interactions may cause new qualities to emerge that can only be explained from the In this section the proposed methodology for the relationships that are constituted between their research project ‘Agroecological evaluation of components (Guzmán et al., 2000).

213 Polanco-Echeverry et al., 2015

Proposed methodological structure  Phase 5. The model was validated using input from different actors of the investigative process. The analysis and interpretation of agroecosystems is Initially this was discussed with a group of performed by means of the systemic method proposed teaching staff and students of the doctoral by García (2006) and developed by Álvarez et al. programmes in Agroecology of the University of (2014) as a methodological proposal to tackle Antioquia and National University of Colombia, problems in agroecology. This method follows a Medellín campus. Once the observations of this series of phases which are described as follows: group had been incorporated, the system was  Phase 1. The phenomenon studied is the process presented by the researchers to a group of key of infestation by ticks (R. microplus). This was partners to discuss and valídate it with the done by observing three cattle ranching units, community. The final model of the system with different productive strategies, located in the represented in Figure 2 allowed the observables alluvial fan of Ibagué, in the Colombian and field data collected on these to be departamento of Tolima. This phase is established. documentary and a review of the literature of the agroecological indicators for SSP and  Phase 6. Methodological tools and instruments to conventional cattle ranching systems was used as obtain biophysical, socio-cultural, socio- a methodological tool economic, socio-political and technico-  Phase 2. As a result of the description of the productive information in the field were defined. phenomenon it was deduced that the research In this study the tools used consisted of question driving the process would be: ¿What are technical-economic surveys of management and the relationships between the elements of production, semi-structured interviews to know silvopastoral systems and conventional cattle the perceptions of the actors with relation to the ranching that condition the presence of and phenomenon of interest and the processes that damage caused by ticks Rhipicephalus microplus, affect it, rapid evaluation of biodiversity and from the agroecological perspective? This qualitative evaluation of soil health. Furthermore question served for the subsequent elaboration of the following field parameters were measured: a concept or initial central process. elevation, precipitation, tick counts on cattle to  Phase 3. The central process was discussed with estimate parasite load, percentage of infections academic peers, forcing a reassessment based on by haemoparasites, tick counts on pasture to a systemic and trasdisciplinary agroecological estimate the number of them per hectare, green approach, with the aim of understanding the forage and dry material available (both in kg per complexity of the dynamics of cattle ranching hectare) and percentage colonization of roots by agroecosystems. The central process was defined mycorrhizae. as: ‘Infestación by ticks in cattle of the alluvial fan of Ibagué, Tolima’. The system studied forms part of an empirical reality  Phase 4. Starting from the central process the that agrees with the postulates of García (2006), from theoretical model of the system was constructed. which elements were extracted for observation to The spatial limits of three farms located in the answer questions posed by the researchers on the municipalities of Piedras and Alvarado were phenomenon of interest, corresponding to a defined as well as the temporal limits that locate conceptualization of the observed reality. Causal the system between the onset of cattle ranching in relationships and processes are also important for the the alluvial fan of Ibagué (beginning of the 20th analysis, both agreeing with the author’s ‘inferences’ century) and the present day. The principal on the complex system. The elements abstracted from elements of the system are: its history, reality show relationships between each other, this set conformation, type of production and producer, of relationships conforming the ‘structure’ of the geography and relief, regimen of land tenure and system. The systems constructed have a particular property, climate, size, soil and biodiversity. structure in function of the research objetives, Starting from these elements the relationships or determined by the research questions. first, second and third level processes linked to the central process were established. Finally, Finally, synthesis of information and research these processes were classified within the findings are the input for future conversion proposals subsystems according to their ontological nature or schemes to monitor the existing system. (natural, social, technico-productive or institutional).

214 Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 18 (2015): 207 - 219

Figure. 2 System of infestation by ticks R. microplus on cattle of the alluvial fan of Ibagué, Tolima, Colombia

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS standardized, each phenomenon being assumed to have its own methodological particularities. The arguments expressed allow the complex systems We call on agroecologists to study the different approach suggested by García (2006) to be proposed phenomena from the complexity of the farming and based on its approximations to Bertalanfy’s (1989) livestock systems in which these occur. The challenge General , later modified by Morin is therefore to understand part of the reality in their (1994), as the theoretical and epistemological bases complexity and thus obtain sufficient, appropriate that underlie the agroecological approach. All the information that allows the socio-ecological authors consulted concur that agroecosystems are relationships determining the phenomenon of interest complex adaptive systems which establish energy to be analysed and established. flows, materials and information with their environment. The phenomena presented within the Compliance with Ethical Standards system can only be analysed by understanding the interactions between their components. In this study the academic and administrative norms Agroecosystem analysis should start from the premise and techniques for health research established by the that each is a socio-cultural system arising from the Colombian Ministry of Health in resolution 008430 same history of humanity, all systems being unique of 4th October 1993 were followed. The informed cultural constructs. This is why social science consent of the ranch proprietors was obtained, this methods are as important in their approaches as those being a mandatory requirement. Finally, this study of the natural and agrarian sciences. The method used was considered as being of minimal risk given that it should be capable of integrating social, ecological and did not involve any procedure that modified the productive aspects from an analysis of the context. biological, physiological, psychological or social The difference between research done in Chocó and variables of the participants (Ministerio de Salud, that done in Tolima lies in this consideration. It is 1993). therefore clear that methodologies cannot be

215 Polanco-Echeverry et al., 2015

REFERENCES Chacon, J., Gliessman, S. 1982. Use of the ‘non- weed’ concept in traditional tropical Alexiades, M. 2006. Selected Guidelines for agroecosystems of south-eastern Mexico. ethnobotanical Research: A field manual. Agroecosystems, 8(1), 1-11. Nueva York: The New York Botanical Caporal, F., Costabeber, J., Paulus, G. 2006. Garden. Agroecologia Matriz disciplinar ou novo Altieri, M, 2009. Vertientes del pensamiento paradigma para o desenvolvimento rural agroecológico: fundamentos y aplicaciones sustentável. [Agroecology disciplinary [Aspects of the agroecological thought: matrix or new paradigm for sustainable rural fundamentals and applications]. Medellín: development]. Brasília. SOCLA. http://www.agroeco.org/socla. http://agroeco.org/socla/wp- Accessed 23 August 2013. content/uploads/2013/11/Agroecologia- Altieri, M. 1983. Effects of plant diversity on the Novo-Paradigma-02052006-ltima- density and herbivory of the flea beetle Verso1.pdf Accessed 1 November 2013. (Phyllotreta cruciferae) Goeze, in California Colvin, W., Gliessman, S. 2012. Root and shoot collard (Brassica oleracea) cropping growth vs. Biomass measurement in seedling systems. Crop protection, 2(4), 497-501. bioassays. Allelopathy Journal, 29(1), 37-50. Altieri, M., Lana, M., von Hertwig, H., Venturi, M., Congreso de Colombia. 1993. Ley 70 de 1993 por la dos Santos, A., Comin, J., et al. 2012. cual se desarrolla el artículo transitorio 55 de Aumento do rendimiento dos cultivos através la Constitución política. da supressão de plantas espontâneas em http://www.convergenciacnoa.org/images/D sistemas de plantio direto orgânico em Santa ocumentospdf/legislacion/LEY%2070%2019 Catarina, Brasil. Agroecología, 7(1), 63-71. 93.pdf. Accessed 1 November 2013). Álvarez, L., Polanco, D., Ríos, L. 2014. Reflexiones Duveskog, D. 2013. Field Schools as a acerca de los aspectos epistemológicos de la transformative learning space in the rural agroecología. Cuadernos de Desarrollo African setting. PhD diss., Swedish: Rural, 2(74), 55-74. University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala. Arístide, P. 2010. Procesos históricos de cambio en la Egan, H. 1991. Análisis Químico de Alimentos de apropiación del territorio en Figueroa, Pearson. [Food Chemical Analysis Pearson]. Santiago del Estero, Argentina, Chaco 4th ed, México: Compañía Editorial Semiárido. Master diss., Andalucía: Continental. Universidad Internacional de Andalucía. Fernandes, L., Woodhouse, P. 2008. Family farm Astier, M., Barrera, N., Odenthal, J., Ramirez, M., sustainability in southern Brazil: An Orozco, Q., Mijangos, J. 2010. Participatory application of agri-environmental indicators. identification and mapping of maize Ecological , 6(2), 243-257. diversity in the Pátzcuaro-Zirahuén Basins, Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Breland, T., Salomonsson, Michoacán, Mexico. Journal of Maps, 6(1), L., Geber, U., Sriskandarajah, N., et al. 2008. 1-6. Transdisciplinary Research for a Sustainable Astier, M., García, L., Galván, Y., González, C., Agriculture and Food Sector. Masera, O. 2012. Assessing the Journal, 100(3), 771-776. Sustainability of Small Farmer Natural Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J. 2000. La ciencia posnormal: Resource Management Systems. A Critical ciencia con la gente. [The post-normal Analysis of the MESMIS Program. Ecology science: science with people]. Barcelona: and society, 17(3), 25. Icaria. Barrera, N., Toledo, V. 2005. Ethnoecology of the García, R. 2006. Sistemas Complejos. Conceptos, Yucatec Maya: symbolism, knowledge and método y fundamentación epistemológica de management of natural resources. Journal of la investigación interdisciplinaria. [Complex Latin American Geography, 4(1), 9-41. Systems. Concepts, method and Bertalanffy, L. 1989. Teoría General de los Sistemas. epistemological foundation of Fundamentos, desarrollo, aplicaciones. interdisciplinary research]. Barcelona: [General Systems Theory. Foundations, Gedisa. development, applications]. Séptima García, E., Toledo, V., Martinez-Alier, J. 2008. reimpresión. México: Fondo de Cultura Adaptations of a Yucatec Maya multiple-use Económica. ecological management strategy to Cáceres, D. 2011. Dos estrategias de articulación ecotourism. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 31. entre técnicos y pequeños productores. Gliessman, S., Rosado, F., Guadarrama, C., Jedlicka, Diferentes enfoques metodológicos y J., Cohn, A., Méndez, E., et al. 2007. tecnológicos. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Agroecología: promoviendo una transición Rural, 3(57), 59-99.

216 Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 18 (2015): 207 - 219

hacia la sostenibilidad. Revista Ecosistemas, http://www.agroeco.org/socla. Accessed 23 16(1), 13-23. August 2013. Gómez, L., Ríos, L., Eschenhagen, M. 2013. Liere, H., Jackson, D., Vandermeer, J. 2012. Agroecology Publications and Coloniality of Ecological Complexity in a Coffee Knowledge. Agronomy for Sustainable Agroecosystem: Spatial Heterogeneity, Development, 33(2), 355-362. Population Persistence and Biological Guber, R. 2007. La Etnografía. Método, campo y Control. PloS one, 7(9), e45508, doi: reflexividad. [The Ethnography. Method, 10.1371/journal.pone.0045508 Field and reflexivity]. Enciclopedia Lilja, N., Bellon, M. 2008. Some Common Questions Latinoamericana de Sociocultural y about Participatory Research: A Review of Comunicación. Bogotá: Grupo editorial the Literature. Development in Practice, Norma. 18(4/5), 479-488. Guzmán, G., González, M., Sevilla, S. 2000. Lombardi, A. 2009. El análisis diagnóstico de un Introducción a la Agroecología como agrosistema: el caso de asentamiento previo desarrollo rural sostenible. [Introduction to Oziel Alves II (Brasil). Magister diss., Agroecology and Sustainable Rural Baeza: Universidad Internacional de Development]. Madrid: Ediciones Mundi- Andalucía. Prensa. Lovell, S., Nathan, C., Olson, M., Méndez, E., Hernández, R., Fernández, C., Baptista, L. 2010. Kominami, H., Erickson, D., et al. 2010. Metodología de la investigación. [Research Integrating agroecology and landscape Methodology]. México, D.F.: Mac Graw multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving Hill/Interamericana editores. framework to evaluate the design of Hilimire, K., Gliessman, S., Muramoto, J. 2013. Soil agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems, fertility and crop growth under poultry/crop 103(5), 327-341. integration. Renewable Agriculture and Food Mackenzie, J., Tan, P., Hoverman, S., Baldwin, C. Systems, 28(2), 173-182. 2012. The Value and Limitations of ICONTEC (Instituto Colombiano de Normas Participatory Action Research Methodology. Técnicas y Certificación). 1994. Manual de Journal of Hydrology, 474(12), 11-21. métodos analíticos para el control de calidad Márquez, M., Funes, F. 2013. Factores ecológicos y en la industria alimentaria, gtc 1, 11.3 sociales que explican la resiliencia al cambio nitrógeno, determinación – 11.3.1 nitrógeno climático de los sistemas agrícolas en el total por el método Kjeldahl. municipio La Palma, Pinar del Río, Cuba. Jacobson, K. 2013. From Betterment to Bt Maize Agroecología, 8(1), 43-52. Agricultural Development and the Martínez, M., Martínez, R., Joaquín, R., Sheinbaum, Introduction of Genetically Modified Maize C., Masera, O. 2013. Is modernization to South African Smallholders. PhD diss., making villages more energy efficient? A Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences long-term comparative end-use analysis for Uppsala. Cheranatzicurin village. Mexico. Energy for Junge, X., Jacot, K., Bosshard, A., Lindemann. P. Sustainable Development, 17(5), 463-470. 2009. Swiss people's attitudes towards field Maldonado, C. 2003. El problema de la filosofía del margins for biodiversity conservation. conocimiento y el estudio de los sistemas Journal for nature conservation, 17(3), 150- complejos. Praxis Filosófica, 17, 103-120. 159. http://praxis.univalle.edu.co/numeros/n17/carlos_edu Leitgeb, F., Kummer, S., Funes, S., Vogl, C. 2014. ardo_maldonado.pdf Accessed 23 September ' experiments in Cuba. Renewable 2013. Agriculture and Food Systems, 29(1), 48-64. Malpartida, A., Lavanderos, L. 1995. Aproximación a León, T. 2012. Agroecología: la ciencia de los la Unidad Sociedad-Naturaleza, el Ecotomo. agroecosistemas – la perspectiva ambiental. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 68, 419- [Agroecology: the science of agroecosistems 427. - environmental perspective]. Bogotá: Marquardt, K. 2008. Burning changes: Action Instituto de Estudios Ambientales –IDEA-, research with farmers and swidden Universidad Nacional de Colombia. agriculture in the Upper Amazon. PhD diss., León, T. 2009. Agroecología: desafíos de una ciencia Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural ambiental en construcción. In M.A. Altieri Sciences. (Ed.), Vertientes del pensamiento Martin, G. 1995. Etnobotánica. Pueblos y Plantas, agroecológico: fundamentos y aplicaciones. manual de conservación. [Ethnobotany. [Aspects of the agroecological thought: People and Plants, manual of conservation]. fundamentals and applications]. (pp. 45-67). Montevideo: Editorial Nordan-Comunidad. Medellín: SOCLA.

217 Polanco-Echeverry et al., 2015

Masera, O., Díaz, R., Berrueta, V. 2005. From Riojas, H., Schilmann, A., Marron, A., Masera, O., cookstoves to cooking systems: the Li, Z., Romanoff, L., et al. 2011. Impact of integrated program on sustainable household the improved patsari biomass stove on energy use in Mexico. Energy for urinary polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Sustainable Development, 9(1), 25-36. biomarkers and carbon monoxide exposures Mielgo, A., Sevilla, E., Jimenez, M., Guzmán, G. in rural Mexican women. Environmental 2001. Rural development and ecological health perspectives 119 (9): 1301-1307. management of endogenous resources: The Ríos, L., Mesa, A. 2009. Introducción al pensamiento case of mountain olive groves in Los científico en microbiología [Introduction to Pedroches comarca (Spain). Journal of scientific thought in microbiology]. Environmental Policy and Planning, 3(2), Medellin: Fondo editorial de la CIB. 163-175. Rosset, P., Martínez, M. 2012. Rural social Ministerio de Salud, Republica de Colombia. 1993. movements and agroecology: context, theory Resolución 8430 de 1993. Normas and process. Ecology and society, 17(3), 17- científicas, técnicas y administrativas para la 29. investigación en salud. Saifi, B., Drake, L. 2008. A coevolutionary model for Moonen, A., Bàrberi, P. 2008. Functional promoting agricultural sustainability. biodiversity: an agroecosystem approach. Ecological Economics, 65(1), 24-34. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment, Salas, W., Ríos, L., Álvarez, X. 2012. Marco 127(1), 7-21. conceptual para entender la sustentabilidad Morales, H., Perfecto, I. 2000. Traditional knowledge de los sistemas socioecológicos. Ecología and pest management in the Guatemalan Austral, 22, 74-79. highlands. Agriculture and Human Values, Sales, E., Méndez, E., Caporal, F., Faria, J. 2013. 17(1), 49-63. Agroecological Transition of Conilon Coffee Morin, E. 1994. Introducción al pensamiento (Coffea canephora) Agroforestry Systems in complejo [Introduction to complex thinking]. the State of Espírito Santo, Brazil. Barcelona: Gedisa. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, Nicholls, C., Parrella, M., Altieri, M. 2000. Reducing 37(4), 405-429. the abundance of leafhoppers and thrips in a Schejtman, A., Chiriboga, M. 2009. Desarrollo northern California organic vineyard through Territorial Soberanía y Seguridad maintenance of full season floral diversity Alimentaria. Documento de Trabajo N° 62. with summer cover crops. Agricultural and Santiago de Chile: Programa Dinámicas Forest Entomology, 2(2), 107-113. Territoriales Rurales. Rimisp. Ortiz, T., Macera, O. 2008. Subsidios y estrategias de Skutsch, M., De Los Rios, E., Solis, S., Riegelhaupt, producción campesina: el caso de Casas E., Hinojosa, D., Gerfert, S., et al 2011. Blancas, México. Revista Iberoamericana de Jatropha in Mexico. Environmental and Economía Ecológica (REVIBEC), 7, 61-80. social impacts of an incipient biofuel Patiño, C., Sánchez, M. 2012. Aislamiento e program. Ecology and Society, 16, 4-11. identificación de bacterias solubilizadoras de Soto, L., Perfecto, I., and Caballero, J. 2002. Shade fosfatos, habitantes de la rizósfera de over coffee: its effects on berry borer, leaf chontaduro (B. gassipaes Kunth). rust and spontaneous herbs in Chiapas, Biotecnología en el Sector Agropecuario y Mexico. Agroforestry Systems, 55(1), 37-45. Agroindustrial, 10(2), 177-187. Turbay, S. 2004. Técnicas Etnográficas útiles para los Ponti, L., Altieri, M., Gutierrez, A. 2007. Effects of estudios socio-económicos y ambientales en crop diversification levels and fertilization bosques tropicales. Utopía Siglo XXI, 2(10), regimes on abundance of Brevicoryne 28-43. brassicae (L.) and its parasitization by Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I. 2012. Syndromes of Diaeretiella rapae (M’Intosh) in broccoli. Production in Agriculture: Prospects for Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 9, 209- Social-Ecological Regime Change. Ecology 214. and Society, 17(4), 39. Posada, R., Heredia, G., Sieverding, E., Sanchez, M. Van Dusen, M. 2000. In situ conservation of crop 2013. Solubilization of iron and calcium genetic resources in the Mexican milpa phosphates by soil fungi isolated from coffee system. PhD diss., Berkeley: University of plantations. Archives of Agronomy and Soil California. Science, 59(2), 185-196. Wickings, K., Stuart, A. 2013. Management intensity Rice, E., Eaton, A., Clesceri, L. 2012. Standard interacts with litter chemistry and climate to Methods: For the examination of water and drive temporal patterns in arthropod wastewater. 22th Edition. communities during decomposition. Pedobiologia, 56, 105–112.

218 Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 18 (2015): 207 - 219

Wolff, L. 2010. Sistema agroforestal apícola: abejas base en la aptitud de suelo. Revista melíferas africanizadas, abejas indígenas sin Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias, 47(3), 257- aguijón, árboles de aroeira roja y vides de 270. producción integrada. Magister diss., Baeza: Zuluaga, G. 2011. Multidimensionalidad de la Programa Oficial de Postgrado en agroecología: un estudio sobre Agroecología, Universidad de Córdoba, organizaciones campesinas en Colombia. Universida Internacional de Andalucía. PhD diss., Departamento de Ciencias Zapata, G., Bautista, F., Astier, M. 2009. Sociales y Humanidades. Córdoba: Instituto Caracterización forrajera de un sistema de Sociología y Estudios Campesinos, silvopastoril de vegetación secundaria con Universidad de Córdoba.

Submitted June 09, 2015 – Accepted August 11, 2015

219