Search for: All records

Abstract Indigenous peoples have cultivated biodiverse agroecosystems since time immemorial. The rise of metagenomics and high‐throughput sequencing technologies in biodiversity studies has rapidly expanded the scale of data collection from these lands. A respectful approach to the data life cycle grounded in the sovereignty of indigenous communities is imperative to not perpetuate harm. In this paper, we operationalize an indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) framework to outline realistic considerations for genomic data that span data collection, governance, and communication. As a case study for this framework, we use arthropod genomic data collected from diversified and simplified farm sites close to and far from natural habitats within a historic Kānaka ʻŌiwi (Indigenous Hawaiian) agroecosystem. Diversified sites had the highest Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) richness for native and introduced arthropods. There may be a significant spillover effect between forest and farm sites, as farm sites near a natural habitat had higher OTU richness than those farther away. We also provide evidence that management factors such as the number of Polynesian crops cultivated may drive arthropod community composition. Through this case study, we emphasize the context‐dependent opportunities and challenges for operationalizing IDS by utilizing participatory research methods, expanding novel data management tools through the Local Contexts Hub, and developing and nurturing community partnerships—all while highlighting the potential of agroecosystems for arthropod conservation. Overall, the workflow and the example presented here can help researchers take tangible steps to achieve IDS, which often seems elusive with the expanding use of genomic data. 

Humanity faces a triple threat of climate change, biodiversity loss, and global food insecurity. In response, increasing the general adaptive capacity of farming systems is essential. We identify two divergent strategies for building adaptive capacity. Simplifying processes seek to narrowly maximize production by shifting the basis of agricultural production toward centralized control of socially and ecologically homogenized systems. Diversifying processes cultivate social-ecological complexity in order to provide multiple ecosystem services, maintain management flexibility, and promote coordinated adaptation across levels. Through five primarily United States focused cases of distinct agricultural challenges—foodborne pathogens, drought, marginal lands, labor availability, and land access and tenure—we compare simplifying and diversifying responses to assess how these pathways differentially enhance or degrade the adaptive capacity of farming systems in the context of the triple threat. These cases show that diversifying processes can weave a form of broad and nimble adaptive capacity that is fundamentally distinct from the narrow and brittle adaptive capacity produced through simplification. We find that while there are structural limitations and tradeoffs to diversifying processes, adaptive capacity can be facilitated by empowering people and enhancing ecosystem functionality to proactively distribute resources and knowledge where needed and to nimbly respond to changing circumstances. Our cases suggest that, in order to garner the most adaptive benefits from diversification, farming systems should balance the pursuit of multiple goals, which in turn requires an inclusive process for active dialogue and negotiation among diverse perspectives. Instead of locking farming systems into pernicious cycles that reproduce social and ecological externalities, diversification processes can enable nimble responses to a broad spectrum of possible stressors and shocks, while also promoting social equity and ecological sustainability.